Author Topic: Can the Celtics waive their protection on the Laker pick?  (Read 2062 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Can the Celtics waive their protection on the Laker pick?
« Reply #45 on: April 13, 2018, 03:08:06 PM »

Offline celticsclay

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8748
  • Tommy Points: 966
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.

Moranis you really got to stop overselling the chances of this going number 1 and acting like it completely kills the pick. There is at absolute worst a 14% chance of the pick being number 1 with the new odds. Steph Curry can hit better than that from half court. Lets not run around like crazy over something that is between 10-15% chance of happening at worst. It obviously would really suck if it happened, but its just not very likely.

Re: Can the Celtics waive their protection on the Laker pick?
« Reply #46 on: April 13, 2018, 03:13:24 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • Walter Brown
  • ********************************
  • Posts: 32233
  • Tommy Points: 5293
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.

Moranis you really got to stop overselling the chances of this going number 1 and acting like it completely kills the pick. There is at absolute worst a 14% chance of the pick being number 1 with the new odds. Steph Curry can hit better than that from half court. Lets not run around like crazy over something that is between 10-15% chance of happening at worst. It obviously would really suck if it happened, but its just not very likely.
It may be unlikely but has to be considered when placing value on that 2019 Sactown pick. Just assuming the pick will land 2-10 is a bad assumption, one, I am guessing, a good GM would not make. That 10-15 percent chances really lowers the value of that pick.

Re: Can the Celtics waive their protection on the Laker pick?
« Reply #47 on: April 13, 2018, 03:24:52 PM »

Offline celticsclay

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8748
  • Tommy Points: 966
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.

Moranis you really got to stop overselling the chances of this going number 1 and acting like it completely kills the pick. There is at absolute worst a 14% chance of the pick being number 1 with the new odds. Steph Curry can hit better than that from half court. Lets not run around like crazy over something that is between 10-15% chance of happening at worst. It obviously would really suck if it happened, but its just not very likely.
It may be unlikely but has to be considered when placing value on that 2019 Sactown pick. Just assuming the pick will land 2-10 is a bad assumption, one, I am guessing, a good GM would not make. That 10-15 percent chances really lowers the value of that pick.

I mean calling it 20% when the absolute worst is 14% is literally overselling the likelihood. If you had to run a projection the average is probably about 10% cause it is certainly possible they end up 5th to 7th in odds.

Also what are you talking about with it ending worse than 10th? Are the kings getting paul George for this?

Re: Can the Celtics waive their protection on the Laker pick?
« Reply #48 on: April 13, 2018, 03:30:18 PM »

Online Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18280
  • Tommy Points: 864
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.

Moranis you really got to stop overselling the chances of this going number 1 and acting like it completely kills the pick. There is at absolute worst a 14% chance of the pick being number 1 with the new odds. Steph Curry can hit better than that from half court. Lets not run around like crazy over something that is between 10-15% chance of happening at worst. It obviously would really suck if it happened, but its just not very likely.
It may be unlikely but has to be considered when placing value on that 2019 Sactown pick. Just assuming the pick will land 2-10 is a bad assumption, one, I am guessing, a good GM would not make. That 10-15 percent chances really lowers the value of that pick.

I mean calling it 20% when the absolute worst is 14% is literally overselling the likelihood. If you had to run a projection the average is probably about 10% cause it is certainly possible they end up 5th to 7th in odds.

Also what are you talking about with it ending worse than 10th? Are the kings getting paul George for this?
I didn't know the percentage note the (or whatever the new percentage is).  For someone complaining about nit picking, you sure do a lot of it.
Mock Deadline - Hornets - Current Roster
PG - Teague, Rubio, MCW, Stone
SG - Monk, Lamb, Muhammad
SF - Wiggins, Sefolosha, Bacon
PF - Kaminsky, Faried, O'Bryant
C - Howard, Bradley

Re: Can the Celtics waive their protection on the Laker pick?
« Reply #49 on: April 13, 2018, 03:36:36 PM »

Offline celticsclay

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8748
  • Tommy Points: 966
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.

Moranis you really got to stop overselling the chances of this going number 1 and acting like it completely kills the pick. There is at absolute worst a 14% chance of the pick being number 1 with the new odds. Steph Curry can hit better than that from half court. Lets not run around like crazy over something that is between 10-15% chance of happening at worst. It obviously would really suck if it happened, but its just not very likely.
It may be unlikely but has to be considered when placing value on that 2019 Sactown pick. Just assuming the pick will land 2-10 is a bad assumption, one, I am guessing, a good GM would not make. That 10-15 percent chances really lowers the value of that pick.

I mean calling it 20% when the absolute worst is 14% is literally overselling the likelihood. If you had to run a projection the average is probably about 10% cause it is certainly possible they end up 5th to 7th in odds.

Also what are you talking about with it ending worse than 10th? Are the kings getting paul George for this?
I didn't know the percentage note the (or whatever the new percentage is).  For someone complaining about nit picking, you sure do a lot of it.
classic. TP Moranis

Re: Can the Celtics waive their protection on the Laker pick?
« Reply #50 on: April 13, 2018, 03:43:57 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • Walter Brown
  • ********************************
  • Posts: 32233
  • Tommy Points: 5293
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.

Moranis you really got to stop overselling the chances of this going number 1 and acting like it completely kills the pick. There is at absolute worst a 14% chance of the pick being number 1 with the new odds. Steph Curry can hit better than that from half court. Lets not run around like crazy over something that is between 10-15% chance of happening at worst. It obviously would really suck if it happened, but its just not very likely.
It may be unlikely but has to be considered when placing value on that 2019 Sactown pick. Just assuming the pick will land 2-10 is a bad assumption, one, I am guessing, a good GM would not make. That 10-15 percent chances really lowers the value of that pick.

I mean calling it 20% when the absolute worst is 14% is literally overselling the likelihood. If you had to run a projection the average is probably about 10% cause it is certainly possible they end up 5th to 7th in odds.

Also what are you talking about with it ending worse than 10th? Are the kings getting paul George for this?
Not sure what you are asking here

Re: Can the Celtics waive their protection on the Laker pick?
« Reply #51 on: April 13, 2018, 04:03:16 PM »

Offline celticsclay

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8748
  • Tommy Points: 966
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.

Moranis you really got to stop overselling the chances of this going number 1 and acting like it completely kills the pick. There is at absolute worst a 14% chance of the pick being number 1 with the new odds. Steph Curry can hit better than that from half court. Lets not run around like crazy over something that is between 10-15% chance of happening at worst. It obviously would really suck if it happened, but its just not very likely.
It may be unlikely but has to be considered when placing value on that 2019 Sactown pick. Just assuming the pick will land 2-10 is a bad assumption, one, I am guessing, a good GM would not make. That 10-15 percent chances really lowers the value of that pick.

I mean calling it 20% when the absolute worst is 14% is literally overselling the likelihood. If you had to run a projection the average is probably about 10% cause it is certainly possible they end up 5th to 7th in odds.

Also what are you talking about with it ending worse than 10th? Are the kings getting paul George for this?
Not sure what you are asking here
You said it is a dumb assumption to say the pick the would end up 2-10. I agree with you we shouldn't assume there is no chance it could be number 1, but I am not sure what you mean with the 10 part. Are you saying you think there is some reasonable chance that the pick ends up worse than 10th? Cause unless they sign someone like Paul George that really doesn't seem possible. In a season where there was more tanking than ever you had to get 39 wins to pick 11th. If the Kings win 39 or more games next year with Fox, WCS, Hield and a lottery pick it would be one of the most improbable seasons in sports. They would actually need to sign someone like George to bring them there. I think Lebron on that team they may only be .500. There just isn't a lot of top end talent.

Re: Can the Celtics waive their protection on the Laker pick?
« Reply #52 on: April 13, 2018, 04:15:55 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • Walter Brown
  • ********************************
  • Posts: 32233
  • Tommy Points: 5293
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.

Moranis you really got to stop overselling the chances of this going number 1 and acting like it completely kills the pick. There is at absolute worst a 14% chance of the pick being number 1 with the new odds. Steph Curry can hit better than that from half court. Lets not run around like crazy over something that is between 10-15% chance of happening at worst. It obviously would really suck if it happened, but its just not very likely.
It may be unlikely but has to be considered when placing value on that 2019 Sactown pick. Just assuming the pick will land 2-10 is a bad assumption, one, I am guessing, a good GM would not make. That 10-15 percent chances really lowers the value of that pick.

I mean calling it 20% when the absolute worst is 14% is literally overselling the likelihood. If you had to run a projection the average is probably about 10% cause it is certainly possible they end up 5th to 7th in odds.

Also what are you talking about with it ending worse than 10th? Are the kings getting paul George for this?
Not sure what you are asking here
You said it is a dumb assumption to say the pick the would end up 2-10. I agree with you we shouldn't assume there is no chance it could be number 1, but I am not sure what you mean with the 10 part. Are you saying you think there is some reasonable chance that the pick ends up worse than 10th? Cause unless they sign someone like Paul George that really doesn't seem possible. In a season where there was more tanking than ever you had to get 39 wins to pick 11th. If the Kings win 39 or more games next year with Fox, WCS, Hield and a lottery pick it would be one of the most improbable seasons in sports. They would actually need to sign someone like George to bring them there. I think Lebron on that team they may only be .500. There just isn't a lot of top end talent.
I said 10 because yes, there is a chance Sacramento's pick ends up 10th, whether that be because they somehow end up as the 10th worse team or if its because they end up7th,  8th or 9th and a team or teams, with the new higher chances of getting into the top 4, not 3, get boosted into the top 4 from behind them. Its still a posdibility they could pick 10th.

And so when you look at the chance of the pick beung 1st and the Celtics getting a mid to late 20s pick and the chance that the pick could land 9th or 10th, the Sactown pick can't be valued as a sure fire top 2-5 pick. In trading the Sac pick, other GMs will definitely consider these chances.

Re: Can the Celtics waive their protection on the Laker pick?
« Reply #53 on: April 13, 2018, 04:33:48 PM »

Offline celticsclay

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8748
  • Tommy Points: 966
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.

Moranis you really got to stop overselling the chances of this going number 1 and acting like it completely kills the pick. There is at absolute worst a 14% chance of the pick being number 1 with the new odds. Steph Curry can hit better than that from half court. Lets not run around like crazy over something that is between 10-15% chance of happening at worst. It obviously would really suck if it happened, but its just not very likely.
It may be unlikely but has to be considered when placing value on that 2019 Sactown pick. Just assuming the pick will land 2-10 is a bad assumption, one, I am guessing, a good GM would not make. That 10-15 percent chances really lowers the value of that pick.

I mean calling it 20% when the absolute worst is 14% is literally overselling the likelihood. If you had to run a projection the average is probably about 10% cause it is certainly possible they end up 5th to 7th in odds.

Also what are you talking about with it ending worse than 10th? Are the kings getting paul George for this?
Not sure what you are asking here
You said it is a dumb assumption to say the pick the would end up 2-10. I agree with you we shouldn't assume there is no chance it could be number 1, but I am not sure what you mean with the 10 part. Are you saying you think there is some reasonable chance that the pick ends up worse than 10th? Cause unless they sign someone like Paul George that really doesn't seem possible. In a season where there was more tanking than ever you had to get 39 wins to pick 11th. If the Kings win 39 or more games next year with Fox, WCS, Hield and a lottery pick it would be one of the most improbable seasons in sports. They would actually need to sign someone like George to bring them there. I think Lebron on that team they may only be .500. There just isn't a lot of top end talent.
I said 10 because yes, there is a chance Sacramento's pick ends up 10th, whether that be because they somehow end up as the 10th worse team or if its because they end up7th,  8th or 9th and a team or teams, with the new higher chances of getting into the top 4, not 3, get boosted into the top 4 from behind them. Its still a posdibility they could pick 10th.

And so when you look at the chance of the pick beung 1st and the Celtics getting a mid to late 20s pick and the chance that the pick could land 9th or 10th, the Sactown pick can't be valued as a sure fire top 2-5 pick. In trading the Sac pick, other GMs will definitely consider these chances.

Sure... but I think saying it is very likely it ends up 2-7 is reasonable and I would much prefer that to getting the 10th pick in this years draft. Which is what this thread was originally asking. I still think we would be crazy to do that trade. Mikal bridges is going there in the first mock I saw. I would be happier with a shot at 2, 3, 4 or 5 next year than that (and i think the 76ers would too).

Re: Can the Celtics waive their protection on the Laker pick?
« Reply #54 on: April 13, 2018, 05:18:52 PM »

Offline CFAN38

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3606
  • Tommy Points: 287
The Lakers pick is currently slated to be #10. I wouldn't swap the rights to next years Kings pick for #10 however if it had ended up 7 or 8 I would likely take the trade and even add the clippers pick as an incentive.

I assume the following players will go top 6

1-2. Ayton and Doncic

3. Jackson JR

4-6 Bagely, Young, Bamba,

That would likely mean the Cs could land Carter at 7 or 8 and maybe even Bamba if a player surprises people and jumps into that top 6. 


Re: Can the Celtics waive their protection on the Laker pick?
« Reply #55 on: April 13, 2018, 05:20:04 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • Walter Brown
  • ********************************
  • Posts: 32233
  • Tommy Points: 5293
Actually the OP was asking if the 2-5 protection could be waived, which it can't. The discussion devolved into which pick would you want and how to value each pick, especially as compared to each other. I think I would rather have the 10th pick this year. I think its a much better chance of getting the better overall player.

Re: Can the Celtics waive their protection on the Laker pick?
« Reply #56 on: April 13, 2018, 05:57:12 PM »

Offline libermaniac

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1698
  • Tommy Points: 157
Actually the OP was asking if the 2-5 protection could be waived, which it can't. The discussion devolved into which pick would you want and how to value each pick, especially as compared to each other. I think I would rather have the 10th pick this year. I think its a much better chance of getting the better overall player.
In other words, it should've been a 2 post thread.  OP and then "No".   ;)

Re: Can the Celtics waive their protection on the Laker pick?
« Reply #57 on: April 13, 2018, 06:08:06 PM »

Offline rondofan1255

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1253
  • Tommy Points: 120
I prefer Kings pick with protections over #10 Lakers pick.

Re: Can the Celtics waive their protection on the Laker pick?
« Reply #58 on: April 13, 2018, 06:23:28 PM »

Offline celticsclay

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8748
  • Tommy Points: 966
I prefer Kings pick with protections over #10 Lakers pick.

We can do a poll, I would be pretty surprised if most people didn't agree with you.

Re: Can the Celtics waive their protection on the Laker pick?
« Reply #59 on: April 13, 2018, 06:30:51 PM »

Offline footey

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7149
  • Tommy Points: 833
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 don’t 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 don’t like anyone at 10 but Celtics do. Why wouldn’t 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.

Sure but they would take that into account. Mathematically a pretty low risk and if it does they’ll be ecstatic and also keep their own 1st round pick.