DFDepressed FanDepressed Fan

All  

Sixers

, all the time

Eddie Jordan It Is

Maybe Sacramento will freak out and offer a huge deal?:)

Who says ultimatums don't work? :)

user-pic
John reply to Brian on May 29 at 20:54
+/-

I doubt Thibodeau is taking another assistant job - he'll go back to Boston - and if he DOESNT get a head coaching job - I'm going to start to wonder quite a bit about why...

This does mean the end of sam and reggie right?

You'd think so. I mean, Jordan could follow the Wizards model and insert Speights as his center right away (by the Wizards model, I mean, we're going to beat you 110-109).

Ugh. Dalembert for Jason Richardson?

Man, I really, really want them to move up and get Curry now. I'm dreaming about a two-man game with Curry and Brand at the elbow. Or a two-man game with Brand and Iggy, with Curry diving to the opposite corner for wide-open threes. Damnit.

user-pic
Sean reply to Brian on May 29 at 21:32
+/-

Actually, I think Smith(if healthy) might have a better chance to start then M16. Better range, better on D. Intriguing fit next to Brand. Plus you can bring M16 off the bench as a offensive focal point.

user-pic
John reply to Sean on May 29 at 21:37
+/-

How bad is speights dfensively that jason smith is better?

I think it's a tight race between those two for worst defender on the team. I'd give the edge to Smith right now, until I see if he's lost anything from sitting out a year and knee surgery.

I also don't think Smith has better range.

user-pic
Sean reply to Brian on May 30 at 10:15
+/-

I remember watching them play together in Summer League, Smith was hitting consistently from beyond the top of the key just inside the arc. M16 this year seemed a little uncomfortable from that deep. That said, I believe both will be 3-point shooters probably soon.

Hey, as long as he brings in a defensive deputy(his own Thibodeau/Jim Johnson), I am good with it. I like the idea of the Princeton Offense here, especially with Thad, Brand and Dala. Plus, it does not need a true point to run it, so that opens the door for a ball-handling combo shooter to start opposite Dala in the backcourt.

I don't know that you need a shooter at the guard position, so much as you need a shooter. Maybe Thad will evolve into a shooter. He looked like he was already there last November.

user-pic
John reply to Tray on May 29 at 21:23
+/-

Except that the rest of the season he didn't seem to be there - they can't pin their hopes on Thad becoming anything he isn't already...they have to find a more reliable option...

user-pic
Sean reply to Tray on May 29 at 21:24
+/-

FWIW, Thad shot 40% from three at home last year. If he could just pack that shot away in his travel bag, things will be good. Plus, I remember when Jersey ran this offense with just one shooter on the floor(Kittles) and nobody else had a shot beyond 15-18 ft. I'd still prefer another shooter at the guard, like Curry!

user-pic
bebopdeluxe reply to Sean on May 29 at 22:20
+/-

That Nets team also had Rodney Rogers...who could really fill it up - and he could play more consistent minutes than than somebody like Donyell Marshall.

I agree completely with Brian - they need to move up and get Curry. I fear that the price of getting a shooter (either to move up and get Curry or trade for Hinrich) will be Speights - and if it is for one of those two guys, I am on board with trading him. For Comcast, however, the cheaper move is to trade Speights to move up and get Curry...and the interesting thing is that Washington is perhaps the most likely trading partner.

I wonder if Jordan can call down there and tell them that he just saved them a boarload of green by taking a job...the least they can do is trade us their pick.

Is O'Koren his defensive guy? He's the lead assistant...doubt if we'll get anybody who is a defensive whiz to help Jordan unless they are the #1 assistant...right?

user-pic
Tray reply to Sean on May 29 at 22:37
+/-

Exactly. I don't know if the Wizards case is even optimal. A lot of that attack was probably predicated on Arenas being a fairly uncoachable jack.

So Arenas took all those shots on his own? That wasn't Jordan's offense and Jordan couldn't put an end to it?

I seriously hope that wasn't the case.

user-pic
Tray reply to Brian on May 29 at 23:35
+/-

Even LB couldn't put a stop to Iverson taking a fair amount of threes, when Iverson was only shooting something like 28%. I've always thought of the Princeton offense in terms of backcuts, not volume shooting. Even the Kings, though they had a lot of shooters (Peja obviously, Bibby, Christie, Bobby Jackson) didn't really take that many threes; they did a ton of high-low stuff with Divac, Webber, and later Miller.

Peja attempted 554 threes one year in Sacto. They attempted 1498 threes in 03-04, the last year they were really all together out there Bibby gunned, Christie gunned, Bobby Jackson gunned. Anthony Peeler attempted 142.

They consistently attempted more than 1300 per season (as compared to the 1,072 the Sixers attempted this season). And it wasn't just guys who could hit them, in this offense Jason Williams shot 145 for 505 from three in Sacramento. That's 28% and he took 505 attempts.

We need shooters and we need to hope that Jordan doesn't give Lou the freedom to jack up threes whenever he feels like it.

Those Wizards teams shot a TON of threes. They made over 500 each season he was there. The Sixers made 505 in the Jim O'Brien year, haven't made even 400 in any other season in the past decade. I don't think they have the horses to run this offense effectively as currently constructed. Even if Thad does shoot 40%.

The search is over. gotta accept it and move on. Time to focus on the personnel moves beginning with the draft. Glad the search is over. Hope we picked the right guy.

Good way to put it.

user-pic
Duracorr on May 29 at 22:51
+/-

What about Lawson from UNC? Or is he too small for the NBA? Curry is one-dimensional.

user-pic
Tom Moore on May 29 at 22:56
+/-

Why did it take this long to hire Jordan, a guy with a 230-288 career record? Why not talk to Collins and Van Gundy first? Stefanski needs this to work right away -- winning a round in the 2010 playoffs -- or his job could be in jeopardy.

Does it seem to you like Jordan was the guy from the jump and all the other interviews were just lip service?

I don't think it's fair to expect the Sixers to make a jump next season unless they bring Miller back. If Miller walks, it's highly unlikely they'd be able to replace him with a player of equal caliber this season, plus he's got a lot to deal with, as you said below. I hope Miller isn't brought back simply to keep the status quo. They need to move forward, even if it requires a small slide backwards to move in a better direction long term.

user-pic
bebopdeluxe reply to Tom Moore on May 29 at 23:18
+/-

Stefanski didn't talk to Collins or Van Gundy because he didn't have the checkbook to talk to them. Johnson didn't even waste his time - I wouldn't be surprised if he already knew that Jordan was the guy and the rest of this was just a process to try to work Jordan's asking price down.

I think Jordan was the guy from the moment that Mo was gone - I think that Comcast/Snider didn't want spend the money right away, and DiLeo was a low-cost way to get a feel for the team without REALLY committing to anybody.

If Stefanski shows me some sack and finds a way to add a shooter at PG like Curry or Hinrich (less likely 'cause he'll cost too much), then I might be on board with this. But if we just sit at 17 and take the best PG available or overpay for somebody like CJ Watson (who I like, but - like the coach - you can't sell people that is the BEST option, regardless of cost), then I will be convinced that Stefanski is more concerned of keeping his job and not blowing more of Comcast's money than he is about going balls-out to try to win.

According to reports - if they are blieved on Jordan and Van Gundy and probably extend it to collins - money had absolutely nothing to do with it - but yeah - let's call comcast cheap.

It was about control - unless of course reporters are making things up and don't know what they are talking about - which is always possible

user-pic
Chris reply to John on May 30 at 1:50
+/-

Not true. Judging by others in the league, money had everything to do with this. Note this blurb from CSNPhilly's site:

"With the NBA pre-draft camp taking place in Chicago through Sunday, all 30 teams have various personnel in attendance. One league executive responded to Jordan’s hiring saying, “They will be good offensively. Defensively they will struggle. I think Ed Stefanski could not afford to take a gamble. In my opinion, Ed did a good job with what was available in his price range.”

That being said, he is the coach now and I hope he does well.

One last thing. Did anyone see the team ESPN had for the Lakers / Denver analysis? Magic Johnson was on there. Now, aside from being a Laker player in the past, he *is* one of the current owners AND a team executive (I think his positions is like Hugh Douglas with the Eagles). I'm not sure if he is supposed to be unbiased (I assume for the analysts they do) but he certainly isn't. He was talking up Kobe as the best player in the league. I don't think if you went to any current GM they'd take Kobe over LeBron.

Would an exec. from another team really know what the Sixers' price range was?

user-pic
Chris reply to Brian on May 30 at 3:07
+/-

Exact price ceiling, probably not. A good idea of the range, probably. A lot of these execs talk to one another all the time. It wouldn't be surprising if Ed put out 'feelers' on what people thought some of the big names would accept or roughly what he had to spend. I don't think it is a coincidence that Van Gundy or Collins wasn't at least given a courtesy interview. They would probably have been the most expensive guys.

We still don't know how much Jordan's getting. I'm just a little skeptical that this was a financial decision. If they were really pinching pennies, they could've gone with one of the assistants.

user-pic
John reply to Chris on May 30 at 12:25
+/-

Wasn't snider himself one who said that price on the coach wouldn't be a factor?

Plus all those reports from various sources connected to various guys about control/input?

user-pic
Chris reply to John on May 30 at 14:24
+/-

Snider did say that.

However, I've rarely seen anyone ever admit to money being a factor (probably only the Ed Wade Phillies as he said Philly is a 'small market' team). Donald Sterling never admits money is a factor yet everyone knows it is. If this were the Flyers I'd be inclined to believe it wasn't a factor as Snider has a long track record there of doing whatever it takes. The Sixers, I'm not so sure.

I think this has to do with Brian's definition of 'bold' earlier in this thread. Maybe Ed didn't have an explicit hard ceiling on how high he could go. But let's say he has some degree of political capital with Comcast (think in terms of poker chips). Some of that was spent on Iggy and especially Brand's contracts. Now, I'm one of the ones that thinks Brand hasn't had a full chance. But I'd also say, it certainly didn't pan out the way everyone thought either. Now, he could shoot for a really big name coach (JVG or Collins) but to pay for that he'd have to go 'all in'. So, if it flops there is a reasonable chance his job is in jeopardy (can't blame BK for this). If he goes with someone with less of a price tag he could still have a few chips left over if things turn out bad.

user-pic
bebopdeluxe reply to Chris on May 30 at 15:32
+/-

Chris:

Great post, bro.

I think that is EXACTLY the scenario that Stefanski finds himself in. Snider or Comcast MIGHT have said OK to Collins or JVG, if Stefanski REALLY thought either of them were "the guy"...but he simply did not want to go "all in".

Is that because Stefanski really thinks that Jordan will have as much of a chance to succeed as Collins or JVG? Is it because he felt like he would have more "control" over Jordan than Collins or JVG? Is it because Snider and Comcast wouldn't be thrilled with a $20-25 million committment to a head coach unless he is playing playoff games in late May to close-to-full-houses?

Probably all of the above.

So, I think money did certainly play a role...because in order for Collins or JVG (or Johnson, for that matter) to take Stefanski seriously, he had to be ready to "show them the money"...and that is where Stefanski got a case of the alligator arms...

user-pic
Tom Moore on May 29 at 22:58
+/-

Jordan needs to figure out what to do with two natural small forwards, who will be the starting 1 and 2, and how to make it work with Elton Brand. That is a lot to ask for any coach.

user-pic
deepsixersuede on May 29 at 23:00
+/-

With Stefanski wanting to put his stamp on this team was A.Mckie as the defensive staff member part of the deal.Brian, does Jordan politic for Miller, or does he have any say in that regard.Can he depend on a rookie to run his offense and more importantly,does this CHANGE what or who we look for now.

Well, for me it doesn't change anything. They still need shooters. It probably means they need to find a place to send (or sit) Dalembert. I'm hoping it doesn't mean they bring Miller back, because if they have the stench of desperation on them when they sit down with his agent, they'll wind up over-paying to bring him back. I hope Jordan doesn't do something stupid like publicly say he needs Andre Miller to run his offense.

user-pic
Tom Moore on May 29 at 23:06
+/-

I don't understand why it took this long if Jordan was his guy, but I'm glad it's over. I'm sure Doug Collins' agent and the other principles involved or not are glad, too. Jordan wanted to come here instead of Sac because of geography and the Sixers are closer to being a winner than the Kings. Brand being hurt gave the Sixers an out last year, but that excuse shouldn't hold water in 2009-10 -- with or without Miller.

The Sixers are in a difficult place right now -- just good enough to make the playoffs and not bad enough to get a lottery pick. With no impending cap room, they're going to have to get lucky in the draft and/or a trade to move up in the Eastern Conference.

user-pic
John reply to Tom Moore on May 29 at 23:11
+/-

Cause it's called due dilligence - you don't hire the first interview without exploring other options - and just because you hire the first interview doesn't mean the other interviews were a waste of time.

My boss hires the 'first interview' quite a lot, for idiotic 'inspirational' reasons - and then she has to fire them more often than not - the best employees we've had are the ones who were part of a multi interview process.

Calling it a waste of time is short sighted and what time did they 'waste' - i mean it's not like the draft of free agency or the roster changed, it's not like they missed out on trades....they did a thorough search - jordan happened to be the guy and the first interview.

If Thibodeau falls through in Sacto as well, I gotta think there is something about this guy that rubs GMs the wrong way.

You know, you could say it was a dog and pony show because due diligence usually isn't cut short. They didn't interview Collins or Van Gundy. The two most-successful unemployed coaches out there, one of whom intimated he was interested in the position. That's what makes it seem like this was a done deal from the beginning to me.

user-pic
John reply to Brian on May 29 at 23:30
+/-

Or maybe the team wasn't interested in them for other reasons - like the aforementioned control issues that supposedly made Van Gundy uninterested, Avery Johnson should not have been interviewed, interested or not, and Collins, maybe they know something about last year in chicago that we didn't.

Maybe they had a list of candidates they would consider, talked to all of them, maybe van gundy and collins never made the list...fans assume they know the ins and outs, and they usually don't, and neither do the writers, the writers know what they're told...it's not he NFL they don't hae to do the token interview to fulfill a (stupid) rule...not really sure what they would have gained by making a 'show' of it - makes no sense at all...they were going to get bashed from one side or the other no matter how many interviews they made and no matter who they hired

I agree that they need to do something bold, but they can't lose sight of the expiring contracts (Sammy, Reggie, Willie). I think they'll be in a good position this time next year, if they can stay patient. Have you heard any talk at all about moving up in the draft?

user-pic
John reply to Brian on May 29 at 23:20
+/-

Ugh - 'bold' usually translates into 'big name to wow the ignorant but no improvement on the court'

ALa Chris Webber

they needd to get better, but i don't give a flying frrack if it's bold as long as it's smart and looks like it'll make them better - they were bold last summer

Well, luckily I wasn't using your definition of bold, I was using my own. Letting Miller walk is bold. Trading up is bold.

user-pic
John reply to Brian on May 29 at 23:35
+/-

IN a vacuum they're nothing to me actually - what do they give up - who do they trade to get and what do they replace Miller with?

To me those are moves that make sense - assuming they're followed up with the right things.

Sorry, little aggravated by the stupid anti semite on jordans board

Haven't been over there yet tonight.

The safe move would be to re-sign Miller and stick at #17, taking the best shooter available. I don't think that moves the team forward. Letting him walk and trading up would go against the grain.

user-pic
John reply to Brian on May 29 at 23:47
+/-

Oh i think that's a backwards move personally - and one of the few outcomes thta puts stefanski in the king category

Look at this from the average fan, or outsider's perspective. Andre Miller has been one of the best players on a playoff team for the past two seasons. I guarantee you if you took a poll at the Sixers games, it would be about 75% in favor or re-signing him.

Now, every MSM source has done nothing but harp on how weak this draft is. Take a poll on how many people think it makes sense to move up in this draft, I'd say 75% will tell you no, stay put.

That's what I mean about going against the grain. What we talk about here, and the depth that we try to go into when analyzing moves and potential moves does not reflect the average fan.

The safe move is to keep the core together that got you to the playoffs two seasons in a row. Don't take the risk that you backslide into the lottery next year, bring Miller back.

user-pic
bebopdeluxe reply to Brian on May 30 at 0:05
+/-

Brian:

Letting Miller walk isn't necessarily bold...but it would be cheap. Miller wouldn't re-sign with us for the MLE...so let him walk and MAYBE we spend the full MLE. Maybe not.

I would like to believe that they will do something bold to get a shooter - as opposed to staying at 17 and hoping to get lucky AGAIN...but based on what I saw with this BOLD coaching selection, I'm not holding my breath.

user-pic
deepsixersuede on May 29 at 23:11
+/-

We need catch and shoot guys,at least 2 in our rotation.Jason and Thad can contribute that way but maybe a Sam for T.Murphy trade looks more feasable now.

ooh i'd make that move in a heartbeat. same with the aforementioned sam for jason richardson.

something tells me speights is going to have the green light to launch some 3's this season.

I think there will be plenty of green lights to go around this season.

user-pic
deepsixersuede on May 29 at 23:37
+/-

This hire doesn!t fit this roster at all.How can Jordan feel good about this.Maybe E.S. reassured him he!ll get THE guy to run the show.Does a guy like Kidd maybe have interest?

No coach fits a roster of mismatched parts no back up opint guard and no outside shooters

user-pic
deepsixersuede on May 29 at 23:58
+/-

These guys are in for a culture shock,no more dribble isolations, man this could be very,very interesting.

i'm going to try pull the article i read that indicated that chris paul might be available this summer, as the hornets are in a pretty dire financial situation. who would you part with to get him? iguodala and thad? iguodala but not thad? iguodala & speights?

If they're in financial straights, Iguodala doesn't help things.

To answer your question, though. I'd part with whoever it takes to get him.

user-pic
Chris reply to Mike on May 30 at 3:00
+/-

Chris Paul available? Sounds ridiculous but if it is true I'd say they can have whatever they want as long as they don't totally gut the team. You can't pass up Chris Paul without seeing what they want. He is easily one of the top 5 (if not higher) in the league right now.

I'd say first offer the pick, Lou Williams and maybe Speights (low ball). They probably wouldn't go for that but if all they are doing is a salary dump you never know. The draft pick, Lou and Speights would be dirt cheap and still has potential. Look at what the Lakers gave up for Gasol.

If it came to it, I'd say Iggy or Thad can go but not both. Of the two, I'd say Thad first. I think potentially he could be better than Iggy but right now Iggy is better.

If we gut the team it won't make any difference if we get Paul.

user-pic
Tray reply to Chris on May 30 at 4:37
+/-

Gasol's no Chris Paul, and he was making a lot more money than Chris Paul.

user-pic
Mike reply to Chris on May 30 at 7:16
+/-

yea i can't remember where i heard it. but it was either from an article i read or from an analyst on espn who said, "it's possible chris paul will be available this summer because of the financial situation the hornets are in." so take that however you want. it just made me think of what the sixers would potentially do to land him a guy like him. as brian said, it wouldn't make sense for the hornets to take on big contracts in return, so i suppose the deal would have to be structured around draft picks & younger guys with smaller contracts. i wonder if #17, thad, & speights would get it done. probably not.

user-pic
Joe reply to Mike on May 30 at 7:22
+/-

I'd agree with Brian.

Sixers simply couldn't help them save money. They have some interesting young pieces that would make a deal more possible, but they lack cap space or expiring contracts.(end of next season expirings)

To answer the original question, I would trade Thad, Iguodala, and Speights without really blinking I am pretty sure.

Maybe it is my implicit racial bias speaking or maybe it is the fact that the Princeton offense scares me or maybe it is the disdain with which I have watched the Wizards over the last 4 years, but I would have rather avoided Eddie Jordan.

Just PLEASE play Sammy. Personally, that is all I ask.

Isn't the Princeton offense mostly about a talented big man who can both hit a shot from the hi-post and also make great passes from there? Of course, the three is an important factor but to me the hi-post has always been the most prominent characteristic of it. I would think Brand and Smith would be well suited for that hi-post role as they can both shoot it from there.

Maybe Stefanski was turned off when Collins was lobbying for the job publicly early on and maybe Van Gundy really does not want to coach. I am fine with Jordan.

I love Eddie S but I am not impressed that he took this long to end up hiring his most likely only choice all along. Hope I am wrong about that and there is more to the story.

Also, totally agree with you if all the 6ers end up doing is resign miller and take the pick at 17 then Stefanski is in job security mode and he is not our guy.

user-pic
bebopdeluxe on May 30 at 9:11
+/-

Or maybe Stefanski didn't have the budget to talk to Collins or JVG.

There is a guy over at RealGM who has a contact in the Sixers organization...this guy's contact is good...and he confirmed that money was a factor, which jives with the CSNPhilly blurb above.

After all...it IS Comcast we are talking about.

I just wish Stefanski hadn't made that STUPID "open checkbook" statement at the beginning of the process. It makes him look like a lapdog.

Honestly, I don't think JVG or Doug Collins is worth top dollar. And if they are asking for Top Dollar, I would not be interested. I read the RealGM guy, and my take on it is that Jordan was his favorite, but, like Boxing, if somebody came and knocked him out, it would've been somebody else. Remember, after the 1st round interviews, SF said that Thibs was the top choice. I guess he must have blew the 2nd, somehow.

As far as Jordan goes, I am reading reports stating that his defensive issues were overblown because he was coaching to his personnel. I read that, and remember that he was considered the "true" coach of the Nets while Lord Byron was the CEO. And the Nets were a defensive team that primarily wanted to run while also using the Princeton Offense when the break wasn't there. Sounds like the Sixers huh? Plus, I think it helps that this team's "Big 3" features two vets who are beyond solid defensively and a maturing Young, as opposed to Arenas(criminally indifferent), Butler(Solid) & Jamison(Mediocre).

user-pic
bebopdeluxe reply to Sean on May 30 at 10:35
+/-

From your mouth to God's ear, bro...

We still need a shooter - DESPERATELY. The Bulls sound like they are moving Hinrich this summer. There are teams in the #5-6 range in the draft that would be open to a trade (to get Curry). I would even - with the signing of Jordan - think about Bibby if we could come up with some kind of deal (if he is familiar with the offense that Jordan runs).

If it is true that this is pretty much what was going to happen from the day Mo was fired, I hope that Stefanski has been spending the rest of his time thinking about how to get Jordan the high-IQ players and shooters this offense needs.

I agree with the need for shooters, completely. And I would not turn down Curry or Hinrich. My concern is I think it would take a 3-way for the Sixers to get Hinrich and the Wiz want vets for the #5. So what else is out there? In free agency, one might wonder if that JKidd idea previously bandied about might just resurface. Also, Nachbar wants to return from Russia. There is Korver as a possibility as well. Not to mention the draft. Guys like Ellington, Henderson, Taylor, Thornton and maybe even Chrismas make interesting fits, given that this offense needs no traditional point.

Why????????????????????????????????????????????????????

user-pic
Real and Speightacular on May 30 at 10:31
+/-

It's a good choice. The Sixers already have a near-shutdown defender in Iggy, plus Brand and (usually) Sammy. All they need is two non-matador guards and they'll have the hosses for an above-average team on defense. Now the bench could use some work defensively but at least M16 loves to block shots and, besides, they're more of gunning crew anyway. This team's issue, at least against the better teams, has been about consistently generating an effective offensive flow/rhythm.

It's good that they got an offensive guy vs defensive specialist. Get a defensive asst coach to tune things up on that end, but I'd say that isn't going to be their main problem.

At the end of the day, it's a significant upgrade over DiLeo and now that hole's been plugged up. On to the guard situation! Still think Thornton + Hinrich's the move. Curry remains, from my view, way too sketchy.

user-pic
Real and Speightacular reply to Real and Speightacular on May 30 at 10:40
+/-
"Still think Thornton + Hinrich's the move."

Let me clarify. I'd also love Sessions, too. And the only (remotely gettable) point guards I like from the draft remain Lawson and Maynor (in that order).

One other side note, I don't get the grousing re LeBron. Dude's a ham. Big deal. He also happens to be the best baller on the planet, benefit-of-the-doubt calls or not. Don't tell me you're one of those guys who hated Ali's showmanship, too? It's all in good fun. Spit the lemon out.

Regarding your LeBron comments...

1st, LeBron ain't Ali. And Hoops is a team sport. All that posturing and posing is just aggravating.
2nd, I just don't enjoy watching LeBron play. I am not arguing that he is not a great player, I am saying that watching him play bores me, honestly. His talent is impressive, but his game is not entertaining to me from an aesthetic sense. He is not the type of player that compels me to stop and watch, unlike Jordan, Magic or Hakeem or Prime Shaq, or Paul, Kobe, Nash or Wade or the Spurs trio. But that is just me.

But then again, I also don't like isolation heavy offenses where large chunks of the game devolve into 1-on-1 with 8 extra spectators with the best seats in the house. It is one reason I like the Eddie Jordan selection for the Sixers. That heavy-iso stuff should be reduced a great deal.

user-pic
Real and Speightacular reply to Sean on May 31 at 7:33
+/-
"1st, LeBron ain't Ali. And Hoops is a team sport. All that posturing and posing is just aggravating."

So which is it? Is it showboating you dislike or does it depend on the dude doin it? James' goofin around involves his teammates. If there's one thing that can be said for him, it's that he's a big time team guy.

And most of your list of "pretty" players did/do a lil showboatin/pose-after-pretty-play stuff, too (omg, Shaq? hello??). It's in the moment, it's not over the top. Just enjoy the game, grandpa, your lawn is safe.

Save Shaq, you've got a fine list of aggressive yet finesse players. That's cool, I like all them guys, too. But there hasn't been a dude with LeBron's freakish combination of speed, size and power (Ali was that guy in boxing). A 260lb+ "small" foward who can move that fast?! As a basketball fan, if there aren't at least three times a game where he doesn't make you gasp in astonishment, you my friend have a serious case of homeritis. And that's ok too, it's perfectly legal, it'd just be better you admit the homerism instead of spewing this Bushian buckshot of reasons not to like him. Everyone in the universe knows you'd mess your shorts in delirium if he was on your team.


I just said I don't like showboats, especially those who constantly preen after every little thing they do(like end of quarter shots, please). Ali was all about psychological warfare, LeBron is about the spotlight. And no, not all of LeBron's posturing involves his teammates, so sell that BS somewhere else, Similac.

I remember watching him during his 1st couple of years, thought he would be a great player, but I hoped that he would remain the PG he was drafted to be, instead of the oversized wing he's become. I thought, as great as he is, him as a PG could have been something even more. But he and the Cavs bailed on that experiment, and I wonder what got lost in that decision. But that is probably too deep for you.

Like I said, he's a great player, but I don't find his runaway rhino style enjoyable to watch, especially when the many times he commits offensive fouls and or 4-step travels get ignored for the sake of your beloved "highlights." You are probably the type who spent weeks on a blacktop practicing LeBron's Crab Walk too.

So, LeBron makes you gasp 3 times a game huh? You are easily amazed apparently. Good for you. He did not impress me at all yesterday. Couple of nice passes, a few nice drives, but nothing that makes me "gasp." I remember when I watched Chris Paul manipulate an entire team with nothing more than a couple simple fakes to create an opening that was not there. That was "gasp" worthy.

As far as power, in addition to Prime Shaq, I also enjoyed Barkley, someone who played with far more physicality then LeBron. I liked watching Prime Rodman too, as well as Prime Zo. I neglected to mention Dwight, not a finesse guy either, whose attitude about the game I loved to death. He has so much fun, but it is not at the expense of the other team. He's a humble, fun-loving big kid. Back to Chuck, I was not fond of his 10-second backdown isos, but Chuck was one of my favs. And, contrary to your opinion, MJ was not really a finesse guy, he was also very physical yet gracefully skilled in his play.

And no, to answer your last crass statement, I would change my opinion on LeBron if he were on the Sixers. I'd still be critical of his game(why so many 3s), his preening(act like you've been there before), and his "leadership"(way to bail on congratulating the Magic after your loss or talking to the media last night, MVP).

Sorry, I am not a fan. But I am quite sure you send him enough fan mail for the both of us.

About the coaching "budget"... They may not be paying individual coaches that much, but cumulatively they pay big name coach money every year. It seems like Comcast is paying at least 2 head coach salaries every season (the current one and the one they fired.) This year they still owe Cheeks plus what they will be paying Jordan.

user-pic
Chris reply to tk76 on May 30 at 12:19
+/-

I agree with your point here.

In Billy King's final (or was it penultimate year) he was paying Cheeks, JOB and Randy Ayers. Not to mention he was also still paying about 3 or 4 players that were not playing for the Sixers.

It seems like the Sixers have been on a treadmill of mediocrity for many a year now. I was really counting on Brand to get them over the hump. I'm still hopeful but a lot less so. Seems like it is difficult to get decent in basketball unless you have one of the premier players. To that extent, to get Chris Paul (if he is available) would be very important.

Re. Chris Paul. If he's moved it isn't going to be to the Sixers. He's BYC this season, meaning the deal has to be done with a team than absorb about $6.5M of dead salary. The Sixers can't do that. They could maybe get involved in a three-team deal with someone who has cap space, but I seriously doubt any of those teams facilitates a deal for Paul. If he's really available, they'll try to get him themselves.

Also, the only possible reason to move Paul is financial, the Sixers couldn't do anything to help them financially except maybe cut a couple years off the back end of their obligations with Sammy. No way New Orleans does that.

user-pic
John reply to Brian on May 30 at 13:39
+/-

The only thing I've read this off season regarding the hornets was that if they were looking to shed salaries - everyone but Paul would be made available.

user-pic
Mike reply to Brian on May 30 at 18:47
+/-

thanks for clearing up the BYC thing Brian. i don't see a 3 team deal going down.

I was out of town for my daughter's wedding. At first, I was disappointed with EJ (I wanted TT). But, after thinking of it, I am actually excited about it. Why, now ES has NO EXCUSES. He needs to put a winner on the court. If they don't, I think it will be curtains for Ed and Ed. So, lets go sixers!

i was starting to assume i might probably end up being the only guy who thought about this, at the very least now i realize im not odd :) i am going to make sure to take a look at a few various other posts when i get a little caffeine in me, it's rough to read with out my coffee, take care :)


Expand/Contract all comments

Leave a comment


back-to-story.gif