Trading Up in NBA Draft

[Wasatch]

Since most trades in the NBA are about trading a dollar for dollar within a certain percentage (if not all), how does a team go about trading up in the draft? Are 1st & 2nd round draft picks worth a certain amount when dealing in trades, or can you pretty much use draft picks as an excuse to swallow up, or get rid of cap space?

[oddball]

Since most trades in the NBA are about trading a dollar for dollar within a certain percentage (if not all), how does a team go about trading up in the draft? Are 1st & 2nd round draft picks worth a certain amount when dealing in trades, or can you pretty much use draft picks as an excuse to swallow up, or get rid of cap space?

Unsigned first round picks are included in team salary immediately upon their selection in the draft. They count as 100% of the scale salary for that pick, unless there is a verbal agreement for a higher salary. An incident occurred prior to the 1997-98 season when Vancouver's first round pick, Antonio Daniels, revealed in an interview that he and the team had verbally agreed to a contract starting at the maximum salary (120% of the scale amount). Since verbal agreements apply to the salary cap, the league then changed the team's cap figure from the scale amount to 120% of scale.

Once a first round pick signs a contract, his actual salary is included in the team salary, of course.

If a first round pick signs instead with a non-NBA team, his scale amount is excluded from the team salary on the date he signs his non-NBA contract or the first day of the regular season, whichever is later. The scale amount goes back onto the team salary on the following July 1 or when his non-NBA contract ends, whichever is earlier. In other words, these cap holds are removed for players playing outside the NBA, but only during the regular season.

Unsigned second round picks are not included in team salary. This is a loophole that Houston once tried to use by trading a first round pick for a second round pick in order to clear cap room.

As described in question number 73, the trade value of an unsigned first or second round draft pick is always $0.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q43

I've always hated the NBA Draft and the way they deal with trades. I hate the fact that one team drafts for another team and the

other team drafts a player and they trade the players. Why not just do the smart thing and trade the pick and draft your own player?

[BBTV]

The draft is ridiculous, and I can't understand why anyone would watch it, considering the teams are drafting guys that may never even play for them. Does it just take too long to validate a trade that they can't announce it prior to the pick? How hard is that?

[Wasatch]

If an unsigned 1st or 2nd round pick equals $0, then how does a team go about moving up in the draft for a higher pick? What do they need to give up, multiple 1st or 2nd round picks?

[Lights Out]

Trading isn't even the biggest problem with the NBA Draft - the lottery is. It's been rigged before, and it could easily be rigged again.

[Wasatch]

Trading isn't even the biggest problem with the NBA Draft - the lottery is. It's been rigged before, and it could easily be rigged again.

Are you referring to the folded corner of the Knicks envelop?

[Wasatch]

Wait a second, I could have sworn I saw multiple envelops with bent corners in that video, but not that I review it again it?s only the Knicks envelop!!! WTF!!!

[OnWis97]

The NBA has struggled with legitimacy more than any league.

As a Timberwolves fan, I'd love to believe it. I highly doubt there is a team that has been as badly mistreated by the lottery as the T-Wolves. In 13 lotteries, the wolves have stayed pat once and moved down 12 times (I think, but I could not find a history). But if I was to think the lottery was fixed, then how'd the Bucks win twice (including the Big Dog year...he was considered a huge prize)?

I think the NBA has earned the questions of legitimacy. The first lottery, even if it was not fixed, could appear to be an "attempt" to get Ewing to the Knicks and not the Kings. Orlando winning it the year after getting Shaq, with about a 1% chance? The expansion of the first round to 7 games when the Lakers happened to not have home court (in fairness, the Lakers win that series either way). And then there's the officiating. At absolute best, the superstars get preferential treatment, un-evening the playing field.

Is the league fixed? I don't think so (and I don't even think the lottery is...you should hear some of the Minnesota people after getting railed by the lottery again...they think it's still punishment for Joe Smith). But it is slanted. Stern hedges bets. The lottery itself is an example...where a .500 bulls team has an outside shot of getting a Derrick Rose and a meaningless bottom dweller that can make the league no money cannot necessarily get the star player. He hedges his bets by continuing to allow stars to get preferential treatment. He did it when he expanded the first round to 7 games.

Fixed? No. Slanted? Yes.

[Lights Out]

Sorry, the NBA goes way beyond slanted. For example, one look at Games 4 and 6 of the 2002 Western Conference Finals should tell you all you need to know about fixing games in the NBA. First off, in game 4, Samaki Walker released the ball on that game-winning "buzzer-beater" long after the clock read 0:00. Then came game 6, one of the biggest travesties ever to occur in the history of sports. Shaq got to have a abnormally-good free throw percentage because the refs allowed him to have both feet way over the line and took the Lakers to the line a lot. It's no coincidence that pretty much every Kings big man somehow got into foul trouble, to the point where Vlade Divac and Scot Pollard fouled out and Lawrence Funderburg (who?) had to guard Shaq. And 40 free throws for the Lakers, 27 of them in the fourth quarter? Come on. That's a little more than "slanted."

And as for that first draft lottery, the Knicks' envelope was completely folded. They just didn't want a potential superstar going to a small market like Sacramento over a large market like New York.

/epic rant

[The_Admiral]

The lottery itself is an example...where a .500 bulls team has an outside shot of getting a Derrick Rose and a meaningless bottom dweller that can make the league no money cannot necessarily get the star player.

The Bulls were 33-49 when they won the lottery. The Bucks won the 2005 lottery and they were a meaningless bottom dweller that made no money for pretty much the entire decade.

[TFoA]

Here we go again with this "NBA is fixed" bull .

If the NBA was fixed, do you think that the Knicks would be as :censored:ty as they have been for the past few years? Let alone not even winning a title since 1970? Yeah, the NBA is totally fixed towards big markets, seeing as how the team in the biggest market is SOOOOO successful.

The only thing that we know is slanted for a fact is the referee's preference to give superstars the benefit of the doubt 99% of the time & the rest of the officiating depends on how certain refs are feeling on that day. Other than that, the claim that the NBA is fixed is just another crackpot conspiracy. The lottery is not fixed. The NBA isn't fixed. Is there terrible officiating? HAIL yes. But other than that, just conspiracy theories at its finest.

[chuckymack]

I'm gonna have to side with TFoA here. If there was a legitimate bias toward big-market teams, both LA teams would be perennial powerhouses?as would Chicago and New York. Last time I checked, the Knicks haven't been relevant since Ewing's heyday, and the same goes for Chi-Town and Jordan. The Clips have never been good, and the Lakers simply had the good fortune of trading for a high-schooler before he was a known commodity.

[The_Admiral]

Last time I checked, the Knicks haven't been relevant since Ewing's heyday, and the same goes for Chi-Town and Jordan.

The Bulls have been #1 or #2 in attendance for like the last ten years or something in no way commensurate with their record in that timespan, and they still pick up pretty strong ratings on their local and national television deals. As of 2004 I wouldn't describe the Bulls as languishing in obscurity.

[jr79]

I've always hated the NBA Draft and the way they deal with trades. I hate the fact that one team drafts for another team and the

other team drafts a player and they trade the players. Why not just do the smart thing and trade the pick and draft your own player?

Teams aren't allowed to trade away consecutive first round draft picks under the Ted Stepien Rule, designed to protect team owners from themselves. So on draft night you do a verbal deal, tell your trade partners who to pick for you, then formally complete the trade. This means they are trading the draft rights to a player and not a pick so they keep the flexibility to include next year's first round pick in a trade deal during the season.

[Wasatch]

I've always hated the NBA Draft and the way they deal with trades. I hate the fact that one team drafts for another team and the

other team drafts a player and they trade the players. Why not just do the smart thing and trade the pick and draft your own player?

Teams aren't allowed to trade away consecutive first round draft picks under the Ted Stepien Rule, designed to protect team owners from themselves. So on draft night you do a verbal deal, tell your trade partners who to pick for you, then formally complete the trade. This means they are trading the draft rights to a player and not a pick so they keep the flexibility to include next year's first round pick in a trade deal during the season.

That makes complete sense, thank you!

[BBTV]

I've always hated the NBA Draft and the way they deal with trades. I hate the fact that one team drafts for another team and the

other team drafts a player and they trade the players. Why not just do the smart thing and trade the pick and draft your own player?

Teams aren't allowed to trade away consecutive first round draft picks under the Ted Stepien Rule, designed to protect team owners from themselves. So on draft night you do a verbal deal, tell your trade partners who to pick for you, then formally complete the trade. This means they are trading the draft rights to a player and not a pick so they keep the flexibility to include next year's first round pick in a trade deal during the season.

That makes complete sense, thank you!

No, it makes no sense. I mean the explaination makes sense, but the fact that the league would go and make a rule like that, and then not close a GAPING loophole doesn't make any sense. It's not like some genius just figured out how to beat the rule - it's been going on for years.

[Lights Out]

If the NBA was fixed, do you think that the Knicks would be as :censored:ty as they have been for the past few years? Let alone not even winning a title since 1970? Yeah, the NBA is totally fixed towards big markets, seeing as how the team in the biggest market is SOOOOO successful.

They already have the big-market Lakers and Celtics winning fixed title after fixed title. The Nets made back to back Finals a few years ago, which covers the New York market.

As for the Knicks, they've been the subject of quite a few questionable games recently:

Madison Square Garden was the place to be for a marquee matchup between the Miami Heat and New York Knicks. I worked the game... knowing that the Knicks were a sure bet to get favorable treatment that night.

New York shot an astounding 39 free throws that night to Miami's paltry eight.

[oddball]

If you think the NBA or any other professional league/sport is rigged, well then I must admit to you that I paid every girl you've ever asked out and who has rejected you to reject you!

[The_Admiral]

Nobody rigs a postseason to put the New Jersey Nets in the finals, you buffoon.

[CubsFanBudMan]

Yeah, I hate it that the NBA cheats so big-market teams like the San Antonio Spurs win so often.

While the MLB catches so much heat for its lack of parity -- you'd think the Red Sox and Yankees win every title -- the NBA is so much worse, even with more teams getting a shot.

I know this stat is quoted often, but I feel I must repeat it here: Of the last 30 titles, the Lakers, Celtics, Spurs, Pistons, Bulls and Rockets won 28 of them, with all of them getting more than one. The Heat and 76ers got the other two. That is just an amazing stat to me: 6 teams in 30 years, with two anomalies (and Lakers-Celtics looking likely again this year).

I agree that the officiating and the draft lottery can be suspect, but to rig an entire league on this scale is just too much to believe.

But Lights Out, if you really believe it's rigged for big markets, then your Clippers should be in line for at least one title soon.