Reply With Quote
It’s not that bad IMO and its part of the reason why you can get this deal done using only 1 first + Dev + Keldon
I’d be all for this if Claxton;’s contract wasnt awful
It’s not that bad IMO and its part of the reason why you can get this deal done using only 1 first + Dev + Keldon
Someone on RGM mentioned Castle for Coulibaly. RGM is pretty down on Castle, so a number of poster there thought it made sense. I don't agree, even though I'm more skeptical of Steph than most folks on this site are. However, I did wonder about Castle and 14 for Coulibaly and 6. If you assume 6 becomes Malauach and 14 becomes Sorber, it seems like the kind of deal that could turn out to be a steal for either team. I don't think this is the right move for the Spurs, but if they do secretly worry about the fit of Fox, Castle and Harper, I like a deal like this much more than deals where the Spurs trade down from 2 or turn Fox into a smaller package than they sent out for him.
Fox, Harper
Vassell, Champagnie
Coulibaly, Johnson
Barnes, Sochan
Wembanyama, Malauach
They'd still have their MLE, picks and multiple tradeable contracts to keep building that roster. Personally, I'd want a third perimeter play-maker in that lineup, They'd definitely need a that third-string PG to be someone who could handle real rotation minutes. But the defense would be really interesting with 48 minutes of strong center play and a wing who specializes in defense. The shooting doesn't get more improved, though if Barnes starts, it's probably viable for the first unit. The second unit is really relying on one of Sochan or Malauach to make a big leap this year.
watched some Locked on Raptors to understand what they want in a return for Barrett. Apparently they either want a rotation upgrade or 2 offball shooters. Suggested trades were:
Barrett and #9 for Cam Johnson and #19 (lmao)
Barrett and #9 for Trey Murphy
Barrett and #9 for Sabonis
It's save to say his perceived value ain't that high. If there's such a trade with the Spurs and #9 I'd assume either Brooklyn or Utah (Lauri) would be involved with the Spurs sending them future draft capital to get it done.
https://imgur.com/a/MANIIEr
Can't teach this. Castle just seems to know how to play. Learning to shoot turns him into a stud. That's perhaps his only question going into year 2.
Barrett would basically be a better Keldon.
Better shooter, defender (although still not a positive) and playmaker. Same driving ability with more length, IQ and upside.
I presume you want to give away Castle because of his lack of shooting (28.5% 3P%). What a brilliant idea it is to replace him with a 28.1% 3P% (in 2025) in Bilal Coulibaly!
Castle has his flaws, but he is still better than someone like Coulibaly and the difference between the 6th and 14th pick in this draft isnt that big to overcome that difference between Castle and Coulibaly.
Last edited by Spursfanfromafar; 06-24-2025 at 06:45 AM.
He wants to give away Castle because he's one of those people who want to make trades for the sake of making trades.
And he often goes in-depth with ideas that make no sense whatsoever.
Onto more realistic ideas...
Gafford's extension means PJ Washington is the odd man out, according to Mavs fans. They don't really see him as a SF and Mavs already have a logjam at forwards.
Gafford/Lively take all the C minutes.
Flagg will take those ~15 minutes at PF when AD sits, while obviously being the starting SF.
But then they also have Klay who's too slow to play SG and I doubt Nico will ditch him. He's an idiot, but he's loyal to the players he personally acquired.
They also have Marshall and Martin at SF.
Over the cap team with PJ Washington being an expiring contract.
He's due $14.15M in this upcoming season, we'd need $10.6M to make the trade legal.
Too bad Branham and Wesley add up to only $9.67M and Bassey is a free agent.
Meaning it would either have to be Keldon or Barnes going the other way, but Mavs don't need either.
Mavs would need to find a third team that has a PG for them with us sending one of Keldon/Barnes out and returning '30 swap in exchange for PJ Washington.
That swap lost a lot of value with Mavs winning the lottery, but is still a good pick. Washington is definitely worth a solid FRP if he agrees to an extension in 18 to 23 million a year range.
I hate his contract. It's just 50k over the MLE, otherwise we could absorb his salary. Those 50k now make you have to work out a whole trade where salaries gotta match.
Of course I'd love to have him on the team regardless.
How exactly is Castle better than Coulibaly? Because most of Coulibaly defensive metrics are better than Castle's, and Coulibaly doesn't have Victor anchoring any of his defenisve minutes. Castle is easily a better passer, but that is it.
It's obvious you guys don't remotely watch any player who doesn't wear a spurs jersey, because I cannot even begin to fathom how anyone could watch Castle and Coulibaly play and walk away from that saying "oh yeah no doubt Castle is better it's a no brainer i would never ever trade Coulibaly for him"
If the Wizards added enough draft capital or say Sarr I would easily trade Caste for him. It would legit just be like trading to guys who are very similar AND you get a blue chip prospect like Sarr and/or another pick.
I would ing hope so he makes 8 or 9 million more than Keldon does.
And what exactly would #14+Castle for #6+Coulibaly accomplish?
We need 2 point guards (Fox, Harper) and 2 more solid ballhandlers (Castle, ?, as of now it's unfortunately Keldon) because as we've seen this season, our biggest issue was not having players capable of attacking the paint. It was just Castle until we got Fox, but then he got shut down a few games in. With Keldon doing his "tunnel vision and hope for the best" drives.
Lose Castle to get Coulibaly and Maluach and we're back at Vassell pounding the ball for 10+ seconds every time he gets it.
Why the h%ll would you want to trade Castle for Coulibaly? Number #6 may not even amount to the player Castle is now, let alone the player he will be.
Nah, Chinook doesn't want to make trades for the sake of making trades... he just doesn't like Castle (it's become quite evident), which is fine, but he could also just say that.
TBH, it looks like Gafford's extension is less about keeping him and more about trading him. He's eligible to be traded immediately.
I think part of his problem with Castle is that he thinks we over estimate him here considering what his numbers look like and I think he's right. All of these takes about the future assuming Castle as a max player don't really make sense to me at this juncture. I mean, I hope it's a problem because he reaches his ceiling, but I can't expect it yet.
I don't think the stat-padding version of Castle we saw at the end of the season is the player Castle will become and I don't think he'll be a superstar, but wanting to trade him is just dumb.
He's got all the physical and more importantly mental tools to be an elite role player for us. He's shown considerable improvement over the course of the season and there's no reason to believe he won't get a lot better.
I agree with your assessment of Castle. I also don't think Chinook just 'wants' to trade Castle for the sake of trading him, but I don't think he wants him off limits for the 'right' deal. Where i probably disagree with him (and he'd have to chime in to know for sure), is what the 'right' deal is. I wouldn't include him for anything less than a haul of players + picks or a real star. My guess is he would move him for less...but it's just a guess..
Agreed, and I've been trying to pump the brakes on this myself... but I would say that there is as much promise with Castle as any other draft pick over the last few years other than the very elite of those (Wemby, Amen, Paolo). So while there is plenty about Castle's game as to not write his name into future all-star games in sharpie, there is reason to be as excited about Castle as there is anyone (in my very humble opinion)
Agreed
Spot on, and I hope Chinook does weigh on on what he feels that right deal is like. While we may not agree, Chinook always brings thought-out reasoning to his take (which everyone is free to agree or disagree with) and I value his perspective (even if he may not think so)
Personal feelings on Castle: I like him, but he needs to prove he's a star before he gets treated like one. In that regard, I wish someone else had won rookie of the year. I've been arguing with folks on RGM about Castle. As I mentioned, some people there really dislike him. Someone on there mentioned that his best-case scenario would be to have a Jrue Holiday --esque career where he is a low-level star with the Spurs and then redefines his career as a role-player with another team. My fear is basically that opposite -- that he'll spec into trying to be a star when the Spurs desperately need him to be the super role-player he can be. In other words, I don't want him to become another DeJounte Murray where he squanders his chance to become a legit difference-maker in lieu of chasing accolades.
The same is basically the same for Harper, except he's starting off from a better place to be a go-to scorer and seems to have a hidden talent for playing off the ball. He NEEDS to come in defending and hitting catch-and-shoot shots. No, I don't want the team to "prioritize" him in the sense that they pass up on a star like Durant so Harper can get 20 shots a night. That's very, very likely to result in a lottery-bound Spurs team. It's why I was so interested in Durant coming to the Spurs. Vassell, Castle and Harper all need to take a step back and learn to be good non-stars if the Spurs are going to make this core work. The team's done a miserable job recently of teaching guys to defend and shoot from distance. and that's simply unsustainable. I'd like a third veteran scorer on the roster to basically force the aforementioned three to adapt. Durant was far and away the best option for that. The other options for that list -- DeRozan and Harden -- are basically nightmare fuel.
I don't want the Spurs to trade Castle or Harper. , I don't even want them to trade Vassell. The team is better off if those guys can make the pivot. I don't approach trades from the perspective of the team "getting rid of" bad players. That's dumb, and I've spoken out against that idea many times over the years. Trades are a means to improving the roster by adding talent that fits, and that is costly. I didn't want to do the Washington trade because I'm pretty meh on Coulibaly and haven't yet looked into Malauach enough to know if he'd be a game-changer for the Spurs. I agree that the Spurs should have another ball-handler in the lineup, and as I said, that would be something they'd have to chase with future moves. But if those guys are elite defensive pieces, and the Spurs can acquire that tertiary scorer, then that is a roster that could make a le run within the next two or three years -- and everyone is cheap enough to where you could keep it together that long. So even though I don't personally love the deal at all, I'd completely understand the logic for the team doing that.
In general, I'm mostly unwilling to trade the second-overall pick for anything (except the first-overall pick of course). I don't like Giannis and would never want him on the Spurs, and he's the only somewhat realistic target who'd warrant the pick's inclusion on value. I'm not particularly willing to deal Castle, but the standard for him is this: If the Spurs want something beyond what they want can get for 14 and future picks, and the other team sees Castle as the bulk of the value to make that happen, then I am okay with him being in the deal. So if they LOVE Coulibaly (and for the record, I don't think the Spurs covet him much at all and folks just assume that because he and Wemby are both French and played on a team together than they have a blood-brother bond or something) and have the choice of trading 2 for Coulibaly and 6 or Castle and 14 for Coulibaly and 6, I'd prefer the second deal.
I've yet to see a Castle trade that I like. However, I think the team should have a very clear line on guys they're willing to trade and guys they aren't. For me, Wemby, Fox and Harper are on one side of that line, and Castle is the first one of the other side of that line. He'd be by far the hardest person to get on that side, but he would still be theoretically gettable.
Castle Harper and Wemby give you an under 21 nucleus to build around. There is nothing better than elite young NBA ready players on rookie contracts.
Spurs are acting like they’re playing the long game after lucking into the #2. That’s good. No pressure to immediately contend will lead to a much brighter future.
I think this will somewhat police itself, with Wemby and Fox (and possibly Harper) standing in Castle's way from ascending to pseudo-star status. I think by simple virtue of the pecking order of our team, it's going to force Castle to develop the things that you (and we all) feel he needs to. Or at least I hope so. If not, then it will be because he has Diva mentality and he'll just go down as "what could have been" - but I'd bet against that based on what we've seen so far.
There is no doubt Castle has areas he needs to improve on (almost all second year players do), but there's also no reason to be lower on Castle than any other second (or even third) year player. Like I said to mo, IMO there is reason to be as excited about Castle's promise as any other player drafted in the last 3 years save for the very elite players (which I would call Wemby, Amen, Paolo and probably JDub. Brandon Miller and Chet are guys in the next tier who you can make a reasonable case for having more promise than Castle. But there is no one else in the last 3 drafts that I'd take over Steph).
I can see the case for Castle, but I disagree that Harper, who has yet to even be drafted, needs to "take a step back". He's about to be the #2 pick and allegedly he's been the #1 pick in a lot of other years. If he needs to take a step back and learn how to be a role player... then either he isn't worth the #2 pick, or he's not the strong prospect he's made out to be. If we were taking Flagg, I don't think a reasonable person would say "Cooper needs to learn to take a step back first". That just sounds like Pop meme "he needs to get over himself". If Harper is as good as advertised, he should be able to step right in and be a dude from the get go *on a winning team*. He'll still be behind Wemby and Fox, but the same way JDub came in as a rookie and contributed to a .500 (effectively) OKC team as a rookie, or Chet for a Top Seeded OKC team as a "rookie", Harper should be able to do the same in my humble opinion.The same is basically the same for Harper, except he's starting off from a better place to be a go-to scorer and seems to have a hidden talent for playing off the ball. He NEEDS to come in defending and hitting catch-and-shoot shots. No, I don't want the team to "prioritize" him in the sense that they pass up on a star like Durant so Harper can get 20 shots a night. That's very, very likely to result in a lottery-bound Spurs team. It's why I was so interested in Durant coming to the Spurs. Vassell, Castle and Harper all need to take a step back and learn to be good non-stars if the Spurs are going to make this core work. The team's done a miserable job recently of teaching guys to defend and shoot from distance. and that's simply unsustainable. I'd like a third veteran scorer on the roster to basically force the aforementioned three to adapt. Durant was far and away the best option for that. The other options for that list -- DeRozan and Harden -- are basically nightmare fuel.
I think the Spurs are very fortunate that two very promising young guys, Castle and Harper, have the luxury of coming in behind Wemby and Fox. Unlike Wemby, they won't be expected to come in right away and be the #1 guy or even the #2 guy. Pressure is reduced and they can develop on a more natural pace, but I disagree that we needed someone like Durant to even further reduce the pressure on them. Durant would have been nice (at least for one year) because he is a good player and he fit, but not so much because we need him in order to make sure Castle and Harper develop "the right way".
Agreed Scott. While I mostly agree with the general point Chinook is trying to make, I think Castle/Harper will already be forced to take smaller roles this year due to Wemby/Fox almost certainly being the top 2 options. I was on board with getting KD but I don’t think we need another main scoring option for the sake of Castle/Harper’s development.
It was only an issue last year because Wemby and Fox both got injured. Castle was thrown into a larger role that probably wasn’t ideal. Some might argue it was a good learning experience for him but I’d disagree. 2 of the most important things Castle can do are learn to be a respectable spot-up shooter and defend at an elite level…and it’s hard to do those things when you’re thrown into the role of being the primary option on offense.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
