Grizzlies sign F Miles to second 10-day contract

[Денг Гордон]

What are you talking about? What conspiracy? I am posting about what may or may not be reality, and none of it has been refuted, so I'll keep posting about it. As for sitting on the bench in Portland, again, where in the CBA does it say that a team has to play a claimed player, or that one team doesn't have a right to claim a waived player, or that the NBA can deny a member of the union a contract? Did the NBA and Miles' agent collude? That's not out of the realm of possibility at this point.

Darius Miles, his hopes, and his dreams are irrelevant in this matter, and if the NBA made Darius's needs an issue in deciding whether Portland could claim him or not, then that needs to be addressed by the Blazers via whatever legal channel is available to them before this summer.

Right here:

ARTICLE XIII: CIRCUMVENTION
Section 1. General Prohibitions.
(a) It is the intention of the parties that the provisions agreed to herein, including, without limitation, those relating to the Salary Cap, the Exceptions to the Salary Cap, the scope of Basketball Related Income, the Escrow System, the Rookie Scale, the Right of First Refusal, the Maximum Player Salary, and free agency, be interpreted so as to preserve the essential benefits achieved by both parties to this Agreement. Neither the Players Association, the NBA, nor any Team (or Team Affiliate) or player (or person or entity acting with authority on behalf of such player), shall enter into any agreement, including, without limitation, any Player Contract (including any Renegotiation, Extension, or amendment of a Player Contract), or undertake any action or transaction, including, without limitation, the assignment or termination of a Player Contract, which is, or which includes any term that is, designed to serve the purpose of defeating or circumventing the intention of the parties as reflected by all of the provisions of this Agreement.

 

[Minstrel]

The atoms in my expanding head move in such a way that they avoid (by simply going through) any substance, leaving no residue...

Yeah, I have a theory that time stops completely between every second...that time stoppage would measure a million years if there was any meaning to "timing the stoppage of time." A million years of meta-time, so to speak.

I live in the constant fear of being trapped between two seconds, the only entity for which time does not stop. Hasn't happened yet, thankfully.

 

[Ed O]

Yeah, I have a theory that time stops completely between every second...that time stoppage would measure a million years if there was any meaning to "timing the stoppage of time." A million years of meta-time, so to speak.

I live in the constant fear of being trapped between two seconds, the only entity for which time does not stop. Hasn't happened yet, thankfully.

Well, you just need to post when it happens so ... we ...

... wait.

Oh, yeah. I hope it doesn't happen, to you, as well.

Ed O.

 

[PapaG]

Right here:

ARTICLE XIII: CIRCUMVENTION
Section 1. General Prohibitions.
(a) It is the intention of the parties that the provisions agreed to herein, including, without limitation, those relating to the Salary Cap, the Exceptions to the Salary Cap, the scope of Basketball Related Income, the Escrow System, the Rookie Scale, the Right of First Refusal, the Maximum Player Salary, and free agency, be interpreted so as to preserve the essential benefits achieved by both parties to this Agreement. Neither the Players Association, the NBA, nor any Team (or Team Affiliate) or player (or person or entity acting with authority on behalf of such player), shall enter into any agreement, including, without limitation, any Player Contract (including any Renegotiation, Extension, or amendment of a Player Contract), or undertake any action or transaction, including, without limitation, the assignment or termination of a Player Contract, which is, or which includes any term that is, designed to serve the purpose of defeating or circumventing the intention of the parties as reflected by all of the provisions of this Agreement.

And again, that says nothing about claiming a player who is not the property of any other team. The Blazers found a loophole, the NBA denied them access to a player that every other team passed on initially, and now the Blazers, as their right, need to pursue every legal challenge to getting back their cap space and saving $$$ on Darius's contract. I don't think the Vulcans are just going sit back and fork over the money after the footprints they have made already. What was the point of building a case?

 

[e_blazer]

Right here:

ARTICLE XIII: CIRCUMVENTION
Section 1. General Prohibitions.
(a) It is the intention of the parties that the provisions agreed to herein, including, without limitation, those relating to the Salary Cap, the Exceptions to the Salary Cap, the scope of Basketball Related Income, the Escrow System, the Rookie Scale, the Right of First Refusal, the Maximum Player Salary, and free agency, be interpreted so as to preserve the essential benefits achieved by both parties to this Agreement. Neither the Players Association, the NBA, nor any Team (or Team Affiliate) or player (or person or entity acting with authority on behalf of such player), shall enter into any agreement, including, without limitation, any Player Contract (including any Renegotiation, Extension, or amendment of a Player Contract), or undertake any action or transaction, including, without limitation, the assignment or termination of a Player Contract, which is, or which includes any term that is, designed to serve the purpose of defeating or circumventing the intention of the parties as reflected by all of the provisions of this Agreement.

So, as I've said all along, IF (and it's a big IF) the Blazers can put together compelling evidence that the Grizzlies entered into these 10-day contracts with Miles, not because of what he can do for their team, but with the primary purpose of negating the Blazers' cap relief for Miles' longterm injury, then they have a legitimate case. The Grizzlies have to either sign Miles for the rest of the season or cut him loose after this 10-day contract expires. My bet is that they keep him on just to minimize their exposure.

 

[e_blazer]

The atoms in my expanding head move in such a way that they avoid (by simply going through) any substance, leaving no residue...

Ed O.

Glad to hear about the absence of residue because that would be, well, icky.

 

[PapaG]

So, as I've said all along, IF (and it's a big IF) the Blazers can put together compelling evidence that the Grizzlies entered into these 10-day contracts with Miles, not because of what he can do for their team, but with the primary purpose of negating the Blazers' cap relief for Miles' longterm injury, then they have a legitimate case. The Grizzlies have to either sign Miles for the rest of the season or cut him loose after this 10-day contract expires. My bet is that they keep him on just to minimize their exposure.

I hope that is the case. I'll laugh if the Grizz burn some of their tax profit by signing a guy who won't be in the league in two years. I don't think that will be the case, though.

I also wonder how the Blazers are "circumventing the cap" when they have played by the book. I see nothing in the CBA against claiming a waived player and sitting him.

 

[PapaG]

The conspiracy that you allege where Memphis has signed Miles only to screw over the Blazers.

I also said they signed Miles to get an extra $200k or so this off-season and to also eliminate a competitor in the free agent market.

My head expands and contracts at a million miles an hour every 200 seconds. It expands to the distance of 10 feet before contracting again. It moves so quickly and the atoms move so perfectly that my normal bodily functions are not disturbed and no one has ever been able to detect that it happens.

I've claimed this for years, and no one has refuted it once. Should I take it as fact, then?

Mocking a legitimate argument. Oh well, at least you didn't melt down and insult me this time.

How does any of that lead to Miles suing the NBA, as you hope that he does?

1) Miles may be unemployed for the rest of the season.

2) Miles may have been used in a deadline trade if he is such a hotshot prospect, and he'd be guaranteed a spot on a roster. The 30-day period would have ended around 2/8/09.

The union should have filed a grievance the second one of its members was denied a guaranteed contract by the NBA, regardless of what Darius wanted. Plus, if Darius is not signed, he should pursue the extra money he lost out on from the NBA.

So you hope that Miles sues irrespective of his desires and dreams?

You do understand how, at the most basic level, the legal system works, right?

Ed O.

You were the one theorizing on Miles and his desire to play. My stance is that should have noting to do with the claiming of a waived player. You do understand that Miles' wants and needs should not be considered by the league, right? Or am I missing the part of the CBA that states that teams can only claim players who will play for them?

 

[Ed O]

I thought you weren't going to talk about this until next week?

Or did that mean that you expected to be able to have the last word and then you'd shut up?

Oh, well.

You were the one theorizing on Miles and his desire to play. My stance is that should have noting to do with the claiming of a waived player. You do understand that Miles' wants and needs should not be considered by the league, right? Or am I missing the part of the CBA that states that teams can only claim players who will play for them?

I am talking exclusively about your desire for Miles to sue over the fact that he was denied a guaranteed deal.

Your post is just jibber-jabber that has nothing to do with what I am posting about.

Ed O.

 

[PapaG]

I thought you weren't going to talk about this until next week?

Or did that mean that you expected to be able to have the last word and then you'd shut up?

Oh, well.



I am talking exclusively about your desire for Miles to sue over the fact that he was denied a guaranteed deal.

Your post is just jibber-jabber that has nothing to do with what I am posting about.

Ed O.

My desire? You really like to take hypotheticals and attach them to posters as their only position. Will Miles sue/file a grievance? Doubtful. Should he? It's up for debate, and I don't see how you incorrectly responding to my post constitutes me writing "jibber jabber". "Jibber jabber" was your ridiculous post on your head expanding and contracting that I assume was supposed to be analogous to a realistic/hypothetical scenario that I imagine the Blazers are considering as well.

 

[Ed O]

My desire? You really like to take hypotheticals and attach them to posters as their only position. Will Miles sue/file a grievance? Doubtful. Should he? It's up for debate, and I don't see how you incorrectly responding to my post constitutes me writing "jibber jabber".

You posted, "I hope Darius sues the NBA as well."

Of course, you also posted, "I won't post further on this until Miles is let go next week."

I keep making the mistake of actually responding to what you type as what you mean, rather than just as virtual noise.

"Jibber jabber" was your ridiculous post on your head expanding and contracting that I assume was supposed to be analogous to a realistic/hypothetical scenario that I imagine the Blazers are considering as well.

That was part of a post, not a whole post, and it demonstrates how ridiculous your "it hasn't been refuted, so I'm gonna keep beating the dead horse" position is.

Ed O.

 

[Денг Гордон]

And again, that says nothing about claiming a player who is not the property of any other team. The Blazers found a loophole, the NBA denied them access to a player that every other team passed on initially, and now the Blazers, as their right, need to pursue every legal challenge to getting back their cap space and saving $$$ on Darius's contract. I don't think the Vulcans are just going sit back and fork over the money after the footprints they have made already. What was the point of building a case?

It doesn't say it explicitly, but it's clearly covered by "or undertake any action or transaction". Claiming a player off waivers would have to be considered either an action or transaction, and thus is covered.

 

[maxiep]

At some point, Portland has to take responsibilities for its actions. Specifically, for signing Miles to such a big contract in the first place. The Knicks are eating Marbury's contract even though he's not playing, and Eddie Curry's, too. Portland shouldn't be somehow immune to this kind of thing.

Given Miles' injury history, there's no reason another team that takes a shot with him shouldn't be cautious. The 10 day contracts are within that spirit.

Are the Knicks paying the price for eating Cat Mobley's contract? Rules are rules and Portland followed them.

 

[maxiep]

The correct term to use is medical retirement, not career ending injury. Bender, MacCulloch, and Mobley all retired. Darius Miles did not.

The 10 game rule is not a loophole. It is how the process is supposed to work if a player disagrees with the medical decision, and decides not to retire. If a player truly has a condition that would require him to medically retire, it would debilitate him within 10 games. If not, then that injury wasn't enough to require a medical retirement, and thus no exception for medical retirement would be warranted.

What you've posted makes sense, but it's fundamentally untrue. It is ruled a "career-ending injury" not a "retirement". The 10-game rule was put in precisely for Allan Houston. The Knicks wanted to get the career-ending label put on him. They then wanted to re-sign him to a vet min contract, thereby circumventing the cap. The problem with this rule is it is being applied in a way that was never conceived of by either the league or the NBAPA.

Like I said, you keep posting stuff, but you never bother to understand the situation. Educating you is tough work; you're pretty dense. I hope you do better in college than you do in this forum.

 

[maxiep]

A guaranteed contract means nothing.

If the Grizzlies ONLY wanted to screw the Blazers, they would not have signed him to another 10 days.

The Blazers had no case before, and now they have even less of a case... if that were possible.

Ed O.

Which is exactly why they signed him to another 10 day contract. Ed, you're smarter than this.

 

[maxiep]

There are some cynical ass fans in here...jesus

denial, denial, denial

You mean like Jerry West twisting Heisley's arm to do a favor for his old club? Yep, only Blazer fans have problems with denial.

 

[maxiep]

They stand to gain almost an extra $300k from the extra money Paul Allen has to pay toward the luxury tax because of Miles going back on the books. That money is typically redistributed to teams, and some of it goes to the league.

Signing Miles to a guaranteed contract will mean Memphis is on the hook for nearly half of the veteran's minimum for the rest of the year, which is a net-negative to the money they would receive by playing him garbage minutes and then letting him go after the next 10-day deal.

Wanna take bets on what they're going to do?

I don't understand why I am attacked for thinking about this in this forum. It seems like a shrewd (and borderline unethical) move by Memphis to me if they don't sign Miles.

Not to mention that it removes us as significant competition for FA talent this offseason as Memphis will be one of the only teams WAY under the cap.

 

[Денг Гордон]

What you've posted makes sense, but it's fundamentally untrue. It is ruled a "career-ending injury" not a "retirement". The 10-game rule was put in precisely for Allan Houston. The Knicks wanted to get the career-ending label put on him. They then wanted to re-sign him to a vet min contract, thereby circumventing the cap. The problem with this rule is it is being applied in a way that was never conceived of by either the league or the NBAPA.

Like I said, you keep posting stuff, but you never bother to understand the situation. Educating you is tough work; you're pretty dense. I hope you do better in college than you do in this forum.

No need to attack the poster, attack the post, and you're the one clearly in the wrong here.

Here is from Coon's Salary Cap Faq.

There is one exception whereby a player can continue to receive his salary, but the salary is not included in the team's team salary. This is when a player is forced to retire for medical reasons and a league-appointed physician confirms that he is medically unfit to continue playing. There is a waiting period of one year following the injury or illness before a team can apply for this salary cap relief. If the waiting period expires mid-season (on any date prior to the last day of the regular season), then the player's entire salary for that season is removed from the team's team salary. For example, in March 2003 the Knicks were allowed to remove Luc Longley's entire 2002-03 salary from their books (and since the luxury tax is based on the team salary as of the last day of the regular season, the Knicks avoided paying any tax on Longley's salary). This provision can also be used when a player dies while under contract.

If the player "proves the doctors wrong" and resumes his career, then his salary is returned to his team's team salary when he plays in his 10th game in any one season (including pre-season, regular season and playoff games). This allows a player to attempt to resume his career without affecting his team unless his comeback is ultimately successful. A team loses this salary cap relief even if the player later signs and plays 10 games with a different team.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm

It seems like the NBA agrees that that is the intent of the rule as well.

 

[Денг Гордон]

You mean like Jerry West twisting Heisley's arm to do a favor for his old club? Yep, only Blazer fans have problems with denial.

What better options did the Grizzlies have? The Bulls and Lakers offers are the only ones I remember, and the Grizzlies made a good choice in taking the Lakers offer over the Bulls'.

 

[maxiep]

Of course you hope it. You've built up this big conspiracy in your head and in order to continue to argue for its existence in spite of the absence of evidence supporting it, you've had to create issues that aren't even issues.

An example: Miles being upset at the lack of a guaranteed contract.

He wants to PLAY. He wants money, of course, but he wants to demonstrate to teams around the NBA that he can play and he deserves a deal.

In Portland he would have sat on the bench or even the inactive roster for the rest of the year. Guaranteed money in that case is all but worthless to him, considering how hard he's worked to come back from where he was physically.

Ed O.

True, but waivers exist for a reason. Teams can't be told who they can and cannot sign. Miles was up for waivers, our turn came up, we wanted to pick him up and guarantee his contract, and the NBA said "no".

 

[PapaG]

Not to mention that it removes us as significant competition for FA talent this offseason as Memphis will be one of the only teams WAY under the cap.

Yes, I have mentioned this repeatedly, but instead I get stupid posts about brains or heads expanding as a response by one of our moderators.

At this point, it seems to be fans of other teams or Ed O. who are ridiculing those who even bring this up as a possiblility.

Which does make me wonder about Ed O. as a Blazer fan. I rarely find anything positive he writes about the team, and he seems to attack posters either with vulgar language or with a mocking tone who take the Blazer side of an issue.

 

[Nikolokolus]

No need to attack the poster, attack the post, and you're the one clearly in the wrong here.

Here is from Coon's Salary Cap Faq.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm

It seems like the NBA agrees that that is the intent of the rule as well.

some of the language in the medical retirement provision is very new, I remember checking Larry Coon's CBA FAQ numerous times a few months back and there was never any mention of "pre-season, regular season or post-season" games ... I'm guessing this was recently added to clarify the rule.

 

[Денг Гордон]

some of the language in the medical retirement provision is very new, I remember checking Larry Coon's CBA FAQ numerous times a few months back and there was never any mention of "pre-season, regular season or post-season" games ... I'm guessing this was recently added to clarify the rule.

Yeah, that wasn't in there a week or so ago. He did have the part about "proving the doctors wrong" in there though. Archive.org is so far behind in websites right now, so it's hard to check up on these things.

 

[PapaG]

Yeah, that wasn't in there a week or so ago. He did have the part about "proving the doctors wrong" in there though. Archive.org is so far behind in websites right now, so it's hard to check up on these things.

So Coon is revising it as he goes, just as the league is doing in the Miles case.

 

[maxiep]

No need to attack the poster, attack the post, and you're the one clearly in the wrong here.

Here is from Coon's Salary Cap Faq.



http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm

It seems like the NBA agrees that that is the intent of the rule as well.

That was a recent update to Coon's site based on his understanding of the Miles' case, not what the NBA thinks.

 

[PapaG]

That was a recent update to Coon's site based on his understanding of the Miles' case, not what the NBA thinks.

Yet I was mocked by the same Bull poster and one of our mods for posting Coon's earlier interpretation of the case.

 

[maxiep]

What better options did the Grizzlies have? The Bulls and Lakers offers are the only ones I remember, and the Grizzlies made a good choice in taking the Lakers offer over the Bulls'.

There were several weeks left before the trade deadline. Gasol wasn't costing them any extra money that year (the net of Gasol vs. the players they took on last season), and time was on their side. There were statements from several GMs who questioned the timing of the deal and also were a bit miffed they were short-circuited from making any kind of offer themselves.

 

[PapaG]

There were several weeks left before the trade deadline. Gasol wasn't costing them any extra money that year (the net of Gasol vs. the players they took on last season), and time was on their side. There were statements from several GMs who questioned the timing of the deal and also were a bit miffed they were short-circuited from making any kind of offer themselves.

It was exactly the type of deal that the CBA is supposed to question according to the link the Bull fan provided to me. Instead, Stern didn't blink an eye because one of his precious large market teams got much better, and one of his small market teams inched toward bankruptcy.

 

[Денг Гордон]

It was exactly the type of deal that the CBA is supposed to question according to the link the Bull fan provided to me. Instead, Stern didn't blink an eye because one of his precious large market teams got much better, and one of his small market teams inched toward bankruptcy.

Two first round draft picks, a young prospect (Marc Gasol) and cap relief seems like fair compensation for Gasol. Not sure why the NBA would question that.

Much better than the Andres Nocioni, Tyrus Thomas, and Joakim Noah trade that was on the table. (Although Thomas/Noah have played better as of late, but I'd rather have Gasol).

 

[PapaG]

Two first round draft picks, a young prospect (Marc Gasol) and cap relief seems like fair compensation for Gasol. Not sure why the NBA would question that.

Much better than the Andres Nocioni, Tyrus Thomas, and Joakim Noah trade that was on the table. (Although Thomas/Noah have played better as of late, but I'd rather have Gasol).

Circumventing the cap through a lopsided deal to disrupt competitive balance. Cut and dry according to the CBA.