The Nickeil Alexander-Walker (NAW) Thread

[winforlose]

I call BS. We traded for him and acquired his bird rights from Utah. We then resigned him. Unless NAW left as a free agent in between or we waived his rights to get out of a cap hold, we should have his bird rights.

the only thing i can think of is that the Wolves declined NAW's qualifying offer, that caused them to lose his rights?

https://www.startribune.com/minnesota-timberwolves-free-agency-karl-anthony-towns-trade-nickeil-alexander-walker/600286434

By not giving Alexander-Walker a qualifying offer, the Wolves are likely hoping to sign him to multiple years for less money per year than the qualifying offer was worth. But it's a gamble, as the Wolves now do not have the rights to match any offers Alexander-Walker gets elsewhere.

I'm not sure this is right. From Larry Coon:

The basic idea is that a player must play for the same team for three seasons for his team to gain Bird rights (two seasons for Early Bird rights). It can be a single three-year contract, a series of three one-year contracts, or any combination that adds up to three seasons (two for Early Bird).

NAW has 3 uninterrupted seasons in a row with the Wolves (partials count). My understanding is that the Wolves have his Bird Rights no matter how the current contract came about. I get that the current deal is only 2 years, but he ended the season here the previous year. That's 3.

In between contracts TC waived his rights to sign him cheaper (no qualifying offer.) At that point he needed a 3 year deal to reestablish bird rights. If this is true, going off the posts above, TC will be 100% responsible for NAW leaving Minnesota. Which is funny given that TC didn’t want NAW and Finch had to pound the table for him (going off of what is common knowledge.)

[dschroeder01]

Assuming that the Wolves do have Bird Rights, how important is keeping NAW? I think he's important enough that we'd need to move Donte if there are apron concerns with his new deal. He's a better defender and shooter than Donte.

What cap space teams would make sense for him?

[dschroeder01]

the only thing i can think of is that the Wolves declined NAW's qualifying offer, that caused them to lose his rights?

https://www.startribune.com/minnesota-timberwolves-free-agency-karl-anthony-towns-trade-nickeil-alexander-walker/600286434

I'm not sure this is right. From Larry Coon:

The basic idea is that a player must play for the same team for three seasons for his team to gain Bird rights (two seasons for Early Bird rights). It can be a single three-year contract, a series of three one-year contracts, or any combination that adds up to three seasons (two for Early Bird).

NAW has 3 uninterrupted seasons in a row with the Wolves (partials count). My understanding is that the Wolves have his Bird Rights no matter how the current contract came about. I get that the current deal is only 2 years, but he ended the season here the previous year. That's 3.

In between contracts TC waived his rights to sign him cheaper (no qualifying offer.) At that point he needed a 3 year deal to reestablish bird rights. If this is true, going off the posts above, TC will be 100% responsible for NAW leaving Minnesota. Which is funny given that TC didn’t want NAW and Finch had to pound the table for him (going off of what is common knowledge.)

There's nothing in the CBA about what kind of contract you need to reach the 3 years.

Here's the full Coon explanation:
26. How long must a player be with one team before the Larry Bird exception can be used?
The basic idea is that a player must play for the same team for three seasons for his team to gain Bird rights (two seasons for Early Bird rights). It can be a single three-year contract, a series of three one-year contracts, or any combination that adds up to three seasons (two for Early Bird). However there are a number of complications:

When a player is traded, his new team inherits his Bird rights. For example, if a player signs a three-year contract, plays two and a half seasons with that team, and is traded at the trade deadline in the third season, then his new team owns full Bird rights following the third season.
The player must complete his contract immediately prior to becoming a free agent, which essentially means he can't have been waived. If he signs a series of contracts, then this only applies to the last contract. If a team signs a player and waives him after one game, signs and waives him after one game again the next year, and in the third year signs him and keeps him the entire season, then they will have full Bird rights following the third season.
The clock resets when the player changes teams by signing as a free agent. An interesting case occurred in the 2008-09 season with Antonio McDyess, who had played exclusively for the Pistons since the 2004-05 season. In 2008-09 the Pistons traded him to the Nuggets, the Nuggets waived him, and he re-signed with the Pistons. Even though he only signed contracts with the Pistons and he completed his last contract without being waived, his Bird clock reset when he re-signed with the Pistons because he changed teams as a free agent.
The first season of the three-year tenure doesn't have to be a full season. If a player is waived and signs with another team in year one, then plays with his new team for two additional seasons, his new team will have full Bird rights following the third season.
If a player is waived and is claimed by another team before he clears waivers, then his Bird clock resets.
If a player is selected in an expansion draft, then his Bird clock resets.
10-Day contracts (see question number 68) don't count toward Bird rights.
If a team renounces a player (see question number 34), they can't use the Bird exception to re-sign him for one year.


NAWs situation isn't directly covered, but all of the caveats paint the picture that the only way you lose Bird rights is by changing teams. NAW hasn't changed teams. I don't think it matters that we declined his QO as he didn't sign elsewhere. Otherwise, how could you get Bird rights in the scenario above where a guy is being waived and resigned by the same team?

[winforlose]

I'm not sure this is right. From Larry Coon:

The basic idea is that a player must play for the same team for three seasons for his team to gain Bird rights (two seasons for Early Bird rights). It can be a single three-year contract, a series of three one-year contracts, or any combination that adds up to three seasons (two for Early Bird).

NAW has 3 uninterrupted seasons in a row with the Wolves (partials count). My understanding is that the Wolves have his Bird Rights no matter how the current contract came about. I get that the current deal is only 2 years, but he ended the season here the previous year. That's 3.

In between contracts TC waived his rights to sign him cheaper (no qualifying offer.) At that point he needed a 3 year deal to reestablish bird rights. If this is true, going off the posts above, TC will be 100% responsible for NAW leaving Minnesota. Which is funny given that TC didn’t want NAW and Finch had to pound the table for him (going off of what is common knowledge.)

There's nothing in the CBA about what kind of contract you need to reach the 3 years.

Here's the full Coon explanation:
26. How long must a player be with one team before the Larry Bird exception can be used?
The basic idea is that a player must play for the same team for three seasons for his team to gain Bird rights (two seasons for Early Bird rights). It can be a single three-year contract, a series of three one-year contracts, or any combination that adds up to three seasons (two for Early Bird). However there are a number of complications:

When a player is traded, his new team inherits his Bird rights. For example, if a player signs a three-year contract, plays two and a half seasons with that team, and is traded at the trade deadline in the third season, then his new team owns full Bird rights following the third season.
The player must complete his contract immediately prior to becoming a free agent, which essentially means he can't have been waived. If he signs a series of contracts, then this only applies to the last contract. If a team signs a player and waives him after one game, signs and waives him after one game again the next year, and in the third year signs him and keeps him the entire season, then they will have full Bird rights following the third season.
The clock resets when the player changes teams by signing as a free agent. An interesting case occurred in the 2008-09 season with Antonio McDyess, who had played exclusively for the Pistons since the 2004-05 season. In 2008-09 the Pistons traded him to the Nuggets, the Nuggets waived him, and he re-signed with the Pistons. Even though he only signed contracts with the Pistons and he completed his last contract without being waived, his Bird clock reset when he re-signed with the Pistons because he changed teams as a free agent.
The first season of the three-year tenure doesn't have to be a full season. If a player is waived and signs with another team in year one, then plays with his new team for two additional seasons, his new team will have full Bird rights following the third season.
If a player is waived and is claimed by another team before he clears waivers, then his Bird clock resets.
If a player is selected in an expansion draft, then his Bird clock resets.
10-Day contracts (see question number 68) don't count toward Bird rights.
If a team renounces a player (see question number 34), they can't use the Bird exception to re-sign him for one year.


NAWs situation isn't directly covered, but all of the caveats paint the picture that the only way you lose Bird rights is by changing teams. NAW hasn't changed teams.

We traded for him, so the bird rights survive the trade and we would 100% have them. But to get around his qualifying offer it sounds like TC renounced those rights to make NAW a UFA and pay him less. At this point no bird rights exist and you need 3 more years to get full bird rights back.

[BlacJacMac]

the only thing i can think of is that the Wolves declined NAW's qualifying offer, that caused them to lose his rights?

https://www.startribune.com/minnesota-timberwolves-free-agency-karl-anthony-towns-trade-nickeil-alexander-walker/600286434

I'm not sure this is right. From Larry Coon:

The basic idea is that a player must play for the same team for three seasons for his team to gain Bird rights (two seasons for Early Bird rights). It can be a single three-year contract, a series of three one-year contracts, or any combination that adds up to three seasons (two for Early Bird).

NAW has 3 uninterrupted seasons in a row with the Wolves (partials count). My understanding is that the Wolves have his Bird Rights no matter how the current contract came about. I get that the current deal is only 2 years, but he ended the season here the previous year. That's 3.

In between contracts TC waived his rights to sign him cheaper (no qualifying offer.) At that point he needed a 3 year deal to reestablish bird rights. If this is true, going off the posts above, TC will be 100% responsible for NAW leaving Minnesota. Which is funny given that TC didn’t want NAW and Finch had to pound the table for him (going off of what is common knowledge.)

I'm guessing pretty soon the story will be Finch held a gun to TC's head to get him to take back NAW...

[winforlose]

https://www.canishoopus.com/2023/6/30/23780625/nba-free-agency-2023-minnesota-timberwolves-nickeil-alexander-walker-agree-to-two-year-deal

This implies we still have his bird rights. I assumed we did going into this discussion. I don’t know what to think now.

BJM is it not common knowledge that Finch coached NAW for a year and wanted him included in the deal for Mike Conley?

[dschroeder01]

In between contracts TC waived his rights to sign him cheaper (no qualifying offer.) At that point he needed a 3 year deal to reestablish bird rights. If this is true, going off the posts above, TC will be 100% responsible for NAW leaving Minnesota. Which is funny given that TC didn’t want NAW and Finch had to pound the table for him (going off of what is common knowledge.)

There's nothing in the CBA about what kind of contract you need to reach the 3 years.

Here's the full Coon explanation:
26. How long must a player be with one team before the Larry Bird exception can be used?
The basic idea is that a player must play for the same team for three seasons for his team to gain Bird rights (two seasons for Early Bird rights). It can be a single three-year contract, a series of three one-year contracts, or any combination that adds up to three seasons (two for Early Bird). However there are a number of complications:

When a player is traded, his new team inherits his Bird rights. For example, if a player signs a three-year contract, plays two and a half seasons with that team, and is traded at the trade deadline in the third season, then his new team owns full Bird rights following the third season.
The player must complete his contract immediately prior to becoming a free agent, which essentially means he can't have been waived. If he signs a series of contracts, then this only applies to the last contract. If a team signs a player and waives him after one game, signs and waives him after one game again the next year, and in the third year signs him and keeps him the entire season, then they will have full Bird rights following the third season.
The clock resets when the player changes teams by signing as a free agent. An interesting case occurred in the 2008-09 season with Antonio McDyess, who had played exclusively for the Pistons since the 2004-05 season. In 2008-09 the Pistons traded him to the Nuggets, the Nuggets waived him, and he re-signed with the Pistons. Even though he only signed contracts with the Pistons and he completed his last contract without being waived, his Bird clock reset when he re-signed with the Pistons because he changed teams as a free agent.
The first season of the three-year tenure doesn't have to be a full season. If a player is waived and signs with another team in year one, then plays with his new team for two additional seasons, his new team will have full Bird rights following the third season.
If a player is waived and is claimed by another team before he clears waivers, then his Bird clock resets.
If a player is selected in an expansion draft, then his Bird clock resets.
10-Day contracts (see question number 68) don't count toward Bird rights.
If a team renounces a player (see question number 34), they can't use the Bird exception to re-sign him for one year.


NAWs situation isn't directly covered, but all of the caveats paint the picture that the only way you lose Bird rights is by changing teams. NAW hasn't changed teams.

We traded for him, so the bird rights survive the trade and we would 100% have them. But to get around his qualifying offer it sounds like TC renounced those rights to make NAW a UFA and pay him less. At this point no bird rights exist and you need 3 more years to get full bird rights back.

I get that it doesn't fit the narrative of blaming Connelly, but how do you know what you're saying to be true? I'm citing the expert in the CBA and it doesn't seemed like you read it as it clearly states Bird rights accrue even if players are waived by a team. Waiving is more severe than pulling a QO.

[BlacJacMac]

I think we are limited to what I posted earlier. This seems to be the exact situation:

Teams have until the October 31 preceding the player's second regular season to exercise their option for the player's third season. Likewise, they have until the October 31 preceding the player's third regular season to exercise their option for the player's fourth season (see question number 57 for more information on options). If the team invokes both options (keeping the player for all four seasons) and submits a qualifying offer after the fourth season, then the player becomes a restricted free agent (see question number 42 for more information on restricted free agency). If the team declines either option, then the player enters free agency as an unrestricted free agent.

However, if the team declines either option and the player becomes a free agent, the team cannot re-sign him to a salary greater than he would have received had the team exercised its option. In other words, teams can't decline an option year in order to get around the rookie salary scale and give the player more money. This applies to all types of signings, including the Bird exception, the Mid-Level exception, and cap room.

https://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q47

So if this is accurate, NAW only has 2 years with us on his "reset" Bird Rights.

[winforlose]

There's nothing in the CBA about what kind of contract you need to reach the 3 years.

Here's the full Coon explanation:
26. How long must a player be with one team before the Larry Bird exception can be used?
The basic idea is that a player must play for the same team for three seasons for his team to gain Bird rights (two seasons for Early Bird rights). It can be a single three-year contract, a series of three one-year contracts, or any combination that adds up to three seasons (two for Early Bird). However there are a number of complications:

When a player is traded, his new team inherits his Bird rights. For example, if a player signs a three-year contract, plays two and a half seasons with that team, and is traded at the trade deadline in the third season, then his new team owns full Bird rights following the third season.
The player must complete his contract immediately prior to becoming a free agent, which essentially means he can't have been waived. If he signs a series of contracts, then this only applies to the last contract. If a team signs a player and waives him after one game, signs and waives him after one game again the next year, and in the third year signs him and keeps him the entire season, then they will have full Bird rights following the third season.
The clock resets when the player changes teams by signing as a free agent. An interesting case occurred in the 2008-09 season with Antonio McDyess, who had played exclusively for the Pistons since the 2004-05 season. In 2008-09 the Pistons traded him to the Nuggets, the Nuggets waived him, and he re-signed with the Pistons. Even though he only signed contracts with the Pistons and he completed his last contract without being waived, his Bird clock reset when he re-signed with the Pistons because he changed teams as a free agent.
The first season of the three-year tenure doesn't have to be a full season. If a player is waived and signs with another team in year one, then plays with his new team for two additional seasons, his new team will have full Bird rights following the third season.
If a player is waived and is claimed by another team before he clears waivers, then his Bird clock resets.
If a player is selected in an expansion draft, then his Bird clock resets.
10-Day contracts (see question number 68) don't count toward Bird rights.
If a team renounces a player (see question number 34), they can't use the Bird exception to re-sign him for one year.


NAWs situation isn't directly covered, but all of the caveats paint the picture that the only way you lose Bird rights is by changing teams. NAW hasn't changed teams.

We traded for him, so the bird rights survive the trade and we would 100% have them. But to get around his qualifying offer it sounds like TC renounced those rights to make NAW a UFA and pay him less. At this point no bird rights exist and you need 3 more years to get full bird rights back.

I get that it doesn't fit the narrative of blaming Connelly, but how do you know what you're saying to be true? I'm citing the expert in the CBA and it doesn't seemed like you read it as it clearly states Bird rights accrue even if players are waived by a team. Waiving is more severe than pulling a QO.

I posted an article from Canius last year that said we signed NAW with bird rights which left us the MLE to sign Shake last year. If this is true, we should have bird rights. I don’t understand the situation well enough to know what is true. Either we do have his bird rights and are good, or TC ***** up and we lose him for nothing.

[BlacJacMac]

https://www.canishoopus.com/2023/6/30/23780625/nba-free-agency-2023-minnesota-timberwolves-nickeil-alexander-walker-agree-to-two-year-deal

This implies we still have his bird rights. I assumed we did going into this discussion. I don’t know what to think now.

BJM is it not common knowledge that Finch coached NAW for a year and wanted him included in the deal for Mike Conley?

Is it common knowledge that TC didn't want him? Or had to be "forced" into taking him? Or is that just the narrative you're pushing in your crusade against TC?

NAW was a much better player (with a totally different game) in Utah than he was when Finch coached him.

[winforlose]

https://www.canishoopus.com/2023/6/30/23780625/nba-free-agency-2023-minnesota-timberwolves-nickeil-alexander-walker-agree-to-two-year-deal

This implies we still have his bird rights. I assumed we did going into this discussion. I don’t know what to think now.

BJM is it not common knowledge that Finch coached NAW for a year and wanted him included in the deal for Mike Conley?

Is it common knowledge that TC didn't want him? Or had to be "forced" into taking him? Or is that just the narrative you're pushing in your crusade against TC?

NAW was a much better player (with a totally different game) in Utah than he was when Finch coached him.

Spotrac confirmed we signed him with bird rights. This means that we should still have them and they would be full. Which is honestly what I thought coming into this confusing discussion.

I heard that Finch wanted NAW. Someone recently said pounded the table for him (I think Dane Moore pod, but it could be Flagrant Howls or another Wolves pod.) If for any reason we don’t have bird rights that is on TC as the guy who did the contract, but it seems that is not an issue.

https://www.spotrac.com/nba/player/_/id/31574/nickeil-alexander-walker

[shrink]

I didn’t read all these posts, but I imagine the question is conflating Bird rights and free agency, which happens all the time.

We have NAW’s Bird rights. Bird rights allow us to avoid salary cap rules that would limit our offer. For example, we don’t need to use an exception because we have his Bird rights. And we can offer however much we want, regardless of CBA restrictions.

NAW signed a two year deal. Two year deals can’t be extended - only contracts of three years or more can be extended.

The confusion often arises here that he is an UNRESTRICTED free agent. That means he can sign with any team. Restricted free agency, which happens after a player completes a rookie scale contract, would have allowed us to match any offer from another team, and keep NAW.

His UFA/RFA status, and Bird rights, are two separate, parallel things.

[shrink]

And for the record, a two year deal isn’t necessarily Connelly’s fault - NAW might have asked for two years (or even one!) expecting to get better offers in the future. I would not be surprised if he bet on himself, and it turns out he was right. We don’t know what other offers Connelly, or NAW proposed, that were turned down.

I find it hard to blame Connelly when he got us two years of NAW on a bargain contract, because people are mad it wasn’t three years.

[winforlose]

I didn’t read all these posts, but I imagine the question is conflating Bird rights and free agency, which happens all the time.

We have NAW’s Bird rights. Bird rights allow us to avoid salary cap rules that would limit our offer. For example, we don’t need to use an exception because we have his Bird rights. And we can offer however much we want, regardless of CBA restrictions.

NAW signed a two year deal. Two year deals can’t be extended - only contracts of three years or more can be extended.

The confusion often arises here that he is an UNRESTRICTED free agent. That means he can sign with any team. Restricted free agency, which happens after a player completes a rookie scale contract, would have allowed us to match any offer from another team, and keep NAW.

His UFA/RFA status, and Bird rights, are two separate, parallel things.

I stated in a post above we could pay him 20. Someone said we cannot and claimed we had no bird rights. They referenced a Canis Hoopus article that said so. The issue is whether by not giving NAW a QO did we lose his bird rights. However, I pointed out that we paid him using bird rights on the two year deal, which means we should still have them.

Regarding the two year deal. NAW was on his way out of the league before the trade here. To say he bet on himself is an oversimplification. NAW needed to prove that the post trade deadline stretch was real, and we need cost control contracts. But if you do it in such a way that costs you bird rights, that is a failure of management. Now I don’t think that is the actual case here, but if it were, then we would lose NAW pretty much no matter what.

[Klomp]

There is a large gap in the NBA media-sphere between people who understand the CBA and people who don't. The apron stuff certainly throws some different wrinkles in the mix, but on the whole, I don't put much weight into what the Canis or DTW people wrote about money because there are certainly errors there.

[Klomp]

The two-year contract likely came down to stacking the books in order to make a big change if necessary. Remember, Naz has a player option, Mike was expiring, Rudy had a player option, etc. Weighting yourself down with only 4-to-5-year contracts can be a cap sheet killer if things don't go well.

[winforlose]

The two-year contract likely came down to stacking the books in order to make a big change if necessary. Remember, Naz has a player option, Mike was expiring, Rudy had a player option, etc. Weighting yourself down with only 4-to-5-year contracts can be a cap sheet killer if things don't go well.

The issues isn’t the two year deal. The issue is if the deal structure kills the bird rights. I think this is a nothing burger. I think we still have them, and will use them to help keep NAW. My point was what does NAW actually want? Is he happy in a 6th man role, or does he want to start somewhere else? I think we make a lot of assumptions that NAW will do this or that, but I was saying I hope someone is asking NAW what he wants/plans.

[winforlose]

Was listening to Dane Moore, he says that NAW is worth 15 and is essential to the team going forward. NAW had a terrible playoffs, and after a hot start is averaging 8.8/2.4/2.8 in 22.8 minutes. He also has 1.3 turnovers per game. I want to be clear I value NAW. I see him as a starter on between 1/3 to 1/2 of NBA teams. But my question is how much of a drop off is TSJ? TSJ lacks the catch and shoot 3 at the same clip as NAW, but is also good at getting to the rim and the line. If NAW is giving you 9 PPG in 22 MPG, is he that essential offensively? Regarding defense, you still have Jaden, DDV, Ant, and TSJ for POA. We haven’t seen much of TSJ defending at the NBA level, but based on college and his body type, do we believe he cannot defend at an NBA level?

I cannot help but think if we could turn NAW into draft capital and use that in a 3 team to bring back Jose Alverado, then we would be better off. Thoughts?

Edit to add: or you trade the Det pick add Jose, then you turn NAW into draft capital and combine him with Randle for other needs. Or you keep NAW and trade for Jose and now if NAW leaves next year you aren’t devastated.

[Loaf_of_bread]

Im a huge naw fan, but his performance in the playoffs this year moves the needle towards resigning or not.. similar to darnold/jj Mccarthy with the Vikings. If darnold can perform under pressure, you go with him. If he doesn't, move on (jj).

[winforlose]

Im a huge naw fan, but his performance in the playoffs this year moves the needle towards resigning or not.. similar to darnold/jj Mccarthy with the Vikings. If darnold can perform under pressure, you go with him. If he doesn't, move on (jj).

If you wait, then in order to get value for NAW you need to resign and then trade him in January or February.