<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Feb 15 2008, 04:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Feb 15 2008, 01:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ly_yng @ Feb 15 2008, 04:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Don't even get me started on how ****ing dumb Stackhouse and his dumb ****ing mouth are. God damn it.</div> Even Payton put on a dog and pony show. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Gary Payton was back in Celtics green Friday night, one week after Boston shipped him off to Atlanta in a trade for Antoine Walker. Payton, who re-signed with Boston on Friday after being waived by the Hawks, said he chose the Celtics over Sacramento and Phoenix. "I thought Boston was the better fit," Payton said before the Celtics faced Charlotte on Friday night. "With the young guys, I thought I was obligated to come back to them and teach them some more," he said. "The young kids were calling me almost every day saying 'come on back Gary.' I decided it was the right fit to come back here."</div> Link. Even so, it's not really Stackhouse's fault. There's no rule. </div> http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/stor...&id=2121672 <span style="font-size:18pt;line-height:100%">Ten nuggets in the new CBA</span> 1. Call this one the Gary Payton Rule: Players who are traded and then waived by their new team cannot sign back with the team that traded them for 30 days (20 days in the offseason). Payton, you'll recall, was dealt from Boston to Atlanta in the Antoine Walker trade-deadline swap in February, only to rejoin the Celtics three days later. Had this rule been in place last season, Payton still would have been eligible for the playoffs after Atlanta released him March 1, but he would have been forced to wait until March 31 to re-sign with Boston. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (article in first post)</div><div class='quotemain'>The 30-day rule was added to the league's collective bargaining agreement as a response to a trade between Boston and Atlanta in 2005. In that deal, Boston sent Gary Payton to Atlanta to reacquire Antoine Walker with the understanding that the Hawks would immediately waive Payton, who then re-signed with Boston three days later. The league frowned on this move, and instituted the 30-day rule. By flouting the rule so publicly, Stackhouse may have given the league no choice but to eliminate him from the deal or prevent the Mavericks from re-signing him. "If Stackhouse had kept quiet, the league would not have been able to prove anything," a Western Conference executive said. The executive added that team owners have been calling commissioner David Stern to complain about the Stackhouse part of the deal, and that several GMs would have been incensed if he had allowed the trade -- and subsequent return of Stackhouse to Dallas -- to go through. "Every GM from a potential playoff team in the Western Conference is complaining about this,'' the executive said. "If the league allows this trade to go through, it'll have a major credibility issue on its hands. Our collective bargaining agreement's not worth anything if this goes through.''</div> </div> I posted the exact same quote in this thread, Denny. I repeat. THERE IS NO RULE! Stackhouse can sign with the Mavs if he waits 30 days. There is no credibility issue. The rules of the CBA are being followed.
This is awesome. Doesn't anyone see the irony? Who is Stackhouse's agent? Jeff Schwartz goes out and announces (1) Kidd demands a trade; (2) Kidd insists on getting traded to Dallas (basically); and (3) Kidd will not accept being traded anywhere else. So what happens? The Nets oblige him and one of Schwartz's own other clients fucks it up! Now what is Schwartz's position? Jeff Schwartz could not be getting more fucked by this. Either he loses credibility for retracting Kidd's trade request, or he loses credibility by expanding the list of teams that Kidd will play for. And he loses the 4% of the extension the Mavs were going to give Kidd, as well as the 4% of the MLE that the Mavs were going to give Stackhouse. At least one person in all this is getting what he deserves!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Feb 15 2008, 04:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>This is awesome. Doesn't anyone see the irony? Who is Stackhouse's agent? Jeff Schwartz goes out and announces (1) Kidd demands a trade; (2) Kidd insists on getting traded to Dallas (basically); and (3) Kidd will not accept being traded anywhere else. So what happens? The Nets oblige him and one of Schwartz's own other clients fucks it up! Now what is Schwartz's position? Jeff Schwartz could not be getting more fucked by this. Either he loses credibility for retracting Kidd's trade request, or he loses credibility by expanding the list of teams that Kidd will play for. And he loses the 4% of the extension the Mavs were going to give Kidd, as well as the 4% of the MLE that the Mavs were going to give Stackhouse. At least one person in all this is getting what he deserves!</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Feb 15 2008, 04:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I feel cheated by the NBA. Can't say that's the first time that's happened...</div> And they are usually so reputable!
Actually, the letter of the rule is being followed, but it's a glaring loophole in the CBA that's being exploited. Hence the uproar from other teams. 1) I'd think the Nets would want to keep and play Stackhouse. 2) Stackhouse blew the deal by flaunting how the Nets & Mavs were exploiting the loophole. If you need a wink & nod type of agreement (Stackhouse cut, goes back to the Mavs) to make a deal work, it's not very ethical (at best), and makes a sham of the CBA (which isn't much better).
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Feb 15 2008, 05:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I posted the exact same quote in this thread, Denny. I repeat. THERE IS NO RULE! Stackhouse can sign with the Mavs if he waits 30 days. There is no credibility issue. The rules of the CBA are being followed.</div> You could make the case that there's a tampering issue, if Dallas and Stackhouse privately agreed to a handshake deal. But I'm not sure how Stackhouse saying he wants to play in Dallas makes that true. EDIT: Plus what Denny said. If the Nets did a wink-and-nod deal, that's also not ethical. Still, I say we do the trade and just offer Stack a shitty buyout.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Feb 15 2008, 04:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>This is awesome. Doesn't anyone see the irony? Who is Stackhouse's agent? Jeff Schwartz goes out and announces (1) Kidd demands a trade; (2) Kidd insists on getting traded to Dallas (basically); and (3) Kidd will not accept being traded anywhere else. So what happens? The Nets oblige him and one of Schwartz's own other clients fucks it up! Now what is Schwartz's position? Jeff Schwartz could not be getting more fucked by this. Either he loses credibility for retracting Kidd's trade request, or he loses credibility by expanding the list of teams that Kidd will play for. And he loses the 4% of the extension the Mavs were going to give Kidd, as well as the 4% of the MLE that the Mavs were going to give Stackhouse. At least one person in all this is getting what he deserves!</div> hahaha. That's awesome, and priceless. I'd really love to hear his whole account on this whole affair: what he was thinking, feeling, etc.
Why not just change the deal to the following? Why don't both teams make concessions and just do the following? Dallas sends Devin Harris 4 mil Trenton Hassell 4.4 mil 3 YR Maurice Ager 1 million 2 YR Desagna Diop 2.1 million 1 YR KVH 4.6 million 1 YR 3 million in cash considerations 2008 first rounder 2010 first rounder New Jersey sends Jason Kidd 20 mil 2 YR Malik Allen .770 mil 1 YR Dallas recieves Jason Kidd 20 mil 2 YR Malik Allen .770 mil 1 YR New Jersey recieves Devin Harris 4 mil Trenton Hassell 4.4 mil 3 YR Maurice Ager 1 million 2 YR Desagna Diop 2.1 million 1 YR KVH 4.6 million 1 YR 3 million in cash considerations 2008 first rounder 2010 first rounder Really its not that much different than the first, just needs a little more compromising than originally planned.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Feb 15 2008, 04:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Actually, the letter of the rule is being followed, but it's a glaring loophole in the CBA that's being exploited. Hence the uproar from other teams. 1) I'd think the Nets would want to keep and play Stackhouse. 2) Stackhouse blew the deal by flaunting how the Nets & Mavs were exploiting the loophole. If you need a wink & nod type of agreement (Stackhouse cut, goes back to the Mavs) to make a deal work, it's not very ethical (at best), and makes a sham of the CBA (which isn't much better).</div> I'd buy that if I didn't believe every single other team would do the same thing if it suited their purposes. If they didn't want this "loophole" in the CBA how difficult would it have been to add a rule that states that a player can't re-sign with the same team? It's not like nobody thought of it. It's the logical reaction to the Payton situation. For whatever reason (probably the Player's Association) the rule was intentionally left out of the CBA. I don't blame Stackhouse for not seeing the need to "wink and nod" at the "spirit" of the rule, even if he was being an idiot.
It's clearly unethical, and I always hated it when other teams pulled crap like this. I always secretly hoped that the Nets were above such chicanery, but I guess when it's the only way a deal can get done, something has to be sacrificed. As I posted a lifetime ago, when Stackhouse announced that he was going to be bought out, my initial reaction was that Rod should just tell him to **** off, and offer him a $1 buyout. The problem is that the Mavs don't have the authority to discuss a buyout with Stackhouse, since they won't be the team that would be buying him out. The Nets don't have the authority either, because he isn't their property. It's unethical, and just because other teams do it doesn't make it right. I'm just glad that, no matter how upset Thornepedia and Cuban must be right now, it has to pale compared to what is going on inside Jeff Schwartz's office.
When the hell did the NBA start caring about ethics? This is the same league that enacted a dress code for the bench. If this had been almost any other owner than Cuban, there wouldn't be an issue here. Stern has been this happy in years as he gets to completely fuck over Cuban
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jloc857 @ Feb 15 2008, 04:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Why not just change the deal to the following? Why don't both teams make concessions and just do the following? Dallas sends Devin Harris 4 mil Trenton Hassell 4.4 mil 3 YR Maurice Ager 1 million 2 YR Desagna Diop 2.1 million 1 YR KVH 4.6 million 1 YR 3 million in cash considerations 2008 first rounder 2010 first rounder New Jersey sends Jason Kidd 20 mil 2 YR Malik Allen .770 mil 1 YR Dallas recieves Jason Kidd 20 mil 2 YR Malik Allen .770 mil 1 YR New Jersey recieves Devin Harris 4 mil Trenton Hassell 4.4 mil 3 YR Maurice Ager 1 million 2 YR Desagna Diop 2.1 million 1 YR KVH 4.6 million 1 YR 3 million in cash considerations 2008 first rounder 2010 first rounder Really its not that much different than the first, just needs a little more compromising than originally planned.</div> again, Nets would have too many players. Also, the mavs would have to give some additional concession to the Nets to take on Hassell's three-year deal.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Feb 15 2008, 01:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Feb 15 2008, 04:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Actually, the letter of the rule is being followed, but it's a glaring loophole in the CBA that's being exploited. Hence the uproar from other teams. 1) I'd think the Nets would want to keep and play Stackhouse. 2) Stackhouse blew the deal by flaunting how the Nets & Mavs were exploiting the loophole. If you need a wink & nod type of agreement (Stackhouse cut, goes back to the Mavs) to make a deal work, it's not very ethical (at best), and makes a sham of the CBA (which isn't much better).</div> I'd buy that if I didn't believe every single other team would do the same thing if it suited their purposes. If they didn't want this "loophole" in the CBA how difficult would it have been to add a rule that states that a player can't re-sign with the same team? It's not like nobody thought of it. It's the logical reaction to the Payton situation. For whatever reason (probably the Player's Association) the rule was intentionally left out of the CBA. I don't blame Stackhouse for not seeing the need to "wink and nod" at the "spirit" of the rule, even if he was being an idiot. </div> If Stackhouse said nothing, and things went down like "planned," there'd be some griping about it (as there was with Payton), but not much anyone would do about it. Two people now (aside from myself) have pointed out the tampering angle (I called it unethical). Had the deal gone down and Stackhouse ended up back with the Mavs, there'd have had to have been some actual proof that there was tampering involved. Lastly, I think it is in the commissioner's power to void trades and make rulings like this. It's probably the most important of his duties.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Feb 15 2008, 05:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>When the hell did the NBA start caring about ethics? This is the same league that enacted a dress code for the bench. If this had been almost any other owner than Cuban, there wouldn't be an issue here. Stern has been this happy in years as he gets to completely fuck over Cuban</div> But Rod Thorn is (was?) his friend, and Stern fucked him over even worse.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Feb 15 2008, 05:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Feb 15 2008, 05:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>When the hell did the NBA start caring about ethics? This is the same league that enacted a dress code for the bench. If this had been almost any other owner than Cuban, there wouldn't be an issue here. Stern has been this happy in years as he gets to completely **** over Cuban</div> But Rod Thorn is (was?) his friend, and Stern fucked him over even worse. </div> As an aside, why is the word "****" sometimes ***ed out, and sometimes it isn't? Is there some rule that I could exploit here? edit: **** ****ing fucked refuck fucker
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ly_yng @ Feb 15 2008, 04:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>EDIT: Plus what Denny said. If the Nets did a wink-and-nod deal, that's also not ethical. Still, I say we do the trade and just offer Stack a shitty buyout.</div> That's the problem. The trade doesn't get done unless the Mavs and Nets have an under-the-table understanding that the Nets will buyout a player it otherwise could use because, according to reports, the only way Cuban was willing to inlcude Stackhouse in the deal in the first place was with the unwritten understanding that he would be able to get him back after waiting the 30 days. Stackhouse was just a dumb shit by running his mouth BEFORE THE TRADE WAS EVEN OFFICIALLY ANNOUNCED stating -- as a fact -- that "I'm not going anywhere" and that he would be bought out and enjoy a 30-day vacation. The only way he could be certain of that is if he'd been told that by Mavs management. Thus, unmistakeable earmarks of collusion to subvert the meaning and purpose of the rule. If Stackhouse had kept quiet, everyone would know with a high degree of certainty (afterwards) that there had been collusion beforehand, but they would not be able to prove it. So the appearance of propriety would have been preserved.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Feb 15 2008, 05:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Feb 15 2008, 05:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>When the hell did the NBA start caring about ethics? This is the same league that enacted a dress code for the bench. If this had been almost any other owner than Cuban, there wouldn't be an issue here. Stern has been this happy in years as he gets to completely fuck over Cuban</div> But Rod Thorn is (was?) his friend, and Stern fucked him over even worse. </div> Collateral damage to Stern's target Hopefully someone else makes Thorn an offer during the weekend
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Feb 15 2008, 05:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'm just glad that, no matter how upset Thornepedia and Cuban must be right now, it has to pale compared to what is going on inside Jeff Schwartz's office.</div> Though I'm really, really pissed, because we absolutely fleeced Dallas with this deal, it does make me happy to know that Schwartz has fucked himself over.
You guys had your chance to land Shaq. I hear the Kobe+Pau+Odom+Bynum for Kidd deal is off the table.
