The summer of all hell breaking loose
Good morning. The stricter salary cap rules and some possibly extremely wild outcomes this spring might lead to an unexpected enormous reshuffling this summer. Just consider it another unintended consequence of the NBA's internal architecture. Let's basketball.
The NBA has a habit of making adjustments to its arcane salary cap rules to fix certain problems that the league perceives exit, or to boost the chances of the less well-built franchises. The goal since at least 2010 has been competitive balance: not so much a league full of 41-win teams, but a league in which a team isn't stuck in purgatory for a decade because of a few bad decisions. There are several league reforms that have fed into this new Bad Owner Protectionism over the league: the rookie scale in 1995, individual maximum contracts in 1998, shorter maximum terms on contracts in 2007, rules on contract length for older players in 2018. Unfortunately, there are still bad owners and doomed franchises. You can lead a horse to a barrel of wine, but they still might drink from the puddle of muck.
This is in part why the NBA has in the past couple of labor agreements more aggressively went after successful teams. Unable to sell an NFL-style hard salary cap to the player base, which would lead to a tighter labor market and more non-guaranteed contracts, the NBA has pushed through reforms that make life much more difficult for teams at the top of the payroll lists, which tend to be the more successful franchises. The idea appears to be to discourage teams from amassing enough payroll to hit the salary cap aprons, which limit roster flexibility. This could have the effect of trapping teams in the apron zone from making necessary improvements. This seems like a feature, not a bug for the league: NBA policymakers may well want these high payroll teams to self-destruct every few to make way for other teams to find glory in the light. Given that NBA policymakers represent the collective interests of the 30 franchise owners, it makes some sense that the goal of competitive balance isn't purely opportunity for those teams lower on the ladder to success, but a chute for the teams who have achieved it. You can't achieve balance only building in a zero-sum paradigm like competitive sports. Others have to fall.
These reforms have already led one conference finalist, the 2023-24 Minnesota Timberwolves, to make a major trade for apparent financial reasons. It seems to be working out for the Wolves: given Stephen Curry's injury, they are likely to return to the conference finals with Julius Randle and Donte DiVincenzo in place of Karl-Anthony Towns. Now the Boston Celtics and Cleveland Cavaliers are down 0-2 with massive payrolls heading into the offseason. Either or both could still win their series. Boston's payroll is a different level of massive, and there have long been suggestions that the Celtics will at minimum cut salary on the edges to reduce their punitive luxury tax bill with new ownership coming in. If the defending champs fail to return to the NBA Finals, though? The aprons just might push Brad Stevens to seek greater relief from the flexibility-killing rules and make bigger talent adjustments. That would disperse the Celtics' high talent base among other teams. Competitive balance.
