Ben Simmons for the No. 1 Pick?

[Midw35t]

Culver will be the most improved on the team (if he is on the team next season)

I agree. I see Beasley slightly regressing from that 20+ point average and insane shooting. Especially with KAT back getting shots. That isnt a bad thing, just fully expected.

Culver I think takes a big step, and Okogie a small one.

I think some here really undervalue what Culver showed on defense as a rookie. His hand eye coordination is super impressive.

[Midw35t]

Watch on YouTube

Whiff!

Yes but i think a lot of people did not expect doncic to perform like this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A ton of people definitely were scared off of the foreign part.

I looked up his accomplishments in Europe just ahead of the draft, and I could not believe he wasn't going 2nd (the Ayton Arizona Phoenix story, especially with Booker, made too much sense).

His accomplishments at his age were astonishing. Still are.

[Killboard]

MIN/OKC/76ers trade could make sense. The core of the deal could be something like:

Simmons to Wolves
Chris Paul, Spellman to 76ers
JJ, Mike Scott and Culver to OKC

That actually works salary matching wise even before signing the picks.

This way 76ers can keep Richardson, replace Scott with Spellman (who also can hit the 3), and get N1 rookie with 4 years of control to ease the financial problems.

OKC gets 21M in expirings that could flip down the road again for a team looking for a salary dump (and add some picks in the meantime), a top6 prospect in Culver, plus some picks coming their way.


Here is also another variant to allow Philly to get out of Hordford deal and get JJ expiring to dodge the tax line moving forward, but in this case the N1 pick should be going to OKC IMO.

https://tradenba.com/trades/UN8wThuhL


In both cases picks would be flying around, is just the salary matching part of it that I'm trying to figure out.

[KGdaBom]

Am I in the minority that does not want to trade Culver?

I think it's 50/50, but despite me liking Culver I would certainly trade him along with JJ and #1 for Simmons.

[KGdaBom]

Watch on YouTube

Whiff!

Well he had a horrible take on Luka. Does that invalidate him on all other basketball stances he might have?

[KGdaBom]

We don’t have a pick next year, so we can’t trade both picks this year. We can however trade them both the second after we make the first pick.

Just to say it again, FUTURE is the key word. Being it’s after #1 is selected or when, 100% no doubt Wolves can trade #1 and #17!

No they cannot. FACTS. As pointed out they need to make the selection first, you cannot go two consecutive drafts without a pick and since our 2021 pick is outstanding we cannot go without a draft pick this year. Period.

Now you're wrong. Once we make a pick in the first round of this draft the Stepian rule no longer applies.

[KGdaBom]

Just to say it again, FUTURE is the key word. Being it’s after #1 is selected or when, 100% no doubt Wolves can trade #1 and #17!

No they cannot. FACTS. As pointed out they need to make the selection first, you cannot go two consecutive drafts without a pick and since our 2021 pick is outstanding we cannot go without a draft pick this year. Period.

I really am not getting why it is so hard to grasp that trades can be agreed upon ahead of the Draft, functionally making it so we aren’t restricted. There is no world in which the Stepian rule would be something that could obstruct this trade.

So Money is wrong, but you are still acting like the Stepian Rule is completely null and void and that is not true. Teams might agree to a handshake/wink/nod deal, but it's not a trade until the deal is in writing and either side could back out until it's in writing. In this case since the #1 pick is involved and no other picks can affect it that is less problematic.

[Killboard]

No they cannot. FACTS. As pointed out they need to make the selection first, you cannot go two consecutive drafts without a pick and since our 2021 pick is outstanding we cannot go without a draft pick this year. Period.

I really am not getting why it is so hard to grasp that trades can be agreed upon ahead of the Draft, functionally making it so we aren’t restricted. There is no world in which the Stepian rule would be something that could obstruct this trade.

So Money is wrong, but you are still acting like the Stepian Rule is completely null and void and that is not true. Teams might agree to a handshake/wink/nod deal, but it's not a trade until the deal is in writing and either side could back out until it's in writing. In this case since the #1 pick is involved and no other picks can affect it that is less problematic.

Not an expert as Shrink but there are 3 separate windows:

Before the picks are made (rights to the pick, no salaries for match, stepian rules apply)
Once the picks are made (rights to the player, no salaries for match, stepian rules does not apply)
Once the picks are signed (rights to the player, salaries have to match, stepian rules does not apply)

[KGdaBom]

I really am not getting why it is so hard to grasp that trades can be agreed upon ahead of the Draft, functionally making it so we aren’t restricted. There is no world in which the Stepian rule would be something that could obstruct this trade.

So Money is wrong, but you are still acting like the Stepian Rule is completely null and void and that is not true. Teams might agree to a handshake/wink/nod deal, but it's not a trade until the deal is in writing and either side could back out until it's in writing. In this case since the #1 pick is involved and no other picks can affect it that is less problematic.

Not an expert as Shrink but there are 3 separate windows:

Before the picks are made (rights to the pick, no salaries for match, stepian rules apply)
Once the picks are made (rights to the player, no salaries for match, stepian rules does not apply)
Once the picks are signed (rights to the player, salaries have to match, stepian rules does not apply)

Stepian rule only applies to picks. Once a player is selected a pick is not being traded. Rights to a player are being traded.

[Killboard]

So Money is wrong, but you are still acting like the Stepian Rule is completely null and void and that is not true. Teams might agree to a handshake/wink/nod deal, but it's not a trade until the deal is in writing and either side could back out until it's in writing. In this case since the #1 pick is involved and no other picks can affect it that is less problematic.

Not an expert as Shrink but there are 3 separate windows:

Before the picks are made (rights to the pick, no salaries for match, stepian rules apply)
Once the picks are made (rights to the player, no salaries for match, stepian rules does not apply)
Once the picks are signed (rights to the player, salaries have to match, stepian rules does not apply)

Stepian rule only applies to picks. Once a player is selected a pick is not being traded. Rights to a player are being traded.

Yes, that's what I said, I was just trying to point the difference between the second window and the third, which is important to salary matching purposes.

[Baseline81]

No they cannot. FACTS. As pointed out they need to make the selection first, you cannot go two consecutive drafts without a pick and since our 2021 pick is outstanding we cannot go without a draft pick this year. Period.

Now you're wrong. Once we make a pick in the first round of this draft the Stepian rule no longer applies.

Actually, if you read what SO_MONEY wrote, he's correct. What I underlined matches to what you wrote.

[Killboard]

No they cannot. FACTS. As pointed out they need to make the selection first, you cannot go two consecutive drafts without a pick and since our 2021 pick is outstanding we cannot go without a draft pick this year. Period.

Now you're wrong. Once we make a pick in the first round of this draft the Stepian rule no longer applies.

Actually, if you read what SO_MONEY wrote, he's correct. What I underlined matches to what you wrote.

They can still trade both picks if they got one in return though.

[Domejandro]

This conversation is painful because in the real world trades are fleshed out often before the trigger is ultimately pulled (example is Atlanta trading for Clint Capela was later expanded into a four team trade). It feels like people are being pedantic for the sake of being pedantic.

#33 and cash for one of Boston’s later First Round Draft Picks (26 or 30). Not that it is even needed in the context of how agreeing to trades works (Minnesota could have pulled out at any time after agreeing to trade Love to Cleveland, you know!), but there we go! Can we live in the real world where the Stepian Rule would not actually be an impediment to this trade going down, now?

[SO_MONEY]

This conversation is painful because in the real world trades are fleshed out often before the trigger is ultimately pulled (example is Atlanta trading for Clint Capela was later expanded into a four team trade). It feels like people are being pedantic for the sake of being pedantic.

#33 and cash for one of Boston’s later First Round Draft Picks (26 or 30). Not that it is even needed in the context of how agreeing to trades works (Minnesota could have pulled out at any time after agreeing to trade Love to Cleveland, you know!), but there we go! Can we live in the real world where the Stepian Rule would not actually be an impediment to this trade going down, now?

As it stands it been pointed out what is what and what would need to be done. You cannot trade both picks. Period. So when trades are proposed doing that, as if it was possible, they are wrong. And it wouldn't be a big deal if people didn't fight the fact that is true and draft rights need to be traded and not the picks themselves. It might be semantics, but beating a dead horse and challenging facts, explaining things people already understand, is exactly why it is being pointed out as wrong. Understand? No reason to dig in over this especially after multiple posters properly explained it. Hopefully this ends it.

[younggunsmn]

The only question I have with Simmons is his injury history, back problems can be particularly scary.
That said, If we are taking edwards or ball anyway, I'm 100% down with trading #1 for Simmons.

[jpatrick]

Am I in the minority that does not want to trade Culver?

I think it's 50/50, but despite me liking Culver I would certainly trade him along with JJ and #1 for Simmons.

I really really hope the shot comes around. He does a lot of little things and has a nice BBIQ, if the three will go in at an upper 30s rate, he’s be a heck of a fourth or fifth starter eventually. However, the rookies that shot as poorly as Culver, who’s percentages were historically low, and turned it around, is almost zero. So I have hope, just not a lot of it.

[Shaka_Zulu]

Oh please, God, Jahweh, allah, Ra, Sidhartha, Odin make this happen! I would go so ham on 2k transition offense with Ben, with 3 lights shoot shooters to spreading out.

[Wolveswin]

This conversation is painful because in the real world trades are fleshed out often before the trigger is ultimately pulled (example is Atlanta trading for Clint Capela was later expanded into a four team trade). It feels like people are being pedantic for the sake of being pedantic.

#33 and cash for one of Boston’s later First Round Draft Picks (26 or 30). Not that it is even needed in the context of how agreeing to trades works (Minnesota could have pulled out at any time after agreeing to trade Love to Cleveland, you know!), but there we go! Can we live in the real world where the Stepian Rule would not actually be an impediment to this trade going down, now?

As it stands it been pointed out what is what and what would need to be done. You cannot trade both picks. Period. So when trades are proposed doing that, as if it was possible, they are wrong. And it wouldn't be a big deal if people didn't fight the fact that is true and draft rights need to be traded and not the picks themselves. It might be semantics, but beating a dead horse and challenging facts, explaining things people already understand, is exactly why it is being pointed out as wrong. Understand? No reason to dig in over this especially after multiple posters properly explained it. Hopefully this ends it.

Fact that is not arguable, Wolves can build a trade with #1 and #17. Being that is rights or the when needs to be defined, it can 100% happen. They don’t need to take a 1st back.

[shrink]

Watch on YouTube

Whiff!

Well he had a horrible take on Luka. Does that invalidate him on all other basketball stances he might have?

Maybe? On the other hand, the other half of the reason I posted this is it shows he is respected enough to be interviewed by Chris Broussard, so...?

I don’t expect this swap. It just seems so far off to me.

[shrink]

#33 and cash for one of Boston’s later First Round Draft Picks (26 or 30).

Strangely, I was going to propose a deal like this anyway, and it had nothing to do with Stepian.

Ten years ago, an argument could be made that the first few picks of the second round may have had more value than the last few picks of the first. Teams used them to invest in really good euros that may be two years away from coming to the nba. GM’s liked the idea of getting their rights, and taking no cap hit until they came over. If you used a late 1st, you had a cap hit, wherever he was.

These days you don’t see that so much. Every team has plenty of international scouting, and they would identify anyone who had the potential to be a decent starter, like Pekovic (#31), and draft him in the 1st round. The buyout amounts on euro contracts carry less sting, and I believe teams can contribute more in the past.

But while trading 33 and cash for 30 creates more roster crowding for MIN, I think it is offset by giving MIN 4 years of team control, and Bird rights after that. Minnesota needs to find and develop talent, but they also need to make sure they can hold onto that talent too. And I’d note that if it was a follow up to these Simmons deals, we’d have created some slots to avoid the roster crowding issue as well


33 and cash for 30 is not a deal that you are likely to see most BOS posters endorse, but since Domejandro is talking about realism - this is a very realistic deal. It might be even more realistic this draft, with so little known about the prospects, that some teams might see some benefit to not be locked into paying a guy two years.