Re: Kyrie Irving Including Celtics On Trade List Means Boston Is Now A Desired Destination

by **Shamrock1000** Wed Aug 09, 2017 6:59 pm

kdp59 wrote:
fierce wrote:A Kyrie for Thomas trade reminds me of the Pistons trading Adrian Dantley for Mark Aguirre back in 1989.

At that time the Pistons were already contenders but they still traded one of their best players.

It would be a similar situation if the Celtics traded Thomas for Kyrie.

true that.

I also believe a Thomas, Crowder and Yabusele or Rozier for Irving would work also.

we would still have to send one or two first round picks I assume.

I am not saying that the trade should be made, just what I feel it will take that, IF Danny wants to do it.

Not sure I agree. People always overestimate what it takes to get a good player. NO got Cousins for less than you are proposing. Jimmy Butler and Paul George brought back a lot less also. The difference between Thomas and Irving is no way equal to Crowder, Rozier and a 1st rounder. Not even close.

by **BleedGreen** Wed Aug 09, 2017 7:10 pm

fierce wrote:
BleedGreen wrote:
fierce wrote:
BleedGreen wrote:
fierce wrote:

The C's do not own his Bird Right's being as he has not played 3 full seasons here.

He can only sign for 120% more than his current salary which, as we know, is ludicrously small.

The Celtics own his Bird rights.

According to this article they do not:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/celtics/2017/05/21/you-wondering-about-isaiah-thomas-contract-situation/XIup9ZOCD58Fvq82iDLvWL/story.html

Need 3 years with a team to get them. IT acquired in Feb of 2015. He has not played 3 full seasons here.

Besides, I noticed that Gyso already explained how IT cannot be signed and traded after I posted it.

That's if the Celtics will extend Thomas this summer.
But that opportunity already passed because the Celtics used the cap space on Hayward.

It's true the Celts will have to use cap space if they wanted to extend Thomas this summer.
That doesn't mean the Celtics don't own Thomas' Bird rights.
Once Thomas becomes a FA next summer, Celts can go over the cap and give him the max.

The article you posted said:

The likely scenario is for Thomas to wait until the end of his deal in 2017-18 and then agree to an extension for potentially the maximum using the team’s Bird Rights.

Yes the likely scenario for Thomas is that once the over the cap Celtics have his Bird Right's after February of 2018 they will sign him to a potentially max extension.

Of course they could have used cap space to sign him to an extension this summer. You can do that with a current player who does not have Bird Right's.

Yes, Thomas doesn't not qualify for the Larry Bird exception this summer, but that doesn't mean the Celtics don't own his Bird rights.

Not qualifying is different from the Celtics not owning his Bird rights.[/quote]

They do not own his Bird Right's until after he plays 3 seasons with them.

Phoenix did not own them b/c he just signed with them and played half a season there.

Bird Right's travel with a player. Hence why OKC has Paul George's Bird Right's but the Celtics do not have Thomas's.[/quote]

It is understood that the Celts will have Thomas' Bird rights in the summer of 2018.[/quote]

Yes that is understood.

But they don't have them now. Which is what I said.

I don't get it? You are really typing a lot to just go in circles.

Would have been easier if, when I said "the Celtics don't have IT's Bird Right's", you just did some research and agreed with that fact instead of saying they do and then later saying "well, it is undertood that they will bu 2018."

Just a little odd.

by **BleedGreen** Wed Aug 09, 2017 7:13 pm

fierce wrote:Also, trading Morris will allow Tatum to start immediately.

Also, instead of saying, "yes they can do that same trade with Rozier it doesn't have to include Morris for $ reasons as I implied" you go circling around giving a bunch of reasons why Morris should leave instead of Rozier, which was not the point.

If you think trading Morris, a vert who can start at PF and defend LeBron, over keeping Rozier and forcing Tatum to be a good starter RIGHT NOW at age 19 is a good idea, then more power to you.

I personally wouldn't want any IT/Crowder for Irving trade. But I think that if the C's traded for Irving, a younger, taller PG than IT and also not a good defender, but a guy who will be out there 34-36 mins a game, and gave up IT and another LeBron defender in Crowder than moving Rozier is smarter than moving Morris. Even if Rozier is the better player than Morris by next season. Smart and Larkin can get all 12-14 backup PG mins and Smart can still play big mins at SG. Tatum doesn't have to be rushed defend these star forwards like LeBron for extended minutes just yet.

But while you can debate both sides of which player should be included if said trade was being discussed, you cannot argue that Rozier can be included in that trade right now instead of Morris and it would still work.

by **BleedGreen** Wed Aug 09, 2017 7:15 pm

[quote="Shamrock1000"]

kdp59 wrote:
fierce wrote:A Kyrie for Thomas trade reminds me of the Pistons trading Adrian Dantley for Mark Aguirre back in 1989.

At that time the Pistons were already contenders but they still traded one of their best players.

It would be a similar situation if the Celtics traded Thomas for Kyrie.

true that.

I also believe a Thomas, Crowder and Yabusele or Rozier for Irving would work also.

we would still have to send one or two first round picks I assume.

I am not saying that the trade should be made, just what I feel it will take that, IF Danny wants to do it.

Not sure I agree. People always overestimate what it takes to get a good player. NO got Cousins for less than you are proposing. Jimmy Butler and Paul George brought back a lot less also. The difference between Thomas and Irving is no way equal to Crowder, Rozier and a 1st rounder. Not even close.[/quote

I've said I didn't want such a trade to happen.

Only pointing out that fierce said Morris had to be included to make the trade and that was wrong. Rozier or in the near future a number of combos involving Yabu and a player can be done to make such a trade work.

by **BleedGreen** Wed Aug 09, 2017 7:27 pm

BleedGreen wrote:
Shamrock1000 wrote:
kdp59 wrote:
fierce wrote:A Kyrie for Thomas trade reminds me of the Pistons trading Adrian Dantley for Mark Aguirre back in 1989.

At that time the Pistons were already contenders but they still traded one of their best players.

It would be a similar situation if the Celtics traded Thomas for Kyrie.

true that.

I also believe a Thomas, Crowder and Yabusele or Rozier for Irving would work also.

we would still have to send one or two first round picks I assume.

I am not saying that the trade should be made, just what I feel it will take that, IF Danny wants to do it.

Not sure I agree. People always overestimate what it takes to get a good player. NO got Cousins for less than you are proposing. Jimmy Butler and Paul George brought back a lot less also. The difference between Thomas and Irving is no way equal to Crowder, Rozier and a 1st rounder. Not even close.[/quote

I've said I didn't want such a trade to happen.

Only pointing out that fierce said Morris had to be included to make the trade and that was wrong. Rozier or in the near future a number of combos involving Yabu and a player can be done to make such a trade work. Not a big deal, just wanted it pointed out since he appeared to be saying that was the only way a trade could get done. Losing Morris and Crowder is like losing Bradley and Smart, something that would really hurt our defense and the small-ball PF role.

by **fierce** Wed Aug 09, 2017 7:31 pm

BleedGreen wrote:
fierce wrote:
BleedGreen wrote:
fierce wrote:
BleedGreen wrote:
fierce wrote:

The C's do not own his Bird Right's being as he has not played 3 full seasons here.

He can only sign for 120% more than his current salary which, as we know, is ludicrously small.

The Celtics own his Bird rights.

According to this article they do not:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/celtics/2017/05/21/you-wondering-about-isaiah-thomas-contract-situation/XIup9ZOCD58Fvq82iDLvWL/story.html

Need 3 years with a team to get them. IT acquired in Feb of 2015. He has not played 3 full seasons here.

Besides, I noticed that Gyso already explained how IT cannot be signed and traded after I posted it.

That's if the Celtics will extend Thomas this summer.
But that opportunity already passed because the Celtics used the cap space on Hayward.

It's true the Celts will have to use cap space if they wanted to extend Thomas this summer.
That doesn't mean the Celtics don't own Thomas' Bird rights.
Once Thomas becomes a FA next summer, Celts can go over the cap and give him the max.

The article you posted said:

The likely scenario is for Thomas to wait until the end of his deal in 2017-18 and then agree to an extension for potentially the maximum using the team’s Bird Rights.

Yes the likely scenario for Thomas is that once the over the cap Celtics have his Bird Right's after February of 2018 they will sign him to a potentially max extension.

Of course they could have used cap space to sign him to an extension this summer. You can do that with a current player who does not have Bird Right's.

Yes, Thomas doesn't not qualify for the Larry Bird exception this summer, but that doesn't mean the Celtics don't own his Bird rights.

Not qualifying is different from the Celtics not owning his Bird rights.

They do not own his Bird Right's until after he plays 3 seasons with them.

Phoenix did not own them b/c he just signed with them and played half a season there.

Bird Right's travel with a player. Hence why OKC has Paul George's Bird Right's but the Celtics do not have Thomas's.[/quote]

It is understood that the Celts will have Thomas' Bird rights in the summer of 2018.[/quote]

Yes that is understood.

But they don't have them now. Which is what I said.

I don't get it? You are really typing a lot to just go in circles.

Would have been easier if, when I said "the Celtics don't have IT's Bird Right's", you just did some research and agreed with that fact instead of saying they do and then later saying "well, it is undertood that they will bu 2018."

Just a little odd.
[/quote]

It's not odd because saying the Celtics don't own his Bird rights is not accurate.

Thomas is under contract right now.

Extending Thomas this summer was just an option.

Qualifying for the Bird rights is different from not owning the Bird rights of Thomas.

by **fierce** Wed Aug 09, 2017 7:34 pm

BleedGreen wrote:
fierce wrote:Also, trading Morris will allow Tatum to start immediately.

Also, instead of saying, "yes they can do that same trade with Rozier it doesn't have to include Morris for $ reasons as I implied" you go circling around giving a bunch of reasons why Morris should leave instead of Rozier, which was not the point.

If you think trading Morris, a vert who can start at PF and defend LeBron, over keeping Rozier and forcing Tatum to be a good starter RIGHT NOW at age 19 is a good idea, then more power to you.

I personally wouldn't want any IT/Crowder for Irving trade. But I think that if the C's traded for Irving, a younger, taller PG than IT and also not a good defender, but a guy who will be out there 34-36 mins a game, and gave up IT and another LeBron defender in Crowder than moving Rozier is smarter than moving Morris. Even if Rozier is the better player than Morris by next season. Smart and Larkin can get all 12-14 backup PG mins and Smart can still play big mins at SG. Tatum doesn't have to be rushed defend these star forwards like LeBron for extended minutes just yet.

But while you can debate both sides of which player should be included if said trade was being discussed, you cannot argue that Rozier can be included in that trade right now instead of Morris and it would still work.

It's not circling or giving bunch of reasons.

Teams usually have 4 or 5 guards.
So why would you trade Rozier when the Celts have 5 or more SFs?

Trading Rozier means the Celts will be left with Kyrie and Smart at PG.
Larkin is not a sure thing to make the roster.
It's only practical to think that Ainge would most likely give up a SF instead of a PG.

Sure your trade proposal of including Rozier would work, but it's not practical.

by **fierce** Wed Aug 09, 2017 7:46 pm

BleedGreen wrote:
fierce wrote:Also, trading Morris will allow Tatum to start immediately.

Also, instead of saying, "yes they can do that same trade with Rozier it doesn't have to include Morris for $ reasons as I implied" you go circling around giving a bunch of reasons why Morris should leave instead of Rozier, which was not the point.

If you think trading Morris, a vert who can start at PF and defend LeBron, over keeping Rozier and forcing Tatum to be a good starter RIGHT NOW at age 19 is a good idea, then more power to you.

I personally wouldn't want any IT/Crowder for Irving trade. But I think that if the C's traded for Irving, a younger, taller PG than IT and also not a good defender, but a guy who will be out there 34-36 mins a game, and gave up IT and another LeBron defender in Crowder than moving Rozier is smarter than moving Morris. Even if Rozier is the better player than Morris by next season. Smart and Larkin can get all 12-14 backup PG mins and Smart can still play big mins at SG. Tatum doesn't have to be rushed defend these star forwards like LeBron for extended minutes just yet.

But while you can debate both sides of which player should be included if said trade was being discussed, you cannot argue that Rozier can be included in that trade right now instead of Morris and it would still work.

Yes, Rozier would still make the trade work, but it's not practical.

You talk about doing research and what's wrong.
What you're proposing might not be wrong, but it's not practical.

I have my reasons for why I made such proposals.
But you didn't ask me why.
What you did was immediately tell me I was wrong or I didn't do research.

I think it's best if you ask first before jumping to conclusions.

by **gyso** Wed Aug 09, 2017 7:59 pm

The Phoenix Suns signed Isaiah Thomas during the summer of 2014. He was traded to the Celtics in February 2015. He then finished that season with the Celtics and then played the next two complete seasons with the Celtics.

Total time on the same contract for Isaiah is three years. Previous service with the old team transfers to the new team when considering Bird rights. Therefore, the Celtics have Bird rights right now, this summer.

Bird rights are used by a team to sign their own free agents. Isaiah was not a free agent this summer, so Bird rights did not come into play.

Next summer, Isaiah Thomas will be a free agent, so Bird rights come into play.

This summer, the Celtics could have extended Isaiah Thomas's contract, because he had completed the first three years of his contract. If the Celtics had signed Isaiah Thomas to an extension, we would not have been able to sign Hayward. The Celtics and Isaiah Thomas thought it was mutually beneficial to wait a year.

gyso

by **Shamrock1000** Wed Aug 09, 2017 8:02 pm

gyso wrote:The Phoenix Suns signed Isaiah Thomas during the summer of 2014. He was traded to the Celtics in February 2015. He then finished that season with the Celtics and then played the next two complete seasons with the Celtics.

Total time on the same contract for Isaiah is three years. Previous service with the old team transfers to the new team when considering Bird rights. Therefore, the Celtics have Bird rights right now, this summer.

Bird rights are used by a team to sign their own free agents. Isaiah was not a free agent this summer, so Bird rights did not come into play.

Next summer, Isaiah Thomas will be a free agent, so Bird rights come into play.

This summer, the Celtics could have extended Isaiah Thomas's contract, because he had completed the first three years of his contract. If the Celtics had signed Isaiah Thomas to an extension, we would not have been able to sign Hayward. The Celtics and Isaiah Thomas thought it was mutually beneficial to wait a year.

gyso

Freaking awesome clear, succinct summary. Well done.

by **gyso** Wed Aug 09, 2017 8:06 pm

Shamrock1000 wrote:
gyso wrote:The Phoenix Suns signed Isaiah Thomas during the summer of 2014. He was traded to the Celtics in February 2015. He then finished that season with the Celtics and then played the next two complete seasons with the Celtics.

Total time on the same contract for Isaiah is three years. Previous service with the old team transfers to the new team when considering Bird rights. Therefore, the Celtics have Bird rights right now, this summer.

Bird rights are used by a team to sign their own free agents. Isaiah was not a free agent this summer, so Bird rights did not come into play.

Next summer, Isaiah Thomas will be a free agent, so Bird rights come into play.

This summer, the Celtics could have extended Isaiah Thomas's contract, because he had completed the first three years of his contract. If the Celtics had signed Isaiah Thomas to an extension, we would not have been able to sign Hayward. The Celtics and Isaiah Thomas thought it was mutually beneficial to wait a year.

gyso

Freaking awesome clear, succinct summary. Well done.

Thank you. I thought that a few factoids would go nicely with this thread.

by **Ktronic1** Wed Aug 09, 2017 8:26 pm

wideclyde wrote:AK,

Yes, Thomas has a contract for next season, but there is nothing to say that Ainge cannot give him more money in a new contract for the 2018 season if he so desires. Ainge cannot force Thomas to sign a new contract to where he gets less than what he currently is going to get for the 2018 season, but giving him more would seem to be something that he can do and Thomas would accept for the reasons I listed in my other post (triple his salary right now, some insurance on his hip situation and not going to get a max from Ainge next July).

I would bet the ranch that if Ainge called Thomas and told him that he wanted to include Thomas in a trade for Irving that Thomas would quickly sign a new contract for $18 M for the next two seasons as these are the two years that relate to the two years left on Irving's current contract. This would make Thomas a free agent in 2019 and not in 2018, and would become Cleveland's decision to grant a max contract while Boston would have to decide what to do with Iriving at the same time. Perhaps Thomas (earning $18M in 2018) goes to Cleveland for only one year, and still becomes a free agent next summer.

I do agree that Thomas and Crowder for Irving is not a good trade for us, but if Thomas makes equal money to Irving's current contract only Thomas needs to be in the trade. Another thing, I do not believe (but did not check the 'trade machine') that the salaries of Thomas and Crowder are enough by themselves to take on Irving's $18+ M. No way even one of the last 5 guys on the Cs current roster along with Thomas and Crowder would be anything but a terrible trade for Boston.

I love IT but will someone please explain to me why IT and Crowder for Kyrie is not a good trade for us.

by **fierce** Wed Aug 09, 2017 8:30 pm

gyso wrote:The Phoenix Suns signed Isaiah Thomas during the summer of 2014. He was traded to the Celtics in February 2015. He then finished that season with the Celtics and then played the next two complete seasons with the Celtics.

Total time on the same contract for Isaiah is three years. Previous service with the old team transfers to the new team when considering Bird rights. Therefore, the Celtics have Bird rights right now, this summer.

Bird rights are used by a team to sign their own free agents. Isaiah was not a free agent this summer, so Bird rights did not come into play.

Next summer, Isaiah Thomas will be a free agent, so Bird rights come into play.

This summer, the Celtics could have extended Isaiah Thomas's contract, because he had completed the first three years of his contract. If the Celtics had signed Isaiah Thomas to an extension, we would not have been able to sign Hayward. The Celtics and Isaiah Thomas thought it was mutually beneficial to wait a year.

gyso

BleedGreen said Celtics do not have Thomas' Bird rights right now because Thomas has not yet played 3 full seasons with the Celtics.

That statement true or false?

by **fierce** Wed Aug 09, 2017 8:32 pm

Ktronic1 wrote:
wideclyde wrote:AK,

Yes, Thomas has a contract for next season, but there is nothing to say that Ainge cannot give him more money in a new contract for the 2018 season if he so desires. Ainge cannot force Thomas to sign a new contract to where he gets less than what he currently is going to get for the 2018 season, but giving him more would seem to be something that he can do and Thomas would accept for the reasons I listed in my other post (triple his salary right now, some insurance on his hip situation and not going to get a max from Ainge next July).

I would bet the ranch that if Ainge called Thomas and told him that he wanted to include Thomas in a trade for Irving that Thomas would quickly sign a new contract for $18 M for the next two seasons as these are the two years that relate to the two years left on Irving's current contract. This would make Thomas a free agent in 2019 and not in 2018, and would become Cleveland's decision to grant a max contract while Boston would have to decide what to do with Iriving at the same time. Perhaps Thomas (earning $18M in 2018) goes to Cleveland for only one year, and still becomes a free agent next summer.

I do agree that Thomas and Crowder for Irving is not a good trade for us, but if Thomas makes equal money to Irving's current contract only Thomas needs to be in the trade. Another thing, I do not believe (but did not check the 'trade machine') that the salaries of Thomas and Crowder are enough by themselves to take on Irving's $18+ M. No way even one of the last 5 guys on the Cs current roster along with Thomas and Crowder would be anything but a terrible trade for Boston.
I love IT but will someone please explain to me why IT and Crowder for Kyrie is not a good trade for us.

Have to agree with you.

Kyrie for IT and Crowder is a good trade for us in the long term.

by **Shamrock1000** Wed Aug 09, 2017 8:33 pm

Ktronic1 wrote:
wideclyde wrote:AK,

Yes, Thomas has a contract for next season, but there is nothing to say that Ainge cannot give him more money in a new contract for the 2018 season if he so desires. Ainge cannot force Thomas to sign a new contract to where he gets less than what he currently is going to get for the 2018 season, but giving him more would seem to be something that he can do and Thomas would accept for the reasons I listed in my other post (triple his salary right now, some insurance on his hip situation and not going to get a max from Ainge next July).

I would bet the ranch that if Ainge called Thomas and told him that he wanted to include Thomas in a trade for Irving that Thomas would quickly sign a new contract for $18 M for the next two seasons as these are the two years that relate to the two years left on Irving's current contract. This would make Thomas a free agent in 2019 and not in 2018, and would become Cleveland's decision to grant a max contract while Boston would have to decide what to do with Iriving at the same time. Perhaps Thomas (earning $18M in 2018) goes to Cleveland for only one year, and still becomes a free agent next summer.

I do agree that Thomas and Crowder for Irving is not a good trade for us, but if Thomas makes equal money to Irving's current contract only Thomas needs to be in the trade. Another thing, I do not believe (but did not check the 'trade machine') that the salaries of Thomas and Crowder are enough by themselves to take on Irving's $18+ M. No way even one of the last 5 guys on the Cs current roster along with Thomas and Crowder would be anything but a terrible trade for Boston.
I love IT but will someone please explain to me why IT and Crowder for Kyrie is not a good trade for us.

Because the difference between IT and Irving is no way near equal to the worth of Crowder????

by **Ktronic1** Wed Aug 09, 2017 8:34 pm

fierce wrote:
Ktronic1 wrote:
wideclyde wrote:AK,

Yes, Thomas has a contract for next season, but there is nothing to say that Ainge cannot give him more money in a new contract for the 2018 season if he so desires. Ainge cannot force Thomas to sign a new contract to where he gets less than what he currently is going to get for the 2018 season, but giving him more would seem to be something that he can do and Thomas would accept for the reasons I listed in my other post (triple his salary right now, some insurance on his hip situation and not going to get a max from Ainge next July).

I would bet the ranch that if Ainge called Thomas and told him that he wanted to include Thomas in a trade for Irving that Thomas would quickly sign a new contract for $18 M for the next two seasons as these are the two years that relate to the two years left on Irving's current contract. This would make Thomas a free agent in 2019 and not in 2018, and would become Cleveland's decision to grant a max contract while Boston would have to decide what to do with Iriving at the same time. Perhaps Thomas (earning $18M in 2018) goes to Cleveland for only one year, and still becomes a free agent next summer.

I do agree that Thomas and Crowder for Irving is not a good trade for us, but if Thomas makes equal money to Irving's current contract only Thomas needs to be in the trade. Another thing, I do not believe (but did not check the 'trade machine') that the salaries of Thomas and Crowder are enough by themselves to take on Irving's $18+ M. No way even one of the last 5 guys on the Cs current roster along with Thomas and Crowder would be anything but a terrible trade for Boston.
I love IT but will someone please explain to me why IT and Crowder for Kyrie is not a good trade for us.

Have to agree with you.

Kyrie for IT and Crowder is a good trade for us in the long term.

Hate to see either one of them leave but hey, the future!

by **fierce** Wed Aug 09, 2017 8:40 pm

Ktronic1 wrote:
fierce wrote:
Ktronic1 wrote:
wideclyde wrote:AK,

Yes, Thomas has a contract for next season, but there is nothing to say that Ainge cannot give him more money in a new contract for the 2018 season if he so desires. Ainge cannot force Thomas to sign a new contract to where he gets less than what he currently is going to get for the 2018 season, but giving him more would seem to be something that he can do and Thomas would accept for the reasons I listed in my other post (triple his salary right now, some insurance on his hip situation and not going to get a max from Ainge next July).

I would bet the ranch that if Ainge called Thomas and told him that he wanted to include Thomas in a trade for Irving that Thomas would quickly sign a new contract for $18 M for the next two seasons as these are the two years that relate to the two years left on Irving's current contract. This would make Thomas a free agent in 2019 and not in 2018, and would become Cleveland's decision to grant a max contract while Boston would have to decide what to do with Iriving at the same time. Perhaps Thomas (earning $18M in 2018) goes to Cleveland for only one year, and still becomes a free agent next summer.

I do agree that Thomas and Crowder for Irving is not a good trade for us, but if Thomas makes equal money to Irving's current contract only Thomas needs to be in the trade. Another thing, I do not believe (but did not check the 'trade machine') that the salaries of Thomas and Crowder are enough by themselves to take on Irving's $18+ M. No way even one of the last 5 guys on the Cs current roster along with Thomas and Crowder would be anything but a terrible trade for Boston.
I love IT but will someone please explain to me why IT and Crowder for Kyrie is not a good trade for us.

Have to agree with you.

Kyrie for IT and Crowder is a good trade for us in the long term.
Hate to see either one of them leave but hey, the future!

True.

Kyrie is younger and bigger.

The only risk is will Kyrie fit in like how IT thrived under Brad Stevens' system.

I think 2-3 years from now, IT will have to return to 6th man status.

Kyrie is a legit NBA superstar.

I'm a big fan of IT and I really don't want to trade IT unless it's for another star player, just as good or better.
But I'm not sure if IT can keep playing at a very high level after 2-3 years.
IT is just taking too much abuse on the court.

by **gyso** Wed Aug 09, 2017 9:18 pm

fierce wrote:
gyso wrote:The Phoenix Suns signed Isaiah Thomas during the summer of 2014. He was traded to the Celtics in February 2015. He then finished that season with the Celtics and then played the next two complete seasons with the Celtics.

Total time on the same contract for Isaiah is three years. Previous service with the old team transfers to the new team when considering Bird rights. Therefore, the Celtics have Bird rights right now, this summer.

Bird rights are used by a team to sign their own free agents. Isaiah was not a free agent this summer, so Bird rights did not come into play.

Next summer, Isaiah Thomas will be a free agent, so Bird rights come into play.

This summer, the Celtics could have extended Isaiah Thomas's contract, because he had completed the first three years of his contract. If the Celtics had signed Isaiah Thomas to an extension, we would not have been able to sign Hayward. The Celtics and Isaiah Thomas thought it was mutually beneficial to wait a year.

gyso

BleedGreen said Celtics do not have Thomas' Bird rights right now because Thomas has not yet played 3 full seasons with the Celtics.

That statement true or false?

Another thing I found when reading Larry Coon's NBA Salary Cap FAQ. The first season in the three year tenure doesn't have to be a complete season in order to qualify for Bird rights. FAQ number 32. So in addition to the reason listed above, this means the Celtics have Thomas's Bird rights right now.

It's a moot point, since Isaiah Thomas is not a free agent this summer.

gyso

by **fierce** Wed Aug 09, 2017 9:32 pm

gyso wrote:
fierce wrote:
gyso wrote:The Phoenix Suns signed Isaiah Thomas during the summer of 2014. He was traded to the Celtics in February 2015. He then finished that season with the Celtics and then played the next two complete seasons with the Celtics.

Total time on the same contract for Isaiah is three years. Previous service with the old team transfers to the new team when considering Bird rights. Therefore, the Celtics have Bird rights right now, this summer.

Bird rights are used by a team to sign their own free agents. Isaiah was not a free agent this summer, so Bird rights did not come into play.

Next summer, Isaiah Thomas will be a free agent, so Bird rights come into play.

This summer, the Celtics could have extended Isaiah Thomas's contract, because he had completed the first three years of his contract. If the Celtics had signed Isaiah Thomas to an extension, we would not have been able to sign Hayward. The Celtics and Isaiah Thomas thought it was mutually beneficial to wait a year.

gyso

BleedGreen said Celtics do not have Thomas' Bird rights right now because Thomas has not yet played 3 full seasons with the Celtics.

That statement true or false?

Another thing I found when reading Larry Coon's NBA Salary Cap FAQ. The first season in the three year tenure doesn't have to be a complete season in order to qualify for Bird rights. FAQ number 32. So in addition to the reason listed above, this means the Celtics have Thomas's Bird rights right now.

It's a moot point, since Isaiah Thomas is not a free agent this summer.

gyso

Agree.

That's why I said it's inaccurate to say right now the Celts don't have Thomas' Bird rights.

by **NYCelt** Wed Aug 09, 2017 9:47 pm

gyso wrote:
fierce wrote:
gyso wrote:The Phoenix Suns signed Isaiah Thomas during the summer of 2014. He was traded to the Celtics in February 2015. He then finished that season with the Celtics and then played the next two complete seasons with the Celtics.

Total time on the same contract for Isaiah is three years. Previous service with the old team transfers to the new team when considering Bird rights. Therefore, the Celtics have Bird rights right now, this summer.

Bird rights are used by a team to sign their own free agents. Isaiah was not a free agent this summer, so Bird rights did not come into play.

Next summer, Isaiah Thomas will be a free agent, so Bird rights come into play.

This summer, the Celtics could have extended Isaiah Thomas's contract, because he had completed the first three years of his contract. If the Celtics had signed Isaiah Thomas to an extension, we would not have been able to sign Hayward. The Celtics and Isaiah Thomas thought it was mutually beneficial to wait a year.

gyso

BleedGreen said Celtics do not have Thomas' Bird rights right now because Thomas has not yet played 3 full seasons with the Celtics.

That statement true or false?

Another thing I found when reading Larry Coon's NBA Salary Cap FAQ. The first season in the three year tenure doesn't have to be a complete season in order to qualify for Bird rights. FAQ number 32. So in addition to the reason listed above, this means the Celtics have Thomas's Bird rights right now.

It's a moot point, since Isaiah Thomas is not a free agent this summer.

gyso

I think gyso summed it up accurately. But hey, just in case!

by **NYCelt** Wed Aug 09, 2017 9:53 pm

...and now back to the conversation BobH introduced.

IF, there's any truth to Kyrie having The Celtics on his short list (doubt it), I'm not so sure that represents Boston being a favored free agent destination. In my opinion, signings are the only thing that turns that corner. Horford and Hayward have already been there. Hmmm? Maybe we're already there and that's a moot point too!

by **bobheckler** Wed Aug 09, 2017 10:12 pm

NYCelt wrote:...and now back to the conversation BobH introduced.

IF, there's any truth to Kyrie having The Celtics on his short list (doubt it), I'm not so sure that represents Boston being a favored free agent destination. In my opinion, signings are the only thing that turns that corner. Horford and Hayward have already been there. Hmmm? Maybe we're already there and that's a moot point too!

NYCelt,

Not to be picayune here, because what you are saying is also correct, but the topic says that Kyrie's interest makes us a desired destination, not specifically a desired free agent destination. Free agents have the right and ability to choose their final destination, and Kyrie isn't and doesn't, but that doesn't mean we aren't desired if we are on his list of destinations (which I, personally, do not believe to be true. I think this is all over-hyped based upon an off-hand comment by David Griffin). OKC rolled the dice with Paul George, and maybe it'll work out for them, but how much easier would that deal have happened, and how much more lucrative for Indy, if OKC was a desired destination for PG? OKC might have been willing to up their offer if they had confidence PG would re-sign.

bob

.

by **NYCelt** Wed Aug 09, 2017 10:35 pm

Bob,

Good enough... Either way, same thing. I simply should have excluded the term free agent. Not certain why I put that in there in terms of Irving. I do think, however, that both Horford and Hayward signing here, as free agents, have done more to make us a desired destination than any alleged interest by Irving involving a potential trade.

Regards

by **fierce** Wed Aug 09, 2017 10:56 pm

Back in 2007-08, veterans like Sam Cassell and PJ Brown wanted to be part of the Celtics because the Celts were a championship contender.

Last season David West took less money to join the Warriors for a shot at a ring.

In the summer of 2012, Ray Allen left Boston for Miami for a shot at another ring.

I think when your team is a championship caliber team, it's a given that it's going to be a desired destination for players.

by **BleedGreen** Thu Aug 10, 2017 9:15 am

gyso wrote:The Phoenix Suns signed Isaiah Thomas during the summer of 2014. He was traded to the Celtics in February 2015. He then finished that season with the Celtics and then played the next two complete seasons with the Celtics.

Total time on the same contract for Isaiah is three years. Previous service with the old team transfers to the new team when considering Bird rights. Therefore, the Celtics have Bird rights right now, this summer.

Bird rights are used by a team to sign their own free agents. Isaiah was not a free agent this summer, so Bird rights did not come into play.

Next summer, Isaiah Thomas will be a free agent, so Bird rights come into play.

This summer, the Celtics could have extended Isaiah Thomas's contract, because he had completed the first three years of his contract. If the Celtics had signed Isaiah Thomas to an extension, we would not have been able to sign Hayward. The Celtics and Isaiah Thomas thought it was mutually beneficial to wait a year.

gyso

I still disagree. No offense.

https://www.thoughtco.com/bird-rights-definition-325754

Bird Rights allow a team to sign a free agent to a first-year salary up to the maximum player salary, regardless of its salary cap room, provided the player was on the team's roster for three consecutive seasons.

If a player is traded before his contract expires, he retains any Bird or Early Bird Rights he has earned and can negotiate with the team he's been traded to as such.

Bird Rights are acquired by 3 consecutive years with one team.

Thomas did not acquire Bird Right's with the Suns. His 0.5 year tenure there did not transfer over to the Celtics. That was different than a player like Paul George being traded b/c he had been on the Pacers for 3+ years so his Bird Right's transferred with him.

Thomas played 3 seasons with the Kings and at the conclusion of the 2014 season they owned his Bird Right's but chose not to sign him and Thomas signed with Phoenix. He needed to play 3 consecutive years with them for BR's and did not. Now he needs to play 3 consecutive years with the Celtics for them to have his Bird Right's and has not yet done so. It is assumed he will play out this season with them and then the team will use his Bird Right's to sign him to an extension this summer despite being over the cap. But they do not have them right now.

by Sponsored content