Pick situation (split)

[Kingsfan23]

I'll keep coming back and watching because I'm a Kings fan, but the "good stuff".... wasn't good for me.

The "good stuff" will be seen two years from now

If this team retains its top ten pick this year, the pelicans hand over a decent pick, Hield, and the team is able to bottom out next year, there can be a foundation that would have never been here if Cousins wasn't moved. Handing over 200+ to Cousins, a plodder, that would take half our cap..

It's a 50/50 thing and the fruits of trading him aren't even evident yet. We will see

 

[itzcoatl]

The "good stuff" will be seen two years from now

If this team retains its top ten pick this year, the pelicans hand over a decent pick, Hield, and the team is able to bottom out next year, there can be a foundation that would have never been here if Cousins wasn't moved. Handing over 200+ to Cousins, a plodder, that would take half our cap..

It's a 50/50 thing and the fruits of trading him aren't even evident yet. We will see

If I'm not mistaken (I might be because our pick situation is kind of crazy), I think there is a possibility that philly decides to pick swap next year. Meaning, even if we bottom out, we are not rewarded with a good pick.

 

[roasthawg]

If I'm not mistaken (I might be because our pick situation is kind of crazy), I think there is a possibility that philly decides to pick swap next year. Meaning, even if we bottom out, we are not rewarded with a good pick.

No, next year's is all ours... Philly gets our 2019 unprotected though.

 

[jcwkings]

If I'm not mistaken (I might be because our pick situation is kind of crazy), I think there is a possibility that philly decides to pick swap next year. Meaning, even if we bottom out, we are not rewarded with a good pick.

The pick swap options were only for last year(didnt happen) and this year. After that its an unprotected 2019 pick and that ends that deplorable trade.

 

[Suicide King]

If I'm not mistaken (I might be because our pick situation is kind of crazy), I think there is a possibility that philly decides to pick swap next year. Meaning, even if we bottom out, we are not rewarded with a good pick.

Roasthawg is correct. next yrs 1st is all ours.

 

[ockingsfan]

The pick swap options were only for last year(didnt happen) and this year. After that its an unprotected 2019 pick and that ends that deplorable trade.

Actually, if we keep this year's pick, next year's pick will be in play for philly.

Next year's pick is top 10 protected. So, theoretically, if we get a few good players in this year's draft or our players develop quickly and we finish #11-30 in next year's draft, we will convey our 2018 1st round pick next year. And be done with that philly trade.

 

[gunks]

No, next year's is all ours... Philly gets our 2019 unprotected though.

Which could very well be top 4, with this FO.

 

[The_Jamal]

Actually, if we keep this year's pick, next year's pick will be in play for philly.

Next year's pick is top 10 protected. So, theoretically, if we get a few good players in this year's draft or our players develop quickly and we finish #11-30 in next year's draft, we will convey our 2018 1st round pick next year. And be done with that philly trade.

Oh really? I honestly had no idea.

Yeah, that is FAR better than giving the 2019 unprotected. It'll be insanely hard for us to get to 11 or higher next season, but damn, that's some good news.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Actually, if we keep this year's pick, next year's pick will be in play for philly.

Next year's pick is top 10 protected. So, theoretically, if we get a few good players in this year's draft or our players develop quickly and we finish #11-30 in next year's draft, we will convey our 2018 1st round pick next year. And be done with that philly trade.

Unfortunately, that does not appear to be correct. I don't know of any source that denies that Philly gets our unprotected 2019 pick. I don't quite understand why.

The Stepien Rule, as we know, says that you cannot make a trade that, at any time, leaves the team with the possibility of not having a first-round pick for two consecutive future drafts. (The qualifier "future" is not relevant here, but does allow teams to trade their first-rounders on draft day regardless of any possible future debts they may have.)

When we made the Philly trade, we apparently set up the first rounder as a top-10 protected 2018 pick, contingent on the 2016 pick conveying to Chicago. When the 2016 pick did not convey to Chicago, the 2018 pick contingency was violated, and the pick became a 2019 unprotected. Every report I have ever seen on the pick says that this is the case. I've never quite been able to make sense of this. The only thing I can come up with is that the following might be true:

It is legal to trade a pick contingent on a pick from a different trade being conveyed, but it is not legal to trade a pick contingent on a pick from a different trade NOT being conveyed.

We apparently did the former in the Philly trade. But to hold the 2018 pick now, we would have to have done the latter. That's the only sense I can make of it.

 

[John Galt]

where's Bobby Marks when you need him? this is confusing crap

 

[Gilles]

Unfortunately, that does not appear to be correct. I don't know of any source that denies that Philly gets our unprotected 2019 pick. I don't quite understand why.

The Stepien Rule, as we know, says that you cannot make a trade that, at any time, leaves the team with the possibility of not having a first-round pick for two consecutive future drafts. (The qualifier "future" is not relevant here, but does allow teams to trade their first-rounders on draft day regardless of any possible future debts they may have.)

When we made the Philly trade, we apparently set up the first rounder as a top-10 protected 2018 pick, contingent on the 2016 pick conveying to Chicago. When the 2016 pick did not convey to Chicago, the 2018 pick contingency was violated, and the pick became a 2019 unprotected. Every report I have ever seen on the pick says that this is the case. I've never quite been able to make sense of this. The only thing I can come up with is that the following might be true:

It is legal to trade a pick contingent on a pick from a different trade being conveyed, but it is not legal to trade a pick contingent on a pick from a different trade NOT being conveyed.

We apparently did the former in the Philly trade. But to hold the 2018 pick now, we would have to have done the latter. That's the only sense I can make of it.

Stepien rule is a part of NBA by-laws, which I haven't seen a copy of published anywhere, but several people claimed, that it's worded something like "a team can never be without 2 picks in a row in the future", so when Kings kept their 2016 pick, and handing over 2017 pick to Chicago remained a possibility, Kings pick owed to Sixers automatically rolled over to 2019, losing its protection along the way as it was top-10 protected in 2018, unprotected for 2019.
Lakers owe top-3 protected first-rounder to Sixers and "a first-rounder two years removed from one handed over to Sixers'" to Magic. Pick owed to Orlando is not rolling past 2019, so if Lakers don't give Sixers their pick this year, they are automatically prohibited from handing over their 2019 first-rounder, so Orlando is jammed by this rule and will only get 2019 second-rounder.

 

[VF21]

Stepien rule is a part of NBA by-laws, which I haven't seen a copy of published anywhere, but several people claimed, that it's worded something like "a team can never be without 2 picks in a row in the future", so when Kings kept their 2016 pick, and handing over 2017 pick to Chicago remained a possibility, Kings pick owed to Sixers automatically rolled over to 2019, losing its protection along the way as it was top-10 protected in 2018, unprotected for 2019.
Lakers owe top-3 protected first-rounder to Sixers and "a first-rounder two years removed from one handed over to Sixers'" to Magic. Pick owed to Orlando is not rolling past 2019, so if Lakers don't give Sixers their pick this year, they are automatically prohibited from handing over their 2019 first-rounder, so Orlando is jammed by this rule and will only get 2019 second-rounder.

http://basketball.about.com/od/collegebasketballglossary/g/ted-stepien-rule.htm

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q87

 

[ockingsfan]

Unfortunately, that does not appear to be correct. I don't know of any source that denies that Philly gets our unprotected 2019 pick. I don't quite understand why.

The Stepien Rule, as we know, says that you cannot make a trade that, at any time, leaves the team with the possibility of not having a first-round pick for two consecutive future drafts. (The qualifier "future" is not relevant here, but does allow teams to trade their first-rounders on draft day regardless of any possible future debts they may have.)

When we made the Philly trade, we apparently set up the first rounder as a top-10 protected 2018 pick, contingent on the 2016 pick conveying to Chicago. When the 2016 pick did not convey to Chicago, the 2018 pick contingency was violated, and the pick became a 2019 unprotected. Every report I have ever seen on the pick says that this is the case. I've never quite been able to make sense of this. The only thing I can come up with is that the following might be true:

It is legal to trade a pick contingent on a pick from a different trade being conveyed, but it is not legal to trade a pick contingent on a pick from a different trade NOT being conveyed.

We apparently did the former in the Philly trade. But to hold the 2018 pick now, we would have to have done the latter. That's the only sense I can make of it.

I would think that if the Kings keep their 2016 and 2017 first round picks, and never convey a 1st round pick to Chicago, then our 2018 1st round pick would be in play for the Philly trade (with top 10 protection), because the Stepien rule would not be violated.

I would think that the 2018 1st round pick would be contingent on if we needed to convey a 1st round pick to Chicago or not this year.

Also, the potential of conveying the 2018 pick (with top 10 protection) was contingent on the 2016 pick conveying, so I don't see why the 2018 pick wouldn't be in play, with top 10 protection, if the 2017 pick does not convey.

But I'm not a CBA expert.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

I would think that if the Kings keep their 2016 and 2017 first round picks, and never convey a 1st round pick to Chicago, then our 2018 1st round pick would be in play for the Philly trade (with top 10 protection), because the Stepien rule would not be violated.

Yes, I would think that too, but it does not appear to be the case.

Also, the potential of conveying the 2018 pick (with top 10 protection) was contingent on the 2016 pick conveying, so I don't see why the 2018 pick wouldn't be in play, with top 10 protection, if the 2017 pick does not convey.

The only thing I can logically imagine right now is that while it is OK to make a pick dependent on a pick from another trade conveying, it may not be OK to make a pick dependent on a pick form a another trade NOT conveying. But that's not a very satisfying (potential) answer.

 

[whozit]

Yes, I would think that too, but it does not appear to be the case.

The only thing I can logically imagine right now is that while it is OK to make a pick dependent on a pick from another trade conveying, it may not be OK to make a pick dependent on a pick form a another trade NOT conveying. But that's not a very satisfying (potential) answer.

I'm no expert, but I would like to think that if the Kings would end next season #11-30 that 2019 pick won't really matter as much. I assume the assumption made when the pick was given that the Kings would be out of the lottery by then.

If they end next season #11-30, it means something clicked and the team should be on a positive trajectory and possibly out of the lottery by 2019. Too many "Ifs."

 

[steelevt]

I would think that if the Kings keep their 2016 and 2017 first round picks, and never convey a 1st round pick to Chicago, then our 2018 1st round pick would be in play for the Philly trade (with top 10 protection), because the Stepien rule would not be violated.

I would think that the 2018 1st round pick would be contingent on if we needed to convey a 1st round pick to Chicago or not this year.

Also, the potential of conveying the 2018 pick (with top 10 protection) was contingent on the 2016 pick conveying, so I don't see why the 2018 pick wouldn't be in play, with top 10 protection, if the 2017 pick does not convey.

But I'm not a CBA expert.

that's how i read it. the only thing i can find to support it is...

The Kings owe their 2016 first-rounder to the Chicago Bulls. That pick is top-10 protected next year, and if it doesn’t convey then it will be top-10 protected in 2017 as well. Should the pick still not convey by then, it will become a second-round pick. The Sixers will receive Sacramento’s first-round pick either two years after the Kings’ first-round debt to the Bulls is paid or in 2018 if the pick owed to Chicago becomes two seconds.

http://www.nba.com/sixers/news/150710-kings-trade-story/

 

[Gilles]

http://basketball.about.com/od/collegebasketballglossary/g/ted-stepien-rule.htm

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q87

Unlike many by-laws, "Stepien rule" is not secret, so we know "the spirit of the law". But by-laws are not published, and we don't know, how it's worded exactly. That's why steelevt can offer his interpretation, that looks valid based on the information from the articles.
But I saw a few tweets claiming, that they asked for an opinion from NBA officials, and after Kings kept its pick in 2016, the pick they owed to Sixers became unprotected 2019 one.

 

[VF21]

Unlike many by-laws, "Stepien rule" is not secret, so we know "the spirit of the law". But by-laws are not published, and we don't know, how it's worded exactly. That's why steelevt can offer his interpretation, that looks valid based on the information from the articles.
But I saw a few tweets claiming, that they asked for an opinion from NBA officials, and after Kings kept its pick in 2016, the pick they owed to Sixers became unprotected 2019 one.

The second link is to Larry Coon's CBAFAQ. He is the UNDISPUTED expert in the category. I'd believe him over any tweets, but maybe that's just me.

 

[VF21]

MOD NOTE: Since I'm pretty sure this is gonna continue to be a topic of discussion until the draft order is finalized, I took the most recent pick discussion and put it into its own thread. I figure we can track the picks here...and not have it segmented in a whole bunch of different threads.

 

[Kingster]

Roasthawg is correct. next yrs 1st is all ours.

Yahoo!

 

[HighFlyingMonkey]

Unfortunately, that does not appear to be correct. I don't know of any source that denies that Philly gets our unprotected 2019 pick. I don't quite understand why.

The Stepien Rule, as we know, says that you cannot make a trade that, at any time, leaves the team with the possibility of not having a first-round pick for two consecutive future drafts. (The qualifier "future" is not relevant here, but does allow teams to trade their first-rounders on draft day regardless of any possible future debts they may have.)

When we made the Philly trade, we apparently set up the first rounder as a top-10 protected 2018 pick, contingent on the 2016 pick conveying to Chicago. When the 2016 pick did not convey to Chicago, the 2018 pick contingency was violated, and the pick became a 2019 unprotected. Every report I have ever seen on the pick says that this is the case. I've never quite been able to make sense of this. The only thing I can come up with is that the following might be true:

It is legal to trade a pick contingent on a pick from a different trade being conveyed, but it is not legal to trade a pick contingent on a pick from a different trade NOT being conveyed.

We apparently did the former in the Philly trade. But to hold the 2018 pick now, we would have to have done the latter. That's the only sense I can make of it.

From what I understand of the trade, the wording of the deal wasn't this specific. We didn't convey a pick with all of those contingencies listed out. We traded a "future" first round pick, top 10 protected in 2018 and unprotected in 2019.

So then 2016 came around and the Kings kept their pick. That meant their 2017 obligation to Chicago was still a possibility. The NBA this summer interpreted the Stepien Rule to mean that at no point can a team have obligations on their first round pick that allows a possibility of conveyance in consecutive years. So the "future" pick had to be kicked out to 2019 to comply with the Stepien rule.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

From what I understand of the trade, the wording of the deal wasn't this specific. We didn't convey a pick with all of those contingencies listed out. We traded a "future" first round pick, top 10 protected in 2018 and unprotected in 2019.

So then 2016 came around and the Kings kept their pick. That meant their 2017 obligation to Chicago was still a possibility. The NBA this summer interpreted the Stepien Rule to mean that at no point can a team have obligations on their first round pick that allows a possibility of conveyance in consecutive years. So the "future" pick had to be kicked out to 2019 to comply with the Stepien rule.

Well, I think that interpretation has been in place for longer than just since this summer. Still, that explanation doesn't make sense to me. Even before keeping our 2016 pick, it was possible that we convey 2017, so we shouldn't have been able to trade 2018, but we did - with conditions based on the 2016 result. Apparently that was legal. But using conditions based on the 2017 result apparently would not have been legal. It's hard to find a satisfying distinction between those two.

Half of me believes that the 2018 portion of the trade was misallowed by the league office in the first place, and when we kept our 2016 pick they wiped the sweat off of their brow, revisited it, and made the correct interpretation.

 

[bajaden]

Unfortunately, that does not appear to be correct. I don't know of any source that denies that Philly gets our unprotected 2019 pick. I don't quite understand why.

The Stepien Rule, as we know, says that you cannot make a trade that, at any time, leaves the team with the possibility of not having a first-round pick for two consecutive future drafts. (The qualifier "future" is not relevant here, but does allow teams to trade their first-rounders on draft day regardless of any possible future debts they may have.)

When we made the Philly trade, we apparently set up the first rounder as a top-10 protected 2018 pick, contingent on the 2016 pick conveying to Chicago. When the 2016 pick did not convey to Chicago, the 2018 pick contingency was violated, and the pick became a 2019 unprotected. Every report I have ever seen on the pick says that this is the case. I've never quite been able to make sense of this. The only thing I can come up with is that the following might be true:

It is legal to trade a pick contingent on a pick from a different trade being conveyed, but it is not legal to trade a pick contingent on a pick from a different trade NOT being conveyed.

We apparently did the former in the Philly trade. But to hold the 2018 pick now, we would have to have done the latter. That's the only sense I can make of it.

You read it the same way I do, and just about every site I go to that has info on future draft picks confirms what you just said. Tis a bit confusing though.

 

[bajaden]

Yes, I would think that too, but it does not appear to be the case.



The only thing I can logically imagine right now is that while it is OK to make a pick dependent on a pick from another trade conveying, it may not be OK to make a pick dependent on a pick form a another trade NOT conveying. But that's not a very satisfying (potential) answer.

It appears to me that if there's the possibility that a pick can be conveyed, then you can't involve a pick in the following year in a trade. Regardless of the outcome, which is unknown at the time. Since this is the last year that a 1st round pick can be conveyed to the Bulls, then next years pick can't be traded. I know it doesn't make a lot of sense on the surface, but I think all draft pick trades are based on the assumption that if a deal like the one we have with Chicago is possible, then it is assumed that it will happen. In other words the CBA doesn't let you make trades based on an outcome that's unknown.

 

[HighFlyingMonkey]

Well, I think that interpretation has been in place for longer than just since this summer. Still, that explanation doesn't make sense to me. Even before keeping our 2016 pick, it was possible that we convey 2017, so we shouldn't have been able to trade 2018, but we did - with conditions based on the 2016 result. Apparently that was legal. But using conditions based on the 2017 result apparently would not have been legal. It's hard to find a satisfying distinction between those two.

Half of me believes that the 2018 portion of the trade was misallowed by the league office in the first place, and when we kept our 2016 pick they wiped the sweat off of their brow, revisited it, and made the correct interpretation.

Right, I misspoke. That interpretation of Stepien has been around, but the interpretation of Stepien as applied in this specific instance is new. When teams send out a "future" first round pick, the NBA takes it to mean "first allowable draft"; the Kings pick situation between the Bulls muddied the waters on what the "first allowable draft" is in regards to the pick the Kings sent to the Sixers. When the trade was made in 2015, "first allowable draft" was 2018 since the Kings owed the Bulls a protected 2016 pick. After the lottery in 2016, the Kings' obligation to Chicago in 2016 was pushed out to 2017, and thus the "first allowable draft" for the purposes of the Sixers pick got pushed out to 2019.

 

[fansinceday1]

When we lose this years NO pick, AND WE WILL, because we are the KANGZ, vlade is gonna be thrown out of here on his friggin ear. I swear there is gonna be some serious kings fans rage when vlades ineptitude really shows itself in this years draft.

 

[Suicide King]

I am going to be pulling for us to get two top 10 picks and to use them wisely.

 

[Mass]

When we lose this years NO pick, AND WE WILL, because we are the KANGZ, vlade is gonna be thrown out of here on his friggin ear. I swear there is gonna be some serious kings fans rage when vlades ineptitude really shows itself in this years draft.

I will be mad, no doubt about it. But it's not like we are going to lose that pick, we will have it next year (top 1 protected).

 

[fansinceday1]

I will be mad, no doubt about it. But it's not like we are going to lose that pick, we will have it next year (top 1 protected).

it would be so Kings to lose it this year (very deep draft) and win the lottery next year. Harkins back to when we did win the lottery. We couldn't decide between Stacy king and Pervis Ellison.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

The interesting thing about the Stepien rule to me is does adding a second first round pick prior to this year's draft change anything? Because now we are assured of one first round pick headed into the draft (almost) no matter what. I do think the pick will probably convey in 2019, especially if 2018 is top 10 protected.

Is it too early to speculate on whether 2018 or 2019 are better draft classes?