The seven-days start, when?

[FGump]

Jsun

Obviously you don't like the terminology, the rule, the connection, the whatever. Fine, okay, got it.

Frankly, I should insert I still don't agree with about 99% of your explanations, interpretations, and analogies here and I think they're very forced. You say "The CBA defines the cause for the cap relief. The stipulation for adding the salary back to the cap has absolutely no connection with the cause of providing the cap relief in the first place." And in reply: whether you choose to accept the logic or not, I see a very clear connection, and I think those of us who converse here regularly agree.

But here's the bigger point. If there is a clear logical connection or even if there isn't, it doesn't matter - because that is the condition the NBA itself wanted to put on the exclusion.

The NBA can "count" the cap dollars any way they like. It's their cap. If the salary is excluded at one point because he "can't play anymore" (by whatever way they choose to define it), and then later he is playing (by whatever way they choose to define it) and they by rule say that will cause them to take back the exclusion, that's what's gonna happen.

The rule itself - and its effect on a team's cap - is NOT in dispute. Not here, not in Portland, not anywhere. You can argue until you're blue in the face that YOU don't like the rule. But at the end of the day, the spin of every part of rule into some type of drama is pointless. Because the NBA likes the rule. Portland isn't complaining. There's no team protest planned. It is what it is.

[killbuckner]

As I have said several times- if this were a case where a team where trotting out a clearly non-functional player for a minute at a time just to screw the blazers then I think the league would have been very sympathetic to the Blazers and would have worked with them on this. But thats not the case here- Miles actualy played well enough to help a team. WHat it comes down to is that the blazers thought that MIles would be content to sit at home playing video games and collect his checks- instead he worked his ass off to get back in shape enough to play in the league again. Miles should be allowed to continue his carrer if there is a team willing to pay him and the money should go back on the blazers cap.

[d-train]

Let's say FGump and I decide to do business together. I need my chimney lined and FGump is an expert mason. We agree that FGump will line my chimney and I will pay him $500 plus the cost of materials. We also agree that if relining my chimney fixes my draft problem I will pay him an addition 10.

When the job was done I paid FGump $500 plus another $500 for materials.

FGump relined my chimney and as a result, my chimney is now drafting properly. So, according to our agreement I owe FGump (10). I send FGump 10 bags full of Sham's excrement. FGump says thanks for the excrement but I owe him 10 tickets to the NBA finals.

Do I still owe FGump 10?

The answer is no because FGump and I didn't agree on all the essential variables to constitute an agreement. The NBA and the NBPA didn't agree on which team Miles needed to play 10 games with before the 10 games would affect the Blazers salary cap relief.

[FGump]

Dtrain, the Blazers have no objections. Whether you see it or not, to them and everyone else, the rule is explicit and very clear.

[d-train]

Dtrain, the Blazers have no objections. Whether you see it or not, to them and everyone else, the rule is explicit and very clear.

How do you know the Blazers have no objections? Even if the Blazers have no objections, how do you know the NBPA has no objections? In my example above (an example that exactly matches the CBA issues we are discussing) there was no problem until FGump announces he wants 10 tickets to the NBA finals. We won't know if the NBA and the NBPA agree until after the moratorium.

[chakdaddy]

First it would help if the league and anyone using the 'career ending' idea (including the ones arguing that idea here) noted the rule is no such thing. The doctor's report and cap relief is for one season only. With Miles proving he can still play at some level hard to imagine the league would have renewed the relief to provide cap space next year.

Wait, why do you say that the doctor's report and cap relief are for one season only? Shouldn't they be for the rest of the contract? A one season restriction would only have to do with a disabled player exception, not cap relief for a career ending injury right?

The only relevance "one year" has to do with a career-ending injury, as far as I can tell, is the rule that one year has to pass before cap relief can be granted. Presumably that is because before one year passes, it would be too early to speculate on whether it looks like a career ender or not, too difficult to give an accurate prognosis. After one year, then doctors can be confident enough that a guy can't come back that the league will grant the cap relief - with the caveat that the cap relief will be revoked if the prognosis of a "career ending injury" is disproven by the player resuming his career...

With the 10 game criteria appearing to remove any gray area about what constitutes resuming a career.

[FGump]

Denial is a very delusional thing, dude.

[d-train]

Denial is a very delusional thing, dude.

What is the answer to the question in my example? Can you answer a simple question?

[chakdaddy]

If I'm a race car driver who lost his eye sight and I happen to make it around the track 10 times does not mean I can have a career in NASCAR. Just because you can do something poorly in a limited amount of time does not prove you can have a career in that field.

If you are blind, yet somehow make it around the track 10 times, qualify for the races and give a decent run in half the races in the season, the world would be shocked at the blind race car driver who beat the odds to resume his nascar career.

If you can find a team to put you on the court for 10 games in your cast, god bless you but you will have managed to achieve one of the shortest, most bizarre NBA careers ever, as far as the CBA is concerned.

Did Ha Seung Jin or Chuck Nevitt have (brief) NBA careers? Showing enough to get a team to sign you and play you in a few games should constitute de facto proof that you have enough to have a (brief, perhaps disappointing) NBA career.


If you are diagnosed with terminal cancer, thought to have 1 year to live, go on hospice...then are doing ok 3 years later...are you alive or dead? Because THE DOCTOR CERTIFIED that you had a terminal cancer with a short life expectancy, it was this certification that allowed the hospice benefits. Should the hospice benefits be revoked when it becomes clear that the original diagnosis was off?

[Three34]

I send FGump 10 bags full of Sham's excrement.

I gave you that in good faith, you bastard.

[d-train]

I send FGump 10 bags full of Sham's excrement.

I gave you that in good faith, you bastard.

I gave it to FGump in good faith. I didn't say I wasn't a bastard.

[Three34]

That was a gift. That was a gift for the family. You can't just recommision it like that. It loses all the sentiment it originally carried.

[d-train]

That was a gift. That was a gift for the family. You can't just recommision it like that. It loses all the sentiment it originally carried.

Never trust a bastard. Let this be a lesson.

[d-train]

Actually, I think it was still carrying the same sentiment when it was delivered to FGump.

[Jsun947]

If I'm a race car driver who lost his eye sight and I happen to make it around the track 10 times does not mean I can have a career in NASCAR. Just because you can do something poorly in a limited amount of time does not prove you can have a career in that field.

If you are blind, yet somehow make it around the track 10 times, qualify for the races and give a decent run in half the races in the season, the world would be shocked at the blind race car driver who beat the odds to resume his nascar career.

What did Miles have to accomplish to qualify for the races? He didn't have to pass any standards of performance or medical to make the team on Memphis. What qualifies Darius Miles as making a "decent run"? Darius Miles was played less minutes then every player on the roster except for one. He arguably only contributed to one win out of 34 games he appeared in. In 7 wins he had a combined 13 points, 2 assist, and 1 rebound in a total of 35 minutes. 5 of those wins were a blow out win in garbage time. Its not like he made anymore of a positive contribution then any player they could have found in the D-league whom isn't a medical disaster.

Opponent Result MIN FGM-A 3PM-A FTM-A OFF DEF REB AST STL BLK TO PF PTS
Apr 10 vs. PHX W 106 - 89 2 0 - 1 0 - 1 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mar 27 @ SAC W 113 - 95 1 1 - 1 1 - 1 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Mar 04 @ LAC W 118 - 95 4 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
Feb 09 vs. NOH W 85 - 80 7 0 - 1 0 - 0 2 - 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 2
Feb 07 vs. TOR W 78 - 70 7 3 - 4 0 - 0 0 - 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 6
Feb 02 @ WAS W 113 - 97 12 1 - 2 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 2
Jan 04 vs. DAL W 102 - 82 2 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

If you can find a team to put you on the court for 10 games in your cast, god bless you but you will have managed to achieve one of the shortest, most bizarre NBA careers ever, as far as the CBA is concerned.

Did Ha Seung Jin or Chuck Nevitt have (brief) NBA careers? Showing enough to get a team to sign you and play you in a few games should constitute de facto proof that you have enough to have a (brief, perhaps disappointing) NBA career.

There is no definition of what constitutes as an NBA career in the CBA. According to you there is no medical or performance standard to constitute having an NBA career other then appearing in 10 games. This is strictly your opinion and not defined by the CBA. This is YOUR interpretation of the CBA. There is no difference between me appearing in an NBA game and claiming I have a career then Darius Miles currently claiming he has an NBA career. There is certainly no standard set in the CBA for determining a player NOT having a career ending injury. Again, this retreats back to the fact that anybody, including a person whom has never played basketball, a person at any age, or a person with any form or severity of injury according to you is capable of having an NBA career. According to the courts there is a standard set. It is what a reasonable person would consider a career. It is the default measurement used by the United States Civil Court system.

If you are diagnosed with terminal cancer, thought to have 1 year to live, go on hospice...then are doing ok 3 years later...are you alive or dead? Because THE DOCTOR CERTIFIED that you had a terminal cancer with a short life expectancy, it was this certification that allowed the hospice benefits. Should the hospice benefits be revoked when it becomes clear that the original diagnosis was off?

According to the hospitals diagnosis I would be a patient who is terminally ill with cancer whom has happened to make it through the last 3 years. I would continue to be terminally ill with cancer until diagnosed otherwise by a medical professional. The United States Court system would view that the same way. They would view it the same way because a reasonable person would expect to be re-evaluated by a doctor if your health did not decline after the 1st year. Lets take your analogy a step further like the Darius Miles situation.

Say you own a life insurance company. Three years ago Darius was diagnosed by a doctor to be terminally ill with cancer. This is a VERY, VERY, serious diagnosis. Darius has not yet died. He comes to your business and wants to purchase life insurance worth several millions of dollars. Your life insurance CLEARLY states that anyone who is diagnosed to CURRENTLY HAVE A TERMINALLY ILL disease cannot purchase your insurance. Darius says, ya, but I was diagnosed and supposed to die 2 years ago so I clearly do not have terminal cancer. Would a reasonable business man say I need you to be re-evaluated by a doctor first to prove you no longer are terminally ill or would a reason person assume you are cured and offer you a multimillion dollar policy on the spot?

If the NBA determined a player has a career ending injury then it is only reasonable for that player to be re-evaluated by an NBA doctor before a team takes on a multimillion dollar liability. The fact that Memphis did not take this step is proof that Memphis does not value Darius Miles' career in the NBA when they signed him.

[Modern_epic]

What does what is reasonable have to do with anything?

You aren't dealing with the US civil court system here, you are dealing with the NBA CBA. The NBA CBA that Portland has agreed to abide by.

The NBA CBA says Miles salary goes back on Portland's cap after he plays 10 NBA games. There is no one with any real knowledge of the CBA claiming otherwise.

You can think it isn't fair all you want (and I probably agree with you to an extent), but as far as the CBA is concerned, Portland's only leg to stand on is to claim they should have been allowed to claim Miles. And since the CBA also allows the commissioner broad powers to prevent what he sees as circumvention of the agreement, that's not going to go anywhere either.

[d-train]

What does what is reasonable have to do with anything?

You aren't dealing with the US civil court system here, you are dealing with the NBA CBA. The NBA CBA that Portland has agreed to abide by.

The NBA CBA says Miles salary goes back on Portland's cap after he plays 10 NBA games. There is no one with any real knowledge of the CBA claiming otherwise.

You can think it isn't fair all you want (and I probably agree with you to an extent), but as far as the CBA is concerned, Portland's only leg to stand on is to claim they should have been allowed to claim Miles. And since the CBA also allows the commissioner broad powers to prevent what he sees as circumvention of the agreement, that's not going to go anywhere either.

The NBA disallowing the Blazers to claim Miles off waivers is not a problem for the Blazers. It is evidence that Stern is intentionally misinterpreting the CBA's 10-game rule. The reason the 10-game rule is invalid is not all the essential variables to constitute an agreement are defined. As worded, the agreement has 3 possible intents (the 10 games can be played [i] with the Blazers, [ii] any NBA team, [iii] the NBA and NBPA couldn't agree). The NBA's denial of the Blazers waiver claim puts the NBA on none of the 3 possible paths to properly interpreting the CBA.

[Jsun947]

What does what is reasonable have to do with anything?

You aren't dealing with the US civil court system here, you are dealing with the NBA CBA. The NBA CBA that Portland has agreed to abide by.

The NBA CBA says Miles salary goes back on Portland's cap after he plays 10 NBA games. There is no one with any real knowledge of the CBA claiming otherwise.

You can think it isn't fair all you want (and I probably agree with you to an extent), but as far as the CBA is concerned, Portland's only leg to stand on is to claim they should have been allowed to claim Miles. And since the CBA also allows the commissioner broad powers to prevent what he sees as circumvention of the agreement, that's not going to go anywhere either.

You are treating the CBA as if its some law of the land that can't be disputed or misinterpreted. The CBA is a contractually binding document formed between the NBA (commissioner and the30 owners) and the NBA players association. Each franchise and each player is allowed the right to arbitration for contract disputes with the CBA. I'm am sure that Portland will be disputing this when the season is over.

Portland was very careful and deliberate about the way they proceeded through the career ending injury process with the NBA and was the first team to do so. If they were mislead or if the contract was interpreted in more then one way with a conflict in understanding between parties and there is no clear consensus between both the intent and wording they most certainly can and probably will dispute it when the season ends.

The CBA doesn't start with Stern and end with Stern. It starts with two groups and ends in arbitration. This isn't Stern's decision.

[chakdaddy]

Again, this retreats back to the fact that anybody, including a person whom has never played basketball, a person at any age, or a person with any form or severity of injury according to you is capable of having an NBA career.

How in the world do you envision any of these people convincing a team to sign them, passing the team physical, getting their contract approved by the league, and not getting laughed out of town?

Why is the clause about the 10 games in the CBA there, other than as a criteria of "how many games does it take before we consider it de facto evidence to disprove/revoke a diagnosis of a career ending injury."

Why do you want to put aside facto evidence of a guy playing in a bunch of NBA games? You seem to want a doctor to examine him and say "his knee's bad, there's no way he can continue his career or play in 10, let alone 30, games. " "Wait, you said he already did???"

If he plays another 5 years will you still say he had a career ending injury? Why isn't the 10 games good enough for you? I could see a gray area if the 10 game provision hadn't been stipulated to eliminate any gray area.


This thread is hilarious, I'm glad it's back.

[Three34]

Portland was very careful and deliberate about the way they proceeded through the career ending injury process with the NBA and was the first team to do so.

Wait, what?