2nd Apron = Hard Cap = Opportunity

[theBigLip]

Our cap situation is just fine. But several other teams are basically f—ked w high payrolls and poor results. This summer will be like walking into a candy store - lots of opportunities to pick up players. Many legit players will be given away just for cap space.

The 2nd apron is not a hard cap. It becomes a hard cap only if a team does certain things. Otherwise, it's just a barrier past which additional restrictions on acquiring talent apply. Teams which are far above the cap and want to compete are the least likely to simply dump good players, because they are the least able to replace those players.

That's why we saw no instances of such players being jettisoned last summer. This upcoming offseason does not figure to be any different.

From the FreePress…

Boston, which fended off elimination with a Game 5 win May 14, will be forced to part with at least one core player due to the sheer cost of bringing everyone back. This is their second consecutive season above the tax apron, and bringing everyone back would produce the most expensive roster in league history — $507 million, combining $227 million in payroll and a luxury tax bill of $280 million.

[Crymson]

From the FreePress…

Boston, which fended off elimination with a Game 5 win May 14, will be forced to part with at least one core player due to the sheer cost of bringing everyone back. This is their second consecutive season above the tax apron, and bringing everyone back would produce the most expensive roster in league history — $507 million, combining $227 million in payroll and a luxury tax bill of $280 million.

That's the product of Boston's new ownership wanting to avoid an extremely expensive roster, rather than anything relating to the second apron.

As for the Celtics themselves, they'll still be wanting to win, so they'll want to dump the least valuable of their high-salary players. I doubt a heavily used Porzingis would appeal much to anyone here, nor an in-decline, 35-year-old Jrue who's owed upwards of $30 million in each of the next three seasons. The likeliest destination is the Nets, who will not only be the single team with a large amount of cap space this summer but could also absorb either or both of those salaries outright.

[theBigLip]

From the FreePress…

Boston, which fended off elimination with a Game 5 win May 14, will be forced to part with at least one core player due to the sheer cost of bringing everyone back. This is their second consecutive season above the tax apron, and bringing everyone back would produce the most expensive roster in league history — $507 million, combining $227 million in payroll and a luxury tax bill of $280 million.

That's the product of Boston's new ownership wanting to avoid an extremely expensive roster, rather than anything relating to the second apron.

As for the Celtics themselves, they'll still be wanting to win, so they'll want to dump the least valuable of their high-salary players. I doubt a heavily used Porzingis would appeal much to anyone here, nor an in-decline, 35-year-old Jrue who's owed upwards of $30 million in each of the next three seasons. The likeliest destination is the Nets, who will not only be the single team with a large amount of cap space this summer but could also absorb either or both of those salaries outright.

I think we’re can agree to disagree on this. I totally believe this is a result of the new CBA and 2nd apron. And KP and Jrue, as you noted, won’t have much value and Boston will need to attach assets to move them.

As for the new ownership group, of course they don’t want to pay hundreds of millions in cap penalties. You’re sort of making my point for me. Even the Warriors had to make some changes and they had some serious deep pockets in their ownership group.

[Rip32]

I really wished the nba would create a system that rewards teams for drafting well. Resigning your players you've drafted should allow some flexibility and not count against the cap. Cade's all-nba status actually hurts our cap. This is the dumbest shet ever.

[Crymson]

I think we’re can agree to disagree on this. I totally believe this is a result of the new CBA and 2nd apron.

How so? The second apron is not inherently a hard cap, and it isn't possible for a team that's above the second apron to be end up hard capped at the second apron. If you're above the second apron, you're already forbidden by the CBA to do the things that'll trigger the hard cap. Where the Celtics are concerned, this is all about salary. There's literally nothing about the CBA that's requiring the organization to dump salary.

This same sort of discussion was had last offseason. The calculus and the outcome were both the same. The Pistons had oodles of cap space, and the best cap dump opportunity they found was from a team that wasn't anywhere near the second apron and wanted to dump an underperforming player so that they could use the full NTP-MLE to keep another member of the roster. As I've said elsewhere in the thread, it's very counterproductive for a competitive team to dump important rotation players just to get below the 2nd apron; the drawbacks would drastically outweigh the benefits of doing so.

I'm very familiar with the CBA, and I'd happy to explain this further if you'd like.

And KP and Jrue, as you noted, won’t have much value and Boston will need to attach assets to move them.

Correct, and that's presumably what they'd do. They aren't going to just dump Brown, Pritchard, or White. The goal is to reduce payroll while still being able to compete.

As for the new ownership group, of course they don’t want to pay hundreds of millions in cap penalties. You’re sort of making my point for me. Even the Warriors had to make some changes and they had some serious deep pockets in their ownership group.

What do you mean? The Warriors began last offseason well below the first apron after they decided against keeping Klay, and they made that decision largely on the basis of wanting to revamp the roster. His ask was about $40 million over two seasons; keeping him wasn't going to break the bank.

[theBigLip]

I think we’re can agree to disagree on this. I totally believe this is a result of the new CBA and 2nd apron.

How so? The second apron is not inherently a hard cap, and it isn't possible for a team that's above the second apron to be end up hard capped at the second apron. If you're above the second apron, you're already forbidden by the CBA to do the things that'll trigger the hard cap. Where the Celtics are concerned, this is all about salary. There's literally nothing about the CBA that's requiring the organization to dump salary.

This same sort of discussion was had last offseason. The calculus and the outcome were both the same. The Pistons had oodles of cap space, and the best cap dump opportunity they found was from a team that wasn't anywhere near the second apron and wanted to dump an underperforming player so that they could use the full NTP-MLE to keep another member of the roster. As I've said elsewhere in the thread, it's very counterproductive for a competitive team to dump important rotation players just to get below the 2nd apron; the drawbacks would drastically outweigh the benefits of doing so.

I'm very familiar with the CBA, and I'd happy to explain this further if you'd like.

As for the new ownership group, of course they don’t want to pay hundreds of millions in cap penalties. You’re sort of making my point for me. Even the Warriors had to make some changes and they had some serious deep pockets in their ownership group.

What do you mean? The Warriors began last offseason well below the first apron after they decided against keeping Klay, and they made that decision largely on the basis of wanting to revamp the roster. His ask was about $40 million over two seasons; keeping him wasn't going to break the bank.

I'm not even sure what we're arguing about, but one more time, with your quotes:

The second apron is not inherently a hard cap

I just disagree with that. Of course it isn't in the rules as such, but the penalties for repeatedly being above the 2nd apron are so punitive, it does act as a hard cap. You do it to win a championship, but you don't do it as a normal course of business.

The Warriors began last offseason well below the first apron after they decided against keeping Klay

Gee. And why did they not keep Klay? Because they didn't want to be over the 2nd apron.

Again, I believe there will be several salary dumps this year from teams that tried to go for it and are now in financial hell. You say that doesn't have anything to do with the CBA and 2nd apron, but that's the guidelines that decide their budgets. I'm not sure how you separate the two.

Anyway, I expect another response that I will probably not understand from you, but go ahead and explain the point you're trying to make because it isn't clear to me.

[Crymson]

I'm not even sure what we're arguing about, but one more time, with your quotes:

The second apron is not inherently a hard cap

I just disagree with that. Of course it isn't in the rules as such, but the penalties for repeatedly being above the 2nd apron are so punitive, it does act as a hard cap.

Not so: the notion that the second apron is intended as a punishment is a misconception. All but one of the consequences for being above the 2nd apron are restrictions, not penalties; they aim to enforce parity by further (compared to the first apron) inhibiting big spenders from improving their rosters. That's the point of the first and the second apron: to recognize that teams do not all have equal spending power, and to throw restrictions in the way of teams that can (and do) spend more than many others can. Prior to the implementation of the second apron, the penalties were the same whether a team was a dollar or a hundred million dollars above what's now the first apron. The league doesn't intend to punish teams for spending a lot of money; it aims to keep teams that are able to do so from gaining too much of a competitive advantage.

The one and only actual penalty for being above the first apron is that repeat offenders -- those who were above the second apron in three of the previous four seasons -- have their first-round pick moved to the end of the round. That's obviously to be avoided, but the average second apron team is either depleted of first-round draft assets or will be picking well into the 20s anyway. And even this is only incidentally a penalty; it has the exact same intent as all the rest of the aforementioned consequences, namely to lessen the ability of big spenders to add more talent (rather than to punish them).

Teams that aren't aiming to compete are obviously poorly served by being above the second apron and would be best served by avoiding it (and rebuilding), but that's a moot point for the purposes of this discussion: there are no such teams projected to be above the 2nd apron next season, and very few in general.

The Warriors began last offseason well below the first apron after they decided against keeping Klay. Gee. And why did they not keep Klay? Because they didn't want to be over the 2nd apron.

That's an oddly pompous way of responding given that I've already told you that isn't the case. Keeping him would not have been bank-breaking, by any means, but it would've impeded the flexibility that the front office desired... flexibility that required the Warriors to be well below either of the aprons. That wasn't worthwhile for a player whom the front office wanted transitioned to a bench role.

Again, I believe there will be several salary dumps this year from teams that tried to go for it and are now in financial hell. You say that doesn't have anything to do with the CBA and 2nd apron, but that's the guidelines that decide their budgets. I'm not sure how you separate the two.

Salary dumps? Sure, I'd imagine some of them would love to lose bad salary. Useful players? That's a different story.

Anyway, which teams and which players? And why do you figure we saw none of this last offseason?

Anyway, I expect another response that I will probably not understand from you, but go ahead and explain the point you're trying to make because it isn't clear to me.

My point is that in the case of any team that wants to compete, dumping useful rotation players to get below the second apron would provide little gain versus a lot of loss. What you're saying about the second apron being a punitive threshold isn't accurate.

If you're claiming that there are teams out there that would benefit from simply giving away solid rotation players as cap dumps, I'd be interested to hear which teams you believe those to be.

[theBigLip]

Again, I believe there will be several salary dumps this year from teams that tried to go for it and are now in financial hell. You say that doesn't have anything to do with the CBA and 2nd apron, but that's the guidelines that decide their budgets. I'm not sure how you separate the two.

Salary dumps? Sure, I'd imagine some of them would love to lose bad salary. Useful players? That's a different story.

Anyway, which teams and which players? And why do you figure we saw none of this last offseason?

Anyway, I expect another response that I will probably not understand from you, but go ahead and explain the point you're trying to make because it isn't clear to me.

My point is that in the case of any team that wants to compete, dumping useful rotation players to get below the second apron would provide little gain versus a lot of loss. What you're saying about the second apron being a punitive threshold isn't accurate.

If you're claiming that there are teams out there that would benefit from simply giving away solid rotation players as cap dumps, I'd be interested to hear which teams you believe those to be.

Minny giving up the superior talent in KAT for Randle?
Dallas giving up Hardaway Jr?
Heat giving up on Butler to the Warriors?
Pelicans trading away Ingram to Toronto?
Memphis trading away Smart to Washington?
Hawks trading Hunter to Cleveland?

All of these trades involve dumping players for cap reasons.

[Crymson]

None of these examples fits your argument, and almost all of them are entirely incorrect in how you've characterized them. And you've chosen to ignore both what I've noted about the second apron and my ask for examples of teams and players in the upcoming offseason that might fit your description, responding instead with an irrelevant and largely incorrect list of cap dumps instead. Why?

Minny giving up the superior talent in KAT for Randle?

That was done out of a desire to save dollars, particularly with the impending need to pay Reid. Minnesota remained far over the second apron after the trade, and looks poised to be there next season as well should they retain him.

Dallas giving up Hardaway Jr?

THJ was a negative-value player and no longer a viable member of the postseason rotation (he went on, not unexpectedly, to be a negative-value on-court player and a bad postseason performer with the Pistons as well). Dallas was not above the 2nd apron. They paid to dump him toward the end of being able to use the full NTP-MLE to retain DJJ (or so they planned; he signed with the Clippers).

Heat giving up on Butler to the Warriors?

The Heat were not above the 2nd apron either. They dealt Butler because he demanded a trade, and he demanded a trade because Riley was unwilling to extend him at Butler's asking price, and Riley was unwilling to extend him because of Butler's propensity for injury. Dumping cap had nothing to do with it, and trading Butler definitively ended this iteration of the Heat's ability to contend in the postseason.

Pelicans trading away Ingram to Toronto?

The Pelicans were not above the 2nd apron either. The iteration of the Pelicans that began this season is dead, the team is facing a rebuild, and its front office intended to have Murray replace Ingram anyway. They had no intention of extending him, so they traded him. Dumping cap had nothing to do with it.

Memphis trading away Smart to Washington?

The Grizzlies were not above the 2nd apron either. They traded Smart in order to open up cap space for a potential renegotiate-and-extend of JJJ's contract. Smart has missed the vast majority of these past two seasons and has negative trade value, and the Grizzlies paid a first-round pick to dump his salary.

Hawks trading Hunter to Cleveland?

Atlanta was not above the 2nd apron either. Hunter is on an affordable contract. He was traded because his health is eternally unreliable, the return was good, and Atlanta is facing a rebuild.

All of these trades involve dumping players for cap reasons.

Only two of them involved dumping players for cap reasons, neither of the players involved in those trades was a positive-value contributor, and, more pertinently, not a single item on that list fits your scenario of teams trading useful rotation players to get or stay below the 2nd apron.

I haven't asked you for such examples, because -- as I've mentioned -- there aren't any. Now, will you answer my question and list any examples of teams or players who might fit that scenario in the upcoming offseason?

[theBigLip]

All of these examples answer your question but go ahead and spin it anyway you want - you’re not enlightening me or anyone else, just seem bored and want to argue. I’m out….

None of these examples fits your argument, and almost all of them are entirely incorrect in how you've characterized them. And you've entirely ignored what I've explained to you about the second apron and my ask for examples of teams and players in the upcoming offseason that might fit your description, responding instead with an irrelevant (and largely incorrect) list of cap dumps instead. Why?

Minny giving up the superior talent in KAT for Randle?

That was done out of a desire to save dollars, particularly with the impending need to pay Reid. Minnesota remained far over the second apron after the trade, and looks poised to be there next season as well should they retain him.

Dallas giving up Hardaway Jr?

THJ was a negative-value player and no longer a viable member of the postseason rotation (he went on, not unexpectedly, to be a negative-value on-court player and a bad postseason performer with the Pistons as well). Dallas was not above the 2nd apron. They paid to dump him toward the end of being able to use the full NTP-MLE to retain DJJ (or so they planned; he signed with the Clippers).

Heat giving up on Butler to the Warriors?

The Heat were not above the 2nd apron either. They dealt Butler because he demanded a trade, and he demanded a trade because Riley was unwilling to extend him at Butler's asking price, and Riley was unwilling to extend him because of Butler's propensity for injury. Dumping cap had nothing to do with it, and trading Butler definitively ended this iteration of the Heat's ability to contend in the postseason.

Pelicans trading away Ingram to Toronto?

The Pelicans were not above the 2nd apron either. The iteration of the Pelicans that began this season is dead, the team is facing a rebuild, and its front office intended to have Murray replace Ingram anyway. They had no intention of extending him, so they traded him. Dumping cap had nothing to do with it.

Memphis trading away Smart to Washington?

The Grizzlies were not above the 2nd apron either. They traded Smart in order to open up cap space for a potential renegotiate-and-extend of JJJ's contract. Smart himself cannot remain healthy and is bad salary.

Hawks trading Hunter to Cleveland?

Atlanta was not above the 2nd apron either. Hunter is on an affordable contract. He was traded because his health is eternally unreliable, the return was good, and Atlanta is facing a rebuild.

All of these trades involve dumping players for cap reasons.

Only two of them involved dumping players for cap reasons, neither of the players involved in those trades was a positive-value contributor, and, more pertinently, not a single item on that list fits your scenario of teams trading useful rotation players to get or stay below the 2nd apron.

I haven't asked you for such examples, because -- as I've mentioned -- there aren't any. Now, will you answer my question and list any examples of teams or players who might fit that scenario in the upcoming offseason?

[Crymson]

All of these examples answer your question but go ahead and spin it anyway you want - you’re not enlightening me or anyone else, just seem bored and want to argue. I’m out….

That's factually false, and anyone can see it. Why even get involved in this discussion if you're so unwilling to answer factual challenges to your argument?

[theBigLip]

All of these examples answer your question but go ahead and spin it anyway you want - you’re not enlightening me or anyone else, just seem bored and want to argue. I’m out….

That's factually false, and anyone can see it. Why even get involved in this discussion if you're so unwilling to answer factual challenges to your argument?

That’s clearly a matter of opinion. And you clearly aren’t interested in listening to others’ facts and prefer to just have a monologue, so just go ahead and self pleasure yourself with your next time wasting post.

[Crymson]

That’s clearly a matter of opinion. And you clearly aren’t interested in listening to others’ facts and prefer to just have a monologue, so just go ahead and self pleasure yourself with your next time wasting post.

I doubt you're convincing even yourself of that -- let alone anyone else -- and lashing out does not become you as a moderator or as an individual.

[theBigLip]

That’s clearly a matter of opinion. And you clearly aren’t interested in listening to others’ facts and prefer to just have a monologue, so just go ahead and self pleasure yourself with your next time wasting post.

I doubt you're convincing even yourself of that -- let alone anyone else -- and lashing out does not become you as a moderator or as an individual.

I’m not lashing out and was nicely calling out your trolling.

[theBigLip]

If you have to remove your question to me and spin it a different way, then there's no point with you. Here is what you asked:

My point is that in the case of any team that wants to compete, dumping useful rotation players to get below the second apron would provide little gain versus a lot of loss. What you're saying about the second apron being a punitive threshold isn't accurate.

If you're claiming that there are teams out there that would benefit from simply giving away solid rotation players as cap dumps, I'd be interested to hear which teams you believe those to be.

And I responded. And then you just said each of them was not a 2nd apron choice, but that's not what you asked. You just asked for salary dumps. Regardsless, most of these teams are still worried about the 2nd apron even if it is a year out. Regardless, this is pointless.

I'm done with this. And consider this a warning for trolling. This certainly doesn't benefit the board at all.

None of these examples fits your argument, and almost all of them are entirely incorrect in how you've characterized them. And you've chosen to ignore both what I've noted about the second apron and my ask for examples of teams and players in the upcoming offseason that might fit your description, responding instead with an irrelevant and largely incorrect list of cap dumps instead. Why?

Minny giving up the superior talent in KAT for Randle?

That was done out of a desire to save dollars, particularly with the impending need to pay Reid. Minnesota remained far over the second apron after the trade, and looks poised to be there next season as well should they retain him.

Dallas giving up Hardaway Jr?

THJ was a negative-value player and no longer a viable member of the postseason rotation (he went on, not unexpectedly, to be a negative-value on-court player and a bad postseason performer with the Pistons as well). Dallas was not above the 2nd apron. They paid to dump him toward the end of being able to use the full NTP-MLE to retain DJJ (or so they planned; he signed with the Clippers).

Heat giving up on Butler to the Warriors?

The Heat were not above the 2nd apron either. They dealt Butler because he demanded a trade, and he demanded a trade because Riley was unwilling to extend him at Butler's asking price, and Riley was unwilling to extend him because of Butler's propensity for injury. Dumping cap had nothing to do with it, and trading Butler definitively ended this iteration of the Heat's ability to contend in the postseason.

Pelicans trading away Ingram to Toronto?

The Pelicans were not above the 2nd apron either. The iteration of the Pelicans that began this season is dead, the team is facing a rebuild, and its front office intended to have Murray replace Ingram anyway. They had no intention of extending him, so they traded him. Dumping cap had nothing to do with it.

Memphis trading away Smart to Washington?

The Grizzlies were not above the 2nd apron either. They traded Smart in order to open up cap space for a potential renegotiate-and-extend of JJJ's contract. Smart has missed the vast majority of these past two seasons and has negative trade value, and the Grizzlies paid a first-round pick to dump his salary.

Hawks trading Hunter to Cleveland?

Atlanta was not above the 2nd apron either. Hunter is on an affordable contract. He was traded because his health is eternally unreliable, the return was good, and Atlanta is facing a rebuild.

All of these trades involve dumping players for cap reasons.

Only two of them involved dumping players for cap reasons, neither of the players involved in those trades was a positive-value contributor, and, more pertinently, not a single item on that list fits your scenario of teams trading useful rotation players to get or stay below the 2nd apron.

I haven't asked you for such examples, because -- as I've mentioned -- there aren't any. Now, will you answer my question and list any examples of teams or players who might fit that scenario in the upcoming offseason?