Castle vs Harper - Who Stays, Who Goes

[Rustyman]

With the Spurs getting the 2nd pick in the upcoming draft, one of the Spurs key questions has to be who do they stay with or can they both co-exist.

Castle:
Strengths - Strength, Vision, Desire, Versatility (1-3), Defense, Driving.
Weaknesses - Shooting, Shooting, Shooting, Turnovers.

Harper:
Strengths - Driving, Mid-range game, Vision, Versatility (1-2), Shooting (relative to Castle)
Weaknesses - 3 point shooting, Inability to lift Rutgers, Uncertainty on whether his game will translate to the NBA.

In my opinion, the Spurs will have to make a choice between the two of them as keeping both without any other changes is likely to get less than optimal outcomes from both of them.

[Rustyman]

The argument for keeping both.

There is an option for the Spurs to keep both. In this instance, the assumption is that the Spurs will either move on from Vassell or Fox as there is no way that the Spurs are going to pay $27-$34M for a 4th option. As Fox is a significantly better player as shown by his record, the person to move will have to be Vassell. If so, what can the Spurs get in exchange for him.

In this scenario, Harper plays the SG and Castle plays the SF. This can work but it means that until they prove otherwise, the Spurs have 2 non-shooters at the 2-3. This means that any PF they get will have to be a 3&D guy. I don't know what is out there that can be swapped for Vassell.

Also, it will mean that the Spurs are less likely to be a contender as they will have 2 youngsters in their starting 5 (I don't count Wemby as he is essentially an All NBA player, it just needs to be determined if that is 1st team or not). Are the Spurs prepared to postpone their contending window for the potential to lengthen that window in the future?

[Rustyman]

The argument for Castle.

Castle has a season of NBA performance so that we can make realistic projections as to his potential growth. Essentially, he needs to improve his shooting, reduce his turnovers and learn to better integrate with Wemby.

For me, I keep on flip flopping on whether I prefer Castle or Harper. In the back of my mind is that I see parallels between Castle and Kawhi (not that I expect Castle to be the same player as Kawhi was a significantly better shooter, even as a rookie) and if that comes to fruition, Castle is the perfect player to pair with Wemby.

The starting 5 of Fox, Castle, TBA, Sochan, Wemby has a greater known quantity about it but it needs to be filled at SF/PF for a proven scorer which is assumed to come in the trade for Harper.

[Rustyman]

The argument for Harper.

The consensus is that Harper has a higher potential than Castle as it is widely assumed that if he was in last year's draft, he would have been the clear #1 pick. That assessment of greater potential is something I cannot judge but that seems to be what most scouts appear to think.

If Harper stays and Castle goes, we have a clear 5 of Fox/Harper/Vassell or TBA/Sochan or Barnes/Wemby. I think that 5 lacks depth and size at both SF and PF. Does the improved scoring that Harper brings allow Sochan to stay at the 4? I don't think that is a contender unless we trade Castle and Vassell for a proven SF or PF which I assume is the approach if we trade Castle. Even then, we still have considerable uncertainty as we have an unproven rookie and a gap at SF/PF.

[eyeatoma]

Hey all, I like Harper, but we have a similar problem with Maxey/McCain and Grimes. Are you guys interested at all in Ace Bailey, to plug into your weaker SF/PF role?

[Rustyman]

Hey all, I like Harper, but we have a similar problem with Maxey/McCain and Grimes. Are you guys interested at all in Ace Bailey, to plug into your weaker SF/PF role?

It might be a solution but what is Philly prepared to offer for the downgrade from Harper to Bailey. To be clear, I am no fan of Bailey, his measurements and combine interviews are at the point where he is almost disqualified from being a Spur.

[eyeatoma]

A trade up would likely look to including our #3 pick, one of Grimes/McCain, and potentially the unprotected future Clippers pick, but I don't know if Morey would only release that if we wanted to get into the Flagg sweepstakes.

[G R E Y]

We have to take BPA and that's Harper. Picking for fit ie/Ace is a talent downgrade.

In a trade you get more for the best talent.

And we can make Fox, Castle, Harper fit. If not, it's a nice problem to have in terms of figuring out which direction to go. And no time pressure to really do it.

I agree with OP in the other thread that Harper for Lauri is not a trade to pursue (we need a down low banger type more) and so a Giannis trade is the only one I'd see us parting with Harper for.

[Rustyman]

A trade up would likely look to including our #3 pick, one of Grimes/McCain, and potentially the unprotected future Clippers pick, but I don't know if Morey would only release that if we wanted to get into the Flagg sweepstakes.

No interest in Grimes or McCain as we need big SG's who can also defend to pair with Fox. The #3 plus future picks would probably do it although how many future picks I don't know. Also, this would require the Spurs to be in on Ace which I have my doubts about.

Essentially Philly would be competing against anyone who can offer a consistent scoring big at All Star level, I don't know if you can complete against that.

[Rustyman]

I agree with OP in the other thread that Harper for Lauri is not a trade to pursue (we need a down low banger type more) and so a Giannis trade is the only one I'd see us parting with Harper for.

See, this is one of the few times I will disagree with you. I think with Fox and Castle/Harper, we have two players who will score most of their points in the paint. If you consider that the same applies to Keldon and Sochan, I think the Spurs need more 3-point shooting. That is the only reason I advocate for Lauri.

Giannis is a totally different issue. You trade of Giannis if you can without stripping your roster and future. He is still a bona fide top 5 player today and a future Hall of Famer. This would be the equivalent of matching the Luka trade for LA. With Giannis, the Spurs future would be NOW.

If we cannot get Giannis, I agree, that you don't offer up the potential of Harper except for a absolute no brainer.

[G R E Y]

I agree with OP in the other thread that Harper for Lauri is not a trade to pursue (we need a down low banger type more) and so a Giannis trade is the only one I'd see us parting with Harper for.

See, this is one of the few times I will disagree with you. I think with Fox and Castle/Harper, we have two players who will score most of their points in the paint. If you consider that the same applies to Keldon and Sochan, I think the Spurs need more 3-point shooting. That is the only reason I advocate for Lauri.

Giannis is a totally different issue. You trade of Giannis if you can without stripping your roster and future. He is still a bona fide top 5 player today and a future Hall of Famer. This would be the equivalent of matching the Luka trade for LA. With Giannis, the Spurs future would be NOW.

If we cannot get Giannis, I agree, that you don't offer up the potential of Harper except for a absolute no brainer.

I think we do agree that Harper for Lauri is a nonstarter.

Of course yes 3s shooting is crucial to today's game. But as we've seen in the POs, big chunky defender moving guards are, too. We have Knicks (Brunson) Indy (Hali more of a quick slasher type a la Fox) Minny (Edwards) OKC (filled with big guards) and Denver (Murray, Westbrook, whatever people may think of him). Detroit (Cade who Harper models after) was a handful. Cavs (a perfect quick chunky guard in Mitchell and two bigs) was a disappointment, but lots of injuries. Same with Boston. Of course they're all also talented.

Ainge is the only one in the room who would insist on #2 #14 Castle and your first born because that's how he operates. Nobody wants to deal with him. That's important, too.

Also, we don't have to play Fox, Castle, Harper together all the time. But given our guard glut, you can see how Harper sometimes coming off the bench like Castle did may seem unappealing to his camp. I agree it's not the cleanest fit and there's some overlap, but signaling Harper is not just trade bait is important.

Some teams draft players we want (Bilal) only to then ask for an exorbitant price (five firsts per Evan Townsend x-space he hosted after the draft lottery). Or teams want both Hawks unprotected picks as a strating point (Nets for Cam, per same source).

So it's Spurs leading with a we won't get fleeced confidence, knowing the value of our position and our assets and the variety of options with which to acquire specific talent. Even in the past we preferred to ride out a contract rather than take on a less favourable deal (ie/LMA).

Addressing 3s shooting doesn't have to be Lauri. It can be any position around Wemby. That's why we're also watching what Cs do, with whose FO we have a good working relationship (now that Ainge is gone).

Lauri is not a big enough big both in the banger /defender type and star to use Harper on.

Rather keep Harper or use him on a once in a blue moon chance to land a top 3 player in the league. Lauri is an All Star. Giannis is a league MVP/finals MVP level player. They are not in the same tier. And for only one of those tiers should we be parting with the 2nd pick.

We can address 3s spacing at a much lower cost. I like Lauri a lot. But he's pretty much at his ceiling, well closer to it than Castle or Harper. So unless we get a super deal there I actually think Giannis is a more realistic option, crazy as it sounds, just in terms of fair deal conversation.

[FarBeyondDriven]

Harper is no better than Castle who you just took at #4 last draft and who won Rookie of the Year. I'm surprised it's even being entertained. As a starter he put up 16/4/5 and shot 30% from three, 75% FT. As a reminder, Dylan Harper only shot 33% from the college distance and 75% FT. I feel like you'll regret passing on Ace Bailey.

You could also trade down and still get a wing like Essengue, maybe for Claxton, #8 and #19 from the Nets who badly need a PG and would still have two first round picks to play with. Maybe they take a bad contract off your hands as well. Once you pay Fox and Wemby you'll need as many cheap young players as you can get so more picks will help. Claxton can be another lob threat and can allow Wemby to continue playing the 4 like he and the club seem to want. He's also a good rim protector and defender in general so it'd help on that end immensely. Your defense with Fox, Castle, Essengue (pick 8), Sochan, Wemby and Claxton would be incredible.

[Rustyman]

I think we do agree that Harper for Lauri is a nonstarter.

Ainge is the only one in the room who would insist on #2 #14 Castle and your first born because that's how he operates. Nobody wants to deal with him. That's important, too.

Also, we don't have to play Fox, Castle, Harper together all the time. But given our guard glut, you can see how Harper sometimes coming off the bench like Castle did may seem unappealing to his camp. I agree it's not the cleanest fit and there's some overlap, but signaling Harper is not just trade bait us important.

After rethinking it, I agree that Harper for Lauri is too high a price and Ainge will never make a deal that in any way could be considered fair both ways as he would lose his reputation for being this great dealmaker while continuing to have a pathetic team on the field.

Agree that the playoffs have shown themselves to be a totally different game from the regular season. Driving and the mid-range become much more important as even the poorest defender lifts themselves in the playoffs to contest threes.

I do however believe we need another outside threat from the front court to complement Wemby if most of our paint touches are going to guards. Also, there is no way we can keep Vassell at his salary to be a fourth guard so we need a stretch big of some kind.

[Rustyman]

Some teams draft players we want (Bilal) only to then ask for an exorbitant price (five firsts per Evan Townsend x-space he hosted after the draft lottery). Or teams want both Hawks unprotected picks as a strating point (Nets for Cam, per same source).

If that is the asking price, then agree we just stay and build organically. We made our big trade for Fox and don't need to force another one unless it delivers what we need or want.

I do believe that the Spurs window to contend begins now (assuming Wemby is good) but we don't have to win the crown in our first go around.

[Rustyman]

Harper is no better than Castle who you just took at #4 last draft and who won Rookie of the Year. I'm surprised it's even being entertained. As a starter he put up 16/4/5 and shot 30% from three, 75% FT. As a reminder, Dylan Harper only shot 33% from the college distance and 75% FT. I feel like you'll regret passing on Ace Bailey.

I don't pretend to be a scout but it is virtually a given that scouts rank Harper as a better prospect than Castle coming out.

[G R E Y]

Harper is no better than Castle who you just took at #4 last draft and who won Rookie of the Year. I'm surprised it's even being entertained. As a starter he put up 16/4/5 and shot 30% from three, 75% FT. As a reminder, Dylan Harper only shot 33% from the college distance and 75% FT. I feel like you'll regret passing on Ace Bailey.

You could also trade down and still get a wing like Essengue, maybe for Claxton, #8 and #19 from the Nets who badly need a PG and would still have two first round picks to play with. Maybe they take a bad contract off your hands as well. Once you pay Fox and Wemby you'll need as many cheap young players as you can get so more picks will help. Claxton can be another lob threat and can allow Wemby to continue playing the 4 like he and the club seem to want. He's also a good rim protector and defender in general so it'd help on that end immensely. Your defense with Fox, Castle, Essengue (pick 8), Sochan, Wemby and Claxton would be incredible.

Just as Castle turned out better than expected, so too may Harper who comes in with a higher projection. It's fine to roll out Fox, Harper, Castle or stagger them with plenty of minutes to gel.

Bailey is not getting selected by us. Picking for position rather than BPA is a bad idea. Take BPA and figure out the roster then. This both raises floor and ceiling.

We don't have bad contracts. Not a one.

Claxton talks were had but I'm not sure there isn't a cheaper option - Collins (per Evan Townsend), Yabusele, of course Naz would be terrific. Nets are asking for the moon for their players. Worked out for the Knicks who gave a boatload of picks for Bridges but they were steps ahead in building a contender and MB was a key next to last step. We're not there, yet, although building a competitive roster while Wemby's still on his rookie contract is important. Point being, sending too many assets for a not top tier player ensures we put ourselves out of the running for a top tier player who doesn't become available often to begin with.

We could keep 14, end up with a terrific player on a rookie contract. That in itself raises floor and ceiling and helps with various scenarios of consolidating other assets for trades.

You only use a talent like Harper in tier 1 trades, not for a collection of lesser talent spread out. That's what teams who have to trade stars do.

[G R E Y]

To answer rusty's origin question, why not keep both like the taco commercial says!

[Rustyman]

To answer rusty's origin question, why not keep both like the taco commercial says!

For me, my thoughts are always driven by what I think would be the best outcome for the Spurs. Now at first, I did not rate Harper as others with more knowledge do because I don't watch college basketball except for the Final Four.

People with more knowledge than I constantly say that Harper is more talented than any other player in the draft not named Cooper Flag. That being the case, you then lift the price you want to see for Harper if he is traded.

Currently, for me that is a group of one, namely Giannis. Lauri, Durant, etc. is not worth the price of Harper simply because of his perceived potential and 4 years of a rookie contract. Now I can be wrong, Harper may turn out to be no more than Vassell however, if that is the case, we simply get Vassell performance at Harper's price. Not great but not a disaster. The part I did not factor in appropriately previously was the cost, all the guys we are looking at for trade are max contract players. If that goes wrong like with Paul George, we hamstring the Spurs for the next couple of years until the end of Wemby's rookie contract and potentially beyond.

[CodeBreaker]

Harper looks and plays like an inevitable star.

[Rustyman]

As this topic refuses to go away, let me add a few thoughts as to how I see this issue. Let me preface this by saying that to me, both Harper and Castle remain PROSPECTS at this point. We have some pointers around Castle which says that we think he can at his best become a mini Kawahi, at worst, a poor man's Derek White. For Harper, we only have his college tape and while that seems promising, we have to go off the general assessment of scouts that he is the second best player in this draft by a considerable margin with the potential to be the best after his rookie contract. With that in mind, these are my thoughts on the two.

1. Harper/Castle only gets traded if the target is Giannis and then only one of the two.
2. Neither Harper or Castle gets traded for any other player or combination of players.
3. If Castle turns into nothing better than Derek White, he would be a winning part of a winning team.
4. If Harper turns into Vassell or something even less, we still have a relatively cheap backup PG/SG. If we were to trade him for Lauri or KD, I will guarantee that Harper plays many more games and provides much more value to another team. That is why other teams want him as they see that he can potentially provide much more value to them in the short-term than he is likely to provide for the Spurs. The Spurs however are building this team for the long-term and the first opportunity to say Harper was not a success is if he does not get a near max extension after his third year.
5. If Harper turns into something much more, he can replace Fox in 3-4 years time when a considered and informed choice can be made over the performances of the two for the Spurs.
6. Castle is a SG/SF combo, he is not a point guard. He will get the coming season to show that he is capable of filling that role for the Spurs as I expect him to be the starting SG. Now his outside shooting might not be great currently, but we hope he improves and he showed that he can fill up the stat sheet one way or the other in the final third of the season.

So at the moment, I am more in favor of keeping both. Now there is still lots of time before the draft and I expect there to be lots of discussions for other trade targets, however, without a trade for Giannis, I think our best option is to go forward with both in the short to medium term.