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

[jayjaysee]

Yeah, this calls for another real first.

This feels like the price to get from 4 to 2 to make sure you get your guy, not jump up 6 spots.

(Luka/Trae cost a first with a lot better projected value. Same with the Tatum/Fultz)

Don’t think SAS or any other team values the Charlotte first as a first with one year lottery protected. But I do hope Charlotte pick conveys, they have a nice young group and deserve a good season.

If SAS really loves everyone from 1-5 the same… They should either be trading out of the top 4 because it’s so awful or trading up because they love multiple players in the top 4.

[wemby]

It's 8 + Chicago's '25 (protected 10-8-8) + Charlotte's 25 (lottery protected). So you're likely talking 8 + 12 (in a better draft) + 2 SRPs... overpay to jump 6 spots in a weak draft. You do this for a Chet/Banchero in 22, a Mobley in 21, not a Risacher.

I understood the trade, I still don’t think the Bulls pick and those 2nds are enough to go from 8 to 2. I view it as an underpay.

Let's put it this way: it's a better offer than 7+14 (Chicago pick in 25 projects to get you a much stronger player than 14 in this class). Would you do 7+14+2 2nds for 2?

Even if you ALREADY had 4? (Spurs do have 4)
Anyway, you may say yes and I respect your opinion, I absolutely would NOT.

[Myth]

I understood the trade, I still don’t think the Bulls pick and those 2nds are enough to go from 8 to 2. I view it as an underpay.

Let's put it this way: it's a better offer than 7+14 (Chicago pick in 25 projects to get you a much stronger player than 14 in this class). Would you do 7+14+2 2nds for 2?

Even if you ALREADY had 4? (Spurs do have 4)
Anyway, you may say yes and I respect your opinion, I absolutely would NOT.

Yes. Especially if I already have Wemby on my team. I'd be looking to get my pick of the litter. In Spurs situation, they still have a second swing at this draft, so I definitely think including the 8 is a no brainer, and including the 4 instead is reasonable if the Spurs really like who is at #2 and don't want to miss out on them. In either version of this trade discussed, they still also have another swing. Other drafts may be stronger, but we are still talking about a pick that is protected 10, 10, 8 in order to get a #2 pick, which just seems obvious to me to take. It is worth noting that the Bulls pick they possess also has a reasonable chance of becoming a future 2nd round pick, as the Bulls have been trending downward. Just to echo you though, I respect your opinion to disagree.

[jbk1234]

The Bulls are a Coby White trade away from neither of those picks conveying.

[Texas Chuck]

If SAS really loves everyone from 1-5 the same… They should either be trading out of the top 4 because it’s so awful or trading up because they love multiple players in the top 4.

This is the bottom line.

[psman2]

I just don't think Risacher is going to separate himself enough for SA to pay this price. As of right now I think there is a 65-70% he is there at 4 already, he is not a lock for the top half of the lottery right now.

That's a very small price, if they are interested in him, they pay that and even add on top of it and not look back.

I already said the same later on. If Risacher separates himself (or any player really that the Spurs want more) then they should be willing to pay this and more. But I really don't see any player right now that is capable of separating themselves. There are about 9 guys right now that I wouldn't blink an eye at if they were picked at 2 or 10. Most of the lottery is really flat, I cannot recall anything quite like this in the 30+ years I have been paying attention to this stuff. Flat doesn't necessary mean bad, just very little consensus among the hierarchy of the top 10ish picks. Now of course having your choice of the tier is always preferred but at what cost? I just think the motivation to move around at the top of the draft is going to be curtailed this year.

[Kalamazoo317]

I can't see a smart GM giving up any real assets to trade up between 2 and 10 in this year's draft, as flat as it is.

[Silvie Lysandra]

Wizards counter with #2 + #26 + Kuzma for #4 and #8

[Chinook]

Wizards counter with #2 + #26 + Kuzma for #4 and #8

Well first I don't think the Spurs would do the OP's deal, though that's a legit question. I don't think they'd want any part of this counter offer. Maybe if a third team was willing to take Kuzma and give back a mid-round pick this year that could make sense. The Spurs likely wouldn't want to give up assets to bring in a SF just to acquire another one to play over him. That's even more true given the vet SF is Kuzma and not a better player.

[BDM22]

Wizards counter with #2 + #26 + Kuzma for #4 and #8

Wow that's bad for San Antonio. 1-10ish is very flat in this draft. Especially after Sarr (who really only gets the prototype bump). Not a huge benefit to jump from 4 to 2. No one has really separated themselves. Meanwhile it's a huge drop from 8 to 26. And Kuzma is not a guy I see as positive value for San Antonio. I can see why Washington would be interested though! lol

I don't even see the original post as useful to San Antonio (especially at the cost of the Chicago pick). Houston and Washington probably have no reason to take wings. Spurs can just grab one of the wings at 4 (solid shot Risacher is there anyways) and then get someone like Dillingham at #8, which looks like he'll fall there given the teams above.

[Chinook]

If SAS really loves everyone from 1-5 the same… They should either be trading out of the top 4 because it’s so awful or trading up because they love multiple players in the top 4.

This is the bottom line.

This is not how drafting works. Teams that live within their means create a board and follow it. The Spurs can see no benefit to trading up while also not wanting to trade down. The Spurs are in a great position to grab good prospects at need positions while preserving their cap space and future picks. Trading up removes cap space and costs assets that could be used in future moves.

All that can be true while the "value" part is on the Spurs side. The second pick can be worth more than 8, CHA25 and CHI25 and it still not be in the Spurs' best interest to make the deal.

[jayjaysee]

If SAS really loves everyone from 1-5 the same… They should either be trading out of the top 4 because it’s so awful or trading up because they love multiple players in the top 4.

This is the bottom line.

This is not how drafting works. Teams that live within their means create a board and follow it. The Spurs can see no benefit to trading up while also not wanting to trade down. The Spurs are in a great position to grab good prospects at need positions while preserving their cap space and future picks. Trading up removes cap space and costs assets that could be used in future moves.

All that can be true while the "value" part is on the Spurs side. The second pick can be worth more than 8, CHA25 and CHI25 and it still not be in the Spurs' best interest to make the deal.

Trading up saves cap space

Number 2: 11.278
Vet min: 2.5? Less than that, but still

Number 4; 9.13
Number 8: 6.28

But maybe you meant something else?

[penbeast0]

Just because a prospect hasn't separated themselves from their peers in the media doesn't mean that these teams feel the same . They have exhaustingly researched these and evaluate based on how they will play in a particular system with particular teammates. That's true for both San Antonio and Washington even if Washington currently has little "core" value in place.

[BK_2020]

in 2018 the Hawks got a top 5 protected pick for swapping 3 and 5, but the trade was done largely because the Hawks and everyone else knew Trae Young would be available at 5. 1 future protected pick (with no idea what the protection is) to drop 6 spots is unprecedented, especially where there is no clear idea of who would be available there.

[Wolveswin]

Why not go from 8 to 1? Wouldn’t the Hawks find it sexier to get their own 1st back (maybe 26 swap too or added protections to swap).

[Chinook]

This is the bottom line.

This is not how drafting works. Teams that live within their means create a board and follow it. The Spurs can see no benefit to trading up while also not wanting to trade down. The Spurs are in a great position to grab good prospects at need positions while preserving their cap space and future picks. Trading up removes cap space and costs assets that could be used in future moves.

All that can be true while the "value" part is on the Spurs side. The second pick can be worth more than 8, CHA25 and CHI25 and it still not be in the Spurs' best interest to make the deal.

Trading up saves cap space

Number 2: 11.278
Vet min: 2.5? Less than that, but still

Number 4; 9.13
Number 8: 6.28

But maybe you meant something else?

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.

[jayjaysee]

This is not how drafting works. Teams that live within their means create a board and follow it. The Spurs can see no benefit to trading up while also not wanting to trade down. The Spurs are in a great position to grab good prospects at need positions while preserving their cap space and future picks. Trading up removes cap space and costs assets that could be used in future moves.

All that can be true while the "value" part is on the Spurs side. The second pick can be worth more than 8, CHA25 and CHI25 and it still not be in the Spurs' best interest to make the deal.

Trading up saves cap space

Number 2: 11.278
Vet min: 2.5? Less than that, but still

Number 4; 9.13
Number 8: 6.28

But maybe you meant something else?

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.

[Chinook]

Trading up saves cap space

Number 2: 11.278
Vet min: 2.5? Less than that, but still

Number 4; 9.13
Number 8: 6.28

But maybe you meant something else?

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.

The scale I'm talking about is rhetorical. You set up a dilemma for those who argue against the trade as a way of pointing out a contradiction in that reasoning. It is viable in the OP scenario where the Spurs can get two top-five picks. If the Spurs like the top five well enough to not care about the difference between 4 and 2, they should want to trade 8 for 2 to get two of these great prospects. If they don't carw about the prospects, they shouldn't want to keep 4 or probably 8.

However, if the Spurs like the top five equally, then it makes zero sense to trade up from 4 using 8. There's no dilemma or contradiction. It would be just throwing 8 in for nothing.

The reality is the board is set up well for the Spurs if they stand pat. They shouldn't be worried about moving up or down. Half of the likely top eight picks are either there's or quite likely to be spent on centers. So theyre in a good position to get two players high on their board.

[psman2]

Trading up saves cap space

Number 2: 11.278
Vet min: 2.5? Less than that, but still

Number 4; 9.13
Number 8: 6.28

But maybe you meant something else?

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.

[louc1970]

2025 Charlotte protected 1-14? Might as well say they are getting 2 2nds. I think Washington demands #4 instead of #8.

True - but the CHI pick is not as protected and would be nice if it ends up at #11 next year or #9 one of the next two years. CHI might make the play-in but is probably not dropping under 14-17 range.
Figured that combined - or maybe just the CHI pick could be enough?

I just don’t think that Bulls pick (plus 2 likely 2nds) jumps them from 8 to 2. I do think it can jump them from 4 to 2.

I think Washington has their eye on Sarr or Clingan. I don't think either will be available at 4. .
I think Washington could be persuaded to move #2 for #4 and #8 this year. Spurs get the player they want, Washington gets to pick up Topic at PG, and then BPA 9or even further move #8 to NOP for #17 and #21.
If Washington does not think #8 will be more than a role player, may as well go for some low cost depth.