No "Stack back to Dallas" allowed - Signed, The NBA

[fyatuk]

what does "I ain't going nowhere" mean? Are you that desperate?

Considering his other comments of sitting out 30 days and being back, etc, it's obvious he meant he was not leaving Dallas.

Get over it. He opened a can of worms he shouldn't have, and Dallas is going to get screwed over by it, whether there was any impropriety or not. Stackhouse should have kept his mouth shut like everyone else who's been through this kind of arrangement.

In all liklihood, he had an arrangement with Cuban and the Nets, considering it's not exactly a rare deal, and even the media could figure out what was going on. I personally don't think it's that big of a deal, but it does violate the CBA.

[lurker]

So if the Mavericks signed Van Horn to a contract for $1,985,000, which would be prorated for the last two months of the season, that would bring them to the total needed to trade for Kidd.

Cuban said, however, there are several problems.

"He has got to want to play for [the Nets]," Cuban said. "I don't know if he wants to play."

Even if Van Horn does, the Nets might not want him. And they have not indicated they want to make a deal for Kidd alone; they might want to include other contracts. Plus, the Mavericks would be taking on an additional $4 million in payroll because Kidd's contract is larger than the contracts the Mavericks would be sending to the Nets.

The Mavericks are over the luxury tax threshold of $67.865 million, so for each dollar that they take on, Cuban has to pay a dollar in luxury tax.

"That's a lot of money," Cuban said. "It's going to cost a lot of money anyway, but the question is how much? Even I have a tolerance threshold. Ask my wife."

Cuban said he is not frustrated that the trade has been halted.

"I was never that excited about it in the first place," Cuban said. "There are pluses and minuses to every discussion that we had. If someone wants to hand me a bargain, I'm going to take it. But this is no bargain."

Never that excited about it. He probably had to change his pants when the Nets agreed to the deal.

[monosylab1k]

"I was never that excited about it in the first place," Cuban said. "There are pluses and minuses to every discussion that we had. If someone wants to hand me a bargain, I'm going to take it. But this is no bargain."

Never that excited? Then WHAT THE was he doing negotiating to the point of no return?

Never that excited my ass. That's his answer to the media now that he has egg all over his face.

[san antonio spurs]

Never that excited? Then WHAT THE was he doing negotiating to the point of no return?

Never that excited my ass. That's his answer to the media now that he has egg all over his face.

But I remember Cuban saying early that the trade wouldn't go down, are you sure he was the instigator?

[ApolloCreed]

Stackhouse has a huge mouth and it finally caught up with him.

I love it!

[lurker]

League spokesman Tim Frank said the league may look into the situation, but added there is no truth to reports that the NBA has decided to block Stackhouse’s return to the Mavericks in such a trade.

Dammit.

[Findog]

but it does violate the CBA.

Uh, no it doesn't.

[ducks]

Dammit.

link?

[texbumTHElife]

No rules against it.

If they add that rule next year, I'm fine with it. But there is no rule against it this year, and they should not be allowed to change the rules mid-season like that.

QFT

EOM

[fyatuk]

Uh, no it doesn't.

Yes it does, as has been pointed out time and again, even quoting some of the pertinent sections. If there's an agreement between the player and the team to even offer him another contract, it's a clear violation of the CBA.

Don't be an idiot and refuse to admit what's clear. Argue whether there was an agreement or not to your hearts content, but give up on the quest to prove your idiocy by refusing to admit an agreement like that would violate the CBA.

[Findog]

Yes it does, as has been pointed out time and again, even quoting some of the pertinent sections. If there's an agreement between the player and the team to even offer him another contract, it's a clear violation of the CBA.

There is no agreement for Stack to return to the Mavericks. What are the financial terms? What will his cap figure be? How much will he receive from the Nets in a buyout? All we have is Stackhouse expecting to be bought out and expressing a desire to return to Dallas.

Don't be an idiot and refuse to admit what's clear. Argue whether there was an agreement or not to your hearts

Don't be obtuse and refuse to admit that there is nothing in the CBA that prevents a Stackhouse-Dallas reunion after 30 days. Stackhouse being bought out by New Jersey is none of Dallas' concern, it is THEIR decision to buy him out rather than utilize him on the court. After that, he is a free agent and has made it known he prefers to return to Dallas. Beyond that, there is nothing.

[Findog]

I've said it before, but I hope the Mavs acquire Kidd for Harris, Diop and Stackhouse. I think if Dallas loses all three and and only net Kidd, that the Mavs are considerably weakened against the Suns because Harris kills Nash off the dribble and is pesky on defense, Stackhouse kills Barbosa in the post whenever the Suns bring Leandro in, and Diop is one of the few big men athletic enough to be a thorn in Amare's side for extended periods of time.

I hope the trade does go through, only I hope it goes through cleanly without the return of Stackhouse. Not just for the reason above, but because I really think it makes the League look bad. It would be a willful cir venting of the trade rules and appears to be collusion.

I've been against the idea of acquiring Kidd for X's and O's reasons, but at this point, the Mavs are going to have some really bad chemistry problems if they can't salvage this trade. Dirk is on record now as wanting Kidd to come, as is Terry and Stackhouse. For that reason, I feel like the Mavs have gone past the point of no return. They need to get this done. Fortunately the Nets feel the same sense of urgency for reasons of their own to send Kidd packing, so both teams are sufficiently motivated to get something done despite all the crap. Maybe Devean is a re and this shouldn't be held against him, but his delusional agent. The team leaders (Dirk, Stack and Terry) have all come out welcoming Kidd coming here, and the fans will let George know what they think of this. His Bird rights are worthless without the Mavs cooperation.

David Stern would look pretty stupid shooting this down on "spirit" of the rule "cir vention" when he claimed his hands were tied and he had to enforce the letter of the rule against Amare and Diaw. Convenient ethics I suppose.

[monosylab1k]

David Stern would look pretty stupid shooting this down on "spirit" of the rule "cir vention" when he claimed his hands were tied and he had to enforce the letter of the rule against Amare and Diaw. Convenient ethics I suppose.

Such is the ways of Fuehrer Stern. He's got his own agenda for this league, and doing everything possible to make Mark Cuban miserable is high on the priority list.

[Findog]

Such is the ways of Fuehrer Stern. He's got his own agenda for this league, and doing everything possible to make Mark Cuban miserable is high on the priority list.

Here is some goodness from David Lord:

On the Stack angle, I think most fans/media are unwittingly making a very large assumption. They have assumed that Stackhouse was solicited by the Mavs on the buyout-return angle. I don't think so.

There are logical reasons that the boomerang-to-Dallas idea originated elsewhere. And if the Mavs didn't solicit Stackhouse or arrange the deal in any way, then I believe the Mavs have covered their butts and have no exposure here no matter who blabs what. That's far better than having to worry about someone letting the cat out of the bag during the 30 days, or even on down the road, and the league then coming back and hammering them.

Why do I think this? Because it's been well known that the driving force behind this deal all along has been Kidd's agent, Schwartz. And it takes a deal-driver to come up with an out-of-the-box idea like this one where Stackhouse (with a not-so-tiny contract) boomerangs to Dallas. (Agents are movers and shakers in the NBA to an extent that outsiders rarely grasp.) So who most likely created the idea with NJ, of them getting-and-waiving Stackhouse to make the numbers workable on such a big money deal? Yep, Schwartz. Any rules problem with that? No. And one more reason why I see his fingerprints here, rather than the teams': because (not coincidentally) Schwartz is also STACKHOUSE'S agent. He's obviously juggling the contracts to help his clients play where they want to play.

It could have gone down 1000 different ways.

I'd guess that within his attempts to find a way to get Kidd out of NJ and to Kidd's preferred destination in Dallas, Schwartz created the idea, and first talked about it with Stackhouse. Then he suggested to NJ they talk about Stack in the deal, and discussed with NJ on a "hypothetical" basis the exact buyout amount it would take for Stackhouse to get bought out IF they trade for him. From there it could have unfolded down many various paths, but as long as there was no arrangement other than the agent telling his clients that he'd take care of them, it should withstand scrutiny no matter who says what when.

I find it compelling that while the yahoo writer and ESPN are stirring up reactions, Thorn and Cuban seem less than bothered by that issue. In the latest, Thorn specifically said he thinks they'll still get Kidd-to-Dallas done somehow - and that's AFTER all this foofara being written about the league source said this or that. I think they - as smart businessmen do - discussed the deal in such a way that even Stack's loose lips of what he WANTS to do can't cause them any real problem later.

These guys know the rules. They are careful businessmen who dot the i's and cross the t's with precision. And at the end of the day, it ends up being nothing more than a well-designed deal that was crafted carefully without creating any exposure.

DL

[monosylab1k]

Cuban has made hints of selling the team before. He's also working at getting a National League expansion baseball team in Dallas. If this keeps getting worse I won't be shocked if we have a new owner at the start of next season.

[Findog]

Cuban has made hints of selling the team before. He's also working at getting a National League expansion baseball team in Dallas. If this keeps getting worse I won't be shocked if we have a new owner at the start of next season.

Neither would I. This is ridiculous. We can only hope in that event that he would sell to an ownership group that is committed to making the Mavs a winner like he is. But I think ultimately his passion for the Mavs is too strong.

[fyatuk]

There is no agreement for Stack to return to the Mavericks. What are the financial terms? What will his cap figure be? How much will he receive from the Nets in a buyout? All we have is Stackhouse expecting to be bought out and expressing a desire to return to Dallas.

again, even an agreement to make an offer is a violation. They don't have to have a hammered out deal, just an agreement to make the bid is enough. If you haven't figured that much out yet, I give up trying to help you understand that part of the CBA.

Don't be obtuse and refuse to admit that there is nothing in the CBA that prevents a Stackhouse-Dallas reunion after 30 days. Stackhouse being bought out by New Jersey is none of Dallas' concern, it is THEIR decision to buy him out rather than utilize him on the court. After that, he is a free agent and has made it known he prefers to return to Dallas. Beyond that, there is nothing.

You don't pay attention. I've stated many times this is not a problem with the 30 day rule. The only thing in the CBA is the cir vention rules which may have been violated. If there's no agreement, there's no violation (I've said that before). If there is an agreement it is a violation.

Stackhouse's comments are enough to raise eyebrows about the possibility of a deal (liklihood, really). The other teams' complaint, most likely, is that he talked about it, not that there is the possibility of an agreement. Especially after this news coverage, if Stackhouse does get traded and go back to Dallas, the league will have to publically investigate it to avoid a loss of credibility. In reality, they've probably already warned Cuban not to do it so they don't have to worry about it (and can sweep it under the rug).

I've been exceptionally clear that the violation would be the cir vention rules if an agreement had been made, and the rest of the argument has been the lack of need for "burden of proof" because the CBA specifically states it's an arbitration issue, and arbitration is just who makes the better argument.

But you continually ignore all of this, demanding hard proof of an agreement (in fact you just asked for contract details which is not necessary to cons ute an agreement under the CBA) and still pushing that it's a problem with the 30 day rule.

[Findog]

again, even an agreement to make an offer is a violation. They don't have to have a hammered out deal, just an agreement to make the bid is enough. If you haven't figured that much out yet, I give up trying to help you understand that part of the CBA.

An agreement between whom? Has Dallas offered a contract to a player that would become the property of the New Jersey Nets? How do they know for sure Stack will be bought out? Rod Thorn is now saying that may not be the case.

You don't pay attention. I've stated many times this is not a problem with the 30 day rule. The only thing in the CBA is the cir vention rules which may have been violated.

And you are making something out of nothing. What has been cir vented? There is no evidence whatsoever that the Mavs have solicited Stackhouse. They can't even be assured that Stackhouse will be bought out. Kidd and Stackhouse have the same agent and it's that agent that has been driving the deal to get Kidd out of Jersey. It's interesting that while ESPN and yahoo are stirring up this "Stack has talked himself out of the trade," Cuban, Thorn and the league office are talking as if it isn't an issue at all. Pretty telling to me:

League spokesman Tim Frank said the league may look into the situation, but added there is no truth to reports that the NBA has decided to block Stackhouse’s return to the Mavericks in such a trade.

You forget Rod Thorn used to be David Stern's right-hand man, and that the League currently has no plans to investigate Stack's comments any further. Just like Devean George is within his rights to hold this thing up because of his Bird rights, Stackhouse is exercising his right to accept a buyout, clear waivers and return where he wants to be. Enough already, give it a rest. You lost this argument.

[Trainwreck2100]

Stack's a moron

[monosylab1k]

because the CBA specifically states it's an arbitration issue, and arbitration is just who makes the better argument.

yeah you keep coming back to this same bull idea.

whose argument is better?

"well stackhouse said this stuff and maybe it can be construed that there's a deal in place although there's no proof but come on man he said it! sure, nobody directly involved in trade talks said anything but hey!"

or

"we have no idea where stackhouse got that idea. we're doing the trade as it is, no other deals were made. we know cuz we were all there. stackhouse wasn't. thanks."

[fyatuk]

An agreement between whom? Has Dallas offered a contract to a player that would become the property of the New Jersey Nets? How do they know for sure Stack will be bought out? Rod Thorn is now saying that may not be the case.

Once again, The Mavs telling Stack they even MIGHT offer a contract to Stack if the Nets bought him out would qualify as an implied oral agreement under the cir vention rules of the CBA.

Of course Thorn is saying that. The league is trying to kill the talk about this because of the credibility concerns. You expect anyone to admit it and force the league to issue penalties?

And you are making something out of nothing. What has been cir vented? There is no evidence whatsoever that the Mavs have solicited Stackhouse. They can't even be assured that Stackhouse will be bought out. Kidd and Stackhouse have the same agent and it's that agent that has been driving the deal to get Kidd out of Jersey. It's interesting that while ESPN and yahoo are stirring up this "Stack has talked himself out of the trade," Cuban, Thorn and the league office are talking as if it isn't an issue at all. Pretty telling to me:

And again, this is arbitration, no evidence is needed. Stack's comments have given an argument to the league should they act and the Mavs push to arbitration. THAT'S ALL I'VE BEEN SAYING.

yeah you keep coming back to this same bull idea.

whose argument is better?

I've never said the league definitely had the better argument. I said the league now had AN argument, and since it's an arbitration case, if they make that argument better than the Mavs, Nets, and Stackhouse, that's all they need. Really, Stack would just need to come up with a feasible excuse as to why he said what he did, which isn't hard to do, and then it would be which person the arbitrator finds more credible.

Both of you, get this right: I believe there was an agreement because it's not rare for this kind of deal to happen. My belief means nothing, and has no bearing on the argument.

If there was an agreement, even if it was the Mavs saying that they might offer Stackhouse a contract if the nets bought him out, that would cons ute a violation of the cir vention clause of the CBA.

Because Stack's comments can be construed to mean that he has had such an assurance, if the deal goes down that way, the NBA will pretty much have to launch a public investigation, mostly because of the news coverage of the issue and the recent credibility hits the league has taken.

Things I have not said:
1) There was definitely an agreement.
2) There were specific numbers mentioned in such an agreement.
3) The league would definitely win if the case went to arbitration.

[Findog]

Once again, The Mavs telling Stack they even MIGHT offer a contract to Stack if the Nets bought him out would qualify as an implied oral agreement under the cir vention rules of the CBA.

What evidence is there that they solicited him? You're just pulling this crap out of thin air.

And again, this is arbitration, no evidence is needed.

Wrong. One side has to make a more compelling argument, and you do that by presenting evidence.

[fyatuk]

What evidence is there that they solicited him? You're just pulling this crap out of thin air.

Wrong. One side has to make a more compelling argument, and you do that by presenting evidence.

Pulling things directly from the CBA is hardly out of thin air. In addition...

You are a freaking moron. An argument can be based on cir stantials and heresay, not evidence. Evidence certainly helps, but it'd not necessary. Again, this isn't a court of law.

This is getting ridiculous. If you refuse to learn, there's no point attempting to teach.

[Agloco]

Stack is an idiot, nuff said......

[Cry Havoc]

It's awesome to watch the complete ownage that Jmark and fyatuk have been handing out in this thread.

Mavs fans, you should be pissed at Stack for even bringing the rule to attention.