Sam Presti’s press conferences are coffee for true connoisseurs. A phrase that, by the way, loses its meaning once you drink a decent cup and leave behind the burn that is served in the 99% of cafés, bars, and restaurants in Spain. The point is, as is his habit, the Oklahoma City Thunder’s president of basketball operations sits down with the media with all the calm in the world and his usual pedagogy. This time, to deliver a masterclass with his view on the aprons after a summer in which he was forced to do without Lu Dort, Isaiah Joe, and Aaron Wiggins.
Next, three and a half minutes of a master class:
And in text, for those of you in the office:
I think it’s polarizing because the people who talk about it [the aprons] have a point of view on how they experience it. I think that’s the first thing to keep in mind.
I would also look at the issue this way. I probably should have mentioned it like this: “What were they trying to do [by introducing the aprons]?” That’s the baseline question. What were they trying to accomplish?
They, as I understand it, were putting teams that had disproportionately large financial advantages on equal footing with the rest of the league.
That was the first business principle. We had a spending-cap imbalance of 3 to 1. The teams sitting at that 3 could stretch that 3 for 10 or 15 years.
The other way to view this is that the aprons are designed so that the fundamental philosophical principle of building a team cannot be to spend.
Another point. If you look at how the rules were put in place, they weren’t enacted all at once but in phases. What were the things that happened before the door closed behind everyone? Well, the teams in the luxury tax traded for marquee players.
Boston was in the tax and traded for Holiday. Phoenix was in the tax and traded for Beal and Durant. Clippers traded for Harden. Dallas was in the tax and traded for Kyrie Irving. Milwaukee was in the tax and traded for Damian Lillard.
None of those trades could be done today. The aprons exist to ensure that a team that spends a lot cannot be in a position to add more talent.
Now, what were they not designed for? Well, they weren’t designed to tell a team that should feel, in any market, that they have a very unique moment in the organization’s history to chase excellence. To say “hey, we could be here 50 years, maybe more. These five years in the luxury tax, perhaps we should be aggressive with it, because we don’t know how many teams like this we’ll have in this market.” It could happen anywhere.
So the option is there for teams to make a thoughtful decision about what they want to pursue or what their tolerance level is in different aspects. The key, I think, is that everyone has that opportunity. But the teams that could do that for 15 years, that’s no longer feasible. So it’s about giving everyone the same opportunity to decide to spend aggressively if they feel they have a team that guarantees that.
Not everyone can do that, but the option is there. The aprons make it so that, once you’re at that spending level, you can’t add more talent. And I think it’s all tangled with how people present it. This is the briefest and simplest way I can explain it.
