We Need 1st Round Draft Picks That Are Not Subject to Pick Swaps

[Quake Griffin]

Please use this thread to advise on how we can do this.

[MartinToVaught]

Pick swaps in general should be banned. It's a loophole in the Stepien rule that needs patching.

[KingCrimzzon]

Please use this thread to advise on how we can do this.

They would have to dump Kawhi and/or PG (if he stays/resigns). So it's basically not happening even though a rebuild is totally what is needed now.

[esqtvd]

Please use this thread to advise on how we can do this.

They would have to dump Kawhi and/or PG (if he stays/resigns). So it's basically not happening even though a rebuild is totally what is needed now.

now we can't even tank until like 2030, lol

[madmaxmedia]

Right, we can't tank until 2030. But that we can rebuild/retool trying to maximize the overall quality of the team and not just say the next 2 years (since we have no water left to squeeze out of the championship contender rock.) The benefits of a bad record are lost to us until 2030, but we can make moves to at least lessen the pain (or at least not make it worse) for the next few years.

The best scenario I can come up with would be to re-sign PG and James to reasonable contracts (3/~$150M for PG, not sure for James) so that they become reasonable trade assets. Then explore trades for 1 or 2 of PG/James/KL which could still allow us to put a decent product on the floor and a draft pick or 2 (not great ones but still draft picks at least.) We can tread water and still be watchable for 2-3 years, which is not far off from our remaining ceiling now anyway. Even then there could be at least 1 bad year at the end without our own lottery pick but that's water under the bridge now.

[madmaxmedia]

Pick swaps in general should be banned. It's a loophole in the Stepien rule that needs patching.

That's a fair point. From a value perspective, it's often not far off from just giving away your pick. The rule was made to basically protect owners from themselves, and swaps ended up being a way to make up for the limitations the Stepien rule imposes on teams.

That we were able to get James for a 1st and a swap, vs. 2 1sts, doesn't make that much of a difference in our long-term outlook.

[esqtvd]

Right, we can't tank until 2030. But that we can rebuild/retool trying to maximize the overall quality of the team and not just say the next 2 years (since we have no water left to squeeze out of the championship contender rock.) The benefits of a bad record are lost to us until 2030, but we can make moves to at least lessen the pain (or at least not make it worse) for the next few years.

The best scenario I can come up with would be to re-sign PG and James to reasonable contracts (3/~$150M for PG, not sure for James) so that they become reasonable trade assets. Then explore trades for 1 or 2 of PG/James/KL which could still allow us to put a decent product on the floor and a draft pick or 2 (not great ones but still draft picks at least.) We can tread water and still be watchable for 2-3 years, which is not far off from our remaining ceiling now anyway. Even then there could be at least 1 bad year at the end without our own lottery pick but that's water under the bridge now.

Philly sportsradio is saying Paul George can make $40 million more if maxxed by the Sixers, which they're rumored to be ready to offer. It makes no sense to give Ballmer a hometown discount after what he did to Blake. There would have to be an understanding.

“No-trade clauses are rare in the NBA. Nobody has had one in years. Players must have eight years of NBA experience, including four with the team giving the contract, to be eligible for a no-trade clause. Even then, the team must agree. The Warriors didn’t give even Stephen Curry a no-trade clause.”

Only 10 players in NBA history have ever received a no-trade clause:

John Stockton

David Robinson

Kobe Bryant

Tim Duncan

Dirk Nowitzki

Kevin Garnett

Carmelo Anthony

Dwyane Wade

LeBron James

Bradley Beal

As for Beard, same thing, with much less leverage. I rate his trade value at near-zero even with a Russ-style contract. Besides, as a UFA, he can just bypass the middleman if anybody out there actually wants him.

[madmaxmedia]

Philly sportsradio is saying Paul George can make $40 million more if maxxed by the Sixers, which they're rumored to be ready to offer. It makes no sense to give Ballmer a hometown discount after what he did to Blake. There would have to be an understanding.

I imagine at minimum Philly is considering offering him a 4 year max, and may very well do so. I think they will explore other options first. But assuming they do-

1. If Clippers hold at a Kawhi deal, I think PG is gone.
2. I think giving PG a 4 year max is a value negative deal, regardless of what a team did or didn't give up to get him in the first place.

It makes more sense for Philly because they have this one offseason to go big and maximize Embiid's window. That is worth 1-2 years of pain at the back end. It's a different situation for us, I don't consider us a realistic title contender at all any more. But we'll see what happens, obviously we know Ballmer and the FO would prefer to put out as good a team as possible next year.

I honestly have no idea about Beard, I think at the right price and contract length he could have trade value later. He gave the team a big boost for 31 games, everyone noticed that. But I have no idea what we might offer him, or what he wants (both years and dollars.)

If 3 years from now our salary cap is still locked into paying all these 3 huge money, there are going to be riots at Intuit Dome (or worse no one will care.) I don't think we'll be a playoff team based on future physical decline of these guys (performance and health). And there will still be 3 years after that of not controlling our draft picks.

[Captain Ballmer]

Philly sportsradio is saying Paul George can make $40 million more if maxxed by the Sixers, which they're rumored to be ready to offer. It makes no sense to give Ballmer a hometown discount after what he did to Blake. There would have to be an understanding.

I imagine at minimum Philly is considering offering him a 4 year max, and may very well do so. I think they will explore other options first. But assuming they do-

1. If Clippers hold at a Kawhi deal, I think PG is gone.
2. I think giving PG a 4 year max is a value negative deal, regardless of what a team did or didn't give up to get him in the first place.

It makes more sense for Philly because they have this one offseason to go big and maximize Embiid's window. That is worth 1-2 years of pain at the back end. It's a different situation for us, I don't consider us a realistic title contender at all any more. But we'll see what happens, obviously we know Ballmer and the FO would prefer to put out as good a team as possible next year.

I honestly have no idea about Beard, I think at the right price and contract length he could have trade value later. He gave the team a big boost for 31 games, everyone noticed that. But I have no idea what we might offer him, or what he wants (both years and dollars.)

If 3 years from now our salary cap is still locked into paying all these 3 huge money, there are going to be riots at Intuit Dome (or worse no one will care.) I don't think we'll be a playoff team based on future physical decline of these guys (performance and health). And there will still be 3 years after that of not controlling our draft picks.

PG would already signed an extension if that offer was on the table. All reports said Clips offered hometown discount even more so than Kawhi. I imagine amount of money offered was at the level to make him 2a-2b with Harden behind Kawhi rather than 1b to Kawhi' 1a.

[madmaxmedia]

PG would already signed an extension if that offer was on the table. All reports said Clips offered hometown discount even more so than Kawhi. I imagine amount of money offered was at the level to make him 2a-2b with Harden behind Kawhi rather than 1b to Kawhi' 1a.

Interesting, all I've seen is that they won't go further than Kawhi's deal. I think a 3/$150M offer would make a lot of sense for the Sixers. TBH, I’d say the 2 players are roughly equal in value- Kawhi is better but PG has been healthier.

If our FO is holding the line on a certain cutoff, good for them for the discipline. Ideally we sign him to a reasonable deal, but worst case scenario IMO is signing to him to a bad/too long deal.

[TrueLAfan]

In terms of having “value,” pick swaps are kinda overrated in my book.

Here’s the deal. Pick swaps are basically bets on your own team. If your team is good, the swap probably won’t be used. If your team is just okay—it depends on how good the other team is. Maybe the swap is used, maybe it isn’t … and it isn’t likely to make a whole lot of difference. It’s only if your team is really bad and the other team is really good that swap has considerable value.

With us, I just don’t think it’s likely that Ballmer’s going to field a product that is much below mediocre. Without all the doomsayers chiming in, here’s what that means—we’re likely to be a borderline play-in team or better. That puts our highest possible pick, realistically, at around #12 or #13. Let’s say, hypothetically, that we had made a trade with Cleveland this year involving a pick swap. Our pick would drop from #12 or #13 to #20. That’s obviously not good, but it’s not like a catastrophic issue.

Or think of it another way … we’ve got pick swaps coming up with OKC in 2025 and 2027. That sucks. Except, really--how big a deal is it likely to be? This year, the Thunder won the Western Conference. If we had a pick swap this year, we would have dropped from 21 to 29. I mean—again, that sucks, but I wouldn’t be crying about that. I don’t like losing picks altogether, but I don’ t see trade swaps as having as much inherent value as some people think they do.

[esqtvd]

In terms of having “value,” pick swaps are kinda overrated in my book.

Here’s the deal. Pick swaps are basically bets on your own team. If your team is good, the swap probably won’t be used. If you’re team is just okay—it depends on how good the other team is. Maybe the swap is used, maybe it isn’t … and it isn’t likely to make a whole lot of difference. It’s only if your team is really bad and the other team is really good that swap has considerable value.

With us, I just don’t think it’s likely that Ballmer’s going to field a product that is much below mediocre. Without all the doomsayers chiming in, here’s what that means—we’re likely to be a borderline play-in team or better. That puts our highest possible pick, realistically, at around #12 or #13. Let’s say, hypothetically, that we had made a trade with Cleveland this year involving a pick swap. Our pick would drop from #12 or #13 to #20. That’s obviously not good, but it’s not like a catastrophic issue.

Or think of it another way … we’ve got pick swaps coming up with OKC in 2025 and 2027. That sucks. Except, really--how big a deal is it likely to be? This year, the Thunder won the Western Conference. If we had a pick swap this year, we would have dropped from 21 to 29. I mean—again, that sucks, but I wouldn’t be crying about that. I don’t like losing picks altogether, but I don’ t see trade swaps as having as much inherent value as some people think they do.

Just noting that even if you hit something in the second half of the first round [let alone the second]--which is all a pick swap will leave you with---they are VERY seldom the needle-movers you need to do your rebuild around.

The Clips traded from #12 to #11 and got one in Shai. After him and then Porter, not that much. [Jalen Bronson went at #33 but didn't start bending the needle until his 4th year.]

What a pick swap will do is turn a Maybe into a Probably Not.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/draft/NBA_2018.html

[og15]

Pick swaps are a a much better alternative to outright trading a pick.

There's no world where even swapping from like 18 to 27 is worse than only having the 48th pick or zero picks.

We'll have to see who gets resigned and for how much to have a gauge on what real trade options are available.

[MartinToVaught]

Pick swaps are a a much better alternative to outright trading a pick.

Sure, but pick swaps are what allow a GM to completely obliterate your team's future and flexibility in exchange for one player. It's great for the team receiving the picks and swaps, but over time, it's extremely damaging to the league to have a bunch of teams like us, the Suns, the Nets, etc. who are trapped with no realistic way to improve for a decade because they made one trade. The NBA has made player movement into the foundation of their marketing (which itself is far from ideal), but at the same time, they've allowed trading for a star to become so punitive and one-sided that the only rational move is to never do it.

Ban pick swaps and suddenly the Stepien rule has teeth again, star players' trade value comes back down to reality, and GMing goes back to being about maximizing your own assets, not hogging every other team's assets until you have unlimited margin for error.

The obvious counterargument is that owners and front offices should feel the consequences of bad decisions. But let's be real, those guys (and the players, for that matter) get paid too much for it to really make an impression. The fans are the only ones who suffer when their team gets fleeced like this.

[esqtvd]

Pick swaps are a a much better alternative to outright trading a pick.

Sure, but pick swaps are what allow a GM to completely obliterate your team's future and flexibility in exchange for one player. It's great for the team receiving the picks and swaps, but over time, it's extremely damaging to the league to have a bunch of teams like us, the Suns, the Nets, etc. who are trapped with no realistic way to improve for a decade because they made one trade. The NBA has made player movement into the foundation of their marketing (which itself is far from ideal), but at the same time, they've allowed trading for a star to become so punitive and one-sided that the only rational move is to never do it.

Ban pick swaps and suddenly the Stepien rule has teeth again, star players' trade value comes back down to reality, and GMing goes back to being about maximizing your own assets, not hogging every other team's assets until you have unlimited margin for error.

The obvious counterargument is that owners and front offices should feel the consequences of bad decisions. But let's be real, those guys (and the players, for that matter) get paid too much for it to really make an impression. The fans are the only ones who suffer when their team gets fleeced like this.

Very good observation that the practice should be banned since it defangs the Stepien Rule. If the rule is worth having [and I think it is], it's worth enforcing its spirit by enforcing it to the letter.

The specific problem is that his fellow owners bushwacked Ballmer with the new CBA while he was working off the Paul George trade, by denying him other means of upgrading the team like buying 2nd round picks, full use of the MLE, and signing buyout UFAs. When he made the trade, he had those trap doors, but they nailed them shut.

Admittedly, he did add to the misery himself by going all-in with the Harden trade. The new CBA was in place for this coming season and he had his eyes wide shut. He still thought he can clever his way out of it by offering the best weather, location, travel and practice facilities. The plan now has to be to muddle through and at least get under the second apron at some point.

https://sports.yahoo.com/nba-offseason-what-is-the-cbas-second-apron-and-how-does-it-limit-high-spending-teams-215607328.html

[madmaxmedia]

Pick swaps are a a much better alternative to outright trading a pick.

Sure, but pick swaps are what allow a GM to completely obliterate your team's future and flexibility in exchange for one player. It's great for the team receiving the picks and swaps, but over time, it's extremely damaging to the league to have a bunch of teams like us, the Suns, the Nets, etc. who are trapped with no realistic way to improve for a decade because they made one trade. The NBA has made player movement into the foundation of their marketing (which itself is far from ideal), but at the same time, they've allowed trading for a star to become so punitive and one-sided that the only rational move is to never do it.

Ban pick swaps and suddenly the Stepien rule has teeth again, star players' trade value comes back down to reality, and GMing goes back to being about maximizing your own assets, not hogging every other team's assets until you have unlimited margin for error.

The obvious counterargument is that owners and front offices should feel the consequences of bad decisions. But let's be real, those guys (and the players, for that matter) get paid too much for it to really make an impression. The fans are the only ones who suffer when their team gets fleeced like this.

Very good observation that the practice should be banned since it defangs the Stepien Rule. If the rule is worth having [and I think it is], it's worth enforcing its spirit by enforcing it to the letter.

The specific problem is that his fellow owners bushwacked Ballmer with the new CBA while he was working off the Paul George trade, by denying him other means of upgrading the team like buying 2nd round picks, full use of the MLE, and signing buyout UFAs. When he made the trade, he had those trap doors, but they nailed them shut.

Admittedly, he did add to the misery himself by going all-in with the Harden trade. The new CBA was in place for this coming season and he had his eyes wide shut. He still thought he can clever his way out of it by offering the best weather, location, travel and practice facilities. The plan now has to be to muddle through and at least get under the second apron at some point.

https://sports.yahoo.com/nba-offseason-what-is-the-cbas-second-apron-and-how-does-it-limit-high-spending-teams-215607328.html

It's a good point that the new CBA really limits the team's options in ways that could not be anticipated at the time of our big trade.

It's also a really good point that pick swaps came into vogue after the Stepien Rule came into effect. They do not violate the rule technically, but do bypass in spirit. So it's possible they could be banned outright, or more likely the Stepien Rule could be amended to take into account pick swaps. Og15's example of #18 for #27 vs. not having a 1st rounder at all is valid, but obviously that's not what we're dealing with here. We negotiated for a swap instead of giving up another 1st rounder in the Harden trade, but it's a killer for our future either way IMO. And as esqtvd points out, this trade was done with full knowledge of what's to come.

I like Harden the player, but the transaction itself is a killer in multiple ways from losing more future draft assets to helping enable the prime competitor in Paul George's (likely) free agency. There's a good chance of either having to double down on even more future pain by giving him a 4-year deal, or losing him for nothing.

In a way, the Harden trade may be the trade/roster move most emblematic of the 213 era.

[og15]

Sure, but pick swaps are what allow a GM to completely obliterate your team's future and flexibility in exchange for one player. It's great for the team receiving the picks and swaps, but over time, it's extremely damaging to the league to have a bunch of teams like us, the Suns, the Nets, etc. who are trapped with no realistic way to improve for a decade because they made one trade. The NBA has made player movement into the foundation of their marketing (which itself is far from ideal), but at the same time, they've allowed trading for a star to become so punitive and one-sided that the only rational move is to never do it.

Ban pick swaps and suddenly the Stepien rule has teeth again, star players' trade value comes back down to reality, and GMing goes back to being about maximizing your own assets, not hogging every other team's assets until you have unlimited margin for error.

The obvious counterargument is that owners and front offices should feel the consequences of bad decisions. But let's be real, those guys (and the players, for that matter) get paid too much for it to really make an impression. The fans are the only ones who suffer when their team gets fleeced like this.

Very good observation that the practice should be banned since it defangs the Stepien Rule. If the rule is worth having [and I think it is], it's worth enforcing its spirit by enforcing it to the letter.

The specific problem is that his fellow owners bushwacked Ballmer with the new CBA while he was working off the Paul George trade, by denying him other means of upgrading the team like buying 2nd round picks, full use of the MLE, and signing buyout UFAs. When he made the trade, he had those trap doors, but they nailed them shut.

Admittedly, he did add to the misery himself by going all-in with the Harden trade. The new CBA was in place for this coming season and he had his eyes wide shut. He still thought he can clever his way out of it by offering the best weather, location, travel and practice facilities. The plan now has to be to muddle through and at least get under the second apron at some point.

https://sports.yahoo.com/nba-offseason-what-is-the-cbas-second-apron-and-how-does-it-limit-high-spending-teams-215607328.html

It's a good point that the new CBA really limits the team's options in ways that could not be anticipated at the time of our big trade.

It's also a really good point that pick swaps came into vogue after the Stepien Rule came into effect. They do not violate the rule technically, but do bypass in spirit. So it's possible they could be banned outright, or more likely the Stepien Rule could be amended to take into account pick swaps. Og15's example of #18 for #27 vs. not having a 1st rounder at all is valid, but obviously that's not what we're dealing with here. We negotiated for a swap instead of giving up another 1st rounder in the Harden trade, but it's a killer for our future either way IMO. And as esqtvd points out, this trade was done with full knowledge of what's to come.

I like Harden the player, but the transaction itself is a killer in multiple ways from losing more future draft assets to helping enable the prime competitor in Paul George's (likely) free agency. There's a good chance of either having to double down on even more future pain by giving him a 4-year deal, or losing him for nothing.

In a way, the Harden trade may be the trade/roster move most emblematic of the 213 era.

All you're saying is true.

I don't think the NBA will ban swaps, and they really shouldn't. Teams should not have to be protected from themselves in every single way, bad moves should still hurt. Some really bad moves like trading a ton of consecutive picks, yes, good to protect teams in that way, but swaps still give teams picks, just lack of control.

Pick swaps VS trading a pick, the difference is that a pick swap is not about having a pick or not, but about control. What is given up is control of what pick you get and the inability as we've discussed to lose games in other to gain.

The NBA management does not like the idea of
bad team with no draft picks, it limits their ability to improve and it takes away fan engagement. Fans actually tend to like tanking when it's their own team and they can see the possible outcome, and fans love draft picks. We think even every 2nd round pick just needs minutes and development and he will be a rotation player.


Middling treadmill teams are not liked by fans, but for the NBA management, a team that constantly wins pretty well, fills arenas and makes the playoffs, but does not control its own draft position for a few seasons is not a problem at all.

[MartinToVaught]

Teams should not have to be protected from themselves in every single way, bad moves should still hurt.

Except the bad moves don't hurt the billionaire owners or multi-millionaire GMs and players. The only ones hurting are the fans, who are going to be less invested if their team's situation is hopeless, which then becomes a problem for the league in general.

[esqtvd]

The NBA management does not like the idea of
bad team with no draft picks, it limits their ability to improve and it takes away fan engagement. Fans actually tend to like tanking when it's their own team and they can see the possible outcome, and fans love draft picks. We think even every 2nd round pick just needs minutes and development and he will be a rotation player.


Middling treadmill teams are not liked by fans, but for the NBA management, a team that constantly wins pretty well, fills arenas and makes the playoffs, but does not control its own draft position for a few seasons is not a problem at all.

Not sure about that. Trash teams like the Hornets and Pistons mean tons of empty seats when they're the visiting team. Perennial losers are bad for business. The Stepien rule forces them to keep a few lottery tickets and maybe get lucky.

[madmaxmedia]

The NBA management does not like the idea of
bad team with no draft picks, it limits their ability to improve and it takes away fan engagement. Fans actually tend to like tanking when it's their own team and they can see the possible outcome, and fans love draft picks. We think even every 2nd round pick just needs minutes and development and he will be a rotation player.


Middling treadmill teams are not liked by fans, but for the NBA management, a team that constantly wins pretty well, fills arenas and makes the playoffs, but does not control its own draft position for a few seasons is not a problem at all.

Not sure about that. Trash teams like the Hornets and Pistons mean tons of empty seats when they're the visiting team. Perennial losers are bad for business. The Stepien rule forces them to keep a few lottery tickets and maybe get lucky.

One way of looking at it is that every team gets TV revenue no matter what, but really hopeless teams with bad attendance still looks bad for the league and has a detrimental effect in the long run.

I am fine with the Stepien Rule as is, but understand arguments for either side. It’s strange to have a rule to protect teams from themselves, but IMO there is a rationale for it.