Peter J. Holt’s video on small-market discipline got me thinking about where this roster is really heading. If things go the way we hope, and Wemby, Castle, and the number two pick all develop into cornerstone players, then how we manage the next few years financially will decide whether we are setting up for a sustainable core or a future cap logjam.
It is not about doubting Harper’s talent. He is a strong prospect and likely the second pick for a reason. But the reality is, if he hits, and Castle hits, and Wemby continues on his current path, we are setting ourselves up for a moment where four players — Harper, Castle, Wemby, and Fox — are all lined up for major deals within a two-year window.
Here is what the timeline looks like if things go well:
Player Current Contract Max Extension Hits Fox Likely extended this summer 2024-25 Wemby Year 2 of rookie deal 2027-28 Castle Year 1 of rookie deal 2028-29 Harper Incoming rookie 2029-30
That puts Fox, Wemby, and Castle all on big money by 2028, and if Harper also lives up to expectations, he will be asking for the same right after. That is four major contracts stacking up within two seasons, easily taking up 160 to 175 million of an estimated 180 million cap.
And it is not just about money. Under the new second apron rules, you lose access to key roster-building tools. You cannot use the full mid-level exception, cannot combine salaries in trades, cannot trade picks far out, and more. It becomes extremely difficult to build out the rest of the team, especially for a small market that cannot just spend its way out of mistakes.
Here is what that core salary projection could look like by season:
Season Fox Wemby Castle Harper Total Core Salary 2027–28 43M 50M (1st year of max) 10M (rookie) 8M (rookie) ~111M 2028–29 46M 53M 35M (1st year of extension) 12M (rookie) ~146M 2029–30 49M 56M 38M 35M (1st year of extension) ~178M
Some will say not everyone will hit. And that is true. Maybe one of these guys does not become a max-level player. But that is not something you can count on. You do not build around the hope that one of your top four players fails to justify a big contract.
Others might say that is a good problem to have. But we have seen how that plays out. The Thunder had to trade Harden because their timing did not allow for four major extensions. That was not about talent. That was about planning.
And when people bring up Luka or Harden and say you do not pass on talent just because of fit or money, that is also valid if the evaluation is wrong. But in this case, it might not be about passing on a star. It might be about recognizing that your three pillars are already in place and trying to build around them with complementary pieces instead of stacking another potential max contract into an already tight timeline.
This is also where the conversation about De’Aaron Fox is being overlooked. A lot of fans are already looking past him because of the glamour surrounding the number two pick, but the Spurs probably are not. They traded for Fox early and quietly, without waiting to see how the board shook out. That does not look like a wait-and-see move. It looks like commitment. Fox is already a 25 point per game scorer, a proven All-Star, and a two-way player who can take pressure off Wemby now, not three years from now. Harper still has to prove he belongs in that conversation. He may get there, but he also may not. In the meantime, the Spurs may be signaling that they are ready to build around Wemby, Castle, and Fox now, and that requires a different kind of roster planning than just betting on upside.
The Big Three Spurs did not all peak financially at the same time. Duncan took less. Tony and Manu were extended at different points. That staggered structure gave the front office room to build deep teams that contended for years.
Right now, we are on track to have Wemby, Castle, and Fox all hitting their peak contracts at the same time. If Harper joins them in that same window, it may force tough decisions later, either gutting your depth or trading someone you would rather keep.
This is exactly the kind of situation the Spurs have always tried to avoid. They do not spend big just because they can. They plan ahead, stay flexible, and preserve the ability to pivot when the situation demands it. That is what has kept this franchise consistent for decades. And if they want to stay true to that iden y, the decisions they make now need to reflect it.
Reason why I was reluctant about getting Fox were that he is limited in his role and was going to cost a ton. His presence removed a lot of flexibility for us. I'm okay with it, because we got him for not a lot, but it was going to create issues. He's not worth a max contract. Barely any players are under this CBA.
Trade Fox when it's time to max Harper
Some people are already calling Fox the odd man out. That he is the easiest to move if the money gets tight. But that might be the simplest take in the room.
The Spurs did not just accidentally trade for a 26-year-old All-Star who averaged 26 points and 6 assists last season. They made that move quietly, before the draft, before the free agency market moved, and without waiting to see who fell to them at two. That is not a hedge move. That looks like a front office making a proactive bet.
Fox is not some aging veteran on an inflated deal. He is in his prime, entering a contract year, and already capable of doing what most guards take years to figure out. He gives Wemby relief as a lead creator. He gives Castle space to develop without being rushed into that role too early. And he gives the team actual structure for the next two seasons while everything else takes shape. That matters.
Some have said if Harper earns a max, then the easy call is to move Fox. But think about what that really means. You are betting the future on three players who are all 21 and under, all still developing, still inconsistent, and still figuring out how to win at the NBA level. You are removing your one proven, playoff-caliber initiator just to make the math work. That is not smart roster building. That is repeating what teams like Oklahoma City or Sacramento have done in the past, letting go of key players too soon and assuming development will replace experience.
Fox may not be the long-term face of the franchise, but he might be the player who makes it possible for the others to grow into that. You do not trade that away lightly. You especially do not do it just to create space for a rookie who still has everything to prove.
And honestly, if you think the Spurs would let go of a player like Fox just because things get tight financially, then you probably do not know what this organization stands for. That has never been the culture. This is a franchise that values continuity, trust, and long-term thinking. They do not toss aside veterans who have proven they can lead and produce. They plan ahead. They stagger contracts. They build sustainable cores with flexibility in mind. That is why they have stayed relevant across eras. Letting go of Fox just to make room for another potential max deal would go against everything the Spurs have built their iden y on.
Fox will be 28 next December, is small and has a ball-dominant game. He's very clutch and has historically been able to pour in points at times. The last year or so he was hopefully hampered by a bad hand (or else we're screwed).
That's not a max player. Probably Wembanyama is the only max player we'll ever see for this franchise in the current era. It's a completely onerous contract.
The problem with Fox is that he's not a winner on his own, he only plays one position, he's not a great playmaker, he requires a lot of shots, and is only an okay defender. Those are fine generally. If we weren't gifted Harper by the gods, things would be different. It's going to be hard to get enough touches to bring Castle and Harper into their best selves with Fox. Not yet, but eventually, and his price tag is going to become a major burden.
If the Kings wanted to max Fox, he'd still be there. They didn't, so he went hunting for a way to get his money. That's fine; it worked out for us, and probably will be fine. But to be sure the Harper pick makes things very interesting.
I think you might be misunderstanding what I was trying to get at.
This isn’t about saying Fox is untouchable or that he’s a max-level superstar in the traditional sense. It’s about what the Spurs might be signaling through their actions. They didn’t bring him in just to be a placeholder. They did it before the draft and before knowing how the board would fall. That suggests they’re confident in his fit alongside Wemby and Castle and that they see value in what he brings over the next few years — even if he’s not a long-term max guy.
More importantly, my post was not pushing the idea that we have to keep Fox no matter what. It was actually raising the possibility that the Spurs might look to trade the number two pick — not because Harper isn’t good, but because they may already feel set with Wemby, Castle, and Fox as their core, and want to avoid stacking another player who will likely require a max deal by 2029.
That’s the whole point. It’s not just about fit today, but about how the money plays out in three or four years. You can only keep so many guys on max or near-max contracts under this new CBA, especially as a small-market team. And if they believe Castle and Wemby are ascending, and Fox gives them structure right now, they may see more value in flipping the 2 for a strong complementary piece and a lower-salaried prospect — rather than adding another high-upside player who’ll create a cap collision down the line.
The Harper hype is real, and maybe the Spurs will take him anyway and figure it out later. But I don’t think they’re just ignoring the future implications of carrying four big-money players. If anything, I think they’re planning for that now.
Google AI, so take it for what it’s worth, but there’d be ~100MM to load out the rest of the roster before hitting the tax and almost 115MM before the first apron. You likely pay the tax and maybe even hit the apron if you have 4 max guys because you’re likely winning a ton of games.Based on current projections, the NBA salary cap, luxury tax, and apron levels for the 2029-2030 season are expected to be significantly higher than they are now.
Here are the projected figures:
Salary Cap: $227,081,910
Luxury Tax Threshold: $275,952,075
First Apron: $287,725,122
Second Apron: $305,167,663
Important Note:
These are projections and based on the assumption of a 10% annual increase in the salary cap from the 2025-26 season onwards. This assumes sustained growth in basketball-related income, which is largely influenced by factors like the league's media rights deals.
Also, what’s the point of this thread? No one is suggesting we trade Fox in the near term. Are you saying don’t take Harper? Don’t trade for KD?
Going forwards teams are going to know what we have and make an offer. Doesn't necessarily have to be a trade to avoid the tax.
Also the spurs have time to work the agents and find who would take less.
lol. What is this imaginary world you live in?
Passing on high end talent is always the wrong idea. Exchanging it for much higher paid veterans accelerates the cap crunch, the divesting of role players like has happened to MIL and DEN he last few years, and shortens the window.
The cap projections are real and yeah, the room will grow. But the conversation isn’t just about whether you can afford four big contracts — it’s about what kind of team that leaves you with under the current CBA. Once you hit that second apron territory, you’re dealing with major restrictions. It’s not just about tax dollars, it’s about not being able to use trade exceptions, aggregate salaries, sign-and-trade, or access the midlevel. It locks you into a path with very little flexibility, and the Spurs have never operated that way.
A KD trade wouldn’t hurt the long-term plan because his deal would likely be off the books before the extensions for Castle and Wemby even kick in, and definitely before Harper’s if they drafted him. So it’s more of a short-term compe ive push than a future cap problem. That kind of move actually lines up with trying to stay clean financially around your core while still pushing to win now.
On Harper:
Look, I get this is not the take most people here want to hear. Everyone’s locked in on Harper’s upside and talent. Not denying that. But the point of this thread is more about how the Spurs might be thinking long-term. They already traded for Fox. They clearly believe in Castle and obviously Wemby. If they see that trio as the foundation, they may not want to lock in a fourth player who’s going to be up for a max right around the same time.
It’s not about underrating Harper. It’s about managing the timeline. Having four guys all lining up for massive contracts by 2029 creates real pressure, especially for a team that doesn’t operate like a tax-paying juggernaut. That pressure leads to forced trades or losing depth. And maybe they’d rather avoid that altogether.
So yeah, Harper could hit. But that doesn’t mean the Spurs aren’t also thinking about how they want to build around the players they’ve already committed to. Trading down from 2 might not be about talent — it might be about balance, fit, and setting things up so they’re not stuck in a hard cap corner a few years from now.
A couple things. First off that’s not our problem as fans, though I know that is a thing for us to over worry about it and shoot down bad contract acquiring trades when we have nothing better to do and as our duty to over analyze things.
If the core 4 of Harper and the existing 3 works well, all but Wemby need to consider whether it is worth a little less dough if that is what it takes to keep the team together. That has been the Spurs way.
Back over to Fox, we want him to be the clear 2 in the near term. That increases the chance that both of Harper and Castle don’t quite have the stats to insist on max money.
Finally, if the core 4 doesn’t work, such as 3 guards not being the ticket, one can be dealt as they will be marketable. The biggest question mark there may be how well Fox’s game built on lightning speed ages, but he’s a real specimen so it is probably too early to worry about that.
And given the realities of the new cap rules, max deals either become rarer or salary cap growth is enough to support them. With Wemby as the new face of the NBA on a compe ive team, I’m bullish on the NBA becoming more popular not less. There is no better experience for the casual fan than watching an alien do alien things deep into the playoffs. Making large grown men look like children by comparison on the court.
If anyone can manage the situation well SAS can. OK that was more than a couple things.
Well thought out and highly plausible. If it plays out this way, the Spurs would very likely be trading #2 to a team in the East. Philly, Charlotte, Wiz, Nets and Raptors would be possible choices.
However this draft plays out, the Spurs will be showing us their vision for this team's future.
What are you worried about? There's time to figure things out. Draft Harper because he has the most upside of any of the Spurs backcourt players and see how it plays out.
You don't move off your top backcourt prospect.
You're talking about 2029, there's plenty of time, way in the future and the Spurs will find a solution to your worries.
You don't pass on high end upside talent(by trading down for lesser talent, I know you want Kon out of this draft) that are top 2 lottery picks. Teams don't often have a chance to build around two top 2 prospects(Wemby and Harper) like the Spurs now have.
That logic works in a lot of situations, but it’s not that simple here. The Spurs aren’t trying to dump the pick for an aging vet or go all-in for a one-year window. If they move off 2, it would be because they believe they already have a foundation in Wemby, Castle, and Fox — and stacking another likely max player into that mix could create a financial squeeze down the line that limits flexibility.
This isn’t about undervaluing talent. It’s about managing timing and cost. The new CBA hits teams hard when multiple big contracts overlap — and small-market teams don’t get to play the same game as the Warriors or Clippers. Denver and Milwaukee lost key depth not because they lacked talent, but because they didn’t have the flexibility to keep it.
If the Spurs move the pick, they’re likely targeting a lower-salaried player who fits cleanly alongside their core — not someone who accelerates a cap problem. It’s not the flashy move, but it’s the kind of roster balance that gives them more room to adjust as Wemby and Castle take the next step. And let’s not forget, they literally traded the 8th pick last year for a future first instead of adding another high-upside player to the roster. That wasn’t about talent — that was about timing. This front office has shown they’re willing to pass on “more now” to stay in control of the bigger picture.
I agree that you don’t have four simultaneous big contracts. Where we disagree is in choosing a 31 YO Fox over a 23 YO Harper, which you are essentially doing by not drafting him, and taking those cheap first four years.
I didn’t know Castle/Harper rookie extension was only $35M that’s peanuts. $100 million to fill 8 more roster spots sounds feasible, that’s $12 million per player. NBA salaries are not egalitarian, there are large differences in salary between stars and role players. Also big men salaries have been pretty low I see this as pretty workable.
Not sure the way the CBA is structured with a punitive second apron the Spurs are in or will be in any different situation than any other team, small or large market who are fortunate to land three players of max or near max quality. KC and Houston will very soon hit the salary cap wall with their players and will have some hard decisions to make. They’re both in the fortunate position of having a stock pile of picks and they can shed players going forward to replenish themselves using these shed players to acquire more picks. Spurs are actually probably most lucky in that their super max player is or most likely will soon be the apex predator, most bang for the buck of their max salary player and they also have some stockpile of picks. They too will have to develop and shed some pla yers to maintain success. If they all develop one or more of Fox, Castle and Harper if he’s drafted for picks or player’s, maybe not quite as talented players but ones that fit a need and are on a good contract like Trey Murphy III. Based on the current playoffs where strong versatile depth is critical like the Pacers have maybe the best formula is to have money spread around an alpha male and a host of stong supporting players.
8 players at $100 million gives you 4 guys earning $20 million apiece and 4 more so end of bench guys earning $20 million total. + or -, that seems to work? Ok throw in three minimum salary to fill the 15 man and a little more for 3 two way players. It’s tight but still sounds workable.
I know this was shared in another thread but it is worth bringing up again here. The Spurs have been clear for years about their philosophy and Peter’s comments in this video just reinforce that. Their actions follow a pattern and none of it should be surprising. They have been consistent in how they build and how they make decisions and this is just more of the same.
I think that's a horrible idea and is counting their chickens before they hatch. If Castle never gets a good jumpshot then he's going to be more a role player in the mold of Jason Hart than say a star in the mold of Jalen Brunson. Passing on Harper is lunacy, especially when Steph is still an unknown. You can kick the can of having to pick which two to pay between Fox, Castle, and Harper down the road four years when you have a much clearer idea what you have and you can easily pay all three of them plus Wemby until then.
That’s not really the choice this thread is about. You’re framing it like it’s a matter of picking between a 31-year-old Fox and a 23-year-old Harper down the line — but the point is the Spurs might be building in a way where they never put themselves in that position to begin with.
By trading for Fox now and betting on Wemby and Castle, they may be structuring the roster to avoid having four overlapping max deals later. It’s not about choosing one player over another in 2029 — it’s about making a decision in 2024 that avoids a cap crunch and a forced decision five years from now. That’s the kind of planning this front office has always prioritized.
You’re cautioning against counting chickens but then doing the same by projecting Castle as a role player and Harper as a guaranteed star. The reality is they both still have things to prove. The only difference is the team already has Castle in the building, developing in their system, and showing signs they clearly like.
The idea here isn’t fear of Harper or taking the safe route. It’s about staying aligned with how the team has operated for years— building around a core they believe in and making sure they don’t end up boxed in later. It’s not about being afraid to make a hard decision down the road. It’s about setting things up so you might not have to.
Judging by the posts so far, it looks like most are strongly opposed to the ideas in this thread. Trust me, I get it. But I’m also pretty sure that everything laid out here is something a lot of you have at least considered, even if just in the back of your mind. It might sound too wild to take seriously because it feels unprecedented. Why would the Spurs pass on elite talent? Why would they make a move like that when a potential star is sitting right there?
That reaction makes sense.
But I’ll say this: after last year’s draft night, anything is possible with this front office.
I could see the Spurs moving the 2nd pick if they don't feel Harper is the best long term prospect, or if there is some very shady behavior behind the scenes from Harper's camp. Other than that, they'd be making a franchise altering gamble with little to no data available, in anticipation of a scenario that might not happen at all and, even if it did, would not only be manageable but even desirable. It would feel reckless, negligent, and I'd lose a lot of faith in this front office. Hopefully that is not the case.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
