Reply With Quote
This is not a court of law....the league doesnt care...they dont want the Mavs to win
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
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.
It really depends on what your definition of the word 'is' is.
Or 'to'.
My guess is JMarkJohns has a higher IQ in his brain than you have in your finger.
My guess is that you are a ing re .
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.
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).
Along with being a mavsfan, I am also a comedian. I forgot what movie that line came from but it was fricken hilarious.
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?
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.
I think extensions can't be signed during the season.
with Pop once...
with Pop TWICE....
Trade Committee es!
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.
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"
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.
Seriously, can that be used? With the double negative, Stackhouse gave himself a huge out here if we're gonna go on technicalities.
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.
You're rationalizing to and back. Are you that desperate about it?
That's great. There's been about 100 outs already mentioned in this thread that really can't be disputed. Dallas is just fine.
That's exactly why many of us think it's ing re ed.
What if they block they trade and nothing was done illegally? Still in the spirit of the rule?
what does "I ain't going nowhere" mean? Are you that desperate?
"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."
^sometimes mono pisses me off on the way he trash talks, but there are times, like these, when he makes me laugh a lot
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..
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions