How valuable is a lottery pick?

Entity

Hall of Famer
Paul Pierce is asking the brass in Boston to trade their 1st pick for a player now. in light of that i was wondering how the CBA works around that. Could you trade Bibby's 12mil for Bostons #1 or does Boston have to include more players to make it work out? I guess we could take on Theo Ratliffs 11mil contract for 2 more years with the chance of getting 2 lottery picks with a great chance of getting 2 in the top 5
 
Think the contracts still have to match up. So you'd be looking at Ratliff, and maybe West if we could sweeten the deal.
 
You'd need to make the salaries work. I think Bibby for Ratliff/1st rounder works salary wise. Not sure if Boston would do it though, we might need to throw in something else or take back 1 of their bad contracts(like Scalabrine?)..
 
The Celtics already have a lot of young guys that are supposed to develop any minute now so I can kind of see Pierce's point. Its clear he isn't content to sit out the remainder of the season with his injury and wants to win now.

If we trade them Bibby we should be able to get West along with Ratliff and the pick. He's likely to be the odd man out there as they gave up a bit for Telfair and won't give up on him yet and Rondo is developing nicely for them. On the other hand if we sent them Bibby that pick likely wouldn't be worth much.
 
The Celtics already have a lot of young guys that are supposed to develop any minute now so I can kind of see Pierce's point. Its clear he isn't content to sit out the remainder of the season with his injury and wants to win now.

If we trade them Bibby we should be able to get West along with Ratliff and the pick. He's likely to be the odd man out there as they gave up a bit for Telfair and won't give up on him yet and Rondo is developing nicely for them. On the other hand if we sent them Bibby that pick likely wouldn't be worth much.



Bibby's value is probably at an all time low right now. He's shooting below 40% and below 30% on 3 point FGs. He doesn't average that many assists per game. He's overpaid. He doesn't play D. You could make a case for the fact that he's clutch, that he's been a great shooter his whole career, etc. But right now he's playing terribly and he probably doesn't have much value around the league. Would you pass up a shot at Oden or Durant for that?
 
Paul Pierce is asking the brass in Boston to trade their 1st pick for a player now. in light of that i was wondering how the CBA works around that. Could you trade Bibby's 12mil for Bostons #1 or does Boston have to include more players to make it work out? I guess we could take on Theo Ratliffs 11mil contract for 2 more years with the chance of getting 2 lottery picks with a great chance of getting 2 in the top 5

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#71

Here's what the CBA has to say:

71. How are draft picks handled in trades?

Draft picks (both first and second round) count $0 for salary matching purposes. This is true both before and after the draft, until the player signs a contract. This can make it very difficult to construct a trade that is equitable in both trade value and basketball talent. For example, Vancouver selected Steve Francis with the #2 pick in the 1999 draft, and traded his draft rights to Houston. When the trade was finally engineered, it included three teams (Orlando was also involved), 11 players (including Francis) and two future draft picks.

Once the draft pick signs a contract, his actual salary becomes his trade value.

Note that even though a draft pick's trade value (for salary matching purposes) is $0, a first round pick is included in the team's team salary at 100% of his scale amount once he is selected in the draft, unless he signs with a non-NBA team (see question number 41). If an unsigned first round draft pick is traded, then 100% of his scale amount is included in the acquiring team's team salary as soon as the trade is completed. An unsigned second round pick does not count toward team salary.

Teams can only trade draft picks five years into the future (for example, if this is the 2005-06 season, then the 2010 pick can be traded, but the 2011 pick can't). It is common to "protect" picks depending on their position (e.g. "we keep it if it's in the lottery, otherwise you get it"), to avoid a repeat of some unfortunate past trades, such as the 1982 trade between the Cavs and Lakers, where the pick LA received turned out to be the first overall pick and was used to draft James Worthy. Now, it is common to see picks traded with protection that relaxes over several years -- for example, a first-round pick in 2005, unless it is in the lottery, in which case a first-round pick in 2006, unless it is one of the top three, in which case an unconditional pick in 2007.

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. 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 2005-06 season, then teams can trade their 2006 first round pick without regard to whether they had a 2005 pick, since their 2005 pick is no longer a future pick. But they can't trade away both their 2006 and 2007 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.

A team cannot sign and immediately trade a draft pick in a sign-and-trade arrangement (see question number 76).
 
In any trade salaries have to match within 10%-15%. A first round pick in any year has an absolute value to it from #1 through #30. Trade exceptions can be used in trades and those tend to be $1M to $3M. Don't know who has them but they are out there. But I seem to think there is more flexibility in the numbers games when it comes to first round picks. Someone knowledgebale on the CBA in this regard needs to reply.

But with so many "kids" Boston might to better to get a veteran starter than try to meld in another "kid". And the top 4 or 5 could be freshmen-sophs.

So, first rounders have an approximate value that when contracts are signed could require some creative accounting to make it all come out
 
Last edited:
The Celtics already have a lot of young guys that are supposed to develop any minute now so I can kind of see Pierce's point. Its clear he isn't content to sit out the remainder of the season with his injury and wants to win now.

If we trade them Bibby we should be able to get West along with Ratliff and the pick. He's likely to be the odd man out there as they gave up a bit for Telfair and won't give up on him yet and Rondo is developing nicely for them. On the other hand if we sent them Bibby that pick likely wouldn't be worth much.

i don't think any one of their young players can compare to oden, durant, and wright except for MAYBE jefferson.
 
i don't think any one of their young players can compare to oden, durant, and wright except for MAYBE jefferson.
They can't... but my point was that if they traded for Bibby it would be to make a run NOW. Which means the pick is probably going to be in the 16-22 range rather than a high lotto pick. If that's the case its better to take the sure thing (Jefferson or Perkins) than the pick.

Either way it appears that Pierce wants to play rather than sit and hope for a top pick next season. I can't say I blame him as he's been very patient with the Celts organization but his desire to win now could sink the franchise for years to come.
 
They can't... but my point was that if they traded for Bibby it would be to make a run NOW. Which means the pick is probably going to be in the 16-22 range rather than a high lotto pick. If that's the case its better to take the sure thing (Jefferson or Perkins) than the pick.

Either way it appears that Pierce wants to play rather than sit and hope for a top pick next season. I can't say I blame him as he's been very patient with the Celts organization but his desire to win now could sink the franchise for years to come.

And that brings up something that's really been gnawing at me. There seems to be a lot of talk recently about looking towards the future. That's fine but it completely negates the "now" concept of sports. You attend games for what's happening on the court; you don't buy tickets to watch your team's best player(s) sit on the bench so that at some point down the road the team might get better.

Fans are fickle. A lot of them aren't going to buy into the "future of the franchise" concept. They go to games to be entertained and to have fun. And if they don't get satisfaction of those needs, they'll turn elsewhere.

It's a slippery slope for teams who are hoping to get the next LeBron James in the draft. I'm thinking at some point there might have to be some kind of overhaul of the draft system. Maybe like a lot of budgets ... you earn your draft pick the year before the current year.

I'm not saying that's necessarily the answer but the idea of teams tanking to take part of a rich draft year is becoming too popular IMHO. Play for the now, draft for the future.

:D
 
Last edited:
It's a slippery slope for teams who are hoping to get the next LeBron James in the draft. I'm thinking at some point there might have to be some kind of overhaul of the draft system. Maybe like a lot of budgets ... you earn your draft pick the year before the current year.

I'm not saying that's necessarily the answer but the idea of teams tanking to take part of a rich draft year is becoming too popular IMHO. Play for the now, draft for the future.

:D

That'd be a great idea.
 
Just for fun nothing too serious!!

Bibby (06/07=$12.5), (ETO $13.5), ($14.5)
Miller (06/07=$9.6), ($10.5), ($11.3), ($12.5)
SAR (06/07=$5.4), ($5.8), ($6.2), ($6.6)

for

Ratliff (06/07=$11.6), ($11.6)
Wally (06/07=$11.0), ($12.0), ($13.0)
West (06/07=$1.0), ($1.8), ($2.7)
1st pick

SAC new roster
Ratliff/Pot:eek:
Thomas/Williams
Artest/Wally
Martin/Cisco
West/Salmon

BOS new roster

Miller/Olowokandi
Jefferson/Perkins
Pierce/Gomes
Green/Rondo
Bibby/Telfair

Why for Boston? Boston only do this if they are looking to trade the pick. IMO, this a a good package for them. They get 2 legitimate starters to go with Pierce and Jefferson. Thats a pretty good line-up in the East. They copy Petrie and go for the quick fixes method to make the team better and fail miserably.

Why for Sac? Talent wise, they lose big time but the 1st pick more than make up for it. Wally's contract is bad, but so is Brad's and its 1 year shorter. They also get rid of SAR, who imo also have a bad contract considering his contribution. West is a nice young talent to replace Bibby. With this new team we'll suck even more which hopefully we'll get a higher pick. If we're lucky, we'll get a 1st and 2nd pick and draft Oden AND Durant:D(ok im putting down the pipe).
 
Last edited:
And that brings up something that's really been gnawing at me. There seems to be a lot of talk recently about looking towards the future. That's fine but it completely negates the "now" concept of sports. You attend games for what's happening on the court; you don't buy tickets to watch your team's best player(s) sit on the bench so that at some point down the road the team might get better.

Fans are fickle. A lot of them aren't going to buy into the "future of the franchise" concept. They go to games to be entertained and to have fun. And if they don't get satisfaction of those needs, they'll turn elsewhere.

It's a slippery slope for teams who are hoping to get the next LeBron James in the draft. I'm thinking at some point there might have to be some kind of overhaul of the draft system. Maybe like a lot of budgets ... you earn your draft pick the year before the current year.

I'm not saying that's necessarily the answer but the idea of teams tanking to take part of a rich draft year is becoming too popular IMHO. Play for the now, draft for the future.

:D

yea i'm sure the cavs fans were really upset they sucked so bad they got lebron.
 
yea i'm sure the cavs fans were really upset they sucked so bad they got lebron.

Oh please. The Cavaliers weren't going anywhere anyway.

My point is that it's a conundrum. The needs of the future of the team have to be addressed but there's a fine line you have to walk. And, as Bricklayer and some others have pointed out, the main thing is that it's the indecision or appearance of indecision that will totally drive away the fans...
 
Every fan lost by the Kings in the last couple of years absolutely WOULD come piling back onto the bandwagon if we emerged from the draft with a megastar. Fans are fickle...in both directions. You win, have an exciting young stud, watch the stands fill right back up.

In fact what our management hasn't realized yet is that may be just about the ONLY way to get those fans back. The curtain has been pulled back on the surge to #8 seed shennanigans. Its not going to work anymore. Nobody believes, is going to believe. They are about 2 months from losing me as a season ticket holder. And you should really never lose ME of all people as a season ticket holder. I am single, have money to spare, don't actually attend the games, and use the tickets just as gifts and barter chips. Except nobody wants them. Tried to give a set to an old family friend last week. He was almost insulted. My brothers no longer watch. My mom only does because she likes Corliss, but apparently spends most of her time bitching about Muss or having Kevin rammed down her throat by the promo people. So I'm just about out. In fact only way I stay in is if I see a legit chance to nab the full on rekindling player.

In Maloof terms the value of a high lottery pick might be the difference of 5000 season tickets this year. Ratings on TV. On people even giving a damn if they pick up and move out.
 
Every fan lost by the Kings in the last couple of years absolutely WOULD come piling back onto the bandwagon if we emerged from the draft with a megastar. Fans are fickle...in both directions. You win, have an exciting young stud, watch the stands fill right back up.

In fact what our management hasn't realized yet is that may be just about the ONLY way to get those fans back. The curtain has been pulled back on the surge to #8 seed shennanigans. Its not going to work anymore. Nobody believes, is going to believe. They are about 2 months from losing me as a season ticket holder. And you should really never lose ME of all people as a season ticket holder. I am single, have money to spare, don't actually attend the games, and use the tickets just as gifts and barter chips. Except nobody wants them. Tried to give a set to an old family friend last week. He was almost insulted. My brothers no longer watch. My mom only does because she likes Corliss, but apparently spends most of her time bitching about Muss or having Kevin rammed down her throat by the promo people. So I'm just about out. In fact only way I stay in is if I see a legit chance to nab the full on rekindling player.

In Maloof terms the value of a high lottery pick might be the difference of 5000 season tickets this year. Ratings on TV. On people even giving a damn if they pick up and move out.

So basically the front office needs to do something NOW before this winning "streak" gets people lulled into the false sense of being able to make some noise in the playoffs, right?
 
Oh please. The Cavaliers weren't going anywhere anyway.

My point is that it's a conundrum. The needs of the future of the team have to be addressed but there's a fine line you have to walk. And, as Bricklayer and some others have pointed out, the main thing is that it's the indecision or appearance of indecision that will totally drive away the fans...

and my point is that fans come and go like the seasons. like you said they're fickle, give them a reason to come back and they will that's why you can't put fans over team needs.
 
So basically the front office needs to do something NOW before this winning "streak" gets people lulled into the false sense of being able to make some noise in the playoffs, right?

The front office needs to be realistic about the fact that this team isn't going anywhere -- it's them I'm worried about when it comes to a potential lulling, not the fans -- and do something NOW before this winning streak gets out of hand.
 
Petrie must realize that this team isn't going to contend

for a championship through quick fixes. Trading away some talents in return for more draft picks and ending contracts will be the best move for this team. The aforementioned tactic will also help the Kings ascend in the draft order by losing more games.

There is no fun in winning 35 to 40 games and end up with a late lottery pick.
 
Back
Top