Actual Miles News! Blazers inquire about medical retirement

Post #61 » by **Billy** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:32 pm

Wizenheimer wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

yeah, that probably happens a lot. We just don't hear about it every time.

I knew I remembered an example and it just popped up into my head: Boston. 2006 traded pick for Telfair after making their selection. 2007 traded Jeff Green to Seattle after making their pick. Granted both picks were traded after Boston used it, rather than Boston picking for one, and trading the other outright, but it seems that the same would apply.

d-train · Post #62 » by **d-train** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 6:17 pm

Billy wrote:Another way to get around the rule about trading picks in consecutive years is to just draft for said team and then consummate the trade. I think there have been a few teams that have gotten around the rule that way.

This doesn't get around the rule since the purpose of the rule is to prevent teams from trading their picks before they know their value.

d-train · Post #63 » by **d-train** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 6:22 pm

I don't believe this possible Miles medial retirement is going to change what the Blazers do between now and 7/2009. Blazers were likely planning to use Miles's expiring contract in 2009 to get a second near max FA anyway so if they can get him off the books early it gives the additional flexibility of being able get that second FA without reaching a trade agreement. However, the medical retirement creates a risk. If the Blazers get the medical retirement and Miles plays 10 games in 08/09, than Blazers lose the medical retirement and they already gave up Miles's valuable expiring contract as a trading asset that could've got them a second near max FA.

The Blazers must be very certain that Miles cannot play before they waive him. I wonder if they can get the benefits of the medical retirement and not waive Miles. If they can that would assure Miles can't play in 08/09 at the mere price of a 15th roster spot. It seems obvious the Blazers would do that if they could but I don't think they can. Also, it should be obvious that another NBA team worried about what they could lose in the 2009 FA would use a 15th roster spot to make sure Miles gets garbage minutes in 10 games.

Edit: Miles's early medical retirement could make a change. It might make it possible to trade Raef thereby potentially allowing Blazers to add a player sooner than they could with a Miles trade.

d-train · Post #64 » by **d-train** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 6:26 pm

It just remembered what Popovich said after the Grizzlies traded Gasol to the Lakers. He said something like "there should be a trading committee that can void dumb trades." This deal with Miles could be like a trading committee with 30 members that might decide to void Blazers medical retirement benefits.

Post #65 » by **Billy** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 6:41 pm

d-train wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

This doesn't get around the rule since the purpose of the rule is to prevent teams from trading their picks before they know their value.

True in it's purest form that is true. But this "loop hole" or whatever you want to call it allows a team that know the value of that pick and still decide to trade it to do so and not take a player/pick they don't want.

Wizenheimer · Post #66 » by **Wizenheimer** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:15 pm

d-train wrote:It just remembered what Popovich said after the Grizzlies traded Gasol to the Lakers. He said something like "there should be a trading committee that can void dumb trades." This deal with Miles could be like a trading committee with 30 members that might decide to void Blazers medical retirement benefits.

I'm not trying to start an argument here because I know niether one of us enjoys that...

however, I posted the section from the CBA dealing with Medical Retirements on the 2nd page of this thread.

There was a section in it I'll repost here:

(4) Notwithstanding Section 4(h)(1) and (2) above, if after a player