Spurs trade ideas

[ginobilized]

Hell no on Mitchell
No on Garland
Maybe on Trae
Possibly on Murray

4 distinctly different players. It really all depends on the team the Spurs are (re-)building.
Historically, when the Spurs have a ton of options, they do less than we in the peanut gallery would hope for.
Of course, pre-Wemby times might have called for different measures. My gut says next year is when the Spurs do a big acquisition.

[r0drig0lac]

Cade would be excellent, but it's not feasible (Pistons wouldn't trade him).
Murray would be the best available at a reasonable price.
I would be after a wing with potential or star level (Ingram?), even if I had to run another year with Tre as a starter.

[spurraider21]

no to mitchell tbh. he went from being a good team player who played both ends to a guy who coasts on defense while his offense hasnt really gotten all that much better or more efficient. dont think he wants to play second fiddle and i dont think he wants to go back to putting consistent effort in on defense. phenomenal player but not what we need next to wemby tbh. he also just seems disgruntled with not being in a big city.

[Knoxxx]

https://www.newsweek.com/sports/nba/top-5-trade-destinations-cavaliers-donovan-mitchell-following-playoff-collapse-1901194

This may have been posted already but I’m too lazy to scroll up more than 3 posts to check.

Now that the Cavaliers are out, much larger decisions loom for Cleveland, including that Mitchell's fate. There had already been talk about Mitchell potentially forcing his way out of town this summer and with another short playoff stint, that talk has now become more of a reality.
He has two years left on his current contract, including a player option on the final season, but many around the league believe he will leave Cleveland. The Cavs will likely offer him a large extension this summer but if the star guard rejects it, Cleveland will need to move him before he leaves for nothing. Assuming Mitchell does reject an extension, here are five potential trade destinations for him this offseason.

[Knoxxx]

My sentiments exactly. What has my interest peeked is that key factors are conspiring together right now to depress Garland’s value:

- As a condition to Mitchell reupping it sounds like his camp will want Garland gone. This is bad for CLE’s leverage.

- Garland had a down year after his jaw injury

- the spurs don’t need Garland: they have PG options between the draft, CLE situation, the ATL situation, and potentially DET’s Cade/Ivey dynamic

- the spurs have the assets to bully other potential rivals who may be interested, including two picks in THIS draft.

- the money isn’t excellent, but it comes before Vic’s big momey at least. It would also likely mean Kelton’s long term money goes out so that helps.

As I noted above, my best offer tops out at Keldon, Malaki, 8, and CHA pick.

Paying Garland $40 million/per sounds like an epic fail.

[mo7888]

My sentiments exactly. What has my interest peeked is that key factors are conspiring together right now to depress Garland’s value:

- As a condition to Mitchell reupping it sounds like his camp will want Garland gone. This is bad for CLE’s leverage.

- Garland had a down year after his jaw injury

- the spurs don’t need Garland: they have PG options between the draft, CLE situation, the ATL situation, and potentially DET’s Cade/Ivey dynamic

- the spurs have the assets to bully other potential rivals who may be interested, including two picks in THIS draft.

- the money isn’t excellent, but it comes before Vic’s big momey at least. It would also likely mean Kelton’s long term money goes out so that helps.

As I noted above, my best offer tops out at Keldon, Malaki, 8, and CHA pick.

I'm not high on Garland, but any package like what you suggested should send out Collins and not Keldon. He's not a good fit for them, but that's their problem to work out. If they aren't desperate enough to do that, then don't waste a 2nd phone call with them.

Honestly, I might not even make the 1st call there...

[LeBowen]

I'm not high on Garland, but any package like what you suggested should send out Collins and not Keldon. He's not a good fit for them, but that's their problem to work out. If they aren't desperate enough to do that, then don't waste a 2nd phone call with them.

Honestly, I might not even make the 1st call there...

Send both, tbh.
Salaries would perfectly match, I'd like to keep some cap space.

Collins, Keldon, '25 Chicago, '25 Charlotte and a handful of SRPs would be my offer.

I was really high on him a year ago, but he had a down year. I still think he's a good player, but that contract will be an overpay if he doesn't get back on track.

[scott]

I've really soured on the idea of Trae (and am now firm in Camp No Trae) and yet somehow I'm ever less excited about Garland, who will cost about the same salary wise (but probably not asset wise)

[LeBowen]

I've really soured on the idea of Trae (and am now firm in Camp No Trae) and yet somehow I'm ever less excited about Garland, who will cost about the same salary wise (but probably not asset wise)

Agreed. Those contracts are too big for their production.
I'd go for D'Lo in free agency. The best free agent we can get and after his disappointing playoffs with the Lakers, he can't ask for too much, probably around 20 to 25 million per year.

[scott]

Agreed. Those contracts are too big for their production.
I'd go for D'Lo in free agency. The best free agent we can get and after his disappointing playoffs with the Lakers, he can't ask for too much, probably around 20 to 25 million per year.

If we draft a guard, I'm perfect fine going with Tre and the rookie, so long as we upgrade the rest of the roster in some way. Unlike some, I don't see PG as the most pressing "must fix now" position on the court. I'm also on board with stopgap options like Brogdon, Tyus, or even CP3 on a 1+1 big salary to finish out his career. I'd rather not get tied up for 3-4 years at $20-25MM for a very "meh" solution like DLo. If we draft a guard in the top 10, I'm hoping they get some real minutes not be third string behind Tre and whoever we bring in.

[Ariel]

Some of our resident capologists (I think it was Ariel (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=3526) or Chinook (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=37557)) said that Utah can do this (and then he would be eligible to trade on Dec 15), I'm not sure if it still applies if the Spurs traded for him but it would seem so?

4 + 8 + CHI plus either Collins or Keldon for Lauri (Collins or Keldon roughly equals Lauri's contract, so the Spurs preserve their $22MM of cap space to use to give Lauri a raise before extending him)?

Unfortunately Spotrac seems to have updated their website to put most useful information behind their paywall... which sucks because it is really an awesome website but not one I'm willing to pay for.
Hmm, as I recall it the question was whether he could be extended or free agency was unavoidable due to his contract being too low even for a max extension to reach fair market value, to which I added Utah had the option to renegotiate and then extend over the renegotiated value, so it wasn't a given he'd hit free agency. I don't recall deadlines being involved, at least in what I said.
PS: I don't consider myself a capoligist, though.

[LeBowen]

If we draft a guard, I'm perfect fine going with Tre and the rookie, so long as we upgrade the rest of the roster in some way. Unlike some, I don't see PG as the most pressing "must fix now" position on the court. I'm also on board with stopgap options like Brogdon, Tyus, or even CP3 on a 1+1 big salary to finish out his career. I'd rather not get tied up for 3-4 years at $20-25MM for a very "meh" solution like DLo. If we draft a guard in the top 10, I'm hoping they get some real minutes not be third string behind Tre and whoever we bring in.

My issue is that none of these point guard prospects are remotely ready.
Whoever gets drafted, we'd need him to be good enough to start and contribute in 25-26 season.
Tre is nice, but he can't shoot. Shoot as in noone will ever chase him over a screen or even rush a closeout when he gets the ball.

I wouldn't give D'Lo (or any veteran that's not the final solution for that position) a long deal, just three years, in line with Wemby's extension.
Brogdon sounds nice in theory, but he played just 142 games over past three seasons, always has lingering injuries.

D'Lo would enable us to draft Castle because there would be no pressure on Castle to be the point guard right away. He could transition into the role.
If PATFO wants Castle, that is.

[JPB]

I'm afraid nor Keldon, Malaki or Zollins have that much value (no matter tha way) in other teams eyes, not enough anyway to trigger a trade...

I'm also afraid Garland's money if what you have ot pay to get that type of player nowadays. Same for Trae's, both in salary and trade, or even just for good role players.
You have to overpay no matter to get some talent. There's no trade where you feel like you paid the right price, or it was a fair trade. If it feels like it's a fair trade for you, that's certainly means the other team is not interested. It has to hurt.

[kobyz]

My sentiments exactly. What has my interest peeked is that key factors are conspiring together right now to depress Garland’s value:

- As a condition to Mitchell reupping it sounds like his camp will want Garland gone. This is bad for CLE’s leverage.

- Garland had a down year after his jaw injury

- the spurs don’t need Garland: they have PG options between the draft, CLE situation, the ATL situation, and potentially DET’s Cade/Ivey dynamic

- the spurs have the assets to bully other potential rivals who may be interested, including two picks in THIS draft.

- the money isn’t excellent, but it comes before Vic’s big momey at least. It would also likely mean Kelton’s long term money goes out so that helps.

As I noted above, my best offer tops out at Keldon, Malaki, 8, and CHA pick.

Too much for Garland after the disaster playoff he had

[Ariel]

I'm afraid nor Keldon, Malaki or Zollins have that much value (no matter tha way) in other teams eyes, not enough anyway to trigger a trade...

I'm also afraid Garland's money if what you have ot pay to get that type of player nowadays. Same for Trae's, both in salary and trade, or even just for good role players.
You have to overpay no matter to get some talent. There's no trade where you feel like you paid the right price, or it was a fair trade. If it feels like it's a fair trade for you, that's certainly means the other team is not interested. It has to hurt.
Sometimes, but not always. Usually if it feels like a trade hurts too much, it's a sign it's lopsided, and believing any worthwhile trade must hurt is the best way to get yourself in deep trouble.

[T Park]

people's Ideas in here of value of current players, the draft picks this year, and other players on other teams, are severely out of whack.

[DPG21920]

I've really soured on the idea of Trae (and am now firm in Camp No Trae) and yet somehow I'm ever less excited about Garland, who will cost about the same salary wise (but probably not asset wise)

I dont like Garland the player all the much, but if its not picks, but salary it not as big of a deal to me. I’d much rather pay Garland than Keldon+Collins so if it were something like those 2 players for Garland and like 1 first I think that’s a win as despite not liking Garland, we are already spending Garland money on Keldon+Collins.

[scott]

I dont like Garland the player all the much, but if its not picks, but salary it not as big of a deal to me. I’d much rather pay Garland than Keldon+Collins so if it were something like those 2 players for Garland and like 1 first I think that’s a win as despite not liking Garland, we are already spending Garland money on Keldon+Collins.

I can see that argument, but then you still have to pay to replace Keldon (if we took two wings, Matas and Holland, for example, then I think this concern is extinguished and I'm good at SF). Collins can easily replaced by someone making less than $5mm/yr. If Bassey could stay healthy I think he'd actually be an upgrade over Collins, but I digress.

Man, I just hate the idea of building around Garland (who we'll have locked up for 4 years at 25% of the cap).

[DPG21920]

I can see that argument, but then you still have to pay to replace Keldon (if we took two wings, Matas and Holland, for example, then I think this concern is extinguished and I'm good at SF). Collins can easily replaced by someone making less than $5mm/yr. If Bassey could stay healthy I think he'd actually be an upgrade over Collins, but I digress.

Man, I just hate the idea of building around Garland (who we'll have locked up for 4 years at 25% of the cap).

Agreed, but at end of the day we are already spending the money and I would rather have Garland + Draft pick v Keldon + Collins for the same pool of money. The issues is Collins is only 2 years and Garland is 4 so that math only works for 2 years before Garland becomes a legit cost factor

[kobyz]

I'm imagine a draft day trade:
Spurs get: Dejunte Murray
Thunder get: 2014 #1 pick - Sarr(to form scary Chat-Sarr frontcourt), Bogdan Bogdanovic
Hawks get: Josh Giddy, Zach Collins, Spurs 2015 first round pick via Atlanta, two Thunder future first round picks

[RC_Drunkford]

If y‘all want Garland just draft Dillingham. They are similar in height and there‘s a decent chance that Dillingham becomes the better player

[BacktoBasics]

Too much for Garland after the disaster playoff he had

It would have been the perfect opportunity for Garland to shine. But he shit the bed. I don’t want either.

A lot of these guys don’t play. You gotta play to win.

[T Park]

I'm imagine a draft day trade:
Spurs get: Dejunte Murray
Thunder get: 2014 #1 pick - Sarr(to form scary Chat-Sarr frontcourt), Bogdan Bogdanovic
Hawks get: Josh Giddy, Zach Collins, Spurs 2015 first round pick via Atlanta, two Thunder future first round picks

awful trade

[T Park]

If y‘all want Garland just draft Dillingham. They are similar in height and there‘s a decent chance that Dillingham becomes the better player

Dillingham's numbers at Kentucky were better than Maxey's when he was there.

The amount of crap hes getting for being his size is insane.

[kobyz]

awful trade

Explain

[jjspur]

awful trade

Agree. Just because we screwed the hawks over when they were desperate, doesn't mean we should let them screw us back with a trade like that. DJ didn't improve the hawks that much to warrant that much in trade value. Sure they got lucky with the #1 pick, but we also got lucky with two picks. Lets not ruin our good luck by making a bad trade that probably won't move the needle that much.

[kobyz]

Agree. Just because we screwed the hawks over when they were desperate, doesn't mean we should let them screw us back with a trade like that. DJ didn't improve the hawks that much to warrant that much in trade value. Sure they got lucky with the #1 pick, but we also got lucky with two picks. Lets not ruin our good luck by making a bad trade that probably won't move the needle that much.
How this trade let them screw us? You giving up in this trade Collins and a draft pick that without this trade probably ends up outside the lottery...

[scott]

Yeah, tbh this would be a steal for the Spurs. Only giving up Collins and one FRP? In fact, seems overly favorable towards the Spurs.

[MultiTroll]

Donny Mitchell shooting down the media reports he was disgruntled.

Donovan Mitchell responds to report about frustration with teammates (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nba/donovan-mitchell-responds-to-report-about-frustration-with-teammates/ar-BB1mwwp4?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=c512123da4db477a98a83d2f7e0ba17f&ei=12)

[offset formation]

I can see that argument, but then you still have to pay to replace Keldon (if we took two wings, Matas and Holland, for example, then I think this concern is extinguished and I'm good at SF). Collins can easily replaced by someone making less than $5mm/yr. If Bassey could stay healthy I think he'd actually be an upgrade over Collins, but I digress.

Man, I just hate the idea of building around Garland (who we'll have locked up for 4 years at 25% of the cap).

I hope for his sake and the Spurs sake Bassey gets to play a full season for us. Assuming he's healthy and not diminished by his back to back injuries, his skillset is easily the best for bigs on the team (aside from Wemby). And I don't say that as someone that knew any different about him until I watched several of his games in Austin. He was at times unstoppable and made his defenders look pedestrian. He's quick, fast, got soft touch and a very solid midrange. Can also hit the 3. Good to really good defender. He along with Barlow provide a really nice group of bigs. And if we keep Sandro, he's a really good option at small ball 5 when not playing a 4. Bassey though should be our first option if he's actually healthy.

[offset formation]

Dillingham's numbers at Kentucky were better than Maxey's when he was there.

The amount of crap hes getting for being his size is insane.

I think his speed and athleticism are off the charts. My only issue with him is that he's a traffic cone defensively. Can he become a good defenders? Sure but that's a rarity to be awful and then become even serviceable. And the one thing that's absolutely killed this team over the last several years more than any other thing, and that's been my biggest bitch, is having undersized poor defenders. Length can sometimes make up for poor defense. But having for instance Branham playing the 3, Keldon at the 4, going back to Bryn at point, etc. has 100% contributed to having historically horrendous defenses the last several years. And this cat is 6'1" and would be playing people like Murray and Haliburton. They'd abuse him. I'm just afraid to draft him at 4 is all I'm saying. Would much rather have Buzelis

[TD 21]

Here's another Murray one . . .

To Hawks: Graham, 4, '26 Hawks 1st
To Spurs: Murray

[CGD]

Donny Mitchell shooting down the media reports he was disgruntled.

Donovan Mitchell responds to report about frustration with teammates (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nba/donovan-mitchell-responds-to-report-about-frustration-with-teammates/ar-BB1mwwp4?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=c512123da4db477a98a83d2f7e0ba17f&ei=12)

translation: I don’t want to play for trash DET and the Knicks dont want me, so give me muh money now. Well do this dance against next summer.

[jjspur]

How this trade let them screw us? You giving up in this trade Collins and a draft pick that without this trade probably ends up outside the lottery...
We get 1 somewhat disgruntled player
OKC gets a #1 pick and a serviceable forward
Atlanta gets 2 decent players and 3 first round picks

Murray didn't make our team better than .500 and he didn't make Atlanta better than .500 even with the talent they had - that's one of the reasons why they are trying to trade him. Look, if Murray is that valuable, then let another team give Atlanta that many picks and players. Murray is a decent player, but not an all star. We can do better trades. Just not that one. By the way , we have no clue where our picks will end up, just ask Atlanta. They thought they were getting like the 10th pick and they ended up winning the whole thing. We've been fairly lucky with our picks, lets not give them up without some real value in return.

[mo7888]

Here's another Murray one . . .

To Hawks: Graham, 4, '26 Hawks 1st
To Spurs: Murray

I'm probably doing that deal. It would come down to who I expect to be available at 8. Sheppard would pair very nicely with Murray in certain lineups and he'd be my target. I'd also still like another wing from a Risacher, Buzelis, Salaun, Holland grouping. So maybe Keldon + one other asset to get another top 11 pick to make that happen would round things out pretty nicely. Charlotte, Detroit, or Portland would be targets in that scenario.

[kobyz]

We get 1 somewhat disgruntled player
OKC gets a #1 pick and a serviceable forward
Atlanta gets 2 decent players and 3 first round picks

Murray didn't make our team better than .500 and he didn't make Atlanta better than .500 even with the talent they had - that's one of the reasons why they are trying to trade him. Look, if Murray is that valuable, then let another team give Atlanta that many picks and players. Murray is a decent player, but not an all star. We can do better trades. Just not that one. By the way , we have no clue where our picks will end up, just ask Atlanta. They thought they were getting like the 10th pick and they ended up winning the whole thing. We've been fairly lucky with our picks, lets not give them up without some real value in return.

Murray is still better to have than Collins and a future pick that probably ends up not lottery as Atlanta used to getting to the playoffs and will try even harder making the playoffs knowing they don't have their pick

[$pursDynasty]

I would much rather have Murray than Trae but I wouldn't break the bank for Murray either. The above mentioned trade would be OK it might even be a bit much. That 26 Hawks unprotected might be fire. I might make it Graham 8 and 26 Hawks or Graham 4 and the Spurs choice of a first round pick in 26, we probably have three different ones so we can keep the best out of whatever picks we have in 26.

[exstatic]

How this trade let them screw us? You giving up in this trade Collins and a draft pick that without this trade probably ends up outside the lottery...

How are they going to crawl out of the lottery? There is no player in this draft that will make them better next year, and Trae probably checks out if they don’t trade him after all of the rumors that were floated. I can see many scenarios where they’re worse than this year, even without trying.

[R. DeMurre]

I bet Charlotte signs him to a long term deal. Him and Miller were their best players last year. They have already taken the PR hit. It will be on a team-friendly deal and everyone will ignore the elephant in the room. And if they start winning fans will discuss how he has been rehabilitated.

John Hollinger had a great line in an article on The Athletic site where he said Charlotte has a LeMelaphant in the room.

[kobyz]

How are they going to crawl out of the lottery? There is no player in this draft that will make them better next year, and Trae probably checks out if they don’t trade him after all of the rumors that were floated. I can see many scenarios where they’re worse than this year, even without trying.

This year was a very injuerd plug year for them, it was not the ordinary for them not making the playoffs, if they don't do this trade with us getting back their pick and going for rebuild, they might elect the other way using the #1 pick in a trade for proven player

[Spurs Homer]

I'm imagine a draft day trade:
Spurs get: Dejunte Murray
Thunder get: 2014 #1 pick - Sarr(to form scary Chat-Sarr frontcourt), Bogdan Bogdanovic
Hawks get: Josh Giddy, Zach Collins, Spurs 2015 first round pick via Atlanta, two Thunder future first round picks


pretty fucking creative that Andrew Wiggins and Cady Lalanne are worked into your trade!


:spin

[DPG21920]

I'm probably doing that deal. It would come down to who I expect to be available at 8. Sheppard would pair very nicely with Murray in certain lineups and he'd be my target. I'd also still like another wing from a Risacher, Buzelis, Salaun, Holland grouping. So maybe Keldon + one other asset to get another top 11 pick to make that happen would round things out pretty nicely. Charlotte, Detroit, or Portland would be targets in that scenario.

If they take Collins instead of Graham im cool with it. The 26 pick is just a swap, so SA still has their own pick in 26 there so not too big of a loss (potentially unless ATL implodes which is possible).

[exstatic]

pretty fucking creative that Andrew Wiggins and Cady Lalanne are worked into your trade!


:spin
Actually, that would be Mulitinov, meaning we’d have to get Toronto into the trade, since he was flipped in the Jakob return trade.

[DPG21920]

That Eric Zhang guy, as someone pointed out, only has like 40 followers on Twitter. So he's either the most low key insider ever, or just some random account not worth paying too much attention to.

I would not be so sure tbh….perhaps IMVHO due to nothing in particular and no need to ask any further questions it could be a burner…..

Let’s say theres a reason why some posters are suggesting Keldon deals IMVHO

[DPG21920]

This is the one to keep an eye on IMVHO:

1791541046855299328

[CGD]

This is the one to keep an eye on IMVHO:

1791541046855299328

Lol

[DPG21920]

Lol

What’s funny friend

[scott]

This is the one to keep an eye on IMVHO:

1791541046855299328

It's possible this guy is someone in Keldon's inner circle with a burner, but I am extremely skeptical that "Eric Zhang" is a real person with any kind of NBA sources/connections/credibility. There is literally no trace of this guy anywhere other than this Twitter account, who has gone from 40 followers to 250 by posting about the Spurs. And a disproportionate amount of his content is about the Spurs, which is odd.

I found this tweet of his funny:

1790591392118640880

The cynic in me says that this is just a dude that realizes that #SpursTwitter is one of the most easily baited communities on NBA twitter and this is how to build up a follower base.

On the other hand... it does appear that he called the DJM deal a few days before WOJ and Shams. The tweet below was sent two days before Woj and Shams confirmed the deal to Atlanta. However, it's not like the deal came out of nowhere, there were lots of speculation of DJM being traded for a few weeks around that time, so this could have just been a lucky random tweet. Who knows.

1541509431405563904.

[Seventyniner]

What’s funny friend

Keldon wouldn't have any say in being traded, for one.

[CGD]

What’s funny friend

As discussed elsewhere on this forum, he is a BS source.

[scott]

Also, I put his profile picture into a reverse image search and the top his is a Adobe Stock photo you can download for free. https://stock.adobe.com/images/A-young-and-professional-businessman-standing-in-front-of-a-white-background-smi/105197113?as_campaign=TinEye&as_content=tineye_match&clickref=1011lyxAAcQ7&mv=affiliate&mv2=pz&as_camptype=domain&as_channel=affiliate&as_source=partnerize&as_campaign=tineye

Pretty sketchy.

[DPG21920]

It's possible this guy is someone in Keldon's inner circle with a burner, but I am extremely skeptical that "Eric Zhang" is a real person with any kind of NBA sources/connections/credibility. There is literally no trace of this guy anywhere other than this Twitter account, who has gone from 40 followers to 250 by posting about the Spurs. And a disproportionate amount of his content is about the Spurs, which is odd.

I found this tweet of his funny:

1790591392118640880

The cynic in me says that this is just a dude that realizes that #SpursTwitter is one of the most easily baited communities on NBA twitter and this is how to build up a follower base.

On the other hand... it does appear that he called the DJM deal a few days before WOJ and Shams. The tweet below was sent two days before Woj and Shams confirmed the deal to Atlanta. However, it's not like the deal came out of nowhere, there were lots of speculation of DJM being traded for a few weeks around that time, so this could have just been a lucky random tweet. Who knows.

1541509431405563904.

I think you are on the correct path FWIW sir….

[DPG21920]

Keldon wouldn't have any say in being traded, for one.

This happens all the time. Team and players (and agents) get together to discuss collective future. It’s not contentious but level setting out of respect so everyone knows where everyone stands and you can try your best to do right by both franchise and player.

It’s not a “demand” its a request/preference

[NASpurs]

Eric Zhang is the next TSpence.

Watch Don Harris go after him too :lol

[scott]

Well, if this guy did turn out to be something... let me just go on the record and say I hope he's right about this one:

1790244472921678283

I'll be happy to see all of these guys moved, tbh

[DPG21920]

Well, if this guy did turn out to be something... let me just go on the record and say I hope he's right about this one:

1790244472921678283

I'll be happy to see all of these guys moved, tbh

Theres fluff in there as all good burners have to throw off scent…just have to cut through the noise to find the real message and incentives :lol

The only one that is consistent is KELDON in there….the other stuff is just fluff. Sochan tossed in with Branham and Wesley is fluff. KELDON is the consistent message here…

Who knows what happens and this could all be BS of course, but FWIW IMVHO WITHOUT ASKING ANY QUESTIONS its seems like the possibilities of this being a burner account that may or may not be in close proximity to Keldon is better than previously thought IMVHO FWIW WITHOUT ASKING ANY QUESTIONS

[DPG21920]

Lets add a little razzle dazzle and intrigue to this off season alongside a draft with two lottery picks and no consensus :reading

[scott]

Theres fluff in there as all good burners have to throw off scent…just have to cut through the noise to find the real message and incentives :lol

The only one that is consistent is KELDON in there….the other stuff is just fluff. Sochan tossed in with Branham and Wesley is fluff. KELDON is the consistent message here…

Who knows what happens and this could all be BS of course, but FWIW IMVHO WITHOUT ASKING ANY QUESTIONS its seems like the possibilities of this being a burner account that may or may not be in close proximity to Keldon is better than previously thought IMVHO FWIW WITHOUT ASKING ANY QUESTIONS

Yeah, he has another one saying that the Spurs offered Keldon and picks to CLE for Garland at the deadline. He's still on the Trae-to-SA wagon, and has another tweet about Sochan.

It's weird, because before tweeting about the Spurs this year, his only tweets were the DJM to ATL and then being proud of a "scoop" about Drew Eubanks signing with the Blazers :lol

This all COULD fit it being a Keldon-related burner though... so funny, since it's not like Keldon or Sochan are Eubanks are players that non-Spurs fans even care about

[spurraider21]

What’s funny friend
guy with 247 followers just engagement-baiting spurs fans, vast majority of those followers coming in the last week or so

not followed by other reputable reporters or journalists

he's tspence

[CGD]

Also, I put his profile picture into a reverse image search and the top his is a Adobe Stock photo you can download for free. https://stock.adobe.com/images/A-young-and-professional-businessman-standing-in-front-of-a-white-background-smi/105197113?as_campaign=TinEye&as_content=tineye_match&clickref=1011lyxAAcQ7&mv=affiliate&mv2=pz&as_camptype=domain&as_channel=affiliate&as_source=partnerize&as_campaign=tineye

Pretty sketchy.

No that is sketchy

[DPG21920]

guy with 247 followers just engagement-baiting spurs fans, vast majority of those followers coming in the last week or so

not followed by other reputable reporters or journalists

he's tspence

Dats because it’s a burner IMVHO and not someone trying to break legit news across the league like Shams/Woj. Just a made up internet persona to sh*tpost while throwing a very real thing in between all the obfuscation

[DPG21920]

I just remember logging on here during the Kawhi saga sharing that he wanted out and specifically to Clippers and being told the same things. Just saying keep an open mind is all.

Im not like putting my life on the line NOR AM I CLAIMING TO HAVE SAUCES - im just putting some pieces to the puzzle on something I may or may not have accidentally overheard while in line at HEB as someone was shopping for syrup

[spurraider21]

Dats because it’s a burner IMVHO and not someone trying to break legit news across the league like Shams/Woj. Just a made up internet persona to sh*tpost while throwing a very real thing in between all the obfuscation
i mean maybe? but how do you say that with any degree of confidence?

[spurraider21]

yes... a keldon johnson related burner putting out things like this

1790314583334502863

cmon guys

[DPG21920]

i mean maybe? but how do you say that with any degree of confidence?

Like I said….we simply dont ask questions and just put our faith in what the clouds tell us as we search Mother Nature for answers

[DPG21920]

All Im saying is…..I dont know why, but when it comes to Keldon I trust him B

[Leetonidas]

What does he say about Kevin Tran though

[DPG21920]

I’m just riling people up up a bit. I think Keldon may be traded but I don’t think the Twitter guy legit is Keldon.

[tbdog]

NBACentral on X: "The San Antonio Spurs are the favorites to land Darius Garland if Cleveland decides to part ways with him, per @BovadaOfficial San Antonio Spurs: +325 LA Lakers: +600 New Orleans Pelicans: +950 Utah Jazz: +950 Philadelphia 76ers: +950 Minnesota Timberwolves: +950 Orlando Magic: https://t.co/ULKikV4ZBd" / X
https://x.com/thedunkcentral/status/1791515441745007102?s=61&t=9RmHqkrDgRpi_x1c7tsb4g

[scott]

It cracks me up how the Spurs are always the favorite to land players, and never do. It's like these books know how to collect sucker bets when they see them :lol

[Ef-man]

It cracks me up how the Spurs are always the favorite to land players, and never do. It's like these books know how to collect sucker bets when they see them :lol

Yup. Agents trying to jack up interest/$$$$ for their client because if Pops/San Antonio want the player, he must be good.

[Sugus]

Also, I put his profile picture into a reverse image search and the top his is a Adobe Stock photo you can download for free. https://stock.adobe.com/images/A-young-and-professional-businessman-standing-in-front-of-a-white-background-smi/105197113?as_campaign=TinEye&as_content=tineye_match&clickref=1011lyxAAcQ7&mv=affiliate&mv2=pz&as_camptype=domain&as_channel=affiliate&as_source=partnerize&as_campaign=tineye

Pretty sketchy.

Lmaoooo

1777605138661695800

"I am the source" and posts the same stock photo of "himself"........... :rollin

[Robz4000]

:lol if it wasn't obvious from the start, it's already been pretty widely proven this is a troll account

[Bruno]

Unless they trade Vassell, Spurs biggest trade assets will be draft picks. Good trade partners for Spurs are teams that are willing to enter a rebuilding process and trade away one of their top player for draft picks.

Cleveland is a bad trade partner for Spurs, they are trying to contend and have even traded most of their own picks to Utah. A potential trade for Garland would only work if there is a third team involved.

Personally, I'm not really against trading for Garland but I much rather go after Trae Young.

[exstatic]

This is the one to keep an eye on IMVHO:

1791541046855299328

Nope. Dude is throwing spaghetti against the wall to see if something sticks. He has like 80 followers, and said that the Spurs and Hawks have a deal in place for Trae, when the guy who broke Dejounte to Atlanta says there’s nothing there.

[Ariel]

Unless they trade Vassell, Spurs biggest trade assets will be draft picks. Good trade partners for Spurs are teams that are willing to enter a rebuilding process and trade away one of their top player for draft picks.

Cleveland is a bad trade partner for Spurs, they are trying to contend and have even traded most of their own picks to Utah. A potential trade for Garland would only work if there is a third team involved.

Personally, I'm not really against trading for Garland but I much rather go after Trae Young.
Not necessarily, if a team who still wants to win for some reason wants to move a player the Spurs are interested in, the picks may be the way for such team to find another player that fits via a 3 team trade.

In Cleveland's case, I'm not in love with the idea of trading for Garland, because he's good but not max good, and I have a pretty strong feeling either Dillingham or Sheppard will (at least) not be far off for a tenth of the price it;d take to get Garland.

I just hope the Spurs don't overthink this and just take Dillingham / Sheppard instead of going for some mystery box, a la Primo/Sengun.

[Ariel]

Nope. Dude is throwing spaghetti against the wall to see if something sticks. He has like 80 followers, and said that the Spurs and Hawks have a deal in place for Trae, when the guy who broke Dejounte to Atlanta says there’s nothing there.
Really, that's just misinformation, I'd hope people try to put their critical thinking skills to good use before posting stuff like that.

[DPG21920]

Nope. Dude is throwing spaghetti against the wall to see if something sticks. He has like 80 followers, and said that the Spurs and Hawks have a deal in place for Trae, when the guy who broke Dejounte to Atlanta says there’s nothing there.

I was having a bit of fun…I agree. Hes taking something that’s possible and pre tweeting it to save for later

[DPG21920]

(I was just saying I think path to Keldon being moved is there - don’t really care about that account just the “message”)

[DPG21920]

Unless they trade Vassell, Spurs biggest trade assets will be draft picks. Good trade partners for Spurs are teams that are willing to enter a rebuilding process and trade away one of their top player for draft picks.

Cleveland is a bad trade partner for Spurs, they are trying to contend and have even traded most of their own picks to Utah. A potential trade for Garland would only work if there is a third team involved.

Personally, I'm not really against trading for Garland but I much rather go after Trae Young.

Do you really want Trae or Garland? Or more that if SA decided to go that route that you’d rather have Trae?

[exstatic]

I was having a bit of fun…I agree. Hes taking something that’s possible and pre tweeting it to save for later

According to a few posters, he also deleted some more specific tweets. Keep it generic and vague, then claim victory.

[SpursBills]

Not sure if this belongs here, but question for you guys - who do you think is a max contract guy who delivers closest to max contract value on the court (setting aside fit, etc.). I'm not talking about true superstars who exceed max contract value (Luka, Jokic, etc.) or guys who are at the max but wildly overpaid (Beal, Lavine). But basically the WORST max guy who can deliver max contract value.

The reason I ask is this: max and rookie contracts are the two biggest inefficiencies in the NBA, as they are both the most common situations where guys can deliver far greater value than their contract. There are exceptions and value contracts like Caruso, Brunson, Cobe White, etc, but in general increasing talent and on court production correlates with higher salaries. So far, we've been operating under the assumption that the spurs need to get a "second star", whether through the draft or trade or FA or whatever and essentially be our second max contract guy, since the new CBA essentially only allows for 2 max guys before running into significant salary cap ramifications. However, in order for that second guy to be worth his salary, he'd have to deliver on court value above the 'minimum on-court production' for a max player.

So to you guys, what is that minimum threshold for on-court value for a max player? Is it Jalen Brown? Injury-free Paul George? Interested to hear your thoughts.

[JPB]

Not sure if this belongs here, but question for you guys - who do you think is a max contract guy who delivers closest to max contract value on the court (setting aside fit, etc.). I'm not talking about true superstars who exceed max contract value (Luka, Jokic, etc.) or guys who are at the max but wildly overpaid (Beal, Lavine). But basically the WORST max guy who can deliver max contract value.

The reason I ask is this: max and rookie contracts are the two biggest inefficiencies in the NBA, as they are both the most common situations where guys can deliver far greater value than their contract. There are exceptions and value contracts like Caruso, Brunson, Cobe White, etc, but in general increasing talent and on court production correlates with higher salaries. So far, we've been operating under the assumption that the spurs need to get a "second star", whether through the draft or trade or FA or whatever and essentially be our second max contract guy, since the new CBA essentially only allows for 2 max guys before running into significant salary cap ramifications. However, in order for that second guy to be worth his salary, he'd have to deliver on court value above the 'minimum on-court production' for a max player.

So to you guys, what is that minimum threshold for on-court value for a max player? Is it Jalen Brown? Injury-free Paul George? Interested to hear your thoughts.

The thing is you may have not the choice. If you don't max a borderline max, or probably shouldn't be maxed player, somebody else probably will. That's also what I mean when I say you have to overpay, or anyway pay more than what you would like, for talent no matter what. Talent is rare, and everyone's looking for it, eventually ready to overpay. That's why you have guys who get maxed who certainly aren't worth it in a vacuum.

Then you also have teams always anticipating cap rises with new revenue deals making a max contract not as bad with time.

[Pauleta14]

Unless they trade Vassell, Spurs biggest trade assets will be draft picks. Good trade partners for Spurs are teams that are willing to enter a rebuilding process and trade away one of their top player for draft picks.

Cleveland is a bad trade partner for Spurs, they are trying to contend and have even traded most of their own picks to Utah. A potential trade for Garland would only work if there is a third team involved.

Personally, I'm not really against trading for Garland but I much rather go after Trae Young.

Isn't Keldon's contract attractive enough to you?

[JPB]

Isn't Keldon's contract attractive enough to you?

He certainly isn't that much for others.not enough to intrigue a team or trigger a trade. He's closer to a sweetener than core of a trade.

Like I mentioned a couple days ago, spurs main assets are their picks (then basically Devin). reason why they should be worry with their pioks and parsimoniously use them if you ask me., because they would have to seriously pile them if they wanna trade for a star, like MIN did for Gobert.

And as Bruno said, their lack of other real appealing assets other than picks makes trading all the more difficult anyway.

[TD 21]

For some reason, I can't see the tweets nor log into my account on it. I get the gist and of course am skeptical of the source, but what specifically is being said?

[mystargtr34]

I think the Hawks getting the number 1 pick and drafting Sarr makes it more likely that Dejounte is the one that’s traded instead of Trae.

Sarr’s game meshes much better with Trae on offense with the vertical spacing he provides and Trae being a better passer/lob guy than Dejounte. Defensively, Sarr’s rim protection will hide a lot of Trae’s weaknesses. You still need two more plus defenders around Trae which the Hawks have one in Deandre Hunter and potentially a third with Jalen Johnson.

I wonder if we could see a Dejounte for Ingram trade. Heard rumours NO will trade Ingram who hasn’t really meshed with Zion.

Sarr
Johnson
Ingram
Hunter
Young

That probably makes the Hawks a 6-8 seed in a weak East.

Hopefully the Hawks are too stupid to make such a move and instead ship Trae out and let Dejounte lead them to another 38 win season and playin exit.

[Bruno]

Do you really want Trae or Garland? Or more that if SA decided to go that route that you’d rather have Trae?

I would be fine with a Garland trade if Spurs don't give too much but I would really like a trade for Trae Young.

It's just that I think Young is a great player. I don't view players like Haliburton, Jamal Murray or Donovan Mitchell as really better than him. Wembanyama, Young, Vassell and some solid role players like maybe Sochan or Risacher is a team that could be a legit contender in 2026. Wembanayama and Young are really a great fit and they are smart enough to make it work.

And I get people strongly disagreeing with that by pointing Young being inefficient and a defensive liability. These are legit concerns.

[Gandalf]

For some reason, I can't see the tweets nor log into my account on it. I get the gist and of course am skeptical of the source, but what specifically is being said?

One of them claimed a draft-night deal is in place involving Keldon and I think one of Sochan, Branham, or Wesley. Another claimed Spurs and Keldon mutually agreed to part ways because Keldon wants to be a starter.

[Mr. Body]

One of them claimed a draft-night deal is in place involving Keldon and I think one of Sochan, Branham, or Wesley. Another claimed Spurs and Keldon mutually agreed to part ways because Keldon wants to be a starter.

It's wild. There's a huge difference among those three players. No team will be like, "Do I want Sochan... or Wesley? Hm..." And no team is going to start Keldon, even if he was asking, and he's not.

[DPG21920]

For some reason, I can't see the tweets nor log into my account on it. I get the gist and of course am skeptical of the source, but what specifically is being said?

It’s just a random dude saying a bunch of crap…but the “realistic” stuff is just about Spurs moving on from Keldon mutually and Keldon preferring to be somewhere he can start and that Keldon will be moved before this next season starts.

[DPG21920]

I would be fine with a Garland trade if Spurs don't give too much but I would really like a trade for Trae Young.

It's just that I think Young is a great player. I don't view players like Haliburton, Jamal Murray or Donovan Mitchell as really better than him. Wembanyama, Young, Vassell and some solid role players like maybe Sochan or Risacher is a team that could be a legit contender in 2026. Wembanayama and Young are really a great fit and they are smart enough to make it work.

And I get people strongly disagreeing with that by pointing Young being inefficient and a defensive liability. These are legit concerns.

Makes sense! That’s surprising to me. I agree with you maybe in the high level context my concern is that with what it would likely take to get Trae + his money that you cant really build a contender well enough to truly off set Traes big flaws (not regular season, but come playoff time).

If Trae could be had “cheaply” (meaning none of the core guys like Wemby/Sochan/Dev) with just matching salaries like Keldon/Collins and 2 firsts where SA still has a big surplus of picks to trade/use to fill out team with legit talent? Id be ok.

But I just dont see a path to where giving up Keldon + Dev + all of ATL picks back does anything for the team long term and Traes flaws are just too much for me to take that risk right now with Wemby still in year 2. If it were year 3/4 I would be more inclined I think as we’d see Wemby/Dev more ready and we would know about our core more.

[Bruno]

Makes sense! That’s surprising to me. I agree with you maybe in the high level context my concern is that with what it would likely take to get Trae + his money that you cant really build a contender well enough to truly off set Traes big flaws (not regular season, but come playoff time).

If Trae could be had “cheaply” (meaning none of the core guys like Wemby/Sochan/Dev) with just matching salaries like Keldon/Collins and 2 firsts where SA still has a big surplus of picks to trade/use to fill out team with legit talent? Id be ok.

But I just dont see a path to where giving up Keldon + Dev + all of ATL picks back does anything for the team long term and Traes flaws are just too much for me to take that risk right now with Wemby still in year 2. If it were year 3/4 I would be more inclined I think as we’d see Wemby/Dev more ready and we would know about our core more.

I would trade the 2 Hawks unprotected first, cancel the 2026 swap, the Bulls first and the fake Hornets first for Trae. To match salaries, a combination of Keldon, Tre, Branham, Wesley and Cissoko would be traded.

I agree that a trade for Trae is a huge commitment. It will commit tons of assets, money and will define Spurs' playing style. If it doesn't work, Spurs are quite fucked up and it won't be easy to get back on track. At the end, Spurs will only do that move if they're really convinced it will work.

[scott]

Not sure if this belongs here, but question for you guys - who do you think is a max contract guy who delivers closest to max contract value on the court (setting aside fit, etc.). I'm not talking about true superstars who exceed max contract value (Luka, Jokic, etc.) or guys who are at the max but wildly overpaid (Beal, Lavine). But basically the WORST max guy who can deliver max contract value.

The reason I ask is this: max and rookie contracts are the two biggest inefficiencies in the NBA, as they are both the most common situations where guys can deliver far greater value than their contract. There are exceptions and value contracts like Caruso, Brunson, Cobe White, etc, but in general increasing talent and on court production correlates with higher salaries. So far, we've been operating under the assumption that the spurs need to get a "second star", whether through the draft or trade or FA or whatever and essentially be our second max contract guy, since the new CBA essentially only allows for 2 max guys before running into significant salary cap ramifications. However, in order for that second guy to be worth his salary, he'd have to deliver on court value above the 'minimum on-court production' for a max player.

So to you guys, what is that minimum threshold for on-court value for a max player? Is it Jalen Brown? Injury-free Paul George? Interested to hear your thoughts.

I love this question, really makes you put your thinking cap on because the alternative (a borderline max player who you give a max to "because you have to" but really isn't worth it) is pretty destructive to your team. I'd say, IMO, a max player should be at least that final tier of All Star consideration player. I'm thinking Trae (though I don't want him), Lauri, Siakam, Sabonis. Some of these are more obvious max than not, but I think you get my point. Someone like Garland, Lavine, Beal, etc. are what you don't want.

[scott]

Makes sense! That’s surprising to me. I agree with you maybe in the high level context my concern is that with what it would likely take to get Trae + his money that you cant really build a contender well enough to truly off set Traes big flaws (not regular season, but come playoff time).

If Trae could be had “cheaply” (meaning none of the core guys like Wemby/Sochan/Dev) with just matching salaries like Keldon/Collins and 2 firsts where SA still has a big surplus of picks to trade/use to fill out team with legit talent? Id be ok.

But I just dont see a path to where giving up Keldon + Dev + all of ATL picks back does anything for the team long term and Traes flaws are just too much for me to take that risk right now with Wemby still in year 2. If it were year 3/4 I would be more inclined I think as we’d see Wemby/Dev more ready and we would know about our core more.

This is one of the big reasons I'm out on Trae. I just can't see Atlanta doing a deal like that, they're going to want a lot more and I don't think Trae is worth a lot more. Especially now with getting the #1 pick, I think the Hawks would be a lot smart for something like DJM for Ingram than trying to recoup picks and starting over. They have some decent pieces to build around, I actually think CHI is in a much more precarious spot in needing to rebuild.

[exstatic]

I would trade the 2 Hawks unprotected first, cancel the 2026 swap, the Bulls first and the fake Hornets first for Trae. To match salaries, a combination of Keldon, Tre, Branham, Wesley and Cissoko would be traded.

I agree that a trade for Trae is a huge commitment. It will commit tons of assets, money and will define Spurs' playing style. If it doesn't work, Spurs are quite fucked up and it won't be easy to get back on track. At the end, Spurs will only do that move if they're really convinced it will work.

If it goes sideways, and I think that’ll at least a coin flip, you’ve packed Wemby’s bags for him. There’s no recovering from that, and no way to salvage Wemby’s 20s.

[MultiTroll]

And I get people strongly disagreeing with that by pointing Young being inefficient and a defensive liability. These are legit concerns.
And how do you think he overcomes this to be so valueable?
His offense?

[DPG21920]

I would trade the 2 Hawks unprotected first, cancel the 2026 swap, the Bulls first and the fake Hornets first for Trae. To match salaries, a combination of Keldon, Tre, Branham, Wesley and Cissoko would be traded.

I agree that a trade for Trae is a huge commitment. It will commit tons of assets, money and will define Spurs' playing style. If it doesn't work, Spurs are quite fucked up and it won't be easy to get back on track. At the end, Spurs will only do that move if they're really convinced it will work.

Exactly and it’s just too risky to do right now for no reason IMO. Spurs aren’t in a rush and Traes risks are too great and theres always another “Trae’ to trade for (or hopefully draft). If spurs pass on Trae theres no opportunity costs in reality as they can always go all in with their assets at any time in the next 2-3 seasons while giving themselves a shot at best path which is drafting their next star to pair with Wemby.

I see very little downside risk to waiting but tons of risks in going all in now personally. But again, if it were not the 4-5 picks you are saying but something like Keldon + Branham + Wesley (to save ATL money) + ATL 25 + pick 8 this draft + CHA pick? I can do that. But AtL wont do that so its moot.

[scott]

If it goes sideways, and I think that’ll at least a coin flip, you’ve packed Wemby’s bags for him. There’s no recovering from that, and no way to salvage Wemby’s 20s.

I don't want to pay the price for Trae either, but this is some chicken little nonsense. Giving up that package for Trae would in no way cripple the Spurs. Even if they had to move Trae for salvage value, they'd still have all of their own picks moving forward.

Would a failed Trae trade suck? Of course, but it's wouldn't "pack Wemby's bags for him" anymore than standing pat and doing fuck all for the next 3 years.

[DPG21920]

This is one of the big reasons I'm out on Trae. I just can't see Atlanta doing a deal like that, they're going to want a lot more and I don't think Trae is worth a lot more. Especially now with getting the #1 pick, I think the Hawks would be a lot smart for something like DJM for Ingram than trying to recoup picks and starting over. They have some decent pieces to build around, I actually think CHI is in a much more precarious spot in needing to rebuild.

Agree 100%. I dont think AtL wants to trade Trae which is why I know it will take too much to get him. Sure, it may be market value for him and fair enough but that doesnt mean it’s worth it to SA since we aren’t in a rush and only need to be concerned with being opportunistic for stars this early in process.

[DPG21920]

If you are just talking value - I find it hard to say a player with Traes flaws, even though Wemby can cover them all up, is worth not just the contract he got, but 4-5 firsts to get him? Thats the catch 22 with fake stars like Trae with big time playoff flaws; they cost a ton to obtain but the cost is what prevents you from building a roster to maximize their strengths and cover up their weaknesses

[DPG21920]

I don't want to pay the price for Trae either, but this is some chicken little nonsense. Giving up that package for Trae would in no way cripple the Spurs. Even if they had to move Trae for salvage value, they'd still have all of their own picks moving forward.

Would a failed Trae trade suck? Of course, but it's wouldn't "pack Wemby's bags for him" anymore than standing pat and doing fuck all for the next 3 years.

I don’t think anyone think SA will stand pat for 3 years. But this season? Ya. Better FA class available soon, better draft classes and still plenty of picks to trade for a real star that may come available if you dont draft one.

But ya, SA having their own picks is great, but it’s not “extra”. Right now the advantage is having Wemby and “extra” draft capital to use in a variety of ways. If you punt that and it goes south, then it’s pretty damn rough and not sure Trae would have much value if he gets traded to a team with Wemby and shows that even with Wemby he cant be a second star to get you anywhere…that would absolutely nuke his value in that case IMO

[scott]

As much as I want us to rapidly improve this team, I don't really see the trade for us this summer, unless some big names start asking out.

IMO, Lauri is the most realistically available target that would make sense for us, but I don't know that is even that realistic, that Ainge won't ask for too much, or that Lauri's contract dictates that you're much better off waiting until the deadline or next off-season.

With that said, because we draft first - that will impact what the right trade target will eventually be. For example, if we took two wings in Buzelis and Holland (my dream scenario), and they show on the upper quartile of early outcomes, you might not view Lauri as the right kind of move. But if you take Dillingham and Castle, for example, and they likewise show out on the upper quartile of early outcomes, you may no longer view expending assets acquiring a PG as the right strategy.

A lot of people are down on this draft (rightfully so), but I still think there are talented guys who can develop into good starters in this league. My Tier I (in order) is Buzelis, Holland, Dillingham, Sheppard, Castle. I really think all of those guys have the potential to be very good starters. Am I guaranteeing that? No, not at all... but I also don't think those are long-shot outcomes.

So in short, I think the Spurs are best served keeping their powder dry for the "big trade" and instead make two good draft picks, improve the team with some signings like Malik Monk (if we can) or minor trades.

Am a reformed sniffer who has very little confidence in this front office or coaching staff... but even I'm thinking that a little more patience (which putting the wheels in motion of revamping this roster) is needed. Play-in still needs to be the target for next season though.

[scott]

I don’t think anyone think SA will stand pat for 3 years. But this season? Ya. Better FA class available soon, better draft classes and still plenty of picks to trade for a real star that may come available if you dont draft one.

But ya, SA having their own picks is great, but it’s not “extra”. Right now the advantage is having Wemby and “extra” draft capital to use in a variety of ways. If you punt that and it goes south, then it’s pretty damn rough and not sure Trae would have much value if he gets traded to a team with Wemby and shows that even with Wemby he cant be a second star to get you anywhere…that would absolutely nuke his value in that case IMO

I don't disagree with what you are saying... but I disagree with the premise that trading for Trae and having that not work is somehow catastrophic and will cause Wemby to leave. That's just as hyperbolic of the thinking that Wemby will leave because Sochan doesn't pass him the ball enough or whatever.

[exstatic]

I don't want to pay the price for Trae either, but this is some chicken little nonsense. Giving up that package for Trae would in no way cripple the Spurs. Even if they had to move Trae for salvage value, they'd still have all of their own picks moving forward.

Would a failed Trae trade suck? Of course, but it's wouldn't "pack Wemby's bags for him" anymore than standing pat and doing fuck all for the next 3 years.
Their picks will be in the 20s. That not a great spot to build a championship roster from. Not sure you can go to that well a second time. We got pretty damn lucky with Parker and Manu. The last two 20s picks made by the FO were Malaki and Wesley.

I’m also not advocating “doing fuck all for the next 3 years”, as if the only two paths were that or Trae Young. Draft your guys, and sign maybe two vets. Win 32-35 games. Repeat next year in a better draft. Win 45 games and make the playoffs.
We can disagree about this, and I think we do, but I see no path to championships drafting in the 20s.

[exstatic]

Agree 100%. I dont think AtL wants to trade Trae which is why I know it will take too much to get him. Sure, it may be market value for him and fair enough but that doesnt mean it’s worth it to SA since we aren’t in a rush and only need to be concerned with being opportunistic for stars this early in process.

Is that why they’ve been shopping him hard for a year?

[scott]

Their picks will be in the 20s. That not a great spot to build a championship roster from. Not sure you can go to that well a second time. We got pretty damn lucky with Parker and Manu. The last two 20s picks made by the FO were Malaki and Wesley.

I’m also not advocating “doing fuck all for the next 3 years”, as if the only two paths were that or Trae Young. Draft your guys, and sign maybe two vets. Win 32-35 games. Repeat next year in a better draft. Win 45 games and make the playoffs.
We can disagree about this, and I think we do, but I see no path to championships drafting in the 20s.

If the Spurs picks are in the 20s, then it sounds like trading for Trae worked out, in which case... why you worried about it?

I also didn't say you were advocating "doing fuck all" - I said that a failed Young trade wouldn't cause him Wemby to pack his backs anymore than doing fuck all.

[My Fault]

What about trading the 8th pick to the Wizards for Bilal Coulibaly?

[Dverde]

Garland situation should lower the ask for Dejounte and Trae. I could see Heat offering up their 50 million man for Garland.

[exstatic]

What about trading the 8th pick to the Wizards for Bilal Coulibaly?

They’d laugh and hang up.

[JPB]

I would trade the 2 Hawks unprotected first, cancel the 2026 swap, the Bulls first and the fake Hornets first for Trae. To match salaries, a combination of Keldon, Tre, Branham, Wesley and Cissoko would be traded.

I agree that a trade for Trae is a huge commitment. It will commit tons of assets, money and will define Spurs' playing style. If it doesn't work, Spurs are quite fucked up and it won't be easy to get back on track. At the end, Spurs will only do that move if they're really convinced it will work.

you can still move Trae and get back what you can. Harden got traded like 3 times in 3 years or something :lol

This is 2024, and it's easier to move stars than it was.

[exstatic]

If the Spurs picks are in the 20s, then it sounds like trading for Trae worked out, in which case... why you worried about it?

I also didn't say you were advocating "doing fuck all" - I said that a failed Young trade wouldn't cause him Wemby to pack his backs anymore than doing fuck all.

The worst season of Duncans career was 50 wins and the#20 pick. You can be a pretty mid team picking in the 20s,treadmill city. He’d be like DRob, never able to win it,never able to improve enough to win it.

[DPG21920]

Is that why they’ve been shopping him hard for a year?

We don’t know that. We will see. I can see a path to him being moved of course but I don’t get sense they are in move him at all costs mode.

[JPB]

This is one of the big reasons I'm out on Trae. I just can't see Atlanta doing a deal like that, they're going to want a lot more and I don't think Trae is worth a lot more. Especially now with getting the #1 pick, I think the Hawks would be a lot smart for something like DJM for Ingram than trying to recoup picks and starting over. They have some decent pieces to build around, I actually think CHI is in a much more precarious spot in needing to rebuild.

Also depends on how commited Trae is, but ATL could also use the picks to add another star or a couple elite role players with Murray and Sarr.

[exstatic]

We don’t know that. We will see. I can see a path to him being moved of course but I don’t get sense they are in move him at all costs mode.

Didn’t say they were trying to dump him, but he started being shopped last summer, when year 1 of the experiment didn’t improve anything. Spoiler alert: year 2 was much the same, and didn’t improve his value. At least one team offered more for Mikal Bridges last summer than offers of 2 FRPs for Trae.

[JPB]

And how do you think he overcomes this to be so valueable?
His offense?

I don't believe you have to necessarily see it from an individual point of view and how Trae would compensate individually and offesnsively his flaws, but by how the result of their association would be bigger than the sum of the two (if you get my point) and how they would magnify each other.

That's Trae value to me, his fit with Wemby and how what they can bring to each other would overcome Trae's flaws. If Wemby doesn't score at least 10-12 points/game just out of lobs by next year, you're failing as a team. He's working way too much for his points and his incredible size and mobility should get him much more easy buckets.

Ideally, you want the spurs to run a Wemby/creative PG picknroll every play, with 3&D shooters around. And Trae could be that creative, shooting PG.

[TD 21]

Even as someone who has never been a Murray fan, I've settled on him being the best current fit for the Spurs predicament.

The problem is, if the Hawks retain Young for the time being and the Spurs retain some of their picks in a hypothetical trade for the former, then they have no incentive to tank, in which case what good is Johnson (or Graham, if they prefer to cut more salary) and picks to that end?

I don't know why the notion that Young would bankrupt the Spurs persists. Even if he costs 4 "good" 1sts (which I'm skeptical of considering his market isn't as expansive as most stars), they'd still have all of their own plus extras, the core would be mostly in place and he'll always have resale value.

[exstatic]

Even as someone who has never been a Murray fan, I've settled on him being the best current fit for the Spurs predicament.

The problem is, if the Hawks retain Young for the time being and the Spurs retain some of their picks in a hypothetical trade for the former, then they have no incentive to tank, in which case what good is Johnson (or Graham, if they prefer to cut more salary) and picks to that end?

I don't know why the notion that Young would bankrupt the Spurs persists. Even if he costs 4 "good" 1sts (which I'm skeptical of considering his market isn't as expansive as most stars), they'd still have all of their own plus extras, the core would be mostly in place and he'll always have resale value.

If Trae doesn’t pan out, that would be two teams in a row he didn’t work out for. There would be little residual value, imo. I also disbelieve the concept of building a championship team with picks in the 20s.

[TD 21]

If Trae doesn’t pan out, that would be two teams in a row he didn’t work out for. There would be little residual value, imo. I also disbelieve the concept of building a championship team with picks in the 20s.

He'd definitely lose some value, but they'd still easily be able to recoup a fair amount.

People are likely to be in for a rude awaking when they find out how difficult this is going to be to build it through the draft, especially with how rigid this organization is and the reality that an improved Wembanyama and whatever competent ball handler they acquire should immediately hurt their odds at a high lottery pick next season.

[jjspur]

I just think there is too much resentment (on both sides) for DJ to come back. Trae is just too expensive for the spurs who traded some fairly decent assets for future picks. Typically the spurs aren't known for making splashy trades. I don't think Trae Young is who they had in mind when they traded Poeltl, DeRozen, DJ, and Derrick White away.

I'd be really surprised if DJ or Young made it to San Antonio. Spending a lot of money and picks doesn't get you automatic success. A lot of NBA teams have a hard time with that lesson.

[TD 21]

Spending a lot of money and picks doesn't get you automatic success. A lot of NBA teams have a hard time with that lesson.

Neither does building through the draft, especially when you're narrow minded.

It doesn't have to be any of these names or now necessarily, but the point is this organization needs to be open to broadening their horizons and doing things outside of their comfort zone moving forward and not thinking they're going to recreate the past.

[scott]

The worst season of Duncans career was 50 wins and the#20 pick. You can be a pretty mid team picking in the 20s,treadmill city. He’d be like DRob, never able to win it,never able to improve enough to win it.

So the take here is that the Spurs might trade for Trae, and then become a 50 win team, and that will be considered a massive failure to the point where Wemby will be so assured of leaving that we "might as well pack his bags for him".

Got ya.

[NASpurs]

I question the source but anyone is better than Eric Zhang I guess.

https://cavaliersnation.com/2024/05/17/report-spurs-among-various-teams-that-have-done-due-diligence-on-darius-garland/


Sources have informed NBA Analysis Network that the San Antonio Spurs (https://ahnfiredigital.com/category/nba/san-antonio-spurs/) are among various organizations that have conducted due diligence on Garland as a potential trade candidate,” Grant Afseth wrote (https://nbaanalysis.net/2024/05/16/cleveland-cavaliers-donovan-mitchell-darius-garland-evan-mobley-jarrett-allen-jb-bickerstaff-intel-nba-trade-rumors-news/). “The Spurs seek a talented playmaking guard to pair with Victor Wembanyama. Some within San Antonio’s organization are believed to have more interest in Garland than Trae Young.”

[CGD]

I question the source but anyone is better than Eric Zhang I guess.

https://cavaliersnation.com/2024/05/17/report-spurs-among-various-teams-that-have-done-due-diligence-on-darius-garland/

Well at least Grant is an actual human.

The Trae v Garland due diligence real comes down to the asking price. I don’t think the talent is THAT far off, but the asking price difference will be big. Whereas Garland’s value is at a nadir, pride and face saving interests in Atlanta will make Trae price outlandish.

[rascal]

Didn't the Spurs say don't expect any big trades this off season?

[NASpurs]

Didn't the Spurs say don't expect any big trades this off season?

Not really?

1789745289387028962

[CGD]

Didn't the Spurs say don't expect any big trades this off season?

The only things we’ve consistently heard is that they don’t want Trae.

[Payote75]

Thtge spurs 4th and 8th picks their own future first the chicipick and Charlotte pick and a couple young guys like keldon plus anyone but vassell and Wemby should be enough to land a target they covet. Without touching Atlantas picks which I think we should keep especially 2025

[CGD]

Garland and Vassell are the same age (both born 2000), and their deals run the same length. It’d be a commitment to that backcourt for the first iteration of Wemby teams, which is a risk, but one worth seriously considering.

Then you use the next two drafts to cycles to go through wings until you land the right one. And as those guys mature, it’d line up with the Garland and Vassell’s deals ending.

My top offer for Garland is something like:
#8, CHA pick, Malaki, Keldon, and filler

[mo7888]

Garland and Vassell are the same age (both born 2000), and their deals run the same length. It’d be a commitment to that backcourt for the first iteration of Wemby teams, which is a risk, but one worth seriously considering.

Then you use the next two drafts to cycles to go through wings until you land the right one. And as those guys mature, it’d line up with the Garland and Vassell’s deals ending.

My top offer for Garland is something like:
#8, CHA pick, Malaki, Keldon, and filler

That's probably my best offer too. I'd also explore trading back to 7 & 14 and maybe moving up a spot or two from 14 by using both 2nds.

[tbdog]

That's probably my best offer too. I'd also explore trading back to 7 & 14 and maybe moving up a spot or two from 14 by using both 2nds.

Cavs run it back if that's their best offer. They'll target nets Bridges and nets probably want draft capital. Spurs would need to add draft capital to make it work for three team deal.

[CGD]

That's probably my best offer too. I'd also explore trading back to 7 & 14 and maybe moving up a spot or two from 14 by using both 2nds.

That’s a nice combo.

IN: Garland, Salaun (7), Carter (14)
OUT: 4, 8, CHA pick, Malaki, Keldon, filler

[CGD]

Cavs run it back if that's their best offer. They'll target nets Bridges and nets probably want draft capital. Spurs would need to add draft capital to make it work for three team deal.

We’ll see if the Mitchell’s camp indeed pushes to have Garland moved as a condition to him extending. In any case, if spurs can to add more assets if they think it merits.

I see Brooklyn as the Trae destination tbh.

[tbdog]

We’ll see if the Mitchell’s camp indeed pushes to have Garland moved as a condition to him extending. In any case, if spurs can to add more assets if they think it merits.

I see Brooklyn as the Trae destination tbh.

Garland and Mitchell’s group can agree to look at trading Garland, but it has to make sense for Cavs. Cavs really need a two way swing. Keldon is not that. Vassell is. Spurs probably make Vassell off limits for Garland.

[Mr. Body]

Garland is more intriguing than Trae Young, but... here we have Klutch steering a player off a playoff team because he's 'not being played the right way.'

[CGD]

Garland and Mitchell’s group can agree to look at trading Garland, but it has to make sense for Cavs. Cavs really need a two way swing. Keldon is not that. Vassell is. Spurs probably make Vassell off limits for Garland.

CLE is hot to keep Mitchell. Of course they’d want the Bradley Beal return for Garland, but the “making sense” part for them in largely getting the commitment from Mitchell.

[mo7888]

Cavs run it back if that's their best offer. They'll target nets Bridges and nets probably want draft capital. Spurs would need to add draft capital to make it work for three team deal.

Then let them...

[tbdog]

Then let them...

Yeah, but Garlands stock is very low atm. Cavs will wait for the right package. Then competition to obtain him gets harder. If spurs want him, not waiting is ideal and that package isn't enough. Garland is getting Allstar appearances with Wemby.

[Chinook]

The biggest thing complicating a Garland trade (and yes, I don't like Garland either) is that the Cavs already paid a huge price for Mitchell. So in their minds, three firsts and three young guys is a viable package I'd assume they know Garland isn't better than Mitchell, but that still means they could think something like 8, ATL25, Vassell and Sochan is reasonable. I wouldn't put any of those things on the table for Garland, let alone all of them. But some people have it in their heads that the Spurs really want to acquire a young star PG for Victor, and the Cavs could easily look at that above package and conclude it's a significant discount from the Mitchell standpoint and that's more than accounts for the difference between Darius and Donovan.

I don't see the Cavs as a rational trade ally this year. Maybe at the deadline.

[jesterbobman]

I think there's a range on Garland from he's an all star calibre player who's been lower in the last 2 years with an odd fit / injury, to he's decent but not super dynamic on ball scorer who had an all star season, though the team won with defense. That has a huge range in trade value. I think he's towards the lower end of that spectrum. I'd be fine with something like a Keldon / Chicago pick + Charlotte pick, but not anything like the Vassell / Sochan / 8 combo. To me, that's an overpay.

The Cavs also being in trying to win mode also make them a poor partner as a direct trading partner. If another team is starting to rebuild and has a piece that fits what Cleveland wants, and the picks could be routed to team C (e.g, Washington for Avdija) it could make some sense.

[exstatic]

Garland is more intriguing than Trae Young, but... here we have Klutch steering a player off a playoff team because he's 'not being played the right way.'

.?? Garland and his representatives aren’t driving this. Mitchell wants him gone, period.

[exstatic]

Yeah, but Garlands stock is very low atm. Cavs will wait for the right package. Then competition to obtain him gets harder. If spurs want him, not waiting is ideal and that package isn't enough. Garland is getting Allstar appearances with Wemby.

They can’t wait, because Mitchell and his reps are tapping their toes, waiting for that trade before they sign an extension. Sometimes it sucks, and you take the best offer on the table,even if it’s crap.

[mo7888]

Yeah, but Garlands stock is very low atm. Cavs will wait for the right package. Then competition to obtain him gets harder. If spurs want him, not waiting is ideal and that package isn't enough. Garland is getting Allstar appearances with Wemby.

Nah, Garland isn't important enough to add more. If the cavs think they can get more elsewhere then let them... there's no way I offer more than that...

[LeBowen]

Nah, Garland isn't important enough to add more. If the cavs think they can get more elsewhere then let them... there's no way I offer more than that...

I was really high on Garland a year ago and I expected this outcome in Cleveland. Him and Mitchell were never going to fit together.
He's had some injury issues and a disappointing season. I still believe there's a great player in there, but that contract is a big risk.
Still, even if he doesn't develop into a parennial all-star, he'll always be a good player and it won't take much to move him.

As for the offer, I'd maybe add Chicago pick, but only if they take Collins.
They're going with Mobley over Allen, so they'll need a backup after Allen is traded.

Keldon, Collins, #8, '25 Chicago, '25 Charlotte for Garland.
Or Tre instead of #8 since they're going to need a backup PG.

Then we draft a rookie PG with that #8 to come off the bench.

[mo7888]

I was really high on Garland a year ago and I expected this outcome in Cleveland. Him and Mitchell were never going to fit together.
He's had some injury issues and a disappointing season. I still believe there's a great player in there, but that contract is a big risk.
Still, even if he doesn't develop into a parennial all-star, he'll always be a good player and it won't take much to move him.

As for the offer, I'd maybe add Chicago pick, but only if they take Collins.
They're going with Mobley over Allen, so they'll need a backup after Allen is traded.

Keldon, Collins, #8, '25 Chicago, '25 Charlotte for Garland.
Or Tre instead of #8 since they're going to need a backup PG.

Then we draft a rookie PG with that #8 to come off the bench.

If KJ, Zollins, Chicago, Charlotte, and Tre get it done, then count me in on that...

[Mr. Body]

.?? Garland and his representatives aren’t driving this. Mitchell wants him gone, period.

My brother in Christ, this all started with Klutch and Rich Paul demanding a trade.

[LeBowen]

If KJ, Zollins, Chicago, Charlotte, and Tre get it done, then count me in on that...

Mitchell is our best friend here, the more he presses, the more desperate Cavs get.
Mitchell will surely give them a deadline, this won't drag out all summer long like Lillard saga.

As already mentioned, Spurs should hold firm and not get fleeced unless they really think Garland is the playmaker to get.
The only issue would be other teams and potential offers.
I'd say Ingram<->Garland swap makes the most sense, but I'm sure he'd rather play with Wemby than go to another dysfunctional franchise.
Orlando would be the other competitior. They have more than enough to trade for Garland and need a point guard badly.

[mo7888]

Mitchell is our best friend here, the more he presses, the more desperate Cavs get.
Mitchell will surely give them a deadline, this won't drag out all summer long like Lillard saga.

As already mentioned, Spurs should hold firm and not get fleeced unless they really think Garland is the playmaker to get.
The only issue would be other teams and potential offers.
I'd say Ingram<->Garland swap makes the most sense, but I'm sure he'd rather play with Wemby than go to another dysfunctional franchise.
Orlando would be the other competitior. They have more than enough to trade for Garland and need a point guard badly.

Both Orlando and the Spurs can also look at D'Lo as a fallback option that doesn't cost as much in salary or assets too. That fact should help keep a lid on a maximum asset offer here.

[DPG21920]

If we are going someone paid 40M then just go ahead and get Trae at that point.

[CGD]

If we are going someone paid 40M then just go ahead and get Trae at that point.

Trae makes about 5-7M more annually (that’s before his next deal). He will also probably command twice as much asset-wise in return than Garland.

The goal with Garland is to buy as his value is lowest to allow the Spurs to hold on to as many of their moat valuable trade assets (Vassell, Sochan, ATL FRP, their own FRPs) as possible.

To be clear, I like the theoretical fit of Garland and all, but I’m not breaking the bank for him either.

[DPG21920]

Trae makes about 5-7M more annually (that’s before his next deal). He will also probably command twice as much asset-wise in return than Garland.

The goal with Garland is to buy as his value is lowest to allow the Spurs to hold on to as many of their moat valuable trade assets (Vassell, Sochan, ATL FRP, their own FRPs) as possible.

To be clear, I like the theoretical fit of Garland and all, but I’m not breaking the bank for him either.


I dont want either unless cost is non Vassell/Sochan players and 2 firsts or less. But at that point 5M doesnt mean anything is the point and I’d rather have Trae deal for 3 years than Garlands at 4 years personally.

But at that point with their money and any amount of picks you are quasi going all in anyways is the point and I’d rather just get the better player if you’re doing that (which they shouldn’t)

[JPB]

Trae makes about 5-7M more annually (that’s before his next deal). He will also probably command twice as much asset-wise in return than Garland.

The goal with Garland is to buy as his value is lowest to allow the Spurs to hold on to as many of their moat valuable trade assets (Vassell, Sochan, ATL FRP, their own FRPs) as possible.

To be clear, I like the theoretical fit of Garland and all, but I’m not breaking the bank for him either.

You're vastly underestimating what Garland would cost. His value is not at his lowest. He's 24 entering his prime and there won't be shortage of suitors, which is all that matters for CLE who will have leverage and won't undersell him. it's not SA or nothing for Garland.. Not to mention the NBA knows the spurs are badly needing a quailty PG. They'll make them pay.

[TD 21]

The Cavs also being in trying to win mode also make them a poor partner as a direct trading partner. If another team is starting to rebuild and has a piece that fits what Cleveland wants, and the picks could be routed to team C (e.g, Washington for Avdija) it could make some sense.

This is the problem I keep mentioning with any of these trades for these oft mentioned guards. The Spurs can obviously make a a good offer in a vacuum, but the whole point of trading Garland would be to sell Mitchell on contending or having a pathway to doing so and upgrading the fit while decreasing the baseline of talent won't get them any closer.

Unless they could turn Allen and Johnson into Ingram (but then the Pelicans would run into the same problem with Williamson), they'd be looking at LeVert as their secondary creator.


Keldon, Collins, #8, '25 Chicago, '25 Charlotte for Garland.
Or Tre instead of #8 since they're going to need a backup PG.

Can't see them taking Collins. It'd more than likely have to be either Jones in place of him or maybe Branham and Graham.

[exstatic]

If we are going someone paid 40M then just go ahead and get Trae at that point.

No, because the salary is only PART of the equation. The other part is acquisition cost. You can probably get Garland without any Atlanta picks, just the two others ( CHI,CHA) plus a pick or two of our own.

[Atl Spur]

No, because the salary is only PART of the equation. The other part is acquisition cost. You can probably get Garland without any Atlanta picks, just the two others ( CHI,CHA) plus a pick or two of our own.

We hold the chips, lest we forget that! I prefer castle/rob/Topic with Wemby vs Garland.

[rascal]

Thtge spurs 4th and 8th picks their own future first the chicipick and Charlotte pick and a couple young guys like keldon plus anyone but vassell and Wemby should be enough to land a target they covet. Without touching Atlantas picks which I think we should keep especially 2025

Charlotte's pick is wortless. Charlotte never makes the playoffs and there is only one year left on it to convey, and it's lottery protected so has low value. Chi also top 10 protected and they will likley be another tank team to keep that pick next year.

Vassell is the only player with some value outside of Wemby so basically you want to trade little value away so I don't know what you think to expect back in a trade.

[CGD]

I dont want either unless cost is non Vassell/Sochan players and 2 firsts or less. But at that point 5M doesnt mean anything is the point and I’d rather have Trae deal for 3 years than Garlands at 4 years personally.

But at that point with their money and any amount of picks you are quasi going all in anyways is the point and I’d rather just get the better player if you’re doing that (which they shouldn’t)

I agree on the value part.

My top offer would be something like Keldon, 8, 35, CHA FRP, and Malaki (plus filler). Maybe put the CHI pick in play too. Other teams can outbid us. I’m not giving up the ATL picks.

[Dverde]

I’m convinced the Spurs either trade for a point guard or they draft Castle #4.

[poopbox]

No, because the salary is only PART of the equation. The other part is acquisition cost. You can probably get Garland without any Atlanta picks, just the two others ( CHI,CHA) plus a pick or two of our own.

I agree about acquisition cost, but in Garland case the biggest question is should you be paying Garland 40 million a year?

Financially an nba team can only have a max of 3 max slots than can pay, and paying that 3rd max slots wipes out all your depth (see phoenix and brooklyn from the last few years) so most teams are going to try and keep it as 2 max slots and a highly paid 3rd guy. We know Victor is a max slot player. For now we have Devin as the highly paid 3rd guy. For roster construction purposes that means we have 1 max slot to give out. Should we be giving that slot to Garland, even if the cost is not high? I'd say no to that. But I don't like undersized two guards masquerading as point guards, so I'm a bit bias here, since that is what Garland is.

After you factor in the spurs can just take a young point guard with upside with a high pick in the draft, it makes almost no sense at this point to pursue garland, or really any other point guard now.

[CGD]

I agree about acquisition cost, but in Garland case the biggest question is should you be paying Garland 40 million a year?

Financially an nba team can only have a max of 3 max slots than can pay, and paying that 3rd max slots wipes out all your depth (see phoenix and brooklyn from the last few years) so most teams are going to try and keep it as 2 max slots and a highly paid 3rd guy. We know Victor is a max slot player. For now we have Devin as the highly paid 3rd guy. For roster construction purposes that means we have 1 max slot to give out. Should we be giving that slot to Garland, even if the cost is not high? I'd say no to that. But I don't like undersized two guards masquerading as point guards, so I'm a bit bias here, since that is what Garland is.

After you factor in the spurs can just take a young point guard with upside with a high pick in the draft, it makes almost no sense at this point to pursue garland, or really any other point guard now.

I look at it as % of the cap. Devin, at his high salary, will be 20% of the Spurs cap and that will go down between (1) the structure of his deal, and (2) the new cable deal.

Next year, Garland would be about 25% of the cap. Also will go down with new deal (modestly).

Then factor in that we’re still in Vic’s cheap years, and the fact that most of the current roster wont be on this team anyway

[scott]

I don't see how the Spurs and Cavs make sense as trade partners in a direct trade. The Cavs are a Top 4 team in the East and aren't going to extend Mitchell just so they can take a step backwards (especially with Mobley also likely getting a max extension this offseason), the Cavs likely will want to move Garland for another high caliber player who better fits the team. The trade ideas for Garland I found in this link make a lot more sense for Cleveland (no opinion on how much sense they make for the other teams): https://fansided.com/posts/darius-garland-trades-cavs-need-re-sign-donovan-mitchell

The Spurs simply lack the right assets to go directly after Garland, IMO. I don't think Cleveland is going to view Keldon or Collins (lol) as the kind of players they need, and SA likely doesn't want to move Vassell to get Garland (certainly it doesn't look like the Spurs fans here would want that - I wouldn't either).

[scott]

I agree about acquisition cost, but in Garland case the biggest question is should you be paying Garland 40 million a year?

Financially an nba team can only have a max of 3 max slots than can pay, and paying that 3rd max slots wipes out all your depth (see phoenix and brooklyn from the last few years) so most teams are going to try and keep it as 2 max slots and a highly paid 3rd guy. We know Victor is a max slot player. For now we have Devin as the highly paid 3rd guy. For roster construction purposes that means we have 1 max slot to give out. Should we be giving that slot to Garland, even if the cost is not high? I'd say no to that. But I don't like undersized two guards masquerading as point guards, so I'm a bit bias here, since that is what Garland is.

After you factor in the spurs can just take a young point guard with upside with a high pick in the draft, it makes almost no sense at this point to pursue garland, or really any other point guard now.

I think this is great analysis, but we shouldn't forget that the Spurs can afford to be a little more aggressive since we are lucky in that we have a max-caliber player (Wemby) essentially playing for the MLE the next 3 years. Not saying that Garland is the guy to get aggressive for, necessarily, but we can't forget that wrinkle if we wanted to overpay someone over the next 3-4 years.

[jjspur]

It looks that we either want a max or near max guy (Trey or Garland) or on the opposite end, a rookie. Seems like there should be an option somewhere in between.

[scott]

OK, but who is that magical upgrade player that CLE is waiting for?

In the link I provided, the Cavs get Brandon Ingram, Mikal Bridges and DFS, or Reaves and Hachimura (this is the weakest of the scenarios, IMO).

I don't see how the Cavs would prefer Keldon + picks (especially the ones discussed in this thread) as more appealing than any of those options.

[CGD]

I don't see how the Spurs and Cavs make sense as trade partners in a direct trade. The Cavs are a Top 4 team in the East and aren't going to extend Mitchell just so they can take a step backwards (especially with Mobley also likely getting a max extension this offseason), the Cavs likely will want to move Garland for another high caliber player who better fits the team. The trade ideas for Garland I found in this link make a lot more sense for Cleveland (no opinion on how much sense they make for the other teams): https://fansided.com/posts/darius-garland-trades-cavs-need-re-sign-donovan-mitchell

The Spurs simply lack the right assets to go directly after Garland, IMO. I don't think Cleveland is going to view Keldon or Collins (lol) as the kind of players they need, and SA likely doesn't want to move Vassell to get Garland (certainly it doesn't look like the Spurs fans here would want that - I wouldn't either).

Ok, but who is that player CLE is waiting for? Nets aren’t moving Bridges so long as Marks is there, guys. Ingram is a possibility but how does that work with Mobley? LAL best package is also built around picks.

I think the biggest priority for CLE, who gave up all their assets to get Mitchell btw, is to get him to resign at all cost. Mitchell’s top priority is to have Garland gone.

[mo7888]

I don't see how the Spurs and Cavs make sense as trade partners in a direct trade. The Cavs are a Top 4 team in the East and aren't going to extend Mitchell just so they can take a step backwards (especially with Mobley also likely getting a max extension this offseason), the Cavs likely will want to move Garland for another high caliber player who better fits the team. The trade ideas for Garland I found in this link make a lot more sense for Cleveland (no opinion on how much sense they make for the other teams): https://fansided.com/posts/darius-garland-trades-cavs-need-re-sign-donovan-mitchell

The Spurs simply lack the right assets to go directly after Garland, IMO. I don't think Cleveland is going to view Keldon or Collins (lol) as the kind of players they need, and SA likely doesn't want to move Vassell to get Garland (certainly it doesn't look like the Spurs fans here would want that - I wouldn't either).

I really don't see Nola making that trade and Brooklyn would be taking less than they were offered last year for Bridges. The LA offer looks realistic, but I don't see it as better than the lesser Garland packages we've discussed here.

[scott]

Ok, but who is that player CLE is waiting for? Nets aren’t moving Bridges so long as Marks is there, guys. Ingram is a possibility but how does that work with Mobley? LAL best package is also built around picks.

I think the biggest priority for CLE, who gave up all their assets to get Mitchell btw, is to get him to resign at all cost. Mitchell’s top priority is to have Garland gone.

With the three-way proposal with ORL, add in one more FRP and I think you'd get BKY interested in moving Bridges. I disagree that Marks won't move him, Marks is a smart guy, certainly he sees that cashing in on Bridges now is he best hope. BKY is really in a precarious position, which pisses me off since HOU controls their draft over the next few years (the swap rights on the 2025 BKY pick are funky, but other than that they're all the Rockets).

[CGD]

^ weird double post. Sorry about that. Hit send on the first one early and still don’t have edit access for some reason

[Payote75]

Toronto tanked pick still conveyed they aren't worthless pick plus the spurs hold their own first round picks again they have worth and keldon or sochan zollins malaki sochan even. We have plenty of pieces and we aren't trading for magic Johnson

[TD 21]

Ok, but who is that player CLE is waiting for? Nets aren’t moving Bridges so long as Marks is there, guys. Ingram is a possibility but how does that work with Mobley? LAL best package is also built around picks.

I think the biggest priority for CLE, who gave up all their assets to get Mitchell btw, is to get him to resign at all cost. Mitchell’s top priority is to have Garland gone.

Agreed on Bridges, at least for Garland.

Ingram's mid range game would work fine with Mobley, who can play more around the rim with Allen gone and with Mitchell providing volume three-point shooting.

Hachimura would be an ideal fit with Mobley, but despite superior size, Reaves would invite the same defensive issues a Mitchell-Garland back court possesses.

Mitchell's priority, other than maximizing his earnings, is having a legit chance to contend for a championship. He'd clearly prefer to do that at home in New York first and probably some other glamor market second; but that's where the disconnect with Garland is. They're a poor fit, but by all accounts get along well.

[scott]

I really don't see Nola making that trade and Brooklyn would be taking less than they were offered last year for Bridges. The LA offer looks realistic, but I don't see it as better than the lesser Garland packages we've discussed here.

I think all of us on this board need to take this purported Bridges proposal last year with a grain of salt. The rumor is they were offered "4/5 firsts" but we don't know what those first were. Doubtful they were 4/5 unprotected picks. Even the guy who reported this says that the he was skeptical of these offers:


As more substantial offers continue to pour in with the trade deadline looming, the Action Network's Matt Moore (https://www.actionnetwork.com/nba/nba-trade-rumors-latest-intel-on-chris-paul-kyle-lowry-warriors-and-lakers) reported that Brooklyn has turned down "multiple offers of five first-rounders for Bridges." Moore adds that it's possible the offered draft choices could be heavily protected or include pick swaps.

"Two league sources said the Nets have claimed multiple offers of five first-rounders for Mikal Bridges, but I'm pretty skeptical on that front," Moore wrote. "One, it might be five ‘firsts’ with swaps and/or heavily protected picks, and if the offer was really five firsts, why share that and then continue to say they are not interested in trading Mikal Bridges?"

Shams reported that BKN turned down an offer of Jalen Green and "multiple FRPs", but again... were those protected FRPs? Scotto followed up and said the Rockets discussed sending "most" of the FRPs HOU got from BKN in the Harden trade... but what is "most" and what protections?

My guess is that these offers were in reality a lot less than we assume. But even so, Bridges value has only gone down since then. If you are BKN... what is your plan with Bridges? He's got two years left on very good contract. Does BKN really think they can compete? I'd say the Nets are in a worse position than the Derozan Spurs, when it was obvious to most of us here that the Spurs should look to offload Demar (we turned out getting decent value for Demar in the end, but maybe could have done better if we moved earlier).

Marks may have some other plan or idea, who knows... but I think Bridges might be more available than it is commonly thought.

And lastly, I disagree that the LA offer isn't better than a Keldon + CHA + CHI package. Reeves is a better asset than Keldon, and a 2028 Lakers FRP is far better than CHI25 + CHA25. Hachimura's contract is essentially the same as Collins from here out, but Rui is a more useful player, as well.

[mo7888]

How do we see Devin's value around the league? For instance, is it more or less than Dejounte?

[mo7888]

I think all of us on this board need to take this purported Bridges proposal last year with a grain of salt. The rumor is they were offered "4/5 firsts" but we don't know what those first were. Doubtful they were 4/5 unprotected picks. Even the guy who reported this says that the he was skeptical of these offers:

[/FONT][/COLOR]

Shams reported that BKN turned down an offer of Jalen Green and "multiple FRPs", but again... were those protected FRPs? Scotto followed up and said the Rockets discussed sending "most" of the FRPs HOU got from BKN in the Harden trade... but what is "most" and what protections?

My guess is that these offers were in reality a lot less than we assume. But even so, Bridges value has only gone down since then. If you are BKN... what is your plan with Bridges? He's got two years left on very good contract. Does BKN really think they can compete? I'd say the Nets are in a worse position than the Derozan Spurs, when it was obvious to most of us here that the Spurs should look to offload Demar (we turned out getting decent value for Demar in the end, but maybe could have done better if we moved earlier).

Marks may have some other plan or idea, who knows... but I think Bridges might be more available than it is commonly thought.

And lastly, I disagree that the LA offer isn't better than a Keldon + CHA + CHI package. Reeves is a better asset than Keldon, and a 2028 Lakers FRP is far better than CHI25 + CHA25. Hachimura's contract is essentially the same as Collins from here out, but Rui is a more useful player, as well.

I fully expect the 4 1sts for Bridges were lottery protected, but that's still about the same as the Anthony Black + 3 picks expected to be outside the lottery. Seriously, if that's the package they'd take we should just go get Bridges ourselves and use 4 & 8 on two guards.

We'll have to disagree on the LA package. I don't think anyone outside of LA and the Press (but I repeat myself) values Reaves that high right now. I also think that the evaluation undervalues Keldon. Reaves and Keldon are both 6th men types with flaws and good contracts. Hachimura has a little value but not more than they would get by flipping our picks.

[CGD]

I think all of us on this board need to take this purported Bridges proposal last year with a grain of salt. The rumor is they were offered "4/5 firsts" but we don't know what those first were. Doubtful they were 4/5 unprotected picks. Even the guy who reported this says that the he was skeptical of these offers:

[/FONT][/COLOR]

Shams reported that BKN turned down an offer of Jalen Green and "multiple FRPs", but again... were those protected FRPs? Scotto followed up and said the Rockets discussed sending "most" of the FRPs HOU got from BKN in the Harden trade... but what is "most" and what protections?

My guess is that these offers were in reality a lot less than we assume. But even so, Bridges value has only gone down since then. If you are BKN... what is your plan with Bridges? He's got two years left on very good contract. Does BKN really think they can compete? I'd say the Nets are in a worse position than the Derozan Spurs, when it was obvious to most of us here that the Spurs should look to offload Demar (we turned out getting decent value for Demar in the end, but maybe could have done better if we moved earlier).

Marks may have some other plan or idea, who knows... but I think Bridges might be more available than it is commonly thought.

And lastly, I disagree that the LA offer isn't better than a Keldon + CHA + CHI package. Reeves is a better asset than Keldon, and a 2028 Lakers FRP is far better than CHI25 + CHA25. Hachimura's contract is essentially the same as Collins from here out, but Rui is a more useful player, as well.

To be clear, I think that version of the Spurs package IS inferior to a LAL one. I was suggesting a package built Keldon + #8, a young player (Malaki/Blake), and the CHA FRP. If you have to add they can play with the #35 or the CHI FRP. But, beyond that I get off the bus.

Having 8 and maybe 35, givens them something concrete to along with Keldon and Malaki/Blake.

[scott]

How do we see Devin's value around the league? For instance, is it more or less than Dejounte?

Great question. I assume you mean Dejounte now and not the Dejounte we traded (when he was at the peak of his value, not because he's gotten "worse" but because there was still much more to be determined upside a team could bet on. At this point, everyone should know what DJM is).

I'd still say DJM is a more valuable player, and pretty considerably so. His 3ball has come around pretty considerably (.363 last year compared to Devin's .372). I think Dejounte is a lot more multi-dimensional. Their contracts are pretty equal. I could see a team giving up multiple FRPs for DJM this summer, I'm not sure Vassell would pull the same (but he might). I think Vassell is also a much more common archetype. 20pt scorers on bad teams who don't do much defensively should be fairly easy to come by.

[scott]

To be clear, I think that version of the Spurs package IS inferior to a LAL one. I was suggesting a package built Keldon + #8, a young player (Malaki/Blake), and the CHA FRP. If you have to add they can play with the #35 or the CHI FRP. But, beyond that I get off the bus.

Having 8 and maybe 35, givens them something concrete to along with Keldon and Malaki/Blake.

Ah, gotcha. If Cleveland likes a player like Knecht, that could make some sense for them. But I don't know that how many other prospects in the top 10 of this particular draft make sense for CLE. Maybe if they are losing Allen, then Clingan?

[scott]

I fully expect the 4 1sts for Bridges were lottery protected, but that's still about the same as the Anthony Black + 3 picks expected to be outside the lottery. Seriously, if that's the package they'd take we should just go get Bridges ourselves and use 4 & 8 on two guards.

We'll have to disagree on the LA package. I don't think anyone outside of LA and the Press (but I repeat myself) values Reaves that high right now. I also think that the evaluation undervalues Keldon. Reaves and Keldon are both 6th men types with flaws and good contracts. Hachimura has a little value but not more than they would get by flipping our picks.

In the Anthony Black proposal, I would just counter that two unprotected FRPs 2 and 4 years away, even if "expected" to be outside of the lottery, will always carry considerably more value than lottery protected picks because they have no upside (and could just become SRPs). So I strongly disagree that 4 lotto protected picks is about the same as Black + 18 + two unprotected FRPs (if that's what the hypothetical proposal is).

I also disagree that Reaves isn't more valuable than Keldon. If both players were on the block and going to be moved, I would comfortably bet money that Reaves would fetch a greater return. I think we overvalue Keldon here.

[mo7888]

Great question. I assume you mean Dejounte now and not the Dejounte we traded (when he was at the peak of his value, not because he's gotten "worse" but because there was still much more to be determined upside a team could bet on. At this point, everyone should know what DJM is).

I'd still say DJM is a more valuable player, and pretty considerably so. His 3ball has come around pretty considerably (.363 last year compared to Devin's .372). I think Dejounte is a lot more multi-dimensional. Their contracts are pretty equal. I could see a team giving up multiple FRPs for DJM this summer, I'm not sure Vassell would pull the same (but he might). I think Vassell is also a much more common archetype. 20pt scorers on bad teams who don't do much defensively should be fairly easy to come by.

Correct, I'm talking about today's DJ. I also agree with you on value for DJ being a little more than Devin, but I do think it's close. It makes me wonder if a Devin + a couple 2nds for DJ might be in everyone's best interest. Atlanta could pretend like they didn't get fleeced by getting less in draft picks than when they acquired DJ. A Trae/Devin pairing is better for them. Taking DJ back solves our PG issue and let's us draft Sheppard, who I think is perfect beside DJ and could possibly be a longer term replacement if his PG skills translate. We could use the other picks in a myriad of ways from simply taking a wing (Matas/Williams/Holland/Knecht) or trade it for a player.

[mo7888]

In the Anthony Black proposal, I would just counter that two unprotected FRPs 2 and 4 years away, even if "expected" to be outside of the lottery, will always carry considerably more value than lottery protected picks because they have no upside (and could just become SRPs). So I strongly disagree that 4 lotto protected picks is about the same as Black + 18 + two unprotected FRPs (if that's what the hypothetical proposal is).

I also disagree that Reaves isn't more valuable than Keldon. If both players were on the block and going to be moved, I would comfortably bet money that Reaves would fetch a greater return. I think we overvalue Keldon here.

Maybe... who's giving the unprotected 1sts? If it's Orlando then you're probably right, but I seriously doubt they give 2 unprotected 1st's in that package.

[TD 21]

I also disagree that Reaves isn't more valuable than Keldon. If both players were on the block and going to be moved, I would comfortably bet money that Reaves would fetch a greater return. I think we overvalue Keldon here.

Of course. Reaves is a significantly better creator for himself and others and an efficient three level scorer.

Johnson is mostly empty calories and a player without a defined role.

In most of these hypotheticals, I think the opposing team would be fine taking him, but I wouldn't mistake that with them valuing him a great deal.

[poopbox]

I look at it as % of the cap. Devin, at his high salary, will be 20% of the Spurs cap and that will go down between (1) the structure of his deal, and (2) the new cable deal.

Next year, Garland would be about 25% of the cap. Also will go down with new deal (modestly).

Then factor in that we’re still in Vic’s cheap years, and the fact that most of the current roster wont be on this team anyway

True about the % of the cap, but Devin + Garland money would keep you from getting a second max slot as long as both are on the team. You'd have to trade one to open that money up. Vs Devin + rookie contract point guard money is pretty easily moveable in any trade.

I feel like if the spurs trade for Garland they are locked into that contract for 3 years, and it takes them out of the running for any other star player unless that teams wants Garland (probably not) or Devin (maybe, but this situation only exist because they don't want Garland). I think a top 5 pick point guard on a rookie deal is going to have more value across the league than garland at 40 million will.

[Robz4000]

Not sure I'd do it since it might help out a probable future rival but:

Denver:
#4
'26 pick swap
Jones
Branham
Graham and/or Collins

Spurs:
MPJ
#28

[exstatic]

Not sure I'd do it since it might help out a probable future rival but:

Denver:
#4
'26 pick swap
Jones
Branham
Graham and/or Collins

Spurs:
MPJ
#28

MPJ is the most selfish player on their squad,had two back surgeries before age 23, and is not clutch. There is a clip on YouTube for Victor’s 17 points in 3 minutes,uncut. The uncredited star was MPJ, clanking 3 pointer after 3 pointer.

[Dhbsr555]

MPJ is the most selfish player on their squad,had two back surgeries before age 23, and is not clutch. There is a clip on YouTube for Victor’s 17 points in 3 minutes,uncut. The uncredited star was MPJ, clanking 3 pointer after 3 pointer.
A number 4 and a hawks swap for mpj is the dumbest take ive seen so far

[MaNu4Tres]

Keldon and 8 to Charlotte for 6 and lightening the protections in the 2025 1st round pick to top 8 protected.

If it doesn't convey then top 8 protected first in '26. If not '26, then top 8 protected in 27. If not 27, then two second-round picks in 28 and 29.

[exstatic]

Keldon and 8 to Charlotte for 6 and lightening the protections in the 2025 1st round pick to top 8 protected.

If it doesn't convey then top 8 protected first in '26. If not '26, then top 8 protected in 27. If not 27, then two second-round picks in 28 and 29.

You want us to move up, and for Charlotte to pay US to move down? That’s an interesting, if unrealistic take.

[MaNu4Tres]

You want us to move up, and for Charlotte to pay US to move down? That’s an interesting, if unrealistic take.

If you ignore Keldon, who could immediately start for them and be a fitting piece around Brandon Melo and Mark, sure.

Maybe you're right and Keldon at 24 yrs old isn't worth moving down two spots in this draft and moving the protections from 14 to 8 in for next years draft pick.

[AFBlue]

Can the Spurs bide time and pick up a rotation piece for a year by acquiring Bruce Brown from the Raptors for a couple future second round picks?

Not the sexy trade for a full-time PG, but is a nice veteran on an expiring that could be moved at the deadline if needed

[TD 21]

Not sure I'd do it since it might help out a probable future rival but:

Denver:
#4
'26 pick swap
Jones
Branham
Graham and/or Collins

Spurs:
MPJ
#28

I doubt Porter Jr. will be the sacrificial lamb to cure their tax/depth issues, it'll probably be Caldwell-Pope (if they can convince Gary Harris to return for the taxpayer MLE of $5.1M), maybe packaging draft capital to get a team with cap space to take Nnaji or possibly Jackson and then seeing if they can sign some ring chasers to the veteran's minimum.

Also, they were last in 3-point attempts and this trade obviously wouldn't address that.

[poopbox]

Can the Spurs bide time and pick up a rotation piece for a year by acquiring Bruce Brown from the Raptors for a couple future second round picks?

Not the sexy trade for a full-time PG, but is a nice veteran on an expiring that could be moved at the deadline if needed


Don't think second round picks are going to get you Bruce Brown. If it does Spurs should be all over it though.

[poopbox]

And I think we should be shopping Keldon and 8 for Ingram if possible. Seems he is on his way out and I don't know if the Pelicans are going to get more than a bench scorer and a top 10 pick for him. Almost every team that needs a wing scorer has a wing scorer other than the Spurs, Pistons, and Wizards. I'd toss in the Bulls and/or Hornets fake 1st as well. Don't think those picks are going to turn into anything.

[TD 21]

With the Cavaliers supposedly confident in Mitchell re-signing, if the Spurs select Castle at 4 . . .

To Cavaliers: Johnson, Jones, 8, 35, Bulls '25 1st

To Spurs: Garland, 20

[RC_Drunkford]

With the Cavaliers supposedly confident in Mitchell re-signing, if the Spurs select Castle at 4 . . .

To Cavaliers: Johnson, Jones, 8, 35, Bulls '25 1st

To Spurs: Garland, 20

That's about as far as I would be willing to go to aquire him. Although it would have to be a 3-team deal since the Cavs want players, not picks.

[CGD]

With the Cavaliers supposedly confident in Mitchell re-signing, if the Spurs select Castle at 4 . . .

To Cavaliers: Johnson, Jones, 8, 35, Bulls '25 1st

To Spurs: Garland, 20

I’m here for it. Thought I was the only one here on Garland island :-)

Would like to keep Jones if possible (send back OH native Malaki instead) but I wouldn’t hold a deal up for that. Toss in that CHA pick for their press release can say they got 3 FRPs for Garland.

Garland
Vassell
Vet/25 FRP placeholder
Sochan
Wemby

Key Reserves
- Castle
- Collins

[TD 21]

That's about as far as I would be willing to go to aquire him. Although it would have to be a 3-team deal since the Cavs want players, not picks.

To Cavaliers: Ingram, Jones, 21, 35, Bulls '25 1st

To Pelicans: Allen, Johnson, 8

To Spurs: Garland, 20


I’m here for it. Thought I was the only one here on Garland island :-)

Would like to keep Jones if possible (send back OH native Malaki instead) but I wouldn’t hold a deal up for that. Toss in that CHA pick for their press release can say they got 3 FRPs for Garland.

Garland
Vassell
Vet/25 FRP placeholder
Sochan
Wemby

Key Reserves
- Castle
- Collins

I'm on a different island called make sense of the roster if Castle is selected, hence Jones' inclusion who'd double as a nice fit for the Cavaliers.

Sign either Caleb Martin or Naji Marshall to be the placeholder starting SF.

[mo7888]

With the Cavaliers supposedly confident in Mitchell re-signing, if the Spurs select Castle at 4 . . .

To Cavaliers: Johnson, Jones, 8, 35, Bulls '25 1st

To Spurs: Garland, 20

I'm not a big Garland fan, but I'd do that deal in a heartbeat. That 20th pick will have real value.

[CGD]

That's about as far as I would be willing to go to aquire him. Although it would have to be a 3-team deal since the Cavs want players, not picks.

I don’t buy that. There is some addition by subtraction potential, plus they would be a good Kencht fit with 8 to address their wing issues (on top of adding Keldon and Malaki). Say nothing of the fact that they emptied the coffers to land Mitchell and may like to replenish some of that.

[mo7888]

To Cavaliers: Ingram, Jones, 21, 35, Bulls '25 1st

To Pelicans: Allen, Johnson, 8

To Spurs: Garland, 20



I'm on a different island called make sense of the roster if Castle is selected, hence Jones' inclusion who'd double as a nice fit for the Cavaliers.

Sign either Caleb Martin or Naji Marshall to be the placeholder starting SF.

That iteration is more realistic and gets it done. I can't see anyone balking at that.

[CGD]

To Cavaliers: Ingram, Jones, 21, 35, Bulls '25 1st

To Pelicans: Allen, Johnson, 8

To Spurs: Garland, 20



I'm on a different island called make sense of the roster if Castle is selected, hence Jones' inclusion who'd double as a nice fit for the Cavaliers.

Sign either Caleb Martin or Naji Marshall to be the placeholder starting SF.

Yeah, I just like Tre personally, but as I said I wouldn’t kill such a deal over him though.

[TD 21]

That iteration is more realistic and gets it done. I can't see anyone balking at that.

The Cavaliers could also just keep 20 and the Spurs could receive 21.

The Pelicans might balk since they probably prefer to turn Ingram into Murray or maybe Young or Garland although in the case of the latter two they'd probably have to find a taker for McCollum in conjunction.

[RC_Drunkford]

reports are saying the Cavs are looking to move Allen and Garland might ask for a trade if they resign Mitchell which right now seems likely. On the other hand teams like the Lakers, Magic and whoever else needs a PG will be all over this as well, which might drive the price up.

1791583959530299492

[baseline bum]

Don't think second round picks are going to get you Bruce Brown. If it does Spurs should be all over it though.

I'd be pretty surprised to see Toronto pick up their $23 million team option on him since he was basically replacement value this season.

[TD 21]

The fly in the ointment of my proposals is the Cavaliers don't address the gaping hole at PF in either. Trading both Garland and Allen without doing so seems unlikely.


reports are saying the Cavs are looking to move Allen and Garland might ask for a trade if they resign Mitchell which right now seems likely. On the other hand teams like the Lakers, Magic and whoever else needs a PG will be all over this as well, which might drive the price up.

1791583959530299492

The Lakers can make a compelling offer with Hachimura (ideal fit next to Mobley) and Reaves.

I'm skeptical he's the lead guard the Magic are seeking, but we'll see.

[spurraider21]

I'd be pretty surprised to see Toronto pick up their $23 million team option on him since he was basically replacement value this season.
i think they'll pick it up with the hopes of trading him

[baseline bum]

i think they'll pick it up with the hopes of trading him

I guess they could try to get a pick by trading his expiring for a long term deal someone wants to get out of.

[objective]

I'm anti-Garland, but a trade of Keldon, Tre, Malaki and zero picks I think it's a fair price. I could get behind that.

Keldon as a key, perhaps 3rd scorer getting starter minutes with cost certainty, a 20+ mpg rotation steady back up point guard, and hometown kid Branham as a prospect, that's actually a very good return for a guy who has a disastrous season and is getting run out of town by Mitchell. Cuts into their capspace more than I'd like but it is what it is

No picks for Garland please

[exstatic]

I'm anti-Garland, but a trade of Keldon, Tre, Malaki and zero picks I think it's a fair price. I could get behind that.

Keldon as a key, perhaps 3rd scorer getting starter minutes with cost certainty, a 20+ mpg rotation steady back up point guard, and hometown kid Branham as a prospect, that's actually a very good return for a guy who has a disastrous season and is getting run out of town by Mitchell. Cuts into their capspace more than I'd like but it is what it is

No picks for Garland please

Cleveland laughs, and hangs up the phone. He was an All Star the year before they brought in that cancer Mitchell. He’s allegedly drawing a LOT more interest than Trae Young.

[MaNu4Tres]

Cleveland laughs, and hangs up the phone. He was an All Star the year before they brought in that cancer Mitchell. He’s allegedly drawing a LOT more interest than Trae Young.

Garland is a lot of empty calories.

Not worth 40 mil over next 4 years.

Spurs won’t do this. Same with Trae.

[mo7888]

Cleveland laughs, and hangs up the phone. He was an All Star the year before they brought in that cancer Mitchell. He’s allegedly drawing a LOT more interest than Trae Young.

He isn't drawing that interest because everyone views him as better than Trae. He's drawing it because he's cheaper and cost controlled. Cheaper in terms of the package it'll take to acquire him and he's locked in on his contract longer.

[heyheymymy]

To Cavaliers: Ingram, Jones, 21, 35, Bulls '25 1st

To Pelicans: Allen, Johnson, 8

To Spurs: Garland, 20

So in other words, 2024 would be the Spurs 4/20 draft, if you will :smokin

[CGD]

He isn't drawing that interest because everyone views him as better than Trae. He's drawing it because he's cheaper and cost controlled. Cheaper in terms of the package it'll take to acquire him and he's locked in on his contract longer.

That and the coachability. Rightly or wrongly Trae is going to have to reinvent himself at his next stop to shed the perceived selfish. Garland is the opposite, perhaps maybe too deferential based on this past season.

[exstatic]

He isn't drawing that interest because everyone views him as better than Trae. He's drawing it because he's cheaper and cost controlled. Cheaper in terms of the package it'll take to acquire him and he's locked in on his contract longer.

I didn’t say he was better, just drawing more interest. One thing, though. Even in his AS season, his USG% was only 27.8, and that was his career high. He might not be better,but he could be better for us as a non-heliocentric guard.

[mo7888]

I didn’t say he was better, just drawing more interest. One thing, though. Even in his AS season, his USG% was only 27.8, and that was his career high. He might not be better,but he could be better for us as a non-heliocentric guard.

I'd rather have him than Trae as well. He's a better fit, cheaper in assets and contract going forward. Something along the lines of TD's package would interest me, but I probably would go much beyond that.

[MultiTroll]

:pop: I'm going to make a run at Doughie McDermott.

Otherwise we like what we have.

[CGD]

:pop: I'm going to make a run at Doughie McDermott.

Otherwise we like what we have.

Better than wasting the 8th pick on Kencht tbh.

[baseline bum]

Garland is a lot of empty calories.

Not worth 40 mil over next 4 years.

Spurs won’t do this. Same with Trae.

Damn, was thinking he was making more like $33 million a year on his deal. Though with the new TV deal that contract probably won't look so bad.

[RC_Drunkford]

Damn, was thinking he was making more like $33 million a year on his deal. Though with the new TV deal that contract probably won't look so bad.

The Spurs can afford to pay Garland while Wemby is on his rookie deal. It's 36, 39, 42, 44 over the next 4 years. With the cap going up it's gonna look decent later. Largely depends on the Cavs asking price, his stock should be somewhat down with Mitchell taking his usage away which let his numbers drop.

[CGD]

Damn, was thinking he was making more like $33 million a year on his deal. Though with the new TV deal that contract probably won't look so bad.

36m, 39, 42, 44m over the next 4 year.

But interestingly before the new TV deal goes into effect, his percent of cap hit goes down each year:

26%, 25, 24, 23%

Expect that will decline further. It’s gonna take us all time to get adjusted to sticker shock, but reality is that the % of cap is what matters.

[CGD]

36m, 39, 42, 44m over the next 4 year.

But interestingly before the new TV deal goes into effect, his percent of cap hit goes down each year:

26%, 25, 24, 23%

Expect that will decline further. It’s gonna take us all time to get adjusted to sticker shock, but reality is that the % of cap is what matters.

Meanwhile over the same 4 year period, as % of cap:

Vassell: 20, 17, 15, 13%
Wemby: 9, 8, 9, TBD

So for the next 4 year that “Big 3” is:

55, 50, 48, TBD

That’s a good cap situation to still be able to build around 4 years. And after Wemby signs his extension you can move on from Dev and Darius to build around (hopefully) some of these draft picks coming up.

[Dverde]

Garland is a lot of empty calories.

Not worth 40 mil over next 4 years.

Spurs won’t do this. Same with Trae.

Garland is a better player than everyone not named Victor on the Spurs. A lot of players are going to make 40M a year. People just need to get used to the salaries increases.

[baseline bum]

Garland is a better player than everyone not named Victor on the Spurs. A lot of players are going to make 40M a year. People just need to get used to the salaries increases.

Yeah think I'd jump on a deal of say #4 + Keldon for Galand.

[Dverde]

Yeah think I'd jump on a deal of say #4 + Keldon for Galand.

The ask has to be at least three FRPs. They would laugh at that offer.

[baseline bum]

The ask has to be at least three FRPs. They would laugh at that offer.

Way too rich of an offer considering how good the Spurs picks they have right now are. That's what a solid playoff team whose picks are going to be in the 20s would have to offer.

[scott]

Way too rich of an offer considering how good the Spurs picks they have right now are. That's what a solid playoff team whose picks are going to be in the 20s would have to offer.

At the same time, CLE probably isn't too excited about bringing on a #4 pick. I think Garland to the Spurs only really works in a 3-team deal where CLE gets a useful player and the draft capital goes elsewhere. The 3-way deal with NO that I think TD 21 posted seems to be the best I've seen thus far.

[baseline bum]

At the same time, CLE probably isn't too excited about bringing on a #4 pick. I think Garland to the Spurs only really works in a 3-team deal where CLE gets a useful player and the draft capital goes elsewhere. The 3-way deal with NO that I think TD 21 posted seems to be the best I've seen thus far.

Moving Tre, Keldon, and two lottery picks for Garland + 20 is a bit steep IMO, especially when Cleveland is a motivated seller on Garland with how bad a fit he is next to Mitchell. Only worth it if you think he's an allstar here. Otherwise I'd rather roll the dice on Dillingham and hope to put 15 pounds on him in the next year or two.

[scott]

Moving Tre, Keldon, and two lottery picks for Garland + 20 is a bit steep IMO, especially when Cleveland is a motivated seller on Garland with how bad a fit he is next to Mitchell. Only worth it if you think he's an allstar here. Otherwise I'd rather roll the dice on Dillingham and hope to put 15 pounds on him in the next year or two.

IIRC, the proposal was only for one of the picks and we got #20 back. I agree both lotto picks plus Keldon and Tre is too much for this team to pay for Garland. Would rather just add the two rookies and sign Malik Monk.

[mo7888]

IIRC, the proposal was only for one of the picks and we got #20 back. I agree both lotto picks plus Keldon and Tre is too much for this team to pay for Garland. Would rather just add the two rookies and sign Malik Monk.

Correct, it was 8 going out and 20 coming back..

[baseline bum]

IIRC, the proposal was only for one of the picks and we got #20 back. I agree both lotto picks plus Keldon and Tre is too much for this team to pay for Garland. Would rather just add the two rookies and sign Malik Monk.


Correct, it was 8 going out and 20 coming back..

It had the Chicago pick going out, which will be a lottery pick.

[RC_Drunkford]

I wouldn't offer more than 2 picks for Garland. ATL picks are off limits and I actually don't want the Spurs to move the CHI pick either since the 25 draft is loaded. Really curious what the price for Garland will be. He'd look much better on the right team. Just look at Markkanen when he left Cleveland.

[MaNu4Tres]

Ask any fan from Cleveland and they will tell you how overrated Garland is.

Fortunately for us the Spurs will likely see past the ppg and empty calorie talent.

40 million per over 4 years? Hard pass.

And some want to add on Keldon and two 1sts? Wow.

[TD 21]

Ask any fan from Cleveland and they will tell you how overrated Garland is.

Fortunately for us the Spurs will likely see past the ppg and empty calorie talent.

40 million per over 4 years? Hard pass.

And some want to add on Keldon and two 1sts? Wow.

No, you just lack basic reading comprehension and want to push your homer agenda (how's Doncic for pennies looking now?).

I've said all of this and you've probably seen it, but I can at least look at things from an alternative perspective or within' the context of what I believe the Spurs might do instead of being a dismissive snob.

[r0drig0lac]

other than Cade (which is probably impossible) I would be fine with Murray, Garland is overrated af and i believe that looking for wings (Ingram, OG, etc.) would fill more gaps in this team than someone like DG

[scott]

4+ 8 + some other future picks and Keldon/Bran for Lauri and 10. Draft Devin Carter. Team fixed.

[Ariel]

The ask has to be at least three FRPs. They would laugh at that offer.
I'll never understand this "x amount of picks" thing. Not all picks are the same, lets remove ourselves from our own biases as Spurs fans, do you think Washington values their #2 pick the same as their #26? Their own '24 pick the same as their '25 pick? Of course not. If you ask any of them to move down to the late teens or 20s, they'd be asking for multiple picks and that's IF they were willing to do so (unlikely). People like to use the Gobert to Minnesota and Mitchell to Cleveland trades as reference, but those picks are nowhere near as juicy as the ones the Spurs have. My point is, number of picks means something when we're talking about picks expected to have close value. The Spurs should be wary of falling into this fallacy when evaluating potential trades, if you want to make the comparison apple to apples, offer the Spurs own future picks a couple of years from now, Garland is a lesser player than those 2, so if you want to offer 2 unprotected Spurs' picks in 27 and '29 for Garland, plus a swap or two and maybe Keldon and Champagnie, then maybe that's more in line with past deals. If they want higher picks (say #8 now) then you have to account for the value difference. Personally, I'm not a huge Garland fan, if the value is too good then I'd consider it, otherwise I'd take my chances with some combination of Castle and Dillingham or Sheppard.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

4+ 8 + some other future picks and Keldon/Bran for Lauri and 10. Draft Devin Carter. Team fixed.

I’ve been thinking about a similar trade because I hate this draft with a passion. I’d offer 4, 8, Chi ‘25 and Cha ‘25 for Lauri. Don’t like Carter, though, he shoots from the chest, I doubt this thing translates unless he pulls a Haliburton.

Another possible iteration of this trade would be: draft Risacher at 4 and then trade 8, Chi ‘25 and Atl ‘27 for Lauri.

[scott]

I’ve been thinking about a similar trade because I hate this draft with a passion. I’d offer 4, 8, Chi ‘25 and Cha ‘25 for Lauri. Don’t like Carter, though, he shoots from the chest, I doubt this thing translates unless he pulls a Haliburton.

Another possible iteration of this trade would be: draft Risacher at 4 and then trade 8, Chi ‘25 and Atl ‘27 for Lauri.

If we are keeping #4 and taking Lauri, I'd want us to go Castle/Dilly/Sheppard there. Risacher and Lauri might be a little redundant (maybe even in a good way). Risacher's 99th percentile outcome is basically just Lauri... right?

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

If we are keeping #4 and taking Lauri, I'd want us to go Castle/Dilly/Sheppard there. Risacher and Lauri might be a little redundant (maybe even in a good way). Risacher's 99th percentile outcome is basically just Lauri... right?

You’re probably right but I don’t really believe in Castle the PG and as a wing he’s way less interesting. Dilly I don’t see the point, I see him as a Jordan Clarkson or a Cam Thomas at best. Sheppard I like the most but he might not have the size to be effective on either side.

Risacher to me is more of a plug and play forward in the mould of Cam Johnson. Din’t really see Lauri in him at all.

[mo7888]

Assuming we aren't trading picks to acquire a current player I think I'd put 3 trade options on the table in this order and see who bites.

1- Offer Washington #4 + Cha + a couple 2nds for #2
2- Offer Charlotte #8 + Cha pick for #6
3- Offer Portland #4 for #7 + #14

Full disclosure- I realize Washington probably passes unless they are keyed in on one player who ATL takes at #1.

[TD 21]

Assuming we aren't trading picks to acquire a current player I think I'd put 3 trade options on the table in this order and see who bites.

1- Offer Washington #4 + Cha + a couple 2nds for #2
2- Offer Charlotte #8 + Cha pick for #6
3- Offer Portland #4 for #7 + #14

Full disclosure- I realize Washington probably passes unless they are keyed in on one player who ATL takes at #1.

1. No brainer if Risacher is available at 2.
2. Would only do if Sheppard is available at 6.
3. Would only do if they do a prominent starting guard X trade involving 8 in order to maintain multiple lottery picks.

[Ariel]

Assuming we aren't trading picks to acquire a current player I think I'd put 3 trade options on the table in this order and see who bites.

1- Offer Washington #4 + Cha + a couple 2nds for #2
2- Offer Charlotte #8 + Cha pick for #6
3- Offer Portland #4 for #7 + #14

Full disclosure- I realize Washington probably passes unless they are keyed in on one player who ATL takes at #1.
I like these ideas. They likely fall short in terms of what the Spurs would need to pay and it would depend on how the board shapes up (we don't have the intel the Spurs' FO does). For instance:
If Spurs can get hold of either Risacher or Castle at 4, then a modest offer to Charlotte to move up from 8 to 6 makes sense, but I wouldn't go crazy
If Spurs feel both Risacher and Castle will go top 3, then I'd definitely make an offer to Washington for #2, I'd go as far as a protected FRP from the Spurs (own pick in a few years) plus Charlotte pick, 2nds etc. If that doesn't work and there's no way to grab either Risacher or Castle, then I'd consider offering Portland #4 for #7 + #14, take Dillngham with one of those picks, and see what else is available (Buzelis, Cody Williams, Devin Carter, Sheppard, McCain, Knecht, etc.)

[mo7888]

I like these ideas. They likely fall short in terms of what the Spurs would need to pay and it would depend on how the board shapes up (we don't have the intel the Spurs' FO does). For instance:
If Spurs can get hold of either Risacher or Castle at 4, then a modest offer to Charlotte to move up from 8 to 6 makes sense, but I wouldn't go crazy
If Spurs feel both Risacher and Castle will go top 3, then I'd definitely make an offer to Washington for #2, I'd go as far as a protected FRP from the Spurs (own pick in a few years) plus Charlotte pick, 2nds etc. If that doesn't work and there's no way to grab either Risacher or Castle, then I'd consider offering Portland #4 for #7 + #14, take Dillngham with one of those picks, and see what else is available (Buzelis, Cody Williams, Devin Carter, Sheppard, McCain, Knecht, etc.)

I'll agree that I'd probably add a protected 1st to get to #2. I'd take BPA there. I'd hope that would be Risacher. My Spurs Board is a little different than most. My top 5 are Risacher, Sarr, Buzelis, Sheppard, Castle.

[baseline bum]

4+ 8 + some other future picks and Keldon/Bran for Lauri and 10. Draft Devin Carter. Team fixed.

Which picks?

[baseline bum]

Assuming we aren't trading picks to acquire a current player I think I'd put 3 trade options on the table in this order and see who bites.

1- Offer Washington #4 + Cha + a couple 2nds for #2
2- Offer Charlotte #8 + Cha pick for #6
3- Offer Portland #4 for #7 + #14

Full disclosure- I realize Washington probably passes unless they are keyed in on one player who ATL takes at #1.

Can't see Washington and Charlotte taking either offer and no way I want three firsts in this weak draft, especially when the Spurs have a good shot at having three firsts in a good draft next year with talent much more worth the playing time than a third rookie in this class would be.

[mo7888]

Can't see Washington and Charlotte taking either offer and no way I want three firsts in this weak draft, especially when the Spurs have a good shot at having three firsts in a good draft next year with talent much more worth the playing time than a third rookie in this class would be.

I think there's a good chance Charlotte does that deal unless they just fall in love with a particular prospect. Controlling their pick next year has more value to them than anyone else. As for it being a weak draft, we all know that's true, but it's more true at the top. There are some good value picks from 12-20.

[scott]

Which picks?

With Lauri on an expiring that can't really be extended (except for by Utah), maybe this is all it takes (assume Utah isn't planning on building around Lauri)? We'd have to get some assurances from Lauri that he'll resign. Maybe throw in the CHI pick.

I don't see Lauri getting traded here this offseason as realistic at all in reality.

[CGD]

Id start with the end goal in mind. If they want to speed up (but not throttle) the rebuild then the question is how they make these conditions happen:

(1) trade for one of the PGs (Murray, Trae, Garland, Ivey),
(2) draft the most logical plug and play wing (Risacher), and
(3) keep enough FRP in the reserve to continue building.

I think the opening day starting lineup below can absolutely push for a late playoff slot next year:

Garland
Vassell
Risacher
Sochan
Wembanyama

But if the goal is to punt another year, just draft Castle (4) and at 8 best wing left.

[DPG21920]

You’re probably right but I don’t really believe in Castle the PG and as a wing he’s way less interesting. Dilly I don’t see the point, I see him as a Jordan Clarkson or a Cam Thomas at best. Sheppard I like the most but he might not have the size to be effective on either side.

Risacher to me is more of a plug and play forward in the mould of Cam Johnson. Din’t really see Lauri in him at all.

That and Lauri is 27 already…

[baseline bum]

I think there's a good chance Charlotte does that deal unless they just fall in love with a particular prospect. Controlling their pick next year has more value to them than anyone else. As for it being a weak draft, we all know that's true, but it's more true at the top. There are some good value picks from 12-20.

No way Charlotte's not going tanking next year with how good the 25 class looks so no reason they'd care in the slightest about being able to trade that pick. I wouldn't slide two spots just for two seconds.

[mo7888]

No way Charlotte's not going tanking next year with how good the 25 class looks so no reason they'd care in the slightest about being able to trade that pick. I wouldn't slide two spots just for two seconds.

I don't think that's how they are going to look at it. They're not deciding on moving back today, that would be a trade thst on the table when the #6 pick comes up. If they are after a particular guy and Detroit takes him at #5 then they could deem ot good business to move back two spots and still get the next player on their board and get control of their pick, which gives them more options. Nobody's making a trade today...all of mine or anyone else's suggestions won't be executed until they're on the clock.

[mo7888]

No way Charlotte's not going tanking next year with how good the 25 class looks so no reason they'd care in the slightest about being able to trade that pick. I wouldn't slide two spots just for two seconds.

I don't think that's how they are going to look at it. They're not deciding on moving back today, that would be a trade thst on the table when the #6 pick comes up. If they are after a particular guy and Detroit takes him at #5 then they could deem ot good business to move back two spots and still get the next player on their board and get control of their pick, which gives them more options. Nobody's making a trade today...all of mine or anyone else's suggestions won't be executed until they're on the clock.