Is the 2nd Apron too harsh?

[celtxman]

I referenced this. But you said how could the NBA foresee the TV revenue in the future. I say it's either negligence or incompetence that the multi billion dollar NBA couldn't figure this increased contract to a reasonable conclusion. Good grief, my school district gave me numbers for 10 years in the future to decide whether or not to build a new school in terms of finances , why it was cost effective, and the consequences of not doing it. Does the NBA have a team of financial people with the best minds to figure out these things or does Morty come in on Tuesdays to work on the books?

I have problems with the Warriors being in the Finals without the signing of Durant that opened up the Wiggins spot.
As to going on through eternity without penalty, why not? We know it will never work that way, and it hasn't worked that way, but why should teams be rewarded for making poor decisions and having bad management. "We keep making bad lottery picks. We got those picks because we stink. We want another high pick, and we want you to stop those evil teams from really trying to win a championship, so we'll pound them into submission with taxes and penalties. And while you're at it ,we want a participation trophy."

I gotta say, this whole thing is just dripping with irony. The Celtics never tanked to get their latest championship - never deliberately lost a single game. They had a bad season in 13/14 as Pierce and Garnett had aged and Ray Allen moved on. That produced Marcus Smart a nice player but never a HOF caliber player. They swung a deal with Sacramento for Isaiah Thomas and never missed the playoffs again. They never had their own lottery pick other than Smart. However they did get two lottery picks from the Nets. The Nets through bad management and horrendous ownership got Pierce and KG and ultimately gave the Celtics the picks that became Tatum and Brown. The picks the Celtics should have gotten mid first round non lottery picks or worse. But the Nets with still a decent team that lost a hard fought 5 game series without their best player in Brook Lopez to the Cavs. Remember now? The Nets owner Mikael Prokhorov panicked. He wasn't going to lose money - the Nets and their fans be damned. He wound up having a fire sale on a team getting rid of Pierce, Deron Williams, Joe Johnson and more. As a Celtics fan I was giddy- I couldn't believe what was happening. It shouldn't have ever happened. But the result was Tatum and Brown. And Prokhorov doesn't care - he's currently is worth over $10 billion.

I started off saying "don't drink the Kool Aid" on buying championships. There will always be versions of Prokhorov out there. Now these versions can quietly cash the checks from teams really trying to win. Thank God we have quite a few owners, doing everything they can to win, financially. I don't care if it's about being a die hard fan or their massive ego. Many teams that are willing to pay what it takes is a good thing for having different champions and good for the fans. The draconian 2nd apron just eliminates teams that don't have enough revenue.
Go back to the system they just had and tweak it

If they knew or not is wholly irrelevant because the players union refused to smooth the cap. The players wanted an abrupt 1 summer boost to the cap. If you're blaming anyone, point the finger at the players, the governs did not want to do it all in one go. The governors wanted to do it over several years, which would've made KD to the Warriors on a max contract, impossible.

I personally believe you're looking at it through the wrong lense. You keep pointing at the teams in the cellar, they don't matter, this rule is not for them. This rule is to put REAL penalties on teams like the Celtics who want to pay $198 million for 5 guys with a projected cap of $150 million.

I don't think the current penalties are too harsh, they're just finally actually penalties. The old system was not working, if the NBA wants teams to respect the salary cap.

You keep saying the old system was not working, which is obviously very subjective. I speak of teams like Minnesota and now Dallas, making player decisions on not keeping All Star, All NBA players for financial reasons. Teams breaking up before they can get to a championship. You keep throwing stones in the glass house. I keep hearing about the $198 million, 5 guy Celtics. With Mobley's contract next year the Cavs the are at $210 million and the Celtics $223 million, Celtics 2 homegrown Supermaxs Cavs 0. Pretty much the same. Here's where we really are different. I don't think the Cavs should dismantle anything win or lose the championship this season. Strus is low hanging fruit so say you get rid of him. In the $223 million it is almost certain Hauser is gone unless their new owner decides differently.
Good stuff on your Durant comments. So the owners weren't willing to strike then? Wonder if the players are saying in the Union meetings these days about the Luka trade/ no Supermax?

[JujitsuFlip]

I referenced this. But you said how could the NBA foresee the TV revenue in the future. I say it's either negligence or incompetence that the multi billion dollar NBA couldn't figure this increased contract to a reasonable conclusion. Good grief, my school district gave me numbers for 10 years in the future to decide whether or not to build a new school in terms of finances , why it was cost effective, and the consequences of not doing it. Does the NBA have a team of financial people with the best minds to figure out these things or does Morty come in on Tuesdays to work on the books?

I have problems with the Warriors being in the Finals without the signing of Durant that opened up the Wiggins spot.
As to going on through eternity without penalty, why not? We know it will never work that way, and it hasn't worked that way, but why should teams be rewarded for making poor decisions and having bad management. "We keep making bad lottery picks. We got those picks because we stink. We want another high pick, and we want you to stop those evil teams from really trying to win a championship, so we'll pound them into submission with taxes and penalties. And while you're at it ,we want a participation trophy."

I gotta say, this whole thing is just dripping with irony. The Celtics never tanked to get their latest championship - never deliberately lost a single game. They had a bad season in 13/14 as Pierce and Garnett had aged and Ray Allen moved on. That produced Marcus Smart a nice player but never a HOF caliber player. They swung a deal with Sacramento for Isaiah Thomas and never missed the playoffs again. They never had their own lottery pick other than Smart. However they did get two lottery picks from the Nets. The Nets through bad management and horrendous ownership got Pierce and KG and ultimately gave the Celtics the picks that became Tatum and Brown. The picks the Celtics should have gotten mid first round non lottery picks or worse. But the Nets with still a decent team that lost a hard fought 5 game series without their best player in Brook Lopez to the Cavs. Remember now? The Nets owner Mikael Prokhorov panicked. He wasn't going to lose money - the Nets and their fans be damned. He wound up having a fire sale on a team getting rid of Pierce, Deron Williams, Joe Johnson and more. As a Celtics fan I was giddy- I couldn't believe what was happening. It shouldn't have ever happened. But the result was Tatum and Brown. And Prokhorov doesn't care - he's currently is worth over $10 billion.

I started off saying "don't drink the Kool Aid" on buying championships. There will always be versions of Prokhorov out there. Now these versions can quietly cash the checks from teams really trying to win. Thank God we have quite a few owners, doing everything they can to win, financially. I don't care if it's about being a die hard fan or their massive ego. Many teams that are willing to pay what it takes is a good thing for having different champions and good for the fans. The draconian 2nd apron just eliminates teams that don't have enough revenue.
Go back to the system they just had and tweak it

If they knew or not is wholly irrelevant because the players union refused to smooth the cap. The players wanted an abrupt 1 summer boost to the cap. If you're blaming anyone, point the finger at the players, the governs did not want to do it all in one go. The governors wanted to do it over several years, which would've made KD to the Warriors on a max contract, impossible.

I personally believe you're looking at it through the wrong lense. You keep pointing at the teams in the cellar, they don't matter, this rule is not for them. This rule is to put REAL penalties on teams like the Celtics who want to pay $198 million for 5 guys with a projected cap of $150 million.

I don't think the current penalties are too harsh, they're just finally actually penalties. The old system was not working, if the NBA wants teams to respect the salary cap.

You keep saying the old system was not working, which is obviously very subjective. I speak of teams like Minnesota and now Dallas, making player decisions on not keeping All Star, All NBA players for financial reasons. Teams breaking up before they can get to a championship. You keep throwing stones in the glass house. I keep hearing about the $198 million, 5 guy Celtics. With Mobley's contract next year the Cavs the are at $210 million and the Celtics $223 million, Celtics 2 homegrown Supermaxs Cavs 0. Pretty much the same. Here's where we really are different. I don't think the Cavs should dismantle anything win or lose the championship this season. Strus is low hanging fruit so say you get rid of him. In the $223 million it is almost certain Hauser is gone unless their new owner decides differently.
Good stuff on your Durant comments. So the owners weren't willing to strike then? Wonder if the players are saying in the Union meetings these days about the Luka trade/ no Supermax?

It's not subjective... GMs broke teams up bc of the fear of basketball penalties.

Millions mean nothing to billionaires.

Celtics have $198 million on 5 players vs a $150 million cap.

Lmao so hilarious when you say "Celtics 2 homegrown Supermaxs Cavs 0"... You understand a supermax is for guys with 7+ years in the NBA, right? Conveniently excluding Garland and Mobley

[celtxman]

If they knew or not is wholly irrelevant because the players union refused to smooth the cap. The players wanted an abrupt 1 summer boost to the cap. If you're blaming anyone, point the finger at the players, the governs did not want to do it all in one go. The governors wanted to do it over several years, which would've made KD to the Warriors on a max contract, impossible.

I personally believe you're looking at it through the wrong lense. You keep pointing at the teams in the cellar, they don't matter, this rule is not for them. This rule is to put REAL penalties on teams like the Celtics who want to pay $198 million for 5 guys with a projected cap of $150 million.

I don't think the current penalties are too harsh, they're just finally actually penalties. The old system was not working, if the NBA wants teams to respect the salary cap.

You keep saying the old system was not working, which is obviously very subjective. I speak of teams like Minnesota and now Dallas, making player decisions on not keeping All Star, All NBA players for financial reasons. Teams breaking up before they can get to a championship. You keep throwing stones in the glass house. I keep hearing about the $198 million, 5 guy Celtics. With Mobley's contract next year the Cavs the are at $210 million and the Celtics $223 million, Celtics 2 homegrown Supermaxs Cavs 0. Pretty much the same. Here's where we really are different. I don't think the Cavs should dismantle anything win or lose the championship this season. Strus is low hanging fruit so say you get rid of him. In the $223 million it is almost certain Hauser is gone unless their new owner decides differently.
Good stuff on your Durant comments. So the owners weren't willing to strike then? Wonder if the players are saying in the Union meetings these days about the Luka trade/ no Supermax?

It's not subjective... GMs broke teams up bc of the fear of basketball penalties.

Millions mean nothing to billionaires.

Celtics have $198 million on 5 players vs a $150 million cap.

Lmao so hilarious when you say "Celtics 2 homegrown Supermaxs Cavs 0"... You understand a supermax is for guys with 7+ years in the NBA, right? Conveniently excluding Garland and Mobley

Let's try this again
The subjective part is simple in my meaning. Is it good or bad for the NBA? Agree or disagree I have pointed out why.

Salaries? The Celtics are in the same place as the Cavs next season, I'm really not sure why you're sticking with this $198 million as opposed to the total number. Next year the Cavs are at $210 m, the Celtics are at $223 m. 100% understand now and when I wrote the post about the supermax rules, which is exactly the point. The Celtics (and Cavs) did the exact right thing in signing those 4 players. The Celtics because of the 7 years were faced with paying the supermax, and the Cavs aren't there yet. It isn't a slight on the Cavs, it's the reality that Boston did the right thing and had to spend more and that goes into the $223m....or if you prefer tgetg$198m.

So on a $150 million cap , how much money does both the Cavs and Celtics need to cut this offseason? For sake of argument we'll just say the Celtics need to cut $13 million more. $40 million Cavs, $53m Celtics and we're both not there, but it's a good start

[JujitsuFlip]

You keep saying the old system was not working, which is obviously very subjective. I speak of teams like Minnesota and now Dallas, making player decisions on not keeping All Star, All NBA players for financial reasons. Teams breaking up before they can get to a championship. You keep throwing stones in the glass house. I keep hearing about the $198 million, 5 guy Celtics. With Mobley's contract next year the Cavs the are at $210 million and the Celtics $223 million, Celtics 2 homegrown Supermaxs Cavs 0. Pretty much the same. Here's where we really are different. I don't think the Cavs should dismantle anything win or lose the championship this season. Strus is low hanging fruit so say you get rid of him. In the $223 million it is almost certain Hauser is gone unless their new owner decides differently.
Good stuff on your Durant comments. So the owners weren't willing to strike then? Wonder if the players are saying in the Union meetings these days about the Luka trade/ no Supermax?

It's not subjective... GMs broke teams up bc of the fear of basketball penalties.

Millions mean nothing to billionaires.

Celtics have $198 million on 5 players vs a $150 million cap.

Lmao so hilarious when you say "Celtics 2 homegrown Supermaxs Cavs 0"... You understand a supermax is for guys with 7+ years in the NBA, right? Conveniently excluding Garland and Mobley

Let's try this again
The subjective part is simple in my meaning. Is it good or bad for the NBA? Agree or disagree I have pointed out why.

Salaries? The Celtics are in the same place as the Cavs next season, I'm really not sure why you're sticking with this $198 million as opposed to the total number. Next year the Cavs are at $210 m, the Celtics are at $223 m. 100% understand now and when I wrote the post about the supermax rules, which is exactly the point. The Celtics (and Cavs) did the exact right thing in signing those 4 players. The Celtics because of the 7 years were faced with paying the supermax, and the Cavs aren't there yet. It isn't a slight on the Cavs, it's the reality that Boston did the right thing and had to spend more and that goes into the $223m....or if you prefer tgetg$198m.

So on a $150 million cap , how much money does both the Cavs and Celtics need to cut this offseason? For sake of argument we'll just say the Celtics need to cut $13 million more. $40 million Cavs, $53m Celtics and we're both not there, but it's a good start

Neither team have to cut anything.

Well, i insist on the $198 million for your 5 starters, because that is ultimately what you're complaining about.

If Tatum and Brown are going to make a combined $107 million then your other 3 starters making a combined $91 million is where you're getting into cap hell.

Celtics are at about $225 million for 11 players, plus they have a 1st round pick and 2nd round pick too. Before they re-sign Horford or Kornet.

There is no question the 2nd apron is doing its job, if a team wants to spend that much above and beyond a projected $150 million cap.

[celtxman]

It's not subjective... GMs broke teams up bc of the fear of basketball penalties.

Millions mean nothing to billionaires.

Celtics have $198 million on 5 players vs a $150 million cap.

Lmao so hilarious when you say "Celtics 2 homegrown Supermaxs Cavs 0"... You understand a supermax is for guys with 7+ years in the NBA, right? Conveniently excluding Garland and Mobley

Let's try this again
The subjective part is simple in my meaning. Is it good or bad for the NBA? Agree or disagree I have pointed out why.

Salaries? The Celtics are in the same place as the Cavs next season, I'm really not sure why you're sticking with this $198 million as opposed to the total number. Next year the Cavs are at $210 m, the Celtics are at $223 m. 100% understand now and when I wrote the post about the supermax rules, which is exactly the point. The Celtics (and Cavs) did the exact right thing in signing those 4 players. The Celtics because of the 7 years were faced with paying the supermax, and the Cavs aren't there yet. It isn't a slight on the Cavs, it's the reality that Boston did the right thing and had to spend more and that goes into the $223m....or if you prefer tgetg$198m.

So on a $150 million cap , how much money does both the Cavs and Celtics need to cut this offseason? For sake of argument we'll just say the Celtics need to cut $13 million more. $40 million Cavs, $53m Celtics and we're both not there, but it's a good start

Neither team have to cut anything.

Well, i insist on the $198 million for your 5 starters, because that is ultimately what you're complaining about.

If Tatum and Brown are going to make a combined $107 million then your other 3 starters making a combined $91 million is where you're getting into cap hell.

Celtics are at about $225 million for 11 players, plus they have a 1st round pick and 2nd round pick too. Before they re-sign Horford or Kornet.

There is no question the 2nd apron is doing its job, if a team wants to spend that much above and beyond a projected $150 million cap.

But is it? I dont think I've ever seen a poster more excited than you were with the DeAndre Hunter trade. You announced it on RealGM, you had by far the most posts, you had posts tells us he had 32 points and they were 16-1 since they got Hunter. You had the first post ,the last post and almost everything in between.You were/ are pumped. You were on fire!
But it seems to me that the Cavs could have just let Lavert's contract expire, right? They really shouldn't have been allowed to do that ....right? We need to make the CBA even tougher..
Now I could be WAY off base, but I kind of think Cavs management knew they were going to be over $200 million in salary. A with a wild guess I'd say they knew they wouldn't be able to aggregate salaries next year to get a Hunter like player next season.
There is no difference between the Cavs and Celtics in approach. They're trying everything they can to get a roster to win it all before they can't. But you can't keep having the pot calling the kettle black. The Cavs are following the Celtics blueprint of getting everything done while they can. The extra millions the Celtics pay over the Cavs is situational. The Celtics took their time signing Jalen Brown to the SUPERMAX. They didn't sign him on the first day.It was tough . We all know he isn't close to being the best player in the NBA yet he was going to be the highest paid player - for a full year. Once they did the right thing and signed him, the die was cast. Tatum getting the SUPERMAX was going to happen easily. Back to back years of having top of the NBA contracts has a tendency to inflate your starting 5 total salary. KP was eligible to sign a 2 yr $95 million contract. Derrick White has one of the most team friendly contracts in the NBA. Holiday is only worth it to a contender and he may be gone. But in bringing up that the Celtics still need to consider resigning Horford and Kornet, you jump to the extra money they may have to pay them and forget the current contracts those two, Hauser, and Pritchard are currently getting .
A very possible NBA Finals is Cleveland vs OKC. Let's say the Cavs win with Hunter having a big series. The next day while you're basking in the championship one of those OKC fans pees in your punch bowl and writes in RealGM that the Cavs bought the championship. They snuck in Hunter and by doing that instead of not signing Levert they'll have over $50 million more then we do on the cap. 50 million? They BOUGHT that championship and stole it from us. Hence you don't throw stones in glass houses. So let's say it's like OKC is going 65 on the speedway, you're going 90 and the Celtics are going 120. You get mad that you're only going 90 and the Celtics were going 120 right?
I disagree with the 2nd apron for reasons I've stated. But I really don't like shoehorning individual teams like that team is doing something differently. The good teams are trading for Hunter while they still can. The have-nots are not because they can't or won't. Dallas couldn't or wouldn't keep Doncic. That's not good. The Cavs will go 90 on the speedway for their fans. That is good. It's bad for the Celtics, good for the NBA

[Ainosterhaspie]

I don't understand why suppposed fans of the sport hate great teams. Why would you think it's better to make the best teams much worse? The best players are just squandering some of their talents if they don't have teammates that can fully leverage the advantages the elite players give them. You just don't realize the best possible product. Why is that desirable?

I would much rather have 2-4 super elite teams than 30 teams that are only marginally different in quality. The 80s was close to ideal, the stretch from 08 to 16 similar. You had some top notch loaded multi year threat teams (Lakers/Celtics both eras, Heat/Spurs/Warriors), and a few one hit wonder spoiler teams like Sixers and Mavericks.

A different mediocfe team with no history of success rising every year is much less compelling that juggernaut's battling and the occasional David slaying Goliath.

The Durant Warriors broke things a bit, but even that ended up only lasting 2 years and ended up being far less daunting than it looked like it would be. The Heat never turned into what people feared they would be. The problem of super teams has really turned out to be a paper tiger.

I hate the idea that teams are being forced to break up right when they might be on the cusp of breaking through after a years long process of steadily improving. Isn't that what everyone supposedly wants? Yet our systems broke up small market OKC Harden/Westbrook/Durant which set the stage for Durant to Golden State. Now small market teams (OKC, Minnesota, Cleveland, Dallas) that are doing it "right" near as I can tell are forced to break up before or as soon as their work pays off.

It looks to me like the supposed cure is causing problems as much as fixing them. As much as basketball is a star driven sport, teams that find the right balance of talent can break through that as we've seen with teams like to 80s and 00s Pistons. We should trust that more and let the powerhouse teams form too because it's that much more cathartic, memorable and powerful when a Dallas takes out Miami or Detroit successfully runs the Chicago, Boston, LA gauntlet.

The super teams will naturally implode from complacency, egos, injuries or exhaustion. We don't need to fear them as much as we do.

[JujitsuFlip]

Let's try this again
The subjective part is simple in my meaning. Is it good or bad for the NBA? Agree or disagree I have pointed out why.

Salaries? The Celtics are in the same place as the Cavs next season, I'm really not sure why you're sticking with this $198 million as opposed to the total number. Next year the Cavs are at $210 m, the Celtics are at $223 m. 100% understand now and when I wrote the post about the supermax rules, which is exactly the point. The Celtics (and Cavs) did the exact right thing in signing those 4 players. The Celtics because of the 7 years were faced with paying the supermax, and the Cavs aren't there yet. It isn't a slight on the Cavs, it's the reality that Boston did the right thing and had to spend more and that goes into the $223m....or if you prefer tgetg$198m.

So on a $150 million cap , how much money does both the Cavs and Celtics need to cut this offseason? For sake of argument we'll just say the Celtics need to cut $13 million more. $40 million Cavs, $53m Celtics and we're both not there, but it's a good start

Neither team have to cut anything.

Well, i insist on the $198 million for your 5 starters, because that is ultimately what you're complaining about.

If Tatum and Brown are going to make a combined $107 million then your other 3 starters making a combined $91 million is where you're getting into cap hell.

Celtics are at about $225 million for 11 players, plus they have a 1st round pick and 2nd round pick too. Before they re-sign Horford or Kornet.

There is no question the 2nd apron is doing its job, if a team wants to spend that much above and beyond a projected $150 million cap.

But is it? I dont think I've ever seen a poster more excited than you were with the DeAndre Hunter trade. You announced it on RealGM, you had by far the most posts, you had posts tells us he had 32 points and they were 16-1 since they got Hunter. You had the first post ,the last post and almost everything in between.You were/ are pumped. You were on fire!
But it seems to me that the Cavs could have just let Lavert's contract expire, right? They really shouldn't have been allowed to do that ....right? We need to make the CBA even tougher..
Now I could be WAY off base, but I kind of think Cavs management knew they were going to be over $200 million in salary. A with a wild guess I'd say they knew they wouldn't be able to aggregate salaries next year to get a Hunter like player next season.
There is no difference between the Cavs and Celtics in approach. They're trying everything they can to get a roster to win it all before they can't. But you can't keep having the pot calling the kettle black. The Cavs are following the Celtics blueprint of getting everything done while they can. The extra millions the Celtics pay over the Cavs is situational. The Celtics took their time signing Jalen Brown to the SUPERMAX. They didn't sign him on the first day.It was tough . We all know he isn't close to being the best player in the NBA yet he was going to be the highest paid player - for a full year. Once they did the right thing and signed him, the die was cast. Tatum getting the SUPERMAX was going to happen easily. Back to back years of having top of the NBA contracts has a tendency to inflate your starting 5 total salary. KP was eligible to sign a 2 yr $95 million contract. Derrick White has one of the most team friendly contracts in the NBA. Holiday is only worth it to a contender and he may be gone. But in bringing up that the Celtics still need to consider resigning Horford and Kornet, you jump to the extra money they may have to pay them and forget the current contracts those two, Hauser, and Pritchard are currently getting .
A very possible NBA Finals is Cleveland vs OKC. Let's say the Cavs win with Hunter having a big series. The next day while you're basking in the championship one of those OKC fans pees in your punch bowl and writes in RealGM that the Cavs bought the championship. They snuck in Hunter and by doing that instead of not signing Levert they'll have over $50 million more then we do on the cap. 50 million? They BOUGHT that championship and stole it from us. Hence you don't throw stones in glass houses. So let's say it's like OKC is going 65 on the speedway, you're going 90 and the Celtics are going 120. You get mad that you're only going 90 and the Celtics were going 120 right?
I disagree with the 2nd apron for reasons I've stated. But I really don't like shoehorning individual teams like that team is doing something differently. The good teams are trading for Hunter while they still can. The have-nots are not because they can't or won't. Dallas couldn't or wouldn't keep Doncic. That's not good. The Cavs will go 90 on the speedway for their fans. That is good. It's bad for the Celtics, good for the NBA

There is one key difference between the Cavs and Celtics. 2025-26 will be year 1 of the Cavs being a tax paying team, even if it is as a 2nd apron team. The Celtics are about to be on year 4 of blowing past the cap.

Also, i don't think the Celtics bought a championship. Those 5 starters fit together well and are super talented. Was there luck involved in them facing injured opponents all 4 series? Sure but almost every title comes with some form of luck and they could only play who was in front of them.

There is a world where the Celtics other 3 starters don't make a combined $91 million and they're still competitive. Like dump old Jrue and injury riddled KP for Hauser and a rookie. Then your starting 5 are sitting at probably $148 million and you're still one of the best teams in the NBA. And ya don't have to worry about how unfair the 2nd apron is because you'll finally be out of it.

[NoStatsGuy]

this will end up being bad for business, so they 100% gonna tweak it next chance they get

[celtxman]

Neither team have to cut anything.

Well, i insist on the $198 million for your 5 starters, because that is ultimately what you're complaining about.

If Tatum and Brown are going to make a combined $107 million then your other 3 starters making a combined $91 million is where you're getting into cap hell.

Celtics are at about $225 million for 11 players, plus they have a 1st round pick and 2nd round pick too. Before they re-sign Horford or Kornet.

There is no question the 2nd apron is doing its job, if a team wants to spend that much above and beyond a projected $150 million cap.

But is it? I dont think I've ever seen a poster more excited than you were with the DeAndre Hunter trade. You announced it on RealGM, you had by far the most posts, you had posts tells us he had 32 points and they were 16-1 since they got Hunter. You had the first post ,the last post and almost everything in between.You were/ are pumped. You were on fire!
But it seems to me that the Cavs could have just let Lavert's contract expire, right? They really shouldn't have been allowed to do that ....right? We need to make the CBA even tougher..
Now I could be WAY off base, but I kind of think Cavs management knew they were going to be over $200 million in salary. A with a wild guess I'd say they knew they wouldn't be able to aggregate salaries next year to get a Hunter like player next season.
There is no difference between the Cavs and Celtics in approach. They're trying everything they can to get a roster to win it all before they can't. But you can't keep having the pot calling the kettle black. The Cavs are following the Celtics blueprint of getting everything done while they can. The extra millions the Celtics pay over the Cavs is situational. The Celtics took their time signing Jalen Brown to the SUPERMAX. They didn't sign him on the first day.It was tough . We all know he isn't close to being the best player in the NBA yet he was going to be the highest paid player - for a full year. Once they did the right thing and signed him, the die was cast. Tatum getting the SUPERMAX was going to happen easily. Back to back years of having top of the NBA contracts has a tendency to inflate your starting 5 total salary. KP was eligible to sign a 2 yr $95 million contract. Derrick White has one of the most team friendly contracts in the NBA. Holiday is only worth it to a contender and he may be gone. But in bringing up that the Celtics still need to consider resigning Horford and Kornet, you jump to the extra money they may have to pay them and forget the current contracts those two, Hauser, and Pritchard are currently getting .
A very possible NBA Finals is Cleveland vs OKC. Let's say the Cavs win with Hunter having a big series. The next day while you're basking in the championship one of those OKC fans pees in your punch bowl and writes in RealGM that the Cavs bought the championship. They snuck in Hunter and by doing that instead of not signing Levert they'll have over $50 million more then we do on the cap. 50 million? They BOUGHT that championship and stole it from us. Hence you don't throw stones in glass houses. So let's say it's like OKC is going 65 on the speedway, you're going 90 and the Celtics are going 120. You get mad that you're only going 90 and the Celtics were going 120 right?
I disagree with the 2nd apron for reasons I've stated. But I really don't like shoehorning individual teams like that team is doing something differently. The good teams are trading for Hunter while they still can. The have-nots are not because they can't or won't. Dallas couldn't or wouldn't keep Doncic. That's not good. The Cavs will go 90 on the speedway for their fans. That is good. It's bad for the Celtics, good for the NBA

There is one key difference between the Cavs and Celtics. 2025-26 will be year 1 of the Cavs being a tax paying team, even if it is as a 2nd apron team. The Celtics are about to be on year 4 of blowing past the cap.

Also, i don't think the Celtics bought a championship. Those 5 starters fit together well and are super talented. Was there luck involved in them facing injured opponents all 4 series? Sure but almost every title comes with some form of luck and they could only play who was in front of them.

There is a world where the Celtics other 3 starters don't make a combined $91 million and they're still competitive. Like dump old Jrue and injury riddled KP for Hauser and a rookie. Then your starting 5 are sitting at probably $148 million and you're still one of the best teams in the NBA. And ya don't have to worry about how unfair the 2nd apron is because you'll finally be out of it.

At the end the tiniest thing the NBA can do is to waive the luxury taxes on the supermax players. So when Mobley gets there the Cavs pay the salary, but not the luxury tax on the difference the supermax creates, similar to paying veteran free agents the difference of what a veteran free agent gets over a younger free agent on minimum contracts.
Even if it is agreed that the Celtics should get rid of Porzingis and Holiday what has the NBA done to facilitate that? Right now to trade say Holiday and you feel a cool breeze. Everyone knows the Celtics have to do this. So that glass of lemonade that cost a dollar in spring, becomes $5 when it hits 110° . They lose the championship pedigree of Holiday, and pay a premium to get rid of him. And then, by the way don't aggregate salaries to get it done.
As a fan it's natural to be excited to get DeAndre Hunter. But if Minnesota decides they need to trade KAT in order to sign Alexander-Walker and Naz Reid and their revenue is the lowest in the NBA, then what are we doing? If that hypothetical situation happens where the OKC fan questions your championship what do you say? Well, the Celtics are doing this FOUR TIMES! We only did it once - we stole a Honda , they stole a LEXUS! It's a matter of perspective.
There is a whole lot more I can say and so can you. You and many others like the 2nd apron. Earlier I referenced the Knicks always at the top of the list of money and a terrible team because of terrible management. Now they're a top team because they got good management. I've also seen my share of bad management and owners in Boston over some dark years. I'm seeking for some reason to think muting good management, coaching and players is really a good thing. 6 champions in the last 6 seasons. That's all I got

[JujitsuFlip]

But is it? I dont think I've ever seen a poster more excited than you were with the DeAndre Hunter trade. You announced it on RealGM, you had by far the most posts, you had posts tells us he had 32 points and they were 16-1 since they got Hunter. You had the first post ,the last post and almost everything in between.You were/ are pumped. You were on fire!
But it seems to me that the Cavs could have just let Lavert's contract expire, right? They really shouldn't have been allowed to do that ....right? We need to make the CBA even tougher..
Now I could be WAY off base, but I kind of think Cavs management knew they were going to be over $200 million in salary. A with a wild guess I'd say they knew they wouldn't be able to aggregate salaries next year to get a Hunter like player next season.
There is no difference between the Cavs and Celtics in approach. They're trying everything they can to get a roster to win it all before they can't. But you can't keep having the pot calling the kettle black. The Cavs are following the Celtics blueprint of getting everything done while they can. The extra millions the Celtics pay over the Cavs is situational. The Celtics took their time signing Jalen Brown to the SUPERMAX. They didn't sign him on the first day.It was tough . We all know he isn't close to being the best player in the NBA yet he was going to be the highest paid player - for a full year. Once they did the right thing and signed him, the die was cast. Tatum getting the SUPERMAX was going to happen easily. Back to back years of having top of the NBA contracts has a tendency to inflate your starting 5 total salary. KP was eligible to sign a 2 yr $95 million contract. Derrick White has one of the most team friendly contracts in the NBA. Holiday is only worth it to a contender and he may be gone. But in bringing up that the Celtics still need to consider resigning Horford and Kornet, you jump to the extra money they may have to pay them and forget the current contracts those two, Hauser, and Pritchard are currently getting .
A very possible NBA Finals is Cleveland vs OKC. Let's say the Cavs win with Hunter having a big series. The next day while you're basking in the championship one of those OKC fans pees in your punch bowl and writes in RealGM that the Cavs bought the championship. They snuck in Hunter and by doing that instead of not signing Levert they'll have over $50 million more then we do on the cap. 50 million? They BOUGHT that championship and stole it from us. Hence you don't throw stones in glass houses. So let's say it's like OKC is going 65 on the speedway, you're going 90 and the Celtics are going 120. You get mad that you're only going 90 and the Celtics were going 120 right?
I disagree with the 2nd apron for reasons I've stated. But I really don't like shoehorning individual teams like that team is doing something differently. The good teams are trading for Hunter while they still can. The have-nots are not because they can't or won't. Dallas couldn't or wouldn't keep Doncic. That's not good. The Cavs will go 90 on the speedway for their fans. That is good. It's bad for the Celtics, good for the NBA

There is one key difference between the Cavs and Celtics. 2025-26 will be year 1 of the Cavs being a tax paying team, even if it is as a 2nd apron team. The Celtics are about to be on year 4 of blowing past the cap.

Also, i don't think the Celtics bought a championship. Those 5 starters fit together well and are super talented. Was there luck involved in them facing injured opponents all 4 series? Sure but almost every title comes with some form of luck and they could only play who was in front of them.

There is a world where the Celtics other 3 starters don't make a combined $91 million and they're still competitive. Like dump old Jrue and injury riddled KP for Hauser and a rookie. Then your starting 5 are sitting at probably $148 million and you're still one of the best teams in the NBA. And ya don't have to worry about how unfair the 2nd apron is because you'll finally be out of it.

At the end the tiniest thing the NBA can do is to waive the luxury taxes on the supermax players. So when Mobley gets there the Cavs pay the salary, but not the luxury tax on the difference the supermax creates, similar to paying veteran free agents the difference of what a veteran free agent gets over a younger free agent on minimum contracts.
Even if it is agreed that the Celtics should get rid of Porzingis and Holiday what has the NBA done to facilitate that? Right now to trade say Holiday and you feel a cool breeze. Everyone knows the Celtics have to do this. So that glass of lemonade that cost a dollar in spring, becomes $5 when it hits 110° . They lose the championship pedigree of Holiday, and pay a premium to get rid of him. And then, by the way don't aggregate salaries to get it done.
As a fan it's natural to be excited to get DeAndre Hunter. But if Minnesota decides they need to trade KAT in order to sign Alexander-Walker and Naz Reid and their revenue is the lowest in the NBA, then what are we doing? If that hypothetical situation happens where the OKC fan questions your championship what do you say? Well, the Celtics are doing this FOUR TIMES! We only did it once - we stole a Honda , they stole a LEXUS! It's a matter of perspective.
There is a whole lot more I can say and so can you. You and many others like the 2nd apron. Earlier I referenced the Knicks always at the top of the list of money and a terrible team because of terrible management. Now they're a top team because they got good management. I've also seen my share of bad management and owners in Boston over some dark years. I'm seeking for some reason to think muting good management, coaching and players is really a good thing. 6 champions in the last 6 seasons. That's all I got

You can keep Jrue and KP, its not a hard cap. You're just going to face basketball penalties for going $100 million over the salary cap lol

Which, i think most reasonable people understand why that can be viewed as a good thing.

If you're $100 million over the cap, you don't need a good 1st rounder, you don't need the MLE or BAE, you don't need to be able to combine contracts in trades, you don't need a buyout max contract player on a vet min.

If you're $100 million over the agreed to salary cap, your team should be all set.

[threethehardway]

I don't understand why suppposed fans of the sport hate great teams. Why would you think it's better to make the best teams much worse? The best players are just squandering some of their talents if they don't have teammates that can fully leverage the advantages the elite players give them. You just don't realize the best possible product. Why is that desirable?

I would much rather have 2-4 super elite teams than 30 teams that are only marginally different in quality. The 80s was close to ideal, the stretch from 08 to 16 similar. You had some top notch loaded multi year threat teams (Lakers/Celtics both eras, Heat/Spurs/Warriors), and a few one hit wonder spoiler teams like Sixers and Mavericks.

A different mediocfe team with no history of success rising every year is much less compelling that juggernaut's battling and the occasional David slaying Goliath.

The Durant Warriors broke things a bit, but even that ended up only lasting 2 years and ended up being far less daunting than it looked like it would be. The Heat never turned into what people feared they would be. The problem of super teams has really turned out to be a paper tiger.

I hate the idea that teams are being forced to break up right when they might be on the cusp of breaking through after a years long process of steadily improving. Isn't that what everyone supposedly wants? Yet our systems broke up small market OKC Harden/Westbrook/Durant which set the stage for Durant to Golden State. Now small market teams (OKC, Minnesota, Cleveland, Dallas) that are doing it "right" near as I can tell are forced to break up before or as soon as their work pays off.

It looks to me like the supposed cure is causing problems as much as fixing them. As much as basketball is a star driven sport, teams that find the right balance of talent can break through that as we've seen with teams like to 80s and 00s Pistons. We should trust that more and let the powerhouse teams form too because it's that much more cathartic, memorable and powerful when a Dallas takes out Miami or Detroit successfully runs the Chicago, Boston, LA gauntlet.

The super teams will naturally implode from complacency, egos, injuries or exhaustion. We don't need to fear them as much as we do.

American fans hate great teams because they are more a fan of their team than the sport and they project ingrown regional and sectarian politics into their sports.

They hate LA, NYC and Miami because it's were the rich live and they live in Minnesota or San Antonio and it's just all unfair why young rich athletes wanna live in LA or NYC (or Miami...even though Miami isn't a major sports or media market at all.)

Then owners of course, use these regional politics by threatening to move teams from undesirable areas of the country and to avoid having an uncapped league so owners can compete on salary and organizational culture instead of location and perks of each city.

[davidfr94]

I think the main goal of that second apron was to make players accept that it won't be automatic anymore to get max or supermax contacts that they were easily getting under the previous cba.

The lavines, banes, even morants will have to have accept getting a bit less (even a lot less) than their max because only (well i guess) the superstars will get those kind of numbers.

Giving supermax to just all star players like sabonis will just kill your team for the next 4/5 years. That's why kat, Luka got traded.

Sent from my 2409BRN2CY using RealGM mobile app

[shrink]

The second apron does not force teams to break up. There are no penalties for using Bird rights to keep your own players, and using Bird rights to up payroll does not even trigger hard caps! These rules prevent teams from ADDING to their current teams, restricting adding payroll, restricting trades for new players, and restricting the mechanisms for acquiring new free agents.

Read on Twitter