If TODAY You're Offered to Trade Embiid for one of Exum, Gordon, Smart, or Randle Would You Do it?

[Slizeezyc]

It's impossible to establish his value. Impossible. If Gordon can be a three and shoot, he looks likes a player.He's a high risk as a skinny four. Of the players the Sixer's did not choose 2014, I thought Stauskas, McDermott, and Warren were the jewels, albeit flawed jewels. I think this will prove to be the case. Chicago drafted Portis this year, they draft very well for mid pack.It's horrible what has happened to Embid, it's a wait and see mentally and physically for him.

This is probably my favorite take from the thread. It's not super hot-take-y it's just very defeated. Also that Stauskas is now on the team is funny as well.

Would you guys trade Embiid for Wiggins or Towns?

This is the worst take. He's a Wolves fan. Never do this as a fan. Ever.

[Sixerscan]

This thread makes my head hurt
You all can't still be this naive

You take the goddamn deal so quickly.
Embiid is finished people. If he isn't it's a literal medical miracle.

does Embiid need an amputated leg before some of you just call a spade a spade?

He's not finished. Classic Philadelphia hot take overreaction.

The truth is, we don't know anything yet. People may think they do, but they don't. Including the doctors.

Lol the guys has missed two years. It's not a hot take or an overreaction. Completely reasonable take at this point.

Gotta say I want to see this plays out though. He stays.

Nice, I'm happy with this as my only post in this thread. The people that lost hope after two years of injuries were not ridiculous, but I'm glad we did not pull the trigger.

[HartfordWhalers]

Did we win?

[TeamHigh]

Nice, I'm happy with this as my only post in this thread. The people that lost hope after two years of injuries were not ridiculous, but I'm glad we did not pull the trigger.

No, it absolutely was still ridiculous, and for a very simple reason.

Joel Embiid could have never played a game in the NBA and it still would have been the right pick at the time. Because it was very evident—from anybody who has a half-way decent understanding of the game of basketball and at least one functioning eyeball—that Embiid was not on the same tier of talent as those guys. Not Gordon, not smart, not Randle, not Vonleh, not Stauskas, not Exum (and I was very high, probably too high, on Exum).

Before his injury, he was a tier above Wiggins and Parker, who themselves were a tier above those names as prospects. Those guys could, if they reached their ceilings, be good or even very good players in the NBA. Embiid could be an absolute superstar.

The whole point of the process is to get a star. You don't tank for years to get a group of nice players. You tank to find that transcendent star you can build around for the next decade. Embiid was that guy. And it's absolutely worth it, for a losing franchise who has no stars, to swing for the fence on every chance of hitting a home run.

My sole criticism of Hinkie has been that, despite having a very good process, he was always a bit conservative come draft day. He would elect for a more polished, lower ceiling guy. On one hand, he claims he'll claim the process is about finding a superstar, but on the other draft guys who lack potential superstar upside. That's how we ended up with MCW over Giannis, or Okafor over Porzingis.

I don't expect any GM to hit with all their picks. But MCW was considered a bit of a 'safe' pick at the time, and Giannis was a risky unknown with potential superstar upside. Okafor was a known commodity who was potentially limited by his athleticism, whereas Porzingis was a bouncy guy that could be a bust, but also had superstar upside. If you're a franchise on the hunt for a superstar, why aren't you gambling and swinging for the fences on every single chance you get?

[LloydFree]

Nice, I'm happy with this as my only post in this thread. The people that lost hope after two years of injuries were not ridiculous, but I'm glad we did not pull the trigger.

No, it absolutely was still ridiculous, and for a very simple reason.

Joel Embiid could have never played a game in the NBA and it still would have been the right pick at the time. Because it was very evident—from anybody who has a half-way decent understanding of the game of basketball and at least one functioning eyeball—that Embiid was not on the same tier of talent as those guys. Not Gordon, not smart, not Randle, not Vonleh, not Stauskas, not Exum (and I was very high, probably too high, on Exum).

Before his injury, he was a tier above Wiggins and Parker, who themselves were a tier above those names as prospects. Those guys could, if they reached their ceilings, be good or even very good players in the NBA. Embiid could be an absolute superstar.

The whole point of the process is to get a star. You don't tank for years to get a group of nice players. You tank to find that transcendent star you can build around for the next decade. Embiid was that guy. And it's absolutely worth it, for a losing franchise who has no stars, to swing for the fence on every chance of hitting a home run.

My sole criticism of Hinkie has been that, despite having a very good process, he was always a bit conservative come draft day. He would elect for a more polished, lower ceiling guy. On one hand, he claims he'll claim the process is about finding a superstar, but on the other draft guys who lack potential superstar upside. That's how we ended up with MCW over Giannis, or Okafor over Porzingis.

I don't expect any GM to hit with all their picks. But MCW was considered a bit of a 'safe' pick at the time, and Giannis was a risky unknown with potential superstar upside. Okafor was a known commodity who was potentially limited by his athleticism, whereas Porzingis was a bouncy guy that could be a bust, but also had superstar upside. If you're a franchise on the hunt for a superstar, why aren't you gambling and swinging for the fences on every single chance you get?

I don't think he was being conservative. I think his decisions were based a bit too much on statistical indicators and not enough on Scouting. Porzingis was a horrific rebounder in Europe and Rebounding is used as an indicator of projectable athleticism. Okafor wasn't elite as a rebounder, but he was miles ahead of Porzingis at the time. All of the other guys Hinkie drafted, Noel, MCW, KJ, Jerami, Embiid, Saric and Holmes were elite college Reb/stls/blks/stls/per40 guys. He seemed like he specifically targeted the best player left at each spot with regards to the per40 stats. He seemingly veered on Okafor, because if he stayed strict to his previous draft formula, he would have selected Myles Turner over Okafor. That would have taken a big leap at the time. I don't think Hinkie conservative, except on the Okafor pick for some reason.

[Sixerscan]

Nice, I'm happy with this as my only post in this thread. The people that lost hope after two years of injuries were not ridiculous, but I'm glad we did not pull the trigger.

No, it absolutely was still ridiculous, and for a very simple reason.

Joel Embiid could have never played a game in the NBA and it still would have been the right pick at the time. Because it was very evident—from anybody who has a half-way decent understanding of the game of basketball and at least one functioning eyeball—that Embiid was not on the same tier of talent as those guys. Not Gordon, not smart, not Randle, not Vonleh, not Stauskas, not Exum (and I was very high, probably too high, on Exum).

Before his injury, he was a tier above Wiggins and Parker, who themselves were a tier above those names as prospects. Those guys could, if they reached their ceilings, be good or even very good players in the NBA. Embiid could be an absolute superstar.

The whole point of the process is to get a star. You don't tank for years to get a group of nice players. You tank to find that transcendent star you can build around for the next decade. Embiid was that guy. And it's absolutely worth it, for a losing franchise who has no stars, to swing for the fence on every chance of hitting a home run.

My sole criticism of Hinkie has been that, despite having a very good process, he was always a bit conservative come draft day. He would elect for a more polished, lower ceiling guy. On one hand, he claims he'll claim the process is about finding a superstar, but on the other draft guys who lack potential superstar upside. That's how we ended up with MCW over Giannis, or Okafor over Porzingis.

I don't expect any GM to hit with all their picks. But MCW was considered a bit of a 'safe' pick at the time, and Giannis was a risky unknown with potential superstar upside. Okafor was a known commodity who was potentially limited by his athleticism, whereas Porzingis was a bouncy guy that could be a bust, but also had superstar upside. If you're a franchise on the hunt for a superstar, why aren't you gambling and swinging for the fences on every single chance you get?

The post/thread was about trading him after he had two years of injuries. Not whether or not he should have been drafted. The fact is we as fans had very incomplete information on Embiid and whether he would ever play at that point. I was on board with keeping him despite that incomplete information, but understand why others might not have been.

Certainly there is a point (3 years of injuries? 4 years of injuries?) where everyone would agreed that the ship sailed. Very glad we actually got to see him play before it came to that.

[smittybanton]

Awesome re-post. Enjoyed reading the whole thread.

[thenbaman]

Voted yes,something is better than nothing,i would love
for him to come back in all his glory but that will not
happen and you all know it.

Having said that the sixers have no choice but to wait
it out and hope for the best because we are not getting
anything for him.

Love being wrong all the time,lol

[ExplosionsInDaSky]

I still think Okafor has value, guys that can get you 26/9 on aNY night are not busts. Michael Olowakandi was a bust.
As for this topic....I voted yes like the impatient A Hole that I am lol. I take it back, and I humbly apologize for my overreacting to Embiids injury.

Do you think Eddy Curry had value? From a basketball standpoint, similar rebounding number percentages with some various other comparable elements.

Okafor is much better than Curry in my opinion, but your point is taken. Especially with the rebounding aspect.

[Embiid P]

Step 1: feverishly scan bumped threads for your own foolish hot take
(if none)
Step 2: sit back and laugh at the scorching hot takes of others.

I literally just did that. More so because I was curious what I was thinking in 2015. At that point, I was probably all in on Embiid, but I could see a rainy day where I'd consider punting for a healthy player. Glad I didn't say anything.

For the record, I just voted no.

Glad we didn't trade Embiid for Smart in the end, though it was easy to lose faith with his injury issues..

Way to almost steal my username. LOL jk welcome to the board.

[hookshot199]

Looking back on this there were many who stood strong who saw the potential dominance Embiid could become if he got a chance to play. Let's just hope he continues to stay healthy and can dominate. Some would have traded him because of the uncertainty. I'm glad we have Embiid.

Where'd you dig this from?

I don't normally watch a lot of college basketball because I can't stand the three-point ball any more than I like the designated hitter. But I happened to catch Embiid's 'block party' against Oklahoma State. He was just 19 before and this was before his foot break. It was one of the most exciting performances I've ever seen at the college level, and I had the fortune of watching the Elvin Hayes go against Alcindor in the old Astrodome in 1968 and Bill Walton's 21 for 22 shooting performance in the 1973 NCAA finals.

Let's just hope - knock on wood - he stays healthy.

http://thebiglead.com/2014/01/18/joel-embiid-had-a-block-party-against-oklahoma-state/

[TeamHigh]

I don't think he was being conservative. I think his decisions were based a bit too much on statistical indicators and not enough on Scouting. Porzingis was a horrific rebounder in Europe and Rebounding is used as an indicator of projectable athleticism. Okafor wasn't elite as a rebounder, but he was miles ahead of Porzingis at the time. All of the other guys Hinkie drafted, Noel, MCW, KJ, Jerami, Embiid, Saric and Holmes were elite college Reb/stls/blks/stls/per40 guys. He seemed like he specifically targeted the best player left at each spot with regards to the per40 stats. He seemingly veered on Okafor, because if he stayed strict to his previous draft formula, he would have selected Myles Turner over Okafor. That would have taken a big leap at the time. I don't think Hinkie conservative, except on the Okafor pick for some reason.

You might be right, but if this was the case it's definitely concerning. Even good statistical indicators are still more of a representation of the player as he is now, rather than what he can be in the future.

Porzingis was an 18 year old 7 foot stringbean playing against adults, in a league and club that had no incentive to showcase him (as promising youngsters either get drafted to the NBA or get bought by bigger clubs). He sprouts up, has a lot of room to add more bulk, and there were plenty of scouts that suggested he had the highest ceiling of anyone in the draft.

Which leads to my point. If you're desperate for a superstar, why wouldn't you specifically target players with superstar upside? I would be gambling on the highest upside every single time until I could hit a bona fide superstar. And yes, I would expect to miss a lot.

The post/thread was about trading him after he had two years of injuries. Not whether or not he should have been drafted. The fact is we as fans had very incomplete information on Embiid and whether he would ever play at that point. I was on board with keeping him despite that incomplete information, but understand why others might not have been.

Certainly there is a point (3 years of injuries? 4 years of injuries?) where everyone would agreed that the ship sailed. Very glad we actually got to see him play before it came to that.

The equation doesn't change at that point in time at all, though.

When you drafted him, he was an injured big man that was likely out for the year and had injury concerns for his future.

Two years later, he's an injured big man that has injury concerns for the future, but was finally getting healthy.

Electing to trade him at that point in time is objectively a poor use of sunk cost.

The only reason you would deem the pick correct at the time but want to trade him later was the extremely unlikely circumstance of you knowing that he would never play, but literally no one else knowing that. That's hard to imagine in the post-Bynum NBA.

[Sixerscan]

The post/thread was about trading him after he had two years of injuries. Not whether or not he should have been drafted. The fact is we as fans had very incomplete information on Embiid and whether he would ever play at that point. I was on board with keeping him despite that incomplete information, but understand why others might not have been.

Certainly there is a point (3 years of injuries? 4 years of injuries?) where everyone would agreed that the ship sailed. Very glad we actually got to see him play before it came to that.

The equation doesn't change at that point in time at all, though.

When you drafted him, he was an injured big man that was likely out for the year and had injury concerns for his future.

Two years later, he's an injured big man that has injury concerns for the future, but was finally getting healthy.

Electing to trade him at that point in time is objectively a poor use of sunk cost.

The only reason you would deem the pick correct at the time but want to trade him later was the extremely unlikely circumstance of you knowing that he would never play, but literally no one else knowing that. That's hard to imagine in the post-Bynum NBA.

You're off on your timeline. This thread started in July 2015. Right after it was announced he would miss the year and before he had the 2nd surgery. He wasn't "finally getting healthy."

[LordCovington33]

I literally just did that. More so because I was curious what I was thinking in 2015. At that point, I was probably all in on Embiid, but I could see a rainy day where I'd consider punting for a healthy player. Glad I didn't say anything.

For the record, I just voted no.

Glad we didn't trade Embiid for Smart in the end, though it was easy to lose faith with his injury issues..

Way to almost steal my username. LOL jk welcome to the board.

Sorry mate. I noticed ours are almost the same after I joined. Is there anyway to change it?

[Jack_Tretton]

lol @ yes voters trying to rationalize. Give it to me now mentality is the reason why we're stuck with Okafor instead of having Porzingis/Embiid frontcourt. Let the GM do his job plz!

[Embiid P]

For the record, I just voted no.

Glad we didn't trade Embiid for Smart in the end, though it was easy to lose faith with his injury issues..

Way to almost steal my username. LOL jk welcome to the board.

Sorry mate. I noticed ours are almost the same after I joined. Is there anyway to change it?

Go to this link to request a name change. Type in what you want to change it to and then wait for a board commissioner to approve it.

viewtopic.php?f=40&t=1250573

[spikeslovechild]

I voted no moreso then the names involved then I thought Embiid would be as good as he has.

[snoopdogg88]

[XtremeDunkz]

:roll:

?? Answer is still a strong no from me.

[gipper08]

even today I would not trade Embiid for both Wiggins AND Parker.





(he just needs more stability. He should do a bunch of farmers carries)