DFDepressed FanDepressed Fan



, all the time

Bynum Is the Only Answer

The Spurs is not pure luck and to dismiss it as such does them a disservice - the spurs smartly played europe and 'stashing picks' long before anyone thought of it - they were the early 2000s A's - they went fishing in the ocean that was being ignored - yes duncan and robinson are great - but do they win titles without being able to smartly get tony parker and manu ginobli? I'm not sure they do.

As for Bynum, The fact that there are clauses you can put in contracts regarding playing time make me more on the fence about it - I don't know clearly what you can and can't do in regards to salary. Honestly - I'd offer him a max deal, for 5 years - but only if each year is triggered by x amount of games being played and he only gets paid for games he plays (can you do that?)

I mean Derrell Revis signed a 96 million dollar contract reportedly yesterday with not a single dollar guaranteed. My loath of guaranteed contracts as one of the worst things hampering professional sports isn't new - but when you see something like that you have to wonder how much 'better' it would be for teams to be able to correct mistakes...

I think you're drawing a conclusion regarding the #1 pick and city location a bit early by the way - I mean, Cleveland isn't only 'not' a premier city - it's a pit - a god awful pit of a city (who by the way has reached out to phil jackson to talk about him working there - please tell me the sixers will at least make a phone call to the guy)

A 5 year non-guaranteed max sounds great on paper, but i seriously doubt it's something Bynum would even consider. He'll do what every other injury riddled player does - go for the guaranteed money first. And i am fairly sure there will be a team that will give him at least 30-40 million guaranteed.

Also, i am absolutely against giving Phil Jackson front office power. That is probably the worst thing they can possibly do. What's the point of getting rid of Collins, if you want to replace him with an even older old school win now guy? It would be Larry Brown 2.0 - just worse. And lets face it Jackson only wants to return to coaching in the NBA if it comes as a package with major front office power, and i am not even sure it's about personnel decisions only.

buke reply to Xsago on Apr 22 at 13:47

I don't crave Phil Jackson as a coach, but to suggest that Larry Brown was bad for the Sixers is ludicrous. Many of you guys either have historical amnesia or you're very susceptible to group brainwashing.

Larry Brown was bad for the sixers in terms of LONG TERM planning that's absolutely true. He'll built a roster incapable of getting better and deserted like a rat from a sinking ship (hence my nickname for him) leaving the ownership to think that Billy King was a capable GM - short term - yeah he won - but the team was screwed when he left.

As for whether or not Phil Jackson would be good for a front office, xsago's comments in my mind are so far off the mark and demonstrate no understanding of the type of phil jackson has at least presented himself to be.

I expect that Xasago probably thought letting pat riley run a front office was a bad idea too

Just because Riley and Jackson coached the Lakers and are great coaches doesn't mean you can compare them as executives.

There is a huge difference in letting Riley with solid health at the age of 55 or so (not sure when exactly he assumed the role of GM for the Heat, but it was in the early 2000s) to run your team and a completely different one to let Jackson at the age of 68 with suspect health to start the same. Jackson is not going to stay with the team for more than 2-3 years regardless of how good he can be (reasons: age, health, boredom... you name it). And if you think he can miraculously lift this team to contender status during that span (without Bynum), sorry, but you are delusional. The team as of right now has almost no assets, owes 2 1st round draft picks, and to top it all off, there are no star free agents who Jackson could supposedly persuade to join the team.

The fact that i don't think hiring Jackson is a good idea has nothing to with his ability and everything to do with his reality and the need for stability. What the team needs is a front office that will be here for the next decade executing a patient long term plan. Jackson can't possibly be that.

Actually - Jackson and Riley being from the lakers had nothing to do with my thinking - just the one great coach who came to mind as a great front office guy.

Jackson doesn't have life threatening health issues - he's got knee / back issues - ever see the guy who ran the bull while they were dominant - he was a fat slob poised to have a heart attack every day...

Phil Jackson coming to the sixers in the front office would lend a cache to the franchise that MAYBE helps offset the terrible weather, night life, fan reputation for a guy deciding between two teams with the same contract value.

Phil Jackson is a very smart man - your presumption that he wouldn't be good in a front office is just absurd in my opinion

Did you even read my posts? I never said Jackson can't be good in a front office. He has never had any true front office power for us to know how good he would be, there is no point arguing about that.

All i said is he won't be part of a front office long enough to matter. There is simply nothing he can do in those 2-3 years to make them an instant contender. If he is really good at his job he will make them slightly better than mediocre. And he most certainly won't join a front office so he can embrace tanking. How does that help the Sixers?

You seriously underestimate his age and health issues. The man is about to hit 70. Knee and back issues can be extremely crippling, sometimes even life threatening to anyone of that age.

You know who was the last smart guy that got a FO position at Jackson's age on a mediocre team? Rod Thorn

Larry Brown was a great coach, but he was terrible at making personnel decisions. I am only referring to his impact on personnel decisions here not his coaching.

buke reply to buke on Apr 22 at 14:11

Larry Brown coached the Sixers for six years. He came to the team during their worst period of years in the modern era. In his first year, the team improved by nine wins. During the next five years they went to the playoffs five times, won the opening series all but once, and reached the NBA finals once. Larry Brown was clearly the best Sixers coach since Cunningham. What do you expect for a Sixers' coach? It's not his primary responsibility to insure that the franchise is successful after he leaves.

I think in terms of the real comparative world, not the one of romantic dreams.

No - you live in the short term world of cutting off your nose to spite your face - which is fine - but other people have the right to take the longer view and say that Brown was terrible at roster management - because he was - not to mention his bipolar megalomaniac personality that made him hot on a guy - forcing billy king to trade for him and then hating hi a week later.

Larry Brown is all about larry brown - he cares about nothing else but larry brown - which is why he left when he knew the team was doomed - took that pre built nba title team ready made for him - and feels no remorse about the disparate state the sixers were left in by his impulsive moves.

He's a fine coach but he never should have been making personell decisions - and he was - and everyone knows it

buke reply to GoSixers on Apr 22 at 14:26

You just bloviate reflexively, don't you?

Larry Brown inherited Iverson who he more or less had to keep. Then he proceeded to build a team that was Iverson surrounded by blue collar players and that was the only team of Iverson's career that was truly successful.

Now stop arguing with me. You never win anyway and I have work to do.

Here's my question for you. If one ping pong ball lands differently in that draft, the Sixers get Tim Duncan and the Spurs get Keith Van Horn, how many championships does San Antonio have right now? More importantly, does San Antonio even have an NBA team right now? All that late-draft prowess and euro stashing is meaningless if they don't luck into Duncan.

Well sure - we've had the discussion the other way before - because iverson and duncan would have won titles - but would duncan have STAYED to play with Iverson - in a city with such avid and aggressive (and lacking much grace) sports fan base as Philadelphia?

Of course - one could argue - how many titles do the spurs win with just duncan and without tony parker and manu ginobli and numerous other smart moves the spurs have made in the past decade - look how long they've been relevant - that's not JUST duncan

You seem determined to take this stand and for whatever reason it's important ot you so I'm going to let you have it - I just think much of the foundation you are building it on is flimsier than a republican gun control law

Ryan reply to GoSixers on May 7 at 10:27

Yes. Iverson and Duncan would've won multiple championships together and Duncan would've stayed because he would've been embraced as a god.

Tray reply to Brian on May 9 at 23:06

The Spurs' drafting geniuses would have picked Van Horn? Maybe they would've picked T-Mac. He went 9th.

Alex Nguyen on Apr 22 at 12:40

I 100% agree with this post. I do not want Al Jefferson. A healthy Al Jefferson could take us no where near a healthy Bynum. I've been telling every Sixers fan exactly what this post is trying to so. You have to take risks if you want to contend.

You have to take intelligent risks, maxing out bynum without any kind of insurance against his injuries and then you're the knicks with Amare Stoudemire (and I wonder if there's a chance with his knee injury if insurance companies won't insure the next Bynum contract)

BTW - not for nothing - Bynum also has to want to come back to the sixers

Regarding the primary proposal of this thread, my response is "shit on that!"

buke reply to Hobbes on Apr 22 at 13:49


Bynum is a clown. This guy sat out an entire season with a bone bruise. Early in the year he said if they were important games he would be playing, and then proceeded not to play the rest of the year. There's no denying he's got major talent, but from the standpoint of attitude, will, leadership, Bynum is a complete fail. If I was an owner, after the way he acted this season, I would never give him a max contract.

Dwight Howards a clown, a bit of a cry baby, acts like a child and needs his ego stroked a lot

Would you sign him to a max contract?

buke reply to GoSixers on Apr 22 at 13:43

No I would not. He's an impressive physical specimen, but, in case you haven't noticed, the records of his teams throughout his career are far less visually impressive (only one really good year actually). Although he put up some good numbers in Sunday's playoff game, 37 year old Tim Duncan still made him look bad on multiple occasions.

Also, in case you haven't noticed, imposing centers don't quite carry the same weight that they once did in this game.

And in case you haven't noticed, basketball is a team sport, and when you have mediocre talent around you you can only go so far (or in the case of this year, a coach too stupid to know how to use you and pau gasol properly).

buke reply to GoSixers on Apr 22 at 13:58

Well, you've just answered your own previous question and not in the way that you expected. If signing a max contract center can't help the Lakers (with their level of assembled talent) do better than get the 8th playoff spot, then why should the Sixers pursue that strategy?

The lakers have not yet signed a max contract center, and even if they do, if they don't fire the coach, they have issues in their front office that are bigger than dwight howard (jim buss is an idiot).

However, you seem to be saying you'd be ok with a team making the playoffs with no chance of winning a title because there are 'other things' to watch. To me sports is about winning titles, if you aren't building towards contending winning a title, or if you don't have ownership that cares about winning titles, why bother having the team. You don't have to contend every year, but I'd like to be able to root for a team that at least has a plan beyond 'oh boy let's keep losing in the first round or maybe get lucky with a teams best player tearing his ACL and then make it seem like we are better than we are'

Rich reply to buke on Apr 22 at 14:09

One good year? Surely you don't mean just that year they made the finals. They were even better the next year, when they ultimately bowed out to Boston in the ECF. Besides him, those teams were far more impressive schematically and how the pieces fit than their overall talent. Considering your "worthwhile things" take below, Dwight Howard made the Magic worthwhile for half a decade.

Now if you don't think he'll ever get back to the same level physically, that's different.

buke reply to Rich on Apr 22 at 14:15

He wasn't the only one. In the year the Sixers lost to them in the playoffs (2009) I thought Hedo deserved at least as much credit for that run. Rashad Lewis was pretty critical that year, too.

Still dreaming only of the ultimate riches, huh? Personally, I'd rather the team work on getting good (or closer to the truth, respectable) for the immediate future and work on getting better than that later. You wrote last week that moving from 34 wins to the playoffs is no big deal. Well that view rests on the assumption that the team doesn't move in the other direction first.

I don't particularly crave Al Jefferson either, but the choice between Al Jefferson and a high risk Bynum isn't the only choice. This isn't simply a matter of "positions." The team needs to upgrade its overall level of play and that involves multiple positions as well as how those multiple positions work together on the court.

You seem to carry the philosophies of Ayn Rand into the sports world. The only people who matter are high priced stars. Everybody else is just a plebian hanger-on and parasite. Utterly predictable and always looking for that simplistic secret formula.

The season is 82 games long and then over half the league goes into the playoffs. If the Sixers don't win that ultimate series for the indefinite future, I'll still be OK with them as long as there are plenty of worthwhile things to see in those other 82 to 100 games.

Well, there were plenty of worthwhile things to see this season. If that's your bar, it doesn't matter what they do. And your theory of assembling better pieces would be great if there was no cap and people actually wanted to play in Philly. Unfortunately, no one wants to play in Philly and paying a premium for decent pieces to generally raise the level of play of the entire roster takes you out of the game when you're trying to acquire the centerpiece, either via draft, trade or free agency.

I agree quite a bit with this post actually. I don't think it's as black and white as you described it, but it does shed light to the key questions when building a championship contender.

I fully agree with the idea of signing Bynum to a contract with incentives based on games played. In theory it prevents the team from overspending on mediocre talent and giving the team a shot at a title in the foreseeable future. Of course there is the risk of Bynum never being the player he was with the Lakers, or him playing only 30-40 games of the regular season and none in the playoffs each year, making the team mediocre again. But as you very well put it, you need luck to win a championship in the NBA, and high risk/reward moves must be made.

Of course there is the chance that simply Bynum doesn't want to play for the Sixers, or more likely, simply plans to sign the contract with the most guaranteed money on the table. And i don't think giving him a contract with multiple guaranteed years is a good idea.

I'm not sure you can go after other free agents, assuming the Sixers have max cap space, before renouncing Bynum's bird rights, but if they do i would definitely go after Howard first. Regardless of his shortcomings, he would fit perfectly with the current Sixers core and would definitely make them a contender. I love Paul as a player, but i'd be extremely careful with any contract i would offer him. He has serious injury issues himself, and i am almost certain that they will have major impact on his game sooner rather than later. He could be the next Bynum. If they can't achieve any of these three options, they must focus on gathering draft picks and assets. One of the keys, for this ownership is making Philadelphia a premier market (which is possible), but they may not be in a position to go in that direction next season. In that case, they better wait and prepare for later.

What about the scenario in which Bynum comes back healthy but his knee injuries have slowed him down and made him a less effective player? What if you're getting a player that is only as effective as Nene? That would make you a mediocre team, with not salary cap and no chance to improve.

buke reply to Stan on Apr 22 at 14:20


And in addition to being less effective, he might need periodic stretches of rest, so he only plays 50 games in the season.

I'll answer this way: There might be a 50% chance that they sign Bynum and his injuries suddenly turn him into a player like Al Jefferson. That's a risk. There's a 0% chance that Al Jefferson is going to turn into Andrew Bynum if you sign him.

That is entirely possible. Hence the need for non-guaranteed contract, incentives and team options.

Another reason not to aim for the draft is that most lottery teams don't even land a major star. What are the realistic chances we would even get a lebron or duncan if we tanked near the bottom? To get a good chance at a top pick you first have to be one of the absolute worst teams in the league. Then, even if the team is so bad it ends up in last place you most likely don't get the top pick due to the ping pong system. Then even if you get a top pick you need to hope your top pick doesn't turn out like kwame, etc. There are so many things that have to go right to try to build that way, and as Brian explained even getting a once in a lifetime player didn't win cleveland the championship. Drafting is important, especially in finding guys like thad young and jrue who can be big contributors later in the draft, but aiming for years of low draft picks isn't a great strategy.

A lot of good stuff in here Brian. I completely agree with your points about taking risks, premier markets, and honestly understand why you'd still want to roll the dice with Bynum. I think his health is too risky, but there is still certainly an argument to be made to keeping him, and you more or less made it here.

Where I disagree is your analysis of building through the draft. Saying LeBron's Cleveland teams and the current Thunder "haven't won anything" and then advocating signing Bynum because when healthy he could make the Sixers a Top-4 seed sort of feels like you're judging the teams on different criteria depending on the paths they take. Like I would sign up to be the Thunder or be the Cavs during LeBron's era in a heartbeat. Hell, I'd even want to be the Magic with a young Dwight, as they had a real chance as well. They are and were title contenders, with legitimate chances to win it all. I think that's all you can ask.

There's obviously major risk in tanking as well. With the type of draft we have next year and Turner and Hawes still on the books, I think there, rather than Bynum, would be where I'd push my chips in. But yeah, no trying to build through free agency unless it's Bynum.

I see what you're saying about the bars. I consider LeBron and Durant to be generational players. My point about them was even when you hit the lottery like that, get the right guy, the odds of it working out and leading to a title are still pretty low. San Antonio made it work because they hit the lottery twice, they got a guy who was happy to be in SA and then they drafted well late in the first round. If OKC makes it work, it's because they stayed bad enough for a couple years after getting that guy, which really shouldn't happen. They got lucky that Durant blew his rookie year. Either way, if your bar is contention (which it probably should be), then I still put the odds of Bynum playing higher than I put of the Sixers winning the lottery in the right year, and more importantly, you can compound the odds in your favor by signing him. If he's injury plagued, nothing is stopping you from tanking, in fact it would be easier w/ him on the books than without if he's a complete waste.

Rich reply to Brian on Apr 22 at 15:11

It all depends on where you value Bynum's health to be at going forward, which for any of us is nothing more than a guess. I just have trouble seeing a big guy with bad knees getting to the point where he's healthy enough to carry a team. Good point about possibly tanking anyway if Bynum gets hurt, though. I hadn't thought about it.

The other point that probably shapes people's thinking is their viewpoint on the upcoming drafts. Next year has a chance to include a generational guy and a bunch of other All Stars. I'd very much like to get in the Top 5. Similar to Bynum's health, a lot of guesswork and projection goes into those assessments.

Tray reply to Brian on Apr 22 at 16:52

Yeah but you're assuming that if Bynum does play, our chances of winning a title are equivalent to what our chances would be if we won the lottery, and then concluding that the Bynum route to contention is better because the chances of his being healthy exceed the chances of winning the lottery. And I think Rich is saying no, we'd very possibly just be a top 4 seed if Bynum played and was healthy. I'm sure you'd at least agree that Bynum is not quite a generational talent and that a Bynum-led team may well turn out to have a certain ceiling that a team built around a generational talent does not.

I think the odds of winning a title or competing for one in the span of a contract Bynum would sign are higher than the odds of winning a title with a generational talent the Sixers draft in his time here before he bolts for LA. Signing Bynum has the added benefit of beginning the clock this season, instead of some indeterminate date when they actually win the lottery in the right year. Or come in second in the year when Greg Oden is the consensus #1 pick, for example.

Greg reply to Tray on Apr 22 at 16:58

Without shaq in the nba nowadays i beleive bynum could make us a very hard team to beat. Not at the same level of shaq but the competition at his position is not very much.

Rich reply to Tray on Apr 22 at 17:21

Yeah, the Bynum decision has two questions attached to it:

1. Is he going to be healthy for any sustained period of time?
2. How strong of a team can you build around Bynum if he is fact healthy? I don't think he'll ever be as dominant a piece as Dwight was from 08-11, so you're going to have to a build a better team around him than Otis Thorpe did in Orlando. That probably requires saying adios to Thad and nailing two things (a free agent swingman, and a couple of draft picks in the late teens/early 20s).

Everything has risks.

That depends on what how you want to define dominance - Both healthy at 100% Andrew Bynum is a much better offensive player (in my opinion) than Dwight Howard while Howard is the better defensive player (though if he learned how to block shots even smarter he'd be even better) - but both of them have had the kind of injuries that tend to recur and hobble you - so which is more likely - howard has no more back issues and returns to form or bynum has no more new injuries and returns to form? I think Howard is more likely to come back to form - I don't think either of them will improve any aspect of their game any more as they don't show the kind of dedication and work ethic to improving their weakness guys like Kobe and Lebron do

Rich reply to GoSixers on Apr 22 at 17:38

I was talking about Howard's dominance from 08-11. You could argue back then that Dwight was better than Bynum on offense as well.

Going forward, I don't think Bynum will even come close as a player to what Dwight was when Orlando was a contender. So the team around him is going to have to be that much better that what Thorpe put together. Not an impossible task, but there would need to be some major overhaul from what they have right now.

I'm not sure you could argue that Dwight was better offensively than bynum back then - but he was more focal - Bynum was on a team not built around him - we'd never really know what Bynum looked like on a team built around his strengths as opposed to Kobe's - Dwight's offensive game never really was about finesse - it was more of the shaq i'm stronger and bigger than you - just not as good as shaqs. Bynum has/had more in his arsenal than dwight - he just didn't get the opportunities

Rich reply to GoSixers on Apr 22 at 18:04

Dwight was slapping together about 20 PPG with a +.60 TS% pretty routinely. People tend to forget that he would do a ton of damage on pick and rolls, not to mention how much the simple threat of him rolling to the basket helped all of those shooters. At the very least, they were close. If Bynum is healthy right now, I think he ages better because he's less reliat on his athleticism.

There is certainly something to be said about Bynum never being the focal point of the offense, a sort of great unknown. But there's also something to be said that he played against a ton of backup big men in his career. And there's also the fact that regardless if they weren't funneling the ball to him, there was a lot of offensive talent on those teams. It would be interesting to see how Bynum handles being the main guy in an offense (I think he'd do pretty well, actually) but with that newfound freedom also comes great responsibility.

Uncle Ben - is that you?:)

Charlie H reply to Rich on Apr 22 at 18:26

IMO, Bynum was (is?) a better offensive player than Howard ever was.

Greg reply to Rich on Apr 22 at 16:46

Yeah, if a losing record would get us lebron i would tank in a heartbeat, but what are the chances that will happen? How many teams are bad for a decade fishing for that player with no success. I'd think our chances with Bynum sound better.

SixersRising on Apr 22 at 14:26

I agree with Brian's post completely.

Signing Bynum is your only insurance to make certain that the Sixers either have the talent to become relevant - or effectively tank. I don't believe for a moment that with Collins gone this same group will win as many games as they did this year.

If the worst happens, with Bynum taking up that much cap space, the Sixers will get bad enough to get a top 3 pick in each draft that he doesn't play for a season.

You have to take the chance - the most depressing outcome I can imagine is sitting around watching Bynum get the Dallas Mavs to the Western finals two years in a row because we didn't have the guts to see this through.

Also, you need to try and sign him quickly. The very worst case is trying a long process to wait it out and see how affordable a contract you can get based on the market for him - then lose him and have everyone other decent free agent already signed somewhere. That's what happened to the Flyers defense this year and it's not fun to watch the results.

Bynum didn't play this year and the sixers couldn't 'effectively' tank because they stil have some talent on the roster - they'd have to dump jrue and thaddeus young to effectively tank

True, but i think you underestimate the impact of the coach here. I think Collins squeezed out as many wins as possible out of this group. It's extremely unlikely that the next coach, in his first season, will be able to win as many, unless the players show some major improvement. Scratch 4-5 wins out of the Sixers record this season and you have a team that has the 7th worst record. Add the couple of additional losses they'd have because they won't be actively trying to win late in the season and you can effectively a bottom 5 team, which is all that is needed.

Bynum basically had only had two jobs this year, to work himself back toward playing condition and to show up for an interview like once a week with the media. He was a failure on both. The Sixers bought him that special treadmill so he could run without impacting his knees and he was still like twenty pounds overweight late in the year.
And that whole thing when he actually bothered to show up for media availability with half his hair done, as a fan I guess it was tragically funny, but if I was a general manager, I would look at that as a sign of complete disrespect.

Bynum is the only answer to the question, who is the longest lamprey in the NBA?

The idea of the Sixers signing him for another bloodletting is absurd, asinine, revolting, ridiculous and - considering the organization's brain trust - a blockhead or two away from probable.

"The idea of the Sixers signing him for another bloodletting is absurd, asinine, revolting, ridiculous and - considering the organization's brain trust - a blockhead or two away from probable."

Well, then, I would say that they should add a few more blockheads to the front office. The more blockheads' hands the deal must go through, the greater the chance of someone dropping the ball and the deal not getting done.

Point taken. That's diving deeper into the sea.

I trust in this regime's rudimentary basketball knowledge and slavering greed. He'll be back if he can hold his nose and jump on a court with Spencer, Lavoy and Kwame.

I think the "safest" play for the Sixers is probably tanking next season and live with whatever they get from next year's draft. After that try to acquire as much talent as possible, from next offseason onwards. If the draft pick becomes a star and makes the team a contender great, if not you can still try to become a contender with trades and free agency.

What team has become a contender with trades and free agency?

George Allen's Redskins.

It's never only trades and free agency, but you can make the case for the majority of the championship teams. Boston got Garnett and Allen through trades, Miami got Lebron and Bosh in free agency, the Lakers got Gasol via trade and Shaq in free agency etc.

To become a contender you need multiple things to go right not just one. Usually it's a combination of drafting well 2-3 times, signing a good cheap free agent and making a smart trade or two. Most importantly you need luck though.

Anyway my point is, that tanking for too long is not really a recipe for eventual success, and you stated some of the reasons above. But i think, a targeted "tank job" in the right year, followed by aggressive acquisition of talent probably produces the highest chance the Sixers end up with a contender within the next 5-6 years, maybe even a decade. I'm just talking probability here, there is no sure thing.

Boston. Miami. Los Angeles. Not Cleveland, Memphis, Milwaukee. Not in today's game. And not Philly, either.

I didn't disagree with the premise that the market comes first. However, having a big market is not prerequisite to good, smart trades. It makes life easier, but it's not like good players are always asked where they want to be traded. It has much more to do with free agency. Also, i think Philly as a market is not a lost cause. There is potential there and with the proper plan in place Philly can become an intriguing market for free agents.

And most importantly in the "safe plan" that i laid out when i said pursue talent aggressively i didn't necessarily mean stars. Any good players on reasonable contracts would do. If the drafted player becomes a franchise player great, if not, you can try and make a contender with multiple good players, but no top 5 players, for a few years. The chance of becoming a contender that way might be better than the chance you get lucky in bad drafts year after year among a dozen hopefuls.

Not a prerequisite to good, smart trades. But it's a prerequisite to magic pill trades. Unless you're willing to rent a guy and cross your fingers. Even then, teams who can re-sign the guy are probably going to be willing to pay more than you are, unless you're really willing to take a risk.

There is always risk involved. And overpaying is not always a terrible thing. It depends on the context, on the situation the team is at the time. Overpaying, when you are one piece away does make sense.

The best player the Cavs were even rumored to be in the hunt for when they had LeBron in trade talks was Amare, as a lame duck, with uninsurable knees. And they should've done it. They should've taken the shot, because a trade like that is the only shot you get if you don't play in LA, etc.

Well - the celtics weren't really a contender until they got Garnett and Ray Allen?

The Knicks are better than the sixers, that's trades and free agency

The Lakers, trades and free agency - kobe alone doesn't win titles

There's a lot of teams actually out there that are better than the sixers who got better through free agency and trades - the sixers (sadly) just got worse by free agency and trades :)

Every team you just listed is in a premier market.

Not sure how you are defining 'premier' market - but if Boston is one - so is Philadelphia

With Boston it's a historical thing. 17 championships trumps "3rd most playoff appearances!"

Then you and I are defining premier differently - most modern NBA players have no sense of history (or style or common sense)

We'll see if it holds true going forward, but I'm pretty sure KG knew who Bill Russell was.

Dude - if KG can sign his own name I'd be impressed - and besides - he didn't sign as a free agent - he was traded there

in fact boston built their championship by sucking and accumulating talent and picks that could be parlayed into quality type players from teams going nowhere = yes they had pierce and drafted rondo - but without the trades they wouldn't have won titles '

I have to wonder - in a larger pictures - is this dearth of talent coming out of college a cycle thing or is basketball losing steam because of how messed up it is at the lower levels

KG's trade was contingent on an extension, which he agreed to sign. Same thing.

KG wasn't the only one who helped Boston win a title.

Hell - the boston trade is part of what made OKC/Seattle what they are now.

Personally I think all of this is academic cause the new owners are not any more impressive than the Snyder regime.

(Not for nothing, but I think sports leagues should find a way to make the state income benefit some teams have accounted for - hell - if a state wants to help its sports teams it should pass a ruling regarding sports salaries, cause that's an unfair competitive advantage)

Eh. The trade helped OKC get bad, but the only asset they got they then turned into Kendrick Perkins, which doesn't seem like such a big win to me.

Eh. The trade helped OKC get bad,

Yes - and what did being bad at the right time get OKC - it was a trade made with tanking in mind

ojr107 reply to Brian on Apr 22 at 16:41

and wilt chamberlain.

And Dr J - cause no offense to bill russell - but I'm betting the modern player knows Dr J a lot more than than they know Russell. I think the whole 'history' thing has very little to do with it, and I think it's the biggest stretch in Brian's argument to why Boston is 'premier' and Philadelphia is not.

The argument has been made by many that Philadlephia is a great basketball city - and it is - when the team doesn't suck - philadlephia is one of the best bandwagon sports towns around

Like I said, we'll see what happens going forward. I think walking a guy through the garden so he can see Bird's jersey and Russell's jersey, and a ton of banners is a better sales tool than offering him a piece of the court Wilt scored 100pts on. Or saying he's going to continue a great tradition that lasted one year 30 years ago.

Not to mention the fact that the league has ALWAYS rammed the Celtics down our throats. Even when they were bad Lakers/Celtics would always be the national game on Sundays. The Sixers haven't played a Sunday game since Iverson's prime.

See - I think you're wrong - i think you're thinking how you or I would think - but we are from a different generation than they are - I don't htink history matters as much - and the history that matters is the jordan era forward more than bird and magic and julius let alone russell...this is the era of the individual, of the slam dunk, of the AAU gifts coming from everywhere - lebron is a throw back - he's an exception

You have to be able to look at it through their eyes as to how they'll see it and I think you look at it through your eyes which come from an entirely different place with your sense of history

Pat Riley - big deal cause he was the show time lakers in LA - that's a cache in Miami - do you think Larry Bird made anyone think instead of going to Indiana? I think Jackson is more of the Riley cache than the bird non cache - that's just me

Yeah, and Garnett is my age. He saw Bird/Magic growing up. And Bird/Magic were the story of the 80's, not Dr. J and Moses. We'll see if it translates going forward, and pretty quickly, too.

Wow - he's older than I thought - for some reason I just thought he was early 30s - i've still got him beat by half a decade but man

Using Garnett to make your point is like those people who point to the pistons and say 'well look they didn't have any super stars so it can be done' - (and just like that argument which ignores how many very very good players were on that team you're ignoring ray allen and dismiss how the ray allen trade helped okc build their franchise) - There are better ways to do things - throwing money away on Bynum (fi you think that's what it is) makes no sense - guaranteeing him anything more than one season is financial folly

I'm not ignoring the Ray Allen trade. I never said Seattle didn't tank to get Durant. What I said is what they did is not repeatable. Or to be more accurate, it's less likely that what they did could be repeated than it is Bynum will be healthy and lead this team to a playoff run or two.

Winning the lottery jackpot three seasons in a row is how OKC got to the elite level. Three seasons in a row. And they did it with the #2 pick, the #4 pick and the #3 pick. It wasn't even just lucky ping pong balls. It was lucky ping pong balls plus the teams in front of them blowing some picks.

So yeah, trading Ray Allen (who was really a hobbled shooter at that point) helped them get bad. Excellent job on their part. Getting monumentally lucky three years in a row, though. That's not repeatable. It's really not even repeatable to get a true generational talent and even wind up at the top of the lottery the next two seasons unless your star isn't a star early on.

Stan reply to Brian on Apr 22 at 18:10

KG re-signed with the Celtics because he was joining a team with Ray Allen and Paul Pierce. Not because he wanted to play for the same team that Bill Russell and Larry Bird once played for. Garnett was 32 when the trade went down and had just wasted 12 years of his life in Minnesota. If the same opportunity had presented itself for KG in Houston, Philadelphia, Washington, or Golden State, KG would have jumped on it.

Yes, I agree, we are set up perfectly to tank next season: no coach, half a GM, Hawes, Turner, Lavoy, Kwame, trade Thad for a pick and sign Nick Young for 1 year and then we are worse than Charlotte. I dream of Wiggins, but the whole top 5 is supposed to be awesome next year.

Re-signing Bynum is a guaranteed disastr. There is no risk. His knees have completely degenerated and once your at the point like Bynum there is no going back. The guy has played one year in the NBA "healthy" if you want to call it that and it was a lockout year which required him to get all these surgeries as soon as it was over. Bynum will never play over 20 games in an NBA season again and surely won't be a threat for the playoffs. The Sixers got owned on that deal, time to move on.

What the Sixers need to do to contend is this!
1) Hire some halfwit coach to pretty much just fill in this season.
2) Give Jrue and Thad plenty of time off with "injuries" in the coming year.
3) keep the roster as is aside from that which means letting someone else deal with Bynum and no mid tier free agents like Josh Smith/Al JEfferson until the next year to pair with your new core.

The next year will be absolutely terrible to watch, but it is the best road to a championship. From that eventual trainwreck you will now have.

a) a TOP draft pick in maybe the best draft since 03. Get Andrew Wiggins or Jabari Parker.
b) PLENTY of cap space with the rest of these atrocious deals like Hawes coming off the cap. Use this to sign QUALITY free agents like Dirk/Martin Gortat/Iguodala to pair with your now core of Wiggins/Holiday/Young.
C)Hire your real fucking head coach. Stan Van Gundy anyone?

This is the best route to relevance, but the Sixers can't pussy out from that first year. You are definetly banking on that top pick, but this is the NBA.

That might work. I have a tough time sitting two young guys for long stretches w/ phantom injuries for tanking purposes. This is pretty much the palatable version of the argument I'm waiting for pro-tankers to make. Jrue and Thad need to have season-ending, but not career-threatening injuries for a year or two, then come back once the team wins the lottery a couple of times at full strength.

Diesel reply to Brian on Apr 22 at 15:17

The Cavs did it this year with Irving/Varejao who are comparable to Jrue/Thad. I'm pretty certain Irving could have played through a ton of his "injuries" this year.

I was still a kid when David Robinson missed the year for the Spurs to draft Duncan, but it worked well for that franchise in that scenario as well.

From everything I can see the 2014 draft looks to be one of those amazing drafts. These don't come around too often so if your a middle of the pack team this is your shot to go all in.

I didn't find it palatable w/ the Cavs this year, either. And I also question whether Irving will ever be able to put together a full season, as should everyone else.

This pretty much mirrors my reasoning except for the sitting of players with imaginary injuries.

Unfortunately, this isn't exactly how the NBA works for various reasons and it's extremely difficult to pull of properly:
- No team will sit his players on purpose for prolonged period of time.
- No GM can justify hiring a terrible coach.
- A terrible coach will hinder the development of the players already on the team.
- The team must spend some money to meet the minimum threshold
- When tanking, the most you can guarantee yourself is a top 5-6 pick. You cannot make sure you get Wiggins or Parker. You might end up with a lesser talent.

These issues can be overcome, but it's not going to be easy at all. There is a lot of luck involved.

I agree with the idea that re-signing Bynum is the direction that they should (I would) go. It's a road out of the NBA's middle class - upside to be a good team, downside of being a really bad team. You won't get a meaningful free agent with that money.

The info about the 1984 draft is incorrect. Olajuwon was the #1 pick, followed by Bowie and Jordan.

thanks, fixed.

Charlie H reply to Brian on Apr 22 at 18:19

But there was no lottery in '84 - is that the year you were talking about? Houston won the lottery in 2002, when they took Yao. Houston had the #1 pick 2 years in a row, '83 and '84. In '83-'84, they had the rookie Ralph Sampson, but Moses Malone was gone and they were really bad with Caldwell Jones and Sampson up front. They were accused of tanking so widely that the lottery was put in for the '85 draft, which the Knicks won. Odd that the lottery was started as a remedy for tanking. (Now what should they try, having the best teams draft first?)

Having trouble with the idea of Boston being a major market and Philly not. Philly is a much bigger city and more of a basketball town. I hear you about the banners, but players aren't keen on going there as a rule. Garnett had to be talked into it. He lives in Malibu, that's how much he loves Boston.

Thad can be replaced eventually. I love Thad, his energy, his hustle, but he doesn't have to be a foundation piece like Jrue. I would bet there are at least a couple teams out there who are closer to contention who would give up a draft pick to acquire his services. His contract is not prohibitive.

3 things

1. Jrue doesn't have to be a foundation piece either.
2. Thad can be a foundation piece on the right team, just not the best player
3. I love Thad, but i'd be ok with trading him if it made sense. You can't just trade him away for any draft pick however. If you can get a top 10 pick in next seasons draft than i'd trade him. If you can get a top 5 pick this year, i guess you have to roll the dice, a top 5 pick even in a bad year has a decent enough chance to result in a better player than Thad. But you don't trade him for say the 15th pick this year. What good would that do? Open up more cap space so you can offer Al Jefferson more money?

Well I was saying get a pick in next year's draft, this year's is one of the worst in a while. I would like to hold onto Jrue, I think he is on a good contract with some room for improvement at an important position. Thad has hit his peak I believe, not saying he can't play at it for a few more years, but those years could be more productive on another team. Also, I wouldn't offer Al Jefferson one dollar of our cap space, but I think you were probably joking anyway!

Yeah it was just a way of saying that opening up more cap space by trading Thad was pointless this year. As for the pick, as i said, i'd be fine with it as long as it's a top 10 pick in a good draft. Because other than that, whoever they draft with the acquired pick will most likely be a worse player than Thad unless a miracle happens. Picks outside the top 10 rarely become even starters in the league, let alone foundation pieces.

The problem is i'm not sure a team headed for the lottery next year will give up their pick for Thad. Everybody knows next year's class is great.

1. Jrue doesn't have to be a foundation piece either.

I think this is an important thing - there are NO untouchables on the sixers roster

I'll say more about this later, but I just don't think we are a contender with a Bynum/Jrue/Thad core; I think the team wouldn't have enough offense. One way you might test this hypothesis is by looking at teams built around really good big men and otherwise lacking in good offensive components and seeing whether they had good offenses. You might ask, "why just look at big men, why not look at other scorers who are about as efficient and have about as much usage," but what makes big men distinctive from LeBron or Kobe or Harden or whomever is that most of them mainly give you a big dose of efficient offense without creating a ton of it for others, except by way of attracting help. I understand that Bynum, if healthy, is better than some of the following players and arguably better offensively than all of them, but they're the recent evidence we have. So for example, the Clippers in Griffin's rookie season had the 22nd best offense. The Grizzlies had, from 2004 to 2006, the league's 19th, 16, and 13th best offenses. They had Gasol during this time and he was really good. The 2009 Nets had Brook Lopez averaging 19 a game on a .570 TS%; they had the league's worst offense. What about Dwight Howard before he was surrounded by shooters? In 2006, he averaged 18 a game with a TS% of .619, but his team was 22nd in offense. They then went 7th, 11th and 4th with Turkoglu and Lewis on board, but in 2010 when they traded Lewis for Arenas and Turkoglu for Carter, they dropped to 14th. Last year, without Lewis or much Turkoglu, they fell to 15th, even as Howard shot 57% from the field and scored 21 a game. Now, I like Thad and Jrue, but the fact remains that they're the core of the league's 5th worst offense right now. I don't see that life necessarily gets easier for Thad with Bynum clogging the paint on every possession, and Jrue has become a good point guard but has been a very inefficient scorer his whole career. And beyond him, we have no perimeter scoring at all. If you find a lot of shooters off the scrap heap (Wright's a start), maybe it can work, but I think it really helps to have a couple perimeter players who can make plays. That's why Melo/J.R. Smith/Felton/shooters is a way more potent offensive attack than Atlanta this year with Teague creating shots for Korver, Morrow, John Jenkins, Horford down low, etc. Orlando made it work with Howard and some shooters, but those shooters were near max-contract players for a reason; they did more than shoot and they could create their own jump shots. Basically I think the team would need to find a pretty good second option to contend; otherwise I think you're talking about a very predictable offense that might be a little better than average, but no more than that. And that probably wouldn't cut it even with an elite defense, assuming we somehow had one. That's not to say I oppose bringing Bynum back; there may be ways to get that scorer after signing him.

You can forget Griffin and Gasol, they're not really relevant here. A post man w/ efficient scoring on 28-30% usage is going to have a big impact. I agree they'd need a guy who can create on the perimeter, and I believe they have that. Don't think Thad's numbers would be dramatically impacted one way or the other no matter who he's on the floor with. He gets his points in a vacuum, basically. He'd probably have an uptick simply because there would be less attention paid to him, but only marginally so.

Bynum, Thad, Wright, (Richardson?), Jrue has enough offensive firepower, and I think you'd see a big jump in Jrue's efficiency if more than 25% of his two point attempts, and 47% of his three-point attempts were assisted on. Jrue + Wright is about 5x as much playmaking as Hedo + Jameer back in the day with Dwight, and Bynum is a much better offensive player than Dwight was. ORL had more shooters, though.

a) I do think life will get easier for Jrue and Thad with Bynum in the middle. The ability to draw double teams and simply draw the better defenders is very underrated in terms of overall offensive efficiency.
b) I don't think anyone is suggesting the offense will be good without three point shooters on the wings. The three point shooters are key to the whole thing, with Bynum kicking out of double teams and Jrue kicking out off penetration.
c) Bynum would immediately help on the offensive glass. And offensive rebounds help a teams offense greatly.

I'm not saying the team will have the best offense in the league, but it will have a shot at a top 6-7 offense, which is enough to be a contender with a good defense.

it would probably never happened but if they dont resign bynum they should try to get as many "good" lottery picks for next years draft

Agreed, but what's "good" draft picks and what do they have to offer other teams that can fetch them "good" draft picks? I think this is much easier said than done. Other than Jrue, i doubt anyone else has enough trade value for a "good" draft pick.

Actually, if for some reason Bynum isn't healthy this year, I might support tanking for 1 season only, because we are locked onto a bunch of guys another year. Then we could have a high pick to add alongside bynum, jrue, a more experienced turner, a more consistent thad, and moultrie. Thats not bad, and if bynum gets reinjured then we might end up with that second high pick anyway.

In reality though it's hard to tank completely with players like jrue,thad,richardson, hawes, and turner. These guys aren't in their first year any more. If you want to really tank I'd think the best way would be to start rookies like the magic.

Actually I think it's pretty easy to tank with three of those guys - hawes and turner suck - richardson is ancient - just gotta find a point guard

Don't forget - the sixers still gotta pay kwame next year - might as well make use of him

Greg reply to GoSixers on Apr 22 at 18:42

The players i listed are simply our starters from last year. If you want to sit jrue thad hawes and turner and replace them with malik moultrie kwame and an injured richardson, then sure it's easy to tank. If thats the plan you could just trade them away because we arent going to get worse starting them again. They should be improving and gaining chemistry together (except for richardson). If your plan is to start the bench then you might as well scrap everybody and start rookies.

Greg reply to GoSixers on Apr 22 at 18:55

Ok, so the only player you would sub out is jrue and put in a different point guard?

Well if you really wanna tank you'd probably have to pull thad as well

I was just thinking of 'regular' starters

Point Guard - Wayans should be bad enough

That's a truly awful team - let them average 35-40 minutes per game - that's a pretty bad team don't you think?

Greg reply to GoSixers on Apr 22 at 19:12

I don't want to tank, but even if we started this lineup I don't see us in last place. We'd just have thad and jrue coming off the bench then. Richardson may not be healthy enough to play. Management would never do that anyway.

The team would'nt be ready in a few years when we eventually do land the next kwame brown in the draft. rookies would make more sense in my opinion, but I wouldn't do that either.

First off - the 2014 draft supposedly has one of those players 'worth' tanking for


Secondly - what management will or won't do doesn't factor in when I'm talking about tanking - becaue I know management won't do it - because one round of the playoffs makes their attendance woody achieve climax - they get enough of the caish that they're happy.

If you play that starting five 35-40 minutes a game there's not a whole lot for Jrue and Thad to do

And honestly - if you're talking about tanking rebuilding, I jettison Thad, he's a luxury this team can't afford, and really doesn't need

I thought it was understood I'm being purely hypothetical, I know ownership would never do such nonsense

Greg reply to GoSixers on Apr 22 at 19:21

Yeah I'm sure you realized that, but I thought it was worth putting in writing as another reason I don't support this plan.

Nothing wrong with tilting at windmills
I despise most reality shows and try to come up with good reasons to cancel them though I know networks never will

I can tell you this - unless they truly surprise me, I won't support the plan the sixers have for the off season - starting with whomever they hire as coach. I mean sure there's a chance thhey'll shock me - but 90% chance it's another 'name' retread who hasn't ever really won but can pull a quick turn around - maybe get them back into the playoffs next season

Yes, you are right on I think! But maybe it's possible we can get a new GM in here this year who will be secure enough to try and convince the owner that tanking one year is the right thing to do? Harris didn't exactly give DiLeo a great endorsement the other day, at least it didn't sound that way. He's gotta know we aren't going to get that much of an attendance bump just by getting back to 40-45 wins, right? I hope?!

Think of how the Sixers have spent their cap space in the past. I'd rather take a risk on Bynum than give Spencer Hawes and Kwame Brown 2 more years in a Sixers uniform. At least there is some upside. That's the type of players the sixers can get as free agents. Kwame, Nick Young, and Tony Battie. Look at all the free agents the Sixers have signed in the past ten years. Brand is the only one that makes you care at all. Didn't work out but have to take that chance. If no Bynum have fun with Earl Clark and Corey Maggette.

That's not an argument I've ever bought

Unless you live in the world where 'cap space' means you ahve to spend it - which is foolishness and how players are constantly over paid.

Hopefully Doug Collins will only be a figure head - so mistakes like Hawes and Kwame won't be repeated (seriously - tony battie cost nothing - wasn't given a long term deal and wasn't really a major player when he was here)

"Pay Bynum" cause there are no better optoins is the kind of thinking that gets joe johnson a max deal

Your idealism is admirable, I guess, but about as realistic as Obama thinking he'd get everything he wanted when the sequester took effect.

I don't consider common sense idealism (but I see what you did there) - I know what's going to happen - but come on - if what I felt should happen happened what the HELL would I complain about :)

We can debate it all we want, at best this franchise is going to be a second round loser to a better team (barring injuries) for our life times until the franchise vision changes - and even with an ownership sale it doesn't seem like it happened - we wanted some sort of brilliant business man instead we got mr selfridge, a brilliant showman

bobby reply to GoSixers on Apr 22 at 19:04

I'm not saying Tony Battie was a bad signing, I'm just saying we're not going to sign anyone to actually help this team win. And why not pay Bynum. If this team is going to suck the next few years anyway to get some draft picks, why do we need cap room. We sign him to a 3 year deal with incentives for the 4th, then when he is an expiring contract, jrue will have one year left on his deal, and hopefully our prize from next years draft will be ready for his extension and can figure out what to do from there. Cap room doesn't do this team much good for the next few years, so might as well take a chance with a potential all star.

One way to obtain extra draft picks in the past has been using your excess cap room to take a teams contracts off their hands to avoid paying the luxury tax - with the high penalties coming - and the 'tax' calculation being timed differently - you might see a use for cap space.

You realize - that if you sign Bynum - and he plays - you aren't going to do a very good job of sucking - and if you sign him because he's not playing - you're just throwing money again.

Your logic again comes back to - you have the cap space - use it. If you think Bynum is going to be healthy then you aren't going to suck, is the point,

I so agree with you. As an example I use NJ nets as an example. They have spent all of their available cap space but are not close to bring a championship caliber team. I'm so stuck in the mindset of be bad and far under the cap then at the cap and not a true contender.

Stan reply to KellyDad on Apr 22 at 21:28

The Nets didn't build that team to win championships. They built that team to sell tickets and build their brand.

At first I thought Billy King was an idiot for trading a lottery pick for a 30 year old Wallace, trading for Joe Johnson's ridiculous contract, giving Hump $24 million and re-signing Brook Lopez to max deal.

But I think he accomplished what the shareholders wanted him to do- Build a team good enough so that people will fill the seats and acquire a superstar so that the fans will have excitement for the team. This team was constructed so that they could introduce their brand and hopefully have the same kind of market that Knicks, Heat, and Lakers generate.

Shareholders? Let's see - there's a crazy russian - and Jay-z is already selling his share - the nets aren't a publicly traded company (though at one time and maybe still i know the indians and the celtics were) - If the Nets built a championship contending team but took a year or two to do it it would have built more good will long term than multiple years of mediocrity that they've guaranteed now by allowing Billy King to run their franchise


Is this kid really worth tanking for next year or is he hype?

eddies' heady's reply to GoSixers on Apr 22 at 21:54

To me, at this point he's more hype. For several reasons, but mainly because he hasn't played a single game at a step-up in competition on the college level. Maybe not on the same level or degree as this kid is being hyped but the same rumblings were being tossed around about Harrison Barnes his senior year in high school until his warts started to show after entering a team setting in college and not being the man as he was throughout his high school and AAU career. As expected because he's still a very young kid, but Andrew's really raw at the moment. He's currently more of an otherworldly athlete than he is this transcendant ball-skilled player, which again is to be expected considering his youth. Just like everyone else in his class, he's nothing more than a prospect at this point. Moreso, he's this dream-like physical specimen that looks like he's on a pogo-stick all the time but doesn't yet possess a transcendant skill that he's really above par at when combined to readily classify him as a game changer.

He surely could develop into a sure-fire superstar (with dedication and effort of course) but so could a Jabari Parker, is kind of what I'm saying.

ON June 10th - there will be an NBA special about Julius ERving where Magic Johnson will say "When greatness meets class, that's what god created in Dr J."

Marc Gasol is defensive player of the year. Brian, what was it that you said about his defense?

Marc Gasol is the first white guy since Mark Eaton back in 1989 to win that award.

Ha! I was wondering when someone was going to bring that up. At least you didn't look up the quote.

But did he deserve defensive player of the year? As fans we spent the past few years watching one of the best man defenders in the league, but because he wasn't in the playoffs he didn't get the attention to warrant this award or even being acknowledged in the voting

I mean JR Smith got the sixth man of the year award - does JR Smith do anything but shoot a lot?

Rich reply to GoSixers on Apr 22 at 22:11

Yes, he deserved it. He and Noah were neck and neck and then Noah got hurt.

Charlie H reply to GoSixers on Apr 23 at 9:51

He makes a lot of them.

Lou last season vs. JR Smith this season: link.

So what you're really saying is that Lou Williams was the 6th man of the year last year?

nah, just that he was better than the winner this year. who won it last year?


makes sense.

Deron Williams passes up the last second iso at the end of the quarter to give the ball to Blatche in the corner with 5 seconds left - wow

Da Jruth on Apr 23 at 9:42

If Bynum is the only answer then we might as well start to cue the recurring dreams of the Elton Brand signing and era all over again. Except you just have Evan Turner's all star talents to replace Andre Iguodala's; if he can get fouled a couple more times a game instead of getting his shot blocked. Bynum = waste; pond muck.

I think this is a pretty typical response from the fan base (about Bynum, still think Turner's getting too much of a benefit of the doubt). Nothing wrong with it at all, I get it. And I expect the team to act accordingly. Letting Bynum walk is an easy move to explain, even if he goes somewhere else and dominates. If they keep him and he continues to be hurt, they're opening themselves up to a ton of criticism from the fans and the press. It'll take guts to bring him back, the easy move is to let him walk and sign Al Jefferson or Josh Smith for too much money.

Sharone Wright reply to Brian on Apr 23 at 10:08

I think you’ve laid out a pretty good argument to re-sign Bynum.
So, let's assess: the best course of action is to sign a guy to a max deal that has about a 10% chance (my guess) of returning healthy. Then even if he can play, there are questions about his attitude/will to win.
It is truly frightening that that is the best hope. It also tells us how poorly the Sixers are managed that the team is in this situation.

Doesn't really say much about how they've mismanaged things. 25 teams are in pretty much the same boat.

but the only team that DOES have some idea of how likely he is to come back health...is the Sixers, no?

I don't disagree with resigning Bynum, pending terms, but I think its easy to poke holes in every rebuild plan. I expect negativity from this blog and often its warranted, but no rebuild plan holds up to criticism and you can find anecdotal for or against most of them. There are 30 teams in the NBA. Odds are that no matter what the owners or management do, the Sixers won't win a title in the next ten years. Its not at all difficult to shoot down every plan.

I think its foolish to criticize teams like Cleveland and OKC who found a way to build around elite players. Granted, to this point neither team won the title after those moves, but that doesn't fully discredit their strong teams.

Whether they resign Bynum or not, I want the franchise's focus to be on longterm contention and flexibility. If they resign Bynum with that in mind, I fully support it. A hobbled Bynum on a five year max contract is arguably worse than Al Jefferson.

I didn't criticize OKC. I don't think they've done anything wrong. All I said is what they've done is not repeatable, and the Harden trade was a result of not being in a premier market. Would the Lakers or Knicks have ever traded a guy like that so they wouldn't have to pay him?

I think Cleveland deserves a ton of criticism for the team they built around LeBron, but I didn't really heap much on them. They were in a tough position because they had to try to keep him happy and no one wanted to play in Cleveland.

The Harden trade wasn't about a premier market - it was about cheap owners - the thunder are one of 5 teams that averaged at least 100% attendance according to ESPN after 41 games (that's right 4 teams averaged more than 100% attendance during their 41 home games, i think local health departments / safety folk wanna look into that, the clippers out drew the lakers at home this year, I wonder if that ever happened before while they shared the same stadium).

The Harden trade was what owners who aren't dedicated to winning first do - When you're worth 400 million you can afford a little penalty if you're looking to WIN.

As for your constant crying about a permier market - The clippers for decades were in LA and not a premier market - now they seem to be one - the mavericks were a laughing stock until they got a committed (and somewhat nuts) ownership. They spend money (the mavs) on what they think are the right players to spend them on (if they had wanted to sign chandler or nash long term I have no doubt they would have, they didn't think they should be kept - those were bad basketball decisions, but not decisions based on finances - the harden trade was a financial decision)

Your obsession with this premier market excuse is just that, giving ownership a built in excuse for failure

The two examples you give kind of point out how owners don't really matter. OKC got lucky, even though they have cheap owners. The Clips have had the worst owner forever and they got lucky as well. Two cheap ass owners who make decisions to actively hurt their team just to save money, and they're contenders. Cuban was the exception as an owner, until he decided filming shark tank was more important than recruiting players to play for him.

And you know 100% attendance in OKC doesn't mean a whole lot. What's their cable deal like?

Stan reply to Brian on Apr 23 at 10:51

Cleveland never had any assets to trade and lost out on Boozer because they didn't want to match the 6 year/$68 million that Utah had offered. They lost out on their cap space because they decided it would be a good idea to give Larry Hughes a 5 year/$70 million deal. Cleveland's drafts picks were terrible as well.

Lebron entered his prime in 2006 and Cleveland had no way of improving their team. It wasn't because no one wanted to play there. During Lebron's time in Cleveland the only big name free agent that I can think of that signed with another team is Steve Nash. Boston acquired KG and Ray Allen because they had the #5 overall pick, Al Jefferson, and Gerald Green. LA acquired Pau Gasol because they had Marc Gasol and David Stern. Dallas and Memphis were able to acquire Tyson Chandler and Zach Randolph, and were lucky that those players were able to improve their game.

Cleveland was fucked and wasn't willing to do anything drastic to improve that team because for some reason they thought that Lebron would have some loyalty to them.

Matt reply to Brian on Apr 23 at 10:52

I just think you take away a little too much credit from those franchises. Both made calculated decisions to get worse and it paid off. OKC got very, very lucky, but they also drafted exactly who they should have at the top each year. They drafted Ibaka 24th overall and stashed him. They signed guys like Sefolosha and Collison, and didn't make too many panic moves (e.g. dumping the shot happy Westbrook). I don't agree with the Perkins trade, Fisher playing time, or the Harden deal, but they did a lot right.

The Knicks were terrible for years because they made decisions based only on short-term expectations and star power. The landscape definitely isn't even in the NBA. Miami has built in advantages, but that needs to be a measured consideration in strategy - not a signal to throw strategy away.

As I said initially, we basically are screwed. Most likely, whatever the team does isn't going to work out. That's why we're depressed fans. But, short of jumping on the Miami bandwagon, I don't see how player favoritism of warm cities is an excuse for the Sixers to lack a developed plan.

I never said they shouldn't have a developed plan. What I'm saying is they shouldn't abandon the plan they put in place last summer and start chasing the OKC model, because it's not repeatable.

What plan out there IS repeatable? Unless you find the right 2 or 3 guys to conspire together and give a nudge nudge wink wink to the GM so he knows to clear cap space for the right time - what's repeatable? The Lakers rooked the Grizz to get Pau Gasol which is what helped them win their most recent titles? Is it repeatable to hopefully find a franchise with a great player desperate to cut cash (I really don't care that marc gasol worked out - AT THE TIME the trade was awful and universally derided)?

If every 'design' out there is based on some aspect of luck (dumb luck) then there are no repeatable plans

Well, it's repeatable for the Lakers to wait for dominant players to finish out their early careers in small markets then demand to move to LA.

My point here is there are no good options, if a team like the Sixers is going to become a contender, it's going to be because they were either unbelievably lucky several times, or they took a crazy chance, did something against the grain, and it paid off. Sign Bynum or don't sign him and tank, either way you're grasping at straws. Signing Bynum has the added benefit of still being able to tank if it doesn't work out, and it also handcuffs the team, saving them from the themselves when Al Jefferson's agent calls this summer.

I believe there's crazy risks and there's CALCULATED crazy risks - bynum could go either way - the safest thing honestly is to let him go - and see what happens in the upcoming season with the restrictive cap and a lot of guys coming up for new deals.

As for the demanding thing, I don't believe either Pau or Dwight demanded to move to LA - I think in Pau's case, Jerry West was just a friggin genius. (Wonder if he wants back in full time as opposed to 'advisor' in Oakland). The Dwight thing still hasn't worked out that well for them and the lakers are starting to remind me of the yankees - really high payroll where really old used to be great players go

paul george wins most improved

He deserved it more than Jrue. Efficiency regressed a little, but his usage was way up and he improved his ancillary numbers. I haven't really looked at the field for that award, but they could've done worse (Jrue would've been worse).

Vazquez was 2nd and Sanders was 3rd

@KBergCBS 25s
In the early stages of the Sixers' coaching search, two names have risen to the top of the list, sources say: Mike Brown and Brian Shaw

i like shaw,not a huge brown fan

I heard Cleveland wanted Brown, right? Nothing beats a guy who has failed in two different places recently. Awesome.

Jackson rebuffed them - completely - according to reports - I'd still like to see the sixers reach out and be rebuffed - one of those 'signals' to fans that mean so much to fans that at least they tried to get the big name (and big money) coach in. Purely a PR move - and who knows maybe some in Cleveland fell for it...I honestly believed with Irving that Phil would think about it, but that was before I heard about his passive aggressive twitting undermining D'antoni :)

Personally, just for the sheer shakespearan drama of it all, I'd love to see the clippers knocked out in the first round, and sterling sack up, fire Del Negro and hire Phil

Mike Brown is like that ugly chick who dates a rich celebrity, breaks up with him and then somehow manages to find another rich celebrity to smooch off of.

Maybe I'm too hard on Mike Brown (he does have decent coaching record), but I just don't see anything special he can bring to a franchise.

So honestly, I think therein lies the problem, for me, to continue being an active attentive fan of the sixers, as I'm paying less attention each year recently. The luck factor in the NBA, moreso than any other sport I believe, is just too much of a variable, and it's uncontrollable, in building a winning team. Maybe Daryl Morey is on to something and he will build a solid team that wins 45-50 games a year consistently and possibly wins a round in the playoffs but does anyone believe that they're winning a title any time soon (unless they somehow get dwight howard)? Intelligent management can only take you so far in the NBA compared to other sports, and while that's the nature of the beast, unless the team you're rooting for gets lucky, the off season plans don't really matter...the blueprint can't be a good blueprint because it requires luck. Too much luck.

Man - disappointing realization to me this morning

sfw reply to GoSixers on Apr 23 at 12:14

I completely agree. Came to that realization recently myself. I think it's a flawed system. Not sure how to fix it.

Can it be fixed really? It's a sport, more than any other (in this country) that's really affected by one player, one great player can make all the difference, be it Lebron or Kobe or Michael or Wilt. It's always been this way. I think eliminating guaranteed contracts (ala the NFL) would work - but I 'm not sure WHAT the nba would have to give up to get that (nor do I know what the NFL had to concede on to get it), I think pushing the age limit back to sophmore (why would the players even fight that) can help a little as you get a little extra time to evaluate players, but honestly, there's only so much you can do - i mean for some reason in the NBA (also more than other sports) there seem to be a select few destination - I mean you never hear anyone who covers the NFL talking about how players just don't want to go to green bay (have you been to northern wisconsin in winter? SErously, it's awful), Miami doesn't have some 'advantage' in recruiting free agents. I'm sure there are probably tweaks, but the NBA will continue to have that luck component more than other sports I think.

All sports have their issues, even the NFL, the NFL just somehow has worked it out that bad teams don't HAVE to be bad forever if they're smart - in the NBA even if you make all the right moves you might still peak as a 6 seed without a little draft or trade luck

sfw reply to GoSixers on Apr 23 at 12:31

All good points.

Eliminating back to backs would increase the quality of the product but not the inequality of the talent. Maybe cutting the number of teams to increase the talent level on each team?

You think getting the union to agree on non guaranteed contracts would be hard? Contraction costs unions jobs - and yes they do put up a fight when these things happen. (For clarifications - in general I find that Unions do more harm than good and their need isn't as vital as it was when there were no such things as say, child labor laws)

Part of the issue, as you mentioned - quality of the product goes all the way back to AAU as we've discussed previously - it would take a concerted effort and INVESTMENT by the NBA to fix what's wrong with their game and I'm not sure they're interested.

I have wondered this for a while - I wonder if some smart agency is ever going to open a 'finishing' school for these kids - instead of going to college for one year - come stay at our facility - play basketball - work with trainers and coaches - just let us be your agents - I think there's a definite market in that since it's only a one year wait

Bobcats fired their coach - sure Mike it's his fault the massive amounts of futility going on there.

Tray reply to GoSixers on Apr 23 at 14:08

So actually it is said that Dunlap's revolutionary threes-conceding/paint-packing philosophy did have something to do with their league-worst defense. And generally I believe it takes some bad coaching to be really horrible at defense. I say we should hire him to tank. If Bynum's not here.

What they really need is Dunlap to coordinate the defense, and Jaque Vaughn to coordinate the offense. "Don't take threes, take a dribble in for a long two, it's closer!" "Pack the paint and give them as many threes as possible, guys!"

Tray reply to Brian on Apr 23 at 15:53

Well we are keeping Collins on as a consultant. If Del Negro's fired (starting to seem less and less likely), we could hire him and Collins could text him plays.

I say let Bynum walk he's not going to take a incentive based contract from us because one of the NBA teams will give him a guaranteed contract. In my opinion Bynum is not worth the risk it has amare written all over it.

People keep saying this

Why is any other team going to succumb to stupid 'guaranteed contract' demands based on the season and behavior he just displayed in Philadlephia. It's not like the sixers are the smartest organization in the league, most organizations (most) tend to be smarter than the sixers so if the sixers aren't going to give him one the assumption that someone else (with cap room) will doesn't necessarily track with me

How much cap space does Houston have? They can't have much, right? I mean, Harden is a supermax and they paid decent money for both Asik and Lin. Do they have room for another max offer?

People keep talking about Houston being a viable player for Dwight HOoward this off season (not sure how) but I'll assume if they have enough for dwight they have enough for bynum -

Right now houston has 45 mil committed next year according to story tellers - they can shave slightly more than 6 mil by waiving francisco garcia and they have some other non guaranteed deals on the books as well

So yeah - seems to me like Houston could afford a rather significant offer to Bynum - but do you think Morey would do that?

I'm seeing $54M with only Garcia as a team option, but who knows. link.

Do you really think anyone is going to offer him more than a three-year max? I'm not sure about that. That's my starting point, 3-year max guaranteed with the fourth year as a team option which can vest into a player option if he plays a certain # of games or the team advances to the ECF in the first three years. I think that probably gets it done, if not, you pay more.

I wouldn't offer him anything more than one guarnateed year - i'd give him year to year 'played game' incentives after that - no way he should be guaranteed more than a year based on his career and his behavior this past season

Can you put something like ECF in his contract? I know games played - but team perofrmance?

Don't know if it's allowed, but I'd do it.

Just checked on Houston, they have $48M committed, maybe a little more if Garcia has a buyout on his team option. Kind of hurts them to have 4 first round contracts on their roster, all those contracts are guaranteed.

I see 45 million and the ability to let Garcia go - where do you see 48?


Wasn't Lin's contract front weighted?

Lin and Asik are both about $8.4M this year. Storytellers wouldn't load for me before, I just got in. Seeing the same thing you are now. link. I tend to trust storytellers.

Stan reply to Brian on Apr 23 at 15:14

Why wouldn't Dallas do it? Their superstar is 35 and they have a small window to win another championship. They couldn't make the playoffs this year and have nothing to build on for the next 5 years.

It wouldn't shock me. And there really isn't as much risk as there used to be w/ the stretch provision. Maybe Cuban will blow off the interview w/ Bynum to go on dancing w/ the stars or something.

If expiring contracts suddenly regain their value, the Sixers will have $20M in utterly disposable garbage they can easily get rid of next season.

Stan reply to Brian on Apr 23 at 19:52

I bet they'll use it to acquire Al Jefferson over whatever team has buyer's remorse after signing him. Or maybe they'll trade that $20 million in expirings for $20 million that will expire the following year.

The Sixers could have traded Dalembert's expiring for LAC's lottery pick :(

I get why all the talk about a potential suitor for Bynum revolves around Houston and Dallas as they are intriguing teams with stars in place and enough cap space. But i don't think they are the ones to be worried about offering him a huge guaranteed contract. I seriously doubt that after Yao Ming's sad situation, Morey will go out and gibe out a huge contract to Bynum.

The team to watch, i think, is Phoenix. They have shown time and again that they can revitalize the careers of players with serious injuries, they have the required cap space and i don't think Sarver is a guy who embraces long term tanking.

A dark horse could be the Nets. Not sure how a sign and trade with a team so much over the cap can be executed, but if there is a team that would pay anything for a chance at a star, despite any kind of contractual issues, it's the Nets. Maybe the Sixers can squeeze something out of them.

The Sixers would have to take back equal money in a trade, and the Nets have no assets of value. Unless the Sixers were to take back Lopez, ugh.

I think they can work on a deal around the expiring contract of Humphries. They did give him a 2 year huge contract for that same purpose after all didn't they? Humphries + Brooks + some picks maybe? You can't really expect equal value when Bynum is a free agent. This would be a solid option if the Sixers decided, he is too great a risk to keep i guess.

Why - why would it be a better optoin than not taking back any crap and letting Bynum find his money his own way. Are the sixers better off with low first round picks a year of kris humphries and marshan brooks as opposed to nothing?

Sheesh - you don't HAVE to get something for Bynum - sometimes doing nothing is the smartest thing to do

Have you read the new CBA? Every team MUST have a payroll of at least 90% of the salary cap. If the cap falls around 60 million which is the current thinking, that means every team will need to have at least 54 million in contracts. That means the Sixers will sign a player anyway. I'd much prefer it to be a one year rental of a guy like Humphries who won't move the needle at all. And you get the picks as a bonus. How is not getting anything better exactly???

No assets are better than picks?? Seriously?

WHere'd you find your copy of the CBA? I Haven't been able to find one.

Low first round picks as a bonus - yeah - guaranteeing any time to a guy who you had to pick makes sense

Does it go up to 90% this year? thought it was a slower ramp up. I still think the cap isn't going to be $60M unless something changed radically in BRI or my understanding of the CBA is way off.

Yes, it goes to 90% this offseason - next year will be the third year.

I am far from an expert in the CBA. Feel free to read it and make your own conclusions.

Here's a link:


Ah - not the cba - just the coon link - and it was 85% this year so it's not some sort of massive increase next year - i'd rather pay 3 minimum salary guys on the roster than kris humphries...

As it is right now, the Sixers will have 12 players being owed 47-48 million under contract next season. This includes, the three rookies and Justin Holiday (around 44 without them). That's still some 6-7 million shy of the minimum limit.

P.S. What's the problem with Humphries on the Sixers? He is not going to help them win and not tank. He will be gone next season. And he will fetch some picks aka assets along with him. I don't see the downside to this. The only way this doesn't make sense is if you can turn the cap space into Howard and you choose this instead.

Humphries is better than the minimu average guys you could get so yes in terms of tanking he could 'cost' you a game or two

As for these 'assets' you keep talking about - OH BOY first round picks in the 20s - those are just awesome

a) You seriously overrate Humphries. He would have absolutely no impact on the win-loss record. Even if they do win 1-2 more games because of him (doubtful), what's that going to change? 24 or 25 wins instead of 23?

b) A ton of stars have been traded for late 1st round picks. They are not great assets, but they are assets. Which is far more than any useless guy they'll sign.

Teams used to pay millions to acquire a late first round pick (and they can't even do that anymore, because picks are even more valuable in the new CBA), yet you think the team should not even try to acquire some.

Stan reply to Xsago on Apr 23 at 19:46

If the salary cap is at $60 million, the Sixers can re-sign Bynum to the max, keep the roster as is, sign their draft pick, sign 2 players at the veteran minimum, and still have about $15 million in cap space for the 2014 off season.

These are my numbers (I'm assuming that they'll use their team options on Moultrie and the #11 overall pick)

Andrew Bynum- 19,063,459
Jrue Holiday- 9,904,495
Thaddeus Young- 9,160,870
Jason Richardson- 6,601,125
Arnett Moultrie- 1,136,160
#11 pick- 2,222,160

Total 48,088,269

Sounds about right. You need to add around 1-1.5 million for the second round picks though. What would be even better is to have a team option, so that you won't have to pay him if he can't play. If he can't play you can only have around 30 million in contracts. That's close to 2 max players...

Brown has agreed with the Cavs. Sixers fans rejoice!!!

Cause this means they'll make a smart higher

crap HIRE of course

Good news.

Brian, take a look at some of Jordan's quotes from his introductory presser at Rutgers. Already dropped a "harmony and effort."

Bynum is going to get a good contract let's just hope the Sixers won't be the team to give it to him. I don't know how management should move forward but I do know signing bynum for 3 plus yrs isn't a step forward. People get on Dwight and rightfully so in somecases but at least he's on the court playing that's more than what you can for Bynum.

mymanjrue on Apr 23 at 23:08

iguodala is having quite a first quarter offensively

With Boston scoring a combined 48 points in their last two second halves, I guess you can give up on Carmelo losing in the first round.

mymanjrue reply to Tray on Apr 23 at 23:26

doesn't melo already have a wcf under his belt anyway?

yeah, looks like he's going to beat Boston. I wonder if it'll have the asterisk of Boston w/out Rondo like the Sixers' first-round win last year has every time it's mentioned.

stan reply to Brian on Apr 24 at 8:50

Rajaon Rondo isn't Derrick Rose also the Bulls lost Joakhim Noah as well

The Sixers were up 2-1 in that series before Noah got hurt. And the Bulls had a ton more depth w/out Rose than the Celts do w/out Rondo.

The Knicks also have homecourt and didn't start in a 0-1 hole.

mymanjrue reply to Brian on Apr 24 at 9:42

Actually, the Sixers were tied 1-1 and positioned to lose that third game before Noah got hurt.

Marcus reply to stan on Apr 24 at 10:00

Your right rondo is no rose but against the Knicks he sure comes close. Rondo turns into a scoring guard against the Knicks & flirts with a triple double almost all the time against them. Rondo plays in this series I'm not so sure they up 2-0 on Boston. It doesn't matter anyway the heat will beat them soon enough anyway.

Tray reply to Brian on Apr 24 at 10:31

I think they're about even in asterisk-ness. Rose-less Bulls have turned out to be pretty good, though of course they've had some time to get used to his loss. Rondo-less Celtics were also a decent team. As far as Carmelo's individual play though, he's scoring at a great and reasonably efficient clip, and that has nothing to do with Rondo's absence.

mymanjrue on Apr 23 at 23:38

Steph Curry has it going on right now. very entertaining game

Any thoughs about trading Jrue? I think he would be a tremendous complement to a dominant big like Bynum our Howard who would live off of his penetration- but without that type of teammate I'm not convinced jrue elevates his teammates.

I am a huge fan of Jrue, but he is a great asset and there are lots of different types of PGs you can win with.

Depends on what you'd get in return...

I don't think you can get the kind of value the team needs for Jrue.

Matt reply to Xsago on Apr 24 at 9:37

Yeah, Jrue is our only decent future asset. He's far from untouchable, but I don't see any likely scenario where it'd be worth trading him. He's on a good, long-term contract too.

But, I'd trade Jrue for Paul George in a second. How could you say no to that?

Stan reply to tk76 on Apr 24 at 8:55

Jrue for who? James Harden? I would make that deal. I wouldn't trade him for someone like Liliard, Paul George, or Klay Thompson. Unless the Sixers were able to land Dwight Howard, I wouldn't even trade Jrue for Dwayne Wade or Deron Williams.

Jrue for Paul George, in an Indianapolis minute (1:17 real time). Taller and better, hands down. That would be makin' hay, farmer. Couldn't pry him from Pacers though, even with a pitchfork.

buke reply to Stan on Apr 24 at 10:21

Wow, you believe Jrue is better than Deron Williams? I will give that he's at least cheaper than Williams. Of course, Lillard is much cheaper than Jrue. Right now Jrue looks to me like the latest in a line of overvalued homegrown Sixers stars. Boy the groupthink really sinks deep among some.

Stan reply to buke on Apr 24 at 11:41

I don't think Jrue is better than Deron Williams, I don't think Jrue will ever be as good as Deron Williams. If this team doesn't have another a superstar like Dwight Howard, I wouldn't trade Jrue for Deron. Deron is 6 years older and gets paid twice as much. A guy like him on this team would bitch his way out of Philadelphia.

From a talent standpoint I don't think the discrepancy is very large. If you look at the intangibles, clearly that sets Deron apart right now, but time will tell if Jrue can develop there. Jrue is only a month older than Lillard and doesn't have near the surrounding cast of he or Williams. Still, he was an All-Star, 5th in MIP voting, and is likely a future Olympian. Out of the context of the team he is highly regarded by league personnel and I would be very hard-presses to trade him.

Tray reply to Cin on Apr 24 at 12:34

It isn't just intangibles. By his third season, Williams got to the line 5 times a game, though he took just 13.5 shots a game. That went up to 5.6, 5.5, 6.3, 6.7. It's tailed off some since, but he's still at 4.7 FTA/14.4 FGA. Healthy ratio. For this reason, he finished the year with a .574 TS%. He's had 4 seasons at .570 or above, 5 at .560 above, the lowest he's ever been since his rookie year is .527, when he was really bad. Now let's take Jrue. Jrue took 3 free throws a game this year and that was a career high for him! Fourth year in the league, and he did this while taking 16.5 shots a game, more than Williams has taken in any season with the exception of his lousy inefficient season last year. Jrue now has had two straight seasons of .496 TS%. His career best is .526. Jrue's career best in efficiency = Williams' career worst, and where he is now and has been the last two seasons compared to where Williams is is the difference between being horribly inefficient and really, really efficient for a point guard. And this is all or almost all because Jrue doesn't get to the line, something he hasn't been able to do for four years, even though he's now an All-Star, featured player, certainly has the attention of refs and opposing defenses. Then, yes, there are intangible differences too.

If we're going to compare them statistically then the fairest evaluation would be both of them at age 22. That would be this past season for Jrue and Deron's second pro season. If you look at the advanced stats for those seasons they only slightly favor Deron and that is on a much, much better team than the one Jrue had. Despite Deron's decided advantage in A/T ratio and TS% their PER and win shares are nearly identical. For the record, Jrue went to the line 3.1 times per game compared to Deron's 3.7 per game.

"highly regarded by league personnel" ... pardon the interruption, but how would you know that's true, outside of carefully chosen quotes and anecdotes by this town's whitewashing, Collins-worshipping press?

Holiday's value is in the protective eye of 1 downtrodden beholder and the casual roving eye of 29 outsiders, including a wide variety of opinion on his ceiling and worth, I'm sure.

And of course your own bias (hatred) towards Jrue doesn't color anything you say

Biases, yes.

"Hate", your insert.

Hate may be YOUR story, though I won't invest energy on it.


Always good for a laugh you are old man

Because All-Star reserves are selected by coaches and the USA Select Team are hand-picked by the National Team staff.

Fair enough. But politics enters. Especially where Collins, this town's late version of Bob Richards, Wheaties champion, was a factor. I question the modifier "highly" as it pertains to the trade market.

Because All-Star reserves are selected by coaches and the USA Select Team are hand-picked by the National Team staff.

I think Jrue can actually become better than Deron Williams. He is not there yet, bet he can become better. And there is no way i would trade Jrue for Deron straight up. Jrue is far younger, far cheaper and only marginally worse right now with potential to be better than him. You guys shouldn't forget how bad Deron is on the defensive end. That's not something that is fixable. Jrue has had his ups and downs on that end, but he can clearly be much better than Deron.

I pretty much agree with Stan above. If it's not as part of a package for a reasonably young top 10 player or a dominant center, it's not worth it. Any onther kind of move wouldn't make a real difference. The only other option is for a draft pick/picks. But i'm not sure what kind of draft picks i would like for him. None of this year's draft that's for sure...

mymanjrue reply to tk76 on Apr 24 at 11:23

I'm on the same page as you, tk. He definitely did not make his teammates better this year. One encouraging thing re: Jrue, who I know I've been awfully critical of lately(mostly as a response to the overvaluation buke refers to) is that he seemed pretty self aware in his exit day quotes. Don't feel like searching around for his exact words right now, but he talked about needing to improve his overall knowledge of the game, sense of the game. That's an often intangible area where Jrue's struggles really were magnified this year in the absence of Iguodala

You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig

mymanjrue reply to GoSixers on Apr 24 at 13:07

curious as to what the pig would be in this instance?

The rest of the roster - in the end no matter how you dress it up - feces is still feces - how much better can anyone make feces look?

buke reply to mymanjrue on Apr 24 at 13:33

"...but he talked about needing to improve his overall knowledge of the game, sense of the game. That's an often intangible area where Jrue's struggles really were magnified this year in the absence of Iguodala"

Glad to hear that. If he follows up on those words, I will be delighted to jump on his bandwagon and be very happy that I underestimated him.

I think Jrue's primary deficiencies as a point guard are his underdeveloped sense of team fundamentals, a shared quality among many of today's AAU stars. He played only one year at UCLA where he was not given primary point guard duties and prior to that he played at a rich, but lesser power, prep school where he dominated the team. If you could combine his body, athleticism, and temperament with Turner's basketball background (four years at Westchester Saint Joseph's playing for a legendary coach and three years under Thad Motta at Ohio State) you'd probably have a more complete player.

I agree wholeheartedly that Iguodala's departure left this team with a big hole in terms of leadership, secondary ball handling, play making, and defense and his absence hurt the whole team.

mymanjrue reply to buke on Apr 24 at 13:54

totally agree, buke. I've had that same thought about Jrue and Turner

Holiday's the 5th most improved player in the league, according to those in the voting-know. Of course, that and $2 will get him runnin' on Dunkin' this morning.

The entire cadre of contracted Sixers players, including Jrue and Thad, should be considered for trade this summer.

34-48. Housekeeper quit. Now wash the sheets and make the bed, front office deciders, whomever you may be.

Sixers are tied for 7th in historical regular season winning percentage, despite Don DeJardin, John Lucas, Brad Greenburg, Billy King and Ed Stefanski.

Top 10:

Lakers .619
Celtics .594
Spurs .590
Suns .552
Jazz .543
Thunder .532
Sixers .530
Blazers .530
Bucks .520
Bulls .519

No thanks on deron that contract is scary brooklyn definitely overpaid to get him. He's better than jrue but he's not that much better of you go by that ridiculous contract I rather have jrue.

For every Westbrook and Harden there's countless more Wesley Johnson's and Jonny Flynn's. I agree that that OKC model isn't viable.

My wish for this offseason is similar to yours but a bit more of a reach. If his knees allow him to continue his career then you're looking at $13M of cap space and $20M worth of expiring contracts that they can play with before signing him over the cap. If not, the best chance at decently manning the middle is trading for Marcin Gortat or a sign-and-trade for Nikola Pekovic. Either of these guys should work well with Thad. The question is then who do they splurge on, say O.J. Mayo?

buke reply to Cin on Apr 24 at 13:48

Well, here's another strategy. They draft a young center (like Olynyk), then try to sign a lesser but veteran center like Pachulia for three years (I'd say Splitter but I don't think they could get him), spend some of their remaining free agent money on one or two other positions (supplementary trades are also not out of the question), and work on getting good again. Then, once they are good again, they can work on getting very good, maybe even near great.

Stop worrying about deciding between models. The best model is one that works for you and you won't be able to know whether it works until it does. Just work on getting better. Only a fool spends his life trying to discover secret formulas.

Try telling that to "Plums" Pythagorus, Benny Franklin or Albie Einstein.

This isn't a science, it's an art. And we aren't likely to have any geniuses coming around to run the club anytime soon. Geniuses don't make their careers in sports.

You're wrong - on both counts

This was not my attempt at being Maximillian from Pi and What you're describing is not viable either. In the NBA, to be successful, you need to start at great and then rise to dominant. This can be with great prospects, like the Thunder, or with established stars like the Heat. How you acquire those initial pieces, however, totally varies. How you acquire several of those is absolutely guesswork.

This is just a kind of anecdotal argument against attempting to build around Bynum instead of searching for the next generational talent in the draft or trying to be the next lucky winner of a Harden-type deal. Durant gave an interview to SI; here are some things he said.

Kevin Durant sat in a leather terminal chair next to a practice court and pointed toward the 90-degree- angle at the upper-right corner of the key that represents the elbow. “See that spot,” Durant said. “I used to shoot 38, 39 percent from there off the catch coming around pin-down screens.” He paused for emphasis. “I’m up to 45, 46 percent now.”

Durant has hired his own analytics expert. He tailors workouts to remedy numerical imbalances . . . To Durant, basketball is an orchard, and every shot an apple. “Let’s say you’ve got 40 apples on your tree,” Durant explains. “I could eat about 30 of them, but I’ve begun limiting myself to 15 or 16. Let’s take the wide-open three and the post-up at the nail. Those are good apples. Let’s throw out the pull-up three in transition and the step-back fadeaway. Those are rotten apples. The three at the top of the circle — that’s an in-between apple. We only want the very best on the tree.”

I mean, how in the world is the guy with the ridiculous hair who injured himself bowling going to steal a championship from a guy like that, or a guy like LeBron? Even if he started putting up amazing numbers on increased usage, how would you ever trust him to win a playoff series against competitors like that? Durant and LeBron aren't doing what they do now - 50/40/90 while almost leading the league in scoring, 56% shooting from the field from a wing while flirting with averaging a triple-double - just through natural talent; no one is naturally that good and they weren't until this year. They're doing it by hiring analytics experts and mastering shot selection and practicing obsessively, and they're going to keep getting better, as they have done all their careers thus far. And unlike Bynum they really give a million shits about winning. Bynum will win a finals the day LeBron retires to play football, IF Durant is simultaneously out of the picture, the way Hakeem won when Jordan quit the game. And even then I can't imagine Bynum of all the great talents in the NBA being the guy to lead his team to a championship. If you really want to win, you need someone on the level of these guys, someone who both has generational talent but also someone who's willing to hone their talent in the way LeBron and Durant have.

If you can't sign them as free agents, those guys are the type of players, teams get once in 100 years. You can tank as much as you want, chances are you won't end up with a player like that - EVER.

Tray reply to Xsago on Apr 24 at 17:15

There are about three of them in the NBA right now, LeBron, Durant, and Duncan (he isn't that anymore, quite, but he's still an All-NBA player at 37 and he was, at his best, the best at his position ever and a guy with an incredible work ethic). So it's not a once in a century thing, it's more like a once every 5 drafts thing. You could even argue that Dirk was once up there. His team was a legit contender for multiple seasons, they won once, he improved his game to a phenomenal degree and at his peak his numbers were insanely good. And then there's Kobe, who statistically was never what LeBron and Durant have become, but who still was a truly great player, great competitor, the most refined scorer of his generation, etc. And between those guys, that's every championship since Jordan retired with the exception of Detroit and the Wade/Shaq duo. All I can say is that I'm pretty confident all the championships, for a very long time, are going to be won by LeBron, Durant, maybe Paul, and possibly some transcendent superstar who isn't in the league yet, like Wiggins. Since we don't have LeBron, Durant, or Paul, our only hope is drafting the transcendent superstar.

I feel comfortable with adding Duncan, Bryant and maybe Paul to the mix. They are all worthy talents. I agree with the one each five years theory, you just misunderstood my point (or i didn't state it clearly enough). What i meant is with 30 teams in the league and 1 transcendent star every 5 years, it would statistically take a century for each team to get that guy on average (the actual number is 150 years, but it was just a figure of speech).

No matter how much you tank, scout well and draft expertly, getting THAT kind of player is 99% luck. Unless you are LA, NY and the like, you cannot make sure you have a shot at a talent like that every few years. You need to be really really lucky, OR do what some of the teams are doing - trying to win it all without that transcendent star but multiple really good players. At this point i'm not really sure what's statistically safer, when you set a goal to win a championship and you are not one of the top 5 markets. Endlessly tank and wait for THE STAR, or try to win with a solid team of good but not once in a generation players.


With Mike Brown out of the picture, here's another name to surface in the head coach searchs. Mike Malone, current assistant in Golden State. I'd prefer him over Shaw and the triangle offense.

how do you know hes gonna run the triangle, cause he coached under jackson?

I wonder with Tex Winter gone would Jackson even run the triangle these days?

When he last made the interview rounds that was the general hold-up. Teams were scared away by his commitment to the triangle. Considering Kurt Rambis' failure in Minnesota, I would be hesitant as well.

Great, 2 out of the 3 guys on my wishlist are already rumored :)

Committed talented superstars are not the only winners of titles. Shaq is an example of how a freakish big can win despite never fully tapping into his talent by never developing any kind of shooting touch outside of 6 feet or mastering FT's. Athletically, Bynum is not nearly Shaq, but the competition is also worse.

I think Bynum unhindered by injury plus Jrue at his peak in 2-3 years would be a proper supporting cast away from legitimate contention against the likes of Lebron and Durant- simply because those teams have no answer to a dominant big if Jrue is able to get in the lane and draw and dish. Have the right wing defenders and shooters and you have a chance of knocking off the best.

That said, I'm all but convinced that Jrue/Bynum will never happen- at least a truly healthy Jrue-Bynum when it counts.

1. Bynum is likely headed down the Yao road. He might have periods of relative health, but unlilely to be enough or when really needed. If he is hobbled then he no longer is a game changer and I'm not convinced he is the Willis Reed type regardless.

2. Philly is unlikely to sign Bynum, and possibly is just saying they will look into it as future cover. I think Bynum will want a fresh start in another town.

I don't think they're going to re-sign him either, but it's 100% on them. Bynum isn't going to turn down more money for a fresh start elsewhere, and no on can offer more than the Sixers.

So you're advocating that the sixers should out bid everyone to make sure they keep the hobbled one?

Pretty much, yeah. Make the three-year offer and ask for first right of refusal.

I'm not sure if I would give him the max, but he doesn't need to know that and hopefully I wouldn't have to make the decision right away. You sit him down, lay out the terms of your opening offer. You say, "Andrew, we want to build our team around you. We think this is a fair offer, but you're a free agent. Test the waters. All we ask is that you give us a chance to beat any offer out there, because we're in a position to pay you more." Then if someone offers him a four-year max w/ 4.5% raises (is it 4.5 or 5.5?) you can offer the four-year max with 7.5% raises. Same years, more money. Or if you change your mind, you say too rich for my blood.

It doesn't cost you anything to make a palatable offer with that type of discussion. Make it clear you want him. If his agent says, "Offer us a 5-year max or he's going somewhere else," you say this is our opening offer, we're willing to pay more than anyone else, but we aren't willing to bid against ourselves this early in the game. We want you here, we're going to make it happen, blah blah blah. I just don't want to hear about the Sixers making a lowball, take it or leave it, offer.

See - the years aren't the issue - what about the 'qualifiers' - are you giving him 4 years with no options regarding playing time if someone else offers him 4 years absolutely 100% guaranteed?

So Daryl Morey or Marc Cuban miss out on Dwight Howard, over reacts, and offer Bynum a max contract (whatever the rules allow) with no qualifiers regarding games played and health, you advocate the sixers topping something like that?

Yeah. The deal I've been talking about is 3 years, guaranteed with an option for the fourth. I can live with guaranteeing that fourth year if that's all it takes. The fourth year doesn't make that much of a difference to me, and they can offer the most money on a four-year deal w/out offering the fifth season.

Now if he comes back and says I'm signing with Dallas unless you give me the fifth year, then it's not a level playing field and I think I'd let him walk.

So you're willing to guarantee Andrew Bynum however much money (65 million or so) he'd make with a 3 year 'max' no matter how many games he's going to play?

No - I don't agree with that

Yeah, I'm comfortable w/ 3 guaranteed years as my opening salvo. Vesting option for the fourth. Four guaranteed if someone else is willing to offer him the max they can offer.

I'm not comfortable with anything beyond one year guaranteed that doesn't take into account his injury history.

If the sixers sign him to a one year deal - do they still have his bird rights next off season too?

I don't believe so.

What about 2 years with the 2nd year not being guaranteed?

I can't be in favor of guaranteeing this guy 3 years based on his history before he got here and what went on the past year - the evidence indicates that without proper motivation (money) Bynum ain't working hard to come back from injury - why bother rushing back injured if you're guaranteed to get all your moeny anyway

Don't know the particulars of bird rights under the new cba. Whether he plays is the risk you're taking. I don't think he's really a "playing for a contract" type of guy. Or at least he certainly wasn't this year.

Just not going to be able to stomach giving that guy 3 years guaranteed when he'll probably miss at least 20 games per year...easy

60 games of Bynum is worth, what, 100 games of Al Jefferson or Josh Smith. I wouldn't think twice if I was guaranteed 60 games + playoffs each year. Sign him for 3 years, get him healthy, then start working the phones for a third guy who's at the top of the second level dangling Hawes/Turner expirings and Thad or Jrue, depending on the position the third guy plays.

But I have no interest in Josh SMith or Al Jefferson on the sixers either...I have interest in building a team I believe will contend for a title - not just a first round playoff exit depending on when Bynum is healthy - and of the 60 games he does play - how many are not at 100% cause his rehab was half assed?

The chance that Bynum makes the sixers a SERIOUS contender in the next 3 years is less than 5% in my opinion - no matter what else they do (within reason) - it's not worth the 5% to waste that money when you don't have to

I see the money as being wasted either way. Might as well spend on something that has a 5% chance of working out. I think the odds are better than that on Bynum recovering. I'd put money on him having an impact in the playoffs next season, probably not in Philly, though.

I also think if the coaching decision happens before July 1, we'll know which direction they're leaning. If it's a name, a guy w/ a track record, I think Bynum is coming back. If it's an assistant getting his first shot, or a guy from college, I think he's gone. They won't make a known quantity a sacrificial lamb in his first couple of seasons here.

Well so far the rumored names are mostly first shotters

Yeah, makes sense. I don't think they're bringing him back, and I think they're going to handle it very poorly, then blame him publicly. The blame might be fair, but someone is going to wind up signing him for like $45M/3 years.

Well - it won't be a surprise if they handle it poorly - have they handled anything well basketball wise since they arrived? That doug collins being in charge thing worked well

Signing Jrue when they did was probably smart. Trading for Wright. Otherwise? Not a whole lot.

Marcus reply to Brian on Apr 25 at 12:14

Brian I think you are insane to want to give Bynum 3 yrs gurantee contract. Bynum is headed down the Yao road. The best thing the Sixers could do is let that man sit on somebody else bench for the next couple of yrs.

I get it. But being sane gets you nowhere from where the Sixers are right now. Take the shot.

Marcus reply to Brian on Apr 25 at 12:21

Lmaooo that's one hell of a shot.

Brian is giving us the text book definition of insanity by demonstrating that learning from past mistakes (Elton Brand) isn't something to do :)

Stan reply to GoSixers on Apr 25 at 12:49

In Brian's defense, had we not signed Brand we would have probably signed Amare, Boozer, Gooden, Scola, Landri, Humphries, or David Lee. The Sixers would have been fucked either way.

So it's ok they gave out a failed contract because they would have given out a bad contract at some point?

I see

Tray reply to GoSixers on Apr 25 at 13:24

"The chance that Bynum makes the sixers a SERIOUS contender in the next 3 years is less than 5% in my opinion - no matter what else they do (within reason)"

Hear, hear. These are the only ways I could see it working:

(A) we draft C.J. McCollum of Lehigh, or some other ready-right-now scoring prospect, and they turn out to be a huge sleeper, like a Kevin Martin getting drafted 26th because he played at Western Carolina sleeper. Maybe a core of healthy Bynum/Jrue/Thad/efficient 18 ppg scorer can contend.

(B) Bynum sits out next year too, we draft a star, and then Bynum makes a magical recovery. Probably impossible; if he sits out next year there is no magical recovery.

(C) Tyreke Evans, who people here would understandably want no part of, actually had a good season this year (15 a game on .558 TS%, three-point shooting jumped from 20% to 34%) and is a free agent. He still is horribly inefficient from anywhere on the court but the rim, but among guards he's one of the better finishers in the league (64% from within 3 feet) and one of the best at getting to the rim (6th in the league in attempts within 3 feet among guards). If coached to just cut out mid-range jumpers from his game, he'd be a really useful player. As is, he's not bad. Maybe you can afford him and Bynum, and maybe he has a career renaissance in his hometown and in a more stable situation where he's not asked to run point or lead a team in scoring. I don't see that as any more risky than signing Bynum, anyway.

(D) Eric Gordon wasn't really any good this year, but he seems to hate New Orleans so maybe that's why. You could possibly get him for Thad + something. He was a pretty efficient scorer in LA.

(E) Some random miracle - we trade our draft pick, or Thad, or Turner if anyone's that stupid, for some random prospect on someone's bench no one's thinking about, and he explodes. Kind of like the Tobias Harris deal for Orlando. One name to throw out if you're looking for scoring would be Evan Fournier. http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/f/fournev01.html

So you only see five ways it could work. How many ways do you see this team being a contender in the next 3-5 years without Bynum?

Tray reply to Brian on Apr 25 at 17:26

I mean, I could count to a bigger number because my "ways" were player-specific, so I could point to all sorts of people in the 2014 and 2015 drafts who might lead us to contention. Anyway, the five "ways" I counted were extremely chancy. Bynum needs to be healthy in all of them, so that's, what, a 50/50 proposition by itself. Way one was our getting really lucky in this very weak draft. Probably not happening. Way two was Tyreke Evans magically panning out. Probably not happening. There was the way where we trade Gordon for Thad and get better - that's a slim chance. There's striking gold in the trade market, also unlikely. And all of these things are multiplied by the 50/50 chances of Bynum's good health. So all of these things are pretty big long shots.

Rich reply to Tray on Apr 25 at 15:50

Assuming Kwame picks up his option, that's 44 million dollars. Would they even have room to take on both Tyreke and Bynum? Not that I'd advocate doing that, but those guys might end up pulling in a combined 25 million dollars per year, maybe a little less.

They might if they traded away Turner and Hawes...

Not that i think tying up the entire cap space long term on a Jrue/Evans/Thad/Bynum is a good idea...

Not a big fan of Tyreke as the other big money guy they go out and get if they bring Bynum back. I'd like Granger a lot more than Evans. Gordon even more than him.

tk76 reply to Brian on Apr 25 at 16:26

So basically fill up your cap with injuried guys and call in Dr. House?

Part of the pain of this season and the early Brand years was that terrible sense of waste every night we watched a game knowing the best players were on the shelf. Another 3 years of that would probably be worse than just knowing they were a rebuilding/weak team that was a few years away. A lot less vitriol and angst but admittedly more boring of a storyline.

I understand your viewpoint around Bynum, but IMO hope is not an option. The team has none for the forseeable future and a Brand, I mean Bynum signing does not manufacture it.

I just don't see a rebuilding team as realistically being a few years away. I'd rather put my hope in a known quantity (when healthy) than what I consider a less likely path forward through the draft.

tk76 reply to Brian on Apr 25 at 16:33

I guess I'm not sold there is legitimate reason for hope with either path. And the Bynum path has a high chance for significantly more pain and frustration as a fan without really giving much hope.

The Sixers are where they were in the John Lucas years. They are wandering the desert and maybe somewhere down the line they will start having a reason for hope. And if you want me to keep on with the hokey biblical analogy, then throwing money at Bynum is building the golden calf.

There will be hope somewhere in the future. There is none now, and I have come to terms with that much like I did in the mid 90's.

Brian, constantly striving for the highest paid disabled list in the league :)

I'd rather have the 15 wins that get you from 38 to 53 sitting on the bench for the entire year than have 6 wins that get you from 38 to 44 on the floor. Chew on that one!

Actually I'm still fascinated by the statement where you voice a preference for Danny Granger - a year ago at thist time - who would have thought you'd ever advocate in any way shape or form the sixers obtain that over valued player (before his major injury too I think?)

Marcus reply to Brian on Apr 25 at 16:35

Brian your usually on point with your views but I disagree with you on this. Danny granger maybe in the same boat as Bynum. I have no idea how the Sixers move on in the future but signing a bunch of injured guys is not the direction to move on.

tk76 reply to Brian on Apr 25 at 16:39

Brian, I think you are morphing into Billy King, in that you don't know when to give up and keep grasping on to over-paid answers.

At least BK had a reason for desperation in that he had AI in his prime and he wanted to keep his job. While this Sixer team is overly ripe (by about 8 years) for a reality check where they give up for a few years and acknowledge that they have to start from scratch. Bynum is just Brand at this point. He might help someone else.

Rich reply to Xsago on Apr 25 at 17:01

What can they get for Turner and Hawes that would allow them to free cap space for this summer? Serious, question, I legitimately don't know what would work. A future pick, maybe?

Then there's also the question of who wants either of those guys.

The trade value of Turner an Hawes is obviously debatable, but at the very least i am sure someone would gamble for a second rounder, thus clearing cap space. It's the cap space the team would need to make the suggested moves, Hawes and Turner don't need to fetch additional assets. I actually think their trade value is better than we give them credit for. Which is not saying much of course...