Miles Contract Returning to Portland

[d-train]

Is there any guidance or instructions given to the doctors that diagnosed Darius Miles career ending injury? There must be something because obviously a doctor can't say it is impossible for Darius to play basketball unless he is dead.

What if Miles is reexamined at the end of this season and Darius' knee is in the same condition it was when examined April 2008. Do the doctors conclude again that the injury is career ending or do they adjust their standards and require the presence of more problems before concluding there is a career-ending injury? I understand that before a reexamination will happen we need to find out what the NBA says is "the appropriate time." And, "the appropriate time” could be a year from the last time Miles plays or at the end of this season.

[FGump]

"What if Miles is reexamined at the end of this season and Darius' knee is in the same condition it was when examined April 2008."

It won't happen that soon - if ever.

Once he plays 10 games this season, his "date of permanent injury" gets reset. It then becomes the latest date he plays, in a season of 10 or more games played, and there is a waiting period of a year after that for a new examination.

So if he makes it to the summer in one piece, that makes the exam date no earlier than the summer of 2010. However, that is after the end of the term of the original contract.

[Dekko1]

Is there any guidance or instructions given to the doctors that diagnosed Darius Miles career ending injury? There must be something because obviously a doctor can't say it is impossible for Darius to play basketball unless he is dead.

The rule is actually not about 'career ending'... the league doctor only is required to decide if he thinks the player will be out for the following season.
After that one year the team must apply again each season on the contract.

[Dunkenstein]

The rule is actually not about 'career ending'... the league doctor only is required to decide if he thinks the player will be out for the following season.
After that one year the team must apply again each season on the contract.

Dekko, I'm sorry but I have to disagree with just about everything you said.

Art VII, Sect 4 (h) Long-Term Injuries. Any player who suffers a career-ending injury or illness, and whose contract is terminated by the Team in accordance with the NBA waiver procedure, will be excluded from his Team’s Team Salary as follows:

(1) Beginning on the first anniversary of the injury or illness, the Team may apply to the NBA to have the player’s Salary for each remaining Salary Cap Year covered by the Contract excluded from Team Salary.

(2) The determination of whether a player has suffered a career-ending injury or illness shall be made by a physician selected jointly by the NBA and the Players Association.

Dekko, can you show me anywhere in the CBS where is says that the team has to reapply each season? And as you can see by the highlighted phrase, it is about career-ending injuries.

[casey]

Once he plays 10 games this season, his "date of permanent injury" gets reset. It then becomes the latest date he plays, in a season of 10 or more games played, and there is a waiting period of a year after that for a new examination.

I know there was some uncertainty about this, as it says they can reapply at the appropriate time. Is it the consensus now that "the appropriate time" is a year from his last game?

[chakdaddy]

OK, now its official the Blazers did try to claim Miles off waivers and here is their stated reason why:

"Our purpose here was not in any way to keep Darius from being able to play," Miller said. "If he can come back and help a team to win and play at a level on the court that helps the team, we have no problem with that at all."

So, the Blazers like all the other teams interested in Miles' services were interested because of the possibility that he could help the Blazers win. Yet, the NBA blocked the Blazers from claiming Miles off waivers and damaged Miles in the process because now Miles doesn't have a contract that guarantees his pay for the remainder of the season. I don't understand why there hasn't been a statement of outrage from the NBPA on this action that financially damages Miles.

Obviously, the league did not buy this statement from the Blazers and did not think their waiver claim was in good faith. Miller's statement is fairly ridiculous coming on the heels of their statement threatening to sue anyone who tried to sign Miles. Regardless of what they say in this statement, I don't think anyone belives that they were claiming him for any purpose other than keeping him on the bench.

[chakdaddy]

But by that same logic isn't he by definition not an able-bodied player (if Portland sat him on the bench)? You were saying that despite the intent if he plays 10 games it proves that he is able-bodied. So despite the intent if he doesn't play 10 games it proves that he's not able-bodied. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see how one can be true and not the other.

It's just you, that is completely and utterly illogical. Logic isn't always symmetrical...
Players with career ending injuries (who are not able bodied) don't play in 10 games. But players who don't play in 10 games don't necessarily have career ending injuries and may be able bodied but just not talented enough...A square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not necessarily a square!


Able bodied players don't get on the court (unless it's a farce like AC Green extending the consecutive game record - a farce like this is usually pretty transparent.) Therefore, being on the court proves a player is able-bodied, unless it is an obvious sham.

Meanwhile, guys sit on the bench for LOTS of reasons, not being able-bodied is only one reason. And even being added to an NBA roster and getting the opportunity to sit on the bench implies that someone is able bodied; playing in 10 games is just being extra safe - since lots of guys sit on the bench but don't play in 10 games.

It's a career ending injury exception, not a "not good enough anymore to crack the rotation and play in 10 games, even if you are good enough to sit on the bench or inactivel ist" exception.

Anyway, the guy scored 13 points in an NBA game the other night. Obviously he's able bodied, obviously it's not a sham at that point. Nobody should get cap relief for a guy who's healthy enough to get on the court and score 13 points...

[chakdaddy]

I really think what's going on here is...we have a common sense issue regarding relief for a career-ending injury. Then there are some safeguards regarding waiting one year following the injury, to make sure it really looks career ending, and some stipulations on what to do if it turns out to not be career-ending after all. And they decide on a fairly safe 10 game stipulation to weed out 'aborted comebacks'.

Meanwhile people are looking at these stipulations and trying to extrapolate a different original intent, rather than the common sense idea of a 'career ending injury'! There are safeguards and relatively conservative stipulations, in that an injury is not declared as a career ending until perspective is gained by a 1 year wait; and that a supposed career-ending injury is not considered refuted until a guy plays in 10 games... but these don't make the definition of a 'career ending injury' a guy who is out for one year, or a guy who is healthy enough to make a roster but not quite good enough to get run in 10 games.

What I mean is Portland and others are going iteration by iteration to make it stricter and stricter. The 10 game rule is to prevent a sham signing or an aborted comeback in a truly career ending injury from negating warranted cap relief; if there was no worry about shams, then just being on an active roster would be enough proof without the 10 game rule. But Portland is trying to to say that Memphis is perpetrating a sham in getting to the 10 game threshhold which is only there to prevent a sham in the first place.

In the end we're probably lucky that it's pretty cut and dried; 13 pts in 14 minutes is pretty clear proof he's able to play. But what if a team was up for cap relief with Jay Williams, and he keeps getting cut in training camp? What if an injury reduces a surefire nba player to able bodied but borderline talent. What if a team had requested cap relief on, say...Randy Livingston?

[casey]

Miller's statement is fairly ridiculous coming on the heels of their statement threatening to sue anyone who tried to sign Miles.

I can see how his comments would seem ridiculous when that's what you think they said in their letter. But they didn't.

Therefore, being on the court proves a player is able-bodied, unless it is an obvious sham.

Which one is it? The NBA seems to be implying (and Larry too) that playing in 10 games means the player is able-bodied no matter what. I (and the Blazers) disagree.

[chakdaddy]

Therefore, being on the court proves a player is able-bodied, unless it is an obvious sham.

Which one is it? The NBA seems to be implying (and Larry too) that playing in 10 games means the player is able-bodied no matter what. I (and the Blazers) disagree.[/quote]

Do you really think that a player who gets minutes in 10 NBA games could be considered disabled enough to have a career ending injury? Do you really think a disabled player with a career ending injury could play in 10 NBA games without it being a completely transparent sham (like AC Green hobbling out for one possession to extend the consecutive games streak.)

Making it through training camp and being a late cut, playing decently in the preseason, making an active roster - all these things pretty much disprove the notion that he has a career ending injury and that the Blazers should get cap relief. Making sure he plays in 10 games is just an extra level of security to make sure no one is trying to screw the Blazers with a sham signing...

And Miles' strong performance the other night completely shattered any notion of it being a sham...he may or may not be quite worthy of an roster spot, or worthy of playing in 10 games, but he OBVIOUSLY does not have a career ending injury.

[chakdaddy]

Miller's statement is fairly ridiculous coming on the heels of their statement threatening to sue anyone who tried to sign Miles.

I can see how his comments would seem ridiculous when that's what you think they said in their letter. But they didn't.

Well, I thought more precisely, their letter said they would sue anyone who signed Miles as a sham in order to screw them. But Miles could only be signed as a sham if he really has a career-ending injury - so their original warning letter only made any sense if Portland believes Miles to clearly be disabled. Yet they went on to claim him off waivers - if they really wanted to sign him in order to play him and help the team, why would they have made the warning in the first place??

The league's actions in blocking the waiver claim show that they share my opinion that Portland's waiver claim was a sham in itself (to block the supposed sham signings that they fear) - a very hypocritical move. That Portland's waiver claim was in bad faith goes against the recent statement by Miller, but following the original warning it seems to be the only logical explanation.

[casey]

Yet they went on to claim him off waivers - if they really wanted to sign him in order to play him and help the team, why would they have made the warning in the first place??

They made the warning after the attempted waiver claim.

[FGump]

Once he plays 10 games this season, his "date of permanent injury" gets reset. It then becomes the latest date he plays, in a season of 10 or more games played, and there is a waiting period of a year after that for a new examination.

I know there was some uncertainty about this, as it says they can reapply at the appropriate time. Is it the consensus now that "the appropriate time" is a year from his last game?

I don't know where the "uncertainty" would be. I don't see any in the rules.

The rule says "After a player’s Salary for one (1) or more Salary Cap Years has been included in Team Salary in accordance with this Section 4(h)(4), the player’s Team shall be permitted at the appropriate time to re-apply to have the player’s Salary (for each Salary Cap Year remaining at the time of the re-application) excluded from Team Salary in accordance with the rules set forth in this Section 4(h)."

It basically says if a player's salary is excluded, and then later under the 10-game rule his salary goes back on the books (it becomes "included" again), then at that point everything starts over. He's presumably UNinjured at that point. Later on if something happens to apparently permanently impair him, there is a brand new process. Notice that "the appropriate time" is further defined "in accordance with the rules set forth in this Section 4(h)", which is the section defining how to get a player's salary excluded in the first place.

[casey]

Notice that "the appropriate time" is further defined "in accordance with the rules set forth in this Section 4(h)", which is the section defining how to get a player's salary excluded in the first place.

I think that's where the uncertainty came from, not realizing the second part of that sentence. Thanks.

[chakdaddy]

Yet they went on to claim him off waivers - if they really wanted to sign him in order to play him and help the team, why would they have made the warning in the first place??

They made the warning after the attempted waiver claim.

Oh that makes some sense then; I didn't realize that.

It could be interpreted two ways, really

1. If they thought he was healthy enough that they wanted to claim him on waivers, it is pretty absurd for Portland to warn off anyone else - if it is a sham when someone else signs him, then it proves that it was a sham when Portland claimed him.

BUT
2. If Portland's waiver claim was dismissed as being a sham, they are arguing that no one else should be able to get him and trot him out for a couple of sham appearances to wreck their cap space. That makes some sense.

That being said;
1. If Portland's waiver claim was in good faith, that implies he is healthy and that any other team's signing is clearly *NOT* a sham.
2. Therefore, if another team signs him as a sham (ie he indeed has a CAREER ENDING INJURY), that proves that Portland acted in bad faith when they claimed him.
3. This means that logically, either (A) Miles is healthy and Portland has no claim to the cap space; or (B) Portland acted in bad faith and made a sham waiver claim. Either way things look bad for the Blazers; the only excuse they possibly have is that Miles is hurt and they only did a sham waiver claim to prevent Memphis from a sham signing and giving him sham playing time.
4. I should add that a reverse situation does not logically hold; Portland could still do a sham waiver claim on Miles if he is really healthy; but it's nearly impossible for Memphis to play him if he has a career ending injury. If he limps out there for a 5 second stretch it would be pretty transparent.

In other words, if Miles playing for Memphis is a sham, then logically Portland's waiver claim was a sham; but Portland's waiver claim being a sham does not necessarily mean that Miles' playing for Memphis is a sham.

While Portland could have (and probably did) perpetrate a sham waiver claim on a healthy player in order to say that he is injured [although there would be a huge counterargument about why would anyone claim a player who they insist is permanently disabled]; it is pretty much impossible to give meaningful playing time to a permanently disabled player.

An additional argument I hear is that it doesn't matter if he can get out there and play a few games; the reason he got the CEI status was the risk of further damage. But I think that only means that the "career ending injury" label is applicable if either Miles himself decides to quit because of the risk, or no team is willing to let him come back because of the risk. ie if Miles himself or all the potential employers decide to follow that advice and end the career because of the injury, then it's legitimately a career ending injury. But when Miles himself chooses not to end his career because of it, it's silly to label it career ending just because one doctor thought it *should* be.

[Three34]

I have to change my username. That above post freaked me out a little.

[Dunkenstein]

chakdaddy, where did you come from? And what brought you to our little corner of the RealGM universe?

Are you a speed freak? In a little over three hour you wrote six exceeding long posts that were virtually unintelligible. And your lack of knowledge about the CBA is laudable.

I hope you're not offended by what I just said. But if you are, maybe you'll find some other forum to haunt.

[chakdaddy]

chakdaddy, where did you come from? And what brought you to our little corner of the RealGM universe?

Are you a speed freak? In a little over three hour you wrote six exceeding long posts that were virtually unintelligible. And your lack of knowledge about the CBA is laudable.

I hope you're not offended by what I just said. But if you are, maybe you'll find some other forum to haunt.

Honestly I am pretty offended; I've popped into this forum from time to time and have posted in numerous threads about the Miles situation which I find interesting. I'll admit that I made several longwinded posts while I was killing some time last night, but I don't believe that they are unintelligible by any means. And I have no idea what I may have said to make you think I lack knowledge about the CBA.

The closest I got to unintelligible was going step by step explaining a logical thought process; maybe that's unintelligible to those with short attention spans. But it seemed necessary with some of the incredibly illogical notions being suggested, ie "failing to play in 10 games proves that a player is not able-bodied and has a career ending injury".



edit - Looking back at my posts, I do see that they go on and on...but lack of knowledge of the CBA? The only time I even addressed the CBA was my speculation that the intent of the 'career ending injury' is ultimately based more on a common sense definition, rather than on the safeguards used to enforce it.

[FGump]

Chakdaddy, don't be offended, but frankly I thought your posts rambled on and on, and at points your arguments were weak or illogical in this thread.*

That's just regular difference of opinion stuff, though. And that being said, we've all had our moments here, myself included. Dunk too. Some better than others, some more insightful than others, some more logical than others. So any longwindedness or lack of persuasiveness doesn't mean that much in the total scheme of things.

Obviously Dunk disagrees with me - but that wouldn't be the first time! lol




* For example, you think a player later playing in 10 games somehow always automatically PROVES that they MUST HAVE NBA-caliber health and thus is a player who was wrongly judged to be incapacitated? You don't think under any circumstances one team would sign and play an otherwise incapable player just to screw their cap? I think that's way too naive and that teams will do whatever they can to gain an edge if left to their own devices.

[chakdaddy]

* For example, you think a player later playing in 10 games somehow always automatically PROVES that they MUST HAVE NBA-caliber health and thus is a player who was wrongly judged to be incapacitated? You don't think under any circumstances one team would sign and play an otherwise incapable player just to screw their cap? I think that's way too naive and that teams will do whatever they can to gain an edge if left to their own devices.

I think that if a guy is "otherwise incapable" as you say it will be blatantly obvious when he gets in the game; that if a guy makes 10 appearances where he appears even remotely capable, then it proves that he doesn't have a career ending injury to the point that Portland deserves cap relief.

The issue is how strictly we're interpreting the idea of a "career ending injury"; I think that it's common sense that anyone in good enough shape to get some run in 10 games does not have a "career ending injury."; that someone healthy enough to be a borderline NBA caliber player is not permanently disabled. Others seem to think that if he's not healthy enough to play 30 minutes a game and stay in the rotation for a whole season, that it still constitutes a career ending injury.

The 10 games is the measure to test whether the injury is "career ending." Some people are acting like the criteria should be 30 minutes a game for 40 games, to test whether the 10 games were legitimate. That's what I meant when I rambled about iterations upon iterations.