Should the NBA Repeal the Stepien Rule?

[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.

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.

There is always cannon fodder though.  Just the nature of talent. 

Also, a team could theoretically just wait until the draft and then trade the player drafted and not actually make the pick anyway.  By letting them do that, you don't really fix the no young person problem and may very well force them into worse trades. 

Not allowing a team to better their team just seems like a bad idea and an overreaction to one executive being really stupid. 

Wouldn't the league have been better if the Lakers could have used more than just a 2027 1st at the deadline this year?  Or the Nets, or the Bucks, or the Clippers, or the several other contenders that can't trade picks any time soon because they traded every other year already. 

Limiting teams because you are scared about what one owner may do just doesn't seem like a winning strategy. 

[Roy H.]

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.

There is always cannon fodder though.  Just the nature of talent. 

Also, a team could theoretically just wait until the draft and then trade the player drafted and not actually make the pick anyway.  By letting them do that, you don't really fix the no young person problem and may very well force them into worse trades. 

Not allowing a team to better their team just seems like a bad idea and an overreaction to one executive being really stupid. 

Wouldn't the league have been better if the Lakers could have used more than just a 2027 1st at the deadline this year?  Or the Nets, or the Bucks, or the Clippers, or the several other contenders that can't trade picks any time soon because they traded every other year already. 

Limiting teams because you are scared about what one owner may do just doesn't seem like a winning strategy.

Has the rule harmed the quality of the league overall, though?  Not individual teams, but the NBA itself?

Do you agree with the seven year rule, or would you scrap that one too?

How does the presence of swap rights affect your argument?

[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.

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.

There is always cannon fodder though.  Just the nature of talent. 

Also, a team could theoretically just wait until the draft and then trade the player drafted and not actually make the pick anyway.  By letting them do that, you don't really fix the no young person problem and may very well force them into worse trades. 

Not allowing a team to better their team just seems like a bad idea and an overreaction to one executive being really stupid. 

Wouldn't the league have been better if the Lakers could have used more than just a 2027 1st at the deadline this year?  Or the Nets, or the Bucks, or the Clippers, or the several other contenders that can't trade picks any time soon because they traded every other year already. 

Limiting teams because you are scared about what one owner may do just doesn't seem like a winning strategy.

Has the rule harmed the quality of the league overall, though?  Not individual teams, but the NBA itself?

Do you agree with the seven year rule, or would you scrap that one too?

How does the presence of swap rights affect your argument?

I have no idea if the quality of the league is harmed.  Perhaps it is.  Perhaps deals weren't made that could have been made that would have made the league better.  I mean isn't the league better if Lebron James is in the playoffs, and now the Lakers may not be because they only had 1 pick 5 years in the future they could trade. 

I have less issue with the 7 year rule.  At some point they become so speculative that shouldn't be reliable, sort of like certain damages in a lawsuit.  So yeah, I don't think a team should be trading a pick 10 years in the future.  Too speculative, so I'm ok restricting it.  But there shouldn't be any reason a team should be restricted from trading its 2023 and 2024 picks this summer?

A swap isn't the same thing as trading a pick.  There is no guarantee a team would acquire the pick, so I don't believe that affects the analysis at all. 

I do think there are modifications you could make though, something like no team can be without 4 or 5 future 1st round picks at any point in time.  That sort of serves both purposes.  The teams can decide what draft picks they want to trade, but they can never deplete a decade's worth.  If they trade a pick 15 years in the future, well that hurts their ability to make trades for 15 years. 

[RPGenerate]

Honestly I think it's a pretty good rule, especially for this era of superteams. I like that it prevents teams from selling years worth of first round picks to stack your team even more, and it puts a bigger emphasis on being able to draft well.

[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.

There is always cannon fodder though.  Just the nature of talent. 

Also, a team could theoretically just wait until the draft and then trade the player drafted and not actually make the pick anyway.  By letting them do that, you don't really fix the no young person problem and may very well force them into worse trades. 

Not allowing a team to better their team just seems like a bad idea and an overreaction to one executive being really stupid. 

Wouldn't the league have been better if the Lakers could have used more than just a 2027 1st at the deadline this year?  Or the Nets, or the Bucks, or the Clippers, or the several other contenders that can't trade picks any time soon because they traded every other year already. 

Limiting teams because you are scared about what one owner may do just doesn't seem like a winning strategy.

Has the rule harmed the quality of the league overall, though?  Not individual teams, but the NBA itself?

Do you agree with the seven year rule, or would you scrap that one too?

How does the presence of swap rights affect your argument?

I have no idea if the quality of the league is harmed.  Perhaps it is.  Perhaps deals weren't made that could have been made that would have made the league better.  I mean isn't the league better if Lebron James is in the playoffs, and now the Lakers may not be because they only had 1 pick 5 years in the future they could trade. 

I have less issue with the 7 year rule.  At some point they become so speculative that shouldn't be reliable, sort of like certain damages in a lawsuit.  So yeah, I don't think a team should be trading a pick 10 years in the future.  Too speculative, so I'm ok restricting it.  But there shouldn't be any reason a team should be restricted from trading its 2023 and 2024 picks this summer?

A swap isn't the same thing as trading a pick.  There is no guarantee a team would acquire the pick, so I don't believe that affects the analysis at all. 

I do think there are modifications you could make though, something like no team can be without 4 or 5 future 1st round picks at any point in time.  That sort of serves both purposes.  The teams can decide what draft picks they want to trade, but they can never deplete a decade's worth.  If they trade a pick 15 years in the future, well that hurts their ability to make trades for 15 years.

no, quite the opposite in fact.  the league, and life in general, is better when Lebron and the Lakers both suffer the embarrassment of missing the playoffs when they've basically allowed Lebron and his agent dictate trades to please Bron.  the fact that this is blowing up in their faces this year (and hopefully for many years afterwards) is a good thing for the league and fans of the game/league in general

[PhoSita]

no. too many GMs with a short term focus because they know they're not going to be in their job for more than a couple years.

[Roy H.]

no. too many GMs with a short term focus because they know they're not going to be in their job for more than a couple years.

I wonder, which would promote long-term stability more?

1.  The current rule.  So, on draft night, you can trade four first rounders, and swap rights to three more picks;

or

2.  A modified rule, allowing only three of a team's first rounders to be traded in any six year period. 

Allowing a team to trade 2022, 2023 and 2024 first rounders may be better than 2023, 2025, 2027 firsts if long-term stability is the goal. 

[Moranis]

no. too many GMs with a short term focus because they know they're not going to be in their job for more than a couple years.

I wonder, which would prevent long-term stability more?

1.  The current rule.  So, on draft night, you can trade four first rounders, and swap rights to three more picks;

or

2.  A modified rule, allowing only three of a team's first rounders to be traded in any six year period. 

Allowing a team to trade 2022, 2023 and 2024 first rounders may be better than 2023, 2025, 2027 firsts if long-term stability is the goal.

That has been my point.  I think if you just make that no team can trade more than 4 future 1st round picks at any given time, it would solve a lot of the issues.  They could make them all consecutive if they wanted, but then couldn't trade another one until after a season.  They could trade them really far out in the future, but then would be limited in what else they could do.  I think it is absolutely ridiculous that a team couldn't trade its 2022 and 2023 draft picks in a trade at the deadline.  Or during free agency this summer can't trade its 2023 and 2024 draft picks.  It is nonsense.  The league overreacted because of a terrible executive.  They do this sort of thing all of the time and frankly the only time I think it worked was the implementation of the lottery.  The vast majority of these reactionary moves they make are just dumb.  They are just too reactionary in everything they do.

[PhoSita]

no. too many GMs with a short term focus because they know they're not going to be in their job for more than a couple years.

I wonder, which would promote long-term stability more?

1.  The current rule.  So, on draft night, you can trade four first rounders, and swap rights to three more picks;

or

2.  A modified rule, allowing only three of a team's first rounders to be traded in any six year period. 

Allowing a team to trade 2022, 2023 and 2024 first rounders may be better than 2023, 2025, 2027 firsts if long-term stability is the goal.

to be honest I'm not sure it really makes sense to give teams the ability to trade away rights to draft picks, whether via swap or otherwise, that are more than 3 years in the future.

most GMs are not in their job more than 4-5 years. seems like a bad idea to let them trade away rights to picks 5-6+ years in the future.


there probably ought to be more limits on all these pick swaps and protections, too, if for no other reason than that it makes things very difficult for fans to follow where each team is picking and why.

the Celtics obviously benefited greatly from the willingness of the Nets to relinquish control of almost a whole decade of picks.  is it good for the league that franchises are allowed to do that? probably not.

[sgrogan]

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.

That would be true if the teams were competing as separate entities against each other. But they are not, they are franchises of the NBA. Leagues form because they need consistent competition. If you want to let the poor franchises go out of business, you need a way to replace the competition. I think the audience for the Harlem Globetrotters vs the Washington Generals is smaller than the NBA.

[sgrogan]

no. too many GMs with a short term focus because they know they're not going to be in their job for more than a couple years.

I wonder, which would prevent long-term stability more?

1.  The current rule.  So, on draft night, you can trade four first rounders, and swap rights to three more picks;

or

2.  A modified rule, allowing only three of a team's first rounders to be traded in any six year period. 

Allowing a team to trade 2022, 2023 and 2024 first rounders may be better than 2023, 2025, 2027 firsts if long-term stability is the goal.

That has been my point.  I think if you just make that no team can trade more than 4 future 1st round picks at any given time, it would solve a lot of the issues.  They could make them all consecutive if they wanted, but then couldn't trade another one until after a season.  They could trade them really far out in the future, but then would be limited in what else they could do.  I think it is absolutely ridiculous that a team couldn't trade its 2022 and 2023 draft picks in a trade at the deadline.  Or during free agency this summer can't trade its 2023 and 2024 draft picks.  It is nonsense.  The league overreacted because of a terrible executive.  They do this sort of thing all of the time and frankly the only time I think it worked was the implementation of the lottery.  The vast majority of these reactionary moves they make are just dumb.  They are just too reactionary in everything they do.

The rules are reactionary and could/should be improved. But the competition is tenuous. I think we already agree that at the beginning of the season 70-80% of the league has no chance to compete. There needs to be something that maintains fan interest. For the fans and the owners. Unless we will accept a 6-10 team league. Then the competition would be intense.

[Walker Wiggle]

The rule needs to stay, not just to prevent GMs from torpedoing their franchises’ futures years after they’re gone, but also because the sexy free agent teams (think Lakers) can simply trade a few years of draft picks for a star player who demands a trade there, knowing they can just round out the roster with free agents. Then at the end of the championship window, they just start the process over again. This is essentially what Brooklyn did, trading a maximum amount of draft capital for Pierce and KG, and then again for Harden. It means teams can basically ignore good drafting and player development and still dominate small-market teams for which that’s the only avenue available to them. If anything I think the Stepien rule needs to be strengthened.

[GreenlyGreeny]

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.

I ultimately voted no 🤷‍♂️ just wanted to see how folks feel about it all and thought this was a good time of year to pose the question.

[Moranis]

no. too many GMs with a short term focus because they know they're not going to be in their job for more than a couple years.

I wonder, which would prevent long-term stability more?

1.  The current rule.  So, on draft night, you can trade four first rounders, and swap rights to three more picks;

or

2.  A modified rule, allowing only three of a team's first rounders to be traded in any six year period. 

Allowing a team to trade 2022, 2023 and 2024 first rounders may be better than 2023, 2025, 2027 firsts if long-term stability is the goal.

That has been my point.  I think if you just make that no team can trade more than 4 future 1st round picks at any given time, it would solve a lot of the issues.  They could make them all consecutive if they wanted, but then couldn't trade another one until after a season.  They could trade them really far out in the future, but then would be limited in what else they could do.  I think it is absolutely ridiculous that a team couldn't trade its 2022 and 2023 draft picks in a trade at the deadline.  Or during free agency this summer can't trade its 2023 and 2024 draft picks.  It is nonsense.  The league overreacted because of a terrible executive.  They do this sort of thing all of the time and frankly the only time I think it worked was the implementation of the lottery.  The vast majority of these reactionary moves they make are just dumb.  They are just too reactionary in everything they do.

The rules are reactionary and could/should be improved. But the competition is tenuous. I think we already agree that at the beginning of the season 70-80% of the league has no chance to compete. There needs to be something that maintains fan interest. For the fans and the owners. Unless we will accept a 6-10 team league. Then the competition would be intense.

There are no rules that you can implement that will ever allow more than a handful of teams of having realistic championship odds.  It is just the nature of basketball where having just 1 guy can make the difference between the worst team in the league and a playoff team.  And the players capable of being that guy are around 10 in any given season and some of them don't have good enough teammates. 

[Celtics4ever]

Nope, it's there for good reason.