Investigation of what? Following the rules? If the league doesn't like the CBA they signed they're free to sit down with the union once the season is over. Right now, there's nothing they can do.
What Stack does means nothing.
The NBA would need direct evidence of his buyout and return to the Mavs being a part of the deal brokered. He's part of the deal but only if you buy him out type of thing. Good luck with proving that, even if it is indeed what happened.
Right now, all they have is a player who learned he is being traded and bought out saying he wants to go back to his original team after 30 days, which is perfectly legal.
Even having an oral agreement for resigning Stackhouse before this trade is done and he's waived violates the CBA in the same manner the Joe Smith fiasco in Minnesota did.
care to provide a link to the rule that it is something that can/will be investigated/halted?
How so? There's a rule: wait 30 days until you return to your original team. That's the disincentive that was put in after the KVH/Alan Henderson trade. The Mavs are willing to wait that long.
Next topic.
You mean like Memphis and Los Angeles conspired to get Gasol to the Lakers for nothing?
No. The Joe Smith fiasco happened because they put it on paper:
This is what happened in 2000 with Joe Smith and the Minnesota Timberwolves. Smith left the Philadelphia 76ers in 1999 (following the lockout) to sign with the Minnesota Timberwolves for their $1.75 million Mid-Level exception. They made an under-the-table agreement that Smith would play under three consecutive one-year contracts at below market value, and the Timberwolves would reward him by using their Bird rights to sign him to a huge contract beginning with the 2001-02 season. Unfortunately, they reduced this agreement to writing, and the written agreement eventually found its way into the league's hands.
But if there's no hard evidence, there's nothing to prove.
Ask Pop and his trade committte..maybe he has the answers.
They were busted because they put it into writing. The act was against the CBA and league rules even if they didn't put it into writing.
If there's no hard evidence, there's no way to prove it without someone admitting it.
Here's the pertinent section:
Last edited by fyatuk; 02-14-2008 at 05:04 PM.
Pop's commitee aproved of the trade because it benefits the Spurs.
It isn't a court of law and doesn't have to meet those standards. Stern is judge, jury and hangman and if he decides it looks like it's publicly putting into serious doubt the integrity of the league he'll cut Dallas and house off at the knees.
Yeah, and the NBPA will have no problem with that.
NBPA won't give a rat's ass. It doesn't want to go out and defend every moron in the league.
I believe this is correct, will search for the rule when I get home. I could care less what happens either way, but its interesting.
I'm fairly certain they'd step in to defend the "moron" involved in one of the biggest trades this season. It's not like he's a nobody and this is some inconsequential trade.
I don't really care either. It's a violation, but I don't think it's that big of a deal.
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 en y controlled by, related to, or acting with authority on behalf of, such player) and any Team (or Team Affiliate):
good find! thats exactly what I thought!
They don't give a rat's ass about the trade, whether it gets made or not.
They probably care that some moron is mouthing off and undermining a rule they negotiated so now the league will come back asking for harder rules like more than 30 days or they can't go back to the team that traded them that year.
How magical was it for Alan Henderson to return to the Mavs after the KVH trade years ago? Just an odd coincidence that he came back to Dallas. I'm sure there was no negotiating going on in that case. None at all. Odd how the league didn't pursue an investigation if it was so obvious (as posted by many Mavs beat men at the time) that Henderson would return. The difference is that Henderson didn't speak on it like Stackhouse did (even though Stack was talking before anything was official), but still - there was a negotiation, nonetheless, and it happened as the Mavs wanted it.
Did Henderson go off to the press how the trade was bogus to get the deal done and he'd be waived and re-sign with the Mavs after a months vacation?
No, but there was obviously an understanding that he would return and everyone in the Dallas media was reporting as such.
I guess if questioned house can always claim extreme stupidity, that he didn't know what he was talking about. Stern would probably buy that
What are you so bitter about? Isn't a Kidd to Mavs trade great for San Antonio?
Ahahaa...yeah, that's what Stack will try to play off. He changed his tone when on with Stephen A. today, though. Said a lot of "maybes" and "we'll sees". Sounds like someone told him to shut the up and change his tone.
Don't like house. Actually I hope the deal goes through.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
