Reply With Quote
Yes it is, even in the crap East.
If the Spurs have Risacher and Castle both on the board at 4 the only way to get both is taking Risacher 4 and trading up with Detroit to take Castle 5. Hopefully the Pistons would take Keldon and 8, would be way less dumb than paying Monty $65 million to sit at home.
Yes it is, even in the crap East.
I dont know that they are tanking with LaMelo + Miller looking great + possibly brining back Bridges for the full season vs just a fraction of it like last year + having 6th pick.
Especially if what you are saying is true and Castle is “perfect” fit, then wouldn’t that just bolster their chances of sneaking in? CHA won 43 games just 2 seasons ago….Im not saying its “likely” but are you really willing to gamble on losing out on that 25 draft when the cost to guarantee you dont is moving back 2 spots?
They’re not a playoff team, as is, and why would they NOT tank with this upcoming draft? They would also only “miss out on the 2025 draft” if their pick is 15th or worse, the only scenario where it would convey to us. The only way they miss out on the choice picks at the top is if they don’t tank.
Because if LaMelo is healthy and Brandon Miller keeps going and they re-sign Bridges, theres just no way to functionally fully tank in that scenario unless there are injuries (which is definitely a possibility with LaMelo). Especially since they will, in either scenario here, be adding a top 8 pick to their team as well.
They only have to make it to the 9th or 10th seed to be a play in team. That is not a stretch to me at all. At that point, its just 2 games and if you’re a FO gaming out all scenarios etc…it would be foolish to me to not move back two spots so that the scenario of you being 10th seed and needed just two wins to make playoffs keeps you from having exposure to first round of next years draft.
I dont see how this is arguable in terms of value even if you think the scenario is “highly unlikely”. Moving back 2 spots in this draft is not some major cost for that insurance is the point.
You're so hung up on the number of spots instead of getting the guy they want who fits there. Also they were 7-15 with LaMelo in the lineup last year; they're not a playoff threat and they'd be stupid to pass on Castle just to get two second round picks back.
You are acting like Castle, even in this draft, is some cant miss prospect with no flaws. If he were that, he would be going number one, not 6. You just cant shake your own personal view of him IMO and see the forest for the trees on how the rest of the league seems to view not just him but the overall draft. You’re telling me that Carter or someone like that is so much worse and doesnt fit great that you cant fathom moving back 2 spots?
Makes no sense to me personally but I digress. Like what if SA took Castle at 4 and hes no longer there for CHA? Is their draft doomed?
You're arguing a weak strawman. I'm acting like Charlotte makes the obvious pick when they desperately need guards whereas like you said, they have Miller and Bridges already for the forwards so probably wouldn't value guys like Holland or Williams who could be there at 8 nearly as highly. You're so hung up on it being two spots as opposed to the guy they'd want. You think Carter is rated nearly as highly as Castle by front offices? What are you smoking bro.
So then their prefect fit in fact helps them towards making the playoffs
Also, what does CHA do if SA picks Castle 4? Then what? I thought it was obvious not to get entirely caught up in the very specific scenario only and think through scenarios like this.
Maybe SA takes Castle at 4 and now calls CHA and says “let’s trade 8 + your pick for 6” and CHA doesn’t have that perfect fit. Or SA works with DET and leaps CHA for Castle anyways. This was a general framework and it’s not a straw man.
Acting like it’s Castle or bust for CHA makes no sense in terms of anyone’s overall ranking and completely dismissing CHA having some risk to losing their pick (even if small) and ignoring a very simple solution (moving back 2 spots in a weak draft) to solve that is just wild to me.
You call CHA and say “we have a deal in place with DET at 5 for Castle. You aren’t getting him. So, if you want, you can deal 6 to us for 8 + your pick back or we just deal with DET and you aren’t getting Castile either way.
bridges is an unrestricted FA for what its worth
I'm not acting like it's Castle or bust for them. I'm conditioning on your scenario of the Spurs taking Risacher #4, in which case I doubt Detroit takes Castle over Buzelis and thus Castle is there for the taking at #6 for Charlotte.
That they'll have Bird Rights on.
That's kind of funny the way you all over the idea of trading Keldon and 8 to get Castle. Not sure what else the Spurs would reasonably offer since it would cost Detroit the chance to get Buzelis.
Ok fine - but in gaming this out, which is the point vs getting completely fixated on only one specific variation of the idea, the point was there are plenty of scenarios where a trade between ChA and SA makes sense; and yes even if Castle is there for CHA IMO.
I can on the deal all I want and it still happen like in this scenario. Or trading 8 + CHA first + future Spurs protected first for 5
The entire point is thinking through the general framework and possible iterations.
Because that was the scenario in the post of your's I quoted: that the Spurs end up with Risacher at 4 and trade up to 6 to get Castle.
In this scenario, I think the better play would be to take Castle at 4, let DET take Risacher, then try to get CHA to trade out of 6 where you take Buzelis, then you do the deal with CHI for Carter at 11.
If you take Risacher at 4, you pretty much assure DET takes Buzelis and CHA takes Castle, IMO.
So in listening to Trajan - DET seems open to both adding decent players on bad contracts and/or moving back for extra draft capital. Seems to me Spurs have plenty with pick 8 to move to pick 5 IF they see the need to move up.
Whether that’s Tre Jones + 8 or something like 8 + a future protected first, SA and DET could end up trade partners this draft.
I'd definitely do Risacher at 4 and secure Castle at 5. My big question is how much I'd push onto the table. I'd put the 35 out there, but probably not enough. I'd consider the CHA first, which is really two future (probably pretty good) SRPs.
If the situation arises where SA can walk away with Castle+Reed or Castle+Risacher by trading 8 for 5, I would do something like Branham + 8 + CHA pick + 2 2nds or 8 + future lottery protected first probably.
DET moves back 3 spots, gets maybe a young player they think is interesting and adds some draft captial or they dont value Branham and they get a lotto protected first.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
