Interesting quote from Kevin O Connor on Nets pick

[celticsclay]

At this point in the season, IMO the Nets is the 2nd most valuable pick in the next draft behind the Lakers pick because those are the only 2 picks resulting from teams in the lottery that aren't owned by the lottery team so their value will not change if you acquired that pick.  Now obviously at the trade deadline the value of picks might change, but right now Lakers is 1 and Nets is 2 (and I could certainly see some arguing that the Nets is more valuable than the Lakers).

Wait what? You think these picks are more valuable because the teams don't own them? That means they are the team least likely to tank at the end of the season and would be less valuable. If we offered the Lakers pick for the Bulls pick the bulls would laugh at us. Same as the Hawks. Super confused what you are trying to say here...

If any of the other team's dealt their pick for a player (the situation Moranis is talking about), they would have no "incentive to tank" either.  Plus, in the case if the other teams, the player you traded for the pick would stand a chance of improving the team enough to pull them out of the bottom. That's not something you have to worry about with the Nets' or Lakers' picks.

I see. That seems like a really bizarre angle to me. Perhaps the most strange I have come across on this board (which is really saying something).

The Bulls and Hawks are completely rebuilding and are both force feeding minutes to young players. I can't imagine a situation where they make a trade for a player that will significantly impact their record. Like who could that player be? I would challenge any one on the board to come up with a trade like that in the realm of reality. It would have to be someone like Antonio Davis or Leonard or Lebron or Durant to be significant impact on their wins and this season and why would a trade like that happen in the middle of the season? It would both annoy the star player to be their fighting like crazy to be lower end lottery team while also hurting the value of the best asset in the trade that the team got for trading their star player. I can't really think of a less likely trade.

What is actually likely is that the Hawks find someone with a slight interest in one of their few remaining vets before the deadline Bellineli, Bazemore, Illysova. If we are being serious I can't really imagine how someone with a straight face would rather the Nets pick the Hawks pick right now...

No one is saying that the Hawks or Bulls or Suns are likely to trade their pick. But the Nets and Lakers picks are the only two top picks in the NBA this year that, if they're traded (I feel like I need to repeat that no one is saying that it's likely that the Lakers, Suns, Bulls, or Hawks picks will be traded this year. The Nets... maybe), won't decrease in value because of the trade. Obviously the Suns' pick is more valuable than the Net's pick right now, but any trade that involved the Suns pick would include players that made them significantly better right now. On the other hand, a trade for the Nets or Lakers' picks would not improve the Nets or Lakers. It relates me to how a team looking to deal a star for a draft pick would weigh things (like the Pelicans if they decide to deal Boogie for a pick/picks)

And this isn't some new concept to the board. Many articles around the trade deadline last year raised this point about the Nets' pick and how it would be more valuable to the Bulls or Pacers than another top pick (since the Nets wouldn't be getting PG or Butler, while any other team with a comparable pick would be).

I'd also like to add that a team doesn't have to add a top, top player in order to turn their season around - the 2015 Celtics should be proof of that 

Edit: Boogie might not be the best example of a player making a team win more games, but you get the ideal 

I understand the concept. However, I am trying to ask what a feasible trade that could happen that would actually make this relevant (and close the existing talent gap)

Moranis proposed the Hawks trade their pick for Bledsoe and Chandler as an example of this. This is good example of what I am talking about:
1) Bledsoe is upset with the losing in Phoenix so he gets trades to an equally bad lottery team. How is he happy with this?
2) Bledsoe played in 66 games with the Suns last year and didn't exactly significantly impact their won loss record. How good is a Hawks team with Bledsoe and Schroeder and young players, 25 wins still?
3) Why would the Hawks that just entered a rebuild centered around 20-24 year old players want to add a 27 year old point guard with a year and a half left on his deal? That would be one of the most bizarre trades we can come up with.
4) A player like Chandler at this stage of his career probably doesn't help a team win even a single game over the course of the season. Sending him from one lottery team to another at this stage of his career would be kind of messed up and I would hope that new team could at least offer him a buyout.

You go through the history of the NBA and trades and try to be realistic and we are just debating situation... That is why I say it is a very bizarre angle. If we can start coming up with some feasible situation where this would come in to play I would love to hear it....

[celticsclay]

At this point in the season, IMO the Nets is the 2nd most valuable pick in the next draft behind the Lakers pick because those are the only 2 picks resulting from teams in the lottery that aren't owned by the lottery team so their value will not change if you acquired that pick.  Now obviously at the trade deadline the value of picks might change, but right now Lakers is 1 and Nets is 2 (and I could certainly see some arguing that the Nets is more valuable than the Lakers).

Wait what? You think these picks are more valuable because the teams don't own them? That means they are the team least likely to tank at the end of the season and would be less valuable. If we offered the Lakers pick for the Bulls pick the bulls would laugh at us. Same as the Hawks. Super confused what you are trying to say here...

If any of the other team's dealt their pick for a player (the situation Moranis is talking about), they would have no "incentive to tank" either.  Plus, in the case if the other teams, the player you traded for the pick would stand a chance of improving the team enough to pull them out of the bottom. That's not something you have to worry about with the Nets' or Lakers' picks.

I see. That seems like a really bizarre angle to me. Perhaps the most strange I have come across on this board (which is really saying something).

The Bulls and Hawks are completely rebuilding and are both force feeding minutes to young players. I can't imagine a situation where they make a trade for a player that will significantly impact their record. Like who could that player be? I would challenge any one on the board to come up with a trade like that in the realm of reality. It would have to be someone like Antonio Davis or Leonard or Lebron or Durant to be significant impact on their wins and this season and why would a trade like that happen in the middle of the season? It would both annoy the star player to be their fighting like crazy to be lower end lottery team while also hurting the value of the best asset in the trade that the team got for trading their star player. I can't really think of a less likely trade.

What is actually likely is that the Hawks find someone with a slight interest in one of their few remaining vets before the deadline Bellineli, Bazemore, Illysova. If we are being serious I can't really imagine how someone with a straight face would rather the Nets pick the Hawks pick right now...

The only thing bizarre is that you actually think it is bizarre that the Nets and Lakers picks being owned by other teams doesn't increase their value.  It is still very early in the season.  What if the Hawks acquire Bledsoe and Chandler next week (not saying this would happen, but it obviously could) and trade their pick for Davis (or maybe they trade their pick for Davis and then acquire Bledsoe and Chandler)?  How valuable is that Hawks pick in that scenario?  Wouldn't the Pelicans much rather have the Lakers pick from Boston or the Nets picks from the Cavs?  It makes absolutely no difference how much better you make the Celtics or Cavs, the value of the pick you are acquiring doesn't change at all, while the Hawks pick, the Bulls pick, etc. could certainly get worse and thus make that pick have less value.

Now obviously, as I said, at the trade deadline things could be different.  If the Hawks have 5 wins and the Nets have 30, you'd much rather acquire the Hawks pick in that situation even if the trade made them a lot better, but the trade deadline is a long way away.

Ok lets try to tackle this Davis idea since this is 100% what i am talking about. Here are the issues with this scenario

1) The Pelicans are playing .500 ball and have not even had their starting point guard play a game yet. If they somehow decide to blow it up, it would be 50 games into the season.
2) Obviously Davis is worth a lot more than the Pelicans pick, what could the Hawks actually trade for him? They can't trade consecutive number 1 picks and also have to make salaries match. Even if they trade offered their whole roster and that pick the Pelicans are not going to be interested in it.
3) If the Pelicans are trading Davis, why would it be to a team with any less talent than what the Pelicans already have? If Holiday, Cousins, Rondo and Davis isn't enough to even make the playoffs, how is a Davis led Hawks team not still super deep in the lottery? Wouldn't it be way more likely for Davis/Cousins etc to go to a team like the Celtics and Cavs where they could legit win a championship? This is why trades like this are not realistic at all and I can't think of a single one like this happening in the last 20 years (team expected to win 20 games lands a superstar mid season that improves their wins dramatically).

[Moranis]

At this point in the season, IMO the Nets is the 2nd most valuable pick in the next draft behind the Lakers pick because those are the only 2 picks resulting from teams in the lottery that aren't owned by the lottery team so their value will not change if you acquired that pick.  Now obviously at the trade deadline the value of picks might change, but right now Lakers is 1 and Nets is 2 (and I could certainly see some arguing that the Nets is more valuable than the Lakers).

Wait what? You think these picks are more valuable because the teams don't own them? That means they are the team least likely to tank at the end of the season and would be less valuable. If we offered the Lakers pick for the Bulls pick the bulls would laugh at us. Same as the Hawks. Super confused what you are trying to say here...

If any of the other team's dealt their pick for a player (the situation Moranis is talking about), they would have no "incentive to tank" either.  Plus, in the case if the other teams, the player you traded for the pick would stand a chance of improving the team enough to pull them out of the bottom. That's not something you have to worry about with the Nets' or Lakers' picks.

I see. That seems like a really bizarre angle to me. Perhaps the most strange I have come across on this board (which is really saying something).

The Bulls and Hawks are completely rebuilding and are both force feeding minutes to young players. I can't imagine a situation where they make a trade for a player that will significantly impact their record. Like who could that player be? I would challenge any one on the board to come up with a trade like that in the realm of reality. It would have to be someone like Antonio Davis or Leonard or Lebron or Durant to be significant impact on their wins and this season and why would a trade like that happen in the middle of the season? It would both annoy the star player to be their fighting like crazy to be lower end lottery team while also hurting the value of the best asset in the trade that the team got for trading their star player. I can't really think of a less likely trade.

What is actually likely is that the Hawks find someone with a slight interest in one of their few remaining vets before the deadline Bellineli, Bazemore, Illysova. If we are being serious I can't really imagine how someone with a straight face would rather the Nets pick the Hawks pick right now...

No one is saying that the Hawks or Bulls or Suns are likely to trade their pick. But the Nets and Lakers picks are the only two top picks in the NBA this year that, if they're traded (I feel like I need to repeat that no one is saying that it's likely that the Lakers, Suns, Bulls, or Hawks picks will be traded this year. The Nets... maybe), won't decrease in value because of the trade. Obviously the Suns' pick is more valuable than the Net's pick right now, but any trade that involved the Suns pick would include players that made them significantly better right now. On the other hand, a trade for the Nets or Lakers' picks would not improve the Nets or Lakers. It relates me to how a team looking to deal a star for a draft pick would weigh things (like the Pelicans if they decide to deal Boogie for a pick/picks)

And this isn't some new concept to the board. Many articles around the trade deadline last year raised this point about the Nets' pick and how it would be more valuable to the Bulls or Pacers than another top pick (since the Nets wouldn't be getting PG or Butler, while any other team with a comparable pick would be).

I'd also like to add that a team doesn't have to add a top, top player in order to turn their season around - the 2015 Celtics should be proof of that 

Edit: Boogie might not be the best example of a player making a team win more games, but you get the ideal 

I understand the concept. However, I am trying to ask what a feasible trade that could happen that would actually make this relevant (and close the existing talent gap)

Moranis proposed the Hawks trade their pick for Bledsoe and Chandler as an example of this. This is good example of what I am talking about:
1) Bledsoe is upset with the losing in Phoenix so he gets trades to an equally bad lottery team. How is he happy with this?
2) Bledsoe played in 66 games with the Suns last year and didn't exactly significantly impact their won loss record. How good is a Hawks team with Bledsoe and Schroeder and young players, 25 wins still?
3) Why would the Hawks that just entered a rebuild centered around 20-24 year old players want to add a 27 year old point guard with a year and a half left on his deal? That would be one of the most bizarre trades we can come up with.
4) A player like Chandler at this stage of his career probably doesn't help a team win even a single game over the course of the season. Sending him from one lottery team to another at this stage of his career would be kind of messed up and I would hope that new team could at least offer him a buyout.

You go through the history of the NBA and trades and try to be realistic and we are just debating situation... That is why I say it is a very bizarre angle. If we can start coming up with some feasible situation where this would come in to play I would love to hear it....

I didn't actually propose the Hawks trade their pick for Bledsoe and Chandler, though, merely that they acquire them along with Davis (for the pick).

[celticsclay]

At this point in the season, IMO the Nets is the 2nd most valuable pick in the next draft behind the Lakers pick because those are the only 2 picks resulting from teams in the lottery that aren't owned by the lottery team so their value will not change if you acquired that pick.  Now obviously at the trade deadline the value of picks might change, but right now Lakers is 1 and Nets is 2 (and I could certainly see some arguing that the Nets is more valuable than the Lakers).

Wait what? You think these picks are more valuable because the teams don't own them? That means they are the team least likely to tank at the end of the season and would be less valuable. If we offered the Lakers pick for the Bulls pick the bulls would laugh at us. Same as the Hawks. Super confused what you are trying to say here...

If any of the other team's dealt their pick for a player (the situation Moranis is talking about), they would have no "incentive to tank" either.  Plus, in the case if the other teams, the player you traded for the pick would stand a chance of improving the team enough to pull them out of the bottom. That's not something you have to worry about with the Nets' or Lakers' picks.

I see. That seems like a really bizarre angle to me. Perhaps the most strange I have come across on this board (which is really saying something).

The Bulls and Hawks are completely rebuilding and are both force feeding minutes to young players. I can't imagine a situation where they make a trade for a player that will significantly impact their record. Like who could that player be? I would challenge any one on the board to come up with a trade like that in the realm of reality. It would have to be someone like Antonio Davis or Leonard or Lebron or Durant to be significant impact on their wins and this season and why would a trade like that happen in the middle of the season? It would both annoy the star player to be their fighting like crazy to be lower end lottery team while also hurting the value of the best asset in the trade that the team got for trading their star player. I can't really think of a less likely trade.

What is actually likely is that the Hawks find someone with a slight interest in one of their few remaining vets before the deadline Bellineli, Bazemore, Illysova. If we are being serious I can't really imagine how someone with a straight face would rather the Nets pick the Hawks pick right now...

No one is saying that the Hawks or Bulls or Suns are likely to trade their pick. But the Nets and Lakers picks are the only two top picks in the NBA this year that, if they're traded (I feel like I need to repeat that no one is saying that it's likely that the Lakers, Suns, Bulls, or Hawks picks will be traded this year. The Nets... maybe), won't decrease in value because of the trade. Obviously the Suns' pick is more valuable than the Net's pick right now, but any trade that involved the Suns pick would include players that made them significantly better right now. On the other hand, a trade for the Nets or Lakers' picks would not improve the Nets or Lakers. It relates me to how a team looking to deal a star for a draft pick would weigh things (like the Pelicans if they decide to deal Boogie for a pick/picks)

And this isn't some new concept to the board. Many articles around the trade deadline last year raised this point about the Nets' pick and how it would be more valuable to the Bulls or Pacers than another top pick (since the Nets wouldn't be getting PG or Butler, while any other team with a comparable pick would be).

I'd also like to add that a team doesn't have to add a top, top player in order to turn their season around - the 2015 Celtics should be proof of that 

Edit: Boogie might not be the best example of a player making a team win more games, but you get the ideal 

I understand the concept. However, I am trying to ask what a feasible trade that could happen that would actually make this relevant (and close the existing talent gap)

Moranis proposed the Hawks trade their pick for Bledsoe and Chandler as an example of this. This is good example of what I am talking about:
1) Bledsoe is upset with the losing in Phoenix so he gets trades to an equally bad lottery team. How is he happy with this?
2) Bledsoe played in 66 games with the Suns last year and didn't exactly significantly impact their won loss record. How good is a Hawks team with Bledsoe and Schroeder and young players, 25 wins still?
3) Why would the Hawks that just entered a rebuild centered around 20-24 year old players want to add a 27 year old point guard with a year and a half left on his deal? That would be one of the most bizarre trades we can come up with.
4) A player like Chandler at this stage of his career probably doesn't help a team win even a single game over the course of the season. Sending him from one lottery team to another at this stage of his career would be kind of messed up and I would hope that new team could at least offer him a buyout.

You go through the history of the NBA and trades and try to be realistic and we are just debating situation... That is why I say it is a very bizarre angle. If we can start coming up with some feasible situation where this would come in to play I would love to hear it....

I didn't actually propose the Hawks trade their pick for Bledsoe and Chandler, though, merely that they acquire them along with Davis (for the pick).

What do you think the actual chances are that the Bulls or Hawks trade their pick for an established star this season?

The Hawks and Bulls are primed to add a top 5 player in a loaded draft that will be under their control for many seasons at a reasonable price. They also both have teams where just about all the talent is 20-24. Why are the going to trade this asset for some unknown star that is going to clog their cap and make them a slightly better lottery team and older than their core? It literally makes no sense at any level...

So if you are being honest that there is no chance that the Hawks or Bulls (or suns for that matter) trade their pick, you are arguing that the Nets or Lakers pick have more value based on something that is 1 in 100,000 of happening.... 

[Moranis]

At this point in the season, IMO the Nets is the 2nd most valuable pick in the next draft behind the Lakers pick because those are the only 2 picks resulting from teams in the lottery that aren't owned by the lottery team so their value will not change if you acquired that pick.  Now obviously at the trade deadline the value of picks might change, but right now Lakers is 1 and Nets is 2 (and I could certainly see some arguing that the Nets is more valuable than the Lakers).

Wait what? You think these picks are more valuable because the teams don't own them? That means they are the team least likely to tank at the end of the season and would be less valuable. If we offered the Lakers pick for the Bulls pick the bulls would laugh at us. Same as the Hawks. Super confused what you are trying to say here...

If any of the other team's dealt their pick for a player (the situation Moranis is talking about), they would have no "incentive to tank" either.  Plus, in the case if the other teams, the player you traded for the pick would stand a chance of improving the team enough to pull them out of the bottom. That's not something you have to worry about with the Nets' or Lakers' picks.

I see. That seems like a really bizarre angle to me. Perhaps the most strange I have come across on this board (which is really saying something).

The Bulls and Hawks are completely rebuilding and are both force feeding minutes to young players. I can't imagine a situation where they make a trade for a player that will significantly impact their record. Like who could that player be? I would challenge any one on the board to come up with a trade like that in the realm of reality. It would have to be someone like Antonio Davis or Leonard or Lebron or Durant to be significant impact on their wins and this season and why would a trade like that happen in the middle of the season? It would both annoy the star player to be their fighting like crazy to be lower end lottery team while also hurting the value of the best asset in the trade that the team got for trading their star player. I can't really think of a less likely trade.

What is actually likely is that the Hawks find someone with a slight interest in one of their few remaining vets before the deadline Bellineli, Bazemore, Illysova. If we are being serious I can't really imagine how someone with a straight face would rather the Nets pick the Hawks pick right now...

The only thing bizarre is that you actually think it is bizarre that the Nets and Lakers picks being owned by other teams doesn't increase their value.  It is still very early in the season.  What if the Hawks acquire Bledsoe and Chandler next week (not saying this would happen, but it obviously could) and trade their pick for Davis (or maybe they trade their pick for Davis and then acquire Bledsoe and Chandler)?  How valuable is that Hawks pick in that scenario?  Wouldn't the Pelicans much rather have the Lakers pick from Boston or the Nets picks from the Cavs?  It makes absolutely no difference how much better you make the Celtics or Cavs, the value of the pick you are acquiring doesn't change at all, while the Hawks pick, the Bulls pick, etc. could certainly get worse and thus make that pick have less value.

Now obviously, as I said, at the trade deadline things could be different.  If the Hawks have 5 wins and the Nets have 30, you'd much rather acquire the Hawks pick in that situation even if the trade made them a lot better, but the trade deadline is a long way away.

Ok lets try to tackle this Davis idea since this is 100% what i am talking about. Here are the issues with this scenario

1) The Pelicans are playing .500 ball and have not even had their starting point guard play a game yet. If they somehow decide to blow it up, it would be 50 games into the season.
2) Obviously Davis is worth a lot more than the Pelicans pick, what could the Hawks actually trade for him? They can't trade consecutive number 1 picks and also have to make salaries match. Even if they trade offered their whole roster and that pick the Pelicans are not going to be interested in it.
3) If the Pelicans are trading Davis, why would it be to a team with any less talent than what the Pelicans already have? If Holiday, Cousins, Rondo and Davis isn't enough to even make the playoffs, how is a Davis led Hawks team not still super deep in the lottery? Wouldn't it be way more likely for Davis/Cousins etc to go to a team like the Celtics and Cavs where they could legit win a championship? This is why trades like this are not realistic at all and I can't think of a single one like this happening in the last 20 years (team expected to win 20 games lands a superstar mid season that improves their wins dramatically).

If the Pelicans decide to trade Davis, they will trade him to the team that gives them the best offer.  Whatever that team may be.  The Hawks are bad, but why does that matter to the Pelicans.  If the Hawks have 5 wins 50 games into the season, that pick might very well have the most value, so why wouldn't the Pelicans look into that, especially if the Hawks take on some bad contracts.  I mean something like Bazemore, Waller-Prince, Dedmon, Illyasova, Bembry, Plumlee, and 18 and 20 1st's for Davis, Asik, and Hill, isn't exactly a bad trade for the Pelicans.  The Hawks might be inclined to do that to land Davis and pair him with Shroder.  That is a nice little 2 some going forward to build around.

However, we are a two weeks into the season.  Any trade with the Hawks where the Hawks actually give up their unprotected 1st this year (or even just slightly protected 1st) is going to make the Hawks a lot better post-trade.  Maybe so much better that the Hawks are obviously no longer the worst team but maybe they aren't even a bottom 5 going forward thus diminishing the value of that pick a lot.  The longer the season goes on with the Hawks being terrible, the more value that Hawks pick has, but right now, the Lakers and Nets picks are the two most valuable picks for trade in the next draft. 

[Moranis]

At this point in the season, IMO the Nets is the 2nd most valuable pick in the next draft behind the Lakers pick because those are the only 2 picks resulting from teams in the lottery that aren't owned by the lottery team so their value will not change if you acquired that pick.  Now obviously at the trade deadline the value of picks might change, but right now Lakers is 1 and Nets is 2 (and I could certainly see some arguing that the Nets is more valuable than the Lakers).

Wait what? You think these picks are more valuable because the teams don't own them? That means they are the team least likely to tank at the end of the season and would be less valuable. If we offered the Lakers pick for the Bulls pick the bulls would laugh at us. Same as the Hawks. Super confused what you are trying to say here...

If any of the other team's dealt their pick for a player (the situation Moranis is talking about), they would have no "incentive to tank" either.  Plus, in the case if the other teams, the player you traded for the pick would stand a chance of improving the team enough to pull them out of the bottom. That's not something you have to worry about with the Nets' or Lakers' picks.

I see. That seems like a really bizarre angle to me. Perhaps the most strange I have come across on this board (which is really saying something).

The Bulls and Hawks are completely rebuilding and are both force feeding minutes to young players. I can't imagine a situation where they make a trade for a player that will significantly impact their record. Like who could that player be? I would challenge any one on the board to come up with a trade like that in the realm of reality. It would have to be someone like Antonio Davis or Leonard or Lebron or Durant to be significant impact on their wins and this season and why would a trade like that happen in the middle of the season? It would both annoy the star player to be their fighting like crazy to be lower end lottery team while also hurting the value of the best asset in the trade that the team got for trading their star player. I can't really think of a less likely trade.

What is actually likely is that the Hawks find someone with a slight interest in one of their few remaining vets before the deadline Bellineli, Bazemore, Illysova. If we are being serious I can't really imagine how someone with a straight face would rather the Nets pick the Hawks pick right now...

No one is saying that the Hawks or Bulls or Suns are likely to trade their pick. But the Nets and Lakers picks are the only two top picks in the NBA this year that, if they're traded (I feel like I need to repeat that no one is saying that it's likely that the Lakers, Suns, Bulls, or Hawks picks will be traded this year. The Nets... maybe), won't decrease in value because of the trade. Obviously the Suns' pick is more valuable than the Net's pick right now, but any trade that involved the Suns pick would include players that made them significantly better right now. On the other hand, a trade for the Nets or Lakers' picks would not improve the Nets or Lakers. It relates me to how a team looking to deal a star for a draft pick would weigh things (like the Pelicans if they decide to deal Boogie for a pick/picks)

And this isn't some new concept to the board. Many articles around the trade deadline last year raised this point about the Nets' pick and how it would be more valuable to the Bulls or Pacers than another top pick (since the Nets wouldn't be getting PG or Butler, while any other team with a comparable pick would be).

I'd also like to add that a team doesn't have to add a top, top player in order to turn their season around - the 2015 Celtics should be proof of that 

Edit: Boogie might not be the best example of a player making a team win more games, but you get the ideal 

I understand the concept. However, I am trying to ask what a feasible trade that could happen that would actually make this relevant (and close the existing talent gap)

Moranis proposed the Hawks trade their pick for Bledsoe and Chandler as an example of this. This is good example of what I am talking about:
1) Bledsoe is upset with the losing in Phoenix so he gets trades to an equally bad lottery team. How is he happy with this?
2) Bledsoe played in 66 games with the Suns last year and didn't exactly significantly impact their won loss record. How good is a Hawks team with Bledsoe and Schroeder and young players, 25 wins still?
3) Why would the Hawks that just entered a rebuild centered around 20-24 year old players want to add a 27 year old point guard with a year and a half left on his deal? That would be one of the most bizarre trades we can come up with.
4) A player like Chandler at this stage of his career probably doesn't help a team win even a single game over the course of the season. Sending him from one lottery team to another at this stage of his career would be kind of messed up and I would hope that new team could at least offer him a buyout.

You go through the history of the NBA and trades and try to be realistic and we are just debating situation... That is why I say it is a very bizarre angle. If we can start coming up with some feasible situation where this would come in to play I would love to hear it....

I didn't actually propose the Hawks trade their pick for Bledsoe and Chandler, though, merely that they acquire them along with Davis (for the pick).

What do you think the actual chances are that the Bulls or Hawks trade their pick for an established star this season?

The Hawks and Bulls are primed to add a top 5 player in a loaded draft that will be under their control for many seasons at a reasonable price. They also both have teams where just about all the talent is 20-24. Why are the going to trade this asset for some unknown star that is going to clog their cap and make them a slightly better lottery team and older than their core? It literally makes no sense at any level...

So if you are being honest that there is no chance that the Hawks or Bulls (or suns for that matter) trade their pick, you are arguing that the Nets or Lakers pick have more value based on something that is 1 in 100,000 of happening....

I think it is small that any likely lottery team that actually owns its pick trades it during the season, but if Anthony Davis were to actually come available, I think every team in the league would make a call, including the Bulls and Hawks. 

[Roy H.]

It has “significant value”. Saying it doesn’t is silly.

They might not be able to trade it for a star, but the value is still very good.

[celticsclay]

At this point in the season, IMO the Nets is the 2nd most valuable pick in the next draft behind the Lakers pick because those are the only 2 picks resulting from teams in the lottery that aren't owned by the lottery team so their value will not change if you acquired that pick.  Now obviously at the trade deadline the value of picks might change, but right now Lakers is 1 and Nets is 2 (and I could certainly see some arguing that the Nets is more valuable than the Lakers).

Wait what? You think these picks are more valuable because the teams don't own them? That means they are the team least likely to tank at the end of the season and would be less valuable. If we offered the Lakers pick for the Bulls pick the bulls would laugh at us. Same as the Hawks. Super confused what you are trying to say here...

If any of the other team's dealt their pick for a player (the situation Moranis is talking about), they would have no "incentive to tank" either.  Plus, in the case if the other teams, the player you traded for the pick would stand a chance of improving the team enough to pull them out of the bottom. That's not something you have to worry about with the Nets' or Lakers' picks.

I see. That seems like a really bizarre angle to me. Perhaps the most strange I have come across on this board (which is really saying something).

The Bulls and Hawks are completely rebuilding and are both force feeding minutes to young players. I can't imagine a situation where they make a trade for a player that will significantly impact their record. Like who could that player be? I would challenge any one on the board to come up with a trade like that in the realm of reality. It would have to be someone like Antonio Davis or Leonard or Lebron or Durant to be significant impact on their wins and this season and why would a trade like that happen in the middle of the season? It would both annoy the star player to be their fighting like crazy to be lower end lottery team while also hurting the value of the best asset in the trade that the team got for trading their star player. I can't really think of a less likely trade.

What is actually likely is that the Hawks find someone with a slight interest in one of their few remaining vets before the deadline Bellineli, Bazemore, Illysova. If we are being serious I can't really imagine how someone with a straight face would rather the Nets pick the Hawks pick right now...

No one is saying that the Hawks or Bulls or Suns are likely to trade their pick. But the Nets and Lakers picks are the only two top picks in the NBA this year that, if they're traded (I feel like I need to repeat that no one is saying that it's likely that the Lakers, Suns, Bulls, or Hawks picks will be traded this year. The Nets... maybe), won't decrease in value because of the trade. Obviously the Suns' pick is more valuable than the Net's pick right now, but any trade that involved the Suns pick would include players that made them significantly better right now. On the other hand, a trade for the Nets or Lakers' picks would not improve the Nets or Lakers. It relates me to how a team looking to deal a star for a draft pick would weigh things (like the Pelicans if they decide to deal Boogie for a pick/picks)

And this isn't some new concept to the board. Many articles around the trade deadline last year raised this point about the Nets' pick and how it would be more valuable to the Bulls or Pacers than another top pick (since the Nets wouldn't be getting PG or Butler, while any other team with a comparable pick would be).

I'd also like to add that a team doesn't have to add a top, top player in order to turn their season around - the 2015 Celtics should be proof of that 

Edit: Boogie might not be the best example of a player making a team win more games, but you get the ideal 

I understand the concept. However, I am trying to ask what a feasible trade that could happen that would actually make this relevant (and close the existing talent gap)

Moranis proposed the Hawks trade their pick for Bledsoe and Chandler as an example of this. This is good example of what I am talking about:
1) Bledsoe is upset with the losing in Phoenix so he gets trades to an equally bad lottery team. How is he happy with this?
2) Bledsoe played in 66 games with the Suns last year and didn't exactly significantly impact their won loss record. How good is a Hawks team with Bledsoe and Schroeder and young players, 25 wins still?
3) Why would the Hawks that just entered a rebuild centered around 20-24 year old players want to add a 27 year old point guard with a year and a half left on his deal? That would be one of the most bizarre trades we can come up with.
4) A player like Chandler at this stage of his career probably doesn't help a team win even a single game over the course of the season. Sending him from one lottery team to another at this stage of his career would be kind of messed up and I would hope that new team could at least offer him a buyout.

You go through the history of the NBA and trades and try to be realistic and we are just debating situation... That is why I say it is a very bizarre angle. If we can start coming up with some feasible situation where this would come in to play I would love to hear it....

I didn't actually propose the Hawks trade their pick for Bledsoe and Chandler, though, merely that they acquire them along with Davis (for the pick).

What do you think the actual chances are that the Bulls or Hawks trade their pick for an established star this season?

The Hawks and Bulls are primed to add a top 5 player in a loaded draft that will be under their control for many seasons at a reasonable price. They also both have teams where just about all the talent is 20-24. Why are the going to trade this asset for some unknown star that is going to clog their cap and make them a slightly better lottery team and older than their core? It literally makes no sense at any level...

So if you are being honest that there is no chance that the Hawks or Bulls (or suns for that matter) trade their pick, you are arguing that the Nets or Lakers pick have more value based on something that is 1 in 100,000 of happening....

I think it is small that any likely lottery team that actually owns its pick trades it during the season, but if Anthony Davis were to actually come available, I think every team in the league would make a call, including the Bulls and Hawks.

Sure but they would be one of the least likely destinations for him because they
1) have very few assets
2) he wouldn't want to go there

3) if somehow, through the craziest series of events in the history of the NBA, the pelicans fell in love with mike muscala and wanted to only deal with the Hawks, they would wait to do the deal until after the season was over so they would get a higher draft pick.

This is seriously ridiculous...

[celticsclay]

At this point in the season, IMO the Nets is the 2nd most valuable pick in the next draft behind the Lakers pick because those are the only 2 picks resulting from teams in the lottery that aren't owned by the lottery team so their value will not change if you acquired that pick.  Now obviously at the trade deadline the value of picks might change, but right now Lakers is 1 and Nets is 2 (and I could certainly see some arguing that the Nets is more valuable than the Lakers).

Wait what? You think these picks are more valuable because the teams don't own them? That means they are the team least likely to tank at the end of the season and would be less valuable. If we offered the Lakers pick for the Bulls pick the bulls would laugh at us. Same as the Hawks. Super confused what you are trying to say here...

If any of the other team's dealt their pick for a player (the situation Moranis is talking about), they would have no "incentive to tank" either.  Plus, in the case if the other teams, the player you traded for the pick would stand a chance of improving the team enough to pull them out of the bottom. That's not something you have to worry about with the Nets' or Lakers' picks.

I see. That seems like a really bizarre angle to me. Perhaps the most strange I have come across on this board (which is really saying something).

The Bulls and Hawks are completely rebuilding and are both force feeding minutes to young players. I can't imagine a situation where they make a trade for a player that will significantly impact their record. Like who could that player be? I would challenge any one on the board to come up with a trade like that in the realm of reality. It would have to be someone like Antonio Davis or Leonard or Lebron or Durant to be significant impact on their wins and this season and why would a trade like that happen in the middle of the season? It would both annoy the star player to be their fighting like crazy to be lower end lottery team while also hurting the value of the best asset in the trade that the team got for trading their star player. I can't really think of a less likely trade.

What is actually likely is that the Hawks find someone with a slight interest in one of their few remaining vets before the deadline Bellineli, Bazemore, Illysova. If we are being serious I can't really imagine how someone with a straight face would rather the Nets pick the Hawks pick right now...

The only thing bizarre is that you actually think it is bizarre that the Nets and Lakers picks being owned by other teams doesn't increase their value.  It is still very early in the season.  What if the Hawks acquire Bledsoe and Chandler next week (not saying this would happen, but it obviously could) and trade their pick for Davis (or maybe they trade their pick for Davis and then acquire Bledsoe and Chandler)?  How valuable is that Hawks pick in that scenario?  Wouldn't the Pelicans much rather have the Lakers pick from Boston or the Nets picks from the Cavs?  It makes absolutely no difference how much better you make the Celtics or Cavs, the value of the pick you are acquiring doesn't change at all, while the Hawks pick, the Bulls pick, etc. could certainly get worse and thus make that pick have less value.

Now obviously, as I said, at the trade deadline things could be different.  If the Hawks have 5 wins and the Nets have 30, you'd much rather acquire the Hawks pick in that situation even if the trade made them a lot better, but the trade deadline is a long way away.

Ok lets try to tackle this Davis idea since this is 100% what i am talking about. Here are the issues with this scenario

1) The Pelicans are playing .500 ball and have not even had their starting point guard play a game yet. If they somehow decide to blow it up, it would be 50 games into the season.
2) Obviously Davis is worth a lot more than the Pelicans pick, what could the Hawks actually trade for him? They can't trade consecutive number 1 picks and also have to make salaries match. Even if they trade offered their whole roster and that pick the Pelicans are not going to be interested in it.
3) If the Pelicans are trading Davis, why would it be to a team with any less talent than what the Pelicans already have? If Holiday, Cousins, Rondo and Davis isn't enough to even make the playoffs, how is a Davis led Hawks team not still super deep in the lottery? Wouldn't it be way more likely for Davis/Cousins etc to go to a team like the Celtics and Cavs where they could legit win a championship? This is why trades like this are not realistic at all and I can't think of a single one like this happening in the last 20 years (team expected to win 20 games lands a superstar mid season that improves their wins dramatically).

If the Pelicans decide to trade Davis, they will trade him to the team that gives them the best offer.  Whatever that team may be.  The Hawks are bad, but why does that matter to the Pelicans.  If the Hawks have 5 wins 50 games into the season, that pick might very well have the most value, so why wouldn't the Pelicans look into that, especially if the Hawks take on some bad contracts.  I mean something like Bazemore, Waller-Prince, Dedmon, Illyasova, Bembry, Plumlee, and 18 and 20 1st's for Davis, Asik, and Hill, isn't exactly a bad trade for the Pelicans.  The Hawks might be inclined to do that to land Davis and pair him with Shroder.  That is a nice little 2 some going forward to build around.

However, we are a two weeks into the season.  Any trade with the Hawks where the Hawks actually give up their unprotected 1st this year (or even just slightly protected 1st) is going to make the Hawks a lot better post-trade.  Maybe so much better that the Hawks are obviously no longer the worst team but maybe they aren't even a bottom 5 going forward thus diminishing the value of that pick a lot.  The longer the season goes on with the Hawks being terrible, the more value that Hawks pick has, but right now, the Lakers and Nets picks are the two most valuable picks for trade in the next draft.

What? This is a poo-poo platter of low level prospects and weird veterans with probably one lottery pick. That is such a bad trade Silver might be forced to veto it in the interest of the league.... you are on a weird island today big mo. 

[tazzmaniac]

The Nets 1st 10 games are very easy.  I wouldn't use it to project the value of the pick.  The problem the Cavs have is that Lebron hasn't committed to re-signing with them.  Until he does, the Cavs should not consider trading the Nets pick.  Of course, it is hard to see Lebron committing to return with their current roster and limited flexibility to change it. 

[TheSundanceKid]

At this point in the season, IMO the Nets is the 2nd most valuable pick in the next draft behind the Lakers pick because those are the only 2 picks resulting from teams in the lottery that aren't owned by the lottery team so their value will not change if you acquired that pick.  Now obviously at the trade deadline the value of picks might change, but right now Lakers is 1 and Nets is 2 (and I could certainly see some arguing that the Nets is more valuable than the Lakers).

Wait what? You think these picks are more valuable because the teams don't own them? That means they are the team least likely to tank at the end of the season and would be less valuable. If we offered the Lakers pick for the Bulls pick the bulls would laugh at us. Same as the Hawks. Super confused what you are trying to say here...

If any of the other team's dealt their pick for a player (the situation Moranis is talking about), they would have no "incentive to tank" either.  Plus, in the case if the other teams, the player you traded for the pick would stand a chance of improving the team enough to pull them out of the bottom. That's not something you have to worry about with the Nets' or Lakers' picks.

I see. That seems like a really bizarre angle to me. Perhaps the most strange I have come across on this board (which is really saying something).

The Bulls and Hawks are completely rebuilding and are both force feeding minutes to young players. I can't imagine a situation where they make a trade for a player that will significantly impact their record. Like who could that player be? I would challenge any one on the board to come up with a trade like that in the realm of reality. It would have to be someone like Antonio Davis or Leonard or Lebron or Durant to be significant impact on their wins and this season and why would a trade like that happen in the middle of the season? It would both annoy the star player to be their fighting like crazy to be lower end lottery team while also hurting the value of the best asset in the trade that the team got for trading their star player. I can't really think of a less likely trade.

What is actually likely is that the Hawks find someone with a slight interest in one of their few remaining vets before the deadline Bellineli, Bazemore, Illysova. If we are being serious I can't really imagine how someone with a straight face would rather the Nets pick the Hawks pick right now...

This is the angle we have been talking about on these boards since 2014... when we owned the Nets picks. It's not bizzare at all, it's logic.

[dreamgreen]

I hate when talk about teams and players a few games into the season. Lebron as much as I hate him made a point I totally agree with. That most teams take a while to figure themselves out and after X-mass is when you should see the real contenders begin to break through.

Isn't it convenient for Lebron that is when IT4 is due back on or around. Does mean they should know where they stand come playoff time?

Yea I'm sure that has something to do with it but I equate it to football. First 4 games teams try to figure themselves out, next 4 learn to play to their strengths, last 8 play to their full potential. Obviously coaching, injuries, schedule and other factors play a role but I think you get the point.   

[Big333223]

At this point in the season, IMO the Nets is the 2nd most valuable pick in the next draft behind the Lakers pick because those are the only 2 picks resulting from teams in the lottery that aren't owned by the lottery team so their value will not change if you acquired that pick.  Now obviously at the trade deadline the value of picks might change, but right now Lakers is 1 and Nets is 2 (and I could certainly see some arguing that the Nets is more valuable than the Lakers).

Wait what? You think these picks are more valuable because the teams don't own them? That means they are the team least likely to tank at the end of the season and would be less valuable. If we offered the Lakers pick for the Bulls pick the bulls would laugh at us. Same as the Hawks. Super confused what you are trying to say here...

If any of the other team's dealt their pick for a player (the situation Moranis is talking about), they would have no "incentive to tank" either.  Plus, in the case if the other teams, the player you traded for the pick would stand a chance of improving the team enough to pull them out of the bottom. That's not something you have to worry about with the Nets' or Lakers' picks.

I see. That seems like a really bizarre angle to me. Perhaps the most strange I have come across on this board (which is really saying something).

The Bulls and Hawks are completely rebuilding and are both force feeding minutes to young players. I can't imagine a situation where they make a trade for a player that will significantly impact their record. Like who could that player be? I would challenge any one on the board to come up with a trade like that in the realm of reality. It would have to be someone like Antonio Davis or Leonard or Lebron or Durant to be significant impact on their wins and this season and why would a trade like that happen in the middle of the season? It would both annoy the star player to be their fighting like crazy to be lower end lottery team while also hurting the value of the best asset in the trade that the team got for trading their star player. I can't really think of a less likely trade.

What is actually likely is that the Hawks find someone with a slight interest in one of their few remaining vets before the deadline Bellineli, Bazemore, Illysova. If we are being serious I can't really imagine how someone with a straight face would rather the Nets pick the Hawks pick right now...

This is the angle we have been talking about on these boards since 2014... when we owned the Nets picks. It's not bizzare at all, it's logic.

Yeah, I'm also with Moranis on this. Whether or not I agree, it makes perfect sense.

Maybe it's worth making a distinction between a pick's inherent value and its value in a trade. I think the Hawk's pick is "more valuable" than the Nets' because I think the Hawks are a dumpster fire and the Nets are weird and frisky. But in any trade, the Hawks pick going out would mean more talent coming back to Atlanta, which would decrease the value of that pick. So the Hawks pick has more value on the Hawks than it would on any other team it gets traded to.

Not so, for the Nets pick, since the Nets wouldn't be improving at all from this theoretical trade. So even though I think the Hawks pick is more valuable as an asset in a vacuum, if I was looking to trade my all star player to blow up my team, I would rather get back the Nets pick and not help their team than get back the Hawk's pick where I've just helped make them better.

As has been stated, it's very unlikely any of these bottom teams are letting go of their own picks but that doesn't make the valuation any less logical.

[Granath]

We've put the "no incentive to tank" myth to bed. It's dead, buried and worm food by now. The "no incentive to tank" Nets gave us the #1 and #3 picks. Yet we've heard time and time again how the Nets picks wouldn't be as good as expected because 4-5 other teams would tank and pass the Nets in the loss column. It didn't happen.

It's simple. Really bad teams are really bad regardless of any (usually mythical) tanking incentive. The whole narrative of teams with incentive to tank somehow changing the draft order in any substantial manner is largely a myth. 

The Nets are 3-4. Big whoop. They were 3-4 last year and finished with a whopping 20 wins. However, we don't own their pick this year so I really don't care what happens in the other 75 games this year outside of them losing to the Celtics a few times.

[DooVoo]

We've put the "no incentive to tank" myth to bed. It's dead, buried and worm food by now. The "no incentive to tank" Nets gave us the #1 and #3 picks. Yet we've heard time and time again how the Nets picks wouldn't be as good as expected because 4-5 other teams would tank and pass the Nets in the loss column. It didn't happen.

It's simple. Really bad teams are really bad regardless of any (usually mythical) tanking incentive. The whole narrative of teams with incentive to tank somehow changing the draft order in any substantial manner is largely a myth. 

The Nets are 3-4. Big whoop. They were 3-4 last year and finished with a whopping 20 wins. However, we don't own their pick this year so I really don't care what happens in the other 75 games this year outside of them losing to the Celtics a few times.

The have a better coach and more talent this year. That is the difference. And that could be the difference between that pick being #1 or #6-9.