Darius Miles & the CBA

[chakdaddy]

I think there's a big difference between "injury bad enough that it would be unwise to continue if you want to be able to walk when your 50" and "career ending injury.".

I interpret the rule and the role of the doctor as saying "this guy's knee is so bad there is no way he will be able to play again," not "it would be wise of this guy to retire since his knee is so bad."

I think that distinction might be the crux of our disagreement?



Why do you say it's designed to be a penalty? In my view It's just taking away a bonus when it turns out the bonus was given in error.

I think it is a windfall because lots of teams have contracts they'd like to get rid of, when the player declines, doesn't pan out, becomes injury prone, declines because of injury, whatever reason. Usually teams just have to live with it. When the guy gets hurt in the first place, it is misfortune for the team; but if the guy's salary becomes an albatross, it is definitely a windfall for the team that the player's injury is career-ending rather than only sufficient to reduce him to an overpaid benchwarmer. If Miles plays for the Celtics and the Blazers didn't have to put him back on the cap, the Blazers would be getting relief for a guy who was reduced to an overpaid bench player by his injury, rather than for a guy who had a career ending injury. That's unfair to other teams who are stuck with, say, Shareef Abdur-Rahim. (Can't think of a good example of a good player who was signed to a big contract, and then was limited by injury. Maybe Grant Hill, or Ratliff when you had him.)
Anyway I think the initial injury is misfortune, but the actual escape from the contract when the injury is judged career ending is absolutely a windfall. And I don't see why that windfall should be kept when the judgment of "career-ending" is empirically proven as false when the player's career resumes.



BTW how many games did Webber play this year? His and Dajuan Wagner's situations seem like good benchmarks for whether the 10 games is a good threshhold.

[chakdaddy]

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 don't follow what you're saying about windfall vs penalty for Miles himself? I don't see how the situation affects him personally, he should play if he wants to and is able, the cap hit for the Blazers doesn't concern him and shouldn't affect his pay should it? He gets paid by the insurance if he doesn't play, if he plays he gets paid by the Blazers plus a little from the Celtics too. The suspension should just eat into his minimum Celtics salary right?

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.

Whoa I think that shows that we are indeed interpreting the doctor's role VERY differently. I don't see anything binding about the doctor's judgment that makes it possible to "overrule" it. I thought it was a prognosis the doctor gave, that they *would* not ever play again; not advice or an order that they *should* not.

Again to go back to my terminal disease analogy - if the doctor says you have 6 months to live, and you get palliative care from hospice...but then 1 year later you are miraculously cured, you shouldn't be eligible for hospice anymore. The revocation of your hospice eligibility isn't because the doctor was "overruled"; it's because he was proven wrong. I think that's a pretty good analogy where life=career and hospice=cap relief.

[LarryCoon]

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.

Just to clarify, I've not spoken to the league on this issue. I have a call in to discuss it (now that Miles has signed) but we've missed each other a couple times. The stuff about possibly adjusting the rules was my speculation based on understanding their thought processes and the fact that the interpretation of the rules (which I agree are clear right now) as they relate to the current situation runs counter to that understanding.

I've had discussions with the league on other subjects, where the rules are written to reflect the desire to give the teams some certainty in order to make plans (and this is one reason I disagree with the points raised by chakdaddy). I think you're conflating these two separate and distinct points.

So again -- the league did not tell me they are trying to adjust the rules or apply them in any particular way.

[Dekko1]

I think there's a big difference between "injury bad enough that it would be unwise to continue if you want to be able to walk when your 50" and "career ending injury.".

I interpret the rule and the role of the doctor as saying "this guy's knee is so bad there is no way he will be able to play again," not "it would be wise of this guy to retire since his knee is so bad."

I think that distinction might be the crux of our disagreement?

Good question.
I think I need to stare at it from a different angle... =)
I think I am more looking to how the rule works outside of your question and if this case showed the 10 game part can go against the rules intent.

Perhaps it is using the term "career-ending" that is the real problem when the rule does not actually cover their career at all?
As Gump brought to light in another thread the term 'retirement' is used in random ways by the league, teams and players and in the CBA is confusing, use the word to cover several situations, and used totally inaccurate compared to the real world usage...

So in the alternate universe of the NBA the 'career-ending' rule actually only covers one year after waived. Then the doctors predict it again...

In the contract "lack of Skill" definitions uses "disability or unfitness to play skilled basketball resulting from an injury".

(Contract termination) for by reason of the player’s failure to render his services thereunder, if such failure has been caused by the player’s disability or unfitness to play skilled basketball resulting from an insured injury or illness.

===

There are three sets of doctors. The team doctors who a GM is pretty much bound to follow their advice even if the players wants to play, the league doctor that declares them unfit for the following season in the process of applying for either a DPE or the cap relief... and if the player or union does not like the result a neutral doctor from outside of the league.

In the application for a DPE the CBA says
"the neutral physician shall make a final determination, which will be final, binding and unappealable."
But with the DPE if the player starts playing the exception stands if it has been used.

Why do you say it's designed to be a penalty? In my view It's just taking away a bonus when it turns out the bonus was given in error.I think it is a windfall because lots of teams have contracts they'd like to get rid of, when the player declines, doesn't pan out, becomes injury prone, declines because of injury, whatever reason. Usually teams just have to live with it. When the guy gets hurt in the first place, it is misfortune for the team; but if the guy's salary becomes an albatross, it is definitely a windfall for the team that the player's injury is career-ending rather than only sufficient to reduce him to an overpaid benchwarmer.

Yeah penalty for the 10 game rule is another bad choice for a label.
But it is put in as a deterrent from using the rule when the team does think the player can play.

But the rule being a 'bonus' does not really work either for me. It is relief from the hardship of being forced to fill roster spot and count the salary against the cap and if in the tax paying that on a disabled and waived player. The salary is insured but the tax is not. And that was not the intent for the tax of forcing a closer to hard cap, they are hardly paying for a 'luxury' player in this case.

On the intent of the rule I interpret it as purely relief of hardship. The ability to replace a player or get cap/tax relief if they do not get his services for multiple years. They made the process long and hard to keep it legit. But then it was deemed, after seeing it in practice, still too much of a burden to make them wait 2 years, so they revised it.
Another unexpected use which went against the intent was when Terrell Brandon was out nearly the 2 year wait just as the tax came in and everyone was scrambling for ending contracts. So he was traded to the hawks mid season and then they applied for the cap relief on his medical retirement to turn it into an ending contract.
So the league then revised the rule to limit it to the team with the actual hardship from the injury... so now it can only be used by the team that the player was under contract to when the injury occurred.

Which is what leads me to think that the current case will make them look at it again, because I think they will see it as against that relief of hardship intent, plus it keeps the team guessing on their cap planning.

Obviously it still needs something make sure it is rarely used and not abused.

But to me it still seems to go against the intent to take away that relief from hardship because the doctors judge it wrong that the player will not be able to play for a season. Especially if like the DPE if that final doctor's decision is "binding and unappealable".

If Miles plays for the Celtics and the Blazers didn't have to put him back on the cap, the Blazers would be getting relief for a guy who was reduced to an overpaid bench player by his injury, rather than for a guy who had a career ending injury. That's unfair to other teams who are stuck with, say, Shareef Abdur-Rahim. (Can't think of a good example of a good player who was signed to a big contract, and then was limited by injury. Maybe Grant Hill, or Ratliff when you had him.)

I think Hill who IIRC was also uninsured for his broken leg, was the reason the time frame when they can apply was shortened? That was before the ending contract craze and T Brandon.

Anyway I think the initial injury is misfortune, but the actual escape from the contract when the injury is judged career ending is absolutely a windfall. And I don't see why that windfall should be kept when the judgment of "career-ending" is empirically proven as false when the player's career resumes.

I think that this is asking teams to out guess the league/union doctors before they even apply in order to decide if it is better financially to keep the player or waive him. And in the meantime they have to make roster, salary cap, and tax line decisions based on an 'if. '

BTW how many games did Webber play this year?

His and Dajuan Wagner's situations seem like good benchmarks for whether the 10 games is a good threshhold.

9 games for Webber.

Dajuan just made me think of another thing about the rule. He played in Poland last year for a few games before an ankle injury.
If they intended the real world "career ending" to decide the cap relief would the rule not cover other leagues? Many rules do but this one says NBA team so they could play in Euroleague without it going back on the cap.

"I knew it was time to retire when I was driving
down the lane and got called for a three-second violation."
Johnny Kerr

[LarryCoon]

I don't follow what you're saying about windfall vs penalty for Miles himself? I don't see how the situation affects him personally, he should play if he wants to and is able, the cap hit for the Blazers doesn't concern him and shouldn't affect his pay should it? He gets paid by the insurance if he doesn't play, if he plays he gets paid by the Blazers plus a little from the Celtics too. The suspension should just eat into his minimum Celtics salary right?

That's a damn good question, and one I never considered. I believe the answer is that the salary forfeiture applies only to his Celtics' contract and not the money he's getting from the Blazers, but I don't know this for sure. The reason I think this is that his earnings from the Blazers no longer represent salary in return for playing services; they represent compensation protection for a now-terminated contract and are therefore disconnected from playing services. If that is correct, then a suspension does not affect his Blazers' contract.

But you're right -- whether Miles' contract shows up in the Blazers' team salary doesn't have any effect on Miles.

Whoa I think that shows that we are indeed interpreting the doctor's role VERY differently. I don't see anything binding about the doctor's judgment that makes it possible to "overrule" it. I thought it was a prognosis the doctor gave, that they *would* not ever play again; not advice or an order that they *should* not.

I don't think she was saying otherwise. But there's a reason they have a league doctor make the determination -- they want an independent evaluation. Of course such determinations have a margin of error, and save for exceptional cases like death, the prognosis is never certain. I have a problem with the premise of your terminal disease analogy for that reason -- doctors won't tell a patient they have six months to live. Here's something from a doctor with whom I'm acquainted:

First, I have never told a patient they have X amount of time to live - and I diagnose patients with incurable terminal illnesses on a regular basis. We just don’t express the situation in that way. Rather we give statistical information - 50% of patients survive for about two years, but some survive longer, even up to 10 years, and there are rare cases of remission. I understand that patients will often walk away thinking - I have two years to live - but that is not what doctors actually say.

I'm not bringing this up just to be pedantic -- I think your analogy is somewhat disanalogous. What is the purpose of this salary cap relief? It doesn't save the team any money -- the player still gets paid, and a league declaration that the injury is career ending is not required in order for insurance to pay out. Rather, the league doctor's determination amounts to a declaration from the league that, "as far as we're concerned, this guy isn't playing any more, and we'll allow you to move on from this guy and make other plans." The "as far as we're concerned" aligns with my earlier doctor's quote, and also illustrates the reason your analogy is somewhat disanalogous. Yes, it doesn't make sense for a patient to continue to receive palliative care when it's clear that he's no longer a candidate. But that doesn't mean the picture is the same in the case of the league declaring that the team can make other plans and move on. The "as far as we're concerned" (i.e., the knowledge that such a diagnosis is rarely 100% certain) already includes and accepts the statistical fact that the declaration isn't 100% certain, but says that as far as the league is concerned, the determination is certain enough to grant relief to the team. As such, it's shouldn't matter that this is one of the cases where the original determination turned out to be wrong.

There's plenty of reason to stop giving palliative care to a patient that doesn't need it. However, there's plenty of reason NOT to discontinue salary cap relief when the player resumes his career. The league has already told the team they can make other plans and move on (again, by having it be a league diagnosis, the league has assumed the burden of the uncertainty of the diagnosis). The team has acted in good faith based on that declaration, and made future plans (i.e., signed other players and/or arranged for future cap room) in light of that declaration and in good faith. If that declaration is revocable, then ALL such declarations are therefore tentative (except, as I said before, in rare cases such as death), and therefore the salary relief is meaningless.

One of the things I think I said before in this thread is that the league tries to give teams the ability to have some certainty in order to make plans. For example, with restricted free agency, there's a date after which the player is no longer able to accept his qualifying offer. The team and player can still agree on a new contract -- it's just that the player no longer has the unilateral decision making ability. I.e., after a certain date, the team has some certainty and can plan ahead. This contrasts with the situation we're discussing here, where totally outside of the team's control, the player can sign with another team and therefore affect the original team, after the team has been told by the team that they can make other plans.

I think that when this provision of the CBA was written they had in mind the situation where the player re-signed with his original team -- i.e., the original team kept control by being able to decide for themselves whether or not to re-sign the player. I don't think they considered the situation where the player signs with a different team, affecting the original team but giving the original team no say in the matter. Given what I know about how they try to structure the rules, I don't think they intended for it to work this way -- I just think they didn't consider this situation.

[chakdaddy]

Yeah I see your points a little more; I guess it all just is the intent of the rule; I still think it seems fair as it is now.

As for doctors not giving "x amount of time to live", that's true, but I believe hospice is based on a certain remaining life expectancy. The analogy isn't perfect but I still think it's awfully similar how empirical results trump even the most educated prognosis.



...

As for Europe, you would think that shouldn't count - the idea is that it's career-ending as far as NBA level basketball; the injury might be bad enough he can't play in the NBA but not so bad that he couldn't play in Europe...

[Dekko1]

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.

Just to clarify, I've not spoken to the league on this issue. I have a call in to discuss it (now that Miles has signed) but we've missed each other a couple times. The stuff about possibly adjusting the rules was my speculation based on understanding their thought processes and the fact that the interpretation of the rules (which I agree are clear right now) as they relate to the current situation runs counter to that understanding.

I can not think of any situation where a rule was seen too late to prevent 'harm' or 'gain' against intent that they did not just follow the current rule and then close the barn door?
Like the Arena's rule...except for Duddley a few CBAs back but they tried to backtrack but lost in arbitration or court IIRC.

[Dekko1]

Yeah I see your points a little more; I guess it all just is the intent of the rule; I still think it seems fair as it is now.

As for doctors not giving "x amount of time to live", that's true, but I believe hospice is based on a certain remaining life expectancy. The analogy isn't perfect but I still think it's awfully similar how empirical results trump even the most educated prognosis.

More to cancer and a timeline? If you are still alive in 5 years it is documented as a cure.
If you still can not play basketball after a year it is a 'career' =)


"If Jordan loves the game so much,
why does he keep quitting?"
Cal Ripken

[Dekko1]

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.

Whoa I think that shows that we are indeed interpreting the doctor's role VERY differently. I don't see anything binding about the doctor's judgment that makes it possible to "overrule" it. I thought it was a prognosis the doctor gave, that they *would* not ever play again; not advice or an order that they *should* not.

Not what I meant and the overruled part was wrong. I was referring to the team's doctors and the GM. You have a player that says he is ready and pain free a season after an injury. The teams doctors say 'no the MRI says it will not hold up and trying to play will ruin the joint' so recommend he not be played.

This scenario is post miles so the GM knows his choices includes that result. (if the rule is not changed and miles actually plays 10 games).

1)Apply for the cap relief knowing the player wants to play and another GM will likely let him because the monetary risk is low and so the players welfare is overlooked. So the GM knows the cap/tax relief is unlikely even for a year, and knows the player is at risk.

2)Keep him and make him sit for his own good (KP said with Miles he wanted no knee replacement on a kid on his conscious.) and/or to continue letting the insurance pay the 80% but if in the tax have to still pay and perhaps and if short handed have to add a player if they have a roster spot and pay tax on that player.

3)Keep him and let him play despite the warnings... say he is a big difference maker type player and he shows he can play which is a benefit, or ends up with a real career ender. The risk is the timeline resets on Insurance if he plays 10 games the CBA rule also resets.

The last option making the player happy while a gamble is now more attractive.

[chakdaddy]

Keep him and let him play despite the warnings... say he is a big difference maker type player and he shows he can play which is a benefit, or ends up with a real career ender. The risk is the timeline resets on Insurance if he plays 10 games the CBA rule also resets.

That all makes sense...but it seems crazy and counterinuitive to me to give the "career ending injury" relief to anything but the "real career ender" that you mention in situation number 3. My interpretation is that the doctor's exam is to confirm that medically the injury does look like a "real career ender" and not just that it would be a bad idea to play again and that it would be wise to retire.

You were saying the 1 year wait is the definition and that regardless of the future events maybe that should stick since 1 year and the doctor's decision is the criteria we use; but I think that 1 year isn't really a big part of the "test" of whether it's career-ending or not - it's more time to gain perspective so we can more intelligently see if it's going to be career ending, and also to make the cap windfall for a team not quite so generous by making them wait a year. As for just waiting a year, we already have the disabled player exemption for guys who are out for a whole year, so it doesn't make sense for that to be the criteria for career-ending as well.

[LarryCoon]

I can not think of any situation where a rule was seen too late to prevent 'harm' or 'gain' against intent that they did not just follow the current rule and then close the barn door?
Like the Arena's rule...except for Duddley a few CBAs back but they tried to backtrack but lost in arbitration or court IIRC.

Depends on how serious the issue is. In the Arenas case, which you brought up, the response was (I'm paraphrasing), "Yeah, sorry Golden State -- you got screwed on that one. If you & the other owners like; we'll try to do something about it when we negotiate the next CBA."

In the case of Kevin Garnett, the way they changed the rules in the current CBA meant that he (and a few other players in a similar situation) could never be traded. This was clearly just a screw-up on their part, and not at all what they intended. So they dealt with it right away, by negotiating a MOU with the NBPA which superseded the CBA. This kind of this is done from time to time, where warranted.

There are other situations, such as them missing certain scenarios where a contract would be deemed Over-36 that was not what they intended (I was the one who pointed this out to them.) The league deals with this one by cutting the team & player some slack.

I don't think they'll try enforcing a unilateral interpretation (a la Dudley) on a contentious issue. Just to clarify my earlier statement, I think that if they deal with the situation that is the subject of this thread (no, not you, I mean the OTHER subject of this thread), they'll do so for the NEXT Collective Bargaining Agreement.

[Dekko1]

Keep him and let him play despite the warnings... say he is a big difference maker type player and he shows he can play which is a benefit, or ends up with a real career ender. The risk is the timeline resets on Insurance if he plays 10 games the CBA rule also resets.

That all makes sense...but it seems crazy and counterinuitive to me to give the "career ending injury" relief to anything but the "real career ender" that you mention in situation number 3. My interpretation is that the doctor's exam is to confirm that medically the injury does look like a "real career ender" and not just that it would be a bad idea to play again and that it would be wise to retire.

It really should be renamed to fit the rule. =)

You were saying the 1 year wait is the definition and that regardless of the future events maybe that should stick since 1 year and the doctor's decision is the criteria we use; but I think that 1 year isn't really a big part of the "test" of whether it's career-ending or not - it's more time to gain perspective so we can more intelligently see if it's going to be career ending, and also to make the cap windfall for a team not quite so generous by making them wait a year. As for just waiting a year, we already have the disabled player exemption for guys who are out for a whole year, so it doesn't make sense for that to be the criteria for career-ending as well.

I am sure they will keep the one year rule. I see it as part test part speedbump...


The DP,E it seems to me, in many situations does not offer much help, even if a team can get one... and the league is pretty stingy with them. They refused Orlando on Hill. Micro-fracture does seem the magic word though.

If the team is over the tax line they likely can not afford to use a very big one.
The blazers did not use theirs. Miles had come back and played a few games at the end of the prior season, so the insurance was not kicking in until mid season.
They were paying Miles 4.5 mil for the half season until the insurance kicked in, about a mil more for the 20% half a season and 9 mil in tax. Any player added would have cost double, up to 9 mil in salary and tax, and apparently they had no trades planned.
Same last year, they applied and got one on Oden but did not use it. besides the tax I think they had 15 players under contract when the surgery was done so would have had to waive someone to add a better FA.

And to add to a different post (and with my bad habit of writing tomes I do not know which) Miles said he could again play on the knee before the surgery despite it flaring up the season before when he came back after several weeks of rest. He saw two outside specialists that both agreed with the team doctors before hand.

[Dekko1]

In the case of Kevin Garnett, the way they changed the rules in the current CBA meant that he (and a few other players in a similar situation) could never be traded. This was clearly just a screw-up on their part, and not at all what they intended. So they dealt with it right away, by negotiating a MOU with the NBPA which superseded the CBA.

What was that one about?

There are other situations, such as them missing certain scenarios where a contract would be deemed Over-36 that was not what they intended (I was the one who pointed this out to them.) The league deals with this one by cutting the team & player some slack.

That one I remember and your part in it.

I don't think they'll try enforcing a unilateral interpretation (a la Dudley) on a contentious issue. Just to clarify my earlier statement, I think that if they deal with the situation that is the subject of this thread (no, not you, I mean the OTHER subject of this thread)

lol....

they'll do so for the NEXT Collective Bargaining Agreement

I never expected differently nor think should or wish they would. Would just stir the pot I would not spare any angst over Mr. Allen's money anyway. He can have a good cry on one of his three little boats...



Next summer they will still have cap space. They did save 9 mil on the deal last year.

And I truly hope Miles is OK... Likely Allen does too on some level, he was Miles biggest fan.

[chakdaddy]

It really should be renamed to fit the rule. =)

Well, that's the thing...I think it does fit the rule as it is currently constructed, it's just your interpretation or idea of how to how to revise the rule that doesn't literally fit with the term "career-ending"...

And I think the 1 year is the length of time need to gain the perspective that an injury is "a real career-ender" and a guy is not coming back - not that a so called "career-ending injury" is defined one that knocks you out for a year and lingers long enough for a doctor to do advise that it would be wise to retire.

I think the 10 game clause really confirms that the original intent is that the injury is a "real" career-ender and that is why that 10 game empirical test is there to trump the a doctor's decision/prognosis that turns out to be wrong.

[Village Idiot]

Assuming the insurance company won't insure Darius and further what happens under the following scenario?

1. Darius playes 11 games and then has another career-ending injury

2. Darius loses the millions the insurance company would otherwise be paying him because his playing voided the insurance payments.

3. Portland is still has a tax-hold on their portion of his salary

4. Boston still has to pay a quite a bit of cash for a useless player

5. The league still has to pay a portion of Darius' salary for the vet minimum

6. The insurance company walks away from a huge obligation.

Unless my understanding of the facts and my insurance assumption is wrong the only party that benefits financially from Darius suiting up again is the insurance compnay.

[LarryCoon]

2. Darius loses the millions the insurance company would otherwise be paying him because his playing voided the insurance payments.

No -- insurance is paying the Blazers for the money they're paying Miles. Miles continues to be paid out on his Blazers contract, and that won't change whether he stays retired, players fewer than 10 games with the Celtics, or plays more.

[Village Idiot]

2. Darius loses the millions the insurance company would otherwise be paying him because his playing voided the insurance payments.

No -- insurance is paying the Blazers for the money they're paying Miles. Miles continues to be paid out on his Blazers contract, and that won't change whether he stays retired, players fewer than 10 games with the Celtics, or plays more.

Thanks for the info.

I'm pretty sure my disability wouldn't pay if I went back to work and was making money.

[LarryCoon]

Thanks for the info.

I'm pretty sure my disability wouldn't pay if I went back to work and was making money.

Yeah, but this is applies & oranges. In the case of disability insurance, YOU are the insured. You aren't receiving money from your employer as a result of your disability, so the insurance company is reimbursing you. In the NBA case, the player is still making money from the team. It's the TEAM that is the insured -- the insurance company is reimbursing the team for money they're paying the player.

[LarryCoon]

In the case of Kevin Garnett, the way they changed the rules in the current CBA meant that he (and a few other players in a similar situation) could never be traded. This was clearly just a screw-up on their part, and not at all what they intended. So they dealt with it right away, by negotiating a MOU with the NBPA which superseded the CBA.

What was that one about?

Rather than re-hash it all, I just looked up what I wrote in asbnll soon thereafter:

They messed up when they did the previous CBA. In the
'99 agreement, a player's trade bonus couldn't take a
player's salary above the maximum in the year of the
trade, and the player had to consent to waiving all or
part of his bonus in order for the trade to go through.
This became a tacit no-trade authority on the player's
part, which the league hated. They negotiated a rule
change in the new CBA, where the reduction or elimination
of the trade bonus now takes place automatically. But
for players who already had these contracts and had the
consent authority, it would be taking away something they
already "owned," so they made the rule effective for new
contracts only. The screwup was in the way they changed
the rules (acutally two rules, about 100 pages apart in
the agreement, that together define how these trades
work). With the new CBA, players whose contracts were
signed before 2005 whose salary + bonus is greater than
the maximum, can't be traded at all. Oops.

I noticed this independently and brought it up to the
league. I was told (without naming names or teams) that
they had already found this because a trade had been in
place. The league & players association met to determine
how these players would be handled. They reached a
compromise -- these players CAN be traded, and the trade
does not require the player's consent (league got what
they wanted). In return, the player would get his entire
bonus (made the NBPA happy). I pointed out that this
meant that the player, who was never supposed to get this
money in the old CBA, and was never supposed to get this
money in the new CBA, now gets the money. They told me
that it only affects a handful of guys, and the teams are
free to not do the trade if they don't like this rule.
In fact, that's exactly what happened -- when they reached
the agreement about how the bonus would be handled, the
teams backed out. (Note: Not only would the receiving
team be forced for fork over a lot of money, they would
also have to send more players to make the trade balance
out.

[Dekko1]

It really should be renamed to fit the rule. =)

Well, that's the thing...I think it does fit the rule as it is currently constructed, it's just your interpretation or idea of how to how to revise the rule that doesn't literally fit with the term "career-ending"...

I am talking of simple language usage of the term being misleading to the rule's time frame.
The doctors test is to decide "contract-ending" disability lasting one year not "career-ending".

Unlike the same 'one season' time period for the exception where the word 'disabled' works fine.