Reply With Quote
I missed you including the 8th pick in the first offer. That makes it more fair but wash may just want that unprotected 25 first for the overall 2 this year. You do that strainght up?
This isn't Washington selling the pick but trading down to 8 so that they'd be getting their guy (Topic, Dillingham, whichever PG they prefer) at 8 (unlikely to be taken by anyone 3-7) and still add a future first (protected) and another pick that has a slim chance of conveying in the first round but should at least be 2 good SPRs. The premium there isn't a future unprotected first from a bad team in a good draft, that's preposterous and a non starter. If that's what Washington is looking for, Spurs obviously do nothing. But wouldn't hurt to ask IMO.
I missed you including the 8th pick in the first offer. That makes it more fair but wash may just want that unprotected 25 first for the overall 2 this year. You do that strainght up?
Good thoughts. Risacher is gone by 4 but does it seem like in a very general way within the top 3 the fit for Risacher gets worse and worse from ATL to WSH to HOU?
If Risacher slips, each slot he potentially slips starts to make it slightly more likely he falls to 4 miraculously. Not saying HOU won't take him or WSH won't just kinda interesting how each slot he survives sends him to a team with a potentially slightly even trickier fit for him conceivably with the last stand, HOU, having the most player type logjam with guys who have the most commitment cost sunken into them by the team. ATL can cut bait with Bey, Hunter possibly means nothing to them once the 3 years are off books. WSH has Deni and Kuz as investment pieces yes but not like HOU with a high draft value forward like JSJ and expensive FA (3x ~20MMper) in Dillon. Even projects selected in the teens/twenty like Eason and Whitmore they may feel an obligation to cultivate first before adding anyone else/new.
Barring trades there might be some sunk cost fallacy in play as teams decide if Risacher is good enough to tell guys like Deni or Brooks to take the back seat. But it sounds like most of these names even Kuz could be divorced for a true BPA "upgrade" or the logjam may be overstated by outside observers where within the clubs they think they can make it work with their system concept.
Givony: "Spurs and Grizzlies have significant interest in Carter."
2024 NBA draft rankings - Jonathan Givony's top 100 prospects - ESPN
Plan B for Castle? Surely they're not thinking of taking both.
Let Risacher go this year. I want him drafted in the top 3 so Castle falls to 4.
Spurs need to lock in Castle, that solid defender out of this year's draft and get the upside superstar Sf in next year's draft. The Spurs will get a better SF in next year's draft than Risacher.
They can get a better PG in next year's draft than Castle as well. That's just where it is. I'm also pretty high on Castle and would have no problem taking him at #4, so it isn't Castle bias or anything..
No, there aren't as many options for solid defender PG or top PG than there are for SF in next year's draft.
I'm high on Castle as well it's the best most realistically avail option at 4 imho as of right now
There are more top forwards than PG's in next year's draft for sure, but there are better forwards and PG's in next year's draft than this one. Castle isn't sniffing top 10 next year and there are at least 3 PG's better than him in that draft. Full disclosure- there are probably at least 5 or 6 forwards better than Risacher in next year's draft (at a minimum).
But drafting Castle this year doesn't prevent you from grabbing a top pG next year as Castle can get minutes at the 1 or 2 and work well in a three guard rotation.
Are there really better defending PGs in the top ten next year and why burn a draft pick on that with Castle there this year and as you said there more better all star upside options at SF than Risacher in next year's drafft.
Drafting Castle this year makes the most sense for the roster build moving forward.
More than likely.
Interestingly, Clingan has "fans among the Hawks cons uency". If he gets to 4 and the Hawks prefer Risacher to Sarr, the Spurs could offer a package around 4 for Murray.
That would be a respectable move as long as we maintain 8. That would round things out a bit more for us and address the biggest weakness with something better than we could ever draft.
Devin Harris
By the way are there any good shotblockers mocked in the 2nd round? If we address SF and PG with #4 and #8 we should look to draft a C at #35. All we really need there is a rebounding shotblocker who can roll to the rim and is somewhat mobile to replace Collins long term.
Draft Express is confirming that Castle will not likely work out for teams with standing point guards. In the top 10, that seems to be Washington, San Antonio, Utah.
Stephen Castle to the Jones family: " you."
Again, I'm not against taking Castle this year. I'm just saying that the logic behind "Don't take Risacher because there are better forwards next year" is flawed and can be applied to the PG position as well. For me, I'm not letting anything re: next year's draft limit who I am choosing, by position, this year. If it's Risacher, then great...of it's Castle, then that's great too...
In fairness to Castle,the jones brothers have played a combined 852 games, and started 285 of them. Neither can really be considered anything other than a stopgap solution.
I agree that next year shouldn't factor into anything. No one knows who is actually going to be good next year.
However, getting superior defensive guards can be difficult. Often the top PGs in drafts are the Isaiah Collier types, ball-dominant, a skillset the Spurs don't need. Castle can play off-ball, his usage was low in college, and it's rare to find a plus defender. I ignore the "defense is for suckers" brigade here.
Risacher, then. I have very little doubt you can get a better wing at any time. Remember that this is a guy who was mocked in the teens before the season -- and then nearly everyone before him collapsed. He still should be in the teens. I say that in all honesty. Last year, he would have been drafted around the Gradey spot -- and Gradey is better.
Castle can do multiple things well and has many avenues to success. If Risacher's shooting doesn't translate - and I remind you that he shoots .700 from the line - he's done. He does nothing else. You just drafted a high lottery block of wood.
Worst case scenario: Atlanta takes Risacher, Washington falls in love with Castle, and Houston takes Sarr who falls into their lap. That would probably put the Spurs in a tough spot, provided they aren't fans of Dillingham as I believe to be the case.
Castle can guard the 1-3 and Sochan the 2-4 so that is a nice way to deal with teams with two scoring wings and or guards. Castle/Sochan also a nice counter our main obstacle, large PGs Doncic and SGA.
Agreed that if a nice PF is there at 35 that could be worth a shot. It’s a need we have to address in 25 otherwise.
I agree that Clingan dropping all the way to 9 even is the worst case we need to be thinking about. What we wouldn’t want is Sheppard AND Dilly. Though we most likely have C Williams and Knecht as bail out options still at 8.
Castle is firmly in my mix at #4. I've been high on him all year to varying degrees. He and Sheppard are neck and neck for me as 'possible' PG's on this level, albeit drastically different archetypes. Overall he's 4th or 5th on my Spurs Board for all the reasons you just listed. As for Risacher, we see that differently. I don't know if he'll be better than Gradey, but I see Gradey as a SG and Risacher as a combo forward (I also see Matas as a combo forward), so they are hard to directly compare.
I also don't think the Risacher vs Castle debate at 4 is really relevant because Risacher won't be there and Castle will. So if we're picking at 4 it's a race between Castle, Matas, and Sheppard for me.
i was interested in castle when i thought he'd be a SG/SF type. im much less interested in him as a point guard
There are currently 99 users browsing this thread. (30 members and 69 guests)
Posting Permissions
