Keegan Murray - 2022 NBA Draft Prospect

[timvp]

Why the Spurs might not draft Keegan Murray even if he's still on the board (https://www.spurstalk.com/keegan-murray-scouting-report-strengths-weaknesses-spurs-outlook/)


https://i.imgur.com/xPZ1Jt8.jpg
Keegan Murray
Age: 21.8
School: Iowa
Height w/ Shoes: 6-foot-8*
Weight: 225*
Position: PF
*unofficial (no combine measurements)

Strengths
+Efficiency
+Shooting
+Character

Weaknesses
-Age
-Possible NBA translation issues

[mo7888]

Why the Spurs might not draft Keegan Murray even if he's still on the board (https://www.spurstalk.com/keegan-murray-scouting-report-strengths-weaknesses-spurs-outlook/)


https://i.imgur.com/xPZ1Jt8.jpg
Keegan Murray
Age: 21.8
School: Iowa
Height w/ Shoes: 6-foot-8*
Weight: 225*
Position: PF
*unofficial (no combine measurements)

Strengths
+Efficiency
+Shooting
+Character

Weaknesses
-Age
-Possible NBA translation issues

Good stuff. On the age issue being a reason to pass on him....that same line of thinking would seem to suggest trading DJ and Poeltl for younger players more in line with a younger timeline. I'm one who thinks we should move DJ if it gets us a top 4 pick but, it's not because of his age it's because of increasing our chances of getting a high level star player. I apply the same logic here...I wouldn't pass on Keegan because of his age but I would if I thought I had a shot at a star (even though his floor might be lower)... Ousmane or Daniels might be in that category but, I don't see alot of star potential in the 10-20 range this year.

[Russ]

Keegan Murray is a safe pick. He'll be good. But . . .

[CGD]

Good stuff. On the age issue being a reason to pass on him....that same line of thinking would seem to suggest trading DJ and Poeltl for younger players more in line with a younger timeline. I'm one who thinks we should move DJ if it gets us a top 4 pick but, it's not because of his age it's because of increasing our chances of getting a high level star player. I apply the same logic here...I wouldn't pass on Keegan because of his age but I would if I thought I had a shot at a star (even though his floor might be lower)... Ousmane or Daniels might be in that category but, I don't see alot of star potential in the 10-20 range this year.

For me I feel it’s less the age and more the transferability of post up game to the pros.

[Mr. Body]

His is age is a reason I think Sochan could be drafted before Murray.

Good points about Iowa's system. Iowa was carried by Murray the same way Garza carried them. I think Murray was hidden on defense less due to deficiencies than offensive load, and he's a better athlete, but the projectability of his skills are a question.

This leads to the question of what you want from a PF in the modern game. It's a position in flux. The center and small forward seem better defined.

[mookie2001]

Would be annoying to see him constantly referred to as "Murray" on this board.

Already frustrating

[exstatic]

Keegan Murray is a safe pick. He'll be good. But . . .

The safer the pick, and that usually means a good floor outside of the top few picks, the less upside. Think Duarte, Brandon Clarke.

[PhantomDashCam]

https://youtu.be/QAloqsWv7fk

I’m a big Keegan guy.
If he’s there at 9, I would assume other higher upside guards would be off the board which means the Spurs shouldn’t hesitate.
There will be an opportunity to take the upside swing at 20 if so inclined too.

[Ariel]

I agree that you can't expect him to replicate what he did in college as many aspects won't translate, which is why I'm not onboard with those who want to trade up to no. 6 to get him, by means of overpaying.
However, he's well rounded enough that a good portion of his game will translate, and he's an excellent fit to our needs, so if he's there @ 9 he's hard to pass on.
I'm also very high on Sochan, Daniels and Mathurin (who are 3/2 years younger) though, so I won't be upset if we pìck any of them even if he's on the board.

[TD 21]

I see no credible argument against not selecting him or inquiring about the cost to trade up for him (to what extent they should go is a different story).

If the most likely outcome here is something like Brogdon, only at the scarcest position in the league (one this organization hasn't been able to truly nail down since '06, when last Duncan could still mostly get away with masquerading as one), they'd be stupid to not pursue that for the latest project who's most likely outcome ranges from JAG to fringe player.

[Chinook]

There are a number of guys Murray's size who post up. I'd argue that the changes in the league have helped his game. Guys like Morris, Randle, Harris, Lebron and Butler all do damage there. The key is whether the Spurs could get Murray into quick post-up opportunities and whether Murray can get out of them quickly. Again the motion-weak "Beautiful Game" offense literally has a PF post-up as its first option. If you have a guy who's a tremendous post scorer, and you have an offense that generates good post looks, there's not a problem. What they shouldn't do is do like they did with LMA and cater to post-up iso plays that drag down the shot clock. Hopefully with a young Murray and guys like DJM and Johnson on the team who are going to eat before him, that impulse would be kept in check. That Murray can also play off the ball and hold his own on defense means he doesn't have to be the star of the team to justify his selection.

I would be disappointed if the Spurs had as 2D of an outlook on potential. Yes, Primo might get a higher net boost to his 2K rating than Murray would, but he also has more ground to make up. If Murray's a solid pick for a high-end starter, then you need more than just the vague suggestion that a player could theoretically be a star to pull the trigger. With DJM's age and contract, they can't afford to whiff on a pick or even to hit after years of development. Hitching your wagon to DeJounte means accepting that avoiding the play-in is a near-ideal scenario. The margins are going to be thin. I'm hoping the guy the team picks is a star as much as anyone, but if they prioritize that change over everything else, they're going to be in the lottery for years to come.

I would be intensely disappointed if they pass on Murray, outside some extreme scenarios. There are players I'd perfectly okay with them drafting at 9 who'd probably still be available as well, but I'd much rather the team take Murray at 9 and then aggressively try to move up for that other player. Dude just checks too many boxes, and it's bad juju to ignore the universe after it drops such a perfect fit drop in your lap

[rascal]

It's looking more and more like the Spurs are going to fumble this draft.

[Uriel]

I read the article, but... I'm still not convinced Murray wouldn't be the pick at #9 if he were available. He was the best player in college basketball last season, his analytics are very favorable, he plays the position of need for the team, and even his age makes his developmental timeline a good fit for our current roster.

If I were Brian Wright, and Murray were to be available when we pick, I would submit his name to Adam Silver so fast, ESPN wouldn't even have time to cut to commercials before our pick like they always do.

[Uriel]

When you look at Murray through silver and black tinted glasses, he doesn’t look like any other recent Spurs draft pick. When was the last time San Antonio drafted such a nearly finished product who dominated at college as an older prospect?
What about ACC Player of the Year Tre Jones?

[intlspurshk]

Pick him at 9 is no brainer. Just trade him afterwards if he reaches potential like DE

[duncan2150]

Nice article, i have a hard time explaining why i think he could be available at 9 and why i'm not totally sold on him.

The translation of his back to the basket game, His defense wich is not bad but not really good. That's why i may prefer a Sochan tough his offense comes from far away.

Overall i will be ok to take him at 9 if he's there.

[exstatic]

What about ACC Player of the Year Tre Jones?

Was he a lottery pick? I’d be happy to take Keegan with #38…

[The Truth #6]

I suppose passing on Keegan Murray would really peel back the curtain and reveal their priorities and approach, though it may seem mostly baffling. If they pick a really young player again who is three years away, I don’t know, that would seem risky to me.

They have a plan each draft and off season it seems but it isn’t necessarily obvious what it is. If I had to guess, with Vassel and Tre Jones they wanted to bring back defense. With Primo, Lil Weezy, McBuckets, and Forbes (I think he was that year, it feels like he’s always here) it seemed like shooting. Of course this analysis is a guess, they don’t spell it out.

This season: who knows, playmaking? Interior depth? Players for positionless basketball?

[Chomag]

He looks like a pretty decent player but I'm not seeing anything special in him. A safe pick that doesn't have potential to move the needle anywhere.

At this point I would rather see the Spurs swinging for the home run rather then going for the bunt. More risky yes but Spurs should be only bunting if they have any already established players which is somethingthis team is very lacking.

[BatManu20]

He’ll be long gone by 9 sadly.

[Dejounte]

Well, Keegan does move the needle in a sense that he will help the defense because everyone will be at their natural positions… and you’re adding a potential 20 ppg scorer on top of the two you already have (DJ and likely Keldon)

that added team synergy alone adds 10 wins.

[KingKev]

Murray and Keldon going to be the new version of the twin towers.

[CGD]

Murray and Keldon going to be the new version of the twin towers.

I kind feel Keldon is not long for the Spurs if Keegan is the guy. That, or Keldon accept the role he’s best suited for in my view, which is supersub. but then do you pay 12-14M a year for that?

[CGD]

He’ll be long gone by 9 sadly.

I agree. I think the first 6 picks are firming up, though, the order may change.

To me this is a question of whether the Spurs trade up to 7 to get him if someone nudges Keegan out of the Top 6 and he’s all the sudden there.

[Degoat]

If Keegan Murray is attainable you get him, enough said.

[exstatic]

I kind feel Keldon is not long for the Spurs if Keegan is the guy. That, or Keldon accept the role he’s best suited for in my view, which is supersub. but then do you pay 12-14M a year for that?

Keldon is not even a year olde than Keegan, has 3 years NBA experience, and has crafted himself into a 40% 3G shooter, and paint beast. I don’t think this would go the way that you think it would.

[Seventyniner]

I kind feel Keldon is not long for the Spurs if Keegan is the guy. That, or Keldon accept the role he’s best suited for in my view, which is supersub. but then do you pay 12-14M a year for that?

Keldon at his age and with his new-found three point accuracy is certainly worth more than $12-14M. His extension wouldn't even kick in until the cap has gone up two more times (this summer and next summer). I think he will get something like 4/80. More actual dollars than White/Murray but around the same percentage of the cap.

[CGD]

Keldon is not even a year olde than Keegan, has 3 years NBA experience, and has crafted himself into a 40% 3G shooter, and paint beast. I don’t think this would go the way that you think it would.

I get all that. I have reservations about his ability to play the 3 long term, and simply just don’t think he’s the long term solution at PF. So that begs the question where is his long term fit?

[Chinook]

I think Johnson could be a solid third option on a title team, or maybe a 2B. That's not something I think about anyone else on the team. In order to do that, he needs to be paired with a forward who masks his weaknesses. That's why drafting a role-player at 9 isn't a bad thing, IF that role-player allows Johnson to develop into a star. I do think a guy like Eason might be able to do that if he develops correctly.

However, I still think the more likely path for Keldon to "make it" is as a sixth man, and drafting someone like Murray, who doesn't need as much to go right to reach his ceiling, would be a step in that direction. Do I think Johnson and Murray could play together? Yes, probably, especially with Vassell to cover small-forwards that might give Johnson trouble. But I also think the team could find more success having Murray play PF, moving Vassell to SF and bringing in a two-guard who can take over a lot of the scoring load while also adding speed and ball-handling to the lineup. Looking at free agency, finding that two-guard is way easier than finding the forward to make the first situation work. Plus, I think Johnson would be a huge upgrade over Walker, who'd probably return to his sixth-man role in a scenario where Johnson remains a starter and the team drafts Sochan or Eason.

But yeah, I think Keldon is going to get the biggest rookie extension the Spurs have ever given out. Most of that is salary-cap inflation. Some of it is positional premium. But I do think the team sees him as an important piece going forward. I don't love that they seem to think that, but that doesn't matter.

[Biggems]

Was he a lottery pick? I’d be happy to take Keegan with #38…

who do you want at 9?

[CGD]

I love Keldon. He’s probably my favorite Spur right now. Still, I think it’s be a mistake given the team’s lifecycle not to prospect for other Derrick White type opportunities right now.

[John B]

Keegan checks off Spurs needs, go-to scorer and size at 4. If he’s available at 9, Spurs shouldn’t play cute and just swoop him right away. I don’t get how his offensive will not translate in the NBA. He’s a player who shoots 39% at 3 AND who can post it, besides rim running the ball. And it’s not like his defense will not improve in the Spurs system. The guy is not flat footed nor slow. Most importantly, he will not shy away as a go-to scorer, which he is already the bulk of offense at Iowa. I would be extremely disappointed if Keegan is available at 9, and Spurs draft somebody else.

Now does Spurs reach for him at 5 or 6, while giving up another FRP or asset? I don’t think they should. I think Spurs could instead draft Sochan, Dieng if they want a PF, or Davis, Mathurin if they want a goto scorer and draft Eason at 20. But at 9, Spurs should pick up Keegan if available.

[exstatic]

who do you want at 9?

I want a raw project at whatever position we can find one. That’s the only way to get a star outside the first few picks. The more developed the player,the slimmer the odds. Same with age. I want an 18 or at most 19 YO player.

[KingKev]

I kind feel Keldon is not long for the Spurs if Keegan is the guy. That, or Keldon accept the role he’s best suited for in my view, which is supersub. but then do you pay 12-14M a year for that?

Maybe. I’m totally fine with Murray at #9. Nice insurance for Keldon if contract talks stall or if he we get him on a reasonable deal. No reason why Keegan and Keldon can’t coexist but while a Keldon/Keegan/Jak frontline is a huge upgrade over what we out put out this year it still poses many challenges from my perspective.

[KingKev]

^ Barely Legal.

[objective]

Spurs are paying McDermott 13.75 a year, so there's no way Keldon's agent could let him get less than 20. McDermott is only 'good' for 24 minutes a game when he even plays, of course Keldon won't be getting 13-14.

I wouldn't have a problem with paying Keldon if he was better on defense.

[FvckMavs]

It's not about how much they paid McDermott. Spurs would say McDermott underperformed and Murray got 16M a year. It is all about how much any other teams are willing to pay Keldon. Not sure if there is a team willing to give him more than 20 a year based upon his performance this year.


Spurs are paying McDermott 13.75 a year, so there's no way Keldon's agent could let him get less than 20. McDermott is only 'good' for 24 minutes a game when he even plays, of course Keldon won't be getting 13-14.

I wouldn't have a problem with paying Keldon if he was better on defense.

[Ariel]

Spurs are paying McDermott 13.75 a year, so there's no way Keldon's agent could let him get less than 20. McDermott is only 'good' for 24 minutes a game when he even plays, of course Keldon won't be getting 13-14.

I wouldn't have a problem with paying Keldon if he was better on defense.
They paid him 13M with the expectation that he'd be better than he is, presumably, and it was a stupid move that I'm sure the FO regrets. A contract starting at 20M is about the extension Mikal Bridges got, for instance. That's too much IMO.

[objective]

It's not about how much they paid McDermott. Spurs would say McDermott underperformed and Murray got 16M a year. It is all about how much any other teams are willing to pay Keldon. Not sure if there is a team willing to give him more than 20 a year based upon his performance this year.


They paid him 13M with the expectation that he'd be better than he is, presumably, and it was a stupid move that I'm sure the FO regrets. A contract starting at 20M is about the extension Mikal Bridges got, for instance. That's too much IMO.

McDermott also has a 250k bonus if the team makes the playoffs.

Murray got 16 with a lower cap and coming off a missed season, never having averaged more than 9 points a game.

Cap is 10% higher now.

I don't want Keldon on an extension at the kind of money he's expecting, but that's the corner the Spurs trapped themselves in. Not enough tanking to get elite talent, but enough good talent coming up for new contracts to eat away the caproom eventually.

I also don't think the Spurs regret the McDermott deal. It basically went how anyone with a clue could have expected for a bad defending 30 year old part timer. That's what they wanted for their overpay and they got it, they're probably happy.

[Uriel]

I tried putting Keegan Murray in the starting lineup on the Spurs in 2K and he’s such a seamless fit. It’s such a blessing having another player at the 4 who can create his own shot and get buckets for the team.

[Uriel]

Looks great in a Spurs jersey.

https://i.ibb.co/JQ8ywW8/56-EE4451-C1-A9-42-D2-9287-93-ADC525522-B.jpg

[Dejounte]

It’s so stupid to focus on youth and be dismissive of all older players with the idea that they’ve capped out

Steph Curry was drafted as a 21 year old
Jimmy Butler was 22
Morant was 20
Harden was 20
Klay was 21
Russ was 20
Jokic was 20
Chris Paul was 20
Trae was 20
Jaylen Brown was 20
Kawhi was 20
Demar was 20
Khris Middleton was 21
Donovan Mitchell was 21
Pascal was 22
Bam was 20
Dirk was 20
Lillard was 22
Paul George was 20
Pau Gasol was 21
Dwyane Wade was 22
Nash was 22
Paul Pierce was 21

So many players would have been overlooked if this concept of “only 18 and 19 year olds plz” was followed

this is ignoring the fact that many players in the last year or two have had their developmental years stripped away from them because of COVID protocols. Some older players could have came out sooner if it had not been for that fact.

[PhantomDashCam]

It’s so stupid to focus on youth and be dismissive of all older players with the idea that they’ve capped out

Steph Curry was drafted as a 21 year old
Jimmy Butler was 22
Morant was 20
Harden was 20
Klay was 21
Russ was 20
Jokic was 20
Chris Paul was 20
Trae was 20
Jaylen Brown was 20
Kawhi was 20
Demar was 20
Khris Middleton was 21
Donovan Mitchell was 21
Pascal was 22
Bam was 20
Dirk was 20
Lillard was 22
Paul George was 20
Pau Gasol was 21
Dwyane Wade was 22
Nash was 22
Paul Pierce was 21

So many players would have been overlooked if this concept of “only 18 and 19 year olds plz” was followed

this is ignoring the fact that many players in the last year or two have had their developmental years stripped away from them because of COVID protocols. Some older players could have came out sooner if it had not been for that fact.

:tu

There’s also an argument to be made about late bloomer types, be it from a physical development perspective or maturation of skills/ability. Keegan is the rare one who’s both.


https://youtu.be/2zXqcvoa40E

[exstatic]

It’s so stupid to focus on youth and be dismissive of all older players with the idea that they’ve capped out

Steph Curry was drafted as a 21 year old
Jimmy Butler was 22
Morant was 20
Harden was 20
Klay was 21
Russ was 20
Jokic was 20
Chris Paul was 20
Trae was 20
Jaylen Brown was 20
Kawhi was 20
Demar was 20
Khris Middleton was 21
Donovan Mitchell was 21
Pascal was 22
Bam was 20
Dirk was 20
Lillard was 22
Paul George was 20
Pau Gasol was 21
Dwyane Wade was 22
Nash was 22
Paul Pierce was 21

So many players would have been overlooked if this concept of “only 18 and 19 year olds plz” was followed

this is ignoring the fact that many players in the last year or two have had their developmental years stripped away from them because of COVID protocols. Some older players could have came out sooner if it had not been for that fact.

https://imgur.com/PLZgkh2.png

Reality kind of likes my position more than yours. It might have helped if most of the players you listed had been drafted in the last 10 years, or in Dirks case, the last 20. You cherry picked data points over 23 years. I’m showing you how it is, all of the first round data, trended over time and by age.

[exstatic]

Oh, and Ja was 19 at the draft.

[John B]

Last year Spurs took the youngest player and the jury is still out on that one, instead of a Duarte or Sengun and I’m okay with that. Keegan is not Duarte or Sengun. I feel he has a higher ceiling than those two.

[Chinook]

I don't think that list says what you think it does. Obviously, if more players are entering the draft earlier, they won't be around to take when they're older. That tells of the cultural shift toward one-and-done which we all know about. A better question would be, "Do younger players tend to perform better than those who come out of the draft when they're older?" Even that isn't a great question, because the obviously talented players are much less likely to stay in school for extra years with the cultural change. Guys who stay tend to do so to improve their stock, and since guys can sit out years straight out of high school and still be first-rounders nowadays, there's little incentive to stay in. In order to try to find data to address this draft, you'd have to control for general talent and hype and isolate age. You'd also have to decide beforehand if it's more important for a player to be better in general or better over the life of their first (or first and second) contract.

A rudimentary way to approach the topic would be to look at the more recent drafts and see which players have been the best and how old those players were when drafted. One can go to BBRef's page on the 2012 draft, for example, and sort if by win-shares earned. https://www.basketball-reference.com/draft/NBA_2012.html

Doing so shows that four of the top 10 players in that draft were juniors or seniors, and three more declared in their second year of eligibility. In 2013, five or the top 10 players were 21 or older, three more forwent their first years of eligibility and only two were first-year entrants. In 2014, six of the top 10 were one-and-dones, along with three second-years and one upperclassman. 2015 has four upperclassmen, three second-year entrants and three first-year entrants.

I'm not going to go into every draft, but looking ahead, there's a good mix of guys of all ages who end up being the best players in the draft. I do think MVPs and superstars tend to skew young. As I said, uber talents tend to be known during their first year and don't have anything to gain by not entering the draft. This draft is likely to not be that different given who's at the top. We aren't debating who to take with the first pick. We shouldn't expect the team is going to draft a franchise player. So if the goal is for them to grab the best guy left in the draft by the time they pick, they're not going to be particularly more likely to find that in a teenager than they are in a guy who used up most of his NCAA eligibility.

Also, ignoring the role COVID played in scouting for the past two draft is odd. Without a pandemic, I have a strong feeling that Primo would not be a Spur right now.

[exstatic]

I don't think that list says what you think it does. Obviously, if more players are entering the draft earlier, they won't be around to take when they're older. That tells of the cultural shift toward one-and-done which we all know about. A better question would be, "Do younger players tend to perform better than those who come out of the draft when they're older?" Even that isn't a great question, because the obviously talented players are much less likely to stay in school for extra years with the cultural change. Guys who stay tend to do so to improve their stock, and since guys can sit out years straight out of high school and still be first-rounders nowadays, there's little incentive to stay in. In order to try to find data to address this draft, you'd have to control for general talent and hype and isolate age. You'd also have to decide beforehand if it's more important for a player to be better in general or better over the life of their first (or first and second) contract.

A rudimentary way to approach the topic would be to look at the more recent drafts and see which players have been the best and how old those players were when drafted. One can go to BBRef's page on the 2012 draft, for example, and sort if by win-shares earned. https://www.basketball-reference.com/draft/NBA_2012.html

Doing so shows that four of the top 10 players in that draft were juniors or seniors, and three more declared in their second year of eligibility. In 2013, five or the top 10 players were 21 or older, three more forwent their first years of eligibility and only two were first-year entrants. In 2014, six of the top 10 were one-and-dones, along with three second-years and one upperclassman. 2015 has four upperclassmen, three second-year entrants and three first-year entrants.

I'm not going to go into every draft, but looking ahead, there's a good mix of guys of all ages who end up being the best players in the draft. I do think MVPs and superstars tend to skew young. As I said, uber talents tend to be known during their first year and don't have anything to gain by not entering the draft. This draft is likely to not be that different given who's at the top. We aren't debating who to take with the first pick. We shouldn't expect the team is going to draft a franchise player. So if the goal is for them to grab the best guy left in the draft by the time they pick, they're not going to be particularly more likely to find that in a teenager than they are in a guy who used up most of his NCAA eligibility.

Also, ignoring the role COVID played in scouting for the past two draft is odd. Without a pandemic, I have a strong feeling that Primo would not be a Spur right now.

Nah, after telling me that sorted WSs didn’t indicate that the Spurs developed better than other teams, you don’t get to use those to prove your ten year old draft theory. Nope.

[exstatic]

It’s so stupid to focus on youth and be dismissive of all older players with the idea that they’ve capped out

Steph Curry was drafted as a 21 year old
Jimmy Butler was 22
Morant was 20
Harden was 20
Klay was 21
Russ was 20
Jokic was 20
Chris Paul was 20
Trae was 20
Jaylen Brown was 20
Kawhi was 20
Demar was 20
Khris Middleton was 21
Donovan Mitchell was 21
Pascal was 22
Bam was 20
Dirk was 20
Lillard was 22
Paul George was 20
Pau Gasol was 21
Dwyane Wade was 22
Nash was 22
Paul Pierce was 21

So many players would have been overlooked if this concept of “only 18 and 19 year olds plz” was followed

this is ignoring the fact that many players in the last year or two have had their developmental years stripped away from them because of COVID protocols. Some older players could have came out sooner if it had not been for that fact.

Kawhi was 19 on draft night,too.

[exstatic]

The #1s since Duncan retired:

2016 19 YO
2017 22 YO
2018 19 YO
2019 19 YO X 2
2020 19 YO
2021 18 YO

If we pick and keep #9, it will be a player who is 18 or 19 YO. Just a hunch.

[exstatic]

The FRPs since Duncan retired:

2016 19 YO
2017 22 YO
2018 19 YO
2019 19 YO X 2
2020 19 YO
2021 18 YO

If we pick and keep #9, it will be a player who is 18 or 19 YO. Just a hunch.

[exstatic]

It’s so stupid to focus on youth and be dismissive of all older players with the idea that they’ve capped out

Steph Curry was drafted as a 21 year old
Jimmy Butler was 22
Morant was 20
Harden was 20
Klay was 21
Russ was 20
Jokic was 20
Chris Paul was 20
Trae was 20
Jaylen Brown was 20
Kawhi was 20
Demar was 20
Khris Middleton was 21
Donovan Mitchell was 21
Pascal was 22
Bam was 20
Dirk was 20
Lillard was 22
Paul George was 20
Pau Gasol was 21
Dwyane Wade was 22
Nash was 22
Paul Pierce was 21

So many players would have been overlooked if this concept of “only 18 and 19 year olds plz” was followed

this is ignoring the fact that many players in the last year or two have had their developmental years stripped away from them because of COVID protocols. Some older players could have came out sooner if it had not been for that fact.

Jokic was 19 on draft night.

[objective]

Last year Spurs took the youngest player and the jury is still out on that one, instead of a Duarte or Sengun and I’m okay with that. Keegan is not Duarte or Sengun. I feel he has a higher ceiling than those two.

Sengun is only 5 months older than Primo. It's not like the choice between the two came down to a huge age gap.

Sengun is still younger than Chet, Ivey, Keegan (by like 23 months), Johnny Davis, Mark Williams, Benedict Mathurin, Tari Eason, Josh Minott, Gabriele Procida and loads of other guys in this coming draft.

[Chinook]

Nah, after telling me that sorted WSs didn’t indicate that the Spurs developed better than other teams, you don’t get to use those to prove your ten year old draft theory. Nope.

Ex, me saying you were misusing win-shares for a different context doesn't negate me saying you are misusing a completely separate graph. It just expands the throughline of you not knowing how to support your points. Go back and actually read what I said back then, and then come back and tell me why that would apply to this situation.

https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10667438#post10667438

The reason why that list didn't show the Spurs were superlative at developing is because they tended to target high-floor players with specific skills. It turns out that many of those players are older. It therefore stands to reason that a team that can get value out of older drafted players will see more success relative to their draft spot when compared to teams that focused on younger players, because those older players didn't need to develop as much in order to give their teams production.

To put it another way: The list you made those months ago was supposed to show how the Spurs were boosting the upsides of their players, but the list didn't fit, because it only showed production and not improvement. I brought up a similar list now to show production tends to be spread out among different age groups. There's no contradiction there. Your suggestion that upside and youth should drive the draft has never been well supported. It wasn't back when we had the Samanic/Clarke debate. It wasn't when talking about drafting Pokusevski. It wasn't when talking about developing Primo. And it's not now. Age is a legit metric to use when evaluating prospects. But it's only one, and not clearly a dominant metric.

To let you in one a secret: Primo's age is not why they draft him. People keep misunderstanding that. The Spurs have and will continue to bypass on young players. Primo's intelligence and maturity despite his age is why they wanted him. They think he's going to get better, yes. But they drafted him because they think he's already good at the intangibles that often take prospects years to develop. More than age, it's much more of a throughline for the Spurs to value anticipation, vision, BBIQ and instinct when they see it, regardless of age. THAT's the thing the Spurs believe can generate production for rookie contracts. That tends to be something they find in older players, but it's not something they find there exclusively, as Anderson showed.

[Dejounte]

Ages on my list were taken from going to basketballref and looking at what age they were in their first season as that was the easiest website to pull using my phone. Needless to say, there are still enough HOF players to make a case to not put blinders on towards older prospects.

the ages from basketballref are obviously at the start of the season as opposed to the draft age. Should we even say that those five months since being drafted matter between success or failure? If the player has a birthday right after draft night, then he still counted as a 19 year old thus he will be successful? This premise is pretty ridiculous.

[John B]

Sengun is only 5 months older than Primo. It's not like the choice between the two came down to a huge age gap.

Sengun is still younger than Chet, Ivey, Keegan (by like 23 months), Johnny Davis, Mark Williams, Benedict Mathurin, Tari Eason, Josh Minott, Gabriele Procida and loads of other guys in this coming draft.

That wasn’t my point. Spurs bet on Primo’s star potential instead of the sure-bet role player on Sengun and Duarte. Sengun just happens to be young.

[exstatic]

Ex, me saying you were misusing win-shares for a different context doesn't negate me saying you are misusing a completely separate graph. It just expands the throughline of you not knowing how to support your points. Go back and actually read what I said back then, and then come back and tell me why that would apply to this situation.

https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10667438#post10667438

The reason why that list didn't show the Spurs were superlative at developing is because they tended to target high-floor players with specific skills. It turns out that many of those players are older. It therefore stands to reason that a team that can get value out of older drafted players will see more success relative to their draft spot when compared to teams that focused on younger players, because those older players didn't need to develop as much in order to give their teams production.

To put it another way: The list you made those months ago was supposed to show how the Spurs were boosting the upsides of their players, but the list didn't fit, because it only showed production and not improvement. I brought up a similar list now to show production tends to be spread out among different age groups. There's no contradiction there. Your suggestion that upside and youth should drive the draft has never been well supported. It wasn't back when we had the Samanic/Clarke debate. It wasn't when talking about drafting Pokusevski. It wasn't when talking about developing Primo. And it's not now. Age is a legit metric to use when evaluating prospects. But it's only one, and not clearly a dominant metric.

To let you in one a secret: Primo's age is not why they draft him. People keep misunderstanding that. The Spurs have and will continue to bypass on young players. Primo's intelligence and maturity despite his age is why they wanted him. They think he's going to get better, yes. But they drafted him because they think he's already good at the intangibles that often take prospects years to develop. More than age, it's much more of a throughline for the Spurs to value anticipation, vision, BBIQ and instinct when they see it, regardless of age. THAT's the thing the Spurs believe can generate production for rookie contracts. That tends to be something they find in older players, but it's not something they find there exclusively, as Anderson showed.
Other than White, nope. Hard nope. You and Dejounte are both fond of using outliers to support you positions.

The FRPs since Duncan retired:

2016 19 YO
2017 22 YO
2018 19 YO
2019 19 YO X 2
2020 19 YO
2021 18 YO

If we pick and keep #9, it will be a player who is 18 or 19 YO. Just a hunch.

[Dejounte]

Let’s see. I shared a list of players older than 19 that were successful

you shared a graph about the number of teams drafting players 19 or younger

a graph irrelevant to my point as it shows nothing about 20 year old players or older not being unsuccessful

who is cherry picking what here? You tend to bring up points irrelevant to the topic and then never go into detail

[Dejounte]

19 is a magic number yall

Some voodoo shit where buddha farted gold blessings tenfold onto that number. Its the year of the giraffe. If you add the number of letters in the word of giraffe, you get the number 19. Oh and there are 19 candles that were lit on martin luther king day and guess what? Martin luther said that on draft day in 2022, that 19 year olds have special aroma with magnificent vibes all around. Lets smoke this ganja baby

[exstatic]

Let’s see. I shared a list of players older than 19 that were successful

you shared a graph about the number of teams drafting players 19 or younger

a graph irrelevant to my point as it shows nothing about 20 year old players or older not being unsuccessful

who is cherry picking what here? You tend to bring up points irrelevant to the topic and then never go into detail

I’m surprised you crawled back in here after i shot holes in your now Swiss cheese looking list.

Over the duration of the draft discussion, there has been a contention that almost all of the talent in the draft is at the top. In a ST rarity, that hasn’t been challenged or debated.

Look at the ages of the top 3 picks in the last 5 drafts on the graph.

You also chided me for wanting only players in the 18 or 19 age range, and I obliterated you again with the list of the spurs FRPs for the last 6 drafts, all of one who were 18 or 19. You keep wishing for that 22 YO Keegan Murray, though. (See, I can round up, too)

[exstatic]

19 is a magic number yall

Some voodoo shit where buddha farted gold blessings tenfold onto that number. Its the year of the giraffe. If you add the number of letters in the word of giraffe, you get the number 19. Oh and there are 19 candles that were lit on martin luther king day and guess what? Martin luther said that on draft day in 2022, that 19 year olds have special aroma with magnificent vibes all around. Lets smoke this ganja baby

Non-point drama, and attempted distraction.

[Dejounte]

Love the self-patting in the back for made-up victories in your head :lmao who the fuck does that? “Obliterated” oh man, this is classic cringe shit from the guy who had the audacity to shit on someone for losing their daughter. This heartless, delusional fuck needs to stay away from his keyboard and go hike mt everest or something and find more purpose in life

[exstatic]

Love the self-patting in the back for made-up victories in your head :lmao who the fuck does that? “Obliterated” oh man, this is classic cringe shit from the guy who had the audacity to shit on someone for losing their daughter. This heartless, delusional fuck needs to stay away from his keyboard and go hike mt everest or something and find more purpose in life

More non points, drama, and attempted distractions from the fool trying to sneak 19 YOs onto his 20 and up list. Busted.

[mo7888]

19 is a magic number yall

Some voodoo shit where buddha farted gold blessings tenfold onto that number. Its the year of the giraffe. If you add the number of letters in the word of giraffe, you get the number 19. Oh and there are 19 candles that were lit on martin luther king day and guess what? Martin luther said that on draft day in 2022, that 19 year olds have special aroma with magnificent vibes all around. Lets smoke this ganja baby

I think that's the first Martin Luther reference I've seen on ST...kudos lol

You have to understand that ex looks at things like he's looking through a straw. He takes a data point and extrapolates what he wants out of it without a proper amount of breadth or nuance. When I kinda blew my top with him I called him the autistic one...(yes, I probably shouldn't have gone there) I did that because his arguments sometimes remind me of conversations I've had with a few autistic people...very intelligent and able to quickly recall data...crunching numbers etc but without enough breadth to use that data to make the data relevant.. I find that he brings alot to the discussion and brings up data I didn't know existed or hadn't thought about but having a discussion about that data is sometimes frustrating because his vision doesn't let him contrast it against other data (especially if that data is more subjective/philosophical and not as quantifiable). I'm not sure I even have a point in this post other than to tell you how I look at his approach to things here..

[JPB]

19 is a magic number yall

Some voodoo shit where buddha farted gold blessings tenfold onto that number. Its the year of the giraffe. If you add the number of letters in the word of giraffe, you get the number 19. Oh and there are 19 candles that were lit on martin luther king day and guess what? Martin luther said that on draft day in 2022, that 19 year olds have special aroma with magnificent vibes all around. Lets smoke this ganja baby

You post a lot of nonsense, but that's good stuff tbh :lol

[wildbill2u]

It doesn't take a degree in accounting to figure out that a player who can come out at a young age and stick around for a few years is going to make a potful of money more than one who stays in school , earns a degree while polishing his skills, and incidentally lets his body mature. Since most players with NBA dreams don't give a rat's ass about completing a degree that will be totally useless to them in their future, there is no incentive to stay in school any longer than absolutely necessary to get that DD (Draft Degree) instead of a B.A. That's why the average age of players entering the draft and the NBA is dropping--and why our draft picks are shifting to younger players. We've been talking about this shift for ages. Nothing new here.

On the other hand, there is no reason to treat a draft prospect like a leper if he is over 20. (OMG, he's so OLD!) He might even be more ready for the NBA than some 18 year old who "has the potential to gain some muscle to handle the bigger faster players in the league."

Let's just take a step back and look at most draft picks realistically for what they bring to the table NOW. I'm sick of players with potential who still need two or three years of G league experience before they are useful. By the time we train them to NBA level players and they begin to realize their potential as great players, many of them will leave us in free agency. There are simply too many lures out there such as better team, super All-star teammates, big cities with bright lights and flashy women for young players on the cusp of greatness.

Suppose we use all of our draft picks so well that we get three or four absolutely great players who show All-star play in two or three years. What are the chances we keep them all? Zero in my opinion. So if we find a player(s) who can step in to the starting lineup sooner rather than later, let's take those two or three years of production on an initial contract and then see what happens in extending their contract. We may never see a Big Three again.

[exstatic]

It doesn't take a degree in accounting to figure out that a player who can come out at a young age and stick around for a few years is going to make a potful of money more than one who stays in school , earns a degree while polishing his skills, and incidentally lets his body mature. Since most players with NBA dreams don't give a rat's ass about completing a degree that will be totally useless to them in their future, there is no incentive to stay in school any longer than absolutely necessary to get that DD (Draft Degree) instead of a B.A. That's why the average age of players entering the draft and the NBA is dropping--and why our draft picks are shifting to younger players. We've been talking about this shift for ages. Nothing new here.

On the other hand, there is no reason to treat a draft prospect like a leper if he is over 20. (OMG, he's so OLD!) He might even be more ready for the NBA than some 18 year old who "has the potential to gain some muscle to handle the bigger faster players in the league."

Let's just take a step back and look at most draft picks realistically for what they bring to the table NOW. I'm sick of players with potential who still need two or three years of G league experience before they are useful. By the time we train them to NBA level players and they begin to realize their potential as great players, many of them will leave us in free agency. There are simply too many lures out there such as better team, super All-star teammates, big cities with bright lights and flashy women for young players on the cusp of greatness.

Suppose we use all of our draft picks so well that we get three or four absolutely great players who show All-star play in two or three years. What are the chances we keep them all? Zero in my opinion. So if we find a player(s) who can step in to the starting lineup sooner rather than later, let's take those two or three years of production on an initial contract and then see what happens in extending their contract. We may never see a Big Three again.

We need an All NBA player, not a starter. We have those. We certainly won’t EVER have another big three if we’re bunting or choking up on the bat for singles. Slide back into the batters box, eradicate the back chalk line, and swing from your heels for the fence.

In your scenario of all four players hitting the jackpot, we can’t keep them all, because we can’t PAY them all.

The reality is that more finished products are dead ends, and the Spurs know that. They could have drafted Clarke. They could have drafted Duarte. They didn’t. In the past 6 drafts, they’ve drafted 6 FRPs that were 19 or younger, and one 22 year old, who is no longer on the team.

They had exactly one FRP development project walk out on them, and that was because they were so stealth, and not wanting him poached, that they didn’t even interview or test hm. It bit them in the ass the one time they didn’t follow their rules. I don’t see them ever walking that Kawhi path again, not knowing anything about who a player is before drafting him.

Yes, there will be busts, maybe a lot of them. Sammich is already gone, and Lonnie looks to follow him out the door. You can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. That’s likeLy why SA is collecting FRPs. More chances, better odds of hitting a winner.

[Chinook]

Other than White, nope. Hard nope. You and Dejounte are both fond of using outliers to support you positions.

I don't know why you think listing players the Spurs have drafted negates the greater trends anyone is talking about. First, passing off sophomores who are going to turn 20 before their first season as fundamentally the same as freshman is dumb. The reason why older players are thought to have less upside is not literally because 21- or 22-year-old bodies calcify at a high rate or whatever. It's because those players are thought have a physical advantage in school and have had additional years of coaching. When a guy has multiple years of NCAA coaching, he's going to have improved more than the same guy with less mid-level coaching. It's the same reason why one shouldn't think that Lonnie Walker at 23 is fundamentally the same as Alondes Williams, who's less than a year younger.

More importantly, unless you're a Spurs nationalist who thinks every pick the Spurs make is necessarily the right pick, you need to do more to prove your point than to say the Spurs may agree with you. The Spurs have drafted a few players in their first year of eligibility. Murray, Walker, Samanic and Johnson. It took Murray five seasons to become a positive player. Keldon is still a negative player. Walker is a strongly negative player. Samanic is out of the league. Primo is to be decided, and but he's also a negative. If they've had a post-Duncan trend of drafting young players, then that might as much as anything explain why they've missed the playoffs almost all of those years. Their efficiency has plummeted. The hope is that in year four, Johnson is a positive player, and Primo finds a way to make it there sooner while Walker gets there if he's retained.

But compare that to White, who was positive his entire career with the Spurs. The Spurs got back their investment in him immediately and were able to flip him for more assets. You need to be able to do that with picks. Some picks you can totally afford to take the hit on developmental years, but it's more than arguable that the Spurs have had that balance skewed since 2018. With three first-rounders, they definitely shouldn't try that plan for every pick. Do you want to take a guy at 9 you think might need a couple of years to become a positive player? Okay, but then at least one of 20 or 25 needs to be a player who can give you value. You want to take a complete lotto ticket? Okay, then do that with one of the extra firsts. But the dream of drafting a couple of 18-year-olds and letting Pop and Wright spray their Spurs secret sauce on them in Austin for a year so that they'll magically perform like second-year DeJounte is optimistic, to put it kindly.

[Chinook]

When you start calling Leonard and 19-year-old developmental project and trying to lump him with Primo and Pokusevski, you aren't even trying to be honest.

Much is made of that 2019 draft. I personally think it's too early to post the numbers, since the point of using total win-shares over time is to allow projects to catch up and see if they can overcome the head start the older players got. But here is what it looks like after three years: https://www.basketball-reference.com/draft/NBA_2019.html

As you can see, it's once again a mix of older and younger players. Four players in the top 10 were upperclassmen, two were sophomores and four were freshmen. Does it matter if someone like Keldon eventually starts getting more win-shares per year than Clarke? Does it matter if that comeback is strong enough to where Johnson eventually gets more in his career than Clarke has? It might. Or, it might already be time to call it, if you think the most important thing in the modern NBA is to get bang for your buck with picks. That's a legit philosophical debate, and I don't think the answer is the same in every situation. I am saying that age and upside are actually nuanced concepts that can't be explained with one random chart, and that no intelligent organization is going to cleave to a single standard to measure players.

[Seventyniner]

letting Pop and Wright spray their Spurs secret sauce on them in Austin for a year

bro did you really have to word it that way

[Chinook]

bro did you really have to word it that way

Have culty views, get culty imagery. I think that's the saying.

[exstatic]

It’s actually a pretty simple concept: I watch what the Spurs have done to figure out what they’re going to do. People on this forum hare off after the flavor of the month, the guy who jumps high, or shoots, but does nothing else. Here's what the Spurs are going to do with any keeper picks. They’ll draft 18 or19 year olds who are smart, who can defend or have the tools to do so, and who can create in at least a secondary role. They might be shooters, but they should at least be teachable/fixable if they’re not. That’s it.

[rascal]

It’s actually a pretty simple concept: I watch what the Spurs have done to figure out what they’re going to do. People on this forum hare off after the flavor of the month, the guy who jumps high, or shoots, but does nothing else. Here's what the Spurs are going to do with any keeper picks. They’ll draft 18 or19 year olds who are smart, who can defend or have the tools to do so, and who can create in at least a secondary role. They might be shooters, but they should at least be teachable/fixable if they’re not. That’s it.

You don't know what they will do.

[exstatic]

You don't know what they will do.

We’ll see. After the draft is over, and all trades have been announced and finalized, come back and see how my post has aged.

Second round rules are more lax. Mostly the same, but they’ll draft older players like Q or Tre.

[Chinook]

It’s actually a pretty simple concept: I watch what the Spurs have done to figure out what they’re going to do. People on this forum hare off after the flavor of the month, the guy who jumps high, or shoots, but does nothing else. Here's what the Spurs are going to do with any keeper picks. They’ll draft 18 or19 year olds who are smart, who can defend or have the tools to do so, and who can create in at least a secondary role. They might be shooters, but they should at least be teachable/fixable if they’re not. That’s it.

Pretty sure basically no one is arguing over what the Spurs WILL do. They'll do what they'll do, and we won't affect that. We are talking about what they SHOULD do. Unless you believe that everything the Spurs end up doing was the best choice, then those are two very different things. A lot of us fear that they will draft some 18- or 19-year-old 6-5 wing whom they stick in the d-league for a year for some reason and then have him come into the league his second year as a ball-dominant midrange-shooting combo-guard who struggles to fit into a team concept and posts a negative net-rating. I mean, yeah, the Spurs fan in me wakes up in cold sweats about that. That's because if they keep following that trend, it would be a bad decision in my eyes. I'll be desperately hoping they win free agency to cover up for a bad draft. I'll still root for all of the players in the summer league and all that, but I'll be even more disillusioned about the direction of the team.

[exstatic]

Pretty sure basically no one is arguing over what the Spurs WILL do. They'll do what they'll do, and we won't affect that. We are talking about what they SHOULD do. Unless you believe that everything the Spurs end up doing was the best choice, then those are two very different things. A lot of us fear that they will draft some 18- or 19-year-old 6-5 wing whom they stick in the d-league for a year for some reason and then have him come into the league his second year as a ball-dominant midrange-shooting combo-guard who struggles to fit into a team concept and posts a negative net-rating. I mean, yeah, the Spurs fan in me wakes up in cold sweats about that. That's because if they keep following that trend, it would be a bad decision in my eyes. I'll be desperately hoping they win free agency to cover up for a bad draft. I'll still root for all of the players in the summer league and all that, but I'll be even more disillusioned about the direction of the team.

This is actually a pretty good draft for the Spurs to follow their template AND come away with a player 6’8” or taller.

I find that trying to impose my template on what the Spurs do to be a waste of time, but you do you. PATFO has access to reams of data on the players that we don’t. I don’t think they’re perfect, and I’ve stated that. They miss, and I’ve stated that, too. What I’m convinced of is that they’re trying for the home run, and I’m good with that. We’ve got enough surrounding complementary players.

[Chinook]

I find that trying to impose my template on what the Spurs do to be a waste of time, but you do you.

Wait, what do you think you're spending your time doing? Do you think typing post after posting saying the Spurs will do the right thing is somehow a better use of time than saying what you hope they do? It's all the same, us using heartbeats to pump blood and electricity into our finger muscles so that we can post our thoughts for free on a message board. Unless timvp has some kind of "guess the pick and win $50" game next month, there's no value added either way.


We’ve got enough surrounding complementary players.

I don't think the Spurs have complimentary players outside of Poeltl and Richardson. What they have are middling prospects who project to be complimentary players. That distinction matters, because they NEED actual complimentary players instead of net-negatives. Those are the guys that can get you good trade value like Hill, White and Young, and you need those guys to make a free-agent push actually work. You can draft some guys to be patient with too, but you can't repeatedly draft players with the goal of them becoming net-contributors sometime during their second contracts. That's not sustainable, and it isn't how they're going to dig themselves out of their hole.

[exstatic]

There are multiple players who could or do fit that template, especially with multiple picks. That’s worthwhile discussing, to me.

In the TaT mock lottery, there are 9 out of 14 who could be said to fit the template. I don’t find discoing those other 5 to be nteresting. There’s also the thing where people get PISSED when the Spurs don’t draft who they want, and I don’t find that a productive use of time. I’m not smarter than PATFO,nor do I pretend to be, but there are more than a few here who DO think they are smarter than PATFO. They really do.

[Dejounte]

It doesn't take a degree in accounting to figure out that a player who can come out at a young age and stick around for a few years is going to make a potful of money more than one who stays in school , earns a degree while polishing his skills, and incidentally lets his body mature. Since most players with NBA dreams don't give a rat's ass about completing a degree that will be totally useless to them in their future, there is no incentive to stay in school any longer than absolutely necessary to get that DD (Draft Degree) instead of a B.A. That's why the average age of players entering the draft and the NBA is dropping--and why our draft picks are shifting to younger players. We've been talking about this shift for ages. Nothing new here.

On the other hand, there is no reason to treat a draft prospect like a leper if he is over 20. (OMG, he's so OLD!) He might even be more ready for the NBA than some 18 year old who "has the potential to gain some muscle to handle the bigger faster players in the league."

Let's just take a step back and look at most draft picks realistically for what they bring to the table NOW. I'm sick of players with potential who still need two or three years of G league experience before they are useful. By the time we train them to NBA level players and they begin to realize their potential as great players, many of them will leave us in free agency. There are simply too many lures out there such as better team, super All-star teammates, big cities with bright lights and flashy women for young players on the cusp of greatness.

Suppose we use all of our draft picks so well that we get three or four absolutely great players who show All-star play in two or three years. What are the chances we keep them all? Zero in my opinion. So if we find a player(s) who can step in to the starting lineup sooner rather than later, let's take those two or three years of production on an initial contract and then see what happens in extending their contract. We may never see a Big Three again.


I’m not anti-“draft a 18 or 19 year old”

I’m anti-“draft a 18 or 19 year old at all costs”

I’m anti-“do XYZ at all costs” for that matter

Such thinking are for simpletons who lack nuance

the moron who accused me of not making any counterpoints and only bringing distraction basically conveniently ignored points I brought in much earlier in this thread and went off to spout his usual irrelevant bullshit.

I acknowledged the difference between draft age and start-of-rookie season age. It’s out-of-this-world for this idiot when someone takes accountability for things they say. A very foreign concept to him.

I see no acknowledgement of the following points I made in earlier posts:

1) How COVID has impacted when prospects come out of college the last couple of years, thus not being the “of age” from his BS requirements
2) If a prospect turned 20 just before Draft Day, does that disqualify their “supreme home run” status as a prospect? If they turn 20 right after Draft Day, does that mean they “made it” in the wonderful Book of Heaven and they are still part of the “Chosen Ones”?

I don’t expect to have rebuttals to these points nor do I care to see one now, especially from a dude who expresses fake humility about him not knowing any better yet goes on and on about “it’s gotta be this one way or else they’ll fuck up”

[The Truth #6]

I'm ok with a variety of directions the Spurs could go in, but I just hope they don't draft players who can't even contribute anything yet. I understand some seasoning in G League for part of the year, but not to an extreme. And I think they learned their lesson somewhat after Luka Sammich. No more outright crazy difficult players. Yeah, we'll see what they go for. Some draft night trades, if they bring clarity to the roster and our direction, would be nice as well. But we'll see.

[R. DeMurre]

I'm ok with a variety of directions the Spurs could go in, but I just hope they don't draft players who can't even contribute anything yet. I understand some seasoning in G League for part of the year, but not to an extreme. And I think they learned their lesson somewhat after Luka Sammich. No more outright crazy difficult players. Yeah, we'll see what they go for. Some draft night trades, if they bring clarity to the roster and our direction, would be nice as well. But we'll see.


I think people tend to overstate the tendencies of most teams-- you see it now in lots of mock drafts where people have the Spurs picking foreign players because "that's a thing the Spurs do." But looking objectively at their picks in the last half decade, it's really not-- not anymore than any other team at this point. They were ahead of the curve on that in the past, but the rest of the league has generally caught up with regards to Euro scouting. If the often repeated cliches about the Spurs were true, they would've picked Nikola Jokic in 2014 instead of Kyle Anderson, and we'd be looking at a vastly different situation right now! It's funny, but I've read multiple comments in just the last few days from people saying the Spurs won't pick Sochan, because they're not the type of organization to put up with a "Rodman-like" guy (as if Dennis was the first human to ever dye his hair, or that every college dude who dyes his hair is automatically similar to him!), which I seriously doubt is the case. If anything, Pop would probably admire Sochan's stances on social causes & the like. The guy I see Pop having more trouble with is Tari Eason, who is super talented but also super wild, & probably too turnover & foul prone for Pop's tastes.

[jjspur]

I'm ok with a variety of directions the Spurs could go in, but I just hope they don't draft players who can't even contribute anything yet. I understand some seasoning in G League for part of the year, but not to an extreme. And I think they learned their lesson somewhat after Luka Sammich. No more outright crazy difficult players. Yeah, we'll see what they go for. Some draft night trades, if they bring clarity to the roster and our direction, would be nice as well. But we'll see.

That's a good amount of common sense thank you. Hopefully the spurs will use some on draft night. They'll have their choice of a number of players just no more non contributing, two years away from being two years away bad dribbling, not tall enough, non rebounding 18-19 year olds or euro slackers for this team please.

[The Truth #6]

I think people tend to overstate the tendencies of most teams-- you see it now in lots of mock drafts where people have the Spurs picking foreign players because "that's a thing the Spurs do." But looking objectively at their picks in the last half decade, it's really not-- not anymore than any other team at this point. They were ahead of the curve on that in the past, but the rest of the league has generally caught up with regards to Euro scouting. If the often repeated cliches about the Spurs were true, they would've picked Nikola Jokic in 2014 instead of Kyle Anderson, and we'd be looking at a vastly different situation right now! It's funny, but I've read multiple comments in just the last few days from people saying the Spurs won't pick Sochan, because they're not the type of organization to put up with a "Rodman-like" guy (as if Dennis was the first human to ever dye his hair, or that every college dude who dyes his hair is automatically similar to him!), which I seriously doubt is the case. If anything, Pop would probably admire Sochan's stances on social causes & the like. The guy I see Pop having more trouble with is Tari Eason, who is super talented but also super wild, & probably too turnover & foul prone for Pop's tastes.

It's a good point. If they go with Tari Eason (ideally at 20 if he slides), then I suppose it becomes a balance of how much he is able to contribute. It definitely could be a battle of the wills if his personality is indeed wired that way, but I hope that somehow he is good enough for Pop to roll with it. With Eason, and anyone in general, really, if we land a player who is somehow talented enough where Pop has to just roll with it, then we'll be closer to having another star on our hand I would imagine. If the problem is from trying too hard instead of not enough, then the Old Man might also find a way to exercise some patience. Trigger warning: I mean, it worked with Manu Ginobili.

Joking. Relax.

[R. DeMurre]

Trigger warning: I mean, it worked with Manu Ginobili.

Joking. Relax.


:lol I was actually going to mention Manu, but then decided, nah, he's more idiosyncratic than wild anyway.

[Chinook]

I don't get it, is Eason a bad teammate? If he's a good teammate but just weird, Pop isn't going to have any more of a problem with him than any other coach. Will Pop try to get Eason to be more disciplined? Yes. Will he compromise if Eason is effective? Yes. People forget that Pop and Manu didn't get along well on the court for years because of Ginobili's freelancing. Eventually they settled on a compromise that got the best out of him. That would be true for Eason, Marcus Smart or Tony Allen if that guy were available. Now, if Eason just refuses to improve, that's a different story, and it won't matter who his coach is. Or if he's a locker-room cancer like Jack was, then that's not going to fly. But I think it's lazy to believe the Spurs need everyone to have the same personality. The Spurs could totally due with an defensive edge right now, because they don't have the perimeter talent to be an elite finesse defense like they were in 2012-2016.

[The Truth #6]

^ Chinook, I don't see your post saying anything in disagreement with what I said. Or are you referring to someone else?

Gun to my head, I think he's my preferred pick at 9. There aren't a lot of interviews out there I could find with him, except this goofy ass video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mmvV9pgdRY

To me that shows a solid person, actually quite articulate, humble, and loves the game of basketball. Honestly, I don't see how he isn't rated higher.

Yeah, he might be weird in that he's more intelligent than his peers, and so Pop could love that.

[Chinook]

^ Chinook, I don't see your post saying anything in disagreement with what I said. Or are you referring to someone else?

I didn't reply to you, so I don't know why you assumed I was talking about your specific stance. I even liked your post, since as you said, it did agree with a lot of what I was saying. The idea that Eason has some personality issues that would make the Spurs pass on him has been brought up before. I don't know enough about him personally to know if he's a real problem of it people are just under the impression the Spurs can't handle different personalities. Eason obviously has a great work ethic and a ton of passion. Unless he's an asshole, Johnathon Isaac 2.0 or has prominent uncles, I can't even imagine why it keeps getting brought up.

[The Truth #6]

Yeah, makes sense. It's the nature of the internet, trying to clarify what others are writing.

Anyway. And I know I'm hijacking the Murray thread to talk about Eason (until someone dedicates a thread to him), but he seems like a player that could contribute immediately on the defensive side while also learning to craft his game in the way Kawhi did, in theory at least. He seems like he was created in a lab for what we need: 6'8" player, crazy wingspan, crazy athletic physical skills, articulate, loves to play defense, burgeoning offensive skills. Sign me up. Added bonus, he 's from Seattle so DJM can someone to mentor from his hometown, because it seems that's something he would like to do, but that's a footnote to his appeal to the current Spurs team.

[Mr. Body]

There are suggestions that Eason's interviews/workouts aren't going well, whatever that means. He may be a weird dude, as others have mentioned. That aside, he seems to be an undisciplined player who struggles to play within college sets both on offense and defense. He may be incredibly talented on an individual level, if this is true, but has little team IQ.

[The Truth #6]

I suppose the Spurs would be the best team to teach discipline, if he’s open to learn.

[Ocotillo]

Yeah, makes sense. It's the nature of the internet, trying to clarify what others are writing.

Anyway. And I know I'm hijacking the Murray thread to talk about Eason (until someone dedicates a thread to him), but he seems like a player that could contribute immediately on the defensive side while also learning to craft his game in the way Kawhi did, in theory at least. He seems like he was created in a lab for what we need: 6'8" player, crazy wingspan, crazy athletic physical skills, articulate, loves to play defense, burgeoning offensive skills. Sign me up. Added bonus, he 's from Seattle so DJM can someone to mentor from his hometown, because it seems that's something he would like to do, but that's a footnote to his appeal to the current Spurs team.

He is the prototype of what we could use on this team on paper. For all his eccentricities, Nephew was a gym rat that worked hard on what he needed to work on. Does Eason? Who knows, hope so.

[Ocotillo]

Yeah, makes sense. It's the nature of the internet, trying to clarify what others are writing.

Anyway. And I know I'm hijacking the Murray thread to talk about Eason (until someone dedicates a thread to him), but he seems like a player that could contribute immediately on the defensive side while also learning to craft his game in the way Kawhi did, in theory at least. He seems like he was created in a lab for what we need: 6'8" player, crazy wingspan, crazy athletic physical skills, articulate, loves to play defense, burgeoning offensive skills. Sign me up. Added bonus, he 's from Seattle so DJM can someone to mentor from his hometown, because it seems that's something he would like to do, but that's a footnote to his appeal to the current Spurs team.

He is the prototype of what we could use on this team on paper. For all his eccentricities, Nephew was a gym rat that worked hard on what he needed to work on. Does Eason? Who knows, hope so.

[PhantomDashCam]

1531404365705142272

[R. DeMurre]

It's funny, but I've read multiple comments in just the last few days from people saying the Spurs won't pick Sochan, because they're not the type of organization to put up with a "Rodman-like" guy (as if Dennis was the first human to ever dye his hair, or that every college dude who dyes his hair is automatically similar to him!), which I seriously doubt is the case.


But I think it's lazy to believe the Spurs need everyone to have the same personality. The Spurs could totally due with an defensive edge right now, because they don't have the perimeter talent to be an elite finesse defense like they were in 2012-2016.

I haven't seen anyone say the Spurs need everyone to have the same personality... where is that coming from? In fact, my post specifically mentioned Sochan as a talent the Spurs wouldn't automatically dismiss simply because he has a unique personality, and--like you said-- one whose defensive edge they'd like.

[Mr. Body]

Nothing about Sochan reads as Rodman off the court. He comes off as a kind of a funny kid who likes his family and likes his unusual background. No red flags at all and well within what is considered Spurs-like. Even more so since he's worldly.

The issue with Eason isn't any prickliness or weirdness but the fact that he may simply not understand basketball at a high enough level. He fouled out of a lot of games, even coming off the bench, and LSU fans report that he'd often not pick up on basic rotations and would freelance a lot. I've said before, he's like that guy at the YMCA that crushes in pick-up games, but once he plays organized ball his problems emerge. I'd still draft him at a certain point.

[The Truth #6]

Seattle is close to Canada. Maybe Brian Wright will like Eason more if he thinks of it that way.

Joking…

[SAGirl]

I agree with Chinook on a lot of points. It makes sense for a team that likes to throw darts at very young players that have a lot to improve on still to have more picks to take those swings.

I am replying mostly to share that thinking about this has put the alleged/rumored Spurs promise to Caleb Houstan in perspective. He is 19, had an underwhelming to bad first season, to the point he was projected as a late second rounder without a good combine showing — which he needed.

It’s not out of the realm of possibilities to think that if he had played at the combine, he would have shined. He already played great in Under 19 tournaments and a lot of the combine prospects’ are not NBA material ultimately. He could have looked like Kyle Anderson in summer league for all we know. Then that showing, combined with the fact that he could at least shoot well, his height, length and age (just a factor here, but important for scouts taken together with everything else) would have catapulted him to a late first round pick at least.

I have thought the Spurs actually gave him a promise for the 38 pick with a guaranteed deal like they did to Tre, because they believe in him like a first round pick and believe he deserves the couple of guaranteed years to develop, specially because he’s also very young and could have benefitted from going back to college, which they know. Why does it make sense for the player to forgo the combine instead of taking his chances?

Because he didnt want to fumble the bag basically. Its better to take the guaranteed deal that you like, rather than refuse that and go take chances that don't let you know where you will end up, whether you will like the situation, or the team will even be that invested in you. Also, I have thought about the unlikely scenario that he could be a surprising talent taken on the second round, like a best case scenario for him is a Chandler Parsons career trajectory. He would hit FA sooner and get paid on his second contract sooner.

The Spurs are known for giving their players time to develop and invest on their growth and development. They are also a young team trending even younger with playing time to spare for your young projects who show potential. Its a good place to get drafted at currently. I am actually quite ok with them giving that promise to Houstan for 38 and perhaps even 25 if they start fearing a different team also likes him and will jump on them to grab him sooner than 38.

The season they gambled on a project like Luka Samanic, they at least ended with Keldon. Them having extra picks is the best scenario for allowing margins for errors on home run swings. Is Houstan a home run swing? He doesn’t look like it, but he has paths to be an useful player at least, which is not bad for 38. More questionable at 25, but still justifiable when we know that’s not their only chance for a swing. Id think they will go for surer hits with their higher picks, but we will see.

As for Keegan, he's a no brainer. Let the Spurs take their swings on youngin projects like Houstan later people.

[rjv]

There are multiple players who could or do fit that template, especially with multiple picks. That’s worthwhile discussing, to me.

In the TaT mock lottery, there are 9 out of 14 who could be said to fit the template. I don’t find discoing those other 5 to be nteresting. There’s also the thing where people get PISSED when the Spurs don’t draft who they want, and I don’t find that a productive use of time. I’m not smarter than PATFO,nor do I pretend to be, but there are more than a few here who DO think they are smarter than PATFO. They really do.

bingo. also, there are too many posters here who play armchair GM in a vacuum, without any knowledge of how the entire process is being played out, what goes on internally, and so on. so, in their smug eyes, it's a very black and white world, one in which their take is more than just an opinion, it's gold. i'm just here for the entertainment, coming across the occasional good take and links to articles.

[DAF86]

From the scouting reports I've read on the web and seen in youtube, this guy seems like the best fit for the Spurs. But it looks like there's no chance of him falling to #9.

[Mr. Body]

From the scouting reports I've read on the web and seen in youtube, this guy seems like the best fit for the Spurs. But it looks like there's no chance of him falling to #9.

If reports are true, Sacramento seems enamored of him. If they don't take him, I think there's at least a small chance he falls to nine. I could see Duren and even Sochan go before him.

[AFBlue]

This guy is the best fit outside of Banchero, right? If he falls to 7, you gotta go get him.

[DAF86]

https://youtu.be/QAloqsWv7fk

I’m a big Keegan guy.
If he’s there at 9, I would assume other higher upside guards would be off the board which means the Spurs shouldn’t hesitate.
There will be an opportunity to take the upside swing at 20 if so inclined too.

Hadn't seen this video yet. He's literally reinforcing what I thought: Keegan/Spurs seem like a perfect match.

[BatManu20]

This guy is the best fit outside of Banchero, right? If he falls to 7, you gotta go get him.

Sacramento probably grabs him at 4. They’re reportedly really high on him.

If not, Detroit at 5 or Indy at 6 will grab him imo.

[DAF86]

He looks like a pretty decent player but I'm not seeing anything special in him. A safe pick that doesn't have potential to move the needle anywhere.

At this point I would rather see the Spurs swinging for the home run rather then going for the bunt. More risky yes but Spurs should be only bunting if they have any already established players which is somethingthis team is very lacking.

The Spurs already swung for the HR in last year's draft. A nice solid single hit is what we need to keep the process moving forward. Or else, you will see Dejounte starting to get impatient sooner rather than later.

Keegan seems like Vassell in the sense that he's the safest of bets at getting, at least, a good caliber starting player with a long shot of becoming something else. The Spurs shouldn't pass on the guy if he's available at 9.

[DAF86]

If Keegan gives us a Vassell type production on his rookie campaing and Murray, KJ and DV improve on what they did last season, the Spurs easily become a playoffs team.

[RC_Drunkford]

From the scouting reports I've read on the web and seen in youtube, this guy seems like the best fit for the Spurs. But it looks like there's no chance of him falling to #9.

yup he's also most likely to win rookie of the year besides Banchero

[PhantomDashCam]

Hadn't seen this video yet. He's literally reinforcing what I thought: Keegan/Spurs seem like a perfect match.

I agree though looking like a lock at 4...

1538919050230874112

then again he did just give the "Haliburton" kiss of death commitment...

1539085028474380301

[Mr. Body]

I agree though looking like a lock at 4...

1538919050230874112

then again he did just give the "Haliburton" kiss of death commitment...

1539085028474380301

"Oh, wait, I may be going to the Kings. Let me think this over for a second."

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

If Kings take him I'm offering 25 for Harrison Barnes.

[rascal]

The Spurs already swung for the HR in last year's draft. A nice solid single hit is what we need to keep the process moving forward. Or else, you will see Dejounte starting to get impatient sooner rather than later.

Keegan seems like Vassell in the sense that he's the safest of bets at getting, at least, a good caliber starting player with a long shot of becoming something else. The Spurs shouldn't pass on the guy if he's available at 9.

No, they still need a Home Run because they didn't hit one last year.

[DPG21920]

Intel on SA trying to move to 4 for Keegan. Seems silly if it costs 9 + Keldon or Vassell but that’s just me

1539237087882403841

[Degoat]

If they for sure think Keegan Murray could be star then I would do it… honestly if we traded up to 4 tho I’d want Ivey lol

[mo7888]

I like the idea of moving up and if we've tried with Sacramento them I'm sure we've probed Houston at 3 as well... I'd be pretty stoked if we could get into the top 4...

[Ariel]

If Keegan gives us a Vassell type production on his rookie campaing and Murray, KJ and DV improve on what they did last season, the Spurs easily become a playoffs team.
You'd still have before us:
Golden State
Memphis
Dallas (rising)
Phoenix (although hardly no. 1 anymore)
Denver (Murray and MPJ back)
Minnesota (another year of growth for Edwards + the addition of Connelly guarantees competent offseason)
New Orleans (more talented, deeper and more balanced than us)
Also there's the Jazz (unless they blow up the team) and Cliippers (if Kawhi is back and they keep their FA), and maybe even the Lakers (with LeBron & AD back.. plus some new FA blood...) though that is very much up in the air.
So all in all, I don't see how we're EASILY a playoff team even with Keegan Murray, for us to make the playoffs we'd likely have to go through the play in as 9th or 10th seed and, though possible, it's far from a done deal.

[DPG21920]

I just don’t see how SA could value Keegan so highly that you give up 9 + more. Makes no sense

[AFBlue]

Intel on SA trying to move to 4 for Keegan. Seems silly if it costs 9 + Keldon or Vassell but that’s just me

1539237087882403841

Makes a lot of sense given his skill set and the depth at wing. Can't imagine we'd give up Keldon in any scenario, but that may be why we lose out on this scenario to other teams.

[rascal]

Murray would be great but he'll be gone before 9. He's worth trading up for.

[AFBlue]

I just don’t see how SA could value Keegan so highly that you give up 9 + more. Makes no sense

Fills a serious need while preserving cap space for a go-to scorer to round out the roster. There just isn't that guy available at #9. I like that the Spurs are being aggressive, even if it's just talks. Gotta take some swings to get out of this middle ground they've been in the past few years.

[rascal]

Makes a lot of sense given his skill set and the depth at wing. Can't imagine we'd give up Keldon in any scenario, but that may be why we lose out on this scenario to other teams.

I'd give Keldon and 9 in a second.

I doubt that would be enough to get up to 4.

[mo7888]

I just don’t see how SA could value Keegan so highly that you give up 9 + more. Makes no sense

He's a consensus top 5 player in the draft so it's not much of a stretch... there's also the possibility that we could be after Ivey or that maybe OKC takes Ivey at 2 and Paolo falls to 4th.... I think there are more scenarios at play here...but even if its Keegan at 4 thats a good fit.

[Ariel]

I just don’t see how SA could value Keegan so highly that you give up 9 + more. Makes no sense
Depends on what is more... I wouldn't give up 9 + Keldon for Keegan Murray. For Banchero I would, but it seems obvious from the Christian Wood trade that he's going AT THE LATEST to the Rockets at no. 3. Smart move by them.

[offset formation]

As I've said, he's at the upper limit of who I'd dream we could get at 9. But that's really all it is, a dream. Very unlikely he makes it past 7. And I could see a scenario where OKC trades up to get him at 8 knowing we would like him. So aside from some unforseen drop, I'm trying to be more realistic in who we take at 9. To me we have a better shot at Dieng, Sochan, and Daniels so that's where my hopes currently rest.

[cd98]

Imagine where the Spurs would be in the draft if they had followed Portland's lead and stopped playing their starters.

[Cardinal]

Seems like too much to give for Keegan. If one of Holmgren, Smith, Banchero falls to 4 then of course you pull the trigger, but why would the Kings want to trade out in that scenario?

[AFBlue]

Seems like too much to give for Keegan. If one of Holmgren, Smith, Banchero falls to 4 then of course you pull the trigger, but why would the Kings want to trade out in that scenario?

Because of what they can get in return. I imagine Banchero is at the very top of multiple draft boards, so the leverage at 4 would be incredible.

With that said, I think the smoke about them being high on Murray at 4 is a similar leverage play. Ivey slips no lower than 5 and Murray at 4 is still value. Kings in the catbird seat at the moment.

[John B]

I mentioned before, as much as I like Keldon, I’d include him on a possible trade (same with Poeltl) if I could land Keegan Murray, or move up the 20/25 to get Sochan as 2nd pick. Keldon is a tweener at PF pisition. And unless he miraculously got faster on lateral speed to cover swifter SF, Keldon is the odd man out. Devin is a more natural fit at SF.

Keegan checks off goto scorer, and defensive PF. So if it takes moving Keldon then so be it.

[Ignazzz]

I mentioned before, as much as I like Keldon, I’d include him on a possible trade (same with Poeltl) if I could land Keegan Murray, or move up the 20/25 to get Sochan as 2nd pick. Keldon is a tweener at PF pisition. And unless he miraculously got faster on lateral speed to cover swifter SF, Keldon is the odd man out. Devin is a more natural fit at SF.

Keegan checks off goto scorer, and defensive PF. So if it takes moving Keldon then so be it.

yes & yes

[RC_Drunkford]

Keldon will most likely average 20 PPG next season. I‘m not trading him nor Vassell right now for Keegan Murray. Now if Banchero falls to #4 that would make sense. Interesting, but I don‘t see us going for it.

[DAF86]

No, they still need a Home Run because they didn't hit one last year.

You can't keep striking out trying to go for homers. Also, whose to say Keegan isn't a homer?

[John B]

Keldon will most likely average 20 PPG next season. I‘m not trading him nor Vassell right now for Keegan Murray. Now if Banchero falls to #4 that would make sense. Interesting, but I don‘t see us going for it.

I’m afraid Keldon will forever be ST’s whipping boy because of his size at PF. Again I would love if he gets slimmer and maybe gets faster at SF because his 3pt is money. AND if Spurs could get a great help defender like Sochan/Eason would be great. But right now he would be best used at 6th man and create havoc off the bench, still averaging 20pts but 6th man position.

[rascal]

You can't keep striking out trying to go for homers. Also, whose to say Keegan isn't a homer?

Keegan would be a home run but how are the Spurs getting him?

[exstatic]

You can't keep striking out trying to go for homers. Also, whose to say Keegan isn't a homer?

You swing for the home run with your top pick until you get your superstar. The other picks can be used for players of roster to starter caliber.

[John B]

^ I’d pick the BPA at top pick, then use 20 or 25 at homer. Dieng is a great example who I would hate at 9, but I would be happy to draft at 20/25 with his upsides potentials.

[slick'81]

You swing for the home run with your top pick until you get your superstar. The other picks can be used for players of roster to starter caliber.


are we really expecting primo to be a superstar?

[Vince Carter's ankle]

are we really expecting primo to be a superstar?
That's right

[Ariel]

You swing for the home run with your top pick until you get your superstar. The other picks can be used for players of roster to starter caliber.
That's a horrible strategy. I get the need for a star, and I agree it should be a priority. But not every draft has one, and certainly not at 9. If there is a player with REAL star potential, sure, take him... but if not, simply swinging for the sake of it as if you could turn mud into gold only ensures years of misery. Its much better to pick the best value at your pick, and eventually trade your way up the draft, or into a star. Adding talent is never redundant, even if it's not superstar caliber talent. Swing ONLY IF THERE'S SOMETHING WORTH SWINGING FOR (i.e., NOT the Primos of the world). Or otherwise simply tank FOR ONE SEASON and get it over with, instead of swinging aimlessly at nothing but air.

[PhantomDashCam]

He's a consensus top 5 player in the draft so it's not much of a stretch... there's also the possibility that we could be after Ivey or that maybe OKC takes Ivey at 2 and Paolo falls to 4th.... I think there are more scenarios at play here...but even if its Keegan at 4 thats a good fit.

Wow this really feels like ‘the draft’ for us considering how it’s shaping up.
As much as I love Keegan, if Ivey was there, you’d have to grab him.

Many have speculated that Ivey could be #1 on some team boards, perhaps the Spurs are one of those teams.
May very well be why DJ trade rumours are popping up too…

[John B]

Wow this really feels like ‘the draft’ for us considering how it’s shaping up.
As much as I love Keegan, if Ivey was there, you’d have to grab him.

Many have speculated that Ivey could be #1 on some team boards, perhaps the Spurs are one of those teams.
May very well be why DJ trade rumours are popping up too…

Why get Ivey when Davis torched Purdue with 37 points? And Davis has a winning match-up against Ivey.

[PhantomDashCam]

Why get Ivey when Davis torched Purdue with 37 points? And Davis has a winning match-up against Ivey.

You base it upon the complete body of work up to this point. The unique physical gifts and unteach-able athleticism that Ivey has.

They’re both considered lottery picks for a reason. It isn’t uncommon for one to get the better of another at times.

[mo7888]

Why get Ivey when Davis torched Purdue with 37 points? And Davis has a winning match-up against Ivey.

Because Ivey has a chance to be an elite nba player...Davis doesn't have that potential...he could be very good but he doesn't have Ivey's ceiling..

[John B]

Because Ivey has a chance to be an elite nba player...Davis doesn't have that potential...he could be very good but he doesn't have Ivey's ceiling..

:lmao On Davis not having that potential.

I already know what I’d get from Davis, while Ivey could be a great bust at 4th pick.

People think Ivey is the second coming of Ja, but could never be. Head-to-head stats, Davis beats Ivey.

[rascal]

Wow this really feels like ‘the draft’ for us considering how it’s shaping up.
As much as I love Keegan, if Ivey was there, you’d have to grab him.

Many have speculated that Ivey could be #1 on some team boards, perhaps the Spurs are one of those teams.
May very well be why DJ trade rumours are popping up too…

I'm thinking the opposite.

The 9 pick is not that good as the top 7 guys are likely off the board then who knows what NO takes, Spurs are choosing from a lower tier level player than the top 7 or 8.

[rascal]

:lmao On Davis not having that potential.

I already know what I’d get from Davis, while Ivey could be a great bust at 4th pick.

People think Ivey is the second coming of Ja, but could never be. Head-to-head stats, Davis beats Ivey.

Ivey is better, much stronger taking it to the basket. Ivey has more athleticism.

Davis still has work to do on his 3 pt. shot.

[duncan2150]

It will be crazy to trade up for Murray , i don't see the thing. I don't see a superstar here tough his floor could be really good.

The only players i will trade up for or maybe giving a good player are Banchero or Smith but that's it.

[TD 21]

I don't see a viable path. If the Kings trade down, it'll probably be to 5-6 and even if the Spurs included Johnson or Vassell with 9 (which I don't think they would), I don't think that would do it.

He'd probably need to be available at 5, with the Pistons staying put and at that point something like Poeltl and 25 to Hornets, 9, 20, Washington Jr. to Pistons, 5 and 15 to Spurs might have a shot.

[rascal]

:lmao On Davis not having that potential.

I already know what I’d get from Davis, while Ivey could be a great bust at 4th pick.

People think Ivey is the second coming of Ja, but could never be. Head-to-head stats, Davis beats Ivey.

Ivey is the better prospect. That's why he is going with the 4th pick and Davis is falling outside the top 10.

[RC_Drunkford]

:lmao On Davis not having that potential.

I already know what I’d get from Davis, while Ivey could be a great bust at 4th pick.

People think Ivey is the second coming of Ja, but could never be. Head-to-head stats, Davis beats Ivey.

Davis has a higher floor, but Ivey‘s ceiling is way higher due to his athleticism. You take Ivey over Davis anytime

[K...]

I'm thinking the opposite.

The 9 pick is not that good as the top 7 guys are likely off the board then who knows what NO takes, Spurs are choosing from a lower tier level player than the top 7 or 8.

Amazing tautology there. The fun part about 9 is whether someone in your top 8 drop. Well never see the spurs draft board and how close it hews to mocks. This is all fun though.

[rascal]

I don't see a viable path. If the Kings trade down, it'll probably be to 5-6 and even if the Spurs included Johnson or Vassell with 9 (which I don't think they would), I don't think that would do it.

He'd probably need to be available at 5, with the Pistons staying put and at that point something like Poeltl and 25 to Hornets, 9, 20, Washington Jr. to Pistons, 5 and 15 to Spurs might have a shot.

Detroit wants an established star not Washington and those draft picks.

[TD 21]

Detroit wants an established star not Washington and those draft picks.

The Pistons supposedly want Ivey. If he's not available, getting a Grant replacement at the four, a path to and without reaching for Duren at 9 and an extra 1st could hold appeal.

[John B]

Davis has a higher floor, but Ivey‘s ceiling is way higher due to his athleticism. You take Ivey over Davis anytime

I agree with the higher ceiling, but the bust factor on Ivey is too high for me at 4th pick. But to each his own :bobo

[Chinook]

You swing for the home run with your top pick until you get your superstar. The other picks can be used for players of roster to starter caliber.

Nah. If you see your superstar, you trade for them, but you use your picks to get guys who can be traded.

Of course, it's a false dichotomy to suggest that you have to go for a home-run or a strike-out. Most superstars are pretty sure things who are taken high. But of the others, they're just as often high-floor guys who aren't seen as having a ton of upside as they are raw guys who need time to develop. I don't know who the Pokusevski or Samanic is in this draft, but I don't see why going for them over the Haliburtons or Senguns has higher upside. If they don't have higher upsides, then the higher downside gives them a huge advantage.

[rascal]

I agree with the higher ceiling, but the bust factor on Ivey is too high for me at 4th pick. But to each his own :bobo

I see Davis as having a higher bust factor and lower ceiling than Ivey.

[John B]

I see Davis as having a higher bust factor and lower ceiling than Ivey.

Now you’re just hating :lol The only thing Ivey has on Davis is his athleticism. Davis beats him on every category including ALL the intangibles, motor, 50/50, leadership. If there’s a pound per pound, Davis is 2nd only to Chet :lol

[tim_duncan_fan]

IS Keegan Murray a go-to scorer? Obviously minimal sample size, but HoopsIntellect showed tape of him being a bit shaky creating in half-court, as opposed to transition ball.

[Mr. Body]

IS Keegan Murray a go-to scorer? Obviously minimal sample size, but HoopsIntellect showed tape of him being a bit shaky creating in half-court, as opposed to transition ball.

My fear is that Murray is a lot like Luka Garza. Clearly more athletic, but coming from a system that fed him the ball in the same sets constantly. I really have doubts about him.

[RC_Drunkford]

IS Keegan Murray a go-to scorer? Obviously minimal sample size, but HoopsIntellect showed tape of him being a bit shaky creating in half-court, as opposed to transition ball.

He's not. Although he averaged a lot of points in college, most of them came in transition and on catch and shoot 3s. He's not a post player like a Banchero for example, especially in the NBA since he won't be able to overpower players inside. There is upside though if he adds some footwork and muscle mass

[tim_duncan_fan]

He's not. Although he averaged a lot of points in college, most of them came in transition and on catch and shoot 3s. He's not a post player like a Banchero for example, especially in the NBA since he won't be able to overpower players inside. There is upside though if he adds some footwork and muscle mass

I don't think anyone under 6'9 and a half is a post player lol. And I'm not giving up Keldon for slim Antonio McDyess.

I hope the Keegan talk is some kind of smokescreen.

I don't get sports reporting. If I'm a coach I would be telling reporters all kind of shit.

[rascal]

Now you’re just hating :lol The only thing Ivey has on Davis is his athleticism. Davis beats him on every category including ALL the intangibles, motor, 50/50, leadership. If there’s a pound per pound, Davis is 2nd only to Chet :lol

I don't hate Davis, just like Ivey more.

[rascal]

Now you’re just hating :lol The only thing Ivey has on Davis is his athleticism. Davis beats him on every category including ALL the intangibles, motor, 50/50, leadership. If there’s a pound per pound, Davis is 2nd only to Chet :lol

I don't hate Davis, just like Ivey more.

[DAF86]

He's not. Although he averaged a lot of points in college, most of them came in transition and on catch and shoot 3s. [B]He's not a post player like a Banchero for example[b], especially in the NBA since he won't be able to overpower players inside. There is upside though if he adds some footwork and muscle mass

From what I've seen/read, Keegan posted the best post up metrics in the nation.

[DAF86]

I don't think anyone under 6'9 and a half is a post player lol. And I'm not giving up Keldon for slim Antonio McDyess.

I hope the Keegan talk is some kind of smokescreen.

I don't get sports reporting. If I'm a coach I would be telling reporters all kind of shit.

Prime Antonio McDyess is an all-star. I would be more than OK with drafting an all-star caliber player, tbh.

[tim_duncan_fan]

Prime Antonio McDyess is an all-star. I would be more than OK with drafting an all-star caliber player, tbh.

Yeah, I did kind of shit on McDyess for no reason other than having 6 years as a top player instead of 15. Anyway, sidetracked myself, I don't think Keegan obviously is a banger PF.

Perimeter guy who can't carry in half court playoffs is a waste of time at the 4th pick.

[DAF86]

Yeah, I did kind of shit on McDyess for no reason other than having 6 years as a top player instead of 15. Anyway, sidetracked myself, I don't think Keegan obviously is a banger PF.

Perimeter guy who can't carry in half court playoffs is a waste of time at the 4th pick.

Yeah, I don't think moving to 4th to get Keegan makes sense, but if he falls to 9th it would be crazy not to take him, like timvp suggests the Spurs might do.

[RC_Drunkford]

From what I've seen/read, Keegan posted the best post up metrics in the nation.



I don't know, but it could be. But he scored mainly burrying his defender underneath the basket. He won't be able to do that in the NBA as his frame is not strong enough. I'm saying there is upside though if he gets stronger. I'm all for getting him just can't see a realistic scenario where we trade up