MLB fans carping for salary limits need to learn from the NBA

With Major League Baseball rousing itself from its winter slumber, the usual sounds of spring are evident. The crack of the bat, the pop of leather, the grumbling about the lack of a salary cap.

Commissioner Rob Manfred says he gets emails from fans angry about the free-spending ways of the Los Angeles Dodgers. He didn't say if he also gets emails from Yankees owner Hal Steinbrenner or Orioles owner David Rubenstein, but they have both lamented the challenges of keeping up with the massive payroll of the Dodgers.

Leaving aside the comedy of the owner of the New York Yankees complaining about high payrolls, along with an Orioles owner who literally just bought the team only to discover that, gosh, running these things is expensive, Manfred and those who are making noises about pushing for a salary cap in a couple of years should consider the cautionary tale of the NBA.

The NBA was not long ago a model for modern sports economics. More money was available to players who stayed with the teams that drafted them, but teams could also spend wildly if they chose, so long as they were fine with paying a whopping luxury-tax bill. The Golden State Warriors and Cleveland Cavaliers dominated their conferences for a number of years doing just that.

But in their collective bargaining agreement, the owners succeeded in bringing in additional salary aprons that penalize teams for exceeding them, including making it more difficult to trade and acquire players.

In related news, the NBA just had a trade deadline that was something of a frenzy, with a record 63 transactions, headlined by the still completely baffling deal in which the Dallas Mavericks shipped 25-year-old recent MVP candidate Luka Doncic to the Los Angeles Lakers.

The deadline made for great drama and, yes, content, but as the dust settled, it is worth asking: Is this new system good for basketball?

To the extent that anyone has been able to explain the Doncic trade, the Mavericks front office expressed concern with giving the Slovenian superstar a $354-million contract extension. According to leaks, they also worried about his fitness, attitude, and poor defense. (He did, of course, just lead them to the NBA Finals.)

The subtext of the comments out of Dallas is the Mavs didn't want to exceed the much-feared second salary apron, risk paying Doncic, and end up stuck with a team that couldn't contend. That's essentially the way teams have treated that upper threshold: Once you cross it, you better have a championship-ready roster and be comfortable with a monster tax bill. (Beyond the financial penalties, the full apron rules are explained here.)

But while the Doncic trade was the blockbuster, the NBA deadline was awash in deals in which teams scrambled to avoid tax penalties - in many cases moving players who were fan favorites. The Miami Heat and Jimmy Butler had a slow-motion breakup that eventually became ugly, but at the root was the Heat deciding they didn't want to give Butler a contract extension that would have got them into apron-related trouble. The Golden State Warriors decided to take that risk, but at the cost of moving Andrew Wiggins, a key player in their last title run, and after moving on from Klay Thompson last summer for apron-related reasons.

The Milwaukee Bucks dumped Khris Middleton, the Sacramento Kings traded De'Aaron Fox (who reportedly asked out), the New Orleans Pelicans dealt Brandon Ingram, and the Phoenix Suns tried and failed to move Kevin Durant - all moves that were at least in part motivated by tax and apron concerns.

One team that didn't do much was the reigning champion Boston Celtics, who are over the dreaded second apron and will be penalized with future restrictions on their ability to make trades. The Celtics also built their team largely with homegrown talent, and they have such a high payroll because their cornerstone players, Jayson Tatum and Jaylen Brown, developed into superstars who earned giant contracts. Boston, it is widely agreed, will soon have to make "tough choices" - code for dismantling a title-winning roster for apron-related reasons.

It is one thing when small-budget teams trade good players to avoid paying them big salaries; this has been going on long enough in all sports that fans are used to it. But the NBA has introduced an era where teams with bottomless resources - the Celtics are about to be purchased for many billions of dollars - still have to shed salary to preserve their roster flexibility. What kind of a signal does that send to fans?

This season's conference leaders, the Oklahoma City Thunder and Cleveland Cavaliers, are small-market clubs that built their rosters through good drafting and shrewd trades. They are also basically on the clock until they are broken up for luxury tax reasons.

The Doncic trade seems like a rash bit of lunacy. But in an NBA world where superstar contracts are also roster-building anchors, it might be something else: an omen for the future.

Scott Stinson is a contributing writer for theScore.