Quote:
Originally Posted by fredr123
Are you referring to Alonzo Mourning? I think that situation was a bit different. He was just being a ###### and refused to play in Toronto. I'm surprised you aren't able to suspend someone without pay in the NBA. Heck, you can do it in the NHL, right (Scott Niedermayer)? Ideally, you would have done that or dressed him and kept him on the end of the bench.
The Boston/Atlanta matter as well as the New Jersey/Dallas matter seem to be premeditated side-deals designed to get around the cap. Boston expected, and was probably told outright in a wink wink sort of way, that they planned to waive Payton. Payton, for his part, was probably told in advance that he would be shipped out but that he was welcomed (or expected) to return to Boston after being waived. Same here with Stackhouse. He needed to be included to make the salaries work out (I think). The Nets did not intend to keep him and were planning to buy him out to clear space. Stackhouse and the Mavericks had a plan in place to bring him back.
Both of these situations seem crooked but are within the bounds of the rules. I didn't like the Selanne/Niedermayer/Anaheim deal even though, technically, it was within the bounds of the rules. This one though? I'm fine with. The league had a chance to plug that hole and failed to do so. It's their own fault.
Isn't this side deal business at least somewhat reminiscent of the Edmonton Eskimos trades with Hamilton that included Jason Maas in a lopsided off season deal?
|
Yep the Mourning deal.
But that is typical of all the "no show" players who've ever suited up for the Raps. You have to pay the player or buy him out for whatever reason. The Raps certainly thought Zo was going to play for them. Instead they buy him out for 10 million and watch him take league Min to win in Miami.
I really don't care one way or another for this Stackhouse thing - since the Mavs are essentially paying for him to be bought out - this is just a way to circumvent the cap.