RealGM

The Orlando Magic's trade sending multiple future first-round picks to the Memphis Grizzlies for Desmond Bane represents the latest example of teams mortgaging their future to maximize championship windows. This aggressive approach has become the defining trend of modern NBA team-building.

The Magic join a growing list of franchises making all-in moves. The Minnesota Timberwolves traded multiple first-rounders for Rudy Gobert in 2022, followed by the Cleveland Cavaliers' deal for Donovan Mitchell months later. The Phoenix Suns acquired Kevin Durant at the 2023 deadline, the Milwaukee landed Damian Lillard in September 2023, and the New York Knicks traded for Mikal Bridges in June 2024 in similarly pick-heavy moves.

These deals follow the blueprint established by the 2019 blockbusters that sent Anthony Davis to the Los Angeles Lakers and Paul George to the LA Clippers. The frequency of such trades has accelerated dramatically in recent years.

Zach Lowe attempted to explain the reasoning within the NBA for this explosive team-building trend.

"The interesting thing about these trades is Kevin Pelton and I did this over at ESPN a couple years ago," said Lowe on his podcast with Kirk Goldsberry. "There didn't used to be any trades like this with like three or four or five first round picks getting thrown around. There were... We did the research. There were more between 2012 and 2022, I think, than there were in the entire history of the NBA prior to that, or from the merger to that. And it's just kept going since then, and you think about some of the reasons why.

"I think the shorter contracts in the player empowerment era... people, teams are like, 'We just have to win when we have a chance to win.' And there's a sense that the league has been pretty open since the Warriors broke up, since [Kevin] Durant left the Warriors. There's a sense that between the play-in and the lottery odds changes, like, that the incentives have just generally skewed toward winning. And I think if everybody feels those same sort of pressures—and I've written about this before—if you fling away four picks in a deal like this, you probably think in the back of your head, 'We can just do like the reverse to some other team that feels this aggressive in three years if this doesn't work out for us and recoup some picks—maybe not our picks, but some picks.'

"The 'our picks' thing is a big deal, as we've seen with the Nets and now with theoretical Giannis stuff about like getting your own picks back. But it's just interesting how often we're seeing just massive amounts of picks going around, and for the most part it's teams that think they're going to be good, so their picks are not going to be very valuable. And I think Orlando is justified in thinking that of itself."

The willingness to trade multiple first-round picks reflects confidence in future maneuverability. Organizations assume they can reverse course by targeting other aggressive franchises in future deals.

Most teams making these trades believe their picks will hold minimal value due to expected success, making the Magic's confidence in their trajectory consistent with league-wide thinking.

Via Zach Lowe/The Ringer

The willingness to trade multiple first-round picks reflects confidence in future maneuverability. Organizations assume they can reverse course by targeting other aggressive franchises in future deals.

No. The willingness to trade multiple first round picks reflects that guaranteed contracts increase the risk tolerance of executives who know that they probably won't be around to clean up the messes they create.

Cassius wrote:

The willingness to trade multiple first-round picks reflects confidence in future maneuverability. Organizations assume they can reverse course by targeting other aggressive franchises in future deals.

No. The willingness to trade multiple first round picks reflects that guaranteed contracts increase the risk tolerance of executives who know that they probably won't be around to clean up the messes they create.

I don't think it's just "I won't be around when the picks come due" so much as "I want to win now, lets reach for the golden ring". It's not exactly new, though bunching picks together kind of is. Isiah Thomas spent every first round pick he had to add players like Eddie Curry or Jamal Crawford.

Leon Rose took the opposite approach. He collected picks and waited until the player he wanted was available. I don't think that Mikal Bridges was worth 5 picks, but on some nights he looks like he might be.

The Magic are trying to build a wining core and maybe this will work for them. If they win 60 games next year or make it to the finals in the next 3 seasons, it's hard to argue against a move like this. It's still a high price to pay though. But deep teams often win.

OKC and Indiana - both deep.
Boston last year, Deep.

The Nuggets, Warriors and Bucks before them were more star power teams, that works too, but depth is the new star power. I don't hate the approach of spending all of a team's picks to get the coveted player. Indy got Siakam for 2 players and 3 picks and one rotation player (Bruce Brown was playing 29 minutes per game) and that worked out for them so far.

3 picks is better than 4 or 5 though, but I still don't hate this approach to fill up a competitive team.

Luv those Knicks wrote:

Cassius wrote:

The willingness to trade multiple first-round picks reflects confidence in future maneuverability. Organizations assume they can reverse course by targeting other aggressive franchises in future deals.

No. The willingness to trade multiple first round picks reflects that guaranteed contracts increase the risk tolerance of executives who know that they probably won't be around to clean up the messes they create.

I don't think it's just "I won't be around when the picks come due" so much as "I want to win now, lets reach for the golden ring". It's not exactly new, though bunching picks together kind of is. Isiah Thomas spent every first round pick he had to add players like Eddie Curry or Jamal Crawford.

Leon Rose took the opposite approach. He collected picks and waited until the player he wanted was available. I don't think that Mikal Bridges was worth 5 picks, but on some nights he looks like he might be.

The Magic are trying to build a wining core and maybe this will work for them. If they win 60 games next year or make it to the finals in the next 3 seasons, it's hard to argue against a move like this. It's still a high price to pay though. But deep teams often win.

OKC and Indiana - both deep.
Boston last year, Deep.

The Nuggets, Warriors and Bucks before them were more star power teams, that works too, but depth is the new star power. I don't hate the approach of spending all of a team's picks to get the coveted player. Indy got Siakam for 2 players and 3 picks and one rotation player (Bruce Brown was playing 29 minutes per game) and that worked out for them so far.

3 picks is better than 4 or 5 though, but I still don't hate this approach to fill up a competitive team.

I think we agree more than disagree here. I think the Magic could take a 2000s Sacramento leap where Suggs+Bane = Christie+Bibby, and Paolo/Franz = CWebb/Vlade. Only thing missing is a Peja impersonator… Gradey Dick would look great in a Magic jersey right about now.

I will add that a common thread among the “four firsts” club is that they made their trades immediately following a series loss where a key player was injured, creating ‘What If’ optimism about the additive impacts of the acquired player + health. Minnesota is the exception, but the Knicks lost OG/Randle/Mitch, the Cavs lost Jarrett Allen and didn’t get through the play-in, while Orlando lost Suggs and Wagner.

The law of diminishing returns seems to evade these front offices when weighing the projected ROI of these trades.