The seven-days start, when?

[casey]

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.

No, they wouldn't take him away. They would simply have the ability to treat his contract like that of any other active player. It wouldn't have anything to do with him currently as a player.

[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.

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.

The CBA can be misinterpreted; it can't be disputed unless a provision in it is outright illegal. There is nothing illegal about this provision. And no one is misinterpreting it but you and D-train.

And no, portland was not the first team to use the career ending injury process. There is nothing unclear about the wording. Portland was well aware of it, which is why they tried to claim Miles off waivers in the first place. They were and are well aware that a player playing 10 games in the league puts him back on the cap. Even if he still has what they and you consider to be a career ending injury.

Maybe this will get it through your head: The provision doesn't say Portland has the right to remove a player's salary if they have a certified career ending injury. It says they have that right if he stops playing due to a certified career ending injury. If it let you remove any player's salary who had a career ending injury, I'm pretty sure Alvin Williams would have had his salary removed a years before he stopped playing.

The 10 games is to allow the player to test if they want to come back without screwing team. But if they are playing again, it goes back on the cap, whether the team likes it or not, because the provision is for players who are retired. (You're going to try and argue a player on an NBA roster who is seeing game time can be considered retired now, aren't you?)

And you need to read the CBA again before saying it isn't Stern's decision: the document gives him the power to act if he feels a team is attempting to violate the spirit of the CBA. That is what was his decision. Yes, the team can then take it to arbitration, but the only thing that will be being arbitrated in this case is that decision, and you're crazy if you don't think claiming a player so that other teams can't play him is a violation of the spirit of the CBA (if not the letter somewhere in there).

[chakdaddy]

No, they wouldn't take him away. They would simply have the ability to treat his contract like that of any other active player. It wouldn't have anything to do with him currently as a player.

That's not a terrible idea, but I feel like the league already frowns upon players being traded as contract ballast rather than on their own merits; I think they're closing the loophole that let Aaron McKie / Keith Van Horn get traded. Letting a team trade the contract of a guy who's on another team would seem even more ridiculous.

I don't think it's unfair to lose out on the ability to trade the expiring contract. If they wanted to hang onto the contract and trade him when it has one year left, they shouldn't have waived him and applied for the medical exception in the first place. Kind of like the dilemma of whether a guy should officially retire and get removed from the roster (not sure exactly how that works, but Cleveland lost the ability to trade Eric Snow's expiring at some point, didn't they?).

[chakdaddy]

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. 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.

What sense does the 10 game rule make if it only means with the Blazers? To protect them in case they think he can come back, so they re-sign him, but it turns out that he can only make it for a few games?

I guess that is vaguely plausible.

But it seems very crazy to think that an unqualified "10 NBA games" is really an ambiguous statement. If they had meant to specify "with the original team" they would have; if they had meant with any team, they could have just left it as "10 NBA games" like they did. I guess it would be more clear if they had said "with any team", but even though they didn't, I really don't see any evidence to think they meant otherwise.

It doesn't make much sense to specify what team he plays with after he's been waived and is a free agent.

The best solution would have been to tell Portland your waiver claim will be accepted, but since you think he's good enough to put on the roster, you admit his career isn't over and he goes back on the cap regardless of whether he plays.

[casey]

If they wanted to hang onto the contract and trade him when it has one year left, they shouldn't have waived him and applied for the medical exception in the first place.

Yeah, but what team would keep a guy in that situation when they can get salary relief instead? Sure they know there's a chance he could still come back, but it's never happened before, and I gotta imagine every other team would've made the same decision.

And I'm not sure yet if I like my idea or not, I was just kinda throwing it out there as a possibility.

[Jsun947]

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.

Let me make this very simple for you...

According to the press, and Kevin Pritchard the NBA's independent doctor said that if Darius Miles continues to play professional basketball he will need his knee replaced. It was the worst case of micro fracture he has ever seen. The NBA concluded that it was career ending on this. The Doctor didn't say Darius can't play in 10 games or 34 games, especially at a very low volume of minutes. The Doctor said he will need his knee replaced if he continues to play professional Basketball. The NBA knew he could play 10 games or that he could play in 34 games. The NBA decided it was too much of a health risk for him to continue playing basketball, and that it was in fact career ending.

Based on the factual information presented here reveals two things. The NBA knowingly deemed a player with a career ending injury who is capable of playing in 10 games or 34 games. This implies that their decision that Darius Miles has a career ending injury was NOT impacted by the number of games he can physically play but merely by his medical state.

None of that information is new. You clearly do not understand the financial responsibility and ramifications to employ someone that your franchise deemed as not healthy enough to continue a career within the business.

[FGump]

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?

We won't know if the NBA and the NBPA agree until after the moratorium.

The rule itself - and its effect on a team's cap - is NOT in dispute. Not here, not in Portland, not anywhere. Portland clearly showed they believe the rule applies, when their actions demonstrated they wanted to try to keep teams from hiring Miles. Your belief that the moratorium is some sort of appeal period, where they harbor secret issues but reveal them then and try to get things fixed then (and only then), is absurd. As is this thread, of course.

[Jsun947]

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. 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.

The best solution would have been to tell Portland your waiver claim will be accepted, but since you think he's good enough to put on the roster, you admit his career isn't over and he goes back on the cap regardless of whether he plays.

Why would the NBA tell you a player's career is over due to injury then actually expect or even allow you to fill a roster spot for anywhere between 1-3 additional years with someone whom isn't capable of playing? The NBA deemed their career over based on a medical evaluation. That is financially detrimental to the entire Franchise, not just the team with the player.

In case you aren't familiar with laws governing Franchises you should read up on them. Franchise law and conduct financially detrimental to was the real cause for the letter to be sent out by Larry Miller.

[Jsun947]

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?

We won't know if the NBA and the NBPA agree until after the moratorium.

The rule itself - and its effect on a team's cap - is NOT in dispute. Not here, not in Portland, not anywhere. Portland clearly showed they believe the rule applies, when their actions demonstrated they wanted to try to keep teams from hiring Miles. Your belief that the moratorium is some sort of appeal period, where they harbor secret issues but reveal them then and try to get things fixed then (and only then), is absurd. As is this thread, of course.

The team didn't send the letter out with the intent of teams not signing Darius. The team sent the letter out reminding them that you cannot intentionally harm the financial well being of another team in the NBA for any reason. The other owners all made money at the Blazer's expense because Memphis played Darius Miles. This is governed by Franchise law. It is illegal. They didn't care if a team signed him with the purpose of trying to win games, they did care if the purpose was to sign him in order to harm the Blazer organization.

[Three34]

Can we commission Robert Loggia and Patrick Warburton to record a spoken word version of this thread? I want a copy to play back when I'm next on the toilet making a present for d-train's family.

[FGump]

Jsun, you can keep creating fanciful spin to try to explain away reality. But reality is reality. There is no dispute over what the rule says or whether or not Miles salary will be counted. The Blazers aren't arguing the point.

If you aren't lucid enough to actually comprehend, my sympathies. But your lack of comprehension doesn't alter the bottom line.

[Jsun947]

Portland believes there is dispute over what the rule says.
Currently Miles salary is being counted.
I've heard from several good sources shortly after the incident that they were planning on disputing it after the season was over.
Portland ultimately does not want Miles salary back. Portland also would like the NBA to clarify the CBA to specifically explain the process. From what I understand the organization was told different information by the NBA when they began the process and when Memphis signed Darius and the league informed them that it would be likely his salary would be added back on. Worst case scenario the Blazers end up in the same place they are now.
To my knowledge this dispute hasn't been formally introduced to the NBA as of yet and I never claimed it was. I was simply explaining the flaws in the logic and in the CBA.

Whatever you believe or understand doesn't change the fact that the stipulations for adding salary back on the career ending injury clause is not written appropriately. The process needs to be reviewed and clarified regardless of the outcome in the end with the Darius Miles situation. Please do not question my ability to comprehend. I never at any point made a false claim about what the Blazers or the NBA has done, is doing, or will do. The situation is clearly what it is at this point but it doesn't necessary mean that it will remain that way and there is plenty of reasons for that.

[Three34]

*lights candles*

"We've got tonight, who needs tomorrow? We've got to-NIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT, babe! Why don't we staaaaaaaaaaaay!!?!?!?!"

[FGump]

"Portland believes there is dispute over what the rule says."

Link to Portland's claim?

"I've heard from several good sources shortly after the incident that they were planning on disputing it after the season was over."

Several links to several sources?

"Portland ultimately does not want Miles salary back."

Duh.

"Portland also would like the NBA to clarify the CBA to specifically explain the process."

I don't believe this in the least. Everything we've seen says they knew the exact ways the rules work and were watching the process play out with 100% comprehension. Feel free to provide a link that says Portland needs this or wants this done.

"From what I understand the organization was told different information by the NBA when they began the process and when Memphis signed Darius and the league informed them that it would be likely his salary would be added back on."

100% don't believe that the Blazers misunderstood this rule that has been used many times over many years. Provide a link if you want to claim they alone can't understand the rule.

"I was simply explaining the flaws in the logic and in the CBA."

You were never explaining, you were twisting the CBA to try to create flaws that don't exist. You made demands that contrived analogies be applied - when said analogies weren't analogous. You tried to add irrelevancies to the rule - when they were never addressed - and then claim the rule is somehow unclear because it doesn't address those irrelevancies. But they don't matter. Never have, never will. (In "textual interpretation" you can't demand that the text is written in such a contrived exhaustive way that it is untwistable - but rather you give the writer the benefit of the doubt and accept the easy logical reading as the intended one.) A normal reading of this rule using normal logic ends up with an easy to understand logical rule. As I see it. And as others here see it.

"Whatever you believe or understand doesn't change the fact that the stipulations for adding salary back on the career ending injury clause is not written appropriately."

You say. And if you BELIEVE they are unclear to the general reader, then that is exactly the basis for my questioning your ability to comprehend. The logic and structure of the rule is easy - so if you find it hard, that's on you.

There has been no hue and cry for clarifying this rule - because it is already clear. You get a player's salary dismissed if you can - but it gets added back if he comes back again. It's a very simple concept, and if you can't see the obvious, that's on you not on the rule.

[loserX]

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.

The NBA and the NBAPA agreed that the only requirement for those 10 games is that they be in the NBA. It's right there in the agreement. It does not specify a single team because the clause does not require those games to be for a single or specific team. They could be 10 games for 10 different teams as far as the CBA is concerned. As long as they are NBA games, which the Grizzlies' games were, they qualify for the clause. They do not need to specify that the games are for the Grizzlies any more than they have to specify that the clause applies to people whose last names are measures of distance, or that it only applies to games played on days that have a "t" in them.

Did Miles play 10 NBA games this year? Yep. The clause is satisfied, because that's all it required. Nothing there to dispute.

Man, I love this thread.

[Modern_epic]

Hey guy whose name I can't be bothered to remember, are you ever going to reply to my post? You know, the one that pointed out why you were wrong because you are ignoring what the CBA actually said about players needing to actually retire? Because that would be great if you could explain why what the CBA says isn't what it says.

Kthnxbye.

[loserX]

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.

Irrelevant. There is nothing in the CBA that says that Miles has to meet certain statistical minima. Whether you think it's "a good career" or "a weird career" or "not much of a career" has no bearing on the CBA's provision.

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.

The clause in the CBA requires only that Miles play 10 games in the NBA. Not that he have "a career" according to some fan's subjective definition of the term. The requirements of the clause have been met.

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?

Whether Memphis acted in "a reasonable manner" regarding Miles' ability to play is completely irrelevant. They saw that he could play, and they put him in games. In your analogy, the businessman is perfectly within his rights to offer an insurance policy and waive the physical exam no matter what the original diagnosis was. Whether or not you think it's a good idea does not make it illegal.

And, of course, your analogy completely misses the very important possibility that the first doctor was wrong, and that Miles in fact does not have terminal cancer.

[loserX]

They didn't care if a team signed him with the purpose of trying to win games, they did care if the purpose was to sign him in order to harm the Blazer organization.

Correct. And since they will likely never ever ever ever be able to prove that, Portland is SOL.

[killbuckner]

I wish I was the mod of this forum just so I could sticky this thread. It truly does deserve a place of honor

[chakdaddy]

According to the press, and Kevin Pritchard the NBA's independent doctor said that if Darius Miles continues to play professional basketball he will need his knee replaced. It was the worst case of micro fracture he has ever seen.

Do you know what microfracture means? It's not a kind of injury, it's a kind of surgery.

What do you think the purpose of the doctor's examination is anyway? To force Miles to retire because of his injury? To recommend that he retire and officially call it a "career-ending injury" regardless of whether he retires or his career ends?

Or to look at a major injury in a guy who's not playing and seems retired, and to say "the retirement is due to the injury, I don't think he can/should come back" - rather than a guy who is healthy but washed up, is going to get waived, and whose team wants to claim that he is retiring because of a stubbed toe or back spasms so they can get cap relief?

The 2nd reason for the examination is to give a prognosis that they probably won't come back, so that the kind of embarrassing situation we have now would be avoided. But guess what, sometimes they're still wrong and the player surprisingly comes back. Medical miracles and surprises happen, anyone knows that. You're acting like the doctor's original prognosis was infallible when common sense already disproves it.

You're also acting like Miles retired and Portland cut him because a doctor forced them to. That a guy can have a medical retirement even when he decides not to retire.