qualifying offer

[DIO]

I have always believed that a player who signed qualifying offer is going to be a unrestricted FA without exception next off season.

But this time, CJ Watson who signed qualifying offer from GS will reportedly become a restricted FA again!

Please teach me why.

[Three34]

The problem there is with your initial belief. You can make players with three years or less experience into restricted free agents whether they like it or not. Watson currently has two year's experience. He's about to sign a one year contract. When it expires, he'll have three years experience. And so he's eligible for another.

[DIO]

Thank you Sham! For always answering question.
I first found out that 'three years rule'.

[Dunkenstein]

It turns out that you're not the only one who didn't know that a free agent with less than three years service is still restricted, even if he signed a QO the year before. Several SF Bay area writers reporters wrote that if Watson signed his QO he would be unrestricted next summer.

I'm not sure that either Warriors neophyte GM Larry Riley or Watson's agent Mike Higgins knew about the rule either. Since he's been an assistant coach to Don Nelson for so many years, and only moved into the front office last season after the shake-up with Chris Mullin and his staff, I wonder if Riley has actually ever opened up a copy of the CBA or even knows about Larry Coon's FAQ.

[-bob-]

I have a question. If CJ accepts the Q-offer and the Ws trade him to Orlando in December(with his consent ofcourse) would he be restricted or unrestricted at the end of the year?

[Three34]

Restricted. But because Watson is under a one year contract, and because he'll have full Bird rights at the end of it, he has to consent to any trade, because if he's traded he'll lose any Bird rights. At that point, him being a RFA becomes effectively useless, because the recipient team won't have enough Bird rights to match any deal above pittance. So you almost certainly won't be trading him this year.

[chakdaddy]

Restricted. But because Watson is under a one year contract, and because he'll have full Bird rights at the end of it, he has to consent to any trade, because if he's traded he'll lose any Bird rights. At that point, him being a RFA becomes effectively useless, because the recipient team won't have enough Bird rights to match any deal above pittance. So you almost certainly won't be trading him this year.

I see that the Bird rights are lost simply because there's a clause that says they lose it in that specific situation of a one year contract that would result in Bird or Early Bird rights at the end.

What is the motivation of that rule? That a team might want to pre-arrange the one year deal with a trade to follow later, with a bigger deal using Bird rights after that?

Ah, if a team did that, they would be circumventing the rule that sign-and-trade contracts need to be at least 3 years. That makes sense.

[Three34]

You must be great when ringing up phone sex lines. You wouldn't need any assistance at all.