Ramifications for Team Building under the New CBA

[The Truth #6]

Fascinating discussion about the new upcoming CBA and how it may affect player signings and team building on the Bill Simmons show. Lots of talk about the Spurs and small markets.

Their conclusions may be wrong about how the different ceilings affect the NBA middle class. They believe under the new rules teams will be able to afford two stars and then everyone else will get chump change. You could also build the team around only one star, like the spurs would do, and then they can afford more complementary players than other teams. Anyway, worth a watch, or at least a discussion as far as how this affects us moving forward.

https://youtu.be/AZU5ZzWkL0g

(I’m a disgruntled GEN Xer, so, if someone else can find a way to embed this video, much appreciated.)

[Dex]

Fascinating discussion about the new upcoming CBA and how it may affect player signings and team building on the Bill Simmons show. Lots of talk about the Spurs and small markets.

Their conclusions may be wrong about how the different ceilings affect the NBA middle class. They believe under the new rules teams will be able to afford two stars and then everyone else will get chump change. You could also build the team around only one star, like the spurs would do, and then they can afford more complementary players than other teams. Anyway, worth a watch, or at least a discussion as far as how this affects us moving forward.

https://youtu.be/AZU5ZzWkL0g

(I’m a disgruntled GEN Xer, so, if someone else can find a way to embed this video, much appreciated.)

I gotchu, fam.

To embed videos here, use the following code tag without the spaces: [ youtube ] Video ID [ / youtube ]

You need to only include the Video ID (in this case AZU5ZzWkL0g) not the entire URL

AZU5ZzWkL0g

[The Truth #6]

Sports Illustrated article giving some breakdown of the new CBA:

https://www.si.com/nba/2023/04/04/takeaways-new-cba-collective-bargaining

[Dejounte]

I disagree that this hurts “homegrown” teams. If you’re a team trying to keep all 15 guys on your roster, sure. But, for a team like the Spurs who are great at finding talent from the rubble, this will separate them from the rest. This is where the emphasis on their Austin Spurs program comes off as genius. Once they find their second star or second and third star, it’s all about cycling through talent from anywhere they can find it for the rest of the roster… and the Spurs are one of the best at that.

[Dejounte]

Also, once the Spurs start winning again, don’t be surprised when they start drafting 22 year olds with low ceilings, but high floors. They will need immediate production from their picks, while at the same time they will be prepared to let them go at the end of their rookie contracts. Of course, they will try to negotiate with them first to take below market contracts…

[Dex]

I disagree that this hurts “homegrown” teams. If you’re a team trying to keep all 15 guys on your roster, sure. But, for a team like the Spurs who are great at finding talent from the rubble, this will separate them from the rest. This is where the emphasis on their Austin Spurs program comes off as genius. Once they find their second star or second and third star, it’s all about cycling through talent from anywhere they can find it for the rest of the roster… and the Spurs are one of the best at that.

I feel like it actually forces teams to build more in the Spurs model.

Okay, you want two/three stars to compete? Work with your stars to accept team friendly contracts so that you can afford to put talent around them. Owners with bottomless pockets like Balmer or Lacob can't just continue to try to buy titles.

Tim, Tony, and Manu (at different points in their careers) all took less than market value because they cared about winning. That allowed the Spurs to bring in guys like Barry and Horry and Bobo.

The main problem is going to be that the star players of the league are now used to getting paid, and it's obviously a competition of who can bring in the biggest contract. But good luck winning titles if you insist on $50M a year, while players 4-10 are getting paid $4M because that's all the team can reasonably afford without getting highly penalized (both through luxury tax and now FA/trade restrictions)

I do agree with Bill Simmons on this...it's crazy this is going immediately into effect without any sort of weaning period. As he stated, teams like the Warrior, Clippers, and Celtics are basically fucked on their cap situation very quickly.

[Dejounte]

If in the past it was easy for us to see which teams have bad front offices, then this will make it even easier. If OKC decides their max guys are SGA, Chet, Jalen and hypothetically Jalen’s output doesn’t justify being a max guy… then they lose their other good players as a result. This will test teams on how attached they are to their players and put more risk into losing the good ones. If they don’t re-up Jalen, then that either becomes a sign and trade or he becomes unrestricted… and then a team being opportunistic gets that player. It’s a big domino effect.

[Dejounte]

I feel like it actually forces teams to build more in the Spurs model.

Okay, you want two/three stars to compete? Work with your stars to accept team friendly contracts so that you can afford to put talent around them. Owners with bottomless pockets like Balmer or Lacob can't just continue to try to buy titles.

Tim, Tony, and Manu (at different points in their careers) all took less than market value because they cared about winning. That allowed the Spurs to bring in guys like Barry and Horry and Bobo.

The main problem is going to be that the star players of the league are used to getting paid, and it's obviously a competition of who can bring in the biggest contract. But good luck winning titles if you insist on $50M a year, while players 4-10 are getting paid $4M because that's all the team can reasonable afford without getting highly penalized (both through luxury tax and now FA/trade restrictions)

I do agree with Bill Simmons on this...it's crazy this is going immediately into affect without any sort of weaning period. As he stated, teams like the Warrior, Clippers, and Celtics are basically fucked on their cap situation very quickly.

To build like the Spurs, you have to be an ace in other areas than just roster construction. So good luck to those teams.

For all the talk about the Spurs “not picking a direction” for half a decade, they are certainly prepared for this situation. Almost too prepared. Cap space flexibility, picks, young core familiar already with the system…

[Dejounte]

The question is how friendly is Keldon’s contract (and Vassell’s if he gets around the same amount), if we hypothetically already had two or three max players on the books right now? Would they actually be burdensome? Cap experts?

The answer to that will tell us how the rest of the roster might be shaped once we get our one or two other stars…

[Chinook]

Two stars won't be impossible. People forget that the luxury tax isn't the cap and that the second apron is well above that. Once they get to the end of their careers like Lillard or Lebron, yes you can't afford to keep two or three together. But through their second and most third contracts, you can keep a couple of guys. Then you're running into more than a decade, and I don't feel sorry that you can't keep max players that long.

Remember that most teams are under the second apron right now. You don't have to build like the Spurs to do that. This isn't to force teams to be ascetic; it's to prevent rich owners like Balmer to use their stolen money to try to break the system by spending their way out of bad GMing. It's to force teams like the Warriors to actually play by the spirit of the NBA rules and not just throw out max after max to keep guys together long after the currents of the league should've pulled them apart.

[bluebellmaniac]

Also, once the Spurs start winning again, don’t be surprised when they start drafting 22 year olds with low ceilings, but high floors. They will need immediate production from their picks, while at the same time they will be prepared to let them go at the end of their rookie contracts. Of course, they will try to negotiate with them first to take below market contracts…

They'd make great trade fodder for future draft picks.

[Mr. Body]

I mean, isn't it designed to do away with super teams? It sounds like it's doing that precisely. Whether it works out is another matter.

And it sounds like Simmons is worried about Jaylen Brown getting to be paid the most of any player in the league this summer, next to Tatum. He's usually only worried about the Celtics.

This may hurt teams who get into the high lottery and don't land stars. An Ayton becomes a problem - he already is - and if you get multiple non-stars really high, you will struggle.

[CGD]

Two stars won't be impossible. People forget that the luxury tax isn't the cap and that the second apron is well above that. Once they get to the end of their careers like Lillard or Lebron, yes you can't afford to keep two or three together. But through their second and most third contracts, you can keep a couple of guys. Then you're running into more than a decade, and I don't feel sorry that you can't keep max players that long.

Remember that most teams are under the second apron right now. You don't have to build like the Spurs to do that. This isn't to force teams to be ascetic; it's to prevent rich owners like Balmer to use their stolen money to try to break the system by spending their way out of bad GMing. It's to force teams like the Warriors to actually play by the spirit of the NBA rules and not just throw out max after max to keep guys together long after the currents of the league should've pulled them apart.

But two max slots adds up quick though. And then rounding out the roster with 3 quality 18M-22M guys gets tougher. Boston for example, could they afford to keep White, Brodgon, Smart if they also give Brown the max? Seems like something will have to give: either the stars accept taking less than their full maxes or the middle class get squeezed. And who wants to be the GM to tell Beal, Dame, etc that they’re not really worth the full max?

I’m not crying for these guys, just saying it could make roster construction “interesting” in the future.

spurs are in a good place, since it’s seems like building through the draft will be even more desirable. Also, I would front load the hell out of all contracts like Devon’s to the extent the cap situation allows.

[Big Empty]

Kinda puts a hurt on ring chasing. I like it. Forces teams to invest more in scouting talent if they want rookies contracts for a few years. Even if a team draft 4 future 50 million a year contract players, they’l be under the cap to trade for future long term first rounders if they cant afford those contracts.

[buttsR4rebounding]

Of course, the new TV contract is expected to go from the current $2.7 billion to around $6billion per year. It will kick in in 2027 I believe. It will ultimately increase the cap by $60 million per team. It seems to make sense to lock guys who you consider part of your long term core to 5 year deals.

[Mr. Body]

But two max slots adds up quick though. And then rounding out the roster with 3 quality 18M-22M guys gets tougher. Boston for example, could they afford to keep White, Brodgon, Smart if they also give Brown the max? Seems like something will have to give: either the stars accept taking less than their full maxes or the middle class get squeezed. And who wants to be the GM to tell Beal, Dame, etc that they’re not really worth the full max?

I’m not crying for these guys, just saying it could make roster construction “interesting” in the future.

spurs are in a good place, since it’s seems like building through the draft will be even more desirable. Also, I would front load the hell out of all contracts like Devon’s to the extent the cap situation allows.

What Chris Paul did in forcing the players to accept a very top-heavy salary structure that benefits players like him is going to have a pretty massive impact. You're going to still see thos players want max dollars and it'll hurt a lot of teams. Bradley Beale types.

[RC_Drunkford]

But two max slots adds up quick though. And then rounding out the roster with 3 quality 18M-22M guys gets tougher. Boston for example, could they afford to keep White, Brodgon, Smart if they also give Brown the max? Seems like something will have to give: either the stars accept taking less than their full maxes or the middle class get squeezed. And who wants to be the GM to tell Beal, Dame, etc that they’re not really worth the full max?

I’m not crying for these guys, just saying it could make roster construction “interesting” in the future.

spurs are in a good place, since it’s seems like building through the draft will be even more desirable. Also, I would front load the hell out of all contracts like Devon’s to the extent the cap situation allows.

Jaylen Brown is not worth the max though. At least not the super max. Boston would be stupid to give him that type of money. There's a clear separation between him and Tatum. Tatum leads him by like 5.0 in winshares.

Now I'm with you on the frontloading. The Spurs should keep doing that as much as possible with every contract. Also the ATL picks will come in handy, hence I don't want to trade them. To add lottery talent to a contender will be super valuable financially.

[Frenchfred]

Of course, the new TV contract is expected to go from the current $2.7 billion to around $6billion per year. It will kick in in 2027 I believe. It will ultimately increase the cap by $60 million per team. It seems to make sense to lock guys who you consider part of your long term core to 5 year deals.

so that means that middle class players will get screwed for the next 4 years. And in 2027 when the new salary cap kicks in teams will be able to pay them again

[jjspur]

You may see some buyouts or trades of high end contracts because the contract pushes the team over the apron. The new rules will make teams evaluate how much a player is really worth. For example, Ben Simmons, his value is way down but do you really want to keep him at his salary ? The Nets may not be that close to the apron, but a few more signings may push them over a cap due to Simmons expensive contract. The question then becomes, how you get rid of him and who will want him at his price ? That situation will probably come up more than once this coming season.

[Mr. Body]

You may see some buyouts or trades of high end contracts because the contract pushes the team over the apron. The new rules will make teams evaluate how much a player is really worth. For example, Ben Simmons, his value is way down but do you really want to keep him at his salary ? The Nets may not be that close to the apron, but a few more signings may push them over a cap due to Simmons expensive contract. The question then becomes, how you get rid of him and who will want him at his price ? That situation will probably come up more than once this coming season.

I don't think buyouts help. The salary still hits the cap numbers regardless of whether you give them money to go away.

[Seventyniner]

Reading the comments section on Youtube is usually a mistake, but there was a good one on that Simmons podcast.


You have it backwards. All of the punishments for the 2nd apron are to stop teams from trading for or signing new talent from outside the org. This effectively makes drafting talent and keeping it MORE important, because drafting is the only thing that isn’t restricted by the apron.Those teams are penalized the least here.

Second round picks could become much more valuable to second apron teams as a way to fill in the back end of the roster. The podcast even talked about the possibility of adding a third round to the draft, but I think that can only work if the G-League contract situation is overhauled. imo each NBA team would have to have its own fully controlled G-League affiliate (iirc only 28 NBA teams have one right now?) and perhaps a single salary and roster cap for the big club and G-League club combined. Though with basketball being such a top-heavy sport, players at the end of the big league roster/top of the G-League roster don't have a lot of value anyway.

[RC_Drunkford]

when it comes to finding role players out of nowhere we're the best in the league tbh

[Mr. Body]

Later draft picks in the first round are also valuable, of course. A Branham is automatically on a great salary. Getting Sochan at nine is much better than Jabari Smooth at three.

[Ariel]

The first thing that comes to mind is Vassell's rookie extension. I think this probably puts a lower cap on what the Spurs would have been willing to offer otherwise, with the most beneficial outcome being a decreasing structure like Keldon's. If Vassell isn't willing to sign a team friendly deal I wouldn't be shocked if he's not extended and/or traded at draft night or by the trade deadline at the latest.
On the plus side, with this kind of salary structure you want to make sure you get your money's worth from your top paid players, which is why getting having a top heavy roster (1 superstar and maybe a couple borderline stars) will likely be the way to go, rather than a flatter talent distribution. Case in point, a team like Detroit, Houston, Cleveland without a clear top 10 player now or in the future will find it very hard to put together a long term contender as is, unless they make changes. Also if Chet pans out, OKC will be in trouble trying to retain him, Giddey and Jalen Williams with SGA already on the roster. Jordan Poole and/or Klay Thompson will likely get dumped by Golden State, and I wouldn't be surprised if Jaylen Brown is dealt sooner rather than later (ideally for someone like Mikal Bridges, signed for cheap for 3 more years). I sense several big names will be on the move pretty soon.

[buttsR4rebounding]

so that means that middle class players will get screwed for the next 4 years. And in 2027 when the new salary cap kicks in teams will be able to pay them again

I believe the cap increase is going to be phased in instead of hitting all at once this time.

[Obstructed_View]

Down the road, the league needs to reward teams for developing and retaining their own players. They need to kill off superteams and Laker entitlement once and for all.

[scott]

Reading the comments section on Youtube is usually a mistake, but there was a good one on that Simmons podcast.



Second round picks could become much more valuable to second apron teams as a way to fill in the back end of the roster. The podcast even talked about the possibility of adding a third round to the draft, but I think that can only work if the G-League contract situation is overhauled. imo each NBA team would have to have its own fully controlled G-League affiliate (iirc only 28 NBA teams have one right now?) and perhaps a single salary and roster cap for the big club and G-League club combined. Though with basketball being such a top-heavy sport, players at the end of the big league roster/top of the G-League roster don't have a lot of value anyway.

I don’t think this is realistic (bc the Spurs don’t have the cash), but based on this line of thinking, could the new CBA incentivize a team like the Spurs to go into the Apron territory to build a super strong core, because we have lots of draft assets and we are good at utilizing them?

[KobesAchilles]

It sounds beneficial for the Spurs tbh. We have a team full of role players. We are amazing at finding role players in the draft. It’s why I don’t want to pay KJ 20 million a year when we can probably produce another version of him for cheap in a draft pick. Vassell I’m still on the fence on but it sounds like we could offer him a lower contract extension than normal bc we don’t have to worry about other teams maxing him.

Victor gets the max. We find a Jamal Murray and then just kinda fill out the roster like Denver did. It won’t lead to a dynasty but it should get us a title or two

[Mr. Body]

It sounds beneficial for the Spurs tbh. We have a team full of role players. We are amazing at finding role players in the draft. It’s why I don’t want to pay KJ 20 million a year when we can probably produce another version of him for cheap in a draft pick. Vassell I’m still on the fence on but it sounds like we could offer him a lower contract extension than normal bc we don’t have to worry about other teams maxing him.

Victor gets the max. We find a Jamal Murray and then just kinda fill out the roster like Denver did. It won’t lead to a dynasty but it should get us a title or two

No team may be better placed with the new CBA than the Spurs. Teams that have to gamble big contracts on semi-stars are going to get crushed. Teams with multiple budding stars are going to have to choose among them.

The Spurs may have some of those hard decisions along the way, but they are the rare team with a single superstar, full stop. They have no bad contracts, and Keldon's isn't just not bad, it's declining year over year. Plus they have a ton of cap room and lots of developing players on reasonable salary, not to mention draft picks.

[Seventyniner]

It sounds beneficial for the Spurs tbh. We have a team full of role players. We are amazing at finding role players in the draft. It’s why I don’t want to pay KJ 20 million a year when we can probably produce another version of him for cheap in a draft pick. Vassell I’m still on the fence on but it sounds like we could offer him a lower contract extension than normal bc we don’t have to worry about other teams maxing him.

Victor gets the max. We find a Jamal Murray and then just kinda fill out the roster like Denver did. It won’t lead to a dynasty but it should get us a title or two

KJ's deal is not ideal but it is declining and might provide good enough value to offload before it expires.

The time to game the cap is during Wemby's rookie contract and first extension. He will provide insane value during those years (in terms of salary per wins produced), assuming of course he lives up to the hype.

Once he gets the DPE it will be harder to build around him, though if he gets that DPE he should be a perennial MVP candidate at that point.

[Fireball]

when it comes to finding role players out of nowhere we're the best in the league tbh

Pat Riley says hi! :cell

[exstatic]

Pat Riley says hi! :cell

We don’t overpay ours. Miami’s fatal flaw.

[Fireball]

We don’t overpay ours. Miami’s fatal flaw. only at the end of their careers but thats mainly compensating earlier years when they were in their prime ... you made a good point

[ss1986v2]

I believe the cap increase is going to be phased in instead of hitting all at once this time.

Better cap heads can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that under the new CBA, cap increases will be limited to 10% of the total cap that previous year. And in the event that the 10% increase doesn't cover the player's share of total BRI (team and players split Basketball Related Income 51/49), then the league cuts a check for the difference to the player's union, which will distribute it among it's members. So no more crazy payouts to a single free agent class, but the players still get their piece of the pie ASAP if there is a massive jump over a single year.

[buttsR4rebounding]

Better cap heads can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that under the new CBA, cap increases will be limited to 10% of the total cap that previous year. And in the event that the 10% increase doesn't cover the player's share of total BRI (team and players split Basketball Related Income 51/49), then the league cuts a check for the difference to the player's union, which will distribute it among it's members. So no more crazy payouts to a single free agent class, but the players still get their piece of the pie ASAP if there is a massive jump over a single year.

I didn’t know that. Thanks.

[CGD]

I believe the cap increase is going to be phased in instead of hitting all at once this time.

That’s my understanding too. Everyone was pissed at how the one time bump happened last time

[buttsR4rebounding]

Better cap heads can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that under the new CBA, cap increases will be limited to 10% of the total cap that previous year. And in the event that the 10% increase doesn't cover the player's share of total BRI (team and players split Basketball Related Income 51/49), then the league cuts a check for the difference to the player's union, which will distribute it among it's members. So no more crazy payouts to a single free agent class, but the players still get their piece of the pie ASAP if there is a massive jump over a single year.

I didn’t know that. Thanks.

[ss1986v2]

I didn’t know that. Thanks.

qke8ktgD46s

Good overview of a lot of the new changes from a couple of the big brain CBA people.

[objective]

it probably will decimate the maxes over time and pull down salaries in free agency.

The prior Spurs model will be the way to go, hard as it may be.

Because going by memory the Spurs never had 2 max players, even when Kawhi got maxed Duncan had already transitioned down.

Parker never got the max iirc, neither did Ginobili.

What teams won't be inclined to do is what Denver has done, maxing Murray and Porter. It doesn't make sense to just max every young player who can score 20 a night. This will eventually focus the max for smart teams to only be used on MVP type players.

Giannis yes, Middleton and Jrue no. Two maxes makes sense only with 2 MVP level players or 2 hall of famers. No more maxes for Tobias Harris.

Dumb teams that will still operate this way and find themselves screwed.

Spurs don't really have to adjust because they already are operating like they would never hit the 2nd apron because they're so cheap and broke.

The reason I think it will hold down free agency is that teams won't want to spend big on players who aren't superstars when they know the tax will be right around the corner. I could be wrong, but we'll see with Keldon Johnson over time. I suspect that when his contract is over, he probably won't be in line for a raise (as a % of the cap). What team is going to spend that kind of money on a Keldon Johnson when their own guys are going to need maxes?

Spurs have their 1 max guy now, Wemby. They shouldn't be too focused on keeping caproom for a possible max free agent, that's a bad idea, though I suppose as long as that contract ended before a Wemby max extension kicked in it would be fine.

But it does make sense for them to sign and trade for players to WIN NOW. Why? Because I think that it's hard to get players to buy into the idea of taking less when their next deal comes up without a title in their pocket. Manu and Parker wanted to win and had experienced winning.

Go get some good players now who can play in a finals series without jerking around the payroll. That means yes to a guy like Brook Lopez on a 2 or 3 year deal, no to a guy like Jordan Poole with his 4 year deal.

[CGD]

I also wonder if the increased player share of BRI will help offset some of the sting felt be the middle class player.

[buttsR4rebounding]

it probably will decimate the maxes over time and pull down salaries in free agency.

The prior Spurs model will be the way to go, hard as it may be.

Because going by memory the Spurs never had 2 max players, even when Kawhi got maxed Duncan had already transitioned down.

Parker never got the max iirc, neither did Ginobili.

What teams won't be inclined to do is what Denver has done, maxing Murray and Porter. It doesn't make sense to just max every young player who can score 20 a night. This will eventually focus the max for smart teams to only be used on MVP type players.

Giannis yes, Middleton and Jrue no. Two maxes makes sense only with 2 MVP level players or 2 hall of famers. No more maxes for Tobias Harris.

Dumb teams that will still operate this way and find themselves screwed.

Spurs don't really have to adjust because they already are operating like they would never hit the 2nd apron because they're so cheap and broke.

The reason I think it will hold down free agency is that teams won't want to spend big on players who aren't superstars when they know the tax will be right around the corner. I could be wrong, but we'll see with Keldon Johnson over time. I suspect that when his contract is over, he probably won't be in line for a raise (as a % of the cap). What team is going to spend that kind of money on a Keldon Johnson when their own guys are going to need maxes?

Spurs have their 1 max guy now, Wemby. They shouldn't be too focused on keeping caproom for a possible max free agent, that's a bad idea, though I suppose as long as that contract ended before a Wemby max extension kicked in it would be fine.

But it does make sense for them to sign and trade for players to WIN NOW. Why? Because I think that it's hard to get players to buy into the idea of taking less when their next deal comes up without a title in their pocket. Manu and Parker wanted to win and had experienced winning.

Go get some good players now who can play in a finals series without jerking around the payroll. That means yes to a guy like Brook Lopez on a 2 or 3 year deal, no to a guy like Jordan Poole with his 4 year deal.

If that’s the objective then draft Bronny with one of your 3 picks next year and bring the old man in. He obviously has gas left in the tank.

[objective]

If that’s the objective then draft Bronny with one of your 3 picks next year and bring the old man in. He obviously has gas left in the tank.

I agree. Lebron would catch zero heat, might even get lauded in the media. "He's sacrificing for his son, and to be with the greatest coach of all time who he respects so much!".

[buttsR4rebounding]

I agree. Lebron would catch zero heat, might even get lauded in the media. "He's sacrificing for his son, and to be with the greatest coach of all time who he respects so much!".

Besides it’s always fun to screw with the Lakers. The ultimate f@ck them up the a$$ move is to sign Kyrie into cap space. Then execute a pre-arranged trade with the Lakers when it’s allowable sending out Kyrie and getting back Reaves, Rui and Bamba plus a 26 swap and 27 unprotected pick then snatch LeBron next year.

[poopbox]

Jaylen Brown is not worth the max though. At least not the super max. Boston would be stupid to give him that type of money. There's a clear separation between him and Tatum. Tatum leads him by like 5.0 in winshares.

Now I'm with you on the frontloading. The Spurs should keep doing that as much as possible with every contract. Also the ATL picks will come in handy, hence I don't want to trade them. To add lottery talent to a contender will be super valuable financially.

Except it's not about what Brown is worth its about what is the alternative. Boston will operate over the cap so its not like they have an option of paying Brown 40 to 50 million or spending 40 to 50 million somewhere else. It's pay Brown 40 to 50 million or maybe have around mid level exception money.

If all things were equal they probably would rather have 2 or maybe 3 players with that money than Brown. But not signing Brown doesn't free up enough money for them to get those 2 or 3 players...so the logical thing to do is sign him or sign and trade him to a team for said players.

[RC_Drunkford]

Except it's not about what Brown is worth its about what is the alternative. Boston will operate over the cap so its not like they have an option of paying Brown 40 to 50 million or spending 40 to 50 million somewhere else. It's pay Brown 40 to 50 million or maybe have around mid level exception money.

If all things were equal they probably would rather have 2 or maybe 3 players with that money than Brown. But not signing Brown doesn't free up enough money for them to get those 2 or 3 players...so the logical thing to do is sign him or sign and trade him to a team for said players.

true they probably resign him. But it's not a given that they resign him for the supermax.

[spurraider21]

instead of just assuming every team is going to have 2 max guys and then having to struggle to build around that, i think teams are going to have to be more selective before handing out a max to a player just because he's their second best player and "thats the thing to do."

maybe bradley beal shouldnt have gotten a supermax just because thats what he was eligible for. maybe zach lavine, a really good player, isn't a 40 mil per year player that you pay the max to "just because".

darius garland. very fine player. is he a 40+ mil player? in the old cba, sure. in the new one, maybe not. think the calculus will change there as much as it will for how much you can pay the 3rd, 4th, 5th guy, etc

everybody knew ayton was good player but not a max player. but then phoenix went ahead and matched the big offer he got anyway just because the cap allowed them to and "thats what you do" when you have a good player.

now teams will actually get penalized for handing out max contracts to players that arent max players

celtics shoud probably trade jaylen brown and let somebody else figure out how to build a contender with brown getting supermax money. hes a very good player. but wont justify his contract imho

[spurraider21]

Except it's not about what Brown is worth its about what is the alternative. Boston will operate over the cap so its not like they have an option of paying Brown 40 to 50 million or spending 40 to 50 million somewhere else. It's pay Brown 40 to 50 million or maybe have around mid level exception money.

If all things were equal they probably would rather have 2 or maybe 3 players with that money than Brown. But not signing Brown doesn't free up enough money for them to get those 2 or 3 players...so the logical thing to do is sign him or sign and trade him to a team for said players.
in bostons case right now, sure thats the case. and i do think its odd that the new cba takes effect so quickly, and not giving teams time to really plan/prepare for it, especially without another amnesty clause situation.

but going forward, maybe a team like the celtics wouldnt have 3 separate guys making 18 mil per year in addition to their big 2. theyve built their team to be expensive. was brogdon really worth 22.5 mil to them this year? or maybe having 7 separate guys making over 10 mil wont be tenable anymore. its going to change teambuilding strats overall

you also have teams like the clippers with 2 supermax guys but their roster literally has 9 guys making 10m per year. punishing lazy teambuilding is ok by me

[spurraider21]

i do think there should be some relief tho. like if the delta between a max and supermax contract is, say, 15 million, that 15 million shouldnt count toward the luxury tax. or maybe only some portion of it should. thats a fair point simmons makes in that vid. its pretty wild how advantageous OKC's contract with SGA is just because he got his all nba not AFTER he signed and not before. and now thats locked in for 4 more seasons and he's a bargain

[Chinook]

instead of just assuming every team is going to have 2 max guys and then having to struggle to build around that, i think teams are going to have to be more selective before handing out a max to a player just because he's their second best player and "thats the thing to do."

maybe bradley beal shouldnt have gotten a supermax just because thats what he was eligible for. maybe zach lavine, a really good player, isn't a 40 mil per year player that you pay the max to "just because".

darius garland. very fine player. is he a 40+ mil player? in the old cba, sure. in the new one, maybe not. think the calculus will change there as much as it will for how much you can pay the 3rd, 4th, 5th guy, etc

everybody knew ayton was good player but not a max player. but then phoenix went ahead and matched the big offer he got anyway just because the cap allowed them to and "thats what you do" when you have a good player.

now teams will actually get penalized for handing out max contracts to players that arent max players

I've been saying the supermax is a horrible idea, and it would've been nice for the league to have phased it out with the new control mechanisms. I definitely agree that teams will be more selective with their max deals, but I think folks assuming they'll only have one-rookie max are off-base. They'll still be able to afford two unless both of those players are Rose-max guys. It's when you start having to pay mid-tier players salaries at the top of their fields that you really start getting into trouble. These changes stop trades more than anything else.

I don't think the league has any interest in rewarding teams building through the draft, and I don't think they should. I think the league likes player movement, especially if they can prevent consolidation. The Spurs timing their contracts and getting buy-in and sacrifice to sign Aldridge is something I think the league would really like. The new rules create this scenario by not allowing too many very good players to team up anymore. What they'd hate is the Spurs cobbling together contracts to trade for another star and then refilling that talent by encouraging players to force buyouts. That's what's been made unsustainable by this model. The Spurs saving a max slot and getting a good player to come over is definitely something I'd be interested in if I thought there was a player worth such a contract out there. Re-signing every decent player ala Denver in the post-Melo era and the G&G Grizz is something that was, is and will always be unsustainable. That doesn't mean not to sign Vassell (obviously), but the idea of trying to grab more than a couple of such players is not very well thought out. They should definitely be looking for another max player, because the difference between them and a guy making twice the MLE is much greater than the difference between a guy making twice the MLE and a smart role-player free agent on a value contract.

[spurraider21]

I've been saying the supermax is a horrible idea, and it would've been nice for the league to have phased it out with the new control mechanisms. I definitely agree that teams will be more selective with their max deals, but I think folks assuming they'll only have one-rookie max are off-base. They'll still be able to afford two unless both of those players are Rose-max guys. It's when you start having to pay mid-tier players salaries at the top of their fields that you really start getting into trouble. These changes stop trades more than anything else.

I don't think the league has any interest in rewarding teams building through the draft, and I don't think they should. I think the league likes player movement, especially if they can prevent consolidation. The Spurs timing their contracts and getting buy-in and sacrifice to sign Aldridge is something I think the league would really like. The new rules create this scenario by not allowing too many very good players to team up anymore. What they'd hate is the Spurs cobbling together contracts to trade for another star and then refilling that talent by encouraging players to force buyouts. That's what's been made unsustainable by this model. The Spurs saving a max slot and getting a good player to come over is definitely something I'd be interested in if I thought there was a player worth such a contract out there. Re-signing every decent player ala Denver in the post-Melo era and the G&G Grizz is something that was, is and will always be unsustainable. That doesn't mean not to sign Vassell (obviously), but the idea of trying to grab more than a couple of such players is not very well thought out. They should definitely be looking for another max player, because the difference between them and a guy making twice the MLE is much greater than the difference between a guy making twice the MLE and a smart role-player free agent on a value contract.
yeah, supermax is too punitive. posted that just before your response. its pretty wild how much better OKC's deal with SGA is than boston's future deal with Brown assuming he supermaxes.

i think the main legitimate grievance with the new cba is how quickly all these rules take effect without an amnesty provision or any sort of relief

[scott]

While you guys make some good points on some of the negative consequences of the new CBA, I like that it makes viable a few more team building strategies. The Simmons podcast focuses on the two-Superstar model, but I think this new CBA also makes much more viable the Lone Superstar model: building a good team around a true centerpiece like Giannis, Jokic or (hopefully Wemby). Maybe wishful thinking on my part though.

[Mr. Body]

While you guys make some good points on some of the negative consequences of the new CBA, I like that it makes viable a few more team building strategies. The Simmons podcast focuses on the two-Superstar model, but I think this new CBA also makes much more viable the Lone Superstar model: building a good team around a true centerpiece like Giannis, Jokic or (hopefully Wemby). Maybe wishful thinking on my part though.

Simmons can't think outside his deeply biased Boston Celtics box. So he's obsessed with the two star model.

If a team has one great superstar, they will be in great shape. If a team has uncertain stars they max, the Beatles and Walls and that kind of player, they're gonna get crushed.

I see the point to be more judicious with spending. But the problem has always been short term GMs trying to make a splash and keep their bullshit jobs. In the end it'll be the usual idiot types competing over and overpaying marginal stars.

[scott]

In the construction of any game there is a fine line when creating the rules. Not having restrictive enough rules leads everyone to the same strategy of going to the max on everything. Too strict of rules leads everyone to the same strategy that perfect exploits those strictly defined rules. The best set of rules are the ones that create the notion of economy: where one must make sacrifices and choices, and multiple strategies are viable. Hopefully this CBA results in that.

[spurraider21]

:cry oh no now the championship caliber maybe shouldnt re-sign bruce brown :cry

[poopbox]

I actually don't think the new cba is going to change much. There aren't many teams with 3 max players and the ones that are were capped to hell anyway. There aren't many teams with two players who would even qualify for a supermax and the ones that are would be capped to hell in this current cba anyway. As it stands now there are 6 teams above the second apron where it gets really restrictive (lol at the mavs being one of them while being bad enough to get the 10th pick). All of them either just tried to buy their way to a title (warriors, clippers, boston, or just did a bunch of dumb deals, mavs and phoenix).

I guess building a team like the nets would be pretty financially crippling but they won one playoff series. The suns are going to have to move off of Ayton to keep them out of the second apron but the very second they signed him everyone knew they would trade him eventually so that was happening anyway.

I hope the spurs are smart enough to nab a good player or two in free agency on some good deals while everyone thinks the sky is falling. I'd throw a 3 for 63 at Brooke Lopez just to see if the Bucks panic and let him walk.

[RC_Drunkford]

bottom line is the new CBA helps the Spurs since we basically never go into the tax and are likely to never hit that 2nd apron. It also favors team building, a strong supporting cast, player development and having a system so all of it plays into our hands

[CGD]

While you guys make some good points on some of the negative consequences of the new CBA, I like that it makes viable a few more team building strategies. The Simmons podcast focuses on the two-Superstar model, but I think this new CBA also makes much more viable the Lone Superstar model: building a good team around a true centerpiece like Giannis, Jokic or (hopefully Wemby). Maybe wishful thinking on my part though.

The problem in that those “lone star” models you referenced is that they were that way by accident/necessity. The team still paid stupid money to quasi stars, past their prime stars or just good players like Middleton, Holiday, Harden, and Thobias. You see the same starting to happen with Dallas.

I dont see that changing, which is why I think they’ll take it out on the middling/low end players. GMs are generally scared of telling “star” players no for a bunch of reasons. Hopefully the Spurs management continuity and credibility helps them buck that trend in this “player empowerment” era.

[Bruno]

The biggest immediate effect for Spurs is the second tax apron that is estimated at $179.5M for 2023-2024. Being over is quite a big deal and teams might be willing to trade some assets to get under. Spurs' cap space is getting more valuable with this new rule.

For example a trade like Kyle Lowry ($30M in 2023-2024) + #18 for Devonte Graham + #33 could be on the table on draft day for Spurs. Maybe Spurs would need to add a little more but that's the kind of deal this new CBA could generate.

[Spursfanfromafar]

While you guys make some good points on some of the negative consequences of the new CBA, I like that it makes viable a few more team building strategies. The Simmons podcast focuses on the two-Superstar model, but I think this new CBA also makes much more viable the Lone Superstar model: building a good team around a true centerpiece like Giannis, Jokic or (hopefully Wemby). Maybe wishful thinking on my part though.

Yes. I agree. And this spreads the wealth better among all teams instead of star-collusion. With one superstar, there is a neat hierarchy that is possible within any team and there is also more competitiveness. This bodes well for the league.

[CGD]

The biggest immediate effect for Spurs is the second tax apron that is estimated at $179.5M for 2023-2024. Being over is quite a big deal and teams might be willing to trade some assets to get under. Spurs' cap space is getting more valuable with this new rule.

For example a trade like Kyle Lowry ($30M in 2023-2024) + #18 for Devonte Graham + #33 could be on the table on draft day for Spurs. Maybe Spurs would need to add a little more but that's the kind of deal this new CBA could generate.

Thanks for posting. I don’t think we truly have a sense around here of the implications of these new quasi hard cap rules. They’re huge and can lead to some interesting opportunities for the Spurs this summer, draft or otherwise.

[The Truth #6]

Building around stars is likely not going to change with this, in my opinion, just because that’s what the league is all about, but I guess it will have to adapt. I do agree that smaller teams will overpay for mediocre stars, sort of like the Washington wizards model. Basically, bad owners/teams will always find a way to screw up.

[CorrectCrusader]

Also, once the Spurs start winning again, don’t be surprised when they start drafting 22 year olds with low ceilings, but high floors. They will need immediate production from their picks, while at the same time they will be prepared to let them go at the end of their rookie contracts. Of course, they will try to negotiate with them first to take below market contracts…
More Derrick Whites and less Lonnie Walkers

[RC_Drunkford]

the problem for us gonna be the picks/swap rights. If ATL and Boston get their picks frozen the swaps will be useless

[rankingtear]

the problem for us gonna be the picks/swap rights. If ATL and Boston get their picks frozen the swaps will be useless

No it won't. It is way past our picks.

[exstatic]

the problem for us gonna be the picks/swap rights. If ATL and Boston get their picks frozen the swaps will be useless

That pick freeze/push to the end of the round progression won’t start until at least 2029, possibly 2030. It’s the furthest out available pick to trade when the new CBA kicks in. Besides, a swap isn’t considered a FRP trade, or you wouldn’t be able to mix them in with sequential year outright pick trades like we did with ATL.

[ace3g]

https://twitter.com/MikeVorkunov/status/1664304486121193480

[Extra Stout]

https://twitter.com/MikeVorkunov/status/1664304486121193480

This is an important point when considering the salary structure — going forward, teams that fail to reach the salary floor forfeit their luxury tax distributions.

[ace3g]

Keith Smith @KeithSmithNBA
1m
New CBA thing that I haven't seen reported anywhere:

Teams can now dress 15 active players for games. This is up from 13 players in previous years.

[ace3g]

Keith Smith @KeithSmithNBA
14s
Another new CBA thing:

Unused signing exceptions won't begin to prorate in value until the day after the Trade Deadline. Previously, exceptions began to prorate in value on January 10.

[Ariel]

That pick freeze/push to the end of the round progression won’t start until at least 2029, possibly 2030. It’s the furthest out available pick to trade when the new CBA kicks in. Besides, a swap isn’t considered a FRP trade, or you wouldn’t be able to mix them in with sequential year outright pick trades like we did with ATL.
It's still interesting to see how this will be addressed, because if a pick or swap is traded, and later the team that traded the pick falls into the criteria for penalization then it's a third party that pays the consequences, which makes the rule ineffective in disincentivizing the undesired behavior (going above the 2nd apron).

[Seventyniner]

It's still interesting to see how this will be addressed, because if a pick or swap is traded, and later the team that traded the pick falls into the criteria for penalization then it's a third party that pays the consequences, which makes the rule ineffective in disincentivizing the desired behavior (staying below the 2nd apron).

That's a great point. If an owner decides to just flip the middle finger at the second apron they can basically trade away swaps for free. Eventually other GMs will realize this and internally devalue those swaps, but it will be too late for the first wave.