Brooklyn's Ability To Make Compelling Offer To Raptors 'Suddenly Very Interesting'

[tribulations]

The Lakers 2 FRP would’ve landed OG. Mavs pick will be useless with Luka there. Spite will not lead to wins Joe Tsai, way to go.

The Lakers picks are trash!!! The Raptors would rather picks in the next 2 years not 2027 2029 and more than likely protected. The Lakers are trash and have nothing to trade with unless they wanna send Westbrook to a team like Detroit for Killian Hayes and Jaden Ivey or some garbage like that. LeBron can't win in LA before he retires

This is dumb as hell. If the Lakers FO and team is so trash why WOULDN'T you want those picks?!

Come on man, those 2 picks are likely to be around 20-30 by the time the DISTANT future rolls around

Bravo Brooklyn

[ProcessDoctor]

Feel like Brooklyn should be going after Pascal, not OG.

[gidget24]

I don't think it is as interesting as they are making it out to be, now that the initial Kyrie trade has been finalized the players the Nets got in return can only be traded with picks and not other players, not even each other so if Nets were to include Spencer it would have to be him and picks and that it no other players.

The above would complicate salary matching as well as value from a raptors perspective. I don't think they can put a package for OG together as the report is the Raptors are looking for young players / picks coming back and I don't think they have the assets to do it.

[Oncloud9]

I don't think it is as interesting as they are making it out to be, now that the initial Kyrie trade has been finalized the players the Nets got in return can only be traded with picks and not other players, not even each other so if Nets were to include Spencer it would have to be him and picks and that it no other players.

The above would complicate salary matching as well as value from a raptors perspective. I don't think they can put a package for OG together as the report is the Raptors are looking for young players / picks coming back and I don't think they have the assets to do it.

Only three short years ago this trade proposal would have been panned as a joke. The only thing interesting is that the media is trying to get us to think the Nets have compelling pieces to trade for Siakam after torching and trashing a 3 time all star. Simmons is just a bad contract like Westbrook and those only get flipped for other bad contracts. Nets should call Pelinka.

[arasu]

All stipulations must be made at the time of the deal. For instance, a team may owe a future protected pick, and that pick may be taken in one year or the next. So another trade can stipulate based on which year it goes. The Nash and Dwight trades were set up like that. For example, if the Mavs already owed a protected 2027 pick that could be conveyed in '28 instead, then they could later trade the''29 pick conditionally. Thus if the pick goes in ''27, then the '29 pick can convey, but if it goes in '28, then '29 doesn't convey. Those stipulations are made FIRST...always. This is certain.

I would still like to see a link to the rule. I know if a team trades their 2023 pick they can't trade the 2024 pick and if there are protections on the 2023 pick it can cause a 2025 pick to get backed up to 26 if the 23 pick rolls over to 24 because of said protection.

So the Pick traded to the Nets is 2029 it is unprotected. I know the mavs can't trade their 2028 #1, but what if they trade the 2027 with protection? I've been looking for the rule and can't find it.

I don't see anything in this that says the Mavs can't trade their 2027 #1 with protections.

89. How are draft picks handled in trades? What is the Ted Stepien rule?

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q89

It literally explains the Nash/Dwight trade situation you brought up. You also seem to have an issue with logic. If a team trades a pick, that pick is no longer theirs. Thus they can't make any other deals that affect that pick, because IT'S NOT THEIRS. If the Mavs trade their 2029 pick away, that pick is no longer theirs. How do you not get that?

[arasu]

Are you sure they can't trade their 2027 #1 with protections? I remember a few years back the Lakers traded to get Steve Nash and Dwight Howard in separate trades, the Nash trade was for a #1 to the Suns, I don't recall the year, but it kept getting put off by protections, then the Howard sent a #1 to the Magic again I don't remember the year but it was to be 2 years after the pick that was to go to the Suns. That pick was traded around by a few teams and finally used by Philly the Magic only got a 2nd.

Now I don't know of a rule that says they can't trade a protected pick in 2027, if you know please post a link to that rule.

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm

There's no need to ask for specific rule links. The CBA explanation has been linked by RealGM for many years. I think people need to start looking for their own information, instead of asking people for links all the time. I'm being nice here, but seriously, if you're not sure about what you're told about anything, look it up yourself. That's your job.

So you just toss the entire CBA at me and say look it up!? Wow what a way to make your point.

It's YOUR JOB to know how things work In a conversation between knowledgeable people. You're already supposed to know the easily researched knowledge. That's how knowledgeable conversations work. For instance, if I mention that a player is leading the NBA in assists, if you don't believe me, it's YOUR JOB to look it up. Don't be lazy! It's intellectually dishonest to expect everything to be spoon-fed to you. You could ask me to prove everything, like, "show me a link to what draft pick means, or show me a link to what the word 'the' means". That is called a "wild goose chase", which is an intellectually dishonest method of wasting other people's time.

In case you're having trouble with understanding your level of responsibility. The only times one must provide "links" or "proof" is in scientific research or courts of law, where great deals of time and resources are devoted to such proof, and usually substantial financial compensation is involved. Unless you're PAYING other people for "proof", it's YOUR JOB TO DO RESEARCH. Your lack of knowledge is your problem, not someone else's. Logically, we would all be stuck in analysis paralysis circles, if such responsibility would be laid at the feet of others. Basic knowledge and understanding of rationality and basic logic is a prerequisite for knowledgeable conversations. If you haven't done the work, you don't merit involvement in big boy and girl conversations.

[basketballwacko2]

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm

There's no need to ask for specific rule links. The CBA explanation has been linked by RealGM for many years. I think people need to start looking for their own information, instead of asking people for links all the time. I'm being nice here, but seriously, if you're not sure about what you're told about anything, look it up yourself. That's your job.

So you just toss the entire CBA at me and say look it up!? Wow what a way to make your point.

It's YOUR JOB to know how things work In a conversation between knowledgeable people. You're already supposed to know the easily researched knowledge. That's how knowledgeable conversations work. For instance, if I mention that a player is leading the NBA in assists, if you don't believe me, it's YOUR JOB to look it up. Don't be lazy! It's intellectually dishonest to expect everything to be spoon-fed to you. You could ask me to prove everything, like, "show me a link to what draft pick means, or show me a link to what the word 'the' means". That is called a "wild goose chase", which is an intellectually dishonest method of wasting other people's time.

In case you're having trouble with understanding your level of responsibility. The only times one must provide "links" or "proof" is in scientific research or courts of law, where great deals of time and resources are devoted to such proof, and usually substantial financial compensation is involved. Unless you're PAYING other people for "proof", it's YOUR JOB TO DO RESEARCH. Your lack of knowledge is your problem, not someone else's. Logically, we would all be stuck in analysis paralysis circles, if such responsibility would be laid at the feet of others. Basic knowledge and understanding of rationality and basic logic is a prerequisite for knowledgeable conversations. If you haven't done the work, you don't merit involvement in big boy and girl conversations.

Oooh tough guy!


I see nothing stopping the Mavs from trading their 27 pick with protections.

[basketballwacko2]

From the Rule 89.

When dealing with protected picks, the Stepien rule is interpreted to mean that a team can't trade a pick if there is any chance at all that it will leave the team without a first round pick in consecutive future drafts.

If a team trades two future first round picks and the first of those picks is protected, then that pick would be conveyed in the first draft in which the protection does not apply (as described above), and the second pick would be conveyed two years after the first pick is conveyed. But since both picks must be conveyed within seven years, the protection on the first pick cannot last longer than four years (i.e., the first pick must be conveyed by the fifth year).

A team can have up to two picks with this two-year waiting period in effect at any time. In order to have two such picks with subsequent conveyance, the protection on the first trade cannot last longer than two years (i.e., the first pick must be conveyed by the third year, so the first subsequent pick is conveyed by the fifth year, and the second subsequent pick is conveyed by the seventh year).

This doesn't say anything about this situation, such as the Mavs 2029 pick going to the Nets in 2023. What is to stop the Mavs from trading their 2027 #1 with protection in say 2026? I don't see anything regarding that. This all talks about future picks. I know they can't trade their 2028 pick, and at some point in the future can't trade their 2030 pick, unless they have acquired a pick from another team in said year.

I'll ask again if there is a rule against it show me the language.

[arasu]

So you just toss the entire CBA at me and say look it up!? Wow what a way to make your point.

It's YOUR JOB to know how things work In a conversation between knowledgeable people. You're already supposed to know the easily researched knowledge. That's how knowledgeable conversations work. For instance, if I mention that a player is leading the NBA in assists, if you don't believe me, it's YOUR JOB to look it up. Don't be lazy! It's intellectually dishonest to expect everything to be spoon-fed to you. You could ask me to prove everything, like, "show me a link to what draft pick means, or show me a link to what the word 'the' means". That is called a "wild goose chase", which is an intellectually dishonest method of wasting other people's time.

In case you're having trouble with understanding your level of responsibility. The only times one must provide "links" or "proof" is in scientific research or courts of law, where great deals of time and resources are devoted to such proof, and usually substantial financial compensation is involved. Unless you're PAYING other people for "proof", it's YOUR JOB TO DO RESEARCH. Your lack of knowledge is your problem, not someone else's. Logically, we would all be stuck in analysis paralysis circles, if such responsibility would be laid at the feet of others. Basic knowledge and understanding of rationality and basic logic is a prerequisite for knowledgeable conversations. If you haven't done the work, you don't merit involvement in big boy and girl conversations.

Oooh tough guy!


I see nothing stopping the Mavs from trading their 27 pick with protections.

Yes. If you trade a future pick, you can't trade future consecutive picks. That's what it reads. That means 2028 and 2030 CAN'T BE TRADED! The Mavs CAN trade the 2027 pick with protections, but, as the rule plainly states, it can't result in consecutive traded first round picks.

[arasu]

From the Rule 89.

When dealing with protected picks, the Stepien rule is interpreted to mean that a team can't trade a pick if there is any chance at all that it will leave the team without a first round pick in consecutive future drafts.

If a team trades two future first round picks and the first of those picks is protected, then that pick would be conveyed in the first draft in which the protection does not apply (as described above), and the second pick would be conveyed two years after the first pick is conveyed. But since both picks must be conveyed within seven years, the protection on the first pick cannot last longer than four years (i.e., the first pick must be conveyed by the fifth year).

A team can have up to two picks with this two-year waiting period in effect at any time. In order to have two such picks with subsequent conveyance, the protection on the first trade cannot last longer than two years (i.e., the first pick must be conveyed by the third year, so the first subsequent pick is conveyed by the fifth year, and the second subsequent pick is conveyed by the seventh year).

This doesn't say anything about this situation, such as the Mavs 2029 pick going to the Nets in 2023. What is to stop the Mavs from trading their 2027 #1 with protection in say 2026? I don't see anything regarding that. This all talks about future picks. I know they can't trade their 2028 pick, and at some point in the future can't trade their 2030 pick, unless they have acquired a pick from another team in said year.

I'll ask again if there is a rule against it show me the language.

It is about future picks and how to handle the Stepan rule regarding them, which explains the Nash and Howard deals that you were using as your original example.