PMOTT3 and Chuck Texas Early Off-Season Review: Philadelphia 76ers

[sonictecture]

Does anyone love Hinkie's draft selections in real time?

Does anyone like how they fit together?

Every other team in the NBA is graded on the factor of time and somehow Hinkie and the Sixers are exempt. Hinkie has ignored both free agency and trades as a method to improve the team, but somehow is given credit for following "the plan".

are you kidding? His trades are a huge part of what we like. He keeps getting good value by selling cap space rather than signing guys who aren't long-term solutions.

And some people are hard on them for being at this too long. PMOTT3 mentioned he thought it was time to start improving. Me I'm okay with them pushing this one more year and really seeing this out. Next year is when they should really start reaping the draft rewards and will have some attractive pieces to lure in FA's and they will have gobs of assets when they flip to being buyers.

Again, if this fails to get them a superstar it won't work and no other teams are likely to try it. But if the ownership is buying in....

Any trade made that fails to help improve the team this year should not garner the highest rating. That should be saved for future off season grade. The accumulation of future assets is ok, but until the assets are used to improve the team they should net a neutral rating.

We are entering the third playing season under Hinkie, but he has already had 3 off seasons to build this team. The fan base has had to endure 3 poor season of basketball already and projects to have the 4th coming up. The "talent" on the team is surprisingly limited in regards to two way players and suffers from a huge amount of position duplication. In an era where teams seem to have answers for playing small and quick, Hinkie has drafted a bunch of big guys that might not be able to all play together.

Generous of you to give Hinkie one more year, but my evaluation of the roster is he's going to need much more than that.

[loserX]

Any trade made that fails to help improve the team this year should not garner the highest rating. That should be saved for future off season grade. The accumulation of future assets is ok, but until the assets are used to improve the team they should net a neutral rating.

I disagree with this...unless I misunderstand, it means that no rebuilding team can ever have a good offseason, only neutral at best.

In general terms, if you do what you set out to do and get good value, that should get a positive rating in my eyes.

[sonictecture]

Any trade made that fails to help improve the team this year should not garner the highest rating. That should be saved for future off season grade. The accumulation of future assets is ok, but until the assets are used to improve the team they should net a neutral rating.

I disagree with this...unless I misunderstand, it means that no rebuilding team can ever have a good offseason, only neutral at best.

In general terms, if you do what you set out to do and get good value, that should get a positive rating in my eyes.

Did Philadelphia have an "A" or "A-" rated offseason? This rating seems to state that Philadelphia did the best that could be done in the offseason to improve the team.

Of course rebuilding teams can have good or even excellent off seasons, I question whether Philadelphia is on of them.

[loserX]

Any trade made that fails to help improve the team this year should not garner the highest rating. That should be saved for future off season grade. The accumulation of future assets is ok, but until the assets are used to improve the team they should net a neutral rating.

I disagree with this...unless I misunderstand, it means that no rebuilding team can ever have a good offseason, only neutral at best.

In general terms, if you do what you set out to do and get good value, that should get a positive rating in my eyes.

Did Philadelphia have an "A" or "A-" rated offseason? This rating seems to state that Philadelphia did the best that could be done in the offseason to improve the team.

Of course rebuilding teams can have good or even excellent off seasons, I question whether Philadelphia is on of them.

Sorry, it looks like I did misunderstand. When you said "any trade that fails to help improve the team", you meant Philly specifically. I originally interpreted "the team" as "any team".

[sonictecture]

I disagree with this...unless I misunderstand, it means that no rebuilding team can ever have a good offseason, only neutral at best.

In general terms, if you do what you set out to do and get good value, that should get a positive rating in my eyes.

Did Philadelphia have an "A" or "A-" rated offseason? This rating seems to state that Philadelphia did the best that could be done in the offseason to improve the team.

Of course rebuilding teams can have good or even excellent off seasons, I question whether Philadelphia is on of them.

Sorry, it looks like I did misunderstand. When you said "any trade that fails to help improve the team", you meant Philly specifically. I originally interpreted "the team" as "any team".

If we are judging trades and they fail to improve a team, any team in this offseason, shouldn't that be reflected in the rating? Moves for future assets can be graded in future off seasons when those assets are used. Should teams get a better grade for a move that may or may not improve them in the future? Assets are wasted all of the time in this league.

In particular I think it is ok for teams to fail. Failure typically brings about change and change can give new hope for improvement. Philadelphia had a C grade offseason. Future assets gained or Okafor becoming more than what he grades out to be now are things that could improve this offseason grade in retrospect, but as of now it's very meh.

[loserX]

If we are judging trades and they fail to improve a team, any team in this offseason, shouldn't that be reflected in the rating? Moves for future assets can be graded in future off seasons when those assets are used. Should teams get a better grade for a move that may or may not improve them in the future? Assets are wasted all of the time in this league.

To me, the waste of an asset doesn't mean you get to go back and retroactively judge the way in which the asset was acquired.

If I as Utah trade Trey Burke for 5 unprotected first round picks, I'd give myself an A+ for that because the value is absurd, even though it makes Utah worse on the court this season. I certainly wouldn't wait until 2021 to judge whether this was a good trade or not based on the actual draft picks.

Trading X for Y is one transaction.
Trading Y for Z is another transaction. (And using a draft pick is essentially a "trade"...you give up the flexibility of choosing between multiple players, for a single player that you deem to be the most valuable.)

Acing the second transaction doesn't make the first one any more genius, and blowing the second transaction doesn't make the first one any more stupid. Unless the transactions are not made independently, you have to judge each one as it's made.

Anyhow, that's my take and I already know not everyone agrees with it

[sonictecture]

If we are judging trades and they fail to improve a team, any team in this offseason, shouldn't that be reflected in the rating? Moves for future assets can be graded in future off seasons when those assets are used. Should teams get a better grade for a move that may or may not improve them in the future? Assets are wasted all of the time in this league.

To me, the waste of an asset doesn't mean you get to go back and retroactively judge the way in which the asset was acquired.

If I as Utah trade Trey Burke for 5 unprotected first round picks, I'd give myself an A+ for that because the value is absurd, even though it makes Utah worse on the court this season. I certainly wouldn't wait until 2021 to judge whether this was a good trade or not based on the actual draft picks.

Trading X for Y is one transaction.
Trading Y for Z is another transaction. (And using a draft pick is essentially a "trade"...you give up the flexibility of choosing between multiple players, for a single player that you deem to be the most valuable.)

Acing the second transaction doesn't make the first one any more genius, and blowing the second transaction doesn't make the first one any more stupid. Unless the transactions are not made independently, you have to judge each one as it's made.

Anyhow, that's my take and I already know not everyone agrees with it

If you failed to get a player that was as good or better than Trey Burke with any of the 5 first round picks do you still deserve an A+ rating for the trade? Wouldn't the initial rating be meaningless? Future assets should have a near neutral rating until they can be rated properly at the time they are used.

Laying the ground work for the future is important but organizations should be judged on what they have done now, not on what they might do in the future. Give A ratings for those that deserve them not just for participation.

[loserX]

If we are judging trades and they fail to improve a team, any team in this offseason, shouldn't that be reflected in the rating? Moves for future assets can be graded in future off seasons when those assets are used. Should teams get a better grade for a move that may or may not improve them in the future? Assets are wasted all of the time in this league.

To me, the waste of an asset doesn't mean you get to go back and retroactively judge the way in which the asset was acquired.

If I as Utah trade Trey Burke for 5 unprotected first round picks, I'd give myself an A+ for that because the value is absurd, even though it makes Utah worse on the court this season. I certainly wouldn't wait until 2021 to judge whether this was a good trade or not based on the actual draft picks.

Trading X for Y is one transaction.
Trading Y for Z is another transaction. (And using a draft pick is essentially a "trade"...you give up the flexibility of choosing between multiple players, for a single player that you deem to be the most valuable.)

Acing the second transaction doesn't make the first one any more genius, and blowing the second transaction doesn't make the first one any more stupid. Unless the transactions are not made independently, you have to judge each one as it's made.

Anyhow, that's my take and I already know not everyone agrees with it

If you failed to get a player that was as good or better than Trey Burke with any of the 5 first round picks do you still deserve an A+ rating for the trade?

'

Yes. Just because I made a bad draft pick in 2021 doesn't mean I made a bad trade in 2015. They are independent and should not be used to evaluate each other.

Wouldn't the initial rating be meaningless? Future assets should have a near neutral rating until they can be rated properly at the time they are used.

Totally disagree. Can't imagine anyone saying that getting 5 unprotected first rounders for a backup point guard is a "neutral" move. Would 7 picks still be neutral? 10? Assets, even future ones, have value that can be assessed now, and that's the way I prefer to work.

[sonictecture]

To me, the waste of an asset doesn't mean you get to go back and retroactively judge the way in which the asset was acquired.

If I as Utah trade Trey Burke for 5 unprotected first round picks, I'd give myself an A+ for that because the value is absurd, even though it makes Utah worse on the court this season. I certainly wouldn't wait until 2021 to judge whether this was a good trade or not based on the actual draft picks.

Trading X for Y is one transaction.
Trading Y for Z is another transaction. (And using a draft pick is essentially a "trade"...you give up the flexibility of choosing between multiple players, for a single player that you deem to be the most valuable.)

Acing the second transaction doesn't make the first one any more genius, and blowing the second transaction doesn't make the first one any more stupid. Unless the transactions are not made independently, you have to judge each one as it's made.

Anyhow, that's my take and I already know not everyone agrees with it

If you failed to get a player that was as good or better than Trey Burke with any of the 5 first round picks do you still deserve an A+ rating for the trade?

'

Yes. Just because I made a bad draft pick in 2021 doesn't mean I made a bad trade in 2015. They are independent and should not be used to evaluate each other.

Wouldn't the initial rating be meaningless? Future assets should have a near neutral rating until they can be rated properly at the time they are used.

Totally disagree. Can't imagine anyone saying that getting 5 unprotected first rounders for a backup point guard is a "neutral" move. Would 7 picks still be neutral? 10? Assets, even future ones, have value that can be assessed now, and that's the way I prefer to work.

If you made your team worse to get future assets and failed to improve the team with those future assets then the initial trade only made your team worse.

If you agreed to have your left arm amputated for the ability to have a bigger penis in the future. You give yourself kudos for the trade and think about how much happier you will be when you get your new penis. The procedure is botched and you don't get a bigger penis and now you are a guy with no left arm and the same size penis. Do you argue that you made a good trade at the time or recognize that the trade didn't make you any better, but actually made you worse?

Futre assets have value, but what is that value? I maintain the value is a near neutral until the team improves using the asset.

[Texas Chuck]

If you made your team worse to get future assets and failed to improve the team with those future assets then the initial trade only made your team worse.

If you agreed to have your left arm amputated for the ability to have a bigger penis in the future. You give yourself kudos for the trade and think about how much happier you will be when you get your new penis. The procedure is botched and you don't get a bigger penis and now you are a guy with no left arm and the same size penis. Do you argue that you made a good trade at the time or recognize that the trade didn't make you any better, but actually made you worse?

Futre assets have value, but what is that value? I maintain the value is a near neutral until the team improves using the asset.

I think at this point you are basically just trolling us.

This thread, and the others like it, are meant as an early real-time look at the decisions that were made. Obviously it would be much more accurate if we could time travel forward 3 years and see how everything worked out. However we can't. If this means you think we can't judge them at all, that's fine. Its certainly valid to want to wait and make conclusions later.

However its derailing a thread with a different intention at this point. And your analogy above....

[Jack_Tretton]

A- as it stands, possibly B+ if I am not impressed with what Hinkie can get us with the remaining space to reach the floor. Really distraught with the Embiid news, but next year will be crazy with so many picks, crazy cap space, and Saric.

[Jack_Tretton]

I like Presti, but c'mon Hinkie didn't have prime Ray Allen to trade and have Kevin Durant fall in his laps in his first month of work. In fact the 76ers owed 2 future 1sts. To get to where the 76ers are now in just 2 years is a miracle, despite luck not favoring them too much so far. Major props to the OKC franchise, but lets not act like it was equal playing field.

[42uptop]

Didn't like this offseason so I give it a B-. The two trades were nice. The draft was not. Free agency is a wash since no one is going to sign here until the team shows signs of life. The Embiid news is devastating and sets the rebuild back. I view this as a lost season, however Hinkie has bought himself some time by getting a bunch of first round picks in the next draft and always has the potential of Embiid and Saric dangling over the fanbase. This is the least excited I've been before a Sixers season in a while, but the following year looks brighter.

[HartfordWhalers]

Looking forward to reading your thoughts on the sixers off-season as well as your grade HW. Hopefully mine and Chuck's reviews weren't too terrible (although it looks like we needed quite a bit of correcting )

Draft --

Okafor:

#3 Everyone knew this was going to be Russell. And almost everyone loved his fit, and boom bust projection for Philly. I didn't want Russell. Not going to get into it too much, but a little in spoiler:

Spoiler:

1) I think he is a sg not a pg, which means:
-- His physical profile is no longer big
-- His passing is no longer as big of an asset
-- Not sure if this is better or worse for his defense. Probably better as a help defender more often, but worse when Iso'ed.
Reasons include that he has always played sg (including at Ohio State), doesn't have the penetration/creation game that sets up on offense, etc. Being a great passer alone doesn't make someone a pg. I should write more on this as inevitably someone will say its not true, but I'm really not going to here, there have been other discussions pre- and post-draft on it.

2) His finishing and in game athleticism scares me.
-- Zero right hand
-- Poor finishing stats in college, especially versus decent teams but even against bad ones
-- Not enough finishing near the rim attempts

3) His ft% is less stellar than his 3pt% which worries me a little about some mean regression on the 3 point numbers.

Which means until he shows otherwise, I would be worried that Philly just drafted a better shooting Austin Rivers. On top of all the Embiid worry.

So, I was all aboard the idea of trading #3 down and grabbing Mudiay + (ideally with Sac and grab McLemore and you have a guard rotation of the future all set until one or both fails/gets traded). Porzingis seemed intriguing. And I totally ignored scouting Okafor assuming he was gone, fitting the Lakers well. But instead Russell went #2.

So, what do I think of the pick? I dunno. Wish I had spent more time on his college film but it seems a waste now versus waiting to see him in the pro's. Even so, I know enough to say I like it better than Russell, still think Mudiay would have been more fun (maybe not a better pick). I think I like it over Porzingis, and it is a 'safe' pick in a lot of ways. That said, it is worth mentioning that I think Noel is better near the hoop, and honestly, I now expect a stunted looking year as Noel transitions his game which doesn't thrill me as I think Noel is a real stud of a prospect.

But based upon the summer league, Okafor looks like a solid pick. His conditioning was bad in Utah, but his man defense was actually much better than I feared in both leagues (not much of a help guy still). Free throw form looks 'fixable' but the results were on the other side of ugly. Scoring touch wasn't where I would have liked in total, but the flashes were really promising. So, I'm on board, but not all hepped up on the pick.


2nd round

35 for 2 future 2nds (and 1.5m cash)
-- Before the cash came out I thought this trade was definitely bad value. With the cash it looks good value. Funny how razor thin that line is.
-- Before the Kings trade came out, this (and well, the whole 2nd round) looked like a massive mistake. The team had the following guard rotation:
PG: Canaan (with Wroten still injured)
SG: Hollis Thompson

So, (pending Wroten's return) pretty much no athleticism, no upside, and not even a backup at either spot except when Jakarr Sampson (1 year off playing pf in college) plays point Jakarr.

And the team drafted the following guards with 6 picks (#3 and the 5 2nds):
____(None)_______

(JP Tokoto is a sf)

The roster needed at least 1 (and ideally 2) project guards to see if they could break out.

The other interesting thing here is contracts --

Boston provides a good example:
Jordan Mickey at #33 got a 4 year 5m contract (Hinkie style, 2 years gtd, 1 ung, then 1 ung team option with the gtd money = 2.4m).
In contrast, RJ Hunter at #28 got 4 years 5.8m, but that is ~50k less in guaranteed money, and still less total money through 3 years and only more if he makes it to that 4th year.

At #37, Holmes signed a 4 year 4.2m contract (Hinkie style, 2 years gtd, 1 ung, then 1 ung team option with the gtd money = 2.1m).

At #35, Philly would be looking at a deal between those two (Mickey and Holmes), and if the pick didn't like the deal, there is always the possibility of the KJ take the qualifier and see what you get as a rfa next year. So, something like 4 years 4.6m, 2.25 gtd?

I'm not sure there was a pick worth that, especially a pg, although I still would have been curious to see Hanlan or the better Harrison added. And Richardson looks very solid for Miami at 40. But the widespread pullback of a bunch of foreign players and the introduction of Stauskas as a project sg make this a good trade. But it looked bad at first.

Richaun Holmes -- An old guy? A pf? This cannot be right.

And after watching him in Utah, I gotta say I love the pick. Okafor was not great in Utah, better in Vegas. Holmes looked like a stud in Utah. His actual numbers don't impress -- 3 for 13 3 point shooting drags down otherwise efficient scoring (8 for 13 on 2's) but the 9.7 PPG and 4.7 RPG in just 16.7 MPG show just how active he was.

Add in that he is a guy that was 6'2 until a very late growth spurt, and then dominated Juco and put up some monster numbers at Bowling Green (incuding blocks as well as developing a 3 pointer), and the guy feels like he is going to be one of those where the local fans absolutely love him, and someone who will just look at his numbers won't get the sense of his full value.

2 guys traded to Sac -- Discussed in trade.

Tokoto -- Been some interesting back and forth on if he signs a deal or not. At 58 it seemed a fine flier, but I kinda expect him to get cut if he doesn't get stashed. Maybe not right away, but at some point there will be a choice between Scottie Wilbekin and Tokoto, and it might not be this Scottie Wilbekin that wins, but another might. We will see. As is, my roster excluded him and Jordan McRae (last year stash, undersized shooting guard also at 58). But I should be fair and note that one or both might make it. Especially over Wilbekin.

On not trading up:
1) Based upon the known deals, the price was not worth it:
-- It took 41, Plumlee and eating Blake's small bad contract (although Detroit bailed out that part) to get to 23.
-- It took Minnesota 3 2nds, 31, 36 and a '19 2nd; to get to 24.
2) There was value was in trading down (35 trade to NYK, and the Bobcat trade to the Nets which was also 2 picks)
3) I really like Holmes
4) Definitely has been some talk that the 2 draft and stash guys were picked for Sac and the deal was already in the works, so a 5 2nd for 1 first even if it was good value (I don't think so) and was possible (it probably wasn't, as that is less value than the other deals), wasn't available due to a better trade requiring those picks. And trading a future first to get a guy now and use up a year of his deal and get better now obviously doesn't fit the plan.

Which circles nicely back to how the second round and thus the draft is judged, and in light of the Embiid news and the possible Kings deal in the works (it does seem pretty unlikely that July 1st Vlade decided to just do that without planning it some before), then Philly took a roster that was:

_____ / Wroten / Canaan
Stauskas / Thompson
Covington / Grant
Noel / ____ (with Saric for later)
____ / Furkan

And plugged two of the three major holes. And unless they used #3 for Mudiay, there wasn't a pg prospect that necessarily looked better than Wroten (still just turned 22 in April).

Trades
-- Okay draft trade was above.
-- 2 foreign guys for Stauskas, JT, Landry, 2 pick swaps (pending existing trade) and a first (top 10 in 2018, unprotected in 2019).
Basically this is the home run. In every way. A lot has been said, but this alone gets Philly to the A category for the offseason.
-- JT for Wallace, some cash and a pick swap that might not happen and if it does might not move Philly far.
Clears cap next year. Clears a roster spot -- which was very needed. Gets some money for the 'long suffering' owners. Oh, and if GS falls apart compared to OKC or Miami, gets a semi-late 1st. Just a solid win.

Free agents

They had tough luck moving down in the lottery and losing Embiid for the year. Past that, they've executed perfectly. Perhaps you could knock them for being unable to secure meetings with young star players in Kawhi/Butler/Green, but those guys weren't going anywhere anyway.

Philly actually did get into Jimmy Butler's 5 teams to talk to. Which is nice. Basically the Toronto for LMA; only here for Butler, and then he sounded like he cancelled on all 5 after the maximum qualifier. Kawhi and Green each took no meetings that I know of, but Philly sniffed around on Kawhi.

Besides that, the team said before hand, if a top target said no they would basically punt their cap space and continue doing what they have been doing. I'm a fan of this. Hard to grade much for Pierre Jackson and such, as who knows who will get cut when, but the mutual relationship between him and the team has already made a great story and he did kill the dleague before his injury. But the philosophy of try 10 guys to find 1 diamond is a great one, although the roster spots are running out to keep trying it.

Other

Embiid. Sure, it might not be the team's fault he apparently needs a second surgery. And by all reports, Boston wanted Embiid and had cleared him (with his medicals gained legitimately from Embiid's camp), Sac tried to trade up to 3 to take Embiid, etc. So, the idea that the team was negligent in picking him and must have ignored all doctors advice seems really out of touch, even if you find one of the unrelated doctors that didn't have his medicals saying they wouldn't risk it. It would be more compelling if someone could find a doctor that at least had his medicals. Instead, there is a general consensus that it was a good risk and one must teams would do. So, I want to be clear I'm not particularly interested in seeing that debate open up yet again anyway, now with lots of hindsight.

But so far this offseason Woj has broken that Embiid had a steback, the team put out a very hasty press release that calling the latest MRI showing 'less healing' as the details. Then the team finally announced he would indeed have surgery within 7-10 days. Which has been passed by more than a little now. All the while Embiid was at summer league not in a boot, there are competing stories about a new break or just the area of the original break stalled/slightly backsliding which seems medically very different, and by the way, he likes Chinese food with John Wall. Did I mention that in the informational void there are generic maybe he doesn't want the surgery, maybe he refuses to get the surgery, maybe Embiid plans on playing noises (not credible ones but still).

There is a growing sentiment among non-Philly fans that:

They need to speed up "the process". The re-build has gone on for 3 years and counting now; any longer and they are going to have to find a new fanbase. I just think a 3 year window should be the longest a re-build has to take. adding more NBA talent would be second on my list.

Nobody is on the level of tanking like the Sixers are. I think the reason most teams in the league choose not to tank is because they use Philly as their main example of why not to. It's been a 3 year tankathon and what has it amounted to?

And I think it is pretty far off the mark. So far Philly has set themselves up with a truck load of assets:
Noel, Okafor, Covington, Stauskas, Holmes and Grant on the court is a nice start to a youth movement that only had 2 years of tanking. Contrast that with Lakers: Russell, Randle, Clarkson, Nance, Brown or the Twolves (minus getting Wiggins for Love) of Towns, LaVine, Tyus, Payne and you get a sense of just how slow it is to build a core and how on pace Philly is just looking at the guys playing.

Then you have the guys not playing -- the ultimate wildcard in Embiid -- and Saric. And the future picks -- 2017 1st returned, LA, Mia, OkC picks, swaps with Sac and GS, and the future Sac pick. And 20 or so future 2nds.

All in, the future looks pretty bright and the return has been worth it for most fans of the team. One more year of being awful, and the team looks all set to add a stud sg (there are a bunch of sg/sf at the top of mock drafts), and a mid 1st pg, and suddenly start competing to sneak into the playoffs as a sub 500 East team.

Delaying gratification and selling high on MCW looks brilliant. Taking Noel and delaying gratification looks brilliant, and their is a lot of faith in the process.

But the Embiid situation has the potential to submarine that. Not so much if its chalked up as a swing that missed -- those happen.
But if it lingers as an open wound -- what is going on with him, why hasn't he had surgery, why does he need surgery, is the prognosis worse because it is a second surgery so it must be, or is this actually a better surgery, is he and the team at odds, what are the odds he ever plays?

The drafting of Okafor would have been much cleaner to evaluate as a fan if it didn't read as also a statement on Embiid. Which (along with what at the time looked like a silly 2nd round, and an utter lack of anything for the first time) made for what felt like a disappointing draft. Without that Embiid cloud, it would have much quicker endorsed as, "look at the high upside super young, really efficient scorer we just got. For most of the year, he was the number 1 prospect!"

The Kings trade flooded away that pessimism. And it is worth remembering the haul Hinkie got in the Saric/Payton swap by being so closed off with information and secretive. But that secretiveness has permanently pushed away a few members of the local media from the get go -- although with no follow on traction among the fans. However, the Embiid situation is one to watch, as more than another 19 win season (despite all those calls from national media other fan bases that there cannot be patience forever), it actually does look to have the potential to really sting.

Worth remembering, all this talk that the tank cannot go on forever is basically contrasting Philly's trajectory -- 19 wins, 18 wins, 18 wins (around there is expected, although you both have them cutting that gap and at 20-21) with something like Orlando's -- 20 wins, 23 wins, 25 wins. The gap between 18 wins and 25 wins in year 3 isn't that noteworthy from a sit in the stands and ask yourselves, is this team going to win tonight perspective -- 30% feels about as unlikely as 22%. What makes the difference is if fans can look at the team and see a credible path to improvement is in progress. And with everything Philly has been accumulating asset wise, this is still very doable even in another sub 20 win season.

Final Grade:
Overall, the Sixers had a long term plan and stuck to it executing (besides the Embiid updates) pretty close to perfectly. Add in that imo it is a very solid plan, and I wouldn't give them below an A- even including all of above and their first real pr loss.

Expected win projection: 19-63 intentionally flawed worse than the team really is at pg

[BullyKing]

HW, tremendous write-up and, as usual, I agree on almost every point.

[Worm122]

I like the draft pick Okafor, the trade with Kings was sweet in the next draft i hope the Sixers pick the best Small Forward or Shooting Guard available because there is a lot PG in the market

[165bows]

Serious question: what is their plan next summer when they need to add ~$40M to get to the salary floor? With every team having more to spend and a weak FA class in terms of depth, I would think the salary dump market would get weaker while at the same time the amount to spend is going up.

I understand they don't need to get to the floor, but it looks like there has been an effort to reach it in years' past.

Overall, I agree the SAC trade adds a very nice potential asset down the road and it's almost a necessity for their having a successful off season depending on how the picks pan out.

On the timing, I'm not so sure it is the fan base that sets the time pressure as much as the players and the contracts themselves. If the original players drafted in this run start coming off their rookie deals and the new top draftees being added have an issue being there, then it will have indeed run it's course a bit long.