RealGM

I've heard it and am in a debate over it, but honestly can't explain it well. The saying is that in this CBA an early 2nd round pick is more valuable than a late first. I don't know if this or the draft board is the place, but why or why not?

bondom34 wrote:I've heard it and am in a debate over it, but honestly can't explain it well. The saying is that in this CBA an early 2nd round pick is more valuable than a late first. I don't know if this or the draft board is the place, but why or why not?

it's not and never has been. No team has ever paid to move back. Plus the contract for a late 1st is so much better for the teams than an early 2nd.

I keep hearing people say that it is, but no. Has any team ever swapped a first round pick for a second round pick straight up? If so, I've never seen it.

bondom34 wrote:I've heard it and am in a debate over it, but honestly can't explain it well. The saying is that in this CBA an early 2nd round pick is more valuable than a late first. I don't know if this or the draft board is the place, but why or why not?

It's not. The amount of money saved is minimal and the control is far and away better for a 1st rounder. With the most recent rookie contract changes (only 2 years guaranteed) the scales are tipped even further to the 1st round pick.

rpa wrote:

bondom34 wrote:I've heard it and am in a debate over it, but honestly can't explain it well. The saying is that in this CBA an early 2nd round pick is more valuable than a late first. I don't know if this or the draft board is the place, but why or why not?

It's not. The amount of money saved is minimal and the control is far and away better for a 1st rounder. With the most recent rookie contract changes (only 2 years guaranteed) the scales are tipped even further to the 1st round pick.

Thanks.

And FYI, this was the side I was on, but wasn't really able to put my point forth very well. I'm just kinda getting more voices into it at this point, thanks for the input everyone.

A second round pick doesn't have to lock in to the Rookie Scale. That is the "advantage" for the player and team.

Yeah, no. And if anyone would defend the value of a 2nd rounder it would be a Sixers fan and proponent of the Hinkie plan.

Absolutely.

Any pick after 20-25 is pretty much a crap shoot and the contract rules heavily favor the team rather than the player.

A 2nd rounder is better if the intent is to draft and stash because you aren't locked in to the rookie salary. If a draft and stash reaches the potential that the team that drafted them in the late 20s wants them to reach they would have to give up money to come to the NBA. That is the advantage to an early 2nd round pick. If you are looking at a college player the higher pick is always better. There are some cases where a team is better off with an early 2nd than a late first, but it is only when wanting a draft and stash that you believe will need more than slot, in the late 20s, to come over due to buyout, European salary, etc.

Kizz Fastfists wrote:A 2nd rounder is better if the intent is to draft and stash because you aren't locked in to the rookie salary. If a draft and stash reaches the potential that the team that drafted them in the late 20s wants them to reach they would have to give up money to come to the NBA. That is the advantage to an early 2nd round pick. If you are looking at a college player the higher pick is always better. There are some cases where a team is better off with an early 2nd than a late first, but it is only when wanting a draft and stash that you believe will need more than slot, in the late 20s, to come over due to buyout, European salary, etc.

As mentioned previously, this is still an ultra specific situation for a team to be in where everything has to go right in order for us to say the statement would be true.
Even if everything works out in their favor, its still hard to suggest that they are better off doing that, then simply drafting a late first role player.

loserX wrote:I keep hearing people say that it is, but no. Has any team ever swapped a first round pick for a second round pick straight up? If so, I've never seen it.

This works both ways. Consider the ramifications of the statement you're making: If a team has never swapped a late first (and in the instance that OP is talking about we're saying specifically picks 25-30 and 31-35) for an early second that also means a team has never swapped an early second for a late first. I've been swayed by the argument to the point where I don't necessarily think an early second is better, but they're pretty much equal in value.

*never meaning since the new CBA

2010
25th pick for cash
24th for 27th and 31st
31st for cash


2011
32 for 2 future seconds

2012
24, 33, 34 for 17, Kelenna Azbuike, Tyler Zeller
27 for 45 and future number one (heavily protected, became this year's 2nd rounder)

2013
27 for 46 and cash
29 and cash for 26
26 and Malcolm Lee for future 2nd and cash
35 for 38 and 54

2014
Tyson Chandler trade and The heat moving up one spot

Those were the only trades knowingly involving the picks we're talking about in the last 5 years. I don't see any more value being given for firsts than seconds. They seem to fetch approximately the same value.

spearsy23 wrote:

loserX wrote:I keep hearing people say that it is, but no. Has any team ever swapped a first round pick for a second round pick straight up? If so, I've never seen it.

This works both ways. Consider the ramifications of the statement you're making: If a team has never swapped a late first (and in the instance that OP is talking about we're saying specifically picks 25-30 and 31-35) for an early second that also means a team has never swapped an early second for a late first. .

No. teams trade up regularly. But they give value to do so. A straight swap hasn't happened because it makes no sense for the team with the better pick. None.

Chuck Texas wrote:

spearsy23 wrote:

loserX wrote:I keep hearing people say that it is, but no. Has any team ever swapped a first round pick for a second round pick straight up? If so, I've never seen it.

This works both ways. Consider the ramifications of the statement you're making: If a team has never swapped a late first (and in the instance that OP is talking about we're saying specifically picks 25-30 and 31-35) for an early second that also means a team has never swapped an early second for a late first. .

No. teams trade up regularly. But they give value to do so. A straight swap hasn't happened because it makes no sense for the team with the better pick. None.

"The team with their better pick"
And that's what we're talking about, isn't it? Just because you say the 26th is better than the 32nd doesn't make it so. I posted the trades since the new CBA. Again, we are specifically talking picks 25-35, point to the extra value. Is giving cash for the 25th pick giving more value than cash for the 31st? In fact, we often see teams getting what would seem to be WORSE return on these late firsts, the most glaring example being 26 and Malcom Lee for a future second and cash.

spearsy23 wrote:

Chuck Texas wrote:

spearsy23 wrote:This works both ways. Consider the ramifications of the statement you're making: If a team has never swapped a late first (and in the instance that OP is talking about we're saying specifically picks 25-30 and 31-35) for an early second that also means a team has never swapped an early second for a late first. .

No. teams trade up regularly. But they give value to do so. A straight swap hasn't happened because it makes no sense for the team with the better pick. None.

"The team with their better pick"
And that's what we're talking about, isn't it? Just because you say the 26th is better than the 32nd doesn't make it so. I posted the trades since the new CBA. Again, we are specifically talking picks 25-35, point to the extra value. Is giving cash for the 25th pick giving more value than cash for the 31st? In fact, we often see teams getting what would seem to be WORSE return on these late firsts, the most glaring example being 26 and Malcom Lee for a future second and cash.

You skipped all the previous ones. Nothing changed about 1sts versus 2nds with the CBA change...

And the point is simple. In any trade between a late 1st and an early 2nd the incentive has always gone to the team with the late 1st.

If you think Minnesota got too little in one trade, I think you probably aren't alone ...

HartfordWhalers wrote:

spearsy23 wrote:

Chuck Texas wrote:

No. teams trade up regularly. But they give value to do so. A straight swap hasn't happened because it makes no sense for the team with the better pick. None.

"The team with their better pick"
And that's what we're talking about, isn't it? Just because you say the 26th is better than the 32nd doesn't make it so. I posted the trades since the new CBA. Again, we are specifically talking picks 25-35, point to the extra value. Is giving cash for the 25th pick giving more value than cash for the 31st? In fact, we often see teams getting what would seem to be WORSE return on these late firsts, the most glaring example being 26 and Malcom Lee for a future second and cash.

You skipped all the previous ones. Nothing changed about 1sts versus 2nds with the CBA change...

All the previous what's?
the last CBA limits buyout amounts, making a late first almost impossible to bring over. An early second can effectively have their buyout written into their rookie contract.

HartfordWhalers wrote:And the point is simple. In any trade between a late 1st and an early 2nd the incentive has always gone to the team with the late 1st.

If you think Minnesota got too little in one trade, I think you probably aren't alone ...

Those trades haven't happened in the last five years. Show the value that is being gained by teams holding those late firsts. I posted all of the trades that involved primarily draft picks. Can you look at that list and honestly tell me that 25-30 are getting more value for their picks? Where is it coming from? We see similar nothing's being traded for both sets, the only difference being that the 'bads' are worse for 25-30.

spearsy23 wrote:

HartfordWhalers wrote:And the point is simple. In any trade between a late 1st and an early 2nd the incentive has always gone to the team with the late 1st.

If you think Minnesota got too little in one trade, I think you probably aren't alone ...

Those trades haven't happened in the last five years. Show the value that is being gained by teams holding those late firsts. I posted all of the trades that involved primarily draft picks. Can you look at that list and honestly tell me that 25-30 are getting more value for their picks? Where is it coming from? We see similar nothing's being traded for both sets, the only difference being that the 'bads' are worse for 25-30.

Cleveland literally just traded #24 for #31 AND #36. Did Minnesota just get boned, giving up twice the value they should have? Or are late firsts really just still worth more than early seconds?

loserX wrote:

spearsy23 wrote:

HartfordWhalers wrote:And the point is simple. In any trade between a late 1st and an early 2nd the incentive has always gone to the team with the late 1st.

If you think Minnesota got too little in one trade, I think you probably aren't alone ...

Those trades haven't happened in the last five years. Show the value that is being gained by teams holding those late firsts. I posted all of the trades that involved primarily draft picks. Can you look at that list and honestly tell me that 25-30 are getting more value for their picks? Where is it coming from? We see similar nothing's being traded for both sets, the only difference being that the 'bads' are worse for 25-30.

Cleveland literally just traded #24 for #31 AND #36. Did Minnesota just get boned, giving up twice the value they should have? Or are late firsts really just still worth more than early seconds?

I must have missed where 24 comes between 25-35. Once again, the list is there, where is the extra value for those picks? Just point it out to me using the list that I've left here to make it easy to see what pick was traded and what it was traded for. You can't just ignore what doesn't fit your narrative by saying 'if a team trades a late first for junk it's a bad trade, if a team trades an early second for junk it's expected.' The trades are come out roughly equal, maybe there's a bit more good on one side but it's at least generally equivalent.

spearsy23 wrote:

HartfordWhalers wrote:And the point is simple. In any trade between a late 1st and an early 2nd the incentive has always gone to the team with the late 1st.

If you think Minnesota got too little in one trade, I think you probably aren't alone ...

Those trades haven't happened in the last five years. Show the value that is being gained by teams holding those late firsts. I posted all of the trades that involved primarily draft picks. Can you look at that list and honestly tell me that 25-30 are getting more value for their picks? Where is it coming from? We see similar nothing's being traded for both sets, the only difference being that the 'bads' are worse for 25-30.

There is not a single trade where I looked at your list and said, oh yeah, 2nds get more.