Bird Rights for players on one year contracts

[johnbragg]

Why can't players on one-year contract who are about to get Bird Rights be traded without giving up their Bird Rights?

Obviously, because it's outlawed in the CBA. But why is it outlawed? 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?

[Tommy Udo 6]

I believe under the old CBA they could not be traded at all.
The current CBA allows them to be traded with their consent.

It clearly benefits the players - especially those on rookie contracts who take the Qualifying Offer in year 5 and are expecting big paydays

In other cases, it only applies to players about to get Early Bird Rights (after 2 seasons with a team) or Full Bird Rights (after 3 seasons)

The fact that D George had a one year contract is irrelevant. The key is that it was his second season on the Mavericks

[johnbragg]

It clearly benefits the players - especially those on rookie contracts who take the Qualifying Offer in year 5 and are expecting big paydays

How does NOT getting Bird/Early Bird Rights benefit the player? It clearly shafts the player. I'm trying to figure out what greater good is served by shafting the handful of players on a one-year contract who will be eligible for Bird or Early Bird rights at the end of the season.

The fact that D George had a one year contract is irrelevant. The key is that it was his second season on the Mavericks

No, the fact that George had a one year contract is crucial. If George had signed a two-year deal with Dallas in 2006, he would be a New Jersey Net right now with Early Bird rights this offseason. He didn't, he signed a one-year deal in 2006 and another one-year deal last offseason. So now he can't be traded without giving up his Early Bird Rights.

[Tommy Udo 6]

How does NOT getting Bird/Early Bird Rights benefit the player?


I didnt mean that. I meant that the ability to approve the trade benefits the player as opposed to having to stay with the team - as was the rule under the old CBA

and you are right - the one year contract is very relevant in this case. However, I cant explain the logic behind the rule

[johnbragg]

But it doesn't benefit him very much, since his Bird rights don't transfer. The new team has to sign him with MLE money or sign him to basically his old salary.

So what is the motivation behind this rule?

[johnbragg]

Bump for the weekday folks. Why was the "Devean George Rule" put in to the CBA in the first place? Last CBA, players on one-year contracts who would have Bird or Early Bird rights could not be traded. This CBA, they can't be traded without their consent, and if they consent they surrender their Bird/Early Bird rights.

What's the point? Why put this rule in in the first place, in either form?

What situation is created by a one-year contract that makes (made?) this rule necessary?

[LarryCoon]

It's not a big loophole, but it is a loophole. If Team A wants Player A and wants to circumvent the tenure requirement for Bird, they can arrange for Team B (for whom Player A played last year) to sign him, and trade him midseason. Since it's a one-year contract, he's a free agent the next summer and voila! Bird rights after one year. Team B plays along because they're doing Player A a favor.