Sixers officially acquire #1 pick per Woj and Aldridge. Will get Fultz

[JojoSlimbiid]

Taking on a worse player in Russell and the biggest negative asset in the entire league for what? A chance to keep Josh Jackson? Nah I'm good.

[LloydFree]

Fultz has been the guy I've wanted most, so I don't mean to cast any shade on him. But since conversation on the Fultz front has died down and we still have a couple of nights before the draft, I'm gonna toss out the following hypothetical:

We all know that D'Angelo Russell just got traded to Brooklyn for 1 year of Brook Lopez, a late 1st rounder, and the ability to dump Mozgov's contract. My question to y'all is: assuming the Sixers could have beaten Brooklyn's offer, would you have preferred to acquire Russell and remain at #3?

Russell + [Mozgov's contract] + Josh Jackson + Sixers retain the future draft pick (LAL or Sacto) - assets to get Russell
(New core becomes Russell, Jackson, Simmons, Embiid, with Saric as more peripheral)
vs.

Fultz and - future draft pick (LAL or Sacto) (keep the assets needed to get Russell)

I ask b/c I remember that a lot of posters wanted Russell during his draft year.

I would stay the course with Fultz, but my curiosity is piqued. Russell has some real talent, and is still quite young. And apparently he was available quite cheaply (to a team with capspace and a few assets).

Just curious about the rest of you.

If that's all Brooklyn had to do to aquire Russell, the 76ers would have been infinitely better off taking on Mozgov and giving up some junk (Okafor) for Russell, rather than trading up and to take on Fultz. Great trade by Brooklyn.

[spikeslovechild]

Fultz has been the guy I've wanted most, so I don't mean to cast any shade on him. But since conversation on the Fultz front has died down and we still have a couple of nights before the draft, I'm gonna toss out the following hypothetical:

We all know that D'Angelo Russell just got traded to Brooklyn for 1 year of Brook Lopez, a late 1st rounder, and the ability to dump Mozgov's contract. My question to y'all is: assuming the Sixers could have beaten Brooklyn's offer, would you have preferred to acquire Russell and remain at #3?

Russell + [Mozgov's contract] + Josh Jackson + Sixers retain the future draft pick (LAL or Sacto) - assets to get Russell
(New core becomes Russell, Jackson, Simmons, Embiid, with Saric as more peripheral)
vs.

Fultz and - future draft pick (LAL or Sacto) (keep the assets needed to get Russell)

I ask b/c I remember that a lot of posters wanted Russell during his draft year.

I would stay the course with Fultz, but my curiosity is piqued. Russell has some real talent, and is still quite young. And apparently he was available quite cheaply (to a team with capspace and a few assets).

Just curious about the rest of you.

If that's all Brooklyn had to do to aquire Russell, the 76ers would have been infinitely better off taking on Mozgov and giving up some junk (Okafor) for Russell, rather than trading up and to take on Fultz. Great trade by Brooklyn.

I disagree I mean it depends on what BC can do with that cap space. i'd like to think he can spend 18 million on a better player then Russell but we'll see.

[Black Mage]

I do not get the negativity on this trade. There were 2 players in this draft that filled our grand canyon sized need. Those were Fultz or Monk. Only one of those two have elite handle and body size to play the 1 or the two positions. That is Fultz.

This was a rare chance for any team to marry fit with top of the draft talent at their biggest position of need. Even more stars aligned as the team had the draft position and assets to move up AND have the team above be willing to trade down.

Regardless of whether or not Fultz fulfills his potential, this was a calculated risk that had to be taken.

[ckchen]

Fultz has been the guy I've wanted most, so I don't mean to cast any shade on him. But since conversation on the Fultz front has died down and we still have a couple of nights before the draft, I'm gonna toss out the following hypothetical:

We all know that D'Angelo Russell just got traded to Brooklyn for 1 year of Brook Lopez, a late 1st rounder, and the ability to dump Mozgov's contract. My question to y'all is: assuming the Sixers could have beaten Brooklyn's offer, would you have preferred to acquire Russell and remain at #3?

Russell + [Mozgov's contract] + Josh Jackson + Sixers retain the future draft pick (LAL or Sacto) - assets to get Russell
(New core becomes Russell, Jackson, Simmons, Embiid, with Saric as more peripheral)
vs.

Fultz and - future draft pick (LAL or Sacto) (keep the assets needed to get Russell)

I ask b/c I remember that a lot of posters wanted Russell during his draft year.

I would stay the course with Fultz, but my curiosity is piqued. Russell has some real talent, and is still quite young. And apparently he was available quite cheaply (to a team with capspace and a few assets).

Just curious about the rest of you.

If that's all Brooklyn had to do to aquire Russell, the 76ers would have been infinitely better off taking on Mozgov and giving up some junk (Okafor) for Russell, rather than trading up and to take on Fultz. Great trade by Brooklyn.

Again, I've posted this in another thread, but I really don't understand why some people on this board won't let this Russell thing go. Let's get serious - if LA never would have traded Russell if they thought he was going to develop into a great player. We ABSOLUTELY would not have been better off absorbing Mozgov's contract and taking on Russell.

For all you Russell lovers - go listen to Zach Lowe's latest podcast, skip to the 0:50 mark and listen to what they have to say what some people inside the Laker's org say about Russell and how they've soured on him. Quick summary: immature, can't finish, inconsistent shooter, and can't figure out how to play defense. This was before he was traded, so frankly, it came as no surprise to me that he was traded and that the value was pretty low. Honestly, I think people just fell in love with the guy because he was supposedly Philly's pick and can't let go from there. There are still a bunch of Mudiay and Exum lovers out there too, and I'm sure they also believe. Simply put - Russell just isn't that great a player, and while he has talent upside, if the Lakers are giving up on the kid, that's not a good sign.

[Black Mage]

Fultz has been the guy I've wanted most, so I don't mean to cast any shade on him. But since conversation on the Fultz front has died down and we still have a couple of nights before the draft, I'm gonna toss out the following hypothetical:

We all know that D'Angelo Russell just got traded to Brooklyn for 1 year of Brook Lopez, a late 1st rounder, and the ability to dump Mozgov's contract. My question to y'all is: assuming the Sixers could have beaten Brooklyn's offer, would you have preferred to acquire Russell and remain at #3?

Russell + [Mozgov's contract] + Josh Jackson + Sixers retain the future draft pick (LAL or Sacto) - assets to get Russell
(New core becomes Russell, Jackson, Simmons, Embiid, with Saric as more peripheral)
vs.

Fultz and - future draft pick (LAL or Sacto) (keep the assets needed to get Russell)

I ask b/c I remember that a lot of posters wanted Russell during his draft year.

I would stay the course with Fultz, but my curiosity is piqued. Russell has some real talent, and is still quite young. And apparently he was available quite cheaply (to a team with capspace and a few assets).

Just curious about the rest of you.

Easy answer: No to DLO.

Semi-long answer: You don't screw your cap space up getting a guy 2 years into his rookie deal when you can draft a superior player to him who has zero baggage (unlike DLO who does have baggage).

[Black Mage]

Uhh, maybe you guys arent getting what Im trying to say?

I said Fultz was a good player, but noth worth moving up to get.

I said that playing defense was entirely optional in the Pac 12 this year, where most of your Fultz highlights come from

I said that he lacked elite athleticism, which he does. He doesnt blow by defenders, he coasts by as they basically were letting him score so the game would end faster anyway.

I get it, nobody wants to hear anything Anti-Fultz right now because nobody wants to entertain the thought that this guy wasnt worth the pick but Im gonna go ahead and stick to my guns here:

Markelle Fultz was not worth trading a pick for. I wouldnt have even taken him #1 if it was our own pick

Shots fired

I am super curious to read who would shawn_hemp pick in this draft.

Fultz is not an elite athlete but is better than average. He can blow by defenders because he does have bursts of speed (go watch his highlights) and a good handl.

They were letting him score ? Well that can be said for any prospect. Maybe Fultz is not a lazy defender maybe he was letting others score to speed up the game.... Ridiculous...

Fultz' handle is well beyond good. There are some absolutely insane dribbles and handle he displays when splitting two defenders. I think the problem for people is he doesn't "look" fast. He is not Fox or Smith warp speed. However, he is smooth and glides into his moves with ease.

His athleticism, in terms of body control, balance, touch around the rim, is elite. It has been a long time since a guard has come out with this kind of talent. Wade is the most recent one that comes to mind, but Wade was more explosive overall. Fultz is by far a better shooter than Wade was from 3 tho.

[Alatan]

Shots fired

I am super curious to read who would shawn_hemp pick in this draft.

Fultz is not an elite athlete but is better than average. He can blow by defenders because he does have bursts of speed (go watch his highlights) and a good handl.

They were letting him score ? Well that can be said for any prospect. Maybe Fultz is not a lazy defender maybe he was letting others score to speed up the game.... Ridiculous...

Fultz' handle is well beyond good. There are some absolutely insane dribbles and handle he displays when splitting two defenders. I think the problem for people is he doesn't "look" fast. He is not Fox or Smith warp speed. However, he is smooth and glides into his moves with ease.

His athleticism, in terms of body control, balance, touch around the rim, is elite. It has been a long time since a guard has come out with this kind of talent. Wade is the most recent one that comes to mind, but Wade was more explosive overall. Fultz is by far a better shooter than Wade was from 3 tho.

Yeah he does have great handles , and athleticism i just don't want to overhype him since He is still to be a rookie and adjust to the NBA strength, speed and athleticism.

[CoreyGallagher]

Read on Twitter

So can we assume, like others, that we wanted to trade up because we didn't like what we saw?

[Sixerscan]

We could definitely get a better player than Russell for $60 million over 3 years. Good for Brooklyn making the best of a bad situation though.

We definitely could have still made that trade even with the Fultz deal though, so I'm not sure why it's being presented as an either or. In fact people acting like this trade hamstrings us from making future moves (as if we are someone like Brooklyn) is one of the more annoying criticisms of it.

[Unbreakable99]

Read on Twitter

So can we assume, like others, that we wanted to trade up because we didn't like what we saw?

I wouldn't go that far. You may be right but that tweet doesn't necessarily mean that. The Sixers worked Tatum and Jackson out. They very well could have liked both. They just like Fultz more. They probably see a large enough gap to want Fultz more and a better fit. I hope they are right.