RealGM

Situation: Dallas' 2013 1st round pick goes to Houston with the following protection: 20,20,20,20,20,Unprotected.

Assumption: they can't trade their 1st round pick of 2014.

Question: if the 2015 pick is used in a trade, does it need the addition of "only after your obligation to Houston is satisfied"? Or maybe even only 2 years after that?

Thanks!

Garf wrote:Situation: Dallas' 2013 1st round pick goes to Houston with the following protection: 20,20,20,20,20,Unprotected.

Assumption: they can't trade their 1st round pick of 2014.

Question: if the 2015 pick is used in a trade, does it need the addition of "only after your obligation to Houston is satisfied"? Or maybe even only 2 years after that?

Thanks!

You are correct with the "starting two years after the obligation has been satisfied" line.

For example, in 2005-06, Minnesota already owed a Top-10 protected pick to LAC in the Jaric trade. They wanted to acquire Ricky Davis and Mark Blount for one last shot for Kevin Garnett, and with no trade value on the team, they were forced to add one of these conditional picks - to be conferred two years later, and with it's own protections.

In many cases though, these delayed picks carry greater risk that limits their value. The Seven Year Rule keeps GM's from trading picks far into the future, so any protected pick generally has a clause that says that if the pick is not conferered by the 7-year deadline, it will turn into a 2nd rounder or cash. For a pick like you are talking about, which can only be conveyed, at the earliest, two years down the road, there is a legitimate chance that the 7-year clock will run out, if protections on both picks delay the transfer long enough (as would have happened in the MIN example).

Cheers!

They wanted to acquire Ricky Davis and Mark Blount for one last shot for Kevin Garnett

Hehe

Garf wrote:Situation: Dallas' 2013 1st round pick goes to Houston with the following protection: 20,20,20,20,20,Unprotected.

The pick actually goes to OKC. Houston traded that pick to OKC when they aquired Harden at the beginning of the season.

Sham wrote:

They wanted to acquire Ricky Davis and Mark Blount for one last shot for Kevin Garnett

Hehe

Don't be cruel. They needed a triple-double threat

Sham wrote:Hehe

Hey Mark, what's the matter? Is the pound so devalued that you can't afford to get an avatar?

Something like that. By the way, how's your economy doing, oh mystical traveller from a faraway land? Bring us more news from the colonies.

Sham wrote:By the way, how's your economy doing, oh mystical traveller from a faraway land? Bring us more news from the colonies.

Actually the jobs picture is looking positive. As proof of that, Derek Fisher just got hired to work in Oklahoma City. And that's great for him, because he'll actually be a bonafide player when the union votes to elect (or re-elect) it's next president.

I have a question that dips nears the Stepien as well. The warriors 2013 first round is protected 1-7 and 1-6 in 2014. So were they prohibited from trading their 2015 first round pick?

Soca wrote:I have a question that dips nears the Stepien as well. The warriors 2013 first round is protected 1-7 and 1-6 in 2014. So were they prohibited from trading their 2015 first round pick?

Yes.

Unless they renogiated protection on 2013 pick so that it became unprotected.

Dunkenstein wrote:

Soca wrote:I have a question that dips nears the Stepien as well. The warriors 2013 first round is protected 1-7 and 1-6 in 2014. So were they prohibited from trading their 2015 first round pick?

Yes.

You mind providing a link that proves you're correct?

The pick can be traded conditionally.

The Warriors could, by way of example, structure a trade such that a first round pick is conveyed in the first allowable draft (where first allowable draft could be defined as either two years following the year in which the other first round pick is conveyed or, if the other first round pick is never conveyed, the year in which that is confirmed). If the pick is not conveyed by [whenever you want, subject to seven year rule], it turns into [whatever you want].

Soca wrote:

Dunkenstein wrote:

Soca wrote:I have a question that dips nears the Stepien as well. The warriors 2013 first round is protected 1-7 and 1-6 in 2014. So were they prohibited from trading their 2015 first round pick?

Yes.

You mind providing a link that proves you're correct?

Ugh. Let me simplify it for you.

No team can make a trade that has the potential to leave them without a first round pick in two consecutive future drafts.

The Warriors 2013 pick is protected, so there is a chance that they will keep it. Since they may have to convey their pick in 2014, trading a 2015 pick would violate that rule.

I certainly don’t mean to be confrontational, but I don’t believe your response is entirely correct.

Trading the 2015 pick on the condition that the 2014 pick has not been traded would not violate the Stepien rule. This outcome can be accomplished through the “first allowable draft” concept I mention above. If the 2013 pick is ultimately conveyed in the other trade, then the 2015 pick would become the first allowable and thus be conveyed.

Perhaps the most complete answer, therefore, is that the 2015 first round pick can’t be traded outright (at least not yet) but it can be traded conditionally (after the trade deadline restriction has expired, of course). And, currently, it seems rather likely that such a conditional trade would ultimately become a 2015 first round pick.

One real world example of this is the Miami Heat. The Heat traded away two of its own first round picks to the Cavs in the LeBron James sign-and-trade in July 2010. The first pick they traded is a 2013 first rounder which is top-10 projected through 2014 (and unprotected in 2015). The second (which is top-10 protected through 2016, and unprotected in 2017) will be conveyed in the first allowable draft thereafter. Even though the first pick is protected through 2014, it will surely be conveyed in 2013 and thus the second pick will likely be conveyed in 2015.

No problem, and that's a good answer. Whatever is done, the pick has to contain language about not being conveyed until at least two years after the first pick is dealt, as I detailed in the second post of the this thread.

Except of course, the Warriors always have the option of acquiring someone else's unprotected 1st. The Stepien Rule doesn't say you have to have one of your OWN 1sts in the next two drafts.

Be careful though. While the Stepien rule only requires a team to have a first round pick, and not necessarily their own first round pick, teams cannot trade future picks not already in their possession. A subsequently acquired first round pick, therefore, could not be used to satisfy the obligations of the original trade. If, however, another unprotected 2014 or 2015 first round pick were to be acquired before the proposed trade of the 2015 pick described by Soca, then either it or Golden State’s own 2015 first round pick could be traded unconditionally.

The original poster’s question would also be a nice example of when first allowable draft language would be applicable. The original trade to which the poster is referring seems to have Top-20 protections through 2017 and is unprotected in 2018. Therefore, Dallas could hypothetically trade another of its first round picks in the next allowable draft, subject to whatever conditions the teams would specify if it is not conveyed by a certain draft. They could put protections on the pick if they wanted or they could leave it unprotected.

Though he doesn’t specify it, interestingly, the timing of the trade would be important in this scenario. If the hypothetical trade were to happen prior to the 2013 draft, the seven-year rule would be an issue and thus, as shrink says, the terms would need to specify what would happen if the pick is not conveyed by 2019 (or earlier, if they chose). If the hypothetical trade were to happen after the 2013 draft, the seven-year rule would not be an issue as long as the pick were to be unprotected in 2020 (even if it were to have been protected in prior seasons); this would ensure the trade partner that it would definitely receive a Dallas first round pick at some point in the future.

The basic principle is straightforward – a team cannot trade all of its future first round picks in consecutive seasons. The details can be a bit tricky.