Victor Wembanyama is a 7-foot-5 alien who warps the court on both ends and might be the most important draft pick since LeBron James. The San Antonio Spurs have one job: don’t screw it up. The modern blueprint is crystal clear: space the floor, play with pace and surround your star with shooters and decision-makers. Instead, they’re on track to stack three shaky-shooting ball-handlers like it’s still 2005.

Last year, San Antonio drafted Stephon Castle, who won Rookie of the Year. At the deadline, they traded for De’Aaron Fox. And now they’re expected to take Dylan Harper with the second pick in the 2025 NBA Draft, a 6-5 lefty who thrives with the ball in his hands. That’s potentially adding three shot-creators in 12 months with not a reliable jumper between them.

San Antonio’s vision is obvious: give Wemby playmakers so he doesn’t have to do everything himself. But in today’s NBA, it’s not just about who can create, it’s about who can space the floor. This is the pick that will define the direction of the Spurs, either clarifying their identity or blurring it even further.

The situation in San Antonio

Here are the shooting numbers for Castle, Fox, and Harper, via Synergy Sports — Fox’s entire NBA career; Castle’s NBA and college games; and Harper’s college and high school games since 2023:

Fox hasn’t become a great shooter in eight NBA seasons. He’s increased his volume from 1.1 catch-and-shoot 3s per game in his first two years to 3.2 in his last two, but the percentages haven’t budged: 35.5% then, 35.2% now. Still below the league average of 37.2%.

And it’s not just from deep. From midrange to the line, Fox has always been streaky. These flaws made his acquisition a gamble for San Antonio. But the low cost of expendable assets made him more than worth it. All-Star caliber players who actually want to play for the Spurs are hard to come by.

Early returns were underwhelming, though. In 210 minutes together, Castle and Fox got outscored by 10.5 points per 100 possessions. In their 33 minutes with Wemby: minus-12.3. It’s a small sample, but the results were ugly before Fox’s season was ended by surgery to repair a tendon on his left hand. Still, Fox’s arrival takes the pressure off Castle to be a full-time lead guard.

Castle, for his part, had a strong rookie year. He looked like the Swiss Army knife scouts promised by defending, cutting, making the extra pass and overall looking like the NBA’s new Andre Iguodala. Castle flashed playmaking upside, and he didn’t need the ball to contribute. But he shot just 28.5% from 3, which mirrors his college numbers:

Though Castle is still only 20, his shooting has always been the primary concern about his future going back to youth levels. If Castle doesn’t become a reliable shooter at some point in his career, it’ll make it more difficult to get him minutes if the Spurs have more options to handle the ball. 

Harper’s form looks fine and he’s confident. He even hit 36.8% of his catch-and-shoot 3s as a freshman at Rutgers, which isn’t all too bad. But the rest of his profile is loaded with red flags.

These aren’t the numbers of a sure-thing shooter. An even closer look at Harper’s 3-point misses adds more cause for concern.

I watched all 104 of Harper’s misses at Rutgers and he didn’t just miss short or long. He missed in every direction. On dribble jumpers, 26.5% were short and 14.7% were either air balls or blocked, pointing to rhythm issues, lower-body power inconsistencies and a low release point. On catch-and-shoot attempts, 22.2% of his misses went left and 19.4% went right, revealing directional instability even on his cleanest looks. In total, 24 of his 104 misses either hit the backboard, air-balled or were blocked, while nearly one-third sprayed left or right. Harper is clearly still searching for his shot.

The Spurs could bet he steadily improves, but if so it’s more of a hope than a plan.

The case for Harper

Harper’s appeal is related to the way he lived in the paint at Rutgers, finishing 67.5% of his shots at the rim. He doesn’t blow by you with blazing speed, but he’s got a herky-jerky, keep-you-guessing handle where every move sets up the next. There’s a craft to him with the way he splits pick-and-rolls and manipulates defenders that makes him look more like an NBA veteran than a 19-year-old incoming rookie.

And he doesn’t need a screen to get into the paint either. With a beefy frame and elite body control, Harper barrels downhill at will. Defenses knew he was coming — 47.4% of his shots came in the paint — and they still couldn’t stop it. On his drives inside, he’s not a genius-level passer, but he’s composed, accurate and tough to speed up. Harper doesn’t cough up the ball despite a high degree of difficulty in his reps. He’s capable of making every pass on the floor, and his feel should only improve over time.

Harper compares himself to Cade Cunningham, which makes sense since they’re both jumbo guards with an all-around offensive skill set and defensive versatility. Much like Cunningham, Harper looks like a future starter at a minimum, and maybe much more. But one difference is this: Cade went first overall to a team that cleared the runway for him. San Antonio already has Castle, Fox and Wemby. There’s no runway left. But Harper’s path to stardom likely requires space, touches and shooters around him, not sharing a clogged paint.

And that’s the paradox. Harper’s talent justifies the pick. His fit makes it risky.

If San Antonio takes him, it is effectively copying the Oklahoma City and Indiana blueprint with multiple playmakers and positional flexibility. But those teams work because they surround their stars with players who can either shoot, slash or process quickly enough to keep defenses honest. And their stars can play that way too. San Antonio’s potential perimeter trio wouldn’t check all of those boxes. They’re more slashers, not spacers who stretch defenses. None scares you without the rock, and each of them has his respective issues with it, too.

The Thunder and Pacers show players can improve their shots. Tyrese Haliburton dropped in the draft because of concerns about his form, and now he’s hitting game-winners in the NBA Finals. Andrew Nembhard entered the league as an unpolished shooter and is in the middle of a playoff run making nearly half of his 3s. In Oklahoma City, Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, Jalen Williams, Lu Dort and basically the entire roster have improved.

Of course, it helps when you hire Chip Engelland. In 2022, the Thunder poached the NBA’s most respected shot doctor after he spent nearly two decades in San Antonio. Since then, Oklahoma City’s shooting has trended up. San Antonio’s has flatlined. Jeremy Sochan is just as suspect of a shooter as he was at Baylor. Keldon Johnson has regressed. Devin Vassell has smooth mechanics and touch, but even he’s never cracked 40% from 3. The Spurs used to be the league’s gold standard for skill development. Now no one’s getting better as a shooter except for Wemby himself. But in his two seasons, the Spurs have ranked 28th and 20th in 3-point percentage.

Is having three guards with iffy jumpers really the best way for the Spurs to optimize Wembanyama? Is it best if your second-, third- and fourth-best players all have erratic jumpers? Because this isn’t just about skill sets overlapping in the backcourt, it’s about how they impact the generational player they’re supposed to elevate.

The Wemby fit

We’ve yet to see Wembanyama surrounded by four shooters. We haven’t even seen him run two-man actions with a competent partner. Inverted pick-and-rolls. Quick slips into space. Dribble handoffs. Stuff that would weaponize his passing and make life easier for everyone.

Wemby averaged just 4.8 handoffs per game this past season. For comparison: Domantas Sabonis led the league at 21.1. Rookie Alex Sarr logged 8.1. Even Zach Collins, Wemby’s own backup, had more at 4.9. It’s absurd that this is true. Yes, Wemby is often the receiver of a handoff. But with his vision, shooting and ball-handling, he should be initiating more of those actions in an ecosystem that provides him space to go to work.

The whole point of adding shot-creators is to get Wembanyama easy shots in the paint. No surprises there: Wemby shot an absurd 79% at the rim last season. He’s a cheat code in the paint. But he took only 3.2 restricted area attempts per game. That’s the same volume as Lauri Markkanen, Rui Hachimura and Jonathan Kuminga. You know who else took more? Jeremy Sochan. Yes, Sochan had 5.1 per game. Sochan had more rim attempts than Wemby. What are we doing here?

The problem is obvious: there’s no room. Sochan can’t shoot (career 29% from deep) and the rest of the perimeter isn’t any better. So even though Wemby can shoot, he has to for the offense to breathe. The Spurs have added creators, but they haven’t added spacing to open lanes for Wemby.

The paths forward

The Spurs are at a crossroads. Their actions say they want to win now. Their roster says they’re not ready. And Wembanyama’s rookie contract clock is ticking. So, what should they do?

Option 1: Draft Harper, keep Fox and Castle

In 2022, the Kings chose Fox over Tyrese Haliburton. Not because Haliburton was worse, but because they didn’t think the two could coexist. Maybe they were right. Trading Haliburton for Sabonis helped end a 16-year playoff drought.

But in hindsight, they acted too fast. Now Haliburton is clearly the better point guard and running one of the best offenses in the league, and the Kings are still trying to figure out what their post-Fox future looks like. The lesson isn’t don’t choose. The lesson is don’t choose before you have to.

That’s the case for keeping the trio intact. Draft Harper. Let it breathe. Give the coaching staff a year or two or three to figure out who works best with Wemby. Castle’s cutting, Harper’s slashing, Fox’s speed all bring value. Maybe it works. And on defense, it should. Castle was already guarding top options as a rookie. Harper has the size and instincts to be switchable. And when Fox is locked in, he’s a defensive playmaker fighting through screens and picking up steals. If the Spurs stick with all three, they could smother perimeter scorers and funnel everything to the league’s best rim protector.

But Wemby is such a dominant paint protector that he can erase defensive breakdowns. What he can’t do is manufacture spacing for himself on the other end. So there’d be more pressure for them to figure it out on offense no matter how good the team’s defense becomes.

And that concern is shared for the guards, not just Wemby. Harper projects best as a lead initiator with shooting around him, not as the third wheel on a team that can’t space the floor. There were better lottery outcomes for him. And if Harper is the pick, what happens to Castle? He’s not a shooter. He’s not running the offense. So is the reigning Rookie of the Year now a low-usage cutter who doesn’t space the floor? It’s unclear how Castle’s development tracks next to Fox and Harper.

This option doesn’t just assume internal development. It assumes internal compliance that no one pushes for touches, for usage, for clarity. It assumes Wemby will keep deferring while the team figures itself out.

San Antonio has a pile of extra first-rounders and zero albatross deals, so it can patch holes on the fly if things sour. So they could take Harper and wait. But if they’re wrong, they won’t just waste touches. They’ll waste time.

Option 2: Trade Castle

If San Antonio believes Harper has higher long-term upside as a lead initiator, they could explore the idea of moving Castle while his value is sky-high. He’s the reigning Rookie of the Year. He’s young, versatile and scalable. And he plays with a maturity beyond his years. But if his jumper never comes around, and Fox and Harper are ahead of him on the ball, his role could get squeezed quickly.

Maybe the Bucks would prefer Castle and picks over Harper in a deal for Giannis Antetokounmpo. Maybe the Celtics bite on a Castle-Vassell-picks package for Jaylen Brown. Maybe another young star becomes available.

Option 3: Trade down

Teams like the Jazz, Wizards, Pelicans and Nets all need initiators. Maybe one of them would offer a haul to move up for Harper. Looking at the history of trade downs, usually a team would give up their own first and one future first. But considering Harper’s upside, perhaps the Spurs could haggle for much more.

The Nets, holding the No. 8 pick and a mountain of future firsts plus Cam Johnson, are the most interesting trade partner. Harper is a local kid with star potential, and the Nets have a clean slate he could grow with. If the Spurs want to pivot toward shooting, Johnson plus picks is a logical foundation.

In that range, Duke wing Kon Knueppel, Arizona forward Carter Bryant and Washington State wing Cedric Coward would all be strong fits. They bring shooting and versatility, which is exactly what the current Spurs core lacks. The question: Are any of them worth passing on Harper’s ceiling for?

Option 4: Trade out of the draft for a star

The Spurs might not need another teenager. They already have youth like Wemby, Castle, Vassell, Sochan and a war chest of future picks even after adding Fox. So maybe the next move is to skip the draft entirely and chase a star.

Right now, the Giannis whispers persist. They’ve also been linked to Kevin Durant. Around the league, sources say the Spurs have explored packaging the 14th pick with a player to upgrade the roster. Whether that upgrade is marginal or massive depends on who shakes loose, but it’s clear San Antonio isn’t waiting around. So if Giannis actually is available, maybe San Antonio’s willing to put Harper on the table.

Option 5: Trade Fox

Fox signed up to be Tony Parker to Wembanyama’s Tim Duncan. But the Spurs weren’t planning on drafting another primary ball-handler months later. Plans change.

There’s a case to move Fox before he signs a four-year, $229 million extension — or even a cheaper hometown discount deal. He turns 28 later this year. He’s made just one playoff appearance. He still doesn’t have a reliable jumper. And for a guard who lives off speed, any athletic slippage could get ugly fast. And even if he ages gracefully and ends up being by far the most expensive of three quality shot-creators, he won’t come close to having the trade value he holds right now. San Antonio has one last window to sell high.

Harper, on the other hand, is 19 with real long-term upside. Castle is younger, cheaper and easier to fit in because he’s a far better cutter and defender than Fox.

It’s not as if Fox and Wemby made a great first impression. Granted they ran only 46 pick-and-rolls together, but they scored a measly 0.77 points per play. A full training camp might help, but maybe not if the team’s shooting situation doesn’t improve. Plus Castle and Harper also need touches. Fox/Wemby simply might not be the high-usage combo the Spurs envisioned.

If moving Fox were on the table, the logical targets are the teams that were connected to him at the deadline:

• Miami Heat: Fox for Duncan Robinson, Haywood Highsmith, Nikola Jović, the No. 20 pick and unprotected firsts in 2030 and 2032. Fox upgrades Miami’s point guard spot, while San Antonio gets picks and three shooters, including a young piece in Jović.

• Brooklyn Nets: Fox for Cam Johnson and draft capital. Johnson spaces the floor and fits the timeline.

• Houston Rockets: Fox (plus Malaki Branham and Blake Wesley) for Fred VanVleet, Jabari Smith, the 10th pick and future firsts. FVV gives the Spurs a vet, while Smith would be a fascinating fit next to Wemby.

Other playmaking-needy teams like the Bulls, Magic, Suns, and Timberwolves could emerge as dark horses. Phoenix is especially interesting. If the Spurs really want Durant, Fox’s salary helps make the math work. Keldon Johnson, Harrison Barnes or Devin Vassell could be added to build a separate bigger deal.

But there’s real risk here. Fox is a known commodity as an All-Star in his prime, capable of carrying an offense, capable of making Wemby’s life easier today. Harper is unproven. If his jumper never levels up or his fit with Castle overlaps too much, San Antonio may have traded a sure thing for a question mark. You don’t get many chances to pair a young superstar with a reliable point guard who actually wants to be there. If Harper doesn’t hit, the Spurs will spend the next five years trying to replace what they already had.

When San Antonio traded for Fox, it was trying to make the playoffs. Instead, both Fox and Wemby got hurt. The team cratered. And the lottery gave it an unexpected gift.

Don’t waste the alien

If the Spurs keep loading up on guards with questionable jumpers, they’re doing it around a star who should be the gravitational center of the entire offense. Instead, they’re building a roster that pulls him to the perimeter while everyone else clogs the lane.

It’s not that Castle, Fox and Harper are bad players. It’s that together, they risk becoming a well-intentioned mess. Add inconsistent shooters like Sochan and Johnson, and the Spurs look like a roster that needs less of a tweak and more of an overhaul.

Maybe keeping all three guards works. Maybe Castle becomes a league-average shooter, maybe Harper becomes a star and maybe Fox finds his ideal role. But that’s a lot of maybes, and this isn’t the kind of decision you get to re-do. The Spurs don’t just have a top pick. They have a rare opportunity to choose a direction and not waste Wemby’s prime untangling a roster that never fit.

Because we’ve seen this before. Kevin Garnett in Minnesota. Anthony Davis in New Orleans. Generational bigs held back by years of mismatched rosters and delayed decisions. The cautionary tales are clear. So is the counterexample — and the Spurs know it better than anyone.

Tim Duncan’s prime was maximized because San Antonio built with precision. Shooting. Defense. Clarity. Manu Ginóbili didn’t need the ball to impact the game. Tony Parker could bend defenses without dominating possessions. Everyone fit around Duncan, and San Antonio always evolved with the times as the NBA changed. And because of that, it lasted two decades.

Wembanyama deserves that kind of infrastructure. And right now, it feels like the Spurs are building a roster better suited for 2005. But the blueprint has never been clearer: surround your generational star with players who space the floor, make quick decisions and elevate him without always needing the ball to do it.

Do that, and Wembanyama changes the sport. Don’t, and years from now we’ll talk about how the Spurs landed an alien and built a roster that made him look human.

Victor Wembanyama is a 7-foot-5 alien who warps the court on both ends and might be the most important draft pick since LeBron James. The San Antonio Spurs have one job: don’t screw it up. The modern blueprint is crystal clear: space the floor, play with pace and surround your star with shooters and decision-makers. Instead, they’re on track to stack three shaky-shooting ball-handlers like it’s still 2005.

Last year, San Antonio drafted Stephon Castle, who won Rookie of the Year. At the deadline, they traded for De’Aaron Fox. And now they’re expected to take Dylan Harper with the second pick in the 2025 NBA Draft, a 6-5 lefty who thrives with the ball in his hands. That’s potentially adding three shot-creators in 12 months with not a reliable jumper between them.

San Antonio’s vision is obvious: give Wemby playmakers so he doesn’t have to do everything himself. But in today’s NBA, it’s not just about who can create, it’s about who can space the floor. This is the pick that will define the direction of the Spurs, either clarifying their identity or blurring it even further.

The situation in San Antonio

Here are the shooting numbers for Castle, Fox, and Harper, via Synergy Sports — Fox’s entire NBA career; Castle’s NBA and college games; and Harper’s college and high school games since 2023:

Fox hasn’t become a great shooter in eight NBA seasons. He’s increased his volume from 1.1 catch-and-shoot 3s per game in his first two years to 3.2 in his last two, but the percentages haven’t budged: 35.5% then, 35.2% now. Still below the league average of 37.2%.

And it’s not just from deep. From midrange to the line, Fox has always been streaky. These flaws made his acquisition a gamble for San Antonio. But the low cost of expendable assets made him more than worth it. All-Star caliber players who actually want to play for the Spurs are hard to come by.

Early returns were underwhelming, though. In 210 minutes together, Castle and Fox got outscored by 10.5 points per 100 possessions. In their 33 minutes with Wemby: minus-12.3. It’s a small sample, but the results were ugly before Fox’s season was ended by surgery to repair a tendon on his left hand. Still, Fox’s arrival takes the pressure off Castle to be a full-time lead guard.

Castle, for his part, had a strong rookie year. He looked like the Swiss Army knife scouts promised by defending, cutting, making the extra pass and overall looking like the NBA’s new Andre Iguodala. Castle flashed playmaking upside, and he didn’t need the ball to contribute. But he shot just 28.5% from 3, which mirrors his college numbers:

Though Castle is still only 20, his shooting has always been the primary concern about his future going back to youth levels. If Castle doesn’t become a reliable shooter at some point in his career, it’ll make it more difficult to get him minutes if the Spurs have more options to handle the ball. 

Harper’s form looks fine and he’s confident. He even hit 36.8% of his catch-and-shoot 3s as a freshman at Rutgers, which isn’t all too bad. But the rest of his profile is loaded with red flags.

These aren’t the numbers of a sure-thing shooter. An even closer look at Harper’s 3-point misses adds more cause for concern.

I watched all 104 of Harper’s misses at Rutgers and he didn’t just miss short or long. He missed in every direction. On dribble jumpers, 26.5% were short and 14.7% were either air balls or blocked, pointing to rhythm issues, lower-body power inconsistencies and a low release point. On catch-and-shoot attempts, 22.2% of his misses went left and 19.4% went right, revealing directional instability even on his cleanest looks. In total, 24 of his 104 misses either hit the backboard, air-balled or were blocked, while nearly one-third sprayed left or right. Harper is clearly still searching for his shot.

The Spurs could bet he steadily improves, but if so it’s more of a hope than a plan.

The case for Harper

Harper’s appeal is related to the way he lived in the paint at Rutgers, finishing 67.5% of his shots at the rim. He doesn’t blow by you with blazing speed, but he’s got a herky-jerky, keep-you-guessing handle where every move sets up the next. There’s a craft to him with the way he splits pick-and-rolls and manipulates defenders that makes him look more like an NBA veteran than a 19-year-old incoming rookie.

And he doesn’t need a screen to get into the paint either. With a beefy frame and elite body control, Harper barrels downhill at will. Defenses knew he was coming — 47.4% of his shots came in the paint — and they still couldn’t stop it. On his drives inside, he’s not a genius-level passer, but he’s composed, accurate and tough to speed up. Harper doesn’t cough up the ball despite a high degree of difficulty in his reps. He’s capable of making every pass on the floor, and his feel should only improve over time.

Harper compares himself to Cade Cunningham, which makes sense since they’re both jumbo guards with an all-around offensive skill set and defensive versatility. Much like Cunningham, Harper looks like a future starter at a minimum, and maybe much more. But one difference is this: Cade went first overall to a team that cleared the runway for him. San Antonio already has Castle, Fox and Wemby. There’s no runway left. But Harper’s path to stardom likely requires space, touches and shooters around him, not sharing a clogged paint.

And that’s the paradox. Harper’s talent justifies the pick. His fit makes it risky.

If San Antonio takes him, it is effectively copying the Oklahoma City and Indiana blueprint with multiple playmakers and positional flexibility. But those teams work because they surround their stars with players who can either shoot, slash or process quickly enough to keep defenses honest. And their stars can play that way too. San Antonio’s potential perimeter trio wouldn’t check all of those boxes. They’re more slashers, not spacers who stretch defenses. None scares you without the rock, and each of them has his respective issues with it, too.

The Thunder and Pacers show players can improve their shots. Tyrese Haliburton dropped in the draft because of concerns about his form, and now he’s hitting game-winners in the NBA Finals. Andrew Nembhard entered the league as an unpolished shooter and is in the middle of a playoff run making nearly half of his 3s. In Oklahoma City, Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, Jalen Williams, Lu Dort and basically the entire roster have improved.

Of course, it helps when you hire Chip Engelland. In 2022, the Thunder poached the NBA’s most respected shot doctor after he spent nearly two decades in San Antonio. Since then, Oklahoma City’s shooting has trended up. San Antonio’s has flatlined. Jeremy Sochan is just as suspect of a shooter as he was at Baylor. Keldon Johnson has regressed. Devin Vassell has smooth mechanics and touch, but even he’s never cracked 40% from 3. The Spurs used to be the league’s gold standard for skill development. Now no one’s getting better as a shooter except for Wemby himself. But in his two seasons, the Spurs have ranked 28th and 20th in 3-point percentage.

Is having three guards with iffy jumpers really the best way for the Spurs to optimize Wembanyama? Is it best if your second-, third- and fourth-best players all have erratic jumpers? Because this isn’t just about skill sets overlapping in the backcourt, it’s about how they impact the generational player they’re supposed to elevate.

The Wemby fit

We’ve yet to see Wembanyama surrounded by four shooters. We haven’t even seen him run two-man actions with a competent partner. Inverted pick-and-rolls. Quick slips into space. Dribble handoffs. Stuff that would weaponize his passing and make life easier for everyone.

Wemby averaged just 4.8 handoffs per game this past season. For comparison: Domantas Sabonis led the league at 21.1. Rookie Alex Sarr logged 8.1. Even Zach Collins, Wemby’s own backup, had more at 4.9. It’s absurd that this is true. Yes, Wemby is often the receiver of a handoff. But with his vision, shooting and ball-handling, he should be initiating more of those actions in an ecosystem that provides him space to go to work.

The whole point of adding shot-creators is to get Wembanyama easy shots in the paint. No surprises there: Wemby shot an absurd 79% at the rim last season. He’s a cheat code in the paint. But he took only 3.2 restricted area attempts per game. That’s the same volume as Lauri Markkanen, Rui Hachimura and Jonathan Kuminga. You know who else took more? Jeremy Sochan. Yes, Sochan had 5.1 per game. Sochan had more rim attempts than Wemby. What are we doing here?

The problem is obvious: there’s no room. Sochan can’t shoot (career 29% from deep) and the rest of the perimeter isn’t any better. So even though Wemby can shoot, he has to for the offense to breathe. The Spurs have added creators, but they haven’t added spacing to open lanes for Wemby.

The paths forward

The Spurs are at a crossroads. Their actions say they want to win now. Their roster says they’re not ready. And Wembanyama’s rookie contract clock is ticking. So, what should they do?

Option 1: Draft Harper, keep Fox and Castle

In 2022, the Kings chose Fox over Tyrese Haliburton. Not because Haliburton was worse, but because they didn’t think the two could coexist. Maybe they were right. Trading Haliburton for Sabonis helped end a 16-year playoff drought.

But in hindsight, they acted too fast. Now Haliburton is clearly the better point guard and running one of the best offenses in the league, and the Kings are still trying to figure out what their post-Fox future looks like. The lesson isn’t don’t choose. The lesson is don’t choose before you have to.

That’s the case for keeping the trio intact. Draft Harper. Let it breathe. Give the coaching staff a year or two or three to figure out who works best with Wemby. Castle’s cutting, Harper’s slashing, Fox’s speed all bring value. Maybe it works. And on defense, it should. Castle was already guarding top options as a rookie. Harper has the size and instincts to be switchable. And when Fox is locked in, he’s a defensive playmaker fighting through screens and picking up steals. If the Spurs stick with all three, they could smother perimeter scorers and funnel everything to the league’s best rim protector.

But Wemby is such a dominant paint protector that he can erase defensive breakdowns. What he can’t do is manufacture spacing for himself on the other end. So there’d be more pressure for them to figure it out on offense no matter how good the team’s defense becomes.

And that concern is shared for the guards, not just Wemby. Harper projects best as a lead initiator with shooting around him, not as the third wheel on a team that can’t space the floor. There were better lottery outcomes for him. And if Harper is the pick, what happens to Castle? He’s not a shooter. He’s not running the offense. So is the reigning Rookie of the Year now a low-usage cutter who doesn’t space the floor? It’s unclear how Castle’s development tracks next to Fox and Harper.

This option doesn’t just assume internal development. It assumes internal compliance that no one pushes for touches, for usage, for clarity. It assumes Wemby will keep deferring while the team figures itself out.

San Antonio has a pile of extra first-rounders and zero albatross deals, so it can patch holes on the fly if things sour. So they could take Harper and wait. But if they’re wrong, they won’t just waste touches. They’ll waste time.

Option 2: Trade Castle

If San Antonio believes Harper has higher long-term upside as a lead initiator, they could explore the idea of moving Castle while his value is sky-high. He’s the reigning Rookie of the Year. He’s young, versatile and scalable. And he plays with a maturity beyond his years. But if his jumper never comes around, and Fox and Harper are ahead of him on the ball, his role could get squeezed quickly.

Maybe the Bucks would prefer Castle and picks over Harper in a deal for Giannis Antetokounmpo. Maybe the Celtics bite on a Castle-Vassell-picks package for Jaylen Brown. Maybe another young star becomes available.

Option 3: Trade down

Teams like the Jazz, Wizards, Pelicans and Nets all need initiators. Maybe one of them would offer a haul to move up for Harper. Looking at the history of trade downs, usually a team would give up their own first and one future first. But considering Harper’s upside, perhaps the Spurs could haggle for much more.

The Nets, holding the No. 8 pick and a mountain of future firsts plus Cam Johnson, are the most interesting trade partner. Harper is a local kid with star potential, and the Nets have a clean slate he could grow with. If the Spurs want to pivot toward shooting, Johnson plus picks is a logical foundation.

In that range, Duke wing Kon Knueppel, Arizona forward Carter Bryant and Washington State wing Cedric Coward would all be strong fits. They bring shooting and versatility, which is exactly what the current Spurs core lacks. The question: Are any of them worth passing on Harper’s ceiling for?

Option 4: Trade out of the draft for a star

The Spurs might not need another teenager. They already have youth like Wemby, Castle, Vassell, Sochan and a war chest of future picks even after adding Fox. So maybe the next move is to skip the draft entirely and chase a star.

Right now, the Giannis whispers persist. They’ve also been linked to Kevin Durant. Around the league, sources say the Spurs have explored packaging the 14th pick with a player to upgrade the roster. Whether that upgrade is marginal or massive depends on who shakes loose, but it’s clear San Antonio isn’t waiting around. So if Giannis actually is available, maybe San Antonio’s willing to put Harper on the table.

Option 5: Trade Fox

Fox signed up to be Tony Parker to Wembanyama’s Tim Duncan. But the Spurs weren’t planning on drafting another primary ball-handler months later. Plans change.

There’s a case to move Fox before he signs a four-year, $229 million extension — or even a cheaper hometown discount deal. He turns 28 later this year. He’s made just one playoff appearance. He still doesn’t have a reliable jumper. And for a guard who lives off speed, any athletic slippage could get ugly fast. And even if he ages gracefully and ends up being by far the most expensive of three quality shot-creators, he won’t come close to having the trade value he holds right now. San Antonio has one last window to sell high.

Harper, on the other hand, is 19 with real long-term upside. Castle is younger, cheaper and easier to fit in because he’s a far better cutter and defender than Fox.

It’s not as if Fox and Wemby made a great first impression. Granted they ran only 46 pick-and-rolls together, but they scored a measly 0.77 points per play. A full training camp might help, but maybe not if the team’s shooting situation doesn’t improve. Plus Castle and Harper also need touches. Fox/Wemby simply might not be the high-usage combo the Spurs envisioned.

If moving Fox were on the table, the logical targets are the teams that were connected to him at the deadline:

• Miami Heat: Fox for Duncan Robinson, Haywood Highsmith, Nikola Jović, the No. 20 pick and unprotected firsts in 2030 and 2032. Fox upgrades Miami’s point guard spot, while San Antonio gets picks and three shooters, including a young piece in Jović.

• Brooklyn Nets: Fox for Cam Johnson and draft capital. Johnson spaces the floor and fits the timeline.

• Houston Rockets: Fox (plus Malaki Branham and Blake Wesley) for Fred VanVleet, Jabari Smith, the 10th pick and future firsts. FVV gives the Spurs a vet, while Smith would be a fascinating fit next to Wemby.

Other playmaking-needy teams like the Bulls, Magic, Suns, and Timberwolves could emerge as dark horses. Phoenix is especially interesting. If the Spurs really want Durant, Fox’s salary helps make the math work. Keldon Johnson, Harrison Barnes or Devin Vassell could be added to build a separate bigger deal.

But there’s real risk here. Fox is a known commodity as an All-Star in his prime, capable of carrying an offense, capable of making Wemby’s life easier today. Harper is unproven. If his jumper never levels up or his fit with Castle overlaps too much, San Antonio may have traded a sure thing for a question mark. You don’t get many chances to pair a young superstar with a reliable point guard who actually wants to be there. If Harper doesn’t hit, the Spurs will spend the next five years trying to replace what they already had.

When San Antonio traded for Fox, it was trying to make the playoffs. Instead, both Fox and Wemby got hurt. The team cratered. And the lottery gave it an unexpected gift.

Don’t waste the alien

If the Spurs keep loading up on guards with questionable jumpers, they’re doing it around a star who should be the gravitational center of the entire offense. Instead, they’re building a roster that pulls him to the perimeter while everyone else clogs the lane.

It’s not that Castle, Fox and Harper are bad players. It’s that together, they risk becoming a well-intentioned mess. Add inconsistent shooters like Sochan and Johnson, and the Spurs look like a roster that needs less of a tweak and more of an overhaul.

Maybe keeping all three guards works. Maybe Castle becomes a league-average shooter, maybe Harper becomes a star and maybe Fox finds his ideal role. But that’s a lot of maybes, and this isn’t the kind of decision you get to re-do. The Spurs don’t just have a top pick. They have a rare opportunity to choose a direction and not waste Wemby’s prime untangling a roster that never fit.

Because we’ve seen this before. Kevin Garnett in Minnesota. Anthony Davis in New Orleans. Generational bigs held back by years of mismatched rosters and delayed decisions. The cautionary tales are clear. So is the counterexample — and the Spurs know it better than anyone.

Tim Duncan’s prime was maximized because San Antonio built with precision. Shooting. Defense. Clarity. Manu Ginóbili didn’t need the ball to impact the game. Tony Parker could bend defenses without dominating possessions. Everyone fit around Duncan, and San Antonio always evolved with the times as the NBA changed. And because of that, it lasted two decades.

Wembanyama deserves that kind of infrastructure. And right now, it feels like the Spurs are building a roster better suited for 2005. But the blueprint has never been clearer: surround your generational star with players who space the floor, make quick decisions and elevate him without always needing the ball to do it.

Do that, and Wembanyama changes the sport. Don’t, and years from now we’ll talk about how the Spurs landed an alien and built a roster that made him look human.

Subscribe to Baseball Bar-B-Cast

Follow Jake @Jake_Mintz

Follow Jordan @J_Shusterman_

🖥️ Watch this full episode on YouTube

Check out the rest of the Yahoo Sports podcast family at https://apple.co/3zEuTQj or at Yahoo Sports Podcasts

Subscribe to Baseball Bar-B-Cast

Follow Jake @Jake_Mintz

Follow Jordan @J_Shusterman_

🖥️ Watch this full episode on YouTube

Check out the rest of the Yahoo Sports podcast family at https://apple.co/3zEuTQj or at Yahoo Sports Podcasts

Over the final four minutes of the first quarter in Game 2 of the NBA Finals on Sunday, as he does for stretches on most nights, Oklahoma City Thunder big man Chet Holmgren showed a little bit of everything he can do.

Defensively, Holmgren slid from the corner, where he was hidden on Indiana Pacers center Thomas Bryant, to block one-time slam dunk champion Obi Toppin at the rim. A few possessions later, Holmgren switched onto T.J. McConnell, sticking with Indiana’s pest and forcing him into a contested long 2-pointer.

Offensively, Holmgren spotted up from the left arc for an in-rhythm 3-pointer. That set up his next attack a few plays later, as he took another pass on the left arc, drawing Pacers big Myles Turner to the perimeter. Holmgren took him off the dribble, finger-rolling home a layup from his outstretched 7-foot-6 wingspan.

Otherwise, Holmgren keeps the ball moving with his passing, even calmly registering an assist from his backside on a broken play early in the second quarter. As it turns out, everything he can do is quite a lot.

In other words: Every NBA team could use a Chet Holmgren.

Sure, it is easy to say: Get yourself a 7-foot-1 No. 2 overall pick who can shoot the 3, attack close-outs, pass with aplomb and hold his own defensively in space. But, as his Thunder remain betting favorites to win the championship, according to BetMGM, he begs the question: Does a team need some semblance of a Chet Holmgren — or, at the very least, a floor-spacing rim protector — to compete for a title?

Holmgren finished the Thunder’s Game 2 victory against the Pacers with 15 points, 6 rebounds, 1 assist and 1 block, hardly the stuff of legend, but his contributions to Oklahoma City go well beyond stat lines.

While 3-and-D wings were once the craze — and still are (they are extremely necessary, too) — the 3-and-D big is what unlocks every lineup combination for his team. Put him at center, and he can anchor smaller five-out units, which feature shooters everywhere and a more versatile defensive approach. Slide him to the power forward position, and he can help to physically punish opponents in double-big combinations.

As Thunder head coach Mark Daigneault said after Game 2, “When we play small, we tend to be a little bit more of a turnover defense. When we play bigger, we have other strengths. It’s a combination of things.”

Typically, teams will have to choose between sacrificing rim protection in small-ball lineups or versatility in double-big outfits, but with someone like Holmgren, that sacrifice is minimized, or eliminated entirely.

Case in point: The Thunder outscored opponents by roughly 15 points per 100 meaningful possessions regardless of whether Holmgren manned the 4 or the 5 position during the regular season, per Cleaning the Glass. That dominance was nearly halved to a mortal figure whenever he was off the floor.

The Thunder inexplicably abandoned their double-big lineups in their Game 1 loss to Indiana, which was curious, because the Pacers have no counter for them. They have Myles Turner, a center whose ability to space the floor and protect the rim has unlocked a sensational small-ball outfit that has carried Indiana this far. What they lack is a second big who can play alongside him. What they lack is a Chet Holmgren.

And maybe that is the final piece to a championship puzzle: Teams need a facsimile of Holmgren to unlock the double-big arrow in their quiver, and they need that second capable big to employ it. This is why the Thunder felt compelled to give Isaiah Hartenstein a three-year, $87 million contract last summer.

Consider the Boston Celtics, who won last year’s championship with a pair of big men, Al Horford and Kristaps Porziņģis, both of whom could shoot the 3 and anchor a defense. They could play separately or with each other, and the ability to do both is what unlocked their full potential. They survived without Porziņģis for much of last year’s playoffs, but this year they ran into New York Knicks big Karl-Anthony Towns, whose ability to play as a 4 or a 5 allowed then-head coach Tom Thibodeau to toy with lineup combinations until he found one with Mitchell Robinson at center that punished the smaller Celtics. 

Look at the league’s recent champions, and you will find someone who can flutter between the 4 and the 5 and be effective at both. As we saw again this season, Aaron Gordon could play alongside Nikola Jokić or spell him at the 5 for the Denver Nuggets. Draymond Green was the original “Every Team Needs A Version of This Guy” for the Golden State Warriors. He played with Kevon Looney or without.

Look at the standings, too. Every good team has someone like Holmgren (i.e., Evan Mobley of the 64-win Cleveland Cavaliers). Every bad team does not (the Washington Wizards, for example, hope Alex Sarr can become him). Every middling team wishes its version of Holmgren was as good as he is. (Imagine, for a moment, if you swapped Isaiah Stewart for Holmgren and what the Detroit Pistons might look like.)

Think of the Houston Rockets. They boasted both Alperen Şengün and Steven Adams, either of whom could man the center position and neither of whom was best positioned to play power forward. While they enjoyed some success as a double-big combination, the Rockets rarely trusted them, because they lacked versatility on defense and shrunk the floor on offense. It made them susceptible to the first-round loss they suffered against the Warriors, who practically invented this concept of an ultra-versatile big.

Think of the Chicago Bulls, who feature Nikola Vučević. He can shoot but cannot defend the rim. Think of the Atlanta Hawks, whose bigs can defend the rim but cannot shoot. You can get paid handsomely to do one or the other, but can you win on the highest level? Not if the most recent champions are indicators.

It is not a novel concept to consider that every team needs a Chet Holmgren or someone who can do a bit of everything in the frontcourt. But it may be a necessary one if you hope to win the championship.

Over the final four minutes of the first quarter in Game 2 of the NBA Finals on Sunday, as he does for stretches on most nights, Oklahoma City Thunder big man Chet Holmgren showed a little bit of everything he can do.

Defensively, Holmgren slid from the corner, where he was hidden on Indiana Pacers center Thomas Bryant, to block one-time slam dunk champion Obi Toppin at the rim. A few possessions later, Holmgren switched onto T.J. McConnell, sticking with Indiana’s pest and forcing him into a contested long 2-pointer.

Offensively, Holmgren spotted up from the left arc for an in-rhythm 3-pointer. That set up his next attack a few plays later, as he took another pass on the left arc, drawing Pacers big Myles Turner to the perimeter. Holmgren took him off the dribble, finger-rolling home a layup from his outstretched 7-foot-6 wingspan.

Otherwise, Holmgren keeps the ball moving with his passing, even calmly registering an assist from his backside on a broken play early in the second quarter. As it turns out, everything he can do is quite a lot.

In other words: Every NBA team could use a Chet Holmgren.

Sure, it is easy to say: Get yourself a 7-foot-1 No. 2 overall pick who can shoot the 3, attack close-outs, pass with aplomb and hold his own defensively in space. But, as his Thunder remain betting favorites to win the championship, according to BetMGM, he begs the question: Does a team need some semblance of a Chet Holmgren — or, at the very least, a floor-spacing rim protector — to compete for a title?

Holmgren finished the Thunder’s Game 2 victory against the Pacers with 15 points, 6 rebounds, 1 assist and 1 block, hardly the stuff of legend, but his contributions to Oklahoma City go well beyond stat lines.

While 3-and-D wings were once the craze — and still are (they are extremely necessary, too) — the 3-and-D big is what unlocks every lineup combination for his team. Put him at center, and he can anchor smaller five-out units, which feature shooters everywhere and a more versatile defensive approach. Slide him to the power forward position, and he can help to physically punish opponents in double-big combinations.

As Thunder head coach Mark Daigneault said after Game 2, “When we play small, we tend to be a little bit more of a turnover defense. When we play bigger, we have other strengths. It’s a combination of things.”

Typically, teams will have to choose between sacrificing rim protection in small-ball lineups or versatility in double-big outfits, but with someone like Holmgren, that sacrifice is minimized, or eliminated entirely.

Case in point: The Thunder outscored opponents by roughly 15 points per 100 meaningful possessions regardless of whether Holmgren manned the 4 or the 5 position during the regular season, per Cleaning the Glass. That dominance was nearly halved to a mortal figure whenever he was off the floor.

The Thunder inexplicably abandoned their double-big lineups in their Game 1 loss to Indiana, which was curious, because the Pacers have no counter for them. They have Myles Turner, a center whose ability to space the floor and protect the rim has unlocked a sensational small-ball outfit that has carried Indiana this far. What they lack is a second big who can play alongside him. What they lack is a Chet Holmgren.

And maybe that is the final piece to a championship puzzle: Teams need a facsimile of Holmgren to unlock the double-big arrow in their quiver, and they need that second capable big to employ it. This is why the Thunder felt compelled to give Isaiah Hartenstein a three-year, $87 million contract last summer.

Consider the Boston Celtics, who won last year’s championship with a pair of big men, Al Horford and Kristaps Porziņģis, both of whom could shoot the 3 and anchor a defense. They could play separately or with each other, and the ability to do both is what unlocked their full potential. They survived without Porziņģis for much of last year’s playoffs, but this year they ran into New York Knicks big Karl-Anthony Towns, whose ability to play as a 4 or a 5 allowed then-head coach Tom Thibodeau to toy with lineup combinations until he found one with Mitchell Robinson at center that punished the smaller Celtics. 

Look at the league’s recent champions, and you will find someone who can flutter between the 4 and the 5 and be effective at both. As we saw again this season, Aaron Gordon could play alongside Nikola Jokić or spell him at the 5 for the Denver Nuggets. Draymond Green was the original “Every Team Needs A Version of This Guy” for the Golden State Warriors. He played with Kevon Looney or without.

Look at the standings, too. Every good team has someone like Holmgren (i.e., Evan Mobley of the 64-win Cleveland Cavaliers). Every bad team does not (the Washington Wizards, for example, hope Alex Sarr can become him). Every middling team wishes its version of Holmgren was as good as he is. (Imagine, for a moment, if you swapped Isaiah Stewart for Holmgren and what the Detroit Pistons might look like.)

Think of the Houston Rockets. They boasted both Alperen Şengün and Steven Adams, either of whom could man the center position and neither of whom was best positioned to play power forward. While they enjoyed some success as a double-big combination, the Rockets rarely trusted them, because they lacked versatility on defense and shrunk the floor on offense. It made them susceptible to the first-round loss they suffered against the Warriors, who practically invented this concept of an ultra-versatile big.

Think of the Chicago Bulls, who feature Nikola Vučević. He can shoot but cannot defend the rim. Think of the Atlanta Hawks, whose bigs can defend the rim but cannot shoot. You can get paid handsomely to do one or the other, but can you win on the highest level? Not if the most recent champions are indicators.

It is not a novel concept to consider that every team needs a Chet Holmgren or someone who can do a bit of everything in the frontcourt. But it may be a necessary one if you hope to win the championship.

One of the Cleveland Cavaliers’ biggest stars will spend the offseason rehabbing after toe surgery. Darius Garland will miss 4-5 months after undergoing “great toe surgery” on Monday, the team announced.

The Cavaliers expect Garland to “make a full recovery and resume basketball activities by the start of training camp.” While he’s expected to take part in activities during camp, there’s a chance the injury keeps him off the court at the start of the 2025-26 NBA season, per Shams Charania.

Garland, 25, averaged 20.6 points and 6.7 assists for the Cavaliers this season. That performance earned Garland his second All-Star nod. 

Garland played a key role in the Cavaliers going 64-18 and earning the No. 1 seed in the Eastern Conference. As the regular season came to a close, Garland dealt with the injury, which was revealed following the team’s March 23 game in Utah. Garland was able to manage the injury down the stretch, but re-aggravated it during the playoffs. After playing in the first two games of the postseason, Garland missed Games 3 and 4 against the Miami Heat due to the injury.

The Cavaliers advanced in four games, and played the Indiana Pacers in the second round. Garland missed the first two games of that series — which Cleveland lost — before returning for Game 3.

Garland played in the final three games of the series. His presence couldn’t lift the Cavaliers, however, who fell to the Pacers in five games. Garland averaged 14 points and four assists in the series.

Garland has spent his entire six-year NBA career with the Cavaliers after the team made him the No. 5 overall pick in the 2019 NBA Draft. He’s averaged 18.9 points and 6.7 assists over his career. 

Garland was reportedly a candidate to be traded in the offseason, but the injury likely ensures he’ll remain with the Cavaliers next year.