The seven-days start, when?

[d-train]

It's irrelevant whether a player is fit to play with a certain team. What matters is whether he is fit to play in the NBA. That's how his salary gets taken off the books, and that's how it goes back on.

Nowhere does the rule transfer the Blazers authority to determine the fitness of its players to another team.

Nowhere does it grant them the authority. It's about the player's fitness, not any team's determination of whether a player is fit.

The rule doesn't say that a player that sustains a career-ending injury isn't fit to play in the NBA. The rule just outlines an objective procedure for determining whether a player has sustained a career-ending injury and if the team that receives the benefits of salary cap relief later decides the player is fit to play they lose their salary cap relief.

I don't believe that Article XI, Section 5.(b) by itself answers my question. There is another paragraph that I haven't found or the matter could be decided either way, IMO. Section 5.(b) just says a team needs have sufficient cap Room to tender an offer sheet. Whether the team has sufficient cap space is the subject of the dispute in my hypothetical example.

If the NBA says you don't have cap space, you don't have cap space. If a team wants to dispute that they can, but in the meantime the number the league gives is what matters, not the number the team gives. If that weren't the case a team $50Mil over the cap could say "hey, we have cap space" and then sign a player to a max offer sheet.

You could be right but I think it could go either way. If a system arbitrator decides the NBA calculated salary cap space of a team incorrectly, I don't see why the arbitrator can't reverse the error from day 1, unless there is another rule that I haven't yet found.

[d-train]

I have said before- if this were really a case where a team were basically propping a fully non-functional player out on the court for 30 seconds at the end of blowouts then the league would have been very sympathetic to working with the blazers on that. but Miles has actually been pretty solid this season, has played in 26 games for over 4 total hours on the court. The Blazers were hoping that Miles would be content to just sit back and collect his paychecks and go away, instead he worked his ass off to make it back to the league and he absolutely should count against the blazers cap now. I seriously doubt that the Blazers will even try and make the case that Miles should not count against their cap.

It's irrelevant whether Miles can still play. He has sustained a career-ending injury as defined by the CBA. The only procedure for reversing that determination is if the Blazers request that he be reexamined.

[Three34]

Dude.

[killbuckner]

You really believe that its irrelevant whether Miles can sustain a career when discussing whether he has sustained a career-ending injury? Seriously?

[d-train]

You really believe that its irrelevant whether Miles can sustain a career when discussing whether he has sustained a career-ending injury? Seriously?

Yes, because the criterion for determining whether Miles' injury is career-ending only has games played as a prerequisite. Miles is free to continue playing even if his physical condition doesn't allow him to pass a physical. He isn't the only player playing in the NBA that can't pass a physical.

[killbuckner]

D-Train? what are you talking about? You are under the impression that Miles didn't take a physical with the grizzlies?

Miles has shown that his career is not done- he is still physically capable of contributing in the league. He has played 10 games which means that he counts against the Blazers cap once again. They in good faith waived him due to a career ending injury- obviously they were simply mistaken and Miles did the rehab to be a contributing NBA player again. Like I said- if this were a case where it was clear that Miles were not capable of physically contributing to a NBA team then I think the league would be sympathetic to the blazers- but this case isn't even near the margins, he absolutely should count against the blazers cap

[d-train]

D-Train? what are you talking about? You are under the impression that Miles didn't take a physical with the grizzlies?

Miles has shown that his career is not done- he is still physically capable of contributing in the league. He has played 10 games which means that he counts against the Blazers cap once again. They in good faith waived him due to a career ending injury- obviously they were simply mistaken and Miles did the rehab to be a contributing NBA player again. Like I said- if this were a case where it was clear that Miles were not capable of physically contributing to a NBA team then I think the league would be sympathetic to the blazers- but this case isn't even near the margins, he absolutely should count against the blazers cap

I am under the impression that Miles can't pass a physical because of a preexisting injury that enables the Blazers to collect $8 million per year in insurance benefits.

There is no mistake, the Blazers waived Miles in order to receive the salary cap relief the CBA allows. There is no issue with Miles' capability of contributing to an NBA team. Every team independently determines which players are most suitable to occupy their available roster spots. Some teams will give roster spots to players that have career-ending injuries that another team is collecting disability insurance benefits from because of a disabling injury.

[killbuckner]

are you under the impression that the blazers are still receiving insurance payments for Miles?

[d-train]

are you under the impression that the blazers are still receiving insurance payments for Miles?

Yes, and I believe they will also collect another $8 million next year.

[casey]

The rule doesn't say that a player that sustains a career-ending injury isn't fit to play in the NBA. The rule just outlines an objective procedure for determining whether a player has sustained a career-ending injury and if the team that receives the benefits of salary cap relief later decides the player is fit to play they lose their salary cap relief.

And the rule has a clause in place in case the doctors make a mistake in determining that the injury was career-ending, and that's the 10 games. That makes way more sense than what you're suggesting. And looking at the wording of the rule, that's obviously what it says. If it meant 10 games with that former team, it would've said that. Not "10 NBA games".

If a system arbitrator decides the NBA calculated salary cap space of a team incorrectly, I don't see why the arbitrator can't reverse the error from day 1, unless there is another rule that I haven't yet found.

Maybe the arbitrator could. But the Blazers certainly don't have a case strong enough to get it overturned right away. Really they have no chance of ever getting it overturned, they have no case at all.

[loserX]

The only procedure for reversing that determination is if the Blazers request that he be reexamined.

No it isn't. You quoted it yourself:

(4) Notwithstanding Section 4(h)(1) and (2) above, if after a player’s Salary is excluded from Team Salary in accordance with this Section 4(h), the player plays in ten (10) NBA games in any Season, the excluded Salary for the Salary Cap Year covering such Season and each subsequent Salary Cap Year shall thereupon be included in Team Salary (and if the tenth game played is a playoff game, then the excluded Salary shall be included in Salary retroactively as of the start of the Team’s last Regular Season game). 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).

I don't see anything in there about the previous team being consulted about anything. Miles played 10 games in this season. Therefore his salary goes back on the cap. It seems pretty black and white to...well, almost everyone.

Note that the team in question can re-apply every year to have the salary removed for the coming season. This may be what the Blazers are considering if they say "it's not over".

They do not have additional capspace unless they win that appeal, which they almost assuredly will not. And they will certainly not be allowed to act as though they have won the appeal before they win the appeal.

[loserX]

The determination of players’s fitness to play is a subjective decision that each team reserves the right to make for their own team. Section 4.(h)(4) simply says that if the Blazers decide after receiving salary cap relief on a player that sustains a career ending injury to play the player in 10 games that they forfeit the salary cap relief. Nowhere does the rule transfer the Blazers authority to determine the fitness of its players to another team.

Again, that actually is NOT what it says. Where does it say anything about the previous team's getting to decide anything at all?

[Three34]

The whole judgment that his career was over was nothing more than speculative. They made the best judgment that they could based off of the information available, but the nature of the beast dictates that it can only ever be speculative, for they were predicting the future. And clearly they got their prediction wrong; Miles's career is not over, and he CAN play. The proof comes from the fact that he is.

If your complaint here stems from the idea that an arbitrary yardstick such as the 10 games played rule is able to be manipulated at some point, e.g. by stapling a corpse to the back of Hamed Haddadi and having the duo defend a single inbounds play in 10 straight games, thus meeting the criteria technically if not ethically, then yes you're perhaps correct. But that hasn't happened. Miles is here on merit, and the Blazers can't be allowed any lenience based on the idea that his career is over, when it isn't.

[raleigh]

e.g. by stapling a corpse to the back of Hamed Haddadi and having the duo defend a single inbounds play in 10 straight games

There really is no one as spectacular as you, Sham.

[FGump]

I don't see anything in there about the previous team being consulted about anything. Miles played 10 games in this season. Therefore his salary goes back on the cap. It seems pretty black and white to...well, almost everyone.

Bingo. There is none so blind as he who will not see.

D-train's responses have been the forum equivalent of a debater putting his fingers in his ears and going la-la-la-la-la when anyone else talks.

[ss1986v2]

e.g. by stapling a corpse to the back of Hamed Haddadi and having the duo defend a single inbounds play in 10 straight games

[d-train]

The whole judgment that his career was over was nothing more than speculative. They made the best judgment that they could based off of the information available, but the nature of the beast dictates that it can only ever be speculative, for they were predicting the future. And clearly they got their prediction wrong; Miles's career is not over, and he CAN play. The proof comes from the fact that he is.

If your complaint here stems from the idea that an arbitrary yardstick such as the 10 games played rule is able to be manipulated at some point, e.g. by stapling a corpse to the back of Hamed Haddadi and having the duo defend a single inbounds play in 10 straight games, thus meeting the criteria technically if not ethically, then yes you're perhaps correct. But that hasn't happened. Miles is here on merit, and the Blazers can't be allowed any lenience based on the idea that his career is over, when it isn't.

There’s a difference between a complaint and an observation. It’s my observation that the NBA did not adhere to the CBA regarding Miles’ career-ending injury and that based on what the Blazers have said about it there is going to be a FA signing this summer the NBA will not approve and an appeal. And, since the NBA didn’t adhere to the CBA, the NBA is going to lose the appeal.

I don’t have a problem with the 10 games played rule as a yardstick. At least most of us here can agree on the rule the NBA is relying upon. We just don’t agree on what the rule says. I think the 10 games played condition is a safeguard to prevent a team from keeping (via reacquiring the player) and receiving the benefit of salary cap relief. You and most of the others here think it’s an additional condition of establishing a career ending injury.

Actually, even if we don’t agree on what the rule says, it leads to the same conclusion that the NBA didn’t follow the terms of the CBA and the Blazers are entitled to salary cap relief on Miles salary. The Blazers never transferred their discretionary right to be the ultimate judge of Miles’ fitness to play in an NBA game and the CBA didn’t require them to transfer separately that right. The rule only stipulates that the Blazers waive him and since he cleared waivers, the Blazers never directly transferred their property rights to the Grizzlies or any other team.

[loserX]

There’s a difference between a complaint and an observation. It’s my observation that the NBA did not adhere to the CBA regarding Miles’ career-ending injury

You are wrong. After 10 NBA games, the player's salary goes back on the team's cap. It is in the section you quoted. That is the rule, the whole rule, and nothing but the rule. You are adding a number of bizarre and unsubstantiated conclusions that are not in the CBA.

and that based on what the Blazers have said about it there is going to be a FA signing this summer the NBA will not approve and an appeal.

That is your assumption. Not an observation, unless you have a quotation much more specific than the one you've provided, which basically had the Blazers' FO saying "it's not over".

And, since the NBA didn’t adhere to the CBA, the NBA is going to lose the appeal.

False. Miles played in 10 NBA games, so his salary goes back on the Blazers' cap. As expressly stated in the CBA.

I don’t have a problem with the 10 games played rule as a yardstick. At least most of us here can agree on the rule the NBA is relying upon. We just don’t agree on what the rule says. I think the 10 games played condition is a safeguard to prevent a team from keeping (via reacquiring the player) and receiving the benefit of salary cap relief. You and most of the others here think it’s an additional condition of establishing a career ending injury.

I personally think it's to prevent teams from gaining cap relief on players who may not be as injured as the team suggests (even if the team's assertion was made in good faith, as I believe the Blazers' was). That's neither here nor there, though. But your interpretation of the motivation for the rule does not supersede the rule. Which says that after 10 NBA games, Miles' salary goes back on the Blazers' cap.

Actually, even if we don’t agree on what the rule says, it leads to the same conclusion that the NBA didn’t follow the terms of the CBA and the Blazers are entitled to salary cap relief on Miles salary. The Blazers never transferred their discretionary right to be the ultimate judge of Miles’ fitness to play in an NBA game and the CBA didn’t require them to transfer separately that right. The rule only stipulates that the Blazers waive him and since he cleared waivers, the Blazers never directly transferred their property rights to the Grizzlies or any other team.

The Blazers never had the discretionary right to be the ultimate judge of Miles' fitness to play in the NBA. They consulted an independent doctor, who told them Miles' injury was career ending. The rule did not give the Blazers the right to waive him (they had that already); it gave them a right to have his salary taken off their cap if they did waive him. They RENOUNCED his property rights when they waived him. That's what waiving entails.

Once Miles cleared waivers, the Blazers no longer had rights to do anything at all with Miles' career. You don't maintain discretionary rights to determine the fitness of a player who is no longer a member of your organization. That is preposterous. You can't waive a player and then tell other teams what they can or can't do with him.

The rule, one more time, says that if Miles plays 10 games in an NBA season, his salary goes back on the cap. There are no other stipulations (apart from the "playoff game", which is irrelevant here). Miles played 10 games in an NBA season. Therefore his salary goes back on the cap. The rule is straightforward and was correctly applied.

[Dunkenstein]

d-train, are you using a cockroach as your avatar? Interesting choice.

[d-train]

The Blazers never had the discretionary right to be the ultimate judge of Miles' fitness to play in the NBA.

All NBA teams have the discretionary right to be the ultimate judge of each of their own player’s fitness to play in NBA games, with some limitations. The only limitation I’m aware of is the player has some input on his health status. But, given that the player claims to be healthy and ready to play, the team that owns the players services solely determines fitness. Furthermore, the determination of fitness is particular to only the team that makes the determination. In other words, fitness to play in games for team A is not a determination of fitness to play for team B.

Therefore, a condition that is intended to be a measure of fitness by counting games played must specify which team the games are played for. And, if it’s the intent of the rule to be 10 games played for any team, it has to say the 10 game s can be played for any team. In this case, the rule just says 10 games played. So, either we can agree the games must be played for the team that owns the players rights at the time of his career ending injury or we have a condition that is too vague to enforce.

They RENOUNCED his property rights when they waived him. That's what waiving entails.

When the Blazers waived Miles that gave every other team in the league the opportunity to assume the Blazers property rights to Miles' services. Since no team claimed Miles off waivers, the Blazers property rights were not transferred to any team.

Once Miles cleared waivers, the Blazers no longer had rights to do anything at all with Miles' career. You don't maintain discretionary rights to determine the fitness of a player who is no longer a member of your organization. That is preposterous. You can't waive a player and then tell other teams what they can or can't do with him.

After Miles cleared waivers, his contract with the Blazers was terminated except for some provisions. I'm not going to look up the exact details because it doesn't matter. I assume the Blazers relinquished all rights except their obligation to pay Miles' salary.

The relevant fact is the Blazers never assigned the right to determine Miles fitness to play in NBA games to another NBA team.

I agree with you that it is preposterous to think that any NBA team can determine a player’s fitness to play for another NBA team.