(10-01-2021, 09:11 AM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]It feels like we're going to see players cut or traded for this reason and then some lawsuits about that in a year or so, doesn't it?
I had the same thought. If the player is already a bottom third of the roster guy, and was possibly on the bubble anyway, does that make it less likely that a court will entertain that case?
I would like to voice my support for Mr. Burke’s personal decision, but also I don’t want him on the roster for basketball reasons lmao
I was already on the trade/waive Burke train last season. He simply isn´t good enough to make an NBA roster. Basically has one solid month of play every 2-3 years. Just not enough when a team has younger and more talented options.
(10-01-2021, 09:18 AM)fifteenth Wrote: [ -> ]I had the same thought. If the player is already a bottom third of the roster guy, and was possibly on the bubble anyway, does that make it less likely that a court will entertain that case?
There is no case. As long as all the rules in the CBA about guaranteed money, waivers, etc are followed, a team can cut a guy for basically any reason at all (racial or sexual discrimination being about the only exception). Multiple courts have already upheld vaccine mandates (in alignment with a century of precedent), so while the CBA means they can't fire him and get out of his money, they can certainly waive under CBA rules for being a locker room distraction because of his choices.
(10-01-2021, 01:08 PM)Arioch Wrote: [ -> ]a team can cut a guy for basically any reason at all (racial or sexual discrimination being about the only exception). Multiple courts have already upheld vaccine mandates (in alignment with a century of precedent), so while the CBA means they can't fire him and get out of his money, they can certainly waive under CBA rules for being a locker room distraction because of his choices
This is interesting and helpful, thanks. So basically, you're saying the precedent has already been set and there's no reason to expect anything different in pro sports?
It makes sense, but then again, for whatever reason, the league doesn't feel comfortable applying the same mandates on players as it does to other team personnel. I assume this is because of the union, somehow, but I'm not totally sure.
(10-01-2021, 01:20 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: [ -> ]This is interesting and helpful, thanks. So basically, you're saying the precedent has already been set and there's no reason to expect anything different in pro sports?
It makes sense, but then again, for whatever reason, the league doesn't feel comfortable applying the same mandates on players as it does to other team personnel. I assume this is because of the union, somehow, but I'm not totally sure.
Yes, they've been clear it's because of the CBA. Union contracts have legal weight (and if you look around, the only lawsuits about companies requiring vaccination that have gotten any traction at all are attached to union contracts--like the teacher's union in New York or some police associations), so unless the union agrees to modifying the contract, the NBA can't impose a vaccine mandate. But the same contract gives teams the ability to waive players pretty much at-will--as long as the player gets their guaranteed money; so if the team can waive Burke simply because they don't like his on-court fit, they can certainly waive him because they feel his vaccination status is a detriment to team cohesion/health, etc.
lol nobody wants Trey Burke. Just eat the poor signing and waive him.
(10-01-2021, 02:32 PM)omahen Wrote: [ -> ]https://hoopshype.com/2021/10/01/maveric...rke-trade/
Interesting. Well, at least it's pretty obvious who Dallas would prefer to shed to get down to 15.
I also bet there's a 2-for-1 deal to be had. Something like Burke/Terry for a more expensive player on an expiring deal (who would fit into the Richardson exception) could save Dallas a roster spot and save another team some money.
(10-01-2021, 02:31 PM)Arioch Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, they've been clear it's because of the CBA. Union contracts have legal weight (and if you look around, the only lawsuits about companies requiring vaccination that have gotten any traction at all are attached to union contracts--like the teacher's union in New York or some police associations), so unless the union agrees to modifying the contract, the NBA can't impose a vaccine mandate. But the same contract gives teams the ability to waive players pretty much at-will--as long as the player gets their guaranteed money; so if the team can waive Burke simply because they don't like his on-court fit, they can certainly waive him because they feel his vaccination status is a detriment to team cohesion/health, etc.
Super clear and helpful, thanks so much!
Burke playing in China real soon confirmed...
![[Image: FAo1kYhVIAI2RtL?format=jpg&name=large]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FAo1kYhVIAI2RtL?format=jpg&name=large)