The Pascal Siakam trade and the practice of overrating first-round draft picks in the NBA

The Toronto Raptors finally did it. After literal years of trade rumors, hypothetical trades and the team throwing shade at him (for some reason), the Raptors traded Pascal Siakam to the Indiana Pacers for a package centered around Bruce Brown Jr. and three first-round picks. The first news of the potential deal came yesterday from Shams, which included the three first-round picks that ended up being Indy's own 2024, the worst of Utah/Houston/LA Clippers/OKC in 2024 and their own 2026 first.

Christopher Kline broke down the deal here, and I agree with his thoughts. For Toronto, if they handled the Siakam situation better (which is still baffling considering he was their second most important player during their championship run in 2019), they could've kept this group that's been playing really well since the OG Anunoby trade together.

Nevertheless, they save money, could get more assets if they decide to trade Brown. But if not, he can fit well as a connector, another ball-handler and play finisher at the rim, on floaters and in corner 3's.

If you want an X's and O's piece in regards to Siakam's fit, check out Chris' piece I linked in the first paragraph. For more specifics on Siakam and what he brings to the table, check out this piece by Mat Issa or this one by Steph Noh. To summarize all of it: the fit between Siakam and the Pacers is very good. The part that's the most intriguing for me in this deal, and all the recent deals surrounding stars, is the talk about the draft capital given. Because, to brace yourself for what's to come, I think it's massively overblown nine times out of ten.

Was trading three first-round picks for Pascal Siakam a good move?

In a vacuum, maybe, it's debatable. But, when considering what picks they gave up, I am perplexed by seeing people mad with the return and thinking Indiana gave up too much. Even in the worst-case scenario, which is that Siakam leaves in free agency and they gave up three picks for half a season. Their own pick this season will be a late first-rounder, and 2026 might be in the middle of the first round because even then Tyrese Haliburton will be leading them to overachieve. And if they have Siakam? That 2026 pick will also likely be a late first-rounder. Indiana is a small market team that isn't known for getting stars in free agency and weren't going to be able to bid for Siakam this offseason unless they traded for him and his Bird Rights. So, the bet made sense.

At the end of the day, that's what this and other deals like this one are — a bet. It's a bet on success by the team acquiring the star. In Indy's case, it's a bet on not only keeping Siakam but that him in his prime/exiting it for the next 3-4 years along with Haliburton will lead to the Pacers making the playoffs so the picks in this deal aren't that valuable. Teams have been doing this for years with the same mentality, betting on success with the pieces they acquire, while the team giving away the star is betting on that team failing in the long term so their picks are good.

However, with how good draft classes have gotten, these picks have ended up being more valuable as it's more likely to get good contributors with late first-rounders instead of needing to be in the lottery to, more times than not, secure the best talent. Trading draft picks has always been a thing, but with that and the growth of social media the discourse around it has gotten bigger. In regards to this topic, I think it's been for the worst.

The recent history of perception surround first-round picks in star trades

Before explaining my position more in-depth, let's go back to the origins of this discourse.

As I said, making a bet on a successful team by trading picks has always been around. Though in the past teams preferred young players in the roster instead of draft picks, as the years have passed and more scouting tools have become widely available, teams have been more open to the idea of trading for first-round picks and having complete control of what players they get (instead of going back and forth negotiating with another team). Some have worked, some haven't. Some might go down as the best trade of all time for some, while some might be the worst deals ever for others.

I can safely say that the perception around those types of deals changed in the 2010s because mine changed in the same way. It happened because of one of, if not the most, infamously lopsided trades in NBA history, maybe even sports history depending on who you ask. It was, of course, the then-blockbuster trade in the summer of 2013 that sent Paul Pierce, Kevin Garnett, Jason Terry and D.J. White from the Celtics to the Nets in exchange for Kris Humphries, Gerald Wallace, MarShon Brooks, Kris Joseph, Keith Bogans four first-round picks (three outright, and a pick-swap in 2017).

The funny thing is, at the time, Brooklyn was hailed as the clear winners of the deal, as they formed a superteam with Garnett and Pierce rounding out the starting five with Deron Williams, Joe Johnson and Brook Lopez, as well as Terry as the sixth man, while Boston got no young players to lead their rebuild and unknown picks.

Except, of course, the furthest that superteam got was the second round, in their first season no less, and steadily declined after that. Meanwhile, the Celtics built something organically with Brad Stevens at the helm and were able to add a steady stream of great draft picks to that with how bad the Nets were those years. What did it cost Brooklyn? Everything (in a Thanos voice). More specifically, the 2016 pick that became Jaylen Brown, and the 2017 pick swap that landed Boston Jayson Tatum in a trade with the Philadelphia 76ers.

And, while the Nets rebounded really well and built a good foundation by making other teams' trash their treasure with players like Spencer Dinwiddie, Joe Harris, D'Angelo Russell and Rondae Hollis-Jefferson at the center of their competitive squads with Kenny Atkinson in charge — so much so that it convinced Kevin Durant and Kyrie Irving to pick them as their destination — it still took a while to get there. It's a position that many teams would want to avoid being in.

Fast forward to now, 2024, and that type of trade would've gotten criticized everywhere if it happened. A combination of draft classes getting better, better scouting of a wide variety of prospects being available (from hidden gems in the NCAA to international prospects being heavily discussed on the internet) and more people talking about the league through the internet plays a factor in this. It's funny how perception changes because up to five years ago, superstars would get traded and the focus was still on getting players to help immediately instead of getting picks.

Just look at the returns for some very very good basketball players still at a high level of play: Chris Paul was traded from the Clippers to the Rockets for seven players and a single protected draft pick from that next draft, Paul George was traded from the Pacers to the Thunder for two players and no picks, the Spurs traded Kawhi Leonard to the Raptors for two players and a protected pick from that next season, and the Timberwolves traded Jimmy Butler for three players and a second round pick (granted, Butler had some bad juju attached to him, but still). Nowadays, those conversations start with "how many first-round picks you willing to give up". And sure, you can throw in lots of caveats with the other stars besides Butler, with all teams trading them with almost no leverage. But, as we've seen in recent years, that hasn't stopped teams from trading stars for draft capital.

The discourse on trades involving first-round picks

When it comes to the perception of these deals in online discussions, that of course shifted with the Minnesota/Utah trade involving Rudy Gobert and five first-round picks (four outright, one swap). Immediately, the trade was touted as one of the worst trades in NBA history. And sure, maybe the price Minnesota paid was a tad much. We can debate for days on the fit of Gobert with Karl-Anthony Towns and if it made sense to pair them. That's all fine and cool. However, what's not great is jumping to the conclusion that it's the worst trade before they even step on the court together. It's even crazy to say after one season.

After a disappointing first season together, the team has figured it out and is one of the top teams in the West. So far, only one of the five first-rounders given have been used, which was the 16th pick Utah used to draft Keyonte George, which has turned out to be an awesome piece in the success of the Jazz this season. Ironically enough, both this deal and the original Celtics/Nets one from 2013 were made by Danny Ainge.

However, the difference here is that the Timberwolves core is in their prime (or just before it in the case of Anthony Edwards), and locked up long-term (except Gobert who has a player option for 2025-26). So, if the Wolves continue being a successful team for at least three more seasons, trading those picks would've been worth it. If not, then we can have a discussion about this being a bad move for Minnesota.

In a roundabout way, that's my main gripe with discussions around these trades: you can't make conclusions on whether a team won or lost a deal when there are so many picks involved because that changes the calculus on both teams. We can project, sure, but in that exercise I find myself being on the side of "well, *insert team that traded most picks* will probably be good in the long run, so those picks won't be as great anyways".

A trade like the Raptors/Knicks recent one, for instance, can be talked about more in-depth because the pieces involved are already defined. In the case of the Minnesota/Utah one, while just the player return for Utah was massive (five, which isn't even including the pieces acquired for the ones that aren't there anymore), the full scope of it can't be talked about until 2029 when that final pick is used. In another example, imagine if the Nets superteam experiment in 2013 panned out, and those picks for Boston didn't become Brown or Tatum, that trade wouldn't be remembered as bad as it is.

Here's a great one that's still developing: the Clippers trade for Paul George that sent seven first-round picks the Thunder's way. While yes, that is absolutely an insane amount of draft capital, so far you can't say that the Clippers gave up too much. Beyond that, you can't even necessarily say the Clippers lost the trade because George was a package deal with Kawhi Leonard, George led the franchise to their only Conference Finals, and if he re-signs they will keep their contention window open for a couple more seasons.

And while you can argue Shai Gilgeous-Alexander is better than George and two of the three picks already used from that trade (Jalen Williams picked by OKC, Jaime Jaquez Jr. picked by the Heat) are great, you can't conclude that Shai would've developed to what he is while being with the Clippers, and that the role players drafted would've helped the Clippers more than what some of their role players have in the past couple of seasons (not saying they aren't better or have better long-term projection, just talking about competing for a championship).

Jrue Holiday has been traded twice in recent years to teams in green looking to maximize their chances to win a championship, and both times the team gave up multiple first-round picks to make it work. The Bucks first gave up four picks (with certain protections and swaps) to get him, while the Celtics used two first-rounders to get him from Portland this offseason. While the perception was that Milwaukee gave up too much (I didn't agree!), there was ultimately no price too high to pay for convincing Giannis Antetokounmpo to want to stay, which in turn helped them secure the 2021 championship. Even if those picks end up being Hall-of-Famers, they ended up winning a championship, so do you think they care? Absolutely not.

So, I'll close my rant and at times loose rambling with the main course. If you don't take anything else away from this piece, take this with you:

First-round picks are overrated now

Cambridge Dictionary defines overrated as when a "person or thing is considered to be better or more important than they really are". So yeah, that's what first-round picks have become. Are they important? Absolutely. For a young team looking to fill the roster with pieces that could be a part of their future, especially when they can't attract marquee free agents, these pieces are absolutely valuable. Not stating that, which is why I clarified the definition of overrated so I don't create the perception that I'm saying they're bad.

In the context of the deal that spurred this article, Siakam to the Pacers, first-round picks aren't that valuable for an Indiana team that just acquired a star in Siakam to pair along with the face of the franchise, and will be looking to make a playoff push with established role players and already having young players developing. For them, consistently adding new cogs to the machine, especially when it would come at the expense of a player the caliber of Siakam, isn't the best bet.

In a broader sense, if a team makes a win-now move, like the other examples listed above, those first-round picks shouldn't be at the top of mind because they're (presumably) going to be competing and outside of the lottery. So, if that's the case, why make it seem like they mortgaged their future? It's an utter exaggeration to make it seem like anything close to that.

That isn't saying trades like these can't end up hurting, because everything has it's exceptions. There's still time left to decide on all the recent ones I listed above, so my thoughts are subject to change. That's not even including the James Harden one from Houston to Brooklyn, where the Nets gave up three first-rounders and four pick swaps. Obviously, if the Big Three of him with Kyrie Irving and Kevin Durant hadn't imploded in record time, all those picks would've ended up irrelevant.

Instead, everything that could've plausibly gone wrong did go wrong, and the Rockets have a pretty good stash of picks to continue adding to their growing young core. Though they did get some back by trading Durant to Phoenix with five picks in total (outright and swaps), maybe the premise of this article should be that Brooklyn sucks at forming superteams through trades. Makes you think.

Regardless, expanding on an earlier thought: a trade involving more than three first-rounders can only be fully judged when all the picks have been used. Thems the rules. You can't sit there and say one team fleeced by getting so much draft capital, or go the other way and pretend like someone got a star for nothing. Just sit back and wait. I understand hot takes must go off into the internet, but save those.

Does *insert star* warrant giving up a certain number of first-round picks? It's, like with everything in sports, subjective. This isn't science, where an arbitrary equation gives you the exact amount of picks a team should give up for a player averaging a certain number in a given stat. The way I see it, whatever draft picks are given up are less about the value of first-round picks by themselves, and not even the perceived value a star has, but rather more about how willing a team is in receiving the star being offered.

At the end of the day, an executive can say they want a certain amount of first-round picks for a player, but if no offers go up to that, they might lower the asking price. But, if there's a team willing to go overboard, desperate enough to make that move and go over all other offers, the price can certainly go higher. I don't doubt for a second that's what happened with Indiana, recognizing Siakam was a coveted name that other teams would've made a move for.

And for the folks that will counter with the financial aspect of it, this part is for you. To go deeper: sure, the fact that a draft pick is on a rookie deal for a maximum of four seasons (two guaranteed, team options on the other two) is good... for a while. Eventually, the team will have to spend to keep them, or trade them for other pieces. Ultimately, you have to pay to win, and settling for rookie deals when a better player is available is silly to me. That's why I highly favor OKC taking advantage of this window they just opened to compete for a championship now. On one hand, you might think their window will be long because all their main contributors are young. And, while that's true, it's ignoring the fact that they'll eventually all have to be paid.

In three years, two of the Thunder's main players, Chet Holmgren and Jalen Williams, will have their rookie deals expire, at which they'll have to be extended. That's not counting Josh Giddey, Isaiah Joe and Aaron Wiggins, whose deals run out next season. And that's especially not counting the billion draft picks they have coming in every season. Obviously, it's the best problem to have, choosing from so many options rather than few, but it's still a position where they'll have to pay up (unless a large portion takes pay cuts, in which point I will have no other choice than to tip my cap to them because that would be insane).

Even then, that's ignoring the fact that those picks have to hit. Even with all the scouting that can be done, players still need to be drafted into the right context to succeed and have to show consistent flashes right away to not be lost in the shuffle of intense competition in the most competitive era in NBA history, and one that will only get better as time goes on. And most teams also still do the thing where they don't draft "old" players, so they make their jobs harder. This isn't the NFL, where practically every first rounder is highly likely to make an immediate impact on winning, or the MLB where there are so many spots and the season is so long that players can grind for years to earn a spot in the big leagues. With that, first-round picks are far from guaranteed to hit. So, stop pretending they are.

This is one of the many sections I have in my thesis that will be written on a later date discussing why NBA2K has ruined basketball discourse, but I'll elaborate further on the rest when that time comes. For now, let's see how the Pacers do with Pascal, and if their bet on him staying was worth it.