The Biedrins Factor

[Joe Mama]

Our 2004 pick is a future pick until we use it. Our 2005 pick might go to SA so we may not trade away a future pick for the 2004 and 2006 drafts. (Of course, we also may not trade away picks for the years up to about 2010 until we satisfy SA's claim for a first round pick.)

The reason the rule is stated in terms of future first round picks is not to distinguish the current year's pick from years futher in the future but to distinguish picks you have traded in the past from ones in the future, however near. For example, if you trade away your 2004 pick you cannot trade away your 2005 pick before the 2004 draft but as soon as the 2004 pick is history you may then trade your 2005 pick. Thus you could trade away your first round picks in two consecutive years but never did you owe or possibly owe first round picks for two consecutive future drafts, which is what the rule prohibits.

I have spent the last 45 minutes looking for the specific place in the actual collective-bargaining agreement that describes this rule. For the life of me I cannot find it. Do any of you know where it is?

http://www.nbpa.com/cba/cba.html

The following is from this CBA FAQ that people commonly referred to.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm

In addition, teams are restricted from trading away future first round draft picks in consecutive years. This is called the "Ted Stepien Rule." Stepien owned the Cavs from 1980-83, and made a series of bad trades that cost the Cavs several years' first round picks. The trades, as columnist Chris Young put it, "amounted to giving up Manhattan for a bag of beads." As a result of Stepien's ineptitude, teams are now prevented from making trades which might leave them without a future first-round draft pick in consecutive years.

This rule applies only to future first round picks. For example, if this is the 99-00 season, then teams can trade their 2000 first round pick without regard to whether they had a 1999 pick, since their 1999 pick is no longer a future pick. But they can't trade away both their 2000 and 2001 picks, since both are future picks. Teams sometimes work around this rule by trading first round picks in alternate years.

In addition, teams are required to have only a first round pick, and not necessarily their first round pick. So teams may trade away their own future picks in consecutive years if they have another team's first round pick in one of those years.

This says that teams are not allowed to trade away consecutive future first-round draft picks. It does not say that a team can't trade away its first-round draft picks if there is the potential that it will leave them without a pick in consecutive years.

For example, we have been discussing whether the pick acquired from Orlando in the Bo Outlaw trade was actually the 2002 draft pick used to take Amare Stoudemire. In that case the Phoenix Suns had an outstanding trade with the Denver Nuggets (McDyess), yet they still traded away future first-round draft picks. The result was that because they satisfied the Denver trade in 2001 they would not have been allowed to satisfied the Orlando trade in 2002.

In other words are not so sure that this rule doesn't say that Phoenix Suns would be allowed to trade this year's first-round draft pick, but they wouldn't be allowed to trade next year's first-round draft pick (unless they pick up a first-round draft pick somewhere else like Cleveland) to satisfied the San Antonio trade if it was unprotected. Does the rules say that you aren't allowed to make trades that might leave you without a first-round draft pick, or does it say you can't make trades that will leave you without consecutive future first-round draft picks? I don't think that I making much sense , but you see what I'm getting at?

Joe

 

[elindholm]

In other words, just as a pick is a "future" pick until you use it, is it not a "consecutive" pick until you receive it?

 

[Joe Mama]

In other words, just as a pick is a "future" pick until you use it, is it not a "consecutive" pick until you receive it?

Actually I think I'm trying to ask whether it is a "consecutive" pick until you know when you are going to receive it.

Joe

 

[Dylan]

This is all so confusing... we may need a lawyer on the board
to figure it all out!
With all the 'protected' first rounders that are thrown around all
the time, it would be hard to make a trade with some teams
where picks are involved.
The distinction between it WILL or MAY is a significant issue.
With the Cleveland pick we have, and the Spurs pick we owe,
it puts us in confusing situation.

 

[Errntknght]

I am fairly sure you cannot trade away future first round picks that can possibly fall in consecutive years, otherwise the rule would have no teeth. You could escape it by making one of the picks conditional, with a condition that was almost certain to be satisfied in the otherwise prohibited year.

You might note that in the quote in Joe's post the rule is described just that way... I'll repeat it with caps added "As a result of Stepien's ineptitude, teams are now prevented from making trades which MIGHT leave them without a future first-round draft pick in consecutive years."

I wouldn't see any problem with trades like Joe mentioned as long as there was a stipulation in the trade that the future pick could not be claimed in a year following a year in which the sending team had it's first round claimed from another specified trade or trades.

 

[Dylan]

I remember that Stepian debacle. That is how the Lakers got Worthy with the number one pick AFTER they got Magic the previous year, AND they had just won the championship from the Sixers with Moses and Dr. J. Really ticked me off.

And what further made it worse for Suns fans was they were so devastated talent wise by his trades that they were able to BUY a first round pick one year (they may have been able to do it in two different years, I don't remember, AND that was a year we drafting lower and they were put ahead of us!!

It's kinda amazing you have to put a rule in to stop such stupidness, but after all, it is a good rule. It can protect a franchise from a fool of an owner or GM.

 

[SunsTzu]

Does the rules say that you aren't allowed to make trades that might leave you without a first-round draft pick, or does it say you can't make trades that will leave you without consecutive future first-round draft picks?

To my understanding we can make trades that could potentially leave us without a 1st rounder in consecutive years. The reasoning is as of now we have the rights to our '05 pick even though that is subject to change with our placing next year. And since we have that pick we can trade this years 1st rounder since we drafted in the 1st round last year.

I believe the rule was set up so teams couldn't package more than 2 first rounders(one for the current year and one future pick) and cripple the future of their franchise.