LAL/BRK

[scoobs07]

Nets would not be the team turning this down. They don't need all these picks and to get an unprotected 1st back for low level 1sts? What are we even doing here?

There's just a split in our community around the value of far out future unprotected FRPs.

- those that can conceptualise the extreme variance that can happen season to season that worsens for every season out and when you consider random injury.
- those that just assume current team will be the same team in that future.

Or those that overvalue variance, overrate the upside and underrate the downside of distant picks. The median value of a future pick is a mid first rounder, and typically future picks have slightly discounted valuations compared to current picks, similar to the time value of money. #19 is a mid first in a deep draft. You don't trade it plus more for a 60% (or less with expansion) chance that it might be a higher pick in a maybe strong/weak/ok draft of yet not scouted middle schoolers without other incentive.

I get the finance analogy, but if you have a surplus-its wise to invest it.

[TheNetsFan]

There's just a split in our community around the value of far out future unprotected FRPs.

- those that can conceptualise the extreme variance that can happen season to season that worsens for every season out and when you consider random injury.
- those that just assume current team will be the same team in that future.

Or those that overvalue variance, overrate the upside and underrate the downside of distant picks. The median value of a future pick is a mid first rounder, and typically future picks have slightly discounted valuations compared to current picks, similar to the time value of money. #19 is a mid first in a deep draft. You don't trade it plus more for a 60% (or less with expansion) chance that it might be a higher pick in a maybe strong/weak/ok draft of yet not scouted middle schoolers without other incentive.

I get the finance analogy, but if you have a surplus-its wise to invest it.

I don't disagree, but you don't invest it in an investment more likely than not to lose you value.

Also, much the way PHX had circumstances that drove their trade, specifically working around the Stepien rule being more valuable to them, the Nets, with what is essentially an empty roster, can afford to draft all 5 picks if they so chose, especially after consciously drafting nobody last year.

[scoobs07]

Or those that overvalue variance, overrate the upside and underrate the downside of distant picks. The median value of a future pick is a mid first rounder, and typically future picks have slightly discounted valuations compared to current picks, similar to the time value of money. #19 is a mid first in a deep draft. You don't trade it plus more for a 60% (or less with expansion) chance that it might be a higher pick in a maybe strong/weak/ok draft of yet not scouted middle schoolers without other incentive.

I get the finance analogy, but if you have a surplus-its wise to invest it.

I don't disagree, but you don't invest it in an investment more likely than not to lose you value.

Also, much the way PHX had circumstances that drove their trade, specifically working around the Stepien rule being more valuable to them, the Nets, with what is essentially an empty roster, can afford to draft all 5 picks if they so chose, especially after consciously drafting nobody last year.

If the investment beats inflation with a chance to crush inflation then it might be worth it to stash the 2031 1st, especially if unprotected. Could also be flipped at a hig price point sooner than 2031.

[drchaos]

The Nets do not control their own pick in 2027.

They need players in 2025 and 2026 drafts that can come in and help them now.

Sacrificing picks this year for the Lakers pick in 2031 does not interest Brooklyn.

If you can find a third team that wants the Lakers pick the Nets have picks and cap space that can facilitate a deal for both of the other teams as long as the Nets get something they actually want.