CHI/LAC/PHI/PDX - Jimmy, Blake, McCollum

[DerrickNoah]

I'd be okay with a straight CHI/LAC swap

Clips trade: Blake Griffin, Reddick
Receive: Jimmy, Taj, Snell

[ChettheJet]

I don't see the Bulls going for it. First while Ingram might be from Duke they have a history of NOT drafting freshmen, look it up. Severely burned with Tyrus Thomas and haven't gone since. Secondly, you have them needing to sign not one but TWO FA starters. That's a gigantic gamble and a corner they wouldn't back themselves into. Thirdly, If Saric needs seasoning to play in the NBA they're already experiencing that with Mirotic and aren't sure it's going to work out. They aren't going to trade to take that bet a second time.

[youngcrev]

I don't see the Bulls going for it. First while Ingram might be from Duke they have a history of NOT drafting freshmen, look it up. Severely burned with Tyrus Thomas and haven't gone since. Secondly, you have them needing to sign not one but TWO FA starters. That's a gigantic gamble and a corner they wouldn't back themselves into. Thirdly, If Saric needs seasoning to play in the NBA they're already experiencing that with Mirotic and aren't sure it's going to work out. They aren't going to trade to take that bet a second time.

Uhh... They took that Derrick Rose guy 2 years later. Marquis Teague in 2012.

[Foshan]

I'm not a fan at all of huge consolidation trades that Philly makes where the best value they get back is a big... especially in a deal that involves good wings!

This deal is bad for all the different reasons already mentioned, especially the Embiid part. He's either traded at his potential or he's not dealt at all. He's such a boom or bust prospect, Philly would be stupid to take 10cents on the dollar for him.

[N.O.R.E.]

I don't know how many times I need to clarify this, but 9 times out of 10 I'm not putting up deals I would personally do or think teams should do.

I would hate the Colangelo's getting to cash in all of Hinkie's chips in win now moves.

This deal was put forward under the assumption that Hinkie was ousted due to patience for the "process" wearing thin.

I would much rather see what I've got with Embiid and Saric too, but I suspect the mandate could have somewhat changed.

I am somewhat surprised by the response however. I'm no fan of Blake and wouldn't want to build my team around him (hence why it isn't a straight Bulls/Clips swap), but I can't really argue that he isn't a top 10-15 player. As another poster pointed out, McCollum is no slouch either. He is steadily rising in collective imaginary top player rankings haha, and gives the Sixers a 2nd young proven impact player - which coincidentally is what Hinkie ultimately failed to provide enough of after all the losing, however the Sixers are only giving up one player who has (arguably) proven to be capable of being an impact player - Okafor. All the others outgoing are crapshoots.

I didn't realise Blake's contract was so short, but obviously this deal wouldn't be made without his approval.
If the Clips tell him they're through, there aren't too many other destinations where he could be the face of the franchise and not the 2nd option.

I'm unsure why people seem to expect every single one of a (non one-move-away) team's holes/weaknesses to be solved in a one trade (i.e not an offseason plan) proposal/idea/post, and this is a considerably less realistic expectation in a scenario involving the Sixers, considering they have been in no man's land for years.

I would think that the Colangelo's would view this deal as 2 birds in the hand being better than 1 (being generous - Okafor), a peacock in the bush (the shiny #2 pick), a rare one which is out in the wilderness and the chances of it ever returning are unknown (Embiid), and a foreign bird in a foreign land (Saric).

The Sixers are keeping Noel, who could be a great complement to Blake Griffin in the frontcourt.
That's 3 legitimate starters in place. If everyone bought in, does no on here think that the Colangelo's and the core players (Blake and CJ) have the relationships/pull to sell 1 good or a couple of decent FA's on joining the core going forward? The Sixers would certainly still have a boatload of cap space to spend. I think it is realistic enough to assume that the Sixers chances of signing an impact player are much higher if the deal I proposed went down. The value of this significant boost in perception around the league shouldn't be underestimated or ignored when evaluating this trade. I for one think that this so far underrated factor has as much, if not more potential/probability/odds of making an impact or coming to fruition as Embiid or Saric.

The Sixers would have a bunch of expendable assets remaining (boatload of cap space, '17 Lakers 1st, all future 1sts, Covington, Landry's EC, young cap fodder) to complete the roster, targets depending on who they are able to obtain via FA.

The Sixers haven't known who they are for quite some time now. The overarching philosophy/principles/strategy were in place, but there was no true identity as everyone was considered moveable parts, and there were no expectations for the collective.

This deal would make a pretty significant statement of the Sixers winning intentions IMO, and could be a huge kickstart down road back to respectability.

[HartfordWhalers]

I don't know how many times I need to clarify this, but 9 times out of 10 I'm not putting up deals I would personally do or think teams should do.

I would hate the Colangelo's getting to cash in all of Hinkie's chips in win now moves.

This deal was put forward under the assumption that Hinkie was ousted due to patience for the "process" wearing thin.

I would much rather see what I've got with Embiid and Saric too, but I suspect the mandate could have somewhat changed.

I am somewhat surprised by the response however. I'm no fan of Blake and wouldn't want to build my team around him (hence why it isn't a straight Bulls/Clips swap), but I can't really argue that he isn't a top 10-15 player. As another poster pointed out, McCollum is no slouch either. He is steadily rising in collective imaginary top player rankings haha, and gives the Sixers a 2nd young proven impact player - which coincidentally is what Hinkie ultimately failed to provide enough of after all the losing, however the Sixers are only giving up one player who has (arguably) proven to be capable of being an impact player - Okafor. All the others outgoing are crapshoots.

I didn't realise Blake's contract was so short, but obviously this deal wouldn't be made without his approval.
If the Clips tell him they're through, there aren't too many other destinations where he could be the face of the franchise and not the 2nd option.

I'm unsure why people seem to expect every single one of a (non one-move-away) team's holes/weaknesses to be solved in a one trade (i.e not an offseason plan) proposal/idea/post, and this is a considerably less realistic expectation in a scenario involving the Sixers, considering they have been in no man's land for years.

I would think that the Colangelo's would view this deal as 2 birds in the hand being better than 1 (being generous - Okafor), a peacock in the bush (the shiny #2 pick), a rare one which is out in the wilderness and the chances of it ever returning are unknown (Embiid), and a foreign bird in a foreign land (Saric).

The Sixers are keeping Noel, who could be a great complement to Blake Griffin in the frontcourt.
That's 3 legitimate starters in place. If everyone bought in, does no on here think that the Colangelo's and the core players (Blake and CJ) have the relationships/pull to sell 1 good or a couple of decent FA's on joining the core going forward? The Sixers would certainly still have a boatload of cap space to spend. I think it is realistic enough to assume that the Sixers chances of signing an impact player are much higher if the deal I proposed went down. The value of this significant boost in perception around the league shouldn't be underestimated or ignored when evaluating this trade. I for one think that this so far underrated factor has as much, if not more potential/probability/odds of making an impact or coming to fruition as Embiid or Saric.

The Sixers would have a bunch of expendable assets remaining (boatload of cap space, '17 Lakers 1st, all future 1sts, Covington, Landry's EC, young cap fodder) to complete the roster, targets depending on who they are able to obtain via FA.

The Sixers haven't known who they are for quite some time now. The overarching philosophy/principles/strategy were in place, but there was no true identity as everyone was considered moveable parts, and there were no expectations for the collective.

This deal would make a pretty significant statement of the Sixers winning intentions IMO, and could be a huge kickstart down road back to respectability.

Colangelo might make a dumb win now move, but expecting him to make one where in 12 months the centerpiece is already gone is pretty extreme and then some. I feel like if you had known Blake's contract, you wouldn't have suggested it, but now are backed into defending it.

As for where Blake can be a face of a franchise, if he is a top 15 player as you suggest (and I won't disagree), by my math that would leave at least 16 teams where he would be the best player.

[BullyKing]

I don't know how many times I need to clarify this, but 9 times out of 10 I'm not putting up deals I would personally do or think teams should do.

Then why are you surprised that we don't like the trade and acting like we are missing something by saying its a bad move.

1. Here's a trade.
2. Everyone - this would be a bad move and the values are off.
3. Guys,the value being off is like the whole point, duh.

[N.O.R.E.]

snipped because I hate multiple long quote posts

Colangelo might make a dumb win now move, but expecting him to make one where in 12 months the centerpiece is already gone is pretty extreme and then some. I feel like if you had known Blake's contract, you wouldn't have suggested it, but now are backed into defending it.

As for where Blake can be a face of a franchise, if he is a top 15 player as you suggest (and I won't disagree), by my math that would leave at least 16 teams where he would be the best player.

I think it's kind of widely expected Colangelo will make a win now move, and that it is likely to be dumb.

Stating with authority that the centrepiece in a hypothetical trade is "already gone" in a year is also dumb.

You should know that the NBA is pretty damn fluid.

I swear you were a different poster before you became a moderator.

I obviously put forward this deal under the misguided impression that Blake had a few years left on his deal, I already admitted that. That's why I then suggested that the Sixers would only do this if they had buy in from Blake.

How many times do I need to explain that I don't have some big vested interest in the deals I post, I put them up for discussion and the hope people suggest tweaks or that it can spark up other ideas. I don't care if my deals are bad, or everyone thinks they're bad. I'm always more interested in gauging player's values and what if scenarios.

You are mistaking me trying to explain the premise of the deal for "being backed in to defending it"

In the explanation of my deals, I generally state the hypothetical scenario and I probably need to communicate these better and perhaps put this at the top of the post. I think I used to do this, but I'm always hi and inconsistent with my formatting.

With regards to Blake being a top 15 player, it's hilarious how you chose to word your sentence.
I accept it probably more grudgingly than you.

Blake can be a top 15 player, but that doesn't mean he makes sense for every team.
I should have added the realistic destinations qualifier though.

If the Clippers were motivated to trade Blake the vast majority of teams wouldn't be realistic potential suitors IMO:
Atlanta (Millsap and maybe Horford, no need)
Charlotte (not enough/the right assets, just don't see as realistic)
Chicago (no way to pair him with Jimmy, lateral move if have to give up Butler)
Cleveland (bad fit and highly unlikely)
Detroit (don't have the right assets)
Indiana (Wouldn't give up PG+not enough assets/could potentially put together a package, but PG would still be king)
Miami (not enough/the right assets/fit)
Milwaukee (have young forward duo)
New York (Melo not enough?, probably wouldn't give up KP/go all in Isiah style)
Orlando (have Aaron Gordon to develop, and poor fit with Vuc, would require a whole team remodelling, don't see as a Skiles guy)
Toronto (not the right assets/would cost too much that the move would be counterproductive)
Washington (don't have the assets/wouldn't give up Wall)
Dallas (doesn't have the assets+worse future outlook than Philly)
Golden State (not gonna happen)
Houston (not gonna happen/give up Harden)
Lakers (not gonna happen)
Memphis (not giving up Marc, not enough other assets)
Minny (doesn't strike me as a Thibs guy, not in need of another high usage offensive option)
NO (poor fit/have AD)
OKC (Clips won't send him there)
San Antonio (poor fit)
Utah (have Gobert and Favors, no need)

That leaves:
Boston - doesn't strike me as an Ainge guy, but no doubt a more desirable destination and would be the best player/alpha dog
Denver - would have to include Faried (is Doc dumb enough? I think so). Would be best player and would have perhaps slightly better outlook as a team than the Sixers in this scenario
Phoenix - would be best player
Portland - Lillard is better in my books
Sacramento - Cousins would likely be in the deal, so Blake would be alpha

I realise I'm **** at communicating clearly, but if the Clips decide to deal Blake, I only see 5-6 realistic destinations max where he would be their best player/alpha dog.

How many other opportunities will potentially be made available to Colangelo to acquire a top 15 player in their prime?
You really think he wouldn't do it?

Again, operating under the assumption that Blake and McCollum are all in going forward, do you or do you not think the Sixers would be better positioned to add significant talent at PG or SF in free agency after this deal?

Do you or do you not think the Sixers would then have the remaining assets to fill the remaining holes in the roster and round out a competitive roster that could be to Blake's liking going forward? Or do you insist that it is just completely inconceivable that he would stay in the right situation?

If you are viewing the Sixers through the Colangelo lens, what do you see as some potential deals to improve the team?

[N.O.R.E.]

I'm not a fan at all of huge consolidation trades that Philly makes where the best value they get back is a big... especially in a deal that involves good wings!

Completely understandable. Are there any wings in particular you would target?

This deal is bad for all the different reasons already mentioned,

Noted.

especially the Embiid part. He's either traded at his potential or he's not dealt at all. He's such a boom or bust prospect, Philly would be stupid to take 10cents on the dollar for him.

I'm scratching my head a little here. Hinkie is gone, why does Colangelo need to be all in on decisions previously made? Why can't it be somewhere in between? I don't see Colangelo doing the evaluate things for a year shtick with the team in general, although I could see him doing it with Embiid. I don't think he would allow such a risky/undependable asset to be a deal breaker in a deal for established talent however, especially if it was aligned to some larger plan of acquisitions.

[HartfordWhalers]

Again Blake is a fa in 1 year.

Saying Charlotte etc doesn't have the trade assets makes no sense when theconcern is he will walk in a year and get to pick his best spot.

But playing along and Philly having traded a boatload of assets for Blake is still so attractive he stays against all odds, ib a year, then why not wa8t until then and sign him for free?

[Foshan]

I'm not a fan at all of huge consolidation trades that Philly makes where the best value they get back is a big... especially in a deal that involves good wings!

Completely understandable. Are there any wings in particular you would target?

Well considering this is a deal that involves Butler, I'd rather be targeting him in this deal. Granted I'm not sure that there are a lot of other wings available to push for at this point.

This deal is bad for all the different reasons already mentioned,

Noted.

especially the Embiid part. He's either traded at his potential or he's not dealt at all. He's such a boom or bust prospect, Philly would be stupid to take 10cents on the dollar for him.

I'm scratching my head a little here. Hinkie is gone, why does Colangelo need to be all in on decisions previously made? Why can't it be somewhere in between? I don't see Colangelo doing the evaluate things for a year shtick with the team in general, although I could see him doing it with Embiid. I don't think he would allow such a risky/undependable asset to be a deal breaker in a deal for established talent however, especially if it was aligned to some larger plan of acquisitions.[/quote]
I totally get where your coming from, and it could just be because I'm emotionally attached to Embiid However, looking at that Butler deal... a healthy Embiid (IMO) is the most valuable piece in that trade and makes that deal a big overpay. A questionable Embiid (current value) is just another quarter thrown on a pile of quarters to try to get value.
While BC isn't attached to Embiid like Hinkie was, if you trade Embiid for a small % on the dollar, and he lives up to his potential, your fired. He's just to valuable a piece to be wrong about IMO.