Reply With Quote
I don’t like the money on a 1st that wouldn’t be a franchise player.
Given that Sarr isn’t really a ‘franchise’ player, is there any chance the Hawks might consider #8 and their 2026 pick swap back (i.e., control over their 2026 pick, we just keep our pick that year) for #1 this year? Then we get Sarr and (likely) a point at #4? Hawks could move forward with blowing it up, get picks for Young and Murray to replace those they’ve lost to us, and at least they get 2026 back.
I’m not sure I’d want to offer more (I want to keep their 2025 pick). I’m also not sure how well Sarr would fit with Wemby - just curious.
I don’t like the money on a 1st that wouldn’t be a franchise player.
Spurs don't do that in this draft..
Stephon Castle reminds me so much J dub as a prospect, J dub(remember J dub didn't have much of a 3 point shot in his first two seasons in college)
True - it would be better if the Hawks would for sure blow it up as a result (Spurs get better picks in 2025 and 2027), but it does add up at some point and may not be worth it. Could always trade Sarr (unless he was a great fit / worth it).
I'll admit I really liked Castle from the get go. His quiet confidence, ability to come up big in the moment, being a key piece of a highly disciplined national championship on team as a freshman. There's just something about him that exudes untapped greatness. Castle really plays within the team and doesn't try to do too much. I believe that he will not only stick in the league, he will impact winning. He strikes me as a guy who has much more than he has shown yet. Has some dog in him and his shooting looks workable to my eyes. I don't see him as a point guard, however.
Personality-wise he seems like a Spurs type. In the way that Shane Battier always seemed like a Spur to me, Castle has the IQ and character to be a winner in the league. Other teams might try to get him, but, he should be there at 4, I'd guess. If the Spurs pass on him, I trust their judgement. Of course, this draft will be a roller-coaster ride and anything can happen.
Ron Holland fits a need, but, doesn't seem like a Spurs-type.
In the ways that Castle passes the eye and gut test for me, Risacher doesn't quite. Hard to say what it is. He just doesn't feel right to me.
Topic is the real question mark. If WAS really wanted him, do they still? Did Pop tell him to fake an injury so they could grab someone else at 4? Will he be able to even walk? So much mystery around him.
Looking at last year's team, I think that we are only looking for better versions of JC, Tre, Branham and Wesley. Chances are good that we get 2 of these in the draft and at least one in free agency. That makes for a better team, on paper.
well fck. If Castle comes in at 6'6 I want him as our PG at 8 but doubt he makes it there at that height
I agree. If they want him, they’ll have to take him at 4. I’d love for him to be there at 8 tho.
Hawks will want 4 and one of their unprotected picks back.
This is the first time the Hawks won the lottery. They aren't trading it away cheaply.
Just listened to the May 1st episode of a Locked on Jazz, where Locke ran his shooting numbers stats to name the 3 worst shooters in the top 13 players from big boards and players that he would red flag and not draft:
Worst: Castle
2nd Worst: Buzelis
3rd Worst: Holland
He does talk about the possible need to calibrate the g-league players more because of what a bad situation it was.
He also goes through the last few drafts using his system and I have to admit the numbers on their own do seem to be pretty indicative though not 100%
Castle's shooting numbers compared to Precious Achiuwa and James Bouknight, another uConn lottery guy.
Also ranking about as bad the last few years in shooting was Josh Primo. I posted before about another episode breaking down athleticism using the numbers and Primo was garbage there too.
What were RC and Wright and Pop and the scouts thinking with Primo who some rather simple analytic models had as red flagged for both athleticism and shooting?
Youy aren't drafting Castle for his perimeter shooting. You're drafting him for his overall game.
Listened to one of the better Wizards podcasts, and took note of a nugget in there around minute 16 mark on Spurs FO types, Dillingham smoke, and spurs apparently not worried about size bc they had Wemby.
https://www.youtube.com/live/cP7PKFl...0UtbodyCu2rciN
For what it’s worth
I am warming up to Castle, but I'm curious - as the longest-standing Castle-stan on this board, why do you like him better than Dyson Daniels and Anthony Black for example? To me he looks like he is a better off-ball player, but just wondering if there is anything else that you see since you did not seem to like either Daniels or Black that much in years past.
Also since Sarr is unavailable what would you do with #8 if taking Castle with #4?
knecht outperforming castle in basically every category is not something i saw coming. if we think castle can hold up at SF, less of a reason to believe Knecht cant
i thought knecht would wind up just under or at 6'5 with a barely positive wingspan, if that
and even if he held up well on stuff like the max vert, the agility times would be an issue. but his wingspan is fine and he's been one of the best overall in the agility drills
At his age I wonder if he isn’t gonna be another Chris Duarte. Kinda peaked before he could pop off.
Castle. Trigger warning: how is he not a shorter Sochan?
Defense. Some passing. Connective player. Intense. Can't shoot. Whispers about athleticism.
Sell me on him.
If taking Castle at 4, any of Buzelis, Sheppard, Dilly, Topic, or Holland will be there at 8. Two of those five will be there, unless Clingan falls out of the top 7.
Feels like Knecht hit a much higher ceiling than Duarte, and did it in his only year at a legit D1 school. I think Knecht can continue to develop. He's barely been around a real training development program. I see him as exception to the rule. I mean, he wasn't at Tennessee for 4 years like other 4 year seniors. So I'm a believer. As much as one can be for this draft.
To be fair, the same question about 8 should be posed to the Dilly-stans if he goes 4.
For me it's pretty simple:
For #4 just go:
1) Risacher
2) Sarr
3) Matas
4) Sheppard
Then with #8 just go best PG available:
1) Sheppard
2) Topic
3) Dillingham
4) Castle
...and if really all are gone at #8, take Clingan with that pick
For me, using my Spurs Board, take the highest still on the board at each pick..
My Spurs Board Top 10
1. Matas Buzelis
2. Zaccharie Risacher
3. Alexander Sarr
4. Reed Shephard
5. Robert Dillingham
6. Cody Williams
7. Dalton Knecht
8. Stephen Castle
9. Isaiah Collier
10. Tidjane Salaun
We shouldn't be surprised to see a lot of change and movement as teams actually get the time to check out these players. Teams always have their own ways. What seems like going with fit turns into going for what they seem to think is BPA. Portland taking Clingan even though they have Ayton, that sort of thing.
Doesn't really need to be said. But we're already hearing some chatter about Knecht maybe going higher than expected and a lot of execs really liking Edey. We underplay Holland here, but he may really rise. Buzelis could go top 3.
Matas and Holland will be gone by 8, which leaves the PGs. Unless the Spurs want to take a second PG (barf), they’re likely looking at a swing on Cody for Saluan at 8.
I was not into Castle all, until I saw that he was only an inch shorter than the supposed 6 foot 8 wings, Holland and Williams. Then you throw in that he could play PG, SG, or SF. He’s 6 foot 6. Outside shooting looks good at combine. The clincher is take a look at his highlights, he’s a can’t miss prospect.
He checks every box for us, he’s a chameleon. Then if we still take Dilly, Topic, or Sheppard at 8 that’s fine also.
Thanks for the share
That one guy wanting #4, Vassell, and a 2nd to move back from #2 while thinking the Spurs might not go for it ... Wow.
There are currently 58 users browsing this thread. (18 members and 40 guests)
Posting Permissions
