The Thunder GM reveals how new salary cap restrictions target high-spending dynasties while explaining why Oklahoma City might still choose an aggressive, tax-heavy path toward a title.
There are certain NBA topics that are baffling even to the most seasoned fan or analyst.
But there is no subject more perplexing to the everyday average blogger (me) than the Collective Bargaining Agreement. I mean, come on, I'm a hoops head, not an accountant. Thankfully, I had access to the one person on earth who is equal parts big basketball brain and massive math mind.
So when I sat in attendance at Sam Presti's preseason press conference last Thursday morning, I asked the OKC Thunder General Manager his thoughts on the polarizing topic of the NBA aprons.
"What were they intended to do? That's the baseline question: what were they intended to do," Presti responded. "They were, as I understand it, put into place to even the playing field amongst teams that have an outsized financial advantage in comparison to the majority of the league. That was the first order of business."
Okay, easy peasy so far.
"We had a 3-to-1 spending ratio," Presti continued. "The teams that were in the 3 could stay in the 3 for 10 to 15 years. The other way to look at this is the aprons are intended to make it so a team's primary team-building philosophy can't be spending."
That's a pretty important point. But like so many things, timing is a factor.
"Then if you look at when the rules were put in place, they didn't come in all at one time. They were phased in. So what were the things that happened right before the door shut behind everybody?" said Presti. "Well, teams in the luxury tax traded for big-name players. Boston was in the tax. They traded for Holiday. Phoenix was in the tax. They traded for Beal and Durant. Clippers traded for Harden. Dallas was in the tax. They traded for Kyrie Irving. Milwaukee was in the tax, and they traded for Lillard. None of those trades could be computed today. The aprons are intended so if you are a high-spending team, you're not in a position to add more talent."
The rest of Presti's explanation is key to this Thunder team. Specifically the current squad and the prospects of it staying together beyond this season.
"Now, what are they not designed to do?" Presti continued. "Well, they're not designed to tell a team that may feel in any market that they have a very unique moment in their organizational history to pursue excellence. To say, hey, we might be here for 50 years, maybe more. This five years in the luxury tax may be something we want to be aggressive about because we don't know how many more teams like this we're going to have in said market, wherever that is. This could be anywhere."
Yes, it could be anywhere. Like, oh say, Oklahoma City, for instance.
"So the choice is there for the teams to make an educated decision about what they want to pursue or what their tolerance level is for different things," Presti said. "The key, though, is everyone has that opportunity, but teams that could do that for 15 years, that's not possible anymore. So it's kind of giving everybody the same opportunity to make a choice to push in and spend aggressively if they feel they have a team that warrants that. But not everyone can do that, but the choice is there."
Maybe it's just me, but I think a team that is one year removed from an NBA title, has won 68 and 64 games in back to back seasons, boasts the back to back Most Valuable Player in addition to two other young All-NBA players, has a treasure trove of future draft picks and an embarrassment of role player riches, is the betting favorite to win the most games next season, sits atop most every "future power rankings" article and had the city's taxpayers agree to fund a new arena does, indeed, warrant that.
"The aprons are so that once you're at that level, you can't add more talent, and I think that's all getting mixed up with the way people present it," Presti concluded. "That's the most succinct and simple way I can answer that."
