Spurs and Nets

louc1970 · Post #1 » by **louc1970** » Tue May 27, 2025 2:32 pm

Spurs/Nets
Spurs trade Johnson/filler and #2
Nets trade Claxton and #8

Nets take Harper at 2 and start a rebuild.
Spurs take Maluach at 8 and McNeeley at 14. Allows Wemby to play either PF or center.

LarsV8 · Post #2 » by **LarsV8** » Tue May 27, 2025 2:38 pm

Claxton is just a bad contract, that's a trade down package, not a trade up one.

K_chile22 · Post #3 » by **K_chile22** » Tue May 27, 2025 2:39 pm

This is not close for the spurs

Post #4 » by **Texas Chuck** » Tue May 27, 2025 3:04 pm

Nets owe a lot more value here and even then I'm not sure why the Spurs are doing this. Claxton is probably worth a touch more than Johnson, but nothing close to getting you from 8 to 2 in this draft.

tcheco · Post #5 » by **tcheco** » Tue May 27, 2025 3:06 pm

Claxton with the new contract is worth probably the same as Keldon

If this was Cam Johnson it would make sense, not fair yet, but better than op

drchaos · Post #6 » by **drchaos** » Tue May 27, 2025 3:17 pm

tcheco wrote:Claxton with the new contract is worth probably the same as Keldon

If this was Cam Johnson it would make sense, not fair yet, but better than op

Would Johnson and # 2 for Cam J, # 8, and #27 work?

ReggiesKnicks · Post #7 » by **ReggiesKnicks** » Tue May 27, 2025 3:18 pm

drchaos wrote:
tcheco wrote:Claxton with the new contract is worth probably the same as Keldon

If this was Cam Johnson it would make sense, not fair yet, but better than op

Would Johnson and # 2 for Cam J, # 8, and #27 work?

No it's still short and having the audacity to exclude #19 or even #26 for #27 is pretty telling.

#8, #19, Cam J, Future 1st (Minimal Protections) for #2, Keldon

Post #8 » by **Texas Chuck** » Tue May 27, 2025 3:20 pm

I think Cam for Keldon plus all the Nets picks this year still falls short of #2. Not sure the Spurs are willing to trade out, or trade back that far, but this would need future picks to get them to consider it.

drchaos · Post #9 » by **drchaos** » Tue May 27, 2025 3:35 pm

ReggiesKnicks wrote:
drchaos wrote:
tcheco wrote:Claxton with the new contract is worth probably the same as Keldon

If this was Cam Johnson it would make sense, not fair yet, but better than op

Would Johnson and # 2 for Cam J, # 8, and #27 work?

No it's still short and having the audacity to exclude #19 or even #26 for #27 is pretty telling.

#8, #19, Cam J, Future 1st (Minimal Protections) for #2, Keldon

At that price I am hanging up the phone and talking to the Sixers about pick # 3 instead.

I really do prefer the PG but Edgecombe is going to be a stud.

louc1970 · Post #10 » by **louc1970** » Tue May 27, 2025 4:17 pm

The problem is the best player to pick in the draft at 2 is a Harper who - in time may be the best guard for SAS - is another duplicate of what they already have and adds to being the 4th/5th guard. Someone has to be moved of Fox, Castle, Vassell or Harper.

This pick - if Harper - with no other moves, does not really help the team. It adds depth, but the Harper sits behind those above.

Post #11 » by **Texas Chuck** » Tue May 27, 2025 4:19 pm

louc1970 wrote:The problem is the best player to pick in the draft at 2 is a Harper who - in time may be the best guard for SAS - is another duplicate of what they already have and adds to being the 4th/5th guard. Someone has to be moved of Fox, Castle, Vassell or Harper.

This pick - if Harper - with no other moves, does not really help the team. It adds depth, but the Harper sits behind those above.

And?

Why are the Spurs having to punt so much value because you are worried about a theoretical fit? Spurs could and would get better offers for pick 2 if they shared your concerns and were married to their current guards(I'm far less convinced of this than you and most of the Spurs posters here).

Chinook · Post #12 » by **Chinook** » Tue May 27, 2025 4:28 pm

What? The Keldon discourse has reached new levels of strange. The Spurs don't have a contract they want to get rid of to the point that it adds value in a trade. The backup center spot is a problem in a range of using a first or the MLE to fix, not downgrading their draft so severely.

8 would be the price to go 2 to 3. The price to go from 2 to 8 would be way more.

Post #13 » by **gswhoops** » Tue May 27, 2025 4:33 pm

K_chile22 wrote:This is not close for the spurs

Yup. Nets don't have the assets to move from 8 to 2 unless they're willing to throw in a bunch of unprotected future picks, and even that only works if SA isn't enamored with Harper

Post #14 » by **Texas Chuck** » Tue May 27, 2025 4:35 pm

Chinook wrote:What? The Keldon discourse has reached new levels of strange.

This is an odd take from one OP and a bunch of responses saying how bad this is for the Spurs. The discourse itt is actually the opposite of what you are complaining about lol.

Bornstellar · Post #15 » by **Bornstellar** » Tue May 27, 2025 4:50 pm

Nic Claxton is not worth moving from 2 to 8. The Spurs need a backup for Wemby, not an overpaid starting C. Wemby is a C, he needs a PF like JJJ next to him not Nic Claxton

TheNetsFan · Post #16 » by **TheNetsFan** » Tue May 27, 2025 4:53 pm

Chinook wrote:What? The Keldon discourse has reached new levels of strange. The Spurs don't have a contract they want to get rid of to the point that it adds value in a trade. The backup center spot is a problem in a range of using a first or the MLE to fix, not downgrading their draft so severely.

8 would be the price to go 2 to 3. The price to go from 2 to 8 would be way more.

It doesn't take #8 to move from #3 to #2. That ignores lots of precedent. It cost one future first (#14 2 years later) for Philly to move up from #3 to #1. It cost one future #1 (#10 the following year) for Dallas to move up from #5 to #3.

It probably takes 2 unprotected future picks, one of which being the Nets own '26 FRP to move up from #8 to #2. Maybe #19 could be one of those two future picks, but given the Spurs already have multiple '25 picks, I doubt they'd be interested. I don't think Cam J can get you out of one of those 2 unprotected picks, and I don't think the Spurs entertain moving down all the way to #8 without getting the Nets' '26 FRP back. I also don't believe the Nets would have interest in dealing their '26 FRP.

Post #17 » by **zimpy27** » Tue May 27, 2025 4:55 pm

TheNetsFan wrote:
Chinook wrote:What? The Keldon discourse has reached new levels of strange. The Spurs don't have a contract they want to get rid of to the point that it adds value in a trade. The backup center spot is a problem in a range of using a first or the MLE to fix, not downgrading their draft so severely.

8 would be the price to go 2 to 3. The price to go from 2 to 8 would be way more.

It doesn't take #8 to move from #3 to #2. That ignores lots of precedent. It cost one future first (#14 2 years later) for Philly to move up from #3 to #1. It cost one future #1 (#10 the following year) for Dallas to move up from #5 to #3.

It probably takes 2 unprotected future picks, one of which being the Nets own '26 FRP to move up from #8 to #2. Maybe #19 could be one of those two future picks, but given the Spurs already have multiple '25 picks, I doubt they'd be interested. I don't think Cam J can get you out of one of those 2 unprotected picks, and I don't think the Spurs entertain moving down all the way to #8 without getting the Nets' '26 FRP back.

It depends honestly. #2 in this draft is a #1 in most other drafts.

I don't think you'd be getting this #1 with #2 and #8

ecuhus1981 · Post #18 » by **ecuhus1981** » Tue May 27, 2025 5:08 pm

I would take this for Brooklyn, even though Keldon is a negative asset.

But I don't think SAS will move 2 unless it's for a star. That's not Nic.

ReggiesKnicks · Post #19 » by **ReggiesKnicks** » Tue May 27, 2025 5:16 pm

louc1970 wrote:The problem is the best player to pick in the draft at 2 is a Harper who - in time may be the best guard for SAS - is another duplicate of what they already have and adds to being the 4th/5th guard. Someone has to be moved of Fox, Castle, Vassell or Harper.

This pick - if Harper - with no other moves, does not really help the team. It adds depth, but the Harper sits behind those above.

Your reasoning is backwards.

It isnt San Antonio who needs to sell-low on Pick #2, it's teams needing to pay the proper price to move up to Pick #2.

Chinook · Post #20 » by **Chinook** » Tue May 27, 2025 5:36 pm

zimpy27 wrote:
TheNetsFan wrote:
Chinook wrote:What? The Keldon discourse has reached new levels of strange. The Spurs don't have a contract they want to get rid of to the point that it adds value in a trade. The backup center spot is a problem in a range of using a first or the MLE to fix, not downgrading their draft so severely.

8 would be the price to go 2 to 3. The price to go from 2 to 8 would be way more.

It doesn't take #8 to move from #3 to #2. That ignores lots of precedent. It cost one future first (#14 2 years later) for Philly to move up from #3 to #1. It cost one future #1 (#10 the following year) for Dallas to move up from #5 to #3.

It probably takes 2 unprotected future picks, one of which being the Nets own '26 FRP to move up from #8 to #2. Maybe #19 could be one of those two future picks, but given the Spurs already have multiple '25 picks, I doubt they'd be interested. I don't think Cam J can get you out of one of those 2 unprotected picks, and I don't think the Spurs entertain moving down all the way to #8 without getting the Nets' '26 FRP back.

It depends honestly. #2 in this draft is a #1 in most other drafts.

I don't think you'd be getting this #1 with #2 and #8

Yeah. I don't even see why Brooklyn is trying to trade up if they don't believe in the difference. They can just take Fears. They want a premium pick for a mediocre return.