#2 (Risacher) for #8, CHA&CHI 2025 firsts (protected)

[jayjaysee]

This thread's trade doesn't involve 4. It's 8 and two future picks for 2. If you're talking about 4 and 8 for 2, your logic scale doesn't make sense at all. They'd be giving up 8 for nothing.

It’s actually more likely to be 8 and 3 future picks…

But what you quoted was me saying SAS should trade up or out if they don’t love anyone or love everyone the same.

So it does kind of scale with what I was talking about? I just don’t get the need to over do it like some are doing, but you quoted me? My team doesn’t have a first so I’m very excited that this draft is so awful.

Take this take with a grain of salt but from my layman's scouting pov this is my take of the top of the draft. Sarr is a weak #1, likely the 3rd weakest #1 in the past twenty years. I view him as a 3/4 draft slot in an "average" draft. After him there is not another player in this draft I would rank as a top 5 player in a "average draft". After Sarr I think most of the next 10 or so prospects are 6/7 pick quality guys and would have them in a very tight value tier. And this is what a lot of "experts" seem to be telling us. The STD deviation of average draft slot in the expert mocks is so tight at the top, everyone is just clustered very tight together around the same value. There is no where close to a consensus from #2 to #11, prospects are not separating themselves and there is not the normal distribution we usually see in the lottery. Even in the Bennett draft, most everyone had Noel, Olidipo, and Otto Porter in their top five somewhere.

If Memphis got in the top 4 of this draft I would have loved to trade down and stayed in the top 10 because of this. At pick nine I don't think the quality of prospect is going to be much lower than it was going to be 7 or even much lower if you are willing to go BPA. Now if we wanted to draft for need and wanted a specific guy like Clingan then this fall from 7 to 9 surely hurts our chances to get him even if we end up with a prospect that grades out very close to him still but does not meet our team needs. Memphis is really the only top 10 team that should even consider drafting for need.

I don’t doubt it’s a bad draft. Everyone has said that.

And (same as you just my opinion) I personally lean toward the comparison of just cutting the top 2-4 out of a normal draft a lot more than the hyperbolic one we’ve been seeing.... Because I do think there are guys available who will have great careers all the way through the top 20 in mocks. Collier, Castle, de Silva, Ware, Holland, etc…

I just don’t buy teams not having a preference. These tier systems can’t actually be the final for good teams. If so, you’d just trade back to the last two spots in your tier and get two guys and an asset for moving back while getting the cheaper rookie contract.

Which is all I was saying. If all 8 guys are the same, trade back with Portland and have 7 and 8. Portland can draft their guy and SAS can get whoever is left in their tier…

But that would probably sound bad because SAS doesn’t actually value all 8 guys the same? Which means they should pay a real price to move up?

[louc1970]

I would be more than happy with Holland and Dillingham or a number of other combinations. This draft is "poor" in the sense that there isn't a consensus at who to pick at the top. Having two top-10 picks doubles the odds the Spurs snag one of the guys who actually ends up panning out and may even allow them to get two if things work out.

While the Spurs don't need to keep the Chicago and Charlotte firsts, I'm not keen to throw them away. The Charlotte pick can be incentive to get off a contract, and the Bulls pick is a solid first that can be moved for a legitimate player while preserving the unprotected picks. The time to bundle them would've been last year when 31 and these two firsts might've been able to get the Spurs a young PG prospect. But it worked out.

And the Spurs are not necessarily looking for the full court shot here (homerun is term for basketball). Wemby is their #1, all other players are to fit around him. Dillingham would be ideal.
At #8 I might be inclined to take Knecht to spread the floor.

[psman2]

It’s actually more likely to be 8 and 3 future picks…

But what you quoted was me saying SAS should trade up or out if they don’t love anyone or love everyone the same.

So it does kind of scale with what I was talking about? I just don’t get the need to over do it like some are doing, but you quoted me? My team doesn’t have a first so I’m very excited that this draft is so awful.

Take this take with a grain of salt but from my layman's scouting pov this is my take of the top of the draft. Sarr is a weak #1, likely the 3rd weakest #1 in the past twenty years. I view him as a 3/4 draft slot in an "average" draft. After him there is not another player in this draft I would rank as a top 5 player in a "average draft". After Sarr I think most of the next 10 or so prospects are 6/7 pick quality guys and would have them in a very tight value tier. And this is what a lot of "experts" seem to be telling us. The STD deviation of average draft slot in the expert mocks is so tight at the top, everyone is just clustered very tight together around the same value. There is no where close to a consensus from #2 to #11, prospects are not separating themselves and there is not the normal distribution we usually see in the lottery. Even in the Bennett draft, most everyone had Noel, Olidipo, and Otto Porter in their top five somewhere.

If Memphis got in the top 4 of this draft I would have loved to trade down and stayed in the top 10 because of this. At pick nine I don't think the quality of prospect is going to be much lower than it was going to be 7 or even much lower if you are willing to go BPA. Now if we wanted to draft for need and wanted a specific guy like Clingan then this fall from 7 to 9 surely hurts our chances to get him even if we end up with a prospect that grades out very close to him still but does not meet our team needs. Memphis is really the only top 10 team that should even consider drafting for need.

I don’t doubt it’s a bad draft. Everyone has said that.

And (same as you just my opinion) I personally lean toward the comparison of just cutting the top 2-4 out of a normal draft a lot more than the hyperbolic one we’ve been seeing.... Because I do think there are guys available who will have great careers all the way through the top 20 in mocks. Collier, Castle, de Silva, Ware, Holland, etc…

I just don’t buy teams not having a preference. These tier systems can’t actually be the final for good teams. If so, you’d just trade back to the last two spots in your tier and get two guys and an asset for moving back while getting the cheaper rookie contract.

Which is all I was saying. If all 8 guys are the same, trade back with Portland and have 7 and 8. Portland can draft their guy and SAS can get whoever is left in their tier… But that would sound bad because SAS can’t value all 8 guys the same. Which means they should pay a real price to move up?

I don't necessary agree it is a bad draft it just depends on what you want to focus on. I think the 1-5 is bad value, I think 6-9 is likely close to average value, I think 10-11 is actually good value. And then the rest of the draft kind of falls in to line with other drafts give or take a few slots. I am not married to this 11 number either just right now that is where I have a value break and is going to be 9 for some teams and 13 for others etc. I would not be shocked if all if for example Chicago decided that they wanted to swing for the fences on a raw guy like Salaun over lets say if the 23 year old Knecht was the last guy left of this top 11 tier. Or if a team falls in love with Eddy etc.

And of course scouting departments are going to have preferences, I don't think anyone is going to disagree with that statement. But teams also put overall ratings on guys and it is very conceivable in this out of the ordinary draft that you can have a bunch of guys that are valued near identical on your team's board and don't see the value difference enough to justify the assets another team wants to move up. Meaning trading up within this top 10 is a historical bad proposition, while trading down would be a historical great proposition if you can stay inside of value tier and get the typical value. Thus I think a trade this year is less likely than normal between teams inside the top 10. I strongly hope Memphis doesn't pay to move up in this draft, where as in most drafts I almost exclusively take the stance I would like to move up a tier of prospects if I can for a reasonable price.

[louc1970]

All I know is as the draft draws nearer, the draftees get prettier.
Someone will absolutely fall in love with the possibility of drafting the 7th best player. At least they will convince themselves of it.

If the Spurs are truly set on a specific player at 4, it is going to be a fingers-crossed hope the player is still available. Risacher could very well still be there at 4, so they will not need to trade.

Working through the top 8 picks since this is a Spurs thread. Considering there is little separation in players 1-12:
As I see the draft (currently), Hawks are taking Sarr.
Wizards are either taking Clingan/Topic/Dillingham. With Avdija and Coulibaly, another SF is not likely to be their option. I think the choice is Clingan.
Rockets are the unknown threat. They could go after Risacher but they have Whitmore/Thompson, they should go after Dillingham/Topic, but they have FVV (30 y.o.). Depending on the Wizards I think their choices are the same players as the Wizards (minus whoever Wash takes). I would take Dillingham.
This leaves Spurs getting Risacher at 4.
Detroit gets handed a bad deal as the 5th best option is most likely a PG. But they may role the dice for Shepherd to space the floor for Cunningham.
We get to Charlotte. They do not need a PG (Ball/Milicic), depending on where Miller plays (2G/SF) and Bridges at the SF/PF, I see Charlotte rolling for Knecht. Spread the floor.
Brings us to Portland. They do not need Topic or Castle (Henderson). Should be a toss up between Buzelis/Holland. BPA is probably Buzelis.
So back to Spurs. Spurs have a BPA situation. Topic, Castle, Collier as PGs available, SFs - Holland, Williams, Bigs - Filipowski, Missi (but too high for them). Unless Spurs are set on Topic/Holland (which I see as a Sochan role), I would trade back for more assets (either 8 for 17/21 plus a future pick or add current players [Johnson/Collins/#8, 25 FRP, 26 FRP to Cleveland for Mitchell if he will extend]). Most likely just take Topic.

[louc1970]

Take this take with a grain of salt but from my layman's scouting pov this is my take of the top of the draft. Sarr is a weak #1, likely the 3rd weakest #1 in the past twenty years.

I don’t doubt it’s a bad draft. Everyone has said that.

It is not a bad draft if you know the quality going in. You just have to change your expectation. This draft is not about finding a star/leader of your team. It is about finding role players to fit with your current stars.
Most draft are about taking the BPA. Or at least the BPA that fits your need.
This draft is much more about finding role players. Those that fit your style and can fill holes. Knowing this makes the choices much easier.

[psman2]

It is not a bad draft if you know the quality going in. You just have to change your expectation. This draft is not about finding a star/leader of your team. It is about finding role players to fit with your current stars.
Most draft are about taking the BPA. Or at least the BPA that fits your need.
This draft is much more about finding role players. Those that fit your style and can fill holes. Knowing this makes the choices much easier.

Sounds exactly like a bad draft at the top. Teams in the lottery need to take swings on guys that have a star ceiling, these teams are star starved and the lottery is maybe the only way a lot of these teams will ever land a star. Draft the best role player at 2 while paying them 11 to 15 million a year during their rookie contract and still run the risk of them not panning out is not a position must teams are hoping for when they are in the top half of the lottery.

[louc1970]

It is not a bad draft if you know the quality going in. You just have to change your expectation. This draft is not about finding a star/leader of your team. It is about finding role players to fit with your current stars.
Most draft are about taking the BPA. Or at least the BPA that fits your need.
This draft is much more about finding role players. Those that fit your style and can fill holes. Knowing this makes the choices much easier.

Sounds exactly like a bad draft at the top. Teams in the lottery need to take swings on guys that have a star ceiling, these teams are star starved and the lottery is maybe the only way a lot of these teams will ever land a star. Draft the best role player at 2 while paying them 11 to 15 million a year during their rookie contract and still run the risk of them not panning out is not a position must teams are hoping for when they are in the top half of the lottery.

Which team in the top 8, 10, 12 is star starved?
Washington, yes.
Rockets, maybe.
Portland. yes.
Bulls, maybe.
Most teams have a star player, Detroit has Cunningham. Now has their star lead the team to success, no, that is true of MANY teams.

[psman2]

It is not a bad draft if you know the quality going in. You just have to change your expectation. This draft is not about finding a star/leader of your team. It is about finding role players to fit with your current stars.
Most draft are about taking the BPA. Or at least the BPA that fits your need.
This draft is much more about finding role players. Those that fit your style and can fill holes. Knowing this makes the choices much easier.

Sounds exactly like a bad draft at the top. Teams in the lottery need to take swings on guys that have a star ceiling, these teams are star starved and the lottery is maybe the only way a lot of these teams will ever land a star. Draft the best role player at 2 while paying them 11 to 15 million a year during their rookie contract and still run the risk of them not panning out is not a position must teams are hoping for when they are in the top half of the lottery.

Which team in the top 8, 10, 12 is star starved?
Washington, yes.
Rockets, maybe.
Portland. yes.
Bulls, maybe.
Most teams have a star player, Detroit has Cunningham. Now has their star lead the team to success, no, that is true of MANY teams.

Every team outside of Memphis, OKC, and Sac in the lottery is star starved. And even those teams would love the opportunity still to draft a player with a star ceiling. Cade is not a star, he is their best player and may still have a star ceiling still but he is currently NOT a star. Bulls....maybe....really? Ball is not a star either yet. Markkanen as your "star" best player is not going to ever lead to much. Houston has some star ceiling guys but no current star.

Wemby is a star already but is going to need a star next to him to reach greatness. You need multiple stars if you really want to win big in the league. So yes it is TRUE the vast majority of these teams are star starved.