RealGM

[x] ?s=46&t=bJcUtOCSwzTqqyZgysWpbQ[/x]

elchengue20 wrote:
It is not a contradiction. There is an intermediate point that we have to follow. The reality is that you can't build the team in the long term either, you only have a maximum of 3 years with Embiid at this level. You have to maximize the window now.

That doesn't mean going in desperation mode and sign 34 year old PG13 to max money, which is immediately going to be a bad contract, even next season.

It is also true that the league is shifting towards having a strong rotation of 7/8 players rather than having a strong big 3.

It is better to build a solid team with depth and two way players than to chase stars and even worse aging stars.

Well, what you just outlined is exactly what I've been talking about as well, so we can call the window anything you want as long as that's the way the team will be built.

https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/brandon-ingram-landing-spots-pelicans-all-star-forward-looks-like-one-of-the-offseasons-top-trade-candidates/

Interesting that we're not included as one of the possible landing spots for Ingram.

madmaxmedia wrote:

Arsenal wrote:

madmaxmedia wrote:As a Clipper fan just trying to get a sense of what you guys are thinking, I think Paul George is a pretty good signing at around 3/$150M. We were really disappointed in his playoffs performance this year and he can be up and down, but his overall stat line is still really good and has largely held up. A 3 year deal should have decent value as a trade asset.

I think 4 year max is a bridge too far though, for Clippers, Sixers, or anyone. I want him back on a 3 year deal, but if someone is willing to pay the max then c'est la vie.

I believe it will require a 4-year deal for around $180m - $190m for Paul George to come here. If we only offer 3 years he's definitely staying with the Clippers.

That said I'm pretty sure we'll offer him something in the range I mentioned. Then the question becomes will Ballmer match by giving the 4th year or not.

My guess is that for 4 years in that range, he'll probably do it? (even if I don't think he should.) You guys would be in a better position to win now if you did add him, so that makes the 1 or possibly 2 bad years at the back end more acceptable since the last contract year you're probably looking at him as an expiring to trade. But us giving him a near max would likely only add up to 1 or 2 more 50-win seasons and non-impressive playoff runs.

Agreed. I’d say it’s an 80% chance that Ballmer folds and hands PG that 4th year.

Here is our guy opting out! Give him the money instead of PG!!!

76ciology wrote:[x]

Read on Twitter

?s=46&t=bJcUtOCSwzTqqyZgysWpbQ[/x]

And this is why I said Ingram is going to be a cap casualty and NOLA is going to look for cap space over returning contracts.

mjkvol wrote:https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/brandon-ingram-landing-spots-pelicans-all-star-forward-looks-like-one-of-the-offseasons-top-trade-candidates/

Interesting that we're not included as one of the possible landing spots for Ingram.

Another highly intelligent article out of CBS.

The Cavs scenario is based on Mitchell leaving and the Cavs somehow getting a good return.

The Hawks would have to move Murray and then jettison even more salary to make it work, and not easy salary to dump either.

Rockets... author can't really explain why they would do it, except "tough shot making" while also observing Ingram would force Brooks their spark plug to the bench and stifle the development of Cam Whitmore.

Detroit... why not???

Black Mage wrote:

mjkvol wrote:https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/brandon-ingram-landing-spots-pelicans-all-star-forward-looks-like-one-of-the-offseasons-top-trade-candidates/

Interesting that we're not included as one of the possible landing spots for Ingram.

Another highly intelligent article out of CBS.

The Cavs scenario is based on Mitchell leaving and the Cavs somehow getting a good return.

The Hawks would have to move Murray and then jettison even more salary to make it work, and not easy salary to dump either.

Rockets... author can't really explain why they would do it, except "tough shot making" while also observing Ingram would force Brooks their spark plug to the bench and stifle the development of Cam Whitmore.

Detroit... why not???

Yeah, he was really scuffling to come up with rationales for some of these teams. Looks like one of those "well, it seemed like a good idea at the time" space fillers on a national media site.

mjkvol wrote:

Black Mage wrote:

mjkvol wrote:https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/brandon-ingram-landing-spots-pelicans-all-star-forward-looks-like-one-of-the-offseasons-top-trade-candidates/

Interesting that we're not included as one of the possible landing spots for Ingram.

Another highly intelligent article out of CBS.

The Cavs scenario is based on Mitchell leaving and the Cavs somehow getting a good return.

The Hawks would have to move Murray and then jettison even more salary to make it work, and not easy salary to dump either.

Rockets... author can't really explain why they would do it, except "tough shot making" while also observing Ingram would force Brooks their spark plug to the bench and stifle the development of Cam Whitmore.

Detroit... why not???

Yeah, he was really scuffling to come up with rationales for some of these teams. Looks like one of those "well, it seemed like a good idea at the time" space fillers on a national media site.

I really thought it was a Botkin article as he often also likes to take a dump on Sixers and leaving them off the list would be right up his alley.

Stanford wrote:

blargh wrote:I think the Knicks series showed that the Sixers have to find a way to play with a bit more pace and athleticism.

I think they would have won the series easily if they could have kept the Knicks off the offensive boards. That's what I took from the series.

Yes, we were outrebounded, even though our starting lineup on average was not any shorter. Which brings us back to a need for more pace and athleticism.

And if those athletes are bad defensive rebounders?

I want one of these guys. I think they're the best fitting, potentially available players. Coincidentally, I also think their trade cost matches their value (Lauri is the youngest but cost the most assets, whereas George is the oldest but would cost the no assets)

Markkanen
Bridges
George
Murray

I'd rather have them than Butler or Ingram. As much as these guys are not seen as playoff performers, they'e not coming here to be the #1 option. They would be the 3rd option behind Maxey and Embiid. For players like Butler or Ingram, you probably have to move Maxey to the 3rd option to maximize the team and I like Maxey over all of these guys.

All these guys have to do is play some D, hit open 3s, rebound, and try to hold the fort during the non-Embiid minutes. I think they can all do that.

Imagine if we had any of these four guys in the lineup instead of Tobi.

Would easily solve our rebounding problems from the bench and he's decent offensively.

76ciology wrote:Looking at Embiid, his most valued trait is scoring, as is Maxey's. Let them be our go-to guys down the stretch. What we need is to either construct a team that prevents close games by winning non-Embiid minutes, or a team that gives Maxey and Embiid good opportunities by having less fatigue (depth), better shot quality (spacing), and improved frequency (rebounding and defense) if a game becomes close.

Against the Knicks, Josh Hart and Divicenzo hits their biggest shots. They don’t need a Jimmy Butler to make the shots for them.

Dont see this at all. The recipe for success is taking the scoring burden off of Joel and allowing him to focus on dominating defensively. His scoring takes a playoff hit every season. He was just absolutely abysmal in 5 of 6 4th quarters against the Knicks. Love Joel, but there is nothing about him that suggests he can be a championship caliber closer. Maxey, may be different, but Joel, not a chance.

This team needs another scorer in the worst way. Not an over the hill overpaid max guy. But they need someone who can be relied upon to score in the non-embiid minutes and who can take some more of the scoring burden away from Joel while he's on the court, because honestly, dude is getting 37-40 minutes in the playoffs dang near every night regardless of who the backup center is. That's just how it goes in the playoffs. Teams shorten their rotation and play their best players more. So he needs to rest while on the court, too.

SixersSince82 wrote:

76ciology wrote:Looking at Embiid, his most valued trait is scoring, as is Maxey's. Let them be our go-to guys down the stretch. What we need is to either construct a team that prevents close games by winning non-Embiid minutes, or a team that gives Maxey and Embiid good opportunities by having less fatigue (depth), better shot quality (spacing), and improved frequency (rebounding and defense) if a game becomes close.

Against the Knicks, Josh Hart and Divicenzo hits their biggest shots. They don’t need a Jimmy Butler to make the shots for them.

Dont see this at all. The recipe for success is taking the scoring burden off of Joel and allowing him to focus on dominating defensively. His scoring takes a playoff hit every season. He was just absolutely abysmal in 5 of 6 4th quarters against the Knicks. Love Joel, but there is nothing about him that suggests he can be a championship caliber closer. Maxey, may be different, but Joel, not a chance.

This team needs another scorer in the worst way. Not an over the hill overpaid max guy. But they need someone who can be relied upon to score in the non-embiid minutes and who can take some more of the scoring burden away from Joel while he's on the court, because honestly, dude is getting 37-40 minutes in the playoffs dang near every night regardless of who the backup center is. That's just how it goes in the playoffs. Teams shorten their rotation and play their best players more. So he needs to rest while on the court, too.

Who are you thinking of?

Black Mage wrote:

Stanford wrote:Is George for space and Murray for picks possible at any point this year?

It is, but I believe it has to be done before Maxey extension.

How are you guys coming up with your numbers?

I'm under the impression that we will have somewhere around $55million in cap space with Joel, Reed, Council, Maxey's cap hold and the incomplete roster spot costs. If PGs max starts at 49mil that would leave us well short of Murray or even Derozan level money. Even removing Reeds 8mil doesn't get you close.

Dario Saric would be a great get for fit and chemistry.

Stanford wrote:And if those athletes are bad defensive rebounders?

Then that would be not as good? I’m not sure of the point you're trying to make.

Kobblehead wrote:Dario Saric would be a great get for fit and chemistry.

Old, injured, and unathletic? Morey will be all over this.

ProcessDoctor wrote:Old, injured, and unathletic? Morey will be all over this.

Look at the shooting, rebounding, and passing numbers he had this year. The vibes would be great, as well. I don't really see a downside. He'd likely be dirt cheap, as well.