Today's Poll -- Should The Team Have Owned Their Waiver Claim?

by Ben. on Jan 13, 2009 11:57 AM PST Comment 128 comments

Man, this latest legal chapter is surreal: the Blazers really tried to claim Miles off waivers? While I am surprised that the team has the cojones to do this, I think this news helps further the team's position put forward last Friday: "we will do anything to protect our team." Larry Miller's memo certainly makes more sense now, given the context in which it was sent. The waiver claim was denied and the team felt like it had absolutely no other options. It's still strange but it is certainly consistent.

Here's my question: why didn't KP and Larry Miller tell us this news on Friday? There was a big teleconference for Larry, an interview on John Canzano's radio show, and a stand up question and answer session with KP at practice (video here). As Norsktroll pointed out in the comments, Miller responds to a Canzano question about whether they would claim Darius on waivers by saying "no, we wouldn't do that" even though the team had already tried to do exactly that.

Many of you commented to me that Kevin Pritchard looked uncomfortable or unhappy during the video linked above. It was an incredibly tough position for KP to be in at that time: he couldn't be sure that someone would sign Darius (although rumors were strong that Memphis, and a line of other teams, planned to) and he knew that the team's attempt to claim Darius had been denied by the league. He also knew none of the media present had heard that news yet. He was given an opportunity to make the best possible case for his team's interests. Did he succeed?

Today's poll: if the memo was part of a plan to protect the team's interests and build an ongoing legal case, would explaining the plan (including the failed waiver claim) have helped the team's case in the media and furthered support for their legal claims?

I think there would have been some real advantages to "coming clean" on Friday. Maybe you disagree?

-- Ben (benjamin.golliver@gmail.com)

Poll

When given the opportunity on Friday, should Larry Miller and/or Kevin Pritchard have told the media about their attempt to claim Miles on waivers?

Yes. Darius was going to get signed anyway and honesty and transparency would have gone a long way.

414 votes

No. They didn't know for sure that Darius was going to be signed so their hands were tied.

269 votes

683 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs | Comment 128 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

It depends

They had no certain knowledge whether the news would come out or not.

The fact that they tried to claim him doesn’t look great from a PR sense, and then they would have had to explain that they did it to lay legal groundwork, something they probably don’t want to explicitly say.

If they knew the news would come out, it would have been better PR to own it themselves up front. It probably would have been better (PR-wise) if it never came out, though — if no reporter could get hold of the fact, it would probably have been a mistake to bring it out themselves.

After the fact, knowing that a reporter did get, it probably would have been better for them to be up-front about it. But they couldn’t have known that at the time. Tough call.

I know you can put admiration in bags, because admiration is real, and tominhawaii says that everything that is real is measurable.

by jscot on Jan 13, 2009 12:03 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

totally agree. incredibly, incredibly tough call.

i think the memo leak would have been the tipping point for me. after that i would have wanted to get it all out and concluded that nothing would stay private. really really tough decision to make with that kind of time pressure though.

Blazers Edge.com

by Ben. on Jan 13, 2009 12:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The difference

is that every team in the league knew about that email, but probably not everyone knew about the waiver thing.

I know you can put admiration in bags, because admiration is real, and tominhawaii says that everything that is real is measurable.

by jscot on Jan 13, 2009 12:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

he cites multiple sources so its not like its one guy going nuts on a computer somewhere.

Blazers Edge.com

by Ben. on Jan 13, 2009 12:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, I know

But I wasn’t talking about what actually happened, but the Blazers’ risk assessment as to whether or not the news would come out.

The email coming out could have just been one guy who got mad, and that one guy might not have had the waiver info.

I know you can put admiration in bags, because admiration is real, and tominhawaii says that everything that is real is measurable.

by jscot on Jan 13, 2009 1:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

the team thought “multiple teams” were trying to screw them so i think it’s reasonable to also assume multiple teams would leak any/all negative information about them given the circumstances. especially something as “explosive” as a waiver claim of a player they medically retired.

Blazers Edge.com

by Ben. on Jan 13, 2009 1:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Perhaps so

but “multiple teams” might just be 2 or 3. To me, it still isn’t clear. (In retrospect it is, it probably would have been better to just say so. But there may be legal reasons they didn’t that we don’t know about, too.)

I know you can put admiration in bags, because admiration is real, and tominhawaii says that everything that is real is measurable.

by jscot on Jan 13, 2009 1:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

well i just emailed canzano this question and if we’re lucky he will address it on his show!

Blazers Edge.com

by Ben. on Jan 13, 2009 1:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'll be lucky

and miss that.

I know you can put admiration in bags, because admiration is real, and tominhawaii says that everything that is real is measurable.

by jscot on Jan 13, 2009 1:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Wow I was about to type that.

I’d rather not hear Canzano’s “unbiased” response.

by Timmay! on Jan 13, 2009 1:11 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

not only is he unbiased

but he’ll save you the trouble of figuring out if it’s unbiased by telling you himself, let you know he’s doing everyone a public service, and denounce any dissenters as hacks.

by shralpster on Jan 13, 2009 2:46 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

Can't answer your poll

because I don’t know the reasons the blazers didn’t share. Were there legal issues for the silence? I’d seriously want to know more information before I leap to judgment here. People behind the scenes usually have more information and I wonder what they know that we don’t that has led to the number of events that have occurred.

Generally I prefer people to be open and honest. I also recognize this isn’t always possible for a variety of reasons.

Greg Oden, where posters happen.

by ratbastird on Jan 13, 2009 12:12 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Well

Its abundantly clear the Blazers much preferred the capspace option to the “trade RLEC” option. Perhaps that means they aren’t crazy about any of the potential targets (Hinrich, G. Wallace, etc.). It will be interesting to see if they “settle” for one of those guys with the Miles contract certain to go back on the books.

Boomshakalaka

by jksnake99 on Jan 13, 2009 12:21 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Are you sure

that this isn’t partly about millions of dollars of luxury tax payments? Not only do they have to pay, but they lose what they would have received as a non-tax payer.

I know you can put admiration in bags, because admiration is real, and tominhawaii says that everything that is real is measurable.

by jscot on Jan 13, 2009 12:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

good point

Its possible, but I think their decisions have mostly been about basketball.

Boomshakalaka

by jksnake99 on Jan 13, 2009 12:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

KP didn't make this decision

I know you can put admiration in bags, because admiration is real, and tominhawaii says that everything that is real is measurable.

by jscot on Jan 13, 2009 12:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

This is silly

What legal grounds does the NBA have in denying waivers to the Blazers? Circumventing the cap?….what about another teams trying to hurt Portland’s cap? The NBA has no way of knowing intent or purpose to deny waivers from any team. The league is acting outside of the rules and manipulating competition. The biggest screw up is from the NBA, I hope the Blazers sue them.

If this waiver claim is part of the legal process, the Blazers are building a great case. I don’t care either way if the Blazers released a press release about the waiver claim or kept quiet about it. The bigger story is the Blazers being denied the claim than this empty posturing about transparency or trust.

BINGO, BANGO, BONGO

by blzrfan on Jan 13, 2009 12:24 PM PST reply actions 1 recs

Absolutely

I’m all for suing the league at this point. The denial of the Darius pick up is absolutely stunning considering another team can sign him and their intent when they also have clear monetary reasons for their signings. Memphis’ intent is JUST as clear as Portland’s. Both are about money.

He's Coming! Oden Slayer of Giants

by Idog1976 on Jan 13, 2009 12:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Probably won't be necessary

Probably, the league will rule that the intent of the provision doesn’t apply to this situation, and his salary doesn’t go back on our books.

Undoubtedly, the players association will support that, because it means more money being spent on free agents. The league will support it to end the legal jockeying and prevent a lawsuit. Everyone will be happy.

I know you can put admiration in bags, because admiration is real, and tominhawaii says that everything that is real is measurable.

by jscot on Jan 13, 2009 12:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Unfortunately the league can't change the current CBA at a moments notice even if they would realize it contains flaws

The current one runs until the 2011 offseason. It requires lengthy negotiations between two parties and all kinds of lawyers to work out a new one. There won’t be changes just to accommodate our case before that. We can agree it’s stupid, but it’s the current situation. The CBA also doesn’t say anything about what constitutes a career ending injury (that either is in an external document or not defined at all). It describes under which circumstances you can get cap relief for a player who has been retired. As it stands, if a player plays in ten games, he goes back on your cap. End of story. I don’t expect the league to overturn something here. The Blazers and Tom Penn/KP knew the rules they were evoking, which is what the Cavs owner alluded to in his email.
Darius will likely be the first and last medical retirement under the current version of the CBA because of how it turned out.

by Norsktroll on Jan 13, 2009 12:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The only thing I would say to that is

where is the provision that says Portland can’t pick up Miles off waivers? If it is not written into the CBA .( I don’t think it is)….then someone made a ruling. If someone can make a ruling re that issue ..they can make a ruling on the cap space issue as well. That in fact may be why PDX tried to claim Miles off waivers to begin with. Just a thought

Larry (the new Johnnie Cochran) Miller: "If we get screwed, we're gonna sue"

by 92wastheyear on Jan 13, 2009 12:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Pure speculation: That could be a separate issue/section from the medical retirement paragraph.

The NBA does not look favorably on teams trying to re-acquire players they have waved or traded away after that happened a few times (Gary Payton I think was a prominent case). Do you want this player, or not? Thus they e.g. introduced all kinds of waiting periods and trade restrictions.
Miles still was in a kind of contractual relationship with the Blazers (still receiving salary from them). So maybe they couldn’t enter in a new one that would run in parallel. It may be even considered tampering to negotiate with such a player, which again can draw heavy fines and in grave cases has led to loss of draft picks from the NBA (a reason why they couldn’t talk about it publicly?). I’m really not sure on whose side the league stands in this case. Henry from TrueHoop has made comments that could point in both directions, with vastly different outcomes.

by Norsktroll on Jan 13, 2009 12:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Nope

Memphis just waived Darius and then picked him up again. The whole intent of the reinstatement clause under medical retirement was that if you came back with your original team, your salary went back on their books. There is nothing prohibiting our acquiring Darius except that someone (David Stern) ruled against it.

I know you can put admiration in bags, because admiration is real, and tominhawaii says that everything that is real is measurable.

by jscot on Jan 13, 2009 1:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It's an interpretation issue

Where does the CBA say that preseason games count towards the ten games in this case? It doesn’t, that is an interpretation issue as well.

If it comes down to interpretation, is the players’ association going to oppose an interpretation that frees up Portland’s cap space? It would be in their interests to support that.

If the league wants medical retirements to be in the CBA, and the Players’ Association does as well (and they both do), then they had better interpret it in a way that keeps it functional. And that means holding to the original intent of the clause.

I know you can put admiration in bags, because admiration is real, and tominhawaii says that everything that is real is measurable.

by jscot on Jan 13, 2009 1:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Absolutely

Darius retiring killed the possibility of any team medically retiring a player until 2011. Cavs should be on our side in this matter if they want to retire Eric Snow. Same with any other team looking at medical retirement. This is patently absurd.

He's Coming! Oden Slayer of Giants

by Idog1976 on Jan 13, 2009 2:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

how does the NBA know Portland’s intent any better than Memphis’ intent?

by Waltonia on Jan 13, 2009 12:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I still don't see

what the deal is with medical retirement. It seems like all it does is make you a target for revenge and capspace overload. For instance will the Cav’s opt to medically retire Eric Snow now? I mean wouldn’t snow like a $500,000 deal with Portland so we can add him back on the cap and possibly force LeBron to look elsewhere to play? I mean this adds a whole new element to signing players. Presumably, if people were dumb enough to try and medically retire their players we would see Darius style signings frequently. Player gets more $$$, Teams below cap can sign and make money by signing a player who can’t play. Can someone tell me how this rule makes even a little sense? I’m absolutely flabbergasted. This story has gotten worse by the day!

He's Coming! Oden Slayer of Giants

by Idog1976 on Jan 13, 2009 12:25 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Teams cant medically retire anyone

They can ask the league to appoint doctors to investigate. Its not at the Blazers or Cavs in your examples discretion. We cant just say we want to medically retire Raef because we want to. Gotta remember miles didnt play for 2 whole years

Blazer fans tell me, where were you,
When our Brandon Roy dropped 52?

by GreatOden'sRaven on Jan 13, 2009 1:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Here's the rub

Doesn’t the attempt at claiming him off waivers pretty much invalidate the Blazers whole claim that the dude can’t play and shouldn’t be in the NBA?

This is Steve Patterson dumb.

by nikolokolus on Jan 13, 2009 12:25 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

no

because unlike the BUSINESS deals involving Miles (the signings and attempts by Blazers to procure him to not play him), his retirement was decided by two doctors and relates to a likely catastrophic injury resulting from future play, not an inability to play. It’s a warning that he will ruin his knee if he plays anymore and that it is unsafe. Nothing has changed on this front which makes the Memphis signing all the more evil.

He's Coming! Oden Slayer of Giants

by Idog1976 on Jan 13, 2009 12:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

And their intent

to harm the Blazers and get redistributed luxury tax all the more clear.

He's Coming! Oden Slayer of Giants

by Idog1976 on Jan 13, 2009 12:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

there is nothing evil about the Memphis signing

While its clear that screwing Portland is part of their motivation, Miles wants to play and they are willing to give him a chance. If Miles gets hurt, its his own fault for ignoring the doctors, not Memphis’ fault.

Boomshakalaka

by jksnake99 on Jan 13, 2009 12:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

NO way

if a doctor gives you a medicine that he KNOWS will harm you because you have on medical file that you are allergic to it then you can sue him. It definitely is wrong that Memphis signed Miles knowing the sole reason is to hurt Portland. They aren’t looking to add him as even a semi-long term piece because two doctors have already said he doesn’t have much time left. Thus Memphis is willingly endangerging an admittedly complicit Miles. Memphis is evil in that they are willing to facciliate the ruination of Miles’ knee just for a few hundred thousand and a hit to a rival’s cap space. Mile’s agent and Memphis are the villains here plain and simple. Oh and Miles is an idiot to boot.

He's Coming! Oden Slayer of Giants

by Idog1976 on Jan 13, 2009 12:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I couldn't disagree more

Miles knows the risks.

Boomshakalaka

by jksnake99 on Jan 13, 2009 12:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

So if someone comes to your house

and you know they will die if you feed them peanuts. They ask for peanuts and you also know you have an insurance claim that pays if they die, then it’s totally reasonable for you to give them said peanuts? I don’t think so.

He's Coming! Oden Slayer of Giants

by Idog1976 on Jan 13, 2009 12:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Point is

even knowing the risks Memphis knows this. They are only doing it to screw Portland.

It doesnt do any of the following:

A) Insure Darius health
B) Make the team appreciably better

Therefore they are risking Darius’ knee merely to get a luxury tax pay off. Give me a break about Memphis having Miles best interests at heart.

He's Coming! Oden Slayer of Giants

by Idog1976 on Jan 13, 2009 12:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Miles life is not in danger

His health is in danger. HUGE difference.

Boomshakalaka

by jksnake99 on Jan 13, 2009 12:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Ok

fair enough. Point is Memphis is helping Miles to put himself in a position both know could end up with him hurt for life all for the sake of sticking it to portland and a luxury tax reimbursement. Memphis is not being honorable any way you slice it. I don’t buy for a second that they think Miles can help the team make the playoffs this year or that he is a long term solution. If he doesn’t do one of those two things then you can see that it’s all about the cap and luxury tax. Therefore Memphis is behaving in a cynical and Machiavellian manner to say the least.

He's Coming! Oden Slayer of Giants

by Idog1976 on Jan 13, 2009 12:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t buy for a second that they think Miles can help the team make the playoffs this year or that he is a long term solution.

That’s not the only reason teams sign players. When Portland was a horrible 21 win team, they signed players like Desmond Ferguson (who? exactly.) that definitely didn’t fit either of the above criteria.

Look, if you saw Miles against Minnesota, its clear he can get up and down the court decently and block a shot or two. Based on the evidence we have, he’s a perfectly legitimate option as a 12th man.

In your peanuts example, the better analogy would be Memphis saying, “Darius, its true that these peanuts might make you sick and that we are primarily feeding them to you because it will win us a bet with the neighbors, but the peanuts are also going to taste really good,” and Darius saying “ok.”

Is Memphis completely ethical here? No. Should the money still go back on Portland’s cap? I say yes.

Boomshakalaka

by jksnake99 on Jan 13, 2009 1:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Why can't portland

void the medical retirement and/or trade the old contract as an expiring contract if it is back on our books? That’s what doesn’t make a bit of sense to me Portland loses everything here on something that should have been open and shut but has become this total loss situation that leaves us only with a liability and not the attached asset (the contract). It doesn’t make ANY sense.

He's Coming! Oden Slayer of Giants

by Idog1976 on Jan 13, 2009 2:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

If what we've been told

about the risks to Darius is true, Memphis is behaving unethically in playing him.

It’s not illegal, but it isn’t right, either.

I know you can put admiration in bags, because admiration is real, and tominhawaii says that everything that is real is measurable.

by jscot on Jan 13, 2009 1:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Fun debate

Choice over ones life vs state interference to keep a person safe against their will.

Same argument can be applied to a person who wants to surf a hurricane or be put to death.

I can agree with both sides and I PERSOnALLY wouldn’t let someone like that play and have it on my conscience.

Greg Oden, where posters happen.

by ratbastird on Jan 13, 2009 12:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Not that choice in this case

Choice over ones life vs state interference to keep a person safe against their will.

I know you can put admiration in bags, because admiration is real, and tominhawaii says that everything that is real is measurable.

by jscot on Jan 13, 2009 1:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Oops

meant to quote that and say that’s not the choice. The question here is not of state interference, but simply the ethical question of whether Memphis is doing wrong. That makes it pretty clear.

Lots of people who think it is wrong would never say it should be illegal.

I know you can put admiration in bags, because admiration is real, and tominhawaii says that everything that is real is measurable.

by jscot on Jan 13, 2009 1:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

my point

is simply that the debate logic would be the same.

at point x you have someone dictating to point y for their own good. Point y wants to do activity A regardless of the safety/risk. Point X either steps in to protect Y from his/herself or says “go for it.”

NBA would be the state in this case or point X.

I tend to support the “people can do whatever they want” side more than the “keep everyone safe oh NOES!!!!” side. The human race takes risks and should never be afraid to do so. If it were up to some people we’d all be tied up at home in giant plastic bubbles. That’s not for me.

So I find the debate itself interesting. Whether it’s on the state, federal, or in this case business arena.

In this situation, I believe the NBA should step in, based on the medical history, and tell mile “Sorry dude, your knees are gone and we’re going to save you from yourself because frankly, that’s some bad PR coming our way if something goes wrong. Don’t deny you can’t jump, but also can’t deny that won’t continue and frankly we don’t want a football type lawsuit years down the road where you pin this on us. Thanks for playing, later!”

Anyway, I find debates like this interesting, although it didn’t get very far here.

Greg Oden, where posters happen.

by ratbastird on Jan 13, 2009 2:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I have to agree

Boomshakalaka

by jksnake99 on Jan 13, 2009 12:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Here's the rub

Doesn’t the attempt at claiming him off waivers pretty much invalidate the NBA/Grizzlies whole claim that intents cannot be proven?

This is David Stern dumb.

BINGO, BANGO, BONGO

by blzrfan on Jan 13, 2009 12:30 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

Bingo (bango, bongo)

It also makes the league liable for an iron-clad claim by Darius. He could have been paid for the rest of the season, and they blocked it. If he doesn’t get a contract, see you in court.

I know you can put admiration in bags, because admiration is real, and tominhawaii says that everything that is real is measurable.

by jscot on Jan 13, 2009 12:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I think this was a legal maneuver

Which is why I don’t see the fuss about not announcing it. I actually think its brilliant, Blazers had nothing to lose to try it and the NBA stupidly obliged to undercut any legal argument about proving intent.

BINGO, BANGO, BONGO

by blzrfan on Jan 13, 2009 12:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

If the league doesn’t block it you have a PR disaster, and Darius might sue if he gets no PT, but the space is preserved, and Darius gets yet more of Paul Allen’s money.

If the league blocks it, they’ve blocked Darius from a rest-of-season contract (oops, might not want to have done that, his lawyer might be calling) and crossed the “intent” line.

But you still might want to announce it if it helps your PR and doesn’t hurt your legal position. Probably they don’t want to talk about the reason for doing it, because it is legal positioning, which is the main reason they didn’t announce it.

I know you can put admiration in bags, because admiration is real, and tominhawaii says that everything that is real is measurable.

by jscot on Jan 13, 2009 1:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Excellent point, blazrfan

This could easily be an argument in the inevitable lawsuit.

by Kaboomm on Jan 13, 2009 2:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Who said Miles was going to see a minute on the court

It’s obvious to all that if the Blazers claimed Miles off waiver, he would be paid to watch girls dance on poles down at the Acrop.

Just like the previous 2 seasons.

Shavlik Randolph woulda been cut, but other than that, no bid deal.

by EngineerScotty on Jan 13, 2009 12:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

One of the first things about law that I have learned from watching TV

is that the less said about pending litigation the better. That is probably why KP was less than forthcoming about the waiver claim.

by tingeyga on Jan 13, 2009 12:26 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

this would also be my guess

and why i can’t vote here.

Greg Oden, where posters happen.

by ratbastird on Jan 13, 2009 12:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Absolutely right

Nothing good would come of fighting this out in the media.

by Kaboomm on Jan 13, 2009 2:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Here is why you have use of a lawyer.

As rat (and to an extent jscot) point out, we do not have expert knowledge on what is the best course of action that leads to a desirable outcome from a legal standpoint. If Portland plans to address this problem by appealing to the league, my assumption is that their biggest leverage will be the unspoken threat of legal action. If this is the case, then I am also guessing they do not want to prejudice their case.

If the choice comes down to protecting their case or being transparent to avoid any negative PR, I’m for protecting their case. In evaluating the hit on PR, the most important aspect of it is with Portland’s own fans. This is of such minor impart to us that there is little ground for fans to get upset or put off. (Those who are might want to think about becoming potty trained.) How this looks to fans outside of Portland is irrelavent.

hakkaa päälle !

by timg56 on Jan 13, 2009 12:29 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Agreed...

I sense that this is simply the groundwork for some significant legal proceedings that will have very little to do with the signatory team (Memphis) and everything to do with the NBA’s rules and regulations as it concerns the overarching framework related to these types of loopholes. Sorry for the winded sentence.

"I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany."

by dcblazer on Jan 13, 2009 12:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yep

And possibly even to do with the league’s specific interpretations of those rules in this case.

I know you can put admiration in bags, because admiration is real, and tominhawaii says that everything that is real is measurable.

by jscot on Jan 13, 2009 1:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Long term perhaps....

…but I think the short-term interest is that in highlighting all of these subjective matters within the rules and regs they’ll get Stern to cry ‘uncle’ choosing instead to offer some type of NBA plea agreement so that the punishment currently on tap for the franchise is somewhat mitigated.

"I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany."

by dcblazer on Jan 13, 2009 1:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Of course

These things almost never actually go to court.

Where it might is if the NBA drags it out until it’s too late for us to use the cap space. Then, we could see a big lawsuit.

But you might see restraining orders issued keeping the league from distributing any luxury tax payments, and fun stuff like that.

If Paul Allen’s lawyers think they’ve got a case, there will probably be a rapid settlement.

I know you can put admiration in bags, because admiration is real, and tominhawaii says that everything that is real is measurable.

by jscot on Jan 13, 2009 11:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

My hope

and maybe that of the Blazer’s brass is that this never reaches the trial stage, hopefully Stern blinkjs and decides it’s not worth the aggravation/potential emabarassment to the league to pursue and simply retroactively adjusts the rule.

Jerryd Bayless = Marlo Stanfield
- Early stage Marlo at this point, but Rex is the emotionless killer new to the game. He will take over, and there will be causalties – it’s just a matter of time.

by blazeraddict on Jan 13, 2009 1:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Doubtful

It’s hard to envisage a partner entity within the league and the league itself would go so far as to take this to the courts. It’s simply in neither party’s interest to have this dispute out in front of the product as it provides an opportunity for lost revenue across the board.

"I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany."

by dcblazer on Jan 13, 2009 1:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

That's my point

It might be a big game of chicken if the Blazers sue (big if there), so maybe the league would cave. Probably wishful thinking, but it’s more viable at this point than keeping Miles off the court

by blazeraddict on Jan 13, 2009 1:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I hear you but...

my guess is that the Blazer’s have never had the intention of suing a counterpart for the very reasons highlighted herein and elsewhere. They were more interested in laying the legal groundwork to file a sound grievance with (not necessarily against) the NBA in attempt to highlight some very large legal gaps in their current operating framework (and get some financial reprieve in the process).

At the end of the day, this has virtually nothing to do with Miles, it’s just that the case of Miles happened to be the instance whereby the exposure of these flaws was exposed.

"I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany."

by dcblazer on Jan 13, 2009 1:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

apologies for the redundancy - exposure exposed

"I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany."

by dcblazer on Jan 13, 2009 1:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

No apology necessary

I don’t think I was following/adressing the line of thought in your 2nd to last post, appreciate the discussion

by blazeraddict on Jan 13, 2009 1:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with Dwight

http://www.dwightjaynes.com/an-incredible-turnaround-for-darius#comments

Boomshakalaka

by jksnake99 on Jan 13, 2009 12:40 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Dwight is thinking too short term

The Blazers are looking at the big picture. This was a legal maneuver, not a salary or basketball move. If the Blazers actually got to claim Miles, I doubt he would have been a Blazer more than a day. The risk of the minimum guaranteed contract is nothing compared to the 9 million potentially back on the books in addition to the luxury tax.

Based on the letter sent to the teams and this waiver claim. I think the Blazers are building a legal case for themselves to protect their interests and appeal the rules which screwed them over.

BINGO, BANGO, BONGO

by blzrfan on Jan 13, 2009 12:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

If Miles had been claimed...

the Blazers would have to keep him on the roster to the end of the season.

Granted, he wouldn’t play a lick, but he would take up a roster spot. Bye, Shavlik.

As pointed out above—the Blazers paid Darius big money to not play for the past two seasons, so I don’t think that this is a Big Outrage.

by EngineerScotty on Jan 13, 2009 12:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

no kidding

I really don’t understand how anyone could possibly see Darius as a sympathetic character in this. At best he is greedy (signing a new contract now that he can make more $$) and stupid (Risking a hobbling injury that will pain him for life for a few thousand more $). At worst Darius is a scammer who conspired with his agent to make his injury appear worse then it was. I for one just think Darius is greedy and stupid not a conspirator. Regardless, I just can’t fathom the whole “Poor POOR Darius Miles” line of thinking.

He's Coming! Oden Slayer of Giants

by Idog1976 on Jan 13, 2009 12:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

He's getting $18 million from Paul Allen

and you think he’s looking for another gig, sure to pay no more than the veteran minimum, because he’s greedy? Am I the only one who believes him when he says he wants his son to see him play? Which also explains why he’s willing to risk ruining his knee.

by MiledAnimal on Jan 13, 2009 1:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

His son would do better to watch Youtube...

lots of clips there from back when Darius could play at a high level.

by EngineerScotty on Jan 13, 2009 1:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Not the same as seeing Daddy dunk in person.

by MiledAnimal on Jan 13, 2009 1:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

and the horror

of watching Dad’s knee explode in person? No way I buy that argument.

He's Coming! Oden Slayer of Giants

by Idog1976 on Jan 13, 2009 2:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Don't kneed that, huh?

The fact that Darius wants to play again implies that he isn’t concerned about becoming Shaun Livingston II.

What’s his address? We could all send him Haagen-Daaz…

by MiledAnimal on Jan 13, 2009 3:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Blazers should pay to have a mobile ice cream stand follow him around.

by shralpster on Jan 13, 2009 3:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Nothing in the CBA says that the player must be kept on the roster

The contract becomes guaranteed. The Blazers can waive Miles immediately again, but cannot sell or trade him for 30 days after a waiver claim.

BINGO, BANGO, BONGO

by blzrfan on Jan 13, 2009 12:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The point of claiming him off waivers

is to keep someone else from signing him, and playing him.

If the Blazers waive him in this scenario, they have to pay him—but cannot prevent him from signing again with Memphis.

by EngineerScotty on Jan 13, 2009 1:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Doing that would be an invitation to a nice litigation

I’m assuming the Blazers claimed waivers for legal reasons, not ways to circumvent the CBA. I doubt Miles would have stayed on the roster and not get any opportunity to play, that would just invite a nice big lawsuit from the NBAPA and Miles.

If the Blazers claiming Miles for the purposes of keep him from signing with another team sounds incredible. It probably is incredible. There is no positive outcome in that scenario, only legal action against the Blazers. I’m sure the legal department thought this through. Being rejected from claiming Miles is 10x better than having him on the roster for legal purposes.

BINGO, BANGO, BONGO

by blzrfan on Jan 13, 2009 1:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

On what grounds does Miles or the Players Association sue?

That he didn’t get PT? There is no obligation for a team to play a guy. Even if the intent was to keep him from getting into games, his side would have an uphill battle trying to prove Miles was harmed. Why? Because Portland could show that by signing Miles, they were ensuring he maximized his potential earning ability.

hakkaa päälle !

by timg56 on Jan 13, 2009 1:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Isn't it obvious

There is no way the NBAPA and Miles would sit back and do nothing in this circumstance. They would file a grievance suit so fast your head will spin. They may or may not win, but Blazers would be caught in a legal web and get hurt by PR around the league. If PR is bad now, it will be much worse if Miles was signed and never played.

BINGO, BANGO, BONGO

by blzrfan on Jan 13, 2009 1:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The question wasn't IF they would sue ...

… but on what grounds.

hakkaa päälle !

by timg56 on Jan 13, 2009 1:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Why?

Miles would be paid according to the terms of the contract he signed.

Nowhere does the standard player contract promise that you actually get to play; that’s at the discretion of the team.

We have Brandon Roy under contract, in large part, to keep him from playing elsewhere—that’s the whole point of a contract, rather than just having a league of travelling mercenaries who show up at the arena come game time, and wear the jersey of which team makes the higher bid for that evening’s services. :)

by EngineerScotty on Jan 13, 2009 1:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

This will hurt the team in the long run

I can’t fathom how players, agents, and teams would react to the Blazers if they signed Miles for the sole purpose of preventing him from playing. It would be devastating to the organization and sever good relationships it has around the league. Whether the intent was there or not, the perception of the Blazers circumventing the CBA would be very damaging.

BINGO, BANGO, BONGO

by blzrfan on Jan 13, 2009 1:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not saying that the Blazers should do this

they can’t, anyway…

I’m pointing out that teams have no obligation to play the players they have under contract. Signing a player (or claiming him off waivers) to prevent him from playing is unusual; but the only obligation teams have towards players under contract is a paycheck. Not PT.

by EngineerScotty on Jan 13, 2009 1:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You forget a very basic concept.

The one where individuals usually act in accordance to how they view their best interests.

The only people that are going to care about this are those who think they might gain something from it. That is likely to be a very small set of people.

Why would some other player care whether Portland signs Miles and doesn’t play him? Why would an agent care? I’d ask you to provide an example, but you already have stated you can’t fathom how others would react. If you can’t fathom it, what makes you so sure it is going to be devestating? Sort of like my not knowing what will happen tomorrow, but being convinced that whatever it is, it is sure to be bad.

hakkaa päälle !

by timg56 on Jan 13, 2009 2:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

So then

do you think they will be able to get the cap space back? I don’t care all that much about the Luxury Tax although I’m sure PA does and it could be the primary motivator. The Blazers are definitely getting bent over the barrel on this one. Epic fail doesn’t sound like it is enough to describe this situation.

He's Coming! Oden Slayer of Giants

by Idog1976 on Jan 13, 2009 12:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I love the moral outrage.

What if in fact the doctors were correct in their evaluation? That Miles is risking permenant injury. By signing him and not playing him, they might actually be doing him a favor. Then there is the fact that Portland woiuld not only have to sign him to a deal through the end of the season, they’d have to carry him all of next season as well. In other words, there is a real possibility that the best deal financially that Miles might have available is to be claimed and resigned by Portland.

Lets actually see Miles get something more than a cup of coffee and a free ticket to some games before worrying about whether he is being harmed. Jaynes hemarroids must be acting up for him to post something like that.

hakkaa päälle !

by timg56 on Jan 13, 2009 1:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Honesty and transparency don't necessarily help save you $18,000,000+

This whole thing is about money… a whole lot of it. I have ZERO problems with the Blazers acting in such fashion in an effort to avoid having to pay some bum money he didn’t work for or earn, irregardless of what the CBA says and is intended to mean. Who wouldn’t try to protect themselves from being shorted $18,000,000?

I find it funny that fans, writers, commentators, analysts, experts, GM’s, and owners alike think that they wouldn’t do the exact same thing if it was them that was going to be out $18,000,000+.

We’re talking about Darius Miles… Darius Miles! A guy whose heart and desire were questioned all along, who now suddenly cares and wants to play. He maintains that if he could make his comeback without costing the Blazers this money he’d do it. So Stern should make it happen. Then we’ll see if he still wants to play and if anyone still wants to sign him.

"When I die, I want to go peacefully like my Grandfather did, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car"

by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on Jan 13, 2009 1:00 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

We’re talking about Darius Miles… Darius Miles! A guy whose heart and desire were questioned all along, who now suddenly cares and wants to play. He maintains that if he could make his comeback without costing the Blazers this money he’d do it. So Stern should make it happen. Then we’ll see if he still wants to play and if anyone still wants to sign him.

Thank you gottamakeyourfreethrows. Succinct and spot on.

He's Coming! Oden Slayer of Giants

by Idog1976 on Jan 13, 2009 2:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd also be fascinated with Memphis' (and Darius') response if Stern did that.

This whole situation would change overnight.

Good comment, ygmyft.

by Timmay! on Jan 13, 2009 3:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes,

I disagree with the way this whole thing has been played out by the Blazers administration. At the same time, I do see the points in this thread about how we were trapped by our circumstances due to the rules etc.

The ironic thing I find is how adamant KP was about not letting this Darius stuff mess with our current roster… well, if you were going to sign him, there is pretty much no other direct impact on the team than this itself

by hotstuffdb22 on Jan 13, 2009 1:16 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

+1

Not a good situation all the way around. As to your last point, I’m guessing if the claim had gone through the Blazers would have made Miles personna non grat like the Knicks/Marbury deal, and just kept him as far away from the team as possible. Granted, this was a business move, but there’s just something that rubs me the wrong way about the whole deal as far as the front office’s conduct is concerned.

by blazeraddict on Jan 13, 2009 1:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

That's how the Blazers have dealt with Miles for two years

whats one more year of paying him to stay home?

by EngineerScotty on Jan 13, 2009 1:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

From a business perspective

nothing is wrong with that. But if the guy wants to play basketball, knows the risks involved (and honestly, I’ll rate Darius Miles’ risks to his knee lower on the chart of potential consequences than Gerald Wallace or TJ Ford) and Portland can’t PROVE (even though we are all probably correct in our suspicions of Memphis’ motives) bad faith by the team that wants him, the man should be able to play ball. I would say the same thing if this were a good guy like Steve Smith dealing with Patterson/Nash, except I’d probably be way more strident and a lot of others would be as well. Miles has a checkered past, but he’s done the rehab necessary (even if half of it may have been exaserbated by his post injury regimen of vodka and cookies), so as much as I hate what this does to the cap flexibility I had counted on Portland having, it’s done as far as keeping him off the court. The front office should either completely move on or pursue an action/negotiate with the NBA about alleviating the cap space since Portland followed the rules and got burnt.

by blazeraddict on Jan 13, 2009 1:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I think that's what they are trying to do...

prep for an arbitration.

I think that this will go to arbitration, as I’m certain that Stern would LOVE to keep Paul Allen from having lots of cap room. The independent arbitrators, on the other hand, aren’t quite so eager to suppress the free agency market…

by EngineerScotty on Jan 13, 2009 1:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Side note:

Many of you commented to me that Kevin Pritchard looked uncomfortable or unhappy during the video linked above.

Why could he not have just said “no comment”?

by MiledAnimal on Jan 13, 2009 1:37 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I voted yes, but understand no.

For the first time today, I think the league may have been unhappy about Portland using the medical retirement clause. Perhaps they never meant for it to be used this way, but yet they had to allow it under the letter of the CBA. But now they’re returning the favor, via strict interpretation of the CBA (which would explain the preseason interpretation).

It feels a lot like Portland is actually getting the shaft, because if they knew they’d treat the situation like this, they’d have ate his contract and just waived him, and used his expiring contract in a trade next year.

I think I’ve also officially reached the point of exhaustion about this topic.

I’m not sure which is more tiring… the league’s clear unhappiness with Portland, or the refs’ clear unhappiness with Brandon.

by Timmay! on Jan 13, 2009 1:42 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I think the whole argument about this

Comes down to your second sentence and that’s it. One way or another they would have had an asset to use, but now they don’t. They lost control of the asset due to a loophole. And a fairly large financial asset.

"I saw him in the face" Sergio's quote on the latest alley-oop to Rudy.

by blazermaniac32 on Jan 13, 2009 1:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Stern knows he has a pr problem already

If Miles has any sort of real problem with his knee or plays nothing but"ok Darius,go out there and walk for 40 sec" minutes he has not only a legal issue but a pr nightmare from hell.

by southern oregon on Jan 13, 2009 2:02 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

i agree entirely with Southern Oregon. If Boston and Memphis are gaming the system to cost Portland cap space, and Memphis doesn’t give Miles a guaranteed contract – he’s got a problem. And if Darius gets hurt again – he’s got another problem. And Portland is simply setting the stage. Memphis may have given Darius a 10 day contract (shows you how much confidence they have in Darius and how committed they are to his "future"), but in a court of law, or in arbitration – that might not be enough to convince anyone that they actually were giving Darius a legitimate shot – and weren’t just gaming Portland. And that could lead to damages.

And as far as the Blazers – they have every right to question whether or not this is the agenda.

by Eben Calder on Jan 13, 2009 2:41 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I'm not really sure how it's any of our business what the Blazers brass are doing behind the scenes

to protect their financial interests. Since when does Paul Allen need any of us to critique his business decisions? He’s a multi-billionaire and we’re peons. I’m certainly no John Canzano….

Blazer Fan

by leeroyjenkins on Jan 13, 2009 3:28 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I take your point

But how the fan base percives the management should be the Blazer brass’s business

by southern oregon on Jan 13, 2009 3:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I doubt the Blazers are gonna lose fans over this

Unless there is something far worse going on.

Most fans, though, care about the a) the product on the floor, and b) the behavior of the current team.

by EngineerScotty on Jan 13, 2009 3:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Didnt mean it that way

Any one who jumps ship over this nonsense is a rat we didnt want

by southern oregon on Jan 13, 2009 4:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

And exactly why should the Blazer fan base ....

…. be viewing this negatively?

A lot of what I’ve seen here is worry that the organization might look bad to other teams, players, agents or fans. So what. Why as Blazer fans should we get overconcerned about that? Because it hurts the Blazers? Who is in a better position to judge what is in the best interests of the team, us or guys like Allen, Miller and Pritchard?

As for those Blazer fans who think what Portland is doing is morally wrong, well, I can’t really think of a response, other than to ask them to consider the concept of learning to wear big people’s underpants.

I never fail to be perplexed by folks who get so worked up over how things might look to others. Nothing Portland has done to date has been below board, unethical, outside the rules of the league or illegal. They are simply protecting their interests. To date, I have yet to see anyone make a cognent argument as to how any of their actions have harmed (or hold the potential to harm) Darius Miles or any other entity. And even if there is some degree of harm, they still have to weigh that against whatever harm they might accrue (sp?) to themselves by doing nothing.

hakkaa päälle !

by timg56 on Jan 13, 2009 4:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

My ONLY concern with any of this is that

I want my team to have all of our cap space, which allows us to sign someone awesome, or trade and extend for someone awesome. That’s it. Bottom line, the Miles issue is keeping my team from getting better than they could otherwise.

Brandon Roy is the Shawn Kemp of monogamy
-BE poster whose name I can't remember

by TheTinfoil on Jan 13, 2009 4:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

K I’m no legal eagle, what exaclty does this new info do? I’ve read all the comments and am not quite sure whats going on still, I don’t know the legal rules. Is this news a revelation in the story and “omg the Blazers org is in trouble” or is this “good god the Blazers org actually have a case now” info

by Jaedin on Jan 13, 2009 4:33 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Blazers won't be fined by the NBA, per Sheridan

A few Larry Miller quotes in this article.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3831137

Boomshakalaka

by jksnake99 on Jan 13, 2009 5:02 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Shoot, beat me to it. I suppose this is good news.

Notice how the player’s union rep used the important phrase “no damage or loss sustained.”

This is important, as when this goes to court, it could be argued that this issue WILL cause damage or loss to members of the union when their options are more limited because of a medically retired player. Should be an interesting offseason.

Brandon Roy is the Shawn Kemp of monogamy
-BE poster whose name I can't remember

by TheTinfoil on Jan 13, 2009 5:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Larry Miller said:

“Our purpose here was not in any way to keep Darius from being able to play,” Miller said. “If he can come back and help a team to win and play at a level on the court that helps the team, we have no problem with that at all.”

One thing I hold against the Blazers is this quote.

Not that he made it, but that it was not broadcast EVERYWHERE the day the mail was leaked. They should have offered to be on every sports show to explain this. They should have had an announcement on blazers.com. They should have released a press release to clarify the confusion. Portland tried to voice this, but not in a unified manner across the board to every media outlet available.

It’s great to hear this. But it feels like they’re in damage control now.

by Timmay! on Jan 13, 2009 5:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

couldn't agree more

Boomshakalaka

by jksnake99 on Jan 13, 2009 5:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe I'm wrong

But this sounds awfully familiar. I think Miller said this in his original interview.

"I saw him in the face" Sergio's quote on the latest alley-oop to Rudy.

by blazermaniac32 on Jan 13, 2009 7:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Nearly identical

But again, an interview with reporters is just one source of getting the word out. They missed all the other ways.

by Timmay! on Jan 13, 2009 7:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Hendrickson with some interesting notes and thoughts...

… including what appears to be a denial of the Yahoo! report that the Blazers put in a waiver claim for D. Miles.
http://columbian.com/article/20090113/BLOGS05/901139977/-1/BLAZERBANTER

Boomshakalaka

by jksnake99 on Jan 13, 2009 5:09 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

The interesting quote from Brian H.

That is the side of this story that has yet to come out, and when it does, it could give the events of the last week a whole new dimension.

Is this mere speculation on the part of Hendrickson; IMHO the most informed of the beat writers that cover the Blazers (yes, I’m dissin JQ here)? Or has Blazer brass told him something highly relevant off-the-record, and he’s dropping hints of action to come?

by EngineerScotty on Jan 13, 2009 5:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

That doesn't read like a straight up denial

However….it is closer to my thoughts (speculations) on the issue. Here is the timeline I suspect of how it shakes out.

During the preseason it was thought that non reg games didn’t count

Someone leaks info to the press that preseason games count

anonymus east GM talks of “Screwing” Blazers

(wild ass Guess on my part) Blazers examine options by asking league for sanctions (denied)

Blazers then contact league re viabilty of (or attempt) taking Darius off waiver wire (also denied)

Then send email threatening litigation if Darius is signed for purpose of hurting Blazers

Larry Miller follow up interview where he states that Blazers would not be taking Darius off waivers (note cafeful phrasing of answer and timing)

Waiver inquiry/attempt leaked to press by unknown source

As Hendrickson (and Scotty below) noted someone is really gunning for the Blazers and the rest of the story still hasn’t broke yet. The other thing that has me speculating (to myself only so far) is that since allegations of this sort are hard to prove….I am wondering if the Blazers are in possession of some sort of smoking gun type document that shows proof that another team (Memphis) is trying to play DM only to hurt Blazers (Drs report from physical?).

Larry (the new Johnnie Cochran) Miller: "If we get screwed, we're gonna sue"

by 92wastheyear on Jan 13, 2009 6:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

"not viable"

means “can’t be done”. It’s not a denial of the Yahoo report.

I know you can put admiration in bags, because admiration is real, and tominhawaii says that everything that is real is measurable.

by jscot on Jan 13, 2009 11:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

outside the box

what if portland had decided that resigning miles was in their best interest. play him ourselves for two games or more. resulting in the cap space and salary being readded to the blazers. they end up with the same result but have the expiring contract to dump next season. miles gets to play and blazers dont get the loss of his contract. why would this be construed by the league as a ploy by blazer to get around the cba? seems to me this senerio has as much validity as any other a team would come up with in court

by 2phattoplay on Jan 13, 2009 5:15 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Maybe...but....

Maybe, but really the email kind of validates the thinking the Blazers weren’t going to play Miles, and if you accept that, the Blazers were trying to pull some terrible crap here by playing with another man’s (however tenuous) dream.

Reporter: About a year ago I asked about the Celtics-Lakers thing and you said you'd really only seen it on TV. Now you've been through it, can you talk about playing the Boston Celtics for the NBA championship?
Kobe: It Sucks.

by indeedproceed on Jan 13, 2009 5:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs