Darius Miles & the CBA

[Wizenheimer]

This may or may not arise as an issue for the Blazers next season. It's about the process for determining if Miles's salary would count against the blazer's off-season salary cap in 2009.

the pertinent section of the CBA:

(h) Long-Term Injuries. Any player who suffers a career-ending injury or illness, and whose contract is terminated by the Team in accordance with the NBA waiver procedure, will be excluded from his Team’s Team Salary as follows:

(1) Beginning on the first anniversary of the injury or illness, the Team may apply to the NBA to have the player’s Salary for each remaining Salary Cap Year covered by the Contract excluded from Team Salary.

(2) The determination of whether a player has suffered a career-ending injury or illness shall be made by a physician selected jointly by the NBA and the Players Association.

(3) Notwithstanding Section 4(h)(1) and (2) above, the career-ending injury or illness of a player who plays in more than ten (10) games in any Season shall not be deemed to have occurred prior to the last game in which the player played in such Season.

(4) Notwithstanding Section 4(h)(1) and (2) above, if after a player’s Salary is excluded from Team Salary in accordance with this Section 4(h), the player plays in ten (10) NBA games in any Season, the excluded Salary for the Salary Cap Year covering such Season and each subsequent Salary Cap Year shall thereupon be included in Team Salary (and if the tenth game played is a playoff game, then the excluded Salary shall be included in Salary retroactively as of the start of the Team’s last Regular Season game). After a player’s Salary for one (1) or more Salary Cap Years has been included in Team Salary in accordance with this Section 4(h)(4), the player’s Team shall be permitted at the appropriate time to re-apply to have the player’s Salary (for each Salary Cap Year remaining at the time of the re-application) excluded from Team Salary in accordance with the rules set forth in this Section 4(h).

so if Miles plays in 10 games this coming season, his contract is re-appied to the blazer's team salary.

However, the last part of section (4) defines a process that would allow portland to re-apply to have the salary removed once again from their team salary.

My first assumption is that "appropriate time" is whenever the team Miles was playing for competed it's season.

Then, the section seems to say that Portland would go through the process they originally followed to get the initial ruling that Miles had suffered a career-ending injury. That would seem to indicate, that at that point in the process, the controlling determination would once again be medical evidence rather then playing time.

Perhaps it's important to point out that the medical conclusion an independent orthopedic surgeon developed was fairly clear and unambiguous: Miles had a knee that was in terrible condition. Furthermore, that condition was due to damage to the cartilage, something that doesn't really 'self-repair'.

So if my string of assumptions is correct, then either a new mdical examination would take place, or the prevailing medical conclusion would be sufficient to once again classify Miles as having suffered a career-ending injury and remove him from the blazer team salary.

The section is a bit confusing as it does loop around on itself. I'm also wondering it this process has ever been tested and if Miles and the Blazers would be the first to have taken it to the possible process of 're-application'.

[LarryCoon]

I don't think the situation was ever anticipated where the player would come back with a different team. Nonetheless, as the rules are written, his salary WOULD return to Portland's cap.

The re-application scenario was intended for the case where the player comes back (presumably with the same team), plays at least 10 games (so his salary returns to the team's cap), and retires a second time for the same injury. The rule just says the team can apply for relief a second time under these circumstances. Presumably it would work equivalently if the player comes back with a different team -- if he retires again (after more than 10 games) because the injury wouldn't let him play after all, then Portland gets to re-apply to have his cap hit removed.

I can see the argument both ways, but I'd be in favor of them changing this rule with the next CBA and re-applying the salary to the team's cap if and only if the player re-signs with that team. This way, the team has some control over the outcome. The way it is now, it's impossible for the team to put it behind them and make future plans, even after being granted relief.

As far as I know, the re-application situation has never occurred.

[FGump]

For what it's worth, I've heard the "Miles will return" stories are nice filler for a slow summer sports day, but he's nowhere near being able to actually play at an NBA level, in large part due to that knee. It didn't mysteriously heal. It just feels better because of the time off.

The story says he's not quite well but he's 50% well, or 80% well, or something. The problem is, the percentage is just words, and even if we could put it in a machine to measure and knew he is 80% for example, the fact he is competing with 100% healthy bodies means he won't be competitive. He lacks explosion and lateral movement. You can't play in the NBA without those.

[Wizenheimer]

I don't think the situation was ever anticipated where the player would come back with a different team. Nonetheless, as the rules are written, his salary WOULD return to Portland's cap.

The re-application scenario was intended for the case where the player comes back (presumably with the same team), plays at least 10 games (so his salary returns to the team's cap), and retires a second time for the same injury. The rule just says the team can apply for relief a second time under these circumstances. Presumably it would work equivalently if the player comes back with a different team -- if he retires again (after more than 10 games) because the injury wouldn't let him play after all, then Portland gets to re-apply to have his cap hit removed.

I can see the argument both ways, but I'd be in favor of them changing this rule with the next CBA and re-applying the salary to the team's cap if and only if the player re-signs with that team. This way, the team has some control over the outcome. The way it is now, it's impossible for the team to put it behind them and make future plans, even after being granted relief.

As far as I know, the re-application situation has never occurred.

interesting, and I'd wondering how many "career-ending" waivers have been granted in total.

I also wonder how much of this provision actually applies to the insurance rules. Reading the section almost makes it seem like there would be a related section in any agreement the league and teams have with insurance underwriters.

[Wizenheimer]

For what it's worth, I've heard the "Miles will return" stories are nice filler for a slow summer sports day, but he's nowhere near being able to actually play at an NBA level, in large part due to that knee. It didn't mysteriously heal. It just feels better because of the time off.

The story says he's not quite well but he's 50% well, or 80% well, or something. The problem is, the percentage is just words, and even if we could put it in a machine to measure and knew he is 80% for example, the fact he is competing with 100% healthy bodies means he won't be competitive. He lacks explosion and lateral movement. You can't play in the NBA without those.

well, the reports in portland from both the Blazer team doctor and league appointed doctor was that Miles's knee, specifically the cartilage, was in terrible condition. That extendied back to the micro-fracture surgery he had performed when it was reported he had 2 lesions, one of them extremely large, accompanied by severe flaking of the cartilage. Now supposedly, in some parts of his knee, the cartilage is gone reulting in bone-on-bone contact. It was also reported that the doctors told him that extending his career was risking permanent damage and disability. How accurate all those reports are I don't know, but it does make it sound that Miles has not made a real good choice in his comeback attempt. He was never known for making good choices though.

[FGump]

Wize, it's a pure feel-good story. "Broken down player with destroyed knee miraculously returns."

But as you said, there is major damage that exists and that hasn't vanished. Would a team hire and put that knee on the floor, knowing it was likely to give out with even worse consequences such as a total joint replacement? And would they do so when he can't even play that well, because of the knee? I just don't see a team taking that risk. And it's almost entirely without upside - this isn't Michael Jordan in his prime being partially impaired.

[Dekko1]

Wize, it's a pure feel-good story. "Broken down player with destroyed knee miraculously returns."

But as you said, there is major damage that exists and that hasn't vanished. Would a team hire and put that knee on the floor, knowing it was likely to give out with even worse consequences such as a total joint replacement? And would they do so when he can't even play that well, because of the knee? I just don't see a team taking that risk. And it's almost entirely without upside - this isn't Michael Jordan in his prime being partially impaired.

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. And it would benefit them if the Blazers do have to return an insurance payout.

[FGump]

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. And it would benefit them if the Blazers do have to return an insurance payout.

"At minimum salary it is not a huge risk""????????? That's baloney.

Risk is always about reward. And this is a risk without upside. There are 100's of D-league kids who can outplay him now, and who have way more upside. All of them will take a minimum contract, with no guarantee, to get a shot to play. Why would a team waste a roster spot on him? And any money at all? There's no value at all to anyone to raising Portland's cap for this season.

In addition, how can you say that an insurance carrier would not exclude him? That's pure nonsense. He's clearly NOT insurable, with an injury like that. Is the upside (which is virtually none) worth the exposure? Not in my book.

But this is a pointless discussion I bet. Even in the odd and supremely small chance that an NBA team would want him, I doubt he could pass an NBA physical, to qualify to play. We'll see.

[Dekko1]

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. And it would benefit them if the Blazers do have to return an insurance payout.

"At minimum salary it is not a huge risk""????????? That's baloney.

Risk is always about reward. And this is a risk without upside. There are 100's of D-league kids who can outplay him now, and who have way more upside.

You do not know that. You have not been at his workouts. At least one team may feel otherwise.

There's no value at all to anyone to raising Portland's cap for this season.

Well actually there is. Less cap space for Portland next summer helps compete for FAs. And Portland paying 8 million in taxes raises the amount teams under the tax get, while having Portland under the tax lowers their return.

In addition, how can you say that an insurance carrier would not exclude him? That's pure nonsense. He's clearly NOT insurable, with an injury like that. Is the upside (which is virtually none) worth the exposure? Not in my book.

(from larry in an old asbnll post) Trustmark is the carrier and they have the right to exclude 14 body parts and six players, at their discretion.

Would they use one of those to exclude Miles or his knee or any player on a minimum contract? If they had to pay half a season it would be about 350K, or would they hold those exclusions for a higher paid player with a history of injury?
I bet Amare's knee is excluded since he signed his extension... Elton Brand's Achilles that could cost say 70 million would be one to add this year...I have heard somewhere TJ Ford's neck has an exclusion as do Z' feet.

[quote="FGump" But this is a pointless discussion I bet. Even in the odd and supremely small chance that an NBA team would want him, I doubt he could pass an NBA physical, to qualify to play. We'll see.[/quote]

Teams often take players knowing they have a health risk. The NBA does not prevent it.
Nor does common sense. Orlando gave Hill a max contract when his leg was in a cast and he was excluded from the insurance.
I think a bigger deterrent is starting off having to pay him 100K not to play...

[Dunkenstein]

"Fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a bumpy ride."
--Bette Davis in All About Eve

[FGump]

Dekko, your post is full of "what-if's" and "you don't know's" and "could be's" and lacks little common sense about the nature and effects of severe debilitating injuries (as opposed to minor ones), in my opinion.

But let's just see what happens.

[bgwizarfan]

I agree with Gump here except for the portion about other teams not caring about this. For the Summer of 2009, it's very significant in my opinion, and if Portland is able to get an awesome swingman via free agency, then cancel Christmas. though it looks like Deng is now signing a longer term deal with Chicago, it was rumored he was considering takign the 1 year QO and then becoming unrestricted. Imagine if he signed with Portland..that'd be scary.

I know my post is full of "what-if's" here as well, but I do think other teams would definitely rather see Miles count for the Blazers. However, would that be a reason for a team signing him and forcing him to play 10 games even if he's running around with a cane? well i don't know about that haha, i don't think teams would care so much that they'd intentionally sign him just so he'd come off Portland's cap, but certainly they'd rather it count than not count

[Dekko1]

Dekko, your post is full of "what-if's" and "you don't know's" and "could be's" and lacks little common sense about the nature and effects of severe debilitating injuries (as opposed to minor ones), in my opinion.

But let's just see what happens.

Well I have some common sense on an insurance company refusing to cover a minimum player... Not going to happen when they have very few exclusions and have things like Yao's 15 million dollar feet to worry about... "baloney" indeed... =)
A non-guaranteed contract with his knee specified covers it until until Jan. 10th. The rest of the season the insurance would not kick in anyway for 41 games.

As for players with debilitating injuries deemed career ending at some point making comebacks look to Sabonis, Z, Grant Hill and McDyess. Those players played in pain because they refused to quit the game. While Miles "claims" at least he is pain free and has been for a year.
Reports on Miles workouts with teams have ranged from he is still out of shape to Boston newspaper reports of "impressive" to the worst I have seen that "he has lost his explosiveness".

A quote from the Mavs workout... unnamed source but from an Ian Thomsen, SI article:
"He was much better than I thought he would be,'' a member of the Mavericks' camp said. "On a scale of 1 to 10, I was expecting him to be 6. But he was a good, solid 8.''

The 6-foot-9 Miles was exhausted by the 90-minute workout. At the end, however, he jumped flat-footed and touched the top of the backboard square.

One executive at the Las Vegas summer league who has been following the details of Miles' comeback predicts that he'll be playing in the league next year; another calls it a "no-brainer'' that a team will sign him.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/ian_thomsen/07/17/miles/

Those reports are what I am basing the good possibility of his getting some low risk spot for a team, not lack of "common sense about the nature and effects of severe debilitating injuries". Not like any of us have seen him or his MRIs and he hardly sounds severely debilitated.

And I suggest you try some " 'I don't Know's" occasionally. They are quite useful.

[Dekko1]

I agree with Gump here except for the portion about other teams not caring about this. For the Summer of 2009, it's very significant in my opinion, and if Portland is able to get an awesome swingman via free agency, then cancel Christmas.

Even If Miles 9 million (with the offset from the vets minimum make it about 7.8 mil) goes back on the Blazers cap they will still be about 14-15 million under the cap next summer.

[So Cal Blazer Fan]

Even If Miles 9 million (with the offset from the vets minimum make it about 7.8 mil) goes back on the Blazers cap they will still be about 14-15 million under the cap next summer.

So Webster, Frye and Diogu will be allowed to walk as unrestricted free agents? No qualifying offers given?


As for Miles, there are soooooo many issues at play:

Can he train/play without the use of the drugs that he's been proven to be taking?

Is a team going to be willing to pay him for that 10 game suspension as well as what (IMO minimal) impact he might have?

Will the league have to define the parameters of 'playing in a game'? If the Celtics (or whoever) put him in for a stretch of 24 seconds in between whistles, is that legitimately 'playing in a game' or could they rule that to be an attempt to circumvent the CBA?

These are just a few of the interesting ones in my mind.

[Dekko1]

Even If Miles 9 million (with the offset from the vets minimum make it about 7.8 mil) goes back on the Blazers cap they will still be about 14-15 million under the cap next summer.

So Webster, Frye and Diogu will be allowed to walk as unrestricted free agents? No qualifying offers given?

There are other options to relieve about 30 million in their cap holds, like sign them to reasonable extensions. But I would guess one or two of them might be allowed to walk for the right free agent assuming no trades between now and then.

Without the cap holds and next year's pick I think they have about 31 million signed next summer. That's JoeL, Oden, LMA, Travis, Rudy, Roy, Batum, Sergio and Bayless. Add in Miles with the set off and it is about 39 million cap.

As for Miles, there are soooooo many issues at play:

Can he train/play without the use of the drugs that he's been proven to be taking?

He was taking diet pills to lose the weight he gained when he could not train. That is what the suspension is for. Not steroids or "drugs of abuse" as the NBA calls them. Hardly a game changer.

Is a team going to be willing to pay him for that 10 game suspension as well as what (IMO minimal) impact he might have?

That is the main question IMO. That is just under 90K they would have to give to the NBA/NBPA. Might be deductible as it goes to charity. =)
Also some of the teams working him out are over the tax limit. Not sure where Boston is right now... Instead of the about 800K team's share of the vets minimum they would be looking at 1.6 mil.

Will the league have to define the parameters of 'playing in a game'? If the Celtics (or whoever) put him in for a stretch of 24 seconds in between whistles, is that legitimately 'playing in a game' or could they rule that to be an attempt to circumvent the CBA?

A few seconds in a game is rounded up to 1 minute for the boxscore and counts as a game played.
However I do not think any team is signing him to merely screw over the Blazers. They will not sign him unless it is BBall reasons. No need for 90 minute workouts otherwise.
Plus... In the long run pissing off another team is not great policy.

[FGump]

And I suggest you try some " 'I don't Know's" occasionally. They are quite useful.

As i have said multiple times, let's wait and see what REALLY happens. It's better to let the actions of the teams sift fact from hype for us, and yep you are just strewing guesses out there that I think have no touch with reality and buy into hype, but I'm just making my own logical guess as I see it.

We'll see what happens.

[Dekko1]

And I suggest you try some " 'I don't Know's" occasionally. They are quite useful.

As i have said multiple times, let's wait and see what REALLY happens. It's better to let the actions of the teams sift fact from hype for us, and yep you are just strewing guesses out there that I think have no touch with reality and buy into hype, but I'm just making my own logical guess as I see it.

We'll see what happens.

Sure the facts I posted on the salary and the insurance coverage you had named baloney, the news reports of workouts with several named teams, some 90 minutes long reported with details in Sports Illustrated in an article complete with quotes... is not information from which to base an informed opinion some teams are interested in signing him... While your guess adverse to that is it is obvious no team would be willing to sign to the high risk minimum salary the totally disabled and non insurable Miles is logic... Why bother to look at him and waste their time?
So those workouts must not be "actions of the teams" in reality.
Man not sure how I missed my existence in some alternate reality to yours, thanks for again pointing that out...

Whatever the outcome for Miles next season does not change the idea that there are interesting CBA implications, which as Larry noted cover some new ground that might lead to rule changes. Seems to me that type of discussion, and perhaps learning something from looking at it, is what this forum intends.

Perhaps you would like to discuss the facts of the league's insurance and the cap implications instead of just insulting me again? Merely a suggestion...

[FGump]

Oh.

Well then thanks for the all-knowingness you are dispensing to us mere mortals, and the clairvoyance with which you are able to predict that teams are lining up around the block to sign Miles, even as we speak.

I get it now. It wasn't a guess, assumption, or conclusion on your part.

Of course the rest of us have to wait and see what happens, and thereby ascertain if the "reports" you keep citing about Miles supposedly impressive workouts were agent hype repeated by reporters, rather than objective data. But you already know, you know all, and it's boorish of me to get in the way of your proclamations and conclusions.

My bad.



PS - Be sure and tell your client Darius "hi" and I hope I didn't ruin his future by not buying the sales job.

[Dunkenstein]

"Let's get ready to Rumble"
--Michael Buffer