The Vassell for Garland framework, how many picks would the Spurs need to add?

[One_and_Done]

I really wish people would think about the mindset of the teams more, not act like this is a video game.

The Spurs just don't make trades like this. When they have a guy they like, who is a high level starter, they don't move him because 'hey, this guy might be a little better!' They are a hyper conservative organisation in that respect. They don't make crazy trades, and they don't leak. It's all very no nonsense, stability, family, etc. They talked eloquently about how it killed them to trade George Hill, and they only did that because they were so sure Kawhi was going to be good. Hill also didn't start for them, and they were trading older for younger to reposition the team. The same could be said of the trades of White and Murray.

So even if you think Garland is better, and that's the reasonable take since he was an all-star, the Spurs still aren't going to move Vassell for him. Maybe for Keldon and the #8 and the Bulls pick or some such.

I love how the first 2 paragraphs are all the Spurs aren't going make a trade like this, they're a conservative organization, etc. and then ends with a lowball offer. If Vassell isn't available, that's fine. The Cavs will move on, but Keldon Johnson is no kind of trade asset.

I mean, the Spurs are giving up 2 likely lotto picks and a solid player in the trade, for a borderline all-star who will be on big money. I could see the Spurs adding more, but nothing that's juicier than the #8 (e.g heavily protected 1sts). Garland is a guy the Spurs could use, but they're not in a position where the need to overpay for him. They're in no rush.

[jbk1234]

I really wish people would think about the mindset of the teams more, not act like this is a video game.

The Spurs just don't make trades like this. When they have a guy they like, who is a high level starter, they don't move him because 'hey, this guy might be a little better!' They are a hyper conservative organisation in that respect. They don't make crazy trades, and they don't leak. It's all very no nonsense, stability, family, etc. They talked eloquently about how it killed them to trade George Hill, and they only did that because they were so sure Kawhi was going to be good. Hill also didn't start for them, and they were trading older for younger to reposition the team. The same could be said of the trades of White and Murray.

So even if you think Garland is better, and that's the reasonable take since he was an all-star, the Spurs still aren't going to move Vassell for him. Maybe for Keldon and the #8 and the Bulls pick or some such.

I love how the first 2 paragraphs are all the Spurs aren't going make a trade like this, they're a conservative organization, etc. and then ends with a lowball offer. If Vassell isn't available, that's fine. The Cavs will move on, but Keldon Johnson is no kind of trade asset.

I mean, the Spurs are giving up 2 likely lotto picks and a solid player in the trade, for a borderline all-star who will be on big money. I could see the Spurs adding more, but nothing that's juicier than the #8 (e.g heavily protected 1sts). Garland is a guy the Spurs could use, but they're not in a position where the need to overpay for him. They're in no rush.

The Cavs don't really want picks. They don't want to try to develop a 19-year old. They don't want to downgrade the roster. They're trying to win now. Again, if Vassell isn't available, I don't see the Spurs as a trade partner. I'm not convinced that Garland is traded this summer regardless, but if there isn't a trade that makes sense for both teams, I'd all but guarantee it.

[One_and_Done]

I agree, they're bad trade partners.

[Chinook]

I said this on a different forum, but I think it's going to be hard to trade with Cleveland, because they've already shown that they're willing to pay for a good player. In my opinion, they got caught holding the bag right as the trade bubble burst. I could see them asking for three firsts and a good player for Garland and thinking it's fine because it's less than what they paid for Mitchell. But I believe the Cavs substantially overpaid for Mitchell. Eventually, we will return to a world where two picks and filler is the normal return for a non-superstar All-Star. These giant warchests that teams like SA and OKC have aren't good for the league.

[Godaddycurse]

I said this on a different forum, but I think it's going to be hard to trade with Cleveland, because they've already shown that they're willing to pay for a good player. In my opinion, they got caught holding the bag right as the trade bubble burst. I could see them asking for three firsts and a good player for Garland and thinking it's fine because it's less than what they paid for Mitchell. But I believe the Cavs substantially overpaid for Mitchell. Eventually, we will return to a world where two picks and filler is the normal return for a non-superstar All-Star. These giant warchests that teams like SA and OKC have aren't good for the league.

The problem with 2 picks and filler trades is that tons of teams csn offer that and the competition will drive up the cost ultimately

[DowJones]

I said this on a different forum, but I think it's going to be hard to trade with Cleveland, because they've already shown that they're willing to pay for a good player. In my opinion, they got caught holding the bag right as the trade bubble burst. I could see them asking for three firsts and a good player for Garland and thinking it's fine because it's less than what they paid for Mitchell. But I believe the Cavs substantially overpaid for Mitchell. Eventually, we will return to a world where two picks and filler is the normal return for a non-superstar All-Star. These giant warchests that teams like SA and OKC have aren't good for the league.

Trading with Cleveland presents challenges due to the strength of their roster. Their recent advancement to the second round only demonstrates their aspiration for further progress and further progression doesn't typically involve trading excellent players for draft picks. The reluctance to part with Garland for assets like the 8th pick in a lackluster NBA draft and a future protected first stems from Cleveland's focus on winning over the next five years.

San Antonio's situation differs significantly. Their priority lies more in amassing draft assets and nurturing young talent rather than immediate victory. That strategy is valid. If they opt not to pursue Garland, we all would understand. Perhaps the Atlanta pick next year hits. Maybe the 2027 pick hits. There's also the chance that Atlanta maintains its current trajectory, without the extraordinary lottery luck seen this year, leaving San Antonio with picks in the 11-20 range.

[Chinook]

I said this on a different forum, but I think it's going to be hard to trade with Cleveland, because they've already shown that they're willing to pay for a good player. In my opinion, they got caught holding the bag right as the trade bubble burst. I could see them asking for three firsts and a good player for Garland and thinking it's fine because it's less than what they paid for Mitchell. But I believe the Cavs substantially overpaid for Mitchell. Eventually, we will return to a world where two picks and filler is the normal return for a non-superstar All-Star. These giant warchests that teams like SA and OKC have aren't good for the league.

The problem with 2 picks and filler trades is that tons of teams csn offer that and the competition will drive up the cost ultimately

As the new restrictions come into play, fewer and fewer teams will be able to offer that, actually. Not a lot of teams can casually add a max contract, especially for a player who doesn't want to be there, while maintaining the upward trajectory that would've motivated them to doing the trade in the first place. A lot of these teams like LAC and Minny could only make the deals they did because the current rules hadn't gone into (full) effect. That won't be the case in a couple of years when the next crop of stars are on the move.

[Chinook]

I said this on a different forum, but I think it's going to be hard to trade with Cleveland, because they've already shown that they're willing to pay for a good player. In my opinion, they got caught holding the bag right as the trade bubble burst. I could see them asking for three firsts and a good player for Garland and thinking it's fine because it's less than what they paid for Mitchell. But I believe the Cavs substantially overpaid for Mitchell. Eventually, we will return to a world where two picks and filler is the normal return for a non-superstar All-Star. These giant warchests that teams like SA and OKC have aren't good for the league.

Trading with Cleveland presents challenges due to the strength of their roster. Their recent advancement to the second round only demonstrates their aspiration for further progress and further progression doesn't typically involve trading excellent players for draft picks. The reluctance to part with Garland for assets like the 8th pick in a lackluster NBA draft and a future protected first stems from Cleveland's focus on winning over the next five years.

I mean, sure. But this is overblown. Cleveland getting back picks and young players can allow them to make other moves. They don't have to get back an immediate win-now player. And could and should take the time to evaluate their roster and make the right type of trade for the team they actually have rather than the one they theorize they have during the summer. Trying to chase down momentum is a path toward building a moribund roster devoid of assets to improve.

San Antonio's situation differs significantly. Their priority lies more in amassing draft assets and nurturing young talent rather than immediate victory. That strategy is valid. If they opt not to pursue Garland, we all would understand. Perhaps the Atlanta pick next year hits. Maybe the 2027 pick hits. There's also the chance that Atlanta maintains its current trajectory, without the extraordinary lottery luck seen this year, leaving San Antonio with picks in the 11-20 range

Remember, it's possible the Spurs wouldn't do this trade without picks involved, so focusing on the downside of the ATL picks doesn't really mean anything. The Spurs shouldn't base their moves on the hope the Hawks picks hit -- they never should have. That's why making the picks in this draft rather than trading them away like so many want them to is so important. I personally believe the team should start pressing down on the accelerator this summer. I just STRONGLY disagree on what that means.

For example, the Spurs should definitely look into leveraging the Hawks pick next year as part of a three-team trade with ATL and whomever wants Murray or Young. The should use their salary space to bring in a vet bench presence who can work with Johnson to create a strong second unit to grow their draft picks as they pursue a starting forward through other means. They loose a lot of degrees of freedom making any sexy trade, and most of the time the benefit isn't anything to write home about. They go from having a viable starting PG, a good SG and one hole at the wing to having a very good starting PG and both wing holes wide open but with less assets and salary space to address them. It doesn't make sense, and it's not a direction thing as your post implies.