Reply With Quote
Why would we want Lonzo Ball?
My ideal off season is to trade for draft picks in this draft so Wemby gm can be completely at work and no first me ego nba player is on the walk of a well costructed nba team with future championship goal.
My wiew is that ideal trade partners could be Portland (because they probably want badly to get rid of DAY and want at the same time some more options in the 2025 draft than this one) and Chicago (because they probably prefer too the 2025 draft, they are not going to tank so they're at big risk of losing 2025 draft choice and have injured player Ball to trade).
So first trade is :
SA gets DAY, 7th and 14th draft picks in 2024 draft Portland gets KJ, Collins, Charlotte pick in 2025 (lottery protected), 2024 SA end LAK second rounders
second trade is
SA gets Lonzo Ball 2024 Chi Pick (number 11) Chicago gets Devonte Graham, (+ Malaki Braham only if necessary), 2025 Chicago pick (top 10 protected)
This way we could end with picks 4, 7, 8, 11 and 14.
players remaining before drafting
x Vassell x Wemby x
Tre Jones (Graham) Champagne Sochan Barlow
Ball (cut?) x Wesley (or x) Cissoko x DAY (cut?) x
Considering the high chance of cutting one or both Ball and DAY, we remain with high chance to full the 5/6 xes with picks or free agents (imho for example Osman did well and could be resigned to a good price)
potential targets with picks
4) Castle/Risacher/Sheppard
7) Castle/Risacher/Sheppard/Salaun/Buzelis/C. Williams/Knecht
8) Edey
11) Salaun/Buzelis/C. Williams/ Knecht/Carter/Da Silva/ Missi
14) draft guard forward or big man depending of the previous choices; could be available (order from guards to forwards to big men) Carter, Dillingham, Topic, Knecht, Walter, Salaun, Buzelis, C. Williams, Da Silva, Missi, Kl Ware etc etc
Considering the high amount of variables depending who we're allowed to draft, this could be a possible outcome:
Castle/Sheppard Vassell Risacher/Buzelis Wemby Edey
TreJones Graham Salaun Sochan DAY (Barlow)
Ball/Wesley Cissoko Champagnie Osman Barlow (DAY)
That would be ideal imho because:
1)We preserve most of our draft choices for future drafts (expecially ours and Atlanta ones)
2)We can try multiple ways of playing (from really mall to really big)
3)We preserve the chance to play Wemby whenever (he will be tired after olimpic games and should be treted cautiously), and wherever Pop and he prefers and the same for Pop to choose depending by the situations to play him as a (small or big) forward or center
4)We take Ball and DAY contracts respectively for one and two years but we can easily afford that and, in case thinghs go really wrong, cut them whenever we prefer; in case thinghs go well or extremely well, play them and see what they can give and if they're compatible with the team's future (they both are not extremely old and are both veterans with some experience)
5) The team so builded is from the start a more than decent team, just needing some playing time and experience (a lot of promising rookies) but with obvious strenghts (Big men Wemby and Edey together are gonna be a nightmare for opposing defensive teams) and possible improvements on defense and playmaking (see Castle/Sheppard and possibly Risacher/Sheppard or Castle/Risacher or Castle/Buzelis or Sheppard/Buzelis or Castle(Sheppard)/Williams combos) and possibly also on outside shooting (possible Sheppard/Risacher or Williams combo).
Why would we want Lonzo Ball?
only because, in my wiew, we want Chicago 2024 draft pick...then if Ball solves his injury problems and can play again (very very very difficult it happens, so the decision from Chicago to get rid of him and his 2024 salary) he could become a good part of the team or a treadable piece...
Is the price worth it though? What is his contract situation?
Its one year left. Player option (he will obviously take it) at 21 millions...
DAY has 2 years at more than 30 millions x year...
In both situations, in my wiew, the price is high but we do it because of the draft picks....the picks are the real price Portland and Chicago have to pay and if the players we can receive by these picks are, for our FO (and Wemby), worth to be drafted in a perspective to be good pieces for a contending team in a not so distant future (two to five years, considering also the future picks we're gonna draft in 2025, 2026, 2027, 2028 etc...till 2030), then the price to pay is more than right...
Brother, you want to add up to FIVE (!!) rookies to develop to the youngest roster of the league?
It's just not realistic, even if they're more talented they'll also discover NBA and the pro life etc you need a balance in the roster and PATFO know they need to add experience.
it depends what's your goal for next season...do you really want to be a for sure playoff team in the year after the olimpics (with Wemby probably going all in till the finals) in a draft like 2025 where a lot of lottery talent is available?
Do you really want some supposedly en led veteran in the first year of his coming to Spurs become a voice lauder than Wemby's one?
Imho next 2 years will be the really last "rebuilding ones" and once you've obtained the sufficient young talent then the next step (in 2025) will be adding the necessary veterans ... that will be much more happy to come in a so strongly builded team.
The rebuilding started last season, 4-5 rookies would have a step back effect. I expect the team to improve. Not putting any specific target. I'm sure Wemby and other players do to.
It's going to be very difficult to tank with Wemby's defensive impact and Pop said multiple times that the absence of veterans was due to ONE season of observation.
I'm not even talking about what I think should be done, I'm saying it doesn't match PATFO's narrative and supposed timeline
I see the Spurs adding a few bricks to the built, a couple rookies to dev + a cple new players with more exp (depending on opportunities) to integrate.
Then you have guys like Champagnie and Brahman who are cheap enough to be worth the patience one more season to see if they show real long term potential (again, not my pov, putting myself in PATFO's shoes/logic)
I just don't see it and would be very surprised. If it was 25' type of quality draft why not, but an average one...
I understand your pov and in fact my reasoning was about the comparison between the 2 drafts....what is already being said, is that our FO values this draft more than others FO....and imho they have good reasons to to so, because there are imho not only there are a lot of decent prospects with a very good complementary skills, character and behavior bit also a lot of french guys.
You also have to consider that next year (draft 2025) we could anyway benefcit of 4 first round picks (our, Atlanta, Chicago and Charlotte) presumably not higher than the ones we have in my perspective and possibly not that better than the ones you can get with the picks I "buyed" using some of the 2025 picks (the less valueable Chicago top 10 protected and Charlotte lottery protected).
So imho the "process" of adding draft picks should come in a striong way this year and the next one go one with the cahnce to decide to improve via draft (quality) or trades (veterans) or free agency (veterans)...
As you can see by the amount of draft picks we already have in next 2/3 years, the rebuilding process via draft is in any case in full development...so I just say the sooner the better and in 2024 we could gain not only very good quan y but possibly quality too (5 first rounds, total 5 players, instead of 2 first and 2 seconds, total four player that in any case we already have)...
Maybe, we'll see. It's tough to read tbh
This summer is so interesting just to see more clearly what are PATFO's timeline and strategy depending on their draft choices and moves on the market.
Right now the gap between scenarios among Spurs fans and observers is absurd/hillarious
Somehow Zaccharie Risacher drops to 4th and Stephon Castle drops to 8th. We don't do anything else this off season.
Summer '25, We get lucky with ping pong balls again... not the top pick, but 2 picks high enough to draft Nolan Traore and Ace Bailey. We then get Lauri Markkanen in a sign and trade.
Traore / Castle
Vassell /
Ace / Risacher
Markkanen / Sochan
Wemby
Then we spend the next dozen years drafting at #30
Another scenario that is a little different.
Draft Night Trade:
Spurs send #8, #35, Zach Collins, and the best of SA/ATL27
Jazz send: Lauri Markkanen and #29
Spurs Draft:
#4 Reed Sheppard
#29 Tyler Smith
Free Agency: Spurs sign Malik Monk
Off-season Trade:
Spurs Send: Devin Vassell, salary filler
Cleveland Send: Darius Garland
Spurs line next season:
Garland/Tre/Wesley
Monk/Sheppard/Branham
Markkanen/Johnson/Champ/Sissoko
Sochan/Tyler Smith
Wemby/Bassey/Mamu
Rationale:
With Garland and Lauri, Vassell becomes less important and I’m not super jazzed about having $29MM tied up in our 4th option. From Cleveland’s POV, draft capital is less important than a win-now player. Vassell would be a better fit next to Mitc , so they do the straight up swap.
Reed Sheppard gives us a great shooting option off the bench and between he, Garland, Monk and Tre you have good ball handling locked up at the guard position. I am a little concerned about the lack of size at Guard though, and it could create some defensive issues.
Tyler Smith is a true stretch four and I would consider this a steal at 29.
Im still keeping an eye on Spurs and Detroit dealing. Same with Spurs and CHA….theres a lot of scenarios where SA moving up from 8 or acquiring an extra pick outright in addition to 4+8 makes sense to me.
^ I’m still not understanding the idea of overpaying now for Lauri. Unlike Young, Murray, and Garland, he is not cost controlled. I dont want the player but assuming I did, Utah’s position will only weaken as the year goes on. Just wait or make a play when he’s an UFA next summer.
Definitely think trading up from 8 to 5 or 6 are in play. If ZR and Castle are somehow both still there at 4, I think you need a trade with DET to get the other.
His value would be lower, but as it usually goes, more teams panic and overpay at the deadline.
No way Ainge allows him to become UFA.
Of course it's way too early to know who will have capspace next offseason, but my only thought is that Ainge get to the deadline and decide he's better off being S&T facilitator when Lauri is a UFA than taking whatever offers he has in front of him (though I do agree with you that this is highly unlikely - but I could see a scenario where it happens).
One benefit I see to acquiring Lauri now (or at the deadline), CGD is then you can go over the cap to resign him next offseason, as opposed to having to use available cap space (I think this is true - but if I'm wrong hopefully one of our cap experts could chime in).
Do you think there would be a reason for the Spurs to trade #4 to one of those teams in return for their first and a minor asset?
I could see it for sure. I dont think it would be that much so it may not be worth it, but if SA likes some non-traditional guys early (Cody Williams I could see, Carter etc…) then it would make sense for SA to move back a spot or two if they can get a heavily protected future first or something.
With the leadership changes in DET, I wonder if something like 4 + Keldon for 5 + Ivey could be in play? I'd definitely say this is a little bit of wishful thinking on my part, but you never know when there is a major change in philosophy. Maybe DET like Castle to pair next to Cade and just wants to move off Ivey while adding some SF depth behind Ausar.
DET rotation could look like this:
Cade/Sasser
Castle/Grimes
Ausar/Keldon
Stewart/Fontecchio
Duren/Wiseman
Still pretty pathetic but at least it would be more rounded and have a defensive iden y? Maybe include 35 to DET, since they don't have their own #31.
We’re not getting Lauri for the 8 and a bad contract. Maybe the 4 & 8 straight up for Lauri but even that feels light given the awfulness of this years draft.
Then it's a good thing no one proposed that.
Misread your post. Jazz might do that deal without Zollins and with the 4 instead of the 8.
Let's look at the Pascal Siakam trade as a gauge of Lauri's value.
Siakam, like Lauri, was on an expiring that could not/cannot be extended by the acquiring team, meaning the acquiring team runs the risk of losing the acquired player via UFA. Both players will likely command $40MM/yr plus on their new deals.
Siakam got two 2024 picks (IND's own and the worst of Jazz/Clippers/Rockets/Thunder) and IND's 2026 protected 1-4 in 2026 (also protected 1-4 in 2027, then it becomes seconds). The Raptors also got some players that they don't really care about (with Bruce Brown on the hook for $23MM for another season).
At the time of the trade, Indiana was in the playoff picture and their pick could reasonably be expected to be somewhere around 20 or later (it finished #19). The Clippers and Thunder were some of the better teams in the league, so that pick would reasonably expected to be in the late 20s (it finished #29*).
What I'm proposing is actually roughly equivalent to the Siakam trade. The pick value I'm proposing is better (8 is better than 19 more than 29 is better than 35, and UTA would get fully unprotected of two teams, as opposed to just a Top4 protected of IND). This offsets the extra year half-season of negative Collins value versus Bruce Brown.
If we use the Siakam trade as a guide, 8 + 35 + Best of SA/ATL27 + Collins is about proper value (and I'd do it in a heart beat).
*Note, #29 later got sent from TOR to UTA along with Kira Lewis and Otto Porter for Kelly Olynyk and Ochai Agbaji. I never understood that trade. TOR seems to love spending late FRP's on marginally useful bigs.
Pascal is three years older than Lauri, made twice as much money in the final year of his deal (18M versus 36M) and Lauri is a significantly better defender. Spurs have to beat that deal by fair amount all things considered.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
