RealGM

Let's say the Spurs are picking 2nd, Risacher is off the board, and the Jazz just love Alexandre Sarr because they want him and Taylor Hendricks and Markkanen to switch everywhere. Let's say the Jazz have the 10th pick. Would this trade work or no

Spurs get: 10th pick, Keyonte George, top 5 protected 2029 Timberwolves pick
Jazz get: 2nd pick

Spurs have to not be in love with Topic or another player, it does seem a bit light.

I wouldn't hate it in premise, especially if the Spurs have the Raptors pick to take a second player in the top 10. I don't know how much value George offers, especially if the Spurs take Dillingham or Collier at 7 or 8. Would prefer to get a guaranteed pick in 2029. If the Raptors pick does not convey, getting George and taking a forward at 10 seems more appealing

I think instead of George, it’s another future first.

But SAS would have to really not like the top of this draft class, which I don’t think will be the case. There’s some really interesting prospects at the top that should work with Wemby/Vassell.

10 to 2 is a really big drop.

I guess it all depends on whether the Spurs' FO thinks Sarr has the potential to develop his perimeter game and be compatible with Wemby long term on offense (on defense I have no doubt they'd be great). If they see him as strictly a 5 on offense and they aren't in love with Topic or Risacher, I could see them moving back (or out altogether) and picking some assets or players that fit (Keyonte George would IMO). All in all I don't know that it happens, but I wouldn't say it's crazy and I do think there may be teams willing to move either way to get their guy, more than there would be in past classes.

2nd pick is worth a lot more than #10, a future pick, and a much depreciated former 16th pick.
For reference, in 2017 the Sixers traded #3 and a future pick (held by a really bad Kings team) for #1. In 2018, the Mavs traded #5 and a future pick for #3.

BK_2020 wrote:2nd pick is worth a lot more than #10, a future pick, and a much depreciated former 16th pick.
For reference, in 2017 the Sixers traded #3 and a future pick (held by a really bad Kings team) for #1. In 2018, the Mavs traded #5 and a future pick for #3.

Yes, but those drafts had good players in them.

Risacher is the overwhelming favorite to go first overall and his ceiling is Otto Porter Jr.

Sarr is the favorite to go 2nd overall and his NBA comparison is "What if Nic Claxton couldn't rebound at all but there was like a 10% chance he got good at shooting threes"

HadAnEffectHere wrote:

BK_2020 wrote:2nd pick is worth a lot more than #10, a future pick, and a much depreciated former 16th pick.
For reference, in 2017 the Sixers traded #3 and a future pick (held by a really bad Kings team) for #1. In 2018, the Mavs traded #5 and a future pick for #3.

Yes, but those drafts had good players in them.

Risacher is the overwhelming favorite to go first overall and his ceiling is Otto Porter Jr.

Sarr is the favorite to go 2nd overall and his NBA comparison is "What if Nic Claxton couldn't rebound at all but there was like a 10% chance he got good at shooting threes"

Makes no difference. If the #2 pick is that bad, then the #10 pick is proportionately bad.

BK_2020 wrote:2nd pick is worth a lot more than #10, a future pick, and a much depreciated former 16th pick.
For reference, in 2017 the Sixers traded #3 and a future pick (held by a really bad Kings team) for #1. In 2018, the Mavs traded #5 and a future pick for #3.

I would think George has shown to be worth MORE than his draft position.

BK_2020 wrote:2nd pick is worth a lot more than #10, a future pick, and a much depreciated former 16th pick.
For reference, in 2017 the Sixers traded #3 and a future pick (held by a really bad Kings team) for #1. In 2018, the Mavs traded #5 and a future pick for #3.

How is George 'depreciated?' He's got a good chance at all rookie first team ....

Re the value of this draft, I've been watching these prospects and I agree with the consensus, it's a bad draft. I'd rather keep George and our future picks than even have the 1st pick. 10 + George for 1? I don't even think I'd do that this year. In a normal year you are absolutely spot on that this isn't enough, but this year I'd be staying out of sacrificing major assets to move up.

I absolutely hate this draft to be clear, but I'm only thinking about this as a Jazz fan as I think Hardy would prefer to play a 5 out lineup. Sarr obviously is a very bad shooter, but there's some low chance he learns how to shoot and then he would be very valuable.

Sarr at his ceiling and Hendricks at his ceiling are a super intriguing combination if you can get a star PG who is big enough to switch on defense.

HadAnEffectHere wrote:I absolutely hate this draft to be clear, but I'm only thinking about this as a Jazz fan as I think Hardy would prefer to play a 5 out lineup. Sarr obviously is a very bad shooter, but there's some low chance he learns how to shoot and then he would be very valuable.

Sarr at his ceiling and Hendricks at his ceiling are a super intriguing combination if you can get a star PG who is big enough to switch on defense.

My problem is that this would replicate some of the issues with Collins + Kessler + Lauri. Collins and Kessler need all their offense created for them, and Lauri is best when he can attack a defense that isn't set. So, you have to rely on really good guard penetration to create that movement, but you are minimizing the possibility of that by playing guys who ... can probably hit open corner threes (well, not Sarr right now) and otherwise will score on putbacks and maybe in the PnR. This was my issue w/Hendricks, too, that as of this moment he plays more like a small-ball 5 on offense than a power forward b/c he has no self-creation. The trajectory you hope for is something like Jerami Grant, but it took him FOREVER to be a plus offensive player. So, I like Sarr, but if we want to invest in Hendricks and Kessler at all I think he's a bad pick, and it is a bad enough draft that at that point I'd rather just trade down or look for someone who fits better. There are two guys that I feel reasonably comfortable would fit well on our team, and that is Rissacher and Furphy, in this scenario I'd rather just stay at 10 and draft Furphy, or see if someone drops. I know you don't like Buzelis, but to me his stroke looks alright and like it can be developed to be more consistent. At the very least, then, you'd have a backup power forward who can create offense for himself and others, while hitting open C+S threes (a la Nic Batum, Kyle Anderson...kind of, Hedo Turkoglu, etc.). The risk, of course, is that his shooting this year is indicative of the shooter he will become. If that's the case I don't see a serious NBA role for him.

HadAnEffectHere wrote:

BK_2020 wrote:2nd pick is worth a lot more than #10, a future pick, and a much depreciated former 16th pick.
For reference, in 2017 the Sixers traded #3 and a future pick (held by a really bad Kings team) for #1. In 2018, the Mavs traded #5 and a future pick for #3.

Yes, but those drafts had good players in them.

Risacher is the overwhelming favorite to go first overall and his ceiling is Otto Porter Jr.

Sarr is the favorite to go 2nd overall and his NBA comparison is "What if Nic Claxton couldn't rebound at all but there was like a 10% chance he got good at shooting threes"

Risacher's CEILING is Otto Porter Jr? Sarr is a non rebounding Claxton? How can you say that about 2 18 year olds with any degree of confidence? I don't think there's any player you can call a future star with a high degree of confidence (like you could Wemby, Banchero, Chet, etc), but to go that far is just ridiculous. If that's how you value them, there's no point in proposing a trade.

I think there's some movement downward when it comes to how much a pick is worth based on how "bad" the draft is, but the Jazz aren't going to be able to move up while trying to downplay the draft's quality. The Spurs especially don't need more picks, so there's going to be very little pressure from their side to move down. Every draft for at least the 20 year (excluding the ones from the past three or so seasons since those players are young) has had an All-NBA player taken. This draft will likely follow that trend. It's up to teams to figure out who that player is, and it's better to have the pick of all the prospects rather than fewer of them. The gap between 2 and 10 is still rather large.

Of course, that doesn't mean Utah or any other team has to want to do this deal. They may like George more than anyone in this draft -- that's a real viewpoint someone can have. I don't know that George is actually that much of a sticking point here, as the Spurs may well have their eyes on other PG targets outside the draft anyway. I'm just saying that it's going to cost legit value to move up, whether the team moving up loves the draft or not.

My opinion on this is, if the Jazz get lucky in the lottery and land the 2nd pick. And someone comes to a Jazz with an offer like this one, I take it. I don't even blink. I'd much rather a young good player, a top 10 pick and a future first than the 2nd pick.

babyjax13 wrote:

HadAnEffectHere wrote:I absolutely hate this draft to be clear, but I'm only thinking about this as a Jazz fan as I think Hardy would prefer to play a 5 out lineup. Sarr obviously is a very bad shooter, but there's some low chance he learns how to shoot and then he would be very valuable.

Sarr at his ceiling and Hendricks at his ceiling are a super intriguing combination if you can get a star PG who is big enough to switch on defense.

My problem is that this would replicate some of the issues with Collins + Kessler + Lauri. Collins and Kessler need all their offense created for them, and Lauri is best when he can attack a defense that isn't set. So, you have to rely on really good guard penetration to create that movement, but you are minimizing the possibility of that by playing guys who ... can probably hit open corner threes (well, not Sarr right now) and otherwise will score on putbacks and maybe in the PnR. This was my issue w/Hendricks, too, that as of this moment he plays more like a small-ball 5 on offense than a power forward b/c he has no self-creation. The trajectory you hope for is something like Jerami Grant, but it took him FOREVER to be a plus offensive player. So, I like Sarr, but if we want to invest in Hendricks and Kessler at all I think he's a bad pick, and it is a bad enough draft that at that point I'd rather just trade down or look for someone who fits better. There are two guys that I feel reasonably comfortable would fit well on our team, and that is Rissacher and Furphy, in this scenario I'd rather just stay at 10 and draft Furphy, or see if someone drops. I know you don't like Buzelis, but to me his stroke looks alright and like it can be developed to be more consistent. At the very least, then, you'd have a backup power forward who can create offense for himself and others, while hitting open C+S threes (a la Nic Batum, Kyle Anderson...kind of, Hedo Turkoglu, etc.). The risk, of course, is that his shooting this year is indicative of the shooter he will become. If that's the case I don't see a serious NBA role for him.

To be clear, we would only trade for Sarr if we wanted to get rid of Kessler because he can't shoot. Sarr-Hendricks is a pretty miserable frontcourt offensively, but if Sarr learns to shoot, it could hypothetically work if we had two star perimeter players.

I'm old enough to remember how 2020 draft was supposed to be so bad it was better to have a mid-lotto pick in that draft to save on salary and also the #1 pick in 2020 was the same as #6 or #7 in 2021 draft.

BK_2020 wrote:I'm old enough to remember how 2020 draft was supposed to be so bad it was better to have a mid-lotto pick in that draft to save on salary and also the #1 pick in 2020 was the same as #6 or #7 in 2021 draft.

The top of that draft was really disliked because Anthony Edwards and LaMelo didn't seem to care about basketball at all. They had played terribly the year before the draft and Wiseman hadn't played at all. They were super high risk because they were so raw and seemed to have such bad intangibles. Edwards has turned out obviously and LaMelo has mostly turned out.

The top of this draft is different, it just has no athleticism at all. There's no upside because no one can jump. Risacher and Reed Sheppard are playing way better than Anthony Edwards and LaMelo played... They just can't jump or move.

Anthony Edwards' pre-draft profile was basically "what if Donovan Mitchell didn't like basketball" whereas Risacher's is "3D guy who never dribbles and has average to below average athleticism and only shoots 65% from the line." There was always a lot of upside in the top 3 of that draft, there's none here outside of Sarr somehow learning how to shoot threes. Risacher is going to be picked #1 solely for his intangibles, not for any upside he has as he has shown nothing there.

This draft is so devoid of athleticism that the two high-risk/high-reward guys are... guys who cannot jump at all either (Cody Williams and Flip)

It's only in this thread that Risacher is being talked about as the first-overall pick. I don't think that's really an assumption, especially not to the extent folks are trying to make it seem here. I've seen Sarr at the top much more frequently and Topic up there just as much. My guess is folks might be looking at mocks that are taking Detroit's roster into account, which is downgrading centers and PGs and elevating forwards.

BK_2020 wrote:I'm old enough to remember how 2020 draft was supposed to be so bad it was better to have a mid-lotto pick in that draft to save on salary and also the #1 pick in 2020 was the same as #6 or #7 in 2021 draft.

I don't even think the 2011 draft was thought of much, and it had four HoFers. It's just that only one of those HoFers was taken in the top 10. There will be great players taking in June, who will likely help define their teams for years to come. It's up to the GMs to figure out who those are and not buy into the "crapshoot" narrative that are easy to believe when you're a fan with no control.