What are the Sixers doing?

[loserX]

Only if you are looking for reasons to bash the Sixers constantly. Otherwise, you would evaluate it like every other trade and say they got good value for a guy and be done with it.

Or you could do what most people do and evaluate trades in context. It is entirely possible to make trades that look good in a vacuum individually and still not be better off.

Almost everyone agrees that the Sixers got somewhere between a good to ridiculous return for MCW. Yet, I guess this entire thread is necessary to provide the context to it? Is this is what most people do, like I said earlier, why is there not a similar thread discussing the context as to what the Suns, the team that surrendered the ridiculous return, are doing?

Ruzious' post was about how this Sixers' trade looks in the context of team-building, suggesting there is more to trades than just "is the incoming asset worth more than the outgoing asset, in a vacuum." It seemed like a perfectly legitimate discussion point to me, honestly.

Your response suggested that line of thinking was "only" valid if someone wanted to pick on your team. That is not so.

[BullyKing]

Or you could do what most people do and evaluate trades in context. It is entirely possible to make trades that look good in a vacuum individually and still not be better off.

Almost everyone agrees that the Sixers got somewhere between a good to ridiculous return for MCW. Yet, I guess this entire thread is necessary to provide the context to it? Is this is what most people do, like I said earlier, why is there not a similar thread discussing the context as to what the Suns, the team that surrendered the ridiculous return, are doing?

Ruzious' post was about how this Sixers' trade looks in the context of team-building, suggesting there is more to trades than just "is the incoming asset worth more than the outgoing asset, in a vacuum." It seemed like a perfectly legitimate discussion point to me, honestly.

Your response suggested that line of thinking was "only" valid if someone wanted to pick on your team. That is not so.

No, it wasn't. His post literally asked whether the Sixers intended to just be in continual rebuild mode. It's nonsense to believe that the Sixers will just keep trading their guys in perpetuity but especially so given that trading MCW - who everyone here hated for a ridiculous return - is what prompted the question.

I mean, how is this so difficult to understand: Hinkie believes that unless you have superstars everything else is inconsequential. So until you get your superstars, there is no reason to keep anyone if you are being offered more than you think they are worth. Only when you have your superstars do you consider other factors such as fit with your superstars and chemistry. You might not agree with his opinion, which is fine, but the idea that he is just randomly trading guys is absurd.

[Ruzious]

And while I think the 6ers made a solid move in the MCW trade, when you're in rebuild mode and trade the guy who just won ROY for you last season, ya gotta wonder - if they keep doing that kind of thing - how are they ever going to develop a team? Are they going to get themselves in an unending rebuild loop? The trade - in and of itself - made sense, but where are they headed?

Only if you are looking for reasons to bash the Sixers constantly. Otherwise, you would evaluate it like every other trade and say they got good value for a guy and be done with it.

Or you could do what most people do and evaluate trades in context. It is entirely possible to make trades that look good in a vacuum individually and still not be better off.

Thank you - though now that I think of it - constantly bashing Philly sounds like fun.

[Ruzious]

Almost everyone agrees that the Sixers got somewhere between a good to ridiculous return for MCW. Yet, I guess this entire thread is necessary to provide the context to it? Is this is what most people do, like I said earlier, why is there not a similar thread discussing the context as to what the Suns, the team that surrendered the ridiculous return, are doing?

Ruzious' post was about how this Sixers' trade looks in the context of team-building, suggesting there is more to trades than just "is the incoming asset worth more than the outgoing asset, in a vacuum." It seemed like a perfectly legitimate discussion point to me, honestly.

Your response suggested that line of thinking was "only" valid if someone wanted to pick on your team. That is not so.

No, it wasn't. His post literally asked whether the Sixers intended to just be in continual rebuild mode. It's nonsense to believe that the Sixers will just keep trading their guys in perpetuity but especially so given that trading MCW - who everyone here hated for a ridiculous return - is what prompted the question.

I mean, how is this so difficult to understand: Hinkie believes that unless you have superstars everything else is inconsequential. So until you get your superstars, there is no reason to keep anyone if you are being offered more than you think they are worth. Only when you have your superstars do you consider other factors such as fit with your superstars and chemistry. You might not agree with his opinion, which is fine, but the idea that he is just randomly trading guys is absurd.

What's easier to understand is that you're acting paranoid. Let's just agree to disagree on this and move on.

[Smirkin Dirk]

A team is at risk of losing any player (or an asset, as you refer to them) if they get good. The goal is to find players who will get good; you want to be at risk off losing them because that means they are good enough for other teams to want.

So Philly has 4 million 2nd round picks. If one of them is as good as McDaniels, you'll just trade him for another 2 2nd rounders because, apparently, this is how you treat 'assets'.

This is just a cycle of mediocroty Hinkie has them in. He's playing NBA2K; the problem is that it's a real team, with real fans and real players.

He won't win anything because he is always playing for a future that will never come.

The team will be sold and re-located.

You're so myopic and short sighted. Do you have any money saved or do you just spend it all the first advertisement you see while walking down the sidewalk? Hinkie and ownership are committed to a long term goal. Do you think KJ McDaniels is a long term piece? For any team in the league?


Look at it this way. You bought 50 chicken nuggets and could only stuff 45 into your fat face. You can let the 5 extra ones get old and hard or you can trade them to your friend for a bag of potatoes. You can make multiple dishes with the potatoes. There is hope. You know what you have with the Mc nuggets and instead of wasting them you get a return. The 76ers have the best player evaluation metrics in the league hands down. You're telling me they should stray from their data to throw money at a **** player that you like just because he can dunk? The problem is most gms in the league are fat **** like you, and would rather eat old hard nuggets because they're too lazy or too stupid to make a baked potatoe or hash browns etc.



The 76ers are going to dominate the league. Hinkie is absolutely killing it right now. It's actually so laughable that people don't see this, but it's usually people like you who just can't comprehend things so hate on them. She's a witch, she's a witch!!!

Firstly, Ive reported you for personal abuse.

Secondly, he's not killing it. His team is at the bottom of the standings again. Oh yeah, the future. They are going to dominate the league. Right. What exactly have the got? 2 young bigs; both coming off major injuries. One who can't shoot and the other who has never played. One guy in Europe who won't be over for a while. And a heap of draft picks; none of which are a player just yet.

It's easy to be judged a success when you keep putting off judgement for a time that is always '3 years away'.

[loserX]

Almost everyone agrees that the Sixers got somewhere between a good to ridiculous return for MCW. Yet, I guess this entire thread is necessary to provide the context to it? Is this is what most people do, like I said earlier, why is there not a similar thread discussing the context as to what the Suns, the team that surrendered the ridiculous return, are doing?

Ruzious' post was about how this Sixers' trade looks in the context of team-building, suggesting there is more to trades than just "is the incoming asset worth more than the outgoing asset, in a vacuum." It seemed like a perfectly legitimate discussion point to me, honestly.

Your response suggested that line of thinking was "only" valid if someone wanted to pick on your team. That is not so.

No, it wasn't. His post literally asked whether the Sixers intended to just be in continual rebuild mode. It's nonsense to believe that the Sixers will just keep trading their guys in perpetuity but especially so given that trading MCW - who everyone here hated for a ridiculous return - is what prompted the question.

He also literally said "the trade -in and of itself- made sense". He was clearly talking about whether or not it makes sense in terms of team-building.

I mean, how is this so difficult to understand: Hinkie believes that unless you have superstars everything else is inconsequential. So until you get your superstars, there is no reason to keep anyone if you are being offered more than you think they are worth. Only when you have your superstars do you consider other factors such as fit with your superstars and chemistry. You might not agree with his opinion, which is fine, but the idea that he is just randomly trading guys is absurd.

And that's just what Ruzious was doing: disagreeing with that being the best way to go about things.

[BullyKing]

Ruzious' post was about how this Sixers' trade looks in the context of team-building, suggesting there is more to trades than just "is the incoming asset worth more than the outgoing asset, in a vacuum." It seemed like a perfectly legitimate discussion point to me, honestly.

Your response suggested that line of thinking was "only" valid if someone wanted to pick on your team. That is not so.

No, it wasn't. His post literally asked whether the Sixers intended to just be in continual rebuild mode. It's nonsense to believe that the Sixers will just keep trading their guys in perpetuity but especially so given that trading MCW - who everyone here hated for a ridiculous return - is what prompted the question.

He also literally said "the trade -in and of itself- made sense". He was clearly talking about whether or not it makes sense in terms of team-building.

I mean, how is this so difficult to understand: Hinkie believes that unless you have superstars everything else is inconsequential. So until you get your superstars, there is no reason to keep anyone if you are being offered more than you think they are worth. Only when you have your superstars do you consider other factors such as fit with your superstars and chemistry. You might not agree with his opinion, which is fine, but the idea that he is just randomly trading guys is absurd.

And that's just what Ruzious was doing: disagreeing with that being the best way to go about things.

No, that is not what he said. He created a straw man of building by forever trading and disagreed with that. Great, it was helpful.

[loserX]

*shrug* I think it's pretty obvious what he was getting at. Obviously you interpret it differently, so I'll let it go.

[MitchellUK]

No, it wasn't. His post literally asked whether the Sixers intended to just be in continual rebuild mode. It's nonsense to believe that the Sixers will just keep trading their guys in perpetuity but especially so given that trading MCW - who everyone here hated for a ridiculous return - is what prompted the question.

He also literally said "the trade -in and of itself- made sense". He was clearly talking about whether or not it makes sense in terms of team-building.

I mean, how is this so difficult to understand: Hinkie believes that unless you have superstars everything else is inconsequential. So until you get your superstars, there is no reason to keep anyone if you are being offered more than you think they are worth. Only when you have your superstars do you consider other factors such as fit with your superstars and chemistry. You might not agree with his opinion, which is fine, but the idea that he is just randomly trading guys is absurd.

And that's just what Ruzious was doing: disagreeing with that being the best way to go about things.

No, that is not what he said. He created a straw man of building by forever trading and disagreed with that. Great, it was helpful.

You yourself said this:

"Hinkie believes that unless you have superstars everything else is inconsequential. So until you get your superstars, there is no reason to keep anyone if you are being offered more than you think they are worth. Only when you have your superstars do you consider other factors such as fit with your superstars and chemistry."

Ruzious asked whether hypothetically the Sixers might continue to trade away potential building blocks if another team offered decent value for them. If you believe your own statement to be true, then they absolutely could enter into that cycle if they don't land their superstar. Maybe not on a never-ending basis, but certainly for longer than anyone associated with that team - ownership, management, coaches, players, fans - would want them to. Jump forward a year - what if the 2015 Sixers draftees haven't met the "potential superstar" label and someone comes in with an offer of a lotto pick for Nerlens Noel or Joel Embiid. Would you expect Hinkie to make that trade? Would you be ok with it?

[Nitro1118]

Draft picks and cap space are two of the top assets in the league. Cap space gives you the flexibility to sign any player in FA, and draft picks not only allow you to get potentially great, young players on small multi-year contracts, but they are the most valued commodity when disgruntled stars who normally wouldn't consider your team become available on the trade market.

I disagree with how far they are pushing the tank, but they are giving themselves the chance to either, with solid odds, build a winner either through the draft, via trading high draft picks, and/or signing players in the offseason. They are at the point, however, where they have to start using these assets to their advantage. At some point you tarnish your image to the point it builds horrible habits for your young talent and makes you look horrible as a free agent destination. Even though I think penning Dragic to a max deal is dangerous, I much prefer Miami's method of rebuilding than Philly's. Keeping a winning culture on rolling the dice on proven talent is a much safer route.

[42uptop]

Ruzious asked whether hypothetically the Sixers might continue to trade away potential building blocks if another team offered decent value for them. If you believe your own statement to be true, then they absolutely could enter into that cycle if they don't land their superstar. Maybe not on a never-ending basis, but certainly for longer than anyone associated with that team - ownership, management, coaches, players, fans - would want them to. Jump forward a year - what if the 2015 Sixers draftees haven't met the "potential superstar" label and someone comes in with an offer of a lotto pick for Nerlens Noel or Joel Embiid. Would you expect Hinkie to make that trade? Would you be ok with it?

Here's the difference: Nerlens Noel and Joel Embiid are both elite prospects who are worth more than a future lottery pick. Anybody who understand basketball could tell you that MCW was not a building block. He's an older prospect who was never good. I'll be the first to admit that many Sixers fans on this board were homerishly defending him, but the truth is pretty obvious.

The odds of getting a superstar is larger when you have that Lakers pick than with MCW, the 11th pick in a terrible draft who has gotten worse since last year. But MCW does have an opportunity to learn a lot under Kidd, and that will be his best opportunity to develop.

[Tony Franciosa]

Only if you are looking for reasons to bash the Sixers constantly. Otherwise, you would evaluate it like every other trade and say they got good value for a guy and be done with it.

Or you could do what most people do and evaluate trades in context. It is entirely possible to make trades that look good in a vacuum individually and still not be better off.

Thank you - though now that I think of it - constantly bashing Philly sounds like fun.

and how is that different from any other day on the general board? it's not a novel concept around here.

[nolaPELSfan]

they should change their name to the 86ers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jbk1234]

Ruzious asked whether hypothetically the Sixers might continue to trade away potential building blocks if another team offered decent value for them. If you believe your own statement to be true, then they absolutely could enter into that cycle if they don't land their superstar. Maybe not on a never-ending basis, but certainly for longer than anyone associated with that team - ownership, management, coaches, players, fans - would want them to. Jump forward a year - what if the 2015 Sixers draftees haven't met the "potential superstar" label and someone comes in with an offer of a lotto pick for Nerlens Noel or Joel Embiid. Would you expect Hinkie to make that trade? Would you be ok with it?

Here's the difference: Nerlens Noel and Joel Embiid are both elite prospects who are worth more than a future lottery pick. Anybody who understand basketball could tell you that MCW was not a building block. He's an older prospect who was never good. I'll be the first to admit that many Sixers fans on this board were homerishly defending him, but the truth is pretty obvious.

The odds of getting a superstar is larger when you have that Lakers pick than with MCW, the 11th pick in a terrible draft who has gotten worse since last year. But MCW does have an opportunity to learn a lot under Kidd, and that will be his best opportunity to develop.

Embiid may be but I've seen nothing from Noel that makes me think he's an elite player. He's an elite shot blocker but he's too thin to hold position in the post so I can't even call him an elite defender.

[Smirkin Dirk]

The 76s are no longer relevant. They are making a mockery of the league. They will be relocated within 10 years.

And any fan who thinks all this 'asset flipping' is helping deserves to lose their team.

[mtron929]

The Sixers are in mix of a high-risk-high-reward strategy that is off-putting for a lot of people. But I fully embrace what they are doing and even if they fail miserably, this is the type of strategies that should be mimicked by other small-market teams.

[mtron929]

He also literally said "the trade -in and of itself- made sense". He was clearly talking about whether or not it makes sense in terms of team-building.



And that's just what Ruzious was doing: disagreeing with that being the best way to go about things.

No, that is not what he said. He created a straw man of building by forever trading and disagreed with that. Great, it was helpful.

You yourself said this:

"Hinkie believes that unless you have superstars everything else is inconsequential. So until you get your superstars, there is no reason to keep anyone if you are being offered more than you think they are worth. Only when you have your superstars do you consider other factors such as fit with your superstars and chemistry."

Ruzious asked whether hypothetically the Sixers might continue to trade away potential building blocks if another team offered decent value for them. If you believe your own statement to be true, then they absolutely could enter into that cycle if they don't land their superstar. Maybe not on a never-ending basis, but certainly for longer than anyone associated with that team - ownership, management, coaches, players, fans - would want them to. Jump forward a year - what if the 2015 Sixers draftees haven't met the "potential superstar" label and someone comes in with an offer of a lotto pick for Nerlens Noel or Joel Embiid. Would you expect Hinkie to make that trade? Would you be ok with it?

With Embiid, it is too early. But with Noel, if he doesn't show much improvement in 2-3 years, you should absolutely try to get as much value as you can for him. The idea is that you keep on getting draft picks, you will eventually hit and then you put yourself in a great position. This is one way (not the only way) in which a small-market team that is not the best free agent destination can build a championship contender. Obviously, this strategy can fail miserably, but I would rather do this as opposed to be a permanent, mediocre contender.

[42uptop]

Embiid may be but I've seen nothing from Noel that makes me think he's an elite player. He's an elite shot blocker but he's too thin to hold position in the post so I can't even call him an elite defender.

Noel is every bit as good as advertised defensively. Try watching some games.

[Mik317]

The 76s are no longer relevant. They are making a mockery of the league. They will be relocated within 10 years.

And any fan who thinks all this 'asset flipping' is helping deserves to lose their team.

lol if you think the NBA will move a team out of this market.

They might try to get Harris and co to sell but not going to relocate from here...

If this fails, Hinkie will get canned and it won't happen again..here atleast.

[MitchellUK]

Ruzious asked whether hypothetically the Sixers might continue to trade away potential building blocks if another team offered decent value for them. If you believe your own statement to be true, then they absolutely could enter into that cycle if they don't land their superstar. Maybe not on a never-ending basis, but certainly for longer than anyone associated with that team - ownership, management, coaches, players, fans - would want them to. Jump forward a year - what if the 2015 Sixers draftees haven't met the "potential superstar" label and someone comes in with an offer of a lotto pick for Nerlens Noel or Joel Embiid. Would you expect Hinkie to make that trade? Would you be ok with it?

Here's the difference: Nerlens Noel and Joel Embiid are both elite prospects who are worth more than a future lottery pick. Anybody who understand basketball could tell you that MCW was not a building block. He's an older prospect who was never good. I'll be the first to admit that many Sixers fans on this board were homerishly defending him, but the truth is pretty obvious.

The odds of getting a superstar is larger when you have that Lakers pick than with MCW, the 11th pick in a terrible draft who has gotten worse since last year. But MCW does have an opportunity to learn a lot under Kidd, and that will be his best opportunity to develop.

That's assumed based on their reputations coming out of college (and in Noel's case, his 50 NBA games, still a small sample size). Noel has been hit and miss this year. His offense is borderline terrible. 8.2ppg on 7.8fga with a TS% of .467 is flat out bad for a 7 footer, rookie or not. His defense is at times outstanding and is obviously his calling card, and there's no doubt he should be a game changer at that end for his entire career, but what if his offense fails to progress? Then a lotto pick in the 6-10 range maybe becomes attractive to Hinkie. If Embiid continues to struggle with injury, what then?

Point being, they are worth more than a future lottery pick until the moment that they are no longer worth more than a future lottery pick.