RealGM

The intent, as I see it, was to insure really bad teams would at least have a high pick (their own) every other year. But if the firsts you own are pretty much assured to be low that protection is largely defeated.

Laimbeer wrote:The intent, as I see it, was to insure really bad teams would at least have a high pick (their own) every other year. But if the firsts you own are pretty much assured to be low that protection is largely defeated.

It wasn't at all connected with a team keeping their OWN pick, or worry of "if they're bad, they get a good pick". It was solely that the Cavaliers had NO picks whatsoever at the time of their sale to Gund. The NBA allows a ton of flexibility in the operations of individual franchises to build their team how they wish. They just also simply see the value of cost controlled contracts from the draft in the long-term stability of franchises.


My favorite Stepien story, though:

In 1980, Stepien held a promotional event for the league in Cleveland in which he dropped softballs from the 52nd floor of Terminal Tower to be caught by outfielders from his Cleveland Competitors team.[11] The balls were estimated to be traveling at 144 mph by the time they reached the street, damaging cars and injuring several spectators. One was caught.

Like, this dude saw the WKRP in Cincinnati Turkey Drop episode and his takeaway was "Hmmm....that could work!"

It’s a smart rule. Was the Clippers SGA/PG trade the first time a team traded 4 unprotected picks since the rule was put in place?

There shouldn't even be a Stepien rule.

Sent from my SM-S918U using RealGM mobile app

Scoot McGroot wrote:

Laimbeer wrote:The intent, as I see it, was to insure really bad teams would at least have a high pick (their own) every other year. But if the firsts you own are pretty much assured to be low that protection is largely defeated.

It wasn't at all connected with a team keeping their OWN pick, or worry of "if they're bad, they get a good pick". It was solely that the Cavaliers had NO picks whatsoever at the time of their sale to Gund. The NBA allows a ton of flexibility in the operations of individual franchises to build their team how they wish. They just also simply see the value of cost controlled contracts from the draft in the long-term stability of franchises.


My favorite Stepien story, though:

In 1980, Stepien held a promotional event for the league in Cleveland in which he dropped softballs from the 52nd floor of Terminal Tower to be caught by outfielders from his Cleveland Competitors team.[11] The balls were estimated to be traveling at 144 mph by the time they reached the street, damaging cars and injuring several spectators. One was caught.

Like, this dude saw the WKRP in Cincinnati Turkey Drop episode and his takeaway was "Hmmm....that could work!"

He played Polka music at Richfield thinking he could get more whites to attend the games. He traded the pick that became James Worthy for a scrub. Worst owner in NBA history.

Scoot McGroot wrote:My favorite Stepien story, though:

In 1980, Stepien held a promotional event for the league in Cleveland in which he dropped softballs from the 52nd floor of Terminal Tower to be caught by outfielders from his Cleveland Competitors team.[11] The balls were estimated to be traveling at 144 mph by the time they reached the street, damaging cars and injuring several spectators. One was caught.

Like, this dude saw the WKRP in Cincinnati Turkey Drop episode and his takeaway was "Hmmm....that could work!"

“As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly.”

I knew I liked you, Scoot!

I believe that the Stepian rule should be eliminated but that teams should have a shorter time limit for trading future picks.

Being able to F*() over your franchise 7 years in to the future is way too long. It should be limited to 3 or 4 years out. That way when your extreme win-now push fizzles out fans aren't stuck in a hopeless spot for most of a decade.

It feels like the rule itself might be a little outdated. Back when it was made the league wasn't thriving like it is now. I think with how crazy valuable these teams are and the league as a whole now, the risk of teams really tanking their value isn't the same. Tanking their competitive chances? Yeah, sure. But not taking their value.

shrink wrote:

Scoot McGroot wrote:My favorite Stepien story, though:

In 1980, Stepien held a promotional event for the league in Cleveland in which he dropped softballs from the 52nd floor of Terminal Tower to be caught by outfielders from his Cleveland Competitors team.[11] The balls were estimated to be traveling at 144 mph by the time they reached the street, damaging cars and injuring several spectators. One was caught.

Like, this dude saw the WKRP in Cincinnati Turkey Drop episode and his takeaway was "Hmmm....that could work!"

“As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly.”

I knew I liked you, Scoot!

Literally bought the shirt off Tik Tok this past October and wore it for our local Turkey Trot!

jbk1234 wrote:

Scoot McGroot wrote:

Laimbeer wrote:The intent, as I see it, was to insure really bad teams would at least have a high pick (their own) every other year. But if the firsts you own are pretty much assured to be low that protection is largely defeated.

It wasn't at all connected with a team keeping their OWN pick, or worry of "if they're bad, they get a good pick". It was solely that the Cavaliers had NO picks whatsoever at the time of their sale to Gund. The NBA allows a ton of flexibility in the operations of individual franchises to build their team how they wish. They just also simply see the value of cost controlled contracts from the draft in the long-term stability of franchises.


My favorite Stepien story, though:

In 1980, Stepien held a promotional event for the league in Cleveland in which he dropped softballs from the 52nd floor of Terminal Tower to be caught by outfielders from his Cleveland Competitors team.[11] The balls were estimated to be traveling at 144 mph by the time they reached the street, damaging cars and injuring several spectators. One was caught.

Like, this dude saw the WKRP in Cincinnati Turkey Drop episode and his takeaway was "Hmmm....that could work!"

He played Polka music at Richfield thinking he could get more whites to attend the games. He traded the pick that became James Worthy for a scrub. Worst owner in NBA history.

Uhhhh…Donald Sterling on line one!

giberish wrote:I believe that the Stepian rule should be eliminated but that teams should have a shorter time limit for trading future picks.

Being able to F*() over your franchise 7 years in to the future is way too long. It should be limited to 3 or 4 years out. That way when your extreme win-now push fizzles out fans aren't stuck in a hopeless spot for most of a decade.

Agree with all this.

It’s unfortunate but very similar to the overspending issue with regards to Free Agency.

You have to have bumpers in place because dummy Billionaires get giddy and ruin the experience for the fans through overreach.

I can’t wait to see in a couple years that house of cards come crashing down in Phoenix!

giberish wrote:I believe that the Stepian rule should be eliminated but that teams should have a shorter time limit for trading future picks.

Being able to F*() over your franchise 7 years in to the future is way too long. It should be limited to 3 or 4 years out. That way when your extreme win-now push fizzles out fans aren't stuck in a hopeless spot for most of a decade.

That makes sense and would increase the value of available picks if there were less to be traded.

i think i like it as it is. I don't think the Bucks are sweating their decision to trade picks out till 2027 for Jrue Holiday. you ask their fans 5 years ago if they'd endure a bit of misery from 2026-2030 for a title window in the early part of the decade and win it all once. I think you'd get 100% yes

Teams just shouldn't be dumb enough to mess up their futures that far out without a team capable of winning it all. Which I think the Suns had when they made the trade... blowing up the rest of the team outside of KD/Booker for Beal+Nurkic is what did them in, not trading all those picks for KD

If the Stepien rule extended to swaps, there would be a lot less trade activity? I don’t like that idea..

But also / Losing markets could pinch less value when stars demand to be traded to this team or that team.

I think it’s fine how it is.

hugepatsfan wrote:It feels like the rule itself might be a little outdated. Back when it was made the league wasn't thriving like it is now. I think with how crazy valuable these teams are and the league as a whole now, the risk of teams really tanking their value isn't the same. Tanking their competitive chances? Yeah, sure. But not taking their value.

Idk. I feel like if the rule didn’t exist there would be at least 4 teams pick dry.

So you risking owners going all in then trying to sell a team that doesn’t have a future

kobe_vs_jordan wrote:So you risking owners going all in then trying to sell a team that doesn’t have a future

And having no issues finding takers. One of the things that keeps values high is exclusivity and the high profile nature of the business. A lot of these guys use their sports team to help them in other business ventures.

I don't hate the rule, but I've never known differently so.... But I also don't feel like the league needs to protect teams from themselves in trading picks. The contract length restraints are the most important protections. Imagine with today's salaries if rookies were still getting 7 year contracts at top of the league figures? Or to keep your superstar it was KG money(but in today's dollars)?

They are financially protected enough to make this rule probably a bit outdated.

giberish wrote:I believe that the Stepian rule should be eliminated but that teams should have a shorter time limit for trading future picks.

Being able to F*() over your franchise 7 years in to the future is way too long. It should be limited to 3 or 4 years out. That way when your extreme win-now push fizzles out fans aren't stuck in a hopeless spot for most of a decade.

This really is my answer. I don't think the circumvention is the problem. Let's say Suns trade all three picks and turn Beal/Nurk/Dunn into Portis, Butler, Burks (3 useful players). Great.
Now they extend Jimmy for the extra 2 years at his max. With three max players together, the franchise is at the 2nd apron for the next 3 years. So a) the picks they have are already limited and b) they are risking the picks after 2031 because of the new rules. Butler and KD lets say are both stars for two years, the last 2 years is their KG/Peirce BKN era. They can trade Booker (maybe he is already looking like he is on the decline at age 30) to recoup some value. No one is coming to ring chase with KD/Butler at 100M+ combined in 2026/27 season. So starting AT BEST if it all works out in 2027 you will have 4 years of abysmal draft slots despite the product on the court.

Can they mitigate by trading the corpse of Butler/Durant for longer salaries with assets attached for rebuild? Sure.
Super high risk. Moderate rewards (still might not make playoffs this year).

Reducing the years forward you can trade picks, however, does help because it will last about as long as these contracts. If Butler/KD fails, that's going to be 7 years of nearly unwatchable basketball.

Texas Chuck wrote:

kobe_vs_jordan wrote:So you risking owners going all in then trying to sell a team that doesn’t have a future

And having no issues finding takers. One of the things that keeps values high is exclusivity and the high profile nature of the business. A lot of these guys use their sports team to help them in other business ventures.

I don't hate the rule, but I've never known differently so.... But I also don't feel like the league needs to protect teams from themselves in trading picks. The contract length restraints are the most important protections. Imagine with today's salaries if rookies were still getting 7 year contracts at top of the league figures? Or to keep your superstar it was KG money(but in today's dollars)?

They are financially protected enough to make this rule probably a bit outdated.

Don’t think finding a taker is the problem. It’s all about valuations for these billionaires. Makes the well ran teams worth more. League worth more as a whole if 32/32 teams are stable. I wouldn’t want my neighbor undercutting the market because he poorly managed his house. Similar idea.

Most of these teams are owns by investors. Sure NBA could afford a value hit but the goal of investors is always maximizing profits.

kobe_vs_jordan wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:

kobe_vs_jordan wrote:So you risking owners going all in then trying to sell a team that doesn’t have a future

And having no issues finding takers. One of the things that keeps values high is exclusivity and the high profile nature of the business. A lot of these guys use their sports team to help them in other business ventures.

I don't hate the rule, but I've never known differently so.... But I also don't feel like the league needs to protect teams from themselves in trading picks. The contract length restraints are the most important protections. Imagine with today's salaries if rookies were still getting 7 year contracts at top of the league figures? Or to keep your superstar it was KG money(but in today's dollars)?

They are financially protected enough to make this rule probably a bit outdated.

Don’t think finding a taker is the problem. It’s all about valuations for these billionaires. Makes the well ran teams worth more. League worth more as a whole if 32/32 teams are stable. I wouldn’t want my neighbor undercutting the market because he poorly managed his house. Similar idea.

Most of these teams are owns by investors. Sure NBA could afford a value hit but the goal of investors is always maximizing profits.

This is a good take. I'll also add that as a league, you want you players, your fans, and your owners to be happy. On this topic, we are talking about fans and owners.

If you get rid of the Stepien rule, most teams wouldn't abuse it, because management is just better than it was 20 years ago. But whenever you have a top 5 player, they often have more power than the GM. LeBron would absolutely have destroyed the future of the Cavs, Heat, and Lakers. The only thing stopping the Lakers from trading the rest of their picks to make a 44 year old LeBron happy is that rule. The rule has a couple other good side effects. It prevents new owners from getting too far out over their skiis (Looking at you Ishbia). It also protects small market teams. LA, NY, BOS, MIA have a built-in competitive advantage for luring free agents. They have to rely on their draft less. The Lakers can gamble with their picks in a way that Cleveland cannot, because the Lakers are always 3 or 4 years away max from having clean books and being a top free agent destination. You can't say the same for Cleveland, Toronto, or Indiana. Finally, it keeps a guy like Ballmer happy, because it feels bad to pay, say 4 Billion for the Clippers only to watch LeBron pillage the Cavs and have that team get sold for under a Billion due to the lack of assets. In reality, those two franchises would both be properly valued at the time of their sale, but the owner who paid more would look at the price tag and possibly be upset. Also as mentioned hurts the perception of the league.

If I were in charge, I'd extend the Stepien rule to swaps so that a team absolutely must draft every other year. I like parity, and I like protecting the product on the floor night in and night out, even though historically it's been better for the league when big market teams have the best players and the small market teams act like farm teams.

Texas Chuck wrote:

kobe_vs_jordan wrote:So you risking owners going all in then trying to sell a team that doesn’t have a future

And having no issues finding takers. One of the things that keeps values high is exclusivity and the high profile nature of the business. A lot of these guys use their sports team to help them in other business ventures.

I don't hate the rule, but I've never known differently so.... But I also don't feel like the league needs to protect teams from themselves in trading picks. The contract length restraints are the most important protections. Imagine with today's salaries if rookies were still getting 7 year contracts at top of the league figures? Or to keep your superstar it was KG money(but in today's dollars)?

They are financially protected enough to make this rule probably a bit outdated.

Contract length being shorter is a BIG deal. Protects you from the worst impacts of team-building mistakes.

I think front offices are just generally smarter now too; we've had decades and decades to learn how to do this. What's the worst off a team has been in recent years? The Nets post-Garnett/Pierce? It didn't take that long for them to climb back out with smart trading, smart drafting and turning some fringe guys into good players.