The NBA doesn’t technically have a “hard” salary cap in place that teams are prohibited from surpassing during a given league year. But under the league’s current Collective Bargaining Agreement, there are a ton of different ways that a team can impose a hard cap on itself.
We broke down these rules back in December when we updated our glossary entry on the hard cap, but the rules for last season were a little different than the ones that have taken effect this season. And it’s always helpful to have concrete examples to point to in order to illustrate how these rules work.
So we’re taking a deep dive today into how exactly a team can become hard-capped.
There are two levels at which a hard cap can apply: the first tax apron ($178,132,000 in 2024/25) and the second tax apron ($188,931,000). We’ll start with the first apron.
First apron
A team becomes hard-capped at the first tax apron ($178,132,000) by making any of the following moves:
1. Uses the bi-annual exception to sign a player to a contract or to acquire a player via trade or waiver claim.
This one’s not new, and it’s pretty straightforward. Use any portion of the bi-annual exception for any purpose between July 6 and the end of the subsequent regular season and you’re hard-capped at the first apron.
The Rockets (Aaron Holiday) are the only team to use the BAE so far in 2024/25. The Clippers are expected to become the second once they officially sign Nicolas Batum.
2. Uses more than the taxpayer portion of the mid-level exception to sign a player to a contract.
A team above the first tax apron is permitted to use up to $5,168,000 of the mid-level exception in 2024/25. Use a dollar more than that and the result is a hard cap at the first apron.
Crucially, this restriction applies not just to dollars but to years as well — a non-taxpayer mid-level signing can be for up to four years, but a taxpayer MLE signing can only cover one or two seasons. So signing a player to a three-year contract using the mid-level would hard-cap a team at the first apron, even if the player’s starting salary is only $3MM.
The Mavericks (Naji Marshall) are the only team to use more than the taxpayer portion of the MLE so far in 2024/25. The Clippers, Warriors, and Bulls figure to join that list once Derrick Jones‘, De’Anthony Melton‘s, and Jalen Smith‘s deals are official.
3. Uses any portion of the mid-level exception to acquire a player via trade or waiver claim.
Beginning in 2024/25, the non-taxpayer mid-level exception, the room exception, and the bi-annual exception can be used to acquire a player via trade or waiver claim. However, the taxpayer mid-level exception cannot.
That means if a team wants the flexibility to operate over the first apron, it can’t use its mid-level exception to trade for a player, even if that player is earning less than the taxpayer portion of the MLE ($5,168,000).
This is why, for instance, the Nuggets – who are operating in first apron territory – couldn’t realistically trade for Russell Westbrook ($4,027,525) using their taxpayer MLE (which would hard-cap them at the first apron), but they’re able to use it to sign a free agent (Dario Saric).
4. Acquires a player via sign-and-trade.
This is another pretty straightforward rule, and one that’s been around for a while. No team can operate above the first apron if they’ve received a player in a sign-and-trade deal.
The Mavericks (Klay Thompson), Warriors (Buddy Hield and Kyle Anderson), Nets (Shake Milton), Hawks (Cody Zeller), and Wizards (Jonas Valanciunas) all fit into this category so far, and the Kings will join them when their sign-and-trade for DeMar DeRozan becomes official.
5. Signs a player who was waived during the regular season and whose pre-waiver salary was higher than the non-taxpayer mid-level exception.
It’s important to note that this rule, designed to regulate the buyout market, only applies if the player is waived after the regular season begins. So after Chris Paul ($30MM salary) was cut on June 30, there were no teams prohibited from signing him. But if Paul had remained on that contract and then been waived during the regular season, only teams operating below the aprons would have been permitted to sign him.
The non-taxpayer mid-level exception this season is $12,822,000, so if a player earning even a single dollar more than that amount is waived during the season, this restriction will apply to whichever team signs him.
6. Uses an outgoing player (or multiple players) in a trade for matching purposes to take back more than 100% of the outgoing salary.
It would be simpler to say “take back more salary you send out in a trade and you’re hard-capped at the first apron,” but that’s not quite accurate.
For instance, when a team uses cap room to accommodate extra incoming salary in a trade, no hard cap is created. So the Pistons didn’t hard-cap themselves at the first apron when they traded Quentin Grimes ($4,296,682) and took back Tim Hardaway Jr. ($16,193,183) into their cap space. If the Pistons had been operating over the cap and took advantage of the NBA’s salary-matching rules to trade Grimes for a player earning $6MM, that would have hard-capped them at the first apron. But salary-matching wasn’t necessary to take on Hardaway.
Here’s another exception to the rule. Let’s say the Suns trade Nassir Little ($6,750,000) and in return receive one player earning $6.5MM and another player who is in the second year of a two-year, minimum-salary contract (with a cap hit of about $2.4MM). That’s permitted, even though the Suns are a second-apron team taking on more total money in the deal than they’re sending out. Little is earning more than the first player, and his salary isn’t required for matching purposes for the second player, who can be acquired “separately” using the minimum salary exception.
A team is always permitted to use the minimum salary exception to trade for a player whose contract fits into that exception, regardless of the team’s proximity to the aprons.
Essentially, this rule comes down to whether the team is using its outgoing player(s) for the purposes of matching the incoming salary. If so, the incoming salary can’t exceed the outgoing amount by even a single dollar.
The Wizards (Malcolm Brogdon), Thunder (Alex Caruso), Raptors (Sasha Vezenkov), Pelicans (Dejounte Murray), Mavericks (Thompson), and Warriors (Hield/Anderson) are among the teams who have become hard-capped at the first apron in 2024/25 as a result of this rule (if they weren’t already hard-capped for another reason).
This rule also applies to non-simultaneous trade exceptions. A non-apron team that holds a non-simultaneous trade exception is given a $250K allowance above that exception’s amount, but an apron team isn’t permitted to take advantage of that allowance. Doing so would create a hard cap at the first apron.
For example, when the Wizards acquired Valanciunas via sign-and-trade, they used a trade exception worth approximately $9.8MM to give him a starting salary of $9.9MM, taking advantage of that extra $250K in wiggle room. Exceeding the TPE amount hard-capped them at the first apron, though that hard cap would have existed anyway due to the fact that they were taking on Valanciunas via sign-and-trade.
7. Uses a traded player exception generated during the previous offseason or regular season.
A non-simultaneous trade exception can be used anytime for one year after it’s generated, but that time frame becomes significantly condensed for apron teams. Once a team’s season ends and its offseason begins, a team operating above the first apron is not permitted to use a TPE that was created during the preceding regular season or the previous offseason.
For example, the Heat are currently operating above the first tax apron, which means the two trade exceptions they created last July ($9.45MM for Victor Oladipo and $7.24MM for Max Strus) aren’t available to them, and neither is the $6.48MM exception they generated in January by trading Kyle Lowry. Those TPEs are essentially “frozen” and would become available again if Miami moves below the first apron before they expire.
However, an apron team can use a trade exception if it was created since the regular season ended. The Timberwolves, for instance, generated a TPE worth $2.54MM when they traded Wendell Moore to Detroit. That exception is available to them, but the $4MM TPE they created in February for trading Troy Brown isn’t.
As our tracker shows, the Hawks, Nets, Mavericks, Rockets, and Raptors have each used a trade exception this summer that was generated prior to the end of the regular season, so they’re hard-capped at the first apron for 2024/25 (all five teams also made other moves that resulted in that hard cap).
Second apron
A team becomes hard-capped at the second tax apron ($188,931,000) by making any of the following moves:
1. Uses any portion of the mid-level exception to sign a player to a contract.
The mid-level exception is not available at all to teams operating above the second apron, so a team that uses any portion of it – even an amount well below the taxpayer limit – to sign a player becomes ineligible to surpass the second apron for the rest of the season.
While no team has officially made a taxpayer mid-level signing yet, the Nuggets are on track to do so with Saric (as noted above), which will hard-cap them at the second apron.
2. Aggregates two or more players in a trade for salary-matching purposes.
“Aggregating” players doesn’t mean simply including them in the same trade — it means combining their salaries for matching purposes in that trade. A team operating above the second apron could make a deal sending out multiple players for one, as long as only one of them is required for salary-matching (and the incoming player is earning less than that outgoing player).
For instance, the Suns could send out Little ($6.75MM) and David Roddy ($2.85MM) for one player earning $6.5MM, since Little’s salary matches for the incoming player, so he and Roddy don’t need to be aggregated together.
When the Kings traded Davion Mitchell ($5.06MM) and Vezenkov ($6.34MM) to Toronto in a deal for Jalen McDaniels ($4.52MM), it didn’t hard-cap Sacramento at the second apron because Mitchell and Vezenkov weren’t aggregated — Mitchell matched McDaniels’ lesser incoming salary on his own.
Let’s say Mitchell’s and McDaniels’ salary figures had been flipped, so McDaniels was the one earning a little more. In that scenario, Sacramento likely would’ve opted to aggregate Mitchell and Vezenkov, even though Mitchell’s salary on his own would have been legally enough to match McDaniels’ incoming figure — not aggregating them and using Mitchell as the sole matching piece would have meant the Kings were taking back more than 100% of his salary, hard-capping them at the first apron.
This is the issue the Knicks ran into in their Mikal Bridges trade with the Nets. Bojan Bogdanovic‘s $19MM+ salary was technically enough to legally match Bridges’ incoming $23.3MM figure, but taking back more than 100% of Bogdanovic’s outgoing money would’ve hard-capped New York at the first apron. The Knicks instead chose to aggregate Milton ($2,875,000) and Mamadi Diakite‘s partial guarantee ($1,392,150) with Bogdanovic’s salary to get to $23.3MM and hard-cap themselves at the second apron instead.
It’s important to note that the team’s position relative to the apron upon the conclusion of the trade (not before the trade) dictates this rule.
Let’s say a team is operating $2MM above the second tax apron and wants to aggregate a $15MM player with a $20MM player for a single player earning $30MM. That would be permitted, since the move would reduce the team’s salary by $5MM, bringing it $3MM below the second apron once the trade is completed. The club would then be prohibited from surpassing the second apron again for the rest of the league year.
The Knicks (for Bridges) and the Pelicans (for Murray) are the only teams so far this season who have aggregated salaries in a trade. But New Orleans is already hard-capped at the first apron, so New York is the lone club hard-capped at the second apron as the result of aggregation.
3. Sends out cash in a trade.
This rule is new, but it’s pretty simple. Send out any amount of cash in a trade and you’re hard-capped for the rest of that league year.
This rule goes into effect as soon as the regular season ends, so a team that sent out cash this June became hard-capped for the rest of 2024/25, even though the league year change didn’t technically occur until July 1. The Hawks, Mavericks, and Thunder each sent out cash in June, which would’ve hard-capped them at the second apron for ’24/25 (all three teams made other moves that ultimately hard-capped them at the first apron instead).
The Pacers and Hornets are the only two teams to this point who are hard-capped at the second apron as a result of sending out cash. Several other teams have traded cash but are hard-capped at the first apron for other reasons.
4. Sends out a player via sign-and-trade and uses that player’s outgoing salary to take back a contract.
Under the new CBA, there are restrictions facing not just a team that acquires a player via sign-and-trade but to a team that sends out a player via sign-and-trade. That team isn’t allowed to take back salary using the outgoing signed-and-traded player for matching purposes.
For example, the Timberwolves are currently operating over the second apron, so when they signed-and-traded Anderson to Golden State, they would’ve been prohibited from taking back a player in that transaction using Anderson’s $8.78MM salary as a matching piece.
If the Wolves were to acquire an incoming player in that deal using another legal exception (such as the minimum salary exception or the aforementioned Moore TPE), that would have been permitted. But Anderson’s outgoing salary couldn’t be used to match.
The Knicks (Milton) and the Pelicans (Zeller) are the two teams so far this season that used an outgoing signed-and-traded player for matching purposes in a deal. The Bulls will join them as a result of the DeRozan sign-and-trade.
5. Sends out a player via sign-and-trade and uses the resulting traded player exception to acquire a player via trade or waiver claim.
This is basically the other half of the previous rule. Not only could the Timberwolves not take back salary for Anderson in the same deal in which they signed-and-traded him, but they also can’t use the non-simultaneous trade exception generated by his outgoing $8.78MM salary, even though it was newly created this offseason. Using that exception would hard-cap Minnesota at the second apron for the rest of 2024/25.
Besides Minnesota, only the Pelicans (Valanciunas) have created a non-simultaneous trade exception for a signed-and-traded player this offseason. The Bulls will also have one once the DeRozan deal is official.
Why so many Signs and Trades this summer?
Trus Jones and Gary Trents Jr. should ask for SNT?
Easier to sign a player than outright signing in free agency probably due to their cap availability.
I am interested in this subject:
Rockets payroll management – reach second apron
Pay 4 of the 7 core prospects within 1 year.
1. Will Rockets pay Jalen Green and Sengun at the expense of the rest of prospects?
2. If Green plays great early next season and asks for max or near max, what should Rockets do?
3 After offering Green and Sengun near max, how can they pay Smith and Eason next summer?
Sample
Franz Wagner $224 million contract
Scottie Barnes $270 million contract
I notice you’re obsessed with the Rockets, though not a fan and not well versed in anything they do. If Green plays great then they pay him. If he doesn’t, and doesn’t accept a lower deal, the rockets can still match any offer because he’s restricted. Jabari and Tari are two years away from getting paid, and the same rules apply. Tari is currently a good role player who missed most of his sophomore season to injury, you think he’s going to get 30 mil+. Jabari is going to get a max? Again, the rockets can go over the cap if they feel like the team they have is good enough to compete for a championship. They also have close to $80 million in expiring contracts/contracts with a team option left for 2025. They are loaded with future draft capital and are in a fantastic spot to make a big move at the deadline or next offseason if they make another jump this season, AND they can resign the young guys on their roster if they are worth it. Tillman is a casino tycoon and has plenty of money, and they are in a top 5 market, there’s no reason to think they won’t pay for championship basketball. Worry about your warriors, who are in cap hell and are trending in the wrong direction
I disagree with what the Rockets do. I am well-versed in Rockets.
IMO Rockets need to trade Green for picks on June and give more chances to Sheppard. Every Rockets fan says no.
If Green is great, Rockets are not going to pay him the market value.
If Green is still not efficient, he has little trade value on TD.
The biggest reason to trade Green is payroll management.
Book it, he will be traded soon. He may ask to be traded too if you don’t pay him.
The sooner the more trade value.
You’re the one who is obsessed with the Rockets. Not me.
With all 7 core prospects, Rockets are not good enough to compete for a championship.
All 7 core prospects are role players for the West payoffs teams.
Let’s be honest.
If Rockets trade Amen Thompson and Sheppard for Lauri Markenen, Rockets won’t pay for Lauri.
Sillybot, this is why no one likes to talk ball with you, you are either in way over your head, or just a troll. The rockets “core 7” are all 23 or younger. Point to the teams in history with a bunch of guys that young winning rings. It takes time, just like you saw with the Celtics, for these guys to grow and mature. They’re not in their primes yet and are already playing well. They don’t need to make any of the sillybot trades that you throw out there, they need to continue growing the guys they currently have, while continuing to acquire trade assets and pieces that allow them to make a big move when the player/time is right (which they have done). Your sillybot comments about the rockets not paying green if he’s great or some weird trade for Lauri and then not paying him make no sense, or should I say, only make sillybot sense, so I’m not going to waste my time with a counter argument.
This is what the other NBA owners want after Clippers and Warriors spent. Now it’s hurting them so no tears for any of the owners.
Luke, I have several questions.
* Does a hard cap cross seasons? If a team kept the exact same players from one season to the next, would the same hard cap apply in the second season? So – how long does a cap last?
* How about salaries increasing season to season due to contract raises? How are these accomodated by a hard-capped team?
* If a team decreases salary commitments, due to waivers or buyouts, or trades, is it possible for a team to remove its hard cap? Or does the cap apply the rest of the season regardless of personnel moves?
I have a comment as well. Many of these CBA rules are pretty arcane to the average fan. It would be a wonderful addition to this article, or possibly take form in a follow-up article, if you would explain the hows and whys of how these rules came about – why the league thought they were necessary. Closing loopholes, ending clever workarounds, and so on.
1. No, the hard cap wouldn’t apply across seasons. Acquiring Buddy Hield on a four-year contract via sign-and-trade just hard-caps the Warriors for 2024/25, not for all four seasons. It’s about when the transaction is completed, not how long a contract lasts. Any hard cap created now would expire on June 30, 2025.
2. Related to the first question, but since the hard cap doesn’t extend across multiple seasons (unless the team makes new hard-capping moves each offseason), no issue with year-to-year raises.
3. If a team makes any of the moves listed in the story above, the hard cap is in place for the rest of the league year, regardless of subsequent moves. No way to remove it (but also, the more a team decreases its salary, the further away from the hard cap their salary is, so the less restrictive it is).
4. There are two sides to the apron/hard cap rules. The stated goal is competitive balance, so the rules were implemented to prevent high-spending teams from making these sorts of moves that would allow them to further upgrade their rosters. The flip side of prohibiting these moves for apron teams is that if a team DOES make one of these moves, you have to prohibit them from subsequently becoming an apron team — hence the hard cap(s) at the apron levels.
Terrific response, Luke. Thank you!
Parity and salary caps are paper ideas. They’re no fun for fans and not really healthy.
show me the data
excellent article to be published on this site. this is exactly the type of insider information, institutional rules that should be unpacked on Hoops Rumors. Kudos!
End result …. dwindling “middle class” salaried players
Soon, every team will have 2-3 max/high salaried players and mostly minimum/low salaried players.
Parity will have it’s pros and cons.
I’m confused, it said numerous times in the “First Apron” section of this article that if a team is over the first apron, and does certain things, like use more than the taxpayer portion of the MLE, or use any portion of the mid-level exception to acquire a player via trade or waiver claim, that they would be hard-capped at the first apron. But how can they be hard-capped at the first apron if they’re already above the first apron?
First example:
“A team above the first tax apron is permitted to use up to $5,168,000 of the mid-level exception in 2024/25. Use a dollar more than that and the result is a hard cap at the first apron.”
Second example:
“This is why, for instance, the Nuggets – who are operating in first apron territory – couldn’t realistically trade for Russell Westbrook ($4,027,525) using their taxpayer MLE (which would hard-cap them at the first apron), but they’re able to use it to sign a free agent (Dario Saric).”
The idea in both of those examples is that a team over the first apron wouldn’t be able to do the things that would create the first-apron hard cap.
But it IS possible for a team to operate over the first apron for part of the season, shed salary, then make a move that hard-caps them at the first apron. The hard cap doesn’t apply retroactively — it begins the moment they make one of the moves listed above.