11 Teams hold 75% of tradable draft picks

[jbk1234]

I'd stop letting teams trade swap rights. Should've been done after the Billy King trade tbh.

Edit; That said, it wouldn't help with the unintended consequences of the current dynamic though, which is that teams that are currently rebuilding can't get a late first from a playoff team for their players.

[cgf]

OKC - 15
Utah - 13
San Antonio - 12
New York - 11
Brooklyn - 9
New Orleans - 9
Toronto - 9
Portland - 9
Orlando - 8
Houston - 7
Memphis - 7

Was curious how many picks these teams actually have. These 11 teams own 52% of all first round picks in the next 7 drafts (minus swaps). I find that more interesting than the 75% of all tradable picks. Basically 1/3 of the league have half of all first round picks.

I think OKC had 21 future firsts at one point. That’s 10% of all possible firsts.

So 37% of teams have 52% of 1st round picks. That really doesn't seem like a big deal :-/

[wegotthabeet]

OKC - 15
Utah - 13
San Antonio - 12
New York - 11
Brooklyn - 9
New Orleans - 9
Toronto - 9
Portland - 9
Orlando - 8
Houston - 7
Memphis - 7

Was curious how many picks these teams actually have. These 11 teams own 52% of all first round picks in the next 7 drafts (minus swaps). I find that more interesting than the 75% of all tradable picks. Basically 1/3 of the league have half of all first round picks.

I think OKC had 21 future firsts at one point. That’s 10% of all possible firsts.

So 37% of teams have 52% of 1st round picks. That really doesn't seem like a big deal :-/

It sounds more interesting when including the swaps I guess.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

normal pareto distribution

[Richard4444]

I think one of the issues that most bothers me is that some teams (looking at you OKC) literally don't have the roster spots to even house all the draft picks they own.

Meaning a number of the draftees (new and past) will not get the development, reps, PT they'd normally receive if the picks were evenly distributed among the league. There'll be dozens of 19-20 year-olds the next few seasons who will fall out of the league after a rookie contract -- simply because they needed more time to develop but couldn't get it on an already overly young roster.

A ton of young guys will become NBA vagabonds as a result.



Let's call it "The Pokusevski Paradigm".

The OKC can consolidate some of their picks. Trading for vets or getting better picks. You can not blame the system. The team has smarter options than getting 5 new rookies every year. They already traded 3 so-so picks with the Knicks to draft their player in the 2022 draft.

Besides, you can blame the system or OKC for Poku and Tre Mann's struggles. They lost roster spots for 50th-pick and undrafted players because they are not so good and inured prone in Poku" 's case.

[TheSheriff]

I think one of the issues that most bothers me is that some teams (looking at you OKC) literally don't have the roster spots to even house all the draft picks they own.

Meaning a number of the draftees (new and past) will not get the development, reps, PT they'd normally receive if the picks were evenly distributed among the league. There'll be dozens of 19-20 year-olds the next few seasons who will fall out of the league after a rookie contract -- simply because they needed more time to develop but couldn't get it on an already overly young roster.

A ton of young guys will become NBA vagabonds as a result.



Let's call it "The Pokusevski Paradigm".

That happened to the Celtics at one point. They just started reaching on European players hoping to stash them.

[Richard4444]

Survive what?

How many teams need to rebuild in a season?
How many teams succeed through via draft only?

I know an LA Sports fan might not see it, but most markets/franchises have a hard time convincing above average players to come to their teams without massively overpaying to acquire them.

The draft is supposed to provide some semblance of competitive balance to distribute top talent to talent-poor franchises.



This trend of 30% of the league housing the majority of future draft picks is basically a version of economic disparity *inequality within the NBA. Though it is largely self inflicted.

There's a few scenarios on the horizon where the league has to get involved just to preserve competitive balance.

I do not agree.

It's the other way around. The best teams have fewer picks.

Only 4 of those 11 teams - OKC, Knicks, Pelicans, and Magic have positive campaigns.

Wolves, LAC, Suns, Cavs, and Bucks barely have picks left and they are some of the strongest teams. LAL - the in season tournament champion - also barely have picks.

[shrink]

Is this good or bad for the league?

Can a league survive with 2/3 of the teams unable to rebuild through the draft properly?

Is it time for a revised Stepien Rule to protect Front Offices from themselves?

i think "tradeable" makes this sound more extreme than it is. It doesn't mean that 11 teams own 75% of picks. Teams can't trade consecutive picks, so even if they traded the max picks they can, they still have a pick in every other draft. A lot of those "untradeable" picks are also the result of swaps. You can't trade the pick if you already swapped it (and I don't think that trading swap rights is counted as a "tradable pick here). More are untradeable due to protection on certain picks. If you owe a top 3 protected 2025 pick that becomes unprotected afterwards, then you can't trade your 2024 pick (as that would violate the no first round picks in consecutive years Stepien rule if the 2025 pick conveys then) you can't trade your 2025 pick (as it would potentially be going out anyway as you already traded it), you can't trade your 2026 pick (as it might be going out then if it doesn't convey in 2025 and if it does, trading the 26 pick would violate the Stepien rule) and you can't trade your 2027 pick as if it conveys in 2026 rather than 2025, trading the 27 pick violates the Stepien rule.

So basically a team has three picks in four years to use in the draft, but because of a trade with fairly normal protections, none of those three are counted as "tradeable" picks. Teams can still rebuild through the draft in this situation. They just can't rebuilt by trading their draft picks.

Great post. And I’d add that this “tradeable” word is specific for this deadline, and it doesn’t mean that more won’t become available for teams to trade or keep themselves when the next draft rolls around. And of course, every draft, 30 more picks are added, 7 years out.

[winforlose]

Thinking about this, it isn’t great for young players. Look at OKC, they have so much young talent they literally cannot develop all of it. NYK isn’t rushing to start any mid or late selected rookies next year. Utah will be in a similar boat to OKC and there are more examples who have either the being too good to play them, too full of young talent to develop them, or both problem.

[sp6r=underrated]

The NBA is zero sum. At the end of every year the overall league winning percentage is 50%.

Accordingly, every rule designed to prevent bad management from making a mistake limits the ability of good management to improve their roster. Every individual rule such as the Stepien Rule makes winning in the NBA more about luck than skill.

Whether that is good thing or a bad thing is your opinion.

[Rainwater]

Thinking about this, it isn’t great for young players. Look at OKC, they have so much young talent they literally cannot develop all of it. NYK isn’t rushing to start any mid or late selected rookies next year. Utah will be in a similar boat to OKC and there are more examples who have either the being too good to play them, too full of young talent to develop them, or both problem.

At some point teams like OKC and Utah will have to pick the young guys they will keep and package the rest or let them walk. They can't resign them all (this is why we have a salary cap). At that point the young guys will have the chance to showcase themselves on another team. The problem will resolve it self one way or the other. I remember OKC had a choice between Harden and Serge, and they chose Serge because Harden would be seeking a Max contract the next season. The problem will fix itself.

[winforlose]

Thinking about this, it isn’t great for young players. Look at OKC, they have so much young talent they literally cannot develop all of it. NYK isn’t rushing to start any mid or late selected rookies next year. Utah will be in a similar boat to OKC and there are more examples who have either the being too good to play them, too full of young talent to develop them, or both problem.

At some point teams like OKC and Utah will have to pick the young guys they will keep and package the rest or let them walk. They can't resign them all (this is why we have a salary cap). At that point the young guys will have the chance to showcase themselves on another team. The problem will resolve it self one way or the other. I remember OKC had a choice between Harden and Serge, and they chose Serge because Harden would be seeking a Max contract the next season. The problem will fix itself.

You are not wrong, but you also need to look a little deeper. For example say player X is drafted in the late first at 19 YO by the Jazz. The Jazz then send him to the G where he has 2 okay years but nothing stand out. They decide because the rotation is packed above and the kid hasn’t made a true G league name they don’t pick up his rights. Now at 21 player X is a free agent with no meaningful NBA minutes, no meaningful NBA development, and trying to convince an NBA team to sign and develop him. So let’s say the Griz or a team in a situation like the Griz does. Now player X is showing some signs of life. But then the missing guys come back and player X has some tape to look at, but is buried on the bench or let go again. Maybe player X gets picked up by a third team or developed by the Griz, but in any event, their career is never truly the same as it would have been if they were selected by a team that had a spot for them, developed them, and then let them try luck in RFA. Not saying it doesn’t work out, it is just bad for the young guys.

[Wilfried]

Is this good or bad for the league?

Can a league survive with 2/3 of the teams unable to rebuild through the draft properly?

Is it time for a revised Stepien Rule to protect Front Offices from themselves?

Read on Twitter

Not a bad thing. Typically most of the teams who have draft capital are those who are trying to rebuild and need talent. And those teams giving up their capital are trying to compete right now and don’t really need them. I think these things balance themselves over time. And there are always other ways to attain talent, there are always going to be trades and free agency.

The truth is that only 5-6 teams are really on the verge of 'contending'. Not 19

[jefe]

What's kind of crazy to me is that Memphis is one of those 11 teams, and IIRC Memphis only has all of its own future first round picks.

[hauntedcomputer]

I fail to see the problem.

Most of the picks will end up worthless once cashed, and many of them will be moved before they are cashed.

And picks aren't even the most important part of the process-- you still need to develop the players, build a winning culture, have a competent front office and coaching staff, and the right environment for a legitimate #1 to carry a team. Detroit made most of the "right" picks and still are ten years from even a glimmer of contention.

I don't see any fairness issue, either, of some guy getting picked for a young, packed roster. You need to be in the right place at the right time, or else make your luck, and getting drafted in the first round means you will likely earn more than 99 percent of us lowly boardsurfers in your life.

If you think life should be fair, I don't know what reality you've been living in.

[vincecarter4pres]

I think one of the issues that most bothers me is that some teams (looking at you OKC) literally don't have the roster spots to even house all the draft picks they own.

Meaning a number of the draftees (new and past) will not get the development, reps, PT they'd normally receive if the picks were evenly distributed among the league. There'll be dozens of 19-20 year-olds the next few seasons who will fall out of the league after a rookie contract -- simply because they needed more time to develop but couldn't get it on an already overly young roster.

A ton of young guys will become NBA vagabonds as a result.



Let's call it "The Pokusevski Paradigm".

Otoh, this will accelerate the development of the D League. The NBA could probably benefit as a whole from a more serious, competitive and funded minor league system, as long as the drafted players are still paid accordingly.

[vincecarter4pres]

Changing any rule around this before anywhere between 27-29 unlevels the playing field. The teams that traded for the picks have to work it out with roster spots available and trades available, and the teams that traded away the picks have to suffer through no picks to that end period.

Any proposed change needs an inception date 5 years out.

And the Thunder are almost assuredly going to have to overpay to move up in both of the next 2 drafts. But that's the trades they made. Adding roster spots now just **** everyone else.

It will be interesting to see what kind of value OKC gets for all those mid-to-late FRPs.
Everyone knows they need to move up. I'm thinking like 3 picks 20-30 for a pick around 10-12?
It will be steep, but of course, they can afford it.

You’d think more so, they need to make a move at this deadline for an actual young veteran player who fits their roster before it’s too late.

[Johnny Bball]

Thinking about this, it isn’t great for young players. Look at OKC, they have so much young talent they literally cannot develop all of it. NYK isn’t rushing to start any mid or late selected rookies next year. Utah will be in a similar boat to OKC and there are more examples who have either the being too good to play them, too full of young talent to develop them, or both problem.

How many players are going to tell OKC not to draft them? I would if it were me.

[vincecarter4pres]

I think one of the issues that most bothers me is that some teams (looking at you OKC) literally don't have the roster spots to even house all the draft picks they own.

Meaning a number of the draftees (new and past) will not get the development, reps, PT they'd normally receive if the picks were evenly distributed among the league. There'll be dozens of 19-20 year-olds the next few seasons who will fall out of the league after a rookie contract -- simply because they needed more time to develop but couldn't get it on an already overly young roster.

A ton of young guys will become NBA vagabonds as a result.



Let's call it "The Pokusevski Paradigm".

Impose a penalty to any team that doesn't have a roster spot for any first round pick not traded before draft day. Will create a desperation timer that devalues the pick more the it is to the draft.

Why should the savvy GM/FO/team be penalized for making smart moves and thinking to the future?

They will surely have to sell those picks off cheaply if they don’t move them in a timely fashion.

Also agents will steer their players away from thtese teams if they don’t, or lean on them to make quick follow up trades if they are drafted there.

[winforlose]

I fail to see the problem.

Most of the picks will end up worthless once cashed, and many of them will be moved before they are cashed.

And picks aren't even the most important part of the process-- you still need to develop the players, build a winning culture, have a competent front office and coaching staff, and the right environment for a legitimate #1 to carry a team. Detroit made most of the "right" picks and still are ten years from even a glimmer of contention.

I don't see any fairness issue, either, of some guy getting picked for a young, packed roster. You need to be in the right place at the right time, or else make your luck, and getting drafted in the first round means you will likely earn more than 99 percent of us lowly boardsurfers in your life.

If you think life should be fair, I don't know what reality you've been living in.

I never said it should be fair, or that it isn’t functional. I said it is bad for the young guys coming in. While it is true that they will make more in a year than some make in 10 or 20 doing real jobs, it is also true that the league has less than 550 guys at any given time. This is not something that just anyone can do. Some guys who might have had a real career will be hurt by the crunch.

@Vincecarter4prez said below this helps the G, but the G is an unbalanced league as well. Teams prioritize NBA systems and NBA development of specific guys and end up with rosters that are short on PGs and Cs and play guys out of position. The imbalance causes wild splits, and guys like Luka Garza can drop 30+ in the G while being unplayable in the NBA. Or guys can shoot 40%+ from deep and yet they get to the NBA and their shot drops to 25%. The G could use work if its true purpose is to develop NBA players in lieu of their team doing it.