The real question for me isn’t Fox, he’s a proven performer.
We have Fox and Wemby.
People are rushing to put Castle in that category but he’s not there yet and I don’t think it is a given.
I think before the lottery the Spurs front office needed to plan on Fox, Wemby, Castle and hope that Castle gets there.
But now we have an insurance policy w Harper.
Lets Castle and Harper battle it out and send someone out once the dust settles.
My moneys on Harper btw.
I bet this is exactly the way the Spurs were planning the future...until they struck silver in the lottery.
I would rather trade Castle than the #2 pick, but that would be out of character for the organization.
Gotta take into account the possibility that Castle doesn't put up enough stats to command a max extension with Wemby and Fox around. Even more so if the Spurs trade for KD and keep Harper.
That's why it's essential that the Spurs don't give out max extensions just going through the motions. What it means to be a max player has changed now that teams basically can't have three of them on a team at the same time. If the Spurs don't think Fox can be a top-two player on a le team, they shouldn't give him a max. Let him go into the season without an extension and see if his play warrants it. If Castle only wants to extend on a rookie max, then go into the next off-season and let someone offer him a contract. If Wemby has another injury scare next year, don't write in Rose-max language into his extension.
If the guys end up signing for like $8-15 Million less per year than the maxes, all of the sudden it becomes much easier to fit in the role-players and/or keep three of the stars. As I've said before, Castle may well develop into a very good player who can be that third guy on a contender and still only sign a $200M/5 because third-guys aren't max-guys and with RFA matching rights, teams might not be willing to negotiate for the Spurs. I think folks too often think of the lotto guys as either pass or fail rather than them becoming vets with a certain market value as they develop.
Anyway, the Spurs should be aiming to remain flexible. That means keeping as many of their picks as possible so they can continuously have fresh blood on their bench. That's even more true during the four "double years" the team has coming up. It also means being wiling to trade away some of their guys, both to "break them into smaller parts" and gain more assets and cheaper role-players and to find win-now players who might boost the team for a couple of years rather than be part of the long-term rebuild. Unless the team lucks into a trio of guys who are willing to make the money work to stay together throughout their careers, the front office is not going to be able to put a group together and just coast for a decade. Even if they do find that kind of trio, they'll need to be even more diligent in maintaining young and cheap players around them. They can't be like the old Spurs and piss away draft picks constantly because they had the same group of 5-8 guys for years at a time.
No I'm not, I'm saying you have four years to figure out instead of making a stupid and rash decision now.
What was said in the video? I don't have time to watch it. Did he discuss the draft, free agency or anything like that? If not, it doesn't really mean anything. They could still do anything come draft day.
lol Don Harris literally talked to Holt and then reported Harper will be the pick at #2. Dylan Harper will be drafted and kept by the Spurs. He called it an informed opinion. Spurs are drafting Harper and all other opinions or concepts people are coming up with are coming from a place of boredom. Everyone can keep coming up with reasons the Spurs won’t draft Harper and they will be wrong.
Holt says in this video the Spurs paid the luxury tax 8 times during the big 3 era and they are prepared to do so again in the future. They are bringing in new money to prepare for it.
Michael Dell is on board now. Several other high profile investors. France money will come in. The Spurs sent Wemby to become a monk to bring in China money. Spurs are a global brand on the rise. Small thinking leads to small results. The Spurs are thinking big. Dylan Harper is going to bring that Filipino money.
Investors the Spurs have brought in over the last several years:
- Michael Dell: CEO and founder of Dell Technologies, a significant minority investor.
- Sixth Street: A leading global investment firm, also a significant minority investor.
- Joe Gebbia: Co-founder and Chairman of Airbnb.org, also a minority owner.
- Kimberly Lewis: Founder of investment management company KSL Resources, a minority owner.
- McCombs Family: Rejoined the Spurs ownership group in 2023, after a previous ownership stake.
- Paul Viera: Increased his stake in the Spurs.
- Other Strategic Partners: The Spurs investor group also includes other strategic partners, including EARNEST Partners and McCombs Family
- David Robinson is also investing heavily in the team.
The Spurs are thinking Dynasty:
Victor Wembanyama
Project Marvel
New NBA TV money is coming. Main attraction being the Face of the League.
1st Apron
2nd Apron
3rd Apron
Austin Tech Based money
Saudi Arabia
China
France
Global Expansion
Championships
Dylan Harper is a piece of puzzle.
I agree with OP, it's my feeling as well
Taking Harper could be greedy in a way, Spurs already have Castle, a perfect profile to develop and Fox is at a stage of his career that makes him a perfect fit to start winning NOW and be a leader. Why bring another lefty PD with a lot of hype? What type of message is he supposed to receive, just when he's supposed to sign an extension?
The timing doesn't make sense
We already have so many needs to fill especially at the wing, bigs(backup and to pair with Wemby) and shooting, why add another guard who has the same strengths and weaknesses than the ones we already have?
Pick 2 could bring us a lot more because of Harper's (over?)hype and so many desperate teams ready to (over)pay for him.
Drafting Harper is not only great from a talent standpoint (legit All-NBA potential), it is also a good move for the financials. His salary is cost controlled his first 4 years and gives time to make the necessary evaluations going forward. Harper and Castle both need big time work in terms of shooting (neither looks like a pure shooter and both have disappointing shooting splits). Expecting both of them to become knock down shooters is just a very unlikely outcome, chances are higher that 1 or none of them do.
If both guys figure the shooting out a bit then yea, the front office will have some big decisions to make in a couple of years. But that would be a great outcome and would likely mean we've had some awesome team success as a result. That being said, the Spurs recent history in developing players honestly hasn't been stellar; Sochan has been stagnant, Vassell has seemingly regressed, KJ peaked early and stagnated. Even Wemby himself has gone through his share of ups and downs where offensively he is the mercy of whether his 3s fall or not, hasn't really felt like actual development has taken place at times.
According to Forbes fhe Spurs are valued at 3.85 Billion an 18% increase since 2021. Tied for 9th in increased value. They have risen from the 25th most valued franchise to 18th. They are on the rise since the new investors have come in. That will continue to sky rocket. We might need to prepare for that.
Fox is a nice player, top-10 PG in the league and entering his prime. But the idea he is a "max player" under this CBA is ludicrous. He's made one ASG in 8 seasons. That's not a "max player".
Eh they need a wing creator being guard heavy alienates the alien from the offense reliant on ball screens.
Might need to accept the front office is betting on their 3 best players? This is a new flash?
In no world does Harper interfere with that plan. Harper is the perfect insurance for Fox or Castle not working out. You flip whoever doesn't if need be.
I agree with Dejounte as I said before, I believe the Spurs are trading down from #2.
The way I see it Wemby/Castle/Fox is the main core and Castle is viewed as Wemby's longtime running mate. If the Spurs think Castle has indeed SGA type potential, then it makes sense to see the Wemby/Castle duo as the longtime building block. The new CBA basically only allows you to have 2 max contracts on the books if you want to build a roster with depth.
People seem to have this notion that we gon somehow replicate the Ducan-era, which is basically impossible under this CBA agreement. If you want to have a 10-15 year run, the key is to have role players on cheap contracts.
Where we are set up at, is that we have plenty of swaps, which should allow us to pick at a higher position, so we can add good young role players on rookie contracts. Maybe we'll find one future All-Star if we strike gold, who would then be on a different contractual timeline than Wemby/Castle.
What we don't have is extra picks to make trades for roster adjustments. That means offloading bad contracts and trading for role players on good contracts. Free agency is basically dead and you have to trade for those players. It's mandatory to not trade out 4 future firsts and end up like Denver or Milwaukee, where you are stuck with an MVP caliber player, but can't put a good enough roster around him.
Which brings me to the point that trading down from #2 makes sense if:
- you get a haul of future first round draft picks that you can use to reload the roster in the future
- you get borderline All-Stars/All-Defensive players on good long term contracts (Trey Murphy III for example)
- you draft a player in the top 10 with All-Star like potential, but won't demand a max extention
Someone like Maluach, who would basically be viewed as Wemby's back up (even if he starts next to him and then gets staggered minutes), would most likely not get a max extension. That means you can probably retain him for another 5 years.
The Spurs need to think in windows. A KD trade opens the window earlier, then comes off the books when Wemby and Castle are seasoned. At that point you try to find the next guy to add to get you over the top. Once Fox is too old, they need to find the next guy, and so on.
I'm not against drafting Harper, but people here act like he's a surefire All-NBA PG already. Castle is a proven NBA player and won the le in college. Harper didn't make the tournament. Yes, Harper's intangibles are intriguing and he's the safest pick in the draft, but that doesn't mean he will be the second best player out of this draft. Also if his off the dribble shooting doesn't come around, his ceiling will be significantly lower than what people think it is.
And I don't think a clash of egos is out of the question. Drafting Harper is basically telling Fox "you are gone in 4 years if this kid pans out". Meanwhile Harper would have less touches for 4 straight seasons and has to start the season in a sixth man role. This kid is highly compe ive.
Trading down might actually be the smarter move, but it's also the riskier one.
these are the accurate extension numbers of Wemby, Fox, Castle, Harper with the salary cap and luxury tax lines. 29/30 is obviously the critical year. This would work in theory, if you are willing to trade away Fox in 2029 which would be the plan for most people on this board, I assume.
It's possible. I think Fox was a fine / good trade - more juice at PG, cost two valuable picks (plus the Chicago pick that would've ended up valuable) and got off Collins' deal.
Harper isn't a sure thing.
But he's viewed as close to a sure thing, you win with star level creation, and he's big enough to be a wing sized creator that can't be hunted on D by size mismatches.
If they don't believe in the jumper, I get selling if you get a kings ransom. But that's a kings ransom of some combination of high value future value (a bunch of unprotected picks from teams that project to be terrible and have limited avenues to get good), current draft value (high pick to get Tre / Kon etc), and a improvement of the current roster.
If you said the Spurs moved down to 5, got Lauri, the 2031 Phoenix pick(note - Unprotected - I think), for Barnes / Keldon / 2, I think that's close - not sure if I do it given Lauri's signed up for Long term now at about his $ value. But it's close.
A lot of people seem to think the plan is to just trade Fox in 2029, but that kind of move usually only happens when a team has hit its ceiling or something goes wrong behind the scenes. If Fox is still producing and the team is in the playoffs, possibly making deep runs, it would be strange to pull the plug just because another player is due for a payday.these are the accurate extension numbers of Wemby, Fox, Castle, Harper with the salary cap and luxury tax lines. 29/30 is obviously the critical year. This would work in theory, if you are willing to trade away Fox in 2029 which would be the plan for most people on this board, I assume.
This isn’t a situation that sneaks up on you either. You’ve had years to plan for that moment, which is why the real decision point is now. Choosing to draft Harper means accepting that you might be forced into a tough call later. Choosing not to could be about avoiding that situation altogether.
exactly and as I said this might cause some friction down the line. Also if Fox is still producing in 2029 at age 31, you don't know what's gon happen. Tony Parker was 31 in 2014 and All-NBA second team. If you draft a star wing at #5 or #7 the fit would be significantly better. It just comes down to hitting that pick out the park and I can understand why people don't trust our FO to do that.
Just to clarify, I’m not in favor of trading the second pick just to move off it. But if the pick is drawing strong offers from other teams that put the Spurs in a better long-term position, it needs to be considered.
Brooklyn holds picks 8 and 19 in this draft. A package including those two selections, a player like Nic Claxton for immediate frontcourt value, and multiple future first-round picks from the Nets could be the type of return that sets the team up well. Those future picks could become the next Dylan Harper-level talent, but on a rookie contract that better aligns with the timelines of Wemby, Castle, and potentially Fox.
If the Spurs are going to pass on Harper, it has to be because the offer on the table gives them a stronger path forward across multiple seasons.
the way I see it is they will make it a bidding war mainly between NOLA, Utah and Brooklyn. Whoever offers the most. If the offer is too good to pass up, the Spurs might bite. But they will want a massive haul if they do.
Downhill lead guard and a shot creating wing next to wembananas. We are loading up on downhill lead guards and have zero wing prospects. We would end up like the next MEM, UTA, CLE at this point 50 win teams with no playoff wing to make a deep run. Trade Scoot 2.0 for draft capital or a wing or forward iso scorer.
Last edited by rankingtear; 06-13-2025 at 07:23 AM.
This thread is crazy. You don’t pass up projected all nba team talent because you might have financial problems in the future. You don’t know what’s going to happen 4 years from now: maybe Castle and/or Harper doesn’t reach max-contract level status, maybe Fox asks out again, maybe all four are willing to take discounts, etc. This is the galaxy brain that would sink a front office.
More to the point, if Brooklyn offered 8, 19, Clayton, and unprotected picks in 26, 28, and 30, then maybe you do that. I’m still not sure though since Scott has shown the value of those picks waivers over time. Plus, I’d expect Brooklyn to assemble an actual team in the event they sold their future to the Spurs. What’s more, I’m not even sure they’re getting those sorts of offers in the first place.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
