So you haven't figured out there are two different exceptions still, I see. As the money one, which I have been referring to this whole time, has absolutely nothing to do with other players on the roster, and roster spots.
From the opening post: DISABLED PLAYER EXCEPTION From the article I just posted: The Clippers still would not qualify for a disabled player exception What "different" exception do you think I'm confusing with this one?
The one where a team is granted an extra roster spot, over the maximum 15. The one I am referring to has nothing to do with open roster spots.
hell if I know. The one I am referring to has nothing to do with roster spots. You are hooked on the roster spots. Maybe the author of that article just said disabled player exception, when that exception goes by a different name. I mean, we all know jason quick would make a mistake like that. Again, I am not referring to anything having to do with number of roster spots.
The only thing I am hooked on about the roster spots is the league may say, "you are not hurt by this injury because a) he never played for you, and b) you have roster spots to use to find a player using whatever cap space and exceptions and trades you can pull off to make up for it." Now, if the team had 8 healthy players and 7 roster spots used by guys on guaranteed contracts who cannot play, they grant an exception to sign a player and have a 16th roster spot. From the league's perspective, as I said, they see this as a loophole. Like, the Blazers see the season as "lost" or whatever, and decide to rest Oden the whole season or elect to have surgery and miss it. Say they do grant the exception and the Blazers use the ~$3.5M to sign a guy to 5 year deal with 8% raises to get around the purpose of the CBA - this is unfair to other teams, or lots of teams would be doing it. I mean it sucks, but if you sign a sucky player to a big deal, the league should stick you with that player, per CBA.
There are other exceptions that the Blazers can use. At the very least, they have the MINIMUM PLAYER SALARY EXCEPTION.
Here's a link to Article VII of the CBA. The Disabled Player Exception rules are found in Section 6c, beginning on page 162 of the document. I don't see anything there that includes a determination by the NBA regarding roster spots or that the team is hurt by the loss of the player. I think it's pretty clear cut that the Blazers are entitled to this exception if they want it. http://www.nbpa.org/sites/default/files/ARTICLE%20VII.pdf
Sure, and when a team is over the cap, they can do the same, yet still are given other exceptions, same as this one. You seem to be arguing as if I am hoping the league creates some new exception for the Blazers or something, which is weird to me.
No, I'm arguing that getting this exception granted is extremely rare. Players get hurt all the time and the teams don't even bother to file knowing the chance of getting the league to agree. Houston got the exception last year for Yao. Yao was clearly hurt while playing the game. There was no question about whether he maybe could have played but was being held out of games to rest/heal/recuperate/rehab. There was no question about whether the team knew he was unlikely to play all along. There was no question about whether he might actually come back and play this season (see Grant Hill). Houston didn't file for the exception for TMac, though they could have used a replacement player. The Wizards didn't get the exception for Arenas missing all or most of at least 2 seasons. The Blazers aren't the only team who'd use a gimme/free exception to sign a player if they could get it. That it doesn't happen very much is clear. All I'm saying is I wouldn't get my hopes up.
extremely rare? You pointed out three instances it wasn't granted, but applied for. And there were three that were applied for and granted. All the other times, there is nothing to say the team was denied, because nothing to show they applied. So how is it rare? 50-50, it seems. Maybe it's rare a team applies for it. My hopes aren't sky high riding on us turning this into something great. It doesn't replace Oden. Just that it is a potential option.
Nice waste of time digging that up. That shows? I was looking at the hassle teams went through, NY, etc. and Houston getting it basically the next day. And that seemed shocking. Does this say it is extremely rare? Does it say I know Portland is absolutely going to get it and turn it into a difference maker? I don't really understand what you're trying to get at in this topic, to be honest.
haha I'm no fan of the CBA. The guaranteed contracts should be up to the owners and players to figure out between them. And the team should be stuck with the contract if they sign it. If I had my way. This means no exception for the Blazers, nor would there have been one for Houston.
And then, there shouldn't be the mid level exception. Or minimum salary exception. Or the bi-annual exception. ?? What about this exception is a team NOT getting stuck with a contract? Nothing about this makes the contract not guaranteed by any means.
I'm OK with teams getting an exception once a year, but all teams should get the same ones (except teams way under the cap, they don't need exceptions). The issue here is the Blazers get a free exception that other teams don't get. That is if they get it A do-over. Hey, my #1 pick was Tyrus Thomas, he sucked, I want a do-over, too. See?
