this stinks. i am on record and saying that I don't think stackhouse should be allowed back to the mavs and that a rule should be in place but the fact is that there is no rule in place. Stern should use this fiasco as exhibit A in the offseason as to why the rule needs to be approved but for right now, it should go through. i mean, how many other teams have been able to get away with this over the years? it's happened countless times yet for some reason he gets involved in this one. Also, as someone else stated, how can he be so flexible on this rule yet suspend guys left and right for taking 2 steps onto the court during a fight. I swear if he says that this deal violates the intention of the rule then he should be called out on the suns suspensions last year because that violated the intention also.
Why is Stern at fault? Consider the implications that this trade would set: Whenever a team wanted to get rid of a player, they would trade him to another team, doesn't really matter for who. They would agree to a buyout with the team prior to the trade. By sending the team Cash. Then they resign the player again. In practice: Superstar1 gets traded to Team1 for Superstar2 and $1M cash. Team1 buys out Superstar2 for $1M cash. After 30 days, Superstar2 signs with the Team2 for a new contract. The result: 2 superstars playing together. Now imagine if a team announces that they badly want a championship, so they're offering big contracts to good players. You can accumulate a full team of Superstars by doing these trades. More than that, you can use this to resign players to new contracts before the terms are up. Just take someone's crap, and upon your player coming back to you, you negotiate a new deal. It's a very extensive loophole.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Astral @ Feb 15 2008, 07:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Why is Stern at fault? Consider the implications that this trade would set: Whenever a team wanted to get rid of a player, they would trade him to another team, doesn't really matter for who. They would agree to a buyout with the team prior to the trade. By sending the team Cash. Then they resign the player again. In practice: Superstar1 gets traded to Team1 for Superstar2 and $1M cash. Team1 buys out Superstar2 for $1M cash. After 30 days, Superstar2 signs with the Team2 for a new contract. The result: 2 superstars playing together. Now imagine if a team announces that they badly want a championship, so they're offering big contracts to good players. You can accumulate a full team of Superstars by doing these trades. More than that, you can use this to resign players to new contracts before the terms are up. Just take someone's crap, and upon your player coming back to you, you negotiate a new deal. It's a very extensive loophole.</div> And its not illegal. So why are we being punished? If Stern wants to change the rule he should do so in the off-season. Right now a valid and legal deal is being held up when there is means in the collective bargaining agreement that allows the league office to do so. Any personal moral belief on the issue is a moot point.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GMJigga @ Feb 15 2008, 07:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Astral @ Feb 15 2008, 07:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Why is Stern at fault? Consider the implications that this trade would set: Whenever a team wanted to get rid of a player, they would trade him to another team, doesn't really matter for who. They would agree to a buyout with the team prior to the trade. By sending the team Cash. Then they resign the player again. In practice: Superstar1 gets traded to Team1 for Superstar2 and $1M cash. Team1 buys out Superstar2 for $1M cash. After 30 days, Superstar2 signs with the Team2 for a new contract. The result: 2 superstars playing together. Now imagine if a team announces that they badly want a championship, so they're offering big contracts to good players. You can accumulate a full team of Superstars by doing these trades. More than that, you can use this to resign players to new contracts before the terms are up. Just take someone's crap, and upon your player coming back to you, you negotiate a new deal. It's a very extensive loophole.</div> And its not illegal. So why are we being punished? If Stern wants to change the rule he should do so in the off-season. Right now a valid and legal deal is being held up when there is means in the collective bargaining agreement that allows the league office to do so. Any personal moral belief on the issue is a moot point. </div> I don't think that's how business works. You find a glaring mistake, you fix it YESTERDAY. (no, not tomorrow) Honestly: if you were a fan of a team NOT involved in this trade, what would you say?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Astral @ Feb 15 2008, 07:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GMJigga @ Feb 15 2008, 07:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Astral @ Feb 15 2008, 07:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Why is Stern at fault? Consider the implications that this trade would set: Whenever a team wanted to get rid of a player, they would trade him to another team, doesn't really matter for who. They would agree to a buyout with the team prior to the trade. By sending the team Cash. Then they resign the player again. In practice: Superstar1 gets traded to Team1 for Superstar2 and $1M cash. Team1 buys out Superstar2 for $1M cash. After 30 days, Superstar2 signs with the Team2 for a new contract. The result: 2 superstars playing together. Now imagine if a team announces that they badly want a championship, so they're offering big contracts to good players. You can accumulate a full team of Superstars by doing these trades. More than that, you can use this to resign players to new contracts before the terms are up. Just take someone's crap, and upon your player coming back to you, you negotiate a new deal. It's a very extensive loophole.</div> And its not illegal. So why are we being punished? If Stern wants to change the rule he should do so in the off-season. Right now a valid and legal deal is being held up when there is means in the collective bargaining agreement that allows the league office to do so. Any personal moral belief on the issue is a moot point. </div> I don't think that's how business works. You find a glaring mistake, you fix it YESTERDAY. (no, not tomorrow) Honestly: if you were a fan of a team NOT involved in this trade, what would you say? </div> Except the analogy of a business doesn't apply here. There are negotiations that have to be made as this would mean adding a stipulation to the CBA. It's not as simple as fixing a policy change.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Astral @ Feb 15 2008, 07:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You find a glaring mistake, you fix it YESTERDAY. (no, not tomorrow)</div> They didn't just "find" this "mistake". The provision isn't in there for a reason. It would have been very simple to just add another sentence to the "30 day" rule that forbids teams from re-signing players they traded, but the rule isn't there.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Astral @ Feb 15 2008, 07:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Why is Stern at fault? Consider the implications that this trade would set: Whenever a team wanted to get rid of a player, they would trade him to another team, doesn't really matter for who. They would agree to a buyout with the team prior to the trade. By sending the team Cash. Then they resign the player again. In practice: Superstar1 gets traded to Team1 for Superstar2 and $1M cash. Team1 buys out Superstar2 for $1M cash. After 30 days, Superstar2 signs with the Team2 for a new contract. The result: 2 superstars playing together. Now imagine if a team announces that they badly want a championship, so they're offering big contracts to good players. You can accumulate a full team of Superstars by doing these trades. More than that, you can use this to resign players to new contracts before the terms are up. Just take someone's crap, and upon your player coming back to you, you negotiate a new deal. It's a very extensive loophole.</div> The problem with your scenario is that Superstar2 loses a ton of money in that scenario which they would never agree to. The only reason this Stackhouse situation would work is that the Mavs still have their MLE available. Additionally no team with a superstar would have the cap space to do the other things you are suggesting.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pegs @ Feb 15 2008, 05:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Feb 15 2008, 05:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><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> WTF is refuck??? hahaha, that's priceless. Now, if nothing happens with this trade, who gets the shittier end of the stick, the Mavs, or the Nets? Does the Mavs chemistry ruin them worse, or does the Nets have more problems with Kidd, and end up getting a shittier trade, or no trade at all? </div> Definitely Mavs get the worst of it. They've got several players who they just friggen moved to another team but now they're back with the Mavs lol. They'll probably say it doesn't effect them but you never know.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Feb 15 2008, 07:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Astral @ Feb 15 2008, 07:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Why is Stern at fault? Consider the implications that this trade would set: Whenever a team wanted to get rid of a player, they would trade him to another team, doesn't really matter for who. They would agree to a buyout with the team prior to the trade. By sending the team Cash. Then they resign the player again. In practice: Superstar1 gets traded to Team1 for Superstar2 and $1M cash. Team1 buys out Superstar2 for $1M cash. After 30 days, Superstar2 signs with the Team2 for a new contract. The result: 2 superstars playing together. Now imagine if a team announces that they badly want a championship, so they're offering big contracts to good players. You can accumulate a full team of Superstars by doing these trades. More than that, you can use this to resign players to new contracts before the terms are up. Just take someone's crap, and upon your player coming back to you, you negotiate a new deal. It's a very extensive loophole.</div> The problem with your scenario is that Superstar2 loses a ton of money in that scenario which they would never agree to. The only reason this Stackhouse situation would work is that the Mavs still have their MLE available. Additionally no team with a superstar would have the cap space to do the other things you are suggesting. </div> Hmm. Maybe you're right - you're better at the cap stuff, but explain this: From what I remember, Mavs payroll is around 92M. Since the trade has to have relatively matching salaries, Mavs payroll will stay around $92M after the Kidd trade. How are Mavs able to resign Stackhouse if they're already over the cap? Vets min or they are using MLE? If yes, you're right. But we all know that for a lot of "superstars", money is not the issue. Malone took a Vets min to play on the Lakers. If you already made close to $100M, most superstars will sacrifice 1 or 2 years worth of salary to play on a great team. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>They didn't just "find" this "mistake". The provision isn't in there for a reason. It would have been very simple to just add another sentence to the "30 day" rule that forbids teams from re-signing players they traded, but the rule isn't there.</div> Why isn't this a "mistake"? It's an oversight, which is a type of a mistake. I mean, logic dictates that if this creates such a problem now and they feel the need to fix it ASAP, then they didn't think of it before, right? If they did consider this scenario before, they would have fixed it then. They didn't think of it (which makes them idiots), but they're still right for fixing it as soon as they can.
The league has no leg to stand on. No rule to prevent the 30-day thing, and no evidence that the deal was prearranged with Stack. If the NBA tries to intervene, it's Lawyer time and they'll lose. Bottomline, Cuban needs to just put KVH in this so we can get it over with.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Astral @ Feb 15 2008, 07:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>They didn't just "find" this "mistake". The provision isn't in there for a reason. It would have been very simple to just add another sentence to the "30 day" rule that forbids teams from re-signing players they traded, but the rule isn't there.</div> Why isn't this a "mistake"? It's an oversight, which is a type of a mistake. I mean, logic dictates that if this creates such a problem now and they feel the need to fix it ASAP, then they didn't think of it before, right? If they did consider this scenario before, they would have fixed it then. They didn't think of it (which makes them idiots), but they're still right for fixing it as soon as they can. </div> You are making it sound like this is some kind of oversight that they just discovered. It's not. The rule was purposefully and intentionally written without the provision that a team cannot trade a player and re-sign him in the same season. I don't know why they left it out. My guess is that the PA wouldn't agree to it and Stern threw them a bone figuring that he could just kill this kind of deal out of hand anyway.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Astral @ Feb 15 2008, 07:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GMJigga @ Feb 15 2008, 07:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Astral @ Feb 15 2008, 07:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Why is Stern at fault? Consider the implications that this trade would set: Whenever a team wanted to get rid of a player, they would trade him to another team, doesn't really matter for who. They would agree to a buyout with the team prior to the trade. By sending the team Cash. Then they resign the player again. In practice: Superstar1 gets traded to Team1 for Superstar2 and $1M cash. Team1 buys out Superstar2 for $1M cash. After 30 days, Superstar2 signs with the Team2 for a new contract. The result: 2 superstars playing together. Now imagine if a team announces that they badly want a championship, so they're offering big contracts to good players. You can accumulate a full team of Superstars by doing these trades. More than that, you can use this to resign players to new contracts before the terms are up. Just take someone's crap, and upon your player coming back to you, you negotiate a new deal. It's a very extensive loophole.</div> And its not illegal. So why are we being punished? If Stern wants to change the rule he should do so in the off-season. Right now a valid and legal deal is being held up when there is means in the collective bargaining agreement that allows the league office to do so. Any personal moral belief on the issue is a moot point. </div> I don't think that's how business works. You find a glaring mistake, you fix it YESTERDAY. (no, not tomorrow) Honestly: if you were a fan of a team NOT involved in this trade, what would you say? </div> Only problem is that Stern hasn't done that in the past. Did he make this decision when payton was traded and resigned back? This is a decision that should be made AFTER the season between league and players union if they want to change the rules. But also, i don't understand what the big deal is too because part of the negotiation in the trade was for the 3 million dollars cash. Let's say dallas DID NOT want to re-sign stackhouse, Thorn still would have negotiated that the 3 million dollars needs to be part of the deal because he is going to buyout a player they get in return for kidd. so under that negotiation, of course dallas is going to know they will have a chance at re-signing the player, whether they want to or not.
no, the question is whether he is exceeding his authority. The Commissioner cannot act unless he has been provided with a specific power.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Astral @ Feb 15 2008, 07:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Hmm. Maybe you're right - you're better at the cap stuff, but explain this: From what I remember, Mavs payroll is around 92M. Since the trade has to have relatively matching salaries, Mavs payroll will stay around $92M after the Kidd trade. How are Mavs able to resign Stackhouse if they're already over the cap? Vets min or they are using MLE? If yes, you're right. But we all know that for a lot of "superstars", money is not the issue. Malone took a Vets min to play on the Lakers. If you already made close to $100M, most superstars will sacrifice 1 or 2 years worth of salary to play on a great team.</div> Yes, the Mavs have their full MLE available to use on Stackhouse. It was a well conceived plan. The difference with Malone is that he didn't walk away from money that was already guaranteed to him. Plus, if the player is a true superstar, why would a team buy them out? This type of situation really only applies to Stackhouse types.
After all the non sense Stern has done and the bullshit rules he enforces and creates people are now question is he exceeding his authority.
