Reply With Quote
Correct, it was 8 going out and 20 coming back..
IIRC, the proposal was only for one of the picks and we got #20 back. I agree both lotto picks plus Keldon and Tre is too much for this team to pay for Garland. Would rather just add the two rookies and sign Malik Monk.
Correct, it was 8 going out and 20 coming back..
It had the Chicago pick going out, which will be a lottery pick.
Last edited by baseline bum; 1 Day Ago at 05:40 PM.
I wouldn't offer more than 2 picks for Garland. ATL picks are off limits and I actually don't want the Spurs to move the CHI pick either since the 25 draft is loaded. Really curious what the price for Garland will be. He'd look much better on the right team. Just look at Markkanen when he left Cleveland.
Ask any fan from Cleveland and they will tell you how overrated Garland is.
Fortunately for us the Spurs will likely see past the ppg and empty calorie talent.
40 million per over 4 years? Hard pass.
And some want to add on Keldon and two 1sts? Wow.
Last edited by MaNu4Tres; 12 Hours Ago at 07:25 AM.
No, you just lack basic reading comprehension and want to push your homer agenda (how's Doncic for pennies looking now?).
I've said all of this and you've probably seen it, but I can at least look at things from an alternative perspective or within' the context of what I believe the Spurs might do instead of being a dismissive snob.
other than Cade (which is probably impossible) I would be fine with Murray, Garland is overrated af and i believe that looking for wings (Ingram, OG, etc.) would fill more gaps in this team than someone like DG
4+ 8 + some other future picks and Keldon/Bran for Lauri and 10. Draft Devin Carter. Team fixed.
I'll never understand this "x amount of picks" thing. Not all picks are the same, lets remove ourselves from our own biases as Spurs fans, do you think Washington values their #2 pick the same as their #26? Their own '24 pick the same as their '25 pick? Of course not. If you ask any of them to move down to the late teens or 20s, they'd be asking for multiple picks and that's IF they were willing to do so (unlikely). People like to use the Gobert to Minnesota and Mitc to Cleveland trades as reference, but those picks are nowhere near as juicy as the ones the Spurs have. My point is, number of picks means something when we're talking about picks expected to have close value. The Spurs should be wary of falling into this fallacy when evaluating potential trades, if you want to make the comparison apple to apples, offer the Spurs own future picks a couple of years from now, Garland is a lesser player than those 2, so if you want to offer 2 unprotected Spurs' picks in 27 and '29 for Garland, plus a swap or two and maybe Keldon and Champagnie, then maybe that's more in line with past deals. If they want higher picks (say #8 now) then you have to account for the value difference. Personally, I'm not a huge Garland fan, if the value is too good then I'd consider it, otherwise I'd take my chances with some combination of Castle and Dillingham or Sheppard.
I’ve been thinking about a similar trade because I hate this draft with a passion. I’d offer 4, 8, Chi ‘25 and Cha ‘25 for Lauri. Don’t like Carter, though, he shoots from the chest, I doubt this thing translates unless he pulls a Haliburton.
Another possible iteration of this trade would be: draft Risacher at 4 and then trade 8, Chi ‘25 and Atl ‘27 for Lauri.
If we are keeping #4 and taking Lauri, I'd want us to go Castle/Dilly/Sheppard there. Risacher and Lauri might be a little redundant (maybe even in a good way). Risacher's 99th percentile outcome is basically just Lauri... right?
You’re probably right but I don’t really believe in Castle the PG and as a wing he’s way less interesting. Dilly I don’t see the point, I see him as a Jordan Clarkson or a Cam Thomas at best. Sheppard I like the most but he might not have the size to be effective on either side.
Risacher to me is more of a plug and play forward in the mould of Cam Johnson. Din’t really see Lauri in him at all.
Assuming we aren't trading picks to acquire a current player I think I'd put 3 trade options on the table in this order and see who bites.
1- Offer Washington #4 + Cha + a couple 2nds for #2
2- Offer Charlotte #8 + Cha pick for #6
3- Offer Portland #4 for #7 + #14
Full disclosure- I realize Washington probably passes unless they are keyed in on one player who ATL takes at #1.
1. No brainer if Risacher is available at 2.
2. Would only do if Sheppard is available at 6.
3. Would only do if they do a prominent starting guard X trade involving 8 in order to maintain multiple lottery picks.
I like these ideas. They likely fall short in terms of what the Spurs would need to pay and it would depend on how the board shapes up (we don't have the intel the Spurs' FO does). For instance:
If Spurs can get hold of either Risacher or Castle at 4, then a modest offer to Charlotte to move up from 8 to 6 makes sense, but I wouldn't go crazy
If Spurs feel both Risacher and Castle will go top 3, then I'd definitely make an offer to Washington for #2, I'd go as far as a protected FRP from the Spurs (own pick in a few years) plus Charlotte pick, 2nds etc. If that doesn't work and there's no way to grab either Risacher or Castle, then I'd consider offering Portland #4 for #7 + #14, take Dillngham with one of those picks, and see what else is available (Buzelis, Cody Williams, Devin Carter, Sheppard, McCain, Knecht, etc.)
I'll agree that I'd probably add a protected 1st to get to #2. I'd take BPA there. I'd hope that would be Risacher. My Spurs Board is a little different than most. My top 5 are Risacher, Sarr, Buzelis, Sheppard, Castle.
Which picks?
Can't see Washington and Charlotte taking either offer and no way I want three firsts in this weak draft, especially when the Spurs have a good shot at having three firsts in a good draft next year with talent much more worth the playing time than a third rookie in this class would be.
I think there's a good chance Charlotte does that deal unless they just fall in love with a particular prospect. Controlling their pick next year has more value to them than anyone else. As for it being a weak draft, we all know that's true, but it's more true at the top. There are some good value picks from 12-20.
With Lauri on an expiring that can't really be extended (except for by Utah), maybe this is all it takes (assume Utah isn't planning on building around Lauri)? We'd have to get some assurances from Lauri that he'll resign. Maybe throw in the CHI pick.
I don't see Lauri getting traded here this offseason as realistic at all in reality.
Id start with the end goal in mind. If they want to speed up (but not throttle) the rebuild then the question is how they make these conditions happen:
(1) trade for one of the PGs (Murray, Trae, Garland, Ivey),
(2) draft the most logical plug and play wing (Risacher), and
(3) keep enough FRP in the reserve to continue building.
I think the opening day starting lineup below can absolutely push for a late playoff slot next year:
Garland
Vassell
Risacher
Sochan
Wembanyama
But if the goal is to punt another year, just draft Castle (4) and at 8 best wing left.
There are currently 32 users browsing this thread. (6 members and 26 guests)
Posting Permissions
