Elimination of full Bird new/extended contracts in S&T deals

[statsman]

What was the rationale for the elimination of being able to use the full Bird rights (if available) for a player being traded in a S&T (or extend and trade) deal?

[Dr Aki]

So that there was no advantage to signing with a new team and getting the benefits when not staying on the team that controlled your Bird rights

[DBoys]

What was the rationale for the elimination of being able to use the full Bird rights (if available) for a player being traded in a S&T (or extend and trade) deal?

You make it sound like something has been eliminated, by a new rule change. But unless I missed something, those rules regarding how Bird rights are handled, in a snt, are essentially unchanged since snt was made possible many many CBAs ago. Did I miss something?

[statsman]

What was the rationale for the elimination of being able to use the full Bird rights (if available) for a player being traded in a S&T (or extend and trade) deal?

You make it sound like something has been eliminated, by a new rule change. But unless I missed something, those rules regarding how Bird rights are handled, in a snt, are essentially unchanged since snt was made possible many many CBAs ago. Did I miss something?

At one time, you could sign and trade a player using their full Bird rights (if available). Under that situation, a team could sign their player to a 5 year deal with full Bird raises (currently 8%), and simultaneously trade the player and that new contract to another team. Under the current CBA, a team is limited to no more than 4 years and 5% raises in a sign and trade.

Looking back, this was the case with the 2005 CBA (maybe earlier than that) and was eliminated with the 2011 CBA.

[DBoys]

Ah. Now I get what you are asking.

What changed (in 2017) wasn't Bird rights being included. It was what sort of deal the players' Bird rights could get him from his old team, if that old team wasn't going to use them to keep him. So now the old team can't say, "We won't keep you, but you have to come through us to get a 5 year deal, and you will have to go to a team that WE pick and that we get what we want, if you want that better deal." The old team has lost that leverage. Player can get the same deal from anyone now, unless he stays with the old team.

Why? The league wanted to incentivize a team keeping its player, but to lessen the ability for them to be rewarded if he left. The intent was that if a team (like GS) amassed a huge pile of talent and then was forced to let some of it go, they didn't want to effectively force teams to reward GS when the talent left. Help balance the talent.

What caused that goal? The clash in desires. Teams (and their fans) want to all have a chance. The rich and favored teams want superteams (on their team) but the rest want equalized chances. So the rules continue to try to balance player freedom, with some desires to team up, but with also some mechanisms that force the best and the worst closer to parity without it taking 10 or 15 years to rebuild. You need 30 teams that are healthy and hopeful each season, not just 3 or 4.

So overall, much of the change in 2017 CBA was trying to retain player ability to make money, to change teams as they want, and ability of teams to spend, while at the same time giving teams some ability and motivation to have more continuity (for fans) and ways to create better-balanced teams (talent-wise) to compete (for better "fairness" for all teams and fans everywhere.)

This new sign-and-trade limit enhances movement (as snt offers more ways for players to move) but it also motivates teams to choose between (a) pay up, and get full value of the player, or (b) he walks, and you get little or no value. Over time, it forces more players into pure free agency, where the cap is the mechanism balance talent by balancing spending. (But the cap isn't as effective when teams are able to bypass it by trade - and in the old snt setup, by trade they control - rather than by having to obtain players by competitive bidding in free agency.)

As with any changes, 2017s accomplished some of that as intended. But due to competitiveness, it wasn't perfect. And it probably can never be, because of the difference in GM ability, the nature of athletic competition, and due to "unintended consequences" that will be exploited by teams who find ways to make the rules work how THEY prefer, and not so much toward parity. If it gets too bad, the next CBA tweaks again in a different way.