Phx-Suns.Net

All of the salary cap rules are there to keep talent spread out across the league, and so the second apron stuff is there to stop exactly the kind of team we have built. The Suns have 3 supermax players. I'm not mad at all that the cap rules make it hard for that kind of team to also sign a bunch of really good role players.

PTI did a segment on this yesterday and made some good points - the NBA wants parity and wants to be like the NFL but doesn't it hurt teams like Denver who draft and develop players like Murray and Jokic, build around them properly and then lose key free agents like Brown and KCP bc of that apron? A small market team that won but can't keep winning? Also, with the new TV deal those networks/streamers want competitive games every night which just might not be possible.

I didn't see the PTI segment, but does the NBA really want NFL-like parity?

Personally, I don't like the that the NFL, with its non-guaranteed contracts and hard cap, is almost a crap shoot as to which teams will be good and bad each season. It's great for parity, but the drama that develops from multi-year rivalries is lost. The NBA soft cap, on the other hand, provides a nice balance that allows for teams to build and develop talent and sustained competitiveness. A hard-cap NBA, in my opinion, would be a real setback for the fans.

Having said that, I do see a need for the 2nd apron limits, though we could probably argue how restrictive the apron limits should be.

Not being able to aggregate contracts in a trade is dumb. It's too restrictive.

I agree…should at least be able to aggregate if you’re reducing salary

I can see why the aggregation limits are there. It keeps a team from bundling 4 minimum salaries to get a $10M/yr player (where have I seen this before?) and then replacing the open roster spots with another 3 minimum salary players. A team could continue to do this to create larger and larger salary slots to circumvent the cap even more.

IMO I would prefer more hard limits and less financial penalties. What I don't like about the current system is, they DO let you raise your salary cap up to obscene levels, but then they slap these ridiculous penalties on you and make you pay, say, $28m for a $6m player. IMO the league's main problem is that GMs and owners can't help themselves and can't resist going "all in" when they think they have a shot at a title. I think you have to have some hard constraints that they simply can't exceed. Here are some examples:

- Rookie salary structure. It is VERY important for the league that we no longer let rookies negotiate their initial contracts. The league was in a really bad place when guys like Glenn Robinson were able to negotiate $50m or whatever right out of college. Teams weren't able to assess these guys' value and they ended up giving out a bunch of horrible contracts.

- Max salary: Some will disagree with me, but I think it is really important that you can't just give a guy $100m/year. If you could, the bidding wars for top players would go too far and the team that "won" the player would actually end up crippling themselves for the future.

- Stepien rule: I like that teams can't trade their 1st rounder in consecutive years, and the newer rule that you can't trade picks more than 7-8 years out. If you could, teams would, and then they'd literally have no picks for 20 years.

A more libertarian sort of person might point to all of the above rules and say, just let teams do what they want. But I think we've seen too many examples of teams doing stupid shit. I think it's good to have some constraints to stop their worst impulses. By the same token, I think a harder cap limit would stop teams from taking on these huge tax penalties that then handicap the team in the future. It would also avoid the problem where a really rich owner can afford to eat the penalty (thank you Ishbia) but other owners can't, and isn't that a major part of what they want to avoid, the rich teams dominating the poorer teams?

Carno wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 18, 2024 9:37 am

I can see why the aggregation limits are there. It keeps a team from bundling 4 minimum salaries to get a $10M/yr player (where have I seen this before?) and then replacing the open roster spots with another 3 minimum salary players. A team could continue to do this to create larger and larger salary slots to circumvent the cap even more.

True, but solvable. If you are doing 4 for 1, just factor the 3 vet min contracts into the trade…so you have to still reduce salary even after adding 3 new vet min players. So no way you can send 4 vet min guys for 1 8 or 9 million dollar player. But you could send say Nurk and Royce(roughly 28 million) for a 25 million dollar player and sign a 2million dollar vet min guy.

Yeah, that seems like a reasonable solution to that loophole.

The NBA salary cap rules are starting to look like the US tax code. I probably prefer, like Mori says, to make a real hard cap instead at the second apron limits (or slightly higher). I'm only mad about it now because the Suns finally get an owner with seemingly endless pockets, and the NBA changes the rules. If the Suns still had Sarver (or another penny-pinching owner), I would love the 2nd apron restrictions.

Once you guys get it worked out, let the NBA know, would you?

The second apron is doing exactly what most owners want it to do. Why would they want to change it? Just for a handful of teams over it or up against it to be able to add more talent/salary? That's exactly what it's designed to prevent.

People are all for preventing the Lakers, Heat, Knicks or Warriors from using their resources to outspend everybody. People aren't so anxious to when it's the Suns, Timberwolves and Nuggets for some reason.

It's not working out great for the players though. It's turning into the haves and the have-nots. This trend has been happening for a while. The midlevel salary players are getting pushed down to the vet minimum. The teams with the money and willingness to sign the midlevel players are restricted from doing it.

Yes, it works great for the owners(most of them)…the players, not so much. It’s going to be harder for players to get where they want unless they take major concessions.

Yeah, McCollum screwed the players pretty bad overall. Big ol failure.

The Bobster wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 18, 2024 12:21 pm

The second apron is doing exactly what most owners want it to do. Why would they want to change it? Just for a handful of teams over it or up against it to be able to add more talent/salary? That's exactly what it's designed to prevent.

People are all for preventing the Lakers, Heat, Knicks or Warriors from using their resources to outspend everybody. People aren't so anxious to when it's the Suns, Timberwolves and Nuggets for some reason.

I'll just say the timing is HORRIBLE. After all these years, we finally get an owner willing to spend like crazy and THAT is when this all kicks in! The OGW is alive and well.

Well, sometimes you sign a CBA and while it guarantees more money to everyone, it also squeezes out some players who have to sign for the minimum. But that's usually player who don't have a lot of bargaining leverage to begin with. Tyus Jones is about the only one that I can think of who really got screwed. Most of the rest are either players who haven't proven themselves to be worth a lot more, or veterans who are hanging on and need to land in the right situation.

When you're talking about $3.3 million for Cam Payne's veteran minimum, it's hard to feel too sorry.

I think it’s less about overall money…revenue sharing stayed the same and salary cap is going up, so players will still get paid. It’s more about getting where they want to be or keeping their team together. Players will have to decide between money and situation. PG wanted to stay in LA, but they couldn’t pay him, so he chose money elsewhere. Jalen Brunson chose staying in NY with his friends over money.

Now I’m not saying we need to feel sorry for them…obviously we shouldn’t care that Brunson took 37 million less(he’s still signing for over 100 million), but it still took power from the players. I do think there was some unintended consequences for front offices too…hard to trade when so many teams are hard capped at different aprons.

The Bobster wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 18, 2024 1:44 pm

Well, sometimes you sign a CBA and while it guarantees more money to everyone, it also squeezes out some players who have to sign for the minimum. But that's usually player who don't have a lot of bargaining leverage to begin with. Tyus Jones is about the only one that I can think of who really got screwed. Most of the rest are either players who haven't proven themselves to be worth a lot more, or veterans who are hanging on and need to land in the right situation.

When you're talking about $3.3 million for Cam Payne's veteran minimum, it's hard to feel too sorry.

Maybe comparatively but nobody is getting screwed with today's minimum salaries.

I think the real thing that is going unnoticed is the inability to do sign-and-trade deals. That's a big tool for teams over the cap looking to add players. The Suns, Bucks, Celtics and Timberwolves are limited by that and the inability to use trade exceptions. Trade exceptions are most valuable now for teams willing to take on salary from teams looking to escape tax hell.

I just worry that the big tax penalties and aprons are punishing some teams that don't really deserve it. The Nuggets have to let KCP go because of the penalty; is that good for the NBA? The Thunder are probably going to have to let half of their amazing young core leave once their big paydays are due. They found, drafted, and developed all of these guys; why should they have to let them leave? I wish they would focus on rules that stop teams from making big external FA signings over the cap while allowing teams to keep their own talent without the same penalties.