76rs willing to trade pick for Embiid

[KillMonger]

Honest reaction when I first read it was......... So?

[Optimus_Steel]

Anyone wonder if the Sixers will be better than the Magic? They are outperforming us in the tank and emotionless in regards to their assets. I think it's terrible but I can't help but wonder if they will actually do a better job than us.

Philly can try to add as many picks as they want but at some point you reach diminishing returns because there are only 15 roster spots, 12 active spots. There is only so much playing time available. Players have feeling and emotions, they aren't inventory you stock on a shelf.

I prefer the way we are tanking as opposed to them. I still want to feel like I can root for them to win each game and see the core grow together.

[eyriq]

Anyone wonder if the Sixers will be better than the Magic? They are outperforming us in the tank and emotionless in regards to their assets. I think it's terrible but I can't help but wonder if they will actually do a better job than us.

We are slightly less flexible due to Vucevics' extension, but then again we are a step ahead in cementing a core. They are killing us in draft selections though we are drafting in the 1st and 2nd round of every upcoming draft with an extra 1st and 2nd incoming to boot, (They have like two or three extra 1st rounders and eleven extra 2nd rounders). Considering rookie scale contracts and development players I take our situation hands down. Our rebuild has a shorter shelf life but also less flexibility, so should we stumble Philly will still be throwing stuff against the wall waiting to hit the launch button.

[FoxToddley]

Anyone wonder if the Sixers will be better than the Magic? They are outperforming us in the tank and emotionless in regards to their assets. I think it's terrible but I can't help but wonder if they will actually do a better job than us.

Philly can try to add as many picks as they want but at some point you reach diminishing returns because there are only 15 roster spots, 12 active spots. There is only so much playing time available. Players have feeling and emotions, they aren't inventory you stock on a shelf.

I prefer the way we are tanking as opposed to them. I still want to feel like I can root for them to win each game and see the core grow together.

I agree wholeheartedly, with the current mindset who in there right mind would want to be part of that organization. I feel kinda bad for the prospects coming out in draft that might go there.

[tooler]

Sixers fans seem to be under the impression that this is a generational center, they won't budge from that ideal. They even talked about how they wouldn't trade him unless they get a proven superstar in return . I feel sorry for the Sixers fans.

After the MCW trade, I was surprised to hear they considered Embiid untradeable. I suppose his ceiling is generational star so it's a little different than our situation where there is no *clear-cut* potential there, even Aaron Gordon.

The point about Embiid leaving is the most interesting wrinkle. I know I'm sensitive about building around hyped up / immature divas. Philly is a decent market but it's no LA or NY.

It's almost like another time constraint on Hinkie's infinite rebuild idea, along with fan/ownership exhaustion after 4-5 years. They have three more years to demonstrate they are a winning organization before he considers bolting. I assume if Embiid is truly great, Hinkie will immediately flip assets to win-now players.

[ezzzp]

Like I said in the other thread, embiid's personality is too over the top... he's going to end up in LA or NY if he becomes a star. I want no part of him.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/JoelEmbiid/status/568876488956776448[/tweet]

lol did he photoshop her into the photograph?

[Furinkazan]

well as I said before Id trade for Noel and play him at PF

[Furinkazan]

Sixers fans seem to be under the impression that this is a generational center, they won't budge from that ideal. They even talked about how they wouldn't trade him unless they get a proven superstar in return . I feel sorry for the Sixers fans.

After the MCW trade, I was surprised to hear they considered Embiid untradeable. I suppose his ceiling is generational star so it's a little different than our situation where there is no *clear-cut* potential there, even Aaron Gordon.

The point about Embiid leaving is the most interesting wrinkle. I know I'm sensitive about building around hyped up / immature divas. Philly is a decent market but it's no LA or NY.

It's almost like another time constraint on Hinkie's infinite rebuild idea, along with fan/ownership exhaustion after 4-5 years. They have three more years to demonstrate they are a winning organization before he considers bolting. I assume if Embiid is truly great, Hinkie will immediately flip assets to win-now players.

Seems A.Gordon would be traded for a future 2nd round pick if he was a Philly player.

[SOUL]

where are magic fans getting this attitude issue things from? is attitude issue photoshopping rihanna into pics? you guys are reaching lol i'm sure he's not goofing off in practices or he wouldn't last long

[Skin]

Anyone wonder if the Sixers will be better than the Magic? They are outperforming us in the tank and emotionless in regards to their assets. I think it's terrible but I can't help but wonder if they will actually do a better job than us.

We are slightly less flexible due to Vucevics' extension, but then again we are a step ahead in cementing a core. They are killing us in draft selections though we are drafting in the 1st and 2nd round of every upcoming draft with an extra 1st and 2nd incoming to boot, (They have like two or three extra 1st rounders and eleven extra 2nd rounders). Considering rookie scale contracts and development players I take our situation hands down. Our rebuild has a shorter shelf life but also less flexibility, so should we stumble Philly will still be throwing stuff against the wall waiting to hit the launch button.

I dunno... Philly shipped of Jrue Holliday right after giving him a new deal. That's they way they think. They don't operate with intentions of going step by step and building something organic which is Henny's approach. Instead, they think like this...

Here's what he said when asked why he doesn't try to get a little bit better every year:

"What we look at is, how do we add to what we're doing in a way that gets us closer to our goal? We don't think that it will necessarily be linear — that every year you will add five wins and after 10 years you will get to 50. That's not the way we think about the world. We think that it comes at fits and starts, and you have to be prepared to put yourself in a position that you might be able to make big leaps."

Here's how he described the overarching philosophy of how you win in the NBA:

"We're focused on how to put the building blocks in place that have a chance to compete in May. Those teams win in the high-50s. They don't win in the teens and they don't add two or three wins a year and they don't add a win a month for a little while to try and get to where they're going. They get all the way to the 50s. And they get there usually on the backs of great players. We are still — as much as I've talked about how we make decisions and as much as I've talked about our organizational goals and our player development — it is a players-driven league, still. When we have a set of players that can carry us deep, that's the only way, that's the only way to get where we're going."

http://www.businessinsider.com/sam-hink ... lan-2015-2

-----------

Personally, I like Henny's approach. If it works, then it's a long term sustainable product. Build from within, establish long term cohesiveness, family culture. Spurs model. Hinkie's approach could take a long time to get where he needs to be, but the model has a short term window when he does. Rockets model. Hoarded picks, created cap, traded for and signed Superstars - but their window is short and players are assets.

[SOUL]

Spurs had 3 HOF to work with though, and mostly only kept them long term (surrounded by some role players for a decent amount of time) - I think they're just going for a newer sustainable model like the old Pistons with way worse defense and younger players or the Grizzlies of late.

[Reverse_Angle]

Embiid has mental issues. I think that's what they are really afraid of behind closed doors. I'm fine walking right past that temptation.

I've gotten this vibe from him as well. Seems to be a bit of a headcase.

You guys speak so confident of it, I wonder if you know something that I don't.

[Baka_La Flame]

If we could get Noel for a future protected 1st and Nicholson or Harkless I would be all for it. Hell they can take them both

[axl_c_cool]

I would do that deal, Nicholson and LA Lakers protected 2017 pick for Noel

[Bensational]

Here's how he described the overarching philosophy of how you win in the NBA:

"We're focused on how to put the building blocks in place that have a chance to compete in May. Those teams win in the high-50s. They don't win in the teens and they don't add two or three wins a year and they don't add a win a month for a little while to try and get to where they're going. They get all the way to the 50s. And they get there usually on the backs of great players. We are still — as much as I've talked about how we make decisions and as much as I've talked about our organizational goals and our player development — it is a players-driven league, still. When we have a set of players that can carry us deep, that's the only way, that's the only way to get where we're going."

http://www.businessinsider.com/sam-hink ... lan-2015-2

-----------

Personally, I like Henny's approach. If it works, then it's a long term sustainable product. Build from within, establish long term cohesiveness, family culture. Spurs model. Hinkie's approach could take a long time to get where he needs to be, but the model has a short term window when he does. Rockets model. Hoarded picks, created cap, traded for and signed Superstars - but their window is short and players are assets.

i think you're buying into the corporate jargon too much. what is 'sustainable' in the NBA? the only sustainable parts of the Spurs have been Duncan, Parker, Manu and Pop - all other parts and pieces have been replaced over the years. and even Duncan was bordering on leaving the Spurs to sign with the Magic back in the day.

and what is unsustainable about what Hinkie is doing?

the difference between Hinkie and Henny is that Hinkie refuses to build around anything until he's found his superstar. he's not saying that once he's got his star he'll trade him for a bag of chips and some draft picks. once he's got that foundation piece, what's stopping him from building that strong family cohesion then? OKC did that with the pieces they put around Durant, they just got lucky that they landed Durant on day 1 of their rebuild.

Hinkie is looking for immediate star results on the court, whereas Henny is waiting for players to convincingly prove that they aren't stars.

and lately i've been doubting that we're trying to build a selfless, Spurs style, 'team'. mostly because young players are the wrong players to do that with, and we're seeing that on the court right now. young players are hungry and want to prove they can be stars. veterans are the ones who have come to terms with their ceiling as an individual and know the importance of working as a unit. the Hawks, Spurs and Grizzlies all have an average age of late 20's to early 30's. and they still have a pecking order within those teams, too.

Hinkie's window is no shorter than ours. i'm not sure how you can make that claim at all. nor how the Rockets have a shorter window than anyone else. the only team with a prolonged window has been the Spurs because they are the exception - 3 superstars who have all stayed with the team for 15 years.

you do realise that the likelihood of us recreating that 'model' is probably lower than us winning the lottery and drafting the next Dwight/Shaq/etc, right?

[Skin]

Here's how he described the overarching philosophy of how you win in the NBA:

"We're focused on how to put the building blocks in place that have a chance to compete in May. Those teams win in the high-50s. They don't win in the teens and they don't add two or three wins a year and they don't add a win a month for a little while to try and get to where they're going. They get all the way to the 50s. And they get there usually on the backs of great players. We are still — as much as I've talked about how we make decisions and as much as I've talked about our organizational goals and our player development — it is a players-driven league, still. When we have a set of players that can carry us deep, that's the only way, that's the only way to get where we're going."

http://www.businessinsider.com/sam-hink ... lan-2015-2

-----------

Personally, I like Henny's approach. If it works, then it's a long term sustainable product. Build from within, establish long term cohesiveness, family culture. Spurs model. Hinkie's approach could take a long time to get where he needs to be, but the model has a short term window when he does. Rockets model. Hoarded picks, created cap, traded for and signed Superstars - but their window is short and players are assets.

i think you're buying into the corporate jargon too much. what is 'sustainable' in the NBA? the only sustainable parts of the Spurs have been Duncan, Parker, Manu and Pop - all other parts and pieces have been replaced over the years. and even Duncan was bordering on leaving the Spurs to sign with the Magic back in the day.

and what is unsustainable about what Hinkie is doing?

the difference between Hinkie and Henny is that Hinkie refuses to build around anything until he's found his superstar. he's not saying that once he's got his star he'll trade him for a bag of chips and some draft picks. once he's got that foundation piece, what's stopping him from building that strong family cohesion then? OKC did that with the pieces they put around Durant, they just got lucky that they landed Durant on day 1 of their rebuild.

Hinkie is looking for immediate star results on the court, whereas Henny is waiting for players to convincingly prove that they aren't stars.

and lately i've been doubting that we're trying to build a selfless, Spurs style, 'team'. mostly because young players are the wrong players to do that with, and we're seeing that on the court right now. young players are hungry and want to prove they can be stars. veterans are the ones who have come to terms with their ceiling as an individual and know the importance of working as a unit. the Hawks, Spurs and Grizzlies all have an average age of late 20's to early 30's. and they still have a pecking order within those teams, too.

Hinkie's window is no shorter than ours. i'm not sure how you can make that claim at all. nor how the Rockets have a shorter window than anyone else. the only team with a prolonged window has been the Spurs because they are the exception - 3 superstars who have all stayed with the team for 15 years.

you do realise that the likelihood of us recreating that 'model' is probably lower than us winning the lottery and drafting the next Dwight/Shaq/etc, right?

Why don't you tell me what you really have against me and get it off your chest. If I say the sky is white, you're gonna say it's black. Doesn't matter the topic or issue, it's always this way.

You didn't even bother to answer the question I posed...

Anyone wonder if the Sixers will be better than the Magic? They are outperforming us in the tank and emotionless in regards to their assets. I think it's terrible but I can't help but wonder if they will actually do a better job than us.

Instead you wanna pick apart things that were said on the side... talking about what is "sustainable"... talking about Duncan almost coming here many moons ago.... wanting to provoke me talking about the Rockets... All of that is neither here or there in regards to my original question.

My idea of sustainability is simple....

If you get competitive by pawning off assets to get your star, then your window is open as long as they can stay together and play at a high level. Celtics Big 3, Heat Big 3, Lakers etc are examples. CLE, LAC, HOU are trying to do this now. It can be VERY successful. You could say it's the most successful way to get there. But the longevity is not what I would label as sustainable success. Teams that attempt this fail IF they don't build the right combination of stars. Teams like this have been BRK, NYK, Nash/Howard Lakers.

A longevitable model is built via the draft with those core players developed and kept together. SAN, OKC, GS, CHI are models of this. These teams don't face as much highs and lows, but their model is more sustainable longterm IF the team drafts well. Teams that don't draft well that face this issue have been SAC, PHX, MIL, MIN (although they are turning the corner now with the Love trade).

I know you want us to get a star by signing a max FA from another team or trading off our guys for one, but I don't think that is Henny's plan. Sooo.... do you wanna answer my question? Do you think Philly will ultimately perform a better rebuild than us?

[KillMonger]

i like Embiid, but i also read on their board that RIGHT now, not when Embiid has even played a game they would only trade Embiid for a Superstar like Lebron or Durant.............

[OrlChamps2030]

Anyone wonder if the Sixers will be better than the Magic? They are outperforming us in the tank and emotionless in regards to their assets. I think it's terrible but I can't help but wonder if they will actually do a better job than us.

How can this question be answered? The Sixer's best prospect and arguably 2nd best prospect havent even played yet and they have what looks like 2 more years of tanking left.

If they get a superstar their rebuild is better. If we get a superstar our rebuild is better. Way too early to tell and there are too many moving parts in place for both teams.

Skin, with all due respect you focus on "models" and imitating the Spurs too much. Imitation won't work because there are far too many variables. You do realize that they have the GOAT PF, drafting a HOF PG at 28, drafted one of the best SGs ever late in the 2nd round, and have one of the best coaches ever. The chances of imitating the above is astronomical.

Sustainability is great - when you have a superstar/star(s). Otherwise sustainability = mediocrity. It is just far too early to make absolute statements about either team's future.

The best "model" is drafting the right guys, signing the right guys, making trades where you receive superior value, and hiring the right coach. There is no secret way to become the Spurs, or else the Spurs wouldn't be the Spurs.

[Skin]

Anyone wonder if the Sixers will be better than the Magic? They are outperforming us in the tank and emotionless in regards to their assets. I think it's terrible but I can't help but wonder if they will actually do a better job than us.

How can this question be answered? The Sixer's best prospect and arguably 2nd best prospect havent even played yet and they have what looks like 2 more years of tanking left.

If they get a superstar their rebuild is better. If we get a superstar our rebuild is better. Way too early to tell and there are too many moving parts in place for both teams.

Skin, with all due respect you focus on "models" and imitating the Spurs too much. Imitation won't work because there are far too many variables. You do realize that they have the GOAT PF, drafting a HOF PG at 28, drafted one of the best SGs ever late in the 2nd round, and have one of the best coaches ever. The chances of imitating the above is astronomical.

Sustainability is great - when you have a superstar/star(s). Otherwise sustainability = mediocrity. It is just far too early to make absolute statements about either team's future.

The best "model" is drafting the right guys, signing the right guys, making trades where you receive superior value, and hiring the right coach. There is no secret way to become the Spurs, or else the Spurs wouldn't be the Spurs.

I'm not looking for a factual answer. That would rely on having a crystal ball. It was about getting a sense of which rebuilding style people thought would succeed first. I think there is a fundamental difference between our rebuild strategies and if you disagree that a strategy even exists in the NBA well then we'll have to agree to disagree and that wouldn't be the first time between us.

I think you're interpretation of what I think is misunderstood. I don't think we have to find exact matches to what they got talent-wise... their star to our star. I think our model is going to be based on 1) Drafting well. 2) Developing the talent. 3) Keeping the core together. I think in order for that plan to succeed, we need to 4) Building a team that has skills that complement each other. 5) Build a team that can put versatile floor match ups on the court.

[OrlChamps2030]

I think you're interpretation of what I think is misunderstood. I don't think we have to find exact matches to what they got talent-wise... their star to our star. I think our model is going to be based on 1) Drafting well. 2) Developing the talent. 3) Keeping the core together. I think in order for that plan to succeed, we need to 4) Building a team that has skills that complement each other. 5) Build a team that can put versatile floor match ups on the court.

i agree with most of what youre saying - i just think nothing is set in stone yet and hennigan isn't strictly following some script where he won't venture outside of solely drafting and developing young guys. TBH now that I think of it, i'm not so sure our rebuild and philly's rebuild are that different, we are just a bit farther along