Markelle Fultz Discussion

[Kolkmania]

Didn't watch the game against GSW so decided to watch it back. Didn't expect much since Fultz' statline was the most underwhelming one so far. Came out pleasantly surprised, defensively his best game. He navigated through screens fairly well, rejected the ball handler several times and provided some help defense. He got scored on just twice in 16 minutes, one in transition, one after jumping for a pump fake.

Offensively he had some early deep step back jumpers, those inefficient shots must be cut this early in the shot clock. Besides that he drove past McCaw in transition, scored after inside-out against Damian Jones, tough contested finish in transition, had a beauty of a potential assist in a Rondo-esque manner, plus two good assists (statline says 1 somehow).

This game a perfect example why +/- can be extremely misleading with a small sample size. Reason that Fultz was -16 in 15 minutes was some wideopen misses, poor ISO offense by scrubs like Austin and Miles and some incredible contested shot making by the Warriors, in particular McCaw.

[Simmons25]

I'm talking about Manu.

Geez. We have different opinions on Manu then. LOL You won't find too many Manu Ginobili's around willing to do what he did. He was very much outside the norm.

Where did I offer my opinion of Manu that you differ on? The only opinion I offered about him was that he was one of the Spurs' best players - hardly a divisive opinion.

No I mean I would never have even thought of Manu Ginobli's bench role as an older player compared to Harden coming off the bench with Durant and Westbrook as a young talent.

Ginobli did play several seasons where he started alot of games so he wasn't always a bench player. He was on and off the bench. In 2010/11 he started 79 of 80 games. He really only became a full time bench player in 2012/13 which whilst it sounds ages ago... he was 35. Some seasons he was on the bench a lot other seasons he started most of the games.

[Ericb5]

I agree with you for the most part, I expect Fultz to be an All-Star in his own right, and if he's not then he is a disappointment. Anything less from a first overall pick should be disappointing, especially if someone behind him gets to that level. Fit does matter though, and it does have worth, but in the end we also need him to show his talent.

We need both talent and fit. I sincerely hope Fultz doesn't think he is a 3rd banana, I think they should all be superstars that just happen to fit together cause they play totally different positions/roles. We need him to make Embiid and Simmons jobs easier, not to just be dragged along with them.

If we want a ring, we should be pushing for all 3 to be superstars.

Obviously the goal is for all three to be superstars, but we don't need that to happen.

I operate from the perspective where Embiid and Simmons already are superstars. I mean they need to prove it on the court, but to me it is just a formality.

With Fultz I see less potential than those two, but still significant potential in his own right. He may not want to be a third banana, but that is all that we really need him to be.

We didn't need to be value absolutists with the draft picks like we needed to be before we got Embiid and Simmons. Now we can hedge a bit for fit, and that is what we did.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They have only played 31 games between all three of them, I wouldn't call any of them superstars yet.

We don't need Fultz to be a 3rd banana, just saying that doesn't make it true. We need him to be the best player he can be, whatever that might be. Just cause he already had a pretty well rounded game this early in age doesn't mean he doesn't have much potential. That's like saying Fox has more 'potential' cause he's a bad shooter, and if he gets to be a good shooter his 'potential' is higher.

Fultz is a good shooter that has the potential to be a great shooter, not like he's Redick just yet. Alot harder for a bad shooter to ever become great, and there is Fultz's potential. Fultz has potential at the FT line, but that's somewhere else he has potential to be better. Simmons could become a good shooter, but chances aren't that good he will ever be a great one.

Judging Fultz at 19 is just a bit premature, he hasn't even played a game in the NBA yet.

We want Fultz to be as good as he could be obviously. I'm saying that for the trade to be a success he only has to be the third banana on our team.

The lack of NBA games for Embiid and Simmons doesn't mean that they aren't superstars. Shaq, and Lebron were superstars before they played their first NBA game.

I agree that they have to prove it on the court for the league to generally consider them superstars.

I mean Giannis has been an obvious superstar for a few years, but probably only this past year did the consensus opinion on him get to that point.

KAT is also a superstar, but he probably isn't considered one yet by a lot of people. I think it is just a formality that he gets there.

Embiid and Simmons are in that group.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ivysixer2000]

Obviously the goal is for all three to be superstars, but we don't need that to happen.

I operate from the perspective where Embiid and Simmons already are superstars. I mean they need to prove it on the court, but to me it is just a formality.

With Fultz I see less potential than those two, but still significant potential in his own right. He may not want to be a third banana, but that is all that we really need him to be.

We didn't need to be value absolutists with the draft picks like we needed to be before we got Embiid and Simmons. Now we can hedge a bit for fit, and that is what we did.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They have only played 31 games between all three of them, I wouldn't call any of them superstars yet.

We don't need Fultz to be a 3rd banana, just saying that doesn't make it true. We need him to be the best player he can be, whatever that might be. Just cause he already had a pretty well rounded game this early in age doesn't mean he doesn't have much potential. That's like saying Fox has more 'potential' cause he's a bad shooter, and if he gets to be a good shooter his 'potential' is higher.

Fultz is a good shooter that has the potential to be a great shooter, not like he's Redick just yet. Alot harder for a bad shooter to ever become great, and there is Fultz's potential. Fultz has potential at the FT line, but that's somewhere else he has potential to be better. Simmons could become a good shooter, but chances aren't that good he will ever be a great one.

Judging Fultz at 19 is just a bit premature, he hasn't even played a game in the NBA yet.

We want Fultz to be as good as he could be obviously. I'm saying that for the trade to be a success he only has to be the third banana on our team.

The lack of NBA games for Embiid and Simmons doesn't mean that they aren't superstars. Shaq, and Lebron were superstars before they played their first NBA game.

I agree that they have to prove it on the court for the league to generally consider them superstars.

I mean Giannis has been an obvious superstar for a few years, but probably only this past year did the consensus opinion on him get to that point.

KAT is also a superstar, but he probably isn't considered one yet by a lot of people. I think it is just a formality that he gets there.

Embiid and Simmons are in that group.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We will probably have to agree to disagree, nothing wrong with that. The trade is a success if Fultz is an all-star in his own right, you don't trade up to #1 for a role player.

Comparing Embiid and Simmons to Shaq and Lebron coming in the league, I can't see that at all. Shaq and Lebron were probably 2 of the most hyped players coming in for their generations of players. The other players you mentioned, they have played in the league alot more, but they weren't superstars coming in.

[TTP]

Geez. We have different opinions on Manu then. LOL You won't find too many Manu Ginobili's around willing to do what he did. He was very much outside the norm.

Where did I offer my opinion of Manu that you differ on? The only opinion I offered about him was that he was one of the Spurs' best players - hardly a divisive opinion.

No I mean I would never have even thought of Manu Ginobli's bench role as an older player compared to Harden coming off the bench with Durant and Westbrook as a young talent.

Ginobli did play several seasons where he started alot of games so he wasn't always a bench player. He was on and off the bench. In 2010/11 he started 79 of 80 games. He really only became a full time bench player in 2012/13 which whilst it sounds ages ago... he was 35. Some seasons he was on the bench a lot other seasons he started most of the games.

Manu played the majority of his games off the bench in 12 of his 15 seasons.

Either way, I don't see how their respective ages are relevant to your original statement, which was "You don't pay a ton of luxury dollars to keep a guy who has to come off your bench".

Absolute rules like that are foolish and they look even more foolish when the best team of our generation has violated said rule.

[Sixerscan]

Where did I offer my opinion of Manu that you differ on? The only opinion I offered about him was that he was one of the Spurs' best players - hardly a divisive opinion.

No I mean I would never have even thought of Manu Ginobli's bench role as an older player compared to Harden coming off the bench with Durant and Westbrook as a young talent.

Ginobli did play several seasons where he started alot of games so he wasn't always a bench player. He was on and off the bench. In 2010/11 he started 79 of 80 games. He really only became a full time bench player in 2012/13 which whilst it sounds ages ago... he was 35. Some seasons he was on the bench a lot other seasons he started most of the games.

Manu played the majority of his games off the bench in 12 of his 15 seasons.

Either way, I don't see how their respective ages are relevant to your original statement, which was "You don't pay a ton of luxury dollars to keep a guy who has to come off your bench".

Absolute rules like that are foolish and they look even more foolish when the best team of our generation has violated said rule.

It's especially dumb given that the Thunder themselves paid the luxury tax in 2015 and 2016 because they were paying, among other people, Enes Kanter to come off the bench, so it's not even like the thunder followed that rule. They just made a mistake trading Jarden

[Simmons25]

Where did I offer my opinion of Manu that you differ on? The only opinion I offered about him was that he was one of the Spurs' best players - hardly a divisive opinion.

No I mean I would never have even thought of Manu Ginobli's bench role as an older player compared to Harden coming off the bench with Durant and Westbrook as a young talent.

Ginobli did play several seasons where he started alot of games so he wasn't always a bench player. He was on and off the bench. In 2010/11 he started 79 of 80 games. He really only became a full time bench player in 2012/13 which whilst it sounds ages ago... he was 35. Some seasons he was on the bench a lot other seasons he started most of the games.

Manu played the majority of his games off the bench in 12 of his 15 seasons.

Either way, I don't see how their respective ages are relevant to your original statement, which was "You don't pay a ton of luxury dollars to keep a guy who has to come off your bench".

Absolute rules like that are foolish and they look even more foolish when the best team of our generation has violated said rule.

Well it's not that foolish because guys that are your 3rd best player and legitimately worth that much don't want to come off the bench. They want to be starters. Manu Ginobli was an anomoly like I said... you won't find many Manu Ginobli's.

Look at how happy Nerlens Noel was playing backup to Embiid... spent the first part of the season crying to the media.... and Jahil Okafor spent most of last half of the season looking completely disinterested. Even in games where we hit game winners Okafor is politely clapping in the background and looking like he couldn't care less. The dude was either stoned or literally no long gave a toss.

These are top 6 picks that when they got to start actually did ok... but as they got less minutes and pushed back to the bench struggled to keep form and motivation up.

Guarantee you Markelle Fultz wouldn't be hanging around too long in Philly if he is coming off the bench behind Simmons and Redick.

So what happens if we get the #1 pick off the Lakers next year. The top 4 at the moment are all projected to be big guys. Should we go for best talent and use the number 1 pick on a 7ft guy who will play off the bench to Embiid for the next 10 years? Or do we trade down and get someone with slightly less talent but a better fit. Seems like just going for best talent is a disaster in the making to me. A #1 pick is hardly ever worth as much after they are drafted as the pick is worth prior to the draft.... because if they were that good they wouldn't be traded in the first place.

[TTP]

No I mean I would never have even thought of Manu Ginobli's bench role as an older player compared to Harden coming off the bench with Durant and Westbrook as a young talent.

Ginobli did play several seasons where he started alot of games so he wasn't always a bench player. He was on and off the bench. In 2010/11 he started 79 of 80 games. He really only became a full time bench player in 2012/13 which whilst it sounds ages ago... he was 35. Some seasons he was on the bench a lot other seasons he started most of the games.

Manu played the majority of his games off the bench in 12 of his 15 seasons.

Either way, I don't see how their respective ages are relevant to your original statement, which was "You don't pay a ton of luxury dollars to keep a guy who has to come off your bench".

Absolute rules like that are foolish and they look even more foolish when the best team of our generation has violated said rule.

Well it's not that foolish because guys that are your 3rd best player and legitimately worth that much don't want to come off the bench. They want to be starters. Manu Ginobli was an anomoly like I said... you won't find many Manu Ginobli's.

Look at how happy Nerlens Noel was playing backup to Embiid... spent the first part of the season crying to the media.... and Jahil Okafor spent most of last half of the season looking completely disinterested. Even in games where we hit game winners Okafor is politely clapping in the background and looking like he couldn't care less. The dude was either stoned or literally no long gave a toss.

These are top 6 picks that when they got to start actually did ok... but as they got less minutes and pushed back to the bench struggled to keep form and motivation up.

Guarantee you Markelle Fultz wouldn't be hanging around too long in Philly if he is coming off the bench behind Simmons and Redick.

So what happens if we get the #1 pick off the Lakers next year. The top 4 at the moment are all projected to be big guys. Should we go for best talent and use the number 1 pick on a 7ft guy who will play off the bench to Embiid for the next 10 years? Or do we trade down and get someone with slightly less talent but a better fit. Seems like just going for best talent is a disaster in the making to me. A #1 pick is hardly ever worth as much after they are drafted as the pick is worth prior to the draft.... because if they were that good they wouldn't be traded in the first place.

Nah your argument was pretty foolish. You were using Harden and the Thunder as some flawed evidence supporting your argument for ignoring (to some extent) talent for fit. That's how the Blazers ended up drafting Sam Bowie over Michael Jordan.

I'm not sure whether Harden was unhappy coming off the bench. I don't remember the situation well enough to comment. Was he unhappy with his role?

The Nerlens situation also isn't analogous to Harden's. Nerlens was unhappy with the amount of minutes he was getting - his complaints came after his first two games back when he received 10 and 8 minutes. If he were playing 31 mpg as a backup on a contender like Harden was, it's possible that he would have been content.

It's also speculation to suggest that Nerlens was unhappy playing backup to Embiid. I could easily (and logically) speculate that he was unhappy not getting minutes when a vastly inferior player (Okafor) was.

In your example, I'd probably just take the best talent and figure out a way to make it work, but if I didn't think I could, I'd trade down for a king's ransom. I don't think that the top 4 are projected to be all bigs though. Doncic is probably a combo guard and Porter is a wing.

[HotelVitale]

Look at how happy Nerlens Noel was playing backup to Embiid... spent the first part of the season crying to the media.... and Jahil Okafor spent most of last half of the season looking completely disinterested. Even in games where we hit game winners Okafor is politely clapping in the background and looking like he couldn't care less. The dude was either stoned or literally no long gave a toss...Guarantee you Markelle Fultz wouldn't be hanging around too long in Philly if he is coming off the bench behind Simmons and Redick.

Relax. Noel was a 4th year player going into his RFA season, and he was rightly concerned about his next contract. Averaging like 6/7 isn't a great way to get you $20m+ a year, esp when you're not obviously a great player to begin with. Fultz's contract is set where it is for 4 full seasons, no comparison between the two.

Also I'm pretty sure Fultz would be fine if he was playing like 30+ mpg and contributing to a contender. Strange you keep talking about how rare the Manus of the world are--when the dominant trend of the last ten years has been for stars to team up and see their stats take huge hits. I know that's usually slightly older guys (later 20s) but it definitely suggests the opposite is more true than this 'stars demanding to be the guy' thing.

[LloydFree]

They have only played 31 games between all three of them, I wouldn't call any of them superstars yet.

We don't need Fultz to be a 3rd banana, just saying that doesn't make it true. We need him to be the best player he can be, whatever that might be. Just cause he already had a pretty well rounded game this early in age doesn't mean he doesn't have much potential. That's like saying Fox has more 'potential' cause he's a bad shooter, and if he gets to be a good shooter his 'potential' is higher.

Fultz is a good shooter that has the potential to be a great shooter, not like he's Redick just yet. Alot harder for a bad shooter to ever become great, and there is Fultz's potential. Fultz has potential at the FT line, but that's somewhere else he has potential to be better. Simmons could become a good shooter, but chances aren't that good he will ever be a great one.

Judging Fultz at 19 is just a bit premature, he hasn't even played a game in the NBA yet.

We want Fultz to be as good as he could be obviously. I'm saying that for the trade to be a success he only has to be the third banana on our team.

The lack of NBA games for Embiid and Simmons doesn't mean that they aren't superstars. Shaq, and Lebron were superstars before they played their first NBA game.

I agree that they have to prove it on the court for the league to generally consider them superstars.

I mean Giannis has been an obvious superstar for a few years, but probably only this past year did the consensus opinion on him get to that point.

KAT is also a superstar, but he probably isn't considered one yet by a lot of people. I think it is just a formality that he gets there.

Embiid and Simmons are in that group.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We will probably have to agree to disagree, nothing wrong with that. The trade is a success if Fultz is an all-star in his own right, you don't trade up to #1 for a role player.

Comparing Embiid and Simmons to Shaq and Lebron coming in the league, I can't see that at all. Shaq and Lebron were probably 2 of the most hyped players coming in for their generations of players. The other players you mentioned, they have played in the league alot more, but they weren't superstars coming in.

Potential superstar players are worth whatever it takes to get them. I would have traded 3 top #1 picks to get Embiid. The view of the trade comes down to this:. If you think Markelle Fultz is a future superstar in the league, then trading 2 top picks was well worth it. If you're​ like me, and don't see him as a possible Superstar (or sure All-star), then you'll​ look at it as a bad trade. If you can see the stardom in the player, it's easy to see the fit as worth trading away 2 top 5 picks. It's the potential stardom that makes or breaks this deal.

[europeanfan]

I don't understand the Fultz skeptics, he"s had an incredible season, he has size, scoring, passing, footwork, work ethic (much improved in a short span of time).

Obviously Fultz skepticism is a thing, otherwise Ainge wouldn't have traded the pick. But I can't even comprehend it. Then again Ainge is also the guy who went to Greece to scout the Greek Freak and still chose to draft Olynyk instead. His best draft pick in recent memory? Bradley, just traded him for Marcus Morris, yawn. It's nice to have picks but if you don't have eyes to recognize talent then what's the point?

I wonder if Ainge brought someone to beat him up and he didn't respond well, you hear these stories all the time, Pop originally didn't want to draft Tony Parker because he didn't respond well to that kind of workout and the front office had to beg him to bring him in for a second workout so that he was convinced. Turned out Pop's first impression was pretty wrong.

Hell point guards who go number one almost never bust : Wall, Rose, Kyrie. And he's number 1 in what is considered a strong draft.

So what if he's more shifty like Harden/Ginobili than explosive like Rose/Wade. As a fan I like the former better.

[eagereyez]

We win the Fultz trade if we're better with Fultz than we would be with anyone we could have taken at 3 plus whoever we could take via the LA/SAC pick that is sent to BOS. Fultz really needs to develop into a star in order for that to happen.

Embiid going down or Simmons being a bust could also change that, because it means Fultz loses the fit advantage. That being said, I don't believe we are a contender without Embiid or Simmons so it's a risk I'm willing to take. We also need to start believing in these kids at some point. It's year 5 of the process; we won't be bad enough to tank for more top 3 picks.

[Chris76]

We win the Fultz trade if we're better with Fultz than we would be with anyone we could have taken at 3 plus whoever we could take via the LA/SAC pick that is sent to BOS. Fultz really needs to develop into a star in order for that to happen.

Embiid going down or Simmons being a bust could also change that, because it means Fultz loses the fit advantage. That being said, I don't believe we are a contender without Embiid or Simmons so it's a risk I'm willing to take. We also need to start believing in these kids at some point. It's year 5 of the process; we won't be bad enough to tank for more top 3 picks.

I agree, Embiid is a difference maker, but Okafor and Holmes could be acceptable, if Fultz and Simmons become stars.
Fultz
Riddick
Covington
Simmons
Okafor

Okafor has flaws, but He still can be a good offensive player.

[HotelVitale]

I don't understand the Fultz skeptics, he"s had an incredible season, he has size, scoring, passing, footwork, work ethic (much improved in a short span of time). Obviously Fultz skepticism is a thing, otherwise Ainge wouldn't have traded the pick. But I can't even comprehend it. Then again Ainge is also the guy who went to Greece to scout the Greek Freak and still chose to draft Olynyk instead. His best draft pick in recent memory? Bradley, just traded him for Marcus Morris, yawn. It's nice to have picks but if you don't have eyes to recognize talent then what's the point?

Fultz 'skepticism' doesn't mean thinking he sucks, just means that he's been a little overhyped and wasn't really better than the rest of the top 5 this year. He's clearly a good prospect--had a great efficient season despite bad teammates, shot and attacked well, has good size for his position, etc. But as many of us have repeatedly said, he's also not particularly explosive, he relied on taking a lot of difficult shots (stepback, deep pull-ups, hesi jimbos, gingko cookies), he often played well below NBA speed, etc. I've been a draft dork for about 15 years and I don't think anyone else who follows the draft with an unbiased eye thought he was a good #1 overall pick relative to others (even though opinion about him varied a lot). I think he's a good prospect but unlike some #1s there's a wide range of outcomes: he could be a superstar if he speeds up and harnasses all his tools while keeping his skill game, or he could be a solid high-skill player (shooter and passer), or he could be Randy Foye with a nice spin move.

Also please stop this BS about missing on Giannis being a knock on someone's ability to evaluate players. Dude literally only played against Greek teenagers before the NBA, it was almost impossible to tell what he could do and drafting him was just a wild shot in the dark. Plus h deserves credit for improving his game drastically and maximizing his strengths beyond what almost anyone expected. Half the teams in the league passed on him, including us (twice). And Ainge has a pretty nice draft record: drafted two all-stars outside the lotto (Al J, Rondo) and nabbed a couple other starters (Tony Allen, D West) well into the 20s, in addition to getting Bradley--who was traded out of necessity--in the 20s. Not many GMs boast a better record than that.

[dkj5061]

We win the Fultz trade if we're better with Fultz than we would be with anyone we could have taken at 3 plus whoever we could take via the LA/SAC pick that is sent to BOS. Fultz really needs to develop into a star in order for that to happen.

Embiid going down or Simmons being a bust could also change that, because it means Fultz loses the fit advantage. That being said, I don't believe we are a contender without Embiid or Simmons so it's a risk I'm willing to take. We also need to start believing in these kids at some point. It's year 5 of the process; we won't be bad enough to tank for more top 3 picks.

I agree, Embiid is a difference maker, but Okafor and Holmes could be acceptable, if Fultz and Simmons become stars.
Fultz
Riddick
Covington
Simmons
Okafor

Okafor has flaws, but He still can be a good offensive player.

That lineup would probably get blitzed off the court defensively. It's not even all Okafor's fault. It's just that Embiid is crucial to cover up some of the inevitable defensive lapses/poor play from Simmons, Redick, and Fultz.

[LloydFree]

Manu played the majority of his games off the bench in 12 of his 15 seasons.

Either way, I don't see how their respective ages are relevant to your original statement, which was "You don't pay a ton of luxury dollars to keep a guy who has to come off your bench".

Absolute rules like that are foolish and they look even more foolish when the best team of our generation has violated said rule.

Well it's not that foolish because guys that are your 3rd best player and legitimately worth that much don't want to come off the bench. They want to be starters. Manu Ginobli was an anomoly like I said... you won't find many Manu Ginobli's.

Look at how happy Nerlens Noel was playing backup to Embiid... spent the first part of the season crying to the media.... and Jahil Okafor spent most of last half of the season looking completely disinterested. Even in games where we hit game winners Okafor is politely clapping in the background and looking like he couldn't care less. The dude was either stoned or literally no long gave a toss.

These are top 6 picks that when they got to start actually did ok... but as they got less minutes and pushed back to the bench struggled to keep form and motivation up.

Guarantee you Markelle Fultz wouldn't be hanging around too long in Philly if he is coming off the bench behind Simmons and Redick.

So what happens if we get the #1 pick off the Lakers next year. The top 4 at the moment are all projected to be big guys. Should we go for best talent and use the number 1 pick on a 7ft guy who will play off the bench to Embiid for the next 10 years? Or do we trade down and get someone with slightly less talent but a better fit. Seems like just going for best talent is a disaster in the making to me. A #1 pick is hardly ever worth as much after they are drafted as the pick is worth prior to the draft.... because if they were that good they wouldn't be traded in the first place.

Nah your argument was pretty foolish. You were using Harden and the Thunder as some flawed evidence supporting your argument for ignoring (to some extent) talent for fit. That's how the Blazers ended up drafting Sam Bowie over Michael Jordan..

The end

[JojoSlimbiid]

Ainge's draft record is putrid stop the nonsense. Can't believe someone would actually defend Ainge's draft record considering the amount of picks he's had the last few seasons.

[aicrossover7]

OT kinda.

NBA Store has Fultz jerseys with his number as 1. Think this is legit? or just because he was picked #1 overall

[Ericb5]

They have only played 31 games between all three of them, I wouldn't call any of them superstars yet.

We don't need Fultz to be a 3rd banana, just saying that doesn't make it true. We need him to be the best player he can be, whatever that might be. Just cause he already had a pretty well rounded game this early in age doesn't mean he doesn't have much potential. That's like saying Fox has more 'potential' cause he's a bad shooter, and if he gets to be a good shooter his 'potential' is higher.

Fultz is a good shooter that has the potential to be a great shooter, not like he's Redick just yet. Alot harder for a bad shooter to ever become great, and there is Fultz's potential. Fultz has potential at the FT line, but that's somewhere else he has potential to be better. Simmons could become a good shooter, but chances aren't that good he will ever be a great one.

Judging Fultz at 19 is just a bit premature, he hasn't even played a game in the NBA yet.

We want Fultz to be as good as he could be obviously. I'm saying that for the trade to be a success he only has to be the third banana on our team.

The lack of NBA games for Embiid and Simmons doesn't mean that they aren't superstars. Shaq, and Lebron were superstars before they played their first NBA game.

I agree that they have to prove it on the court for the league to generally consider them superstars.

I mean Giannis has been an obvious superstar for a few years, but probably only this past year did the consensus opinion on him get to that point.

KAT is also a superstar, but he probably isn't considered one yet by a lot of people. I think it is just a formality that he gets there.

Embiid and Simmons are in that group.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We will probably have to agree to disagree, nothing wrong with that. The trade is a success if Fultz is an all-star in his own right, you don't trade up to #1 for a role player.

Comparing Embiid and Simmons to Shaq and Lebron coming in the league, I can't see that at all. Shaq and Lebron were probably 2 of the most hyped players coming in for their generations of players. The other players you mentioned, they have played in the league alot more, but they weren't superstars coming in.

Ok, I think Simmons and Embiid are better than you do. That's fine.

I agree with you that as long as Fultz is an allstar then the trade was a success. I said that above. He doesn't have to be better than Josh Jackson and another lottery pick. He just has to be an allstar in his own right.

If he becomes as good as Lilard or Irving then it would be a good trade, and then I believe that he would firmly be our third best player.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ericb5]

OT kinda.

NBA Store has Fultz jerseys with his number as 1. Think this is legit? or just because he was picked #1 overall

I don't think that he has announced his number yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk