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 cir vention 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 cir vent 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 le winner.
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 cir vention of the rules won't be tolerated.
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?
Yup, but he didn't.
The trade should go through and the Nets should buyout Stack on Mar. 2.
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.
wrong. there are 2 ways. The Dallas homer way, and the realistic way
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.
And they should do exactly that.
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.
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?
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.
tampering is a rule, nothing was changed.
SPURS RULE! 4 RINGS!
Clearly you've never heard of the New York Knicks.
Stack is still talking about rejoining Mavs with Steven A. nobody has told him to STFU so maybe this is not an issue.
I know. I never said it did.
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.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.
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.
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.
man, I can really see why your screenname is stretch, your really grasping here.
Or he figures that once Steven A. comes on everyone changes the channel, so no one will ever find out.
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 cir vention of trade rules and possible collusion of two teams and a player.This is idiotic on many levels, given that teams have done this before.
I'd like to point out once again that this isn't the official, final league stance on this.
If it's in the rule book that you can come back after 30 days, how is it cir vention?????
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.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
