Portland gets a 2nd Top 10 Pick

Colbinii · Post #1 » by **Colbinii** » Mon Jun 17, 2024 2:47 pm

Portland Out: Matisse Thybulle, #14, 2029 1st [Worse of BOS/MIL]
Portland In: #8

Spurs Out: #8
Spurs In: Matisse Thybulle, #14, 2029 1st [Worse of BOS/MIL]

Portland moves up, sending a 3+D type player in Thybulle and a 2029 1st in order to get a higher-ceiling prospect in this draft

San Antonio gets a menace on the perimeter to pair with Wemby while picking up another future 1st by moving down 6 spots in the lottery

wemby · Post #2 » by **wemby** » Mon Jun 17, 2024 2:58 pm

Spurs don't need another spacing liability, and they won't downgrade from 8 to 14 to get one. Pass.

BlazersBroncos · Post #3 » by **BlazersBroncos** » Mon Jun 17, 2024 3:00 pm

I would rather gamble on those 2029 picks being good and pick at 14. I dont really see a huge difference between 8 and 14 unless a guy like Matas somehow falls and in that case SA would just take him IMO.

Myth · Post #4 » by **Myth** » Mon Jun 17, 2024 3:09 pm

No way do I include a future first to move up from 14 to 8 in this draft.

Colbinii · Post #5 » by **Colbinii** » Mon Jun 17, 2024 3:12 pm

BlazersBroncos wrote:I would rather gamble on those 2029 picks being good and pick at 14. I dont really see a huge difference between 8 and 14 unless a guy like Matas somehow falls and in that case SA would just take him IMO.

1) There is a major difference between #8 and #14, unless you think professional scouts simply get their information from ESPN, Uneducated Podcasters or this forum board.

2) You are giving up the worst of the 2029 1sts, and that draft if 5 years away. I imagine both GM and Owner want to nail this draft.

Post #6 » by **Texas Chuck** » Mon Jun 17, 2024 3:18 pm

Feels great for Portland. Move up and solve their tax issues all for a pick 5 years away that is protected by being the worst of.

For the Spurs I don't hate the idea of trying to pick up a future asset for cheap depth or to make trades to make additions around prime Wemby.

I don't mind this really for either.

wemby · Post #7 » by **wemby** » Mon Jun 17, 2024 3:25 pm

Texas Chuck wrote:Feels great for Portland. Move up and solve their tax issues all for a pick 5 years away that is protected by being the worst of.

For the Spurs I don't hate the idea of trying to pick up a future asset for cheap depth or to make trades to make additions around prime Wemby.

I don't mind this really for either.

Spurs have the richest war chest of picks in the league, almost as much as OKC in quantity and better inquality. They don't need a crappy future asset 5 years down the road, they need to take the best player available right now so that he's ready in a few years, and moving down 6 spots doesn't help. Also, for the Spurs Thybulle isn't even worth his contract or roster spot, just gets in the way of actual solutions. But I concede I wouldn't mind this either... if I was a Mavs fan.

Post #8 » by **Texas Chuck** » Mon Jun 17, 2024 3:26 pm

wemby wrote:I wouldn't mind this either if I was a Mavs fan.

Sorry, but this is stupid. I don't analyze trades for other teams on how they help Dallas. I know your only focus is on the Spurs and I never tell you to take a different approach. Good grief what a waste of time to think someone would try to fake sabotage another team on a message board. And to accuse someone of that just because they have a different opinion than you...smh so silly :lol:

Myth · Post #9 » by **Myth** » Mon Jun 17, 2024 3:37 pm

Colbinii wrote:
BlazersBroncos wrote:I would rather gamble on those 2029 picks being good and pick at 14. I dont really see a huge difference between 8 and 14 unless a guy like Matas somehow falls and in that case SA would just take him IMO.

1) There is a major difference between #8 and #14, unless you think professional scouts simply get their information from ESPN, Uneducated Podcasters or this forum board.

2) You are giving up the worst of the 2029 1sts, and that draft if 5 years away. I imagine both GM and Owner want to nail this draft.

Professional scouts don’t have a much better track record than ESPN and podcaster mocks at selecting who is best. Yes, at 8 you get your pick of the litter, but many of these pups may be in the same tier of player at the end of the day. Heck, a GM may actually look worse by trading up and then the player they pick not being the best of the bunch or worse is a straight bust. Many Blazers fans still complain about Blazers trading 15 and 20 to get Zach Collins at 10 and missing out on much better players like Donovan Mitchell and Bam Adebayo.

I never understand why a pick years away is viewed by some as not a big deal to give away. I plan on still being a fan at that time, so that pick still matters. As for GMs, the further out they have that pick, the longer it remains a trade chip that they aren’t rushed to use. This is opposed to say a 2025 pick where they have only 1 year to trade it or daft with it.

Post #10 » by **gswhoops** » Mon Jun 17, 2024 3:41 pm

I don't assign a ton of value to a "worst of" pick 5 years away, especially when its the "worst of" two teams that each have a top-10 player in the league in or entering their prime.

Unless SA doesn't really like anyone on the board at #8, I have them passing on this.

Kizz Fastfists · Post #11 » by **Kizz Fastfists** » Mon Jun 17, 2024 3:56 pm

This makes no sense for the Spurs. They trade down for a below average 3pt shooter and a first that has no certainty of being worth anything. If the Spurs have no interest in building a winning team can I get them to give up #8 for Kenrich Williams who is actually an above average 3pt shooter?

Colbinii · Post #12 » by **Colbinii** » Mon Jun 17, 2024 3:58 pm

Kizz Fastfists wrote:This makes no sense for the Spurs. They trade down for a below average 3pt shooter and a first that has no certainty of being worth anything. If the Spurs have no interest in building a winning team can I get them to give up #8 for Kenrich Williams who is actually an above average 3pt shooter?

Kenrich + #12 + Future 1st for #8?

Yeah, same idea as the person who created this thread. Seems like a good idea :nod:

Post #13 » by **Texas Chuck** » Mon Jun 17, 2024 4:04 pm

Kizz Fastfists wrote:If the Spurs have no interest in building a winning team can I get them to give up #8 for Kenrich Williams who is actually an above average 3pt shooter?

We have a board policy against reductive counter offers like this. .

Colbinii · Post #14 » by **Colbinii** » Mon Jun 17, 2024 4:06 pm

Texas Chuck wrote:
Kizz Fastfists wrote:If the Spurs have no interest in building a winning team can I get them to give up #8 for Kenrich Williams who is actually an above average 3pt shooter?

We have a board policy against reductive counter offers like this. .

Isn't the assumption it includes #12 and a Future 1st?

I assume Kizz Fastfists isn't incompetent enough to miss the actual meat and potatoes of the trade rather than focusing on the minor taste of iron in the ice water. There is no was Kizz Fastfists meant only Kenrich Williams for #8, right? Right?

Clipsz 4 Life · Post #15 » by **Tim Lehrbach** » Mon Jun 17, 2024 5:44 pm

This isn't an outrageous price for Portland to pay, but I doubt moving 14 for another pick after 7 is a priority. I could be wrong.