NBA: Stackhouse cannot return to Mavs

[ghoti]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Feb 15 2008, 05:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Feb 15 2008, 01:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Feb 15 2008, 04:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Actually, the letter of the rule is being followed, but it's a glaring loophole in the CBA that's being exploited. Hence the uproar from other teams.

1) I'd think the Nets would want to keep and play Stackhouse.

2) Stackhouse blew the deal by flaunting how the Nets & Mavs were exploiting the loophole.

If you need a wink & nod type of agreement (Stackhouse cut, goes back to the Mavs) to make a deal work, it's not very ethical (at best), and makes a sham of the CBA (which isn't much better).</div>

I'd buy that if I didn't believe every single other team would do the same thing if it suited their purposes.

If they didn't want this "loophole" in the CBA how difficult would it have been to add a rule that states that a player can't re-sign with the same team? It's not like nobody thought of it. It's the logical reaction to the Payton situation.

For whatever reason (probably the Player's Association) the rule was intentionally left out of the CBA. I don't blame Stackhouse for not seeing the need to "wink and nod" at the "spirit" of the rule, even if he was being an idiot.
</div>

If Stackhouse said nothing, and things went down like "planned," there'd be some griping about it (as there was with Payton), but not much anyone would do about it.

Two people now (aside from myself) have pointed out the tampering angle (I called it unethical).

Had the deal gone down and Stackhouse ended up back with the Mavs, there'd have had to have been some actual proof that there was tampering involved.

Lastly, I think it is in the commissioner's power to void trades and make rulings like this. It's probably the most important of his duties.
</div>


If Stackhouse had said nothing, Stern would know exactly what he knows now. It's not like Stack revealed some critical information.

I understand why Stack should have kept his mouth shut. It gave Stern ammo. But I really don't like the implication that the NBA's motivation is somehow protecting the integrity of the CBA by not allowing the trade.

Stern simply wants to stick it to Cuban, and now he feels he has license. It has nothing to do with ethics or integrity.

 

[ghoti]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Feb 15 2008, 05:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Feb 15 2008, 05:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Feb 15 2008, 05:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>When the hell did the NBA start caring about ethics? This is the same league that enacted a dress code for the bench.

If this had been almost any other owner than Cuban, there wouldn't be an issue here. Stern has been this happy in years as he gets to completely fuck over Cuban</div>

But Rod Thorn is (was?) his friend, and Stern fucked him over even worse.
</div>

Collateral damage to Stern's target

Hopefully someone else makes Thorn an offer during the weekend
</div>

No other deal will be as good, and Kidd has to be moved. He can't come back to the Nets.

 

[pegs]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Feb 15 2008, 05:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Feb 15 2008, 05:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Feb 15 2008, 05:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>When the hell did the NBA start caring about ethics? This is the same league that enacted a dress code for the bench.

If this had been almost any other owner than Cuban, there wouldn't be an issue here. Stern has been this happy in years as he gets to completely **** over Cuban</div>

But Rod Thorn is (was?) his friend, and Stern fucked him over even worse.
</div>

As an aside, why is the word "****" sometimes ***ed out, and sometimes it isn't? Is there some rule that I could exploit here?

edit:
****
****ing
fucked
refuck
fucker
</div>

WTF is refuck??? hahaha, that's priceless.

Now, if nothing happens with this trade, who gets the shittier end of the stick, the Mavs, or the Nets?

Does the Mavs chemistry ruin them worse, or does the Nets have more problems with Kidd, and end up getting a shittier trade, or no trade at all?

 

[ghoti]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pegs @ Feb 15 2008, 05:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Feb 15 2008, 05:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Feb 15 2008, 05:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Feb 15 2008, 05:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>When the hell did the NBA start caring about ethics? This is the same league that enacted a dress code for the bench.

If this had been almost any other owner than Cuban, there wouldn't be an issue here. Stern has been this happy in years as he gets to completely **** over Cuban</div>

But Rod Thorn is (was?) his friend, and Stern fucked him over even worse.
</div>

As an aside, why is the word "****" sometimes ***ed out, and sometimes it isn't? Is there some rule that I could exploit here?

edit:
****
****ing
fucked
refuck
fucker
</div>

WTF is refuck??? hahaha, that's priceless.

Now, if nothing happens with this trade, who gets the shittier end of the stick, the Mavs, or the Nets?

Does the Mavs chemistry ruin them worse, or does the Nets have more problems with Kidd, and end up getting a shittier trade, or no trade at all?
</div>

The Mavs are still pretty good.

What are the Nets going to get for Kidd now? The market for him was already miniscule.

This is a disaster. The Mavs should be forced to surrender draft picks to the Nets for the way they handled this.

 

[ly_yng]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Feb 15 2008, 06:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>No other deal will be as good, and Kidd has to be moved. He can't come back to the Nets.</div>

Never say never. It was a Schwartz client fucked over Kidd, after all. And Kidd's contract will be worth more next year, with it expiring and all.

Might work out OK, if another second-round exit can fool GMs into thinking Kidd's got another year left in him.

 

[ghoti]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ly_yng @ Feb 15 2008, 05:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Feb 15 2008, 06:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>No other deal will be as good, and Kidd has to be moved. He can't come back to the Nets.</div>

Never say never. It was a Schwartz client fucked over Kidd, after all. And Kidd's contract will be worth more next year, with it expiring and all.

Might work out OK, if another second-round exit can fool GMs into thinking Kidd's got another year left in him.
</div>

I don't want him back. I don't like him. I don't want to be forced to root for him any more.

This sucks.

 

[FOMW]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Feb 15 2008, 05:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>No other deal will be as good, and Kidd has to be moved. He can't come back to the Nets.</div>

I agree this will be the best deal by far, but I still think Kidd could finish this season here and that the Nets could still improve greatly from their first half performance, especially if we actually obtained Miller, a guy who can actually shoot.

I want to get back to the point that Pete raised, though, which is this: the Nets were obviously prepared to take a hit towards their salary cap when they agreed under the table to buyout Stackhouse. Stackhouse has two more years at 7 and 7.25 million respectively. Hassell has two more years (assuming he exercises his player option for 09-10) at 4.35 million each. So the buyout would actually be much cheaper for the Nets for Hassell, and they have the additional truth on their side that they truly have no interest in him as a player, thus avoiding any appearance of impropriety after they remove him from their roster. With the money saved on the buyout, they could relinquish the $3 million cash that Cuban was otherwise willing to give and that would help cover the luxury tax hit for signing Van Horn to a one year (effective) deal for the sum of George + Stackhouse - Hassell.

Why is this not the answer?

 

[ly_yng]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Feb 15 2008, 06:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ly_yng @ Feb 15 2008, 05:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Feb 15 2008, 06:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>No other deal will be as good, and Kidd has to be moved. He can't come back to the Nets.</div>

Never say never. It was a Schwartz client fucked over Kidd, after all. And Kidd's contract will be worth more next year, with it expiring and all.

Might work out OK, if another second-round exit can fool GMs into thinking Kidd's got another year left in him.
</div>

I don't want him back. I don't like him. I don't want to be forced to root for him any more.

This sucks.

</div>

Welcome to the life of a San Francisco Giants fan.

 

[GMJ]

Anyone watching PTI? Kornheiser called the NBA intervention unfair, and said that if they want to change any rule in the CBA, that should be done during the off-season. Go Tony!


edit: Oh, and if its not in the CBA, could the Nets and Mavs sue the League to let the Stackhouse issue work out?

 

[cpawfan]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (FOMW @ Feb 15 2008, 05:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Feb 15 2008, 05:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>No other deal will be as good, and Kidd has to be moved. He can't come back to the Nets.</div>

I agree this will be the best deal by far, but I still think Kidd could finish this season here and that the Nets could still improve greatly from their first half performance, especially if we actually obtained Miller, a guy who can actually shoot.

I want to get back to the point that Pete raised, though, which is this: the Nets were obviously prepared to take a hit towards their salary cap when they agreed under the table to buyout Stackhouse. Stackhouse has two more years at 7 and 7.25 million respectively. Hassell has two more years (assuming he exercises his player option for 09-10) at 4.35 million each. So the buyout would actually be much cheaper for the Nets for Hassell, and they have the additional truth on their side that they truly have no interest in him as a player, thus avoiding any appearance of impropriety after they remove him from their roster. With the money saved on the buyout, they could relinquish the $3 million cash that Cuban was otherwise willing to give and that would help cover the luxury tax hit for signing Van Horn to a one year (effective) deal for the sum of George + Stackhouse - Hassell.

Why is this not the answer?
</div>

I doubt the Nets were taking much of a cap hit with the buyout. I posted the numbers in another thread, but basically the difference between what Stack is making on this contract and a full MLE deal for 3 seasons is a little over 3 million. Mavs were also taking back Antoine Wright for a TE in a second deal.

The Nets could buy him out for a relatively tiny cap hit.

 

[pegs]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (FOMW @ Feb 15 2008, 05:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Feb 15 2008, 05:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>No other deal will be as good, and Kidd has to be moved. He can't come back to the Nets.</div>

I agree this will be the best deal by far, but I still think Kidd could finish this season here and that the Nets could still improve greatly from their first half performance, especially if we actually obtained Miller, a guy who can actually shoot.

I want to get back to the point that Pete raised, though, which is this: the Nets were obviously prepared to take a hit towards their salary cap when they agreed under the table to buyout Stackhouse. Stackhouse has two more years at 7 and 7.25 million respectively. Hassell has two more years (assuming he exercises his player option for 09-10) at 4.35 million each. So the buyout would actually be much cheaper for the Nets for Hassell, and they have the additional truth on their side that they truly have no interest in him as a player, thus avoiding any appearance of impropriety after they remove him from their roster. With the money saved on the buyout, they could relinquish the $3 million cash that Cuban was otherwise willing to give and that would help cover the luxury tax hit for signing Van Horn to a one year (effective) deal for the sum of George + Stackhouse - Hassell.

Why is this not the answer?
</div>

Because for some reason, Cuban doesn't wanna pay the extra money (for once). He could/should also include Diop, Ager, and possibly Juwan Howard as well so he has to pay the least amount possible...but even then, there'd still be alot of extra money for Cuban to pay.

Then again, I don't really understand why Cuban wouldn't do that. I mean, think about it: He was willing to trade away Stack, and then re-sign him. For how much?

I mean, if he was gonna re-sign him, he'd have to pay somewhat of a good amount of money. Possibly even just a couple million less if he were to plug in Hassel and KVH into the deal instead of George and Stack. So what the hell is the big deal there? Is a couple million really that big of a deal for Cuban?

 

[Ghost of Jason Collins]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GMJigga @ Feb 15 2008, 05:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Anyone watching PTI? Kornheiser called the NBA intervention unfair, and said that if they want to change any rule in the CBA, that should be done during the off-season. Go Tony!


edit: Oh, and if its not in the CBA, could the Nets and Mavs sue the League to let the Stackhouse issue work out?</div>

This is part of the reason I hate the NBA at time. Why have a CBA if the commissioner can change it at will.

 

[Chutney]

I can understand why they're doing this, but its pretty dumb that they're making it up on the spot like this. Either way, you have to consider Stackhouse's comments to be absolutely stupid. I've never heard anyone spell it out so explicitly and I expected something to come out of it.

 

[FOMW]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Feb 15 2008, 05:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I doubt the Nets were taking much of a cap hit with the buyout. I posted the numbers in another thread, but basically the difference between what Stack is making on this contract and a full MLE deal for 3 seasons is a little over 3 million. Mavs were also taking back Antoine Wright for a TE in a second deal.

The Nets could buy him out for a relatively tiny cap hit.</div>

So the difference is that Dallas would have no interest in using either a Vet's minimum or part of their MLE to resign Hassell, thus potentially leaving the Nets having to buyout his entire contract? And I suppose there's a slight possibility that another playoff team could pick him up as insurance and a defensive specialist at a vet's minimum. Still seems like Dallas would do that if it was the only way Jersey would agree to proceed.

 

[cpawfan]

Now onto the important question - at the next UNC reunion, does Vince hug or punch Stackhouse

 

[lukewarmplay]

I'm not sure that they did this to **** over Cuban. I think it might be because they were unwilling to let it be seen that a scrub was blocking a superstar deal.

If George was absolutely not going to let the deal go through, using this instead lets some people save face.

 

[ghoti]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lukewarmplay @ Feb 15 2008, 06:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'm not sure that they did this to **** over Cuban. I think it might be because they were unwilling to let it be seen that a scrub was blocking a superstar deal.

If George was absolutely not going to let the deal go through, using this instead lets some people save face.</div>

If that's the case then THEY are the ones making a mockery of the CBA, not the Mavs or Nets.

 

[FOMW]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Feb 15 2008, 04:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>This is awesome. Doesn't anyone see the irony? Who is Stackhouse's agent? Jeff Schwartz goes out and announces (1) Kidd demands a trade; (2) Kidd insists on getting traded to Dallas (basically); and (3) Kidd will not accept being traded anywhere else. So what happens? The Nets oblige him and one of Schwartz's own other clients fucks it up! Now what is Schwartz's position? Jeff Schwartz could not be getting more fucked by this. Either he loses credibility for retracting Kidd's trade request, or he loses credibility by expanding the list of teams that Kidd will play for. And he loses the 4% of the extension the Mavs were going to give Kidd, as well as the 4% of the MLE that the Mavs were going to give Stackhouse.

At least one person in all this is getting what he deserves!</div>

That's an awesome observation!

 

[NOMAM]

Would anyone want to take Terry back in a trade and have a PG combo of Terry and Harris?

 

[FOMW]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NOMAM @ Feb 15 2008, 06:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Would anyone want to take Terry back in a trade and have a PG combo of Terry and Harris?</div>

I've always liked Terry and think he would be terrific for the Nets in a Carter-centric offense, any offense, for that matter. But the conventional wisdom, which has some good truth in this case, is that Terry's contract would really limit the franchise. He's got 4 more years after this one ranging from 9.7 to 11.1 million. And he's still just a 30 year-old role player. What he provides could be gotten elsewhere much cheaper with less risk of decline towards the end.

 

[bravo369]

this stinks. i am on record and saying that I don't think stackhouse should be allowed back to the mavs and that a rule should be in place but the fact is that there is no rule in place. Stern should use this fiasco as exhibit A in the offseason as to why the rule needs to be approved but for right now, it should go through. i mean, how many other teams have been able to get away with this over the years? it's happened countless times yet for some reason he gets involved in this one. Also, as someone else stated, how can he be so flexible on this rule yet suspend guys left and right for taking 2 steps onto the court during a fight. I swear if he says that this deal violates the intention of the rule then he should be called out on the suns suspensions last year because that violated the intention also.

 

[Astral]

Why is Stern at fault?
Consider the implications that this trade would set:

Whenever a team wanted to get rid of a player, they would trade him to another team, doesn't really matter for who. They would agree to a buyout with the team prior to the trade. By sending the team Cash. Then they resign the player again. In practice:

Superstar1 gets traded to Team1 for Superstar2 and $1M cash.
Team1 buys out Superstar2 for $1M cash.
After 30 days, Superstar2 signs with the Team2 for a new contract.
The result: 2 superstars playing together.

Now imagine if a team announces that they badly want a championship, so they're offering big contracts to good players.
You can accumulate a full team of Superstars by doing these trades.

More than that, you can use this to resign players to new contracts before the terms are up. Just take someone's crap, and upon your player coming back to you, you negotiate a new deal.

It's a very extensive loophole.

 

[GMJ]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Astral @ Feb 15 2008, 07:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Why is Stern at fault?
Consider the implications that this trade would set:

Whenever a team wanted to get rid of a player, they would trade him to another team, doesn't really matter for who. They would agree to a buyout with the team prior to the trade. By sending the team Cash. Then they resign the player again. In practice:

Superstar1 gets traded to Team1 for Superstar2 and $1M cash.
Team1 buys out Superstar2 for $1M cash.
After 30 days, Superstar2 signs with the Team2 for a new contract.
The result: 2 superstars playing together.

Now imagine if a team announces that they badly want a championship, so they're offering big contracts to good players.
You can accumulate a full team of Superstars by doing these trades.

More than that, you can use this to resign players to new contracts before the terms are up. Just take someone's crap, and upon your player coming back to you, you negotiate a new deal.

It's a very extensive loophole.</div>

And its not illegal. So why are we being punished? If Stern wants to change the rule he should do so in the off-season. Right now a valid and legal deal is being held up when there is means in the collective bargaining agreement that allows the league office to do so.

Any personal moral belief on the issue is a moot point.

 

[Astral]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GMJigga @ Feb 15 2008, 07:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Astral @ Feb 15 2008, 07:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Why is Stern at fault?
Consider the implications that this trade would set:

Whenever a team wanted to get rid of a player, they would trade him to another team, doesn't really matter for who. They would agree to a buyout with the team prior to the trade. By sending the team Cash. Then they resign the player again. In practice:

Superstar1 gets traded to Team1 for Superstar2 and $1M cash.
Team1 buys out Superstar2 for $1M cash.
After 30 days, Superstar2 signs with the Team2 for a new contract.
The result: 2 superstars playing together.

Now imagine if a team announces that they badly want a championship, so they're offering big contracts to good players.
You can accumulate a full team of Superstars by doing these trades.

More than that, you can use this to resign players to new contracts before the terms are up. Just take someone's crap, and upon your player coming back to you, you negotiate a new deal.

It's a very extensive loophole.</div>

And its not illegal. So why are we being punished? If Stern wants to change the rule he should do so in the off-season. Right now a valid and legal deal is being held up when there is means in the collective bargaining agreement that allows the league office to do so.

Any personal moral belief on the issue is a moot point.
</div>
I don't think that's how business works.
You find a glaring mistake, you fix it YESTERDAY. (no, not tomorrow)

Honestly: if you were a fan of a team NOT involved in this trade, what would you say?

 

[Jizzy]

how can stern do this, he's defying his own rules. he is a dictator

 

[GMJ]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Astral @ Feb 15 2008, 07:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GMJigga @ Feb 15 2008, 07:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Astral @ Feb 15 2008, 07:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Why is Stern at fault?
Consider the implications that this trade would set:

Whenever a team wanted to get rid of a player, they would trade him to another team, doesn't really matter for who. They would agree to a buyout with the team prior to the trade. By sending the team Cash. Then they resign the player again. In practice:

Superstar1 gets traded to Team1 for Superstar2 and $1M cash.
Team1 buys out Superstar2 for $1M cash.
After 30 days, Superstar2 signs with the Team2 for a new contract.
The result: 2 superstars playing together.

Now imagine if a team announces that they badly want a championship, so they're offering big contracts to good players.
You can accumulate a full team of Superstars by doing these trades.

More than that, you can use this to resign players to new contracts before the terms are up. Just take someone's crap, and upon your player coming back to you, you negotiate a new deal.

It's a very extensive loophole.</div>

And its not illegal. So why are we being punished? If Stern wants to change the rule he should do so in the off-season. Right now a valid and legal deal is being held up when there is means in the collective bargaining agreement that allows the league office to do so.

Any personal moral belief on the issue is a moot point.
</div>
I don't think that's how business works.
You find a glaring mistake, you fix it YESTERDAY. (no, not tomorrow)

Honestly: if you were a fan of a team NOT involved in this trade, what would you say?
</div>

Except the analogy of a business doesn't apply here. There are negotiations that have to be made as this would mean adding a stipulation to the CBA. It's not as simple as fixing a policy change.

 

[ghoti]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Astral @ Feb 15 2008, 07:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You find a glaring mistake, you fix it YESTERDAY. (no, not tomorrow)</div>

They didn't just "find" this "mistake".

The provision isn't in there for a reason.

It would have been very simple to just add another sentence to the "30 day" rule that forbids teams from re-signing players they traded, but the rule isn't there.

 

[cpawfan]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Astral @ Feb 15 2008, 07:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Why is Stern at fault?
Consider the implications that this trade would set:

Whenever a team wanted to get rid of a player, they would trade him to another team, doesn't really matter for who. They would agree to a buyout with the team prior to the trade. By sending the team Cash. Then they resign the player again. In practice:

Superstar1 gets traded to Team1 for Superstar2 and $1M cash.
Team1 buys out Superstar2 for $1M cash.
After 30 days, Superstar2 signs with the Team2 for a new contract.
The result: 2 superstars playing together.

Now imagine if a team announces that they badly want a championship, so they're offering big contracts to good players.
You can accumulate a full team of Superstars by doing these trades.

More than that, you can use this to resign players to new contracts before the terms are up. Just take someone's crap, and upon your player coming back to you, you negotiate a new deal.

It's a very extensive loophole.</div>

The problem with your scenario is that Superstar2 loses a ton of money in that scenario which they would never agree to. The only reason this Stackhouse situation would work is that the Mavs still have their MLE available.

Additionally no team with a superstar would have the cap space to do the other things you are suggesting.

 

[Run BJM]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pegs @ Feb 15 2008, 05:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Feb 15 2008, 05:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Feb 15 2008, 05:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Feb 15 2008, 05:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>When the hell did the NBA start caring about ethics? This is the same league that enacted a dress code for the bench.

If this had been almost any other owner than Cuban, there wouldn't be an issue here. Stern has been this happy in years as he gets to completely **** over Cuban</div>

But Rod Thorn is (was?) his friend, and Stern fucked him over even worse.
</div>

As an aside, why is the word "****" sometimes ***ed out, and sometimes it isn't? Is there some rule that I could exploit here?

edit:
****
****ing
fucked
refuck
fucker
</div>

WTF is refuck??? hahaha, that's priceless.

Now, if nothing happens with this trade, who gets the shittier end of the stick, the Mavs, or the Nets?

Does the Mavs chemistry ruin them worse, or does the Nets have more problems with Kidd, and end up getting a shittier trade, or no trade at all?
</div>

Definitely Mavs get the worst of it. They've got several players who they just friggen moved to another team but now they're back with the Mavs lol. They'll probably say it doesn't effect them but you never know.

 

[Astral]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Feb 15 2008, 07:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Astral @ Feb 15 2008, 07:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Why is Stern at fault?
Consider the implications that this trade would set:

Whenever a team wanted to get rid of a player, they would trade him to another team, doesn't really matter for who. They would agree to a buyout with the team prior to the trade. By sending the team Cash. Then they resign the player again. In practice:

Superstar1 gets traded to Team1 for Superstar2 and $1M cash.
Team1 buys out Superstar2 for $1M cash.
After 30 days, Superstar2 signs with the Team2 for a new contract.
The result: 2 superstars playing together.

Now imagine if a team announces that they badly want a championship, so they're offering big contracts to good players.
You can accumulate a full team of Superstars by doing these trades.

More than that, you can use this to resign players to new contracts before the terms are up. Just take someone's crap, and upon your player coming back to you, you negotiate a new deal.

It's a very extensive loophole.</div>

The problem with your scenario is that Superstar2 loses a ton of money in that scenario which they would never agree to. The only reason this Stackhouse situation would work is that the Mavs still have their MLE available.

Additionally no team with a superstar would have the cap space to do the other things you are suggesting.
</div>
Hmm. Maybe you're right - you're better at the cap stuff, but explain this:
From what I remember, Mavs payroll is around 92M. Since the trade has to have relatively matching salaries, Mavs payroll will stay around $92M after the Kidd trade. How are Mavs able to resign Stackhouse if they're already over the cap? Vets min or they are using MLE?

If yes, you're right. But we all know that for a lot of "superstars", money is not the issue. Malone took a Vets min to play on the Lakers. If you already made close to $100M, most superstars will sacrifice 1 or 2 years worth of salary to play on a great team.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>They didn't just "find" this "mistake".

The provision isn't in there for a reason.

It would have been very simple to just add another sentence to the "30 day" rule that forbids teams from re-signing players they traded, but the rule isn't there.</div>
Why isn't this a "mistake"? It's an oversight, which is a type of a mistake.

I mean, logic dictates that if this creates such a problem now and they feel the need to fix it ASAP, then they didn't think of it before, right? If they did consider this scenario before, they would have fixed it then.
They didn't think of it (which makes them idiots), but they're still right for fixing it as soon as they can.