Bird-rights hearing: which outcome would be best for the Blazers?

[PtldPlatypus]

http://espn.go.com/new-york/nba/sto...ation-hearing-bird-rights-take-place-mid-june

The focus of the article is how it impacts the Knicks, regarding Lin and Novak, but of course it impacts us regarding Hickson as well. So what do you think--would the Blazers be better off being able to retain Hickson's bird rights, or do we actually want the league to win so that the decision regarding the applicable cap space is made without the front office's input?

 

[SecretAgentMan]

Every time I see "bird rights" I think of Charlie Kelly arguing Bird Law.

 

[Denny Crane]

I voted league wins, but not for the reasons you state.

What's the point of the bird rule? To keep a guy like Larry Bird a Celtic FOR LIFE.

That bird rights transfer makes sense only if the Celtics were to have traded Bird - the receiving team should be able to keep Bird for life as well. Bird earned it.

A player who's been waived and played on 3 teams in 3 years shouldn't have bird rights. It simply doesn't make sense.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I voted for "league wins" as well, but also for completely different reasons. All about Lin. If the league wins, the Knicks won't be able to match an offer to Lin that has an escalated 3rd year, which some team (if not the Blazers) will more than likely offer him. One more FA PG out on the market increases (however slightly) the Blazers' chances of being able to sign one this offseason.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

Larry Coon basically shot this down saying the Union has no chance in this fight.