Celtics trade Josh Richardson, Romeo Langford and a 1st round pick to Spurs for Derrick White

[benhogan]

I don't think this is the case at all. Unless I am missing something.

In the pick swap scenario you lose your own pick in order to get the better pick. In a straight up trade, you get to keep your own pick regardless of whether the other pick is better or worse.

Agreed. If we are estimating future value today, there is no way in the world that

2028 draft pick = 2028 swap

I'd be inclined to guesstimate a 2028 outright pick has ~3X the value of a 2028 swap

 

[JakeRae]

Agreed. If we are estimating future value today, there is no way in the world that

2028 draft pick = 2028 swap

I'd be inclined to guesstimate a 2028 outright pick has ~3X the value of a 2028 swap

I’d guess it’s close to 2x only because of the outsized and non-linear value of a top pick. Basically, while swapping 16 for 14 is worth almost nothing and acquiring 14 in addition to 16 has a lot of value, swapping 20 for 2 isn’t really much different than having both. In addition, the value of a possible 2-5 pick is so much greater than most other picks that the chance of getting it in either the swap or trade scenario is a very significant part of the value and one much less impacted by the swap rights.

Swaps are a bit more complex than that because you need to consider franchise quality and roster status of both teams. That San Antonio is a good franchise with a young, albeit not amazing, roster makes the swap more valuable as it makes it less likely they have a high pick in the swap year. On the other hand, that the Celtics have a young superstar and are a well-run organization with a lot of other young talent significantly diminishes the value of the swap. I cannot recall a team like the Celtics trading a swap like this before, and it really matters that we are both good and young. Good old teams, who are typically the ones trading far out unprotected swaps, have a lot more value because there are a lot of pathways to them becoming bad, as we all recall from the Nets. Those scenarios still exist for the Celtics but the probabilities are a lot lower because if Tatum is healthy and stays in Boston, the swap won’t be valuable. That is a much greater likelihood than if KD/Pierce can keep the Nets in contention into their late 30s or the same for Lebron or for KD/Kyrie. The Bucks are more like this in that the swap rights they traded out for Jrue weren’t anywhere near as valuable as those the Nets traded for Harden because Giannis is extremely unlikely to stop being a top 5 player in the game anytime during the period the picks relate to.

In other words, it matters a lot to the value of a swap if you have a young superstar. We do. He obviously could leave before 2028, and his long term status is less certain that Giannis’s was for the Bucks, but his presence makes a huge difference in thinking about trading even far out swap rights because we’re talking about a time where, if we still have Tatum and he is healthy, we’ll have a perennial MVP candidate who is still in his prime.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

Exactly. So they shouldn’t be complaining about a 2028 pick swap. Especially one where we simply don’t have enough information to evaluate it.
But I have a simple solution. We should petition Brad to trade the pick. That way, some other teams fans can have anxiety attacks about our record in 2028.

If a GM is concerned about a pick swap 6 years out he may never make a trade in this league.

If a GM is concerned about a pick swap 6 year out that, barring anything unforeseen, is in the prime of both Tatum and Jaylen’s careers he shouldn’t be in his position.

 

[benhogan]

I’d guess it’s close to 2x only because of the outsized and non-linear value of a top pick. Basically, while swapping 16 for 14 is worth almost nothing and acquiring 14 in addition to 16 has a lot of value, swapping 20 for 2 isn’t really much different than having both. In addition, the value of a possible 2-5 pick is so much greater than most other picks that the chance of getting it in either the swap or trade scenario is a very significant part of the value and one much less impacted by the swap rights.

Swaps are a bit more complex than that because you need to consider franchise quality and roster status of both teams. That San Antonio is a good franchise with a young, albeit not amazing, roster makes the swap more valuable as it makes it less likely they have a high pick in the swap year. On the other hand, that the Celtics have a young superstar and are a well-run organization with a lot of other young talent significantly diminishes the value of the swap. I cannot recall a team like the Celtics trading a swap like this before, and it really matters that we are both good and young. Good old teams, who are typically the ones trading far out unprotected swaps, have a lot more value because there are a lot of pathways to them becoming bad, as we all recall from the Nets. Those scenarios still exist for the Celtics but the probabilities are a lot lower because if Tatum is healthy and stays in Boston, the swap won’t be valuable. That is a much greater likelihood than if KD/Pierce can keep the Nets in contention into their late 30s or the same for Lebron or for KD/Kyrie. The Bucks are more like this in that the swap rights they traded out for Jrue weren’t anywhere near as valuable as those the Nets traded for Harden because Giannis is extremely unlikely to stop being a top 5 player in the game anytime during the period the picks relate to.

In other words, it matters a lot to the value of a swap if you have a young superstar. We do. He obviously could leave before 2028, and his long term status is less certain that Giannis’s was for the Bucks, but his presence makes a huge difference in thinking about trading even far out swap rights because we’re talking about a time where, if we still have Tatum and he is healthy, we’ll have a perennial MVP candidate who is still in his prime.

2X is the absolute floor in regards to relative value

1. 50/50 proposition it conveys (so 2X) +
2. if it does convey, the Celtics receive SA's pick

 

[mcpickl]

What do you think the probability is? And how are you defining "hitting big"?

Or, to come at it from another direction, where do you draw the line in terms of too high a price to pay?

I don't know exactly what the probability is.

I define hitting big as a top 4 pick, since that's where the current lottery cutoff is that all non-playoff teams can get lucky with ping pong ball bounces and end up that high.

I already explained I drew the line at too high of a price to pay as I'm not leaving any opportunity to give up a top 4 pick that far out for a player at the Derrick White level. I'm just never doing it. If San Antonio was walking away with my demand for a top 4 protection on the swap, I walk away and move on with Josh Richardson and my first round pick.

Exactly. So they shouldn’t be complaining about a 2028 pick swap. Especially one where we simply don’t have enough information to evaluate it.
But I have a simple solution. We should petition Brad to trade the pick. That way, some other teams fans can have anxiety attacks about our record in 2028.

I think exactly the opposite.

We shouldn't trade a 2028 pick swap willy nilly because we simply don’t have enough information to evaluate it.

 

[mcpickl]

I said this a while ago and I can't believe people are still talking about the 2028 pick, but if the Celtics are in such a position that they need to rebuild in 2028:

• Things will have gone very wrong, and they will probably be making a bunch of trades and have a totally different collection of picks and players coming back (If something awful happens to Tatum and he is no longer a good player, you're blowing up the team and trading everyone else)
• It will be a multi-year process so that particular year's draft will be less important, and
• Most importantly, Brad / Ime will most likely be gone which means THEY BARELY CARE about including a 2028 pick swap. There is no incentive for them to care about this because if they are in the lottery by then and losing that pick really hurts, then someone else will be cleaning up their mess and no future employer is going to fault them for not expecting that to happen.

Why does it matter to me, a fan, if Brad/Ime BARELY CARE about a 2028 pick swap because they'll be gone and someone else will be cleaning up their mess if things go wrong?

I'll still be here as a fan.

Is that what you're looking for in management? People that wouldn't care about the organizations future because they'll be gone anyway?

I don't at all believe that's how Brad/Ime are acting, but if they were in your theoretical scenario, they'd be the last people I'd want running my franchise.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

I don't know exactly what the probability is.

I define hitting big as a top 4 pick, since that's where the current lottery cutoff is that all non-playoff teams can get lucky with ping pong ball bounces and end up that high.

And it makes no difference to you whether the probability of giving up that top 4 pick (really, 2, 3, or 4 pick) is 10%, 1%, or 0.1%?

 

[Mystic Merlin]

What is Richardson going to do for them?

The paths to acquiring a good all round player like White at a good contract value within the next 1-2 years are….not numerous for a team over the cap without many other movable assets that you’d actually want to move. I wouldn’t want to be playing the MLE spin a wheel every year to hunt another guy who can handle the ball and defend like White.

 

[JakeRae]

2X is the absolute floor in regards to relative value

1. 50/50 proposition it conveys (so 2X) +
2. if it does convey, the Celtics receive SA's pick

That’s not the right framework. I’ll simplify. If I tell you there are two sets of three boxes, S-1, S-2, S-3 and C-1, C-2, C-3. In scenario 1 you get an S box and a C box. In scenario 2 you get the higher value of the two boxes but not both, and it’s impossible for the two boxes to be the same:

If box 1 is worth $10,000, box 2 is worth $1,000, box 3 is worth $100, the expected value of the swap is much greater than 50%.

That’s because you are stacking odds of the best outcome, which is much more valuable than the other outcomes:

S-1, C-2: swap gets you $10,000 and trade gets you $11,000.
S-1, C-3 swap gets you $10,000 and trade gets you $10,100.
S-2, C-1: swap gets you $10,000 and trade gets you $11,000.
S-2, C-3: swap gets you $1,000 and trade gets you $1,100.
S-3, C-1: swap gets you $10,000 and trade gets you $10,100.
S-3, C-2: swap gets you $1,000 and trade gets you $1,100.

The expected value of the trade is $7,400 and for the swap is $7,000. It’s not half is valuable because value isn’t linear so the improved chances of the best thing are much more valuable than the lost piece in the swap. Even if you do this as just the value of the C box being give up, the vastly greater value of the highest value box is critical. In the trade scenarios, Boston would trade away an average of $3,700 in value and get nothing. In the swap scenario they’d trade away an average of $3,500 in value and keep/receive an average of $400 in value.

Now, my example is designed to prove the point and obviously value isn’t shifting by orders of magnitude in the draft in the same way it is in my example, but this still shows the flaw in your logic. Put differently, it matters a lot more that if the Celtics get the second pick, the Spurs will almost certainly take it than it does that if we get the 26th pick there’s a reasonable chance we keep it or that they have to give us a pick back if we get the 2nd pick.

To be clear, I strongly support the trade and don’t say this to argue that it is risky, just to clarify that the way you are thinking about the risk is too simplified and therefore wrong.

 

[benhogan]

That’s not the right framework. I’ll simplify. If I tell you there are two sets of three boxes, S-1, S-2, S-3 and C-1, C-2, C-3. In scenario 1 you get an S box and a C box. In scenario 2 you get the higher value of the two boxes but not both, and it’s impossible for the two boxes to be the same:

If box 1 is worth $10,000, box 2 is worth $1,000, box 3 is worth $100, the expected value of the swap is much greater than 50%.

That’s because you are stacking odds of the best outcome, which is much more valuable than the other outcomes:

S-1, C-2: swap gets you $10,000 and trade gets you $11,000.
S-1, C-3 swap gets you $10,000 and trade gets you $10,100.
S-2, C-1: swap gets you $10,000 and trade gets you $11,000.
S-2, C-3: swap gets you $1,000 and trade gets you $1,100.
S-3, C-1: swap gets you $10,000 and trade gets you $10,100.
S-3, C-2: swap gets you $1,000 and trade gets you $1,100.

The expected value of the trade is $7,400 and for the swap is $7,000. It’s not half is valuable because value isn’t linear so the improved chances of the best thing are much more valuable than the lost piece in the swap. Even if you do this as just the value of the C box being give up, the vastly greater value of the highest value box is critical. In the trade scenarios, Boston would trade away an average of $3,700 in value and get nothing. In the swap scenario they’d trade away an average of $3,500 in value and keep/receive an average of $400 in value.

Now, my example is designed to prove the point and obviously value isn’t shifting by orders of magnitude in the draft in the same way it is in my example, but this still shows the flaw in your logic. Put differently, it matters a lot more that if the Celtics get the second pick, the Spurs will almost certainly take it than it does that if we get the 26th pick there’s a reasonable chance we keep it or that they have to give us a pick back if we get the 2nd pick.

To be clear, I strongly support the trade and don’t say this to argue that it is risky, just to clarify that the way you are thinking about the risk is too simplified and therefore wrong.

Sure after the 50/50 coin toss you'll have ~400 outcomes in the swap world, try placing a value on each, add them up, then divide. Depending on how you value each outcome you'll come up with something like 2-3X compared to an outright pick I'm guessing.

That's why the Nets wouldn't give up another first but gave up 2 a pick swap. Of course, now you'll tell me the C's got Tatum out of the swaps and then we'll be heading towards the player options favoring teams world that we all want to avoid

You do realize I was comparing a 2028 pick swap vs a 2028 1st round pick, right? I wasn't analyzing the trade

 

[lexrageorge]

Sure after the 50/50 coin toss you'll have ~400 outcomes in the swap world, try placing a value on each, add them up, then divide. Depending on how you value each outcome you'll come up with something like 2-3X.

That's why the Nets wouldn't give up another first but gave up 2 pick swaps. Of course, now you'll tell me the C's got Tatum out of the swaps and then we'll be heading towards the player options favoring teams world that we all want to avoid

The Nets gave up 3 firsts (James Young, Jaylen, and Collin Sexton) and one swap (turned into Tatum + Langford). Part of the reason for the swap is the NBA's rules about trading first round picks in consecutive seasons.

 

[TripleOT]

Pop is 73 and his team is stuck in middle-vile since his big three retired. Boston has a young GM, young coach, two superstars in their mid-20s, and two defensive superstars in their mid-20s. The Spurs probably will continue to hit on non high first round draft picks, but unless they tank to get a superstar, they’re probably going to be the worse team in 2028

 

[benhogan]

The Nets gave up 3 firsts (James Young, Jaylen, and Collin Sexton) and one swap (turned into Tatum + Langford). Part of the reason for the swap is the NBA's rules about trading first round picks in consecutive seasons.

you're right...I misremembered Wyc's claim that he told Danny to go back for more 1sts

 

[benhogan]

nm

 

[JakeRae]

Sure after the 50/50 coin toss you'll have ~400 outcomes in the swap world, try placing a value on each, add them up, then divide. Depending on how you value each outcome you'll come up with something like 2-3X compared to an outright pick I'm guessing.

That's why the Nets wouldn't give up another first but gave up 2 a pick swap. Of course, now you'll tell me the C's got Tatum out of the swaps and then we'll be heading towards the player options favoring teams world that we all want to avoid

You do realize I was comparing a 2028 pick swap vs a 2028 1st round pick, right? I wasn't analyzing the trade

I don’t follow your slippery slope argument as the comparison to the ridiculous player option argument here would be if either of us were saying swaps were more valuable than outright trades (obviously we aren’t).

I’m highly skeptical you’d get to 3x value and wouldn’t be shocked if a trade is less than 2x as valuable as a swap. I’m very confident you appear to be undervaluing swaps (as a general matter, not necessarily this particular one) because you’re not adequately accounting for the significant impact of the disproportional amount of value that is loaded into the top handful of picks and how that has a meaningful impact on closing the gap between trade value and swap value.

 

[mcpickl]

And it makes no difference to you whether the probability of giving up that top 4 pick (really, 2, 3, or 4 pick) is 10%, 1%, or 0.1%?

It makes a difference. I said I don't know what the probability is.

I don't know how the heck anyone could compute the probability 6 years down the road when we have zero idea who will be on the roster then. It's the whole point. If the swap was in the next couple seasons, it would be much easier to hazard a guess what the odds are of that swap being dangerous, because they have an excellent core locked in.

You, me, and everyone else has no idea what the odds are of that swap being terrible.

 

[benhogan]

I don’t follow your slippery slope argument as the comparison to the ridiculous player option argument here would be if either of us were saying swaps were more valuable than outright trades (obviously we aren’t).

I’m highly skeptical you’d get to 3x value and wouldn’t be shocked if a trade is less than 2x as valuable as a swap. I’m very confident you appear to be undervaluing swaps (as a general matter, not necessarily this particular one) because you’re not adequately accounting for the significant impact of the disproportional amount of value that is loaded into the top handful of picks and how that has a meaningful impact on closing the gap between trade value and swap value.

It's real simple, a 2028 Celtic 1st round pick is worth 2-3X more than a 2028 pick swap.

We were just comparing a 2028 1st round pick swap VS. with an outright pick in the 2028 draft.

I'm afraid you're misunderstanding the question that was posed by @Euclis20

I really would be curious to know how valuable a 1st round pick (6 years in the future) subject to a pick swap really is, when compared to a 1st round pick (also 6 years in the future) with no such conditions.

 

[lovegtm]

In other words, it matters a lot to the value of a swap if you have a young superstar. We do. He obviously could leave before 2028, and his long term status is less certain that Giannis’s was for the Bucks, but his presence makes a huge difference in thinking about trading even far out swap rights because we’re talking about a time where, if we still have Tatum and he is healthy, we’ll have a perennial MVP candidate who is still in his prime.

Minor but relevant nitpick: Giannis had not signed the supermax at the time the Jrue trade was made (Nov 24, 2020). He signed it a few weeks later, probably due to seeing the team was committed to winning.

The relevance? Supermaxes are hard to turn down, and you can make it a no-brainer for your star to sign one if you show willingness to put talent around him. As long as Brad can make Tatum happy in 2024, he'll sign the supermax.

Not coincidentally, trading 2028 pick swaps for the Derrick Whites of the world is the kind of deal that makes Tatum's supermax decision very easy, both in what it means for winning now, and what it signals about the franchise's commitment to making such moves going forward.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

It makes a difference. I said I don't know what the probability is.

I don't know how the heck anyone could compute the probability 6 years down the road when we have zero idea who will be on the roster then. It's the whole point. If the swap was in the next couple seasons, it would be much easier to hazard a guess what the odds are of that swap being dangerous, because they have an excellent core locked in.

You, me, and everyone else has no idea what the odds are of that swap being terrible.

Certain things have to happen for it to be terrible, that are not particularly likely.

 

[Devizier]

The swap is easy to game if you assume true randomness. The worst case is like 1/870 since the top pick is protected. There’s a 50% chance of no swap occurring. It’s more complicated in reality, obviously.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

The swap is easy to game if you assume true randomness. The worst case is like 1/870 since the top pick is protected. There’s a 50% chance of no swap occurring. It’s more complicated in reality, obviously.

How do you figure 1/870? That the probability that the Celtics would own pick 2 before the swap assuming true randomness? (I'm just asking about the underlying logic, not for equations).

 

[Devizier]

How do you figure 1/870? That the probability that the Celtics would own pick 2 before the swap assuming true randomness? (I'm just asking about the underlying logic, not for equations).

Back of the envelope but i fucked up by adding a 1 for an (impossible) tie instead of subtracting. The true odds are 1/812.

More informative would be something like a distribution showing the likeliest costs, with 50% at zero.

 

[lexrageorge]

I think the critics of the trade are undervaluing the importance of upgrading this season's roster for the playoff run. White > Richardson and White >>>>> Schroeder on this year's team and certainly next year's as well. And don't get me started what a disaster it would have been if Kanter had been in the rotation against the Nets instead of Theis, even if for half of Theis' minutes.

As for the swap: if you assume true randomness, which is about as reliable as any other method for a pick 6 years away, there are 812 possible combinations of picks 2-30 between the Celtics and Spurs. We can ignore the scenarios where either the Celtics (protected) or Spurs (swap becomes moot) attain the first pick (which covers 58 of the 870 total combinations assuming 30 picks). This calculation, of course, assumes no intervening expansion into Seattle or Las Vegas. Half of those 812 remaining combinations result in the swap being exercised (I'm ignoring some weird scenario where a team decides they would be better with the 28th pick instead of the 26th pick because they plan to stash a player anyway, but I'm not at all convinced a GM wouldn't exercise the swap to gain 1 or 2 draft slots no matter where they sit).

If Stevens decided to play the odds that Tatum and Brown will still be with the team in 2028, which would certainly skew the results towards the swap not being exercised, then I cannot fault his logic. The team could really use a deep playoff run this season, if for no other reason than to see where this Jay-led team stacks up against the league's iron when the games really matter.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

In terms of projecting into the future, the Celtics are one of the better managed teams in the NBA and they aren’t likely to be in “tanking by choice” mode in 2028. Having made this swap is all the more reason not to be. i think the odds are against them being a bottom feeder.

The Spurs are also one of the better managed teams in the NBA, but a lot of that is Pop and I don’t think he will still be at the helm by age 80.

The management comparison suggests that the two teams will be comparable Or maybe slight edge to the Celtics.

The Celtics have a young contender now while the Spurs are rebuilding. That could go either way. Not every young core stays together for 6 years - the vast majority do not. Many rebuilds fail.

The big risk for the Celtics is probably the scenario where there is some reconfiguring of the team going on in 2026 and 2027, and a key injury pushes them just out of the playoffs, where their 10th place in the east finish leads to a lottery that hits big for them, or I think his case the Spurs.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

I’m highly skeptical you’d get to 3x value and wouldn’t be shocked if a trade is less than 2x as valuable as a swap. I’m very confident you appear to be undervaluing swaps (as a general matter, not necessarily this particular one) because you’re not adequately accounting for the significant impact of the disproportional amount of value that is loaded into the top handful of picks and how that has a meaningful impact on closing the gap between trade value and swap value.

I'm not a math wiz like it seems everyone else who follows the NBA on this board but I don't understand the bolded.

We're comparing swaps to trade. If BOS has a high pick (e.g., 2-4), it seems to me that the values of the swap and the trade are equal because in all likelihood that pick will go to SAS. The swap has the potential to obviate some of that value if SAS happens to be terrible too.

Seems to me that the value of the top picks are already loaded into either scenario. Am I missing something here?

 

[slamminsammya]

Back of the envelope but i fucked up by adding a 1 for an (impossible) tie instead of subtracting. The true odds are 1/812.

More informative would be something like a distribution showing the likeliest costs, with 50% at zero.

I think I did the actual math many pages back, under the assumption team outcomes at that point are random.

 

[Devizier]

I think I did the actual math many pages back, under the assumption team outcomes at that point are random.

I have to admit, I checked out on the nth iteration of the pick swap discussion for many pages because I find it kind of irritating. It would be awesome if you can link the post so I can read it this time!

 

[DavidTai]

We're comparing swaps to trade. If BOS has a high pick (e.g., 2-4), it seems to me that the values of the swap and the trade are equal because in all likelihood that pick will go to SAS. The swap has the potential to obviate some of that value if SAS happens to be terrible too.

Seems to me that the value of the top picks are already loaded into either scenario. Am I missing something here?

My take on this quote is that there's a value between, say, #1 and #3 (the difference between picking Markelle Fultz and Jayson Tatum is the pick that became Romeo Langford...), or in this case, 2 and 4.

The higher the pick, the more inherent value there is compared to the lesser pick.

A 18-20 swap is minor. A HIGH pick swap is worth considerably more.

I don't think the odds of such a high swap is happening except in weirdly improbable odds, and think this risk is outweighed by the value of putting a team around Tatum and Brown such that they -want- to stay instead of storming off like Irving.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

I have to admit, I checked out on the nth iteration of the pick swap discussion for many pages because I find it kind of irritating. It would be awesome if you can link the post so I can read it this time!

I think this is it: https://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?threads/celtics-trade-josh-richardson-romeo-langford-and-a-1st-round-pick-to-spurs-for-derrick-white.35851/page-5#post-4869364

 

[benhogan]

The team could really use a deep playoff run this season, if for no other reason than to see where this Jay-led team stacks up against the league's iron when the games really matter.

Brad has a pretty decent idea since the bubble Celtics started Tatum, Brown, Smart, Theis

Grant was a rotational player. TimeLord was irrelevant, now he is very relevant

All those players are better now (Theis lesser role)

Add in Horford, White, Pritchard subtract Kemba on one leg, a PT/ineffective/injured Hayward, Brad W and Enes Kanter

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

The higher the pick, the more inherent value there is compared to the lesser pick.

A 18-20 swap is minor. A HIGH pick swap is worth considerably more.

Yes but we're not valuing the swap in isolation, we are trying to compare it to a trade.

If the Cs would be giving up the high pick in either scenario (trade or swap) so those scenarios feel basically even to me.

I guess to figure it out, you'd have to use some draft pick valuation table and then go through all of the various swap permutations and compare it to the absolute valuation for a trade. I'm with @benhogan that I'd be skeptical if a swap was anywhere near 50% of a trade as in 1/2 of the permutations, the swap goes away.

But what do I know?

 

[JakeRae]

I'm not a math wiz like it seems everyone else who follows the NBA on this board but I don't understand the bolded.

We're comparing swaps to trade. If BOS has a high pick (e.g., 2-4), it seems to me that the values of the swap and the trade are equal because in all likelihood that pick will go to SAS. The swap has the potential to obviate some of that value if SAS happens to be terrible too.

Seems to me that the value of the top picks are already loaded into either scenario. Am I missing something here?

No, the issue is that the Spurs get most of the potential Celtics high picks, so the forward looking value of a swap when compared to a trade needs to account for the fact that in most scenarios where the Celtics pick is high lottery (ignoring the protection since that applies in both trade and swap scenarios in the hypothetical), the Spurs get it. Since high lottery picks are a lot more valuable than mid or late firsts, that fact closes the gap in a lot of the value difference v. what you’d expect if you’re thinking about pick value as if it scales more linearly.

As a note that is relevant to the broader discussion, I think people tend to overvalue unprotected firsts by overweighting the likelihood of the high lottery outcome. Celtics fans are quite likely to do that more than other groups due to recency bias and how perfectly the Nets trade worked out for us. I think that’s a lot of what’s happening here with those who are against this trade due to the limited protection.

 

[Devizier]

I did the chart anyways.

X axis is draft positions lost
Y axis is N likelihood of each scenario (out of 812 possible)

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

No, the issue is that the Spurs get most of the potential Celtics high picks, so the forward looking value of a swap when compared to a trade needs to account for the fact that in most scenarios where the Celtics pick is high lottery (ignoring the protection since that applies in both trade and swap scenarios in the hypothetical), the Spurs get it. Since high lottery picks are a lot more valuable than mid or late firsts, that fact closes the gap in a lot of the value difference v. what you’d expect if you’re thinking about pick value as if it scales more linearly.

As a note that is relevant to the broader discussion, I think people tend to overvalue unprotected firsts by overweighting the likelihood of the high lottery outcome. Celtics fans are quite likely to do that more than other groups due to recency bias and how perfectly the Nets trade worked out for us. I think that’s a lot of what’s happening here with those who are against this trade due to the limited protection.

Thanks, I think you are saying that because the high draft picks are the most highly valued and these are also the picks that are most likely to be conveyed in a swap, that drives the value of the swap closer to the value of the trade. That makes sense to me.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

If Stevens decided to play the odds that Tatum and Brown will still be with the team in 2028, which would certainly skew the results towards the swap not being exercised, then I cannot fault his logic. The team could really use a deep playoff run this season, if for no other reason than to see where this Jay-led team stacks up against the league's iron when the games really matter.

I don’t understand what that last sentence means. “When the games really matter?”

Are we not competing to win The NBA Finals over the next month? That’s why this team added two veteran pieces at the deadline.

 

[lexrageorge]

I don’t understand what that last sentence means. “When the games really matter?”

Are we not competing to win The NBA Finals over the next month? That’s why this team added two veteran pieces at the deadline.

I was using the “games really matter” as a synonym for this year’s playoffs.

 

[benhogan]

Thanks, I think you are saying that because the high draft picks are the most highly valued and these are also the picks that are most likely to be conveyed in a swap, that drives the value of the swap closer to the value of the trade. That makes sense to me.

Yea the 2028 swap is a better hedge for Boston rather than just giving up the 2028 pick outright (and the question that was posed by @Euclis20 post #541)

Not only does Boston have to suck (be a lottery team) in 2028, the Spurs would have to be a playoff team for SA to cash in big time at the Celtic's expense

If Brad just gave them the 2028 pick (instead of the 2028 swap), the Spurs would cash in on a bad Celtics team no matter what.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

I was using the “games really matter” as a synonym for this year’s playoffs.

Ah gotcha. I read it to mean down the road. Glad I was wrong lol.

 

[Toe Nash]

Why does it matter to me, a fan, if Brad/Ime BARELY CARE about a 2028 pick swap because they'll be gone and someone else will be cleaning up their mess if things go wrong?

I'll still be here as a fan.

Is that what you're looking for in management? People that wouldn't care about the organizations future because they'll be gone anyway?

I don't at all believe that's how Brad/Ime are acting, but if they were in your theoretical scenario, they'd be the last people I'd want running my franchise.

I want a GM who is confident and not considering it likely at all for there to be a disaster situation where the Celtics, who have two of the game's best young players, are in the lottery in 6 years. Not handcuffing the current team by planning for some insanely unlikely scenario. And I think nearly every GM would give the same amount of weight to a pick swap that far off in the future.

Edit: Like, I can't actually believe how nuts this is. If you worried about these tiny probabilities years off in the future you would never make a deal that you weren't a clear winner of.

 

[Cesar Crespo]

Yea the 2028 swap is a better hedge for Boston rather than just giving up the 2028 pick outright (and the question that was posed by @Euclis20 post #541)

Not only does Boston have to suck (be a lottery team) in 2028, the Spurs would have to be a playoff team for SA to cash in big time at the Celtic's expense

If Brad just gave them the 2028 pick (instead of the 2028 swap), the Spurs would cash in on a bad Celtics team no matter what.

Would you rather give a pick swap with top 1 protection or would you rather give them a pick outright that has top 14 protection iin 2028 and if it doesn't convey, it eventually turns into a pick without protection in 2032?

Focusing on the swap is a misnomer. It's about potentially giving up a top 4-6 pick or w/e. I'd heavly prefer giving up a non lottery pick than give up a potential top 4 pick for a mid or late 1st. Mid to late 1st round picks aren't hard to come by.

The pick the C's get back on the swap is not going to matter at all if the Spurs end up getting the 2nd pick in the draft and the C's get the 23rd. Can anyone sit there and argue with a straight face that they'd rather end up trading the 2nd pick in the draft for the 23th than just giving up the 17th pick for nothing at all?

Now, if the C's pick is 5 and the Spurs is 7, that's another matter. Still, a swap isn't necessarily less valuable than a pick. Picks can be protected. It matters on the protections.

 

[benhogan]

Now, if the C's pick is 5 and the Spurs is 7, that's another matter. Still, a swap isn't necessarily less valuable than a pick. Picks can be protected. It matters on the protections.

if they have the same protections (like the one we're discussing) then 100% of the time a swap is worth less than a pick... that was the question

If you want to change the protections/parameters, Yes that changes the value.

I'm fine with Brad dealing picks with the status of the team at the moment. Offering a top 14 protected 2028 pick to add Derrick White/his contract would be a no-brainer just like the pick swap was

Just note this post isn't going to age well in 2028 when Tatum fulfills his Kobe dreams and signs on with the Lakers ($$$ be damned!), while some new GM is stuck maxing Grant Williams (who subsequently re-ups his Doordash Platinum Card)

 

[Devizier]

Following up on that chart, the average value of the random pick swap is losing 5 slots in the first round. That doesn’t account for the value of the slots, so 23-28 is counted the same as 2-7.

The median value of the swap is losing 1 slot.

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

Sunday cannot come soon enough. That said, I absolutely adore this place.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

Following up on that chart, the average value of the random pick swap is losing 5 slots in the first round. That doesn’t account for the value of the slots, so 23-28 is counted the same as 2-7.

The median value of the swap is losing 1 slot.

This is a move that, in most cases, will not be significant. Half the time the swap won't even happen. Much of the time it will just mean a relatively insignificant shift of a few slots. But there's a low probability of a very major negative outcome: C's lose a pick in the top 4 or 5 and don;t get bsck anything else to that.

So it's a roll of the dice, but the odds of losing are pretty long.

If Brad does a deal like this once in a while, it's probably fine - very unlikely he gets burnt.

If he keeps making deals like this, it probably does eventually catch up with him.

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

In defense of @mcpickl 's position here, a lot of experienced traders in financial and commodities markets subscribe to the view that you never sell tail risk - you only buy it, especially when its cheap. The difference between those markets and the NBA is that a bad outcome for those traders/companies can be existential. While that is true for the NBA too at an executive level, there are plenty of scenarios where the Celtics organization or not only survives but succeeds despite losing a valuable pick in the 2028 draft.

 

[benhogan]

In defense of @mcpickl 's position here, a lot of experienced traders in financial and commodities markets subscribe to the view that you never sell tail risk - you only buy it, especially when its cheap. The difference between those markets and the NBA is that a bad outcome for those traders/companies can be existential. While that is true for the NBA too at an executive level, there are plenty of scenarios where the Celtics organization or not only survives but succeeds despite losing a valuable pick in the 2028 draft.

I never met a trader that was capable of trading negative gamma. We're all brave when it's far out of the money + 6yr term (that's a shit ton of theta Brad sold). Most of the large hedge funds I covered made their bones by being long the tails

That being said we've also seen absolutely garbage organizations play well enough to ruin pick swap dreams

 

[Eddie Jurak]

In defense of @mcpickl 's position here, a lot of experienced traders in financial and commodities markets subscribe to the view that you never sell tail risk - you only buy it, especially when its cheap. The difference between those markets and the NBA is that a bad outcome for those traders/companies can be existential. While that is true for the NBA too at an executive level, there are plenty of scenarios where the Celtics organization or not only survives but succeeds despite losing a valuable pick in the 2028 draft.

Very well put, and exactly right. I don't think it makes sense to ignore tail risk, in the NBA, but there is not the same downside risk as there is in a finance context.

Edit: There is some downside protection here, too, via the top 1 protection. How likely are we to have a draft that includes more than one generational talent (or just one who is not chosen first)?

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

Edit: Like, I can't actually believe how nuts this is. If you worried about these tiny probabilities years off in the future you would never make a deal that you weren't a clear winner of.

Have we ever seen McPickl and Danny Ainge together in the same room?

If a team has to win every trade, it's going to miss chances to improve. The Cs got a guy who slots as one of the top 3rd guards in the league for a draft pick that was likely going to be in the 20s, a scratch-off ticket that is unlikely to be in SAS in two years no matter how good he is (poor roster fit) and was included as much for salary as anything else, and The Swap. SAS wasn't going anywhere this season. It's not like they had to make the trade.

 

[benhogan]

Very well put, and exactly right. I don't think it makes sense to ignore tail risk, in the NBA, but there is not the same downside risk as there is in a finance context.

Edit: There is some downside protection here, too, via the top 1 protection. How likely are we to have a draft that includes more than one generational talent (or just one who is not chosen first)?

the optionality is European style and can only be struck once, which also massively dampens the value

 

[the moops]

Has there ever been a trade where the pick swap is automatic and it does not matter who has the better record? That would be a sick gamble to make, obviously.