DFDepressed FanDepressed Fan

All  

Sixers

, all the time

Should We Expect Anything Else?

user-pic
Jason Mess on Jun 28 at 8:24
+/-

I do not see any good moves available, except if a decent UDFA is available after the summer league. Other than that I think they are going to see how this team does up to the trade deadline then maybe move one or two players. Like you said though hopefully they do not do anything to stupid. I think asking them not to do anything stupid might be to much.

user-pic
deepsixersuede on Jun 28 at 8:27
+/-

I expect a minimum salary signing of a J.Dorsey type to fill out the roster; Collins sees practice and competition as very important and a physical big that, though less skilled, can possibly take minutes from Marreese, Spencer and Jason and push them to play hard is the final missing piece.

user-pic
The Greek on Jun 28 at 9:15
+/-

"there's absolutely no way in hell you can possibly say Stefanski got a good haul in this trade"

Brian with all due respect that's just your opinion, for many of us a box of shit would have been a good haul for Sammy. I only ask that if/when Noncioni and Hawes play well that you give them there proper due and admit that you were wrong.

You can call it opinion, I'll call it opinion backed up by a boatload of facts. Either way, I'm really sick of the Dalembert debate. A box of shit would've been preferable because we wouldn't be on the hook to pay it next season.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to Brian on Jun 28 at 10:40
+/-

OPinions are facts and we both know that Sam (and Andre Iguodala too) is a giant loser who wouldn't be any good on a good basektball team if he was the 13th man, come on man aren't you keeping up (maybe i should throw a few curses in to prove that i'm really serious about my point?)

user-pic
ryano reply to JohnEMagee on Jun 28 at 10:57
+/-

On the court- trade was a loss. Neither Nocioni or Hawes fills any particular need and we lost a top 10 defensive center.

What we don't know about the trade is how it's going to affect the locker room. Sam was one of the longest tenured (the longest?) on the team and at this point in his career was very comfortable and had to hold some clout in the locker room. Collins wanted a clean slate to work with this team and they got rid of a very negative locker room presence and an expensive contract. I don't think the fact that Nocioni isn't a great personality to have on a team matters much here because Sammy held some weight in the organization and Nocioni is low man on the totem pole. He knows he's only here for a year and so does everyone else. Hopefully he keeps his mouth shut and just plays ball. And even more hopefully- we can only hope Hawes flourishes under Collins.

And I don't think we can justly call Iguodala a loser because he's being asked to be #1 banana with #2 playmaking skills and #3 scoring ability. Just about the entire team handled themselves with a lot of class playing under world class coaching clown Eddie Jordan for a full season, so we should at least give them some slack for that.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to ryano on Jun 28 at 11:19
+/-

All this locker room nonsense is baseless speculation and spin from the sixers, no one here knows what went on in the locker room (No one) and it seems the GM is conveniently believed or not believed when it fits the point someone is trying to make.

I have no doubt believing EVERYONE was a locker room problem last year, but I blame that on the coach.

Sam was one of few players on the sixers roster who made the team better and was worth keeping long term, most of the 'derision' towards him is the same irrational hate that's spewed towards Andre Igduoala.

The fact that some thing Hawes is an improvement is just more evidence that it's irrational to me and not based on any kind of sane intelligent thought.

user-pic
The Greek reply to JohnEMagee on Jun 28 at 14:48
+/-

Coming from a guy who thinks that Sammy D. is a David Robinson i ask you sir what your watching.

Fact Sammy D is a born loser

user-pic
bebopdeluxe reply to Brian on Jun 28 at 11:00
+/-

If you are really sick of the Dalembert debate, then how about backing off of your high-horse position that anybody who liked the trade is a fucking idiot?

Well, I'm not going to back down from my position because it's logical. Defending the trade simply is not.

From a basketball perspective, the Sixers are a much, much worse team with Hawes and Nocioni than they were with Dalembert. It's not even debatable. Dalembert was a more effective offensive player than Hawes. Hawes was pitiful offensively last season, has been basically for his entire career. This great offensive advantage that Hawes gives us is imaginary. The defensive deficiencies are certainties, no matter how much he improves. Nocioni hasn't been a good player since 2006, when he was 27. He's now 31 and washed up and one of the worst wing defenders in the league.

All the people who say Dalembert simply had to go because of his work ethic/locker room disruption, fine. I won't even argue with that logic. But even if that was 100% the case, you still can't say the Sixers won this trade. They took back one lazy guy and a complainer. What were the complaints about Sammy? That he's lazy and a complainer, right?

Financially speaking, the Sixers could've had up to about $12M in cap space next summer if the cap number stays the same and they renounce all their free agents. That number is down to $5M now because of Nocioni's contract, even lower if Hawes isn't renounced. Financially, they lost this deal because they lost the flexibility to make moves next summer.

Any way you look at it, they lost the deal. Saying, "well, they won because Dalembert isn't here anymore" is idiotic, I'm sorry. If that offends you, it should. I find it offensive that your hatred for Sammy has blinded you to the reality of the situation. Stefanski got taken advantage of. If Sammy really needed to go, it would've been more productive to simply buy him out.

I wouldn't even bother with arguing this point if I were you. Just wait until we are in the lottery again next year and we are unable to make improvements becuase we got rid of any cap room we might have had. Then all those people who thought Sam was such a cancer and had to go will be complaining about something else.

user-pic
Rich reply to Brian on Jun 28 at 13:14
+/-

I agree with this and argued for this 100 percent. People didn't like Sam, so they were happy when we got rid of him. No one wants Nocioni and I just think Hawes has very high expectations to reach for a lot of people. We could have signed him next year minus Nocioni because he would have hit FA with that draft they had.

We are all fans though, it's going to serve us no good to keep arguing about it. We're all still rooting for Hawes to be a success, and that is what we are going to do. Some of us have reservations, so hopefully the kid proves us wrong.

user-pic
bebopdeluxe reply to Brian on Jun 28 at 13:33
+/-

I don't have "blind hatred" for Sammy. At times over the years, I have actually defended Sammy over at RealGM. For me, this deal was "addition by subtraction" - plain and simple. I have no idea if the guy was a "locker room cancer", but there have been enough reports (over several years, from numerous sources) about the guy's poor work habits, inability to work in the offseason to improve his game, his Iverson-esque approach to practice (showing up late, not working hard, etc...) that it is hard to come up with any other image than that of a less-than-committed player. When you layer on top of that his penchant for simply disappearing from games (at a MUCH higher frequency, IMO, than the games where he dominated), I think it is simply a case of Sammy-fatigue for me.

Looking at it purely from a value standpoint, was this a good deal? Perhaps not. As it looks right now, having "max money" next summer sees a lot less attractive than having it this summer, so adding Noc's salary in 2011-12 - while not desirable - does not seem to be a crippling issue at this point (although I am sure that one could probably come up with examples of guys that could still help next summer that Noc's additional salary could keep us from signing).

For me the two reasons why I am on board with this deal are 1) setting a tone of hard-work, committment and responsibility for this team (areas that - based on EIGHT YEARS of datapoints - are anathema to Sammy) and 2) the one-year flyer on Hawes.

Moving Sammy before Collins' first practice is like the little scoop of gelato between the appetizer and the main course - it cleanses the palate from undesirable residue so that we can enjoy the main course free from aspects of the prior course (or team chemistry) that we want NOWHERE NEAR the delicacy that we are about to enjoy. Collins now needs to spend ZERO time dealing with "Sammy being Sammy" and all of the distractions that come with that. For the players who have been here and have seen Sammy's approach to the game first-hand, his quick dismissal after Collins' press conference sends a VERY clear message that there is a new sherriff in town and they better get with the program. I don't know if Speights and Young's seemingly-robust offseason conditioning have anytihng to do with Collins' arrival, but I am sure that the news of Sammy's trade has reduced the temptation for these guys to show up in any less than tip-top shape, ready to work.

This ALONE is enough to cheer the trade in my eyes. This team has talent...it just hasn't been challenged by a coach with the sack to trade, bench or cut them if they didn't get with the program.

I have no idea if Hawes can be salvaged, but they guy is young enough, big enough, and skilled enough (at least in certain areas of the game) that it is worth it in my eyes to let Collins take a shot at seeing what he can get out of the guy. Relative to the bigs on other teams that might have been available (especially in a trade for Sam), Hawes looks like a decent option, and I am willing to give Collins the benefit of the doubt that he sees something in the guy that he can use.

And as far as Nocioni is concerned, I liked his game 2-3 years ago with the Bulls. Energy guy...could shoot it a little from deep...not afraid to take the hard foul or put somebody on their ass when necessary (the "no layups or dunks" rule will be in effect when he's defending around the basket, to be sure), and I can guarantee you that when Noc takes a hard foul on a guy going to thre rim, Collins will be walking along the bench and pointing out to the young guys that THIS is standard-operating-procedure in the MAN'S NBA.

We obviously disagree on this one, and I'm fine with that...but while you can belittle me for my opinion on this one, I won't stoop to your level and try to belittle you for your opinion - I will simply respect your position and move on.

user-pic
Shawn reply to bebopdeluxe on Jun 28 at 13:58
+/-

I honestly think Hawes is a throw-in and has no real value to either team.

user-pic
bebopdeluxe reply to Shawn on Jun 28 at 14:56
+/-

So - you believe that he has ZERO chance to be a productive rotational big for us?

If that is the case, you would view him to have the same (or less) value than Jason Smith - right?

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to bebopdeluxe on Jun 28 at 14:59
+/-

So - you believe that he has ZERO chance to be a productive rotational big for us?

So you trade one of the best defensive centers in the league and get back another doughy rotational big man who can't rebound?

What the hell do we have speights for?

Is it too late to fire Stefanski? Kevin Pritchard is available. He probably would rather do TV this year than come here though. I really can't think of one positive move he made since he got here.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to Chodeburger on Jun 28 at 10:41
+/-

It's never too late to fire anyone, though the attractiveness of the sixers job is probably on the low side

user-pic
Jason Mess reply to JohnEMagee on Jun 28 at 11:06
+/-

Why? It is not like the Sixers are the Pirates of the NBA. IMO this is why this could be a attractive position.
1. No mater what you think of the roster you have at least two players who can be either part of the core you build around or are two big steps in the right direction (Jrue and Turner). If you think the rest of the roster stinks then fine a couple more Lottery picks and you in a very good spot with your roster and the ability to sign Free agents. You have an ownership while not happy about spending money they will do it. Take Brand, Iguodala, Dalembert, Green who ever it may not have been well spent but they did spend. Tends to make you think they would spend in the future maybe not as much as some but who knows. If you like some parts of the roster and think we are a player or two away from the playoffs then you are in a great position. You have a team that has said it is rebuilding and is getting yonger. Seem pretty good it might not be the Lakers, Bulls, or OKC but it would be one of the better jobs out there.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to Jason Mess on Jun 28 at 11:19
+/-

Ownership Ownership Ownership

That's why

I'm not saying Comcast are great owners but they have to be better than Paul Allen in Portland or Sarver in Phoenix. For a GM having an owner that let's you do your job is probably the most important thing.

I used to defend Comcast because the Sixers hadn't made any stupid basketball decisions simply to save money. I'm not so sure that's the case anymore. The Dalembert deal was at least partially influenced by the luxury tax. I'm just not sure to what extent.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to Brian on Jun 28 at 13:00
+/-

So was offering andre miller only a one year deal - basketball wise or not - the motivation was financial :)

Eh, I have less of a problem with the Miller situation. Not offering him a three-year deal to me was just as much prudent as cheap. Giving him a three-year deal got Pritchard fired, after all :)

Is that really what got him fired? I hadn't heard a actual reason for his firing come out of Portland. If that's true that would be kind of weak. And while I definitly don't like salary dumping to get under the luxury tax Comcast aren't the only owners in the NBA that do that. If I was to make an uneducated guess I would say that Comcast probably ranks around the middle of the NBA ownership pack.

Nah, I was kidding around. I think Allen didn't like how much credit Pritchard was getting. Ego thing.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to Brian on Jun 28 at 13:19
+/-

Supposedly the reports are that Pritchard kept 'asking' about his position and that's what led to his firing on draft night, that Allen just got tired of hearing from him.

There's a lot of rumor and bashing coming out of portland about folk who have been 'pritch-slapped'

What's more interesting is all the rumors coming out of new jersey and the reasons why rod thorn left (and honestly, i'd prefer thorn over pritchard coming in here)

That's pretty sad that a Billionaire owner felt threatened by the GM of the basketball team he owns. Leaving there will probably be the best thing that happends to Pritchard. He has to get another job soon right?

user-pic
ryano reply to Chodeburger on Jun 28 at 10:59
+/-

Yes- bring on Pritchard!

Hey guys I'm on my smartphone so I don't kno how to copy and paste links. But there is an article on philly.com about speights.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to rchap13 on Jun 28 at 11:20
+/-

Here you go

Nice of Philly.com to write this puff piece...

user-pic
Jason Mess reply to JohnEMagee on Jun 28 at 11:36
+/-

Thanks for the link, JohnE.

user-pic
bsuperfi on Jun 28 at 11:43
+/-

The problem with the Dalembert debate is that we simply don't have the info to answer it well. I think the logic (pretty clearly) is that a culture change is needed, and that moving Dalembert is the beginning of making this change. So, the question really is: how much will a real culture change impact salient statistics and ultimately the W/L record, and how much does Dalembert actually matter to culture?

There isn't an easy way to answer this with the stats we have now. But it's worth noting that social scientists can and do measure variables related to organizational-level effects (vs. individual-level effects) and variables related to organizational culture as part of this kind of analysis. Sometimes, organizational and cultural effects can be really significant and clearly show up when we crunch big quantitative databases.

This is all to say that I hear what Brian's saying, based on his look at team and individual statistics. But there's more to the story, and there's the possibility that there could be significantly more to it.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to bsuperfi on Jun 28 at 11:45
+/-

So the culture change leads to trading a guy who 'supposedly' was a locker room cancer but had a positive (very positive) defensive impact on the court for 2 guys who both have 'attitude' problems, one with bad knees, one over 30, who make the sixers worse defensively but don't really add offensively

This is all to say that I hear what Brian's saying, based on his look at team and individual statistics. But there's more to the story, and there's the possibility that there could be significantly more to it.

My favorite part of this is that depending on the player it's their fault or it was eddie jordans fault.

user-pic
bsuperfi reply to JohnEMagee on Jun 28 at 12:14
+/-

Look, I'm really not coming down on either side of the Dalembert debate. All I'm saying is this: There's a particular logic to the trade, and we don't have the particular data we need to evaluate this logic effectively. Given Sam's tenure, reputation, etc., there's a *decent possibility* that his behavior is related to organizational culture, which in turn is related to organizational performance, which in turn is related to individual stats and the W/L record. Social organizations are complex.

You're also right that Eddie Jordan was the culture problem and not Dalembert. Maybe. Or maybe not. Or maybe it was both of them.

We have plenty of good stats about individual performance and some of team performance. All we have to go on with "culture" is what we read about in the papers and see on tv. It's a poorly filtered lens. As a result, we just have some information gaps when trying to make an argument about culture.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to bsuperfi on Jun 28 at 12:24
+/-

There's a particular logic to the trade

A. Worse on the court
B. Make the salary cap situation worse for 2011/12 season

So I don't see the 'particular logic' of the trade, the only 'logic' i see is the argument that involves equating sam dalembert to fecal matter

user-pic
deepsixersuede on Jun 28 at 11:45
+/-

I know this end of the court doesn!t matter, but is it possible to get 25 pts. and 15 rebs. a night at the 5 from Hawes and Spieghts this year?

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to deepsixersuede on Jun 28 at 11:50
+/-

Points maybe, rebounds, i doubt it

user-pic
deepsixersuede reply to JohnEMagee on Jun 28 at 12:01
+/-

I look at how Gasol works with the right pieces around him, how Denver survived losing Camby and how Boston may have interest in B.Miller this offseason and just feel putting the right pieces together is what needs to be done. Hawes may work with a banger from next years draft or a C.Anderson like addition off the bench. I can!t dismiss him till we see him play under Collins and the same for Marreese.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to deepsixersuede on Jun 28 at 12:07
+/-

Pau Gasol is one of the best players in the league, he was in Memphis he just was ignored. If you look at Pau Gasol and say 'hey there's hope for hawes' that's kind of looking at OKC defensively and saying there's hope for the sixers and ignoring the OKC offensive advantage.

user-pic
deepsixersuede reply to JohnEMagee on Jun 28 at 12:11
+/-

I was thinking of Gasol at 20 and how soft was mentioned along with his rebounding per 36 minutes being the same as Hawes. He seemed to blossom under H.Brown and reach his full potential. But without Bynum does he win now.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to deepsixersuede on Jun 28 at 12:22
+/-

I never mentioned Hawes rebounding per 36, counting stats are a bad way to look at it anyway

user-pic
Jason Mess on Jun 28 at 12:05
+/-

So if we are really bad because of our front court this year we are in the Lottery again and can draft someone who fits our need our draft. Draft the BPA and trade him for a couple of players that fit our need, or Just keep the BPA and trade someone else to fix our need. Or things do not end up being as bad as they look like they could be. The team does pretty good and takes a couple of steps forward. Looks like a win/win to me. It would be tough to take another bad year. Look at any of the championship teams the last decade they all had rough years at some point before they had all the players they needed.

I'm done with the Dalembert debate. I disagree with the move because the game has a lot to do with defense. I think pointing to OKC and saying "They're doing it" is a dangerous proposition.

Still it's fruitless to argue it now. So let's hope Doug Collins can pull it off. I would love for them to find a defensive big for the right price to come off the bench. Probably not going to happen though, and this is the roster they are going into the season with.

user-pic
Rodney Buford on Jun 28 at 12:57
+/-

I'm not sure we can take Brand's performance into effect when grading this deal. The goal was to find someone to take Korver's contract and clear space. He succeeded actually.

"Korver for Goran Giricek and a future first round pick from Utah - This move was made to get Korver's contract off the books and create the cap space that would eventually be used to lure Elton Brand to Philly. Korver has put up very good numbers for Utah since the deal. In hind sight, Stefanski clearly lost this deal. "

At the time I agree that was a good deal because it cleared cap space and ultimately looks bad because of Brand. It would be nice to still have Korver though. The team got good without him and could have used him even more when they were good.

Stefanski underestimated how hard it would be to replace Korver, IMO. He accomplished his state goal, but looking back now, can you really say it was a successful trade?

I've argued before that prior to the EFJ signing, you could defend every move Stefanski made and they all seemed decent at the time. Since then, he's done nothing positive and when you look at the entire body of work, no moves have worked out.

I didn't like the Sam move as I thought we could have gotten a lot more back in terms of players (he has / had the highest expiring short of Melo). That in itself is worth a lot. If they just wanted him gone now at any cost I'd rather them buy him out as then that money comes totally off the books. We took back two stiffs with a history of bad attitudes and not that good players (and one has a contract that extends for a another year past now).

That being said, it is water under the bridge now as that is done. I don't anticipate the Sixers doing any more really as if they go for undrafted FA I don't feel there is anyone worthwhile (Zoubek bah!). I think the Sixers could do something, but they won't because of money (luxury tax) issues. If they wanted to they could sign Amir Johnson (very good defensively) but he won't be on a minimum deal. I'd rather have Lou Amundson than Hawes or Nocioni as he'd do the dirty work, fight for rebounds and at least try to defend.

What are the chances of us finding a team to trade Lou to? I don't expect us to making any kind of playoff run this year so why let this bum take any minutes from Jrue and Turner? Why can't we just have Turner and Andre be the backup point guard and have Meeks/Kapono/Nocioni play the rest of Lou's minutes to always have a shooter out there to space the floor? I would take back a shitty draft pick even for Lou. I just don't think he has any real value for this teams future. I'm not as familiar with the cap situation as you guys but if we do get rid of Lou then I think that would give us the chance to add a big that can actually defend the basket.

If they could get rid of Lou without taking any salary back, they'd probably have enough room under the luxury tax threshold to sign someone to a full MLE deal (a bit less than $6M/year). I'm not really sure anyone is available to fit that mold, at that price. Amir Johnson's name has been floated, he'd be a nice pickup, and wouldn't cost you nearly that much.

user-pic
JohnEMagee reply to Brian on Jun 28 at 14:22
+/-

For this year maybe, but remember the luxury tax must always be avoided, with restricted free agents, nocioni, anyone to the MLE this year, gets a raise next year and possibly over the tax again and stupid trade time again

On a somewhat related note to DonH's post above, if Doug Collins and Stefanski wanted to move Sam's contract so badly as a result of him having a bad attitude that they would send it to the Kings for just Nocioni/Hawes, I'm surprised they haven't "dumped" Lou's contract in similar fashion.

Seems like Lou's attitude towards working out and putting in the extra time in the gym might be similar to Sam's.

One thing I really like about Turner is that he puts a ton of work into his game. Players like that seem to be contagious. And considering we already have Iguodala and Jrue, who seem to be of the same character, maybe Collins really will be able to get us to play some better basketball.

Lou is Stefanski's mistake, though. Easier for him to cut off his nose to spite his face when he's getting rid of a guy he didn't sign/extend.


Expand/Contract all comments

Leave a comment


back-to-story.gif