Blazers Issue Warning About Miles

[indeedproceed]

Booooo Portland. Boo Memphis too. If Portland trades Hakim Warrick and a 2nd pick for Sergio Rodriguez, we know what went on.

[winsomme]

Booooo Portland. Boo Memphis too. If Portland trades Hakim Warrick and a 2nd pick for Sergio Rodriguez, we know what went on.

yeah, that certainly would scream collusion....

i was just watching the Hank Greenberg docu....and they were talking about how this was how it was done in the olden days....the DET owner was upset about a photo of Hank in a Yankees jersey and a possible move to the Bronx...

so he put out the phone calls to not only keep him away from the Yanks, but out of the AL all together...

[nickagneta]

I know it's a minor thing but a team can't just sign Miles to a 10 day contract and automatically kick in Portland's luxury tax contribution to the pool to be redistributed. Miles needs to actually PLAY in 8 more games before the provisions of the nulification of his original contract kick in and reinstate Portland's luxury tax and salary cap responsibilities.

Most teams only play 4-6 games in a ten day stretch. So at the minimum Miles will need to be signed to two 10 day contracts. Then if he still hasn't played in the eight games that team would need to pick him up for the remainder of the year as players can only be signed to two 10 day contracts for the same team in one season before having to guarantee him for the rest of the year in order to retain him.

I know, it's minor. But just a 10 day contract isn't going to do it to stick it to Portland. It might have to be as much as $350-400K for a vet's minimum pro-rated contract.

[Chris]

As a lawyer, I can assure everyone here that this is the most bogus threat I have seen in a long time.  The only retaliation that other clubs could fear would be the Blazers refusing to do business (i.e. trades) with the club that signs him. I am disgusted with the idea that their attorneys would issue this threat.

Footey, do you think Darius has a case against the Blazers now?

The Blazers *may* have a case, but as indicated above, they would have to prove that the other team purposefully signed Miles for the sole purpose of affecting their cap.  That's an impossible burden of proof, unless someone admits it.

Miles would have absolutely no shot at a law suit, either.  The Blazers are simply publicly indicating that they intend to exercise their legal rights.  A threat to sue generally does not give rise to liability.

Fair enough.  But I gotta think putting a letter like this out there all but guarantees some team is going to sign him to a 10 day contract, just to spite them (of course they won't be blatant about it).  If I were the owner of another team, this letter would really p--- me off.  Especially with the way Portland throws around money.

[Roy Hobbs]

I know it's a minor thing but a team can't just sign Miles to a 10 day contract and automatically kick in Portland's luxury tax contribution to the pool to be redistributed. Miles needs to actually PLAY in 8 more games before the provisions of the nulification of his original contract kick in and reinstate Portland's luxury tax and salary cap responsibilities.

Most teams only play 4-6 games in a ten day stretch. So at the minimum Miles will need to be signed to two 10 day contracts. Then if he still hasn't played in the eight games that team would need to pick him up for the remainder of the year as players can only be signed to two 10 day contracts for the same team in one season before having to guarantee him for the rest of the year in order to retain him.

I know, it's minor. But just a 10 day contract isn't going to do it to stick it to Portland. It might have to be as much as $350-400K for a vet's minimum pro-rated contract.

Nick, apparently Miles only has to play in *two* more games.  The six games Miles played with the Celts in the pre-season count as "games" for the 10 game limit, at least according to an article published by RealGM yesterday.  Thus, a team just needs to sign Miles for a week.

[Hoops]

As a lawyer, I can assure everyone here that this is the most bogus threat I have seen in a long time.  The only retaliation that other clubs could fear would be the Blazers refusing to do business (i.e. trades) with the club that signs him. I am disgusted with the idea that their attorneys would issue this threat.

Footey, do you think Darius has a case against the Blazers now?

The Blazers *may* have a case, but as indicated above, they would have to prove that the other team purposefully signed Miles for the sole purpose of affecting their cap.  That's an impossible burden of proof, unless someone admits it.

Miles would have absolutely no shot at a law suit, either.  The Blazers are simply publicly indicating that they intend to exercise their legal rights.  A threat to sue generally does not give rise to liability.

I'm also an attorney and when I first heard the story, I also thought Portland was off it's rocker. But based on what I've now heard, I'm changing my tune. I live in Portland and this is what's circulating the local air waves:

Apparently, Portland has been receiving phone calls to discuss trades. Obviously, I can't confirm any of this myself, but apparently the phone conversations have gone like this:

Team X: Hey, we want to trade so-and-so for so-and-so

Portland: Thanks, but no thanks - we're not interested.

Team X: Well, that's fine, but if you don't make the trade, we'll sign Darius Miles. If you still won't trade with us, we'll play him two more games. How 'bout them apples?

I've heard that one of the teams who has been calling is Minnesota, but I have absolutely no idea whether that's true. But if any team has had a conversation like the one above, then Portland absolutely has an extortion/blackmail claim.

I'm not sure what to make of any of it, but I now see that Portland may actually have a legit beef. Personally, I think they're just playing poker (why not try and save $10 million?) and hoping no one calls their bluff.

[Lucky17]

I know it's a minor thing but a team can't just sign Miles to a 10 day contract and automatically kick in Portland's luxury tax contribution to the pool to be redistributed. Miles needs to actually PLAY in 8 more games before the provisions of the nulification of his original contract kick in and reinstate Portland's luxury tax and salary cap responsibilities.

Most teams only play 4-6 games in a ten day stretch. So at the minimum Miles will need to be signed to two 10 day contracts. Then if he still hasn't played in the eight games that team would need to pick him up for the remainder of the year as players can only be signed to two 10 day contracts for the same team in one season before having to guarantee him for the rest of the year in order to retain him.

I know, it's minor. But just a 10 day contract isn't going to do it to stick it to Portland. It might have to be as much as $350-400K for a vet's minimum pro-rated contract.

Actually, Miles only needs to appear in two more games for his salary to go back on Portland's books.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=Am1UoxdW6XyvJh_s63WQpRK8vLYF?slug=aw-milesblazers010709&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

This is also the article that comments on how a team can sign Miles to a minimum contract, and profit from the move.

Any team in the NBA simply can sign Miles to a 10-day contract, play him twice and punch out one of the summer’s top free-agent destinations. The Blazers are a prime destination for free agents, and the cap space also made them a fierce competitor for sign-and-trade deals. If Miles returns to the salary cap, he also will push Portland into the luxury tax. That means every team under the tax would benefit with about $250,000 of revenue sharing from Portland.

[crownsy]

As a lawyer, I can assure everyone here that this is the most bogus threat I have seen in a long time.  The only retaliation that other clubs could fear would be the Blazers refusing to do business (i.e. trades) with the club that signs him. I am disgusted with the idea that their attorneys would issue this threat.

Footey, do you think Darius has a case against the Blazers now?

The Blazers *may* have a case, but as indicated above, they would have to prove that the other team purposefully signed Miles for the sole purpose of affecting their cap.  That's an impossible burden of proof, unless someone admits it.

Miles would have absolutely no shot at a law suit, either.  The Blazers are simply publicly indicating that they intend to exercise their legal rights.  A threat to sue generally does not give rise to liability.

I'm also an attorney and when I first heard the story, I also thought Portland was off it's rocker. But based on what I've now heard, I'm changing my tune. I live in Portland and this is what's circulating the local air waves:

Apparently, Portland has been receiving phone calls to discuss trades. Obviously, I can't confirm any of this myself, but apparently the phone conversations have gone like this:

Team X: Hey, we want to trade so-and-so for so-and-so

Portland: Thanks, but no thanks - we're not interested.

Team X: Well, that's fine, but if you don't make the trade, we'll sign Darius Miles. If you still won't trade with us, we'll play him two more games. How 'bout them apples?

I've heard that one of the teams who has been calling is Minnesota, but I have absolutely no idea whether that's true. But if any team has had a conversation like the one above, then Portland absolutely has an extortion/blackmail claim.

I'm not sure what to make of any of it, but I now see that Portland may actually have a legit beef. Personally, I think they're just playing poker (why not try and save $10 million?) and hoping no one calls their bluff.

well they better figure out a way to prove it if that happens, because no where in the NBA bylaws does it say:

"everyone, if you make a deal for nefarious intentions, please be entirley open and honest about it. We don't want to hurt the blazers feelings"

[Brickowski]

LOL.  So the Blazers are arguing that, not only do they have the right to retain the benefits that they improperly received for a year and a half (in the form of luxury tax avoidance) when the doctors erroneously concluded that Miles' career was over, but now they are arguing that they ought to continue to receive those improper benefits even though Miles has proved the doctors wrong?

And quite apart from this untenable position, the Blazers are attempting to deprive Miles of his right to play and to earn additional compensation by doing so, and depriving another team of his services.

And teams have the right to use any leverage they have in negotiating a favorable trade, so long as it isn't illegal or in violation of the league's rules or the collective bargaining agreement.  What the Celtics should have done is to offer Scalabrine for Pyzybilla and, if the Blazers said no, the Celtics should have cut Cassell and kept Darius Miles.

[Tradetime]

I know it's a minor thing but a team can't just sign Miles to a 10 day contract and automatically kick in Portland's luxury tax contribution to the pool to be redistributed. Miles needs to actually PLAY in 8 more games before the provisions of the nulification of his original contract kick in and reinstate Portland's luxury tax and salary cap responsibilities.

Most teams only play 4-6 games in a ten day stretch. So at the minimum Miles will need to be signed to two 10 day contracts. Then if he still hasn't played in the eight games that team would need to pick him up for the remainder of the year as players can only be signed to two 10 day contracts for the same team in one season before having to guarantee him for the rest of the year in order to retain him.

I know, it's minor. But just a 10 day contract isn't going to do it to stick it to Portland. It might have to be as much as $350-400K for a vet's minimum pro-rated contract.

Nick, apparently Miles only has to play in *two* more games.  The six games Miles played with the Celts in the pre-season count as "games" for the 10 game limit, at least according to an article published by RealGM yesterday.  Thus, a team just needs to sign Miles for a week.

Exactly. And I'm thinking after trading Brandon Roy for Seb Telfair, and then losing out on Oden to them, that our bench could use a little Miles right about now 

[Hoops]

I'm also an attorney and when I first heard the story, I also thought Portland was off it's rocker. But based on what I've now heard, I'm changing my tune. I live in Portland and this is what's circulating the local air waves:

Apparently, Portland has been receiving phone calls to discuss trades. Obviously, I can't confirm any of this myself, but apparently the phone conversations have gone like this:

Team X: Hey, we want to trade so-and-so for so-and-so

Portland: Thanks, but no thanks - we're not interested.

Team X: Well, that's fine, but if you don't make the trade, we'll sign Darius Miles. If you still won't trade with us, we'll play him two more games. How 'bout them apples?

I've heard that one of the teams who has been calling is Minnesota, but I have absolutely no idea whether that's true. But if any team has had a conversation like the one above, then Portland absolutely has an extortion/blackmail claim.

I'm not sure what to make of any of it, but I now see that Portland may actually have a legit beef. Personally, I think they're just playing poker (why not try and save $10 million?) and hoping no one calls their bluff.

well they better figure out a way to prove it if that happens, because no where in the NBA bylaws does it say:

"everyone, if you make a deal for nefarious intentions, please be entirley open and honest about it. We don't want to hurt the blazers feelings"

Well, obviously Portland would have to prove it in a court of law. But my point is that what seemed to be a nonsensical legal threat may actually be completely legitimate and warranted if the facts are what I've suggested in the example above.

I don't have the time or the photographic memory to recall all the details of contract law from law school (I don't practice in that area at all), but my recollection is that the doctrine of undue influence could be asserted by Portland (assuming the facts above). Any other attorneys want to confirm or correct me?

[nickagneta]

Thanks for the clarification guys. I missed that article. Apparently, according to the article, most GMs saw it the way I did. TPs.

And thanks for the article link.

Interesting.

Oh, and I don't buy the whole "Trade with me or I sign and play Darius twice in two days" blackmail angle either. That just sounds like some drivel that some media guy that is tight with the team leaked so that the Blazers wouldn't look like fools for issuing that pathetic warning.

[guava_wrench]

I know it's a minor thing but a team can't just sign Miles to a 10 day contract and automatically kick in Portland's luxury tax contribution to the pool to be redistributed. Miles needs to actually PLAY in 8 more games before the provisions of the nulification of his original contract kick in and reinstate Portland's luxury tax and salary cap responsibilities.

Most teams only play 4-6 games in a ten day stretch. So at the minimum Miles will need to be signed to two 10 day contracts. Then if he still hasn't played in the eight games that team would need to pick him up for the remainder of the year as players can only be signed to two 10 day contracts for the same team in one season before having to guarantee him for the rest of the year in order to retain him.

I know, it's minor. But just a 10 day contract isn't going to do it to stick it to Portland. It might have to be as much as $350-400K for a vet's minimum pro-rated contract.

Nick, apparently Miles only has to play in *two* more games.  The six games Miles played with the Celts in the pre-season count as "games" for the 10 game limit, at least according to an article published by RealGM yesterday.  Thus, a team just needs to sign Miles for a week.

Exactly. And I'm thinking after trading Brandon Roy for Seb Telfair, and then losing out on Oden to them, that our bench could use a little Miles right about now 

Didn't we do the Telfair trade to trade Raef's long contract for an expiring deal?

[Lucky17]

Thanks for the clarification guys. I missed that article. Apparently, according to the article, most GMs saw it the way I did. TPs.

And thanks for the article link.

Interesting.

Oh, and I don't buy the whole "Trade with me or I sign and play Darius twice in two days" blackmail angle either. That just sounds like some drivel that some media guy that is tight with the team leaked so that the Blazers wouldn't look like fools for issuing that pathetic warning.

NP, nick.

It's certainly been a bizarre subplot to the season.

[blake]

I do not see why the Thunder would not do this.  They could benefit in a couple of different ways.  

1. 250k in their pocket minus the cost of signing him to a 10 day contract
2. The blazers are one less player in the market of the free agents of '09
3. Darius Miles could be worth a chance on the young team like the Thunder.