CBA Idea: The 2nd Apron Prohibition And An Exercise In Superteam Dissuasion

[Wammy Giveaway]

Super teams, led by three true superstars with multiple regular season and postseason honors and championship rings, have been the bane of competition's existence. Small market teams can't compete, rather they become farm franchises for future super teams. Big markets run the league, be they having a connection to the entertainment industry, have historical relevancy, or are just plain ol' good. In the years since, the NBA has modified its CBA in such a way to advise against creating super teams for fear of ruining parity by way of the 2nd apron, and it seems to be working based on this year's playoffs. However...

Watch on YouTube

There will come a day when the NBA has a Jurassic Park moment. Suppose one team has a very smart contract guy who figures out a way to make a super team by re-signing their superstar who is getting up there in age to a bloated contract for the sole purpose of moving them for a younger superstar with the same or less amount. Star for star, can only bring one player back, no aggregation, value is less, and it's okay because that team followed the rules. And they can still add players with veteran's minimums. And the NBA can only shrug.

Presenting my new CBA idea: the Prohibition, an extension to the 2nd apron. This move would end the creation of superteams once and for all. Currently, the 2nd apron rules prevent teams in that category from aggregating players, taking in more salary, trading their last seventh pick (called the frozen pick), using cash in trades, and removes all their exceptions except for vets min. Here's what would happen to 2nd apron teams under my idea:

1. No vets mins, no 2-ways, no 10-days. Nothing. A team loses every single exception. Their only means of improvement is by re-signing or trading players.
2. More superstars equals less roster flexibility. For every superstar you have on your team, you lose a roster spot. A team can carry a maximum of 17 players, including two 2-way contracts. When you have a superstar, that roster limit shrinks. If that player has made at least five All-Stars or more, won an MVP, or won a Finals MVP, you lose one roster spot. One superstar equals 14 spots, two equals 13, three equals 12, and so on, up to a 5-superstar-10-spot ratio. When that 2nd apron is triggered, the team is forced to cut or trade the player, and they have until the new season begins to do so.
3. The only way to escape the 2nd apron is to trade your franchise face. I like to think of this as an escape clause. If you are unable to compete and are totally out of assets to rebuild, develop or improve, you can admit defeat by putting your face of the franchise on the trading block, guaranteeing you a 1st round draft pick by the league as compensation in addition to a team's offer. There is a catch: you automatically forfeit your postseason spot, dropping you to last in the league by default. This does not improve your draft chances, this is meant to be acknowledgement of failure and accepting punishment. To add salt to the wounds, the team taking a franchise face is excused from apron penalties for the remainder of the current season only.

The post I've made is an exercise in trying to strengthen parity, but instead it turned into punishing teams for being too strong and advantageous. Everyone can laugh at my idea like it will never happen, I can take it. But is there a worry that even the 2nd apron may falter at some point and drastic measures such as my idea might need to be implemented.

In other words, what do you think of the 2nd apron rules as of today?

[Zeno]

I'm going pretend you are serious by saying that....

Watch on YouTube

[tsherkin]

Whine whine whine, how dare teams have talent as has been required for dynasties across the breadth of NBA history, whine whine.

[jkvonny]

Super teams, led by three true superstars with multiple regular season and postseason honors and championship rings, have been the bane of competition's existence. Small market teams can't compete, rather they become farm franchises for future super teams. Big markets run the league, be they having a connection to the entertainment industry, have historical relevancy, or are just plain ol' good. In the years since, the NBA has modified its CBA in such a way to advise against creating super teams for fear of ruining parity by way of the 2nd apron, and it seems to be working based on this year's playoffs. However...


1. [b]No vets mins, no 2-ways, no 10-days. Nothing. A team loses every single exception. Their only means of improvement is by re-signing or trading players.[/b]
2. More superstars equals less roster flexibility. For every superstar you have on your team, you lose a roster spot. A team can carry a maximum of 17 players, including two 2-way contracts. When you have a superstar, that roster limit shrinks. If that player has made at least five All-Stars or more, won an MVP, or won a Finals MVP, you lose one roster spot. One superstar equals 14 spots, two equals 13, three equals 12, and so on, up to a 5-superstar-10-spot ratio. When that 2nd apron is triggered, the team is forced to cut or trade the player, and they have until the new season begins to do so.
3. The only way to escape the 2nd apron is to trade your franchise face. I like to think of this as an escape clause. If you are unable to compete and are totally out of assets to rebuild, develop or improve, you can admit defeat by putting your face of the franchise on the trading block, guaranteeing you a 1st round draft pick by the league as compensation in addition to a team's offer. There is a catch: you automatically forfeit your postseason spot, dropping you to last in the league by default. This does not improve your draft chances, this is meant to be acknowledgement of failure and accepting punishment. To add salt to the wounds, the team taking a franchise face is excused from apron penalties for the remainder of the current season only.

The post I've made is an exercise in trying to strengthen parity, but instead it turned into punishing teams for being too strong and advantageous. Everyone can laugh at my idea like it will never happen, I can take it. But is there a worry that even the 2nd apron may falter at some point and drastic measures such as my idea might need to be implemented.

In other words, what do you think of the 2nd apron rules as of today?

Mid/small markets teams that have won NBA titles in recent years
2023 Denver Nuggets
2021 Milwaukee Bucks
2016 Cleveland Cavs
2014 San Antonio Spurs
2013 Miami Heat (debatable)
2004 Detroit Pistons
etc etc

Top 3 seeds in the West: OKC Thunder, Denver Nuggets, Minnesota TWolves
3/4/5/6 seeds in the East: Milwaukee Bucks, Cleveland Cavs, Orlando Magic, Indiana Pacers

Big market teams yet to win an NBA title at the moment: Brooklyn Nets (did win ABA titles back in the '70s) , LA Clippers.
Big market teams in long NBA championship droughts:
Dallas Mavs (one and only, 2011),
Boston Celtics (2008),
Chicago Bulls (1998),
Houston Rockets (1995),
Philly Sixers (1983),
Washington Wizards (Bullets) (1978),
NY Knicks (1973 !!)
ATL Hawks (none in Atlanta so far, did win one NBA title in 195! St Louis Hawks).

No vets mins, no 2-ways, no 10-days. Nothing??. A team loses every single exception???Their only means of improvement is by re-signing or trading player.
Uh, no...... bad , unfair idea.

[Pablo Escobar]

I hope they remove the rule. You can't punish teams for getting talent and owners willing to pay the luxury tax.

[xdrta+]

All that effort just because someday, some team might trade an aging max player for a younger one? Seems a bit of an overreaction to a...someday...someone...might...could be...maybe situation. And who is this GM who is so anxious to trade a young superstar for an aging one on a bloated contract? At some point one has to quit changing the rules because an implausible situation might come up someday.

[Richard4444]

You are trying to solve the problem of " big market superteams".

There is not an issue to solve. The NBA was never as balanced as it is now.

1) We have 5 different champions in the last 5 years: Raptors, Lakers, GSW, Bucks, and Denver. The last 2 small franchises.

2) From the teams still competing, we have 5 small market teams: OKC, Wolves, Denver, Indiana, and Cavs.

[doogie_hauser]

If you have a good culture and responsible/prudent with trade assets and collateral (like Boston and Denver/Minnesota have in recent years) you can construct a championship winning or contending team without breaking the proverbial bank (although clearly the Celtics owners are not afraid to go over the 2nd apron)
The Knicks themselves are building themselves into contention (probably one A grade high volume scorer shot) but no longer trying to go down the trading for or signing a superstar every season, and started putting a strong culture and organisation that seemingly has total buy in from all their players and now well positioned to go out and trade for or sign that final piece to into serious contention.

The Bulls, Heat, Suns, Clippers andnLakers are teams who are or will struggle in the future if they keep believing they can build a contender without trying to hit the draft and accumulate assets and young players to develop

[jpengland]

This is overcomplicated and has a tonne of problematic elements.

If you really want to do something about this it's incredibly simple.

Introduce a genuine, single, hard cap and tie players salaries to a percentage of the cap rather than a numerical value.

No exceptions whatsoever with two way contracts the only way to make up empty roster slots.

[NbaAllDay]

Makes no sense when the only apparent 'Superteam' that worked was in Miami and its in portion to do with having a literal GOAT level player.

[vxmike]

No need. The current CBA is working as intended. The superteam concept is nearly dead with the last few iterations falling flat on their faces.

[queridiculo]

No need. The current CBA is working as intended. The superteam concept is nearly dead with the last few iterations falling flat on their faces.

This pretty much.

You've had the Heatles and a glitch in the matrix Warriors team, and beyond that, there really hasn't been an issue with top heavy teams destroying the competitive balance of the league.

If anything, looking at the two iterations of the Nets superteams and the Suns and Clippers for example, it seems rather obvious to me that assembling stars and hoping for the best with the rest of the roster isn't really a winning formula.

The fact that this is even a post when you have teams like the Timberwolves, Mavericks, Knicks, Nuggets, Celtics, Pacers and Cavaliers poised to make noise in the postseason is a bit dumbfounding to me.

[Wammy Giveaway]

The fact that this is even a post when you have teams like the Timberwolves, Mavericks, Knicks, Nuggets, Celtics, Pacers and Cavaliers poised to make noise in the postseason is a bit dumbfounding to me.

There's the problem: Celtics. My interpretation of "parity" has always been set on championships for teams who have never won one before; Wolves can be that this year. The rest of the teams are either repeating or trying to break a drought. Celtics are tied with Lakers for the most titles with 17, and the fear is if they win to break the tie, they will reclaim the golden rule: "whoever has the gold makes the rules," just replace gold with most LOB's. That would mean a new CBA would be catered to the Celtics favor, who represent hard work and dedication. A CBA in the Lakers view would be stardom and power, and perhaps some form of gatekeeping to allow only previous championship teams to win and nobody else. It's conspiracy fodder, I know, but that's just how I view it.

Let me ask this question: at a point in time when only one team keeps winning championships, does the feeling start to wane? Do you wish for a title to be won by a team that hasn't had one in a while, or a team who has never won one at all? Consider the Celtics of 1957-69 who dominated the league by way of Bill Russell, an NBA era that only had two divisions and 14 teams at the time. The only fresh teams to win in this period were the 76ers, their second, and the Hawks, a newcomer. Now look at the Jordan Bulls of 1991-98, a decade of flux which had 27 teams during Jordan's first three-peat and 28 in his second. The only team to win within that era was the Rockets, a brand new title entrant for 94, and they would repeat in 1995.

[jkvonny]

Thread is gettin interesting.

[sp6r=underrated]

If you want to reduce the likelihood superstars voluntarily pair up on on teams getting rid of max contracts is the best path forward.

In 1998, Jordan took up 54% of the Bulls salaries. Shaq took up 34% of the Lakers salaries. Zo took up 32% of Miami salaries.
In 2024, Lebron took up 28% of the Lakers salaries. In 2024, Paul George took up 23% of his team salaries as did Kawhi.

The NBA's decision to create max salaries worked out great for the owners who got to reduce labor cost. And it didn't hurt the median player that much because it screwed over superstars. But the net result is the top players are all underpaid.

As a result they take compensation in the form of amentities which in this case is better teammates. Until the NBA gets rid of max salaries, which is possible, or eliminates free agency, which is impossible, superstars pairing up is here to stay.

[swyftdahoe]

As long as we don't somehow have a repeat of the KD-Warriors, everything else is fair game to me.