Miles Contract Returning to Portland

[FGump]

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

That provides a pretty definitive answer as to two issues we discussed:
1. Given the fact that the Blazers put in a claim for him, they clearly had reason to believe that such a move was possible ...which reinforces the idea that the letter of the rules allowed them to do so and that there were no precedents to the contrary
2. Given the fact that the NBA refused their claim, it is now just as clear that despite the allowability under the rules and the lack of precedent, the league feels EXISTING rules are sufficient (and the rules are intended) to prohibit a team to claim-and-stash under such a situation

I do wonder if the Blazers might have been told in advance that any such waiver request would be denied - but submitted the claim anyhow to ensure that the precedent is set and the limits are extended equally to other teams in future situations.

This has been a very informative sequence of events.

[casey]

So they tell all the teams that they're not going to step in the way of anybody signing him, yet when Portland tries to pick him up they do. They seem to refuse the notion of any possible circumvention in a team signing him, and seem to refuse the notion of any possible non-circumvention in Portland picking him up. I don't see much difference between the two things, especially not enough to explain the complete opposite position the league has sided on.

[Dekko1]

So they tell all the teams that they're not going to step in the way of anybody signing him, yet when Portland tries to pick him up they do. They seem to refuse the notion of any possible circumvention in a team signing him, and seem to refuse the notion of any possible non-circumvention in Portland picking him up. I don't see much difference between the two things, especially not enough to explain the complete opposite position the league has sided on.

Maybe the league is still miffed because they twice sued the blazers for using loopholes in the CBA and lost...
So now they are all righteously horrified at the thought of suing over using a rule for an unforeseen purpose that goes against it's intent...

[LarryCoon]

They said they would approve any free agent signing. They stepped in the way of Portland making a waiver claim. In addition, one happened before the Portland memo, the other happened after, and reassured the other teams not to worry about Portland.

[casey]

I understand that they are different. But why were they so concerned with circumvention in a waiver claim and not concerned with it at all in a signing? It seems to me that a team playing him 2 games just to screw Portland is pretty much the same thing as Portland playing him 0 games just not to get screwed. I guess I don't understand how one of those could be considered circumvention but the other one not.

[LarryCoon]

He "proves" he's an able-bodied player by being on the court for 10 games. So if a team wants to sign him and put him on the court, then by definition they're putting an able-bodied player on the court, so there's no controversy. Also, keep in mind that as a free agent who wants to play, Miles is in the position to negotiate with the team that provides the best situation for him and opportunity to complete his comeback.

If Portland claims him and doesn't play him, then they're potentially preventing an able-bodied player from playing for reasons other than basketball reasons, and with Miles having no say-so in the matter.

[casey]

But by that same logic isn't he by definition not an able-bodied player (if Portland sat him on the bench)? You were saying that despite the intent if he plays 10 games it proves that he is able-bodied. So despite the intent if he doesn't play 10 games it proves that he's not able-bodied. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see how one can be true and not the other.

[LarryCoon]

And why would Portland be sitting him on the bench? Assuming that what everyone suspects is true -- that had Portland claimed him, he would have played in at most one game this season -- then you have to go with Miles fitting in that narrow margin where he's good enough to be on the roster (enough that they'd jettison another player midseason and make a waiver claim to obtain him), yet not good enough to actually see any time on the court. While it's possible that he fits into that narrow margin, the non-basketball reasons for making the move are pretty compelling. Given that other teams (multiple teams, not just Memphis, expressed interest) were willing to sign him with the intent of playing him, it was a pretty easy call that Portland's waiver claim was an attempt at circumventing the general prohibition (and a restraint of trade, and -- once they sent out their memo -- potential collusion). If the league was wrong? Then Portland only lost a practice player. If he's really not able-bodied? Then he shouldn't be able to play two more games with ANY team, not just Portland.

[casey]

I believe Shavlik Randolph's contract was unguaranteed, and I could see why they would want Miles more than him for the rest of the season. I can't imagine either player getting any playing time barring serious injuries. So I would say that it's certainly plausible.

And why did the league assume that Portland wouldn't play him? Perhaps they knew he was going to play, and if he played anywhere it might as well be for them. It seems to me that the correct move would've been to make this judgment after something actually happened (Portland sitting him the rest of the year). Or do you think maybe they told the league their intentions?

[FGump]

THE ARGUMENTS THEMSELVES

Obviously from a league angle this matter is already decided.

But from a rational and legal side of things, I still see the Blazers' pov here as quite compelling.

The league's argument is circular and therefore suspect to me. They opine that if Miles plays in 10 games it is de facto PROOF that he was "able-bodied" (to the level of being an actual NBA contributor). But while that may meet the rules, it is NOT actually proof of playing ability. It merely is proof that another team chose to put him on the floor for 10 games, and nothing more. The issue of medical impairment was supposed to pertain to ability to play at an NBA level for an extended period of time, not just the ability to stand on an NBA court and sop up a few minutes.

So when the NBA tries to argue the 10 games are some sort of "proof" of being able to play at an NBA level, Portland can just as easily counter-argue that if he was really NBA able he wouldn't have been cut by Boston, then cut by Memphis, then sailed through waivers twice. The Blazers can also show that it was only because he was turned down by everyone else TWICE that they made their one and only attempt to protect themselves ...and then the league office intervened on a valid waiver claim.

We do see the league putting a higher standard on Portland putting a player on a roster than is typically used. You can only have him if you really intend to use him, they are telling Portland. And that's not the same thing they've demanded from other teams in the past. Inequitable and arbitrary, it appears to me.

THE RATIONALE FOR THE BEHAVIOR

Regarding how this ultimately played out, once you see the league denying the Blazers' waiver claim, the email now makes perfect sense.
... "Tsk tsk tsk. Thou shalt not claim Miles for non-playing purposes," the league says in denying the waiver claim.
... "If we aren't going to be allowed to put him on our roster for non-contributing purposes, then if the league doesn't apply the same standard to the rest of you, we'll own your butts in court," they say by email in response. And the fact they were denied their waiver claim - one that they had every right to make - would be pretty compelling evidence of non-equitable standards if another team was allowed to get and use him primarily for non-playing purposes ie in an obvious attempt just to harm the Blazers financially.

That's how I see it.

[d-train]

OK, now its official the Blazers did try to claim Miles off waivers and here is their stated reason why:

"Our purpose here was not in any way to keep Darius from being able to play," Miller said. "If he can come back and help a team to win and play at a level on the court that helps the team, we have no problem with that at all."

So, the Blazers like all the other teams interested in Miles' services were interested because of the possibility that he could help the Blazers win. Yet, the NBA blocked the Blazers from claiming Miles off waivers and damaged Miles in the process because now Miles doesn't have a contract that guarantees his pay for the remainder of the season. I don't understand why there hasn't been a statement of outrage from the NBPA on this action that financially damages Miles.

[Three34]

So, the Blazers like all the other teams interested in Miles' services were interested because of the possibility that he could help the Blazers win.

My fat wobbly arse they were.

[d-train]

So, the Blazers like all the other teams interested in Miles' services were interested because of the possibility that he could help the Blazers win.

My fat wobbly arse they were.

That's fair as long as your fat wobbly ass isn't discriminating against the Blazers. It appears according the NBA and Larry Coon only the Blazers can have dubious intentions in matters concerning Miles.

I’m certain at this point that this matter is going to be resolved in the courts.

[Dunkenstein]

First of all, since no team claimed Miles off waivers (Memphis signed him to a 10-day contract once he cleared waivers), we can assume that Portland was the only team to make a waiver claim on his contract.

Secondly, I suspect that the league didn't actually tell Portland that they couldn't claim him. My guess is that they told Portland that if they claimed him and sat him on the bench for the rest of the season, the league would slap them with a cap circumvention penalty that would deny them all the benefits they hoped to gain by claiming him and sitting him. At that point Portland withdrew their claim on his contract.

By doing it this way, nobody could claim that the league was denying Miles a chance to play for Portland or claim that Portland was denied the right to have Miles play for them.

Hey d-train, wanna bet on whether this goes to court or not?

[d-train]

First of all, since no team claimed Miles off waivers (Memphis signed him to a 10-day contract once he cleared waivers), we can assume that Portland was the only team to make a waiver claim on his contract.

Secondly, I suspect that the league didn't actually tell Portland that they couldn't claim him. My guess is that they told Portland that if they claimed him and sat him on the bench for the rest of the season, the league would slap them with a cap circumvention penalty that would deny them all the benefits they hoped to gain by claiming him and sitting him. At that point Portland withdrew their claim on his contract.

Hey d-train, wanna bet on whether this goes to court or not?

Yeah, I'll take that bet but I'm not rich enough to risk much money. I'm not sure what the judicial process is for a collective bargaining agreement. The previous challenges to the NBA's interpretation of the CBA were decided by a court appointed arbitrator I believe. The Blazers will challenge any decision by the NBA to take away their salary cap relief and probably luxury taxes as well.

[FGump]

Secondly, I suspect that the league didn't actually tell Portland that they couldn't claim him.

While your guess may be accurate, it's worth noting that Wojnaroski's article explicitly claims that a waiver claim was submitted and refused.

"NBA front-office sources say that league executives in New York denied the waiver claim."

[Dunkenstein]

Secondly, I suspect that the league didn't actually tell Portland that they couldn't claim him.

While your guess may be accurate, it's worth noting that Wojnaroski's article explicitly claims that a waiver claim was submitted and refused.

"NBA front-office sources say that league executives in New York denied the waiver claim."

NBA front office sources???? No real names. No named league source or league press release. Do you think any of theses so-called "sources" were actually on the call between the league and Portland?

When you were a kid did you ever play the game "telephone"? Well, that's what this is. By the time the story got to the Yahoo guy, it had gone through several people, none of whom were on the call. My scenario could very easily morph into "league executives denied the waiver claim."

And to find you defending a quote by a reporter. I can't count the number of times you questioned the accuracy of numerous different reporters. I find the irony of this to be amusing.

I'll believe it when I hear it from David Stern or Adam Silver or Joel Litvin.

[FGump]

Whoa Dunk, No need to get all defensive or combative. To the extent that you took offense in my words, none was intended at all!! Sorry if I worded things wrongly. And we are really coming from the same view on this.

You are very correct in noting that reporters can and often do misconstrue details or report them sloppily, and yep I'm one of the first to say so when I see it. In addition, I'm also one to ask for more explicitness, as I have from you at times when you come here as essentially a "reporter" of information. So I understand - and agree 100% with your approach.

When you come here and report what you know (as you often do), I'll always take your reporting as fact. But as I understood it, you weren't "reporting" this time.

So I contributed an observation: your guessing may indeed be the accurate story on the details ... while noting the author's actual claim to be stated explicitly and ultimately different (for whatever it's worth). But I was merely observing, not "defending a quote by a reporter" here. Frankly I don't know his work well enough to tell how reliable and precise he typically is.

[Dunkenstein]

I guess I was mislead by your use of bold face, underlines and italics. To me they're used when the writer is trying to emphasize a point he's trying to make.

[FGump]

I guess I was mislead by your use of bold face, underlines and italics. To me they're used when the writer is trying to emphasize a point he's trying to make.

Maybe so. I was merely trying to point out - without writing a paragraph - that Woj had actually said a waiver claim was made by the Blazers (and then rejected), so I used the formatting as a shortcut. Didn't mean for the point of the formatting to be misconstrued, but such are the limits of a forum I guess.