DFDepressed FanDepressed Fan



, all the time

The Sixth Ten

This is the last really difficult portion of the schedule IMO (only 3 of the unlikely-to-win games remain after that). There are a number of trap games mixed in between strong opponents. A lot of road games. Lots of back-to-backs...

I still think they will win 6 though, on course to win 44 on the season. And honestly it can go much better because all 10 games are winnable. But it can go much worse as well.

deepsixersuede reply to Xsago on Mar 3 at 7:26

I agree with you, 6 games won and probably 1 disappointing loss. Who is improving at a better rate lately, Meeks or Turner?

Well, when it comes to Meeks, he is improving defensively and he is slowly figuring out how to maximize his positive and minimize his negative sides (e.g. not trying to create too much), basically he is doing what one might expect of a hard working one dimensional player. He is going to be a rotation player for years to come.

As for Turner, really the problem in his game has less to do with his actual skills and more to do with his shaken confidence and misutilization. He really just needs confidence, experience and most importantly proper utilization. He needs the ability to create and in a way to be the focal point on the offensive end in order to be the best he can be. Right now he is playing everything but that. And that is not necessarily a bad thing, even though it may seem so. The knowledge he will acquire this year (playing off the ball, defense, fitting well with others, creating winning habits) won't show up in stats now, but it will show up in wins 5-6 years down the road.

So my answer is they are basically even in their improvement, because i think their situations are completely different.

Marcus on Mar 3 at 9:15

I feel like we going to go 8 out of 10 call me crazy but i think we only lose to OKC and Bos.

Shawn reply to Marcus on Mar 3 at 10:20

You're crazy

Marcus reply to Shawn on Mar 3 at 13:05

Why out of those 10 teams I feel only okc and bos are really legit have some confidence in your team.

I don't think you're crazy but I think there's confidence, and there's realistic and I think you're ignoring that Portland isn't terrible (and it's on the road) and that Utah has a front court force close to the level of Memphis, the sixers can't stop teams like that.

The sixers are also a weak road team and 6 of the 10 games are on the road

In your 8-2 scenario the sixers go 6-0 on the road. I don't think it's realistic to think the sixers go 6-0 on the road especially when one road game is a back to back

5-1 on the road seems a bit ambitious

Utah may be a shell of what it once was, but like Memphis, they have a front court that can compete offensively and the sixers won't be able to start. Think that's a loss, not a win.

I think 6-4 at best, but wouldn't be surprised at 5-5. The gaffes in the Mavs game show me that they aren't at that 'win all the games you're supposed to win' level just yet. (I realize they weren't supposed to win the Mavs game but 'jitters' for lack of a better word shouldn't be had in a game)

bebopdeluxe reply to GoSixers on Mar 3 at 22:55

I am at 6-4 as well, but instead of losing to the Jazz, I have them losing to the Clippers.

Then I have 8-4 in the last 12 to get to 44 wins.

A couple of years ago the streaking Sixers hit .500 and then lost a bunch of games. The year before that they lost a bunch after clinching a playoff spot. I hope that we don't see that pattern repeated.

Reaching .500 was a goal for a while, and some teams lose their edge for a bit when the reach an accomplishment. But this team appears to have more mental toughness- so i guess we'll see.

Hopefully the goal wasn't so much 500 as 'catch the knicks' and 500 is just a way station along the way.

Yeah the players never seemed so locked in like they are this season. Plus if i remember well, they lost a bunch of games 2 years ago only after Young went down with an injury. He was their key player during the winning stretch and was averaging efficient 20 points per game for almost a month if i'm not mistaken.

Court_visioN reply to tk76 on Mar 3 at 15:03

a big part of why the sixers dropped a bunch of games after they clinched the playoffs is thad young who was averaging 20 ppg for a stretch went down with an ankle injury.

Forward Jason Kapono, a deep reserve whose $6.64 million contract wasn't bought out by the Sixers in time for him to sign with another team in time to be eligible for the playoffs, has left the Sixers for personal reasons. A team spokesman said Wednesday that Kapono is expected back "later this week."

I'd really like to know why a buyout wasn't accomplished. If a little bit of money could have been saved to get Comcast to maybe take a shot on the various big men out there (earl barron to who now?) that could help the lack of defense would have been excellent

Fear of Kapono in the playoffs doesn't make sense to me because from watching him play this year, he's not a threat

I'm still not 100% clear on whether the amount saved would've counted against the lux tax or not. Don't have the time to look it up right now. Could be he wasn't amenable to taking any kind of buy out. No way to know.

As I understand it, the full salary number counts against the luxury tax 'barrier', so they'd still be limited in money.

For instance, I believe, Kirk Hinrich will be on the wizards cap for next season even though they aren't paying him a dime.

Though you mentioned that the sixers have about a million left on under the tax so they do have room for a minimum signing (Pro rated) no?

And what do you know - I was completely and totally wrong :)

The agreed-upon buy-out amount (see question number 62) is included in the team salary instead of the salary called for in the contract. If the player had more than one season left on his contract, then the buy-out money is distributed among those seasons in proportion to the original salary. For example, say a player had three seasons remaining on his contract, with salaries of $10 million, $11 million and $12 million. The player and team agree to a buyout of $15 million. The $15 million is therefore charged to the team salary over the three seasons. Since the original contract had $33 million left to be paid, and $10 million is 30.3% of $33 million, 30.3% of the $15 million buyout, or $4.545 million, is included in the team salary in the first season following the buyout. Likewise, 33.33% of $15 million, or $5 million, is included in the team salary in the second season, and 36.36% of $15 million, or $5.455 million, is included in the team salary in the third season.

raro reply to GoSixers on Mar 3 at 12:49

You mean Bibby right?

That too - and besides I was completely wrong on my understanding of the system anyway (as presented above).

I see no good reason that Kapono wasn't bought out unless he refused to take a pay cut of any amount

It'd be interesting to hear a reason from Thorn.

It'd be interesting to hear a reason from Thorn and then find out the real reason and not the one for public consumption (We still think Jason can help yada yada yada)

Well, I mean, there might be a dumb reason, but there probably isn't a nefarious reason. This kind of goes against the "all moves are made to save money" line of thinking.

I don't see why Kapono would take a pay cut. It's hard to imagine any team was going to pick him up, he hasn't played in like 3 years? So that would be my guess, he had no interest in sacrificing money. Can't say I blame him.

It's not really hard to imagine teams were going to pick him up as numerous teams were reported to have interest

I never trust that. I think it's usually the team leaking "reported interest" to try to create a semblance of trade value.

For example, I remember when the Eagles leaked "reported interest" in Todd Pinkston when they tried to trade him. It was a pure lie, they ended up releasing him and he never saw the field again.

That's fine - but there was reported interest in Kapono - and whether you believe it or not - most of the other 'reported interests' for other players panned out.

I never trust that. I think it's usually the team leaking "reported interest" to try to create a semblance of trade value.

For example, I remember when the Eagles leaked "reported interest" in Todd Pinkston when they tried to trade him. It was a pure lie, they ended up releasing him and he never saw the field again.

I'll be at the Thunder game and the Sixers are 6-1 in the games I've seen this year- the only loss being that 102-101 heartbreaker to Boston on the Rondo to Garnett alley-oop. I think the Sixers get their revenge against Boston AND win for me against OKC. 8-2 with losses to Portland and Milwaukee over the next 10. 38-32- on their way to 45+ wins!!!

As a kid I had to stop going to phillies games - they always lost when i was there

Tom Moore on Mar 3 at 14:17

Blog with Collins/Brand videos: Will Sixers be able to deal with Love?


Kevin love has a lot of double doubles

The wolves do not have a lot of wins

Watching Jeff Green so far, a well-played game beats Boston. That's the big one I see.

They've matched up well w/ Boston for a couple years. I haven't seen a game w/ Green yet, are they going small w/ Green at the four pretty often? If they do that, the Sixers match up extremely well w/ them.

Rich reply to Brian on Mar 3 at 14:50

From what I saw, he was playing the three. I wonder if they'll try to eek out minutes at the four.

If Davis is seriously hurt, they won't have a choice.

Right now he's out the next 2 games with patellar tendonitis

Tray reply to Brian on Mar 3 at 15:14

He's only playing 18 minutes per.

I've got 5 wins on this stretch.

The most superstarry of superstars, Blake Griffin, is getting a one-off TV show on NBATV: "24 Hours with Blake Griffin."


I'd actually be more interested if a camera was following DeMarcus Cousins for 24 hours. I picture him getting in fist fights playing Wii tennis with Tyreke Evans, taking naps, eating gushers and sulking a lot.

Tray reply to Brian on Mar 3 at 15:21

Did you see the video where Tyreke Evans was asked by Spanish reporters about Sergio Rodriguez and he replied, "who dat?" They played together. I liked this comment from a Kings fan:

We all knew that Tyreke doesn't play with teammates, he plays by himself ...


I'd like to see a reality show, on bravo, or the travel channel.

Eating you way through NBA cities
Hosted by Mareese Speights, co hosted by BOSS

tk76 reply to Brian on Mar 3 at 15:31

Did you read Speezy Sez at LB? Speights checking in on twitter: "Just had a great nap got to be my top 10 best naps"

Asked this at Recliner:

How would you guys ranks the “fairness” of the major sports in terms of teams having an equal chance of building a winner with smart management?

1. NFL – level playing field and no guaranteed contracts
2. NHL – Hard cap
3. NBA – Soft cap, guaranteed contracts, Agent power
4. College BB – boosters, conferences but March Madness gives a chance for Cinderellas and exposure. Great coaches can recruit to small programs.
5. College FB – More program/conference driven
6. MLB – A combination of big spenders and welfare teams

MLB, hands down, in my opinion. If Mark Cuban took over the Pirates tomorrow, and was willing to spend, he could have a WS championship within 5 years. That couldn't happen in any other sport.

If I'm ranking, it goes like this:

1. MLB
2. NFL (you can erase your mistakes, for the most part)
3. NBA

I don't care enough about the others to be able to give you an honest answer.

johnrosz reply to Brian on Mar 3 at 16:35

baseball is pretty unfair if you don't have ownership willing/able to have an enormous payroll. Every once in a while you'll get a team like the Rays that builds through their farm, but they eventually lose their own players through FA (happened to the Indians a few years ago too). Smaller market teams can't afford to absorb the same mistakes as larger market teams.

Money doesn't buy titles

Or the yankees and red sox would win every year

Many major league baseball owners can afford more than they shell out for teams and then cry poor

johnrosz reply to GoSixers on Mar 3 at 16:50

Without a great scouting department, I'd say its near impossible for a small market team to compete in baseball.

Doesn't require a lot of moeny. 10 million to the draft is hella smarter than 10 million to David Eckstein.

I wish people would stop making it about money, it's not about money usually, it's about stupidity, bad business decisions, compounded upon themselves.

The Mets spent tons - how'd that work out for them? They spent it stupidly, same with the Dodgers.

Baseball is broken in a lot of ways as well (for instance, two sport atheletes won't usually choose baseball, the money takes 7 years or so to get)

johnrosz reply to GoSixers on Mar 3 at 16:58

Sure there are teams that spend tons of money and still fail. I remember Baltimore having the 3rd or 4th highest payroll in the league and routinely finishing last in the East. It's just unfortunate when a team like Tampa can't afford to retain Carl Crawford because the Red Sox throw money at him.

That one you can probably blame on the league and over-expansion. If a city legitimately can't fill the stands when the team is winning, it's time for that city to not have a team anymore.

It's just unfortunate when a team like Tampa can't afford to retain Carl Crawford because the Red Sox throw money at him

It's a shame? Tampa didn't need him. They have replacements ready for him and probably will still be competitive this year.

What's a shame is how MLB handles sale of teams, the control they have, how owners who want to sell their team don't get the best offer. It's happened twice now, the dodgers (how'd that work out for you bud) and the cubs.

Marc Cuban would be great for baseball...too bad baseball doesn't see it that way.

Giamattis death was a bad thing for baseball

I have to agree with johnrosz, I think baseball is the least fair. The big spenders own the league. Sure, you occasionally get a small-market low payroll team at the top (Tampa) and can get a big-spending team at the bottom (Mets, Cubs), but on the whole, the Red Sox, Yankees, Phillies, Dodgers, Giants, are repeatedly good, and the Indians, Royals, Pirates, are repeatedly bad.

Nonetheless, I think that's the way MLB should be, because the only time anyone watches the World Series is if the Red Sox or Yankees are in it. Baseball is a big-city sport. A Royals-Pirates World Series would be watched by a grand total of zero.

The giants are not big spenders (and they're actually run poorly)

The Twins are not big spenders and are constantly competitive (though they could be cause pohlad is rich)

The reasons bad teams stay bad in baseball has little to do with money and more to do with stupidity.

Charlie H reply to GoSixers on Mar 4 at 11:42

How exactly are the Giants run poorly? Because of the Barry Zito signing? Because some writers didn't like some of their decisions (Aaron Rowand, for example)? The fact is that the current ownership brought this franchise back from the dead. It was almost moved to Florida in the early nineties before Magowan bought it, and to San Jose a few years ago. They have a beautiful, privately financed stadium, the best pitching staff in baseball, and 3 young superstars in Lincecum, Posey and Cain. The attendance last year was over 3 million. They've failed to hit 3 million only twice since 1999. Forbes gave them a 3+ rating out of 5, so I guess their profitibility is okay.

And they are the World Series champions.

Zito is a terrible contract, yes, but buying him out is an even dumber idea.

Their handling of rookies and devotion to sunk cost major leaguers who are hurting the team is what I was referring too though.

I expect the giants to slide back this year.

Charlie H reply to GoSixers on Mar 4 at 13:46

Fair enough. Everybody expects them to slide back, even me, but I think they'll win that division. If they do, they're dangerous.

Buying out Zito is a dumb idea. Maybe that's why they haven't done it.

I have absoultely no idea how the NHL works but I think when a guy like Peyton Manning plays his entire career in Indianapolis, or Pittsburgh builds a dynasty then you have some quality balance.

Then again, you still have stupid owners.

But there's an ungodly amount of money given to the NFL to split between 30 teams, and while there's a lot of money in baseball (and basketball) it's not always split evenly because a lot of that money comes not from a national contract but the regional ones, which isn't an NFL issue.

I think the whole 'fox sports regional' money thing - and how its divvied up - that's a big problem - and it's just not something you have in the NFL

THOUGH - rumors are that there are 'big' vs 'small' owner skrimishes breaking out in the negotiations in the NFL just the player versus owner is a bigger thing

Just finished the labor panel. I think there is significant disagreement among owners in NFL and NBA. One of the quotes from the panel was that the only thing all owners agree on is giving the players a smaller cut.

I think that 'give a smaller cut' thing not only applies to players, I think there are 'big money' owners who don't like giving 'small money' owners money.

They forget that a sports league isn't capitalism - it's more like a oligarchy or a socialist organization (but not that extreme) in that the more success between all parties, the better, hence revenue sharing.

Greed is what leads to lock outs, every time, greed between owners, greed between players, etc...

I've never understood why these salary numbers are always based on gross revenue - if i ran a league that would be item #1 - NET revenue (and independent 3rd party auditing to determine it of course) would be the number. Overhead can be huge for things, and with skyrocketing fuel costs (3.95 this morning at the corner for the cheap stuff) that affects EVERYTHING (when your food prices start going up - keep in mind - fuel prices - they just suck)

bebopdeluxe reply to Brian on Mar 4 at 14:58

Give the players a smaller cut?

Why - because they are losing money? Because the value of their franchises are going down?

What a fucking joke.

They have been the beneficiaries of - BY FAR - the biggest expansion of collective (and individual) wealth of the 4 major NA sports. They hold cities and states ransom for taxpayer money for stadiums. They charge people like me money simply for the right to buy a ticket. They have - BY FAR - the most management-friendly salary structure.

And they STILL want to cut the players' share?


I'm not a big Rick Reilly fan, but I love his take on this...and there is a BIG part of me that would like the owners to walk from the table and have them try to defend an antitrust lawsuit. The only reason that I don't really want that is there are too many people (both fans and the tens of thousands of jobs that would be impacted by the loss of football for an extended peroiod of time) that would be negatively impacted.

Fuck the owners.


The players getting more than 50% of revenue is weird to me. I mean yes the players paly - but how much money are they investing in the game? How much do the players spend on head coaches, stadium staff, do economic downturns that make attendance go down mean contracts get adjusted down? Wait - they're not adjusted down even if the owners revenue goes down?

I can't agree with your argument because it ignores the reality of the amount of money owners invest and risk versus what players risk money wise and because you seem to be coming from an emotional point (I should point out I feel that almost all unioins in this country are overly powerful and their need is a lot less important than when they were started decades ago so companies couldn't force 8 years olds to work 60 hours a week until they died) as opposed to a rational one

Not sure if this is still active, but ESPN the Mag is offering 1 dollar renewal (includes insider.) Just befoer to call them later to turn of the "autorenew" feature.

I'm still good for another 3.5 years at 3$ per year, but though this might help someone?


Expand/Contract all comments

Leave a comment