NVE/Dampier to Dallas...Screw Portland - Page 3 - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

Poindexter Einstein · 02-06-2004, 02:47 PM

From Dallasbasketball.com

DAMPIER TO THE MAVS?: And here we go again – another story that requires us to trace its roots while we play our heroic role as “SportsMedia WatchDog.’’
More trade rumors, but this time they are at least ones that sound fun for the home team. This time, the heart of the gossiped-about deal is Antoine Walker (plus a little bit more, for cap purposes) going to Golden State, and the Mavs getting back big man Erick Dampier plus playoff hero Nick Van Exel. This began to be reported as an active trade discussion by "The Musers" on The Ticket early Friday, and the merits and possibilities have continued to be expanded on by old pal and DB.com colleague Norm Hitzges.
Could The Musers have gotten their tip from the Newshound Norm? And doesn't Norm have some ties to Nellie? Logically, perhaps Nellie whispered a few tips to Norm about an impending major move. Doesn't Cuban regularly make big moves at the trade deadline?
Norm spent a lot of time discussing how Dampier would help the Mavs, and how Dallas would be the perfect place for Dampier to re-sign this summer after he opts out. Obviously, whispered Norm, Dampier and Van Exel are both pushing the Warriors for a trade to Dallas, and this is on the table and could happen.
And then Norm told us the source for this breaking news.
It came from a tip from Nellie, yes? Well, no.
Oh.
Well, then was there must have been an email or call from Cuban that leaked the impending news. That was it, yes? Ummmm, that wasn't it either.
Then who at the Mavs let the cat out of the bag on this huge story? Norm told us that the station got its tip from ESPN.COM!
ESPN.com? Wow, when I heard those words, I rushed to their site, to see what news I had missed. And there it was, in the ESPN insider section this week on trade possibilities in the NBA:
"Dallas Mavericks. Every year about this time, Mark Cuban and Don Nelson begin preaching the virtues of sticking with the roster they have. And just about every year around this time, the Mavs end up making a huge trade.
"The Mavericks need a tough big man, and everyone knows it. They tried to land Rasheed Wallace last month, but talks went nowhere. Attempts to land Zydrunas Ilgauskas also have fallen short. What they'd really love to have is the package Golden State is offering right now -- Nick Van Exel and Erick Dampier. Problem is, the Mavericks don't have any expiring contracts to give up unless ... Antoine Walker decides to opt out if traded to the Warriors."
From there, the article goes in other directions.
So the entire basis of this scoop is essentially ESPN's two-fold observation that the Mavs have pulled off deals at prior trade deadlines, plus the Mavs need a big man. And then Golden State 's RUMORED willingness to trade Van Exel and Dampier is tossed into the ESPN discussion, and voila the Mavs are in the middle of making a trade with the Warriors, according to a radio station.
Sheesh. ESPN tosses out a GUESS of something that could make some sense and then shoots it down. It was not a news report, there were no sources; it was only chit chat. And chit chat that the author himself shoots down! And then THAT turns into "the Mavs are in trade discussions" and more?
Gimme a break.
As we play our self-appointed role of “SportsMedia WatchDog," we're not necessarily ripping The Ticket here. Norm was honest in finally framing his source for the information as being another media outlet. We’re glad to have The Musers talking about the Mavs, in whatever context. We’re just saying that as you listen to The Ticket and others pick up on this "breaking story" (and again, you watch, this thing could really get legs now), keep in mind the eternal caveat when it comes to evaluating what you hear from the media: consider the source. - David Lord, 02/06/04, 12:15pm

dalmations202 · 02-06-2004, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Poindexter Einstein
DALM ... you said "What piece is it going to take to put them over the top? IMO A big man with the ability to play post defense, rebound, and score trash points. Damp can do that. The next weakness on the team is backup point. Best slows down the Mavs too much. NVE would fill that role nicely. "

Your analysis of what the Mavs need is very good.

But it is VERY UNCERTAIN if Dampier and NVE provide that.

If you get the Dampier from the last 4 months, then yes you have the big man - but if you are getting the Dampier from the last 4 years, then you didnt get what you were needing.

If you get the electric NVE from last year, then you have the backup PG. But if you get the injured creaky NVE from this year, then you whiffed again.

Which Dampier and NVE would you be getting? Right now, you have a really nice surplus trade chip (WALKER) to use to upgrade at center. If you use that chip and whiff, you will be talking a huge step backwards in the longterm quest for a title.

PE;
OK? Who are you going to use the chip on then. Shaq, Duncan, KG, J O'Neill, Yao are all off-limits (no way). The Davis's, Big Z, and the Seattle Bigs are not near Damp. Who is it that you are waiting to get? Curry? ? He has just as many detractors as Damp. He is big, and young and Chicago is talking about giving up on him (no way unless he is a spare). What other Center is out there that you could trade Walker for, to put a piece of the puzzle together. Personally I would like Bosh, but since the salaries aren't even close, no way you could do this. I do understand the "which" Damp and NVE. I just believe that the down side is still a better talent than what we have, in a place that we "need" it. Instead we have a large talent, that is not in the place that we need it.

If you keep Walker, and it doesn't work this year, you are still in the same boat next year - looking for a Big. No way to draft one in the first. Walker's contract expiring and needing to pay him now as well. If you trade him, you have a Big -maybe he doesn't opt out. You have a backup PG. You may win it all with or without the trade, but your shot at it goes way up for the next 4 years if you make the trade IMO.

As far as NVE, if I am trading Delk, and possibly even Najera for him, then is NVE's creakyness any larger than theirs?
Am I going to get the Damp from this year, or the Walker from the first half who can't shoot 3's or FT's? Asking who you are going to get is a good question any time.

I think that you still have chips regardless. I also think that Damp, NVE will help this team more than Walk, Delk. That is the bottom line.

Poindexter Einstein · 02-06-2004, 03:34 PM

DALM ...good questions.

You are ready to take "any Dampier we can get" - but I am reluctant. I just think there will be a better deal, if not now then in the summer. I am leery of the 80M commitment or so it will take to retain Dampier long term, after this season.

Specific other places I would look, hoping for a better deal. Ostertag as a FA. Rebraca. Maybe Divacs. Chicago young big men (Davis - Curry combo gives you a young kid with question marks, but also gives a proven vet. And you arent forced to make a call on paying big bucks to Curry for another few years - thats far different from the Dampier situation.) Kwame Brown? After all that was looked at, maybe Dampier is the way to go, but it seems to me there would be something in all of that thats better, and safer.

uberfan · 02-06-2004, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Poindexter Einstein
UBER ...expansion draft has interesting ramifications on a trade, no question about it .... the opt-out factors with Walker and Nash, and the free agent status of Daniels, make for some interesting scenarios that could play out. The big money contracts that the Mavs have also might make for some interesting gamesmanship - would the Mavs essentially "dare" Charlotte to take a big contract player by exposing someone with talent but also with a huge contract? Should prove interesting.

Personally, I think they will expose Finley because I do not think Charlotte will take him. I would be very celar to Fin that I did not want to lose him and we were doing this to protect someone else. I think Fin and his agent would be smart enough to realize Charlotte would not take him, UNLESS another team got in the mix and offered a deal if Charlotte took Fin for them. Still, highly unlikely.

Exposing Jamison or Walker may be too tempting for Charlotte to pass on. Surely, TAW would be exposed to the draft.

akaarod03 · 02-06-2004, 04:00 PM

This is the latest from the Bay area...sports radio station in Golden State:

NVE and Dampier

for

Walker, Bradley, and Best

Let's analyze this...we give up Bradley. Why would GS want Bradley? Well because he's relatively cheap and still somewhat effective center. Currently, they have Damp and Foyle. With Damp potentially coming to Dallas and Foyle possibly leaving GS in the summer...Foyle is an unrestricted free agent...GS doesnt have a center on their roster. With Walker as opposed to say Rasheed Wallace...it allows the Warriors to see if he would be a fit for their team. If not...they say goodbye to Walker and get15-16 million off the books. We've addressed ad nauseum about the benefit of NVE and Dampier. Would you go to war with Dampier/Williams/Fortson? I would.

dalmations202 · 02-06-2004, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Poindexter Einstein
DALM ...good questions.

You are ready to take "any Dampier we can get" - but I am reluctant. I just think there will be a better deal, if not now then in the summer. I am leery of the 80M commitment or so it will take to retain Dampier long term, after this season.

Specific other places I would look, hoping for a better deal. Ostertag as a FA. Rebraca. Maybe Divacs. Chicago young big men (Davis - Curry combo gives you a young kid with question marks, but also gives a proven vet. And you arent forced to make a call on paying big bucks to Curry for another few years - thats far different from the Dampier situation.) Kwame Brown? After all that was looked at, maybe Dampier is the way to go, but it seems to me there would be something in all of that thats better, and safer.

I am not really ready for "any Dampier". I just don't think their will be a better deal. The 80M committment may or may not have to be made. Could it be closer to say 48M over 4 years? I don't know. I would still want Ostertag for the MLE even if I do make this trade. Vlade isn't coming here, and is over the hill, I don't think you get as much talent out of Davis/Curry, just a bigger pricetag to keep. Kwame maybe, but he will come with a big pricetag as well, when/if he came. I have looked over every player listed, and cannot find one BIG man that I think is better than Damp; that has the possibility to come here. Damps biggest problems in this league has been that he has hands of stone. It makes it hard for him on the Offensive end of the floor. His offense is the least of the Mavs worries. Bradley can't guard the post. Ostertag gets killed by quicker Centers. With Dampier and Ostertag we could bang, rebound, block, and have a chance at winning it all every year for the next few. Oh yea, are you willing to invest 80M in Walker, he can opt out at the end of the year as well. Or are you going to pay him the 14M instead of what you will have to pay Damp?

I do understand taking the "safer" route. But I don't think safer wins Championships. LA gambled what 180 mill on Shaq, and he rewarded with 3 championships.

I still don't think this will happen. I will even change my opinion and go the safer route, if you will show me the person that we are waiting on to put us over the top. But if not, then lets hope that Mark, Nellie, and Donnie will make this happen.
-----------------

The guy I would really like to have is Bosh. A Center rotation of Bosh, Bradley, and Ostertag (I think we will get him with the MLE) would allow you to guard about any Centers on any team in the league. Either that or a healthy Camby instead of Bosh, but then you still need TAG for the banging.

LRB · 02-06-2004, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Bradley can't guard the post.

Actually Shawn is pretty damn good guarding every center in the post except Shaq. And Shawn has done well in the very limited minutes he's played against Shaq in the last 2 years. Bradley plays Duncan as well as I've seen anyone do. He doesn't phsyically push people around, but his height bothers everyone.

ddh33 · 02-06-2004, 04:17 PM

I can't believe I'm about to say this, but including Shawn Bradley is the only thing that would make me think twice.

I hate parting with the guys who have been here forever, even if they have been villified for part of that time. I just think that this is Shawn's home and he belongs to us. Believe it or not, I would rather deal Najera away - despite the fact that he is more well-liked.

Even though I like both of them, I wouldn't lose a minute of sleep if Walker and Best were moved.

dalmations202 · 02-06-2004, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: LRB

Quote:

Bradley can't guard the post.

Actually Shawn is pretty damn good guarding every center in the post except Shaq. And Shawn has done well in the very limited minutes he's played against Shaq in the last 2 years. Bradley plays Duncan as well as I've seen anyone do. He doesn't phsyically push people around, but his height bothers everyone.

LRB;
I agree. My only issue with Bradley is that he does get pushed around underneath, and since officiating is what it is...he won't get the call. Also, he is best if he plays only 20 min or so a game. He bothers everyone, and is a very good defensive player, especially off the ball. He also guards the thinner centers well due to his length and quickness. He doesn't guard "dumptrucks" well though. That is why I want Damp and Tag in here. They can Bang. I don't want Bradley to leave. The three headed monster I would have needs to include Bradley, not instead of Bradley.

LRB · 02-06-2004, 04:56 PM

Quote:

This is the latest from the Bay area...sports radio station in Golden State:

NVE and Dampier

for

Walker, Bradley, and Best

No way would I do this deal. Dampier is only really attractive if we can pair him with Bradley. This deal just isn't worth it. I'd rather keep Bradley and add Tag in FA.

sike · 02-06-2004, 05:14 PM

I dont like how everyone seems to be assuming that Tag is a sure thing.....the Jazz can make a much better offer....and they will.....its not a sure thing

grndmstr_c · 02-06-2004, 05:16 PM

Ditto, snowman. And I'll say this about the more height-challenged end of the deal. Best, in spite of his tendency to ugly up our offense, has really been doing a good job helping the team win with his defense; his +/- is solidly above Nash's. NVE can't defend like Best, and his injuries could mean we'd have to go through the playoffs with Delk at backup PG, WITHOUT having Walker as point forward. Factor in the loss of Bradley, and Dampier doesn't come close to being worth that kind of a risk.

LRB · 02-06-2004, 05:27 PM

grndmstr I totally agree about Nick. But as I've said, I'd be more worried about the return of small ball and seeing NVE log time at the SG position.

Sike, Tag isn't a sure thing to come here as a FA, but he's as close as the Mavs are going to get. Yes he can get more staying in Utah, but he really doesn't need it and wants near his family. How much more is Utah willing to spend on Tag with his age and them seeking out a youthful rebuilding effort? Of course if we get Dampier here it's hardly a sure thing that we can keep him. The only real sure thing we have at center is Shawn Bradley. He's here next year unless we trade him or cut him. We totally control that. But I would bet money that Tag will come to Dallas if we offer the full MLE.

sike · 02-06-2004, 05:34 PM

Quote:

but he really doesn't need it

this made me laugh......you dont think he needs the $ huh??? y'all pretty close??? [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

I gotta LRB, I agree that he (Tag) would be just what this high octane team needs....I just dont like the idea that is spreading on this forum that he WILL be here if they extend the offer......because he may not......

Blonde Bomber · 02-06-2004, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: LRB

Quote:

This is the latest from the Bay area...sports radio station in Golden State:

NVE and Dampier

for

Walker, Bradley, and Best

No way would I do this deal. Dampier is only really attractive if we can pair him with Bradley. This deal just isn't worth it. I'd rather keep Bradley and add Tag in FA.

But wouldn't you rather have Dampier and then add Tag with him?

Dampier + Tag = LOTS OF BEEF

LRB · 02-06-2004, 06:24 PM

Quote:

But wouldn't you rather have Dampier and then add Tag with him?

No. 1st of all we could end up losing Dampier and Tag and be left with just Fortson. 2nd I like Bradley paired with Tag than Dampier paired with Tag. Dampier is having a good year this year, but that is an exception. I would expect Dampier to have a serious setback adjusting to Nellie. And Dampier nor Tag are anywhere near the disruptive, shot blocking force Bradley is. They give a nice contrast of strength and bulk to Bradley's height.

dude1394 · 02-06-2004, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: akaarod03
This is the latest from the Bay area...sports radio station in Golden State:

NVE and Dampier

for

Walker, Bradley, and Best

Let's analyze this...we give up Bradley. Why would GS want Bradley? Well because he's relatively cheap and still somewhat effective center. Currently, they have Damp and Foyle. With Damp potentially coming to Dallas and Foyle possibly leaving GS in the summer...Foyle is an unrestricted free agent...GS doesnt have a center on their roster. With Walker as opposed to say Rasheed Wallace...it allows the Warriors to see if he would be a fit for their team. If not...they say goodbye to Walker and get15-16 million off the books. We've addressed ad nauseum about the benefit of NVE and Dampier. Would you go to war with Dampier/Williams/Fortson? I would.

WHERE DO I SIGN!!! Come on, come on, let's close the deal!!

MavsFanFinley · 02-06-2004, 11:24 PM

Notebook

This is taken from the DMN:

They already have been mentioned in connection with Golden State for center Erick Dampier and Van Exel.

That trade is laughable because the Mavericks cannot re-acquire Van Exel or any player during the same season that they have traded him away, per NBA rules.

akaarod03 · 02-06-2004, 11:58 PM

wow...i didnt realize that. it makes sense though. well...scratch off NVE then. but i think the warriors would still do the deal...it's just that now it would be dampier and a player with a bad contract like clifford robinson. so would you do this deal: dampier and robinson for walker straight-up? i still say yes.

akaarod03 · 02-07-2004, 12:17 AM

With the news that NVE can't come back to Dallas within the same season...that changes things a bit. Golden State desperately wants to get salary cap space. They desperately want to get rid of NVE. With that said...let's bring back Portland. Would you do this deal?

Dallas trades Antoine Walker

Dallas receives Erick Dampier and Clifford Robinson

Portland trades Rasheed Wallace and Wesley Person

Portland receives Antoine Walker and NVE

Golden State trades NVE, Erick Dampier, and Clifford Robinson

Golden State receives Rasheed Wallace and Wesley Person

Why Dallas does it? Once again...Dampier...by the way...as I'm writing this post...having a terrific game against the Nuggets. As far as Robinson...the guy is making a lot of money...but he's still productive. Robinson could help Dallas in some capacity.

Why Portland does it? To get Walker and NVE for two players that probably wont' be there next year is not too shabby. Plus Walker and NVE's contract are up next year creating a ton of salary cap space. Don't forget Damon Stoudamire and Dale Davis are also coming off the books next year. So if that core doesn't work...they have to at least give it a shot...Portland would have major cap flexibility and do whatever they want. If you calculate those 4 players salaries...thats almost 50 million in salary cap space...good heavens.

Why Golden State does it? They want salary cap space this year...they get it with Wallace and Person being free agents at the end of the year...thats 25 million of salary coming off the books.

I think it makes sense for all 3 teams involved...I would love to get NVE...but can't happen till next year. Oh well.

bcrav4 · 02-07-2004, 01:10 AM

Posted by 2 users in the espn message boards:

"They were not, technically, traded within the same season. The trade happened in August, during the offseason, so this trade still can be made. "

"i know it was a long time ago, but in the summer of 96, the Pacers traded Mark Jackson to Denver for Jalen Rose, but then in that seasons trading deadline the Pacers got Jackson back for Ricky Pierce. It is the same scenario here with Nick, so why couldnt it happen. It wasnt in the same season "

BESIDES WHY WOULD THEY SAY ON THE RADIO IT COULD HAPPEN, WHEN THEY WOULD OBVIOUSLY KNOW ABOUT THIS RULE?????

Max Power · 02-07-2004, 01:23 AM

Quote:

Indiana traded Jackson to Denver before the 1996-97 season, but reacquired him at the trade deadline of that season.

http://www.nba.com/rockets/news/Rock...-96180-34.html

But just because this trade was legal THEN doesn't mean it is legal NOW.

grbh · 02-07-2004, 09:09 AM

I hear a lot of talk in this thread about Walker opting out or being a free agent after this season. That isn't going to happen. He is slated to make what about 13 million next year, If he opts out he will likely cost himself about 4-5 million. I highly doubt that happens.

LRB · 02-07-2004, 01:29 PM

grbh you are absolutely correct. While Walker certainly wouldn't be forced to accept the MLE if he opted out, he would definitely not sign a contract for close to what he would be making if he didn't opt out. The only reason I could see him opting out is if he was desperate to leave and even then I think he would tray and force a trade 1st.

sike · 02-07-2004, 01:36 PM

Quote:

The only reason I could see him opting out is if he was desperate to leave and even then I think he would tray and force a trade 1st.

so the only question is: how can I make this happen [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

Poindexter Einstein · 02-07-2004, 01:53 PM

"That trade is laughable because the Mavericks cannot re-acquire Van Exel or any player during the same season that they have traded him away, per NBA rules. "

I saw that item in the paper, but I sure cant find it in the rules. I wonder if it is accurate or not.

Poindexter Einstein · 02-07-2004, 01:54 PM

dude1394 · 02-07-2004, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: Poindexter Einstein
"That trade is laughable because the Mavericks cannot re-acquire Van Exel or any player during the same season that they have traded him away, per NBA rules. "

I saw that item in the paper, but I sure cant find it in the rules. I wonder if it is accurate or not.

Well it depends on whether it was in the NYTimes, BBC or not??

jayC · 02-07-2004, 05:32 PM

You can't trade for a player you just traded. According to Eddie Sefko of the DMN.

Poindexter Einstein · 02-07-2004, 06:37 PM

"You can't trade for a player you just traded. According to Eddie Sefko of the DMN. "

Thank you for repeating exactly what was said earlier. But I am still saying, it does not appear to be in the rules. If it is, I sure cant find it, and Sefko hasnt answered the question by email. And thus I wonder if the paper/Sefko is accurate or not.

In fact, to the contrary, Larry Coon (who is the "guru" of the NBA rule book), has emailed me back and said that no such rule exists.

OutletPass · 02-07-2004, 07:34 PM

Art Garcia of the Star Telegram has written the same thing...

I'm looking in the rules and in the CBA and haven't found any rule like that yet.
Nor has anyone else on any online board (that I've seen) ...no link, no source...nothing....

Poindexter Einstein · 02-07-2004, 08:03 PM

OP ...I saw the FWST thing and also wrote Garcia and he didnt reply either.

I find it curious that both papers just suddenly came up with this info, all on the same day. Are they sharing stories? Very odd.

And this stuff doesnt seem to be in the rules.

Are they now "busted" for making up the same wrong stuff and sharing it? If it is false, it is apparent they are using each other as a source for their "news" ...lol

OutletPass · 02-07-2004, 08:09 PM

I wouldn't doubt that they've done exactly that, PE...Unfortunately, it's been picked up by hoopshype, etc. and is now being spread all over the place. And NO ONE, on any board, has been able to find this rule . If there's no such rule, it'll be Sefko's "BEST" since reporting that the trade deadline was 3/19 !

I'll keep looking...

Poindexter Einstein · 02-07-2004, 08:41 PM

OP ...fyi, I emailed Larry Coon (the online guru of NBA rules, who has the FAQ that is commonly used) about it, and he said there is no such rule.

Poindexter Einstein · 02-07-2004, 10:42 PM

OP, and whoever else ....

Garcia and Sefko both have now emailed me. Both say the info came from the Mavs front office, that they dont know exactly where it would be in the rules, but that according to the Mavs such a rule exists.

Mike Fisher writes online at dallasbasketball.com as follows:

"this straight from a Mavs front-office exec: A player that is traded during a season can not be reaquired by that
team untill after the season. If a player is traded between seasons he can not be reaquired during the upcoming season. The only way is if the player is waived and he clears waivers, he then can rejoin his previous team. "

OutletPass · 02-07-2004, 11:42 PM

Thanks, PE...I find it a little bit odd that 2 sportswriters in a big market would go to print without reading the rules for themselves...and report it on the same day.

If there is such a rule...why is it there ? I can understand the idea of prohibiting some "flipping" trades...basic "back-sratching" things...that might happen withing 2,3 or even 6 months..

But why does a 1 year prohibition make sense...?

Poindexter Einstein · 02-08-2004, 12:01 AM

OP ... not sure of the rationale. Here is some more info, though, and some educated guessing.

1. Keith Grant emailed me, and he told me the rule does exist and is from the NBA constitution/by-laws p 68.
2. That is a private document, not available online or to the public. That explains why the reporters didnt read the rules.
3. It is a "season" rule, not a year. You cant get the player back til after the next "end of season" occurs.
4. There is an exception to the rule - if the player in question goes on waivers at any point, he can thereafter be acquired (prior to a season end) by the team that traded him originally.
5. My educated guess is that the Mavs - in light of the NVE rumors - told the press pool that NVE couldnt be traded for, due to the rule, and thus that was where it all originated. That would explain why both papers had a similar item on the same day. The obscurity of the rule would not have allowed them to know it, if the Mavs hadnt been the origin of the info, IMO.
6. Apparently the rule is so obscure that NBA execs dont know about it, and get tripped up by it. The following link has an item, at the very bottom of the page, where execs were working on a trade and then had to scrap it, when the NBA told them a rule prevented it.

http://www.augustachronicle.com/stor..._nbanotes.html

OutletPass · 02-08-2004, 12:22 AM

Thanks for the info PE.. it was unintentionally funny ..[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]

Yinka Dare for Eric Montross in 1997 !

And then this note on the Mavs (of 1997) :

How bad are the Mavericks? Coach Jim Cleamons used a lineup of Samaki Walker, Erick Strickland and rookies Chris Anstey, Kevin Ollie and Bubba Wells against Portland. That's the exact same lineup the Mavs had for their summer league team. In that same game, Shawn Bradley fumbled a pass into a turnover and teammate Michael Finley ignored Cleamons' urging to get back on defense, instead stopping and staring at his teammate. ... Erick Strickland of the Mavericks checked into a game Tuesday night with his jersey on backward.

Sorry, I'm just still laughing too hard to discuss it any more tonight !!!

ProudAmerican · 02-08-2004, 12:26 AM

NVE cannot be traded back to the team that traded him with in a year of that trade so this rumor is false.

ddh33 · 02-08-2004, 01:28 AM

This rule is one of the stranger things I've read about this season. I can't believe no one - including some GMs don't know about it. It seems like a pretty silly rule. Maybe it's there to keep players from purposely tanking and working out agreements with previous teams? I don't know...

I was a little excited about the thought of bringing back Nick and getting one of the better centers in the league. I thought that constituted one of those "no brainers".