Reply With Quote
PATFO was destroyed for not picking this kid. He is not even in the rotation.
He did played some serious D on CP3 on the last few possessions
PATFO was destroyed for not picking this kid. He is not even in the rotation.
PATFO was destroyed for kicking a pick 7 years down the road while having a severe lack of talent on the roster. Not because they didn't pick Dillingham.
I still think they should've picked another wing and gotten rid of a few scrubs.
Not that they have one, but you’d honestly rather have a near term Minny pick and swap than one at the edge of the horizon when this version of the TWolves is done? We have essentially six FRPs over the next 3 drafts. After that, there’s a dry spell until the 2030 and 20131 drafts, when we have ac ulated 2 swaps in 2030 and a swap and extra unprotected FRP in 20131.
At some point in the near future, we will lack the salary cap room and extra FRPs to ac ulate these types of picks, and we’ll have to ride with what we have for the remainder of Wemby’s career.
Imagine if the Spurs had ac ulated a nice stash of swaps and FRPs in 2004 and 2005 to keep Tim’s window open longer instead of having that dead playoff period from 2008 to 2012? Well, we have that for Wemby.
Honest answer? We can't know yet.
If one of the wings PATFO decided to pass on turns out to be a legit starter, then yeah, they ed up.
If noone develops, it was a good decision.
Obviously, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't pass on talent now while we're still a lottery roster.At some point in the near future, we will lack the salary cap room and extra FRPs to ac ulate these types of picks, and we’ll have to ride with what we have for the remainder of Wemby’s career.
Difference being that Tim had enough help from the start of his career. Wemby doesn't.Imagine if the Spurs had ac ulated a nice stash of swaps and FRPs in 2004 and 2005 to keep Tim’s window open longer instead of having that dead playoff period from 2008 to 2012? Well, we have that for Wemby.
Right now it doesn't look like we'll be a serious playoff threat before his fourth season.
Who, though?
Not saying it doesn't change but it would be Buzelis who isn't playing or Cody who has a long way to go.
And if you take that pick you likely have no Harrison Barnes and perhaps no Paul.
Again, time will tell but I don't think we'll ever really miss Buzelis or Cody Williams. Especially as much as Barnes will help.
Yeah, all those wing players are projects and weren't going to help right away.
Adding the veteran presences of Barnes and Paul, plus allowing Champagnie more time to develop (with minutes) is/was the better move. , Champagnie's ceiling is much lower but he's already a rotation piece and can help now unlike Williams and Buzelis.
I was intrigued by Dalton Knecht at 8. It was a reach for that position, but liked his athleticism, scoring, and composure. I saw that he had one really great game in preseason but haven't kept up with him since the season started.
The problem is that good wings are really difficult to find and we'll definitely need a wing that's at least an elite role player level.
There was a topic this summer where we listed all the possible targets and it's really slim pickings. Some trades and extensions happened after that and the situation is even worse.
We'll most likely have to draft that wing or trade for a player who develops way better than the expectations. That's why taking a swing on one of these wings wasn't such a bad idea.
Yeah, he's the one exception amongst the wings available.
I thought he'd be a good fit with his solid frame, above average athleticism, and multifaceted scoring ability, but there were huge questions about his defense and how much 'potential' he had left.
Lakers got a steal that a lot of teams - Spurs included - might regret passing on.
17 minutes, 7.7 pts .348 on 3s. Not bad, but nothing special for a specialist.
Tristan da Silva finally got minutes after Banchero's injury and did well in his first relevant game.
17/5/2 with 0 turnovers, 6/8 FG and 3/3 from deep.
He's 23 already, but could be a servicable 3-D wing in a few years.
Williams and Buzelis are huge projects like Blake Wesley was coming out of Notre Dame. Either one would be two or three years away from really contributing.
There will be a lot better wing (and PG) prospects at the top of the '25 board, while the Spurs could potentially have multiple bites at the apple (again).
If they don't acquire a high-end prospect (or two) at either spot, then I'll be pissed with everyone else that they shipped out the #8 pick.
I think Knecht is going to be pretty good at least, but he's not really a multi-faceted player. As others have said, he's not a defender, although I don't think he's terrible on that end.
It seems like the team is trying to get those multi-skill guys - dribble, initiate, make multiple reads, pass.
While Knecht may certainly top out higher, I don't think he's a different type than Julian Champagnie. I do think Knecht has more exceptional shooting ability. He can pop quickly and without much space, and is probably a better athlete. But they're both doing the same thing on the court, waiting to get the ball and standing on the three-point line. JC is a better defender and perhaps a better passer.
This was all part of the calculus, I'm sure. They mulled through the options, had plus opinions and minus, and maybe they did come down to Knecht (for example). They had put the #8 up for sale, though, knowing they weren't sold on any player (assuming #2 and #3 options at that spot, too), and then Minny came in with a deal that tipped things. It's not to say they didn't like who they might have selected.
In the end, Knecht to me is the same archetype as Julian. Maybe better in the long run, but to me spending a #8 draft pick to upgrade Julian a notch or two is expensive. Would we see Dalton Knecht as a long-term piece? No. That's not the player we really want as a starter.
Also, I fear Knecht is more of a volume scorer. Works best when getting many shots, and that's not what a really good team will want from him. Maybe he doesn't fit that Julian mold (corner shooter) at all.
I didn’t want Dilly but passing on Knecht and pushing the pick to the distant future was weird at best.
I like Castle but his shooting remains atrocious with no signs of improvement.
He's just a bad fit until he learns to shoot.
I also thought passing on Furphy in the 2nd made no sense.
In general I’m not loving our draft strategy unless we plan to hire a better shooting coach.
in hindsight they probably should've drafted Ryan Dunn. He's killing it on the Suns right now.
People would have ed, because he was a way worse NCAA shooter than Castle. What we should really be interested in is the Suns shooting coach.
it was not the suns shooting coach it was phil beckner who improved his shot.........suns sent him to beckner after the draft he worked with becker shooting 500 3s a day all summer........beckner is lillards shooting coach
Btw, the only rookie that's averaging double digit points right now is Jaylen Wells, #39 pick.
Grizzlies keep finding these prospects.
6'7, 21 years old.
38% from deep on 4.4 attempts, 25mpg.
The Grizzlies keep finding these guys because no one is healthy on that team,ever, and they have to play someone.
and their head coach while we're at it
It really blows my mind NBA players don't just chuck threes in their off time. Like if you can't shoot this is the difference between millions of dollars in raises, get to ing work (sochan)it was not the suns shooting coach it was phil beckner who improved his shot.........suns sent him to beckner after the draft he worked with becker shooting 500 3s a day all summer........beckner is lillards shooting coach
They do. What exactly do you think is going on here?
I’ve said this before, probably in this thread, but my biggest beef has been - and continues to be - that we just generally got a poor return on the trade. No one will ever be able to convince me that the 8th pick in ANY draft is only worth an unprotected pick in 7 years and an unprotected swap in 6 years. Assuming a completely random distribution of outcomes that far out in the future, there is only a 25% chance the pick will be as high or better than 8th, and only a 50% chance the swap conveys in the money. Yes, it was perceived (and early is very much proving) as a weak draft, but that still doesn’t make this a good ROI.
The logic behind punting the pick is generally fine, even if I agree with LeBowen that we should have taken a swing on some wing depth. I don’t agree with it, but it’s fine. Just get a better return for the pick.
Dillingham is irrelevant to that discussion, and it’s worth continuing to immediately discount anyone who brings him in up in reference to this trade.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
