Teambuilding: How do you want to do it

[Infinity2152]

Just my thought, open for discussion. 15 years team building on 2K and watching the league gives me some theories, some controversial.

1. Put together the best staff (GM) and coach that you can. Get ex-NBA players as coaches and make sure every young player is pushed.

2. ALWAYS go forward. Winning is a habit, losing is too. You can't lose on purpose with winning habits.

3. Never have your own first round pick. Have another team's first round pick every year. This makes rule 2 work. Evaluate the worst run franchises, ignore current talent unless they're really young and locked in. Trade for their future picks and stack. Do this right now, while we're still considered a mediocre franchise and our picks have value. Teams like Charlotte or the Wizards or Pistons. Once you keep winning, your future picks will drop in value. Lucky you swapped them already.

4. Expect and plan to be at least $10 mill, up to $25 mill into the luxury tax for a legitimate contender. Chicago is a big market city, and that is very reasonable. Let's say up to the first apron nowadays, which is $195.9 mill next year. Changes the whole way you build the team.

5. Ideal construction: 3 starters 25 or under, 2 vets. At least one starter on rookie contract, and the other starter either on rookie or second contract. This allows you to spend A LOT on the vet starters.

6. Have young players under contract between $10-$30 mill. Their value is more than their player value. As long as the player is not a complete ass, if he has potential, some team will think "We can fix him." I think we could fix Bol Bol, for instance. But those contracts are extremely valuable in star/superstar trades.

7. NEVER let a player leave for free without getting something back. For instance, Collins was a money dump. He just got here. But unless I plan to re-sign him or Vuc in FA, they both HAVE to go for expirings and at least a second apiece. I'm not giving up a second to move Jevon Carter. I'm convincing him he wants to be a free agent, I'm contacting every team in the league to build interest in him.

8. Don't compound an error with an error. Wouldn't have paid Pat $18 mill. Pat Will would get to be worth $18 mill or he would hate to be a Bull, lmao! If I have to take a haircut to move him, ok. But minimize the damage, maximize his value and make the move when you actually need the cap, not before.

9. Immediate goal is to get 2-3 number 2, number 3 type guys. You'll need at least 1, maybe two to make that superstar trade. If you don't want to lose Giddey or Matas, we need to keep Coby until the superstar trade arrives. What other valuable player piece do we have to include?

10. Trading is the best way to get that star. Cap space is almost always better utilized in trade. When the other team is forced to trade for various reasons, you can get way better deals than free agency. Almost every player is tradeable. Only ones that are not are unique ones, because you rarely get the value back. Giddey is far more untradeable than Matas to me for instance. Far easier to find a Matas type with that type of contributions to a Giddey type.

[sco]

Good OP!

IMO, you aren't really team building until you have a #1 option. And unless we see a ton of realization of potential from Matas (possible, but not probable), we don't have a #1.

Does that mean that teams that don't have one should tank until they do? Well, at least it's a plan that has a shot at succeeding.

On the flipside, does that mean that putting the best pieces and assets together to be ready to pounce should a star become available is a bad plan? No, but I feel like GM's get impatient and start seeing every available "name" as "the guy", and they end up making fatal mistakes and never get there. We're clearly in this bucket, and I fully expect AK to see the next Vuc as his unicorn, pull the trigger on a big deal and shoot himself in the foot (again).

[DuckIII]

It varies wildly based on your talent, fit, age, contracts and assets. No offense to the OP but there is no one way and the spectrum is very broad.

But I guess I have 3 Golden Rules:

1. Understand that context is vastly more important than anything else when deciding which strategy to employ. There is no “right way.” Context dictates the logic.

2. Know league history and play the odds.

3. Stay contract and asset flexible until it’s time to contend.

[dougthonus]

I agree with a lot of these thoughts, I'll add on a few more:

1: Pay an absolute crap ton of money to have the #1 support staff that money can buy. Best strength, trainers, shooting coaches, whatever, get redundant, pay for the two or three best guys. Pay for people who do R&D in this area and get those guys to constantly bring in new ideas. This money doesn't go against the cap, and costs you nothing.

2: Same as above, but with analytics and data.

3: Get basketball ops team (including HC) who will leverage the above and is also elite in their own lanes (best talent evaluators you can find, coaches, GMs, capologists, negotiators, whatever).

Spend 100M a year on all that stuff above if you have to because none of it costs against the cap, and all of it is going to result in the best possible implementation of the framework noted above.

[dougthonus]

It varies wildly based on your talent, fit, age, contracts and assets. No offense to the OP but there is no one way and the spectrum is very broad.

But I guess I have 3 Golden Rules:

1. Understand that context is vastly more important than anything else when deciding which strategy to employ. There is no “right way.” Context dictates the logic.

2. Know league history and play the odds.

3. Stay contract and asset flexible until it’s time to contend.

My company does decision making frameworks on assets often ranging from 10s of millions to billions, and our #1 tenant is to be disciplined and educated and you will do well across all contexts. What does disciplined and educated in this context mean? I think a lot of what you just said.

[sco]

Not that it has anything to do with one's approach, but luck plays such a huge role in NBA. Likely the most of any major sport. The lottery is about luck. The different in a team's future prospects depending on whether they land Flagg vs. Harper, IMO is very large.

The flipside is also true. I am continually amazed how many stars are non-lotto picks. Despite the best scouts and film study, they miss a lot of great players who don't fit prototypical molds. We've been the victim of that, twice, IMO. Once when we drafted Pat when the whole league was looking for the next Claw, and then again when AK traded for his next Joker in Vuc.

Also, the fact that it isn't uncommon for teams to tank for 4+ years only to land a transformational star, but then that star's career suddenly gets derailed by injuries (e.g. Derrick Rose).

[kodo]

I don't know about #3, there's been no championship team built off another team's pick(s) except Boston, because it requires the dumbest GM in the history of the league to make that deal happen. Even a bad GM will protect their picks if they're likely to be high. Sure OKC or CLE might trade unprotected picks this season, but teams likely to get top 3 picks protect them.

- Joker/Jamal: Denver's own pick
- Steph/Klay/Green: GS's own picks
- Giannis: MIL's own pick
- LA Lebron: Free Agency
- TOR Kawhi: forced trade due to impending FA, Siakam TOR's own pick
etc..

Nobody in the league has more picks than OKC, and OKC isn't really built off other team's picks Presti got.
Shai: Paul George trade
Williams: pick from Paul George trade
Chet: OKC pick
Lu Dort: 2-way find
Hartenstein: free agency

[Infinity2152]

I agree with a lot of these thoughts, I'll add on a few more:

1: Pay an absolute crap ton of money to have the #1 support staff that money can buy. Best strength, trainers, shooting coaches, whatever, get redundant, pay for the two or three best guys. Pay for people who do R&D in this area and get those guys to constantly bring in new ideas. This money doesn't go against the cap, and costs you nothing.

2: Same as above, but with analytics and data.

3: Get basketball ops team (including HC) who will leverage the above and is also elite in their own lanes (best talent evaluators you can find, coaches, GMs, capologists, negotiators, whatever).

Spend 100M a year on all that stuff above if you have to because none of it costs against the cap, and all of it is going to result in the best possible implementation of the framework noted above.

Love this. Would like to add I agree there are lots of ways to team build, that way is just my preference. My thoughts are building a long-term successful run. Focus on fit more than talent acquisition. Build a solid platform, and use active methods, primarily trades to get better. If the team is built well, stars can come and go. The variety and type of number 1 you can add increases dramatically, if the team is not already dependent on one guy. I view the draft much more as a chance to get solid cheap role players to mid level starters than to find my superstar.

[Infinity2152]

I don't know about #3, there's been no championship team built off another team's pick(s) except Boston, because it requires the dumbest GM in the history of the league to make that deal happen. Even a bad GM will protect their picks if they're likely to be high. Sure OKC or CLE might trade unprotected picks this season, but teams likely to get top 3 picks protect them.

- Joker/Jamal: Denver's own pick
- Steph/Klay/Green: GS's own picks
- Giannis: MIL's own pick
- LA Lebron: Free Agency
- TOR Kawhi: forced trade due to impending FA, Siakam TOR's own pick
etc..

Nobody in the league has more picks than OKC, and OKC isn't really built off other team's picks Presti got.
Shai: Paul George trade
Williams: pick from Paul George trade
Chet: OKC pick
Lu Dort: 2-way find
Hartenstein: free agency

I'll give you an example. Brooklyn trade KD for Mikal Bridges, Cam Johnson and four first round picks plus a pick swap. Then they swapped Mikal Bridges for 5 first round picks and 5 pick swaps. That gives you a TON of ammunition. Not suggesting you're building your team through the draft picks. I've said the surest way to find your superstar is through trade.

And the attempted pick swaps I'm talking about would be more subtle than that. For instance the Pistons look pretty good right now. They won more games than us. They have their eye on a guy in the draft who dropped but they draft 17. We get pick 9. Trade pick 9 for #17 and their top 3 protected 2028 pick, plus a 2029 pick swap. Or do pick swaps with teams you think you'll be better than. Some organizations just continue to find ways to lose. Do you think they believe they're losers or just bad luck and players? Have no confidence in Detroit being good in 2028, 2029, but they won 44 games this year. The Hornets, when you offer to swap 2028 picks and they just drafted a superstar or signed a free agent, are they going to say "No, because we suck and we'll always suck?". Opportunities will come up, there will be teams that think they're better than us and are wrong.

Example for the Bulls: people were talking about trading White and adding two first round picks. Now you're getting a player back, that player ups his value like Caruso or Collins and you trade him and get two more firsts. Make moves like this a part of the plan, not the whole plan.

[Infinity2152]

Not that it has anything to do with one's approach, but luck plays such a huge role in NBA. Likely the most of any major sport. The lottery is about luck. The different in a team's future prospects depending on whether they land Flagg vs. Harper, IMO is very large.

The flipside is also true. I am continually amazed how many stars are non-lotto picks. Despite the best scouts and film study, they miss a lot of great players who don't fit prototypical molds. We've been the victim of that, twice, IMO. Once when we drafted Pat when the whole league was looking for the next Claw, and then again when AK traded for his next Joker in Vuc.

Also, the fact that it isn't uncommon for teams to tank for 4+ years only to land a transformational star, but then that star's career suddenly gets derailed by injuries (e.g. Derrick Rose).

The Bulls history for the past 15 years or so have been derailed because of two major PG injuries to young guys. Derrick Rose just retired, he's a hometown kid, he probably stays here his whole career. 10-12 solid years of D Rose? With a healthy Ball, our record is much better the last 3-4 years. Playoffs every year. And now our best player is another PG, lol. You're right, luck has been huge.

And you're also right about non lottery stars. Outside the top 5, it's much more important to pick smart than pick high.

There are like 1 or 2 transcendent superstars every 10 years or so now. You pretty much need the number 1 pick to get that player and the worst teams best odds are 14%. If you're tanking in a year that superstar is available. I'd say you got Luka, Wemby over the last 10 years. Wemby saved the day, None of those have a championship, and unless Lebron carries them to one, not getting one this year.

Actually, got 3. SGA, even though he was drafted later than the rest. Wild the three MVP candidates (Giannis, SGA, Jokic) all drafted outside the top 10. Other guys in the running would probably be Donovan Mitchell (pick 13) and Steph Curry (pick 7), Jayson Tatum (pick 3). Add Jimmy Butler and Kawhi Leonard to the MVP hunt.

Funny where those top guys land when they get drafted, obviously generational guys. Ewing went to New York. Rose ends up in Chicago. Lebron ends up in Cleveland. Wemby ends up in SA. The league owned the Hornets when they got the number 1 pick to get AD. Still hard to believe hometown kid Matas fell to us.

[meekrab]

Still hard to believe hometown kid Matas fell to us.

He had the stink of G-League Ignite on him, but it's washed off now.

[Dan Z]

I don't know about #3, there's been no championship team built off another team's pick(s) except Boston, because it requires the dumbest GM in the history of the league to make that deal happen. Even a bad GM will protect their picks if they're likely to be high. Sure OKC or CLE might trade unprotected picks this season, but teams likely to get top 3 picks protect them.

- Joker/Jamal: Denver's own pick
- Steph/Klay/Green: GS's own picks
- Giannis: MIL's own pick
- LA Lebron: Free Agency
- TOR Kawhi: forced trade due to impending FA, Siakam TOR's own pick
etc..

Nobody in the league has more picks than OKC, and OKC isn't really built off other team's picks Presti got.
Shai: Paul George trade
Williams: pick from Paul George trade
Chet: OKC pick
Lu Dort: 2-way find
Hartenstein: free agency

I agree. #3 doesn't work. If you're "never going to have your own pick" that means you traded every pick you can for a player (or players) and even in that scenario you'd still have your own pick every other year (or a swap). Plus, you'd have to trade with other teams to get their picks each year and that's something you can't do consistently.

[Infinity2152]

I don't know about #3, there's been no championship team built off another team's pick(s) except Boston, because it requires the dumbest GM in the history of the league to make that deal happen. Even a bad GM will protect their picks if they're likely to be high. Sure OKC or CLE might trade unprotected picks this season, but teams likely to get top 3 picks protect them.

- Joker/Jamal: Denver's own pick
- Steph/Klay/Green: GS's own picks
- Giannis: MIL's own pick
- LA Lebron: Free Agency
- TOR Kawhi: forced trade due to impending FA, Siakam TOR's own pick
etc..

Nobody in the league has more picks than OKC, and OKC isn't really built off other team's picks Presti got.
Shai: Paul George trade
Williams: pick from Paul George trade
Chet: OKC pick
Lu Dort: 2-way find
Hartenstein: free agency

I agree. #3 doesn't work. If you're "never going to have your own pick" that means you traded every pick you can for a player (or players) and even in that scenario you'd still have your own pick every other year (or a swap). Plus, you'd have to trade with other teams to get their picks each year and that's something you can't do consistently.

You're getting other teams firsts in the process. There are 30 teams in the league, trade opportunities abound when you're talking straight pick for pick. Already said have a first round pick every year. I included pick swaps for the alternate years. Again, I can't imagine a world where there are no teams that are worse than us and think they are better. There are several. We have Portland's pick right now, they thought they would better. If it wasn't so protected, it would have been a plus asset by now.

I said target losing organizations, especially when they look good now. It's a process, and a general rule. When you can take advantage, do so. Suns just traded a 2031 first for three firsts and we can't plan to make shrewd moves? Actively go out and find those deals, as opposed to waiting for them to come to you. If you plan on long term stability, those future picks you own are worth less and less. We've been a 40 win team for the longest, didn't even make 40 this year. Teams like Detroit and the Hawks probably think they're better than us in 2028-2030. I don't. Grizzlies, Pelicans, very little faith in them long term no matter what player is there now or how they're doing now.

Or trade a player and add extra picks. With how the Thunder treated Caruso, team loaded with picks, we might have gotten 2 firsts if we took back a bum or a bad contract. Not crazy hard to have a first every year if most of the time you get a pick back and you add 1 or two in player trades.

[Dan Z]

I don't know about #3, there's been no championship team built off another team's pick(s) except Boston, because it requires the dumbest GM in the history of the league to make that deal happen. Even a bad GM will protect their picks if they're likely to be high. Sure OKC or CLE might trade unprotected picks this season, but teams likely to get top 3 picks protect them.

- Joker/Jamal: Denver's own pick
- Steph/Klay/Green: GS's own picks
- Giannis: MIL's own pick
- LA Lebron: Free Agency
- TOR Kawhi: forced trade due to impending FA, Siakam TOR's own pick
etc..

Nobody in the league has more picks than OKC, and OKC isn't really built off other team's picks Presti got.
Shai: Paul George trade
Williams: pick from Paul George trade
Chet: OKC pick
Lu Dort: 2-way find
Hartenstein: free agency

I agree. #3 doesn't work. If you're "never going to have your own pick" that means you traded every pick you can for a player (or players) and even in that scenario you'd still have your own pick every other year (or a swap). Plus, you'd have to trade with other teams to get their picks each year and that's something you can't do consistently.

You're getting other teams firsts in the process. There are 30 teams in the league, trade opportunities abound when you're talking straight pick for pick. Already said have a first round pick every year. I included pick swaps for the alternate years. Again, I can't imagine a world where there are no teams that are worse than us and think they are better. There are several. We have Portland's pick right now, they thought they would better. If it wasn't so protected, it would have been a plus asset by now.

I said target losing organizations, especially when they look good now. It's a process, and a general rule. When you can take advantage, do so. Suns just traded a 2031 first for three firsts and we can't plan to make shrewd moves? Actively go out and find those deals, as opposed to waiting for them to come to you. If you plan on long term stability, those future picks you own are worth less and less.

I agree that it's good to try and target those trades, but there are variable that come into play. Do you have assets to trade? Do the teams you're targeting want to trade their picks? Sometimes that answer is no (to one or both of those questions) and there's nothing you can do about it. What you can control (to some degree) is your own pick.

The Suns made that trade because they were in talks of getting Butler. That fell through, but my guess is they also did it to have some flexibility over the next few years.

Utah also had three extra picks they could trade. Not every team has that.

Right now the Bulls could call up Detroit or Charlotte and inquire about future picks, but the Bulls don't have anything that makes sense to trade them for it.

[Infinity2152]

I agree. #3 doesn't work. If you're "never going to have your own pick" that means you traded every pick you can for a player (or players) and even in that scenario you'd still have your own pick every other year (or a swap). Plus, you'd have to trade with other teams to get their picks each year and that's something you can't do consistently.

You're getting other teams firsts in the process. There are 30 teams in the league, trade opportunities abound when you're talking straight pick for pick. Already said have a first round pick every year. I included pick swaps for the alternate years. Again, I can't imagine a world where there are no teams that are worse than us and think they are better. There are several. We have Portland's pick right now, they thought they would better. If it wasn't so protected, it would have been a plus asset by now.

I said target losing organizations, especially when they look good now. It's a process, and a general rule. When you can take advantage, do so. Suns just traded a 2031 first for three firsts and we can't plan to make shrewd moves? Actively go out and find those deals, as opposed to waiting for them to come to you. If you plan on long term stability, those future picks you own are worth less and less.

I agree that it's good to try and target those trades, but there are variable that come into play. Do you have assets to trade? Do the teams you're targeting want to trade their picks? Sometimes that answer is no (to one or both of those questions) and there's nothing you can do about it. What you can control (to some degree) is your own pick.

The Suns made that trade because they were in talks of getting Butler. That fell through, but my guess is they also did it to have some flexibility over the next few years.

Utah also had three extra picks they could trade. Not every team has that.

Right now the Bulls could call up Detroit or Charlotte and inquire about future picks, but the Bulls don't have anything that makes sense to trade them for it.

What I'm saying is, what the Suns did, any team could do. Didn't even take much time to set up. Any team could have. That trade was kind of original, those picks are worst of three teams. It's a great idea. The more active we are seeking those deals, the more proactive creating those types of moves, the better. Like the Luka for AD swap. Two guys did that between themselves. But if they never discussed it, Lakers probably never even offer such a ridiculous trade. Not so much respect for Ainge now, but he had a reputation for being a hell of a negotiator. That small little extra edge over years should add up.

Instead of focusing who we should get rid of, focus on who we want and target that player. Hit all the teams and evaluate their tolerance, willingness to trade future picks or do swaps. You don't know what's out there until you reach out. We'd probably be surprised how many deals could have happened if somebody just called, instead of assuming it's not possible so why bother. Never know what the other guy is thinking, let alone 30 other guys. I'm talking about making these types of trades over years, not all at once. The earlier trades would have more value if you actually achieve continued success, now you're getting better picks than you would have.

[Dan Z]

You're getting other teams firsts in the process. There are 30 teams in the league, trade opportunities abound when you're talking straight pick for pick. Already said have a first round pick every year. I included pick swaps for the alternate years. Again, I can't imagine a world where there are no teams that are worse than us and think they are better. There are several. We have Portland's pick right now, they thought they would better. If it wasn't so protected, it would have been a plus asset by now.

I said target losing organizations, especially when they look good now. It's a process, and a general rule. When you can take advantage, do so. Suns just traded a 2031 first for three firsts and we can't plan to make shrewd moves? Actively go out and find those deals, as opposed to waiting for them to come to you. If you plan on long term stability, those future picks you own are worth less and less.

I agree that it's good to try and target those trades, but there are variable that come into play. Do you have assets to trade? Do the teams you're targeting want to trade their picks? Sometimes that answer is no (to one or both of those questions) and there's nothing you can do about it. What you can control (to some degree) is your own pick.

The Suns made that trade because they were in talks of getting Butler. That fell through, but my guess is they also did it to have some flexibility over the next few years.

Utah also had three extra picks they could trade. Not every team has that.

Right now the Bulls could call up Detroit or Charlotte and inquire about future picks, but the Bulls don't have anything that makes sense to trade them for it.

What I'm saying is, what the Suns did, any team could do. Any team could have. That trade was kind of original, those picks are worst of three teams. It's a great idea. The more active we are seeking those deals, the more proactive creating those types of moves, the better. Like the Luka for AD swap. Two guys did that between themselves. But if they never discussed it, Lakers probably never even offer such a ridiculous trade. Not so much respet for Ainge now, but he had a reputation for being a hell of a negotiator. That small little extra edge over years should add up.

Those kind of deals don't come around often and when they do you have to have the assets to make it happen. The Suns basically backed themselves into a corner and that's why they did that deal and the Jazz had extra picks to do it

It's not something you can count on, but sure...ask other teams if they want to do it. I bet in most situations they'd say no. For example, if you're the GM of Detroit would you trade future picks to get something like the Bulls pick this year? I wouldn't.

[Infinity2152]

I agree that it's good to try and target those trades, but there are variable that come into play. Do you have assets to trade? Do the teams you're targeting want to trade their picks? Sometimes that answer is no (to one or both of those questions) and there's nothing you can do about it. What you can control (to some degree) is your own pick.

The Suns made that trade because they were in talks of getting Butler. That fell through, but my guess is they also did it to have some flexibility over the next few years.

Utah also had three extra picks they could trade. Not every team has that.

Right now the Bulls could call up Detroit or Charlotte and inquire about future picks, but the Bulls don't have anything that makes sense to trade them for it.

What I'm saying is, what the Suns did, any team could do. Any team could have. That trade was kind of original, those picks are worst of three teams. It's a great idea. The more active we are seeking those deals, the more proactive creating those types of moves, the better. Like the Luka for AD swap. Two guys did that between themselves. But if they never discussed it, Lakers probably never even offer such a ridiculous trade. Not so much respet for Ainge now, but he had a reputation for being a hell of a negotiator. That small little extra edge over years should add up.

Those kind of deals don't come around often and when they do you have to have the assets to make it happen. The Suns basically backed themselves into a corner and that's why they did that deal and the Jazz had extra picks to do it

It's not something you can count on, but sure...ask other teams if they want to do it. I bet in most situations they'd say no. For example, if you're the GM of Detroit would you trade future picks to get something like the Bulls pick this year? I wouldn't.

Pistons won 44 games this year. Bulls pick could end up 15. You sure there's no way the Pistons think they're a rising team and surely win at least 45 next year, meaning they probably draft lower than 15, but a year later in a possibly weaker draft? Or would welcome an immediate rookie they like in this draft over whoever's available at 20 next year? I wouldn't presume to know what every GM thinks. But I bet most of them think they're great and the team will be better next year than it was this year. Or they're fired. We know Gm's will trade future picks for right now help, AK did it.

You say the Suns did it because they had to do it. You're right. If they had more time, maybe they get an even better return. There are other teams with multiple picks, Thunder and Nets have tons offhand. What if the Suns had more time, or were trading a pick considered more valuable than a Suns 2031 first? Don't know if our rep is better than the Suns, imagine a 2027 Bulls 1st have more trade value. We'll be doing trades pretty much every year. Those pick swaps could happen in conjunction with a player trade, they don't have to be straight pick for pick.

[Dan Z]

What I'm saying is, what the Suns did, any team could do. Any team could have. That trade was kind of original, those picks are worst of three teams. It's a great idea. The more active we are seeking those deals, the more proactive creating those types of moves, the better. Like the Luka for AD swap. Two guys did that between themselves. But if they never discussed it, Lakers probably never even offer such a ridiculous trade. Not so much respet for Ainge now, but he had a reputation for being a hell of a negotiator. That small little extra edge over years should add up.

Those kind of deals don't come around often and when they do you have to have the assets to make it happen. The Suns basically backed themselves into a corner and that's why they did that deal and the Jazz had extra picks to do it

It's not something you can count on, but sure...ask other teams if they want to do it. I bet in most situations they'd say no. For example, if you're the GM of Detroit would you trade future picks to get something like the Bulls pick this year? I wouldn't.

Pistons won 44 games this year. Bulls pick could end up 15. You sure there's no way the Pistons think they're a rising team and surely win at least 45 next year, meaning they probably draft lower than 15, but a year later in a possibly weaker draft? Or would welcome an immediate rookie they like in this draft over whoever's available at 20 next year? I wouldn't presume to know what every GM thinks. But I bet most of them think they're great and the team will be better next year than it was this year. Or they're fired. We know Gm's will trade future picks for right now help, AK did it.

AK traded future picks for Vucevic and it was a mistake.

I bet you're right that Detroit thinks they will improve, but I still don't think that the Bulls pick is worth trading a future pick for. One, we have no idea if next years draft is worse. Two, what if Detroit doesn't do well (for whatever reason)? Is a player such as Asa Newell or Egor Denim worth that?

Keep in mind that Detroit already has a group of young players who are improving: Cade, Ivey, Holland, Duren and Thompson.

[Infinity2152]

Those kind of deals don't come around often and when they do you have to have the assets to make it happen. The Suns basically backed themselves into a corner and that's why they did that deal and the Jazz had extra picks to do it

It's not something you can count on, but sure...ask other teams if they want to do it. I bet in most situations they'd say no. For example, if you're the GM of Detroit would you trade future picks to get something like the Bulls pick this year? I wouldn't.

Pistons won 44 games this year. Bulls pick could end up 15. You sure there's no way the Pistons think they're a rising team and surely win at least 45 next year, meaning they probably draft lower than 15, but a year later in a possibly weaker draft? Or would welcome an immediate rookie they like in this draft over whoever's available at 20 next year? I wouldn't presume to know what every GM thinks. But I bet most of them think they're great and the team will be better next year than it was this year. Or they're fired. We know Gm's will trade future picks for right now help, AK did it.

AK traded future picks for Vucevic and it was a mistake.

I bet you're right that Detroit thinks they will improve, but I still don't think that the Bulls pick is worth trading a future pick for. One, we have no idea if next years draft is worse. Two, what if Detroit doesn't do well (for whatever reason)? Is a player such as Asa Newell or Egor Denim worth that?

Keep in mind that Detroit already has a group of young players who are improving: Cade, Ivey, Holland, Duren and Thompson.

Once again, if you think you'll be better, you think you're probably drafting lower than 15 next year. So why would you not take 15 this year for pick next year? It's a year earlier, unless you think lower picks are better it's not that hard. It's a gamble, sure. Say our pick is 12. Do they still not want it, believing full well they won't be a lottery team next year? Same with Atlanta? Orlando? Nobody believes in their own team more than they believe in the Bulls to do a pick swap?

It seems you think the Pistons are set up for success with Cunningham, Ivey, Holland, Duren and Thompson. They do too. I'm targeting their picks 3-7 years down the line.

[Dan Z]

What I'm saying is, what the Suns did, any team could do. Any team could have. That trade was kind of original, those picks are worst of three teams. It's a great idea. The more active we are seeking those deals, the more proactive creating those types of moves, the better. Like the Luka for AD swap. Two guys did that between themselves. But if they never discussed it, Lakers probably never even offer such a ridiculous trade. Not so much respet for Ainge now, but he had a reputation for being a hell of a negotiator. That small little extra edge over years should add up.

Those kind of deals don't come around often and when they do you have to have the assets to make it happen. The Suns basically backed themselves into a corner and that's why they did that deal and the Jazz had extra picks to do it

It's not something you can count on, but sure...ask other teams if they want to do it. I bet in most situations they'd say no. For example, if you're the GM of Detroit would you trade future picks to get something like the Bulls pick this year? I wouldn't.

Pistons won 44 games this year. Bulls pick could end up 15. You sure there's no way the Pistons think they're a rising team and surely win at least 45 next year, meaning they probably draft lower than 15, but a year later in a possibly weaker draft? Or would welcome an immediate rookie they like in this draft over whoever's available at 20 next year? I wouldn't presume to know what every GM thinks. But I bet most of them think they're great and the team will be better next year than it was this year. Or they're fired. We know Gm's will trade future picks for right now help, AK did it.

You say the Suns did it because they had to do it. You're right. If they had more time, maybe they get an even better return. There are other teams with multiple picks, Thunder and Nets have tons offhand. What if the Suns had more time, or were trading a pick considered more valuable than a Suns 2031 first? Don't know if our rep is better than the Suns, imagine a 2027 Bulls 1st have more trade value. We'll be doing trades pretty much every year. Those pick swaps could happen in conjunction with a player trade, they don't have to be straight pick for pick.

I didn't answer the 2nd part of your response...

It doesn't make sense to do a trade every year just so you can get another teams pick and not have your own. There will be times when that's not possible, a bad idea, or just dong a trade to do one.