the clippers absolutely did trade their pick and they have no rights to it come hell or high water.

The fact that you of all people feel certain about this made me doubt myself, so I read the terms another 20 times until I figured out that you’re right:

2028 first round draft pick to Boston (overlaps with another outgoing pick from L.A. Clippers)
L.A. Clippers’ 2028 1st round pick to Boston protected for selections 1-16 if this pick falls within its protected range, then Boston will instead have the right to swap the less favorable of its 2028 1st round pick and San Antonio’s 2028 1st round pick for the more favorable of the L.A. Clippers’ pick and Philadelphia’s 2028 1st round pick protected for selections 9-30; if the Philadelphia pick also falls within its protected range and is therefore not conveyable, then Boston will instead have the right to swap the less favorable of the Boston pick and the San Antonio pick for the L.A. Clippers’ pick (via L.A. Clippers unprotected to Philadelphia; via San Antonio swap for Boston) [Boston-San Antonio, 2/10/2022; L.A. Clippers-Oklahoma City-Philadelphia, 11/1/2023; Boston-Philadelphia, 7/6/2026]

In my defense, that’s a bunch of gibberish.

I thought it was protected 1-16 & then became a swap, i.e. contingent ownership side-by-side with ownership of a derivative. But it is in fact full ownership, so the rest of my argument falls apart.

Can we unlock the hidden Brook Lopez trapped in ‘The Shaq of Troutdale’? (I guess he’s from Troutdale..).

Eubanks would normally be a very good 3rd C. The problem is that our second C is not very good.

New York currently has enough space under the second tax apron to add one more player on a veteran minimum contract, but does not have room to sign two such players under that threshold.”

Guess it would be Eubanks, then.

Question: if the penalty for the Clips was one pick instead of five, and Adam Silver decided that it was the 2028 pick. What would the Clippers have lost?

Answer: Stugats.