Reply With Quote
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.
Again, this is not about violating the letter of the 30 day rule, it violates the rules on CIR VENTION.
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.
Wrong. No rules have been proven violated.
lol, who was talking about the Suns? Am I in here defending the Suns' short rotation? no, I've criticized D'Antoni for a long time for his refusal to lengthen the bench.
and the Mavs continue to be the laughingstock of the NBA.
Again, NO PROOF IS REQUIRED.
It's an arbiter case.
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 compe ive balance the League created by requiring teams match salaries to a certain point in the first place.
Nothing is being cir vented, 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.
Early regular season doesn't mean . No one has won a le 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.
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.
and the Mavs continue to be the laughingstock of the NBA.
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.
How is no proof required? Are you that ing re ed? If proof isn't required, then I can just go out, beat the 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 ing 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 mother er"
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.
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 dog David Stern is to change league rules on the fly.
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 cir vention. 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.
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 on the fly.
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.
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.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).
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 le.
Kidd has not regressed. His stats are as good as ever, and hes doing that with a very ty team that he does not want to play for.
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 re ed.
Fact is, there was no violation of the rules. Only speculation.
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.
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.
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 en y 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
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions