OKC Thunder Offseason 2015

[spearsy23]

Well, there's as much a gap from 20-30 as 25-35, give or take. But there's a difference. Ultimately it was a salary dump either way and opened a roster spot.

Looking through the last five drafts there's a much larger gap from 20-25. It takes a late first and 31-40 to move into the top 25. It takes 37-50 and cash to move into the top 30.

[spearsy23]

But that cant be said because its simply not true. Again, we can probably find some exceptions to the rule to at least say what youre saying can happen in certain scenarios. But its not at all close to "in general" or some "rough equivalent in value" that you want to claim but cant really show.
The late firsts get traded more for numerous reasons. But mainly, because they are the last chance of any kind of real value.

The main reason late firsts get traded is because the teams who have them don't want them. That's why anything gets traded.

[bondom34]

Well, there's as much a gap from 20-30 as 25-35, give or take. But there's a difference. Ultimately it was a salary dump either way and opened a roster spot.

Looking through the last five drafts there's a much larger gap from 20-25. It takes a late first and 31-40 to move into the top 25. It takes 37-50 and cash to move into the top 30.

Yeah, a late second after about 40 is worth nothing. The gap gets bigger as the picks get later for the most part.

[Bravenewworld]

But that cant be said because its simply not true. Again, we can probably find some exceptions to the rule to at least say what youre saying can happen in certain scenarios. But its not at all close to "in general" or some "rough equivalent in value" that you want to claim but cant really show.
The late firsts get traded more for numerous reasons. But mainly, because they are the last chance of any kind of real value.

The main reason late firsts get traded is because the teams who have them don't want them. That's why anything gets traded.

No, they're mostly traded as a side value - or sole value - to cap space or an expiring useless player, to bring in a solid role player to the team trading the pick.
The teams with these late picks are often trying to round out their roster to contend, and not trying to take a risk and develop a late first player.

[Kizz Fastfists]

But you can draft and stash a late first ad well, and other than that we just have vague rumors. I bet if Afflalo could have fetched a better pick he would, but Fournier was enough compensation. It just doesn't happen ever that way even if the theory sounds good.

Under the current CBA you can't draft and stash effectively like you could under the old CBA. That is the other thing that is being ignored. You are totally limited to what you can give a player in compensation if they are a first round pick. For example, if Abrines had been selected at #30 he would be capped on first year compensation at $1.06M. He would NEVER leave Europe for that. Why would he leave for a pay cut? However, because he was pick #32 he can sign for whatever the team can afford to pay him. That allows them to cover his buyout in his salary, because NBA teams are limited in how much cash they can directly give a European team and often the play has to front the buyout and they get it back from the NBA team in future salary.

Again, specifically, for the Thunder right now a high 2nd is more valuable than a late first. Due to the CBA and draft and stash rules. If you are looking at a college player then the higher pick is always better. If you are looking at international players a high 2nd is the most valuable pick unless it is a top prospect like Prozingis. That is why Porzingis withdrew from the draft last year. He knew he would get taken in the 20s and then he would never have played in the NBA unless he was willing to take a pay cut over his earning power in Europe. Being a top 5 pick he will make more than he would in Europe. The next CBA might change this for future picks, but Abrines and whoever the Thunder select next year with their 2nd round pick will be under the rules of the current CBA.

[bondom34]

But you can draft and stash a late first ad well, and other than that we just have vague rumors. I bet if Afflalo could have fetched a better pick he would, but Fournier was enough compensation. It just doesn't happen ever that way even if the theory sounds good.

Under the current CBA you can't draft and stash effectively like you could under the old CBA. That is the other thing that is being ignored. You are totally limited to what you can give a player in compensation if they are a first round pick. For example, if Abrines had been selected at #30 he would be capped on first year compensation at $1.06M. He would NEVER leave Europe for that. Why would he leave for a pay cut? However, because he was pick #32 he can sign for whatever the team can afford to pay him. That allows them to cover his buyout in his salary, because NBA teams are limited in how much cash they can directly give a European team and often the play has to front the buyout and they get it back from the NBA team in future salary.

Again, specifically, for the Thunder right now a high 2nd is more valuable than a late first. Due to the CBA and draft and stash rules. If you are looking at a college player then the higher pick is always better. If you are looking at international players a high 2nd is the most valuable pick unless it is a top prospect like Prozingis. That is why Porzingis withdrew from the draft last year. He knew he would get taken in the 20s and then he would never have played in the NBA unless he was willing to take a pay cut over his earning power in Europe. Being a top 5 pick he will make more than he would in Europe. The next CBA might change this for future picks, but Abrines and whoever the Thunder select next year with their 2nd round pick will be under the rules of the current CBA.

It did change yes, but the value still isn't there. If it were, at some point we'd have an example of this actually happening when it hasn't and really the opposite has. Teams have given value to move up, never back.

[spearsy23]

But you can draft and stash a late first ad well, and other than that we just have vague rumors. I bet if Afflalo could have fetched a better pick he would, but Fournier was enough compensation. It just doesn't happen ever that way even if the theory sounds good.

Under the current CBA you can't draft and stash effectively like you could under the old CBA. That is the other thing that is being ignored. You are totally limited to what you can give a player in compensation if they are a first round pick. For example, if Abrines had been selected at #30 he would be capped on first year compensation at $1.06M. He would NEVER leave Europe for that. Why would he leave for a pay cut? However, because he was pick #32 he can sign for whatever the team can afford to pay him. That allows them to cover his buyout in his salary, because NBA teams are limited in how much cash they can directly give a European team and often the play has to front the buyout and they get it back from the NBA team in future salary.

Again, specifically, for the Thunder right now a high 2nd is more valuable than a late first. Due to the CBA and draft and stash rules. If you are looking at a college player then the higher pick is always better. If you are looking at international players a high 2nd is the most valuable pick unless it is a top prospect like Prozingis. That is why Porzingis withdrew from the draft last year. He knew he would get taken in the 20s and then he would never have played in the NBA unless he was willing to take a pay cut over his earning power in Europe. Being a top 5 pick he will make more than he would in Europe. The next CBA might change this for future picks, but Abrines and whoever the Thunder select next year with their 2nd round pick will be under the rules of the current CBA.

It did change yes, but the value still isn't there. If it were, at some point we'd have an example of this actually happening when it hasn't and really the opposite has. Teams have given value to move up, never back.

The opposite hasn't happened either. No team has traded from top 35 to top 30 in the last 5 years. Here's the problem with saying 'no team has traded back', if picks 31-35 ARE more valuable then there's no incentive for the teams holding them to trade them. Unlike 30-25 there isn't even any salary incentive, so what do you trade to get those picks? Do you give up a young rotation player so that you can try to draft another?

[Bravenewworld]

Under the current CBA you can't draft and stash effectively like you could under the old CBA. That is the other thing that is being ignored. You are totally limited to what you can give a player in compensation if they are a first round pick. For example, if Abrines had been selected at #30 he would be capped on first year compensation at $1.06M. He would NEVER leave Europe for that. Why would he leave for a pay cut? However, because he was pick #32 he can sign for whatever the team can afford to pay him. That allows them to cover his buyout in his salary, because NBA teams are limited in how much cash they can directly give a European team and often the play has to front the buyout and they get it back from the NBA team in future salary.

Again, specifically, for the Thunder right now a high 2nd is more valuable than a late first. Due to the CBA and draft and stash rules. If you are looking at a college player then the higher pick is always better. If you are looking at international players a high 2nd is the most valuable pick unless it is a top prospect like Prozingis. That is why Porzingis withdrew from the draft last year. He knew he would get taken in the 20s and then he would never have played in the NBA unless he was willing to take a pay cut over his earning power in Europe. Being a top 5 pick he will make more than he would in Europe. The next CBA might change this for future picks, but Abrines and whoever the Thunder select next year with their 2nd round pick will be under the rules of the current CBA.

It did change yes, but the value still isn't there. If it were, at some point we'd have an example of this actually happening when it hasn't and really the opposite has. Teams have given value to move up, never back.

The opposite hasn't happened either. No team has traded from top 35 to top 30 in the last 5 years. Here's the problem with saying 'no team has traded back', if picks 31-35 ARE more valuable then there's no incentive for the teams holding them to trade them. Unlike 30-25 there isn't even any salary incentive, so what do you trade to get those picks? Do you give up a young rotation player so that you can try to draft another?

Woah woah woah..... you do understand the massive context difference with "ever" and "in the last five years"?

Im not understanding the big deal here.
No one is arguing that there are not situations where this theory is correct. But, the outcome and advantage you are presenting is for a super specific scenario. One so specific, no one can even cite it happening. So, giving it credibility despite it never have happening, is already giving it too much credit. I think everyone here has recognized that this idea is plausible. But that is very different from "in general" or common, or however you want to put it to make it seem like its not ultra specific.

[Kizz Fastfists]

You can't argue ever against 5 years when the change came in the current CBA that is only 5 years old. So I can say that no team has been willing to give up a pick in the 31-35 range without receiving quality compensation with the current rules in place ever. That is the problem with this argument. The constant changing of the CBA with the current context of the rules and how to maximize value are always changing. I'm not trying to discredit the value of late first round picks as anyone can look up WARP by draft position, average year in the league, etc to see what those picks typically deliver. The lack of expectation on those picks is also why Mark Cuban, Pat Riley and others have been outspoken about the guarantee on rookie contracts that prevent them from being able to sign a veteran who they know can provide production out of that roster spot.

Again my point, which I think everyone has agreed with was that if you are looking for a draft and stash player picks 31-40 are more valuable than 20-30 because of the financial ability to bring that player over IF they reach their perceived potential and you do not have to pay for their development. If you are looking for a college player the higher pick is always better. In the case of the Thunder I would rather have pick #37 than pick #27 because of how the roster sits at this point. They have their roster pretty much set and all their rotation players. What they need are high upside assets that can be role players down the line.

[spearsy23]

2010
25th pick for cash

2011
32 for 2 future seconds

2012
24, 33, 34 for 17, Kelenna Azbuike, Tyler Zeller
27 for 45 and future number one (heavily protected, became this year's 2nd rounder)

2013
27 for 46 and cash
29 and cash for 26
26 and Malcolm Lee for future 2nd and cash
35 for 38 and 54

2014
Tyson Chandler trade and The heat moving up one spot

Those were the only trades involving the picks we're talking about. I don't see any more value being given for firsts than seconds.

[Bravenewworld]

... How can you not? You just typed many instances out.... how are you not seeing them?

[Kizz Fastfists]

You missed a pair of trades in 2010 for #31.
#24 for #27 and #31 between the Hawks and Nets.
#31 for cash with OKC buying the pick from Atlanta.
OKC ended up buying #31 to take Pleiss after the Hawks stole the pick from the Nets.

[spearsy23]

... How can you not? You just typed many instances out.... how are you not seeing them?

Where are they?
25 for cash and nothing? Is that better than 32 for two future 2nds? Not in any basketball sense.

34 and 33 move 7 spots up plus get 2 rotation players. Is that worse than 27 for 46 and cash?

26 and Malcom Lee for a future 2nd and cash? That's the value?

Where are teams giving up more value for 25-30?

[spearsy23]

You missed a pair of trades in 2010 for #31.
#24 for #27 and #31 between the Hawks and Nets.
#31 for cash with OKC buying the pick from Atlanta.
OKC ended up buying #31 to take Pleiss after the Hawks stole the pick from the Nets.

I think I missed one more somewhere too but I'm not sure where.

[bondom34]

You can't argue ever against 5 years when the change came in the current CBA that is only 5 years old. So I can say that no team has been willing to give up a pick in the 31-35 range without receiving quality compensation with the current rules in place ever. That is the problem with this argument. The constant changing of the CBA with the current context of the rules and how to maximize value are always changing. I'm not trying to discredit the value of late first round picks as anyone can look up WARP by draft position, average year in the league, etc to see what those picks typically deliver. The lack of expectation on those picks is also why Mark Cuban, Pat Riley and others have been outspoken about the guarantee on rookie contracts that prevent them from being able to sign a veteran who they know can provide production out of that roster spot.

Again my point, which I think everyone has agreed with was that if you are looking for a draft and stash player picks 31-40 are more valuable than 20-30 because of the financial ability to bring that player over IF they reach their perceived potential and you do not have to pay for their development. If you are looking for a college player the higher pick is always better. In the case of the Thunder I would rather have pick #37 than pick #27 because of how the roster sits at this point. They have their roster pretty much set and all their rotation players. What they need are high upside assets that can be role players down the line.

But still, you can't really definitely say an early second is more valuable. I've been lectured on this in the past on the trade board, and honestly I'd just say ask there for a better answer, but its just not really more valuable due to these reasons. Its still a later pick, and you still risk missing a better player.

[bondom34]

And I started a topic to get some voices b/c I can't really explain this as well as others if anyone's interested.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1394971#start_here

[Bravenewworld]

Well... i think we got our answer pretty quickly.

it's not and never has been. No team has ever paid to move back. Plus the contract for a late 1st is so much better for the teams than an early 2nd.

I keep hearing people say that it is, but no. Has any team ever swapped a first round pick for a second round pick straight up? If so, I've never seen it.

It's not. The amount of money saved is minimal and the control is far and away better for a 1st rounder. With the most recent rookie contract changes (only 2 years guaranteed) the scales are tipped even further to the 1st round pick.

Yeah, no. And if anyone would defend the value of a 2nd rounder it would be a Sixers fan and proponent of the Hinkie plan.

[Balkman32]

Cam Payne!

[Balkman32]

The Thunder takes Dakari Johnson from Kentucky with the 48th overall pick.

[Andre Roberstan]

Bucks taking a look at Enes? https://twitter.com/AlexKennedyNBA/status/614474246165762048