Harder to make trades

[Mavrelous]

It serves the exact purpose that ownership hoped for when they negotiated for it. It’s one of the back door means for them to try and limit the intending addition of salaries and contributed to the closest they can come to a potential hard cap.

It’s working as designed, and as ownership wants it to.

But even then, these trades can work pretty simply by just looping in a 3rd team and having each apron constrained team send a 2nd there along with some unwanted, but necessary, matching salary.

That's just not true...
Teams are hardcapped at the 2nd Apron anyway, banning moving up through trades in this tight band between the Aprons doesn't really comtribute, and just opens the door to needless S&T like the KAT deal.

I mean the first apron is currently $38M over the salary cap (the delta is only getting larger). I suspect it's working exactly as the owners wanted. They want tax teams to have to make difficult choices. The players wanted rebuilding teams to stop sitting on cap space in order to trade it for eating bad contracts. I'd have more sympathy if teams weren't told of the changes two years ago and put themselves in this position anyway.

Tax teams are already making difficult choices:
1. Repeater tax has become much punitive
2. Being above the 2nd Apron is a risky and costly business, not just money wise.

The extra layer of:
Team below the 2nd Apron can:
1. Increase salary using TPMLE
2. S&T players as trade fodder and increase salary this way.

But God forbid, take 4% more in salary than a team sends, this doesn't really make sense, it's a narrow band of payroll, it doesn't give team much space to increase salary.

There have been 3 significant trades under this CBA of above 1st Apron teams that I remember:
1. Wolves added 6 millions is salary through trade, using a loophole of trading for draft rights, this, for example, is something that was intended to be prevented and wasn't.
2 + 3 Knicks had to twice add salaries to make trades, that weren't the trades that the CBA came to prevent.

[jbk1234]

That's just not true...
Teams are hardcapped at the 2nd Apron anyway, banning moving up through trades in this tight band between the Aprons doesn't really comtribute, and just opens the door to needless S&T like the KAT deal.

I mean the first apron is currently $38M over the salary cap (the delta is only getting larger). I suspect it's working exactly as the owners wanted. They want tax teams to have to make difficult choices. The players wanted rebuilding teams to stop sitting on cap space in order to trade it for eating bad contracts. I'd have more sympathy if teams weren't told of the changes two years ago and put themselves in this position anyway.

Tax teams are already making difficult choices:
1. Repeater tax has become much punitive
2. Being above the 2nd Apron is a risky and costly business, not just money wise.

The extra layer of:
Team below the 2nd Apron can:
1. Increase salary using TPMLE
2. S&T players as trade fodder and increase salary this way.

But God forbid, take 4% more in salary than a team sends, this doesn't really make sense, it's a narrow band of payroll, it doesn't give team much space to increase salary.

There have been 3 significant trades under this CBA of above 1st Apron teams that I remember:
1. Wolves added 6 millions is salary through trade, using a loophole of trading for draft rights, this, for example, is something that was intended to be prevented and wasn't.
2 + 3 Knicks had to twice add salaries to make trades, that weren't the trades that the CBA came to prevent.

You keep citing the 2nd apron as a reason there shouldn't be restrictions on teams over the 1st apron and that's not really a compelling argument from my perspective. There was no second apron under the prior CBA. The second apron is essentially a hard cap.

In any event I don't think the prohibition against teams over the first apron taking back more salary in trade is an oversight. I think it's working as they intended. I think teams miscalculated as to how easy it would be to trade in spite of the restriction given the number of teams already over the first apron.

[Mavrelous]

You keep citing the 2nd apron as a reason there shouldn't be restrictions on teams over the 1st apron and that's not really a compelling argument from my perspective. There was no second apron under the prior CBA. The second apron is essentially a hard cap.

That's odd, since I never argued that there shouldn't be restrictions on teams over the 1st apron, but OK.

[toooskies]

Everyone is blaming aprons but just as important to the conversation is that the salary cap went up only a few percent over last year, and under projections all year long. Teams simply didn't have any new salary to work with.

Given that the cap will be going up 10% every year for the foreseeable future after this year, more teams should have breathing room to make changes in the off-season.

Also: because of COVID there haven't been many bad contracts to come off the books.

There aren't many good organizations that also have bad teams.

There's too many good players in the league. Guys keep getting paid in their 30s, and LeBron is still collecting a max. There is enough talent that Tyus Jones on a minimum is a smarter move.

Ingram is also not particularly interesting as a trade target since he's expiring and doesn't deserve a max.

[the_process]

I said from the late June, the limit on incoming salary between 1st and 2nd Apron wasn't well thought and serves no purpose.

Yeah should be:
under 1st apron - 125% incoming vs outgoing
under 2nd apron - 110% incoming vs outgoing
over 2nd apron - 100% incoming vs outgoing

I agree with these updates. That is what it should be.

But something else entirely just hit me. The whole time I have operating under the premise the owners wanted the 2nd apron to be the de facto hard cap. What if they wanted the 1st apron to be the de facto hard cap, and the 2nd apron (and over) was a concession to the PA? The whole structure of the language makes more sense with that perspective IMO.

[ChettheJet]

Not so much the CBA rues but I think it's harder. So many teams have given out 2 max contracts and maybe there's some regret about the length of commitment to a not quite superstars or guys that are constantly getting injured they can't easily move them or find lower cost players who can fill in around them. Then there's so many teams have traded so many future FRPs for bg name highly paid stars while a handful of teams have managed to stockpile so many picks it's difficult to use them to improve a rebuild without taking back some big unattractive contracts.

[Billl]

Meh. It's a transition period where teams learn to operate under the new rules. The problem is that so many of the bigger contracts from pre-apron are still on the books.

Beyond that, trading BI is hard mostly because he/his agent haven't adjusted to the new rules themselves. 2nd tier all-star players aren't going to be getting max vet extensions. Ingram is more like the 50th best player in the league given his durability issues. If he was content with being the 50th highest paid guy eg $30 mil this year, he would have no problem finding teams willing to trade and extend him.

[psman2]

Meh. It's a transition period where teams learn to operate under the new rules. The problem is that so many of the bigger contracts from pre-apron are still on the books.

Beyond that, trading BI is hard mostly because he/his agent haven't adjusted to the new rules themselves. 2nd tier all-star players aren't going to be getting max vet extensions. Ingram is more like the 50th best player in the league given his durability issues. If he was content with being the 50th highest paid guy eg $30 mil this year, he would have no problem finding teams willing to trade and extend him.

Yep and Ingram likely has as much on the court value as a rental for NOP than anywhere else thus making a logical trade for him hard on top of the new restrictions. He could play out the season and NOP still might get a little something for him in a SNT too.

[Klomp]

I think teams are going to have to think a little longer before handing out rookie max extensions. Yes the luxury tax and apron can make teams expensive for owners, but I think the trickier trade restriction are really what will make teams pause.

[babyjax13]

GM survey:

What rule (regarding play, schedule, Draft/Lottery, playoff format, roster construction, etc.) most needs to change?

1. Roster construction – Apron rules/trade math too restrictive or should be indexed to team’s market – 20%
2. Schedule – fewer games and/or back-to-backs – 17%
T-3. Game flow – Reduce stoppages and replay reviews, or change to G-League, 1-free-throw rule – 13%
T-3. Playoff format – Seed 1-16 or let top seeds choose opponents – 13%
T-5. Free agency before the Draft – 7%
T-5. Return to a one-day Draft – 7%
» Also receiving votes: Add third round to the Draft, Draft Lottery format, Expand All-Star rosters to 15 players, Elam ending, Fouls on lobs should be shooting fouls, Playoff eligibility for two-way players, Remove divisions
» Last year: N/A

https://www.nba.com/news/2024-25-nba-gm-survey

[Andre Roberstan]

It's a little harder but there's the new MLE exception for a 3rd or even 4th team to absorb salary with so it's not the end of the world

I do think it will be a multi year process to find an equilibrium. I think the biggest impact will be GMs will be more hesitant to give the big mid tier sub-max contracts we have seen in the past to guys like CJM, Grant, Kuz, etc. Before you could just pay your guys and still likely find a suiter later down the road if the talent hadn't fallen off to much, but now the only teams interest in those type of players/contracts are usually contenders that now have a much reduced capability to swing a trade. Cannot just stack bad contracts like you could in the past.

Agreed on this. I think teams start really looking closely at those max and close-to-max contracts. Gonna see a lot less "middle class" contracts and a lot less guys who are "pretty good" getting maxes. That tightens your salary available for trade, so you probably see more guys who are on current maxes getting traded.

Also think this contributes to more guys getting heavy 2+1 deals i.e. Hartenstein when the money is there.

[Scoot McGroot]

GM survey:

What rule (regarding play, schedule, Draft/Lottery, playoff format, roster construction, etc.) most needs to change?

1. Roster construction – Apron rules/trade math too restrictive or should be indexed to team’s market – 20%
2. Schedule – fewer games and/or back-to-backs – 17%
T-3. Game flow – Reduce stoppages and replay reviews, or change to G-League, 1-free-throw rule – 13%
T-3. Playoff format – Seed 1-16 or let top seeds choose opponents – 13%
T-5. Free agency before the Draft – 7%
T-5. Return to a one-day Draft – 7%
» Also receiving votes: Add third round to the Draft, Draft Lottery format, Expand All-Star rosters to 15 players, Elam ending, Fouls on lobs should be shooting fouls, Playoff eligibility for two-way players, Remove divisions
» Last year: N/A

https://www.nba.com/news/2024-25-nba-gm-survey

I’m sure GM’s want more flexibility. I’m also sure, or at least rather confident, owners want more restrictive means of adding salary.

[Myth]

Could be tougher for these fantasy trades, which is unfortunate because it is fun in its own right, but I don't think it inherently is bad for the league to make some teams lean into stability. As others have said, we may have to wait and see how well this works.

[SkyHook]

GM survey:

What rule (regarding play, schedule, Draft/Lottery, playoff format, roster construction, etc.) most needs to change?

1. Roster construction – Apron rules/trade math too restrictive or should be indexed to team’s market – 20%
2. Schedule – fewer games and/or back-to-backs – 17%
T-3. Game flow – Reduce stoppages and replay reviews, or change to G-League, 1-free-throw rule – 13%
T-3. Playoff format – Seed 1-16 or let top seeds choose opponents – 13%
T-5. Free agency before the Draft – 7%
T-5. Return to a one-day Draft – 7%
» Also receiving votes: Add third round to the Draft, Draft Lottery format, Expand All-Star rosters to 15 players, Elam ending, Fouls on lobs should be shooting fouls, Playoff eligibility for two-way players, Remove divisions
» Last year: N/A

https://www.nba.com/news/2024-25-nba-gm-survey

I’m sure GM’s want more flexibility. I’m also sure, or at least rather confident, owners want more restrictive means of adding salary.

Bingo. This is it in a nutshell.

[kobe_vs_jordan]

I said from the late June, the limit on incoming salary between 1st and 2nd Apron wasn't well thought and serves no purpose.

I am open to waiting 3 years and seeing how it changes the competitive landscape of the league. If it works in distributing talent, it might be rare to have a team like the Pistons winning 14 games for a decade.

Think Ingram interesting case study. He probably already been traded under the old CBA. New CBA taking buyers out the market and suppressing trade value. At the same time opens up the door for a team like Detroit to sign him.

[kobe_vs_jordan]

Think new CBA also shortened the championship window. Expect the finals to see a lot more variety each year now. Hard bringing back finals teams year after year.

[vxmike]

It’s hard to trade BI because nobody wants to max him not because of matching rules.