Some Think Jalen Brunson Taking Less Money Could Start An Apron-Related Trend

[RealGM Wiretap]

Jalen Brunson took $113 million less in his extension with the New York Knicks than he could have gotten by re-signing next summer. That was a major sacrifice by Brunson and really helps the Knicks. Some around the NBA think that could start a trend.

Some executives said the new CBA rules, particularly those around the second apron, helped keep spending under control this summer. Teams used the second apron as a de facto hard cap, due to the limitations it can put on a team. This forced teams to prioritize spending in a new way, as opposed to just committing to large luxury tax bills.

As for Brunson, some now think he may have set a precedent by taking less money. Teams could use that as a pitch to other star players as a way to give them roster-building flexibility under the tax aprons.

Via Tim Bontemps and Kevin Pelton/ESPN

[the_process]

The 2nd apron did exactly what it was designed to do. It was designed as a de facto hard cap.

What sucks is all the trade restrictions make it nigh impossible to move high salary guys around. There needs to be less options that hard cap at the 1st apron. Also teams need to structure salary as the average per year instead of 5%/8% increases/decreases so it is easier to get 100% matches.

[kristov]

This wouldn't be a problem if they didn't limit the max increase in salary cap at 10% . Hard to tell what the cap would be next season if they applied the new TV deal money all at once but I would guess it would be well north of 200 million.

[bqmuzik]

[youtube][/youtube]

Didn't work for Paul George in his home state. Don't give these stars so much credit

[Knick4Real]

As the old saying goes, "Rules are made to be broken."

The league attempted to create limits that would stop teams from loading up on the best players -- and leaving smaller markets with the scraps. However, like with every rule, people will always find a clever way around it.

[Billl]

Yeah, not buying that this is going to be a trend. It's their paycheck. Not a lot of players are going to volunteer for a paycut to help team get better.

[tyler_rex]

Yeah I’m going to call BS on this being a trend, we already saw one superstar in LA refuse to take a pay cut to help his team add talent.

[gidget24]

I mean if I was the player and taking that much less to help the team I would want a no trade clause or a limited no trade clause like they have in NHL. Just so if things go south I have a bit of say on where I get moved to.

[PaulGaston]

Brunson isn't actually taking less money.

He's taking guaranteed max contract money right now, because he's a 28 year old undersized 1x all-star who had had an Isaiah Thomas type of season, but could very well see his production drop off with Randle and Bridges in the mix.

If he didn't take a max deal right now, there's the possibility he wouldn't have that max offer in a year.

If things DO work out for him, the contract allows him to opt out in 3 seasons which means he can sign a 4 year 323 million extension Summer 2027 when he's 10 year eligible.

When the dust settles here's how it will work out:

Scenario 1:

Brunson signs the max 156.5 mil extension now, then signs a 4 year 323M extension Summer 2027. His 5 year outlook:

34.9 mil in 2025-26

37.7 mil in 2026-27

40.5 mil in 2027-28

71.7 mil in 2028-29

77.4 mil in 2029-30

TOTAL = 262 mil (with 2 more years after locked in at 83.6 in 2030 and 90.3 mil and 2031 when he'll be 34-35 years old)

Scenario 2:

Brunson gambles on himself, waits a whole year of uncertainty, and then theoretically could have locked in a 5 year 269 mil extension if it was still available.

46.3 mil in 2025-26

50.1 mil in 2026-27

53.8 mil in 2027-28

57.5 mil in 2028-29

61.2 mil in 2029-30

TOTAL = 269 mil

Scenario 3:

Brunson gambles on himself, waits a whole year of uncertainty, then goes the IT/Rondo route where injuries/disappointing performances results in nothing close to a max extension ever being presented. Rondo, who was thought to be receiving a max contract from the Lakers ended up getting exposed in Dallas and signing a 1 year 9.5 mil contract. His total lifetime earnings after the change in teammates was around 65 mil over the next 9 seasons. Thomas made a total of around 11 million dollars in contracts after his Brunson-esque 2017 season. I'm sure both wish they could have locked in big money extensions before the other shoe dropped.

While this represents "worst-case" scenario for Brunson and he's unlikely to fall off like Kemba, IT, Rondo, and other undersized guards, it still was a no-brainer move by his team to lock in a big money deal now and plan to sign an even bigger one in a few years.

[FeatheryTouch]

Of course executives are hoping it's a trend so they can sign guys to bargain contracts, but I don't think it's realistic to expect players(with often short and unpredictable careers and subject to injuries)to volunteer to get paid far less than what the market thinks that they are worth. Everything in the history of sports(and business for that matter) tells us that this Brunson situation is an extreme outlier, almost all negotiations are based on the players and agents asking for the best contracts they can possibly get in most situations.

That said kudos to Brunson, but it's a unique situation in New York with the team's big moves, his dad, Leon Rose, and the Villanova thing. Knicks fans should be thrilled.

[docholliday99]

The 2nd apron did exactly what it was designed to do. It was designed as a de facto hard cap.

What sucks is all the trade restrictions make it nigh impossible to move high salary guys around. There needs to be less options that hard cap at the 1st apron. Also teams need to structure salary as the average per year instead of 5%/8% increases/decreases so it is easier to get 100% matches.

These trade restrictions will certainly enforce parity and have teams pause before doling out the bag to anyone not in the top end of the league. I'm curious about this 100% match, are you meaning sending a player from one apron team to another apron team?

[tigerae]

Why would players take less money? The teams make plenty of money, even more so now with the upcoming TV deal being finalized. Unless you're ring chasing I just don't see how most players would be interested. It would be situational, like with Brunson. His dad already worked for the team and they gave him a huge payday without being a proven number one option at the time.

[Pickled Prunes]

Why would players take less money? The teams make plenty of money, even more so now with the upcoming TV deal being finalized. Unless you're ring chasing I just don't see how most players would be interested. It would be situational, like with Brunson. His dad already worked for the team and they gave him a huge payday without being a proven number one option at the time.

This entire situation is a false narrative. Brunson didn't take anything less than the maximum amount of money NYK could guarantee him today. In 2 years he will likely sign another extension at another 140% raise, which will be the maximum amount of money the CBA allows at that time. This isn't him being magnanimous and helping NYK build. This is a player choosing guaranteed money over hypothetical money. In the long run, he will earn about the same as if he had waited... and without risking losing it all to a freak injury.

[Pickled Prunes]

Brunson isn't actually taking less money.

He's taking guaranteed max contract money right now, because he's a 28 year old undersized 1x all-star who had had an Isaiah Thomas type of season, but could very well see his production drop off with Randle and Bridges in the mix.

If he didn't take a max deal right now, there's the possibility he wouldn't have that max offer in a year.

If things DO work out for him, the contract allows him to opt out in 3 seasons which means he can sign a 4 year 323 million extension Summer 2027 when he's 10 year eligible.

When the dust settles here's how it will work out:

Scenario 1:

Brunson signs the max 156.5 mil extension now, then signs a 4 year 323M extension Summer 2027. His 5 year outlook:

34.9 mil in 2025-26

37.7 mil in 2026-27

40.5 mil in 2027-28

71.7 mil in 2028-29

77.4 mil in 2029-30

TOTAL = 262 mil (with 2 more years after locked in at 83.6 in 2030 and 90.3 mil and 2031 when he'll be 34-35 years old)

Scenario 2:

Brunson gambles on himself, waits a whole year of uncertainty, and then theoretically could have locked in a 5 year 269 mil extension if it was still available.

46.3 mil in 2025-26

50.1 mil in 2026-27

53.8 mil in 2027-28

57.5 mil in 2028-29

61.2 mil in 2029-30

TOTAL = 269 mil

Scenario 3:

Brunson gambles on himself, waits a whole year of uncertainty, then goes the IT/Rondo route where injuries/disappointing performances results in nothing close to a max extension ever being presented. Rondo, who was thought to be receiving a max contract from the Lakers ended up getting exposed in Dallas and signing a 1 year 9.5 mil contract. His total lifetime earnings after the change in teammates was around 65 mil over the next 9 seasons. Thomas made a total of around 11 million dollars in contracts after his Brunson-esque 2017 season. I'm sure both wish they could have locked in big money extensions before the other shoe dropped.

While this represents "worst-case" scenario for Brunson and he's unlikely to fall off like Kemba, IT, Rondo, and other undersized guards, it still was a no-brainer move by his team to lock in a big money deal now and plan to sign an even bigger one in a few years.

This is what I've been trying to say... but I guess everyone needs a hero.

[the_process]

The 2nd apron did exactly what it was designed to do. It was designed as a de facto hard cap.

What sucks is all the trade restrictions make it nigh impossible to move high salary guys around. There needs to be less options that hard cap at the 1st apron. Also teams need to structure salary as the average per year instead of 5%/8% increases/decreases so it is easier to get 100% matches.

These trade restrictions will certainly enforce parity and have teams pause before doling out the bag to anyone not in the top end of the league. I'm curious about this 100% match, are you meaning sending a player from one apron team to another apron team?

If you take back more money than you send out in a trade, it hard caps you at the 1st apron. It's untenable for most contenders to be 1st apron hard capped.

However, anyone can make a trade where the money matches exactly. A 2nd contract max player can be traded for another 2nd contract max player (as an example) and it incurs no hard capping. And aggregation hard caps you at the 2nd apron, not the 1st. If salaries become more slotted, it will be possible going forward to 100% match and trades will become more possible again.

[docholliday99]

If salaries become more slotted, it will be possible going forward to 100% match and trades will become more possible again.

Ok, that's what I thought. It's a really interesting concept but wowie, I think that would be tough to implement; to generate a pre-defined set of parameters used for evaluating players' skillsets in order to slot them into a pre-defined salary, seems to me it would be resisted by the players. And who would set the the pre-defined parameters and then define the players appropriately? Heck, we can barely agree on here

TBH, you're really adept at this cap stuff, so if you're already thinking of tweaks to loosen the restrictions on trades, then the league is probably getting what it wants - restrict player movement again and force teams to spread the talent.

[the_process]

If salaries become more slotted, it will be possible going forward to 100% match and trades will become more possible again.

Ok, that's what I thought. It's a really interesting concept but wowie, I think that would be tough to implement; to generate a pre-defined set of parameters used for evaluating players' skillsets in order to slot them into a pre-defined salary, seems to me it would be resisted by the players. And who would set the the pre-defined parameters and then define the players appropriately? Heck, we can barely agree on here

TBH, you're really adept at this cap stuff, so if you're already thinking of tweaks to loosen the restrictions on trades, then the league is probably getting what it wants - restrict player movement again and force teams to spread the talent.

Without trades though, the league is boring. Maybe the solution is simply taking back more money in a trade hard caps you at the 2nd apron instead of the 1st. The NBA wants the 2nd apron to act as a de facto hard cap anyway, so let's tie all restrictions to it.

Maybe we eliminate the 1st apron as it stands now and have the floor, 10% above that the cap, 5% above that the tax line, and then 10% above that is the apron. And all penalties and restrictions are tied to the apron so that in almost all cases it serves its purpose as the unofficial hard cap. But the PA can still say "there's no hard cap"

i.e. - Floor 150M
Cap 165M
Tax 173.25M
Apron 190.575M