Spurs Mock Draft 1.0: Picking at 9, 20, 25 and 38 for the Spurs

[rascal]

I mean, outside of maybe Sochan (whose been inflated in my view) and Daniels, this mock is just as realistic as any other I’ve seen.

Never seen Sharpe at 9.

[PhantomDashCam]

Never seen Sharpe at 9.

None of us have seen Sharpe play...

But PD Web's Cerebro sports re-tweeted...

According to their website " C-Ram is Contextual Ram - deriving the strength of a player's performance relative to an average performer in the same event. This acts as a yardstick, allowing cross event comparison..."

10+ is a Superstar by their metrics, the yellow highlights...

Who knows with him tbh. Who takes the risk. Unlikely Sacramento can, Detroits been spinning its wheels for awhile and just landed Cade, Indiana doesn't seem like a fit... He could slip.

[Mr. Body]

Sharpe is starting to slip in some mocks. I would absolutely not take him in the top 10 if I were a GM, but someone will.

[rascal]

Sharpe is starting to slip in some mocks. I would absolutely not take him in the top 10 if I were a GM, but someone will.

Good thing you're not the gm.

[mo7888]

I've got Sharpe #7 on my board but he's admittedly risky for the reasons listed above. Would I take him at #9 if Murray and Mathurin are gone...absolutely...

[Mr. Body]

Good thing you're not the gm.

Drafting a guy who doesn't have the guts to play a minute of college? Nah. There's something wrong going on there.

[rascal]

Sharpe is probably not in game shape since he hasn't played in awhile against top compe ion and he's still projected in most mocks to get picked 4th or 5th so his camp doesn't want him to slip with a subpar performance.

He'll be fine and I wouldn't have any concerns about drafting him.

[rascal]

Drafting a guy who doesn't have the guts to play a minute of college? Nah. There's something wrong going on there.

It's not about guts. It wasn't his decision to not play.

Kentucky wasn't going to play him much coming on at mid season out of high school and when they had already been playing as a team.

This was going to hurt his draft stock which was in the lottery, not getting minutes. Why is this so hard for you to figure?

[Mr. Body]

It's not about guts. It wasn't his decision to not play.

Kentucky wasn't going to play him much coming on at mid season out of high school and when they had already been playing as a team.

This was going to hurt his draft stock which was in the lottery, not getting minutes. Why is this so hard for you to figure?

Lol, no. Calipari wanted him to play. You're giving a revisionist history. Then, a month after he arrived, Cal said he wasn't prepared. He wasn't ready. And the way Calipari said this, he was putting the onus for this on Sharpe. He wasn't ready to play. This was while UK was facing major injury problems. It's ludicrous to say they let him come on the team and weren't going to play him.

What's appalling about Sharpe, even in high school, is he's really slow. His lateral quickness is pretty bad, and he could barely get past high school players. His first step is glacial. On defense, he's even worse. He's atrocious on defense. It wouldn't matter if he has no instinct for it -- he just outright doesn't seem to care, getting juked five feet out of the way with basic head and shoulders moves.

Just kind of gross stuff.

[rascal]

Lol, no. Calipari wanted him to play. You're giving a revisionist history. Then, a month after he arrived, Cal said he wasn't prepared. He wasn't ready. And the way Calipari said this, he was putting the onus for this on Sharpe. He wasn't ready to play. This was while UK was facing major injury problems. It's ludicrous to say they let him come on the team and weren't going to play him.

What's appalling about Sharpe, even in high school, is he's really slow. His lateral quickness is pretty bad, and he could barely get past high school players. His first step is glacial. On defense, he's even worse. He's atrocious on defense. It wouldn't matter if he has no instinct for it -- he just outright doesn't seem to care, getting juked five feet out of the way with basic head and shoulders moves.

Just kind of gross stuff.

He wasn't going to play much right away. If Calipari wanted him to play he would have played. Sharpe was on the team and he was the coach. It's not like Sharpe refused to play contrary to what Calipari wanted.

Calipari backed off on playing him stating he wasn't ready yet to get the minutes.

Calipari was shooting for next year but when talk was out there he was going to get drafted high he supported him entering the draft.

[BatManu20]

[Mr. Body]

Holmgren and Pokushevski, the Chopstick Bros.

[Mr. Body]

I said at one point, I feel like Holmgren will work very well in certain situations. I don't think OKC is that situation. I have no idea what OKC is doing, what their vision is, if this is their pick.

[PhantomDashCam]

Holmgren and Pokushevski, the Chopstick Bros.

The Twin Flowers.

J/K - Love Holmgren.

[Ariel]

If JRich andPoodle are moved, there will be contracts coming back.

If the deals are for picks, whatever contracts are taken back will likely be short term and/or unguaranteed. And most likely will receive the Thaddeus Young treatment. So yes, chances are more playing time will be available as a result, which can in turn be used on developing talent.

It’s not all just about roster spots, though The Spurs have the player development program they do because they limit themselves to two players per year. That’s how they get a #29 pick from the streets into the ASG. That’s how they get another #29 pick to be a 17 point scorer who shoots 40% from deep. It takes time and attention to develop quality NBA players. The Spurs know that, and they have a formula and a process.

The Spurs have historically developed rookies while maximizing their chances to compete. As a result, obviously there's so much time you can allot to rookies without hurting your chances. This is no longer the case, and the best long term strategy is finding all the talent we can. And if we pass on talent because of some arbitrary preconceived notion, because those places are occupied by worse prospects (anyone on our roster not named Vassell, who's an established rotation player), then I'd find it disappointing to say the least. The thought of passing on a better talent for Wieskamp, KBD, Landale or even Primo gives me the chills. If constraints on developing talent are that stringent, you may have just -unwillingly- made the strongest case against the Primo experiment.

[Ariel]

Alvarado wasn't drafted and NOP was a complete fluke.

I mentioned three ROOKIES, not three DRAFTEES. And I fail to see how they signing an undrafted player is any different from having picked them in the 2nd round, for the purpose of the argument being made.
Also, it's a fluke to have three rookies succeed on the same team, as much as it is to select any group of three rookies drafted at their same positions (one undrafted) and have them achieve similar success. So that would be the baseline for you to compare, that having three rookies simultaneously hurts their chances relative to their development otherwise, not that it is unlikely for three rookies to succeed (together or by themselves).

Houston, meanwhile, sucked.

How exactly? Jalen Green's game developed fine, Sengun showed more promise than any of our rookies, and I fail to see exactly what Garuba's play supports your argument, since you'd have to prove it's because he was drafted alongside 2 more rookies.

[BatManu20]

Holmgren and Pokushevski, the Chopstick Bros.

The Twig Towers.

[BackHome]

Yeah I said it before you draft the best available player and next season you tell every player it’s up to them to get playing time. You play them in G League to start off you have two or three players will be shopping for mid season trade so play them early and once they playing good you ease up and let the young guys get playing time and after the trade all young guys play. So will probably have a worse record but the young players get good experience and they all play so you can start to see who to keep and who to trade or release

[BatManu20]

So many here wanted Banchero in San Antonio. Well at least he’ll be up the road I guess lol.

[The Truth #6]

So many ways to look at draft priorities. High floor. High ceiling. Positional fit.

How about guys that just play really hard and don't back down?

Not a long list, but at first glance:

Johnny Davis/Sochan/Eason at #9
EJ Lidell at #20.
David Roddy at #25.

I actually see Lidell and Roddy as somewhat similar and I think both can have good careers playing important roles. Neither are classic power forwards or project to be stars, but what's typical about NBA positions these days, anyway?

Which is a roundabout way to say I'm more and more intrigued by David Roddy. I don't think he projects better than Liddell, but...maybe?

Roddy actually might have more useful skills, especially his solid 3P shooting this year. 6'6" 260 pounds. 6'11" wingspan. Solid playmaking. 2.3 combined stocks. FG: 57%. 3P: 44%. 19PPG. 7.5 rebounds. Near picture perfect shooting form. He could easily slip right in as a starter at the 4, which is more of a statement at our lack of a viable forward to play alongside Keldon. The team rebounding should improve with him on the floor.

Not many draft profiles out there, but found this one: https://www.denverstiffs.com/2022/5/...le-david-roddy

Anyway, I think he would be available at 25 and I'd probably rather roll the dice on him then another Joe Wieskamp type.

[Mr. Body]

I mentioned three ROOKIES, not three DRAFTEES. And I fail to see how they signing an undrafted player is any different from having picked them in the 2nd round, for the purpose of the argument being made.
Also, it's a fluke to have three rookies succeed on the same team, as much as it is to select any group of three rookies drafted at their same positions (one undrafted) and have them achieve similar success. So that would be the baseline for you to compare, that having three rookies simultaneously hurts their chances relative to their development otherwise, not that it is unlikely for three rookies to succeed (together or by themselves).

How exactly? Jalen Green's game developed fine, Sengun showed more promise than any of our rookies, and I fail to see exactly what Garuba's play supports your argument, since you'd have to prove it's because he was drafted alongside 2 more rookies.

We're talking about the Spurs taking all their draft picks. We're not talking explicitly about rookies. Specifically the draft itself.

And Houston ing sucked. They lost, what, the most games in the league? Or were they second? They were ing terrible.

[Mr. Body]

So many here wanted Banchero in San Antonio. Well at least he’ll be up the road I guess lol.

Banchero is one ugly dude.

[Ariel]

We're talking about the Spurs taking all their draft picks. We're not talking explicitly about rookies. Specifically the draft itself.

And Houston ing sucked. They lost, what, the most games in the league? Or were they second? They were ing terrible.

I replied to an argument (not yours) that you can't develop 3 rookies at once, and I cited NO as an example that it IS perfectly possible do so, to which your rebuff was that Alvarado was undrafted and that Houston sucks. Both completely irrelevant to the point I was making: Alvarado going undrafted does not take from his rookie status, and Houston was horrible and would have been horrible because they lack overall talent and are horribly put together, not because they took on 3 rookies at once. So yes, you can take on 3 rookies at once and it can work... you just have to pick 3 rookies who are actually good and ready, i.e., not Primo and Wieskamp. So unless you actually provide some relevant argument or evidence to the contrary, I fail to see what it is you think you're disproving.

[Mr. Body]

I replied to an argument (not yours) that you can't develop 3 rookies at once, and I cited NO as an example that it IS perfectly possible do so, to which your rebuff was that Alvarado was undrafted and that Houston sucks. Both completely irrelevant to the point I was making: Alvarado going undrafted does not take from his rookie status, and Houston was horrible and would have been horrible because they lack overall talent and are horribly put together, not because they took on 3 rookies at once. So yes, you can take on 3 rookies at once and it can work... you just have to pick 3 rookies who are actually good and ready, i.e., not Primo and Wieskamp. So unless you actually provide some relevant argument or evidence to the contrary, I fail to see what it is you think you're disproving.

I said NOP was a complete fluke. They also sucked for the first part of the year and only got better once Ingram got back and they traded for McCollum. Houston sucked because none of them knew how to play.

It's a dumb argument. Putting another three or four rookies on this team is just a dumb idea and it's not going to happen.

[Ariel]

I said NOP was a complete fluke. They also sucked for the first part of the year and only got better once Ingram got back and they traded for McCollum. Houston sucked because none of them knew how to play.

It's a dumb argument. Putting another three or four rookies on this team is just a dumb idea and it's not going to happen.

It's only dumb if your picks are dumb, and that is valid whether it's one, two or three rookies. If there is talent available, what is dumb is to let them go because of some arbitrary mental blockage that prevents you to do so just because you didn't do it before. If anyone thinks Wieskamp, KBD or Landale should prevent us from picking up talent (provided it's available), they're out of their minds.