Grizzlies sign F Miles to second 10-day contract

Right here:

ARTICLE XIII: CIRCUMVENTION
Section 1. General Prohibitions.
(a) It is the intention of the parties that the provisions agreed to herein, including, without limitation, those relating to the Salary Cap, the Exceptions to the Salary Cap, the scope of Basketball Related Income, the Escrow System, the Rookie Scale, the Right of First Refusal, the Maximum Player Salary, and free agency, be interpreted so as to preserve the essential benefits achieved by both parties to this Agreement. Neither the Players Association, the NBA, nor any Team (or Team Affiliate) or player (or person or entity acting with authority on behalf of such player), shall enter into any agreement, including, without limitation, any Player Contract (including any Renegotiation, Extension, or amendment of a Player Contract), or undertake any action or transaction, including, without limitation, the assignment or termination of a Player Contract, which is, or which includes any term that is, designed to serve the purpose of defeating or circumventing the intention of the parties as reflected by all of the provisions of this Agreement.

 

Yeah, I have a theory that time stops completely between every second...that time stoppage would measure a million years if there was any meaning to "timing the stoppage of time." A million years of meta-time, so to speak.

I live in the constant fear of being trapped between two seconds, the only entity for which time does not stop. Hasn't happened yet, thankfully.

 

And again, that says nothing about claiming a player who is not the property of any other team. The Blazers found a loophole, the NBA denied them access to a player that every other team passed on initially, and now the Blazers, as their right, need to pursue every legal challenge to getting back their cap space and saving $$$ on Darius's contract. I don't think the Vulcans are just going sit back and fork over the money after the footprints they have made already. What was the point of building a case?

 

So, as I've said all along, IF (and it's a big IF) the Blazers can put together compelling evidence that the Grizzlies entered into these 10-day contracts with Miles, not because of what he can do for their team, but with the primary purpose of negating the Blazers' cap relief for Miles' longterm injury, then they have a legitimate case. The Grizzlies have to either sign Miles for the rest of the season or cut him loose after this 10-day contract expires. My bet is that they keep him on just to minimize their exposure.

 

Glad to hear about the absence of residue because that would be, well, icky.

 

I hope that is the case. I'll laugh if the Grizz burn some of their tax profit by signing a guy who won't be in the league in two years. I don't think that will be the case, though.

I also wonder how the Blazers are "circumventing the cap" when they have played by the book. I see nothing in the CBA against claiming a waived player and sitting him.

 

I also said they signed Miles to get an extra $200k or so this off-season and to also eliminate a competitor in the free agent market.

Mocking a legitimate argument. Oh well, at least you didn't melt down and insult me this time.

1) Miles may be unemployed for the rest of the season.

2) Miles may have been used in a deadline trade if he is such a hotshot prospect, and he'd be guaranteed a spot on a roster. The 30-day period would have ended around 2/8/09.

The union should have filed a grievance the second one of its members was denied a guaranteed contract by the NBA, regardless of what Darius wanted. Plus, if Darius is not signed, he should pursue the extra money he lost out on from the NBA.

You were the one theorizing on Miles and his desire to play. My stance is that should have noting to do with the claiming of a waived player. You do understand that Miles' wants and needs should not be considered by the league, right? Or am I missing the part of the CBA that states that teams can only claim players who will play for them?

 

My desire? You really like to take hypotheticals and attach them to posters as their only position. Will Miles sue/file a grievance? Doubtful. Should he? It's up for debate, and I don't see how you incorrectly responding to my post constitutes me writing "jibber jabber". "Jibber jabber" was your ridiculous post on your head expanding and contracting that I assume was supposed to be analogous to a realistic/hypothetical scenario that I imagine the Blazers are considering as well.

 

It doesn't say it explicitly, but it's clearly covered by "or undertake any action or transaction". Claiming a player off waivers would have to be considered either an action or transaction, and thus is covered.

 

Are the Knicks paying the price for eating Cat Mobley's contract? Rules are rules and Portland followed them.

 

What you've posted makes sense, but it's fundamentally untrue. It is ruled a "career-ending injury" not a "retirement". The 10-game rule was put in precisely for Allan Houston. The Knicks wanted to get the career-ending label put on him. They then wanted to re-sign him to a vet min contract, thereby circumventing the cap. The problem with this rule is it is being applied in a way that was never conceived of by either the league or the NBAPA.

Like I said, you keep posting stuff, but you never bother to understand the situation. Educating you is tough work; you're pretty dense. I hope you do better in college than you do in this forum.

 

Which is exactly why they signed him to another 10 day contract. Ed, you're smarter than this.

 

You mean like Jerry West twisting Heisley's arm to do a favor for his old club? Yep, only Blazer fans have problems with denial.

 

Not to mention that it removes us as significant competition for FA talent this offseason as Memphis will be one of the only teams WAY under the cap.

 

No need to attack the poster, attack the post, and you're the one clearly in the wrong here.

Here is from Coon's Salary Cap Faq.

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

It seems like the NBA agrees that that is the intent of the rule as well.

 

What better options did the Grizzlies have? The Bulls and Lakers offers are the only ones I remember, and the Grizzlies made a good choice in taking the Lakers offer over the Bulls'.

 

True, but waivers exist for a reason. Teams can't be told who they can and cannot sign. Miles was up for waivers, our turn came up, we wanted to pick him up and guarantee his contract, and the NBA said "no".