RealGM

Here is a hypothetical salary cap related question that could occur this summer. The Blazers will have $11.4 million in salary cap space this summer assuming a $57.3 salary cap and no extraordinary moves by Blazers to make additional cap space. To achieve this they will have to waive Steve Blake by June 30 and renounce signing rights to RFA Channing Frye.

Here’s the math:
$3,910,816 Brandon Roy
$5,361,240 Greg Oden
$5,844,827 LaMarcus Aldridge
$1,118,760 Nicolas Batum
$3,600,000 Travis Outlaw
$1,165,320 Rudy Fernandez
$6,857,725 Joel Przbyilla
$4,320,000 Martell Webster
$2,143,080 Jerryd Bayless
$1,576,696 Sergio Rodriguez
$9,000,000 Darius Miles
$1,012,900 Rookie Hold
$0 Steve Blake
$0 Channing Frye
$- Roster Holds
-----------------------
$45,911,364 Total salary
$57,300,000 Cap
-----------------------
$11,388,636 Cap space

Let’s say the Blazers offer all $11.4 million to an UFA such as Ben Gordon or Carlos Bamboozler and the offer is accepted by the player. That would leave the Blazers with no more cap space according to David Stern and the NBA because the NBA improperly added Miles back on the Blazers salary cap.

Suppose the Blazers say Miles doesn’t count against their cap. And, they offer $9 million to a RFA such as David Lee or Paul Millsap and the offer is accepted by the player. The NBA would void the offer sheet and probably assess a penalty to the Blazers and the Blazers and the NBPA would appeal.

Here’s finally the question. When does the 7-day clock start ticking for the RFA original team to match the offer sheet? According to the CBA, it starts when the player delivers an accepted offer sheet to the original team but it might take 7 or more days before the system arbitrator officially affirms the appeal. So, the RFA’s original team might have to match an offer sheet before they know for certain it is valid.

The quick answer would be: get over it.

d-train wrote:Suppose the Blazers say Miles doesn’t count against their cap.

But the League does say that Miles counts against their cap, and would never allow the offer sheet to be tendered. So your hypothetical is a waste of time and space.

Dunkenstein wrote:

d-train wrote:Suppose the Blazers say Miles doesn’t count against their cap.

But the League does say that Miles counts against their cap, and would never allow the offer sheet to be tendered. So your hypothetical is a waste of time and space.

That is how a contract dispute works two or more parties disagree on what the contract says. The Blazers couldn't stop the NBA from putting Miles back onto their salary cap and the NBA can't stop the Blazers from tendering an offer to a player. The NBA can void the offer sheet like they did when the Blazers offered a contract to Chris Dudley or when the Heat offered a contract to Juwan Howard.

I’m not just pulling this out of a hat. The President of the Blazer, Larry Miller, says the issue regarding Miles contract isn’t over. He won’t elaborate on what he means but I think it’s obvious what he means.

The question here is when the 7-day period would start. If the NBA voids the offer sheet and that decision isn't appealed or an appeal isn't successful, then there is no issue. But, what if the appeal is successful and the offer sheet is valid, regardless what the NBA says.

The rules clearly say Miles counts against the Blazers cap. He's played far more than the requisite number of games that keeps his salary from being exempt, an event that the rules clearly anticipated as being possible. The Blazers can throw as many tantrums as they want, but they have no feasible recourse.

d-train wrote:I’m not just pulling this out of a hat. The President of the Blazer, Larry Miller, says the issue regarding Miles contract isn’t over. He won’t elaborate on what he means but I think it’s obvious what he means.

"The Miles case isn't over" can mean any number of things, with many angles hitting the Blazers even further than the $9M cap hit. Your problem may be that while you THINK his meaning is obvious, you instead don't accurately comprehend what issues are on the table, and I don't see the concept that Miles goes against the Blazers cap as being anywhere near the top of the list of possibilities.

The two biggest possibilities I see ...

1. ...the Blazers email and the lawsuit the NBPA threatened because of it. Oh yeah, forgot about THAT as an ongoing issue, didn't you? But Miles signed with Memphis for the minimum. He might have instead signed with another team for a bigger salary - except that team didn't want to deal with the potential lawsuit hassle of the Blazers. Or maybe he wanted to sign with Team X, but Team X decided not to ink him due to that email. The terroristic tone of that email was a real issue at the time, and the NBPA is going to want some Blazer blood.

2. ...the Blazers were banned from claiming Miles on waivers. The issue there would be the Blazers trying to claim they are owed something for the loss of talent they might have gained for a half season.

In neither of those situations would the Blazers be thinking they would be getting the Miles cap charge erased.

FGump wrote:The rules clearly say Miles counts against the Blazers cap. He's played far more than the requisite number of games that keeps his salary from being exempt, an event that the rules clearly anticipated as being possible. The Blazers can throw as many tantrums as they want, but they have no feasible recourse.

The only portion of the rule that is clear is that Miles sustained a career ending injury as defined by the CBA. Other than that, the rule is anything but clear. Specifically, it is unclear whether Miles has played the prerequisite number of games required before his salary can be put back on the Blazers cap. The rule does not say that if Miles plays in 10 games with ANY team the Blazers lose their cap relief. If it were the intent of the parties to have such a wacky rule that runs counter to the general principle that each team determines fitness of players only for only their own purposes, then you would think the parties would specify that in unambiguous language.

FGump wrote:

d-train wrote:I’m not just pulling this out of a hat. The President of the Blazer, Larry Miller, says the issue regarding Miles contract isn’t over. He won’t elaborate on what he means but I think it’s obvious what he means.

"The Miles case isn't over" can mean any number of things, with many angles hitting the Blazers even further than the $9M cap hit. Your problem may be that while you THINK his meaning is obvious, you instead don't accurately comprehend what issues are on the table, and I don't see the concept that Miles goes against the Blazers cap as being anywhere near the top of the list of possibilities.

The two biggest possibilities I see ...

1. ...the Blazers email and the lawsuit the NBPA threatened because of it. Oh yeah, forgot about THAT as an ongoing issue, didn't you? But Miles signed with Memphis for the minimum. He might have instead signed with another team for a bigger salary - except that team didn't want to deal with the potential lawsuit hassle of the Blazers. Or maybe he wanted to sign with Team X, but Team X decided not to ink him due to that email. The terroristic tone of that email was a real issue at the time, and the NBPA is going to want some Blazer blood.

2. ...the Blazers were banned from claiming Miles on waivers. The issue there would be the Blazers trying to claim they are owed something for the loss of talent they might have gained for a half season.

In neither of those situations would the Blazers be thinking they would be getting the Miles cap charge erased.

The problem you appear to be having is you think I want to discuss the strength of the Blazers case if they decide to appeal. You are wrong.

The OP asks a simple question. If a team makes an offer to a RFA that is voided by the NBA and successfully appealed thereby making the original offer valid, when does the 7-day period start?

There would be no 7 day period because there would be no valid offersheet. You might as well be asking when the 7 days would start if the Knicks offered Marvin Williams more than the MLE even though they don't have any caproom. And the answer is that there is no 7 day period to start because there would be no valid offersheet signed. The 7 days start when the league acknowledges that there is a valid offersheet.

killbuckner wrote:The 7 days start when the league acknowledges that there is a valid offersheet.

This is what I originally looked for but couldn't find anywhere that said the NBA had to validate the offer sheet. However, I did find this:

Article XI, Section 5., (b) .... In order to extend an Offer Sheet, the New Team must have Room for the player’s Player Contract at the time the Offer Sheet is signed.

d-train wrote: the rule is anything but clear. Specifically, it is unclear whether Miles has played the prerequisite number of games required before his salary can be put back on the Blazers cap. The rule does not say that if Miles plays in 10 games with ANY team the Blazers lose their cap relief. .

Do you care to quote the chapter and verse in the CBA on which you based THAT unique interpretation? Is there one?

Never before have so many smart people wasted their time responding to a deluded fool's fantasy. It's like arguing with a three-year old. Maybe if nobody else responds to his baseless ideas, this thread will sink to the bottom where it belongs.

d-train wrote:The rule does not say that if Miles plays in 10 games with ANY team the Blazers lose their cap relief.

The rules says if Miles plays 10 games PERIOD. Why would it matter what team he plays for? The player has to be released to even get the cap relief, so why would playing with the same team mean anything? The rule is clear to pretty much everybody except for you at this point.

d-train wrote:

killbuckner wrote:The 7 days start when the league acknowledges that there is a valid offersheet.

This is what I originally looked for but couldn't find anywhere that said the NBA had to validate the offer sheet. However, I did find this:

Article XI, Section 5., (b) .... In order to extend an Offer Sheet, the New Team must have Room for the player’s Player Contract at the time the Offer Sheet is signed.

And they wouldn't have room at that time. Pretty clear.

FGump wrote:

d-train wrote: the rule is anything but clear. Specifically, it is unclear whether Miles has played the prerequisite number of games required before his salary can be put back on the Blazers cap. The rule does not say that if Miles plays in 10 games with ANY team the Blazers lose their cap relief. .

Do you care to quote the chapter and verse in the CBA on which you based THAT unique interpretation? Is there one?

I believe the specific paragraph the NBA is relying upon is Section 4.(h)(4). The ambiguous language is the 10-game criterion. The rule doesn't specify the games can be played with _any_ team but that is how the NBA is interpreting the language. The Blazers start out as the team that decides the fitness of its players to play and the NBA is transferring that authority to a competitor without any specific authority to do so.

ARTICLE VII: BASKETBALL RELATED INCOME, SALARY CAP, MINIMUM TEAM SALARY, AND ESCROW ARRANGEMENT

Section 4. Determination of Team Salary

(h) Long-Term Injuries. Any player who suffers a career-ending injury or illness, and whose contract is terminated by the Team in accordance with the NBA waiver procedure, will be excluded from his Team’s Team Salary as follows:

(1) Beginning on the first anniversary of the injury or illness, the Team may apply to the NBA to have the player’s Salary for each remaining Salary Cap Year covered by the Contract excluded from Team Salary.

(2) The determination of whether a player has suffered a career-ending injury or illness shall be made by a physician selected jointly by the NBA and the Players Association.

(3) Notwithstanding Section 4(h)(1) and (2) above, the career-ending injury or illness of a player who plays in more than ten (10) games in any Season shall not be deemed to have occurred prior to the last game in which the player played in such Season.

(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).

(5) If a Team applies to have a player’s Salary excluded from its Team Salary pursuant to this Section 4(h), the player shall cooperate in the processing of the application, including by appearing at the reasonably scheduled place and time for examination by the jointly-selected physician.

(6) Only the Team with which the player was under Contract at the time his career-ending injury or illness became known or reasonably should have become known shall be permitted to apply to have the player’s Salary excluded from Team Salary pursuant to this Section 4(h).

Dunkenstein wrote:Never before have so many smart people wasted their time responding to a deluded fool's fantasy. It's like arguing with a three-year old. Maybe if nobody else responds to his baseless ideas, this thread will sink to the bottom where it belongs.

I'm just not used to conversing with people that refer to themselves as "smart people."

casey wrote:

d-train wrote:The rule does not say that if Miles plays in 10 games with ANY team the Blazers lose their cap relief.

The rules says if Miles plays 10 games PERIOD. Why would it matter what team he plays for? The player has to be released to even get the cap relief, so why would playing with the same team mean anything? The rule is clear to pretty much everybody except for you at this point.

d-train wrote:

killbuckner wrote:The 7 days start when the league acknowledges that there is a valid offersheet.

This is what I originally looked for but couldn't find anywhere that said the NBA had to validate the offer sheet. However, I did find this:

Article XI, Section 5., (b) .... In order to extend an Offer Sheet, the New Team must have Room for the player’s Player Contract at the time the Offer Sheet is signed.

And they wouldn't have room at that time. Pretty clear.

I think it’s obvious it matters which team decides a player’s fitness to play. A player can be fit to play on one team but not another. Some teams might be willing to devote a roster spot to a player that can't pass a physical while another team would not.

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.

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.

d-train wrote:I think it’s obvious it matters which team decides a player’s fitness to play. A player can be fit to play on one team but not another. Some teams might be willing to devote a roster spot to a player that can't pass a physical while another team would not.

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.

d-train wrote: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.

d-train wrote: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.

I agree 100% with Casey, who nailed it.

1. The original team is NEVER allowed to control the medical process in deciding a player's eligibility for the Permanently Disabled cap exemption.

If a team wants a medical exemption, they ask and the league itself determines whether relief should be granted based on its (not the team's) doctor.

2. The decision of whether a player has become Permanently Disabled is not intended to be an individual TEAM issue (therefore subject to individual standards) but rather a LEAGUE issue, because all 29 other teams are in essence giving the original team a do-over on the cap expense.

So, if he can play NBA ball for SOMEONE, then he can still play - and no exemption is deserved. The league only wants extreme cases to get exempted from cap rolls, and if anyone thinks they can use him, and does so, he doesn't meet the "can't play in the NBA" exemption standard.

3. The rule simply says if he plays 10 games, the exemption is gone.

...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

There is no distinction made as to who he plays the 10 games for, because none was intended. It doesn't matter.

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.

I agree the rule clearly doesn’t allow any team to make its own determination of whether a player has sustained a career ending injury. The rule logically requires independent experts make that determination because individually teams are allowed the latitude of being subjective with their determination of a players fitness to play.

The dispute (if there is one) is the interpretation of the 10 games played condition. I say the 10 games are not a fitness test but simply a safeguard that prevents a team that receives salary cap relief from also benefiting from the continued availability of the injured players services. The other side of the dispute says the 10 games is additional criterion for determining whether a player is disabled. And, to make the whole argument super wacky any team can do the determination of fitness. The previously determined disabled player doesn’t need to pass a physical or perform any physical tests he only needs the subjective authority of an NBA team and the willingness to trot his ass into an NBA game 10 times. Hell, I’m under 6’, weight over 220 pounds, I’m 46 years old, and my knees hurt walking up the stairs into my house but I am physically capable of appearing in 10 NBA games.

If the 10 games played condition were intended to be an additional condition of the career-ending jury determination, then 1 sentence in a 1000+ page document transfers the financial fortunes of one team to the subjective control of each of their 29 competitors. I think that’s nonsense. It’s obvious the 10-games played condition was intended to be a safeguard to deny a team the benefit of a player’s services and salary cap relief.

FGump wrote:There is no distinction made as to who he plays the 10 games for, because none was intended. It doesn't matter.

Do you honestly believe it doesn't matter? Why not let the Blazers pick the 15-player roster for the Mavericks if that's the case? There is no distinction made because obviously the only team with the authority to determine fitness in this case is the Blazers.