The Spurs’ INEVITABLE FORK IN THE ROAD
For San Antonio, the Time is Now
Based on the discussion from our recent podcast episode on the San Antonio Spurs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPd_8RqZBS4
Last May, as the majority of the NBA world collectively groaned, wheels in my head started to spin. The Spurs, who had just moved up in the lottery for the third consecutive season, appeared primed to select Dylan Harper out of Rutgers with the second overall pick and pair him with Victor Wembanyama, Stephon Castle, and De’Aaron Fox.
What I knew then was that the Spurs would soon find themselves in one of the more enviable yet complex situations in the NBA: three talented, ball-handling guards—Stephon Castle, De’Aaron Fox, and Dylan Harper—all battling for prime minutes, roles, and fit alongside Victor Wembanyama. On the surface, this looks like depth. But from a roster‐construction perspective, it whispers other, less exciting prospects: redundancy, role confusion, and value risk.
The Redundancy Problem
Each of the trio brings a similar profile: ball dominance, pick and roll creation, and attacking instincts. Castle’s fluid playmaking is enticing, but it’s his size and athleticism that give him unique upside on the other end of the court. Harper has showcased a level of feel, vision, and patience rare for a player of his experience. And Fox is established as an All-Star-level point guard who could fit perfectly with Wembanyama.
So where’s the problem?
For starters—all three naturally operate from similar spaces on the floor—with overlapping potential usage rates and play-styles. It’s hard to envision a scenario where all three are rotation pieces and are being maximized simultaneously. Or, as one recent piece summarized on Castle and Harper, “the two young guards face a serious logjam in San Antonio.”
This dilemma would be more manageable if it were just two young, high-ceiling players with similar skillsets. But tossing Fox—who recently inked a four-year, $229 million extension—into the mix is playing with fire. Fox’s impact is not a question mark. When he returns healthy, he is a sure bet to play at least 30 minutes a game. Right off the bat, you’re limiting the number of guard minutes and possessions to be initiated by the other two players.
The question thus becomes: can this trio co-exist without one cannibalizing the others’ value? Or, perhaps worse, limiting the team’s ultimate ceiling because of fit issues??
Why Timing Matters: Redundancy Compounds Depreciation
While this perspective may appear to be jumping the gun, it’s not grounded in impatience. The goal for any NBA franchise should be to maximize its assets. All of them. Castle and Harper have already shown flashes of players with high theoretical ceilings. If you believe they can reach them together in San Antonio then there’s a strong argument for keeping them.
But make no mistake, that HAS to be the goal.
And if you believe—as I do—that at least one will organically be relegated to something below their ceiling value, then it becomes necessary to replace them with a player who is more likely to approach their ceiling in lockstep with the rest of the roster.
Why now? Because if that occurs, and San Antonio identifies this redundancy too late, the proposition of trading one of them becomes much less profitable for them.
Consider an outcome where the Spurs wait until roles are further muddled and minutes are squeezed, or one of the guards becomes frustrated… all of a sudden, their position weakens. Teams are less willing to hand over premium assets for a guy whose usage is uncertain. Especially when San Antonio has shown their cards. By acting now, San Antonio maximizes demand when market perception is potentially at its peak.
Who Should Be Moved — And Why
Picking exactly who is “tradable” isn’t simple. But the argument leans toward moving the guard whose floor is highest in trade value, whose contract is most moveable, and whose ideal role you’re willing to live without. In this case, Fox is locked in for the long term, which limits flexibility and may have the most symbiotic upside with Wembanyama. Harper may have the highest ceiling of all three, but is the most unproven. Castle is the reigning Rookie of the Year and has room to grow in different roles.
So what do we take from that? Fox may have the highest immediate trade value but also may be the hardest to move because of his contract; Harper is the biggest unknown but likely the most alluring long term. He also appears to profile as the most additive* of the three guards, which makes him most likely to slide next to one of the other two. Moving him should probably be a nonstarter.
*”Additive” in this context means someone whose impact, or a large percentage of it, does not come at the expense of others or require other players lessening theirs (relatively).
This leaves us with Castle, who is one of the league’s most talented young guards. Sometimes he leaves you in awe with the ease with which he glides to the basket. He can defend at the point of attack and his unique size for a guard (6'7” height, 6'9” wingspan) makes him a menace in passing lanes.
To say this is a good problem to have would be an understatement. The Spurs are loaded with talent. And nobody would begrudge them for wanting to play it out and see how far the core can take them.
The Fit Imperative: Beyond Talent
But talent alone doesn’t win championships—synergy is more important than ever. With Wembanyama commanding attention, the Spurs need floor spacing, off-ball movement, defensive switches and complementary instincts around him. The overlapping skill set of three ball-dominant guards threatens spacing and cohesion. One guard’s shot volume equals another guard’s opportunity loss. One guard’s pick-and-roll usage may clash with the others’.
By trading one guard now, San Antonio can aim to acquire a “fit piece”—say, a 3-and-D wing, a defensive facilitator, or a secondary creator who doesn’t demand the ball every possession. That would allow the remaining guard duo to flourish with defined roles rather than congested touches and minutes.
What It Could Look Like
Ideally, the Spurs identify a trade partner seeking an established guard and looking to take on a long‐term contract or high usage. San Antonio could package Fox or Castle (or Harper) and pick(s) for a wing who fits beside Wembanyama and extends the timeline for contention. The messaging: “We’re moving this high‐value asset while demand is high, and acquiring a piece we need for our window.”
Risks & Considerations
Risk of misvaluation: If you trade expecting the market to stay hot, but guard value drops league‐wide, you might miss your window.
Risk of chemistry loss: The trio could thrive together; trading one might destabilize emerging continuity.
Contract/asset cost: The guard you move might require significant return, and you’d need to ensure the incoming piece is projected to improve the ceiling, not just sideways.
The Case for Acting Now
If you accept the premise that redundancy among three similar guards is problematic, and that maximizing value while it’s high is smart business, then the Spurs have to act proactively. Waiting until one guard is relegated or disgruntled reduces trade leverage. Doing nothing risks wasted value and a less optimized window.
In short: the time to move one of Castle, Fox, or Harper is sooner rather than later—while the market perceives them as high-value, while you still control the narrative, and while you can purposefully add a piece that better complements Wembanyama and the unique construction of this roster.
Final Word
Talent is the foundation. Fit is the structure. Value timing is the leverage. The Spurs’ guard logjam isn’t just a “nice problem to have.” With Wembanyama playing at his current level, it’s a signal to act. Moving a guard while value is high and acquiring the right complementary piece might well be the difference between a consistent contender and a team perceived as one player away.
