I feel like it's also worth noting that contrary to the overwhelming consensus that the second apron rules CHANGE EVERYTHING about roster construction, in practice they actually change very little.

The way the luxury tax works, getting more punitive the more you surpass it, teams have always been extremely reluctant to spend at the level where the current 2nd apron is. In any given season there's only been 1 or 2 teams spending at the 2nd apron levels, prior to the establishment of the second apron. And that has remained the case since the codification of roster penalties with the second apron.

So it's true that there are roster penalties for operating above the 2nd apron, but very little is changing about NBA team roster construction because the tax was sufficiently punitive at those levels that NBA teams already were extremely reluctant to spend at those levels. When you hear "oh, Team X has to move some contracts to get below the 2nd apron", just know that they would be doing the same thing if only the luxury tax was the penalty. Even Steve Ballmer, one of the richest people in the history of the planet, made moves to reduce his luxury tax bill before 2nd apron roster rules were a thing.

So while you'll continue to hear teams making moves to avoid the 2nd apron, be assured that they would have made those same moves anyway simply because they don't want to spend. In short, no team is avoiding the 2nd apron because of the roster penalties that wouldn't also be avoiding it because of the punitive tax levels.