<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Belarus @ Feb 17 2008, 04:19 PM)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Feb 17 2008, 04:05 PM)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Belarus @ Feb 17 2008, 03:52 PM)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Feb 17 2008, 03:41 PM)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Explain why the Nets should sacrifice $4M of future cap space.
The Mavericks are the ones who made this mess, let them make the concessions to get the deal done.</div>
Ghoti, if Mavs bailed out and said "no deal" (because of the Trenton Hassell issue), would it make you more happier than if Nets took $4 mil cap hit and finished the trade?
</div>
Why would they pull out of the deal? They are backed into a corner.
The Nets are not the ones trying to win a title. They haven't alienated their players like the Mavs have.
Plus they look like complete assholes. If you were a GM would you be hot to deal with them after they botched this thing like rank amateurs?
</div>
I understand this. But this deal is such a lopsided deal that we can't just play with fire risking to wind up with status quo by the deadline. It's like we stole Cuban's wallet and now he asks us to give him back some of his cash. The hell with him, let him have it!
</div>
Part of what makes the deal so "lopsided", if that's the way you view it, is the cap space the Nets are getting. Just Devin Harris and two low first rounders is not that great of a haul for Kidd.
If the Nets are forced to take a lesser deal than originally agreed to because of the Mavs' mistakes doesn't seem very smart to me.
Kidd may (or may not, who knows?) be close to a big dropoff, but he can make a big difference for the Mavs this season.
I think the Nets have the upper hand in this negotiation, and there's still time to force the issue.
