How do the NBA salary cap rules really work?

[Vermont Green]

I think what they are saying is that if:

1.  The player has 10 years of service overall
and
2.  The player has been all NBA
and
3a.  Was drafted by the current team
or
3b.  Was traded to the current team in the first 4 years of his career

Then you can pay the player 35% of the cap but only 30% of the cap applies against the cap in terms of tax and apron penalties.

If this is true, this is something that I have never heard of.  For the Celtics, Brown is 10 years in and Tatum is 9 years in.  If this were true, had they kept Brown, they would have a $9M or so credit this season and then a credit for Tatum next season.  In that case, I don't think they trade Brown or if they did, it would not have anything to do with cap issues.

When I look at Spotrac for Tatum for 2027-28 (when he would have 10 years and all the other criteria met), his cap hit is shown as the same as his cash salary.  There is no cap hit credit indicated that would reflect this rule.

[Roy H.]

I'm confused by this:

Bobby Marks: Mentioned this with @ZachLowe_NBA Change to the 35% max rule * Player is eligible to still receive 35% of the salary cap if 10 years of service (Donovan Mitchell) or has reached the All-NBA criteria (Tatum SGA, Brown) * However, if the player was drafted or traded within the first 4 years in the NBA (SGA for example), only 30% of the salary applies to the cap. * In the case of Jaylen Brown, $48.9M this season and not $57M applies The rule is a bigger version of what applies already with the veteran minimum exception. A player with 10 years of service + signs a contract for $3.9M. However, for cap purposes only $2.45M applies (2 years of service)

Why does it apply to JB, as he wasn't trade within his first four years?

I think its poorly worded and means "if player was drafted by the team"

Is this a current rule we are hearing about now, or just a proposal?  Does it only apply to players who have fewer than 10 years in the league, or does Steph, for example, also qualify?

Right.  Is Marks saying this rule exists now?  That it's a future rule agreed to?  That it applies to all players that meet 35% criteria, or just those who were traded in their first four years?

And, if there's a trade contingency, what's the point?  Why should a team that develops a player and keep him for 10 years have to pay the full 35% on their cap, but a team that trades for that player gets a huge discount?

And, if this is a pending rule and would apply to JB (and Tatum), why didn't Brad take this into account in his "70% of the cap" justification? 

So many questions.

I would be fully on board with a 35% max that in all cases only counts 30% against the cap.  Assuming Brad wasn't blowing smoke, that would have allowed us to keep JB and JT at 60% of the cap, and well less than that percentage of the apron.

[Celtics2021]

I'm confused by this:

Bobby Marks: Mentioned this with @ZachLowe_NBA Change to the 35% max rule * Player is eligible to still receive 35% of the salary cap if 10 years of service (Donovan Mitchell) or has reached the All-NBA criteria (Tatum SGA, Brown) * However, if the player was drafted or traded within the first 4 years in the NBA (SGA for example), only 30% of the salary applies to the cap. * In the case of Jaylen Brown, $48.9M this season and not $57M applies The rule is a bigger version of what applies already with the veteran minimum exception. A player with 10 years of service + signs a contract for $3.9M. However, for cap purposes only $2.45M applies (2 years of service)

Why does it apply to JB, as he wasn't trade within his first four years?

I think its poorly worded and means "if player was drafted by the team"

Is this a current rule we are hearing about now, or just a proposal?  Does it only apply to players who have fewer than 10 years in the league, or does Steph, for example, also qualify?

Right.  Is Marks saying this rule exists now?  That it's a future rule agreed to?  That it applies to all players that meet 35% criteria, or just those who were traded in their first four years?

And, if there's a trade contingency, what's the point?  Why should a team that develops a player and keep him for 10 years have to pay the full 35% on their cap, but a team that trades for that player gets a huge discount?

And, if this is a pending rule and would apply to JB (and Tatum), why didn't Brad take this into account in his "70% of the cap" justification? 

So many questions.

I would be fully on board with a 35% max that in all cases only counts 30% against the cap.  Assuming Brad wasn't blowing smoke, that would have allowed us to keep JB and JT at 60% of the cap, and well less than that percentage of the apron.

I think the trade thing he is talking about is the same rule as makes you eligible for a supermax.  If you are traded before your fourth year (still on your rookie deal in other words) you can qualify for the Superman at year 8 or 9 based on league wide awards.  If you switch teams, via trade or free agency, later on (as Luka did last year) then you are not eligible, even if you have the appropriate league recognition.