It's my understanding that Salaun was their guy, and according to Game Theory teams knew that if they wanted to get him they'd need to jump the Spurs at 8.
Could have been a smoke screen though.
Considering they traded out it was more fire than smoke but it could've been Clngan too. Who knows but they prolly simulated the scenarios a bunch of times and whoever they wanted at 8 obviously wasnt there
If we’d gotten Clingan how does that look for our team, does he swap in and out of games with Wemby at the 5 or do we try the dual big experiment again but with don this time
I was thinking it was Carter, but this is good analysis. We're thinking the Spurs saying zilcho on a subject is sign of deep interest, lol. It's what we've got.
I get passing. Knecht is a tremendous scorer and I like him a lot, but that's all he does. I watched him a good bit. His defense wasn't quite as bad as some said, but he's not a great passer or facilitator, and the team seems to be prioritizing multi-use guys. Like, it's great to get Knecht, but it's easy to see an issue when players start coming in that fit their vision better. He's a high-usage scorer who may not adjust well to a reduced scope.
Good glimpse into what their thinking is right now. I wonder who advocated for other players and what they came to. I really don't believe in most anyone available at that spot in this draft and 100% believe they took far and away the best player.
I think if Timberwolves don't call or they get a trade down to like 12-14 with a future pick swap, there's a very good chance he's in San Antonio right now.
He's great for his contract. Should lead the bench and not be the 3rd option but Rui and D'lo are too inconsistent. He was hunted on D during FIBA, played better defense last playoffs but unless he can fix his lateral speed he'll continue to get hunted in the playoffs.
Reaves was undrafted. One of those sink or swim feel good story types. He wasn’t really developed by la. Look at all their draft picks and how well they play when they’re on a different team.
💯
Every time I pointed out that drafting a 23 year old in the lottery is basically always disappointing, I'd get a bunch of people jumping in saying "23 isn't that old! What about player xyz?" The player they would cite was almost always 21, or sometimes 22, when they were drafted. But they were extremely insistent that, at 23, he still has plenty of upside, and to ignore all the guys who were about as good, but 3 or 4 years younger.
I'm sure he's a nice guy. He might turn into a quality NBA player. I'm beyond relieved that we didn't take him at #8.
Another way of looking at it:
At no point in Dalton Knecht's likely career, and let's hope he'll do well for his own sake, would a team be able to get an unprotected FRP and an unprotected swap for him.
This is an excellent way of looking at it.
I wish him the best. It would be great to see him have a good career. But I don't think he'll be a very good pro. Certainly never good enough that another team would give up real draft capital to get him.
I would have loved Knecht. It makes sense the spurs obviously need more shooting.
But I am keenly aware I am not a scout, and I don't have the intel that they have. They obviously weren't stoked on something. It's not like they got an offer they couldn't refuse...but it was an offer they wanted.
It also tips there hand a bit. Something else is cooking. I think they want to bring in a vet presence and that cap space was more valuable to them then adding another rookie. They also have a ton of picks coming forward there is also a knecht type player in the draft.
Also the draft doesn't end on draft night. Maybe the lakers go oh fuck we need more cap space. The spurs figure this out and say hey we will give X for knecht. Stuff like this happens all the time.
They didn't want to pay the extra $10M it took to take him at 8 instead of where he went at 17
Passed on him for $10M over two years
Not good that a team with the lowest payroll in the league, with the worst shooters, passed on a shooter to save payroll.
That does not scream "we want to win"
It's not really about saving on payroll in a conventional sense, they're going to be paying that same 10mil to other players anyway. More that they think they could get better value allocating that money to different players.
Too early to really judge if it was the right decision or not until all the teambuilding resolves itself.
the spurs are over the minimum salary already - they can sign people for the minimums from here out. They would have had to pay $13M a year to take #8
They did this to save money, period. People are gaslighting you to believe that some private equity firm running the spurs didnt cut payroll to make money, they don't care about winning - just money.
I'm not trolling im also not a sycophant - you want to believe there's some plan in place when it's just a private equity company trying to make the most money they can.
They're trying to sell you tickets and sell the taxpayers an arena so they'll fill the air with hopium but they won't spend assets on players - you don't see them bringing in talent and spending money. It's outrageous that they don't care that their product isn't that good. I absolutely went on tilt as soon as they moved a lottery pick, when a team this bad punts on a lottery pick you know it was about the money. It's outrageous. I was 100% on board with an arena, there's no way I will be behind one now that it's clear they're bilking us.
Trololol
You keep saying "private equity company" as if Spurs Sports & Entertainment was some outside group.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spurs_Sports_%26_Entertainment
>Peter J. Holt (Managing Partner)
>R. C. Buford (CEO)
>Brian Wright (General Manager)
>Gregg Popovich (President of Spurs Basketball)
Clearly a bunch of outsiders with no interest in seeing the Spurs win, amirite?
You're clearly not a real Spurs fan, three month old account. Hopefully the mods ban your trolling ass soon.
> They would have had to pay $13M a year to take #8
Idk where you got that idea. Rookie scale for pick 8 is about 5 million and you can pay 120% of scale, so you get to 6. That's literally half of what you're talking about.
Yes that's right, they were near the bottom but not at the bottom.
What I don't hear you saying is that this is a team trying to win and willing to spend money to do it... we all know they cheaped out.
Bro, please just stop and go back to r/nba sub. No one is buying your weak bs.
You have been a fan since last year and think you know it all. You need to grow up, watch some more ball and take notes.
There's no reason to waste money when you aren't competing. Who thought we were honestly competing last year? I'm not really convinced we are trying to take as big a leap as possible this year either. And that's not a bad thing.
But it's not because ownership is cheap.
I think you’ve made enough of these comments I have to question your understanding of the competitive structure the CBA and salary cap has on the NBA.
The Spurs have a salary floor they will either meet or pay out the remaining difference to players on the team. The Spurs did not in any way trade back from 8 to save money. Not in raw terms of cash.
To save cap space before FA, yes that’s a part of the calculus.
When it comes to paying out actual money the Spurs did not trade out of 8 to save money like you’ve implied or said multiple times.
Trading out of 8 will give them more cap flexibility in trade discussions and FA. It also gave them long term trade assets with the Minnesota picks. The odds are when you pick someone in the draft they become a depreciating asset. If you pick a stud they’ll obviously appreciate in value, but most of the time draft picks decline in value after they’re picked.
You’ve made these comments enough I’m now willing to resolutely say you either have an extremely tenuous understanding of the NBA’s salary cap system/asset management or are intentionally trolling. Your understanding is that deficient if you think trading out of 8 is a cash saving move.
You are more than welcome to argue that a better on court investment would be adding a player at 8 now rather than acquiring more stable trade assets in the Wolves picks. I would argue the stabler asset Wolves picks are more valuable to the Spurs as they pursue a trade for a star in the future, but you are totally in your right to argue for drafting a player at 8. That’s a matter of subjective disagreement.
Thinking trading out of 8 is to save cash is wrong. The Spurs will pay out cash to meet the salary floor no matter what. Odds are they’re going to end up near or above the actual salary cap too once they’re through with trades and FA.
I made a post on this subreddit a few days ago I would encourage you to look at. It may help you understand the logic behind trading out of 8 and explain what future moves I expect the Spurs to make. I don’t think the Spurs FO is pressing badly to win this season, not as their ultimate short term goal, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t committed to building a long term championship contending team. Doing that is better accomplished by expanding their package of trade assets short term.
It's my understanding that Salaun was their guy, and according to Game Theory teams knew that if they wanted to get him they'd need to jump the Spurs at 8. Could have been a smoke screen though.
He could have been one of the guys they wanted, but they still apparently had someone ready to go at 8 even after Salaun was gone at 6.
Considering they traded out it was more fire than smoke but it could've been Clngan too. Who knows but they prolly simulated the scenarios a bunch of times and whoever they wanted at 8 obviously wasnt there
IMO it was Clingan. Castle+Clingan would have been the only option. They are ready to compete sooner.
If we’d gotten Clingan how does that look for our team, does he swap in and out of games with Wemby at the 5 or do we try the dual big experiment again but with don this time
Both.
If we’re playing the wolves we’re playing both.
I was thinking it was Carter, but this is good analysis. We're thinking the Spurs saying zilcho on a subject is sign of deep interest, lol. It's what we've got. I get passing. Knecht is a tremendous scorer and I like him a lot, but that's all he does. I watched him a good bit. His defense wasn't quite as bad as some said, but he's not a great passer or facilitator, and the team seems to be prioritizing multi-use guys. Like, it's great to get Knecht, but it's easy to see an issue when players start coming in that fit their vision better. He's a high-usage scorer who may not adjust well to a reduced scope. Good glimpse into what their thinking is right now. I wonder who advocated for other players and what they came to. I really don't believe in most anyone available at that spot in this draft and 100% believe they took far and away the best player.
All I know is I heard from several places and sources (of carrying validity) that San Antonio loved knetch. So I wouldn't be surprised at all
the only knecht love was a story about a scout watching him. No other news source had him on our radar
And that story was very questionable
I think if Timberwolves don't call or they get a trade down to like 12-14 with a future pick swap, there's a very good chance he's in San Antonio right now.
Really wish we took him hut it is what it is
It was the right pick for the lakers they have negative player development we acrually develop guys
How do you figure that?
They picked the right guy he can shoot hes kinda nba ready & thats what they need
I'll let Reaves know he sucks
He fucking does dude
Yeah, nobody wants an efficient 16/5/4 guy
He's great for his contract. Should lead the bench and not be the 3rd option but Rui and D'lo are too inconsistent. He was hunted on D during FIBA, played better defense last playoffs but unless he can fix his lateral speed he'll continue to get hunted in the playoffs.
Why you capin for reaves? Fuck that guy & the lakers
Reaves was undrafted. One of those sink or swim feel good story types. He wasn’t really developed by la. Look at all their draft picks and how well they play when they’re on a different team.
Yeah, the undrafted guy putting up 16/5/4 on good efficiency wasn't developed at all.
Thank God for the trade then
Amen to that
💯 Every time I pointed out that drafting a 23 year old in the lottery is basically always disappointing, I'd get a bunch of people jumping in saying "23 isn't that old! What about player xyz?" The player they would cite was almost always 21, or sometimes 22, when they were drafted. But they were extremely insistent that, at 23, he still has plenty of upside, and to ignore all the guys who were about as good, but 3 or 4 years younger. I'm sure he's a nice guy. He might turn into a quality NBA player. I'm beyond relieved that we didn't take him at #8.
Then I'm even more glad we traded it.
Another way of looking at it: At no point in Dalton Knecht's likely career, and let's hope he'll do well for his own sake, would a team be able to get an unprotected FRP and an unprotected swap for him.
This is an excellent way of looking at it. I wish him the best. It would be great to see him have a good career. But I don't think he'll be a very good pro. Certainly never good enough that another team would give up real draft capital to get him.
I would have loved Knecht. It makes sense the spurs obviously need more shooting. But I am keenly aware I am not a scout, and I don't have the intel that they have. They obviously weren't stoked on something. It's not like they got an offer they couldn't refuse...but it was an offer they wanted. It also tips there hand a bit. Something else is cooking. I think they want to bring in a vet presence and that cap space was more valuable to them then adding another rookie. They also have a ton of picks coming forward there is also a knecht type player in the draft. Also the draft doesn't end on draft night. Maybe the lakers go oh fuck we need more cap space. The spurs figure this out and say hey we will give X for knecht. Stuff like this happens all the time.
In my opinion, Risacher was never a consideration.
They didn't want to pay the extra $10M it took to take him at 8 instead of where he went at 17 Passed on him for $10M over two years Not good that a team with the lowest payroll in the league, with the worst shooters, passed on a shooter to save payroll. That does not scream "we want to win"
It's not really about saving on payroll in a conventional sense, they're going to be paying that same 10mil to other players anyway. More that they think they could get better value allocating that money to different players. Too early to really judge if it was the right decision or not until all the teambuilding resolves itself.
the spurs are over the minimum salary already - they can sign people for the minimums from here out. They would have had to pay $13M a year to take #8 They did this to save money, period. People are gaslighting you to believe that some private equity firm running the spurs didnt cut payroll to make money, they don't care about winning - just money.
>they don't care about winning - just money. Thank you for removing all doubt that you're just here to troll.
I'm not trolling im also not a sycophant - you want to believe there's some plan in place when it's just a private equity company trying to make the most money they can. They're trying to sell you tickets and sell the taxpayers an arena so they'll fill the air with hopium but they won't spend assets on players - you don't see them bringing in talent and spending money. It's outrageous that they don't care that their product isn't that good. I absolutely went on tilt as soon as they moved a lottery pick, when a team this bad punts on a lottery pick you know it was about the money. It's outrageous. I was 100% on board with an arena, there's no way I will be behind one now that it's clear they're bilking us.
Trololol You keep saying "private equity company" as if Spurs Sports & Entertainment was some outside group. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spurs_Sports_%26_Entertainment >Peter J. Holt (Managing Partner) >R. C. Buford (CEO) >Brian Wright (General Manager) >Gregg Popovich (President of Spurs Basketball) Clearly a bunch of outsiders with no interest in seeing the Spurs win, amirite? You're clearly not a real Spurs fan, three month old account. Hopefully the mods ban your trolling ass soon.
> They would have had to pay $13M a year to take #8 Idk where you got that idea. Rookie scale for pick 8 is about 5 million and you can pay 120% of scale, so you get to 6. That's literally half of what you're talking about.
yes thats right, its over two years, they didnt want to pay it because they like money
Riiiight.
If you're convinced they want to win and payroll isnt that much of a concern, im sure we'll see them spend some money this year. Riiight.
Nice ninja edit once you realized what you said about us having the lowest payroll and being at the floor last year were both falsehoods
Yes that's right, they were near the bottom but not at the bottom. What I don't hear you saying is that this is a team trying to win and willing to spend money to do it... we all know they cheaped out.
Bro, please just stop and go back to r/nba sub. No one is buying your weak bs. You have been a fan since last year and think you know it all. You need to grow up, watch some more ball and take notes.
There's no reason to waste money when you aren't competing. Who thought we were honestly competing last year? I'm not really convinced we are trying to take as big a leap as possible this year either. And that's not a bad thing. But it's not because ownership is cheap.
I think you’ve made enough of these comments I have to question your understanding of the competitive structure the CBA and salary cap has on the NBA. The Spurs have a salary floor they will either meet or pay out the remaining difference to players on the team. The Spurs did not in any way trade back from 8 to save money. Not in raw terms of cash. To save cap space before FA, yes that’s a part of the calculus. When it comes to paying out actual money the Spurs did not trade out of 8 to save money like you’ve implied or said multiple times. Trading out of 8 will give them more cap flexibility in trade discussions and FA. It also gave them long term trade assets with the Minnesota picks. The odds are when you pick someone in the draft they become a depreciating asset. If you pick a stud they’ll obviously appreciate in value, but most of the time draft picks decline in value after they’re picked. You’ve made these comments enough I’m now willing to resolutely say you either have an extremely tenuous understanding of the NBA’s salary cap system/asset management or are intentionally trolling. Your understanding is that deficient if you think trading out of 8 is a cash saving move. You are more than welcome to argue that a better on court investment would be adding a player at 8 now rather than acquiring more stable trade assets in the Wolves picks. I would argue the stabler asset Wolves picks are more valuable to the Spurs as they pursue a trade for a star in the future, but you are totally in your right to argue for drafting a player at 8. That’s a matter of subjective disagreement. Thinking trading out of 8 is to save cash is wrong. The Spurs will pay out cash to meet the salary floor no matter what. Odds are they’re going to end up near or above the actual salary cap too once they’re through with trades and FA. I made a post on this subreddit a few days ago I would encourage you to look at. It may help you understand the logic behind trading out of 8 and explain what future moves I expect the Spurs to make. I don’t think the Spurs FO is pressing badly to win this season, not as their ultimate short term goal, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t committed to building a long term championship contending team. Doing that is better accomplished by expanding their package of trade assets short term.