# What's the deal with our draft pick?



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

I was under the impression that it was against the rules to trade #1's in 2 consecutive years but I keep hearing that we don't have one this year. We obviously traded last years but i thought the other one was in 06. Who has the real documented story?


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

Maybe the Knicks have the 1st round pick from another team?

You / your team doesn't have to have their own pick, they just need to have 1 1st round pick every other year.

-Petey


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

You can't trade two consecutive _future_ picks. But last year's was a current pick.

We can't trade this year's because we don't know with certainty that it wont yet get conveyed to Utah (who Phoenix traded it to). It's heavily protected so we'd have to have the 3rd or 4th best record in the league for it to be conveyed (I think it's protected thru pick 27 or 28.

However we could do a draft night trade of it.

So what I'm not sure of is whether this year's pick is still considered a "future" pick. I think it is, meaning we can not this year trade our 2006 pick unless we can pick up another elsewhere.

Where it really gets complicated is whether that pick to Utah will be considered a future pick every year until it is conveyed. I may be able to ask somewhere, let me know...

But bottom line, we still have this years pick unless it's something like the 27th or worse, in which case it would go to Utah.


----------



## NYKBaller (Oct 29, 2003)

We have this years pick, you can't trade consecutive. Utah has our pick next year...


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>NYKBaller</b>!
> We have this years pick, you can't trade consecutive. Utah has our pick next year...


Not true. If this years pick were unprotected it would go to Utah. Last year's pick was current, this year's was future, so it works.

Next year's only goes to Utah if it's the 25th or 26th or later pick. It's heavily protected thru 2010, at which time it becomes unprotected.


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

*Oak...*

I thought the deal was CONSECUTIVE picks because of the Cav's poor dealings years ago when they traded a boatload of picks in a row. You could be right, but I would like to see the rule somewhere. Having a 2006 would be great if we land in the lottery because Greg Oden is a franchise player. I doubt we will sink that far, though, next year, or get good enough to have Utah get ours this year. IT should take a stab at accumulating a couple of first rounders for 06....you never know.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

If we couldn't trade this years pick there'd be no need for it to be protected. Similarly, if Utah was sure to get it next year there would be no point in it being protected.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>NYKBaller</b>!
> We have this years pick, you can't trade consecutive. Utah has our pick next year...


Actually you may be right. Seems with all I've seen debated on the subject some of the erroneous stuff is what stayed with me.

There's this:



> > I would love to see which bylaw you are getting this from since it is obviously not in the CBA. I see a major flaw in that reasoning. By that logic we would have never been allowed to trade our 2004 pick (in advance when it was still considered a future pick) AND a future conditionally protected pick at the same time "SINCE THERE'S A CHANCE THE 2005 pick is CONVEYED" You see, the flaw there, is that our initial trade would have included 2 potentially sequential back to back picks by your reasoning. In addition this would handicap every team that traded a future pick from dealing any first round picks except in draftnight deals until the delivery of that future pick, and we all know that that is not true since it has been done in the recent past.
> >
> > I cannot find an example at the moment here at work, but I think you can see the flaw here.
> >
> ...


Then there is this



> Jazz(FU) wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


then this



> Jazz(FU) wrote:
> 
> -= original quote snipped =-
> 
> ...


Lastly this



> Both picks from the Marbury deal was traded to Utah because the Jazz agreed to take Googliotas' contract. By doing this the Suns avoided the Luxury tax. Now to the actual trade involving the Knicks and the Suns. The Knicks gave up an unconditional #1 pick in the 2004 draft (which became Kirk Synyder, drafted by the Jazz) and a conditional 2006 pick top 24 protected, 2007 top 23 protected, 2008 top 22 protected, 2009 top 21 protected OR 2010 unconditional. Since the trade was done in Jan 2004 and thus before the 2004 draft, the 2005 pick IS UNAVAILABLE TO TRADE UNTIL THE PICK IS SELECTED AND CANNOT BE IN THE ORIGINAL TRADE AGREEMENT MEANING NO SECRET AGREEMENTS (see the Timberwolves and the Joe Smith affair). Now after the pick is selected the Knicks CAN offer it to the Jazz satisfying the second conditional pick, its there choice and are under no obligation to do it since it was not in the original trade agreement which would violate the CBA!


Make of it what you will, look slike we have the 05 pick and likely the 06 pick as it's so heavily protected.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

You techincally cannot trade consecutive picks.

However, you can trade the pick AFTER it has been made. Meaning, a draft night trade. You aren't trading the pick at that point, *you are trading the rights to the specific player drafted.*


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> You techincally cannot trade consecutive picks.
> 
> However, you can trade the pick AFTER it has been made. Meaning, a draft night trade. You aren't trading the pick at that point, *you are trading the rights to the specific player drafted.*


I'm pretty sure you can trade picks, there just has to be special circumstances, such as if you had traded your 04, you can actually trade your 05 pick on draft night of 05. If you have picked the player, the player has monitorary value towards the cap, while as a pick they do not, perhaps making trades easier.

-Petey


----------

