ImageImageImage

Markelle Fultz Discussion

Moderators: BullyKing, HartfordWhalers, sixers hoops, Foshan, Sixerscan

ivysixer2000
General Manager
Posts: 8,535
And1: 2,244
Joined: Feb 24, 2005

Re: Markelle Fultz Discussion 

Post#621 » by ivysixer2000 » Tue Jul 11, 2017 5:25 pm

LloydFree wrote:
Ericb5 wrote:
LloydFree wrote:For me,
It's not that he's a bad player. He's a good player. It's that it was a stupid trade for a player that isn't better than a number of the guys taken after him. If they traded up​ to get an other-worldly talent like Simmons or Embiid that's understandable. But Fultz isn't that kind of talent.
Because of the trade-up, he'll be judged against the guys who​ went behind him and the top 5 pick next year, that they they gave away. It was dumb move, to get what... the next CJ McCollum?


I agree, but as long as Fultz is a star, it's a good trade, even if Tatum/Jackson plus the player drafted with the pick we gave the Celtics also turn into stars. We would lose the trade on points, but win it in the sense that we maximized fit and got a guard that we needed that wasn't otherwise available.

We only need him to be a third banana after all.

Basically the math can work now that we are beyond the asset acquisition phase of the rebuild. Before we had our first star it would have been a bad trade.


The trade can only be judged as good if Fultz is a star. Judging this trade as good because of perceived fit is faulty, especially at the stage the 76ers are right now. We don't know who fits​ with what, because they haven't​ been on the court. In order to argue an overpay was good because of how someone fits with Embiid​ and Simmons you have to assume health. If one of those players get hurt again, then you've over-payed for an inferior talent and there is nothing to 'fit'. Fultz's value is his own talent and upside, not his perceived fit with players we've never seen play together.

Embiid goes down again, now we're building around Simmons and Fultz. Thats it. Fultz then has to be a star in his own right. We traded away the future assets that could have help mitigate some future issues. The value of the trade shouldn't have to be reassessed based on whether we have Embiid or Simmons to carry Fultz along as a 3rd banana. Being a 3rd banana isn't enough to justify the trade. You give away two top 3 picks, the player you get should be an All-star in his own right.


I agree with you for the most part, I expect Fultz to be an All-Star in his own right, and if he's not then he is a disappointment. Anything less from a first overall pick should be disappointing, especially if someone behind him gets to that level. Fit does matter though, and it does have worth, but in the end we also need him to show his talent.

We need both talent and fit. I sincerely hope Fultz doesn't think he is a 3rd banana, I think they should all be superstars that just happen to fit together cause they play totally different positions/roles. We need him to make Embiid and Simmons jobs easier, not to just be dragged along with them.

If we want a ring, we should be pushing for all 3 to be superstars.
Simmons25
Analyst
Posts: 3,166
And1: 2,235
Joined: Sep 27, 2016

Re: Markelle Fultz Discussion 

Post#622 » by Simmons25 » Wed Jul 12, 2017 6:52 am

Of course fit matters. Did people not learn with what happened at OKC.

Durant, Westbrook and Harden is the result of picking only talent over talent + fit. They may be 3 superstars but only 1 of them still lives in Oklahoma and the OKC trophy cabinet is still empty.
europeanfan
Pro Prospect
Posts: 831
And1: 250
Joined: Nov 06, 2016

Re: Markelle Fultz Discussion 

Post#623 » by europeanfan » Wed Jul 12, 2017 7:30 am



Last one will be a bit scary for some people :lol:
User avatar
76ciology
RealGM
Posts: 65,915
And1: 26,888
Joined: Jun 06, 2002

Re: Markelle Fultz Discussion 

Post#624 » by 76ciology » Wed Jul 12, 2017 8:02 am

europeanfan wrote:

Last one will be a bit scary for some people :lol:


Hahaha no wonder he always look like he's underwent sugar crash
There’s never been a time in history when we look back and say that the people who were censoring free speech were the good guys.
User avatar
76ciology
RealGM
Posts: 65,915
And1: 26,888
Joined: Jun 06, 2002

Re: Markelle Fultz Discussion 

Post#625 » by 76ciology » Wed Jul 12, 2017 8:18 am

I do see the angle of how we may have the shorter end in terms of value. Although the recent moves by both the Lakers&Kings IMO has been favoring our end in lessening our risk of giving up a lopsided value.

But in terms of impact, the deal just makes too much sense. At some point we're going to give up value for impact, and looking at the horizon Fultz makes most sense in terms of fit, upside and age.

In a nutshell RIGHT NOW there's not much diff between Fultz and Tatum. But I do think Fultz has way more upside while also has way more positive impact in the long term for our team that we can overlook drafting another Jordan Bell/Bolden/Holmes type player in next year's lottery.
There’s never been a time in history when we look back and say that the people who were censoring free speech were the good guys.
User avatar
TTP
Head Coach
Posts: 6,024
And1: 4,439
Joined: Oct 24, 2016
   

Re: Markelle Fultz Discussion 

Post#626 » by TTP » Wed Jul 12, 2017 10:08 am

Simmons25 wrote:Of course fit matters. Did people not learn with what happened at OKC.

Durant, Westbrook and Harden is the result of picking only talent over talent + fit. They may be 3 superstars but only 1 of them still lives in Oklahoma and the OKC trophy cabinet is still empty.


They were favorites in the finals vs the Heat though and had good championship equity a few other years (including two seasons ago). The only reason they broke up is because their owner didn't want to pay a ton of luxury dollars to keep Harden, so I don't agree with your argument or conclusion.
jonjames is a signature bet welcher.

Appostis wrote:You're friend ..is a idiot.
Simmons25
Analyst
Posts: 3,166
And1: 2,235
Joined: Sep 27, 2016

Re: Markelle Fultz Discussion 

Post#627 » by Simmons25 » Wed Jul 12, 2017 10:45 am

TTP wrote:
Simmons25 wrote:Of course fit matters. Did people not learn with what happened at OKC.

Durant, Westbrook and Harden is the result of picking only talent over talent + fit. They may be 3 superstars but only 1 of them still lives in Oklahoma and the OKC trophy cabinet is still empty.


They were favorites in the finals vs the Heat though and had good championship equity a few other years (including two seasons ago). The only reason they broke up is because their owner didn't want to pay a ton of luxury dollars to keep Harden, so I don't agree with your argument or conclusion.


I don't blame the owner. Harden started only 7 games in his 3 years at OKC. You don't pay a ton of luxury dollars to keep a guy who has to come off your bench... because he plays the same position as Westbrook and Durant.

As soon as Harden left OKC and was the man who handled the ball his points and minutes had a big jump at Houston.

OKC should have been the 2015/16 champions without Harden and were a more balanced team. I mean damn... 3-1 up over the Warriors in the WCF's and you lose 4-3. :noway:

Golden State developed perfectly and should be the model. They built around Steph and Klay from the draft who became their 1 and 2 and then decided in future drafts to build around them. They traded for Bogut to get the much needed 5 they wanted. Then a few months later drafted Festus Ezeli for the backup 5, Draymond Green for the 4 position and Harrison Barnes for the 3.

They built a Championship team from picking talented players for the positions they needed, not necessarily the most talented guys and they hit the jackpot. Then when Barnes became a free agent they were already a championship team and replaced his spot with the best 3 in the game Kevin Durant.

OKC may well have won a title with Durant, Westbrook and Harden but we will never know because Harden wasn't a starter and decided to leave because he was being played out of position and needed the ball in his hands. That's why getting Fultz was so important... he has the ability to be a spot up shooter and create his own shot without having the ball in his hands all the time... and more importantly fills a position that 4 weeks ago had Nik Stauskas in as its starter.
Snotbubbles
Starter
Posts: 2,187
And1: 1,771
Joined: Feb 26, 2014
       

Re: Markelle Fultz Discussion 

Post#628 » by Snotbubbles » Wed Jul 12, 2017 11:17 am

Simmons25 wrote:
TTP wrote:
Simmons25 wrote:Of course fit matters. Did people not learn with what happened at OKC.

Durant, Westbrook and Harden is the result of picking only talent over talent + fit. They may be 3 superstars but only 1 of them still lives in Oklahoma and the OKC trophy cabinet is still empty.


They were favorites in the finals vs the Heat though and had good championship equity a few other years (including two seasons ago). The only reason they broke up is because their owner didn't want to pay a ton of luxury dollars to keep Harden, so I don't agree with your argument or conclusion.


I don't blame the owner. Harden started only 7 games in his 3 years at OKC. You don't pay a ton of luxury dollars to keep a guy who has to come off your bench... because he plays the same position as Westbrook and Durant.

As soon as Harden left OKC and was the man who handled the ball his points and minutes had a big jump at Houston.

OKC should have been the 2015/16 champions without Harden and were a more balanced team. I mean damn... 3-1 up over the Warriors in the WCF's and you lose 4-3. :noway:

Golden State developed perfectly and should be the model. They built around Steph and Klay from the draft who became their 1 and 2 and then decided in future drafts to build around them. They traded for Bogut to get the much needed 5 they wanted. Then a few months later drafted Festus Ezeli for the backup 5, Draymond Green for the 4 position and Harrison Barnes for the 3.

They built a Championship team from picking talented players for the positions they needed, not necessarily the most talented guys and they hit the jackpot. Then when Barnes became a free agent they were already a championship team and replaced his spot with the best 3 in the game Kevin Durant.

OKC may well have won a title with Durant, Westbrook and Harden but we will never know because Harden wasn't a starter and decided to leave because he was being played out of position and needed the ball in his hands. That's why getting Fultz was so important... he has the ability to be a spot up shooter and create his own shot without having the ball in his hands all the time... and more importantly fills a position that 4 weeks ago had Nik Stauskas in as its starter.


Westbrook and Durant play the same position? You learn something new everyday.
User avatar
TTP
Head Coach
Posts: 6,024
And1: 4,439
Joined: Oct 24, 2016
   

Re: Markelle Fultz Discussion 

Post#629 » by TTP » Wed Jul 12, 2017 11:26 am

Simmons25 wrote:
TTP wrote:
Simmons25 wrote:Of course fit matters. Did people not learn with what happened at OKC.

Durant, Westbrook and Harden is the result of picking only talent over talent + fit. They may be 3 superstars but only 1 of them still lives in Oklahoma and the OKC trophy cabinet is still empty.


They were favorites in the finals vs the Heat though and had good championship equity a few other years (including two seasons ago). The only reason they broke up is because their owner didn't want to pay a ton of luxury dollars to keep Harden, so I don't agree with your argument or conclusion.


I don't blame the owner. Harden started only 7 games in his 3 years at OKC. You don't pay a ton of luxury dollars to keep a guy who has to come off your bench... because he plays the same position as Westbrook and Durant.

As soon as Harden left OKC and was the man who handled the ball his points and minutes had a big jump at Houston.

OKC should have been the 2015/16 champions without Harden and were a more balanced team. I mean damn... 3-1 up over the Warriors in the WCF's and you lose 4-3. :noway:

Golden State developed perfectly and should be the model. They built around Steph and Klay from the draft who became their 1 and 2 and then decided in future drafts to build around them. They traded for Bogut to get the much needed 5 they wanted. Then a few months later drafted Festus Ezeli for the backup 5, Draymond Green for the 4 position and Harrison Barnes for the 3.

They built a Championship team from picking talented players for the positions they needed, not necessarily the most talented guys and they hit the jackpot. Then when Barnes became a free agent they were already a championship team and replaced his spot with the best 3 in the game Kevin Durant.

OKC may well have won a title with Durant, Westbrook and Harden but we will never know because Harden wasn't a starter and decided to leave because he was being played out of position and needed the ball in his hands. That's why getting Fultz was so important... he has the ability to be a spot up shooter and create his own shot without having the ball in his hands all the time... and more importantly fills a position that 4 weeks ago had Nik Stauskas in as its starter.


The best team of our generation has had one of their best players come off the bench for most of his career and paid him plenty of money to do so, so I'm not sure why you believe the ridiculous bolded rule to be true. Similarly, Harden functioned off the bench because it made more sense to stagger their stars' minutes.
jonjames is a signature bet welcher.

Appostis wrote:You're friend ..is a idiot.
Sixerscan
Senior Mod - 76ers
Senior Mod - 76ers
Posts: 33,946
And1: 16,327
Joined: Jan 25, 2005

Re: Markelle Fultz Discussion 

Post#630 » by Sixerscan » Wed Jul 12, 2017 12:02 pm

TTP wrote:
Simmons25 wrote:
TTP wrote:
They were favorites in the finals vs the Heat though and had good championship equity a few other years (including two seasons ago). The only reason they broke up is because their owner didn't want to pay a ton of luxury dollars to keep Harden, so I don't agree with your argument or conclusion.


I don't blame the owner. Harden started only 7 games in his 3 years at OKC. You don't pay a ton of luxury dollars to keep a guy who has to come off your bench... because he plays the same position as Westbrook and Durant.

As soon as Harden left OKC and was the man who handled the ball his points and minutes had a big jump at Houston.

OKC should have been the 2015/16 champions without Harden and were a more balanced team. I mean damn... 3-1 up over the Warriors in the WCF's and you lose 4-3. :noway:

Golden State developed perfectly and should be the model. They built around Steph and Klay from the draft who became their 1 and 2 and then decided in future drafts to build around them. They traded for Bogut to get the much needed 5 they wanted. Then a few months later drafted Festus Ezeli for the backup 5, Draymond Green for the 4 position and Harrison Barnes for the 3.

They built a Championship team from picking talented players for the positions they needed, not necessarily the most talented guys and they hit the jackpot. Then when Barnes became a free agent they were already a championship team and replaced his spot with the best 3 in the game Kevin Durant.

OKC may well have won a title with Durant, Westbrook and Harden but we will never know because Harden wasn't a starter and decided to leave because he was being played out of position and needed the ball in his hands. That's why getting Fultz was so important... he has the ability to be a spot up shooter and create his own shot without having the ball in his hands all the time... and more importantly fills a position that 4 weeks ago had Nik Stauskas in as its starter.


The best team of our generation has had one of their best players come off the bench for most of his career and paid him plenty of money to do so, so I'm not sure why you believe the ridiculous bolded rule to be true. Similarly, Harden functioned off the bench because it made more sense to stagger their stars' minutes.


Oklahoma City ultimately matched a max offer sheet for Kanter to come off the bench.

They massively miscalculated the potential for the salary cap to skyrocket. Pretty sure they only would have had to pay the tax one year between when the trade happened and now, and even that was only because their owner is cheap and refused to amnesty Perkins. Could have also not paid Ibaka etc.
Sixerscan
Senior Mod - 76ers
Senior Mod - 76ers
Posts: 33,946
And1: 16,327
Joined: Jan 25, 2005

Re: Markelle Fultz Discussion 

Post#631 » by Sixerscan » Wed Jul 12, 2017 12:30 pm

LloydFree wrote:
Ericb5 wrote:
LloydFree wrote:For me,
It's not that he's a bad player. He's a good player. It's that it was a stupid trade for a player that isn't better than a number of the guys taken after him. If they traded up​ to get an other-worldly talent like Simmons or Embiid that's understandable. But Fultz isn't that kind of talent.
Because of the trade-up, he'll be judged against the guys who​ went behind him and the top 5 pick next year, that they they gave away. It was dumb move, to get what... the next CJ McCollum?


I agree, but as long as Fultz is a star, it's a good trade, even if Tatum/Jackson plus the player drafted with the pick we gave the Celtics also turn into stars. We would lose the trade on points, but win it in the sense that we maximized fit and got a guard that we needed that wasn't otherwise available.

We only need him to be a third banana after all.

Basically the math can work now that we are beyond the asset acquisition phase of the rebuild. Before we had our first star it would have been a bad trade.


The trade can only be judged as good if Fultz is a star. Judging this trade as good because of perceived fit is faulty, especially at the stage the 76ers are right now. We don't know who fits​ with what, because they haven't​ been on the court. In order to argue an overpay was good because of how someone fits with Embiid​ and Simmons you have to assume health. If one of those players get hurt again, then you've over-payed for an inferior talent and there is nothing to 'fit'. Fultz's value is his own talent and upside, not his perceived fit with players we've never seen play together.

Embiid goes down again, now we're building around Simmons and Fultz. Thats it. Fultz then has to be a star in his own right. We traded away the future assets that could have help mitigate some future issues. The value of the trade shouldn't have to be reassessed based on whether we have Embiid or Simmons to carry Fultz along as a 3rd banana. Being a 3rd banana isn't enough to justify the trade. You give away two top 3 picks, the player you get should be an All-star in his own right.


They didn't give up two top 3 picks.
Ericb5
RealGM
Posts: 10,303
And1: 3,377
Joined: Jan 08, 2014
       

Re: Markelle Fultz Discussion 

Post#632 » by Ericb5 » Wed Jul 12, 2017 12:40 pm

ivysixer2000 wrote:
LloydFree wrote:
Ericb5 wrote:
I agree, but as long as Fultz is a star, it's a good trade, even if Tatum/Jackson plus the player drafted with the pick we gave the Celtics also turn into stars. We would lose the trade on points, but win it in the sense that we maximized fit and got a guard that we needed that wasn't otherwise available.

We only need him to be a third banana after all.

Basically the math can work now that we are beyond the asset acquisition phase of the rebuild. Before we had our first star it would have been a bad trade.


The trade can only be judged as good if Fultz is a star. Judging this trade as good because of perceived fit is faulty, especially at the stage the 76ers are right now. We don't know who fits​ with what, because they haven't​ been on the court. In order to argue an overpay was good because of how someone fits with Embiid​ and Simmons you have to assume health. If one of those players get hurt again, then you've over-payed for an inferior talent and there is nothing to 'fit'. Fultz's value is his own talent and upside, not his perceived fit with players we've never seen play together.

Embiid goes down again, now we're building around Simmons and Fultz. Thats it. Fultz then has to be a star in his own right. We traded away the future assets that could have help mitigate some future issues. The value of the trade shouldn't have to be reassessed based on whether we have Embiid or Simmons to carry Fultz along as a 3rd banana. Being a 3rd banana isn't enough to justify the trade. You give away two top 3 picks, the player you get should be an All-star in his own right.


I agree with you for the most part, I expect Fultz to be an All-Star in his own right, and if he's not then he is a disappointment. Anything less from a first overall pick should be disappointing, especially if someone behind him gets to that level. Fit does matter though, and it does have worth, but in the end we also need him to show his talent.

We need both talent and fit. I sincerely hope Fultz doesn't think he is a 3rd banana, I think they should all be superstars that just happen to fit together cause they play totally different positions/roles. We need him to make Embiid and Simmons jobs easier, not to just be dragged along with them.

If we want a ring, we should be pushing for all 3 to be superstars.


Obviously the goal is for all three to be superstars, but we don't need that to happen.

I operate from the perspective where Embiid and Simmons already are superstars. I mean they need to prove it on the court, but to me it is just a formality.

With Fultz I see less potential than those two, but still significant potential in his own right. He may not want to be a third banana, but that is all that we really need him to be.

We didn't need to be value absolutists with the draft picks like we needed to be before we got Embiid and Simmons. Now we can hedge a bit for fit, and that is what we did.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
phillynative
General Manager
Posts: 9,402
And1: 3,026
Joined: Dec 13, 2014

Re: Markelle Fultz Discussion 

Post#633 » by phillynative » Wed Jul 12, 2017 1:15 pm

I think Fultz will be more of a project than Biid and Simmons. They have clear physical advantages and skill sets at their positions while Fultz will take some time to put it all together.
snoopdogg88
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,900
And1: 3,111
Joined: Jun 03, 2010
       

Re: Markelle Fultz Discussion 

Post#634 » by snoopdogg88 » Wed Jul 12, 2017 1:23 pm

I mean I'm not even that high on Fultz, but the trade was a steal. The Lakers or Kings pick could wind up being pretty low and semi worthless.

There was no reason not to make this trade. The fit was just too good with Fultz.
Unbreakable99
General Manager
Posts: 8,752
And1: 3,993
Joined: Jul 04, 2014

Re: Markelle Fultz Discussion 

Post#635 » by Unbreakable99 » Wed Jul 12, 2017 1:24 pm

Simmons25 wrote:
TTP wrote:
Simmons25 wrote:Of course fit matters. Did people not learn with what happened at OKC.

Durant, Westbrook and Harden is the result of picking only talent over talent + fit. They may be 3 superstars but only 1 of them still lives in Oklahoma and the OKC trophy cabinet is still empty.


They were favorites in the finals vs the Heat though and had good championship equity a few other years (including two seasons ago). The only reason they broke up is because their owner didn't want to pay a ton of luxury dollars to keep Harden, so I don't agree with your argument or conclusion.


I don't blame the owner. Harden started only 7 games in his 3 years at OKC. You don't pay a ton of luxury dollars to keep a guy who has to come off your bench... because he plays the same position as Westbrook and Durant.

As soon as Harden left OKC and was the man who handled the ball his points and minutes had a big jump at Houston.

OKC should have been the 2015/16 champions without Harden and were a more balanced team. I mean damn... 3-1 up over the Warriors in the WCF's and you lose 4-3. :noway:

Golden State developed perfectly and should be the model. They built around Steph and Klay from the draft who became their 1 and 2 and then decided in future drafts to build around them. They traded for Bogut to get the much needed 5 they wanted. Then a few months later drafted Festus Ezeli for the backup 5, Draymond Green for the 4 position and Harrison Barnes for the 3.

They built a Championship team from picking talented players for the positions they needed, not necessarily the most talented guys and they hit the jackpot. Then when Barnes became a free agent they were already a championship team and replaced his spot with the best 3 in the game Kevin Durant.

OKC may well have won a title with Durant, Westbrook and Harden but we will never know because Harden wasn't a starter and decided to leave because he was being played out of position and needed the ball in his hands. That's why getting Fultz was so important... he has the ability to be a spot up shooter and create his own shot without having the ball in his hands all the time... and more importantly fills a position that 4 weeks ago had Nik Stauskas in as its starter.


Harden played starters minutes so who cares if he starts or not. Also Harden requested to come off the bench. I saw a special about Harden last year and he said the team wanted to start him but he said no and felt more comfortable coming off the bench. Also they were good fits for each other. There wasn't any log jam. They could have kept all three.
Simmons25
Analyst
Posts: 3,166
And1: 2,235
Joined: Sep 27, 2016

Re: Markelle Fultz Discussion 

Post#636 » by Simmons25 » Wed Jul 12, 2017 1:58 pm

TTP wrote:
Simmons25 wrote:
TTP wrote:
They were favorites in the finals vs the Heat though and had good championship equity a few other years (including two seasons ago). The only reason they broke up is because their owner didn't want to pay a ton of luxury dollars to keep Harden, so I don't agree with your argument or conclusion.


I don't blame the owner. Harden started only 7 games in his 3 years at OKC. You don't pay a ton of luxury dollars to keep a guy who has to come off your bench... because he plays the same position as Westbrook and Durant.

As soon as Harden left OKC and was the man who handled the ball his points and minutes had a big jump at Houston.

OKC should have been the 2015/16 champions without Harden and were a more balanced team. I mean damn... 3-1 up over the Warriors in the WCF's and you lose 4-3. :noway:

Golden State developed perfectly and should be the model. They built around Steph and Klay from the draft who became their 1 and 2 and then decided in future drafts to build around them. They traded for Bogut to get the much needed 5 they wanted. Then a few months later drafted Festus Ezeli for the backup 5, Draymond Green for the 4 position and Harrison Barnes for the 3.

They built a Championship team from picking talented players for the positions they needed, not necessarily the most talented guys and they hit the jackpot. Then when Barnes became a free agent they were already a championship team and replaced his spot with the best 3 in the game Kevin Durant.

OKC may well have won a title with Durant, Westbrook and Harden but we will never know because Harden wasn't a starter and decided to leave because he was being played out of position and needed the ball in his hands. That's why getting Fultz was so important... he has the ability to be a spot up shooter and create his own shot without having the ball in his hands all the time... and more importantly fills a position that 4 weeks ago had Nik Stauskas in as its starter.


The best team of our generation has had one of their best players come off the bench for most of his career and paid him plenty of money to do so, so I'm not sure why you believe the ridiculous bolded rule to be true. Similarly, Harden functioned off the bench because it made more sense to stagger their stars' minutes.


I'd hardly call what Iguodala was getting "plenty of money". He was on $12 mill a year AND he signed that deal as a starter and Denver's best player at the time. He only went to the bench because Harrison Barnes was coming off the bench at the time and struggled to hit the side of a barn when playing with the 2nd unit. They moved Barnes into the starting lineup in a desperate move to get him playing better and asked Iguodala to come off the bench because their bench was so bad at the time.
User avatar
TTP
Head Coach
Posts: 6,024
And1: 4,439
Joined: Oct 24, 2016
   

Re: Markelle Fultz Discussion 

Post#637 » by TTP » Wed Jul 12, 2017 2:01 pm

Simmons25 wrote:
TTP wrote:
Simmons25 wrote:
I don't blame the owner. Harden started only 7 games in his 3 years at OKC. You don't pay a ton of luxury dollars to keep a guy who has to come off your bench... because he plays the same position as Westbrook and Durant.

As soon as Harden left OKC and was the man who handled the ball his points and minutes had a big jump at Houston.

OKC should have been the 2015/16 champions without Harden and were a more balanced team. I mean damn... 3-1 up over the Warriors in the WCF's and you lose 4-3. :noway:

Golden State developed perfectly and should be the model. They built around Steph and Klay from the draft who became their 1 and 2 and then decided in future drafts to build around them. They traded for Bogut to get the much needed 5 they wanted. Then a few months later drafted Festus Ezeli for the backup 5, Draymond Green for the 4 position and Harrison Barnes for the 3.

They built a Championship team from picking talented players for the positions they needed, not necessarily the most talented guys and they hit the jackpot. Then when Barnes became a free agent they were already a championship team and replaced his spot with the best 3 in the game Kevin Durant.

OKC may well have won a title with Durant, Westbrook and Harden but we will never know because Harden wasn't a starter and decided to leave because he was being played out of position and needed the ball in his hands. That's why getting Fultz was so important... he has the ability to be a spot up shooter and create his own shot without having the ball in his hands all the time... and more importantly fills a position that 4 weeks ago had Nik Stauskas in as its starter.


The best team of our generation has had one of their best players come off the bench for most of his career and paid him plenty of money to do so, so I'm not sure why you believe the ridiculous bolded rule to be true. Similarly, Harden functioned off the bench because it made more sense to stagger their stars' minutes.


I'd hardly call what Iguodala was getting "plenty of money". He was on $12 mill a year AND he signed that deal as a starter and Denver's best player at the time. He only came off the bench because Harrison Barnes was coming off the bench at the time and struggled to hit the side of a barn when playing with the 2nd unit. They moved Barnes into the starting lineup in a desperate move to get him playing better and asked Iguodala to come off the bench because their bench was so bad at the time.


I'm talking about Manu.
jonjames is a signature bet welcher.

Appostis wrote:You're friend ..is a idiot.
ivysixer2000
General Manager
Posts: 8,535
And1: 2,244
Joined: Feb 24, 2005

Re: Markelle Fultz Discussion 

Post#638 » by ivysixer2000 » Wed Jul 12, 2017 2:06 pm

Ericb5 wrote:
ivysixer2000 wrote:
LloydFree wrote:
The trade can only be judged as good if Fultz is a star. Judging this trade as good because of perceived fit is faulty, especially at the stage the 76ers are right now. We don't know who fits​ with what, because they haven't​ been on the court. In order to argue an overpay was good because of how someone fits with Embiid​ and Simmons you have to assume health. If one of those players get hurt again, then you've over-payed for an inferior talent and there is nothing to 'fit'. Fultz's value is his own talent and upside, not his perceived fit with players we've never seen play together.

Embiid goes down again, now we're building around Simmons and Fultz. Thats it. Fultz then has to be a star in his own right. We traded away the future assets that could have help mitigate some future issues. The value of the trade shouldn't have to be reassessed based on whether we have Embiid or Simmons to carry Fultz along as a 3rd banana. Being a 3rd banana isn't enough to justify the trade. You give away two top 3 picks, the player you get should be an All-star in his own right.


I agree with you for the most part, I expect Fultz to be an All-Star in his own right, and if he's not then he is a disappointment. Anything less from a first overall pick should be disappointing, especially if someone behind him gets to that level. Fit does matter though, and it does have worth, but in the end we also need him to show his talent.

We need both talent and fit. I sincerely hope Fultz doesn't think he is a 3rd banana, I think they should all be superstars that just happen to fit together cause they play totally different positions/roles. We need him to make Embiid and Simmons jobs easier, not to just be dragged along with them.

If we want a ring, we should be pushing for all 3 to be superstars.


Obviously the goal is for all three to be superstars, but we don't need that to happen.

I operate from the perspective where Embiid and Simmons already are superstars. I mean they need to prove it on the court, but to me it is just a formality.

With Fultz I see less potential than those two, but still significant potential in his own right. He may not want to be a third banana, but that is all that we really need him to be.

We didn't need to be value absolutists with the draft picks like we needed to be before we got Embiid and Simmons. Now we can hedge a bit for fit, and that is what we did.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


They have only played 31 games between all three of them, I wouldn't call any of them superstars yet.

We don't need Fultz to be a 3rd banana, just saying that doesn't make it true. We need him to be the best player he can be, whatever that might be. Just cause he already had a pretty well rounded game this early in age doesn't mean he doesn't have much potential. That's like saying Fox has more 'potential' cause he's a bad shooter, and if he gets to be a good shooter his 'potential' is higher.

Fultz is a good shooter that has the potential to be a great shooter, not like he's Redick just yet. Alot harder for a bad shooter to ever become great, and there is Fultz's potential. Fultz has potential at the FT line, but that's somewhere else he has potential to be better. Simmons could become a good shooter, but chances aren't that good he will ever be a great one.

Judging Fultz at 19 is just a bit premature, he hasn't even played a game in the NBA yet.
Simmons25
Analyst
Posts: 3,166
And1: 2,235
Joined: Sep 27, 2016

Re: Markelle Fultz Discussion 

Post#639 » by Simmons25 » Wed Jul 12, 2017 2:09 pm

TTP wrote:I'm talking about Manu.


Geez. We have different opinions on Manu then. LOL You won't find too many Manu Ginobili's around willing to do what he did. He was very much outside the norm.
User avatar
TTP
Head Coach
Posts: 6,024
And1: 4,439
Joined: Oct 24, 2016
   

Re: Markelle Fultz Discussion 

Post#640 » by TTP » Wed Jul 12, 2017 2:12 pm

Simmons25 wrote:
TTP wrote:I'm talking about Manu.


Geez. We have different opinions on Manu then. LOL You won't find too many Manu Ginobili's around willing to do what he did. He was very much outside the norm.


Where did I offer my opinion of Manu that you differ on? The only opinion I offered about him was that he was one of the Spurs' best players - hardly a divisive opinion.
jonjames is a signature bet welcher.

Appostis wrote:You're friend ..is a idiot.

Return to Philadelphia 76ers