Simmons Podcast: NBA Ruined by CBA?

[RodyTur10]

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.

So that means that the Celtics this season for example couldn't have traded say Smart (17.2) + White (17.1) for Brunson (27.7)? (lower incoming salary, but not possible since you're not allowed to aggregate salary?)

[Kernewek]

As it reads, that’s correct if the Celtics are over the second apron.

In many ways this is a hard cap without saying it’s a hard cap. This is going to lead to ‘more parity’, which many fans have said they prefer.

[JSD]

One thing that really bothers me about the new NBA CBA is that it doesn't encourage players drafted by a team to stay with that team. I don't mind the idea of a hard cap, which is essentially what the second apron of the new NBA CBA is, but why doesn't a team that drafted a player get any advantage? This would also increase the value of draft picks.

What I'm thinking is that when a team drafts a player and wants to sign them to a long-term extension, their cap hit should be based on a percentage. For example, only 50% of Jayson Tatum's salary number for the Celtics, or something similar. This would also make a drafted player much more valuable to the team that drafted them.

Bill Simmons actually had this idea, and I thought it was fantastic

[gouki88]

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.

Fun experiment. From the Ringer's top 125, I allocated myself 2 from 50-59, 3 from 60-69, and 5 from 70-80. Here's my core.

PG: Josh Giddey (69) / Marcus Smart (71)
SG: Klay Thompson (56) / CJ McCollum (80)
SF: Jerami Grant (53_ / Bojan Bogdanovic (77)
PF: Michael Porter Jr. (62) / Jaden McDaniels (75)
C: Jarrett Allen (64) / Steven Adams (79)

Pretty fun game. Unfortunately, several of these players are on big time money, so it can't come true.

[Kernewek]

One thing that really bothers me about the new NBA CBA is that it doesn't encourage players drafted by a team to stay with that team. I don't mind the idea of a hard cap, which is essentially what the second apron of the new NBA CBA is, but why doesn't a team that drafted a player get any advantage? This would also increase the value of draft picks.

What I'm thinking is that when a team drafts a player and wants to sign them to a long-term extension, their cap hit should be based on a percentage. For example, only 50% of Jayson Tatum's salary number for the Celtics, or something similar. This would also make a drafted player much more valuable to the team that drafted them.

Bill Simmons actually had this idea, and I thought it was fantastic

With all due respect, the team that drafts a player already has many advantages over the rest of the league.

Further, the fact that there’s nothing new in the current CBA to address this implies that the greater NBA ownership doesn’t see this as a problem worth fixing.

[JSD]

One thing that really bothers me about the new NBA CBA is that it doesn't encourage players drafted by a team to stay with that team. I don't mind the idea of a hard cap, which is essentially what the second apron of the new NBA CBA is, but why doesn't a team that drafted a player get any advantage? This would also increase the value of draft picks.

What I'm thinking is that when a team drafts a player and wants to sign them to a long-term extension, their cap hit should be based on a percentage. For example, only 50% of Jayson Tatum's salary number for the Celtics, or something similar. This would also make a drafted player much more valuable to the team that drafted them.

Bill Simmons actually had this idea, and I thought it was fantastic

With all due respect, the team that drafts a player already has many advantages over the rest of the league.

Further, the fact that there’s nothing new in the current CBA to address this implies that the greater NBA ownership doesn’t see this as a problem worth fixing.

Being able to supermax a guy? Under this CBA? It’s a disadvantage!

[DefenseWinsChamps]

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.

So I've heard that this first year, the only 2nd apron penalty is about the tax-payer MLE. I've heard they are doing a ramp up essentially. Has anyone else heard that?

[Celtics2021]

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.

So I've heard that this first year, the only 2nd apron penalty is about the tax-payer MLE. I've heard they are doing a ramp up essentially. Has anyone else heard that?

I’ve heard that none of the media CBA experts know exactly what the penalties will be for this year vs. future years, because the language is still being drafted, but that it is phasing in over two years.  The taxpayer MLE seems the most likely to enter first, but also my guess is the no buy-out signings would also be included, as well as this year counting towards the draft pick penalties (more than one out of every four years incurs them).

I think the rules will have to be clear before draft night, however.

[angryguy77]

I don't like punishing teams for drafting well, but I also don't like how it's almost impossible to rebuild by the lottery.

They should've just allowed drafted players to be offered an amount that's not counted against the cap.

You still have the hard cap but teams can maybe retain some of their guys.

[Vermont Green]

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.

There are some killer restrictions in this.  Not being able to trade a draft pick 7 years out is no big deal but to have a pick relegated to the end of the first round?  That could be a big deal.  Not so much if you are a top team anyway but say you are a team with some bad contracts and then suffer some injuries and have a really bad year.  Then you essentially get your draft pick de-valued?  I don't like that rule.

These are some draconian restrictions.   I think they are going to find some of these to simply be unworkable.

[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.

There are some killer restrictions in this.  Not being able to trade a draft pick 7 years out is no big deal but to have a pick relegated to the end of the first round?  That could be a big deal.  Not so much if you are a top team anyway but say you are a team with some bad contracts and then suffer some injuries and have a really bad year.  Then you essentially get your draft pick de-valued?  I don't like that rule.

These are some draconian restrictions.   I think they are going to find some of these to simply be unworkable.

Yeah.  They've essentially negotiated a hard cap.  Maybe a team can exceed it a season or two, but no team will be able to survive operating over the second apron year after year.

I'm surprised that there wasn't an amnesty provision to allow teams to get out of a bad contract, like there was in the past.

[Kernewek]

One thing that really bothers me about the new NBA CBA is that it doesn't encourage players drafted by a team to stay with that team. I don't mind the idea of a hard cap, which is essentially what the second apron of the new NBA CBA is, but why doesn't a team that drafted a player get any advantage? This would also increase the value of draft picks.

What I'm thinking is that when a team drafts a player and wants to sign them to a long-term extension, their cap hit should be based on a percentage. For example, only 50% of Jayson Tatum's salary number for the Celtics, or something similar. This would also make a drafted player much more valuable to the team that drafted them.

Bill Simmons actually had this idea, and I thought it was fantastic

With all due respect, the team that drafts a player already has many advantages over the rest of the league.

Further, the fact that there’s nothing new in the current CBA to address this implies that the greater NBA ownership doesn’t see this as a problem worth fixing.

Being able to supermax a guy? Under this CBA? It’s a disadvantage!

The supermax is one advantage. The Designated Player rule is another. Bird Rights are another.  Restricted Free Agency in general and the Gilbert Arenas provision in specific are two more. The rookie salary scale is another. And so on.

For all the complaining about super teams and concentrations of talent in 'the big markets', you would think that these new changes would be more welcome. Instead it's 'ruining the NBA'.

[cman88]

if a team drafts well, they should have advantages to keep their roster together. Why should a team be punished because they are good at drafting?

There is a vast difference between a team like the celtics and Denver and warriors (pre durant) that has drafted 90% of their core players and help and someone like LA or Phoenix who are trying to do it through Free agency/trades

[Kernewek]

if a team drafts well, they should have advantages to keep their roster together. Why should a team be punished because they are good at drafting?

There is a vast difference between a team like the celtics and Denver and warriors (pre durant) that has drafted 90% of their core players and help and someone like LA or Phoenix who are trying to do it through Free agency/trades

I think what I’m struggling to understand in this example is how Phoenix’s path to building and maintaining a contender is any easier than Boston, Denver, or Golden State.

[cman88]

if a team drafts well, they should have advantages to keep their roster together. Why should a team be punished because they are good at drafting?

There is a vast difference between a team like the celtics and Denver and warriors (pre durant) that has drafted 90% of their core players and help and someone like LA or Phoenix who are trying to do it through Free agency/trades

I think what I’m struggling to understand in this example is how Phoenix’s path to building and maintaining a contender is any easier than Boston, Denver, or Golden State.

i'm not saying its easier. What i'm saying is what the NBA is trying to "get rid of" is the phoenix/LA way of building teams. Phoenix may be harder in the end because even if they pull this off to get Beal then they have limited resources to fill out their bench.

a team like Boston or Denver or Golden state may have a great roster, but its due to building through the draft