PTR Mailbag, Part. 1: Fixing the All-Star game and free agency targets

The quandaries of roster-building, and more

Talk about a response! During the All-Star break we asked for your questions, and boy did we get questions! You submitted so many good ones that we’re going to have to split the replies up into multiple posts. Not that we’re complaining, it’s a good problem to have.

Once again Pounders have proven to be on the ball when it comes to keeping up with this site, Spurs news, and the NBA in general.

If your question didn’t get answered today, just know that you can continue submitting it and others in the comments below, as we will absolutely be combing through each and every one of them.

As far as this edition of the Mailbag is concerned, we’ll be taking a stab at some team-building inquires, All-Star game issues, and a bit of a Sophie’s Choice regarding Spurs of the past.

Returning to help me out with this batch of mail is fellow PTR regular, August Bembel, back with his thoroughly Germanic spin on all things Spurs and to balance out my nonsense (or enhance it).

Let’s get to it!

TheZanester asks:

Who would you rather have on this team, Parker or Manu?

Devon: Full disclosure that I had this one sent to me on Twitter from the last mailbag, but it was such a good question I just had to keep it. I’m not kidding when I say that we will hold onto the questions we don’t answer right away. This question was specifically about a 10-day contract, but I think it’s more spicy if we consider Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili in their primes!

On the surface, this doesn’t seem like a hard question. I’ve written two lengthy articles in my time here about how underrated Tony Parker has sometimes been when it comes to the Spurs fan-base, and another two about how beloved Manu Ginobili was/is.

However, given the state of the team, this was a tough call. On the one hand, Manu Ginobili is a modern analytics darling, largely because the vast majority of his shot profile perfectly matches that of the modern game. Manu did most of his damage either at the rim or from beyond the arc, which is a big part of why his game aged so well, even if his body did not.

On the other hand, the most gaping hole on the roster this season has been at point-guard. And while Tre Jones being elevated to the starting lineup has mitigated some of those issues, it’s not hard to understand why fans aren’t exactly ecstatic about it. Tre Jones is ultimately best suited as a backup who can handle some spot starting duties. Whereas Tony Parker was the engine that drove San Antonio’s offense into the modern game, and served as the drive-and-dish demigod who made that offense hum.

Additionally, Parker spent years getting the ball to freakish big men Tim Duncan, LaMarcus Aldridge, (and even briefly) David Robinson. The mere idea of Parker running pick-and-roll with Victor Wembanyama makes me salivate, not to mention the on-court language advantage they could exploit against most teams.

(And while he never did it at volume, it should be noted that Parker only shot worse than .353 from three once from 2010-2016.)

However, the other considerable roster issue has been the bench, and there have been maybe two players who’ve ever been better off the pine than Emanuel David Ginobili. In his prime, Manu was an absolute flamethrower whether in the starting lineup or not, seriously contending with Kobe Bryant in a variety of shooting and per-minute statistics from 2003-2008.

Add in his lineup versatility and ball-handling + passing skills (you could reasonably play him 1-3), and a slight defensive edge, and I think I’d have to take Manu. But it’s very close. I’m interested to hear August’s take on this one.

August: The mere idea of Parker running pick-and-roll with Victor Wembanyama makes you salivate? Okay. I can totally see why. But doesn’t the mere idea of Manu running pick-and-roll with Wemby make you salivate just as well? It does me! And Manu’s other skills address more of the Spurs current needs than Tony’s.

If Tony replaced Tre in the starting line-up, the Spurs would have a hell of an upgrade on the offensive end, but they’d be replacing a non-shooter with another non-shooter. You can never have enough shooting/spacing and the Spurs don’t have nearly enough to begin with. Also, I would argue that Tony was best utilized together with experienced players that knew exactly what they were doing.

Just one example: If he didn’t like the play that opened up after a screen, he had a habit of waiting for the next one. Frankly, I’m not sure there’s enough discipline and experience on the Spurs’ roster right now to orchestrate an offense like Parker did in his prime.

Tony was a perfect point guard to pair with the guy whose nickname rightfully was “The Big Fundamental”. But Wemby isn’t a “Big Fundamental”, he’s a guy who opens up completely new opportunities. Manu, with his literally endless creativity, is the guy I would die to see doing the things only he could/would do with those opportunities.

Devon: I mean, you’re largely preaching to the choir on this one. I just don’t think there’s a wrong answer here, per se. Like you, I lean towards Manu for this exercise, but I could certainly be persuaded by a good opposing argument. The good news is that the Spurs would be well served either way.

I’m curious to see what the comment section has to say.

mikrobass3, OriginalCHILLfan, and damphoose ask:

What is the first major move (not draft related) the Spurs make in the rebuild and when?

What veteran big and veteran PG can we target this summer?

What do you think the Spurs will do if they get the overall #1 pick?

Devon: So, I’ve gone ahead and lumped these three together because they all feel like different parts of the same question. What are the Spurs going to do this summer?

And it’s a good question. After years of watching the Spurs and studying their every move (or lack thereof) it’s confounding to take a stab at exactly what their plan will be. I, for instance, thought they might take a stab at acquiring Tyus Jones from the Wizards for a 2nd round pick or two, considering the stability that would likely have added without compromising their tank, and now I’m just back at the drawing board muttering madly to myself about Pepe Silvia.

That being said, it is becoming pretty clear that everything the Spurs are planning for is likely to revolve around the coming pick. It would probably look like one of fellow PTR writer Bruno Passos’ flow charts, with so many paths to take accordingly.

My guess is that the Spurs are waiting to see if they’ll land a top 2 pick in the draft. If so, they’re probably taking that pick, current positional hierarchy be damned. The only player on the roster who has the leverage to reasonably complain is Wembanyama, and he’s on record saying he prefers to play the four as it is, so I don’t foresee much ruffling of feathers there.

However, if the Spurs were to land a pick in the 3-6 range, I don’t think it’s crazy to consider a world in which they trade the pick. With an awful lot of smoke surrounding a supposed mutual interest between Atlanta’s Trae Young and the Spurs (per Marc Stein), there’s a real possibility that the Spurs are waiting for this year’s draft position to determine that pick’s trade value.

It’s a shrewd move if the Spurs find the pick falling into a range of players they’re not sold on. A 1st round pick’s hypothetical value is rarely as high as a concrete one, and it could give them more leverage in trading to acquire any player, not just Young.

So, if the Spurs do intend to make a trade for a star player(s), I’d expect it to come somewhere between May 13th (the day after the lottery) and June 26th (the day of the draft). And considering the way that those kinds of negotiations can drag on, I’d guess that a week or two before the draft would be the most likely window.

August: I think the first major move the Spurs make in the rebuild is trading for the best available point guard – and that it will happen this summer. We know Dejounte Murray is available. The only way I can see him becoming unavailable is the Hawks doing better with him as the lead ball handler, now that Trae Young is injured. If that turns out to be the case, Trae Young will become available. And it’s extremely unlikely, but always possible, that someone even better becomes available by season’s end.

Wemby, like every other quality rookie, will be a much better player in year two. And in Wemby’s case that means All-NBA-level, especially when you take into account that both Julius Randle and Domantas Sabonis made the All-NBA Third Team last year.

Age twenty-one Wemby will be a player good enough to lead a winning team. The Spurs know that, and they won’t repeat past mistakes. If you take offense with the term “mistakes”, let me rephrase. Maybe, just maybe, the Spurs could have done more to keep Tim Duncan from almost joining the Magic. Maybe, just maybe, they could have done more to keep Kawhi happy.

Considering the recent past, and what’s now at stake, they’re going to do absolutely everything to keep Wemby happy. They have the brightest prospect in the league. And it might be years (maybe even decades) until another Wemby-level prospect comes around. In short, the Spurs have to give Wemby the opportunity to start winning games. A point guard who can score and make plays is pivotal to that.

The Spurs will need more to start winning games, though. They’ll need reliable second-unit guys. One of those guys is Tre Jones. But they’ll need a reliable big as well. Opposing bigs routinely toy with Zach Collins in the paint, and that must stop. The Spurs will need a bruiser to stop that.

A guy who fits that description perfectly is an unrestricted free agent in the summer – Isaiah Hartenstein. Yes, the Knicks will probably want to re-sign him. Yes, there will be other franchises going after him hard. But I want the Spurs to be one of those franchises.

As for a potential second number one pick in a row, let me emphasize I don’t watch college or any other type of pre-NBA basketball. I read mock drafts. And what I’m reading goes something like this: None of the guys in the class would have been in the conversation for number one pick in any of the ten most recent classes.

That means the number one pick in the upcoming draft will likely be an overpay in his rookie years. That’s something the Spurs can and probably are willing to stomach, if they can at least see them as someone who can be a starter alongside Wemby.

Normally I would say that it’s an extremely bad idea to draft for positional need with the number one pick: hashtag 1984 (I’m talking the Sam Bowie + Trailblazers draft catastrophe, not Orwell’s dystopian novel), but this also isn’t the class of 1984, and one of the best prospects in the draft projects to at least fill a position of need – Zachary Risacher.

If the Spurs get to use their pick on him, even if it’s the number one pick, I certainly wouldn’t be disappointed, based on what I’ve read about him.

Devon: Interesting. I like it. I agree wholeheartedly that point guard/primary ball-handler and backup big should be clear priorities for the Spurs, but I think it’s more likely that they try to fill one of those holes via the draft.

Specifically, I think they’re likely to stay out of the bidding for Hartenstein unless interest from the Knicks and other teams is low-ish. The Kicks having his Early Bird Rights is a major factor since they can reasonably outbid everyone and also have the need/desire to retain him. The Spurs could certainly use him on the boards, but a recent contract miscalculation for a backup big and the way they shipped out Poeltl points to a desire to keep the price low.

It’s also a good draft for big men, with a number of reputable mocks giving as many as eight such players 1st round grades. It’s not often that that many true bigs go in the 1st round anymore, so I think the Spurs may hedge their bets on 1-2 of those players drifting into the early 2nd round where they’ll be waiting.

I’m more interested to see what the Spurs will do that Raptors pick if it comes out their way. The Spurs have needs at the 3 and the 4, and doubly so if Keldon Johnson is shipped out for contract matching purposes. One player to keep an eye on is Matas Buzelis, who has guard skills in a long-frame, a nasty floater, and an above-average outside shot.

The Spurs love collecting versatile Euros, and he reminds me of a longer Gordon Hayward. I’d love to see that kid working a high-low game with Victor, with the Spurs running a full-on 5-out offense that gives Victor all the room to operate.

Mark Barrington asks:

Is there any way to fix the annual All Star Game? It’s currently unwatchable.

Devon: Hmm. You know, this is a real Gordian Knot. Mostly because I’m not sure that it can be fixed in a way that the players won’t revolt against. Sure, there are some of them with bellies full of steel, ready to duke it out at game speed. But there’s another contingent who like the way things are, and mostly intend to use it for rest and twitter highlights.

The thing is, that if you really look into it, the players and fans have always felt that the All-Star game was played softer than the regular season. And, for the most part, that’s been accurate. So really, the game’s current state is just a reflection of how little defense is played in this era of the sport. I think if you want to tighten it up, you have to tighten up the rules in the regular season. As long as players are going for 50+ points on a weekly basis in the regular season, you’re going to end up with All-Star games with 211-186 final scores.

That being said, I think making the game more adversarial might help. Take the East vs West format and change it to U.S. vs World, as Adam Silver has hinted at recently. Put something reputational on the line. All of these players can sleep on beds of their own money, so only pride is likely to motivate them at this point.

As for the Dunk Contest, I think either a similar U.S. vs World format, or an NBA vs NCAA format will revitalize it. Have you seen the college dunk contests? Some of those kids are pulling things off that you used to only see from high-flyers in the NBA. And as the late Toby Keith was aware, nothing sells like the egoism of age against the audacity of youth.

August: I hate to brush away Mark’s question, but I have honestly never watched the All-Star game, nor can I ever see myself watching it. I’m not even sure it needs fixing. I see the All-Star Game as a marketing tool directed at potential NBA fans, not at people who already are or have been for ages. For any Spur that has ever taken part in the All-Star Game, my one and only interest was they returned uninjured.

Devon: Honestly, I think you may have answered Mark’s question better than I ever could. Long live marketing nihilism! I can’t wait until the NBA sells the rights to the half-court logo to the highest bidder and Trojan™ wins. Ball’s in their court.

Well, that’ll do it for this part of the PtR mailbag. Thanks for all of your questions. We’ll be back with the rest lickety-split.

We always appreciate your interaction (there wouldn’t be a mailbag without mail!), so if you have questions you can submit them on Twitter to @devonbirdsong (with the subject: Mailbag Question), drop a comment down below on this post, or in the comments of our Mailbag Twitter posts. Cheers!