I can't believe that the handful of people who claim that it's unethical for Danny to play Miles for 10 games and then cut him haven't been called out for this yet.
How in the world is that unethical? The insurance policies for NBA players are the same as those for you and I; that is to say, they protect you if you can't continue your pre-injury career. The logic is not that he has to play WELL; it's that he has to play AT ALL. By virtue of his being able to get on the basketball court, it can't be a "career-ending injury." Hence, Portland shouldn't be protected if he's able to play on a team, which, despite our comments to contrary, he can at least do. Not anywhere near his original talents, no, but he's a legitimate NBA player at least.
Listen, Portland waived him. They could have sat him, had his insurance covered, and then applied for an injury exemption from the league. If your argument is that he's injured, this would have worked. If your argument is that he isn't injured enough for the NBA to grant Portland an exemption . . . then that means he wasn't considered injured enough under the NBA's eye, so again: how is it unethical if he's not injured?
Portland has a lot of good young players coming up for free agency together. Seven of them, if I recall correctly. There wasn't much hope of their keeping them all as is; if Miles' contract hits their books again (so, 9 million this year and 9 million next year), it forces their hand early. It's not even remotely unethical if Ainge did this, because it's not like trying to play him for a few regular season games and seeing if he can contribute anything at all isn't a legitimate need. Hell, he's not going to play much more than Pollard did anyway, and we all know that, so where's the risk?
I mean, this all assumes that Ainge keeps him, which isn't guaranteed at all. But whatever he does, it's not like he's violating league policy or doing anything wrong.