There are two ways to look at the 2009-2010 Sixers right now. In one picture, Andre Miller is re-signed, they use a portion of the mid-level to get a shooter (hopefully more successful than Kareem Rush) and they hope that Elton Brand's return will catapult them to the top of the Eastern Conference. The second picture is far less clear, and possibly more realistic.
If the thought of a starting lineup of Miller, Iguodala, Thad, Brand and Dalembert doesn't float your boat, then I think the best option this team has to blow things up without throwing in the towel on either Iguodala or Thad is a sign-and-trade with Andre Miller. Here's a scenario:
- Sixers sign Andre Miller for 3 years, $27M and trade him to Portland.
- Portland sends Travis Outlaw and Steve Blake to Chicago.
- Chicago signs Ben Gordon for 4 years, $40M and trades him to Philly.
I'm not sure what's going on in Chicago. They've got Hinrich, Rose, Salmons and Deng under contract for a total of $28.2M. Can they really afford to bring Gordon back? I don't think so. Under this scenario they'd get Outlaw to provide some of the shooting they'd be losing in Gordon, Blake becomes the backup point with Hinrich sliding to the two. Outlaw and Blake both come off the books after next season (and neither contract is fully guartanteed).
Portland gets a real point to take the load off Brandon Roy. They don't really give up anything but superfluous pieces.
Philly gets its shooter and they go with a radical new lineup:
- PG: Iguodala
- SG: Gordon
- SF: Thad
- PF: Brand
- C: Dalembert
Before you laugh, hear me out. Obviously, we have to queston whether Andre Iguodala can play the point. Personally, I think he could and I think he'd excel at the position. Then we'd have to figure out if Gordon or Iguodala could handle defending opposing points. That's a much trickier proposition, but I kind of doubt either would be as bad as Miller/Green/Williams were this season.
If the Sixers could somehow get to this point, then they'd have to draft a point with #17: Lawson if he's available, maybe Calathes, who knows. You draft your point of the future and you mix him in liberally, utilizing the versatility of the starting line up to mix and match throughout the game. It's obviously a gamble, but it's a short-term gamble.
As soon as the playoffs end next season, three guys go from being anchors weighing down the Sixers' salary cap to assets. Day one after the playoffs next season, Sammy Dalembert, Reggie Evans and Willie Green suddenly become very valuable. All of their contracts expire after the 2011 season, and now there's suddenly room to maneuver for the Sixers.
If the Iggy at point experiment isn't working, then you can decide to package either Thad or Iguodala with an expiring deal to improve yourself somewhere else. Meanwhile, you've been grooming a young point to take over, if need be.
This is just one of many possible scenarios, but I think I like it. It's going to take something drastic to dramatically improve this team. It'll start with a new coach, but coaching alone isn't going to put the Sixers on the level with the Cavs. They need to make bold personnel moves as well. A move like this gives them a premier shooter and even if moving Iguodala to the point may backfire, there is hope on the horizon for moves to be made.
Let me know what you guys think in the comments.
I wouldn't laugh - since I've been advocating Iguodala at point for years now - he has the court vision I believe but needs the smarts (which comes from practice) to make the 'easy' pass instead of the fancy pass sometimes.
I like this idea.
I'm pro this idea.
I don't think it has a snowballs chance of happening - but see - that's intelligent thinking that makes the sixers better.
But since they are taking on more money than they give away - would it put them in tax land? Remember they seem unwilling to pay more tax than they do now.
I know the sixers need a point and I know this draft is weak - but the #17 pick should STILL BE the best player available.
Problem is that the draft occurs before free agency
Yeah, they need to take a point either way, IMO. If you look at the draft, there's no depth anywhere but at the point. This year, I'm not going best player available at all.
I think best player available at 17 will most likely be a point - but I trust that this team knows what it's doing when it drafts (unless of course Iguodala, Young, Speights were all dileo picks - cause that might be a problem now)
I think this is an intelligent creative out of the box thinking kind of decisions...thus it will never happen :(
I like the idea, but you were silent on where Lou Williams fits in. Apparently not at point. So, maybe he is the backup to Gordon.
Yeah, I was silent on Lou mainly because I don't want to include Lou in any conversation on the future right now.
Why did you have to mention him???
Listening to 950 - i don't think it matters in terms of what the fans think - since these callers (and hosts) are idiots :)
Iguodala IMO would run the set offense too slowly. he lacks the ability to quickly penetrate and break down an offense. He is more an isolation dribbler then someone who runs the show.
More likely them team starts somehing like:
Jack/Iguodala/Thad/Brand/Speights next year, with a developmental PG on the roster. A bit of a step back in terms of talent, but overall a move for the future... but nothing to write home about.
Set offense? You mean the sixers will AHVE a set offense next year?
That would be a step up :)
Seriously though - Nick Calathes - can someone who isn't a big fan of UF basketball tell me about him - reading he's the best passer in the draft but might lack some athleticism.
Thorpe recently went nuts about him. FWTIW
I don't trust Thorpe at all. I'm pretty sure he's a know-nothing fraud. Calathes has vision and smarts but I wouldn't trust him to be my lead guard unless you want a slightly more turnover prone Miller on your hands (defensively). I'd prefer him over Louis tho.
Thorpe trained Calathes, so take his comments w/ a grain of salt.
We need to do something to fix this team. We have too much talent on this team to waste it w/ another year like this year! I think we all agree Iggy, Miller, Thad, Brand are all starters in the NBA. Sammy probably will be here next year for the center. So, who are we trading to get better on the above?
My only question is can Iggy or Thad play guard? If not, we don't need both of them. Correct?
it's not just something i don't think - and that's an issue - there isn't one solution - one quick fix - i think multiple moves must be made on and off the court and first and foremost it starts with who the coach is
I was nodding along with this idea til I saw that Heinrich wasn't coming over. Then when I read Iggy at the point the whole thing crashed and burned for me. That's my gut reaction anyway. I don't think Iggy can protect the ball well enough to be point guard f/t. Point-forward, sure, but as the ball-handler in chief, calling out the best play, driving when appropriate....I'm not convinced.
Much props for the creativity tho. It's bold in that so-crazy-it-might-work vein. If anyone knows how to work that ESPN trade machine thingie, we could come up with a bunch of decent scenarios. It'll be fun to see if any of em pan out this summer.
That's why i asked for non UF fans - Ford has nice things to say about him too though :) - on Calathes.
Kirk Hinrich isn't really a starting point guard in the NBA right now - I don't think he shoots well enough.
I'm not sure the ESPN trade machine works on sign and trades for free agency
Fair enough. Kirk's on that borderline starter/ super sub level. On a team that has the right complementary parts, one that doesn't need a devastating point guard, just a Steady Eddie type who can dish and defend on a high level, he'd be just fine. I wouldn't moan about him starting for the Sixers if there's also a dangerous 2-guard in place.
Iggy point gaurd?
Please don't beg, it’s unbecoming
Hinrich isn't a good enough shooter? Riiighht.
He has only shot 38% from beyond the arc for his career.
I don't think Ray Allen is a good enough shooter to play the SG position. He isn't even a career 40% shooter from beyond, so how could he?
You are overthinking it. Hinrich can shoot.
True, he's pretty solid beyond the arc, something this team could definitely use. Anywhere else, he's kinda shaky/inconsistent. But he does other things very well and doesn't throw the ball away too much.
he's a career 41.6% shooter period
He averages 13.9 points per game on 12.1 shots per game for his career 1.14 PPS
Kirk Hinrich would have to do a bit more than shoot the 3.
Allen Iverson who everyone hates cause he shoots too much and at a crappy percentage has a career 42.5 FG% and averages 27.1 points on 22.5 shots per game 1.20 PPS
This team needs MORE from any player they ad than 'just' 3 point shooting.
So sorry if I look at more than his career 3 point shooting
Sorry if your sarcastic comments about Ray Allen didn't sway me
but Kirk Hinrich isn't the guy
All you are considering here is scoring besides 3 point shooting. Wow, scoring scoring scoring. There is more to the game than scoring.
Did I say Hinrich was an OMG AMAZING SCORER? No, I didn't. He doesn't shoot a ton, so that is a good start since he isn't the most efficient scorer.
Iverson's problem is that he gets credit for scoring so much, when he doesn't score very well. Players can still be good players while not being efficient scorers, they just have to excell in other areas. Hinrich has averaged 6.4 assists, 2.4 turnovers over his career which is around a 2.5:1 assist:to which is pretty good.
He knows his role. And with the scorers this team already has... Thad, Brand, and the up and coming Speights(along with the versatile Iguodala)... the team will need a guy to take care of the ball a little more and make open shots. I think Hinrich can do that for this team while playing very good defense.
One more thing - Hinrich Per for the season is 13.97 - closer to Sam Dalembert than Young Miller or Iguodala
PER is trash. All it does is measure popular perception pretty well, but simply adding points, assists, and rebounds does about the same thing.
Like the idea that you don't need to go hunting for a true PG. Like the idea that you should think more about distribution of skill sets than positions. But...
...I don't trust Ben Gordon at all. This is classic playoff fools gold. When he's dialed in he's great. When he's not he's a liability on both ends of the floor. Would not invest huge money in that guy.
If you're intent on keeping Iguodala and Thad (and I can see why you would be), and accept that the latter is not a viable option at the 4, then I pose this question. What's more likely: that Andre can dramatically improve his outside shooting and thus move to the 2, or that Thad can improve his handle and do the same? My money would be on the second option.
Well, if the plan is to go forward with Thad and Iggy at the 2/3, it doesn't really matter which one of them becomes a shooter, as long as one of them does.
FYI: Miller and Ratliff blew off final team meeting. Waiting to talk to DiLeo and Stefanski, who are meeting with Iguodala.
Well since they made it clear how they felt about the coaching last night - this isn't too surprising - why bother meeting with the coach you don't want to be the coach next year - just an extension of their statements last night - making it CLEAR to stefanski how they feel.
I don't expect Ratliff to WANT to come back next year - so no big deal - the miller thing - who knows - has he blown these things off before?
I just saw that on your site, put up a quick post.
Theo you kind of saw coming after his comments last night, but Miller too? That can't be a good sign.
Millers comments threw him under the bus as well - if this was 'final coaches meeting' then i'm not THAT worried cause it's the first step in negotiation - if you want me to stay - you need a new coach
As for gordon - his limitations have always been (to me) defensive matchups due to height - he automatically becomes the best offensive guard (and possibly small fowrard) on this team
Joe - I see you know the ins and outs of the per formula and how it works - but again - you focused on one aspect of hinrichs game and one aspect only
if he's a one dimensional player - he makes a lot of cash for that.
matt - Ben Gordon Fools gold? Dudes been pretty good for a while now - it's not like he's been crap for 5 years and suddenly playing well - he's had a solid career up until now as well
I kind of agree that Gordon is a limited player. It just so happens that his strengths lie in exactly the area the Sixers need help in. He shoots, and he shoots very well.
I find it interesting though that you say Hinrich is one dimensional and then say Gordon is pretty good.
I don't like Gordon for what he will be making... more than Hinrich and I think Hinrich is a better fit that Gordon and a better player. He can run the point, he can shoot very well, and he will know how to get out of the way of the Sixers' scorers... Thad, Brand, and Iguodala next year.
I'd rather just take Hinrich.(who's price has to be lower) I feel like that will work. I guess I don't like the Iguodala at PG thing a lot.
You know what? Given our current shooting guard situation I really shouldn't be complaining about Ben Gordon. And you're right that he's always put up good numbers. I'm just not sure how much he cares about anything but that. We already have Lou, so the self-absorbed-gunner role on this team is already spoken for, even if it isn't played nearly as well.
Ben Gordon
Careeer FG% 43.5
Career 3 PT % 41.7
18.5 points on 14.9 shots 1.24 PPS (better than Iverson AND Hinrich)
oh yeah 85.9% FT shooter
Given a choice between hinrich (who is loved for his 3 point shooting) and gordon - i'll take gordon every time and twice on days ending in y.
His numbers are also pretty consistent the past 3 seasons as well in terms of FG%, FT%, and 3 point percentage
he's a quality and consistent performer - he might be too small to defend (unless he's in a back court with a great defender like Iguodala) as well - but given the optoin between hinrich and iguodala or iguodala and gordon - i prefer gordon
I'm just going to say this now. I should have said ti initially. This trade makes no real sense for anyone but the Sixers, if they were willing to play Iguodala at the 1.
Chicago gets nothing for Gordon at all. They would be smarter to just take the tax hit and go forward with their team, as is, IMO.
Makes sense for Portland, no other way they can get Miller unless he agrees to play for the MLE. Chicago replaces the shooting, and they get two expiring deals, but they'd probably be better off just letting Gordon walk if they really don't want to sign him. May need to include pick to sweeten it for them.
I agree that Portland is the only west coast team I think that would be interested in miller - would be willing to pay more than the MLE (allen is often forgotten but he's probably the riches individual owner in the NBA unless charter and vulcan cost him a lot of money - dude also owns the seahawks i think doesn't he?) - but I'm not sure they're willing to trade for him - let's not forget that pritchard seems to have problems pulling a trigger.
If Miller wants to go back out west and start - what other team would need him?
He doesn't fit the triangle
Clippers just signed b-diddy for ever (and don't even think about it)
Warriors are a mess and if they don't fire nelson - miller doesn't fit
Seattle - oh wait - that's right
Portland
Portland is the only team out there that was looking for a 'veteran pg' for at least a season (mike bibby) the beginning of this season - if they want to take a step next year they might think they need that veteran PG to run this team...
I don't see Miller fitting in Portland very well. That team can't compete next season with the Lakers and Miller is declining now. Blake isn't a poor NBA player either. He isn't as good as Miller, but he isn't bad at all.
And if they really wanted him... they could just sign him outright with 5 years 30-32 million.(IE the MLE) That is the same as 3 years 27 million for Miller essentially.
If Blake was anywhere near Miller's level, Roy wouldn't have handled the point in every clutch situation the Blazers faced. (at least the games I watched).
They need a real point, which Blake is not, and they desperately need some kind of veteran presence on that roster, which they don't have.
I'm not so sure about Miller declining. Yes, he's getting older, but he's definitely played better this season than he played last season.
I agree that a sign and trade with Miller is the best way to re-build our back-court, and I think Ben Gordon is a good target. But why does Andre slide over to the point? Gordon has always been considered a combo-guard, so let him play the point. I see Gordon as a smaller Chauncey Billups in that he has PG skills and SG instincts. Plus, Andre ends up handling the ball a lot anyway, even playing alongside PGs. Andre stays at the 2.
Or what about the same type of deal, but for Hinrich? He is an above-average defender, a good passer, and a very good shooter. No, he's not Andre Miller, he doesn't masterfully control the tempo of a game, but his skills are a good fit for this team.
As for the draft, I'd like to see the Sixers go after a super-quick penetrator. With the way the rules have changed over the last decade, guys with elite speed can get to the rim at will. Most good NBA teams now feature a speedster at the helm (think Rondo, Rose, Paul, Parker, Westbrook, Williams, Nelson, and Felton). We also need a shooter. Luckily in this Draft, there are an abundance of those kind of guys in Brandon Jennings, Eric Maynor, Ty Lawson, Jeff Teague, Patrick Mills, Darren Collison. All those guys are considered 1st-round picks,so at least one should be available by our position.
It's hard to know how anything will shake out, though, until we see what the free-agent market is like this off-season. With most teams looking to slash spending, players might be available for much less than in previous years. Some players might sign smaller shorter contracts in the hopes that in two years better contracts will be out there. A player could even take a year off. It sounds inconceivable, I know, but think about, for example, Ben Gordon. He turned down $58 mil last summer, and has played fantastically well in the playoffs. In spite of that, he might not be able to get an offer within sniffing range of the offer he turned down. What does he do?
Should be an interesting off-season, as always.
I don't watcha lot of bulls games - does gordon have a good court vision - his a:to number is close to 1 - but I don't know how much of tht is just him shooting a lot.
Iguodala has what I consider point guard court vision - i have no idea if Gordon does - I think gordon is a short shooting guard
which would continue the tradition of allen iverson
"I see Gordon as a smaller Chauncey Billups in that he has PG skills and SG instincts."
To be honest, I completely disagree. Two very different players. I could say I see Reggie Evans as a smaller Elton Brand in that he is an undersized PF. It holds weight in a certain context, but just doesn't make sense.
Gordon is like Jason terry IMO except he shoots a little more and turns it over much more. You could also compare him to a younger Michael Redd I would say off the top of my head. Gordon works hard on his game though.
Billups is a terrific player. Wow, what a joy this guy is to watch. He had 0 turnovers through the first few games of the playoffs while doing all his other things. The guy just knows how to play the game and is great at taking care of the ball.
I could get more in depth here, but I just see them as so different.