Will Miles play tonight? (Merged)

[The_Lillard_King]

Awwwww poor Maxie.

Hey the guy has self esteem issues . . . recognize and show some sympathy.

 

[maxiep]

You're "attempt to correct misconseptions" could use a little . . . no a lot of work.

Well, I'm not going to hold your dick while you pee. You're going to have to do some work yourself.

But let's cut to the chase, shall we. I read some of your posts and you are convinced Allen and Co are not going to let this go, and file a lawsuit, is that right?

I guarantee that the Blazers will file an appeal and if we don't receive satisfaction will sue. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see not only the Celtics and Grizzlies sued, but also Danny Ainge and Chris Wallace personally.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Well, I'm not going to hold your dick while you pee. You're going to have to do some work yourself.




I guarantee that the Blazers will file an appeal and if we don't receive satisfaction will sue. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see not only the Celtics and Grizzlies sued, but also Danny Ainge and Chris Wallace personally.

So you aren't goin to try and correct misconseptions but instead just be insulting. I am glad we came to an understanding. But I digress.

You are saying that the Blazers will sue naming 4 parites if they don't recieve "satisfaction". I am deeply ignorant on the topic, so this should be like taking candy from a baby.

We both like to puff up our chest . . . now let's put up or shut up (I know second option is unlikely with you no mater what, but I was using a pharse). A bet on whether the Blazers file a lawsuit . . . here I am max, an ignorant fool who has fallen off the turnip truck begging to give you money. What is your response?

 

[maxiep]

Hey the guy has self esteem issues . . . recognize and show some sympathy.

Please, do tell. I'm not the one acting butthurt for speaking out without having any idea about the subject at hand.

 

[maxiep]

So you aren't goin to try and correct misconseptions but instead just be insulting. I am glad we came to an understanding. But I digress.

You are saying that the Blazers will sue naming 4 parites if they don't recieve "satisfaction". I am deeply ignorant on the topic, so this should be like taking candy from a baby.

We both like to puff up our chest . . . now let's put up or shut up (I know second option is unlikely with you no mater what, but I was using a pharse). A bet on whether the Blazers file a lawsuit . . . here I am max, an ignorant fool who has fallen off the turnip truck begging to give you money. What is your response?

Your perception is that if a player is able to step on a court and play, that's evidence that they should be retired. I pointed to Cuttino Mobley. You had no response.

Your perception is that a player gets to decide whether or not they are retired after they have been deemed to have a career ending injury and that their former team should be held hostage by that decision. I pointed out how the CBA says differently. You had no response.

You attempted to comment on a cartilage issue as if it were something that would get better or at least stabilize. I pointed out that it will only deterioriate. You had no response.

I have no desire to "puff out [my] chest". I am only here to learn things about which I don't know and to comment on things I do know a little about to clear up confusion. All I have heard is that Tom Penn is running this thing and there's a playbook that's being executed. Part of that playbook is suing GM's personally as well as their organizations. If you want to bet, that's fine, but all I'm doing is passing on what I have heard from people within the organization.

 

[Денг Гордон]

The medical retirement portion of the CBA only deals with career ending injuries, not medical conditions that could potentially end a career. Therefore, the team who claims medical retirement is only entitled to cap reiief if 1. The player is incapacitated and unable to play. 2. The player concurs with the diagnosis that the injury is career ending. and finally, 3. The other teams in the league concur that the player is unable to play because of the injury.

So going through those 3. 1. Darius Miles is clearly not incapacitated from playing basketball. 2. Darius Miles does not concur with the diagnosis, and believes he can still play basketball. 3. Other teams, notably the Celtics and Grizzlies, have ruled that Miles injury is not preventing him from playing basketball.

The NBA has set 10 games as the amount of games a player has to play in to quantify his year in the NBA as being part of a career.

So if Darius plays 1 more game, he will successfully have showed the NBA that the injury did not end his career.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I have no desire to "puff out [my] chest". I am only here to learn things about which I don't know and to comment on things I do know a little about to clear up confusion. All I have heard is that Tom Penn is running this thing and there's a playbook that's being executed. Part of that playbook is suing GM's personally as well as their organizations. If you want to bet, that's fine, but all I'm doing is passing on what I have heard from people within the organization.

Personally, I don't think that is all "you are doing."

But I'm glad you are accepting a bet on this topic. Just so you know, I have no inside source, barely have read anything that involved Penn's name and am making this bet out of emotion (you always seem to be able to push my buttons) . . . so this bet really favors you.

But to be gentleman about it, since I proposed it, we will play it straight up, 1-1 odds. Do you want to name the price or have me do it?

The bet is that within a year time from the end of the season, the Blazers will not file a lawsuit against Boston, Memphis or their GMs . . . I'm giving you all four (that is how much on tilt you have me).

And if I win (doubtful) . . . maybe, just maybe you will stop taking cheap shots at my intelligence and repond with some more decency to my posts . . . or at least ignore them. If you win . . . then I suspect I will be (justifiably) a target for more of those responses. Should be fun, don't you think?

 

[Stevenson]

G.O. , you already win half the bet. The Blazers cannot legally sue the GMs personally. That's why people create corporations.

 

[Ed O]

The issue isn't whether or not Miles can play. The issue is whether or not he risks long term damage by playing on his knees.

No it's not.

Cat Mobley can play. Of course, he also risks dropping dead of heart failure, so it behooves him not to do so.

Does Mobley WANT to play?

And can Miles die from his knee condition?

Comparing Mobley and Miles is a waste of time.

Ed O.

 

[PapaG]

Ah, here comes the butthurt DaRizzle. Go comfort yourself with your "I love the rapist" teddy bear.

Watch out or DaFizzle will send you a vulgar email telling you what he thinks about your posts! I still can't sleep over the one he sent me a few days ago.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

G.O. , you already win half the bet. The Blazers cannot legally sue the GMs personally. That's why people create corporations.

Not according to maxiep.

Personally what you just said makes sense. This is like the Miles situation . . . battle of the experts . . . maxiep says inside sources tell him it's going to happen. Stevenson, lawyer?, says no way. I'll go with Stevenson and think I have half my bet locked up.

What about the other half? And, I don't doubt you, but where does the term "pierce the corportate veil" come from? I'm guessing that is harder to do than getting attorney fees awarded or it is urban legend.

 

[PapaG]

No it's not.



Does Mobley WANT to play?

And can Miles die from his knee condition?

Comparing Mobley and Miles is a waste of time.

Ed O.

None of this is relevant in the actual legal case, and I am still waiting for you to answer why a waiver claim is treated the same way as a trade in the CBA when it does not specifically say so.

 

[Денг Гордон]

None of this is relevant in the actual legal case, and I am still waiting for you to answer why a waiver claim is treated the same way as a trade in the CBA when it does not specifically say so.

Because it does specifically say so.

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.

 

[Ed O]

None of this is relevant in the actual legal case, and I am still waiting for you to answer why a waiver claim is treated the same way as a trade in the CBA when it does not specifically say so.

I didn't see that question. What are you talking about?

The NBA has control over every transaction made by every team in the NBA and has an overarching ability to nix deals and/or punish underhanded tactics. They can do it for trades and free agency and waiver wire transactions.

Ed O.

 

[PapaG]

I didn't see that question. What are you talking about?

The NBA has control over every transaction made by every team in the NBA and has an overarching ability to nix deals and/or punish underhanded tactics. They can do it for trades and free agency and waiver wire transactions.

Ed O.

So your take is that the NBA can deny guaranteed employment to a union member based on how they feel about the intentions toward (or of) a player that isn't on a roster? Mind you, the CBA mentions nothing about players not under a contract when they mention "circumventing the cap" via a lopsided trade (which, BTW, is exactly what Memphis and the Lakers did last season with Pau Gasol.). I don't see anything regarding waived players being denied to a team willing to pick up their contract, and a case could be made by Miles that the NBA just denied him a large chunk of money by refusing to let him sign a deal and perhaps be traded after 30 days. That's looking at it somewhat objectively, so I know that won't go over well on this board.

The Blazers would seem to have a strong case, and I can't wait to see this unfold.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I have no desire to "puff out [my] chest". I am only here to learn things about which I don't know and to comment on things I do know a little about to clear up confusion. All I have heard is that Tom Penn is running this thing and there's a playbook that's being executed. Part of that playbook is suing GM's personally as well as their organizations. If you want to bet, that's fine, but all I'm doing is passing on what I have heard from people within the organization.

Hey, where did you go, we were just about to finalize this. Come on, I think the board would get a kick out of following this and seeing who has to pay up and eat crow. Even if the board doesn't care, given our interaction, let's do this.

I fully admit I have no inside knowledge and am purely guessing what Blazers will do . . .

I'll PM.

 

[PapaG]

Because it does specifically say so.

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.

Um, that isn't specific. It doesn't address one team being denied a waiver claim while 29 other teams have access to that player.

What I'd like is a list of waiver claims that the league has blocked under the current CBA.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Um, that isn't specific. It doesn't address one team being denied a waiver claim while 29 other teams have access to that player.

Specific?

I haven't looked into or read much about this wavier claim . . . but do you really think Stern would allow the Blazers to claim Miles and bench for the rest of the season. Never going happen, IMO.

 

[PapaG]

I haven't looked into or read much about this wavier claim . . . but do you really think Stern would allow the Blazers to claim Miles and bench for the rest of the season. Never going happen, IMO.

Obviously he didn't allow it. That still doesn't mean that the Blazers don't have a legal right to claim Miles under the CBA. He also denied Miles a guaranteed contract, and yet Billy Hunter has yet to file a grievance.

Collusion by the NBA and players' union? I'd add that to a complaint.

 

[Ed O]

So your take is that the NBA can deny guaranteed employment to a union member based on how they feel about the intentions toward (or of) a player that isn't on a roster?

My take is that the NBA is not prevented from doing that, yes, in certain circumstances.

One prime example is tampering. The Blazers can't talk to Carlos Boozer right now about giving him a big deal because he's on the Jazz.

Mind you, the CBA mentions nothing about players not under a contract when they mention "circumventing the cap" via a lopsided trade (which, BTW, is exactly what Memphis and the Lakers did last season with Pau Gasol.).

The CBA does not need to be specific. It grants the NBA overarching powers to regulate transactions.

And Pau Gasol has nothing to do with this. You're comparing apples and oranges.

I don't see anything regarding waived players being denied to a team willing to pick up their contract, and a case could be made by Miles that the NBA just denied him a large chunk of money by refusing to let him sign a deal and perhaps be traded after 30 days. That's looking at it somewhat objectively, so I know that won't go over well on this board.

You don't have to see anything.

If Miles is concerned by not being eligible to be claimed by the Blazers, he can file a grievance.

The Blazers would seem to have a strong case, and I can't wait to see this unfold.

I would bet you it's over.

Ed O.

 

[Денг Гордон]

Um, that isn't specific. It doesn't address one team being denied a waiver claim while 29 other teams have access to that player.

Specific?

Claiming a player off waivers is covered under "transactions".

The NBA made it very broad for a reason.

It's hard to not see the Blazers trying to claim Miles off waivers as not circumventing something. It would either be 1. Circumventing Darius Miles desire to play, by sitting him on the inactive list. or 2. Circumventing the medical retirement exception.

The NBA seems to be right in denying the Blazers trying to claim Miles off waivers, according to the CBA.

After Miles plays his tenth game, and the medical exception thing is out the window, and Miles were to be cut again, the NBA would be wrong in denying the Blazers the opportunity to claim Miles off waivers.

 

[PapaG]

If Miles is concerned by not being eligible to be claimed by the Blazers, he can file a grievance.

If the Blazers are concerned by not being able to claim a player waived by another team, they can also follow a grievance process.

I would bet you it's over.

Ed O.

Maybe, maybe not. I'm just happy that my thread about it is the #1 return on Google right now for "nba denies waiver claim". #2 is a story by some outfit called Yahoo?

http://www.google.com/search?q=nba+...-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1

 

[Rastapopoulos]

The medical retirement portion of the CBA only deals with career ending injuries, not medical conditions that could potentially end a career.

Define "career". Suppose I'm on life-support in a coma and for some reason (perhaps a sentimental desire to honor a wish I had) some owner stipulates that in ten games I should be wheeled on to the court for the time the opponent shoots a free-throw, after which the coach calls timeout and switches a non-comatose player back in. Have I had an NBA career? If so, then BEING IN A COMA is not "career-ending". That is clearly nonsense, and so, by extension, is tying the concept of "career-ending injury" to the decisions of the brass of opposing NBA teams.

The NBA has set 10 games as the amount of games a player has to play in to quantify his year in the NBA as being part of a career.

I don't even believe this. Are you telling me that if Shavlick Randolph only appears in 9 games this year (and none ever after) then his NBA career ended last year?

So if Darius plays 1 more game, he will successfully have showed the NBA that the injury did not end his career.

All this shows is that the looseness of the term "career" means that they need to come up with a better term.

 

[Ed O]

If the Blazers are concerned by not being able to claim a player waived by another team, they can also follow a grievance process.

They can? There's a grievance process for teams?

Are you sure?

Ed O.

 

[Ed O]

All this shows is that the looseness of the term "career" means that they need to come up with a better term.

Is "career" even a term that is used?

Or is it "medical retirement"?

You are awfully hung up on the word "career".

Ed O.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Obviously he didn't allow it. That still doesn't mean that the Blazers don't have a legal right to claim Miles under the CBA. He also denied Miles a guaranteed contract, and yet Billy Hunter has yet to file a grievance.

Collusion by the NBA and players' union? I'd add that to a complaint.

Well, I guess I could see the Blazers file a grievance. I hope they don't becuase while I appreciate Blazers trying to be aggressive about the sitaution, I think they are coming out of this looking like the bad guy. And filing a grievance about not being able to claim Miles so that other teams won't play him, regardless if their is a strong legal position, makes us look like bad, IMO.

But after the email, I'm guessing they will think about it long and hard before taking any public action.

GO Blazers!

 

[PapaG]

They can? There's a grievance process for teams?

Are you sure?

Ed O.

A legal grievance? Um, why not? I imagine an arbitrator would hear the case.

 

[Ed O]

A legal grievance? Um, why not? I imagine an arbitrator would hear the case.

Grievances tend to be part of a collective bargaining situation, where it's labor v. management or vice versa. The NBA office is an extension of management, so it seems odd that the teams would file grievances against the league office. Maybe they would appeal the decision?

The Joe Smith issue went to arbitration, but only the finding of fact... the punishment was meted out by Stern after the decision that the Wolves had cheated was made. Smith and the players union then appealed the decision and the arbitrator ruled with Stern.

Ed O.

 

[PapaG]

Grievances tend to be part of a collective bargaining situation, where it's labor v. management or vice versa. The NBA office is an extension of management, so it seems odd that the teams would file grievances against the league office. Maybe they would appeal the decision?

Aren't the Blazers a part of the NBA? I'm not positive if grievance is the correct term, but it seems an arbitrator would be involved, at least initially, and not a court of law. I'd try a CBA approach before I went outside of the NBA system.

The Joe Smith issue went to arbitration, but only the finding of fact... the punishment was meted out by Stern after the decision that the Wolves had cheated was made. Smith and the players union then appealed the decision and the arbitrator ruled with Stern.

Ed O.

What does Joe Smith and McHale signing a contract in violation of league rules have to do with the Blazers being denied a claim of a waived player?

I've looked for other examples of the league blocking a waiver claim and I can't find one. I also can't see any trades denied under the current CBA.

 

[Ed O]

Aren't the Blazers a part of the NBA? I'm not positive if grievance is the correct term, but it seems an arbitrator would be involved, at least initially, and not a court of law. I'd try a CBA approach before I went outside of the NBA system.

Yes. I agree. It might just be the term "grievance" that strikes me as incorrect. I don't know the CBA well enough to know how appeal-able this kind of thing would be.

What does Joe Smith and McHale signing a contract in violation of league rules have to do with the Blazers being denied a claim of a waived player?

It has to do with demonstrating the ability of the commissioner and the NBA office to act in the absence of formal rules on a topic.

I've looked for other examples of the league blocking a waiver claim and I can't find one. I also can't see any trades denied under the current CBA.

None of this matters, really.

Ed O.