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

[INKtastic]

Can someone explain to he how DJ broke a "verbal" contract with Dallas when there was a moratorium on all deals? If it can't be signed, how can a verbal deal have any legal merit? It seems DJ made a promise but in no way was that a legal contract. In some ways, the moratorium may be there to prevent players being bullied by their agents and friends (some of them are pretty young).

a promise is the same thing as a verbal commitment and certainly can be legally binding.

If one party makes a statement or a promise that causes another party to rely on that statement in such a way that he or she is financially injured by that reliance, then a court will enforce the statement or promise as if it was a completed contract. The court does not need to find an agreement or consideration in order to enforce the promise like a contract.

http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/business-contracts-forms/when-will-a-promise-or-statement-be-considered-a-binding.html

[QRich3]

Legally it means nothing because the situation is governed by the CBA which requires contracts to be in writing. But in terms of impacting future behavior, or changing the rules so that teams can't talk to players until they can sign them, it could matter.

After the entire Boozer fiasco, teams didn't trust players enough to release their rights and sign them to a new contract. Now players drafted in the second get stuck.

Again, this exact thing has happened several times, and with players who were actually allstars. Nothing happened. Only difference is there's twitter now and every meeting is being narrated in real time. But it's happened several times, including to the Clippers in a more franchise-crippling fashion than what the Mavs are suffering now.

[kd 35]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/MrMichaelLee/status/618900529066803201[/tweet]

Wow. That's amazing.

I liked this one too:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/Tai1388/status/618846475229921281[/tweet]

[Dirk]

Legally it means nothing because the situation is governed by the CBA which requires contracts to be in writing. But in terms of impacting future behavior, or changing the rules so that teams can't talk to players until they can sign them, it could matter.

After the entire Boozer fiasco, teams didn't trust players enough to release their rights and sign them to a new contract. Now players drafted in the second get stuck.

Again, this exact thing has happened several times, and with players who were actually allstars. Nothing happened. Only difference is there's twitter now and every meeting is being narrated in real time. But it's happened several times, including to the Clippers in a more franchise-crippling fashion than what the Mavs are suffering now.

Franchise crippling? Elton Brand was hurt. You got lucky.

[GriZZHawK]

I feel like the last team to talk to DJ (i.e. Dallas) will have the advantage. He is so weak minded that he will be convinced by the most recent conversations. Moreover, regardless of who he eventually ends up with, he will have second thoughts afterwards.

The weak minded part is dead on, not sure though. If he's still this conflicted; I wouldn't be surprised if he just stays with the Clipps. He'll get plenty of boos next season in Dallas. This really puts dallas in a bind when it comes to a decent center if he doesn't sign with them

[mtron929]

so i guess you'd be ok with teams doing this as well. 'you know that 80 million we promised you? well, we thought about it and now that we waited until everyone actually signed contracts and no team has the cap room, we think you're only worth 60.'

You have a point here. I guess there is nothing to stop this from happening from a legal sense. Its one thing for a player to back out from deal and accept a 5 year deal instead, but a team that renegs on a verbal deal will feel much more pain in the long run.

any team who did something like that would be vilified and they'd be in effect blackballed by any FAs of note. DJ basically had the Mavs plan their FA commitments around his promise. Never mind losing players and the opportunity to pursue others, how about Matthews? Is it now ok for Dallas to say, well, we're going to tank so, sorry Wes, we can't give you that contract? Or do they have to honor that commitment? DJ is a complet ahole.

To be honest, with regards to Wes Matthews, I think the league (as well as the fans) would be more understanding if the Mavs pulled the offer. Without DJ, Matthews is just not really needed here as Dallas should tank. Sucks for Matthews if the Mavs pursued that route but he would be collateral damage here.

[GuyverX]

No, they're legally binding, but the league has their own rules and the owners don't tend to take their business to the legal system. As for Sterling, it's not clear that Brand ever committed to signing with the Clippers.

there was no contract bruh.

A verbal contract is a legally binding contract. Whether either of the parties choose to pursue that fact in the legal system, is another matter; but the key isn't whether Jordan tweeted about it, the key is whether he and the Mavs made a verbal agreement, and whether that can be proven in a court of law.

The NBA has their own laws. Outside of the league, yes, you can try to enforce a verbal agreement with proof and witnesses and all that. But since the CBA clearly states that no contracts can be given prior to July 9th, it goes against their own laws to enforce it.

During the July Moratorium (see question number 104), teams may not enter into verbal or written agreements. Therefore any agreements that are struck during the moratorium are still characterized as negotiations, and do not count toward team salary.

[Yuri Vaultin]

But if Deandre Jordan were to re-sign with the Clips and go into FA again next year, there'd still be a ton of teams vying for his services

Sure, but they'd all be lined up outside his door with 5 minutes left on the moratorium...

[QRich3]

Legally it means nothing because the situation is governed by the CBA which requires contracts to be in writing. But in terms of impacting future behavior, or changing the rules so that teams can't talk to players until they can sign them, it could matter.

After the entire Boozer fiasco, teams didn't trust players enough to release their rights and sign them to a new contract. Now players drafted in the second get stuck.

Again, this exact thing has happened several times, and with players who were actually allstars. Nothing happened. Only difference is there's twitter now and every meeting is being narrated in real time. But it's happened several times, including to the Clippers in a more franchise-crippling fashion than what the Mavs are suffering now.

Franchise crippling? Elton Brand was hurt. You got lucky.

Stuck in the lottery for half a decade with the most spectacularly bad contract in the league in Baron Davis, is what we got. We needed to give away Kyrie Irving to get rid of him, if you don't remember.

[jbk1234]

Legally it means nothing because the situation is governed by the CBA which requires contracts to be in writing. But in terms of impacting future behavior, or changing the rules so that teams can't talk to players until they can sign them, it could matter.

After the entire Boozer fiasco, teams didn't trust players enough to release their rights and sign them to a new contract. Now players drafted in the second get stuck.

Again, this exact thing has happened several times, and with players who were actually allstars. Nothing happened. Only difference is there's twitter now and every meeting is being narrated in real time. But it's happened several times, including to the Clippers in a more franchise-crippling fashion than what the Mavs are suffering now.

This exact thing has never happened before. No player has ever been offered a max contract, accepted, and then changed his mind. Turkalo, who was hardly a franchise player, is the one player I know of who ever gave a team an explicit oral commitment and backed out. If this type of conduct was common, then no player, agent or team would trust a hand shake agreement and the current system would break down. The new rule would be that no agreement means anything until it's in writing. Players would eventually get burned by that approach.

[Thugger HBC]

No, they're legally binding, but the league has their own rules and the owners don't tend to take their business to the legal system. As for Sterling, it's not clear that Brand ever committed to signing with the Clippers.

there was no contract bruh.

A verbal contract is a legally binding contract. Whether either of the parties choose to pursue that fact in the legal system, is another matter; but the key isn't whether Jordan tweeted about it, the key is whether he and the Mavs made a verbal agreement, and whether that can be proven in a court of law.

The league states plainly parties cannot enter into any oral or written agreement during the moratorium, they only talk terms.

It's not different than going to a a dealership, running your credit, getting approved for a car, and discussing the terms of payment.

Nothing is official until you sign those documents. you can walk out at any given time.

[EntropyPR]

Mark Cuban should've hired these guys to protect his possible investment.

[ZB9]

You have a point here. I guess there is nothing to stop this from happening from a legal sense. Its one thing for a player to back out from deal and accept a 5 year deal instead, but a team that renegs on a verbal deal will feel much more pain in the long run.

any team who did something like that would be vilified and they'd be in effect blackballed by any FAs of note. DJ basically had the Mavs plan their FA commitments around his promise. Never mind losing players and the opportunity to pursue others, how about Matthews? Is it now ok for Dallas to say, well, we're going to tank so, sorry Wes, we can't give you that contract? Or do they have to honor that commitment? DJ is a complet ahole.

To be honest, with regards to Wes Matthews, I think the league (as well as the fans) would be more understanding if the Mavs pulled the offer. Without DJ, Matthews is just not really needed here as Dallas should tank. Sucks for Matthews if the Mavs pursued that route but he would be collateral damage here.

A 3 and D guy like Matthews would be an asset in Dallas regardless if they sign DJ or not.

[NBAfan3024]

Hope we hear something tonight

[kobe_vs_jordan]

Can someone explain to he how DJ broke a "verbal" contract with Dallas when there was a moratorium on all deals? If it can't be signed, how can a verbal deal have any legal merit? It seems DJ made a promise but in no way was that a legal contract. In some ways, the moratorium may be there to prevent players being bullied by their agents and friends (some of them are pretty young).

a promise is the same thing as a verbal commitment and certainly can be legally binding.

If one party makes a statement or a promise that causes another party to rely on that statement in such a way that he or she is financially injured by that reliance, then a court will enforce the statement or promise as if it was a completed contract. The court does not need to find an agreement or consideration in order to enforce the promise like a contract.

http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/business-contracts-forms/when-will-a-promise-or-statement-be-considered-a-binding.html

NBA rules say teams can not reach an oral agreement before moratorium. They can only discuss terms. So legally, there was no agreement , only terms discussed.

[bklynstoops]

You have a point here. I guess there is nothing to stop this from happening from a legal sense. Its one thing for a player to back out from deal and accept a 5 year deal instead, but a team that renegs on a verbal deal will feel much more pain in the long run.

any team who did something like that would be vilified and they'd be in effect blackballed by any FAs of note. DJ basically had the Mavs plan their FA commitments around his promise. Never mind losing players and the opportunity to pursue others, how about Matthews? Is it now ok for Dallas to say, well, we're going to tank so, sorry Wes, we can't give you that contract? Or do they have to honor that commitment? DJ is a complet ahole.

To be honest, with regards to Wes Matthews, I think the league (as well as the fans) would be more understanding if the Mavs pulled the offer. Without DJ, Matthews is just not really needed here as Dallas should tank. Sucks for Matthews if the Mavs pursued that route but he would be collateral damage here.

i think the Mavs would kill their reputation doing something like that. Though I think it would be more interesting if they did and Wes ended up with a crap contract. I doubt players would be sending out cute emoji tweets when it affects other players' pockets.

[ChipotleWest]

As a Mavs fan I have accepted that Jordan is going back to the Clippers. I say we troll the league go full tard give the max to Rodrique Beaubois and start Satnam Singh at center.

[AsijsLV]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/Chris_Broussard/status/618903832366555136[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/Chris_Broussard/status/618904290137141248[/tweet]

[QRich3]

Legally it means nothing because the situation is governed by the CBA which requires contracts to be in writing. But in terms of impacting future behavior, or changing the rules so that teams can't talk to players until they can sign them, it could matter.

After the entire Boozer fiasco, teams didn't trust players enough to release their rights and sign them to a new contract. Now players drafted in the second get stuck.

Again, this exact thing has happened several times, and with players who were actually allstars. Nothing happened. Only difference is there's twitter now and every meeting is being narrated in real time. But it's happened several times, including to the Clippers in a more franchise-crippling fashion than what the Mavs are suffering now.

This exact thing has never happened before. No player has ever been offered a max contract, accepted, and then changed his mind. Turkalo, who was hardly a franchise player, is the one player I know of who ever gave a team an explicit oral commitment and backed out. If this type of conduct was common, then no player, agent or team would trust a hand shake agreement and the current system would break down. The new rule would be that no agreement means anything until it's in writing. Players would eventually get burned by that approach.

Yes, yes they have, unless you want to get caught up in the max contract part. Bigger impact players than DJ did exactly this. Brand recruited Baron Davis who we proceeded to give a monstrous contract to, just before he was convinced by his agent David Falk that he'd be better in Philly. Go a few pages back and it's explained how McDyess did the same exact thing to Denver. And there's a few more like this that I won't bother to recount.

[mateo82]

It would be a total joke if he changed his decision. He committed to the Mavs, which by media, teams, everyone, is basically official.

I've backed out of accepting a job twice, no one really cares. Counter offers are normal.