Why Did the NBA Deny The Blazers' Claim of Miles?

If the reports are true, under what legal standing did the NBA deny the Blazers the chance to sign and have Darius Miles on the roster for the rest of the season? I'm not saying there isn't a legal standing, I just haven't seen proof.

Some thoughts:

1) All but one team (Portland) had the ability to claim Miles off of waivers according to the NBA. I can't find this in the CBA or in any published NBA rule.

2) So what if the idea was to sit Miles? If Darius is productive, all the more reason to keep him off of a conference rival's roster. There is no rule against stashing a player who could help another team by playing more.

3) Why hasn't Billy Hunter filed a grievance against the NBA for denying a union member (Miles) a guaranteed contract? Seems like a no-brainer to me.

4) The email makes perfect sense when looked at through this "waiver prism". The NBA apparently perceived an intent by Portland as grounds for denying this claim. Portland then sends out an email also based on intent. It's called building a case. Nothing exceptional at all when a business entity feels it has been wronged.

5) Clearly we have a lot of posters who aren't involved in the business world. That's the only reason I can come up with as to why some people are so upset by this rather routine email.

 

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q88

I'd assume that applies to things like waivers as well.

 

What is the intent of a waiver claim? Either way, Darius is paid for the rest of the season, something that still hasn't happened to him since the claim was denied.

How does one place intent or even value on a player another organization discarded for nothing in return?

 

the league should have just told the blazers that they could acquire miles off of waivers, but in doing so they would be accepting him as medically able to play and have miles' salary count against their cap.

 

So instead of making up a rule saying the Blazers can't sign another team's waived player, they instead make up a rule saying if you sign him he must count against the cap?

The Blazers would still have a case in that instance as well.

 

I agree with this. The intent of the Blazers is too obvious. If ANY TEAM honestly thought he might be of service they would give him run in at least two games.

Has anybody ever came back after being medically done? Sorry if this has been asked before

 

in this specific case, yes.

it's very clear that the only interest the blazers had in picking up miles was to keep him from playing enough games for his salary to count against the blazers cap. while i do have a problem with the league telling the blazers they can't pick him up, i don't have a problem at all with the league telling the blazers that picking miles up on waivers would result in them forfeiting the exception that allowed his salary not to count against the cap. it makes no sense for a team to pick up a player that the team feels is physically unable to play basketball.

 

What is the understood intent or agreement between a prospective team and a player that was waived by another organization, other than that player being signed to a contract?

I say it doesn't apply. It says nothing about waived players.

 

It also makes no sense for the league to deem a player's career over, yet continue to allow him the opportunity to play, yet here we are.

Again, let's stick to the legalities.

 

Not to my knowledge, but the intent of the CBA rule was pretty clear regarding the 10 games.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q53

By claiming Miles off waivers just to sit him on the inactive list would be a method of circumventing the CBA, as the Blazers would be preventing Miles from proving the docs wrong.

 

Read my post above. The CBA was set up to allow the player to prove the doctors wrong.

 

How? Miles would still be paid, and he has still paid a total of 3 games in the past two years. Or, if he is suddenly productive, the Blazers take one less solid player away from the competition.

I'm still looking for specific legal reasons for the claim denial.

 

Then the league/players blew it by not putting a waiver claim exclusion on the team who initially waived Miles (Portland, in this instance) should he be waived by another team in the future. Seems like an oversight that has opened a legal opportunity for Portland. Portland isn't "circumventing" the CBA other than by trying to play by the rules that the CBA allows.

 

i'm not sure about that. miles had his shot to "prove the docs wrong" and he didn't do a good enough job to keep memphis from waiving him.

 

That was so they didnt have to give him a guaranteed contract for the year...nothing to do with his ability

 

i know. but them waiving him and being unwilling to give him a guaranteed contract for the year tells you how little they thought of his ability.

 

rocket, I'd say give it up arguing with those guys on bbf, they don't understand logic

All they care about is talking mad crap about the blazers and Portland as a city

 

i know, i know. it just bugs me when people can't understand things that are so simple.

 

haha it bugs me too. It's as if they don't even care to actually find out and understand the facts