Draft Atlanta Hawks Pick-Swap Watch Thread

Will the 2026 Hawks Swap Convey?

  • Yes

  • No

Results are only viewable after voting.
Quick turnaround for the Hawks as they host the Knicks tonight at 8pm EST on NBATV. Hopefully another L.
 
Chinook said:
I don't necessarily agree, because lotto picks have decent salaries. I admit to not knowing a bunch about this draft (I usually don't know anything until around March), but it doesn't "feel" like a deep class, especially not in terms of lotto talent. There are a lot of different ways to trade the pick. They could move down in the draft, like Atlanta did last year. Or they could move out like they did in 2024. Or they could trade the pick for a player ala Houston trading for Durant. I don't know what type of trade would make the most sense, if any. But it feels like next year will be the moment for the Spurs to make the turn into fully contending. They might sneak in this year, but in order to be best set up to contend for the near future, they could really use their version of Aaron Gordon
Click to expand...
Not following this logic... you don't want to take a lotto pick because they have "decent salaries" (which are below the MLE), so instead you'd want to use it to trade for a guy on a max or near max?

Sounds like salaries aren't really part of the calculus for you at all here (which is also completely fine).

But if the Spurs like a guy with their pick, then drafting is the most efficient way to cost-control the roster with your core already established. OKC's window may be closing faster than they expected, but they've got the right idea in continually refilling the pipeline with talent via the draft. Ex: once iHart and Wallace get too expensive, they've got theoretical reinforcements waiting in the wings with Sorber and Topic.
 
scott said:
Not following this logic... you don't want to take a lotto pick because they have "decent salaries" (which are below the MLE), so instead you'd want to use it to trade for a guy on a max or near max?

Sounds like salaries aren't really part of the calculus for you at all here (which is also completely fine).

But if the Spurs like a guy with their pick, then drafting is the most efficient way to cost-control the roster with your core already established. OKC's window may be closing faster than they expected, but they've got the right idea in continually refilling the pipeline with talent via the draft. Ex: once iHart and Wallace get too expensive, they've got theoretical reinforcements waiting in the wings with Sorber and Topic.
Click to expand...
To make sure my position is stated clearly: Given my impression on this draft class and especially in the quality of center prospects projected to be available around the late lottery, I think this might be a good draft for the Spurs to trade their pick. This might just be my oversight, but I didn't really buy into the concept that this is a deep class or that the Spurs would likely be able to draft a clear rotation player (within two years). I didn't explicitly refute that take when Ariel said it, which I apologize for if that gave the wrong impression. If the draft is good, that's a different story. But my point is that I don't actually believe it is, and my response goes from there.

So to continue on, my point about salary wasn't saying that the Spurs can't afford to take on any money at all. It was that the team is at the point where it has to be intentional about its spending. Yes, a draft pick doesn't cost that much, and a vet worthy of being traded for a lotto pick likely costs more. But I don't think that player needs to be anywhere near a max salary (I'm still thinking of a role-player here), and if that player is what the Spurs need to get them over the hump, he's worth the salary difference easily. I don't know who that player is at the moment, because I would assume that at this point in their careers, they're still considered to be a integral piece of their team's plans. But this summer is a different story. I'm hoping that the next Aaron Gordon becomes attainable and the Spurs are able to slip in with their lotto pick and seal the deal while keeping the rest of their powder dry. I think we all see finding a younger vet who can be the long-term upgrade and replacement for Barnes is a big priority.

While trading for a vet is what I had in mind, I was also thinking about trading down into the 20s and trying to pick up an extra first that way. Like imagine if the Spurs had had the opportunity to do the NOLA trade last year. Like Carter Bryant is good, but having a top lotto pick this season and probably still being able to bring in a guy like Flemming doesn't seem bad either. I think the Spurs would have opportunities for drafting eventual replacements late in the first. They have a history of finding good players there. So unless they have a higher opinion of the middle of this draft than I do and love someone at the ATL pick, I could see them rolling over value and saving money by moving down in the draft.
 
I don't think there's a definite answer to if we should keep the pick or trade it until it's actually time to make the decision and the Spurs are on the clock with their pick.
I'm sure they already have a couple of players in mind they'd surely keep the pick for, but if they're not available they'll surely trade it like they did with #8 in 2024, it's just that we're projecting imaginary scenarios way too soon.
 
LeBowen said:
I don't think there's a definite answer to if we should keep the pick or trade it until it's actually time to make the decision and the Spurs are on the clock with their pick.
I'm sure they already have a couple of players in mind they'd surely keep the pick for, but if they're not available they'll surely trade it like they did with #8 in 2024, it's just that we're projecting imaginary scenarios way too soon.
Click to expand...
Yep. My involvement with this thread is looking at Quaintance's rebounding and shot-blocking stats, feeling hopeful and then seeing what he actually looks like on the court. Maybe he has some untapped skills that weren't apparent in my brief viewing. But without that he looked like a late-first/early second guy, and seeing him mocked in the top 12 was dismaying.
 
There‘s a good chance the Bucks end up with one of Middleton or CJ McCollum in the buyout market and they are also trying to trade for Jeremy Grant and RW3
 
Last edited:
The most likely Davis trade is probably Porzingis, Risacher, Kennard top 10-lottery protected '29 or '31 1st and maybe 2nd(s).

Works financially, offers quantity and enough brand name to sell to casuals even though it's really just a prospect with sub star upside, expiring's and a middling pick.
 
Chinook said:
To make sure my position is stated clearly: Given my impression on this draft class and especially in the quality of center prospects projected to be available around the late lottery, I think this might be a good draft for the Spurs to trade their pick. This might just be my oversight, but I didn't really buy into the concept that this is a deep class or that the Spurs would likely be able to draft a clear rotation player (within two years). I didn't explicitly refute that take when Ariel said it, which I apologize for if that gave the wrong impression. If the draft is good, that's a different story. But my point is that I don't actually believe it is, and my response goes from there.

So to continue on, my point about salary wasn't saying that the Spurs can't afford to take on any money at all. It was that the team is at the point where it has to be intentional about its spending. Yes, a draft pick doesn't cost that much, and a vet worthy of being traded for a lotto pick likely costs more. But I don't think that player needs to be anywhere near a max salary (I'm still thinking of a role-player here), and if that player is what the Spurs need to get them over the hump, he's worth the salary difference easily. I don't know who that player is at the moment, because I would assume that at this point in their careers, they're still considered to be a integral piece of their team's plans. But this summer is a different story. I'm hoping that the next Aaron Gordon becomes attainable and the Spurs are able to slip in with their lotto pick and seal the deal while keeping the rest of their powder dry. I think we all see finding a younger vet who can be the long-term upgrade and replacement for Barnes is a big priority.

While trading for a vet is what I had in mind, I was also thinking about trading down into the 20s and trying to pick up an extra first that way. Like imagine if the Spurs had had the opportunity to do the NOLA trade last year. Like Carter Bryant is good, but having a top lotto pick this season and probably still being able to bring in a guy like Flemming doesn't seem bad either. I think the Spurs would have opportunities for drafting eventual replacements late in the first. They have a history of finding good players there. So unless they have a higher opinion of the middle of this draft than I do and love someone at the ATL pick, I could see them rolling over value and saving money by moving down in the draft.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification.

Ultimately, as you allude to, this will all come down to how the Spurs rate their options wherever they end up picking and what trade offers materialize. I have not paid much attention to draft prospects this year, but my casual observation is that this is a class that rival's last year's in terms of depth (and I count 11 of 14 picks from last year as making meaningful contributions in their rookie years, albeit some of those on bad teams)... but then again, the Spurs aren't going to be looking for my evaluation of the class.

Thanks for clarifying as I was a little thrown off by your mention of the Durant trade, since whereas Houston was effectively looking to complete their immediate term core (which I'm assuming revolves around Segun and Amen), we already have ours both in the immediate (Big 4) and long term (Big 3). So in effect, I view us to have already made our "Durant trade" in Fox (I do also think it's worth noting that Houston has lost pace with the rest of the top of the league with that Durant trade).

I also find interesting that you say "Next Aaron Gordon", because I think there are multiple ways to take that and I'm curious which you mean and how it fits the Spurs in this context.
  • I know these rankings are somewhat arbitrary but I'm going to use them as a third-party validation of the point I'm trying to make here. Aaron Gordon is ranking #39 in the Ringers Top 100 players and Denver has four Top 100 players overall (Jokic @ #1, Murray at #23, Gordon @ #39 and Cam Johnson @ #96). So when you mention "The Next Aaron Gordon" are you saying the Spurs need to add another Top 50 player? Because I feel like we already have that, and to that point the Ringer also has the Spurs with four top 100 players and I'd argue it won't be long before a fifth appears (or possibly displaces Vassell) - Wemby @ #5, Fox @ #33, Castle @ #47, Vassell @ #83. There are certainly some players at the bottom of this list who I'd take Harper over and not just because of his youth. So, in that respect, I'd say we already have our "Aaron Gordon"
  • If we are using "The Next Aaron Gordon" to say a guy acquired for relatively cheap (Gordon was aquired for RJ Hampton, Gary Harris and a FRP four years down the road) who emerges into a very strong contributor... sure, I think we always want that.
  • If we are using "The Next Aaron Gordon" to say a long, versatile PF (6'8" with a +4 wingspan) who can score, shoot, rebound and defend and play with physicality... yeah I think we all want that but I think this is also the most coveted archetype in the league and these guys do not come cheap.
  • Maybe there is some other meaning of "Next Aaron Gordon" that I'm not thinking of? I don't really consider him a role player at this point (and to that point, DEN is paying him 20% of the cap on his extension that kids in next season whereas you probably need to be paying your role players more in the 15% range going forward. Vassell is 16.27% next season by comparison and is still likely slightly overpaid for the role he'll play here)
I feel like trying to find this guy is likely going to be more disruptive than the Spurs will likely be comfortable with. My guess is that they view our success this season as a validation of their plan and going forward they're going to be looking at making moves around the fringes. Bringing in a "Next Aaron Gordon" would likely involve moving off of Vassell and/or Fox, which I think they'll do eventually but Fox almost certainly won't be anytime soon. Vassell, maybe if the playoff run exposes some real exploits in that roster construction... we'll just have to wait and see?

I certainly agree with you that the Spurs will look to maximize the value of wherever they pick. If that means someone overpaying to move up, they'll be happy to be the beneficiary of someone else's urgency... but I think we've also seen they are happy to just sit back and take guys they like.

This is a really good and interesting discussion.
 
Chinook said:
Yep. My involvement with this thread is looking at Quaintance's rebounding and shot-blocking stats, feeling hopeful and then seeing what he actually looks like on the court. Maybe he has some untapped skills that weren't apparent in my brief viewing. But without that he looked like a late-first/early second guy, and seeing him mocked in the top 12 was dismaying.
Click to expand...
It’s early. Hugo Gonzalez was ranked as high as 6 this time last year.
 
scott said:
  • If we are using "The Next Aaron Gordon" to say a long, versatile PF (6'8" with a +4 wingspan) who can score, shoot, rebound and defend and play with physicality... yeah I think we all want that but I think this is also the most coveted archetype in the league and these guys do not come cheap.
Click to expand...

This is mostly how I mean it, but also in the sense where their talents were misapplied because their previous team had hoped they'd become a star. I agree those guys aren't cheap, and teams have been throwing big contracts at them. Guys like OG and Bridges are being overvalued financially, and the Spurs probably want to avoid going that high in terms of salary. So by nabbing someone who's disappointed compared to star expectations, they can save on value.

I'm looking at Vassell's contract when it comes to the role-playing PF I'd like team to bring in. Ideally, the Spurs find a scoring wing who can shoot so they can move on from Devin even though I like him. As Harper develops, the team should have their top four scoring options established. The team starting Champ (on an MLE-level extension) or if Bryant develops may be the best thing for that second wing position anyway. So aiming somewhere in between the $23-Million to $33-Million range feels like a good move.

Role-player forwards that are projected to have salaries in that range next season:

Andrew Wiggins
Draymond Green (no)
Trey Murphy
Jaden McDaniels
DeAndre Hunter
Johnathan Kuminga
Keegan Murray
Jabari Smith
Naz Reed
Cameron Johnson

Tari Eason is a free agent and MIGHT clip the lower end of that range if he can find the right team to give him a contract. Looking at that list, Wiggins and Hunter have already been "Gordoned", with Wiggins doing well for a while and Hunter being meh. Kuminga is a reclamation project who physically could do the job, but he doesn't seem mentally ready to accept being a role-player. People wanted Reed and Johnson a lot last off-season, so I included them. But their teams to want them too much for them to be traded for the 12th-overall pick, and since I think that would be an overpay, I left them out. Draymond is a no ... though maybe after the 2027 deadline he could be a buyout candidate.

So let's talk about the four actual candidates from the list.

Murphy for 12 could happen IF there's someone the Pelicans really like on the board. Weaver hit on Queen and Fears, and if he's going to have the chance to keep building his vision, taking a slight hit on value to get that next piece may be something he's allowed to do. The issue is that TM3 makes so much money that the Spurs would definitely be cutting into the quick to acquire him during the summer. This season, the team has the ballast to bring him in while leaving the rotation intact. But I don't think the Spurs should trade an unprotected Hawks pick for him. Maybe have it top-four protected for a couple of years?

McDaniels and sMith are in the same boat where they are only tradeable if their teams are trying to acquire a star. If that happens, the Spurs should be sliding into the trade call offering to convert them into draft capital. Both guys are really good fits, with JMD being better at defense and Smith having an offensive edge. If word ever got out that one of them were on the market, there'd be a bidding war. The Spurs might have to just hope Bryant becomes a similar player to these.

Low-key, the Kings would be doing okay to come out with a lotto pick for Murray. He's a guy who had star expectations and hasn't really met them. The good news is that IF he were to have a pivot into being an elite role-player ala Gordon or Iguodala before him, he's signed for a moderate contract for years. The bad news is that Sacramento is the team he's on, and they aren't going to trade him to the Spurs unless SA overpays. If he seemed like a safe defensive bet, maybe. But if we're talking about 12, Bryant and the 2031 swap extinguished, he needs to show more than just some potential there.
 
@Chinook good list of names there and Keegan Murray is an interesting name. I'm not sure if SAC would truly view us as an off-limits trade partner... their FO may not view themselves as having been fleeced the way fans (of both the Kings and the Spurs) do. Especially if they're looking to reboot (by trading Sabonis, for example) they may be perfectly fine with what they got for Fox... especially considering they don't have a rich history of playoff appearances anyway.

I'd assume this would be an offseason deal, in which case we'd have to send Vassell out to match. I'm not so such Murray's value is higher than Vassell's at this point, and if it is the premium would be based on size and position more than anything else. They're the same age (4 days apart in fact) and I think most would say Devin is performing at a higher level. Heck... one could make an argument that SAC would have to include something for us in a Devin for Keegan swap. The idea would be that Devin is performing at a high level but relegated to a role beneath his potential (I don't agree with this, but other GMs may see it this way) while Keegan is a not living up to his draft spot about to start an extension they regret

I think there might actually be an idea in there... the question would be whether the Spurs are interested in reconfiguring the structure of their team in this way. We're kind of proving (shout out @Dejounte) that size is kind of overrated, especially when you have Wemby and Kornet as your backline. I think there is a valid argument to be made that you can get by with guys like Barnes (maybe a Dean Wade, my favorite role player name at the moment, behind him) at the 4 and you don't really need a lot more.

We'll see what happens when we start facing teams with a little more bulk up front to see how we hold up. We have shown we match up really well against OKC... but what about DEN/HOU/MIN/PHX/NYK/DET of the world in a series? We haven't shown any kind of solution to the Dillon Brooks archetype... and until we do it will be a question mark.

I'm curious to see how our current construction holds up the rest of this year and into the playoffs and where we take it from here.
 
DTW said:
The most likely Davis trade is probably Porzingis, Risacher, Kennard top 10-lottery protected '29 or '31 1st and maybe 2nd(s).

Works financially, offers quantity and enough brand name to sell to casuals even though it's really just a prospect with sub star upside, expiring's and a middling pick.
Click to expand...
at this point, I feel that teams should ask for picks if they take Davis' contract. He is bound to make 120 millions the next two years, has played 45 games/year on average over the last 7 years, averaging his lowest minutes since his rookie season
 
I think if we were to trade Dev it needs to be for the same position and for the same role he’s playing. It rocks the boat too much to trade him for a reclamation project/questionable PF that you arent sure can replace his shooting.

Dev’s shooting/scoring is probably a top 5 reason why we are doing as good as we are.

1. Wemby’s defense
2. Fox’s offense and ability to calm the tides
3. Steph’s leap in playmaking
4. Kornet being a solid back up offensively and defensively
5. Then you can choose from Harper’s impact/Dev/Keldon’s resurgence
 
Kick-Stand said:
Still remember two years ago when Topic and Cody Williams were projected top 3 this time of the season.
Click to expand...
His year, Collier was high on most lists and then started sinking. He's better than I thought, but he's still not that great.
 
bozhemoi said:
His year, Collier was high on most lists and then started sinking. He's better than I thought, but he's still not that great.
Click to expand...
Preseason he was but he had a disastrous start to his USC career and pretty quickly dropped to mid first round projections.
 
Knicks just blew an 18-point 2nd half lead… Hawks now lead by 1 with less than a minute left. Because why not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

LeBowen
Analysis Spurs draft assets, cap situation and future projections
2 3 4
Replies
84
Views
3K
spurraider21
spurraider21
Guru of Nothing
Spurs Third-String Center Discussion
2 3 4
Replies
84
Views
2K
scott
scott
Neuromancer
  • Poll Poll
Analysis ESPN's o/u - 44.5 wins
2
Replies
32
Views
1K
Maddog
Maddog
scott
Trade Spurs Trade Ideas
62 63 64
Replies
2K
Views
31K
RC_Drunkford
RC_Drunkford
NotoriousHOP
Misc In Memoriam - Former 2024-2025 Spurs Player Tracker
4 5 6
Replies
136
Views
3K
RC_Drunkford
RC_Drunkford
Back
Top