Can the Knicks give the Jazz their pick this year?

[loserX]

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.

Take it from somebody in finance: that is actually NOT the case. Terms of repayment are part of the loan agreement...sometimes there is no penalty for early repayment (or outright disallowance), sometimes there is.

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.

A trade is an exchange of considerations, and therefore a contract, between two teams; under contract law one party cannot unilaterally change the terms of a completed agreement. The CBA would have to explicitly supercede this, and although I haven't read the CBA cover-to-cover I can't imagine that it does.

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

Trade kickers are explicitly waivable. (By contrast, a contract can NOT be renegotiated downward, even if the player is amenable to it.) And in that case, the team is being relieved of an obligation...I suppose they could choose to fight it if for some reason they wanted to, but they have no reason to object. Whereas the Jazz certainly DO have a reason to object if the Knicks try to take away an asset THAT THE JAZZ OWN and replace it with a lesser one.

That seems to be what you're missing. As a result of previous conditions not being met, the Jazz own the rights to the 2010 pick. Those were the terms of the trade/"contract" that the Knicks entered into. The Jazz don't own the rights to "any pick transferred on or before 2010", they own the rights to "the Knicks' 2010 pick, unprotected", a specific asset. You seem to be arguing that they DON'T own the rights to it and that therefore it can be exchanged at the Knicks' whim. But that's not the case.

[Modern_epic]

Bonzi, everybody on here but you knows this to be the case, if just based on the common sense fact that if you could, plenty of teams already would have. But if there is a specific rule about this, no one feels like digging through the CBA to find it for something so open and shut. Feel free to look through it yourself though. http://www.nbpa.org/cba_articles.php

[LarryCoon]

Just to put my two cents in --

As others have said, a trade is an explicit agreement, and the conveyance of future draft picks is explicitly specified. For example, here's one of the simpler ones currently on the books:

Houston conveys to Sacramento Houston's own first round draft pick in the first Draft, commencing with the 2009 Draft, in which such pick is not a "Protected Pick" (as defined below). If Sacramento does not receive a first round draft pick from Houston pursuant to the foregoing by the 2014 Draft, then Sacramento shall receive Houston's own 2015 first round draft pick unconditionally.

The following first round picks are "Protected Picks":

Draft Picks
2009 1-14
2010 1-14
2011 1-10
2012 1-10
2013 1-5
2014 1-3
2015 No picks protected

The specification for how the pick is conveyed is laid out very precisely and unambiguously, and is carried out exactly per the agreement. It leaves no wiggle room for Houston to say, "We're going to give you a pick this year rather than last year."

The reason not to want to allow that, as others have noted (other than the fact that it constitutes unilaterally changing an existing contract), is that it's not necessarily in the other team's interests. As noted above, maybe the other team was planning on not having the pick for another year (in the same way that teams draft players knowing they'll be playing in Europe rather than occupying one of their roster spots for a year). Or maybe, in the case above, it's 2012 and Houston has the 10th pick. Let's say it's a weak draft in 2012, but it projects to be a very strong draft in 2013 -- so Houston wants to give Utah it's 2012 pick rather than lose its 2013 pick. But the flip side to that is that for the same reason, Utah would rather not have the 2012 pick, liking their 2013 chances a lot better. So why would Utah want Houston to unilaterally alter the terms of the agreement?

This is why the terms of the agreement are specified in detail. And with terms of the agreement specified in detail, one side cant choose to ignore them, even if it's ostensibly in the other team's favor. If they want to allow wiggle room, they need to write it into the original trade agreement.

Note: I don't know if they even have the ability to write such wiggle room into the trade agreement. Looking at the pending draft pick conveyances, I can't see a case where this has happened. And since this rule is defined in the closely-guarded Operations Manual (and not the CBA), we may never learn the answer.

[Effigy]

Bonzi, everybody on here but you knows this to be the case, if just based on the common sense fact that if you could, plenty of teams already would have. But if there is a specific rule about this, no one feels like digging through the CBA to find it for something so open and shut. Feel free to look through it yourself though. http://www.nbpa.org/cba_articles.php

Dude, I was just asking a question. Yes it's based on common sense to a degree, but that's where we sometimes get in trouble, we assume something is common sense and then have it revealed to us that it's not. For example when we found out that the games that Darius Miles played in the pre season counted towards the 10 games he needed to go back on Portland's salary, that wasnt' common sense, everybody assumed that wasn't the case until some writer found out otherwise midway through the season. And I disagree strongly with your comment that plenty of teams would have done this already. This is a pretty unique situation, and most teams believe they'll be better in the future and want the pick now and wouldn't want to give up the 8 pick this year for an unknown quantity next year. In many cases GMs wouldn't do it just to protect their jobs, Even if it's a good business decision to give your pick up early for the long term, it makes it harder for you to get better in the short term, and could lead to you losing your job and setting the next guy up for success. I wonder if the Knicks would even do this if they could, they might believe they'll be better next year or about the same so would just as soon keep the draft pick now, who knows?

Remember a couple years ago Phoenix fans were so giddy that they were getting Atlanta's draft pick in 2007. And rightfully so, Atlanta had drafted 5th, 2nd and 6th the previous three years. But then that was the first time in years Atlanta made the playoffs, and Phoenix had to settle for the 15th pick.

[Effigy]

Anyway, I just want to thank you guys for answering my question; Loserx, Eruide, Sham, Larry, I didn't mean to come off like I was asking the same thing over and over, I was just looking for clarification, and I appreciate you guys being patient with me. Thanks

[loserX]

Anyway, I just want to thank you guys for answering my question; Loserx, Eruide, Sham, Larry, I didn't mean to come off like I was asking the same thing over and over, I was just looking for clarification, and I appreciate you guys being patient with me. Thanks

Not at all. I apologize if I came off as argumentative...I'm just a Jazz fan who doesn't want to risk getting boned

[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.

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.

Well, call me cynical, but I don''t believe that. Almond's option was only declined because you're stuck with Matt Harpring. Almond can't have done much more in the D-League than he did.

[Three34]

I'm just a Jazz fan who doesn't want to risk getting boned

Man, they outlaw all fun in Utah, don't they?

[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.

Well, call me cynical, but I don''t believe that. Almond's option was only declined because you're stuck with Matt Harpring. Almond can't have done much more in the D-League than he did.

Ok, you're cynical. And, yes, Mo could have done an awful lot more in the D-League than he did. He was basically a volume scorer who shot every time he got a chance. He didn't show any measurable improvement in his rebounding, ball handling or passing abilities, and his defensive effort only took a small tick upwards. He is worthy of being an 8th or 9th man on the right team, but with the Jazz, who have Ronnie Brewer, CJ Miles, Kyle Korver, Matt Harpring and Andrei Kirilenko all clamoring for minutes at the 2 and 3, its just not a place that he's likely to get any burn. He hasn't shown enough to justify keeping him on, plain and simple. And to say that we're "stuck" with Harpring is laughable. The dude is wearing down, but he will be an expiring contract in 09-10, and therefor eminently movable, and was good enough last year to deserve PT 10x over Morris Almond.

I don't know where you're coming from on this, but you obviously don't know what you're talking about.

[Dunkenstein]

Wow. All this contentiousness. And neither FGump nor I participated in it. What's the world coming to.

[Three34]

Ok, you're cynical. And, yes, Mo could have done an awful lot more in the D-League than he did. He was basically a volume scorer who shot every time he got a chance.

Did you want the 25th pick to demonstrate the complete package, or did you expect more than a specialist from that spot? Because if I'm cynical, then you're really freaking ambitious.

He didn't show any measurable improvement in his rebounding, ball handling or passing abilities, and his defensive effort only took a small tick upwards

Well, that's perhaps an offshoot of having all of two professional seasons, and of not being brilliant in every capacity of the game.

And to say that we're "stuck" with Harpring is laughable.

You haven't been regretting the day the Jazz signed that new contract? You really feel his performance justifies his contract? You don't feel as though that $6.5 million that you'll be paying next season to a guy who devoutly pledges you two thirds of a season of 4/2 calibre production on a gammy knee when your team is rubbing its nuts against the tax threshold, is perhaps something that might be 'burden', and something that you're 'stuck with'? Or are you just a little bit too defensive?

Hey, Matt Harpring's a dynamite third stringer. A real stunner. He lights up other team's 10th men like there's no tomorrow. I'd be totally happy having him on my bench. Normally. But not when my team has potentially 9 free agents this offseason, not when my team is adverse to a luxury tax that currently threatens their genitals, not when I have 4 better players in front of him, and not when he's earning six point five freaking million next year.

The fact that he's expiring is toodleriffic for you. But since we were talking about Almond's 2009/10 option, which would have been for all of one year, then you can see why I choosing to allude to dead money for next year only, can't you?

[Three34]

Wow. All this contentiousness. And neither FGump nor I participated in it. What's the world coming to.

You two are so cute TOGETHER! *hugs*

[chakdaddy]

Funny that the lottery protection is so ironclad, but sometimes it can be foiled if an additional pick is acquired.

Wasn't there some complicated situation where the Grizzlies could have acquired a late #1 to complete the Otis Thorpe trade, but Joe Dumars somehow convinced teams not to trade one to them so they could get the Darko pick?

The most ridiclous thing in one of these situations was when Chris Wallace elected to take Denver's pick to give Boston 3 #1's the same year so they could take Kedrick Brown - and then traded Joe Johnson partly because they didn't want so many rookies...you could argue that they would get Carmelo the next year if they had waited on the pick - but I doubt that Denver would have rebuilt/tanked so much if they knew their pick was going to Boston.