[Goose]

Agree. Even the better information Okorie has is undoubtedly somewhat "soft". It depends on who is left on the board when any given team is "on the clock". That will always make it a gamble, even if nothing else does :-).

Almost a decade ago there were reports about a team reneging on a guarantee, and even that situation was somewhat ambiguous. As a rule NBA teams never renege on a guarantee because the reputational harm is too great; relationships with the agent community would be irrevocably damaged. If Okorie has a firm verbal guarantee it's soft in the sense that it can't be enforced legally, but you can bet on it being honored.

I can understand that a "firm verbal guarantee" not being honored would be a big black mark on the team that did such a thing. However I think the "somewhat ambiguous" caveat about the previous similar actions will always be present. The "guarantee" will always be somewhat qualified. The team wants it to sound like a 100% commitment even though it is actually only 99.5%. The athlete is free to over-interpret it slightly. Once the athlete can no longer withdraw from the draft, teams really have no reason to provide guarantees other than to keep players "happy". The player has little choice but to take what he gets. Given the business aspects of the NBA today I doubt any real "handshakes" are out there.

If the board shakes out in completely unexpected ways then teams will make draft night trades to take advantage without dropping guarantees that have been made.

They will if they can. Of course, they may not be able to do so. Trading up may be impossible, especially if the team right in front of you just did something unexpected and a windfall just fell in your lap. Even getting an additional slot in the first round to "fix it later" may be impossible (or too expensive). The team will then be in a position where if they "honor" their word they forgo a better opportunity. I am guessing that most teams in such a position will find a way to justify to themselves that the "ambiguity" is sufficient. This situation is rare enough that it isn't something GMs stay up nights thinking about, but I am less sanguine than you are that they will "do the right thing".

[Goose]

Agree. Even the better information Okorie has is undoubtedly somewhat "soft". It depends on who is left on the board when any given team is "on the clock". That will always make it a gamble, even if nothing else does :-).

Almost a decade ago there were reports about a team reneging on a guarantee, and even that situation was somewhat ambiguous. As a rule NBA teams never renege on a guarantee because the reputational harm is too great; relationships with the agent community would be irrevocably damaged. If Okorie has a firm verbal guarantee it's soft in the sense that it can't be enforced legally, but you can bet on it being honored.

I can understand that a "firm verbal guarantee" not being honored would be a big black mark on the team that did such a thing. However I think the "somewhat ambiguous" caveat about the previous similar actions will always be present. The "guarantee" will always be somewhat qualified. The team wants it to sound like a 100% commitment even though it is actually only 99.5%. The athlete is free to over-interpret it slightly. Once the athlete can no longer withdraw from the draft, teams really have no reason to provide guarantees other than to keep players "happy". The player has little choice but to take what he gets. Given the business aspects of the NBA today I doubt any real "handshakes" are out there.

If the board shakes out in completely unexpected ways then teams will make draft night trades to take advantage without dropping guarantees that have been made.

They will if they can. Of course, they may not be able to do so. Trading up may be impossible, especially if the team right in front of you just did something unexpected and a windfall just fell in your lap. Even getting an additional slot in the first round to "fix it later" may be impossible (or too expensive). The team will then be in a position where if they "honor" their word they forgo a better opportunity. I am guessing that most teams in such a position will find a way to justify to themselves that the "ambiguity" is sufficient. This situation is rare enough that it isn't something GMs stay up nights thinking about, but I am less sanguine than you are that they will "do the right thing".