Scottie Barnes is a SPUR. [needs 3rd team]

[MessiahUjiri]

OK, I'll be ready to get roasted by everyone, but hear me out: There is a world where it makes a lot of sense for San Antonio to try and get Scottie Barnes by sending out Castle+, assuming SAS can't get Giannis.


For San Antonio: With Wemby/Fox/Harper, the obvious gap is at the 3/4. You're not gonna maximize the value of the roster with a trio of young guards along with Wemby. Scottie fits perfectly as a jumbo Draymond role...Call it the Rasheed Wallace Pistons role.

For Toronto: There is a world where Collin Murray Boyles projects to be a star PF, and CMB+Scottie clearly don't fit. Rather than trying to force Scottie into a 25 ppg guy, it makes sense to see if you can balance the roster construction with a PG.


The trade:
Stephon Castle, Carter Bryant, Keldon Johnson
for
Scottie Barnes

[Keldon Johnson needs to be rerouted to a 3rd team - San Antonio can get most of the positive value (picks?) coming back]



Scottie is worth more than Castle as he has proven to take the all star step. Bryant is the incentive for Toronto to take a leap of faith.

Castle showed flashes of being an SGA lite. Maybe he can turn into the legit star PG that Toronto needs. Castle+Quickley can form a great backcourt.


Help finish this trade. Don't flame me bro.

[babyjax13]

I like it quite a bit. I think there are some analytics people who don't like Scottie, but I think he is a nice fit for a lot of teams. Regarding the third team - Sacramento? DeRozan + ???.

[One_and_Done]

This is horrendous for the Spurs. Not just because they give up too much value, but because Scottie Barnes is not a player who a contender should be trying to acquire. He messes everything up.

The Spurs have aspirations of growing into a contender, Barnes is the last thing they need.

[jbk1234]

I don't think there's a third team that's going to give value for Keldon Johnson. I'm not sure there's a third team willing and able to take Keldon Johnson without sending back similar money during the season. Honestly, I'm not high on Johnson, but the Raptors can use him.

I don't hate the idea of the Raptors trading Barnes, and I could live with the fit on the Spurs, but it's a trade that should've been made before they traded for and extended Fox. Now Scottie's contract becomes problematic with Wemby needing to get paid.

I imagine their interest might be too tepid to send back both Castle and Bryant. Frankly, I'm not sure I love it for the Raptors either. Their spacing would still be pretty jacked.

[One_and_Done]

If I were the Spurs, I wouldn't trade Carter Bryant or Castle for Scottie. CB and Castle at least have the potential to be starters on a contender. It might not work out, but the possibility is there. Barnes will never be that, or if you are starting him it's because you don't have a better option rather than because you actively want to.

[Tripod]

If I were the Spurs, I wouldn't trade Carter Bryant or Castle for Scottie. CB and Castle at least have the potential to be starters on a contender. It might not work out, but the possibility is there. Barnes will never be that, or if you are starting him it's because you don't have a better option rather than because you actively want to.

No bias at all when you ate saying Barnes should be a bench player.

[One_and_Done]

If I were the Spurs, I wouldn't trade Carter Bryant or Castle for Scottie. CB and Castle at least have the potential to be starters on a contender. It might not work out, but the possibility is there. Barnes will never be that, or if you are starting him it's because you don't have a better option rather than because you actively want to.

No bias at all when you ate saying Barnes should be a bench player.

He's alot like Giddey or Demar in termsof his lack of a role for a contender. You'd love to start him on a 38 win team. That's his ideal role. Not sure why a contender wants a non-shooting 4 who needs the ball.

[MessiahUjiri]

If I were the Spurs, I wouldn't trade Carter Bryant or Castle for Scottie. CB and Castle at least have the potential to be starters on a contender. It might not work out, but the possibility is there. Barnes will never be that, or if you are starting him it's because you don't have a better option rather than because you actively want to.

No bias at all when you ate saying Barnes should be a bench player.

He's alot like Giddey or Demar in termsof his lack of a role for a contender. You'd love to start him on a 38 win team. That's his ideal role. Not sure why a contender wants a non-shooting 4 who needs the ball.

Look up Draymond Green or Aaron Gordon (both NBA Champions).

Barnes is basically a 17/7/7 player with superb defense. He's nothing like Demar - he's very talented defensively, and the idea here is to unleash that side even more, since Spurs would have the offense covered.

IMO you lose credibility when you try to denigrate an obviously talented player.

[One_and_Done]

No bias at all when you ate saying Barnes should be a bench player.

He's alot like Giddey or Demar in termsof his lack of a role for a contender. You'd love to start him on a 38 win team. That's his ideal role. Not sure why a contender wants a non-shooting 4 who needs the ball.

Look up Draymond Green or Aaron Gordon (both NBA Champions).

IMO you lose credibility when you try to denigrate an obviously talented player.

Draymond and Gordon can both hit an open 3pt jumper, and when Draymond isn't hitting open 3s it can be a problem. It's also just never a good thing when your comp for the player is a historical outlier. It's the death knell for a player when his comp is Draymond Green or Charles Barkley etc, because those are 1 of 1 guys.

Draymond is one of the best defenders ever, handles and passes like a point guard, and has the unique size and base to switch almost any position. Gordon is hyper athletic, and hits open 3s. Last year he shot 436. from 3. Barnes is horrific offensively.

Barnes gets numbers because he plays on mediocre teams who give him alot of touches, but on a genuine contender you'd likely bench him. His numbers are a bit empty in that sense, in that sense exactly like Demar or Giddey.

None of these good teams would have started him last year; the Celtics, the Thunder, the Pacers, the Cavs, the Wolves, the Clippers, GSW, the Bucks, etc.

[wegotthabeet]

If I were the Spurs, I wouldn't trade Carter Bryant or Castle for Scottie. CB and Castle at least have the potential to be starters on a contender. It might not work out, but the possibility is there. Barnes will never be that, or if you are starting him it's because you don't have a better option rather than because you actively want to.

No bias at all when you ate saying Barnes should be a bench player.

This guy is the worst man hahahaha. Mods are asleep at the wheel as always.

[MessiahUjiri]

He's alot like Giddey or Demar in termsof his lack of a role for a contender. You'd love to start him on a 38 win team. That's his ideal role. Not sure why a contender wants a non-shooting 4 who needs the ball.

Look up Draymond Green or Aaron Gordon (both NBA Champions).

IMO you lose credibility when you try to denigrate an obviously talented player.

Draymond and Gordon can both hit an open 3pt jumper, and when Draymond isn't hitting open 3s it can be a problem. It's also just never a good thing when your comp form the player is a historical outlier. It's the death knell for a player when his comp is Draymond Green or Charles Barkley etc, because those are 1 of 1 guys.

> You claimed contenders can't win with non-shooting 4s.
>> I mentioned 2 recent champion examples in Draymond / Gordon.
>>> Now you think that's a problem?
>>>> In fact, Scottie is a lot closer to Draymond than the comparisons you made (Demar / Giddey).


If you objectively put career accolades aside, you can make a case that Scottie @ 23 yo is a better player than Draymond @ 23, and Scottie also has better physical traits. Either way, I don't mean to derail the thread. There's plenty of evidence that someone like Scottie would contribute to a championship winning team when put next to stars, as would be the case with the Spurs.

You said you wouldn't even trade Carter Bryant for Scottie. I should've known.

[One_and_Done]

Look up Draymond Green or Aaron Gordon (both NBA Champions).

IMO you lose credibility when you try to denigrate an obviously talented player.

Draymond and Gordon can both hit an open 3pt jumper, and when Draymond isn't hitting open 3s it can be a problem. It's also just never a good thing when your comp form the player is a historical outlier. It's the death knell for a player when his comp is Draymond Green or Charles Barkley etc, because those are 1 of 1 guys.

> You claimed contenders can't win with non-shooting 4s.
>> I mentioned 2 recent champion examples in Draymond / Gordon.
>>> Now you think that's a problem?
>>>> In fact, Scottie is a lot closer to Draymond than the comparisons you made (Demar / Giddey).


If you objectively put career accolades aside, you can make a case that Scottie @ 23 yo is a better player than Draymond @ 23, and Scottie also has better physical traits. Either way, I don't mean to derail the thread. There's plenty of evidence that someone like Scottie would contribute to a championship winning team when put next to stars, as would be the case with the Spurs.

Contenders don't need a non-shooting 4 who needs the ball in his hands to be effective. Barnes is such a player, but I'm not clear how Gordon or Draymond are.

Gordon is a rim roller with dunk contest athleticism who shot 44% from 3 last year. The year they win the title, he shot 35% in the RS and 39% in the playoffs.

In the Warriors title runs Draymond was generally a plausible shooter when taking an open 3. You had to guard him when open. Some years he doesn't have it, especially now that he's older, but he also plays the 5 when it matters, and has point guard skills to run their offense from the 5. Barnes is not a 5, and cannot fill that role. Comparing his shooting issues to Draymond doesn't work.

[MessiahUjiri]

I like it quite a bit. I think there are some analytics people who don't like Scottie, but I think he is a nice fit for a lot of teams. Regarding the third team - Sacramento? DeRozan + ???.

I think Detroit could be an interesting 3rd team.

They can use Keldon Johnson as a scoring option, and would probably 2 2nds (they have 3 '27 2nds: DAL, DET, MIL) along with Duncan Robinson.

Johnson also fits their core age wise @ 26 years old.

[babyjax13]

I like it quite a bit. I think there are some analytics people who don't like Scottie, but I think he is a nice fit for a lot of teams. Regarding the third team - Sacramento? DeRozan + ???.

I think Detroit could be an interesting 3rd team.

They can use Keldon Johnson as a scoring option, and would probably 2 2nds (they have 3 '27 2nds: DAL, DET, MIL) along with Duncan Robinson.

Johnson also fits their core age wise @ 26 years old.

TBH I am of the same opinion that Johnson doesn't really have trade value. I think it would be Robinson straight across if Detroit just wants a position change.

[MessiahUjiri]

Draymond and Gordon can both hit an open 3pt jumper, and when Draymond isn't hitting open 3s it can be a problem. It's also just never a good thing when your comp form the player is a historical outlier. It's the death knell for a player when his comp is Draymond Green or Charles Barkley etc, because those are 1 of 1 guys.

> You claimed contenders can't win with non-shooting 4s.
>> I mentioned 2 recent champion examples in Draymond / Gordon.
>>> Now you think that's a problem?
>>>> In fact, Scottie is a lot closer to Draymond than the comparisons you made (Demar / Giddey).


If you objectively put career accolades aside, you can make a case that Scottie @ 23 yo is a better player than Draymond @ 23, and Scottie also has better physical traits. Either way, I don't mean to derail the thread. There's plenty of evidence that someone like Scottie would contribute to a championship winning team when put next to stars, as would be the case with the Spurs.

Contenders don't need a non-shooting 4 who needs the ball in his hands to be effective. Barnes is such a player, but I'm not clear how Gordon or Draymond are.

Gordon is a rim roller with dunk contest athleticism who shot 44% from 3 last year. The year they win the title, he shot 35% in the RS and 39% in the playoffs.

In the Warriors title runs Draymond was generally a plausible shooter when taking an open 3. You had to guard him when open. Some years he doesn't have it, especially now that he's older, but he also plays the 5 when it matters, and has point guard skills to run their offense from the 5. Barnes is not a 5, and cannot fill that role. Comparing his shooting issues to Draymond doesn't work.

lol you're clearly making flawed analysis here. Since you said Barnes is a bench player and you wouldn't even trade Carter Bryant for him, this will be the last time I will respond.

Gordon and Draymond both benefit by playing off star offensive talents. That naturally boosts their shooting %, compared to Scottie who gets to be the focus of the opposing defense. You know about the Jokic effect, or the Steph effect or Steve Nash effect. Unselfish offensive wizards make their teammates better.

Lastly, Scottie has played quasi PG/PF/C role on a clearly tanking team. If you didn't watch their games (I don't blame you), you can do some research and lookup videos of how many times he threw "magic" passes to these no-name-brand teammates who fumbled what would otherwise be assists.

[Troubadour]

If the Spurs are committed to building around Fox and Wembanyama, Scottie's defensive productivity is helpful. His inability to shoot is not. Think you could get a better return than Barnes.

[SkyHook]

This is one where I could see both teams passing. I've never been a Barnes fan, but Johnson's value is underwater and Castle just isn't very good. That said, I wouldn't be shocked if Bryant ended up being the best player in the deal; I'm high on the kid.

[One_and_Done]

> You claimed contenders can't win with non-shooting 4s.
>> I mentioned 2 recent champion examples in Draymond / Gordon.
>>> Now you think that's a problem?
>>>> In fact, Scottie is a lot closer to Draymond than the comparisons you made (Demar / Giddey).


If you objectively put career accolades aside, you can make a case that Scottie @ 23 yo is a better player than Draymond @ 23, and Scottie also has better physical traits. Either way, I don't mean to derail the thread. There's plenty of evidence that someone like Scottie would contribute to a championship winning team when put next to stars, as would be the case with the Spurs.

Contenders don't need a non-shooting 4 who needs the ball in his hands to be effective. Barnes is such a player, but I'm not clear how Gordon or Draymond are.

Gordon is a rim roller with dunk contest athleticism who shot 44% from 3 last year. The year they win the title, he shot 35% in the RS and 39% in the playoffs.

In the Warriors title runs Draymond was generally a plausible shooter when taking an open 3. You had to guard him when open. Some years he doesn't have it, especially now that he's older, but he also plays the 5 when it matters, and has point guard skills to run their offense from the 5. Barnes is not a 5, and cannot fill that role. Comparing his shooting issues to Draymond doesn't work.

lol you're clearly making flawed analysis here. Since you said Barnes is a bench player and you wouldn't even trade Carter Bryant for him, this will be the last time I will respond.

Gordon and Draymond both benefit by playing off star offensive talents. That naturally boosts their shooting %, compared to Scottie who gets to be the focus of the opposing defense. You know about the Jokic effect, or the Steph effect or Steve Nash effect. Unselfish offensive wizards make their teammates better.

Lastly, Scottie has played quasi PG/PF/C role on a clearly tanking team. If you didn't watch their games (I don't blame you), you can do some research and lookup videos of how many times he threw "magic" passes to these no-name-brand teammates who fumbled what would otherwise be assists.

Barnes shooting form is broken. Gordon's is not, nor even is Draymonds for all his slumps. Barnes is never going to shoot as well as they have in the past, even next to Jokic.

Gordon can play off ball because the Nuggets use him like a 5 on offense (and defense). He's rolling for alley oops and cuts like a 5. Barnes can't be the 5. Barnes also wants to handle the ball, and without it he has little to do on offense. Draymond can run PnR and sets like a point guard, and is able to take an open 3 with confidence. Barnes hates off ball play, because he is bad at it. He holds the ball, knowing his broken shot likely will miss. Nobody needs to guard him.

[Tripod]

This is one where I could see both teams passing. I've never been a Barnes fan, but Johnson's value is underwater and Castle just isn't very good. That said, I wouldn't be shocked if Bryant ended up being the best player in the deal; I'm high on the kid.

I look forward to Bryant winning ROTY this year and an All Star in year 3.

[GeorgeMarcus]

If I were the Spurs, I wouldn't trade Carter Bryant or Castle for Scottie. CB and Castle at least have the potential to be starters on a contender. It might not work out, but the possibility is there. Barnes will never be that, or if you are starting him it's because you don't have a better option rather than because you actively want to.

No bias at all when you ate saying Barnes should be a bench player.

This guy is the worst man hahahaha. Mods are asleep at the wheel as always.

You may (as many of us do) disagree with his opinion, but I don't see any reason for mods to get involved. Disagreements are part of constructive dialogue