We are in win-now mode: 2/3 of our roster will be gone

[RC_Drunkford]

I don't think people understand what's going on here. I see folks saying "we should do what OKC did and keep our young core", no we don't. Our young core sucks. A bunch of non-shooting, no defense playing low IQ players. This ain't OKC. We don't have Chip Engelland on our staff.

We got a generational superstar who's a top 10 player in the NBA with 2 years left on his rookie deal. We got his longtime running mate with 3 years left. And we got prime Fox. That's why we are trading for KD and that won't be the only move we'll make. There's no more room for "oh let's give him another year to figure out what his role is" or "to figure out how to shoot". That's over with. Everybody had 2 full seasons for that.

Untradeable:

Wemby
Fox
Castle

Players that the Spurs would like to keep, but could be traded anyway:

Keldon - embraced his role as a sixth man
Wesley - Fox is very high on him and became his mentor
Champagnie - contract is amazing

Most likely gone:

Vassell
Sochan
Branham
Barnes

Gone for good:

CP3
Bassey
Mamu
Branham
Biyombo

Two-ways that might make the main roster:

Riley Minnix (almost a lock he gets a guaranteed deal)
Harrison Ingram
And yes we'll trade #14 and there's a good chance we'll trade down from #2 for further upgrades and future draft capital. Y'all can hate it all you want. The Spurs have clearly smelled championship :lobt: blood watching these playoffs. They are trying to set this up to be a superteam that can go on a run and they will never have that much leverage again.

Player movement will be crazy this offseason and teams will look completely different once it's over. Teams like Utah, ATL, Brooklyn and NOLA are having a fire sale. That means players like:

Lauri Markannen (too expensive)
John Collins
Walker Kessler
Collin Sexton
Jordan Clarkson
Trey Murphy
Herb Jones
Jalen Johnson
Onyeka Okongwu
Cam Johnson
Niclas Claxton

are all up for grabs and the Spurs have all the leverage because at #2 there's a franchise PG to get. They won't let that opportunity slide to have another poorly constructed team with spacing issues and be the 6th seed in the west. They will add on to KD, while replenishing their future draft assets and draft someone with future All-Star potential in the top 10.

[LeBowen]

You're really doubling down on your insider arc.
You better be right or you'll never hear the end of it. :lol

I can't see them trading down from Harper unless they have some serious concerns about his game, everything else is realistic.

[RC_Drunkford]

well I myself would draft Harper also, just because he's the surest prospect at #2. Even KOC is saying it looks like the Spurs ain't trading #2. But it makes too much sense to do it now.

1. Harper's fit is questionable
2. A lot of fringe All-Stars and good rotation pieces on great long term contracts are on the trading block
3. the Spurs don't have any extra first rounders left to trade
4. There are some promising front court players in the top 10 who could become All-Stars

Do I trust the Spurs to draft the right guy? Not really

But in theory if you can get a fringe All-Star like a Trey Murphy or Jalen Johnson (health is a concern) and draft another guy who becomes an All-Star and get future draft capital? That's too good to pass up, especially if you want to ring in the KD window.

[Dejounte]

Disagree tbh

Comments from Wright and Mitch after the draft lottery stay consistent. They believe in continuity. They will maintain that 70% to 80% continuity rate that scott once presented in a thread.

[cutewizard]

All things considered

Why not win now?

Who knows what's the future......

[LeBowen]

1. Harper's fit is questionable

Not really.
Castle seems to be more of a combo guard and we need another point guard.
If we don't get Harper, we need to find a good backup point guard.
People think it's a bad fit just because #2 pick is overqualified for a 6th man role.


2. A lot of fringe All-Stars and good rotation pieces on great long term contracts are on the trading block

The only fringe all-star on a great long term contract is Trey Murphy. I'm not trading down from #2 for rotation players.
And since it looks like we're getting KD, we won't be getting Murphy.


3. the Spurs don't have any extra first rounders left to trade

Why not? You think that Spurs will draft a player every single year?
It's not like they drafted every single year during the big3 era.
For me #2 pick is too valuable to trade away for a few picks down the road.
We don't have to use all those future picks to draft players.


4. There are some promising front court players in the top 10 who could become All-Stars

An all-star guard is almost always more valuable than all-star big in today's game.
(I'm talking just regular all-stars, not superstars.)


Do I trust the Spurs to draft the right guy? Not really

That's why we need to use that #2 pick and not overthink it.


draft another guy who becomes an All-Star

You can't write this after just saying you don't trust the Spurs to draft the right guy. :lol


That's too good to pass up, especially if you want to ring in the KD window.

If they wanted a ring in KD window they shouldn't have hired a rookie coach.

[RC_Drunkford]

Not really.
Castle seems to be more of a combo guard and we need another point guard.
If we don't get Harper, we need to find a good backup point guard.
People think it's a bad fit just because #2 pick is overqualified for a 6th man role.

true, I agree with that


The only fringe all-star on a great long term contract is Trey Murphy. I'm not trading down from #2 for rotation players.
And since it looks like we're getting KD, we won't be getting Murphy.

I'd say a healthy Jalen Johnson is up there with him


Why not? You think that Spurs will draft a player every single year?
It's not like they drafted every single year during the big3 era.
For me #2 pick is too valuable to trade away for a few picks down the road.
We don't have to use all those future picks to draft players.

They not there to draft players, they are there to trade for players once KD or even Fox is off the books. Free agency is trade season now, because no team let's the contracts of valuable rotation players expire anymore.


An all-star guard is almost always more valuable than all-star big in today's game.
(I'm talking just regular all-stars, not superstars.)

Yes, but off the dribble shooting is much more important for ball handlers than it is for front court players and it's Harper's main weakness. And that's not just from 3, but also midrange.


You can't write this after just saying you don't trust the Spurs to draft the right guy. :lol

I'm just saying what they might do. That doesn't mean I agree with every part of it. Has to be seen who they are gonna draft if my prediction is true. But the Spurs brass might be confident that player XY has a similar ceiling as Harper.


If they wanted a ring in KD window they shouldn't have hired a rookie coach.

well the thing is KD likes that the Spurs kept Mitch, so it's actually another positive point that gets him here.

[LeBowen]

I'd say a healthy Jalen Johnson is up there with him

Hawks front office probably requires every employee to block Wright's number. :lol


They not there to draft players, they are there to trade for players once KD or even Fox is off the books. Free agency is trade season now, because no team let's the contracts of valuable rotation players expire anymore.

We can't trade just in '26 and '28 due to '27 being gone, but we have ATL '27 and we're good to go after '29.
Trading down from #2 to get future picks would be idiotic.

We can easily get late FRPs with SRPs.
We got 4 SRPs in '26 draft for example.


Yes, but off the dribble shooting is much more important for ball handlers than it is for front court players and it's Harper's main weakness. And that's not just from 3, but also midrange.

Harper has a way better starting point than Castle.


well the thing is KD likes that the Spurs kept Mitch, so it's actually another positive point that gets him here.

You seem to have too much inside info. We'll see if it's any good.

[99 Problems]

:lobt2:

[scottspurs]

This goes against everything Pop, the Holts, Brian Wright and Mitch Johnson have said. Maybe next summer but this summer will be business as usual other than maybe a KD trade and/or a lesser trade for a big. I even see a scenario where Vassell is back. Now if they reach the trade deadline in season and the team is mediocre or they miss the playoffs next year the Spurs will unload the chamber.

[cutewizard]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gf7-UQDYbpU

[cutewizard]

Times are changing.....we need to adapt to changing circumstances

[RC_Drunkford]

Hawks front office probably requires every employee to block Wright's number. :lol

wrong. Onsi Saleh is the new Hawks GM. He used to work in our front office before. His main profession is long term financial strategy. That means: generating cap space

Getting a deal done with Atlanta is one of the easiest things the Spurs have on the table.



We can't trade just in '26 and '28 due to '27 being gone, but we have ATL '27 and we're good to go after '29.
Trading down from #2 to get future picks would be idiotic.

We can easily get late FRPs with SRPs.
We got 4 SRPs in '26 draft for example.


yes, but what I'm saying is the Spurs don't want to do that. The picks with the swap will only be traded after the lottery. They are not going down the road of trading 4 future picks to add a star to Wemby and Castle and then being out of draft capital. You need to have a first rounder to trade every season to manuever. That's the exact reason why teams like Milwaukee and Denver can't do anything to make minor improvements.

[mo7888]

I think there will be changes, but I don't thing this franchise will swing that hard in this direction. A few thoughts perusing this thread:

1. I don't think we trade #2, but if we were going for that type of move why wouldn't we trade the ROY instead and keep Harper. Much higher upside.
2. I don't like Jalen Johnson here. I don't really want a 3 that can't shoot and moreover I wouldn't commit $30M/per for it.
3. I do think we get KD and we find a way to acquire one other from your list.
4. I also think we sign two in FA's.
5. That's 5 new players + Minix and maybe Mamu. We keep 7 or 8 of what we have and save a roster spot for a later season move.

Those are my best guesses.

[SpursFan86]

Agree with others’ sentiments here. I would be shocked to see us blow up 2/3 of our roster. I do see us getting KD which naturally means 2-3 guys are probably gone. I don’t see us trading #2 unless someone just throws us an insane offer. CP3 leaving is a given.

As for all of the shitty end of bench guys, sure, there will be some turnover…but I’d bet that two of Wesley/Branham/Mamu/Bassey are back next year.

There will be turnover and our roster next year will look much different. Just don’t think it’ll be as drastic as OP is implying.

[DAF86]

Imagine making this thread and justifying Keldon staying :lol. That dude is the first one that needs to GTFO. Net negative at every single aspect of basketball.

[RC_Drunkford]

Imagine making this thread and justifying Keldon staying :lol. That dude is the first one that needs to GTFO. Net negative at every single aspect of basketball.

I never said this is what I would do. Keldon and Barnes would be the first ones out the door, because they are our worst defenders. But the Spurs do things differently. He has a farm, he doesn't like New York, he's the emotional leader of the team. We can't trade him :cry

They want to keep him, because he has embraced his bench role. I think it's stupid, but this franchise has done plenty of stupid stuff in the past.

[Mr. Body]

Not really surprising.

Wemby Year One was gathering intel on what works for him on the court

Wemby Year Two was adding vets and starting to build out, looking for opportunities

Wemby Year Three is being more aggressive in adding the pieces needed to compete seriously

The only real surprises for me were that they could secure both Paul and Barnes last year, that the near-star veteran they got wasn't just not very expensive in assets, but is a competitive player (not Markkanen), and Durant, other than landing the #2 somehow.

They went from no real guard play to an overabundance of guards (if Harper comes on). I expect roster turnover this summer. This is why Mamu, for example, expected to be gone. They know what they want now. I do think there's value in simply keeping guys like Wesley and Branham, or bringing Mamu back for cheap. They'll need to fill roster slots with cheap contracts/contracts they already have. The only thing that would really surprise me is if Sochan is moved. The rest isn't a big surprise.

[R. DeMurre]

I've been saying this from day one since Wemby was drafted. If you look at the trajectory of rosters that evolved around superstars drafted to bad teams, there is often 90-100% change from rookie season to the first championship season. That's true of Jordan, Giannis, Jokic, etc...
The Spurs had the good fortune and privilege to embrace a tradition of "continuity" throughout Tim Duncan's career, but they also won 56 games in his first season and an NBA title in his second. Wemby's rookie team won 22 games.

[R. DeMurre]

And even in Duncan's case, the concept of continuity wasn't really present between the '99 team and the '03 team. The only remaining teammate of Tim's getting significant minutes on both teams was Robinson, and otherwise there was huge turnover in terms of roster. Once the Tim/Manu/Tony thing was set, then they could embrace the idea of tiny adjustments and "continuity."

[The Truth #6]

To me it isn't about our mediocre young players or the Spurs going all in. Really, they need depth that is on good contracts. To me, that is the "formula" or whatever. We are a hodge podge. The FO goes one step at a time. It's not perfect. But I expect it to continue. They will make trades that are too good to pass up.

I can easily see Mamu and Biyombo back for example. They can't remake the whole roster.

[Dejounte]

I've been saying this from day one since Wemby was drafted. If you look at the trajectory of rosters that evolved around superstars drafted to bad teams, there is often 90-100% change from rookie season to the first championship season. That's true of Jordan, Giannis, Jokic, etc...
The Spurs had the good fortune and privilege to embrace a tradition of "continuity" throughout Tim Duncan's career, but they also won 56 games in his first season and an NBA title in his second. Wemby's rookie team won 22 games.


And even in Duncan's case, the concept of continuity wasn't really present between the '99 team and the '03 team. The only remaining teammate of Tim's getting significant minutes on both teams was Robinson, and otherwise there was huge turnover in terms of roster. Once the Tim/Manu/Tony thing was set, then they could embrace the idea of tiny adjustments and "continuity."

The idea of “turnover” being used here misses the point. What was being discussed is year-to-year continuity, not whether the roster in year one matches year five. The Spurs have consistently had one of the lowest annual turnover rates in the league, often around 20 to 30 percent. That reflects a commitment to continuity.

Even in the Duncan era, the roster changed over time, but it did so gradually. That’s the continuity the Spurs are known for— intentional evolution, not wholesale resets. A roster looking different five years later doesn’t contradict that approach. It reinforces how continuity plays out in a long-term development model.

[Dejounte]

Season Transition
Approx. Total Players
Returning Players
Return Rate


1999 → 2000
~12
~10
~83%


2000 → 2001
~14
~11–12
~79%–86%


2001 → 2002
15
~11–12
~73%–80%


2002 → 2003
~15
~10
~67%


2003 → 2004
~15
~9
~60%




Average across these 5 years ≈ 73.8%

The NBA average turnover rate year-to-year is typically 40% to 50%, meaning most teams retain only 8 to 9 players (or fewer) from the previous season.

[CorrectCrusader]

We have wemby, every year of his career from here on should be win now mode.

[exstatic]

And even in Duncan's case, the concept of continuity wasn't really present between the '99 team and the '03 team. The only remaining teammate of Tim's getting significant minutes on both teams was Robinson, and otherwise there was huge turnover in terms of roster. Once the Tim/Manu/Tony thing was set, then they could embrace the idea of tiny adjustments and "continuity."

Malik was present, too.

I think the point that people are making isn’t that there won’t be roster turnover, just that it won’t be as much as OP says. If we do nothing else, there will be a roster 20% turnover between opening day 2024 and opening day 2025 by virtue of subtracting Tre, Collins, and Cissoko.

The major reason for the 99-03 turnover was age. The Lakers buttfucked us in 01 by pressing and generating turnovers. You can’t feed Duncan if the ball is stolen at midcourt. Our guards were old and slow.

[R. DeMurre]

The Spurs have consistently had one of the lowest annual turnover rates in the league, often around 20 to 30 percent. That reflects a commitment to continuity.



I hear you, but that reputation was earned over 20 years with Duncan as the foundation and a reasonable expectation of winning 50+ games every season. The Spurs now are a franchise that haven't surpassed 35 wins in the last 6 seasons, and have a superstar who there might be more questions about concerning longevity. I'd argue it'a completely different context, and that the Spurs' FO, being at least reasonably flexible and resilient, would recognize that.

[R. DeMurre]

^^^ Although I do agree that 2/3rds this year is an exaggeration. I'm just saying more than usual over the next 2 or 3.

[LeBowen]

Season Transition
Approx. Total Players
Returning Players
Return Rate


1999 → 2000
~12
~10
~83%


2000 → 2001
~14
~11–12
~79%–86%


2001 → 2002
15
~11–12
~73%–80%


2002 → 2003
~15
~10
~67%


2003 → 2004
~15
~9
~60%




Average across these 5 years ≈ 73.8%

The NBA average turnover rate year-to-year is typically 40% to 50%, meaning most teams retain only 8 to 9 players (or fewer) from the previous season.

Would be nice if you could do that for the entire contention era, but just for top8, maybe top10 players in the rotation.
Turnover for third stringers is irrelevant.

[itzsoweezee]

Winning now is the appropriate approach when you have talent the likes of wemby. Plodding along for years would be a waste of the unique cap situation San Antonio finds itself in

[Seventyniner]

imo counting turnover in terms of number of players isn't the right way to do it. Turning over the end of the bench doesn't affect much.

Total minutes played would be a much better barometer, though you'd have to take injuries into account somewhere. Midseason acquisitions too.

[RC_Drunkford]

The main reason why I‘m saying this, is because those contracts are needed for trades. A KD trade would be 2 players shipped out. Maybe 3 cause Sochan is rumored to be in it. Add 4 expiring in CP3, Biyombo, Bassey and Mamu and thats already 40% of the team. And I‘m sure we‘ll make another trade, which if you package 2 players again, makes it 8-9 players that are gone.

[John B]

It still depends on Wemby if he has fully recovered. The last two years, his body needed to get strong. Agree it’s a Win Now mode, but I wouldn’t gut out the roster for another max player like Durant if Suns asked too much. Spurs need solid players more than another max player. This draft is deep with solid role players. I actually like Spurs position right now. I was happy with picking #2 Harper (future All-Star) and for #14 any of Bryant, Fleming or Sorber. Agree Vassell has to go to free-up minutes for Harper’s development. Maybe getting a late 1st round pick for him and pickup Reynaud. Plus plenty of potential ring chasers. I like Spurs flexibility right now. If they trade for Durant, I hope they don’t overpay. This team is very young. I rather wait on Wemby, Castle and Harper and slowly weed out the Branhams and Basseys of the team thru drafts and free agency. Spurs are building for 10-15 years dominance not 3 years.

[baseline bum]

I don't think people understand what's going on here. I see folks saying "we should do what OKC did and keep our young core", no we don't. Our young core sucks. A bunch of non-shooting, no defense playing low IQ players. This ain't OKC. We don't have Chip Engelland on our staff.


Huh? OKC didn't keep their tank core. They churned the hell out of their roster and the only players remaining from their tank years are SGA and Dort. I agree the Spurs should follow that lead and churn the losers like Vassell, Keldon Johnson, Sochan, etc.




And yes we'll trade #14 and there's a good chance we'll trade down from #2 for further upgrades and future draft capital. Y'all can hate it all you want. The Spurs have clearly smelled championship :lobt: blood watching these playoffs. They are trying to set this up to be a superteam that can go on a run and they will never have that much leverage again.


They're not a super team after adding 37YO Durant, don't be ridiculous.



are all up for grabs and the Spurs have all the leverage because at #2 there's a franchise PG to get. They won't let that opportunity slide to have another poorly constructed team with spacing issues and be the 6th seed in the west. They will add on to KD, while replenishing their future draft assets and draft someone with future All-Star potential in the top 10.

Or instead take the franchise PG they'll never have another chance to get. Ugh can't stomach trading that away to get another Sochan, Vassell, or Primo fuck that.

[RC_Drunkford]

They're not a super team after adding 37YO Durant, don't be ridiculous


Read again what I said


there's a good chance we'll trade down from #2 for further upgrades and future draft capital

you somehow missed that part. KD won't be the only upgrade.

[baseline bum]

Read again what I said



you somehow missed that part. KD won't be the only upgrade.

I didn't miss the downgrade of trading down from #2. What short sighted idiocy, especially when Victor is not ready to be competing for titles yet most likely.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxNXp86gFnw

[Em-City]

I would love a win-now build, but we simply need to take harper at #2 given the upside and window, despite the clunky fit with fox & castle.

Assuming KD joins, there's still a medium possibility to add rebounding & shooting to round out as the best team in the West this season or the following.



Vassell Johnson sochan Barnes #14 are all assets that can get back another place in addition to whatever KD costs.

[Chinook]

Hawks front office probably requires every employee to block Wright's number. :lol



We can't trade just in '26 and '28 due to '27 being gone, but we have ATL '27 and we're good to go after '29.
Trading down from #2 to get future picks would be idiotic.

We can easily get late FRPs with SRPs.
We got 4 SRPs in '26 draft for example.



Harper has a way better starting point than Castle.



You seem to have too much inside info. We'll see if it's any good.

The Spurs can trade their 2026 and 2028 picks. ATL27 is unprotected and thus satisfies the Stepien rule. They shouldn't trade those picks, but they can without issue.

[RC_Drunkford]

I didn't miss the downgrade of trading down from #2. What short sighted idiocy, especially when Victor is not ready to be competing for titles yet most likely.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxNXp86gFnw

1933175365763023278

[baseline bum]

1933175365763023278

That would be moronic, their only interesting pieces are small guards in Maxey and McCain.

[RC_Drunkford]

That would be moronic, their only interesting pieces are small guards in Maxey and McCain.

2028 Clippers pick
2028 Sixers pick
2029 Sixers pick with Clippers swap
2030 Sixers pick
2031 Sixers pick

I take 2-3 of those to go. But I'd rather get more than that, which is why Utah and NOLA are better options.

[Strategic]

Sixers haven’t had a desirable asset since Dr J and Chocolate Thunder.

[LeBowen]

2028 Clippers pick
2028 Sixers pick
2029 Sixers pick with Clippers swap
2030 Sixers pick
2031 Sixers pick

I take 2-3 of those to go. But I'd rather get more than that, which is why Utah and NOLA are better options.

Yeah, let's gift away a #2 pick who looks to be as safe of a prospect as it gets for a few unknown quantity first rounders.
Do you realize what are you even saying?
Some of you who go way into the deep end when it comes to trades completely lose the plot when it comes to what's actually valuable.

The only reasonable way to not pick Harper would be to get an all-star player in return. None seem to be available.
Murphy being the only exception because of his great contract and good fit.

[Ice009]

2028 Clippers pick
2028 Sixers pick
2029 Sixers pick with Clippers swap
2030 Sixers pick
2031 Sixers pick

I take 2-3 of those to go. But I'd rather get more than that, which is why Utah and NOLA are better options.

Those picks may turn out to be nothing great. Isn't one of those top 3 protected (I think a poster in another thread mentioned it). The 2029, '30, '31 picks are too far away IMO as you don't know what Philadelphia would be like by then or the NBA landscape itself.
Not sure they can wait that long for those either as the Spurs could need talent sooner than that. I wouldn't want to push it back that far. I'd be looking at it in blocks of 4 years at a time rather than anything past that.

[baseline bum]

Yeah, let's gift away a #2 pick who looks to be as safe of a prospect as it gets for a few unknown quantity first rounders.
Do you realize what are you even saying?
Some of you who go way into the deep end when it comes to trades completely lose the plot when it comes to what's actually valuable.

The only reasonable way to not pick Harper would be to get an all-star player in return. None seem to be available.
Murphy being the only exception because of his great contract and good fit.

But the Spurs can trade Harper for John Collins!

[baseline bum]

2028 Clippers pick
2028 Sixers pick
2029 Sixers pick with Clippers swap
2030 Sixers pick
2031 Sixers pick

I take 2-3 of those to go. But I'd rather get more than that, which is why Utah and NOLA are better options.

I thought you said the Spurs were trying to win now. Which one of those wins them more games than Dylan Harper?

[SpursFan86]

I can’t stress enough how stupid it would be to trade away Harper for a later pick and 2-3 future FRPs.

[Ice009]

Yeah, as I mentioned, I wouldn't want to push it back that far. I'd only be looking at teams with good draft picks in the next 4 years. If no-one has that, then do not trade the number 2 pick. Just draft Harper and if he's great, then you can even trade him for more later on if you can't afford to keep him, or trade Fox around that time.

Like Baseline_bum said, trading for picks like that aren't win now moves at all.

[baseline bum]

Yeah, as I mentioned, I wouldn't want to push it back that far. I'd only be looking at teams with good draft picks in the next 4 years. If no-one has that, then do not trade the number 2 pick. Just draft Harper and if he's great, then you can even trade him for more later on if you can't afford to keep him, or trade Fox around that time.

Like Baseline_bum said, trading for picks like that aren't win now moves at all.

There are only two things that make sense to with the number 2 pick

1. Draft Dylan Harper
- or -
2. Trade for Giannis

Trading a dollar for a dime and a pack of magic beans is moronic

[TD 21]

2. I don't like Jalen Johnson here. I don't really want a 3 that can't shoot and moreover I wouldn't commit $30M/per for it.

Johnson is a 4 and I can't imagine him or Okongwu are available outside of like 99% of players, which is if someone wants to drastically overpay.

With the dearth of an elite team(s) in the East and a similar construct to the Pacers, the Hawks probably think they're a good off season (internal development included) and health away from a punchers chance at a Pacers like run in the next few seasons.



There are only two things that make sense to with the number 2 pick

1. Draft Dylan Harper
- or -
2. Trade for Giannis

Trading a dollar for a dime and a pack of magic beans is moronic

Of course. Some of us just like kicking around different scenarios, what would satisfy each team, how the pieces would fit, etc.

[mo7888]

Johnson is a 4 and I can't imagine him or Okongwu are available outside of like 99% of players, which is if someone wants to drastically overpay.

With the dearth of an elite team(s) in the East and a similar construct to the Pacers, the Hawks probably think they're a good off season (internal development included) and health away from a punchers chance at a Pacers like run in the next few seasons.




Of course. Some of us just like kicking around different scenarios, what would satisfy each team, how the pieces would fit, etc.

I hope you're right and they won't move JJ because I don't want him.

[spurraider21]

There are only two things that make sense to with the number 2 pick

1. Draft Dylan Harper
- or -
2. Trade for Giannis

Trading a dollar for a dime and a pack of magic beans is moronic
not that there has been any real reporting on it, but what about a trade back from 2 with a team like NOP or UTA where we go after Lauri or Murphy. we could still recoup 5 from Utah or 7 from NOP in this hypothetical trade

something like #2 + devin + keldon + sochan for lauri + sensebaugh + 5

then you'd still have 5 to get a legit prospect like one of bailey/tre johnson (or kon for those who like him) and 14 still available to get a forward who can defend

[Mugen]

not that there has been any real reporting on it, but what about a trade back from 2 with a team like NOP or UTA where we go after Lauri or Murphy. we could still recoup 5 from Utah or 7 from NOP in this hypothetical trade

something like #2 + devin + keldon + sochan for lauri + sensebaugh + 5

then you'd still have 5 to get a legit prospect like one of bailey/tre johnson (or kon for those who like him) and 14 still available to get a forward who can defend

Gross tbh

[exstatic]

not that there has been any real reporting on it, but what about a trade back from 2 with a team like NOP or UTA where we go after Lauri or Murphy. we could still recoup 5 from Utah or 7 from NOP in this hypothetical trade

The most valuable contract in the NBA is a top prospect on a rookie deal. Victor Wembanyama is making $13.4M this coming season. Let that sink in. It’s less than the MLE. Harper will be a similar value for his 4 years. A veteran will accelerate our payroll crunch,and shorten our window.

[baseline bum]

not that there has been any real reporting on it, but what about a trade back from 2 with a team like NOP or UTA where we go after Lauri or Murphy. we could still recoup 5 from Utah or 7 from NOP in this hypothetical trade

something like #2 + devin + keldon + sochan for lauri + sensebaugh + 5

then you'd still have 5 to get a legit prospect like one of bailey/tre johnson (or kon for those who like him) and 14 still available to get a forward who can defend

:vomit:

[Seventyniner]

The most valuable contract in the NBA is a top prospect on a rookie deal. Victor Wembanyama is making $13.4M this coming season. Let that sink in. It’s less than the MLE. Harper will be a similar value for his 4 years. A veteran will accelerate our payroll crunch,and shorten our window.

Top prospects on their second contract are good value too. Trading Harper is giving up value for 8 years, not just 4.

[spurraider21]

not that there has been any real reporting on it, but what about a trade back from 2 with a team like NOP or UTA where we go after Lauri or Murphy. we could still recoup 5 from Utah or 7 from NOP in this hypothetical trade

something like #2 + devin + keldon + sochan for lauri + sensebaugh + 5

then you'd still have 5 to get a legit prospect like one of bailey/tre johnson (or kon for those who like him) and 14 still available to get a forward who can defend
:lol Amico aka human Centel, probably reads spurstalk and passes it off as reporting

1933302958206144532

[benefactor]

:lol Amico aka human Centel, probably reads spurstalk and passes it off as reporting

1933302958206144532
:lol...this is getting ridiculous

[rascal]

When everyone is calling for your draft prospect it's best to keep it yourself.

[Knoxxx]

We do need to turn over some roster spots but I am also hopeful some of our remaining rotation/role players will develop further and pay dividends re continuity and development. Like how D White blossomed on a strong BOS team.

[BackHome]

We have our guards we need to invest in some bigs and to be honest with Fox, Castle, Harper, Keldon, Vassell - I just don’t see any reason to keep Blake or Branham. Both are SG and if I were them I would try to catch on a team that l could get a few minutes a game or at least a chance to get minutes or a backup role.

Also, don’t see us keeping any of our bigs as we need upgrade in a major way so either free agency or use our second and third picks to help out Wemby

[pad300]

There are only two things that make sense to with the number 2 pick

1. Draft Dylan Harper
- or -
2. Trade for Giannis

Trading a dollar for a dime and a pack of magic beans is moronic

There is a 3ed option

3. Trade #2 + assets for #1

Admittedly, this only works if DAL is not convinced that Flagg is on a completely different tier than Harper (and SAS is convinced that Flagg >>> Harper).

[RC_Drunkford]

I thought you said the Spurs were trying to win now. Which one of those wins them more games than Dylan Harper?

You asked the question which assets does Philly have, not if I'd do the trade. Stick to the topic. The Spurs would move down 1 spot, not 5. If their scouting department thinks Ace Bailey would pan out, picking up 3 future firsts for a front court player who's a better fit and has the same ceiling as Harper wouldn't be a bad move. Y'all act like Harper is the end all be all and I'm trading him for a pick in the late 20s.

There are people who think Bailey will be a bust and there are people who think he'll pan out. Your opinion ain't the only valid one in the world.


Yeah, let's gift away a #2 pick who looks to be as safe of a prospect as it gets for a few unknown quantity first rounders.
Do you realize what are you even saying?
Some of you who go way into the deep end when it comes to trades completely lose the plot when it comes to what's actually valuable.

The only reasonable way to not pick Harper would be to get an all-star player in return. None seem to be available.
Murphy being the only exception because of his great contract and good fit.

Do you realize that in this scenario I'm trading down 1 spot? Which means I'd still have the third pick. I'm not giving the pick away, I'm drafting another player in the top 3.

[LeBowen]

Do you realize that in this scenario I'm trading down 1 spot? Which means I'd still have the third pick. I'm not giving the pick away, I'm drafting another player in the top 3.

Doesn't matter considering that draft class situation.
Flagg is in his own tier, with Harper being a tier below.
Everyone else is at least another tier lower.
You lose more value by trading down from #2 to #3 than you would from #3 to #8.

[Ice009]

Oh, man, this is shaping up to be one of the wildest Spurs' off-seasons ever. Maybe not much happens and the Spurs use the 2nd pick and use the 14th, or some of these crazy scenarios happen. A lot of posters are coming up with good ideas of what could be done. Interesting to see if any of them pan out.
This is going to be much, much tougher than the wait for the draft lottery was. I don't drink, but I might have to have a few drinks draft night ;).

[exstatic]

You asked the question which assets does Philly have, not if I'd do the trade. Stick to the topic. The Spurs would move down 1 spot, not 5. If their scouting department thinks Ace Bailey would pan out, picking up 3 future firsts for a front court player who's a better fit and has the same ceiling as Harper wouldn't be a bad move. Y'all act like Harper is the end all be all and I'm trading him for a pick in the late 20s.

There are people who think Bailey will be a bust and there are people who think he'll pan out. Your opinion ain't the only valid one in the world.



Do you realize that in this scenario I'm trading down 1 spot? Which means I'd still have the third pick. I'm not giving the pick away, I'm drafting another player in the top 3.

There’s no one at 3 that is even 70% the prospect that Harper is.

Harper’s 50% outcome is high end starter/borderline AS. His 75% outcome is All NBA/borderline MVP. His 99% outcome is HOF.

Edgecombe’s 99% outcome is high end starter/borderline AS. It goes downhill from there in this draft.

[RC_Drunkford]

Doesn't matter considering that draft class situation.
Flagg is in his own tier, with Harper being a tier below.
Everyone else is at least another tier lower.
You lose more value by trading down from #2 to #3 than you would from #3 to #8.


There’s no one at 3 that is even 70% the prospect that Harper is.

Harper’s 50% outcome is high end starter/borderline AS. His 75% outcome is All NBA/borderline MVP. His 99% outcome is HOF.

Edgecombe’s 99% outcome is high end starter/borderline AS. It goes downhill from there in this draft.

I know that. I'm on record saying draft Harper. It's not that I'm a Harper hater, I'm simply bringing counter arguments that every FO has to consider when they evaluate prospects and their draft situation. I myself would pick Harper at #2 above anybody and I been saying this since we got the pick. But there are scouts out there who love Ace Bailey and think he's the second coming of T-Mac. Do I think that? No. Do the Spurs think that? We don't know.

Drafting Harper is the safest bet you can make. Which is why I want the Spurs to draft him, because if they don't, there's a huge chance of fucking this up.

But I'm also on record saying that I can see the Spurs trading down if they get KD, if the return is huge and if they think there's somebody else in the top 10 with the same ceiling. And I think that's a fair scenario to consider if you trade for a 37-year old, who's still a top 15 player in the league. That's all.

[baseline bum]

But there are scouts out there who love Ace Bailey and think he's the second coming of T-Mac.

God help anyone who believes that stupid shit. Mac had elite handles and was a gifted defender until he got to Orlando. Better chance Ace ends up Alfrederick Hughes than TMac. JFC if the Spurs FO is stupid enough to trade down when Bailey screams bust and Edgecombe and Tre Johnson give you the exact same fit problems Harper does without his crazy upside.

[SpursFan86]

Looking more and more likely that the Spurs don’t land KD and they take Harper at 2. Things can change but right now this thread is aging like fine milk, tbh :lol

[ZeusWillJudge]

So what does "win now" mean to you? At least the second round next year, and at least make a solid challenge for the Finals the next? What you seem to be saying is that this is no time for sentiment in personnel decisions. I totally agree, but I don't know if the Spurs organization is capable of that. You talk about "not giving guys another year to figure out what their role is". In win now mode, there's no room for players without well-defined roles, so I totally agree with that part.

This year, just like every other year proved two things: If you want to get to the Finals, you have to be able to win different ways (against different styles), and you have to play defense. Good defense. In the 2022 draft, I begged for the Spurs to grab Andrew Nembhard. (Most people here said he wasn't worthy of being drafted.) You see what his defense has been worth to the Pacers.

Regardless of what they do with the #2 pick, the Spurs need a good big man. I said in the 22 draft that Walker Kessler could easily wind up being the best C of that draft class. I don't have to list all the things he would do for the team you think the Spurs are trying to put together. And I don't want to get into compensation here, just needs. He doesn't have a lot of range on defense, but he's a solid inside presence, and he pretty consistently manages to put up his points. He started 58 games and averaged 30 minutes this season, so he isn't one of those guys who is only good in short bursts. And when other teams are able to go big (who do we know like that?) he would be a necessity. Kessler is one guy on your list that would be a solid pickup.

There's sort of a belief that the Spurs "can't" trade Fox, because it would look bad one season after bringing him in. Do you think that, or do you think they really could package him in a trade? If they could use him in a trade, would you be willing to do that and rely on Harper? There's a lot of value in having all your core be near the same age - for chemistry, but also for contract purposes.

I'm not crazy about the talk of "future draft picks" now that they have Wemby, Castle, and #2 (Harper). So many picks these days are protected, and late firsts or doesn't-convey picks aren't what they need to be in win now mode. Are they likely to pick up any players with late firsts that can compare to those three, or the free agents that will gravitate to a contender? I don't think so. The main thing is that kind of "future draft stock" doesn't seem really consistent with "win now". They caught lightning in a bottle with the picks they have in hand.

Good teams need role players too, but you're focusing on impact players and I don't want to muddy the waters discussing guys who would be good pickups for those roster spots, but there are a number of them out there that are well above common filler, and several of them stand to be budget friendly. Once again, win now means some known quantity role players is a better move than throwing darts at late draft picks. And guys who have actually been able to make an NBA roster are better than guys who *might* be able to step up from the G-League, but haven't so far.

None of that means anything if the Spurs aren't willing to make those kinds of choices.

[Ice009]

Zeus, they cannot trade him after he forced his way to the Spurs. The Spurs would be screwed with agents going forward after Rich Paul did the Spurs a solid/favour getting him here. Any goodwill they had would be gone. Maybe in 2-3 years, but no way right now.

[RC_Drunkford]

Regardless of what they do with the #2 pick, the Spurs need a good big man. I said in the 22 draft that Walker Kessler could easily wind up being the best C of that draft class. I don't have to list all the things he would do for the team you think the Spurs are trying to put together. And I don't want to get into compensation here, just needs. He doesn't have a lot of range on defense, but he's a solid inside presence, and he pretty consistently manages to put up his points. He started 58 games and averaged 30 minutes this season, so he isn't one of those guys who is only good in short bursts. And when other teams are able to go big (who do we know like that?) he would be a necessity. Kessler is one guy on your list that would be a solid pickup.

this is why I think the Maluach smoke is real. He's a center with a lot of upside and a standing reach 1 inch shorter than Wemby's. This is the #1 thing on the roster that they need to fix this offseason and they will.


There's sort of a belief that the Spurs "can't" trade Fox, because it would look bad one season after bringing him in. Do you think that, or do you think they really could package him in a trade? If they could use him in a trade, would you be willing to do that and rely on Harper? There's a lot of value in having all your core be near the same age - for chemistry, but also for contract purposes.

The Fox trade was mainly put together by Rich Paul. You can't fuck Fox and Rich Paul over just cause you can now draft Harper. And there's no neccesity to trade him either. You can have Fox play here for 4 years and trade him in 2029 when you have to extend Harper.




I'm not crazy about the talk of "future draft picks" now that they have Wemby, Castle, and #2 (Harper). So many picks these days are protected, and late firsts or doesn't-convey picks aren't what they need to be in win now mode. Are they likely to pick up any players with late firsts that can compare to those three, or the free agents that will gravitate to a contender? I don't think so. The main thing is that kind of "future draft stock" doesn't seem really consistent with "win now". They caught lightning in a bottle with the picks they have in hand.

You need those picks for roster adjustments. Most players don't become free agents no more, you have to do trades or sign-and-trades for them to add them to your team. This is why the Nuggets and Bucks are stuck in the mud right now, because they don't have any picks left.


Good teams need role players too, but you're focusing on impact players and I don't want to muddy the waters discussing guys who would be good pickups for those roster spots, but there are a number of them out there that are well above common filler, and several of them stand to be budget friendly. Once again, win now means some known quantity role players is a better move than throwing darts at late draft picks. And guys who have actually been able to make an NBA roster are better than guys who *might* be able to step up from the G-League, but haven't so far.

None of that means anything if the Spurs aren't willing to make those kinds of choices.

I was mainly saying that with the parity in the league and Victor still on a rookie contract, if you can add KD, you should pivot and try to make a run in those years. That means adding more established players to the roster and fixing all holes, like the rebounding issue, back up center, shooting, etc. Now that it looks like we might miss out on Durant, they won't have to fix everything at once. Although I still expect a trade for a starting 4 and signing or drafting a back up 5.

[scott]

Would be nice if you could do that for the entire contention era, but just for top8, maybe top10 players in the rotation.
Turnover for third stringers is irrelevant.

I start a thread about this awhile back, you should be able to find it if you search “continuity rate”

This is also a slightly different measurement, since my thread calculated a “reverse continuity rate” (which is how much of the roster’s minute returned the following season) whereas this is how many of the current seasons minutes were filled by players on the roster the previous season (subtle, but key difference): https://www.basketball-reference.com/friv/continuity.html

[scott]

imo counting turnover in terms of number of players isn't the right way to do it. Turning over the end of the bench doesn't affect much.

Total minutes played would be a much better barometer, though you'd have to take injuries into account somewhere. Midseason acquisitions too.

See my last reply to LeBowen if this topic interests you

[CGD]

:lol Amico aka human Centel, probably reads spurstalk and passes it off as reporting

1933302958206144532

TM3+7+all the MIL swaps they have? I’d need the think about that