Reply With Quote
"Stackhouse's mouth may prevent trade" http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_yl...yhoo&type=lgns
hahaha
Well, one issue with that comparison is that it was under the old CBA (the current one being signed the following summer).
It didn't have the 30 day provision, since Henderson was traded on Feb 24, waived Feb 25, and resigned Mar 1.
Also, there's no provision preventing negotiating during the wait period in the current CBA, only signing a contract. If there was an agreement before the trade, it violated the CBA because you cannot have an agreement with a player under contract for another team, but one can always assume the interest started when he was waived.
Provided you don't go saying stupid crap like Stackhouse did. That's the only problem is Stackhouse saying that. It draws attention to it and looks suspiscious.
"Stackhouse's mouth may prevent trade" http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_yl...yhoo&type=lgns
hahaha
Fuhrer Stern back at it again. "I'm going to change the rules to over Dallas. What, the Lakers want to rape the Grizzlies and throw a middle finger at the rest of the league? Sure thing."
difference is, Lakers don't have a dumbass big mouth who screwed the deal.
Stack = OWNED!
Wow. If this deal doesnt happen, it is going to get ugly in Dallas. Stacks mouth, George's bird rights fiasco, the team sending the message to Harris that he isnt good enough at the moment to help this team to a championship etc etc. This is going to turn into a horrible crisis leading to team implosion.
Who knows about Dallas' chemistry now, maybe this drama will do the team some good, and they start rounding out and look at it as a catastrophe avoided as they're forced to deal another hand for Kidd or other valuable player, or they're forced to stand pat.
Maybe Dallas will end up rationalizing in the end with a pretty good season record, that they were better off with this failed trade happening, just like how the Kobe fiasco of last summer ended up being a non-issue in hindsight and the Lakers are finally at a good place now, despite all that mess.
....on the other hand, unless the Mavs get a decent shake up before the deadline, it's just as likely their chemistry gets ed up from this debacle.
I kinda wish he would say that.
I like this word - chemistry - and how everyone thinks the team is going to just the bed every night now if this falls through. The players didn't themselves. Cuban did the dealing and was going to screw them over. If anything, Devin Harris gets to prove to Dallas and his teammates just how valuable he can be and that it would have been a mistake to let him go. He loves it in Dallas.
Diop? He's going to do what he does. You're saying it's going to be substantially worse?
Devean George - may be in the doghouse, yes. But it was seen the last 2 nights that Avery and the other players still trust him, even when he throws up 0-11. He was assigned to Nash last night and took over the point at times so Terry could run around.
Stack - obviously, couldn't be happier to stay in Dallas.
It's largely the team/Avery vs. Cuban. And seeing as most of them don't like Cuban much to begin with, I'd say their opinions don't change much after this fiasco. I've written recently that yes, there will need to be a couple moves to help for the playoffs, but nothing on this grand scale that screws the future. I'd still support a move for Kidd, still, but only if I knew Donnie and Avery were more involved and that Dallas wouldn't be getting the short end.
That's outrageous if the league prevents Stack from rejoining the team. There's nothing in the rules that prevent him from doing so -- he wants to return, the team wouldn't mind having him back, and they're prepared to wait 30 days to do so. What is the problem?
Popovich's suggestion (trade comittee) is working !!!!
But don't the Spurs want this one to go through?Popovich's suggestion (trade comittee) is working !!!!
But don't the Spurs want this one to go through?
I don't know what to think.
Sometimes, I think this trade would be good for the Spurs, because Kidd is older, blablah
But at the same time, Kidd is still a top 3 PG (damn those stats !), and he could be rejuvenated playing for a contender.
Because there is a rule that prevents a pre-made agreement to resign him before the trade exists. Duh.
If Stern thinks this is the case and it happens, he can take them to Arbitration (and block the signing pending said arbitration) and the arbitrator doesn't have burden of proof rules like a jury.
A mentally tough team would be able to use this as motivation to show the world that they are indeed good enough for a championship.
But then, we are talking about the Mavs.
They'll have a of a time proving that. The Mavs and Stackhouse can make a compelling argument that the Nets don't want his contract and will buy him out anyway. If Stackhouse wants to return to Dallas and the Mavs aren't opposed to his return, then there's no violation of league rules. The best you can argue is that this violates the spirit of the 30-day rule, not the letter.
Stern will do whatever he wants to protect the bottom line for other owners, since enough of them are crying foul on this arrangement. Funny how he his hands were tied over a rule last May and he had no choice to suspend Amare and Diaw (which was right btw) but he can disregard the CBA at will to spite the Mavs and placate other pissy owners.If Stern thinks this is the case and it happens, he can take them to Arbitration (and block the signing pending said arbitration) and the arbitrator doesn't have burden of proof rules like a jury.
Great analysis, Dr. Phil.
It seems a lot of WC GMs/owners are complaining already. Stern may feel his heavy hand is being forced in this situation.
It's a joke if he rescinds this trade solely on speculation, IMO.
That's just it, THERE DOESN'T NEED TO BE PROOF. All you have to do is be able to convince an arbitrator that it is most likely the case. Not hard with the kind of things Stack said.
Having an agreement that "we will re-sign you after they buy you out", even as vague as that, violates the LETTER of the cir vention clauses of the CBA, and again DOESN'T REQUIRE PROOF, only convincing the arbitrator.
How is he disregarding the CBA when he's doing an investigation into a possible violation of it? The question is whether the MAVS and NETS disregarded the CBA, not whether Stern is.
If Stack had kept his mouth shut, no one would have cared. It's not like this kind of thing is exclusive to the Mavs, other teams violate the CBA often enough. The NBA can't afford to tolerate open flaunting of those violations though, especially after the last few years have resulted in several hits to the leagues credibility.
The rule is that in this scenario, a player must wait 30 days to return to his original team after being bought out, while he is free to play immediately should he sign with any other team. There is no stipulation in the trade proposal itself or any of the papers submitted to the league that the Nets will buy out Stack and it's a done deal for him to return to Dallas. Stackhouse is only expressing his preference to play for Dallas again and wait the 30 days if the Nets buy him out like he's expecting them to do so. Another team can come along and make a better financial offer. Players eschew bigger paydays all the time for a chance to play for a contender. And it's not ironclad that the Mavs will make a bid to resign him. They might not be done making moves after this trade and might find themselves out of options and unable to sign Stack. If they trade for Mike Miller or Kurt Thomas, or sign PJ Brown, they might not have the roster spot or salary slot left to sign him.
How is he disregarding the CBA when he's doing an investigation into a possible violation of it? The question is whether the MAVS and NETS disregarded the CBA, not whether Stern is.
As for your argument regarding "proof," it's true that Stern can do whatever he wants and the standard of evidence is lower. My argument is that forbidding Stack to return to Dallas would make him a hypocritical piece of .
That's not the rule in question. The rule in question is part of the cir vention clauses, not the 30 day rule. The 30 day rule doesn't even prevent them from negotiating with him after he's waived, only that he can't sign with them. Unless he's already signed a contract (which would be a whole 'nother ball of wax and would end up forcing the leagues hands into hefty penalties), there is no problem with the 30 day clause, and that's not what the investigation is about.
The whole problem is Stack's statement suggest an agreement was already made, which violates the cir vention clauses (you can't have more than one agreement with a player, you can't have an agreement with a player that would be on another team (if the trade happened he would be a Net for 1 day), etc).
He wouldn't forbid it unless he was sure he could win the arbitration. If he has a good argument about the cir vention clause, then he'd probably still just put it on hold pending arbitration, which they might be able to fast track.
I don't see how upholding the rules in the CBA would make him a hypocrit, but meh.
Keeping your mouth shut.
So easy, a cavema.....
Nvm.
Sources: Stackhouse's hint at return to Big D raises eyebrows
By Chris Broussard
ESPN The Magazine
(Archive)
Updated: February 15, 2008, 12:21 PM ET
Devean George's refusal to consent to being traded to the New Jersey Nets is not the only hindrance to the Jason Kidd-to-Dallas deal, according to several league sources.
Although there has been no public comment from the NBA on the matter, sources say that league officials are not pleased with Jerry Stackhouse's brazen announcement that he would soon return for a Mavericks playoff run if traded to New Jersey.
"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."
Stackhouse is referring to the widely reported assumption that New Jersey would immediately buy him out of his contract, which would allow him to re-sign with another team. Stackhouse's preference is to return to Dallas, but according to league rules he'd have to wait at least 30 days.
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 ins uted 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 wouldn't have been able to prove anything,'' one Western Conference executive said. "Now, it's obvious that he talked to Mark Cuban about coming back to the Mavericks.''
One executive said the league is looking into the matter and could very well block Stackhouse from being involved in the trade. That could be a deal-breaker, because Cuban definitely wants Stackhouse back.
"Obviously, George needs to give his consent for the deal to happen, but the Stackhouse thing could now be a bigger problem than George,'' a person with knowledge of the teams' trade negotiations said.
Another executive said team owners have been calling commissioner David Stern to complain about the Stackhouse part of the deal and that several GMs would be incensed if he allows the trade to go through with Stackhouse in it.
"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.''
Meanwhile, George's agent, Mark Bartelstein, told 1050 ESPN New York's Andrew Marchand that George would consider the trade if it would improve his situation.
"If he felt like his playing opportunity would be so much better in New Jersey than Dallas [he would consider it,]" Bartelstein said Friday morning. "He is starting in Dallas for a championship contender. New Jersey is rebuilding. He would have to give up his Larry Bird [free agent rights.] It has nothing to do with the Nets or not wanting to go to New Jersey."
Chris Broussard covers the NBA for ESPN The Magazine. Andrew Marchand also contributed to this report.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3247183
Trade Committee FTMFW!Another executive said team owners have been calling commissioner David Stern to complain about the Stackhouse part of the deal and that several GMs would be incensed if he allows the trade to go through with Stackhouse in it.
"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.''
Does Bartelstein even know what the is going on with his own player? bag - he's only starting because Howard is hurt and Jones isn't cutting it. When everyone is healthy and they gear up for the playoffs, your client won't come anywhere near the starting lineup. And as for his Bird Rights? Do you really think the Mavs are going to re-sign George and pay him that increase after all this ?
ing idiot.
It's also about sign and trade opportunities. If his agent could arrange a sign and trade utilizing early bird rights, he could get 175% of his current salary. Without that, sign and trade is only 120%.
He's a guy on the tail end of his carreer looking out for his last possible payday. I understand the rationale, but I doubt anyone would be willing to pay him the 3 mil under the bird rights (or really even the 2 mil or so he's making now).
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions