Spurs/Magic (If Reed Sheppard is available at 4)

[mhd]

Simple trade that gives Orlando the perfect backcourt mate for Suggs...

Orlando trades Black+18+more favorable of 2025 Orlando 1st & 2025 Denver 1st (top 5 protected) for #4+Graham (expiring)

This deal is predicated on the Spurs not wanting Reed Sheppard as the PG of the future obviously and preferring the size of Black next to Wemby.

Why for Orlando?
1). Get a sharpshooting guard that fits perfectly next to Suggs.

Why for the Spurs?
1). They still have 8 to take a wing prospect that they desire, move down 14 spots to 18 to take BPA, and get 2025 1st (more favorable of 2025 Orlando 1st & 2025 Denver 1st (which Orlando owns and is top 5 protected)).

[Chinook]

I'm not sure the Spurs would prefer Black to Castle, and while an unprotected pick in 2025 has a lot of value, the Spurs still have four picks in that draft already.

If we were talking about moving down from 8 -- even for a lesser package, I think there'd be more legs. There are guys in the post-lottery that look like good role-players. Can't justify dropping out of the top-five out of the lottery though.

[Texas Chuck]

I do really like this idea of this for Orlando. All comes down to if the Spurs really like Black because that future pick while it has the upside variance if Orlando falls apart, is most likely to be a non-lotto pick, so not a lot of value here other than how Black is seen.

I think Orlando would have to sweeten this, and I'd start by adding in Carter who is a good complement to Wemby and then the Magic use their cap space on a center instead of blowing in on Malik Monk.

[wemby]

I'm not sure the Spurs would prefer Black to Castle, and while an unprotected pick in 2025 has a lot of value, the Spurs still have four picks in that draft already.

Of those "4" picks, 1 is EXTREMELY unlikely to convey (Hornets pick is lottery protected) and the other is on the fence (Bulls' pick is top 10 protected next year). So Spurs are more than likely getting just 2 picks next year: own and Hawks

[wemby]

This is a very interesting framework that could make sense all around: Magic consolidates a bunch of bad fits and lesser assets into a high pick to get the sharpshooting point guard they need, and for the Spurs it may not be so bad. With Risacher all but gone, rumors have them possibly targetting Sheppard and Castle. If they feel Dillingham (assuming he's there at 8) and Anthony Black aren't too much of a downgrade from their preferred targets, maybe an extra couple of picks in the late teens this draft and the next could be enough to make up for it.

[BlazersBroncos]

I think SAS is keyed on Castle w/ #4 so I can only see this deal if Reed falls to 8.

EDIT - If this is the case I think the cost for #8 should be closer to Black + 18 or the DEN 25 FRP.

If they take Castle 4, snag Black and use 18 on McCain, Carter, etc they are sitting pretty IMO.

[Chinook]

I'm not sure the Spurs would prefer Black to Castle, and while an unprotected pick in 2025 has a lot of value, the Spurs still have four picks in that draft already.

Of those "4" picks, 1 is EXTREMELY unlikely to convey (Hornets pick is lottery protected) and the other is on the fence (Bulls' pick is top 10 protected next year). So Spurs are more than likely getting just 2 picks next year: own and Hawks

I'm well aware of the protections. That's not a risk I'd be willing to entertain. Even if it's just two that convey, the Spurs don't need three unprotected picks next year. I guess they could love Flagg so much that they want a chance at more ping pong balls. But they shouldn't trade out of the top five of the draft to do that.

[wemby]

I think SAS is keyed on Castle w/ #4 so I can only see this deal if Reed falls to 8.

EDIT - If this is the case I think the cost for #8 should be closer to Black + 18 or the DEN 25 FRP.

If they take Castle 4, snag Black and use 18 on McCain, Carter, etc they are sitting pretty IMO.

I don't see the Spurs taking both Castle and Black, they're too similar in strengths and weaknesses, with Castle possibly being the more resourceful offensive player. If they take either Castle or Black, I'd expect them to go for a shooter with the other pick.

[wemby]

I'm not sure the Spurs would prefer Black to Castle, and while an unprotected pick in 2025 has a lot of value, the Spurs still have four picks in that draft already.

Of those "4" picks, 1 is EXTREMELY unlikely to convey (Hornets pick is lottery protected) and the other is on the fence (Bulls' pick is top 10 protected next year). So Spurs are more than likely getting just 2 picks next year: own and Hawks

I'm well aware of the protections. That's not a risk I'd be willing to entertain. Even if it's just two that convey, the Spurs don't need three unprotected picks next year. I guess they could love Flagg so much that they want a chance at more ping pong balls. But they shouldn't trade out of the top five of the draft to do that.

The only consideration should be how they feel about their target at 4, if they feel strongly then I agree they shouldn't move. But otherwise I don't think however many picks they already have next year should factor in, you can always use it to trade up, for instance. I will concede this doesn't feel like a very Spurs like move, they probably just take their target and move on.

[Chinook]

Of those "4" picks, 1 is EXTREMELY unlikely to convey (Hornets pick is lottery protected) and the other is on the fence (Bulls' pick is top 10 protected next year). So Spurs are more than likely getting just 2 picks next year: own and Hawks

I'm well aware of the protections. That's not a risk I'd be willing to entertain. Even if it's just two that convey, the Spurs don't need three unprotected picks next year. I guess they could love Flagg so much that they want a chance at more ping pong balls. But they shouldn't trade out of the top five of the draft to do that.

The only consideration should be how they feel about their target at 4, if they feel strongly then I agree they shouldn't move. But otherwise I don't think however many picks they already have next year should factor in, you can always use it to trade up, for instance. I will concede this doesn't feel like a very Spurs like move, they probably just take their target and move on.

The value of the return definitely depends on how useful it is. You can't "always use picks to trade" for anything. We've seen that numerous times already with teams having to sell their firsts or practically give them away. I'd almost say getting swap rights in 2025 and 2026 would be a better incentive than the pick outright in 2025.

[tiderulz]

This is a very interesting framework that could make sense all around: Magic consolidates a bunch of bad fits and lesser assets into a high pick to get the sharpshooting point guard they need, and for the Spurs it may not be so bad. With Risacher all but gone, rumors have them possibly targetting Sheppard and Castle. If they feel Dillingham (assuming he's there at 8) and Anthony Black aren't too much of a downgrade from their preferred targets, maybe an extra couple of picks in the late teens this draft and the next could be enough to make up for it.

a bunch? its 1 player and some draft picks. And we Black isnt necessarily a bad fit, he showed great defense chops and while low volume, shot 39% from 3.

[wemby]

I'm well aware of the protections. That's not a risk I'd be willing to entertain. Even if it's just two that convey, the Spurs don't need three unprotected picks next year. I guess they could love Flagg so much that they want a chance at more ping pong balls. But they shouldn't trade out of the top five of the draft to do that.

The only consideration should be how they feel about their target at 4, if they feel strongly then I agree they shouldn't move. But otherwise I don't think however many picks they already have next year should factor in, you can always use it to trade up, for instance. I will concede this doesn't feel like a very Spurs like move, they probably just take their target and move on.

The value of the return definitely depends on how useful it is. You can't "always use picks to trade" for anything. We've seen that numerous times already with teams having to sell their firsts or practically give them away. I'd almost say getting swap rights in 2025 and 2026 would be a better incentive than the pick outright in 2025.

Swap rights in '25 are unlikely to be useful in this case, Magic isn't likely to be worse than Spurs or Hawks, and if they are it's probably because Hawks overachieved in which case we're talking about a few spots in the late teens.
I don't remember many cases of picks around 20 needing to be "given away", care to exemplify?

[wemby]

This is a very interesting framework that could make sense all around: Magic consolidates a bunch of bad fits and lesser assets into a high pick to get the sharpshooting point guard they need, and for the Spurs it may not be so bad. With Risacher all but gone, rumors have them possibly targetting Sheppard and Castle. If they feel Dillingham (assuming he's there at 8) and Anthony Black aren't too much of a downgrade from their preferred targets, maybe an extra couple of picks in the late teens this draft and the next could be enough to make up for it.

a bunch? its 1 player and some draft picks. And we Black isnt necessarily a bad fit, he showed great defense chops and while low volume, shot 39% from 3.

Low volume numbers are meaningless, if he commanded any respect he'd have played a role in the playoffs where Magic desperately needed shooting, yet didn't.

[tiderulz]

This is a very interesting framework that could make sense all around: Magic consolidates a bunch of bad fits and lesser assets into a high pick to get the sharpshooting point guard they need, and for the Spurs it may not be so bad. With Risacher all but gone, rumors have them possibly targetting Sheppard and Castle. If they feel Dillingham (assuming he's there at 8) and Anthony Black aren't too much of a downgrade from their preferred targets, maybe an extra couple of picks in the late teens this draft and the next could be enough to make up for it.

a bunch? its 1 player and some draft picks. And we Black isnt necessarily a bad fit, he showed great defense chops and while low volume, shot 39% from 3.

Low volume numbers are meaningless, if he commanded any respect he'd have played a role in the playoffs where Magic desperately needed shooting, yet didn't.

they arent meaningless. if he was shooting 29% on low volume, people would definitely call that out as a weakness. And he was a rookie on a team fighting for playoff seeding. And PG generally a position that takes some time and he was one of the youngest rookies. I'm not pumping sunshine that he is great, but way to early to determine anything about him. 9 months ago, everyone was proclaiming that Suggs was a bust and couldnt shoot.

[wemby]

a bunch? its 1 player and some draft picks. And we Black isnt necessarily a bad fit, he showed great defense chops and while low volume, shot 39% from 3.

Low volume numbers are meaningless, if he commanded any respect he'd have played a role in the playoffs where Magic desperately needed shooting, yet didn't.

they arent meaningless. if he was shooting 29% on low volume, people would definitely call that out as a weakness. And he was a rookie on a team fighting for playoff seeding. And PG generally a position that takes some time and he was one of the youngest rookies. I'm not pumping sunshine that he is great, but way to early to determine anything about him. 9 months ago, everyone was proclaiming that Suggs was a bust and couldnt shoot.

Cason Wallace and Dereck Lively were also rookies playing on playoff teams. Taking wide open corner 3s in low volume still means you're a spacing liability, which is what Anthony Black is at the moment. That can change in the future, but if Magic saw those numbers as a real indication of his shooting ability this thread wouldn't exist.

[Chinook]

The only consideration should be how they feel about their target at 4, if they feel strongly then I agree they shouldn't move. But otherwise I don't think however many picks they already have next year should factor in, you can always use it to trade up, for instance. I will concede this doesn't feel like a very Spurs like move, they probably just take their target and move on.

The value of the return definitely depends on how useful it is. You can't "always use picks to trade" for anything. We've seen that numerous times already with teams having to sell their firsts or practically give them away. I'd almost say getting swap rights in 2025 and 2026 would be a better incentive than the pick outright in 2025.

Swap rights in '25 are unlikely to be useful in this case, Magic isn't likely to be worse than Spurs or Hawks, and if they are it's probably because Hawks overachieved in which case we're talking about a few spots in the late teens.
I don't remember many cases of picks around 20 needing to be "given away", care to exemplify?

Assuming the Spurs don't trade 4 or 8, they will go into the 2025 draft with six players on rookie-scale contract (to say nothing of a guy like Cissoko, whomever gets drafted at 35 and Hinkie-special players like Bassey and Champangie. So the potential of three to five additional rookie-scale players isn't that appealing. So actually getting a 2025 first has extremely limited value. Getting the upside of the pick in the event the Magic miss the playoffs and get lucky in the lotto is the majority of the value of getting that unprotected pick. So swaps seem much more useful.

I don't know why you're limiting it to "picks around 20", but yes, Dieng and Sengun are examples of picks that were given away for bundles of bad firsts because their teams had two many picks. Boston traded away Bane and Thybulle because they had two many selections that year. We have examples of teams using three or four firsts in a draft and using them. The most recent I can think of besides SA is Houston taking four players in 2021. But they ended up paying to dump two of those players two years later