RealGM

Who's going to be the better NBA player?

reason I'm asking is because I've seen mixed opinions lately...

I'd much rather have Dylan Harper on my team as a prospect.

Personally I think Harper is really good, and Ace is a statistical walking red flag.

Would be great if SA keep that pick and draft Ace for some more size and wing shooting to pair around their already set backcourt in Fox and Castle so my team can get Harper with the very next selection.

Positionally, the Spurs could use a 3 or 4 more than another guard. They're a smart organisation though, so will take Harper I suspect as the experts seem to agree he will be better.

One_and_Done wrote:Positionally, the Spurs could use a 3 or 4 more than another guard. They're a smart organisation though, so will take Harper I suspect as the experts seem to agree he will be better.

They could always trade the pick for a more established player.

The-Power wrote:

One_and_Done wrote:Positionally, the Spurs could use a 3 or 4 more than another guard. They're a smart organisation though, so will take Harper I suspect as the experts seem to agree he will be better.

They could always trade the pick for a more established player.

Why should they? They have a tonne of other assets they can trade for a win now player.

Fans always do this. I went through these debates leading into the Fox trade too. Most everyone insisted the Spurs were going to overpay for him, and they ultimately paid about what I said they would. It'll be the same here if they look for vets. When you're a young team you don't trade the #2 pick in a deep draft for a win now player who is over 30. I mean, maybe if it's 30 yr old Lebron, but even then how long will you even be sure you can hang on to him.

If Giannis or KD force their way out, it'll be for below market value. In Giannis case that'll still be a big package, but I can't see how a smart team like the Spurs are including the #2.

One_and_Done wrote:Why should they?

Because they want to contend and draft prospects are not only usually years away from being key pieces on contenders – they are also notoriously uncertain assets.

One_and_Done wrote:They have a tonne of other assets they can trade for a win now player.

Sure. But there's levels to win-now players. You can acquire good vets and decent talent without using your best draft assets, but you're not going to get the best players you could get if you were willing to trade those assets.

One_and_Done wrote:When you're a young team you don't trade the #2 pick in a deep draft for a win now player who is over 30.

First of all, I never said anything about the player being over 30. The Spurs could trade for a player in their prime, or even a player still on their first contract. The point is that when your window of contention has already started or is about to start, it is the duty of the franchise to explore trades with their draft capital. That doesn't mean you definitely trade the picks – but you are at least not categorically opposed to the idea.

Second of all, this draft is not particularly deep or loaded with star talent. There's Flagg and then there's a gap. Then there's Harper, who is a good but not great 2nd prospect, before there's another (perhaps smaller) gap and the crapshoot truly begins. So while I'd agree that the 2nd pick in this draft is clearly more valuable than the 3rd pick, it's also clearly less valuable than the 1st pick and Harper is not the kind of prospect you declare virtually untouchable in any trade. That's reserved for highest echelon of draft prospects of which there are less than a handful over ten drafts.

One_and_Done wrote:If Giannis or KD force their way out, it'll be for below market value. In Giannis case that'll still be a big package, but I can't see how a smart team like the Spurs are including the #2.

Giannis and KD are too different to mash together here. So let's focus on Giannis as an example where the pick would come into play. There is no way you can trade for Giannis without using one of your two best assets. There just isn't. If the Spurs have a chance at Giannis and withhold the pick, some other team will get Giannis. It's really that simple (and also not at all comparable to someone like Fox who was nowhere near as valuable as Giannis).

And if you have the chance to acquire Giannis using your 2nd pick – which is not going to get you a can't-miss prospect – as the main asset then the Spurs would be foolish to refuse. IMO, of course.

The-Power wrote:

One_and_Done wrote:Why should they?

Because they want to contend and draft prospects are not only usually years away from being key pieces on contenders – they are also notoriously uncertain assets.

One_and_Done wrote:They have a tonne of other assets they can trade for a win now player.

Sure. But there's levels to win-now players. You can acquire good vets and decent talent without using your best draft assets, but you're not going to get the best players you could get if you were willing to trade those assets.

One_and_Done wrote:When you're a young team you don't trade the #2 pick in a deep draft for a win now player who is over 30.

First of all, I never said anything about the player being over 30. The Spurs could trade for a player in their prime, or even a player still on their first contract. The point is that when your window of contention has already started or is about to start, it is the duty of the franchise to explore trades with their draft capital. That doesn't mean you definitely trade the picks – but you are at least not categorically opposed to the idea.

Second of all, this draft is not particularly deep or loaded with star talent. There's Flagg and then there's a gap. Then there's Harper, who is a good but not great 2nd prospect, before there's another (perhaps smaller) gap and the crapshoot truly begins. So while I'd agree that the 2nd pick in this draft is clearly more valuable than the 3rd pick, it's also clearly less valuable than the 1st pick and Harper is not the kind of prospect you declare virtually untouchable in any trade. That's reserved for highest echelon of draft prospects of which there are less than a handful over ten drafts.

One_and_Done wrote:If Giannis or KD force their way out, it'll be for below market value. In Giannis case that'll still be a big package, but I can't see how a smart team like the Spurs are including the #2.

Giannis and KD are too different to mash together here. So let's focus on Giannis as an example where the pick would come into play. There is no way you can trade for Giannis without using one of your two best assets. There just isn't. If the Spurs have a chance at Giannis and withhold the pick, some other team will get Giannis. It's really that simple (and also not at all comparable to someone like Fox who was nowhere near as valuable as Giannis).

And if you have the chance to acquire Giannis using your 2nd pick – which is not going to get you a can't-miss prospect – as the main asset then the Spurs would be foolish to refuse. IMO, of course.

Yeh I don't agree at all. 1 day ago people were drawing up (overpriced) Giannis to SA packages, when the Spurs didn't even have the #2 pick. I'm not sure why the Spurs were a favourite to get him then, without a #2 pick, but now it apparently has to be included.

The Spurs have a literal tonne of juicy assets, and if Giannis moves it's because he's forcing his way to SA. You don't get every single asset in those circumstances. Not when the guy is 30+ and the Spurs have a boatload of other juicy assets to throw in. There's zero chance that pick is moved for Giannis.

Harper is viewed as pretty elite of a prospect. I could see it more if the Spurs had the 4th pick, but top 2? No chance.