Darius Miles & the CBA

[Dekko1]

The insurance company doesn't set your course as a company. But your premiums and your coverage options will be determined by what choices you make, so they obviously might be consulted to determine the ramifications of the alternatives being negotiated.

OK, I see that.

But your what-if as pertains to insurance doesn't reflect the situation. It makes the consequences of the current course more dire than they actually are, and I'm not sure they require a change.

You say, "If he plays 10 games and the insurance company is truly off the hook ..." with the implied assumption that he's only playing 11, rather than with the assumption that he is well again.

But you've forgotten. If he's well enough to only play 11, then INSURANCE WILL START AGAIN when he is again unable to play!! Boston and Portland will both get paid, I'd think.

I was thinking about the cap instead of the separate insurance policy benchmark which is 41 straight games missed... had not occurred to me. thanks

And if instead he returns and keeps playing, then there is no valid insurance claim. Again, it's still equitable.So Portland ends up getting insurance reimbursement IF IT'S MERITED - and doesn't get it if it's not.

Works for me on the insurance, if the benchmark is playing or not on any team 41 games and that is the line in this rather more complicated situation...

That doesn't seem to necessitate a rules change, in my estimation.

The rule is purely about the cap amount not the insurance and is not affected by who is paying the salary that that I see.
It works the same on the cap even if they were excluded from the insurance.

As you and Dunk just explained... if he plays 10 games he is considered to have played the entire season.
So the second round of a year's wait would be from the end of that 10 or more games season, to the end of the following season. At least 3 years out from the original injury.

(which is when, in Portland's case, the salary is off the cap anyway)

Since cap relief from the loss of an injured player was the intent of the rule, if the player tries to come back and really failed from the injury, if he barely triggered the the 10 game mark, I think they might decide that the rule in practice did not fit the intent.
Two years wait was considered too much hardship and changed to one, while this in practice ends up with 3 years of no cap relief.

Obviously your millage varies on this opinion.

[Dekko1]

The CBA states: "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)."

My interpretation is that the Blazers could re-apply to have Miles's 09-10 salary removed from their team salary on the first anniversary of his last game as a Celtic.

I do not think it comes off retro if it re-triggered the years wait? If they could get the process over before the date the team salary amount for the year is set maybe?
Confusing when they use 'season' as part of it and a calender year elsewhere.

[Dekko1]

You say, "If he plays 10 games and the insurance company is truly off the hook ..." with the implied assumption that he's only playing 11, rather than with the assumption that he is well again.

But you've forgotten. If he's well enough to only play 11, then INSURANCE WILL START AGAIN when he is again unable to play!! Boston and Portland will both get paid, I'd think.

Since Miles has a one year, non-guaranteed contract, Boston would likely waive him soon after his last game. So I doubt that they would have much of an insurance claim. As for Portland, it's possible that after his 11th game, Miles's Portland insurance policy would be superseded by his Boston policy, and would not be reinstated when he is waived by Boston. I admit that's just a guess as the machinations of the NBA's insurance plan is basically a mystery to me.

Before the contracts become guaranteed they could just waive him as you say.
At that point they have played 35 or more games.
If he was re-injured right after that point there is a 41 game wait before the insurance kicks in so it only covers them the last few games.

One of Oden dunks was "so ferocious that
it threatened to redefine 'shot-clock violation'.''
Jason Quick

[Dunkenstein]

As you and Dunk just explained... if he plays 10 games he is considered to have played the entire season.
So the second round of a year's wait would be from the end of that 10 or more games season, to the end of the following season. At least 3 years out from the original injury.

My understanding is if he plays 10 games and is subsequently waived, he is not considered to have played the entire season. . . only that portion of the season until he was waived. And the wait to reapply to have his salary removed from Portland's team salary is not the end of the following season, it's the one-year anniversary of the last game he played. Under this scenario, Portland could apply to have his entire 09-10 salary come off their team salary for LT purposes.

[FGump]

This conversation is getting rules-muddled because the dividing line is 0-10, and 11-or-more, and I think "if he plays 10 games" is being put in the wrong category. And the consequences are being misstated here and there I think. (Or perhaps everyone is saying the same thing, and just using unclear language.) So to re-explain ....

If he plays 10 games (or less) in a season and then is again impaired, there is no effect to his "permanently impaired" status.

If he plays 11 or more, and then is again injured-for-life, he is considered to have played another season. But the injury date (and the start for the 1 yr wait) is the last game played, NOT the last day of the season.

In addition, assuming the "last game played" is midseason, then the 1 yr anniversary will also be midseason. It would be at that point, 1 yr after the injury date, that any current salary for him could "vanish" again from being included in "Team Salary."

If the application is approved, and then he is removed from Team Salary, the result is that when the end of the season comes around, his 09-10 contract won't be included in the Blazers' tax calculation.

[Dekko1]

Ok I was confused by an old argument I had with Canzano and mixed that in. He was arguing for a year from the original injury but Miles had come back and played the last 3 or 4 games of the season. (this was the original injury but before the surgery)
I am both old and blond and the gray does not always compensate...

So if at any time during the season Miles again can not play and does not again... likely the insurance kicks back in after 41 games...and if it is over 10 games the blazers lose the cap break next season but also would have room time wise to reapply before the end of the -09-10 season when the team salary is declared.

The rain is falling on the plain in spain?

(not that it matters to the rule... it still screws up the plan for the blazers if he plays 10 games... since this year they would have stayed below the tax line and it was 09 they could get way under the cap for the FA market. They will still be under the cap summer 09, the FA market is pretty weak anyway. And even without Miles in '10 they will have Roy and LMA extensions kicking in or as RFAs, so having cap space will be harder for the good class of FAs.
However if Miles plays his 1th game they could start shopping LeFoul's ending contract)

[maxiep]

I don't understand how the Blazers can be held at all liable if Darius Miles chooses to create a future for himself of multiple knee replacement operations.

Can he play? Sure. Cartilage merely is a padding. It's not like he's Jay Williams and the damage sustained means that he's lucky to walk again. He can be just as explosive, but it's going to hurt A LOT more. Eventually, it will grind the joint to dust and he'll have to have his knee replaced. Since those joints currently last 10-15 years, he's looking at a few over his lifetime.

He was granted retirement by the league to save his knee. If he chooses to wreck it, the Blazers shouldn't be held liable for that self-destructive choice.

[maxiep]

One more thing to add is that in Ainge's case there may be a personal ax to grind with our management team (he's an Oregonian and a former Blazer, so I'm sure his feelings for the Scarlet & Black are quite different). From what I've heard, Steve Patterson and Kevin Pritchard made certain representations about Sebastian Telfair that later turned out to be untrue. Although the Celts don't have much to complain about these days, trading Raef LaFrentz, Dan Dickau and the #7 pick (Randy Foye which became Brandon Roy) for Theo Ratliff and Sebastian Telfair was a disaster for the Boston at the time and a real black mark for Ainge.

Putting Miles on the court for 30 seconds a game at the end of a blowout 10 times during the season is a small price to pay if you feel you've been wronged.

[chakdaddy]

He was granted retirement by the league to save his knee. If he chooses to wreck it, the Blazers shouldn't be held liable for that self-destructive choice.

What do you mean he was granted retirement by the league? He can retire whenever he wants.

The Blazers were granted cap relief because it looked like he was physically incapable of playing in the NBA again. Now it doesn't look like that is really the case. Why should the Blazers keep that cap relief which turned out to be a mistake in the first place? Why should the Blazers *not* be held liable (capwise) for a contract that they gave to a guy who apparently does *not* have a career ending injury?

I don't think a career-ending injury means that it would be wise for a guy to retire if he wants to save his knee. It means the guy is physically incapable of continuing his NBA career - not just that it would be foolish for him to do so.

And carrying Miles on the roster when he can't contribute would be a huge price to pay just to mess with another team, when you're trying to win another title and could use the roster space for a veteran contributor...


Haha, why am I trying to revive this thread?

[Dunkenstein]

I guess we can now finally put this thread to rest.
R.I.P.

[see4miles]

Hey MaxieP, can you give us any more background on these alleged false representations from KP and Patterson? MacMillan?

This isn't a snitty question. I am genuinely curious as to what these might be.

Thanks!