I think the league's decision will come down to two conflicting issues: the right to re-sign a player you traded away after 30 days and the prohibition on "side deals" in any transaction.
I liken it to the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military. They won't bother you if you're gay as long as you don't tell them you're gay.
In the past the league hasn't stopped a team from re-signing a traded-away player, as long as they maintained the fiction that it just happened that way. But when Stackhouse blatantly announces that there is a "side deal" to the basic deal between the Mavs and the Nets, he waived a red flag that the league has to investigate. (If I was Sham I'd probably say that Stackhouse metaphorically admitted he was gay.)
Whatever is decided, it will set a precedent that other teams will follow for the remainder of this CBA. If they allow Stackhouse to return to Dallas, they'll be saying that such "side deals" are allowed and the teams can reveal them with no fear of retribution. If the league disallows it, then teams will again have to be more careful that such "side deals" are not leaked before the 30 day waiting period is over.
Prorating contracts
-
FGump
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,050
- And1: 0
- Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Good points, Dunk. Makes sense to me. But I doubt the Mavs will push it if there's a gray area in there, so we aren't likely to get a precedent. They'll include Stackhouse if they feel safe and sure in the outcome, and they'll do it without Stackhouse otherwise.
But I'm on the side that finds the hypocrisy silly. If you want to outlaw it, just do so. And if you don't wanna outlaw it, then other teams get a 30-day head start and if they can't get the player, too bad.
Otherwise, you run the risk of some degree of "selective enforcement" where the league lets one team do it and not another, or penalizes one team but not another for doing virtually the same thing. Just like the military.
But I'm on the side that finds the hypocrisy silly. If you want to outlaw it, just do so. And if you don't wanna outlaw it, then other teams get a 30-day head start and if they can't get the player, too bad.
Otherwise, you run the risk of some degree of "selective enforcement" where the league lets one team do it and not another, or penalizes one team but not another for doing virtually the same thing. Just like the military.
-
Dunkenstein
- Starter
- Posts: 2,454
- And1: 13
- Joined: Jun 17, 2002
- Location: Santa Monica, CA
If Stackhouse's return to Dallas is prohibited by the league it won't be because they are punishing Dallas for doing what is permitted by the CBA: re-signing a traded-away player after 30 days. It will be for publicly admitting that they're going to do it in advance.
To use several outside-basketball analogies, Scooter Libby wasn't convicted of leaking Valarie Plame's name, but for lying about it. The Nixon crew wasn't convicted of the Watergate break-in, but for obstructing justice by covering it up. Bill Clinton wasn't impeached for what he did with Monica Lewinsky, he was impeached for lying about it. (I can't help myself, Stackhouse is the Monica Lewinsky of this last analogy).
If Stackhouse's return to Dallas is prohibited, it will because Dallas and New Jersey will lie about there being any "side deal" to the main deal. The right to re-sign a player after 30 days will not be at issue.
Is it hypocritical? Yes. But unfortunately too much of our legal system is based on just such hypocrisy.
To use several outside-basketball analogies, Scooter Libby wasn't convicted of leaking Valarie Plame's name, but for lying about it. The Nixon crew wasn't convicted of the Watergate break-in, but for obstructing justice by covering it up. Bill Clinton wasn't impeached for what he did with Monica Lewinsky, he was impeached for lying about it. (I can't help myself, Stackhouse is the Monica Lewinsky of this last analogy).
If Stackhouse's return to Dallas is prohibited, it will because Dallas and New Jersey will lie about there being any "side deal" to the main deal. The right to re-sign a player after 30 days will not be at issue.
Is it hypocritical? Yes. But unfortunately too much of our legal system is based on just such hypocrisy.
-
Dunkenstein
- Starter
- Posts: 2,454
- And1: 13
- Joined: Jun 17, 2002
- Location: Santa Monica, CA
NEW ORLEANS (AP) -- Nets president Rod Thorn said Friday he has no side deal with Mavericks swingman Jerry Stackhouse, an illegal arrangement that could put a potential Jason Kidd-to-Dallas trade in jeopardy.
The Nets thought they had worked out a deal with the Mavericks on Wednesday that would have sent Kidd to Dallas, but the trade is on hold because Devean George exercised his right to block it.
However, it may have been in trouble before that. Earlier that day, Stackhouse told The Associated Press that he may be able to rejoin the Mavs, an indication the Nets planned to buy out his contract.
"I get 30 days to rest, then I'll be right back," Stackhouse said. "I ain't going nowhere." Not so, Thorn said Friday.
"I'm perfectly willing to take Stackhouse on my team. You can't make deals like that," he said. "Those are illegal. You can't do that. I'm not going to do it."
So to make everything look kosher, the Nets and Mavs do the deal, Stackhouse plays a few games for the Nets, he's waived just prior to March 1 and Dallas picks him up after his 30 days are up.
I'm sure that Thorn, the league's former enforcement czar, has quietly discussed with the powers-that-be over at the league office what he has to say and do in order to make this deal go through without ruffling any feathers. All it means is that Stavkhouse gets a shorter "paid vacation".
-
andyhop
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,626
- And1: 1,318
- Joined: May 08, 2007
-
Dunkenstein wrote:NEW ORLEANS (AP) -- Nets president Rod Thorn said Friday he has no side deal with Mavericks swingman Jerry Stackhouse, an illegal arrangement that could put a potential Jason Kidd-to-Dallas trade in jeopardy.
The Nets thought they had worked out a deal with the Mavericks on Wednesday that would have sent Kidd to Dallas, but the trade is on hold because Devean George exercised his right to block it.
However, it may have been in trouble before that. Earlier that day, Stackhouse told The Associated Press that he may be able to rejoin the Mavs, an indication the Nets planned to buy out his contract.
"I get 30 days to rest, then I'll be right back," Stackhouse said. "I ain't going nowhere." Not so, Thorn said Friday.
"I'm perfectly willing to take Stackhouse on my team. You can't make deals like that," he said. "Those are illegal. You can't do that. I'm not going to do it."
So to make everything look kosher, the Nets and Mavs do the deal, Stackhouse plays a few games for the Nets, he's waived just prior to March 1 and Dallas picks him up after his 30 days are up.
I'm sure that Thorn, the league's former enforcement czar, has quietly discussed with the powers-that-be over at the league office what he has to say and do in order to make this deal go through without ruffling any feathers. All it means is that Stavkhouse gets a shorter "paid vacation".
Doesn't that just increase the level of hypocrisy even further?
Who is going to believe after what has happened that the Nets wanted Stackhouse but after half a dozen games changed their minds and bought him out?
Either prevent it for his comments or let it go don't go making it a total farce.
"Football is not a matter of life and death...it's much more important than that."- Bill Shankley
-
FGump
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,050
- And1: 0
- Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Stern has weighed in. And there is NO HYPOCRISY in the rules. Stack spoke about what he thinks will happen, and that's unfortunate, says Stern, but unless there is actually an out-of-sight AGREEMENT where people are committed, then nothing has been done wrong.
Stern says they can include Stackhouse, and he even said explicitly that Stackhouse can go back to Dallas in 30 days if he wants, just so long as there wasn't an agreement by the parties where they have made commitments.
If NJ wants to waive Stackhouse and can get terms to do so that they like, they can do so. If Stackhouse wants to go back to Dallas, he can. Just like we thought all along. ESPN is shown up for their crap "reporting" (and I use the term loosely, because it was nothing of the kind). [Did anyone notice the NJ report that the league asked ESPN for a RETRACTION for trying to imply that league officials had a problem with this Stack move, when they had said no such thing?]
From the Dallas Morning News
"The commissioner said during his All-Star news conference that the league is not blocking the inclusion of Jerry Stackhouse in any trade for Kidd, but that a thorough review of any deal is a virtual certainty.
"Even though I don't want to give Stackhouse and the Mavs their defense too easily, things happen," Stern said. "He certainly is allowed to do that in terms of going back after 30 days. The big issue is whether there is an agreement to do it. And speculating about it doesn't make it an agreement, even if you wish he hadn't spoken.""
Stern reiterated that Stackhouse can be involved in the trade. He just emphasized that there can be no prearranged deal.
Cuban elaborated further.
"They called up and said, 'OK, you know the rules, right?' " he said. "Where does Stack come off [talking]? Well, he thought the deal was done, and he thought they were going to release him, so he said what he said. It's not that unusual.
"It only would have been an issue if something bad had been going on. They can look at whatever they want. There's no issue. Everybody was speculating. The best we can surmise is that other GMs around the league didn't want it to happen and started putting their two cents in."
As I've been saying, the parties havent been concerned about this nonsense, because they know they did nothing wrong. ESPN has been publishing crap in this deal, trying to create a story that isnt there.
Stern says they can include Stackhouse, and he even said explicitly that Stackhouse can go back to Dallas in 30 days if he wants, just so long as there wasn't an agreement by the parties where they have made commitments.
If NJ wants to waive Stackhouse and can get terms to do so that they like, they can do so. If Stackhouse wants to go back to Dallas, he can. Just like we thought all along. ESPN is shown up for their crap "reporting" (and I use the term loosely, because it was nothing of the kind). [Did anyone notice the NJ report that the league asked ESPN for a RETRACTION for trying to imply that league officials had a problem with this Stack move, when they had said no such thing?]
From the Dallas Morning News
"The commissioner said during his All-Star news conference that the league is not blocking the inclusion of Jerry Stackhouse in any trade for Kidd, but that a thorough review of any deal is a virtual certainty.
"Even though I don't want to give Stackhouse and the Mavs their defense too easily, things happen," Stern said. "He certainly is allowed to do that in terms of going back after 30 days. The big issue is whether there is an agreement to do it. And speculating about it doesn't make it an agreement, even if you wish he hadn't spoken.""
Stern reiterated that Stackhouse can be involved in the trade. He just emphasized that there can be no prearranged deal.
Cuban elaborated further.
"They called up and said, 'OK, you know the rules, right?' " he said. "Where does Stack come off [talking]? Well, he thought the deal was done, and he thought they were going to release him, so he said what he said. It's not that unusual.
"It only would have been an issue if something bad had been going on. They can look at whatever they want. There's no issue. Everybody was speculating. The best we can surmise is that other GMs around the league didn't want it to happen and started putting their two cents in."
As I've been saying, the parties havent been concerned about this nonsense, because they know they did nothing wrong. ESPN has been publishing crap in this deal, trying to create a story that isnt there.
-
LarryCoon
- Rookie
- Posts: 1,113
- And1: 0
- Joined: Aug 09, 2002
- Location: Irvine, CA
- Contact:
Dunkenstein wrote:Chad Ford: "If the league feels that the Mavs and Nets had pre-arranged a deal that would release Stackhouse and then gotten Stackhouse to agree to return to Dallas ... they might try to prohibit Stackhouse from returning to Dallas. To me the league would have to have direct evidence that it happened."
The CBA explicitly states that they don't need direct evidence: "A violation of Section 2(a) above may be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence, including, but not limited to, evidence that a Player Contract or any term or provision thereof cannot rationally be explained in the absence of conduct violative of Section 2(a)."