The seven-days start, when?

[casey]

So, if you can't find where in the CBA that the Blazers transferred the right to determine the fitness of players to play for the Blazers in unambiguous terms, then the NBA and the Grizzlies don't have the right.

Who said anything about being fit to play for the Blazers? This is about being fit to play in the NBA. That's why it's an NBA doctor that rules on these issues. Team doctors could say that a player isn't fit to play for them, but that's completely irrelevant. What's relevant is whether the NBA thinks he's fit to play in the NBA. In the context of this discussion it NEVER matters whether he is fit to play with the Blazers. The Blazers never have any say whatsoever in whether he is fit to play or not. They never have, and never will. They have no "discretionary right" to judge Miles' fitness.

[chakdaddy]

FGump, are you saying that the determination of a player’s fitness to play isn't individual to each team? In other words, the decision by any team of a player’s fitness to play is binding upon all team.

The fitness to play in terms of making the roster is left to individual teams. But with regards to being wiped from the salary cap, that has to be determined by the league, otherwise every player in the league with an undesirable contract in the league would conveniently be determined by his team to be 'unfit'!

The doctors prognosis was the first part of that, but it was empirically disproven by the 10 game rule.

One of the funniest things I saw in this whole mess, someone on BlazersEdge implied that a "career ending injury" really only meant the doctor's advice that a player should retire, regardless of whether that advice is followed.

[GrandAdmiralDan]

This thread is amazing.

We should all really bookmark it.


BTW, I'm going to advise the Bucks front office to draft LeBron James in the 2009 draft. The Bucks never transferred their discretionary right to determine that LeBron James shouldn't be on our roster. If LeBron, the Cavs, or anyone else objects, we will take it to arbitration. I assume the Bucks will win, because the arbitrator will feel bad for us and feel the NBA still owes us for screwing us out of our NBA draft rights to Dr. J.

[d-train]

The answer could be the salary cap question will be settled during the moratorium period right before free agency.

[FGump]

The answer could be the salary cap question will be settled during the moratorium period right before free agency.

What salary cap question? Everything about Miles is completely cut and dried at this point. He is merely a waived player whose salary is a part of Portland's cap until the term of the original contract expires. No one in the world (including Portland) besides you sees any fuzziness in the situation.

[d-train]

What salary cap question? Everything about Miles is completely cut and dried at this point. He is merely a waived player whose salary is a part of Portland's cap until the term of the original contract expires. No one in the world (including Portland) besides you sees any fuzziness in the situation.

The only comment I have read from any Blazers official says the matter isn't over. There are no details about what that statement means but I'm sure it doesn't mean the matter is cut, dried, and concluded as you say. The NBA hasn't stopped the Blazers from using salary cap space, withheld any escrow money from players because of Miles's salary, or charged the Blazers with luxury taxes.

[FGump]

As I recall, all they said was that the Miles issues (in general) weren't over. They didn't say that they thought there was any chance his salary might be excluded from the 2009-10 cap.

Obviously you had some sort of fantasy-based hope that what he meant was they had some secret agenda to sue the league to recoup some cap space, or to ignore the cap and the cap implications of Miles salary, but that's only an invention of your dream world.

Instead, it was a generic statement dropped idly and they were almost certainly referring to the fact that there might be lawsuits or rules changes flowing from how that how thing unfolded. We all know the Blazers were trying to intimidate other teams from signing Miles. That email could have dampened whatever offers he might otherwise have gotten - so Miles and his agent, or the union, might want to take some further action, and Miller was admitting that the thing had yet to be resolved on that front.

[d-train]

The first couple of weeks of July are just around the corner. We’ll see what happens. Until then there is no reason for anything to happen.

[Dekko1]

I fail to see how the league did anything improper.
- The Blazers waived him in accordance with the CBA.
- Miles cleared waivers in accordance with the CBA.
- The Blazers received a salary exemption in accordance with the CBA.
- The Grizzlies signed him in accordance with the CBA.
- Miles played in ten NBA games, invoking 4(h)(4) as expressly stated.
- The exemption was therefore rescinded, and his salary went back on the Blazers' cap, in accordance with the CBA.
Where's the impropriety? Where's the basis for appeal?

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.

But...

While there is no impropriety on your list, there also was no impropriety on the Blazer's part when they exercised the rule to get cap relief. But they got penalized more than about any team that was actually circumventing the rules outside of Minny over the Smith debacle.

And their only recourse was taken away when the NBA did not allow them to reclaim Miles off waivers. If the letter of the rules is used to justify the cap space being removed at the time some GMs were telling reporters they would take on Miles for 2 games purely for the money, 500K tax back, or to keep the cap space away from the blazers, then the league should not have interfered with the Blazers claiming him. It was obviously to prevent him playing, but none of the motives at that point looked very high minded nor for the actual intent of the rule. And the league was making money too by denying the claim off waivers.

I think the blazers could argue that to the arbitrator, and that the ten game rule did not really work as originally intended.
It was supposed to be a deterrent to a team dumping a healthy player, not to severely penalize a team and spoil their ability to plan ahead on cap space.

I still think this may get another rule change. Just like the two year wait penalized a team, there needs to be a way to make the decision final or give the team some rights... make them a restricted FA or something.

[FGump]

Dekko, you are saying the Blazers have been somehow "wronged" by having Miles removed from their future cap, then later added back in under further "examination." You seem to feel that the NBA didn't know that such an egregious outcome could occur.

But I disagree for one very glaring reason: the league actually created very detailed rules to cover the eventuality. That tells us they anticipated such a situation MIGHT happen, and have structured the rules to fit. And all the teams knew the rules, in advance.

In fact, what you ignore is that the Blazers were poised to get a windfall. They made a bad deal, and the contract was going to be erased from their cap as if they hadn't given it. When all was said and done, the windfall was simply erased because it was determined that Miles was able to keep playing. There is nothing bothersome about an undeserved windfall being erased.

Did it play out oddly in the end game? Absolutely. And maybe the league needs to fine tune the rules a bit. But Portland should NOT have been able to claim a playable player merely to stash him - - and they didn't. (The rule should perhaps be amended to say a waiver claim in that situation by the team who earlier waived him medically is that's team's implicit agreement that yep, he is healed after all, and therefore no 10-games-played is needed as further proof.) Also the other teams shouldn't have been able to play him for 10 late game inbounds plays in order to mess up Portland's cap - and that didn't happen either.

Now they need to codify the "right thing" into the rules ...but when all is said and done, Portland ended up exactly where they should have fairly ended up.

[FGump]

Dekko, your angle that the team that waived him as permanently disabled should get ROFR on him during the balance of his contract term sounds fair, considering that they already are on the hook financially. But with that needs to come the added stipulation that if they exercise that ROFR or add them to their roster during that term, by so doing the 10-game requirement is waived for whatever season(s) he is on their roster at any time.

[Three34]

In fact, what you ignore is that the Blazers were poised to get a windfall. They made a bad deal, and the contract was going to be erased from their cap as if they hadn't given it. When all was said and done, the windfall was simply erased because it was determined that Miles was able to keep playing. There is nothing bothersome about an undeserved windfall being erased.

This. The Blazers aren't being punished; they're just not getting really lucky.

[Dunkenstein]

You know the old joke about "denial" being more than just a river in Egypt? Well, it seems also to be flowing at full strength through the state of Oregon.

[killbuckner]

I'm just elated this thread got bumped. The sound of crickets chirping will be overwhelming as the moratorium passes uneventfully since there is no controversial issue here.

[NetsForce]

I read through this entire thread and all I can say is... damn. I thought the Anthony Randolph vs. Blake Griffin thread I made was the dumbest thread on RealGM but this takes the case. So new question:

If the Nets try to trade Yi Jianlian to the Rockets for Carl Landry but the Rockets don't agree to the trade can the Nets take Carl Landry add him to their roster AND keep Yi Jianlian?

[LarryCoon]

While there is no impropriety on your list, there also was no impropriety on the Blazer's part when they exercised the rule to get cap relief. But they got penalized more than about any team that was actually circumventing the rules outside of Minny over the Smith debacle.

I disagree with your premise, bolded above. They did not get penalized. They just didn't receive relief that they weren't entitled to. Unfortunately, whether or not the team is entitled to such relief is sometimes determined in arrears, but such determination does not constitute a penalty.

Likewise, my employer screwed up last year and deposited an extra $5K in my bank account last year. When they figured it out, they asked for the money back. My repaying them did not constitute a penalty.

BTW, I like the suggestion about providing ROFR to the team, subject to the 10-game requirement being waived if it's exercised. I'm going to bring it up next time I talk to them. I'll even claim it as my own.



(Just kidding about that last part.)

[casey]

They're being punished because they know longer have an extremely valuable asset, Miles' contract. And that has the potential to be the equivalent of another $9Mil in cap space (in a sign-and-trade). So that's a HUGE deal. That's just how it works though, they knew that going in, so it's not like the league screwed them or anything. But to say that they weren't hurt by this is not accurate at all. Perhaps allowing the team to trade that contract in a situation like this would be a good resolution (and making them use a roster spot on it, just as if the player is still there)?

[Jsun947]

This is my problem with the ruling and maybe someone can logically explain this all to me...

1.) The NBA decided that Miles injury was career ending, not the Blazers - FACT!
2.) The NBA decided that through this process that the team would receive cap relief from that player DUE TO THE FACT THAT HE HAS A CAREER ENDING INJURY - FACT!
3.) Why would the NBA expect a team to occupy a roster spot with a player who they deemed has a career ending injury? They wouldn't... Obviously the team will waive that player. Beyond this I'm pretty certain that if this injury worsened while under contract with this NBA team that they would
have a huge medical liability with said player.
4.) Portland waived Darius Miles because the NBA said his injury is career ending - FACT!
5.) The CBA Constitutes that if a player whom was determined to have a career ending injury by the NBA plays in 10 NBA games in any season he would go back onto the salary cap - FACT!
6.) The Memphis Grizzlies and the Boston Celtics signed a player approved by the NBA whom according to the NBA had a career ending injury - FACT!
7.) What would happen if during his contract with the Celtics or the Grizzlies Darius Miles has another injury related to the career ending injury which causes serious damage to Darius' health, say paralysis. Can you say lawsuit?
8.) NO NBA DOCTOR RE-EVALUATED DARIUS MILE'S INJURY PRIOR TO BEING SIGNED BY ANOTHER NBA TEAM. AFTER DARIUS MILE'S REHAB NO NBA DOCTOR SAID, YOU ARE HEALTHY ENOUGH TO PLAY IN THE NBA!!! Doesn't this mean that according to the NBA at that point in time Darius Mile's still has a career ending injury in the NBA?
9.) The CBA states that if an NBA player appears in 10 NBA games during one season the money goes back onto the original team's cap - FACT!
10.) Where does the CBA clearly state that if said player appears in 10 NBA games that it means his injury was NOT career ending? No such argument is made. - FACT
11.) You are making an assumption that appearing in 10 NBA games constitutes a player being healthy enough to have an NBA career. There is no medical explanation for this being true. Anyone at any age with any level of health can stand on a court for 10 games.
12.) TO THIS POINT NO NBA DOCTOR HAS STILL RE-EVALUATED DARIUS MILE'S INJURY! STILL TO THIS POINT ACCORDING TO THE NBA DOCTORS DARIUS MILES STILL HAS A CAREER ENDING INJURY! - FACT!


FURTHER MORE
If the assumption was that Darius Miles may be healthy enough to have an NBA career this season then why were the Blazers unable to sign Darius Miles? They were explicitly told they could not by the NBA. What section of the CBA provide this right to every other team in the NBA other then the original team?


The salary cap relief was created for a player with a career ending injury.
There is no distinction in the CBA that determines when a player no longer has a career ending injury.
Therefor, said team should still have the salary relief provided to them for the career ending injury because according to the NBA doctors that player does in fact still have a career ending injury.

If you are saying that playing in 10 games is the proof needed to show a player does not have a career ending injury then why would the NBA allow a player deemed by THEIR doctors to have a career ending injury to play in ANY NBA games in the first place until THEIR doctors ruled that he is healthy enough to attempt a return to the NBA? Where is the medical evidence that simply appearing in 10 NBA games prove that this player does not have a career ending injury?

Lets use a more clear example. I work for a company called Welders Inc in Oregon. I do welding for this metal shop company. While on the job an accident causes me to lose my eye sight. Welders Inc sends me to the hospital where a doctor provides Metal Shop Inc. with the results that the loss of my eye sight is a career ending injury. This means it is not safe for my health or the coworkers around me to be a welder. The company is forced to lay me off because I can no longer work for them. A year later I return to Welders Inc. explaining to them that I believe I can weld again. Welders Inc. does not send me to a doctor to have my sight evaluated. In fact, they hire me knowing full and well that according to the last doctor it is unsafe for me to perform this job. For 10 days I weld without an accident. The 11th day I have an accident related to my eye sight that causes my death.

For the 10 days I returned and welded is there any form of performance standard showing that I am in fact a professional welder medically capable of a welding career? NO! What if my welding work is complete crap in those 10 days? In fact the work was so bad that after 30 days without significant signs of improvement that the company concluded that my performance is not worthy of remaining employed with Welders Inc? Would this make a difference in the fact that I can continue a professional welding career?

Furthermore does the fact that I welded for 10 days without an accident prove that I no longer had a career ending injury? NO!!! IT DOES NOT!!!

This is exactly how people are defining the intentions of the CBA. The rule makes absolutely no ethical, moral, or medical reasonable decision that the injury is no longer career ending at any point. I believe this is the argument that the Blazer's will present to the NBA at the end of this season.

[Three34]

6.) The Memphis Grizzlies and the Boston Celtics signed a player approved by the NBA whom according to the NBA had a career ending injury - FACT!

The adjudication by the NBA's doctors that Miles' injury was career ending was only speculative, and a prediction. It could never be anything else, such is the nature of the beast when you're trying to predict the future. The NBA put the 10 game ruling thing into place as a safeguard in case such a prediction ever turned out to be wrong, and, in this case, it was.

11.) You are making an assumption that appearing in 10 NBA games constitutes a player being healthy enough to have an NBA career. There is no medical explanation for this being true. Anyone at any age with any level of health can stand on a court for 10 games.

Conversely, why was it any less healthy for Darius to return on his surgically repaired knee than it was for, say, Dikembe Mutombo to play these last three years? Of course, Darius risked popping his knee again every time he jumped, and causing perhaps lifelong damage to his knee. But for all we know, Mutombo could have been taking 3 years of walking pain-free from the back end of his life for each year that he backed up Yao Ming on the Rockets. He, too, risked a career ending injury every time he took the court and left the ground, because he too had decidedly haggard knees from several centuries of playing in the NBA. Medical teams may well have been able to say without fear of contradiction that, while Dikembe could play, he shouldn't. And remember that, of the two, it was Dikembe who suffered a career ender, not Darius.

More to the point - Darius didn't stand on the court for fleeting moments in 10 games. He was in a rotation for 34 games. The proof of his ability to not only take an NBA court, but to perform acceptably well on it, came from the fact that he did it. Sure, a yardstick as arbitrary as the 10 games one COULD, in theory, be manipulated by suiting up a pensioner and stapling them to the half court line for 5 seconds at the end of the first half for three weeks. But this didn't happen. Whatever Memphis' motives, Darius' health was acceptable.

[Dunkenstein]

Perhaps allowing the team to trade that contract in a situation like this would be a good resolution (and making them use a roster spot on it, just as if the player is still there)?

Just how do you see this working? Portland waived Miles, got an NBA approved doctor to say he had a career-ending injury, and the league allowed Portand to take the remainder of the salary they owed him off their cap. Their hope was that he stays retired and off their cap.

However, Memphis picks him up as a minimum-salaried free agent. He plays ten games for them and his salary goes back on Portland's cap. Under Casey's proposition, should Portland then have the right to take him away from Memphis at this point in the hopes that they can trade his $9M contract, which we all know wouldn't happen.

And by the same token. I don't think Dekko's ROFR suggestion is practical. When Boston signed Miles in training camp, or Memphis signed him during the season, do you really think Portland would have jumped in and said "No, we'll take him back and pay him $9M a year." They would bet that he wouldn't play ten games. In the Boston case they would have been right. In the Memphis case, they would have lost the bet.

In all the cases where a team had a player taken off their cap because of a career-ending injury, Miles is the only case where a player actually returned to play ten games. And you don't hear the fans of those other teams complaining that the rule is unfair. Portland is having to pay Miles the last two years of the contract they gave him. I don't see anything unfair about that.