Didn’t exactly stop him

The Warriors were outspending also, more than \(50mil over the cap in 2018 with Durant and prime Curry. Klay and Dray were relative bargains and they were still \)50mil over the cap.

That’s the one that hurt, because they won a lot and made a lot of money - more than the other billionaires could outside the Bay Area. And Ballmer, of course, can buy the whole league, so yeah, that was part of it, also.

I also assume that the NBA players union was at a weak spot in terms of being able to strike.

In 2022 the Warriors, Clippers and Nets each spent more than 3x the salary cap on players & luxury tax. Having a rich owner was becoming a significant competitive advantage, something had to change.

Clippers haven’t won shit. The fear was from the golden state “luxury tax isn’t real” warriors

I don’t think aprons have anything to do with completely circumventing the rules, so I’m not sure they succeeded there.

I mean not really.. Paul Allen was an owner for decades before Balmer and Paul Allen made Balmer look broke

Yeah there’s going to be a proliferation of cap circumvention like no one’s business. Owners with deep pockets and big market teams are salivating at that prospect

It happens with young talent a lot too. Players are still getting paid on potential, which is wild.

Fr. The Austin reaves contract is going to look terrible In a few years when they can’t build a good enough defence around Luka / reaves with them taking up over 50% of the cap

That’s not the problem the NBAPA has, it’s that the responsibility for team building and salary cap management has falling solely onto the players not the organizations. The players are now EXPECTED to take pay cuts and sacrifice their earnings while the owners sit back and earn billions. You know something you’ve never heard, an owner makes “too much” money but we’re quick to say it about a player.

The parity era started before the second apron was brought in.

The narrative on r/nba seems to be that any salary system is immoral if you can’t pay whichever players you drafted as much money as you want. I don’t really buy that, and most of the teams that the whinging is about have plenty of key players that they most certainly did not draft - GSW with Durant (that they could only sign in the first place because of a one-time massive salary cap jump) then Wiggins, OKC with iHart, Caruso, and eventually they’ll have to pay McCain, etc etc.

There was certainly parity before this CBA existed. There haven’t been any repeat champions in the past 8 years or so. This CBA has only been around since 2023.

Intended consequence of people like Brown being sent packing is correct, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good thing

I hate seeing teams getting blown up. Even the Celtics. We need more Jokics and Stephs and Duncans and Kobes and Dirks.

Parity is bad if the mechanism for parity is to break up superteams with a bunch of Hall of Famers.

Magic+Kareem+Worthy all being on the same team for so long was incredible for the NBA.

We need more of that.

That’s just coincidence with the Warriors aging out of contention

I think people want a middle ground where many teams have a chance to win but also teams can pay homegrown stars without it being a bad team building decision.

The NBA is an entertainment product, and fans getting invested in specific players is just as important as fans having hope that some day their team can win a championship. Only one fanbase gets to win a championship every year. Ideally you’d have at least like 25+ fanbases who at least love their players.

People seem to forget that many players who didn’t deserve a supermax, where getting them like candy in a candy store.

Agreed with the apron stuff.

With the supermax stuff, I think GMs just need to do their jobs better. Get rid of the max entirely. Just because they’re allowed to offer the contract doesn’t mean they need to. GMs have gotten crushed by agents to the point that now if you’re a fringe all star talent you’re expecting a max contract.

The easiest way to not have to breakup teams because you can’t afford to pay 70% to two players is to not pay 35% to a player that’s not worth it.

Yeah what team are we specifically upset about the second apron having “broken up”? Is it just the Celtics? Kind of the Thunder, more in the future? Why is everyone so into this idea of discounts for drafted players or removing the second apron?

Well also don’t trade for and hand out big money to guys you didn’t draft.

People act like teams have no ability to keep the top 2-3 guys they drafted but what they’re really saying is teams should get to do that, plus afford another 5-6 guys that are making mid to high salaries too.

They didn’t even draft Shai. Want to keep your home grown players? Don’t give out maxes to players you didn’t draft

Well then don’t give a max to your 2nd and 3rd option.

But what if other teams will? The idea is supposed to make it easier to keep YOUR players.

It’s not about punishing anybody. I don’t understand why drafting a player should give you that much of a “discount”. Besides, that rule would put us in a position where many teams have a “team salary” at or just underneath the cap, and a “real salary” paid (not including these discounts) that far exceeds the cap. That gives advantages to the big markets. It would make spending money a much larger competitive advantage than it is now. That’s not a good thing.

Not going to lie with all the second apron talk, if they change the rules after we had to blow up our team I’m going to be raging

that would make the draft picks even more valuable, which would encourage tanking. And tanking is worse issue than star players getting moved because of the cap.

No one forced Boston to pay Jaylen Brown to pay 35% of the cap when they have Jayson Tatum on their team. They did this to themselves.

Or, how about no one player can make more than a 30% max? I know cat is out of the bag with the 35%, but team building is a lot more tenable when your 2 max players make 60 vs 70% of your salary. Players still get their fair share of the revenue, but the salary is more spread out rather than so top heavy.

And if the Spurs get 30% off the salary cap for Wemby, Castle and Harper - are you still gonna think this is a good idea.

Imo this would result in teams aggressively tanking to get a discount eligible superstar.

Teams just need to stop treating eligible salary as the starting point.

The problem with this proposal is that the league doesn’t want teams to tank. And changing the cap rules like that makes high draft picks insanely valuable. The only way to build a contender would be to draft and retain multiple super max level guys.

I don’t think there’s going to be a nice little solution like changing the cap hits for drafted players. Everything is a tradeoff between balancing legacy/dynasty teams, parity around the league, the importance of picks & tanking, player & owner interest, etc.

As a fan I’d like to see them get rid of guaranteed contracts like the NFL. Let teams quickly move on from players that aren’t performing up to their contract. It will allow teams to retool their roster very fast without tanking and allows them to retain their core if they want. The players would never agree to this obviously.

That doesn’t really work because the Celtics use that 10% to sign free agents. So it’s not about keeping talent, it’s about limiting the Celtics ability to go out and acquire another superstar when they already have 2.

What about front offices who trade well (ie Morey for Harden in Houston, Pacers with Haliburton, Knicks with basically their whole team) or teams who manage free agency well?

I think the point is for stars/superstars to move. Parity is clearly the main goal (and it’s the right decision).

But it will definitely frustrate plenty of fan bases.

The cap rules + the new “no tanking” rules basically will force every team to try to compete. Either your management sucks and the franchise won’t go anywhere, or you adjust and make moves.

It’s not an apron if you’re allowed to circumvent it. Even for guys you drafted.

Also, the Celtics are \(10mil under the first, and \)23mil under the second apron. Even with his salary being higher than PG, they wouldn’t hit that’s second apron, had they retained him.

Ozempic Skeletor

He does look like he’d have a rousing debate about the origin of the paperclip.

That’s because you can’t win without top talent. I know it feels unfair but it’s always going to be this way unless teams start winning with a bunch of 10-20M players.

Average NBA players have it awesome. Average players make more money than their market value because superstars maximums are capped at 30% of the cap. In the NBA the median salary is \(7 million while the mean is \)13 million. Now compare that to the MLB and NFL where the median salary is \(1 million while the mean is \)5 million because superstars salaries arent capped. Back when Jordan was playing he made more money than his entire teammates combined so non star NBA players should be thanking the current rules that prevent Jokic and SGA from making $100+ million a year and leaving less for everyone else

The Cavs are a prime example.

Donovan Mitchell and Evan Mobley are both going to make \(50M next season (Donovan's extension kicks in the year after and tops out with an eye-watering \)75M player option in 2030-31, when he’ll be 34).

And then that team likely won’t succeed because I think a team of one superstar and a bunch of above-average guys is more conducive to winning than 2-3 max guys and a bunch of below average guys.

That’s not how that works tho. No player can get more than 35% of the cap anyway. The top is already limited

You’re definitely not in the minority. Ratings in almost all sports go up when there are dynasties around.

that’s because team sports have a higher level of play when the players have continuity. and high level of play is what’s fun to watch. 

I dont think youre in the minority at all. But i do disagree, personally on what I find attractive about professional sports.

I straight up do not watch entire seasons of certain leagues when I perceive a lack of parity. Like the NFL during KC and NE dynasties, or college football during Bama. That shits boring to me

It doesn’t concern average person at all. It’s a dispute between billionaires and multimillionaires. I think they will be alright

The NBA wants that too, but the players union would never go for it.

2nd apron is actually worse then a hard cap. going over introduces team building penalties that go beyond just not having money to sign guys. its making it so that teams have to make decisions years in advance to work around it. guys like jaylen brown suddenly can become available even though it doesnt seem like it should have been an urgent decision in the present.

Or it creates a system where homegrown talent is forced out the instant that they prove themselves if the team is otherwise talented. It undermines continuity and the sense of community that professional sports relies upon. Player movement has always been a thing, but this system sucks. Nobody wins when nobody cares about a ‘take your turn’ winning league where talent is forced from one team to the next based upon a repeater tax/second apron contention countdown.

When was this ever a problem outside of the Warriors from 2016-2019? Yeah it’s working great because it was working before the apron system from 2019-2023, this has nothing to do with aprons

The reality is that teams won’t often draft multiple players who are worth a supermax/max.

How do you feel about the NFL then? Same thing happens there.

Just like in the real world middle class gets fucked

Yes we should, this is a terrible idea. It’s fun and games until the Lakers, Celtics, or Warriors start getting cheap drafted players and can flex their spending muscle on top of that. Cap exists for a reason. This would lead to less parity.

Ehhh rewarding home grown talent with breaks just lets them keep and add FAs

But punish teams who can make trades and flip assets like the knicks and cavs?

Just punishing every other team who can’t draft a superstar. This will just lead to more tanking.

The players get paid a fixed percentage of revenues. It’s  not possible to drive down salaries.