Should the NBA Repeal the Stepien Rule?

[GreenlyGreeny]

The Stepien Rule:

“7.03. First Round Draft Choice. No Member may sell its right to select a player in the first round of an NBA draft for cash or its equivalent, or trade or exchange its right to select a player in the first round of any NBA Draft if the result of such trade or exchange may be to leave the member without first-round picks in any two consecutive future NBA drafts.”

Should it be repealed? Why or why not?

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

Teams know the risks of trading away consecutive firsts, so if they're willing to do that—say, for the sake of going "all in" during a given season—I don't see why that should be banned. Especially if it's a small-market team that rarely gets an opportunity to seriously contend.

[celticsclay]

I don't have strong opinions one way or the other. However, an interesting point that one of the NBA people broad up recently on a podcast is that when you are in a position like David Griffin is currently in New Orleans, you make a trade like the CJ Mcollum trade knowing if it doesn't work out you are out of the job. You could envision a scenario where a GM is completely on the hot seat and would trade like 12 in a row just to try and save their job. It is probably also a bit useful to prevent large market teams from just buying a bunch of picks after trading all of theirs.

[nickagneta]

I think it a good rule that saves owners and management groups from themselves, much like the salary cap and luxury tax does. Without these rules in place, team owners may go out and absolutely destroy a franchise's future, much like Stepien did in Cleveland in the 1980's.

Those 70's Cavs teams sucked then Stepien traded away every first round pick from '81 to '85. They stayed awful and didn't start becoming decent again until those picks from '86 on started to hit.

I have no doubt without the Stepien rule a team like Charlotte in a small market with a team owner with an enormous ego would trade every pick away he could to get his team to a certain level. And eventually, it would kill his team. New Orleans is another good example.

I like the rule. No issues with it whatsoever.

[slamtheking]

keep the rule.  as pointed out, keeps bad GMs from torpedoing a franchise for years either through sheer incompetence or a last ditch move hoping to save their job.

suspected who the OP might be when I saw the thread title --> disappointment in reckless/bad trade ideas going nowhere because every pick a team has cannot be offered in trades.

[Moranis]

I actually think it can be more crippling for a franchise without in place given that in order to trade 2 picks, you are now 3 years in the future and if you trade 3 1st rounders you are at least 5 years in the future.  That seems like it could be far more crippling than just allowing picks to be traded in consecutive seasons. 

[nickagneta]

I actually think it can be more crippling for a franchise without in place given that in order to trade 2 picks, you are now 3 years in the future and if you trade 3 1st rounders you are at least 5 years in the future.  That seems like it could be far more crippling than just allowing picks to be traded in consecutive seasons.

But it prevents trading 3 1st in 3 years or 5 1sts in 5 years. You seem to be thinking that GMs would just stop trading 1sts because they moved a couple already. That is an extremely bad assumption.

[slamtheking]

I actually think it can be more crippling for a franchise without in place given that in order to trade 2 picks, you are now 3 years in the future and if you trade 3 1st rounders you are at least 5 years in the future.  That seems like it could be far more crippling than just allowing picks to be traded in consecutive seasons.

But it prevents trading 3 1st in 3 years or 5 1sts in 5 years. You seem to be thinking that GMs would just stop trading 1sts because they moved a couple already. That is an extremely bad assumption.

beat me to it -- TP

[Roy H.]

Agreed with Nick as well.  The NBA can’t allow shortsighted teams, particularly in small markets, to turn into a dumpster fire.

If I was going to modify the rule, I guess I’d change it to not allowing teams to be without first rounders in three out of six years.  It would give slightly more flexibility without gutting a team.

[johnnygreen]

Brad would have already traded the Celtics first round picks for the next 10 years, if it wasn't for this rule. We might as well call it the Stevens rule now.

[Moranis]

I actually think it can be more crippling for a franchise without in place given that in order to trade 2 picks, you are now 3 years in the future and if you trade 3 1st rounders you are at least 5 years in the future.  That seems like it could be far more crippling than just allowing picks to be traded in consecutive seasons.

But it prevents trading 3 1st in 3 years or 5 1sts in 5 years. You seem to be thinking that GMs would just stop trading 1sts because they moved a couple already. That is an extremely bad assumption.

Then stop teams from trading picks more than 3 years out. 

And frankly, who cares.  If a team wants to go for short term gain, why shouldn't they be able to?  I just don't think it is a necessary rule. 

[DefenseWinsChamps]

I actually think it can be more crippling for a franchise without in place given that in order to trade 2 picks, you are now 3 years in the future and if you trade 3 1st rounders you are at least 5 years in the future.  That seems like it could be far more crippling than just allowing picks to be traded in consecutive seasons.

But it prevents trading 3 1st in 3 years or 5 1sts in 5 years. You seem to be thinking that GMs would just stop trading 1sts because they moved a couple already. That is an extremely bad assumption.

Then stop teams from trading picks more than 3 years out. 

And frankly, who cares.  If a team wants to go for short term gain, why shouldn't they be able to?  I just don't think it is a necessary rule.

There will always be dumb teams that make dumb moves, but in order to restrict their dumbness, you shouldn't take tools away from the smart teams.

[slamtheking]

I actually think it can be more crippling for a franchise without in place given that in order to trade 2 picks, you are now 3 years in the future and if you trade 3 1st rounders you are at least 5 years in the future.  That seems like it could be far more crippling than just allowing picks to be traded in consecutive seasons.

But it prevents trading 3 1st in 3 years or 5 1sts in 5 years. You seem to be thinking that GMs would just stop trading 1sts because they moved a couple already. That is an extremely bad assumption.

Then stop teams from trading picks more than 3 years out. 

And frankly, who cares.  If a team wants to go for short term gain, why shouldn't they be able to?  I just don't think it is a necessary rule.

There will always be dumb teams that make dumb moves, but in order to restrict their dumbness, you shouldn't take tools away from the smart teams.

inept franchises provide better teams with cannon fodder on the court but weaken the NBA product overall.  the best interest of the league in general is more important than letting teams hiring idiots ruin their franchises for years.

[Kernewek]

I actually think it can be more crippling for a franchise without in place given that in order to trade 2 picks, you are now 3 years in the future and if you trade 3 1st rounders you are at least 5 years in the future.  That seems like it could be far more crippling than just allowing picks to be traded in consecutive seasons.

But it prevents trading 3 1st in 3 years or 5 1sts in 5 years. You seem to be thinking that GMs would just stop trading 1sts because they moved a couple already. That is an extremely bad assumption.

Then stop teams from trading picks more than 3 years out. 

And frankly, who cares.  If a team wants to go for short term gain, why shouldn't they be able to?  I just don't think it is a necessary rule.

There will always be dumb teams that make dumb moves, but in order to restrict their dumbness, you shouldn't take tools away from the smart teams.

inept franchises provide better teams with cannon fodder on the court but weaken the NBA product overall.  the best interest of the league in general is more important than letting teams hiring idiots ruin their franchises for years.

Furthermore the 'smart teams' are always one executive who feels that their job is in danger from joining the ranks of the dumb.

[DefenseWinsChamps]

I actually think it can be more crippling for a franchise without in place given that in order to trade 2 picks, you are now 3 years in the future and if you trade 3 1st rounders you are at least 5 years in the future.  That seems like it could be far more crippling than just allowing picks to be traded in consecutive seasons.

But it prevents trading 3 1st in 3 years or 5 1sts in 5 years. You seem to be thinking that GMs would just stop trading 1sts because they moved a couple already. That is an extremely bad assumption.

Then stop teams from trading picks more than 3 years out. 

And frankly, who cares.  If a team wants to go for short term gain, why shouldn't they be able to?  I just don't think it is a necessary rule.

There will always be dumb teams that make dumb moves, but in order to restrict their dumbness, you shouldn't take tools away from the smart teams.

inept franchises provide better teams with cannon fodder on the court but weaken the NBA product overall.  the best interest of the league in general is more important than letting teams hiring idiots ruin their franchises for years.

This probably gets into a philosophy of business. I tend to believe free competition would promote the best product long-term, and trying to raise the floor of bottom teams through rules like this tends to dilute the overall product long-term. Competition tends to drive things forward.

For example, if a team was shooting below 33% from three on the season, would you cap how many threes all teams could take because their quality of play dilutes the overall NBA product?

It's not a direct comparison I admit, but I think you may get my point. You can't make rules to make sure teams don't do dumb stuff and expect it to benefit the overall game.