NBA: Stackhouse CANNOT return to the Mavs

[DDansby123]

-= original quote snipped =-
If Kidd doesnt work out, Dallas screws themselves and Im not willing to chance that when there are other deals to be made.

I understand that point, but let me point out that if the team flops in the playoffs again or doesn't win a championship, the options for improving are pretty much the same whether we trade for Kidd or keep Harris: trade Terry, Howard, or Dirk.

[GB]

>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."<

[Scrub Sura]

Damn it....why does the Head Office hate Dallas so much? First we get screwed in the Finals, and now they can't even make a trade. God.

I'd say it was a 50% screw/50% gag in the 2006 Finals.

But when you factor in the monumental gag in '07, I'd say it the Mavericks own damn fault.

Just like Matt Geiger did with Detroit, George and Stackhouse might have saved you in the long run. I won't argue that this team needs a shakeup and Kidd would help, but not for the price you were willing to give up.

Kudos to the league for apparently not letting this "wink-wink" deal happen if the trade eventually goes through. That would've been just ridiculous.

[ppp000]

-= original quote snipped =-



I understand that point, but let me point out that if the team flops in the playoffs again or doesn't win a championship, the options for improving are pretty much the same whether we trade for Kidd or keep Harris: trade Terry, Howard, or Dirk.

I think Kidd increases our chances. Is it a guarantee? Of course not, nothing ever is. Losing Devin hurts, which is why I was against the trade at first but watching this team this season...its definitely not a "no brainer" trade.

If we keep this core intact with the hurt feelings and a FO already implying that they didnt believe this team could win it all, we have little chance of getting out of the West. In that case, there would most likely be major overhauls this offseason which means either Howard, Dirk or Devin would be traded, most likely Howard or Devin (since Cuban seems more committed to Dirk than the others).

[DDansby123]

-= original quote snipped =-
I think Kidd increases our chances. Is it a guarantee? Of course not, nothing ever is. Losing Devin hurts, which is why I was against the trade at first but watching this team this season...its definitely not a "no brainer" trade.

If we keep this core intact with the hurt feelings and a FO already implying that they didnt believe this team could win it all, we have little chance of getting out of the West. In that case, there would most likely be major overhauls this offseason which means either Howard, Dirk or Devin would be traded, most likely Howard or Devin (since Cuban seems more committed to Dirk than the others).

I agree completely.

[LUUUKE]

OWNED

[FGump]

-
Ask Kevin McHale about that. He lost 4 draft picks because they thought a verbal agreement couldn't be held against them. He would scream bloody murder if the league let Stack, Thorn, and Cuban's verbal agreement stand.

Actually there was a WRITTEN agreement. And it called for paying a player money to the side, which is expressly forbidden in the rules.

On the other hand, signing a deal with a team that traded you, as a free agent, is NOT forbidden. The situations are not even close to the same thing.

-= original quote snipped =-

If Stern found out we were tampering with potential free agents, he could actually dock us and New Jersey some draft picks. Maybe even the one we would trade to NJ so niether team gets them.

Also keep in mind that teams with trade exceptions large enough to get Stack can grab him off waivers before we would have a chance to sign him.

Stern can, and did, do what he has within hios power.

Talking to Stack is tampering with potential free agents? No. A team is always allowed to talk to their own players, in anticipation of future deals. He wasn't a Net when they talked with him, assuming they did.

As far as some team claiming him off waivers, that won't happen. The list starts with GS and ends with Phoenix, and includes no one else, and neither team would want the salary.

-
I was going to comment that the original rumor about the NBA blocking Stackhouse from re-signing with the Mavs is completely illogical and I never believed it had any validity.

The NBA and the NBPA addressed this issue when negotiating the 2005 CBA and decided that a 30 day in season or 20 day out of season waiting period was the appropriate mechanism for dealing with the practice of players being traded, waived by their new teams, and then re-signed by their old teams. The so-called "Gary Payton Provision"

There was no such rule in the 1999 CBA.
The NBA addressed that practice by saying, "Ok, if you choose to do something like that, your penalty is that you have to wait 30 days in season or 20 days in the offseason"

I can't believe my old friend FGump has not weighed in on this yet...

I'm letting everyone else speak first, GAD.

My take is identical to yours. If the league wanted to outlaw this, why did they make a rule saying here is how you do it? They could have simply banned a player from going back to his old team, but didn't. That sounds to me like they are saying it's totally permissible, as long as other teams get a big head start. If they can't sign him, then you get your chance.

And I see Broussard's weak ESPN article where GMs (supposedly) are saying it must be illegal if he turns down deals from elsewhere to sign with Dallas. What nonsense; that's not evidence of illegality. Who wrote that, a mouthpiece for a Mav rival trying to sway opinion, rather than a reporter? That article was one of the biggest pieces of propoganda I've ever seen.

He supposedly cites an NBA GM saying "everyone is objecting" but is suspiciously short of actually asking those other GMs if they really are complaining. It sounds like a reporter doing a favor for a buddy, and trying to create an issue out of thin air like ESPN does at times.

If a player is a free agent, it's HIS choice who he wants to sign with, and no one else's. It's not a case where the first one to offer him a deal somehow has dibs on him. If he's just built a house and wants to be with his family in the city he's been playing in, he has that right.

The rule says that including the cutting of a player as part of the deal so he can return to his previous team is a no-no.

New Jersey had obviously agreed to cut Stack and Stack had already agreed to return. It was cap circumvention.

Really? How did they make this "part of the deal"?

The idea that things like this are discussed is a given, but teams CAN'T create an agreement like that even if they both like what is discussed. Why? Because it can't be written into the terms of the trade. And it wasn't. Therefore any such understanding can never turn into an agreement, and is unenforceable once the trade happens. Teams are free to do as they want with the players they receive, in their best interest, when the trade is done.

Thorn knows the rules. He worked in the league office. And he knew they had no agreement, and couldn't have one. So did Cuban, who had done a deal like the Stack angle before and knows it has no guarantees.

[captainrebel]

I said this would happen. Stern and Company hate Cuban so much that they will do anything they can to screw him which of course screws the Mav fans.

I think this means that Cuban will not even do the deal. It was one thing when we were giving up Harris, Diop, filler and a couple of picks. If we were likely to get Stackhouse back then it was more acceptable but if we have to include Stack with Harris and Diop then I don't think he will do it.

F*** Devin George
F*** Stackhouse for opening his mouth
F*** David Stern for once again screwing the Mavericks
So now we will have a team of guys who will have thier feelings hurt because we were trying to trade them.

You may thank them later. Dont you guys think you were giving up too much? Now since Stack cannot go back to Dallas this deal is not getting done unless you get a third team involved or you substitute Stack for someone the Nets really like.

[Fido]

-= original quote snipped =-



Really? How did they make this "part of the deal"?

The idea that things like this are discussed is a given, but teams CAN'T create an agreement like that even if they both like what is discussed. Why? Because it can't be written into the terms of the trade. And it wasn't. Therefore any such understanding can never turn into an agreement, and is unenforceable once the trade happens. Teams are free to do as they want with the players they receive, in their best interest, when the trade is done.

Thorn knows the rules. He worked in the league office. And he knew they had no agreement, and couldn't have one. So did Cuban, who had done a deal like the Stack angle before and knows it has no guarantees.

Yes, this is only tampering IF New Jersey had already expressed either verbally or written to Stackhouse or his agent that they would cut him and the Mavs indicated they would resign him since he isn't the Nets player yet. The verbal part is nearly impossible to prove. There apparently is no written agreement of such a thing like in the Joe Smith deal. So while there is no evidence aside from Stackhouse's big mouth, it would be easily defended by saying this was just Stackhouse speculating on how he envisioned it playing out.

[SpeedyG]

If my math is correct we would have to sign KVH for about $8.6 million to get the trade done without George and Stack. That's over $17 million in luxury tax we would have to pay.

The only way I see this getting done is if we decide to trade Stack anyway and then sign KVH to a much smaller deal.

That sounds like a plausible deal. Take George out of the deal, and replace him with KVH who is signed to replace Devean's salary.

[8/24]

Finally Stern does Cuban a favor.

This is great news. Now Devin won't be traded for Kidd.

I would now offer Terry + Hassell+ KVH, +2 #1s and cash.

Let them choke on that or live with a completely disruptive Kidd for the rest of the year.

Uhhh? What about the chemistry of your team? I think there'd be some choking going on in Dallas too!

[8/24]

The mavs arn't just limited to their players, its still possible to bring in another team to help with little things.

Mavs Trade- Harris, Diop, KVH, 2 picks, cash
NJ trades- Kidd, Allen, Wright
Seattle Trades- Kurt Thomas

Mavs get- Kidd, Kurt Thomas
NJ gets- Harris, Diop, KVH, 2 picks, Cash
Seattle gets- Allen, wright


I havent ran it through the trade thing, but something like that COULD work.

Why the hell would Seattle do that?

[JES12]

Sources say New Jersey, however, has no interest in Hassell, presumably because Hassell's guaranteed salary of $4.4 million for the 2009-10 season is more than double Stackhouse's $2 million guarantee.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3248711

I thought his whole salary was guaranteed. If it's not, this is even more of a steal for the nets.

[8/24]

-= original quote snipped =-



Ask Kevin McHale about that. He lost 4 draft picks because they thought a verbal agreement couldn't be held against them. He would scream bloody murder if the league let Stack, Thorn, and Cuban's verbal agreement stand.

If I am not mistaken in Mchale's scenario....Joe Smith's side deal was in writing

[Pointguard01]

I understand that point, but let me point out that if the team flops in the playoffs again or doesn't win a championship, the options for improving are pretty much the same whether we trade for Kidd or keep Harris: trade Terry, Howard, or Dirk.

True. But by next year, Kidd could decline more and Harris could improve more. The year after that, Im willing to bet its not even close to who the better player is between the two.

Im not advocating the idea that just staying good enough to compete, but not win is ok with me, but making a risky move like this, with plenty of others available wont give my support.

I think Kidd increases our chances. Is it a guarantee? Of course not, nothing ever is. Losing Devin hurts, which is why I was against the trade at first but watching this team this season...its definitely not a "no brainer" trade.

I think Ron Artest inceases our chances.
I think Mike Miller increases our chances.
I think Corey Maggette increases our chances.

The question is does this trade give you the confidence that Dallas is better than the Lakers, Spurs or Suns, and then Detroit or Boston. I think adding one of the players above for basically nothing gives us just as good a chance and yet gives us options for the following years.

[Hoops23]

I think the decision of the NBA and George not agreeing to the deal is like a blessing in disguise. For me the Mavs are giving too much for an old Kidd.

[Taiyab_K]

I think the decision of the NBA and George not agreeing to the deal is like a blessing in disguise. For me the Mavs are giving too much for an old Kidd.

The Mavericks only have a few years left in the tank...for them it's now or never. 2006, they were almost there...2007 was an odd year. Sooner or later, it'll be too late for them.