DFDepressed FanDepressed Fan

All  

Sixers

, all the time

Thad Young: Prediction vs. Performance

I would be more inclined to sign him for about 8 million a year. But then again, 8 million is too much to pay for a backup.
When Elton leaves I don't think a Holiday/Turner/Iguodala/Young/Biyombo lineup will be that succesful for 48 mins.

If they get Biyombo, I'd love to see that lineup for like 20 minutes/game, though.

user-pic
Jarvis reply to Brian on Jun 2 at 13:18
+/-

*When

Just setting yourself up for disappointment

user-pic
emtmess reply to GoSixers on Jun 2 at 14:06
+/-

Does anyone think that any of the top bigs are once in a lifetime prospects. If not I say we stay at 16 and take the best player available.

Eh, that's a pretty black-and-white way of looking at things. If you're talking about gutting your team to move up, then yeah, maybe that's the question you have to answer, but what if someone wants to trade down and the price is really low? Should you not do it simply because Michael Jordan isn't available?

I think there are a couple of guys who could really help at the top of the draft and if the price is reasonable, they should do it.

Does history indicate to you that as opposed to being satisfied with the roster they have making the playoffs the sixers will trade any proven assets to take a risk in a draft pick, let alone a draft pick with this kind of reputation?

The sixers history of draft day moving is more about trading / buying second round picks than anything else.

I don't believe they're moving up - I don't believe it's in their DNA. Plus, in drafts, picks tend to be over valued, no matter the quality of the draft, the trading teams valuation of their top 5 pick tends to be over high and they demand a premium.

(Plus, team success tends to not pay off when you move up high in theNFL draft cause you gotta WAY over pay, I don't know if anyone ever did the math on the NBA)

I'm not sure what Thorn's history indicates. I'm also not sure if it's Thorn's history, or the team's history that we should be concerned about.

These are some key points about Thorn:

1. Turned down a trade that would have traded away the draft right for MJ in exchange for a 32 year Dr. J and other assets.

2. Traded away multiple #1's for V.C., at a time where VC was seen as having major charater issues.

3. Traded away a 21 year old All Star PG (Marbury) for 27 year old Kidd. Kidd had some off the court issues at the time.

4. Used mid 1st rounders for guys with talent but character issues (Marcus Williams and Sean Williams.) Was he there when they Drafted Eddie Griffin #7 overall in 2001?

5. Used late 1st rounders in 2002, 2003 and 2004 on Euro bigs (Kristic, Planini and Khryapa.)

user-pic
Tray reply to tk76 on Jun 2 at 16:20
+/-

Wasn't Zoran a point guard?

I have no idea :)

I"m always more concerned with Comcast than the GM because Comcast sets the tone.

Comcast seems ok with the first round, couple home games, loss as a top, have for a while now in my opinion.

user-pic
Tray reply to GoSixers on Jun 2 at 16:23
+/-

Owners are mysterious. The Phillies seemed to be content with just driving up ticket sales with a few splashy acquisitions, but clearly that's no longer the case. The team would probably make more money if it were better (though I know Sterling's the most profitable owner in basketball, but that's a somewhat different situation, being in LA).

You're wrong - but ok

If they were O.K. with that, why the endless revolving door of head coaches?

Even the best coaches make a lot less than players, and even if you pay them off after you fire them it's not the same amount of long term investment as in a player but it still cons the fans into thinking they're 'committed' to 'doing something'

It placates the fans.

Hiring Thorn - looks splashy - but if the comcast thought processes doesn't change - that's all it is - splashy looking but a lot less investment then in signing a quality free agent (if one is coming to philadelphia)

It's a bait and switch

I agree other owners want to win more than Comcast. Look at what Cleveland as done, taking on millions in contracts to get a few picks. But I also don't see the Sixers as being super cheap like some owners. They probably fall in the middle- to where it should not kill their chances at success.

But looking at the past 8 years, I think poor decisions have hurt the Sixers more than cheapness. Those trades for Big Dog and CWebb and the Brand signing were not moves of a frugal team... they just were unwise and crippling.

If their is one area where the Sixers financial view hurts them, it has been the far of bing really bad.had they embraced that when they moved AI, the transition would have been smoother.

If they had lost 5 more games that season they'd have Durant right now. Of course, if they'd lost 3 more games they'd have drafted Oden.

Yeah, I don't think you can look at individual picks. But you can look at mentality.

compare what Cleveland is doing right now to what the Sixers did when they lost AI.

I'm really not impressed with anything Cleveland is doing right now. They paid $41M for somewhere less than a 10% chance at the #1 pick in a really bad draft.

I don't think there's a whole lot of skill in being just god awful.

No skill, but they also have not spent 80M on a name 30 year old to avoid being horrible... which is how I would describe th Brand signing. Nor did they bring in an Andre Miller type with the goal of "getting playoff experience for the young guys."

Both of those characterizations are off. Miller wasn't brought in to make them better, he was just part of the deal. The fact that they finished that season strong was pretty much an accident. And the Brand signing wasn't about being good enough to be first round fodder, it was about making the next step. Didn't work out that way, obviously, but that was the intent.

CLE isn't exactly in a strong position to do anything but pay a lot of money to lose a lot of games. I guess the good news is they'll be in the lottery for several more years

user-pic
johnrosz reply to Brian on Jun 2 at 19:37
+/-

I think the Miller characterization is correct. King was intent on getting a solid vet in return for Iverson, rather than just accepting a bag of garbage and going all in on tanking.

I think Brand was brought in to make them a top 4 team in the East. That didn't work out obviously.

user-pic
Tray reply to Brian on Jun 2 at 20:19
+/-

Maybe GoSixers is right and the Brand signing was part of a Comcast conspiracy to just be good enough to make lots of first-round exits. Maybe Elton Brand has been replaced by a copy of Elton Brand (explaining why this Brand isn't nearly as good as the old one) who just funnels the money back to Comcast.

user-pic
tk76 reply to Brian on Jun 2 at 22:56
+/-

I disagree with you on Miller. They wanted to avoid being terrible, so they brought in a 30+ year old PG with 2.5 years of contract left so that he could "help the young guys develop."

Whether it was out of fear of losing or because that was they way they wanted to develop their team... either way it goes back to my main point... they do not know how a winner is built.

Same with Brand. You don't have a contender with a healthy Brand, Miller and Iguodala. You have a Atlanta type squad.... and they are wrong about how you build a winner. You go to the Finals with true superstars. Not with the "Pistons" strong roster model.

But they have been unable to trade for a Franchise player and they desperately try and avoid the basement- and yet were incompetent enough to get the #2 overall pick anyway.

Ownership has really only made one move for monetary reasons over the past four years, the Dalembert trade. You can probably make the case that letting Miller walk was in the same league, but to me there were basketball reasons for letting him go as well. The thing that worries me is that the Dalembert move was the last meaningful move they made, so the next one is either going to set a trend, or reverse it. I'd love to say "they'll spend money if it's to build a contender," but first I have to see them do something that isn't purely a financial move.

Firing Jordan was really more PR than anything, but I think hiring Collins to replace him (when there were much cheaper options out there) can be seen either way. They certainly got their money's worth out of Collins already, imo.

They made some other moves. they sold the #29 pick (Big Baby.)
They made a few small moves at the deadline to get under the tax that cost them a second rounder or some minor talent. But nothing major. Nothing like selling a top 20 pick or shipping out your prior #1 pick for tax relief.

user-pic
emtmess reply to Brian on Jun 2 at 15:31
+/-

I am just afraid of them "overpaying" for a higher pick that puts us in a worse position next year and the following years.

Here's what I think Thad's agent will look at, and try to make a case for him getting 11 million dollars. He's going to cherry pick other top bench guys around the league. I'm not saying it's right, but the NBA uses other contracts as a frame of reference, granted we have no idea what the CBA and the cap will look like:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&p1=youngth01&y1=2011&p2=terryja01&y2=2011&p3=crawfja01&y3=2011&p4=odomla01&y4=2011

Terry will make 11 miliion next year. Crawford is expiring like Thad, but he made 10 mil this year. Odom only makes 8 which is a rip when you think about it. Now when you look at those stats, Odom was by far the best player, and Thad was pretty far ahead of those other guys, even defensively. Now that I think of it, he'll probably leave Odom off it.

Hmmm, that's pretty interesting. What do you think the chances are that a team with cap room offers Thad that kind of deal?

Chances would be good under the old CA. Pretty slim under the new CBA.

On the bright side, no one is going to have to guess about it. He can't be signed until the new CBA is in place. Everyone will know what $11M/year is really worth before any offer is made for him. If the negotiations were taking place prior to the new CBA, you'd have to factor in the risk of "what if the cap drops."

I don't think the Sixers will pay 11 million per year on average for Thad. At least i hope they won't because that is a huge gamble under the new CBA. Thad is worth 7-8 million. I'd say a good comparison of what kind of contract he should get is the one Kendrick Perkins got by the Thunder. I'm fine with that kind of deal...

user-pic
Rich reply to Xsago on Jun 2 at 16:42
+/-

Oh I definitely agree. Actually, I think 6-7 Mil would be fine.

The funny thing is that even though we all know that individual stats don't tell the story all of the time, Lou looks like a steal at 5 mil compared to those two guys.

It is hard to judge Thad's value in isolation. If the Sixers ever got a dominant center where you can put Thad as your starting PF then I believe Thad would be an impact player.

The problem is the Sixers front court future is a disaster. So it is hard to make a major commitment to Thad when you know that could make it that much harder for them to go out and get the right kind of Center. But if they have something else in the works with an Iguodala trade, then it would be a different issue entirely.


for example, if the Sixers knew they were going to get Bynum for Iguodala + filler, then paying Thad makes a ton of sense. You would have Jrue/Turner/Thad/Bynum all 23 and under, and only need a jump shooting SF. However, if you don't have an answer at C then you are pretty much hosed, since you are caught between over-paying Thad or losing him for nothing.

But if -- when -- the salary cap decreases and if the league implements a hard cap in, say, three or four years, teams would be very reluctant to give Young what he may have received under the expiring CBA.

A hard cap is a pipe dream. They'll make it harder to go over the cap - but a hard cap won't ever be implemented.

The NBA had it's highest first game ratings in 7 years in miami/dallas. A hard cap distirbutes talent too much and that's BAD for the NBA as a whole, no matter what they say - dynastys/dominant teams draw fans in - to love or to hate them.

As far as thad's future - 3/4 years down the line is irrelevant and too speculative.

However, if the new CBA eliminates the MLE as some expect, that helps the sixers bargaining position because a lot of teams are eliminated from offering Thad even that much

user-pic
Rich reply to tk76 on Jun 2 at 16:55
+/-

I'm not sure a dominant center makes Thad that much better. Sure, that guy would better cover up for him defensively. I just don't really see how getting a guy like Bynum really makes Thad better offensively. I think a guy like Bynum makes Jrue, Turner, and Meeks better offensively.

First, I think it would take away touches from Thad, who was probably the Sixers #1 'easy points' guy. Throwing him the ball with an isolation at the foul line was basically the equivalent of getting a big guy the ball with his back to the basket. Also, this is speculation, but might a back to the basket guy kind of clog up his driving lanes? Our main bigs (EB and Hawes) did do one thing collectively well: Space the floor.

I'm not looking for Thad to be that much better. I am looking for a way where you can have him on the floor 30+ minutes a game without harming the team's defense. If you can start him at PF he will be able to blow by 95% of his defenders- which is good offense, that should only get better over the next few years.

In terms of spacing, Thad gets isolated 18 feet from the basket. So it is different than someone who works on the low block and needs spacing. And one are where Thad has improved, and should continue to improve is his passing off the dribble. Say he beats his man and is driving down the lane. If Bynum's man leaves him that opens up an easy pass or an O-Board.

I fully agree that Young can be a legit starter if paired with the right C next to him. And by the right C i mean a C that can rebound the ball extremely well on the defensive end and can compensate for perhaps the only weakness, that Thad has, that is a serious issues of he is a starter. I'm not that concerned with his grasp of team defense, because i feel he has improved in the area greatly and will only continue to do so.

user-pic
Cin reply to tk76 on Jun 2 at 22:19
+/-

This is why I put Thads worth at 4yr/35mil. DC made an accurate observation of Thad midway through the season: he gets exhausted. There is an optimal amount of minutes for Thad before his legs get shaky and it's probably around 28-30. If we're paying by projected minutes instead of projected role (starting 3 with AI out/starting 4 with right guy at 5) then he should be paid as a hybrid starter/6th man a la Odom. Anything more and you keep a guy who will definitely help you win but it won't be a financially responsible move in building your roster.

user-pic
Tom Moore on Jun 2 at 17:55
+/-

Sixers to work out Temple's Lavoy Allen, Philly native Rick Jackson on Saturday:

http://ow.ly/58WSH

I basically agree with this entire post. I like Thad, but fear he will be overpaid. He had a great season but looked very pedestrian in the playoffs.

...so i am the only person wondering how soon Shaq will show up in a Heat jersey for this series? Anyways here's a quality RIP Shaq video featuring a former friend of ours:

Lakers To Hang Shaq’s No. 34 Jersey At Staples Center http://t.co/4S2nFmM via @AddThis

Didn't the Sixers trade Lee Nailon and a 2nd round pick to Cleveland for a conditional 2nd round pick that they never received? That trade, the Dalembert trade and the 2007 draft pick trades are the only ones in which I thought that management was cheap. Dalembert trade makes me cringe when I think about it, but the other trades didn't seem so bad.It's not like the Sixers traded 2 first round draft picks for Kurt Thomas.

I don't think the Webber trade was that bad financially. We were done with his contract in 07, while SAC was still paying Kenny Thomas 9 mill last year.

TK

I can't respond at the top but you lose credibility with me when you say weber wsn't a frugal move - it saved two years salary AND they bought his ass out.

Of course it was frugal - in the long term - it got rid of long term contracts earlier.

user-pic
tk76 reply to GoSixers on Jun 2 at 22:46
+/-

I honestly think they made the Webber trade because the thought that it made "Basketball sense." It was their last gasp effort to win with AI, and it did not hurt that it helped line up their long term contracts so they expired the same year. That is not being cheap, it is being smart.

Webber was reigning Western conference player of the month when they traded for him. They truly thought he would help them win games...

They thought adding a PF who didn't go into the low post would help Iverson?

Billy King was stupider than I thought

user-pic
Rallo reply to GoSixers on Jun 2 at 23:58
+/-

You also have to remember that at that time they were only one game from the #3 seed. They may have thought that adding Webber would have been enough to edge out the Celtics and be able to compete with Detroit.

And letting miller walk was financial

They offered him one year because two causes a luxury tax problem

Who was better: Marion in his prime or Igoudala?

Marion. He had a 3-5 year stretch where he was unbelievable.


Expand/Contract all comments

Leave a comment


back-to-story.gif