CelticsStrong
Around the League => The Draft => Topic started by: Ogaju on April 12, 2018, 10:37:54 PM
-
Just in case a big they want is available where the Lakers pick.
-
No. I think it is allowed to make changes to the protection but both teams would have to agree to it.
-
No. I think it is allowed to make changes to the protection but both teams would have to agree to it.
Lakers ain't agreeing to anything the Celtics want LOL.
Either we really luck out with the pick conveying at 2-3, or we move on to Sacramento Kings.
-
No. I think it is allowed to make changes to the protection but both teams would have to agree to it.
Lakers ain't agreeing to anything the Celtics want LOL.
Either we really luck out with the pick conveying at 2-3, or we move on to Sacramento Kings.
The Lakers don’t have any rights to the pick. Any modification would be between Boston and Philly.
-
Sure, if the Sixers agreed. In which case they would keep Sac 2019 pick. Doubt they would agree though. Interesting question.
-
Sure, if the Sixers agreed. In which case they would keep Sac 2019 pick. Doubt they would agree though. Interesting question.
This is actually very interesting. I didn't know that teams could alter the protection after finalizing a trade. I guess the question is which pick is more valuable?
The tank race was crowded this year, who knows if it will be quite this crazy next year. Hard to see Sac improving a lot over the next year. The griz pick in 2019 might be as good as the sac pick too.
There are a whole lot of variables with these upcoming picks. It is really hard to know which picks to hang onto.
-
Sure, if the Sixers agreed. In which case they would keep Sac 2019 pick. Doubt they would agree though. Interesting question.
This is actually very interesting. I didn't know that teams could alter the protection after finalizing a trade. I guess the question is which pick is more valuable?
The tank race was crowded this year, who knows if it will be quite this crazy next year. Hard to see Sac improving a lot over the next year. The griz pick in 2019 might be as good as the sac pick too.
There are a whole lot of variables with these upcoming picks. It is really hard to know which picks to hang onto.
Forgot we still have the Grizzlies' pick. Although it's 1-8 protected. And we also have Clippers' pick too. Wow we definitely mortgaged the future.
-
I would think that the Celtics should be able to waive the protection since it appears to have been placed for their benefit. The team with the protection should retain the option to waive it.....bad negotiating if Cs did not get that option. The 2-5 window may prove too tight in a loaded draft.
-
I would think that the Celtics should be able to waive the protection since it appears to have been placed for their benefit. The team with the protection should retain the option to waive it.....bad negotiating if Cs did not get that option. The 2-5 window may prove too tight in a loaded draft.
I honestly think I'd rather wait on the Kings pick than select 10th in this draft.
This draft is said to be top-heavy and the top is gone by 10.
-
I would think that the Celtics should be able to waive the protection since it appears to have been placed for their benefit. The team with the protection should retain the option to waive it.....bad negotiating if Cs did not get that option. The 2-5 window may prove too tight in a loaded draft.
I honestly think I'd rather wait on the Kings pick than select 10th in this draft.
This draft is said to be top-heavy and the top is gone by 10.
What if the laker pick is 6 0r 7?
-
I would think that the Celtics should be able to waive the protection since it appears to have been placed for their benefit. The team with the protection should retain the option to waive it.....bad negotiating if Cs did not get that option. The 2-5 window may prove too tight in a loaded draft.
I honestly think I'd rather wait on the Kings pick than select 10th in this draft.
This draft is said to be top-heavy and the top is gone by 10.
What if the laker pick is 6 0r 7?
Not possible.
Lotto only determines picks 1-3.
-
Almost positive that once terms of a trade have been submitted to the league office, the terms are final and complete. The only way the C's could change the terms of the trade would be to create another trade that changes the terms of the first trade.
So Boston and Philly would have to complete a trade where if the Lakers pick doesn't convey to Boston based on the terms of the original trade, the pick would convey to Boston no matter where the pick lands in exchange for....
What that exchange is would be important. My guess is it wouldn't be for just swapping the 2018 conveyance for the 2019 Sac. conveyance. Gotta remember, the Sixers could still end up with the 1st pick this year and the first pick next year. Gonna take a lot to have them give up that chance for the Cs to get the LA pick this year.
-
I would be livid if the Celtics gave up their kings pick to pick 10th this year
-
I know it's different, but the Blazers agreed to take the 2017 Cavs 1st instead of the 2018 one so that the Cavs could send their 2019 1st to Atlanta in the Korver trade.
-
Of course they could. It’s called trading our Kings pick to Philly for their Lakers pick. Nothing stopping that if Philly wanted the deal.
-
I know it's different, but the Blazers agreed to take the 2017 Cavs 1st instead of the 2018 one so that the Cavs could send their 2019 1st to Atlanta in the Korver trade.
I don't remember that trade adjustment. The key part is both teams have to agree to the change and then they've got to get league approval too.
-
Almost positive that once terms of a trade have been submitted to the league office, the terms are final and complete. The only way the C's could change the terms of the trade would be to create another trade that changes the terms of the first trade.
So Boston and Philly would have to complete a trade where if the Lakers pick doesn't convey to Boston based on the terms of the original trade, the pick would convey to Boston no matter where the pick lands in exchange for....
What that exchange is would be important. My guess is it wouldn't be for just swapping the 2018 conveyance for the 2019 Sac. conveyance. Gotta remember, the Sixers could still end up with the 1st pick this year and the first pick next year. Gonna take a lot to have them give up that chance for the Cs to get the LA pick this year.
I imagine a trade would come after the lottery, in which case we would already know if it was pick #10 or a top 3 pick. Of course PHI would not deal the pick if it ended up #1, but I have to imagine they would jump at the chance to grab that SAC pick for the paltry 10th selection in this draft. This draft may seem better right now, but there is still a decent chance kids just out of high school are going to be allowed to enter next year in addition to the usual crop of rookies.
-
If the pick is #1, Philly would keep the pick and no way they trade it.
If the pick is #2 or #3, we get the pick and wouldn't need to trade for it.
If it ends up at #10 (or near this slot), Philly could pick who we want and then we trade that player for the Sac/Philly pick that we would own at that point.
I think the logistics of this pick exchange are easy enough. The question is which would have more value.
-
Sure, if the Sixers agreed. In which case they would keep Sac 2019 pick. Doubt they would agree though. Interesting question.
If the pick is at 8 why would they not consider it? Sacramento will most likely stink and be a top 5 pick next year. I know the talent is good in this draft but after the top 6 it drops.
-
If a great enough player slides, you can be sure the Sixers will be pouncing on that. This wont matter anyway when the Lakers defy the Gods and end up in the 2nd position :)
I would hold onto Kings pick for next year and let the cards fall where they may. It is highly possible that we can draft a high school graduate in the next draft and that could mean a potential future center superstar.
-
To clarify, the only options for the Lakers pick are the following:
Pick 1, 2, or 3: Need to win the lottery (picked for one of first 3 picks), very slim odds
Pick 10: 87% Chance that this is where it ends up
Pick 11, 12, or 13: Slim odds if someone behind them wins the lottery and moves up
It is impossible for the pick to be 4-9 or 14
-
And to clarify a little more, if it's the first pick, Philadelphia gets to keep it.
Also, if I'm not mistaken, if Sacramento's pick next year is number one the Celtics don't get it.
They would get the 76's pick instead. Is that correct?
-
Of course they could. It’s called trading our Kings pick to Philly for their Lakers pick. Nothing stopping that if Philly wanted the deal.
I'm giving you a TP because that answer was so blindingly obvious and I feel silly not having thought of it.
Mike
-
And to clarify a little more, if it's the first pick, Philadelphia gets to keep it.
Also, if I'm not mistaken, if Sacramento's pick next year is number one the Celtics don't get it.
They would get the 76's pick instead. Is that correct?
Yes.
-
Of course they could. It’s called trading our Kings pick to Philly for their Lakers pick. Nothing stopping that if Philly wanted the deal.
I'm giving you a TP because that answer was so blindingly obvious and I feel silly not having thought of it.
Mike
The response is an option, a viable one, but it really does not answer my question. My question does not require a trade with anyone. Anyone can make a trade, heck Danny could trade the Sacramento pick rights to any team that is willing to trade for it so today it could be flipped to Phily is a given.
My question, on the other hand, is whether the Boston protection on the Laker pick comes with a Boston option. If it does, Boston would not need Philly's consent, they would have the unfettered right to waive the protection. So who knows wether or not this option exists?
-
Almost positive that once terms of a trade have been submitted to the league office, the terms are final and complete. The only way the C's could change the terms of the trade would be to create another trade that changes the terms of the first trade.
So Boston and Philly would have to complete a trade where if the Lakers pick doesn't convey to Boston based on the terms of the original trade, the pick would convey to Boston no matter where the pick lands in exchange for....
What that exchange is would be important. My guess is it wouldn't be for just swapping the 2018 conveyance for the 2019 Sac. conveyance. Gotta remember, the Sixers could still end up with the 1st pick this year and the first pick next year. Gonna take a lot to have them give up that chance for the Cs to get the LA pick this year.
I imagine a trade would come after the lottery, in which case we would already know if it was pick #10 or a top 3 pick. Of course PHI would not deal the pick if it ended up #1, but I have to imagine they would jump at the chance to grab that SAC pick for the paltry 10th selection in this draft. This draft may seem better right now, but there is still a decent chance kids just out of high school are going to be allowed to enter next year in addition to the usual crop of rookies.
Yes. 100%. We would be incredibly stupid to trade for the 8th pick for what has a great chance of being 2-6 next year
-
In the current universe, the sac 19 is worth more than lal18 outright. It's not only expected to be a better number pick, the cap hit is delayed 1 year, and the draft odds restructuring happens next season. It's the Celtics that wouldn't agree to waiving protections. They never wanted lal18 unless it was 1 through 5.
-
Of course they could. It’s called trading our Kings pick to Philly for their Lakers pick. Nothing stopping that if Philly wanted the deal.
I dont think its exactly that simple. We don't own the pick to trade. We own the pick if it's 2 through 5, so we could make a conditional trade. So sac 19 OR phi19 for lal18. Not sac 19 for lal18 straight up. You can't trade for an asset now with an asset that you may or may not own.
-
In the current universe, sac 19 is worth more than lal18. It's not only expected to be a better number pick, the cap hit is delayed 1 year, and the draft odds restructuring happens next season. It's the Celtics that wouldn't agree to waiving protections. They never wanted lal18 unless it was 1 through 5.
Maybe, maybe not. Sacramento might not be terrible next year. Or Sacramento might be so terrible they end up with the #1 pick and Boston ends up with the Sixers pick which will almost certainly be in the 20's. Maybe, Boston, or some other team, actually wants a player in this draft and thus rates that player highly. Maybe Boston actually wants the salary of the rookie so it can be used in a trade (i.e. Tatum, Morris, Rookie, crap filler for Leonard). Maybe Collin Sexton, or whomever is 10th is a better prospect than Rui Hachimura, Zion Williamson, Sekou Doumbouya, Nazreon Reid, Kris Wilkes (currently projected 4-8 by nbadraft.net). I mean nbadraft.net currently has Bruno Fernando, who is eligible for this draft, at #2 next year. Outside of RJ Barrett, who Boston will never be able to acquire with the Sacto pick, the 2019 draft is pretty weak.
Sometimes the player in hand is worth a lot more than the unknown player, especially with so much uncertainty as to where that unknown player is actually drafted.
-
Yeah maybe 100 different things. Not the point. In the current universe Sacramento is not projected to be better than 20th best and the Celtics are obviously trying to push out their luxury tax commitment to 2019 on the Kyrie extension. Also future draft picks are generally always worth more than a drafted player of equal perceived value due to the "depreciation" of the rookie contract. While your world may be better, it's not likely.
-
Almost positive that once terms of a trade have been submitted to the league office, the terms are final and complete. The only way the C's could change the terms of the trade would be to create another trade that changes the terms of the first trade.
So Boston and Philly would have to complete a trade where if the Lakers pick doesn't convey to Boston based on the terms of the original trade, the pick would convey to Boston no matter where the pick lands in exchange for....
What that exchange is would be important. My guess is it wouldn't be for just swapping the 2018 conveyance for the 2019 Sac. conveyance. Gotta remember, the Sixers could still end up with the 1st pick this year and the first pick next year. Gonna take a lot to have them give up that chance for the Cs to get the LA pick this year.
If trade made after lottery where it is clear Lakers don’t land 1st pick pick (extremely likely to occur), I could see a scenario where the Celtics have targeted a ready play big who somehow is available at 10 and offers the 2019 Sac pick, in exchange, as good value. Maybe Sixers don’t like anyone at 10 but Celtics do. Why wouldn’t that be good value for Sixers?
-
If trade made after lottery where it is clear Lakers don’t land 1st pick pick (extremely likely to occur), I could see a scenario where the Celtics have targeted a ready play big who somehow is available at 10 and offers the 2019 Sac pick, in exchange, as good value. Maybe Sixers don’t like anyone at 10 but Celtics do. Why wouldn’t that be good value for Sixers?
I just don't see any scenario where Ainge would offer the SAC pick for #10 unless somebody like Porter or Bamba slide down that far. It's more likely he offers something like the MEM pick and our pick...which would likely be rejected by PHI.
-
If trade made after lottery where it is clear Lakers don’t land 1st pick pick (extremely likely to occur), I could see a scenario where the Celtics have targeted a ready play big who somehow is available at 10 and offers the 2019 Sac pick, in exchange, as good value. Maybe Sixers don’t like anyone at 10 but Celtics do. Why wouldn’t that be good value for Sixers?
I just don't see any scenario where Ainge would offer the SAC pick for #10 unless somebody like Porter or Bamba slide down that far. It's more likely he offers something like the MEM pick and our pick...which would likely be rejected by PHI.
all I am saying is that the protection should have been negotiated as Boston's option and not a mandatory protection. So the terms in the contract should have read;
'If the 2018 laker pick falls between 6-30 then the Boston Celtics shall have the option of keeping the pick or giving it back to Philadelphia for the 2019 Sacramento first round pick etc.
-
If trade made after lottery where it is clear Lakers don’t land 1st pick pick (extremely likely to occur), I could see a scenario where the Celtics have targeted a ready play big who somehow is available at 10 and offers the 2019 Sac pick, in exchange, as good value. Maybe Sixers don’t like anyone at 10 but Celtics do. Why wouldn’t that be good value for Sixers?
I just don't see any scenario where Ainge would offer the SAC pick for #10 unless somebody like Porter or Bamba slide down that far. It's more likely he offers something like the MEM pick and our pick...which would likely be rejected by PHI.
all I am saying is that the protection should have been negotiated as Boston's option and not a mandatory protection. So the terms in the contract should have read;
'If the 2018 laker pick falls between 6-30 then the Boston Celtics shall have the option of keeping the pick or giving it back to Philadelphia for the 2019 Sacramento first round pick etc.
But they didn't read that way so the only thing Ainge could do is create another trade.
-
Almost positive that once terms of a trade have been submitted to the league office, the terms are final and complete. The only way the C's could change the terms of the trade would be to create another trade that changes the terms of the first trade.
So Boston and Philly would have to complete a trade where if the Lakers pick doesn't convey to Boston based on the terms of the original trade, the pick would convey to Boston no matter where the pick lands in exchange for....
What that exchange is would be important. My guess is it wouldn't be for just swapping the 2018 conveyance for the 2019 Sac. conveyance. Gotta remember, the Sixers could still end up with the 1st pick this year and the first pick next year. Gonna take a lot to have them give up that chance for the Cs to get the LA pick this year.
If trade made after lottery where it is clear Lakers don’t land 1st pick pick (extremely likely to occur), I could see a scenario where the Celtics have targeted a ready play big who somehow is available at 10 and offers the 2019 Sac pick, in exchange, as good value. Maybe Sixers don’t like anyone at 10 but Celtics do. Why wouldn’t that be good value for Sixers?
Because there is still the chance that Sactown sucks and gets the #1 pick. If that were to happen, the Sixers are basically trading the #10 pick this year for a pick in the mid to high 20s next year. Colangelo, being a good GM wouls realize this and hence want more than just a pick swap.
-
In the current universe, the sac 19 is worth more than lal18 outright. It's not only expected to be a better number pick, the cap hit is delayed 1 year, and the draft odds restructuring happens next season. It's the Celtics that wouldn't agree to waiving protections. They never wanted lal18 unless it was 1 through 5.
Yes thank you Erik. I am pretty baffled that people don't understand this. The protections were for the Celtics benefit. If we wanted no protection we could have definitely had it (hey Philly we want the pick if the Lakers exceed expectations! Please let us). Furthermore, the outlook for the Kings has not gotten any better at all. They got rid of George Hill who was signed for two years as a capable NBA veteran. None of their young players (Hield, WCS, Skal) made a big leap this year. Fox looked extremely raw. On top of that NBA flattered the odds for the lottery and there is a chance high schoolers may be allowed in to the next draft. Yet somehow, despite all these things going in our favor, we would want to remove the protections we put on to protect ourselves and add to our cap crunch for next year over generalized impatience? I mean this is all pretty comical..
-
In the current universe, the sac 19 is worth more than lal18 outright. It's not only expected to be a better number pick, the cap hit is delayed 1 year, and the draft odds restructuring happens next season. It's the Celtics that wouldn't agree to waiving protections. They never wanted lal18 unless it was 1 through 5.
Yes thank you Erik. I am pretty baffled that people don't understand this. The protections were for the Celtics benefit. If we wanted no protection we could have definitely had it (hey Philly we want the pick if the Lakers exceed expectations! Please let us). Furthermore, the outlook for the Kings has not gotten any better at all. They got rid of George Hill who was signed for two years as a capable NBA veteran. None of their young players (Hield, WCS, Skal) made a big leap this year. Fox looked extremely raw. On top of that NBA flattered the odds for the lottery and there is a chance high schoolers may be allowed in to the next draft. Yet somehow, despite all these things going in our favor, we would want to remove the protections we put on to protect ourselves and add to our cap crunch for next year over generalized impatience? I mean this is all pretty comical..
Of course the protection was for Boston's benefit that is why it should have been negotiated as an option to allow flexibility.
-
Of course they could. It’s called trading our Kings pick to Philly for their Lakers pick. Nothing stopping that if Philly wanted the deal.
I'm giving you a TP because that answer was so blindingly obvious and I feel silly not having thought of it.
Mike
The response is an option, a viable one, but it really does not answer my question. My question does not require a trade with anyone. Anyone can make a trade, heck Danny could trade the Sacramento pick rights to any team that is willing to trade for it so today it could be flipped to Phily is a given.
My question, on the other hand, is whether the Boston protection on the Laker pick comes with a Boston option. If it does, Boston would not need Philly's consent, they would have the unfettered right to waive the protection. So who knows wether or not this option exists?
It's a very obvious "No". Of course the C's don't have that option or it would have been reported in the trade.
-
In the current universe, the sac 19 is worth more than lal18 outright. It's not only expected to be a better number pick, the cap hit is delayed 1 year, and the draft odds restructuring happens next season. It's the Celtics that wouldn't agree to waiving protections. They never wanted lal18 unless it was 1 through 5.
Yes thank you Erik. I am pretty baffled that people don't understand this. The protections were for the Celtics benefit. If we wanted no protection we could have definitely had it (hey Philly we want the pick if the Lakers exceed expectations! Please let us). Furthermore, the outlook for the Kings has not gotten any better at all. They got rid of George Hill who was signed for two years as a capable NBA veteran. None of their young players (Hield, WCS, Skal) made a big leap this year. Fox looked extremely raw. On top of that NBA flattered the odds for the lottery and there is a chance high schoolers may be allowed in to the next draft. Yet somehow, despite all these things going in our favor, we would want to remove the protections we put on to protect ourselves and add to our cap crunch for next year over generalized impatience? I mean this is all pretty comical..
Yep. That's the right analysis of the transaction. People are impatient because they see the team one player away and love the idea of adding another star player the young core *right now*.
The only scenario I see for a trade to remove protections is: Boston values a player very, very highly that the rest of the league (especially including philly) is sleeping on and he's still there at 10. I really doubt that happens, although if there is a GM with the cojones to pull the trigger, it's the guy who eats at chipotle every day.
-
Almost positive that once terms of a trade have been submitted to the league office, the terms are final and complete. The only way the C's could change the terms of the trade would be to create another trade that changes the terms of the first trade.
So Boston and Philly would have to complete a trade where if the Lakers pick doesn't convey to Boston based on the terms of the original trade, the pick would convey to Boston no matter where the pick lands in exchange for....
What that exchange is would be important. My guess is it wouldn't be for just swapping the 2018 conveyance for the 2019 Sac. conveyance. Gotta remember, the Sixers could still end up with the 1st pick this year and the first pick next year. Gonna take a lot to have them give up that chance for the Cs to get the LA pick this year.
Well, that wouldn’t change regardless.
C’s can’t get the first this year or next year. This years pick and next year’s are top 1 protected.
In this hypothetical scenario where we want the 10th pick, we would obviously wait to make sure it’s not 2 or 3, which would automatically convey. Once its revealed the pick is in fact #10, Philly clearly doesn’t have a chance at the top pick. The Celtics could trade the Sac pick back to them for the 10th pick, but I don’t see why they do that unless there is a player that drops to 10 that they absolutely love.
Next year with change the the lottery system that Sac pick will be interesting. Would suck if they somehow win the lottery and we get stuck with the Sixers 20+ pick.
-
Delete
-
In the current universe, the sac 19 is worth more than lal18 outright. It's not only expected to be a better number pick, the cap hit is delayed 1 year, and the draft odds restructuring happens next season. It's the Celtics that wouldn't agree to waiving protections. They never wanted lal18 unless it was 1 through 5.
Yes thank you Erik. I am pretty baffled that people don't understand this. The protections were for the Celtics benefit. If we wanted no protection we could have definitely had it (hey Philly we want the pick if the Lakers exceed expectations! Please let us). Furthermore, the outlook for the Kings has not gotten any better at all. They got rid of George Hill who was signed for two years as a capable NBA veteran. None of their young players (Hield, WCS, Skal) made a big leap this year. Fox looked extremely raw. On top of that NBA flattered the odds for the lottery and there is a chance high schoolers may be allowed in to the next draft. Yet somehow, despite all these things going in our favor, we would want to remove the protections we put on to protect ourselves and add to our cap crunch for next year over generalized impatience? I mean this is all pretty comical..
Yep. That's the right analysis of the transaction. People are impatient because they see the team one player away and love the idea of adding another star player the young core *right now*.
The only scenario I see for a trade to remove protections is: Boston values a player very, very highly that the rest of the league (especially including philly) is sleeping on and he's still there at 10. I really doubt that happens, although if there is a GM with the cojones to pull the trigger, it's the guy who eats at chipotle every day.
Not to pick on your post (it was just the last one), but just to be perfectly clear: the Sac19 protection is clearly in 76ers favor. I can't imagine that either team projected Phi19 to be better than Sac19. But if we're talking specifically about Lal18, it's pretty obvious to me that the Celtics didn't want it unprotected. So to recap:
* 2018: Provision that #1 pick goes to Sixers -> 76ers wanted it.
* 2018: Provision that #2-5 only goes to Celtics -> Celtics wanted it.
* 2019: Provision that #1 pick goes to Sixers -> 76ers wanted it.
* 2019: Provision that #2-5 only goes to Celtics -> 76ers wanted it.
That's why 76ers fans were laughing their asses off on trade day because it looked like we got a pick that could very easily translate to Tatum + PHI19 for Fultz. It wasn't until after people realized just how much better Tatum is than Fultz that people changed their minds. Also, Sixers fans weren't looking at it from Celtics' brass perspective of needing to salary dump for Hayward so #1->#3 salary was pretty significant.
It's just that the purpose of this thread is a bit ironic because you're literally taking the only situation in which the Celtics wanted to protect themselves and asking if we can remove it, even after we know it's not a great pick (i.e. #6 and we could be talking).
This is false Erik. The sac pick has not protection beyond number 1. Can you edit this post so you don't confuse the whole board. Also the fans obviously were not laughing their assets off something that isn't true. Funny stuff
-
Yeah maybe 100 different things. Not the point. In the current universe Sacramento is not projected to be better than 20th best and the Celtics are obviously trying to push out their luxury tax commitment to 2019 on the Kyrie extension. Also future draft picks are generally always worth more than a drafted player of equal perceived value due to the "depreciation" of the rookie contract. While your world may be better, it's not likely.
The Sacramento pick is top 1 protected. If it ends up at 1, the Celtics get the Sixers pick, which will almost certainly be a pick in the 20's. That was the point I was making. That even if the Kings are still terrible, there is still a 20% (or whatever the new percentage is) chance that the pick lands at #1 and thus stays in Philly and doesn't get to Boston. But there is also a chance the Kings aren't terrible or that with the new lottery odds they are terrible but the pick ends up being 5 or 6. I think there are plenty of arguments that the player drafted at 10 in this draft will be better than the player drafted at 5 next year (history tells us not all drafts are equal). I think there are plenty of arguments that Boston having the player next year, when it likely won't be in the luxury tax is more valuable then pushing it off a year and ending up paying more when the team is in luxury tax. I think there are plenty of arguments that having that salary next year would be far better in a trade both for value and actual salary.
Now sure if the Sacto pick ends up at 2 or 3 next year, you would expect the player to be better than a player taken at 10 this year, but even that is not a given.
-
In the current universe, the sac 19 is worth more than lal18 outright. It's not only expected to be a better number pick, the cap hit is delayed 1 year, and the draft odds restructuring happens next season. It's the Celtics that wouldn't agree to waiving protections. They never wanted lal18 unless it was 1 through 5.
Yes thank you Erik. I am pretty baffled that people don't understand this. The protections were for the Celtics benefit. If we wanted no protection we could have definitely had it (hey Philly we want the pick if the Lakers exceed expectations! Please let us). Furthermore, the outlook for the Kings has not gotten any better at all. They got rid of George Hill who was signed for two years as a capable NBA veteran. None of their young players (Hield, WCS, Skal) made a big leap this year. Fox looked extremely raw. On top of that NBA flattered the odds for the lottery and there is a chance high schoolers may be allowed in to the next draft. Yet somehow, despite all these things going in our favor, we would want to remove the protections we put on to protect ourselves and add to our cap crunch for next year over generalized impatience? I mean this is all pretty comical..
Yep. That's the right analysis of the transaction. People are impatient because they see the team one player away and love the idea of adding another star player the young core *right now*.
The only scenario I see for a trade to remove protections is: Boston values a player very, very highly that the rest of the league (especially including philly) is sleeping on and he's still there at 10. I really doubt that happens, although if there is a GM with the cojones to pull the trigger, it's the guy who eats at chipotle every day.
Not to pick on your post (it was just the last one), but just to be perfectly clear: the Sac19 protection is clearly in 76ers favor. I can't imagine that either team projected Phi19 to be better than Sac19. But if we're talking specifically about Lal18, it's pretty obvious to me that the Celtics didn't want it unprotected. So to recap:
* 2018: Provision that #1 pick goes to Sixers -> 76ers wanted it.
* 2018: Provision that #2-5 only goes to Celtics -> Celtics wanted it.
* 2019: Provision that #1 pick goes to Sixers -> 76ers wanted it.
* 2019: Provision that #2-5 only goes to Celtics -> 76ers wanted it.
That's why 76ers fans were laughing their asses off on trade day because it looked like we got a pick that could very easily translate to Tatum + PHI19 for Fultz. It wasn't until after people realized just how much better Tatum is than Fultz that people changed their minds. Also, Sixers fans weren't looking at it from Celtics' brass perspective of needing to salary dump for Hayward so #1->#3 salary was pretty significant.
It's just that the purpose of this thread is a bit ironic because you're literally taking the only situation in which the Celtics wanted to protect themselves and asking if we can remove it, even after we know it's not a great pick (i.e. #6 and we could be talking).
This is false Erik. The sac pick has not protection beyond number 1. Can you edit this post so you don't confuse the whole board. Also the fans obviously were not laughing their assets off something that isn't true. Funny stuff
Wow I could have sworn SAC19 was 2-5 protected. Thanks for the info. I do remember the Sixers fans on libertyballers screaming that they fleeced us, though.
https://www.libertyballers.com/2017/6/17/15825478/2017-nba-draft-sixers-trade-no-1-pick-with-boston-celtics-finalized-monday-no-3-pick-markelle-fultz
-
In the current universe, the sac 19 is worth more than lal18 outright. It's not only expected to be a better number pick, the cap hit is delayed 1 year, and the draft odds restructuring happens next season. It's the Celtics that wouldn't agree to waiving protections. They never wanted lal18 unless it was 1 through 5.
Yes thank you Erik. I am pretty baffled that people don't understand this. The protections were for the Celtics benefit. If we wanted no protection we could have definitely had it (hey Philly we want the pick if the Lakers exceed expectations! Please let us). Furthermore, the outlook for the Kings has not gotten any better at all. They got rid of George Hill who was signed for two years as a capable NBA veteran. None of their young players (Hield, WCS, Skal) made a big leap this year. Fox looked extremely raw. On top of that NBA flattered the odds for the lottery and there is a chance high schoolers may be allowed in to the next draft. Yet somehow, despite all these things going in our favor, we would want to remove the protections we put on to protect ourselves and add to our cap crunch for next year over generalized impatience? I mean this is all pretty comical..
Yep. That's the right analysis of the transaction. People are impatient because they see the team one player away and love the idea of adding another star player the young core *right now*.
The only scenario I see for a trade to remove protections is: Boston values a player very, very highly that the rest of the league (especially including philly) is sleeping on and he's still there at 10. I really doubt that happens, although if there is a GM with the cojones to pull the trigger, it's the guy who eats at chipotle every day.
Not to pick on your post (it was just the last one), but just to be perfectly clear: the Sac19 protection is clearly in 76ers favor. I can't imagine that either team projected Phi19 to be better than Sac19. But if we're talking specifically about Lal18, it's pretty obvious to me that the Celtics didn't want it unprotected. So to recap:
* 2018: Provision that #1 pick goes to Sixers -> 76ers wanted it.
* 2018: Provision that #2-5 only goes to Celtics -> Celtics wanted it.
* 2019: Provision that #1 pick goes to Sixers -> 76ers wanted it.
* 2019: Provision that #2-5 only goes to Celtics -> 76ers wanted it.
That's why 76ers fans were laughing their asses off on trade day because it looked like we got a pick that could very easily translate to Tatum + PHI19 for Fultz. It wasn't until after people realized just how much better Tatum is than Fultz that people changed their minds. Also, Sixers fans weren't looking at it from Celtics' brass perspective of needing to salary dump for Hayward so #1->#3 salary was pretty significant.
It's just that the purpose of this thread is a bit ironic because you're literally taking the only situation in which the Celtics wanted to protect themselves and asking if we can remove it, even after we know it's not a great pick (i.e. #6 and we could be talking).
This is false Erik. The sac pick has not protection beyond number 1. Can you edit this post so you don't confuse the whole board. Also the fans obviously were not laughing their assets off something that isn't true. Funny stuff
Wow I could have sworn SAC19 was 2-5 protected. Thanks for the info. I do remember the Sixers fans on libertyballers screaming that they fleeced us, though.
https://www.libertyballers.com/2017/6/17/15825478/2017-nba-draft-sixers-trade-no-1-pick-with-boston-celtics-finalized-monday-no-3-pick-markelle-fultz
I mean liberty ballers, which I read regularly for amusement, is pretty over the top at times. At this time most of their fans acknowledge that at best this is going to be a wash for them because Tatum is a very good player that looked better than expected as a rookie and we will still get a second lottery pick on top of him. Fultz doesn't look like a lebron type by any stretch. So Tatum, who could be an occasional allstar, and a lottery pick is a very good trade even if fultz works out. If fultz doesn't work out, the trade is an absolute disaster for them.
-
Yeah maybe 100 different things. Not the point. In the current universe Sacramento is not projected to be better than 20th best and the Celtics are obviously trying to push out their luxury tax commitment to 2019 on the Kyrie extension. Also future draft picks are generally always worth more than a drafted player of equal perceived value due to the "depreciation" of the rookie contract. While your world may be better, it's not likely.
The Sacramento pick is top 1 protected. If it ends up at 1, the Celtics get the Sixers pick, which will almost certainly be a pick in the 20's. That was the point I was making. That even if the Kings are still terrible, there is still a 20% (or whatever the new percentage is) chance that the pick lands at #1 and thus stays in Philly and doesn't get to Boston. But there is also a chance the Kings aren't terrible or that with the new lottery odds they are terrible but the pick ends up being 5 or 6. I think there are plenty of arguments that the player drafted at 10 in this draft will be better than the player drafted at 5 next year (history tells us not all drafts are equal). I think there are plenty of arguments that Boston having the player next year, when it likely won't be in the luxury tax is more valuable then pushing it off a year and ending up paying more when the team is in luxury tax. I think there are plenty of arguments that having that salary next year would be far better in a trade both for value and actual salary.
Now sure if the Sacto pick ends up at 2 or 3 next year, you would expect the player to be better than a player taken at 10 this year, but even that is not a given.
Moranis you really got to stop overselling the chances of this going number 1 and acting like it completely kills the pick. There is at absolute worst a 14% chance of the pick being number 1 with the new odds. Steph Curry can hit better than that from half court. Lets not run around like crazy over something that is between 10-15% chance of happening at worst. It obviously would really suck if it happened, but its just not very likely.
-
Yeah maybe 100 different things. Not the point. In the current universe Sacramento is not projected to be better than 20th best and the Celtics are obviously trying to push out their luxury tax commitment to 2019 on the Kyrie extension. Also future draft picks are generally always worth more than a drafted player of equal perceived value due to the "depreciation" of the rookie contract. While your world may be better, it's not likely.
The Sacramento pick is top 1 protected. If it ends up at 1, the Celtics get the Sixers pick, which will almost certainly be a pick in the 20's. That was the point I was making. That even if the Kings are still terrible, there is still a 20% (or whatever the new percentage is) chance that the pick lands at #1 and thus stays in Philly and doesn't get to Boston. But there is also a chance the Kings aren't terrible or that with the new lottery odds they are terrible but the pick ends up being 5 or 6. I think there are plenty of arguments that the player drafted at 10 in this draft will be better than the player drafted at 5 next year (history tells us not all drafts are equal). I think there are plenty of arguments that Boston having the player next year, when it likely won't be in the luxury tax is more valuable then pushing it off a year and ending up paying more when the team is in luxury tax. I think there are plenty of arguments that having that salary next year would be far better in a trade both for value and actual salary.
Now sure if the Sacto pick ends up at 2 or 3 next year, you would expect the player to be better than a player taken at 10 this year, but even that is not a given.
Moranis you really got to stop overselling the chances of this going number 1 and acting like it completely kills the pick. There is at absolute worst a 14% chance of the pick being number 1 with the new odds. Steph Curry can hit better than that from half court. Lets not run around like crazy over something that is between 10-15% chance of happening at worst. It obviously would really suck if it happened, but its just not very likely.
It may be unlikely but has to be considered when placing value on that 2019 Sactown pick. Just assuming the pick will land 2-10 is a bad assumption, one, I am guessing, a good GM would not make. That 10-15 percent chances really lowers the value of that pick.
-
Yeah maybe 100 different things. Not the point. In the current universe Sacramento is not projected to be better than 20th best and the Celtics are obviously trying to push out their luxury tax commitment to 2019 on the Kyrie extension. Also future draft picks are generally always worth more than a drafted player of equal perceived value due to the "depreciation" of the rookie contract. While your world may be better, it's not likely.
The Sacramento pick is top 1 protected. If it ends up at 1, the Celtics get the Sixers pick, which will almost certainly be a pick in the 20's. That was the point I was making. That even if the Kings are still terrible, there is still a 20% (or whatever the new percentage is) chance that the pick lands at #1 and thus stays in Philly and doesn't get to Boston. But there is also a chance the Kings aren't terrible or that with the new lottery odds they are terrible but the pick ends up being 5 or 6. I think there are plenty of arguments that the player drafted at 10 in this draft will be better than the player drafted at 5 next year (history tells us not all drafts are equal). I think there are plenty of arguments that Boston having the player next year, when it likely won't be in the luxury tax is more valuable then pushing it off a year and ending up paying more when the team is in luxury tax. I think there are plenty of arguments that having that salary next year would be far better in a trade both for value and actual salary.
Now sure if the Sacto pick ends up at 2 or 3 next year, you would expect the player to be better than a player taken at 10 this year, but even that is not a given.
Moranis you really got to stop overselling the chances of this going number 1 and acting like it completely kills the pick. There is at absolute worst a 14% chance of the pick being number 1 with the new odds. Steph Curry can hit better than that from half court. Lets not run around like crazy over something that is between 10-15% chance of happening at worst. It obviously would really suck if it happened, but its just not very likely.
It may be unlikely but has to be considered when placing value on that 2019 Sactown pick. Just assuming the pick will land 2-10 is a bad assumption, one, I am guessing, a good GM would not make. That 10-15 percent chances really lowers the value of that pick.
I mean calling it 20% when the absolute worst is 14% is literally overselling the likelihood. If you had to run a projection the average is probably about 10% cause it is certainly possible they end up 5th to 7th in odds.
Also what are you talking about with it ending worse than 10th? Are the kings getting paul George for this?
-
Yeah maybe 100 different things. Not the point. In the current universe Sacramento is not projected to be better than 20th best and the Celtics are obviously trying to push out their luxury tax commitment to 2019 on the Kyrie extension. Also future draft picks are generally always worth more than a drafted player of equal perceived value due to the "depreciation" of the rookie contract. While your world may be better, it's not likely.
The Sacramento pick is top 1 protected. If it ends up at 1, the Celtics get the Sixers pick, which will almost certainly be a pick in the 20's. That was the point I was making. That even if the Kings are still terrible, there is still a 20% (or whatever the new percentage is) chance that the pick lands at #1 and thus stays in Philly and doesn't get to Boston. But there is also a chance the Kings aren't terrible or that with the new lottery odds they are terrible but the pick ends up being 5 or 6. I think there are plenty of arguments that the player drafted at 10 in this draft will be better than the player drafted at 5 next year (history tells us not all drafts are equal). I think there are plenty of arguments that Boston having the player next year, when it likely won't be in the luxury tax is more valuable then pushing it off a year and ending up paying more when the team is in luxury tax. I think there are plenty of arguments that having that salary next year would be far better in a trade both for value and actual salary.
Now sure if the Sacto pick ends up at 2 or 3 next year, you would expect the player to be better than a player taken at 10 this year, but even that is not a given.
Moranis you really got to stop overselling the chances of this going number 1 and acting like it completely kills the pick. There is at absolute worst a 14% chance of the pick being number 1 with the new odds. Steph Curry can hit better than that from half court. Lets not run around like crazy over something that is between 10-15% chance of happening at worst. It obviously would really suck if it happened, but its just not very likely.
It may be unlikely but has to be considered when placing value on that 2019 Sactown pick. Just assuming the pick will land 2-10 is a bad assumption, one, I am guessing, a good GM would not make. That 10-15 percent chances really lowers the value of that pick.
I mean calling it 20% when the absolute worst is 14% is literally overselling the likelihood. If you had to run a projection the average is probably about 10% cause it is certainly possible they end up 5th to 7th in odds.
Also what are you talking about with it ending worse than 10th? Are the kings getting paul George for this?
I didn't know the percentage note the (or whatever the new percentage is). For someone complaining about nit picking, you sure do a lot of it.
-
Yeah maybe 100 different things. Not the point. In the current universe Sacramento is not projected to be better than 20th best and the Celtics are obviously trying to push out their luxury tax commitment to 2019 on the Kyrie extension. Also future draft picks are generally always worth more than a drafted player of equal perceived value due to the "depreciation" of the rookie contract. While your world may be better, it's not likely.
The Sacramento pick is top 1 protected. If it ends up at 1, the Celtics get the Sixers pick, which will almost certainly be a pick in the 20's. That was the point I was making. That even if the Kings are still terrible, there is still a 20% (or whatever the new percentage is) chance that the pick lands at #1 and thus stays in Philly and doesn't get to Boston. But there is also a chance the Kings aren't terrible or that with the new lottery odds they are terrible but the pick ends up being 5 or 6. I think there are plenty of arguments that the player drafted at 10 in this draft will be better than the player drafted at 5 next year (history tells us not all drafts are equal). I think there are plenty of arguments that Boston having the player next year, when it likely won't be in the luxury tax is more valuable then pushing it off a year and ending up paying more when the team is in luxury tax. I think there are plenty of arguments that having that salary next year would be far better in a trade both for value and actual salary.
Now sure if the Sacto pick ends up at 2 or 3 next year, you would expect the player to be better than a player taken at 10 this year, but even that is not a given.
Moranis you really got to stop overselling the chances of this going number 1 and acting like it completely kills the pick. There is at absolute worst a 14% chance of the pick being number 1 with the new odds. Steph Curry can hit better than that from half court. Lets not run around like crazy over something that is between 10-15% chance of happening at worst. It obviously would really suck if it happened, but its just not very likely.
It may be unlikely but has to be considered when placing value on that 2019 Sactown pick. Just assuming the pick will land 2-10 is a bad assumption, one, I am guessing, a good GM would not make. That 10-15 percent chances really lowers the value of that pick.
I mean calling it 20% when the absolute worst is 14% is literally overselling the likelihood. If you had to run a projection the average is probably about 10% cause it is certainly possible they end up 5th to 7th in odds.
Also what are you talking about with it ending worse than 10th? Are the kings getting paul George for this?
I didn't know the percentage note the (or whatever the new percentage is). For someone complaining about nit picking, you sure do a lot of it.
classic. TP Moranis
-
Yeah maybe 100 different things. Not the point. In the current universe Sacramento is not projected to be better than 20th best and the Celtics are obviously trying to push out their luxury tax commitment to 2019 on the Kyrie extension. Also future draft picks are generally always worth more than a drafted player of equal perceived value due to the "depreciation" of the rookie contract. While your world may be better, it's not likely.
The Sacramento pick is top 1 protected. If it ends up at 1, the Celtics get the Sixers pick, which will almost certainly be a pick in the 20's. That was the point I was making. That even if the Kings are still terrible, there is still a 20% (or whatever the new percentage is) chance that the pick lands at #1 and thus stays in Philly and doesn't get to Boston. But there is also a chance the Kings aren't terrible or that with the new lottery odds they are terrible but the pick ends up being 5 or 6. I think there are plenty of arguments that the player drafted at 10 in this draft will be better than the player drafted at 5 next year (history tells us not all drafts are equal). I think there are plenty of arguments that Boston having the player next year, when it likely won't be in the luxury tax is more valuable then pushing it off a year and ending up paying more when the team is in luxury tax. I think there are plenty of arguments that having that salary next year would be far better in a trade both for value and actual salary.
Now sure if the Sacto pick ends up at 2 or 3 next year, you would expect the player to be better than a player taken at 10 this year, but even that is not a given.
Moranis you really got to stop overselling the chances of this going number 1 and acting like it completely kills the pick. There is at absolute worst a 14% chance of the pick being number 1 with the new odds. Steph Curry can hit better than that from half court. Lets not run around like crazy over something that is between 10-15% chance of happening at worst. It obviously would really suck if it happened, but its just not very likely.
It may be unlikely but has to be considered when placing value on that 2019 Sactown pick. Just assuming the pick will land 2-10 is a bad assumption, one, I am guessing, a good GM would not make. That 10-15 percent chances really lowers the value of that pick.
I mean calling it 20% when the absolute worst is 14% is literally overselling the likelihood. If you had to run a projection the average is probably about 10% cause it is certainly possible they end up 5th to 7th in odds.
Also what are you talking about with it ending worse than 10th? Are the kings getting paul George for this?
Not sure what you are asking here
-
Yeah maybe 100 different things. Not the point. In the current universe Sacramento is not projected to be better than 20th best and the Celtics are obviously trying to push out their luxury tax commitment to 2019 on the Kyrie extension. Also future draft picks are generally always worth more than a drafted player of equal perceived value due to the "depreciation" of the rookie contract. While your world may be better, it's not likely.
The Sacramento pick is top 1 protected. If it ends up at 1, the Celtics get the Sixers pick, which will almost certainly be a pick in the 20's. That was the point I was making. That even if the Kings are still terrible, there is still a 20% (or whatever the new percentage is) chance that the pick lands at #1 and thus stays in Philly and doesn't get to Boston. But there is also a chance the Kings aren't terrible or that with the new lottery odds they are terrible but the pick ends up being 5 or 6. I think there are plenty of arguments that the player drafted at 10 in this draft will be better than the player drafted at 5 next year (history tells us not all drafts are equal). I think there are plenty of arguments that Boston having the player next year, when it likely won't be in the luxury tax is more valuable then pushing it off a year and ending up paying more when the team is in luxury tax. I think there are plenty of arguments that having that salary next year would be far better in a trade both for value and actual salary.
Now sure if the Sacto pick ends up at 2 or 3 next year, you would expect the player to be better than a player taken at 10 this year, but even that is not a given.
Moranis you really got to stop overselling the chances of this going number 1 and acting like it completely kills the pick. There is at absolute worst a 14% chance of the pick being number 1 with the new odds. Steph Curry can hit better than that from half court. Lets not run around like crazy over something that is between 10-15% chance of happening at worst. It obviously would really suck if it happened, but its just not very likely.
It may be unlikely but has to be considered when placing value on that 2019 Sactown pick. Just assuming the pick will land 2-10 is a bad assumption, one, I am guessing, a good GM would not make. That 10-15 percent chances really lowers the value of that pick.
I mean calling it 20% when the absolute worst is 14% is literally overselling the likelihood. If you had to run a projection the average is probably about 10% cause it is certainly possible they end up 5th to 7th in odds.
Also what are you talking about with it ending worse than 10th? Are the kings getting paul George for this?
Not sure what you are asking here
You said it is a dumb assumption to say the pick the would end up 2-10. I agree with you we shouldn't assume there is no chance it could be number 1, but I am not sure what you mean with the 10 part. Are you saying you think there is some reasonable chance that the pick ends up worse than 10th? Cause unless they sign someone like Paul George that really doesn't seem possible. In a season where there was more tanking than ever you had to get 39 wins to pick 11th. If the Kings win 39 or more games next year with Fox, WCS, Hield and a lottery pick it would be one of the most improbable seasons in sports. They would actually need to sign someone like George to bring them there. I think Lebron on that team they may only be .500. There just isn't a lot of top end talent.
-
Yeah maybe 100 different things. Not the point. In the current universe Sacramento is not projected to be better than 20th best and the Celtics are obviously trying to push out their luxury tax commitment to 2019 on the Kyrie extension. Also future draft picks are generally always worth more than a drafted player of equal perceived value due to the "depreciation" of the rookie contract. While your world may be better, it's not likely.
The Sacramento pick is top 1 protected. If it ends up at 1, the Celtics get the Sixers pick, which will almost certainly be a pick in the 20's. That was the point I was making. That even if the Kings are still terrible, there is still a 20% (or whatever the new percentage is) chance that the pick lands at #1 and thus stays in Philly and doesn't get to Boston. But there is also a chance the Kings aren't terrible or that with the new lottery odds they are terrible but the pick ends up being 5 or 6. I think there are plenty of arguments that the player drafted at 10 in this draft will be better than the player drafted at 5 next year (history tells us not all drafts are equal). I think there are plenty of arguments that Boston having the player next year, when it likely won't be in the luxury tax is more valuable then pushing it off a year and ending up paying more when the team is in luxury tax. I think there are plenty of arguments that having that salary next year would be far better in a trade both for value and actual salary.
Now sure if the Sacto pick ends up at 2 or 3 next year, you would expect the player to be better than a player taken at 10 this year, but even that is not a given.
Moranis you really got to stop overselling the chances of this going number 1 and acting like it completely kills the pick. There is at absolute worst a 14% chance of the pick being number 1 with the new odds. Steph Curry can hit better than that from half court. Lets not run around like crazy over something that is between 10-15% chance of happening at worst. It obviously would really suck if it happened, but its just not very likely.
It may be unlikely but has to be considered when placing value on that 2019 Sactown pick. Just assuming the pick will land 2-10 is a bad assumption, one, I am guessing, a good GM would not make. That 10-15 percent chances really lowers the value of that pick.
I mean calling it 20% when the absolute worst is 14% is literally overselling the likelihood. If you had to run a projection the average is probably about 10% cause it is certainly possible they end up 5th to 7th in odds.
Also what are you talking about with it ending worse than 10th? Are the kings getting paul George for this?
Not sure what you are asking here
You said it is a dumb assumption to say the pick the would end up 2-10. I agree with you we shouldn't assume there is no chance it could be number 1, but I am not sure what you mean with the 10 part. Are you saying you think there is some reasonable chance that the pick ends up worse than 10th? Cause unless they sign someone like Paul George that really doesn't seem possible. In a season where there was more tanking than ever you had to get 39 wins to pick 11th. If the Kings win 39 or more games next year with Fox, WCS, Hield and a lottery pick it would be one of the most improbable seasons in sports. They would actually need to sign someone like George to bring them there. I think Lebron on that team they may only be .500. There just isn't a lot of top end talent.
I said 10 because yes, there is a chance Sacramento's pick ends up 10th, whether that be because they somehow end up as the 10th worse team or if its because they end up7th, 8th or 9th and a team or teams, with the new higher chances of getting into the top 4, not 3, get boosted into the top 4 from behind them. Its still a posdibility they could pick 10th.
And so when you look at the chance of the pick beung 1st and the Celtics getting a mid to late 20s pick and the chance that the pick could land 9th or 10th, the Sactown pick can't be valued as a sure fire top 2-5 pick. In trading the Sac pick, other GMs will definitely consider these chances.
-
Yeah maybe 100 different things. Not the point. In the current universe Sacramento is not projected to be better than 20th best and the Celtics are obviously trying to push out their luxury tax commitment to 2019 on the Kyrie extension. Also future draft picks are generally always worth more than a drafted player of equal perceived value due to the "depreciation" of the rookie contract. While your world may be better, it's not likely.
The Sacramento pick is top 1 protected. If it ends up at 1, the Celtics get the Sixers pick, which will almost certainly be a pick in the 20's. That was the point I was making. That even if the Kings are still terrible, there is still a 20% (or whatever the new percentage is) chance that the pick lands at #1 and thus stays in Philly and doesn't get to Boston. But there is also a chance the Kings aren't terrible or that with the new lottery odds they are terrible but the pick ends up being 5 or 6. I think there are plenty of arguments that the player drafted at 10 in this draft will be better than the player drafted at 5 next year (history tells us not all drafts are equal). I think there are plenty of arguments that Boston having the player next year, when it likely won't be in the luxury tax is more valuable then pushing it off a year and ending up paying more when the team is in luxury tax. I think there are plenty of arguments that having that salary next year would be far better in a trade both for value and actual salary.
Now sure if the Sacto pick ends up at 2 or 3 next year, you would expect the player to be better than a player taken at 10 this year, but even that is not a given.
Moranis you really got to stop overselling the chances of this going number 1 and acting like it completely kills the pick. There is at absolute worst a 14% chance of the pick being number 1 with the new odds. Steph Curry can hit better than that from half court. Lets not run around like crazy over something that is between 10-15% chance of happening at worst. It obviously would really suck if it happened, but its just not very likely.
It may be unlikely but has to be considered when placing value on that 2019 Sactown pick. Just assuming the pick will land 2-10 is a bad assumption, one, I am guessing, a good GM would not make. That 10-15 percent chances really lowers the value of that pick.
I mean calling it 20% when the absolute worst is 14% is literally overselling the likelihood. If you had to run a projection the average is probably about 10% cause it is certainly possible they end up 5th to 7th in odds.
Also what are you talking about with it ending worse than 10th? Are the kings getting paul George for this?
Not sure what you are asking here
You said it is a dumb assumption to say the pick the would end up 2-10. I agree with you we shouldn't assume there is no chance it could be number 1, but I am not sure what you mean with the 10 part. Are you saying you think there is some reasonable chance that the pick ends up worse than 10th? Cause unless they sign someone like Paul George that really doesn't seem possible. In a season where there was more tanking than ever you had to get 39 wins to pick 11th. If the Kings win 39 or more games next year with Fox, WCS, Hield and a lottery pick it would be one of the most improbable seasons in sports. They would actually need to sign someone like George to bring them there. I think Lebron on that team they may only be .500. There just isn't a lot of top end talent.
I said 10 because yes, there is a chance Sacramento's pick ends up 10th, whether that be because they somehow end up as the 10th worse team or if its because they end up7th, 8th or 9th and a team or teams, with the new higher chances of getting into the top 4, not 3, get boosted into the top 4 from behind them. Its still a posdibility they could pick 10th.
And so when you look at the chance of the pick beung 1st and the Celtics getting a mid to late 20s pick and the chance that the pick could land 9th or 10th, the Sactown pick can't be valued as a sure fire top 2-5 pick. In trading the Sac pick, other GMs will definitely consider these chances.
Sure... but I think saying it is very likely it ends up 2-7 is reasonable and I would much prefer that to getting the 10th pick in this years draft. Which is what this thread was originally asking. I still think we would be crazy to do that trade. Mikal bridges is going there in the first mock I saw. I would be happier with a shot at 2, 3, 4 or 5 next year than that (and i think the 76ers would too).
-
The Lakers pick is currently slated to be #10. I wouldn't swap the rights to next years Kings pick for #10 however if it had ended up 7 or 8 I would likely take the trade and even add the clippers pick as an incentive.
I assume the following players will go top 6
1-2. Ayton and Doncic
3. Jackson JR
4-6 Bagely, Young, Bamba,
That would likely mean the Cs could land Carter at 7 or 8 and maybe even Bamba if a player surprises people and jumps into that top 6.
-
Actually the OP was asking if the 2-5 protection could be waived, which it can't. The discussion devolved into which pick would you want and how to value each pick, especially as compared to each other. I think I would rather have the 10th pick this year. I think its a much better chance of getting the better overall player.
-
Actually the OP was asking if the 2-5 protection could be waived, which it can't. The discussion devolved into which pick would you want and how to value each pick, especially as compared to each other. I think I would rather have the 10th pick this year. I think its a much better chance of getting the better overall player.
In other words, it should've been a 2 post thread. OP and then "No". ;)
-
I prefer Kings pick with protections over #10 Lakers pick.
-
I prefer Kings pick with protections over #10 Lakers pick.
We can do a poll, I would be pretty surprised if most people didn't agree with you.
-
Almost positive that once terms of a trade have been submitted to the league office, the terms are final and complete. The only way the C's could change the terms of the trade would be to create another trade that changes the terms of the first trade.
So Boston and Philly would have to complete a trade where if the Lakers pick doesn't convey to Boston based on the terms of the original trade, the pick would convey to Boston no matter where the pick lands in exchange for....
What that exchange is would be important. My guess is it wouldn't be for just swapping the 2018 conveyance for the 2019 Sac. conveyance. Gotta remember, the Sixers could still end up with the 1st pick this year and the first pick next year. Gonna take a lot to have them give up that chance for the Cs to get the LA pick this year.
If trade made after lottery where it is clear Lakers don’t land 1st pick pick (extremely likely to occur), I could see a scenario where the Celtics have targeted a ready play big who somehow is available at 10 and offers the 2019 Sac pick, in exchange, as good value. Maybe Sixers don’t like anyone at 10 but Celtics do. Why wouldn’t that be good value for Sixers?
Because there is still the chance that Sactown sucks and gets the #1 pick. If that were to happen, the Sixers are basically trading the #10 pick this year for a pick in the mid to high 20s next year. Colangelo, being a good GM wouls realize this and hence want more than just a pick swap.
Sure but they would take that into account. Mathematically a pretty low risk and if it does they’ll be ecstatic and also keep their own 1st round pick.
-
In the current universe, the sac 19 is worth more than lal18 outright. It's not only expected to be a better number pick, the cap hit is delayed 1 year, and the draft odds restructuring happens next season. It's the Celtics that wouldn't agree to waiving protections. They never wanted lal18 unless it was 1 through 5.
Yes thank you Erik. I am pretty baffled that people don't understand this. The protections were for the Celtics benefit. If we wanted no protection we could have definitely had it (hey Philly we want the pick if the Lakers exceed expectations! Please let us). Furthermore, the outlook for the Kings has not gotten any better at all. They got rid of George Hill who was signed for two years as a capable NBA veteran. None of their young players (Hield, WCS, Skal) made a big leap this year. Fox looked extremely raw. On top of that NBA flattered the odds for the lottery and there is a chance high schoolers may be allowed in to the next draft. Yet somehow, despite all these things going in our favor, we would want to remove the protections we put on to protect ourselves and add to our cap crunch for next year over generalized impatience? I mean this is all pretty comical..
Of course the protection was for Boston's benefit that is why it should have been negotiated as an option to allow flexibility.
Agreed but I’ve never seen that done and wonder if CBA prohibits options.
-
In the current universe, the sac 19 is worth more than lal18 outright. It's not only expected to be a better number pick, the cap hit is delayed 1 year, and the draft odds restructuring happens next season. It's the Celtics that wouldn't agree to waiving protections. They never wanted lal18 unless it was 1 through 5.
Yes thank you Erik. I am pretty baffled that people don't understand this. The protections were for the Celtics benefit. If we wanted no protection we could have definitely had it (hey Philly we want the pick if the Lakers exceed expectations! Please let us). Furthermore, the outlook for the Kings has not gotten any better at all. They got rid of George Hill who was signed for two years as a capable NBA veteran. None of their young players (Hield, WCS, Skal) made a big leap this year. Fox looked extremely raw. On top of that NBA flattered the odds for the lottery and there is a chance high schoolers may be allowed in to the next draft. Yet somehow, despite all these things going in our favor, we would want to remove the protections we put on to protect ourselves and add to our cap crunch for next year over generalized impatience? I mean this is all pretty comical..
Of course the protection was for Boston's benefit that is why it should have been negotiated as an option to allow flexibility.
Agreed but I’ve never seen that done and wonder if CBA prohibits options.
As a number of posts have already stated, protections cannot be waived (or adjusted) by one of the teams. That is not an option that can be negotiated. It is just not allowed.
-
Actually the OP was asking if the 2-5 protection could be waived, which it can't. The discussion devolved into which pick would you want and how to value each pick, especially as compared to each other. I think I would rather have the 10th pick this year. I think its a much better chance of getting the better overall player.
In other words, it should've been a 2 post thread. OP and then "No". ;)
The 2-5 is not a protection therefore my OP was not about the 2-5 but about the 6-30.
-
Of course they could. It’s called trading our Kings pick to Philly for their Lakers pick. Nothing stopping that if Philly wanted the deal.
Post of the day.
-
Actually the OP was asking if the 2-5 protection could be waived, which it can't. The discussion devolved into which pick would you want and how to value each pick, especially as compared to each other. I think I would rather have the 10th pick this year. I think its a much better chance of getting the better overall player.
In other words, it should've been a 2 post thread. OP and then "No". ;)
The 2-5 is not a protection therefore my OP was not about the 2-5 but about the 6-30.
Sorry missed a word. Should have read 2-5 "only".
-
We aren't going to trade a chance at a high lottery pick next season for the 10th pick this season when we are already so young. We will let it ride for another chance at something special. At the very least, the pick would have more trade value than rookie at #10 and the pick doesn't take up a roster spot or get paid.
-
I think the #10 pick in this draft is more valuable than the SAC pick(top 1 protected) next year. Regardless of whether you would rather save the roster spot or something this year, the further a pick is from actually conveying into a player, the less valuable it is. And there are a lot of uncertainties with the pick this far out. We don't know what the Kings will do in free agency or the draft. They might do something stupid like trade some young guys for vets so they can try to make the playoffs because they don't have their pick this year. It is the Sacremento Kings for God's sake. Plus there's the new lottery reform, which makes the draft an even bigger crapshoot.
Look at the potential prospects that are going to be at #10. 2 of these guys will be available. Trae Young, Jaren Jackson, Wendell Carter, Collin Sexton, Kevin Knox, Miles Bridges, and Mikal Bridges. Those are solid prospects. It's early, but the 2019 draft doesn't look nearly as strong as this one.
-
I think the #10 pick in this draft is more valuable than the SAC pick(top 1 protected) next year. Regardless of whether you would rather save the roster spot or something this year, the further a pick is from actually conveying into a player, the less valuable it is. And there are a lot of uncertainties with the pick this far out. We don't know what the Kings will do in free agency or the draft. They might do something stupid like trade some young guys for vets so they can try to make the playoffs because they don't have their pick this year. It is the Sacremento Kings for God's sake. Plus there's the new lottery reform, which makes the draft an even bigger crapshoot.
Look at the potential prospects that are going to be at #10. 2 of these guys will be available. Trae Young, Jaren Jackson, Wendell Carter, Collin Sexton, Kevin Knox, Miles Bridges, and Mikal Bridges. Those are solid prospects. It's early, but the 2019 draft doesn't look nearly as strong as this one.
Pretty much where I stand.
-
I think the #10 pick in this draft is more valuable than the SAC pick(top 1 protected) next year. Regardless of whether you would rather save the roster spot or something this year, the further a pick is from actually conveying into a player, the less valuable it is. And there are a lot of uncertainties with the pick this far out. We don't know what the Kings will do in free agency or the draft. They might do something stupid like trade some young guys for vets so they can try to make the playoffs because they don't have their pick this year. It is the Sacremento Kings for God's sake. Plus there's the new lottery reform, which makes the draft an even bigger crapshoot.
Look at the potential prospects that are going to be at #10. 2 of these guys will be available. Trae Young, Jaren Jackson, Wendell Carter, Collin Sexton, Kevin Knox, Miles Bridges, and Mikal Bridges. Those are solid prospects. It's early, but the 2019 draft doesn't look nearly as strong as this one.
There's too much uncertainty to make a decent, educated guess as to the relative value of these picks. The lottery system enables big (albeit unlikely) jumps up the board, so the 10th worst team can get a top 5 pick, and the 5th worst team might get the 10th pick. We can't predict what pick will go to a particular team.
We also can't look at the HS Class of 2018 and predict which players will be good in their first year of college. We think that Zion and RJ will be near the top of the draft, but we're not sure...
Injuries add another level of complexity. As do team needs, FA signings, etc. etc. etc.
I think that the Celtics could pick a good player with either the LAL/SAC pick (whichever one conveys). I think we can try to guess which one we would rather have, but I don't consider this to be a very useful analysis. Way too much randomness....
-
I think the #10 pick in this draft is more valuable than the SAC pick(top 1 protected) next year. Regardless of whether you would rather save the roster spot or something this year, the further a pick is from actually conveying into a player, the less valuable it is. And there are a lot of uncertainties with the pick this far out. We don't know what the Kings will do in free agency or the draft. They might do something stupid like trade some young guys for vets so they can try to make the playoffs because they don't have their pick this year. It is the Sacremento Kings for God's sake. Plus there's the new lottery reform, which makes the draft an even bigger crapshoot.
Look at the potential prospects that are going to be at #10. 2 of these guys will be available. Trae Young, Jaren Jackson, Wendell Carter, Collin Sexton, Kevin Knox, Miles Bridges, and Mikal Bridges. Those are solid prospects. It's early, but the 2019 draft doesn't look nearly as strong as this one.
There's too much uncertainty to make a decent, educated guess as to the relative value of these picks. The lottery system enables big (albeit unlikely) jumps up the board, so the 10th worst team can get a top 5 pick, and the 5th worst team might get the 10th pick. We can't predict what pick will go to a particular team.
We also can't look at the HS Class of 2018 and predict which players will be good in their first year of college. We think that Zion and RJ will be near the top of the draft, but we're not sure...
Injuries add another level of complexity. As do team needs, FA signings, etc. etc. etc.
I think that the Celtics could pick a good player with either the LAL/SAC pick (whichever one conveys). I think we can try to guess which one we would rather have, but I don't consider this to be a very useful analysis. Way too much randomness....
Only the top 3 picks (top 4 starting next year) are decided by the lottery. The 10th worst team could jump into the top 3 but it cannot jump to 4th through 9th. The 5th worst team can currently fall no lower than 8th (9th starting next year).
There is not too much randomness to do an assessment. It is a GMs job to do those type of assessments. All the evaluations of the 2019 draft that I've seen are that it projects to be a weak draft. If things break well, maybe it becomes an average draft. The one significant variable would be if the NBA did away with the one and done rule.