DFDepressed FanDepressed Fan



, all the time

A Decided Disadvantage

Probably a 82-72 game that is bad on the eyes.

If you define positive value as being able to bring back in a trade a player who is currently superior or potentially superior...

Who on this team has positive value?

Jrue- maybe
Lou- maybe
Turner- definitely
Kapono, Songalia, Hawes (as expirings who are lousy)
Brand- No
Thad and Speights- maybe

Joe reply to tk76 on Nov 19 at 16:34

I think everyone but Brand and Iguodala get a yes according to that definition.

And those 2 are nos because Brand has a crazy contract and Iguodala is generally undervalued by executives in my opinion.

and Iguodala is generally undervalued by executives in my opinion.

I think you're actually wrong.

Around the league, smart people know how much Iguodala is worth, this summer was huge for him around the league.

HOWEVER, Phildelphia fans and media grossly under value him...

And the sixers wwill most likely get rooked in a deal because I think the sixers under value him as well

Joe reply to GoSixers on Nov 19 at 16:49

If league execs didn't undervalue him, he would already be gone IMO.

I've never read a reliable report that indicated the sixers were open to trading Iguodala. Lots of baseless ESPN speculation that they SHOULD and lots of idiot fans decrying the sixers NOT trading him yet because he's useless, but I've ever yet to believe he was actively shopped around the league, so I disagree with your opinion that he'd be gone already, he's still here because the sixers haven't decided yet to move him (in my opinion) and I've seen no evidnece of him being shopped that has any substantive support


However does the team trading the better player in the prime of his career get even equal value?

You trade for a different style player in a "change of scenery" move. Sort of like the Iguodala-Granger deal I threw out there.

You can make arguments on either side about who is the better player. Both are paid the same and about the same age. Both are on lousy teams. Both have younger/cheaper teammates that might be able to replace some of what they bring (Turner and Paul George.) Both teams might want a change, so one team decides they need a better defender/all around guy, the other goes after a scoring specialist.

I'd put Iguodala-Kaman as another lateral equal value type move. Again, similar ages and salaries. Iguodala would be great next to Gordon/Baron, while the Clips can replace some of what Kaman brings at a cheaper price with De"andre Jordan- while the Sixers can replace Iguodala's glue-guy talents with Turner, but need a big with a pulse.

Not saying either move is perfect (or a step in the right direction), but they both are argue-ably "equal value" type moves for fringe all-stars.

Sort of like the Iguodala-Granger deal I threw out there.

I hate that deal and think it undevalues Iguodala :)

And I'm sure a lot of people whole live near wide swaths of corn would feel the opposite is the case.

Yeah, but they live near wide swaths of corn, so how can they be trusted?

"However does the team trading the better player in the prime of his career get even equal value?"

Iguodala is a better player than Favors, but I'd say that would be more than "equal value."

That's great - except it's not a trade that I believe the Nets would make (even before Favors played a game) though I think Carmelo isn't much better than Iguodala.

All the trades you are talking about as 'fair value' (don't buy kaman either, sorry, injury prone, and ugly, sorry just too ugly, I know it's stupid but god he's ugly) aren't trades that actually happened...let's see what actually happens and then talk about fair value.

There was a chat today (on espn maybe?) where one of the chatters pointed out something - the clippers need a 'veteran big man' to help guide Blake Griffin and that Kaman is doing a solid job of mentoring him...if the future is about griffin and kaman is that mentor, it makes him valuable to the clippers in more ways than on the court alone

I don't like to talk about trading Iguodala just because I think the Sixers value him, and it really hasn't been that close to happening despite all the speculation BUT...

At what point do we blow it up and say that even with him, this is a 32 win team at best. I don't think they have to give him up by any means, but trading him for someone a little younger who is close to his value makes some sense. Even if it's a little drop off in talent, I think you have to look hard to see if someone would give up a player like that. Right now, they can sit and wait, but the phone will ring off the hook at every trade deadline for this guy.

I don't think Granger is that guy either, simply because he's of a similar age. I think his skill set might fit better with Jrue and Turner, but he's not worth moving Iguodala for.

This is the point, if it wasn't last year, last year people wrote off to Eddie Jordan but now the sixers have a 'good' coach and are still terrible (with or without Iguodala on the floor, they are worse without him), but it's to that point, it's a terrible roster with very few worthy moveable pieces TO move towards rebuilding...

Now, no one ever examines the other direction, but 'what if' - what if the sixers and comcast deciced, frack the luxury tax - what if EVERYONE was available SANS IGuodala, what could they get if they put Jrue and Turner on the market?

Rich reply to GoSixers on Nov 19 at 17:31

Who would you want to give up Jrue or Turner for? We would be pretty bad at another spot if we did that. If you do an "Eff the future" move, it better be for something good.

Well see - i guess it requires more though but the general gist is - go back to last off season - keep sam, keep brand (who is playing well) keep iguodala, use your two best young trade assets to obtain things...take back bad contracts on good players if you have to to build a better roster.

Don't know if it's possible, just a purely hypothetical. Instead of 'rebuilding' do your best to build the best roster NOW

Expand/Contract all comments

Leave a comment