[外電] Missing Mirotic (鳥權、否決權)

看板ChicagoBulls (芝加哥公牛)作者sbmylife (ILA)時間7年前 (2018/02/01 23:08)推噓6(6推 0噓 12→)

留言18則, 4人參與討論串1/1

昨天公牛鵜鶘交易停擺，公牛、鵜鶘、Mirotic三方都各有考量 Mirotic想保有鳥權、鵜鶘不想要Mirotic下年的合約、公牛如果先執行了下季Mirotic的合約，賣像可能會變差，然後擁有的權利相互牽制，覺得這例子蠻有趣的。剛好看到這篇免費的上半篇解釋這筆Mirotic交易的情況分享給大家有翻錯指正一下 https://cleaningtheglass.com/missing-mirotic/ Missing Mirotic An explanation of the rules that have held up the Nikola Mirotic trade, with a discussion of what this tells us about the Pelicans' offseason plans and how they got to this point. JANUARY 31, 2018 News broke yesterday that the Pelicans and Bulls had agreed to a trade: New Orleans would receive Nikola Mirotic in exchange for Omer Asik and a future first round pick. And then news broke that, well, that wasn’t quite the story. 昨天的消息傳出鵜鶘與公牛達成了一筆交易:鵜鶘以Asikc和未來首輪簽換取Mirotic。接著另一個消息傳出，事情並不是這樣。 Adrian Wojnarowski @wojespn New Orleans and Chicago had a deal for Nikola Mirotic, but it's fallen apart for now, league sources tell ESPN. Adrian Wojnarowski’s reporting of the deal reveals why: Mirotic signed a two-year deal with the Bulls in August that included a team option that’s subject to the NBA’s one-year Bird provision. For a trade to be completed, Mirotic would have to approve a deal that didn’ t include a guarantee on his 2018-19 salary. Chicago and New Orleans wouldn’ t need his permission if they elected to exercise his team option before completing the trade. So far, the Pelicans have resisted committing to that $12.5 million on next season’s payroll, league sources said. Adrian Wojnarowski的文章裡面指出: Mirotic在8月與公牛簽下2年合約，包含一年球隊選擇權，這是符合NBA的一年鳥權條款。如果交易沒有保障2018-19的薪資，必須取得Mirotic的同意才能完成交易。假如完成交易前，公牛和鵜鶘選擇執行下季的球隊選擇權，他們就不需要Mirotic的同意。消息指出，目前鵜鶘是拒絕承諾下季12.5M的薪資的。 In other words, the deal broke down for reasons related to the arcana of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). To understand what happened, we need to quickly walk through some of the key points of the CBA. 換句話說，交易停擺與CBA協議中的秘密有關。為了釐清發生什麼事，我們必需快速了解一些CBA的關鍵要點。 The NBA’s salary cap is a “soft cap”, meaning there is a cap on team payroll but there are ways for teams to exceed this cap (called “exceptions” ). The most important of these exceptions is nicknamed the Bird exception (though the term “Bird” is never used in the actual CBA): a team can go over the cap without limit to re-sign one of their own players if they have his Bird rights. The rule was created to allow teams to keep their iconic stars even in the face of cap trouble (a notion that perhaps seems quaint in today’s culture of star movement) — that’s one theory for how the nickname originated, since in 1983, when the exception was introduced, the Celtics keeping Larry Bird would have been the perfect example of the need for such an exception to the cap. NBA的薪資上限是軟上限，意思就是團隊薪資有限制，但有方法可以超出限制(稱為特例)。這些條款中最重要的稱為大鳥條款(雖然Bird這字從沒在CBA中使用過):假如球隊有球員的鳥權，球隊可以超過上限不受限制的簽回他們自己的球員。這項規則的制訂，是為了讓球隊能留下自己的看板球星，即使是遇到上限的問題(在現在球星轉隊的文化這想法或許看起來來是過時的)，大鳥條款這個名稱的來源，可以追溯到1983年的例子，賽爾提克需要特例留下Larry Bird，使用了這條款。 Originally this Bird exception applied to all free agents. If the player ended the season on a team, that team had the right to exceed the salary cap to re-sign him. But teams found the loophole in this: sign another team’s player for a small contract that can fit under the cap for one season and then, when the season is over, use the Bird rights to re-sign them for much more money. 原來的大鳥條款是適用所有自由球員。假如一名球員在一支球隊結束賽季，球隊有權利超出薪資上限簽回這名球員。但是球隊發現了條款的漏洞:先以符合低於薪資上限的小合約簽下其他隊的球員一季，等到賽季結束，再以更高的薪資簽回有鳥權的球員。 So the CBA was amended to close the loophole. To have full Bird rights on a player, a team must have had the player on their roster at some point in three consecutive seasons without that player changing teams as a free agent. (There are a lot of details to this rule. I refer you to the excellent and indispensable CBA FAQ by Larry Coon for all of the nitty-gritty.) And if the player is traded in that time, his Bird rights go with him. 所以CBA被修訂以防止這個漏洞。球隊必須保持一個球員在球隊的球員名單連三個賽季，且球員沒有以自由球員身份轉隊過，才會有鳥權。如果球員這段時間被交易，鳥權會隨著球員轉移。 Well, usually. There’s one specific case in which that doesn’t happen which is needed to completely close the “one-year contract” loophole: if a player is on a one-year deal and is traded, the Bird rights don’t transfer to the new team. If they did, it would allow for all sorts of sign-and-trade chicanery. 通常，鳥權轉移不會發生在一個特別的情況(簽一年合約且被交易)，這是徹底防止 "一年合約"的漏洞:如果一個有一年協議的球員且被交易，鳥權不會轉移到新的球隊如果可以簽一年合約且被交易，將會允許各種sign-and-trade的策略。 But that puts the player in an unfair position: his earning power could be severely curtailed. If a player’s team doesn’t have his Bird rights, a team can only use what’s called the Non-Bird exception to go over the cap and re-sign him. This allows them to give him at most 120% of his previous salary. If a player on a one-year deal was traded and went from Bird rights to Non-Bird rights it might take away the ability of one of his biggest suitors to pay him market value. 但這樣會使球員處在一個不公平狀況:球員的收入將會被大大的限縮。如果一名球員的球隊沒有球員的鳥權，球隊在超過上限的情況下，只能用非鳥條款去簽回球員。非鳥條款准許球隊能給球員薪資，最多是上季薪資的120%。如果一年合約的球員被交易，從鳥權變成非鳥權，這可能奪走球員追求最大市場價值的權利。 A solution was developed: players in this situation would have the right to veto a deal that would cause them to lose their Bird rights. A team couldn’t forcibly trade them and strip them of those rights. 上述解決的方法被制定出來:球員在這種情況下有權去否決交易，因為交易將導致球員失去鳥權。球隊不能強制交易球員且撤去球員的權利。 Got all of that? It’s just a glimpse into the layers upon layers of rules that make up the CBA, and the reasons for their existence. So what does this have to do with the Bulls and Pelicans? Nikola Mirotic re-signed with the Bulls this summer on a one-year deal with a team option. Since he’s played his whole career in Chicago, the Bulls have his full Bird rights. But since he’s on a one-year deal (option years are ignored for Bird rights calculations), he’d lose these Bird rights in a trade, and has the right to veto the deal. 那麼這跟公牛和鵜鶘有什麼關係? Mirotic夏季和公牛簽下一份一年合約附帶球隊選擇權，因為Mirotic生涯都在芝加哥，公牛有他全額的鳥權。但因為Mirotic是一年合約(鳥權計算選擇權年是不計的)，被交易Mirotic將失去鳥權，但他有權去否決交易。 That gives Mirotic control over the trade. If the option is picked up by the Bulls prior to the trade, Mirotic no longer has the right to veto since he’d be on a two-year deal and retain his Bird rights. So why don’t the Bulls just pick up the option and make the trade? According to Woj, because the Pelicans don’t want to make the deal if Mirotic is signed for next season. And *that’s* the fact that interests me the most here. 否決權讓Mirotic可以控制交易。如果公牛在交易前行使選擇權，Mirotic就不再有權利否決，因為他變成了兩年合約且鳥權將會保留。所以為什麼公牛不行使選擇權然後交易他? 據Woj指出，如果Mirotic下季有合約，鵜鶘不想達成這筆交易。如果Mirotic要交易出去需符合其中一點 1.Mirotic同意以一年合約交易，但他明年沒鳥權，未來薪資會減少。 2.公牛先執行明年選擇權，然後交易對象願接受明年Mirotic的合約。 -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 1.165.81.204 ※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/ChicagoBulls/M.1517497691.A.910.html ※ 編輯: sbmylife (1.165.81.204), 02/01/2018 23:09:07

推

GroveStreet

02/01 23:14, 7年前 , 1^F

02/01 23:14, 1^F

→

GroveStreet

02/01 23:14, 7年前 , 2^F

02/01 23:14, 2^F

→

sbmylife

02/01 23:17, 7年前 , 3^F

02/01 23:17, 3^F