Is the 2nd Apron too harsh?

[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.

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.

The luxury tax payed by taxpayer teams just gets distributed back to the non-tax teams. So the 2nd apron is actually quite profitable for most of the league and another incentive for being a cheap owner with a bad team. You'd think the NBA would want teams doing their best to be good, not bad. But the new CBA makes it so good teams will be torn down for non-basketball reasons if your GM does too good of a job.

[meekrab]

Hauser went from a two way player to a rotation player and it seems harsh to penalize a team too much for this internal growth.

You know the system is wacky when teams can’t afford their role players anymore.

The Celtics aren't getting penalized for signing Sam Hauser to a $10 million per year contract, they're getting penalized for having five players making over 200 million.

[itrsteve]

Even before the new rules it's been suggested that a supermax contract should count as a regular max if said player was drafted by the team. This would allow teams that organically built their team the right way to not be punished e.g the Celtic/Wolves

Hey c'mon, you didn't have to call out the Celtics like that

But using the Celtics as an example, they just inked two designated max extensions for guys they drafted... which we would both argue that the cap penalty should be reduced.

Now what they did for the new CBA was to lock everybody up in advance while they had their last chance. Gaming the system I suppose, but two players hogging up ~$120m/yr on two players is dangerous to any franchise.

Even for how incompetent Nico is viewed, I'd argue Luka would have been kept if the hit to their cap in the 2nd apron era wasn't so top heavy on what would have been a record-breaking contract.

[Profound23]

Teams will adapt, I just feel like if they were going to do this teams should've had time to prepare. Like lay the rules out and say it will happen in three years.

It immediately made some "ok contracts" putrid and teams had to unload players for nothing...or worse use assets to unload them.

[JujitsuFlip]

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.

The luxury tax payed by taxpayer teams just gets distributed back to the non-tax teams. So the 2nd apron is actually quite profitable for most of the league and another incentive for being a cheap owner with a bad team. You'd think the NBA would want teams doing their best to be good, not bad. But the new CBA makes it so good teams will be torn down for non-basketball reasons if your GM does too good of a job.

I mean, I don't think paying 5 starters a combined $198 million against a projected $170 million cap is being a good GM...

Does it result in a title, if done right? Sure but it is not a recipe that should result in a dynasty.

If a team wants to blow past the salary cap and luxury tax, cool but it should be with financial AND basketball repercussions.

[jbk1234]

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.

Theorerically a homegrown great team could get broken up, but there has yet to be a team that had that problem. The Warriors did not have to S&T Durant for DLo. They could've just let Durant walk and gotten out of tax Hell (not that they drafted Durant anyway). The Celtics traded for three of their five starters and they traded Marcus Smart and Timelord (who were homegrown) for two of those starters. Denver drafted neither KCP nor Gordon. Giannis is the only starter, or even good player on the Bucks, who they drafted.

[trickshot]

It's solid. Under the old rules by now a team like the Suns would have a crazy unfair team with the likes of CP3 pushing for buyouts and making it even more unfair.

[sp6r=underrated]

My preference is for promotion/relegation, no cap, no draft and basically treat it like a soccer league.

But sadly that is impossible.

[sp6r=underrated]

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.

The luxury tax payed by taxpayer teams just gets distributed back to the non-tax teams. So the 2nd apron is actually quite profitable for most of the league and another incentive for being a cheap owner with a bad team. You'd think the NBA would want teams doing their best to be good, not bad. But the new CBA makes it so good teams will be torn down for non-basketball reasons if your GM does too good of a job.

The CBA reflects the owners' aggregate wishes. The players have minimal input given how weak the NBAPA is. But the owners have never succeeded in completely breaking the players the way the NFLPA is broken. In that league players have gotten paralyzed and games continued and guaranteed contracts resemble the Rhino.

Most NBA owners want to discourage other owners from spending money. They also want to maximize their control over players at the beginning of their career and the top superstars.

And that is basically what the CBA does.
1. The punishment for wanting to spend is enormous.
2. The incentives for players to commit to their team for most of their career is enormous.

It makes team building extremely hard and often driven by pure luck. It is a bad document for fans.

[celtxman]

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.

You just said EXACTLY what I've posted in this forum for years. The Warriors signing Durant was a lack of foresight by the NBA with the CBA. Even Wiggins playing well in the 2022 Finals have the Warriors a Championship they wouldn't have had otherwise with that 4th slot.. Can we imagine what would have happened if Durant stayed in Golden State?
Earlier I this thread a (well intentioned) Cavs poster said he was happy these 2nd apron difficulties are happening to the Celtics, somewhat tongue in cheek. But EVERY team that does a good job in building talent for an NBA will face this. Great job by the Cavs in roster building, just like the Celtics. But DON'T get an injury, and God forbid the Cavs lose in the Finals to OKC this year. A Finals loss this year and an unfortunate injury next season and you could be on the way down the ladder before you got to the top. That window closing quickly. The Mobley contract goes from $11 million to $38 million per and gob on another $13 million onto what Donovan is making. Keep the team as is and "Hello 2nd apron ". You added over$40 million to your base payroll, and have probably 5 roster spots to fill and tons of luxury tax coming. Will Dan Gilbert want to pay?
Denver and Minnesota are still good but have already had 2nd apron player casualties.
The ultimate irony is this system ultimately helps those with more money. They are able to pay luxury taxes and can stay there longer. And the ultimate kick in the pants? The team with that has the most money to pay? Yup...the Warriors! They make over $200 million more (781 million)in revenue than the Knicks the 2nd highest revenue team. $781 million easily covers a $500 million payroll/luxury tax. OKCs annual revenue is $321 million and their ownership is worth less than a billion. The team is outstanding- the math for the future looks terrible

[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.

You just said EXACTLY what I've posted in this forum for years. The Warriors signing Durant was a lack of foresight by the NBA with the CBA. Even Wiggins playing well in the 2022 Finals have the Warriors a Championship they wouldn't have had otherwise with that 4th slot.. Can we imagine what would have happened if Durant stayed in Golden State?
Earlier I this thread a (well intentioned) Cavs poster said he was happy these 2nd apron difficulties are happening to the Celtics, somewhat tongue in cheek. But EVERY team that does a good job in building talent for an NBA will face this. Great job by the Cavs in roster building, just like the Celtics. But DON'T get an injury, and God forbid the Cavs lose in the Finals to OKC this year. A Finals loss this year and an unfortunate injury next season and you could be on the way down the ladder before you got to the top. That window closing quickly. The Mobley contract goes from $11 million to $38 million per and gob on another $13 million onto what Donovan is making. Keep the team as is and "Hello 2nd apron ". You added over$40 million to your base payroll, and have probably 5 roster spots to fill and tons of luxury tax coming. Will Dan Gilbert want to pay?
Denver and Minnesota are still good but have already had 2nd apron player casualties.
The ultimate irony is this system ultimately helps those with more money. They are able to pay luxury taxes and can stay there longer. And the ultimate kick in the pants? The team with that has the most money to pay? Yup...the Warriors! They make over $200 million more (781 million)in revenue than the Knicks the 2nd highest revenue team. $781 million easily covers a $500 million payroll/luxury tax. OKCs annual revenue is $321 million and their ownership is worth less than a billion. The team is outstanding- the math for the future looks terrible

In the scenario of the Cavs though, who cares? In the hypothetical the Cavs core4 would have been together for 4 years, with 3 of 4 guys being together for 5 years. Like how long do we want these windows to stay open for? Indefinitely?

If the Cavs can't win a title in 5 years, what is going to change in 5 more? The Cavs get older and more injury prone?

To your point about GSW, the new 2nd apron penalties are the only way to deter them, the old way obviously wasn't stopping anybody. There has to be basketball implications too bc financial, as you point out, aren't punitive enough.

[og15]

My preference is for promotion/relegation, no cap, no draft and basically treat it like a soccer league.

But sadly that is impossible.

Soccer leagues in general are way too notoriously top heavy with generally the same teams, that does not seem to be what the NBA is aiming for.

[floppymoose]

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.

I think this comment might confuse people.

The owners will not spend less, collectively. And the players will not receive less, collectively.

What the lux tax (which is triggered by the apron) does, is shift money among the owners. It's all money the owners were going to get regardless, but now the distribution is different.

It's the same for the players. When teams go over the apron, it lets them pay players on their team more. But the share going to the players overall is the same. This is possible due to the mechanics of the escrow tax: https://basketballnoise.com/what-is-nba-escrow-tax/.

[cgf]

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.

Fine in your hypothetical, but what scenarios where a player can’t reach their full potential without leaving? Like Brunson, who would have continued to improve next to Luka but would never have finished top 5 in MVP voting even if he got every bit as good as he has.

Why are we rewarding the teams that drafted players and squandered them, not the ones who saw something more in them & developed that talent to a level they could not have reach with their first franchise?

Quickley is another example, kid could’ve won multiple 6MOTY title if he had stayed, but he can become an allstar caliber starter and that was never going to materialize next to Brunson. Why should we have been able to hold his career hostage as our 6th man, just because we gave him his first contract?

[HotelVitale]

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.

I think this comment might confuse people.

The owners will not spend less, collectively. And the players will not receive less, collectively.

What the lux tax (which is triggered by the apron) does, is shift money among the owners. It's all money the owners were going to get regardless, but now the distribution is different.

It's the same for the players. When teams go over the apron, it lets them pay players on their team more. But the share going to the players overall is the same. This is possible due to the mechanics of the escrow tax: https://basketballnoise.com/what-is-nba-escrow-tax/.

The aprons are very different from the luxury tax. They were created specifically to have basketball/roster consequences for spending past a certain point, after the luxury tax’s purely financial consequences didn’t work well enough (at least in the opinion of the people who introduced them).

Also neither of them begin at the luxury tax, nothing about one triggers the other.

[floppymoose]

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.

I think this comment might confuse people.

The owners will not spend less, collectively. And the players will not receive less, collectively.

What the lux tax (which is triggered by the apron) does, is shift money among the owners. It's all money the owners were going to get regardless, but now the distribution is different.

It's the same for the players. When teams go over the apron, it lets them pay players on their team more. But the share going to the players overall is the same. This is possible due to the mechanics of the escrow tax: https://basketballnoise.com/what-is-nba-escrow-tax/.

The aprons are very different from the luxury tax. They were created specifically to have basketball/roster consequences for spending past a certain point, after the luxury tax’s purely financial consequences didn’t work well enough (at least in the opinion of the people who introduced them).

Also neither of them begin at the luxury tax, nothing about one triggers the other.

Ok, technically that is all true. However, the 1st and 2nd apron are both over the luxury tax line. It is the luxury tax itself that is triggering the redistribution of owner income.

The key point is that "there's less overall money available for players" comment is not correct. Neither the luxury tax nor the aprons reduce the money available to players on the whole. Instead it affects the distribution of that money.

[wegotthabeet]

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?

I think this is probably the most predictable outcome ever. Last year when everyone was saying that the Celtics could be a dynasty they simply hadn’t done the math.

It’s basically impossible to be a dynasty with the 2nd apron. It’s probably more restrictive than a hard cap environment.

[ITYSL]

I think it went overboard. In an effort to support parity, it overly punishes GMs and teams that want to spend money to win. Meanwhile, poorly run organizations get the chance to pick at the top of the draft season after season and get rich through revenue share.

When the new CBA took effect, parity already wasn't that much of an issue in the NBA. The league had seen 6 years with a different champion each year, with just one team having won it twice in that span. Then that went to 7 with Boston. That's as good or better than any other major sports league in the US.

[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.

You just said EXACTLY what I've posted in this forum for years. The Warriors signing Durant was a lack of foresight by the NBA with the CBA. Even Wiggins playing well in the 2022 Finals have the Warriors a Championship they wouldn't have had otherwise with that 4th slot.. Can we imagine what would have happened if Durant stayed in Golden State?
Earlier I this thread a (well intentioned) Cavs poster said he was happy these 2nd apron difficulties are happening to the Celtics, somewhat tongue in cheek. But EVERY team that does a good job in building talent for an NBA will face this. Great job by the Cavs in roster building, just like the Celtics. But DON'T get an injury, and God forbid the Cavs lose in the Finals to OKC this year. A Finals loss this year and an unfortunate injury next season and you could be on the way down the ladder before you got to the top. That window closing quickly. The Mobley contract goes from $11 million to $38 million per and gob on another $13 million onto what Donovan is making. Keep the team as is and "Hello 2nd apron ". You added over$40 million to your base payroll, and have probably 5 roster spots to fill and tons of luxury tax coming. Will Dan Gilbert want to pay?
Denver and Minnesota are still good but have already had 2nd apron player casualties.
The ultimate irony is this system ultimately helps those with more money. They are able to pay luxury taxes and can stay there longer. And the ultimate kick in the pants? The team with that has the most money to pay? Yup...the Warriors! They make over $200 million more (781 million)in revenue than the Knicks the 2nd highest revenue team. $781 million easily covers a $500 million payroll/luxury tax. OKCs annual revenue is $321 million and their ownership is worth less than a billion. The team is outstanding- the math for the future looks terrible

The majority of owners don't want teams running a payroll at twice the salary cap for close to a decade. The Warriors came close and that's what the second apron is designed to stop. It creates too much imbalance.

Assuming the Cavs can retain Ty Jerome, they'll be over the 2nd apron. After year 3, they'll have some tough decisions to make because they absolutely should not risk frozen first round picks 7 years out getting move to the back the draft.

But yeah, the Cavs might have to swap some of their more expensive role players with vet minimum guys. They might have to ask themselves whether they want to trade Mitchell in two years rather than commit 35% of the cap to him 31. They might have to trade Garland rather than commit 30% of the cap to him three years from now.

[HotelVitale]

I think this comment might confuse people.

The owners will not spend less, collectively. And the players will not receive less, collectively.

What the lux tax (which is triggered by the apron) does, is shift money among the owners. It's all money the owners were going to get regardless, but now the distribution is different.

It's the same for the players. When teams go over the apron, it lets them pay players on their team more. But the share going to the players overall is the same. This is possible due to the mechanics of the escrow tax: https://basketballnoise.com/what-is-nba-escrow-tax/.

The aprons are very different from the luxury tax. They were created specifically to have basketball/roster consequences for spending past a certain point, after the luxury tax’s purely financial consequences didn’t work well enough (at least in the opinion of the people who introduced them).

Also neither of them begin at the luxury tax, nothing about one triggers the other.

Ok, technically that is all true. However, the 1st and 2nd apron are both over the luxury tax line. It is the luxury tax itself that is triggering the redistribution of owner income.

The key point is that "there's less overall money available for players" comment is not correct. Neither the luxury tax nor the aprons reduce the money available to players on the whole. Instead it affects the distribution of that money.

Appreciating the conversation but you're still operating a couple steps behind the first little point I was making. Not quite sure why but it might be because you think I'm trying to say something tricky here--the aprons arent' 'technically' not the luxury tax or whatever, they're fully and fundamentally a different thing. The very explicit reason for the aprons existing is to reduce the amount of money that (certain) owners are spending by making it significantly more difficult to build rosters if you exceed them. It's not a secret or a strange way of thinking about them to say that their entire purpose is to lower the pure salary money going from the coffers of billionaires to players as well as the luxury tax $ going to the NBA ecosystem. So no they are not just redistributing the same amount of $, and yes they are very much intended to discourage/punish owners spending more money overall.

The luxury tax was also designed to do that but in a way that still allows teams to pay more $ to players and to the NBA (like you said). That's why I was pointing out the aprons are sort of an anti-tax--places with taxes want people to spend as much money as possible in them so more money goes into tax rolls/coffers, while the apron wants to aggressively limit spending and draw a kind of max line on possible spending. (And they also exist as I just said because people felt like the pure $ punishment of the luxury tax wasn't effective enough.)

That's why it's weird that the players' union would've supported it (at least not without getting some more concessions than they seem to have gotten last contract). One of their fundamental duties is to fight for things that will give players as much opportunity to get $ as possible, and they rarely fail to do that (though they don't always win).