Page 1 of 1
Question for my fellow cap nerds
Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 2:48 pm
by johnbragg
Why can't players on one-year contract who are about to get Bird Rights be traded without giving up their Bird Rights?
What I mean is, what purpose does that provision serve? What harm is it supposed to prevent, or who is it supposed to benefit?
Most of the CBA provisions have a clear intention. This one just puzzles me, though. Why have this rule? What bad thing would happen without it?
Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 3:31 pm
by nate33
I don't understand the question. Players on one-year contracts do not get Bird rights whether or not they are traded.
Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 4:13 pm
by Chocolate City Jordanaire
Don't know the answer, but I believe I understand johnbragg's question.
Devean George, although only on a 1-yr contract with the Mavs would lose his Early Bird Rights IF he agreed to be traded to New Jersey.
I believe the question is about Early Bird Rights, not Bird Rights.
With his contract ended this season, Devean George could be signed to a veteran minimum, rather than one worth millions more if he retained those rights by refusing to be traded. He would likely be making a bad money decision.
What do early bird rights have to do with Devean George?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 238AAibmQa Larry Bird exception
Perhaps the most well-known of the NBA's salary cap exceptions, it is so named because the Boston Celtics were the first team permitted to exceed the salary cap to re-sign one of their own players (in that case, Larry Bird). Free agents who qualify for this exception are called "qualifying veteran free agents" or "Bird Free Agents" in the CBA, and this exception falls under the auspices of the Veteran Free Agent exception. In a nutshell, the Larry Bird exception allows teams to exceed the salary cap to re-sign their own free agents, at an amount up to the maximum salary. To qualify as a Bird free agent, a player must have played three seasons without being waived or changing teams as a free agent. This means a player can obtain "Bird rights" by playing under three one-year contracts, a single contract of at least three years, or any combination thereof. It also means that when a player is traded, his Bird rights are traded with him, and his new team can use the Bird exception to re-sign him. Bird-exception contracts can be up to six years in length.
Early Bird exception
This is the lesser form of the Larry Bird Exception. Free agents who qualify for this exception are called "early qualifying veteran free agents," and qualify after playing two seasons without being waived or changing teams as a free agent. Using this exception, a team can re-sign its own free agent for either 175% of his salary the previous season, or the NBA's average salary, whichever is greater. Early Bird contracts must be for at least two seasons, but can last no longer than five seasons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_Salary_Cap
Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 6:43 pm
by johnbragg
The question is, why was this provision (players on one-year contracts who will be eligible for Bird Rights or Early Bird rights cannot be traded without their consent, and if they consent then they are not eligible for Bird or Early Bird rights) put in?
Who wanted that and why? The CBA didn't fall out of the sky, it was negotiated by various parties protecting and advancing their interests.
Most provisions, it's easy to see who benefits. Rookie salary scale benefits the owners by restraining salary. MLE, guaranteed contracts benefit the players by getting them more money. Bird Rights free agents are eligible for more money--teams are more likely to keep their FAs. On and on.
Who is this weird provision in there to help, or what is it supposed to stop?
Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:50 pm
by LyricalRico
johnbragg wrote:Most provisions, it's easy to see who benefits. Rookie salary scale benefits the owners by restraining salary. MLE, guaranteed contracts benefit the players by getting them more money. Bird Rights free agents are eligible for more money--teams are more likely to keep their FAs. On and on.
Who is this weird provision in there to help, or what is it supposed to stop?
That is an interesting question. It really does seem to hurt the player in that he's penalized for essentially taking a chance on himself by signing another one year deal with the same team. Maybe he pulls a Roger Mason, plays way above expectations and now a contender wants to trade for him mid-season. Why should the player be punished by having to relinquish his Early Bird or Bird rights in that scenario?
The only thing I can think of is the league may want to prevent a player coming off a good season from re-signing for the minimum in anticipation of his team trading him mid-season. Then, after playing out that year with the new team, he would be able to re-sign with them for much more money without them having to wait to obtain the Early Bird or Bird rights.
That's an extremely convoluted scenario, though, and it depends on a whole lot being agreed to in advance (much worse than the Stackhouse sitaution). I would also think that the presence of the MLE would prevent this from happening since a team interested in a free agent coming off a one year contract could just sign him with that instead of trying to cheat the system to get Early Bird Rights (which would be the same amount).
And as for preventing the Bird Rights from transferring, why would a team sign somebody to 3 consecutive one year deals anyway? You would think by then they would have made a decision that they want to keep a guy and would offer him a multi-year deal.
You're right, it doesn't seem like this rule accomplishes much.
Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 8:10 pm
by nate33
Here's my explanation:
The purpose of Bird Rights is to allow teams to hold onto their players even if they are over the cap. Their purpose is to help out teams, not specifically to help out players.
If Bird Rights stuck with a player on a one-year contract, there there would essentially be no point in having a minimum salary or the MLE. All players would effectively have Bird Rights all the time and would always be eligible for either the MLE salary or 175% of their last contract.
Bird Rights are meant to only apply to players who play on the same contract for two or more years, or have played for the same team for two or more years.
Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 9:18 pm
by johnbragg
If Bird Rights stuck with a player on a one-year contract, there there would essentially be no point in having a minimum salary or the MLE. All players would effectively have Bird Rights all the time and would always be eligible for either the MLE salary or 175% of their last contract.
No, for example DeShawn Stevenson still wouldn't have had Bird Rights--he had only been with the Wizards for one year. A player who changes teams as a free agent would still have to wait 2 years for Early Bird or 3 years for Bird rights.
Who would be unfairly disadvantaged by the Kidd trade if New Jersey had Early-Bird rights to Devean George?
Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 9:35 pm
by Chocolate City Jordanaire
johnbragg, it would seem the player, George, should retain the Early Bird rights with NJ and all parties would be okay.
As it is, even by retaining his Early Bird Rights and vetoing the deal, George is NOT going to be resigned by Dallas anyway.
So, what's the point of him vetoing the deal?
Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 10:31 pm
by LyricalRico
nate33 wrote:If Bird Rights stuck with a player on a one-year contract, there there would essentially be no point in having a minimum salary or the MLE. All players would effectively have Bird Rights all the time and would always be eligible for either the MLE salary or 175% of their last contract.
I agree on Full Bird Rights. I disagree on Early Bird Rights.
Minimum salaries will always have their place for rookies, veterans trying to hang on, and guys who just aren't good enough to be regular rotation players. The MLE is what allows the player to change teams so even if Early Bird Rights were more liberally granted, a player could still get essentially the same money from another team.
The league can always stipulate that Early Bird players get the same raises as free agents who change teams. That would make it even more even. That would be better that the current rule IMO.
Chocolate City Jordanaire wrote:johnbragg, it would seem the player, George, should retain the Early Bird rights with NJ and all parties would be okay.
I feel the same way. Why penalize the player in this situation? Early Bird Rights have the same value as the MLE so the no team gets an advantage by being able to pay more.
Chocolate City Jordanaire wrote:As it is, even by retaining his Early Bird Rights and vetoing the deal, George is NOT going to be resigned by Dallas anyway.
So, what's the point of him vetoing the deal?
This is another way the player is penalized. Should he exercise his right to veto the deal, those Early Bird Rights he's keeping are going to be useless because the team likely won't bring him back. So the player gains nothing either way.