What compensation could we get sliding back 2 Spots.

[LooseCannon]

Another good question is...

How many spots can we move up if we combine the #6 pick with the #12 pick.

What if we added in a future Brooklyn pick or two ?

That high up in the draft, the #12 pick is usually worth moving up to the #5 pick, but that's only if the team picking fifth wants a player who they believe will be available at #6 if they trade or is completely unenthusiastic about the players available.

If there is a bidding war maybe it's that. I still see a one spot move to be way too low a value. It has to be worth a 2 or 3 spot jump not one. Also if the team in front doesn't want the guy you want they will often gladly trade down one spot to just save money and trade for a second round pick. A team will put conditions on the 2nd and sometimes it never even comes.

Historically, once you get around the top five, it usually takes an unprotected first to move up one spot in the draft.  A second round pick is a more reasonable price to move up a spot or two when drafting in the 20s.

[BornReady]

but this draft is said to be a poor
so it would be worth less to move up than usual

[KG Living Legend]

 That's bul crap this draft is better than usual

[LooseCannon]

but this draft is said to be a poor
so it would be worth less to move up than usual

If this draft is poor, then the #12 pick should have less value as a trade chip.

[Roy H.]

NBA draft pick value is pretty inconsistent.

Last year, it only took two #2s to move up from 19th to 15th. However, four #1s wasn't enough to move up from 16th to 9th.

Sometimes the cost to move up a couple of slots is huge (Penny + 3 unprotected #1s for Webber). Other times, it's nothing (Brandon Roy for Randy Foye + $1 million).

[LooseCannon]

A draft pick's perceived value is based on the players available.  In the top five or so, there are usually players of perceived high value who can be taken, thus you usually have to pay a huge price to move up, but you also have to find a team which sees less value in the players available than other teams.  Teams which place a high value on specific players are almost impossible to entice with a favorable deal.

The Roy-Foye deal was weird.  It seems like Foye was always Minnesota's first choice and a bad GM had plans to trade down and pick Foye later, but he went sooner than expected and there was some scrambling to make a deal. 

The best shot for moving up is probably when the next few best players available don't fill a position of need for the team with the higher pick.   So, you need to find a lottery team which has a position, probably multiple positions, locked down and the consensus next few picks being completely redundant on their roster.  And you need that other team to not have Hinkie as the GM.

[konkmv]

if we get 4 something like bender hield i would trade him for brown and an unprotected first... i am not sold with hield neither with bender.. brown is ready physically... he will learn to shoot

[Roy H.]

A draft pick's perceived value is based on the players available.  In the top five or so, there are usually players of perceived high value who can be taken, thus you usually have to pay a huge price to move up, but you also have to find a team which sees less value in the players available than other teams.  Teams which place a high value on specific players are almost impossible to entice with a favorable deal.

The Roy-Foye deal was weird.  It seems like Foye was always Minnesota's first choice and a bad GM had plans to trade down and pick Foye later, but he went sooner than expected and there was some scrambling to make a deal. 

The best shot for moving up is probably when the next few best players available don't fill a position of need for the team with the higher pick.   So, you need to find a lottery team which has a position, probably multiple positions, locked down and the consensus next few picks being completely redundant on their roster.  And you need that other team to not have Hinkie as the GM.

Again, it depends.

The price was #5 + cash for #4 in the Jamison / Carter deal. #6 + #27 landed the #3 when Utah moved up to get Deron Williams. Luol Deng (#7) was traded for a future #1.  Portland moved up from #4 to #2 for a second rounder and a foreign bust in the LMA / Ty Thomas deal.

A lot of the draft pick trades bring surprisingly modest returns, even near the top of the draft.

[Csfan1984]

A draft pick's perceived value is based on the players available.  In the top five or so, there are usually players of perceived high value who can be taken, thus you usually have to pay a huge price to move up, but you also have to find a team which sees less value in the players available than other teams.  Teams which place a high value on specific players are almost impossible to entice with a favorable deal.

The Roy-Foye deal was weird.  It seems like Foye was always Minnesota's first choice and a bad GM had plans to trade down and pick Foye later, but he went sooner than expected and there was some scrambling to make a deal. 

The best shot for moving up is probably when the next few best players available don't fill a position of need for the team with the higher pick.   So, you need to find a lottery team which has a position, probably multiple positions, locked down and the consensus next few picks being completely redundant on their roster.  And you need that other team to not have Hinkie as the GM.

Again, it depends.

The price was #5 + cash for #4 in the Jamison / Carter deal. #6 + #27 landed the #3 when Utah moved up to get Deron Williams. Luol Deng (#7) was traded for a future #1.  Portland moved up from #4 to #2 for a second rounder and a foreign bust in the LMA / Ty Thomas deal.

A lot of the draft pick trades bring surprisingly modest returns, even near the top of the draft.

Exactly if we go by history one spot can be cheap.

[Csfan1984]

Another good question is...

How many spots can we move up if we combine the #6 pick with the #12 pick.

What if we added in a future Brooklyn pick or two ?

That high up in the draft, the #12 pick is usually worth moving up to the #5 pick, but that's only if the team picking fifth wants a player who they believe will be available at #6 if they trade or is completely unenthusiastic about the players available.

If there is a bidding war maybe it's that. I still see a one spot move to be way too low a value. It has to be worth a 2 or 3 spot jump not one. Also if the team in front doesn't want the guy you want they will often gladly trade down one spot to just save money and trade for a second round pick. A team will put conditions on the 2nd and sometimes it never even comes.

Historically, once you get around the top five, it usually takes an unprotected first to move up one spot in the draft.  A second round pick is a more reasonable price to move up a spot or two when drafting in the 20s.

Not for a one spot jump.

[CFAN38]

What do u think It would take to jump from 7 to 4, or 6 to 4. I'm thinking I'd prefer Hield over Jaylen Brown and if I can pick up future firsts to do so than heck yeah.

 So if we know Hield is going 7th and we can trade back two spots to Six and still get our guy even if it's not Hield what type of return could we expect..

Where Hield goes will be really interesting to watch looking at the current lottery (as of 3/27) its easy to pick out a teams that will really prefer Hield who is ready to play over higher upside raw prospects. The Pelicans (#6), Kings (#7), Bucks (#8), Raptors(#11), and Bulls (#14) all look to me like teams that would place Hield in thier top 5. All of those teams look like they would benifit from his scoring ability right away. The Cs may also fall into this grouping but I dont think DA will have him as the BPA that early in the draft.

So to answer the original post I don't think trading back for the player you want to a real viable option the NBA. Particular for Hield in this draft. I just don't see the benefits compared to the risk of losing the player you want.

[mef730]

We could debate this until the cows come home (I don't understand that expression. Where did they go, anyway?), but the answer is going to be impossible to come up with because every GM values every player differently.

For those who value this as a 2-player draft, A move from 12 to 11, or even 6 to 5, probably won't be that expensive. But that move from 3 to 2 is going to cost us huge.

Fortunately, some GMs see this as 2-players, others as 3-players, others as even more. Let's just hope that if we have the 3rd/4th pick, the GM at 2/3 sees it as "more." It will still cost us huge that high in the draft, but it will be even huger if the GM we are trading with places a high value on the pick that they are giving up ("a player") and a low one on the one they are receiving ("the rest of the draft").

Mike

ETA: Of course, you could also make the argument that any GM who is willing to trade with us is bluffing. If Philly has the second pick and they think that there are two stars in the draft, they're probably going to refuse to trade with us if we have the third, no matter what we offer (Maybe they accept three BKN picks, but you can see where this is going.). On the other hand, if they think that there are three stars in the draft, all of whom they value relatively evenly (for the sake of simplicity), then the marginal value that they would need to receive to swap 2 for 3 is much less so. But the Celtics don't know that they are largely indifferent between 2 and 3, so they'll try to jack us up, anyway, hoping to get something of much greater value than the marginal difference (to them) between the slots. Thus, if they are making an offer to swap with us, it's very likely going to be much higher than they would actually accept.