Page 57 of 71 FirstFirst ... 74753545556575859606167 ... LastLast
Results 1,401 to 1,425 of 1762
  1. #1401
    Machacarredes Chinook's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    29,761
    That's not correct. Contracts build in penalties for non-performance or breach all the time. They're called liquidated damages provisions. Philly may have opted to treat the contract as still valid and enforceable, and thus to avail themselves of provisions empowering them to fine Simmons. But Philly still has the power to say "the contract is done, and we don't have to pay you anymore." It is one of the most fundamental tenets of contract law that a party has the right to terminate a contract upon the counter-parties breach. That right might be abrogated by the CBA - but I've not seen anything to suggest that is the case.

    I appreciate that you're saying he hasn't breached his contract, which is a different question than remedies for breach. As to whether BS is in breach, just doing a two minute google search gives us the following from the NBA Uniform Player Contract:

    5. The Player agrees (a) to report at the time and place fixed by the Club in good physical condition; (b) to keep himself throughout each season in good physical condition; (c) to give his best services, as well as his loyalty to the Club, and to play basketball only for the Club and its assignees; (d) to be neatly and fully attired in public and always to conduct himself on and off the court according to the highest standards of honesty, morality, fair play and sportsmanship; and (e) not to do anything which is detrimental to the best interests of the Club or of the Association.

    I'm sure I could conjure up additional terms of the NUPC that he's breached as well.
    Basically, he's doing something for which the contract already has explicit punishment. What you're doing is just trying to see if he's doing something wrong -- he is. And he's being fined for it. If he were to try to get the fines rescinded in arbitration, it wouldn't work. However, there is nothing in the CBA that I've heard of that says teams can withhold payment for a guy not showing up. It's one of those things that "feels right" with the same logic you used earlier. But just as taking PEDs wouldn't meet, "the highest standards of honesty, morality, fair play and sportsmanship" but still wouldn't be a breach of contract because the punishment for PEDs is clearly laid out in the CBA, missing games and practices are already adjudicated. Breaching his contract at that point would be refusing to pay the fines or whatever. Philly not paying him is a breach of contract, provided the CBA doesn't explicitly say it's a thing teams can do.

    The same source you quoted lays out how this is supposed to work.

    4. The Player agrees to observe and comply with all requirements of the Club respecting conduct of its team and its players, at all times whether on or off the playing floor. The Club may, from time to time during the continuance of this contract, establish reasonable rules for the government of its players "at home" and "on the road." Subject to the provisions of the NBA/NBPA Collective Bargaining Agreement, such rule shall be part of this contract as fully as if herein written and shall be binding upon the Player. For any violation of such rules or for any conduct impairing the faithful and thorough discharge of the duties in bent upon the Player, the Club may impose reasonable fines upon the Player. If no Grievance is timely initiated with respect to the imposition of such fines in accordance with the provisions of the NBA/NBPA Collective Bargaining Agreement, the Club may deduct the amount thereof from any money due or to become due to the Player during the season in which such violation and/or conduct occurred. The Club may also suspend the Player for violation of any rules so established. Upon such suspension, if no Grievance is timely initiated with respect thereto in accordance with the provisions of the NBA/NBPA Collective Bargaining Agreement, the compensation payable to the Player under this contract may be reduced in the manner provided in such Collective Bargaining Agreement. When the Player is fined or suspended, he shall be given notice in writing, stating the amount of the fine or the duration of the suspension and the reason therefor.


    So Philly is supposed to pay Simmons what he's owed and fine him. They can suspend him and reduce his salary accordingly, provided they either win the grievance or have the suspension go unchallenged. But they can't just not pay him, especially before they get the go through the legal process. That Philly is withholding money that is more than enough to pay any fine doesn't make sense. They're preemptively fining him for things he hasn't done yet or using the financial repercussions of suspending him without going through the legal paper work. Philly can't just fine Simmons whatever they want.


  2. #1402
    Veteran vy65's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Post Count
    7,782
    Basically, he's doing something for which the contract already has explicit punishment. What you're doing is just trying to see if he's doing something wrong -- he is. And he's being fined for it. If he were to try to get the fines rescinded in arbitration, it wouldn't work. However, there is nothing in the CBA that I've heard of that says teams can withhold payment for a guy not showing up. It's one of those things that "feels right" with the same logic you used earlier. But just as taking PEDs wouldn't meet, "[COLOR=#000000]the highest standards of honesty, morality, fair play and sportsmanship" but still wouldn't be a breach of contract because the punishment for PEDs is clearly laid out in the CBA, missing games and practices are already adjudicated. Breaching his contract at that point would be refusing to pay the fines or whatever. Philly not paying him is a breach of contract, provided the CBA doesn't explicitly say it's a thing teams can do.
    No. Philly has the right to fine him for his failure to perform and also terminate the contract due to BS's breach. There is nothing in the NUPC that says that the club's sole remedy for a player's breach is fines or salary withholding. In fact, it says the opposite: the club is empowered to terminate the contract at any time if the player:

    20(b) The Club may terminate this contract upon written notice to the Player (but only after complying with the waiver procedure provided for in subparagraph (f) of this paragraph (20)) if the Player shall do any of the following

    (2) at any time, fail, in the sole opinion of the Club's management, to exhibit sufficient skill or compe ive ability to qualify to continue as a member of the Club's team, provided, however, (i) that if this contract is terminated by the Club, in accordance with the provisions of this subparagraph, prior to the fifty-sixth day after the first game of any scheduled season of the Association and the Player, at the time of such termination, is unfit to play skilled basketball as the result of an injury resulting directly from his playing for the Club, the Player shall continue to receive his full salary, less all worker's compensation benefits (which, to the extent permitted by law, and if not deducted from the Player's salary by the Club, the Player hereby assigns to the Club) and any insurance provided for by the Club paid or payable to the Player by reason of said injury, until such time as the Player is fit to play skilled basketball, but not beyond the season during which such termination occurred; and provided, further, (ii) that if this contract is terminated by the Club, in accordance with the provisions of the subparagraph, during the period from the fifty-sixth day after the first game of any scheduled season of the Association through the end of such scheduled season, the Player shall be en led to receive his full salary for said season; or

    (3) at any time, fail, refuse or neglect to render his services hereunder or in any other manner materially breach this contact.
    These are separate provisions and have to be interpreted so as to give meaning to all their terms, and thus enforced. So you can't say that Philly is not empowered to terminate the contract and it's only recourse is to fine BS. That interpretation would read out of the contract those terms dealing with contract-termination.

    So Philly is supposed to pay Simmons what he's owed and fine him. They can suspend him and reduce his salary accordingly, provided they either win the grievance or have the suspension go unchallenged. But they can't just not pay him, especially before they get the go through the legal process. That Philly is withholding money that is more than enough to pay any fine doesn't make sense. They're preemptively fining him for things he hasn't done yet or using the financial repercussions of suspending him without going through the legal paper work. Philly can't just fine Simmons whatever they want.
    As for the question of withholding salary, the NUPC speaks to what Simmons is en led to receive upon termination

    (d) If this contract is terminated by the Club during the period designated by the Club for attendance at training camp, payment by the Club of the Player's board, lodging and expense allowance during such period to the date of termination and of the reasonable traveling expenses of the Player to his home city and the expert training and coaching provided by the Club to the Player during the training season shall be full payment to the Player.
    (e) If this contract is terminated by the Club during any playing season, except in the case provided for in subparagraphs (b)(2) and (c)(1) of this paragraph 20, the Player shall be en led to receive as full payment hereunder a sum of money which, when added to the salary which he has already received during such season, will represent the same proportionate amount of the annual sum set forth in Exhibit 1 hereto as the number of days of such season then past bears to the total number of days of such schedule season, plus the reasonable travelling expenses of the Player to his home.
    If terminated today, arguably no money would ever be owed to Simmons under 20(d) as there is nothing in there that mentions payments due to be made prior to the beginning of the season. The case under 20(e) is harder, but I think Philly probably has a colorable argument to terminate BS for failure to "exhibit sufficient skill or compe ive ability" meaning that the provisions requiring payment "already received during such season" wouldn't apply. That would probably be BS's best hook for saying Philly has to make his lump sum payments. Again, you have to enforce the terms of the contract as written and there is nothing here that obligates Philly to pay BS given BS's refusal to play.
    Last edited by vy65; 10-19-2021 at 05:20 PM.

  3. #1403
    Veteran K...'s Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Post Count
    7,788
    Nothing is funner than a lawyer talking outside their practice. Playing ty isn't breach, leaving when told is not. Non payment on agreed dates probably a breach, but simmons wants the contract enforced.

    If either simmons or philly actually breach the contract this would have major implication for the league. As we know it. I would assume as bad as it sounds the owners aren't letting philly get out of this scrape.

  4. #1404
    Machacarredes Chinook's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    29,761
    No. Philly has the right to fine him for his failure to perform and also terminate the contract due to BS's breach. There is nothing in the NUPC that says that the club's sole remedy for a player's breach is fines or salary withholding. In fact, it says the opposite: the club is empowered to terminate the contract at any time if the player:

    These are separate provisions and have to be given their meaning and enforced. So you can't say that Philly is not empowered to terminate the contract and it's only recourse is to fine simmons.

    As for the question of withholding salary, the NUPC speaks to what Simmons is en led to receive upon termination

    If terminated today, arguably no money would ever be owed to Simmons under 20(d) as there is nothing in there that mentions payments due to be made prior to the beginning of the season. The case under 20(e) is harder, but I think Philly probably has a colorable argument to terminate BS for failure to "exhibit sufficient skill or compe ive ability" meaning that the provisions requiring payment "already received during such season" wouldn't apply. That would probably be BS's best hook for saying Philly has to make his lump sum payments. Again, you have to enforce the terms of the contract as written and there is nothing here that obligates Philly to pay BS given BS's refusal to play.
    So terminating his contract and keeping him under contract and just not paying him aren't the same thing. You can be fired for a number of things at your job, depending on where you live. But you can't have the company not pay you but still prevent you from signing with another company. Whether Philly can end the contract is a possible discussion point for sure, but you assuming they can do whatever they want in terms of fines is way off base. There's a CBA for a reason, and even this addendum to the CBA doesn't say they can withhold salary without terminating the contract -- it says the opposite, as I already showed.

    Moreover, when you say something like, "arguably no money would ever owed", that means the issue would go to court. As this doc says, discipline is eligible for appeal and not something the team can just do on its own without due process. Philly might be able to terminate him citing some rule listed here or similar, but then Simmons has his chance to file a grievance and get his case herd. That's with the most extreme example -- as mentioned fines and suspensions are directly spoken about for this in the CBA. It literally says the fine for missing practices and games. We don't have to sit here and wonder what the punishment is because it's explicitly stated.

    http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q107

    107. How does player discipline work? Can teams fine or suspend players for any reason? Do fines and suspensions apply to team salary?
    The league or a player's team can levy a fine and/or suspension for breaking league or team rules1, respectively. Generally the league and the team do not both discipline a player for the same violation, and the league retains the right to rescind any team discipline within 48 hours and impose its own. However, there are a few exceptions where a player can be disciplined by both the league and his team -- when the egregious nature of the act or conduct is so lacking in justification as to warrant a double penalty. The CBA does not give a complete list of reasons for which a player can be fined or suspended, although some are specified:

    ...

    • Intentional failure or refusal to render the services required under the player's contract or the CBA: Suspension (length unspecified).
    • Missed practice: $2,500 for the first occurrence, $5,000 for the second, $7,500 for the third, and greater discipline, including suspension, for subsequent missed practices.

    ...

    The money from fines and suspensions is put to good use -- it's given to charities of the NBA's and players association's choosing. Players are not paid while they are suspended -- for each missed game, the player is docked a portion of his salary, whether suspended for a preseason, regular season or postseason game (see question number 13 for information on how suspensions impact team salary) as follows:

    • If the suspension is less than 20 games, 1/145 of his base compensation.
    • If the suspension is 20 or more games, or an indefinite suspension that lasts at least 20 games, 1/110 of his base compensation.

    108. Can fines or suspensions be appealed?
    Players are allowed to appeal fines and suspensions. If the penalty from league discipline is less than the following, then the appeal is heard by the Commissioner. If the penalty exceeds these amounts, or if the player and players association are dissatisfied with the Commissioner's decision, the appeal is heard by the league's grievance arbitrator:
    • For on-court1 conduct or in-game conduct involving another player, a fine of $50,000 and/or a suspension of 12 games.
    • For issues related to the integrity of, or confidence in the game of basketball, a financial impact (from a fine and/or lost salary due to a suspension) of $50,000.

    Penalties imposed by a team may be appealed to the league's grievance arbitrator if the financial impact (from a fine and/or lost salary due to a suspension) is $5,000 or greater. In the case of any appeal involving penalties imposed by the league or the player's team, the arbitrator's decision is the full and final resolution of the dispute.
    The process to punish a player for holding out is clearly laid out and not something that relies on a common-law understanding of contracts. It's not a generic "breach of contract" situation like you laid out for a few mostly obvious reasons. The consequences are part of the contract, and Philly not following that contract is their breach. Philly has to suspend Simmons to withhold his money and not just refuse to pay. Could they theoretically sue Simmons to get him to pay the fines rather than it coming from their pocket? Sure. But they can't act like they've already won the suit and start withholding his salary to pay fines, because the CBA doesn't tell them they can. Simmons has to be paid then fined/suspended then potentially sued. Philly not doing that puts them at risk of their own suit. As to whether Philly can terminate the contract, that might be true, but if they do, then they still have to pay Simmons as his payment schedule allowed then sue him to get some of it back rather than holding it.

  5. #1405
    Veteran vy65's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Post Count
    7,782
    So terminating his contract and keeping him under contract and just not paying him aren't the same thing. You can be fired for a number of things at your job, depending on where you live. But you can't have the company not pay you but still prevent you from signing with another company. Whether Philly can end the contract is a possible discussion point for sure, but you assuming they can do whatever they want in terms of fines is way off base. There's a CBA for a reason, and even this addendum to the CBA doesn't say they can withhold salary without terminating the contract -- it says the opposite, as I already showed.
    I never said PHI can terminate him and keep him under contract. Nor did I say they could terminate BS and keep him from playing for another team. I said PHI has the right to fine him and also terminate. PHI could, if it chose, fine him and then terminate him. But once the contract terminated, the punitive provisions the team could have used would no longer apply.

    And PHI absolutely has the right to withhold his salary for non-performance. Contracting parties do that every day. These are basic doctrines like prior material breach - if you breach my contract first I can rely on that and stop performing. That's the law in every state. If that is not the rule under the CBA, then there would have to be a provision stating as much. I haven't seen, and you haven't shown me, a provision from the CBA that requires payment from the team to the player regardless of the cir stances. That's likely because that provision doesn't exist. The CBA doesn't abrogate basic common law concepts like prior material breach. And if the parties had intended for payment to be an absolute right, they could have said so in the four corners of the NUPC. They didn't, and no court or arbitrator has the power to expand the terms of the parties' agreement as written. The existence of a CBA doesn't upend the applicability of all laws, but you're treating it like it does.

    Use your common sense: PHI stops paying BS. BS would sue. PHI would defend itself by saying BS committed a prior material breach of contract and thus PHI was excused from its performance obligations. Absent the CBA provision I mentioned above, PHI would prevail on that theory.

    Moreover, when you say something like, "arguably no money would ever owed", that means the issue would go to court. As this doc says, discipline is eligible for appeal and not something the team can just do on its own without due process. Philly might be able to terminate him citing some rule listed here or similar, but then Simmons has his chance to file a grievance and get his case herd. That's with the most extreme example -- as mentioned fines and suspensions are directly spoken about for this in the CBA. It literally says the fine for missing practices and games. We don't have to sit here and wonder what the punishment is because it's explicitly stated.

    http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q107
    [/LIST]

    The process to punish a player for holding out is clearly laid out and not something that relies on a common-law understanding of contracts. It's not a generic "breach of contract" situation like you laid out for a few mostly obvious reasons. The consequences are part of the contract, and Philly not following that contract is their breach. Philly has to suspend Simmons to withhold his money and not just refuse to pay. Could they theoretically sue Simmons to get him to pay the fines rather than it coming from their pocket? Sure. But they can't act like they've already won the suit and start withholding his salary to pay fines, because the CBA doesn't tell them they can. Simmons has to be paid then fined/suspended then potentially sued. Philly not doing that puts them at risk of their own suit. As to whether Philly can terminate the contract, that might be true, but if they do, then they still have to pay Simmons as his payment schedule allowed then sue him to get some of it back rather than holding it.
    There's no dispute about what due process would be afforded BS, so I don't know why you're raising this. The grievance procedure in the CBA is irrelevant to whether a prior material breach excuses a party from its contractual obligations. You're conflating procedure with substantive legal defenses - and nothing in the CBA or the FAQ suggests that a) fines are the exclusive remedy available to PHI; b) PHI must absolutely always pay BS regardless of his performance. Again, had that been the intended contractual architecture, those words would appear in the CBA or the NUPC. They don't. And your understanding of the situation violates some of the most basic tenets of contract construction

  6. #1406
    Forum Official Personal Life Coach BacktoBasics's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    10,056
    We’d all benefit from shorter posts.

  7. #1407
    Veteran 99 Problems's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Post Count
    1,879
    A big correction will come in the EB. Probably the next EB. The guaranteed money wasn’t intended to cause these dramas we are seeing in recent seasons. A shift will occur in the power base back to the owners, most likely via a lockout, that’s my prediction.

  8. #1408
    Machacarredes Chinook's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    29,761
    I never said PHI can terminate him and keep him under contract. Nor did I say they could terminate BS and keep him from playing for another team. I said PHI has the right to fine him and also terminate. PHI could, if it chose, fine him and then terminate him. But once the contract terminated, the punitive provisions the team could have used would no longer apply.
    But what they don't have the right to do is not pay him while keeping him under contract. They are currently not paying him. That's a problem. You're inventing a scenario where they can get out of paying him -- but that's not what is going on. So what you're even arguing at this point is very limited, to the point where it's not applicable.

    Use your common sense: PHI stops paying BS. BS would sue. PHI would defend itself by saying BS committed a prior material breach of contract and thus PHI was excused from its performance obligations. Absent the CBA provision I mentioned above, PHI would prevail on that theory.
    The CBA says 'Teams are supposed to pay players like this.' And then, 'If a player refuses to render services, they can be suspended.' It doesn't say, 'The team pays the player, unless that player refuses to render services, in which case they can choose to withhold the salary.' That's black and white. The CBA is what determines whether the contract can be breached, not your understanding of contract law. This should be obvious by the fact that the fines are appealed to a league official and not the civil courts. The Sixers aren't an independent business; they operate under the franchise of the NBA and are subject to agreements the NBA makes with the NBPA. It's like how the Sixers couldn't refuse to play national games because the league has agreements with Disney and Turner that trumps the Sixers' agreements with Bally Sports.

    There's no dispute about what due process would be afforded BS, so I don't know why you're raising this. The grievance procedure in the CBA is irrelevant to whether a prior material breach excuses a party from its contractual obligations. You're conflating procedure with substantive legal defenses - and nothing in the CBA or the FAQ suggests that a) fines are the exclusive remedy available to PHI; b) PHI must absolutely always pay BS regardless of his performance. Again, had that been the intended contractual architecture, those words would appear in the CBA or the NUPC. They don't. And your understanding of the situation violates some of the most basic tenets of contract construction
    You keep talking about what the Sixers could do hypothetically. I'm talking about what they're doing. So the idea that Simmons "would be afforded" due process before anything is done completely missing out on the fact that Philly is already doing things. They aren't doing the fake things you're talking about where they're terminating the contract. That's a nonstarter for them and Simmons and really doesn't need to be discussed. But them actually withholding salary should spark a grievance, and likely will if this keeps going. The idea that it's irrelevant to whether a prior breach happens doesn't make sense, since it can't be determined if a breach happened before a grievance even happens. Simmons not showing up to start camp doesn't open him up to any the Sixers wanted to do with him. It's weird as that you think it does. The NBA and NBPA agree to these disciplinary steps exactly, not a scenario where they're the bare minimum the league can do. The PED policy in the NBA is 25 games. That doesn't mean a team can choose not to pay him for the season just because "It doesn't say they can't do more than that". It's an obviously wrong extension that would be challenged by the NBPA.

  9. #1409
    Machacarredes Chinook's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    29,761
    A big correction will come in the EB. Probably the next EB. The guaranteed money wasn’t intended to cause these dramas we are seeing in recent seasons. A shift will occur in the power base back to the owners, most likely via a lockout, that’s my prediction.
    Nah. Owners are making a ton of money off the league. It doesn't make sense for them to give that up for pride or whatever. Likely the NBPA will agree to a heavier fine system for guys like Simmons, Harden and Butler. But the idea of the owners cracking the whip on the players or whatever is very unlikely.

  10. #1410
    Wolf Ruvinskis tonight...you's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Post Count
    5,631
    I'm glad I have a good agent to keep up with the details of contracts.

    Because these posts are exhausting and I'm not a detail-oriented guy, hence why I do what I do.

  11. #1411
    Veteran K...'s Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Post Count
    7,788
    They should have a public arbitration board, and fully reality show these dramas. Force guys on the record. Would be easier to blackball a player if they fail a public trial by fire.

  12. #1412
    Veteran rjv's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Post Count
    8,786
    We’d all benefit from shorter posts.
    For a minute there, I thought people were posting their dissertations.

  13. #1413
    Veteran exstatic's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    35,936
    They should have a public arbitration board, and fully reality show these dramas. Force guys on the record. Would be easier to blackball a player if they fail a public trial by fire.
    The only blackballing happening is the Sixers by literally every NBA player agent. This may have started as Klutch vs. Sixers, but Morey is literally taking a blowtorch to the franchise. Their owner needs to fire him yesterday.

  14. #1414
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    89,651
    No, they can enforce the terms of the contract and recover damages for breach. They could also seek specific performance given this is a contract for services, but that's a whole other can of worms.
    good luck having specific performance granted

  15. #1415
    Veteran vy65's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Post Count
    7,782
    good luck having specific performance granted
    Yeah I know, although that would be a hilarious case

  16. #1416
    Veteran rastaspur's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Post Count
    2,483
    I'm glad I have a good agent to keep up with the details of contracts.

    Because these posts are exhausting and I'm not a detail-oriented guy, hence why I do what I do.
    These posts make me want to retire. Lawyers are long winded and boring af.

  17. #1417
    Veteran The Truth #6's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Post Count
    5,008
    I feel confident that Vy65 and Chinook have thought about these issues and ramifications more closely than Morey has. Not sure what Morey is trying to do. I’m all for pushing back on superstar privilege but not if it gives more power to the owners. The fans are the bystanders in this type of mess.

  18. #1418
    Wolf Ruvinskis tonight...you's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Post Count
    5,631
    These posts make me want to retire. Lawyers are long winded and boring af.
    Lol. Aren't you an attorney?

  19. #1419
    Veteran exstatic's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    35,936
    I feel confident that Vy65 and Chinook have thought about these issues and ramifications more closely than Morey has. Not sure what Morey is trying to do. I’m all for pushing back on superstar privilege but not if it gives more power to the owners. The fans are the bystanders in this type of mess.
    Morey is an absolute wizard with analytics and player evaluation. His problem is that he treats them like commodities, and that doesn’t work in the long run. Ben Simmons might be acting like a child, but it’s not in your long term interest to treat him like one. It’s a players league. A players league.

  20. #1420
    Veteran JeffDuncan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    2,632
    But what they don't have the right to do is not pay him while keeping him under contract. ...

    Correct, of course. To stop paying Simmons, under the contract, the 76ers would have to terminate the contract, ending the mutual obligation. IOW they'd have to fire him.

    It's arguable theycould terminate it, because of his refusal to participate, but they have not done so. Last I heard.

    It's highly unlikely the 76ers would terminate because they'd lose all value associated with the contract. As you know, I'm sure.

    So, yes, the remedies for the 76ers are limited to the fines and suspensions the CBA provides.

    If anyone wants to get fundamental about it, the contract Simmons has with the 76ers establishes a work relationship, and work without pay is uncons utional. Slavery is forbidden. Pay him, or fire him.


    ... The CBA is what determines whether the contract can be breached, not your understanding of contract law. This should be obvious by the fact that the fines are appealed to a league official and not the civil courts. ...

    That's incorrect. The CBA language about "final" means within the purview of the NBA.

    No private contract can deprive a person of access to the courts. The CBA doesn't speak of the courts of law because the courts are a higher authority who speak for themselves. Only the courts, themselves, can say what they will hear, or not hear.

  21. #1421
    Machacarredes Chinook's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    29,761
    Correct, of course. To stop paying Simmons, under the contract, the 76ers would have to terminate the contract, ending the mutual obligation. IOW they'd have to fire him.

    It's arguable theycould terminate it, because of his refusal to participate, but they have not done so. Last I heard.

    It's highly unlikely the 76ers would terminate because they'd lose all value associated with the contract. As you know, I'm sure.

    So, yes, the remedies for the 76ers are limited to the fines and suspensions the CBA provides.

    If anyone wants to get fundamental about it, the contract Simmons has with the 76ers establishes a work relationship, and work without pay is uncons utional. Slavery is forbidden. Pay him, or fire him.





    That's incorrect. The CBA language about "final" means within the purview of the NBA.

    No private contract can deprive a person of access to the courts. The CBA doesn't speak of the courts of law because the courts are a higher authority who speak for themselves. Only the courts, themselves, can say what they will hear, or not hear.
    I probably didn't make it clear. What i meant is that the CBA having a review process to the league/arbiter is because it's a collectively bargained s between the league and players' association. That was in the context for why looking at a common understanding of contract law isn't the most relevant thing. The CBA is for teams and players to follow, and it clearly says what to do in this case. Philly can't treat this like Simmons is an Uber driver. They are part of an an rust-exempt organization partnering with a mandatory labor union. They're at risk of damaging the league's exemption status if they don't follow the CBA, and the league isn't going to let that happen.

  22. #1422
    Veteran JeffDuncan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    2,632
    I feel confident that Vy65 and Chinook have thought about these issues and ramifications more closely than Morey has. Not sure what Morey is trying to do. ...

    What Morey is trying to do is NOT trade Simmons. And it's clear he's given it plenty of thought. Those highly publicized, and wild, trade offers are not real.

    It's a show, so Morey can say to the 76er fans, hey I really really tried to trade Simmons but nobody would deal, so please forgive us if we're stuck with him.

    Then the RS starts, Simmons returns to the team, the team continues its winning ways, the controversy fades into history, and everybody is happy. That's what he's trying to do. Will it work? Not quite yet, but we'll see.

    Iím all for pushing back on superstar privilege but not if it gives more power to the owners. The fans are the bystanders in this type of mess.

    Yes, the fans are watching. So Morey has given them a show. Enough of a show? Don't know yet.

  23. #1423
    Veteran John B's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Post Count
    8,838
    What Morey is trying to do is NOT trade Simmons. And it's clear he's given it plenty of thought. Those highly publicized, and wild, trade offers are not real.

    It's a show, so Morey can say to the 76er fans, hey I really really tried to trade Simmons but nobody would deal, so please forgive us if we're stuck with him.

    Then the RS starts, Simmons returns to the team, the team continues its winning ways, the controversy fades into history, and everybody is happy. That's what he's trying to do. Will it work? Not quite yet, but we'll see.




    Yes, the fans are watching. So Morey has given them a show. Enough of a show? Don't know yet.
    Or maybe he’s butt-hurt that Harden did the same to him which cost him his job, and he’s showing not another of this “diva”, not this time around? Because I don’t really see anything good coming out of this for the Sixers the more Morey drag this. His personal agenda is hurting the Sixers more where they should be focusing on helping Embiid and the team prepare into the new season and possibly pass round one. The guy said he doesn’t want to play there anymore, and already got penalized. I think there’s no going back and Morey starts cutting his losses.

  24. #1424
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    89,651
    Morey is an absolute wizard with analytics and player evaluation. His problem is that he treats them like commodities, and that doesnít work in the long run. Ben Simmons might be acting like a child, but itís not in your long term interest to treat him like one. Itís a players league. A players league.
    he gave up 2 first round picks and 2 first round pick swaps to downgrade from paul to westbrook

  25. #1425
    Veteran exstatic's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    35,936
    he gave up 2 first round picks and 2 first round pick swaps to downgrade from paul to westbrook
    Harden wanted Paul gone. That didn’t happen in a vacuum, and wasn’t his choice. It also may be coloring his reactions this time.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •