Do we have Artest's bird rights, since he is only playing a year for us? The Rockets will still be over the cap, next year. If we don't have his bird rights, the max offer would be the MLE. Artest would be gone, if we don't have his bird rights. Is this right?
No, I'm pretty sure we don't have his bird rights. If he wants something thats not reasonable, sign him to whatever he wants then trade him. Morey will figure something out where the guy is not just going to walk away. He'll convince some team they'll be better off doing a sign and trade anyway even though we don't have his bird rights.
If Artest had signed an extension with the Kings, they would have had his bird rights. He would have been playing 3.5 seasons for them. However, he played only 2.5 seasons for the Kings, because he got traded midseason from the Pacers. Does that half season count as a full 3rd season for bird rights exception? If so, I believe we can inherit bird rights from the Kings. If not, we are screwed.
IIRC, team has a player's bird rights if he is under the same contract (not necessarily the same team) for the past 3 years. In this case, we should inherit the bird rights because of this rule.
yes ,i salute you for your knowledge.the bird rights have nothing to do with which team the roster has been in or howlong he has been in each team,the birds rights is just ralated to the contract only.As we have eaten his contract,we have naturally inherited his birds rights.the only thing that determins whether ron will be re-signed is just his performance in the upcoming season.If he acts as an effecient role ,ron will be given a new contract by morey even though les will have to pay the luxury tax then.
Ah come on Ziggy, your knowledge of the CBA shouldn't change cause of the Allan Houston rule. That rule is a one time waiver for all teams to cut someone (and pay them) but to have a tax break. Give yourself some credit. The Rockets do retain his rights as others have posted. We can give him the more money and more years as opposed to other teams. Hence, Larry Bird Rules. I was talking to another buddy of mine, and we were discussing how much he WOULD want. He's talking about long term at 10MM year for 5 years. Does that sound like something Artest would go for? And for the capologists, does that put us out of contention in the summer of 2010?
Probably 12M/yr, at least, now that Iguodala got 13M/yr(way to pay marginal talent to make it harder for everybody else to sign players at fair prices). Maybe he'll be interested in renegotiating in 2010, when Tracy's contract expires.
That rule didn't confuse me. But when they reworked the CBA that year it seemed like everything changed. What I once knew was now gone. In the old CBA I don't think you can acquire bird rights. The old CBA was honorable.
I didn't think so because of the talk of him being a one and done and losing him with nothing in return. If thats the case the question is who are we trading him for next year? Once we win this year he is going to say, "ok I got my ring now its time to get paid!"
No, he's one-and-done because his contract expires and we could choose to not take him back if he's a nuisance. But, we do have the option of taking him back and can use Bird Rights to sign him to a rich deal. And Einstain, I wouldn't say tenure has nothing to do with it. If we had a player for 3 1-year deals, I think we still have his bird rights afterward.
I honestly think If the Artest experiment succeeds (meaning we make it deep in the playoffs and he is a good boy and dominant) that the Rockets will do what it takes to sign him longer and still avoid the luxury tax. Whether it's waiving people or whatever. Let's face it..we are extremely deep with talent beyond the big three. If this works like I hope , I believe you can have Yao, McGrady, and Artest and fill the rest with players like Rondo or the likes. We will just sign less expensive but solid role players. It worked for the Celtics.
