I asked Sam Presti his thoughts on the polarizing subject of the NBA aprons. I think his full answer is worth reading. Presti: “I think it is polarizing because the people that talk about it all have a point of view as to how they're experiencing it. So I think that's the first thing. I would look at it this way also. Probably shouldn't mention it this way. What were they intended to do? That's the baseline question; what were they intended to do. They were, as I understand it, put into place to even the playing field amongst teams that have an outsized financial advantage in comparison to the majority of the league. That was the first order of business. We had a 3-to-1 spending ratio. The teams that were in the 3 could stay in the 3 for 10 to 15 years. The other way to look at this is the aprons are intended to make it so a team's primary team-building philosophy can't be spending. Another point. Then if you look at when the rules were put in place, they didn't come in all at one time. They were phased in. So what were the things that happened right before the door shut behind everybody? Well, teams in the luxury tax traded for big-name players. Boston was in the tax; they traded for Holiday. Phoenix was in the tax; they traded for Beal and Durant. Clippers traded for Harden. Dallas was in the tax; they traded for Kyrie Irving. Milwaukee was in the tax, and they traded for Lillard. None of those trades could be computed today. The aprons are intended so if you are a high-spending team, you're not in a position to add more talent. Now, what are they not designed to do? Well, they're not designed to tell a team that may feel in any market that they have a very unique moment in their organizational history to pursue excellence, to say, hey, we might be here for 50 years, maybe more; this five years in the luxury tax may be something we want to be aggressive about because we don't know how many more teams like this we're going to have in said market, wherever that is. This could be anywhere. So the choice is there for the teams to make an educated decision about what they want to pursue or what their tolerance level is for different things. The key, though, is everyone has that opportunity, but teams that could do that for 15 years, that's not possible anymore. So it's kind of giving everybody the same opportunity to make a choice to push in and spend aggressively if they feel they have a team that warrants that. But not everyone can do that, put choice is there. The aprons are so that once you're at that level, you can't add more talent, and I think that's all getting mixed up with the way people present it. That's the most succinct and simple way I can answer that.”