Worst Player Acquisition of the Process/Embiid Era

[agiaco]

Fultz

[FlyingArrow]

I went with Zhaire Smith based on a combination of worst process and worst opportunity cost.

In terms of process... he had a short power forward skillset. He never had a profile to warrant being drafted that high.

In terms of opportunity cost... we easily could have had either Mikal Bridges or Shai instead.

For all the others, there was a reasonable expectation that it could have worked out. If Ben or Markelle had even played like a top-15 draft pick. Not even a #1 overall. If Tobias had remained a borderline all-star. Horford has proven that he wasn't washed up. I think we just never figured out how to mesh him with Embiid. PG may yet be a borderline all-star for us. Harden worked out pretty well for a while. And while Jahlil Okafor didn't work out, none of the next 7 draft picks did, either. Several later in the draft did, but it wasn't like we "almost" had somebody better. We would've had to buck conventional wisdom by a lot (or trade down) to get a winner in that draft.

He wasn't the worst outcome. That's either Ben or Markelle. But there are multiple ways to answer this question. It's been bad in lots of different ways.

[mjkvol]

I went with Zhaire Smith based on a combination of worst process and worst opportunity cost.

In terms of process... he had a short power forward skillset. He never had a profile to warrant being drafted that high.

In terms of opportunity cost... we easily could have had either Mikal Bridges or Shai instead.

For all the others, there was a reasonable expectation that it could have worked out. If Ben or Markelle had even played like a top-15 draft pick. Not even a #1 overall. If Tobias had remained a borderline all-star. Horford has proven that he wasn't washed up. I think we just never figured out how to mesh him with Embiid. PG may yet be a borderline all-star for us. Harden worked out pretty well for a while. And while Jahlil Okafor didn't work out, none of the next 7 draft picks did, either. Several later in the draft did, but it wasn't like we "almost" had somebody better. We would've had to buck conventional wisdom by a lot (or trade down) to get a winner in that draft.

He wasn't the worst outcome. That's either Ben or Markelle. But there are multiple ways to answer this question. It's been bad in lots of different ways.

Good points, but I disagree on Tobias, who was never really a borderline all-star other than in the national media's eyes. Trading for him was a bad idea, and extending him a hideous one, because it involved letting Butler walk. If he was actually a borderline all-star, someone would have made a trade offer for him at some point.

Okafor was a dreadful pick, but the possibility is that Hinkie had nowhere else to go in that draft and that the plan was always to pump-and-dump him, which would have worked like a charm if Silver hadn't intervened.

[Stanford]

I'm pretty sure they would have traded for Tobias even without the Miami pick. They would have just thrown in something else.

[FlyingArrow]

Good points, but I disagree on Tobias, who was never really a borderline all-star other than in the national media's eyes. Trading for him was a bad idea, and extending him a hideous one, because it involved letting Butler walk. If he was actually a borderline all-star, someone would have made a trade offer for him at some point.

Okafor was a dreadful pick, but the possibility is that Hinkie had nowhere else to go in that draft and that the plan was always to pump-and-dump him, which would have worked like a charm if Silver hadn't intervened.

For 4 years, Tobias was a 19ppg scorer with 39% on threes, and was always 80%+ at the line. If one year was a slight up year and one year a down year (same averages) he would've had an All-Star season in there. Regardless, he never did make an All-Star team.

I was in favor of signing Tobias with that huge contract (or whatever it took to keep him - we were bidding against ourselves, I think so we probably could have signed him for less). But I meant to do it if we had also kept Jimmy and JJ. We had a great 2019 team but fell short. Running it back was the best move basketball-wise, but they wouldn't (or couldn't) do it. If we kept everyone, then we wouldn't have cap room to go out and find other players. It would have been expensive, but we had the rights to do it. Jimmy + Tobias + JJ >>> Al Horford + Tobias.

Spending the money on Al Horford instead of Jimmy and JJ was a bad move to begin with. That was a worse move in retrospect, and I thought it was bad at the time.

Paying Tobias all that money was also a bad move. They actually should have paid him (imo), but only if they were going to go over the cap signing Butler and JJ, leaving them no way to sign any other player as good as Tobias. Since they stayed under the cap to sign Al Horford, they could have stayed WAY under the cap by not signing Tobias. In that case, there would have been much better uses for that money.

[mjkvol]

Good points, but I disagree on Tobias, who was never really a borderline all-star other than in the national media's eyes. Trading for him was a bad idea, and extending him a hideous one, because it involved letting Butler walk. If he was actually a borderline all-star, someone would have made a trade offer for him at some point.

Okafor was a dreadful pick, but the possibility is that Hinkie had nowhere else to go in that draft and that the plan was always to pump-and-dump him, which would have worked like a charm if Silver hadn't intervened.

For 4 years, Tobias was a 19ppg scorer with 39% on threes, and was always 80%+ at the line. If one year was a slight up year and one year a down year (same averages) he would've had an All-Star season in there. Regardless, he never did make an All-Star team.

I was in favor of signing Tobias with that huge contract (or whatever it took to keep him - we were bidding against ourselves, I think so we probably could have signed him for less). But I meant to do it if we had also kept Jimmy and JJ. We had a great 2019 team but fell short. Running it back was the best move basketball-wise, but they wouldn't (or couldn't) do it. If we kept everyone, then we wouldn't have cap room to go out and find other players. It would have been expensive, but we had the rights to do it. Jimmy + Tobias + JJ >>> Al Horford + Tobias.

Spending the money on Al Horford instead of Jimmy and JJ was a bad move to begin with. That was a worse move in retrospect, and I thought it was bad at the time.

Paying Tobias all that money was also a bad move. They actually should have paid him (imo), but only if they were going to go over the cap signing Butler and JJ, leaving them no way to sign any other player as good as Tobias. Since they stayed under the cap to sign Al Horford, they could have stayed WAY under the cap by not signing Tobias. In that case, there would have been much better uses for that money.

We're just going to disagree completely on Tobias, who to me was the living definition of an empty stats tank commander type. You look at his stats without seeing him play and he appears to be a contributor, but you watch the games and this is a guy who never met a big spot where he wouldn't disappear. He didn't take a single charge in five years here, which is still one of the most remarkable things I've ever heard about a player.

The trade made no sense at the time, and the signing made even less sense. His presence mucked up the cap situation for five years, and he was impossible to move, which is kind of odd for a "borderline all-star", isn't it? The media treated him like a star because of his salary, but the league knew he was an albatross and a losing player.

[M2J]

Good points, but I disagree on Tobias, who was never really a borderline all-star other than in the national media's eyes. Trading for him was a bad idea, and extending him a hideous one, because it involved letting Butler walk. If he was actually a borderline all-star, someone would have made a trade offer for him at some point.

Okafor was a dreadful pick, but the possibility is that Hinkie had nowhere else to go in that draft and that the plan was always to pump-and-dump him, which would have worked like a charm if Silver hadn't intervened.

For 4 years, Tobias was a 19ppg scorer with 39% on threes, and was always 80%+ at the line. If one year was a slight up year and one year a down year (same averages) he would've had an All-Star season in there. Regardless, he never did make an All-Star team.

I was in favor of signing Tobias with that huge contract (or whatever it took to keep him - we were bidding against ourselves, I think so we probably could have signed him for less). But I meant to do it if we had also kept Jimmy and JJ. We had a great 2019 team but fell short. Running it back was the best move basketball-wise, but they wouldn't (or couldn't) do it. If we kept everyone, then we wouldn't have cap room to go out and find other players. It would have been expensive, but we had the rights to do it. Jimmy + Tobias + JJ >>> Al Horford + Tobias.

Spending the money on Al Horford instead of Jimmy and JJ was a bad move to begin with. That was a worse move in retrospect, and I thought it was bad at the time.

Paying Tobias all that money was also a bad move. They actually should have paid him (imo), but only if they were going to go over the cap signing Butler and JJ, leaving them no way to sign any other player as good as Tobias. Since they stayed under the cap to sign Al Horford, they could have stayed WAY under the cap by not signing Tobias. In that case, there would have been much better uses for that money.

We're just going to disagree completely on Tobias, who to me was the living definition of an empty stats tank commander type. You look at his stats without seeing him play and he appears to be a contributor, but you watch the games and this is a guy who never met a big spot where he wouldn't disappear. He didn't take a single charge in five years here, which is still one of the most remarkable things I've ever heard about a player.

The trade made no sense at the time, and the signing made even less sense. His presence mucked up the cap situation for five years, and he was impossible to move, which is kind of odd for a "borderline all-star", isn't it? The media treated him like a star because of his salary, but the league knew he was an albatross and a losing player.

I'm confused myself, because I chose fultz... But Fultz turned into Maxey.

I still struggle to say Tobias though, because he was always supposed to be a number 3 guy for this team and the team tried to max out success before they have ben Simmons his extension and they couldn't get over the cap with talent. Clearly they should've chosen Jimmy over Tobias, but just like I'm complaining about in the draft thread... Organization choose pliability over the talent in Jimmy. Meaning they chose the guy willing to try and be the 3 and D guy over Jimmy who refused to shoot, but was clearly more talented.... Was willing to bump heads too and was older.

At the end of the day because of the timing regarding the need to use the money. It does seem as if Tobias was a better fit game and age wise. Also, Even if Tobias didn't cower and he did cower... Joel was never healthy in the 2nd round and when it comes to the Sixers overall results it starts and stops with Joel.

Still feels like if Fultz worked out, it puts less pressure on even the Tobias move or even the need to make it. Better to say if Tatum was on the roster instead

[Winejk]

Ok I'll go with Zaire Smith because if the Sixers didn't trade for him, they probably would have kept Mikal Bridges. And Bridges is the type of player the team could have used during Embiid's prime. And if the Sixers had kept Bridges, the trade for Tobias Harris probably doesn't take place.

[Stanford]

And if the Sixers had kept Bridges, the trade for Tobias Harris probably doesn't take place.

You kidding? Bridges would have been IN the Tobias trade!

[SixersSince82]

Boy there were a lot of missteps. But the correct answer is Tobias Harris. He cost us the most in terms of assets. He cost us the most in terms of finances. He sunk Joel's prime.

Ben and Fultz worked out poorly after the fact. Overpaying for Tobias Harris was dumb at the time and they still did it. Twice! Once via trade, once via Free Agency.

[Murray_17]

Ok I'll go with Zaire Smith because if the Sixers didn't trade for him, they probably would have kept Mikal Bridges. And Bridges is the type of player the team could have used during Embiid's prime. And if the Sixers had kept Bridges, the trade for Tobias Harris probably doesn't take place.

The Sixers didn't make that trade because they wanted Zaire, they made the trade to get the unprotected pick from Miami. If you look at that pick when the trade was made, it had unbelievable value, i'll never judge that trade harshly because the pick was worthed at the moment and Bridges ended up being better than what anyone projected.

The front office was loading itself on picks to get a "game changer" and then used those picks on Tobias. As said above, Bridges would have been included on the Tobias trade without that pick. Team was high on Shamet at the time and they included him in the trade anyways.

[LeonJordanJr24]

Hmm if we lose Yabu I'm all for a Simmons reunion. Can play 1/3/4/5 defense,reb and assists and will be cheaper and younger than Yabu in free agency.

[the_process]

Just checking to remind everyone that even though Fultz was a gigantic bust... the answer to the question at hand is still overwhelmingly Tobias.

[Eyeamok]

Hmm if we lose Yabu I'm all for a Simmons reunion. Can play 1/3/4/5 defense,reb and assists and will be cheaper and younger than Yabu in free agency.

BS: He is a part time player now and you will always be playing 4 vs 5 on offense. Thank you but no thank you, we have already done that dance. Klutch does not want him, the Nets don't want him, he has never met a shot he liked yet he is always working on his game. Absolutely not.

Initially I said Fultz, but we managed to turn Fultz into Maxey, so i'm good with that. I still recall how TJ was basically reduced to babysitting Fultz and teaching him how to be a basketball player so Fultz could take TJ's backup position and eventually be a starter. Crazy how that has worked out.

After reading all the Harris recaps I have to agree, Harris was the worse. And I liked him as a person. But as a max player he just never ever delivered when it mattered the most. Just bad all the way around.

[mjkvol]

I voted Okafor because aside from being an atrocious pick, he was the the central figure in the move that led to Hinkie's dismissal when he had worked out the trade with Ainge that d-bag Silver nixed.

But all things considered, it's Tobias. An awful trade followed by a hideous signing, and 5 1/2 years of mediocre play and disappearing acts that seemed like a couple of decades. The fact that his untradable presence prevented us from making the necessary roster changes to maximize Embiid's prime only adds to the utter disaster that Brand created.

[GoSixersBro]

In big picture/hindsight it's probably Tobias, but at the moment of the trade he was brought in to be the fourth option.

It was the 2019 summer decision to go with him over Butler while Simmons simultaneously falling off that made Tobias essentially Robin to Embiid's Batman. Absolute disaster.

[Sixerscan]

The worst one was actually trading Okafor/Stauskas/a 2nd round pick that became #31 (Nick Claxton) for Trevor Booker who was cut a few months later. Colangelo gave away #31 because he didn't want bad PR from cutting Okafor.

[Embiid P]

The worst one was actually trading Okafor/Stauskas/a 2nd round pick that became #31 (Nick Claxton) for Trevor Booker who was cut a few months later. Colangelo gave away #31 because he didn't want bad PR from cutting Okafor.

Yup, and that move would never have happened if Hinkie was allowed to trade Okafor at the previous deadline which would have potentially landed us Jaylen Brown.

[LeonJordanJr24]

BJ

[M2J]

BJ

I knew somebody was going to do it....