Shams: Spurs Trade for Reggie Bullock and Unprotected 2030 First Round Pick Swap

[DPG21920]

Only possibility I can think of is that Dallas sends Boston two far out seconds, and SA sends Dallas two near term seconds. That would be a slight value upgrade for Dallas.

For sure - seems like a possibility but I’m bracing for SA being the only team to send picks. If not? That’s even better

[scott]

For sure - seems like a possibility but I’m bracing for SA being the only team to send picks. If not? That’s even better

For sure. An unprotected swap seems like an overpay for just absorbing Bullocks salary, so I think we probably sent some real assets out (not fake, top 55 protected SRPs). Whether it is 2 or 4, I still like this deal a lot. 2 is obviously better, we can easily recoup those at the deadline.

[donaldsonian]

Bullock probably gets waived?

I sure hope so.

[DPG21920]

For sure. An unprotected swap seems like an overpay for just absorbing Bullocks salary, so I think we probably sent some real assets out (not fake, top 55 protected SRPs). Whether it is 2 or 4, I still like this deal a lot. 2 is obviously better, we can easily recoup those at the deadline.

Hell ya. We DEFINITELY sent at least 2 real picks like you said. Not bs ones. 4 makes sense more in context of what Woj said, but he could be wrong? Either way Im very happy. This is the type of squeezing the juice and getting assets and being relentless that I want to see.

It’s creative to trade 2nds and known things to both accomplish salary floor goals and get swings at high upside potential picks etc…

I was cautious after that Cedi deal that they wouldn’t do anything else because it was a money saving thing vs caring about asset management. But them taking on Bullock shows it was just another good opportunity in their eyes. Sure, that’s a small thing but its speaks volumes to their mentality IMO so I like that detail

[Mr. Body]

Seems like something has to give. Can we really see the team keep Bullock, Osman, McDermott, Graham, Stevens? Birch has to be a cut/trade automatically.

What's the CBA rule? A player traded alone cannot be traded with other players for a large number of days?

[exstatic]

I sure hope so.

Why? If shoots the same 38% as last year and plays decent Defense with Wemby as his backstop, you can flip him the deadline to recoup a couple of those picks.

[DPG21920]

Seems like something has to give. Can we really see the team keep Bullock, Osman, McDermott, Graham, Stevens? Birch has to be a cut/trade automatically.

What's the CBA rule? A player traded alone cannot be traded with other players for a large number of days?

Not for spurs…they are an under the cap team so these guys can all be aggregated

[exstatic]

Seems like something has to give. Can we really see the team keep Bullock, Osman, McDermott, Graham, Stevens? Birch has to be a cut/trade automatically.

What's the CBA rule? A player traded alone cannot be traded with other players for a large number of days?

I think it’s more players that arrive in a package can’t be traded in a repackaged different group.

[Gino20]

According to the ESPN article, Dallas got two picks from the Spurs and Boston got two picks from Dallas.

[DPG21920]

According to the ESPN article, Dallas got two picks from the Spurs and Boston got two picks from Dallas.

Please be true

[CGD]

According to the ESPN article, Dallas got two picks from the Spurs and Boston got two picks from Dallas.

Makes sense.

So when you factor in the CLE 2030 SRP we got in the Cedí deal, Spurs only really gave up one SRP net. Not bad.

[exstatic]

According to the ESPN article, Dallas got two picks from the Spurs and Boston got two picks from Dallas.

Wow, if true.

[Mr. Body]

According to the ESPN article, Dallas got two picks from the Spurs and Boston got two picks from Dallas.

Gotdamm

[Mr. Body]

Not for spurs…they are an under the cap team so these guys can all be aggregated

I don't know what you do with all that mess. Trade them for Kyle Lowry, lol.

[TekXX]

I suppose this is one way to get rid of some of these seconds Wright has been hoarding. He's the pick king.

[slick'81]

Only gave up two of those seconds?! :flag:

[td4mvp2k]

glad a great deal came along early where they were able to fill that remaining space :tu

[timvp]

According to the ESPN article, Dallas got two picks from the Spurs and Boston got two picks from Dallas.

Yeah, looks like Pelton heard the same thing I heard. But now I'm hearing the Celtics got two second rounders and a second round pick swap and Dallas only got one second round pick. I don't know who gave who what at this point. Everyone I ask has a different answer :lol

But, honestly, from San Antonio's perspective, I don't think it matters much. Even in a "worst case" scenario where the Spurs traded away four seconds and a second round pick swap, that's still a great deal.

A couple days ago, teams like OKC and Detroit were absorbing bad contracts for a single second rounder. The Spurs waited until the other teams ran out of cap space and got a decent contract in Bullock, packaged some of their 20 second rounders and ended up with an unprotected first round pick swap. That's fantastic -- no matter the details of the second rounders, IMO.

The final second round pick details will basically determine the level of greatness of this trade.

[Kurik]

Wemby is playing Friday but all I care about is the confirmed details of the second round picks. :rollin

[Dverde]

Strange an unproven GM would do something for 2030, but I still like the move.

[Mr. Body]

Osman + Bullock + Graham + Birch

=

Tyler Herro

:smokin:smokin

[Darkwaters]

With a pick swap is it specifically tied to the Spurs 2030 First Rounder? Or can we trade that pick swap to say, the Raptors, and now the swap is associated with the Raptors pick?

Furthermore, let's say we traded away our own First Round pick in 2030 but had a completely different team's (let's say the Celtics). Do we have the option to swap the Celtics pick for the Mavs own pick?

[cjw]

Strange an unproven GM would do something for 2030, but I still like the move.

The benefit of being in an organization that provides job security = you can do what’s best for the franchise, and not what’s best to keep your job

[Mr. Body]

Spurs will likely build stepping stones as soon as future draft years become eligible for movement as much as they can, i.e. do something for 2031 next offseason.

[exstatic]

Osman + Bullock + Graham + Birch

=

Tyler Herro

:smokin:smokin

That doesn’t help Miami at all. They need his contract off the books clean, not exchanged for ending contracts.

[EricB]

Osman + Bullock + Graham + Birch

=

Tyler Herro

:smokin:smokin


100% in for anything that brings Tyler Herro

[spurs10]

If this is a FRP swap for 2030 then I'm ecstatic.

[Russ]

What is the history of 1st Round draft pick swaps? (Just asking those who know because I really don't. What are the really good ones?)

This year everyone (including me) thought that the playoff-bound Pelicans had a great pick swap with the lottery-bound Lakers. Of course, the Pelicans' pick swap turned out to be literally worthless.

If we can't predict what will happen a few months in the future (like before this season), what about seven years into the future?

The only thing that can definitely be said about this trade is that someone lost (and someone gained) some 2nd Round picks.

[kobyz]

Spurs should go after Luka when he become free agent just to up the value of the pick swap

[Chinook]

According to an ESPN posting on Facebook, the seconds the Celtics are getting are supposedly in 2024, 2025 and 2028. The Spurs have a combined 11 picks in those drafts. The Mavericks only have their 2025 second, but they can't trade that until after the fate of the first they owe to the Knicks is settled. If the post was true, the Spurs gave each of those three picks along with perhaps a fourth pick from one of those years. Dallas basically bought as many seconds as they could without giving up a first outright and then traded all or most of them to Boston to complete this trade. The actual breakdown on what cost what is unclear. The swap is paying for both the seconds and for the trade exception.

This is going to be a consequence of the second-rounder spending spree we saw last year. Teams are becoming illiquid on those picks to use to facilitate deals. With the possible exception of the trades that happened between OKC, Denver and Indy, the Spurs might be getting a jump on this new opportunity of selling those picks back to teams like Dallas and Boston who want to continue to try to trade for vets without dumping all of their first-rounders. I don't necessarily know how much more value the market has for these sell-back moves, but it's a shrewd way to capitalize on these second-rounders when the team isn't going to want to use them in win-now trades or to draft players themselves.

[kobyz]

Bullock fell off a cliff bigtime last year...

[J.T.]

Can anyone ELI5 this trade for me please?

[spurraider21]

Bullock fell off a cliff bigtime last year...
thats fine. any value he brings as a player is icing. we got a nice unprotected pick swap and he's an expiring deal anyway

if he plays just well enough for some contender to throw out 1-2 SRPs for him, thats a huge win. if he doesnt and is just a $10mil expiring deal for us, thats fine too

[TekXX]

What is the history of 1st Round draft pick swaps? (Just asking those who know because I really don't. What are the really good ones?)

This year everyone (including me) thought that the playoff-bound Pelicans had a great pick swap with the lottery-bound Lakers. Of course, the Pelicans' pick swap turned out to be literally worthless.

If we can't predict what will happen a few months in the future (like before this season), what about seven years into the future?

Obviously you wouldn't want the Mavs pick now because they're decent atm. Pushing into 2030 when it's possible the mavs have fallen apart is the better gamble.

The only thing that can definitely be said about this trade is that someone lost (and someone gained) some 2nd Round picks.

[spurraider21]

What is the history of 1st Round draft pick swaps? (Just asking those who know because I really don't. What are the really good ones?)

This year everyone (including me) thought that the playoff-bound Pelicans had a great pick swap with the lottery-bound Lakers. Of course, the Pelicans' pick swap turned out to be literally worthless.

If we can't predict what will happen a few months in the future (like before this season), what about seven years into the future?

The only thing that can definitely be said about this trade is that someone lost (and someone gained) some 2nd Round picks.
the biggest one is definitely the celtics in 2017. they had a pick swap with the nets. that ended up winning the lottery and boston moved up from #27 to #1 overall. they then traded back with philly to #3 and selected tatum while the sixers moved up for Fultz

[Chinook]

What is the history of 1st Round draft pick swaps? (Just asking those who know because I really don't. What are the really good ones?)

This year everyone (including me) thought that the playoff-bound Pelicans had a great pick swap with the lottery-bound Lakers. Of course, the Pelicans' pick swap turned out to be literally worthless.

If we can't predict what will happen a few months in the future (like before this season), what about seven years into the future?

The only thing that can definitely be said about this trade is that someone lost (and someone gained) some 2nd Round picks.

This is spitballing from memory: From what I see, the swaps usually don't exist in a vacuum. They're often something that gets added to a trade by teams who are limited in their available draft picks by the Stepien rule. That usually means some buyer is offering them to a rebuilding team. It turns out that most teams take more than a handful of years to contend after blowing it up, and most contenders don't immediately fall apart. So most swaps I can recall haven't ended up mattering. The Clippers did get their pick swapped last year, but that was assumed before the trade was made. OKC owned the primary swap and didn't capitalize. 2017 had two executed swaps that were traded for each other. Boston got Brooklyn's pick (first-overall) and Philly got Sacramento's pick (third-overall). That was the year of the Tatum/Fultz trade. We all know about the tremendous short-sightedness of the Billy King trade. The Vlade trade with Hinkie was even weirder, as the Kings gave up two swaps and an eventually unprotected first to just clear some cap space. That seems impossible today, and maybe this Dallas deal is the closet thing we'll see to that.

[kobyz]

Reggie Bullock is a lot like Danny Green as a player

[Chinook]

the biggest one is definitely the celtics in 2017. they had a pick swap with the nets. that ended up winning the lottery and boston moved up from #27 to #1 overall. they then traded back with philly to #3 and selected tatum while the sixers moved up for Fultz

As I mentioned in the post right after yours, Philly's pick was also swapped. They actually earned the fifth pick that year and would've never been in a position to make that trade in the first place if not for Vlade thinking he could make Sacramento a free-agent destination.

[cutewizard]

Wright can play boyssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

[cutewizard]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eg7kmlM-Qgc

[kobyz]

Would have be nice to have Grant Williams at that price

[spurraider21]

As I mentioned in the post right after yours, Philly's pick was also swapped. They actually earned the fifth pick that year and would've never been in a position to make that trade in the first place if not for Vlade thinking he could make Sacramento a free-agent destination.
For about half of last season it looked like the pelicans were gonna get a nice swap with LAL

[timvp]

According to an ESPN posting on Facebook, the seconds the Celtics are getting are supposedly in 2024, 2025 and 2028.

That fits the latest I heard. But supposedly that 2025 second round pick is a swap and not an outright second.

Hopefully we get clarity at some point tonight, tbh.

[DPG21920]

Can the Spurs do anything with all of these expiring deals that would be worth it before the season? That’s what Im watching. The fact they can be aggregated is very nice. Spurs obviously don’t need really any of these guys especially with Doug/Graham having head starts in the system. All 3 of Cedi+Bullock+Stevens all expendable and obviously Khem is as well.

Those 4 are 24M - add Graham and that’s 36M in salaries, all expiring totally except Graham who has like 2.5M guaranteed only next year.

[scott]

Can the Spurs do anything with all of these expiring deals that would be worth it before the season? That’s what Im watching. The fact they can be aggregated is very nice. Spurs obviously don’t need really any of these guys especially with Doug/Graham having head starts in the system. All 3 of Cedi+Bullock+Stevens all expendable and obviously Khem is as well.

Those 4 are 24M - add Graham and that’s 36M in salaries, all expiring totally except Graham who has like 2.5M guaranteed only next year.

I hate to even put this out in the world… but those 5 almost equals a Ben Simmons. Yuck! But for 2 unprotected PHX picks? Hmmmmmmm

Not sure why BKY does this though. Certainly one less year of Simmons isn’t that valuable to them

[BillMc]

Mavs have lost/traded everyone that helped Luka get to the WCF. No glue pieces left.

[DPG21920]

I hate to even put this out in the world… but those 5 almost equals a Ben Simmons. Yuck! But for 2 unprotected PHX picks? Hmmmmmmm

Not sure why BKY does this though. Certainly one less year of Simmons isn’t that valuable to them

I’d easily do that for 2 of those picks :lol. BKY probably doesn’t though as you said.

But ya something like that or do a S&T for someone using one of them + remaining cap space etc…Will be interesting to see what happens with Dame/Harden and who is involved too..

[DPG21920]

That fits the latest I heard. But supposedly that 2025 second round pick is a swap and not an outright second.

Hopefully we get clarity at some point tonight, tbh.

Woj said that too, but then corrected to 2 for BOS 2 for DAL :lol

[jesterbobman]

Putting together deals in a dumb way (as the seconds were different, but simplifying).
We got 4 seconds for taking on Devonte and eating his contract, from Josh Richardson.
We (seemingly, as it's murky) gave up 4 seconds and took on Bullock to get an unprotected pick swap.

Essentially, taking on $23m-ish in total salary for an unprotected pick swap. Seems good.

[024]

Don't really see as much value in a pick swap 7 years into the future as some of the others here. Luka would only be 31 by then. So unless he leaves or is injured that season, who knows if this pick swap is advantageous. Guess spurs could always recover some value by flipping Bullocks later.

[Atl Spur]

Don't really see as much value in a pick swap 7 years into the future as some of the others here. Luka would only be 31 by then. So unless he leaves or is injured that season, who knows if this pick swap is advantageous. Guess spurs could always recover some value by flipping Bullocks later.

The 7 years is what make it a great deal! Your core should be rolling by then, so instead of the 29 or 30th we may get 15 etc…. The mavs track record in team building is far from stellar!

[Mr. Body]

Can the Spurs do anything with all of these expiring deals that would be worth it before the season? That’s what Im watching. The fact they can be aggregated is very nice. Spurs obviously don’t need really any of these guys especially with Doug/Graham having head starts in the system. All 3 of Cedi+Bullock+Stevens all expendable and obviously Khem is as well.

Those 4 are 24M - add Graham and that’s 36M in salaries, all expiring totally except Graham who has like 2.5M guaranteed only next year.

- The Spurs seem to not want contracts lasting beyond next year (other than homegrown talent). This makes sense; no reason to spend on a player who doesn't greatly upgrade a roster position and we don't even know what works.

- What value do expiring contracts have when teams must get up to the floor before the season starts? The immediate money-saving aspect is curbed.

- With only so many roster spots, does it make sense to carry all these expiring vets just to see what happens at the deadline?

- Will the Spurs' attitude toward long-term salary have changed by the time the deadline comes around?

Basically, if the Spurs don't want to take on contracts that are even two years long, this curtails what good these expirings are right now. At the moment, the roster is precarious in unneeded players. This can be fixed. It certainly feels like there's something else coming to consolidate or sell contracts to some team that needs to shave one-year salary by a bit. But I wouldn't be surprised if they just cut the cheapest and go into the season with what they have. In a sense, going deep into the year with cap space has been replaced as a strategy by the CBA. Now, it's better to carry a number of expiring contracts.

[Vince Carter's ankle]

LOL yall really haven’t been watching Bullock if you think he’s a solid 3 and D anymore.

I’ll just leave this here. Luka was feeding this guy the most wide open “check the wind” threes nonstop all season, and he was still under 40%.

https://i.ibb.co/2PPWMNx/IMG-2260.jpg

You haven’t been watching the NBA in the last 50 years if you think some stick skinny 7+ footer is getting 5 years in without debilitating foot injuries.
pathetic

[Bruno]

I really like this trade. Some random thoughts:

- I expect Spurs to be the one to trade all these second round picks. Mavs just don't have second round picks to send to Boston. The already have traded their second round picks in 2024,2026,2027,202 and 2029. They only have a conditional 2025 second round pick left and their 2030 second round pick.

- Trading quantity to quality is damn hard to do and Spurs did that. They have traded between 4 to 6 assets (2 to 4 SRPs, their 2030 FRP and cap space) for 1 better asset (best of Spurs/Mavs 2030 FRP).

- There were some talks about Spurs ownership wanting to be just over the salary floor to save money. Spurs are now at least $7M over the floor. I'm glad it wasn't true. It would have been extremely cheap and even worrisome from Spurs ownership.

- As some of you as said, this trade show that Spurs FO is working in a healthy environment. Doing a trade for an asset that is 7 years down the road show that Spurs don't have a GM that is working to save his job or an ownership that is only interested in short term gains. It's nice to know that Spurs GM is working for the long term future of the franchise.

- Spurs have only traded for expiring contracts this summer. They are keeping all their next summer cap space and ability to do major trades. If Wembanyama and the rest core show enough promises, Spurs should start to do moves to be once again a contender in 2024.

- What to do with Reggie Bullock? He is a nice vet but he plays at a position where Spurs are crowded with a lot of talented young players. Maybe a trade but you need to find the right partner. Spurs have also too much players under contract with 16 guaranteed contracts.

- An added benefit of this trade is that he gives us an additional good reason to root against Mavs in the future.

[JPB]

I really like this trade. Some random thoughts:

- I expect Spurs to be the one to trade all these second round picks. Mavs just don't have second round picks to send to Boston. The already have traded their second round picks in 2024,2026,2027,202 and 2029. They only have a conditional 2025 second round pick left and their 2030 second round pick.

- Trading quantity to quality is damn hard to do and Spurs did that. They have traded between 4 to 6 assets (2 to 4 SRPs, their 2030 FRP and cap space) for 1 better asset (best of Spurs/Mavs 2030 FRP).

- There were some talks about Spurs ownership wanting to be just over the salary floor to save money. Spurs are now at least $7M over the floor. I'm glad it wasn't true. It would have been extremely cheap and even worrisome from Spurs ownership.

- As some of you as said, this trade show that Spurs FO is working in a healthy environment. Doing a trade for an asset that is 7 years down the road show that Spurs don't have a GM that is working to save his job or an ownership that is only interested in short term gains. It's nice to know that Spurs GM is working for the long term future of the franchise.

- Spurs have only traded for expiring contracts this summer. They are keeping all their next summer cap space and ability to do major trades. If Wembanyama and the rest core show enough promises, Spurs should start to do moves to be once again a contender in 2024.

- What to do with Reggie Bullock? He is a nice vet but he plays at a position where Spurs are crowded with a lot of talented young players. Maybe a trade but you need to find the right partner. Spurs have also too much players under contract with 16 guaranteed contracts.

- An added benefit of this trade is that he gives us an additional good reason to root against Mavs in the future.

Yep, they're doing just what they said they would, and pretty brilliantly.

- No costly mistakes.
- Trying to develop and see what they got in their youngsters or fringe guys, under small or friendly contracts.
- keeping their assets for an opportunity at a second superstar + potentially a few elite role players to replace whoever might not survive those next 3-4 years.
- Long term vision. Wemby should enter his prime in 4-5 years, so preparing now for that period is smart GM'ing.

[jesterbobman]

I really like this trade. Some random thoughts:

- I expect Spurs to be the one to trade all these second round picks. Mavs just don't have second round picks to send to Boston. The already have traded their second round picks in 2024,2026,2027,202 and 2029. They only have a conditional 2025 second round pick left and their 2030 second round pick.

- Trading quantity to quality is damn hard to do and Spurs did that. They have traded between 4 to 6 assets (2 to 4 SRPs, their 2030 FRP and cap space) for 1 better asset (best of Spurs/Mavs 2030 FRP).

- There were some talks about Spurs ownership wanting to be just over the salary floor to save money. Spurs are now at least $7M over the floor. I'm glad it wasn't true. It would have been extremely cheap and even worrisome from Spurs ownership.

- As some of you as said, this trade show that Spurs FO is working in a healthy environment. Doing a trade for an asset that is 7 years down the road show that Spurs don't have a GM that is working to save his job or an ownership that is only interested in short term gains. It's nice to know that Spurs GM is working for the long term future of the franchise.

- Spurs have only traded for expiring contracts this summer. They are keeping all their next summer cap space and ability to do major trades. If Wembanyama and the rest core show enough promises, Spurs should start to do moves to be once again a contender in 2024.

- What to do with Reggie Bullock? He is a nice vet but he plays at a position where Spurs are crowded with a lot of talented young players. Maybe a trade but you need to find the right partner. Spurs have also too much players under contract with 16 guaranteed contracts.

- An added benefit of this trade is that he gives us an additional good reason to root against Mavs in the future.

I imagine they'll try and trade Reggie.

He was down last year, but he's had multiple seasons of being a solid (though not spectacular) playoff rotation wing as someone who can knock down open shots and defend. Seems like he could fetch a second / a move up at the deadline if a team wanted to upgrade from one expiring deal to his - e.g, Fournier + late 2024 first from NY / Dallas for Bullock and 2024 early second - similar to the value from the Thad Young deal. That's probably about the limit, but a good continuation of the many assets for one pattern.
Could also see Miami trying to move off Lowry for depth if they get Dame - Graham / Bullock / Stephens for Lowry would be perfectly fine from my POV.

[duncan2150]

What i like the most about those trades and this one, is that we capitalize on expiring contracts with assets attached

those expiring could be gold ( with our picks) for a trade or two during the season, plus the fact that bullock or maybe osman can be valuable for some teams.

the swap in seven years looks really good tough

[Bruno]

There was also this legit? fear of Spurs being stuck with too much second round picks and being forced to trade them for cash. This trade lower this potential risk.

[exstatic]

Don't really see as much value in a pick swap 7 years into the future as some of the others here. Luka would only be 31 by then. So unless he leaves or is injured that season, who knows if this pick swap is advantageous. Guess spurs could always recover some value by flipping Bullocks later.

They were in the lottery a little over a month ago with a peak, young Luka.

[Brazil]

- An added benefit of this trade is that he gives us an additional good reason to root against Mavs in the future.

:lol as if we needed another one

[CGD]

I’d like to see them consolidate at least two of the expirings for additional assets. I’ve posited taking back the Lonzo contract for
CHI which includes money next year for another distant FRP, but seems Spurs don’t want to encumber next year’s space just yet. Chicago could be motivated if the indeed extend DDR.

[Dex]

Mavs have lost/traded everyone that helped Luka get to the WCF. No glue pieces left.

But they got Krazy Glue in Kyrie Irving

[exstatic]

But they got Krazy Glue in Kyrie Irving

:rollin

[Spurs9]

Brian Right at it again tbh.

Hes unreal tbh

[ChumpDumper]

Definitely a deal worth going above the floor for. We'll see what else they look to do if anything.

[tesseractive]

guy asked about proven SFs and you included a guy who played 15 NBA games and then a guy who has basically never played SF in the nba on your list :lol

What position is Sochan playing this year with Wimby at the 4? If he's not coming off the bench, 3 would make the most sense, right?

[Vince Carter's ankle]

What position is Sochan playing this year with Wimby at the 4? If he's not coming off the bench, 3 would make the most sense, right?
it is not the position that matters, but the role on the court

[cd98]

Spurs need some solid vets to show the young guys how to be professional and to be mentors in the locker room. So anytime they add one, even if they aren't spectacular players, they will play an important role for the young guys. And if they are expiring, we can always do them a favor and buy them out at the end of the year and let them join contenders so we can open up roster spots to try and mine for gold from the G League.

I'm not optimistic that the Spurs will be in the playoffs this year, though I expect them to be at the top of the lottery and a borderline play-in team.

[Obstructed_View]

Spurs need some solid vets to show the young guys how to be professional and to be mentors in the locker room. So anytime they add one, even if they aren't spectacular players, they will play an important role for the young guys. And if they are expiring, we can always do them a favor and buy them out at the end of the year and let them join contenders so we can open up roster spots to try and mine for gold from the G League.

I'm not optimistic that the Spurs will be in the playoffs this year, though I expect them to be at the top of the lottery and a borderline play-in team.

I don't understand this thinking. The Spurs have a ton of retired players with tons of deep playoff experience for the young guys to draw from. Don't know that any of the vets the Spurs have acquired are anything else than trade fodder. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this.

[spurraider21]

What position is Sochan playing this year with Wimby at the 4? If he's not coming off the bench, 3 would make the most sense, right?
He’s coming off the bench

[Mr. Body]

I don't understand this thinking. The Spurs have a ton of retired players with tons of deep playoff experience for the young guys to draw from. Don't know that any of the vets the Spurs have acquired are anything else than trade fodder. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this.

It's good to have vets during the day-to-day, guys who show how to pack, travel, how to get sleep, eat right, prepare day after day. Having Duncan or Parker in SA won't help in that regard.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't understand this thinking. The Spurs have a ton of retired players with tons of deep playoff experience for the young guys to draw from. Don't know that any of the vets the Spurs have acquired are anything else than trade fodder. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this.

I believe the Spurs have had interest in Osman in the past. Retired players generally aren't with the players that much. Vets are in the trenches the whole time.

[Obstructed_View]

It's good to have vets during the day-to-day, guys who show how to pack, travel, how to get sleep, eat right, prepare day after day. Having Duncan or Parker in SA won't help in that regard.
Good point. I remember watching a video with Demar where he didn't know players had their own chefs preparing them food. It's a bit shocking that the NBA pays so much money to these kids and gives them so little guidance.

As I've said, I'd prefer a guy who has that wisdom plus some skins on the wall. I imagine a scrub vet who has played a dozen playoff games doesn't resonate with the kids as well.

[ChumpDumper]

Good point. I remember watching a video with Demar where he didn't know players had their own chefs preparing them food. It's a bit shocking that the NBA pays so much money to these kids and gives them so little guidance.

As I've said, I'd prefer a guy who has that wisdom plus some skins on the wall. I imagine a scrub vet who has played a dozen playoff games doesn't resonate with the kids as well.

I thought Grogu was pretty popular with the kids and he's been in 7 playoff games.

[Obstructed_View]

I believe the Spurs have had interest in Osman in the past. Retired players generally aren't with the players that much. Vets are in the trenches the whole time.
Very true, and I do see the value in it. I guess my bar is higher than a guy with 19 playoff games on his resume, or at least my wish list. At least he went deep into the playoffs. I honestly don't know non-Spurs players well enough to know who is here to be on the roster and who is here to be shipped back out.

[Obstructed_View]

I thought Grogu was pretty popular with the kids and he's been in 7 playoff games.
Yeah I kind of prefer him because of that. He was terrific with the youngsters.

[rjv]

Glad to be wrong about Wright. He has set this team up with a massive war chest to go out and get that second star in a year or two if Wemby becomes the player scouts and GMs are expecting him to be. And in the worst case that he busts they have a ton of good picks to attempt an OKC style rebuild.


exactly. miami is struggling to put together a trade for lillard because they don't have the assets that portland wants. one never knows how the wemby era will play out but if it the opportunity to trade for a key piece comes up in a couple of years, the spurs are certainly putting themselves in a better position that the heat are currently in.

[Spur|n|Austin]

But they got Krazy Glue in Kyrie Irving

:lol

[BillMc]

But they got Krazy Glue in Kyrie Irving
:lol:clap

[RodNIc91]

I really like this trade. Some random thoughts:

- I expect Spurs to be the one to trade all these second round picks. Mavs just don't have second round picks to send to Boston. The already have traded their second round picks in 2024,2026,2027,202 and 2029. They only have a conditional 2025 second round pick left and their 2030 second round pick.

- Trading quantity to quality is damn hard to do and Spurs did that. They have traded between 4 to 6 assets (2 to 4 SRPs, their 2030 FRP and cap space) for 1 better asset (best of Spurs/Mavs 2030 FRP).

- There were some talks about Spurs ownership wanting to be just over the salary floor to save money. Spurs are now at least $7M over the floor. I'm glad it wasn't true. It would have been extremely cheap and even worrisome from Spurs ownership.

- As some of you as said, this trade show that Spurs FO is working in a healthy environment. Doing a trade for an asset that is 7 years down the road show that Spurs don't have a GM that is working to save his job or an ownership that is only interested in short term gains. It's nice to know that Spurs GM is working for the long term future of the franchise.

- Spurs have only traded for expiring contracts this summer. They are keeping all their next summer cap space and ability to do major trades. If Wembanyama and the rest core show enough promises, Spurs should start to do moves to be once again a contender in 2024.

- What to do with Reggie Bullock? He is a nice vet but he plays at a position where Spurs are crowded with a lot of talented young players. Maybe a trade but you need to find the right partner. Spurs have also too much players under contract with 16 guaranteed contracts.

- An added benefit of this trade is that he gives us an additional good reason to root against Mavs in the future.

What's up Bruno? Nice to see you back posting again :toast

[RC_Drunkford]

San Antonio remains open to taking on unwanted contracts around the league in exchange for draft pick compensation, (https://hoopshype.com/lists/nba-rumors-paul-george-rj-barrett-immanuel-quickley-obi-toppin-mavericks-bucks-celtics/) league sources told HoopsHype.
17 mins ago (https://hoopshype.com/rumor/2177611/) – via Michael Scotto @ HoopsHype (https://hoopshype.com/lists/nba-rumors-paul-george-rj-barrett-immanuel-quickley-obi-toppin-mavericks-bucks-celtics/)

[Mr. Body]

[B]

What's the cap situation?

[exstatic]

exactly. miami is struggling to put together a trade for lillard because they don't have the assets that portland wants. one never knows how the wemby era will play out but if it the opportunity to trade for a key piece comes up in a couple of years, the spurs are certainly putting themselves in a better position that the heat are currently in.

They keep signing players to awful contracts! Then they have to pay to offload them!

[CGD]

[B]

Good, they should.

[spurraider21]

really relieved to hear they are still looking to do more of the same. ownership being willing to buy draft picks is basically the exact opposite of what we'd been hearing lately, that there was basically no budget beyond the salary floor. made it seem like a lot of our future 2's would just be sold off for cash. but if we're looking to keep buying picks, and consolidating those 2's for better picks, cant really complain too much

[LeBowen]

What's the cap situation?

Should be around $15M under the cap after taking Bullock's $10M expiring.

[Mr. Body]

Should be around $15M under the cap after taking Bullock's $10M expiring.

This isn't accounting for all the current players that will resign, I suppose?

[spurraider21]

This isn't accounting for all the current players that will resign, I suppose?
those guys could basically just sign last using bird rights to go over the cap. theres no rush to get tre to sign a 10 mil per year deal when his cap hold is lower than that, for instance

[Raven]

Holy shit, I only heard about Dallas getting Grant and I was laughing my ass off, but they also gave us a near lock for a top 5 pick ? damn

[Mr. Body]

those guys could basically just sign last using bird rights to go over the cap. theres no rush to get tre to sign a 10 mil per year deal when his cap hold is lower than that, for instance

Makes sense. Spurs have more to work with than I thought.

[CGD]

Should be around $15M under the cap after taking Bullock's $10M expiring.

They can also route someone to take a bigger salary, e.g., Bullock (10M) to LAC for Morris (18M).

[Ariel]

They can also route someone to take a bigger salary, e.g., Bullock (10M) to LAC for Morris (18M).
Or Fournier, Lowry, etc. Once meeting the salary floor isn't a concern, the Spurs shouldn't hurry to trade 8M for a 2nd rounder, just wait until a team is desperate enough (like Dallas was yesterday) where you can make a real difference. And if in so doing the chance to pick up a 2nd rounder, so be it... at a certain point you need to aim higher.

[cd98]

I don't understand this thinking. The Spurs have a ton of retired players with tons of deep playoff experience for the young guys to draw from. Don't know that any of the vets the Spurs have acquired are anything else than trade fodder. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this.

Well I'm sure that it is great to have HOF players that are around the young guys, but they've been retired for years and the game changes year to year and so does the life of a player. David Robinson, and his era, is totally different than players today. That doesn't mean he can't contribute to the development of players in meaningful ways, but it helps to have a vet in there training, keeping in shape, especially one that has been part of winning programs and brings leadership that can only come from a guy that is in the trenches with you. That's why a guy like Chris Paul was valuable for an OKC team and would have been a great addition to the Spurs. Guys that know how to win, and can demonstrate discipline, focus, and professionalism while being in the trench with you.

[exstatic]

They can also route someone to take a bigger salary, e.g., Bullock (10M) to LAC for Morris (18M).

F that clown. He backed out on his deal. He doesn't get to ride the Wemby train now.

[rjv]

HELL NO TO MORRIS! let him rot in the never gets a ring purgatory.

[Russ]

They can also route someone to take a bigger salary, e.g., Bullock (10M) to LAC for Morris (18M).

I'm pretty sure Morris is not on the Spurs' radar (except as an iceberg might be).

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

Late to the party on this one, but nice job by Wright. :tu

In other threads I've heard that accumulating 2nd round picks is like collecting pennies, and also heard that the Spurs would likely end up losing those picks altogether or selling them for cash as other teams would be well aware that the stockpile of picks will be meaningless to the Spurs as they'll never be able to utilize that many second rounders.

So to turn 4 of them into an unprotected first round pick swap with a team that likely will be rebuilding by 2030, and grab an expiring contract that might be tradeable or leveraged in a subsequent deal, is a huge win. Spurs will have a lot of leverage to make deals this season, and into the future, while assessing how the team is coming together.

A+ trade, IMO.

[Kurik]

Anyone find a confirmation on the details yet?

[spurraider21]

Anyone find a confirmation on the details yet?
nothing out there publicly yet

[DPG21920]

[B]

Spurs *seemingly* still need a Center-esp if Bassey isn’t ready. There were the rumors of Spurs & Valančiūnas

NO looking at Luxury Tax, he makes 15.5M & SA *I think* can get to that much still & absorb him…wonder if we see that deal with NO trying to dodge luxury tax maybe?

[RC_Drunkford]

Spurs *seemingly* still need a Center-esp if Bassey isn’t ready. There were the rumors of Spurs & Valančiūnas

NO looking at Luxury Tax, he makes 15.5M & SA *I think* can get to that much still & absorb him…wonder if we see that deal with NO trying to dodge luxury tax maybe?

I don't think NOLA would salary dump him and I don't think the Spurs would give up assets to trade for him. He's much rather getting dealt at the deadline.

[JRicardo]

Mavs receive:


Grant Williams
Two future second-round picks (via Celtics)

Celtics receive:


2024 second-round pick (via Mavs)
2025 second-round pick swap (via Mavs)
2028 second-round pick (via Mavs)

Spurs receive:


Reggie Bullock (via Mavs)
Unprotected 2030 first-round pick swap (via Mavs)

NBA.com

[exstatic]

Mavs receive:


Grant Williams
Two future second-round picks (via Celtics)

Celtics receive:


2024 second-round pick (via Mavs)
2025 second-round pick swap (via Mavs)
2028 second-round pick (via Mavs)

Spurs receive:


Reggie Bullock (via Mavs)
Unprotected 2030 first-round pick swap (via Mavs)

NBA.com

That would not be a valid trade, as shown. The Spurs have to send something out. They cannot just receive assets. Something is misprinted.

[Extra Stout]

Mavs receive:


Grant Williams
Two future second-round picks (via Celtics)

Celtics receive:


2024 second-round pick (via Mavs)
2025 second-round pick swap (via Mavs)
2028 second-round pick (via Mavs)

Spurs receive:


Reggie Bullock (via Mavs)
Unprotected 2030 first-round pick swap (via Mavs)

NBA.com
Trading zero second-round picks for a first-round swap is fairly impressive.

[exstatic]

Trading zero second-round picks for a first-round swap is fairly impressive.

That trade isn't valid as shown.

[MannyIsGod]

Thats definitely wrong. Don't think Mavs have that many 2nds to trade.

[DPG21920]

I don't think NOLA would salary dump him and I don't think the Spurs would give up assets to trade for him. He's much rather getting dealt at the deadline.

Entirely possible - just looking at scenarios. If they have a chance to get out of luxury tax guaranteed that chance may not be there at deadline is all. Just have to see. I can see both arguments though.

[RC_Drunkford]

those 3 seconds the Celtics receive are all Spurs picks

[Chinook]

Mavs receive:


Grant Williams
Two future second-round picks (via Celtics)

Celtics receive:


2024 second-round pick (via Mavs)
2025 second-round pick swap (via Mavs)
2028 second-round pick (via Mavs)

Spurs receive:


Reggie Bullock (via Mavs)
Unprotected 2030 first-round pick swap (via Mavs)

NBA.com

Yep, as Ex said, this didn't happen. It's both illegal and impossible. My guess if the Spurs traded some of their worse picks to Dallas. Dallas forwarded one of picks to Boston along with either another pick from SA or their 2030 second. Unless the Spurs gave Dallas 2025 pick, they can't even swap it. The Knicks should be entitled to Dallas' 2025 second free and clear if their first doesn't convey. Maybe it's legal for Dallas to make a swap contingent on them keeping their second, but they could've probably traded it outright in that case.

[exstatic]

those 3 seconds the Celtics receive are all Spurs picks

That's what made the most sense to me.

[spurraider21]

the trade isnt on the league transaction wire yet so im not sure why nba.com would be the source for trade details at this point

[Mitch Cumsteen]

Reading the tea leaves if any of the reporting is accurate... it seems a bit odd that Dallas is getting picks back from the Spurs in this deal. Unless it is some sort of "the worst of three picks" type of arrangement.

The 2024 and 2028 picks going to Boston have to be Spurs picks.

Maybe there is some weird contingency on the 2025 swap between Dallas and Boston that it just goes away if Dallas has to convey it to New York? That's probably a risk that Boston was willing to take, knowing the odds that Dallas makes the playoffs either this season or next. All of this is found money to the Celtics anyway. They weren't going to match that contract and go into the second apron. Dallas didn't have the balls to sweat them out, and hopefully it ends up costing them the first pick in the 2030 draft to the Spurs.

[RC_Drunkford]

2024: worst of NOLA and CHI 2nd rounders owned by Spurs
2025: Toronto 2nd owned by Spurs
2028: NOLA 2nd owned by Spurs

all going to Celtics

[024]

So 3 2nd round picks for Bullock and a FRP swap? Guess that's quite decent after all.

[mudyez]

Guess we will know in 6,5 years, but even if the Mavs are good for some reason (and we don't even swap), it's not like we lost something substantial, that will hurt us.

This are the type of shots, that may make the difference come Wembys prime.

[Chinook]

2024: worst of NOLA and CHI 2nd rounders owned by Spurs
2025: Toronto 2nd owned by Spurs
2028: NOLA 2nd owned by Spurs

all going to Celtics

Those are real picks and not just currency. They probably won't be great, but they're picks Boston may end up needing to fill out their roster.

[Seventyniner]

Those are real picks and not just currency. They probably won't be great, but they're picks Boston may end up needing to fill out their roster.

Especially because Boston could be right around, or even above, the second apron for a long time if they supermax Brown.

[RC_Drunkford]

Those are real picks and not just currency. They probably won't be great, but they're picks Boston may end up needing to fill out their roster.

did you expect it to be something else? Still curious where those picks the Mavs got came from. I hope those are not our picks as well

[jjspur]

HELL NO TO MORRIS! let him rot in the never gets a ring purgatory.

Exactly. Don't mind the spurs taking on more salary just not that ass clown's salary.

[spurraider21]

2024: worst of NOLA and CHI 2nd rounders owned by Spurs
2025: Toronto 2nd owned by Spurs
2028: NOLA 2nd owned by Spurs

all going to Celtics
where are you seeing this?

[Chinook]

did you expect it to be something else? Still curious where those picks the Mavs got came from. I hope those are not our picks as well

The Spurs had worse picks or could have created worse picks in each of those years if the goal was just to give Boston some capital to use in future trades. Each of those picks will probably be in the 40s. With the new second-round exception, the Celtics may not use those to trade but rather rely on those cheap contracts to fill out a roster that'll be threatening the second apron every year. For the Spurs, they have too many firsts in 2024 and 2025 to really care about what seconds they gave up. But there's a real difference between the kind of seconds they're giving up here the kinds of seconds they and Miami traded in the other deal.

[CGD]

Those are real picks and not just currency. They probably won't be great, but they're picks Boston may end up needing to fill out their roster.

They’re all be in the mid 40s.

[RC_Drunkford]

where are you seeing this?

that's what Woj first reported when the trade was made. Now I have no clue about those Mavs 2nds

[exstatic]

2024: worst of NOLA and CHI 2nd rounders owned by Spurs
2025: Toronto 2nd owned by Spurs
2028: NOLA 2nd owned by Spurs

all going to Celtics

I think the 2025 is a swap option, not a pick.

[td4mvp2k]

windhorst saying spurs made out like bandits in this deal

[spurraider21]

that's what Woj first reported when the trade was made. Now I have no clue about those Mavs 2nds
first woj said 24/25/28 to boston, but then he gave an update saying mavs/celtics getting 2 SRPs each

[timvp]

2024: worst of NOLA and CHI 2nd rounders owned by Spurs
2025: Toronto 2nd owned by Spurs
2028: NOLA 2nd owned by Spurs

all going to Celtics

Wow, if that's all the Spurs gave up, that's pretty awesome. The worst of the NOLA and CHI picks adds some protection.

Best trade Wright's ever made, IMO. Second rounders and a neutral contract for an unprotected first round swap? That's great. Sure, it could amount to nothing -- but to even get a chance at a lottery pick for three second rounders is amazing work.

I would have thought it was a great trade if the swap was top five protected. To be totally unprotected is almost unbelievable. There's no other trade I can think of that can compare to this.

If this is Wright's creativity in action, the Spurs are in good hands going forward.

[exstatic]

Wow, if that's all the Spurs gave up, that's pretty awesome. The worst of the NOLA and CHI picks adds some protection.

Best trade Wright's ever made, IMO. Second rounders and a neutral contract for an unprotected first round swap? That's great. Sure, it could amount to nothing -- but to even get a chance at a lottery pick for three second rounders is amazing work.

I would have thought it was a great trade if the swap was top five protected. To be totally unprotected is almost unbelievable. There's no other trade I can think of that can compare to this.

If this is Wright's creativity in action, the Spurs are in good hands going forward.

Had Dallas between a rock and a hard place. Doing this trade was the only way to get both Thybulle and Grant Williams, since they were both restricted FAs, and they needed to trade for one.

[Mr. Body]

Had Dallas between a rock and a hard place. Doing this trade was the only way to get both Thybulle and Grant Williams, since they were both restricted FAs, and they needed to trade for one.

Thybulle was matched, but yeah.

[spurraider21]

Wow, if that's all the Spurs gave up, that's pretty awesome. The worst of the NOLA and CHI picks adds some protection.

Best trade Wright's ever made, IMO. Second rounders and a neutral contract for an unprotected first round swap? That's great. Sure, it could amount to nothing -- but to even get a chance at a lottery pick for three second rounders is amazing work.

I would have thought it was a great trade if the swap was top five protected. To be totally unprotected is almost unbelievable. There's no other trade I can think of that can compare to this.

If this is Wright's creativity in action, the Spurs are in good hands going forward.
i still dont know where drunkford is getting those details from. woj initially rerported 24/25/28 to boston, then updated saying each of boston/dallas is getting 2. at no point do i recall them reporting the specific SRPs, or the "least favorable of" details for any of them

[JPB]

These second rounders keep proving their value. Should be the same next deadline, just gonna catch a team at the right time like Dallas this week. And guess what? Spurs have a boatload of SRPs.

[RC_Drunkford]

i still dont know where drunkford is getting those details from. woj initially rerported 24/25/28 to boston, then updated saying each of boston/dallas is getting 2. at no point do i recall them reporting the specific SRPs, or the "least favorable of" details for any of them

he did, then deleted the tweet

[Chinook]

Wow, if that's all the Spurs gave up, that's pretty awesome. The worst of the NOLA and CHI picks adds some protection.

The Spurs don't even have that pick. They only have the best pick, which they got from NOLA in the Richardson deal, I believe. The actual details definitely still need to get cleaned up.

[Chinook]

I don't remember if I posted this, but if I had to guess:

Dallas is giving their 2030 unprotected second to Boston and offering 2030 first-round swap rights to the Spurs to go along with Bullock.

The Spurs are giving two shitty-to-meh seconds to Dallas, like the worst of their 2025 seconds and the worst of their 2028 seconds. They're also sending a decent second to Boston, like the NOP/CHI 2024 second.

Boston is trading Williams.

[scott]

Wow, if that's all the Spurs gave up, that's pretty awesome. The worst of the NOLA and CHI picks adds some protection.

Best trade Wright's ever made, IMO. Second rounders and a neutral contract for an unprotected first round swap? That's great. Sure, it could amount to nothing -- but to even get a chance at a lottery pick for three second rounders is amazing work.

I would have thought it was a great trade if the swap was top five protected. To be totally unprotected is almost unbelievable. There's no other trade I can think of that can compare to this.

If this is Wright's creativity in action, the Spurs are in good hands going forward.

Someone else made the great observation earlier, the Spurs now have pick swaps in 2026, 2028 (Top 1 protected) and 2030 - which makes their FRPs in those years all the more valuable. If the Spurs find the star they want to go all-in for (Giannis, Luka, etc), then a package of hose 3 picks is going to be unmatched in terms of value because of the swaps that go with them.

Masterclass by Wright.

[Ariel]

2024: worst of NOLA and CHI 2nd rounders owned by Spurs
2025: Toronto 2nd owned by Spurs
2028: NOLA 2nd owned by Spurs

all going to Celtics
Source?

[CGD]

Source?

This is old/stale info from WOJ days ago. I don’t think we fully know yet.

[CGD]

Someone else made the great observation earlier, the Spurs now have pick swaps in 2026, 2028 (Top 1 protected) and 2030 - which makes their FRPs in those years all the more valuable. If the Spurs find the star they want to go all-in for (Giannis, Luka, etc), then a package of hose 3 picks is going to be unmatched in terms of value because of the swaps that go with them.

Masterclass by Wright.

Its a good position to be in. Only year we don’t have an additional bite/enhancement in the first round is 2029.

[DPG21920]

Wow, if that's all the Spurs gave up, that's pretty awesome. The worst of the NOLA and CHI picks adds some protection.

Best trade Wright's ever made, IMO. Second rounders and a neutral contract for an unprotected first round swap? That's great. Sure, it could amount to nothing -- but to even get a chance at a lottery pick for three second rounders is amazing work.

I would have thought it was a great trade if the swap was top five protected. To be totally unprotected is almost unbelievable. There's no other trade I can think of that can compare to this.

If this is Wright's creativity in action, the Spurs are in good hands going forward.

HOLY SHIT look what MEM just did :wow I wish we could have done this damnnnnnn

1677123059994570754

[scott]

HOLY SHIT look what MEM just did :wow I wish we could have done this damnnnnnn

1677123059994570754

Both the 2024 and 2030 Swaps are the lesser of the PHX/WAS pick - so it's a little less impressive than what Brian Wright did yesterday, but it would be cool if we could line a few more of these up.

[CGD]

Except the 2024 FRP swap is worthless. PHX will be better than them, and even if not both figure to be in playoff contention. The 2030 however has value for sure.

[spurraider21]

the 2024 swap is completely worthless tbh

2030 might be something. KD/Beal gone or TOSB by then. booker in mid 30's, and phoenix coming off a string of years with no young talent infusion

[Ariel]

This is old/stale info from WOJ days ago. I don’t think we fully know yet.
I think Woj just put out the years but not the specific teams, right? If so, where did those specifics on the picks come from?

[RC_Drunkford]

I think Woj just put out the years but not the specific teams, right? If so, where did those specifics on the picks come from?

he did than deleted the tweet as some picks were going to the Mavs etc., but those were the Spurs second rounders specifically included in the deal

[DPG21920]

Both the 2024 and 2030 Swaps are the lesser of the PHX/WAS pick - so it's a little less impressive than what Brian Wright did yesterday, but it would be cool if we could line a few more of these up.

2 swaps unprotected for 3 2nds is great no matter how you slice it lol

[exstatic]

2 swaps unprotected for 3 2nds is great no matter how you slice it lol

They’re the short end of the stick, the worst of the Wiz and PHO swaps that PHO holds in both cases. It only pays off if they’re both really bad, and in the lottery. We only need one team to be bad in all three swaps we hold.

[RedAzSa]

They’re the short end of the stick, the worst of the Wiz and PHO swaps that PHO holds in both cases. It only pays off if they’re both really bad, and in the lottery. We only need one team to be bad in all three swaps we hold.
Yep, these only have value if MEM’s pick is the worst of the three. Even then, they’d only jump up to the second most valuable pick, limiting both the likelihood of this paying off and the value if it does. I much prefer what we got from Dallas

[Chinook]

Swaps don't have the value people are fantasizing they do. They're nice and can obviously hit every once in a while. But they're getting blown up because that's all teams have now. Like for example, them being unprotected is much more common than them being protected. Harping on "unprotected swaps" is like harping on unprotected seconds. Sure you can protect them, but the default is that they are free and clear. The Spurs made a shrewd move, especially if it's just those redundant seconds. Memphis made a meh move that will probably look stupid sooner than later.

[DPG21920]

Swaps don't have the value people are fantasizing they do. They're nice and can obviously hit every once in a while. But they're getting blown up because that's all teams have now. Like for example, them being unprotected is much more common than them being protected. Harping on "unprotected swaps" is like harping on unprotected seconds. Sure you can protect them, but the default is that they are free and clear. The Spurs made a shrewd move, especially if it's just those redundant seconds. Memphis made a meh move that will probably look stupid sooner than later.

Maybe - again, I think its savvy like my someone with money buying a few lotto tickets for fun. You don’t want to rely on them to make rent but if you are just having some fun it could pay off with little downside.

I know you are a bird in the hand type guy so you value the 2nds because they are for sure; but teams are having to give up things they probably rather would not out of pure need and I think theres value right now in the 2nds for swaps things. But that’s just me.

[DPG21920]

They’re the short end of the stick, the worst of the Wiz and PHO swaps that PHO holds in both cases. It only pays off if they’re both really bad, and in the lottery. We only need one team to be bad in all three swaps we hold.

Sure - but they only took on like 1.5m vs 10M as well and WAS sucks pretty bad all the time and KD/Beal aren’t lasting until 2030 no way and PHX has like no picks either for when they are bad.

[Ariel]

he did than deleted the tweet as some picks were going to the Mavs etc., but those were the Spurs second rounders specifically included in the deal
Thanks, it's likely those are the picks involved then. Didn't catch it.

[Mr. Body]

Swaps don't have the value people are fantasizing they do. They're nice and can obviously hit every once in a while. But they're getting blown up because that's all teams have now. Like for example, them being unprotected is much more common than them being protected. Harping on "unprotected swaps" is like harping on unprotected seconds. Sure you can protect them, but the default is that they are free and clear. The Spurs made a shrewd move, especially if it's just those redundant seconds. Memphis made a meh move that will probably look stupid sooner than later.

I'm conservative with assets and would prefer a pick with protections rather than a swap. Then I have two picks rather than one + the relative chance that one pick moves up.

If I'm reading correctly, Wizards get to swap with Phoenix on both these picks (I believe) and then Memphis has the chance to swap with whatever Phoenix has at that point. Next year is highly unlikely to matter. The 2030 pick might be okay, but isn't going to be some genius pick unless both Washington and Phoenix manage to be terrible and pop in the high lottery.

I kind of see this as a waste of Memphis's second rounders. Phoenix, meanwhile, is very creative with already swapped picks. I can imagine how byzantine these swaps can get.

[scott]

In theory, PHX can trade a 2030 swap up to 29 times, and effectively lock themselves into the 30th pick! The NBA has entered its derivative trading era!

[Chinook]

Maybe - again, I think its savvy like my someone with money buying a few lotto tickets for fun. You don’t want to rely on them to make rent but if you are just having some fun it could pay off with little downside.

I know you are a bird in the hand type guy so you value the 2nds because they are for sure; but teams are having to give up things they probably rather would not out of pure need and I think theres value right now in the 2nds for swaps things. But that’s just me.

I think Memphis should keep their seconds. They've traded away a lot of them already. The Spurs have a ton, still. Like I think they're at the same number they were heading into this off-season. They can consolidate. Memphis is instead sacrificing flexibility for a tiny increase in impact. They absolutely have to be looking to make an all-in deal to justify the move. Like they probably got way too many seconds from Houston to sort of offset this. But they're still running a huge risk of just burning those picks if they can't get preemptive value out of those swaps.

[scott]

Yeah, a "2nd Generation" Swap, as I'll call these, are definitely far less valuable than the unprotected variety the Spurs got. I'd argue there is an exponential decrease in value in each Swap generation. The 2nd Gen is worth less than half of a truly unprotected swap, a 3rd gen would be worth less than a 3rd of the 1st gen, etc. The value* likely flattens out around the 15th gen.

*By value we are really talking Expected Value of the resulting pick for the team holding the swap, and by around the 15th pick you're EV would undoubtedly be somewhere in the mid to late 20s already, so you would never really make it to the ultimate 29th generation because there is no more value for anyone to extract. In practicality, there really isn't enough value even for the 3rd generation for a trade to commence.

[timvp]

HOLY SHIT look what MEM just did :wow I wish we could have done this damnnnnnn

1677123059994570754

Eh, yeah like others have said, that's a tougher one to evaluate because the Grizzlies have to be better than both the Suns and Wizards for it to pay off. Even then, you'd need the extreme luck of both the Suns and Wizards being a lottery team in order for it to be a big-time win. In San Antonio's version, it just matters what the Mavs do.

I can't think of a way to fairly model it but logically it sounds like this Memphis trade has a lot lower possibility of becoming a lottery pick than the Spurs trade.

[DPG21920]

Eh, yeah like others have said, that's a tougher one to evaluate because the Grizzlies have to be better than both the Suns and Wizards for it to pay off. Even then, you'd need the extreme luck of both the Suns and Wizards being a lottery team in order for it to be a big-time win. In San Antonio's version, it just matters what the Mavs do.

I can't think of a way to fairly model it but logically it sounds like this Memphis trade has a lot lower possibility of becoming a lottery pick than the Spurs trade.

I guess I look at it like Spurs gave up 4 2nds and took on 10M for 1 (albeit better). MEM gave up 3 2nds and got 2, with the one in 2030 being pretty damn interesting with WaS being terrible and Suns having no picks to replace KD/Beal by then?

[scott]

Eh, yeah like others have said, that's a tougher one to evaluate because the Grizzlies have to be better than both the Suns and Wizards for it to pay off. Even then, you'd need the extreme luck of both the Suns and Wizards being a lottery team in order for it to be a big-time win. In San Antonio's version, it just matters what the Mavs do.

I can't think of a way to fairly model it but logically it sounds like this Memphis trade has a lot lower possibility of becoming a lottery pick than the Spurs trade.

We could build a model for the probably if we just assume that every team has an equal shot of being good or bad at random. So in any given year, a team has a 47% chance of being a lottery team. So for the Spurs, they need to be better than the Mavs, and then they have a 47% chance of getting a lotto pick.

For Memphis to be in the money with a lotto pick, they have to be better than two teams (PHX and WAS) and then they have to hope both teams are lotto teams, so 0.47^2 = 22% chance.

This is very rudimentary math, and of course teams are not lottery teams at random so it isn't perfect, but it does illustrate the exponential decline in the EV of the pick with later generations of swaps.

Like I said, this is the NBA's derivative trading era. Shits gonna eventually hit the fan like Countrywide Homes in the housing crisis for whatever team is left holding the bag :lol

[Extra Stout]

Does Vegas allow betting on whether or not a protected traded pick conveys in a given year? Because that’s the frontier right there.

[spurs10]

In a swap does the team with the best record get to swap with a team with a worst record and better pick?

[scott]

In a swap does the team with the best record get to swap with a team with a worst record and better pick?

That's correct on how the swap works. And they only work in one direction, so when you trade a swap, it isn't a guaranteed swap no matter what - it only works for one party (who receives the swap) to get the better pick.

[scott]

Does Vegas allow betting on whether or not a protected traded pick conveys in a given year? Because that’s the frontier right there.

The team and Enron is salivating at the mouth.

[scott]

Just wait until teams start going towards SRP/FRP swaps - that's the ultimate. You get the right to swap your SRP with another team's FRP. The gold standard is shithouse derivative assets.

[Extra Stout]

Just wait until teams start going towards SRP/FRP swaps - that's the ultimate. You get the right to swap your SRP with another team's FRP. The gold standard is shithouse derivative assets.
How about allowing player swaps? Or swapping picks for players? Or combinations? Like you want the 5th pick and offer the 9th pick and your starting small forward? The possibilities are endless.

[Kindergarten Cop]

In a swap does the team with the best record get to swap with a team with a worst record and better pick?

It probably goes without saying, but just to clarify - the swap only takes place if the team who "owns" the swap has the better record. If said team finishes with a worse record, they obviously have no desire to give up their slot in the draft. The example with the Spurs gaining the right to swap with the Mavs in 2030 only happens if the Mavs have a worse record.




That's correct on how the swap works. And they only work in one direction, so when you trade a swap, it isn't a guaranteed swap no matter what - it only works for one party (who receives the swap) to get the better pick.

EDIT: What he said.

[scott]

How about allowing player swaps? Or swapping picks for players? Or combinations? Like you want the 5th pick and offer the 9th pick and your starting small forward? The possibilities are endless.

Contract swaps. We've gotten a contract swap with the Lakers. We then trade for Luka. We exercise our contract swap rights and now Luka has to play under Reaves's 4/56 and the Lakers are stuck paying Reaves the Supermax.

[Kurik]

Eventually it will become swap a pick in 2040 and we’ll lose tomorrow’s game against you.

[Ariel]

We could build a model for the probably if we just assume that every team has an equal shot of being good or bad at random. So in any given year, a team has a 47% chance of being a lottery team. So for the Spurs, they need to be better than the Mavs, and then they have a 47% chance of getting a lotto pick.

For Memphis to be in the money with a lotto pick, they have to be better than two teams (PHX and WAS) and then they have to hope both teams are lotto teams, so 0.47^2 = 22% chance.

This is very rudimentary math, and of course teams are not lottery teams at random so it isn't perfect, but it does illustrate the exponential decline in the EV of the pick with later generations of swaps.

Like I said, this is the NBA's derivative trading era. Shits gonna eventually hit the fan like Countrywide Homes in the housing crisis for whatever team is left holding the bag :lol
Since it's such a long time period, one could assume equal chances at any given slot for all teams. You could also take any arbitrary distribution, if you're relatively confident in your estimation of where you'd be (with a given mean and variance). Assuming performance of all teams is independent, you can draw a joint probability distribution for each of the possible combinations, and then iterate though them all, calculating for every scenario what the gain is (you need to use a model for pick value, not all jumps are created equal, i.e 3 slots from 30 to 27 is a lot different from 3 slots from 4 to 1), and what its likelihood is, and if you accumulate that product throughout the entire sample space you'll get the expected value of the swap. I did it for 2 teams, it's easy to generalize it to more teams, but the problem I found was that the models for valuation of slots are awful. The most accurate (not that I did an exhaustive search, I googled a few) was Pelton '17, the rest are horribly flat and do not account for the difference in value between top picks and the rest (for instance in Pelton's model #1 ~ #2 + #21, it's obvious #21 doesn't have that value and it's worse for the other models... I suppose I could go through all recent trades to draw a more proper model, but it's too time consuming for me right now. But those are the basics of such a model, I'll play a bit and if I like what I get I might post the results.

[scott]

Eventually it will become swap a pick in 2040 and we’ll lose tomorrow’s game against you.

YES NOW WE ARE TALKING. This is what happens when you let gambling companies be involved with sports :lol

[timvp]

We could build a model for the probably if we just assume that every team has an equal shot of being good or bad at random. So in any given year, a team has a 47% chance of being a lottery team. So for the Spurs, they need to be better than the Mavs, and then they have a 47% chance of getting a lotto pick.

For Memphis to be in the money with a lotto pick, they have to be better than two teams (PHX and WAS) and then they have to hope both teams are lotto teams, so 0.47^2 = 22% chance.

This is very rudimentary math, and of course teams are not lottery teams at random so it isn't perfect, but it does illustrate the exponential decline in the EV of the pick with later generations of swaps.

Like I said, this is the NBA's derivative trading era. Shits gonna eventually hit the fan like Countrywide Homes in the housing crisis for whatever team is left holding the bag :lol

My man. It was too tempting to not model it. After some quick and dirty modeling, assuming all teams will randomly get a pick between 1 and 30, the Grizzlies trade results in an average improvement of ~2 spots and the Spurs trade results in an average improvement of ~5 spots. The chance of the Grizzlies improving 10 or more spots is ~10% and the Spurs chances are ~25%.

So, yeah, similar trade but San Antonio's version is worth quite a bit more. Their improvement odds are more than twice as good -- plus the Grizzlies version can obviously never result in landing a No. 1 pick via swap. Factor that in and, yeah, there's a pretty big difference, tbh.

[scott]

Since it's such a long time period, one could assume equal chances at any given slot for all teams. You could also take any arbitrary distribution, if you're relatively confident in your estimation of where you'd be (with a given mean and variance). Assuming performance of all teams is independent, you can draw a joint probability distribution for each of the possible combinations, and then iterate though them all, calculating for every scenario what the gain is (you need to use a model for pick value, not all jumps are created equal, i.e 3 slots from 30 to 27 is a lot different from 3 slots from 4 to 1), and what its likelihood is, and if you accumulate that product throughout the entire sample space you'll get the expected value of the swap. I did it for 2 teams, it's easy to generalize it to more teams, but the problem I found was that the models for valuation of slots are awful. The most accurate (not that I did an exhaustive search, I googled a few) was Pelton '17, the rest are horribly flat and do not account for the difference in value between top picks and the rest (for instance in Pelton's model #1 ~ #2 + #21, it's obvious #21 doesn't have that value and it's worse for the other models... I suppose I could go through all recent trades to draw a more proper model, but it's too time consuming for me right now. But those are the basics of such a model, I'll play a bit and if I like what I get I might post the results.

I've always thought this was the best attempt at quantifying the value of picks: https://thedatajocks.com/nba-draft-pick-values/

[Ariel]

I've always thought this was the best attempt at quantifying the value of picks: https://thedatajocks.com/nba-draft-pick-values/
I like it much better. I tested an unprotected swap (not simulation, theoretical value) between 2 teams and assuming equal odds at each slot for both, I got that:
1) Using Ashbrock model for valuation (yours), an unprotected swap is roughly equivalent of a #19 pick
2) Using Pelton model for valuation, an unprotected swap is roughly equivalent of a #30 pick (this model also states that #1 = #2 + #21 so take this with a grain of salt)
If anyone wants the code (it's extremely simple) I can share. It's a bit late so I hope I didn't mess up anything :lol

[timvp]

Since it's such a long time period, one could assume equal chances at any given slot for all teams. You could also take any arbitrary distribution, if you're relatively confident in your estimation of where you'd be (with a given mean and variance). Assuming performance of all teams is independent, you can draw a joint probability distribution for each of the possible combinations, and then iterate though them all, calculating for every scenario what the gain is (you need to use a model for pick value, not all jumps are created equal, i.e 3 slots from 30 to 27 is a lot different from 3 slots from 4 to 1), and what its likelihood is, and if you accumulate that product throughout the entire sample space you'll get the expected value of the swap. I did it for 2 teams, it's easy to generalize it to more teams, but the problem I found was that the models for valuation of slots are awful. The most accurate (not that I did an exhaustive search, I googled a few) was Pelton '17, the rest are horribly flat and do not account for the difference in value between top picks and the rest (for instance in Pelton's model #1 ~ #2 + #21, it's obvious #21 doesn't have that value and it's worse for the other models... I suppose I could go through all recent trades to draw a more proper model, but it's too time consuming for me right now. But those are the basics of such a model, I'll play a bit and if I like what I get I might post the results.

Good stuff.

Thinking about it more and factoring in that not all picks are created equal, the Spurs version of the deal looks a lot better than the Grizzlies version.

The Spurs end up with the No. 1 pick from the Mavs 3.3% of the time. The Grizzlies can't get a No.1 pick from their trade.
The Spurs end up with the No.1 or No. 2 pick from the Mavs ~6% of the time. The Grizzlies end up with a No. 1 or No. 2 pick from their trade about 0.41% of the time.
The Spurs end up with a No. 1, No. 2 or No. 3 pick from the Mavs ~9% of the time. The Grizzlies end up with a No. 1, No. 2 or No. 3 pick from their trade about 0.9% of the time.

So, yeah, the trades sound similar but the Spurs have a ~14 times better chance of ending up with a top 2 pick from the Mavs and a ~10 times better chance of ending up with a top 3 pick from the Mavs compared to the Grizzlies odds. Considering that the value of most drafts is at the top, it's safe to say that the Spurs trade is like, what, 7 or 8 times better than the Grizzlies trade? Maybe 10 times better depending on how much extra value you give getting the top pick?

Basically, it looks like the Grizzlies rushed to do a copycat version of the Spurs trade but didn't take the time to run the numbers. :lol

[heyheymymy]

cool forecasting analysis, thanks

[ismael-robert]

Great googly moogly! Thankful I just enjoy watching the games

[scott]

Good stuff.

Thinking about it more and factoring in that not all picks are created equal, the Spurs version of the deal looks a lot better than the Grizzlies version.

The Spurs end up with the No. 1 pick from the Mavs 3.3% of the time. The Grizzlies can't get a No.1 pick from their trade.
The Spurs end up with the No.1 or No. 2 pick from the Mavs ~6% of the time. The Grizzlies end up with a No. 1 or No. 2 pick from their trade about 0.41% of the time.
The Spurs end up with a No. 1, No. 2 or No. 3 pick from the Mavs ~9% of the time. The Grizzlies end up with a No. 1, No. 2 or No. 3 pick from their trade about 0.9% of the time.

So, yeah, the trades sound similar but the Spurs have a ~14 times better chance of ending up with a top 2 pick from the Mavs and a ~10 times better chance of ending up with a top 3 pick from the Mavs compared to the Grizzlies odds. Considering that the value of most drafts is at the top, it's safe to say that the Spurs trade is like, what, 7 or 8 times better than the Grizzlies trade? Maybe 10 times better depending on how much extra value you give getting the top pick?

Basically, it looks like the Grizzlies rushed to do a copycat version of the Spurs trade but didn't take the time to run the numbers. :lol

Good shit!

[scott]

I like it much better. I tested an unprotected swap (not simulation, theoretical value) between 2 teams and assuming equal odds at each slot for both, I got that:
1) Using Ashbrock model for valuation (yours), an unprotected swap is roughly equivalent of a #19 pick
2) Using Pelton model for valuation, an unprotected swap is roughly equivalent of a #30 pick (this model also states that #1 = #2 + #21 so take this with a grain of salt)
If anyone wants the code (it's extremely simple) I can share. It's a bit late so I hope I didn't mess up anything :lol

Awesome way to look at it - an unprotected swap has roughly the value of the #19 pick in the draft. Makes it easy for folks to understand. Very cool.

[Seventyniner]

It probably goes without saying, but just to clarify - the swap only takes place if the team who "owns" the swap has the better record. If said team finishes with a worse record, they obviously have no desire to give up their slot in the draft. The example with the Spurs gaining the right to swap with the Mavs in 2030 only happens if the Mavs have a worse record.

I can't quite resist the urge to nitpick here. If the Spurs have a worse record than the Mavs in 2029-2030, the Spurs could still use the swap if both the Mavs and Spurs are lottery teams and the Mavs jump into the top 4 while the Spurs don't.

It's an edge case but could end up being important.

[Mitch Cumsteen]

I saw a tweet that said second round picks were the new cryptocurrency, but clearly pick swaps are the new crytpto. The Stepien rule has created all sorts of bullshittery and unintended consequences.

I dig the modeling, but if you really want to make it worthwhile you could factor in the franchises involved in the swap. Historically speaking, a swap with the Spurs or Lakers or Celtics isn't exactly equal to a swap with the Kings or Wizards or Wolves. There's also the tanking factor. If you know that someone else has your pick, there is no incentive to tank. So the mere presence of the swap is worth an additional x number of games on your record. And then there's the weighted probably of the lottery to factor in as well. You have to figure that if you're not outright tanking, then there's probably little chance you end up in the bottom four. Assuming complete randomness of draft order is a fun exercise, but it really doesn't give you the full picture. It certainly isn't completely random and out of teams' control.

[DPG21920]

Awesome way to look at it - an unprotected swap has roughly the value of the #19 pick in the draft. Makes it easy for folks to understand. Very cool.

Ya - even if you want to add in a mental cap of 3-4 picks worse from this model, that is still a great deal. I would trade 3-4 2nds for pick 19-23 all day long.

[Ariel]

I can't quite resist the urge to nitpick here. If the Spurs have a worse record than the Mavs in 2029-2030, the Spurs could still use the swap if both the Mavs and Spurs are lottery teams and the Mavs jump into the top 4 while the Spurs don't.

It's an edge case but could end up being important.


Ya - even if you want to add in a mental cap of 3-4 picks worse from this model, that is still a great deal. I would trade 3-4 2nds for pick 19-23 all day long.
The only thing that matter is the actual pick order (after lottery), not the relative prior positioning. If Spurs have the worst record and Dallas is 14th and they win the lottery, we get their first pick and they get whichever we had.
PS: I misread it as a question rather than an assertion. Disregard.

[Ariel]

I saw a tweet that said second round picks were the new cryptocurrency, but clearly pick swaps are the new crytpto. The Stepien rule has created all sorts of bullshittery and unintended consequences.

I dig the modeling, but if you really want to make it worthwhile you could factor in the franchises involved in the swap. Historically speaking, a swap with the Spurs or Lakers or Celtics isn't exactly equal to a swap with the Kings or Wizards or Wolves. There's also the tanking factor. If you know that someone else has your pick, there is no incentive to tank. So the mere presence of the swap is worth an additional x number of games on your record. And then there's the weighted probably of the lottery to factor in as well. You have to figure that if you're not outright tanking, then there's probably little chance you end up in the bottom four. Assuming complete randomness of draft order is a fun exercise, but it really doesn't give you the full picture. It certainly isn't completely random and out of teams' control.
The uniform distribution for the pick slot is meant as an easy way out to reflect how little information we have about standings 7 years away, and the huge variability of the results. But yes, results are hugely contingent on your assumptions, and if you factor in that the Spurs should be good with Wemby (say 5th best record on average) and Dallas might lose Luka (say 20th best record on average) then results are different. But the point is making it "worthwhile" is a very subjective exercise, in time reality invariably diverges from expectations and behavior is chaotic (small deviations accumulate and produce large differences). Perhaps a more reasonable approach would be assuming a middle of the pack mean with some variance, but not uniform. Also there needs to be a distinction between the standings and draft ordering, which are not the same because of the lottery. In short, too many factors to expect me to fully contemplate at 1 AM on a weekday, but with a bit more time I'll try a few different scenarios to try to paint a broader picture of where it may end up, including picks and swaps, unprotected and different levels of protections throughout the years, etc. It's not that difficult, but you have to be careful if you don't want to get garbage for results.

[DPG21920]

The only thing that matter is the actual pick order (after lottery), not the relative prior positioning. If Spurs have the worst record and Dallas is 14th and they win the lottery, we get their first pick and they get whichever we had.

Sure. I’m just talking about modeling value

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The only thing that matter is the actual pick order (after lottery), not the relative prior positioning. If Spurs have the worst record and Dallas is 14th and they win the lottery, we get their first pick and they get whichever we had.

So the only thing that matters is something that is impossible to know at the time you are making a decision?

There are ways of managing ambiguity and as has been evidenced here the Spurs did a good job in projecting probabilities.

[Ariel]

So the only thing that matters is something that is impossible to know at the time you are making a decision?

There are ways of managing ambiguity and as has been evidenced here the Spurs did a good job in projecting probabilities.
I meant that whether the Spurs have a better or worse record than Dallas is irrelevant when it comes to a swap option, it's all about where you end up after the lottery (we ended up with the 1st pick but didn't have the worst record). If they end up with a better pick than ours (irrespective of whether they had a better record or not) then we have the right to switch.

[FkLA]

the future is bright:flag:


Bwright

Underrated post, tbh.

[spurs10]

I meant that whether the Spurs have a better or worse record than Dallas is irrelevant when it comes to a swap option, it's all about where you end up after the lottery (we ended up with the 1st pick but didn't have the worst record). If they end up with a better pick than ours (irrespective of whether they had a better record or not) then we have the right to switch. Okay I missed this, thanks!

[spurraider21]

Cedi trade underwhelmed but think most here acknowledge his trade game is strong. Dejounte, white, Poeltl… now bullock. Even Josh richardson. Couldn’t net a first but got a decent haul all things considered.

Only trade where i really thought they dropped the ball was not moving Aldridge before he broke down

[Mitch Cumsteen]

The uniform distribution for the pick slot is meant as an easy way out to reflect how little information we have about standings 7 years away, and the huge variability of the results. But yes, results are hugely contingent on your assumptions, and if you factor in that the Spurs should be good with Wemby (say 5th best record on average) and Dallas might lose Luka (say 20th best record on average) then results are different. But the point is making it "worthwhile" is a very subjective exercise, in time reality invariably diverges from expectations and behavior is chaotic (small deviations accumulate and produce large differences). Perhaps a more reasonable approach would be assuming a middle of the pack mean with some variance, but not uniform. Also there needs to be a distinction between the standings and draft ordering, which are not the same because of the lottery. In short, too many factors to expect me to fully contemplate at 1 AM on a weekday, but with a bit more time I'll try a few different scenarios to try to paint a broader picture of where it may end up, including picks and swaps, unprotected and different levels of protections throughout the years, etc. It's not that difficult, but you have to be careful if you don't want to get garbage for results.

I hope I didn't come off as being overly critical. I appreciate your attempt to quantify all this. It's an interesting exercise for sure.

[kobyz]

Is Reggie Bullock is Danny Green with a better dribble?

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

The uniform distribution for the pick slot is meant as an easy way out to reflect how little information we have about standings 7 years away, and the huge variability of the results. But yes, results are hugely contingent on your assumptions, and if you factor in that the Spurs should be good with Wemby (say 5th best record on average) and Dallas might lose Luka (say 20th best record on average) then results are different. But the point is making it "worthwhile" is a very subjective exercise, in time reality invariably diverges from expectations and behavior is chaotic (small deviations accumulate and produce large differences). Perhaps a more reasonable approach would be assuming a middle of the pack mean with some variance, but not uniform. Also there needs to be a distinction between the standings and draft ordering, which are not the same because of the lottery. In short, too many factors to expect me to fully contemplate at 1 AM on a weekday, but with a bit more time I'll try a few different scenarios to try to paint a broader picture of where it may end up, including picks and swaps, unprotected and different levels of protections throughout the years, etc. It's not that difficult, but you have to be careful if you don't want to get garbage for results.

Definitely some Vegas-ian betting on the part of the GMs making the swaps. I'm sure the Spurs are thinking exactly as you stated regarding 2030, and that they'll be peaking with Wemby and trading up with a Dallas squad in the midst of a rebuild. I'd bet on that, too, especially considering all they wagered were some second round picks and picking up an expiring contract. Not bad.

[Ariel]

I hope I didn't come off as being overly critical. I appreciate your attempt to quantify all this. It's an interesting exercise for sure.
Not at all, your point was perfectly legitimate and I was aware of it:

You could also take any arbitrary distribution, if you're relatively confident in your estimation of where you'd be (with a given mean and variance).
but to do a more comprehensive model it takes a bit more time to factor in more sophisticated scenarios and that was a 30', 1 AM bit of code :lol Will build up on it when I have a bit more time (probably weekend).

[Ariel]

Definitely some Vegas-ian betting on the part of the GMs making the swaps. I'm sure the Spurs are thinking exactly as you stated regarding 2030, and that they'll be peaking with Wemby and trading up with a Dallas squad in the midst of a rebuild. I'd bet on that, too, especially considering all they wagered were some second round picks and picking up an expiring contract. Not bad.
Plus we needed to get rid of some 2nd rounders, I'd like to get the detail on the 4 specific picks traded (3 of those were posted here but no official info yet), if they're in the short term ('24 specially but also '25) that'd be ideal to spread the rest throughout the years. I wouldn't hesitate to buy another one of these swaps if there's an opportunity to do so, and it'd be hilarious if we recoup 2 or 3 by the trade deadline by flipping Bullock (basically an almost free swap).

[Seventyniner]

The uniform distribution for records makes sense 7 years out. Making the simplifying, though incorrect, assumption that the draft works like the NFL (worst record gets 1st pick, no lottery), the expected pick slot for any team with the uniform distribution is 15.5

Putting the swap in, the expected slot for the higher of two picks is 10.333 and for the lower it's 20.667. So the unprotected swap is worth a little over 5 slots.

However, a uniform record distribution doesn't imply a uniform pick distribution. The lottery distorts this. Using the average pick slot from Tankathon (3.7 for worst record, 3.9 for second worst etc), but still assuming a uniform distribution of records, the Spurs' expected pick slot in 2030 will be 10.436 and the Mavs 20.557. So the swap is still worth a bit more than 5 slots. I'm kind of surprised how little difference it made.

https://www.tankathon.com/pick_odds

[exstatic]

The uniform distribution for records makes sense 7 years out. Making the simplifying, though incorrect, assumption that the draft works like the NFL (worst record gets 1st pick, no lottery), the expected pick slot for any team with the uniform distribution is 15.5

Putting the swap in, the expected slot for the higher of two picks is 10.333 and for the lower it's 20.667. So the unprotected swap is worth a little over 5 slots.

However, a uniform record distribution doesn't imply a uniform pick distribution. The lottery distorts this. Using the average pick slot from Tankathon (3.7 for worst record, 3.9 for second worst etc), but still assuming a uniform distribution of records, the Spurs' expected pick slot in 2030 will be 10.436 and the Mavs 20.557. So the swap is still worth a bit more than 5 slots. I'm kind of surprised how little difference it made.

https://www.tankathon.com/pick_odds

Why does that look like 10 slots, and not 5?

[buttsR4rebounding]

Because you are moving from 15.5

[timvp]

So the swap is still worth a bit more than 5 slots. [/URL]

Yeah, that's the number I got. The Grizzlies version came out to being worth about 2 slots.

But the difference is actually bigger than that because the Grizzlies version rarely results in a high draft pick -- and that's where the real value lies.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I meant that whether the Spurs have a better or worse record than Dallas is irrelevant when it comes to a swap option, it's all about where you end up after the lottery (we ended up with the 1st pick but didn't have the worst record). If they end up with a better pick than ours (irrespective of whether they had a better record or not) then we have the right to switch.

It's not meaningless. It just represents various probable outcomes as opposed to a certain outcome. You can still assess risk reward given probabilites.

[DPG21920]

All of this awesome dialogue aside, just goes to show the mentality of the FO and I LOVE it. I’ve probably been most vocal of anyone here last like 5 years about asset management and I’ve been harping on it. I wanted to see creativity and calculated gambles and more trade activity and? They have really executed there at a high level lately with hopefully more to come in this new world for the Spurs.

Spurs FO basically ignoring trades for so long was still an elite FO due to drafting and development and negotiating fair/value deals. You add this trade dynamic to the mix? Wow, you REALLY have a lot to be excited about IMO and I for one have had full faith restored in the front office despite being maybe the most vocal 3-4 years ago about broken trust for me personally.

[DPG21920]

Plus we needed to get rid of some 2nd rounders, I'd like to get the detail on the 4 specific picks traded (3 of those were posted here but no official info yet), if they're in the short term ('24 specially but also '25) that'd be ideal to spread the rest throughout the years. I wouldn't hesitate to buy another one of these swaps if there's an opportunity to do so, and it'd be hilarious if we recoup 2 or 3 by the trade deadline by flipping Bullock (basically an almost free swap).

Thats the big part that gets over looked. So many teams end up just punting those assets because they can/or have to or they take nothing in return. Spurs actually got creative here, front ran the “problem” before all value got zapped and got something at least interesting for something they clearly needed to do anyways.

[Ariel]

It's not meaningless. It just represents various probable outcomes as opposed to a certain outcome. You can still assess risk reward given probabilites.
Sure, but I didn't dispute that (how would I when I'm trying to do that very same thing here).

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Sure, but I didn't dispute that (how would I when I'm trying to do that very same thing here).

You said it was irrelevant. If you do not think so then great. :toast

[Ariel]

However, a uniform record distribution doesn't imply a uniform pick distribution. The lottery distorts this. Using the average pick slot from Tankathon (3.7 for worst record, 3.9 for second worst etc), but still assuming a uniform distribution of records, the Spurs' expected pick slot in 2030 will be 10.436 and the Mavs 20.557. So the swap is still worth a bit more than 5 slots. I'm kind of surprised how little difference it made.
Being nitpicky even that isn't enough, because expected pick number from Tankathon doesn't reflect value. Say you have 50-50 chance at picks 1 and 9. You'd expect to get the 5th pick on average, yet the value is higher that the 5th pick outright. To get the most accurate results you have to use a model that quantifies pick value, like the one from Ashbrock that scott posted.

[Ariel]

You said it was irrelevant. If you do not think so then great. :toast
What I said was in reference to the swap rules and how it works (that they're based on post-lottery order, not pre-lottery), nothing to do with evaluating risk under uncertainty. But anyways, we're getting off track here.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What I said was in reference to the swap rules and how it works (that they're based on post-lottery order, not pre-lottery), nothing to do with evaluating risk under uncertainty. But anyways, we're getting off track here.

And that is not mutually exclusive. In fact you were exclusionary as you said:

"the Spurs have a better or worse record than Dallas is irrelevant when it comes to a swap option, it's all about where you end up after the lottery"

That is not the case.

And the discussion is about how to evaluate a pick swap and that is what we are discussing.

[Seventyniner]

Being nitpicky even that isn't enough, because expected pick number from Tankathon doesn't reflect value. Say you have 50-50 chance at picks 1 and 9. You'd expect to get the 5th pick on average, yet the value is higher that the 5th pick outright. To get the most accurate results you have to use a model that quantifies pick value, like the one from Ashbrock that scott posted.

You're right, the value of the picks themselves is not uniform so even taking lottery odds into account isn't enough.

Using the Ashbrock values, I got this. Record = 1 means worst record in the league, 30 means best.



Record
Exp Slot
Exp Value


1
3.7
49.46


2
3.9
45.62



3
4.1
43.08



4
4.4
39.52



5
5
35.53



6
5.5
32.56



7
6.2
29.81



8
7
26.88



9
8
23.76



10
9.2
20.44



11
10.3
17.62



12
11.4
15.50



13
12.5
13.82



14
13.7
12.21



15
15
10.5



16
16
10



17
17
9.5



18
18
9


19
19
8.6


20
20
8.1


21
21
7.7


22
22
7.4


23
23
7


24
24
6.6


25
25
6.3


26
26
6


27
27
5.7


28
28
5.4


29
29
5.1


30
30
4.9



Average expected value for the uniform record distribution is 17.454 so that's the baseline.

The team with swap rights gets an expected value 24.854 and the team who gave away swap rights gets an expected value of 10.054. That's a difference of 7.4 pick value due to the swap, the equivalent of the #22 pick.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You're right, the value of the picks themselves is not uniform so even taking lottery odds into account isn't enough.

Using the Ashbrock values, I got this. Record = 1 means worst record in the league, 30 means best.



Record
Exp Slot
Exp Value


1
3.7
49.46


2
3.9
45.62



3
4.1
43.08



4
4.4
39.52



5
5
35.53



6
5.5
32.56



7
6.2
29.81



8
7
26.88



9
8
23.76



10
9.2
20.44



11
10.3
17.62



12
11.4
15.50



13
12.5
13.82



14
13.7
12.21



15
15
10.5



16
16
10



17
17
9.5



18
18
9


19
19
8.6


20
20
8.1


21
21
7.7


22
22
7.4


23
23
7


24
24
6.6


25
25
6.3


26
26
6


27
27
5.7


28
28
5.4


29
29
5.1


30
30
4.9



Average expected value for the uniform record distribution is 17.454 so that's the baseline.

The team with swap rights gets an expected value 24.854 and the team who gave away swap rights gets an expected value of 10.054. That's a difference of 7.4 pick value due to the swap, the equivalent of the #22 pick.

Whether or not it's linear doesn't really matter. Having the worst record is still better than the second which is better than the third, etc.

[Ariel]

And that is not mutually exclusive. In fact you were exclusionary as you said:

"the Spurs have a better or worse record than Dallas is irrelevant when it comes to a swap option, [b]it's all about where you end up after the lottery/[b]"

That is not the case.

And the discussion is about how to evaluate a pick swap and that is what we are discussing.
An example is best in these cases:
a) Pre-lottery order: 1) Spurs, 5) Dallas. Post-Lottery: 1) Spurs 5) Dallas. The Spurs had a higher pre-lottery order and higher post-lottery order: no swap
b) Pre-lottery order: 1) Spurs, 5) Dallas. Post-Lottery: 1) Dallas 5) Spurs. The Spurs had a higher pre-lottery order but lower post-lottery order: swap
c) Pre-lottery order: 1) Dallas 5) Spurs. Post-Lottery: 1) Spurs 5) Dallas. The Spurs had a lower pre-lottery order but higher post-lottery order: no swap
d) Pre-lottery order: 1) Dallas 5) Spurs. Post-Lottery: 1) Dallas 5) Spurs. The Spurs had a lower pre-lottery order and lower post-lottery order: swap
If you have a lower post-lottery (cases b and d) order you swap, whether you had a higher pre-lottery order (case b) or lower (case d)
If you have a higher post-lottery (cases a and c) order you don't swap, whether you had a higher pre-lottery order (case a) or lower (case c)
Conclusion: pre-lottery order doesn't matter, only post-lottery order does, which is what I said.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

An example is best in these cases:
a) Pre-lottery order: 1) Spurs, 5) Dallas. Post-Lottery: 1) Spurs 5) Dallas. The Spurs had a higher pre-lottery order and higher post-lottery order: no swap
b) Pre-lottery order: 1) Spurs, 5) Dallas. Post-Lottery: 1) Dallas 5) Spurs. The Spurs had a higher pre-lottery order but lower post-lottery order: swap
c) Pre-lottery order: 1) Dallas 5) Spurs. Post-Lottery: 1) Spurs 5) Dallas. The Spurs had a lower pre-lottery order and higher post-lottery order: no swap
d) Pre-lottery order: 1) Dallas 5) Spurs. Post-Lottery: 1) Dallas 5) Spurs. The Spurs had a lower pre-lottery order but lower post-lottery order: swap
If you have a lower post-lottery (cases b and d) order you swap, whether you had a higher pre-lottery order (case b) or lower (case d)
If you have a higher post-lottery (cases a and c) order you don't swap, whether you had a higher pre-lottery order (case a) or lower (case c)
Conclusion: pre-lottery order doesn't matter, only post-lottery order does, which is what I said.

You cherry picking anecdotal outcomes does not change the probable outcomes.

[Ariel]

You cherry picking anecdotal outcomes does not change the probable outcomes.
Huh? :lol I just posted EVERY possible case (or every case can be reduced to one of these 4 and none other) to illustrate how a swap works and showed you that only post-lottery outcomes are relevant to determine whether a swap takes place or not. It isn't cherry picking, I just went ahead and picked every fruit in the forest and showed you it was a cherry, there's no probability involved, it's entirely deterministic. Anyway, I engage in discussion when there's a point in doing so, in this case I made my point already, so no point pursuing this further from me.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Huh? :lol I just posted EVERY possible case (or every case can be reduced to one of these 4 and none other) to illustrate how a swap works and showed you that only post-lottery outcomes are relevant to determine whether a swap takes place or not. It isn't cherry picking, I just went ahead and picked every fruit in the forest and showed you it was a cherry, there's no probability involved, it's entirely deterministic. Anyway, I engage in discussion when there's a point in doing so, in this case I made my point already, so no point pursuing this further from me.

The Spurs could have one of 30 different picks and the Mavericks the same. You were hardly exhaustive and instead handwaved at the dynamic of the first 7 picks outcomes being equalized to a degree.

At the end of the day and within what the Spurs can control, they are best served with a better record. It might not work out but in more probable outcomes it will.

[Ariel]

The Spurs could have one of 30 different picks and the Mavericks the same. You were hardly exhaustive and instead handwaved at the dynamic of the first 7 picks outcomes being equalized to a degree.
:bobo

[K...]

The Spurs could have one of 30 different picks and the Mavericks the same. You were hardly exhaustive and instead handwaved at the dynamic of the first 7 picks outcomes being equalized to a degree.

Youre trolling . Math is symbols and the logic of the swap is boolean

[exstatic]

An example is best in these cases:
a) Pre-lottery order: 1) Spurs, 5) Dallas. Post-Lottery: 1) Spurs 5) Dallas. The Spurs had a higher pre-lottery order and higher post-lottery order: no swap
b) Pre-lottery order: 1) Spurs, 5) Dallas. Post-Lottery: 1) Dallas 5) Spurs. The Spurs had a higher pre-lottery order but lower post-lottery order: swap
c) Pre-lottery order: 1) Dallas 5) Spurs. Post-Lottery: 1) Spurs 5) Dallas. The Spurs had a lower pre-lottery order but higher post-lottery order: no swap
d) Pre-lottery order: 1) Dallas 5) Spurs. Post-Lottery: 1) Dallas 5) Spurs. The Spurs had a lower pre-lottery order and lower post-lottery order: swap
If you have a lower post-lottery (cases b and d) order you swap, whether you had a higher pre-lottery order (case b) or lower (case d)
If you have a higher post-lottery (cases a and c) order you don't swap, whether you had a higher pre-lottery order (case a) or lower (case c)
Conclusion: pre-lottery order doesn't matter, only post-lottery order does, which is what I said.

Yeah, no one understood this one last year either, incessantly screeching at the Spurs to catch Detroit in the tank race.

[scott]

The uniform distribution for the pick slot is meant as an easy way out to reflect how little information we have about standings 7 years away, and the huge variability of the results. But yes, results are hugely contingent on your assumptions, and if you factor in that the Spurs should be good with Wemby (say 5th best record on average) and Dallas might lose Luka (say 20th best record on average) then results are different. But the point is making it "worthwhile" is a very subjective exercise, in time reality invariably diverges from expectations and behavior is chaotic (small deviations accumulate and produce large differences). Perhaps a more reasonable approach would be assuming a middle of the pack mean with some variance, but not uniform. Also there needs to be a distinction between the standings and draft ordering, which are not the same because of the lottery. In short, too many factors to expect me to fully contemplate at 1 AM on a weekday, but with a bit more time I'll try a few different scenarios to try to paint a broader picture of where it may end up, including picks and swaps, unprotected and different levels of protections throughout the years, etc. It's not that difficult, but you have to be careful if you don't want to get garbage for results.

I don't think that any of this is worth the effort, but we could put together any number of predictive models for future team performance (which is an endeavor in its own right, and would be quite valuable for gamblers) that we then use for the swap model. I'd probably start with model that is some weighting of overall historical win % (as a measure of overall quality of the franchise), perhaps the rolling average of the last 2 seasons (as a measure of the quality of the current team as constructed), and then some metric to rate the quality of the current roster (even if this was just the average 2K rating of the roster :lol). Would be fun to backcast that and see how it compared to actual results.

And... like I said, this is all way more trouble than it's worth :lol

[Seventyniner]

7 years is far enough out that I don't see a reason to use anything other than a uniform distribution. The Spurs went from 67-15 to 22-60 in a seven year span. While that's extreme it demonstrates the possibility.

The Mavs are unlikely to end up with a really bad record in 2029-2030 now because there will be no reason to tank. That's another skew to the model, that they are unlikely to end up with a bottom 5 record at all (unless they suffer a ton of injuries) because some other teams will be tanking.

[exstatic]

7 years is far enough out that I don't see a reason to use anything other than a uniform distribution. The Spurs went from 67-15 to 22-60 in a seven year span. While that's extreme it demonstrates the possibility.

The Mavs are unlikely to end up with a really bad record in 2029-2030 now because there will be no reason to tank. That's another skew to the model, that they are unlikely to end up with a bottom 5 record at all (unless they suffer a ton of injuries) because some other teams will be tanking.

Newsflash: not only tanking teams end up in the lottery.

[scott]

Newsflash: not only tanking teams end up in the lottery.

But, at least recently, only tanking teams end up in the bottom 3... which skews the lotto odds and the EV of a Mavs pick...

[spurraider21]

But, at least recently, only tanking teams end up in the bottom 3... which skews the lotto odds and the EV of a Mavs pick...
yeah with how narrowed down the %'s are, thats not as big a deal as it used to be

[exstatic]

But, at least recently, only tanking teams end up in the bottom 3... which skews the lotto odds and the EV of a Mavs pick...

We actually don't need them to win the lottery, although it would be nice. If we're at 25 and they're at 13, post lottery drawing, that's a huge win.

[Seventyniner]

Newsflash: not only tanking teams end up in the lottery.

You're right.

But so much of the value of draft picks is at the very top that the Mavs having only a 14-32% chance of jumping into the top 4 (7th to 10th worst record) as opposed to a 52.1% chance (bottom 3 record) makes a decent difference in the overall value of the swap. I didn't take that into account in my calcs, I just assumed an equal chance of each pre-lottery slot.

[Darkwaters]

So did we ever confirm which picks we were giving up? For sure?

[spurraider21]

So did we ever confirm which picks we were giving up? For sure?
nope, nothing official yet

[kobyz]

With Mavericks not getting the Portland player and now can sign Grant Williams straight forward with the MLE, could it be they void the trade?

[spurraider21]

With Mavericks not getting the Portland player and now can sign Grant Williams straight forward with the MLE, could it be they void the trade?
the amount grant williams agreed to is more than the MLE

[FuzzyLumpkins]

With Mavericks not getting the Portland player and now can sign Grant Williams straight forward with the MLE, could it be they void the trade?

If it's been sent into the league office and gotten approval then no.

[kobyz]

If it's been sent into the league office and gotten approval then no.

It's not official yet

[kobyz]

the amount grant williams agreed to is more than the MLE

54m/4 years is MLE money

[Darkwaters]

It's not official yet

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the league office can void the trade for a variety of reasons (similar to when they voided the Chris Paul trade that would have sent him to the Lakers). However, I don't think that any of the involved teams can void it at this point.

[spurraider21]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the league office can void the trade for a variety of reasons (similar to when they voided the Chris Paul trade that would have sent him to the Lakers). However, I don't think that any of the involved teams can void it at this point.
the trade might not be formally submitted to the league office yet. its not a matter of the league or the mavs voiding the trade, but rather the mavs reneging on a trade agreement with two other teams

[spurraider21]

54m/4 years is MLE money
it exceeds it but not by much. full MLE is 4/53.3 or something thereabouts

even if it was exactly for the MLE, if dallas renegs, they run the risk of boston matching the offer. boston was given second round picks as part of the agreement to let dallas have him. boston could then tell dallas that if they want grant williams, theyre gonna have to give them the agreed upon compensation anyway. if dallas refuses, then they're stuck with no grant williams, no thybulle, and the full MLE going to waste. all while retaining a disgruntled bullock who they apparently dont want anyway, and making themselves look like awful trade partners to the rest of the league

https://media.tenor.com/jZy2VCww1McAAAAM/tony-stark-not-a-great-plan.gif

[Darkwaters]

the trade might not be formally submitted to the league office yet. its not a matter of the league or the mavs voiding the trade, but rather the mavs reneging on a trade agreement with two other teams

That's fair. I was assuming it had already been submitted to the league and they were waiting on them to finalize it.

[spurraider21]

That's fair. I was assuming it had already been submitted to the league and they were waiting on them to finalize it.
yeah, im not sure how long it takes the league to process moves, i assumed it would be fairly quick once they get the paperwork from the clubs

as far as the league vetoing the CP3 trade, that was a pretty wild circumstance because at the time the new orleans hornets were owned by the NBA and then-commissioner David Stern was the de facto president of basketball operations for the club.

supposedly the GM of the hornets agreed to the deal before getting approval from stern, which led to the mixup

[Kindergarten Cop]

I can't quite resist the urge to nitpick here. If the Spurs have a worse record than the Mavs in 2029-2030, the Spurs could still use the swap if both the Mavs and Spurs are lottery teams and the Mavs jump into the top 4 while the Spurs don't.

It's an edge case but could end up being important.

Touché.

I should have referred to draft position as opposed to overall record. Thanks for the clarification.

[Southwest Texas Fan]

Imagine in 2030 coming off a championship parade and getting the first overall pick on the next draft.

Got it

[Dejounte]

https://youtu.be/7FOLVs6wnn8

[The Truth #6]

Brian Wright is definitely getting better at his job as he moves forward. It seems like he has the forward thinking vision of RC, but is actually a little more open to taking risks, which maybe isn’t that hard of a hurdle to overcome compared to RC, but nonetheless, I definitely like the direction he’s going with the team. It seems that they set their limit and boundaries and don’t budge perhaps but then move when they feel ready. They don’t seem to be losing any trades. And Wright is better at rebuilding then I first thought. Once he helped Pop get his record, he really got to do his thing.

[Rocalcio]

Is it actually a 1st rounder? That tweet didn’t specify 1st or 2nd.

I assume unprotected means it’s a first.

[Chinook]

yeah, im not sure how long it takes the league to process moves, i assumed it would be fairly quick once they get the paperwork from the clubs

as far as the league vetoing the CP3 trade, that was a pretty wild circumstance because at the time the new orleans hornets were owned by the NBA and then-commissioner David Stern was the de facto president of basketball operations for the club.

supposedly the GM of the hornets agreed to the deal before getting approval from stern, which led to the mixup

Trades are made by teams conference calling with a League official. If that call has happened, that trade official pending a physical. If they're still negotiating it, they probably haven't made any calls. During the calls teams can alter the deal, though it's not realistic to think there'd be major changes if it got to that point.

[timvp]

This trade not becoming officially official is giving me Marcus Morris vibes. Supposedly the Mavs are looking to expand the deal. The Mavs better not back out because this trade was a major win for the Spurs.

[rascal]

This trade not becoming officially official is giving me Marcus Morris vibes. Supposedly the Mavs are looking to expand the deal. The Mavs better not back out because this trade was a major win for the Spurs.

That may be the reason the Mavs back out since they reconsidered that swap with the Spurs.

[Mr. Body]

This trade not becoming officially official is giving me Marcus Morris vibes. Supposedly the Mavs are looking to expand the deal. The Mavs better not back out because this trade was a major win for the Spurs.

I posted elsewhere that Dallas really, really wanted Thybulle before Portland matched. Wild guess is that Portland is getting involved to get him to Dallas in exchange for something.

[Mr. Body]

That is to say, one of the reasons Dallas did the Grant Williams sign and trade was to go for Thybulle.

[timvp]

I posted elsewhere that Dallas really, really wanted Thybulle before Portland matched. Wild guess is that Portland is getting involved to get him to Dallas in exchange for something.

Would make sense but Thybulle can't be traded.

[Seventyniner]

This trade not becoming officially official is giving me Marcus Morris vibes. Supposedly the Mavs are looking to expand the deal. The Mavs better not back out because this trade was a major win for the Spurs.

You've had media people quoting you recently. Maybe Cuban has read this thread and didn't like your tone.

[timvp]

You've had media people quoting you recently. Maybe Cuban has read this thread and didn't like your tone.

:depressed

[Mr. Body]

Would make sense but Thybulle can't be traded.

I dint think Portland has officially done anything. Maybe they have by now

[Mr. Body]

I guess the only Thybulle matter is a match and that's it.

[slick'81]

Is this shit falling through?

[Mr. Body]

Never mind, Portland did match