Code of ethics, If we trade with Phoenix do they promise not to take our guy

[Fafnir]

What? The teams would just agree to draft for one another and then trade right after making the picks. Boston would draft Bender and Phoenix would draft Murray and then they'd be swapped.

this.

no (decent) GM would make that agreement on either side of that deal where one GM relies on the word of another GM not to screw him.

This happens all the time. Agreements in principal are made based on whom to pick and finalized post draft.

They are not broken as it is understood that if you were to break your word and back out you'd be blackballed out of ever trading again.

Only the GMs word was in play for the Ray Allen/Jeff Green swap for example and Jeff Green was the Sonics choice but the C's made the actual selection with that pick.

So how does this work? Is it like two 12-year olds at their first middle school dance, where they approach each other but neither wants to be the one to ask the other to dance? Does Danny say to PHX, "Well, we're taking Bender, so if you want him, let's talk"? Does PHX approach Danny first, with the understanding that, if they want Bender and the Celtics don't, they just gave the Cs a major bargaining trip (Danny: "Funny, that's who we wanted. You'd better pay up.")?

Seems like somebody is surrendering a lot of information in the deal.

Mike

The league already largely know who other teams covet and don't. Agents and workouts and other sources tell them as much. Also usually the the team moving up one slot do it as much to prevent another team from trading up ahead of them.

You are right that trade negotiations are one ways GMs fish for information, the league is very cut throat. Teams will even make the motions on trades to merely drive up the price for competitors or pull out last moment trying to spike other teams deals if the backup deal would help a competitor.

The C's have been involved in these sort of deals before, Brandon Roy/Randy Foye three way trade.

[byennie]

There's very little risk with back-to-back picks because nothing can change in between. The problem would be trading with say Sacramento. Suppose they want Bender and we want Poeltl. Both seem like safe bets to be there at those spots. So we go ahead and pick Bender at #3, but Murray drops to #8 and Sacramento gets excited and scoops him up. We're left holding the bag.

With back-to-back picks sure, Phoenix can still leave us holding the bag, but only by outright reneging on the swap. The key is to make them think that another team will deal for the pick if they don't. Otherwise, they just wait us out because we're not going to simultaneously pick their guy and try to trade down 1 spot to let them do it. Say they want Bender. We need them to feel Minnesota is going to jump ahead of them. Makes more sense than "swap consecutive picks with us, or else we'll pick your guy that we don't really want".

[Moranis]

If Phoenix thinks we are going to take Murray why would they trade value to move up just to take Bender.  The entire premise of this thread is ridiculous.

[KG Living Legend]

This board went nuts following the Nets regular season, praying for losses and hoping beyond hope we would win the lottery. So many were resigned to the fact that the Celtics would end with pick 5 or 6. So we end up with the third pick and what happens? Half the board and many who were clammering for a pick higher than 5 or 6 now want to trade down in the draft.

I am dumbfounded.

This team does not need to trade down. This team does not need another draft pick in a draft where they have 8 and not enough roster spots to put all those players. It was shown last year that packaging tons of picks to move up doesnt always work and is difficult to do since teams fall in love with certain players. So trading down to acquire another pick in hopes of packaging picks to move back up seems pretty dumb given what happened just last year.

Just pick the guy you like at 3 and move on.

 You don't get it Nick. If we can get the player we want example Murray or Dunn and pick up the 13th pick so we can grab Sabonis or Deyonta Davis, why wouldn't you do that.

 

[KG Living Legend]

If Phoenix thinks we are going to take Murray why would they trade value to move up just to take Bender.  The entire premise of this thread is ridiculous.

 It's not ridiculous. It's happened plenty of times before.

[KG Living Legend]

 Google the Aldridge fur Tyrus Thomas trades and Brandon Roy trades very similar especially the Roy trade. It was six for seven if memory serves.

[Emmette Bryant]

Another layer to this thread is that we would be dealing with old friend Ryan McDonough.  It's unlikely that he would stiff us. If we were dealing with someone like Pat Riley I would definitely make sure to have all the i's dotted.

[nickagneta]

This board went nuts following the Nets regular season, praying for losses and hoping beyond hope we would win the lottery. So many were resigned to the fact that the Celtics would end with pick 5 or 6. So we end up with the third pick and what happens? Half the board and many who were clammering for a pick higher than 5 or 6 now want to trade down in the draft.

I am dumbfounded.

This team does not need to trade down. This team does not need another draft pick in a draft where they have 8 and not enough roster spots to put all those players. It was shown last year that packaging tons of picks to move up doesnt always work and is difficult to do since teams fall in love with certain players. So trading down to acquire another pick in hopes of packaging picks to move back up seems pretty dumb given what happened just last year.

Just pick the guy you like at 3 and move on.

 You don't get it Nick. If we can get the player we want example Murray or Dunn and pick up the 13th pick so we can grab Sabonis or Deyonta Davis, why wouldn't you do that.

Oh I get that.

1. You arent getting the 13th pick in the draft to move up one slot from 3 to 4, this isnt NBA2K
2. You are now clogging up another roster spot and more salary on a another rookie when you have picks at 16 and 23 as well as a slew of 2nd rounders. This team needs stars not rookies. Not only will I go nuts but most likely Brad Stevens will lose his mind if Ainge gives him a roster made up of Smart, Rozier, Hunter, Mickey, Young and 4 to 5 rookies next year. That is a major step backward from everything they have built upon this year.
3. If you think you are then trading all our picks to move up somewhere else, remember what happened last year. It probably aint happening
4. Sabonis....yuck. Another middling prospect. We have 4 of them on the club already. We need high end prospects not middling to poor prospects.

I just find it ironic that after all the gnashing of teeth that went on on this site to get a high pick, we get one and now half the site wants to trade down out of that spot. Just take the dang player you think is best. This isnt a video game or a fantasy basketball league where trades are easy to make on draft day and you can shuffle all around the board to get your guys. You have a pick where you are guaranteed your guy. Just take him.

[KG Living Legend]

 No sh I t Nick, you have to give up 16, or 23 or 31 35 done Combo of that which would be worth it to move up three spots Einstein.

[PaulP34]

What? The teams would just agree to draft for one another and then trade right after making the picks. Boston would draft Bender and Phoenix would draft Murray and then they'd be swapped.

this.

no (decent) GM would make that agreement on either side of that deal where one GM relies on the word of another GM not to screw him.

This happens all the time. Agreements in principal are made based on whom to pick and finalized post draft.

They are not broken as it is understood that if you were to break your word and back out you'd be blackballed out of ever trading again.

Only the GMs word was in play for the Ray Allen/Jeff Green swap for example and Jeff Green was the Sonics choice but the C's made the actual selection with that pick.

Didn't we have Jeff Green play for us ? Was that a trade later on I assume ?

[jambr380]

What? The teams would just agree to draft for one another and then trade right after making the picks. Boston would draft Bender and Phoenix would draft Murray and then they'd be swapped.

this.

no (decent) GM would make that agreement on either side of that deal where one GM relies on the word of another GM not to screw him.

This happens all the time. Agreements in principal are made based on whom to pick and finalized post draft.

They are not broken as it is understood that if you were to break your word and back out you'd be blackballed out of ever trading again.

Only the GMs word was in play for the Ray Allen/Jeff Green swap for example and Jeff Green was the Sonics choice but the C's made the actual selection with that pick.

Didn't we have Jeff Green play for us ? Was that a trade later on I assume ?

We traded Green and West for Ray Allen and [what became] Glen Davis.

We later traded Perk for Green, Krstic, and a first rounder...but please let's not talk about this. Even though Wade ripped Rondo's arm out of his socket and Perk wasn't healthy himself, many posters here still think we probably would've won against the Heat in the playoffs that year (2011).

[Geo123]

 Hypothetically speaking If we are trading back one spot from three to four. Let's say we want Murray and they want Bender.

 What happens if they stab us in the back and take Murray? Has that ever happened? Is that why we would have to take Bender and then trade for Murray.

 Dream scenario is we trade #3 #31 #35 #45 and Young for #4 and #13

 Leaving us with #4 #13 #16

To me not a dream scenario at all.  We don't need 3 first rounders! 

Plus why would they do that trade?  For Phoenix it's terrible.  You're basically trading the #13 pick for 3 number 2's (because Young almost no value).....  now you substitute one of the second rounders for our #23 and they might do that... 

Then you trade the #4 and #16 to the bulls along with Smart or Bradley and see if you can get Butler.  Then sign Horford and you have the start of something...

[guava_wrench]

This board went nuts following the Nets regular season, praying for losses and hoping beyond hope we would win the lottery. So many were resigned to the fact that the Celtics would end with pick 5 or 6. So we end up with the third pick and what happens? Half the board and many who were clammering for a pick higher than 5 or 6 now want to trade down in the draft.

I am dumbfounded.

This team does not need to trade down. This team does not need another draft pick in a draft where they have 8 and not enough roster spots to put all those players. It was shown last year that packaging tons of picks to move up doesnt always work and is difficult to do since teams fall in love with certain players. So trading down to acquire another pick in hopes of packaging picks to move back up seems pretty dumb given what happened just last year.

Just pick the guy you like at 3 and move on.

People were hoping for a top two pick. We didn't get one. Now they want to get value out the asset. There is nothing inconsistent about trading down.

The subject of this discussion is nonsensical though. The only reason Phx would trade up is because they want who they think we are taking. I they could get the same guy at 4, they would take him there and pay less in salary.

[PhoSita]

I'm with Nick.

The Celts are already in a position where they will have to make some trades to CONSOLIDATE draft picks, rather than add more, or else use at least half of the picks on draft and stash candidates.

[KG Living Legend]

 Another layer is this. The Knicks and Nets are already looking to acquire picks, to do so they will need to trade players or future assets. There will be plenty of others teams looking for picks come draft night.

 The Celtics only have one first next year. And with picks 13,16,23,31,35 we are the first team you call and we can get are hands on more hopefully unprotected future firsts. Even if it's two and three years from now I'm actually fine with that. It can work out great.