How the NBA’s New Pact With Players Could Impact the Jazz

Will changes to the NBA’s financial rules make it easier to retain Markkanen and Clarkson? Dan Clayton weighs in. (Trent Nelson, The Salt Lake Tribune)

As the NBA heads toward a lucrative new TV rights deal, it behooves players and team owners alike to keep the money train rolling down the tracks. Early Saturday morning, multiple news sources announced that the sides had agreed on a new deal to keep basketballs bouncing and the checks coming in. A new collectively bargained set of financial rules will kick in this summer, avoiding what could have been the first NBA work stoppage since the lockout-shortened 2011-12 season.

The new deal comes at an interesting time for the Utah Jazz, who could have up to $60 million in cap space this summer and who will undoubtedly be impacted by the various cap rules as they attempt to reconstruct a contending roster. The pact was mostly a continuation of the current collective bargaining agreement (CBA), but with a few key changes.

Here are a few of the changes the league’s owners and the players’ union agreed to in the wee hours of Friday night/Saturday morning, along with a little analysis of how it could impact the Jazz.

The rich get… poorer

via GIPHY

The new rule: Teams that are well over the luxury tax will no longer have access to the taxpayer midlevel exception, an important tool that contending teams use to add rotation pieces.

Who won/lost: It’s honestly shocking that the players agreed to this. The union is generally against any proposals that limit earning opportunities for players, and this will most certainly do that. For example, Jazz alumnus Joe Ingles joined Milwaukee last summer for $6.5 million, a deal he couldn’t sign under the new rule. Now, a player in Ingles’ shoes will have to choose between getting exception money from a team with lower team salary — meaning potentially not as strong a contender — or take a minimum-salary deal from the Bucks.

Jazz impact: In the short term, this should help Utah. They’ll be a cap space team this summer, and likely have some flexibility over the next few years as they rebuild. This will give them an advantage in enticing veterans away from roles as mercenaries on a deep-pocketed contender.

But if the Jazz really do succeed at building their own title-competitive roster, the timing of this new rule could actually become a roadblock for them. Reports say that this new “second apron” will be phased in. While it’s not immediately clear specifically what that phase-in will look like, it might be in full effect right as the Jazz open their next contention window.

That said, you could also argue that any stipulation that limits how the richest teams can pile up salary commitments is good news for smaller-market clubs. I’m calling this one a win for the Jazz overall, even though there will likely be a year at some point when they’d love to sign their own version of that player and can’t because of the new rules. C’est la vie.

Extension math

via GIPHY

The new rule: Currently, extensions for veterans who don’t qualify for supermax triggers are limited by an arbitrary 120% cap on the first year of the extension. Now, that will be raised to 140%.

Who won/lost: This was something both sides wanted. The 120% limit on non-superstar vet extensions certainly constrains what players can earn, which is something the union is spiritually opposed to. But it also limited teams’ ability to keep good players. The Spurs traded 1-time All-Star Dejounte Murray last summer in part because they knew they’d be unable to extend him at his market rate because of that hard limit on what he could make without hitting free agency. Even thought 140% is still an artificial and arbitrary limit, in practice this should make a big difference in allowing players to make what they’re worth and teams to keep core pieces.

Jazz impact: The new rule won’t go into effect soon enough to help the Jazz with Jordan Clarkson. The new CBA kicks in on July 1, and the Jazz’s scoring guard will already have had to make a decision about his player option by then. As it stands, they can offer him an extension starting around $16 million (provided he simultaneously opted out for 2023-24). My understanding is that the Jazz did attempt to secure a commitment from Clarkson in that price range, but Clarkson’s camp may prefer to see if an open market would yield more.

Had they been able to go up to $18.7M on a starting salary offer (that’s 40% over his current salary), would that have been enough to get his signature on a piece of paper? Maybe. The Jazz also have to analyze what Clarkson’s role is on a future contending team and pay him with that framework in mind. Is he the fifth best player on a hypothetical 2025-26 contender? Or the seventh best? Or, at 33 by then, will his production be replaceable in other ways? At any rate, it’s moot for now because he doesn’t seem inclined to accept the $16 million, and the bump in allowable extension amounts will kick in too late for him.

The Jazz could use the raised extension limit to offer Lauri Markkanan a deal this summer that would start at just over $25 million in 2025-26. That’s not really All-Star money in the new NBA economy, but maybe he’d take the long-term security instead of waiting. (If he qualifies for All-NBA, he’ll be eligible for more than that anyway.) The raised limit could help down the line with Collin Sexton, depending on his role and market value by that point.

In-season tourney

via GIPHY

The new rule: A new in-season tournament could come into play as early as next season, with some neutral-site games counting toward regular season record.

Who won/lost: Honestly, home arena fans lose a little bit here, because depending on exactly how the proposal works out, you might see less of your team at home next season. As for players/owners, both sides are probably hoping that this will boost viewership and interest (and ultimately money) during the season.

Jazz impact: No real team-building impact here, but given that the Jazz have a unique homecourt advantage given the altitude and arena build, playing fewer games at Vi– err, the Delta Center (by then) might lessen a competitive advantage in a few games per year.

More two-way contracts

via GIPHY

The new rule: Teams will be able to sign three players to hybrid NBA-G League deals, up from the current two.

Who won/lost: The players probably viewed this as a small win because it creates 30 more NBA jobs. In actuality, it might make teams less likely to call up a player on a prorated NBA salary or reward a late second-rounder with a full NBA deal. Because of that, I think this one will ultimately benefit owners more than players, especially since a young player who “pops” on a 2-way deal is still subject to restricted free agency.

Jazz impact: Given the small roles that Johnny Juzang and Micah Potter have played even during a rebuilding year, it’s hard to imagine this one having a major competitive impact. They’ll be able to get a look at one more young player per season within their program… but so will everybody.

Two-way contracts don’t count agains the salary cap or tax, so no financial implications here.

65 or bust

via GIPHY

The new rule: To quality for major awards, players will now need to play a minimum of 65 games.

Who won/lost: Again, hard to believe the players said yes to this one, given that it creates additional paramaters on something that directly impacts salaries. But this is a clear win in that it demotivates the most rampant kinds of load management, and rewards players who are consistently lacing up for the benefit of the fans.

Jazz impact: It won’t kick in this year, but this season provides a great example of how Utah could benefit. Markkanen is right on the border of All-NBA, by most accounts. If someone like Damian Lillard (58 games) can’t win, then that boosts the chances for Markkanen, which in turn makes him eligible for a higher extension and helps the Jazz retain him.

That won’t matter this season because as the rule currently stands, voters can still vote for Dame (or Steph Curry at 52 games, Kawhi Leonard at 48, etc.). Although maybe having that rule in place will influence some voters by providing some consistent definition of what is “enough” games. I’ve heard several voters agonize on podcasts over whether or not to exclude the Lillard/Curry/Leonard types, and maybe this gives them permission to draw a line in the sand even before the rule is officially ratified.

Not done with one-and-done

via GIPHY

The new rule: The one-and-done draft rule, widely believed to be on the chopping block, will remain in effect. Players will still need to be a year removed from high school to enter the draft.

Who won/lost: Players supposedly wanted this rule discontinued, so it’s odd that they gave this up. Maybe the rank-and-file wanted fewer teenagers coming for their end-of-roster jobs?

Jazz impact: Given that the Jazz currently own as many as 15-16 draft picks in the next seven drafts, this will certainly impact the value of those assets. A suspension of one-and-done would have create one extra deep draft class, and if that happened in a year when the Jazz had multiple picks, they’d have had a little extra asset juice in that year.

Blaze up!

via GIPHY

The new rule: Marijuana is no longer a prohibited substance.

Who won/lost: The big winners: local purveyors of Doritos.

Joking aside, this is a positive. Attitudes and laws around cannabis products have been changing, and there’s no reason to continue punishing players for enjoying something that is legal in many NBA jurisdictions anyway. For players recovering from injury, marijuana products give them a way to manage pain that is far safer than certain other options.

Jazz impact: You could argue that this makes it a recruiting disadvantage for the Jazz to exist in a jurisdiction where recreational marijuana purchases are still not legal… but honestly, in year of our lord 2023, it’s probably slightly naive to think that players (or people) can’t find what they are looking for.