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

[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.

Good !

[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

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 bull tery 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 bull tery 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 ac ulate 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

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 ac ulate 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 ac ulate 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 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.