I’ve been thinking about this topic for quite awhile now. Let me start in the beginning on why I think this is necessary. We’ve all seen first hand the way nba superstars are able to extract maximum value on contracts and eventually force trades to more desirable locations. This has become so common that nba agents and nba front offices tell guys to sign extensions and if things get bad a trade can always come down the pipeline. in everyone of these superstar trades the running consensus is that the trading team didn’t receive enough value or that the trading team is now pivoting to a rebuild. Usually in these scenarios, seen in KG, Paul George, AD, Hardens cases there is a swath of picks that is recouped. However the early picks are late first rounders and then a bunch of swaps to round out the haul. my opinion is that these trends will lead to a dichotomy in the NbA where there are farm teams and top heavy teams. By removing the Stepien rule there is greater benefit to both of these ends of the spectrum. receiving teams are granted greater compensation. Imagine how much better the haul would be for Harden if we had an additional 7 picks instead of 3 guaranteed with the 4 swaps. some people would argue that this would leave the receiving team less assets to improve the team in the future. My argument to that is superstars drive this league. Also it would do the opposite. Receiving teams would not need to worry about pick conveyance and could have more trade assets in the future. Also how many times have we seen teams buy into the late first round. These big markets have the finances to pay in and still get a pick in the range they lost. the Stephen rule was initiated because front offices in the day were too stupid and gave away assets year after year. That isn’t the case anymore. The front offices nowadays are much more advanced. Gone are the days of suckers like gruntled, Kahn, Vlade. lmk what y’all think.
This. I mean, yea the front office and GMs of today are better at their jobs than what we saw in the 90s through the late 2000s but that doesn't mean we won't have an idiot GM getting royally fleeced in the future and mortgaging his owner's team and its future by trading away 5-6 consecutive 1st rounders for someone like Gerald Wallace at the trade deadline. Also the shelf life of a GM is so short that they absolutely give no f***s about their team's future because their job is to win now. That kind of timeline could screw up the franchise well after the GM gets canned and/or the players he traded for end up signing in China.
Couldn't this rule be circumvented by getting 2nd round picks (via 3rd party trades) on top of the "Stepian" year swap rights? This way, a receiving team can trade two 2nd round pics for late 1st round pick and then use the swap rights to gain a guaranteed 1st round pick. I think I've read a few opinions among fans saying the swap rights are better for us than regular 1st round picks when trading with a power house team.
Interesting. For me, I rather own the actual pick in addition to my own pick than to have a choice to swap my pick with the other teams. I want to know who believes swaps > just outright owning the pick because this is outside-of-the-box thinking
I may have made a mistake with regards to that statement actually. the trade happened long ago and there were a lot of opinions flying around that I may have not thought through validity of. Wish I edited it out before you so poignantly took note of it.
Most GM's are idiots. I mean only 17% of GM's thought Luka was going to be the best player when most this board thought he was going to be the best player in the draft.
all good and I by no means was trying to poke fun / troll you. I guess in certain situations a swap could be more valuable than an outright pick just never thought about it.
You do realize that the Stepien rule saved the Rockets from getting absolutely screwed in the Westbrook trade, right? Come back in 2024, 2025, and 2026, when the Rockets will not have control of their own pick for three consecutive years. At the very least, they have a pick swap in 2025 and some protection on the other two picks. If the current crop of rookies don't pan out, it is going to be years upon years of irrelevancy and hoping for ping-pong ball luck in the lottery hoping to land a top-4 pick, which is at best a 50-50 proposition if you're one of the three worst teams in the league. Any call for removing the Stepien Rule must also go hand-in-hand with removing the 7-year limit on when a pick can convey, and to also end the practice of protecting picks. Otherwise you're going to end up with plenty of situations like the OKC picks; where you can end up getting something that is highly valuable, or expires and becomes almost worthless. A very smart GM once said: “There have been some big-time players moving where unprotected picks you can justify, but I try to avoid it. It’s so horrible for the franchises; if you have a bad year and your pick is going unprotected somewhere, the poor franchise might as well just disappear for a year. You are literally the most irrelevant thing on Earth.” - SOURCE There is no franchise which is immune to random luck, injury, or losses in free agency. Even the teams at the top can have their fortunes change in an instant, and if they have traded away all of their future picks, they can become utter wastelands for years. Look at the Nets right now; Harden has not signed an extension, and Kyrie is not allowed to step foot in his home arena. It will probably work out in the end, but if a couple of things bounce wrong, they have no safety net with the Rockets controlling their unprotected picks for the next 5 seasons. One year after going to five consecutive finals, the Warriors had the #2 overall pick. The Cavaliers went from making 4 straight finals to picking in the top 5 for three consecutive drafts. Things change very quickly in the NBA, and teams can already get punished hard when they go all-in on a championship run. Saying that because all the "sucker GMs" are gone, and all the front offices are much better, so we no longer need the guard rails doesn't make any sense. There will always be a "worst GM", and a "worst owner", because there are only 30 teams. All it takes is one epically bad transaction and a team could be decimated for years and years. The truly unfortunate teams will always find a way to mess up, but I would like to limit the downside, even if it means we might never see another 73-win Warriors team for a generation.
Maybe they should make a rule that all the unconveyed picks are nullified when the GM who made the trade quits or is fired.
I've always felt iffy about this rule. On one hand, it protects bad franchises from handicapping themselves or making bad trades. Again, if everyone is desiring parity and an equal playing field, it does help, and this rule was established in 1982. So, the league knew then, that they needed a way from letting bad teams just trade potential high draft picks and quality players away to better teams without any future foresight. Also, you add this with the salary cap and the minimum trade exchange with incoming and outgoing salary matches. Which I'd agree with more, if most or all teams in the league could sign off on the deal as fair or "of equal value." If FA, trade restrictions, draft pick rules, and salary cap restrictions existed, back as early as the 1970s or even later, the NBA landscape would look uniquely different and there would probably be more parity. On the contrary, if a team wants to trade away future multiple draft picks and possibly handicap their future draft choices. It's their decision, because the owner and team front office basically signs off on every single move. So, you have these rules in place to protect your from your own mistakes, bad business decisions, and possible lack of foresight with strategic planning.
Its bad for the league overal but its just life. Compare it to work. You are the best in the businnes in the world, whatever field. Every city would pay you same. Why you shouldnt have right to work where you want? You are the best you dictate where you work. If you are not good enough you just go where they give you good offer. Most of the people want to work in fun places with culture and great weather city. and thats exactly what you see in the NBA. Same with football in Europe. Ever wonder why historicaly Madrid is the greatest? Which 20 year old wouldnt want to live in Spain…. On the other hand. Which one of them would want to live in lets say north side of UK? all leagues will have this disparity
Because contracts. If the terms of the contract say you must work for that employer for X amount of time, that's what you are legally bound to do. That's how contracts work, and that's why the analogy to "me in a random field" doesn't work. When you own your own business, then of course the rules are different than if you work for someone else's business... under contract.
How many businesses would sign a contract with you that would give you guaranteed money no matter what your job performance would be (even if you could not physically perform your job) after you have signed the contract?
I get what you are saying but lets say you have b2b time contract and your boss wont let you go somewhere else. You just stop going to work what is he going to do? Those are, most of the time, things you get sorted out once you want to switch places. Nobody can hold you hostage if you dont want to work somewhere obviously NBA contracts are more complicated but it is players and the league officials generating all the money. Franchises are just money machines and toys for owners i think what NBA should do is introdouce release clause. You want to buy Harden from Rockets? Rockets dont want to trade him? Great then you have to pay what they set in contract. Lets say 500 mln. If not you cant talk to him and he must play or will get sanctions Only when franchise gives a Green light after coming to agreement with other teams they can trade player.
Stepian was an owner, not a GM. The rule is also a way for the front office to protect themselves from the owner.
