**Marilyn Dubinski:** The fan of team-ball in me wants to say Haliburton, but he probably won’t ever quite reach MVP status, while SGA is proven MVP at this point with likely more to come. It also wouldn’t be accurate to say SGA is not team-oriented since he averaged a career-high 6.4 assists this season. Haliburton is the type of player who can get hot, and the clutch gene has certainly exploded in him during these playoffs, but I would need to see a more MVP-type regular season from him and another playoff run that is more dominant than full of comeback magic before I’d pick him. The bottom line is you want the best possible player to build around, and at this point, that’s SGA.
**Mark Barrington:** They’re both great players, but you have to go with Gilgeous-Alexander. He’s got the talent to carry a team to a win and can be a dominant player for the entire time he’s on the court, even if the other players aren’t playing at the highest level. Haliburton is more of a complementary player and can disappear at times, and he sometimes has games where he just doesn’t have that big of an impact. There’s no one else I’d want to have to take the last shot in a game than Tyrese or lead a fourth quarter comeback, but SGA has more impact for the other three quarters. Either one of them is a better finisher than anyone currently on the Spurs, and both teams can feel confident having their stars handle the ball in clutch situations.
**Jacob Douglas:** I’ll stick with the MVP. SGA is the first “offensive hub” guard in the modern era who I can actually see winning a championship due to his effort on the defensive end and willingness to fit into a scheme offensively. He combines the offensive explosiveness of a Luka Doncic or a James Harden with the sort of selflessness that someone like Haliburton exhibits. Haliburton can disappear sometimes because he’s not that assertive of a star. I think that hurt the Pacers tremendously in Game 2.
**Bill Huan:** If we’re picking between those two players specifically, it would be _crazy_ not to go with SGA. Playstyles should be factored in when constructing a team, but only when discussing equal talents — there’s no world in which you should pick a borderline All-NBA player over a surefire MVP.
If, however, we’re talking about which playstyle we’d prefer to construct a team, regardless of talent, I’d go with one that’s more team-oriented. History shows that heliocentric offenses are conducive to championships, and it’s more fun to watch everyone be involved, too.
**Devon Birdsong:** For this team and the way the Spurs will play/need to play around Wemby, I think I’d take Haliburton. SGA was the only player not named Jokic truly worthy of winning MVP the last two seasons, but Haliburton is capable of stepping back and facilitating as needed, and making tough shots in the clutch. SGA strikes me as a more defensively capable version of peak James Harden: his entire team’s offense really revolves around him, and seems to function best that way. It’s hard to argue that the Spurs couldn't use that kind of talent, but I’d argue that Wembanyama needs to function as his team’s primary hub, and Haliburton strikes me as a better fit for that. I also think that his game may age better in the long run, as a lot of SGA’s game hinges on his ungodly burst and ability to draw fouls.
**Gomez:** I think SGA is the perfect player to build around, because he’s an unstoppable first option that doesn’t require full heliocentricity. I’m not going to call Haliburton a system player because he’s too good for that designation, but to shine his brightest, he needs a roster that complements his skills and a style that emphasizes his strengths. I’m not afraid to say that I like how the Pacers play more than I enjoy the Thunder, but I also don’t mind acknowledging that having a traditional first option player is an easier way to build a winner.
### Do you think Jeremy Sochan is closer to becoming Pascal Siakam or is Devin Vassell closer to becoming Jalen Williams?
**Dubinski:** Siakam has been a reliable 20-point-per-game player for six seasons now and could reasonably be the best player on a playoff team with the right supporting cast. Even if he develops a reliable jump shot, I don’t think that’s something that will ever be expected or even asked of Sochan; they simply play two entirely different roles to compare. I guess by default that puts Vassell closer to Williams since they are both capable of being the second option of offense, although Williams has proven to be more explosive and consistent at this point.
**Barrington:** I think that player comps can have value in figuring out how to describe a player’s talents, but every player is an individual. I don’t think there’s a whole lot of similarity between Pascal Siakam’s game and Jeremy Sochan's. They’re both good defenders, with Jeremy having a slight edge on the defensive end, but Pascal is a much more intuitive player on offense than Jeremy will ever be. Jeremy’s ceiling is an elite defender and opportunistic scorer, which isn’t that much like Siakam.
Devin Vassell doesn’t have the athleticism of Jalen Williams, and his handle isn’t as smooth, but maybe he’s a little closer to Williams than Sochan is to Pascal because they’re both talented offensive players who give good effort on the defensive end. It’s possible that Vassell could become the kind of player that Jalen is, but he’s already been in the league longer, and maybe he’s already who he’s going to be. To be honest, I’m not a fan of either comparison.
**Douglas:** Sochan and Siakam play such a different game, which makes them hard to compare. I suppose I’d say Vassell due to his scoring ability at all three levels. On his best night, he’s a better shooter than Williams. He doesn’t come anywhere close to Williams’ defensive ability, though. It does show how far the Spurs are behind the Thunder on the wing. It’s a position that will need some serious upgrading if San Antonio wants to compete in the coming years.
**Huan:** Can I say neither? We’re comparing two All-NBA talents, both of whom might end up in the Hall of Fame, with players who haven’t shown to be even consistent positive contributors. If I had to pick one, though, it would be Sochan to Siakam.
I see many of my PtR family going with the opposite because Vassell and Williams can both operate as secondary offensive options, but there’s really not much that’s actually similar in their games. Vassell is a much better shooter while Williams is a better slasher, passer, cutter, etc, aka, better at everything else. The biggest difference between the two, though, is their versatility on defense. Vassell has yet to prove that he’s even a positive in his own end, while Williams is one of the five most switchable defenders in the league and capable of adequately guarding shooting guards to centers.
Again, Sochan isn’t very similar to Siakam either, but I can see the faint outline if I really squint. They’re both versatile defenders who are iffy shooters (much more in Sochan’s case, obviously) and good passers, too. Of course, Siakam is a much better scorer, but the Venn diagram overlaps between these two is much greater than that of Vassell and Williams.
**Birdsong:** I don’t think either Spur profiles very similarly to their point of comparison. That being said, Sochan feels like a particularly unique player in the league right now. His best point of comparison (for active players) might be Draymond Green, but even that feels kind of thin. He’s neither as guard-forward as Ben Simmons was, nor as freakish an athlete as a younger Aaron Gordon was. Honestly, if he can really start hitting his threes, Nicolas Batum feels like a fair comp if you squint a little. Even then, Sochan might honestly be fairly incomparable at this stage in his development. So, by default, I’d have to say that Vassell is closer to becoming Jalen Williams, but I do so in protest. If Devin could stay healthy, become smarter and more efficient with his shot selection, and improve defensively, a comparison could perhaps be made. A lot of conditionals in that sentence, though.
**Gomez:** Instead of answering the question, I’ll defend the comparison, since I made it. I can’t blame anyone for not remembering young Pascal on those good-never-great Raptors team, but he averaged four points as a rookie and seven as a sophomore while making a total of 30 threes in those initial two seasons. He got minutes because of his defensive versatility and tireless energy, and the main cause for optimism about his offense was his ability to handle the ball as a big forward. Sochan is not dissimilar to that Siakam. As for Williams, coming into the league, he was considered a smart and well-rounded offensive player who didn’t project to be a primary scorer, and a questionable point-of-attack defender because of a lack of lateral quickness. The main criticism nowadays is that he can be inconsistent on offense. It’s not a 1:1 match, but Vassell and Williams are similar types of players.
Will Vassell and Sochan develop as Williams and Siakam did? Probably not, which could be a problem if the Spurs are hoping they can be one of their top guys.
### Would you rather have OKC’s front office or Indiana’s coaching staff?
**Dubinski:** When push comes to shove, the coaching staff can only do so much if the front office doesn’t come through with a reliable roster, and it’s pretty hard to argue with the route OKC has taken to build a contender: trade for a future MVP (even if they didn’t realize it at the time), keep fleecing other teams for good draft picks, and get the right complimentary players in free agency. Although the Spurs drafted their MVP, they are otherwise following a similar path, and it seems to be headed in the right direction.
**Barrington:** That’s a tough call, but I think I’d go with Sam Presti and the Thunder. Rick Carlisle is a strategic genius and gets the most out of his players and scheme, but the stockpiling of talent on the OKC squad makes them into a juggernaut that dominated the talent-rich West, both in the regular season and in the playoffs. They drafted well and also made smart pickups like Caruso, which gave them veteran toughness on defense that got them past the Nuggets in the conference semifinals. They also have enough draft picks stockpiled to keep the team competitive for a long time. If you’re trying to build a dynasty, you’d do well to follow the same path as the Thunder.
**Douglas:** I don’t think this is particularly close. Presti has built a roster capable of contending for a decade. It’s young, versatile, deep, and he still has a stockpile of draft assets to continue to improve it. The Thunder’s front office has been excellent at selecting and developing players later in the draft or off the scrap heap. Look at Aaron Wiggins, Lu Dort, Isaiah Joe, and Ajay Mitchell. I also think the Nikola Topic pick will eventually pay big dividends for them. This is likely the best-run franchise in the NBA.
**Huan:** Great question! This is a really tough decision to make. I generally think having a good front office is more important than a good coach, but I have more faith in the Spurs’ FO than their coaching staff right now. That’s not because I don’t have faith in Mitch Johnson and co., but rather that they’re still an unknown while Rick Carlisle has established himself as one of the league’s best coaches for two decades now. I’d love to be proven wrong, but it’s tough to take a mystery box over a sure-fire HoF coach currently.
**Birdsong:** The Spurs front office is already pretty good, so Indiana’s coaching staff feels like the easy answer here, as I’m not as sold on Mitch Johnson as I would be Rick Carlisle, who I’ve both feared and admired since [he nearly took down the Beautiful Game Spurs of 2014 using nothing but an aging Dirk Nowitzki and spare parts](https://www.sbnation.com/2019/7/15/20677426/dorktown-mavericks-spurs-2014-rick-carlisle). Not only would Carlisle’s preferred styles of play (and players) line up fantastically with the Spurs’ vision currently and historically, but he’s clearly still at his best, having taken a Pacers team without a Wemby/Duncan/Dirk type player to the NBA Finals this season. It’s possible that Mitch Johnson is that kind of coaching genius, but with Wemby ascending, I’m not taking any chances. The Spurs have already aped OKC’s pick hoarding and won out in a way they never did lottery-wise. I’ll take the coach with active (and recent) Finals accolades.
**Gomez:** Timing is everything in the NBA. The answer would have easily been the Thunder’s front office at the start of the rebuild, since Brian Wright was an unknown and had made a couple of questionable moves, and the Spurs had a Hall-of-Fame coach already in place. Now that Pop is gone and Wright has shown he can find talent in the draft and make good trades, it has to be the Pacers’ coaching staff, because it’s Mitch Johnson’s turn to earn the fan base’s trust.