Is the 2nd Apron too harsh?

[Sofia]

Mavs are an injury away from not being able to field a team due to restrictions on how many games their g league players can play, and the hard cap.

Yes the Luca trade was dumb, but injuries happen, and not allowing a free falling team to even use g league players to reach minimum roster numbers is also dumb.
Parts of the CBA are too restrictive

That's one where there should simply be injury exceptions

There is, to the roster number but not the financial implications.

And as long as the Mavs have 5 healthy guys, they're good. 3 injured guys can just wear uniforms and not enter the game.

Lakers know all about only having 5 healthy players, that is where this infamous photo came from.

That’s how they get around it, but that’s also a bad look for the league.

Imagine if, for example, a team had only 5 healthy players, and one of them turned an ankle and got carried off the court. Forcing a dressed injured player to play means you either get Kaman lying on the court instead of the bench, or an injured player forced to play, which puts risk on their career and potential earnings.

Remove game number restrictions on G League call ups and allow financial exemption for G League players to be paid beyond hard caps to ensure the minimum number of HEALTHY players can play, not just dress.

[Johnny Bball]

Bruh, you're a mod and you made the title and question completely opposite!

[JujitsuFlip]

That's one where there should simply be injury exceptions

There is, to the roster number but not the financial implications.

And as long as the Mavs have 5 healthy guys, they're good. 3 injured guys can just wear uniforms and not enter the game.

Lakers know all about only having 5 healthy players, that is where this infamous photo came from.

That’s how they get around it, but that’s also a bad look for the league.

Imagine if, for example, a team had only 5 healthy players, and one of them turned an ankle and got carried off the court. Forcing a dressed injured player to play means you either get Kaman lying on the court instead of the bench, or an injured player forced to play, which puts risk on their career and potential earnings.

Remove game number restrictions on G League call ups and allow financial exemption for G League players to be paid beyond hard caps to ensure the minimum number of HEALTHY players can play, not just dress.

No, that's stupid. The invention of the two way contract has literally killed spot #15 on NBA teams. There are a couple articles on it, if you care to look. NBA teams are getting 50 games each, from three players, with zero cap implications.

Maybe don't have a stupid GM like Nico and trade good and/or healthy players for injured players or players with a reputation of getting injured.

Mavs are the 11 seed in the West, just forfeit the games if you don't have enough players, it literally doesn't matter, the season is already essentially over.

[seren]

I think it needs to be more flexible. Especially around the max contracts. The system really makes it tough to bring help if you have older superstars on second or third max contracts. They should fix the number for all teams, say max can count to 25 percent of the cap or something.

[Onlytimewilltel]

Bruh, you're a mod and you made the title and question completely opposite!

Yea I was wondering about that also. Kinda misleading I wonder how many people messed up their vote.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

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 deal 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....

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?

The second apron is pretty much the stop Steve Balmer provision that was in place for a team that never amounted to anything. It’s especially harsh and punitive, especially considering that it’s going to hurt small market teams even more. The NBA has created a league where the teams that want to compete are limited in improving, even on the margins and the teams that want to tank are also limited so they just sit players instead of trading them for more assets and the game overall is just a crappy product for the fans, except for the fans of a few top teams.

this is not true.
thise teams must plan in advance and keep their flexibility for the future.
you can't go "all in", trade all you future assets, overpay older veterans, just to "win now", and then expect to keep improving the team.
the celtics have every opportunity left to keep staying on top.

[Lalouie]

way smarter talking heads hate it. i refer to hoop collective who all seem to understand it and they don't like it

[Optms]

Now people want a return to super teams and an end to parity? Make up your damn minds.

[Plutonashfan]

Yes. The main purpose of the 2nd apron to prevent these owners with major pockets from spending their way into winning Championships. Think of the Clippers and Warriors for example. Or making it a lot harder for big market teams to get these Superstar through trades or Free Agency( that has already has failed on deaf ears). The issue with the CBA is that this handicap small market team as much if not more than the big market teams.For example, the Timberwolves basically allowed themselves to regress because of the 2nd tax apron penalties and the need to stay under. They basically caused them to trade Karl Anthony Towns for Julius Randle and a late 1st round pick. That trade doesn't happen in the old CBA. I don't think the Mavericks would be desperation mode to trade Luka for way less than his actual value without the new CBA rules in place.The OKC Thunder will run into this problem at some point and may be forced to trade one of Chet Hologren or Jalen Williams just to stay under the 2nd apron as they will demand a lot of money on their rookie extension. We heard about JA Morant possibly getting this off season. The Grizzles may also would had to trade JJJ if he played enough games to eligible for a supermax. The new CBA doesn't much at all to force big market teams to draft/create their stars in house, instead of trading them/getting them through Free Agency, while punishing small markets teams who draft well by making harder for them to keep their current teams for longer periods of time.

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

[tbhawksfan1]

No. Tax the rich

[threethehardway]

Salary cap ruins sports. Get rid of cheap owners.

[itrsteve]

They need to find a way to discount the cap hit by a certain designation of players (ie, guys they drafted, designated rookie max extensions, etc..). Take a guy like Giannis for example, small market, generational player, they should be able to pay/retain talent like that without crippling the franchise from a tax standpoint.

Even if they discounted it by .75x or something, that would still be huge.

I think that's a bigger deal for the NBA product and the aprons wouldn't hit as early for the homegrown teams vs the purchased superteams.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

My problem with it is that it's too punishing for teams just trying to retain their own guys they drafted. We are not an FA destination, and we are essentially going to have to decide who to get rid of because we can't pay all of Ausar, Duren, Stewart and Ivey.

Of course you can't, you must make choices and, if you're smart, trade who you don't want to keep for value.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

way smarter talking heads hate it. i refer to hoop collective who all seem to understand it and they don't like it

those are the smart talking heads?

[Ryoga Hibiki]

They need to find a way to discount the cap hit by a certain designation of players (ie, guys they drafted, designated rookie max extensions, etc..). Take a guy like Giannis for example, small market, generational player, they should be able to pay/retain talent like that without crippling the franchise from a tax standpoint.

Even if they discounted it by .75x or something, that would still be huge.

I think that's a bigger deal for the NBA product and the aprons wouldn't hit as early for the homegrown teams vs the purchased superteams.

Giannis is worth more than the supermax, just like Jokic, Shai or Luka (lol).
It's already a big enough advantage to be able to field such a player, Milwaukee doesn't deserve more.

[shrink]

They need to find a way to discount the cap hit by a certain designation of players (ie, guys they drafted, designated rookie max extensions, etc..). Take a guy like Giannis for example, small market, generational player, they should be able to pay/retain talent like that without crippling the franchise from a tax standpoint.

Even if they discounted it by .75x or something, that would still be huge.

I think that's a bigger deal for the NBA product and the aprons wouldn't hit as early for the homegrown teams vs the purchased superteams.

I agree, but limiting it to the players you drafted, not free agents

Fans love seeing longtime players stay with their team, and the NBA has rules to encourage this, notably Bird rights. Max and supermax rules were intended to promote this too. Unfortunately, they have had the opposite effect on smaller market teams, who can’t afford the cap dollars and construct a team, and feel forced to trade them before an upcoming deal. I like your rule, it helps fix that problem.

[shrink]

way smarter talking heads hate it. i refer to hoop collective who all seem to understand it and they don't like it

those are the smart talking heads?

LOL! But for ESPN, they are geniuses! Imagine Stephen A Smith and Kendrick Perkins discussing the issue!

I’ll give Windy credit too. Once he was just a Cav’s insider who LeBron favored, and it got him on the big stage. However, over the last five years, he seems to have out in some time trying to understand the CBA, and I appreciate that.

[HotelVitale]

I am dummy on all these things, but is it fair observation to suggest that these rules are made so owners would have an excuse to not spend anymore? No one wants to be in 2nd apron, and its not because of tax, but because of all these restrictions, so owners have a valid reason to point out why they wont spend - hey, it puts us at disadvantage if I spend...

Boston no matter who owns the team will be at crossroads, because that team will be too expensive to keep, someone will have to go, some major player I mean, not just Sam Houser, thats just reality, dynasties are not very possible anymore. Same thing will happen to OKC at one point too.

I am all for parity, but I think it sucks that even home grown teams who did everything the right way, will not be able to keep their talent. I imagine it should be some rule, that if you drafted the player or smth, 20% of his salary does not count under these apron rules, at least something like that.

I think it's sort of that, but owners and teams are also hyper-competitive and don't want teams with no $ conscience to keep being able to gobble up talent and opportunities. Could you read that as 'we don't want to start constant massive bidding wars cuz that ish costs us cold cash' but you could also phrase it as 'let's set some kind of restriction so out-spending other teams isn't a huge competitive advantage.'

Also remember that the player's union had to agree to it, and I doubt they would've gone for argument that were just like 'hey the owners want to save some dough, and specifically not give it to you.'

I agree on the 'home grown' thing but there are also very few teams who are actually totally home grown and would be hamstrung by the 2nd apron. Usually not the best idea to start creating permanent exceptions to rules--that teams will constantly use year in and year out--to address very rare circumstances. I probably wouldn't hate it in this circumstance though.

[UcanUwill]

I am dummy on all these things, but is it fair observation to suggest that these rules are made so owners would have an excuse to not spend anymore? No one wants to be in 2nd apron, and its not because of tax, but because of all these restrictions, so owners have a valid reason to point out why they wont spend - hey, it puts us at disadvantage if I spend...

Boston no matter who owns the team will be at crossroads, because that team will be too expensive to keep, someone will have to go, some major player I mean, not just Sam Houser, thats just reality, dynasties are not very possible anymore. Same thing will happen to OKC at one point too.

I am all for parity, but I think it sucks that even home grown teams who did everything the right way, will not be able to keep their talent. I imagine it should be some rule, that if you drafted the player or smth, 20% of his salary does not count under these apron rules, at least something like that.

I think it's sort of that, but owners and teams are also hyper-competitive and don't want teams with no $ conscience to keep being able to gobble up talent and opportunities. Could you read that as 'we don't want to start constant massive bidding wars cuz that ish costs us cold cash' but you could also phrase it as 'let's set some kind of restriction so out-spending other teams isn't a huge competitive advantage.'

Also remember that the player's union had to agree to it, and I doubt they would've gone for argument that were just like 'hey the owners want to save some dough, and specifically not give it to you.'

I agree on the 'home grown' thing but there are also very few teams who are actually totally home grown and would be hamstrung by the 2nd apron. Usually not the best idea to start creating permanent exceptions to rules--that teams will constantly use year in and year out--to address very rare circumstances. I probably wouldn't hate it in this circumstance though.

I agree there are very few home grown teams, but I think just sucks that you could be home grown, do everything right, draft well, but still be forced to break your team simply because thats the reality. Maybe thats just how cap always supposed to be, but I don't know, I think just like in Soccer, there should be some perks for ''homegrown players''. Its completely different circumstances in International Soccer, its more about not counting towards foreign limits, but idea is similar. NBA should introduce ''home grown player'' concept IMO.

[HotelVitale]

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 2022 Clippers were the example that was reported on, owners were apparently pissed when the Clippers already had multiple big $ stars and still managed to snatch up multiple top trade salary dumps in Covington and Norman Powell. They were already a deep team and added some very coveted dudes just by stacking a huge payroll (and lux tax bill).

In any case it definitely wasn't just the 22 Warriors.