Draft 2026 NBA Draft Prospects Thread

[OK Computer]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2030360841170636882

Spurs are going to tread carefully this offseason to *add* to the chemistry of this locker room, not disrupt it.

 

[BatManu20]

Ament’s not playing, I forgot he got injured as well. Watch the JJ vs Diop game instead

Also you gotta watch the Haugh game with me at 3.

Lame. Now watching Peterson and Kansas instead. And I'll def be keeping an eye on the Florida game, even though I personally don't think Haugh will be the pick tbh. Still like him as a prospect though.

 

[OK Computer]

Lame. Now watching Peterson and Kansas instead. And I'll def be keeping an eye on the Florida game, even though I personally don't think Haugh will be the pick tbh. Still like him as a prospect though.

You have to get past the age thing. The Spurs have drafted older prospects before. If age was treated as some hard filter, players like Tim Duncan or Manu probably would’ve been passed on. They’ve never been strictly locked into drafting the youngest possible player.

They could just as easily lean toward players who are more ready to contribute instead of prospects who require several years of development. It’s also possible that in previous drafts the older prospects simply weren’t as talented, while this year’s group might be stronger in that range. The main point is that age alone probably isn’t the deciding factor.

And even if it was something they leaned toward in the past, the situation the Spurs are in now is different. The roster timeline, the competitive window, and the presence of Wemby all change the context of what types of players might make sense to bring in.

 

[OK Computer]

Watching the Iowa State game right now and something stood out to me about Joshua Jefferson. Earlier I had mentioned that he didn’t look quite as intense or energetic on defense as you might expect from a top defender. But the more I watch him, the more it looks like his defensive value comes from how well he reads the floor and anticipates things rather than just pure intensity.

For example, I just watched him make two really smart plays poking the ball away on the perimeter. That’s where I think his strength as a defender really shows up. He has the physical tools you want on that end. Nimble feet, long arms, and enough strength to hold his ground. But what separates him is the awareness. He seems to process what’s happening in front of him and react a half step early.

That’s why I think the question of whether he could reach an All-Defense level isn’t crazy, even if he doesn’t fit the flashy, high-energy defensive archetype people tend to gravitate toward. He’s making play after play on the perimeter as I’m watching this game.

Meanwhile, a lot of people here are focused on prospects like Cenac and hoping he develops into that type of defender. But his defensive tendencies are much more like a traditional center who stays in the paint, and the motor concerns are real. It’s interesting to see how much attention those types of prospects get while someone like Jefferson gets overlooked.

A lot of that probably comes down to age, which is unfortunate, because there’s a lot to like about what Jefferson actually does on the court.

 

[BatManu20]

You have to get past the age thing. The Spurs have drafted older prospects before. If age was treated as some hard filter, players like Tim Duncan or Manu probably would’ve been passed on. They’ve never been strictly locked into drafting the youngest possible player.

They could just as easily lean toward players who are more ready to contribute instead of prospects who require several years of development. It’s also possible that in previous drafts the older prospects simply weren’t as talented, while this year’s group might be stronger in that range. The main point is that age alone probably isn’t the deciding factor.

And even if it was something they leaned toward in the past, the situation the Spurs are in now is different. The roster timeline, the competitive window, and the presence of Wemby all change the context of what types of players might make sense to bring in.

It's not just the age thing though. If we do keep the pick, I think they'll go for a higher-upside player with more positional size, especially given our lack of interior beef on this team. Like I think they'd take Steinbach over Haugh if they were both on the board as Steinbach has the frame to add another 20 lbs of muscle comfortably. I think they'd prob take Karim Lopez over Haugh too honestly (assuming he interviews well) based on his frame. They might even take Quaintance over Haugh if it were between the two (though I wouldn't bank on this one). The only guy I'm confident they'd take Haugh over right now is Yaxel. A lot will depend on the combine and pre-draft workouts too obv. So while I like Haugh and would be happy with the pick, I'm predicting what MATFO will do, not what I'd do tbh.

 

[OK Computer]

It's not just the age thing though. If we do keep the pick, I think they'll go for a higher-upside player with more positional size, especially given our lack of interior beef on this team. Like I think they'd take Steinbach over Haugh if they were both on the board as Steinbach has the frame to add another 20 lbs of muscle comfortably. I think they'd prob take Karim Lopez over Haugh too honestly (assuming he interviews well) based on his frame. They might even take Quaintance over Haugh if it were between the two (though I wouldn't bank on this one). The only guy I'm confident they'd take Haugh over right now is Yaxel. A lot will depend on the combine and pre-draft workouts too obv. So while I like Haugh and would be happy with the pick, I'm predicting what MATFO will do, not what I'd do tbh.

I think this is a good example of how people can fall in love with the idea of a player archetype instead of looking at the full picture. The argument keeps coming back to size. Because someone like Karim Lopez or Hannes is a few inches taller or carries a little more weight, the assumption becomes that they’re the better pick (Hannes isn’t even the same type of player as Haugh). Meanwhile a player like Thomas Haugh gets dismissed early because he doesn’t check that exact size box.

But even the premise behind that thinking doesn’t really line up with what the Spurs themselves have said. Mitch Johnson has talked about this directly and said their version of physicality is “activity, pace, connectivity, and anticipation.” In other words, they’re not necessarily trying to match size or brute strength with size and brute strength.

The problem with focusing only on size is that it filters out a lot of the things that actually show up on the court. Haugh consistently brings awareness, activity, defensive instincts, passing, and overall feel for the game. Those things are part of his body of work. But because the conversation starts with the idea that the Spurs need a bigger body, those traits tend to get overlooked while the bigger prospects get projected forward.

Karim Lopez is a good example of that dynamic. His body of work leading up to the draft has been sub-par, yet a lot of the discussion centers around the flashes or highlights people have seen. Because he fits the size profile people want, the gaps start getting filled in with imagination about what he might eventually become. Meanwhile a player like Haugh, who actually shows a lot of the things people say they want from a Spurs-type player, ends up getting overlooked because he’s a few inches shorter or lighter… which is not totally confirmed, by the way, until the NBA Combine.

 

[BatManu20]

Agree to disagree @OK Computer. Like I said, I like Haugh as a prospect and would be fine with the pick. I'd even be excited about it. I still don't think they'll ultimately go in that direction though. Time will tell.

 

[BatManu20]

Haugh with an early 3 and a couple boards. Missed his 2nd 3PTA badly though. I'm watching Chinyelu too. Really like him as a potential 3rd string Center option with one of our SRP's.

 

[Ariel]

Karim Lopez is a good example of that dynamic. His body of work leading up to the draft has been sub-par, yet a lot of the discussion centers around the flashes or highlights people have seen. Because he fits the size profile people want, the gaps start getting filled in with imagination about what he might eventually become. Meanwhile a player like Haugh, who actually shows a lot of the things people say they want from a Spurs-type player, ends up getting overlooked because he’s a few inches shorter or lighter… which is not totally confirmed, by the way, until the NBA Combine.

Personally the problem I have with Haugh is that I don't trust his shooting from 3: in college he shot 25.5% (12/47), 34% (35/103), 33.85 (52/154), total 32.6% (99/304). The high school stats I found are worse, 24% (17/72) in 19-20 and I couldn't find the rest. The relatively large sample, mechanics and age (23 by draft day) do not scream untapped potential and his free throw shooting is in the low 70s, which is good but not great. There's a lot to like in terms of off ball play and motor, but given his on ball and shooting limitations I'd be a lot more inclined to take him with a pick in the 20s than one in the lottery.

 

[Ariel]

If anyone can point me to a site to watch the games, I'd appreciate if you send me a PM. The ones I had bookmarked are missing a lot of games lately (streameast, buffstream).

EDIT: Found an alternative site. Anyone interested, PM.

 

[BatManu20]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2030396399704068605

 

[OK Computer]

Haugh looking mighty confident from 3… 3-5 from 3 so far.

 

[Ariel]

Haugh looking mighty confident from 3… 3-5 from 3 so far.

Yeah, just made one a little while after I started watching

 

[DTW]

Personally the problem I have with Haugh is that I don't trust his shooting from 3: in college he shot 25.5% (12/47), 34% (35/103), 33.85 (52/154), total 32.6% (99/304). The high school stats I found are worse, 24% (17/72) in 19-20 and I couldn't find the rest. The relatively large sample, mechanics and age (23 by draft day) do not scream untapped potential and his free throw shooting is in the low 70s, which is good but not great. There's a lot to like in terms of off ball play and motor, but given his on ball and shooting limitations I'd be a lot more inclined to take him with a pick in the 20s than one in the lottery.

Exactly. If Haugh weren't white, he'd be thought of as the sub par shooter he's always been, which is even more damning considering he's already 23. He also lacks strength.

It doesn't mean he can't become a rotation player in the league, but I don't see a fit here.

 

[OK Computer]

Yeah, just made one a little while after I started watching

I hope you watch the entire second half and drool at the possibility of having CB and Haugh out on the perimeter at the same time and straight up harassing opposing players next season. Notice how active Haugh is with his feet - it’s reminiscent of CB last night. It would be terrifying for other teams to have these two hound them. I just don’t know many other prospects other than Haugh who is capable of doing what he’s doing. Haugh is a freak athlete… that’s not an “upside” thing.

 

[BatManu20]

Haugh with perhaps his best half of the season. 17 pts, 3 rbs, 2 asts, 2 stls on 6/9 shooting, 3/5 from 3.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2030399584992694695

 

[bozhemoi]

Thomas Haugh reminds me a bit of Christian Braun, not in terms of playstyle so much as an upperclassman who won an NCAA tournament who does a lot of various things.

With Carter Bryant emerging, I'm not sure he's the right fit, but then again having two bowling balls coming off the bench sounds kind of great.

 

[OK Computer]

Exactly. If Haugh weren't white, he'd be thought of as the sub par shooter he's always been, which is even more damning considering he's already 23. He also lacks strength.

It doesn't mean he can't become a rotation player in the league, but I don't see a fit here.

When an older player is shooting that percentage on high volume, it at least shows he’s taken shots in a wide range of situations, movement, late clock, contested looks, different coverages. That gives a clearer picture of what the shot really is. With a younger player posting similar percentages on low volume, like Morez (@Ariel), there’s a lot more projection because they simply haven’t been tested as much. Because of that, it can actually be easier to envision the higher-volume shooter maintaining or improving than assuming a low-volume shooter will scale up successfully. Not to mention that Haugh has taken his “sub-par” shooting all the way to the NCAA Championship before so it’s proven that it’s not a hindrance to his team.

 

[DTW]

When an older player is shooting that percentage on high volume, it at least shows he’s taken shots in a wide range of situations, movement, late clock, contested looks, different coverages. That gives a clearer picture of what the shot really is. With a younger player posting similar percentages on low volume, like Morez (@Ariel), there’s a lot more projection because they simply haven’t been tested as much. Because of that, it can actually be easier to envision the higher-volume shooter maintaining or improving than assuming a low-volume shooter will scale up successfully. Not to mention that Haugh has taken his “sub-par” shooting all the way to the NCAA Championship before so it’s proven that it’s not a hindrance to his team.

He's still old, scrawny and not a good shooter, which is not a good fit for this team at PF.

I'm not overly familiar with Florida's level of shooting/spacing from '25, but I do know the baseline of it is not the same as the NBA.

 

[OK Computer]

He's still old, scrawny and not a good shooter, which is not a good fit for this team at PF.

I'm not overly familiar with Florida's level of shooting/spacing from '25, but I do know the baseline of it is not the same as the NBA.

I think that’s a pretty simplistic way to frame it, mainly because the word “old” gets used in two very different ways when people talk about prospects. One is about timeline fit with the core of the team, and the other is about perceived upside. In this case we’re clearly talking about the second one. Calling someone “old” is basically shorthand for saying people think there’s less growth left compared to younger prospects who might develop further.

But that comparison is always speculative. The younger player might improve, or he might never reach the level the older player is already showing. What we actually know today is that Haugh is contributing to winning basketball right now.

And that ties into another point about “upside.” Upside matters a lot when you’re trying to find the next franchise star, but the Spurs already have their core players. At that stage, the goal shifts more toward finding role players who fit and complement those pieces. The baseline for what you’re asking a prospect to become is different.

If Haugh is already showing he can be a key cog on a winning team, that’s meaningful. It’s similar to what we saw with Castle, where the value wasn’t about projecting a future superstar but recognizing the impact of a player who understands his role and contributes to winning right away. In that sense, someone already showing those traits can actually be further along than a younger prospect whose development is still mostly theoretical.

Also, I know I sound like a broken record at this point, but your proposed idea of what the Spurs need goes against a lot of the signals they’re actually sending out.

 

[DTW]

I think that’s a pretty simplistic way to frame it, mainly because the word “old” gets used in two very different ways when people talk about prospects. One is about timeline fit with the core of the team, and the other is about perceived upside. In this case we’re clearly talking about the second one. Calling someone “old” is basically shorthand for saying people think there’s less growth left compared to younger prospects who might develop further.

Also, I know I sound like a broken record at this point, but your proposed idea of what the Spurs need goes against a lot of the signals they’re actually sending out.

You're reading too much into it. It's fact that Haugh, at 23, has less runway and is therefore less likely to become a spacer than if he were 19-21.

After this season, this team will be in championship or bust mode. They have specific needs and should be looking to address them at this point.

 

[pad300]

@OK Computer .
I think you're arguing a strawman when you say "The argument keeps coming back to size."

I think everyone agrees Haugh plays very hard; he's ferocious. You say he's "a freak athlete" (I'd suggest he's an NBA athlete, sure, but freaks in NBA terms are really freaky...). He has NBA size. He plays minutes (33 MPG). He's 23 playing against college kids (and wasn't some late starter - he played both AAU and High School B-ball). But his production is pedestrian (for the minutes). WHY?

To me, the profile says he's not very skilled (and at 23, he's old enough that he's unlikely to take a jump in skill development). What makes you think that's going to work out when he steps up to the NBA? He'll be facing more skill, size and better athletes...

 

[OK Computer]

You're reading too much into it. It's fact that Haugh, at 23, has less runway and is therefore less likely to become a spacer than if he were 19-21.

After this season, this team will be in championship or bust mode. They have specific needs and should be looking to address them at this point.

First, I think it’s worth clarifying that Haugh isn’t some Jeremy Sochan level shooter. He’s a capable one. The shot isn’t his defining skill, but it’s also not a glaring weakness where defenses can just completely ignore him.

Second, I’m actually glad the Spurs’ evaluation process seems to go beyond just looking for a big body who can shoot. Historically they’ve tended to move away from players who mainly provide one skill. You can see it in the types of players they’ve moved on from over time. Doug McDermott is a good example, an elite shooter but limited in other areas. The same goes for players like Patty Mills later in his tenure when his role became mostly scoring, immobile tweener bigs like Zach Collins, or guards like Tre Jones whose defensive value is mostly limited to guarding other point guards.

The pattern for the past several years has been a clear emphasis on versatility. Almost every move they’ve made and almost every comment coming out of the organization points in that direction. They’ve prioritized players who can defend multiple actions, move the ball, read the floor, and stay active within the system. When you look at it through that lens, what the Spurs “need” becomes a lot broader than simply finding a player with size who can shoot.

 

[DTW]

First, I think it’s worth clarifying that Haugh isn’t some Jeremy Sochan level shooter. He’s a capable one. The shot isn’t his defining skill, but it’s also not a glaring weakness where defenses can just completely ignore him.

Second, I’m actually glad the Spurs’ evaluation process seems to go beyond just looking for a big body who can shoot. Historically they’ve tended to move away from players who mainly provide one skill. You can see it in the types of players they’ve moved on from over time. Doug McDermott is a good example, an elite shooter but limited in other areas. The same goes for players like Patty Mills later in his tenure when his role became mostly scoring, immobile tweener bigs like Zach Collins, or guards like Tre Jones whose defensive value is mostly limited to guarding other point guards.

The pattern for the past several years has been a clear emphasis on versatility. Almost every move they’ve made and almost every comment coming out of the organization points in that direction. They’ve prioritized players who can defend multiple actions, move the ball, read the floor, and stay active within the system. When you look at it through that lens, what the Spurs “need” becomes a lot broader than simply finding a player with size who can shoot.

I didn't say he was. Sochan is a non shooter, Haugh is a poor one.

I also didn't suggest they should focus on a McDermott like specialist.

That was before they had a championship contender. Now they do, so the focus should and probably will shift to filling specific needs.

 

[SpursBills]

I didn't say he was. Sochan is a non shooter, Haugh is a poor one.

I also didn't suggest they should focus on a McDermott like specialist.

That was before they had a championship contender. Now they do, so the focus should and probably will shift to filling specific needs.

What do you view as the current biggest needs for the team that can be addressed via draft and who do you like within the spurs range (or can be reasonably obtained with draft capital) to address those needs?