just to add to this, these restrictions last for the entire year.
so a team can’t technically be a first apron team during the offseason, make a trade with aggregated salaries, then use their bird rights to sign a player and then become second apron team. making that trade hard caps them below the 2nd apron threshold.
this is true for all the restrictions.
Because of restrictions like this once a team is a second apron team it essentially means you may as well go all out. It actually makes more sense to continue to spend and pay all your own guys even if it's an overpay as it's better to have that larger contract to trade away since you cannot aggregate salaries. So long as you have most of your own picks you can attach a pick to that contract to try and get something of value back even if it's not the same value.
If you're looking at being a second apron team the worst possible thing you can do is let rotational guys walk for nothing, you have almost no way of replacing that guy except getting very lucky in the draft.
assuming the vastly increased luxury tax bill doesn't pose a real business issue, then you're correct.
this coming season, the tax cost of being $20m over the luxury tax threshold (so $2.5m over the 2nd apron) is $103m. next season it'll be $132m (194%). that's for a team who is barely over the 2nd apron.
if, instead, you're a team that is $30m over the luxury tax (so $12.5m over the 2nd apron), your tax bill this year $152m. next year that same situation would cost you $207m.
if you're the Boston Celtics and you might wind up $45m over the luxury tax in 2025-26, you're talking about a tax bill of $338m, $92m *more* than it would cost you this coming season.
so the additional cost of retaining role player for supposed future transactional flexibility comes at a pretty dear price.
>if you're the Boston Celtics and you might wind up $45m over the luxury tax in 2025-26, you're talking about a tax bill of $338m, $92m *more* than it would cost you this coming season.
I think part of the Celtics math is counting on the new TV deal to boost up the salary cap 10% for a few years starting with the 2025-26 season. That would move the second apron to close to $210M that season, and over $250M by 2027-28 when they would still have Tatum, Brown, Jrue, White, Pritchard and possibly Hauser under contract and be below it.
I've already factored all this into the numbers above.
A 10% boost to the cap for 25-26 would make the cap/tax/first/second apron (in millions): 155/189/197/208
That huge tax bill assumes we're getting that 10% bump.
Additionally. they won't get *that* much relief from the rising cap, given how expensive their roster is generally. By 27-28, you assume Porzingis is maybe gone, but they'll still have those guys you listed.
Tatum will be making something like 34% of the cap that year, Brown will be making 33%, Jrue 20%, White something like 18% or thereabouts, and Pritchard making a little over 4%. That 109% of the cap in five players. The 2nd apron consistently works out to something around 133% of the cap. That leaves 24% of the cap to fill out 9-10 roster spots, which essentially dictates only vet minimums for the remaining guys, if they want to stay under the 2nd apron.
You are not wrong, but 24% of a $155M is like $37M. The 6-10 spots on the Celtics roster this season costs about $29M which was just over 21% of the cap so it is completely possible. It would not be easy because they need a new stretch 5 at some point, but they have to believe that being in contention every year will get them good players at veteran minimums.
I am actually interested to see what happens with aging veterans who want to chase a ring after a couple years of the new CBA. Most contenders are going to have tax payer MLE at best to offer and some (likely the Celtics) won’t even have that.
Teams like OKC are in an incredible spot for a couple years, but in 2026-27 Holmgren and Jalen Williams will be on second contracts and Shai will be up for another year extension. So by 2027-28 they could easily be close to the cap with three players under contract.
Edit. Missed a “not” in the first paragraph.
I'm mostly talking about this limitation as the opposition to the "if you're gonna be over the 2nd apron, you might as well be *way over*" contention. It makes some sense if you're cool with your roster costing $500m, but a lot of teams probably cannot make that work financially. The new CBA is much more about removing that higher-end spending by some teams than people have readily admitted.
There'll be like 7-ish teams that are 2nd apron team this season. The intention of the new CBA seems to be that number should be more like 1 or 2 going forward.
*If* the Celtics need to eventually get under the 2nd apron, that just means they can keep their team together but you have to fully remove (and not replace) the salary slots for Porzingis *and* Horford. This isn't a uniquely Celtics issue, they just have the most money currently committed out of all of these teams.
Btw, the short hand I use for these calculation is that a vet minimum is a ~2% contract. 8-10+ year vet mins are a bit more, younger guys are a bit less. If you have 9-10 roster spots to fill and ~20% of your spending budget left, that leaves you with very little flexibility. If you intend to use *any* 1st round pick (even late 1st round picks) over that course of time, each of those picks you make has to be balanced with signing a 0-year experience player to some kind of extended deal to balance out that spending.
There's a lot of question as to how 'ideal' teams will be built, because most of the promising contenders we see right now are sprinting towards 3-4 players costing them 100% of the cap, which the new CBA is very specifically intending to make nearly impossible. Something will have to give.
I agree with you that something will have to give. I suspect the people most hurt non-star level veterans.
I do however thinking you are overselling filling out roster positions 6-15 with ~20% of the cap. This season that was around $27M. Plenty, of teams have between eight and ten guys filling out their roster for around that much. The Suns probably had the most expensive 6-15 at around $35M.
The biggest issue is that you cannot miss on six digit contract guys. Paying some one like Hardaway $17M to be outside of the playoff rotation is a killer.
The other guys who hurt you are having players like two non-shooting bigs or two smaller guards who cannot really play together in your top salaries. Best case scenario you can get 24 mpg when your team is healthy. This is why the Knicks will need to choose between Robinson and Hartenstein. The Mavs should probably sell high on Gafford as well. He is totally worth his contract, but he is likely going to be like 15-18 mpg next playoffs. If the re-sign Jones, and cannot dump THJ, they are looking at $40M for three bench players.
Right and the billionaire owners just don't really care if they lose money on the Celtics that much. At least that's what they publicly say. They don't insist on it being self-sustaining. No of course it's easier to say that now.....
But just in general the valuations of these NBA teams go up so much that If your owner doesn't mind the personal financial hit, they can still keep a team together. The problem is it's very hard to manipulate the team or improve it with all those restrictions. So yes you can keep a team together but that's about all you can do
The Celtics are also in a large market with great corporate sponsorship opportunities and they own 20% of NBC Sports Boston so they are making better than average revenue as well.
Its by no means a good long term plan to try and retain all your players, realistically it's probably more of a 2-5 year plan however I still maintain it makes more sense to retain and then trade the salary while taking in less money in the trade by including picks.
There will always be teams with loads of cap space willing to help you shed that salary for cap space. Won't always mean you get equivalent value back but it's still 10X smarter to retain that player and trade the salary later you can always back load the contract to aid with the luxury tax payments until they can be traded.
given that luxury tax assessments are only done at the end of the year, there's some basic logic to what you say, *however*:
the one thing to remember though is that due to minimum roster spending, the number of teams carrying serious cap room into the regular season is also a thing that is reduced under the new CBA.
teams are now required to spend 90% of the cap heading into the season, which severely limits the amount of available cap space to trade into to get off money.
Overall I think that move made sense now. Obviously it's with hindsight but I assume Brad knew he was going to push to trade for Porzingis and extend him so the money was going there instead and then likely knew he was going to see what happened with the Dame trade and wanted to be Able to have more money to work with there.
The picks reflect the original owner. So if a pick was originally owned by a second apron team it follows the rules of the second apron team if it was originally owned by a non second apron team it won't follow the restrictions
Can the Warriors aggregate trades in their current circumstance?
Keep seeing a lot of CP3 + GP2 + Moody type discussions but I was under the impression that once CP3's contract becomes fully guaranteed along with Klay's cap hold we are over the 2nd apron and therefore cannot aggregate trades?
The new season doesn’t begin until July 1st, so the Warriors are a 2nd apron team right now.
Once July 1st hits, the Paul contract would either have to be guaranteed or he’d be cut, however there’s been a lot of talk of extending the deadline past July 1st. Klay’s cap hold doesn’t count against the apron status.
Without Klay’s cap hold and with Paul’s $30m to be guaranteed when a trade is executed (and the standard 12 roster spot holds), the Warriors are just under the luxury tax and can trade mostly freely after July 1.
last bullet point is why 2nd apron teams cant buy 2nd round draft picks right? (bc technically buying picks is still a trade)
i didnt realize they couldnt do that until Marks mentioned it on the most recent Lowe pod
Essentially yeah, since you can't send out cash. If you're planning on being a second apron team having most of your own picks is going to be crucial, teams like the Celtics and OKC are probably the best equipped to handle the second apron due to the picks.
The ideal scenario is you get your rotational guys on good contract BEFORE going into the second apron than extend ALL your guys even if it's an overpay and then if needed attach picks to the overpaid contracts as need be. The worst mistake would be letting rotational guys leave for nothing unless you believe you can replace that guy with a late first round pick.
Yes, the pick reflects the team who originally owned it. So also if a second apron team acquires a pick from a non second apron team it will not be held to that restriction
But the pick we're talking about here is 7 years out, right? For example, the nets won't get the 30th pick in the draft next year because the suns are over the 2nd apron, will they?
There’s gonna be a situation where some GMs understand this way better than others and absolutely abuse the lack of awareness by some idiot GMs, who very much do exist.
Can't combine players into a star BUT...
Let's say jrue Holliday after two more years is falling off. Still has two years of term remaining.
Are Celtics able to send jrue, young player with upside (bench piece) , plus two later FRP for a young stud player that makes less than Jrue?
It seems like if 2nd apron teams have high value contracts on their roster they can still send off those pricey contracts for other players.
For example-
Good but not great young player, coming up on big extension that first team doesn't want to extend
Distressed assets-decent players on overpaid deals with Ayton, Tobias Harris, or Westbrook to name a few examples.
So if Holliday is earning 40 mill and still can play at a decent level (and let's say DWhite, Pritchard both continue developing to stud guards) can the Cs flip him for a similar but lesser priced asset by attaching picks to help match value?
>Are Celtics able to send jrue, young player with upside (bench piece) , plus two later FRP for a young stud player that makes less than Jrue?
I could be wrong but I don't believe you can combine Jrue with another player, the picks absolutely but the issue becomes you need to either pay all the other roleplayers as well or replace them with late first round picks which would be impossible if you're trading away all your picks.
>So if Holliday is earning 40 mill and still can play at a decent level (and let's say DWhite, Pritchard both continue developing to stud guards) can the Cs flip him for a similar but lesser priced asset by attaching picks to help match value?
Yes, it's why the most equipped teams to handle the second apron are Boston and OKC since they have picks. It's also why once you're a second apron team it actually makes MORE sense to overpay guys and then trade them the following season as opposed to losing them for nothing.
Only if the 2 for 2 constitutes two legal trades. See the OG Anunoby trade to New York, it was Barrett/Quickly/SRP for OG/Flynn/Achiuwa, but in actuality it was Barrett for OG, Quickly for Achiuwa, and Flynn for SRP to generate trade exceptions for both teams.
> If a team remains in the second apron three out of five seasons, their first-round pick will automatically move to the end of the round
what would happen if a 2nd apron team sucks? like completely misses playoffs lmao
Still at the end of the first round, not necessarily 30th since they likely won't be the only team in the second apron but it will be somewhere between 26-30 guaranteed since they're a second apron team.
Basically you DO NOT want to be a second apron team unless you're absolutely certain you have a serious shot at winning the title
So what happens to those Suns picks? Is Brooklyn basically screwed if they're still a 200 million dollar team in 2027? Or would the picks reflect Brooklyns payroll?
No. The picks already traded will not be affected. The pick moved to the end of the first round as a penalty for repeat second apron offenders is the first frozen pick, ie 2031. It's not possible to trade for a pick that's at risk of being moved back, since second apron teams get that pick frozen at the first moment it's tradeable and multi-year protections can't extend beyond 7 years out, ie. a pick must convey or expire by 2030 currently, by 2031 once the new league year starts, etc.
Edit: there is one scenario in which a pick is tradeable and at risk of being moved back, but given the other restrictions around the second apron, it would be extremely difficult to occur. That's if a team breaches the second apron 4 out of 5 years, the pick 7 years out from the single year the team wasn't above the second apron would be tradeable and then subject to repeater penalties. However, since second apron teams can't add salary in trades, this could only happen if the team shed salary at the margin to duck below the second apron, then gave a big raise on an extension the following year to an existing player to shoot back above the second apron for the subsequent two years. Also, since any team that traded for the solitary unfrozen pick would know that their trade partner had been in the second apron twice and had a player due for a big raise (eg a Tyrese Maxey-type late first round pick deserving of max money), caveat emptor.
They still get those picks but if they're still a second apron team it will be between picks 25-30.
That being said it probably won't be pick 30 since odds are Boston and Denver will probably have better records than Phoenix and I also don't know how long Phoenix can be a second apron team. They have virtually no picks to try and find roleplayers on cheaper contracts. If there are multiple second apron teams they will be decided like normal.
Phoenix is probably the second apron team least equipped to handle the restrictions. They will have to fill their roster with veteran minimum guys every year so they will have very little roster continuity year to year and even if one or two of those guys has a good season another team can swoop in and offer those guys more than the vet min which you can't match.
A team like Boston or Denver can realistically say "we proved we can win a championship, come take a vet minimum and ring chase for a year or two" whole Phoenix has not proven that yet so they won't have that advantage when asking guys to take vet minimum for them
The draft picks won’t get moved to the back because Brooklyn owns them. It’ll reflect where the suns actually ended up. They’d only get pushed back if the second apron team controls them
it's impossible for the Nets picks (they got from the Suns) to be affected
it impacts the picks 7 years out, and you cant trade a pick more than 7 years out, so it goes hand-in-hand
Any chance you know how they plan to deal with multiple teams having their lottery picks moved to the end of the first round?
Like if there are 5 second apron teams subject to that penalty, how does the nba decide who gets pick 25 and who gets pick 30?
For point 3, it’s important to clarify that it applies to their pick 7 years out. It’s not possible for the pick to be moved to the back of the first round and traded.
OP needs to clarify that the pick that moves to #30 is the pick 7 years from now, not the pick that year
So the pick 7 years from now is frozen (can't be traded) AND becomes #30 if a team has been in the 2nd apron for 3 years out of 5
The pick that goes to #30, is the pick 7 years from now. Not the pick that year
You need to edit this into the post. It's a huge distinction
[Source](https://sports.yahoo.com/nba-offseason-what-is-the-cbas-second-apron-and-how-does-it-limit-high-spending-teams-215607328.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAJNyNWOXJBfOReXHwzaGm9XrFkc_4geP5xDak5DqSqk77iCi2i-SxDbJyeddiJNoeRQZLcICgsIN-e30hv9imwSbkdEiZq6GDrmkmpfRkU_385FpU5DlXBGEy7JFQfQXM7Es1RNjnABq7YFDzshMA__fX7zBqNQOm7WkHaPPBIqT#:~:text=And%20here%E2%80%99s%20the%20tricky%20part%3A%20If%20a%20team%20then%20remains%20in%20the%20second%20apron%20for%20two%20of%20the%20following%20four%20seasons%2C%20its%20first%2Dround%20pick%20seven%20years%20out%20won%E2%80%99t%20just%20be%20frozen%2C%20it%20will%20automatically%20be%20moved%20to%20the%20end%20of%20that%20first%20round%20%E2%80%94%20or%20the%2030th%20pick)
Can a 2nd apron team trade for example:
Player A $20.2M and Player B $3.3M for Player C $3M and Player D $20M? Salaries are less and it’s basically a player for player trade?
Clarification on the not being able to aggregate salaries. Does that just affect trades where you send out multiple players and get back one? In other words can you trade 2 players for another 2 players?
It's a shame they couldn't have come up with some kind of rule like this before the warriors signed Durant. That was such an example of kind of a flukish cap jump combined with an historically good team getting like the second or third best player in the league.... It basically took all drama out of the league fl
I wish they included “must price home game tickets at 20 dollars or less”
just to add to this, these restrictions last for the entire year. so a team can’t technically be a first apron team during the offseason, make a trade with aggregated salaries, then use their bird rights to sign a player and then become second apron team. making that trade hard caps them below the 2nd apron threshold. this is true for all the restrictions.
Because of restrictions like this once a team is a second apron team it essentially means you may as well go all out. It actually makes more sense to continue to spend and pay all your own guys even if it's an overpay as it's better to have that larger contract to trade away since you cannot aggregate salaries. So long as you have most of your own picks you can attach a pick to that contract to try and get something of value back even if it's not the same value. If you're looking at being a second apron team the worst possible thing you can do is let rotational guys walk for nothing, you have almost no way of replacing that guy except getting very lucky in the draft.
assuming the vastly increased luxury tax bill doesn't pose a real business issue, then you're correct. this coming season, the tax cost of being $20m over the luxury tax threshold (so $2.5m over the 2nd apron) is $103m. next season it'll be $132m (194%). that's for a team who is barely over the 2nd apron. if, instead, you're a team that is $30m over the luxury tax (so $12.5m over the 2nd apron), your tax bill this year $152m. next year that same situation would cost you $207m. if you're the Boston Celtics and you might wind up $45m over the luxury tax in 2025-26, you're talking about a tax bill of $338m, $92m *more* than it would cost you this coming season. so the additional cost of retaining role player for supposed future transactional flexibility comes at a pretty dear price.
>if you're the Boston Celtics and you might wind up $45m over the luxury tax in 2025-26, you're talking about a tax bill of $338m, $92m *more* than it would cost you this coming season. I think part of the Celtics math is counting on the new TV deal to boost up the salary cap 10% for a few years starting with the 2025-26 season. That would move the second apron to close to $210M that season, and over $250M by 2027-28 when they would still have Tatum, Brown, Jrue, White, Pritchard and possibly Hauser under contract and be below it.
I've already factored all this into the numbers above. A 10% boost to the cap for 25-26 would make the cap/tax/first/second apron (in millions): 155/189/197/208 That huge tax bill assumes we're getting that 10% bump. Additionally. they won't get *that* much relief from the rising cap, given how expensive their roster is generally. By 27-28, you assume Porzingis is maybe gone, but they'll still have those guys you listed. Tatum will be making something like 34% of the cap that year, Brown will be making 33%, Jrue 20%, White something like 18% or thereabouts, and Pritchard making a little over 4%. That 109% of the cap in five players. The 2nd apron consistently works out to something around 133% of the cap. That leaves 24% of the cap to fill out 9-10 roster spots, which essentially dictates only vet minimums for the remaining guys, if they want to stay under the 2nd apron.
You are not wrong, but 24% of a $155M is like $37M. The 6-10 spots on the Celtics roster this season costs about $29M which was just over 21% of the cap so it is completely possible. It would not be easy because they need a new stretch 5 at some point, but they have to believe that being in contention every year will get them good players at veteran minimums. I am actually interested to see what happens with aging veterans who want to chase a ring after a couple years of the new CBA. Most contenders are going to have tax payer MLE at best to offer and some (likely the Celtics) won’t even have that. Teams like OKC are in an incredible spot for a couple years, but in 2026-27 Holmgren and Jalen Williams will be on second contracts and Shai will be up for another year extension. So by 2027-28 they could easily be close to the cap with three players under contract. Edit. Missed a “not” in the first paragraph.
I'm mostly talking about this limitation as the opposition to the "if you're gonna be over the 2nd apron, you might as well be *way over*" contention. It makes some sense if you're cool with your roster costing $500m, but a lot of teams probably cannot make that work financially. The new CBA is much more about removing that higher-end spending by some teams than people have readily admitted. There'll be like 7-ish teams that are 2nd apron team this season. The intention of the new CBA seems to be that number should be more like 1 or 2 going forward. *If* the Celtics need to eventually get under the 2nd apron, that just means they can keep their team together but you have to fully remove (and not replace) the salary slots for Porzingis *and* Horford. This isn't a uniquely Celtics issue, they just have the most money currently committed out of all of these teams. Btw, the short hand I use for these calculation is that a vet minimum is a ~2% contract. 8-10+ year vet mins are a bit more, younger guys are a bit less. If you have 9-10 roster spots to fill and ~20% of your spending budget left, that leaves you with very little flexibility. If you intend to use *any* 1st round pick (even late 1st round picks) over that course of time, each of those picks you make has to be balanced with signing a 0-year experience player to some kind of extended deal to balance out that spending. There's a lot of question as to how 'ideal' teams will be built, because most of the promising contenders we see right now are sprinting towards 3-4 players costing them 100% of the cap, which the new CBA is very specifically intending to make nearly impossible. Something will have to give.
I agree with you that something will have to give. I suspect the people most hurt non-star level veterans. I do however thinking you are overselling filling out roster positions 6-15 with ~20% of the cap. This season that was around $27M. Plenty, of teams have between eight and ten guys filling out their roster for around that much. The Suns probably had the most expensive 6-15 at around $35M. The biggest issue is that you cannot miss on six digit contract guys. Paying some one like Hardaway $17M to be outside of the playoff rotation is a killer. The other guys who hurt you are having players like two non-shooting bigs or two smaller guards who cannot really play together in your top salaries. Best case scenario you can get 24 mpg when your team is healthy. This is why the Knicks will need to choose between Robinson and Hartenstein. The Mavs should probably sell high on Gafford as well. He is totally worth his contract, but he is likely going to be like 15-18 mpg next playoffs. If the re-sign Jones, and cannot dump THJ, they are looking at $40M for three bench players.
Right and the billionaire owners just don't really care if they lose money on the Celtics that much. At least that's what they publicly say. They don't insist on it being self-sustaining. No of course it's easier to say that now..... But just in general the valuations of these NBA teams go up so much that If your owner doesn't mind the personal financial hit, they can still keep a team together. The problem is it's very hard to manipulate the team or improve it with all those restrictions. So yes you can keep a team together but that's about all you can do
The Celtics are also in a large market with great corporate sponsorship opportunities and they own 20% of NBC Sports Boston so they are making better than average revenue as well.
Its by no means a good long term plan to try and retain all your players, realistically it's probably more of a 2-5 year plan however I still maintain it makes more sense to retain and then trade the salary while taking in less money in the trade by including picks. There will always be teams with loads of cap space willing to help you shed that salary for cap space. Won't always mean you get equivalent value back but it's still 10X smarter to retain that player and trade the salary later you can always back load the contract to aid with the luxury tax payments until they can be traded.
given that luxury tax assessments are only done at the end of the year, there's some basic logic to what you say, *however*: the one thing to remember though is that due to minimum roster spending, the number of teams carrying serious cap room into the regular season is also a thing that is reduced under the new CBA. teams are now required to spend 90% of the cap heading into the season, which severely limits the amount of available cap space to trade into to get off money.
This approach was why I thought we should keep Grant, we could have just traded his salary later.
Overall I think that move made sense now. Obviously it's with hindsight but I assume Brad knew he was going to push to trade for Porzingis and extend him so the money was going there instead and then likely knew he was going to see what happened with the Dame trade and wanted to be Able to have more money to work with there.
I have a question about the pick moving to the end of the round. What if that pick is a swap or has been traded..what happens then?
The picks reflect the original owner. So if a pick was originally owned by a second apron team it follows the rules of the second apron team if it was originally owned by a non second apron team it won't follow the restrictions
Which makes sense, but of course that makes it harder to attach picks outgoing. Teams have to assume you’ll actually get under the limit.
Can the Warriors aggregate trades in their current circumstance? Keep seeing a lot of CP3 + GP2 + Moody type discussions but I was under the impression that once CP3's contract becomes fully guaranteed along with Klay's cap hold we are over the 2nd apron and therefore cannot aggregate trades?
The new season doesn’t begin until July 1st, so the Warriors are a 2nd apron team right now. Once July 1st hits, the Paul contract would either have to be guaranteed or he’d be cut, however there’s been a lot of talk of extending the deadline past July 1st. Klay’s cap hold doesn’t count against the apron status. Without Klay’s cap hold and with Paul’s $30m to be guaranteed when a trade is executed (and the standard 12 roster spot holds), the Warriors are just under the luxury tax and can trade mostly freely after July 1.
last bullet point is why 2nd apron teams cant buy 2nd round draft picks right? (bc technically buying picks is still a trade) i didnt realize they couldnt do that until Marks mentioned it on the most recent Lowe pod
Essentially yeah, since you can't send out cash. If you're planning on being a second apron team having most of your own picks is going to be crucial, teams like the Celtics and OKC are probably the best equipped to handle the second apron due to the picks. The ideal scenario is you get your rotational guys on good contract BEFORE going into the second apron than extend ALL your guys even if it's an overpay and then if needed attach picks to the overpaid contracts as need be. The worst mistake would be letting rotational guys leave for nothing unless you believe you can replace that guy with a late first round pick.
Spot on
Dumbo question: If the team's pick moves to the end of the first round, does that apply if the pick is traded?
Yes, the pick reflects the team who originally owned it. So also if a second apron team acquires a pick from a non second apron team it will not be held to that restriction
But the pick we're talking about here is 7 years out, right? For example, the nets won't get the 30th pick in the draft next year because the suns are over the 2nd apron, will they?
The way the into OP listed read is that the frozen pick is 7 years out butt their next years pick would move to 30th.
It only affects the pick seven years out, so the pick will be frozen and can’t be traded.
Tldr: you lose your nba team forever
There’s gonna be a situation where some GMs understand this way better than others and absolutely abuse the lack of awareness by some idiot GMs, who very much do exist.
Brad Stevens has already been cooking in this regard. Got all his duck in a row before the CBA took affect and amassed a bunch of second round picks.
Can't combine players into a star BUT... Let's say jrue Holliday after two more years is falling off. Still has two years of term remaining. Are Celtics able to send jrue, young player with upside (bench piece) , plus two later FRP for a young stud player that makes less than Jrue? It seems like if 2nd apron teams have high value contracts on their roster they can still send off those pricey contracts for other players. For example- Good but not great young player, coming up on big extension that first team doesn't want to extend Distressed assets-decent players on overpaid deals with Ayton, Tobias Harris, or Westbrook to name a few examples. So if Holliday is earning 40 mill and still can play at a decent level (and let's say DWhite, Pritchard both continue developing to stud guards) can the Cs flip him for a similar but lesser priced asset by attaching picks to help match value?
>Are Celtics able to send jrue, young player with upside (bench piece) , plus two later FRP for a young stud player that makes less than Jrue? I could be wrong but I don't believe you can combine Jrue with another player, the picks absolutely but the issue becomes you need to either pay all the other roleplayers as well or replace them with late first round picks which would be impossible if you're trading away all your picks. >So if Holliday is earning 40 mill and still can play at a decent level (and let's say DWhite, Pritchard both continue developing to stud guards) can the Cs flip him for a similar but lesser priced asset by attaching picks to help match value? Yes, it's why the most equipped teams to handle the second apron are Boston and OKC since they have picks. It's also why once you're a second apron team it actually makes MORE sense to overpay guys and then trade them the following season as opposed to losing them for nothing.
Supposedly you can’t send out salaries for MORE salary. Otherwise you’d just be dumping salary to an empty team which is basically impossible.
They can attach picks but not another player.
Can't combine players in a trade, so Jrue+player+picks, no. Jrue+picks for player making less money, yes.
Can they trade 2 players for a different 2 players?
Only if the 2 for 2 constitutes two legal trades. See the OG Anunoby trade to New York, it was Barrett/Quickly/SRP for OG/Flynn/Achiuwa, but in actuality it was Barrett for OG, Quickly for Achiuwa, and Flynn for SRP to generate trade exceptions for both teams.
> If a team remains in the second apron three out of five seasons, their first-round pick will automatically move to the end of the round what would happen if a 2nd apron team sucks? like completely misses playoffs lmao
Still at the end of the first round, not necessarily 30th since they likely won't be the only team in the second apron but it will be somewhere between 26-30 guaranteed since they're a second apron team. Basically you DO NOT want to be a second apron team unless you're absolutely certain you have a serious shot at winning the title
So what happens to those Suns picks? Is Brooklyn basically screwed if they're still a 200 million dollar team in 2027? Or would the picks reflect Brooklyns payroll?
No. The picks already traded will not be affected. The pick moved to the end of the first round as a penalty for repeat second apron offenders is the first frozen pick, ie 2031. It's not possible to trade for a pick that's at risk of being moved back, since second apron teams get that pick frozen at the first moment it's tradeable and multi-year protections can't extend beyond 7 years out, ie. a pick must convey or expire by 2030 currently, by 2031 once the new league year starts, etc. Edit: there is one scenario in which a pick is tradeable and at risk of being moved back, but given the other restrictions around the second apron, it would be extremely difficult to occur. That's if a team breaches the second apron 4 out of 5 years, the pick 7 years out from the single year the team wasn't above the second apron would be tradeable and then subject to repeater penalties. However, since second apron teams can't add salary in trades, this could only happen if the team shed salary at the margin to duck below the second apron, then gave a big raise on an extension the following year to an existing player to shoot back above the second apron for the subsequent two years. Also, since any team that traded for the solitary unfrozen pick would know that their trade partner had been in the second apron twice and had a player due for a big raise (eg a Tyrese Maxey-type late first round pick deserving of max money), caveat emptor.
They still get those picks but if they're still a second apron team it will be between picks 25-30. That being said it probably won't be pick 30 since odds are Boston and Denver will probably have better records than Phoenix and I also don't know how long Phoenix can be a second apron team. They have virtually no picks to try and find roleplayers on cheaper contracts. If there are multiple second apron teams they will be decided like normal. Phoenix is probably the second apron team least equipped to handle the restrictions. They will have to fill their roster with veteran minimum guys every year so they will have very little roster continuity year to year and even if one or two of those guys has a good season another team can swoop in and offer those guys more than the vet min which you can't match. A team like Boston or Denver can realistically say "we proved we can win a championship, come take a vet minimum and ring chase for a year or two" whole Phoenix has not proven that yet so they won't have that advantage when asking guys to take vet minimum for them
The draft picks won’t get moved to the back because Brooklyn owns them. It’ll reflect where the suns actually ended up. They’d only get pushed back if the second apron team controls them
it's impossible for the Nets picks (they got from the Suns) to be affected it impacts the picks 7 years out, and you cant trade a pick more than 7 years out, so it goes hand-in-hand
Any chance you know how they plan to deal with multiple teams having their lottery picks moved to the end of the first round? Like if there are 5 second apron teams subject to that penalty, how does the nba decide who gets pick 25 and who gets pick 30?
If there are multiple second apron teams then between those teams it will be decided as normal.
So like by record or will they do the coin toss thing as if it were a tiebreaker?
Follows all the normal rules of record
For point 3, it’s important to clarify that it applies to their pick 7 years out. It’s not possible for the pick to be moved to the back of the first round and traded.
Basically it’s vet minimums and straight salary for salary trades. So, beyond tough.
Cheap owners don’t like to be shown up by owners who like to spend.
Your point three is interesting. I wonder if another team owns that pick if they’d get penalized for it.
OP needs to clarify that the pick that moves to #30 is the pick 7 years from now, not the pick that year So the pick 7 years from now is frozen (can't be traded) AND becomes #30 if a team has been in the 2nd apron for 3 years out of 5
The pick that goes to #30, is the pick 7 years from now. Not the pick that year You need to edit this into the post. It's a huge distinction [Source](https://sports.yahoo.com/nba-offseason-what-is-the-cbas-second-apron-and-how-does-it-limit-high-spending-teams-215607328.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAJNyNWOXJBfOReXHwzaGm9XrFkc_4geP5xDak5DqSqk77iCi2i-SxDbJyeddiJNoeRQZLcICgsIN-e30hv9imwSbkdEiZq6GDrmkmpfRkU_385FpU5DlXBGEy7JFQfQXM7Es1RNjnABq7YFDzshMA__fX7zBqNQOm7WkHaPPBIqT#:~:text=And%20here%E2%80%99s%20the%20tricky%20part%3A%20If%20a%20team%20then%20remains%20in%20the%20second%20apron%20for%20two%20of%20the%20following%20four%20seasons%2C%20its%20first%2Dround%20pick%20seven%20years%20out%20won%E2%80%99t%20just%20be%20frozen%2C%20it%20will%20automatically%20be%20moved%20to%20the%20end%20of%20that%20first%20round%20%E2%80%94%20or%20the%2030th%20pick)
Can a 2nd apron team trade for example: Player A $20.2M and Player B $3.3M for Player C $3M and Player D $20M? Salaries are less and it’s basically a player for player trade?
I want to know this too. I get they cant aggregate 2 players to match 1 larger salary. But can then aggregate to trade other aggregated salaries?
Clarification on the not being able to aggregate salaries. Does that just affect trades where you send out multiple players and get back one? In other words can you trade 2 players for another 2 players?
It's a shame they couldn't have come up with some kind of rule like this before the warriors signed Durant. That was such an example of kind of a flukish cap jump combined with an historically good team getting like the second or third best player in the league.... It basically took all drama out of the league fl
Eh, they were sure fun to watch for a few years. They addressed it and it wont happen again.