Official Trade Thread -- Part XXXVI

[nate33]

Read on Twitter

I'm pleased to hear that we only had to give $1.5M. Meeks was owed $3.45M, minus the $700K or so that would have been prorated off his contract due to the suspension, so let's call it $2.8M.

When the deal came out, I originally assumed that we gave Milwaukee $2.8M in cash, meaning Milwaukee literally gave up nothing at all (except some luxtax room flexibility) in order to acquire our pick. At least now we know that Milwaukee had to give up $1.3M in cash for the pick. From Milwaukee's perspective, they bought a #47ish pick for $1.3M. A good deal to be sure, but not an outright steal.

From the Wizards's perspective, after accounting for replacing Meeks' roster spot, we sold a #47ish pick for a total salary and luxtax savings of $10.4M. That's a really good deal.

[Ruzious]

In case you're like me and didn't know what the exact trade of picks resulted in, it's spelled out here:

Read on Twitter

[pcbothwel]

Im really holding out hope that a Mahinmi, Smith, 1st for Koufos & Ferrell trade is made at the deadline. Gets us under the tax and allows us to add another Vet min player.

By the deadline, the difference in cash owed is about 5M...and we can pay the Kings 4M.
So the Kings only pay an additional 500k-1M in salary, plus Mahinmi's salary next year for our 1st.

If Mahinmi really shows out the next couple months, he'd be a great mentor/bridge Center while Giles and Bagley come along.

Bring back Oubre & Sato (20-22M starting salary), Green, Bryant, Ferrell & Dwight Options.
Wall / Ferrell
Beal / Sato
Oubre / Brown
Otto / Green
Howard / Bryant

- The wild card is the Taxpayer MLE for 5.6M, which is how Cousins & Dwight were signed. Let Free Agency play out and see what player wants to make a decent paycheck on a 50 win team.
Wes Matthews, Ariza, Thaddeus Young, Burks, Jeremy Lamb, Gay, Aminu, Patrick Beverley, Muscala, etc.

[pcbothwel]

In case you're like me and didn't know what the exact trade of picks resulted in, it's spelled out here:

Read on Twitter

Hmmm. Not sure how to feel about that. Again, assuming we dont implode and/or tear down, I think we'll pick around 48-52. So its really our 2022 pick.

I'll be honest tho. I like Meeks. Offensively, he makes 3's and draws fouls while not turning the ball over. He sucks on defense, but I dont see how he is on the street while guys like Jamal Crawford and Ben McLemore have jobs.

[Ruzious]

Yeah, basically, if the Wiz miss the playoffs in 2020, they lose their 2nd rounder to Milwaukee. Otherwise, they keep their 2020 2nd rounder and lose their 2022 2nd rounder. Before the trade, it was unlikely they'd have to give up anything to Milwaukee.

Btw, Bucks also waived Bazz Muhammed who finished last season very strongly after Mil acquired him - though it was a very small sample size of 117 minutes. Basically he showed that when he actually tries, he's a very effective scorer. Problem is his lack of effort on defense. I have little doubt that he can be a good off the bench scorer in the NBA.

[payitforward]

So, basically, what happens here is that Milwaukee pays out $2m (with the $1.5m we gave them, that covers Meeks' salary).

In return, they get our 2020 R2 pick (if it's #45 or higher) or our 2022 R2 pick unprotected.

All other things being equal, that's a good deal for them: I read a couple of years ago that picks in the top 1/2 of R2 were costing $3+m. Which seems like it might have gone up.

But, all things aren't equal: a pick in 2 years (anything in 2 years) is worth less than the same thing right now. & it may be in 4 years rather than 2.

Plus, we have a this-year savings of $5.5m ($7m minus the $1.5m we give them). But, now we have to sign someone to take our roster back to 14. If you assume that for lets say $2.5m we can sign someone who is as effective a player as Jodie Meeks, our net savings is $3m.

Ok, in that case, right now we're no worse or better, but we are down a future R2 pick & up $3m in cash flow. Is that correct?

Presumably, w/ that $3m, we could buy a R2 pick in 2020 that's likely to be as good as the one we are giving up to Milwaukee (assuming for the moment that we're in the lottery that year).

So, then, assuming we have replaced Meeks with someone who provides as much productivity this year, & assuming we have bought a R2 pick to replace the one we gave Milwaukee -- & that the market price for that pick was $3m -- we have made ourselves whole. We're not out anything.

Oh, btw, we're also not up anything. We have the same # & kind of draft pick, the same productivity in a current player, & there's no $$ left from the deal.

Wait... that's not quite right. We're paying the Jodie Meeks replacement $1m less than we were paying Meeks, which means that if we're over the tax we will save both tax & repeater penalty on $1m. Keep in mind that we don't save the $1m itself -- that's in what went to Milwaukee -- just the tax consequences of $1m less in salary.

That's our benefit. & it assumes that we make a good personnel decision in the guy we add to our roster. I.e. that it's someone at least as productive as Meeks.

(edit: I might be missing something in the above. I.e. if our savings is $7m plus Meeks' salary, then we do have a little net benefit in this deal)

[pcbothwel]

PIF, one point to clarify.
I see very little chance we pick in the top 45 in 2020, so its probably 2022.
And yes, teams paid 3M for a top 45...but it was the night of the draft when they had their board set.
Thats almost a 4 year difference.

TBH, Im withholding judgement until the deadline. If this is part of a bigger plan to get below the tax, then it changes the valuation of the pick/trade.
I really think the Kings start getting desperate near the deadline to utilize that cap space for more than more 2nd round picks.

Mahinmi, Smith, 1st, and cash for Koufos sets our course to keep this team together for 2 years easy, probably 3 (I laid out above)

[gambitx777]

I don't mind the trade. I mean a pick they might not get for 4 years. I would have rather burned that pick moving smith, but moving meeks is better for the team, sato has one less dude to compete for playing time with. with walls knees and beal generally being injury prone a 4 guard rotation makes sense and with rivers and sato both being able to play both PG and SG, we should be able to get the most out of that and keep wall and beal healthy .
we need to move Ian, we have a lot of young guys we can retain if we can make it under the tax enough to actually spend the money to do so. Kosta is hurt and not playing, Ian is actually playing well, that might be a trade they are willing to make. We have more depth up front than them so I say pull that trigger if we can. DO it with out a first if possible.

[payitforward]

PIF, one point to clarify.
I see very little chance we pick in the top 45 in 2020...

You may be right.

Of course, we picked in the top 45 this year.

&, if we'd had a pick, we'd have picked in the top 45 in 2016.

In fact, our R2 pick has been between 31 & 45 in seven of the last ten drafts.

So, I'd say it's possible you are being a bit optimistic, no?

In fact, I'd guess most fans here thought nothing of the fact that we sold our high 2009 R2 draft pick. That we flubbed on our high 2011 R2 pick. That we threw away the 2012 #46 pick we owned. That we wasted our high 2013 R2 pick. That we sold our #46 pick in 2014. Traded our R2 picks in '16 & '17. Picked a guy in '18 who has a slim shot to ever make the league (while *undrafted* players from this deep draft are on NBA rosters).

For that matter there are plenty of fans here who thought we made a terrific deal in 2017 that cost us our R1 pick. Following a terrific trade in 2016 that cost us our lottery pick.

Why are we facing a difficult tax situation that caused us to have to give away another R2 pick? Because we gave away all those previous picks. In that same way, we will see the results of this little mess in another mess a couple of years down the road.

[nate33]

So, basically, what happens here is that Milwaukee pays out $2m (with the $1.5m we gave them, that covers Meeks' salary).

In return, they get our 2020 R2 pick (if it's #45 or higher) or our 2022 R2 pick unprotected.

All other things being equal, that's a good deal for them: I read a couple of years ago that picks in the top 1/2 of R2 were costing $3+m. Which seems like it might have gone up.

But, all things aren't equal: a pick in 2 years (anything in 2 years) is worth less than the same thing right now. & it may be in 4 years rather than 2.

Plus, we have a this-year savings of $5.5m ($7m minus the $1.5m we give them). But, now we have to sign someone to take our roster back to 14. If you assume that for lets say $2.5m we can sign someone who is as effective a player as Jodie Meeks, our net savings is $3m.

Ok, in that case, right now we're no worse or better, but we are down a future R2 pick & up $3m in cash flow. Is that correct?

Presumably, w/ that $3m, we could buy a R2 pick in 2020 that's likely to be as good as the one we are giving up to Milwaukee (assuming for the moment that we're in the lottery that year).

So, then, assuming we have replaced Meeks with someone who provides as much productivity this year, & assuming we have bought a R2 pick to replace the one we gave Milwaukee -- & that the market price for that pick was $3m -- we have made ourselves whole. We're not out anything.

Oh, btw, we're also not up anything. We have the same # & kind of draft pick, the same productivity in a current player, & there's no $$ left from the deal.

Wait... that's not quite right. We're paying the Jodie Meeks replacement $1m less than we were paying Meeks, which means that if we're over the tax we will save both tax & repeater penalty on $1m. Keep in mind that we don't save the $1m itself -- that's in what went to Milwaukee -- just the tax consequences of $1m less in salary.

That's our benefit. & it assumes that we make a good personnel decision in the guy we add to our roster. I.e. that it's someone at least as productive as Meeks.

(edit: I might be missing something in the above. I.e. if our savings is $7m plus Meeks' salary, then we do have a little net benefit in this deal)

The rules for prorating salary on suspensions are weird. You would think that Meeks would be out 25/82nds of his 2019 salary but that's not the case. According to nbcsports, the suspension was only going to shave $596,686 off of his $3,454,500 salary.

So effectively, Meeks was salary was $2,857,814.

We traded him away and will be forced to sign a vet minimum player. If that player is a 0-year vet, he will cost $838,464. So the Wizards save $2,019,350 off the cap figure. The Wizards are paying a 2.75% repeater tax on that money so they also save $5,553,213 in luxtax fees. So the net cap plus luxtax savings is $7,572,563.

We sent $1.5M cash in the transaction so that brings the savings down to $6,072.563.

[queridiculo]

The rules for prorating salary on suspensions are weird. You would think that Meeks would be out 25/82nds of his 2019 salary but that's not the case. According to nbcsports, the suspension was only going to shave $596,686 off of his $3,454,500 salary.

So effectively, Meeks was salary was $2,857,814.

We traded him away and will be forced to sign a vet minimum player. If that player is a 0-year vet, he will cost $838,464. So the Wizards save $2,019,350 off the cap figure. The Wizards are paying a 2.75% repeater tax on that money so they also save $5,553,213 in luxtax fees. So the net cap plus luxtax savings is $7,572,563.

We sent $1.5M cash in the transaction so that brings the savings down to $6,072.563.

Players get paid on a 12 month schedule, no?

Assuming, they get paid bi-monthly it would seem that they simply calculate the duration for which he's out. 25 games is roughly 2 months/8 weeks, and Meeks two week salary comes out to roughly ~$135k.

[pcbothwel]

The rules for prorating salary on suspensions are weird. You would think that Meeks would be out 25/82nds of his 2019 salary but that's not the case. According to nbcsports, the suspension was only going to shave $596,686 off of his $3,454,500 salary.

So effectively, Meeks was salary was $2,857,814.

We traded him away and will be forced to sign a vet minimum player. If that player is a 0-year vet, he will cost $838,464. So the Wizards save $2,019,350 off the cap figure. The Wizards are paying a 2.75% repeater tax on that money so they also save $5,553,213 in luxtax fees. So the net cap plus luxtax savings is $7,572,563.

We sent $1.5M cash in the transaction so that brings the savings down to $6,072.563.

Players get paid on a 12 month schedule, no?

Assuming, they get paid bi-monthly it would seem that they simply calculate the duration for which he's out. 25 games is roughly 2 months/8 weeks, and Meeks two week salary comes out to roughly ~$135k.

Meeks does indeed lose a paycheck for 19/82 games, which amounts to 2.7M... But the salary cap only writes for 50% of the suspended time. So he makes 2.7M, but counts 3.1M towards the cap.

[nate33]

The rules for prorating salary on suspensions are weird. You would think that Meeks would be out 25/82nds of his 2019 salary but that's not the case. According to nbcsports, the suspension was only going to shave $596,686 off of his $3,454,500 salary.

So effectively, Meeks was salary was $2,857,814.

We traded him away and will be forced to sign a vet minimum player. If that player is a 0-year vet, he will cost $838,464. So the Wizards save $2,019,350 off the cap figure. The Wizards are paying a 2.75% repeater tax on that money so they also save $5,553,213 in luxtax fees. So the net cap plus luxtax savings is $7,572,563.

We sent $1.5M cash in the transaction so that brings the savings down to $6,072.563.

Players get paid on a 12 month schedule, no?

Assuming, they get paid bi-monthly it would seem that they simply calculate the duration for which he's out. 25 games is roughly 2 months/8 weeks, and Meeks two week salary comes out to roughly ~$135k.

Meeks does indeed lose a paycheck for 19/82 games, which amounts to 2.7M... But the salary cap only writes for 50% of the suspended time. So he makes 2.7M, but counts 3.1M towards the cap.

Interesting. If that's the case, then saving is a bit more. Add another $700K to the luxtax savings. Whatever the exact figure, I think the point is made. Trading away our #45-49ish pick saved Ted somewhere around $6-7M. Viewed in isolation, it's hard to argue with the trade.

[payitforward]

The rules for prorating salary on suspension are weird. You would think that Meeks would be out 25/82nds of his 2019 salary but that's not the case. According to nbcsports, the supension was only going to shave $596,686 off of his $3,454,500 salary.

So effectively, Meeks was salary was $2,857,814.

We traded him away and will be forced to sign a vet minimum player. If that player is a 0-year vet, he will cost $838,464. So the Wizards save $2,019,350 off the cap figure. The Wizards are paying a 2.75% repeater tax on that money so they also save $5,553,213 in luxtax fees. So the net cap plus luxtax savings is $7,572,563.

We sent $1.5M cash in the transaction so that brings the savings down to $6,072.563.

Right, but that's not the place to stop thinking about the $$ meaning of the move. So let me be try to be a little more thorough. &, nate, if I'm being unfair (I'll try not to be), feel free to call me on it. I'm interested in the value of the truth not in the value of my being right. I don't get a free lottery ticket if I'm right. But the truth is always valuable, right?

So, here's what else I see that's not in what you present:

We lose a R2 pick. A R2 pick has a cash value. Lets say that's $2.75m in this case. So, now we're saving @ $3.3m instead of $6m.

Of course, a R2 pick also brings a player with a very low salary, meaning that -- at least potentially -- losing the pick also carries a future $$ cost in extra salary paid to a different player -- lets say a vet min player of the kind we've been having (Thornton, Scott, et. al.) In fairness, it's not possible to value that loss accurately right now. It might wipe out the entire savings in the deal & much more (if the player turned out to be good). Or, it could amount to next to nothing or even nothing at all.

All the same, since to assess the deal we are forced to recognize all its aspects, we really should give it some value, lets just call it $800,000 -- quite a low figure. This brings the savings down to $2.5m.

But, of course, we also lose whatever productivity delta there is between Meeks & whoever this $838k player is. Again, this is hard to assess, but again it has to be in the algorithm for it to be meaningful.

It's a variable -- could be quite meaningful, could be marginally meaningful. If, as does seem inevitable, it means that we see more of Austin Rivers on the court, then there's no question it costs us wins.

Wins have a financial value felt throughout the business structure over time. But, in a case like this it's just too hard to put a number on it, so it's just something that should be kept in mind rather than being ignored in assessing the deal but is impossible to quantify. In this case, lets recognize this element by saying our savings in the deal, as calculated so far, are "something less than $2.5m" -- rather than simply "$2.5m" -- just so we're not ignoring it.

Ok, whew.... I'm willing to accept that this deal very well may have saved us something less than $2.5m -- which would be a perfectly adequate reason to do it!

Fair enough?

But, of course, there is one little matter left unconsidered: what if the guy we sign doesn't cost $840k? How much does he have to cost before that "less than $2.5m" has been wiped out?

Looks like every $1 in lowered salary nets @ $3.50 savings -- do I have that more or less right? So, if our new signee were to cost an extra $825K -- i.e. @$1.7m -- the entire value of the deal has been wiped out. & that is based on giving minimal value to some elements that militate against it.

In short, deals like this are how you wind up with guys like Thornton et. al. on your roster instead of guys like Jordan Bell, Macafee, Deyonta Davis, Malcolm Brogdon, Khem Birch, Christian Wood, Frank Jackson, Darius Miller, Dwight Powell, Nikola Jokic, Glenn Robinson, Spencer Dinwiddie, Jerami Grant, Joe Harris, Kyle O'Quinn, Richaun Holmes, Pat Connaughton, Josh Richardson, etc. etc. etc. as the list goes on.

[nate33]

So, here's what else I see that's not in what you present:

We lose a R2 pick. A R2 pick has a cash value. Lets say that's $2.75m in this case. So, now we're saving @ $3.3m instead of $6m.

Of course, a R2 pick also brings a player with a very low salary, meaning that -- at least potentially -- losing the pick also carries a future $$ cost in extra salary paid to a different player -- lets say a vet min player of the kind we've been having (Thornton, Scott, et. al.) In fairness, it's not possible to value that loss accurately right now. It might wipe out the entire savings in the deal & much more (if the player turned out to be good). Or, it could amount to next to nothing or even nothing at all.

All the same, since to assess the deal we are forced to recognize all its aspects, we really should give it some value, lets just call it $800,000 -- quite a low figure. This brings the savings down to $2.5m.

But, of course, we also lose whatever productivity delta there is between Meeks & whoever this $838k player is. Again, this is hard to assess, but again it has to be in the algorithm for it to be meaningful.

It's a variable -- could be quite meaningful, could be marginally meaningful. If, as does seem inevitable, it means that we see more of Austin Rivers on the court, then there's no question it costs us wins.

Wins have a financial value felt throughout the business structure over time. But, in a case like this it's just too hard to put a number on it, so it's just something that should be kept in mind rather than being ignored in assessing the deal but is impossible to quantify. In this case, lets recognize this element by saying our savings in the deal, as calculated so far, are "something less than $2.5m" -- rather than simply "$2.5m" -- just so we're not ignoring it.

Ok, whew.... I'm willing to accept that this deal very well may have saved us something less than $2.5m -- which would be a perfectly adequate reason to do it!

Fair enough?

But, of course, there is one little matter left unconsidered: what if the guy we sign doesn't cost $840k? How much does he have to cost before that "less than $2.5m" has been wiped out?

Looks like every $1 in lowered salary nets @ $3.50 savings -- do I have that more or less right? So, if our new signee were to cost an extra $825K -- i.e. @$1.7m -- the entire value of the deal has been wiped out. & that is based on giving minimal value to some elements that militate against it.

In short, deals like this are how you wind up with guys like Thornton et. al. on your roster instead of guys like Jordan Bell, Macafee, Deyonta Davis, Malcolm Brogdon, Khem Birch, Christian Wood, Frank Jackson, Darius Miller, Dwight Powell, Nikola Jokic, Glenn Robinson, Spencer Dinwiddie, Jerami Grant, Joe Harris, Kyle O'Quinn, Richaun Holmes, Pat Connaughton, Josh Richardson, etc. etc. etc. as the list goes on.

You can't count the cash value of the pick ($2.75M in your example) while also counting the salary differential between a 2nd round pick and a veteran pickup. You get one or the other, not both.

And while I'm sure you can compile a list of good players taken 45th or later in the draft, I suspect a list of players who were taken as undrafted walk-ons or signed as vet-minimum free agents could form a similarly impressive list.

[gambitx777]

PIF, one point to clarify.
I see very little chance we pick in the top 45 in 2020...

You may be right.

Of course, we picked in the top 45 this year.

&, if we'd had a pick, we'd have picked in the top 45 in 2016.

In fact, our R2 pick has been between 31 & 45 in seven of the last ten drafts.

So, I'd say it's possible you are being a bit optimistic, no?

In fact, I'd guess most fans here thought nothing of the fact that we sold our high 2009 R2 draft pick. That we flubbed on our high 2011 R2 pick. That we threw away the 2012 #46 pick we owned. That we wasted our high 2013 R2 pick. That we sold our #46 pick in 2014. Traded our R2 picks in '16 & '17. Picked a guy in '18 who has a slim shot to ever make the league (while *undrafted* players from this deep draft are on NBA rosters).

For that matter there are plenty of fans here who thought we made a terrific deal in 2017 that cost us our R1 pick. Following a terrific trade in 2016 that cost us our lottery pick.

Why are we facing a difficult tax situation that caused us to have to give away another R2 pick? Because we gave away all those previous picks. In that same way, we will see the results of this little mess in another mess a couple of years down the road.

I mean thats two years away, this whole thing could fall to **** and the team could be blown up by then.

[gesa2]

"Of course, a R2 pick also brings a player with a very low salary, meaning that -- at least potentially -- losing the pick also carries a future $$ cost in extra salary paid to a different player -- lets say a vet min player of the kind we've been having (Thornton, Scott, et. al.) In fairness, it's not possible to value that loss accurately right now. It might wipe out the entire savings in the deal & much more (if the player turned out to be good). Or, it could amount to next to nothing or even nothing at all."

Doesnt the cash value of a second round pick account for all of this? After all, we can use cash to buy another late 2nd round pick, and get all of this possible value back if we wanted.

[payitforward]

So, here's what else I see that's not in what you present:

We lose a R2 pick. A R2 pick has a cash value. Lets say that's $2.75m in this case. So, now we're saving @ $3.3m instead of $6m.

Of course, a R2 pick also brings a player with a very low salary, meaning that -- at least potentially -- losing the pick also carries a future $$ cost in extra salary paid to a different player -- lets say a vet min player of the kind we've been having (Thornton, Scott, et. al.) In fairness, it's not possible to value that loss accurately right now. It might wipe out the entire savings in the deal & much more (if the player turned out to be good). Or, it could amount to next to nothing or even nothing at all.

All the same, since to assess the deal we are forced to recognize all its aspects, we really should give it some value, lets just call it $800,000 -- quite a low figure. This brings the savings down to $2.5m.

But, of course, we also lose whatever productivity delta there is between Meeks & whoever this $838k player is. Again, this is hard to assess, but again it has to be in the algorithm for it to be meaningful.

It's a variable -- could be quite meaningful, could be marginally meaningful. If, as does seem inevitable, it means that we see more of Austin Rivers on the court, then there's no question it costs us wins.

Wins have a financial value felt throughout the business structure over time. But, in a case like this it's just too hard to put a number on it, so it's just something that should be kept in mind rather than being ignored in assessing the deal but is impossible to quantify. In this case, lets recognize this element by saying our savings in the deal, as calculated so far, are "something less than $2.5m" -- rather than simply "$2.5m" -- just so we're not ignoring it.

Ok, whew.... I'm willing to accept that this deal very well may have saved us something less than $2.5m -- which would be a perfectly adequate reason to do it!

Fair enough?

But, of course, there is one little matter left unconsidered: what if the guy we sign doesn't cost $840k? How much does he have to cost before that "less than $2.5m" has been wiped out?

Looks like every $1 in lowered salary nets @ $3.50 savings -- do I have that more or less right? So, if our new signee were to cost an extra $825K -- i.e. @$1.7m -- the entire value of the deal has been wiped out. & that is based on giving minimal value to some elements that militate against it.

In short, deals like this are how you wind up with guys like Thornton et. al. on your roster instead of guys like Jordan Bell, Macafee, Deyonta Davis, Malcolm Brogdon, Khem Birch, Christian Wood, Frank Jackson, Darius Miller, Dwight Powell, Nikola Jokic, Glenn Robinson, Spencer Dinwiddie, Jerami Grant, Joe Harris, Kyle O'Quinn, Richaun Holmes, Pat Connaughton, Josh Richardson, etc. etc. etc. as the list goes on.

You can't count the cash value of the pick ($2.75M in your example) while also counting the salary differential between a 2nd round pick and a veteran pickup. You get one or the other, not both....

Wait, let me think....

You're right!

Ok, I think I've picked this bone clean. I promise to shut up about it!! Go Wizards!

[payitforward]

PIF, one point to clarify.
I see very little chance we pick in the top 45 in 2020...

You may be right.

Of course, we picked in the top 45 this year.

&, if we'd had a pick, we'd have picked in the top 45 in 2016.

In fact, our R2 pick has been between 31 & 45 in seven of the last ten drafts.

So, I'd say it's possible you are being a bit optimistic, no?

In fact, I'd guess most fans here thought nothing of the fact that we sold our high 2009 R2 draft pick. That we flubbed on our high 2011 R2 pick. That we threw away the 2012 #46 pick we owned. That we wasted our high 2013 R2 pick. That we sold our #46 pick in 2014. Traded our R2 picks in '16 & '17. Picked a guy in '18 who has a slim shot to ever make the league (while *undrafted* players from this deep draft are on NBA rosters).

For that matter there are plenty of fans here who thought we made a terrific deal in 2017 that cost us our R1 pick. Following a terrific trade in 2016 that cost us our lottery pick.

Why are we facing a difficult tax situation that caused us to have to give away another R2 pick? Because we gave away all those previous picks. In that same way, we will see the results of this little mess in another mess a couple of years down the road.

I mean thats two years away, this whole thing could fall to **** and the team could be blown up by then.

It's easy to tell who's young around here & who's old!

[payitforward]

"Of course, a R2 pick also brings a player with a very low salary, meaning that -- at least potentially -- losing the pick also carries a future $$ cost in extra salary paid to a different player -- lets say a vet min player of the kind we've been having (Thornton, Scott, et. al.) In fairness, it's not possible to value that loss accurately right now. It might wipe out the entire savings in the deal & much more (if the player turned out to be good). Or, it could amount to next to nothing or even nothing at all."

Doesnt the cash value of a second round pick account for all of this? After all, we can use cash to buy another late 2nd round pick, and get all of this possible value back if we wanted.

Yes, as nate pointed out.

Plus, if we are giving Meeks, $1.5m & a mid-R2 pick & getting back $7.5m, we could use the $6m differential to buy 2 relatively high R2 picks. That would turn the trade into, essentially, Meeks for a relatively high R2 pick -- & of course I would have taken that deal!!