(05-21-2023, 06:08 AM)Mavs2021 Wrote: I´m honestly a little too lazy to look into all these new CBA rules, when proposing trades, but since you shut down so many basic trades ideas on it´s general principles, it becomes more and more obvious to me that you´ll have to rely on cheap rookies more and more or there will be a hefty salary correction for the middle of the NBA player pool.
Seems that retaining your own players will become a high priority. Damn that Brunson blunder hurts in so many ways. Don´t trade the 10th pick for a Clint Capela. Sure could be a bust. Could also be PG13, Mikael Bridges, Brook Lopez, CJ McCollum under your control for the next decade.
I also have a feeling some teams will do a Process, reserve 6-7 roster spots (including two-ways) for undrafted/2nd round picks and try to find Covingtons.
The new CBA has essentially put all the GMs on strict budgets. Before, the penalties were basically just the economic cost (extra salary, and perhaps tax) for overspending; but now if you spend too much on one guy, you will likely cost yourself the chance to even consider someone else. You literally run out of payroll to spend.
As you note, the Brunson Blunder cuts twice as deep now because he's a player with the lowest max. Those guys who are really good, out of the gate, will reward you financially for probably 10 years of discounted contacts, because at the end of the rookie deal even their max is much lower. And on the other end of the age spectrum, when you pay a max to a guy at the highest salary level, it may cost you two or three guys with talent. Is he worth that?
Making it harder on GMs is the fact that ALL teams may be competing for players in the summer now and spending what they have, as teams will be financially penalized immediately, and each time, when payroll is too small. Although some may just ignore the changed rules and have low payroll anyhow (and pay the penalty), but for those that do, during the season they will no longer have masses of cap room to offer other teams, so you have erased some of the incentive for that path. In essence it becomes a "hard cap"-like limit on the minimum end of the scale too -- ie, there may be teams who can't make trades that reduce payroll, not even temporarily -- which then impacts all their transaction choices that season just like the hard cap will be doing to teams on the upper end.
I think we may see some one year deals for somewhat-bloated numbers, as teams might opt to fill up their required payroll in a way to avoid cluttering their cap in future years.
How will good players respond? The good players may disperse more widely, looking for paydays, rather than sticking to a few teams. Or the good players may be FORCED to disperse, as the "super-teams" may simply run out of money. That may end up having a competitive effect.
I suspect some may use a Process-like teardown to try to create more rookie-scale contracts (as you suggest) on the same team, maybe others try to scatter their money on many mid-tier guys, others may just let it happen like it happens. Who knows.
If I was a GM, one thing I think I would deliberately do, is make my roster shorthanded of well-paid obvious rotation players, and then try to use minutes as an enticement to certain minimum-salary targets. You almost have to imo. Entice the proven veteran with a chance to play a key role on a legit contender (if you can get there), and the promising youngster with an opening for real and meaningful minutes to develop quicker. "And look, we are out of money, you can see the minutes available to someone."