But since you posted it, I’ll post what I posted on Blazers Edge. It isn’t the Blazers who were being crude and unclassy, but the people who were talking about gaming the system to screw Portland and artificially make Paul Allen spend millions on luxury tax.

——

I’ve got news for everyone wringing their hands about this and perception and all that stuff. This is about whether the NBA is a joint venture or not, and millions of dollars.

People around here like to joke about SPAM (Spend Paul Allen’s Money) and I do it myself. I doubt Paul Allen enjoys those jokes as much as some other people do, though.

The NBA is a joint venture. Teams are not supposed to take actions which violate the intent of league rules for the purpose of taking money from a franchise for their own benefit. If you are completely independent, you can look for loopholes to mess over your competitors, but you don’t do that financially to your partners in a joint venture. You can get in big, big trouble.

There were media reports, you’ve all seen them, about NBA executives saying someone was going to screw Portland by playing Darius for a couple of games. To do that would be a violation of the joint venture agreements. As a couple people with legal background have cited in the sidebars, that would be acting in bad faith. The tort lawyers would have a field day.

Why? Guess what, fans, this probably isn’t really what you think it is about. As fans, we care about cap space this summer. As Dave has posted, we can probably do anything KP really wants to accomplish this summer even without the Miles space. KP planned for cap space this summer long before we knew there was going to be a Miles retirement.

This is about millions of dollars of luxury tax that have to be paid this year if Miles goes back on the Blazers’ cap number. About a team paying Darius for ten days to play in two games so they can collect an extra $300K or whatever it is at Paul Allen’s expense.

And Paul Allen is saying, "Not so fast, guys. I’m not really into payiing millions of dollars just so you can divide it among yourselves, and this is not the way a joint venture is supposed to work. And if you do this, I’m going to sue you so fast you won’t know what hit you."

In one of the sidebar discussions, someone questioned the use of the term "perspective" instead of "prospective", and said it was the wrong word. It is the right word, and tells the whole story here (do you think that Paul Allen can’t hire lawyers who will know the right word?)

"in perspective"

An object or person that is in perspective has the correct size and position in comparison with other things in the picture.

If a team plays Darius for two games for the purpose of screwing the Blazers, it will skew the "perspective economic opportunities" of the Blazers relative to the rest of the league, their partners in this joint venture.

This does not say, "Don’t sign and play Darius." It says, "Don’t do what people have been saying in the media is going to be done, or you are going to pay."

You want to know who David Stern is angry at? It isn’t the Blazers. It’s the stupid NBA execs who were talking about teams screwing the Blazers. I would bet money that David Stern saw that email and raised no substantive objection.

You think something stinks or smells bad? It isn’t the Blazers sending out an email. It’s teams setting out to rip off millions of dollars from the Blazers, their partners in a joint venture.

Note that this was NOT sent out when Darius was with Memphis. If the Griz had guaranteed his contract, no one would have suggested they were doing so only for the purpose of benefiting from luxury tax, and messing with "perspective economic opportunities".

Timing is everything. The Griz just happened to sign Darius soon enough so they could clear his suspension (they were the ideal team in the league to do it, since they weren’t carrying 12 guys on their active roster), play him two games, and then cut him without having to guarantee his contract. Sorry, but that smacks of collusion with intent to defraud. Some one else would have picked him up, and the Griz could say, "Well, we didn’t do it," and the other team could say, "We were just looking for a little help, it wasn’t us, we only played him a few games. Too bad, Paul, that’s the breaks. Pay up."

Every single email between the Griz, Boston, and any team that signs Darius will be covered with a fine tooth comb, if it comes to a law suit. Emails that mention Portland, or cap space, or any mention of free agents and who might be attractive, and whether Portland would want them, all that stuff. Any little side comment about "too bad Portland will be a player, too" is going to suddenly look pretty bad. It would be a big, expensive lawsuit, looking for recovery of the luxury tax plus punitive damages.

SO, WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR THE FUTURE?
It means Darius is extremely unlikely to get a 10 day contract this year. No one wants Paul Allen slapping them with a huge lawsuit. If Darius gets a contract, he will not play in two games and then be dropped. If you want Darius, you better grab him for the year, and play him in more than 3-4 games, or you had better first review every single email and communication. Is Darius going to help your team enough for ten days to make it worth that?

It means Darius may threaten a lawsuit. His position is weak. First, he’s not been able to make it with Boston (whose bench is very weak), Clippers, Memphis, and maybe other teams he’s tried out for. Memphis cut him when they weren’t even replacing him on their roster with someone else! That’s not L.A., that’s, um, the Griz. It’s going to be hard for him to prove they kept him from having a chance, and hard to prove that he would have made it and has been damaged.

Also, it will be hard to prove that the Blazers hindered him, because it only threatens teams who are "contemplating signing Darius Miles to a contract for the purpose of adversely impacting the Portland Trail Blazers Salary Cap and tax positions." If you sign Darius for the purpose of helping your team, this is an irrelevance to you. They are NOT trying to blacklist Darius, and any media outlet that suggests that could find itself in litigation if they aren’t careful. They are warning their joint venture partners against intentionally defrauding them.

Also, this was not issued in a vacuum, this was issued after some joint venture partners had said they were going to be defrauded. That also weakens any case Darius may try to bring.

Finally, it means one other thing for the future. If Darius is signed and plays a less than significant role for another team for the remainder of the season, it means that we win our appeal against him going back on the cap. The ground has already been laid for that appeal, because the intent of the CBA clause was not to stick teams who follow the advice of an independent, league appointed, doctor.

So why does this mean we win that appeal? Because the best way to avoid a nasty lawsuit, ugly headlines, disclosure of various unseemly emails, and all kinds of other things, is to make sure that Portland is protected from other teams who are ignoring doctors’ advice and jeopardizing Darius’ future health. If they want to play him, fine, but don’t penalize Portland for that. (And, oh, by the way, Mr. Stern just whispered in my ear that this also means Portland hasn’t been damaged, so that means no big, ugly lawsuit.)

That’s what this is all about. That’s why this is a good and strong move. If you want to rip off one of your joint venture partners by playing games with the luxury tax, expect a lawsuit. A big ugly one.

Forgive me if I find the evidence from actual NBA games a little more independent than this. Tough luck.

who can’t be signed to a 10 day contract?

Not all Blazer fans are idiots, it’s just that so many of them are. I stand by my qualifications of this procedure.

You’re confusing the legalistic judgment with the ethical judgment. Being legal doesn’t make it right.

I said the exact same thing I said here: that the Blazers behaviour was a disgrace and that they were trying to bully Miles and the rest of the league, with a rude and bogus threat to sue. That’s a POV shared by lots of people.

I was received with racist remarks about Spaniards and Mexicans and how uneducated I was. I’m not even Spaniard and Mexican, but I’m not very comfortable having conversation with racists, so I reported what happened to the proper organizations and the conversation ended, just like this one ends here.

Take care.

on Pritchard’s face. Call it a backlash. I’m pretty sure that lots of teams in the league were willing to do it after being threatened with KP’s fear-mongering tactics.