Trading for future draft picks: Why don't we see more of?

john2jer · Post #1 » by **john2jer** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:41 pm

Teams like San Antonio, Phoenix, and Detroit; and soon to be Boston, are consistently drafting in the back end of the 1st round. Why don't we see more of them trading this year's pick for someone's pick next year. Likely they're going to draft someone who won't make their roster, gets stashed in Europe, or ends up playing the season in the D-League anyways, and they're stuck with the guaranteed contract.

Why not trade their #25-30 pick this year to a team like the Warriors, Nuggets, or Mavericks, teams who have a better chance to be on a downswing than an upswing. The Timberwolves a couple years ago would have been a perfect example.

Likely what's going to happen is they're going to pick up a mid-1st, potentially a late lottery pick the next year if the team they traded with had a bad season.

It's kind of like what the Patriots did with the 49ers, and ended up getting them the #7 pick in the NFL draft.

happykooner · Post #2 » by **happykooner** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:48 pm

john2jer wrote:Teams like San Antonio, Phoenix, and Detroit; and soon to be Boston, are consistently drafting in the back end of the 1st round. Why don't we see more of them trading this year's pick for someone's pick next year. Likely they're going to draft someone who won't make their roster, gets stashed in Europe, or ends up playing the season in the D-League anyways, and they're stuck with the guaranteed contract.

Why not trade their #25-30 pick this year to a team like the Warriors, Nuggets, or Mavericks, teams who have a better chance to be on a downswing than an upswing. The Timberwolves a couple years ago would have been a perfect example.

Likely what's going to happen is they're going to pick up a mid-1st, potentially a late lottery pick the next year if the team they traded with had a bad season.

It's kind of like what the Patriots did with the 49ers, and ended up getting them the #7 pick in the NFL draft.

In the NBA teams can have their draft picks protected for a long amount of time while the NFL doesn't have a policy of pick protection. Thats why you see the Pats with the 7th pick in the draft this year.

NBA rules somewhat > the rules of the NFL

Post #3 » by **Paydro70** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:38 pm

Those bad teams wouldn't just swap picks for nothing, anyway... you'd have to actually give up something of substance to get a bad team's draft pick, and good teams (like the Spurs) probably don't want to trade away something of value NOW (since they can win the title) for potential later.

shrink · Post #4 » by **shrink** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 5:58 pm

I agree - I am surprised we don't see either more trades of current late picks for future production, or at least swaps for the top second rounders, which they can stash. I believe a shot at a championship is cyclical, and if a pick can't bring in current value, I think they should be trading them for longterm, high risk/high reward prospects, so they may rebuild their team three years out.

shrink · Post #5 » by **shrink** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:03 pm

Let me add that I understand the reluctance for great teams to trade FUTURE picks because they provide a form of injury insurance.

For example (someone correct me if I'm wrong here), about ten years ago the Spurs looked dominant, riding the Admiral's coattails. They'd have been the classic "great team." However, when David Robinson missed the next season with injury, the Spurs ended up in the lottery, and lucked into getting Tim Duncan.

Personally, as a MIN fan, I think BOS made a mistake including an unprotected 2009 pick in the KG deal. As expected, the 2008 pick turned into the 30th, but the Celtics have three, relatively older players, that were not immune from injury over the next two years. Chances are the pick will be late, but if $20 mil players suddenly start missing time, a team's record is going to show it, and the pick will increase in value.

MVP16 · Post #6 » by **MVP16** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:18 pm

shrink wrote:Personally, as a MIN fan, I think BOS made a mistake including an unprotected 2009 pick in the KG deal. As expected, the 2008 pick turned into the 30th, but the Celtics have three, relatively older players, that were not immune from injury over the next two years. Chances are the pick will be late, but if $20 mil players suddenly start missing time, a team's record is going to show it, and the pick will increase in value.

I think (just guessing here) that McHale wanted Rondo, but Ainge refused to give him up in the deal so instead gave up Telfair and an unprotected 1st rounder in 2009. I think that exchange was well worth it for the Celtics.

PeeDee · Post #7 » by **PeeDee** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:21 pm

I thought the pick was top 3 protected. Not that it matters much I guess, it'll probably take a BIG injury (or 3) for that to happen.

shrink · Post #8 » by **shrink** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:38 pm

PeeDee wrote:I thought the pick was top 3 protected. Not that it matters much I guess, it'll probably take a BIG injury (or 3) for that to happen.

I think you're right that its top 3 protected.

My guess 1.5 injuries could derail BOS. It's unlikely, but certainly makes the 2009 1st better than a 2008 1st

MVP16 · Post #9 » by **MVP16** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:51 pm

shrink wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

I think you're right that its top 3 protected.

My guess 1.5 injuries could derail BOS. It's unlikely, but certainly makes the 2009 1st better than a 2008 1st

Come on now. That's what people were saying before this season and I thought they had learned better. It's not just a 3 man team...it's arguably the deepest team in the league. They went 9-2 when KG was out. And what does 1.5 injuries even mean? Somebody is going to be half injured?

GJense4181 · Post #10 » by **GJense4181** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:47 pm

MVP16 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Come on now. That's what people were saying before this season and I thought they had learned better. It's not just a 3 man team...it's arguably the deepest team in the league. They went 9-2 when KG was out. And what does 1.5 injuries even mean? Somebody is going to be half injured?

The fact that five, real live players were traded for Kevin Garnett implies that SOME depth was lost in the deal, right? If he gets injured, it's the talent equivalent of FIVE players being injured (+2 future first rounders).
They do not have the deepest team in the league. Signing Sam Cassell brought them into the discussion, but it's not true. They merely have depth at PF. Leon Powe. Glen Davis. Brian Scalabrine. James Posey. Scot Pollard or PJ Brown could play PF in a pinch, as well.
1.5 major injuries means a player like Kevin Garnett going down for an entire season and Paul Pierce/Ray Allen missing half a season or so.

MVP16 · Post #11 » by **MVP16** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 8:15 pm

GJense4181 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

The fact that five, real live players were traded for Kevin Garnett implies that SOME depth was lost in the deal, right? If he gets injured, it's the talent equivalent of FIVE players being injured (+2 future first rounders).
They do not have the deepest team in the league. Signing Sam Cassell brought them into the discussion, but it's not true. They merely have depth at PF. Leon Powe. Glen Davis. Brian Scalabrine. James Posey. Scot Pollard or PJ Brown could play PF in a pinch, as well.
1.5 major injuries means a player like Kevin Garnett going down for an entire season and Paul Pierce/Ray Allen missing half a season or so.

I hate diverting the thread from its original topic, but they replaced those players with Posey, Big Baby, House, Cassell and House. Green and Telfair probably wouldn't even make the roster this year so no depth was lost from that exchange. Posey is much better then Gomes. And Ratliff was just a salary fill in anyway and didn't even player for the Celtics really.

Of course if KG gets injured for the whole season then it's going to hurt the team...but when has KG been injured for more then a few weeks? I'm arguing that the Celtics roster can sustain itself if 1 or 2 of the big 3 get injured for a few weeks like they showed this season.

As to the original topic, the difference between NBA and NFL is the value between a #7 pick and #23 pick is huge in the NBA whereas it's not that big in the NFL. A team would be taking on too much risk trading an unprotected pick in the future figuring that they are teetering between lottery and playoffs...and a late first round pick is not nearly enough compensation for taking on that risk. One player in the NBA can change your franchise whereas in the NFL it's one piece of a big puzzle.

Post #12 » by **Paydro70** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 12:08 am

You can't say "when has KG been injured" against a statement that if he were injured the team would be bad.

If KG went down for the year, and Pierce/Allen went down for half a year, the team would probably lose more than 20 wins.

MalReyn · Post #13 » by **MalReyn** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 2:04 am

Paydro70 wrote:You can't say "when has KG been injured" against a statement that if he were injured the team would be bad.

If KG went down for the year, and Pierce/Allen went down for half a year, the team would probably lose more than 20 wins.

If it knocked them down to ~46 wins, the pick would still only be mid-teens. Odds are the unprotected (or lightly protected) pick won't haunt them, but stranger things have happened.

The only totally unprotected pick I can remember being traded was the Knicks in the Eddy Curry trade (which cost them the #2 pick in the draft and a chance at Aldrige or Roy).

Honestly, I think GMs are usually reluctant to trade FOR future picks, since there's constant pressue in the NBA to win now. A pick now will help the current GM, whereas a future pick the GM may never be around to benefit from.

Famous example is the Grizz pick going to Detroit in 2003. The Detroit GM prior to Dumars (can't recall the name at the moment) traded for that pick, but was long gone by the time Detroit actually reaped the rewards of the Otis Thorpe trade.

Post #14 » by **Paydro70** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 3:52 am

I think that's an excellent point... for GMs who are not extremely secure, they're not going to be willing to accept rewards several years down the road.

john2jer · Post #15 » by **john2jer** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 5:03 am

That's kind of why I mentioned teams like San Antonio and Phoenix. Likely their GM's aren't going anywhere soon.

In a draft like this where there are so many decent project big men why couldn't a team like San Antonio trade their pick to a team looking to select someone now for a pick next year?