Pick Protections: Good franchises vs Bad Franchises

[dougthonus]

If a team isn't getting enough value to gave up a high lottery pick under any circumstances, then you get into this situation with the 2nds.

Portland basically swapped DJJ for Nance, which isn't much value, and it's pretty easy to see where Portland was not going to ever gave up a lotto pick to make that swap.

Lauri wasn't going to get a whole ton of value, because we waited until he was a restricted free agent to try to move him.

Waiting too long. That seems like a typical move by AK.

Yeah, I had noted that in AK's first summer / deadline. You either want to commit to Lauri or you want to move him that summer / deadline before RFA, because you will get way less by waiting. At the time, more or less everyone was ready to move on from Lauri (including myself) which ended up being the wrong choice, but if you were going to move on, moving earlier would have gotten you a real return.

That said, it wasn't so bad. In comparison, the next summer, we signed Lonzo Ball (a 20M player) and gave up just a 2nd round pick. So we got a protected first for Lauri (a 15M player). Ignoring what happened later and just how the players were valued in the moment, our return on Lauri wasn't bad under the circumstances, but we would have got more acting earlier or obviously would have had a better player if we were patient and kept him.

In the end though, we took the lowest upside route, which is pretty standard for AK. He's likely 90% sure he wants to get rid of Lauri at the start of his reign (at least that's where fans were at), but by not being willing to risk the 10%, he massively lowered his return. The irony of course is that everyone was wrong and we should have kept him. Even waiting to be "sure", he didn't make the right evaluation AND got the lesser value.

I viewed Coby / Ayo in that boat this summer. I'm 90% sure I don't need these guys on their next market value contracts, go get picks now.

I viewed Zach / DeMar / Vuc / Caruso in that boat the year after 46 win season (90% sure this isn't going to work, trade them now).

But you are right, AK always waits to be even more sure, and the problem is that once he is that sure, so is the rest of the league.

[League Circles]

If a team isn't getting enough value to gave up a high lottery pick under any circumstances, then you get into this situation with the 2nds.

Portland basically swapped DJJ for Nance, which isn't much value, and it's pretty easy to see where Portland was not going to ever gave up a lotto pick to make that swap.

Lauri wasn't going to get a whole ton of value, because we waited until he was a restricted free agent to try to move him.

Waiting too long. That seems like a typical move by AK.

Yeah, I had noted that in AK's first summer / deadline. You either want to commit to Lauri or you want to move him that summer / deadline before RFA, because you will get way less by waiting. At the time, more or less everyone was ready to move on from Lauri (including myself) which ended up being the wrong choice, but if you were going to move on, moving earlier would have gotten you a real return.

That said, it wasn't so bad. In comparison, the next summer, we signed Lonzo Ball (a 20M player) and gave up just a 2nd round pick. So we got a protected first for Lauri (a 15M player). Ignoring what happened later and just how the players were valued in the moment, our return on Lauri wasn't bad under the circumstances, but we would have got more acting earlier or obviously would have had a better player if we were patient and kept him.

In the end though, we took the lowest upside route, which is pretty standard for AK. He's likely 90% sure he wants to get rid of Lauri at the start of his reign (at least that's where fans were at), but by not being willing to risk the 10%, he massively lowered his return. The irony of course is that everyone was wrong and we should have kept him. Even waiting to be "sure", he didn't make the right evaluation AND got the lesser value.

I viewed Coby / Ayo in that boat this summer. I'm 90% sure I don't need these guys on their next market value contracts, go get picks now.

I viewed Zach / DeMar / Vuc / Caruso in that boat the year after 46 win season (90% sure this isn't going to work, trade them now).

But you are right, AK always waits to be even more sure, and the problem is that once he is that sure, so is the rest of the league.

I think you described AK's overvaluing of the 10% well. The problem is that trade returns still need to be better than the 10% value, especially if they are picks.

I wasn't even high on Lauri but unlike most people, I wanted to force him to stay by not agreeing to this weak sign and trade. I'd have offered him a 1+1 deal and made him get an offer sheet. We may still have him today if we had done that.

That's why I was pushing pretty hard to trade Giddey before the deadline. Now, just like with Lauri and Patrick, we will have limited options. But, AK can and should still give him the deal he should have given Lauri and Patrick. 1+1 w/ team option.

For players that aren't obviously going to be in high demand, which describes Lauri at the time, Patrick, and now Giddey, IMO, a 1+1 deal of that sort should be projected as the baseline likely projected outcome of letting a questionable talent like these guys enter RFA. You then evaluate that against whatever pick(s) or player(s) you can get for them by the trade deadline of their 4th season. If you don't get trade offers that are better than a 1+1 deal projects to be for your team, then you keep and wait. AK sadly values the additional evaluation time and upside, but then so far has not really used it for what it should be good for. We can only hope that his move with Caruso and now Ball's extension will be more how he operates going forward. I know UFA is not the same as RFA, but as you suggest, Coby and Ayo will be big tests for him coming up this summer. I don't agree that it's 90% clear we wouldn't want one or both on their next market value deals, but agree it's not a high likelihood we'll want them. I'd generically probably like to trade at least one of them, especially if we keep Giddey. Ironically, since Giddey is actually a point-forward who needs catch and shoot, quick guards to play with him, Coby and Ayo are actually good matches for him. But it's excessive for a bad team to commit for multiple years to 4 flawed ball handling guys in Ball, Coby, Ayo and Giddey. 2 or 3 is plenty.

[2weekswithpay]

Then so be it, you look elsewhere. The Bulls weren't desperate to get rid of Markkanen and even back then he had some potential. I bet they could've got a better pick for him.

Both sides wanted to move on and a Lauri was a RFA. Trying to find a deal for Lauri was holding up the Bulls FA signings that offseason, they weren't going to keep him. The trade happened a month before training camp started, a protected lottery first was the most they were going to get for him.

Then you wait. Rushing into a deal and making a bad one is never a good move. If he's holding up FA then so be it (I can't remember the cap details...could they make any signings plus keep him? I know DDR and Lonzo were both S&T so..maybe?).

For a long time many people here have thought that the Portland pick will never convey. Some still feel that way. Portland is trending up so maybe it does, but it's still unknown.

If you found out back in 2021 that the Bulls traded Markkanen for one 2028 second and DJJ then you'd be very disappointed.

I think even in 2021 they could've got a pick that didn't have such crazy protections. I asked this earlier in the thread: when has a team ever traded for a pick with protections like this? Can you remember one? I can't.

They did wait. The trade was made Aug 27th. The Bulls reached agreements for Derozan, Caruso, and Lonzo when free agency started on Aug 2-3. Keeping Lauri would mean having him play on the qualifying offer which includes a no trade clause and Lauri being a UFA in the summer. Not sure dragging this into the season would've helped.

Disappointed yes but not because it was a bad deal. The Bulls got unlucky it happens.

The Hornets traded away their FRP that was lottery protected. It was top 18 protected in 2022, top 16 in 2023, top 14 in 2024, and top 14 in 2025.

[MrSparkle]

Well, in regards to all this, the slow-motion Coby/Ayo expiring summer is coming about as clearly as the Giddey one is about to arrive. Could see some really stupid decisions made on all 3 of these players, whether they’re (overpriced) contracts or past-due zero-return trades.

I can also see AK trolling all of us and resigning Vuc to a 3Y retirement extension, insisting he’s still a double-double machine, and a big part of what we’re trying to do.

[League Circles]

Well, in regards to all this, the slow-motion Coby/Ayo expiring summer is coming about as clearly as the Giddey one is about to arrive. Could see some really stupid decisions made on all 3 of these players, whether they’re (overpriced) contracts or past-due zero-return trades.

I can also see AK trolling all of us and resigning Vuc to a 3Y retirement extension, insisting he’s still a double-double machine, and a big part of what we’re trying to do.

If you mention another Vuc extension with the Bulls on this board again I'll report you to the moderator team. Absolutely inappropriate and offensive.

[MrSparkle]

Both sides wanted to move on and a Lauri was a RFA. Trying to find a deal for Lauri was holding up the Bulls FA signings that offseason, they weren't going to keep him. The trade happened a month before training camp started, a protected lottery first was the most they were going to get for him.

Then you wait. Rushing into a deal and making a bad one is never a good move. If he's holding up FA then so be it (I can't remember the cap details...could they make any signings plus keep him? I know DDR and Lonzo were both S&T so..maybe?).

For a long time many people here have thought that the Portland pick will never convey. Some still feel that way. Portland is trending up so maybe it does, but it's still unknown.

If you found out back in 2021 that the Bulls traded Markkanen for one 2028 second and DJJ then you'd be very disappointed.

I think even in 2021 they could've got a pick that didn't have such crazy protections. I asked this earlier in the thread: when has a team ever traded for a pick with protections like this? Can you remember one? I can't.

They did wait. The trade was made Aug 27th. The Bulls reached agreements for Derozan, Caruso, and Lonzo when free agency started on Aug 2-3. Keeping Lauri would mean having him play on the qualifying offer which includes a no trade clause and Lauri being a UFA in the summer. Not sure dragging this into the season would've helped.

Disappointed yes but not because it was a bad deal. The Bulls got unlucky it happens.

The Hornets traded away their FRP that was lottery protected. It was top 18 protected in 2022, top 16 in 2023, top 14 in 2024, and top 14 in 2025.

I was against meeting Lauri at $20M… but the smart thing for a NBA executive to do was to offer him that $17m salary (that Cavs offered), and keep him. We had the luxury of doing that. Especially since we lost the entire big man rotation (Thad, Aminu, Theis in addition to WCJ & Gafford). Pat was only on his 2nd year of a rookie contract, and Javonte was making the vet min, so it’s not like we were heavily invested in the PF position… that was more a case of Reinsdorf cheapness. Would’ve been in luxury, but in hindsight, letting a 22yo sharp/shooter #7 pick go for throwaway assets and cap savings is more a (classic) Bulls move than a Warriors/Lakers/Heat move.

I was so disappointed in Lauri and tired of the injuries, it made me really give up on him. But logically, there’s no reason to give up on a 4-year player with his skillset and size, unless the return is really good or he’s fetching a max. Especially since most our assets were spent on Vuc and Demar. The squabble was about $5m in salary, not $20m.

Chandler would be another example.. traded too soon. OTOH, he did get a huge contract, and had a rough Y5 (ala Pat).

You do run the risk of Pat and Coby stagnating (or Curry, Gordon, etc.). But then, you also had the opportunity to low ball Pat and atleast negotiate as hard as you did with Lauri and Coby. Things just don’t make sense, at the Advocate Center.

[jnrjr79]

The Bulls got a FRP for taking on 1 year of DJJ's salary and the Blazers had made the playoffs for 8 consecutive seasons. I don't think this was a bad trade the Bulls just got unlucky. Lillard got hurt and the Blazers were no longer a playoff team.

Why not ask for better protections just in case? I bet the Blazers still say yes because, like you said, they were planning on making the playoffs. I also think Markkenen (the Bulls version) should've been worth more than a highly protected pick and a so-so role player.

When is the last time there was a trade with protections like this? Was there ever one?

AK is terrible, so this is not a defense of him, but protections like this are common. For instance, the NY trade to KAT involved a first round pick that is top 13 protected, then top 11, then top 9, and then turns into a 2nd if not conveyed. The Wizards currently owe a protected first to NY that is top 10 protected in 2025, top 8 in 2026, and then converts to 2 2nds if not conveyed.

[Dan Z]

The Bulls got a FRP for taking on 1 year of DJJ's salary and the Blazers had made the playoffs for 8 consecutive seasons. I don't think this was a bad trade the Bulls just got unlucky. Lillard got hurt and the Blazers were no longer a playoff team.

Why not ask for better protections just in case? I bet the Blazers still say yes because, like you said, they were planning on making the playoffs. I also think Markkenen (the Bulls version) should've been worth more than a highly protected pick and a so-so role player.

When is the last time there was a trade with protections like this? Was there ever one?

AK is terrible, so this is not a defense of him, but protections like this are common. For instance, the NY trade to KAT involved a first round pick that is top 13 protected, then top 11, then top 9, and then turns into a 2nd if not conveyed. The Wizards currently owe a protected first to NY that is top 10 protected in 2025, top 8 in 2026, and then converts to 2 2nds if not conveyed.

I know that teams have traded lottery protected picks, but what I was wondering is if anyone has traded one that's 6 years out. 2-3 years...sure that makes sense.

[HomoSapien]

Everyone has said everything. Here's what I'll add.

1.) At the time of the trade, Larry Nance was viewed as a starting quality PF and also as an extremely good role player. It wasn't a surprise that he warranted a 1st round pick. The only surprise of the trade was that Nance wasn't sent to Chicago as the belief was that he would have been a perfect four for us with Lauri gone.

2.) I don't particularly believe that the pick should become fully unprotected, but I also don't understand the logic for why it would turn into a 2nd round pick. Why should Chicago agree to be penalized for Portland's poor record? They agreed to send us a first-round pick for Nance, and we should've held firm in an arrangement that would guarantee that we eventually get a 1st round pick. By contrast, the Bulls underachieved after the Vuc trade and still gave up their picks to Orlando. That's what I mean when I say we lose trades both on face value and in the margins.

[jnrjr79]

Why not ask for better protections just in case? I bet the Blazers still say yes because, like you said, they were planning on making the playoffs. I also think Markkenen (the Bulls version) should've been worth more than a highly protected pick and a so-so role player.

When is the last time there was a trade with protections like this? Was there ever one?

AK is terrible, so this is not a defense of him, but protections like this are common. For instance, the NY trade to KAT involved a first round pick that is top 13 protected, then top 11, then top 9, and then turns into a 2nd if not conveyed. The Wizards currently owe a protected first to NY that is top 10 protected in 2025, top 8 in 2026, and then converts to 2 2nds if not conveyed.

I know that teams have traded lottery protected picks, but what I was wondering is if anyone has traded one that's 6 years out. 2-3 years...sure that makes sense.

Ah, I thought you were asking whether people had traded picks with protections that resulted in them potentially turning into 2nds.

I think teams have learned that doing it how Portland did is bad, so they tend to have fewer years of protections, because it creates major Stepien Rule headaches.

[jnrjr79]

Everyone has said everything. Here's what I'll add.

1.) At the time of the trade, Larry Nance was viewed as a starting quality PF and also as an extremely good role player. It wasn't a surprise that he warranted a 1st round pick. The only surprise of the trade was that Nance wasn't sent to Chicago as the belief was that he would have been a perfect four for us with Lauri gone.

2.) I don't particularly believe that the pick should become fully unprotected, but I also don't understand the logic for why it would turn into a 2nd round pick. Why should Chicago agree to be penalized for Portland's poor record? They agreed to send us a first-round pick for Nance, and we should've held firm in an arrangement that would guarantee that we eventually get a 1st round pick. By contrast, the Bulls underachieved after the Vuc trade and still gave up their picks to Orlando. That's what I mean when I say we lose trades both on face value and in the margins.

You can't guarantee it'll turn into a first round pick without, in some year, having it become fully unprotected. That's due to the Stepien Rule restrictions on how far out you can encumber a pick.

[HomoSapien]

Everyone has said everything. Here's what I'll add.

1.) At the time of the trade, Larry Nance was viewed as a starting quality PF and also as an extremely good role player. It wasn't a surprise that he warranted a 1st round pick. The only surprise of the trade was that Nance wasn't sent to Chicago as the belief was that he would have been a perfect four for us with Lauri gone.

2.) I don't particularly believe that the pick should become fully unprotected, but I also don't understand the logic for why it would turn into a 2nd round pick. Why should Chicago agree to be penalized for Portland's poor record? They agreed to send us a first-round pick for Nance, and we should've held firm in an arrangement that would guarantee that we eventually get a 1st round pick. By contrast, the Bulls underachieved after the Vuc trade and still gave up their picks to Orlando. That's what I mean when I say we lose trades both on face value and in the margins.

You can't guarantee it'll turn into a first round pick without, in some year, having it become fully unprotected. That's due to the Stepien Rule restrictions on how far out you can encumber a pick.

Good catch. I'm learning that a pick protection can only go a maximum of 7 years, which is what the Bulls did. I would amend my complaint to being that the Bulls should have fought for a structure where the protections loosen over time (e.g., top-14 in 2022, top-12 in 2023, top-10 in 2024, etc.), increasing their chances of actually getting the pick.

[Infinity2152]

Matter of perspective. How many teams are in the lottery for 7 straight years? That has to be fairly rare. With pure luck, over 6 years drafting in the lottery plus free agency, you should have enough to make the playoffs. That's the ultimate tank, 7years, lol! That first was far more likely to convey than not in 2021.

Stepian rule means this pick is still valuable to the Blazers, they're limited in what they can do while we have it. That's leverage to get more than its market value in a trade back to Portland.

[2weekswithpay]

Matter of perspective. How many teams are in the lottery for 7 straight years? That has to be fairly rare. That first was far more likely to convey than not in 2021.

Stepian rule means this pick is still valuable to the Blazers, they're limited in what they can do while we have it. That's leverage to get more than its market value in a trade back to Portland.

The Knicks (2013-2020), Wolves (2004-2017), Kings (2006-2022), Hornets (2016-), Suns (2010-2020). Since 2000 only 5 teams have done it.

[Infinity2152]

Matter of perspective. How many teams are in the lottery for 7 straight years? That has to be fairly rare. That first was far more likely to convey than not in 2021.

Stepian rule means this pick is still valuable to the Blazers, they're limited in what they can do while we have it. That's leverage to get more than its market value in a trade back to Portland.

The Knicks (2013-2020), Wolves (2004-2017), Kings (2006-2022), Hornets (2016-), Suns (2010-2020). Since 2000 only 5 teams have done it.

Thanks! So, yeah, far more likely to convey than not. Looking at those Kings, Wolves and Hornets runs, Chicago fans would lose it!!

[jnrjr79]

Everyone has said everything. Here's what I'll add.

1.) At the time of the trade, Larry Nance was viewed as a starting quality PF and also as an extremely good role player. It wasn't a surprise that he warranted a 1st round pick. The only surprise of the trade was that Nance wasn't sent to Chicago as the belief was that he would have been a perfect four for us with Lauri gone.

2.) I don't particularly believe that the pick should become fully unprotected, but I also don't understand the logic for why it would turn into a 2nd round pick. Why should Chicago agree to be penalized for Portland's poor record? They agreed to send us a first-round pick for Nance, and we should've held firm in an arrangement that would guarantee that we eventually get a 1st round pick. By contrast, the Bulls underachieved after the Vuc trade and still gave up their picks to Orlando. That's what I mean when I say we lose trades both on face value and in the margins.

You can't guarantee it'll turn into a first round pick without, in some year, having it become fully unprotected. That's due to the Stepien Rule restrictions on how far out you can encumber a pick.

Good catch. I'm learning that a pick protection can only go a maximum of 7 years, which is what the Bulls did. I would amend my complaint to being that the Bulls should have fought for a structure where the protections loosen over time (e.g., top-14 in 2022, top-12 in 2023, top-10 in 2024, etc.), increasing their chances of actually getting the pick.

Yeah, diminishing protection seems pretty common and would have advantaged the Bulls.

What's funny is this trade was also bad for the Blazers. They messed up their ability to trade 1sts for years and years.

[drosestruts]

I think the Bulls have room for improvement with pick protections both in picks we've sent out and picks we've received.

I think comparing the Portland pick to the pick received by the Heat for Jimmy Butler is an odd comparison.

[Infinity2152]

Time still to tell on the value of lesser protections turning into 2 seconds. Which would be worth more, less protections that turn to 2 seconds in 2025, 2026 or a non lottery pick in 2027 or 2028? There's a fair likelihood we could get 2 seconds right now from Portland for that pick, I'd imagine.

Powerful to have that kind of leverage on a team too. Would say use it to get Robert Williams, but his injury history is scary.

[HearshotKDS]

Didnt see an obvious other thread to post this in, but CBS Sports article posted today ranking front offices, you might be surprised where they rank AKME!

https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/nba-front-office-rankings-celtics-okc-at-the-top-mavericks-sink-after-luka-trade-but-theyre-not-no-30/