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

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?

fierce wrote:

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.

fierce wrote:

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.

gyso wrote:Here is where I find my info on NBA Salary Cap:

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm



Here is FAQ #32. How long must a player be with one team before the Larry Bird exception can be used?

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q32

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 (or two for Early Bird). However there are a number of complications:

1. 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 has full Bird rights following the third season.

2. The first season of the three-year tenure doesn't have to be a full season. If a player signs midseason in year one, then plays for two additional full seasons, his team will have full Bird rights following the third season.

3. The player must complete his contract immediately prior to becoming a free agent, which essentially means he can't have cleared waivers. 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 (assuming he didn't sign elsewhere during those three seasons), then they will have full Bird rights following the third season.

4. The same is true for Early Bird rights. For example the Chicago Bulls signed John Lucas III to a one-year contract for 2010-11, but waived him in October, 2010. They signed him again to a non-guaranteed contract in November 2010, but waived him again in January 2011 (just before the league wide contract guarantee date). They signed him again in March 2011 to a two-year contract (with a team option for 2011-12, which the Bulls picked-up). Despite having three contracts and being waived twice over a two-year period, the Bulls have Early Bird rights to Lucas in 2012.

5. Once Bird rights are established, they don't go away unless the player is renounced or signs with another NBA team. This means teams retain Bird rights to many players who have long since retired, and could still use those Bird rights to re-sign such a player if that player attempts a comeback (but not for a sign-and-trade transaction -- see question number 103 for details).

6. If the player is out of the NBA for at least one season before re-signing, the clock resets when he re-signs with his prior team. This is because Bird rights are established on the basis of the immediately preceding three (or two) seasons when a player becomes a free agent. For example, if a team had Larry Bird rights to a free agent in 2017 and that player signed overseas for 2017-18, then the team still has full Bird rights if the player returns to the NBA in 2018 (because when the player became a free agent in 2018 they had full Bird rights, and those rights didn't go away when the player signed outside the NBA). However, if that player signs a one-year contract with his previous NBA team for 2018-19 then the clock resets, and the team will have only Non-Bird rights in 2019 -- because the player becomes a free agent again in 2019, so his Bird status is re-evaluated on the basis of the 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 seasons. Since the player did not play for the team in 2017-18, the one-year version of Bird rights (non-Bird) is awarded.

7. The clock resets when the player signs with a different NBA team 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.

8. If a player is waived and is claimed by another team before he clears waivers, his Bird clock does not reset; however such players do not retain full Bird rights.

9. If a player is selected in an expansion draft, then his Bird clock resets.

10. Bird rights do not exist if the player's last contract was a 10-day contract (see question number 80). However, if the player's last contract was not a 10-day contract, then any preceding 10-day contracts could count toward Bird rights. For example, if a player signs only a 10-day contract in 2017-18 and a regular, one-season contract for 2018-19, then he is an Early Bird free agent in 2019.

11. If a team renounces a player (see question number 39), they can't use the Bird exception to re-sign him. However, if that team then re-signs the player by some other means (for example, with cap room), the team reclaims its Bird rights.

12. Bird rights accrue for a player signed to a Two-Way contract (see question number 82) the same as for a player signed to a standard NBA contract.

Disclaimer posted at the heading of the site:  6/30/2017: New version for the 2017 CBA. I'm still not 100% finished, but it's enough to publish. In particular, the index isn't done and I have about 30 open issues I need to resolve. I'll try to get them updated quickly.

My comments:  

This site is very comprehensive and has been kept updated for 18 years.  I'll believe it much quicker than I'll believe a quickie article on a Arts, Music and Recreation website.

Per #1 above, if a player spends 2 1/2 seasons (less than 3) with one team and gets traded, that time is transferred to the new team and the team has full Bird rights at the end of the season.  It stands to reason that if a player spends 1/2 season (still less than 3) with one team and gets traded and spends the next 2 1/2 seasons with a new team, the team has full Bird rights at the end of the season.  But since it doesn't specifically say this, anyone can discount my interpretation.

However:

Per #2 above: The first season of the three-year tenure doesn't have to be a full season. If a player signs midseason in year one, then plays for two additional full seasons, his team will have full Bird rights following the third season.

The rest of the section go on in more detail with some of the other aspects of the Bird Exception; renouncing, resetting the clock, even how it affects the brand spanking new 2-way contracts.

I strongly suggest that if anyone wants to become familiar with the many ins and outs of the NBA Salary Cap, this FAQ should be their first stop.

Final answer: The Boston Celtics own Isaiah Thomas' Bird Rights.  Right now.  This summer. (even if it is a moot point)


gyso

BleedGreen wrote:It is not clear that Thomas had Bird Right's with a team he played 0.5 seasons for at all and Gyso said this. Only that he would assume it does b/c it says a team does after 2.5 years of trading for a player. However, that player would be on track to inherit BR's at the end of that specific season, not 2.5 years down the road. So no, it is not clear to me.

There are other factors at that point involving early bird rights (2 years with one team) and a player needing to give his permission for a trade if he loses Bird Right's, which Thomas may have to do if traded to the Cavs. But if he has played 2.5 years here and his impending Bird Rights therefore would transfer to the Cavs in such a hypothetical trade then I'd be wrong in saying they would not transfer.

You don't actually get Bird Right's until you play 3 consecutive years with one team or are put in a position where a trade might require you to lose those rights after you have played at least 2 seasons with one team. So while Thomas will have them at some point this season with the Celtics is is very possible he does not currently have them WITH THE CELTICS right now. As in, if he were up for free agency with the Celtics this summer would he have had them or just Early Bird rights for 2+ years? But it seems likely that were he to be traded after 2.5 years with a team he would be getting BR's with had he stayed with the club just 0.5 more years he would either automatically be credited the rights or could reject such a trade if it meant he would lose those rights.

BleedGreen wrote:fierce do you care to comment about your opinion on why the Celtics having 5 SF's would be a problem in Steven's position-less basketball system where the C's actually currently have 3 'wings' and 5 '3-4's' and if they traded Crowder, IT and Rozier for Irving would actually have one less 3-4 and not the glut of SF's you claimed?

Care to comment on how it would not be practical to trade Rozier instead of Morris when Morris would likely be a more valuable and needed player on this 2017-18 team and maybe the 2018-19 one than Rozier if Crowder were gone?

Care to comment on why you keep saying Larkin might not make the team in response to a hypothetical 3-1 trade proposal that would result in the Celtics losing a ball-handler and having one open roster spot? Why on earth would Larkin not make the team if the only ball-handlers were Irving and Smart and there were only 14 men under contract at that point?

fierce wrote:Here's another example of how a team can inherit the player's bird rights after a trade.

https://pistonpowered.com/2017/07/07/detroit-pistons-welcome-avery-bradley/

The only issue the Detroit Pistons have in front of them is that Bradley may only be with the Pistons for one year. Also a good point to note is that Bradley wont extend because the money was too low and can’t go above 20 million in an extension. Next off-season they have Bird rights and they can offer him max if they’re willing to do so.

If the player needs 3 consecutive seasons with the team to own the player's Bird rights then why does the Pistons have Bird rights on Avery Bradley next season?

Again, it's salary cap basics.
Most knowledgeable NBA fans know how it works.

BleedGreen wrote:

fierce wrote:Here's another example of how a team can inherit the player's bird rights after a trade.

https://pistonpowered.com/2017/07/07/detroit-pistons-welcome-avery-bradley/

The only issue the Detroit Pistons have in front of them is that Bradley may only be with the Pistons for one year. Also a good point to note is that Bradley wont extend because the money was too low and can’t go above 20 million in an extension. Next off-season they have Bird rights and they can offer him max if they’re willing to do so.

If the player needs 3 consecutive seasons with the team to own the player's Bird rights then why does the Pistons have Bird rights on Avery Bradley next season?

Again, it's salary cap basics.
Most knowledgeable NBA fans know how it works.

Yikes what a pointless post that is.

After I twice mentioned Paul George's Bird Rights transferring to the Thunder b/c he previously had them on his Pacers contract you bring up the same situation involving Bradley as some sort of 'proof' that a player who has not played 3 years with his current team in Thomas (like Bradley had and George had) should have them. Yeesh.

Apples and oranges

fierce wrote:

BleedGreen wrote:It is not clear that Thomas had Bird Right's with a team he played 0.5 seasons for at all and Gyso said this. Only that he would assume it does b/c it says a team does after 2.5 years of trading for a player. However, that player would be on track to inherit BR's at the end of that specific season, not 2.5 years down the road. So no, it is not clear to me.

There are other factors at that point involving early bird rights (2 years with one team) and a player needing to give his permission for a trade if he loses Bird Right's, which Thomas may have to do if traded to the Cavs. But if he has played 2.5 years here and his impending Bird Rights therefore would transfer to the Cavs in such a hypothetical trade then I'd be wrong in saying they would not transfer.

You don't actually get Bird Right's until you play 3 consecutive years with one team or are put in a position where a trade might require you to lose those rights after you have played at least 2 seasons with one team. So while Thomas will have them at some point this season with the Celtics is is very possible he does not currently have them WITH THE CELTICS right now. As in, if he were up for free agency with the Celtics this summer would he have had them or just Early Bird rights for 2+ years? But it seems likely that were he to be traded after 2.5 years with a team he would be getting BR's with had he stayed with the club just 0.5 more years he would either automatically be credited the rights or could reject such a trade if it meant he would lose those rights.

Clearly you're wrong.

You're saying it's not clear to you.

That's because you didn't research it thoroughly.

Here:

https://basketball.realgm.com/analysis/239564/CBA-Encyclopedia-Bird-Rights

There are 3 kinds of Bird rights.

1. Non-Bird
2. Early Bird
3. Full Bird

What you're saying is the Celts don't have full Bird rights on IT.
But not having full Bird rights does not equal not owning Thomas' Bird rights.

The Celts own Thomas' Bird rights right now, it's just not full Bird rights because Thomas has yet to play 3 consecutive seasons with the Celtics.

BleedGreen 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?

True Statement

BleedGreen wrote:

wideclyde wrote:It comes as no big surprise to me that Irving would have the Celtics somewhere on his list of teams that would interest him.

Our Cs are an up beat team which is still improving, still has plenty of high level draft picks for about 4 more years, a great head coach, very solid (if not great) batch of 'teaching' assistant coaches, and a team without an ace offensive player (at his position) signed beyond this season.

Why he possibly listed the woebegone Knicks as one of his top places of interest completely baffled (I am pretty easily baffled, but come on, Kyrie) me when I first read it as they are still very dysfunctional and will remain pretty weak for at least the next three years.  Maybe he wants to go there so that he can frequent the same night clubs that seem to keep Carmelo Anthony in NYC.  I have never been to a club in NYC, but sheesh, they must have some awesome clubs in NYC?

Perhaps he has had a new light bulb go on in his head after blurting out the NYK as one of his preferred destinations, or maybe he got some better advice from his agent?

I still say that Cleveland will not get a top level young player, another good player and a super draft pick for Irving if the rest of the league can stay patient.  They have desires for what "they want" and, of course, they should shoot high, but in their situation (Irving pretty much has to be traded) they are going to have to settle for far less than what is on their current "want list".

The closer it gets to the start of pre season practices, if the rest of the league waits, the less he will cost.  Also, at that time of the NBA season many teams will likely back away from giving even one top young, lesser paid player because they will then have to fill in the deal with a bunch of bench type players to make the salaries work. Disrupting a team by moving four or five guys just before pre season is not something that often happens in the NBA.  Also, Cleveland will not want more deep bench guys because their roster will be full by that time.

How does this relate to the Cs, you ask?  A very BIG, BIG move, but a good move--Celtics sign Thomas for almost what Irving has coming for each of the next two seasons and trade him to Cleveland.  Ainge may have to toss in one of his first round picks in a later year (not the Nets and Lakers picks in 2018) to finalize the deal.  Thomas will take the sign and trade because he is thinking about more money, is not completely sure of his hip lasting all year (an injury could severely limit his earning power in his free agent summer), and will completely understand that if Ainge is even thinking of trading him that Ainge will not be offering a full max, five year contract to him next summer.

If I were Mr. Ainge, I would have already made a call to float this idea.  Cleveland may be more interested than most may think because they will at least get an all star player back for the all star that they need to trade.

The Celtics will not be signing Thomas to an extension and then trading him for anyone.

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.

fierce wrote:

BleedGreen wrote:fierce do you care to comment about your opinion on why the Celtics having 5 SF's would be a problem in Steven's position-less basketball system where the C's actually currently have 3 'wings' and 5 '3-4's' and if they traded Crowder, IT and Rozier for Irving would actually have one less 3-4 and not the glut of SF's you claimed?

Care to comment on how it would not be practical to trade Rozier instead of Morris when Morris would likely be a more valuable and needed player on this 2017-18 team and maybe the 2018-19 one than Rozier if Crowder were gone?

Care to comment on why you keep saying Larkin might not make the team in response to a hypothetical 3-1 trade proposal that would result in the Celtics losing a ball-handler and having one open roster spot? Why on earth would Larkin not make the team if the only ball-handlers were Irving and Smart and there were only 14 men under contract at that point?

Are you Brad Stevens?

I don't have to force you to agree with me that having 5 SFs is too much.

We can have differences in opinion here.
You also can't force me to agree with you that 5 SFs is best for the Celtics.

Regarding Larkin, I saw him play with the Nets.
He's not better than Rozier.
I think the Celts will end up cutting him before the season starts.

Again, don't force me to agree with you because I'm not forcing you to agree with me.
You say trade Rozier.
I say trade Morris.
We can agree to disagree.

fierce wrote:

BleedGreen wrote:

wideclyde wrote:It comes as no big surprise to me that Irving would have the Celtics somewhere on his list of teams that would interest him.

Our Cs are an up beat team which is still improving, still has plenty of high level draft picks for about 4 more years, a great head coach, very solid (if not great) batch of 'teaching' assistant coaches, and a team without an ace offensive player (at his position) signed beyond this season.

Why he possibly listed the woebegone Knicks as one of his top places of interest completely baffled (I am pretty easily baffled, but come on, Kyrie) me when I first read it as they are still very dysfunctional and will remain pretty weak for at least the next three years.  Maybe he wants to go there so that he can frequent the same night clubs that seem to keep Carmelo Anthony in NYC.  I have never been to a club in NYC, but sheesh, they must have some awesome clubs in NYC?

Perhaps he has had a new light bulb go on in his head after blurting out the NYK as one of his preferred destinations, or maybe he got some better advice from his agent?

I still say that Cleveland will not get a top level young player, another good player and a super draft pick for Irving if the rest of the league can stay patient.  They have desires for what "they want" and, of course, they should shoot high, but in their situation (Irving pretty much has to be traded) they are going to have to settle for far less than what is on their current "want list".

The closer it gets to the start of pre season practices, if the rest of the league waits, the less he will cost.  Also, at that time of the NBA season many teams will likely back away from giving even one top young, lesser paid player because they will then have to fill in the deal with a bunch of bench type players to make the salaries work. Disrupting a team by moving four or five guys just before pre season is not something that often happens in the NBA.  Also, Cleveland will not want more deep bench guys because their roster will be full by that time.

How does this relate to the Cs, you ask?  A very BIG, BIG move, but a good move--Celtics sign Thomas for almost what Irving has coming for each of the next two seasons and trade him to Cleveland.  Ainge may have to toss in one of his first round picks in a later year (not the Nets and Lakers picks in 2018) to finalize the deal.  Thomas will take the sign and trade because he is thinking about more money, is not completely sure of his hip lasting all year (an injury could severely limit his earning power in his free agent summer), and will completely understand that if Ainge is even thinking of trading him that Ainge will not be offering a full max, five year contract to him next summer.

If I were Mr. Ainge, I would have already made a call to float this idea.  Cleveland may be more interested than most may think because they will at least get an all star player back for the all star that they need to trade.

The Celtics will not be signing Thomas to an extension and then trading him for anyone.

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.

You clearly said the Celtics DO NOT OWN Thomas' Bird rights on page 2 of this thread.

fierce wrote:

BleedGreen 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?

True Statement

Clearly the majority here got it right and you didn't.

You can't weasel your way out of that.

fierce wrote:

BleedGreen wrote:fierce do you care to comment about your opinion on why the Celtics having 5 SF's would be a problem in Steven's position-less basketball system where the C's actually currently have 3 'wings' and 5 '3-4's' and if they traded Crowder, IT and Rozier for Irving would actually have one less 3-4 and not the glut of SF's you claimed?

Care to comment on how it would not be practical to trade Rozier instead of Morris when Morris would likely be a more valuable and needed player on this 2017-18 team and maybe the 2018-19 one than Rozier if Crowder were gone?

Care to comment on why you keep saying Larkin might not make the team in response to a hypothetical 3-1 trade proposal that would result in the Celtics losing a ball-handler and having one open roster spot? Why on earth would Larkin not make the team if the only ball-handlers were Irving and Smart and there were only 14 men under contract at that point?

Are you Brad Stevens?

I don't have to force you to agree with me that having 5 SFs is too much.

We can have differences in opinion here.
You also can't force me to agree with you that 5 SFs is best for the Celtics.

Regarding Larkin, I saw him play with the Nets.
He's not better than Rozier.
I think the Celts will end up cutting him before the season starts.

Again, don't force me to agree with you because I'm not forcing you to agree with me.
You say trade Rozier.
I say trade Morris.
We can agree to disagree.