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

[timvp]

Our unprotected 2030 + the swap > our 2030 unprotected alone

Exactly. Maybe I worded it wrong but this is what I meant.

[rascal]

Hes not talking about Dallas's 1st vs the swap...hes talking about trading our 2030 pick....Our unprotected 2030 + the swap > our 2030 unprotected alone

I read it the way he worded it.

Yes, it gives that pick the added chance that it could be Dallas's higher pick.

[exstatic]

It's not simply the difference you're emphasizing. There are big practical differences. The Spurs cannot trade a swap to another team like they could with a pick. If the Spurs had swaps with Charlotte, Toronto, Atlanta and Chicago instead of their picks, they'd have significantly less draft currency to trade. They'd have to trade their own picks, and if they protected those picks, then they'd be tied to the Stepien rule. Having those separate picks allows for the team to make mid-sized trades while still having the ability to make all-in trades. It also gives them more bites at the apple and a ton more draft-day flexibility.

Swaps are not the same as draft picks, and they don't have the same value. That's why Dallas made the trade. They aren't stupid. This trade increased their ability to make future deals. They can still trade future swap rights to the pick they have in 2030. The Spurs are stupid either. They created a third "double pick" to make an all-in trade easier. But I don't think for a second that Dallas would've been anywhere near as fine to give up their 2027 pick, even in a one-and-done scenario like LAL did. They need to keep that flexibility. Gold standard or not, a swap isn't worth the same to a team in Dallas' position.

You can’t directly trade the swap as a quan y of its own, but you can offer to trade the best of the two two picks, which is, de facto, a swap trade.

This is a clip from the real GM future picks page:

2025 - Own or HOU (via HOU swap for BRK)

[exstatic]

It's not simply the difference you're emphasizing. There are big practical differences. The Spurs cannot trade a swap to another team like they could with a pick. If the Spurs had swaps with Charlotte, Toronto, Atlanta and Chicago instead of their picks, they'd have significantly less draft currency to trade. They'd have to trade their own picks, and if they protected those picks, then they'd be tied to the Stepien rule. Having those separate picks allows for the team to make mid-sized trades while still having the ability to make all-in trades. It also gives them more bites at the apple and a ton more draft-day flexibility.

Swaps are not the same as draft picks, and they don't have the same value. That's why Dallas made the trade. They aren't stupid. This trade increased their ability to make future deals. They can still trade future swap rights to the pick they have in 2030. The Spurs are stupid either. They created a third "double pick" to make an all-in trade easier. But I don't think for a second that Dallas would've been anywhere near as fine to give up their 2027 pick, even in a one-and-done scenario like LAL did. They need to keep that flexibility. Gold standard or not, a swap isn't worth the same to a team in Dallas' position.

Uh, no they ing can’t.

[spurraider21]

so as far as swaps, we've got one every 2 years

2026 from hawks (unprotected)
2028 from celtics (top 1 protected)
2030 from mavs (unprotected)

[spurraider21]

Uh, no they ing can’t.

he's referring to the "de facto swap" scenario you already outlined above

[rascal]

It's a good trade as the Spurs had too many 2nd's as it was and it increases the value of the 2030 pick that can be used in future trades.

[Chinook]

Tbh, the Spurs probably never make that 2030 pick. Before then, it'll likely be used in a star-hunting trade to get more talent around Wemby. And when star-hunting, that asset will hold a ton of value. That's one of the rare assets that's actually more valuable than a regular unprotected first.

I mean, sort of? Like the Spurs can definitely just trade the best of their 2025 picks rather than wishing that ATL had giving them a swap for them to trade instead. I mean, you can create scenarios where the Spurs would've trade their natural 2024, 2025 and/or 2026 pick already, then they would only be able to trade a single unprotected pick in 2025. But the flexibility of being able to do that prior deal is why getting an unprotected pick is just way more valuable than a swap. I don't know, man. I agreed there are some protections that are worse than a swap. But I'm not sure that a top-5 protected Dallas 2030 first (ignoring that that pick couldn't be traded) along with the Spurs' unprotected natural pick that year would be that much less appealing than a single double pick. I would rate that first package much higher now, though in 2028 or so it might not be the case.

[DPG21920]

Our unprotected 2030 + the swap > our 2030 unprotected alone

Ya but our 2030 + their 2030 > our 2030 +’swap

[spurraider21]

timvp's bad wording all over this thread tbh

he's saying that the swap now gives our 2030 pick more value. in that rather than us merely trading our own unprotected 2030 pick, we now have additional value by being able to offer "the best of our 2030 picks"

he was not saying that it is better to own swap rights with the mavs than it is simply to own the mavs unprotected pick

[Chinook]

Uh, no they ing can’t.

Yes you can. You trade swap a pick with a pick that already has a swap on it.

Like Dallas can still agree to swap the worst of their pick in 2030 and SA's with another team's first that year. The Spurs basically have such a swap with Indy and Miami in the second round in 2026. (And the Clippers had agreed to swap their pick with OKC in 2023 and still agreed to swap that pick with MKE's with Houston at the deadline.) Right now, it's minor value. It could be major value if both SA and Dallas look to be bad in 2030. But if the Mavericks had actually traded that 2030 pick unprotected, they couldn't swap it at all. For Dallas, there's a huge difference in terms of flexibility.

And I meant that the Spurs AREN'T stupid either, if the context made my typo misleading.

[mo7888]

Ya but our 2030 + their 2030 > our 2030 +’swap

Sure...but that wasn't the comparison he was trying to make

[Degoat]

It may have been discussed already but what happens to the swap if we trade our own 2030 pick lol would get to decide the swap between the two teams

[spurraider21]

It may have been discussed already but what happens to the swap if we trade our own 2030 pick lol would get to decide the swap between the two teams

the way it would be worded is the spurs would trade "the most favorable pick between the 2030 SAS pick and the 2030 DAL pick", whereas if the mavs try to move their pick, they would be trading "the least favorable pick between the 2030 SAS pick and the 2030 DAL pick"

basically nobody would know if they were acquiring the SAS or DAL pick until the draft order is set. but they'd know if theyre getting the better or worse of the two depending on who they traded with

[Chinook]

timvp's bad wording all over this thread tbh

he's saying that the swap now gives our 2030 pick more value. in that rather than us merely trading our own unprotected 2030 pick, we now have additional value by being able to offer "the best of our 2030 picks"

he was not saying that it is better to own swap rights with the mavs than it is simply to own the mavs unprotected pick

I got his specific point about a double pick versus a regular unprotected pick. I think it's valid. But that value gap between those scenarios is so massive that I think it does go against his initial argument that unprotected swaps should be thought of in the same light as unprotected picks. Unprotected picks are in a tier of their own (controlling for whichever team's pick we're talking about), while swaps fall into the nebulous tier below with protected picks to varying degrees.

[scott]

It's interesting that they're acquiring swaps in 2-year increments (2026, 2028, 2030). That would boost the value of a big trade using their own picks those years. They could also be posturing to trade away their picks in the odd years and have more valuable opportunities in between.

Very good observation here.

Swaps greatly increase the value of your own SRP, because now you have two rolls at it being a high pick instead of one. The fact that the Spurs have lined them up this way is indeed quite interesting. A package of the Spurs 2026, 2028 and 2030 FRPs for say, Luka, would be unmatched (in terms of just picks alone) because they all contain free rolls.

[Seventyniner]

I like the trade. While the swap might end up being nothing, Bullock has some marginal standalone value (both as a player and an expiring contract) and having 16 future seconds instead of 20 isn't a huge dropoff. The Spurs were well into diminishing returns territory regarding seconds. If the Spurs only had 7 future seconds over the next 7 years and gave up 4 I would be far less pleased.

As for what it signifies regarding other trades (most prominently getting in on the Blazers/Heat Dame trade), I think it makes the Spurs getting involved somewhat less likely because now they have a lot less cap space to absorb salary.

[spurraider21]

I got his specific point about a double pick versus a regular unprotected pick. I think it's valid. But that value gap between those scenarios is so massive that I think it does go against his initial argument that unprotected swaps should be thought of in the same light as unprotected picks. Unprotected picks are in a tier of their own (controlling for whichever team's pick we're talking about), while swaps fall into the nebulous tier below with protected picks to varying degrees.

i think he's talking about how the spurs can now offer something better than their own 2030 unprotected pick in the search for a better star. he identified an unprotected swapped pick as one of the few single assets with more value than your own protected pick

[exstatic]

Yes you can. You trade swap a pick with a pick that already has a swap on it.

Like Dallas can still agree to swap the worst of their pick in 2030 and SA's with another team's first that year. The Spurs basically have such a swap with Indy and Miami in the second round in 2026. (And the Clippers had agreed to swap their pick with OKC in 2023 and still agreed to swap that pick with MKE's with Houston at the deadline.) Right now, it's minor value. It could be major value if both SA and Dallas look to be bad in 2030. But if the Mavericks had actually traded that 2030 pick unprotected, they couldn't swap it at all. For Dallas, there's a huge difference in terms of flexibility.

And I meant that the Spurs AREN'T stupid either, if the context made my typo misleading.

You’re right, they can, but for someone claiming the initial swap hasn’t much value, it seems bizarre to trumpet the value of the short end of the swap.

[ace3g]

Sidy defense + drop off to Blake for layup!!

[ace3g]

Sidy with the football outlet pass, defender stripped ball off of Blake's leg though.

[baseline bum]

Now, aggregate Bollock and Berch expirings, send the CHI for a FRP and Lonzo’s contract.

Do not want since he has a player option for 2024-25.

[Chinook]

You can’t directly trade the swap as a quan y of its own, but you can offer to trade the best of the two two picks, which is, de facto, a swap trade.

This is a clip from the real GM future picks page:

2025 - Own or HOU (via HOU swap for BRK)

You can trade a swap as a quan y of its own. What is getting swapped is where the conditional language can come in.

Not that it ever comes up, but the description of the trade as the best or worst pick is slightly misleading. A team can decline swap picks as far as I know. So what happens is a team can trade whatever pick they have after the other team decides on the swap. As I mentioned before, they can also trade the swap rights to that pick, but the swap decision would come after the original team made their decision.

[baseline bum]

Doubt it means anything either way. This was just a no-brainer of a deal that the Spurs had to do. This type of low-risk, high-reward trade rarely comes along.

The Spurs got lucky because the Mavs are desperate to put talent around Luka and the Celtics were looking at losing Grant Williams for nothing.

Yeah pretty ridiculous to get an unprotected swap so cheap. The last one was still top 1 protected and cost the Spurs Derrick White.

[Chinook]

You’re right, they can, but for someone claiming the initial swap hasn’t much value, it seems bizarre to trumpet the value of the short end of the swap.

I never said it didn't have much value. I think it has plenty of value. I just think that unprotected picks have significantly more value and picks with some level of protection have more value. I've said over and over that this was a good trade. It being a swap didn't change that. Giving up the seconds meant the Spurs could "lose" the trade. But the downside is pretty small, especially with Bullock having some resale value.