Draft Pick Watch

[CardsSunsDbacks]

So let me see if I have this straight. The Suns get:

The worse of the MIN/MEM picks, unless both miss the playoffs (approximately), and

The MIA pick, unless LAL misses the playoffs, in which case the LAL pick.

Is that right?

Yeah that's pretty much it.

 

[SunsTzu]

So let me see if I have this straight. The Suns get:

The worse of the MIN/MEM picks, unless both miss the playoffs (approximately), and

The MIA pick, unless LAL misses the playoffs, in which case the LAL pick.

Is that right?

I think the wording of the Min pick is misleading. I originally thought this scenario to be the case, but now believe that the Wolves need to make the playoffs in order for the Suns to get the pick.

The following shows a breakdown of the conditions of the pick and why there is confusion surrounding it.

http://valleyofthesuns.com/2012/07/28/complicated-draft-pick-protections-held-up-lopez-deal/

 

[hcsilla]

I think the wording of the Min pick is misleading. I originally thought this scenario to be the case, but now believe that the Wolves need to make the playoffs in order for the Suns to get the pick.

The following shows a breakdown of the conditions of the pick and why there is confusion surrounding it.

http://valleyofthesuns.com/2012/07/28/complicated-draft-pick-protections-held-up-lopez-deal/

Thanks, that's a very important and detailed info and it is on our favor.

MIN probably (if they miss the play-off and won't be the best non-play-off team) will get MEM pick this year and we will get a 1st rounder from MIN in the next 3 seasons.

 

[slinslin]

Ummm that link tells me that we will get Memphis pick this season.

And even if we did not Minnesotas pick would always be at least top12 protected

 

[hcsilla]

And even if we did not Minnesotas pick would always be at least top12 protected

Yes, and how is that not better than a #20-23 pick in this year's draft?

 

[SunsTzu]

Ummm that link tells me that we will get Memphis pick this season.

If the Memphis pick conveys but the Minnesota pick doesn’t, then the pick will roll over to the next season and thus only future Minnesota picks will be in play.

Ideally the Wolves will make the playoffs as a lower seed in 2014. A mid first next year is much better than a late first this year imo.

 

[slinslin]

Yes, and how is that not better than a #20-23 pick in this year's draft?

How is a #17-23 pick or 2 2nd round picks if Minnesota does not make it in the next 3 years which is a real possibility doing us any favor?

This draft is no worse than upcomming drafts. All that "weak draft" talk is just the same as almost every season. Even if there is no Andrew Wiggins uber franchise type player this year the draft appears rather deep in terms of quality prospects through the middle of the first round at least.

 

[hcsilla]

slinslin, you love to argue anything and the opposite of it sometimes (or often) without any specific knowledge.
It is pretty obvious that "new" informations about the MEM/MIN pick do favour the Suns, yet you try to convince yourself that they don't.

You obviously know very little about this draft or the next, barely seen anyone from this year's draft to play, yet you state that this draft is not weak.

Keep it up.

 

[BC867]

How is a #17-23 pick or 2 2nd round picks if Minnesota does not make it in the next 3 years which is a real possibility doing us any favor?

This draft is no worse than upcomming drafts. All that "weak draft" talk is just the same as almost every season. Even if there is no Andrew Wiggins uber franchise type player this year the draft appears rather deep in terms of quality prospects through the middle of the first round at least.

slinslin, you love to argue anything and the opposite of it sometimes (or often) without any specific knowledge.
It is pretty obvious that "new" informations about the MEM/MIN pick do favour the Suns, yet you try to convince yourself that they don't.

You obviously know very little about this draft or the next, barely seen anyone from this year's draft to play, yet you state that this draft is not weak.

Keep it up.

"And so sports fans, the score of the international Suns draft debate seems to have Hungary and Germany tied at the end of the 3rd quarter. We'll be right back after this commercial break for the exciting conclusion."

'Sorry, guys. I couldn't resist.

 

[Errntknght]

If Memphis makes the playoffs this year, which they almost certainly will then their pick will convey to Minny. If Minny doesn't make the playoffs, which looks quite likely, one of two things happen: 1) they get the 14th pick in the draft which means their pick will convey (in the terminology of the article) so we get the worse of the two i.e. the Memphis pick. 2) Minny gets a pick 13th or better their pick will not convey so our pick from them rolls over to next year. From then on (still assuming Memphis makes the playoff this year) the Memphis pick is no longer in play so we get the Minny pick the first year its not protected.
Most likely we'll get a 13-20 pick from Minny in one, two or three years after this upcoming draft.

 

[Phrazbit]

I've seen it mentioned a few times that the Lakers pick (should they miss the playoffs) is top 3 protected... but I think thats probably incorrect. You cannot trade your own pick in back to back seasons, and seeing as they already owe us their 2015 pick then they could not have the pick this year roll over into next. Which means this this one cannot have any protections on it.

Am I correct here? Anyone know of how the rules could be different?

 

[SunsTzu]

I've seen it mentioned a few times that the Lakers pick (should they miss the playoffs) is top 3 protected... but I think thats probably incorrect. You cannot trade your own pick in back to back seasons, and seeing as they already owe us their 2015 pick then they could not have the pick this year roll over into next. Which means this this one cannot have any protections on it.

Am I correct here? Anyone know of how the rules could be different?

You are correct. The Cavs received the rights to swap the lesser of their picks in 2013 as part of the Sessions trade but the Lakers pick is lottery protected in that swap. The Nash trade with the Suns has no protection due to the Stepien rule you alluded to. The 2015 pick was initially top 5 protected but due to the same rule and the Lakers trading their 2017 pick to the Magic in the Howard trade that too has lost all protection.

 

[Errntknght]

I've seen it mentioned a few times that the Lakers pick (should they miss the playoffs) is top 3 protected... but I think thats probably incorrect. You cannot trade your own pick in back to back seasons, and seeing as they already owe us their 2015 pick then they could not have the pick this year roll over into next. Which means this this one cannot have any protections on it.

Am I correct here? Anyone know of how the rules could be different?

I think you've got the rules right but down in fine print they may have put a clause in that moves things around in the event they get a top 3 pick this year, so they don't violate the two successive future years rule.

 

[SunsTzu]

I think you've got the rules right but down in fine print they may have put a clause in that moves things around in the event they get a top 3 pick this year, so they don't violate the two successive future years rule.

Not possible.

 

[Errntknght]

Not possible.

I didn't read your reply before I typed mine or I wouldn't have posted it. I envisioned something like the 2015 pick moving to 2016 and, say, losing all protection if they got a top 3 pick this year. What I didn't know was that they've traded away their 2017 pick which rules out that kind of shift. Frankly, I don't know if the league even permits that sort of agreement to be made to skirt the Stepien rule. If thats not permitted then the Lakers could never have had any protection on this years pick.

 

[Errntknght]

On another note Eric Gordon seems to be helping NO... if he keeps it up we might snag the bottom rung of the WC ladder. Dallas seems to also be in pursuit of it so we could have to fight them off. Of course, six of the teams in the Leastern Conf. could well sneak below us - its not fair for one conf to have the first six picks in the draft! I protest. I never thought about this issue before...

 

[Cheesebeef]

if we actually let the Lakers put ANY lotto protection on any of those picks for a PG they desperately needed and wouldn't have signed there otherwise, we are freaking idiots... in other words... I fully expect that pick to have lotto protection. I mean seriously... they were supposed to be a championship contender, they desperately needed Nash and we had no reason to help them... AND we gave them high lotto protection? that would be incredible stupidity.

 

[SunsTzu]

I didn't read your reply before I typed mine or I wouldn't have posted it. I envisioned something like the 2015 pick moving to 2016 and, say, losing all protection if they got a top 3 pick this year. What I didn't know was that they've traded away their 2017 pick which rules out that kind of shift. Frankly, I don't know if the league even permits that sort of agreement to be made to skirt the Stepien rule. If thats not permitted then the Lakers could never have had any protection on this years pick.

The league wouldn't allow that. The only possible protection they could have done is add verbiage that if the Lakers were to acquire an additional 2013 or 2014 first round pick prior to the 2013 draft they would have the right to convey that pick instead. There would be no reason for the Suns to agree to such a restriction though.

 

[hcsilla]

"And so sports fans, the score of the international Suns draft debate seems to have Hungary and Germany tied at the end of the 3rd quarter. We'll be right back after this commercial break for the exciting conclusion."

 

[hcsilla]

I've seen it mentioned a few times that the Lakers pick (should they miss the playoffs) is top 3 protected... but I think thats probably incorrect. You cannot trade your own pick in back to back seasons, and seeing as they already owe us their 2015 pick then they could not have the pick this year roll over into next. Which means this this one cannot have any protections on it.

Am I correct here?

You are and I think that's why the Lakers were not allowed to put any protection on 2013 pick. If they were, they wouldn't have been able to deal their 2015 pick.

I think that this also was one of the reasons why the Nash-trade also influenced the protection of their 2013 pick (basically removed its the lottery protection) and it made sure that the Lakers definitely will give away this year's pick.

BTW, the Stepien-rule says that teams can not stay without 1st rounders in future consecutive years. So it doesn't have to be their own 1st rounders but if they don't have 1st rounders from other teams then this rule prohibits to do the thing described above.

 

[Errntknght]

Ah so. If the Stepien rule can force you to remove protection, acquiring another first round pick for the year in question would allow you to re-instate the protection. So if the Lakers were to acquire a first rounder for 2014 or 2015 before the 2013 draft then they could re-instate the protection on the 2013 pick - if it was ever there. The same would hold for the reputed top 5 protection on the 2015 pick.

Here's an interesting question. Suppose the Lakers do get lucky in the lottery and get a top three pick - could they then acquire a 2014 or 2015 first rounder so they could keep the pick?

 

[Phrazbit]

Ah so. If the Stepien rule can force you to remove protection, acquiring another first round pick for the year in question would allow you to re-instate the protection. So if the Lakers were to acquire a first rounder for 2014 or 2015 before the 2013 draft then they could re-instate the protection on the 2013 pick - if it was ever there. The same would hold for the reputed top 5 protection on the 2015 pick.

Here's an interesting question. Suppose the Lakers do get lucky in the lottery and get a top three pick - could they then acquire a 2014 or 2015 first rounder so they could keep the pick?

Not sure... but if they could it would have to be an unconditional pick to avoid potential conflict, and the odds of them landing a pick with no conditions seem far fetched.

 

[hcsilla]

Ah so. If the Stepien rule can force you to remove protection, acquiring another first round pick for the year in question would allow you to re-instate the protection.

I don't think so since the condition that the Suns will get the Lakers pick if they miss the play-off, was the part of the Nash-deal and they just can't take away that from the Suns even if they acquire another 1st rounder because that would break the agreement and deal made before.

Here's an interesting question. Suppose the Lakers do get lucky in the lottery and get a top three pick - could they then acquire a 2014 or 2015 first rounder so they could keep the pick?

I don't think that there is a top3 protection on this year's Lakers pick.

 

[slinslin]

There is no protection on the Lakers pick.

If there were they could have never made the trade. Yes the Stepien rule allows you to acquire other teams first round pick in order to deal your own future picks in consecutive years but I am pretty sure with the Lakers pick situation at the time there would have been many scenarios possible that would have violated the Stepien rule if there was protection on the 2013 pick. There might be top 3 protection on the 2015 pick if anything that would at least be plausible.

 

[SunsTzu]

Ah so. If the Stepien rule can force you to remove protection, acquiring another first round pick for the year in question would allow you to re-instate the protection. So if the Lakers were to acquire a first rounder for 2014 or 2015 before the 2013 draft then they could re-instate the protection on the 2013 pick - if it was ever there. The same would hold for the reputed top 5 protection on the 2015 pick.

Here's an interesting question. Suppose the Lakers do get lucky in the lottery and get a top three pick - could they then acquire a 2014 or 2015 first rounder so they could keep the pick?

No this is incorrect. The stipulation of them having the right to convey a different 1st round pick were they to acquire one is just a hypothetical I provided and has never actually happened in any trade. They would have needed to include such a provision prior to the deal being completed and this did not happen. The league CANNOT assume a team will reacquire another 1st round pick so once they've committed to trading additional first round picks prior to acquiring any additional picks will remove any protection.

Lakers 2013 1st round pick has absolutely no protection(though if they make the playoffs the Cavs have the right to swap it with a worse pick).

Lakers 2015 1st round pick has absolutely no protection.

There is NOTHING the Lakers can do now to retroactively place protection on the picks.