HOOPSWORLD
Rumors: A Closer Look at the Portland/Miles Conundrum

By: Eric Pincus   Last Updated: 1/9/09 3:24 PM ET | 9970 times read
Increase Font Size
Decrease Font Size
Adjust font size:

RUMOR HAS IT…

In this week's section geared exclusively towards the latest rumors floating around the NBA …

Portland/Miles: On the heels of a Yahoo! report that the Darius Miles/Portland Trail Blazers clock is down to just two games - the Blazers sent out a message to the rest of the league threatening litigation if any team signed Miles "to a contract for the purpose of adversely impacting the Portland Trail Blazers Salary Cap and tax positions."

"Please be aware that if a team engages in such conduct, the Portland Trail Blazers will take all necessary steps to safeguard its rights, including, without limitation, litigation," says the letter from Blazers President Larry Miller.

That's quite the bold approach considering how difficult it would be for the Blazers to prove a competing team's motivation in signing Miles is strictly for the purpose of upsetting Portland's plans - and not a move to simply better their roster.

Miles retired in 2007 after struggling to recover from microfracture knee surgery in late 2006.  His remaining $18 million contract (spread out evenly over this season and next) has since come off the Blazers' books - although he still receives compensation.

After playing six preseason games for the Boston Celtics and two regular season games with the Memphis Grizzlies, Miles is just two away from reaching the magic number of 10 that would "un-retire" that $18 million on Portland's cap.

Opting to go on the offensive before Miles ends up on another team (or back with the Grizzlies), the Blazers may be looking to intimidate the league with what may truthfully be an empty threat. 

"Portland has no 'rights' in this situation. If Miles can play, then they're not entitled the cap relief," said one well-versed source.  "They neither have any 'right' to it, nor to any privileges (such as cap room this summer) that result."

Still - the statement in and of itself makes it clear that the Blazers will take it very seriously if Miles ends up back on an NBA team.  The end result of litigation (winning/losing) is not always the point - the expense of time, resources, distraction and the potential limbo the process could potentially produce - that may be the deterrent the Blazers were seeking.

The NBA is often a cut-throat business - don't be surprised if Miles ends up on a roster before the season is out . . .

In the meantime, expect for the Blazers to be reprimanded by both the NBA Front Office and the Players' Union.  From the players' perspective Miles is just trying to get his once-promising career off the ground.  He and his representatives may have something to say about Portland's declaration.

Financial Ramifications: Portland's salary currently totals ~$70,060,316 (including the buy-out of guard Steve Francis).  The luxury tax threshold is $71.15 million - so the Blazers are just under the cut. 

Add Miles' $9 million salary to the equation and suddenly the Blazers are at about $79.06 million.  That's $7.91 million in tax Portland would suddenly have to pay - and about $263,677 that would go into the pockets of every other team under the tax line.

The Blazers would also lose out on the redistribution of luxury tax which projects to be at about $2.9 million this summer - assuming the Detroit Pistons make another trade to get under (something like Alex Acker for a conditional second-round pick) and the league allows Eric Snow's final year off the Cleveland Cavaliers' books (medical retirement).

In other words, the Blazers would be looking at financial loss of about $10.8 million if Miles plays in two additional games.

Beyond the financial penalty - the Blazers would find themselves limited this summer if they suddenly have to tack on another $9 million to their cap figure.

Assuming the team renounces the rights to forwards Channing Frye and Ike Diogu, their total salary number (not including a 2009 draft pick) would be $39.9 million.  For the 2008/9 NBA Season, the cap is set at $58.68 million.  While it typically goes up each year - the current economy could mean it stays about the same.  For the sake of argument - let's go with a round number at $59 million.

With all the young talent the Blazers are already sitting on - they're also looking at roughly $19 million in cap this summer.

Put Miles' $9 million back on the books and suddenly Portland's spending power is almost cut in half - down to $10 million.

Technically guard Steve Blake and forward Travis Outlaw can be cut before the end of June to prevent their salaries from becoming guaranteed next season.  That's not how the Blazers want to open up enough space to offer a free agent a max (or near-max) deal.

Why 2009 and not 2010?  Considering most teams are looking to maximize their space for the summer of 2010 (when LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, Amar'e Stoudemire and a host of other high quality players could be available) - the Blazers need to make their splash a year earlier.

At issue are the contracts of Portland stars - guard Brandon Roy and forward LaMarcus Aldridge.  Both stand to be restricted free agents in 2010 - although there's a good chance the Blazers lock the pair down to lucrative extensions.

Big money deals may mean no cap space in 2010 - assuming conservatively that both get deals starting at $10 million a season.  Even if they do become restricted free agents - their combined cap hold would be about $26.3 million.

To keep both Roy and Aldridge - and get deep enough under the cap to bring in a third significant piece - the Blazers would have to flat out gut their roster.

Essentially 2010 is out for Portland unless they make radical changes to their roster - assuming Roy and Aldridge are indeed the future of the franchise - which they are.

If so pressed the Blazers may be forced into making a deal before the February deadline with the expiring contract of Raef LaFrentz as a major building block - if their spending power in 2009 is seriously endangered.

Some of the big-name free agents potentially available in 2009 include Lamar Odom, Rasheed Wallace (the irony), Carlos Boozer, Mehmet Okur, Shawn Marion, Mike Bibby, Jason Kidd, Allen Iverson, Jamal Crawford, Ron Artest, Hedo Turkoglu and Andre Miller - among others.

Very few teams will have cap space this summer.  Competition for free agents between General Managers can be just as feisty as the Los Angeles Lakers/Boston Celtics Christmas match-up.

To be able to almost eliminate a suitor by drastically reducing their spending power - that's got to appeal to any of the other teams thinking space in 2009. 

Teams like the Atlanta Hawks, Detroit Pistons, Oklahoma City Thunder, Memphis Grizzlies, Miami HEAT and Minnesota Timberwolves may have varying amounts of cap room this summer - but that's dependent on what they do with their own free agents.

Putting the Trail Blazers at a financial disadvantage makes a lot of sense for any one of those teams looking for a leg up.  It might burn a bridge or two in Portland - but so be it . . .

Which leads to the question . . . why didn't the Blazers just claim him off waivers and park him on the inactive list for the rest of the season?

They probably should have - even if it meant cutting forward Shavlik Randolph before all contracts became fully guaranteed.

Of course there was risk on that end too - that the league might find that a conflict and rule Miles "unretired" on the spot.

At this point it's hard to predict how the Darius Miles conundrum will be resolved.

We'll see if anyone decides to call Portland's bluff . . .

Email to a friend
Email to a friend Print Version
Print version Deliscious
del.icio.us Digg This
Digg this

About the Author: ERIC PINCUS
Eric Pincus is a member of the Professional Basketball Writers Association and has covered the NBA for HOOPSWORLD for five years, powering HOOPSWORLD.COM.

Comments (14 posted) Post your comment
Please be respectful of the writers in your comments or they will be removed
posted By Shaq786, 9 January 2009 9:09:29 AM
if darius miles does play two more games they will not be able to grab who they want...I suggest lakers try to trade lamar, walton, farmar, and a future second round pick... for batum, frye, blake, and La frentz...this should be attempted after darius plays. Portland doesnt need la frentz or frye, so essentially they are getting lamar and farmar for batum and blake for just swallowing waltons contract, which is similar per year for the next couple years). That sounds like a deal to me. Lakers could get the free space to pay for bynum and ariza, while immideiately using blake and having a young talent for the future.
posted By Shaq786, 9 January 2009 9:12:54 AM
waltons contract is similar, the next couple of years, in comparison to blake's. Also the young talent in the end i was referreing to was Batum, in case nobody caught that
posted By Jason Fleming, 9 January 2009 9:35:00 AM
What's the upside for Portland?
posted By Toolatecrew, 9 January 2009 10:14:28 AM
Very dumb by the Blazers. WHile litigation can be time consuming and expensive this is the NBA where players are paid Millions in slary. A million bucks in legal expenses are pocket change. The trask of proving intent under even the best case scanario is huge. Even if a team signs him for a 10 day and plays him in 2 games and cust him its nealry impossible to prove that they should have player or kept a guy like Miles who is a deep bench player at best and who has been shown to have trouble in back to back practices. I am frankly shocked that the Blazers went public like this. It opens them to far more liability than simply waiting to see if a team did it and then suing. It also simply makes teams who do want to do it that they need to make more of an effort to keep up appearances. Its almost like they did teams a favour by putting up the standards they would need to meet to be safe. A 10 day conteact lkley covers only 4- 6 games. Go out and do a quick survey of how many minutes over the course of an average 10 day contract a guy plays (not many otherwise the guys wouldn't be on 10 days). Then play Miles 1 minute more. As long as teams don't pull a move of McHale level stupidity (put things in writing) it would be impossible for the Blazers to win this kind of case. It will also put the Players Union up their azzes
posted By vic, 9 January 2009 10:16:57 AM
Miles won't accept to sign for the blazers because he surely knows that he won't play at all. Don't you think ?
posted By Eric Pincus, 9 January 2009 10:40:45 AM
vic - that's why the Blazers should have claimed him off waivers - which he couldn't have stopped - though that would also raise issues that could backfire on the Blazers. Blake's contract is nothing like Luke Walton's - in that technically this current season is the last one Steve has guaranteed and Luke's goes on forever - and has a trade kicker.
posted By cg, 9 January 2009 11:03:19 AM
I think Portland has a strong case here. I say this because Portland and the NBA, with the agreement of Miles and his agent, invited an independent physician come in to evaluate Miles injury. That physician concluded that Miles injury was career ending, and Miles was released with that understanding. Now, Miles is coming back, and playing for other teams. If his career is not over, I believe that Portland should, at the very least, hold his exclusive rights, and have the option to keep him on their own roster.
posted By Don, 9 January 2009 11:12:57 AM
At issue here with the threatened lawsuit is not simply whether or not Miles plays in two more games. The real issue is whether another team signs him and plays him two games with the express purpose of causing damaage to the Blazers. If that case can be made, Portland may indeed have a very strong case.
posted By @Shaq786, 9 January 2009 11:19:15 AM
You're high if you think Portland would make a trade with Hell-A that involved 2 starters for a bunch of bench scrubs. Batum isn't going anywhere...especially for Luke "ow, my foot, DADDY!!!" Walton.
posted By Toolatecrew, 9 January 2009 12:16:53 PM
Don 9 Lets say that a team signs Miles to a 10 day. Plays him say 15 minutes over 4 of the 6 games. Make a case that the team did it sticktly to hurt the Blazers cap? You can't do it can you? If a team can sign busted up Shawn livingston and play him 2 minutes every 2nd month or if GS can Jermareo Davidson to a 10 day how on earth can the Blazers proved the INTENTION of playing Miles? As for the Doctor angle CG wants to bring up. 1If the Blazers did hold hios rights he'd stay on their CAP end of story 2. The doctor made a determination that Miles injury would prevent him from playing again. Its a prediction. Its not like he lost both his legs and it was IMPOSSIBLE to play. He simply made his best educated medical guess as to whether Miles WOULD be able to play at an NBA level in the future given the injury. Doctors can be wrong. The only way to TELL if they are wrong is to let Miles try to play and see if he can. The Blazers can accuse teams of signing Miles to Hurt them. Its actuially less valid than other teasm accusing the Blazers of preventing them from checking to see if Miles has anything left. How are you supposed to tell if you don't play him? If you do play him and he shows he can't do you have to keep him so the Blazers won't sue you or are you allowed to make a dermination on Miles the same as you would with any other 10 day. Blazers have NO shot at a case under tanything but the stupidest moves by someone.
posted By Eric Pincus, 9 January 2009 1:54:18 PM
cg - while you're certainly entitled to your opinion - it doeesn't necessarily match the rules that are in place. The collective bargaining agreement spells it out very clearly . . .
posted By Sasquatch, 10 January 2009 1:41:01 AM
Miles didn't retire in 2007 (or any other year), he was waived in 2008. Maybe people have forgotten it, but there was even a national TV game last season when he told Cheryl Miller that he felt he was ready to return but the team was holding him out.
posted By Sasquatch, 10 January 2009 2:25:47 AM
The Blazers claiming Miles off waivers would not be a good idea, for several reasons: 1. They already have a full roster, so they would have to cut a guaranteed contract. 2. They would undercut their own argument about other teams trying to do something fishy by doing something fishy themselves. 3. The agent for Miles and the players' union would be all over the Blazers' case. 4. Players and their agents would be negatively impressed with the Blazers to the point that even if they did save their cap space they might find that no one would want to sign with them.
posted By Brian, 15 January 2009 12:28:57 AM
Okay a little more input as far as the Blazers are concerned. There are two entities (under Paul Allen) that control the Blazers - Pritchard and the main office and Vulcan (a bunch of white collar bullies which control the purse strings and aren't even in Portland.. they are in Seattle, and I am obviously showing my anger here). Guess which one was behind this stupid mistake? You guessed it, the ones that think they can bully anybody. They are also the ones that let the areana the Blazers play in go into bankruptcy hoping they could buy it back for $.10 on the dollar. The lien holders kept it (and lost money) solely to piss these bunch of idiots off.



Checkout HOOPSWORLD on


NBA
NBA Rumors
NBA Salaries
NBA Newswire
NBA Transactions
NBA Trade History
NBA Stats
NBA Standings
NBA Teams
NBA Chats
NCAA BASKETBALL
NCAA Scores
NCAA Stats
NCAA Newswire
NCAA Standings
NBA DRAFT
Top 100 Prospects
Mock Draft
Owed Draft Picks
ABOUT THE SITE
RSS Feeds
Contact Us
Privacy Policy
Advertise With Us
Site Map
 

 


 
USA Today 
NBA Salaries  
NBA Teams  

Bookmark and Share

Email to a friend
Email to a friend
Print Version
Print version
Deliscious
del.icio.us
Digg This
Digg this
DID YOU ENJOY THIS ARTICLE

Avg Rating Not yet rated
 (total  votes)



TOP STORIES







PRIVACY POLICY | TERMS AND CONDITIONS | CONTACT US | SITE MAP | RSS FEEDS
AmericanEagle.com
© 2007 Fantasy Sports Ventures