The last time the San Antonio Spurs finished a regular season with fewer than 30 wins, the basketball gods rewarded them with Tim Duncan: a generational two-way talent who became one of the most decorated players in league history.
Nearly three decades later, the organization will surely be hoping for a similar stroke of luck, having drafted French phenom Victor Wembanyama with the first pick in June’s draft. A brief Wembanyama showing during summer league was enough to satisfy our collective hoops appetite, at least until training camp and preseason start. With Wembanyama comes a unique skill set, gangly arms, a lot of potential, and — perhaps most importantly — hope.
Advertisement
The 2022-23 season wasn’t particularly kind to the 22-win Spurs, but after a strong overall offseason, there should be some momentum building in San Antonio. Veteran wings Cedi Osman and Reggie Bullock have arrived, bringing some quality, much-needed outside shooting. Restricted free agent Tre Jones, a bright young point guard with an impressive assist-to-turnover ratio, has been retained, and Gregg Popovich, one of the best coaches in NBA history, is still on the sidelines for another run. There’s reason to get excited for what lies ahead.
To sort through some important questions regarding the Spurs and their immediate future, we’re joined by senior writer John Hollinger, a former league executive with the Memphis Grizzlies.
Kelly Iko: Wembanyama’s addition to the team is the biggest and most important piece of San Antonio’s offseason work — and we’ll get to that shortly — but the Spurs also addressed their shooting woes. For a team that finished just outside the bottom third of the league in 3-point attempts and makes, what does adding Osman and Bullock do for their spacing and offensive efficiency? Should we expect them to step into contributing roles from day one?
John Hollinger: Let’s back up a little, because I don’t think it’s a given that both players are on the opening-day roster. Remember, the Spurs acquired these players less as a pursuit of wing shooting and more because they were offered draft picks to take them into cap space.
Right now, the roster is a math problem. The Spurs have 18 players with partial or fully guaranteed roster deals for the coming season, meaning that at least three cuts or trades must be made. I would humbly suggest that none of the four players they signed by their own volition this past summer (as opposed to contracts they were paid to take) will be among the cuts, nor will any of their recent first-round picks.
Advertisement
That would make Tre Jones, Sandro Mamukelashvili, Julian Champagnie, Sidy Cissoko, Wembanyama, Devin Vassell, Blake Wesley, Jeremy Sochan and Malaki Branham safe. Common sense dictates that we add Keldon Johnson and Zach Collins to the safe list as well.
That’s 11 spots, leaving a likely pool of Khem Birch, Charles Bassey, Cameron Payne, Doug McDermott, Devonte’ Graham, Bullock and Osman for the last four spaces. Graham, by virtue of guaranteed money that goes beyond this season (he’s owed at least $2.85 million in 2024-25), is probably the safest of the bunch. Birch, who was marginal even before Wembanyama showed up, is probably the least secure. Bassey feels fungible as well, especially with Dom Barlow’s development.
That leaves one more cut to make; thus, if the Spurs can’t find a trade for one of the guards, they would have to ax one of the wings between Osman, Bullock and McDermott. It could come down to which of the three is most amenable to a buyout on favorable terms for the Spurs.
To answer your question in a roundabout way, these players can help the shooting situation at the margins, especially since they’re replacing minutes that mostly went to non-shooters. That said, neither of them are so deadly (or so prolific letting it fly in the first place) that they fundamentally change the equation for the Spurs — especially with a Sochan-Johnson forward combo taking up most of the minutes. Finally, even if Osman and Bullock are in the opening-day rotation, it’s hard to imagine either being on the roster beyond the trade deadline.
Iko: As far as free agency is concerned, the talk surrounding the Spurs was the move they didn’t make in Austin Reaves. Do you think they should have been more aggressive in pursuing him, or is re-signing Jones and trading for Payne better given where the organization is in its rebuilding process? Jones isn’t the floor spacer or shooter Reaves is, but he’s the better playmaker and projects as an elite decision-maker within Popovich’s system. Payne also brings toughness and experience to the position.
Advertisement
Hollinger: What I don’t understand is that they could have signed Jones either way, so that part is a non-factor. They had his minuscule $2 million cap hold on their books until they had used all their cap space, and only then did they ink his deal (and that of Champagnie, who was a similar case).
The only potential cost in signing Reaves was that the money spent on him would have left fewer dollars under the cap to take in other players and picks in trades; they still could have done the Payne and Osman deals, but it likely would have prevented them from taking in Bullock later in the summer in the Grant Williams sign-and-trade.
To me, passing on the Reaves deal was a missed opportunity to stick a conference rival with a much bigger price tag to keep one of its key players. In all likelihood, the Lakers would have matched an offer sheet even if it was for the max the Spurs could offer. However, the Spurs still would have put a chief rival at more of a salary-cap disadvantage in 2025-26 and 2026-27 had they gone this route. Now, the Lakers have Reaves on their books for less than half of what it might have been.
The only thing you can really say on the positive side was that there was little chance Reaves was going to be a Spur either way.
Iko: With Wembanyama, where do you see him settling down position-wise? He was trotted out at center during summer league as a super-stretch five. But, once training camp opens, Collins and Birch will also be competing for minutes. Should Pop ultimately roll with a Wembanyma-Sochan frontcourt and see what happens? How much can Wembanyama raise San Antonio’s defensive floor and ceiling?
Hollinger: I don’t expect Birch to be on the team, but I could easily see a Wembanyama-Collins frontcourt combo seeing extensive minutes. Wembanyama physically reminds me a bit of when we had a teenaged Jaren Jackson, Jr. in Memphis; while he has the length and rim protection skills to play 5, the physicality is going to be a challenge at first and it would help to have some beef on the court next to him.
Where it gets interesting is that the Spurs seemingly will start Sochan and Keldon Johnson at forward, which almost requires Wembanyama to start at center. Popovich would need to move Sochan to the bench if he wanted to pair Collins and Wembanyama to begin games. Also, Barlow is on a two-way, but don’t be surprised if he wriggles into some lineups next to Wembanyama as the year wears on.
Advertisement
As for the last question, Wembanyama will be a hugely impactful defender in time, but even the best rookies have trouble making a mark on team defensive stats; there’s just too much to process and learn. That said, the Spurs were 30th in defense last year, so the bar isn’t high here; can he help them get to a more respectably bad 25th or so? I think that’s reasonable.
Iko: Last season, there seemed to be a strange correlation between bad, rebuilding teams and emphasis on the offensive glass. Houston, Detroit and San Antonio all finished in the top 10 in that category but were firmly settled among the league’s worst teams. Given Wembanyama’s obvious defensive potential and his freakish length and wingspan, do you think the Spurs shift away from that philosophy and focus more on transitional play, or is sending extra bodies to the glass still the best course of action?
Hollinger: I’m not sure it’s philosophy as much as personnel, and San Antonio’s personnel — as alluded to above — will be more perimeter-oriented and less prone to crashing the glass.
One reason bad teams end up on the glass is because they don’t have enough skill and end up playing more lineups with bad shooters. As a result, they can end up with a lot of marginal “energy” guys who don’t space the floor but crash the boards (see Romeo Langford, Stanley Johnson, Isaiah Roby, et al). As a longtime Rockets observer, I’m sure you can relate.
Additionally, San Antonio already removed the biggest source of its No. 7 offensive rebound rate from last season when it traded Jakob Poeltl (13.5 percent offensive rebound rate) in February. Wembanyama, despite his myriad other skills, is highly unlikely to come anywhere close to this number. His 7.0 percent mark in France last season was barely half of Poeltl’s rate.
Iko: How far is the skill gap between Branham and Vassell? What does that dynamic look like heading into camp? Branham had a solid rookie season and showcased some real offensive potential and confidence on some nights, but Vassell is the more experienced and polished option right now. The latter struggled with some consistency but still averaged nearly twice as many points as Branham.
Hollinger: I don’t see this as a close competition at the moment; Vassell is a much better player, and I’d be shocked if he’s not the opening-day starter. Vassell shot 38.7 percent from 3, was second in the team in scoring rate and led the team in offensive BPM. Entering his fourth season, it’s a potentially big year for him if he doesn’t sign a contract extension in October, because he’ll be a restricted free agent in July.
Advertisement
Branham had his moments as a shoot-first guard at 19 but needs to be a much more efficient scorer to pay dividends as this type of player. If he can be more consistently threatening from the perimeter (30.2 percent from 3) and not settle so easily for tough pull-ups once he gets inside the arc, that would be a major development. Realistically, he’s battling Wesley for the leftover shooting guard minutes behind Vassell, and there’s a chance Payne, Osman or Graham could elbow their way into that picture, too.
Iko: Assuming there is a jump in the standings — and there should be after a productive summer — what’s a realistic 2023-24 season win total? Is there a trade out there that makes sense for this core that could augment the gradual ascent out of the Western Conference doldrums, or should San Antonio stay the course? This team as is still looks a ways off from competing for a playoff berth. But depending on the development and processing speed of some of these young players, there could be a surprise.
Hollinger: I think 30-35 wins is a solid target. The Spurs don’t need to rush; they’d be better served adding at least one more high lottery pick around Wembanyama before his talent and development basically make it impossible to be bad. Even without Wembanyama, San Antonio did play at least somewhat respectable basketball at the beginning of last season before injuries and, um, incentives caught up to them.
In the best-case scenario, where everything goes right — Wembanyama plays at a high level immediately, Vassell and Johnson continue to progress, injuries are few and the close-game gods are friendly — the Spurs could be akin to last year’s Jazz. They could hang around on the fringes of the playoff race for half a season before fading out and trading veterans for picks at the deadline.
It’s more likely they fall short of that aim but are still more in the realm of what I might call “competitive badness,” as opposed to last year’s non-competitive badness. (The 2022-23 Spurs lost games by 35, 36 and 44 points in the same week, for crying out loud.)
Either way, I don’t see any bold moves to take another step forward prior to next summer. The Spurs have draft assets, a hospital-clean cap sheet and time on their side. They need to take a good look at what they have around Wembanyama before moving on to next steps.
(Top photo: Ethan Miller / Getty Images)
