Ben Simmons trades go here (and here only): Expect warnings if not following forum rules

[Lovetron Joe]

Spurs send Murray, White, Johnson for Simmons and Shake.

Spurs get a star they can build around for players they have developed. Simmons gets out of the spotlight. Pops will give him needed guidance. Walker, Vassell, Primo etc. can be developed to fill any gaps. Shake will provide scoring. He is also a Texas guy (SMU).

Sixers fill needs with two, two-way guards with decent size and a nice young wing. Sixers will be a deeper team with cost controlled assets.

The money works.

[mademan]

Spurs send Murray, White, Johnson for Simmons and Shake.

Spurs get a star they can build around for players they have developed. Simmons gets out of the spotlight. Pops will give him needed guidance. Walker, Vassell, Primo etc. can be developed to fill any gaps. Shake will provide scoring. He is also a Texas guy (SMU).

Sixers fill needs with two, two-way guards with decent size and a nice young wing. Sixers will be a deeper team with cost controlled assets.

The money works.

I dont think Johnson is available in this deal. Murray/White i could definitely see

[shrink]

Sixers fan here. My view is that, regardless of whether Jimmy Butler in Philadelphia was ever a good idea or whether the Sixers could have kept him, Embiid basically told the truth. The Sixers have tried for years now to build a team that would work with Simmons' unusual mix of off-the-chart strengths and significant weaknesses. They didn't pull it off, and now it's somebody else's turn to do the same.

I agree with the posters who have said, basically, that nothing Embiid says can help or hurt Simmons' value much. There will be a deal whenever Morey gets something he thinks is worth taking. He seems to be prepared for the long game, even if that means Simmons sitting for months. And I think he will have enormous support here for taking that stance, both in the local press (predictably vicious towards Simmons) and among fans who do not want a bad deal and will, rightly or wrongly, derive some satisfaction from Simmons not getting paid.

Part of the reason the Sixers find themselves in the current situation is because they didn't game out a scenario where a hoped-for offer didn't come. I'd be interested in knowing what the plan is months from now if the hoped-for offer still hasn't come.

I think part of it is that they almost stopped taking offers. But at the same time I think all of this gets morey listening to offers again which gets enough of a bidding war to have him gone by opening night or sooner

You’re right, for the sake of Sixers fans, they need to hope that a bidding war will start. Right now, Simmons is a $32 mil hole in their production, and that will cost them games. He is also a dark cloud hanging over every aspect of the franchise. He is clearly worth less to them than the other 29 teams.

Waiting all summer has reduced the value Simmons provides. With his great strengths, and great weaknesses, Ben is perhaps the hardest player in the NBA to build around, and the Sixers have struggled to do it for five full years. Now, a buyer is expected to do so on the fly, without a summer of roster construction to make it fit. Moreover, by waiting, Simmons had time to demonstrate he will refuse to honor his contract is he is unhappy - every GM must be scared to death of that.

I do agree with you on the timing. This needs to be resolved soon, so a new team can get him into training camp and create and implement systems with Ben as a major part. However, at this late date, I don’t know how much of a bidding war there will be.

[HartfordWhalers]

If Philly has struggled to build around Simmons, can we also say Utah has struggled to build around Gobert?

I find the standards of success applied to Philly would be brutal if applied to other teams. Imagine how Minnesota has built around KAT?

[jbk1234]

If Philly has struggled to build around Simmons, can we also say Utah has struggled to build around Gobert?

I find the standards of success applied to Philly would be brutal if applied to other teams. Imagine how Minnesota has built around KAT?

I'm not reading Philly has struggled to build around Simmons as an indictment of Philly. I also think that both of you're counter-examples ring true to an extent. You need 2 20+ ppg on the court with Gobert to have postseason success in the West. You probably need an Ibaka/Siakam type playing with KAT (or Jimmy Butler) just to reach the postseason.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app

[HartfordWhalers]

If Philly has struggled to build around Simmons, can we also say Utah has struggled to build around Gobert?

I find the standards of success applied to Philly would be brutal if applied to other teams. Imagine how Minnesota has built around KAT?

I'm not reading Philly has struggled to build around Simmons as an indictment of Philly. I also think that both of you're counter-examples ring true to an extent. You need 2 20+ ppg on the court with Gobert to have postseason success in the West. You probably need an Ibaka/Siakam type playing with KAT (or Jimmy Butler) just to reach the postseason.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app

I find it an interesting standard being used to suggest team "struggle". And I definitely think it would be interesting to apply it to other teams and see how many have struggled even more so, versus just using it as narrative to spin why teams that win half as often should pay less for Simmons based off team success.

[Texas Chuck]

For all of Embiid's talking the Sixers have never been truly built around Simmons they have been built around Embiid and Simmons so we don't actually know how hard that would be. We have seen players like Boogie or Towns or LaVine or Booker(pre-Paul) or Kyrie or Love or Vuc where it did appear pretty hard to build a consistent winner around them.

It might be impossible. He might not be good enough. If we are honest at any given time there are really only about 4 or 5 players max good enough to build a championship team around. Look at every champion save the last Spurs champion and the 3 Pistons champions. They all have an MVP level player on them. All of them.

The issue with Simmons is far more likely to be talent than style of play. Plenty of guys "play the right way" and just aren't good enough to build a champion around. I mean AD already proved that, and he's like the prototype.

[shrink]

If Philly has struggled to build around Simmons, can we also say Utah has struggled to build around Gobert?

I find the standards of success applied to Philly would be brutal if applied to other teams. Imagine how Minnesota has built around KAT?

You read the whole post, and the word “struggled” is what you get frustrated about?

Plus, this is the Simmons trade thread. Whether or not UTA or MIN has struggled as well has no bearing on Simmons trade value.

As I said, Simmons has some great strengths but also some great weaknesses. Because of this, it’s hard to build a team around him, and any GM that traded for him now didn’t get this last summer for roster construction. I think he had more trade value earlier, when GM’s could design their teams to improve his impact (ie, add more perimeter shooting and someone to create offense in the clutch).

[Texas Chuck]

If Philly has struggled to build around Simmons, can we also say Utah has struggled to build around Gobert?

I find the standards of success applied to Philly would be brutal if applied to other teams. Imagine how Minnesota has built around KAT?

You read the whole post, and the word “struggled” is what you get frustrated about?

Plus, this is the Simmons trade thread. Whether or not UTA or MIN has struggled as well has no bearing on Simmons trade value.

Of course its relevant. IF your argument is he has less value because he's hard to build around, we should test the veracity of that claim and one way to do that is to look at some other players that teams have attempt to build around to see how successful they have been in finding the right mix/talent around them.

You could be right about Simmons. And you make a good point though its mitigated by having 4 years left on his deal. He is likely to be a harder player to integrate than say a Beal or a Siakam and having to do so at the end of an off-season rather than the beginning makes short-term success more difficult.

But nobody is trading for Simmons thinking exclusively about this year. That full 4 years gives any team considering trading for him confidence they would have time to shape their roster to incorporate him. Plus I think someof the teams considering a Simmons trade aren't thinking of him as their franchise player. San Antonio would, Cleveland would. But Portland wouldn't. Minnesota wouldn't. Sacramento is a real question I guess.

[shrink]

If Philly has struggled to build around Simmons, can we also say Utah has struggled to build around Gobert?

I find the standards of success applied to Philly would be brutal if applied to other teams. Imagine how Minnesota has built around KAT?

You read the whole post, and the word “struggled” is what you get frustrated about?

Plus, this is the Simmons trade thread. Whether or not UTA or MIN has struggled as well has no bearing on Simmons trade value.

Of course its relevant. IF your argument is he has less value because he's hard to build around, we should test the veracity of that claim and one way to do that is to look at some other players that teams have attempt to build around to see how successful they have been in finding the right mix/talent around them.

Really? Your position is that comparing a different player, with different strengths and weaknesses, on a different team, with a different GM, with different assets, is a good way to determine if Ben Simmons is hard to build around?

[Texas Chuck]

You read the whole post, and the word “struggled” is what you get frustrated about?

Plus, this is the Simmons trade thread. Whether or not UTA or MIN has struggled as well has no bearing on Simmons trade value.

Of course its relevant. IF your argument is he has less value because he's hard to build around, we should test the veracity of that claim and one way to do that is to look at some other players that teams have attempt to build around to see how successful they have been in finding the right mix/talent around them.

Really? Your position is that comparing a different player, with different strengths and weaknesses, on a different team, with a different GM, with different assets, is a good way to determine if Ben Simmons is hard to build around?

No. I was very clear. Let me bold it for you.

[shrink]

Of course its relevant. IF your argument is he has less value because he's hard to build around, we should test the veracity of that claim and one way to do that is to look at some other players that teams have attempt to build around to see how successful they have been in finding the right mix/talent around them.

Really? Your position is that comparing a different player, with different strengths and weaknesses, on a different team, with a different GM, with different assets, is a good way to determine if Ben Simmons is hard to build around?

No. I was very clear. Let me bold it for you.

I’m not trying to put words in your mouth.

So if a different GM, with different assets, struggled to build around a different player, with different strengths and weaknesses, on a different team … that shows Ben Simmons DOESN’T have “less value because he’s NOT as hard to build around?”

I know the board is contentious right now, but am I really way out on a limb here saying that Simmons, with great strengths and great weaknesses, would have been easier to build around if a GM got the summer to build a better supporting roster?

[Texas Chuck]

Really? Your position is that comparing a different player, with different strengths and weaknesses, on a different team, with a different GM, with different assets, is a good way to determine if Ben Simmons is hard to build around?

No. I was very clear. Let me bold it for you.

I’m not trying to put words in your mouth.

So if a different GM, with different assets, struggled to build around a different player, with different strengths and weaknesses, on a different team … that shows Ben Simmons DOESN’T have “less value because he’s NOT as hard to build around?”

You just said I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, then proceed to literally put words in my mouth.

I did not say he is NOT(or even not) hard to build around. What I said was we don't know for sure because no team has tried, but that generally speaking its hard to build around everyone which would include Ben Simmons imo.

What I am saying, and I illustrated in my original post you quoted--maybe you saw this part, and didn't finish reading it, IDK, but let me try it a different way:

It's really hard to build a contender around basically every single player in the league. Right you have some guys like Lebron or Giannis or Harden or Kawhi or KD who seem to give you a really high floor and in the case of some like Lebron or Kawhi a really high ceiling. We've seen them on numerous teams with numerous different constructions and these guys contend essentially every year.

But even really high level players like Dame or Embiid or Gobert or AD etc it's been show that that's really difficult to do. The issue seems to far less about fit even though we commonly use fit as a primary reason, as it is just this is a superstar league and if you don't have a top 5 player you aren't likely to be a team that consistently goes deep into the playoffs.

So once we realize building around any player is hard, the fact that it might be hard to build around Simmons should be less of a factor in his trade value. Again, when as I stated originally, some of the teams who might wish to trade for him would do so with no intention of building their team around him.

[Texas Chuck]

I know the board is contentious right now, but am I really way out on a limb here saying that Simmons, with great strengths and great weaknesses, would have been easier to build around if a GM got the summer to build a better supporting roster?

You edited this in after my original response, so I want to not ignore it.

I specifically addressed this prior to this post of yours. I think you didn't read my post to completion because I specifically addressed that point. Please go back and read my original thoughts on this as they have not changed. For your convenience here they are:

You could be right about Simmons. And you make a good point though its mitigated by having 4 years left on his deal. He is likely to be a harder player to integrate than say a Beal or a Siakam and having to do so at the end of an off-season rather than the beginning makes short-term success more difficult.

But nobody is trading for Simmons thinking exclusively about this year. That full 4 years gives any team considering trading for him confidence they would have time to shape their roster to incorporate him. Plus I think someof the teams considering a Simmons trade aren't thinking of him as their franchise player. San Antonio would, Cleveland would. But Portland wouldn't. Minnesota wouldn't. Sacramento is a real question I guess.

And I've not remotely been contentious on any of this. I even specifically state where I think you made a good point on this issue. I just have a different perspective from yours.

[MoneyTalks41890]

FWIW ignoring where Simmons wants to be for a second building around him specifically could be a really fun almost moneyball type task. Not per se for a contender, but in the short term, I'd love to see someone like Sacto just go all out on elite shooters and one decent defensive big that can shoot a bit. A running team with Simmons and shooters would be very fun. Embiid necessarily slows the team down a bit. Not to take away from his immense talent, but I think a faster team could really see him thrive.

[babyjax13]

If Philly has struggled to build around Simmons, can we also say Utah has struggled to build around Gobert?

I find the standards of success applied to Philly would be brutal if applied to other teams. Imagine how Minnesota has built around KAT?

Utah had issues when we were running the "Bermuda Triangle" (Rubio/Favors/Gobert) but I think we've done a great job at putting together a complimentary supporting cast. With Philly it's pretty clear that Simmons and Embiid are not an ideal pairing, at least on offense.

[HartfordWhalers]

If Philly has struggled to build around Simmons, can we also say Utah has struggled to build around Gobert?

I find the standards of success applied to Philly would be brutal if applied to other teams. Imagine how Minnesota has built around KAT?

You read the whole post, and the word “struggled” is what you get frustrated about?

It is a pretty notable claim when the team just had the best regular conference record in the East (ahead of juggernauts in Brooklyn and Milwaukee), and performed ahead of actual expectations. (https://www.vegasinsider.com/nba/odds/win-totals/ for instance, or https://www.espn.com/basketball/story/_/id/30427736/2020-21-nba-preview-wins-standings-projected-all-30-nba-teams)

It is interestingly, still not a position defended.

Plus, this is the Simmons trade thread. Whether or not UTA or MIN has struggled as well has no bearing on Simmons trade value.

As I said, Simmons has some great strengths but also some great weaknesses. Because of this, it’s hard to build a team around him, and any GM that traded for him now didn’t get this last summer for roster construction. I think he had more trade value earlier, when GM’s could design their teams to improve his impact (ie, add more perimeter shooting and someone to create offense in the clutch).

Sure it does. If the story is that Philly being a 1 seed is struggling, then surely these others teams have struggled and will also be desperate for a change. This lack of team success cannot possibly be fairly offered as a trade justification for just Philly. Or it is just empty meaningless words.

[shrink]

Plus, this is the Simmons trade thread. Whether or not UTA or MIN has struggled as well has no bearing on Simmons trade value.

As I said, Simmons has some great strengths but also some great weaknesses. Because of this, it’s hard to build a team around him, and any GM that traded for him now didn’t get this last summer for roster construction. I think he had more trade value earlier, when GM’s could design their teams to improve his impact (ie, add more perimeter shooting and someone to create offense in the clutch).

Sure it does. If the story is that Philly being a 1 seed is struggling, then surely these others teams have struggled and will also be desperate for a change. This lack of team success cannot possibly be fairly offered as a trade justification for just Philly. Or it is just empty meaningless words.

The Sixers have one of the NBA’s best players in Embiid. They have invested a fortune on these teams, with him, Tobias Harris, Jimmy Butler, and Simmons. In the last four years, they have come in 1st, 6th, 3rd, and 3rd in the regular season. They successfully win a lot of regular season games.

But aren’t they trying to build the team to win a ring? PHI has failed to reach the East Coast Finals, let alone play for a ring.

As for “meaningless words,” I never said that “lack of success is a trade justification for Philly” (or other teams, since you seem to want to talk about them here). In fact, I listed a couple trade justifications for PHI in the first paragraph.

You’re right, for the sake of Sixers fans, they need to hope that a bidding war will start. Right now, Simmons is a $32 mil hole in their production, and that will cost them games. He is also a dark cloud hanging over every aspect of the franchise. He is clearly worth less to them than the other 29 teams.

My next paragraph was that the BUYERS need to be concerned with building around Simmons great strengths and great weaknesses, without the benefit of a summer to build a roster around him.

Waiting all summer has reduced the value Simmons provides. With his great strengths, and great weaknesses, Ben is perhaps the hardest player in the NBA to build around, and the Sixers have struggled to do it for five full years. Now, a buyer is expected to do so on the fly, without a summer of roster construction to make it fit. Moreover, by waiting, Simmons had time to demonstrate he will refuse to honor his contract is he is unhappy - every GM must be scared to death of that.

And that was basically my whole post, yet you are concerned with going after me for the word “struggled.” Ok then - you win.

PHI has not struggled to build successful regular season teams with Simmons. They have however failed to meet playoff expectations with those teams.

[Lovetron Joe]

Read on Twitter

?s=20

[HartfordWhalers]

In the last four years, they have come in 1st, 6th, 3rd, and 3rd in the regular season. They successfully win a lot of regular season games.

But aren’t they trying to build the team to win a ring? PHI has failed to reach the East Coast Finals, let alone play for a ring.

...

PHI has not struggled to build successful regular season teams with Simmons. They have however failed to meet playoff expectations with those teams.

What was the actual playoff expectations of those teams?

Looking at it I see based off vegas win totals before the season started:
20-21: expected ECS made ECS
19-20: expected ECF made 1st round; underperformed 2 rounds {Note this was in bubble and Simmons was injured in the playoffs}
18-19: expected ECS made ECS
17-18: expected 1st round made ECS

So, using what i think is a solid basis for expectations, it would look like the Sixers have underperfomed in the playoffs is either based off:
1) The Sixers actually overperforming in the regular season and then performing to expectations in the playoffs.
2) A single bubble playoff when Simmons was injured; which would be a weird critique of Simmons.