3 Team Pick Swap?

[sportscrazy]

If the Knicks were to make a trade such as this...

Dallas Mavericks get:
Chris Bosh

Miami Heat get:
Carmelo Anthony

New York Knicks get:
Justise Winslow
Josh McRoberts
Wesley Matthews
Devin Harris

Could there be an agreement that..

Dallas gets the second best of DAL/MIA/NYK 2017 first round picks

Miami gets the third best of DAL/MIA/NYK 2017 first round picks

New York gets the best of DAL/MIA/NYK 2017 first round picks

[DBoys]

Yes, "best of" and "worst of" conditions on traded picks are allowable, and have been done before.

[HartfordWhalers]

If the Knicks were to make a trade such as this...

Dallas Mavericks get:
Chris Bosh

Miami Heat get:
Carmelo Anthony

New York Knicks get:
Justise Winslow
Josh McRoberts
Wesley Matthews
Devin Harris

Could there be an agreement that..

Dallas gets the second best of DAL/MIA/NYK 2017 first round picks

Miami gets the third best of DAL/MIA/NYK 2017 first round picks

New York gets the best of DAL/MIA/NYK 2017 first round picks

This was answered well above, but as a concrete example, currently Philadelphia and Utah has the following:

2017 second round draft picks from Detroit and/or Golden State and/or New York and/or Utah (most and least favorable)
Utah will receive the second and third most favorable of Detroit's 2017 2nd round pick, Golden State's 2017 2nd round pick, New York's 2017 2nd round pick (via Toronto) and Utah's 2017 2nd round pick and Philadelphia will receive the most and least favorable of these four picks (via Utah) [Denver-Golden State-Utah, 7/10/2013; New York-Toronto, 7/10/2013; Toronto-Utah, 7/10/2014; Detroit-Oklahoma City-Utah, 2/19/2015; Philadelphia-Utah, 8/26/2016]

http://basketball.realgm.com/nba/draft/future_drafts/detailed


I.e Philly gets the 1st and the 4th best of 4 picks, Utah gets the middle 2nd and 3rd.

[sportscrazy]

Yes, "best of" and "worst of" conditions on traded picks are allowable, and have been done before.

Also, another draft pick question that doesn't warrant its own thread. Could you put a protection on a pick swap?

Like Miami gives Orlando the right to swap picks in 2017, but protects it for the top 3?

[Smitty731]

Yes, "best of" and "worst of" conditions on traded picks are allowable, and have been done before.

Also, another draft pick question that doesn't warrant its own thread. Could you put a protection on a pick swap?

Like Miami gives Orlando the right to swap picks in 2017, but protects it for the top 3?

Yes. Rarer, but utilized. More often with second round picks.

[HartfordWhalers]

Yes, "best of" and "worst of" conditions on traded picks are allowable, and have been done before.

Also, another draft pick question that doesn't warrant its own thread. Could you put a protection on a pick swap?

Like Miami gives Orlando the right to swap picks in 2017, but protects it for the top 3?

There is nothing formally in the CBA main document that makes such a restriction, but there has never been a protected pick swap (in which protection is added by the swap) by itself* {with one possibly noteworthy case below}

Furthermore, there have been a few people who have said that this is not just tradition, but by league mandate (they have the by laws and other such rules and interpretations which allows for such a thing) -- I will look for some sourcing and add it back in when I find it back again.

Think about phantom second round picks always being top 55 protected. The league decided that you cannot protect less than this and make them top 59 protected picks. Just like that, all swaps have been unprotected -- on the existing swap.

And the minimum memo consideration does lay out that the swap cannot be protected to be minimum consideration:

In all trades (no matter how many teams are involved), each team must send out and take back at least one of the following:
A player under contract.
A future draft pick. If a pick is protected (see question number 87), then no more than 55 picks in a single draft can be protected.
The draft rights to an "NBA prospect" -- a player with a reasonable chance of becoming an NBA player during his career, or a contributing player in a reputable professional league (as determined by the league office).
The right to swap unencumbered picks in a future draft.
$75,000 or more.

See for instance http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm

Which isn't conclusive that a swap can never be protected just like a pick can never be top 59 protected if used with other things in theory.

And to be clear, pick swaps can be on already protected picks:

i.e. -- Sacramento's '17 1st is going to Chicago if 11-30.
They can trade an unprotected swap on the remaining protected pick -- in essence trading a swap on the 1-10 range.

But as far as I can tell, the current feeling of the NBA is that all swaps must be unprotected. Would be really smart if they do adjust that however.



*The one funky almost exception is the '17 Celtics/Nets 2nd rounder. As part of the Celtics unprotected swap right for 1st rounders that year:

Boston has the right to swap its 2017 1st round pick for Brooklyn's 2017 1st round pick; if Boston exercises this swap right, then Boston will convey its 2017 2nd round pick to Brooklyn protected for selections 31-45 (if this pick falls within its protected range and is therefore not conveyed, then Boston's obligation to Brooklyn will be extinguished)

http://basketball.realgm.com/nba/draft/future_drafts/detailed

So, there you have an unprotected 1st round swap -- like every other 1st round swap that has happened, but included into it is a protected 2nd round swap if the 1st round swap happens.

However, every other 2nd round swap has either been (like their 1st round counterparts) unprotected, or unprotected on an already protected pick, so I wouldn't assume that the Celtics/Nets 2nd rounder sets an example of something that is possible without the unprotected conditional 1st round swap to set it up.

[Smitty731]

I thought I had responded, but I guess not. HW is right. I was confused by a couple of previous deals that involved trades with swaps already attached.

[old rem]

Yes, "best of" and "worst of" conditions on traded picks are allowable, and have been done before.

Also, another draft pick question that doesn't warrant its own thread. Could you put a protection on a pick swap?

Like Miami gives Orlando the right to swap picks in 2017, but protects it for the top 3?

....uh.....WHAT? At the moment it seems Orlando would pick higher.. so....why would they swap? Then..... if whoever drafts top 3.... then what? Do something later? Skip it? . Yes.. you CAN set various conditions BUT....that changes the equation. If for instance I agree to buy a car for $1000 and the guy then says..." But I keep the tires...put it on cinderblocks..." Screw that. It would add cost and hassle.
COMPLICATIONS ....alter the VALUE. If you protect the hell out of a pick.. it is worth LESS.
Likewise if you are trading a guy who expires,is overpaid,and injured......what's he worth? What's a rd 2 in 2019 worth? not much.
ANY employed GM will LOOK at the details.... and Any effort to get tricky will INSULT him. it's like that $1000 car..... if it won't start.. or you say.. no.. you can't look under the hood..... i suspect trickery. I HAVE bought cars with flaws....and expected a good deal. I walk away if the seller tries to con me.

[DBoys]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding HW, but to be clear ....
1 You can unquestionably put conditions on a conditional pick that turn it into "nothing at all" having been conveyed ...it happens all the time, in fact
2 My reading of the CBA and the history of pick swaps leads me to believe that they coukl be protected with conditions. But that further messes with the equation in which a swap is being used in the 1st place, which is typically because the Stepien rule gets in the way of an outright trade of the pick. Assuming that context, it's likely impractical (and probably CBA-illegal in most cases) to try to have the swap roll to another year in case of such and such.

[HartfordWhalers]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding HW, but to be clear ....
1 You can unquestionably put conditions on a conditional pick that turn it into "nothing at all" having been conveyed ...it happens all the time, in fact

I have no idea how you could have gotten anything remotely like this from what I said. Of course protected picks can become nothing, the concept of top 55 protected is usually just that. Which is why I even referred to them as phantom 2nds:

Think about phantom second round picks always being top 55 protected. The league decided that you cannot protect less than this and make them top 59 protected picks. Just like that, all swaps have been unprotected -- on the existing swap.

2 My reading of the CBA and the history of pick swaps leads me to believe that they coukl be protected with conditions. But that further messes with the equation in which a swap is being used in the 1st place, which is typically because the Stepien rule gets in the way of an outright trade of the pick. Assuming that context, it's likely impractical (and probably CBA-illegal in most cases) to try to have the swap roll to another year in case of such and such.

This second part seems odds given your first part. At least as I understand it, the question "Like Miami gives Orlando the right to swap picks in 2017, but protects it for the top 3?" isn't can you have a rolling over pick swap (which is an interesting separate question), but a pick swap of a limited range that extinguishes if not in that range similar to the protected picks that we both know can do that.

I.e. When the Nets gave Boston the pick swap rights in '17, could the Nets have said "Boston has the right to swap picks with Brooklyn, so long as the Brooklyn pick is 4-30. If the Nets pick is 1-3, the Nets are protected from the pick swap and the pick swap obligation is extinguished.

[DBoys]

"When the Nets gave Boston the pick swap rights in '17, could the Nets have said "Boston has the right to swap picks with Brooklyn, so long as the Brooklyn pick is 4-30. If the Nets pick is 1-3, the Nets are protected from the pick swap and the pick swap obligation is extinguished."

I believe the CBA answer to your question and the practical answer to your "could they have" question are two different things. My belief is that ....
1 - The CBA would certainly allow a "right to swap" to vanish, under specified protection conditions, with no other consideration, but
2 - Since a vanishing "right to swap" would alter the value equation of the underlying trade, the possibility of entirely erasing that consideration being traded is likely to be that it "couldn't" be allowed, in order to keep the trade satisfactory to both parties.
3 - The answer to whether the CBA would allow a "right to swap" to be set up to roll from year to year, based on protections, would be a function of whether there is actually something to roll to, and that there typically isn't so then the roll is not allowable ...which is based on the observation that "right to swaps" tend to be designed for picks in which the Stepien rule is in play and the following year's pick has been conveyed to another team already

[HartfordWhalers]

"When the Nets gave Boston the pick swap rights in '17, could the Nets have said "Boston has the right to swap picks with Brooklyn, so long as the Brooklyn pick is 4-30. If the Nets pick is 1-3, the Nets are protected from the pick swap and the pick swap obligation is extinguished."

I believe the CBA answer to your question and the practical answer to your "could they have" question are two different things. My belief is that ....
1 - The CBA would allow that, but
2 - Since a vanishing pick would entirely alter the value equation of the underlying trade, the possibility of erasing that pick conveyance might have been something that "couldn't" have been allowed to keep the trade satisfactory to both parties.

The 2nd comment seems pretty bizarre and out of place. This conversation was about what was technically possible, and if offering such a 'protected pick swap' was possible, not if it would be agreeable in a counterfactual reality to the Celtics as an example (although they did quite well in that deal). Adding this comment just seems to obscure the discussion for reasons unclear.

As for the first part, I think your claim is not fully accurate.

To be clear, as I said previously:

There is nothing formally in the CBA main document that makes such a restriction

as protecting a pick swap.

On the other hand, there is nothing that formally in the CBA itself prevents a top 59 protected pick (instead of top 55), and until this year there wasn't anything formally in the CBA saying you couldn't add protection to a pick you own from another team and trade it. However, until this year teams could not. And only after this past summer can teams, and then only for fully owned unprotected picks. There is nothing formally in Stepien or the CBA that dictates any of above, but rather it is how the NBA has decided to set its pick trading rules.

So saying the CBA allows it isn't a true answer in any way, as the league disallows several trade options that are not explicitly forbidden by the CBA.

As for whether the league does allow it:

There isn't positive evidence it is allowed as so far there have been zero first round pick swaps in which a team has added protection to the existing pick when giving the swap. If it were allowed, one might think a single swap might have wanted at least top 1 protection and gotten a team to agree and yet none have.

I have further seen it reported that as of the time of the Kings/Sixers trade with swaps at least, that the league only allows pick swaps without protection being added.

If you have some sourcing that suggests that the league does indeed allow protection to be added to a pick swap, I would be interested to see it.

[BdeRegt]

"When the Nets gave Boston the pick swap rights in '17, could the Nets have said "Boston has the right to swap picks with Brooklyn, so long as the Brooklyn pick is 4-30. If the Nets pick is 1-3, the Nets are protected from the pick swap and the pick swap obligation is extinguished."

I believe the CBA answer to your question and the practical answer to your "could they have" question are two different things. My belief is that ....
1 - The CBA would allow that, but
2 - Since a vanishing pick would entirely alter the value equation of the underlying trade, the possibility of erasing that pick conveyance might have been something that "couldn't" have been allowed to keep the trade satisfactory to both parties.

The 2nd comment seems pretty bizarre and out of place. This conversation was about what was technically possible, and if offering such a 'protected pick swap' was possible, not if it would be agreeable in a counterfactual reality to the Celtics as an example (although they did quite well in that deal). Adding this comment just seems to obscure the discussion for reasons unclear.

As for the first part, I think your claim is not fully accurate.

To be clear, as I said previously:

There is nothing formally in the CBA main document that makes such a restriction

as protecting a pick swap.

On the other hand, there is nothing that formally in the CBA itself prevents a top 59 protected pick (instead of top 55), and until this year there wasn't anything formally in the CBA saying you couldn't add protection to a pick you own from another team and trade it. However, until this year teams could not. And only after this past summer can teams, and then only for fully owned unprotected picks. There is nothing formally in Stepien or the CBA that dictates any of above, but rather it is how the NBA has decided to set its pick trading rules.

So saying the CBA allows it isn't a true answer in any way, as the league disallows several trade options that are not explicitly forbidden by the CBA.

As for whether the league does allow it:

There isn't positive evidence it is allowed as so far there have been zero first round pick swaps in which a team has added protection to the existing pick when giving the swap. If it were allowed, one might think a single swap might have wanted at least top 1 protection and gotten a team to agree and yet none have.

I have further seen it reported that as of the time of the Kings/Sixers trade with swaps at least, that the league only allows pick swaps without protection being added.

If you have some sourcing that suggests that the league does indeed allow protection to be added to a pick swap, I would be interested to see it.

I think for stuff like this it is important that the CBA is a list of things you are ALLOWED to do. Just because something isn't covered, doesn't mean you are allowed to do it. It basically means it is a gray area and the league will decide on it. If you find a loophole in the CBA, NBA might not allow it. That is important when you think about the top-55 protected and adding protection to a pick from another team. These are things that come up that weren't really in the CBA and the league makes a decision.

[DBoys]

So-called "loopholes" in the CBA, to the extent they exist, always continue to stand until the next CBA is written. GMs like to find them, and at times exploit them creatively. The NBA does not have the latitude to keep that from happening, because the CBA as written is a legal contract that is the product of negotiation between owners and players. But they can negotiate to change the language in the next CBA, which is how they address such things.

To be clear, this is not a CBA issue. The CBA is between players and owners, and while the existence of the draft and the rules for signing players selected and the money paid to them is a CBA issue, the determining of who gets to draft when is an owners-only item that is decided by the league office, who generally work under guidance of the owners. Whether they can do this or that regarding draft picks will be covered by private letters, and memos, as teams ask questions and propose to do something or other, and once in a while they will summarize and encapsulate the bigger working principles in a longer document to the teams.

[HartfordWhalers]

We aren't talking about loopholes. Loopholes are when teams get to do something that wasn't explicitly banned but wasn't intended, (and then the league adjusts the rules to catch up).

We are talking about the area where the league interprets what is and what is not allowed and sets those rules for everyone in advance.

This was an accurate response on the league's interpretation last year:

Read on Twitter

This year that is not accurate anymore. The league just up and changed its interpretation of what should be permissible in terms of the gray area of trading a pick received in a previous trade.

Teams still haven't protected an unprotected pick they have received from another team in a trade and they obviously didn't last year when the league said it wasn't allowed. There is no "GMs that exploit them creatively" in terms of what we are talking about; that is not related.

[DBoys]

Having made that point, then back to the issue itself ("Can draft slot protections be placed on a right-to-swap-picks situation?"), and we have to examine it in multiple ways:
a - Do we have a CBA issue here? No. So we can't say if there's a restriction or not, based on reading the CBA.
b - Do we have any known-to-the-public memos or by-laws that address this question? No. So we can't say if there's a restriction or not, based on reading memos or by-laws.
c - Do we have any example of this having been done before? No. But while a yes to this means it must be allowable, a no doesn't tell us anything concrete, because the ability to do something doesn't mean it would necessarily be desirable or feasible.
d - So we have to then dig further, into inference and logic and issues of practicality. And we're left with opinions, and our reasoning for them.

My opinion is that they would be allowed. That's what I see as consistent. But for multiple reasons I've already given, I don't think we see them (yet) because of problems with the restrictions of other rules, which then cause issues of lack of desirability or feasibility.

[HartfordWhalers]

Having made that point, then back to the issue itself ("Can draft slot protections be placed on a right-to-swap-picks situation?"), and we have to examine it in multiple ways:
a - Do we have a CBA issue here? No. So we can't say if there's a restriction or not, based on reading the CBA.
b - Do we have any known-to-the-public memos or by-laws that address this question? No. So we can't say if there's a restriction or not, based on reading memos or by-laws.
c - Do we have any example of this having been done before? No. But while a yes to this means it must be allowable, a no doesn't tell us anything concrete, because the ability to do something doesn't mean it would necessarily be desirable or feasible.
d - So we have to then dig further, into inference and logic and issues of practicality. And we're left with opinions, and our reasoning for them.

My opinion is that they would be allowed. That's what I see as consistent. But for multiple reasons I've already given, I don't think we see them (yet) because of problems with the restrictions of other rules, which then cause issues of lack of desirability or feasibility.

Agreed full hearted with a-d.

I tried to google and couldn't find the original reporting, but I believe it was Lowe or one of Pincus/Coon that tweeted in response to questions at the time of the Sixers/Kings trade there were a ton of questions between the trade leaking on July 1st and going official after the moratorium that the league formal stance was pick swaps could not be protected so when the trade went official it would be unprotected pick swaps (minus the Chicago existing obligation).

Based off that and the history cited in c) my opinion is it hasn't been allowed. That said, just like we have seen the rules changing (Marks tweet above as an example), I would think it would be a rule that hopefully would get relaxed going forward.

Being able to offer a pick swap with something like top 3 (or something) protection would make sense for teams to have as an option.

[DBoys]

"The league just up and changed its interpretation of what should be permissible in terms of the gray area of trading a pick received in a previous trade."

Did they? What happened? Any links? (As a side note, I don't take Marks as gospel. I have seen him make mistakes, and I have also seen where his reply misconstrues the import of the question, and is therefore right in how he probably meant it but wrong in relation to the issue the questioner was almost certainly thinking of.)

[HartfordWhalers]

"The league just up and changed its interpretation of what should be permissible in terms of the gray area of trading a pick received in a previous trade."

Did they? What happened? Any links? (As a side note, I don't take Marks as gospel. I have seen him make mistakes, and I have also seen where his reply misconstrues the import of the question, and is therefore right in how he probably meant it but wrong in relation to the issue the questioner was almost certainly thinking of.)

http://www.basketballinsiders.com/nba-adjusted-multiple-trade-rules-in-july/

Before July 7, teams were unable to trade away another team’s pick with protections. That rule has changed but only if that pick was previously acquired unconditionally.

For example, the Cleveland Cavaliers will get the Minnesota Timberwolves second-rounder in 2019, unprotected.

Now, the Cavaliers can trade that pick away to another team, with say a top-55 protection. Or Cleveland can send it to two different teams — to one if it’s in the 31-45 range, the other if it’s 46-60.

In the past, none of the above was legal.

The Cavs will also get a second-rounder in 2020 from the Portland Trail Blazers, provided it’s in the 56-60 range. Cleveland can trade that pick away outright to another team but not with additional protections under the rule adjustment since they don’t own it unconditionally.

The change also applies to first-rounders. Teams can use the standard protections, including converting the obligation to a second-rounder if certain conditions are met.

(And yes, Marks can be fallible for sure)

[DBoys]

Re the situation you describe, you should keep in mind that the original report that something was going to be done such-and-such a way, doesn't mean that it was allowed. I recall a trade situation (the one you referenced may have been the one, but I'm not certain) in which the media report actually violated rules, and my thought at the time was "wow, will they really let that go through?' But then, when the trade actually was consummated, it lined up with the rules as I understood them. My belief was that the GMs didn't know the rules, and the trade call kicked the deal, so they had to do it another way. That truly happens, and more often than you may realize.