The new "second apron"

[floppymoose]

Players were against hard caps because it forces them to move around more, not because of pay. The players make the same $$ either way.

[osx28]

Players were against hard caps because it forces them to move around more, not because of pay. The players make the same $$ either way.

The total amount yes, but the distribution of pay will be much worse. With a hard cap, teams will want to pay 1 or 2 box office stars 70% of the cap and distribute the other 30% among 13 players. It benefits about 50-60 players and screws over 300+. Also players like Klay and Draymond will have to decide whether to take significantly less money to stay with a contender or get paid by the likes of Detroit and Orlando.
It also helps high spending teams to cut down costs without looking like the villain. Since the luxury tax doesn't go to players, reducing luxury tax costs only benefits owners. With the previous system fanbases and players could argue that it was only the cheapskate owner's reluctance to pay the tax that prevented them from spending more on good players. Now owners can legitimately point at all the punitive consequences like having your draft pick sent to the end of the line or not having MLEs as the reason they don't want to spend.
Owners of high spending teams are the ones that benefit most from this and middle class players will suffer most.

[floppymoose]

I dont agree that the pay distribution will dramatically change with the new rules. I guess we will see how it shakes out.

[osx28]

I dont agree that the pay distribution will dramatically change with the new rules. I guess we will see how it shakes out.

I definitely hope I'm wrong, but who knows? Either way I think we might agree that it makes it more difficult for our Warriors to keep all their players (especially keep all of them happy and well payed) and compete for a championship at the same time. Not that it can't be done, but without access to buyouts and MLEs, there's 2 tools you don't have anymore.

[wco81]

Silver has been a proponent of parity for years.

He likes that the new CBA will push parity.

"Well, I think there's enormous benefit," said Adam Silver when asked about parity this season. "I get the question asked, too, sort of the converse of that question is are dynasties good for the league. My ultimate view is competition is great for the league, and if as a result dynasties are made, I think that's great, too. So I'm not against seeing repeat championships.

"On the other hand, whoever wins this year it'll be the fifth consecutive year where we have a new team winning a championship.

"When you think about a 30-team league, and it's not just the fans in those markets but fans increasingly all over the world who follow a team in that particular market maybe because they have an affinity for that style of play or a particular player on that team or some created connection to that city, you want a league where everyone feels that if the team that they are rooting for is well-managed and gets a little bit lucky, too, that's necessary, that they can truly compete for championships.

"I think this increased parity we're seeing around the league is fantastic. It's part by design, too. Through successive collective bargaining agreements and the one we just negotiated, there's some new provisions in that one, as well, that we hope will help even the playing field to a certain extent.

https://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/271769/Adam-Silver-Increased-NBA-Parity-Is-Fantastic-Its-Part-By-Design-Too


Parity and the hard salary cap rules for the NFL has come at a time of that league thriving in the ratings and popularity.

I'm not so sure parity in the NBA gets them bigger ratings though. If a small market team comes to dominate, will they raise ratings overall for the league?


In the NFL parity means teams could bottom out but also be back up in a couple of years. But that works in football because careers are short. There aren't as many NFL superstars playing at their peaks well into their 30s as there is in the NBA. As a result, a top 10 NBA players in their mid 30s can keep their franchises in contention. That happens a lot less in the NFL because the nature of the sport is that there's a lot more turnover and young players can produce on sheet athleticism -- strength and speed, without necessarily having finely honed shooting, ball handling and playmaking skills.

The NFL draft allows big roster turnover whereas in the NBA, even if a top pick has big impact, it takes a couple of years for him to become an all-star, maybe longer to become all-NBA. But also, most teams draft 2 players a year at most whereas NFL teams can draft a half dozen to dozen players and 3 or 4 making immediate impact could boost the team.

We will see if greater parity increases popularity. I thought when the Warriors won their first titles with this core, the ratings were the highest in like a decade. The 2005-2015 period had a series of different champions and the ratings weren't great.

[killmongrel]

So basically, doesn't the second apron just make it more difficult for the team to add talent aside from vet minimums and trades that are kind of restrictive?

[wco81]

If you have two players earning super max salaries, you're not going to be able to round out the roster with $20 million salaries as many teams do.

Look at the Celtics. After next season, Brown and Tatum could both be earning $120 million. They have 3 or 4 guys earning $15-20 million right now. That's not going to be possible once Brown and Tatum's super max extensions kick in, unless they want to pay a ton of tax and be limited in what kind of players to sign or trade.