Blazers Threaten Lawsuit if Miles Is Signed

Couldn't Miles have a lawsuit of his own against the Blazers stemming from this e-mail? After all, it appears they're directly interfering with his opportunity to get a job.

10 months ago snley 28 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

What the hell?

Miles’ agent is Jeff Wechsler. He also represents Larry Hughes and Quentin Richardson.

Miles is still getting his $9 million this year and next year, but he has every right to try to continue to get work in the NBA. The Blazers are nuts if they think they can litigate a team away from trying to sign him.

12/31: Fire Vinny Del Negro.

by NBA Observer on Jan 9, 2009 9:27 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Not a lawyer by any means, but

if Miles doesn’t get signed by anybody now that this letter has been made public, wouldn’t he have a collusion case on his hands against every owner in the NBA?

by BNeL21 on Jan 9, 2009 10:03 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

not really

collusion by definition:

Law. a secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally, to defraud another of his or her rights, or to appear as adversaries though in agreement.

This is insane though. The Blazers can’t tell other teams what to do. If he legitimately fits a need, someone should sign him, end of story. Even if it is ill-legitimate, so what? The Blazers tried to blackball him…serves them right. I hope they get screwed royally.

http://awsomepeoplesearch.com/

by NormVanBeer on Jan 9, 2009 10:33 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

While he may not have a collusion case...

They are certainly interfering with his right to work…I would expect the Players Association to speak out on Miles’ behalf here…I mean, he has shown that he can play, hence the 8 games in which he has already appeared.

I can’t imagine the Blazers have a legal leg to stand on…the burden of proof would be on them to show that a team signed Miles maliciously, rather than for his on the court potential.

" I've looked at these numbers and decided the #1 problem

is that Ben Gordon is selfish..." -your friendly bulls blogger

by Dionysus2.0 on Jan 9, 2009 10:43 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I heartily endorse a fan backlash against the Blazers

darlings of the league no more!

USE THE SOFTWARE. Actions-> Rec/Flag. Reply to comments with the reply button. Rec good fanposts/fanshots so the crud gets pushed down.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jan 9, 2009 11:07 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

I hope some GM is pissed enough at the Blazers to sign Miles and have his coach play him.

Reverse Pritch-Slap!

by Granny Waiters on Jan 9, 2009 9:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I love the Blazers

I don’t get why they sent that e-mail. It seems like they are daring teams to sign him. I’m still sticking to my original argument. If a team signs Darius and only plays him two games, then it’s obvious they are doing just to screw with the Blazers capspace. If they sign him and keep him on the team, then more power to them and Darius.

I still don’t get the e-mail and the more I think about it, the more I like it. If a team has to pay Darius a salary, and then the court costs when the Blazers take them to court, maybe they won’t think it’s worth trying to get the luxury tax money from the Blazers. I still think the e-mail is a dare to other GM’s to go ahead and sign him.

by tominhawaii on Jan 9, 2009 12:05 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

True hoop delved into this today.

Itts sounds like MIles wasn’t terrible in his one game. Held is own in a possesion against Al Jefferson… got a couple blocks in limited minutes.

Hell, Pax should do the deed. Or at least threaten to if Portland won’t take Nocioni/Hughes off our hands… I mean this Illinois… we elected Blogo twice.

by silentpete on Jan 9, 2009 12:57 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

He had a highlight reel leaping block

Sure doesn’t look like a guy who can’t play.

The real issue here is that the league has created this weird situation in which other teams can hold significant power over the Blazer’s salary cap.

That’s a problem because the CBA and the cap structure is set up to prevent such gamesmanship. By utterly failing to fix the situation, the league and I’d imagine the player’s union has done Darius Miles (a union member) and one of its teams (the Blazers) massive disservice.

That being said, the Blazers are missing the boat and creating more problems in the way they’re handling this. If I were Darius Miles’ lawyer, I’d be preparing a letter of my own this morning, perhaps more. If I were another team, I’d be that much more irritated with the Blazers.

De gustibus non est disputandum

by Sports2 on Jan 9, 2009 1:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't see it that way at all

Portland signed Miles, and waived him. They had significant power over their own cap. Getting a doctor to say he can’t play anymore is gamesmanship too.

USE THE SOFTWARE. Actions-> Rec/Flag. Reply to comments with the reply button. Rec good fanposts/fanshots so the crud gets pushed down.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jan 9, 2009 2:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The doctor ought to be investigated too

Unless Darius Miles is a freak of nature, this obviously wasn’t a career-ending injury. Did the Blazers hire the doctor, by any chance? Personally I don’t think a team ought to be able to get a contract off its salary cap because of an injury, and this case demonstrates why.

Why resort to name calling?
-Dionysus2.0

because I wish to insult you personally
-your friendly BullsBlogger

by Big D on Jan 9, 2009 4:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

It was an NBA doctor or NBA approved doctor, I can find the link if you want it

The more I’ve thought about it, the more I like what the Blazers did. They don’t care if Darius can play again and plays. What bothers them is some team signing him and having him play two games then cutting him, just to mess with their cap space.

So now, the next team that signs him, has to keep him for more than two games because everybody will be watching. It is also good for Darius because he is getting a lot of attention, and the next team he goes to will be compelled to keep him for more than two games and probably longer than one 10 day contract.

by tominhawaii on Jan 9, 2009 7:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

What if a team signs him, plays him, and then decides he's not that good?

Do they have to keep playing him just so the Blazers don’t sue them? This is the time of year when teams routinely sign guys to 10-day contracts to take a look at them.

Why resort to name calling?
-Dionysus2.0

because I wish to insult you personally
-your friendly BullsBlogger

by Big D on Jan 9, 2009 10:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't know

The Blazers e-mail was about signing him and playing him two games just to screw over their cap space. It wasn’t about signing him and really wanting him to play.

by tominhawaii on Jan 10, 2009 12:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

And the Blazers could prove the difference how?

10-day contract, practices for a few days without playing in a game, getting “acclimated”, plays, then gets a DNP-CD, plays another game, looks like shit, not re-signed after 10-day.

How can you prove they did it just to screw the Blazers?

Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!

by tyger1147 on Jan 11, 2009 2:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't know, you'd have to ask them

I just know why they sent the e-mail, not how they planned to prove it.

I'm a Blazers fan and If you ban me from your blog, I'll sue you!

by tominhawaii on Jan 13, 2009 4:55 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

No... as Tominhawaii said, it was a doctor agreed upon by the NBA (actually the NBA and the player's association)

So they weren’t gaming it at all. The Blazers followed the procedure laid out in the CBA for removing a player with a career ending injury from the cap.

Unfortunately, the procedure laid out in the CBA created some obvious conflicts of interest in the rare situation, like here, when the player turns out to want to come back and not have a career ending injury.

De gustibus non est disputandum

by Sports2 on Jan 9, 2009 7:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I think the problem is that the Blazers probably knew that Miles wasn't really suffering from

a career ending injury and yet went forward with this procedure anyway just to remove him from the lockerroom and their cap.

by fundamentallysound on Jan 9, 2009 10:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

In any case it's something that should seriously be addressed in the next CBA

Whatever the personality of Miles is, it’s unfair for him to be treated as some kind of cash flow pawn by the NBA’s front offices, and that the Blazers are badmouthing a guy who just wants to play basketball.

Vinny Del Negro interviewed for the job today. I mean come on! Nobody else thinks this is nuts?
by Juiceboxjerry on Jun 6, 2008 4:21 PM CDT actions actions 0 recs

by Ozzie Montana on Jan 9, 2009 10:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The Blazers have not said one thing about Miles

He has not been bad mouthed by the organization ever.

by tominhawaii on Jan 10, 2009 12:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That's a strong possibility

in which case, it was incumbent upon the approved-by-all-parties, independent medical professional to deny their petition.

He didn’t. He looked at the evidence and said in his expert opinion, Miles couldn’t play NBA ball.

Looks like he was wrong, but so what. It makes sense to rely on his opinion. You avoid the obvious conflict of interest you’d get by relying on one of the principals.

De gustibus non est disputandum

by Sports2 on Jan 9, 2009 11:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs