This new CBA is awful

[Jack Dempsey]

I don't necessarily hate it, but I really wish they would have cap modifiers for teams who drafted, developed and found success with homegrown talent. Even if it's .75 cents on the dollar. The CBA is working against itself by penalizing franchises for rewarding those guys.

An org like OKC is going to feel the pain big time when Chet and JWill come up for extensions and it's not right.

I had the same thought a while ago, just slightly different. While drafting and developing talent is extremly hard by itself, doing it with picks outside of the lottery is a whole different level. My idea was to reward teams that are good at drafting and developing talent. But since I don't really want to reward tanking I'd leave lotto picks as they are. But I'd start giving incentives after the lottery. For example, a player drafted outside of the lottery counts only 80% in the salary cap as long as he stays with the team he signed his first contract with. So if he makes $20mill a year, only $16mill with count against the cap.
A 2nd rounder would count only 70% and an undrafted player 60%. For example, Jokic is making $51.5mill this year but he would count slightly less than $31mill against the cap. If he gets traded the trade kicker kicks in and he'd count the full $51.5mill against his new team.

Supermax bonuses should only apply to players on teams they signed their first contract with and they shouldn't count against the cap.

I think that would make buddies teaming up to play on one team less likely. And maybe tanking as blowing it up completly would be less attractive too.

The question is what would the NBA and the PA want? Regular movement or teams staying together for years? Personally, I'd prefer the latter. I'd like to see players staying on the same team for multiple years and building some chemistry with the fan bases. 20-30 years ago we had a handful of journeymen out there jumping from team to team. Today almost everybody could count as a journeyman, even Superstars.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Current CBA is nothing but purposeful sabotage made for top teams to prevent them to stay on top for more than 2-3 years. It's artificially created obstacle created to prevent sustained success.

staying on top for over 2-3 years, keeping the same extended core, was already impossible for most franchises. Only the very rich ones could pay like 150m of repeater taxes.

This is not true but saying this certainly makes you a billionaire's favorite kind of fan so congrats on that I guess

150m of taxes is a lot of money even for a billionaire, unless you're a Balmer type

[Statlanta]

There are aspects I like and don't like. I don't think it's a grand design by the PA or the Board of Governors to hurt good teams it is just a lot of random incentive systems that dissuade proper roster building from GMs.

Being able to pay players for getting NBA awards sounds good in theory but then to turn around and make the team have to cover the cap hit because a player was voted for an award(that's not an objective marker but subjectively voted by a group of people) and now it's like good will being used against the best players and teams in the league; hence why Zach Lowe is no longer an award voter.

Then there's things like the first and second apron being introduce that stops the dynamic trade market that we were used to seeing for top contending teams.

For example I don't think many fans liked the forced removal of Klay Thompson from the Warriors because of their cap situation. At the same time though I feel those same fans felt the Cousins/Durant version of the Warriors were so unfair that they needed to pay somewhat for that time period of harboring generational levels of talent.

[KillMonger]

I prefer parity over dynasties whatever achieves that I'm game

Sent from my [Sidekick 5G] using RealGM mobile app

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Current CBA is nothing but purposeful sabotage made for top teams to prevent them to stay on top for more than 2-3 years. It's artificially created obstacle created to prevent sustained success.

staying on top for over 2-3 years, keeping the same extended core, was already impossible for most franchises. Only the very rich ones could pay like 150m of repeater taxes.

But that also punishes teams that are excellent at drafting & organic building for no reason. Basically they are being punished for being too good.


And still, most watched and most popular nba has ever been was during Jordan era. Current CBA prevents great teams from being great for more than 3 years. That's laughable system for team sports and backward thinking.


So, it's not really "parity", it's system made to force cycling on top.

they are punishing nobody, because:
1) most teams couldn't stay consistently that deep into the tax, even before. At some point the repeater would kick in making the bill to hard to stomach for most organizations. You think OKC would have been able to keep all this core together? They didn't after reaching a final in 2012, in a way less punitive system. You think Indiana let Turner go because of the 2nd Apron restrictions? This is just stopping the richest organizations from leveraging on their spending power to pay themselves out of tough situations.
2) if you're good at drafting, you can still trade those amazing players you can't pay and collect multiple future assets. See what Memphis did. You're never "punished" to be good at drafting, that's total BS narrative

On your last point, it is parity in terms of opportunities. Is now easier for a smaller org to be and stay competitive.
I also suspect people are overplaying the CBA as the reason we had so many new champions. The real issue imo has been health. Those teams broke through while having a healthy run, other campaigns have been derailed by injuries (or getting old). Lakers, Nuggets, Bucks, Celtics... they all had key injuries during the PO. The Raptors lost Kawhi for other reasons. The Warriors were old and not that great to begin with, didn't compromise on the roster at all.

[pepe1991]

staying on top for over 2-3 years, keeping the same extended core, was already impossible for most franchises. Only the very rich ones could pay like 150m of repeater taxes.

But that also punishes teams that are excellent at drafting & organic building for no reason. Basically they are being punished for being too good.


And still, most watched and most popular nba has ever been was during Jordan era. Current CBA prevents great teams from being great for more than 3 years. That's laughable system for team sports and backward thinking.


So, it's not really "parity", it's system made to force cycling on top.

they are punishing nobody, because:
1) most teams couldn't stay consistently that deep into the tax, even before. At some point the repeater would kick in making the bill to hard to stomach for most organizations. You think OKC would have been able to keep all this core together? They didn't after reaching a final in 2012, in a way less punitive system. You think Indiana let Turner go because of the 2nd Apron restrictions? This is just stopping the richest organizations from leveraging on their spending power to pay themselves out of tough situations.
2) if you're good at drafting, you can still trade those amazing players you can't pay and collect multiple future assets. See what Memphis did. You're never "punished" to be good at drafting, that's total BS narrative

On your last point, it is parity in terms of opportunities. Is now easier for a smaller org to be and stay competitive.
I also suspect people are overplaying the CBA as the reason we had so many new champions. The real issue imo has been health. Those teams broke through while having a healthy run, other campaigns have been derailed by injuries (or getting old). Lakers, Nuggets, Bucks, Celtics... they all had key injuries during the PO. The Raptors lost Kawhi for other reasons. The Warriors were old and not that great to begin with, didn't compromise on the roster at all.

You think OKC would have been able to keep all this core together? They didn't after reaching a final in 2012, in a way less punitive system

OKC/ Presti screwed himself twice in two years.
First he resigned bum Perkins on 4 years - $36M contract, during his 5 ppg, 8 rpg season. That move alone sucked lot of money out.
Than had to choose who he wants to resign, Harden or Ibaka, or convince both to take paycuts. Ibaka signed for 4 years $48M, Harden gone.

You think Indiana let Turner go because of the 2nd Apron restrictions?

Their owner simply won't pay luxury tax.

2) if you're good at drafting, you can still trade those amazing players you can't pay and collect multiple future assets. See what Memphis did. You're never "punished" to be good at drafting, that's total BS narrative

How are Grizzlies relevant to a topic? Team that is neither contender nor all that good. Team that passed first round of playoffs once in past 8 years.

On your last point, it is parity in terms of opportunities. Is now easier for a smaller org to be and stay competitive.

For sure. Because no matter are you small or big market team, you will be cycled out in 2-3 years. That still doesn't mean it's parity, it's cycling.

I also suspect people are overplaying the CBA as the reason we had so many new champions. The real issue imo has been health

...and it's same CBA that counts disabled player provision into a cap, making it impossible for Pacers, Bucks, Celtics of the world to stay competitive if one of their stars is hurt. Once again- forced cycling and rebuilding.


Look.

Owners signed up to new CBA because it gives them excuse to not pay for basketball team irrational amount of money. It's no longer "cheap owner" it's boogeyman named Second Apron.

NBA signed up for CBA because Gen Z has attention span of goldfish , doesn't watch product, hardly watch highlights, won't watch same team being great for 5 years. It's all about reaching final goal on speed dial. How to achieve it? Make teams raise and fall at rapid rate, so more fans and more fanbases stay attached.

Evidence why nba doesn't want sustained success? Salary floor. By making salary floor 90% of salary cap and mandatory, second apron teams can't make mid season trade into bad teams to scale down. Only way how second apron team can scale down to first apron or all the way down to luxury tax ( or below) is by selling highest paid players. Highest paid players often = best players. Case and point :Hawks trade for Porzingis for next to nothing.


Whole system is set to cycle champions and keep cost of basketball teams at acceptable rate for owners. From 2025 & asset POV, Jazz have higher chance at winning title by 2030 than some Pacers despite having no good players on roster. Once cycle spins, they will have most assets to buy out Tatum, Giannis, Jokić, whoever, for year or two and enter championship cycle.

It's junk food -like- product. On your way in a car you find out last year's champions are selling former all star for Georges Niang and second round pick because they can't go under apron ( literally happened) .

[itrsteve]

I don't necessarily hate it, but I really wish they would have cap modifiers for teams who drafted, developed and found success with homegrown talent. Even if it's .75 cents on the dollar. The CBA is working against itself by penalizing franchises for rewarding those guys.

An org like OKC is going to feel the pain big time when Chet and JWill come up for extensions and it's not right.

I had the same thought a while ago, just slightly different. While drafting and developing talent is extremly hard by itself, doing it with picks outside of the lottery is a whole different level. My idea was to reward teams that are good at drafting and developing talent. But since I don't really want to reward tanking I'd leave lotto picks as they are. But I'd start giving incentives after the lottery. For example, a player drafted outside of the lottery counts only 80% in the salary cap as long as he stays with the team he signed his first contract with. So if he makes $20mill a year, only $16mill with count against the cap.
A 2nd rounder would count only 70% and an undrafted player 60%. For example, Jokic is making $51.5mill this year but he would count slightly less than $31mill against the cap. If he gets traded the trade kicker kicks in and he'd count the full $51.5mill against his new team.

Supermax bonuses should only apply to players on teams they signed their first contract with and they shouldn't count against the cap.

I think that would make buddies teaming up to play on one team less likely. And maybe tanking as blowing it up completly would be less attractive too.

The question is what would the NBA and the PA want? Regular movement or teams staying together for years? Personally, I'd prefer the latter. I'd like to see players staying on the same team for multiple years and building some chemistry with the fan bases. 20-30 years ago we had a handful of journeymen out there jumping from team to team. Today almost everybody could count as a journeyman, even Superstars.

I really like this too. A discount tiering system to discourage tanking/encourage smart drafting.

But of course we'd have to know what the desired outcomes are and then work backward to the means. Sometimes it feels like they just got exhausted over negotiating and revising this 500 page document and said "f it, this is fine"

Sometimes I wonder given Jaylen Brown gives thought into this considering his position in the NBPA and being the poster child of a drafted & designated max player on a team which has to go through a significant disassembly - which ultimately makes his job on court more difficult.

I do think they'll further refine this. It's an okay first start but the transition is a little rough.

[reddyplayerone]

staying on top for over 2-3 years, keeping the same extended core, was already impossible for most franchises. Only the very rich ones could pay like 150m of repeater taxes.

This is not true but saying this certainly makes you a billionaire's favorite kind of fan so congrats on that I guess

150m of taxes is a lot of money even for a billionaire, unless you're a Balmer type

It's not at all actually

Mostly because they're flat out lying to you about simply "losing" that money

[Ryoga Hibiki]

This is not true but saying this certainly makes you a billionaire's favorite kind of fan so congrats on that I guess

150m of taxes is a lot of money even for a billionaire, unless you're a Balmer type

It's not at all actually

Mostly because they're flat out lying to you about simply "losing" that money

You don't really know the pnl of those companies, nor how liquid those guys are.
For instance, if someone has most of his worth on owning a team he can't fund it at loss, even if that team is worth billions.
I also think it's not healthy to expect owners to behave like fan. That's going to be more and more true as evaluations grow. Very few can afford to just own a team, in most cases large ownership groups will be needed. and many of them will just be investors who will expect a ROI.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

For example I don't think many fans liked the forced removal of Klay Thompson from the Warriors because of their cap situation. At the same time though I feel those same fans felt the Cousins/Durant version of the Warriors were so unfair that they needed to pay somewhat for that time period of harboring generational levels of talent.

Klay wanted money that the Warriors though he didn't deserve.
Not sure what problems the fans are supposed to have with it.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Owners signed up to new CBA because it gives them excuse to not pay for basketball team irrational amount of money. It's no longer "cheap owner" it's boogeyman named Second Apron.

Players and teams will always have a 50/50 split of the BRI.
Not 1$ has been taken away from the players by the new CBA. The opposite, actually.
This is about the owners agreeing that they should all work with a similar budget, rather than having 1-2 rogue teams using their spending power as competitive advantage.
Also because if payrolls are too high the league will withhold the 10% escrow fund, to go back to that 50/50. Just like this year, player will not get the full nominal amount they had in their contracts.

[JM00n69]

People were moaning about parity when GSW were at their best and a finals spot was almost guaranteed for 4 years straight. Only good contender out of East was either MIA or CLE, whichever lebron was on. And when KD joined the Warriors in the middle of it that made the whole season pointless and the playoffs really.

I think a lot of people forget how massively the cap spiked that season due to the new TV deals being signed that allowed GSW to sign Durant in the first place. Then again a lot of teams just blew that cap on long term bad contacts for average players like Mozgov, Deng, Noah, Parsons, Ryan Anderson even getting multi year deals for 20-30% of the cap. And I'm sure there were plenty more I can't remember.

Now we've gone to the other extreme with these two aprons that essentially handicapped DEN after the title run, would've broken up BOS if Tatum didn't get injured. We arleady saw MIN having to unload players last year and this offseason. Same will happen to OKC but they've got picks at least to trade some of their players for a superstar.

[reddyplayerone]

150m of taxes is a lot of money even for a billionaire, unless you're a Balmer type

It's not at all actually

Mostly because they're flat out lying to you about simply "losing" that money

You don't really know the pnl of those companies, nor how liquid those guys are.
For instance, if someone has most of his worth on owning a team he can't fund it at loss, even if that team is worth billions.
I also think it's not healthy to expect owners to behave like fan. That's going to be more and more true as evaluations grow. Very few can afford to just own a team, in most cases large ownership groups will be needed. and many of them will just be investors who will expect a ROI.

I think it's far more unhealthy to expect fans to behave like they work in the front office of their favorite team

And none of these owners use their teams as their primary source of income, just like none of them are operating or funding them at a loss. These are just more lies they get away with when fans are encouraged and expected to think more like the suits

[MrBigShot]

I think it would be great if it had provisions that reduce the cap hit for teams extending their own drafted max players. That's the biggest issue with it by far. Makes it harder to keep your core together, and results in less $$ available for bench guys.

[RRyder823]

I think it would be great if it had provisions that reduce the cap hit for teams extending their own drafted max players. That's the biggest issue with it by far. Makes it harder to keep your core together, and results in less $$ available for bench guys.

Isn't that the entire point of a cap?



Sent from my SM-S918U using RealGM mobile app

[MrBigShot]

I think it would be great if it had provisions that reduce the cap hit for teams extending their own drafted max players. That's the biggest issue with it by far. Makes it harder to keep your core together, and results in less $$ available for bench guys.

Isn't that the entire point of a cap?



Sent from my SM-S918U using RealGM mobile app

Depends who you ask but I'd argue no, I think the point of a cap should be to prevent the richest owners from fielding the best rosters simply because they can spend more, not to penalize teams for drafting well & developing their draft picks.

[RRyder823]

I think it would be great if it had provisions that reduce the cap hit for teams extending their own drafted max players. That's the biggest issue with it by far. Makes it harder to keep your core together, and results in less $$ available for bench guys.

Isn't that the entire point of a cap?



Sent from my SM-S918U using RealGM mobile app

Depends who you ask but I'd argue no, I think the point of a cap should be to prevent the richest owners from fielding the best rosters simply because they can spend more, not to penalize teams for drafting well & developing their draft picks.

You mean like having more money for your core players while also having money for the bench?

Side note maybe its the NFL fan in me but the whole "teams are penalized for drafting well" argument is a bit of a straw man. If a team drafts well they are rewarded by having that player for cheap on their team for years. That's the reward. The reward isnt "well now you get have this player for as long as your willing to pay him"

Saying every team shouldn't be able to afford every draft pick they make isn't penalizing them for drafting well. It's saying you have to continue to make good choices

They probably should/could add more ways for teams to be able manipulate the cap beyond buyout/stretching contracts that could allow teams to open up cap space by kicking the perverbiale can down the road but that's about it



Sent from my SM-S918U using RealGM mobile app

[MrBigShot]

Isn't that the entire point of a cap?



Sent from my SM-S918U using RealGM mobile app

Depends who you ask but I'd argue no, I think the point of a cap should be to prevent the richest owners from fielding the best rosters simply because they can spend more, not to penalize teams for drafting well & developing their draft picks.

You mean like having more money for your core players while also having money for the bench?

Side note maybe its the NFL fan in me but the whole "teams are penalized for drafting well" argument is a bit of a straw man. If a team drafts well they are rewarded by having that player for cheap on their team for years. That's the reward. The reward isnt "well now you get have this player for as long as your willing to pay him"

Saying every team shouldn't be able to afford every draft pick they make isn't penalizing them for drafting well. It's saying you have to continue to make good choices

They probably should/could add more ways for teams to be able manipulate the cap beyond buyout/stretching contracts that could allow teams to open up cap space by kicking the perverbiale can down the road but that's about it



Sent from my SM-S918U using RealGM mobile app

Agree to disagree. Teams that draft multiple lotto picks and develop them, including teams that are not marquee free agent destinations, will be forced to get rid of players they drafted and developed.

For us, after locking in Cade, we still have Ivey, Thompson, Duren and Holland all on rookie deals. We are going to likely have to get rid of 2 of them.

At the very least, if a guy gets a super max from the team that drafted them, their cap hit should be reduced to the normal max. I firmly believe that teams should able to keep their core together 3-4 guys for at least 5-6 years.

[ILC]

Breaking up good teams that good ownership has built is bad business.

What good teams are breaking up?

The ones who's stars tore their achilles.

What other teams could you possibly be talking about?

Meanwhile, teams like Denver, Houston, Atlanta, etc are going for it.

Exactly. Let's not pretend Boston wouldn't be "blowing it up" even without this CBA after their best player tore his achilles and they have the most expensive team ever.

We're still early but I personally love it. Love the parity, love the ability of multiple teams to surprise us every year, love that it forces GMs to be creative in reshaping their teams etc.

[K N U C K L E S]

Breaking up good teams that good ownership has built is bad business.

Why can't NBA GM's be salary cap ninjas like the Florida Panthers' GM? They had the best record in the league 4 seasons ago, have went to the last 3 finals, have won the last 2 finals, and just re-signed all their important players. They'll be one of the best teams in league history by the time this dynasty is over. Also, the 3 players that the Panthers re-signed were 80% of the free agent market for this free agent period, which means the rest of the league had no significant upgrades.

I mostly don't understand it, but another thing the Panthers GM did was take advantage of a loophole in the Long Term Injured Reserve which allows a player's salary not to count towards the cap while they're on the LTIR. That allowed the Panthers to sign Brad Marchand and Seth Jones. They were instrumental in the Panthers winning their second Stanley Cup. He's gonna do it again next season when the same player(Matthew Tkachuck)who was on the LTIR last season will be going on it again. The NHL CBA will be changing after next season. One of those changes is that that loophole will be going away.

Some people think the Panthers have an unfair advantage by being in a state without a state income tax. Before the Panthers dynasty, the Tampa Bay Lightning went to 3 finals in a row and won 2.

Also, the NHL salary cap is going up every year for the next several years, which also will help to keep the dynasty together.