Celtics workout Darius Miles....And the he looks good ?!

[paintitgreen]

2. At the same time, are you guys serious? Let's be honest here. Yes, Theo Ratliff was far better for the T-Wolves' purposes than Raef LaFrentz, who had an extra year on his contract. But don't you think Minnesota would have gladly accepted the extra $10-11 million of contract for the reigning Rookie of the Year instead of a coulda-been-but-never-was in Telfair? And if we gave up Roy and Al for KG, would anybody be saying anything about collusion between McHale and Ainge? No, they'd be saying it was a fair deal - two All-Star caliber talents under 25 for one MVP caliber talent over 30. Again, I don't care one way or the other, but to me, arguing that trading Roy and Raef for Ratliff and Telfair was the thing that allowed the KG trade is ridiculous. I don't see how Al, Gomes, Green, Telfair and Ratliff is a better offer than  Al, Roy, Green, Gomes and Raef (with one extra year on his contract). It's a worse offer. We made something amazing out of a bad trade, but it was still a bad trade, and had we not made it, we still could have had that amazing result of getting KG.

  It's nothing but speculation that Minny would have taken on Raef's contract (about $14M more than Theo's) to get Roy. The owner might not have approved the deal. Best case we end up where we are now. Worst case we don't. And after the Gasol trade the collusion talk has pretty much died down.

Right, it is speculation, and it's also speculation that Minnesota wouldn't have taken Raef and Roy instead of Ratliff and Telfair. It's also speculation that that the best case scenario is we end up where we are now. Maybe Minnesota would have taken the Rookie of the Year and the fifth pick and Raef and the same filler for KG, and KG thinks going to Boston with Pierce and Al gives him enough of a chance to compete. Or maybe he thinks Roy and Pierce is good enough, and the Celtics send Al and the #5, so we end up with Wally, Delonte, and Roy instead of Ray and Big Baby. Might it be better to be in the same situation, but with Brandon Roy at our 2, giving us the potential to rebuild on the fly, and Wally available as an expiring contract this season to get us more pieces? Yes, it's all speculation. That was part of my original point. You guys have used the KG trade to argue the Roy trade was good. It wasn't. It turned out fine for us (as I said in point 1) but that doesn't mean it wasn't a bad trade.

My point is, saying that having Ratliff and Telfair instead of Raef and Roy is the thing that got that deal done is preposterous, precisely because it's the exact same speculation you're accusing me of. While it's speculation, I find it hard to believe that somebody would turn down the Rookie of the Year because they don't want to pay $10-12 million extra.

4. Like I said before, I don't care that Portland got Roy from us for far less than fair value, and I don't feel any need to stick it to Portland for the Roy trade.

  What's fair value? We had the 6th pick in a draft which had been severely weakened by the league making the HS seniors skip the draft and go to college. Seattle got the equivalent of 3 first rounders to take on $8M in salary from Phoenix. Without 20-20 hindsight is that 6th pick in a crap draft worth far more than 5 or 6 late first rounders?

I don't know exactly what fair value is or was, but I will say fair value for the Rookie of the Year is more than $10 million cap savings and a point guard who was already washed up at 21 by the time he was traded to us.

[juice104]

Let me clear up Miles contract for everyone. As it stands right now insurance in covering Miles contract, but if he comes back to play Portland has to pay his contract but it does not count against the salary cap. Let me repeat it does not count against their salary cap

[Roy Hobbs]

Let me clear up Miles contract for everyone. As it stands right now insurance in covering Miles contract, but if he comes back to play Portland has to pay his contract but it does not count against the salary cap. Let me repeat it does not count against their salary cap

Why not?  According to the rules, a team isn't granted cap space until one year after an NBA physician determines the player is medically unable to play, right?

Has that year expired?  From what cordrobes linked to, that evaluation took place in April of this year.  What is the purpose of the one-year waiting period?  If the player plays somewhere within that year, what are the consequences?

I would assume the purpose of the waiting period is so that players don't collude with their teams, help their team clear cap space, and then resign with them.  However, I don't know that for a fact.  According to the rule itself, though, it seems as though Portland will be carrying Miles' contract for one more season, no matter what.

EDIT:  Here's the rule as summarized by Larry Coon:

There is one exception whereby a player can continue to receive his salary, but the salary is not included in the team's team salary.  This is when a player is forced to retire for medical reasons and a league-appointed physician confirms that he is medically unfit to continue playing.  There is a waiting period of one year following the injury or illness before a team can apply for this salary cap relief.  If the waiting period expires mid-season (on any date prior to the last day of the regular season), then the player's entire salary for that season is removed from the team's team salary.  For example, in March 2003 the Knicks were allowed to remove Luc Longley's entire 2002-03 salary from their books (and since the luxury tax is based on the team salary as of the last day of the regular season, the Knicks avoided paying any tax on Longley's salary).  This provision can also be used when a player dies while under contract.

Teams are not allowed to trade for disabled players and then apply for this salary cap relief.  Only the team for which the player was playing when he was disabled may request this relief.

If a player retires, even for medical reasons, his team does not receive a salary cap exception to acquire a replacement player.

It's unclear when the year runs from (whether the date of the actual injury or the date of the determination of the NBA physician.  However, the rule makes it clear that the team needs to *apply* for salary cap relief; it isn't automatic.  Presumably, if Miles is up and playing for another franchise, the NBA is going to deny Portland's request.

Has the league already granted Portland cap relief?  If so, I can't imagine he'd be put back on to Portland's cap.  If the request is still pending, however, (or hasn't been made yet) I can easily see the league denying Portland's application.

[bleedingreen]

I'm making a garensheed that if darius joins the celtics, I'm immediately ordering his jersey.

[Brendan]

My interpretation is that they could relief next April, retroactive. The retroactive part helps them with luxury tax only, cause they can't retroactively sign a player, but they do get some flexibility at the end of the season.

As for the hypothetical: keep in mind we don't know the insurance situation. Danny very well could have saved the C's a year of max contract by getting Theo and T'wolves a year or more versus Lafrentz. Doesn't matter to the team on the court, but matters to ownership which is the GM's boss and approved of trades.

"I'm trading Garnett for a bucket of balls, Al Jefferson, and a 30 million of savings."

Sounds better than:

"I'm trading Garnett for a bucket of balls, Al Jefferson, Brandon Roy and 10 million of savings."


for a lot of owners.

[Roy Hobbs]

Here's the actual rule:

h) Long-Term Injuries. Any player who suffers a career-ending injury or illness, and whose contract is terminated by the Team in accordance with the NBA waiver procedure, will be excluded from his Team’s Team Salary as follows:

    (1) Beginning on the first anniversary of the injury or illness, the Team may apply to the NBA to have the player’s Salary for each remaining Salary Cap Year covered by the Contract excluded from Team Salary.

    (2) The determination of whether a player has suffered a career-ending injury or illness shall be made by a physician selected jointly by the NBA and the Players Association.

    (3) Notwithstanding Section 4(h)(1) and (2) above, the career-ending injury or illness of a player who plays in more than ten (10) games in any Season shall not be deemed to have occurred prior to the last game in which the player played in such Season.

    (4) Notwithstanding Section 4(h)(1) and (2) above, if after a player’s Salary is excluded from Team Salary in accordance with this Section 4(h), the player plays in ten (10) NBA games in any Season, the excluded Salary for the Salary Cap Year covering such Season and each subsequent Salary Cap Year shall thereupon be included in Team Salary (and if the tenth game played is a playoff game, then the excluded Salary shall be included in Salary retroactively as of the start of the Team’s last Regular Season game). After a player’s Salary for one (1) or more Salary Cap Years has been included in Team Salary in accordance with this Section 4(h)(4), the player’s Team shall be permitted at the appropriate time to re-apply to have the player’s Salary (for each Salary Cap Year remaining at the time of the re-application) excluded from Team Salary in accordance with the rules set forth in this Section 4(h).

    (5) If a Team applies to have a player’s Salary excluded from its Team Salary pursuant to this Section 4(h), the player shall cooperate in the processing of the application, including by appearing at the reasonably scheduled place and time for examination by the jointly-selected physician.

    (6) Only the Team with which the player was under Contract at the time his career-ending injury or illness became known or reasonably should have become known shall be permitted to apply to have the player’s Salary excluded from Team Salary pursuant to this Section 4(h).

Section 4 is the important one.  It's less than clear, and I don't have time to really digest it, but if Miles plays ten games, *something* happens.  I *think* what it means is that if Miles plays 10+ games this season, Portland doesn't get any cap relief this year, but would have the option for reapplying next season.

[Brickowski]

Roy, I believe your interpretation is correct. He goes back on Portland's cap but the team can have him medically reexamined and try to get him off again.   But the real issue is, who pays the money still due to Miles under his guaranteed contract?  If his injury was "career ending," the insurance co. pays, and presumably it has been doing so since that medical determination was made.  If it is not career ending, the Portland francihise pays-- and in fact it pays double, because with Miles on the books the Blazers are currently over the luxury tax threshhold for 2008-09, and without his 9 million they are under it.

[BballTim]

2. At the same time, are you guys serious? Let's be honest here. Yes, Theo Ratliff was far better for the T-Wolves' purposes than Raef LaFrentz, who had an extra year on his contract. But don't you think Minnesota would have gladly accepted the extra $10-11 million of contract for the reigning Rookie of the Year instead of a coulda-been-but-never-was in Telfair? And if we gave up Roy and Al for KG, would anybody be saying anything about collusion between McHale and Ainge? No, they'd be saying it was a fair deal - two All-Star caliber talents under 25 for one MVP caliber talent over 30. Again, I don't care one way or the other, but to me, arguing that trading Roy and Raef for Ratliff and Telfair was the thing that allowed the KG trade is ridiculous. I don't see how Al, Gomes, Green, Telfair and Ratliff is a better offer than  Al, Roy, Green, Gomes and Raef (with one extra year on his contract). It's a worse offer. We made something amazing out of a bad trade, but it was still a bad trade, and had we not made it, we still could have had that amazing result of getting KG.

  It's nothing but speculation that Minny would have taken on Raef's contract (about $14M more than Theo's) to get Roy. The owner might not have approved the deal. Best case we end up where we are now. Worst case we don't. And after the Gasol trade the collusion talk has pretty much died down.

Right, it is speculation, and it's also speculation that Minnesota wouldn't have taken Raef and Roy instead of Ratliff and Telfair. It's also speculation that that the best case scenario is we end up where we are now. Maybe Minnesota would have taken the Rookie of the Year and the fifth pick and Raef and the same filler for KG, and KG thinks going to Boston with Pierce and Al gives him enough of a chance to compete. Or maybe he thinks Roy and Pierce is good enough, and the Celtics send Al and the #5, so we end up with Wally, Delonte, and Roy instead of Ray and Big Baby. Might it be better to be in the same situation, but with Brandon Roy at our 2, giving us the potential to rebuild on the fly, and Wally available as an expiring contract this season to get us more pieces? Yes, it's all speculation. That was part of my original point. You guys have used the KG trade to argue the Roy trade was good. It wasn't. It turned out fine for us (as I said in point 1) but that doesn't mean it wasn't a bad trade.

My point is, saying that having Ratliff and Telfair instead of Raef and Roy is the thing that got that deal done is preposterous, precisely because it's the exact same speculation you're accusing me of. While it's speculation, I find it hard to believe that somebody would turn down the Rookie of the Year because they don't want to pay $10-12 million extra.

  Sure. But in order to believe your speculation we have to ignore all of the articles (and probably quotes) that the 2 main things Minny wanted were a good young big man and expiring contracts, and ignore all of the trade rumors about other teams trying to acquire Al and Theo in order to trade with Minny.

4. Like I said before, I don't care that Portland got Roy from us for far less than fair value, and I don't feel any need to stick it to Portland for the Roy trade.

  What's fair value? We had the 6th pick in a draft which had been severely weakened by the league making the HS seniors skip the draft and go to college. Seattle got the equivalent of 3 first rounders to take on $8M in salary from Phoenix. Without 20-20 hindsight is that 6th pick in a crap draft worth far more than 5 or 6 late first rounders?

I don't know exactly what fair value is or was, but I will say fair value for the Rookie of the Year is more than $10 million cap savings and a point guard who was already washed up at 21 by the time he was traded to us.

  Again, this is 20-20 hindsight. If Roy was some sort of lock to be the rookie of the year he would have been drafted earlier. And we did get more than $14M in cap savings. We got a valuable trading chip which allowed us to get Garnett.

[paintitgreen]

What trade rumors about people trying to acquire Theo and Al to take a run at KG? I never heard those rumors, sorry. And I'm sure that by rumors, you mean speculation, right? You're criticizing me for speculating then saying I'm wrong because I'm not considering enough speculation?

And I'm not saying Minnesota didn't want expiring contracts. Obviously they did. But if they could have gotten an extra top 5 pick or the reigning Rookie of the Year, would they have agreed to pay the extra millions? I don't know but it's very very debateable.   

And as for fair value, you're absolutely right, my assessment is based on 20-20 hindsight. But this whole thing started with hindsight. Byrdman said he wanted to get back at the Blazers for "stealing Roy" from us. I said that I don't care that the Blazers gave less than fair value to get Roy. I was responding to somebody else saying it was stealing. All of this was said using 20-20 hindsight and the knowledge that Brandon Roy was Rookie of the Year and an All Star. If not for that, nobody would be calling this "stealing" in the first place. You are also using 20-20 hindsight - using a championship that happened a year after a trade that happened a year after another trade to justify the original trade. We're all using 20-20 hindsight. What is your point?

And by the way, I and many many other people absolutely loathed that trade at the time it was made because we gave up a top 6 pick for a guy who wouldn't have sniffed the first round of that draft all to save $14 million.

I am not saying the trade ended up costing us much if anything, as I said in my very first point. It worked out fine because Ainge made a great deal to get KG. But to say that giving up Raef and Roy to get Telfair and Ratliff is the thing that made the KG trade happen is an enormous leap in logic and the biggest speculation.

Everybody commenting on this little segue used 20-20 hindsight and speculation - you, me, Byrdman, the people who originally disagreed with Byrdman. It's obvious you disagree with me, fine, but don't say I'm wrong because I'm speculating and taking advantage of 20-20 hindsight when you're doing the exact same thing.

[paintitgreen]

The most interesting issue with Miles has nothing to do with basketball.  The question is whether or not Kevin Pritchard and the Blazers' doctors committed insurance fraud when they declared Miles' knee injury to be "career ending" (which meant that Miles came off Portland's cap and that the insurance company became obligated to pay the rest of Miles' contract).  If Miles signs with any team and is able to play, the Blazers are going to get sued.

Very good point, Brick. TP.

[Roy Hobbs]

And I'm not saying Minnesota didn't want expiring contracts. Obviously they did. But if they could have gotten an extra top 5 pick or the reigning Rookie of the Year, would they have agreed to pay the extra millions? I don't know but it's very very debateable.   

I tend to agree with you.  If Minnesota was *that* insistent on an expiring contract, I'm pretty sure they could have packaged Raef + Roy to another team for their expiring deal, whether it be in a 3-way trade at the time or at the trading deadline. 

However, assuming Danny was looking ahead a year when he made that deal, he *knew* Theo's contract would be a commodity.  He couldn't be sure the same would be true of Roy, or Gay, or Foye.  Even a good drafter knows there's a chance he's going to miss from time to time, and Danny went with the option that was more of a sure-thing in terms of future trade value.

[Roy Hobbs]

The most interesting issue with Miles has nothing to do with basketball.  The question is whether or not Kevin Pritchard and the Blazers' doctors committed insurance fraud when they declared Miles' knee injury to be "career ending" (which meant that Miles came off Portland's cap and that the insurance company became obligated to pay the rest of Miles' contract).  If Miles signs with any team and is able to play, the Blazers are going to get sued.

Very good point, Brick. TP.

I doubt very much that there's a lawsuit, even if Miles does play.  What fraud did Portland's doctors commit, especially if the "career ending" diagnosis was confirmed by NBA physicians, as well as (presumably) the insurance company's doctors?

Doctors have incorrect diagnoses all the time.  That doesn't mean there was any nefarious intent.  Intent, of course, is an element of fraud.

The only protection the insurance company is likely to have will be the contingencies they've built into their own contract.  I'm sure that contract took into account things like what would happen if Miles recovered sufficiently to resume his career.

[paintitgreen]

True, you're probably right Roy, as usual. First, they'd settle anything out of court. Second, any sort of medical negligence is tough to prove. Third, an injury need not be career ending for insurance to pay for it - see Theo Ratliff. Fourth, I'm sure the insurer decides whether to pay the salary only after it has its own doctors conduct an examination and doesn't go on what the NBA says - the "career-ending" part wasn't related to the tendering of insurance but rather to the Blazers' claims to the NBA for salary cap relief; any fraud by the Blazers was on the league not the insurance companies. Fifth, I'm sure when the insurer agreed to the payments, there was a clause saying if Miles does come back, the Blazers start paying the old salary.

I'll admit, it was a shrewd move by the Blazers. Last year, when they unloaded Randolph for Francis' contract and Frye, a lot of people mentioned that now, Portland just had to unload Miles to a) clear cap room and b) get a headcase/cancer out of their locker room. Well, they found this way to do it. I think it's BS because it sort of came out of nowhere, but it was one of those good business decisions. Normally, it wouldn't work to claim that an injured player had suffered a "career-ending" injury then just cut him, since another team could roll the dice. But in Miles' case, he has such a bad reputation that the combination of reputation and the injury seemed to be (and may be) enough to scare any team away from signing him to any sort of deal. I hope it backfires, because I think it's enormously unfair (every team would like to get out from under bad draft picks and signings) but it still may work.

[hwangjini_1]

The most interesting issue with Miles has nothing to do with basketball.  The question is whether or not Kevin Pritchard and the Blazers' doctors committed insurance fraud when they declared Miles' knee injury to be "career ending" (which meant that Miles came off Portland's cap and that the insurance company became obligated to pay the rest of Miles' contract).  If Miles signs with any team and is able to play, the Blazers are going to get sued.

Very good point, Brick. TP.

yes, the blazers may be sued. but to put the question of insurance fraud as was done here, couchs the responses/counter argument WITHIN the assumption that such was the case. which is a long winded way of saying....

the docs and blazers might have actually believed it was career ending. look at the very different medical opinions curt schilling got before the season as one example of how docs can honestly disagree.

my hope is that miles is healthy, that his head is close enough to being on straight that KG et al can keep him on the prim and proper path,  and if so, then i hope that danny signs him.

[Evantime34]

I'm really surprised D-Miles isn't getting more love. When he was on the clippers and doing the head tapping thing all of the NBA's younger viewers loved him. I used to be a huge fan and would love to see him dunk on people in green. We sign him for the minimum if he doesn't come back healthy we cut him, if he does come back healthy not only is he worth every penny of the min a healthy D-Miles is worth close to the MLE.