Is the 2nd Apron too harsh?

[bisme37]

How do people create a thread with a question then completely flip the question in the poll they create? How does that happen?

In my case, brain damage.

Bruh, you're a mod and you made the title and question completely opposite!

Yea I was wondering about that also. Kinda misleading I wonder how many people messed up their vote.

Jeez sorry guys lol. I guess my thoughts kinda fleshed themselves out as I was writing and I didn't notice I'd done that. Honestly don't know why it's hard to read more than one sentence before voting in a poll (the poll question is right there above the voting options), but if anyone voted wrong, it's been set up so you can change your vote all along.

[Lalouie]

way smarter talking heads hate it. i refer to hoop collective who all seem to understand it and they don't like it

those are the smart talking heads?

LOL! But for ESPN, they are geniuses! Imagine Stephen A Smith and Kendrick Perkins discussing the issue!

I’ll give Windy credit too. Once he was just a Cav’s insider who LeBron favored, and it got him on the big stage. However, over the last five years, he seems to have out in some time trying to understand the CBA, and I appreciate that.

They understand these rules

[Lalouie]

way smarter talking heads hate it. i refer to hoop collective who all seem to understand it and they don't like it

those are the smart talking heads?

LOL! But for ESPN, they are geniuses! Imagine Stephen A Smith and Kendrick Perkins discussing the issue!

I’ll give Windy credit too. Once he was just a Cav’s insider who LeBron favored, and it got him on the big stage. However, over the last five years, he seems to have out in some time trying to understand the CBA, and I appreciate that.

They understand these rules

Hey man everyone's doing a pod. grab a mic and do your own
form a group with other realgmers and give yourself a title..do a weekly round table

... you can thank me later

[HotelVitale]

I am dummy on all these things, but is it fair observation to suggest that these rules are made so owners would have an excuse to not spend anymore? No one wants to be in 2nd apron, and its not because of tax, but because of all these restrictions, so owners have a valid reason to point out why they wont spend - hey, it puts us at disadvantage if I spend...

Boston no matter who owns the team will be at crossroads, because that team will be too expensive to keep, someone will have to go, some major player I mean, not just Sam Houser, thats just reality, dynasties are not very possible anymore. Same thing will happen to OKC at one point too.

I am all for parity, but I think it sucks that even home grown teams who did everything the right way, will not be able to keep their talent. I imagine it should be some rule, that if you drafted the player or smth, 20% of his salary does not count under these apron rules, at least something like that.

I think it's sort of that, but owners and teams are also hyper-competitive and don't want teams with no $ conscience to keep being able to gobble up talent and opportunities. Could you read that as 'we don't want to start constant massive bidding wars cuz that ish costs us cold cash' but you could also phrase it as 'let's set some kind of restriction so out-spending other teams isn't a huge competitive advantage.'

Also remember that the player's union had to agree to it, and I doubt they would've gone for argument that were just like 'hey the owners want to save some dough, and specifically not give it to you.'

I agree on the 'home grown' thing but there are also very few teams who are actually totally home grown and would be hamstrung by the 2nd apron. Usually not the best idea to start creating permanent exceptions to rules--that teams will constantly use year in and year out--to address very rare circumstances. I probably wouldn't hate it in this circumstance though.

I agree there are very few home grown teams, but I think just sucks that you could be home grown, do everything right, draft well, but still be forced to break your team simply because thats the reality. Maybe thats just how cap always supposed to be, but I don't know, I think just like in Soccer, there should be some perks for ''homegrown players''. Its completely different circumstances in International Soccer, its more about not counting towards foreign limits, but idea is similar. NBA should introduce ''home grown player'' concept IMO.

I do like the concept of being able to always keep players you draft and good teams being rewarded for winning the young guy game. But realistically it'd be used once in a blue moon to keep a team like the Warriors together (with Jordan Poole or whatever), and used a lot lot more for teams like Portland or similar to have a little more room to spend beneath the apron after they re-sign their RFA guys. That's all I'm saying--trying to fix the 'homegrown' really good team problem will mostly create a permanent loophole in the aprons that will quite rarely be used to keep homegrown really good teams together who otherwise couldn't stay together. I don't mind it since I'm not a fan of the aprons, just pointing this out as a policy thing. For any new policy, it's always good to ask if the unintended consequences are going to be bigger and more disruptive or problematic than the intended consequences will be good or beneficial.

No. Tax the rich

Lol, but you know this does the opposite right? Makes owners spend less, meaning there's less overall money available for players in addition to fewer taxes paid. This isn't a 'tax' but a specifically non-tax way to coerce owners into spending less.

[HotelVitale]

No there are too many players in NBA playing this sport just for money. And too many owners who keeping team for revenue reasons not investing enough to get better. This CBA is proving who are spenders and who are garbage, both players and owners. We need 3rd and 4th and 5th aprons.

EDIT: I wanted to say that 2nd apron is not restrictive. If anything should be encouraged. It keeps certain low quality GM's from doing terrible moves and spending money on guys like Patrick Williams who should not be on basketball floor playing this sport, let alone playing NBA. If you making mess of your team giving money to players who dont deserve it, you dont deserve a bail out cards.

More money to guys who deserve it, less who dont and no issues. And for owners side, less money for play in revenue teams. Those teams dont deserve to be awarded. If anything play ins were always terrible idea. It makes teams like Chicago a bad basketball team long term.

This all seems pretty off. The Bulls aren't a direction-less team because of Patrick Williams or the play-in, they're a direction-less team because the FO has made the decision repeatedly for them to be a direction-less team. The Bulls haven't come that close to the 2nd apron and they were a mediocre play-in-level team before the aprons existed (or before PW was extended).

They've been deciding to stay mid since like 2021 over and over again. The Vucevic trade, Lavine extension, signing DDR and keeping him around, bringing Lonzo Ball back, trading Caruso for Giddey and not picks, etc. All those are just intentional decisions to stay mid, don't blame the small incentives like the play-in (that other teams don't chase like the Bulls) but rather the Bulls' FO's mindset.

[og15]

My problem with it is that it's too punishing for teams just trying to retain their own guys they drafted. We are not an FA destination, and we are essentially going to have to decide who to get rid of because we can't pay all of Ausar, Duren, Stewart and Ivey.

True, though also the market going forward might start to not offer tier 3 stars and very good players as large contracts, because other teams are facing the same issue. So teams will be able to pay some of these guys less than they would have in the past to retain them.

The max contract Zach Lavines, etc are harder to stomach, and the market might not be able to get them that type of contract either like before when if you don't give a guy his max, someone else will.

I guess we'll see, but I'm assuming they took this into account and they still concluded that their main goal is spreading out the talent, and therefore they aren't that concerned about home grown teams having a means to keep everyone, which does suck.

[chilluminati]

Yeah it's steep to be a 2nd apron team, but it's the correct balance.

A lot of penalties to the owner and now the actual team for being in the 2nd, but just look at Boston. I don't need to remind everyone that they have probably 3 2nd option stars on that team, and they're the current champions. But they're paying a heavy fee to be on the top. I also don't think it's necessary to stack as much as they did to win either, so having to deal with consequences for an easy path to victory seems appropriate.

As others have said ... Hard cap would be a disaster, and no cap is a 10x worse version of 2010-2020 basketball where we only see a few teams reach the finals.

[Iwasawitness]

You can still build superteams and yiu can still have long contending windows.
Just you must be able to cycle on the role players, trading the guys that will become too expensive on time.
You can still pay your stars, you can't afford to pay you 4-8 guy as much as before.

Your goal shouldn’t be to build super teams, it should be building contenders.

[kingr]

Yeah I think it's too harsh. Especially for teams that have a (homegrown) great team that all need to get paid. Almost making it impossible to build a dynasty if i'm understanding it correctly.

[NZB2323]

The point of the 2nd apron is to be harsh. If it’s not harsh it doesn’t serve any real purpose. The point is to create parity.

It doesn’t surprise me that a Celtics fan made this thread. Last year the Celtics went 16-3 in the playoffs. There were no salary cap rules for the Celtics in the 60s, and in the 80s the Bird rule was introduced so the Celtics could give Bird the max and keep all their other players. Then the Celtics had the first modern Big 3 with KG, Paul Pierce, and Ray Allen. The Celtics have won enough championships. The 2nd apron prevents them from keeping all of their great players where they can dominate the league.

[JujitsuFlip]

My problem with it is that it's too punishing for teams just trying to retain their own guys they drafted. We are not an FA destination, and we are essentially going to have to decide who to get rid of because we can't pay all of Ausar, Duren, Stewart and Ivey.

That is a bit in the future, most likely not an issue for the Pistons.

Ausar has 3 years left on his rookie deal (including this season).

Duren and Ivey have 2 years left on their rookie deals (counting this season).

Stewart is already on his second contract and under contract for 4 more years @ a flat $15 million.

[Exp0sed]

Been reading about the Celtics sale and comments from Wyc Grousbeck got my attention. I knew the 2nd apron was quite punitive but maybe didn't pay enough attention to it.

First there's the luxury tax. We know about that part. For example, the Celts are over the 2nd apron and Sam Hauser's $10M per year deal will actually cost the team... $90M per year! That's a 900% tax if my fingers are working. More than I realized.

But the biggest punishments/challenges are in the basketball penalties and trade restrictions...

"Let me put a pin in that balloon too," Grousbeck said when asked about the challenges of staying in the luxury tax in an interview with WEEI in Boston. "It’s not the luxury tax bill, it’s the basketball penalties. The new CBA was designed by the league to stop teams from going crazy."

"The basketball penalties mean that it’s even more of a premium now to have your basketball general manager be brilliant and lucky," Grousbeck said. "Because you have to navigate because you can’t stay in the second apron, nobody will, I predict, for the next 40 years of the CBA, no one is going to stay in the second apron more than two years."

https://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/279735/Outgoing-Celtics-Owner-Wyc-Grousbeck-Basketball-Penalties-Will-Drive-Changes-Not-Tax-Bill


This is from a Celtics article but it applies to all 2nd apron teams, who really can't do much of anything....

The Celtics are currently dealing with a number of restrictions as a second apron team. Here’s a list of the more notable restrictions:

—Can’t acquire a player via sign-and-trade

—Can’t use mid-level or biannual exception in free agency

—Can’t sign a player who was making more than mid-level via buyout

—Can’t aggregate two or more player salaries in a trade

—Can’t send out cash in a trade

—A future first round pick is frozen seven years out (unable to be traded) when a team is in second apron.

—Frozen first round picks could be moved to end of first round if a team stays above second apron in three of five years

https://www.masslive.com/celtics/2025/03/wyc-grousbeck-drops-big-hint-on-boston-celtics-offseason-plans-amid-sale.html

Anyway... this seems like too much to me, but maybe I'm just cranky because my team is dealing with it haha. Like, I get the point but it's a little overboard imo.

If Grousbeck is correct that no team will stay over the 2nd apron for more than 2 years, do we like that the best teams are basically going to be broken up so often? "Parity" is cool on paper but kinda boring in practice imo. What do you guys think?

Well, yes. It's too harsh and his prediction seems reasonable, however, they'll change it in the next CBA so his 40 years bit isn't going to be put to the test

Sent from my SM-A055F using RealGM mobile app

[CROBulls]

No there are too many players in NBA playing this sport just for money. And too many owners who keeping team for revenue reasons not investing enough to get better. This CBA is proving who are spenders and who are garbage, both players and owners. We need 3rd and 4th and 5th aprons.

EDIT: I wanted to say that 2nd apron is not restrictive. If anything should be encouraged. It keeps certain low quality GM's from doing terrible moves and spending money on guys like Patrick Williams who should not be on basketball floor playing this sport, let alone playing NBA. If you making mess of your team giving money to players who dont deserve it, you dont deserve a bail out cards.

More money to guys who deserve it, less who dont and no issues. And for owners side, less money for play in revenue teams. Those teams dont deserve to be awarded. If anything play ins were always terrible idea. It makes teams like Chicago a bad basketball team long term.

This all seems pretty off. The Bulls aren't a direction-less team because of Patrick Williams or the play-in, they're a direction-less team because the FO has made the decision repeatedly for them to be a direction-less team. The Bulls haven't come that close to the 2nd apron and they were a mediocre play-in-level team before the aprons existed (or before PW was extended).

They've been deciding to stay mid since like 2021 over and over again. The Vucevic trade, Lavine extension, signing DDR and keeping him around, bringing Lonzo Ball back, trading Caruso for Giddey and not picks, etc. All those are just intentional decisions to stay mid, don't blame the small incentives like the play-in (that other teams don't chase like the Bulls) but rather the Bulls' FO's mindset.

I dont need lesson whats wrong with Bulls from West Philly, PA. I know well what happening with my team. Aprons work. And work well. Want more of them.

[Ssj16]

I feel like a good alteration to the rule should be that you should be absolved from tax penalties for players you drafted.

Teams like OKC, Denver, Boston, etc. shouldn't be penalized on drafting well. (I think I first heard this idea from Bill Simmons).

This would punish teams who found players that were under valued by the teams who drafted them, and gave them the opportunities to flourish that they didn’t have with their first teams.

Guys like Brunson and Randle reached heights no one expected of them because of the opportunities they got in New York.

But to me, the drafting team should definitely get first dibs on retaining their talent. In this hypothetical scenario, Brunson becomes the same player with Doncic as they smooth out the kinks. If Dallas is unable to figure out how to use Brunson, he probably would still be moved to NYC due to his father's connection there.

[bisme37]

It's not like the teams in the 2nd apron got there by breaking the rules. They created these teams via the guidelines set out in the league's CBA. So it's just weird to get punished so harshly for following the rules and doing a good job imo.

[Lockdown504090]

It definitely is too harsh, teams shouldn’t be punished for wanting to win and pay their players fairly. 2nd apron mostly punishes the desperate small market teams that feel pressure to build a contender around their star, Denver and Milwaukee get boned not the big markets who don’t need to depend on catching lightning in a bottle to contend. This is toxic to the game and will also wipe out the NBA middle class, it’s going to end up as supermax guys and then a bunch of minimum salary players even with rising revenues. Straight up gratuitous the punishments with picks and other signings. Way worse than hard cap. There isn’t an issue with teams buying championships in the NBA, just a totally fake problem that didn’t need solving.

the 2nd apron has actually given big market a bigger advantage. Brunson can take that cut because he has a chance to get a crazy bag off the court if they make it to the conference finals at any point during that deal and set himself up for the next 30 years. i still see steve novak in commercials to this day.

step 1. The difference in money between a super max and a regular max should not count against the salary cap in any way while that player is on the team they signed it with. So tatums doesnt count,lillard's does.

Everyone can agree on that.

[jbk1234]

You can thank the 2022 Warriors. Joe Lacob threw it in everyone's face he didn't care how much he spent or the penalties, because he could afford both.

The only way the NBA thought they could slow teams from blowing past the salary cap or luxury tax was add basketball penalties. The financial penalties clearly were not doing the trick.

A lot of the trades this season were pointed directly at the new CBA, as the reason.

I think the Durant S&T for Dlo, followed by the Dlo trade for Wiggins, followed by Poole's contract pissed the rest of the teams off badly. All of those moves came when the Warriors were well into the repeater tax and all of them involved role players. They essentially continued with a fourth max slot for the better part of a decade and made a mockery of the salary cap.

[jbk1234]

I think a little skepticism is warranted when owners say they'd be willing to lose the type of money the Celtics were going to lose, for the foreseeable future, when they cite the 2nd apron restrictions as the reason for breaking up the team. Even without the 2nd apron, the repeater taxes were going to have the organization bleeding red.

[JujitsuFlip]

You can thank the 2022 Warriors. Joe Lacob threw it in everyone's face he didn't care how much he spent or the penalties, because he could afford both.

The only way the NBA thought they could slow teams from blowing past the salary cap or luxury tax was add basketball penalties. The financial penalties clearly were not doing the trick.

A lot of the trades this season were pointed directly at the new CBA, as the reason.

I think the Durant S&T for Dlo, followed by the Dlo trade for Wiggins, followed by Poole's contract pissed the rest of the teams off badly. All of those moves came when the Warriors were well into the repeater tax and all of them involved role players. They essentially continued with a fourth max slot for the better part of a decade and made a mockery of the salary cap.

Yup, Lacob boasting about it did no other governor any favors.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

It's not like the teams in the 2nd apron got there by breaking the rules. They created these teams via the guidelines set out in the league's CBA. So it's just weird to get punished so harshly for following the rules and doing a good job imo.

I really don't understand what is weird about this.
The NBA is telling teams "manage your budget, don't overspend, or you'll make us all less profitable". You if atill overspend it's your problem, you don't need to keep everyone you draft. You can still trade someone for future value, so that you can improve the team down the road.