Reply With Quote
McNeeley's ceiling can be a starter for the Spurs. His ceiling is higher than Spurstalk favorite Kon Kneuppel.
I wouldn't say shooting 30% from 3 in Europe (where the 3-point line is closer to the basket) and 69% from the freethrow line "good" tbh.
McNeeley's ceiling can be a starter for the Spurs. His ceiling is higher than Spurstalk favorite Kon Kneuppel.
Darn, I didn't know Donovan Mitc and Bam were both selected that low. I thought they were both picked inside the top 10. It seems you can definitely get a really good/great player in that range if you pick right. Getting a role player/fringe starter would also be good. It'd suck to draft a bust in that range, though.
Spurs should try and trade down if they have a low floor/high ceiling guy picked by another team and then just go for their high floor guy at a later pick rather than use the 14th on a high floor guy. I hope they can use it on a high ceiling guy. Having said that, glad I don't have to make the call/pick. I'd be nervous to draft a guy like Maxime there, but you also never know, he could end up being a really good player.
Didn’t we have a post last year dispelling most notions of what floor and ceiling actually are?
Those concepts are real, but the human ability to judge them sucks badly.
I can’t believe people look at the chart and want to trade DOWN!?
If anything, trade UP and increase your chances of getting a useful player.
We aren’t carrying 3 rookies and pretty soon our only job will be to develop the core we have and put budget friendly structure around that.
OK, I should have said "good enough" and I conveniently forgot to mention his weakness in ft. But I had to justify the fact of saying that I was biased. Over five PO games, he is at 60% I think. He proved in the young French team that he was clutch, that's "good enough" for me.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/aWtpKpWzAZA
Would it be crazy to trade 14 and 38 to CHA for 2 seconds this year and a future first? Take guys without guaranteed contracts or stash them and see what happens.
Why does Charlotte do that? And why would the Spurs? They’ve already ed us on one pick.
I don't see it. Mediocre defender and good shooter. I'd say he could become Joe Harris, but not more than that. The Hayward comparisons don't match at all.
Depends on how the draft unfolds. Say come 14 Spurs pick a player they like but don't looove (say, Cedric Coward). Lets also assume that, while on the clock for 33, Charlotte makes you the offer you mention, where Kalkbrenner, Drake Powell and Proctor are still on the board. In this case, I'd definitely entertain that possibility, provided that pick is guaranteed to convey, Miami style (one year lottery protected, the following unprotected). I don't think there's that huge of a drop between that caliber of players, and you can add a valuable extra asset, either to pick or use in future trades. Doesn't sound likely, but not impossible either.
How does that even work? By the time they’re on the clock for 33, we will have picked someone at 14 the day before. Are you hoping that we pick someone that they like? Because that’s pretty ing thin.
I'm laying down a scenario where something like that could happen, yes, this is if they like a player already picked, doesn't mean you need to get the call that same day, you could tell them to hold off until you see what's there. For instance, Spurs and Indiana had been talking about a framework revolving around George Hill for 15, but Spurs didn't pull the trigger until Indiana was on the clock and Kawhi was there. Something like that.
You could also entertain the idea of just trading the pick to Charlotte and have them use it on someone else, it doesn't require that they be interested in the same player you would have picked anyway, but if that's the case you should definitely make sure the future first round pick is worth it.
So long as the future first is unprotected (or lightly protected to a level of comfort), this would seem about on par with last year’s MIN trade for #8 in terms of value. Swaps have been shown to have roughly the value of a premium SRP.
Man, last year was so fun as a draft process, discussions of Risacher and even Sarr, Dillingham, trying to get Reed Sheppard from Houston, hopes that no one before us took Castle, what to do with the #8 pick. If Cody Williams or Matas were going to be any good.
This year is so boring already, lol. We're overjoyed to get Dylan Harper. The #14 pick is a sort of interesting bit of gravy on top, but no one really thinks it's amounting to much beyond a role-player with potential upside. I'm more interested in seeing where some of these other candidates go from 3-12 or so.
Let's get to the draft already!
A lot of truth there...
This
You don't trade out of a lottery pick for a player or two with lower odds of becoming a useful player.
Sorry, but without specifics this is empty words.
- Which player are we trading up for, and at what cost?
- Which player are we comfortable staying at 14 for?
- Which players are we willing to move down for, and what's the return?
If you have two players on your board you feel equally comfortable taking at 14 and you can take one of them by trading down and pick up an asset in the process, why pass up on the opportunity to do so?
It's not like the same player magically changes his potential because he was picked a few spots higher or lower.
To be clear, I'm willing to entertain any scenario, it just depends on the cir stances. If you can move up and pick up Knueppel for not much, do so. If Carter Bryant is available at 14, pick him up. If you're struggling to find anyone who stands out at 14 and you can trade down, why not consider that as well?
I agree that all the cir stances matter when evaluating an actual move up/down scenario, but I think couchman's point is that if you look at the chart I posted and feel like the move is to trade down simply based on that chart... then it draws into question what the objective is. The common range (which just at an eyeball's glance looks like +1 standard deviation upward from the mean, with a lower bound of zero) for the 11-14 range is the same as the 15-22 range, but the median expectation is about 50% lower, the ceiling appears to be lower, and there appears to be a larger frequency of busts. This of course is what we would expect from higher picks... so why would someone look at this chart and say "we should trade down"? Is it simply because the boxes are in relatively the same spot?
But I agree.. if you have multiple guys you rate equally and have an opportunity to trade down and have a safe expectation of getting one of those guys... you should probably do that.
Really we're just discussing opportunity cost, aren't we? Well, opportunity cost mixed with dice (aka, judgment).
When a team gets ball with 35 seconds on the clock, it's wise to try to score quickly and go for 2 for 1, until you take a bad shot.
You don’t think there might be a crazy trade for #2? I put it at 20% still.
I won't quote the whole thing, but that's fantastic work. Kudos.
It's definitely possible. If Harper is truly seen as a jump up from the third tier, there would probably need to be a wad offered for him. Whatever it's worth, I thought I might trade back for Edgecombe, myself, or even Tre Johnson, as the fit is somewhat better (non-heavy usage in the first case and better defender, great outside shooter in the second), but no longer would want to.
We are fans of a team that took Josh Primo in the lottery less than 5 years ago. Anything can happen on draft night. Now let me be clear that I absolutely do not agree with this course of action, but just for s and giggles, let's propose a hypothetical:
Let's say for a minute that the Spurs believe that based on shooting priors, especially looking at a pre-college sample, that Harper's always going to be a below average shooter and they don't want 2 guys like that in their future backcourt, especially since Harper's defense this year left a ton to be desired. You can say 3 guard attacking lineup, etc. etc., but they think Castle, Harper, Fox are all sub 35% 3 point shooters. Maybe Harper eventually becomes an all-star, but he's a flawed all-star like De'aaron Fox, with whom I personally think he shares some loose similarities.
At the same time, look at a guy like Noa Essengue. I personally think he's raw as but probably worth a swing at 14. But this guy is basically catnip for Brian Wright. Super young, very toolsy, French, high level movement skills, and unlike Josh Primo, actually productive in his pre-draft season in a high level pro league no less. It's not hard to see Brian Wright looking at this guy and seeing, obviously not Giannis, but maybe Pascal Siakam.
NO offers TMIII, Herb, and 7 for 2 and Vassell. You can still take Sorber or whomever at 14.
Would I do the above scenario? Definitely not. Would Brian Wright do it? Probably not. But you can definitely see a scenario where he's thinking about it.
I wouldn't do that, no.
But more interested in the Essengue part. The dude is just bad, isn't he? Looking at his abilities and so on, he's just not a basketball player at a high level. He's super tall and long and is good at some of the things Saluan is bad at, but Saluan is actually a good shooter. I just don't believe in Essengue at all, he looks like he's never getting there at all.
At the end of the day, a decision like this is going to come down to individual evaluations. People who say no way they do that are basing that opinion on their evaluation of Harper and the expectation of what he'll be (and his ceiling). But if Brian Wright and the scouting team (who let's take a minute and acknowledge have way more information available than we do and are likely to be better talent evaluators than random people on an internet message board) decide that they think Harper is going to be closer to Jaden Hardy than he is James Harden... AND they have someone they reasonably think will be available at 7 rated pretty closely to (or even above) Harper... then they probably do that deal.
If the Spurs do trade #2, people are going to have really strong opinions about Brian Wright and his team. But IMO, the only way to fairly evaluate that trade (for now) is whether or not the Spurs got good value for the pick (which is how I came to my opinion on evaluating the MIN trade for #8 last year). None of our evaluations of Harper or whomever the Spurs alternatively take matter in the moment, because the Spurs FO clearly came up with a different evaluation and they are the ones who get to make the decision. Their judgement day will come down the line when they are proven right or wrong (though it is debatable how accountable anyone is for these kinds of misses).
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions