The seven-days start, when?

[d-train]

Actually yes, I plan to respond to some of Larry Coon's posts hopefully tomorrow.

[loserX]

So, what is the difference between the Blazers and the Grizzlies in David Stern’s bizarre-o-world interpretation?

None. The Blazers could have claimed Miles and lost the exemption, just as they lost the exemption when the Grizzlies claimed him. The problem was that the Blazers wanted to claim him and prevent him from playing, thus keeping the exemption. They were trying to circumvent the spirit of the CBA (which would have led to massive labour war), everybody knew it, and Stern (properly) intervened.

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.

Well THAT'S a creative interpretation. Stern's interpretation is not "wacky", it is expressly provided for in the CBA. The fact that the Blazers don't like it is completely irrelevant.

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.

Wrong, actually. If it is determined via the objective 10-game rule (not via what the Grizzlies think) that the player is fit to play, the exemption received on the basis of a "career-ending injury" is revoked. In that case, it actually is binding on the team that received an exemption to which it is no longer entitled.

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.

The team of record is most certainly NOT an essential variable. That's why it's not in the clause. You seem to think that it is, but again have provided no arguments to sustain this position. What is your basis for saying that the team of record is an essential variable? There is no ambiguity: the games must simply be NBA games.

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.

WRONG. The determination of the player's fitness to play is judged by his ability to play in 10 NBA games, not by the beliefs of the team that signs him. If the Grizzlies had deemed Miles "fit to play", but he had been unable to compete in 10 NBA games, the Blazers' medical exemption would have been upheld no matter what the Grizzlies tried to assert. Therefore the team of record is NOT an essential variable, since it is only the number of games that count as long as they meet the definition of "NBA games". TEN GAMES PLAYED IN THE NBA CONSTITUTE A SUFFICIENT CONDITION TO REVOKE THE EXEMPTION.

If only the Blazers could make the determination as to his fitness to play, there would be no reason to have the clause in there at all, would there? The Blazers would simply not change their mind. The fact that the clause exists at all means that the NBA foresaw this possibility and explicitly accounted for it. If a player is capable of playing 10 games in the NBA, any medical exemption received on the basis of this clause is automatically revoked. It doesn't matter what the Blazers think. It doesn't even matter, technically, what the Grizzlies think. It matters whether Miles was capable of playing 10 games. Which he was, because he did. Condition satisfied; exemption revoked.

[FGump]

Q: Any reason you feel compelled to keep beating on this long-deceased horse?

A: Actually yes, I plan to respond to some of Larry Coon's posts hopefully tomorrow.

Amazing non sequitur of an answer. But incredibly consistent with the "logic" used to frame your other responses to answers given you.

[Dunkenstein]

This guy d-train is becoming a cancer on this board. He's taken the board over by baiting us with his posts and every time one of us feels compelled to answer him to prove how much more we know than he does. First this thread and now the thread on guaranteed contracts. Enough is enough. Let him win.

FGump, Larry, Sham, Loser X and all the rest of you: I beg all of you to join me in no longer responding to his posts. We try to explain what we believe is a correct interpretation of the CBA, but he doesn't want to listen. He just wants to keep taunting us. And sooner or later he'll drive the rest of us away from this board.

All he wants to do is provoke us. Ignore him. Let him have the last word. Then maybe we can go on with the interesting discussions we've come to enjoy over the last number of years.

[LarryCoon]

Actually yes, I plan to respond to some of Larry Coon's posts hopefully tomorrow.

I'd advise you not to. As others have said, you're simply repeating issues that have been asked and answered multiple times. I'm sorry if you don't like the answers, and they don't jibe with your particular way of thinking about things, but I'll reiterate that your way of thinking about things doesn't reflect the rules and doesn't reflect reality. The validity of your opinions doesn't increase with repetition. You're not going to sway any of us by repeating any of the points we've already addressed.

And I agree with Dunkenstein -- we've already addressed all of your issues ad nauseam, and there is nothing to be gained by continuing to respond to you. This is the last response you'll get from me, and I won't read any further response from you in this thread. I don't know how many times you need to be told your analysis and logic are wrong, and I'm not willing to find out.

In addition, I've personally spoken to the people who wrote these rules, and got a first-hand account of the reasoning behind them. I've personally spoken to people directly involved in this specific incident, and I'm pretty clear on what they're thinking about it and what they intend to do.

It's like I'm looking at a picture of my mother, and you're trying to argue with me that it's actually a picture of a Toyota. Stop it.

[d-train]

Bump!

What a dumba$s this OP is, everyone tried to tell him but some people are beyond help.

[Three34]

Wait, what? You think you're right?

You know Miles counts against Portland's cap still, right? And that he has done all offseason? Even when they made Millsap an offer?

[Dunkenstein]

Bump!

What a dumba$s this OP is, everyone tried to tell him but some people are beyond help.

If this is your way of admitting you were wrong from the start, all I can say is "better late than never."

[d-train]

I'm not saying I was wrong. I'm just saying that Miles salary is counted against the Blazers salary cap. So, I wasn't 100% correct.

[Three34]

Well sheet. If only the Blazers had transferred their discretionary right to determine which players are fit to play in NBA games to the Grizzlies.

[d-train]

I think I should get some credit for foreseeing that the Blazers would make offers to an UFA and a RFA.

[GrandAdmiralDan]

I think I should get some credit for foreseeing that the Blazers would make offers to an UFA and a RFA.

What in the world are you talking about? That statement makes no sense.

[Malinhion]

Well sheet. If only the Blazers had transferred their discretionary right to determine which players are fit to play in NBA games to the Grizzlies.

But, doesn't the CBA provision say that the determining doctor will be selected by the league and the player's association? I don't see what the Blazer's discretion has anything to do with that.

[Three34]

You've got 11 pages of in-joke material to catch up on.

[NetsForce]

The Blazers should sign Darius Miles, he'd be an upgrade over what they have at SF right now.

[Three34]

This thread is finally going places.

[Dunkenstein]

I think I should get some credit for foreseeing that the Blazers would make offers to an UFA and a RFA.

Gee, with Portland having over $7M in cap space, you really went out on a limb with that prediction.

[d-train]

I was out on a flimsy limb and I'm trying to land on my feet.

[ranger001]

Well you admit you made a mistake which is better than 95% of the people who post on a message board.

[d-train]

I don't mind admitting that 1 time out of 9500+ posts I wasn't 100% right.