Trade Talk (Part Four)

[SO_MONEY]

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.

The problem they are having is applying the rule when a pick is owed. They are hung up on the future business. For instance pretend Minnesota didn't owe a pick...they could trade #1 and #17 without the need to draft players, then after that draft concludes and any moratorium passes MN would be free to trade their "next" year's (technically that year's) pick because the rule only looks forward. That is what they mean by future, but I don't have faith they will get it.

[Wolveswin]

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.

Do you even read what I write? I said they can trade both draft picks — it’s the when. If you call that rights to a player vs. pick — great. None the less, Wolves can leave the 2020 draft without having a rookie rights or owning a 2020 draft rights. Despite not owning their 2021.

[SO_MONEY]

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.

Do you even read what I write? I said they can trade both draft picks — it’s the when. If you call that rights to a player vs. pick — great. None the less, Wolves can leave the 2020 draft without having a rookie rights or owning a 2020 draft rights. Despite not owning their 2021.

It has been explained to you, the when is not in question to anyone but you, yet you refuse to listen...why? Seriously! This should be over. Listen to people for Pete's sake.

And you are still wrong. The Wolves may not leave this draft without having draft rights to a player. That is because the deal may technically not be completed until the start of the next season this is 100% true unless timelines change. Consider last year with Culver and missing the begining of SL because the trade could not be made official.

[Wolveswin]

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.

Do you even read what I write? I said they can trade both draft picks — it’s the when. If you call that rights to a player vs. pick — great. None the less, Wolves can leave the 2020 draft without having a rookie rights or owning a 2020 draft rights. Despite not owning their 2021.

It has been explained to you, the when is not in question to anyone but you, yet you refuse to listen...why? Seriously! This should be over. Listen to people for Pete's sake.

And you are still wrong. The Wolves cannot leave this draft without having draft rights to a player. That is because the deal may technically not be completed until the start of the next season unless timelines change. Consider last year with Culver and missing the begining of SL because the trade could not be made official.

It has not been explained. Just in the paragraphs above, multiple responses detail then when differently. And despite you saying you know, I have never seen it printed in a NBA document: the when a pick (draft rights) become future. And hence consecutive 1sts traded.

Now you are further down the semantics path. Of course we all know the, agreed upon and not official to new league year. What I am saying and you want to play the semantics game is Wolves do not need to own a 1st/rights/rookie in 2020 despite not owning their 2021. If you want to play the semantics game, this will get exhausting. Go back and actually read my posts. You will see I am saying is 100% right.

[SO_MONEY]

Do you even read what I write? I said they can trade both draft picks — it’s the when. If you call that rights to a player vs. pick — great. None the less, Wolves can leave the 2020 draft without having a rookie rights or owning a 2020 draft rights. Despite not owning their 2021.

It has been explained to you, the when is not in question to anyone but you, yet you refuse to listen...why? Seriously! This should be over. Listen to people for Pete's sake.

And you are still wrong. The Wolves cannot leave this draft without having draft rights to a player. That is because the deal may technically not be completed until the start of the next season unless timelines change. Consider last year with Culver and missing the begining of SL because the trade could not be made official.

It has not been explained. Just in the paragraphs above, multiple responses detail then when differently. And despite you saying you know, I have never seen it printed in a NBA document: the when a pick (draft rights) become future. And hence consecutive 1sts traded.

Now you are further down the semantics path. Of course we all know the, agreed upon and not official to new league year. What I am saying and you want to play the semantics game is Wolves do not need to own a 1st/rights/rookie in 2020 despite not owning their 2021. If you want to play the semantics game, this will get exhausting. Go back and actually read my posts. You will see I am saying is 100% right.

Get over it. You were wrong. Now you are back tracking. People would respect you for asking a question, listening and learning, they won't for doing what you are doing. Your choice.

[urinesane]

Hey SO_MONEY, does it ever get old being right all the time?

[Wolveswin]

It has been explained to you, the when is not in question to anyone but you, yet you refuse to listen...why? Seriously! This should be over. Listen to people for Pete's sake.

And you are still wrong. The Wolves cannot leave this draft without having draft rights to a player. That is because the deal may technically not be completed until the start of the next season unless timelines change. Consider last year with Culver and missing the begining of SL because the trade could not be made official.

It has not been explained. Just in the paragraphs above, multiple responses detail then when differently. And despite you saying you know, I have never seen it printed in a NBA document: the when a pick (draft rights) become future. And hence consecutive 1sts traded.

Now you are further down the semantics path. Of course we all know the, agreed upon and not official to new league year. What I am saying and you want to play the semantics game is Wolves do not need to own a 1st/rights/rookie in 2020 despite not owning their 2021. If you want to play the semantics game, this will get exhausting. Go back and actually read my posts. You will see I am saying is 100% right.

Get over it. You were wrong. Now you are back tracking. People would respect you for asking a question, listening and learning, they won't for doing what you are doing. Your choice.

Or you changed over to a semantics discussion. You were talking draft picks and detailing the rule wrong. Then when corrected by me, you move to, “Well it’s the rights to a player not draft pick.”

We all get that. It should go without saying. We use draft pick synonymous with the saying, “Rights to player drafted at #17.” He’ll, you don’t even type that out each time.

I will say it again to be crystal clear to you, Wolves can trade #1 and #17 when they become NOT FUTURE. And when that time exactly is, is NOT fully understood by anyone on this website — including you. And yes, officially it becomes, “The right to said player.” And, “Not official until new league year starts.” That is crazy you think we should type that out every TIME. Even announcers on NBA draft broadcasts make fun of saying that each and every time.

[SO_MONEY]

Hey SO_MONEY, does it ever get old being right all the time?

You tell me.

[SO_MONEY]

It has not been explained. Just in the paragraphs above, multiple responses detail then when differently. And despite you saying you know, I have never seen it printed in a NBA document: the when a pick (draft rights) become future. And hence consecutive 1sts traded.

Now you are further down the semantics path. Of course we all know the, agreed upon and not official to new league year. What I am saying and you want to play the semantics game is Wolves do not need to own a 1st/rights/rookie in 2020 despite not owning their 2021. If you want to play the semantics game, this will get exhausting. Go back and actually read my posts. You will see I am saying is 100% right.

Get over it. You were wrong. Now you are back tracking. People would respect you for asking a question, listening and learning, they won't for doing what you are doing. Your choice.

Or you changed over to a semantics discussion. You were talking draft picks and detailing the rule wrong. Then when corrected by me, you move to, “Well it’s the rights to a player not draft pick.”

We all get that. It should go without saying. We use draft pick synonymous with the saying, “Rights to player drafted at #17.” He’ll, you don’t even type that out each time.

I will say it again to be crystal clear to you, Wolves can trade #1 and #17 when they become NOT FUTURE. And when that time exactly is, is NOT fully understood by anyone on this website — including you. And yes, officially it becomes, “The right to said player.” And, “Not official until new league year starts.” That is crazy you think we should type that out every TIME. Even announcers on NBA draft broadcasts make fun of saying that each and every time.

It is not semantics if you are dealing with absolutes (what is or isn't). And we know when that time is, and it is fully understood by many people on this site, it when the new league year starts and trades are allowed. You were wrong, accept it. It happens to people from time.

I also have no problem with people using draft picks and draft rights synonymously, no biggie as I previously said, so long as they are not lecturing how a rule applies...in that case you need to be specific and accurate.

[Wolveswin]

Get over it. You were wrong. Now you are back tracking. People would respect you for asking a question, listening and learning, they won't for doing what you are doing. Your choice.

Or you changed over to a semantics discussion. You were talking draft picks and detailing the rule wrong. Then when corrected by me, you move to, “Well it’s the rights to a player not draft pick.”

We all get that. It should go without saying. We use draft pick synonymous with the saying, “Rights to player drafted at #17.” He’ll, you don’t even type that out each time.

I will say it again to be crystal clear to you, Wolves can trade #1 and #17 when they become NOT FUTURE. And when that time exactly is, is NOT fully understood by anyone on this website — including you. And yes, officially it becomes, “The right to said player.” And, “Not official until new league year starts.” That is crazy you think we should type that out every TIME. Even announcers on NBA draft broadcasts make fun of saying that each and every time.

It is not semantics if you are dealing with absolutes (what is or isn't). And we know when that time is, and it is fully understood by many people on this site, it when the new league year starts and trades are allowed. You were wrong, accept it. It happens to people from time.

I also have no problem with people using draft picks and draft rights synonymously, no biggie as I previously said, so long as they are not lecturing how a rule applies...in that case you need to be specific and accurate.

If ever someone should look in a mirror for a post on this website this is one. Take your own advice and this thread and website will be a much better place.

[old school 34]

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.

The Knicks definitely become the front runner if you want future draft assets or like any of their past picks that might still come around....that said & all the Ball to NY smoke...just seems like the logical fit to find the right deal.

That said, the future picks especially if they get multiple years out further complicate the KAT/Dlo timeline &/or them hitting their next contract? Unless your collecting them only to move them again for 3rd star type of move?

Really warming to the thought if somehow in a NY deal swapping Culver for RJ in said deal as well.

Sent from my SM-G973U using RealGM mobile app

[minimus]

I have two questions about PG13:

1) has bad coaching (Doc Rivers) and the toxic locker room in LAC affected PG13?
2) does he still have elite athleticism?

If both answers are 'yes'. I would trade for him since now his market value is an all-time low.

I still find it very weird that he was considered an elite two-way player a year ago, but this year there not so many of his defensive highlights. Here is one.

Watch on YouTube

MIN IN: PG13
MIN OUT: #1 pick, JJ, Culver, Evans, Spellman

LAC IN: Jrue Holiday, Evans, Spellman
LAC OUT: PG13

NOP IN: #1 pick, JJ, Culveк
NOP OUT: Jrue Holiday

Why for MIN: get the third star
Why for NOP: get Wiseman
Why for LAC: get elite perimeter defender, make another run for the title

Draft Tillman(#17), Tre Jones(#33). Re-sign Beasley, JMac, Juancho, Martin.

KAT/Reid/Tillman
Vanderbilt/Juancho/Tillman
PG13/Layman/Martin
Okogie/Beasley/DLo
DLo/JMac/Jones

[KGdaBom]

I have two questions about PG13:

1) has bad coaching (Doc Rivers) and the toxic locker room in LAC affected PG13?
2) does he still have elite athleticism?

If both answers are 'yes'. I would trade for him since now his market value is an all-time low.

I still find it very weird that he was considered an elite two-way player a year ago, but this year there not so many of his defensive highlights. Here is one.

Watch on YouTube

MIN IN: PG13
MIN OUT: #1 pick, JJ, Culver, Evans, Spellman

LAC IN: Jrue Holiday, Evans, Spellman
LAC OUT: PG13

NOP IN: #1 pick, JJ, Culveк
NOP OUT: Jrue Holiday

Why for MIN: get the third star
Why for NOP: get Wiseman
Why for LAC: get elite perimeter defender, make another run for the title

Draft Tillman(#17), Tre Jones(#33). Re-sign Beasley, JMac, Juancho, Martin.

KAT/Reid/Tillman
Vanderbilt/Juancho/Tillman
PG13/Layman/Martin
Okogie/Beasley/DLo
DLo/JMac/Jones

If we would get 2 years guaranteed from him I would be in favor of your trade proposal, but we would only have him for one year with the 2nd year player option. That most likely wouldn't be enough time to convince him to stay.

[shrink]

Chicago trade - (Carter Jr, Porter, #4) for (Dieng, Anderson, Allen, #2).

Minnesota trade - (Culver, #1) for (Carter JR, Utah 2022, GS 2024)

Memphis trade - (Dieng, Anderson, Allen, Utah 2022, GS 2024) for (Porter, Culver, #4)

For Minnesota -

The Utah pick is only conveyed in 2021 if in the 8-14 range. In 2022 when Utah need to find solutions for Gobert & Ingles hitting free agency, the pick is top 6 protected. Top 3 in 2023.

The 2024 GS pick is top 4 protected, top 1 in 2025, unprotected 2026, when GS's core will be mid to late 30's & potentially looking to rebuild.

Financially, with picks being zero rated, Minnesota delay the cost of the #1 pick. Cut the 10m salary hit in this Covid market while netting a young big in Carter JF to play PF/C next to Kat & future multiple pick value.

For Bulls -

They give up a young big & an expiring Porter for the #2 pick (Wiseman or Ball) & 2 young wingmen under control in Anderson & Allen for some cheap wing depth.

For Memphis -

With their team scrapping the playoffs in the first year of their rebuild, They move up the value of their future picks for Culver & the #4 to add to the core sooner than later.

Am I missing something? GSW owns the #2? The CHI write up is for #2. Did you switch this trade to MIN and the #1, and not edit it?

This seems like particularly poor value.

[Baseline81]

I have two questions about PG13:

1) has bad coaching (Doc Rivers) and the toxic locker room in LAC affected PG13?
2) does he still have elite athleticism?

If both answers are 'yes'. I would trade for him since now his market value is an all-time low.

I still find it very weird that he was considered an elite two-way player a year ago, but this year there not so many of his defensive highlights. Here is one.

Watch on YouTube

MIN IN: PG13
MIN OUT: #1 pick, JJ, Culver, Evans, Spellman

LAC IN: Jrue Holiday, Evans, Spellman
LAC OUT: PG13

NOP IN: #1 pick, JJ, Culveк
NOP OUT: Jrue Holiday

Why for MIN: get the third star
Why for NOP: get Wiseman
Why for LAC: get elite perimeter defender, make another run for the title

Draft Tillman(#17), Tre Jones(#33). Re-sign Beasley, JMac, Juancho, Martin.

KAT/Reid/Tillman
Vanderbilt/Juancho/Tillman
PG13/Layman/Martin
Okogie/Beasley/DLo
DLo/JMac/Jones

Just to be clear, you want to give up the first overall pick and Culver for player who will earn $35.5M next season, not to mention how he can then walk after the year (leaving the Wolves nothing in exchange other than a Butler-like playoff run)?

And if Rosas manages to convince the 30-year old George to resign, can you imagine what the figures in and length of the contract will be? How would the team even be able to put a decent group around George, Russell and Towns?

Lastly, will Towns accept being the second option on offense? As you'd think with George earning as much, he'd almost certainly be seen as "the guy."

[minimus]

I have two questions about PG13:

1) has bad coaching (Doc Rivers) and the toxic locker room in LAC affected PG13?
2) does he still have elite athleticism?

If both answers are 'yes'. I would trade for him since now his market value is an all-time low.

I still find it very weird that he was considered an elite two-way player a year ago, but this year there not so many of his defensive highlights. Here is one.

Watch on YouTube

MIN IN: PG13
MIN OUT: #1 pick, JJ, Culver, Evans, Spellman

LAC IN: Jrue Holiday, Evans, Spellman
LAC OUT: PG13

NOP IN: #1 pick, JJ, Culveк
NOP OUT: Jrue Holiday

Why for MIN: get the third star
Why for NOP: get Wiseman
Why for LAC: get elite perimeter defender, make another run for the title

Draft Tillman(#17), Tre Jones(#33). Re-sign Beasley, JMac, Juancho, Martin.

KAT/Reid/Tillman
Vanderbilt/Juancho/Tillman
PG13/Layman/Martin
Okogie/Beasley/DLo
DLo/JMac/Jones

Just to be clear, you want to give up the first overall pick and Culver for player who will earn $35.5M next season, not to mention how he can then walk after the year (leaving the Wolves nothing in exchange other than a Butler-like playoff run)?

And if Rosas manages to convince the 30-year old George to resign, can you imagine what the figures in and length of the contract will be? How would the team even be able to put a decent group around George, Russell and Towns?

Lastly, will Towns accept being the second option on offense? As you'd think with George earning as much, he'd almost certainly be seen as "the guy."

Did not know about his PO 2020-21. With regard to his role, I think he will fit well here either as PF or SF.

Read on Twitter

?s=20

[breatnach]

Read on Twitter

?s=20

Saved you a click: The answer is Brooklyn. PG would like to play behind KD and Kyrie.

[Baseline81]

Did not know about his PO 2020-21. With regard to his role, I think he will fit well here either as PF or SF.

Read on Twitter

?s=20

Now that you know about his player option, would you see do such a trade?

Regarding the tweet, I don't know how Rosas or anyone else could justify paying that amount, especially when you think in terms of the salary cap, to a number three option? I do agree that is likely his best role, though. If George did end up wanting to stay, he would have to take less, but I'm not sure that happens given it's likely to be his last big contract.

[minimus]

Did not know about his PO 2020-21. With regard to his role, I think he will fit well here either as PF or SF.

Now that you know about his player option, would you see do such a trade?

Regarding the tweet, I don't know how Rosas or anyone else could justify paying that amount, especially when you think in terms of the salary cap, to a number three option? I do agree that is likely his best role, though. If George did end up wanting to stay, he would have to take less, but I'm not sure that happens given it's likely to be his last big contract.

I'd say it no. I still think that a star like PG13 might find success within the system that we have been trying to build. But in this case even if he regain his status as an elite two-way player, we won't be able to capitalize on it, because of PO...

[minimus]

Victor Oladipo Rumors: 'Rumblings' Star Has Been Open to Trade Since January

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2912397-victor-oladipo-rumors-rumblings-star-has-been-open-to-trade-since-january

Oladipo is another star that I'd like to get for the right price.