CBS Sports-Quinn: The Spurs and Thunder blueprints for success in the second-apron world

[south side spur]

https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/the-spurs-and-thunder-have-laid-the-first-attempted-blueprints-for-sustained-success-in-the-second-apron-world/

The 2024 NBA (https://cbssports.com/nba/) offseason will always be remembered as the summer of the second apron. This one rule change scared the Los Angeles Clippers (https://www.cbssports.com/nba/teams/LAC/los-angeles-clippers/) enough to let Paul George walk away for free. It played a significant role in the breakup of Golden State's legendary trio of Klay Thompson, Stephen Curry and Draymond Green. It even compelled LeBron James to take his first sub-max salary (https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/lebron-james-reportedly-takes-slight-pay-cut-to-help-lakers-duck-second-apron-as-he-officially-re-signs/) since 2014. No one is safe. The entire NBA (https://cbssports.com/nba/) is reorienting itself around this single rule.
Or, more accurately, the league is reorienting itself around the dozen or so rules that flow out of it. Second-apron teams face restrictions on the trade market (can't aggregate salary, can't take back more money than they send out) and in free agency (no mid-level exceptions, no buyout players whose former salary was above the non-taxpayer mid-level exception).
They even face restrictions if their own, internally developed players, get too expensive. Once you finish a season as a second-apron team, your first-round pick seven years into the future is "frozen." It can no longer be traded. If you finish above the second apron in more than one of the next four seasons afterward, that pick drops to No. 30 overall. Even if you stay below the second apron long enough, you still lock that pick out of trades for four years. These rules apply no matter how you get to the second apron. Even if it's just by re-signing your own players, you face all of these roster-building limitations.


But some of the NBA's (https://cbssports.com/nba/) better younger teams, who are watching all of this unfold before their cap sheets bloat, have been able to plan ahead a bit more effectively, and two of those teams, the Oklahoma City Thunder (https://www.cbssports.com/nba/teams/OKC/oklahoma-city-thunder/) and the San Antonio Spurs (https://www.cbssports.com/nba/teams/SA/san-antonio-spurs/), have attempted to do so in the same way. While we are still years, perhaps even a decade, from seeing this plan unfold, they are currently laying the first attempted blueprint for sustaining success in the era of the second apron.
Since the beginning of the 2023 offseason, which was the first transaction cycle to follow the ratification of the CBA, the Thunder and Spurs have traded for five combined first-round pick swaps from other teams. In total, there are 20 first-round picks in the next seven drafts that currently are currently owed out via swap rights (with some being swapped more than once, but that's not especially relevant here). Of those 20, the Spurs and Thunder and control nine. In other words, 45% of all picks owed through swap rights right now belong to those two teams. The majority of Oklahoma City's picks are on the board soon. Their swaps come in 2025, 2026 and 2028. The majority of San Antonio's swaps come later, starting in 2026, jumping to 2028 from there and ending with two in 2030 and one more in 2031. These timelines make sense considering their slightly different windows. The Thunder are going for titles here and now. The Spurs are still a few years away. The Thunder, twice in the past year, have traded picks owed to them outright from other teams in exchange for swaps from other teams. One last note to keep in mind here: Oklahoma City's front office is essentially a northern offshoot of San Antonio's. Sam Presti grew up in the Spurs organization and has taken plenty of San Antonio alums with him. It's not surprising that they have drawn similar conclusions addressing a shared problem.


So, why are the Spurs and Thunder so intentionally targeting pick swaps? There are three good reasons for it:


The simplest reason is that the Spurs and Thunder both expect to be very good for a long time. Therefore, their own picks shouldn't be too high, so even if the other team is reasonably competitive as well, there's still potential value in, say, jumping from No. 28 to No. 24. As you do not have to exercise swap rights, there is also no downside to trading for them. They're there if you want them but can be avoided if you don't.
The second reason is that teams tend to be a bit more open to trading unprotected or lightly protected swap rights than they are with outright picks. Of those nine swaps owed to the Thunder and Spurs, five are unprotected, and two more are top-10 protected. None of them are protected beyond top 10.
The third and most important reason is that swap rights are not inhibited by the Stepien Rule, which prevents teams from being without first-round picks in consecutive seasons. This is why you almost always see trades in which a team gives up several first-round picks structured in such a way that all of those picks convey in either even-numbered or odd-numbered years. Say, for example, you wanted to trade four first-round picks for a player this season. Your only path to doing so without using picks that originally belonged to other teams would be trading picks in 2025, 2027, 2029 and 2031, because you'd need picks in 2026, 2028 and 2030 to abide by the Stepien Rule. Therefore, most teams are far more flexible in trading away swaps. Those swaps can also come from teams that have already traded away a lot of picks, and will therefore have less room to improve between now and when those swaps arise. The Thunder, for instance, have two more swaps coming from the Clippers, who do not control their own first-round pick again until 2030. The Spurs have a 2030 swap with Minnesota that does not convey until all of their obligations from the Rudy Gobert trade have been met. Basically, swaps allow you to strategically target vulnerable teams.

So this is why swaps, in particular, are valuable in trades. But what does all of this have to do with the second apron?
The final swap coming to the Spurs, at present, is in 2031. At that point, Wembanyama will be going into his age-28 season and presumably on a much more expensive contract. All of the rookie deals his current teammates are playing under will also have been replaced by market-rate deals. In other words? The Spurs and Thunder both have swaps coming right in the heart of their primes of their respective cores. At that point, keeping all of their talent together will not be financially feasible under the rules dictated by the second apron. These are the moments in which the Thunder and Spurs will need young, cheap talent the most. That's where these picks come in.
Think about where the Mavericks (https://www.cbssports.com/nba/teams/DAL/dallas-mavericks/) might be in 2028. Kyrie Irving will be 36, and Luka Doncic's current contract will have expired. Could he be on a new one? Absolutely. That's probably the likeliest outcome. But there is real downside risk for Dallas at that point that Oklahoma City can capitalize on. The same is true for San Antonio in 2031. Maybe the Kings (https://www.cbssports.com/nba/teams/SAC/sacramento-kings/) are a good team seven years from now. However, they've missed the playoffs in 17 of the past 18 seasons, so they're a historically safe team to bet against. De'Aaron Fox and Domantas Sabonis will both be in their mid-30s. DeMar DeRozan will likely be retired.
And if both of those teams are good when the swaps come up? They can live with that because they've accumulated so many of them. They might not all hit. But if one does? It can change everything. In 1997, the Grizzlies (https://www.cbssports.com/nba/teams/MEM/memphis-grizzlies/) traded a 2003 first-round pick to the Pistons (https://www.cbssports.com/nba/teams/DET/detroit-pistons/) for Otis Thorpe. When that pick came on the clock six years later, Carmelo Anthony, Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh were available. All it takes to extend a window for another decade is one such outcome.
Again, the Spurs and Thunder both control plenty of outright picks from other teams as well. Their draft portfolios aren't limited to swaps. But everything is built around upside here. The Spurs and Thunder, frankly, won't have the roster spots to continuously bring in several new rookies each year as they are contending, and even if they did, they wouldn't have the minutes to develop them. It means much more to them to consolidate their draft assets into a more manageable number of high-upside selections. Swaps are one path to doing so. The ultimate goal will be for the Spurs and Thunder to find high-level starters to replace core players as they have to get rid of them. If we want to go even further down the rabbit hole, they might even be able to turn those expensive core players into more future draft picks, which could then be used to continue the cycle in perpetuity. But we're getting ahead of ourselves at this point. The more attainable ideal will be ensuring that Wembanyama and Gilgeous-Alexander are always surrounded by talent that their teams can actually afford to keep in a world in which few other teams have such sustainable ways of replenishing their supporting casts.
Now, you might be wondering how relevant all of this is to the rest of the league. It's not as though everyone has a Wembanyama or a Gilgeous-Alexander. It's also not like other teams all have the cap space to extract picks from financially desperate teams or even the deep base of picks the Thunder and Spurs started with from trading veterans from their last contention cycles. But really think about how many teams have gone all-in over the last handful of seasons, and how many more teams are set to benefit.

If this works for the Thunder and Spurs, the 2030 CBA may be designed to curb teams like them instead of Golden State. Perhaps we'll see significant revisions to the Stepien Rule or even the outright banning of pick swaps. We're still years away from being able to predict future changes, but the Thunder and Spurs have thus far effectively prepared for the ones that are slaughtering everybody else right now. It's only logical to assume that the next set of sweeping reforms will be made to combat the teams that best handled the current ones.

[scott]

Some things I'll say about pick swaps:


Individually, their value tends to get overinflated here and by others. If we could quantify the value of swaps, their worth is about equivalent to a late FRP or early SRP in the same year. Those are still valuable, but not as valuable as people make them out to be.
Where swaps really get value is when you start stacking them up. When you have a handful of swaps over multiple years, the sum of the value becomes greater than the value of the individual parts. You'll never know which of those swaps will end up in-the-money (or deep in-the-money), but the more of them you have, the more likely it becomes that one will end up in-the-money.
Where the value gets REALLY huge is when you start stacking multiple swaps in the same year. This is an exaggerated example, but if you could somehow trade swaps with EVERY team in the league, you'd still have only 1 pick in any given year, but you'll be guaranteed the #1 overall pick.

My favorite part of this is that you add more and more swaps in the same year, the collective value of those swaps increase but the value of the swap from the team trading them away actually gets lower (if I'm giving up a swap to a team that has no swaps way out in the future - if the standings were completely random, then there is a 50/50 chance the swap will finish in-the-money. But if the other team already has 3 other swaps, then now there will only be a 1-in-5 chance the swap will finish in-the-money, so the odds that I lose anything are far reduced as the team trading the swap away. But for the team GETTING the swap, the odds of any of the swaps finishing in-the-money increases dramatically.
You don't even have to obtain every swap to end up an odds-on-favorite for one of those swaps to land you the top pick, and you don't need as many swaps to almost guarantee a top-5 pick, just because of the funky way probability works.



This has nothing to do with the article posted (and the author of that article seems to want to give the Spurs FO flowers before they actually create a winning basketball product, but that's a different gripe) - but I see a lot of overinflation of the value of swaps, so I wanted to chime in here.

[slick'81]

Some things I'll say about pick swaps:


Individually, there value tends to get overinflated here and by others. If we could quantify the value of swaps, their worth is about equivalent to a late FRP or early SRP in the same year. Those are still valuable, but not as valuable as people make them out to be.
Where swaps really get value is when you start stacking them up. When you have a handful of swaps over multiple years, the sum of the value becomes greater than the value of the individual parts. You'll never know which of those swaps will end up in-the-money (or deep in-the-money), but the more of them you have, the more likely it becomes that one will end up in-the-money.
Where the value gets REALLY huge is when you start stacking multiple swaps in the same year. This is an exaggerated example, but if you could somehow trade swaps with EVERY team in the league, you'd still have only 1 pick in any given year, but you'll be guaranteed the #1 overall pick.

My favorite part of this is that you add more and more swaps in the same year, the collective value of those swaps increase but the value of the swap from the team trading them away actually gets lower (if I'm giving up a swap to a team that has no swaps way out in the future - if the standings were completely random, then there is a 50/50 chance the swap will finish in-the-money. But if the other team already has 3 other swaps, then now there will only be a 1-in-5 chance the swap will finish in-the-money, so the odds that I lose anything are far reduced as the team trading the swap away. But for the team GETTING the swap, the odds of any of the swaps finishing in-the-money increases dramatically.
You don't even have to obtain every swap to end up an odds-on-favorite for one of those swaps to land you the top pick, and you don't need as many swaps to almost guarantee a top-5 pick, just because of the funky way probability works.



This has nothing to do with the article posted (and the author of that article seems to want to give the Spurs FO flowers before they actually create a winning basketball product, but that's a different gripe) - but I see a lot of overinflation of the value of swaps, so I wanted to chime in here.


sadly, itll be a while before this all plays out. Hopefully spurs stick to a blueprint and nail the wemby rebuild

[SpursBills]

Wonder if the spurs plan on being a second apron team in the 2030s - probably don’t care about your first round pick being moved to the end of the first round if you can just swap it with another team

[poopbox]

Thunder got rid of every veteran for a 1st round pick and the Spurs are signing veterans because their picks semi pre tank or so bad

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

Another wrinkle to the last point from the article about why swaps can be very positive is that when good teams get to the point where they need to trade for a 2nd or 3rd star they normally have their own picks to offer, i.e. the usual 4 unprotected + a swap or two, but these picks are generally bound to be less valuable because the teams that do such trades tend to be good in the following years. By having swaps from other teams, especially notoriously dysfunctional franchises, this type of offer becomes more enticing for the receiving team. Say, if you're Orlando and you've hit a dead end by 2026 and look to perhaps start over by trading Banchero. Spurs call. Would you like the Spurs own '27, '29, '31 and '33 picks - the ones with Wemby in his prime? Or what would be the '27 Atl, '30 Min, '31 Sac ones? Easy choice.

[Mr. Body]

Some things I'll say about pick swaps:


Individually, there value tends to get overinflated here and by others. If we could quantify the value of swaps, their worth is about equivalent to a late FRP or early SRP in the same year. Those are still valuable, but not as valuable as people make them out to be.
Where swaps really get value is when you start stacking them up. When you have a handful of swaps over multiple years, the sum of the value becomes greater than the value of the individual parts. You'll never know which of those swaps will end up in-the-money (or deep in-the-money), but the more of them you have, the more likely it becomes that one will end up in-the-money.
Where the value gets REALLY huge is when you start stacking multiple swaps in the same year. This is an exaggerated example, but if you could somehow trade swaps with EVERY team in the league, you'd still have only 1 pick in any given year, but you'll be guaranteed the #1 overall pick.

My favorite part of this is that you add more and more swaps in the same year, the collective value of those swaps increase but the value of the swap from the team trading them away actually gets lower (if I'm giving up a swap to a team that has no swaps way out in the future - if the standings were completely random, then there is a 50/50 chance the swap will finish in-the-money. But if the other team already has 3 other swaps, then now there will only be a 1-in-5 chance the swap will finish in-the-money, so the odds that I lose anything are far reduced as the team trading the swap away. But for the team GETTING the swap, the odds of any of the swaps finishing in-the-money increases dramatically.
You don't even have to obtain every swap to end up an odds-on-favorite for one of those swaps to land you the top pick, and you don't need as many swaps to almost guarantee a top-5 pick, just because of the funky way probability works.



This has nothing to do with the article posted (and the author of that article seems to want to give the Spurs FO flowers before they actually create a winning basketball product, but that's a different gripe) - but I see a lot of overinflation of the value of swaps, so I wanted to chime in here.

This is probably why they're acquiring multiples and targeting teams that could have serious cap problems. Chances are one or two hit. Even if they don't, if the Spurs are a top team in the league drafting at 27 or whatever, even swapping down to Dallas's or Minnesota's non-lottery 15 or 16 is a boost.

It's a good bet one of Boston, Dallas, Minnesota, or Sacramento will be a lottery team in that era.

[scott]

Wonder if the spurs plan on being a second apron team in the 2030s - probably don’t care about your first round pick being moved to the end of the first round if you can just swap it with another team

The way the league has set up the pick freezing, I don't think you can find a way to swap picks like that. But to your point... if you're a top 5 team, you probably don't care if your 2032 pick is frozen if the year before you were gifted a Top-5 pick from a swap you acquired long ago

[scott]

Another wrinkle to the last point from the article about why swaps can be very positive is that when good teams get to the point where they need to trade for a 2nd or 3rd star they normally have their own picks to offer, i.e. the usual 4 unprotected + a swap or two, but these picks are generally bound to be less valuable because the teams that do such trades tend to be good in the following years. By having swaps from other teams, especially notoriously dysfunctional franchises, this type of offer becomes more enticing for the receiving team. Say, if you're Orlando and you've hit a dead end by 2026 and look to perhaps start over by trading Banchero. Spurs call. Would you like the Spurs own '27, '29, '31 and '33 picks - the ones with Wemby in his prime? Or what would be the '27 Atl, '30 Min, '31 Sac ones? Easy choice.

Indeed, a pick with a swap attached is inherently more valuable than a pick without a swap attached, and a pick with two swaps attached is inherently worth more than a pick with one swap attached, etc.

This is partly why I think if the Spurs were interested in Lauri (which I don't think they really are), then can beat any offer. Our 26, 28, 30 and (now) 31 picks are some of the most valuable picks in the league other than picks of teams who we know will bad next year (which won't be on the block, for that reason).

[Obstructed_View]

Gotta love a system that punishes you for drafting well and managing talent.

[scott]

Quinn contemplates changes to how swaps could change hands in the future with the next CBA, but I think what will happen before then is that teams will catch on to what OKC and SAS are doing (I'm shocked they haven't already) and won't let them get away with it any longer. As I laid out in my bullet points, the marginal cost to give away a swap decreases the most swaps a team has in a given year already... but at some point a team is going to ask themselves why they are helping OKC and SAS load up like this. At some point, teams will stop dealing with OKC and SAS when it comes to swaps, or they'll start to ask for more in exchange. One thing this FO has done well is to exploit that before other teams really catch on. In that sense, really wish Sam Quinn would STFU with these articles :lol

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

Indeed, a pick with a swap attached is inherently more valuable than a pick without a swap attached, and a pick with two swaps attached is inherently worth more than a pick with one swap attached, etc.

This is partly why I think if the Spurs were interested in Lauri (which I don't think they really are), then can beat any offer. Our 26, 28, 30 and (now) 31 picks are some of the most valuable picks in the league other than picks of teams who we know will bad next year (which won't be on the block, for that reason).

I do believe the Spurs are interested in Lauri and also that the ‘30 Min swap and the ‘31 Min pick have uniquely good value for the Jazz. Whether Ainge would be OK doing a deal that doesn’t look like a massive win for him is another matter but if the price is reasonable then I do think the Spurs can offer the best pocks package of any team.

[R. DeMurre]

Boston can probably boast the best record on pick swaps, getting Tatum on a swap with the Nets, and then getting White by offering one that looks more and more like it won't convey.

[LeBowen]

Boston can probably boast the best record on pick swaps, getting Tatum on a swap with the Nets, and then getting White by offering one that looks more and more like it won't convey.

Iirc, Brown was a swap with the Nets.
They traded down from #1 to #3 with Sixers for Tatum because Sixers really liked Fultz. ;)

[stnick2261]

My favorite part of this is that you add more and more swaps in the same year, the collective value of those swaps increase but the value of the swap from the team trading them away actually gets lower (if I'm giving up a swap to a team that has no swaps way out in the future - if the standings were completely random, then there is a 50/50 chance the swap will finish in-the-money. But if the other team already has 3 other swaps, then now there will only be a 1-in-5 chance the swap will finish in-the-money, so the odds that I lose anything are far reduced as the team trading the swap away. But for the team GETTING the swap, the odds of any of the swaps finishing in-the-money increases dramatically.



One thing I hadn't thought of was this. Once the Spurs get swaps attached to their picks, it becomes easier (and cheaper) to add more swaps to the same picks.

[baseline bum]

Gotta love a system that punishes you for drafting well and managing talent.

Honestly kind of works out for us if Wemby develops as we all expect, as having the best #1 option becomes more important in a league where teams can no longer spend on three allstars much less three allstars plus getting MLE players every year to add on like has the title formula for the last 20+ years. Will be interesting seeing OKC have to dump one of Jalen Williams or Holmgren for instance.

[Mr. Body]

Gotta love a system that punishes you for drafting well and managing talent.

Every CBA is the owners trying to control their own worst impulses. They're always meant to reduce the amount they pay for good but not great players, especially. Then, as soon as the new CBA is established, they run off and sign their good but not great players to exorbitant salaries. It never works, because they can't help themselves.

If a team can manage to keep from paying the Immanuel Quicklies or, yes, Lauri Markkanens huge salaries, they will avoid problems for themselves. The new media contract will help considerably, but most franchises will still get bit.

The Spurs are in phenomenal shape in getting their super-generational talent without sitting on any bad contracts. They also have a history of frontloading contracts and trying to control costs, while having something of a history of taking care of their guys.

[slick'81]

Gm should of learned from the gobert deal. Nobody is touching Lauri without getting bent over

[LeBowen]

Will be interesting seeing OKC have to dump one of Jalen Williams or Holmgren for instance.

Sounds illogical, but they'd be better off if Williams and Chet don't both develop into parennial all-star and all-NBA candidate players.
Two of them are on the same timeline and SGA's gigantic supermax comes just a year later.
With no paycuts, impossible to have good depth around them long-term.

That's why I want Markkanen, his timeline fits better than someone who's going to be up for extension in the same year as Wemby.
Giving Markkanen a raise year one would mean his max contract and Wemby's extension would overlap for just two years since Wemby has three years left on his rookie deal.

In 26-27 season we'd have Wemby, Markkanen, Devin and Castle on just ~$100M with salary cap projected at $170M. We need to take advantage of 25-26 and 26-27 seasons if Wemby keeps developing like this.
Assuming the best case scenario of Devin becoming a legit 22-24ppg scorer with positive defense and Castle becoming our Jrue, we wouldn't have to make tough choices up until 28-29 season.

That's when Wemby will be in second year of his extension, earning like $65M, Markkanen would be at like $50M, Devin in his last year at $27M and Castle probably at around $40M with his rookie extension and cap at $207M.
Would mean trading Devin or Markkanen for a haul and still having clear 1st/2nd/3rd option with a lot of depth.
And you keep the cap situation in control like that.

Because if we luck into a top5 pick next year and he develops into an all-star, we'd have a hard time keeping him pass his rookie deal.

Can't have three players on max money.
It's good because it favors competent front offices who can sustain roster quality long-term, but it's kind of unfair to teams that develop the entire core through draft and get fucked.
Nuggets have nowhere to go, they're done. Three of their own draft picks and fourth option on a team friendly deal, they have nothing left.

[scott]

Sounds illogical, but they'd be better off if Williams and Chet don't both develop into parennial all-star and all-NBA candidate players.
Two of them are on the same timeline and SGA's gigantic supermax comes just a year later.
With no paycuts, impossible to have good depth around them long-term.

That's why I want Markkanen, his timeline fits better than someone who's going to be up for extension in the same year as Wemby.
Giving Markkanen a raise year one would mean his max contract and Wemby's extension would overlap for just two years since Wemby has three years left on his rookie deal.

In 26-27 season we'd have Wemby, Markkanen, Devin and Castle on just ~$100M with salary cap projected at $170M. We need to take advantage of 25-26 and 26-27 seasons if Wemby keeps developing like this.
Assuming the best case scenario of Devin becoming a legit 22-24ppg scorer with positive defense and Castle becoming our Jrue, we wouldn't have to make tough choices up until 28-29 season.

That's when Wemby will be in second year of his extension, earning like $65M, Markkanen would be at like $50M, Devin in his last year at $27M and Castle probably at around $40M with his rookie extension and cap at $207M.
Would mean trading Devin or Markkanen for a haul and still having clear 1st/2nd/3rd option with a lot of depth.
And you keep the cap situation in control like that.

Because if we luck into a top5 pick next year and he develops into an all-star, we'd have a hard time keeping him pass his rookie deal.

Can't have three players on max money.
It's good because it favors competent front offices who can sustain roster quality long-term, but it's kind of unfair to teams that develop the entire core through draft and get fucked.
Nuggets have nowhere to go, they're done. Three of their own draft picks and fourth option on a team friendly deal, they have nothing left.

A very interesting point, but not one that I think is that big of a problem. Even if the Spurs got Lauri and managed to land a Top 5 pick next year (Let's say it's Flagg, just for ease of this post) who develops into a stud, then what happens is it forces the Spurs to make a big decision sometime around when Devin's up for his next extension (assuming that Flagg has already shown he's going to be a star). At that point, you make the decision to move on from Devin or Lauri and resign Flagg. There is no way to keep all 4, and realistically if Flagg is showing to be a star, either Devin or Lauri is going to have some usage (and thus, counting stats) reduction.

These will be good problems to have, and not all that difficult to manage. This kind of highlights why it's important to have core pieces on this staggered timeline.

[LeBowen]

A very interesting point, but not one that I think is that big of a problem. Even if the Spurs got Lauri and managed to land a Top 5 pick next year (Let's say it's Flagg, just for ease of this post) who develops into a stud, then what happens is it forces the Spurs to make a big decision sometime around when Devin's up for his next extension (assuming that Flagg has already shown he's going to be a star). At that point, you make the decision to move on from Devin or Lauri and resign Flagg. There is no way to keep all 4, and realistically if Flagg is showing to be a star, either Devin or Lauri is going to have some usage (and thus, counting stats) reduction.

These will be good problems to have, and not all that difficult to manage. This kind of highlights why it's important to have core pieces on this staggered timeline.

But what about Castle?
If we get Jrue 2.0, which is probably Castle's best scenario, then we're got to get rid of 2 players if we're to have any depth since Castle will also get a 25-30% rookie max extension based on accolades.
That would be Wemby at ~$70M, Castle at ~$40M, with Lauri and Devin entering final year at ~$50M and ~$27M, respectively.
With cap projected to be at ~$205M in that season. Obviously we'll evenually (and hopefully) go into luxury, but still.

That's why I said OKC are better off without three all-star level players if they don't want to make some tough decisions.
Maybe I'm overthinking it, but I'd be content with Castle living up to the hype and getting elite role players in the draft if we're to keep the core long-term.
And that's why getting an all-star while our cap situation is good is better than thinking we'll draft and develop an all-star because eventually we won't be able to keep all of them even if we're back to being the best development team in the league.

[SpursFan86]

Nice article, but tbh this guy is overly high on this FO. We have had several questionable draft picks in recent years: Primo was of course the most glaring one, but Samanic turned out to be a dud too. Branham/Wesley could very well be out of the league in a few years, and while I like Sochan and still have faith in him it’s not crazy to imagine a scenario where he ends up just being a bench guy (not exactly nailing a top-10 pick). We spent far too long being mediocre before finally blowing it up.

I’m not trying to totally shit on our FO, but this idea that we’re running laps around the rest of the league these days just seems untrue and likely based on people still giving us credit for the run we had with Duncan. If we hadn’t lucked into Wembanyama, how confident would anyone really be in our outlook?

I’d love for them to prove themselves as a top 3 FO in the league again but just not sure we’re there yet personally.

[scott]

But what about Castle?
If we get Jrue 2.0, which is probably Castle's best scenario, then we're got to get rid of 2 players if we're to have any depth since Castle will also get a 25-30% rookie max extension based on accolades.
That would be Wemby at ~$70M, Castle at ~$40M, with Lauri and Devin entering final year at ~$50M and ~$27M, respectively.
With cap projected to be at ~$205M in that season. Obviously we'll evenually (and hopefully) go into luxury, but still.

That's why I said OKC are better off without three all-star level players if they don't want to make some tough decisions.
Maybe I'm overthinking it, but I'd be content with Castle living up to the hype and getting elite role players in the draft if we're to keep the core long-term.
And that's why getting an all-star while our cap situation is good is better than thinking we'll draft and develop an all-star because eventually we won't be able to keep all of them even if we're back to being the best development team in the league.

I think there is a natural protection against what you're talking about. If Wemby is a All-NBA first team guy, and Lauri (or Devin) is a borderline all-star and Devin (or Lauri) is a solid #3, then it's probably not realistic that someone else (Castle, or Flagg or whoever) is going to show out to earn a rookie max extension, and if they do - then it will mean that Devin (or Lauri) isn't your #3.

The Celtics are kind of a different animal because they've gotten all of these other expensive pieces (Jrue, Derrick, Dingus) through trade after they mostly were what they are already (Derrick leveled up a little, but not that much. Derrick was depressed by being on a bad team and got some positive variance on his 3-pt shot which greatly improved his overall efficiency). In our case, only one of those guys will have been acquired via trade and the rest will have developed as part of that group, rather than being a compilation album of greatest hits.

Basically, you won't have to worry about paying them all the max, because there is no room for all of them to show they are max players. That sucks for those guys, but that's kind of just the way it works - the opportunities aren't always there and maybe they'll have to move to show their true selves (which, ironically, exactly what happened to Lauri).

[scott]

Nice article, but tbh this guy is overly high on this FO. We have had several questionable draft picks in recent years: Primo was of course the most glaring one, but Samanic turned out to be a dud too. Branham/Wesley could very well be out of the league in a few years, and while I like Sochan and still have faith in him it’s not crazy to imagine a scenario where he ends up just being a bench guy (not exactly nailing a top-10 pick). We spent far too long being mediocre before finally blowing it up.

I’m not trying to totally shit on our FO, but this idea that we’re running laps around the rest of the league these days just seems untrue and likely based on people still giving us credit for the run we had with Duncan. If we hadn’t lucked into Wembanyama, how confident would anyone really be in our outlook?

I’d love for them to prove themselves as a top 3 FO in the league again but just not sure we’re there yet personally.

100%. The author is more impressed by how the Spurs win individual trades, without taking notice that it hasn't resulted in winning any games. It's kind of typical. For years sports media slobbered all over the Cleveland Browns and their "brilliant" moves, but none of them ever amounted to shit. On the flip side, before everyone was clued into Moneyball, everyone thought Billy Beane was some kind of crazed lunatic until he delivered a run of playoff appearances with the league's smallest payroll.

Sports media seems to forget that the object of the game is to win games, not build your favorite fantasy lineups.

[R. DeMurre]

Iirc, Brown was a swap with the Nets.
They traded down from #1 to #3 with Sixers for Tatum because Sixers really liked Fultz. ;)

I doublechecked and we're both right! They had the #1 pick because of the pick swap but knew the Sixers & Lakers liked guys ahead of Tatum, so wisely traded down and grabbed an extra asset. Such a good move.

[Seventyniner]

How dare someone praise PATFO. The nerve.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

But what about Castle?
If we get Jrue 2.0, which is probably Castle's best scenario, then we're got to get rid of 2 players if we're to have any depth since Castle will also get a 25-30% rookie max extension based on accolades.
That would be Wemby at ~$70M, Castle at ~$40M, with Lauri and Devin entering final year at ~$50M and ~$27M, respectively.
With cap projected to be at ~$205M in that season. Obviously we'll evenually (and hopefully) go into luxury, but still.


There's a ton of buzz about the 2nd apron this summer and it will grow louder when the actual punishments start rolling. However, we should not discount the possibility that at some point in the near to medium future the CBA's regulations for certain contracts could be altered.

For example, it has long been proposed that supermax deals for players drafted by the team giving them should count as a regular max when it comes to the cap hit. It sounds logical. Similar could be done for other extensions for drafted players, all in the spirit of not punishing teams for drafting well and paying those players in order to keep the teams together. The NBA want parity but they also want dynasties. It's possible they look into this at some point.

[LeBowen]

For example, it has long been proposed that supermax deals for players drafted by the team giving them should count as a regular max when it comes to the cap hit.

That is the most reasonable idea and I've been saying it for years, but didn't happen.
They dealt with cap advantages for big market teams, but since it's not a hard cap, rich owners have no issues paying a couple hundred million more and still operating at a profit.

[R. DeMurre]

But what about Castle?
If we get Jrue 2.0, which is probably Castle's best scenario, then we're got to get rid of 2 players if we're to have any depth since Castle will also get a 25-30% rookie max extension based on accolades.
That would be Wemby at ~$70M, Castle at ~$40M, with Lauri and Devin entering final year at ~$50M and ~$27M, respectively.
With cap projected to be at ~$205M in that season. Obviously we'll evenually (and hopefully) go into luxury, but still.

That's why I said OKC are better off without three all-star level players if they don't want to make some tough decisions.
Maybe I'm overthinking it, but I'd be content with Castle living up to the hype and getting elite role players in the draft if we're to keep the core long-term.
And that's why getting an all-star while our cap situation is good is better than thinking we'll draft and develop an all-star because eventually we won't be able to keep all of them even if we're back to being the best development team in the league.


I think we'll see interesting situations where teams are actually hoping that some guys develop into well rounded players who don't have flashy scoring stats, because those types don't traditionally get maxed out-- guys like Herb Jones, or in the past, a Shane Battier or Andrei Kirilenko. Funny to think of a GM in church praying that a player will play good D and be a connector glue guy, but also saying "please God, don't let him go over 12 ppg!"

[MannyIsGod]

Every CBA is the owners trying to control their own worst impulses. They're always meant to reduce the amount they pay for good but not great players, especially. Then, as soon as the new CBA is established, they run off and sign their good but not great players to exorbitant salaries. It never works, because they can't help themselves.

If a team can manage to keep from paying the Immanuel Quicklies or, yes, Lauri Markkanens huge salaries, they will avoid problems for themselves. The new media contract will help considerably, but most franchises will still get bit.

The Spurs are in phenomenal shape in getting their super-generational talent without sitting on any bad contracts. They also have a history of frontloading contracts and trying to control costs, while having something of a history of taking care of their guys.

It never works because its not the owners operating in a vaccuum but negotiating with the players. The players aren't just going to say just pay us less! The cap remains a cap and will always hamstring owners but as long there is collective bargaining and the players dictate that they get a certain percentage of all revenue (and they should) then this system will remain relatively the same. The adjustments are made at the margins but the system is working completely as intended; this isn't some fault.

[MannyIsGod]

The Spurs front office gets too much legacy praise from some national media but I also think that people here are as a whole way too down on their moves most of the time. They're not the best FO by any stretch but they're also not near the bottom.

[Atl Spur]

How dare someone praise PATFO. The nerve.

Exactly!

[Atl Spur]

The Spurs front office gets too much legacy praise from some national media but I also think that people here are as a whole way too down on their moves most of the time. They're not the best FO by any stretch but they're also not near the bottom.

Top 5 for sure right?

[Mr. Body]

Eh... we can quibble about draft picks and some mistakes here or there, but the FO is easily among top of the league in using cap space and assets lately. They've really plotted out a plan on how to handle things for the next eight to ten years. I'm not sure there's been more than equals at getting assets out of pure cap space and flexibility, from grabbing SRPs from Miami and NOPe to using Reggie Bullock to get a swap. Getting Harrison Barnes and a swap for nothing is pretty expert stuff.

[TeKu]

Quinn contemplates changes to how swaps could change hands in the future with the next CBA, but I think what will happen before then is that teams will catch on to what OKC and SAS are doing (I'm shocked they haven't already) and won't let them get away with it any longer. As I laid out in my bullet points, the marginal cost to give away a swap decreases the most swaps a team has in a given year already... but at some point a team is going to ask themselves why they are helping OKC and SAS load up like this. At some point, teams will stop dealing with OKC and SAS when it comes to swaps, or they'll start to ask for more in exchange. One thing this FO has done well is to exploit that before other teams really catch on. In that sense, really wish Sam Quinn would STFU with these articles :lol

If that marginal cost to give away a swap decreases, alongside the benefit to the receiving team stacking, the more swaps that are attached to a single pick... then you'd think it would have been in both SAC and SA's interest to have this be a 2030 swap (given existing DAL/MIN swap rights) rather than 2031 swap?? Or am I missing something?

[scott]

If that marginal cost to give away a swap decreases, alongside the benefit to the receiving team stacking, the more swaps that are attached to a single pick... then you'd think it would have been in both SAC and SA's interest to have this be a 2030 swap (given existing DAL/MIN swap rights) rather than 2031 swap?? Or am I missing something?

Yeah, I would have pushed for a 2030 Swap if I were the Spurs... but it's kind a toss up. Does the marginal value of a 3rd swap in one year outweigh the marginal value of a 1st swap in another year? Hmmmm... there's a way to mathematically calculate this based on the assumption that the far future distribution of pick order is completely random... but I'm too lazy to do that math. Usually when that happens I just sit back and hope Ariel does it for me :lol

[TeKu]

Yeah, I would have pushed for a 2030 Swap if I were the Spurs... but it's kind a toss up. Does the marginal value of a 3rd swap in one year outweigh the marginal value of a 1st swap in another year? Hmmmm... there's a way to mathematically calculate this based on the assumption that the far future distribution of pick order is completely random... but I'm too lazy to do that math. Usually when that happens I just sit back and hope Ariel does it for me :lol

And here I was hoping you were the math genius :lol I'd have thought a 2030 swap too if it's all about getting a top 5 pick.

[baseline bum]

But what about Castle?
If we get Jrue 2.0, which is probably Castle's best scenario, then we're got to get rid of 2 players if we're to have any depth since Castle will also get a 25-30% rookie max extension based on accolades.


I don't think Jrue is Castle's best case: I think if he hits his ceiling it's Dennis Johnson with a three point shot (which I expect DJ would have developed had he played in this era).