RealGM

I would just like to comment on what is the point of having a second apron and all the limitations that come with it and how it is affecting the decision making of the teams affected
.
First of all, the idea behind it is that the League didn't want the competition for winning being too much about who's the richest owner willing to lose the most money to maximize his chances to winning. It's not good for the business (it's like doping in some sports, it forces everyone to be on something to be competitive damaging everyone's long term health) and, to be honest, I don't see how it's fun from a fan perspective. If you're into the strategy of team building you should want to see how front offices are optimizing limited assets, not just buying themselves out of problems.
What it does is that it not only makes it incredibly expensive to keep the team (lol at people thinking the Celtics can afford to keep all those guys for more than 1 extra year), but it then makes also awfully complicated to make adjustments. The fact that you can't aggregate salaries and that your picks are frozen is a big deal. Every year super expensive teams had the TMLE + one extra pick to improve, it won't happen anymore. And not even touching the long term disaster of having your pick relegated at the end of the first round.
Long story short, you go into the second apron only if it is REALLY worth it and only for a short time, because once you're there chances are you can't improve.
What do you do in terms of strategy, then? Well, you must stay active and hit on the margins.
No matter how good your team is now, you must keep finding cheap contributors to fill out your rotation. Either FA to reclaim or young guys to develop. It's not realistic to staying more than a few seasons with a core of guys properly paid.
Because a properly paid championship team is just too expensive to keep it together.

Is it bad for the fans? Well, if you're a fan of those teams maybe it is, because you're more exposed to the risk of failing some of those bets. See the Nuggets if none of Braun, Watson, Strawther, Pickett, Tyson or Gillespie develop.
But if you're a neutral fan imo it makes everything more interesting and I am really enjoying the new CBA, so far.

Great topic. i have not fully understood the effect of the 2nd apron rules and all our Nuggets friends have been trying to explain it to us albeit it's still confusing until we see it in actual action so to speak. But as those same Denver fans have stated they are virtually the "first victim" of said rule so sort of we see it happen before our very eyes (and before it happens to our own teams).

In theory, you can "max out" and be try to outspend all other teams to one title but repeating should be harder relative to previous years because of this 2nd apron penalties (RealGM capologists can explain to us the nuances and technical details but is that a safe assumption?)

So the obvious second guinea pig are the Boston Celtics. Two max players with a bunch of not so low contracts (KP) and others also extended too. i think i understand where they are coming from extending these core guys without hesitation (the Tatum one was a given, the White one was an option they could have waited out on but aggressively extended him early, correct?) because they know this title window might close on them soon (both on the court, with injury/old age risks etc) plus the eventual 2nd apron challenge.

Warriors are in the same boat too right? Just too tight a budget now without much freedom to add more pieces or limited to what they can actually do.

i feel, i think i read this somewhere, it's like the NFL now. You have to get lucky and good in your rookies because those are the margins you are trying to fill in on (forced) cheap deals. The moment those rookie extensions settle in, the challenge in working against the cap will be like swimming against the stream-- it's going to be doable but doubly difficult than previous year(s).

GMs have to be smarter in swapping in/out the rather more expensive vets with younger players on cheaper (and longer?) deals too.

Again, disclaimer, i have yet to fully understand it but i think i like where the league is going with this.

The aprons explained:

What are the penalties for the first apron?
The first apron hits when a team's payroll exceeds $172 million. At this point, the following restrictions are triggered:

Teams cannot acquire a player in a sign-and-trade if that player keeps them above the apron
Teams cannot sign a player waived during the regular season whose salary was over the $12.2 million midlevel exception
Salary matching in trades must be within 110 percent, rather than 125 percent for teams not above the apron

What are the penalties for the second apron?
All of the penalties for the first apron apply to the second apron as well, which is triggered when a team's salary exceeds $182.5 million. For the 2023-24 season, one additional penalty is added when crossing the second apron:

No access to the $5 million taxpayer midlevel exception
Starting at the end of the 2023-24 season, even more restrictions will be added to the second apron. These include:

Teams cannot use a trade exception generated by aggregating the salaries of multiple players
Teams cannot include cash in a trade
Teams cannot use a trade exception generated in a prior year
First-round picks seven years out are frozen (unable to be traded)
A team's first-round pick is moved to the end of the first round if they remain in the second apron for three out of five seasons

Boston is probably looking at being over the second apron for the next two seasons. It might be worth it for them but it really does affect your ability to make trades so you need to be in a very good position to consider doing it

durden_tyler wrote: In theory, you can "max out" and be try to outspend all other teams to one title but repeating should be harder relative to previous years because of this 2nd apron penalties (RealGM capologists can explain to us the nuances and technical details but is that a safe assumption?)

These are the limtations we are talkng about:

1st Aprorn
- you can't receive a player in sign&trade
- you can't use the biannual exception
- you can't receive more that 110% money than what you spent in a trade
- you can't use the standard MLE (starting at around 12.5m x 4 years) but only the tax MLE (5m x 2 years)
- you can't sign a buyout player who was making the MLE or more during the season

2nd Apron
- you can't use any MLE
- you can't aggregate salaries in trades
- you can't receive any more money than what you spend in a trade
- you can't add cash considerations to any transaction (like "buying a pick")
- you can't use a trade exception used in a prior year
- your FRP 7 years from now it's frozen and can't be traded
- if you are over the second apron for 2 to of the following 4 tears that pick is permanently frozen and put at the end of the 1st round

On top of that you're paying ridiculous money to stay over the 2nd Apron. The player pushing you there must be REALLY worth it.

Forces a team that drafts real well to eventually sell off a star.

Players hit their prime around age 27. That is towards the end of their 2nd max deal.

You have 2 Tatums and Brown ans you are at the 2nd apron

I think we will see the end of max contracts being handed out to role players and aging stars.

Warriorfan wrote:Forces a team that drafts real well to eventually sell off a star.

Players hit their prime around age 27. That is towards the end of their 2nd max deal.

You have 2 Tatums and Brown ans you are at the 2nd apron

you are if you want to properly pay Porzingis, Jrue, and White nd fill up the team.
The key issue here is: are Tatum and Brown good enough to be a double supermax core?
Tatum is a borderline supermax guy, Brown is probably worth the 30% max and they will take 70% of the 134% of the cap you have to stay under the second apron.
Either you find some very nice bargains in the 64% or I am not sure that's a duo that can easily lead you to championship, at that price. Consider this year they were costing you less than 50% of the cap, you're fitting a Porzingis in there.

Helsbyte wrote:I think we will see the end of max contracts being handed out to role players and aging stars.

they will get them from teams in win now mode who don't care about their future.
In particular those who haven't won a title recently but are desperate for it, see the Sixers with George.
Once you won I think many will transition to "sustained success" the way Denver has, in my view, and will need to be extremely careful.

It's also going to be interesting if/when the NBA is no longer in a constantly increasing cap environment. The cap is at 141 and is expected to be over 200 in 5 years. That makes a lot of these big contracts more palatable than they would be otherwise

The second apron is the "other shoe dropping." The first shoe was the salary cap + max contracts + rookie scale contracts + MLE contracts + Luxury Tax. The second apron further confines player salaries ENSURING THAT PLAYERS NEVER BECOME LARGER THAN THE SPORT!

This will be amended prior to the next CBA. It's not something that only hurts the richest owners, it decimates the small markets to too. Denver should've been prepared for a decent run, instead they're in trouble when Gordon comes up again. Boston in trouble in a couple seasons. Hell, OKC might be in trouble instead of building like Boston was able to.

The players can't like it. Big market owners and small market contenders will hate it.

I just think it's too harsh. I would like to see an amendment where some of these penalties are waived or diminished for home grown talent like OKC and Denver/Boston.

Looks like the league implementing a hard cap with out implementing a hard cap

"An apron is a garment usually made of cloth, plastic, or leather, worn around the waist. It is used to protect clothing or as part of a costume12. Aprons are commonly worn during cooking or messy jobs to keep clothes clean2."

I'm certainly confused

M2J wrote:This will be amended prior to the next CBA. It's not something that only hurts the richest owners, it decimates the small markets to too. Denver should've been prepared for a decent run, instead they're in trouble when Gordon comes up again. Boston in trouble in a couple seasons. Hell, OKC might be in trouble instead of building like Boston was able to.

The players can't like it. Big market owners and small market contenders will hate it.

I just think it's too harsh. I would like to see an amendment where some of these penalties are waived or diminished for home grown talent like OKC and Denver/Boston.

The players will still get 50% of the BRI, no matter what. I don't see why the owners shouldn't like it, it keeps the competition more open every year.

Ryoga Hibiki wrote:

Warriorfan wrote:Forces a team that drafts real well to eventually sell off a star.

Players hit their prime around age 27. That is towards the end of their 2nd max deal.

You have 2 Tatums and Brown ans you are at the 2nd apron

you are if you want to properly pay Porzingis, Jrue, and White nd fill up the team.
The key issue here is: are Tatum and Brown good enough to be a double supermax core?
Tatum is a borderline supermax guy, Brown is probably worth the 30% max and they will take 70% of the 134% of the cap you have to stay under the second apron.
Either you find some very nice bargains in the 64% or I am not sure that's a duo that can easily lead you to championship, at that price. Consider this year they were costing you less than 50% of the cap, you're fitting a Porzingis in there.

Players are entitled to the max they can get during FA.

Super max criteria is played out. Could Brown achieved that on another team I think so.

Ryoga Hibiki wrote:

M2J wrote:This will be amended prior to the next CBA. It's not something that only hurts the richest owners, it decimates the small markets to too. Denver should've been prepared for a decent run, instead they're in trouble when Gordon comes up again. Boston in trouble in a couple seasons. Hell, OKC might be in trouble instead of building like Boston was able to.

The players can't like it. Big market owners and small market contenders will hate it.

I just think it's too harsh. I would like to see an amendment where some of these penalties are waived or diminished for home grown talent like OKC and Denver/Boston.

The players will still get 50% of the BRI, no matter what. I don't see why the owners shouldn't like it, it keeps the competition more open every year.

This. It will penalize the high spending teams, and the penalty is that they lose some privileges which the other lower spending teams are not losing. So at some point, while the Denvers and Bostons weakens (theoretically) the other teams will naturally improve (since they have more perks). This drives the league to better parity, and well, more teams are happy.

Then again, that works in theory but there’ll be special teams who will be consistently smart and scatter those mid-salaries to players that actually can be long-term solutions to their respective teams that are perfect complemebtd to their main guys who gets paid the max. (Thinking of the Derrick White type contracts) and also teams who’ll find NBA-ready contributors in the first round (better yet if second rounder obviously).

What i see is that these penalizes teams that don’t project the long-term salaries and how they’ll add up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

M2J wrote:This will be amended prior to the next CBA. It's not something that only hurts the richest owners, it decimates the small markets to too. Denver should've been prepared for a decent run, instead they're in trouble when Gordon comes up again. Boston in trouble in a couple seasons. Hell, OKC might be in trouble instead of building like Boston was able to.

The players can't like it. Big market owners and small market contenders will hate it.

I just think it's too harsh. I would like to see an amendment where some of these penalties are waived or diminished for home grown talent like OKC and Denver/Boston.

The players are still getting a percentage of BRI, so they're good, and they got a some other concessions out of it, such as minority ownership takes, new sponsorship opportunities, etc.

This was a constraint the owners wanted to prevent superteams.

I like it. Having resource constraints is the point of having as salary cap. It was getting kind of ridiculous when rich owners just went into the tax without thinking about it and basically circumvented the cap altogether

I like it and the owners agreed to it!!

It's too bad when your team's owner is **** idiot though.

I love it, I hope it stays in the future CBAs.