Ben Simmons Containment Thread Take 3

[Myth]

Star power wins in the league when the player is actually a star. And if McCollum has such spacing star power then why has he never won anything? Or is your hope that Embiid is just vastly better than Dame and can carry McCollum to places Dame never could? Because I ain't buying that line of thought either.

CJ and Dame are pretty redundant. CJ and Embiid are much more likely to compliment each other.

I don’t believe this at all. Dame is twice the player CJ is.
CJ is greatly overrated by people in this forum. I flat out don’t want CJ. On this team, but I would absolutely love Dame.
If you think there redundant send Dame and keep CJ!

I didn't say they were equal. Redundant as in CJ's skill set is redundant to what Dame already brings. And that is fine if you don't want CJ or don't think he is worth his contract, but he would bring a skill set to Phili that they don't currently have at the G position.

[BullyKing]

Outside of saving money, I don't know why you'd rather have Green/Curry over McCollum. If I were Phili, I would much rather have the on court production of CJ. But then, I do know you have been a notorious CJ hater, maybe to the point of being blinded by the positives he does bring.

Because they're better collectively? Curry is a better shooter than McCollum, Green is obviously a vastly better defender. Sure that's two players vs. one but the two combined make half of what McCollum makes.

They also take up 2 positions at the same time. This is why the idea of consolidating assets exists.

I grant you that issue but it's not as simple as that and hard to quantify because obviously none of these three players are playing all 48 minutes so you'd have to factor in the added positive of the extra Curry/Green minutes vs. who would be getting those excess minutes in the CJ only scenario. Then you'd also have to figure in what you could do with the extra $10-$12 million a year, which is really even more since you have the flexibility of just letting Green go after this year.

[PhillyNj]

CJ and Dame are pretty redundant. CJ and Embiid are much more likely to compliment each other.

I don’t believe this at all. Dame is twice the player CJ is.
CJ is greatly overrated by people in this forum. I flat out don’t want CJ. On this team, but I would absolutely love Dame.
If you think there redundant send Dame and keep CJ!

I didn't say they were equal. Redundant as in CJ's skill set is redundant to what Dame already brings. And that is fine if you don't want CJ or don't think he is worth his contract, but he would bring a skill set to Phili that they don't currently have at the G position.

Keep CJ and enjoy your good regular season run, but expect another early playoff exit.

[Roy The Natural]

I don’t believe this at all. Dame is twice the player CJ is.
CJ is greatly overrated by people in this forum. I flat out don’t want CJ. On this team, but I would absolutely love Dame.
If you think there redundant send Dame and keep CJ!

I didn't say they were equal. Redundant as in CJ's skill set is redundant to what Dame already brings. And that is fine if you don't want CJ or don't think he is worth his contract, but he would bring a skill set to Phili that they don't currently have at the G position.

Keep CJ and enjoy your good regular season run, but expect another early playoff exit.

That's totally uncalled for. Philly can enjoy the same.

[Myth]

Outside of saving money, I don't know why you'd rather have Green/Curry over McCollum. If I were Phili, I would much rather have the on court production of CJ. But then, I do know you have been a notorious CJ hater, maybe to the point of being blinded by the positives he does bring.

Because they're better collectively? Curry is a better shooter than McCollum, Green is obviously a vastly better defender. Sure that's two players vs. one but the two combined make half of what McCollum makes.

I think this is what gets lost too much in these conversations. If someone wants to argue that setting money aside having CJ on your roster is better than having Seth/Green on your roster, I could listen to that argument. Depending on how Green holds up defensively moving forward I think there is an argument to be made.

But we can't set aside contracts. Cavs fans can say until they are blue in the face that Love's $60M doesn't matter, but of course it does. KP on a max not giving anything close to max play is a major problem for Dallas, etc...

CJ being due $100M over the next 3 years is a huge part of why I place minimal value on him. I can get over his lack of defense, his relative lack of efficiency as a scorer, his inability to draw fouls, etc... He is a great shooter, he can create his own shot and that absolutely has value. But when you make $30M and you have those holes in your game, you just aren't that valuable an asset.

Meanwhile Seth Curry makes $8M and is the most accurate shooter in the league. Doesn't do a ton else, though he does a good job of exploiting aggressive closeouts and he competes hard defensively even as his size/relative lack of athleticism means he's never going to be a good defender. And every single second he is on the court, he is drawing lots of defensive attention because if you leave him, that's 3 points.

And Danny Green defends hard for half the game, isn't a consistent shooter any longer, but teams still fear him so he's still providing valuable spacing and he could care less about anything but winning. Doesn't need shots or touches and will take the toughest assignments night after night. And he doesn't make a lot either.

The money always matters.

Of course the money matters. Though, sometimes if you think a player has a skill set your team needs to potentially get a championship, you accept paying more to get that championship. In this scenario being discussed, it was CJ/Embiid/Harris/+ a star landed with that package of picks and role players. Potentially a big 4 of all-stars and near all-stars. The role players (Green/Seth) are much more replaceable. Now if the star that becomes available is somebody that makes CJ redundant again (say Beal for example), then it totally makes sense to value Seth/Green more.

[Texas Chuck]

I didn't say they were equal. Redundant as in CJ's skill set is redundant to what Dame already brings. And that is fine if you don't want CJ or don't think he is worth his contract, but he would bring a skill set to Phili that they don't currently have at the G position.

Keep CJ and enjoy your good regular season run, but expect another early playoff exit.

That's totally uncalled for. Philly can enjoy the same.

Agreed. Let's not turn this into cheap shots at other franchises. We can debate this without making/taking it personally.

[BullyKing]

I don’t believe this at all. Dame is twice the player CJ is.
CJ is greatly overrated by people in this forum. I flat out don’t want CJ. On this team, but I would absolutely love Dame.
If you think there redundant send Dame and keep CJ!

I didn't say they were equal. Redundant as in CJ's skill set is redundant to what Dame already brings. And that is fine if you don't want CJ or don't think he is worth his contract, but he would bring a skill set to Phili that they don't currently have at the G position.

Keep CJ and enjoy your good regular season run, but expect another early playoff exit.

Nope, this kind of post isn't gonna fly here. Either find something to post other than "Sixers say no!!!" or trolling/baiting or find somewhere else to post.

[Texas Chuck]

Of course the money matters. Though, sometimes if you think a player has a skill set your team needs to potentially get a championship, you accept paying more to get that championship. In this scenario being discussed, it was CJ/Embiid/Harris/+ a star landed with that package of picks and role players. Potentially a big 4 of all-stars and near all-stars. The role players (Green/Seth) are much more replaceable.

I have CJ as more role player than all-star especially as he's never been an all-star... And I strongly disagree that Seth Curry is easily replacable. Especially since Philly would have no matching salaries and only a TMLE to use. You aren't getting a Curry level player for that. You aren't getting a Danny Green either. Now you are stuck doing what the Lakers are doing and taking some real gambles on players well past their prime or who have never established themselves in the league.

[Myth]

Of course the money matters. Though, sometimes if you think a player has a skill set your team needs to potentially get a championship, you accept paying more to get that championship. In this scenario being discussed, it was CJ/Embiid/Harris/+ a star landed with that package of picks and role players. Potentially a big 4 of all-stars and near all-stars. The role players (Green/Seth) are much more replaceable.

I have CJ as more role player than all-star especially as he's never been an all-star... And I strongly disagree that Seth Curry is easily replacable. Especially since Philly would have no matching salaries and only a TMLE to use. You aren't getting a Curry level player for that. You aren't getting a Danny Green either. Now you are stuck doing what the Lakers are doing and taking some real gambles on players well past their prime or who have never established themselves in the league.

I respect that, I guess I just view Phili as a big enough draw to land high quality role players, but you have less confidence than I do that they can do that. I think the Lakers strategy is essentially the same as just about all championship caliber teams though. Make your team top heavy, then seek cheap but experienced vets that fill the remaining roles. I think CJ is just 1 tier below all-star level (Find me another non-all-star that can be written in as a 20ppg+ guy year after year just about anywhere in NBA history that was never an all-star), while I view Seth and Green and the very definition of role players, which is why I think they'd be better off going top heavy with talent and then seeking cheap vets.

[Slim Tubby]

Beasley, filler and late 1sts for Ben is on the same level as Embiid for Josh Okogie.

No sane Wolves fan would rate that as a viable offer for Simmons. However, about half of the Wolves board want nothing to do with Ben’s contract, horrific shooting and mental weakness at any cost.

He’s a very divisive player when it comes to assessing his true value.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BullyKing]

Of course the money matters. Though, sometimes if you think a player has a skill set your team needs to potentially get a championship, you accept paying more to get that championship. In this scenario being discussed, it was CJ/Embiid/Harris/+ a star landed with that package of picks and role players. Potentially a big 4 of all-stars and near all-stars. The role players (Green/Seth) are much more replaceable.

I have CJ as more role player than all-star especially as he's never been an all-star... And I strongly disagree that Seth Curry is easily replacable. Especially since Philly would have no matching salaries and only a TMLE to use. You aren't getting a Curry level player for that. You aren't getting a Danny Green either. Now you are stuck doing what the Lakers are doing and taking some real gambles on players well past their prime or who have never established themselves in the league.

Which the Sixers couldn't even do since they tend to always sign in NY and LA.

[Texas Chuck]

(Find me another non-all-star that can be written in as a 20ppg+ guy year after year

Drop even slightly below 20 ppg and there are a bunch of them. But even sticking at 20 ppg, you have a guy like Kevin Martin, who not only gave you 20 ppg every night, he did it far more efficiently and relative to era cost less money.

I know you don't think of Kevin Martin as some great player.

[Slim Tubby]

KAT for Simmons straight up.

Philly adds talent and goes twin towers plus KAT likes to play from outside anyways.

Minnesota enters a new era building around Edwards and Simmons making defense a priority. They can also trade DLO later.

I counter with Embiid for Josh Okogie. Philly can build around the terrific contracts of Simmons and Harris.

Please don’t insult the board with horrific takes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is a clear violation of board policy against unreasonable counters. In the future when you see deals you don't like either ignore them or find a different way to tell them why you don't like it. This just further derails things.

Thanks

Understood.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Myth]

(Find me another non-all-star that can be written in as a 20ppg+ guy year after year

Drop even slightly below 20 ppg and there are a bunch of them. But even sticking at 20 ppg, you have a guy like Kevin Martin, who not only gave you 20 ppg every night, he did it far more efficiently and relative to era cost less money.

I know you don't think of Kevin Martin as some great player.

So you had to go back a decade to find a guy that fits that. Kind of shows how few exceptions there are to non-all-stars that put up scoring numbers like that.

[BullyKing]

(Find me another non-all-star that can be written in as a 20ppg+ guy year after year

Drop even slightly below 20 ppg and there are a bunch of them. But even sticking at 20 ppg, you have a guy like Kevin Martin, who not only gave you 20 ppg every night, he did it far more efficiently and relative to era cost less money.

I know you don't think of Kevin Martin as some great player.

So you had to go back a decade to find a guy that fits that. Kind of shows how few exceptions there are to non-all-stars that put up scoring numbers like that.

Malik Beasley has averaged 20 a game since he started getting 30 minutes a night (which is a few minutes less a night than CJ requires to get his 20 on more shots). He is also five years younger and makes half of CJ.

So how much would you add to McCollum to get Beasley?

[Texas Chuck]

(Find me another non-all-star that can be written in as a 20ppg+ guy year after year

Drop even slightly below 20 ppg and there are a bunch of them. But even sticking at 20 ppg, you have a guy like Kevin Martin, who not only gave you 20 ppg every night, he did it far more efficiently and relative to era cost less money.

I know you don't think of Kevin Martin as some great player.

So you had to go back a decade to find a guy that fits that. Kind of shows how few exceptions there are to non-all-stars that put up scoring numbers like that.

I honestly didn't want to spend the time on the exercise. But I could immediately add Jamal Crawford, Jason Terry, Lou Williams, Mike Conley(I know he was finally an all-star last year), Evan Fournier, Andrew Wiggins, Gallo, Tobias if you want some more modern examples.

The point is an inefficient 20 ppg isn't all-star worthy automatically. In fact there hasn't been a single year of CJ's career where I thought that guy needs to be an all-star.

[Myth]

Drop even slightly below 20 ppg and there are a bunch of them. But even sticking at 20 ppg, you have a guy like Kevin Martin, who not only gave you 20 ppg every night, he did it far more efficiently and relative to era cost less money.

I know you don't think of Kevin Martin as some great player.

So you had to go back a decade to find a guy that fits that. Kind of shows how few exceptions there are to non-all-stars that put up scoring numbers like that.

Malik Beasley has averaged 20 a game since he started getting 30 minutes a night (which is a few minutes less a night than CJ requires to get his 20 on more shots). He is also five years younger and makes half of CJ.

So how much would you add to McCollum to get Beasley?

Beasley (almost) doing it for 50 games is not quite the same consistency as I was referring to as 6 years in a row for CJ.

[BullyKing]

Drop even slightly below 20 ppg and there are a bunch of them. But even sticking at 20 ppg, you have a guy like Kevin Martin, who not only gave you 20 ppg every night, he did it far more efficiently and relative to era cost less money.

I know you don't think of Kevin Martin as some great player.

So you had to go back a decade to find a guy that fits that. Kind of shows how few exceptions there are to non-all-stars that put up scoring numbers like that.

In fact there hasn't been a single year of CJ's career where I thought that guy needs to be an all-star.

Nor, apparently, anyone else in the world - or at least enough of them for him to ever be an all-star (not that I think this is really a great measure of a player's value).

[BullyKing]

So you had to go back a decade to find a guy that fits that. Kind of shows how few exceptions there are to non-all-stars that put up scoring numbers like that.

Malik Beasley has averaged 20 a game since he started getting 30 minutes a night (which is a few minutes less a night than CJ requires to get his 20 on more shots). He is also five years younger and makes half of CJ.

So how much would you add to McCollum to get Beasley?

Beasley (almost) doing it for 50 games is not quite the same consistency as I was referring to as 6 years in a row for CJ.

Beasley started doing it at age 23. McCollum average 6.8 PPG in his age 23 season. Seems like your dinging Beasley for not having the same track record because he is much younger where I think the fact that he is much younger would fairly be characterized as a plus when it comes to value.

[Ruzious]

(Find me another non-all-star that can be written in as a 20ppg+ guy year after year

Drop even slightly below 20 ppg and there are a bunch of them. But even sticking at 20 ppg, you have a guy like Kevin Martin, who not only gave you 20 ppg every night, he did it far more efficiently and relative to era cost less money.

I know you don't think of Kevin Martin as some great player.

I think you're underrating McCollum a bit. He's a player who can run the offense. Playing in the backcourt with a future HOFer has understandably limited his role with Portland. The fact that he averaged 5.0 assists to only 1.5 to's per 36 minutes is an indication of what he could do if he were used as the lead guard more often. Defense... is another story, however.