FGump wrote: 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.
There is no question that Miles was declared disabled by independent doctors. There is also no question that the disabled player exception is “a player benefit” granted to the players by the CBA. The question that arises from the NBA’s (David Stern’s) wacky bizarre interpretation of the 10-game rule is has the NBA properly deprived the players of a benefit. Now, Stern’s administration of the CBA is fine through the declaration that Miles is disabled. As you point out, a single team who could gain competitive advantage by deciding capriciously can’t make the determination. The determination has to be made by an independent expert authority. But then comes the wackiness, Stern believes that a single team (but not the Blazers) who could gain competitive advantage can capriciously decide a players fitness to play. So, what is the difference between the Blazers and the Grizzlies in David Stern’s bizarre-o-world interpretation? The difference is very simple. In one case, a capricious decision favors the players and in the other case, it favors the owners.
loserX wrote: 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.
A decision that has salary cap ramifications is a roster decision. So, by your own admission the Grizzlies would be permitted to make a roster decision for the Blazers if David Stern’s wacky interpretation holds up under appeal.
loserX wrote:d-train wrote: 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.
You are missing the point. I am referring the individual property rights each NBA team has. NBA teams are separate entities that operate collectively in a partnership. Each team independently competes with other teams by building the best possible player roster through a series of subjective roster decisions. The integrity of the subjective process is kept in check by each team’s subjective decisions only affecting its own outcome. By allowing team A to make roster decisions for team B the competitive balance is shifted from each team striving to improve by bettering its own roster to attempting to improve by harming its competition. Furthermore, by harming its competition in a manner that reduces the competition for players services that determines the financial worth of individual players.
The 10-game rule by itself does not disrupt this competitive balance because as it’s written it is only a safeguard to prevent a team that receives salary cap relief and also having the services of the disabled player. However, if you try to extend the meaning of the 10-game rule by adding to it in the manner Stern has done, then the integrity of the competitive balance is gone. Perhaps NBA teams could decide to compete in such a manner but it seems unlikely the agreement would be made in a CBA, which is a labor agreement. It’s unlikely players would agree to having owners limit compensation to players by allowing teams to sabotage each other. Furthermore, if owners made such an agreement it probably wouldn’t be legal.
FGump wrote:d-train wrote: 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.
It’s a simple question that has a simple answer that you don’t like. The answer is a player’s fitness to play is individual to each team and one teams determination is not binding upon another team. The significance here to the 10-game rule is that if the rule is “a fitness test” the team is an undefined essential variable. One word could erase the ambiguity but the ambiguity is a fact and so is the essential nature of the undefined necessary variable.
FGump wrote: the league actually created very detailed rules to cover the eventuality. That tells us they anticipated such a situation MIGHT happen, and have structured the rules to fit. And all the teams knew the rules, in advance.
Actually, this is even more proof that Stern has taken the 10-game rule to a place nobody anticipated because there are no rules to govern the issues this avenue has created. An example is Stern blocking the Blazers waiver claim on Miles. There is no rule that says the Blazers couldn’t claim Miles off waivers and if the 10-game rule says what Stern asserts, the 10-game rule specifically allows the Blazers to claim Miles off waivers. If [ANY] team can decide fitness to play NBA games, then the Blazers are [ANY] team. If the rule requires Stern to disqualify teams that may have untrustworthy motives from determining a disabled players fitness, then that would probably disqualify every team. In this case, it would especially disqualify the Grizzlies.
There is also the upcoming case involving Shareef Abdur-Rahim. Will Stern allow the Kings to request a career-ending injury examination since SAR is under contract with the Kings as a coach? Is the money the Kings are paying SAR to coach really a bribery to convince SAR to retire so the Kings can qualify for salary cap relief? SAR could easily duplicate Miles’s success at finding a team that can benefit from sabotaging a competitors salary cap space. However, SAR will be less cooperative because the Kings are giving him a start as a NBA coach.
Sham wrote: They had several, from the day he was waived to the day that he signed with Memphis. But they didn't. Do you know why they didn't?
They didn't re-sign him because they didn't want him. They regretted the contract from the minute it was signed, and they pushed for the medical exception that they were eventually granted. They did not like Darius as a person, or a player, and they hated his contract, one so bad that they fired the person who gave it out. Put simply, they were happy to get rid of Darius and his contract. Really, really happy.
Their interest in adding Darius to their roster miraculously only appeared on the day that Darius was 2 games and 2 minutes away from costing them tens of millions of dollars.
Funny, that.
There is a lot of misinformation here.
First, Darius was not a bust because he wasn’t a good basketball player. Darius was a bust because he suffered an injury that ended his career. He may or may not be an ass, but so what. The NBA is full of asses and it only matters if they are a bigger ass than their abilities make worth tolerating. Kobe Bryant is a perfect example.
I have no doubt that the Blazers wanted to do a take back on Darius’s contract after his injury. However, before his injury, Darius was the Blazers best player (according to Zach Randolph) and his new contract looked like a bargain. At the start of the 2005 season, right before his injury, Darius was playing like an all-star. The contract Darius got was comparable with the lowest contracts given to starting players at the time. So, it’s a bad contract now but only because Darius suffered a career ending injury.
I also have no doubt the Blazers don’t want to waste a roster spot on a player that can’t play now and has no future (and no cartilage in knee). But, that is no reason why the Blazers shouldn’t have the same opportunity every other team has to claim a player off waivers.
As for the timing or the motives of the Blazers waiver claim, it is not relevant. It’s not relevant for the Blazers any more than it is for the Grizzlies. After all, the same argument that you make about the Blazers possible untrustworthy motives equally applies to the Grizzlies.
Sham wrote:Just because he may have pulled the trigger 34 times already and has not died doesn't mean there isn't a bullet in the gun.
Well, let's use your imagery then.
If/when that bullet is fired, his career will be over. But, like you said, that bullet has not been fired.
Therefore, Darius' career is not over.
The CBA doesn’t say a career ending injury has to end a player’s career. It just says that if it doesn’t and the player resumes his career with the team that received salary cap relief, then the team loses its salary cap relief. The salary cap relief is a benefit to NBA players collectively and potentially the one team receiving the cap relief. Why would a party not benefiting from the cap relief be allowed erase the benefit?
Modern_epic wrote: 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.
Bad example, in this case the Raptors never had their salary cap affected by another teams untrustworthy determination of fitness. Actually, the Raptors and every other NBA team other than the Blazers has at all times been the sole decision maker affecting their team roster and salary cap.
chakdaddy wrote: 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.
Even if the CBA intended the 10-game rule to be a fitness test that could be determined by _ANY_ team, David Stern didn't properly administer the agreement when he denied the Blazers waiver claim. Stern unilaterally added the provisions that _ANY_ team could determine fitness and also _ANY_ team does not include the team that received cap relief.
The Blazers are by default the only team the 10-game rule applies to in this case because they are the only team potentially receiving a benefit. The rule allows a team damaged by the loss of a disabled player a benefit that can be taken away if the team later decides the player is not so injured that he is of no further use as a player. What sense does it make to allow a competitor whose only stake in the decision is to harm another team a say in the process?
A waiver claim is not a determination by the Blazers or any team that a player is fit to play. Even in a trade, teams can acquire the contract of a player without declaring their fitness.
FGump wrote: 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.
No, I don’t believe the moratorium is a period for appeals. The moratorium is when we will learn if the NBA and the NBPA still have an agreement so that the bean counters can simply crunch numbers and say the owners get x dollars and the players get y dollars. I assume if the bean counters can’t do their job because of lack of agreement between the parties, appeals will happen so settlement can be reached.
I find it telling that you consider an email warning business partners against improper conduct an indication that everyone is agreeable.
FGump wrote: 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 agree the Blazers understand the rule and the rule is easy to understand. However, Stern intentionally has improperly administered the rule. This is the first time the rule would allow a team salary cap relief that could use the cap relief to improve its team. It is also the first time a team attempted to use Stern’s wacky interpretation to make a roster decision for the purpose of harming a competitor. And, this is the first time the NBA owners will try to steal salary back from the players.
loserX wrote: 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.
I completely agree with this. Since Stern made it clear he intends to allow teams to compete by sabotaging each other’s salary cap, then Memphis did exactly what they should do. I don’t believe Stern was properly administering the CBA or that NBPA agreed that teams could sabotage each other salary cap space.
loserX wrote: The reason that the team is not specified is this: in drawing up the agreement, the NBA and the NBAPA agreed that the team of record is NOT an essential variable to constituting the agreement.
You have been arguing that "an essential element" has been omitted or ill-defined. When the facts of the matter are that the element you are describing is simply not essential. The only essential elements are that the games are "NBA games" and that there are 10 of them. What you are arguing is tantamount to saying that the clause is ill-defined because it does not specify how many fans are in the arena at the time.
You are wrong. The determination of a player’s fitness to play is going to depend on which team is doing the determination and other factors that have nothing to do with a player’s capability to play with skill. And, since the team is an essential variable, the agreement must say which team(s) can make the determination.
