Trade Talk (Part Four)

[Klomp]

Rosas wants to shoot for stars not use assets for role players.

I get that. But if all rumors are he doesn’t think his star is there at #1, and other teams don’t value #1 enough to give him their star, he needs to build the best roster he can.

With that said, I think saying in the right situation Murray or Clarke can’t be stars is selling them short. Superstars? No. But third fiddle to Towns and Russell is a real possibility.

Added: Murray seems exactly like the kind of player Rosas would target. Not only is he perfect next to Russell and Beasley, he is locked-in on a value 4 year deal and maybe undervalued due to injury.

If he can't get his stars, I believe he's going to hold onto what assets to get one he has until he gets one. He's not going to go all-in on building for this season. I believe he'll hold on to the mismatched assets until he gets the deal he's looking for.

And the interesting thing is, Murray is actually opposite the kind of contract Rosas has targeted in trades. There are only two players he's added via trade or free agency since being hired who are locked into guaranteed deals for multiple years past 2019-20: D'Angelo Russell and Jake Layman.

[Whole Truth]

Do the Knicks have an extra FRP in 21-22?

DAL FRP in 2021

Unprotected is what I didn't know.

You think/believe Mavs will be in the lotto next season?.

[Wolveswin]

Rosas wants to shoot for stars not use assets for role players.

I get that. But if all rumors are he doesn’t think his star is there at #1, and other teams don’t value #1 enough to give him their star, he needs to build the best roster he can.

With that said, I think saying in the right situation Murray or Clarke can’t be stars is selling them short. Superstars? No. But third fiddle to Towns and Russell is a real possibility.

Added: Murray seems exactly like the kind of player Rosas would target. Not only is he perfect next to Russell and Beasley, he is locked-in on a value 4 year deal and maybe undervalued due to injury.

If he can't get his stars, I believe he's going to hold onto what assets to get one he has until he gets one. He's not going to go all-in on building for this season. I believe he'll hold on to the mismatched assets until he gets the deal he's looking for.

And the interesting thing is, Murray is actually opposite the kind of contract Rosas has targeted in trades. There are only two players he's added via trade or free agency since being hired who are locked into guaranteed deals for multiple years past 2019-20: D'Angelo Russell and Jake Layman.

I would add Beasley and maybe even Hernangomez to the list. They were on one year deals and are due new contracts as RFA. He was well aware that if they performed on their trial period, he would need to pay them. He was his type of guys. Undervalued with something to prove. If he can re-sign Beasley for Murray money (obviously less is better and maybe with his arrest less is warranted) that would be a contractual win.

[Klomp]

I get that. But if all rumors are he doesn’t think his star is there at #1, and other teams don’t value #1 enough to give him their star, he needs to build the best roster he can.

With that said, I think saying in the right situation Murray or Clarke can’t be stars is selling them short. Superstars? No. But third fiddle to Towns and Russell is a real possibility.

Added: Murray seems exactly like the kind of player Rosas would target. Not only is he perfect next to Russell and Beasley, he is locked-in on a value 4 year deal and maybe undervalued due to injury.

If he can't get his stars, I believe he's going to hold onto what assets to get one he has until he gets one. He's not going to go all-in on building for this season. I believe he'll hold on to the mismatched assets until he gets the deal he's looking for.

And the interesting thing is, Murray is actually opposite the kind of contract Rosas has targeted in trades. There are only two players he's added via trade or free agency since being hired who are locked into guaranteed deals for multiple years past 2019-20: D'Angelo Russell and Jake Layman.

I would add Beasley and maybe even Hernangomez to the list. They were on one year deals and are due new contracts as RFA. He was well aware that if they performed on their trial period, he would need to pay them. He was his type of guys. Undervalued with something to prove. If he can re-sign Beasley for Murray money (obviously less is better and maybe with his arrest less is warranted) that would be a contractual win.

But there's a value difference between trading for someone who needs to be paid and trading for someone who has already been paid. Being locked in increases the amount that another team will need to give up in a trade.

[KGdaBom]

DAL FRP in 2021

Unprotected is what I didn't know.

You think/believe Mavs will be in the lotto next season?.

We were discussing if the Knicks would be allowed to trade both their 21 and 22 FRPs. Belief is not involved in this. If it is possible that pick doesn't convey than the Knicks can't trade both their 21-22 FRPs. Now if it moves to 22 unprotected than the Knicks could trade both the picks. The Knicks can't make any trade that could potentially leave them without a FRP two years in a row.

[Whole Truth]

Unprotected is what I didn't know.

You think/believe Mavs will be in the lotto next season?.

We were discussing if the Knicks would be allowed to trade both their 21 and 22 FRPs. Belief is not involved in this. If it is possible that pick doesn't convey than the Knicks can't trade both their 21-22 FRPs. Now if it moves to 22 unprotected than the Knicks could trade both the picks. The Knicks can't make any trade that could potentially leave them without a FRP two years in a row.

Teams can't trade back to back but I asked because of the mention of it's unprotected stipulation.

I'll refine the question. You're good with a non lotto Mavs pick if you can land Knicks 22 unprotected?.

[Wolveswin]

If he can't get his stars, I believe he's going to hold onto what assets to get one he has until he gets one. He's not going to go all-in on building for this season. I believe he'll hold on to the mismatched assets until he gets the deal he's looking for.

And the interesting thing is, Murray is actually opposite the kind of contract Rosas has targeted in trades. There are only two players he's added via trade or free agency since being hired who are locked into guaranteed deals for multiple years past 2019-20: D'Angelo Russell and Jake Layman.

I would add Beasley and maybe even Hernangomez to the list. They were on one year deals and are due new contracts as RFA. He was well aware that if they performed on their trial period, he would need to pay them. He was his type of guys. Undervalued with something to prove. If he can re-sign Beasley for Murray money (obviously less is better and maybe with his arrest less is warranted) that would be a contractual win.

But there's a value difference between trading for someone who needs to be paid and trading for someone who has already been paid. Being locked in increases the amount that another team will need to give up in a trade.

Not sure I understand. How is a rookie contract RFA not “locked up?” I wouldn’t consider a RFA a flight risk or rental. If you are trying to say the unknown of what a RFA contract is and needs to be signed vs. someone like Murray being 4 year locked in, sure maybe I agree that weighs into value equation. I would think very low on list in consideration and wouldn’t mean that makes Murray “opposite” of the type of players Rosas goes after.

[KGdaBom]

You think/believe Mavs will be in the lotto next season?.

We were discussing if the Knicks would be allowed to trade both their 21 and 22 FRPs. Belief is not involved in this. If it is possible that pick doesn't convey than the Knicks can't trade both their 21-22 FRPs. Now if it moves to 22 unprotected than the Knicks could trade both the picks. The Knicks can't make any trade that could potentially leave them without a FRP two years in a row.

Teams can't trade back to back but I asked because of the mention of it's unprotected stipulation.

I'll refine the question. You're good with a non lotto Mavs pick if you can land Knicks 22 unprotected?.

Once again. We were discussing if the Knicks would be allowed to trade both their 21 and 22 FRPs. The only reason the Mavs pick was involved was it could potentially allow the Knicks to make the trade. I will look into this since it is becoming a big deal related to a trade that will never happen anyway.

From the Dallas News the 21 pick is unprotected. "We have a pick [to New York] that comes two years after Atlanta is conveyed. That goes to New York unprotected. So the Knicks could trade all picks from this year as well as their own FRPs from 21 and 22 if they so desire.

[Whole Truth]

We were discussing if the Knicks would be allowed to trade both their 21 and 22 FRPs. Belief is not involved in this. If it is possible that pick doesn't convey than the Knicks can't trade both their 21-22 FRPs. Now if it moves to 22 unprotected than the Knicks could trade both the picks. The Knicks can't make any trade that could potentially leave them without a FRP two years in a row.

Teams can't trade back to back but I asked because of the mention of it's unprotected stipulation.

I'll refine the question. You're good with a non lotto Mavs pick if you can land Knicks 22 unprotected?.

Once again. We were discussing if the Knicks would be allowed to trade both their 21 and 22 FRPs. The only reason the Mavs pick was involved was it could potentially allow the Knicks to make the trade. I will look into this since it is becoming a big deal related to a trade that will never happen anyway.

From the Dallas News the 21 pick is unprotected. "We have a pick [to New York] that comes two years after Atlanta is conveyed. That goes to New York unprotected. So the Knicks could trade all picks from this year as well as their own FRPs from 21 and 22 if they so desire.

I get what you were discussing.

As I know it, teams can't trade their 1st's in back to back years. However, Knicks can trade their 21 because they're using their 20 #8 pick to trade up for another first. What they can't do, is trade the 21 & 22 back to back as suggested.

I was asking an unrelated question to see what you'd be willing to accept to get a better sense of where you value the #1 pick.

[KGdaBom]

Teams can't trade back to back but I asked because of the mention of it's unprotected stipulation.

I'll refine the question. You're good with a non lotto Mavs pick if you can land Knicks 22 unprotected?.

Once again. We were discussing if the Knicks would be allowed to trade both their 21 and 22 FRPs. The only reason the Mavs pick was involved was it could potentially allow the Knicks to make the trade. I will look into this since it is becoming a big deal related to a trade that will never happen anyway.

From the Dallas News the 21 pick is unprotected. "We have a pick [to New York] that comes two years after Atlanta is conveyed. That goes to New York unprotected. So the Knicks could trade all picks from this year as well as their own FRPs from 21 and 22 if they so desire.

I get what you were discussing.

As I know it, teams can't trade their 1st's in back to back years. However, Knicks can trade their 21 because they're using their 20 #8 pick to trade up for another first. What they can't do, is trade the 21 & 22 back to back as suggested.

I was asking an unrelated question to see what you'd be willing to accept to get a better sense of where you value the #1 pick.

I would be interested in the Knicks #8 this year along with their unprotected picks in 21 and 22. I would be willing to part with #1 overall and Culver to acquire those three picks. I pretty much have no interest in the Mavs #1 pick at all. Would I take it if they just wanted to give it to us? Yes. If I had to offer anything of substance for it? NO.

[Whole Truth]

Once again. We were discussing if the Knicks would be allowed to trade both their 21 and 22 FRPs. The only reason the Mavs pick was involved was it could potentially allow the Knicks to make the trade. I will look into this since it is becoming a big deal related to a trade that will never happen anyway.

From the Dallas News the 21 pick is unprotected. "We have a pick [to New York] that comes two years after Atlanta is conveyed. That goes to New York unprotected. So the Knicks could trade all picks from this year as well as their own FRPs from 21 and 22 if they so desire.

I get what you were discussing.

As I know it, teams can't trade their 1st's in back to back years. However, Knicks can trade their 21 because they're using their 20 #8 pick to trade up for another first. What they can't do, is trade the 21 & 22 back to back as suggested.

I was asking an unrelated question to see what you'd be willing to accept to get a better sense of where you value the #1 pick.

I would be interested in the Knicks #8 this year along with their unprotected picks in 21 and 22. I would be willing to part with #1 overall and Culver to acquire those three picks. I pretty much have no interest in the Mavs #1 pick at all. Would I take it if they just wanted to give it to us? Yes. If I had to offer anything of substance for it? NO.

Thanks for the response.

[Wolveswin]

Teams can't trade back to back but I asked because of the mention of it's unprotected stipulation.

I'll refine the question. You're good with a non lotto Mavs pick if you can land Knicks 22 unprotected?.

Once again. We were discussing if the Knicks would be allowed to trade both their 21 and 22 FRPs. The only reason the Mavs pick was involved was it could potentially allow the Knicks to make the trade. I will look into this since it is becoming a big deal related to a trade that will never happen anyway.

From the Dallas News the 21 pick is unprotected. "We have a pick [to New York] that comes two years after Atlanta is conveyed. That goes to New York unprotected. So the Knicks could trade all picks from this year as well as their own FRPs from 21 and 22 if they so desire.

I get what you were discussing.

As I know it, teams can't trade their 1st's in back to back years. However, Knicks can trade their 21 because they're using their 20 #8 pick to trade up for another first. What they can't do, is trade the 21 & 22 back to back as suggested.

I was asking an unrelated question to see what you'd be willing to accept to get a better sense of where you value the #1 pick.

Actually they can trade their 1st in back to back years. Remember, the Stepien rule is for future draft picks only. Future is the key word.

So if any team on 2020 draft day wants to trade their 2020 and 2021 1st they can. What isn’t clear is when that 2020 1st isn’t “Future” anymore. Is it when draft starts? After they make their selection and trade rights? Conclusion of draft?

[SO_MONEY]

Once again. We were discussing if the Knicks would be allowed to trade both their 21 and 22 FRPs. The only reason the Mavs pick was involved was it could potentially allow the Knicks to make the trade. I will look into this since it is becoming a big deal related to a trade that will never happen anyway.

From the Dallas News the 21 pick is unprotected. "We have a pick [to New York] that comes two years after Atlanta is conveyed. That goes to New York unprotected. So the Knicks could trade all picks from this year as well as their own FRPs from 21 and 22 if they so desire.

I get what you were discussing.

As I know it, teams can't trade their 1st's in back to back years. However, Knicks can trade their 21 because they're using their 20 #8 pick to trade up for another first. What they can't do, is trade the 21 & 22 back to back as suggested.

I was asking an unrelated question to see what you'd be willing to accept to get a better sense of where you value the #1 pick.

Actually they can trade their 1st in back to back years. Remember, the Stepien rule is for future draft picks only. Future is the key word.

So if any team on 2020 draft day wants to trade their 2020 and 2021 1st they can. What isn’t clear is when that 2020 1st isn’t “Future” anymore. Is it when draft starts? After they make their selection and trade rights? Conclusion of draft?

They have to make a selection this has been covered. There are no questions about the rule. You cannot trade this year's pick if you don't have one the following year...you need to make at least on selection. If you trade a pick this year and don't have another you cannot trade next year's pick unless you have aquired another on top of that which you need to make a selection.. .This isn't really complicated.

[Klomp]

Actually they can trade their 1st in back to back years. Remember, the Stepien rule is for future draft picks only. Future is the key word.

So if any team on 2020 draft day wants to trade their 2020 and 2021 1st they can. What isn’t clear is when that 2020 1st isn’t “Future” anymore. Is it when draft starts? After they make their selection and trade rights? Conclusion of draft?

I think you're over thinking things. Today, the 2020 Draft is a future draft. If the draft is Thursday, it would still be a future draft on Wednesday.

There is a point where no more trades are approved on draft day and the order is locked in place. I'm guessing that's when the change happens. If a trade is agreed to on draft night, it won't be approved until after the draft, making that specific draft no longer in the future.

[Wolveswin]

I get what you were discussing.

As I know it, teams can't trade their 1st's in back to back years. However, Knicks can trade their 21 because they're using their 20 #8 pick to trade up for another first. What they can't do, is trade the 21 & 22 back to back as suggested.

I was asking an unrelated question to see what you'd be willing to accept to get a better sense of where you value the #1 pick.

Actually they can trade their 1st in back to back years. Remember, the Stepien rule is for future draft picks only. Future is the key word.

So if any team on 2020 draft day wants to trade their 2020 and 2021 1st they can. What isn’t clear is when that 2020 1st isn’t “Future” anymore. Is it when draft starts? After they make their selection and trade rights? Conclusion of draft?

They have to make a selection this has been covered. There are no questions about the rule. You cannot trade this year's pick if you don't have one the following year...you need to make at least on selection. If you trade a pick this year and don't have another you cannot trade next year's pick unless you have aquired another on top of that which you need to make a selection.. .This isn't really complicated.

I know one poster posted they think it is when the pick happens. But I have never seen it mentioned on CBA rules — not that I have been researching that document.

And you are wrong on your description above. Once any draft pick becomes non-future it can be traded despite what is owed in future.

So if a team owes their 2021 they can trade their 2020 once it is not future. Wolves are in that situation. They can trade BOTH #1 and #17 once they become not future (when ever that officially is) despite owing their 2021. And no they don’t need to retain any 2020 1st.

Fun fact: Stepien rule is NOT part of CBA. Actually constitutional bylaws. Hmm. Good to know.

[Wolveswin]

Actually they can trade their 1st in back to back years. Remember, the Stepien rule is for future draft picks only. Future is the key word.

So if any team on 2020 draft day wants to trade their 2020 and 2021 1st they can. What isn’t clear is when that 2020 1st isn’t “Future” anymore. Is it when draft starts? After they make their selection and trade rights? Conclusion of draft?

I think you're over thinking things. Today, the 2020 Draft is a future draft. If the draft is Thursday, it would still be a future draft on Wednesday.

There is a point where no more trades are approved on draft day and the order is locked in place. I'm guessing that's when the change happens. If a trade is agreed to on draft night, it won't be approved until after the draft, making that specific draft no longer in the future.

I am not over thinking it, that is exactly what I am saying. And have said multiple times above. Future is the key word. Once any pick becomes non-future (whenever that official ruling in time is designated) it can be traded despite what is owed the following year (future).

As you point out, no one is really sure when a pick becomes non-future. You lay out a scenario, other posters have laid out their opinion. Good thing is, Wolves know. We just don’t know when that exact ruling is designated — what makes 2020 1st not future.

[Wolveswin]

The Knicks are a fun one.

They can trade their own 2020, 2021, and 2022 in one trade. And for fun could do their own 2019 (Barrett), 2018 (Knox) and 2017 (Frank). They can literally trade their own six 1sts (past and future).

They own and have been awarded 2020 #27 from Clippers (which only matters for the whole future designation otherwise can trade both 2020 1sts when not future). Owed Dallas 2021 unprotected, which allows them to trade own 2022.

[Whole Truth]

Once again. We were discussing if the Knicks would be allowed to trade both their 21 and 22 FRPs. The only reason the Mavs pick was involved was it could potentially allow the Knicks to make the trade. I will look into this since it is becoming a big deal related to a trade that will never happen anyway.

From the Dallas News the 21 pick is unprotected. "We have a pick [to New York] that comes two years after Atlanta is conveyed. That goes to New York unprotected. So the Knicks could trade all picks from this year as well as their own FRPs from 21 and 22 if they so desire.

I get what you were discussing.

As I know it, teams can't trade their 1st's in back to back years. However, Knicks can trade their 21 because they're using their 20 #8 pick to trade up for another first. What they can't do, is trade the 21 & 22 back to back as suggested.

I was asking an unrelated question to see what you'd be willing to accept to get a better sense of where you value the #1 pick.

Actually they can trade their 1st in back to back years. Remember, the Stepien rule is for future draft picks only. Future is the key word.

So if any team on 2020 draft day wants to trade their 2020 and 2021 1st they can. What isn’t clear is when that 2020 1st isn’t “Future” anymore. Is it when draft starts? After they make their selection and trade rights? Conclusion of draft?

I think there's a stipulation about trading picks in the same draft also as apposed to trading out of a draft because theoretically if Knicks trade up, they're keeping a first. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Found this, didn't know they changed it.

"The NBA quietly changed trade rules over the offseason to allow teams to simultaneously owe two picks with a "two years after" language attached.

In the past, a team could owe only one such pick".

[SO_MONEY]

Actually they can trade their 1st in back to back years. Remember, the Stepien rule is for future draft picks only. Future is the key word.

So if any team on 2020 draft day wants to trade their 2020 and 2021 1st they can. What isn’t clear is when that 2020 1st isn’t “Future” anymore. Is it when draft starts? After they make their selection and trade rights? Conclusion of draft?

They have to make a selection this has been covered. There are no questions about the rule. You cannot trade this year's pick if you don't have one the following year...you need to make at least on selection. If you trade a pick this year and don't have another you cannot trade next year's pick unless you have aquired another on top of that which you need to make a selection.. .This isn't really complicated.

I know one poster posted they think it is when the pick happens. But I have never seen it mentioned on CBA rules — not that I have been researching that document.

And you are wrong on your description above. Once any draft pick becomes non-future it can be traded despite what is owed in future.

So if a team owes their 2021 they can trade their 2020 once it is not future. Wolves are in that situation. They can trade BOTH #1 and #17 once they become not future (when ever that officially is) despite owing their 2021. And no they don’t need to retain any 2020 1st.

Fun fact: Stepien rule is NOT part of CBA. Actually constitutional bylaws. Hmm. Good to know.

It is not think, it is know. I am correct as are others, stop fighting and listen to people... please and thank you. This has been explained to you repeatedly. The rule is simple and you are still wrong. Again, put your ego aside and listen. They cannot trade both picks because next year's pick may convey. Period. End of story. They can make a selection and trade the draft rights to that player. That is what they can do no it's ands or buts assuming the don't trade for a 2021 FRP.

[KGdaBom]

Once again. We were discussing if the Knicks would be allowed to trade both their 21 and 22 FRPs. The only reason the Mavs pick was involved was it could potentially allow the Knicks to make the trade. I will look into this since it is becoming a big deal related to a trade that will never happen anyway.

From the Dallas News the 21 pick is unprotected. "We have a pick [to New York] that comes two years after Atlanta is conveyed. That goes to New York unprotected. So the Knicks could trade all picks from this year as well as their own FRPs from 21 and 22 if they so desire.

I get what you were discussing.

As I know it, teams can't trade their 1st's in back to back years. However, Knicks can trade their 21 because they're using their 20 #8 pick to trade up for another first. What they can't do, is trade the 21 & 22 back to back as suggested.

I was asking an unrelated question to see what you'd be willing to accept to get a better sense of where you value the #1 pick.

Actually they can trade their 1st in back to back years. Remember, the Stepien rule is for future draft picks only. Future is the key word.

So if any team on 2020 draft day wants to trade their 2020 and 2021 1st they can. What isn’t clear is when that 2020 1st isn’t “Future” anymore. Is it when draft starts? After they make their selection and trade rights? Conclusion of draft?

Once the pick is made they aren't trading a draft pick any more. They are trading the rights to a player. So a team can't trade all of their FRPs in any two consecutive years.