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

[G R E Y]

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.

Fair point. I got the previous info from Evan Townsend who hosted a Twitter listening space or whatever they're called. In it he also said how Sarr's camp was miffed at Wemby responding with 'Risacher' when asked about the best French prospect. Touchy lol

Garland may not be known as a good defender but he's not Trae level bad. Plus would be cheaper. Plus he's on the Cavs so we wouldn't be sending picks back to the team we got them from. We're not in on either of the Hawks guards.

Daniels is a good player but we already have that type, good defenders who don't yet shoot well (Sidy, Blake, Dom, though his shot is coming along) so he may be redundant. We need players who are further along the development ladder. I am intrigued by Knecht...

[imagump1313]

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.

The rumored Sarr demands really makes no sense whatsoever. For him to expect to be the main guy on any team in the league(even teams as bad as Detroit or Washington) is just not going to happen. Maybe like you mentioned, he is just saying that to avoid the Spurs.

McCollum 's contract will make him next to impossible to trade. I put him in the same boat as Lillard where a team is paying him for the player he was 5 years ago and he is never going to get back there. Milwaukee basically destroyed their team when they traded for Lillard just because of the contract. I dont want to hate on CJ because I like his play but no one wants him with that contract.

The Pels are in a tricky situation IMO because you guys are almost forced to go all in with Zion. There is no other option. I think your entire outlook is going to change now that Langdon is going to Detroit. Hold on to your hats.

[Whole Truth]

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.

Fair point. I got the previous info from Evan Townsend who hosted a Twitter listening space or whatever they're called. In it he also said how Sarr's camp was miffed at Wemby responding with 'Risacher' when asked about the best French prospect. Touchy lol

Garland may not be known as a good defender but he's not Trae level bad. Plus would be cheaper. Plus he's on the Cavs so we wouldn't be sending picks back to the team we got them from. We're not in on either of the Hawks guards.

Daniels is a good player but we already have that type, good defenders who don't yet shoot well (Sidy, Blake, Dom, though his shot is coming along) so he may be redundant. We need players who are further along the development ladder. I am intrigued by Knecht...

He's mocked to Houston. Washington are probably holding onto their pick & I think Houston is most interested in trading their pick for Bridges.

You're hopeful whoever acquires the 3rd pick passes. Possibly a determining factor in trading the pick or not So in that interest. Your offer is most likely Keldon, #8, FRP for Garland. Which is probably out of reach for Sheppard.

[G R E Y]

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.

The rumored Sarr demands really makes no sense whatsoever. For him to expect to be the main guy on any team in the league(even teams as bad as Detroit or Washington) is just not going to happen. Maybe like you mentioned, he is just saying that to avoid the Spurs.

McCollum 's contract will make him next to impossible to trade. I put him in the same boat as Lillard where a team is paying him for the player he was 5 years ago and he is never going to get back there. Milwaukee basically destroyed their team when they traded for Lillard just because of the contract. I dont want to hate on CJ because I like his play but no one wants him with that contract.

The Pels are in a tricky situation IMO because you guys are almost forced to go all in with Zion. There is no other option. I think your entire outlook is going to change now that Langdon is going to Detroit. Hold on to your hats.

Price may drop for him slightly. Market determines it. I recall when Oubre's agent was making $20M/yr overtures and well... Nope.

Now there's word that Bulls have substantially dropped the asking price for LaVine given both want a mutual parting, given the little interest on the market, given the history with games missed.

So signing a guy to a massive contract with the expectation of dumping him later as a safety valve outlet seems to be slowing down, especially with aprons to consider.

Like at least CJ's playable and can get on a heater, bring a contender that extra juice. But teams are more risk averse now and are more apt to seek a guy who has little left on his contract.

Dame is a heck of an O talent but got subbed out by Pop for D purposes on Team USA. Jrue is now in the finals again. I think the trades benefitted both teams but yeah the Bucks are handcuffed with that contract.

I do wonder what Langdon thinks of Cade, then Cade/Ivey. That team is not well constructed around its star and it may be obscuring his talent. If Cade is in the trade mix, as you mentioned before, I hope we give it a good look.

[Rustyman]

Sorry, late in rejoining this discussion. While Sarr is not a great fit in San Antonio, he has undeniable skills, unfortunately, it is not in a position of need for the Spurs. The rumors about him not wanting to come to San Antonio is something different though as the Spurs do not have a great tolerance for disgruntled players. Leonard's behaviour was enough to push the Spurs tolerance for high maintenance players back another couple of decades.

If by some weird circumstances, Sarr falls to SA, I think they will look to trade out of the spot to maximize value as Sarr is still a very good prospect. In fact I think he would fit very well with Zion and the Pelicans as the skills sets would complement each other whereas with Wemby, they overlap each other.

[Rustyman]

I agree that the Pelicans need to go all in on Zion. He is 5 years into his career, he has multiple years left on his contract, he finally showed the ability to play at a high-level in meaningful games and he is still young. Despite Zion's immaturity he doesn't seem like a difficult personality.

I think the Pelicans should trade for upgrades with a view to a 3 year window and then look to rebuild if that does not work out.

[Rustyman]

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.

I agree, if the Pels are all in on contending, then there is no way you trade Herb or Daniels. Relatively low cost productive players are the key to any contender irrespective of who your stars are.

[Whole Truth]

A NO's link is saying Hawks are molding over (Murray, Hunter, #1) for (BI, Herb).

As I mentioned earlier, Daniels is arguably the better on ball defender & more versatile 1-4 but Herb has become a legit elite 3D player & is much further along offensively. He has a better feel for the game. Exactly what Hawks need for Young over risking development potential with the #1 pick, with Spurs owning their draft rights for the next 3 seasons. They swing & miss on the pick, it could get ugly.

Trading Herb is a tough pill but that only means the trade is fair as Hawks don't want to trade #1 either.

That said, it's harder to find that switch able defensive C that can potentially space the floor, fit for Zion than an elite wing but NO's already have Daniels elite defense in the wait at only 20 with offensive potential. Both Murray & CJ would bridge a development gap.

[Rustyman]

A NO's link is saying Hawks are molding over (Murray, Hunter, #1) for (BI, Herb).

As I mentioned earlier, Daniels is arguably the better on ball defender & more versatile 1-4 but Herb has become a legit elite 3D player & is much further along offensively. He has a better feel for the game. Exactly what Hawks need for Young over risking development potential with the #1 pick, with Spurs owning their draft rights for the next 3 seasons. They swing & miss on the pick, it could get ugly.

Trading Herb is a tough pill but that only means the trade is fair as Hawks don't want to trade #1 either.

That said, it's harder to find that switch able defensive C that can potentially space the floor, fit for Zion than an elite wing but NO's already have Daniels elite defense in the wait at only 20 with offensive potential. Both Murray & CJ would bridge a development gap.

So would you be okay with that trade? I think it overrates BI and underrates Murray even if it is the best thing for both franchises.

[Rustyman]

To switch up slightly, the reason why I am hesitant for the Spurs to trade for anyone making $30m+ is that the Spurs salary cap is something to keep an eye on for the following reasons.

1. Say the Spurs trade for Garland, he makes $37m this coming season raising to $45m four years later. That fourth year is when Wemby needs to get paid.

2. Sochan. Now if Sochan improves his play this year to 18/9/3 shooting 46/35/75 he is going to demand a contract like Vassell but starting at around $35m/year. That means in the 3rd year of Garland's contract, another $35m comes on the books.

3. The draft picks this year will add around $20m (not sure) to the payroll and the Spurs only have around $25m cap room.

4. Now I know that we expect the Spurs to get off around $20m/year as Keldon will be included in the Garland trade but we still need to find a home for Collins and co. if the Spurs wish to drop any significant salary.

That is why from a salary cap (not talent) perspective, a trade for Trae Young is preferable as he has a shorter contract. I also wouldn't be against a two year deal for Chris Paul even though I hate the guy.

[Whole Truth]

So would you be okay with that trade? I think it overrates BI and underrates Murray even if it is the best thing for both franchises.

I consider Herb close to untouchable like you said in an earlier post. He was rumored in 2 trades at the deadline for either Allen or Okongwu & I was against trading him for either but to answer your question, I would make that trade for Sarr. Simply because that 2 way spacing C is harder to find & would be more valuable as a result if not for the potential tag. IMO the risk reward is worth it. Herb is at his ceiling as an elite role player. If Zion doesn't pan out, NO's can pivot a rebuild with Sarr better than they can with Herb so there's a bit of a net if things don't go as planned.

Murray is BI at near half the cost, still not an ideal fit but a controllable asset on a value contract. Hawks dump Hunters Salary. Those 2 combined are BI's 50m extension, both can be flipped at a better price point, NO's can rehab Hunters value & Murray's contract will be seen as value. Herb is a value contract at 12m now, Sarr at #1, is 12m. Financially both teams benefit. Hawks dump Hunter to extend BI's fit so they don't add salary in adding 2 win now players for Young. NO's benefit by turning BI's extension into 4 players apposed to 2 where they don't want to pay him 50m per.

Not wanting to extend BI with Murphy's fit & needing a C to fit with ZIon. the trade swap is an elite wing on a good contract, control for a potential 2 way unicorn C on a good contract control. With NO's having an elite defender in Daniels developing offensively in the wing to replace Herb, cost controlled.

I really like Herb & it's tough losing a player like him who has played for your team over not knowing a pick you haven't selected yet but I'd do this trade for all the reasons stated.

[Whole Truth]

To switch up slightly, the reason why I am hesitant for the Spurs to trade for anyone making $30m+ is that the Spurs salary cap is something to keep an eye on for the following reasons.

1. Say the Spurs trade for Garland, he makes $37m this coming season raising to $45m four years later. That fourth year is when Wemby needs to get paid.

2. Sochan. Now if Sochan improves his play this year to 18/9/3 shooting 46/35/75 he is going to demand a contract like Vassell but starting at around $35m/year. That means in the 3rd year of Garland's contract, another $35m comes on the books.

3. The draft picks this year will add around $20m (not sure) to the payroll and the Spurs only have around $25m cap room.

4. Now I know that we expect the Spurs to get off around $20m/year as Keldon will be included in the Garland trade but we still need to find a home for Collins and co. if the Spurs wish to drop any significant salary.

That is why from a salary cap (not talent) perspective, a trade for Trae Young is preferable as he has a shorter contract. I also wouldn't be against a two year deal for Chris Paul even though I hate the guy.

Don't watch it like that, you don't have to wait out his contract. Garland was signed under the old cap ceiling & would be value under the new. He's young, talented & can be flipped as a talented, value contract. There will be teams looking to avoid these new extensions like NO's are with BI. I watch Murray the same way, he's not an ideal offensive fit but at 25-30m signed to a good deal with control, if Daniels develops offensively, he's flipped for turn over value. Same with Hunter. While NO's can use him off the bench with Murphy, he too can be flipped after trade.

One of the big factors driving down BI's value is his impending extension. At 37m heading into the new cap ceiling, Garland would hold future financial value.

Things change from a year to year basis. While it's good to plan. As long as you string together good decisions, everything will work itself out. The best laid plans never go accordingly.

[Rustyman]

Don't watch it like that, you don't have to wait out his contract. Garland was signed under the old cap ceiling & would be value under the new. He's young, talented & can be flipped as a talented, value contract.

While I might agree with the old versus new extensions, Garland has 4 years of a very health extension and if he doesn't perform for the Spurs, his value will drop and we are left with a player with lower value in the trade market and a monstrous contract that we would have to pay to get rid of

With Trae for example, if he does not fit, he still has the value of being a proven All Star who was the primary reason why his team went to the conference finals and by that stage he only has two years left on his contract and is tradeable.

Garland to me is still unproven as a player without having a proven All Star floor. He is not an elite shooter or distributor. With Garland, we hoping he gets better. With Trae if he simply maintains his level of performance it is a win for the Spurs.

I want to compete while still on Wemby's rookie contract and then re-evaluate once he signs his extension. That is also why I don't want any trades for players who want new max contracts in the second or third year unless they have proven to be worth it,

[Whole Truth]

Don't watch it like that, you don't have to wait out his contract. Garland was signed under the old cap ceiling & would be value under the new. He's young, talented & can be flipped as a talented, value contract.

While I might agree with the old versus new extensions, Garland has 4 years of a very health extension and if he doesn't perform for the Spurs, his value will drop and we are left with a player with lower value in the trade market and a monstrous contract that we would have to pay to get rid of

With Trae for example, if he does not fit, he still has the value of being a proven All Star who was the primary reason why his team went to the conference finals and by that stage he only has two years left on his contract and is tradeable.

Garland to me is still unproven as a player without having a proven All Star floor. He is not an elite shooter or distributor. With Garland, we hoping he gets better. With Trae if he simply maintains his level of performance it is a win for the Spurs.

I want to compete while still on Wemby's rookie contract and then re-evaluate once he signs his extension. That is also why I don't want any trades for players who want new max contracts in the second or third year unless they have proven to be worth it,

There's pros & cons to everything, an argument can be made for both.

I could also say Garland had more value before the Mitchell trade as the primary, is currently at a low point value wise in trade & could easily have a bounce back under one of the best coaches ever & be more valuable than what was paid.

If anyone can make Young viable defensively, it would be Wemby. That said, that in itself is an assumption belief & risk adverse because if he can't. Young is a defensive pylon at 40m + & teams will have seen him not work with a defender like Wemby, a great coach like Pop & be thinking, we good & you're stuck with his expensive contract where you just talked about a lesser contract hampering your cap situation. if rumors hold any weight, he also has some off court issues as well. Nothing is without it's risk/reward.

It might sound weird because teams trade players for all kinds of reasons but if Hawks look to trade Young, I wouldn't want him because if he's the top player to be believed, Hawks wouldn't be trading him. I mean the equivalent to Hawks & Murray, would be Cavs opting to trade DM over Garland. You're telling yourself Wemby can make him work defensively, maybe he can, maybe he can't. What is, is he's older, more expensive & worse defender than Garland.

[Whole Truth]

I think I'm starting to see how Spurs fit into this rumor. NO's board talking about trading down from #1.

Hawks like Herb getting a proven elite 3D guard at the 12m price point of the potential #1.

Grey mentions interest in Knecht who's not projected to fall pass 3

Washington is rumored to have interest in Sarr at 2

You rusty say you want a PG & SF to consider moving 4 & 8 (#2 Knecht F & a PG)

I don't know why but I think NO's are thinking Reed & trading 8 for Allen while netting an additional player/asset for trading down from 2. Maybe getting Deni to flip to the Cavs.

NO offense but I hope not, While I'd like Reed too, Sarr is my primary target.

[G R E Y]

I think I'm starting to see how Spurs fit into this rumor. NO's board talking about trading down from #1.

Hawks like Herb getting a proven elite 3D guard at the 12m price point of the potential #1.

Grey mentions interest in Knecht who's not projected to fall pass 3

Washington is rumored to have interest in Sarr at 2

You rusty say you want a PG & SF to consider moving 4 & 8 (#2 Knecht F & a PG)

I don't know why but I think NO's are thinking Reed & trading 8 for Allen while netting an additional player/asset for trading down from 2. Maybe getting Deni to flip to the Cavs.

NO offense but I hope not, While I'd like Reed too, Sarr is my primary target.

I'd love it if we somehow ended up with Deni. Not sure how now other than Wiz draft Risacher.

Houston is said to be dangling #3 so who knows where that pick ends up. It's also one of at least three lotto picks being dangled for more win now experienced players. That's why it's so hard to gauge the draft as well.

We know some teams will engage in accepting contract dumps for picks so that's another thread woven into the various scenarios that could occur.

Didn't realize Garland was that expensive. Rustyman laid it out well in terms of who we have to pay down the line. Makes me think we're not as interested in him as the whispers imply. Yes the cap and old/new contract eras are a factor in terms of rethinking of them as percentage of cap, but the aprons are also having teams reconsider their finances given where they are competitively.

Still don't see us starting two rookies though... For either 1 or 3 it feels like a trade will come for experience and talent. I like Mikal too but it seems like Houston has a laser on him and he may be too costly. I'd be surprised if Risacher goes first. Sarr may be who Wiz prefer. But if Risacher goes 2nd, then I wonder what it would take to try and pry Deni away.

[Whole Truth]

I think I'm starting to see how Spurs fit into this rumor. NO's board talking about trading down from #1.

Hawks like Herb getting a proven elite 3D guard at the 12m price point of the potential #1.

Grey mentions interest in Knecht who's not projected to fall pass 3

Washington is rumored to have interest in Sarr at 2

You rusty say you want a PG & SF to consider moving 4 & 8 (#2 Knecht F & a PG)

I don't know why but I think NO's are thinking Reed & trading 8 for Allen while netting an additional player/asset for trading down from 2. Maybe getting Deni to flip to the Cavs.

NO offense but I hope not, While I'd like Reed too, Sarr is my primary target.

I'd love it if we somehow ended up with Deni. Not sure how now other than Wiz draft Risacher.

Houston is said to be dangling #3 so who knows where that pick ends up. It's also one of at least three lotto picks being dangled for more win now experienced players. That's why it's so hard to gauge the draft as well.

We know some teams will engage in accepting contract dumps for picks so that's another thread woven into the various scenarios that could occur.

Didn't realize Garland was that expensive. Rustyman laid it out well in terms of who we have to pay down the line. Makes me think we're not as interested in him as the whispers imply. Yes the cap and old/new contract eras are a factor in terms of rethinking of them as percentage of cap, but the aprons are also having teams reconsider their finances given where they are competitively.

Still don't see us starting two rookies though... For either 1 or 3 it feels like a trade will come for experience and talent. I like Mikal too but it seems like Houston has a laser on him and he may be too costly. I'd be surprised if Risacher goes first. Sarr may be who Wiz prefer. But if Risacher goes 2nd, then I wonder what it would take to try and pry Deni away.

Pels board is suggesting Deni #2 for #1 where Hawks have a preference for Herb & his value contract for #1.

[mzfk69]

He is not an elite shooter or distributor.

last 3 seasons

[Whole Truth]

He is not an elite shooter or distributor.

last 3 seasons

I stand corrected

[G R E Y]

I think I'm starting to see how Spurs fit into this rumor. NO's board talking about trading down from #1.

Hawks like Herb getting a proven elite 3D guard at the 12m price point of the potential #1.

Grey mentions interest in Knecht who's not projected to fall pass 3

Washington is rumored to have interest in Sarr at 2

You rusty say you want a PG & SF to consider moving 4 & 8 (#2 Knecht F & a PG)

I don't know why but I think NO's are thinking Reed & trading 8 for Allen while netting an additional player/asset for trading down from 2. Maybe getting Deni to flip to the Cavs.

NO offense but I hope not, While I'd like Reed too, Sarr is my primary target.

I'd love it if we somehow ended up with Deni. Not sure how now other than Wiz draft Risacher.

Houston is said to be dangling #3 so who knows where that pick ends up. It's also one of at least three lotto picks being dangled for more win now experienced players. That's why it's so hard to gauge the draft as well.

We know some teams will engage in accepting contract dumps for picks so that's another thread woven into the various scenarios that could occur.

Didn't realize Garland was that expensive. Rustyman laid it out well in terms of who we have to pay down the line. Makes me think we're not as interested in him as the whispers imply. Yes the cap and old/new contract eras are a factor in terms of rethinking of them as percentage of cap, but the aprons are also having teams reconsider their finances given where they are competitively.

Still don't see us starting two rookies though... For either 1 or 3 it feels like a trade will come for experience and talent. I like Mikal too but it seems like Houston has a laser on him and he may be too costly. I'd be surprised if Risacher goes first. Sarr may be who Wiz prefer. But if Risacher goes 2nd, then I wonder what it would take to try and pry Deni away.

Pels board is suggesting Deni #2 for #1 where Hawks have a preference for Herb & his value contract for #1.

Not sure how Deni or Herb wouldn't be redundant with Hawks' Johnson emerging.

Anyway, for us, point stands about Risacher to Wiz making their SF future at least worth looking into.

If there's any consensus emerging it's that Sarr and Risacher are right now the top two picks in one order or another. Unless there's a trade that blows either team out of the water, and I don't think those do.

Trade expectations start with the 3rd pick and if it is made and Clingan is selected, suddenly a player drops and we're in a good position to get who we want or make a trade ourselves.

Seems like this draft is one in which tons of moves will be made.