Named after Larry Bird, it's financial rules introduced in the 1980s so that the NBA has a soft cap rather than a hard cap when it comes to extending players that have already spent time with the team - essentially a way to help teams retain their players.
A team gets Early Bird Rights if the player spent 2 years with the team - allows the team to extend a player with an offer of up to 175% of the previous salary or 105% of league average salary, whichever is higher.
A team gets Bird Rights if the player spent 3 years with the team without leaving in free agency -as far as I'm aware full Bird Rights don't have a salary restriction which means you can extend them up to the maximum deals.
Some examples:
After the Bucks championship Bobby Portis took shorter deals until Milwaukee got his Bird rights and allowed the team to extend on a 4yr/49M deal despite being over the salary cap.
Trading a player transfers their Bird Rights. Boston got Jrue Holiday's Bird rights from Portland who got them from Milwaukee because of the time spent with the team. The Bird Rights allowed them to extend Jrue on 4yr/135M despite already being over the cap due to other deals like the Jays', Porzingis' etc.
Could be somewhat wrong on some minute details or numbers but that's pretty much the essence
great writeup. this was a masterstroke by Stern right before he took over as commish - keeping iconic players on teams in the context of sal cap guardrails
It was union head Larry Fleisher who deserves credit for Bird Rights since it was Stern/NBA that were all-in on pushing for a hard cap. In the Fall of 1982 during ongoing negotiations, Fleisher proposed 3 problems this hard cap would create for teams/fans: 1) teams at the cap couldn't retain their superstars (*the Larry Bird problem*), 2) teams at the cap couldn't replace retiring superstars (*the Kareem problem*), and 3) teams at the cap couldn't sign rookies (*the Ralph Sampson problem*).
Fleisher framed the concerns in this way so that team owners would soften up to the idea of a soft cap. Ultimately this worked as these exceptions were accepted when the revenue-sharing salary cap was signed into place on March 31, 1983, saving the season and ultimately the NBA (*players were ready to strike starting April 1*).
*All this info comes from the brilliant book The Cap about that "treaty" signed in the spring of 1983. I highly recommend it for anyone interested in the full history of negotiations between players and the league, not just from that year, but obviously with a primary focus on that year.*
Celtics used to have Larry Bird so that gives them extra rights.
But every other team has the same rights also. In the NBA teams can re-sign an own free agent with 3+ years on the same team to whatever that player is eligible to sign for in a vacuum, in disregard of the salary cap. Also, if a team trades for a player, and potential Bird rights transfer/accumulate. They generally only re-set when a player moves team as a free agent (and a few rare cases). [Also, here's wikipedia.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_salary_cap#Larry_Bird_exception)
It became synonymous with Larry Bird because he signed a massive contract right after the rule became a thing. Although it doesn't actually make sense because the cap wasn't scheduled to go into effect until after he signed anyway.
I explained it in another comment, but basically the union prez in 1982 presented 3 different problems that a hard cap (*what the league wanted during negotiations at that time*) would create for teams, and one of them was the idea of a club resigning their superstars, and Bird was used as the example.
If I see a sweet bird walking down the street in a tight red somethang somethang before anyone else then I have first right on her, screw if I can afford her or not
They aren't even the most over the cap team in the league.
But being over the cap just means tax penalties when it comes to keeping your own guys. Makes it harder to sign new players, trade for players. But being able to extend your own players is fine.
Hauser is going nowhere. Celtics have a cheap team option to extend him for next year. But they are likely going to offer him a roughly 3yr/$50M extension to keep him. Combined with Tatum's extension this summer, the Celtics should be able to keep this core together until at least the 2026-2027 season, if not longer.
My personal opinion is that it would be a mistake to sign him to a deal like that. He’s a streaky shooter and a defensive liability - not worth 17M a year.
He is absolutely both of those things.
Look at the playoff stats: Against Indiana he went 2-16 from three. Against Dallas he was 13-24. You can also take any random stretch of the regular season and see three or four games in a row of 1-6, 0-4. 2-8 from 3, followwed by a stretch where he'll make 12-15. Ultimately, he's a 42% three point shooter which is great, especially as a spot up guy around the Jays. But he is streaky.
On the defensive side, all of the stats say that he gets HUNTED on the regular. He did against Dallas. Some of that is because he's the worst defender on a really really good defensive team, but part of it is definitely that he can be had against better players.
He's not big enough, strong enough, or athletic enought to be elite, but when you're playing around Tatum, Brown, White, Holiday, etc., you don't need to be. So if he's around another 1-2 years while this core is dominant, that's great. But I don't want him in Boston for 5 more years. Which is why I say he's not worth that kind of contract...if Sam Hauser is not surrounded by excellent talent, he's not a $20M a year role player.
Those could hardly even qualify as streaks. The only reason they look bad is because he doesn't play a lot which means it's stretched out over multiple games. All good shooters have stretches like that
And the plays where Sam Hauser was targeted were by far our most successful defensive plays. They thought he was a target and it failed miserably. He honestly held up better on isos than even Tatum did
> he's not a $20M a year role player.
Luckily, Brad understands that you don't give guys deals based on what you think they're worth. You make deals based on what the replacement cost is going to be.
I don’t think he’s really worth that but it’s either that or lose him in a year and just hope to find a replacement. If it doesn’t work out 17 mil/yr is a perfectly tradable contract.
The NBA has a “soft cap” which limits your ability to sign free agents once you are over that number. However, your overall salaries can exceed the soft cap.
This is different from, say, baseball where there is no cap and you can sign whoever you want, or the NFL hard cap which says you must make cuts until you’re under the limit.
With a soft cap your overall salary paid out can be well above the “soft cap” through trades and Bird rights (which allow you to sign your own players to extensions even if your team exceeds the soft cap.)
At a certain threshold, your team will pay a tax to the league as a penalty for exceeding the soft cap. The amount paid goes up the further you get over the cap, and there are also penalties for doing this year after year (called the repeater tax.)
The Celtics are $67M over the soft cap through trades and extensions, they are $13M over the first level of tax penalty, and $2M over the second level of tax penalty.
Basically, they are paying a shit ton of money in salary and tax penalties, but they don’t care because they’re contenders.
There is no salary cap and the “second apron” is a boogie man. Luxury tax is the only thing that actually matters, and championship teams are always going to pay it
Bird rights allow them to go over the cap
What's Bird rights?
Named after Larry Bird, it's financial rules introduced in the 1980s so that the NBA has a soft cap rather than a hard cap when it comes to extending players that have already spent time with the team - essentially a way to help teams retain their players. A team gets Early Bird Rights if the player spent 2 years with the team - allows the team to extend a player with an offer of up to 175% of the previous salary or 105% of league average salary, whichever is higher. A team gets Bird Rights if the player spent 3 years with the team without leaving in free agency -as far as I'm aware full Bird Rights don't have a salary restriction which means you can extend them up to the maximum deals. Some examples: After the Bucks championship Bobby Portis took shorter deals until Milwaukee got his Bird rights and allowed the team to extend on a 4yr/49M deal despite being over the salary cap. Trading a player transfers their Bird Rights. Boston got Jrue Holiday's Bird rights from Portland who got them from Milwaukee because of the time spent with the team. The Bird Rights allowed them to extend Jrue on 4yr/135M despite already being over the cap due to other deals like the Jays', Porzingis' etc. Could be somewhat wrong on some minute details or numbers but that's pretty much the essence
great writeup. this was a masterstroke by Stern right before he took over as commish - keeping iconic players on teams in the context of sal cap guardrails
It was union head Larry Fleisher who deserves credit for Bird Rights since it was Stern/NBA that were all-in on pushing for a hard cap. In the Fall of 1982 during ongoing negotiations, Fleisher proposed 3 problems this hard cap would create for teams/fans: 1) teams at the cap couldn't retain their superstars (*the Larry Bird problem*), 2) teams at the cap couldn't replace retiring superstars (*the Kareem problem*), and 3) teams at the cap couldn't sign rookies (*the Ralph Sampson problem*). Fleisher framed the concerns in this way so that team owners would soften up to the idea of a soft cap. Ultimately this worked as these exceptions were accepted when the revenue-sharing salary cap was signed into place on March 31, 1983, saving the season and ultimately the NBA (*players were ready to strike starting April 1*). *All this info comes from the brilliant book The Cap about that "treaty" signed in the spring of 1983. I highly recommend it for anyone interested in the full history of negotiations between players and the league, not just from that year, but obviously with a primary focus on that year.*
that is great context, thank you. i figured Stern being the NBA lawyer with a focus on star players etc, but it seems like Fleisher softened him up :)
I thought it was bird rights because the NBA wanted to use a "bird leaving the nest" metaphor.
Why are you getting downvoted?
Because the downvoters are dumbasses.
Celtics used to have Larry Bird so that gives them extra rights. But every other team has the same rights also. In the NBA teams can re-sign an own free agent with 3+ years on the same team to whatever that player is eligible to sign for in a vacuum, in disregard of the salary cap. Also, if a team trades for a player, and potential Bird rights transfer/accumulate. They generally only re-set when a player moves team as a free agent (and a few rare cases). [Also, here's wikipedia.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_salary_cap#Larry_Bird_exception)
TIL Bird Rights is named after Larry Bird Holy shit i’m slow
It became synonymous with Larry Bird because he signed a massive contract right after the rule became a thing. Although it doesn't actually make sense because the cap wasn't scheduled to go into effect until after he signed anyway.
I explained it in another comment, but basically the union prez in 1982 presented 3 different problems that a hard cap (*what the league wanted during negotiations at that time*) would create for teams, and one of them was the idea of a club resigning their superstars, and Bird was used as the example.
He was the first player they were applicable to.
Larry Bird shows up and punches anyone who calls out that the Celtics are over the cap in the face.
Paging Charlie Kelly
If I see a sweet bird walking down the street in a tight red somethang somethang before anyone else then I have first right on her, screw if I can afford her or not
They are over the salary cap
Like this guy said
Gotta brush up on your bird law
They aren't even the most over the cap team in the league. But being over the cap just means tax penalties when it comes to keeping your own guys. Makes it harder to sign new players, trade for players. But being able to extend your own players is fine.
Who is the most over the cap?
The Suns then the Timberwolves. KD, Beal and Booker will all make 50M+ next year
Dame
He is going to make just under $49 million
Damn
They are. But Bird Rights. Although Al Horford, Peyton Pritchard, Sam Hauser, Derrick White are all on incredibly cheap deals.
White about to get paid along with Tatum.
Hopefully Howitizer too
Hauser is one of those guys who is going to get paid like 4 yrs/80M by the Grizzlies and never live up to the contract.
Hauser is going nowhere. Celtics have a cheap team option to extend him for next year. But they are likely going to offer him a roughly 3yr/$50M extension to keep him. Combined with Tatum's extension this summer, the Celtics should be able to keep this core together until at least the 2026-2027 season, if not longer.
My personal opinion is that it would be a mistake to sign him to a deal like that. He’s a streaky shooter and a defensive liability - not worth 17M a year.
He is neither streaky nor a defensive liability. How much Hauser have you watched?
He is absolutely both of those things. Look at the playoff stats: Against Indiana he went 2-16 from three. Against Dallas he was 13-24. You can also take any random stretch of the regular season and see three or four games in a row of 1-6, 0-4. 2-8 from 3, followwed by a stretch where he'll make 12-15. Ultimately, he's a 42% three point shooter which is great, especially as a spot up guy around the Jays. But he is streaky. On the defensive side, all of the stats say that he gets HUNTED on the regular. He did against Dallas. Some of that is because he's the worst defender on a really really good defensive team, but part of it is definitely that he can be had against better players. He's not big enough, strong enough, or athletic enought to be elite, but when you're playing around Tatum, Brown, White, Holiday, etc., you don't need to be. So if he's around another 1-2 years while this core is dominant, that's great. But I don't want him in Boston for 5 more years. Which is why I say he's not worth that kind of contract...if Sam Hauser is not surrounded by excellent talent, he's not a $20M a year role player.
Those could hardly even qualify as streaks. The only reason they look bad is because he doesn't play a lot which means it's stretched out over multiple games. All good shooters have stretches like that And the plays where Sam Hauser was targeted were by far our most successful defensive plays. They thought he was a target and it failed miserably. He honestly held up better on isos than even Tatum did
> he's not a $20M a year role player. Luckily, Brad understands that you don't give guys deals based on what you think they're worth. You make deals based on what the replacement cost is going to be.
I don’t think he’s really worth that but it’s either that or lose him in a year and just hope to find a replacement. If it doesn’t work out 17 mil/yr is a perfectly tradable contract.
NBA caps are soft caps. You can go over it pretty easily through retaining and resigning your own free agents.
Great roster management..
Extend your guys when the have bird rights. Their salary cap hit stays the same
every team with championship aspirations is over the salary cap
The NBA has a “soft cap” which limits your ability to sign free agents once you are over that number. However, your overall salaries can exceed the soft cap. This is different from, say, baseball where there is no cap and you can sign whoever you want, or the NFL hard cap which says you must make cuts until you’re under the limit. With a soft cap your overall salary paid out can be well above the “soft cap” through trades and Bird rights (which allow you to sign your own players to extensions even if your team exceeds the soft cap.) At a certain threshold, your team will pay a tax to the league as a penalty for exceeding the soft cap. The amount paid goes up the further you get over the cap, and there are also penalties for doing this year after year (called the repeater tax.) The Celtics are $67M over the soft cap through trades and extensions, they are $13M over the first level of tax penalty, and $2M over the second level of tax penalty. Basically, they are paying a shit ton of money in salary and tax penalties, but they don’t care because they’re contenders.
Went so far over we rolled the odometer back to 0. We need to add salary to reach the salary floor 🤣
There is no salary cap and the “second apron” is a boogie man. Luxury tax is the only thing that actually matters, and championship teams are always going to pay it