Subtle Shifts to the Spurs' Drafting Philosophy

https://www.spurstalk.com/san-antoni...020-nba-draft/

I don't think the Spurs need to change too much because their drafting method isn't broken (far from it) but things will be a little bit different going forward.

Honestly, I don't know whether more Spurs fans believe: 1) The Spurs should forget their character-driven draft ways because the Golden Years are over, now just go find ballers. 2) The Spurs shouldn't change their drafting philosophy at all because they've been so successful -- just keep it up. 3) The Spurs need to factor in a few considerations due to their current reality but otherwise stick with their principles.

Up until Nephew left the Spurs had a superstar on their roster every season since the 1980s. Their strategy has to change since they aren't looking for pieces to fit around said superstar. I didn't like the Samanic pick but I agree with the idea of drafting for players with the highest potential ceiling. Just try to make sure they have the character profile to work towards it.

Necessity is the mother of invention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

3) The Spurs need to factor in a few considerations due to their current reality but otherwise stick with their principles.

---

There are a lot of people, even some here, who laugh off the idea of hiring character guys. I'm not one of them. But the notion that every Spur player in the last 20 years has been a choirboy is pretty laughable. The way the game is being played now, you have to have a certain amount of athleticism and versatility. Your article mentions that it's not enough to just be big. Bryn Forbes is proof that it's not enough to just be a shooter.

So what is a "character guy" exactly? The team should rule out guys whose off-court baggage will be an on-court distraction. But we all watched Pop put Bertans in the long-term doghouse for coming to a teammate's defense, and getting ejected. People tried to deny it, but that's what happened. But then Pop turns around and calls his team "soft" at least once or twice a year. Tony Parker's off-court drama sure as shit wasn't the kind of thing I would put under the "character" heading. I think it wound up being a distraction, too. Pop didn't give any signs of being less than supportive.

Find guys who are reasonably athletic and versatile, and who are coachable and willing to work hard. Don't penalize the ones who have their teammates' backs. And if your system really lives up to the legend, the "character" guys should be a good influence on the ones who aren't choirboys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvp

https://www.spurstalk.com/san-antoni...020-nba-draft/

I don't think the Spurs need to change too much because their drafting method isn't broken (far from it) but things will be a little bit different going forward.

Honestly, I don't know whether more Spurs fans believe: 1) The Spurs should forget their character-driven draft ways because the Golden Years are over, now just go find ballers. 2) The Spurs shouldn't change their drafting philosophy at all because they've been so successful -- just keep it up. 3) The Spurs need to factor in a few considerations due to their current reality but otherwise stick with their principles.

---

Draft for positional need, as they have plenty of high character young talent who would be the leaders of the team if DeMar and LMA leave. This team needs dawgs who bring toughness and grit

What do we consider as high character?

In the last draft, Samanic turns out not to be a high character guy, but also ends up being a flop, whereas Keldon is high character, but also the best pick at 29.

Kawhi would have been considered high character, but it didn't stop him from fucking the spurs over.

Overall, a player's character needs too be factored in, but it can be seen now that the level of professionalism is much higher in the modern era, and there are less starting calibre players in the mould of Demarcus Cousins, Allen Iverson etc, because teams now value chemistry a lot more, and no one player is worth it.


Spurs probably flirted with the idea of talent over character with the Marcus Morris trade deal, but I'm sure they've learned from that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZeusWillJudge

There are a lot of people, even some here, who laugh off the idea of hiring character guys. I'm not one of them. But the notion that every Spur player in the last 20 years has been a choirboy is pretty laughable. The way the game is being played now, you have to have a certain amount of athleticism and versatility. Your article mentions that it's not enough to just be big. Bryn Forbes is proof that it's not enough to just be a shooter.

So what is a "character guy" exactly? The team should rule out guys whose off-court baggage will be an on-court distraction. But we all watched Pop put Bertans in the long-term doghouse for coming to a teammate's defense, and getting ejected. People tried to deny it, but that's what happened. But then Pop turns around and calls his team "soft" at least once or twice a year. Tony Parker's off-court drama sure as shit wasn't the kind of thing I would put under the "character" heading. I think it wound up being a distraction, too. Pop didn't give any signs of being less than supportive.

Find guys who are reasonably athletic and versatile, and who are coachable and willing to work hard. Don't penalize the ones who have their teammates' backs. And if your system really lives up to the legend, the "character" guys should be a good influence on the ones who aren't choirboys.

---

Well said I still remember that bitch move by Pop your guy is sticking up for his team mate and you going to lock him up and throw away the keys to make a point. Smh. And you have the nerve to call your team soft no shit they play the way you coach.

San Antonio is down, down on the list of cities players want to play in, along with Milwaukee and Salt Lake City. Of course you need high-character guys, meaning guys who aren't gonna flee at the first opportunity. It's amazing the Spurs went from Gervin to Robinson to Duncan and were able to maintain greatness in a craphole city with nothing to offer.

Just draft guys who like to hunt and fish - Keldon.

Robert Woodard likes to hunt not sure about Smith, Precious, or Poku?

The problem with character is that it changes with circumstances...like going from not being paid to play basketball to making millions of dollars playing basketball...

I also think it is the responsibility of the coaching staff to grow, change, and instill character in these players. These are people who are kids / barely adults after all.

I agree would like to continue to foster the vets showing up in practice ie. Sean, David, Timmy, and Manu.

i thought IG faggot is a superstar

It seems like the first question is what’s the strategy? How do you get back to contention in 5 years? Then you prioritize your tools including the draft, trades, and cap space.

So is the strategy to target a particular free agency year, and, to be attractive, show a prospective free agent that their are pieces to build around? Or is that strategy to develop young talent from the 10-20 draft position, and hope there is enough internal growth to be a perpetual 5 seed? Or is the strategy to acquire and develop young assets that can be consolidated via trades for a “star” under contract that you can build around?

I for one think that the spurs need to consolidate some pieces soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CGD

It seems like the first question is what’s the strategy? How do you get back to contention in 5 years? Then you prioritize your tools including the draft, trades, and cap space.

So is the strategy to target a particular free agency year, and, to be attractive, show a prospective free agent that their are pieces to build around? Or is that strategy to develop young talent from the 10-20 draft position, and hope there is enough internal growth to be a perpetual 5 seed? Or is the strategy to acquire and develop young assets that can be consolidated via trades for a “star” under contract that you can build around?

I for one think that the spurs need to consolidate some pieces soon.

---

Deep down everyone knows it's likely this. People are going to pray for a top 5 pick every year or pray that we have a losing season or pray a Giannis comes to our team... but it's likely this. We just need to keep getting lucky in finding the Keldon's of the drafts.

The Spurs' priorities have shifted for sure. I don't know that they've moved even the cautious amount you project, though. They should not be projected an eighth-man with their 11th pick, but they shouldn't and wouldn't have done that 10 years ago either. They would've been looking for a solid starter to solidify their lineup, just as they did with Kawhi in 15. We all know he was a secret superstar now, but it wasn't like the Spurs thought he was going to be a JAG. To that end, there's nothing wrong with coming out of the draft with a player who ends up being what we thought Kawhi was going to be before someone hacked into his 2K file and turned his POT stat up to 99. So if Nesmith becomes Redick/Eric Gordon or Jalen Smith becomes non-prime Millsap, is that not still a great pick? The team can't use that player to contend now, but they will need him once they get a core piece, and having him can help the other players develop, and having him gives the team a trade chip to try to get closer to getting a star.

As you said, they should strike a balance, but I'd say they've always known that. Positional need has probably been a bigger factor than anything else. They might've passed on DeAndre in 2008 because they didn't need a center. But they wanted Batum and the potential he had over Hill. Both guys played at positions of need, so they were above Jordan. I totally agree that they don't have enough of a foundation to know where they need players yet. But even looking at 2010 and 2011 where the team drafted three 19-year-olds/freshman and two 20-year-olds with five of their six picks. They drafted an oldie in 2012, but in 2013 they drafted a 19-year-old to go with their 21-year-old. Finally (since we can all agree they've been looking upside since Murray's draft), they drafted Anderson in the first and took a flier on trading for Dangubic in the second, trading away two guys who'd make NBA rosters due to okay floors. The Spurs have always operated on the idea of a rotating window. They weren't even planning on ignoring the next potential star to add to their older core. Murray was supposed to grow up as Kawhi's and LMA's third and then as a member of a new Big Three once the team replaced LMA with another young player. They would've just kept it going indefinitely.

As far as character goes, I think the Spurs are okay with eccentric role-players, and I also think they're willing to put up with some problems if their stars are talented enough. Heck, look at LMA and DMDR. But I think they also really want stars they can market their franchise around. Murray is that outside of his lack of talent. Keldon might be there. Lonnie's an interesting character, but the production isn't there. I think they value that kind of character over a guy who's great in the locker room. Locker rooms are the sum of the players on the team, and there's no guarantee that any one on the team right now will be there in a couple of years.

I'd say the character driven locker room will continue to be a bigger part of our culture, however we will have basketball driven choice we'll need to address at the same time. So that would be #3.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Em-City

What do we consider as high character?

In the last draft, Samanic turns out not to be a high character guy, but also ends up being a flop, whereas Keldon is high character, but also the best pick at 29.

Kawhi would have been considered high character, but it didn't stop him from fucking the spurs over.

Overall, a player's character needs too be factored in, but it can be seen now that the level of professionalism is much higher in the modern era, and there are less starting calibre players in the mould of Demarcus Cousins, Allen Iverson etc, because teams now value chemistry a lot more, and no one player is worth it.


Spurs probably flirted with the idea of talent over character with the Marcus Morris trade deal, but I'm sure they've learned from that.

---

Dude come on. Kawhi is not high character. He screwed over us and Toronto

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BackHome

Just draft guys who like to hunt and fish - Keldon.

Robert Woodard likes to hunt not sure about Smith, Precious, or Poku?

---

Exactly. It worked for the Jazz. Karl Malone wasn't your typical NBA guy. He'd rather be out fishing or hunting than in a nightclub. Utah was perfect for him and he stayed there like 18 years.

Timmy seems to be a big hunter too.

Of course, I'm joking that this would be a factor in drafting guys. But it is a factor in the superstars staying beyond that first big contract.

I say work ethic > character. Kawhi was exactly this, but I'll gladly roll that dice again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BillMc

Exactly. It worked for the Jazz. Karl Malone wasn't your typical NBA guy. He'd rather be out fishing or hunting than in a nightclub. Utah was perfect for him and he stayed there like 18 years.

Timmy seems to be a big hunter too.

Of course, I'm joking that this would be a factor in drafting guys. But it is a factor in the superstars staying beyond that first big contract.

---

Tim hated night clubs and he was a big time gamer which helped. Also helped Tim came from a middle class background of a 2 parent household so he didn't have baggage. Another plus was Tim didn't have an entourage and didn't care about that lifestyle. Very rare we are going to ever get another superstar that had Tim's profile or even David Robinson's profile.

Possibly we luck out with a Euro superstar like Doncic or Jokic. Those guys both seem like they will be staying with their teams for the rest of their careers. Euros in general tend to be more grounded and not care about the nightclub lifestyle.

[QUOTE=phxspurfan;10257987]Dude come on. Kawhi is not high character. He screwed over us and Toronto[/

agree, sorry if i didn't make it clear. In the draft, and for his first 2-3 years we'd have him as high character albeit antisocial. in hindsight, players can flip and go for their own interests, and you could argue that some low character guys can also turn it around and mature into good team mates.

I guess my post was around the idea that high character at draft time doesn't always project for the future.

they don't need to change their drafting philosophy, this franchise needs a change of culture period. I been saying that it makes no sense whatsoever to prefer hard working scrubs and give away superior players for nothing just cause a 70-year old grandpa thinks they don't play up to their full potential.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phxspurfan

Draft for positional need, as they have plenty of high character young talent who would be the leaders of the team if DeMar and LMA leave. This team needs dawgs who bring toughness and grit

---

If positional needs drove the drafting process, Utah would never have drafted Milsap, because they already had Boozer, and Portland wouldn’t have drafted McCollum because they already had Dame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daslicer

Tim hated night clubs and he was a big time gamer which helped. Also helped Tim came from a middle class background of a 2 parent household so he didn't have baggage. Another plus was Tim didn't have an entourage and didn't care about that lifestyle. Very rare we are going to ever get another superstar that had Tim's profile or even David Robinson's profile.

Possibly we luck out with a Euro superstar like Doncic or Jokic. Those guys both seem like they will be staying with their teams for the rest of their careers. Euros in general tend to be more grounded and not care about the nightclub lifestyle.

---

Since drafting DJ, from a rough neighborhood, and raised by a single mom, the Spurs American draft picks, White, Lonnie, and Keldon all came from two parent homes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BillMc

Exactly. It worked for the Jazz. Karl Malone wasn't your typical NBA guy. He'd rather be out fishing or hunting than in a nightclub. Utah was perfect for him and he stayed there like 18 years.

Timmy seems to be a big hunter too.

Of course, I'm joking that this would be a factor in drafting guys. But it is a factor in the superstars staying beyond that first big contract.

---

That was a different NBA time. A player who left to pursue rings would have been scoffed. LeBron changed the game. When the NBA alpha chases rings and to some extent succeeds, the floodgates are opened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZeusWillJudge

There are a lot of people, even some here, who laugh off the idea of hiring character guys. I'm not one of them. But the notion that every Spur player in the last 20 years has been a choirboy is pretty laughable. The way the game is being played now, you have to have a certain amount of athleticism and versatility. Your article mentions that it's not enough to just be big. Bryn Forbes is proof that it's not enough to just be a shooter.

So what is a "character guy" exactly? The team should rule out guys whose off-court baggage will be an on-court distraction. But we all watched Pop put Bertans in the long-term doghouse for coming to a teammate's defense, and getting ejected. People tried to deny it, but that's what happened. But then Pop turns around and calls his team "soft" at least once or twice a year. Tony Parker's off-court drama sure as shit wasn't the kind of thing I would put under the "character" heading. I think it wound up being a distraction, too. Pop didn't give any signs of being less than supportive.

Find guys who are reasonably athletic and versatile, and who are coachable and willing to work hard. Don't penalize the ones who have their teammates' backs. And if your system really lives up to the legend, the "character" guys should be a good influence on the ones who aren't choirboys.

---

As long as your top2 to 4 players are strong character guys, then yo can have some role players who have an issue or 2 and most likely get away with it. You cant have a scumbag as your face though. Our biggest issue right now, our coach is our face. We need to find our next george, david, tim, nephew and find him asap.

Spurs have been extremely lucky in getting possible 3 players who would classify as top 100 NBA players of all time in the last 20 years. The chances of that happening in our life time are probably slim to none only way to have a chance of winning another title is through drafting that players which takes years to be able to pick that one gem.

Teams like Flakers and Miami can do instant rebuilds in that players want to play in those markets so they attract All Star players. I like though how Miami did it they have really done well with there recents picks and that made them able to get Butler to put them over the hump and now can look at attracting another Star to play alongside them if they so desire.

So for the Spurs to be successful they have to be able to get something from DEROZZ and LMA and Gay hopefully some decent picks. They then have to have a successful draft and get rid of dead weight ie Forbes, and Beli and the next big thing is head coach. Pop is not going to coach that much longer which means free agents will be less likely to come in knowing a regime change is just around the corner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by exstatic

Since drafting DJ, from a rough neighborhood, and raised by a single mom, the Spurs American draft picks, White, Lonnie, and Keldon all came from two parent homes.

---

That's nice and all but none of those 3 are superstars. Curry is the only superstar in the current NBA that I can think of that came from a middle class background and grew up with 2 parents. It's pretty rare you find a guy that has both of those ingredients. Not saying it's necessary that a superstar has them but it does help in the sense that they are less likely to bring drama and cause problems. Kobe is the only guy I can think of who had all the ingredients I mentioned but was a big time diva.

Spurs were spoiled in having Dave and Tim. Both came from good backgrounds and were mentally stable people. Not saying that you can't win with someone who is not of that background just saying I prefer guys in the Dave/Tim/Stephen Curry mold versus Lebron/Durant/Harden mold. Their is clear difference between those two groups when it comes to being a diva and bringing drama. The first group brings stability while the second group brings instability.

There's been less stashing. 2013 1st round draft pick - Livio Jean Charles didn't pan out, but he didn't even play his two token rook years in the Spurs. Stashing didn't pan out.
2015 - Nikola Milutinov has developed but it's unlikely he will ever come over to play for the Spurs.

I am glad they haven't stashed 1st round draft picks since then. They need to shepherd their 1st round draft picks closer, specially since they have been reaching for potential (which is fine given the team's situation).

They gambled with Samanic but I would much rather have him in the team than stashed away somewhere unlikely to ever come over. They have also gone recently for physical tools even if they are raw (Murray and Walker) hoping that the player develops to his best possible outcome (you could say Samanic is a similar gamble too). I am hoping they hit the nail on the head with one of their draft picks based on "potential" and "raw" tools. They have to keep combing the stack hoping to get lucky again like they did with Kiwi. At some point they will. It may not be evident to me because I am not scouting draft prospects like I used to, but I trust they are looking and hope they find their guy.

Yeah stashing would be only if your team is competing for a ring and you have 3 first round draft picks ie. Boston. For us no more first round stashing since we are not competing for a championship I would not mind on a high second round pick with the understanding you have high potential and the kid is 18.

1