Simmons Podcast: NBA Ruined by CBA?

[KG Living Legend]

https://youtu.be/AZU5ZzWkL0g

Lots of great talking points here. 470 players in the NBA,  under the new rules 60 players will be commanding about 90% of the money.

 The middle class just got ruined. Worse that that teams like OKC that have done a great job collecting assets. Can't keep them.

 They will have to choose two max contracts of Shae, Chet, Jalen Williams and Giddey,  and that's not even counting all the other picks coming down the pipeline.

 Seems like an absolute disaster.

[green_bballers13]

Why does it seem like a disaster? It seems like it will create more parity in the league. I think the Warriors spending is ridiculous and don't think that is a viable model for other teams.

Imagine if all teams spent the same amount of money and competed on a level playing field? It would be interesting to see the smaller markets like Charlotte and Indiana have a fighting chance.

I do see issues with teams being subsidized by other teams, but this already happens.

[Yuckabuck33]

Why does it seem like a disaster? It seems like it will create more parity in the league. I think the Warriors spending is ridiculous and don't think that is a viable model for other teams.

Imagine if all teams spent the same amount of money and competed on a level playing field? It would be interesting to see the smaller markets like Charlotte and Indiana have a fighting chance.

I do see issues with teams being subsidized by other teams, but this already happens.

But if I wanted to see parity with lesser teams with none as good as the Warriors were, I would just watch college hoops. I don't and I won't.

[Celtics2021]

Curious to see if some team will be able to build a “middle-class” team, with 10 players making between $15-20 million a year, but no max guys.  That’s been tough in the past because historically you’d be drawing mostly from guys in the 100-150 range of quality, but if you’re able to get 10 players in the 50-80 range instead, you might have a legit team.

[cman88]

More parity just generally means more poor basketball. Like the NFL right now. Alot of parity but alot of garbage teams.

Apparently in the new CBA if you have 2 max players you can't use the MLE or in season buyouts. Only can offer minimum contracts.

[radiohead]

More parity just generally means more poor basketball. Like the NFL right now. Alot of parity but alot of garbage teams.

Apparently in the new CBA if you have 2 max players you can't use the MLE or in season buyouts. Only can offer minimum contracts.

So if we do give Jaylen the supermax, we’d basically be running it back since we can’t add potential pieces who make above the minimum? And we’d be out of the buyout market as well? Brad has his work cut out for him.

[cman88]

More parity just generally means more poor basketball. Like the NFL right now. Alot of parity but alot of garbage teams.

Apparently in the new CBA if you have 2 max players you can't use the MLE or in season buyouts. Only can offer minimum contracts.

So if we do give Jaylen the supermax, we’d basically be running it back since we can’t add potential pieces who make above the minimum? And we’d be out of the buyout market as well? Brad has his work cut out for him.

Correct. It limits how much those contender teams can improve. Not just Celtics but would effect any of the top teams. Milwaukee, sixers, suns etc....

Idk I think it's dumb. If a team like Boston or Golden state developed all these great players through draft and now it pays off you aren't allowed to then improve with them?

Basically they said under new CBA we wouldn't have been able to get gallinari.

[Roy H.]

Apparently in the new CBA if you have 2 max players you can't use the MLE or in season buyouts. Only can offer minimum contracts.

Well, not technically.  Those new provisions apply to teams that are $17.5MM above the luxury tax. 
https://www.spotrac.com/nba/cap/2022/

So, had this system been in pace for the 2022-23 season, six teams would have had their spending / ability to add players restricted:

https://www.spotrac.com/nba/tax/2022/

We're one of them.

In 2023-24, the tax line is going to to go up to around $162 million, meaning the "second apron" will be around $179.5 million.  I think our tax figure as of now is around $166 million, which does include Kornet, Muscula and Champagnie, but does not include Grant.

[Kernewek]

The thing that we really need to be concerned about with the second apron is that, starting in 2024, those teams will no longer be able to aggregate salaries in mid-season trades for a single player.

[BudweiserCeltic]

What ruins the NBA is the need to play unproven developing players over established players, mostly due to contract limitations which also limit the amount of vets in teams.

It's all about "investing in the future" instead of putting the best team you can build for the current season, and that also include the top teams in the league.

[Roy H.]

The thing that we really need to be concerned about with the second apron is that, starting in 2024, those teams will no longer be able to aggregate salaries in mid-season trades for a single player.

Really?  I hadn't heard that one, only the restriction on taking back more than we send out. 

I'm curious about the specifics.  I assume that off-season trades can still use multiple salaries in aggregation?  What about deals that involve multiple players on each side, but that could be broken down into two trades, one that requires aggregation and one doesn't?

[Vermont Green]

The objective of all these new rules is clearly intended to create a hard cap.  Anyone who exceeds that second apron, is essentially castrated and can't do anything else to improve their team.

The problem is the limits on the max contracts.  They are clearly too high.  If these rules allow 60 players (2 per team) to make 90% of the cap money, it is not a sustainable system.  We are going to face this with Brown and to some degree Tatum.  If we pay these guys the max, we end up a top heavy team like the Lakers were this season.  It may be bad business now to sign a big 2 or big 3 (if that is even still possible).

I am not sure of the math though.  Max contracts are 35% of the cap (not the second apron).  So how can 60 of these (2 per team) end up being 90%?  It seems to me the most it can be is 70% (35% x 2) but in reality it will be a little less than this due to the aprons being above the cap.  I guess this accounts for teams like Houston that don't pay anyone anything near 35% of the cap.

[Roy H.]

The objective of all these new rules is clearly intended to create a hard cap.  Anyone who exceeds that second apron, is essentially castrated and can't do anything else to improve their team.

The problem is the limits on the max contracts.  They are clearly too high.  If these rules allow 60 players (2 per team) to make 90% of the cap money, it is not a sustainable system.  We are going to face this with Brown and to some degree Tatum.  If we pay these guys the max, we end up a top heavy team like the Lakers were this season.  It may be bad business now to sign a big 2 or big 3 (if that is even still possible).

I am not sure of the math though.  Max contracts are 35% of the cap (not the second apron).  So how can 60 of these (2 per team) end up being 90%?  It seems to me the most it can be is 70% (35% x 2) but in reality it will be a little less than this due to the aprons being above the cap.  I guess this accounts for teams like Houston that don't pay anyone anything near 35% of the cap.

One way contracts could become larger than 35% of the cap was with built in bonuses, I believe (not 100% sure on this).  If a guy making 35% of the cap gets an 8% bonus year after year, his salary could have gone up faster than the cap.  An easy example:

$100 million cap.  Player makes $35 million.  Player's contract grants 8% raises.  Cap stays stagnant in the second year of the player's deal.  So, in that second year, the player is making $37.8 million, but the cap is stuck at $100 million.

[Roy H.]

Here are the restrictions I have found reported:

In the new CBA, the NBA will implement a second tax apron that will be $17.5MM above the tax line. Teams above that second apron will face a new set of restrictions, as follows:

They won’t have access to the taxpayer mid-level exception.

They won’t be able to trade away their first-round pick that’s seven years away, beginning in 2024/25. If the team remains above the second apron in two of the next four seasons, that draft pick that was frozen for trade purposes will fall to the end of the first round. If they stay under the second apron for three of the next four seasons, the pick would become unfrozen.

They won’t be allowed to sign free agents on the buyout market.

They won’t be permitted to send out cash in trades.

They won’t be able to take back more salary in a trade than they send out.

They won’t be able to aggregate salary for matching purposes in trades.

So, the aggregate rule applies whether it's in-season or off-season.

[Kernewek]

The thing that we really need to be concerned about with the second apron is that, starting in 2024, those teams will no longer be able to aggregate salaries in mid-season trades for a single player.

Really?  I hadn't heard that one, only the restriction on taking back more than we send out. 

I'm curious about the specifics.  I assume that off-season trades can still use multiple salaries in aggregation?  What about deals that involve multiple players on each side, but that could be broken down into two trades, one that requires aggregation and one doesn't?

Yep - from an ESPN article recently(light on specifics though):

Things get even worse for apron teams starting in the 2024 offseason when a team over the second apron will no longer be able to aggregate salaries to trade for a single player making more money. This rule would have prevented the Clippers from trading for Eric Gordon this past February -- a deal LA was only able to make by aggregating the salaries of John Wall ($6.5 million) and Luke Kennard ($14.4 million). Second apron teams will also no longer be able to use cash in trades. This would've prevented the Clippers from sending $3.8 million to the Bucks in February 2022 to shed the contract of Serge Ibaka (a move that saved LA $6.8 million in luxury tax payments).

Teams over the first apron but below the second apron will still be able to aggregate salaries, but they will not be able to take back more salary in a trade than they send out.

https://www.espn.com/nba/insider/insider/story/_/id/36247109/explaining-biggest-changes-nba-new-collective-bargaining-agreement