The Portland Trail Blazers have placed a warning to other NBA teams that if they signed Darius...

The Portland Trail Blazers have placed a warning to other NBA teams that if they signed Darius Miles and put him on the court, they may get sued, according to a report by Ian Thompsen from Sports Illustrated.

"The Portland Trail Blazers will take all necessary steps to safeguard its rights, including, without limitation, litigation,'' wrote Blazers president Larry Miller in an e-mail addressed late Thursday night to all NBA team presidents and general managers.

What a bunch of BS nonsense. This is bush league by the Blazers. Here's hoping someone signs Miles immediately. Can Miles sue Paul Allen for effectively trying to ban him from the league for the season? Bush league.

5 months ago Stop-n-Pop Comment 93 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I don’t really get it, what possible “right” could they have? If he can play in those games it obvious that … he can play .. so it’s obvious then that their doctor or whoever declared his injury career ending was wrong?

Beater of the early Thabeet drum

by Wim (Belgium) on Jan 9, 2009 8:23 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Reading into it...

…it seems that they’ve worded it in such a way to make this nothing more than the threat of a nuisance above and beyond what it would be to sign Miles in the first place. They haven’t given a blanket statement of “do not sign him” but rather “do not sign him with the intent of screwing us with the salary cap.” Of course, this is impossible to prove unless some GM is dumb enough to say it out loud or put it down in writing. That being said, the legal action on this promise would stretch into the off-season and it would be an all-around bother. Effectively, the Blazers are threatening to annoy the rest of the league to death if they don’t get their way. It’s even more of a BS move when you consider that they don’t need that $9 mil to do what they need to do in the off-season. They can get around it. Instead, they treat one of their former players like a piece of meat while annoying the rest of the league with a BS lawsuit. I hope he signs immediately with someone like the Clips.

The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on Jan 9, 2009 8:36 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

In the email sent to fellow GM's and Presidents...

they listed the following potential causes of action:

1) breach of fiduciary duty to NBA joint venturer;
2) tortious interference with contract rights; and
3) tortious interference with perspective economic opportunities.

The first one sounds the most legit, if there is a recognized duty between teams to act in each other’s best economic interest. However, doesn’t the luxury tax money go to the league office, which presumably goes in some pool of funds that is ultimately shared by teams? I don’t know this, I’m just guessing. So, I’m not sure if forcing Portland to dump $9 Million or whatever into such a pool of funds would constitute a breach or not. The best way to avoid a lawsuit would be to give D-Miles some minutes and show that he’s actually wanted on the team.

by Andy G on Jan 9, 2009 8:42 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

whoops..

I guess, with respect to the breach of fiduciary duty question, there would be $18 Million going to Darius Miles, that Portland would allege it doesn’t owe (not just whatever lux tax money is also owed). If teams owe each other this “joint venturer” duty, then it’s possible that intentionally costing Portland $18 Million (without legitimately wanting Miles as a player) would be a breach. But, I have no idea if such a duty exists and I would guess that there is no precedent for this situation.

by Andy G on Jan 9, 2009 8:46 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Then they should have sued...

…when he was brought in the 1st time with Boston and then with Memphis. Otherwise, teams simply may just want to give a former 1st rounder another chance. Would they have sued Memphis if they kept him on the roster? Did they threaten a lawsuit? I think that’s the big question right now and one I would be asking if I were a reporter. Miles looked pretty good in that Wolves game and he was let go. I get that it was because of guaranteeing his money for the rest of the season but they knew that before they signed him. It really doesn’t make a whole lot of sense and I wouldn’t be surprised if Portland didn’t threaten Memphis before they let Miles go. If that’s the case, then they’re f’ing with a guy’s employment…a guy that they used to pay.

The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on Jan 9, 2009 9:09 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Can Miles play?

I think that’s the big issue. If he can play, then a team should want him and he deserves the money that Portland agreed to pay him. If he can’t play, Portland does not have to pay him that money, and a team that signs him under the guise of actual interest is (probably) committing a tort against the Blazers.

by Andy G on Jan 9, 2009 9:18 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

It doesn't matter if he can or not...

…Shaun Livingston was picked up and released by the Griz in a matter of hours for cap relief. Can he play? The playing question doesn’t get asked in each and every other single instance in this league so why start now? The Lakers have Gasol because they traded another team’s assistant coach. Jason Kidd ended up in Dallas because they traded a stay at home dad.

Portland shouldn’t have had him on their team if they didn’t want to pay him. It’s sort of like a cap hold in reverse. Where is the players association on this? Screw Portland.

The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on Jan 9, 2009 9:31 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

It’s my understanding that the CBA relieves a team of it’s salary obligations to a player that is physically unable to perform. Their measuring stick is this 10-game provision. If teams are playing Miles just to penalize Portland, then he can’t really play and they’re being f*cked with. It’s a labor issue that has been (fiercely, I’m sure) negotiated. NBA guys have the cushiest CBA around, so I can’t feel bad if, for once, a guy doesn’t earn $18 Million for doing almost nothing. Again, if Miles can play—as defined by whatever they have in the CBA—then he should get his money. But a fraudulent set of 3-day contracts just to make Portland foot an unnecessary bill is not necessarily something that should happen, and I’d guess this is their position.

by Andy G on Jan 9, 2009 9:48 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Miles gets paid $18million regardless of what happens...

if he plays 10 games this season or next, the $18million counts against Portland’s cap. But Miles gets $18million no matter what.

by JasonT on Jan 9, 2009 11:31 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

yep...

….just to clarify, the cost we’re talking about here is to Portland’s cap number. Miles gets his either way.

The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on Jan 9, 2009 11:50 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

So, Miles just wants to play for the love of the game?

I wonder. If he plays in europe, would that also effect portland, or is the issue strictly to do with how many nba games he can play.

by oblivionspocket on Jan 9, 2009 12:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

There is a legit problem at the heart of all of this..

…and that is the medical retirement portion of the CBA is screwed up. I have no idea why Miles wants to play but he appeared to be having fun while doing a good job against the Wolves. In fact, if any team had a justification to sign him, it would be the Wolves…seeing what he did to them in a short stint earlier this week.

The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on Jan 9, 2009 12:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I would doubt it

since it’s a completely different entity (or rather a bunch of them) over which the NBA has no jurisdiction. Anyways, I don’t think the issue is whether Miles wants to play “for the love of the game” rather than just sitting at home and collecting his paycheque. He’s playing for the future, i.e. not this contract but the next one, i.e. to show NBA teams that he’s still an NBA player.

I should note that in the 1 game I’ve seen him play this year – admittedly not much to go on – he didn’t look the least bit out of place. In the last Grizz-Wolves game, he had a very nice block on Foye (came from the weak side and swatted the shot into the stands), held his own on the boards, looked like he belonged on the defensive end. If I was GM of a team with injury problems in the frontcourt, I’d be thinking: I could do a lot worse than Miles. The coach could just tell him to go out and play D and rebound for, say, 10 minutes a game. That’s huge in the NBA.

Or rather, I might have done so if I didn’t have the unsavoury prospect of Portland dragging my team through the courts for the next year or so in the back of my mind, wasting my resources all the while knowing that legally they don’t have a leg to stand on. That, to me, is the really pernicious element of all this.

by plinytheelder on Jan 9, 2009 12:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

But the issue still is..

…..medical retirement. Portland got relief because they claimed he was medically retired. They received insurance money and cap relief because of this. If he plays in Europe, is he retired? At this point I really want the Wolves to sign him.

The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on Jan 9, 2009 12:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

good point,

but I wonder if, from a legal standpoint, Europe isn’t necessarily excluded, since there’s no cba with them. But to be honest I have no idea.

by plinytheelder on Jan 9, 2009 12:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

But, there is an alternative legal theory

that goes the other way, it seems to me: 3rd party (tortious) interference with contract. To the extent that Miles is seeking a K with an NBA team, does this threat interfere with his ability to secure such a K? Usually, a 3rd party interference claim would require an actual K that is being interefered with, not just a potential K, but there might be some wiggle room.

Furthermore, without some enumerated right (like a no-compete clause), it might violate Miles’ rights under common-law employment law principles to threaten potential employers making it more difficult for him to secure employment.

Finally, it strikes me that this letter invites a claim of collusion by the union. Here we have a free agent—teams aren’t supposed to discuss free agent contracts/negotiations with each other—MLB had to pay hundreds of millions of dollars for doing this in the 80s. To the extent that other clubs “honor” this “request” by the Blazers essentially not to sign an available free agent, there is a collusion argument to be made.

by Eric in Madison on Jan 9, 2009 9:12 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

exactly..

…where the hell is the players union on this? I also want to know if Portland specifically threatened Memphis before they let him go. This is nonsense. Does this violate the CBA or free agent practices of the league? If so, what are the penalties?

The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on Jan 9, 2009 9:34 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Blazers fan here, it's not exactly as you interpret it

The e-mail doesn’t say “don’t sign Miles”. That would have no legal basis, and the lawyers of Darius and the NBPA would have a field day.

The e-mail rather says “don’t give him a contract in bad faith to mess with another contract situation”. That is illegal, anywhere in business, and should be a no-no among joint venture partners and franchisees. The Blazers couldn’t do anything against another franchise giving Darius a contract for his own merit, i.e. his services as a player. If he regularly plays over a season and that screws the Blazers cap position and luxury tax, too bad (they might still challenge this pretty confusing section of the CBA as even salary cap experts such as Larry Coon have trouble interpreting it definitely). But giving him a ten day contract just for the purpose of screwing another franchisee to make 250K in luxury tax payback by playing him two minutes in two more games as insinuated in the Yahoo article that broke the story is a different thing.

See here for some more discussion of the backstory:
History: http://www.blazersedge.com/2009/1/5/709833/the-darius-miles-chronicle
Dave’s (editor of BE) take, including some legal explanation in the comments (damages, collection of evidence): http://www.blazersedge.com/2009/1/9/715182/darius-miles-situation-exp

by Norsktroll on Jan 9, 2009 9:46 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

No....

….that’s exactly how we interpreted. Read above in the comment “reading into it”. I don’t think anyone here is under the illusion that Portland would be stupid enough to explicitly tell the entire league not to sign a specific player. What they are is a-holish enough to effectively admit as much by threatening unprovable legal action against any team that would want to have Miles, a former 1st round pick and solid talent, on their team. What’s to stop a team from signing him for 10 days, playing him 2 minutes a game and saying “we just wanted to see up close what he had left”? It’s nonsense.

It will be interesting to see if what they have done has a legal basis. I don’t see how it isn’t a de facto threat of collusion and I’d be very interested to see if they specifically contacted Memphis. I’ve read Dave’s history and I think it’s a solid take. They are going for the bad faith angle and to simply make the signing of Miles more trouble than it’s worth. I do think he’s wrong about this not being a form of collusion. Legally it takes two to tango but pragmatically and morally speaking, if I tell you that I will shoot whoever takes the cookie from the cookie jar, I’m pretty much broadly stating my intentions about tasty treats and my expectations that you will act accordingly.

Diving into the world of political science, today’s reading assignment for everyone here is Man, the State, and War by Kenneth Waltz. Waltz is a neorealist who argues that nuclear proliferation is a beneficial form of balancing behavior because it raises the stakes for everyone involved should nations go to war with one another. I.e., if everyone has the bomb, no one will want to drop it because of MAD. Stretching the analogy, the Blazers have effectively raised the stakes for everyone in the NBA to sign a specific player. They have engaged in a neorealist balancing act and are, while not overtly colluding with other teams, betting on the rational actor model to guide themselves towards a predictable outcome. In other words, they know what they’re doing and you’re splitting hairs arguing that this is in good faith.

The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on Jan 9, 2009 10:04 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry, I inferred from how you named the link

There certainly is a threat of legal action in it and it’s not pretty but motivated by business reasons. Neither is playing a player a few minutes without the intent of keeping him for his skills, but just to screw another franchise for $250K in luxury tax because a cash-strapped GM has read about it in a Yahoo article. Boston made a good faith effort in the pre-season and used him fairly extensively before deciding they would rather go with Bill Walker and waived him. Memphis can argue the same thing (they could have signed and played him much earlier if eliminating another 09 free agent destination was their whole intent), and cut him because they didn’t want his contract to become guaranteed tomorrow.

The CBA article about the medical retirement procedure is murky. E.g. there is no doctor required to state a player is fit to play again, after independent doctors declared him unfit for service before. Why? Well, some CBA experts think the provision was intended to prevent a team from forcing an injury-prone veteran off the books or to sign a lower paying contract by declaring him medically retired. You could call it the “Allen Houston rule”, since the Knicks tried something like this. That you get punished for a player making a comeback with another team seems to have not been the intention of the rule.

I know we can’t come to an agreement about this and I don’t like everything the Blazers have done in the case of Darius Miles either especially from an ethical perspective. E.g. they could have waited longer hoping his rehab progresses, or asked him to stay away from the team with pay like Indiana is doing now with Tinsley hoping to trade him respectively his expiring contract later in the future. But it’s not a black and white situation as some fans e.g. over on ESPN try to paint it.

by Norsktroll on Jan 9, 2009 10:30 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

But that is flawed from the get-go...

…because there is nothing wrong with signing a player who you don’t expect will play. It happens all the time. Shaun Livingston is the latest example. I’m sure Kevin Pritchard doesn’t complain much about cap holds and trade exceptions when invisible players get moved for his benefit.

Ethically, the Blazers are way wrong on this one on several fronts. Legally, it certainly isn’t black and white; I’ll give you that much. I don’t think the Blazers would have taken this step without getting their legal ducks in a row. However, in terms of what is right and wrong, they’re wrong. You can come at this lack of morality in any number of ways. I think they take an especially nasty hit on the question of player agency. And not agency in terms of “free agency” but rather in that they shouldn’t use another man for their own means and prevent him from being able to do what he does.

Furthering the agency bit, the Wolves need a backup pg for about 10mpg every other game or so until Ollie gets back. If they bring in someone on a 10 day contract they don’t intend to use this player for the whole year. Someone like Blake Ahearn may come in and literally play 6 minutes with the club over 2-3 games. There is no way to prove that another team with an injured forward couldn’t view Miles in a similar manner. Because there is no way to prove otherwise, there is no reason to claim otherwise…which is exactly what Portland is inferring with their legal threat. This is bush league on Portland’s part on just about every level imaginable. I hope the players rep will have something to say about this and I want to know if they said anything specific to Memphis. If they did, there’s your two for the tango.

The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on Jan 9, 2009 10:59 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

We can agree on the ethical aspects. It's pretty easy to prove that you are interested in Miles as a player: Sign him to a guaranteed contract for the rest of the season

And don’t produce evidence that says otherwise and you just did it for business reasons to screw another franchise. As another more legally skilled poster stated on our board:

The standard is “by a preponderance of the evidence”. Which basically means, the facts show that the actions are more likely than less likely to have been in bad faith.
As far as proof, you would get depositions from everyone in the front office and remind them that if they perjure themselves, they will go to jail. You can also request any documents relating to the matter. Emails, memos… everything.

The Yahoo article is basically a “how to make money quick” cookbook recipe for every GM looking for 250K. The Blazers are arguing doing this would be against the law or at least franchise rules. It’s a different situation than playing Blake Ahearn and then deciding he isn’t good enough. Blake Ahearn receives no money from another team/insurance.

by Norsktroll on Jan 9, 2009 11:11 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That would definitely be an easy way...

…but completely out of the norm in terms of how players are signed at this point in the season. Someone wanting a look at Miles shouldn’t have to go out of their way to guarantee him money that they wouldn’t to a guy like Pooh Jeter or Blake Ahearn on a simple 10 day contract.

The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on Jan 9, 2009 11:14 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Clear something up.

Accept these facts as true and answer some questions.

No team in the league is willing to sign Darius Miles. But, Minnesota decides that they hate Portland, so they sign him to a 10-day contract, sub him in for 10 seconds of action in 2 games, and then let him walk. Portland is now on the hook for $18 Million.

1) Should Darius Miles get his money?

2) If so, which team should pay it?

Again, just take those facts as true and answer the questions.

by Andy G on Jan 9, 2009 11:14 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

OK..

1- Darius should get paid.
2- The team on the books is Portland and they should have to pay.

I would love to see Papa Glen sign Miles and play him for 2 minutes in 2 games. As a rebuilding team, the Wolves are simply in the market for solid talent and they just want to see if he has anything left before they make him a more long term offer.

The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on Jan 9, 2009 11:17 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

or was that for norsktroll?

if so, my bad.

The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on Jan 9, 2009 11:17 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

No--I was asking you.

Thanks for the answer. It sounds like you’re pretty unwavering here. I get that it’s wrong for Portland to mess with Miles’ right to play ball, but I think most would agree that a scenario like the one I posited above should probably end with Miles not getting paid—and if he did get paid, by whatever teams played him only to mess with Portland.

by Andy G on Jan 9, 2009 11:31 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Well, multi-year NBA contracts are guaranteed

Even if you can’t render your services anymore, someone has to pay in full. That’s the agreement, and nobody questions this. So he should get his $18 million that we signed him to (either from the team or the insurance for an injured player). Any other team signing him is entering a new contract with the player.

But should the salary of a medically retired player come back on the cap of his former team at all because he plays with another team (without another doctor certifying he is healthy again). That seems to have not been the original intention of this complicated CBA paragraph as stated above. Especially not if a team does this just to harm a competitor.

by Norsktroll on Jan 9, 2009 11:54 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Ahh

and therein lies some of my confusion.

by Andy G on Jan 9, 2009 11:56 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

he gets paid no matter what...

…the issue is Portland’s cap hit. They were relieved of the blow to the cap by him being declared medically inelligible. If he plays 10 games he goes back on the books in terms of the cap, not in what he’s owed. This still is a hugely expensive proposition for Portland. I think the Blazers would be out the insurance money as well as being over the luxury tax mark. Paul Allen is rich but that still has to sting.

The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on Jan 9, 2009 11:56 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I also think it's cute...

….that Portland is the one complaining about front office harm done by the competition. Which team will become my 2nd favorite squad this year by signing Miles?

On a more serious note, I wonder how much of this is a bluff by Portland or if there is a kernel of truth about them needing the money for the grand plan this particular off season. Miles would come off the books before 2010 anyway so I’ve always kind of thought Portland was angling for a big sign and trade for a 2010 free agent in this off season. I still think they could work enough room for a max deal but I wonder if they really do need this for a big move.

The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on Jan 9, 2009 12:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Whoever signs him....

…I’ll have a post in waiting entitled “Pritch Slapped.”

The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on Jan 9, 2009 12:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You got us, the master plan was to sign Kobe this off-season :)

by Norsktroll on Jan 9, 2009 12:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That would certainly be a catch ;)

But in all seriousness I do think they go the Boston route and cash out some assets for upper level veteran players. Steve Nash + Tayshaun Prince would be sweet on that team. Portland has enough assets to start both Phoenix and Detroit over.

The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on Jan 9, 2009 12:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't see

how any Portland fan can view this as anything less than unconscionable. What if the shoe were on the other foot – i.e., what if someone in more direct competition with the Blazers, e.g. the Jazz or Lakers, did something similar? I’m guessing you guys would be screaming bloody murder.

I don’t mean to go overboard with this, but I can’t tell you how unethical of a move I think this is by the Blazers. What bothers me the most is the ugly threat of it all – i.e., if any team does something that is completely within their right to do, we will make your life hell for a while by dragging things through the courts, taking up your resources, etc. How dare they tell other teams what they can and cannot do?

Total disregard for the law of the league, thinly veiled threats, bullying…god, it’s like reading a newspaper from the last, oh, 8 years or so. The Blazers should be ashamed of themselves.

by plinytheelder on Jan 9, 2009 12:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

nicely put...

…especially the past 8 years comment. This really is Bush League.

The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on Jan 9, 2009 12:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

hehe

yeah, literally.

by plinytheelder on Jan 9, 2009 12:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd like for David Stern to be as mad about this...

…as he was about Joe Smith.

The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on Jan 9, 2009 12:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Dave Stern respectively the league office has already been generous to Miles in that case

They didn’t officially announce his suspension until mid September for an incident that happened months before. And now they count his 6 pre-season games as regular games, but didn’t require him to fulfill his ten game suspension first (five of which he didn’t even have to be on the active list). Good job.

by Norsktroll on Jan 9, 2009 12:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Is that SOP with drug policy?

I wonder what the threshold is for games played in other leagues. Someone above asked about the Euro league. I had an email from an insurance adjuster friend of mine and he wants to know when the insurance company weighs in on this matter as it could be viewed as Portland trying to game the system by declaring Miles medically retired. He admittedly doesn’t know the insurance ins and outs of this particular line of work but that was his question from an insurance perspective.

The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on Jan 9, 2009 12:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The insurance perspective is an interesting one. An insurance company can’t like paying out 18 million dollars of compensation when a player seems capable of doing his job and getting paid for it.

by oblivionspocket on Jan 9, 2009 12:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

interesting point.

by plinytheelder on Jan 9, 2009 12:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

European leagues and the NBA have no CBA, they just respect each other work contracts

The salary of Josh Childress doesn’t count against the cap of the Hawks, only a small cap hold to make him a RFA each year.

by Norsktroll on Jan 9, 2009 12:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

but does that play for the insurance provider?

better yet, does that play in public opinion?

The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on Jan 9, 2009 12:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Don't know

The NBA insurance provider did not want to pay for Luol Deng this year when he played for the UK in a EuroBasket qualifier. They had to pay that themselves. The insurance provider for Darius might ban him from playing in Europe, but I really don’t know.

by Norsktroll on Jan 9, 2009 12:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

here's hoping they have excellent reporters in the portland paper

The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on Jan 9, 2009 12:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Quick & Co are really good

But they never liked Darius due to his off-court antics. And I wonder why Yahoo broke the story about his pre-season games counting. Nobody else phoned the league?

by Norsktroll on Jan 9, 2009 12:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I want folks in Memphis to get on it too

Did their doctors clear him? Was the team threatened before they released him? Stuff like that.

The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on Jan 9, 2009 12:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah...

Who knows, it might happen…now that you mention it, I’m betting he can’t be happy that a kind of unofficial league directive has been issued by someone other than him. Or that the Blazers are basically communicating with the entire league about a legal issue without using him as a medium. Time will tell…I honestly don’t know enough about Stern to say one way or the other.

by plinytheelder on Jan 9, 2009 12:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Would it be morally right if Darius blows out his knee for good and needs knee replacement surgery? That is a very real threat during a comeback since the microfracture was done on a very large region and didn’t heal well. KP already got in trouble for revealing it (HIPAA regulations) over the summer. It’s why I’m angry that there is no independent doctor required to reinstate him.

It’s one thing to walk over the court in a few games, something else to play a full season. Can he really still do that? Why did not team take that chance? Because their doctors are also seeing something that doesn’t look good?

by Norsktroll on Jan 9, 2009 12:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

If Darius wants to play that's his call...

…and I’d bet he was medically cleared in Boston and Memphis. I think you’re stretching with that one. I’d be far more suspicious of Portland doing the doctor shopping than Boston or Memphis. Portland has far more on the line here.

The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on Jan 9, 2009 12:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

with all due respect,

that’s not for Portland to decide. If he still wants to play, and there are doctors, even team doctors, who say he can, then he can play.

by plinytheelder on Jan 9, 2009 12:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

agreed...

..that line of argument isn’t very flattering and sort of reeks of last strawism. This was a shitty, shitty move on Portland’s part.

The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on Jan 9, 2009 12:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

With all due respect,

the doctor that declared him medically retired was not selected by the Blazers, but by the NBPA.

by Norsktroll on Jan 9, 2009 12:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I think we get that...

….and we also get that medical opinions differ and can change over time. Portland wanted the benefits of that decision and now it turns out to be incorrect. The benefits no longer exist and they want to pretend like they do. He’s clearly not medically retired and he’s giving it another go.

The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on Jan 9, 2009 12:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

either way,

1. he’s been playing this whole year, and has been cleared by more than one team doctor, and has to have the blessing of the NBA to be out there, 2. this is really ugly paternalism – “your career is over because we say it is.”

by plinytheelder on Jan 9, 2009 12:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I actually hope his career is not over. I just would like another independent doctor to verify this new diagnosis, and not Darius and some team trainer/doctor. That however is not required. Who pays if he re-injures himself now and has to retire for good? It’s all fuzzy.

by Norsktroll on Jan 9, 2009 12:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think it's fuzzy at all...

…Portland got too cute by 1/2 in order to get money off the books and they did so based on a claim that is no longer true. They Pritch slapped themselves and now they’re puffing their chest in hopes that other teams will be too afraid to sign a guy trying to make his way back in the league. Again, whoever signs him is immediately my 2nd favorite team.

The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on Jan 9, 2009 12:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Portland? :)

by Norsktroll on Jan 9, 2009 12:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

lol

by plinytheelder on Jan 9, 2009 12:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I see your point,

and I don’t want to go overboard on the hyperbole. I just think that any doctor is going to have a hard time determining that he can’t play – after all, he has been playing, and blocking shots, and dunking, and rebounding, and running the floor…i.e., he’s clearly fit to play, and if there are risks involved, he won’t be the first or the last to have taken them.

by plinytheelder on Jan 9, 2009 12:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

these comments are getting a bit unclear...

…my last 2 comments were in response to Norsktroll.

by plinytheelder on Jan 9, 2009 12:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

got it...

…I think this is especially interetsing for Wolves fans because we just saw the guy play well against Minny earlier in the week. He was running the floor and blocking shots. Henry Abbot made note of it here:

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-38-27/Darius-Miles—Cap-Space—E-mails—Oh-My-.html

The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on Jan 9, 2009 12:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah one of the Memphis guys

was praising his play too, I think the guy from beyond the arc.

by plinytheelder on Jan 9, 2009 12:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I like Abbot

But he conveniently also forgets that the retirement was more about long-term knee damage that not being able to run or jump at all anymore. He had that written more concise in previous articles.

I used that example over on BE: I’m friends with some professional skiers who can still ski better than you and me on cruise control as a "tourist" after having sustained severe injuries, but they would blow their knee for good when doing it on a pro course at pro speed every week. I fear it’s the same with Darius and basketball.

Quotes from the summer:
"Two doctors said Darius had the worst microfracture injury they had ever seen. They would never have him play basketball and the odds of having knee replacement surgery is high. I hear that, and as a general manager, I didn’t want it on my conscience – that I had a kid have to go through a knee replacement surgery. That’s a pretty major surgery. They saw (two bones) and replace (the knee). It’s a bad deal."

In a story posted April 14 on the Portland Tribune’s Web site, Pritchard said, "The doctors had actually said, ‘If you were my son, I’d never have you pick up a basketball again.’ I’m the kind of GM (that) I wouldn’t want that on my head that he ever had to have knee replacement."

by Norsktroll on Jan 9, 2009 1:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

sad stories...

…but this is business and Pritchard was all too happy to play the protector when it suited him. Now they’re still trying to play the protector to someone who doesn’t want it.

The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on Jan 9, 2009 1:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Of course

But why should that risk be only on Portland if he blows out his knee while playing for say the Wolves?

by Norsktroll on Jan 9, 2009 1:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

He has an interesting take in the follow up which is what I'm trying to argue

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-38-28/League-Sends-a-Message-About-Darius-Miles.html

Pure conjecture, but I also wonder if the extraneous “if they wish to secure his services as a player” could be a signal the other way — indicating that signing Darius Miles to a contract not to play him, but to mess with Portland — would not be so warmly embraced.

by Norsktroll on Jan 9, 2009 1:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

If Miles plays in those games, he's providing a service

Whether or not there’s an additional advantage to the team is immaterial.

by McCleak on Jan 9, 2009 1:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

that's a green light to sign

The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on Jan 9, 2009 1:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

and "pay" is used in the sense that Portland has obligations which will affect their cap

The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on Jan 9, 2009 11:19 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

also,....

…one of the weird things about Memphis and Miles is that I thought today was the last day to waive the guy before the guaranteed money. At least yesterday was as he needed 48 hours to clear waivers. Did they just not want to do it on the road trip? I think that’s the best explanation but I still would like to know if Portland contacted them before he was released.

The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on Jan 9, 2009 11:21 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Wednesday was the big day to release players so they can clear waivers in time. Any player on your books tomorrow (or even at the end of today’s business day in ET if I’m not mistaken) is guaranteed for the rest of the season.

by Norsktroll on Jan 9, 2009 11:32 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Marbury

My limited knowlege makes me think this is similar to the Marbury situation. The Trailblazers obviously wrote Miles off too soon and he deserves the money he signed for. They are forcing him out of the league this season, just as the Knicks are (kinda) doing to marbury. If Miles is playing “for the love of the game” and not the high wages he may be able to come back next season

by WhaHuh on Jan 9, 2009 10:42 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

solid take

The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on Jan 9, 2009 10:49 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

a very nice post

from Chris Herrington at Beyond the Arc, that more eloquently states much of what we have been debating in the comments section:

Okay: Here’s the question everybody around the NBA should be asking: If this contract issue with the Blazers did not exist, would it be more or less likely for a team to sign Darius Miles today?

If the answer is more — and I think it is — then Portland’s potential salary cap hit is a deterrent to Miles getting a chance to play, not the primary reason he would.

As one of the few NBA media people who has seen Miles play in person in a regulation NBA game since he left Blazers, let me say that he looks like he’s capable of contributing.

Miles played nine minutes in his two appearances with the Grizzlies last week. In his seven-minute stretch against the Timberwolves, he missed his only two shots — one at the rim, one a 20-foot jumper — but he grabbed two rebounds (one an offensive board that led to a Hakim Warrick layup) and, more impressively, blocked two shots (one a thunderous rejection of a Randy Foye lay-up, the other a muffling of a 10-foot Al Jefferson turnaround.) In a game that the Grizzlies lost, they held their ground with Miles on the floor. I was surprised. So were the other press people I was sitting with. I was also surprised when Miles threw down a windmill dunk in shootaround.

Maybe Miles didn’t put the proper effort into his rehab for Portland. Maybe the team doctor(s) who pronounced Miles’ injuries "career-ending" were coming up with the conclusion the Blazers wanted. I don’t know. Grizzlies general manager Chris Wallace did tell me — after the team decline to guarantee his contract for the season — that trainers who had been working with Miles told him that Miles would look better in games than in practice drills. And that was the case.

Based on what I saw, Miles is better than a lot of players on NBA rosters right now. He’s certainly better than Grizzlies reserve center Hamed Haddadi. I’d imagine he’s probably better that Mark Madsen and Calvin Booth, who sat on the bench for the Timberwolves that night. If he can help a team, even in a small way, then why shouldn’t one of the 29 other NBA teams take a chance? Because of a "gentlemen’s agreement" with Portland. Or because of intimidation from Portland.

Either way, if Darius Miles doesn’t get a chance to play again this season, it will be because of artificial constraints. Sounds like a lawsuit to me. The increasingly entitled Blazers aren’t the only entity in this ordeal that could pursue litigation.

Love how he gets a diss of Madsen in there. Actually, it’s not a diss, since the guy’s absolutely right, it’s a pure statement of fact. The guy is clearly better than many of the league’s backup big men.

I also like how he gives some thought, at the end, to how this might come back and bite the Blazers. I’d be pretty pissed too, if I were Miles. There are also some interesting comments in the comments section, with one guy speculating that Cuban might be the guy who has the balls to sign Miles. Good stuff.

by plinytheelder on Jan 9, 2009 1:06 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

forgot to mention:

the response has been pretty negative toward the Blazers on the two fansites I have checked out: Canis Hoopus and Beyond the Arc. If these 2 teams are feeling this way, I bet every single team in the league is feeling this way. Here’s hoping that the Blazers have shot themselves in the foot.

by plinytheelder on Jan 9, 2009 1:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

well put....

…and in line with what I wrote over at Britt’s place. Here’s a cut and paste of my post over there:

Personally, I’d love to see Papa Glen bring him in. I’ll even write the press release for the team:

Today the Minnesota Timberwolves announced the signing of forward Darius Miles. Miles signed a 10 day contract and will join the team this Monday.

“Darius showed us a lot during last week’s game against Memphis,” said Wolves assistant GM Fred Hoiberg. “He really got up and down the floor and provided a defensive shot blocking presence that we believe will fit in well with our current roster.”

Center Calvin Booth was released to make room for Miles on the active roster.

…there you go. Sue away Portland, sue away. I’m sure Papa Glen would have no problem finding a good lawyer to represent a client who is clearly able to work in a suit against a billionaire who says he can’t so that he can collect insuance money and cap space.

The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on Jan 9, 2009 1:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Blow up the Blazers

Kudos to Miles for getting himself back to playing at an NBA level. He has an 18 million dollar incentive. Wolves could use him. Certainly some team will pick him up this year. Nork have a great day! Bye Bye Blazers cap space…

by DR_JPK on Jan 9, 2009 1:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Norsk

has been pretty fair and informative throughout this thread. Also, I think it has been pointed out that Miles gets paid no matter what happens.

by Andy B on Jan 9, 2009 1:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed...

…very informative.

The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on Jan 9, 2009 2:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Three thoughts

First, this is almost certainly a nuisance suit. My bet is that they’re trying to make it so that whoever signs him doesn’t earn the $300k or so they would gain from having Miles play the final two games. I’m sure Paul Allen can make the other owner rack that up in legal fees easily.

Second, it seems to me that the CBA is worded so that Portland has no way of avoiding the cap hit. It’s really seems open and shut. No matter how hard Portland may complain, the writing is really cut and dry. And ethics don’t consider into it.

Third, Portland made have forced Stern’s hand into making a team pick up Miles for two games. Because if no one does so, I think the NBAPA has a very solid collusion case.

And finally, two questions to consider. 1) What does the Association charter say about competition between teams? This may violate one of their tenets of the NBA (which, I believe, is a business contract) 2) Which side wrote the current CBA? My understanding is that in civil suits regarding contracts, there is a much greater burden on the side that wrote the contract.

by McCleak on Jan 9, 2009 1:20 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Repost from a nice Blazers poster

The ULTIMATE answer SHOULD be, in MY opinion
That Darius should be free to sign as many 10 day deals as he can get his hands on, and any other team should be free to sign Darius if they wish.

BUT, since the Blazers followed the rules and did what they are ‘sposed to do, the Blazers should NOT have to pay for it. That’s not what this rule was for.

I don’t want Darius to be limited in what he can do, but it’s ridiculous to say the Blazers should pay for him.

They’ll likely win the appeal should it come to that, but that’s a ways away and a lotta annoying hoops to jump through. This should be the impetus for a change to the medical retirement rule, where if a player becomes healthy again they can be signed by someone else at no penalty to the previous team (who did nothing wrong, since it was indy docs and player’s union folks who said Darius was too hurt to play without risk).

Call me crazy, but a lot of interest in Darius might dry up if the added benefit of hurting the Blazers wasn’t attached. Like with Livingston, I fully expect teams to take a look at Darius, but after 2, 3 years he still doesn’t look good and it’s not as if the docs made stuff up to be funny.

Mortimer

by Mortimer on Jan 9, 2009 11:31 AM PST

by Norsktroll on Jan 9, 2009 1:46 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Yeah right, good try Norsk

Kudos to Miles for getting himself back to playing at an NBA level. He has an 18 million dollar incentive. Wolves could use him. Certainly some team will pick him up this year. Norsk have a great day! Bye Bye Blazers cap space…

by DR_JPK on Jan 9, 2009 1:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

this completely ignores

much of what has been written here, and what the Memphis blogger (cut and pasted above) said about Miles: he’s a pretty good frontcourt reserve. Better than at least 1 current Grizz and 2 current Wolves frontcourt reserves. I’m betting that he’s better than at least 1 or 2 frontcourt guys on 80% of the teams in the league.

The Blazers signed the contract in full knowledge of the rule. It doesn’t seem all that nebulous to me. There have been plenty of cases in which teams have had to play for guys playing for other teams, because those are the terms of the contract they signed. Like I said before, if this were the Lakers, Jazz, or Nuggets, the Blazers would be screaming bloody murder. (That, to me, is what makes the response of these Blazer fans so disappointing. No offence to you guys, but wow…if this isn’t a double standard, I don’t know what is.)

by plinytheelder on Jan 9, 2009 2:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Allan Houston

The rule was mainly inspired by his case, to prevent the Knicks from dumping him and his ridiculous contract due to a lot of lingering but not career ending injuries, then re-signing him for less money. It was designed for comebacks with the same team, not another one.

This part of the rule has NEVER been tested before, which makes the situation interesting but complicated. No player has yet come back from medical retirement, which is a different rule than an injury that makes a player miss a season (for which you e.g. could sign a player for half the salary of the player who is injured even if you are over the cap). Because even guys like Mourning (kidney transplant) and Turiaf/Thomas (open heart surgery) were never medically retired by an independent doctor. The closest thing to this situation could be Eric Snow with Cleveland, and now Cuttino Mobley. Maybe the Knicks are the next team to try it.

It’s also not like still paying for a player that has been waived/bought out but always could still play. The Blazers are doing that for Steve Francis this year (who ironically is also with the Grizzlies now), and nobody is complaining. Like I said above, Miles will definitely be paid for his guaranteed contract by insurance and/or the Blazers. But he doesn’t play with that team anymore? Should they still carry him on their salary cap? When can they re-apply if he gets injured again?

Here is the original text from the CBA (respectively an accompanying document between the insurance company and the NBA) referring to the situation in question. Especially section 4(h) is important. Is that so clear? Lawyers and salary cap experts disagree.

"(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)."

by Norsktroll on Jan 9, 2009 2:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I can't believe you can argue that what your team is doing is write, either morally or legally

I’m pretty confident that Portland got good medical opinions stating that Miles wasn’t going to play again. However, he’s clearly capable of still playing — maybe he doesn’t crack the Blazers’ rotation, but he’s certainly good enough to play 10-15mn a night for a team like the Wolves.

And he has every right to prove he can play. If he wants to make more money beyond the 2yrs $18mm he has left, he has to prove that he can play. Portland is at least trying to make teams think twice about that. I don’t think they have a legal right to do that (seems pretty clear to me) and I don’t think they are on the right side of the moral argument either.

One thing I do agree on, is if the Wolves (or any other team) picked up Miles, played him 2 games and then released him just to screw with the blazers cap or to collect some LT money, that to me would be dirty pool. However, the Blazers would have every right to try to beat us by 50 every time we play. No mercy.

However, if the Wolves think that Miles could bring 10-15mn a night as a defensive-minded forward, as a fan of the team, I’d like to see that. Lord knows we need someone who’s going to make opposing guards think twice about heading down the lane.

As a fan of a team who’s been busted (and heavily penalized) for trying to skirt the CBA/salary cap, I think the Blazers are skirting awfully close to that line. Maybe I’m biased, but I think they need to be careful here.

by Sterno on Jan 9, 2009 2:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting point -

this is obviously more a comment about the ineptitude of the Wolves, but if they signed Miles today, he would immediately be their most imposing defensive frontcourt player.

by plinytheelder on Jan 9, 2009 3:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

No real disagreement

I don’t like the ethical situation at all as stated above. And if a team plays him due to his skills for an extended period of time, there also is no ground to sue a team as stated at the very beginning of the thread. Problem is: Neither the Celtics nor the Grizzlies nor the Wolves were willing to do that so far and guarantee him. Miles was not employed for months after the Celtics waived him. If his knee looks so good, why did not team desperate for help take a real flyer on him until Memphis kicked the tires? As you said, the objection would come with a team that just plays a player for a few minutes with the intent of screwing another franchise.

P.S.: The trainer cited above in the quote from Chris Herrington is probably Grover from Attack Sports or something in Chicago who trained with Miles. He also has a business interest in seeing his private clients succeed, so he isn’t neutral either.

by Norsktroll on Jan 9, 2009 3:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

solid info Norsktroll..

…as well as in your fan post over at BE.

The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on Jan 9, 2009 3:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I hesitate to post this,

but man, people should see what the guy at Beyond the Arc is having to put up with. He’s basically had to ask all the Portland fans flooding the site not to be vulgar and racist. Not to mention the really gross stuff going on at the Blazers SBN site…it’s strange that for the blatantly threatening (comments of the “take his knees out” variety) and insulting stuff, none of the moderators would be saying anything, asking people to control themselves, deleting comments, etc.

It’s a strange phenomenon…why does that team in particular seem to attract so much loutish behavior? Is it just because it’s the only game in town? Anyways, I’ll be glad when this issue gets resolved once and for all, if only so I can look at basketball sites without having to read this stuff.

I should mention too that there are plenty of intelligent/thoughtful Portland fans posting, here and elsewhere, and that I obviously have nothing against those folks.

by plinytheelder on Jan 11, 2009 1:12 AM CST reply actions 0 recs