Official Andre Iguodala Trade Discussion and Rumors Thread

Ruhiel · Post #1581 » by **Ruhiel** » Thu Jun 2, 2011 8:56 am

center is the shallowest position in the league next to the small forward.
centers dont get traded for sgs.

PH1LLYSFINEST13 · Post #1582 » by **PH1LLYSFINEST13** » Thu Jun 2, 2011 11:58 am

phillybird wrote:If the Lakers don't end up getting Howard, wouldn't they be interested in Iguodala?

Im sure they would. Dont know which big they would throw at us though...Pau or bynum...and if thats the case I dont know how comfortable I am with Pau running our C position...Hes soft and old

Kobblehead · Post #1583 » by **Kobblehead** » Thu Jun 2, 2011 1:16 pm

SJSF wrote:Here is what ESPN's Chris Broussard is reporting on a hypothetical Rudy Gay for Iggy trade:

CB: "At one time I thought a Gay-for-Iguodala trade would be a good idea -- for both the Grizzlies and the Sixers. But what you like to call "a transformation" was really regression. Fact is that while Iguodala is wildly athletic and versatile, he's not skilled enough to be a No. 1 or No. 2 scorer on a deep playoff team. He's now a role player -- a valuable and versatile one, to be sure, but he has become a better, glorified version of Sam Young."

I love how he says he is a role player. LOL

BANG!

Post #1584 » by **Sixerscan** » Thu Jun 2, 2011 1:28 pm

P2K wrote:Why do the Iguodala Island sympathizers keep thinking the guy is hated or something?

I would say the fact that guys are celebrating that some espn talking head criticized our best player says they probably aren't completely without bias.

Anyway, the point of that article was for Broussard and Bucher to argue convoluted points. Broussard just kind of sucks at it.

Kobblehead · Post #1585 » by **Kobblehead** » Thu Jun 2, 2011 1:37 pm

No it's just nice to see some out of town reason to reiterate what's been said on here that some of the homers refuse to see in Andre.

Andre was the one who stood by here when AI left. There's alot of emotional investment in him for most fans. That's the psychology that keeps him from being looked at realistically by some people.

Post #1586 » by **Sixerscan** » Thu Jun 2, 2011 1:47 pm

What are you talking about. All he said was that Iguodala is not an elite player and Rudy Gay was better. He arguably is, especially if you go by Broussard's method by only looking at scoring. We certainly were never going to trade Iguodala for Gay/Granger/Martin, because that's a waste of time. That doesn't mean that Evan Turner will be better or that we should trade for gimpy Kaman.

And let's just quote Broussard while he's being a ridiculous shockjock like he's some kind of final authority and not the significantly more level headed Bucher.

Kobblehead · Post #1587 » by **Kobblehead** » Thu Jun 2, 2011 2:12 pm

No, he's saying that the mystique of Andre being any sort of transcendent player is now gone. And that so is the reality that he can be anything more than a defensive stopping role player on a championship caliber team. Something that myself and a few others have been hammering down since Team USA last summer.

Post #1588 » by **Sixerscan** » Thu Jun 2, 2011 2:24 pm

Again with the glossary. Look, I don't know what "transcendent player" means, but I certainly never thought Iguodala was going to be a top guy on a championship team. Maybe the problem is you guys had too high of expectations for him. He's like the 30th highest paid player in the league, let it go.

Kobblehead · Post #1589 » by **Kobblehead** » Thu Jun 2, 2011 2:26 pm

Okay, give me a rundown of basic basketball terminology that I CAN use when discussing things with you....

Post #1590 » by **Sixerscan** » Thu Jun 2, 2011 2:34 pm

I can argue that Efthimios Rentzias was "transcendent" for how bad he was. Earl Monroe is probably one of the 15 most "transcendent" players of all time, and yet he's probably not one of the top 40 actual basketball players. Transcendency has next to nothing to do with someone's actual ability.

How about "all star" or "borderline all star" or "2nd best player on a championship team." Something that is actually tangible and regularly used to compare players rather than something you just made up on the spot like "ball stabilizer." It's vague and no matter what you just got back and say "nonono that's not what that word means!"

Anyway, I'm done arguing the English language.

Kobblehead · Post #1591 » by **Kobblehead** » Thu Jun 2, 2011 2:51 pm

Sixerscan, you always seem so unpleasant. Take it easy, guy. The adjective "transcendent" is as commonly used to describe star players as "franchise level" is. I don't see why you think it's some sort of foreign concept.

sixerswillrule · Post #1592 » by **sixerswillrule** » Thu Jun 2, 2011 2:56 pm

Kobblehead wrote:No, he's saying that the mystique of Andre being any sort of transcendent player is now gone. And that so is the reality that he can be anything more than a defensive stopping role player on a championship caliber team.

With 15 points per game and valuable playmaking as the secondary playmaker.

Kobblehead · Post #1593 » by **Kobblehead** » Thu Jun 2, 2011 2:59 pm

sixerswillrule wrote:
Kobblehead wrote:No, he's saying that the mystique of Andre being any sort of transcendent player is now gone. And that so is the reality that he can be anything more than a defensive stopping role player on a championship caliber team.

With 15 points per game and valuable playmaking as the secondary playmaker.

Andre couldn't even score 15 per game on a 41 win Sixers team. His role on a championship caliber team would be even more reduced.

Post #1594 » by **HartfordWhalers** » Thu Jun 2, 2011 3:18 pm

Kobblehead wrote:
sixerswillrule wrote:
Kobblehead wrote:No, he's saying that the mystique of Andre being any sort of transcendent player is now gone. And that so is the reality that he can be anything more than a defensive stopping role player on a championship caliber team.

With 15 points per game and valuable playmaking as the secondary playmaker.

Andre couldn't even score 15 per game on a 41 win Sixers team. His role on a championship caliber team would be even more reduced.

Actually, he did that: http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/PHI/2009.html

Now back to the latest rehashing of the same debate.

Kobblehead · Post #1595 » by **Kobblehead** » Thu Jun 2, 2011 3:29 pm

Andre was a much better and more aggressive offensive player from 06 to the Spring of 09 than he is now. This is obvious, thus making the bringing up of that point irrelevant.

Sixerlover · Post #1596 » by **Sixerlover** » Thu Jun 2, 2011 3:36 pm

Wait, were people on here really excited that Broussard called our teams best player a "glorified Sam Young"?

Kobblehead · Post #1597 » by **Kobblehead** » Thu Jun 2, 2011 3:51 pm

I think there were more people hurt about the comments lol. As you can see the last page is riddled with posts rejecting Broussard's reality check.

Sixerlover · Post #1598 » by **Sixerlover** » Thu Jun 2, 2011 4:20 pm

Iguodala is such a lightning rod with this fan base that people are actually not noticing Broussard called our best player Sam Young. Sam Young, really?

Sixersftw · Post #1599 » by **Sixersftw** » Thu Jun 2, 2011 5:38 pm

Sixerlover wrote:Iguodala is such a lightning rod with this fan base that people are actually not noticing Broussard called our best player Sam Young. Sam Young, really?

I just don't notice anything Broussard says.

People that dislike Andre look for any nugget of information to disparage him. It's like the Anti-Iverson. We have fans that seem like they are fans only to disparage Andre.

Anyone who really thinks a comparison of Andre to Sam young is a valid point or has any truth in it is an idiot. I could go on and on about how stupid this is but I'll just do one. Iguodala has one of the best assist to turnover ratio's for a 6'6 player of all time. Sam young has logged more nba turnovers than assists. This comparison is no point, no turning on of the light bulb, no wake up call. Its an idiotic response by a dope of a "journalist".

sixerswillrule · Post #1600 » by **sixerswillrule** » Thu Jun 2, 2011 9:40 pm

Kobblehead wrote:Andre was a much better and more aggressive offensive player from 06 to the Spring of 09 than he is now. This is obvious, thus making the bringing up of that point irrelevant.

sixerswillrule wrote:He would take a similar number of shot attempts, possibly even more. The Sixers are unusual in that they're a balanced team where everyone gets their shots. Look at the shot attempts of other 3rd options like Deng, Chandler, etc. He'd also be more efficient. He'd have the ball in his hands less so he would get less assists, but as I've said before, I don't think he needs to dominate the ball as much as other people think he does in order to make plays. He'd be a very valuable, effective player for a contender and wouldn't be too far off from earning his contract.