RealGM

I understand Nikola can veto any trade because he has full bird rights on a one year contract. He also has a team option attached to his contract.

My question is if the Bulls accept his team option now making Nikola's contract two seasons, will Nikola lose his veto right on trades?

So basically the Bulls can accept his team option tomorrow and he will not have veto power anymore?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

TheBallDoLie wrote:So basically the Bulls can accept his team option tomorrow and he will not have veto power anymore?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

That is correct.

Smitty731 wrote:

TheBallDoLie wrote:So basically the Bulls can accept his team option tomorrow and he will not have veto power anymore?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

That is correct.

Seems like a loophole the NBAPA should seek to close in the next CBA, no?

meekrab wrote:

Smitty731 wrote:

TheBallDoLie wrote:So basically the Bulls can accept his team option tomorrow and he will not have veto power anymore?

That is correct.

Seems like a loophole the NBAPA should seek to close in the next CBA, no?

No it's a rule that does exactly what it was intended to do. The player in this situation would (by rule) lose their Bird rights if traded, so the no-trade control is simply a mechanism to allow such player to protect those rights if they are important to him (by being able to refuse a trade). But once his 2nd year option is exercised, then (by rule) he is no longer at risk of losing his Bird rights if subsequently traded, so there's no reason for him to have no-trade control.

I've heard people say that the Bulls haven't opted in yet because they think whoever trades for him will prefer to keep flexibility to opt in/out.

However, my understanding is that in order for the new team to have bird rights, the bulls have to pick up his option before the trade. Is this right?

Cappy_Smurf wrote:I've heard people say that the Bulls haven't opted in yet because they think whoever trades for him will prefer to keep flexibility to opt in/out.

However, my understanding is that in order for the new team to have bird rights, the bulls have to pick up his option before the trade. Is this right?

It's simple. Unless forced to do so, no team decides on an option before June, because you can't take it back. And the Bulls haven't gotten to a point where they are needing to decide with Mirotic. Fwiw I expect they will exercise his option right before a trade, but there are a lot of moving parts in such a decision.

DBoys wrote:

Cappy_Smurf wrote:I've heard people say that the Bulls haven't opted in yet because they think whoever trades for him will prefer to keep flexibility to opt in/out.

However, my understanding is that in order for the new team to have bird rights, the bulls have to pick up his option before the trade. Is this right?

It's simple. Unless forced to do so, no team decides on an option before June, because you can't take it back. And the Bulls haven't gotten to a point where they are needing to decide with Mirotic. Fwiw I expect they will exercise his option right before a trade, but there are a lot of moving parts in such a decision.

Ok, but what I was really asking, is am I correct in my understanding that the option has to be picked up before the trade, in order to transfer bird rights?

Some Jazz fans seem to think Utah has some kind of advantage because of the NTC and Mirotic wanting to go to Utah. My guess is that anyone trading for him will want to maintain bird rights, and therefore the option will almost certainly be picked up beforehand anyway, making the NTC inconsequential.

I don't think it's nearly that simple of an issue. The rule is simple, but how it impacts each of the various teams is not.

1 If the team trading for Mirotic wants to get him with Bird rights attached, then yes he will have to have his next-year option exercised before such a trade. And exercising that option allows CHI to avoid having to ask his permission. Without it already having been exercised, he can be traded if he gives permission, but in doing so his Bird rights are lost and his Bird clock (which takes 3 seasons) is restarted.
2 But Bird rights aren't the overriding goal you assume they are. If he is sent along without Bird rights, there's perhaps something in it for everyone. Mirotic may say yes with the knowledge that he MIGHT get to UFA status a year sooner. And the new team will know that with them still holding an option, they can evaluate for a few months before deciding, and if they like him, they can always tack on another year to evaluate even longer and end up with EB rights, which would then potentially give them more than enough cap latitude to retain him if they wish (allowance for a deal starting at almost 22M with the ability to offer 8% raises).
3 There's also the issue of whether he is presently overpaid or underpaid at his current salary amount. If underpaid, there is already incentive for any team wanting his option to be exercised, sooner or later ...but if he is overpaid, it complicates the matter. When it's in doubt, for either productiveness doubts or health doubts, it gives a team trading for him an incentive to perhaps want to have him on their team for a while and evaluate, before deciding on another year commitment at that price.

Niko is reportedly vetoing a trade to NO because he doesn't want to lose his bird rights.

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/22265881/new-orleans-pelicans-chicago-bulls-complete-nikola-mirotic-deal

So even though teams may want the flexibility of keeping that option, it doesn't look like they will have that choice.

Cappy_Smurf wrote:Niko is reportedly vetoing a trade to NO because he doesn't want to lose his bird rights.

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/22265881/new-orleans-pelicans-chicago-bulls-complete-nikola-mirotic-deal

So even though teams may want the flexibility of keeping that option, it doesn't look like they will have that choice.

That was one of the "moving parts" on Mirotic being traded, yes. He has apparently decided to try to "force" CHI to pick up that option on another year. But NO (it seems) only wants to be obligated to him at the current price for the rest of this season, and if he can only be acquired with that extra year, they don't want him.

It's still relatively early, however, 9 more days until the deadline. The closer we get, it's possible that one party or another that is insistent at the moment on getting its way may give in because they'd rather have an undesirable (to them) deal over no deal at all.