Are draft picks really not that valuable anymore?

[Endless Paradise]

Wiggins wouldn't be a free agent in three years unless he busts to a degree never seen and has the fourth year of his rookie deal declined.  There's a 99% chance Wiggins will not see unrestricted free agency for at least another eight years.

[greg683x]

Our picks have plenty of value.  The problem is the first star that became available that we can cash them in on was on a team with a GM that is also the coach. 

Flip the GM, needs to protect Flip the coaches job and reputation, which is why hes clinging to keeping Love on that team for dear life, and the only way he moves him is for established stars or a young player he knows will be a star.

[celticmania]

Well picks in the 20s are no good. Ours would probably be in the 20s if we acquired Love. The Clippers pick and Cavs pick are both definitely in the 20s. And the Nets have the deepest pockets in the league do they'll probably always be relevant. Besides the picks we don't really have anything the Wolves would want. Sully is an out of shape pf  on the short and shot it awful last year. Kelly is ok offensively but not a spectacular defender or rebounder and is limited  athletically. Both have short ceilings, which is part of the reason gms draft for upside so they can sell on upside. Jeff Green is a third option at best and Bass is a back up. The only thing Minnesota might have liked was Marcus Smart bit they already have a pg and Smart plus a bunch of uncertain picks wouldn't even be enough anyways. Our potential package for Love isn't as good as you guys think

[Boris Badenov]

If I were running the Wolves I might not value picks too highly either, given their recent draft history:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/MIN/draft.html

[Rondo9]

Well picks in the 20s are no good. Ours would probably be in the 20s if we acquired Love. The Clippers pick and Cavs pick are both definitely in the 20s. And the Nets have the deepest pockets in the league do they'll probably always be relevant. Besides the picks we don't really have anything the Wolves would want. Sully is an out of shape pf  on the short and shot it awful last year. Kelly is ok offensively but not a spectacular defender or rebounder and is limited  athletically. Both have short ceilings, which is part of the reason gms draft for upside so they can sell on upside. Jeff Green is a third option at best and Bass is a back up. The only thing Minnesota might have liked was Marcus Smart bit they already have a pg and Smart plus a bunch of uncertain picks wouldn't even be enough anyways. Our potential package for Love isn't as good as you guys think

Oh I think their package is really good, but it seems that Minny wants more established players.

[mgent]

Draft picks are valuable, however by number 6 tons of that value has diminished.

[chambers]

They're still incredibly valuable, especially with the wealth of talent overseas now that's 'hidden away' to an extent. Flip isn't an idiot. People keep ragging on him but he's done the correct thing here and waited to see what EVERY option was before pulling the trigger.

He's about to turn an expiring guy who wants nothing to do with the Wolves into a potential top 5 NBA player. We don't know if flip wants established players- for all we know he planted that to get the C's to give up more than just picks. Taking established players also allows him to try and use Barrea and Martin and his scrubs as pawns in all these potential trades.
If he can dump their overpaid guys for solid veterans on shorter deals while acquiring the number one pick then he's done the ULTIMATE job in paving the way for the Wolves future.

What's also important is that he already has Rubio and Pekovic. He probably wants to keep Rubio and doesn't want to scare Rubio off with a potential tank/rebuild coming up.

Now that Wiggins is on the table (which he never would have imagined before the draft lottery), he's had to think about the long term picture now that he's got Rubio, Dieng, shabazz, GR3 and now potentially wiggins and Bennett.

Seems like he's decided that Wiggins locked up for 7-8 seasons is worth gambling on Rubio staying long term too. He'll be able to convince Rubio that he can now pay him a monstrous deal while developing plenty of surrounding talent on rookie scale deals.
If Rubio wants to bail then really it doesn't matter because he's VERY replaceable.

Flip's done a tremendous job in all this negotiating, and all he's done is control the process and pried his leverage as much as he can- just like Danny Ainge would do.

[Chris22]

Well picks in the 20s are no good. Ours would probably be in the 20s if we acquired Love. The Clippers pick and Cavs pick are both definitely in the 20s. And the Nets have the deepest pockets in the league do they'll probably always be relevant. Besides the picks we don't really have anything the Wolves would want. Sully is an out of shape pf  on the short and shot it awful last year. Kelly is ok offensively but not a spectacular defender or rebounder and is limited  athletically. Both have short ceilings, which is part of the reason gms draft for upside so they can sell on upside. Jeff Green is a third option at best and Bass is a back up. The only thing Minnesota might have liked was Marcus Smart bit they already have a pg and Smart plus a bunch of uncertain picks wouldn't even be enough anyways. Our potential package for Love isn't as good as you guys think

No one can predict the future.
Rivers is talking about leaving the Clippers, if the owner is still there next year.

The Nets lost Pierce and really don't look that good. Plus, they lost $144 million dollars this year, and that may make the Russian billionaire less inclined to spend in the future.

So our picks may be very valuable. I would hang on to them.

[D.o.s.]

Well picks in the 20s are no good. Ours would probably be in the 20s if we acquired Love. The Clippers pick and Cavs pick are both definitely in the 20s. And the Nets have the deepest pockets in the league do they'll probably always be relevant. Besides the picks we don't really have anything the Wolves would want. Sully is an out of shape pf  on the short and shot it awful last year. Kelly is ok offensively but not a spectacular defender or rebounder and is limited  athletically. Both have short ceilings, which is part of the reason gms draft for upside so they can sell on upside. Jeff Green is a third option at best and Bass is a back up. The only thing Minnesota might have liked was Marcus Smart bit they already have a pg and Smart plus a bunch of uncertain picks wouldn't even be enough anyways. Our potential package for Love isn't as good as you guys think

No one can predict the future.
Rivers is talking about leaving the Clippers, if the owner is still there next year.

The Nets lost Pierce and really don't look that good. Plus, they lost $144 million dollars this year, and that may make the Russian billionaire less inclined to spend in the future.

So our picks may be very valuable. I would hang on to them.

"lost $144 million." That's misrepresenting what happened, to a degree.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Picks are extremely valuable.

But that doesn't mean everyone in any given time would be interested in them over established quantifiable players or known prospects.

Plus more than Flip, the Wolves' owner is a nut so who knows where his whims will take him next.

[Piasecki8]

Figured I'd throw a new spin into this conversation. I think that these picks could be very valuable for the Celtics going forward, but not in trades like everyone else thinks. If they are used in trades to bring in "Superstars" then I am all for it. On the other hand I believe that if Danny holds onto these picks then this team could potentially have 6-8 guys on rookie deals for the next 5 or 6 years. Imagine the possibilities with that extra money that would be floating around. By 2016 we could possibly have Smart, Young, Sullinger, Olynyk, and 2 or 3 2015 firsts all under cost controlled rookie deals. When two of those guys move on they can now be replaced by 2 more first round talents each year for the next 3 years. Having that much potential taking up such a small part of the cap would allow Danny to use the left over money however he pleases on 2 or 3...or 4 impact players to fill out the roster. Essentailly those picks would be used to re-stock the cabinets after 2 young guys that we could possibly lose each year make their money elsewhere. We could draft by postion need for role players to support our big money guys and not have these great expectations for our rookies that we seem to have every year (see Spurs).

[Chris22]

Well picks in the 20s are no good. Ours would probably be in the 20s if we acquired Love. The Clippers pick and Cavs pick are both definitely in the 20s. And the Nets have the deepest pockets in the league do they'll probably always be relevant. Besides the picks we don't really have anything the Wolves would want. Sully is an out of shape pf  on the short and shot it awful last year. Kelly is ok offensively but not a spectacular defender or rebounder and is limited  athletically. Both have short ceilings, which is part of the reason gms draft for upside so they can sell on upside. Jeff Green is a third option at best and Bass is a back up. The only thing Minnesota might have liked was Marcus Smart bit they already have a pg and Smart plus a bunch of uncertain picks wouldn't even be enough anyways. Our potential package for Love isn't as good as you guys think

No one can predict the future.
Rivers is talking about leaving the Clippers, if the owner is still there next year.

The Nets lost Pierce and really don't look that good. Plus, they lost $144 million dollars this year, and that may make the Russian billionaire less inclined to spend in the future.

So our picks may be very valuable. I would hang on to them.

"lost $144 million." That's misrepresenting what happened, to a degree.

The Brooklyn Nets are projected to have lost $144 million -- $144 million! -- in basketball activities last season, according to a league memo obtained by Grantland's Zach Lowe.

The NBA expects nine teams will end up having lost money once luxury-tax distribution and revenue-sharing payments are finalized. The Nets, with that monster $144 million figure, are the biggest losers. Next in line? The Wizards, with projected losses of about $13 million. That's right: The Nets lost $131 million more than any other NBA team last season. This is what happens when you pay $90 million in luxury tax for an aging roster and play in a market so large you are ineligible to receive any revenue-sharing help.

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on-basketball/24601742/report-the-nets-lost-144-million-in-basketball-activities-last-season

[dreamgreen]

Well picks in the 20s are no good. Ours would probably be in the 20s if we acquired Love. The Clippers pick and Cavs pick are both definitely in the 20s. And the Nets have the deepest pockets in the league do they'll probably always be relevant. Besides the picks we don't really have anything the Wolves would want. Sully is an out of shape pf  on the short and shot it awful last year. Kelly is ok offensively but not a spectacular defender or rebounder and is limited  athletically. Both have short ceilings, which is part of the reason gms draft for upside so they can sell on upside. Jeff Green is a third option at best and Bass is a back up. The only thing Minnesota might have liked was Marcus Smart bit they already have a pg and Smart plus a bunch of uncertain picks wouldn't even be enough anyways. Our potential package for Love isn't as good as you guys think

No one can predict the future.
Rivers is talking about leaving the Clippers, if the owner is still there next year.

The Nets lost Pierce and really don't look that good. Plus, they lost $144 million dollars this year, and that may make the Russian billionaire less inclined to spend in the future.

So our picks may be very valuable. I would hang on to them.

"lost $144 million." That's misrepresenting what happened, to a degree.

The Brooklyn Nets are projected to have lost $144 million -- $144 million! -- in basketball activities last season, according to a league memo obtained by Grantland's Zach Lowe.

The NBA expects nine teams will end up having lost money once luxury-tax distribution and revenue-sharing payments are finalized. The Nets, with that monster $144 million figure, are the biggest losers. Next in line? The Wizards, with projected losses of about $13 million. That's right: The Nets lost $131 million more than any other NBA team last season. This is what happens when you pay $90 million in luxury tax for an aging roster and play in a market so large you are ineligible to receive any revenue-sharing help.

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on-basketball/24601742/report-the-nets-lost-144-million-in-basketball-activities-last-season

I Love It!!

[slamtheking]

Well picks in the 20s are no good. Ours would probably be in the 20s if we acquired Love. The Clippers pick and Cavs pick are both definitely in the 20s. And the Nets have the deepest pockets in the league do they'll probably always be relevant. Besides the picks we don't really have anything the Wolves would want. Sully is an out of shape pf  on the short and shot it awful last year. Kelly is ok offensively but not a spectacular defender or rebounder and is limited  athletically. Both have short ceilings, which is part of the reason gms draft for upside so they can sell on upside. Jeff Green is a third option at best and Bass is a back up. The only thing Minnesota might have liked was Marcus Smart bit they already have a pg and Smart plus a bunch of uncertain picks wouldn't even be enough anyways. Our potential package for Love isn't as good as you guys think

No one can predict the future.
Rivers is talking about leaving the Clippers, if the owner is still there next year.

The Nets lost Pierce and really don't look that good. Plus, they lost $144 million dollars this year, and that may make the Russian billionaire less inclined to spend in the future.

So our picks may be very valuable. I would hang on to them.

exactly right on those future picks.  I can't believe how some people here just casually throw away those picks in trades without a second thought--particularly those Nets picks.  I'm not against using them in a good trade but at a minimum I would include a provision that whoever we trade with gets the lesser of the C's pick and whatever other pick the C's have that year. 

The Clips haven't been officially sold yet and now with Doc making noise about leaving, who knows how much more turmoil will occur with that team until it's sold.  They could very well go into a totally dysfunctional mess that ends up in the lottery to our advantage if Sterling continues to drag this out.

[D.o.s.]

Well picks in the 20s are no good. Ours would probably be in the 20s if we acquired Love. The Clippers pick and Cavs pick are both definitely in the 20s. And the Nets have the deepest pockets in the league do they'll probably always be relevant. Besides the picks we don't really have anything the Wolves would want. Sully is an out of shape pf  on the short and shot it awful last year. Kelly is ok offensively but not a spectacular defender or rebounder and is limited  athletically. Both have short ceilings, which is part of the reason gms draft for upside so they can sell on upside. Jeff Green is a third option at best and Bass is a back up. The only thing Minnesota might have liked was Marcus Smart bit they already have a pg and Smart plus a bunch of uncertain picks wouldn't even be enough anyways. Our potential package for Love isn't as good as you guys think

No one can predict the future.
Rivers is talking about leaving the Clippers, if the owner is still there next year.

The Nets lost Pierce and really don't look that good. Plus, they lost $144 million dollars this year, and that may make the Russian billionaire less inclined to spend in the future.

So our picks may be very valuable. I would hang on to them.

"lost $144 million." That's misrepresenting what happened, to a degree.

The Brooklyn Nets are projected to have lost $144 million -- $144 million! -- in basketball activities last season, according to a league memo obtained by Grantland's Zach Lowe.

The NBA expects nine teams will end up having lost money once luxury-tax distribution and revenue-sharing payments are finalized. The Nets, with that monster $144 million figure, are the biggest losers. Next in line? The Wizards, with projected losses of about $13 million. That's right: The Nets lost $131 million more than any other NBA team last season. This is what happens when you pay $90 million in luxury tax for an aging roster and play in a market so large you are ineligible to receive any revenue-sharing help.

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on-basketball/24601742/report-the-nets-lost-144-million-in-basketball-activities-last-season

Trust me: I read the grantland article and you're misrepresenting what happened as "lost money." As is CBS.

From Lowe:

It’s important to note that the figures here stem from basketball activities only, and do not appear to include benefits the Nets and Prokhorov get from their ownership stake in the Barclays Center. And Prokhorov, of course, is heli-skiing levels of rich.

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/grantland-exclusive-the-jason-kidd-mess-has-a-144-million-pricetag/

To be more specific: Prokorov owns 45% of the Barclays Center, which is worth about $331 million, or nearly twice what the Nets "lost."

The nets paid $144 million, but they didn't "lose money." To think otherwise would be engaging in the same type of thinking that leads to people supporting the ownership in the lockouts.