As we know, now only the first 2 years of a rookie contract is garaunteed, with the third and fourth year being team options.</p> After three years, a team gains bird rights of a player.</p> So, why hasn't any player tried to get his team not to pick up his option, so tha the team could sign him to a 6 year contract for the max, rather than the 4th year rookie scale option year, followed by 5 years at the max?</p> Do they have a provision that disallows this, or is this fair play?</p>
The player has no leverage that is why...</p> It is a team option and no team is going to turn down the option in order to max out a guy that they could max out two years later, if he pans out as they expect. </p>
Oh yeah, its definitely not a team value thing...but if a team felt the need to make their players happy they could do this. Or if they wanted a larger contract for a trade they could do this also.</p> In addition, I believe that you are restricted after your rookie contract no matter what. So after the third year, when you have bird rights, and their restricted, there is no risk of actually losing the player if you do it after the third season.</p> The one time this type of thing happened to reward the player, the player bolted to Utah. Thats a tad different since he was 2nd round. Not sure on Boozer, but it seems like Cleveland could have matched him and had early bird rights (installed right before he became a free agent, because of Arenas bolting to Washington the previous year), so Cleveland could have matched Boozer, but chose not to because they didn't want to pay the luxury tax. </p> Now, I am pretty sure Early Bird Rights are only for second round draft picks, so these first round draft picks would have to wait until after their 3rd year for this scenario. </p>
http://hoopedia.nba.com/index.php/Carlos_Boozer</p> All the information you will ever need on the Boozer situation.</p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BG7 Lavigne)</div><div class='quotemain'> but if a team felt the need to make their players happy they could do this. </p></div> </p> But this is a business, so no dice.</p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BG7 Lavigne)</div><div class='quotemain'> As we know, now only the first 2 years of a rookie contract is garaunteed, with the third and fourth year being team options.</p> After three years, a team gains bird rights of a player.</p> So, why hasn't any player tried to get his team not to pick up his option, so tha the team could sign him to a 6 year contract for the max, rather than the 4th year rookie scale option year, followed by 5 years at the max?</p> Do they have a provision that disallows this, or is this fair play?</p> </div></p> It is against the rules. See Devean George</p> </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BG7 Lavigne)</div><div class='quotemain'> Oh yeah, its definitely not a team value thing...but if a team felt the need to make their players happy they could do this. Or if they wanted a larger contract for a trade they could do this also.</p> In addition, I believe that you are restricted after your rookie contract no matter what. So after the third year, when you have bird rights, and their restricted, there is no risk of actually losing the player if you do it after the third season.</p> The one time this type of thing happened to reward the player, the player bolted to Utah. Thats a tad different since he was 2nd round. Not sure on Boozer, but it seems like Cleveland could have matched him and had early bird rights (installed right before he became a free agent, because of Arenas bolting to Washington the previous year), so Cleveland could have matched Boozer, but chose not to because they didn't want to pay the luxury tax. </p> Now, I am pretty sure Early Bird Rights are only for second round draft picks, so these first round draft picks would have to wait until after their 3rd year for this scenario. </p></div> A lot of wrong information in this post.</p> </p> Cleveland couldn't have matched</p> Early Bird isn't limited to second round picks and applies to any player</p>
