Why does the Room Exception exist?

[Alonzo_Morning]

If you have cap room left, why do you need to use an exception? And if the salary pushes you over the cap, why wouldn't it just be the non taxpayer MLE? I get that you are hard capped but, teams using the room exception would have filled their roster and wouldn't be anywhere near the apron. Also it's smaller than the MLE.

Seems fairly redundant and useless to me

[DBoys]

If you have cap room left, you use cap room, and everything you do depletes that cap room. It's only when your cap room is filled that you need and use exceptions. So conceptually, you use your cap in its entirety, and then you are given the room MLE (and whatever other exceptions you might have, such as minimums) to go spend a bit more if you wish.

The rationale was that over-cap teams get an MLE when they are past the cap, so under cap teams should get one too.

But they felt that under-cap teams get cap room well beyond the NT MLE already, so that's their initial advantage in free agency. And the NT MLE, which allows an over-cap team to try to improve their roster a bit, is usable in FULL for teams with no cap room only to the extent a team is below the apron. The league's goal isn't to generally inhibit spending, but rather to get all the teams to spend all the amount the owners as a group need to spend, and in a generally balanced way.

[DBoys]

That was wordy to write, and probably wandered all over the lot, as conceptual ideas on the cap often do.

TLDR version: Room MLE was added, just like the original MLE was added, because union and owners felt it would help enhance the spending aims of their system.

[Alonzo_Morning]

Thanks, but it's still not much clearer to me why it needs to exist.

[Smitty731]

Thanks, but it's still not much clearer to me why it needs to exist.

DBoys explained it pretty well, especially in the last bit of his second post.

Teams get to use cap space and then have a little extra "bonus" money at the end to use. The NBPA wants teams to have as many tools as possible to get players paid. Teams want to have have options to build their roster. That is why the Room Exception exists.

[Alonzo_Morning]

Thanks, but it's still not much clearer to me why it needs to exist.

DBoys explained it pretty well, especially in the last bit of his second post.

Teams get to use cap space and then have a little extra "bonus" money at the end to use. The NBPA wants teams to have as many tools as possible to get players paid. Teams want to have have options to build their roster. That is why the Room Exception exists.

Wouldn't the "bonus money" put them over the cap if it wasn't called the room exception? Then they could just call it the mid level exception? And if the "bonus money" didn't put them over the cap, why not just use cap space?

It's not like you can use the room exception and the MLE

[DBoys]

Look, nothing "needs to exist" in that CBA. It's an agreement, a contract. The parties to it (high dollar players, low dollar players, big market franchises, little market franchises, and even agents to some degree) all have had a say, and one thing has been added here, and then another there. Sometimes something has unintended consequences, so the next time they added something else to fix what they didn't mean to break. Or some times one side gets one thing, so a different side asks for another. Or someone can get a throw in, to make up for something else, just because. Everyone is clawing for what they want the most, and layering onto what is already in place. Everything doesn't have to make sense for everyone.

So when you are wanting someone to explain to you what each side saw in the system they had, that had them negotiate some sort of added way to spend and tack it onto what they already had, ie the Room MLE, there is no way to answer that. Unless you were in the room, it can't be answered what everyone wanted out of that provision - and probably you wouldn't know the answer of what EVERYONE's motivation was, even then. They just decided, for some reason that one of the sides presented (which they felt would make the deal more helpful to their constituency), to add it.

Smitty's responses are excellent. If you don't like them, then feel free to figure out your own answer why all the various parties agreed to add on an extra way to spend. And really, no disrespect intended, but it doesn't much matter - it just is what it is.

It's a compromise, on top of a negotiation, on top of a past document that came about the same way, on top of a prior one, and at the end of the day the union and owners together felt it would help enhance the spending aims of their system. That's all we know.

[Alonzo_Morning]

I don't think it lets teams spend more at all. It's actually less spending since the MLE is more than the Room Exception.

As I asserted, it could just be called the non tax player MLE and we'd still have, effectively, the same result. After all it's just an exception. And as per Larry Coon's CBA FAQ, exceptions are named after they are applied according to the final effect, not before. So in my grumble opinion, it's wrongly named anyway, if you look at the big picture.

But I also understand that one of the aims of the draftees of the CBA was to make it as needlessly bloated as humanly possible, so I understand it's addition from that standpoint.

Feel free to refute any of my points as I'm still learning this stuff.

[DBoys]

I don't think it lets teams spend more at all. It's actually less spending since the MLE is more than the Room Exception.

The room MLE was a way to implement "less" spending? This is just factually wrong on your part.

While the Room MLE is smaller than the NT MLE, it is much larger than "no MLE" which is what the situation for cap room teams was prior to adding it.

The progression in the rules was: (very simplistic outline encompassing maybe 25 years and many new CBAs)
1 No one can go over the cap, except to sign their own.
2 Let's give a bit of extra spending opportunity once teams have gone over the cap - so MLE in general (which is now what we call the NT MLE) was added for over-cap teams
3 Let's give a bit more opportunity to spend - so BAE was added later for over-cap teams
4 Hey, teams already over the cap get to spend extra on top of a full cap, so why not let cap room teams have a way to spend something extra after they fill their cap - so Room MLE was added for cap room teams
5 But wait, we don't want the big spenders to keep spending so much, they are already getting more than everyone else - so their MLE shrank and became the Taxpayers MLE

[Alonzo_Morning]

I don't think it lets teams spend more at all. It's actually less spending since the MLE is more than the Room Exception.

so why not let cap room teams have a way to spend something extra after they fill their cap - so Room MLE was added for cap room teams

How can a team that's filled their cap simultaneously be a cap room team?

[DBoys]

Dude. Really? You're just trolling now, asking a nonsensical question (that isn't what I said, makes no sense, and implies you may not have even tried to read and follow what I just wrote to try to help your understanding) for no real reason. Good grief.

[Smitty731]

I don't think it lets teams spend more at all. It's actually less spending since the MLE is more than the Room Exception.

so why not let cap room teams have a way to spend something extra after they fill their cap - so Room MLE was added for cap room teams

How can a team that's filled their cap simultaneously be a cap room team?

As was explained, you don't get back the other MLEs, if you go under the cap and then go back over. Also, as was explained, it's in effect a "bonus" exception.

Beyond that, you may think the Room Exception is stupid and doesn't make sense and should be eliminated, but that's not the discussion here. You're being insolent for no good reason. Just let it go.

[DoItALL9]

I don't think it lets teams spend more at all. It's actually less spending since the MLE is more than the Room Exception.

The room MLE was a way to implement "less" spending? This is just factually wrong on your part.

While the Room MLE is smaller than the NT MLE, it is much larger than "no MLE" which is what the situation for cap room teams was prior to adding it.

The progression in the rules was: (very simplistic outline encompassing maybe 25 years and many new CBAs)
1 No one can go over the cap, except to sign their own.
2 Let's give a bit of extra spending opportunity once teams have gone over the cap - so MLE in general (which is now what we call the NT MLE) was added for over-cap teams
3 Let's give a bit more opportunity to spend - so BAE was added later for over-cap teams
4 Hey, teams already over the cap get to spend extra on top of a full cap, so why not let cap room teams have a way to spend something extra after they fill their cap - so Room MLE was added for cap room teams
5 But wait, we don't want the big spenders to keep spending so much, they are already getting more than everyone else - so their MLE shrank and became the Taxpayers MLE

Thanks for that breakdown

Sent from my LG-H872 using RealGM mobile app

[Cappy_Smurf]

I like to think of it as the exception to the exceptions.

In other words, you used to be able to explain the situation pretty simply by saying you either have your exceptions or you have cap room, but you can't have both.

Being the exception to the exceptions, the room exception is the only one you can use as a team that also has cap room.