Why wasn't the Nets pick protected at all?

[the TRUTH]

Among those that are against this trade, or even in the middle, the fact that the Brooklyn pick was included AND wasn't protected at all is the biggest issue. Just wanted to create a thread to discuss this issue alone.

I understand that when you look at the totality of the Pierce/Garnett trade to Brooklyn, we made out like bandits. But I can't help feeling like we could've made out even better at the end.

This may still end up being a great deal for us, but I'm more than a little surprised that we didn't protect the pick at all, especially when the Cavs lost a lot of leverage due to Irving's trade demand. Any thoughts as to why we weren't able to protect it?

[Kadin]

Maybe he just wanted to see people on the internet flip their Edited.  Profanity and masked profanity are against forum rules and may result in discipline. over it.

[Csfan1984]

My guess IT'S hip and/or we needed to leave it unprotected to out bid team x.

[JBcat]

We can only guess as to what other trade offers were out there.  It's been a little while since Irving made that demand, and my guess is the Cavs took their time sifting through numerous trade offers.  We might of had to take any protections off in order to have the best offer.  We don't really know.

[the TRUTH]

My guess IT'S hip and/or we needed to leave it unprotected to out bid team x.

Those are the only two possible reasons I could come up with as well. As a lot of people mentioned on here as the 2017 trade deadline approached, part of what made the Nets picks so valuable is that they weren't our own. So the Celtics doing well in the standings wouldn't reduce the value of the pick. No one else in the league (as far as I know) has another team's pick that figures to be as bad as the Nets will be. I trust Danny that he felt like we had to leave it unprotected in order to seal the deal, but I'd love to see what the second best offer on the table for the Cavs was that forced us to leave it unprotected.

[SparzWizard]

I thought the Nets were responsible in making the pick protected in the first place when they shipped them out for Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett. Or is that how it works?

[Tr1boy]

What happens if the pick lands in the protection range? Then which pick would the cavs get?

Also you lose flexibility to trade other picks

Danny thinks Nets will win 25-30 and the Cavs wont get to draft a top 5 player...lets hope

[Tr1boy]

I thought the Nets were responsible in making the pick protected in the first place when they shipped them out for Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett. Or is that how it works?

No they didnt....teams are now protecting picks traded due to Danny fleecing the Nets....'danny effect'

[jambr380]

Yeah, I really would have felt a lot better if the pick was at least top 2 protected. If it didn't convey, then the Cavs would have received the LAL/Sac pick.

If it was really true that the Cavs were demanding one of: Tatum, Brown, BKN pick, LAL/Sac pick, then it seems like we could have at least protected ourselves by giving the Cavs the lower of the two picks. The Cavs would still be receiving one of those 4 assets and Boston would ensure it doesn't lose its best upcoming pick.

I thought the Nets were responsible in making the pick protected in the first place when they shipped them out for Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett. Or is that how it works?

Didn't you see all of the protections in the trade for Tatum and the LAL/Sac pick from Philly?

[playdream]

What do you think Ainge's private talk with IT is like?

My guess:

DA:hey IT, heard your hip doesn't look good and may eventually need a surgery
IT:oh..yeah..sorry about that, I will try my best to catch the playoffs

DA:No No don't rush it, you need to get the brink truck which you deserve
IT:But...

DA:I know, you want to bring this team a championship right?
IT:Yes, that is my goal

DA:Listen, here's a way to accomplish both of it..
IT:Really? what's that?

DA:We are going to trade you to the Cavs for Irving, and you can take the surgery and bring it back SLOWLY and nicely, so we can went over the Cavs and you can get your brink truck, i will be the bad guy and you will be seen and treated by the fans just like paul did, and we will always welcome you back, of course we will need some acting here, Oh don't worry about the physical, i will take care of that(by giving up the unprotect Net's pick) 

...

[kozlodoev]

Because this deal was really Irving for a future 1st..  and the partial Isaiah Thomas year is somewhat of a filler.

[nickagneta]

Pick had to be unprotected. Cleveland had to get a top pick and if the pick was protected and the pick landed in the protection, you would have to convey the LA/Sac pick. But what if LA finishes outside of the 2-5 range? Then Cleveland is getting a pick from Sacramento two drafts away, in a draft without the top level of talent in it than this year's draft has. Also, in two years Sacramento could be a lot better and possibly the pick lands around 10. That type of pick is unacceptable when giving up a superstar for that pick and a role player and a possibly hurt player on an expiring contract.

[the TRUTH]

Yeah, I really would have felt a lot better if the pick was at least top 2 protected. If it didn't convey, then the Cavs would have received the LAL/Sac pick.

If it was really true that the Cavs were demanding one of: Tatum, Brown, BKN pick, LAL/Sac pick, then it seems like we could have at least protected ourselves by giving the Cavs the lower of the two picks. The Cavs would still be receiving one of those 4 assets and Boston would ensure it doesn't lose its best upcoming pick.

I thought the Nets were responsible in making the pick protected in the first place when they shipped them out for Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett. Or is that how it works?

Didn't you see all of the protections in the trade for Tatum and the LAL/Sac pick from Philly?

That's exactly what I was thinking - something like the lesser of the Nets pick or the Lakers pick. If the Lakers pick doesn't convey to us, and the Nets pick is in the top 2 (or 3), then Cleveland gets the Kings pick. That's still a great deal for the Cavs, and I don't think anyone could've topped it.

[the TRUTH]

Pick had to be unprotected. Cleveland had to get a top pick and if the pick was protected and the pick landed in the protection, you would have to convey the LA/Sac pick. But what if LA finishes outside of the 2-5 range? Then Cleveland is getting a pick from Sacramento two drafts away, in a draft without the top level of talent in it than this year's draft has. Also, in two years Sacramento could be a lot better and possibly the pick lands around 10. That type of pick is unacceptable when giving up a superstar for that pick and a role player and a possibly hurt player on an expiring contract.

Good points all around, and I'm sure that's exactly what Cleveland would have said. I guess my response to that stance from Cleveland would be to take it or leave it - essentially calling their bluff as to whether or not they can find a better deal.

I know this is complicated, but here's an alternative option:

Say we'd given them either the Nets or Lakers pick, whichever was lower, in 2018, but top 1 protected. If the Lakers pick doesn't convey in 2018, then the Nets pick becomes top 3 (or 4 or 5) protected. If neither conveys to Cleveland in 2018, the Cavs get the Kings pick unprotected.

That gives Cleveland a very realistic shot at a top 5 pick in 2018, with the worst case scenario (IMO) being that the Cavs pick in the 8-10 range in 2019. Clearly not as good of a deal as we gave them, but still better than they could've gotten elsewhere both in terms of the floor and the ceiling.

[CelticsElite]

Because it was the main trade chip and the cavs wanted Tatum. IT is an expiring contract that may not stay