RealGM

Utah out: 30 and a future 2nd
Utah in: 31 and 36

OKC out: 31 and 36
OKC in: 30 and a future 2nd

Utah is going to be a tax team, this is a good way for them to find and sign cost effective players.

OKC gets another 1st that would allow them to jump up in the draft if needed.

31&36 >> 30
Two players in the same tier >> 1 guy
OKC will have to do some consolidation moves, but this ain't it.

That does not seem very good for OKC.

This seems like a lot to move up 1 spot that far back in the draft.

I actually like the idea of this with a small twist. Have Utah send OKC back a future 2nd as well. OKC gets the benefit of the 1st round contract and since they surely won't use all the picks they have in this draft, they trade their 4th pick to move up a spot and get a future asset. Maybe add in a little cash too? Because it should shock nobody if OKC sells or trades out of 36 anyway.

I think Brooklyn considers this at 27 and Philly at 29.

Was going to post what Chuck posted.

I think it isn’t far off at all. For instance, I wouldn’t do 27 for 31 and 36.

What about Phoenix or Nets 1sts in same setup?

HartfordWhalers wrote:Was going to post what Chuck posted.

I think it isn’t far off at all. For instance, I wouldn’t do 27 for 31 and 36.

What about Phoenix or Nets 1sts in same setup?

Brooklyn somehow already has a surprising large number of picks though mostly mediocre ones. Phoenix might want a 2 for 1 though with Ayton/Bridges contracts on the horizon and probably wanting to retain Paul beyond next year.

Agree 27 is too high as well.

If it’s for 30, I would offer 36 and the Denver 2nd instead for this year.
If a team need to dump a smallish expiring under 2m , that’s fine too, so more breathing space for the team and gets us closer to salary floor.

I have Utah moving out of the first round as something that would be tenative until sometime after the draft has started.

The end of the first round is way too far back in the draft order for teams to do definite deals ahead of time.

Resistance wrote:I have Utah moving out of the first round as something that would be tenative until sometime after the draft has started.

The end of the first round is way too far back in the draft order for teams to do definite deals ahead of time.

Mostly true. Draft pick trades made after the trade deadline are typically on the clock trades because you are wanting a specific player rather than a pick.

In this specific case I think you could have this framework agreed to with it only not happening if a surprise fell to 30 and Utah can't justify letting OKC potentially snipe them.

I don't see it. OKC is going to be making much bigger moves than one spot at the end of the 1st, and will likely use any excess 1sts in those efforts to move up/around closer to the lottery.

Texas Chuck wrote:

Resistance wrote:I have Utah moving out of the first round as something that would be tenative until sometime after the draft has started.

The end of the first round is way too far back in the draft order for teams to do definite deals ahead of time.

Mostly true. Draft pick trades made after the trade deadline are typically on the clock trades because you are wanting a specific player rather than a pick.

In this specific case I think you could have this framework agreed to with it only not happening if a surprise fell to 30 and Utah can't justify letting OKC potentially snipe them.

An alternative scenario would be OKC wanting to move up and needing #30 to get a deal done.

Currently:

13. Golden State
14. San Antonio
15. New York
16. Boston
17. Miami --> OKC


#17 + #30 might be enough to get to #14 or #15. San Antonio and New York should have quite a bit of salary flexibility (if they want) and might prefer the extra year of cost control for a first round pick (#30) versus the smaller salary of a second round pick (#31).

* San Antonio or NYK moves down slightly in the first round and gets #30 for their cooperation

* OKC improves #17 to #14 or #15 at the cost of some early second round picks

* Utah moves out of the first round for some early second round picks


Adjust as needed with Cash and/or additional second round picks.

Resistance wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:

Resistance wrote:I have Utah moving out of the first round as something that would be tenative until sometime after the draft has started.

The end of the first round is way too far back in the draft order for teams to do definite deals ahead of time.

Mostly true. Draft pick trades made after the trade deadline are typically on the clock trades because you are wanting a specific player rather than a pick.

In this specific case I think you could have this framework agreed to with it only not happening if a surprise fell to 30 and Utah can't justify letting OKC potentially snipe them.

An alternative scenario would be OKC wanting to move up and needing #30 to get a deal done.

Currently:

13. Golden State
14. San Antonio
15. New York
16. Boston
17. Miami --> OKC


#17 + #30 might be enough to get to #14 or #15. San Antonio and New York should have quite a bit of salary flexibility (if they want) and might prefer the extra year of cost control for a first round pick (#30) versus the smaller salary of a second round pick (#31).

* San Antonio or NYK moves down slightly in the first round and gets #30 for their cooperation

* OKC improves #17 to #14 or #15 at the cost of some early second round picks

* Utah moves out of the first round for some early second round picks


Adjust as needed with Cash and/or additional second round picks.

.

But would a package of 17 and 31 and 36 be less worth then 17 and 30? I'd prefer the first package.

BadWolf wrote:
But would a package of 17 and 31 and 36 be less worth then 17 and 30? I'd prefer the first package.

How many teams really want 3 additional draft picks on top of the ones they already own? There is definitely an aspect of marginal return involved.

No doubt there is a case that getting another top 36 prospect is more valuable than the downside of letting 1 player slide off and getting the worse 2nd round contract elements. But there is definitely a case for the opposite as well. That contract edge is meaningful in that you don't have to touch cap space to get the multi-year and if you hit on the guy getting that 4th year and then RFA versus having to pay a guy after his 3rd year or risk UFA.


I think generally 17 and 30 is more attractive.

BadWolf wrote:

Resistance wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:
Mostly true. Draft pick trades made after the trade deadline are typically on the clock trades because you are wanting a specific player rather than a pick.

In this specific case I think you could have this framework agreed to with it only not happening if a surprise fell to 30 and Utah can't justify letting OKC potentially snipe them.

An alternative scenario would be OKC wanting to move up and needing #30 to get a deal done.

Currently:

13. Golden State
14. San Antonio
15. New York
16. Boston
17. Miami --> OKC


#17 + #30 might be enough to get to #14 or #15. San Antonio and New York should have quite a bit of salary flexibility (if they want) and might prefer the extra year of cost control for a first round pick (#30) versus the smaller salary of a second round pick (#31).

* San Antonio or NYK moves down slightly in the first round and gets #30 for their cooperation

* OKC improves #17 to #14 or #15 at the cost of some early second round picks

* Utah moves out of the first round for some early second round picks


Adjust as needed with Cash and/or additional second round picks.

.

But would a package of 17 and 31 and 36 be less worth then 17 and 30? I'd prefer the first package.

In this discussion, Utah is considered the team with the mature roster and seeking to keep the team salary under control by stepping completely out of the first round for early second round picks.

New York and San Antonio are quite the opposite in that they are still working through things with their rosters. One approach for them would be to bring as many young bodies into their systems and sort them out into keepers and not keepers. That would be taking a package of #17 + #31 + #36 (or similar) which is what you are suggesting. If a team is fairly confident that they will hit on the right prospect/player at the end of the first round - early second round, then I have it better to lock in the player for four years (first round) versus three years (second round) which is what I am suggesting.


In regards to bringing in as many young boddies as possible to try/evaluate, there are probably limits on what a team and its developmental program can handle.

Using the Power Ranking from Tankathon:

New York......#15, #21, #33, #57

If New York does #15 for #17 + #31 + #36, then they have:

New York......#17, #21, #31, #33, #36, #57

Of course they can tighten things up by consolidating second round picks or swapping for future second round picks. If they do convert all of those picks into actually players that they plan to develop, thne I would expect that it would strain their developmental program and at least one of those players wouldn't get the attention/opportunity that they need.


San Antonio...#14, #44

If San Antonio does #14 for #17 + #31 + #36 (or similar), then they have:

San Antonio ...#17, #31, #36, #44

Again they could swap a second round pick for a future second round pick or try and consolidate #36 + #44 for a higher second round pick. If they do convert all of those picks into actually players that they plan to develop, then I would expect that it would strain their developmental program and at least one of those players wouldn't get the attention/opportunity that they need.


Utah's 2021 second round pick is going to the Pacers, so they will have only the late first round pick.

If they trade #30 for #31 + #36, they will have only two young players to absorb which shouldn't be a strain for their developmental program.

MoneyTalks41890 wrote:I don't see it. OKC is going to be making much bigger moves than one spot at the end of the 1st, and will likely use any excess 1sts in those efforts to move up/around closer to the lottery.

Agree with this too.

It would have to be a specific player,and not only that but a guy OKC and Utah both want but for some reason Utah didn't want enough to take an extra 2nd for....which seems unlikely. If it's like 31 and a later 2nd maybe? But it would depend on who's available.

Ultimately I see picks in this range as ballpark similar value (ie a second in the 30s is about the same value anywhere, slightly more at the top), so trading two for one seems strong).