Minnesota and Portland's 2nd round picks

[tav1]

FYI: According to Jonathan Givony Minnesota and Portland are both trying to package their early 2nd round picks (31 and 31; 33 and 36, respectively) for a late first.

I can envision scenarios where the Spurs might bite on either of those offers. If the guy they want (ie Bill Walker) is off the board and their 2nd tier guys (Chalmers, Lee) look like they'll be around at 31, then it's something to look at. Also, if they're targeting an international player (Casspi) but want the financial flexibility to operate outside rookie cap constraints, the Spurs could move down a few slots.

Overall, I'm not sure the value of players is much different between 26 and 31. The Spurs might be able to agree in principle to something along the lines of drafting the player the Wolves want (CDR) and trading him to the Wolves if a player they want is still on the board at 31. In other words, Spurs select CDR and then trade him to Wolves for Lee and the 34th pick. Or some such. You get the idea.

The Blazers and Wolves are trying to dump a pick or two because they lack roster space. If they can't find a taker, maybe they'd take Splitter's rights for 34 or 36? That is, if Splitter signs with Tau. At that point, both teams are in draft and stash mode anyway. Splitter, in that scenario, would be a long shot, but he might be attractive to either of these teams.

Just throwing it out there.

http://www.draftexpress.com/article/Word-on-the-Street-Workouts,-Trade-Rumors-Heat-Up-2915/

[ChumpDumper]

As it now stands, the Spurs are going to be hard-pressed to keep three picks themselves. I can see their trying to bundle two picks for one before picking up three or four second rounders.

[tav1]

Chump, true, but the difference between the three teams is that the Spurs pipeline is pretty much diminished and they might pick a guy or two, a la Marcus Williams, who will summer league and camp with the Spurs, but is actually a Toros target. There is some logic to the Spurs stockpiling if the guys they like are gone at #26.

[Mr. Body]

The first 10 picks of the second round have as much value-per-pick as anywhere in the draft. Without the gifts of science or the oracle, I think the top value spots are the late teens and 20-22 or so, and the top 10 picks in the 2nd.

Doesn't mean teams won't screw them up, but that for the types of players available at those points the picks themselves are fairly strong.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't think the Spurs liked developing Williams an entire season for the benefit of the LA Clippers. I'm hoping the league can figure out some way for NBA teams to have the right of first refusal on players from their farm teams, but burning multiple second rounders on players you won't have any rights to doesn't make sense.

[spursfan98]

We should trade splitter's rights for either of their early 2nd rounders. That would be fair. we dont need splitters rights anymore

[ChumpDumper]

We don't need any more than three draft picks.

Hell, three is a stretch.

[spursfan98]

We don't need any more than three draft picks.

Hell, three is a stretch.

And we dont need Splitter. The more picks we have, the more options we have

[SenorSpur]

Seeing as how the Spurs gave up their #1 pick next year in exchange for KT, it would be nice if the Spurs could somehow get a package together to pick up a number one pick next year.

[Mr. Body]

We don't need any more than three draft picks.

Hell, three is a stretch.

I agree, but the last one is hardly even a pick. We haven't used the last one in quite some time. The Toronto pick has very little chance of working out. The question should rather be whether (if available) the 26 is worth two cracks in the early 2nd at decent players. Given that the region will have players with late 1st talent it may be worth it.

[tav1]

I don't think the Spurs liked developing Williams an entire season for the benefit of the LA Clippers. I'm hoping the league can figure out some way for NBA teams to have the right of first refusal on players from their farm teams, but burning multiple second rounders on players you won't have any rights to doesn't make sense.

I agree with you that the league has to allow teams like the Spurs and Lakers some mechanism to develop players on the minor league team which they own without it affecting the major league cap and roster. Not sure how that is done.

I don't think the Spurs cared too much about Marcus Williams...the Clippers signing him was a tacit indicator of how much the Spurs valued him. They could have offered the same contract. At that point, they knew Williams was not in their future. But, in theory, you're correct. They don't want to be in a position of developing players for other teams.

But I don't see any harm in their giving themselves a leg up on players to look at in summer league and camp, so long as they are still able to get the player at 31 that they would have otherwise selected at 26.

[tav1]

I agree, but the last one is hardly even a pick. We haven't used the last one in quite some time. The Toronto pick has very little chance of working out. The question should rather be whether (if available) the 26 is worth two cracks in the early 2nd at decent players. Given that the region will have players with late 1st talent it may be worth it.

True. Picking up another pick in the early second just makes the late second all the more irrelevant, but there is no harm to the Spurs in that approach.

Again, this all assumes that they can get at 31 what they want at 26.

[ChumpDumper]

But, in theory, you're correct. They don't want to be in a position of developing players for other teams.It's not a theory, RC explicitly said he wanted the call-up rules modified for this purpose.

As for Williams - who knows? They couldn't keep him initially because of the luxury tax. They were in a position to sign him near the end of the season -- the timing of DerMarr's call-up kind of give a clue as to when they could have called up Marcus. Just judging from his increasing role on the Toros, he might have been the first choice.

[Mr. Body]

Remember (as I'm sure you do) that we can't trade our pick until after it is selected. I'm sure the team will have contingencies in place. So, if their favorites are off the board but the Blazers' or Wolves' guy still is, they can trade down. At that point I think it's a very good option.

[tav1]

It's not a theory, RC explicitly said he wanted the call-up rules modified for this purpose.

As for Williams - who knows? They couldn't keep him initially because of the luxury tax. They were in a position to sign him near the end of the season -- the timing of DerMarr's call-up kind of give a clue as to when they could have called up Marcus. Just judging from his increasing role on the Toros, he might have been the first choice.

Where did Burford say this? I missed it.

[ChumpDumper]

Where did Burford say this? I missed it.He told me at a Toros' press conference when they introduced Quin Snyder.

[tav1]

He told me at a Toros' press conference when they introduced Quin Snyder.

Gotcha.

Any ideas how the league might insulate against this kind of poaching?

[ChumpDumper]

The only thing I can think of is when a team wants to call up a Toro who isn't already under contract with the Spurs, the league gives the Spurs the chance to call him up first under the same terms that the other team would (ten-day, nonguaranteed, guaranteed, whatever). Over the period of a few days, the Spurs can make trades or waive players to make room for that Toro on the Spurs' roster if needed. If the Spurs can't do that, the player should be allowed to join the NBA for that other team. It's kind of messy and I'm sure I haven't thought of every angle, but it suits both the Spurs' and the players' needs.

[tav1]

The only thing I can think of is when a team wants to call up a Toro who isn't already under contract with the Spurs, the league gives the Spurs the chance to call him up first under the same terms that the other team would (ten-day, nonguaranteed, guaranteed, whatever). Over the period of a few days, the Spurs can make trades or waive players to make room for that Toro on the Spurs' roster if needed. If the Spurs can't do that, the player should be allowed to join the NBA for that other team. It's kind of messy and I'm sure I haven't thought of every angle, but it suits both the Spurs' and the players' needs.

I wonder if the league shouldn't make an exception for NBA teams that own, at least in part, a NBDL affiliate. In this way, the league would encourage other owners to invest in the D-League and further improve the process of player development, not to mention the D-League itself.

What kind of exception? Two things come to mind. First, expand the number of assignments an NBA team is allowed to the D-League if they partially own the affiliate. And expand the number of times per season such can players can move between teams. In addition to this, allow players who are "franchise players" at the D-League level supplemental compensation (that does not count against the NBA cap) in exchange for a players rights through out a season. The rights would expire when the compensation did. That is, the NBA team would pay the player a fee for his rights allowing them to lock said player into a D-League roster--a player rights fee on top of his salary.

I know there are a lot of details that would need be worked out under that scheme, but I think it's fair and better for the development of players and the interest of the D-League.

[TDMVPDPOY]

i trade that 26th pick down for the 2 2nd rounders.....= 4 2nd round picks for us

draft and stash in euro.....

10/11 plan :D

[exstatic]

Remember (as I'm sure you do) that we can't trade our pick until after it is selected.

Actually, you CAN, but not for two years in a row. It's called the Ted Stepien rule after the 70s era Cavaliers owner. People here are furious with the Spurs for occasionally dumping late first rounders and signing older players. Imagine, if you will, an owner that continuously dumped HIGH first round picks, top 5 or 7, for said aged players. That owner was Mr. Stepien.

Most teams prefer NOT to trade the pick, but rather the players rights after being picked, just in case a situation comes up where they really might need to trade next year's actual pick.

[Mr. Body]

I know. I was saying this year they have to technically use the pick, but can trade the player afterwards.