- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: CP3 threatenes lawsuit against league for collusion again
Posted on 12/14/11 at 11:56 am to Jester
Posted on 12/14/11 at 11:56 am to Jester
quote:
the team owner often prevents a team from completing a trade.
it's not THAT often. not in situations like this. because in a normal market, the owner already knows he's not going to keep his asset. you think denver's owner was meddling in his GM's deals last year?
1
Posted on 12/14/11 at 11:58 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
you think denver's owner was meddling in his GM's deals last year?
I do. You don't think he agreed to the trade?
Posted on 12/14/11 at 12:02 pm to Jester
he agreed to trade melo, and that was that. his GM made the deal after that
Posted on 12/14/11 at 12:41 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
in a normal trade market, nothing prevents the team from trading him and allowing him to keep the birds rights. it's very, very common in the NBA. if collusion is preventing this normal market, he has a claim (well, his union does on his behalf)
I don't think he does. Jester's right, CP3 is just the asset here. He has no right to Bird Rights with the team of his choice, he has a right to Bird Rights with whoever the current possessor of his contract is, which is something he technically does not control. He is using the leverage created by his potential future actions to make this happen, not any rights he is given by the CBA. If anyone has a collusion claim it's the Lakers. And the evidence for collusion says this was an anti-Lakers move, not an anti-Paul move.
Posted on 12/14/11 at 12:51 pm to TigerinATL
quote:
CP3 is just the asset here. He has no right to Bird Rights with the team of his choice,
he has a right to a non-colluding market, though
Posted on 12/14/11 at 12:55 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
he has a right to a non-colluding market
Does he? My guess is no collusion is assumed so the CBA doesn't mention it, while on the other hand the league/owner bylaws probably do mention something about it.
Posted on 12/14/11 at 12:58 pm to TigerinATL
quote:
My guess is no collusion is assumed so the CBA doesn't mention it, while on the other hand the league/owner bylaws probably do mention something about it.
federal labor laws regulate this, regardless
he can certainly sue. he won't win, but he can sue
Posted on 12/14/11 at 1:13 pm to TigerinATL
quote:
My guess is no collusion is assumed so the CBA doesn't mention it, while on the other hand the league/owner bylaws probably do mention something about it.
The CBA has collusion between one or more owners outlawed.
There's also case law against MLB for collusion between 1985 and 1987, when almost no free agents were signed or were given insultingly low offers.
The courts ended up giving damages to the players in the form of perceived lost value on the open market as well as giving "new look" free agency, in which a player could negotiate a contract with a new team without losing their old contract.
Posted on 12/14/11 at 2:37 pm to teke184
quote:
There's also case law against MLB for collusion between 1985 and 1987, when almost no free agents were signed or were given insultingly low offers.
The courts ended up giving damages to the players in the form of perceived lost value on the open market as well as giving "new look" free agency, in which a player could negotiate a contract with a new team without losing their old contract
Apples and oranges. Nobody is colluding against CP3. He is not a negotiating party, so there is nothing to collude against. The Lakers may have a case, but Paul absolutely does not.
This post was edited on 12/14/11 at 2:38 pm
Posted on 12/14/11 at 2:46 pm to Jester
Doesn't it have to be secret as well and be an agreement amongst several parties? If Stern has made this directive, who is he colluding with? He seems to be very open with his decisions, so there is transparency. I just don't see the basis of a lawsuit..
Page 2 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News