Where's the proof that he can still play? I don't see it. All that has been proven up to this point is that Miles can still run up and down a basketball court. I can do that too. Maybe I should play in the NBA.
I am just getting sick of everyone saying it was Portland who said he couldn't play anymore. It was the fucking independent Dr appointed by the league and the NBAPA who said he couldn't play anymore.
And iirc Gabriel never applied for Grant Hill's injury to be looked at as Miles' was. which is the correct call, since DMiles' injury is degenerative and won't get better (kind of like having a leg amputated) while Hill's was a broken bone that didn't heal properly. It eventually did. IIRC, Orlando received the same insurance payments we're getting on Miles for when Hill was out for the seasons. They just didn't apply for career-ending....they applied for the Injury Exception. We didn't get that for Miles, either (or Raef, for that matter)...right?
IMO it's the media going back to try to find a precedent to show how screwed up the Blazers are, when in reality the reason there's such a stink right now is that there is no precedent. IF Hill had a career-ending injury (as sanctioned by league-approved docs), AND Gabriel had applied for (and received) the cap relief, then that would be something of a precedent. But he didn't, and he didn't. He basically had the same situation NYK has had with Jerome James the last few years...paying a guy to not get meaningful basketball out of him. Miles' case is so different I question why Gabriel's even bringing Hill up, since he seems to be a smarter guy than that.
Also, Hill was injured when the Magic committed to signing him to a huge long term deal. He was already damaged goods. They took a calculated risk that Hill's injury wasn't serious, let alone career ending, and it came back to bite them. Miles, on the other hand, was healthy when the Blazes handed him that long term contract. His injury came later. So, the Magic took a gamble on Grant Hill's health and it didn't pay off. The Blazers signed a healthy player who became injured. Ultimately, any long term guaranteed contract is a gamble, but comparing the Hill and Miles situations isn't exactly apples:apples. BNM
Who asked the doctor to look at him? Was it Miles? No. Was it the doctors themselves? No. The Blazers had the doctors look at Miles to justify their waiver of Darius Miles in an attempt to receive cap relief. It was a good try, but it didn't work. It doesn't mean that the Blazers weren't the driving force in the decision-making, though. Ed O.
I'm not sure what the point of this comment is, unless you're implying the doctor was dishonest. If this had worked, do you think the Blazers would keep having doctors look at every bad contract player they have until they could find one of them who said he couldn't play? You think that the Blazers thought, "Shit, we don't think there's anything wrong with the guy, but maybe THAT guy will say he's got a career-ending injury! Yeah, that's the ticket!"?
What I'm not hearing in all of this is any doctors coming forward saying that they have examined Miles since the doctor declared it a career ending injury and they think that diagnosis was bullshit (and explaining why) and there's nothing seriously wrong with Miles. Seriously - has this been reported and I've just missed it? I know some teams can just waive physicals (which is why Cuttino Mobley was able to play for so long with a potentially fatal [see Lewis, Reggie] heart condition) but is that what's happening with Miles? And if it is, isn't that a tacit admission that this is just about screwing up the Blazers' plans, no matter the potential risks to Miles' health?
What a lot of people fail to realize is that much in the medical field, and especially so with knees, is educated guesswork. You'll generally find what you're looking for, even if it's meaningless, making it easy to support a lot of potential diagnoses.
True. There are doctors out there that cleared Miles for playing in the NBA. They are all just opinions . . .
No dishonesty implied on my part at all. My point is that splitting hairs over whether the Blazers said he couldn't play anymore or not is silly. The Blazers DID say he couldn't play anymore. They asked doctors to verify it before they waived him. Miles and at least a couple of NBA teams disagree with the Blazers' view at the time. Ed O.
Why should that exist? Because a player can play on a variety of injuries and maladies--from broken bones to torn tendons to irregular heartbeats--and still be productive... without getting a doctor to give the thumbs-up that it's safe for them to do so. Ed O.
Okay - so what I want to see is those doctors put in a room with the one who declared the career-ending injury and to watch them argue it out. Is that too much to ask? We can get the judge who presided over that "Intelligent Design" case to make the decision - he clearly understood science at least. In general, I think everyone comes out of this smelling like shit. The Blazers, the Celtics, the Grizzlies. (Ironically, Miles comes out squeaky clean.) The only thing objectionable is anyone attempting to act as if they have the moral high ground.
I guess I don't see the splitting hairs. Obviously nobody should deny that the Blazers SAID it. It's the timing that's important. You seem to be implying that they said it before any doctors looked at him. I'm guessing what you actually mean is that they said it after their (non-impartial) doctor looked at him, and then asked a (presumably impartial) doctor to confirm the previous doctor's opinion. So that would make two doctors agreeing that he had a career-ending condition. Have either of those doctors spoken up since then?
Huh? Are you going all Zen on me, Ed? The referent of your "that" is unclear. You seem to be answering a question I didn't ask. You're just trying to mess with my head, aren't you? But in regards to your claim: the team has to AGREE TO LET the player play. Roy wanted to play recently on his hammy, but the team wouldn't let him. Any team that had a player's welfare in mind wouldn't let him play through an injury that could make him worse or be life-threatening. Apart from anything, I think the insurance companies would balk (baulk?) at paying up if something bad did happen.
