Miles Contract Returning to Portland

[casey]

Second, why would the other 29 teams feel that Wallace was a backstabber?

Of course they would look at him like that if he signs Miles just to screw Portland. Nobody is going to look down at him or any other GM if they sign Miles because they actually think he'll help their team.

[LarryCoon]

Today I've been following the hypothetical scenario -- what if Portland makes a waiver claim in order to prevent any other team from claiming him (or signing him later) and putting him over the 10-game threshold?

So far I've heard multiple opinions (one from a team exec, another from an exec of a company that does business with the league) agreeing that while technically feasible, Portland would risk having it considered circumvention and losing their cap relief anyway.

[FGump]

Today I've been following the hypothetical scenario -- what if Portland makes a waiver claim in order to prevent any other team from claiming him (or signing him later) and putting him over the 10-game threshold?

So far I've heard multiple opinions (one from a team exec, another from an exec of a company that does business with the league) agreeing that while technically feasible, Portland would risk having it considered circumvention and losing their cap relief anyway.

Wow, I'm not a league exec of course, but I gotta disagree here.

While I can understand the fact that there is a risk of other franchises objecting, on what grounds exactly could they complain? Seems to me like it meets the letter of the law. Isn't this a league of lawyers where every loophole is considered allowable until the rules are rewritten?

Circumvention - Art XIII - pertains to a prohibition of "outside the rules" agreements and contracts that secretly hide player compensation from the league. That's all. http://www.nbpa.com/cba_articles/article-XIII.php It is well within the rules for the Blazers to claim Miles on waivers. And they won't be hiding compensation to him.

Would other franchises argue that the Blazers should NOT be allowed to make a move that's in their best interest? I can't see how that would be a precedent any of them wouild favor. Would they argue that the Blazers should now be FORCED to be exposed to huge tax risk, even though they in good faith got him declared medically unfit in the first place? Again, none of them would want to go there either. Would they claim a semi-impaired Miles playing mop-up minutes for a few more games this season - or not - is somehow going to alter the NBA landscape? Now we're getting absurd.

Little technical moves made for payroll, cap, and tax purposes are done all the time (including players being waived or players being sat for insurance/payroll purposes), so how would this be any different?

1 - There is nothing secret being done. He's been waived, and they are making an allowable claim.
2 - Miles will still get paid in full. In fact, if they claim him, he'll end up with more pay not less than if he hits the street unemployed.
3 - Another team can claim him first. If anyone else wants him, that is. If no one else wants him and Portland does, isn't that de facto evidence that the Blazers haven't got in anyone else's way by putting him on their roster?
4 - By claiming him the Blazers are merely taking steps to prevent ANOTHER team from fiddling with the Blazer cap and thereby with cap/tax issues, aren't they?
5 - There is no question that they would be claiming him in accord with their own best interest.
6 - Teams are always allowed to dole out minutes in whatever fashion is in the teams best interest (and surely $18M is in the Blazers' best interest).

The only thing I can see to question is, is there any evidence that Memphis waived him as a collusive favor to Portland, with a quid pro quo hidden somewhere either now or later? I can understand how such collusion could and should be hit hard, if any is involved here. Otherwise, I don't see the problem.

[Three34]

It seems like a double standard for Portland to get his cap number removed due to his career being over (or so it seemed), just to later claim him off of waivers. If you claim someone off waivers, it's because you want them as a player....or at least it should be. That therefore would invalidate their previous plea of "he's done, can we have our money back now please?".

[-bob-]

Wojnarowski from Yahoo! Sports has a new article on the Miles situation. It relates to what has been talked about here. He is reporting that the 6 preseason games count. So the "magic number" is 2 games. I don't know about you guys but thats new to me.


http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=a ... &type=lgns

[Dekko1]

Wojnarowski from Yahoo! Sports has a new article on the Miles situation. It relates to what has been talked about here. He is reporting that the 6 preseason games count. So the "magic number" is 2 games. I don't know about you guys but thats new to me.

Seems like the blazers would appeal that part. Miles suspension did not start until the regular season but games played, ones that would not normally be part of his career stat count, do for the retirement clause.

[-bob-]

More Wojnarowski..


Blazers threaten possible litigation if Miles signed
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=A ... &type=lgns


Edit to add:

SI.com: Trail Blazers issue warning to other NBA teams not to sign Darius Miles
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/b ... index.html

[shrink]

More Wojnarowski..


Blazers threaten possible litigation if Miles signed
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=A ... &type=lgns


Edit to add:

SI.com: Trail Blazers issue warning to other NBA teams not to sign Darius Miles
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/b ... index.html

Anyone think that the Player's Association is more likely to sue POR, trying to blackball a player from getting a contract?

[Dunkenstein]

Seems like the blazers would appeal that part. Miles suspension did not start until the regular season but games played, ones that would not normally be part of his career stat count, do for the retirement clause.

The league uses the word "season" in different ways, depending on what they're dealing with. When discussing salary, "season" refers to the period during which regular season games are played. When discussing suspensions, the season continues past the regular season into the playoffs. So a player who receives a ten game suspension in early April will have his suspension continue into the playoffs, but not into the following season. Further, suspension do not count during the preseason.

When it comes to contracts, the season includes preseason, the regular season and the playoffs. And the ten-day rule that applies to players who have been waived with career-ending injuries falls under this definition of season. While the media, the public and most teams didn't realize this, the league made sure Portland's management understood this. So the Blazers won't be appealing this should Miles play two more games. And in spite of their published threats to sue other teams, as long as the teams are honestly taking a look at Miles to see if he can still play (not just two minutes in two games to screw Portland) I don't believe the Blazers will sue them either.

[Three34]

Darius Miles has always been a bit of a numpty, but I feel really quite sorry for him. His comeback attempt seems truly genuine, and yet it's been made a mockery by something that isn't his fault. We can't seem to allow the man the common decency of working to regain a livelihood that he lost through no fault of his own.

[Dekko1]

So the Blazers won't be appealing this should Miles play two more games. And in spite of their published threats to sue other teams, as long as the teams are honestly taking a look at Miles to see if he can still play (not just two minutes in two games to screw Portland) I don't believe the Blazers will sue them either.

The threat I am sure is to make GMs think twice about just doing it to screw over the blazers.
Yesterday's articles had quotes from unnamed ones saying just that. And 250K and because they are mad Allen buys draft picks...maybe they should be mad at the Suns for selling them instead...
I would not put it past them to sue nor would the league I bet.
So that 250K might have to be spent on the lawyers... and I would not be calling KP with a trade offer for a decade or so..

Those motives as quoted certainly was not the intention of the rule. As I said before the season the rule needs modifying. In order to get the cap relief the team has to waive them, if he can play again they have no rights to him.
Larry's idea of claiming him off waivers to prevent him playing also goes against the intent of the rule.

[Village Idiot]

I wonder what the league insurance company thinks of a guy collecting disability payments at the same time he's collecting a salary for doing the same job.

If Darius suffers another knee injury this whole situation could get even more bizzare.

In any case I imagine the next time the NBA enters into a new insurance contract the provider will require much more clear wording in the CBA.

[LarryCoon]

Wow, I'm not a league exec of course, but I gotta disagree here.

While I can understand the fact that there is a risk of other franchises objecting, on what grounds exactly could they complain? Seems to me like it meets the letter of the law. Isn't this a league of lawyers where every loophole is considered allowable until the rules are rewritten?

No, they're interpreted, and if necessary, litigated. Plus some sections (like the general prohibition on circumvention) give the league broader authority to protect the league.

Circumvention - Art XIII - pertains to a prohibition of "outside the rules" agreements and contracts that secretly hide player compensation from the league. That's all.

No, way more than that. I think you're just reading Section 2. Here's an excerpt from Section 1 (see emphasis):

It is the intention of the parties that the provisions agreed to herein, including, without limitation, those relating to the Salary Cap, the Exceptions to the Salary Cap, the scope of Basketball Related Income, the Escrow System, the Rookie Scale, the Right of First Refusal, the Maximum Player Salary, and free agency, be interpreted so as to preserve the essential benefits achieved by both parties to this Agreement. Neither the Players Association, the NBA, nor any Team (or Team Affiliate) or player (or person or entity acting with authority on behalf of such player), shall enter into any agreement, including, without limitation, any Player Contract (including any Renegotiation, Extension, or amendment of a Player Contract), or undertake any action or transaction, including, without limitation, the assignment or termination of a Player Contract, which is, or which includes any term that is, designed to serve the purpose of defeating or circumventing the intention of the parties as reflected by all of the provisions of this Agreement.

http://www.nbpa.com/cba_articles/article-XIII.php It is well within the rules for the Blazers to claim Miles on waivers. And they won't be hiding compensation to him.

But if they had claimed him with the sole intent of parking him on the bench to prevent other teams from signing and playing him, which in turn protected their cap room (i.e., if they prevented an able-bodied player from proving he's able-bodied to protect their own asses), the league would probably find they're violating the general prohibition.

Would other franchises argue that the Blazers should NOT be allowed to make a move that's in their best interest?

In this case, their best interest is against the best interests of the league and player, and runs contrary to the intent of the rules.

I can't see how that would be a precedent any of them wouild favor. Would they argue that the Blazers should now be FORCED to be exposed to huge tax risk, even though they in good faith got him declared medically unfit in the first place?

Yes, because that includes a presumption of good faith should the player attempt to resume his career. They can't put their own financial interests ahead of this.

[FGump]

Larry, I agree with you that anything CAN BE litigated. But I still believe the Blazers position would have been one of acting within the limits of the rules themselves as written and thereby would have ultimately prevailed simply on that basis, if they had tried.

The wording: "any action or transaction, including, without limitation, the assignment or termination of a Player Contract, which is, or which includes any term that is, designed to serve the purpose of defeating or circumventing the intention of the parties as reflected by all of the provisions of this Agreement."

We can eliminate the idea that they'd have been using terminology to circumvent the cap, because this issue isn't in regards to a contract they are offering. They wouldn't have been hiding compensation. They wouldn't have been doing multiple transactions to circumvent trade limitations. Miles would have gotten paid - and in fact would get paid MORE than any other alternative. League rules specifically allow teams to play and sit players at their discretion.

So ultimately any possible objection would have had to end up focusing on a definition of what is "the intention of the parties as reflected by all of the provisions of this Agreement." On that front, you may argue that the league never intended to allow the Blazers to stash a player to prevent him from impacting their cap ... but the equally compelling counter argument would be that the league never intended for the medical cap exception to be erased by other teams picking up and playing that other player for cursory minimal minutes in 10 games just for the purpose of reinstating that cap hit. That's just as true, right? So in claiming Miles the Blazers would be preventing another team from doing them wrong, in a way the rules didn't intend but didn't forbid either, by themselves doing something the rules didn't intend but didn't forbid. Preventative action.

As a side note, in reading the email sent out by Portland threatening litigation, as I read it the email simply threatened it if a team got and used Miles MERELY to mess up Portland's cap/tax situation. It instructed the rest of the league to refrain from signing Miles, "for the purpose of adversely impacting the Portland Trail Blazers Salary Cap and tax positions." In that wording, since it doesn't say either way, there may be an unwritten implication that "if you get him because you think he'll help your team or future, we will be hurt but we'll have no objection." Aldridge's article had a similar angle: "Miller stressed that the Blazers heard "rumors and rumblings" that there were several teams looking to sign Miles -- not to take a look at the 28-year-old, but with the express purpose of putting Portland over the luxury tax and siphoning off a large chunk of its potential cap space. "Our purpose was not in any way to keep Darius from being able to play," Miller said. "If he can come back to a team and play in a way that can help a team win...then we have no problem with that at all. Our problem is if some team does something malicious to hurt us."

Anyhow, with two possible ways to proceed, now what do you do? I think the league would do what they have always done: let the "letter of the law" prevail, and then address it in the off-season if they think it's a problem. We've seen that bailout many times, but I don't recall the league ever coming in and unilaterally saying a team CAN'T use a loophole that hasn't already been closed.

However the Blazers took the other path and rendered it all moot. They didn't take the aggressive "push the limits" approach ...so then they demanded others don't do it on the other side either.

To me the problem is, it's a highly competitive league, and that extends far beyond the basketball court. When you have multiple competitors looking for ways to have cap advantages, and the rules allow permanent medical exceptions under certain conditions, I'd expect them to allow full latitude in those areas too to aggressively act under the rules until/unless the rules are detailed further.

A final side note: In light of the fact the preseason games COUNT, with supposed animosity between Portland and Boston on prior deals, and the fact that Boston didn't have roster space for him, is there now any thought that Boston used Miles during the preseason for devious purposes - ie to use up the bulk of his 10 games - with no intent of ever keeping him? Obviously Portland can't blow back on Boston for giving him a tryout even if they suspect it was bogus. But it was done when the C's already had a full roster of guaranteed contracts, and ever since it seems the Celts have also been playing PR Machine for Miles. I thought it curious that in spring 2008 doctors from the league declared Miles completely incapable of playing, and then while he was on waivers the Celts were issuing quotes saying that he looked medically fit to them. Something doesn't add up.

[casey]

But if they had claimed him with the sole intent of parking him on the bench to prevent other teams from signing and playing him, which in turn protected their cap room (i.e., if they prevented an able-bodied player from proving he's able-bodied to protect their own asses), the league would probably find they're violating the general prohibition.

How could that be proved though? There are plenty of able-bodied players under contract who never see the floor.

[LarryCoon]

FGump -- I understand your point, but it's simply not the same as all the league people I've spoken to. Part of it is in how they view the salary cap relief -- the league begrudgingly provides the relief under the specific circumstances that, to the best of their current knowledge, the player's career is over. Knowing that a current diagnosis is not a perfect predictor of future outcomes, they build in a mechanism to correct for imperfect prognostication. They intended for this to be the overruling factor -- so much so that it outweighs the usually-overriding desire to have a team's cap profile in its own hands, and to provide them a stable financial environment in which to plan. They very clearly told me that if a player can play, then they didn't qualify for the cap relief. That the final determination may be made much later (as is the current case) is unfortunate, but in their opinion, unavoidable.

Portland doesn't have the right to manipulate this situation in order to protect its cap room. They made clear to me that any attempt to screw with the process -- such as stashing an able-bodied player to prevent him from reaching the 10-game threshold -- would be seen as a violation of the general prohibition. It doesn't matter that they can't PROVE it -- the pattern of behavior would be enough that they would see it as a violation of the general prohibition, and the league office has broad latitude to act in order to protect the integrity of the league. Portland would have been slapped silly by the league office if they had claimed Miles and stashed him away.

[FGump]

Larry, very interesting. Thanks.

[Three34]

How could that be proved though? There are plenty of able-bodied players under contract who never see the floor.

I think their email is all the proof of intent that you could ever need.

[LarryCoon]

I didn't know Portland had actually tried to claim him:

Before the Portland Trail Blazers resorted to a threatening email to frighten rival NBA teams from signing Darius Miles, team officials late last week made a brazen bid to claim the forward off waivers only to be stopped by the league, multiple front-office sources told Yahoo! Sports.

So determined to salvage the salary cap space that would come with the foiling of Miles’ comeback from a devastating knee injury, Portland president Larry Miller and general manager Kevin Pritchard apparently were willing to stash Miles on the sideline and keep him away from other NBA teams.

In denying the Blazers’ move to control Miles, NBA front-office sources say that league executives in New York denied the waiver claim because they believed the Blazers were merely trying to circumvent league salary cap rules.

Once the NBA rejected Portland’s waiver claim, Miller sent an unprecedented threat of legal action for any team that signed Miles as a free agent. Several league executives were aware of the bid on Miles and reacted angrily over what they considered hypocrisy.

Wojnarowski

[chakdaddy]

Wasn't there some stipulation about what happens if the original team re-signs the guy? Seems like if Portland brought him back he should automatically go back on the cap since Portland themselves obviously think he's healthy enough to warrant an NBA roster spot (tongue in cheek).

I think at this point Portland has acted in bad enough faith that no matter what happens the league should put Miles back on the cap. They should have let Portland blow the roster spot on him, and let another team grab the guy they cut for room...

Oh wait, they somehow have Shavlik Randolph on the roster. Didn't they have a big roster crunch in the offseason, with all those purchased #1 picks? But somehow they have room for Shavlik Randolph?