This afternoon the Sixers set up a conference call for a group of bloggers and Ed Stefanski. It lasted about 40 minutes, after the jump I'll have the highlights and some thoughts.
The call lasted longer than usual, and by my count we got in over 20 questions, which I'm pretty sure is a new record for these things. The usual suspects were represented on the call,
Recliner GM,
Liberty Ballers,
Sixers 4 Guidos,
Philly Arena,
Real GM,
Philadunkia and the
700 Level. Sixers.com will have a full transcript (possibly audio as well) later on today, but here's my brief take from notes.
I came in with five questions I really wanted to ask. The first was basically whether Ed Stefanski had his hands tied, financially. Was he allowed to use the MLE or the bi-annual to improve the roster or could he only sign guys to minimum deals. He pointed out that the Sixers actually out-bid Milwaukee for Hakim Warrick, but Warrick took less money for more playing time. Ed did say at this point we're looking at a minimum contract, maybe, to bring the roster up to 14, but that's not a guarantee, and 14 is probably the max.
Derek from Real GM followed that question up by asking about Ramon Sessions. Ed said Sessions is a very good player, but his skill set isn't a great fit for the Sixers' roster, especially at that price.
I also asked specifically about an open competition for the starting PG spot. Ed said nothing is written in stone, and he can absolutely envision a lineup with both Jrue and Lou in the backcourt together. But right now, heading into camp, he confirmed that the starting lineup would be Lou and Iguodala at the guard, Thad and Elton Brand at the forwards and Dalembert at center. Barring something drastic happening between now and then, that will be the starting lineup on opening night.
Stefanski made a point to say that Jrue's work in the gym made the team reassess the need for a veteran PG as the summer wore on. He said they had targeted a couple of guys via trade, but when nothing could be worked out on that front, he wasn't excited enough by the available free agents, and Jrue was making a strong case for minutes. At that point, they liked what Royal Ivey would bring to the team defensively more than any other options at PG.
At some point, I had to bring up Willie Green and Ed's response was, well, surprising. He started by saying every year the Sixers come out of camp wondering what role Willie will play, and every year he winds up a big part of the team. He just sort of works his way into a role. This year, he said he could possibly see Willie playing a role similar to what Lucious Harris played with the Nets, an unorthordox backup PG, without typical PG skills. I'm not sure I see exactly how that would work, but there you have it.
There were a ton of great questions asked and answered: Ricky asked about Andre Miller, Ed responded that there was no legitimate offer at the deadline last season that would've made them better long-term, and no sign-and-trade this summer that would make sense either. He emphasized that the playoff experience the young guys have earned over the past two seasons is invaluable going forward (a point I've tried to make time and time again).
Ed talked about Twitter, the D-League, International Scouting, the learning curve of the Princeton Offense and a whole lot more.
I got the final question in before the call ended, basically, I asked why, with a roster capable of being an elite defensive team, did he choose Eddie Jordan as his head coach. His answer was basically that Jordan has been pigeonholed by the players he coached in the past, and he's neither an offensive coach, nor a defensive coach. He's both, and he's going to make defense the emphasis because that's how this roster is built to play. Excellent to hear, hopefully we'll see it put into action in the coming months.
A big thank you to Ed Stefanski and Michael Preston for putting this together for the bloggers. Be sure to check out Sixers.com and the other blogs involved for more on the call.
Great stuff as usual Brian, and your WG question was definitely my fav...
Funny how Stefanski said that Willie's situation is "interesting", lol
Thanks, good to speak to you again, Ricky.
Thanks for the update guys. Maybe if I ask Derek he'll let me represent Philly arena on one of these calls (or maybe not...)
Overall, I respect Ed and in general see him as a straight shooter as GM's go. But I think he is forced to dance around some of the financial issues and gives some BS answers when asked about signings and the tax. I wonder if there had been a deal out there at the deadline for Miller that made basketball sense but meant taking back salary would Ed have been allowed to make the deal. My hunch is no, but who really knows. What is your sense, did he seem sincere or sound like he was trying to give the correct answer?
Could Ed have taken back salary to trade Miller at the deadline?
The Magic 8-Ball's answer..."my sources say no"
And - again - if there was even the reasonable likelihood that Miller was not going to be back (as they HAD to know that he was going to want something more than a 1-year deal - adjusted cap numbers or not), then why the f*ck didn't Ed INSIST that Lou play more PG in preparation for this season?
Priorities, I would assume. At the trade deadline, the Sixers were 27-24 and really playing excellent basketball. I'd assume everyone in the organization was focused on getting to the playoffs and getting as deep into the playoffs as possible. I can't say that I disagree with that logic.
Brian:
They were playing excellent basketball with Iggy at the 3 and Thad at the 4...
Can you say "fool's gold"?
Regardless of how good they were playing at the time, the bottom line was/is that they were - I would hope - going to go back to Iggy at the 2 and Thad at the 3 once Brand got back...why fart around with the short-term sugar rush for 30-35 games and a modest playoff appearance when the goal should have been long-term roster/personnel development?
And I find it hard to believe (based on the financial decisions made this offseason) that the Sixers were committed to ere-signing Miller this past summer. I know that the lux tax numbers may have changed things a bit, but I have to think that - if they were intelligent, thoughtful guys - they had to do some scenario analysis of the probability analysis of the likelihood that they were going to re-sign Miller...if it was less than 50%, then it was irresponsible of Stefanski/DiLeo to not give the only PG that they had signed for '09-10 (Lou) more dedicatd minutes at the point. If it was less than 30%, then they simply had to try harder to move him for ANYTHING of value...
(unless, of course, it was their intent to let Miller's salary roll off the books from the jump)
IMO, it was more important to "make the playoffs! Woo-hoo!!" (even if it meant losing in the 1st round) then to do the things that were in the best LONG-TERM, strategic interest of roster development (i.e. Iggy/Thad at the 2/3...more minutes for Lou at the point...more Speights, less Evans...etc).
I hope that the Roberts boys and Ed Snider had fun with the mediocre gates they got for those three games.
And one more thing...
Had they done all of the things that I suggest they should have done (keep Iggy/Thad at the 2/3, start Speights after Brand went down, more minutes for Lou at the point), I think that there was a decent shot that they STILL make the playoffs.
In my view the Andre Miller trade deadline situation mostly hinged on the fact that the organization felt the 10M expiring was worth more to them then whatever was offered in return for him in a trade.
We may look at it as Miller walking for nothing- but in there real $ world it is getting 10m in cap/tax relief. Remember last summer the Nuggets (a 50 win team) unloaded a hugely valuable piece in Camby for nothing in order to get tax relief. They would have been an even stronger contender last year with Camby in the big man rotation.
His answer to the Miller question rang true to me. If you look at the tradeoff at the deadline last year, basically giving up Miller would've sunk the playoff ship right then. So trading him for another expiring deal doesn't do anything for you at all.
If there was nothing out there that made a significant difference for 2010 and beyond, it doesn't help you, and if it doesn't make a significant impact long-term, what's the short-term advantage of missing the playoffs? Not to mention the benefits of playoff experience.
If I had to guess, I'd say any sign-and-trade possibilities this summer were weighed heavily against cap/lux. tax implications, but the overall goal of getting better for the long haul was still paramount.
All just my general feeling, but makes sense to me. He didn't dance around questions about the economy and the tax.
Thx. Given how empty the building is and the economy I understand how financial concerns are part of the equation.
It would be great if the team owned by someone who did not care about whether it lost money (sort of like a hand off version of Cuban or a Paul Allen), but nobody stepped up to the plate when the team was put up for sale a couple of years back.
Yeah, I think we could be worse off than having Comcast as an owner, though. Prior to this season, I can't think of any time a decision was made due to financial concerns. If anything, the let a previous GM spend too freely.
Yes. they were ranks 4th-7th in total salary from 2001-2007. But since the AI trade they have been about 20th in salary (middle of the pack.) I assume they will spend again if it makes them a possible contender- unless their business model changed. 2 years ago was also around when they tried to sell.
Brian did I get it right about Ed thinking that Sixers are "the toast in town" ????
I'm listening to the conference again (thanks Derek btw) and I think he used this expression when I asked him about Sixers being currently the fourth team in town, meaning that Eagles, Phillies etc are getting more attention)
I think he mis-spoke. Meant to say the Eagles and the Phillies were the toast of the town, he substituted the Sixers for the Eagles accidentally.
The Eagles, because Philly is and always has been an Eagles town, the Phils because they've been good and won the series. He never mentioned the Flyers.
thanks
either he mis-spoke or, more likely, I misunderstood that :-)
I wasn't sure about the word "toast", never heard that... here a "toast" is a french sandwich, LOL
He definitely meant Eagles. He was speaking just before that about why the Eagles and Phillies were ahead of the Sixers in terms of interest. He just accidentally slipped up, I think.
I'm psyched about the comments about Jrue. If he's making a positive impression on Ed then I sure hope he gets more minutes than most people anticipate. I wouldn't mind at all a hustling PG that plays within himself, kind of like how Rajon Rondo played in his first season. Especially when the team's gonna go with the PO where Iguodala would be the main facilitator.
Well, well, we finally get some comments from the head-man-in-charge. But more specifically, comments relating to Willie G and his purported role.
The Willie G in a somewhat backup-PG-but-without-PG-skills role seems to speak volumes to Jrue not being anywhere near ready, even though some had hoped and speculated that he was already the backup PG. For myself, Willie G getting these minutes is a positive sign no matter how it is spun. Let the kid learn to ride without training wheels behind closed doors and not on stage.
And it is almost laughable to believe what Ed said about reassessing the need for a veteran backup PG b/c of Jrue's work thru the summer and that he wasn't excited about any of the available free agents. After whiffing on re-signing Andre Miller, and low balling Mike Bibby and C.J. Watson, and others that we probably didn't hear about publicly, what else is left at that point to be excited about?
Then he follows that up with Jure 'making a strong case for minutes', so not as much of a pressing need for the backup PG, but in the next breath he says that he could see Willie G in an unorthodox backup PG role? While also saying that Willie G has not had a defined role when going into camp in years past -- Well it sure seems that they have already defined a role for Willie G BEFORE going to camp this year since he can 'see' Willie playing a Luscious Harris/Kerry Kittles type role. And if he can already 'see' Willie G in a backup PG role then doesn't that speak volumes as to how 'green' Jrue must truly be?
Seven days til TC opens baby...
Your looking WAY WAY too much into those comments. Look at Harris's and Green's stats. They're very similar.
Maybe Green in 04' could've played this role, but now he fares miserably at it. What Stefanski REALLY means by this is Green's role won't change. He'll still be an 15-18 MPG player that hopefully doesn't start.
I don't see why he will, a low FG shooter in a high FG offense like Princeton does NOT mix.
I think Stefanski misunderstands the word "Combo Guard". The Combo guard has to be semi-good at either the 1 or the 2. Willie's good at neither.
Jrue has more talent in his pinkie then Willie does in his entire fabric. It's just that Eddie Jordan feels the Princeton needs experienced veterans.
Jrue has bball smarts though, so he should by mid-season have a terrific feel for it.
He emphasized that the playoff experience the young guys have earned over the past two seasons is invaluable going forward (a point I've tried to make time and time again).
It is a chestnut that so many try to prove - mostly GM's who try to justify mediocre and a first round shellacking versus a move that might be one step backwards but strengthen the long term future of the team.
If Stefanski thinks the sixers are even ahead of the flyers in Philadelphia, he's more delusional than I thought
I gotta say, it's really fn cool that Stefanski takes the time to do this stuff. I'm happy to have a GM that sees value in speaking to the fans.