No "Stack back to Dallas" allowed - Signed, The NBA

[BillsCarnage]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3247183




The chances of Jason Kidd wearing a Dallas Mavericks uniform this season are shrinking by the day.

First, Devean George refused to consent to the trade to New Jersey. Now, a league source says the NBA has informed Dallas that if Jerry Stackhouse is traded and subsequently waived by the New Jersey Nets, he can not be re-signed by the Mavericks.

"The league has taken Stackhouse out of the deal," the source said. "They said, 'He can be in the trade, but he can't go back to Dallas after that."'

The willingness of Mavericks owner Mark Cuban to include Stackhouse in the trade was based on his knowledge that New Jersey would immediately buy him out of his contract, which would allow Stackhouse to re-sign with Dallas after 30 days.

It was Stackhouse's brazen response to the potential trade on Wednesday that first put the league on notice.

"I get 30 days to rest, then I'll be right back,'' Stackhouse told The Associated Press on Wednesday in response to the proposed trade. "I ain't going nowhere."

Neither apparently is George. Mark Bartelstein, George's agent, said this afternoon that his client is no longer thinking of rescinding his decision. George's refusal is based on the fact that a trade would cost him his "early Bird rights" and therefore the bulk of his leverage as a free agent this summer.

"Anything is possible, but as of now, it's not something Devean's considering," Bartelstein said.

The Mavericks, whose locker room could be in shambles if the Kidd deal doesn't go through, are desperately seeking other alternatives. They are looking at replacing Stackhouse and George in the trade with Trenton Hassell and Keith Van Horn.

But a person with knowledge of the talks said the Nets are leery of taking Hassell because he has two seasons, worth a total of $8.6 million, remaining on his contract after this season.

The source added that while other teams, most notably Cleveland and Denver, are pursuing Kidd, there is no other "realistic" destination out there, and that Kidd would most likely remain with the Nets if nothing can be worked out with Dallas.

The 30-day rule was added to the league's collective bargaining agreement as a response to a trade between Boston and Atlanta in 2005. In that deal, Boston sent Gary Payton to Atlanta to reacquire Antoine Walker with the understanding that the Hawks would immediately waive Payton, who then re-signed with Boston three days later.

The league frowned on this move, and instituted the 30-day rule. By flouting the rule so publicly, Stackhouse may have given the league no choice but to eliminate him from the deal or prevent the Mavericks from re-signing him.

"If Stackhouse had kept quiet, the league would not have been able to prove anything," a Western Conference executive said.

The executive added that team owners have been calling commissioner David Stern to complain about the Stackhouse part of the deal, and that several GMs would have been incensed if he had allowed the trade -- and subsequent return of Stackhouse to Dallas -- to go through.

"Every GM from a potential playoff team in the Western Conference is complaining about this,'' the executive said. "If the league allows this trade to go through, it'll have a major credibility issue on its hands. Our collective bargaining agreement's not worth anything if this goes through.''

Chris Broussard covers the NBA for ESPN The Magazine.

[JMarkJohns]

And rightly so. You shouldn't be allowed to trade a player, then simply resign him that same year after the acquiring team waives him.

The League simply needs to change it so said player can't return for that full season.

[Xylus]

Man, this debacle gets better every day. It's even better than last night's Lost episode.

[mavsfan1000]

This is good news. Hopefully Cuban gets to his senses now and doesn't do the deal. This next week is going to be nerve wracking.

[lurker]

Man, this debacle gets better every day. It's even better than last night's Lost episode.
Nothing is better than Lost. Sayid working for Ben?!

[monosylab1k]

Just like I told everyone, Stackhouse will be in Dallas in 30 days. Thanks.

[Xylus]

Nothing is better than Lost. Sayid working for Ben?!
Touché

[CubanMustGo]

If cueball wants to do it he will just send KVH. Net impact on Mavs, same, Stack will still be in Dallas (and not have to wait 30 days), net on Nets, same.

EDIT - no, not true, Nets would not have George.

[Shank]

Ugh...the Ben/Sayid line is fucking stupid. They're already running out of ideas?

[BillsCarnage]

Just like I told everyone, Stackhouse will be in Dallas in 30 days. Thanks.

Guaranteed.. don't forget.
:lol :lol :lol

[stretch]

And rightly so. You shouldn't be allowed to trade a player, then simply resign him that same year after the acquiring team waives him.

The League simply needs to change it so said player can't return for that full season.
No, thats bullshit. It's completely up to the player wherever he wants to go. He can back out whether he gives them his word or not. All you gotta do is look at Carlos Boozer, and what he pulled on the Cavaliers. If there is valid proof that it is part of the deal, then I can understand that. But there is no proof. Stack simply said, when the deal is done, and when he is bought out, he is going to return to the Mavs. There are so many different ways that people can understand that, that it is not valid proof that it was the agreement between the teams. All it proves, is that Stackhouse is not going to consider offers from other teams, as he wishes to sign back with the Mavericks.

[monosylab1k]

Fuehrer Stern was hard at work on this one. Anything to fuck with Cuban.

[CubanMustGo]

Fuehrer Stern was hard at work on this one. Anything to fuck with Cuban.

Maybe now they'll look into the collusion between Lakers FO East and Lakers FO West?

No, never mind, Sternie WANTS LA to have it all, doesn't he.

[stretch]

Fuehrer Stern was hard at work on this one. Anything to fuck with Cuban.
Stern is such a POS. He allows the Lakers to get away with one of the biggest rapings in NBA history, but changes the rules mid-season just to fuck with the Mavericks.

[fyatuk]

If cueball wants to do it he will just send KVH. Net impact on Mavs, same, Stack will still be in Dallas (and not have to wait 30 days), net on Nets, same.

EDIT - no, not true, Nets would not have George.

The Nets would have to keep KVH on the roster as well, I believe. Otherwise the NBA would nix it.

[Shank]

I'm thinking it's pretty much dead now, unless Dick Breath changes his mind soon and the Nets somehow want to take on Trenton Hassell instead.

If it's dead - fuck it and move on. Aim for Maggette or Miller and get it done.

[baseline bum]

No, thats bullshit. It's completely up to the player wherever he wants to go. He can back out whether he gives them his word or not. All you gotta do is look at Carlos Boozer, and what he pulled on the Cavaliers. If there is valid proof that it is part of the deal, then I can understand that. But there is no proof. Stack simply said, when the deal is done, and when he is bought out, he is going to return to the Mavs. There are so many different ways that people can understand that, that it is not valid proof that it was the agreement between the teams. All it proves, is that Stackhouse is not going to consider offers from other teams, as he wishes to sign back with the Mavericks.

WTF? Do you want a signed and dated note from Stack and his agent? Stackhouse is a fucking moron. How can you come out and say that shit?

[JMarkJohns]

No, thats bullshit. It's completely up to the player wherever he wants to go. He can back out whether he gives them his word or not. All you gotta do is look at Carlos Boozer, and what he pulled on the Cavaliers. If there is valid proof that it is part of the deal, then I can understand that. But there is no proof. Stack simply said, when the deal is done, and when he is bought out, he is going to return to the Mavs. There are so many different ways that people can understand that, that it is not valid proof that it was the agreement between the teams. All it proves, is that Stackhouse is not going to consider offers from other teams, as he wishes to sign back with the Mavericks.

No way. You can't have collusion, and that's what these handshake under the table, nudge-nudge-wink-wink agreements were.

You can't allow a team to throw in a player to allow salaries to meet, then net said player in return once the secret agreement plays itself out.

If you want, make it like baseball so teams don't have to match the salaries so exactly. You a team wants to acquire a $20 million PG for roughly $6 million in exchanged players, then let them, but you just can't allow the competitive balance to be messed with the way this deal seemingly did.

If he wants to return the nest season, then so be it, but not that same year.

[Shank]

No way. You can't have collusion, and that's what these handshake under the table, nudge-nudge-wink-wink agreements were.

You can't allow a team to throw in a player to allow salaries to meet, then net said player in return once the secret agreement plays itself out.

If you want, make it like baseball so teams don't have to match the salaries so exactly. You a team wants to acquire a $20 million PG for roughly $6 million in exchanged players, then let them, but you just can't allow the competitive balance to be messed with the way this deal seemingly did.

If he wants to return the nest season, then so be it, but not that same year.

Right, you can say you can't have these agreements all you want but they're still going to happen.

What if Stackhouse didn't say anything and magically returned to the Mavs after 30 days? What's that? Just a coincidence?

[BillsCarnage]

No, thats bullshit. It's completely up to the player wherever he wants to go. He can back out whether he gives them his word or not.

Cry us a river...
The rule was create after the 2005 season when Boston send Payton to ATL for Walker. ATL then released him and he went back to Boston.



All you gotta do is look at Carlos Boozer, and what he pulled on the Cavaliers.
Wasn't Boozer a FA??



If there is valid proof that it is part of the deal, then I can understand that. But there is no proof. Stack simply said, when the deal is done, and when he is bought out, he is going to return to the Mavs. There are so many different ways that people can understand that, that it is not valid proof that it was the agreement between the teams.

Yes, there is proof because Stack shot his mouth off. If Cuban hadn't gotten cocky about the trade he wouldn't have told Stack the Nets would buy him out. Cuban and Stack both fucked up.

You're really grasping at air on this.. Face it, Stack and Cuban fucked up big time.


Fuehrer Stern was hard at work on this one. Anything to fuck with Cuban.
Well in fairness, Cuban hasn't exactly tried to be friends w/ Stern during his time as owner.

[stretch]

WTF? Do you want a signed and dated note from Stack and his agent? Stackhouse is a fucking moron. How can you come out and say that shit?
It wasn't smart of him to say that, but there is no valid proof shown that they broke the rules, or had that as a part of their agreement.

[stretch]

No way. You can't have collusion, and that's what these handshake under the table, nudge-nudge-wink-wink agreements were.

You can't allow a team to throw in a player to allow salaries to meet, then net said player in return once the secret agreement plays itself out.

If you want, make it like baseball so teams don't have to match the salaries so exactly. You a team wants to acquire a $20 million PG for roughly $6 million in exchanged players, then let them, but you just can't allow the competitive balance to be messed with the way this deal seemingly did.

If he wants to return the nest season, then so be it, but not that same year.
No rules against it.

If they add that rule next year, I'm fine with it. But there is no rule against it this year, and they should not be allowed to change the rules mid-season like that.

[BillsCarnage]

Stern is such a POS. He allows the Lakers to get away with one of the biggest rapings in NBA history, but changes the rules mid-season just to fuck with the Mavericks.

The Lakers did it under the rules. It's idiotic for ppl to rip them for it. It was perfectly legal under the rules.

The Kidd trade was perfectly legal under the rules as well until Stack shot his mouth off.

[JMarkJohns]

Right, you can say you can't have these agreements all you want but they're still going to happen.

What if Stackhouse didn't say anything and magically returned to the Mavs after 30 days? What's that? Just a coincidence?

No, obviously it wouldn't have been. That's why the rule needs to be changed to address such. Stack keeping his mouth shut doesn't disprove there was collusion going on. It just means it wasn't broadcast/reported upon.

I don't see how this is difficult to understand?

You can't have a team circumventing the trade rules in such a blatant manner. Like I said, it completely messes with the spirit of the trade rules, plus the competitive balance the rules try to enforce.

[stretch]

Cry us a river...
The rule was create after the 2005 season when Boston send Payton to ATL for Walker. ATL then released him and he went back to Boston.

Good for them.


Wasn't Boozer a FA??

Yes, but he made a verbal agreement, which apparently means something in this league, if they say that verbal agreements on certain things are against the rules.



Yes, there is proof because Stack shot his mouth off. If Cuban hadn't gotten cocky about the trade he wouldn't have told Stack the Nets would buy him out. Cuban and Stack both fucked up.

Stack saying that he plans to resign with the Mavs after being bought out does not prove that the Mavs and Nets had an agreement for this to happen.


You're really grasping at air on this.. Face it, Stack and Cuban fucked up big time.

I agree that they did not handle this well, but there was no proof that any rules were violated.


Well in fairness, Cuban hasn't exactly tried to be friends w/ Stern during his time as owner.

Doesn't mean that Stern should go so far as to create controversy about the integrity of the league, as well as himself, by fucking the Mavs over on a consistent basis, while doing anything to help keep the Lakers at the top of the league.

[BillsCarnage]

Right, you can say you can't have these agreements all you want but they're still going to happen.

What if Stackhouse didn't say anything and magically returned to the Mavs after 30 days? What's that? Just a coincidence?

But that's the whole thing.. Things like this happen all the time, but Stack was the one idiot who shot his mouth off about it happening.

Essentially it's like tampering in other sports. He should have just kept his mouth shut.

[stretch]

The Lakers did it under the rules. It's idiotic for ppl to rip them for it. It was perfectly legal under the rules.

The Kidd trade was perfectly legal under the rules as well until Stack shot his mouth off.
Again, Stack saying that he plans to resign with the Mavs is no violation of rules. If the Mavs and Nets had an agreement for this all to happen, then that was against the rules. But there is no proof, so there have been no rules violated as far as people looking at this situation should be concerned.

[stretch]

No, obviously it wouldn't have been. That's why the rule needs to be changed to address such. Stack keeping his mouth shut doesn't disprove there was collusion going on. It just means it wasn't broadcast/reported upon.

I don't see how this is difficult to understand?

You can't have a team circumventing the trade rules in such a blatant manner. Like I said, it completely messes with the spirit of the trade rules, plus the competitive balance the rules try to enforce.
I understand your point here, but the league currently has no rules against this happening, and they should not be allowed to change the rule mid-season.

[Findog]

No rules against it.

If they add that rule next year, I'm fine with it. But there is no rule against it this year, and they should not be allowed to change the rules mid-season like that.

This is ridiculous. Stack is included to make the salaries work, and NJ is going to buy him out because they don't want his salary. Where he goes after that is not something that interests Jersey, he's getting bought out regardless. All Stack is done is say that when that happens, his preference is to return to Dallas, and he probably doesn't need to read tea leaves to figure out the Mavs would like to have him back. Anything can happen in 30 days - a Western competitor can make a $$ offer the Mavs can't match, the Mavs might not be done making deals to improve their roster and won't have the salary slot or roster spot to sign Stack.

It was fine to stick to the rules when Amare and Boris broke them, and Stern swore up and down his hands were tied, and it would set a horrible precedent if he tore up a rule on the fly because it was inconvienent. Now he's going to do just that. Apparently his hands aren't tied after all. The worst you can say about this is that Stack's preference to go back to Dallas violates the spirit of the 30-day rule but not the letter. If they find this distasteful so much, they can change the rule in the offseason.

And for the record, I don't like the trade, and only grudgingly want it to go through for team chemistry reasons. This is bullshit.

[BillsCarnage]

Doesn't mean that Stern should go so far as to create controversy about the integrity of the league, as well as himself, by fucking the Mavs over on a consistent basis, while doing anything to help keep the Lakers at the top of the league.

He's not creating controversy, he's just going by the letter of the law like he did w/ the Suns suspension :drunk

[Shank]

But that's the whole thing.. Things like this happen all the time, but Stack was the one idiot who shot his mouth off about it happening.

Essentially it's like tampering in other sports. He should have just kept his mouth shut.

That's what's bullshit, then. They wouldn't dare investigate the under the table deals, but throw this shit in the Mavs face because Stack spoke up? Fuck all that. The league can't pick and choose what they want to investigate solely on the amount of public evidence available. If it's wrong - do something about everyone that does it, regardless of someone running their mouth.

Cunts.

[Bruno]

What you didn't understood is that the plan with Stackhouse was likely Nets buying out for a little amount and Mavs spending the whole MLE on him.

Things like that never happen and there is no way it could have happened without an pre-arrangement.
Even if Stack had shut up, the league would have been ticked by this move.

[batboy]

Man, this debacle gets better every day. It's even better than last night's Lost episode.

oh shit I forgot

[stretch]

This is ridiculous. Stack is included to make the salaries work, and NJ is going to buy him out because they don't want his salary. Where he goes after that is not something that interests Jersey, he's getting bought out regardless. All Stack is done is say that when that happens, his preference is to return to Dallas, and he probably doesn't need to read tea leaves to figure out the Mavs would like to have him back. Anything can happen in 30 days - a Western competitor can make a $$ offer the Mavs can't match, the Mavs might not be done making deals to improve their roster and won't have the salary slot or roster spot to sign Stack.

It was fine to stick to the rules when Amare and Boris broke them, and Stern swore up and down his hands were tied, and it would set a horrible precedent if he tore up a rule on the fly because it was inconvienent. Now he's going to do just that. Apparently his hands aren't tied after all. The worst you can say about this is that Stack's preference to go back to Dallas violates the spirit of the 30-day rule but not the letter. If they find this distasteful so much, they can change the rule in the offseason.

And for the record, I don't like the trade, and only grudgingly want it to go through for team chemistry reasons. This is bullshit.

The 30-day rule to me, is similar to teams sending in someone to purposely commit a flagrant foul. If they do that, the consequence is a suspension. If the team and player are willing to deal with that, then so be it, he will be suspended/fined, and back with the team afterward. Same as this. If the team and player are willing to deal with a 30 day period, then so be it, and they will be back with the team after the 30 days. I don't even see that it violate this "spirit" of the rule.

[Findog]

He's not creating controversy, he's just going by the letter of the law like he did w/ the Suns suspension :drunk

He's doing the exact fucking opposite, he's tearing up a rule on the fly. Nothing prevents Stackhouse from going back to Dallas after 30 days except the whim of Emperor Stern. Stack is included to make the salaries work, and the Nets would presumably buy him out. It's only presumed at this point that Jersey is going to buy him out, nothing in the trade papers submitted to the league says anything about what Jersey is going to do with Stack.

[stretch]

He's not creating controversy, he's just going by the letter of the law like he did w/ the Suns suspension :drunk
There is no letter of the law being violated if Stackhouse is bought out, then decides to resign with the Mavs after the 30 day period.

The 30 day period is put in to keep teams from making trades like this, but if the team is willing to deal with that 30 days, then so be it. If the league did not want players to go back to their original teams period, then they should have just outlawed it in the first place. Obviously it's not that big of a deal if they only put a 30 day period in place, as opposed to the rest of the season.

[JMarkJohns]

I understand your point here, but the league currently has no rules against this happening, and they should not be allowed to change the rule mid-season.

I can understand your gripe. I wouldn't have liked it had the League stepped in and made a decision upon a judgement call of an interpretation of a rule.

Still, I agree with their stance, and it's not just because it's the Mavericks or whatnot. If you read from days back, I was actually surprised at the 30 day period. I thought the NBA had stepped up to the plate better than that. I thought it was two or three months.

It's a touchy issue. I just think in general it's best to keep from the appearance of potentially tainted deals.

As for the Lakers, it was a steal, but they Lakers gave up the proper salary in expiring contracts, something that's always coveted in trades, and essentially, three 1st-rounders. That's pretty good. Not great, but it's not like it was a 1-for-1 trade of Brown for Gasol.

[stretch]

Seriously, what the fuck is their logic if they don't want players to go back to their teams period after being bought out, to only put a 30 day waiting period in place??? If they really cared that much about it happening, there would not be a 30 day period. The rule would not allow them to go back period. But that is not how they made the rule, so they obviously don't care that much.

[stretch]

Still, I agree with their stance, and it's not just because it's the Mavericks or whatnot. If you read from days back, I was actually surprised at the 30 day period. I thought the NBA had stepped up to the plate better than that. I thought it was two or three months.

Read my other posts on the 30 day period.

[baseline bum]

You should be glad Stackhouse has a big mouth and George is a douche, because your team is far better off for having not made this deal.

[Findog]

Seriously, what the fuck is their logic if they don't want players to go back to their teams period after being bought out, to only put a 30 day waiting period in place??? If they really cared that much about it happening, there would not be a 30 day period. The rule would not allow them to go back period. But that is not how they made the rule, so they obviously don't care that much.

It's the same logic that apparently has Devean George losing lots of money from sacrificing his Bird rights. Those Bird rights are worthless without Cuban's cooperation. Maybe Devean isn't the sharpest tack in the box, but you'd think his agent would've figured that out by now.

"Devean likes it here, he got 43 minutes of playing time last night."

Yeah, because Josh, Stack and Devin were hurt. Fucking retarded delusional piece of shit.

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

Actually I think Stack shooting his mouth off is getting this kind of attention because of the shady nature of the Gasol deal. I think the league in general took a credibility hit on that one, but at the very least you didn't have Jerry Buss say something, "Good things we still have friends in Memphis."

Make no mistake, Stackhouse is a moron, but I do think Stern is trying to thump his chest and play the strong man on this one to make things look legit.

[JMarkJohns]

Seriously, what the fuck is their logic if they don't want players to go back to their teams period after being bought out, to only put a 30 day waiting period in place??? If they really cared that much about it happening, there would not be a 30 day period. The rule would not allow them to go back period. But that is not how they made the rule, so they obviously don't care that much.

I have no idea why the NBA balked at limiting the waivee's choices to any team other than the one who traded him. It seems like they dropped the ball.

I think they thought that by having a rule discouraging such, that maybe teams wouldn't attempt to intentionally circumvent the spirit of the rule. Seemingly the Mavs did just that, which is why they came down so hard.

[Xylus]

You should be glad Stackhouse has a big mouth and George is a douche, because your team is far better off for having not made this deal.
Agreed. As awesome as it may seem to have Jason Kidd alongside Howard and Dirk, this trade depletes the Mavs' depth, and makes your team worse. Kidd is overrated as a leader, he doesn't have a reliable jump shot, and Dallas gives up far more than it receives in this trade.

[stretch]

You should be glad Stackhouse has a big mouth and George is a douche, because your team is far better off for having not made this deal.
No, they aren't anymore for sure. This debacle will more than likely ruin chemistry further, and i don't think people realize the effect Kidd would really have on this team. You obviously wouldn't know because you don't watch the Mavericks nearly as much as I do. But I as well as plenty of other Mavs fans see what the true problems are with the Mavericks (which is on the offensive end, not defensive), and how Kidd will fix a large portion of these.

[Shank]

Stack should have said he planned on joining the Lakers. The league wouldn't have blinked.

[Findog]

I think they thought that by having a rule discouraging such, that maybe teams wouldn't attempt to intentionally circumvent the spirit of the rule. Seemingly the Mavs did just that, which is why they came down so hard.


The Mavericks should seriously take their case to an arbitrator if that happens. "Spirit" of the rule? What the fuck is that?

[stretch]

Agreed. As awesome as it may seem to have Jason Kidd alongside Howard and Dirk, this trade depletes the Mavs' depth, and makes your team worse. Kidd is overrated as a leader, he doesn't have a reliable jump shot, and Dallas gives up far more than it receives in this trade.
You're a fucking idiot. Your team for years has lived on a 5-7 man rotation, and anyone with a fuckin brain knows that you only need about 7-8 people for the playoffs to play regularly.

[ludda]

Hassell and KVH is being explored according to the article. And you know that Nets are more desperate. But mavs arent looking to good in terms of what messages they are sending to their team. Either way, its a pretty fucked up situation thanks to the boneheads the Mavs have.

[Findog]

I don't like this trade for us, but where does this leave the Mavericks? You either make a big trade or you don't. You don't let it fall apart so publicly and tell the guys included in the trade that they're not part of your plans and tell the other portion of your roster that you don't believe in them after insisting all season that you did. I think this trade does bad things for overall team chemistry. You can't undo the Pandora's Box that has opened up.

Mav haters rejoice.

[fyatuk]

There is no letter of the law being violated if Stackhouse is bought out, then decides to resign with the Mavs after the 30 day period.

The 30 day period is put in to keep teams from making trades like this, but if the team is willing to deal with that 30 days, then so be it. If the league did not want players to go back to their original teams period, then they should have just outlawed it in the first place. Obviously it's not that big of a deal if they only put a 30 day period in place, as opposed to the rest of the season.

Again, this is not about violating the letter of the 30 day rule, it violates the rules on CIRCUMVENTION.

[stretch]

I have no idea why the NBA balked at limiting the waivee's choices to any team other than the one who traded him. It seems like they dropped the ball.

I think they thought that by having a rule discouraging such, that maybe teams wouldn't attempt to intentionally circumvent the spirit of the rule. Seemingly the Mavs did just that, which is why they came down so hard.
IMO, there is no "sprit" of the rule. If they are willing to deal with that long waiting period, and temporarily harm their teams success in order to get a player they really like back, they should be allowed to go for it.

[stretch]

Again, this is not about violating the letter of the 30 day rule, it violates the rules on CIRCUMVENTION.
Wrong. No rules have been proven violated.

[Xylus]

You're a fucking idiot. Your team for years has lived on a 5-7 man rotation, and anyone with a fuckin brain knows that you only need about 7-8 people for the playoffs to play regularly.
lol, who was talking about the Suns? Am I in here defending the Suns' short rotation? Fuck no, I've criticized D'Antoni for a long time for his refusal to lengthen the bench.

[nkdlunch]

:lmao :lmao :lmao

and the Mavs continue to be the laughingstock of the NBA.

[fyatuk]

Wrong. No rules have been proven violated.

Again, NO PROOF IS REQUIRED.

It's an arbiter case.

[JMarkJohns]

The rule was put in place to discourage intentional collusion twixt two teams and a traded, then waived player.

Shank, you're right, the League wouldn't have blinked had Stackhouse said, "I can't wait to join (insert any of the other 28 eligible teams here)!" The rule wasn't meant to discourage a player being acquired, then waived, then allowed to sign with another team. It was mean to discourage a player being traded from one team to another to make the trade work, then being waived by said team, only to sign with the original trading team so said team gets both the package net in return for said player, but also the said player in return.

That's obvious collusion and it undermines the competitive balance the League created by requiring teams match salaries to a certain point in the first place.

[Findog]

Nothing is being circumvented, how hard is this to understand? There's no way it's set in stone that Stack is coming back to Dallas, he's only expressed his preference to do so. A lot can happen in 30 days.

[baseline bum]

No, they aren't anymore for sure. This debacle will more than likely ruin chemistry further, and i don't think people realize the effect Kidd would really have on this team. You obviously wouldn't know because you don't watch the Mavericks nearly as much as I do. But I as well as plenty of other Mavs fans see what the true problems are with the Mavericks (which is on the offensive end, not defensive), and how Kidd will fix a large portion of these.

Early regular season doesn't mean shit. No one has won a title with the best record in the league since '03. You obviously haven't seen how much Kidd has regressed this season. He's a defensive turnstile, and his jumper is about as pure as Chris Dudley's.

[Findog]

:lmao :lmao :lmao

and the Mavs continue to be the laughingstock of the NBA.

Let the grownups continue to discuss the intricacies of the salary cap and the CBA, and get back into the shallow end of the pool with all the other kiddies.

[Shank]

Or Stack should be traded to NJ, be bought out and start negotiating with a couple teams. Then, at the 11th hour he should bail out and re-join the Mavericks. Why? Just to be even more of an ass.

[stretch]

Again, NO PROOF IS REQUIRED.

It's an arbiter case.
How is no proof required? Are you that fucking retarded? If proof isn't required, then I can just go out, beat the shit out of myself, and blame and sue your ass for physically assaulting me, and win, since there is no proof required.

I don't even know why I said that, because you're a fucking idiot that doesn't know what he is talking about, and will not understand my point one bit. How about just go ahead and say the usual spursfan comeback to anything...

"4 rings motherfucker"

[JMarkJohns]

Nothing is being circumvented, how hard is this to understand? There's no way it's set in stone that Stack is coming back to Dallas, he's only expressed his preference to do so. A lot can happen in 30 days.

Stackhouse all but said his mind was made up. Something like, "30 days and I'll be back." That reeks of collusion.

I get you beef, but I agree with the decision.

[Findog]

He's talking about how an arbitrator doesn't require the evidentiary standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, he's not addressing what a hypocritical piece of dogshit David Stern is to change league rules on the fly.

[fyatuk]

Nothing is being circumvented, how hard is this to understand? There's no way it's set in stone that Stack is coming back to Dallas, he's only expressed his preference to do so. A lot can happen in 30 days.

How hard is this to understand.

Stack's statements imply an agreement for the Mavs to re-sign him after the Nets by him out (he stated sitting out 30 days and coming back as a certainty). That implied agreement would violate the rules set out in the CBA against circumvention. There is no burden of proof requirement, as it is an arbitration case (it's whoever makes the best argument).

If he hadn't have made those statements, there would be no reason to believe there was a pre-arranged deal, so there would have been no problem. Since he did, that opened the possibility of a pre-arranged deal, which the NBA can't allow because of recent hits to its credibility.

[Findog]

Stackhouse all but said his mind was made up. Something like, "30 days and I'll be back." That reeks of collusion.

I get you beef, but I agree with the decision.

That's his preference, other teams can tempt him with a bigger payday or promise of more minutes. If he likes it in Dallas and is dead-set on returning, the league can only require that he wait a month to do so. Well, that and Emperor Stern decided to change shit on the fly.

[Xylus]

How is no proof required? Are you that fucking retarded? If proof isn't required, then I can just go out, beat the shit out of myself, and blame and sue your ass for physically assaulting me, and win, since there is no proof required.

I don't even know why I said that, because you're a fucking idiot that doesn't know what he is talking about, and will not understand my point one bit. How about just go ahead and say the usual spursfan comeback to anything...

"4 rings motherfucker"
I know you're mad, but this could really be a blessing in disguise. The majority of fans, both Mavs fans and otherwise, thought this was a bad trade for you guys. What I'm saying is, Kidd isn't the only option out there, and he's not even the best option, IMO.

[Findog]

How hard is this to understand.

Apparently very.


Stack's statements imply an agreement for the Mavs to re-sign him after the Nets by him out (he stated sitting out 30 days and coming back as a certainty).

No, it implies that he doesn't fit into New Jersey's long-term plans and that he expects to be bought out by them. When that happens, he is free to sign with any team but has his heart set on going back to Dallas if the Mavs will have him, and he's prepared to wait up to 30 days in accordance with league rules in order to do so.

[stretch]

Early regular season doesn't mean shit. No one has won a title with the best record in the league since '03. You obviously haven't seen how much Kidd has regressed this season. He's a defensive turnstile, and his jumper is about as pure as Chris Dudley's.
Playing for a team you haven't wanted to play for, for years, doesn't show that his skills have regressed either. Plenty of cases of that. T.O. for instance, in his last year in San Fransico played like crap, because he obviously didn't want to be there, but people dismissed that, and was saying that he is getting old, beat up, and isn't the same player. Then the next season, he went to the Eagles and ended up 2nd i believe in MVP voting.

Moss clearly was unhappy with the Raiders, people thought he was washed up, old, and sucked, then he goes to the Patriots and had possibly the greatest season a WR has ever had, and was the MVP of the league in the eyes of many.

People thought Rasheed was regressing, and would be unable to help the Pistons much, but after his trade, he turned out being their true MVP, and helped the team win a title.

Kidd has not regressed. His stats are as good as ever, and hes doing that with a very shitty team that he does not want to play for.

[fyatuk]

How is no proof required? Are you that fucking retarded? If proof isn't required, then I can just go out, beat the shit out of myself, and blame and sue your ass for physically assaulting me, and win, since there is no proof required.

I don't even know why I said that, because you're a fucking idiot that doesn't know what he is talking about, and will not understand my point one bit. How about just go ahead and say the usual spursfan comeback to anything...

"4 rings motherfucker"

Are you an idiot? This is NOT a legal issue, it is a contract issue that the contract specifically states would be determined by arbitration. You beating yourself up and blaming someone else, while apparently good for the world, would just result in a liable case against you because that is a LEGAL issue not a contract issue.

An Arbiter has no burden of proof requirement, he sides with whoever makes the more convincing argument.

Get a freaking clue already.

[stretch]

Are you an idiot? This is NOT a legal issue, it is a contract issue that the contract specifically states would be determined by arbitration. You beating yourself up and blaming someone else, while apparently good for the world, would just result in a liable case against you because that is a LEGAL issue not a contract issue.

An Arbiter has no burden of proof requirement, he sides with whoever makes the more convincing argument.

Get a freaking clue already.
You're seriously retarded.

Fact is, there was no violation of the rules. Only speculation.

[fyatuk]

Apparently very.

No, it implies that he doesn't fit into New Jersey's long-term plans and that he expects to be bought out by them. When that happens, he is free to sign with any team but has his heart set on going back to Dallas if the Mavs will have him, and he's prepared to wait up to 30 days in accordance with league rules in order to do so.

His words are open for some interpretation, but the amount of certainty he spoke with can quite easily, and has by the majority of people, be taken to mean he had a pre-arranged agreement with the Mavs.

It proves nothing, but it certainly provides the basis for one to question, and in a situation where proof is unnecessary, that question is more than enough reason to look into it and possibly try to prevent it.

The Mavs can always request arbitration to get Stern overruled in the matter.

[stretch]

The Mavs can always request arbitration to get Stern overruled in the matter.
Not going to work. It's the Mavs, so Stern is going to have the rules changed so that arbitration has to have Stern's approval to overturn his own desicions.

[phyzik]

I guess it has to be posted again....

CBA Art. XIII Sec. 2




No Unauthorized Agreements.
(a) At no time shall there be any agreements or transactions of any kind (whether disclosed or undisclosed to the NBA), express or implied, oral or written, or promises, undertakings, representations, commitments, inducements, assurances of intent, or understandings of any kind (whether disclosed or undisclosed to the NBA), between a player (or any person or entity controlled by, related to, or acting with authority on behalf of, such player) and any Team (or Team Affiliate)

STFU Stretch, you lose.

[stretch]

I guess it has to be posted again....

CBA Art. XIII Sec. 2




No Unauthorized Agreements.
(a) At no time shall there be any agreements or transactions of any kind (whether disclosed or undisclosed to the NBA), express or implied, oral or written, or promises, undertakings, representations, commitments, inducements, assurances of intent, or understandings of any kind (whether disclosed or undisclosed to the NBA), between a player (or any person or entity controlled by, related to, or acting with authority on behalf of, such player) and any Team (or Team Affiliate)

STFU Stretch, you lose.

Show me there there is an implied, oral, or written agreement between the Mavs, Stackhouse, and Nets that this was to happen?

Perhaps it was just Stackhouse's own personal desicion. If it is his own personal desicion, then nothing was violated.

STFU yourself

[JMarkJohns]

That's his preference, other teams can tempt him with a bigger payday or promise of more minutes. If he likes it in Dallas and is dead-set on returning, the league can only require that he wait a month to do so. Well, that and Emperor Stern decided to change shit on the fly.

If the League wanted to allow traded players to return to the teams that traded them, then they wouldn't have taken action a few years back. Whether or not you agree, they clearly said we don't want intentional circumvention of the trade requirements by packaging players to make salaries match with the understanding that said player/players will return once acquired and waived. They don't want it. What's gone down today clearly shows that. To be honest, if it wasn't clear before today, then you have a perception issue.

If he likes Dallas and Dallas likes what he brings so much that they'll resign him once he's waived, then why is he being included in the trade in the first place? Answer: to make the trade work.

You can't circumvent the trade rules in this way. Stern implied such a few years back and stated such today.

Again, I understand why you're upset, but had any other teams and any other player done/said what the Mavs/Nets and Stackhouse did/said, then the League would have come down in the exact same fashion.

For goodness sakes, the rule was put in place because of something the Celtics did. The NBA loves the Celtics. They are their top Title winner.

[JMarkJohns]

Show me there there is an implied, oral, or written agreement between the Mavs, Stackhouse, and Nets that this was to happen?

Perhaps it was just Stackhouse's own personal desicion. If it is his own personal desicion, then nothing was violated.

STFU yourself

By Stackhouse saying he'd be back to Dallas before the trade was ever finalized, it clearly showed a knowledge of his impending waiver, which clearly implies that discussions had occurred on the matter.

Sorry, that RULE states it perfectly: collusion and circumvention of the rules won't be tolerated.

[nkdlunch]

Let the grownups continue to discuss the intricacies of the salary cap and the CBA, and get back into the shallow end of the pool with all the other kiddies.

so you don't agree that Dallas Mavs are the laughingstock of the NBA? open your eyes, everyone is laughing at them.

Lost in 1st round last year, failed to make a simple trade this year, what do the brilliant mavs have in store for us next year?

[BillsCarnage]

Stack should have said he planned on joining the Lakers. The league wouldn't have blinked.

Yup, but he didn't.

The trade should go through and the Nets should buyout Stack on Mar. 2.

[stretch]

By Stackhouse saying he'd be back to Dallas before the trade was ever finalized, it clearly showed a knowledge of his impending waiver, which clearly implies that discussions had occurred on the matter.

Sorry, that RULE states it perfectly: collusion and circumvention of the rules won't be tolerated.
Perhaps he heard through media that he was to be bought out, as it was known as soon as the trade hit the media.

No proof that he was talked to by the teams about this. There are a number of ways to interpret his comments.

[nkdlunch]

There are a number of ways to interpret his comments.

wrong. there are 2 ways. The Dallas homer way, and the realistic way

[JMarkJohns]

Perhaps he heard through media that he was to be bought out, as it was known as soon as the trade hit the media.

No proof that he was talked to by the teams about this. There are a number of ways to interpret his comments.

I don't know. I heard from the get go that Stack was only being included to make the money work and that as soon as he was acquired, he'd be waived with an intention to resign with Dallas.

Such was being reported in articles from the get go.

[Findog]

The Mavs can always request arbitration to get Stern overruled in the matter.
And they should do exactly that.

[Shank]

When Stack made those comments, he assumed the trade was already official and that NJ would progress with their buy out of him. When he said those comments about returning to Dallas, he thought he was already an UFA and free to make his own decisions.

Also - what Broussard wrote is NOT the league's official stance on this. It's only from his one source. The NBA has not, or may not, make the same determination on this issue in taking a final say. I would reserve judgment until the word comes down from the NBA office.

The loophole comes in that Stack thought the trade was already finalized - which, essentially, it was before George reneged - and that he was being bought out from NJ. At that point, he was a man without a team and free to make his own decision.

[endrity]

The league put the 30 days period to give FAs enought time to make a decision. If some guy wants to go back to his old team, that's completely his right.

You can't change rules halfway in a season. We are going exactly by the rule book here.

Someone on dallas-mavs.com made a marvelous point, he said that if the league wants to interpret this as a "spirit of the rules" than the Suns should be all over this. Their players got suspended in the playoffs, because of an exact interpretation of the rule book. Now that the Mavs are going exactly by the rule book, they are being blocked because of the "spirit of the rules". Double standard right?

[fyatuk]

By Stackhouse saying he'd be back to Dallas before the trade was ever finalized, it clearly showed a knowledge of his impending waiver, which clearly implies that discussions had occurred on the matter.

Sorry, that RULE states it perfectly: collusion and circumvention of the rules won't be tolerated.

Actually, knowing he would be bought out wouldn't violate the rules. The Mavs were probably including the money to help pay for that, and as long as they hadn't already been discussing the amount, there would be no problem.

It's the fact that Stack's words can be taken to mean he had an agreement with the Mavs to return that violates the rules. It's enough of a question mark to cause an investigation (which Stern did, though I can't vouch for the thoroughness of it), and if Stern felt that was the case, he could take action.

Stern took the least possible action he could if he felt an infraction occured.

[2centsworth]

but changes the rules mid-season just to fuck with the Mavericks.
tampering is a rule, nothing was changed.

[Findog]

so you don't agree that Dallas Mavs are the laughingstock of the NBA? open your eyes, everyone is laughing at them.

Lost in 1st round last year, failed to make a simple trade this year, what do the brilliant mavs have in store for us next year?

SPURS RULE! 4 RINGS!


Clearly you've never heard of the New York Knicks.

[nkdlunch]

Stack is still talking about rejoining Mavs with Steven A. nobody has told him to STFU so maybe this is not an issue.

[JMarkJohns]

Actually, knowing he would be bought out wouldn't violate the rules. The Mavs were probably including the money to help pay for that, and as long as they hadn't already been discussing the amount, there would be no problem.

I know. I never said it did.


It's the fact that Stack's words can be taken to mean he had an agreement with the Mavs to return that violates the rules. It's enough of a question mark to cause an investigation (which Stern did, though I can't vouch for the thoroughness of it), and if Stern felt that was the case, he could take action.

Stern took the least possible action he could if he felt an infraction occured.

Again, by Stackhouse saying he'd be back to Dallas before the trade was ever finalized, it clearly showed [that Stackhouse had] a knowledge of his impending waiver, which clearly implies that discussions had occurred [with Stackhouse] on the matter.

Better? I wasn't speaking of the teams. Only of Stackhouse's knowledge of an impending waiver. If the two teams didn't discuss such, then why was Stackhouse discussing such as an uniformed party from the beginning? It doesn't take much to connect the dots and see that Stackhouse was only included to make the money work and that discussions, whether direct or indirect had reached Stackhouse about the trade, the ensuing waiver and a confirmation of Stackhouse's willingness to return after 30 days.

I know you see such as well. My wording, or lack thereof, just needed a little clarification.

[endrity]

A team has a right to waive someone after a trade right? No problems there.

Afterwards a FA has 30 days to make a decision. There is nothing the teams can arrange that can affect a player's will. If he wants to come back, IT'S NOT TAMPERING. That is exactly why the 30 day rule was put in place. This is idiotic on many levels, given that teams have done this before.

[phyzik]

man, I can really see why your screenname is stretch, your really grasping here.

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

Stack is still talking about rejoining Mavs with Steven A. nobody has told him to STFU so maybe this is not an issue.
Or he figures that once Steven A. comes on everyone changes the channel, so no one will ever find out.

[JMarkJohns]

A team has a right to waive someone after a trade right? No problems there.

Afterwards a FA has 30 days to make a decision. There is nothing the teams can arrange that can affect a player's will. If he wants to come back, IT'S NOT TAMPERING. That is exactly why the 30 day rule was put in place.

Naiveté at it's finest.


This is idiotic on many levels, given that teams have done this before.

What's idiotic is people not picking up that the League can't have this, and won't wave a willful circumvention of trade rules and possible collusion of two teams and a player.

[Shank]

I'd like to point out once again that this isn't the official, final league stance on this.

[stretch]

man, I can really see why your screenname is stretch, your really grasping here.
:sleep

[endrity]

Naiveté at it's finest.



What's idiotic is people not picking up that the League can't have this, and won't wave a willful circumvention of trade rules and possible collusion of two teams and a player.

If it's in the rule book that you can come back after 30 days, how is it circumvention?????

[Ryvin1]

It's the letter of the Law that needs to be enforced not the "spirit" of the law. The rule says he only has to wait 30 days and then is fair game to go back it shouldn't matter what dumbass stackhouse says. He should only enfore the rules as stated and change the rule during the offseason to account for what better addresses the problem.

[JMarkJohns]

I'd like to point out once again that this isn't the official, final league stance on this.

I get that you're clinging to hope that this source isn't a reliable one, but this story has been out long enough that if it weren't true, I'm sure the NBA would have said such by now.

The NBA probably is taking an official stance on the issue until a trade actually happens. No reason to state that Stackhouse can't return to Dallas if h never leaves in the first place.

[Shank]

I get that you're clinging to hope that this source isn't a reliable one, but this story has been out long enough that if it weren't true, I'm sure the NBA would have said such by now.

The NBA probably is taking an official stance on the issue until a trade actually happens. No reason to state that Stackhouse can't return to Dallas if h never leaves in the first place.

My source knows the original source and still says it's not the league's official stance.

[BillsCarnage]

I guess it has to be posted again....

CBA Art. XIII Sec. 2

*sigh*... and again and again and again..

Pathetic Mavs fans just can't handle the truth.

[Findog]

*sigh*... and again and again and again..

Pathetic Mavs fans just can't handle the truth.

Pathetic Suns fans must really not want this to go down. This is much ado about nothing.

[JMarkJohns]

If it's in the rule book that you can come back after 30 days, how is it circumvention?????

It's circumvention because the League doesn't want players thrown in to trades just to make the money work, and then have said players be waived by the acquiring team and return to the trading team. They have the rule that salaries must match for competitive balance reasons. If the League wanted to allow Stackhouse to be traded but then return to the trading team after the trade goes through, then they'd simply get rid of the rule that salaries must match within whatever percentage (15%?). That would take care of it.

It's circumventing because they are getting around the rule. In effect, the Mavericks would be acquiring Kidd and his 20 million for Harris, Diop, Ager and whomever else fills the void created by George. That package proably would only total 10-to-12 million, making it not nearly enough to acquire Kidd.

You're correct, the acquiring team certainly has the right to waive an newly acquired player, but the League has the right to make sure it's not part of an agreed upon set up with the other team/player. That's collusion and it's a black eye on the League.

[stretch]

It's the letter of the Law that needs to be enforced not the "spirit" of the law. The rule says he only has to wait 30 days and then is fair game to go back it shouldn't matter what dumbass stackhouse says. He should only enfore the rules as stated and change the rule during the offseason to account for what better addresses the problem.
THANK YOU. Someone fucking has some brains here.

[BillsCarnage]

Pathetic Suns fans must really not want this to go down. This is much ado about nothing.

You really are a Motard..

Everyone outside of Dallas wants this trade to happen because it fucks the Mavs. Only delusional Mavs fans are defending Shithouse's stoopidity.

[Findog]

THANK YOU. Someone fucking has some brains here.

I didn't like this deal, but obviously Mavs haters feel the same way, for different reasons.

[stretch]

*sigh*... and again and again and again..

Pathetic Mavs fans just can't handle the truth.
Pathetic Suns fans are scared shitless obviously, otherwise they wouldn't be trying to find any way possible to find a scenario for this trade to fail, ever since the trade rumors started.

[Amarelooms]

Pathetic Suns fans must really not want this to go down. This is much ado about nothing.

Yes even Suns fans on ESPN boards are so happy lol...probably the same ass clowns that are on here. Well Stern is fucking over the Mavs yet again. Doesn't matter though....forget the Kidd trade unless they take Hassell and KVH's contract.

I would trade for Artest or Miller if possible now.....and just see what happens come playoff time :elephant

[Findog]

You really are a Motard..

Everyone outside of Dallas wants this trade to happen because it fucks the Mavs. Only delusional Mavs fans are defending Shithouse's stoopidity.

Read my posting history, I've been vehemently AGAINST the trade. I'm defending the idea that Stackhouse's intentions to return to Dallas are fine by league rules, until Fuerher Stern decides otherwise.

[JMarkJohns]

Pathetic Suns fans must really not want this to go down. This is much ado about nothing.

I've said it before, but I hope the Mavs acquire Kidd for Harris, Diop and Stackhouse. I think if Dallas loses all three and and only net Kidd, that the Mavs are considerably weakened against the Suns because Harris kills Nash off the dribble and is pesky on defense, Stackhouse kills Barbosa in the post whenever the Suns bring Leandro in, and Diop is one of the few big men athletic enough to be a thorn in Amare's side for extended periods of time.

I hope the trade does go through, only I hope it goes through cleanly without the return of Stackhouse. Not just for the reason above, but because I really think it makes the League look bad. It would be a willful circumventing of the trade rules and appears to be collusion.

[endrity]

It's circumvention because the League doesn't want players thrown in to trades just to make the money work, and then have said players be waived by the acquiring team and return to the trading team. They have the rule that salaries must match for competitive balance reasons. If the League wanted to allow Stackhouse to be traded but then return to the trading team after the trade goes through, then they'd simply get rid of the rule that salaries must match within whatever percentage (15%?). That would take care of it.

It's circumventing because they are getting around the rule. In effect, the Mavericks would be acquiring Kidd and his 20 million for Harris, Diop, Ager and whomever else fills the void created by George. That package proably would only total 10-to-12 million, making it not nearly enough to acquire Kidd.

You're correct, the acquiring team certainly has the right to waive an newly acquired player, but the League has the right to make sure it's not part of an agreed upon set up with the other team/player. That's collusion and it's a black eye on the League.

Stack has a right to choose afterwards. He has 30 days actually. No matter what the Nets and Mavs decide, Stack can do anything. Even if he promises something to the Mavs it doesn't matter. Boozer did the same thing, he promised the Cavs he would resign and then left. There isn't a type of agreement that can affect Stack's free will and therefore no possible way to prove that it's tampering.

The only thing that the Mavs and Nets can agree on, is for the Nets to wave a player. That happens all the time after deals, so while the NBA wants matching salaries, they can't force teams not to wave players they are not interested in.

Going beyond the CBA, would be another team picking up a player's salary, offering a hidden contract to a player and stuff like that.

[ElNono]

If this is the case, good call fyatuk on the other thread...

[Amarelooms]

I've said it before, but I hope the Mavs acquire Kidd for Harris, Diop and Stackhouse. I think if Dallas loses all three and and only net Kidd, that the Mavs are considerably weakened against the Suns because Harris kills Nash off the dribble and is pesky on defense, Stackhouse kills Barbosa in the post whenever the Suns bring Leandro in, and Diop is one of the few big men athletic enough to be a thorn in Amare's side for extended periods of time.

I hope the trade does go through, only I hope it goes through cleanly without the return of Stackhouse. Not just for the reason above, but because I really think it makes the League look bad. It would be a willful circumventing of the trade rules and appears to be collusion.

You are a fuckin retard...the Mavs were ONLY gonna trade if Stack was coming back...now kindly go fuck yourself :elephant

[JamStone]

If the trade did go down, losing Stackhouse isn't that big of a deal if they still intended to do that separate deal to acquire Antoine Wright for a second round pick as well. They'd still have Eddie Jones to start, Jason Terry could play in the backcourt with Kidd, and Trenton Hassell would still be a situational defensive guy. Antoine Wright is capable of giving quality minutes. Sure, Stack has had good performances against the Spurs, but he's also the type of guy that can shoot a team out of a game because he's a volume scorer even when his shot is off. The team would still depend on Dirk and Kidd and Josh Howard and Terry in big games. To me, Stack was a luxury, not a necessity.

He wasn't too smart talking. But, I agree with whoever said it wasn't against league rules for Stack to do what he was talking about. Stern is being an ass at this point.

[endrity]

If the trade did go down, losing Stackhouse isn't that big of a deal if they still intended to do that separate deal to acquire Antoine Wright for a second round pick as well. They'd still have Eddie Jones to start, Jason Terry could play in the backcourt with Kidd, and Trenton Hassell would still be a situational defensive guy. Antoine Wright is capable of giving quality minutes. Sure, Stack has had good performances against the Spurs, but he's also the type of guy that can shoot a team out of a game because he's a volume scorer even when his shot is off. The team would still depend on Dirk and Kidd and Josh Howard and Terry in big games. To me, Stack was a luxury, not a necessity.

He wasn't too smart talking. But, I agree with whoever said it wasn't against league rules for Stack to do what he was talking about. Stern is being an ass at this point.

Thank you! Right on everything. Stack is a luxury, but a nice one to have if you can afford it.

[Amarelooms]

Thank you! Right on everything. Stack is a luxury, but a nice one to have if you can afford it.

Mavs are NOT gonna make this trade now...forget it. Kidd is not worth all those players :elephant

[mavsfan1000]

You are a fuckin retard...the Mavs were ONLY gonna trade if Stack was coming back...now kindly go fuck yourself :elephant
My guess is JMarkJohns has a higher IQ in his brain than you have in your finger. :lol

[JMarkJohns]

Stack has a right to choose afterwards. He has 30 days actually. No matter what the Nets and Mavs decide, Stack can do anything. Even if he promises something to the Mavs it doesn't matter. Boozer did the same thing, he promised the Cavs he would resign and then left. There isn't a type of agreement that can affect Stack's free will and therefore no possible way to prove that it's tampering.

The only thing that the Mavs and Nets can agree on, is for the Nets to wave a player. That happens all the time after deals, so while the NBA wants matching salaries, they can't force teams not to wave players they are not interested in.

God help me...

courtesy of phyzik:

CBA Art. XIII Sec. 2... a) At no time shall there be any agreements or transactions of any kind (whether disclosed or undisclosed to the NBA), express or implied, oral or written, or promises, undertakings, representations, commitments, inducements, assurances of intent, or understandings of any kind (whether disclosed or undisclosed to the NBA), between a player (or any person or entity controlled by, related to, or acting with authority on behalf of, such player) and any Team (or Team Affiliate)...

Sorry, but this spells it out perfectly. I don't see how it can be argued that Stackhouse, by commenting that he'd be back, didn't offer assurances of intent to return to a team that only included him in the deal to circumvent the League's trade rules.

Everything about his statements seems to violate this. Whether it's his right to choose a team in 30 days, his comments suggest a decision has already been made thanks to, and you can take your pick, agreements (expressed, or implied), promises, commitments, assurances of intent, or understanding (disclosed or undisclosed) between he, the player, and them, the team.

[Amarelooms]

My guess is JMarkJohns has a higher IQ in his brain than you have in your finger. :lol

Wanna bet...what do you and him do for a living...what degrees do you have. Bet mine is higher than yours :elephant

[monosylab1k]

This is all well and good, but...

Someone show me evidence that Stackhouse was directly involved in the trade negotiations.

Was he? Did he have direct communication with Mark Cuban, Donnie Nelson, & Rod Thorn WHILE THE TRADE WAS BEING NEGOTIATED? Did he talk directly to both the Dallas Mavericks front office AND the New Jersey Nets front office about this? AS THE TRADE WAS BEING NEGOTIATED did Jerry Stackhouse talk directly with Rod Thorn about this?

Yes or no?

Yes, and Stackhouse has FAR more power & influence within the Mavericks organization than any sixth man should. It's the equivalent of the Suns including Leandro Barbosa in the conference call with Miami during the Shaq trade talks. What's the fucking point?

No, and it's just some asshole basketball player running his mouth. Nothing more.

[mardigan]

If the NBA blocks this it will severly change my view of the league. If they dont like the rule, change the fucking rule. There is no reason Stack should be punished for playing by the rules.

[AmareloomsLOOMS]

Wanna bet...what do you and him do for a living...what degrees do you have. Bet mine is higher than yours :elephantYou tell him!!!! :elephant :elephant :elephant

Bet he can't top your diploma from Mountain Ridge (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=high+schools&near=Phoenix,+AZ&fb=1&sa=X&oi=local_group&resnum=1&ct=image)!!!

:elephant :elephant :elephant

Take that!

:elephant :elephant :elephant

[clambake]

My guess is JMarkJohns has a higher IQ in his brain than you have in your finger. :lol
does anyone else see whats wrong with this?

[monosylab1k]

does anyone else see whats wrong with this?
:lmao

[Amarelooms]

If the NBA blocks this it will severly change my view of the league. If they dont like the rule, change the fucking rule. There is no reason Stack should be punished for playing by the rules.

The league is fucking over the Mavs yet again...nothing new...the league just doing what they do :elephant

[endrity]

God help me...

courtesy of phyzik:

CBA Art. XIII Sec. 2... a) At no time shall there be any agreements or transactions of any kind (whether disclosed or undisclosed to the NBA), express or implied, oral or written, or promises, undertakings, representations, commitments, inducements, assurances of intent, or understandings of any kind (whether disclosed or undisclosed to the NBA), between a player (or any person or entity controlled by, related to, or acting with authority on behalf of, such player) and any Team (or Team Affiliate)...

Sorry, but this spells it out perfectly. I don't see how it can be argued that Stackhouse, by commenting that he'd be back, didn't offer assurances of intent to return to a team that only included him in the deal to circumvent the League's trade rules.

Everything about his statements seems to violate this. Whether it's his right to choose a team in 30 days, his comments suggest a decision has already been made thanks to, and you can take your pick, agreements (expressed, or implied), promises, commitments, assurances of intent, or understanding (disclosed or undisclosed) between he, the player, and them, the team.

And please tell me how you can prove that it was an agreement between Stack and the Mavs, and NOT HIS FREE WILL TO SIGN WITH THEM?. I think you have to provide the reasonable doubt here, because the burden of proof is clearely on your side.
What if Stack was saying that to drive up his price for other teams, meaning that he really wants to be in Dallas so that if you wanna get him you have to overpay him?

At the very least I am happy that we both agree that the issue is not a Nets-Mavs agreement, since it can't specifically enforce Stack of anything.

[Amarelooms]

And please tell me how you can prove that it was an agreement between Stack and the Mavs, and NOT HIS FREE WILL TO SIGN WITH THEM?. I think you have to provide the reasonable doubt here, because the burden of proof is clearely on your side.
What if Stack was saying that to drive up his price for other teams, meaning that he really wants to be in Dallas so that if you wanna get him you have to overpay him?

At the very least I am happy that we both agree that the issue is not a Nets-Mavs agreement, since it can't specifically enforce Stack of anything.

This is not a court of law....the league doesnt care...they dont want the Mavs to win :elephant

[monosylab1k]

You people are making it sound like Stackhouse is a robot with no free will.

Ya ever think that Stackhouse might know the rules of a buyout on his own? And that given his contract and the Nets unwillingness to take on multi-year contracts, the possibility of a buyout after the trade was highly likely any way you look at it?

That maybe Stackhouse was thinking he might demand a buyout on his own if they didn't? And that it made the most fiscal sense for NJ to just give him that buyout?

And that maybe, just maybe, Stackhouse decided that if it happened, he would decide on his own free will to return to Dallas.

There is zero solid evidence that the league can link together to get from Point A to Point B in their witch hunt. Unfortunately, solid evidence isn't necessary when Fuehrer Stern is involved.

[Dex]

It really depends on what your definition of the word 'is' is.

[Shank]

It really depends on what your definition of the word 'is' is.

Or 'to'.

[Flight3107]

My guess is JMarkJohns has a higher IQ in his brain than you have in your finger. :lol


My guess is that you are a fucking retard.

:lol :lol

[fyatuk]

I get that you're clinging to hope that this source isn't a reliable one, but this story has been out long enough that if it weren't true, I'm sure the NBA would have said such by now.

The NBA probably is taking an official stance on the issue until a trade actually happens. No reason to state that Stackhouse can't return to Dallas if h never leaves in the first place.

I'd say they wouldn't take an "official" stance until Stackhouse tries to return to the Mavs. But they've probably told the Mavs what that stance would be.

[fyatuk]

And please tell me how you can prove that it was an agreement between Stack and the Mavs, and NOT HIS FREE WILL TO SIGN WITH THEM?. I think you have to provide the reasonable doubt here, because the burden of proof is clearely on your side.
What if Stack was saying that to drive up his price for other teams, meaning that he really wants to be in Dallas so that if you wanna get him you have to overpay him?

At the very least I am happy that we both agree that the issue is not a Nets-Mavs agreement, since it can't specifically enforce Stack of anything.

Proof not necessary. A better agument than Stack/Mavs can make is all that is necessary. We're not talking a court of law here, we're talking arbitration (as stated in the same section of the CBA quoted several times).

[mavsfan1000]

does anyone else see whats wrong with this?
Along with being a mavsfan, I am also a comedian. I forgot what movie that line came from but it was fricken hilarious.

[Holmes_Fans]

Can't Cubes just give one of the other players a contract extension and make it so they are getting 3 million more this year?

[endrity]

Proof not necessary. A better agument than Stack/Mavs can make is all that is necessary. We're not talking a court of law here, we're talking arbitration (as stated in the same section of the CBA quoted several times).

And how can you make a better argument that it's a prearranged deal, and not Stack deciding on his own free will that he wants to come back to the one team he has been able to chase a championship with.

[endrity]

Can't Cubes just give one of the other players a contract extension and make it so they are getting 3 million more this year?

I think extensions can't be signed during the season.

[BonnerDynasty]

Fuck with Pop once...

Fuck with Pop TWICE....

Trade Committee Bitches!

[fyatuk]

And how can you make a better argument that it's a prearranged deal, and not Stack deciding on his own free will that he wants to come back to the one team he has been able to chase a championship with.

Depends on who the arbitrator is. If it was just about chasing a championship, why limit it to the Mavs when he could easily be the difference maker on the Lakers, Suns, or Spurs in the West, or Detroit or Boston in the east.

"I ain't going nowhere", besides being a grammatical murder, can easily be the centerpiece of the argument that he had a deal.

Like I said, it's all about convincing the arbitrator, if it came down to it, and Stack stupidly gave the league an argument.

I could easily believe it was just Stack knowing he'd be bought out and being unwilling to go anywhere else and was certain the Mavs would offer him a new contract.

At the same time, with the amount of certainty he used, it's easier to believe he was told he'd be resigned, or at least that the Mavs would make an offer, either of which violates the rules in the CBA.

[monosylab1k]

Proof not necessary. A better agument than Stack/Mavs can make is all that is necessary. We're not talking a court of law here, we're talking arbitration (as stated in the same section of the CBA quoted several times).
So how are they going to beat this argument?

"Mr. Stackhouse, did you at any time have any knowlege of a pre-arranged deal to buy you out so that in 30 days you could sign back with Dallas?"

"No"

"Thank you for your time"

[monosylab1k]

"I ain't going nowhere", besides being a grammatical murder, can easily be the centerpiece of the argument that he had a deal.
And technically "I ain't going nowhere" means "I am going somewhere" which means he told us all along that he had no intention of staying in Dallas. Thank God Stackhouse committed grammatical murder.

[monosylab1k]

Seriously, can that be used? With the double negative, Stackhouse gave himself a huge out here if we're gonna go on technicalities.

[fyatuk]

So how are they going to beat this argument?

"Mr. Stackhouse, did you at any time have any knowlege of a pre-arranged deal to buy you out so that in 30 days you could sign back with Dallas?"

"No"

"Thank you for your time"

What do you not get about a he-said/she-said argument?

He would have to have an explanation on why he would say the things he said if he didn't have an agreement, etc.

And the arbitrator would have to believe him more than whoever spoke for the NBA.

[fyatuk]

Seriously, can that be used? With the double negative, Stackhouse gave himself a huge out here if we're gonna go on technicalities.

You're rationalizing to hell and back. Are you that desperate about it?

[monosylab1k]

What do you not get about a he-said/she-said argument?

He would have to have an explanation on why he would say the things he said if he didn't have an agreement, etc.

And the arbitrator would have to believe him more than whoever spoke for the NBA.

That's great. There's been about 100 outs already mentioned in this thread that really can't be disputed. Dallas is just fine.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

What do you not get about a he-said/she-said argument?

He would have to have an explanation on why he would say the things he said if he didn't have an agreement, etc.

And the arbitrator would have to believe him more than whoever spoke for the NBA.


That's exactly why many of us think it's fucking retarded.

What if they block they trade and nothing was done illegally? Still in the spirit of the rule?

[monosylab1k]

You're rationalizing to hell and back. Are you that desperate about it?
what does "I ain't going nowhere" mean? Are you that desperate?

[monosylab1k]

"Mr. Arbitrator, my only mistake was my poor use of the English language. Only recently have I learned the 'double-negative' rule. My Grandma always told me that 'ain't' ain't a word. What I mean to say was 'I am going somewhere", namely, New Jersey."

[endrity]

^sometimes mono pisses me off on the way he trash talks, but there are times, like these, when he makes me laugh a lot

[yavozerb]

That's great. There's been about 100 outs already mentioned in this thread that really can't be disputed. Dallas is just fine.
dude, give it up..I cannot remember the last time Stern changed his mind on something. George is looking out for himself (nothing wrong with that) and Stack just is not very smart. I cannot think of any team more opposite than the spurs than the mavs..

[fyatuk]

what does "I ain't going nowhere" mean? Are you that desperate?

Considering his other comments of sitting out 30 days and being back, etc, it's obvious he meant he was not leaving Dallas.

Get over it. He opened a can of worms he shouldn't have, and Dallas is going to get screwed over by it, whether there was any impropriety or not. Stackhouse should have kept his mouth shut like everyone else who's been through this kind of arrangement.

In all liklihood, he had an arrangement with Cuban and the Nets, considering it's not exactly a rare deal, and even the media could figure out what was going on. I personally don't think it's that big of a deal, but it does violate the CBA.

[lurker]

So if the Mavericks signed Van Horn to a contract for $1,985,000, which would be prorated for the last two months of the season, that would bring them to the total needed to trade for Kidd.

Cuban said, however, there are several problems.

"He has got to want to play for [the Nets]," Cuban said. "I don't know if he wants to play."

Even if Van Horn does, the Nets might not want him. And they have not indicated they want to make a deal for Kidd alone; they might want to include other contracts. Plus, the Mavericks would be taking on an additional $4 million in payroll because Kidd's contract is larger than the contracts the Mavericks would be sending to the Nets.

The Mavericks are over the luxury tax threshold of $67.865 million, so for each dollar that they take on, Cuban has to pay a dollar in luxury tax.

"That's a lot of money," Cuban said. "It's going to cost a lot of money anyway, but the question is how much? Even I have a tolerance threshold. Ask my wife."

Cuban said he is not frustrated that the trade has been halted.

"I was never that excited about it in the first place," Cuban said. "There are pluses and minuses to every discussion that we had. If someone wants to hand me a bargain, I'm going to take it. But this is no bargain."
Never that excited about it. :lol He probably had to change his pants when the Nets agreed to the deal.

[monosylab1k]

"I was never that excited about it in the first place," Cuban said. "There are pluses and minuses to every discussion that we had. If someone wants to hand me a bargain, I'm going to take it. But this is no bargain."

Never that excited? Then WHAT THE FUCK was he doing negotiating to the point of no return?

Never that excited my ass. That's his answer to the media now that he has egg all over his face.

[san antonio spurs]

Never that excited? Then WHAT THE FUCK was he doing negotiating to the point of no return?

Never that excited my ass. That's his answer to the media now that he has egg all over his face.
But I remember Cuban saying early that the trade wouldn't go down, are you sure he was the instigator?

[ApolloCreed]

Stackhouse has a huge mouth and it finally caught up with him.

I love it!

[lurker]

League spokesman Tim Frank said the league may look into the situation, but added there is no truth to reports that the NBA has decided to block Stackhouse’s return to the Mavericks in such a trade.
Dammit.

[Findog]

but it does violate the CBA.

Uh, no it doesn't.

[ducks]

Dammit.
link?

[texbumTHElife]

No rules against it.

If they add that rule next year, I'm fine with it. But there is no rule against it this year, and they should not be allowed to change the rules mid-season like that.

QFT

EOM

[fyatuk]

Uh, no it doesn't.

Yes it does, as has been pointed out time and again, even quoting some of the pertinent sections. If there's an agreement between the player and the team to even offer him another contract, it's a clear violation of the CBA.

Don't be an idiot and refuse to admit what's clear. Argue whether there was an agreement or not to your hearts content, but give up on the quest to prove your idiocy by refusing to admit an agreement like that would violate the CBA.

[Findog]

Yes it does, as has been pointed out time and again, even quoting some of the pertinent sections. If there's an agreement between the player and the team to even offer him another contract, it's a clear violation of the CBA.

There is no agreement for Stack to return to the Mavericks. What are the financial terms? What will his cap figure be? How much will he receive from the Nets in a buyout? All we have is Stackhouse expecting to be bought out and expressing a desire to return to Dallas.


Don't be an idiot and refuse to admit what's clear. Argue whether there was an agreement or not to your hearts

Don't be obtuse and refuse to admit that there is nothing in the CBA that prevents a Stackhouse-Dallas reunion after 30 days. Stackhouse being bought out by New Jersey is none of Dallas' concern, it is THEIR decision to buy him out rather than utilize him on the court. After that, he is a free agent and has made it known he prefers to return to Dallas. Beyond that, there is nothing.

[Findog]

I've said it before, but I hope the Mavs acquire Kidd for Harris, Diop and Stackhouse. I think if Dallas loses all three and and only net Kidd, that the Mavs are considerably weakened against the Suns because Harris kills Nash off the dribble and is pesky on defense, Stackhouse kills Barbosa in the post whenever the Suns bring Leandro in, and Diop is one of the few big men athletic enough to be a thorn in Amare's side for extended periods of time.

I hope the trade does go through, only I hope it goes through cleanly without the return of Stackhouse. Not just for the reason above, but because I really think it makes the League look bad. It would be a willful circumventing of the trade rules and appears to be collusion.

I've been against the idea of acquiring Kidd for X's and O's reasons, but at this point, the Mavs are going to have some really bad chemistry problems if they can't salvage this trade. Dirk is on record now as wanting Kidd to come, as is Terry and Stackhouse. For that reason, I feel like the Mavs have gone past the point of no return. They need to get this done. Fortunately the Nets feel the same sense of urgency for reasons of their own to send Kidd packing, so both teams are sufficiently motivated to get something done despite all the crap. Maybe Devean is a retard and this shouldn't be held against him, but fuck his delusional agent. The team leaders (Dirk, Stack and Terry) have all come out welcoming Kidd coming here, and the fans will let George know what they think of this. His Bird rights are worthless without the Mavs cooperation.

David Stern would look pretty stupid shooting this down on "spirit" of the rule "circumvention" when he claimed his hands were tied and he had to enforce the letter of the rule against Amare and Diaw. Convenient ethics I suppose.

[monosylab1k]

David Stern would look pretty stupid shooting this down on "spirit" of the rule "circumvention" when he claimed his hands were tied and he had to enforce the letter of the rule against Amare and Diaw. Convenient ethics I suppose.
Such is the ways of Fuehrer Stern. He's got his own agenda for this league, and doing everything possible to make Mark Cuban miserable is high on the priority list.

[Findog]

Such is the ways of Fuehrer Stern. He's got his own agenda for this league, and doing everything possible to make Mark Cuban miserable is high on the priority list.

Here is some goodness from David Lord:


On the Stack angle, I think most fans/media are unwittingly making a very large assumption. They have assumed that Stackhouse was solicited by the Mavs on the buyout-return angle. I don't think so.

There are logical reasons that the boomerang-to-Dallas idea originated elsewhere. And if the Mavs didn't solicit Stackhouse or arrange the deal in any way, then I believe the Mavs have covered their butts and have no exposure here no matter who blabs what. That's far better than having to worry about someone letting the cat out of the bag during the 30 days, or even on down the road, and the league then coming back and hammering them.

Why do I think this? Because it's been well known that the driving force behind this deal all along has been Kidd's agent, Schwartz. And it takes a deal-driver to come up with an out-of-the-box idea like this one where Stackhouse (with a not-so-tiny contract) boomerangs to Dallas. (Agents are movers and shakers in the NBA to an extent that outsiders rarely grasp.) So who most likely created the idea with NJ, of them getting-and-waiving Stackhouse to make the numbers workable on such a big money deal? Yep, Schwartz. Any rules problem with that? No. And one more reason why I see his fingerprints here, rather than the teams': because (not coincidentally) Schwartz is also STACKHOUSE'S agent. He's obviously juggling the contracts to help his clients play where they want to play.

It could have gone down 1000 different ways.

I'd guess that within his attempts to find a way to get Kidd out of NJ and to Kidd's preferred destination in Dallas, Schwartz created the idea, and first talked about it with Stackhouse. Then he suggested to NJ they talk about Stack in the deal, and discussed with NJ on a "hypothetical" basis the exact buyout amount it would take for Stackhouse to get bought out IF they trade for him. From there it could have unfolded down many various paths, but as long as there was no arrangement other than the agent telling his clients that he'd take care of them, it should withstand scrutiny no matter who says what when.

I find it compelling that while the yahoo writer and ESPN are stirring up reactions, Thorn and Cuban seem less than bothered by that issue. In the latest, Thorn specifically said he thinks they'll still get Kidd-to-Dallas done somehow - and that's AFTER all this foofara being written about the league source said this or that. I think they - as smart businessmen do - discussed the deal in such a way that even Stack's loose lips of what he WANTS to do can't cause them any real problem later.

These guys know the rules. They are careful businessmen who dot the i's and cross the t's with precision. And at the end of the day, it ends up being nothing more than a well-designed deal that was crafted carefully without creating any exposure.

DL

[monosylab1k]

Cuban has made hints of selling the team before. He's also working at getting a National League expansion baseball team in Dallas. If this shit keeps getting worse I won't be shocked if we have a new owner at the start of next season.

[Findog]

Cuban has made hints of selling the team before. He's also working at getting a National League expansion baseball team in Dallas. If this shit keeps getting worse I won't be shocked if we have a new owner at the start of next season.

Neither would I. This shit is ridiculous. We can only hope in that event that he would sell to an ownership group that is committed to making the Mavs a winner like he is. But I think ultimately his passion for the Mavs is too strong.

[fyatuk]

There is no agreement for Stack to return to the Mavericks. What are the financial terms? What will his cap figure be? How much will he receive from the Nets in a buyout? All we have is Stackhouse expecting to be bought out and expressing a desire to return to Dallas.


again, even an agreement to make an offer is a violation. They don't have to have a hammered out deal, just an agreement to make the bid is enough. If you haven't figured that much out yet, I give up trying to help you understand that part of the CBA.


Don't be obtuse and refuse to admit that there is nothing in the CBA that prevents a Stackhouse-Dallas reunion after 30 days. Stackhouse being bought out by New Jersey is none of Dallas' concern, it is THEIR decision to buy him out rather than utilize him on the court. After that, he is a free agent and has made it known he prefers to return to Dallas. Beyond that, there is nothing.

You don't pay attention. I've stated many times this is not a problem with the 30 day rule. The only thing in the CBA is the circumvention rules which may have been violated. If there's no agreement, there's no violation (I've said that before). If there is an agreement it is a violation.

Stackhouse's comments are enough to raise eyebrows about the possibility of a deal (liklihood, really). The other teams' complaint, most likely, is that he talked about it, not that there is the possibility of an agreement. Especially after this news coverage, if Stackhouse does get traded and go back to Dallas, the league will have to publically investigate it to avoid a loss of credibility. In reality, they've probably already warned Cuban not to do it so they don't have to worry about it (and can sweep it under the rug).

I've been exceptionally clear that the violation would be the circumvention rules if an agreement had been made, and the rest of the argument has been the lack of need for "burden of proof" because the CBA specifically states it's an arbitration issue, and arbitration is just who makes the better argument.

But you continually ignore all of this, demanding hard proof of an agreement (in fact you just asked for contract details which is not necessary to constitute an agreement under the CBA) and still pushing that it's a problem with the 30 day rule. :sleep

[Findog]

again, even an agreement to make an offer is a violation. They don't have to have a hammered out deal, just an agreement to make the bid is enough. If you haven't figured that much out yet, I give up trying to help you understand that part of the CBA.


An agreement between whom? Has Dallas offered a contract to a player that would become the property of the New Jersey Nets? How do they know for sure Stack will be bought out? Rod Thorn is now saying that may not be the case.





You don't pay attention. I've stated many times this is not a problem with the 30 day rule. The only thing in the CBA is the circumvention rules which may have been violated.

And you are making something out of nothing. What has been circumvented? There is no evidence whatsoever that the Mavs have solicited Stackhouse. They can't even be assured that Stackhouse will be bought out. Kidd and Stackhouse have the same agent and it's that agent that has been driving the deal to get Kidd out of Jersey. It's interesting that while ESPN and yahoo are stirring up this "Stack has talked himself out of the trade," Cuban, Thorn and the league office are talking as if it isn't an issue at all. Pretty telling to me:



League spokesman Tim Frank said the league may look into the situation, but added there is no truth to reports that the NBA has decided to block Stackhouse’s return to the Mavericks in such a trade.

You forget Rod Thorn used to be David Stern's right-hand man, and that the League currently has no plans to investigate Stack's comments any further. Just like Devean George is within his rights to hold this thing up because of his Bird rights, Stackhouse is exercising his right to accept a buyout, clear waivers and return where he wants to be. Enough already, give it a rest. You lost this argument.

[Trainwreck2100]

Stack's a moron

[monosylab1k]

because the CBA specifically states it's an arbitration issue, and arbitration is just who makes the better argument.
yeah you keep coming back to this same bullshit idea.

whose argument is better?

"well stackhouse said this stuff and maybe it can be construed that there's a deal in place although there's no proof but come on man he said it! sure, nobody directly involved in trade talks said anything but hey!"

or

"we have no idea where stackhouse got that idea. we're doing the trade as it is, no other deals were made. we know cuz we were all there. stackhouse wasn't. thanks."

[fyatuk]

An agreement between whom? Has Dallas offered a contract to a player that would become the property of the New Jersey Nets? How do they know for sure Stack will be bought out? Rod Thorn is now saying that may not be the case.


Once again, The Mavs telling Stack they even MIGHT offer a contract to Stack if the Nets bought him out would qualify as an implied oral agreement under the circumvention rules of the CBA.

Of course Thorn is saying that. The league is trying to kill the talk about this because of the credibility concerns. You expect anyone to admit it and force the league to issue penalties?


And you are making something out of nothing. What has been circumvented? There is no evidence whatsoever that the Mavs have solicited Stackhouse. They can't even be assured that Stackhouse will be bought out. Kidd and Stackhouse have the same agent and it's that agent that has been driving the deal to get Kidd out of Jersey. It's interesting that while ESPN and yahoo are stirring up this "Stack has talked himself out of the trade," Cuban, Thorn and the league office are talking as if it isn't an issue at all. Pretty telling to me:


And again, this is arbitration, no evidence is needed. Stack's comments have given an argument to the league should they act and the Mavs push to arbitration. THAT'S ALL I'VE BEEN SAYING.


yeah you keep coming back to this same bullshit idea.

whose argument is better?


I've never said the league definitely had the better argument. I said the league now had AN argument, and since it's an arbitration case, if they make that argument better than the Mavs, Nets, and Stackhouse, that's all they need. Really, Stack would just need to come up with a feasible excuse as to why he said what he did, which isn't hard to do, and then it would be which person the arbitrator finds more credible.

Both of you, get this right: I believe there was an agreement because it's not rare for this kind of deal to happen. My belief means nothing, and has no bearing on the argument.

If there was an agreement, even if it was the Mavs saying that they might offer Stackhouse a contract if the nets bought him out, that would constitute a violation of the circumvention clause of the CBA.

Because Stack's comments can be construed to mean that he has had such an assurance, if the deal goes down that way, the NBA will pretty much have to launch a public investigation, mostly because of the news coverage of the issue and the recent credibility hits the league has taken.

Things I have not said:
1) There was definitely an agreement.
2) There were specific numbers mentioned in such an agreement.
3) The league would definitely win if the case went to arbitration.

[Findog]

Once again, The Mavs telling Stack they even MIGHT offer a contract to Stack if the Nets bought him out would qualify as an implied oral agreement under the circumvention rules of the CBA.

What evidence is there that they solicited him? You're just pulling this crap out of thin air.





And again, this is arbitration, no evidence is needed.

Wrong. One side has to make a more compelling argument, and you do that by presenting evidence.

[fyatuk]

What evidence is there that they solicited him? You're just pulling this crap out of thin air.

Wrong. One side has to make a more compelling argument, and you do that by presenting evidence.

Pulling things directly from the CBA is hardly out of thin air. In addition...

You are a freaking moron. An argument can be based on circumstantials and heresay, not evidence. Evidence certainly helps, but it'd not necessary. Again, this isn't a court of law.

This is getting ridiculous. If you refuse to learn, there's no point attempting to teach.

[Agloco]

Stack is an idiot, nuff said......

[Cry Havoc]

It's awesome to watch the complete ownage that Jmark and fyatuk have been handing out in this thread.

Mavs fans, you should be pissed at Stack for even bringing the rule to attention.

[Findog]

It's awesome to watch the complete ownage that Jmark and fyatuk have been handing out in this thread.

Mavs fans, you should be pissed at Stack for even bringing the rule to attention.

Oh yeah, they've really been schooling everybody:

http://startelegram.typepad.com/mavs_fullcourt_press/2008/02/stackhouse-can.html

The League currently doesn't have any plans to look into what Stackhouse said, nor have they said he can't return to Dallas, so it's much ado about nothing. Nothing but pathetic grasping at straws.

[LakeShow]

I have to agree with some of the mavs fans on this one. Stack did open his mouth but the rules state that it is ok for a player to go back to the team that traded him in 30 days. So what he said was not technically illegal or getting around the rules. He stated what he was going to do per league rules. I don't think the NBA should jump in and say that he can not return to mavs just because he said that. You wouldn't have changed any of the other questionable happenings in the NBA during mid season, doesn't seem fair to do it now.

In the off season, change the rules again to reflect the whole season.
stack should be allowed to sign with any team if he were bought out, even the mavs in 30 days. That's the rule!

[Findog]

Where is fyatuk now? :lol


It's awesome to watch the complete ownage that Jmark and fyatuk have been handing out in this thread.

:lmao

http://www.nj.com/nets/index.ssf/2008/02/kidds_ok_as_a_net.html


ESPN.com reported that the NBA had already put a stop to the deal -- at least with regard to the Stackhouse boomerang scenario.


But a league official said last night that the report was inaccurate, and that the NBA was asking the Web site to retract it. Thorn made it sound like a non-issue.

"You can't make deals like that," Thorn said. "They're illegal. I'm not going to do that. Who knows whether he'd want to play for us or not? I'm perfectly willing to take him."

[Findog]

Pulling things directly from the CBA is hardly out of thin air. In addition...


You're the one not familiar with the CBA. The CBA says Stackhouse can go back to Dallas after 30 days.



You are a freaking moron. An argument can be based on circumstantials and heresay, not evidence. Evidence certainly helps, but it'd not necessary. Again, this isn't a court of law.


Heresay and circumstantials over hard, tangible evidence? I'd hate to get a hearing before that hypothetical arbitrator. In case you haven't noticed, since you've been so busy writing 5,000 word illogical posts about how Stackhouse and the Mavs are somehow in violation of the CBA, the NBA considers it a complete non-issue and are even asking ESPN to retract the reports that caused all this fuss:

http://www.nj.com/nets/index.ssf/2008/02/kidds_ok_as_a_net.html


ESPN.com reported that the NBA had already put a stop to the deal -- at least with regard to the Stackhouse boomerang scenario.

But a league official said last night that the report was inaccurate, and that the NBA was asking the Web site to retract it. Thorn made it sound like a non-issue.

I think I'll take the word of David Stern's PR flacky and Rod Thorn over "fyatuk" on Spurstalk.com




This is getting ridiculous. If you refuse to learn, there's no point attempting to teach.

Indeed. The irony of this post is delicious.

[Cry Havoc]

Oh yeah, they've really been schooling everybody:

http://startelegram.typepad.com/mavs_fullcourt_press/2008/02/stackhouse-can.html

The League currently doesn't have any plans to look into what Stackhouse said, nor have they said he can't return to Dallas, so it's much ado about nothing. Nothing but pathetic grasping at straws.

So your entire argument for this thread is based upon the stance that the NBA has "not said that something could not happen"?

In other words, you're calling out people for being an idiot because the league has not made an official comment on something yet. Ah. Brilliant. I totally see the light now.

Of COURSE the league isn't going to take an official stance on this unless they have to. It's a PR nightmare already, and they aren't going to piss off a bunch of fans needlessly when they can simply fold their hands and point to a player invoking a trade restriction as the reason they're saying no to the trade. They haven't taken an official stance yet, and you are taking this as meaning, they are fine with everything, even as the SAME article you link says the league will probably look at Stack's comments if he's included in the trade.

Get real. According to reports, EVERY GM in the league except those for the Nets and Mavs is up in arms over this deal. But you're right. They are just upset for no reason.

[Findog]

So your entire argument for this thread is based upon the stance that the NBA has "not said that something could not happen"?

In other words, you're calling out people for being an idiot because the league has not made an official comment on something yet. Ah. Brilliant. I totally see the light now.

They've done more than that, they've gone so far as to ask ESPN to retract the story.




Get real. According to reports, EVERY GM in the league except those for the Nets and Mavs is up in arms over this deal. But you're right. They are just upset for no reason.


Just like they were upset over Gasol going to the Lakers for an expiring contract, and there was nothing about that trade that violated the CBA. The Lakers got a big that made them better, rebuilding Memphis got an expiring contract and cap space. I was against the Kidd trade for x's and o's reasons, but professional basketball people with more expertise than me obviously differ on that assessment. They think Dallas gets better with Kidd if they can keep Stack, and they're clenching their cornholes, biting pillows and whining like little bitches. They can be upset that a Western competitor got better, but they can't argue that there is anything here that violates the CBA. Get real.

[Rummpd]

Again, Stack saying that he plans to resign with the Mavs is no violation of rules. If the Mavs and Nets had an agreement for this all to happen, then that was against the rules. But there is no proof, so there have been no rules violated as far as people looking at this situation should be concerned.


It was a brain dead trade from the get go and then even better the Mavs found a way to mess it up. The team built on the most mentally soft superstar of all time, the most obnoxious owner, and the most over-rated preachy coach is in a shambles - how fun and deserving!

[Findog]

It was a brain dead trade from the get go and then even better the Mavs found a way to mess it up. The team built on the most mentally soft superstar of all time, the most obnoxious owner, and the most over-rated preachy coach is in a shambles - how fun and deserving!

35-18 is in shambles? I'll take it!

[fyatuk]

Where is fyatuk now? :lol


Like this is my entire life... :rolleyes



You're the one not familiar with the CBA. The CBA says Stackhouse can go back to Dallas after 30 days

You're still looking at the wrong rule... After being it's been explained this many times... I think you may have :drunk and :smokin away too many braincells.

I'm not explaining it again. Have fun. And thanks for the laughs!

[Findog]

You're still looking at the wrong rule... After being it's been explained this many times...


Oh yes, the "implied" "under the table" "side agreement", of which there is no evidence. But somehow pointing that out to an arbitrator won't matter.

[LakeShow]

Oh yes, the "implied" "under the table" "side agreement", of which there is no evidence. But somehow pointing that out to an arbitrator won't matter.

That would be just about impossible to prove unless there's video or audio tapes of the conversation. I personally believe that they did have an agreement which was in violation of league rules but it's not unreasonable for Stack to say that he didn't discuss that with anyone. That's his decision! He knows Cuban really would like to have him and he really would like to stay in Dallas, so he would just tell Thorn that he doesn't want to play for the Nets and would like to be bought out.

Either way Cuban and Mavs will take a hit for this. Cuban is at a no win situation. By removing Stack from the table, he gives the impression that there was collusion. By not removing him he may be afraid with the public outcry that Thorn won't buy him out even if Stack requests it. Shaky deal but no way to prove collusion. Unless stack is so stupid he tells that too!

[Findog]

That would be just about impossible to prove unless there's video or audio tapes of the conversation. I personally believe that they did have an agreement which was in violation of league rules but it's not unreasonable for Stack to say that he didn't discuss that with anyone. That's his decision! He knows Cuban really would like to have him and he really would like to stay in Dallas, so he would just tell Thorn that he doesn't want to play for the Nets and would like to be bought out.

Either way Cuban and Mavs will take a hit for this. Cuban is at a no win situation. By removing Stack from the table, he gives the impression that there was collusion. By not removing him he may be afraid with the public outcry that Thorn won't buy him out even if Stack requests it. Shaky deal but no way to prove collusion. Unless stack is so stupid he tells that too!

This Kidd trade soap opera is yet another chapter in the tragic majesty that is the Dallas Mavericks...

[Findog]

The facts are ESPN has hurt this trade far more than the two teams have by reporting false information. They run with one comment and put words in people's mouths. This trade is still well and alive but ESPN has journalists trying to make a name for themselves and be part of the story by driving the story. Neither team has said this trade is completely kaput, but ESPN keeps eulogizing it ad nauseum.

[Cry Havoc]

This Kidd trade soap opera is yet another chapter in the tragic majesty that is the Dallas Mavericks...

I can understand that you're upset now... but it's not like you guys aren't title contenders just because this trade didn't go through. You're still on the top echelon of teams, IMO.

Top tier: Spurs, Lakers, Mavs
Second tier: Suns, Hornets, Jazz

If you guys play GS in the playoffs again this year, you get the chance to beat them and get a HUGE surge of confidence.

[Findog]

I can understand that you're upset now... but it's not like you guys aren't title contenders just because this trade didn't go through. You're still on the top echelon of teams, IMO.

Top tier: Spurs, Lakers, Mavs
Second tier: Suns, Hornets, Jazz

If you guys play GS in the playoffs again this year, you get the chance to beat them and get a HUGE surge of confidence.

For the past month I've been screaming to anybody that would listen that I did NOT want the Mavs to trade for Kidd because of the high price it would take. I felt there was not enough of a difference between Harris and Kidd to make it worth it. Not saying Harris is as good as Kidd, but he's 10 years younger and he can do a better job of defending the quick guards Dallas is likely to see in the playoffs (Nash, Paul, Iverson, Parker, Williams) than Kidd. And I felt that this team as is, despite the constant effluence of negativity by national writers questioning their mettle and heart, would only be looking up at San Antonio, Detroit and Boston when April 20th rolled around.

With the proposed trade as is, I've been wrestling back and forth with whether or not the Mavs become better. When asked about it, the Pistons were adamantly against the trade, while the Suns thought it made Dallas better. I think that's understandable, given that a team like Detroit values defense (Diop, Harris), while a team like Phoenix only thinks in terms of offensive execution (Kidd). It's not a slam-dunk no-brainer. You can make arguments for and against it. As I see it, you either make this trade or you don't. What you don't let happen is to pretty much get up to the altar and break out the rings, only for one of the parties to get cold feet and run off. I would've been just fine standing pat, or bringing in a role player, but now I feel like our chemistry has been damaged if we call this trade off. You have Dirk, Stackhouse and Terry pushing for Kidd's arrival. If this doesn't happen, I wonder about Devin's confidence. I just think that this has gotten past the point of no return, and our best shot now is with Kidd as opposed to standing firm.

[JMarkJohns]

Hey, if the League didn't have an issue with it, and the source for the original article saying they did was wrong or lying, then why the revised trade that no longer includes Stackhouse?

In theory every single thing I said was accurate. if the League doesn't feel that way, perhaps they should review the rulebook, because it clearly defined that this situation is iffy, and since iffy, the appearance of collusion and circumventing made this trade worthy of the investigation.

If for whatever reason Stackhouse happens to get traded, then waived, then resigns with the Mavs after 30 days, then, in reality, I suppose it will be within the guidelines laid out by the NBA.

But you can't tell me, nor will you convince me that Stackhouse's comments don't raise questions as to whether prior arrangements/discussions had been made/had.

It's just silliness to me. The NBA needs to get it's act together this offseason and make it so that either team no longer have to match with 15%, therefore making the case of "filler" unnecessary, or disallow traded, then waived player to return to trading team for that entire season, except through a possible acquisition from a different signing team.

[Humble Billy Hayes]

Hey, if the League didn't have an issue with it, and the source for the original article saying they did was wrong or lying, then why the revised trade that no longer includes Stackhouse?
To keep the media & Suns fans from bitching for 30 days about how unfair it is that Stack would be returning to Dallas?

[JMarkJohns]

To keep the media & Suns fans from bitching for 30 days about how unfair it is that Stack would be returning to Dallas?

You can say whatever you want, but if the shoe was on the other foot and the Suns or Spurs were doing what the Mavericks attempted, willfully or not, then the Mavs fanbase would be bitching as well.

It just seems like another instance of the NBA's rules being shortsighted. Either don't have the 30 days, or disallow a traded, then waived player to return to the trading team for that specific season. They say they didn't want something like this, thus the rule change a few years back. But by only making it 30 days they left themselves open for these scenarios.

I don't even know what pro-trade fans are grumbling about, You still get Kidd, get to keep Stack for the entire season and all it's going to cost is extra money that isn't really coming from the fans.