DFDepressed FanDepressed Fan

All  

Sixers

, all the time

The Valley Follows the Peak

At this point, it's all about the kids. Problem is, giving them long minutes under this coach might actually be bad for them. So in the spirit of Cato the Elder or Adam Clayton Powell, can we just append "Fire Eddie Jordan" to every discussion of what should come next for this team?

Once you have removed that potentially corrosive influence, then I think it's time to give Jrue, Meeks, Young, Speights, and even Smith big minutes. Teach defense, ignore offense. We'll lose (a lot), but it will be good in the long run to see who can guard and rebound and who can't, or won't. (It might also be interesting to see how McKie would handle a team.) And while this draft class is nothing to get excited about, being 4th is still better than being 10th, especially given that this team has seemed to draft fairly well of late.

user-pic
AaronMcKie4MVP reply to Matt on Feb 25 at 7:01
+/-

Jordan WILL be gone in the next 10 games. he is not finishing out the season.

I just hope you're ready to take over when it does happen.

user-pic
Shawn reply to Jeff on Feb 25 at 10:07
+/-

Is Aaron Mckie a good coach?

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to Shawn on Feb 25 at 10:08
+/-

He's an assistant, but everyone thinks he'll make a good head coach.

Same with Eric Snow

I expect if they never played for the sixers, less people would be interested in either of them as a head coach

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to AaronMcKie4MVP on Feb 25 at 9:58
+/-

Eie Joran won't be fired until the organization is done paying Mo Cheeks

user-pic
AaronMcKie4MVP reply to JohnEMagee on Feb 25 at 10:10
+/-

thats your opinion.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to AaronMcKie4MVP on Feb 25 at 10:30
+/-

And 'him getting fired in the next 10 games' is your opinion, which is no more or less valid than mine - even though you seem to think it is

user-pic
The Greek reply to JohnEMagee on Feb 25 at 10:32
+/-

Thats your opinion

user-pic
AaronMcKie4MVP reply to JohnEMagee on Feb 25 at 13:52
+/-

i think you are jumping to conclusions on how I feel. i never said or implied that. just stating that what you said is an opinion. you are correct that my post was my opinion.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to AaronMcKie4MVP on Feb 25 at 13:55
+/-

Jordan WILL be gone in the next 10 games. he is not finishing out the season.

That seems to be a pretty strong opinion.

I always figure it's implied that most things people write on a blog are opinion inherently but you (and your friend) felt it necessary to point out that it was my opinion. My opinion based on how comcast actually runs the team.

If Joran hasn't been fired yet - why would he be fired in the next 10 games?

I honestly don't follow basketball like I had in the past 3-4 years... what are the talking heads saying about Jordan?

Is he on the "hot seat"?

user-pic
Jeff reply to Joe on Feb 25 at 9:54
+/-

Amongst the fans, yes. Amongst a GM who wants to keep his job and an indifferent ownership, no.

I agree that Brand looked like he had no lift. A few weeks ago he looked a lot fresher out there. He got spoon-fed a few great looks in the lane by Jrue, but played like he was wearing a 40 pound wt vest holding them down. As if gravity effected Brand more.

But at least we saw Brand play at a high level for a few weeks. Hopefully that means he can get to that level consistently in a better system and with less minutes.

But I'm not sure. I remember CWebb briefly put up huge numbers for the Kings before the Sixers acquired him (21/10/5.5 and reigning WC player of the month at the time of the trade.) I think overall if his minutes and role are managed Brand can be a productive player. But I don't expect him to consistently be a force like he looked to be a few weeks ago. And I don't know what to say about his defense and rebounding. I'm not sure why that has declined so much. He was better in those areas lats year.


user-pic
The Greek reply to tk76 on Feb 25 at 10:35
+/-

Tk the good news is that we only have him for 3 more years instead of 6, and hopefully his expiring contract will have some trade value in that year. That's the problem though, we as Sixers fans are always on some 3-5 year plan, it's like a never ending loop.

user-pic
The Greek reply to The Greek on Feb 25 at 10:36
+/-

sorry meant to say that hopefully Brands contract will have trade value in that 3rd year

user-pic
JohnEMagee on Feb 25 at 10:37
+/-

It'll be interesting to see how the new CBA comes down, if the owners get the hard cap and only partially guaranteed contracts, it might make it much less costly to just 'waive' brand after the next season.

There may be some kind of buy-out amnesty plan. But it will probably require Comcast to take a one time hit for the sake of building a winner. And I'm not confident that Comcast will chose to take a hit for this team. They are not exactly a loss leader like they are supposed to be.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to tk76 on Feb 25 at 10:50
+/-

Well, i don't see them taking a hit for the sake of building a winner, but let's say they can buy him out for 75% (or less) of his remaining contract. In the long run they're saving money on the contract, so would do so to save that money.

I have no illusions about ownership caring about winning...they don't as far as I'm concerned, they care about improving their stock price anyway they can...if they could figure out how to replicate the clippers model, I'm sure they would.

Hey, they've aleady made Brand their highest player- so they are 1/2 way there. Now all they need is to bring in Dunleavy.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to tk76 on Feb 25 at 10:56
+/-

Trading Andre/Sam for McGrady/Budinger would have been a strong move to start saving money the way DUnleavy does.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to JohnEMagee on Feb 25 at 10:58
+/-

I meant Sterling, not Dunleavy

user-pic
The Greek on Feb 25 at 10:55
+/-

Q: Does the contract of an amnesty player drop off a team's payroll?

A: No. And the provision provides only luxury-tax relief, with no salary-cap relief. So a team can't release a player to gain cap space.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to The Greek on Feb 25 at 10:58
+/-

And that applies to the current CBA

Which is why we're talking about the next CBA which the owners WANT a hard cap, they want partially guaranteed contracts, and they want all 'outstanding' contracts forced to fit under the hard cap. They might not get all they want, but if they do, players like Brand will face a contract adjustment and the possibility of being cut and only being paid the guaranteed portion of their contracts.

Larry Coon's faq is excellent - but becomes quite irrelevant if the owners get what they want in the new CBA, they'll eliminate the MLE, the bi annual low exception, bird rights, and a bunch of other things.

Who agrees with Bill Simmons that fans do not win if the new CBA is better for owners. I agree with the premise that fans are not getting a good "deal", and that the playoff and lottery systems are completely out of whack. However, I do think non guaranteed contracts / shorter guaranteed contracts WILL help teams navigate the waters of free agency, and only help improve awfully GM'd teams. As fan it is something we've been desperate for.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to Shawn on Feb 25 at 11:05
+/-

The current CBA isn't good for fans either. All these trades made not because of basketball but because of salary rules, luxury taxes, clearing cap space for the off season?

If the new CBA makes teams less likely to go bankrupt and more likely to make basketball related moves than luxury tax saving moves, then I think it's better for the fans.

CBA, Salary Caps, etc...they are anti capitalist and primarily seem to exist to protect owners and GMs from their own stupidity.

NFL has a hard cap - very few trades - and they seem to be doing ok with the fans.

Is there a cap in the NFL now?

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to Joe on Feb 25 at 11:48
+/-

It has been for years now - but the next year is uncapped (with certain restrictions on 'top 8' teams) - but the NFL has a hard cap, non-guaranteed contracts, etc..., but you don't see a lot of trades.

The NFL negotiations, reportedly, are interesting because it's not just players versus owners, there's 'small' ownders versus 'big' owners who have revenue sharing issues they want to iron out.

The NFL most likely will come to a compromise but I don't expect a loss of the hard cap or the non guaranteed contracts.

I agree with Simmons. His criticism of the league is fair and on the mark.

Whenever someone talks about "good for the fans" I have to ask which fans. Would a hard cap (and floor) in baseball be good for the fans? Yes, if you happen to be a Pirates fan. No if you're a Yankees fan.

It all depends on what you value, I guess. What's the most important thing: consistency, parity, loyalty?

It makes me sick that Brian Dawkins and now Brian Westbrook will be finishing their careers in a foreign uniform and it's 100% because of the hard cap.

I do think it's important to provide ways for teams to keep their own players. I absolutely hate fully-guaranteed contracts, and I think partially guaranteed deals will lead to cheap owners simply dumping players to save some pennies in down years.

For me, the CBA the owners have proposed would probably be a disaster, and while the current one has us in limbo right now, that's not really the system's fault. It's Ed Stefanski's fault, or maybe his bad luck's fault, or whatever. Point is, you can build a winner under the current rules if you're smart about the moves you make, these changes seem to be more about giving poor decision makers easy outs when they screw up, and I'm not sure why that should be the primary concern.

If teams are really bleeding money, then drop the cap, drop the MLE and the bi-annual. Drop the % of BRI that goes to player salaries and benefits, grandfather the contracts and gird yourself for the next couple of seasons until things normalize.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to Brian on Feb 25 at 12:47
+/-

It's Ed Stefanski's fault, or maybe his bad luck's fault, or whatever. P

But that's the point, CBA's, taxes, caps, etc...they aren't about the fans usually they're about mitigating the stupidity of owners and GMs.

Technically there is a floor in baseball - that's why the marlins get yelled at.

The problem in baseball (and now brewing in football and probably basketball) is revenue sharing...not from national deals of course, but from local deals and such...that's how the yankees and red sox can afford to out spend other ownerships (but at the same time, look at a team like minneosta, pohlad iis LOADED and could afford bigger salary and contracts, but just doesn't, cause he's more worried about his bottom line than winners or losers)

Most teams operatied under a budget in MLB - they just have different budgets :)

Ps - I don't think Westbrook re-signs anywhere - people are going to be terrified of his concussion history

It's not really a floor if the penalty is that you get "yelled at," is it?

I'd love to see an accounting of what owners do with their revenue share, in all sports.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to Brian on Feb 25 at 13:02
+/-

good luck on that - getting leagues to open their books, especially mlb with their 'anti trust' exemption (seriously do they even need that any more?:)...

I just know what I hear on various outlets and that revenue sharing between big clubs and small clubs is a huge issues in the NFL negotiations.

NFL owners are a punch of whiners. They get so much money from their national TV deals, they can all afford the cap, and it's a hard cap. Boo fucking hoo. The richest franchise hasn't exactly used their financial heft to corner the market on Super Bowl rings, has it?

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to Brian on Feb 25 at 13:09
+/-

Nope - but at the same time - they don't own teams to operate at a loss either, and why should dallas share money with jacksonville if jacksonville isn't building up its market either.

For them it's business, and they want to make money - and bigger teams have to give smaller teams more money that they've 'rightuflly' earned.

It's a fracked up model as it is - because in a real business - poorly run businesses go bankrupt - but the NFL can't let the Raiders go 'out of business'

It's probably too late in the game now, but professional leagues should really only lease ownership rights to teams, and there should be very strict restrictions on the renewal of the lease. Operate at a loss for x number of years in a row, the league has the right to shop the lease. 10 consecutive losing seasons, the NFL has the right to shop the lease.

League approval is a complete joke, all they care about is that the new owner can afford the price. Sports would be much better off if we could just get more insanely rich individuals who think a trophy or a ring for bragging rights is much cooler than buying an island somewhere.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to Brian on Feb 25 at 13:21
+/-

League approval is a complete joke, all they care about is that the new owner can afford the price.

That's not true at all, especially not in baseball, they want someone who won't over spend...the sale of the rays I think and the dodgers to the mccourts, the highest bidder DIDN"T win, but those bidders also had the deepest pockets and would have been willing to spend a lot more.

Cuban was never going to get the cubs even if he was the top bidder, baseball is obnoxious about ownership but it's not just about highest bidder

That's actually worse than what I said.

Did the league turn Cuban down?

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to Brian on Feb 25 at 14:20
+/-

Cuban was in the running for the Cubs and lots of things came out that he had no chance because of his volumne in the NBA, being hated by colangelo, regardless of the size of his bid.

MLB doesn't want owners who will spend, or have the flexibility, when the dodgers were sold to real estate developers from Boston - there was an LA local who could pay, in cash, for the team and he was turned down, the McCourts had to borrow and leverage to make the payment and thus couldn't 'spen' as much as the cash buyer would have bought.

The guy who was allowed to buy the rays at one point was the guy who ran the expos into the ground....how do you allow that guy to buy another team in MLB.

The one thing I like about the NFL over the other leagues is you don't see corporate ownership

user-pic
AaronMcKie4MVP reply to JohnEMagee on Feb 25 at 17:00
+/-

im not as knowledgeable as you guys in this but the nfl system seems to work great. there is parity unlike baseball and bball. NFL players are not afraid to play in a city like Buffalo, Tampa, Green Bay, etc... And, the players have a lot less sway.. they make a lot of $$$ but at the end of the day it feels like they are employees of the owners. in the NBA , the players are practically co-owners and partners in the business. the NFL product is the game itself. the NBA product is Lebron and kobe.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to AaronMcKie4MVP on Feb 25 at 17:07
+/-

Well there's a semblance of parity - but there are those who argue that 'dynasties' are good for sports league in that they give all the fans someone to hate (i mean sure everyone hates the cowboys, but they aren't a dynasty - you just hate the cowboys - that's how it works) - why is parity the goal? The smarter owners and GM's SHOULD have an advantage than the dumber (Davis, Snyder, Jones) owners.

Also - player movement in the NFL - trades just don't really happen much - and some argue that's bad for a league as well, and you can still screw yourself with a bad contract beucase of the bonus and amortization issues (which i do't fully get) and sometimes a player ends up getting cut PURELY for financial reasons

and sometimes a player ends up getting cut PURELY for financial reasons

That's my biggest problem w/ their system. Well, that and the fact that Dawkins and Westbrook were let go :(

Do you know if it's against the rules for the Birds to bring Westbrook back on a cheaper deal?

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to Brian on Feb 25 at 17:14
+/-

I have no idea - I doubt it - but he might not pass another physical due to all the concussions - if it were me - i'd do the one day retire thing - and i know you love westbrook - but dudes done and they have his replacement.

Its not just Westbrook - LT was cut purely for financial reasons in San Diego and that' causing a lot of ire on both sides of the argument in San Diego...real polarizing move.

I don't think ANY league has a perfect CBA, And I don't know any leagues CBA perfectly I think each one has good and bad personally - including MLB

But the fact that the players will fight HGH in MLB pisses me off so much

The whole steroid thing cracks me up. It's such a big effing deal in baseball, but what percentage of NFL players are juicing now/have juiced in the past? 90%, mostly everyone but the kickers/punters (although I wouldn't put it past Akers).

Even guys who fail tests like Merriman aren't treated like the pariahs in baseball.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to Brian on Feb 25 at 17:28
+/-

That's because football doesn't have a place in history and the american lexicon like baseball does - over 100 years of history - the black sox - jackie robinson - the dodgers and giants move to california - baseball is part of the american fabric and identity a lot more than football - even if it's less popular than football now - the historic conteext of the sport (and the anti trust exemption) make most issues in it 'bigger' than the game (and at the end of the day it does baseball more good than harm that these issues are of such import, it shows the import of the game real or not to the country)

Can I just say - any team that franchises a kicker should be ashamed of itslef

It just cracks me up that McGwire and Sosa are the faces of evil...that saved the friggin' game in '98.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to Brian on Feb 25 at 18:02
+/-

The saved the game mem is nonsense any more than 'steroids' killed baseball when it came out...it's a nice story - but it isn't actually accurate - but why should that bother EPSN :)

user-pic
AaronMcKie4MVP reply to JohnEMagee on Feb 25 at 18:29
+/-

steroids are a big deal in baseball only because it affects the offensive side 100x more than the defense. therefore, the statistical benchmarks and records lose significance. i personally think this a real problem and really damaged the game. McGwire disgusts me for the mere fact that the guy was freakin scrub for like 3 or 4 seasons in the early 90s. i used to put his 85' Topps team USA card in the spokes of my bike because the guy was done. then, all of a sudden he is the face of baseball? brady anderson (leading off with 50 homers out of nowhere), dykstra, daulton... the list goes on and on with players that rose out of medocrity, got paid a ton, and for some reason are considered better than a guys like ryne sandberg or mike pagliarulo. baseball became a joke. thats why people (or at least me) care about steroids. i stopped being a die-hard yankee fan around 94-95, just before they became a dynasty. i saw a noticeable difference in numbers and quality of games. fewer 3-2 and more 11-9. i stopped buying the MLB product. unfortunalty most people want more scoring and the game thrived.....to its downfall

i agree that NFL players are likely just as juiced. the day that steroids help a RB rush for 3,500yds, I will care just as much. the fact is that if a RB is faster and stronger, so are the linebackers so it never actually changes the underlying game.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to AaronMcKie4MVP on Feb 25 at 18:31
+/-

This thread has gotten way too long

But what you've restated is the hyperbole and the spin - but the research about what Steroids do and don't help is spotty incsonsistent and inconclusive.

The only 'proof' of what steroids do is help guys recover faster - so as for your '100x more' thing - does a pitcher who throws a 100 mph fastball benefit quite a bit from taking steroids so he's ready to throw 100 mph faster....probably - you want some proof - do a little research on the career of one eric gagne

user-pic
AaronMcKie4MVP reply to JohnEMagee on Feb 25 at 20:38
+/-

the harder the ball comes, the harder it goes. all else being equal, faster pitches will travel a longer distance when contact is made. if you want to argue that faster pitching will decrease the chance the hitter makes contact, you sort of would have a point, albeit a weak one. However, i have not seen a huge increase in the number of pitchers throwing 100mph anyway. so your point is moot. what has been seen is a ridiculous number of HRs and a ton of players admitting steroids use. not sure what you cant grasp here.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to AaronMcKie4MVP on Feb 26 at 9:50
+/-

What you can't grasp is the difference between anecdotal evidence and actual evidence.

Athletes are getting bigger and stronger in all sports, you have agile 300 lb guys in the NFL which didn't used to happen you got hockey player built like brick out houses...but scultped.

Exercise technology, our understanding of human development and how to 'build' an athlte grows and thus we know better how to build them 'bigger and stronger', steroids or no.

What you're saying right now, it isn't evidence, it's the hysteria and the medias words trying to make this a bigger issue than it actually is, like baseball 'matters more' - it doesn't

user-pic
collegebasketballwatcher on Feb 25 at 12:18
+/-

So after seeing Evan Turner in person last night, I figured I would give you guys a small scouting report since he is a potential high pick that the sixers could be interested in. I've seen him play a few times this year, but this is the first in person. He does leave me with a few concerns.

!) He is listed at 6-7. he is not 6-7. not even close. comparing him to other players I'd say about 6-5, 6-6 at best. making him a mediocre height for a shooting guard. not a small forward who can play the shooting guard.
2) He is shooting 24% from the college three this year. the college three. his form isn't very good and the shot isn't smooth. Do we really need another wing player who can't shoot but can drive and pass? he is a wayyyy lesser version of AI9. He is short, less athletic, and probably an even worse shooter
3) When he dribbles, he has a bad habit of bringing the ball up way to high. It got swatted away a few times last night, and you bet your ass in the nba it will get stolen a lot more.
4) Plus he is a whiner. one of those players that is stunned whenever a call goes against them. he also cursed out multiple fans when he was getting taunted during and after the game. as a player of the year candidate, he has to act better than that. I talked to some ohio state fans and they said it is real easy for both fans and other players to get under his skin.
5) He has broken vertebrae in his back that he came back from 2-3 months to early. This isn't a minor injury. A back problem can linger for a long time, and even end careers. It has to be something sixers training staffs seriously look at before he is drafted.

So yes there are some positives with the kid. He can really pass and finish around the rim better than anyone else at the college level. He is also pretty quick with and without the ball, and seems to make his teammates better. But, being as we already have a much better version of this player, I do not see him as a high need for this team. A 6-5 shooting guard who can't shoot. Seems familiar as far as I'm concerned.
So just thought I'd let you guys know what I have seen, since he is a projected top 3 pick, and the sixers could be headed there. I am much more high on Demarcus Cousins at this point. If anyone else has seen Turner play, feel free to let me know what you think.

So what you're saying is you're not a big Evan Turner fan?

Haha, yeah I agree with you.

Who's excited for the lottery??? Who are we gonna send???

I think a good idea would be to try and put the 3 ed's all in the seat, with each ed sitting on eachother's lap. snider on the bottom, stefanski in the middle, and jordan at the top.

An Ed sandwich on national TV, huh? That would be pretty sweet.

They'll probably send the most powerful guy in the organization, William Green.

Thanks, I haven't had a chance to watch Turner at all. Really interested in anyone's take on any of the potential draft picks, by the way.

I've heard a lot of good things about Turner, and if he's available it would be very hard for the Sixers to pass on him, you'd think. I'm not even sure I'd want them to. But if you draft him, you need to take a hard look at your roster, because playing Iguodala, Jrue and Turner as your 1, 2 and 3 may not be feasible. Not saying you pass on him, just that drafting a guy with his skill set would necessitate a change in direction for the franchise, which may not be a bad thing, but it's something to consider.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to Brian on Feb 25 at 12:36
+/-

Evan Turner seems to be the consensus #2 pick and the overall favorite for College Player of the year.

he's also playing out of position at OSU because he's running the point - and running it well.

The more I watch him play the more I see Iguodala but with a better finish at the basket...he's a complete all around guy who isn't 'great' at anything but is very very good at many things.

The sixers won't have a shot to draft him without an enormous amount of luck.

It's just too late to get that high in the lottery.

Demarcus Cousins is an interesting candidate because skill wise - he's a monster - but he has issues of coachability (someone is quoted today as saying he's medicated), and attitude, but skill wise he'd be above Turner in the draft I believe.

Here's hoping that someone like Jrue (or speights to a lesser extent) leaves a year early and slips to the sixers where they wouldn't have next season (DX had speights projected as a top 10 pick if he had stayed for his junior year for instance)

I was wondering about this. Jrue won the HS player of the year his senior year of high school. Thad had a ton of fanfare coming out of HS as well. Is it conceivable to think those guys would've been top 5 picks had they not been forced to play a year in college?

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to Brian on Feb 25 at 13:00
+/-

Good question, no idea :)

All I recall is that when I discovered speights in the first game i saw UF play his sophmore season I did a quick scan at DX and they projected him a top 10 pick in the 2009 draft, but he came out a year before they thought...though the issues at UF that year should have been a warning sign...I know a ton of people point to lawson and say should have drafted him instead of Jrue -but check out the 3 guys who went after speights

Hibbert
McGee
Hickson

ALso later on, Courtney Lee, Serge Ibaka

Every one picks on the Holiday pick, but in year 2 - that speights pick is looking pretty bad too

How would Hibbert look right now behind Sam...would Hibbert on the team have motivated the sixers maybe a bit more in trade discussions this year because he was ready to step in?

That would have been a top-5 pick had he come out straight out of high school. Jrue's debatable, but probably top 10. Speights likely would not have been a first round pick. He was a fairly low level recruit. IIRC he wasn't in the top 50 in his class.

Of your concerns:
1) I'll reserve getting concerned until he's officially measured. Needless to say, observation (both on television and in person) is wildly unscientific. If he's 6'6" with long arms, it's not a concern at all.
2) I disagree that Turner's a worse shooter than Iguodala, particularly at that stage of his development. His midrange game is largely effective, and he's shown the ability to extend that to the college 3 at times, particularly in years past. His form is slightly unorthodox, but it's fairly consistent. He'll probably never be a great catch and shoot player, but he shows a pull-up game that Iguodala never had.
3) This I agree with, but I also think it's correctable.
4) I honestly don't care if he whines. You say other players get in his head, yet he's as important to his team as any player in college basketball. He seems to be handling it fine.
5) I'd be a lot more hesitant if he wasn't producing the way he is.

I wouldn't call him a "lesser version of AI9" at all. They've got very different strengths. Turner's much better at getting in the paint and finishing, and has a better pull-up game and midrange game than Iguodala did at the time.

user-pic
Court_visioN on Feb 25 at 12:45
+/-

a side note on the new CBA thing - if the NBA gets its hard cap and salaries go down and aren't guaranteed, how many players do you think bolt for Europe?

Not many. Childress was a strange dude to begin with, and I don't think things have exactly gone well for him in Greece. Every other player who's ever fled the NBA has done so because he couldn't hack it here (or he was homesick and longed for the motherland).

The players have tried to use Europe as a negotiating tool, but when you get right down to it, this is the best league in the world and any guy with a competitive bone in his body is going to want to play here.

user-pic
The Greek reply to Brian on Feb 25 at 14:30
+/-

Brian things are going really well for him this season, he just helped his team knock off there hated rivals who have ruled european basketball for the past decade. It takes more then one season to get adjusted to the rabid fans over there.

Good for him. I remember seeing a couple interviews early on where it didn't look like he was adjusting well at all. I wonder how his game has translated over there.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to Brian on Feb 25 at 16:53
+/-

Screw that

How has his FRO translated?

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to Court_visioN on Feb 25 at 12:51
+/-

I don't think many if any

Europe hasn't really panned out Josh Childress has it?

Teams in europe sometimes miss payroll and players can't do anything about it - whens' the last time you heard about an NBA team missing its payroll.

While I often believe that the most money always gets the free agent - that's usually staying with in your own home country - going from Cleveland to Oklahoma isn't the same as going from cleveland to greece - it's a huge thing...I don't think the impact would be as much.

I personally am against caps in general.

This recap is absolutely perfect. Couldn't agree more with every point you made...especially the sleep-walking comment!

At this point sadly the Sixers are best-off losing from here on out and hoping somehow they beat the slim odds to grab a 3-4 pick.

Anyone seen Xavier Henry from Kansas play? He seems to have good "basketball IQ" and tons of maturity for someone that's only 18. Not an athletic monster, but is probably underrated because of it. He's a good passer and potentially great 3 point shooter, although it doesn't look like he's going to create too many of his own shots anytime soon. Good size (6'6") and length for shooting guard. It's the IQ that I like most, though. Jrue, Henry, and Iguodala at the 1-2-3 could be pretty nice.

Anyone seen anything they like or don't?

user-pic
jkay reply to rjb360 on Feb 25 at 15:49
+/-

Henry may fall to our pick range. would be a steal if we end up getting him considering we are looking at the 10th or 11th pick now.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to jkay on Feb 25 at 15:55
+/-

Right now Henry projects low below the sixers range - he's in the teens - he started off hot - league play has been harder on him, but he is a freshman he is young, and he does look good...he's one of those guys you have to judge based on watching him play, not just his numbers, do you see good fundamentals, shot form if not selection, defensive effort (lots of zone in college), and all those things you can only tell by watching, and our resident DX associate has a lot more access to that film than the rest of us :)

user-pic
jkay reply to JohnEMagee on Feb 25 at 16:09
+/-

i'm expecting him to go much higher than current projections, given his age too. the rankings are fickle now, he is one solid showing at the NCAA playoffs away from being a lottery pick. wonder what the general consensus is about his potential.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to jkay on Feb 25 at 16:13
+/-

That always kind of bugs me - that a couple games can suddenly change peoples thinking on a guy...just doesn't make sense...

user-pic
jkay reply to JohnEMagee on Feb 25 at 16:16
+/-

agreed.

I agree with a lot of the concerns on henry, particularly his ballhandling. He doesn't do much off the dribble, either at the rim or jump shots off the dribble. His midrange game's much worse than you would expect, in fact it's been flat out ineffective this year. His left hand's virtually non-existent, and his first step is average. He does have decent body control on the times he does get into the lane.

His release is great, both consistent and extremely quick, and on catch and shoot he remains consistent with a hand in his face. He's also solid in transition.

If he improves his handle, can he be more than just a role player? That, and whether he can be an above average defender on the perimeter at the NBA, will determine his draft stock. His recent struggles are disappointing, but I don't think they change many peoples opinion about his overall talent level.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to Derek Bodner on Feb 25 at 16:44
+/-

Does DX have any opinion on feel if this draft might be 'over saturated' with early entries due to the upcoming labor strife?

Based on what you just wrote about him - if that's the consensus scouting report that comes out - no way that guy is a 10 pick where i still think you go with BPA (and iif cousins is available i say you take the risk :) )

BTW - in other draft news but to last year - Hasheem Thabeet - #2 pick - sent down to the d-league

Wow.

user-pic
AaronMcKie4MVP reply to Brian on Feb 25 at 17:06
+/-

this guy is the biggest bust in the history of the NBA. the D-league ????

I think I'd take a risk on Cousins at 1.

As for Thabeet, they have gotten more than they could have possibly expected from him thusfar right?

9, 10, and 4 blocks per36 shooting 56% or something.

6.8 fouls/36 is a bit alarming.

I would probably lean towards him not being the BPA where we pick, but that could change if a lot of people expected withdraw. He'd certainly be an upgrade over Green/Iverson/Williams and the crud we roll out at SG this year.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to Derek Bodner on Feb 25 at 17:34
+/-

over Green/Iverson/Williams and the crud we roll out at SG this year

But so would eddie house wouldn't he?:)

user-pic
deepsixersuede reply to Derek Bodner on Feb 25 at 18:07
+/-

Derek, a guy that intrigues me is Jan Vesely if we fall out of the top ten, he looks like a very good athlete and recently a Draftexpress article talked about him playing in an uptempo system and the fact he is a high energy player. It may be a good move even if he stays in Europe one more year. Guys, check out his youtube video on N.B.A.Draft.net, he looks like a more athletic version of Dunleavy, and if he can shoot, Iggy at the s.g. might be an option.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to deepsixersuede on Feb 25 at 18:19
+/-

I know they drafted that one dude in the second round once - but it seems that the sixers avoid the 'euro' trend doesn't it?

To be fair, they wanted Hedo pretty badly.

I think Rentzias is the guy you're thinking of, although technically I think they traded a second round pick for him, not straight up drafted him themselves.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to Derek Bodner on Feb 25 at 18:24
+/-

No - not rentzis - some really ugly guy Bacic or something? He never played for the sixers...but they own his draft rights stlll I think.

They also wanted Dirk Real badly, forgot about that one :)

Honestly, I haven't seen much of Vesely at all. I've got quite a few games of his on tape. I'll see if I can fit in some time this weekend and give my thoughts. The rebounding numbers are a huge concern, though.

user-pic
deepsixersuede reply to Derek Bodner on Feb 25 at 18:31
+/-

Derek, thanks. John, the reason I like this kid is, unlike a lot of Euros he is real athletic, and at 6! 11" he may be able to play some p.f. and with a nickname like the "dunking ninja" how can you go wrong.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to deepsixersuede on Feb 25 at 18:35
+/-

with a nickname like the "dunking ninja" how can you go wrong.

Jesus - I'm just getting over giants fans raiding the phillies blog cause shane victorino 'stole' fat pandas position on the ASG :)

What's Euro Draft history like recently? Are they successful? Are they even coming over any more?

user-pic
deepsixersuede reply to JohnEMagee on Feb 25 at 18:39
+/-

John, not sure of the history but he is a young kid and if we fall below #10 and want to rebuild maybe NOT adding a talent this year, if he stays in Europe, allows us to draft high again next year.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to deepsixersuede on Feb 26 at 9:47
+/-

I don't consider 10 that high...it's bad but not bad enough - and if the sixers don't make radical roster changes I don't think they'd be any 'better' in the lottery next season.

user-pic
JohnEMagee on Feb 25 at 18:25
+/-

This is the guy i was thinking of

http://www.nba.com/sixers/draft/bavcic_060630.html


Expand/Contract all comments

Leave a comment


back-to-story.gif