The Timberwolves seem intent on trading Kevin Garnett for youth and picks.
(From the Szczerbiak deal) The Celtics are slated to get a Minnesota first rounder two years after the Wolves finish outside the bottom ten. This is because a top 10 protected Minny pick must first go to the Clippers, followed by a two year waiting period.
There is a league mandated expiration date on that pick to the Celtics. The Wolves must finish outside the bottom ten by 2010— that's three more seasons. Otherwise the first rounder turns Cinderella-like, into an measly second rounder. (insert ominous organ music)
If the Wolves swap Garnett for youth, there's a really good chance they will stay really bad for a really long time in the deep tough West.
This is something to keep in mind when (and if) Minnesota makes their big trade.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
That's terrible. Can't the Celtics file some kind of grievance?
No on the grievance.
And, yes on the terrible part.
When the deal was made there was no way to expect that a team with Kevin Garnett (at that time a top 5 player) could ever go five consecutive years at the bottom of league's barrel.
Things change fast though. Here it is two years later and it looks like they're exploring blowing it up.
As the Lost In Space Robot used to say, "Danger!"
Thing is, the protections on that pick expire before the pick itself does, so say the Wolves handed the Clips their pick in 2010— In that case the Celtics would get the Minnesota first rounder in 2012 UNPROTECTED.
Hey Gant,
I think you might be a little off in your assessment of the situation. And unfortunately, it's worse news for the Celts. Minnesota HAS to have a pick that's not a top-10 NEXT YEAR (2008 Draft) or the Celts lose that 1st Rounder from Minny.
The pick Minny owes the Clips is Top-10 protected. If Minnesota gets the #10 pick next year, the Clips don't get it and we're screwed. That's because if the Clips don't get their pick until 2009, then the C's couldn't get their Minny pick until 2011 (due to the "You can't trade 1st round picks in consecutive years" rule). They have to skip a year.
But, since the Minn/Boston trade took place in 2005/2006, another obscure rule could negate that 1st round pick owed to the Celts: You can't trade a pick more than five years into the future. So Minny could trade Boston their 2010 pick, but not their 2011 one.
So Minny HAS to give next year's pick to the Clips or we lose the pick Minny owes us.
Thanks for taking time to write Kevin.
I'm often wrong. But this time what I said was accurate.
Here's a great article written by Michael Zarren
at Celtics.com a while back that explains everything.
Read the small print at the bottom of his piece.
Hi Gant,
Thanks for being polite in your response. I sure hope that you, and Michael Zarren are correct. That would be great.
I based my information on the most recent CBA which I read about at the link I'll attach below. Unlike what Michael states about not being able to trade a 1st round pick more than SEVEN years into the future, this site claims that the rule is FIVE years.
Like I said, I sure hope that this site is wrong. The link below will send you right to Item #71 which has the specific language about this rule in Paragraph four.
I would love to know that we have until 2012 to receive the TWolves pick. Can you confirm that this site's information is incorrect?
http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#71
Yes, the 7 year expiration date is correct. Michael Zarren works for the Celtics. It's his job to know these things.
I think he wrote that article out of exasperation with all the incorrect stuff about the team's future pick obligations going around the internet at the time.
Darn that internet!
Hiya Gant,
While I agree that someone like Michael who works for the Celtics is probably an authority on things like the CBA rules, the site I linked for you seemed to be pretty accurate on most things.
While I know it's not your job to be an investigative journalist on this issue, I wonder if there's any way to get actual proof on the "Seven Year" vs. "Five Year" discrepancy between these two parties.
I guess I've just learned to question authority and not take a "because I (or in this case "Michael") said so" statement to be the absolute truth.
I totally understand if you don't have time for this. I wonder if the CBA is up on the web somewhere else other than the site I linked...
Kevin
All I can say is, since the diimnishing protections go to 2012, so must the pick; and I'm sure he wouldn't have gotten the years of those protections wrong.
Perhaps because the Clippers are involved in a previous draft trade with Minnesota, it alters things somewhat- allowing 5 years for the pick to be locked in, before the exact position is determined two years later. I don't know about that.
But at any rate I am confident Mr. Zarren with his information coming directly from within the Celtics organization, is correct.
Patricia Bender has some knowledge about these things. (I think that's her name.) I don't have her site address, but you could try googling her to find it.
Cool. Thanks Gant. I hope you're right about the Clippers pick causing some type of delayed activation of that five year rule. I might post something on the RealGM board to find out.
Supposedly Larry Coon, who wrote that CBA site I linked with the help of Patricia Bender, is pretty reputable. So if his site says that it's five years then I'm worried. Michael specifically states "The situation is further complicated by a league rule that prevents any deals being made involving drafts more than 7 drafts into the future." So someone's information is incorrect.
And God, I hope that Ainge didn't get bamboozled by McHale into thinking it was seven years if it's really five. Or perhaps Kevin was mistaken on it and Danny just assumed it was true? I remember reading an article in the Herald a few months ago that also said something about this being five years and the Celts potentially losing this 1st rounder. But, I could be wrong. I'm not trying to say I'm right, I just want to find out the truth because I want that pick!
Oh boy. I'll let you know what they say on Real GM.
Hi Kevin and Gant, I've enjoyed your discussion.
Several months ago, I looked through the CBA, and it actually doesn't say anything about trading future draft picks. So, I then wrote to Larry Coon about this disagreement between the Celtics.com site and the Salary Cap FAQ site (7 years vs. 5 years).
Mr. Coon agrees that the CBA says nothing about the issue; he has a league source who told him the 5-year thing, but he said he never got details and never got it in writing, so he knows that the info on his site is not the final word.
His guess is that the rule is that, in his words, "it's seven years when you make the previous years conditional, but five years if you're just trading future picks".
So, for instance, this summer (after this draft), the Celtics could trade away their 2012 first round pick (5 years hence), but not their 2013 pick. But, the Celtics could trade a conditional future pick with conditions that extend all the way until 2014 (like, for instance, the pick is top-3 protected until 2014).
This is just his guess, but it sounds reasonable to me, and it resolves the dispute.
Best,
Dave
There you have it! Utilizing awesome larrycoon super powers, Dave has swooped in and saved the day.
Thank you.
Hazzah! Thanks David for clearing that up. I was considering it a foregone conclusion that the Celts would lose that pick. Now I have some hope. Although my four-year-old will be in middle school by the time they get the pick.
Still, the Wally/Kandi/Ricky Davis/Blount/Banks trade can't be judged fully until that pick is given or expires. I think as of right now, the only reason the Wolves have the better end of it is because Davis is playing so well and Wally has been hurt. After one healthy year of Wally scoring 17.5/game and 6 boards and 4 assists I think it will be pretty even. And then if we get a high pick from the Wolves it will be a steal. Plus, Wally's contract becomes immensely valuable two years from now so we may see some more value if he's traded.
On another note, I also read on Mr. Coon's site about another caveat that may allow the Celts to get that pick a little sooner. If the Wolves somehow acquire a 1st round pick in a trade during the same draft that they give their own 1st rounder (if it falls outside the Top 10) to the Clippers, then the Celtics will be eligible to receive the T-Wolves pick the very next year.
That's because the "you can't trade 1st rounders in consecutive years" rule is negated if you acquire another pick in a particular draft. Even if the T-Wolves give a pick to the Clips, if they acquire another one for that same draft they will not be without a 1st rounder for two straight years. So they can give a 1st rounder to the Celts that next year (pending all the conditions agreed to in the trade - i.e. outside of the Top 14 the first year, and so on, and so on).
So, I'm hoping the TWolves finish with the 11th worst record or better next year, give the Clips their 2008 pick, acquire another 2008 pick in a trade, and then become eligible to give the Celts a pick in 2009.
Whew! If you read all of that you must really be a fan.
My head just exploded. Too bad there's no zombies around— who are reputed to enjoy such events.
With the Wolves so zealously shaking things up, maybe they will acquire another pick at just the proper moment.
I have many opinions about zombies by the way- but that's an article for another day.
Ha ha. I knew that might be a little too much. Thanks for eliciting this conversation with your blog though. It's been fun.
Yeah, as you guys know, it's as simple as this: if Minnesota makes the playoffs by 2010, we get a 1st round pick by 2012. If Minnesota fails to make the playoffs by 2010, we get a 2nd round pick in 2012. So the question is: what are the odds that the TWolves can make the playoffs by 2010?
Well, if they keep Garnett this year, we'd better hope they make the playoffs this year, because if they have Garnett and don't make the playoffs, then they definitely lose Garnett next summer and probably won't make the playoffs by 2010.
But even if they keep Garnett, that team is at best a very marginal playoff team, especially with teams like Seattle and Portland poised to improve a lot. So I think if they keep Garnett we'll never see the 1st round pick.
That's why I'm hoping they trade Garnett for something good. Hopefully, over the next 3 years, Foye, McCants, Ricky Davis, Joakim Noah(?), and whoever they get for Garnett, can grow up into a playoff team.
Fingers crossed....
Post a Comment