The seven-days start, when?

[Three34]

Since no team claimed Miles off waivers, the Blazers property rights were not transferred to any team.

This doesn't mean that Portland still has them.

[d-train]

Since no team claimed Miles off waivers, the Blazers property rights were not transferred to any team.

This doesn't mean that Portland still has them.

I would say they don't. Unless, they reacquire them.

[FGump]

D-train, you can keep arguing this until you're blue in the face, and invent all kinds of rationale if you wish. But the simple fact is, your arguments are going nowhere. The rule is the rule is the rule, and it says that once Miles has played 10 games, his prior salary exemption goes away.

More importantly, no one else in the NBA shares your view. The Blazers - who have the vested interest - have NEVER disputed the validity of Miles going back onto their cap. The rule is what it is, and at the end of the day the fact you are laboring so hard to make it say something other than the obvious isn't going to change it. The Blazers are paying Miles this year and next after having waived him, and his salary counts against their cap like every other waived player does.

[loserX]

Therefore, a condition that is intended to be a measure of fitness by counting games played must specify which team the games are played for. And, if it’s the intent of the rule to be 10 games played for any team, it has to say the 10 game s can be played for any team. In this case, the rule just says 10 games played. So, either we can agree the games must be played for the team that owns the players rights at the time of his career ending injury or we have a condition that is too vague to enforce.

It most certainly does not have to say that. The rule specifies "10 NBA games". The only stipulation is that the games are in the NBA. Were the games that he played for Memphis NBA games? In order to say that the rule was improperly applied, you must prove that those Memphis games were not NBA games. Good luck with that.

It is not by any means too vague to enforce. 10 games in the NBA = 10 games in the NBA.

They RENOUNCED his property rights when they waived him. That's what waiving entails.

When the Blazers waived Miles that gave every other team in the league the opportunity to assume the Blazers property rights to Miles' services. Since no team claimed Miles off waivers, the Blazers property rights were not transferred to any team.

Correct. Those property rights were renounced by the Blazers and remained in limbo, unpossessed by anyone, until he signed a valid NBA contract with another team. As soon as Memphis signed him to a valid contract, they acquired his "property rights". The Blazers lost any say they had in anything at all, the instant the waiver process was complete.

The relevant fact is the Blazers never assigned the right to determine Miles fitness to play in NBA games to another NBA team.

That was not their right to assign. They lost that right, in addition to everything else, upon the resolution of the waiver. At that point Darius Miles ceased to be a member of the Blazers (even if he was not yet a member of another team), and they had absolutely zero rights or say in what happened to him after that.

[d-train]

It most certainly does not have to say that. The rule specifies "10 NBA games". The only stipulation is that the games are in the NBA. Were the games that he played for Memphis NBA games? In order to say that the rule was improperly applied, you must prove that those Memphis games were not NBA games. Good luck with that.

It is not by any means too vague to enforce. 10 games in the NBA = 10 games in the NBA.

The CBA says nothing more than what it says. The CBA doesn’t say 10 NBA games played for the Grizzlies, which is different from 10 NBA games played for the Blazers. You can’t add the stipulation into the CBA that 10 NBA games played with the Grizzlies is the equivalent of 10 NBA games played with the Blazers. The CBA doesn’t say the 10 NBA games can be played for any team.

That was not their right to assign. They lost that right, in addition to everything else, upon the resolution of the waiver. At that point Darius Miles ceased to be a member of the Blazers (even if he was not yet a member of another team), and they had absolutely zero rights or say in what happened to him after that.

I agree that after Miles cleared waivers his property rights were his to market to other NBA teams. The pertinent facts are the CBA didn't require the Blazers to transfer the right to determine Miles' fitness to play NBA games to another team and they didn't. That leaves the Blazers as the only NBA team that can put Miles back on their salary cap after the NBA determined that Miles sustained a career-ending injury.

[d-train]

More importantly, no one else in the NBA shares your view. The Blazers - who have the vested interest - have NEVER disputed the validity of Miles going back onto their cap. The rule is what it is, and at the end of the day the fact you are laboring so hard to make it say something other than the obvious isn't going to change it. The Blazers are paying Miles this year and next after having waived him, and his salary counts against their cap like every other waived player does.

You don't know that no one else in the NBA shares my view and neither do I. The Blazers might or might not share my view. If they don't, then of course this entire argument is moot.

And, Miles isn't like any other waived player. Miles was waived after the NBA determined that he sustained a career-ending injury.

[loserX]

It most certainly does not have to say that. The rule specifies "10 NBA games". The only stipulation is that the games are in the NBA. Were the games that he played for Memphis NBA games? In order to say that the rule was improperly applied, you must prove that those Memphis games were not NBA games. Good luck with that.

It is not by any means too vague to enforce. 10 games in the NBA = 10 games in the NBA.

The CBA says nothing more than what it says. The CBA doesn’t say 10 NBA games played for the Grizzlies, which is different from 10 NBA games played for the Blazers. You can’t add the stipulation into the CBA that 10 NBA games played with the Grizzlies is the equivalent of 10 NBA games played with the Blazers. The CBA doesn’t say the 10 NBA games can be played for any team.

That's your argument? Seriously? Again, here is the relevant portion of the section you quoted, emphasis added:

(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

Ten NBA games in any season. That is exactly what the rule says. I have not added a single stipulation. The SOLE CONDITION is that the player plays in ten NBA games. The league does not need to specify that "10 Grizzlies games = 10 Blazers games" because there is no plausible reason that they wouldn't be equal. It's like saying the rule doesn't apply to Miles because the CBA didn't explicitly specify that it applies to people named Darius. The Grizzlies' games are NBA games. Therefore they count as NBA games.

Did Darius Miles play 10 NBA games this season? Pretty sure he did. Therefore the sole condition of the provision has been met. The only way around this is to prove that Miles did not play 10 games in the NBA. But you can't, because he did. You do not get to specify which team's games count and which do not. If they were in the NBA, they count. Therefore the condition has been satisfied.

You seem like a reasonably intelligent guy and I'm honestly struggling to see how you don't see this.

I agree that after Miles cleared waivers his property rights were his to market to other NBA teams. The pertinent facts are the CBA didn't require the Blazers to transfer the right to determine Miles' fitness to play NBA games to another team and they didn't. That leaves the Blazers as the only NBA team that can put Miles back on their salary cap after the NBA determined that Miles sustained a career-ending injury.

Of course they are the only NBA team that can put Miles back on their salary cap. They are the only ones who waived him and sought the exemption. That does not mean they have any special rights to determine anything. It just means that if the medical exemption was rescinded, he is treated the same as any other waived player, i.e. the team keeps his salary on the cap. The "medical waiver" simply becomes an "ordinary waiver". The Blazers are not being persecuted here.

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?

[FGump]

You don't know that no one else in the NBA shares my view and neither do I.

I do know that no one else has EVER expressed similar views. Ever. Including the Blazers.

The Blazers might or might not share my view. If they don't, then of course this entire argument is moot.

The Blazers by their actions have CLEARLY said they don't share your view.

Why would they have caused the PR embarrassment and possible legal ramifications of objecting to some other team signing Miles, if they didn't see the rule as applying to Miles playing 10 games for any NBA team(s)? They'd just let Memphis sign him, and it wouldn't matter. (Their actions speak eloquently because actions tell you what people are thinking.)

Nowhere does the rule transfer the Blazers authority to determine the fitness of its players to another team.

"Its players"?? Miles has not been a "Blazers' player" since the moment he was waived.

Furthermore, when it comes to the determination of permanently injured, that's a LEAGUE issue to determine, not a team right.

based on what the Blazers have said about it there is going to be a FA signing this summer the NBA will not approve and an appeal

Blazers have indicated absolutely nothing of the sort. You've invented that in its entirety.

The Blazers never transferred their discretionary right to be the ultimate judge of Miles’ fitness to play in an NBA game

The Blazers had no "discretionary" right to judge anything about Miles' fitness, once he was waived. They terminated all their rights, by that waiver. After that point, whether he was fit enough to play was decided by any team who wanted to sign him, as to whether he was worth spending money on - or not.

[FGump]

On the so-called "rights" issues ...

When the Blazers waived Miles that gave every other team in the league the opportunity to assume the Blazers property rights to Miles' services. Since no team claimed Miles off waivers, the Blazers property rights were not transferred to any team." ...."The relevant fact is the Blazers never assigned the right to determine Miles fitness to play in NBA games to another NBA team

The rights are contractual, not "property" or "medical." In waiving him, they agreed to pay him in full and his contractual obligation to them ended completely. They retain no rights after that point, and there is nothing to transfer.

The waiver was the opportunity to have the CONTRACT assigned to another team, who would then get the privileges that come with such contract. No one took it. So the contract ENDED.

From that point, the Blazers no longer had any contractual rights to Miles (and therefore nothing to transfer, including "the right to determine Miles fitness to play in NBA games" ).

When he later signed a new contract, at that point the new contract vested contractual rights in the new team, which gives THEM the right to judge his fitness for games. (Duh.)

The pertinent facts are the CBA didn't require the Blazers to transfer the right to determine Miles' fitness to play NBA games to another team and they didn't. That leaves the Blazers as the only NBA team that can put Miles back on their salary cap after the NBA determined that Miles sustained a career-ending injury.

Utter nonsense. There is no such "right." All rights flow from an existing contract, and when the Blazers waived Miles they had no rights thereafter.

And your assertion that the sole determiner of whether Miles' salary will continue to be removed from their cap - in other words, the guardian of the hen house has to be the fox - is ludicrous on its face. The league (both as an administrative entity and also as an amalgam of 29 other teams) initially and continuously is the sole determiner of such - starting with the NBA docs making the initial determination, and then subject to whether any of the 29 other teams later determine they can use Miles after all. Such an extreme exemption, of exempting salary otherwise paid and saying "it doesn't count" only happens if the league in its entirety (admin and teams) agree that Miles is done for medical reasons. They didn't.

So at the end of the day, for Portland Miles was merely a bad contract, not much different than Webber or Rose or Thomas (in Chi) or a ton of others. His team sent him packing and he's gone to play elsewhere. They hoped he wouldn't count against their cap, but he did, so they spent money that still gets accounted on their cap. It's equal for everyone.

[d-train]

The Blazers did not put Miles back on their salary cap. The NBA put Miles back on the Blazers salary cap because the Grizzlies judged him fit to play in NBA games. And, the Blazers never transferred their discretionary right to determine which players are fit to play in NBA games to the Grizzlies. And, there is no provision of the CBA that required the Blazers to transfer their right to determine Miles’ fitness to play in NBA games.

A player can’t play in an NBA game without playing for a NBA team. The decision by NBA team’s of which players to play is subjective and can’t be equated to each other. Therefore, the team is an essential variable that can’t be left undetermined. An agreement is only an agreement if the parties agree to all the essential terms.

[d-train]

I agree that after the Blazers waived Miles and he cleared waivers it is too late for the Blazers to transfer any rights associated with Miles’ contract. However, that is not a bad thing for the Blazers.

The critical issue is after the NBA signed the CBA it’s too late to go back now and add the requirement that the Blazers transfer their right to determine Miles’ fitness to play NBA games. So, the NBA can’t put Miles back on the Blazers salary cap because the Grizzlies determine he is fit to play in NBA games.

[d-train]

Speaking of actions (and assuming we are never going to agree on the 10 game rule), how do you view the NBA blocking the Blazers from claiming Miles off waivers?

[loserX]

A player can’t play in an NBA game without playing for a NBA team. The decision by NBA team’s of which players to play is subjective and can’t be equated to each other. Therefore, the team is an essential variable that can’t be left undetermined. An agreement is only an agreement if the parties agree to all the essential terms.

To which agreement are you referring? If it's the determination of Miles' fitness to play for the Grizzlies, only the parties with any right to participate in the agreement are required to agree. The Blazers had no rights in that determination, so it doesn't matter what they think.

If you're talking about the NBA adding Miles' salary back to the Blazers' cap, that is a provision of the Collective Bargaining Agreement which binds all the teams in the NBA, including the Blazers. The Blazers do not have the prerogative to ignore or be exempt from specific clauses of the CBA just because they don't like them. The Blazers ALREADY agreed to the essential terms of that provision, and every other provision, when the CBA was struck.

I agree that after the Blazers waived Miles and he cleared waivers it is too late for the Blazers to transfer any rights associated with Miles’ contract. However, that is not a bad thing for the Blazers.

The critical issue is after the NBA signed the CBA it’s too late to go back now and add the requirement that the Blazers transfer their right to determine Miles’ fitness to play NBA games. So, the NBA can’t put Miles back on the Blazers salary cap because the Grizzlies determine he is fit to play in NBA games.

Yes they can. Because the only condition that is required in order to invoke that clause is that Miles play in 10 NBA games, which he did.

The Blazers can only determine whether he is fit to play for the Blazers. When they waive him, that right is terminated (and meaningless anyway, since he is not a member of the team). That right ceased to exist post-waiver. There is nothing to transfer, therefore there is nothing to be required to transfer. The league does not need to specify a requirement that cannot possibly be satisfied.

[FGump]

I agree that after the Blazers waived Miles and he cleared waivers it is too late for the Blazers to transfer any rights associated with Miles’ contract....

The important thing to note here is that once he cleared waivers, they had nothing to transfer. They had NO RIGHTS of any kind on Miles after that point.

... the requirement that the Blazers transfer their right to determine Miles’ fitness to play NBA games.

This is nonsensical. The Blazers have no such right. All rights are merely contractual, and when they ended the contract, the rights ended.

So, the NBA can’t put Miles back on the Blazers salary cap because the Grizzlies determine he is fit to play in NBA games.

The rules say otherwise. The NBA (not POR) makes the determination to exempt Miles, and it also has the right and obligation to void that determination if Miles plays 10 NBA games. If the Grizzlies (or any team) determine Miles is capable and they want to play him 10 games, the NBA (per the rules agreed to by all teams, including POR ) will end the exemption. And they did.

[d-train]

A player can’t play in an NBA game without playing for a NBA team. The decision by NBA team’s of which players to play is subjective and can’t be equated to each other. Therefore, the team is an essential variable that can’t be left undetermined. An agreement is only an agreement if the parties agree to all the essential terms.

To which agreement are you referring? If it's the determination of Miles' fitness to play for the Grizzlies, only the parties with any right to participate in the agreement are required to agree. The Blazers had no rights in that determination, so it doesn't matter what they think.

If you're talking about the NBA adding Miles' salary back to the Blazers' cap, that is a provision of the Collective Bargaining Agreement which binds all the teams in the NBA, including the Blazers. The Blazers do not have the prerogative to ignore or be exempt from specific clauses of the CBA just because they don't like them. The Blazers ALREADY agreed to the essential terms of that provision, and every other provision, when the CBA was struck.

I am referring to the CBA. A system arbitrator can strikeout any portion of the CBA that is so ambiguous the intent of the parties can’t be determined. Additionally, the system arbitrator can strikeout any provision missing essential terms of an agreement. For example, the 10 game rule doesn’t specify for which team(s) other than the Blazers the 10 games can be played. If the system arbitrator decides the team is an essential term of agreement and the team isn’t specified, he or she can strikeout that portion of the CBA.

The Blazers can only determine whether he is fit to play for the Blazers. When they waive him, that right is terminated (and meaningless anyway, since he is not a member of the team). That right ceased to exist post-waiver. There is nothing to transfer, therefore there is nothing to be required to transfer. The league does not need to specify a requirement that cannot possibly be satisfied.

The Blazers can only determine which players are fit to play for the Blazers and the Grizzlies can only determine which players are fit to play for the Grizzlies. The NBA can't unilaterally make rules that allow the Grizzlies to make roster decisions for the Blazers. 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.

[d-train]

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.

[loserX]

I am referring to the CBA. A system arbitrator can strikeout any portion of the CBA that is so ambiguous the intent of the parties can’t be determined. Additionally, the system arbitrator can strikeout any provision missing essential terms of an agreement.

This part seems reasonable.

For example, the 10 game rule doesn’t specify for which team(s) other than the Blazers the 10 games can be played. If the system arbitrator decides the team is an essential term of agreement and the team isn’t specified, he or she can strikeout that portion of the CBA.

This part doesn't. Why on earth would anyone decide that the team of record is an essential term of the agreement? The wording is clear. TEN NBA GAMES. The Grizzlies' games are NBA games, as are the Blazers', the Pistons', the Bobcats', and the Knicks'. Ten games for the Grizzlies is ten NBA games. If the Blazers want to assert that the ten games don't count unless they are played by the Blazers, they will lose. That is clearly not what the CBA says.

The Blazers can only determine which players are fit to play for the Blazers and the Grizzlies can only determine which players are fit to play for the Grizzlies. The NBA can't unilaterally make rules that allow the Grizzlies to make roster decisions for the Blazers.

What? The Grizzlies did not make a roster decision for the Blazers. They made a roster decision for the Grizzlies. The Blazers' roster was not affected, since Miles had already been waived. That decision had CAP ramifications for the Blazers (their roster was not affected), and the league most certainly can make rules that affect team cap. That is what the CBA is, and the Blazers agreed to abide by it, so it is not unilateral. If the Blazers don't like it, they can leave the league.

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.

That right DID NOT EXIST. As soon as the waiver process was completed, that right vanished into thin air. So the Blazers could not transfer it whether they were required to or not, because they didn't have it. How could the league demand the Blazers transfer something non-existent? That is utter lunacy and no arbitrator in the world would uphold it. The league does NOT NEED TO SPECIFY CONDITIONS THAT CANNOT HAPPEN. Good grief.

[FGump]

FGump, are you saying that the determination of a player’s fitness to play isn't individual to each team?

That's an oddly worded and confusing question. "Fitness to play" could have several meanings and be used in conflicting ways.

I'm saying
(a) the only team with any "rights" on a player is the team with whom he is contracted, so once Portland waived Miles, they had no ongoing "rights" regarding him...and
(b) the determination of "career ending injury" is a matter determined not by a single team, but rather by the NBA as a whole (including all its individual teams), according to the rules specified. It starts with NBA doctors, and then continues with each NBA team being given the opportunity to see if they want to sign him and if he passes their own standards of usability. If they unanimously answer no, then his injury is considered to be a career ender. But if they sign and use him, his injury was just a severe physical setback and not a career ender.

Once he is contracted, then yes, his team is the sole determiner of whether or not he is fit to play from game to game (subject of course to the own player's medical objections), because they alone hold his contractual rights. Right now, Memphis alone makes the determination of Miles ability to play each game - and if there are ramifications of that decision, that's how it is.

[Three34]

For example, the 10 game rule doesn’t specify for which team(s) other than the Blazers the 10 games can be played. If the system arbitrator decides the team is an essential term of agreement and the team isn’t specified, he or she can strikeout that portion of the CBA.

Why the hell would they want to do that?

[loserX]

For example, the 10 game rule doesn’t specify for which team(s) other than the Blazers the 10 games can be played. If the system arbitrator decides the team is an essential term of agreement and the team isn’t specified, he or she can strikeout that portion of the CBA.

Why the hell would they want to do that?

To counter the obvious biases written into the CBA in order to benefit the Memphis Grizzlies.