Author Topic: Can the Celtics waive their protection on the Laker pick?  (Read 3032 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Can the Celtics waive their protection on the Laker pick?
« Reply #30 on: April 13, 2018, 11:48:31 AM »

Offline footey

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7846
  • Tommy Points: 958
Almost positive that once terms of a trade have been submitted to the league office, the terms are final and complete. The only way the C's could change the terms of the trade would be to create another trade that changes the terms of the first trade.

So Boston and Philly would have to complete a trade where if the Lakers pick doesn't convey to Boston based on the terms of the original trade, the pick would convey to Boston no matter where the pick lands in exchange for....

What that exchange is would be important. My guess is it wouldn't be for just swapping the 2018 conveyance for the 2019 Sac. conveyance. Gotta remember, the Sixers could still end up with the 1st pick this year and the first pick next year. Gonna take a lot to have them give up that chance for the Cs to get the LA pick this year.

If trade made after lottery where it is clear Lakers donít land 1st pick  pick (extremely likely to occur), I could see a scenario where the Celtics have targeted a ready play big who somehow is available at 10 and offers the 2019 Sac pick, in exchange, as good value. Maybe Sixers donít like anyone at 10 but Celtics do. Why wouldnít that be good value for Sixers?

Re: Can the Celtics waive their protection on the Laker pick?
« Reply #31 on: April 13, 2018, 12:29:58 PM »

Online jambr380

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7822
  • Tommy Points: 879
If trade made after lottery where it is clear Lakers donít land 1st pick  pick (extremely likely to occur), I could see a scenario where the Celtics have targeted a ready play big who somehow is available at 10 and offers the 2019 Sac pick, in exchange, as good value. Maybe Sixers donít like anyone at 10 but Celtics do. Why wouldnít that be good value for Sixers?

I just don't see any scenario where Ainge would offer the SAC pick for #10 unless somebody like Porter or Bamba slide down that far. It's more likely he offers something like the MEM pick and our pick...which would likely be rejected by PHI.

Re: Can the Celtics waive their protection on the Laker pick?
« Reply #32 on: April 13, 2018, 12:37:18 PM »

Offline Ogaju

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7992
  • Tommy Points: 895
If trade made after lottery where it is clear Lakers donít land 1st pick  pick (extremely likely to occur), I could see a scenario where the Celtics have targeted a ready play big who somehow is available at 10 and offers the 2019 Sac pick, in exchange, as good value. Maybe Sixers donít like anyone at 10 but Celtics do. Why wouldnít that be good value for Sixers?

I just don't see any scenario where Ainge would offer the SAC pick for #10 unless somebody like Porter or Bamba slide down that far. It's more likely he offers something like the MEM pick and our pick...which would likely be rejected by PHI.

all I am saying is that the protection should have been negotiated as Boston's option and not a mandatory protection. So the terms in the contract should have read;

'If the 2018 laker pick falls between 6-30 then the Boston Celtics shall have the option of keeping the pick or giving it back to Philadelphia for the 2019 Sacramento first round pick etc.

Re: Can the Celtics waive their protection on the Laker pick?
« Reply #33 on: April 13, 2018, 01:07:23 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • Walter Brown
  • ********************************
  • Posts: 32899
  • Tommy Points: 5389
If trade made after lottery where it is clear Lakers donít land 1st pick  pick (extremely likely to occur), I could see a scenario where the Celtics have targeted a ready play big who somehow is available at 10 and offers the 2019 Sac pick, in exchange, as good value. Maybe Sixers donít like anyone at 10 but Celtics do. Why wouldnít that be good value for Sixers?

I just don't see any scenario where Ainge would offer the SAC pick for #10 unless somebody like Porter or Bamba slide down that far. It's more likely he offers something like the MEM pick and our pick...which would likely be rejected by PHI.

all I am saying is that the protection should have been negotiated as Boston's option and not a mandatory protection. So the terms in the contract should have read;

'If the 2018 laker pick falls between 6-30 then the Boston Celtics shall have the option of keeping the pick or giving it back to Philadelphia for the 2019 Sacramento first round pick etc.
But they didn't read that way so the only thing Ainge could do is create another trade.

Re: Can the Celtics waive their protection on the Laker pick?
« Reply #34 on: April 13, 2018, 01:10:24 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • Walter Brown
  • ********************************
  • Posts: 32899
  • Tommy Points: 5389
Almost positive that once terms of a trade have been submitted to the league office, the terms are final and complete. The only way the C's could change the terms of the trade would be to create another trade that changes the terms of the first trade.

So Boston and Philly would have to complete a trade where if the Lakers pick doesn't convey to Boston based on the terms of the original trade, the pick would convey to Boston no matter where the pick lands in exchange for....

What that exchange is would be important. My guess is it wouldn't be for just swapping the 2018 conveyance for the 2019 Sac. conveyance. Gotta remember, the Sixers could still end up with the 1st pick this year and the first pick next year. Gonna take a lot to have them give up that chance for the Cs to get the LA pick this year.

If trade made after lottery where it is clear Lakers donít land 1st pick  pick (extremely likely to occur), I could see a scenario where the Celtics have targeted a ready play big who somehow is available at 10 and offers the 2019 Sac pick, in exchange, as good value. Maybe Sixers donít like anyone at 10 but Celtics do. Why wouldnít that be good value for Sixers?
Because there is still the chance that Sactown sucks and gets the #1 pick. If that were to happen, the Sixers are basically trading the #10 pick this year for a pick in the mid to high 20s next year. Colangelo, being a good GM wouls realize this and hence want more than just a pick swap.

Re: Can the Celtics waive their protection on the Laker pick?
« Reply #35 on: April 13, 2018, 01:11:13 PM »

Online celticsclay

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9358
  • Tommy Points: 1023
In the current universe, the sac 19 is worth more than lal18 outright. It's not only expected to be a better number pick, the cap hit is delayed 1 year, and the draft odds restructuring happens next season. It's the Celtics that wouldn't agree to waiving protections. They never wanted lal18 unless it was 1 through 5.

Yes thank you Erik. I am pretty baffled that people don't understand this. The protections were for the Celtics benefit. If we wanted no protection we could have definitely had it (hey Philly we want the pick if the Lakers exceed expectations! Please let us). Furthermore, the outlook for the Kings has not gotten any better at all. They got rid of George Hill who was signed for two years as a capable NBA veteran. None of their young players (Hield, WCS, Skal) made a big leap this year. Fox looked extremely raw. On top of that NBA flattered the odds for the lottery and there is a chance high schoolers may be allowed in to the next draft. Yet somehow, despite all these things going in our favor, we would want to remove the protections we put on to protect ourselves and add to our cap crunch for next year over generalized impatience? I mean this is all pretty comical..

Re: Can the Celtics waive their protection on the Laker pick?
« Reply #36 on: April 13, 2018, 01:15:27 PM »

Offline Ogaju

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7992
  • Tommy Points: 895
In the current universe, the sac 19 is worth more than lal18 outright. It's not only expected to be a better number pick, the cap hit is delayed 1 year, and the draft odds restructuring happens next season. It's the Celtics that wouldn't agree to waiving protections. They never wanted lal18 unless it was 1 through 5.

Yes thank you Erik. I am pretty baffled that people don't understand this. The protections were for the Celtics benefit. If we wanted no protection we could have definitely had it (hey Philly we want the pick if the Lakers exceed expectations! Please let us). Furthermore, the outlook for the Kings has not gotten any better at all. They got rid of George Hill who was signed for two years as a capable NBA veteran. None of their young players (Hield, WCS, Skal) made a big leap this year. Fox looked extremely raw. On top of that NBA flattered the odds for the lottery and there is a chance high schoolers may be allowed in to the next draft. Yet somehow, despite all these things going in our favor, we would want to remove the protections we put on to protect ourselves and add to our cap crunch for next year over generalized impatience? I mean this is all pretty comical..

Of course the protection was for Boston's benefit that is why it should have been negotiated as an option to allow flexibility.

Re: Can the Celtics waive their protection on the Laker pick?
« Reply #37 on: April 13, 2018, 01:36:52 PM »

Offline libermaniac

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1803
  • Tommy Points: 170
Of course they could. Itís called trading our Kings pick to Philly for their Lakers pick. Nothing stopping that if Philly wanted the deal.

I'm giving you a TP because that answer was so blindingly obvious and I feel silly not having thought of it.

Mike

The response is an option, a viable one, but it really does not answer my question. My question does not require a trade with anyone. Anyone can make a trade, heck Danny could trade the Sacramento pick rights to any team that is willing to trade for it so today it could be flipped to Phily is a given.

My question, on the other hand, is whether the Boston protection on the Laker pick comes with a Boston option. If it does, Boston would not need Philly's consent, they would have the unfettered right to waive the protection. So who knows wether or not this option exists?
It's a very obvious "No".  Of course the C's don't have that option or it would have been reported in the trade. 

Re: Can the Celtics waive their protection on the Laker pick?
« Reply #38 on: April 13, 2018, 01:40:58 PM »

Offline Sophomore

  • Kyrie Irving
  • Posts: 776
  • Tommy Points: 134
In the current universe, the sac 19 is worth more than lal18 outright. It's not only expected to be a better number pick, the cap hit is delayed 1 year, and the draft odds restructuring happens next season. It's the Celtics that wouldn't agree to waiving protections. They never wanted lal18 unless it was 1 through 5.

Yes thank you Erik. I am pretty baffled that people don't understand this. The protections were for the Celtics benefit. If we wanted no protection we could have definitely had it (hey Philly we want the pick if the Lakers exceed expectations! Please let us). Furthermore, the outlook for the Kings has not gotten any better at all. They got rid of George Hill who was signed for two years as a capable NBA veteran. None of their young players (Hield, WCS, Skal) made a big leap this year. Fox looked extremely raw. On top of that NBA flattered the odds for the lottery and there is a chance high schoolers may be allowed in to the next draft. Yet somehow, despite all these things going in our favor, we would want to remove the protections we put on to protect ourselves and add to our cap crunch for next year over generalized impatience? I mean this is all pretty comical..

Yep. That's the right analysis of the transaction. People are impatient because they see the team one player away and love the idea of adding another star player the young core *right now*.

The only scenario I see for a trade to remove protections is: Boston values a player very, very highly that the rest of the league (especially including philly) is sleeping on and he's still there at 10. I really doubt that happens, although if there is a GM with the cojones to pull the trigger, it's the guy who eats at chipotle every day.



Re: Can the Celtics waive their protection on the Laker pick?
« Reply #39 on: April 13, 2018, 02:36:45 PM »

Offline GreenEnvy

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3180
  • Tommy Points: 896
Almost positive that once terms of a trade have been submitted to the league office, the terms are final and complete. The only way the C's could change the terms of the trade would be to create another trade that changes the terms of the first trade.

So Boston and Philly would have to complete a trade where if the Lakers pick doesn't convey to Boston based on the terms of the original trade, the pick would convey to Boston no matter where the pick lands in exchange for....

What that exchange is would be important. My guess is it wouldn't be for just swapping the 2018 conveyance for the 2019 Sac. conveyance. Gotta remember, the Sixers could still end up with the 1st pick this year and the first pick next year. Gonna take a lot to have them give up that chance for the Cs to get the LA pick this year.

Well, that wouldnít change regardless.

Cís canít get the first this year or next year. This years pick and next yearís are top 1 protected.

In this hypothetical scenario where we want the 10th pick, we would obviously wait to make sure itís not 2 or 3, which would automatically convey. Once its revealed the pick is in fact #10, Philly clearly doesnít have a chance at the top pick. The Celtics could trade the Sac pick back to them for the 10th pick, but I donít see why they do that unless there is a player that drops to 10 that they absolutely love.

Next year with change the the lottery system that Sac pick will be interesting. Would suck if they somehow win the lottery and we get stuck with the Sixers 20+ pick.
I AM A CELTIC

Re: Can the Celtics waive their protection on the Laker pick?
« Reply #40 on: April 13, 2018, 02:42:53 PM »

Offline Erik

  • Gordon Hayward
  • Posts: 708
  • Tommy Points: 126
  • The voice of reason
Delete
« Last Edit: April 13, 2018, 02:51:19 PM by Erik »

Re: Can the Celtics waive their protection on the Laker pick?
« Reply #41 on: April 13, 2018, 02:47:57 PM »

Online celticsclay

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9358
  • Tommy Points: 1023
In the current universe, the sac 19 is worth more than lal18 outright. It's not only expected to be a better number pick, the cap hit is delayed 1 year, and the draft odds restructuring happens next season. It's the Celtics that wouldn't agree to waiving protections. They never wanted lal18 unless it was 1 through 5.

Yes thank you Erik. I am pretty baffled that people don't understand this. The protections were for the Celtics benefit. If we wanted no protection we could have definitely had it (hey Philly we want the pick if the Lakers exceed expectations! Please let us). Furthermore, the outlook for the Kings has not gotten any better at all. They got rid of George Hill who was signed for two years as a capable NBA veteran. None of their young players (Hield, WCS, Skal) made a big leap this year. Fox looked extremely raw. On top of that NBA flattered the odds for the lottery and there is a chance high schoolers may be allowed in to the next draft. Yet somehow, despite all these things going in our favor, we would want to remove the protections we put on to protect ourselves and add to our cap crunch for next year over generalized impatience? I mean this is all pretty comical..

Yep. That's the right analysis of the transaction. People are impatient because they see the team one player away and love the idea of adding another star player the young core *right now*.

The only scenario I see for a trade to remove protections is: Boston values a player very, very highly that the rest of the league (especially including philly) is sleeping on and he's still there at 10. I really doubt that happens, although if there is a GM with the cojones to pull the trigger, it's the guy who eats at chipotle every day.

Not to pick on your post (it was just the last one), but just to be perfectly clear: the Sac19 protection is clearly in 76ers favor. I can't imagine that either team projected Phi19 to be better than Sac19. But if we're talking specifically about Lal18, it's pretty obvious to me that the Celtics didn't want it unprotected. So to recap:

* 2018: Provision that #1 pick goes to Sixers -> 76ers wanted it.
* 2018: Provision that #2-5 only goes to Celtics -> Celtics wanted it.
* 2019: Provision that #1 pick goes to Sixers -> 76ers wanted it.
* 2019: Provision that #2-5 only goes to Celtics -> 76ers wanted it.

That's why 76ers fans were laughing their asses off on trade day because it looked like we got a pick that could very easily translate to Tatum + PHI19 for Fultz. It wasn't until after people realized just how much better Tatum is than Fultz that people changed their minds. Also, Sixers fans weren't looking at it from Celtics' brass perspective of needing to salary dump for Hayward so #1->#3 salary was pretty significant.

It's just that the purpose of this thread is a bit ironic because you're literally taking the only situation in which the Celtics wanted to protect themselves and asking if we can remove it, even after we know it's not a great pick (i.e. #6 and we could be talking).

This is false Erik. The sac pick has not protection beyond number 1. Can you edit this post so you don't confuse the whole board. Also the fans obviously were not laughing their assets off something that isn't true. Funny stuff

Re: Can the Celtics waive their protection on the Laker pick?
« Reply #42 on: April 13, 2018, 02:49:02 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19189
  • Tommy Points: 907
Yeah maybe 100 different things. Not the point. In the current universe Sacramento is not projected to be better than 20th best and the Celtics are obviously trying to push out their luxury tax commitment to 2019 on the Kyrie extension. Also future draft picks are generally always worth more than a drafted player of equal perceived value due to the "depreciation" of the rookie contract. While your world may be better, it's not likely.
The Sacramento pick is top 1 protected.  If it ends up at 1, the Celtics get the Sixers pick, which will almost certainly be a pick in the 20's.  That was the point I was making.  That even if the Kings are still terrible, there is still a 20% (or whatever the new percentage is) chance that the pick lands at #1 and thus stays in Philly and doesn't get to Boston.  But there is also a chance the Kings aren't terrible or that with the new lottery odds they are terrible but the pick ends up being 5 or 6.  I think there are plenty of arguments that the player drafted at 10 in this draft will be better than the player drafted at 5 next year (history tells us not all drafts are equal).  I think there are plenty of arguments that Boston having the player next year, when it likely won't be in the luxury tax is more valuable then pushing it off a year and ending up paying more when the team is in luxury tax.  I think there are plenty of arguments that having that salary next year would be far better in a trade both for value and actual salary.

Now sure if the Sacto pick ends up at 2 or 3 next year, you would expect the player to be better than a player taken at 10 this year, but even that is not a given. 

Re: Can the Celtics waive their protection on the Laker pick?
« Reply #43 on: April 13, 2018, 02:52:33 PM »

Offline Erik

  • Gordon Hayward
  • Posts: 708
  • Tommy Points: 126
  • The voice of reason
In the current universe, the sac 19 is worth more than lal18 outright. It's not only expected to be a better number pick, the cap hit is delayed 1 year, and the draft odds restructuring happens next season. It's the Celtics that wouldn't agree to waiving protections. They never wanted lal18 unless it was 1 through 5.

Yes thank you Erik. I am pretty baffled that people don't understand this. The protections were for the Celtics benefit. If we wanted no protection we could have definitely had it (hey Philly we want the pick if the Lakers exceed expectations! Please let us). Furthermore, the outlook for the Kings has not gotten any better at all. They got rid of George Hill who was signed for two years as a capable NBA veteran. None of their young players (Hield, WCS, Skal) made a big leap this year. Fox looked extremely raw. On top of that NBA flattered the odds for the lottery and there is a chance high schoolers may be allowed in to the next draft. Yet somehow, despite all these things going in our favor, we would want to remove the protections we put on to protect ourselves and add to our cap crunch for next year over generalized impatience? I mean this is all pretty comical..

Yep. That's the right analysis of the transaction. People are impatient because they see the team one player away and love the idea of adding another star player the young core *right now*.

The only scenario I see for a trade to remove protections is: Boston values a player very, very highly that the rest of the league (especially including philly) is sleeping on and he's still there at 10. I really doubt that happens, although if there is a GM with the cojones to pull the trigger, it's the guy who eats at chipotle every day.

Not to pick on your post (it was just the last one), but just to be perfectly clear: the Sac19 protection is clearly in 76ers favor. I can't imagine that either team projected Phi19 to be better than Sac19. But if we're talking specifically about Lal18, it's pretty obvious to me that the Celtics didn't want it unprotected. So to recap:

* 2018: Provision that #1 pick goes to Sixers -> 76ers wanted it.
* 2018: Provision that #2-5 only goes to Celtics -> Celtics wanted it.
* 2019: Provision that #1 pick goes to Sixers -> 76ers wanted it.
* 2019: Provision that #2-5 only goes to Celtics -> 76ers wanted it.

That's why 76ers fans were laughing their asses off on trade day because it looked like we got a pick that could very easily translate to Tatum + PHI19 for Fultz. It wasn't until after people realized just how much better Tatum is than Fultz that people changed their minds. Also, Sixers fans weren't looking at it from Celtics' brass perspective of needing to salary dump for Hayward so #1->#3 salary was pretty significant.

It's just that the purpose of this thread is a bit ironic because you're literally taking the only situation in which the Celtics wanted to protect themselves and asking if we can remove it, even after we know it's not a great pick (i.e. #6 and we could be talking).

This is false Erik. The sac pick has not protection beyond number 1. Can you edit this post so you don't confuse the whole board. Also the fans obviously were not laughing their assets off something that isn't true. Funny stuff

Wow I could have sworn SAC19 was 2-5 protected. Thanks for the info. I do remember the Sixers fans on libertyballers screaming that they fleeced us, though.

https://www.libertyballers.com/2017/6/17/15825478/2017-nba-draft-sixers-trade-no-1-pick-with-boston-celtics-finalized-monday-no-3-pick-markelle-fultz

Re: Can the Celtics waive their protection on the Laker pick?
« Reply #44 on: April 13, 2018, 03:00:34 PM »

Online celticsclay

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9358
  • Tommy Points: 1023
In the current universe, the sac 19 is worth more than lal18 outright. It's not only expected to be a better number pick, the cap hit is delayed 1 year, and the draft odds restructuring happens next season. It's the Celtics that wouldn't agree to waiving protections. They never wanted lal18 unless it was 1 through 5.

Yes thank you Erik. I am pretty baffled that people don't understand this. The protections were for the Celtics benefit. If we wanted no protection we could have definitely had it (hey Philly we want the pick if the Lakers exceed expectations! Please let us). Furthermore, the outlook for the Kings has not gotten any better at all. They got rid of George Hill who was signed for two years as a capable NBA veteran. None of their young players (Hield, WCS, Skal) made a big leap this year. Fox looked extremely raw. On top of that NBA flattered the odds for the lottery and there is a chance high schoolers may be allowed in to the next draft. Yet somehow, despite all these things going in our favor, we would want to remove the protections we put on to protect ourselves and add to our cap crunch for next year over generalized impatience? I mean this is all pretty comical..

Yep. That's the right analysis of the transaction. People are impatient because they see the team one player away and love the idea of adding another star player the young core *right now*.

The only scenario I see for a trade to remove protections is: Boston values a player very, very highly that the rest of the league (especially including philly) is sleeping on and he's still there at 10. I really doubt that happens, although if there is a GM with the cojones to pull the trigger, it's the guy who eats at chipotle every day.

Not to pick on your post (it was just the last one), but just to be perfectly clear: the Sac19 protection is clearly in 76ers favor. I can't imagine that either team projected Phi19 to be better than Sac19. But if we're talking specifically about Lal18, it's pretty obvious to me that the Celtics didn't want it unprotected. So to recap:

* 2018: Provision that #1 pick goes to Sixers -> 76ers wanted it.
* 2018: Provision that #2-5 only goes to Celtics -> Celtics wanted it.
* 2019: Provision that #1 pick goes to Sixers -> 76ers wanted it.
* 2019: Provision that #2-5 only goes to Celtics -> 76ers wanted it.

That's why 76ers fans were laughing their asses off on trade day because it looked like we got a pick that could very easily translate to Tatum + PHI19 for Fultz. It wasn't until after people realized just how much better Tatum is than Fultz that people changed their minds. Also, Sixers fans weren't looking at it from Celtics' brass perspective of needing to salary dump for Hayward so #1->#3 salary was pretty significant.

It's just that the purpose of this thread is a bit ironic because you're literally taking the only situation in which the Celtics wanted to protect themselves and asking if we can remove it, even after we know it's not a great pick (i.e. #6 and we could be talking).

This is false Erik. The sac pick has not protection beyond number 1. Can you edit this post so you don't confuse the whole board. Also the fans obviously were not laughing their assets off something that isn't true. Funny stuff

Wow I could have sworn SAC19 was 2-5 protected. Thanks for the info. I do remember the Sixers fans on libertyballers screaming that they fleeced us, though.

https://www.libertyballers.com/2017/6/17/15825478/2017-nba-draft-sixers-trade-no-1-pick-with-boston-celtics-finalized-monday-no-3-pick-markelle-fultz

I mean liberty ballers, which I read regularly for amusement, is pretty over the top at times. At this time most of their fans acknowledge that at best this is going to be a wash for them because Tatum is a very good player that looked better than expected as a rookie and we will still get a second lottery pick on top of him. Fultz doesn't look like a lebron type by any stretch. So Tatum, who could be an occasional allstar, and a lottery pick is a very good trade even if fultz works out. If fultz doesn't work out, the trade is an absolute disaster for them.