5-on-5: Signing moratorium makes for awkward times

With the Dallas Mavericks reeling from DeAndre Jordan's decision to stay with the Los Angeles Clippers, more than a few questions have been raised about the proper and fair functioning of the NBA signing moratorium period.

What are some big question now? We've got answers.

1. Was the DeAndre Jordan situation embarrassing for the league?

Tom Haberstroh, ESPN Insider:No. This was great theater, fit for the silver screen in Los Angeles. Sure, it was a bit silly that they had to go through that, but every other league was probably jealous of all the attention. If you didn't have fun following along, we can't be friends.

Kevin Pelton, ESPN Insider: It was bizarre, surreal and humorous in equal measures, but embarrassing? I wouldn't go that far. As out of the ordinary as a situation like this was, we've seen coaches accept jobs and change their minds the following week, and no one's described that as embarrassing.

Marc Stein, ESPN.com:The word I'd use is "unseemly." The drama was undeniably delicious, but there was a farcical nature to it, too, given the image of the Clippers' barricading Jordan -- from both the Mavs and his agents -- until he signed. You also have to wonder how much this will encourage teams in the future to try to get players to walk away from handshake deals. "Embarrassing"is too strong, because you know the league office, deep down, loves getting this kind of media coverage in July. But the fear is that it sets some sort of ugly new precedent.

Brian Windhorst, ESPN.com: When you say "league," do you mean the teams or the league office? I think the league office loves it. Like with the NFL, the season is extended with free agency and it has become its own season. This was peak transactional insanity, and the fans, way beyond those of the Mavericks and Clippers, were enthralled. It was a PR home run. As for the teams, there's so much on the line for them: wins, money, jobs -- they probably hate it. So do the reporters.

Royce, Young, ESPN.com:Not really. More embarrassing for DeAndre Jordan, if anything. The league's wonky free-agency rules created the opportunity for a situation like this, but that doesn't mean it looks bad because of it. In the end, it was plain good entertainment, and isn't that what it's all about anyway?

2. What might the Mavs look like today if Jordan didn't commit in the first place?

Haberstroh:Maybe Roy Hibbert in the middle. Maybe Tyson Chandler or Brandan Wright returns. But really, the organization would probably be standing a little taller and exhibiting a little more pride in their step. That's the real effect.

Pelton: Tough to say because we're still not sure how committed Mark Cuban is to attempting to make the playoffs this season. If that was Dallas' goal, it seems reasonable that Roy Hibbert or Kosta Koufos would be manning the middle for the Mavericks.

Stein:A heckuva lot better off ... is the understatement of the offseason. People like to talk about what Jordan can't do, naturally starting with his free throw issues. But his off-the-charts athleticism and defensive prowess are from another planet compared to what we've seen in Dallas for the bulk of the Mark Cuban era. As tough as the rest of the West is, Cuban & Co. would gladly take their chances with him.

Windhorst: What might the Mavs look like today if Jordan didn't commit in the first place? Well, their starting center wouldn't be Zaza Pachulia, I'll tell you that. They would probably have a better option at center and a better option at point guard. Though I doubt they had moves available that would've been anywhere near as impactful as Jordan's signing. Cuban was on record saying if they didn't get Jordan, they were planning to tank. Considering they have to give their draft pick away if it's outside the top seven, maybe that's the plan.

Young:Maybe they don't signWesley Matthewsand maybe they begin dismantling the roster. Maybe Rick Carlisle asks out of his contract. Maybe Dirk Nowitzki asks to be traded. All what-ifs, and in reality, knowing the ultra-competitive Mark Cuban, they probably shuffle the deck and make a bigger push to keep Tyson Chandler and think about big free-agency fish in 2016.

3. Should Jordan apologize to the Mavericks?

Haberstroh:No. Something tells me Jordan has very good reasons why he didn't communicate with the Mavericks. He's a grown man. If the Mavs beg for an apology, that just makes them look weaker. Move on.

Pelton: He shouldn't necessarily apologize for changing his mind about signing in Dallas, but the way he did it without directly informing the organization probably does deserve an apology.

Stein:Maybe this question is the understatement of the offseason. People change their minds about jobs in real life all the time. We know that. But the fact that Cuban still hasn't heard from Jordan is the real embarrassment here. You have to be the one, in this instance, who personally informs Cuban that you're staying with the Clippers. Have to.

Windhorst: If he wants mercy from the fans, it would be a good idea. But to the team, all is fair in love and free agency. A team doesn't apologize to a player that it cuts or it trades away from his family midseason. This is the business they have chosen.

Young:I don't necessarily think an apology is warranted, but he certainly owed them the courtesy of communication. And that's where Jordan failed considerably in this circus. Once he started having second thoughts, once he made up his mind to return to the Clippers, he owed Mark Cuban a face-to-face answer.

4. Would a player ever intentionally lead on a rival team to hurt it competitively in free agency?

Haberstroh:No. Choosing where to work is a very difficult decision. Especially when millions are watching and hundreds have a stake in the action, including a high-powered agent. Few can relate to DeAndre Jordan's circumstances. His desire is to play for the Clippers, and he didn't sign on the Mavs dotted line. Plain and simple.

Pelton: I can't see that. As serious as these rivalries may be on the court, that's taking things several steps too far.

Stein:Even if they did, there's a big difference between "leading on" a team and going as far down the road with a team as Jordan did here. But let's be clear: Surely Jordan didn't want to decimate the Mavs the way he has. Don't think anyone believes that. He mishandled a lot of this. But there is zero evidence to suggest he's remotely that sinister.

Windhorst: Perhaps, but I don't think that was a the case at all. I think he truly had second thoughts and got cold feet. It might be a character flaw, it might be because he wasn't truly on the same page with his agent, it might have been sweet-talking from Blake Griffin and Doc Rivers. People change their minds with big life decisions, it happens.

Young:Maybe! Seems like an odd thing to do, and considering reputation is almost currency to most players, that would be an ultra-risky path to go down just to try and throw a wrench into someone's offseason. At the same time, this sort of thing happens in college recruiting all the time. A verbal commitment is just that. Nothing is done until ink hits paper, and that's just the risk you take when you're only shaking hands.

5. What changes could the NBA make to the moratorium for next season?

Haberstroh:Start free agency after the cap is established and shorten the period. Otherwise the teams are operating with moving goal posts, which seems like an archaic system in 2015.

Pelton: I would prefer not to have a moratorium and allow teams to begin signing players at the start of free agency after the new salary cap is set -- and, better yet, after July 4.

Stein:This whole episode is bound to shine a brighter light on free agency than we've seen in years. I do tend to expect some sort of change -- shortening the moratorium at the very least -- but there are a lot of aspects of the moratorium that the league likes. The NBA firmly believes that a period in which no one can sign contracts levels the playing field and offsets the amount of pre-July 1 tampering we all suspect goes on. Example: It gives the Milwaukee Bucks a real chance to beat out the big-market New York Knicks to sign Greg Monroe because it builds in a negotiating window. The league's fear is that even more tampering will ensue than it already sees if free agency starts on July 1 or July 9 with no moratorium period. But what we have now, thanks to the DeAndre Saga, is an anything-goes-in-the-Wild West feel that raises its own set of concerns. So the whole process has to be looked at again, even though we must point out that any changes would likely have to be collectively bargained.

Windhorst: I'm sure there will be lip service and maybe even some alteration, but it won't matter. Tampering is rampant in the NBA, and the league office doesn't care an iota. Guys are just fully announcing their meeting slates before July 1. Players are signing contracts within minutes of the opening of free agency. And that's just what we know about; think about what is really going on. Free agency starts months before July 1. You think changing the moratorium is going to change talking outside some arbitrary dates? No chance unless the tampering rules are enforced. And the league, which loves this action, has no reason but appearances to do anything about it.

Young:The simple solution is shortening it. Less time to waver, less time to persuade. The other thing is altering the league audit so as to coincide more directly with when players can sign. Change the league fiscal endpoint. Count the dollars up and divide BRI following the Finals and have everything ready and set for July 1.