2025 NBA Draft

[mo7888]

The swing factor there is how much you trade him for. If you trade him at the value of a player who will be a future star, and he becomes a future star, then you didn't lose out on the value. You just paid full price. If he doesn't pan out, then you paid less than full price. On the filp side, if you trade him at a "decent prospect" valuation and he becomes a star, you miss out and if he doesn't you didn't overpay.

Castle's impact isn't merely based on whether he becomes a strong shooter. Jimmy Butler is a good example of a player that has never been a great shooter but manages, whereas DeRozan can't help but kill offenses with his lack of shooting. But if he doesn't shoot well, it becomes far harder to see how he and Fox can work well together. I don't think Fox/Castle/Wemby and two shooters are ultimately enough for a starting lineup. I think they have time to figure that out, though. I was thinking about this for two main reasons:

A) If the Spurs are going to go for a third star via trade this year or free agency next year, it's going to be even harder to see how Fox/Castle/(Third Star)/(Forward)/Wembanyama works. Castle is already going to be more of an off-ball player if he starts after Wemby comes back. Adding another scorer in the first unit makes that even more likely. Castle's inefficiency on both ends is fine on a tanking team with no legit offensive options. It's much harder to justify poor shooting and ineffective defense as a role-player on a team with multiple stars and which would be trying to win as much as possible.

B) The Spurs shouldn't let Castle's presence affect their board the same way they let Wemby's or Fox's place on the team. Steph may be traded or not develop, and even if he doesn't, his versatility means he can play with basically anyone. I really hope the Spurs don't take yet another butter-shot player high in the draft. But there are a couple of guards in the draft that might be good rotation players, and honestly the back half of the lottery doesn't look great for forwards anyway. They should just take BPA and look to consolidate their talent to balance the roster. If they don't like the talent at their spot on the board, it's a good year to trade around. There's logic both in combining 8 and 13/14 to move up to the top 5 for the right guy or in trading down to pick up a future first. They just shouldn't be in love with their roster so much that they let that keep them from bringing in talented rookies.

You should come back and post more...good stuff..

[mo7888]

Don’t see a world where they trade the newly minted ROY this summer. Nor do I see what major star would become available this summer that would necessitate such a more — spurs also already made their big “summer” move in February. Would be a good exercise to revisit next summer though.

Someone else said this elsewhere: absent lotto magic we are drafting bench pieces for next year. I think they mostly want to see the new configuration with Fox, will add a few vets, and churn through the deep bench guys.

I agree with the 1st part (not trading ROY) if the 2nd part is true (no major stars on the market).... that said, I think there's a real possibility that a couple big names are on the market this summer. Now if they fit in our plans is a whole other topic.

[Twisted_Dawg]

If Flagg balks at going to the team with the #1 pick, does Castle and #8 get a trade done?

[CGD]

If Flagg balks at going to the team with the #1 pick, does Castle and #8 get a trade done?

I think that leverage is gone now that he’s declared for the draft?

[buttsR4rebounding]

I think that leverage is gone now that he’s declared for the draft?

He can pull out after the lottery occurs and go back to school.

[Chinook]

You should come back and post more...good stuff..

I anticipate being around more over the next few months. The draft and summer league are my favorite times of the NBA season, even as ESPN has kind of ruined the format compared to how it was 15 years ago.

[Ice009]

I anticipate being around more over the next few months. The draft and summer league are my favorite times of the NBA season, even as ESPN has kind of ruined the format compared to how it was 15 years ago.

What have they changed since then? I don't really remember.

Hopefully you're not too busy to post more.

[SPURt]

0.7% for top pick

[Chinook]

Don’t see a world where they trade the newly minted ROY this summer. Nor do I see what major star would become available this summer that would necessitate such a more — spurs also already made their big “summer” move in February. Would be a good exercise to revisit next summer though.

Someone else said this elsewhere: absent lotto magic we are drafting bench pieces for next year. I think they mostly want to see the new configuration with Fox, will add a few vets, and churn through the deep bench guys.

The question is if Castle is part of their core or not. If he doesn't become a passable shooter, it's much more difficult for him to get to that point. I'm not an advocate of the team trading for a third star -- I wasn't even an advocate of them trading for Fox, but it was a decent deal because the team didn't have to cut into the quick to make it happen. But now, the Spurs would be legit leveraging themselves if they wanted to trade. They'd have to consider the Stepien rule and potentially be giving up their unprotected picks. If they are in trade talks and are given the choice between Castle and a protected first or three unprotected firsts, the Spurs' projection of Steph really matters. It's not even just about if he's worth the picks on his own. It's if he's worth losing the flexibility of not having traded so many picks.

I agree that they should be fine drafting bench pieces. But I do know that they should be locked into that mentality. They need a two-guard who can space the floor in their starting lineup, and there's an option that could well be there. Besides Knueppel, yeah. Maybe someone like Newell will be a starter in 2026, but he's not unseating Barnes next year. Same goes for a guy like Murray-Boyles. They could end up drafting Queen and Richardson and really shore up their bench. My worry is they go with Demin and Essengue because they're in love with their position size and think being "postion-less" is more important than being able to stay on the floor in the first place.

[Chinook]

What have they changed since then? I don't really remember.

Hopefully you're not too busy to post more.

The Summer League used to be mainly for hard core fans and media. So it was mostly just televised on NBA TV or streamed online. I know when I was in college, I paid like eight bucks to get access to all the games, including replays. ESPN eventually got exclusive rights to broadcast the games, but they've been really inconsistent in caring about them, so they aren't all broadcast, at least not on their main channels. They try to hide a lot on their streaming service, which is much more annoying to me than a one-time payment for complete access. ESPN also wants to make money of their acquired rights, so the games have become more about the celebrity experience than just watching guys play basketball. A major consequence of that is that they abbreviated the tournament from its height in 2015 (the year the Spurs won). That might be their doing to make it fit better for their timeline, or it could have been the teams wanting a more predictable number of games for each team.

For a short while, they had that sweet spot of having a March Madness feel to the games without having all the bull that comes with March Madness. It was mostly just basketball, free of egos. Players would sit in the stands, as would the media junkies. It was just a chill down-to-Earth kind of feel. It feels much more like a media product now, and the quality of basketball played (since we're mostly talking about kids and washouts who've had a handful of practices with each other at best) doesn't really warrant that attention. ESPN's attempts to polish it just makes the actual product seem worse than it did when it was understood to not be anything but a series of scrimmage games.

[scott]

That's all to say that if the Spurs felt like some prospect was going to be the next Danny Green, it's definitely worth it to draft him at 13/14 and probably at 8 as well. Green was insanely valuable in multiple systems. Actual great role-players are worth their weight in gold. This class as a distressing number of non-shooters at the top of the board. I'd honestly feel uncomfortable if the Spurs drafted yet another guy who's a project in that area. The only position where I think that's okay is for the back-up center spot, but you'd ideally want a good roadmap toward good shooting in those cases as well to leave open the chance that prospect could play some minutes with Wembanyama.

First off, welcome back.

Second, I think this is a really fascinating discussion. On the surface, it makes a lot of sense. If you had a Crystal Ball and KNEW a player would have the exact outcome of peak Spurs Danny Green, then I agree... you absolutely take him at 8.

On the flip side... who is the modern day version of Danny Green? Just based on a quick, superficial glance at Crafted's best 3&D SF's (https://craftednba.com/player-traits/three-n-dee), and looking exclusively at guys under 28, we come up with this list:

Herb Jones
Jaden McDaniels
OG Anunoby
Haywood Highsmith (note: 28 years old)
Isaac Okoro
Vit Krejci
Deni Advija
Jake LaRavia
Justin Champagnie
Christian Braun

I think there is a fair question over whether you could acquire any of these guys for less, and have a "sure thing" (though not all of these guys are nearly as good as Danny was). There are a handful of guys who would probably cost you more (probably a lot more) than the #8 pick (OG, Herb, Advija). McDaniels I think would be close, considering that MIN would probably want to get off that contract if they can considering how hamstrung they are with their cap situation.

We can likely outright sign LaRavia for less than the MLE if we wanted him (and I do). Everyone else, I think their teams likely jump at a swap for the #14 pick, let alone the #8 pick.

Makes you think about whether its best to take a gamble that your #8 or #14 will reach the level of OG, Herb, Deni... or whether you're better off just acquiring the sure thing. I don't have a strong opinion right now... could go either way. It's a fascinating thought experiment. When I have more time I'll want to dig into deeper to the current 3&D wings around the league and marinate on this a little more.

[The Truth #6]

Neither Fox or Castle are great shooters, though Fox has had at least one season of being good from deep. It's hard for me to imagine trading Castle when they still don't really know how well Fox fits in. So I expect more waiting, which in this case actually seems reasonable while they see what they have with the two of them with a healthy Wemby. Obviously, a lot of uncertainty. What I do feel confident in saying is they absolutely need to improve their shooting development program no matter what they decide with Fox vs Castle.

[scott]

The idea of trading Castle is also a fun, important discussion (as much as folks might want to view Castle as untouchable... I'll still contend that only Wemby is truly untouchable).

Ideally, in trades you'd always find a way to send out your assets at their peak value. And the fact of the matter is that there is probably around an 85% chance that this is Castle's peak value. There is a decent chance (probably 50% of the outcomes) where Castle just goes on a development path where he stays what he is now, or gets worse. Any of those outcomes will result in his trade value diminishing over time because of 1) his age 2) his contract and 3) expectations of him developing into more are currently baked into his value.

I'd say there's about a 35% chance that he continues to develop on a path in line with what most reasonable folks would expect from a typical ROTY winner (by typical I mean not "generational" like Wemby, Luka, LeBron, etc). This 35% of outcomes is already baked into his trade value right now.

And there is probably about a 15% he exceeds those expectations and develops into an All-NBA type (which I don't think is the reasonable expectation of his future right now).

Translated, if you traded Castle now and got a "fair" return for him, there's probably about a 15% chance you end up looking really stupid and an 85% chance you're viewed neutrally or better.

Granted, on this next statement, the objective isn't always to merely sell off all your players and I don't want this to be viewed that way. You hope you draft players who are worth more on the court for you than their trade value and you just play them and win games. But... strictly viewing things from the lens of how the Spurs have taken advantage of maximizing the trade value of young assets:

• Dejounte Murray - Absolutely traded at his peak value. A++++
• Derrick White - Probably traded for fair value at the time but he developed into much more, so in highsight looks like kind of a bad trade except for the fact that it was part of the tear down that led to Wemby, so "no ragrets"
• Jakob Poeltl - I'd say also traded pretty close to his peak value. Maybe a summer early you could have gotten more, maybe not? Either way, job very well done
• Keldon Johnson - Obviously hasn't been traded, but we definitely missed the boat on his peak trade value.
• Devin Vassell - A little harder to say, but I'd say we've most likely missed the boat on his peak trade value as well, if for no other reason than you'll get more for a guy still on his rookie deal versus when his extension has kicked in unless they are on true bargain extensions like Herb, TMIII, DJM and Derrick when we traded them, etc.
• Jeremy Sochan - Looks like his peak trade value is also quickly fading into the rear view. If he signs what is perceived by the league to be an overpay on his extension, things will diminish further

If you're not going to trade the guy... timing his peak trade value is irrelevant. But if you do eventually trade them, you want to time it the way we did Dejounte and Derrick and NOT like if we were to trade any of the Power of Friendship now.

TL;DR version: Castle is most likely at his peak trade value now. If the Spurs for some reason don't see him as truly part of a "big 3" or even "big 2" going forward... then it is probably in their best interest to maximize their return now, as much as fans would hate it (they'd probably think we were as bad as Nico Harrison, tbh, but they'd probably end up proven wrong)

[sig]

Hold the roster steady then go get Luka in 2026 Free Agency. One more season with Lebron making 50 mil making it difficult to rebuild the Lakers much before 2026 free agency and should be enough to turn Luka away from LA.

[vy65]

The idea of trading Castle is also a fun, important discussion (as much as folks might want to view Castle as untouchable... I'll still contend that only Wemby is truly untouchable).

Ideally, in trades you'd always find a way to send out your assets at their peak value. And the fact of the matter is that there is probably around an 85% chance that this is Castle's peak value. There is a decent chance (probably 50% of the outcomes) where Castle just goes on a development path where he stays what he is now, or gets worse. Any of those outcomes will result in his trade value diminishing over time because of 1) his age 2) his contract and 3) expectations of him developing into more are currently baked into his value.

I'd say there's about a 35% chance that he continues to develop on a path in line with what most reasonable folks would expect from a typical ROTY winner (by typical I mean not "generational" like Wemby, Luka, LeBron, etc). This 35% of outcomes is already baked into his trade value right now.

And there is probably about a 15% he exceeds those expectations and develops into an All-NBA type (which I don't think is the reasonable expectation of his future right now).

Translated, if you traded Castle now and got a "fair" return for him, there's probably about a 15% chance you end up looking really stupid and an 85% chance you're viewed neutrally or better.

Granted, on this next statement, the objective isn't always to merely sell off all your players and I don't want this to be viewed that way. You hope you draft players who are worth more on the court for you than their trade value and you just play them and win games. But... strictly viewing things from the lens of how the Spurs have taken advantage of maximizing the trade value of young assets:

• Dejounte Murray - Absolutely traded at his peak value. A++++
• Derrick White - Probably traded for fair value at the time but he developed into much more, so in highsight looks like kind of a bad trade except for the fact that it was part of the tear down that led to Wemby, so "no ragrets"
• Jakob Poeltl - I'd say also traded pretty close to his peak value. Maybe a summer early you could have gotten more, maybe not? Either way, job very well done
• Keldon Johnson - Obviously hasn't been traded, but we definitely missed the boat on his peak trade value.
• Devin Vassell - A little harder to say, but I'd say we've most likely missed the boat on his peak trade value as well, if for no other reason than you'll get more for a guy still on his rookie deal versus when his extension has kicked in unless they are on true bargain extensions like Herb, TMIII, DJM and Derrick when we traded them, etc.
• Jeremy Sochan - Looks like his peak trade value is also quickly fading into the rear view. If he signs what is perceived by the league to be an overpay on his extension, things will diminish further

If you're not going to trade the guy... timing his peak trade value is irrelevant. But if you do eventually trade them, you want to time it the way we did Dejounte and Derrick and NOT like if we were to trade any of the Power of Friendship now.

TL;DR version: Castle is most likely at his peak trade value now. If the Spurs for some reason don't see him as truly part of a "big 3" or even "big 2" going forward... then it is probably in their best interest to maximize their return now, as much as fans would hate it (they'd probably think we were as bad as Nico Harrison, tbh, but they'd probably end up proven wrong)

Think you meant 50% here; the math doesn't work.

[scott]

Think you meant 50% here; the math doesn't work.

Nope, 85% (and of course these are not exact percentages). His trades value only increases from here if he hits that 15% of outcomes where he exceeds his current expectations. In the 50% scenario where he plateaus or gets worse, his value also declines. In the 35% scenario where he just continues to develop as expect, his trade value stays about the same.

[KobesAchilles]

Is Fox a bad shooter? I keep hearing his shooting isn’t good but I wonder how much is that him having to create for himself all the time? Is there a way (I’m sure there probably is) to find his shooting percentage on open looks instead of contested ones? Bc if Wemby is as good as we all think he’s going to be, Fox is about to get a whole lot of open shots and free lanes to drive in. Fox won’t ever be a great shooter but I could see him being league average at 35%.

Tbh I wouldn’t really look into trading Steph right now. I’d be more than willing to have him lead the offense off the bench if we do get a guy like Naz for example. In that case, we wouldn’t really need Steph to be a starter. It would also allow time for Steph to learn how to properly run an offense and to develop his shot over time. He made nearly 100 threes as a rookie. It’s fair to say he will put in the work to improve that shot. Unlike Sochan who in 3 years has only made 30 more threes or some bull like that.

Also I don’t even know what value Castle really has right now. Like I guess teams would ask for him but who would we even realistically trade him for. He wouldn’t be in a KD trade. I’d do a him for Murphy trade in a heartbeat but would the Pels? Tbh I’d rather slash Vassell and get Giddy and Aldama and go from there. Idk if I want Naz at the max anyways. I don’t like paying role players like star players.

[DAF86]

This is absolutely the wrong reason and Warrior fans will scoff at you. Again, you are oversimplifying the situation.

No, it is not absolutely wrong. With all the flaws you mention and his lsck of shooting, Kuminga was still getting heavy minutes in a deep Warriors team. Do you really think Kerr wouldn't be playing him right now if he shot it straight?

Over the years there have been countless exaples of extremely flawed players that could do only one or two things well and were vital parts of dynasties. I don't know what weird new fixation you have now with players "that can do it all", but there's still room in today's NBA for guys that play a role.

[scott]

Is Fox a bad shooter? I keep hearing his shooting isn’t good but I wonder how much is that him having to create for himself all the time? Is there a way (I’m sure there probably is) to find his shooting percentage on open looks instead of contested ones? Bc if Wemby is as good as we all think he’s going to be, Fox is about to get a whole lot of open shots and free lanes to drive in. Fox won’t ever be a great shooter but I could see him being league average at 35%.

Tbh I wouldn’t really look into trading Steph right now. I’d be more than willing to have him lead the offense off the bench if we do get a guy like Naz for example. In that case, we wouldn’t really need Steph to be a starter. It would also allow time for Steph to learn how to properly run an offense and to develop his shot over time. He made nearly 100 threes as a rookie. It’s fair to say he will put in the work to improve that shot. Unlike Sochan who in 3 years has only made 30 more threes or some bull like that.

Also I don’t even know what value Castle really has right now. Like I guess teams would ask for him but who would we even realistically trade him for. He wouldn’t be in a KD trade. I’d do a him for Murphy trade in a heartbeat but would the Pels? Tbh I’d rather slash Vassell and get Giddy and Aldama and go from there. Idk if I want Naz at the max anyways. I don’t like paying role players like star players.

Putting %s aside, I always like to think of shooting from another vantage point that is a bit more subjective but not too difficult to wrap heads around. Is a guy someone who you are willing to dare to shoot or are reasonably afraid of to beat you if given a good look?

Trae Young only shot 34% from 3 this year... but is he someone you want to leave open for a 3 with the game on the line? I think it's the same with Fox. Teams have to respect him as a 3pt threat. I think Castle is kind of on the fringe. Sochan, on the other hand, is clearly someone teams do not respect at all. He could hit three straight 3s, and they'd probably still be fine leaving him wide open and daring him to do it again.

Also, just want to go on the record and say I am not advocating for trading Castle... just having fun with an offseason thought experiment.

[DAF86]

Danny Green was a crucial part of one of the most dominant college teams in history. what role he would have played on a weak team you don't know and I don't know.

We might not know for sure but considering Danny played his entire NBA career and retired as a way below ball handler and finisher, it is tough to believe he could have been a go to player at any point of his college career.

Danny Green was the perfect role player, because he had the IQ to fit in his role and he was a great defender, because he was so smart. the similarity to Fleming is beyond my imagination.

Are you saying Fleming isn't smart?

yes, every now and then a 2nd rounder outplays his draft position, like DG did. so what. if this is the logic to use pick 8 for a 2nd rounder (and Fleming is a 2nd rounder IMO), because he somehow fits a need for a certain type of role player, you will end up with the worst team in the league soon.

But your opinion isn't reality, in every mock draft I've seen, he's predicted to go top 15.

Fleming will be a center in the NBA, because he lacks the skills for a modern forward. he will be a back up center. you don't pick Richaun Holmes at 8. you pick him in the 2nd round, because most Richaun Holmes will deliver a Richaun Holmes career.

I think he has enough mobility to play the 4 in the NBA. If he doesn't, it's true that his value would decrease, but having a mobile center that can switch 1 through 5 ocasionally and hit 3's at a good clip is still a great player to have, imho.

[DAF86]

I mean, there's risk with every pick. Sure, if Fleming ends up as a backup center in the NBA, it sounds bad for a #8 overall pick; but the player I'm seeing mocked the most at 8 for us is Kon Knueppel, a guy that can easily have just as low (if not lower) of a ceiling. We pick Kon at 8 and then he becomes an unplayable stiff that can only shoot 3's when wide open, how's that better than a backup center with mobility and 3pt range?

[mo7888]

The idea of trading Castle is also a fun, important discussion (as much as folks might want to view Castle as untouchable... I'll still contend that only Wemby is truly untouchable).

Ideally, in trades you'd always find a way to send out your assets at their peak value. And the fact of the matter is that there is probably around an 85% chance that this is Castle's peak value. There is a decent chance (probably 50% of the outcomes) where Castle just goes on a development path where he stays what he is now, or gets worse. Any of those outcomes will result in his trade value diminishing over time because of 1) his age 2) his contract and 3) expectations of him developing into more are currently baked into his value.

I'd say there's about a 35% chance that he continues to develop on a path in line with what most reasonable folks would expect from a typical ROTY winner (by typical I mean not "generational" like Wemby, Luka, LeBron, etc). This 35% of outcomes is already baked into his trade value right now.

And there is probably about a 15% he exceeds those expectations and develops into an All-NBA type (which I don't think is the reasonable expectation of his future right now).

Translated, if you traded Castle now and got a "fair" return for him, there's probably about a 15% chance you end up looking really stupid and an 85% chance you're viewed neutrally or better.

Granted, on this next statement, the objective isn't always to merely sell off all your players and I don't want this to be viewed that way. You hope you draft players who are worth more on the court for you than their trade value and you just play them and win games. But... strictly viewing things from the lens of how the Spurs have taken advantage of maximizing the trade value of young assets:

• Dejounte Murray - Absolutely traded at his peak value. A++++
• Derrick White - Probably traded for fair value at the time but he developed into much more, so in highsight looks like kind of a bad trade except for the fact that it was part of the tear down that led to Wemby, so "no ragrets"
• Jakob Poeltl - I'd say also traded pretty close to his peak value. Maybe a summer early you could have gotten more, maybe not? Either way, job very well done
• Keldon Johnson - Obviously hasn't been traded, but we definitely missed the boat on his peak trade value.
• Devin Vassell - A little harder to say, but I'd say we've most likely missed the boat on his peak trade value as well, if for no other reason than you'll get more for a guy still on his rookie deal versus when his extension has kicked in unless they are on true bargain extensions like Herb, TMIII, DJM and Derrick when we traded them, etc.
• Jeremy Sochan - Looks like his peak trade value is also quickly fading into the rear view. If he signs what is perceived by the league to be an overpay on his extension, things will diminish further

If you're not going to trade the guy... timing his peak trade value is irrelevant. But if you do eventually trade them, you want to time it the way we did Dejounte and Derrick and NOT like if we were to trade any of the Power of Friendship now.

TL;DR version: Castle is most likely at his peak trade value now. If the Spurs for some reason don't see him as truly part of a "big 3" or even "big 2" going forward... then it is probably in their best interest to maximize their return now, as much as fans would hate it (they'd probably think we were as bad as Nico Harrison, tbh, but they'd probably end up proven wrong)

I'm kinda considering Castle's value to the team reading all this. I agree with the statement that Fox and Castle aren't really the best backcourt pairing. Kon would actually fit better, but Kon, Jackucionis, or even De Larrea would fit well with Fox or Castle in a rotation while we figure out if Castle or Fox is part of our core. Personally, I agree with you that Wemby is the only untradable on this team. That said, I would only trade Castle in a bigger deal. I wouldn't trade him for picks (unless whoever gets #1 is dumb enough to make Cooper available).

[Manu&Duncan fan]

It's ridiculous to see people using Fleming' 7'-5" wing span to question his IQ.

He got 1.5 steals each game. Some of them is because of his long arms, some of them is anticipation. That means he has some good basketball IQ.

[Amuseddaysleeper]

Goofing around on tankathon it feels impossible to have our hawks pick be above 14.

[baseline bum]

I agree with your analogy that is what we need, but #8 and #14 is typically a little high for those kinds of players. With that said, I feel this draft is pretty weak and that's all there is in that range.

Personally, I'd rather trade one of those picks for a sure thing of that kind of player than use a lotto pick on someone who may or may not turn into that kind of player.

Yeah the only pick I'd be wedded to would be if they get #1, obviously you take Flagg. But if they luck into 2-4 I'd rather trade with someone who really wants Harper, Edgecombe, Maluach, or Bailey.