DFDepressed FanDepressed Fan



, all the time

Iguodala Trade Rumors

You have to look at Chris Kaman as 'cap space' - because his contract expires earlier than Iguodalas. A combo of 2&3 maybe is what people are thinking.

At least that's how I understand it now.

This is the deal I'd like:

Sixers send Igudoala, Nocioni

Sixers get, Kaman, Aminu, Minny 2012 first rounder.

This works against the cap.

They get a great pick, cap relief (some immediately, more after next season) and a young guy who can maybe be a long term fit.

I figure that's probably the best deal the sixers can get - but until the new CBA the value of that first rounder is questionable.

That move (of course) also requires a Sterling commitment

Yep. I'd be tempted to use the Minny pick to Bismack this season if I made that trade.

The Fagan articles states that "He hasn't asked for a trade.
If he really hasn't asked for a trade, should we really assume he wants to be traded because of comments he made immediately after being eliminated from the playoffs?

His body language also gives the impression he'd rather be somewhere else. Add to that, I can't remember a time when he gave a simple "yes" answer to the question, "Do you want to be in Philly." He always equivocates. He was asked last November, so it's not just a post-playoffs knee-jerk reaction.

I wouldn't describe Kaman as Hawes-level, but he's not a top ten center. Gay... would make us better on offense, but I don't think that he'd make us any better generally. You'd basically be trading an All-World perimeter defender/passer and rebounder at his position for a legitimate second option who does very little besides being a legitimate second option. It would be a new kind of mediocre. If you trade Iguodala, you really should trade him for picks, and/or a young big, if anyone's stupid enough to give one to you. If Golden State, for example, had any interest in Iguodala, I'd think that they'd be willing to talk about Udoh. He can block shots, at least.

jkay reply to Tray on May 8 at 23:21

couldn't agree more with this. any good young talent available is probably going to be overpriced. can't imagine inheriting Rudy Gay's contract, that's insane, except you believe he will save your franchise. total redundancy. stick with the pick(s). add-in projects like Aminu, Udoh are welcome.
Chris Kaman is trash. It'd be essentially be the Sammy deal revisited. Just raped out of talent even worse.
keep this shit simple enough that they can't mess it up.

Actually, for his career Kaman has been less efficient than Hawes on the offensive end. Hawes career OFR = 99, Kaman = 98. On the bright side, Kaman's usage rate is higher, so he wastes more possessions than Spence, if you're into that kind of thing.

Tray reply to Brian on May 9 at 0:20

How does that add up when Kaman's shot 2% better from the floor for his career, 10% better from the line, 3% better in TS%? How does Hawes have a better offensive rating? Kaman turns the ball over a little more, there's that.

Tray reply to Tray on May 9 at 0:21

Oh, and Kaman gets to the line 67% more per minute, and actually shoots the ball no more than Hawes per minute.

It's the turnovers. Higher usage rate + higher turnover rate really hurts him. Of course, we're splitting hairs between 99 and 98 OFR, they're both beyond pitiful for a big man.

Dalembert makes them both look like nincompoops on the offensive end, and he isn't exactly the model of efficiency.

Tray reply to Brian on May 9 at 3:27

I agree, of course, that Kaman's not a very good player. He's sort of like what Hawes was billed as, an inefficient, soft finesse guy. Hawes, it turned out, didn't even have any skill. Kaman does, so he occasionally has a great game, or even a pretty good season, like the year he averaged 15 and 12.

#3 is a great option. I think Foye and Gomes are good players, and Minnesota's pick could be top notch lottery.

#1 I think guarantees us 50 wins and a top 4 seed the next 3 seasons, and a potentially nasty and young core of Holiday, Turner, and Gay, with Brand as the veteran anchor. I'd do it.

#2 is horrible and I run from this deal like the wind. Kaman is garbage, and just gross as that picture above attests.

emtmess on May 8 at 22:33

I like #3 the best because it involves a draft pick. We could use it to go after a one of the bigs this year or save it keep our 16 this year and pick up TBPA in 2012.

How about:

1 - Keep Igoudala
2 - Trade/dump all of the dead weight on the roster and bring back Sam already
3 - Beat Miami
4 - Profit!

although after the asskicking the Lakers took today, already seeing "Gasoft and Bynum for Dwight Howard and Jameer Nelson" being thrown around...

I could see Orlando doing that if the Lakers are willing to take the garbage of Arenas and Turkoglu. But I see no way the Lakers take back that crap just to get Howard. Kupchak loves Bynum, I think it's all speculation that has no basis.

If the Lakers get Dwight I might just stop watching hoops.

Haha, a Kobe-Howard tandem would be pretty fun to watch though...

Tray reply to stoned81 on May 9 at 0:15

I like Bynum too, but anyone would deal him for Howard. He's only two years younger and half the player.

Sure, but Orlando isn't going to trade Howard for Bynum straight up. They'll make the Lakers take back Arenas and Turkoglu. And I don't see the Lakers taking back that garbage.

God, I'm disliking Fagan's opinionated crap each day. Is there even a sniff of a source there? It's comical that this was printed without mention of a source. She better be right, or that is just really, really bad. There needs to be accountability for that. I liked this quote, and not even a mention of how she knows this:

"Here's the breakdown of how NBA general managers feel about the remaining $56 million on Iguodala's contract. Approximately half of the GMs believe he's paid appropriately, perhaps slightly overpaid but nothing that would prevent them from making a deal. And half believe he's overpaid and wouldn't trade value for him."

Fagan very well may be right, and may have a good source, but give us a damn hint or something. I'm just as likely to believe that's what she thinks. Plus she followed with the, "Do you care for whom he is traded?"

I might do a Fire Joe Morgan style post on my other blog on this article.

Rich, didn't know you had another blog; is it for public consumption?

As far as trading Iguodala goes, yes Kate, I do give a shit about who we get back. I don't want the best player on the team, who has been a model citizen besides controversially "vague" quotes at the end of the year, to be traded at all costs. God, she panders to her stupid audience on Philly.com

Here's the big thing on trading Iguodala: There is no way we get anything back much better than him, so that leaves the team in a bind. The only move you make for him needs to get the team younger, and bigger/more athletic at the 4 or 5.

Gay does neither (though he might be a better fit for the current roster, debatable) plus his contract is an albatross. I really don't see why either team does that, because Memphis already has Tony Allen to guard the other team's best player. Kaman isn't an older, not particularly good (Better than Hawes, but still) center with little athleticism. The last idea would be the best one, but Minnesota's pick would be what I'm after.

The only time I like trade rumors for AI9 was when Favors' name was floated around. Maybe we could work something out with Utah, but those are the type of guys this team needs desperately. I'd do a deal centered around Bismarck if possible as well in this draft.

jkay reply to Rich on May 9 at 2:31

it's interesting how the common talk is that Rudy Gay is in trade rumors (question validity here). He was a big part of the team's early success until he was samurai-chopped by Turner. Now they are taking the Thunder and having great success. Does the management see the writing on the wall about how well they play with Allen & Battier instead? Are they bold enough to act upon that and shop a dude they just locked up?
Plus it's arguable that the reason they will lose to the Thunder will be their lack of shooting/offensive production from their back-court. So he's not necessarily expendable.
Will be interesting to see how they conduct their off-season affairs now that Z-Bo is locked down.

emtmess on May 9 at 0:58

What about going after Kanter?

Rich reply to emtmess on May 9 at 1:11

I kind of want to focus on athleticism at the forward position, and Kanter doesn't really fit that. He looks like he'll be a nice player, but trading up to get him would be a mistake IMO. That's what I think anyway.

If I'm moving up for a relative unknown big, I want the complete athletic freak with the 7'7" wing span.

Iguodala for Kaman is so bad that I would seriously question the sanity of the front office if it went down. To dump our best player for that piece of garbage would be just, ugh, I don't even want to think about it really. I'd be so done, I mean I'd still root fot the team and all, but I would definetly change my picture of Thorn to a trash can.

Rich reply to Chunky Soup on May 9 at 2:40

You didn't hear Fagan, Chunky? We don't need to care about who Iguodala is traded for, just that he's gone.

(Alright, enough bitterness from me)

Haha. Considering the man blew half the Nets cap space on Travis Outlaw, Johan Petro, and Jordan Farmar, I'm wondering if the trash can should already be up there :/

The only trade offers that make sense to me are cap relief + pick/picks. It's extremely difficult to get a young player that has real talent and promise to become a very good player for a guy that isn't approaching superstar territory. That Wolves pick that the Clippers hold is a really nice example of what we should target. Kaman + the Wolves pick, or Foye/Gomes/Wolves pick are some of the rare possibilities that make sense for the Sixers. And please no Udoh or guys similar like him. They are all going to end up as back up big men there is nothing special about them except the fact they are relatively young. The only young big men that deserve consideration in an Iguodala trade are Favors and maybe Monroe. Everybody else is either already a star (Griffin, Love, Aldridge, Bynum) and impossible to acquire for Iguodala, a fake prospect (Udoh, Randolph, J. Hill, Patterson and many more), or just insane (Cousins).

There are only two way to acquire a star big IMO:
- draft him (e.g. Howard,Duncan,Nowitzki...)
- trade for him after you have assembled a very good core and the player asks for a trade and is satisfied with your offer/core already in place (e.g. Gasol,Garnett)

The third one (free agency) only forces you to overpay for players so i would avoid that as much as possible (e.g. Stoudemire, Bosh, Boozer...).

So all things considered the best course would be drafting big men with upside and hoping that they might become your center of the future, while you gradually improve your core. If a chance for a trade appears you trade all of those young big men you have drafted + future draft picks and possibly borderline core players for that star big man. Which leads us to the simple truth that draft picks are the best haul for Iguodala. If you can add a stop gap center while acquiring a draft pick that's just a bonus.

deepsixersuede reply to Xsago on May 9 at 7:30

There may be a 4th way with Collins here now, the reclaimation project. This may be an easier way to go. Beidrens and R.Lopez are 2 examples, neither playing for a defensive coach and Beidrens, if healthy, having a major confidence issue that Collins may be able to solve.

Look no farther than Z.Randolph as a guy nobody wanted that seems to have found a home now.

As far as Bismack, one thing I can't get out of my mind is the bigs Collins has brought in so far, Hawes and Brackins, more concerned that they have some sort of offensive skill than being a one way player.

If I had to bet my house if we got up to #3 in this draft, I think Bismack would be his 3rd choice after Valencias and Kanter. He seems, without having a star, to want 5 guys that can touch the ball on offense, not that I agree with it.

That is why a move that doesn't cost him much for a R.Lopez type defensive guy may be how he goes. Just an opinion.

That 4th option of course is a possibility but an extremely unlikely one. For every Zach Randolph there are 10 misses. And Randolph hasn't exactly brought home a title.

As for going with Valenciunas or Kanter ahead of Bismack i don't necessarily think that they are actually worse choices. While i too prefer Bismack, Kanter and Valenciunas are pretty good promising bigs with plenty of upside and are significanlty more developed than Bismack. This years draft has turned out to be very intriguing with all those internationals declaring for this season. Some of those guys will pan out and will become very good players. The problem is it's extremely difficult to project which one will make it in the NBA and which one won't. There are 7 international players 6'9" or bigger projected to go in the first round. And most of them are not relative unknowns in the mold of Seraphin, Ajinca, Koufos and the like. They are players that have performed really well in Europe at the biggest stage. It's been a while since we had a very good international big enter the league and i think we will see a couple of them in this draft.

Speaking of Zach Randolph, if Memphis goes on to advance to the Finals, are the proponents of the "only teams with superstars are threats to win the title" theory (tk76, maybe Tray?) going to revise their thesis or are they going to retroactively start calling Randolph a superstar?

Tray already retroactively started calling Randolph a superstar.

On O, is starting to resemble a mini-Bob Lanier, with more quickness and juice, minus the size 22 sneakers.

Tray reply to Brian on May 9 at 12:59

He is definitely playing like a top 10 player in the league right now.

Charlie H reply to Tray on May 9 at 17:11

I agree. He seems to do everything right offensively. Never rushes his shot.

That's great - how is his defense?

Tray reply to GoSixers on May 9 at 18:48

How much does it matter if Gasol can cover 4's well?

Charlie H reply to Brian on May 9 at 17:09

Ha ha. How can you win that argument? Whatever team wins the championship, the superstars-win-titles camp just declares the team's best player a superstar. I don't know how they answer the 2004 Pistons question, though. Oh wait, I know - it's the exception that proves the rule! (Ok, what about Seattle in '79? Washington in 78?)

If you are referring to what I wrote above about 95% of team's in the Finals being led by superstars...

All of the 20 superstars I listed were All-NBA 1st team multiple years and career ALL Stars BEFORE making the Finals. So what exactly is your point? Or do you think the 1970's is a more accurate representation of how to get to the finals than the last 31 tears has been? I'm sure things were different in the 50's and 60's to, but that is not exactly the modern NBA landscape.

Charlie H reply to tk76 on May 11 at 13:32

My point is that basketball is a team game, I guess. I'm not disputing your argument and wasn't referring to you as one of the people who declare players superstars just because their team made the Finals.

And it wasn't much different in the 50s & 60s & 70s. Teams with superstars made the Finals then, too. The Celtics, the Hawks (Bob Pettit), the Lakers, our ancestors the Nationals (Schayes, Greer), Cincinnati (Oscar), Golden State (Rick Barry), the Knicks(debatable).

Charlie H reply to Charlie H on May 11 at 13:38

Oops. Cincinnati never made the Finals.

I'm going based on data of 30 years looking at who made the Finals.

So get back to me in a few weeks when Memphis is in the Finals, and we can talk about how they are one of the aberrations...

Back to 1980, teams without a "Superstar" who made the Finals. I'll list the best players of the teams without superstars:

'96 Seattle (Patyon/Kemp)
'00 Pacers (Miller/Smits)
'04 Pistons
'05 Pistons

So that is 1 champ (3%) and 3(10%) runners up out of 60 total Finals teams. A grand total of 6.7% of the teams in the Finals in the last 30 years did not have a Superstar.

FYI, here is the list superstars:

Dr. J, Moses, Bird, Magic, Isiah, MJ, Drexler, Hakeem, Barkley, Ewing, Shaq, Kobe, AI, Malone, Kidd, Duncan, Lebron, Howard, KG.

So that is 20 superstars that account for 56 of the 60 teams that have been in the Finals over the last 30 years.

But sure, you can make your run with Z-Bo :)

Actually, that list goes back 31 years, but whose counting.

Now make a list of all of the Superstars in the last 30 years who never made it to a Finals (min 10 years played):

Zo (on Miami in '06, but non-starter)

So probably more than 75% of superstars in the past 30 years have made it to the Finals (as a key starter) since a bunch of the Finals teams above had multiple superstars that I did not list.

This is late to the conversation, but I'd add the following players, based on the additional criterion that Hall-of-Famer = Superstar:
Adrian Dantley
Alex English
Bob McAdoo (no longer superstar when he made the Finals)
Bob Lanier
Dan Issel (never made the Finals in the NBA)
Artis Gilmore (never made the Finals in the NBA)
David Thompson

Maravich last played in 1980 and just misses the cutoff.
Dave Bing last played in 1978.

Among current players, there are a few who are on their way to 10 years without a Finals appearance (depending on your definition of "superstar"): Chris Paul, Amare, Carmelo, Deron Williams.

I left off Dantley, MCadoo and English since IMO they were not on the same level as Superstars as the initial 20 I listed. I left Payton off for the same reason, so as to eliminate confusion.

Some of this is subjective, but as a fan I put theese guys on a hierarchy:

A. All Timers:

MJ, Bird, Magic, Lebron etc

B. Headline Stars:
Barley, AI, Malone, Ewing

C. Perennial All Stars a cut below:
Payton, Reggie Miller, Dantley, English

I tried to stick with the A and B list superstars, and left off the C list, since it gets murky in terms of who qualifies and their impact on a Finals team.

Well, it's kind of vague how you made the list, because you put on your list of superstars players like Webber (one first-team All-NBA), Vince Carter (never first-team All-NBA), Dominique (one first-team All-NBA), Drexler (one first-team All-NBA), and Ewing (never first-team All-NBA). I'd argue that all those players are in your "C" level -- just like English, Dantley, Lanier, etc.

I'd also argue that by the time the Pistons won their titles, they were a team without superstars. Isiah was their leader, but they won with defense and balanced scoring -- a hallmark of all the other "superstar-less" Finalists ('99 Knicks, '00 Pacers, '02-'03 Nets, '04-'05 Pistons). If the Grizzlies make it this year, they would fit the same profile.

Well no matter how you try and define it, trying to assign "levels" to being a supersar is subjective. Punishing Drexler for not making 1st team All NBA seems almost like saying Russell was not worthy if he was 2nd team to Wilt. Not really a fair criticism IMO.

While Payton benefited from being in an era that lacked dominant PG's.

As for you "no longer a superstar" assertion about the Knicks and Pistons Finals teams... again that is somewhat subjective. Those guys where each clearly the highest profile players on those teams. Both led their teams statistically. And then there is the amorphous "superstar leadership" effect where other teams focussed on them which gave opportunity for their lesser teammates to shine.

Again, this gets subjective. But IMO if a guy who is a superstar is the lead player on a Finals team then he gets the nod. While if a guy is a third fiddle on the team (say Zo in 2006 or Payton/Malone on the Lakers) then they don't qualify.

There is no right answer to these things. So getting hung up on the details probably does not change the general conclusions.

You're right, it is subjective. But to evaluate a hypothesis fairly, you have to settle on a definition beforehand, then apply it uniformly. So far, I get the sense that your definition of "Superstar" includes (but not exclusively) All-NBA recognition, #1 scoring option, statistical leader, and highest profile leader. But then you include Drexler and exclude English (who was all of those things for the Nuggets).

It doesn't change the gist of your observation but does change the strength of it: instead of 4 out of 60 superstar-less Finalists, it's more like 12 out of 60 for me. And the 75% number (of superstars who made the Finals at least once in their careers) is closer to 55% if the "C" list players are included. If the "C" list players are not included, then more teams are arguably off the list (like the '90 Blazers).

If you just stick to teams that won the title, the "necessary superstar" argument is stronger (it's arguably 28 of 31 or 30 of 31 depending on whether you think the '89-'90 Pistons had a superstar) but the "sufficient superstar" argument gets weaker (Barkley, Karl Malone, Stockton, Ewing if you want, etc. lose out).

Again, this gets subjective. But IMO if a guy who is a superstar is the lead player on a Finals team then he gets the nod.

And this is where it gets tricky and confusing, without a consistent definition of who is a superstar. I guess I'll be satisfied if you tell me ahead of time that Zach Randolph and Joe Johnson are not superstars, so the Hawks and Grizzlies would be aberrations to your pattern if they make the Finals ;-)

Why do you think English was as good as Drexler?

One was simply a great scorer. The other was arguably as good as anyone in his generation not named MJ and had a complete game. Stats are not even close. WS/48 .127 vs .173.

Plus Drexler led his team to the Finals ;)

Did I say English was as good as Drexler? By your criteria, though (which I'm finding now are a moving target), they belong in the same general "class" of superstar. I could look into the Win Shares (first time you've mentioned that) and find counterexamples, but you'd probably come up with something else.

You say it jokingly, but it looks to me like you're modifying the definition of a superstar as you go to fit your hypothesis. That's why I'm hoping (seriously) that we're not going to get some revisionist history if the Hawks or Grizzlies make the Finals ...

Do you have a problem with my premise that we should stick to "A level" superstars? That was what I originally tried to do.

Keep in mind, I wrote the original post after reviewing basketball-reference for all of 2 minutes. I tried to give my honest attempt at deciding who was a legit superstar. That is why I left Payton off. I later tried to flesh out what underpinned by gestalt take on who qualified. And given players rarely made the Finals early in their careers, it was clear (to me) that these guys where widely regarded as Superstars befoer they made the Finals- and the 1st team All NBA awards bore this out.

If you want me to rewrite this a an article as opposed to a simple blog comment, then I'd put in a lot more legwork to define what I had done by gestalt.

But I don't think it would make my conclusions all that different, it would just make me less open to questions about the details.

I wanted to say:

1. True headline, arena filling superstars have been on nearly every team that has made the finals.... strong evidence

2. That type of top level player is likely to lead a team to the finals if they stay in the league 10+ years... moderate evidence.

I'm more than happy to let someone else define the criterea for superstar. But I'm not ready to lump Reggie Miller with Michael Jordan- or even Pat Ewing.

I don't have a problem with your focusing on A/B level superstars. I'm having a problem with your including/excluding certain players on the "B" list based on certain murky criteria. Drexler and Ewing don't meet your criteria any better than Dantley (higher career WS/48 than Drexler), English (leader, go-to scorer), or Bernard King (two 1st-team All-NBA, more than Drexler and Ewing combined).

I don't think being more careful about the definition would change the general thrust of your conclusion (again, I agree with the general thrust), but it would change the strength of it. The 95%/75% numbers you quote are an exaggeration. I think they are more like 80%/55% -- still strong, but not overwhelmingly so.

I agree with what you are saying.

I'll probably limit my sweeping generalities posts to times when I can put a bit more legwork in.

Charlie H reply to tk76 on May 9 at 17:24

Alex English was better than any of these guys. And better than Kidd, also.

Alex English was a very good scorer. A "C Grade" superstar.

I followed the NBA closely during English's career. great player. I was a fan. But he did not have the profile of a Dr. J, Bird, magic or even Barkley. Those guys filled arenas and made multiple 1st team All NBA teams. Alex English made the 2nd team All NBA 3 times and never was 1st team. How can you say he was "better than all these guys?"

Charlie H reply to tk76 on May 11 at 12:13

Because I was replying to Statman's list:

= Superstar:
Adrian Dantley
Alex English
Bob McAdoo (no longer superstar when he made the Finals)
Bob Lanier
Dan Issel (never made the Finals in the NBA)
Artis Gilmore (never made the Finals in the NBA)
David Thompson

I'd say Thompson was better, but English had a better career.

And I'm not taking "profile" into consideration. The discussion is about how much superstars contribute to winning a title. I don't think profile matters much on the court. Erving won the MVP in '81 and was the highest profile player in the league, but the Sixers didn't win it (though I think they were the best team that year - they collapsed against Boston and would have killed Houston in the Finals).

Not sure how a "Grade C" superstar makes the HoF. I guess the term has been devalued. There aren't any stars anymore, just megastars, superstars, roll players & garbage. (Where does Iguodala fit?)

As for Walton, I don't care who made All-NBA that year, Walton totally outplayed Kareem in the playoffs and led his team to the title. But if you're going by objective criteria, then I don't have a case.

I have a much higher opinion of Walton than most people do. I saw him play in college, so that's part of it - he was unbelievably good, the best college player I've ever seen. He got better in the pros but was hurt a lot, obviously. He didn't play at all between '80 & '82 and only 47 games between mid-season '78 and '83. The closest player to him in my opinion was Sabonis, before his knee injury.

I'd be more interested in a list of superstars without titles. Or what's the ratio of having a superstar (or two superstars) and not making the finals. Or even better which of those superstars wouldn't have been on that "superstar" list if they hadn't won a title. Or what if the sixers win a title with Jrue and Iguodala, will they be superstars?

What i am trying to say is that all this is really taking things out of context and nothing will represent anything of statistical meaning, because realistically the term superstar is not really stat based but, opinion greatly biased by success based.

The things that i find consistent among all championship teams (at least those that i have seen) are: great coaching, great balance on both ends of the floor, extremely well defined roles for all rotation players (including the best players) and most importantly luck with matchups and health.

"I'd be more interested in a list of superstars without titles. Or what's the ratio of having a superstar (or two superstars) and not making the finals. Or even better which of those superstars wouldn't have been on that "superstar" list if they hadn't won a title."

I'd rather stick to making the Finals. Winning the title is a bit too high of a bar, because if there is a super-team (Bulls/Lakers) than no one else really has a chance. But making the Finals is a huge accomplishment.

As for the "is a star because they made the finals," I listed above the 9 superstars in the last 31 years who never made the Finals as a starter. Also, IIRC, every one of the 20 key superstars I listed made the All-NBA 1st team at least twice before they made the Finals. So I'd say that completely debunks your theory.

For example, you could try to say Isiah was not a superstar unless he wins the Titles. But he was was 1st team All NBA PG for 3 years before e ever made the Finals. So he was a superstar.

I'm focussed on careers, not single seasons. If you look at the career of any given superstar over the last 31 years, about 75% of them make the Finals. Sure they need to have other stars on their team. But that is still an excellent rate of succes for the roughly 40 superstars I've ID'd in the past 31 years.

You missed the '99 Knicks.

But I don't dispute that the data from the last 30 years that says superstars are necessary to advance to the finals.

However, it isn't set in stone that the NBA has to be forever that way. You conveniently set the cutoff at 1980, but the 70's was arguably an entire decade when team play produced championships ('79 Sonics, '78 Bullets, '77 Blazers, '76 Celtics, '73 Knicks all won without 1st-team All-NBA players) and superstars (like Kareem, Erving, Maravich) were mostly frustrated. Maybe we're headed back for that now, which would be better for the average fanbase and possibly make for better basketball but would probably be worse for ratings (Memphis-Atlanta, anyone?).

The 99 Knicks were led in pts, reb and blks by a 36 year old Ewing. So I gave him the nod. He was the best offensive player and the lynch-pin to their defense.

Ewing shot 43.5%, averaged 17.3 PPG and 9.9 RPG. He was hardly a superstar at that point. And he was also injured for much of the playoffs. (That was the genesis of Bill Simmons' "Ewing Theory" -- teams play better without their superstars.)

Feel free to take him off the list. But IMO he was still an impact player for that team and had yet to fall off the career cliff. Certainly lots of other stars at age 36 were still "superstars."

Good point about the 70's. I guess that is why many considered it a "down decade." There seemed to be less stars overall. Did the ABA have something to do with that, or just a cyclical thing?

The ABA did steal talent from the NBA (Erving, McGinnis, Gilmore, David Thompson), but the leagues merged in '76. I think the NBA was just beginning to understand how best to use "athletic superstars" in the late 70's (for every Erving, there were many more Bill Bradley-types), and that process didn't reach maturity until the 80's. And the entire NBA was beset with drug problems in the late 70's/early 80's. I was reading a Basketball Digest from around 1980 where one player estimated 70% of the league used cocaine. A lot of stars (e.g., Thompson) sabotaged their careers with drug use.

It also was before stars really started weight-lifting in season. MJ was the first big star to do this,, and I think it gave the elite athletes even more separation from their peers (especially their non-athletic ones.) It was also befoer the NBA became international.

As for the drug use, those numbers are hard to fathom.

rswknight reply to tk76 on May 10 at 0:15

Actually, Wilt was the 1st weight-lifting superstar, back in the 70s

Charlie H reply to Statman on May 9 at 17:30

The '77 Blazers had Walton, who was definitely a superstar that season. I guess Kareem made all-NBA that year? Walton totally outplayed him in the playoffs.

The '76 Celtics had Hall-of-Famers Cowens & Havlicek. Havlicek wasn't great anymore, but Cowens was. And the '74 team was pretty much the same, but most people would say Havlicek was still a superstar then, I guess.

Walton was 2nd-team All-NBA that year, behind Kareem, who was league MVP. I would consider him a superstar that year, but he didn't meet tk76's criterion (two 1st team All-NBA selections prior to that year), and he wasn't the leading scorer on the team.

On the other hand, and you will remember this better than I, wasn't the Blazers' defeat of the Sixers trumpeted as the triumph of team play over individual excellence?

Yeah, those years were about 5 years before I started following the NBA closely. Wasn't Walton a superstar that could not stay healthy? I'm guessing he could have been in the same conversation as Kareem had he shared his amazing durability and longevity. But that is sort of like trying to compare Chase Utley with Pete Rose.

Charlie H reply to Statman on May 11 at 12:25

Yes, that was what everybody said. And the Blazers did have great team "chemistry." But Walton was the best player on the court. They also had Maurice Lucas, who at that time was pretty close to a superstar. (And he humiliated George McGinnis in the Finals.) (And Bobby Gross! He was a role player - sort of an offensive version of Bobby Jones.) Even though that team broke my heart, I've always been a fan. They were a lot of fun to watch.

The Sixers had Collins, who was as good a team player as anybody, and nobody ever accused Dr. J of being selfish. It wasn't as stark a contrast as legend has it. The famous remark by Lloyd Free, "I got my 20," was a big factor.

Tray reply to tk76 on May 9 at 13:01

Wait, Payton and Kemp weren't superstars? Surely Payton was a superstar. He's going to be a Hall of Famer, best defensive point guard of his time, but he wasn't a superstar?

Payton did go to 9 All-Star games, was DPOY, 5X 2nd team All NBA, 2X 1st team All NBA.

So He was arguably a Superstar. But I was not willing to put him quite on par with the other 20 guys I listed.

I was a big fan of Payton, and want Jrue to pattern his game after him... and have called for the sixers to bring him in as an assistant. So I figured I was biased and left him off the list.

I consider Payton a superstar. His 99-00 season was unbelievable, and he had a handful of others that were great as well.

Fine, then that leaves us 3 teams in the finals without a superstar in the last 62 appearances.

In how many instances was the superstar crowned when he made the finals? Was Dwight really a superstar prior to Orlando making the finals?

I raised this before. IIRC every once of my listed superstars was 1st team All NBA at least twice before they even made the Finals. I think shows they were superstars.

I tried to set the bar very high so there would be little debate of whteher a layer was a Superstar or just a product of the Final's hype. That is partly why I left Payton off, even though he probably should be considered a superstar.

You can also put Payton on the list of superstars to win a title, though that's a bit disingenuous. (I think the title hunting at the end of his career is probably why some people don't consider him a superstar).

There are a lot of superstars missing on that list not just Peyton. Younger guys like Nowitzki, Wade, Paul have to be there, even though they are still relatively young.

As for who should be considered a superstar, what's your opinion on Pippen and Rodman. If they were in different situation would they have made the hall of fame or be just another pair of very good players.

Like I said above, I included superstars who have played a minimum of 10 NBA seasons when looking at who has and has not made the Finals.

Dirk has made the Finals. Deron, CP3 etc have not played 10 years, but they may end up on the superstar non-finals list.

Again, looked at Finals teams. Looked at stars who made the Finals as a key player versus superstars(10+ years) whio never made the Finals.

And I did this very quickly, so I'm sure I probably made a mistake or two. But I think my conclusion hold up:

1. 95% of the Finals teams from the past 31 years are led by Superstars. A Superstar roughly defined as a player who is a career All-Star and made multiple 1st team All NBA teams prior to making the Finals.

2. If you look at superstars in this time, close to 75% have made the Finals as a lead player at least once in their careers. That ignores players with less than 10 years experience who still are in their prime.

You can take this info in regards to team building however you want.

A lot of people feel Piipen was one of the All Time greats. I guess we will never know, but he was pretty successful in the years MJ was not there.

IMO he probably would have made the Finals without MJ if he had a full career on other teams, but we will never know.

As for Rodman, he was more of a Super-Specialist. Sort of the Reggie Miller or Ben Wallace. Those kind of guys are great for elite teams, but don't get you as close by themselves as the 30 Superstars that I listed.

So if we're going w/ the 6.7% number, you should expect it to happen a little more frequently than once every five years, right? That's not really such a longshot when you consider there are a number of teams out there with multiple superstars. In fact, you could make the argument that it's more likely to happen than common sense would tell you it should be, right?

6.7% is exactly once every 15 years.

2 opportunities every year, right? So 5% would be once every 10 years (1 in 20). How do you get 15 years?

1 divided by 15 is 0.067 (6.7%.) But maybe I am misunderstanding what you are getting at. I guess if there where 2 chances a year than that gets you to 1 in 7.5 years.

Yeah, I guess that's what I meant.

Another 'Iguodala must go' column in Inquirer today. Brace yourself for onslaught of bananas and Batman & Robin. What Sixers need are plums and "Superman."

Sixers' executive & coaching staffs/"think tank", a bunch of guards: Thorn, Dileo, Stefanski, Sonny Hill, World B. Free, Herb Magee, Collins, McKie, Snyder. And then you have backcourt broadcasters Snow, J. & D. Lynam and Celestand in the vicinity. Ex-Hoosier Courtney Witte mans the frontcourt talent tower. Is it any wonder Sixers can't land or develop or sustain a game-changing big man? The organization is suffering from Napoleon perspectives. Where are Moses Malone and Jeff Ruland when ya really need 'em?

So, is Fagan getting blasted in the comments (or twitter) for basing the crux of her article on this enormous - not accurate - 56 million dollar contract?

This is a professional who gets paid to write and research (allegedly with the research) - that kind of error is beyond "my bad".

There isn't a reporter on the face of the earth who hasn't submitted erroneous facts on occasion. Kate Fagan's very good at her job; gives fans their money's worth, whether one agree with her points of view or not; writes extensively on team, with rare honesty.

Today's Iguodala column was written by John Gonzalez.

My guess is that she just cut and pasted that exact quote from something she earlier in the season, when Iguodala did still have 4 years $56M left on his deal. The other mistake was probably worse, for some reason she compared Iguodala's salary next season to Gay's salary this season and said they were even.

What's 3M a year give or take. And a mere 19.3M on the back end.

Peanuts if you're getting a guy who can SCORE 20 POINTS-PER-GAME!

I can certainly understand why Iguodala wanted to be in China right now- especially if he smelled this coming.

Smelled this coming?? Doesn't take a kitchen sleuth as he cooked it himself.

jkay reply to tk76 on May 9 at 13:12

if he did I gotta give him props, judging by today's entry, this is gonna get brutal.

What about Igoudala (and maybe Speights) to the Bucks for Maggette, L. Sanders, and their #1 pick (probably top ten)? Maggette blows, but his contract is up the same year as Brand's, but you add a decent big with POTENTIAL in Sanders and position yourself for Bismack. I'd try to keep our pick at #16 too, see if you can't add a swingman.

At one point, I liked the idea of maybe trying to get Biedrins and Curry, but I don't think Curry fits this roster (w/o Igoudala) and it sounds like Biedrins is a total mess mentally.

MIL's pick isn't going to be high enough to get Bismack. I like Larry Sanders' name, but dealing for him in a deal like this where you're only shaving one year off Igudoala's contract and getting back a pretty bleh draft pick, I'd pass.

But Corey maggette, COREY MAGGETTE

Marty reply to Brian on May 9 at 10:42

I haven't seen any mock drafts where this Bismack fellow is going much higher than #8-10. Obviously I wouldn't make this deal if he wasn't there, but aren't you the one saying the Sixers should be trying to move up to get him. And I could care less about Maggette, send him home for two years. You're going to have to take a bad contract back if you want to get any value for Igoudala. And you can joke all you want about Sanders, but he's exactly what you're saying you want - a young, big with potential.

I'm not sure why you have to take back a bad contract. I'd prefer a young big who showed something in his one year in the league, Sanders shot 43% from the floor. And ESPN has Bismack at #7, as does DraftExpress. Trading for the #10 pick isn't going to get him for you.

Marty reply to Brian on May 9 at 10:54

Because Igoudala's contract is an albatross. Look he's a good player and he's worth something, but GOOD teams like OKC and SA who could actually use him would LAUGH at Stefanski/Thorn if they weren't willing to take back some amount of trash. The Clippers are retarded if they trade for Igoudala - it's going to take max deals to keep Blake and Gordon and probably $10M+ to keep Jordan. No way they are taking Igoudala's contract OR giving up the $12M expiring contract in Kaman. And just because a player is rated top-6, top-8, top-whatever, teams don't always draft the best available player. I certainly don't think it's impossible your boy would last till 10. I'm also not going to beat up a rookie big man for shooting a low percentage in his first yr in the league. What were Ratliff's stats the year before we traded Stackhouse for him (and McKie)?

No, it's not an albatross.

I'm not beating anyone up, I'm just saying that the #10 pick, Larry Sanders and Corey Maggette is not an acceptable haul for Iguodala.

Anyway, Kate Fagan just wrote that half the GM's in the league think Iguodala is fairly paid at $12M more than he's actually owed. Don't you trust Kate?

Steve V reply to Brian on May 9 at 14:44

I loved Larry sanders last year ad was hoping we could ger a pick in the mid first to get him. He was a year away from being a major contributor at draft time last year and his combination of freakish arm length along with shot blocking instincts would be a perfect fit for this team.

http://www.draftexpress.com/ - sixth
http://www.nbadraft.net/ - not even in the top 14
http://espn.go.com/nba/draft - seventh

So two reliable sites have him no lower than 7th and the ridiculous one has him not in the top 14 as of last thursday.

The hype on this guy is just getting started too...probably a top 5 hype pick by draft night

Marty reply to GoSixers on May 9 at 10:58

I get it, he's a top-five talent. Doesn't mean he'll be drafted top five. What I'm saying is, it's not impossible that he'd be there at 10. If he IS, why wouldn't this be a good deal?

Doens't mean he won't.

You said mocks showed him at 8-10 - so I showed you mocks that showed him higher than 8-10.

Guys get hyped and over drafted all the time. Your presumption that he won't be drafted before 8 is contradicted by two of three of everyones favorite draft sites.

I didn't say he had the talent to be a top 5 pick, I said hype would probably put him in the top 5. He's the hot name right now and people are still dropping out.

I think the trade scenarios have been covered pretty well, but I've been thinking more about how strikingly similar the McNabb departure in 2010 was to the impending Iguodala departure now.

- Both were, for better or worse, leaders of the franchise for multiple years.
- Both were among the most highly paid players on the team.
- Both gave solid production over their careers, well above average at their positions.
- Both were heavily criticized for their lack of accuracy (McNabb's completion percentage, Iguodala's low shooting percentages) and corresponding lack of aesthetics (McNabb's throws into the ground, Iguodala's "bricked" jump shots).
- Both were underrated for their positive contributions, less easily noticed by casual fans (McNabb's low turnover rate and overall QB rating, Iguodala's passing and overall PER/Win Shares).
- Both were heavily criticized for their poor performance in the "clutch" and ignored for the times they did come through.
- Both had the reputation of being "cool" (as in, "not warm") toward their teammates and the fans.
- Both were criticized for their body language and facial expressions.
- Both eventually faced a nearly-deafening outcry from the fans to get traded, with the loudest and most irrational fans at the forefront, drowning out the quieter supporters.

With the trade looming, I see another two potential similarities. The first one is personal (and negative): while I still rooted for the Eagles in 2010, the way [a portion of] the fanbase rejoiced in his departure just left a sour taste in my mouth and I really didn't root for them with the same passion as in the past. I'll always be loyal to the Philly teams but I'm less and less inclined to identify with Philly fans. The second one, from a team perspective, is potentially positive: the transition may be smoother and quicker than expected because some veteran players step up (Vick, Thad?) and the younger talent is already there to fill the void (Jackson/Maclin/McCoy, Jrue?). Who knows, the Sixers may make the playoffs again, just like the Eagles won their division again. But the Philly fans will be left without their favorite whipping boy if/when the Sixers get eliminated (just as happened when the Eagles' season once again ended on an INT in the playoffs).

So we just need to bring in the NBA equivalent of Michael Vick?

I agree with your comparison, but IMO Mcnabb was an elite NFL star who was near the end of his prime. While Iguodala is a top 30-40NB player who is in his prime. Also, McNabb had tons of playoff success but failed to win the biggest games. Iguodala was the highest profile player during 7 years of .500 or less ball. So not exactly equivalent.

Well, in my scenario, Thad is Vick ;-)

No, not equivalent. McNabb was a lot more accomplished and received a lot more criticism. But the similarities are there.

What are the similarities between vick and thad aside from the fact that they've both played for teams in georgia?

Nothing similar in career arcs, hype, relative draft positioning, or ability.

No other similarity than that they were both understudies at the position of the traded (to-be-traded) players, with low/no expectations. It's unlikely that Thad will make the "leap" (I'm not banking on it), but arguably no more unlikely than Vick's leap in 2010.

Except that it's been proven that Thaddeus Young isn't a small forward (or a two guard) in the NBA. He's not a primary ball handler, he's a scorer who does little else to help his team win. There are no similarities because he doesn't 'back up' Andre Iguodala - he backs up Elton Brand. He doesn't have starters ability like vick has.

I guess the only similarities might be is that they are both mostly athletic games, maybe Thad needs to go to prison to realize he needs to develope the rest of his game.

Here's hoping the sixers don't see it this way or Thad's contract will TRULY be an albatross

But Vick was not a true QB, right? He was just an exciting runner who could throw sandlot passes.

Maybe Thad just needs a few years of reflection in Leavenworth for him to figure out how top be a SF?

I think Vick was more of an instinctive quarterback who was run first (and second) after making a read or two. I don't think he was 'coached' to stay in the pocket more or make his progressions until he got to philly and had better coaching.

Now an argument could be that thad had 'better' coaching this year, and oh boy, he returned to rookie form, but he still can't rebound and he still really only has one move, and no outside shot. I don't see 'unmolded' talent in Young as much as Vick had, and let's be real, no one thought Vick would do this when he got out of stir

Thad is Thad.

As for Vick, a whole lot less experts thought he simply needed coaching before he found success on the Eagles.

Guess it depends on which experts you talk to :)

I don't believe Thaddeus Young is an NBA starter, he doesn't have a position naturally, and he doesn't have the good defensive instincts. Mabye he becomes serviceable as a starter, but I don't think he's close to ready to be a 36 minute a game guy let alone replace a guy like Iguodala who passes, rebounds, defends, and scores all pretty darn well.

Young does one thing well and most other things poorly. I don't think he's suddenly going to turn that on in one off season. I've seen nothing in his progression to indicate he's got either the work ethic or ability to get to an Iguodala level in all aspcts of the game

If they travel over a lot of sand they're worth a lot.

Thad just needs to deflect criticism and to continue to improve. He should dribble to the store with his right hand all summer and watch a slew of 70s movies to better comprehend more deliberate pace of movement.

They're both lefty, as well.

Thad would be the guy paid big buck to replace him, I guess.

Or maybe the Villain(ET) is Vick?

Thad would be the guy paid big buck to replace him, I guess.

That's what I'm afraid of

Z-Bo is Vick :)

Zach Randolph was an albatross in Portland, Zach Randolph was a waste of space in New York.

In Memphis, he's a superstar.

Anyone else curios as to why?

Comfort. He likes Lionel and Lionel likes him. Think Collins-Brand.

Probably similar to Rasheed.

CM reply to GoSixers on May 9 at 11:59

Randolph has always put up numbers, it seems as though Memphis has surrounded him with the right guys.

I don't watch enough of their games to have much of an idea of what it is, put it's probably a combination of on and off-court chemistry as well as the right mix of complementary roles around him.

Tray reply to GoSixers on May 9 at 12:55

My theory is that in the past few towns he was going through bad break-ups. OR, now he's taking steroids. Seriously, Gasol has more or less confirmed the stories; the LA Times quoted him today as saying, "I have to learn from this," Gasol said. ''I have to learn that when something happens off the court, you have to keep it off the court."

Why does Z-Bo not have his own reality show?

Tray reply to tk76 on May 9 at 13:05

Why is he not in jail when, at the time the season started, the papers said he was about to be indicted for being the biggest pot dealer in Indianapolis?

Sorry, I must have missed that on TMZ:



Tray reply to tk76 on May 9 at 18:45

I don't actually read TMZ, just to be clear. I've literally never been on that site.

I was making fun of GoSixers with that one.

Charlie H reply to GoSixers on May 9 at 17:51

Portland was a dysfunctional team - why was it Randolph's fault? New York was a waste of a franchise.

So Gonzo has an article about Iguodala today (seeing that Gonzo wrote it means it doesn't have to be read) and the photo caption on the sixers splash page has this

Andre Iguodala will make superstar money next season, but he isn't truly a superstar. (Ron Cortes/Staff Photographer)

According to storytellerscontracts.info (which I find to be the most realiable site for contracts I can find), Andre Iguodala will make 13.5 million dollars in the 2011/12 season if it's played.

Joe Johnson will make over 18 million
Rudy gay will make 15 million
Elton Brand will make 17 million

I'm curios as how Igoudala is being 'overpaid' when he's not even the highest paid player on his team?

The last 2 years on Iguodala's deal (15M, 16M) will push his contract into the top 20 range. I'd consider that elite money. But it is common for a player to be overpaid on the back end of an escalating 6 year deal. And maybe he opts out of that last year anyway.

But it is ridiculous that people complained about him making 12M, when that would make him the 3rd or 4th highest player on almost every team in the playoffs.

And if you are talking trade value, it is only these last 3 years of Iguodala's contract that you are measuring in terms of value.

IMO Iguodala has been paid fairly for his 1st 3-4 years of his contract... and will be overpaid for his last 2 years. That certainly drives down his value. That, along with his nagging injuries and his lack of direct gate drawing power.

That's great and all - but the caption said 'next' year, and joe johnson and rudy gay will still be making more money than Andre Iguodala in those two years won't they?

And they both will remain 2 of the most overpaid stars in the league. I'd hardly pick them (or Iguodala) as the best representation of NBA contracts. Especially with a new CBA looming. Saying one thing isn't bad just because something else is even worse is a bit of a logical fallacy.

What about this non-Iguodala trade idea?

Turner, Nocioni and Thad (S&T) to MIL for

Bogut and one of their bad contracts.

[In order of preference (Maggette/shortest deal, Gooden, Salmons)]

This gives MIL young offensive pieces to fit in-between Jennings and Sanders.

The Sixers end up with Jrue/Meeks/Iguodala/Brand/Bogut with Williams, Speights, #16 and whatever dogshit you get from MIL coming off the bench.

It does not give you a very high upside roster, but it is a way to go.

That's probably a top three defensive team.

Is it a team that can beat the heat or the bulls in the second round?

Possibly, but not likely. Bogut's offense has taken a dramatic turn for the worse since the elbow injury, so they'd need Jrue to become a bigger part of the scoring offense and up his efficiency.

Here are the salary rankings for Iguodala.

In 2010-2011, his $12.345M salary was 41st in the league.

In 2011-2012, his $13.51M salary will be 30th in the league (not including any players who sign free agent contracts and/or extensions this summer)

In 2012-2013, his $14.7M salary will be 26th in the league (not including any players who sign free agent contracts and/or extensions this summer or next)

In 2013-2014, his $15.9M salary will be 16th in the league (not including any players who sign free agent contracts and/or extensions this summer, next summer or the summer after that).

Dwight Howard, Chris Paul and Deron Williams will all get max extensions between now and the end of Iguodala's contract. At no time will he have a top 20 salary in the league.

Some perspective for everyone who says he's paid superstar money.

Do you feel like his final 2 seasons at 15M/16M will be "market value" given the production, influence on W/L and gate that Iguodala should represent?

I have never been overly critical of Iguodala. I just think if you look at his remaining contract it depresses his trade vale because he will be somewhat over-paid for what he brings.

There's no way to tell. If the current CBA was extended and the cap kept moving the way it has been and all the players coming up for extensions/new deals got them, then yeah, he'd be paid market value assuming the injuries don't make him a 65 game/year player. But a lot is going to change. Odds are, $15.9M will be too much for him in a couple of years.

And my point is there are 2 separate issues:

1. The constant criticism Iguodala has taken for being "overpaid" these last 3 seasons.

2. The effect that Iguodala's remaining 3 years will have on his trade value.

I strongly disagree with the 1st point, but IMO the second concern is valid.

Well, Kate has put that issue to rest. They have 14 teams willing to deal for him (assuming the Sixers are one of the 15 who think he's fairly paid and would like to have him).

I'll throw another idea out there for conversations sake: What about Igoudala and LouWill to Cleveland for their trade exception, one of their #1's this year and Sessions? Does it position us to go after a FA this summer and also get Bismack in the draft?

Can that deal be made? I know there are restrictions on how a trade exception can be used?

Yeah, Lou/Sessions even each other out and the trade exception would be used on Iguodala. link.

Assuming the draft pick we got from them was #5 or better and Hawes/Thad sign their qualifying offers, that puts them at like $52-$53M. Dump Hawes and get Thad to sign his QO, that's $49M. Dump Thad as well and you're at like $46M, which is still short of a max offer for someone, but a decent chunk of change. Dump Hawes and extend Thad for $7M in his first season and you're looking at $52M and really not enough money to do anything more than a full-mle level deal, if the MLE exists and the cap stays where it was last season, which are two humongous ifs.

Not a bad deal, though. the numbers look a little better if the pick you get is lower, like the 6-7 range.

Not a bad deal, though. the numbers look a little better if the pick you get is lower, like the 6-7 range.

Except the lower the pick, the worse the deal in terms of drafting.

Again, I don't expect much to get done (if anything) by anyone pre the new CBA - but I prefer the clipper option to this cavs option. I'm a big sessions fan (but he's a back up on this team, an actual back up that creates points for others - but still a back up), but like you pointed out - that trade exception wouldn't turn into much player wise

Cleveland is rebuilding by taking on salary in order to get 1st round picks. So them giving up a 1st rounder is unlikely.

Marty reply to tk76 on May 9 at 12:59

By far, the Clipper option of Aminu, Kaman, and 2012 pick would be the best and if we can get it, I like it. I had hoped that the Cleveland trade would put us further under the cap. I think the Cavs do it if they get a top 3 with their other pick. They'd be able to go with Davis/Igoudala/Jamison/Hickson/Varajeo, plus their top-3 pick. At least they'd be competitive.

I'd be shocked if we got anything of substantial value. Sixers will either settle on a mix of marginal talent+ Expirings+mediocre draft pick, or will keep him.

No way Clippers give up al farouq+minny pick, they are keeping minny pick imo, they can still give their 2012 pick right? I don't know how it works because Boston has a clippers pick that is protected.

How do i get rid of my avatar?

Click your name, then click "Edit Profile."

Is there anyway i can just remove it and go back to the no avatar setting? I can only change to a new picture when i click edit profile.

There you go.

Iguodala gets second-team all defense. Kobe gets first team. Ugh.

2nd team makes sense given he was not in the top 5 in votes. But IMO he's a 1st teamer.

Heh, Jrue got a vote. Oddly, no love for Hawes though.

Or Lou.

Iguodala got less votes than Hill and still beat him out for 2nd team. Fair IMO but interesting.

You mean less votes for DPOY, right? Iguodala got 5 1st and 5 2nd in the All-Defense voting, Hill got 4 and 3. Voting for All-Defense is done by the coaches (max votes is 29, as a coach cannot vote for his own player) and voting for DPOY is done by the writers.

Thanks for the clarification. I thought it was all based on 1 set of voting.

johnrosz reply to tk76 on May 9 at 16:13

I believe Jon Barry admitted to being the guy that voted for Grant Hill for DPOY.

Rich reply to Brian on May 9 at 15:08

Having Kobe there is a joke.

No kidding, right? Where is that coming from.

The only deal of those three that I see the other team realistically making is the Kaman deal and that would basically be a salary dump. I think many people here agree that's a terrible trade.

Let's say Turner steps up and shows he can score an efficient 15, and start to fill in the other categories like Iguodala did. Some people I've seen (mostly below Fagan's articles) pencil that in as a certainty, which is a point even the staunchest Turner advocate shouldn't be able to make. Others think he won't come close. Forget that though.

Let's say he DOES show great improvement in all areas: Does it make sense to trade Iguodala just as much for the Sixers long-term as it does other teams to acquire him? Or does Iguodala still need to have something of value coming back?

Right now, I don't see the real need for the Sixers to deal him unless they get a better offer. He helps the team currently and isn't holding anyone back, which could change if Turner gets his you know what together.

Tom Moore on May 9 at 16:02

Iguodala named second team all-defensive.

Rondo, Kobe, LeBron, Garnett and Howard make first team.

(Also posted at LB)

Was Iguodala's fate seasled the day they drafted Turner?

Permiter players tend to be shot of drive oriented. Given Jrue, Turner, Iguodala and Lou are all “drivers”/ball dominant do you think Iguodala was a goner by investing the #2 in Turner? Does that make the pick itself worse since none of the other players drafted #3-#9 where ball dominant wings so would not have been Iguodala's ticket out of town.

Basically, would you rather have:
1. Jrue + Iguodala + someone else at #2(pick or trade)
2. Jrue + Turner + players you get in return for Iguodala
3. You see J/T/I as the teams long term future

This is not meant to be a critique of Iguodala or Turner. It is a question about the throught process of the front office (or lack there of.)

I think it's too early to tell. We did see JTI on the floor together for the most important minutes in games 4 and 5 of the playoffs, though, so maybe it's not a completely lost cause.

Personally, I would stick with J/T/I for another year. I don't think Iguodala will return you enough in a trade, and I'm not at all sold on Turner- especially as a SF.

But if they do trade Iguodala, to what degree was that dictated by their investing the #2 in Turner? My guess is that any other pick would have made Iguodala's status mope secure.

I don't know, I don't think the team necessarily wants to move him so much as he really wants to be moved at this point. Did he see drafting Turner as part of the problem w/ the team/city/fans/organization? No way to know. I guess the anti-Iguodala sentiment is fueled somewhat by Turner being here to potentially replace him. I mean, Cooney said he sometimes thinks Iguodala would be easy to replace (and I have to assume he means replace him at the three with Turner, though I guess you should never assume anything with Cooney.)

To be honest with you, though, I don't think Turner has a lot to do with it. He would've if he had a great rookie season, but he didn't. The people who want him gone have wanted him gone for a long time. They'd prefer having Willie Green in the starting lineup to Iguodala. The pick didn't really mean anything to their logic, imo, it's the fans and media that are causing this trade (if it actually happens), not the franchise looking to move him.

Maybe it meant more to me because I was more concerned about JTI fitting together than I was about Turner's talent when he was drafted. I thought Turner was worthy of the #2 pick, but was not convinced he was the right pick with Jrue and Iguodala in place.

Then again, I think last draft was pretty crappy. And this draft is pretty crappy. And if they change eligibility to 2 years then next year will be crappy.

johnrosz reply to Brian on May 9 at 17:01

I think you're giving the fans/media too much credit. If anything, he's more fed up with losing and the front offices inability to put together a competitive team than his perception around the city. I almost liken it to when Scott Rolen got fed up with the Phillies and just wanted a change of scenery. They're kind of similar in how they're aloof, incredibly talented, defensive minded winners asked to replace a legend (Rolen was heralded as the next Schmidt)

So Iggy is looking for Basketball Heaven?

St Louis doesn't have a team though

I hear South Beach is close to heaven.

Not what Scott Rolen says

Tom Moore on May 9 at 16:42

Iguodala becomes first Sixers player since Snow to make all-defensive team:


Btw, I'm not he world's biggest Rondo fan, mainly because I think you can take him right out of a game with a few defensive adjustments, but I still can't believe he came back into the game the other night. Just saw that he's going to play tonight as well. Just amazing. Say whatever you want about his game, but that's the toughest thing I've ever seen in professional sports. Whether or not it helps the team remains to be seen, and whether or not the team doctors should let him do it is another matter, but to go back out on the floor after that kind of injury is just amazing.

I was impressed he came back out - and I know a lot of credit given to him for the celtics win - but would they have won anyhow?

They say t's not a series until a road team wins - this is the only series currently on track

Yeah, they win that game either way, and he may very well hurt them tonight if he can't use his left arm. Still just about the gutsiest thing I've ever seen.

Haslem back for the heat tonight - an important playoff piece if he's healthy

Tray reply to Brian on May 9 at 18:43

Ridiculously gutsy, and kind of crazy. What if he got fouled again? Would his arm just snap off?

I share you view about his unbalanced game, but I've been a Rondo fan since before he was drafted. The kid is a warrior. You knew that just based on his rebounding. He averaged 6+ boards his last year at Ky and once grabbed 19 boards in 33 minutes.

Devin reply to Brian on May 9 at 22:29

I didn't watch the game yesterday, but was it one of those dramatic Paul Peirce/Kevin Garnet injuries where they lay on the floor for 3 hours and things seem bleak but all of the sudden they somehow return miraculously to lift the team to victory ?

*Sorry for the run-on sentence and a-hole comment

No, I mean, you could literally see his elbow bend the opposite way and stick there. It was gruesome. They got him off the floor pretty quickly. It wasn't a Paul Pierce drama queen type of thing.

Devin reply to Brian on May 9 at 23:18

Ouch, just watched the video. I can't believe I'm saying this but Kudos to Rondo.

I know. I'm not sure if it makes me more sick to see what happened to his elbow or to say something positive about the Celtics.

Gayathra on May 9 at 18:24

If I were to trade Howard to the Lakers, I would make them take Gilbert Arenas along with him.

I don't know if this works because trade machine isnt telling me:

LAL gets: Howard, Arenas, Brand
ORL gets: Gasol, Iguodala, Artest
PHI gets: Bynum, Odom, Walton

It should work, ORL is the only team that would be taking on addition salary.

Funny thing is that LAL is the team that wouldn't do this deal.

LA VS Philly

LA has
Better weather, pretier girls, potential better teammates, nicer fans, and closer proximity to agent

better ownership, better coach, an easier conference

Los Angeles has better ownership, by a long shot, possibly one of the best owners in professional sports.

Los Angeles may have 'prettier' girls but they're shallower and dumb and only impressed with your money and your car - if you're into that type of useless girl - sure she looks pretty - but they get boring fast (and tell you what, in bed, they just lay there - no fun to be with an idiot limp fish)

Los Angeles has wild fires and earthquakes, i'll take hurricanes in Philadephia over wildfires (evacuation and risk of losing all your property and pets if yo ucan't find them SUCKS - trust me).

Proximity to agent? Who really gives a crap. It's the year 2011 - that doesn't matter - proximity to hollywood - that can matter.

Better fans? Let's see how good the Laker fans are when they start losing, or when the clippers have a better record.

Tray reply to GoSixers on May 9 at 23:17

Magee with some non-yellow-journalistic insight into how LA girls "just lay there" like "idiot limp fish." I'm glad we have such high-toned, non-misogynistic discourse around here.

God you're a complete and total douche bag - not only do you like the logical skills the worst law student in the world has - you lack the ability to detect obvious sarcasm.

I think i'll go back to ignoring anything that starts with tray on the premise that it's useless tripe that makes Eskin look like Aristotle (look him up)

Tray reply to GoSixers on May 9 at 23:39

I like the logical skills the worst law student in the world has? Now you're becoming a dyslexic on top of being a stupid prick.

Admittedly - your gross stupidity did make me forget to spell check.

I'm surprised you could use the word misogyny. Your word of the day calendar probably huh?

Please, tell us how someone who had one good game is now a superstar?

Ugh. Can you guys ignore each other, or get a room?

I'd agree that the ownership is better out there. I'd add a real point guard to the Philly side of the equation, assuming Jrue isn't involved in the deal to get Howard. I'm not sure how psyched Howard would be about going from one situation w/out a real PG to another (or maybe even the same PG if Jameer also went to LA in the deal.)

If there's any kind of chance, it would have to be Collins doing his best sales job.

I didn't touch the team mate thing because with an aging Kobe and Pau Gasol (assuming it's bynum and odom required to get Howard to LA), is it really great? Kobes seems to be on the slide of his career where he has to change his game and be more of a facilitator - can he be? Gasol and Howard I think make a good combo - but the back court in LA is really questionable.

so yeah just another incredible game going to OT in the Memphis-OKC series...if there are any fans of basketball here admist the circular firing squad...

This game is insane.. I almost fell asleep at one point but glad I didn't.

Pretty sure it's been about one and a half overtimes since we've seen Durant so much as touch the ball though...

Still can't believe Memphis came back as many times as they did. Really, really ugly basketball going on for the last hour or so. OKC taking turns with bad isolations. MEM taking turns missing layups, but really tough defense being played, I guess.

How about Iguodala and the Sixers' 2011 1st rounder to the Lakers for Bynum and their 2013 1st Rd pick?

Unless, of course, the Lakers can swing a Dwight deal in which Bynum will be key.

We get a good, young big to add to Jrue and Turner as the young core. Plus, we only move down 10 or so picks in a future (and hopefully more talented) draft.

The Lakers need to mix things up, and Bynum is always an injury risk. They have always refused to part with him, but seems it may be the only way they get better. Plus, they could start Odom/Gasol at the 4/5 which would probably allow them to matchup better with the Mavs hehe

The lakers wouldn't do that

and their 2013 draft pick is worth squadoosh

Philly vs LA
philly is a much better sports city with better fans and a better city atmosphere and I c plenty of hot girls in philly
I say we try either iguodala for kevin martin or forgot gay cuz gay averaged six more points per game and around the same rebounds or maybe igoudala for tyreke evans or for nick young then draft a center

Expand/Contract all comments

Leave a comment