I guess this is the most appropriate topic.
Back before the season even started I said if all of our young guys develop on the ideal trajectory, we might not even need anyone, with Bryant replacing Barnes.
Right now Bryant looks better than any of us expected and if he continues developing on this trajectory, he could be a legit role player by this time next year.
Champ has taken a huge leap in his all-round game, keeping him in the starting lineup over Barnes has solved some of our rebounding issues.
I think we need a situational PF/C that can give us something different in certain matchups.
A player similar to what Olynyk was almost a decade ago.
Not in the sense that we need such PF/C to pair with Wemby because we're doing just fine against physical teams, but I'm more concerned about the pace of some bench lineups and Kornet's impact.
Having a more mobile backup big that can also shoot would allow even more paint penetration for Harper/Keldon.
I'm not sure about this year's draft class, but if we're talking players realistically available in the summer, upgrading Olynyk/Barnes into Aldama would make our roster near-perfect if the young guys continue developing on their current trajectory.
Then we could even afford to get a project wing in the draft that wouldn't contribute right away.
As I posted in Champ topic, he's averaging 13/6 in 30 games since he became a permanent starter and is shooting 42% on 7 attempts per game. We can't get a better player in that price range, tbh.
I guess we have to wait for the playoffs to see who's going to be able to keep performing on their current level, because it's almost a given the lights will be bright for some role players.
I get what you’re saying, and I don’t think you’re arguing to flip the roster upside down. You’re basically saying it would be useful to have that type of PF/C option available if certain matchups expose something. That makes sense in theory. Where I see it differently is that I think leaning further into what the Spurs are already building is a better path than trying to add that archetype as insurance.
The bigger thing for me is the pattern of signals the Spurs themselves have been giving. Mitch has talked about how they want to respond to physical teams, but not by matching size or bulk. His wording was that their version of physicality is “activity, pace, connectivity, and anticipation.” That sounds much more like doubling down on speed, movement, and defensive activity rather than adding a traditional power forward body to the rotation.
You can also see it in the roster decisions. They haven’t pursued players like John Collins when those opportunities were there, and they’ve moved away from players in the more bulky, traditional mold. Instead the roster has gradually shifted toward longer, wirier, more active athletes who can move, defend multiple actions, and ideally shoot. When you look at those decisions together, it suggests the organization isn’t really trying to build toward that classic PF solution.
On top of that, the Spurs tend to be conservative with money. They rarely commit meaningful contracts unless the player clearly moves the needle. If someone like Aldama isn’t taking a pay cut, the realistic tier of players you could get in that archetype probably isn’t impactful enough to justify pursuing it just to have the option.
So for me the signs point in one direction. Rather than spending resources trying to cover that positional archetype, it seems more likely they’ll continue leaning into the identity they’re already shaping: speed, activity, versatility, and spacing around Wemby.
