The Current NBA CBA ends in 2030. The new 76 billion dollar tv deal starts this next season. The entire NBA is about to change. Wemby will be the face of it. The Spurs Franchise and everyone that invest is about to get incredibly rich. They are not going to make short sighted decisions like passing on Dylan Harper. Would they also pass on Cooper Flagg? The answer is no.
This actually gives the Spurs a compe ive advantage because they can lock up all their Star players to long term deals before the start of the new CBA. The cap always goes up significantly when new deals are signed. By 2030 if Harper, Castle and Wemby are healthy and develop properly they will get extensions. The Spurs will have them signed under the current situation just in time for them to move the cap and tax levels way up. The only way the plan would fail is if the league loses its positive momentum as the top rising sport in the world.
The Spurs are bringing in new money to prepare for what comes next financially. They have to rise to the top of the league in order to have the revenue coming back to be able to pay for it all. To make a profit. You don’t reach the top by passing on top players on cheap rookie contracts. Not when you are an under .500 team. You have to keep adding positive pieces. Pieces that generate revenue.
if it fails you can always shed the salary later, The Celtics are about to do it this offseason. Would they be doing that if they repeated this year. No. They would have doubled down. Same as the Warriors did during their run.
Short-sighted decisions won’t lead to long term success. The Spurs are drafting Dylan Harper and the only way that doesn’t happen is if the Mavericks pick him #1 or the Spurs like someone better. Not because they are worried about future financial responsibility. Y’all are bored/fatigued with the off-season already and coming up with unrealistic expectations.
If you draft a star wing at #5 or #7,you’re still going to have to pay that player in 2029, and that’s still going to push Fox out the door. It’s not just Harper at his position doing the pushing,it’s the money in this era of the second apron. Better to actually have a positional player to backfill anyway.
Take the better bet in Harper,instead of hoping some prospective wing prospect pops and hits his 99% outcome.
Exactly this! If the Spurs are worried about the future financials they would trade out of the draft all together. If they pick a player in a trade down that is just as good as Harper they will also be giving them the max. The short sightedness of these scenarios reeks of off-season fatigue. Just be patient and wait to see how it plays out.
It’s true that part of the thinking here involves looking ahead at possible financial overlap, but it’s not about fear of paying players. It’s about recognizing that if the front office already views Wemby, Castle, and Fox as their core, then locking in another potential max player just a year later might force tough decisions they’d rather avoid altogether. That’s not panicking. That’s planning.
And moves like this have worked before. Boston traded out of the number one pick in 2017, took Tatum at three, and got an extra first out of it. They had a young core in place and made a bet based on fit, not hype. That wasn’t a flashy move at the time, but it aged perfectly.
If a deal like 8, 19, Claxton, and multiple future firsts is on the table, it deserves serious thought. You get depth, flexibility, and maybe even another high-upside player in the future who fits the financial window better. And if those offers don’t materialize, sure, take Harper and figure it out later. But acting like exploring these options is front office malpractice misses the point entirely.
Harper is a big-time talent, but if the Spurs believe they already have their core and want to preserve flexibility to build around it, then moving the pick could be the smarter long-term play. It’s not overthinking. It’s just seeing the bigger picture.
No one’s saying the Spurs are passing on Harper just to avoid paying people. That’s been addressed already. It’s not about being scared of money, it’s about timing and how you structure the roster around who you already believe in.
And yeah, the cap is going up. Everyone knows that. But even with a higher cap, the timing of contracts still matters. You can’t assume every player will just develop perfectly and be easy to extend. You also can’t assume someone like Harper will absolutely be worth locking up long-term without seeing him play a minute. The Spurs aren’t in the business of hoping every scenario plays out ideal. They’re in the business of control and flexibility.
The idea that you can just shed salary later sounds good on paper, but in reality teams are usually forced to make tough calls when they’re up against it. They don’t just offload players cleanly without cost. If this team ends up in that spot, it means something along the way didn’t go according to plan, and at that point you’re reacting instead of steering.
And let’s not pretend this front office hasn’t already shown its hand. They traded the 8th pick last year for a future one. That wasn’t some win-now move. It was about setting up the timing better. This conversation is just an extension of that same mindset.
The Core that didn’t make the playoffs? The core that won’t make the playoffs next year if they follow these nonsense predictions. The Front Office is not deciding on a core before rising to the top. That’s something bad franchises do. That would go against everything they have said.
The Spurs were prepared to pick a player last year at 8 until the Timberwolves called while they were on the clock. That deal was not already in place.
If only the Spurs had a way of acquiring a star wing while keeping the second pick. Imagine if they could trade for an all-time shot-creating wing while still drafting Harper. It would be even better if that player were older and would be off the books before the young players were up for extensions.
2024 was a weak draft and the Spurs didn’t want 2 rookies. They didn’t just sell the pick off to the highest bidder. They received an offer that made sense. They could do the same with pick 14 this year.
No one is saying they have already made up their mind and closed the book. But you do not need a playoff run to start identifying your foundation. Wemby is clearly that. Castle just won Rookie of the Year and looked like a two-way building block all season. And Fox was not brought in as a placeholder. That trade showed they view him as a serious part of what they are building.
The core people are talking about here is Fox, Wemby, and Castle. And that trio barely played together last season. Fox arrived late in the year. Castle and Wemby both missed time. I believe they only played in eight or nine games together and the total minutes were minimal. So the idea that they have already failed together does not really hold. We have not seen them get a real chance.
This is not about avoiding talent or playing scared. It is about shaping the roster with intention and having a plan. If the front office already likes the mix of those three and sees a path to build around them with balance and flexibility, that is not short-sighted. That is smart team building.
I agree. Don't take Harper. Trade down and actually find pieces that allow you to really start building a team. Either through the draft or trades. We don't need another ball dominate guard when we already have two really good ones. Go get us some bigs and wings.
The conversation here is about how the Spurs manage overlapping extensions for Fox, Castle, and Harper if they keep all three. Durant or any other veteran on a short timeline is not part of that equation. The long-term cap structure is what this thread is trying to unpack.
This entire thread feels like a Kevin O’Connor article. I’m going back to realistic conclusions. Cooper Flagg is not a good fit because the core of a non playoff team is already together? Same with Dylan Harper? This logic doesn’t check out. Bad franchises pass on great players.
You can draft Harper and still do that. This is likely the last time the Spurs pick this high. Have to take advantage of that opportunity.
I appreciate your goal, but I think not accounting for Durant as part of the long-term strategy doesn't make sense. If they trade for him, he's absolutely part of their core as much as Duncan or Manu was in their last years. The way to build for the next 10 years is to build for the next two years over and over again. It's understanding Victor is the only non-negotiable and that the team needs to remain agile enough to respond to his development. It's understanding that having to trade one or two of Fox, Castle or Harper is just life and that they'll need to be prepared to make the right trade(s) when that time comes rather than trying to make it early.
You draft Harper and trade for Durant now. In three years, maybe you break one of the guards into pieces and move another for a better fit. Then in three more years you trade more of those guys for a star or pieces depending on what the team needs.
Unless/until Fox, Castle and Wemby are on new discount deals, they aren't a unit. The Spurs would be foolish to treat them as if they were Duncan, Ginobili and Parker if they don't act like it.
The silver lining is that the Spurs got Fox on a great deal. You almost have to take that trade, and sort out the pieces later.
Hard to know what was said behind closed doors about any future extension, but he's a good All-Star caliber player to help get this team back on its feet and hopefully into the playoffs now.
Assuming the Spurs take Harper (and I think they will), Dylan isn't going to step in NBA-ready on day one. He can learn and mature playing alongside and being mentored by Fox. Once the money becomes a crunch, you can decide whether Fox is a long-term piece or not.
Last edited by Dex; 06-13-2025 at 08:41 AM.
fox isn't really all that ball dominant.. castle is though, at least at this stage
Few thoughts…
1a) The first question is how do the Spurs evaluate Harper? Let’s just get past this and say the obvious: if the Spurs don’t view Harper as the clear 2nd best player in the draft and a tier above Bailey/VJ/Tre/etc. then no they should be looking at options to trade down and still get a guy who they view is just as good + future capital/currently good players.
1b) If the above is the case, I’d say that I’m pretty hesitant about trusting this FO to know better than the clear consensus out there given the recent track record. The Wemby decision could’ve been made by a monkey and I think Castle at #4 was a fairly obvious pick as well. The 3-4 years before that have been littered with missteps. They’ll do what they’re going to do based on the evaluation but just saying as a fan the idea of it doesn’t make me very comfortable
2) Moving on, let’s assume the Spurs do agree with the consensus which is that Harper is the clear cut 2nd best player in the draft. Passing up on one of the best PG prospects of the past 5 years because there might be a fit issue is extremely risky and you better receive some insane compensation for it. If Castle never develops a jumper, it’s entirely possible that he tops out as just a high level role player. Don’t want to say the unthinkable but what if something happens with Wemby’s health? When you get the chance to add a prospect of Harper’s caliber I just think you keep it simple and take the guy.
3) The “insane compensation” mentioned above has to include a current star-level player. These deals being discussed of trading back from 2 just to get a pick in the top 10 this year + 2 or 3 future FRPs are awful. I don’t care about people’s projections of the value of the picks. We watched the Spurs use 8 FRPs in 5 years and the best player that generated was…Vassell? The guy that everyone is now excited to move away fromSure, everyone wants to dream of the scenario where we get someone else’s top 3 pick in 2028 when we’re already contenders, but the far more likely outcome is we get a bunch of FRPs in the 10-20 range and these picks either get moved or they turn into role players (or worse). The analogy has been used here before but it feels like we won the lottery and we’re talking about spending that money to buy more lottery tickets.
4) Lastly, this hyper focus on timelines and salaries is just premature. Of course you need to think ahead and have foresight, but talent evaluation and aggregating talent needs to be the focus. If you stack a team with talented and valuable players I tend to think you can figure the rest out. And I think it’s much easier to figure out how to trade already valuable players for a good return than it is to figure out which prospect is the best with your #16 pick you got from Joe Schmoe. In the best case scenario where Castle is legit and becomes a max-level player and Harper is the real deal as well, then great. By the time we know that Fox is coming to the end of his prime and you move him. Assuming he hasn’t totally fallen off a cliff that shouldn’t be difficult. If the FO thinks his contract will be an albatross in 2-3 years then they shouldn’t give him the extension in the first place.
Ultimately I do think Harper is the clear best prospect outside of Flagg and I highly lean towards taking him barring some ridiculous Godfather-type offer. Drafting guards with legitimate perennial all-NBA potential isn’t an opportunity that should be taken lightly, especially when we have no business even having a pick this high in the first place
1. There is no Tatum analog in this draft. Even if there were, you still have to pay him in 2029, setting up the same second apron cash crunch.
2. That second FRP turned out to be hot garbage.
3. That ‘young’ core was Jaylen Brown. Kyrie and Hayward were already on their second contracts.
This is dumb. We need to upgrade 4-10 on the roster. You take the best talent in the draft, and sort out things later.
They all hit and you can't pay one of them, then you trade them later on.
You certainly need to be cautious about salaries and financial flexibility in the apron era, but passing up on high end young talent for the sake of long-term cap planning seems like a bridge too far. Yes, it's critical to stay below the aprons in today's NBA, but there's no guarantee that the current structure lasts forever. Teams might hate the new restrictions and vote them out as quickly as possible. The aprons have caused a big change in team makeup and strategy, but it's also possible to overcorrect here. Drafting and paying high end talent gives you options. It's overpaying middling players and emptying your draft cupboard that can cripple your flexibility.
You all have a lot of free time huh?
Spurs can't draft Harper bc it might hurt Fox's feelings
lmao
I agree that if the Spurs trade for Durant, he would be part of the core in the short term and could be a major piece in helping Wemby develop and lead a winning team early on. But how exactly does Durant figure into the long-term planning? He’s nearing 36 and would likely be off the roster entirely by the time Harper, Castle, and Fox are all due for extensions.
If anything, his short timeline is why he hasn’t been part of this thread’s focus. The conversation is about how the Spurs might be thinking ahead on managing three potential big extensions at once. Durant’s presence doesn’t really complicate that picture because he won’t be around when the financial crunch hits. So while he’s relevant for building a compe ive team in the next couple years, I’m not seeing how he alters the long-term cap strategy.
Would yall trade #2 for a healthy, rejuvenated, focused and committed Zion? I wouldn't gamble on him currently seeing how past dictates future but when he plays he's always a stud. Yall know me, stupid pops into my head and well... Bueller? Bueller?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
