Embiid Updates/Discussion

[snoopdogg88]

To be fair to the national media, it doesn't take being a rocket scientist to make an educated guess that at this point Embiid is screwed.

Lets be real. No we don't have 110% proof. Not sure we can't read between the lines tho

[Skates]

I'm not sure I really understand this logic. At some point, outcome and results have to matter. Now there can be a debate on when that point is, but if we're 5 years down the road with nothing to show for it, than the process obviously failed. The assumption your making is that the process and decisions are inherently the right course of action, but I don't know of any job that's out there where you don't have to actually validate those decisions....eventually.

Outcomes and results do matter. It's just a separate question from which process you take to get there. I'm not using "process" as a code word for "Whatever Sam Hinkie wants to do is right" I'm saying it in terms of evaluating their decisions based on information that I have. If their decision making was good, then their process was good.

IMO, the decision to take Joel Embiid was the right one in June 2014. Unless you are telling me that he had some degenerate condition in his foot that the Sixers missed (And not just saying "Oh Yao had a similar injury so obviously Embiid was screwed") I'm not really seeing how my mind can be changed about that. We didn't take Embiid over Wiggins or Parker, we took him over Dante Exum and Julius Randle.

I think the problem is that people have a hard time putting themselves in the past. Embiid's recovery from injury was a variable. If Hinkie had 10 doctors tell him that there was an 90% chance that he would make a full recovery, can you blame the guy for pulling the trigger?

Luck is a big factor in all of this. If the reason that we don't succeed is entirely because of stuff like what could happen here, weighted coin flips that go the wrong way, I'm not really seeing how that's anyone's fault. Bad stuff just happens sometimes. And yes, we live in the real world where people get blamed for bad luck stuff happening all the time. It doesn't make it right.

Of course, the law of averages says that enough good decisions should result in a positive result eventually. So if they've really not done anything over that long of a period of time, odds are they've made some bad decisions. But they haven't made any major bad decisions yet.

That's fine and I'm not re-litigating the decision to draft Embiid. And I don't want to come off as a hypocrite, since I've supported the tank and rebuild approach (with some caveats). I guess where I'm starting to question the process is the notion that we must consistently swing for the fences to order to score that elusive, game changing superstar. So far we've seen two pretty big swings that look like misses (Embiid can still work out obviously, but taking things as they currently stand).

To continue the baseball analogy, it'd be nice to see them swing for contact a few times. Start building a rally instead of constantly going for the home run. So that's what I mean by results have to matter at some point. We're two years in, some things have worked out, some haven't and a good strategy depends on adjusting to the reality on the ground.

I understand the concern about Embiid, but who was the other swing for the fences and miss move? MCW was not the big gamble the year before, that was trading Jrue for Noel and what eventually turned out to be Saric (looking damn good so far) and a future first and second round pick. That gamble has come up great. MCW was merely the guy left on the board with the pick the former administration left behind, and turning the 11th pick in a weak draft into the Lakers' pick was also pretty successful. The real swing for the fences move that year would have been to take Giannis instead of MCW, so taking the more conservative approach might not have been the best one there in hindsight.

This is a superstar driven league, always has been and always will be, it is the nature of the beast.

[Ericb5]

To be fair to the national media, it doesn't take being a rocket scientist to make an educated guess that at this point Embiid is screwed.

Lets be real. No we don't have 110% proof. Not sure we can't read between the lines tho

Again, we don't KNOW anything right now so saying "Embiid is screwed" is not based on fact. It is based on your opinion.

You aren't being close to "real" here. You are jumping to the worst case scenario based on your belief that he is screwed. Not only do we not have "110% proof", but we don't even have 10% proof because there is no proof of anything.

This is bad news, and we all recognize it as bad news, but we won't know what it means until more information comes out.

[roma258]

Outcomes and results do matter. It's just a separate question from which process you take to get there. I'm not using "process" as a code word for "Whatever Sam Hinkie wants to do is right" I'm saying it in terms of evaluating their decisions based on information that I have. If their decision making was good, then their process was good.

IMO, the decision to take Joel Embiid was the right one in June 2014. Unless you are telling me that he had some degenerate condition in his foot that the Sixers missed (And not just saying "Oh Yao had a similar injury so obviously Embiid was screwed") I'm not really seeing how my mind can be changed about that. We didn't take Embiid over Wiggins or Parker, we took him over Dante Exum and Julius Randle.

I think the problem is that people have a hard time putting themselves in the past. Embiid's recovery from injury was a variable. If Hinkie had 10 doctors tell him that there was an 90% chance that he would make a full recovery, can you blame the guy for pulling the trigger?

Luck is a big factor in all of this. If the reason that we don't succeed is entirely because of stuff like what could happen here, weighted coin flips that go the wrong way, I'm not really seeing how that's anyone's fault. Bad stuff just happens sometimes. And yes, we live in the real world where people get blamed for bad luck stuff happening all the time. It doesn't make it right.

Of course, the law of averages says that enough good decisions should result in a positive result eventually. So if they've really not done anything over that long of a period of time, odds are they've made some bad decisions. But they haven't made any major bad decisions yet.

That's fine and I'm not re-litigating the decision to draft Embiid. And I don't want to come off as a hypocrite, since I've supported the tank and rebuild approach (with some caveats). I guess where I'm starting to question the process is the notion that we must consistently swing for the fences to order to score that elusive, game changing superstar. So far we've seen two pretty big swings that look like misses (Embiid can still work out obviously, but taking things as they currently stand).

To continue the baseball analogy, it'd be nice to see them swing for contact a few times. Start building a rally instead of constantly going for the home run. So that's what I mean by results have to matter at some point. We're two years in, some things have worked out, some haven't and a good strategy depends on adjusting to the reality on the ground.

I understand the concern about Embiid, but who was the other swing for the fences and miss move? MCW was not the big gamble the year before, that was trading Jrue for Noel and what eventually turned out to be Saric (looking damn good so far) and a future first and second round pick. That gamble has come up great. MCW was merely the guy left on the board with the pick the former administration left behind, and turning the 11th pick in a weak draft into the Lakers' pick was also pretty successful. The real swing for the fences move that year would have been to take Giannis instead of MCW, so taking the more conservative approach might not have been the best one there in hindsight.

This is a superstar driven league, always has been and always will be, it is the nature of the beast.

The other big swing was the Bynum trade. I loved the Jrue trade and still do.

[Ericb5]

That's fine and I'm not re-litigating the decision to draft Embiid. And I don't want to come off as a hypocrite, since I've supported the tank and rebuild approach (with some caveats). I guess where I'm starting to question the process is the notion that we must consistently swing for the fences to order to score that elusive, game changing superstar. So far we've seen two pretty big swings that look like misses (Embiid can still work out obviously, but taking things as they currently stand).

To continue the baseball analogy, it'd be nice to see them swing for contact a few times. Start building a rally instead of constantly going for the home run. So that's what I mean by results have to matter at some point. We're two years in, some things have worked out, some haven't and a good strategy depends on adjusting to the reality on the ground.

I understand the concern about Embiid, but who was the other swing for the fences and miss move? MCW was not the big gamble the year before, that was trading Jrue for Noel and what eventually turned out to be Saric (looking damn good so far) and a future first and second round pick. That gamble has come up great. MCW was merely the guy left on the board with the pick the former administration left behind, and turning the 11th pick in a weak draft into the Lakers' pick was also pretty successful. The real swing for the fences move that year would have been to take Giannis instead of MCW, so taking the more conservative approach might not have been the best one there in hindsight.

This is a superstar driven league, always has been and always will be, it is the nature of the beast.

The other big swing was the Bynum trade. I loved the Jrue trade and still do.

The Bynum trade was before Hinkie so that isn't relevant.

We don't need to ALWAYS swing for the fences, but I think that it is safe to say that we should ALWAYS swing for the fences in the top 5 of the draft because that is where most of the NBA's most talented players are found.

[roma258]

I understand the concern about Embiid, but who was the other swing for the fences and miss move? MCW was not the big gamble the year before, that was trading Jrue for Noel and what eventually turned out to be Saric (looking damn good so far) and a future first and second round pick. That gamble has come up great. MCW was merely the guy left on the board with the pick the former administration left behind, and turning the 11th pick in a weak draft into the Lakers' pick was also pretty successful. The real swing for the fences move that year would have been to take Giannis instead of MCW, so taking the more conservative approach might not have been the best one there in hindsight.

This is a superstar driven league, always has been and always will be, it is the nature of the beast.

The other big swing was the Bynum trade. I loved the Jrue trade and still do.

The Bynum trade was before Hinkie so that isn't relevant.

We don't need to ALWAYS swing for the fences, but I think that it is safe to say that we should ALWAYS swing for the fences in the top 5 of the draft because that is where most of the NBA's most talented players are found.

Ugh, d'oh....that's the prior regime. Anyhoo, I think the final grade is tbd. I look at the Warriors and they managed to build a pretty killer team without top 3 picks. And then I look at the Cavs and all the dumb luck they've gotten over the years. I guess the thing that we, casual fans can never come to grips with, is how much of this is just pure chance.

[Sixerscan]

That's fine and I'm not re-litigating the decision to draft Embiid. And I don't want to come off as a hypocrite, since I've supported the tank and rebuild approach (with some caveats). I guess where I'm starting to question the process is the notion that we must consistently swing for the fences to order to score that elusive, game changing superstar. So far we've seen two pretty big swings that look like misses (Embiid can still work out obviously, but taking things as they currently stand).

To continue the baseball analogy, it'd be nice to see them swing for contact a few times. Start building a rally instead of constantly going for the home run. So that's what I mean by results have to matter at some point. We're two years in, some things have worked out, some haven't and a good strategy depends on adjusting to the reality on the ground.

I think that's completely reasonable. I would just say that maybe that's not the best strategy for a top 3 pick, and that they have put themselves in position to "build the rally" with other assets. Nerlens, Covington, Dario, the 4 1sts next year, the 2nds, maybe Jerami and Jakarr etc. I just named 5 guys and 4 first round picks, that's not nothing, even if a disappointing amount are not going to be playing for us next year (But hopefully the year after that).

That being said, it wouldn't shock me at all if they brought in a free agent or two this summer. No one huge but someone to give us quality minutes. I think they were somewhat surprised that they didn't get any of the other firsts this year (I know I was) and I think there will be minutes available.

[JoelNoel]

That's fine and I'm not re-litigating the decision to draft Embiid. And I don't want to come off as a hypocrite, since I've supported the tank and rebuild approach (with some caveats). I guess where I'm starting to question the process is the notion that we must consistently swing for the fences to order to score that elusive, game changing superstar. So far we've seen two pretty big swings that look like misses (Embiid can still work out obviously, but taking things as they currently stand).

To continue the baseball analogy, it'd be nice to see them swing for contact a few times. Start building a rally instead of constantly going for the home run. So that's what I mean by results have to matter at some point. We're two years in, some things have worked out, some haven't and a good strategy depends on adjusting to the reality on the ground.

I think that's completely reasonable. I would just say that maybe that's not the best strategy for a top 3 pick, and that they have put themselves in position to "build the rally" with other assets. Nerlens, Covington, Dario, the 4 1sts next year, the 2nds, maybe Jerami and Jakarr etc. I just named 5 guys and 4 first round picks, that's not nothing, even if a disappointing amount are not going to be playing for us next year (But hopefully the year after that).

That being said, it wouldn't shock me at all if they brought in a free agent or two this summer. No one huge but someone to give us quality minutes. I think they were somewhat surprised that they didn't get any of the other firsts this year (I know I was) and I think there will be minutes available.

I have no problem with the SIxers bringing in some free agents. However, I really hope they don't go the route of the Orlando Magic, bringing in expensive veterans like Frye or Ben Gordon.

[Unbreakable99]

I'm not sure I really understand this logic. At some point, outcome and results have to matter. Now there can be a debate on when that point is, but if we're 5 years down the road with nothing to show for it, than the process obviously failed. The assumption your making is that the process and decisions are inherently the right course of action, but I don't know of any job that's out there where you don't have to actually validate those decisions....eventually.

Outcomes and results do matter. It's just a separate question from which process you take to get there. I'm not using "process" as a code word for "Whatever Sam Hinkie wants to do is right" I'm saying it in terms of evaluating their decisions based on information that I have. If their decision making was good, then their process was good.

IMO, the decision to take Joel Embiid was the right one in June 2014. Unless you are telling me that he had some degenerate condition in his foot that the Sixers missed (And not just saying "Oh Yao had a similar injury so obviously Embiid was screwed") I'm not really seeing how my mind can be changed about that. We didn't take Embiid over Wiggins or Parker, we took him over Dante Exum and Julius Randle.

I think the problem is that people have a hard time putting themselves in the past. Embiid's recovery from injury was a variable. If Hinkie had 10 doctors tell him that there was an 90% chance that he would make a full recovery, can you blame the guy for pulling the trigger?

Luck is a big factor in all of this. If the reason that we don't succeed is entirely because of stuff like what could happen here, weighted coin flips that go the wrong way, I'm not really seeing how that's anyone's fault. Bad stuff just happens sometimes. And yes, we live in the real world where people get blamed for bad luck stuff happening all the time. It doesn't make it right.

Of course, the law of averages says that enough good decisions should result in a positive result eventually. So if they've really not done anything over that long of a period of time, odds are they've made some bad decisions. But they haven't made any major bad decisions yet.

That's fine and I'm not re-litigating the decision to draft Embiid. And I don't want to come off as a hypocrite, since I've supported the tank and rebuild approach (with some caveats). I guess where I'm starting to question the process is the notion that we must consistently swing for the fences to order to score that elusive, game changing superstar. So far we've seen two pretty big swings that look like misses (Embiid can still work out obviously, but taking things as they currently stand).

To continue the baseball analogy, it'd be nice to see them swing for contact a few times. Start building a rally instead of constantly going for the home run. So that's what I mean by results have to matter at some point. We're two years in, some things have worked out, some haven't and a good strategy depends on adjusting to the reality on the ground.

Huh? Two big misses? What are the two misses? I must have missed something.

[HartfordWhalers]

KJ McDaniels should be the second big swing. Pretty sure his mom said so.

[snoopdogg88]

Yeah i'm starting to get annoyed with the "You HAVE to "swing for the fences" mindset. There would have been nothing wrong with admitting, "you know what? Embiid can't stay healthy, we're taking Exum or trading down".

If Embiid can't ever play an NBA game, Hinkie has to take some blame for this.

There are some of us who saw this coming from a mile away. He doesn't deserve a free pass for this. I'm not saying fire him tomorrow, but by the same token it shouldn't just be overlooked as bad luck either.

[CoreyGallagher]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/abaker6sports/status/610564954282926081[/tweet]

Reiteration, but it's nice to hear it from a source that should be considered credible as he's someone that Embiid himself would confide in.

[OleSchool]

Again, does anyone know where Gargano got the info where he has to see a specialist and we won't know anything for 10 days? He's the only one saying this.

10 days is the day of the draft. Not saying this is a smokescreen but convenient timing.

*edit*

[cksdayoff]

it sucks but with how big he is, and how much force he puts on his joints and feet whenever he pivots or jumps up, or comes down after a dunk or rebound, you're always gonna have the risk of stress fracturing something.

[Embiid P]

Yeah i'm starting to get annoyed with the "You HAVE to "swing for the fences" mindset. There would have been nothing wrong with admitting, "you know what? Embiid can't stay healthy, we're taking Exum or trading down".

If Embiid can't ever play an NBA game, Hinkie has to take some blame for this.

There are some of us who saw this coming from a mile away. He doesn't deserve a free pass for this. I'm not saying fire him tomorrow, but by the same token it shouldn't just be overlooked as bad luck either.

IDK about you, but I'd rather Hinkie have taken Embiid and deal with the risks that come with him, then pass on him and regret it later. Of course we all should know he would stay healthy and become the next Olajuwon and win multiple championships if he fell to the Celtics or Lakers b/c some franchises simply have luck on their side.

[snoopdogg88]

I think when you have the 3rd pick in one of the most important drafts in franchise history, you logically have to weight the upside with the downside. To me, the risk was way too high. Even if Exum or Smart or Randle never becomes a superstar, it's still better than having NOTHING to show for the 3rd pick.

I've never disagreed that Embiid has huge upside. He's extremely talented, never disagreed with that.
But as I've been proven right a hundred times again, Embiid CANNOT STAY HEALTHY. couldn't do it in high school, couldn't do it in college, couldn't get through an NBA offseason healthy. Not to mention the countless other factors playing against him as a prospect.

I said at the time, I wouldn't regret it if Embiid became a superstar with LA or Boston, if it did, that sucks but oh well.
Why do I say that? Because....He....Cant....Stay....Healthy
If by some absolute miracle he did, it would be just that- a miracle.

Hinkie gambled. As of right now, it looks like he lost, and he should have to live with the consequences.

[Unbreakable99]

I think when you have the 3rd pick in one of the most important drafts in franchise history, you logically have to weight the upside with the downside. To me, the risk was way too high. Even if Exum or Smart or Randle never becomes a superstar, it's still better than having NOTHING to show for the 3rd pick.

I've never disagreed that Embiid has huge upside. He's extremely talented, never disagreed with that.
But as I've been proven right a hundred times again, Embiid CANNOT STAY HEALTHY. couldn't do it in high school, couldn't do it in college, couldn't get through an NBA offseason healthy. Not to mention the countless other factors playing against him as a prospect.

I said at the time, I wouldn't regret it if Embiid became a superstar with LA or Boston, if it did, that sucks but oh well.
Why do I say that? Because....He....Cant....Stay....Healthy
If by some absolute miracle he did, it would be just that- a miracle.

Hinkie gambled. As of right now, it looks like he lost, and he should have to live with the consequences.

I guarantee you that Embiid will play at least one full game in a Sixers uniform. How much do you want to bet?

[snoopdogg88]

I think when you have the 3rd pick in one of the most important drafts in franchise history, you logically have to weight the upside with the downside. To me, the risk was way too high. Even if Exum or Smart or Randle never becomes a superstar, it's still better than having NOTHING to show for the 3rd pick.

I've never disagreed that Embiid has huge upside. He's extremely talented, never disagreed with that.
But as I've been proven right a hundred times again, Embiid CANNOT STAY HEALTHY. couldn't do it in high school, couldn't do it in college, couldn't get through an NBA offseason healthy. Not to mention the countless other factors playing against him as a prospect.

I said at the time, I wouldn't regret it if Embiid became a superstar with LA or Boston, if it did, that sucks but oh well.
Why do I say that? Because....He....Cant....Stay....Healthy
If by some absolute miracle he did, it would be just that- a miracle.

Hinkie gambled. As of right now, it looks like he lost, and he should have to live with the consequences.

I guarantee you that Embiid will play at least one full game in a Sixers uniform. How much do you want to bet?

I pray that thats the case. If it is, my gut says it won't be until 2016-17, at which point he'll be a lost cause anyway.

[PhilasFinest]

Don't be naive. It's a pretty big leap to go from "I'd rather draft Embiid over Exum" to "nobody is giving up a franchise player for the 3rd pick".

How am I being "naive"?

I stated id draft Embiid over Exum,Gordon, etc 100 times out of 100.
You stated staying at #3 was not the only option...(Which is an assumption on your behalf)

I replied that I don't think anyone would give up a player with franchise level talent (Which Embiid has) for the 3rd pick.

Your gimmick gets old....go cry in a corner somewhere or like another team.

I don't agree with the suggestion that we needed to get a franchise player in order to trade the # 3 pick....I'm also not buying the idea we couldn't have traded down....and yes, I would rather have had Julius Randle + another player and/or 1st round pick.

You realize Randle had a foot issue as well, and missed the entire season too???

[ExplosionsInDaSky]

Sam Bowie all over again, Bowie had as much talent as any of those guys in that draft before he got hurt at Kentucky. He missed multiple season from the very start of his career, but he eventually became an adequate NBA center which is what I think will be the case with Embiid.
We need to quit relying on him as our franchise stud difference maker going forward. All is not lost without him, we just have to consider him a non factor until proven otherwise. Any decisions we make should not have the best interests of Joel Embiid motivating them. In other words, if Okafor is available at three, we damn well better take him.