Spurs Select Rob Dillingham 8th Overall in the 2024 NBA Draft

[scott]

I’ll also add that punting on the #8 pick seems inconsistent with the “taking it slow” strategy.

As Paco points out above, these wing prospects (like the majority of draft prospects these days) will take time to develop… now, when winning apparently is not the priority, is the time to do that development. Punting would have made sense if we were contenders who didn’t want to have the distraction of developing young players while trying to win (though that is also a questionable thing to be worried about, as OKC is proving that you can walk and chew gum simultaneously)

[Mr. Body]

I’ll also add that punting on the #8 pick seems inconsistent with the “taking it slow” strategy.

As Paco points out above, these wing prospects (like the majority of draft prospects these days) will take time to develop… now, when winning apparently is not the priority, is the time to do that development. Punting would have made sense if we were contenders who didn’t want to have the distraction of developing young players while trying to win (though that is also a questionable thing to be worried about, as OKC is proving that you can walk and chew gum simultaneously)

I mean, that kind of repeats the problem of the nebulous angelic player rather than having to actually pick one. Taking random nebulous angelic player would be great, but those didn't exist in the draft. What we had instead were Buzelis, Cody Williams, etc., and they did not think those players tipped the choice in their direction.

I also think the Spurs had Chris Paul in mind from the start and wanted to use the space to try to absorb his pre-GSW cut salary (obviously they signed him instead after absorbing Harrison Barnes). The team already has too many young players, things will shake out this year. I don't think anyone will lose any sleep in three years that they didn't take one of these wings this year. They'd just have to replace them/draft over them. In my mind Buzelis/Williams/etc. is really the same player they got with Branham and Wesley in the 20s in a better draft.

[exstatic]

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.

Are those numbers for any old random team? Because in 35 years, Minnesota has been historically bad at a .411 win percentage. In comparison, Sacramento as been a fairly sad sack franchise since moving to Cali, with a few bright years at the turn of the millennium. Recently, they endured a 16 consecutive year playoff drought. Their win percentage in Sacramento is still better than Minny at .428.

[scott]

Are those numbers for any old random team? Because in 35 years, Minnesota has been historically bad at a .411 win percentage. In comparison, Sacramento as been a fairly sad sack franchise since moving to Cali, with a few bright years at the turn of the millennium. Recently, they endured a 16 consecutive year playoff drought. Their win percentage in Sacramento is still better than Minny at .428.

Yes, completely random distribution. I’d caution against putting too much stock in historical performance to predict future results. After all, the Spurs are the winningest team in league history and had only missed the NBA playoffs four times from 1976-2019. Now we’re looking like we might miss them for the 6th straight year.

[exstatic]

Yes, completely random distribution. I’d caution against putting too much stock in historical performance to predict future results. After all, the Spurs are the winningest team in league history and had only missed the NBA playoffs four times from 1976-2019. Now we’re looking like we might miss them for the 6th straight year.

The thing is, other than Garnett, no one stays there. Edward’s contract is up in 29, and Gobert and Conley will be dead by then. I don’t see them being able to avoid a major rebuild. Even if they get a haul for Ant, those are picks, and we’re living in real time seeing how long those take to develop.

[Mr. Body]

It was a weird trade, sure. But if you simply don't think any of the players available are worth the #8 pick, then trading out is the right move. Iirc, the Spurs put the pick up for sale the day or two before the draft. They'd done their diligence and determined future assets were better.

There are two different takes here:

1. Taking anyone was better than not. This argument has the advantage of claiming, if any player shows out in the future, that this is the player we should have taken. It sidesteps the need to take a stand and say which player should have been picked.

2. Going through and evaluating the players who were considered available at that range. Real, actual players, one of which must be picked. And imo there is no player at that point that seems worth the pick.

So, if we're angry that the pick wasn't used, we have to say which player they should have taken.

[Mr. Body]

And again, trading the pick meant not only receiving future assets but going for Chris Paul. Or using the space in a market where it's been very valuable. This proved to be the case - they got Harrison Barnes for free.

They weren't seeing it simply as moving the pick, but using the cap hold for potentially much better uses. I'll warrant that Harrison Barnes in this year and next may be more valuable than Mattas Buzelis ever will be.

[scott]

The thing is, other than Garnett, no one stays there. Edward’s contract is up in 29, and Gobert and Conley will be dead by then. I don’t see them being able to avoid a major rebuild. Even if they get a haul for Ant, those are picks, and we’re living in real time seeing how long those take to develop.

Other than Garnett, who have they had that’s been worth worrying about staying? Seems like they’re about 1 for 1, which is sad for them

I’d also not read too much into that history of retaining star players predicting the future of keeping star players either. After all, the last star player the Spurs had forced his way out after all the others being career Spurs (we’re going to ignore that CHA year for Tony, like it never happened… he was already passed his expiration at that point anyway). The future is unpredictable - and betting on far out outcomes is a great way to lose all your chips unless the payouts are appropriately structured. An even money payout on far future outcomes is a sucker bet, from a purely probabilistic perspective.

There was a previous thread where someone posted a great article about how at a certain future time interval, NBA outcomes essentially become random. I might have it bookmarked somewhere, I might look later.

Bottom line - the current odds of the 2031 pick being better or equal to #8 are low. It’s a coin flip whether or not the swap finishes in the money. This is just math.

[ambchang]

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.

I was actually thinking the opposite. Getting a 1st round pick and a swap for filling ham, buzelis, c Williams or Ron holland is an amazing haul. You trade any of those players now and you’d be lucky getting a lightly protected pick in the future, let alone a swap.

[scott]

I was actually thinking the opposite. Getting a 1st round pick and a swap for filling ham, buzelis, c Williams or Ron holland is an amazing haul. You trade any of those players now and you’d be lucky getting a lightly protected pick in the future, let alone a swap.

This statement is generally true of most late lottery or worse picks who are 10 games, or even one full season, into their rookie campaigns. In that case, you should just never draft and keep trading the pick for future picks until you get lucky and one turns into a Top 5 pick.

[ambchang]

This statement is generally true of most late lottery or worse picks who are 10 games, or even one full season, into their rookie campaigns. In that case, you should just never draft and keep trading the pick for future picks until you get lucky and one turns into a Top 5 pick.

Depending what you can get trading that away. I was livid the spurs traded away the pick, but the more I think about it the less angry I got. Now I’m actually thinking it’s a good trade.

[spursparker9]

Finally some play time. He looks better than Tre Jones already.

[CGD]

The only bad news that that he was savagely hunted on the other end. Not sure how much he gave right back.

[Obstructed_View]

Finally some play time. He looks better than Tre Jones already.

And Blake Wesley and Malaki Branham.

[Ice009]

I still don't get giving up that pick. There was still players worth picking at that spot. What if both Spurs picks next year are lower than 8th? Would it have been worth it giving it up?

[LeBowen]

I still don't get giving up that pick. There was still players worth picking at that spot. What if both Spurs picks next year are lower than 8th? Would it have been worth it giving it up?

Which players? Spurs weren't going to draft two rookie point guards and we weren't spending a #8 on a backup big.
Knect is looking good, but he's just a shooter. Can't playmake, horrible defense and he's actually older than Champagnie.

[Obstructed_View]

Which players? Spurs weren't going to draft two rookie point guards and we weren't spending a #8 on a backup big.
Knect is looking good, but he's just a shooter. Can't playmake, horrible defense and he's actually older than Champagnie.

Why? Dillingham and McCain already look better than Wesley or Branham, and Knecht would have been the perfect pick if you were worried about age. Jones sucks but he's missed time so he gets a bit of a pass.

[LeBowen]

Dillingham and McCain already look better than Wesley or Branham. Jones sucks but he's missed time so he gets a bit of a pass.

Wesley and Branham won't be in rotation when everyone gets healthy.
The plan was obviously to draft Castle and get the best possible mentor for him.
Tre as a stable backup. He had an injury and I don't really rate him, but it seems that PATFO is done with small guards and they want to build the best defensive team in the league.

[Obstructed_View]

Wesley and Branham won't be in rotation when everyone gets healthy.
The plan was obviously to draft Castle and get the best possible mentor for him.
Tre as a stable backup. He had an injury and I don't really rate him, but it seems that PATFO is done with small guards and they want to build the best defensive team in the league.

They haven't coached defense up until Pop went to the hospital.

[CGD]

Bottomline they probably felt they had too many mouths to feed to justify drafting a meh player (and paying him 7M per) at 8. That, and the fact they’ll likely add another 2-3 players the year after. I can’t blame them for the choice.

[CGD]

Wesley and Branham won't be in rotation when everyone gets healthy.
The plan was obviously to draft Castle and get the best possible mentor for him.
Tre as a stable backup. He had an injury and I don't really rate him, but it seems that PATFO is done with small guards and they want to build the best defensive team in the league.

Suspect you are right, though, Tre needs to start showing more with Blake stepping it up as of late. Pecking order might change too if they think Tre leaves after this contract anyway.

[rankingtear]

I still don't get giving up that pick. There was still players worth picking at that spot. What if both Spurs picks next year are lower than 8th? Would it have been worth it giving it up?

Early returns are they made the right decision with Wemby bombing 3's and Steph showing second option upside, there is less of a need to hit on projected negative defense players at the top of the rookie rankings this season. You want a starter level return at 8 and it is looking like there is none. So they deffered the value.

[Mr. Body]

Suspect you are right, though, Tre needs to start showing more with Blake stepping it up as of late. Pecking order might change too if they think Tre leaves after this contract anyway.

Everyone's overreacting again. Tre was great down the stretch the previous game.

[scott]

This draft class is predictably proving not as bad as everyone thought (though hits are coming from all over the draft order - reinforcing the idea that it was a very tough class to evaluate and rank). Lots of players making valuable contributions.

With that said, (and I say this as someone who hated the trade not because of the players we passed up but because I feel we should have gotten a better ROI) it's time to move on. We're 10-8. Drafting any of these guys probably wouldn't positively changed anything. Could we use a shooter like Knecht? Yes, but if we drafted Knecht at 8 he wouldn't be doing what he's doing in LA because the opportunity wouldn't be there. You can't seriously believe we were going to give two rookies that kind of run. Even when we took 3 rookies in the first and were one of the worst teams in the league, we didn't give Blake and Branham that kind of playing time.

This should also tell us something about next year's draft. There isn't going to be room on the team for us to insert two rookies into meaningful roles next year, barring something short of getting two Top 5 picks (which hopefully won't happen). I think this is all gearing up to a meaningful trade in the offseason (or just a trade for even more far out picks, but I'm thinking a "next step" move is on the table... can't wait to reignite the Lauri thread, tbh).

[Obstructed_View]

Early returns are they made the right decision with Wemby bombing 3's and Steph showing second option upside, there is less of a need to hit on projected negative defense players at the top of the rookie rankings this season. You want a starter level return at 8 and it is looking like there is none. So they deffered the value.

Lol early returns show all three rookies are scoring better than the vets the Spurs have. Any one of them would be in the rotation and doing better than some of the first round picks currently on the roster. Wesley is a decent defender but he's utter ass in every other way.

8 is where you expect a player that will make your roster and contribute. Statistically, it's a terrible pick to trade away if you're building a team.