payitforward wrote:pcbothwel wrote:... the precedent is the Kings trade a few years ago when they moved back from 10 to get 15 & 20 (They picked up Giles @ 20). To me, that means 9 = 14 + 20-22... but they only have 26, so they make up the value difference with 30.
That was a steal, yes, an astonishingly bad move by Neil Olshey -- who has also made some terrific moves (& still has his job). & a great one by Sac'to -- one of only a few!
But... it's a one-off. Show me another equivalent.
Obviously, there's no official chart of the relative value of draft picks. & of course, individual circumstances can dictate all kinds of individual cases. But here are some graphs to illustrate my point: http://nbasense.com/draft-pick-trade-value/compare-charts.
Of these, only one (Restifo's 2016 chart) would accommodate a trade of 9 for 14 & 26 -- that's because his view of a slow decline from 1 to 10 is unrealistic (using his chart you should be able to give the #5 & #22 picks for the #1 pick -- no).
The most recent of these work-ups is Pelton's 2d version: http://nbasense.com/draft-pick-trade-value/2/kevin-pelton-2.
Of course, how badly the party moving up (usually) wants the guy at the higher pick can distort values in individual cases. If there's someone Boston must must have, then perhaps they'd give the #26 to move up 5 places. But... I doubt it. & 14,26 & 30 to move up 5 places?
Worth noting: one thing in our favor if we did negotiate to trade down with Boston is that they have 4 picks in the draft overall. They won't want 4 rookies.
I can also imagine giving our #9 & #37 for their #14, #26 & #47. In this case too they might well prefer to have 1 fewer rookie.
