Reply With Quote
I don’t, either.
Not to get thread off track though sorry - was just saying i agree with timvp that it’s not clear cut even with Risacher and it’s that logic which will shape what teams do including Sa and shapes strategy (the Holland upside swing example)
I don’t, either.
I haven't watched Ivey enough since college to know how he fits exactly, bit it's an intriguing idea. If we went Reed at 4, I'd probably go Buzelis, Knecht, Williams, or Dilly in that order at 5. I'd focus on replacing KJ.
There’s quite a few but my logic: you don’t have to love him in context of taking calculated low downside risks. If you’re good with castle or topic or other the guards Ivey is no more flawed than them but in this scenario Sa gets a guard to balance out roster before draft and still gets 2 top 5 picks to work with. All they have to give up is Keldon to do it and it resets Keldons money (which isn’t necessary but it does mean he can be replaced in FA or trade now easier)
I’m wondering if the original trade works with 8, and if the Spurs need to send 4 over instead? May not be enough for DET if they also have to cough up 5?
I like Castle (so im biased), and think he will be there at 4 or 5, so swapping 4 and 5 ends up being a distinction without much difference for us. But, for DET that difference might matter more.
Then the Spurs have 8 to take a huge swing on someone like Salaun etc.
I think Keldon is worth more than Ivey, so it wouldn't take 4. On Castle, I would take him if I traded for ivey. I'd just take Castle and call it a day if I preferred him over Ivey.
Agree. I’d rather keep Keldon if plan is to take castle. Ivey only makes sense so that you don’t have to take a flawed guard like castle and can take other risks or go shooting (Reed and Dill)
I don't know man, Ivey's basically a salary dump to me, so that's like paying Keldon to move up from 8 to 5 - seems like a pretty high price to pay. I totally see your point of view if you value someone like Holland or Buzelis a lot more than anyone you'd get at 8 and think that they're not going to last that long, but the difference between 5 and 8 isn't an entire tier to me at least, which is is what the difference would need to be for me to get rid of Keldon.
. Calling a player who needs to hit on ONE skill to be really good ‘flawed’ while thirsting over a player who lacks many skills, including said ‘flawed’ guard’s shooting shortcoming is a take, I guess.
I called Ivey flawed as well. Are you ok mentally?
Castle >>> Ivey.
Dilly >>> Ivey
Reed >>> Ivey
I think also that if you're really sold on Sheppard at 4, Castle is going to pair with him way better than Ivey. Defensively there's no question that Castle's the better fit next to Sheppard as Ivey is and always has been a very poor defender (in fact Purdue's defense in spite of having Ivey 2 years ago is one of the reasons why I'm optimistic about Edey as a defender at the next level), but even offensively I'm not sure that Ivey would be a better fit.
To be completely fair, Castle's downside offensively is a zero level scorer - currently he can't (and sometimes looks afraid to) shoot the 3, he's poor from midrange, and his rim percentages in the half court this year crumble against top 50 compe ion, which basically makes him Andre Jackson Jr. That being said, he has enough craft and his success in Hurley's system makes me think he has enough sense to find the gaps to get open and continue to move the ball. Ivey's someone who always struck me offensively as a guy who succeeded best as a primary initiator, but didn't quite have the requisite bball IQ and playmaking chops to really be one (consistently <1.5 AST:TO dating back to college until this year where he's at 1.6). He's also shooting < 50% from 2 right now and continues to shoot poorly from 3, so I think the drop-off is probably not as big as we might think between his median outcome and Castle's.
Maybe we're seeing different things, why do you think that Ivey can succeed as a small guard next to Sheppard?
I think Castle and Dilly would be the optimum draft. Dynamic offensive point guard who could juice our offense day 1 and a large guard who could defend up to 3 positions who could be a great secondary ball handler and is a broken jumper away from being a really good player.
I would prioritize Dilly at 4 though.
Because our system isn’t a Steve Nash PG system and I view Ivey and Reed as just guards overall and Ivey ability to handle ball well enough and get downhill fits well next to Reed.
There’s nothing stopping Sa from going Reed + Castle still and Sa cleaning house on Graham, Cedi, Branham and Blake. It’s not either or im just talking optimal.
Beyond that the point of my deal is that Ivey isn’t being traded for as a has to work guy or you’re in deep trouble. You still get your two picks this draft no different. Ivey simply shifts money and talent to Ivey from Keldon
In that context is low risk because at a min you reset Keldon money some and opens up plenty of cap space to help offset Ivey being cut for example. If Keldon busts (In theory) Sa would be totally fine right? And that’s with Keldon being a very good player on a very good deal
I see what you're saying, thanks for explaining. Ivey's interesting as a flyer for rim pressure, but personally I think that Keldon's value on his current contract can probably be used better in a larger trade down the road. I see the reasoning behind your trade though.
Absolutely. It’s not some home run and Im not clamoring over Ivey or dying on that hill; its just one scenario where I see a fit and possible realistic deal IF SA wanted to go that route (meaning get an upside/flawed guard, but do it via trade so they can free up the two picks elsewhere (and if they were for whatever reason looking for a reset on Keldon money which is not at all a given)
No such thing as a bonus. He doesn't have to average volume ppg (and won't have the usage/mpg to do so anyway), but he has to be able to space the floor adequately enough, like Jones Jr. is now doing for the Mavericks.
Notice he went from a bit player to a starter on a contender the second he made that transformation (unless this season proves an aberration).
Of course and I think he will provide scoring (at least in Keldon mode but you at least get defense plus better play making from Holland), but you dont need it to happen next year is kind of my point. It’s not a rush in that regard.
Comps for this #1 prospect: Middleton, Murphy
Eeeeeeewwwwwww
ivey is a young player not on the spurs. of course ex hates him
He’s not as good offensively as Dilly or Reed, but probably worse defensively. I don’t hate him, but he’s a year away from his extension. If you want that archetype, just draft Dilly or Reed. They’ll be cheaper longer for you to evaluate.ivey is a young player not on the spurs. of course ex hates him
It’s not that much of a difference on price and you get 2 years of still “cheap” Ivey before you are really forced on a decision. Point is, if Ivey was in this draft he would absolutely be in the same range as Castle, Reed etc….Hes not worse defensively than Dilly at all either.
But none of that matters. Point is, even if you hate Ivey, theres still reason to do the deal from a risk/reward perspective in a way that both allows maybe some more roster balance and allows you to approach draft in a position of strength. That doesnt preclude you from still going 2 guards either, but you dont have to now.
He’s really bad defensively. It’s the reason Monte cut his minutes his past season. And roster balance? We have a glut of guards, not very many forwards, and you want to trade a forward for a guard? Doesn’t seem like balancing the roster to me.
We have no guards that matter my friend….thats the point. I would trade Branham + Tre + Blake for Ivey right now without question.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
