DeAndre Jordan re-signs with the Clippers, DJ rescinds agreement with the Dallas Mavericks

[leolozon]

Uh no, you're missing the point.

Do you understand the difference between legally binding and not legally binding? Do you understand a verbal agreement is non-binding?

This was in his every right, even if the decision was made in bad faith. Doesn't make it a bad decision.

Um, no. I dont think you understand the difference between legally binding and not legally binding.

A verbal agreement can be just as binding as a written agreement. It's the peculiar fact that there are rules in place that prevented any official signing until a later date, that establishes the understanding that the verbal commitment cannot be relied upon for damages in this particular case.

It can be, but not in this case. Therefore he was operating within his rights so people need to get over it.

Did anyone argue that it was illegal or that he wasn't in his rights? No? So why are you arguing that?

People said that it was unethical and disgraceful.

[Nebula1]

Um, no. I dont think you understand the difference between legally binding and not legally binding.

A verbal agreement can be just as binding as a written agreement. It's the peculiar fact that there are rules in place that prevented any official signing until a later date, that establishes the understanding that the verbal commitment cannot be relied upon for damages in this particular case.

It can be, but not in this case. Therefore he was operating within his rights so people need to get over it.

Did anyone argue that it was illegal or that he wasn't in his rights? No? So why are you arguing that?

People said that it was unethical. If you can't argue the point, don't bother.

How was it even remotely unethical?? Give me a break.


He changed his mind and decision within his rights to do so. There is nothing unethical about that.


If he is within his rights, then he did nothing wrong so quit judging him as if he had done something wrong. People are allowed to operate within their rights. People are allowed to change their mind.

Even if it upsets Mark Cuban, who couldn't close the deal.

[madmaxmedia]

Did anyone argue that it was illegal or that he wasn't in his rights? No? So why are you arguing that?

People said that it was unethical and disgraceful.

There have been some scattered comments suggesting the Mavs could sue the Clippers.

[GuyverX]

Did anyone argue that it was illegal or that he wasn't in his rights? No? So why are you arguing that?

People said that it was unethical and disgraceful.

There have been some scattered comments suggesting the Mavs could sue the Clippers.

Doubt it. If anything it's Jordan that screwed over the Mavs, not the Clippers. Clippers had every right to negotiate terms just as Dallas did. No deals were legally made until July 9th.

[Moose]

It can be, but not in this case. Therefore he was operating within his rights so people need to get over it.

Did anyone argue that it was illegal or that he wasn't in his rights? No? So why are you arguing that?

People said that it was unethical. If you can't argue the point, don't bother.

How was it even remotely unethical?? Give me a break.


He changed his mind and decision within his rights to do so. There is nothing unethical about that.


If he is within his rights, then he did nothing wrong so quit judging him as if he had done something wrong. People are allowed to operate within their rights. People are allowed to change their mind.

Even if it upsets Mark Cuban, who couldn't close the deal.

''Within his rights''. Yes, he worked within his rights. But some countries allow or have allowed people to do things legally that you would consider unethical. And possibly downright horrifying.

Just because it is within the law or set of rules, does not make it ethical. And vice versa.

Don't care for this reasoning.

I don't know if what Jordan did was unethical or not, but your reasoning seems off to me.

[JWizmentality]

Did anyone argue that it was illegal or that he wasn't in his rights? No? So why are you arguing that?

People said that it was unethical and disgraceful.

There have been some scattered comments suggesting the Mavs could sue the Clippers.

Oh God yes, make it so. I need more comedy.

[Nebula1]

''Within his rights''. Yes, he worked within his rights. But some countries allow or have allowed people to do things legally that you would consider unethical. And possibly downright horrifying.

Just because it is within the law or set of rules, does not make it ethical. And vice versa.

Don't care for this reasoning.

I don't know if what Jordan did was unethical or not, but your reasoning seems off to me.

In this case, DeAndre Jordan changed his mind about playing basketball for the Mavericks in favor of staying with his current team. To me, ETHICS don't even play into it. It's a business decision with legal parameters. He was within his legal rights so I see no problem with what he did. I certainly don't see it as unethical.

If people have a problem with it, then change the parameters but at no time did Jordan do anything wrong or break any rules.


Dallas and Cuban knew perfectly well this was a possible consequence and certainly use all the freedoms allowed within the rules to maximize their own business. Deal with it.

[p0peye]

Mavs dodged a bullet there.

Putting more offensive responsibilities on him, without CP3 to throw lobs, is basically calling for trouble. Not only DJ would be a failure on that side of the floor, but the pressure and failed expectation could be too much for him to take and put the same effort on defense he was doing last couple of years.

It is bad to waste a year of Dirk's career, though.

[madmaxmedia]

Mavs dodged a bullet there.

Putting more offensive responsibilities on him, without CP3 to throw lobs, is basically calling for trouble. Not only DJ would be a failure on that side of the floor, but the pressure and failed expectation could be too much for him to take and put the same effort on defense he was doing last couple of years.

It is bad to waste a year of Dirk's career, though.

I agree with all you say. I don't think he would have been an outright bust or anything, but I think it's less likely that he lives up to Cuban's words about him earlier in the week. I mean even for the Clippers, the main reason we were desperate to re-sign him is that we wouldn't have cap room to sign another big money FA had we lost him. So for us, it was literally him or nothing.

[Soupman]

Cuban took a calculated risk and got burned.

It happens. Now we have literally no centers on our team at all.

[p0peye]

Mavs dodged a bullet there.

Putting more offensive responsibilities on him, without CP3 to throw lobs, is basically calling for trouble. Not only DJ would be a failure on that side of the floor, but the pressure and failed expectation could be too much for him to take and put the same effort on defense he was doing last couple of years.

It is bad to waste a year of Dirk's career, though.

I agree with all you say. I don't think he would have been an outright bust or anything, but I think it's less likely that he lives up to Cuban's words about him earlier in the week. I mean even for the Clippers, the main reason we were desperate to re-sign him is that we wouldn't have cap room to sign another big money FA had we lost him. So for us, it was literally him or nothing.

I'd go as far to say that once he realized it is really happening, he chickened out and started emitting SOS to Clips.

As they say, be careful what you wish for. You might get it.

[miltk]

this actually validates the moratorium.
teams are just going to have to wait for everything to be signed sealed and delivered.
dh has no obligation to anyone but himself.

if there is ever a mess in the future then silver can negate anything like stern did to cp3/lal, and have the teams start from scratch. the one thing he can't do is enforce a verbal,,,that's why the moratorium is there.

[MrCheerios]

''Within his rights''. Yes, he worked within his rights. But some countries allow or have allowed people to do things legally that you would consider unethical. And possibly downright horrifying.

Just because it is within the law or set of rules, does not make it ethical. And vice versa.

Don't care for this reasoning.

I don't know if what Jordan did was unethical or not, but your reasoning seems off to me.

In this case, DeAndre Jordan changed his mind about playing basketball for the Mavericks in favor of staying with his current team. To me, ETHICS don't even play into it. It's a business decision with legal parameters. He was within his legal rights so I see no problem with what he did. I certainly don't see it as unethical.

If people have a problem with it, then change the parameters but at no time did Jordan do anything wrong or break any rules.


Dallas and Cuban knew perfectly well this was a possible consequence and certainly use all the freedoms allowed within the rules to maximize their own business. Deal with it.

Ethics does not equate to legality. No one is saying Jordan did anything illegal and should face punishment. They are judging his behavior through the lens of their personal beliefs. Usually, when a player gives a verbal commitment to a team they follow through and sign the contract. When you back out the way Jordan did, it shows a lack of integrity, especially since he did not inform the Mavericks about his change of heart and refused to take their calls.

One of my cousins left her fiance at the altar on their wedding day and went on a party spree with a bunch of flings. While she did nothing illegal you'd better believe we all thought she was a bitch.

[eckoner]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MhD3YfnAsU[/youtube]

This guy is pretty pissed off lol

[Nate505]

So now Cuban's good buddy, Fegan, "manipulated" the situation?

I wonder how fast people will change their tune on Jordan.

Not very. He's a liar who broke his word. That means something to some people.

To others it means nothing.

[Nebula1]

Ethics does not equate to legality. No one is saying Jordan did anything illegal and should face punishment. They are judging his behavior through the lens of their personal beliefs. Usually, when a player gives a verbal commitment to a team they follow through and sign the contract. When you back out the way Jordan did, it shows a lack of integrity, especially since he did not inform the Mavericks about his change of heart and refused to take their calls.

One of my cousins left her fiance at the altar on their wedding day and went on a party spree with a bunch of flings. While she did nothing illegal you'd better believe we all thought she was a bitch.

Jordan's decision does not show a lack of integrity. It doesn't matter what people believe he "should or should not have done". All of that stuff is irrelevant. They had a verbal agreement, which Jordan rescinded... THAT'S IT.

The decision was his to make and he chose to stay with the Clippers. Simple as that. He was under no obligation to inform Dallas. He was under no obligation to ultimately sign with Dallas. He was within his rights and it doesn't matter how some people think he should have handled it.

I think he handled it fine. I think he made the smart decision. To me, all that matters is he made the decision within the rules set out by the NBA/CBA.



Truth is, your cousin should be thankful he didn't marry that woman.

[Soupman]

This was actually good for the league as both gasol and DJ stayed with their teams.

The CBA worked.

[JamesConway]

Doc Rivers just referred to this as a "great team building moment. It was fantastic. It was absolutely wonderful"

[JeepCSC]

this actually validates the moratorium.

No, it undermines it. The entire system is built on trust. Obviously this alone isn't enough to break the system, but if you had a couple Deandre's every year, the erosion in trust would be enough to make free agency untenable.

[Nebula1]

So now Cuban's good buddy, Fegan, "manipulated" the situation?

I wonder how fast people will change their tune on Jordan.

Not very. He's a liar who broke his word. That means something to some people.

To others it means nothing.

A good businessman understands the risk of the deal and sometimes that risk is realized.

There is no need to allow emotion into it.


It was a rescinded verbal agreement which was allowed within the parameters of the agreement. That's all there is to it.