RealGM

There is some speculation in Minnesota that Tim Connelly may seek to trade the #17 pick for a future pick.

Connelly has already collected a lot of your talent that he likes, that have struggled to get playing time on a crowded roster. Moreover, rookie scale (120%) for the #17 is $4.2 mil in salary that MIN might prefer to defer to avoid more lux taxes and the second apron. Finally, MIN also has the #31 this season,

Who wants a pick NOW, in this decent draft, and can offer a future 1st that will maintain the pick’s value in the future?

And overall, what’s a good mechanism for any team in this situation to avoid losing value, even for the variable future. I never liked bottom-protecting picks because they often take long to convey, Just get a project to stash?

BOS's 2026 1st rounder?

Depending on what moves BOS makes, because they have their own salary issues. But depending on what they do with Jrue/KP, if they brought back Brown/White/Pritchard/Hauser/whatever they're left with from the Jrue/KP trades that still gets them below the 2nd apron (but not the tax), it's probably conceivable in the East that they have a mid 1st round pick type of team next year (play in loss to 6 seed) in line with #17 overall. Maybe they'd want someone in with a year of development for when Tatum is back.

shrink wrote:There is some speculation in Minnesota that Tim Connelly may seek to trade the #17 pick for a future pick.

Connelly has already collected a lot of your talent that he likes, that have struggled to get playing time on a crowded roster. Moreover, rookie scale (120%) for the #17 is $4.2 mil in salary that expensive MIN might prefer to deter. Finally, MIN also has the #31 this season,

Who wants a pick NOW, in this decent draft, and can offer a future 1st that will maintain the pick’s value in the future?

And what’s a good mechanism to avoid losing value, even for the variable future. I never liked bottom-protecting picks because they often take long to convey, Just get a project to stash?

Perhaps something could be worked out with the Jazz for one of the Wolves picks that they own. I'd imagine that Utah would want additional incentive to give up an unprotected pick for #17, but who knows.

2031 Lakers 1st (top-5 protected) + #55 for #17 and #31.

I actually see them moving down with Brooklyn. As part of the KD process.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I want my Bulls to get Newell and Coward out of this draft

Not sure what they can offer-future top 10/7/5 protection (then 2 seconds)?

pipfan wrote:I want my Bulls to get Newell and Coward out of this draft

Not sure what they can offer-future top 10/7/5 protection (then 2 seconds)?

You have Portland’s lotto protected pick for 2026. Plus pick #45 this year
Maybe a second or no?

Or a lot of talk locally has us being good trade partners for some small things. Making that pick a focus would work there too


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Charlotte owns the worst of ORL/PHX/WAS/MEM 1st next season. If that was a 2025 pick it would be #18, so right in that same range. Very little upside, as you'd be trying to bank on 4 different teams missing the playoffs, but if the goal is to defer it for an equal pick next year, here you go.

That said, idk if I trust Jeff Peterson with picks, we already have 3 top 34 picks. if 2025 is as big of a disaster scenario as the 2024 offseason, I'd hold out a sliver of hope that Peterson is fired before the 2026 draft (though two years would be a very very short tenure for a GM)... anyway I'd be hoping to trade #17 for an actual player.

‘31 Bucks unprotected 1st + Chris Livingston for #17 + TSJ

SkyHook wrote:

shrink wrote:There is some speculation in Minnesota that Tim Connelly may seek to trade the #17 pick for a future pick.

Connelly has already collected a lot of your talent that he likes, that have struggled to get playing time on a crowded roster. Moreover, rookie scale (120%) for the #17 is $4.2 mil in salary that expensive MIN might prefer to deter. Finally, MIN also has the #31 this season,

Who wants a pick NOW, in this decent draft, and can offer a future 1st that will maintain the pick’s value in the future?

And what’s a good mechanism to avoid losing value, even for the variable future. I never liked bottom-protecting picks because they often take long to convey, Just get a project to stash?

Perhaps something could be worked out with the Jazz for one of the Wolves picks that they own. I'd imagine that Utah would want additional incentive to give up an unprotected pick for #17, but who knows.

It’s an interesting economic question to me.

First, I agree with you. The potential upside from an unprotected pick trumps the value of a midrange pick, even in a good draft. So MIN needs to add more.

But there are good reasons to do a deal. I mentioned the downside to MIN for keeping the pick, but meanwhile, the Jazz would be right on cue to start collecting young talent, in this draft. The years of delay of the future MIN pick devalues it for UTA, but increases it for MIN. Moreover, I have mentioned before that a team gets extra value reclaiming their own picks, because that team has some control of where the pick lands, if they are willing to tank.

Maybe MIN soups up the front end for the Jazz, by including a young prospect, or the #31. Lots of people like what Terrence Shannon Jr has shown, Connelly’s late first pick from last year. Would #17, #31 and Shannon bring back a future MIN pick, and a swap?

German Athens wrote:‘31 Bucks unprotected 1st + Chris Livingston for #17 + TSJ

Funny, I just wrote my previous post, then saw yours. I’d do something around that.

For some of these other offers, you can see the mental gymnastics I’m struggling with for fair value.

I totally understand teams wanting to protect the top side of a pick, but it exposes MIN to the value loss from the bottom side.

For instance, if the offer is a future lottery protected pick, that pick is in the 15-30 range. It’s very unlikely it will have as much value as the #17 pick, in a strong draft, and the team gets the payoff this year.

MIN has a bird in the hand. If they are going to risk it on a future pick, and potentially risk the pick dropping, they need some equivalent upside risk too.

nm (already addressed by another poster)

I'm not sure what the offer would be, but I think the Kings would be candidates, I've read several reports that they like Jase Richardson and I suppose he could be close to that range, also someone like Traore or even a striker like Fleming would be really good for them... 17 for SPURS 27? .. Maybe a trade where the Wolves get their selection back?

I think a best future pick would still be top 3 or top 4 protected. If for some reason a team is desperate enough to offer top 1 or unprotected pick, then Minnesota should go ahead and make that deal.

If they go for KD this pick is gone....

I don't think Minnesota should trade it. There will be a good point guard prospect at 17 and they should take one, IMO. Either that player or Dillingham will work out.

OKC for 24 + HOU 2026 top 4 protected 1st?

shrink wrote:

SkyHook wrote:

shrink wrote:There is some speculation in Minnesota that Tim Connelly may seek to trade the #17 pick for a future pick.

Connelly has already collected a lot of your talent that he likes, that have struggled to get playing time on a crowded roster. Moreover, rookie scale (120%) for the #17 is $4.2 mil in salary that expensive MIN might prefer to deter. Finally, MIN also has the #31 this season,

Who wants a pick NOW, in this decent draft, and can offer a future 1st that will maintain the pick’s value in the future?

And what’s a good mechanism to avoid losing value, even for the variable future. I never liked bottom-protecting picks because they often take long to convey, Just get a project to stash?

Perhaps something could be worked out with the Jazz for one of the Wolves picks that they own. I'd imagine that Utah would want additional incentive to give up an unprotected pick for #17, but who knows.

It’s an interesting economic question to me.

First, I agree with you. The potential upside from an unprotected pick trumps the value of a midrange pick, even in a good draft. So MIN needs to add more.

But there are good reasons to do a deal. I mentioned the downside to MIN for keeping the pick, but meanwhile, the Jazz would be right on cue to start collecting young talent, in this draft. The years of delay of the future MIN pick devalues it for UTA, but increases it for MIN. Moreover, I have mentioned before that a team gets extra value reclaiming their own picks, because that team has some control of where the pick lands, if they are willing to tank.

Maybe MIN soups up the front end for the Jazz, by including a young prospect, or the #31. Lots of people like what Terrence Shannon Jr has shown, Connelly’s late first pick from last year. Would #17, #31 and Shannon bring back a future MIN pick, and a swap?

After thinking about it, my ideal scenario would be to restructure the Wolves picks to the Jazz as part of the deal. Agree to it before the draft but delay execution until after. Change from a swap to a pick in '26 and the opposite in '27. Add a swap to Utah in '28 and give back the '29. Gets Minnesota's obligations cleared a year sooner. How about Miller instead of Shannon?

Godaddycurse wrote:OKC for 24 + HOU 2026 top 4 protected 1st?

Sure. The HOU pick might not amount to much, but the trade value is fine, and the cap hold from #17 to #24 drops from $4.2 to $3.1. Maybe even trade away the #24 as well.