Why Did the NBA Deny The Blazers' Claim of Miles?

[PapaG]

If the reports are true, under what legal standing did the NBA deny the Blazers the chance to sign and have Darius Miles on the roster for the rest of the season? I'm not saying there isn't a legal standing, I just haven't seen proof.

Some thoughts:

1) All but one team (Portland) had the ability to claim Miles off of waivers according to the NBA. I can't find this in the CBA or in any published NBA rule.

2) So what if the idea was to sit Miles? If Darius is productive, all the more reason to keep him off of a conference rival's roster. There is no rule against stashing a player who could help another team by playing more.

3) Why hasn't Billy Hunter filed a grievance against the NBA for denying a union member (Miles) a guaranteed contract? Seems like a no-brainer to me.

4) The email makes perfect sense when looked at through this "waiver prism". The NBA apparently perceived an intent by Portland as grounds for denying this claim. Portland then sends out an email also based on intent. It's called building a case. Nothing exceptional at all when a business entity feels it has been wronged.

5) Clearly we have a lot of posters who aren't involved in the business world. That's the only reason I can come up with as to why some people are so upset by this rather routine email.

 

[Денг Гордон]

Can teams find loopholes in the CBA and make trades that were never intended to be allowed?

The CBA has a general prohibition on circumvention which states that the rules exist to preserve the benefit derived by the teams and players, and that nobody shall do anything to defeat or circumvent the intent of the agreement. The league can use this prohibition to disallow a trade that they feel circumvents the CBA, even though that trade is not specifically prohibited by the agreement.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q88

I'd assume that applies to things like waivers as well.

 

[PapaG]

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q88

I'd assume that applies to things like waivers as well.

What is the intent of a waiver claim? Either way, Darius is paid for the rest of the season, something that still hasn't happened to him since the claim was denied.

How does one place intent or even value on a player another organization discarded for nothing in return?

 

[rocketeer]

the league should have just told the blazers that they could acquire miles off of waivers, but in doing so they would be accepting him as medically able to play and have miles' salary count against their cap.

 

[PapaG]

the league should have just told the blazers that they could acquire miles off of waivers, but in doing so they would be accepting him as medically able to play and have miles' salary count against their cap.

So instead of making up a rule saying the Blazers can't sign another team's waived player, they instead make up a rule saying if you sign him he must count against the cap?

The Blazers would still have a case in that instance as well.

 

[Ed O]

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q88

I'd assume that applies to things like waivers as well.

Agreed.

Ed O.

 

[DaRizzle]

the league should have just told the blazers that they could acquire miles off of waivers, but in doing so they would be accepting him as medically able to play and have miles' salary count against their cap.

I agree with this. The intent of the Blazers is too obvious. If ANY TEAM honestly thought he might be of service they would give him run in at least two games.

Has anybody ever came back after being medically done? Sorry if this has been asked before

 

[rocketeer]

So instead of making up a rule saying the Blazers can't sign another team's waived player, they instead make up a rule saying if you sign him he must count against the cap?

The Blazers would still have a case in that instance as well.

in this specific case, yes.

it's very clear that the only interest the blazers had in picking up miles was to keep him from playing enough games for his salary to count against the blazers cap. while i do have a problem with the league telling the blazers they can't pick him up, i don't have a problem at all with the league telling the blazers that picking miles up on waivers would result in them forfeiting the exception that allowed his salary not to count against the cap. it makes no sense for a team to pick up a player that the team feels is physically unable to play basketball.

 

[PapaG]

Agreed.

Ed O.

What is the understood intent or agreement between a prospective team and a player that was waived by another organization, other than that player being signed to a contract?

I say it doesn't apply. It says nothing about waived players.

 

[PapaG]

in this specific case, yes.

it's very clear that the only interest the blazers had in picking up miles was to keep him from playing enough games for his salary to count against the blazers cap. while i do have a problem with the league telling the blazers they can't pick him up, i don't have a problem at all with the league telling the blazers that picking miles up on waivers would result in them forfeiting the exception that allowed his salary not to count against the cap. it makes no sense for a team to pick up a player that the team feels is physically unable to play basketball.

It also makes no sense for the league to deem a player's career over, yet continue to allow him the opportunity to play, yet here we are.

Again, let's stick to the legalities.

 

[Денг Гордон]

I agree with this. The intent of the Blazers is too obvious. If ANY TEAM honestly thought he might be of service they would give him run in at least two games.

Has anybody ever came back after being medically done? Sorry if this has been asked before

Not to my knowledge, but the intent of the CBA rule was pretty clear regarding the 10 games.

How do retired players count against the cap?

Any money paid to a player is included in team salary, even if the player has retired. For example, James Worthy retired in 1994, two years before his contract ended. He continued to receive his salary for the 1994-95 and 1995-96 seasons, so his salary was included in the Lakers' team salary in those seasons. It is at the team's discretion (or as the result of an agreement between the team and player) whether to continue to pay the player after he has retired.

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.

Teams are not allowed to trade for disabled players and then apply for this salary cap relief. Only the team for which the player was playing when he was disabled may request this relief.

If a player retires, even for medical reasons, his team does not receive a salary cap exception to acquire a replacement player.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q53

By claiming Miles off waivers just to sit him on the inactive list would be a method of circumventing the CBA, as the Blazers would be preventing Miles from proving the docs wrong.

 

[Денг Гордон]

It also makes no sense for the league to deem a player's career over, yet continue to allow him the opportunity to play, yet here we are.

Again, let's stick to the legalities.

Read my post above. The CBA was set up to allow the player to prove the doctors wrong.

 

[PapaG]

Not to my knowledge, but the intent of the CBA rule was pretty clear regarding the 10 games.



http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q53

By claiming Miles off waivers just to sit him on the inactive list would be a method of circumventing the CBA, as the Blazers would be preventing Miles from proving the docs wrong.

How? Miles would still be paid, and he has still paid a total of 3 games in the past two years. Or, if he is suddenly productive, the Blazers take one less solid player away from the competition.

I'm still looking for specific legal reasons for the claim denial.

 

[PapaG]

Read my post above. The CBA was set up to allow the player to prove the doctors wrong.

Then the league/players blew it by not putting a waiver claim exclusion on the team who initially waived Miles (Portland, in this instance) should he be waived by another team in the future. Seems like an oversight that has opened a legal opportunity for Portland. Portland isn't "circumventing" the CBA other than by trying to play by the rules that the CBA allows.

 

[rocketeer]

By claiming Miles off waivers just to sit him on the inactive list would be a method of circumventing the CBA, as the Blazers would be preventing Miles from proving the docs wrong.

i'm not sure about that. miles had his shot to "prove the docs wrong" and he didn't do a good enough job to keep memphis from waiving him.

 

[DaRizzle]

he didn't do a good enough job to keep memphis from waiving him.

That was so they didnt have to give him a guaranteed contract for the year...nothing to do with his ability

 

[rocketeer]

That was so they didnt have to give him a guaranteed contract for the year...nothing to do with his ability

i know. but them waiving him and being unwilling to give him a guaranteed contract for the year tells you how little they thought of his ability.

 

[JfizzleBlazer]

i know. but them waiving him and being unwilling to give him a guaranteed contract for the year tells you how little they thought of his ability.

rocket, I'd say give it up arguing with those guys on bbf, they don't understand logic

All they care about is talking mad crap about the blazers and Portland as a city

 

[rocketeer]

rocket, I'd say give it up arguing with those guys on bbf, they don't understand logic

All they care about is talking mad crap about the blazers and Portland as a city

i know, i know. it just bugs me when people can't understand things that are so simple.

 

[JfizzleBlazer]

i know, i know. it just bugs me when people can't understand things that are so simple.

haha it bugs me too. It's as if they don't even care to actually find out and understand the facts

 

[Денг Гордон]

Then the league/players blew it by not putting a waiver claim exclusion on the team who initially waived Miles (Portland, in this instance) should he be waived by another team in the future. Seems like an oversight that has opened a legal opportunity for Portland. Portland isn't "circumventing" the CBA other than by trying to play by the rules that the CBA allows.

I'm pretty sure there is something in the CBA preventing it. Or at the very least, making it so Miles would go back on the cap automatically if the Blazers signed him.

It was a rule put in place to prevent the Knicks from getting out of Allan Houston's contract counting against the cap, while having him on the team still, by paying him the minimum.

 

[DaRizzle]

i know. but them waiving him and being unwilling to give him a guaranteed contract for the year tells you how little they thought of his ability.

Uh..no, not at all. Can we agree that most players getting 10 day contracts are borderline NBA players? If we can then why wouldnt a team try out Miles? He used to be quality and has shown he played in several games so his knee could actually be okay in the short term. Whether it truly helps MEM in this particular argument is irrelevant. If you ignore the fact of Miles financial situation he is a very attractive player in regards to 10 day contracts, which happen plenty.

...and was the bbf comment towards me?

rocket, I'd say give it up arguing with those guys on bbf, they don't understand logic

All they care about is talking mad crap about the blazers and Portland as a city

Me? Are you serious?


EDIT: Nevermind, I saw the thread over there, my bad

 

[oldmangrouch]

Read my post above. The CBA was set up to allow the player to prove the doctors wrong.

And if they prove the doctors right, they turn around and sue for malpractice.

 

[Nate Dogg]

I guess we will see how miles does in the next few games and see if he gets dropped again.

 

[MickZagger]

I agree with this. The intent of the Blazers is too obvious. If ANY TEAM honestly thought he might be of service they would give him run in at least two games.

Has anybody ever came back after being medically done? Sorry if this has been asked before

Allan Houston? Jamal Mashburn?

 

[MickZagger]

I guess we will see how miles does in the next few games and see if he gets dropped again.

If he plays in even one more game he'll count against our cap and it won't matter if he's dropped.

 

[PapaG]

Also, why did the NBA allow Detroit to trade McDyess to Denver, have Denver waive him, and potentially let Detroit sign McDyess back with more cap space for next season? Or let Denver lower its cap by signing a player they never intended to play?

Questions...questions...

http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/nuggets/archives/2008/11/mcdyess_gives_u.html

 

[rocketeer]

Also, why did the NBA allow Detroit to trade McDyess to Denver, have Denver waive him, and potentially let Detroit sign McDyess back with more cap space for next season? Or let Denver lower its cap by signing a player they never intended to play?

Questions...questions...

http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/nuggets/archives/2008/11/mcdyess_gives_u.html

at what point in that scenario did denver sign a player they didn't intend to play?

 

[PapaG]

at what point in that scenario did denver sign a player they didn't intend to play?

They traded for McDyess and immediately bought him out and waived him, which lowered their cap space by almost $5 million.

The move will get the Nuggets to around $1 million over the luxury-tax threshold of $71.15 million. Prior to the McDyess negotiations, the Nuggets had a payroll of $75.9 million.

McDyess is now back with Detroit. Seems like a nice little scam by Denver in order to save distributing money into the luxury tax pool.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Has anybody ever came back after being medically done? Sorry if this has been asked before

Isn't Jeff Ruland an example? I believe he blew out his ACL and had to retire, but then they invented a new procedure and he came back for a few games a few years later.

[edit: here's the real (although clearly written by a fan) story:

Traded to Philadelphia the following season, Ruland could hardly play at all.

The foot injuries ended a promising NBA career that could have included All-Pro selections or a championship. Robbed by injuries of much bigger stardom, Ruland remains one of the real stars of the 1980s NBA historically.

Five years later Ruland made a comeback with the Sixers, playing in 13 games during the 1991-92 NBA season before sustaining an apparently bizarre achilles injury involving a luggage cart which was allegedly slammed into his leg by a Boston Celtics employee outside Boston Garden.[1] He managed to play an additional 11 games with the Detroit Pistons the following season before retiring for good in January 1993.

And that brings up another issue: suppose Miles had retired and they'd invented bionic kneecaps after the retirement had been granted, what should happen? Should the Blazers lose their exception but not get him back? That would be unfair, because, at the time they're granted the exception, it was career ending.