Spurs trade ideas

[Chinook]

saying "keldon will play power forward" is no less reassuring than telling you sochan will play center

theres no indication that either ingram/minix are ready for NBA minutes at all. and neither is currently under contract, NBA or two-way

just naming guys isnt really addressing the need

Keldon's career has gone into the ter once he slimmed down and tried to be a wing. I guess he deserves that for taking advice from Draymond Green.

They wouldn't trade for Anderson because they wouldn't play him, and they have depth there because they have third-, fourth-, fifth- sixth- and seventh-string options already. That those guys don't inspire confidence in you is about what you'd expect.

[SpursFan86]

Keldon's career has gone into the ter once he slimmed down and tried to be a wing. I guess he deserves that for taking advice from Draymond Green.

They wouldn't trade for Anderson because they wouldn't play him, and they have depth there because they have third-, fourth-, fifth- sixth- and seventh-string options already. That those guys don't inspire confidence in you is about what you'd expect.

Aside from Wemby covering minutes at the 4 (which, to be fair, I do think is part of the plan) all of our options have major question marks.

Sochan is not a proven commodity. I like him and am hopeful that he can be a legit quality rotation player but I don't think that's a given. Not to mention he's missed a considerable amount of time in 2 of his 3 seasons.

Barnes is really only a PF because in his older age he's lost a bunch of athleticism/quickness. He's an average-ish player and if he declined much further we're probably dipping into mediocre territory.

With Keldon's new size he really has no business playing PF. Unless you're expecting him to put on 20 pounds in the next few months I don't really think we should be banking on him giving us many minutes at the 4.

If we're really counting Bryant/Ingram/Minix as guys who have us covered at the 4...I don't know, that just seems disingenuous at that point It's likely that at least 2 or all 3 of these guys are more G-Leaguers at this point than true NBA rotation pieces.

Essentially, IMO we have Wemby + 2 average-ish options with pretty big question marks. If the plan is to play Wemby 15-20 mpg at PF + Sochan takes a step forward/stays healthy + Barnes doesn't decline from last year, then sure, maybe we're in a fine spot. But I just don't really see how anyone would feel comfortable with this PF rotation or think that it's not an area that should be addressed.

[spurraider21]

Keldon's career has gone into the ter once he slimmed down and tried to be a wing. I guess he deserves that for taking advice from Draymond Green.

They wouldn't trade for Anderson because they wouldn't play him, and they have depth there because they have third-, fourth-, fifth- sixth- and seventh-string options already. That those guys don't inspire confidence in you is about what you'd expect.

no, keldon's career has gone into the ter since the team got out of the "we are actively trying to lose games and SOMEBODY has to score for us" mode

[scott]

Keldon's career has gone into the ter once he slimmed down and tried to be a wing. I guess he deserves that for taking advice from Draymond Green.

They wouldn't trade for Anderson because they wouldn't play him, and they have depth there because they have third-, fourth-, fifth- sixth- and seventh-string options already. That those guys don't inspire confidence in you is about what you'd expect.

Leaving the trade aspect aside (because you usually don't trade for 3rd stringers, in general)... what's the argument? The Spurs shouldn't bring in any better players because they have plenty of ty options already? How is that different than saying the Spurs shouldn't sign a third center because they already have a third string option (Sochan)... or even taking it to a more absurd ends in saying they also have fourth (Wesley) and fifth (Branham) string options at C? Those guys might not inspire confidence in you (nor should they, because they aren't even C's... but to me they're as much an option at C as Harrison Ingram is at PF).

It seems common around these parts (not by any one poster in particular, and I'll admit my own culpability to this charge) that we just shut down certain discourse with "well the Spurs aren't going to do that, so you shouldn't even discuss it". The fact is, the Spurs aren't going to do 90%+ of the stuff talked about here, but we still share our opinion of what we think the Spurs should do.

The fact you think the Spurs are well covered (the most covered, in fact) at PF is your opinion, but it is just that. It's certainly reasonable for others to be of the opinion it is in fact our least covered position (which also just be an opinion). My opinion is that we don't actually have any viable true PF options on our roster. Sochan and Barnes are wings, and Bryant isn't yet a viable NBA player. But... that's just my opinion. I could be wrong. And certainly I know that Barnes and Sochan will in fact be playing PF for us a quite considerable amount of minutes this season.

[RC_Drunkford]

I know, I was just making a (bad) joke.

Kyle would certainly be a luxury as a deep bench guy, probably does not align with his career goals and ambitions though, and while I'd play him over Keldon (as a deep bench PF, that is) you're probably correct that the Spurs may not.

There are some interesting, yet conflicting, thoughts around the last two roster positions - and I don't think any of them are wrong.

On one hand, we have the idea that the Spurs may not want young guys at the end of the bench because they don't have the developmental resources to properly devote to them. Understandable, quite logical... makes sense.

On the other hand, we may not want experienced vets (like Kyle Anderson) at the end of the bench because they might not get any playing time behind the guys we do have (like Keldon, in this instance), so you're doing a disservice to them. Understandable, quite logical... makes sense.

However, the only space in the middle is filling out the rest of the roster with vets who just aren't very good (::phone rings in a dark La Cantera Resort hotel room, a groggy man answers, a cheerful Brian Wright is on the other end of the line:: "Hey Bryn, what you up to these days"?). That doesn't seem like a great solution. So, as long as someone (like Kyle Anderson) would be willing to accept whatever role the Spurs can offer... that seems like what we should do. After all, we do have to fill out the roster one way or another. I think Bassey would be fine in that third C/emergency backup role (and I get the feeling the Spurs maybe aren't ready to give up on him), and I'm hoping that last spot goes to a vet PF. I'm not going to sit here and bang the drum for Kyle Anderson anymore than I will for any other guy (in fact, I'd prefer Kevin Love simply for the entertainment value), but he'd be fine (if he'd accept the role). I think there will be enough opportunities for whomever that guy is, because history would suggest that at some point Sochan is likely to miss some games.

you know the third option would be to sign someone who's better than those players and make some of the scrubs that were in the rotation prior, third stringers. That option seems too far gone now...

[scott]

you know the third option would be to sign someone who's better than those players and make some of the scrubs that were in the rotation prior, third stringers. That option seems too far gone now...

Yeah, that's what I was getting at in my last post. I don't see the logic in passing on better options because you have ty options already. But... I do understand that the Spurs like to do this "for the culture"

[spurraider21]

Leaving the trade aspect aside (because you usually don't trade for 3rd stringers, in general)... what's the argument? The Spurs shouldn't bring in any better players because they have plenty of ty options already? How is that different than saying the Spurs shouldn't sign a third center because they already have a third string option (Sochan)... or even taking it to a more absurd ends in saying they also have fourth (Wesley) and fifth (Branham) string options at C? Those guys might not inspire confidence in you (nor should they, because they aren't even C's... but to me they're as much an option at C as Harrison Ingram is at PF).

It seems common around these parts (not by any one poster in particular, and I'll admit my own culpability to this charge) that we just shut down certain discourse with "well the Spurs aren't going to do that, so you shouldn't even discuss it". The fact is, the Spurs aren't going to do 90%+ of the stuff talked about here, but we still share our opinion of what we think the Spurs should do.

The fact you think the Spurs are well covered (the most covered, in fact) at PF is your opinion, but it is just that. It's certainly reasonable for others to be of the opinion it is in fact our least covered position (which also just be an opinion). My opinion is that we don't actually have any viable true PF options on our roster. Sochan and Barnes are wings, and Bryant isn't yet a viable NBA player. But... that's just my opinion. I could be wrong. And certainly I know that Barnes and Sochan will in fact be playing PF for us a quite considerable amount of minutes this season.

this defeats the purpose of sports messageboard and forums

[sfernald]

Seems like jazz are just giving away all their vets. Would anyone be interested in Markennen straight up for contracts of KJ and Barnes?

[exstatic]

Seems like jazz are just giving away all their vets. Would anyone be interested in Markennen straight up for contracts of KJ and Barnes?

No. His contract is too much. We’d be under apron pressure in 2-3 years instead of 5.

[scott]

No. His contract is too much. We’d be under apron pressure in 2-3 years instead of 5.

If the cost of Lauri was merely KJ and Barnes, the Spurs could undoubtedly figure things out in 2-3 years.

But... I don't think Lauri would realistically ever get that cheap to acquire.

[Mr. Body]

If the cost of Lauri was merely KJ and Barnes, the Spurs could undoubtedly figure things out in 2-3 years.

But... I don't think Lauri would realistically ever get that cheap to acquire.

Utah would be ecstatic to get rid of him at this point. That contract was a miserable idea. It's kind of hilarious that the Warriors hung onto Kuminga when they could have had Markannen and Utah was demanding Kuminga in the first place.

[spurraider21]

warriors keeping kuminga is magnitudes worse a decision than the jazz keeping lauri imo

[Mr. Body]

warriors keeping kuminga is magnitudes worse a decision than the jazz keeping lauri imo

They're both pretty bad. I think there's some market for Kuminga, since he'll be cheaper as a contract than Markannen. I don't think Utah will ever get off Lauri, or at not until the contract starts winding down. I really don't know if teams will give maxxes to just pretty good players going forward. But we'll see what the Spurs do with Fox. They have their opportunity to up.

[spurraider21]

They're both pretty bad. I think there's some market for Kuminga, since he'll be cheaper as a contract than Markannen. I don't think Utah will ever get off Lauri, or at not until the contract starts winding down. I really don't know if teams will give maxxes to just pretty good players going forward. But we'll see what the Spurs do with Fox. They have their opportunity to up.

lauri is overpaid but at least hes good and an all star caliber player. im not even sure kuminga is good

[Chinook]

Aside from Wemby covering minutes at the 4 (which, to be fair, I do think is part of the plan) all of our options have major question marks.

Leaving the trade aspect aside (because you usually don't trade for 3rd stringers, in general)... what's the argument? The Spurs shouldn't bring in any better players because they have plenty of ty options already?

The argument isn't that the Spurs can't or shouldn't do better than Barnes as the starter and ideally put some pressure on Sochan to improve. That's that I see a lot of arguments for bringing in an additional PF who they expect (not would prefer, which I think is valid, but expect) to get minutes while Barnes and Sochan are on the roster. It's like the people who resisted considering Barnes as the main ballast in a Collins trade because "Then the Spurs would be trading one shooter for another" as if Barnes would still be in the rotation anyway. So for me, the goal has to be to improve OVER Barnes and Sochan, not get a worse player than them and make the logjam even worse. As I stated before, I really don't see a lot of minutes in the rotation for a new guy unless folks like Barnes or Johnson are outgoing. If you're looking for a deep-bench forward, then look for that kind of player and don't pay $9 Million for them.

[TD 21]

This debate has bogged down/devolved into a semantical one.

The facts are as follows: Even if Sochan also lacks ideal strength for a four, he's the only true one the roster, but his defensive versatility/ap ude (at least in relation to the alternatives) is needed from 1-4 depending on the matchup and they don't have a single credible two-way option to man the position.

His greatest strength won't be as useful off the bench and Vassell-Barnes is obviously severely undersized for a starting forward duo, which is why I wonder if the book isn't closed on him reverting to starting over Castle.

That alignment also makes sense of the previous Yabusele interest.

I think the FO has done a PHENOMENAL job. Im just nitpicking the fringes here because I want them to be sharks and turn over every single little stone for opportunities. But as a whole? They have been really damn good and Im very happy with what they have done last 5 years and now.

Even if I am nitpicking (like here) I think keeping big picture in mind is warranted and they have earned trust (especially Brian)

Phenomenal is an overstatement, but otherwise same. That's what I'm saying with the inability to admit wrong/cheapness.

Branham and Wesley are obviously busts, but at least the latter (maybe the do the former a solid) is probable to return just because its convenient.

Between that, the constant selling off of current 2nds and lack of churn of two-ways, they don't even give themselves a chance to be a team that finds the next needle in a haystack.

[Chinook]

no, keldon's career has gone into the ter since the team got out of the "we are actively trying to lose games and SOMEBODY has to score for us" mode

You'd think that, but he started falling off while the Spurs were tanking for Wemby. They were definitely still in the actively trying to lose games mode in 2022-2023, and that was far and away the worst season of Keldon's career so far. I just don't think folks realize how much losing weight hurt him. He went from being an undersized PF who could at least have some advantages of his opponents to being an undersized and slow wing. Losing the weight might have been good for his health, but him leaning into his girth and learning more big-man techniques would have been better for his individual performance. But of course, the Spurs have to turn every prospect into a dribble-drive ball-dominant wing. The same en tification that happened to Vassell and that slowed down Sochan's development also happened to Keldon. In a better world, he's a viable energy big off the bench

[Chinook]

His greatest strength won't be as useful off the bench and Vassell-Barnes is obviously severely undersized for a starting forward duo, which is why I wonder if the book isn't closed on him reverting to starting over Castle.

I still like Fox, Harper, Vassell, Sochan, Wembanyama as the starting five going into the year. I think Harper would benefit himself and the team if he started his career as a shooting-guard. I do think Barnes will start until he can't, though, and I don't love the Sochan/Barnes starting duo. That's even more true given the four guards the Spurs will want to play. This is a rough sketch of a possible rotation.

*Fox -- 32 (32 PG)
*Harper -- 24 (24 SG)
Castle -- 28 (16 PG, 12 SG)
Champagnie -- 8 (8 SG)
*Vassell -- 30 (4 SG, 26 SF)
Johnson -- 18 (18 SF)
*Sochan -- 28 (4 SF, 24 PF)
Barnes -- 20 (20 PF)
*Wembanyama -- 32 (4 PF, 28 C)
Kornet --20 (20 C)

The Spurs bypassed their chances to make substantial upgrades at the moment. The rotation looks pretty locked in, though the distribution of minutes and potential starters may still change. If the team isn't going to bring in a guy who is either a decent prospect or who will unseat one of those 10 players, they should be cheap depth.

[spurraider21]

i dont mind the sochan/barnes forward pairing in concept. if people think Barnes is too slow to defend wings and needs to defend 4's... that works since sochan does his best work against 2/3 types anyway. the problem to me is i dont know how playable sochan is with a backcourt that struggles with outside shooting.

if you were starting Fox/Vassell/Barnes/Sochan/Wemby i think it could work... but i dont like having neither of Castle/Harper starting.

i agree with chinook that Harper spending more time at the 2 would be beneficial to him. his big swing skill, even as a lead guard, is going to be his shooting anyway. let his emphasis early on be his improvement with footwork, repositioning, shooting, etc. its not like SGs dont handle the ball in our offense. we saw castle get plenty of lead time even when playing alongside Paul last year

[DPG21920]

Love it. I said I thought spurs should move on from guys like Blake and Branham and they do it. Smart move.

[CGD]

Love it. I said I thought spurs should move on from guys like Blake and Branham and they do it. Smart move.

EVERYONE here said they should move on from those guys, lol

[DPG21920]

EVERYONE here said they should move on from those guys, lol

And? I didnt say my opinion was unique. I said I love that they actually did it.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

And? I didnt say my opinion was unique. I said I love that they actually did it.

We’re collectively getting better at understanding how NBA works and what deals are logical and feasible, instead of delusional. A ton of other boards have it the other way around and are thus unreadable.

Now, half of ST are crazy enough to think they’re smarter than actual GMs but if they’re made one and had to negotiate a deal they’d trade Luka Doncic for some vibes and vague defense wins championship promises. Ok, not a good example. But they might easily be talked into trading an unprotected first from a bad team to move up 10 spots in the draft… Holy , we are qualified aren’t we?

[DPG21920]

We’re collectively getting better at understanding how NBA works and what deals are logical and feasible, instead of delusional. A ton of other boards have it the other way around and are thus unreadable.

Now, half of ST are crazy enough to think they’re smarter than actual GMs but if they’re made one and had to negotiate a deal they’d trade Luka Doncic for some vibes and vague defense wins championship promises. Ok, not a good example. But they might easily be talked into trading an unprotected first from a bad team to move up 10 spots in the draft… Holy , we are qualified aren’t we?

Im pretty confident (assuming I had smart people in place to really help me navigate CBA) that I would be ok or an improvement over 5 teams at least lol

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

Im pretty confident (assuming I had smart people in place to really help me navigate CBA) that I would be ok or an improvement over 5 teams at least lol

If I had to negotiate with a real GM I imagine he’d talk his way into getting my best player, best pick and my lunch money as well. So I’d default into declining any trades that don’t come from my team. Which means I’d be like the Chicago/Orlando GMs and not make player trades for years.

Then I’d let the scouting team propose draft picks and when free agency comes I’d probably waste every cent like a drunken sailor on day one. Then I’d get fired and collect some cash.

Still a better job than some actual GMs, you’re correct lol