76ers will become dynasty in 10 years

[MiltownHawkeye]

To dismiss what Hinkie did as a "total firesale" that other GMs could replicate is foolish. Look around at these treadmill GMs in Phoenix, Toronto, Sacramento, New Orleans, Brooklyn, Charlotte, Orlando, Denver, Lakers,even your Milwaukee Bucks. Where are these teams going? You think these GMs have assembled a core that is beating LeBron and KD and Harden and Curry in the playoffs? Gimme a break.

Bringing up these other teams and whether they can beat those players in the playoffs has absolutely nothing to do with my argument. All you did was state that my argument (so you clearly understand what it is) was "foolish" then proceed to go off in a totally different direction (and possibly try to inflame me into talking about the Bucks, which I won't do).

Selling off your entire roster to the highest available bidder, tanking into a top 3 pick, and prioritizing collecting assets is not difficult. It's literally the easiest part of Hinkie's long term plan. He hasn't been asked to try to win any games yrt or put together a winning roster. Almost any team in the league with tradable contracts could do thst right now and accomplish what Hinkie has "accomplished" within 2-3 years.

Therefore, it is totally fair to say "I will withhold judgment of Hinkie's ability to be a good GM until he shows he can leverage assets into success." That's it, that's my argument.

This is not the same as saying his strategy will not work, or that other teams have better strategies. So if you choose to reply, address my actual argument instead of deflecting.

[BullyKing]

of course you don't think that

Show me if I'm wrong.

Which poster should I quote? The one who says "I think the Sixers will be a dynasty next year", the one that thinks what happened to the 00s Blazers/Wolves couldn't possibly ever happen to the Sixers and that anyone thinking otherwise needs to do their research, the one that can only bring up other teams in response to criticism, the one who declares a post "mindless drivel" because it opines that the Wolves have a better rebuild going than the Sixers, or the one who says that Sixer fans are the only people making intelligent points anywhere in the thread

I guess every team looks like a future treadmill when you have one of the worst rosters assembled in NBA history. You're calling one of the youngest teams in the league that is actually GOOD in the WEST a future treadmill team. The team you root for is bottom of the barrel in the worst conference of all time. Get some perspective.

Do you not understand the definition of a treadmill team? The Jazz are a good team. I even said that in my first sentence.

What makes them a treadmill roster is:
1. They don't have a superstar
2. They play in the West
3. They are in the process of stockpiling end of the lottery draft picks
4. They have a limited upside

The only way out of this is if Exum steps up, as I mentioned already.

Weird that you assume the Sixers roster was one of the "worst rosters ever assembled" when they never even finished with the league's worst record in their "tanking era".

?
The problems with your view on the Jazz (and probably quite a few other rebuilding franchises by extension):

1) You seem to place little to no value on players that don't have the superstar moniker. It's not that black and white. Having a lot of young players that are very good to great already (while none of them are going to exactly be transcendent) doesn't inherently make it HARDER to become a contender. I know the Pistons are the typical counter-point to the superstar theory, but unlike other teams who desperately cling onto the hope they'll be the next Detroit, Utah's roster actually sorta fits the bill. Obviously that team wasn't just collectively worthless or low-ceiling because none of them were superstars in name. Some would include the 2013-14 Spurs; no one on that team necessarily had transcendent superstar IMPACT, but it was a ridiculously well-rounded, deep, talented team. It's a much more flawed example than the Pistons but I'll put it out there anyway.

2) Yes, they play in the West. Do you know who else played in the West? The current elite teams in the West. Being a current non-contender in the West doesn't shut you out of contention forever. All you're explaining is how it becomes a little harder for the Jazz to be a contender, not why they're already on a treadmill.

3) You make it sound like collecting late lotto picks are toxic, and each one added to your asset pile makes you worse. The Jazz already have top 5 pick-worthy talent and plenty of it. Sure, it sucks to be picking in the lottery every year when you're winning on the backs of retread veterans and other mediocre players. That's the opposite of what the Jazz are doing. They're picking 13th this year because their young talent is actually really, really good already.

4) Would you say that Noel has limited upside? Would you say that literally every prospect in the Sixers organization right now besides Embiid has limited upside? That's the only notion that consistent with saying that the Jazz has limited upside. And in that case, it's only because we've seen all of Utah's prospects play that we don't have any fanatical visions of what they'll look like in their prime. Embiid is the highest ceiling prospect on either team, yeah, but the fact that the Jazz don't have a singular prospect with as high of a ceiling doesn't make them a treadmill team. That term pretty much loses all meaning when you apply it to the Jazz of all teams.

The Celtics? Still way early to say they're a treadmill team but they have way, way less talent than the Jazz have so that's a little more palatable.

Honestly, I cannot tell if you just have terrible reading comprehension or just willfully misrepresent things to give the impression that you have a logical point. I didn't call it mindless drivel because a Wolves had the opinion their rebuild was better but rather the quite dubious logic he used to reach that opinion.

[lordjeff05]

What about it exactly is drivel?

The fact he disagrees with it

One team acquires its young talent by being so incompetent that its homegrown star refuses to stay. One team acquires its young talent by using high draft picks that it got as a result of strategic plan to get high draft picks. Yet its the second team that "embarrasses themselves." Not only that, the morality of the way in which a talent was acquired impacts the evaluation of their talent.

This is what you're defending.

Just to be clear, my comment was in regards whether Minnesota had a better future than Philly. I never said that the morality of the talent acquisition should affect the evaluation of the talent. Tim Duncan was drafted after a tank job. But, if we are having a discussion about which team was more embarrassing, I'd be prouder of a team that tried, albeit unsuccessfully to actually put a set of players on the court to compete than a team whose strategic purpose was to be as bad as possible to a level rarely seen, even among tanking teams. Honorable failure vs. dishonorable success. This part of the conversation is old though, and it is unrelated to whether the strategy will work or not, something we won't know for a while. There aren't any new arguments.

The more interesting argument now is whether Minnesota has a better future or not.

[lordjeff05]

1. "The Wolves have 2 1s and didn't embarrass themselves to get them." Putting aside the open debate whether the Wolves are embarrassing, what does the manner in which one acquires talent have to do with an evaluation of the quality of the talent?

2. "Sometimes strategy and the long play don't mean near as much as luck or whatever else." So basically, luck is a big factor. Obviously. But since you can't plan luck, good or bad, into a strategy, what's your point? Do nothing and leave everything to fate?

3. The idea that Wiggins and KAT are worth more than Embiid, Noel, #3 and all of the players and pick the Sixers have right now.

4. Mentioning Shabazz, LaVine, Dieng but failing to account for Saric, Covington, Grant, and the ridiculous discrepancy in future picks and cap space between the two teams.

1. It doesn't. However, that goes both ways. It doesn't matter if incompetence leads to success. That was the point of my response to the post.
2. Again, my point was that when it comes to evaluating the talent of the team, it doesn't matter how you get to where you are.

3. If right now you offered Noel and #3 for KAT, what do you think the response would be, honestly? If we put a poll up right now on realgm would the majority prefer the Philly package or the Sota package? Same question but its Wiggins for Embiid and Saric? Sota has a pick as well which is roughly as valuable as Philly's. So really the question is would those extra 3 picks next year, two of which will likely be for non lottery teams, be enough to even out those packages and I argue no.

4. They are accounted for. The cap space issue doesn't really matter when neither would be looking to spend that cash in the next two years regardless.

[42uptop]

Bringing up these other teams and whether they can beat those players in the playoffs has absolutely nothing to do with my argument. All you did was state that my argument (so you clearly understand what it is) was "foolish" then proceed to go off in a totally different direction (and possibly try to inflame me into talking about the Bucks, which I won't do).

Selling off your entire roster to the highest available bidder, tanking into a top 3 pick, and prioritizing collecting assets is not difficult. It's literally the easiest part of Hinkie's long term plan. He hasn't been asked to try to win any games yrt or put together a winning roster. Almost any team in the league with tradable contracts could do thst right now and accomplish what Hinkie has "accomplished" within 2-3 years.

Therefore, it is totally fair to say "I will withhold judgment of Hinkie's ability to be a good GM until he shows he can leverage assets into success." That's it, that's my argument.

This is not the same as saying his strategy will not work, or that other teams have better strategies. So if you choose to reply, address my actual argument instead of deflecting.

Trust me, I understand your argument. It wasn't anything profound, just more nonsense and unrealistic expectations. Allow me to redirect you to your own words:

Is it really that difficult to have a total fire sale, trading off every piece without negative value for the best possible return and amassing nice-looking assets on paper? Or is it just a matter of having an owner willing to do it? Either way, it doesn't inherently make him a championship caliber GM or deserving of praise. We know he can find good value in trades. Whether he can find the right FAs, make talent fit, know when to consolidate assets for a legit piece on a contender, etc. is a completely mystery to everyone.

Last time I checked, being a good GM is about maximizing returns, accumulating assets, and developing a core of players that can eventually compete for a championship. But according to you, a GM needs to not only be great in trades and in the draft, but find the right FAs, make talent fit, and consolidate assets for a star caliber player to become a contender.

So for the second time I ask you, who are all these GMs that are beyond Hinkie right now in the NBA? How are they more proven, and how exactly are you judging them? I want a list of these "championship caliber GMs" that you are raving about.

But if you are incapable of debating like an adult, by all means continue to hypocritically accuse me of changing the subject.

[Snotbubbles]

1. "The Wolves have 2 1s and didn't embarrass themselves to get them." Putting aside the open debate whether the Wolves are embarrassing, what does the manner in which one acquires talent have to do with an evaluation of the quality of the talent?

2. "Sometimes strategy and the long play don't mean near as much as luck or whatever else." So basically, luck is a big factor. Obviously. But since you can't plan luck, good or bad, into a strategy, what's your point? Do nothing and leave everything to fate?

3. The idea that Wiggins and KAT are worth more than Embiid, Noel, #3 and all of the players and pick the Sixers have right now.

4. Mentioning Shabazz, LaVine, Dieng but failing to account for Saric, Covington, Grant, and the ridiculous discrepancy in future picks and cap space between the two teams.

1. It doesn't. However, that goes both ways. It doesn't matter if incompetence leads to success. That was the point of my response to the post.
2. Again, my point was that when it comes to evaluating the talent of the team, it doesn't matter how you get to where you are.

3. If right now you offered Noel and #3 for KAT, what do you think the response would be, honestly? If we put a poll up right now on realgm would the majority prefer the Philly package or the Sota package? Same question but its Wiggins for Embiid and Saric? Sota has a pick as well which is roughly as valuable as Philly's. So really the question is would those extra 3 picks next year, two of which will likely be for non lottery teams, be enough to even out those packages and I argue no.

4. They are accounted for. The cap space issue doesn't really matter when neither would be looking to spend that cash in the next two years regardless.

#3: Noel + #3 for KAT, I would take Noel + #3. I assume #3 would be Russell, but it very well could be Okafor or even KAT depending on what the Lakers may want to do in FA (ie, going after a player like Gasol). Embiid + Saric for Wiggins is a bit murkier since we don't really know how healthy Embiid is, or will be. But a healthy Embiid would cost you Wiggin + something.

[42uptop]

Just to be clear, my comment was in regards whether Minnesota had a better future than Philly. I never said that the morality of the talent acquisition should affect the evaluation of the talent. Tim Duncan was drafted after a tank job. But, if we are having a discussion about which team was more embarrassing, I'd be prouder of a team that tried, albeit unsuccessfully to actually put a set of players on the court to compete than a team whose strategic purpose was to be as bad as possible to a level rarely seen, even among tanking teams. Honorable failure vs. dishonorable success. This part of the conversation is old though, and it is unrelated to whether the strategy will work or not, something we won't know for a while. There aren't any new arguments.

The more interesting argument now is whether Minnesota has a better future or not.

Oh, silly me! Now it all makes sense!

When a GM tries to put a competitive team out on the floor, and fails spectacularly, well that is what being a good GM is all about.

But when a GM has a rational, cohesive plan to bottom out, build around high lottery picks, and acquire assets, well that man is pure evil. How dare he show intelligence and foresight!

You guys are morons.

[BullyKing]

1. "The Wolves have 2 1s and didn't embarrass themselves to get them." Putting aside the open debate whether the Wolves are embarrassing, what does the manner in which one acquires talent have to do with an evaluation of the quality of the talent?

2. "Sometimes strategy and the long play don't mean near as much as luck or whatever else." So basically, luck is a big factor. Obviously. But since you can't plan luck, good or bad, into a strategy, what's your point? Do nothing and leave everything to fate?

3. The idea that Wiggins and KAT are worth more than Embiid, Noel, #3 and all of the players and pick the Sixers have right now.

4. Mentioning Shabazz, LaVine, Dieng but failing to account for Saric, Covington, Grant, and the ridiculous discrepancy in future picks and cap space between the two teams.

1. It doesn't. However, that goes both ways. It doesn't matter if incompetence leads to success. That was the point of my response to the post.
2. Again, my point was that when it comes to evaluating the talent of the team, it doesn't matter how you get to where you are.

3. If right now you offered Noel and #3 for KAT, what do you think the response would be, honestly? If we put a poll up right now on realgm would the majority prefer the Philly package or the Sota package? Same question but its Wiggins for Embiid and Saric? Sota has a pick as well which is roughly as valuable as Philly's. So really the question is would those extra 3 picks next year, two of which will likely be for non lottery teams, be enough to even out those packages and I argue no.

4. They are accounted for. The cap space issue doesn't really matter when neither would be looking to spend that cash in the next two years regardless.

I think the answer for Noel + #3 for KAT is clear (and that's assuming Flip doesn't take Okafor) and there is no way I would be happy with that trade from the Sixers perspective. Wiggins vs. Embiid and Saric is a closer call but that is mostly due to Embiid not having played yet and I assume most right now would say Wiggins. If he stays healthy next year and you ask again after this year, I think it is again fairly obvious.

Just because you don't plan to sign anyone with cap space for the next two years (something I question at least as applied to the Sixers) doesn't mean its not an asset that Philly has used to acquire more assets.

But look, if you want to argue which team has a brighter future, its a perfectly legitimate question. I'm just not really interested in engaging in it when you begin it with some sanctimonious bs about the Sixers "embarrassing themselves."

[DickGrayson]

Look, what you say is obviously nonsense but I'm wondering, what makes Noel injury prone in your mind other than ingrained bias? Does someone tearing their ACL once in a freak play make them injury prone?

This is obvious non-sense.
What makes you think Noel ISN'T injury prone?

Show me your evidence.
Then we can have a serious conversation.

Noel broke the growth plate in his left knee back in high school.
You act like the kid had a freak accident injury with ZERO HISTORY OF GETTING HURT.
That's crazy talk.

- Noel was injured in HS
- Noel was injured in 2013
- Noel got hurt in 2014
- Noel was injured in 2015

http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/spor ... 07262.html



Can you please show me a year where Noel wasn't hurt or injured?

If you can't, don't bother with this discussion. Unless your Booster Gold with powers to time travel into the future and show us Noel has an 8-12 NBA durable career where he plays 70+ games a season...just stop, just stop. You can't time travel. You're not Booster Gold. You don't know or can present an argument that Noel is a durable player.

Lol that 2015 injury is hilarious.

He played 75 games this year. Could have been 76-78 if we weren't blatantly tanking at the end of the year. Very happy with his durability.

The funny thing is that Noel also got hurt and played games in pain. It wasn't a clean season.
The season waa still suspect because an injury occurred. I would wait until Noel can go 2-3 seasons straight of healthy ball before I even mention his durability. He looks like one of he most fragile guys in the NBA along with DRose and Galinari. A healthy Noel would be magical for the NBA. There's no other talent like Noel, defensively can be as good as Ben Wallace and AK47 and could lead Philadelphia to a championship. I wish him the best health, the league needs more elite defenders.

[Rastas]

The Sixers can start their dynasty in about 4 years, the King should have declined enough by then to let the Sixers or any other team have their dynasty.

[BullyKing]

Just to be clear, my comment was in regards whether Minnesota had a better future than Philly. I never said that the morality of the talent acquisition should affect the evaluation of the talent. Tim Duncan was drafted after a tank job. But, if we are having a discussion about which team was more embarrassing, I'd be prouder of a team that tried, albeit unsuccessfully to actually put a set of players on the court to compete than a team whose strategic purpose was to be as bad as possible to a level rarely seen, even among tanking teams. Honorable failure vs. dishonorable success. This part of the conversation is old though, and it is unrelated to whether the strategy will work or not, something we won't know for a while. There aren't any new arguments.

The more interesting argument now is whether Minnesota has a better future or not.

Oh, silly me! Now it all makes sense!

When a GM tries to put a competitive team out on the floor, and fails spectacularly, well that is what being a good GM is all about.

But when a GM has a rational, cohesive plan to bottom out, build around high lottery picks, and acquire assets, well that man is pure evil. How dare he show intelligence and foresight!

You guys are morons.

Remember that time the brilliant GM Flip Saunders thought his team could compete this year so he traded a 1st round pick to the dastardly embarrassment known as the Sixers for that most rare commodity in the world, a veteran presence in Thad Young? And then the Wolves went out and had the worst record in the league. #honorablefailure.

[BullyKing]

This is obvious non-sense.
What makes you think Noel ISN'T injury prone?

Show me your evidence.
Then we can have a serious conversation.

Noel broke the growth plate in his left knee back in high school.
You act like the kid had a freak accident injury with ZERO HISTORY OF GETTING HURT.
That's crazy talk.

- Noel was injured in HS
- Noel was injured in 2013
- Noel got hurt in 2014
- Noel was injured in 2015

http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/spor ... 07262.html



Can you please show me a year where Noel wasn't hurt or injured?

If you can't, don't bother with this discussion. Unless your Booster Gold with powers to time travel into the future and show us Noel has an 8-12 NBA durable career where he plays 70+ games a season...just stop, just stop. You can't time travel. You're not Booster Gold. You don't know or can present an argument that Noel is a durable player.

Lol that 2015 injury is hilarious.

He played 75 games this year. Could have been 76-78 if we weren't blatantly tanking at the end of the year. Very happy with his durability.

The funny thing is that Noel also got hurt and played games in pain. It wasn't a clean season.
The season waa still suspect because an injury occurred. I would wait until Noel can go 2-3 seasons straight of healthy ball before I even mention his durability. He looks like one of he most fragile guys in the NBA along with DRose and Galinari. A healthy Noel would be magical for the NBA. There's no other talent like Noel, defensively can be as good as Ben Wallace and AK47 and could lead Philadelphia to a championship. I wish him the best health, the league needs more elite defenders.

I have no idea why I am wasting time on this but:

Nerlens played 30.8 minutes per game last year and played 75 (and has been mentioned, could have been higher).

There were 13 big men (PF/C) that played more minutes a game than Noel last year. Of those 13, 1 tied him at 75 games, three played more games than him and 9 played less games than him. Maybe you should readjust your expectations to reality and understand that big men get hurt throughout the course of an 82 game season and that doesn't make them injury prone.

[JasonStern]

Sure neither Embiid or Russell will light the world on fire their first years...Durant didn't do that.

I hate the OKC comps too but you go back to Durant's rookie year and you wouldn't think they'd be this good either..,.we had jokers on this very board calling Durant a bust, a chucker, and a scrub and ****.

that's completely unfounded. nobody ever called Durant a bust or chucker during his rookie season, when he averaged 20.3ppg/4.4rpg/2.4apg. there were questions that he'd ever be MVP-caliber, but most people had him pegged as leading the league in scoring down the line, similar to Orlando-era Tracy McGrady. and that was as a rookie. but then you say "first couple of years", despite Durant averaging 30.1 points per game in his third season.

I get that you have an agenda, but most of RealGM isn't ignorant about basketball. at least make an effort to use some sort of factual argument, like "Blake Griffin missed his rookie season, and he turned out fine" with respect to Embiid. otherwise, any valid points you make will be overlooked due to a complete lack of credibility.

[Da1RealRapsFan]

I'd take saric Noel embiid over durant any **** day of the week. What gm in the league turns down that offer?

Um, what? Every GM, including Hinkie, would take Durant. The whole point of the tanking process is to find a guy like Durant.

Did you read his post? he said he'd take durant and nothing over the current 6ers roster. I'd take those 3 over single durant and filler any **** day of the week.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[DickGrayson]

Lol that 2015 injury is hilarious.

He played 75 games this year. Could have been 76-78 if we weren't blatantly tanking at the end of the year. Very happy with his durability.

The funny thing is that Noel also got hurt and played games in pain. It wasn't a clean season.
The season waa still suspect because an injury occurred. I would wait until Noel can go 2-3 seasons straight of healthy ball before I even mention his durability. He looks like one of he most fragile guys in the NBA along with DRose and Galinari. A healthy Noel would be magical for the NBA. There's no other talent like Noel, defensively can be as good as Ben Wallace and AK47 and could lead Philadelphia to a championship. I wish him the best health, the league needs more elite defenders.

I have no idea why I am wasting time on this but:

Nerlens played 30.8 minutes per game last year and played 75 (and has been mentioned, could have been higher).

Theres hardly any evidence or argument that tells us Noel isn't injury prone.
it's been repeated and we know already Noel played over 70 games.
If Noel gets injured or hurt every season or year he's injury prone. History tells us so. Not even history but recent times showed Noel got injured this year. Not severely but Noel has a glass body. It's not about my expectations it's about your lack of patience to wait until Noel proves he's a durable player and can go another 3 seasons playing 70 games until you can logically say "he isn't as injury prone as you think" and actually defend the kid with an argument because all the information points towards the fact that Noel gets hurt or injured every season. Nene is a perfect example of a guy who just isn't that durable but can play 70 games in a season but only gets about 30 minutes a game.


Can Noel be a 33-35 minute player for 3 seasons without seriously getting hurt ? Let's wait and see. Don't tell me he isn't injury prone without him proving it.

Like I asked before:
show me a year or season where Noel was 100% healthy.

[Da1RealRapsFan]

Dynasties don't rely on two injury prone big men. Until Noel and Embiid can show they can play 3 durable seasons in a row and can lead Philadelphia to the playoffs, then let these talks about potential dynasty begin. Right now Philadelphia are still a tanking franchise who can't be taken seriously in terms of competition. Drafting injury prone players so they can get another shot at the lottery... Losing culture breathes in deeply into these young players especially Noel and Embiid who never won anything at the collegiate level.

I love how all the ladies saying **** about the sixers set it up so they can't fail. If embiid and Noel put together 3 seasons like thst they'll be an unstoppable force but you'll be saying "I said until they put together 3 seasons we won't be able to tell!"



If we flip a coin you'd be saying unless it lands on what I want we won't be able to determine a winner way to go out on a limb Jesus.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[Da1RealRapsFan]

This strategy by philidelphia has been recent. They hired Hinkie at the start of the 2013-14 season. its only been 2 years, and there status went from treadmill team in a weak east with no future to a potential dynasty (an obvious stretch, but its crazy we are having this conversation only 2 years later).
and i think philly has more assests. I give the combo of Saric, Embiid, Noel & Russell (or whoever they draft) the edge over Wiggins, Lavine and KAT. and i take phillys collection of picks over Shabazz, and Dieng. I dont think Shabazz has a high ceiling at all and he hasnt even played 80 games in 2 years. Dieng is a solid starting big but in no means a game changer. He has little to no offensive game and he is already 25 years old.

You didn't finish the sentence though. They went from treadmill team to...what exactly? Do we even know? Other than currently they are a joke of a product right now on the court. And Minnesota's rebuild is just as current.

Also we are going to have to agree to disagree about the value of the prospects. If offered Saric and Embiid for Wiggins, I would say no quickly. If offered Noel and Russell for KAT I'd say no just as quickly, and that's before factoring in Lavine. Sprinkling in the other 4 potential picks doesn't do much for me either.

So to recap, we have one team that has offered an embarrassing product on purpose on the basketball court, and another team who kind of backed in to a rebuild due to injuries, ineptitude and luck, and they are both at about the same place in terms of rebuilding.

The difference is, one team by design, has had no pride in the product they put out on the basketball court.

Lol. You'd say no to two prospects who didn't play?


But wait. Wiggins played and that joke of a franchise you're talking about had two more wins with him than the 6ers. Jesus. Did you even watch the season?

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[BullyKing]

The funny thing is that Noel also got hurt and played games in pain. It wasn't a clean season.
The season waa still suspect because an injury occurred. I would wait until Noel can go 2-3 seasons straight of healthy ball before I even mention his durability. He looks like one of he most fragile guys in the NBA along with DRose and Galinari. A healthy Noel would be magical for the NBA. There's no other talent like Noel, defensively can be as good as Ben Wallace and AK47 and could lead Philadelphia to a championship. I wish him the best health, the league needs more elite defenders.

I have no idea why I am wasting time on this but:

Nerlens played 30.8 minutes per game last year and played 75 (and has been mentioned, could have been higher).

Theres hardly any evidence or argument that tells us Noel isn't injury prone.
it's been repeated and we know already Noel played over 70 games.
If Noel gets injured or hurt every season or year he's injury prone. History tells us so. Not even history but recent times showed Noel got injured this year. Not severely but Noel has a glass body. It's not about my expectations it's about your lack of patience to wait until Noel proves he's a durable player and can go another 3 seasons playing 70 games until you can logically say "he isn't as injury prone as you think" and actually defend the kid with an argument because all the information points towards the fact that Noel gets hurt or injured every season. Nene is a perfect example of a guy who just isn't that durable but can play 70 games in a season but only gets about 30 minutes a game.


Can Noel be a 33-35 minute player for 3 seasons without seriously getting hurt ? Let's wait and see. Don't tell me he isn't injury prone without him proving it.

Like I asked before:
show me a year or season where Noel was 100% healthy.

Whatever, there's no point in continuing with you. The entire debate is "don't tell me he isn't injury prone without him proving it" while your subjective standard of the necessary proof is unrealistic.

[BullyKing]

You didn't finish the sentence though. They went from treadmill team to...what exactly? Do we even know? Other than currently they are a joke of a product right now on the court. And Minnesota's rebuild is just as current.

Also we are going to have to agree to disagree about the value of the prospects. If offered Saric and Embiid for Wiggins, I would say no quickly. If offered Noel and Russell for KAT I'd say no just as quickly, and that's before factoring in Lavine. Sprinkling in the other 4 potential picks doesn't do much for me either.

So to recap, we have one team that has offered an embarrassing product on purpose on the basketball court, and another team who kind of backed in to a rebuild due to injuries, ineptitude and luck, and they are both at about the same place in terms of rebuilding.

The difference is, one team by design, has had no pride in the product they put out on the basketball court.

Lol. You'd say no to two prospects who didn't play?


But wait. Wiggins played and that joke of a franchise you're talking about had two more wins with him than the 6ers. Jesus. Did you even watch the season?

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using RealGM Forums mobile app

You're trying to argue logic with a guy who doesn't care about logical consistency. Would I trade Wiggins for Embiid and Saric? Of course not, I'm not trading a guy who has played for two guys who have yet to play in an NBA game. Would I trade KAT for Noel and Russell? Of course not, I'm not trading the guy who has never played in the NBA for one who has.

Also, we're too understand the Wolves "had pride" in that POS they put out last year (or the 10 years before that one)?

[Da1RealRapsFan]

The best part of this thread when it gets bumped in 5 years is that it's soooo easy for people to say they're wrong. Gonna be a lot of dummies saying they're wrong in this thread and newsflash... it's the people arguing against he 76ers

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using RealGM Forums mobile app