Reply With Quote
I don't think it's a deep or strong draft at all, but opinions are mixed. Someone like Sam Vecenie would agree with me (rather, I agree with him... he's not looking to my opinion for anything) while there are some others who really like this draft.
I haven’t dug too much into the prospects but I keep seeing that it’s a deep draft but it doesn’t really look that way lol only certainty is Flagg
I don't think it's a deep or strong draft at all, but opinions are mixed. Someone like Sam Vecenie would agree with me (rather, I agree with him... he's not looking to my opinion for anything) while there are some others who really like this draft.
DAF’s comparison to Danny Green is a good one. Danny could barely dribble a basketball or make a layup, but the dude excelled at shooting 3’s and locking down on the other end.
Similar with Tiago Splitter, couldn’t shoot, didn’t have much of a dribble game, but the dude rebounded and defended. That’s what the Spurs needed around Duncan, Kawhi, Tony and Manu from 2011-2016.
Spurs need more Danny Green and Tiago Splitter at their 3 and 4 positions to round out the starting 5 next to Wemby, Fox, Castle.
At some point you need to add defense, rebounding and shooting.
I’m still open to guys like Kon, but if he’s 6’5 without shoes with short arms you are going to have to play him as a guard with spot minutes at forward and fill out the 3 and 4 spots either with the second pick or via trade or free agency.
Also, the Spurs can’t afford to go into next season with a forward rotation of Barnes, Sochan, Champagnie, Keldon.
The ceiling of the team will be capped at 40-45 wins I don’t care how much of a leap Wemby and Castle make with Fox.
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.
Agree Scott the 8/14 picks don’t have to be as limited as Danny. They can be versions of Danny who have a bit more offensive game for example. I’m ok with high end role players at both those picks.
Here’s my theory on how the Spurs will make their selection.
I think a big factor in picking Castle was how he looked in workouts with the team before the draft. I followed all the reporting after they picked him, and it sounded like he really impressed everyone during scrimmages. That’s similar to how they approached picking Branham and Wesley, and even Primo to a degree. I think they genuinely value seeing how a prospect stacks up against the guys already on the roster. It makes sense—they know their own players better than anyone. They’ve seen how they perform in practice, what drills they run, how consistent they are. So if someone new comes in and clearly looks better, it’s probably an easy decision.
Now thinking through it more, what kind of player would actually stand out in those settings? It’s probably not a guy who’s just a shooter or one-dimensional. I think it’s someone who knows how to run plays, make smart reads, do multiple things on the floor, and just looks a step ahead. That fits with what Brian Wright always talks about when he mentions versatility and guys who can play multiple positions.
I also think there’s something to how a player carries himself. The kind of guy who naturally becomes a leader or someone the others gravitate toward. Sochan, Vassell, Castle, and Branham are all going to Europe together. My guess is they’re looking for someone who can fit in with that group—someone who clicks with them enough to be invited on that kind of trip.
'Cause he can't shoot. I bet you if Kuminga was even average at 3pt shooting, he would be getting time.
This doesn't seem right at all. The Spurs were scouting Castle all year at UConn. They were very aware of who he was as a player well before the draft process.
It would be interesting to consider where Danny Green would go in a modern draft. Three-and-D prospects aren't easy to find in college because the diffuse talent pool means guys will often play positions above where they'll end up in the pros. Danny's senior year at UNC, he shot 41 percent from three on seven attempts per 40. His advanced stats were pretty strong as well. With teams still in the mindset that shooting could be outsourced and three-and-D wings being all the rage, you'd expect Green to have been taken higher. But he was a mid-second-rounder. History says Danny was definitely underdrafted -- dude ended up being a top-10 player in what was a pretty decent draft class. But the marks against him were seen as too big for him to overcome. Maybe with today's focus on shooting, Green could have been drafted much higher. But then I think about Harrison Ingram, who last year had a number of superficial similarities to 2009 Green. He was drafted at around the same spot that Danny was, so maybe it wouldn't have made a difference.
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.
I personally see all five positions as open in this draft. The team needs rotational guards, wings, forwards and bigs, and if you add in the potential of them trading some rotation players in another attempt to improve the top-end talent, then even the current locks are up for discussion. There are a couple of players who seem like good sixth-man candidates, and that's important if the Spurs are going to move on from Johnson and/or Vassell within the next couple of years. I also think they should take the backup center spot seriously and both draft a center and sign a vet this summer. Whether that vet is an MLE signing or a min guy would depend on whether they draft a center in the lottery or in the second round.
I also think they should consider how much they want to bank on Castle being a real piece going forward. In my opinion, he is the clear ROY winner and has some nice potential. But he was extremely inefficient on both ends. On one hand, he might have that "it" factor. On the other hand, it's going to be hard for the team to seriously compete with Castle starting and shooting as poorly as he usually does. I think the team has another year of figuring things out ahead of it, but if they do decide to try to take a step forward, and Castle can provide the bulk of the value for a third star, it could make sense to move him and focus on shooters to fill out the starting lineup.
We really need shooters
I am not saying it’s the ONLY thing they used to evaluate players, but what I am saying is that it played a big factor because they saw these prospects up close and personal while measuring their skill against their own players who they saw everyday. That’s all my point is.
This is absolutely the wrong reason and Warrior fans will scoff at you. Again, you are oversimplifying the situation.
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.
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.
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. 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 really like Peavy. no problem, if they use #38 on him. reminds on the Derrick White pick.
That’s sounds like a great progression (winning another 10 games).
I'll be honest with you I've been here long enough now that I think I have a pretty good handle on how some posters approach the draft / evaluate draft prospects, but you were one of the last people I thought would've been so high on Fleming early. Not that it's wrong or anything, but his "type" goes against the kind of guys you typically like.
A "potential" Danny Green is not a lottery pick.
Your Castle take is quite interesting. If one ascribed to the theory that he's not efficient enough or won't become efficient enough going forward then the most reasonable course of action is to use that 'it factor' perception to trade him now when his value is the highest. I'm not sure I'm there on that evaluation, but it makes for an intriguing discussion.
I think it will ultimately come down to Fox v Castle before they entertain moving him. Not happening any time soon, but perhaps by the start of Castle’s fourth year.
That, or Castle evolves into a small forward and they find good shooting at the 2 and/or 4 positions.
The Castle take is very interesting as I started noticing/focusing on his efficiency after Victor went out. I loved Steph most of the season, but the only thing I didn't love was his efficiency (I know some people mentioned that being a rookie likely plays a big part in that), and I think some of that comes down to his shooting.
I love that he gets to the rim and either scores or draws fouls, but he seems to force it sometimes due to not having a good/great shot IMO. With less touches, he's going to have to be more efficient.
Also, I didn't take as much note when he was playing with Victor if he was more efficient during that time and got less efficient after Victor was ruled out for the rest of the season? I'm no good at number crunching, but that is something I was interested in knowing (if his efficiency went down, stayed the same or went up a little bit when Victor went out).
Probably, but playing Devils advocate for the sake of discussion, if you wait that long and Chinook's right about his efficiency then you won't get anything for him at that point. Of course the counter argument is, if you trade him now and he does improve his efficiency then you've lost an asset.
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.
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.
There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)
Posting Permissions
