Hello and welcome to our community! Is this your first visit?
Register
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 42
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    918
    Blog Entries
    1

    76ers might be great

    In a way I hate to see them rewarded for their over-the-top tanking.
    But if Embiid stays healthy and Simmons comes back they might be a powerhouse.
    Those two might be the best inside/outside combo in the league - IF they stay healthy.
    Not to mention Okefor, Noel, Saric and others.

    This is a Summer League highlight reel which always makes a guy look great. But Simmons is a special talent:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQAw...ature=youtu.be

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,981
    Quote Originally Posted by ECA19 View Post
    In a way I hate to see them rewarded for their over-the-top tanking.
    But if Embiid stays healthy and Simmons comes back they might be a powerhouse.
    Those two might be the best inside/outside combo in the league - IF they stay healthy.
    Not to mention Okefor, Noel, Saric and others.

    This is a Summer League highlight reel which always makes a guy look great. But Simmons is a special talent:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQAw...ature=youtu.be
    The way they are going, they might play themselves out of a top 10 pick.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by stlouiswolf View Post
    The way they are going, they might play themselves out of a top 10 pick.
    Luckily for them, the Sixers also have pick-swap rights with the Kings, who are currently tied for the 7th spot (with the Wolves and Dallas) and trending down.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,237
    Saw a mock where they take Lonzo. Now that would be interesting. Adding a pick like that AND Simmons to the team they're building, could be good.

    Amazing that the could whiff on Okafor so badly and barely even feel it.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    918
    Blog Entries
    1
    [QUOTE=aceswired;371132]Saw a mock where they take Lonzo. Now that would be interesting. Adding a pick like that AND Simmons to the team they're building, could be good.

    Amazing that the could whiff on Okafor so badly and barely even feel it.[/QUOTE]

    Might be too early to give up on him too. But add another high pick and they could blow right past the Wolves as the young team of the future.

    I still hate that they're seemingly being rewarded for their ultra-tanking strategy. But in the NBA, where only the teams with a top 2 or 3 player along with a couple more near that level, get to compete for a title it seems like the only way unless you can somehow attract a Lebron to your team.

    I think it's a major flaw of the NBA, where only a small handful of teams have any realistic chance to win it all. Maybe I'm wrong since the NBA seems to be doing well. But the vast majority of the league has almost no chance to win the title every year.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,981
    Quote Originally Posted by aceswired View Post
    Saw a mock where they take Lonzo. Now that would be interesting. Adding a pick like that AND Simmons to the team they're building, could be good.

    Amazing that the could whiff on Okafor so badly and barely even feel it.
    Of course the whole thing relies on Embiid staying healthy. Odds are less than 50-50 on that I'd say.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    918
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by stlouiswolf View Post
    Of course the whole thing relies on Embiid staying healthy. Odds are less than 50-50 on that I'd say.
    That's a very good point.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by ECA19 View Post
    I still hate that they're seemingly being rewarded for their ultra-tanking strategy. But in the NBA, where only the teams with a top 2 or 3 player along with a couple more near that level, get to compete for a title it seems like the only way unless you can somehow attract a Lebron to your team.

    I think it's a major flaw of the NBA, where only a small handful of teams have any realistic chance to win it all. Maybe I'm wrong since the NBA seems to be doing well. But the vast majority of the league has almost no chance to win the title every year.
    For better or worse, I think it is what it is.

    I've never seen anyone propose a way to change the fact that you basically need an MVP candidate and probably at least one more All-star to be a legitimate contender in the NBA, because that's dictated by the realities of the sport at the highest level. If you have a solution to overcome that, at least without decimating the league with unintended consequences, you'd be the first to figure it out.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    8,866
    Yep, it is all dependent on Embid keeping healthy.
    There have been other big men who have had a great year or two with an injury history and then totally tank.

    That is why it will be foolish for them to trade one of their big men. Because if Embid goes down, they will regret it.

    They gambled on Embid and even though he is playing great it still is a gamble. Maybe he will be the exception for big men and foot/knee injuries. Or he could be like Bynum who had all the skills to be a great player but was harassed by injury.
    Embid has had restricted minutes, what will happen when he plays longer?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    17,106
    They can trade Okafor and not really miss him. Noel's a different story (I'd keep him as insurance and as the third big man).
    Inching back towards the wagon...slowly...

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by stlouiswolf View Post
    Of course the whole thing relies on Embiid staying healthy. Odds are less than 50-50 on that I'd say.
    Especially because he's on my fantasy basketball squad. I've lost Pau Gasol, Rudy Gay and Enis Kanter in the last 2 weeks. Why not Embiid.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by ECA19 View Post

    Might be too early to give up on him too. But add another high pick and they could blow right past the Wolves as the young team of the future.

    I still hate that they're seemingly being rewarded for their ultra-tanking strategy. But in the NBA, where only the teams with a top 2 or 3 player along with a couple more near that level, get to compete for a title it seems like the only way unless you can somehow attract a Lebron to your team.

    I think it's a major flaw of the NBA, where only a small handful of teams have any realistic chance to win it all. Maybe I'm wrong since the NBA seems to be doing well. But the vast majority of the league has almost no chance to win the title every year.
    I know there are still big concerns about Embiid staying healthy, but if one could make the assumption of health, they're already there as far as being the team of the future. Embiid has a higher upside compared to Towns based on what he's already shown defensively (where he's way ahead of where Towns is at). Simmons adds another health concern on Philly's side, but he's a pretty unique talent and most expect him to make a pretty big impact when he returns. The Wolves have talent for sure, but given the flatter development curve of Wiggins, the defensive struggles of Wiggins/Lavine and poor play of Dunn so far, the supporting cast role favors Philly especially since they've got way more ammo as far as options to fill out their team. They get the better of their pick and Sacto's pick this year along with the looming pick from LA that will either be in the range of like 4-7 this year or completely unprotected next year. It would be lucky for sure, but Philly could pick 1 and 4 this year in what is being called the best draft in a decade in terms of depth of lotto talent. Add in that Simmons may wait until next year to make his debut and Philly could add two #1 overall picks as well as the 4th pick to a team with the reigning ROY.

    Without health concerns, Philly is the hands down team of the future IMO.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,237
    I'm not sure I agree that Embiid > Towns. I think Towns has the potential to dominate the offensive end in a way that Embiid won't ever be able to.

    So then it's looking at Wiggins vs. Simmons, and we just can't do that at this point. There's no data. Both came out as #1 picks with some big question marks. The two franchises are good comps for each other. Potentially dominant big men, albeit in different ways, with question marks with regard to a running mate.

    If you asked me today if I'd swap Towns and Wiggins for Embiid and Simmons ... it'd be tough. Simmons could be great. Or not. So you have to look hard at the known quantity, and I don't trust Embiid's health. Of the four, Towns seems to be the most sure-fire. Look at it this way. If you went to Vegas and asked for futures odds on each of the four to become a Hall of Famer, and Towns is going to be the overwhelming favorite. Just spitballing, but I'd imagine something like this

    Towns 2:1
    Embiid 5:1
    Simmons 8:1
    Wiggins 10:1

    You just can't make the assumption of health. Embiid started out as damaged goods. That's part of who he is in the NBA. I hope the kid can stay healthy. He'll be fun to watch. But it's just not a great bet right now.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    918
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by LA_33 View Post
    For better or worse, I think it is what it is.

    I've never seen anyone propose a way to change the fact that you basically need an MVP candidate and probably at least one more All-star to be a legitimate contender in the NBA, because that's dictated by the realities of the sport at the highest level. If you have a solution to overcome that, at least without decimating the league with unintended consequences, you'd be the first to figure it out.
    That's exactly right, and why it's so frustrating. I understand what the 76ers did and why they did it. Tanking for half a season seems reasonable. But they've been in full blown tank mode for several seasons. And it seems like it's finally paying off which means other teams are now going to do the same thing and we'll have a league full of teams purposely putting garbage on the floor for several years.

    For better or worse the Wolves have put garbage on the floor for the better part of a decade but most of the time it didn't feel as intentional. We had bad drafts, bad luck and bad decision makers.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by ECA19 View Post
    That's exactly right, and why it's so frustrating. I understand what the 76ers did and why they did it. Tanking for half a season seems reasonable. But they've been in full blown tank mode for several seasons. And it seems like it's finally paying off which means other teams are now going to do the same thing and we'll have a league full of teams purposely putting garbage on the floor for several years.

    For better or worse the Wolves have put garbage on the floor for the better part of a decade but most of the time it didn't feel as intentional. We had bad drafts, bad luck and bad decision makers.
    I don't think anyone is going to go quite as full-on "Hinkie" as the Sixers did, since that path resulted in the rest of the league pressuring Sixers' owenrship to fire Hinkie and install the Colangelo Fraternity, even though Hinkie's rebuild actually now looks like it worked, and after "only" three seasons (they were egregious, but that's actually a relatively short turn-around) in spite of relatively poor lottery luck; they landed their worst lotto position in the best draft year, remember, and their only top-2 pick in the worst draft year, and were only able to draft an apparent franchise player because they had to wait two full season for him to get healthy (I guess it remains to be seen if Simmons will approach that level, too, but I'm skeptical, even though he should be a great complement to Embiid).

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    918
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by dschroeder01 View Post
    I know there are still big concerns about Embiid staying healthy, but if one could make the assumption of health, they're already there as far as being the team of the future. Embiid has a higher upside compared to Towns based on what he's already shown defensively (where he's way ahead of where Towns is at). Simmons adds another health concern on Philly's side, but he's a pretty unique talent and most expect him to make a pretty big impact when he returns. The Wolves have talent for sure, but given the flatter development curve of Wiggins, the defensive struggles of Wiggins/Lavine and poor play of Dunn so far, the supporting cast role favors Philly especially since they've got way more ammo as far as options to fill out their team. They get the better of their pick and Sacto's pick this year along with the looming pick from LA that will either be in the range of like 4-7 this year or completely unprotected next year. It would be lucky for sure, but Philly could pick 1 and 4 this year in what is being called the best draft in a decade in terms of depth of lotto talent. Add in that Simmons may wait until next year to make his debut and Philly could add two #1 overall picks as well as the 4th pick to a team with the reigning ROY.

    Without health concerns, Philly is the hands down team of the future IMO.
    I don't disagree with you. But there are a lot of "ifs" with them too. Most of them revolve around health but those are legit concerns. And Simmons hasn't done anything yet. It's easy to project great things (especially if you watch the video I put in the first post) but we've seen a lot of summer league superstars that don't make it in the real games. He's isn't a very good shooter which will make it tough.
    But it's certainly reasonable to think they are the team of the future.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    918
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by LA_33 View Post
    I don't think anyone is going to go quite as full-on "Hinkie" as the Sixers did, since that path resulted in the rest of the league pressuring Sixers' owenrship to fire Hinkie and install the Colangelo Fraternity, even though Hinkie's rebuild actually now looks like it worked, and after "only" three seasons (they were egregious, but that's actually a relatively short turn-around) in spite of relatively poor lottery luck; they landed their worst lotto position in the best draft year, remember, and their only top-2 pick in the worst draft year, and were only able to draft an apparent franchise player because they had to wait two full season for him to get healthy (I guess it remains to be seen if Simmons will approach that level, too, but I'm skeptical, even though he should be a great complement to Embiid).
    I sure hope you're right.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by ECA19 View Post
    I sure hope you're right.
    I dont think he is. I think your going to see more teams pull this. But..I'm going to say that with a "caveat" of there has to be a franchise changing player at the top of the draft. But I think you'll see more and more teams look to find ways to get multiple years with picks at the top of the draft and hope that they get lucky. As has been pointed out you HAVE to have one of those MVP caliber players to have any hope at all of winning a title...and thats whats wrong with the NBA.

    So how do you fix that? Probably another thread but IMHO there are only 2 ways to "fix" that. And they both essentially change the way the NBA markets itself. (i.e. superstar league). You have to find a way to either spread the talent around more so more teams have major talent...or limit the "effect" that a single superstar can have on the game. Neither would be popular to the NBA or to most fans. Finding ways the spread the talent is probably the more realistic of the 2 and even then its not fool proof. It relies on teams making good managment decisions which we all know too many who dont.

    It goes back to parity and whether or not its good for the league. I personally think it is but I know I'm in the minority.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    5,432
    Quote Originally Posted by kingsxman View Post
    I dont think he is. I think your going to see more teams pull this. But..I'm going to say that with a "caveat" of there has to be a franchise changing player at the top of the draft. But I think you'll see more and more teams look to find ways to get multiple years with picks at the top of the draft and hope that they get lucky. As has been pointed out you HAVE to have one of those MVP caliber players to have any hope at all of winning a title...and thats whats wrong with the NBA.

    So how do you fix that? Probably another thread but IMHO there are only 2 ways to "fix" that. And they both essentially change the way the NBA markets itself. (i.e. superstar league). You have to find a way to either spread the talent around more so more teams have major talent...or limit the "effect" that a single superstar can have on the game. Neither would be popular to the NBA or to most fans. Finding ways the spread the talent is probably the more realistic of the 2 and even then its not fool proof. It relies on teams making good managment decisions which we all know too many who dont.

    It goes back to parity and whether or not its good for the league. I personally think it is but I know I'm in the minority.
    Yeah, I see 3 main ways to get to that level of parity (none of which I am particularly a fan of).

    1) I can't remember the term and random phrases in Google isn't helping me out much, but reducing the number of teams would be the first option. The fewer teams battling for the high level talent, the more high-level talent is available. ...And the less generation of revenue is available. There is basically no realistic way for the NBA to do this (note: they could drop a couple of teams here and there, but the level needed to "balance the rosters" would be a good 6-10 teams, and there is no way the NBA pulls the trigger on something like that).
    2) Manage the teams from a league level. What I mean is that the teams no longer call the shots for the players, and the rosters are decided "by committee" at the league level, intentionally balancing the teams and building more parity. Again, it is highly unlikely that owners ever agree to support this, and the fans would probably riot as well.
    3) Change the way the cap works. As I have said a million times, a Salary Cap will never, ever, ever be effective at capping Talent. It is simply not possible. When Dwayne Wade is allowed to take less money to play with his superstar friends, the entire system breaks down. Especially when you have places like Miami with no state income tax. And, you have players that are no longer worth their deals getting paid like superstars and eating up more of the cap than they "should". Changing the cap to a talent-based system would help fight that, but even then, any measure that is used to gauge the talent is going to be constantly in question and highly debated.


    I am still a fan of players giving up their guaranteed contracts for RFA status every season. That way, teams can move away from bad contracts easily, but players who out play their contracts can be rewarded with a pay raise every season and not have to wait until a contract year. This would help shorten the bottom-feeding time of teams that get stuck with a albatross contract and help slow down the teams that get a huge amount of young talent on cap-friendly contracts (like GS and OKC). And, when I say "get rid of guaranteed contracts", I simply mean that they could be taken off of the cap. It doesn't necessarily mean that a player isn't still paid. It could work like the Amnesty provision, where a team can cut any player and avoid a cap penalty as long as the owner is willing to cut with the cost out of his pocket. Maybe at a lower rate (like 80% contract value or something) if the players are getting the ability for yearly raises, though.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,237
    Quote Originally Posted by TJ Styles View Post
    1) I can't remember the term and random phrases in Google isn't helping me out much, but reducing the number of teams would be the first option. The fewer teams battling for the high level talent, the more high-level talent is available.
    I assume you're going for "contraction" here. The trouble with that idea is that the Wolves would have to be on the short list of teams to contract.


 

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •