Reply With Quote
How would it be better to ignore your roster when drafting? When the Spurs were winning trophies with Duncan and Robinson they drafted a ton of wings and guards. 5's not so much.
This is where I'm at atm. This draft looks BPA all the way, too risky to choose need over value. I know everyone want's a point guard bad, but there is no guarantee any of these guys actually turn into true Point Guards. Take the players that have strong traits that are most likely to give you something out of the gate and will translate to the NBA floor. I feel like their are some real land mines out there with players that aren't going to amount to much of anything in this draft. Just have to navigate this one as the names roll out on the board.
Last edited by ulosturedge; 06-18-2024 at 05:42 PM.
How would it be better to ignore your roster when drafting? When the Spurs were winning trophies with Duncan and Robinson they drafted a ton of wings and guards. 5's not so much.
Gonna be weird drafting Clingan at 4, but OK.
How you read what I said and got that, I don't know. My overall point is that the Spurs should be drafting assuming that 4 and 8 will be used on guys who will be in the rotation next year, so discussing their fit matters. Specifically in this post, it was that approaching free agency without factoring in the draft picks could put the team in a position where it's overstocking some positions while leaving the others with no real compe ion for the below-average players currently in the rotation. The spirit of our points align.
However, specifically when talking about the draft at this stage in the team's development, no position is off limits. The team is too fluid, and NBA positions are too flexible to preclude any prospect. They don't need to worry about the current roster when drafting, because anyone they draft has a path to minutes if they're good enough. It's after the draft when the team is using its final flexibility that it has to make sure it's putting the right pieces to make a decent roster for this season.
Also, the Spurs drafted plenty of bigs with Duncan. It might have been their most drafted position.
Why is that weird? I am all for drafting Clingan at #4 to be honest. I know it's an unpopular opinion around here, but I feel like he and Wemby can be on the floor together as well he could play as a good backup Center. The only guard I would take over Clingan at #4 would be Sheppard or possibly Castle. But I would risk taking Clingan at #4(if it played out that way) and end up with Carter, Topic, or Dillingham at #8. Maybe Clingan is "their guy" as DPG would put it and they are willing to take a chance at what guard they have left to choose from at #8.
The draft is BPA.
You wrote that.
Wait, are you just reading the first line from every post and judging everything from that?
No, You wrote about free agency and then claimed the Spurs drafted bigs the most of any position group.
BPA still means that you ignore roster and its needs and just pick the highest grade player regardless of position.
The Spurs drafted Mahinmi and Spliitter after Robinson retired. Them drafting bigs most during the dynasty is a good joke.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_An..._draft_history
Could be.
Will be weird if that's the case IMO. I don't feel the Spurs feel any real immediacy to make huge gains with players from this draft. Perceived upside goes into the equation more than current BPA status in a draft like this.
Non lottery picks of the past decade include (Bruce) Brown and Mann.
It’s funny, because Castle is one of the more complete players in the draft, lacking pretty much only shooting, and you’re worried about his bust potential while advocating for Holland, who has one of the highest bust potentials in this draft.
Smart started out as a flat BAD 3 point shooter. I think he’s a pretty good floor comp. Physical, good defender, point guard-ish.
Just to clarify, you’re saying that Stephon Castle is guaranteed to be as good or better as 1 time dpoy, multi time all defense level Marcus smart at the next level?
If he prevents the Spurs from drafting Bustzelis or Salaun, then pull the trigger yesterday. Anything to avoid those 2 losers is a net-positive, idgaf if its at 4 or 8. Just avoid those two pieces of who will certainly bust.
I like Castle a lot, but he just isn't the hard-nosed physical specimen that Smart is.
Truth. Tbh
If Williams is the pick at 4, I will hate-watch the presser where Wright tries to justify the pick with whoever else was still on the board. Sarr, Sheppard, Risacher, Castle...not sure how Williams is objectively better than any of those guys.
I'm starting to think this draft might be better than we think, and it just seems so bad because we've all overanalyzed it to death.
Why do I think this? Because the more draft threads I read, the more depressed I become about this draft.
First-rounders (that the Spurs drafted for themselves and not sold to another team) during Duncan's career:
PG: 4 (Parker, Udrih, Hill, Joseph)
SG: 1 (Anderson(
SF: 2 (Leonard, Anderson) -- I'm counting Leonard as a drafted player because I don't care he was technically traded
PF: 1 (Jean-Charles)
C: 3 (Mahinmi, Splitter, Miluntinov)
So there definitely seems to be some issues reading what I wrote.
This is ignoring guys like Scola (thread) and Javtokas, Blair and Richards who were also second-rounders drafted during this time because I am not trying to add every pick ever. Blair was the top pick in his draft to whom the Spurs gave a contract equivalent to a first-rounder. Scola and Javtokas were international prospects held in high regard but could be had cheaply back in the day. Anyways, sorry that PG technically beat center out. The Spurs 100 percent never stopped drafting that position despite having David and Tim. You suggested that they went with other players when those two were on the roster together but leave out they only made one first-round selection during that stretch, which was Tony. They sold every other pick. it, let's look at all the selections from that era:
PG: 1 (Parker)
SG: 2 (Dial, Ginobili)
"Forward": 3 (Carrawell, Hightower, Bracey)
PF: 1 (Scola)
Center: 1 (Javtokas)
So the most frequently draft position was "forward" which is in quotes because it was trio of players who literally never played in the NBA. There really doesn't seem to be a skew away from bigs at that time either.
Regardless, Deeps and I were talking about this draft, and in multiple responses to you I brought up this draft. So you turning this into some idea that I said fit and roster NEVER EVER come into play doesn't make sense. The Spurs lacking talent and having so many open positions do not need to worry about the position. If they draft two PGs and sign another guard this year, and everyone looks good, then it would be much more questionable for them to again target a PG next year. Exceptions could be made, but it would have to be an exception rather than the standard. I'm not sure anyone was arguing that hypothetical.
All that said, because basketball is a sport where backups do play and positional designations are fluid, and because the reality of a salary cap means you have to let players go, there's room for most teams to draft BPA most of the time. Vet teams can draft for the future, and young teams can draft for present compe ion. The Spurs for years didn't take the draft seriously (which is why they had so few first-rounders for the first 10 or so seasons of Tim's career). Teams don't remain good for 20 years if they don't have a pipeline of talent. They hit a rough patch at the turn of last decade because they had no youth and too many "core" role-players who weren't able to get it done anymore. In the new NBA where players don't take less to stay together, that crunch will hit sooner than it did back then. The team should constantly be looking to backfill its talent with all the picks it has.
tl;dr:
1) The Spurs did draft a lot of centers -- the second most of any position -- during Tim's career.
2) There are scenarios where teams should factor their roster needs into their draft board
3) This draft is not one of those scenarios
4) That we were talking about this draft was apparent in the discussion
5) Basketball is a sport where roster composition matters least in terms of constraining BPA
6) The Spurs should go for BPA as often as possible
The Spurs drafted 36 players from 1997 to 2014 alone. Try again.
I already pointed out that they started drafting bigs after Robisnon retired and a need was created.
You then go into listing things with no reasoning behind it. Football and it's attrition leads to much much more overturn, for example. You claim basketball's turnover because of a cap makes them most suited for BPA. It's laughable.
You write a whole lot and say very little that is meaningful.
Because you seem to not read past the first sentence and then roll your eyes when the questions you ask were already answered in the rest of the post.
The Spurs drafted 11 first-rounders from Tim's second year through his final year. If you want to include Tim's year, then it's 12. Tim retired in 2016, though, so cutting it off in 2014 doesn't make sense. I can only imagine you did so because the Spurs drafted two centers that year. But they knew Tim was leaving soon, so it would've made sense even if they did like you said and avoided drafting centers. I am not cutting that data to be more favorable to me. I am adding in a guy like Leonard who isn't on that list and avoiding players like Leon Smith who is.
I pointed out specifically that they drafted a PF and center before Robinson retired. That was the point of the second list whose reasoning was apparently too obscure. I would be fine if you discounted them second-rounders, but you then pretended like the Spurs' second-rounders should matter with the "36 picks" (which is already misleading, because those picks include selections the Spurs sold to other teams and thus didn't make with any roster considerations in mind). As I pointed out, the Spurs in the Duncan/Robinson era did draft bigs, which makes sense considering Robinson's age and health issues. It simply isn't correct to say they didn't.I already pointed out that they started drafting bigs after Robisnon retired and a need was created.
First, yes the NFL has places for back-ups of a lot of positions to play. A number of positions rotate, depending on the team. The Ravens rotated their offensive tackles last year, for example, but kept their ILBs in basically every snap. There are also sub packages and special teams which create a whole different dynamic where depth players will often not be the guys who could fill in the best for the starters but those who can play those auxiliary roles better. The entire way BPA relates to the sport is different.Football and it's attrition leads to much much more overturn, for example.
For example, you wouldn't draft a QB in the first every year if you had a starter in his prime, because only one can play at a time. You focus on keeping the starter healthy, try to develop backups picked later in the draft, maybe have a vet free agent and then don't draft another high until that starter leaves or retires. So certain positions can't really fit into the BPA frame work much of the time, while some (skill positions, CBs, d-lineman, sometimes linebackers) can fit there the majority of the time.
I didn't say "most suited", nor did I compare it to any other sport as terms of how well BPA applies. That is your insertion to try to make your point easier to defend. That said, basketball is much closer to the rotating NFL positions than QBs. Backups play, even if everyone stays healthy. Not only is there an opportunity for back-ups to play, but a team is incentivized to have the best backups they can, because their quality has a large effect on the game. In contrast, a lot of NFL teams will cheap out on backups to every-down positions because of the hard cap and lack of max contracts. Money spent on guys who won't see the field is money that can't be spent on guys who will.You claim basketball's turnover because of a cap makes them most suited for BPA.
The point I think you're addressing but misunderstanding is me saying that the modern NBA has resulted in teams spending more of their salary on max players and are unable to keep a Spurs-style core together. Stars no longer try to make the numbers work to stay together. Look at the Warriors and Celtics as examples. Unless a team is willing to pay those tax bills (which is even harder under the new CBA), they're going to have to be able to replace guys. Having players who already have development time on long-term contracts helps with that. For example, the Spurs could draft KJ Simpson or Ajay Johnson at 35 to get the system for year before letting Tre Jones walk. That's with me assuming the team will draft a PG with 4 or 8 and with me advocating signing a combo-guard in free agency. , I'd argue that point of draft players with the hopes they'll rise through the rotation as they develop was the main discussion point between Deeps and me.
So I don't know if this is just a troll account. You have so few posts over almost over a decade but decided to grace me with a rare handful. It's a gray handle named after a player like a lot of the classic alts. If you're just a person getting back into posting, hopefully I've made my points better now. If you're alt having fun, I guess I hope you learned something. I am not the most informative poster on this site. But these aren't empty words.Try again.
TLDR.
I will avoid the run on paragraphs and redundancy.
You said first rounders, then you cherry picked second rounders like Scola. You obviously discounted all the draft and stash guys that didn't work out as if that doesn't speak to their draft philosophy. You are all over the place within your word salads.
Taken at face value though, you conclude the top 2 drafted positions to be C and wing. Duncan, Manu, and Parker played G and PF. They are drafting the spots where there are not entrenched starters.
Basketball as a lower injury rate than football, soccer, and hockey. Players play longer and better players play longer than that. IOW, there is much more certainty to plan and you do not need to hedge as much with BPA in case of careers ending unexpectedly.
All that said, because basketball is a sport where backups do play and positional designations are fluid, and because the reality of a salary cap means you have to let players go, there's room for most teams to draft BPA most of the time.
all professional leagues have caps. Of course the NBA does not have a hard cap like some leagues.
The fact of the matter basketball as a sport is better suited for planning and keeping teams together than all others than baseball with their 8+ years of price control on all players.
Picking a 5, with the best C prospect since Jabbar, is stupid.
Sometimes, I feel like timvp is a secret Spurs agent writing all these articles to throw the scent off their real target, Matas Buzelis.
Williams will workout for every team including Atlanta in the top 10 except for houston according to ESPN.
Why would you brag about that? Are you one of those people that thinks not understanding something is a dunk on someone else?
I did both first rounders and in a separate list talked about every player drafted during the Duncan/Robinson era. But whether we're talking about 40 percent of 25 percent, there was never an avoidance of bigs.You said first rounders, then you cherry picked second rounders like Scola. You obviously discounted all the draft and stash guys that didn't work out as if that doesn't speak to their draft philosophy. You are all over the place within your word salads.
You're applying a new designation to an older philosophy. Small-forwards and shooting-guards didn't used to be interchangeable, so the concept of drafting "wings", would've made less sense in the earlier parts of the Duncan's career. Regardless, you're mixing up your lists. They drafted three SG/SFs with first-rounders compared to three centers and four point-guards. They weren't drafting with Tony or especially Manu in mind during the Twin Towers era. They were too new and not established, hence why the Spurs immediately tried to sign Jason Kidd in 2003. The "forwards" who were drafted actually played PF in Europe. They weren't draft-and-stashes in the way Scola or Hanga was. They were as far as I can remember Americans who went over ala Thomas and Denmon. They weren't avoiding those positions then and definitely didn't avoid those positions in the Big Three era. Manu was usually a bench player during that time, so they obviously had a starting position open. They filled that position with guys like Barry and struggled for years to figure it out until Danny Green took the spot in 2011.Taken at face value though, you conclude the top 2 drafted positions to be C and wing.
Football has a much larger number of incoming players to compensate. Moreover, you seem to be stuck on this idea that backups exist to replace starters, but that's not how it works in the NBA. Backups will play even if the starter is in perfect health. It's like how Danny Green and Manu Ginobili were both valuable and eventually well paid despite both being shooting-guards. You don't typically see starting QBs and their backups both being paid mid-sized and above contracts, because only one is supposed to play. That's sort of why I've never been comparing football to basketball and didn't suggest I was. They're different sports and relate to BPA differently. Football is more restrictive in some ways and less in other ways.Basketball as a lower injury rate than football, soccer, and hockey. Players play longer and better players play longer than that. IOW, there is much more certainty to plan and you do not need to hedge as much with BPA in case of careers ending unexpectedly.
Baseball doesn't have a cap, actually. It just has a luxury tax.all professional leagues have caps. Of course the NBA does not have a hard cap like some leagues.
Have you ever actually looked into the rate of movement for the NBA beyond what you "reckon to be the case"? Ignoring that the new CBA is specifically designed to make keeping teams together harder, I doubt you'll see many 10-man rotations that have stayed together multiple years. The Spurs keeping Parker, Green, Leonard, Duncan, Splitter, Mills, Ginobili and Diaw together from 2011 to 2015 is amazing, and even that's just eight guys with backup PFs and SFs changing. Two years before that window, only the Big Three were on the roster, and two years after Duncan, Splitter and Diaw were all gone. That was with the three stars constantly giving up money to keep things together. Thinking NBA continuity is easy is just wrong, regardless of if it's harder in other sports. There's almost always room for players to break through rotations.The fact of the matter basketball as a sport is better suited for planning and keeping teams together than all others than baseball with their 8+ years of price control on all players.
As mentioned before, there's a 20-24 MPG role for a backup center of sufficient quality. That's worth a first-round pick, even ignoring that the Spurs need good trade pieces anyway and shouldn't pass up on talent that can become those pieces.Picking a 5, with the best C prospect since Jabbar, is stupid.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
