Hoops Rumors Originals

The NBA made it a priority in its latest Collective Bargaining Agreement to do all it could to reduce load management and to ensure that the game’s biggest stars suited up more often. That resulted in the league beefing up its existing Player Participation Policy and introducing a new requirement for players to qualify for end-of-season awards.

In order to be eligible for all of the NBA’s end-of-season awards, a player must appear in at least 65 games (out of 82) during the regular season. That means they can’t miss more than 17 regular season contests.

Sixers center Joel Embiid and Cavaliers guard Donovan Mitchell are among the players who were on track to be All-NBA locks but who won’t play in 65 games this season due to injuries and therefore won’t be eligible.

However, it’s not quite as simple as looking at a player’s games played total at the end of the season and seeing whether or not it’s at 65+. There are scenarios in which a player could still qualify for award consideration if he appears in fewer than 65 games and scenarios in which a player would not qualify for consideration even if he technically appears in more than 65 games.

The technicalities:

First, it’s important to clarify that for the purposes of this rule, a player is considered to have played in a game only if he logged at least 20 minutes in that game. That requirement was implemented so that a player couldn’t, say, start a game, check out after 30 seconds, and have it count toward his total.

A player is permitted to fall short of the 20-minute threshold twice and still have the game count toward his minimum as long as he logs at least 15 minutes in those games. So a player who plays 20 minutes in 63 games and 15 minutes in two more contests would reach the 65-game minimum. However, any outing of less than 15 minutes would not count toward the minimum.

Jamal Murray provides an excellent case study of how this rule operates in practice. If Murray plays in every Nuggets game for the rest of the 2023/24 regular season, he’ll technically have appeared in 66 contests. However, due to various injuries, Murray fell short of the 20-minute mark in three of those games, including two outings in which he logged fewer than 15 minutes.

As a result, Murray’s end-of-season game count may look like this:

• Games of 20+ minutes: 63
• Games of 15+ minutes: 1
• Games of fewer than 15 minutes: 2
• Total games: 66

In that scenario, he’d fall short of the minimum-game criteria despite appearing in 66 total games, since only 64 of them would qualify toward the required minimum.

The season-ending injury exception:

Rockets center Alperen Sengun, conversely, is an example of a player who may still qualify for end-of-season awards despite not reaching the 65-game benchmark.

A player retains his award eligibility if he logged 20+ minutes in at least 62 games (including 85% of his team’s games to that point), then suffers a season-ending injury.

The NBA defines a season-ending injury in this case as one that an independent physician (jointly selected by the league and players’ union) deems more likely than not to sideline the player through at least May 31.

Sengun played in 63 games for the Rockets, logging 20+ minutes in all of them, before suffering a severely sprained ankle and a bone bruise in his knee, an injury that could very well end his season. If an independent doctor determines the injury would likely keep him on the shelf through May 31, he’d be eligible for end-of-season awards, including Most Improved Player.

Grievances and challenges:

A player whose eligibility for awards could affect their next contract is permitted to file an “Award Eligibility Grievance” if he falls shy of the 65-game requirement. Such a grievance would be heard by a league arbitrator.

Murray would be eligible for a Designated Veteran (super-max) extension if he makes an All-NBA team this season, while Sengun could become eligible for a Rose Rule rookie scale extension if he’s named Most Valuable Player this season (this obviously won’t happen, but could in theory). As a result, both players would be eligible to file an Award Eligibility Grievance, if necessary.

However, the threshold for prevailing in a grievance of this sort is high. According to the CBA, the player must provide “clear and convincing evidence” that his team “willfully limited the player’s number of minutes played or games played during the regular season with the intention of depriving the player of (award) eligibility.” If Murray and Sengun fall shy of the requirements, it will be because of injuries, not because of any sort of underhanded tactics by Denver or Houston.

An Award Eligibility Grievance must be filed by 11:59 pm Eastern time on the day after the final day of the regular season, or within two days of the date on which it becomes mathematically impossible for the player to reach the 65-game minimum, whichever comes first. So Murray would have already had to file this grievance if he intended to do so.

A player who falls short of the 65-game minimum can also file an “Extraordinary Circumstances Challenge” in an effort to regain his award eligibility. In this case, the player must prove that if not for extraordinary circumstances, he would have met the 65-game requirement and that it would be “unjust” to exclude him from award consideration.

An Extraordinary Circumstances Challenge must be filed between 12:00 pm Eastern time on the final day of the regular season and 11:59 pm ET on the day after the last day of the regular season. The challenge would be heard by an “independent expert” jointly selected by the NBA and NBPA.

The CBA doesn’t define what sort of extraordinary circumstances would fall under this umbrella. Any sort of injury seems unlikely to qualify, but given that Murray may end up falling shy of award eligibility because he played 14:07 in one game instead of 15 minutes, perhaps his case will merit consideration.

Since we don’t yet have any precedents to refer to, we may have to see how situations like Murray’s play out to get a better sense of how this sort of challenge might – or might not – succeed.

The awards the 65-game rule does and doesn’t apply to:

Failing to meet the 65-game requirement doesn’t necessarily mean that a player is ineligible for every end-of-season award. The 65-game rule only applies to the following awards:

• Most Valuable Player
• Defensive Player of the Year
• Most Improved Player
• All-NBA teams
• All-Defensive teams

That means the following awards don’t require 65 games played:

• Rookie of the Year
• All-Rookie teams
• Sixth Man of the Year

Although the NBA offered no explanation for why 65+ games aren’t required for these specific awards, we can probably assume the league didn’t feel the need to impose extra requirements on awards that already only apply to a smaller group of players.

A player who made his NBA debut prior to 2023/24 won’t be eligible for Rookie of the Year or All-Rookie, and a player who starts more than half his games isn’t eligible for Sixth Man of the Year.

Being able to qualify for these awards despite not meeting the 65-game minimum does nothing for Murray, for example, since he’s not eligible for any of them anyway. However, the lack of a 65-game rule could come in handy for certain All-Rookie hopefuls who won’t reach that total this season, such as Mavericks center Dereck Lively II.

Note: This is a Hoops Rumors Glossary entry. Our glossary posts will explain specific rules relating to trades, free agency, or other aspects of the NBA’s Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Players and teams have to meet certain criteria to earn Bird rights and Early Bird rights, but Non-Bird rights are practically a given.

They apply to a player who has spent a single season or less with his team, as long as he finishes the season on an NBA roster and is on a standard contract (rather than a hardship or 10-day deal). Even a player who signs a rest-of-season contract right before the regular season finale and spends just a single day with his club would have Non-Bird rights in the offseason.

Teams can also claim Non-Bird rights on Early Bird free agents if they renounce them. The primary motivator to do so would be to allow the team to sign the free agent to a one-year contract, a move that’s not permitted via Early Bird rights.

Teams are eligible to sign their own free agents using the Non-Bird exception for a salary starting at 120% of the player’s previous salary, 120% of the minimum salary, or the amount of a qualifying offer (if the player is a restricted free agent), whichever is greatest. Contracts can be for up to four years, with 5% annual raises.

The cap hold for a Non-Bird player is 120% of his previous salary, unless his previous salary was the minimum. In that case, the cap hold is equivalent to the two-year veteran’s minimum salary. If a Non-Bird free agent only has one year of NBA experience, his cap hold is equivalent to the one-year veteran’s minimum salary.

The salary limitations that apply to Non-Bird rights are more severe than those pertaining to Bird rights or Early Bird rights, so in many cases, the Non-Bird exception may not be enough to retain a well-regarded free agent. For instance, the Nuggets held Bruce Brown‘s Non-Bird rights last summer, but couldn’t have used them to match or exceed the offer the veteran wing received from the Pacers.

Because Brown had earned a relatively modest $6,479,000 salary in 2022/23, Denver’s ability to offer a raise using the Non-Bird exception was extremely limited — the Nuggets would have only been able to offer 120% of Brown’s previous salary using his Non-Bird rights, which worked out to $7,774,800. Indiana used its cap room to give Brown a $22MM starting salary, easily topping Denver’s maximum offer.

The Bucks may end up in a similar situation this offseason with Malik Beasley, who will only have Non-Bird rights after playing out a one-year, minimum-salary contract. Milwaukee almost certainly won’t have cap room, and the mid-level exception won’t be an option either as long as the team’s salary remains above the second tax apron. If they want to re-sign Beasley, the Bucks may have to hope he’ll accept an offer in the $3.6MM range via the Non-Bird exception.

Holding Non-Bird rights on a free agent didn’t help the Nuggets with Brown and may not be enough for the Bucks with Beasley, but there are cases in which the exception proves useful.

The Clippers, for instance, only had Non-Bird rights on Russell Westbrook last offseason, but that gave them the ability to offer a starting salary worth 20% more than the veteran’s minimum that another team might have offered. Since Westbrook wanted to remain in Los Angeles, the Non-Bird exception – which allowed for a starting salary of $3,835,738 – was enough to re-sign him. His minimum salary would have been $3,196,448.

After being traded from the Pacers to the Raptors earlier this season, Brown will have Non-Bird rights again this summer if Toronto opts to turn down his $23MM team option for 2024/25. However, in that scenario, the Raptors would have significantly more flexibility than Denver did to offer Brown a new contract, since he’ll be coming off a much higher salary this time around. Toronto could offer Brown a starting salary of up to $26.4MM (120% of $22MM) using the Non-Bird exception.

Finally, it’s worth noting that a player who re-signs with his previous team on a one-year deal (or a two-year deal that includes a second-year option) and will have Early Bird or Bird rights at the end of that contract would surrender those rights if he consents to a trade. In that scenario, he’d only finish the season with Non-Bird rights.

No players in this position consented to a trade this year, but it was a factor in Miles Bridges‘ decision to tell the Hornets he wouldn’t approve a deal.

If Charlotte had traded him to a new team, Bridges would have only had Non-Bird rights, meaning his new team wouldn’t have been able to offer him a starting salary higher than $9,505,560 (120% of his $7,921,300 salary for 2023/24) without using cap room or another exception. By remaining with the Hornets, Bridges hung onto his Bird rights, giving him more pathways to a significant payday, either by re-signing in Charlotte or via a sign-and-trade.

Note: This is a Hoops Rumors Glossary entry. Our glossary posts will explain specific rules relating to trades, free agency, or other aspects of the NBA’s Collective Bargaining Agreement. Larry Coon’s Salary Cap FAQ was used in the creation of this post.

Earlier versions of this post were published in previous years by Luke Adams and Chuck Myron.

Bird rights offer teams the chance to sign their own free agents without regard to the salary cap, but they don’t apply to every player. Other salary cap exceptions are available for teams to keep players who don’t qualify for Bird rights. One such exception is the Early Bird, which applies to players formally known as Early Qualifying Veteran Free Agents.

While the Bird exception is for players who have spent three seasons with one club without changing teams as a free agent, Early Bird rights are earned after just two such seasons. Virtually all of the same rules that apply to Bird rights apply to Early Bird rights, with the requirements condensed to two years rather than three.

Players still see their Bird clocks restart by changing teams via free agency, being claimed in an expansion draft, or having their rights renounced. A player who is traded can also have his Bird clock reset if he approves a move after having re-signed with his previous team on a one-year contract (or a one-year contract with a second-year option) earlier in the league year.

As is the case with Bird rights, a player’s clock stops when he’s released by a team and clears waivers, but it would pick up where it left off if he re-signs with that same team down the road without joining another club in the interim. For instance, James Johnson will have Early Bird rights this offseason because – even though he was waived in January – he’s on track to finish a second consecutive season with the Pacers and didn’t join another team between his stints in Indiana.

The crucial difference between Bird rights and Early Bird rights involves the limitations on contract offers. Bird players can receive maximum-salary deals for up to five years, while the most a team can offer an Early Bird free agent without using cap space is 175% of his previous salary (up to the max) or 105% of the league-average salary in the previous season, whichever is greater.

These offers are also capped at four years rather than five, and the new contracts must run for at least two years — the second season can be non-guaranteed, but can’t be a team or player option. Raises are maxed out at 8% per season.

Besides Johnson, some of the more notable free agents who will have Early Bird rights during the 2024 offseason include Malik Monk (Kings), Isaiah Hartenstein (Knicks), Kyle Anderson (Timberwolves), and Andre Drummond (Bulls).

In some instances, teams can benefit from having Early Bird rights instead of full Bird rights if they’re trying to preserve cap space. The cap hold for an Early Bird player is 130% of his previous salary, significantly less than most Bird players, whose cap holds range from 150-300% of their previous salaries.

However, having a player’s Early Bird rights instead of his full Bird rights puts a team at a disadvantage in other cases. For example, when Christian Wood reached free agency in 2020, his Early Bird rights only allowed the Pistons to offer a starting salary of up to about $10.05MM, a figure the Rockets topped in their three-year, $41MM offer.

In order to match or exceed that number, Detroit would have had to use cap room — having Wood’s full Bird rights would’ve allowed the Pistons to make a far more substantial offer without requiring cap space.

Meanwhile, some players with limited NBA experience are subject to a special wrinkle involving Early Bird rights, called the Gilbert Arenas Provision, which applies to players who have only been in the league for one or two years. We cover the Arenas Provision in a separate glossary entry, so you can read up on the details there.

Essentially, the Arenas Provision protects teams from a situation like the ones the Pistons found themselves in with Wood, allowing them to match offer sheets on their restricted free agents without necessarily using Bird rights or cap room to do so. Last offseason, Lakers guard Austin Reaves and Pelicans forward Herbert Jones were both Arenas free agents. The provision would apply this coming offseason to a player like Pistons wing Simone Fontecchio.

Finally, one more distinction between Bird rights and Early Bird rights applies to waivers. Players who are claimed off waivers retain their Early Bird rights, just as they would if they were traded. Those who had Bird rights instead see those reduced to Early Bird rights if they’re claimed off waivers.

This rule stems from a 2012 settlement between the league and the union in which J.J. Hickson was given a special exception and retained his full Bird rights for the summer of 2012 even though he had been claimed off waivers that March.

Note: This is a Hoops Rumors Glossary entry. Our glossary posts will explain specific rules relating to trades, free agency, or other aspects of the NBA’s Collective Bargaining Agreement. Larry Coon’s Salary Cap FAQ was used in the creation of this post.

Earlier versions of this post were published in previous years by Luke Adams and Chuck Myron.

The Bird exception, named after Larry Bird, is a rule included in the NBA’s Collective Bargaining Agreement that allows teams to go over the salary cap to re-sign their own players. A player who qualifies for the Bird exception, formally referred to as a Qualifying Veteran Free Agent, is said to have “Bird rights.”

The most basic way for a player to earn Bird rights is to play for the same team for at least three seasons, either on a long-term deal or on separate one- or two-year contracts. Still, there are other criteria. A player retains his Bird rights in the following scenarios:

1. He changes teams via trade.

For instance, the Thunder will hold Gordon Hayward‘s Bird rights when he reaches free agency this offseason, despite just acquiring him in February. His Bird clock didn’t reset when he was traded from Charlotte to Oklahoma City.

2. He finishes a third season with a team after having only signed for a partial season with the club in the first year.

The Heat signed Haywood Highsmith during the second half of the 2021/22 season, adding him to their roster in March 2022. When his contract expires this offseason, Highsmith will have Bird rights despite not spending three full seasons with Miami, because that partial season in ’21/22 started his Bird clock.

3. He signed a full-season contract (ie. not a 10-day deal) in year one or two but the team waived him; he cleared waivers and didn’t sign with another team before re-signing with the club and ultimately remaining under contract through a third season.

This one’s a little confusing, but let’s use former Raptors big man Christian Koloko as an example. After spending the 2022/23 season with Toronto and opening the ’23/24 season on the roster, Koloko was waived by the team in January. If the Raptors were to re-sign him in July without him joining a new team in the interim, his Bird clock would pick up where it left off. He’d have full Bird rights in the summer of 2025, since he would’ve spent part or all of each of the previous three seasons with Toronto, without changing teams in between.

It’s worth noting that while the Raptors could restart Koloko’s Bird clock by re-signing him, they wouldn’t be able to use any form of Bird rights to add him to their roster this offseason — they would have to use cap room or another exception to do so. His Bird clock would only resume once he’s back under contract.

This rule also applies to players who are waived after they already have Bird rights. For example, let’s say the Warriors were to waive Chris Paul this offseason before his $30MM salary for 2024/25 becomes guaranteed.

Golden State, which doesn’t project to have cap room this summer, would have no means to re-sign Paul except via the minimum salary exception or perhaps the mid-level exception, since waiving him would mean losing his Bird rights. But if they did find a way to re-add him on a one-year contract after waiving him, the Warriors would regain Paul’s full Bird rights in 2025.

A player sees the clock on his Bird rights reset to zero in the following scenarios:

1. He changes teams via free agency.
2. He is waived and is not claimed on waivers (except as in scenario No. 3 above).
3. His rights are renounced by his team. However, as in scenario No. 3 above, a player’s Bird clock picks up where it left off if he re-signs with that team renounced without having signed with another NBA team. For example, Boban Marjanovic had Bird rights last offseason, then had those rights renounced by the Rockets as they freed up extra cap room. Since Marjanovic eventually signed a new deal with Houston, he’ll retain his full Bird rights this summer — that wouldn’t have been the case if he had signed with a new team.
4. He is selected in an expansion draft.

Players on two-way contracts accumulate Bird rights in the same way that players on standard contracts do. Magic forward Admiral Schofield has been under contract with Orlando on various two-way and standard deals in each of the past three seasons, so if he remains on his current two-way deal through the end of 2023/24, he’ll have full Bird rights this summer.

If a player who would have been in line for Bird rights at the end of the season is waived and claimed off waivers, he would retain only Early Bird rights.

It’s also worth noting that there’s one specific scenario in which a player with Bird rights can lose them in a trade. A player who re-signs with his previous team on a one-year contract (or a one-year deal with a second-year option) would have his Bird clock reset if he’s traded later that season. As such, he receives the ability to veto trades so he can avoid that scenario.

[RELATED: Players who had the ability to veto trades in 2023/24]

The Bird exception was designed to allow teams to keep their best players, even when those teams don’t have the cap room necessary to do so.

When a player earns Bird rights, he’s eligible to re-sign with his team for up to five years and for any price up to his maximum salary (with 8% annual raises) when he becomes a free agent, no matter how much cap space the team has — or doesn’t have.

The maximum salary varies from player to player depending on how long he has been in the league, but regardless of the precise amount, a team can exceed the salary cap to re-sign a player with Bird rights.

A team with a Bird free agent is assigned a “free agent amount” – also called a cap hold – worth either 190% of his previous salary (for a player with a below-average salary) or 150% of his previous salary (for an above-average salary), up to the maximum salary amount. For players coming off rookie scale contracts, the amounts of those cap holds are 300% and 250%, respectively.

The Sixers, for instance, will have a cap hold worth $13,031,760 for Tyrese Maxey on their books this offseason — 300% of his $4,343,920 salary for 2023/24. Philadelphia could renounce Maxey and generate an extra $13MM+ in cap flexibility, but doing so would cost the Sixers the ability to re-sign him using Bird rights, which would force them to use either cap room or a different cap exception to re-sign him. As such, we can count on Philadelphia keeping Maxey’s cap hold on the books until his free agency is resolved.

Note: This is a Hoops Rumors Glossary entry. Our glossary posts will explain specific rules relating to trades, free agency, or other aspects of the NBA’s Collective Bargaining Agreement. Larry Coon’s Salary Cap FAQ was used in the creation of this post.

Earlier versions of this post were published in previous years by Luke Adams and Chuck Myron.