[jthig32]

Ok, I wasn't aware that the rule applied to all Bird rights. Is the veto power provided because the team receiving the player could waive him, thus nullifying his Bird rights?

BTW, I wasn't aware that you wrote this piece of the article. When I responded to it, both here and db.com, Fish was still listed as the by line. Had I known you had written it, I would have assumed you were correct and asked why, instead of doubting the correctness of it.

Edit: Oh wow. So based on the Chapter and Verse of the rules you posted at DB.com, being traded during a one year contract nullifies the regular Bird rights as well. Wow. This is stupid, stupid, stupid, assuming the contract details are correct.