The sixers and building a winner

nighthob · Dec 2, 2014

moly99 said:
We are arguing two different things and I am obviously failing to explain the difference.

Actually you're really trying to avoid the initial claim and find some new wiggle room where you'll be right. You should probably give it up because it was just a bad claim.

moly99 said:
I fully agree that basketball is influenced by individual players to a greater degree than other sports, and that the chances of a team finding a player who gives them 100-200% above their contract value is far greater in the NBA than other leagues.

However the NBA surely knows this just as well as the fans and instead of taking steps to make it easier for teams to compete without superstar players they have gone in exactly the opposite direction.

What direction would that be? Spotting teams without superstars points? Strict limits on the amount of time teams can play superstars? "I'm sorry, Cleveland, you're playing the 76ers tonight, they're getting 40 points and you need to sit two of your big three down."

The really funny part? You're still[/wrong as the NBA did exactly that by loosening up the defensive rules a quarter century ago to help teams not named the Celtics or Lakers to compete, a reality that lasted until the middle of last decade when defenses had so overwhelmed offenses that the NBA was forced to tighten up the defensive rules again to encourage more scoring and generate more fan interest.

moly99 said:
Are you referring to the salary cap? I'm not talking about that. I am referring to the "maximum individual contract" that artificially caps the contract sizes of players like Kevin Durant to something like 40% of their market value.

The contract max rules were part of the salary cap. You keep seizing on the accidental side effects as some sort of NBA conspiracy. Again, going back to LeBron, his baseball equivalency is five Mike Trouts and if we use the Fangraphs $/WAR calculations that makes LBJ worth more than the Dodgers' payroll. That's not "NBA marketing strategy," it's reality.

ALiveH · Dec 2, 2014

Yes, but if the refs called the games fairly without deference to star status (which they currently don't do for what is widely assumed to be marketing reasons), then Lebron would probably only be worth 4 Mike Trouts.

Schnerres · Dec 2, 2014

Anybody cares? No. Celtics gonna end the 76ers streak. If not, this looks dark...
@17:
@Minnesota
vs OKC (Westbrook, Durant back)
@Detroit
@Atlanta
@Brooklyn
vs Memphis
vs Boston
vs Charlotte
then a 7-game trip (Magic, Heat, Blazers, Jazz, Warriors, Suns, Clips) with only the Magic as a winnable opponent...

crystalline · Dec 2, 2014

nighthob said:
The contract max rules were part of the salary cap. You keep seizing on the accidental side effects as some sort of NBA conspiracy. Again, going back to LeBron, his baseball equivalency is five Mike Trouts and if we use the Fangraphs $/WAR calculations that makes LBJ worth more than the Dodgers' payroll. That's not "NBA marketing strategy," it's reality.

A salary cap with no max player contract is possible, seeing as the other big three sports have this situation. Then, it wouldn't matter how many WAR LeBron generates. Instead of getting offered 35% of the cap by essentially every team, he'd be offered ~75% of the cap by 1-2 teams and he'd be in Utah, or in Miami with no Bosh or Wade.

nighthob · Dec 2, 2014

crystalline said:
A salary cap with no max player contract is possible, seeing as the other big three sports have this situation. Then, it wouldn't matter how many WAR LeBron generates. Instead of getting offered 35% of the cap by essentially every team, he'd be offered ~75% of the cap by 1-2 teams and he'd be in Utah, or in Miami with no Bosh or Wade.

Again, none of this is related to the claim that the NBA has some marketing gimmick that relies on promoting superstars that allows them to dominate the game. Superstars were dominating the game 50 years ago when there were no salary caps or max contracts and most players had offseason jobs. It really is just the dynamics of the game.

Curtis Pride · Dec 3, 2014

I hate the way the Sixers are "rebuilding." They're punting on this season after last season's tanking, and they drafted two players who playing this year. This team is way too young: the oldest active player is Luc Richard Mbah a Moute at 28. MCW at 23 is a grizzled veteran on the Sixers. This is the list of players with more than one year's experience in the NBA:

Jason Richardson (12 years) - recovering from knee surgery, won't return until March
Mbah a Moute (6 years) - starting SF
Henry Sims (2 years) - starting C

That's it.

Currently they are 30th in scoring and 27th in points allowed. and their scoring deficit is 14.4 points per game, 4.0 more than the Timberwolves and 6.9 more than the Hornets. That is the equivalent of the gap between first-place Golden State and ninth-place Cleveland.

I'm not as concerned about the fans turning on the Sixers as I am about the players. They are at risk of losing their morale as the season progresses. I would prefer that they had drafted at least one player who would play right away and signed at least one rotation veteran so that they would at least get back to respectability.

Blacken · Dec 3, 2014

At risk of losing their morale. That's very important.

Wait, no. The other thing.

moondog80 · Dec 3, 2014

If I were another owner, I'd be pissed about sharing TV money with them. And I'm not even that bullish on their future. MCW puts up garbage numbers, and Noel hasn't even been able to do that yet, plus he's already missed games with a sprained ankle and a hip pointer. He looks like he'll be lucky to be Tony Battie. So they're banking on Embid staying healthy and Saric's game translating to the US, both of which are serious questions. What's the over/under on total all star game appearances from those 4 guys? Maybe 2.5?

Morgan's Magic Snowplow · Dec 3, 2014

moondog80 said:
If I were another owner, I'd be pissed about sharing TV money with them. And I'm not even that bullish on their future. MCW puts up garbage numbers, and Noel hasn't even been able to do that yet, plus he's already missed games with a sprained ankle and a hip pointer. He looks like he'll be lucky to be Tony Battie. So they're banking on Embid staying healthy and Saric's game translating to the US, both of which are serious questions. What's the over/under on total all star game appearances from those 4 guys? Maybe 2.5?

Plus Okafor or Towns or whoever in the draft.

I think the current Sixers team is disgraceful but, from the standpoint of the 2015 offseason when this current 0-Whatever travesty will be in the past, I'd swap rosters (and likely picks in the upcoming draft) with them in a cocaine heartbeat.

Grin&MartyBarret · Dec 3, 2014

moondog80 said:
If I were another owner, I'd be pissed about sharing TV money with them. And I'm not even that bullish on their future. MCW puts up garbage numbers, and Noel hasn't even been able to do that yet, plus he's already missed games with a sprained ankle and a hip pointer. He looks like he'll be lucky to be Tony Battie. So they're banking on Embid staying healthy and Saric's game translating to the US, both of which are serious questions. What's the over/under on total all star game appearances from those 4 guys? Maybe 2.5?

Not sure how well it's held up, but there was a point about 2 weeks ago where Noel's numbers had him as the top rim protector in the league.

Cellar-Door · Dec 3, 2014

Grin&MartyBarret said:
Not sure how well it's held up, but there was a point about 2 weeks ago where Noel's numbers had him as the top rim protector in the league.

He's 16th among NBA big men with decent volume (at least 9 games played, at least 4 FGA at the rim faced) in FG% at the rim good, but not great.

Blacken · Dec 3, 2014

The Sixers might win tonight.

I'm pullin' for 'em, I tell you what.

oumbi · Dec 3, 2014

Well, it looks like the Philly strategy is finally paying dividends. This should convince them to stay the course.

GeorgeCostanza · Dec 4, 2014

Bizarro night in the NBA. Sixers win and Celtics win after yet another blown 4th quarter lead.

The X Man Cometh · Dec 4, 2014

nighthob said:
Again, none of this is related to the claim that the NBA has some marketing gimmick that relies on promoting superstars that allows them to dominate the game. Superstars were dominating the game 50 years ago when there were no salary caps or max contracts and most players had offseason jobs. It really is just the dynamics of the game.

The point is that the max salary makes it artificially easy to build around a James or a Durant. If you're paying a $40 million player half of that, you have $20 mil of money the rest of the league doesn't have access to.

Its horrible for the game. Players should be allowed to make the percentage of the cap that they are worth. If a team wants to spend 50% of their cap on James or Durant, they should be able to. A league with a hard team salary cap and no individual max salary would be a much more exciting environment.

nighthob · Dec 4, 2014

The claim was that superstars dominate the game because of some NBA marketing plan. The NBA marketing department, literally, has nothing to do with superstars dominating the sport. Literally nothing. Not even a little bit. Not even a smidgeon. And the salary cap was instituted to prevent teams with 3-5 future hall of famers in their starting lineup from existing. That was the literal reason they implemented the change, the rest of the NBA was tired of staring and Boston's & LA's rear ends.

Now, as a side effect, because you could no longer have teams with future hall of famers in their prime at every position, teams with two or three all stars were able to compete for titles. Which was a sea change from what had existed previously when Boston and LA accounted for 27 of the first 38 NBA championships. So, still, the reason superstars dominate the NBA today is the same reason that they were dominating the game in 1994, 1984, 1974, 1964 and 1954. That's just how the game works.

EDIT: I mean for chrissake LeBron was dominating the NBA in Cleveland where the second best player was Mo fucking Williams and, for one season, the 38 year old Shaq. Was that because the salary cap rules made it artificially easy for Paxson and Ferry to surround James with players that sucked as part of some grand NBA strategy?

nighthob · Dec 4, 2014

LondonSox said:
Salary cap yes. But not the individual player cap. Salary cap with no max would be far more logical for allowing competition. The individual cap screws up the team cap, as people are saying getting a guy for half his market value is what is causing a lot of problems.
If you pay market prices for a superstar with a salary cap, you have a choice of one superstar and a lot of middle tier players or several stars. A world where the best players are the biggest bargains in the sport means the salary cap helps the teams with the top top players.

For one thing it isn't going to happen because when the NBAPA takes a vote on reducing the pay of the other 440 members so that the top ten guys can earn $40-$50 million a year the vote is going to be 440-10 against. The max salary rules aren't driven by some league conspiracy to help LeBron (and even if they were they haven't fucking worked very well, have they?), they were driven by the 96% of NBA players that aren't superstars and the 94% of NBA players that aren't all stars that want to get paid too.

The individual contract caps were indeed part of the salary cap, which was indeed intended to break up the old-time superteams (aka the Celtics and Lakers) so that other teams could compete for titles too. The fact that teams with 2-3 all stars were now able to compete for titles was a feature, and an improvement from the days when such teams basically served to help the Lakers or Celtics warm up before winning the title.

Again people keep trying to shift the argument away from the claim that there's some league office conspiracy to help superstars win. There isn't. These are the dynamics of a sport with only five players on the floor at any given time. If you get one of those top ten players it's a heck of a lot easier to win than it is if you have perfect teamwork but your best player is Jeff fucking Green. There is no fucking scenario in which mystical teamwork without all stars wins titles. Even everyone's favorite counterfactual (the '77 Blazers) featured one of the greatest centers in NBA history, who was healthy, and a couple of all star running mates.

Brickowski · Dec 4, 2014

Well, the 2004 Pistons did pretty well. And so did the Sacramento Kings of the early 2000's (a team that was denied a chance at a title by dishonest and incompetent officiating, but that's another story).

It's pretty obvious that with only 5 players on the floor, each individual player matters much more than in other sports-- even more than NFL quarterbacks, who don't play defense. But name stars get preferential treatment. I wouldn't call it a league conspiracy, but something closer to a tacit understanding that the players on whom everyone's revenue largely depends should be well treated by the officials.

I remember the 2004 Olympics, when LeBron on a number of occasions barged into his man and then glowered at the FIBA officials because he didn't get the obligatory blocking call. The FIBA officials swallowed their whistles and glowered right back.

ALiveH · Dec 4, 2014

I can't believe people are seriously claiming that the lack of a salary cap enabled the Lakes & Celtics dominance in an era with no free agency. You're better than that.

Also, I can't imagine that no player cap will make the NBA a more watchable product, unless you enjoyed watching the Allen Iverson 76ers or the Lebron James Cavs (version 1.0). In a world when Kevin Durant is surrounded by a roster of JAGs, his usage rate increases from 30% to 60%. He'd score over 40 ppg with drastically reduced efficiency.

I'll reiterate that preferential treatment from the refs exacerbates all the star problems people are complaining about on this thread, especially in the playoffs (like the infamous Sac Kings v Lakers).

nighthob · Dec 4, 2014

ALiveH said:
I can't believe people are seriously claiming that the lack of a salary cap enabled the Lakes & Celtics dominance in an era with no free agency. You're better than that.

NO. People are seriously claiming that there's some sort of new league conspiracy to help superstars dominate the NBA even though superstars have always dominated basketball and always will, because that's just how the game works. The lack of a salary cap didn't help the Celtics and Lakers dominate, the salary cap was implemented to make sure that the 80s Lakers & Celtics could never be replicated.

nighthob · Dec 4, 2014

Brickowski said:
Well, the 2004 Pistons did pretty well. And so did the Sacramento Kings of the early 2000's (a team that was denied a chance at a title by dishonest and incompetent officiating, but that's another story).

The 2004 Pistons had four all stars, which isn't really a counterfactual. The salary cap's purpose was to help teams like the Pistons compete. That they had one of them on a bargain basement deal allowed the mid aughts Pistons to stay together. The early aughts Kings actually had a top ten player and all star support for him.

Brickowski · Dec 4, 2014

If Webber was top ten, it was marginal.

nighthob · Dec 4, 2014

He was a regular member of the All NBA 1st & 2nd teams during that era. That's the definition of a top 10 player.

HomeRunBaker · Dec 4, 2014

nighthob said:
NO. People are seriously claiming that there's some sort of new league conspiracy to help superstars dominate the NBA even though superstars have always dominated basketball and always will, because that's just how the game works. The lack of a salary cap didn't help the Celtics and Lakers dominate, the salary cap was implemented to make sure that the 80s Lakers & Celtics could never be replicated.

Superstars also get the majority of the calls due to them typically having superior quickness, strength, power and understanding angles while being aggressive. The player who is slower, weaker, and on the defensive will generally be out of optimal position as the superstar earns the call due to his superior skills.

When this overmatched defensive player does get a stop or be in position it oftens catches the official off guard as they aren't expecting the defender to execute this well. That's when the "superstar calls" are whistled.......however there is good reason for it.

crystalline · Dec 4, 2014

nighthob said:
NO. People are seriously claiming that there's some sort of new league conspiracy to help superstars dominate the NBA even though superstars have always dominated basketball and always will, because that's just how the game works. The lack of a salary cap didn't help the Celtics and Lakers dominate, the salary cap was implemented to make sure that the 80s Lakers & Celtics could never be replicated.

Let's say Lebron is worth $45M per year now. Are you claiming that if the NBA eliminated superstar calls he is still worth $45M per year, not say $40M?

You keep setting up this false dichotomy. It is perfectly plausible for superstars to play an outsize role in basketball due to the nature of the sport AND for superstar calls to make that role even larger.

Edit- use deadspin's value numbers.

ALiveH · Dec 5, 2014

crystalline, that would be my contention. Superstar calls exacerbate the situation and probably by approximately that order of magnitude.

nighthob · Dec 5, 2014

crystalline said:
Let's say Lebron is worth $45M per year now. Are you claiming that if the NBA eliminated superstar calls he is still worth $45M per year, not say $40M?

You keep setting up this false dichotomy.

What false dichotomy? I'm not even the one making the claim here. If you're chiming in in favour of the claim "Superstars dominate the game because the NBA prefers to market the game that way" then you need to actually defend it and not keep trying to muddy the waters with things that aren't even pertinent. LeBron won't make $45 million/year in the NBA because 96% of the NBAPA would need to voluntarily agree to reduce their pay and that will never happen. Not ever. It just isn't. And you will further need to explain how it is that superstars were dominationg the league in the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s before the league hatched its nefarious conspiracy.

moly99 · Dec 5, 2014

nighthob said:
Again, none of this is related to the claim that the NBA has some marketing gimmick that relies on promoting superstars that allows them to dominate the game. Superstars were dominating the game 50 years ago when there were no salary caps or max contracts and most players had offseason jobs. It really is just the dynamics of the game.

Those two things are not a matching set. Salary caps = parity. Max contracts = not parity.

If we continue the Mike Trout analogy, if Lebron is worth 50 Mike Trouts but is being paid the value of 100 Mike Trouts then he would still be overpaid. The problem is that he was paid only about 40% of his market value in Miami.

nighthob said:
NO. People are seriously claiming that there's some sort of new league conspiracy to help superstars dominate the NBA even though superstars have always dominated basketball and always will, because that's just how the game works. The lack of a salary cap didn't help the Celtics and Lakers dominate, the salary cap was implemented to make sure that the 80s Lakers & Celtics could never be replicated.

I'm not claiming that it's a conspiracy. I'm claiming that the NBA thinks it is more profitable when superstars are in the playoffs rather than rotting on teams like the Garnett T-Wolves. And they are right. So the owners have declined to take steps to help balance out the league, and buried their heads in the sand on the issue of parity.

The NBA views the max contract as an asset for the league and the owners for financial reasons. The proof in the pudding is how they have been willing to give up other stuff for it in collective bargaining.

Anyway it's clear this argument has become personal for you, so I won't clog up this thread any further on the quasi-bizarre Lebron vs Mike Trout topic.

Blacken said:
At risk of losing their morale. That's very important.

Wait, no. The other thing.

It is if they plan on seeing any development for the guys they currently have on the roster. I don't like this strategy because of the noxious effects it has on players like MCW and Noel, who are both players Philly might need for its future core.

If their plan is to hit the jackpot with the next Tim Duncan, then bully for them. But what if the first pick isn't a first ballot hall of famer? Then he's going to be hard pressed to carry a downtrodden team with a fan base and local media that expect him to single-handedly save them.

crystalline · Dec 5, 2014

ALiveH said:
crystalline, that would be my contention. Superstar calls exacerbate the situation and probably by approximately that order of magnitude.

Yes, agreed. You were stating it well so I didn't chime in until you seemed like you were giving up

The X Man Cometh · Dec 5, 2014

The NFL has a hard cap and no "max salary" nonsense. I don't see why the NBA can't do it. Sure hasn't stopped the NFL from owning professional sports. Perhaps the players have too much leverage in NBA negotiations or something.

Devizier · Dec 5, 2014

The X Man Cometh said:
The NFL has a hard cap and no "max salary" nonsense. I don't see why the NBA can't do it. Sure hasn't stopped the NFL from owning professional sports. Perhaps the players have too much leverage in NBA negotiations or something.

This is all part of the fallout of the '98 lockout. So-called small market teams were balking at the big contracts given to Shaq and Garnett and threw their weight behind all the salary restrictions the league could muster. The NBAPA is probably okay with the max player caps because it means big paydays for role players.

wutang112878 · Dec 5, 2014

The NFL cap is hard-ish. You can carry space over and create more room in future years and you can push salary cap problems into the future (ie Joe Flacco's cap numbers starting in 2014 are: $15M, $15M, $29M, $31M and $25M).

The NFL also has the franchise player feature which in a way is kind of a cap on max salary. If player is the caliber of an NBA superstar and the team and player cant settle on a deal the team can threaten to use the franchise tag twice. Then the player usually proposes a deal where the guaranteed money is about the same as the 2 franchise tag figures and the team is willing to work with that because they can push the cap hits into the future which is more advantageous than going with the 2 franchise tag approach. This is kind of what happened with Flacco & Jimmy Graham.

nighthob · Dec 5, 2014

moly99 said:
Those two things are not a matching set. Salary caps = parity. Max contracts = not parity.

Except that they actually are a matching set and the second part wasn't some nefarious NBA marketing scheme so much as a desire of the 93% of the NBAPA that aren't and won't ever be top 30 players to have a bigger piece of the pie. Contrary to popular belief players unions aren't acting in the primary interests of the handful of players at the top of the salary scale, they're looking out for the interests of the overwhelming majority of players. Any union president sacrificing the interests of 93% of his constituency to help out 7% is going to be an ex-union president before the rank and file even vote on his proposal to do so. And that proposal will be rejected.

You can shout till you're purple "Yeah, but, in a perfect world..." and the fact remains that the NBAPA will never in a thousand years approve it. Not ever. It wouldn't ever get consideration. When the new cap figures come out, and it's time to negotiate the new CBA, you will notice that it will be the owners that want to liberalize the max salary rules and the NBAPA that will resist, because the Avery Bradleys of the NBA see raising rookie scale, league minimum, and the value of exception contracts as a much higher priority than making LeBron, Durant, and Anthony Davis a little more money.

moly99 said:
I'm not claiming that it's a conspiracy. I'm claiming that the NBA thinks it is more profitable when superstars are in the playoffs rather than rotting on teams like the Garnett T-Wolves. And they are right. So the owners have declined to take steps to help balance out the league, and buried their heads in the sand on the issue of parity.

You understand that the max salary rules loooong predated Garnett's contract, right? Garnett was languishing on an awful team because it was run by incompetent boobs and he wasn't as offensively dominant as defensively.

nighthob · Dec 5, 2014

The X Man Cometh said:
The NFL has a hard cap and no "max salary" nonsense. I don't see why the NBA can't do it. Sure hasn't stopped the NFL from owning professional sports. Perhaps the players have too much leverage in NBA negotiations or something.

Because it would mean that the 93% of NBA players that won't ever be stars will make less so that the top 10-20 can double their pay. Much like the it was the NBAPA that wanted the rookie scale contract rules (because the rank & file vets were sick and tired of seeing "their" money get spent on kids just entering the league) they also want the max salary rules and will fight to the death to protect them.

The fact that you can only tie up 35% of your cap on ten year vet superstars means that all those non-superstars make more money. This is the part of the equation that everyone keeps ignoring. There are not 450 LeBrons in the NBA. There aren't 50 of them. There are a handful of them, and the rest of the NBA doesn't give a shit about superstars. And it's the those pedestrian players, and more precisely their agents, who drive this system. Not the 6-15 guys that would benefit from the absence of a cap. Hell, the rules even benefit the all stars that aren't superstars. Do you think there's any chance in the world that Joe Johnson gets paid more than LeBron without the current system there to protect his interest?

The X Man Cometh · Dec 5, 2014

nighthob said:
Because it would mean that the 93% of NBA players that won't ever be stars will make less so that the top 10-20 can double their pay. Much like the it was the NBAPA that wanted the rookie scale contract rules (because the rank & file vets were sick and tired of seeing "their" money get spent on kids just entering the league) they also want the max salary rules and will fight to the death to protect them.

The fact that you can only tie up 35% of your cap on ten year vet superstars means that all those non-superstars make more money. This is the part of the equation that everyone keeps ignoring. There are not 450 LeBrons in the NBA. There aren't 50 of them. There are a handful of them, and the rest of the NBA doesn't give a shit about superstars. And it's the those pedestrian players, and more precisely their agents, who drive this system. Not the 6-15 guys that would benefit from the absence of a cap. Hell, the rules even benefit the all stars that aren't superstars. Do you think there's any chance in the world that Joe Johnson gets paid more than LeBron without the current system there to protect his interest?

Oh I totally get all that.

I guess there's parallel discussions going on here:

1. Is the NBA is designed/structured in a manner to promote superstars?
Not really. I don't think there is any front of the NBA-led conspiracy to promote certain teams or players.

2. Is the max contact a worthwhile feature of the CBA?
I think no. I think that its effect is to underpay deserving players (LBJ, Durant, Davis soon), overpay undeserving players, and create an warped marketplace in the sport. I get that its in the financial interest of the mediocre players so it won't change, but it sucks.

HomeRunBaker · Dec 5, 2014

The X Man Cometh said:
1. Is the NBA is designed/structured in a manner to promote superstars?
Not really. I don't think there is any front of the NBA-led conspiracy to promote certain teams or players.

2. Is the max contact a worthwhile feature of the CBA?
I think no. I think that its effect is to underpay deserving players (LBJ, Durant, Davis soon), overpay undeserving players, and create an warped marketplace in the sport. I get that its in the financial interest of the mediocre players so it won't change, but it sucks.

1. The NBA does hide that they promote their superstars. That is the Business they are in. $uperstars $ell!!

2. I beleive it absolutely is otherwise LeBron, Durant, Brow, Curry, Wall, etc would have bench players filling their starting lineup as the team couldn't pay to build a team around the key marketing guys. It would also force the league to take a hit as their best individual players will be on mediocre at best teams with awful teammates.

jon abbey · Jun 13, 2015

Another setback for Embiid, he is making Oden look like an iron man so far:

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/sources--76ers-center-joel-embiid-suffers-setback-with-left-foot-014042190.html

nighthob · Jun 14, 2015

If the Lakers really do go for Russell, I wonder what it would take to acquire Embiid?

Cellar-Door · Jun 14, 2015

nighthob said:
If the Lakers really do go for Russell, I wonder what it would take to acquire Embiid?

I don't see any incentive for the sixers to trade him. They still aren't a win now team yet, they have so much cap space his contract means nothing, and his value is at an all-time low. They'd probably just draft a big man and wait hoping to trade one of the 3 when Embiid is healthy enough to show what he can do. Maybe not even then, they could play a 3 man big rotation for a while to keep all 3 fresh.

moondog80 · Jun 15, 2015

nighthob said:
If the Lakers really do go for Russell, I wonder what it would take to acquire Embiid?

Looks like he might miss the season again. I don't know what I would give up for him. Not Marcus Smart.

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/sixers/20150615_Could_Embiid_sit_out_another_season__It_s_possible.html

moly99 · Jun 15, 2015

Even if Embiid never plays in another NBA game the Sixers can still build a title contending team if they hit on some of their other picks.

To be honest I find it bizarre that many of the same people who denounce the Sixers for tanking smugly say the Hawks had no chance to win a title. Well, if building a team like the Hawks still leaves you with no chance to win a title then why wouldn't Philly tank?

jon abbey · Jun 22, 2015

https://twitter.com/chadfordinsider/status/612968589914701824

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/13128841/dario-saric-play-philadelphia-76ers-2015-16-season-according-agent

Blacken · Jun 23, 2015

Kick them cans, Sam.

Devizier · Jun 23, 2015

If Saric sits out the next two years, he's a free agent, right?

Cellar-Door · Jun 23, 2015

Devizier said:
If Saric sits out the next two years, he's a free agent, right?

Nope. If he stays in Europe for 3 years he is no longer covered by the rookie cap, but the Sixers still own his rights. If he had actually sat out this year and didn't play for anyone he'd go back to the draft.

Remagellan · Jun 25, 2015

In Zach Lowe's pod with Chad Ford, Ford suggests that the Sixers have been playing up their interest in Russell and Porzingas because they want to see if they can squeeze something out of the Knicks, who want Russell if they can't get either of the big two, or the Magic, who want Porzingas, because Hinkie wants Mudiay.

I am hoping he's right, because if Hinkie can squeeze another pick out of either of those teams and still take the guy who may be the best guard in the draft, that would be masterful.

The sixers and building a winner

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Robespierre in a Cape

heart is two sizes two small

Member

Member

Member

Robespierre in a Cape

Member

tiger king

New Member

Member

Robert the Deuce

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

bet squelcher

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

New Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

New Member

bet squelcher

Robert the Deuce

Shanghai Warrior

Member

Member

heart is two sizes two small

Robert the Deuce

Member

Shanghai Warrior

Robespierre in a Cape

Member

Member

Robert the Deuce

Well-Known Member