Big picture:
1) Is bottoming out 100% something that increases your odds of getting a star and thus being a consistent contender?
2) Even if it is, is it worth it?
Little picture:
3) Does trading MCW show that the Sixers are drafting poorly and failing (look at Gobert/Giannis!)
4) Does Embiid's situation show that the Sixers are taking too many risks/not having enough vets/ drafting poorly / etc
5) But they need more vets or else!
Absurd red herring:
6) But this isn't 100% guaranteed to get a championship
7)Look at the franchise reputation damage
8) are the owners just doing this to make more money/isn;t the plan failing cause they aren't making money?
_____________
Really briefly:
1) Yes. It really is. This can be a fun debate, but it absolutely is true.
2) Depends upon your preferences. For a lot of Philly fans, the answer has been yes. Being a 500 team and not getting anywhere had lost its thrill, and this is pretty exciting times even if the team is worse. I would say yes.
3) The Sixers took a guy at 11 in a weak draft, and project to have a (much?) better pick. Hard to fault it in terms of asset increasing, as they added value. So, the big complaints here are either:
MCW had gone up in so much value that it still lost value (Sixers turned 20 dollars into 80, but only by selling 100 for 80?), or that it is just not cohesive to make the change.
In terms of that, I'm not sure they didn't sell very high on MCW, and I would argue MCW could not return that Laker pick now.
Also, the team played better and Noel was happier once MCW left. So, the cohesive argument relies on not knowing what was happening.
4) Embiid was a risk. Any plan has them, and he was a big risk for a big reward. That Embiid (so far) hasn't panned out doesn;t by definition make it a bad gamble, just one that hasn't (for now) worked.
5) Lol. So hard to take this serious, when you look at how those vets help those other teams. But Philly did have mentor types LRMM, Jrich. And a coaching staff that demands accountability by all reports.
6) No kidding, no plan is.
7) OKC stunk for 3 years, LAC for a decade etc. This isn't a real thing, but it sure is fun to say if you dislike the plan.
8) Winning big is generally the best for profits. Losing is worse than being a 1 and out team. So, in that sense its an investment, giving up money now to try and make more later. Just like losing more now to win more later.
However, Philly has a lot of details that insulate these loses.
A crappy long term TV contract so TV ratings don't matter
A crappy long term lease so the gate revenue loss isn't as big as it could be
(both inherited when the old owner sold the team)
Smart financial management (cheating the salary floor, etc).
As such the team is profitable now and able to withstand the revenue hit.
Oh but comments like:
Kings2013 wrote:I don't know enough about their revenues but I know their gate and television ratings are in the tubes. I have a problem with teams leaching off revenue sharing to do it
Well, thats just misinformed or ignorant. The Sixers don't get revenue sharing money. Now, the irony would be that the Kings do...
.
