Front and Center, Raef...Correct?......No?

[ABM]

Now that it appears Miles' cap money will go back onto the the Blazers' books, does that mean Raef's expiring contract is gonna come up HUGE in KP's trade discussion over the next few weeks?

Or, does it really not matter either way and KP is still planning to let Raef walk, anyway?

Raef's expiring has always been kind of an enigma to me. I wonder how valuable it "was" or "is"........or if it just became more valuable in light of MilesGate?

Can any of you numbers guys chime-in as to what the net game looks like?

I suppose my bottom-line question is: How has the Miles situation affected any potential decisions involving Raef.....or has it?

 

[Boise Blazer]

Well ABM Im sure you can agreed that the Miles fiasco (and thats what it is) had made Raef much more valuable to us as for other teams I think his value is much more economical. Pritchard often says that they have many many possible scenarios and options but I think it ultimately comes down to whether or not we feel like there is someone in this summer's FA class that 1) we actaully want and 2) that we have a legitimate shot at, otherwise I can see no reason why we would hold on to it. Letting him "walk" does us no good if we dont a serious potential target this summer. Am I way off in thinking that?

 

[ABM]

Well ABM Im sure you can agreed that the Miles fiasco (and thats what it is) had made Raef much more valuable to us as for other teams I think his value is much more economical. Pritchard often says that they have many many possible scenarios and options but I think it ultimately comes down to whether or not we feel like there is someone in this summer's FA class that 1) we actaully want and 2) that we have a legitimate shot at, otherwise I can see no reason why we would hold on to it. Letting him "walk" does us no good if we dont a serious potential target this summer. Am I way off in thinking that?

Thanks for the feedback.

I wonder, then, if this is all simply a matter of going over the cap? Whereas, otherwise, it wouldn't necessarily have meant that?

I wonder how PA feels about the luxury tax now? Back in the day, when the team was full of knuckleheads and the RG wasn't drawing, the economic model was certainly broken. I understand all that. Now? The RG is packed....Blazermania is on the rise again. Will going over the cap mean all that much anymore in light of that?

 

[Boise Blazer]

I doubt that PA has major concerns about the cap. Im sure he would love to save some money just like anyone else in these wonderful economic times but I cant imagine that its enough to justify not taking a chance to help a team he has spent so much time, money and energy into this team by adding a valuable piece using Raef. The Blazers are almost like a hobby for him.

 

[craigehlo]

I doubt that PA has major concerns about the cap. Im sure he would love to save some money just like anyone else in these wonderful economic times but I cant imagine that its enough to justify not taking a chance to help a team he has spent so much time, money and energy into this team by adding a valuable piece using Raef. The Blazers are almost like a hobby for him.

Paul Allen certainly does care about the team being over the cap. The franchise went through some fairly major layoffs in the organization way back at the beginning of the rebuilding process. Those moves by Vulcan were a direct result of the team losing money and trying to minimize losses.

Sure he'll shell out for Roy, Oden and LMA's deals but gone are the days when you see the team payroll near $100 million.

 

[BoBoBREWSKI]

Raef's contract was already a huge piece to a major trade before the Miles fiasco, but it is a little more important now.

 

[MikeDC]

You guys know I keep a salary and contract info page, right?

I know it's not the same format as what someone else here does, but it's accessable whenever you want to look.

So looking at it, I was actually wondering the same thing as ABM. After studying the numbers, here's my conclusions.

1. The Blazers can still trade Raef for a player under contract next year (such as Kirk Hinrich or Gerald Wallace) and it won't put them over the luxury tax next year. If you look at the projections I link to above, the Blazers can expect to have something like $10-15M in breathing room before they hit the luxury tax (the LT amount I have in there assumes a 4% increase in the cap, which is historically average but perhaps high considering the current economic conditions.

2. The Blazers are quite unlikely to get under the luxury tax threshold this year. With Miles on the books, they project to be something like $9.2M over the luxury tax threshold. This means the Blazers will have to pay this much to the league, and forego the couple million dollars of tax revenue they'd get from other teams if they were below the tax threshold. All in all, probably $11 or $12M dollars. That sucks, even for a rich guy like Allen.

To shed that money, they'd have to trade $9.2M worth of players to teams that are either below the cap or have trade exceptions, which allow teams to take back players without giving back another player. However, Memphis is the only team with significant cap room, and I don't see them doing the Blazers any favors. The only teams with significant cap exceptions that could help the Blazers are Chicago ($5M from trading Joe Smith) and Denver (~$10M from trading AI). But these teams are close to the luxury tax themselves, so it's unlikely they'd be willing to take on a Blazers player to reduce their tax load and increase their own.

So basically I think the Blazers just have to accept they're gonna pay the tax this year and consider it a sunk cost. That's the bad news.

The good news is, like I said, I don't think there's too much effect going forward. They can still make pretty much any deal they want heading into next year and not have to pay the tax.

3. The next important point to understand is that Miles does count against the cap. So letting Raef expire won't push the Blazers far under the salary cap anymore. They NEED to trade him in order to get a players for him, because they can't simply let him expire and then sign up a player using that cap space, because that cap space won't be any more they they could use with the MLE.

 

[maxiep]

We shouldn't assume that Miles' salary is going back on our books for good. The Blazers will appeal the decision based on the idea that it's Miles' choice to destroy his knee joints. The Blazers have done everything the league has asked them to do. You can't be held responsible in perpetuity for decisions made by other players. It would be akin to the Bulls having Eddy Curry put back on their cap because he had sexually harrassed his limo driver starting in Chicago.

Let's stop pretending this issue has been decided.

 

[MikeDC]

We shouldn't assume that Miles' salary is going back on our books for good. The Blazers will appeal the decision based on the idea that it's Miles' choice to destroy his knee joints. The Blazers have done everything the league has asked them to do. You can't be held responsible in perpetuity for decisions made by other players. It would be akin to the Bulls having Eddy Curry put back on their cap because he had sexually harrassed his limo driver starting in Chicago.

Let's stop pretending this issue has been decided.

I can see how this would be bleeding over from the other topics, but I do think it's wise for the Blazers to assume as much at this point WRT Miles.

Of course the Blazers have done everything they've been "asked" to do, but they've also had to have been asked, if you catch my drift.

Nor do I see any perpetuity involved here (just one more year of cap hit), or anything akin to Eddy Curry's sexual harrassment suit. That's a completely separate, private matter. The salary cap (and hence, Miles counting against it) is governed by an agreement between the NBA and NBAPA. The CBA (sorry for all the acronyms). It explains in painful detail what's covered and what's not.

Miles is pretty clearly going to count. I have some sympathy for their position, but I think after the league has reacted to their actions the way they have (they've been unhappy), nobody's gonna go out of the way to bail the Blazers out. Amending the CBA in mid-stream would be a major undertaking under the most sympathetic circumstances, and the Blazers don't present the most sympathetic circumstance to the rest of the league.

Notwithstanding all of that, from the Blazer's perspective, assuming everything will work out in your favor is a high risk move. If you assume you "win on appeal" and miles comes off the cap, then you can let Raef Expire and use cap space. If you are wrong and you lose, you've blown your chance and have nothing to show for it, because you're not under the cap. You have to wait til 2010 and let other players go as well to be under the cap.

On the other hand, assuming Miles will count against the cap and trading Raef now for something is a safe move. You get something in return for Raef no matter what, and the Miles situation largely becomes moot going forward.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

You guys know I keep a salary and contract info page, right?

I3. The next important point to understand is that Miles does count against the cap. So letting Raef expire won't push the Blazers far under the salary cap anymore. They NEED to trade him in order to get a players for him, because they can't simply let him expire and then sign up a player using that cap space, because that cap space won't be any more they they could use with the MLE.

I don't think that is true DC. I don't have the link, but dave at Blazeredge wrote a piece about Blazer cap flexibility this summer. Blazers had about 15 mil in cap space this summer without darius. With darius they are down to about 7 or 8 mil. If they don't pick up the options on Blake and Travis, they could offer a free agent about 15 mil (unlikely given the FA list and having to give up players) . . . but for 8 mil a yr with yearly increases could land a sloid starter.

 

[maxiep]

I can see how this would be bleeding over from the other topics, but I do think it's wise for the Blazers to assume as much at this point WRT Miles.

Of course the Blazers have done everything they've been "asked" to do, but they've also had to have been asked, if you catch my drift.

Nor do I see any perpetuity involved here (just one more year of cap hit), or anything akin to Eddy Curry's sexual harrassment suit. That's a completely separate, private matter. The salary cap (and hence, Miles counting against it) is governed by an agreement between the NBA and NBAPA. The CBA (sorry for all the acronyms). It explains in painful detail what's covered and what's not.

Miles is pretty clearly going to count. I have some sympathy for their position, but I think after the league has reacted to their actions the way they have (they've been unhappy), nobody's gonna go out of the way to bail the Blazers out. Amending the CBA in mid-stream would be a major undertaking under the most sympathetic circumstances, and the Blazers don't present the most sympathetic circumstance to the rest of the league.

Notwithstanding all of that, from the Blazer's perspective, assuming everything will work out in your favor is a high risk move. If you assume you "win on appeal" and miles comes off the cap, then you can let Raef Expire and use cap space. If you are wrong and you lose, you've blown your chance and have nothing to show for it, because you're not under the cap. You have to wait til 2010 and let other players go as well to be under the cap.

On the other hand, assuming Miles will count against the cap and trading Raef now for something is a safe move. You get something in return for Raef no matter what, and the Miles situation largely becomes moot going forward.

A couple of things.

First, it wasn't just the Blazers who deemed his injury to be "career ending". It was a group of physicians hired by both the NBA and the NBAPA. EVERYONE signed off on this conclusion. Miles' injury is so bad, he's unable to be insured. This wasn't some legal technicality the Blazers used to dump him, every single physician he's seen regarding his knees has told him that he risks knee replacement if he continues to play.

Second, the relevant clause in the CBA was never meant to be used in this manner. It was meant to specificially keep the Knicks from retiring Allan Houston and then re-signing him at the vet minimum, thereby dramatically reducing their cap hit. That's why even the pre-season games counted. The league wanted to disincentivize anyone from attempting to circumvent the cap this way.

In contrast, the Blazers have consistently acted in the best interests of Darius Miles in this situation. They hired a personal trainer for him. They had physician after physician review his condition. They paid for the medical treatment and the rehabilitation. And when he didn't recover and was risking his long-term health by continuing to play, the Blazers gave him an out by getting a medical retirement for him. The fact it also helped the Blazers doesn't matter.

The idea that the Blazers are trying to keep him from continuing his career is total crap. Re-read Larry Miller's e-mail. He merely warned other GM's not to sign Miles for the express purpose of screwing with our salary cap. Miles is a willing pawn in a game between the only team with cap space next year and the team that would compete directly with them.

The Blazers will appeal any attempt to put him back on the cap because it violates the spirit of the CBA. Although I haven't read it, every agreement between parties I've ever seen has a "good faith" clause. Are we really to believe that the Memphis Grizzlies have acted in good faith? They heretofore have refused to sign him for the rest of the year (as was evidenced by their releasing him before the guarantee deadline).

The CBA is not a suicide pact. And there's a long way to go before "Miles is clearly going to count". We'll push to have it resolved by the trade deadline, and if not, it will definitely be resolved by July 1st. In either event, we'll have cap space.

 

[Nikolokolus]

I don't think that is true DC. I don't have the link, but dave at Blazeredge wrote a piece about Blazer cap flexibility this summer. Blazers had about 15 mil in cap space this summer without darius. With darius they are down to about 7 or 8 mil. If they don't pick up the options on Blake and Travis, they could offer a free agent about 15 mil (unlikely given the FA list and having to give up players) . . . but for 8 mil a yr with yearly increases could land a sloid starter.

This is correct ... at least as far as can be surmised from looking over www.storytellerscontracts.info page.

Assuming next year's cap figure is about the same as this year's, the Blazers are looking at anywhere from 9-16 million in cap room, depending on options being picked up for Travis (3.6 million) and Blake (4 million) and of course Ike Diogu and Channing Frye being renounced (which seems like a given at this point).

My guess is that if the Blazers decide to hold onto Raef's deal, they'll probably keep at least one or the other of Travis and Blake and have around 12 million of cap room to play with. Whatever happens I think trades at the deadline or this summer are coming; there are just too many guys without a clearly defined role but enough talent to be worthy of at least rotation minutes.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Kobe . . . Kobe . . . Kobe . . .

 

[maxiep]

Kobe . . . Kobe . . . Kobe . . .

Thank you for proving you're no Blazer fan.

 

[MikeDC]

I don't think that is true DC. I don't have the link, but dave at Blazeredge wrote a piece about Blazer cap flexibility this summer. Blazers had about 15 mil in cap space this summer without darius. With darius they are down to about 7 or 8 mil. If they don't pick up the options on Blake and Travis, they could offer a free agent about 15 mil (unlikely given the FA list and having to give up players) . . . but for 8 mil a yr with yearly increases could land a sloid starter.

Well, this is where things get kind of tricky. Obviously you're right that if they drop all of these other guys as well, they can get cap space. But then you're dropping several contributing players too. If Miles wasn't there, you can sign someone and not have to dump those guys) Does the one big FA (or trade target) you get make up for those guys?

Also, when is the decision on Blake and Outlaw's options due? Is it before or after you know what the cap is going to be next year (I don't know, I'm asking that one). With a good change the cap is going to go down, that might put you in the decision of having to make a decision on them while "blind" about what the final ramifications will be.

So yeah, you're right. But at the same time, there are still pretty significant risks to going that route.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Well, this is where things get kind of tricky. Obviously you're right that if they drop all of these other guys as well, they can get cap space. But then you're dropping several contributing players too. If Miles wasn't there, you can sign someone and not have to dump those guys) Does the one big FA (or trade target) you get make up for those guys?

Also, when is the decision on Blake and Outlaw's options due? Is it before or after you know what the cap is going to be next year (I don't know, I'm asking that one). With a good change the cap is going to go down, that might put you in the decision of having to make a decision on them while "blind" about what the final ramifications will be.

So yeah, you're right. But at the same time, there are still pretty significant risks to going that route.

Oh there are defintie risks . . . and I'm not saying that the Miles sitaution deson't hurt ther Blazers. If Miules didn't count against the cap, the Blazers could go after two 9 mil dollar players or one star without giving up anything.

I don't know the answer to you question about Blake and Outlaw's options. I do know the contract were drawn up specifically to allow cap space in 2009 (at the time of those contract deals, Miles was still on the team) and Tom Penn is behind ideas to create cap space . . . so I'm guessing they factored in the time line with regard t final cap amount (but just guessing).

I heard the cap won't be moving much this summer . . . I'm sure the Blazer (and other organizations) have their ear to the ground and will have an idea before the final announcement.

 

[MikeDC]

A couple of things.

First, it wasn't just the Blazers who deemed his injury to be "career ending". It was a group of physicians hired by both the NBA and the NBAPA. EVERYONE signed off on this conclusion. Miles' injury is so bad, he's unable to be insured. This wasn't some legal technicality the Blazers used to dump him, every single physician he's seen regarding his knees has told him that he risks knee replacement if he continues to play.

Second, the relevant clause in the CBA was never meant to be used in this manner. It was meant to specificially keep the Knicks from retiring Allan Houston and then re-signing him at the vet minimum, thereby dramatically reducing their cap hit. That's why even the pre-season games counted. The league wanted to disincentivize anyone from attempting to circumvent the cap this way.

Understood, but the Blazers are still trying to lower their cap number after signing a contract for X amount the player.

In contrast, the Blazers have consistently acted in the best interests of Darius Miles in this situation. They hired a personal trainer for him. They had physician after physician review his condition. They paid for the medical treatment and the rehabilitation. And when he didn't recover and was risking his long-term health by continuing to play, the Blazers gave him an out by getting a medical retirement for him. The fact it also helped the Blazers doesn't matter.

Darius Miles doesn't seem to agree. The medical retirement didn't affect Miles one way or another from what I understand. His salary (owed under the Blazers contract) would continue to be paid whether he was "medically retired" or not. The only thing the medical retirement does it allow the Blazers to remove the amount from their cap after a year of non-successful play.

The idea that the Blazers are trying to keep him from continuing his career is total crap. Re-read Larry Miller's e-mail. He merely warned other GM's not to sign Miles for the express purpose of screwing with our salary cap. Miles is a willing pawn in a game between the only team with cap space next year and the team that would compete directly with them.

Isn't that pretty similar to the Blazers claiming him off waivers with the express purpose of saving their cap and not playing him?

The Blazers will appeal any attempt to put him back on the cap because it violates the spirit of the CBA. Although I haven't read it, every agreement between parties I've ever seen has a "good faith" clause. Are we really to believe that the Memphis Grizzlies have acted in good faith? They heretofore have refused to sign him for the rest of the year (as was evidenced by their releasing him before the guarantee deadline).

Miles is hardly unique in that sense. Similar moves have, are, and continue to be made for financial and basketball reasons with many players. That makes it pretty hard to establish bad faith on the part of the Grizzlies. It's not bad faith to engage in a standard business practice in your industry.

The CBA is not a suicide pact.

I believe that's the constitution that's not a suicide pact

But if this doesn't work out for the Blazers, it's not going to be franchise suicide or anything. It's simply a setback and an expense. It's going to force them to account for the decision they made to sign Miles. Every team in the league takes similar risks.

And there's a long way to go before "Miles is clearly going to count". We'll push to have it resolved by the trade deadline, and if not, it will definitely be resolved by July 1st. In either event, we'll have cap space.

Under what theory do you expect the Blazers to successfully appeal this?

 

[maxiep]

Understood, but the Blazers are still trying to lower their cap number after signing a contract for X amount the player.

If Miles had been able to play and contribute, we would have traded him along with another player to obtain that cap space. Instead, we were told we could pursue one avenue and are now being told after the fact that the rules have changed. Again, this issue being exploited by Memphis was never intended to exist in the CBA.

Darius Miles doesn't seem to agree. The medical retirement didn't affect Miles one way or another from what I understand. His salary (owed under the Blazers contract) would continue to be paid whether he was "medically retired" or not. The only thing the medical retirement does it allow the Blazers to remove the amount from their cap after a year of non-successful play.

Again, we're on new ground. Personally, I believe that if Darius chose to resume his career that the Blazers have first rights to him at his original salary. To me, that seems the most fair. It's basically resumes a status quo ante state.

Darius is free to pursue an NBA career. Teams are free to sign him in good faith. There's no good faith about what Memphis is doing.

Isn't that pretty similar to the Blazers claiming him off waivers with the express purpose of saving their cap and not playing him?

I'm not sure that's why we tried to claim him. I think it's part of building a case for the appeals process.

Miles is hardly unique in that sense. Similar moves have, are, and continue to be made for financial and basketball reasons with many players. That makes it pretty hard to establish bad faith on the part of the Grizzlies. It's not bad faith to engage in a standard business practice in your industry.

I can't think of another instance like this one. This is not standard business practice in any sense.

I believe that's the constitution that's not a suicide pact

True. I'm glad you got the allusion.

But if this doesn't work out for the Blazers, it's not going to be franchise suicide or anything. It's simply a setback and an expense. It's going to force them to account for the decision they made to sign Miles. Every team in the league takes similar risks.

The Blazers followed the rules. The rules were changed after the fact through a poorly written rule that was never meant to apply in this case.

Under what theory do you expect the Blazers to successfully appeal this?

On a few levels actually. First, the Blazers followed the rules and the rules are being changed by the application of a rule that was never meant to apply in this case.

Second, that the Grizzlies--being the only team with significant cap space next year--are trying to push the Blazers--a more attractive destination--out of the market.

Third, that the Grizzlies tried to force the Blazers to enter into a trade the Blazers didn't want. The penalty for not doing so is that Memphis was going to sign Darius Miles. There is a rumor that the Blazers hold a smoking gun on this issue in either a recorded phone call, a voice mail or an e-mail.

Fourth, that the Grizzlies--as being one of the teams under the luxury tax cap--stood to benefit financially by putting the Blazers over the luxury tax, even after paying Miles.

Fifth, that the Grizzlies have done all this in poor faith. They've never intended to sign Miles or give him a real opportunity. They didn't pick up his vet min salary, even though the league subsidizes such salaries. As such, they're using Miles.

Sixth, that the Blazers were willing to pick up and guarantee Miles' salary. Miles has shown that he's willing to risk his long-term health to play, and the Blazers valued his contribution when he was a player here. Unlike Memphis, we have a need at SF with Webster being injured.

Seventh, that the spirit of the law is being violated, even though the letter of the law is being followed. This application is an abuse of the CBA.