GSH
07-09-2015, 05:35 PM
What if, after Aldridge committed to the Spurs, but before the moratorium ended (say 11:00 last night), the Hawks had said, "We don't really want to do a deal for Splitter"? Everything up till then was verbal, just like with DeAndre Jordan. The Spurs could still go look for another trade, but it would be a LOT harder, with so many other players locked up.
Under the current rules, COULD one team screw another team in the same way Jordan just screwed the Mavs? Wouldn't Silver almost be forced to step in and put it right? Or would the league fall back on the letter of the law, that the moratorium period is a time to "consider options, and discuss terms - and no oral deals can be struck"? Would you feel differently if one team did it to another vs. a player doing it?
While we're at it, would it have made any difference if Jordan had waited until today to say he didn't want to sign with the Mavs after all? Or if the Hawks waited until today to say that they didn't want Splitter? Does the moratorium period really have anything to do with it? What if the deal was discussed during the moratorium, but not talked about again until today, and then renounced? Does a non-binding agreement during the moratorium become binding after the moratorium is over? Are there EVER any binding oral agreements?
I think pretty much everyone agrees that something has to be done before next season. But I wouldn't put it past Cuban to say "Screw 'em" and dismantle his team right in front of everyone, and tank for a re-build. Silver's got to know that would be bad for the league, and embarrassing. Then again, he allowed Philadelphia to do exactly that.
The Clippers even get the additional benefit of only having to extend a 4-year deal to Jordan, when he almost certainly would have demanded 5 years, before all this happened. Silver can either hide behind the letter of the law, or step up and send a message about the intent of the rules. I think he ought to at least dock the Clippers a draft pick, just on the remote possibility that there was some bad faith involved. I know that's unlikely, but he has the authority. I'm just curious if other fans think he ought to take action, or ought to just let it go.
Under the current rules, COULD one team screw another team in the same way Jordan just screwed the Mavs? Wouldn't Silver almost be forced to step in and put it right? Or would the league fall back on the letter of the law, that the moratorium period is a time to "consider options, and discuss terms - and no oral deals can be struck"? Would you feel differently if one team did it to another vs. a player doing it?
While we're at it, would it have made any difference if Jordan had waited until today to say he didn't want to sign with the Mavs after all? Or if the Hawks waited until today to say that they didn't want Splitter? Does the moratorium period really have anything to do with it? What if the deal was discussed during the moratorium, but not talked about again until today, and then renounced? Does a non-binding agreement during the moratorium become binding after the moratorium is over? Are there EVER any binding oral agreements?
I think pretty much everyone agrees that something has to be done before next season. But I wouldn't put it past Cuban to say "Screw 'em" and dismantle his team right in front of everyone, and tank for a re-build. Silver's got to know that would be bad for the league, and embarrassing. Then again, he allowed Philadelphia to do exactly that.
The Clippers even get the additional benefit of only having to extend a 4-year deal to Jordan, when he almost certainly would have demanded 5 years, before all this happened. Silver can either hide behind the letter of the law, or step up and send a message about the intent of the rules. I think he ought to at least dock the Clippers a draft pick, just on the remote possibility that there was some bad faith involved. I know that's unlikely, but he has the authority. I'm just curious if other fans think he ought to take action, or ought to just let it go.