Darius Miles & the CBA

[FGump]

Dekko, you want to "prove" that some of the things I guessed were wrong guesses? Whoop-de-do.

They aren't the first opinions I have that can turn out to be wrong, and won't be the last. (isnt that what opinions are about?)

I'm sure that makes you feel like a big man to play such sandbox games, so have at it. We are all suitably impressed. ~yawn~

In the interim, I've noticed multiple mistakes YOU have made. Did I go back and litter the board with your quotes to "prove" you are wrong? Nah, cause who cares. We all make mistakes, and in case you are too pompous to recognize it that means you do too.

If you contribute in a sharing fashion, people who have been here longer would welcome you. But instead you've come in trying to be the know it all, who knows more than everyone else, and tries to prove something by trying to make everyone else look wrong. Not impressive at all.

[Dekko1]

I still don't see why the rule should be changed or what's unfair about it, or why it should be considered a loophole.

A team wants to get rid of the player and his salary; if his injury is deemed career-ending they get the relief. If he comes back and plays 10 games for anybody, it clearly means that the previous decision was wrong and it was not career-ending - so the team shouldn't get the relief, since all they did was waive a guy whose contract they wanted to dump.

If Miles comes back and the Blazers didn't lose the cap relief, it would mean the Blazers and their doctors put one over on everyone and were able to dump a salary unfairly. (Not that they were deceitful in the first place, but they got away with one.)

As for the salary they do not 'get rid' of it. The insurance was already paying 80% for well over a year and the rest the blazers pay no matter what. In the blazers case it did save an additional 9 mil in tax plus putting them under the tax line gets them a return instead. Say a 12 mil incentive to use the process.
In that process as written they can not keep his rights.

As for the decision being wrong that he could play by Portland's doctors, the career ending injury decision is not theirs...it is confirmed or denied by one or more specialists that evaluate the player and his MRIs and the rest of his records and they work for the NBA/NBPA. So the league declares him done.
That should be what closes the 'just want to dump a healthy player' and use career ending as an excuse loophole....
Once the league declares the injury severe enough to be career ending, I do not think the team should be penalized because the player plays on it anyway. Not to the tune of about 9 million in taxes plus losing the cap space the next year because Darius is willing to play against the doctor's recommendations.

The only unfair thing is that maybe Portland wouldn't have waived him if there was a chance he could come back. (That scenario would be more likely if it were a better player than Miles involved.) But I don't see why the decision to cut ties with a player like that should be without some risk.

They waited most of a year past the time they could apply while he rehabbed. He was cleared to practice at one point and then injured his Achilles.

And I still have not found out if the Blazers have to pay back the Insurance company... if so the penalty with putting them back in the tax this season and besides their current share of his contract could run over 25 million dollars.

I do not care about much about Paul Allen's money nor even about the cap room, I am rooting for Darius to succeed.

I just don't see why, under any circumstance outside of clear funny business intended to screw the Blazer's cap, that a team should be able to reap the benefit of salary cap relief for a career ending injury that turns out to not be career-ending at all. If you changed the rules like you guys are suggesting that's what could easily happen.

Not sure how to change the rules and preserve the spirit and keep the loophole closed but I do guess is it might be seen as needing some fix. Depends on how it is seen by the powers-that-be. Maybe they will think it fine as is... if they do not...

Perhaps...Make the league's doctors decision permanent is the easiest.
Give a team a choice between the disabled players exception or cap relief by season for a disabled player out for the season (league doctors decide as it is now) and drop the 'career ending rule totally.
Keep them under contract so the team retains their rights but does not need an official roster spot.
Some modified restricted free agency
Something.

This is not about portland getting relief for this case, they knew the rule... it is about bringing up an unexpected situation with unintended penalties that might need revising in the next CBA to be fair to all parties while protecting the idea of the rule.
In the last CBA they ruled that making teams wait 2 years was unfair and reduced it to one.

Likely gets the nickname the "Miles rule"...sort of like the "Arenas rule".

[FGump]

I still don't see why the rule should be changed or what's unfair about it, or why it should be considered a loophole.

A team wants to get rid of the player and his salary; if his injury is deemed career-ending they get the relief. If he comes back and plays 10 games for anybody, it clearly means that the previous decision was wrong and it was not career-ending - so the team shouldn't get the relief, since all they did was waive a guy whose contract they wanted to dump.

If Miles comes back and the Blazers didn't lose the cap relief, it would mean the Blazers and their doctors put one over on everyone and were able to dump a salary unfairly. (Not that they were deceitful in the first place, but they got away with one.)

The only unfair thing is that maybe Portland wouldn't have waived him if there was a chance he could come back. (That scenario would be more likely if it were a better player than Miles involved.) But I don't see why the decision to cut ties with a player like that should be without some risk.

I just don't see why, under any circumstance outside of clear funny business intended to screw the Blazer's cap, that a team should be able to reap the benefit of salary cap relief for a career ending injury that turns out to not be career-ending at all. If you changed the rules like you guys are suggesting that's what could easily happen.

You are right on target.

How can anyone build a valid case for a rule change when the rules have ALWAYS held open the possibility that a player might indeed come back? The rules specifically say "what if" to address the possibility. It's weak to say, "But wait, we didn't think it could ever happen." Then what's the rule there for, silly?

Clearly when a player applies for medical retirement status, it is (a) at the request of the team, and (b) they don't want him on their roster anymore. So if he comes back, they didn't want him anyhow. And using the "did he play later " test is the perfect criteria for determining if the injury truly was permanent or not.

Once a team has made their bed, they gotta lie in it.

[Dekko1]

Dekko, you want to "prove" that some of the things I guessed were wrong guesses? Whoop-de-do.

They aren't the first opinions I have that can turn out to be wrong, and won't be the last. (isnt that what opinions are about?)

I'm sure that makes you feel like a big man to play such sandbox games, so have at it. We are all suitably impressed. ~yawn~ In the interim, I've noticed multiple mistakes YOU have made. Did I go back and litter the board with your quotes to "prove" you are wrong? Nah, cause who cares. We all make mistakes, and in case you are too pompous to recognize it that means you do too.

no...I guarantee I have never felt like a big man anywhere anytime...
lol...you are so easy. I even labeled the troll part as such...I was trying to kid you... have you no sense of humor ? And you label me pompous...

If you contribute in a sharing fashion, people who have been here longer would welcome you. But instead you've come in trying to be the know it all, who knows more than everyone else, and tries to prove something by trying to make everyone else look wrong. Not impressive at all.

Oh dear, a little lecture and more false reading of someone you do not know... You do bring to mind a line from 'waterhole #3'... "anyone ever said anything about your style?"

I do not mind having my mistakes pointed out, how else do we learn? I am a firm believer in the horseman's adage:
"It's what you learn after you know it all that's important". But then again you said I should not use "I don't Know" and other qualifiers in my discussion...you know... the ones I use because I do not know it all...


I think I might survive around here though...I am sure you can just kill-file me...

"Heaven grew weary of the excessive pride
and luxury of China....I am from the Barbaric North.
I wear the same clothing and eat the same food as
the cowherds and horse-herders.
We make the same sacrifices and we share our riches.
Chingis Khan

[Dunkenstein]

If you contribute in a sharing fashion, people who have been here longer would welcome you. But instead you've come in trying to be the know it all, who knows more than everyone else, and tries to prove something by trying to make everyone else look wrong. Not impressive at all.

Yeah, Dekko. You should let the people who have been here longer than you be the know-it-alls who try to prove something by trying to make everyone else look wrong.

[FGump]

But then again you said I should not use "I don't Know" and other qualifiers in my discussion...

You should learn to read, dude. I said just the opposite. In summary ...

You: blah blah blah the sky will be purple with green stripes next month
Me: blah blah blah the sky will be orange with red polka dots
You: blah blah blah you don't have a clue
Me: why argue, why don't we wait and see what happens (ie, it remains to be seen what teams will choose to do, so why pretend to know and argue about it?)
You: YOU should use "i don't know"
Me: I just said let's wait and see what happens, none of us knows even you
..and it degenerated from there

So in that whole conversation, where did I say you should not use "I don't know"? Just the opposite in fact. once it was clear our opinions differed I kept saying let's wait and see what happens, because you don't know, I don't know, what's the point in arguing now as if we do ..
...and you apparently just decided to turn up the rancor at the suggestion that you didn't know something.

Again ...
I don 't know what will happen in October. I have a guess, an opinion.
You do too.
So we can just see how it plays out.

So learn to read. Or quit overreacting.

And this is pointless drama you keep resurrecting. In this forum no one cares to keep score, and if you do, people will just not bother to respond if you later screw up and need help, because it's not worth the hassle.

[FGump]

Yeah, Dekko. You should let the people who have been here longer than you be the know-it-alls who try to prove something by trying to make everyone else look wrong.

I would be offended, if you didn't tar yourself so badly with the same brush!! lol

[Dekko1]

If you contribute in a sharing fashion, people who have been here longer would welcome you. But instead you've come in trying to be the know it all, who knows more than everyone else, and tries to prove something by trying to make everyone else look wrong. Not impressive at all.

Yeah, Dekko. You should let the people who have been here longer than you be the know-it-alls who try to prove something by trying to make everyone else look wrong.

Anarchy rules on usenet, this is starting to have a little of that charm...
And I tell you there is no truth to that conspiracy theory!


You can tell a gelding,
you can ask a mare,
but you must discuss it with a stallion.
-unknown horseman

[Dekko1]

But then again you said I should not use "I don't Know" and other qualifiers in my discussion...

You should learn to read, dude.

I keep giving hints...I am more to a dudette...if you have the sigs turned off I sign my real name...Laurel

I said just the opposite. In summary ...

You: blah blah blah the sky will be purple with green stripes next month
Me: blah blah blah the sky will be orange with red polka dots
You: blah blah blah you don't have a clue

I remember more to my first posted opinion:
me: At minimum salary it is not a huge risk. Some team at worst could offer him a non-guaranteed contract. And the insurance carrier will not exclude him, it is a low monetary risk and they only get a very few exclusions.

I should have used some of those infamous qualifiers...but...your great way to introduce your style of discussion included labeling those opinions... Baloney... Nonsense

That was where it went south...

Me: why argue, why don't we wait and see what happens (ie, it remains to be seen what teams will choose to do, so why pretend to know and argue about it?)

Me Me: lets discuss the cap, insurance, and other implications on the possibilities...

what's the name of this joint again?

You: YOU should use "i don't know"

You missed the wink? seems like old timers here should know their smileys..

Me: I just said let's wait and see what happens, none of us knows even you
..and it degenerated from there
So in that whole conversation, where did I say you should not use "I don't know"?

the quip with smiley was in answer to you telling me:

You You: Dekko, your post is full of "what-if's" and "you don't know's" and "could be's"

Which I obviously had used to show I know it all...

"Just the opposite [/b]in fact. once it was clear our opinions differed I kept saying let's wait and see what happens, because you don't know, I don't know, what's the point in arguing now as if we do ..

I am sure there are never 'what if's' discussed here....

...and you apparently just decided to turn up the rancor at the suggestion that you didn't know something.

Rancor? I am quite amused and the worse I called you was 'territorial'...

Again ...
I don't know what will happen in October. I have a guess, an opinion.
You do too.
So we can just see how it plays out.

Again... no matter what happens with Miles there was interesting cap and insurance questions, if you do not want to discuss it or Miles why continue to to read the thread?

So learn to read. Or quit overreacting.
And this is pointless drama you keep resurrecting. In this forum no one cares to keep score, and if you do, people will just not bother to respond if you later screw up and need help, because it's not worth the hassle.

Oh I think I can trust that everyone here is not irony impaired... =)

_________________
I am quite like my terriers. A thick hide, a stubborn
loyal temperament, friendly most of the time to all,
but very capable against most varmints
and a real bitch when pushed.....

[Dunkenstein]

You can tell a gelding,
you can ask a mare,
but you must discuss it with a stallion.
-unknown horseman

You can lead a whore to culture,
but you can't make her read.

[Dekko1]

You can tell a gelding,
you can ask a mare,
but you must discuss it with a stallion.
-unknown horseman

You can lead a whore to culture,
but you can't make her read.

There are three kinds of men.
The one that learns by reading.
The few who learn by observation.
The rest of them have to pee on the
electric fence for themselves.
Will Rogers

[Dunkenstein]

Yeah, Dekko. You should let the people who have been here longer than you be the know-it-alls who try to prove something by trying to make everyone else look wrong.

I would be offended, if you didn't tar yourself so badly with the same brush!! lol

I love tar.

[FGump]

Dekko, you're the only one inciting the "let's recite the history of our argument" type nonsense and the more you do it the pettier it feels. You say you want to talk about the issues, but twice now when the conversation has headed in that direction, YOU keep turning it back into sandbox games. I was talking with Dunk about the signing of Miles, and you made the thread back into a drama. Then chakdaddy started talking about the rules and you interrupoted that conversation to again rehash the drama.

Okay you're not a dude. I got it. You're the Drama Queen. Now are you happy? lol

[Dunkenstein]

BTW Laurel, I love your pictures of the Oregon coast. And "Moonlit Stallion" is really powerful.

[Dekko1]

Dekko, you're the only one inciting the "let's recite the history of our argument" type nonsense and the more you do it the pettier it feels. You say you want to talk about the issues, but twice now when the conversation has headed in that direction, YOU keep turning it back into sandbox games.

Seems to me early on I invited you to discuss the cap and insurance instead of offering insults...shall I list the adjectives you have used since?

I was talking with Dunk about the signing of Miles, and you made the thread back into a drama. Then chakdaddy started talking about the rules and you interrupoted that conversation to again rehash the drama.

Dunkenstein and you restarted this and then I responded. And I answered chakdaddy then your stuff. With quotes and everything so you could sort it out...Interrupted you? lol...if there is such a thing in a public forum go look at the order of the posts...
I think territorial might have hit the mark...

Okay you're not a dude. I got it. You're the Drama Queen. Now are you happy? lol

nope, there is no drama here on my side...I find this all amusing...

But since you do not you can have the last word...if you are going to resort to name calling again make it good... cause I have a thick pelt.

________________
'Sheed on Game 7 pressure: "Pressure?" "This isn't pressure and this is not pain. Afghanistan, Iraq
and that other place, Croatia and Bosnia - now, that is pressure. This ain't
nothing but a little hoops.

[Dekko1]

BTW Laurel, I love your pictures of the Oregon coast. And "Moonlit Stallion" is really powerful.

Thank You. The moonlight group is more to 'image art' and was fun to try. Each one combines 3 to 4 photos, all (except the moon and stars) taken in daylight.

That Arabian El Faarad is a great subject. He is just a huge showoff.
I have more of him in this slide show
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ul8Y25t5RfQ

[chakdaddy]

Clearly when a player applies for medical retirement status, it is (a) at the request of the team, and (b) they don't want him on their roster anymore. So if he comes back, they didn't want him anyhow. And using the "did he play later " test is the perfect criteria for determining if the injury truly was permanent or not.

Once a team has made their bed, they gotta lie in it.

Yeah, exactly - it seems ludicrous to suggest that the original doctor's prognosis should trump the fact that he's still playing. It's like a guy who's still kicking after he was given 6 months to live, but burying him anyway.

Granted that's not exactly what we're arguing right now, but I have seen people (I think the original poster) suggest that the career-ending part should be defined by the doctor rather than whether it ends the career or not!

I'd love to see what Miles' MRI looks like, I'm used to seeing young athletes or old folks that just have whatever injury or arthritis, but I don't really have any concept of how it relates to performance, especially at a pro level, and what sort of damage someone can come back from.

[chakdaddy]

Once the league declares the injury severe enough to be career ending, I do not think the team should be penalized because the player plays on it anyway. Not to the tune of about 9 million in taxes plus losing the cap space the next year because Darius is willing to play against the doctor's recommendations.

Nah, I don't really think that's fair. I think if a guy plays on it and plays on it well enough that an NBA team plays him for 10 games, then it wasn't a career ending injury, and the original doctors turned out to be wrong (not to say that their original decision was inappropriate, I'm sure it certainly LOOKED career-ending at the time. But I think that decision of whether something is career-ending must be quite subjective, and it is better to have the objective common sense backup that if he plays again, it wasn't career ending.)

I don't see why the team is really being penalized, if it goes back on the cap. It's more a matter of losing the windfall they got in the first place. I doubt that Portland wants Miles on their roster regardless; but why should they conceivably still get cap relief for a career ending injury that wasn't career ending? As for their flexibility and planning, it's just bad luck, but their original planning should have included the salary they committed to Miles in the first place. It was a bonus when he got wiped from the cap, but I don't see why it's such a penalty to give up a bonus when it turns out it wasn't earned.

I think a lot of this is based on paranoia of a team pulling some AC Green consecutive games streak type shenanigans to mess with a team's cap, but I really doubt that a team would shell out the cash and waste a roster spot just to do that. If there was foul play, that would be obvious I think and an appeal would be fair. But in the case of an aborted comeback that crossed the 10 game threshhold, that's why the situation of re-applying for the relief exists.

I just don't see what's unfair about the current rule or any reason it should be changed. Changing it just seems like giving too much ability for a team to get out of a guy's contract based on a doctor's prognosis that may turn out to be inaccurate. With the current rule an inaccurate prognosis gets overturned when it is disproved, which seems completely fair.

[Dekko1]

Once the league declares the injury severe enough to be career ending, I do not think the team should be penalized because the player plays on it anyway. Not to the tune of about 9 million in taxes plus losing the cap space the next year because Darius is willing to play against the doctor's recommendations.

Nah, I don't really think that's fair. I think if a guy plays on it and plays on it well enough that an NBA team plays him for 10 games, then it wasn't a career ending injury, and the original doctors turned out to be wrong (not to say that their original decision was inappropriate, I'm sure it certainly LOOKED career-ending at the time. But I think that decision of whether something is career-ending must be quite subjective, and it is better to have the objective common sense backup that if he plays again, it wasn't career ending.)

Might just lengthen out the number of games or have it cover one year until the team has to reapply under the current rules anyway.
The league doctor said something to the tune of 'if it was his son he would not let him even dribble a BBall as he would be getting knee replacements the rest of his life'. But I agree players in the past have played on very bad knees.

I don't see why the team is really being penalized, if it goes back on the cap. It's more a matter of losing the windfall they got in the first place.

I consider it is a penalty because it is designed to be just that. Besides waiting for a year it is designed to prevent teams getting relief for purposely dumping a healthy player. I am only suggesting that the rule needs tinkering to where it is mitigated to penalize a team that is circumventing the cap but not catch one using the rules in good faith and leaving them no player and no appeal.

(not sure the blazers were acting in good faith but harder to doubt the league doctor... more at the end of the post)

As for their flexibility and planning, it's just bad luck, but their original planning should have included the salary they committed to Miles in the first place. It was a bonus when he got wiped from the cap, but I don't see why it's such a penalty to give up a bonus when it turns out it wasn't earned.

On the flexibility and planning Larry said a league lawyer said they are trying to adjust the rules or perhaps apply them so a team is not limited by outstanding issues on planning ahead.
But he said it was general discussion, not necessarily applied here. Seems to me the CBA is clear right now.

I can not consider it a bonus or windfall on a injured player. The process is in the CBA for a reason. In Miles case they carried a player for 2 years and cost them about 20 mil in salary and tax outside of the insurance coverage. They should be slightly under the tax line this year without miles.

Miles is getting the windfall if he plays instead of the intended penalty. He is suspended 10 games. Those games will cost him about 8K each while the double dip amount from the insurance and Blazers for those 10 games is about 82K per game which as far as I know is his.

I said before I do not care about Allen's money or the cap space. You are right Allen screwed up giving him the big contract off half a season's results and it was over his market value... and perhaps worse refusing later to let Nash trade him when he had one on the table.
Miles and Ratliff to the NYKs for Penny's expiring contract and SAS's draft pick.

(would have screwed up the boston trade later, getting Roy, and maybe stopped the KG trade? Just in case Say' thanx Mr. Allen'. )

I think a lot of this is based on paranoia of a team pulling some AC Green consecutive games streak type shenanigans to mess with a team's cap, but I really doubt that a team would shell out the cash and waste a roster spot just to do that. If there was foul play, that would be obvious I think and an appeal would be fair. But in the case of an aborted comeback that crossed the 10 game threshold, that's why the situation of re-applying for the relief exists.

I do not think anyone is signing him for anything other than BBall reasons. If he can still play he is now dirt cheap.

I just don't see what's unfair about the current rule or any reason it should be changed. Changing it just seems like giving too much ability for a team to get out of a guy's contract based on a doctor's prognosis that may turn out to be inaccurate. With the current rule an inaccurate prognosis gets overturned when it is disproved, which seems completely fair.

Seems to me if it is not changed a little it encourages teams in the future to let injured players play when it is against their health interests if the league's doctors can be overruled anyway. Or just make them sit and collect the insurance. Would have paid the blazers to keep him.

In the blazers case I am not positive the process was not used to circumvent the CBA... they had plenty of motive... and if so you are really right about the rule working well and it blows my case for this one...but that is another story, soon the soap opera will likely blow up but meanwhile Miles and his agent are just saying 'no comment'

From Dave at Blazer's Edge
http://www.blazersedge.com/2008/7/29/582292/blazersedge-exclusive-dari

Unfortunately, despite my hope that Mr. Wechsler would speak on the record regarding Darius Miles' progress, current activities and feelings about his time in Portland, he firmly demanded that all of those discussions remain off the record.

However, he did confirm a previous report from Ian Thomsen that Darius, after receiving the news that his knee injury was deemed career-ending, left Portland, went to visit his mother, and then went "immediately to Phoenix, where he worked out twice a day, seven days a week" with Robin Pound, a trainer he has known since his early days here in Portland. Mr. Wechsler also confirmed Mr. Thomsen's report that Darius is currently working out in Chicago.

Other than that, I received "no comments" to the following (paraphrased) questions...

* "Do you think Darius will sign a contract this year?"
* "Which teams are showing the most interest in Darius?"
* "How exactly does he look physically?"
* "What is Darius's side to this whole story? Why is he so quiet?"

It is that last question that I was most hoping for him to answer on the record.

Previously, I have stated that talking publicly is only to Darius's benefit, as his silence allows Anti-Darius sentiment to be the only voice.

Thinking this through, I still believe this to be true-- but only in Portland.

Outside of Portland, choosing to comment on any extracurricular matters might cause harm to Darius's hopes of securing a new contract. It is often difficult for Darius supporters and/or sympathizers, here in the Portland fishbowl, including myself, to understand that. Clearly, today's conversation included, Mr. Miles and Mr. Wechsler have chosen silence as their best approach for securing a new deal in the NBA. At least, it seems, until a new deal is done (if and when).

Their spot is a tricky one, no question, and I greatly admire their ability to remain so tight-lipped. If it were me in Darius's sneakers, I know I would have great difficulty keeping my thoughts to myself

One thing has not changed throughout this ordeal: I am still the VP (and sole remaining board member) of the Darius Miles fan club. I wish Mr. Miles a productive career, I hope that he continues to be given try-outs by NBA teams and I hope he gets a contract.

Yes, I realize that his signing a contract would make life more difficult and expensive for Mr. Allen. However, I think it is fundamentally wrong to begrudge Darius the opportunity to continue his career.

As a postscript, Mr. Jaynes's account and Mr. Wechsler's confirmation of his account were also confirmed by another writer actively involved in this story as it developed.

________________________

If stupidity got us into this mess,
then why can't it get us out."
- Will Rogers

[FGump]

1 I think if a guy plays on it and plays on it well enough that an NBA team plays him for 10 games, then it wasn't a career ending injury, and the original doctors turned out to be wrong (not to say that their original decision was inappropriate, I'm sure it certainly LOOKED career-ending at the time. But I think that decision of whether something is career-ending must be quite subjective, and it is better to have the objective common sense backup that if he plays again, it wasn't career ending.)

2 I don't see why the team is really being penalized, if it goes back on the cap. It's more a matter of losing the windfall they got in the first place. I doubt that Portland wants Miles on their roster regardless; but why should they conceivably still get cap relief for a career ending injury that wasn't career ending?

3 As for their flexibility and planning, it's just bad luck, but their original planning should have included the salary they committed to Miles in the first place. It was a bonus when he got wiped from the cap, but I don't see why it's such a penalty to give up a bonus when it turns out it wasn't earned.

4 I just don't see what's unfair about the current rule or any reason it should be changed. Changing it just seems like giving too much ability for a team to get out of a guy's contract based on a doctor's prognosis that may turn out to be inaccurate. With the current rule an inaccurate prognosis gets overturned when it is disproved, which seems completely fair.

Great points.

There has to be some way to keep the process fair in allowing contract exclusions (when the rest of the payroll counts for everyone else) for supposed "career-ending" injuries, and Portland's dilemma is that the rule is doing exactly what it was supposed to. If Miles plays, then obviously his injury was NOT a career ender, so they don't deserve a cap mulligan on that contract.