SPURS 2024 OFF-SEASON INTEREST, TRADE, AND FA RUMOURS THREAD

[G R E Y]

Mmmhmmm mmmhmmm...

Read on Twitter

[imagump1313]

Mmmhmmm mmmhmmm...

Read on Twitter

Depends on what picks they want.

It pretty much has to be Johnson to make salaries work.

[G R E Y]

Fit with Wemby is most often cited with variations of this article making the rounds:

Read on Twitter

Unless it's a too good to pass up type of offer, I'd wait till Keldon, with a renewed purpose, gets off to a roaring start in the new season.

[Whole Truth]

I'm curious what an offer for Garland would look like ?

[G R E Y]

I'm curious what an offer for Garland would look like ?

Would have to start with Keldon being included for at least salary matching purposes, but of course also a scoring punch. A younger prospect like Branham who went to Ohio State and also provides a smooth scoring package, and at least a couple of picks. Whether these are from this year's draft or a combination of future ones depends on who is available at a given spot, I guess. I don't think we would part with any unprotected picks.

Are there players you are interested in?

I think really anyone outside of of course Wemby, Devin, Sochan, and maybe Sidy (a personal favourite) is probably negotiable. That said, it would be really hard to part with Tre Jones. His value for us extends beyond the court.

I think Collins is likely to be dealt to a contender come trade deadline (or sooner, but then we're back to thinner front court). I think Graham is a very serviceable vet as well. Still in his 20s, great locker room guy, runs P&Rs well, can get on a heater.

[Whole Truth]

I'm curious what an offer for Garland would look like ?

Would have to start with Keldon being included for at least salary matching purposes, but of course also a scoring punch. A younger prospect like Branham who went to Ohio State and also provides a smooth scoring package, and at least a couple of picks. Whether these are from this year's draft or a combination of future ones depends on who is available at a given spot, I guess. I don't think we would part with any unprotected picks.

Are there players you are interested in?

I think really anyone outside of of course Wemby, Devin, Sochan, and maybe Sidy (a personal favourite) is probably negotiable. That said, it would be really hard to part with Tre Jones. His value for us extends beyond the court.

I think Collins is likely to be dealt to a contender come trade deadline (or sooner, but then we're back to thinner front court). I think Graham is a very serviceable vet as well. Still in his 20s, great locker room guy, runs P&Rs well, can get on a heater.

Thanks for the response. I'm a Pelicans supporter where BI is linked to Cavs for Garland.

Problem I have is Garland is a volume drive & kick guard, where Zion effectively occupies the post & NO's ideally want to build around, point Zion. CJ shot 42% on volume from 3 but had the worse pairing with Zion because of his defense. I don't think Garland is a solution or match there either. Zion is no Wemby defensively.. It' can be effective but a tricky build with Zion on both ends.

That to basically say I don't think Garland is the best fit for Zion. I have 2 players of interest in this draft that I believe fit better with Zion & was wondering if Spurs in the right Garland deal with enough compensation would part with 4 & 8.

I'm thinking Reed Sheppard as a zone buster & a follow up trade with Hawks using either 4 or 8 to move up in the draft.

[Whole Truth]

What additional value with Garland would it take for a package of (Keldon, 4, 8) ?

NO's/Lakers 25 unprotected. Lakers were healthy last yr & were still a PI team. NO's losing Jonas to free agency with no starting C, trading BI, could see them miss the PO's in a stronger draft class.

I was thinking (Garland, #21, NO's/Lakers 25)

[imagump1313]

I'm curious what an offer for Garland would look like ?

Would have to start with Keldon being included for at least salary matching purposes, but of course also a scoring punch. A younger prospect like Branham who went to Ohio State and also provides a smooth scoring package, and at least a couple of picks. Whether these are from this year's draft or a combination of future ones depends on who is available at a given spot, I guess. I don't think we would part with any unprotected picks.

Are there players you are interested in?

I think really anyone outside of of course Wemby, Devin, Sochan, and maybe Sidy (a personal favourite) is probably negotiable. That said, it would be really hard to part with Tre Jones. His value for us extends beyond the court.

I think Collins is likely to be dealt to a contender come trade deadline (or sooner, but then we're back to thinner front court). I think Graham is a very serviceable vet as well. Still in his 20s, great locker room guy, runs P&Rs well, can get on a heater.

Thanks for the response. I'm a Pelicans supporter where BI is linked to Cavs for Garland.

Problem I have is Garland is a volume drive & kick guard, where Zion effectively occupies the post & NO's ideally want to build around, point Zion. CJ shot 42% on volume from 3 but had the worse pairing with Zion because of his defense. I don't think Garland is a solution or match there either. Zion is no Wemby defensively.. It' can be effective but a tricky build with Zion on both ends.

That to basically say I don't think Garland is the best fit for Zion. I have 2 players of interest in this draft that I believe fit better with Zion & was wondering if Spurs in the right Garland deal with enough compensation would part with 4 & 8.

I'm thinking Reed Sheppard as a zone buster & a follow up trade with Hawks using either 4 or 8 to move up in the draft.

I think Garland's worth is slightly less than what we originally thought. I think Johnson(Obviously) and a younger guy like Branaham or Wesley and a pick is fair. But not several picks. Cleveland is kind of backed into a corner and will have to move Garland. Its not like we need to do them any kind of favors.

Also out of curiosity, What happened to Brandon Ingram? I'll admit I only saw the Pelicans when we played them this season. It seems like he went from a piece they were building around to someone they just wanted to get rid of overnight.

I would be interested in getting Ingram here somehow especially if we move Johnson. Depending on what his situation is.

[Whole Truth]

Would have to start with Keldon being included for at least salary matching purposes, but of course also a scoring punch. A younger prospect like Branham who went to Ohio State and also provides a smooth scoring package, and at least a couple of picks. Whether these are from this year's draft or a combination of future ones depends on who is available at a given spot, I guess. I don't think we would part with any unprotected picks.

Are there players you are interested in?

I think really anyone outside of of course Wemby, Devin, Sochan, and maybe Sidy (a personal favourite) is probably negotiable. That said, it would be really hard to part with Tre Jones. His value for us extends beyond the court.

I think Collins is likely to be dealt to a contender come trade deadline (or sooner, but then we're back to thinner front court). I think Graham is a very serviceable vet as well. Still in his 20s, great locker room guy, runs P&Rs well, can get on a heater.

Thanks for the response. I'm a Pelicans supporter where BI is linked to Cavs for Garland.

Problem I have is Garland is a volume drive & kick guard, where Zion effectively occupies the post & NO's ideally want to build around, point Zion. CJ shot 42% on volume from 3 but had the worse pairing with Zion because of his defense. I don't think Garland is a solution or match there either. Zion is no Wemby defensively.. It' can be effective but a tricky build with Zion on both ends.

That to basically say I don't think Garland is the best fit for Zion. I have 2 players of interest in this draft that I believe fit better with Zion & was wondering if Spurs in the right Garland deal with enough compensation would part with 4 & 8.

I'm thinking Reed Sheppard as a zone buster & a follow up trade with Hawks using either 4 or 8 to move up in the draft.

I think Garland's worth is slightly less than what we originally thought. I think Johnson(Obviously) and a younger guy like Branaham or Wesley and a pick is fair. But not several picks. Cleveland is kind of backed into a corner and will have to move Garland. Its not like we need to do them any kind of favors.

Also out of curiosity, What happened to Brandon Ingram? I'll admit I only saw the Pelicans when we played them this season. It seems like he went from a piece they were building around to someone they just wanted to get rid of overnight.

I would be interested in getting Ingram here somehow especially if we move Johnson. Depending on what his situation is.

Nothing happened to BI, the team that trades for him is going to get a steal. It wasn't poor fit with Zion as some are saying (they want BI to take more 3's), it was poor management, direction & usage.

There was too much offensive overlap with Zion, BI & CJ, not enough defensive compensation.

I'll summarize by posting the 2 starting lineups with CJ & CJ injured for 10 games.

Jonas - Zion - BI - Herb - CJ = 1450 mins (+1.2)
Jonas - Zion - BI - Herb - Daniels = 100 mins (+20)

With BI & CJ on court averaging 30 APG between them, they had trouble finding an offensive hierarchy, rhythm. Zion as a poor defender was averaging 8-12 APG taking a back seat to CJ's veteran status. With Daniels 12% usage & 5 APG in place of CJ, Zion was averaging 18 APG & BI was a clear #2, with Daniels defensive compensation to balance the rotation & therein +20 in relation to when CJ is on court.

If I were in control, CJ would be the one on the market but they're trying to save face on a bad trade & extension. Already let Jonas walk as a result of not having the money to resign him. Jonas was 15 & 10 on a 15m value deal & because they were not going to retain him. They played Nance more to a detriment. Nance - Zion - BI - Herb - CJ 140 mins (-6.5)

The financial factor is a big one. In extending CJ to a max 30m, NOs management handcuffed themselves financially where they as I mentioned, had to let Jonas walk & with Murphy's extension coming up, Zion & CJ already maxed out. The decision to max BI, is the cherry on top a financial blunder. Doesn't help BI has some injury risk.

Basically, both Jonas & BI are casualties of extremely poor asset management. NO's are banking on Murphy's fit with Zion to allow them to move on from BI's extension. Murphy is nowhere near the individual talent BI is but he has proven to fit & space well with Zion. The added benefit of being the cheaper option. BI is not a bad fit, BI is a bad fit in combination with CJ. Murphy's fit just allows NO's an option to trade BI over extending him.

[G R E Y]

I'm curious what an offer for Garland would look like ?

Would have to start with Keldon being included for at least salary matching purposes, but of course also a scoring punch. A younger prospect like Branham who went to Ohio State and also provides a smooth scoring package, and at least a couple of picks. Whether these are from this year's draft or a combination of future ones depends on who is available at a given spot, I guess. I don't think we would part with any unprotected picks.

Are there players you are interested in?

I think really anyone outside of of course Wemby, Devin, Sochan, and maybe Sidy (a personal favourite) is probably negotiable. That said, it would be really hard to part with Tre Jones. His value for us extends beyond the court.

I think Collins is likely to be dealt to a contender come trade deadline (or sooner, but then we're back to thinner front court). I think Graham is a very serviceable vet as well. Still in his 20s, great locker room guy, runs P&Rs well, can get on a heater.

Thanks for the response. I'm a Pelicans supporter where BI is linked to Cavs for Garland.

Problem I have is Garland is a volume drive & kick guard, where Zion effectively occupies the post & NO's ideally want to build around, point Zion. CJ shot 42% on volume from 3 but had the worse pairing with Zion because of his defense. I don't think Garland is a solution or match there either. Zion is no Wemby defensively.. It' can be effective but a tricky build with Zion on both ends.

That to basically say I don't think Garland is the best fit for Zion. I have 2 players of interest in this draft that I believe fit better with Zion & was wondering if Spurs in the right Garland deal with enough compensation would part with 4 & 8.

I'm thinking Reed Sheppard as a zone buster & a follow up trade with Hawks using either 4 or 8 to move up in the draft.

Oh I see, thanks. Well I guess it depends on who's available at a given spot as I said.

BI strikes me as a hot/cold player in terms of competitive intensity. It doesn't help that he looks stoned all the time but perhaps that's just his face lol. In the few games I've watched NO outside of playing us, there is a level of frustration in how his O gels, or more accurately doesn't.

Agree what you wrote above about CJ, Val, and asset management. I was shocked they're just letting Val go and slightly less so that BI is all but being shown the door.

The idea of a dynamic guard scorer with a dynamic PF should work but Zion is the enigma that keeps confounding. Not an easy player to build around and yet the FO continues to jump through hoops. And by your description, the wrong ones. That CJ contract oof...

Reed is instant plug and play wherever he ends up. Helps the D some, too.

Hawks have their own guard issues to resolve. We'll not be helping them sort that out. If you were to trade for Murray, I think he'd get too frustrated with Zion just on a pro level. Trae is likely too costly. So yeah a direction of a young guard may be in order.

I do like Garland. I know we've shown interest in him in the past. What I like about this draft is that it may not have top tier talent but there are high value players. If we don't like the Garland price, we may pivot elsewhere, including maybe a rookie (doubt it's Reed, just a hunch), but I highly doubt we'll be starting two rookies in positions of need at 1 and 3. Trades / experienced acquisitions are coming.

[Whole Truth]

Oh I see, thanks. Well I guess it depends on who's available at a given spot as I said.

BI strikes me as a hot/cold player in terms of competitive intensity. It doesn't help that he looks stoned all the time but perhaps that's just his face lol. In the few games I've watched NO outside of playing us, there is a level of frustration in how his O gels, or more accurately doesn't.

Agree what you wrote above about CJ, Val, and asset management. I was shocked they're just letting Val go and slightly less so that BI is all but being shown the door.

The idea of a dynamic guard scorer with a dynamic PF should work but Zion is the enigma that keeps confounding. Not an easy player to build around and yet the FO continues to jump through hoops. And by your description, the wrong ones. That CJ contract oof...

Reed is instant plug and play wherever he ends up. Helps the D some, too.

Hawks have their own guard issues to resolve. We'll not be helping them sort that out. If you were to trade for Murray, I think he'd get too frustrated with Zion just on a pro level. Trae is likely too costly. So yeah a direction of a young guard may be in order.

I do like Garland. I know we've shown interest in him in the past. What I like about this draft is that it may not have top tier talent but there are high value players. If we don't like the Garland price, we may pivot elsewhere, including maybe a rookie (doubt it's Reed, just a hunch), but I highly doubt we'll be starting two rookies in positions of need at 1 and 3. Trades /.experienced acquisitions are coming.

Stunned or stoned. I'm just a fan & never seen him smoke but they call him the slim reefer for a reason.

I think Pels not having a floor general hurt both Zion & BI. With Daniels over CJ because he didn't have much of an offensive arsenal, he moved the ball quickly, which helped the ball move overall. With CJ, all 3 became more ISO oriented, especially in the clutch where they were terrible this yr. CJ runs hot, cold & tries to shoot himself into a rhythm & it throws everyone else off.

NO's only have the MLE & some team will offer Jonas a better contract. He's a floor raiser, good production value & the consummate teammate. He was drafted to a tanking Raptors team, traded to a 22 win team in place of Gasol/Conley, then to a non PO Pelicans squad & without 3J & Zion playing full seasons in his long career, Jonas has only missed the PO's twice by play-in losses. He's a quality minutes eater at a demanding position. With CJ they doubled down on a bad trade with his extension. It sped up & stunted the development process. NO's were a sub 500 team when they traded for a max player on the down side of his career. CJ is more of a final piece, than a building block. They were calling it the big 3, more like big 0.

Zion continues to show flashes & at 23 just had his healthiest season to date. Green as a coach still needs some experience & Zion going all out for more than 30 minutes led to a hamstring injury heading into the PO's. (49 win season) where they believe improvements can be made. Zion out of shape or tired is a bad, lazy defender, Zion in shape, shows he's capable.

Daniels short time starting with Zion showed me Zion needs defensive compensation as much or more than he needs spacing. NO's have a task trying to find a C that can both defend the rim & draw his man out the post. A PG that can pressure the ball & space the floor. It's why I'm here.

I"m thinking Reed at 4 & using 8 with other Pels assets to move up with Atlanta for Sarr. Green wants to switch defend & Sarr is or will be an elite switch option for him with the potential for range to draw out his man. I think the fit benefits Sarr also. He doesn't have a refined post game. Pels don't really want their C operating in the same space as ZIon. He just needs to rim run, vertical space & hit an open 3. The fact he has handles & can push pace off a rebound is gravy.

[Rustyman]

I think that the problem with Ingram is that he appears to be unmotivated at times and for the majority of fans, perception is reality.

With Garland, besides the salary matching with Keldon and filler, the Spurs will offer up one of 4 & 8 but not both this year. There will be other picks in the mix in future years but nothing better than the 4 or 8 this year. In addition, if you looking at trading Ingram to Cleveland post the Spurs trade, you have a bit of redundancy with Keldon and Ingram for the Cavs. One of them would have to play at PF but Keldon, while having played that role quite a bit for the Spurs is severely undersized in that position and Ingram's game is not suited for the PF.

[Whole Truth]

I think that the problem with Ingram is that he appears to be unmotivated at times and for the majority of fans, perception is reality.

With Garland, besides the salary matching with Keldon and filler, the Spurs will offer up one of 4 & 8 but not both this year. There will be other picks in the mix in future years but nothing better than the 4 or 8 this year. In addition, if you looking at trading Ingram to Cleveland post the Spurs trade, you have a bit of redundancy with Keldon and Ingram for the Cavs. One of them would have to play at PF but Keldon, while having played that role quite a bit for the Spurs is severely undersized in that position and Ingram's game is not suited for the PF.

Rumor was Cavs wanted to swap Garland for BI but I don't think Garland is an ideal fit with Zion. Would prefer Sheppard's fit. This is where Spurs come in. I was hoping to add the necessary value for both picks but understand you not wanting to trade out of the top 10 completely. The hope was to use 1 of the 2 with Keldon & additional value from NO's to move up with Atlanta with Sarr as my primary target.

Trade 1 -

Cavs trade - (Garland) for (BI)

Trade 2 -

Magic trade - (Isaac, expiring filler, TPE) for (CJ, necessary pick value from NO's)

Spurs trade - (Keldon 4 or 8) for (Garland)

Hawks trade - (Murray, bad contract, #1) for (Isaac, Keldon, Hawkins, #4, #21, Lakers 25)

NO's trade - (BI, CJ, #21, Lakers 25) for (Murray, #1)

This is the trade conceptually, where I would have liked the 2nd pick from Spurs included for Reed Sheppard but understand why you wouldn't want to trade out the top 10. Jam on the Hawks board rumored they are open to trading down, not out for more assets. It's a soft reset but Zion despite being in the league 5yrs is still only 23. I'm making the step back trade to raise the teams ceiling apposed to a lateral move hoping for fit but more likely stagnation.

Like Reeds fit but think Sarr is the primary target as that defensive C who can switch everything like Green wants & draw his man out, is a tough find. Believe this is the only viable way to do it, is by risking BI's proven value for potential.

[Whole Truth]

Thanks for the response.

[Rustyman]

Rumor was Cavs wanted to swap Garland for BI but I don't think Garland is an ideal fit with Zion. Would prefer Sheppard's fit. This is where Spurs come in. I was hoping to add the necessary value for both picks but understand you not wanting to trade out of the top 10 completely. The hope was to use 1 of the 2 with Keldon & additional value from NO's to move up with Atlanta with Sarr as my primary target.

The problem with the Spurs trading both picks is that they would then be looking to trading for two starters as that is what the 4 & 8 would be used for. One a wing and one a PG. Now trading for Garland would give them a PG but they are still lacking a starting SF.

Now drafting is always a crap shoot so there is not guarantee that the draft pick this year would be a starting SF but the Spurs have to give it a shot. However, trading for two starters would necessitate the Spurs spending a significant amount of resources with the play-in as a potential outcome. I think the Spurs regard their rebuild as at least a 3 year effort and to do that they need to keep hold of some draft capital (and cap space) in the coming years.

So for Garland, I would say one of the two picks this year, Keldon Johnson, a choice of Branham/Collins/Blakely/Graham-cap relief/Bassey-cap relief and a future first like Chicago's/Charlotte's next year (whichever one conveys) and a couple of seconds. Now your views on the value of that trade may be different but I think that is the starting point.

[Whole Truth]

Rumor was Cavs wanted to swap Garland for BI but I don't think Garland is an ideal fit with Zion. Would prefer Sheppard's fit. This is where Spurs come in. I was hoping to add the necessary value for both picks but understand you not wanting to trade out of the top 10 completely. The hope was to use 1 of the 2 with Keldon & additional value from NO's to move up with Atlanta with Sarr as my primary target.

The problem with the Spurs trading both picks is that they would then be looking to trading for two starters as that is what the 4 & 8 would be used for. One a wing and one a PG. Now trading for Garland would give them a PG but they are still lacking a starting SF.

Now drafting is always a crap shoot so there is not guarantee that the draft pick this year would be a starting SF but the Spurs have to give it a shot. However, trading for two starters would necessitate the Spurs spending a significant amount of resources with the play-in as a potential outcome. I think the Spurs regard their rebuild as at least a 3 year effort and to do that they need to keep hold of some draft capital (and cap space) in the coming years.

So for Garland, I would say one of the two picks this year, Keldon Johnson, a choice of Branham/Collins/Blakely/Graham-cap relief/Bassey-cap relief and a future first like Chicago's/Charlotte's next year (whichever one conveys) and a couple of seconds. Now your views on the value of that trade may be different but I think that is the starting point.

I'm not a fan of trading Daniels like other NO's fans. Green's use of the roster catered heavily to CJ, maybe with a mandate to make his trade & contract look better than it was, IDK but that was the appearance to me. As you know, usage can affect value, I like to isolate talent from situation to evaluate, others use raw data based on usage & group play to judge an individual. Daniels is raw offensively, which is why some don't mind parting with him but IMO that would be a mistake. He outplayed CJ considerably as a starter & fit better defensively with Zion, had the best 2 man pairing with ZIon. If the package was Garland & Daniels who's an elite defender 1-4 with offensive potential, would it sway the thought of trading both picks ?.

My thought process here using Daniels to net the 2nd Spurs pick, is the defensive trade off of Daniels for Sarr. Daniels is raw offensively but was ranked 2nd in d-Lebron this past season as a 20yr old. He has defensive versatility 1-4 & on a team featuring Herb Jonse who finished first team defense among 4 centers. I can argue, Daniels is the best on ball defender on the team & the more versatile defender. Sarr is an unproven rookie but IMO 2 skills translate, shooting & defense. His switch ability & potential ability to draw out his defender makes him a harder find & fit for Zion than Daniels. Where NO's do have an elite perimeter defender in Herb who's currently better at spacing the court.

Personally, I think Pop would make NO's look silly for trading Daniels. Unless of course Sarr is what I believe him to be. No move is without it's risk.

[G R E Y]

I think that the problem with Ingram is that he appears to be unmotivated at times and for the majority of fans, perception is reality.

With Garland, besides the salary matching with Keldon and filler, the Spurs will offer up one of 4 & 8 but not both this year. There will be other picks in the mix in future years but nothing better than the 4 or 8 this year. In addition, if you looking at trading Ingram to Cleveland post the Spurs trade, you have a bit of redundancy with Keldon and Ingram for the Cavs. One of them would have to play at PF but Keldon, while having played that role quite a bit for the Spurs is severely undersized in that position and Ingram's game is not suited for the PF.

Rumor was Cavs wanted to swap Garland for BI but I don't think Garland is an ideal fit with Zion. Would prefer Sheppard's fit. This is where Spurs come in. I was hoping to add the necessary value for both picks but understand you not wanting to trade out of the top 10 completely. The hope was to use 1 of the 2 with Keldon & additional value from NO's to move up with Atlanta with Sarr as my primary target.

Trade 1 -

Cavs trade - (Garland) for (BI)

Trade 2 -

Magic trade - (Isaac, expiring filler, TPE) for (CJ, necessary pick value from NO's)

Spurs trade - (Keldon 4 or 8) for (Garland)

Hawks trade - (Murray, bad contract, #1) for (Isaac, Keldon, Hawkins, #4, #21, Lakers 25)

NO's trade - (BI, CJ, #21, Lakers 25) for (Murray, #1)

This is the trade conceptually, where I would have liked the 2nd pick from Spurs included for Reed Sheppard but understand why you wouldn't want to trade out the top 10. Jam on the Hawks board rumored they are open to trading down, not out for more assets. It's a soft reset but Zion despite being in the league 5yrs is still only 23. I'm making the step back trade to raise the teams ceiling apposed to a lateral move hoping for fit but more likely stagnation.

Like Reeds fit but think Sarr is the primary target as that defensive C who can switch everything like Green wants & draw his man out, is a tough find. Believe this is the only viable way to do it, is by risking BI's proven value for potential.

Read on Twitter

Will be interesting whether/how we fit in...

[Whole Truth]

Read on Twitter

Will be interesting whether/how we fit in...

Do Spurs have an interest in Sarr ?

Rusty mentions he wants to come out with 2 starters PG & SF if he's giving up both picks, no mention of a PF or C, which makes sense, if you view Wemby & Sarr as both C's. Is it a poor assumption to assume your teams interest in Sarr is overstated by the rumors. Cause I would think with Atlanta open to trading down Spurs could just package 4 & 8 to move up & cut NO's out.

If Spurs somehow help NO's land Sarr in a 3 team trade with Atlanta. I think if Pop could milk Daniels offensively & with his elite perimeter defense, versatility paired with Wemby's rim protection would be a daunting combo for any offense. Herb is the only guard among centers to win all defense & Daniels is arguably the best man defender in NO's. He's only 20, a proven versatile perimeter defender, with improving range.

NO's fans are more open to trading Daniels. Me personally, I only trade him if it meant landing Sarr.

[G R E Y]

Read on Twitter

Will be interesting whether/how we fit in...

Do Spurs have an interest in Sarr ?

Rusty mentions he wants to come out with 2 starters PG & SF if he's giving up both picks, no mention of a PF or C, which makes sense, if you view Wemby & Sarr as both C's. Is it a poor assumption to assume your teams interest in Sarr is overstated by the rumors. Cause I would think with Atlanta open to trading down Spurs could just package 4 & 8 to move up & cut NO's out.

If Spurs somehow help NO's land Sarr in a 3 team trade with Atlanta. I think if Pop could milk Daniels offensively & with his elite perimeter defense, versatility paired with Wemby's rim protection would be a daunting combo for any offense. Herb is the only guard among centers to win all defense & Daniels is arguably the best man defender in NO's. He's only 20, a proven versatile perimeter defender, with improving range.

NO's fans are more open to trading Daniels. Me personally, I only trade him if it meant landing Sarr.

No to Sarr. His camp has reportedly let it be known they want him to be the #1 option.

So regardless of whether he plays C or PF he will never be the #1 option for us.

We have Wemby and Sochan as starting bigs, we're good.

Also, Wemby's agency and Sarr's are reportedly not on good terms so the fit is wonky on and off the court.

Anyone we get must accept the pecking order.

We are targeting bigs but backup, and priorities are 1 and 3 starters. Floor spacers who can defend, too.

[Whole Truth]

Read on Twitter

Will be interesting whether/how we fit in...

Do Spurs have an interest in Sarr ?

Rusty mentions he wants to come out with 2 starters PG & SF if he's giving up both picks, no mention of a PF or C, which makes sense, if you view Wemby & Sarr as both C's. Is it a poor assumption to assume your teams interest in Sarr is overstated by the rumors. Cause I would think with Atlanta open to trading down Spurs could just package 4 & 8 to move up & cut NO's out.

If Spurs somehow help NO's land Sarr in a 3 team trade with Atlanta. I think if Pop could milk Daniels offensively & with his elite perimeter defense, versatility paired with Wemby's rim protection would be a daunting combo for any offense. Herb is the only guard among centers to win all defense & Daniels is arguably the best man defender in NO's. He's only 20, a proven versatile perimeter defender, with improving range.

NO's fans are more open to trading Daniels. Me personally, I only trade him if it meant landing Sarr.

No to Sarr. His camp has reportedly let it be known they want him to be the #1 option.

So regardless of whether he plays C or PF he will never be the #1 option for us.

We have Wemby and Sochan as starting bigs, we're good.

Also, Wemby's agency and Sarr's are reportedly not on good terms so the fit is wonky on and off the court.

Anyone we get must accept the pecking order.

We are targeting bigs but backup, and priorities are 1 and 3 starters. Floor spacers who can defend, too.

Wow, that's some crazy information, thanks for sharing. Only way that happens is on a bottom feeder, so for the Hawks to draft him, they would have to be on the side of trading Young.

I guess that would rule out pairing him with Zion also though I think their skillsets match, Shame. Is it possible, this news was just him trying to avoid the Spurs & Wemby, positionally ? You do mention a need only for a backup big, which means his camp could be viewing the situation as him competing with Wemby for minutes. Where production, is dollars.

Magic need spacing & CJ could be a nice fit for them. It's been tossed around trading CJ for either Isaac or Carter & while Daniels is an elite defender he only shot 30% on low volume. His shot is improving but the consistency is not there yet but if it were, he wouldn't be potentially available.

I might be fishing in the wrong hole. Garland is not much of a defender either.