Can the Knicks give the Jazz their pick this year?

[Effigy]

I know the pick is protected this year and unprotected next year, but can the Knicks if they wanted to, give Utah the 8th pick in a weak draft and keep next year's pick? Can they essentially waive their own protection? If they can, I think they should. If Lee winds up leaving for nothing that team is going to be brutal next year. They can move out Al Harrington and be even worse and get a top 5 pick next year in a much better draft. Does anyone know how that works?

[erudite23]

No, they cannot. Protection is iron clad. The only way for this to happen would be for Utah and NY to agree to a trade, one pick for another.

And your point about the Knicks next year is an excellent one. If Lee and Robinson both leave for nothing, they will probably have the worst roster in the NBA going into next season. Where were you when I started a thread about this on the Knicks board? Your fellows seemed to think that, even if Lee leaves, that the Knicks should get to at least 32-35 wins, with an outside shot at sneaking into the playoffs.

Lol.

edit: sorry, I didn't stop to think before I assumed you were a Knicks fan...so are you just trying to figure out how to keep a division rival from getting an elite young player?

[Narcist]

Nope. Utah should tank next year so they have a double shot in the lottery at getting the first pick and maybe get anonther top 5 pick that be hilarous.

[Effigy]

edit: sorry, I didn't stop to think before I assumed you were a Knicks fan...so are you just trying to figure out how to keep a division rival from getting an elite young player?

YES. I am going to just hope the Knicks keep Lee and Harrington. Sigh.

[loserX]

Erudite23 is correct. The Jazz hold the rights to the 2010 pick (although there is a complicated set of circumstances whereby it could go to the Wolves if it's low enough).

By giving the Jazz the 2009 pick instead, the Knicks would essentially be forcing the Jazz into a new trade. That is not allowed.

[quackquack]

Out of curiosity - why and how could it go to the Timberwolves?

[loserX]

Out of curiosity - why and how could it go to the Timberwolves?

Without going into the really messy details...

The Jazz traded a future pick to the Sixers in the Giricek/Korver trade. That pick debt could be satisfied by the Knicks' pick if it's low enough, and partly dependent on where the Jazz's own pick falls.

The Sixers then traded that future pick to Minnesota along with Rodney Carney and Calvin Booth (in exchange for nothing) in order to create additional capspace, which they used to sign Elton Brand.

[quackquack]

Wow that's bizarre, thanks for the clarification. When teams trade picks it always seems to be a specific pick, rather than any pick that satisfies a set of conditions. Very interesting.

[lakerfan10770]

Wow that's bizarre, thanks for the clarification. When teams trade picks it always seems to be a specific pick, rather than any pick that satisfies a set of conditions. Very interesting.

If you are interested, RealGM has a list of all future draft picks owed here:

http://www.realgm.com/src_future_draftpicks.php

[Effigy]

Erudite23 is correct. The Jazz hold the rights to the 2010 pick (although there is a complicated set of circumstances whereby it could go to the Wolves if it's low enough).

By giving the Jazz the 2009 pick instead, the Knicks would essentially be forcing the Jazz into a new trade. That is not allowed.

They didn't really trade the 2010 pick though. They traded a future pick that was lottery protected until next year. Couldn't the Knicks just waive their rights of having that pick protected and give it to Utah this year? I don't understand why not? That protection is in there to protect the Knicks, not Utah, if the Knicks want to forgo it, I don't see why it wouldn't be allowed.

[Three34]

That protection is in there to protect the Knicks, not Utah,

If this was explicitly true, then this thread wouldn't exist. As we're witnessing, in the right circumstances, the protection and its enforcement can be advantageous to either team. It's an agreement they made together, so no one party can change it.

[loserX]

Erudite23 is correct. The Jazz hold the rights to the 2010 pick (although there is a complicated set of circumstances whereby it could go to the Wolves if it's low enough).

By giving the Jazz the 2009 pick instead, the Knicks would essentially be forcing the Jazz into a new trade. That is not allowed.

They didn't really trade the 2010 pick though. They traded a future pick that was lottery protected until next year. Couldn't the Knicks just waive their rights of having that pick protected and give it to Utah this year? I don't understand why not? That protection is in there to protect the Knicks, not Utah, if the Knicks want to forgo it, I don't see why it wouldn't be allowed.

Because Utah owns the rights to that pick, per the completed trade. If the Knicks want it back, they have to make a new trade to get it...they can't unilaterally change an agreement that is already in place. It's no different than if the Knicks had traded the Jazz a player and said "okay, we changed our minds, now you have to trade him back to us for a lesser player".

[Effigy]

It is completely different. The Knicks said, 'Hey we are going to give you a draft pick sometime in the future between now and 2012, we reserve the right not to give you that pick until then if the pick is too good. The Knicks would still be fulfilling their obligation of giving their pick to the Jazz, they will be exceeding it by waiving their rights to make the Jazz wait another year and just paying them now.

[loserX]

It is completely different. The Knicks said, 'Hey we are going to give you a draft pick sometime in the future between now and 2012, we reserve the right not to give you that pick until then if the pick is too good. The Knicks would still be fulfilling their obligation of giving their pick to the Jazz, they will be exceeding it by waiving their rights to make the Jazz wait another year and just paying them now.

No, they said "we are going to give you a pick that meets certain conditions...if it does not meet those conditions, you get our unprotected pick in 2010". Those conditions have not yet been met, therefore the Jazz have the rights to the 2010 pick. You are saying that the Knicks should now unilaterally be allowed to change the conditions. Sorry, that's not going to fly. The Knicks are not fulfilling their obligations, they are changing the obligations.

In layman's terms: a deal's a deal. It doesn't matter whether the change benefits the Jazz or the Knicks, or both...you can't change the terms of a completed trade without the consent of the other party.

[Effigy]

It is completely different. The Knicks said, 'Hey we are going to give you a draft pick sometime in the future between now and 2012, we reserve the right not to give you that pick until then if the pick is too good. The Knicks would still be fulfilling their obligation of giving their pick to the Jazz, they will be exceeding it by waiving their rights to make the Jazz wait another year and just paying them now.

No, they said "we are going to give you a pick that meets certain conditions...if it does not meet those conditions, you get our unprotected pick in 2010". Those conditions have not yet been met, therefore the Jazz have the rights to the 2010 pick. You are saying that the Knicks should now unilaterally be allowed to change the conditions. Sorry, that's not going to fly. The Knicks are not fulfilling their obligations, they are changing the obligations.

In layman's terms: a deal's a deal. It doesn't matter whether the change benefits the Jazz or the Knicks, or both...you can't change the terms of a completed trade without the consent of the other party.

But do you actually know that, or do you just think that's how it should be? It's like if you borrow money, you should be allowed to pay it back early if you want, and you usually can, but there are some shadier loans out there that won't let you pay it back early. I think it could go either way and I'd like to see the official rule on the subject.

[loserX]

It is completely different. The Knicks said, 'Hey we are going to give you a draft pick sometime in the future between now and 2012, we reserve the right not to give you that pick until then if the pick is too good. The Knicks would still be fulfilling their obligation of giving their pick to the Jazz, they will be exceeding it by waiving their rights to make the Jazz wait another year and just paying them now.

No, they said "we are going to give you a pick that meets certain conditions...if it does not meet those conditions, you get our unprotected pick in 2010". Those conditions have not yet been met, therefore the Jazz have the rights to the 2010 pick. You are saying that the Knicks should now unilaterally be allowed to change the conditions. Sorry, that's not going to fly. The Knicks are not fulfilling their obligations, they are changing the obligations.

In layman's terms: a deal's a deal. It doesn't matter whether the change benefits the Jazz or the Knicks, or both...you can't change the terms of a completed trade without the consent of the other party.

But do you actually know that, or do you just think that's how it should be? It's like if you borrow money, you should be allowed to pay it back early if you want, and you usually can, but there are some shadier loans out there that won't let you pay it back early. I think it could go either way and I'd like to see the official rule on the subject.

Well, okay, I can't quote you a specific section of the CBA or anything.

But in your analogy: terms of loan repayment, including early payment penalties (mortgages have these more often than you'd think) are part of the original arrangement. One party cannot unilaterally decide to change the terms after the arrangement has been struck! That is basic contract law. I doubt the CBA exempts its teams from adhering to it.

Again: if the borrower wants to pay money back early, it either has to be done within the framework of the existing agreement, or the parties have to AGREE to restructure the agreement. The borrower can't legally just say "I've changed my mind, you have to take the money", which is what you are proposing the Knicks do.

[Three34]

Furthermore, to use the specific example that spawned this thread, Utah might not even want the pick this year. Obviously it'll be high, but it's a crap draft class, and they're so short of tax wiggle room that they had to decline Morris Almond's third year option already. They might have 10 free agents this summer. They need all the money they can get. I don't think a short at DeMar Derozan is what they want at this moment.

[Effigy]

Furthermore, to use the specific example that spawned this thread, Utah might not even want the pick this year. Obviously it'll be high, but it's a crap draft class, and they're so short of tax wiggle room that they had to decline Morris Almond's third year option already. They might have 10 free agents this summer. They need all the money they can get. I don't think a short at DeMar Derozan is what they want at this moment.

Agreed, but it's like the example when you take out a loan, the company would usually rather you NOT pay it back early, so they'll make more money, but too freaking bad for them if you want to. I get that what you're saying may be true, it just seems like nobody actually knows the rule, they just think that's how it is. I don't think there's no shame in not knowing the rule, I don't know it, that's why I'm asking.

Players can waive trade kickers in their contracts, why can't teams waive lottery protection in trades?

[erudite23]

It is completely different. The Knicks said, 'Hey we are going to give you a draft pick sometime in the future between now and 2012, we reserve the right not to give you that pick until then if the pick is too good. The Knicks would still be fulfilling their obligation of giving their pick to the Jazz, they will be exceeding it by waiving their rights to make the Jazz wait another year and just paying them now.

No, they said "we are going to give you a pick that meets certain conditions...if it does not meet those conditions, you get our unprotected pick in 2010". Those conditions have not yet been met, therefore the Jazz have the rights to the 2010 pick. You are saying that the Knicks should now unilaterally be allowed to change the conditions. Sorry, that's not going to fly. The Knicks are not fulfilling their obligations, they are changing the obligations.

In layman's terms: a deal's a deal. It doesn't matter whether the change benefits the Jazz or the Knicks, or both...you can't change the terms of a completed trade without the consent of the other party.

But do you actually know that, or do you just think that's how it should be? It's like if you borrow money, you should be allowed to pay it back early if you want, and you usually can, but there are some shadier loans out there that won't let you pay it back early. I think it could go either way and I'd like to see the official rule on the subject.

Actually, they are not shady at all. Its fairly common for many types of mortgages to include prepayment penalties to protect the investor against early payoff due to refinance or sale, as the investment in question doesn't really begin to pay for itself until a certain stage of the amortization.

So, yes, you're right. It is just like a loan. The terms of the deal bind both parties, and if shifting interests allow one party to gain an advantageous position, that is the nature of the beast. You don't go back and say "oh, wait, this will be better for ME if we make a change here and here. What? You're not cool with that?"

And to answer your question: no, no one on here is going to know the exact statute that would regulate the circumstances in question. But we do have access to that rarest of commodities: common sense. Watch closely, son, and one day you too could enjoy the benefits of its use.

[erudite23]

Furthermore, to use the specific example that spawned this thread, Utah might not even want the pick this year. Obviously it'll be high, but it's a crap draft class, and they're so short of tax wiggle room that they had to decline Morris Almond's third year option already. They might have 10 free agents this summer. They need all the money they can get. I don't think a short at DeMar Derozan is what they want at this moment.

Btw, not that's its a huge deal, but this is not true. Utah declined Almond's option because he was not in the team's plans. He hasn't developed into someone they could use, and the roster is filled with wings that are clamoring for minutes. Obviously the Jazz aren't the Knicks or Mavs here, but it certainly wasn't a situation where they wanted to keep him but just couldn't afford it, they declined the TO because he just wasn't good enough.