League Ban on Z Rejoining Cavs?

Mezotarkus · Post #1 » by **Mezotarkus** » Mon Feb 22, 2010 11:35 am

There are rumors the league is intending to block Iglauskas from rejoining the Cavaliers. Is the league able to do this? I am generally aware the league has broad powers to ensure the salary cap rules are not being circumvented, etc. but I thought these powers could only be invoked if the league could show some sort of intent on part of a team or teams to do so. I am not sure such intent exists with the Cavs and Iglauskas given he has the freedom to sign anywhere.

Post #2 » by **Three34** » Mon Feb 22, 2010 12:02 pm

They prevented Stackhouse from doing the same during the first draft of the Kidd trade, because Jerry foolishly stated his intent.

If they can prove it, they can prevent it. Based on the whispers, they seem to think they can prove it. Of course, Z, the Cavs, the Wizards and Herb Rudoy will deny it all, so they'd better have something pretty concrete rather than just pointing to the overt obviousness of it.

Dunkenstein · Post #3 » by **Dunkenstein** » Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:33 pm

Rumors. Sources. It seems all the reporting done these days is based on rumors or on "unnamed soucces". Now we have a rumor about a rumor. The LA Times reporter Mark Heisler tweeted about a rumor that the NBA was going to bar Ilgauskas from rejoining the Cavs based on all the speculation in the media that he would return to Cleveland 30 days after getting bought out by Washington.

I think all the parties concerned learned from the Stackhouse mistake, and the league will not have an actual statement or act which they can point at as their justification in stopping his return to Cleveland should he desire to do so.

FGump · Post #4 » by **FGump** » Mon Feb 22, 2010 8:16 pm

Dallas Mavericks' Donnie Nelson has stated on the record that no such directive from the NBA re Z has been dispersed and calls the rumors "hogwash."

http://www.dallasbasketball.com/fullColumn.php?id=2617

*On Ilgauskas, and the subject of rumors insisting that the NBA would preclude him from re-signing with Cleveland after he negotiates a buyout from Washington:

“You hear all that hogwash about the NBA blocking that,’’ Nelson tells me. “But there’s no truth to it.’’

Ilgauskas has made it clear his preference is to play in Cleveland, where he’s spent his entire 12-year NBA career. Nevertheless, the Mavs publically expressed a just-in-case interest. ... But Donnie seems quite sure Big Z will be allowed to re-up with the Cavs.

daddyfivestar · Post #5 » by **daddyfivestar** » Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:41 am

How would Donnie Nelson have insight in what the league office may or may not do? Doesn't he work for a team? Also, wasn't the Stackhouse incident pre-trade, not post, like now with Z?

FGump · Post #6 » by **FGump** » Wed Feb 24, 2010 7:28 am

daddyfivestar wrote: How would Donnie Nelson have insight in what the league office may or may not do? Doesn't he work for a team?

This article was in the wake of the following:

"The Los Angeles Times reported the NBA has told teams the center won't be allowed to return to the Cavaliers, based on evidence there was a prearranged deal."

And since he's a GM, he certainly would know what the NBA had or had not said to its teams.

daddyfivestar wrote: Also, wasn't the Stackhouse incident pre-trade, not post, like now with Z?

How is that relevant? The Stackhouse trade incident can't tell us what the NBA just said (or didn't say) or who knows what right now.

LarryCoon · Post #7 » by **LarryCoon** » Wed Feb 24, 2010 7:34 pm

I've heard a pretty strong denial that the league said anything to the teams.

Stackhouse, remember, blabbed last year.

daddyfivestar · Post #8 » by **daddyfivestar** » Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:08 pm

FGump wrote:
daddyfivestar wrote: Also, wasn't the Stackhouse incident pre-trade, not post, like now with Z?

How is that relevant? The Stackhouse trade incident can't tell us what the NBA just said (or didn't say) or who knows what right now.

It was just a question. Hence the "?" Feel free to douche at anytime, sounds like you're a bit uppity.

Post #9 » by **Three34** » Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:10 pm

Yes, the Stackhouse incident was pre-trade. Asked about the potential deal, Stackhouse said it was no big deal; he'd just put his feet up for 30 days and then rejoin the Mavs, which was a quite blatant statement of intent. That's why they had to rework it with Van Horn.

daddyfivestar · Post #10 » by **daddyfivestar** » Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:12 pm

Sorry, I got a bit riled up there with gump's declaration. I've been busy at Teen Vogue and have a whole feminine products situation at hand to deal with; got the best of me.

FGump · Post #11 » by **FGump** » Thu Feb 25, 2010 6:38 am

Daddy, no deed to get snippy skippy. I didn't get the connection that you were trying to make (and still don't) when you brought up the Stackhouse case in the context of asking about Donnie's remarks, and was offering you the opportunity to provide whatever connection you thought there was. If you're going to get your feelings bruised just by a simple response, you shouldn't even be in the Nitpicker's Forum.