Ben Simmons Thread (READ FIRST POST)

[Klomp]

Why would we consider GSW and Sac out of it when they are according to Vegas oddsmakers the most likely and third most likely destination for Simmons.

Vegas is only about $, there's no actual insight. It's where can we put the odds to get people to bet on this.

[KGdaBom]

Assuming Portland, Sacramento and GSW are out, it seems like the other teams in our way are Toronto, Chicago, San Antonio and Indiana.

My question is, let’s say San Antonio and Indiana are the only teams willing to offer something for Ben. Is it possible that Ben (more like his agent) has communicated with the Pacers via back channels to say Ben doesn’t want to play there?

I think that’s the only way we would be able to win this. I just think there is one team out there who is willing to top our subpar package

Why would we consider GSW and Sac out of it when they are according to Vegas oddsmakers the most likely and third most likely destination for Simmons.

Believe Vegas over leaks to ransom journalists. Everyone is posturing, and I wouldn’t believe anything you read. Teams have to say no one is on the table, otherwise those players get their feeling hurt when they have to return to the team.

See Simmons being very publicly offered in the Harden talks as example number one.

Eggzactly and I don't buy the feigned disinterest of the Warriors.

[KGdaBom]

Why would we consider GSW and Sac out of it when they are according to Vegas oddsmakers the most likely and third most likely destination for Simmons.

Vegas is only about $, there's no actual insight. It's where can we put the odds to get people to bet on this.

I understand the lines are created to balance the bets so the house has no possibility of losing. However, if the Warriors are out of the question there should be a flood of bets against them signing him. I don't believe they are out of the question.

[shrink]

Or, we could ignore a semantic estimation that runs counter to most people’s opinion, and look at actual events, like Simmons shooting .342 FT% for the playoffs, and be an obvious target to intentionally foul? How could he keep him on the floor when that was Simmons actual performance?r RoCo, can’t do it alone. KAT, Russell, Beasley, and Ant will all have to improve a great deal for our team defense to be good.

The rule changed about 5 years ago. If you intentionally foul under 2 minutes, the team gets a FT and the ball. Why was Doc taking out one of the best facilitators in the game in the last minutes?

I think you are answering your own question. Here’s the rule:

The current rule for away-from-the-play fouls applicable to the last two minutes of the fourth period (and last two minutes of any overtime) – pursuant to which the fouled team is awarded one free throw and retains possession of the ball – will be extended to the last two minutes of each period.”

I’ve read that the reason Hack-a-Ben is even more useful than Hack-a-Shaq is BECAUSE Philadelphia wants to put the ball in Ben’s hands. And when you foul a ball handler, it’s not one FT and a possession. Moreover, it’s a lot harder to call a foul intentional if a player is going for the ball, and in addition, you might actually get lucky and get a turnover.

In summary, if PHI tries to get the ball to Simmons to facilitate, he gets immediately fouled, and that’s bad for PHI. If they keep the ball out of his hands, he can’t shoot, so he is of no use on offensive possessions. He is going to have to learn to shoot to be playable in crunch time, and we have seen no evidence of improvement in all his time in the league.

[KGdaBom]

Or, we could ignore a semantic estimation that runs counter to most people’s opinion, and look at actual events, like Simmons shooting .342 FT% for the playoffs, and be an obvious target to intentionally foul? How could he keep him on the floor when that was Simmons actual performance?r RoCo, can’t do it alone. KAT, Russell, Beasley, and Ant will all have to improve a great deal for our team defense to be good.

The rule changed about 5 years ago. If you intentionally foul under 2 minutes, the team gets a FT and the ball. Why was Doc taking out one of the best facilitators in the game in the last minutes?

I think you are answering your own question. Here’s the rule:

The current rule for away-from-the-play fouls applicable to the last two minutes of the fourth period (and last two minutes of any overtime) – pursuant to which the fouled team is awarded one free throw and retains possession of the ball – will be extended to the last two minutes of each period.”

I’ve read that the reason Hack-a-Ben is even more useful than Hack-a-Shaq is BECAUSE Philadelphia wants to put the ball in Ben’s hands. And when you foul a ball handler, it’s not one FT and a possession. Moreover, it’s a lot harder to call a foul intentional if a player is going for the ball, and in addition, you might actually get lucky and get a turnover.

In summary, if PHI tries to get the ball to Simmons to facilitate, he gets immediately fouled, and that’s bad for PHI. If they keep the ball out of his hands, he can’t shoot, so he is of no use on offensive possessions. He is going to have to learn to shoot to be playable in crunch time, and we have seen no evidence of improvement in all his time in the league.

If it's a good strategy late it's a good strategy all game long. If he's not playable late then he's never playable. I don't buy it. I think he's playable in the first minute and playable in the last.

[moonpie]

Read on Twitter

[TaylorTag]

Here me out...

Is there a world where Simmons goes to GSW and we get Draymond?

[shrink]

The rule changed about 5 years ago. If you intentionally foul under 2 minutes, the team gets a FT and the ball. Why was Doc taking out one of the best facilitators in the game in the last minutes?

I think you are answering your own question. Here’s the rule:

The current rule for away-from-the-play fouls applicable to the last two minutes of the fourth period (and last two minutes of any overtime) – pursuant to which the fouled team is awarded one free throw and retains possession of the ball – will be extended to the last two minutes of each period.”

I’ve read that the reason Hack-a-Ben is even more useful than Hack-a-Shaq is BECAUSE Philadelphia wants to put the ball in Ben’s hands. And when you foul a ball handler, it’s not one FT and a possession. Moreover, it’s a lot harder to call a foul intentional if a player is going for the ball, and in addition, you might actually get lucky and get a turnover.

In summary, if PHI tries to get the ball to Simmons to facilitate, he gets immediately fouled, and that’s bad for PHI. If they keep the ball out of his hands, he can’t shoot, so he is of no use on offensive possessions. He is going to have to learn to shoot to be playable in crunch time, and we have seen no evidence of improvement in all his time in the league.

If it's a good strategy late it's a good strategy all game long. If he's not playable late then he's never playable. I don't buy it. I think he's playable in the first minute and playable in the last.

If a coach played it all game long, he’d foul out his players. Or maybe when Ben is in the game, you put a bench schlub in the game to “defend” him? Of course, this gets the team into the bonus faster ..

Also, doing it in late game situations increases the pressure on Ben, which may make his free throw shooting even worse.

Here’s a couple videos after WAS successfully did this to Simmons, which have me worried:

https://www.nbcsports.com/philadelphia/video/flat-out-it-worked-marc-jackson-wizards-hack-ben-strategy

And

Watch on YouTube

[KGdaBom]

I think you are answering your own question. Here’s the rule:


I’ve read that the reason Hack-a-Ben is even more useful than Hack-a-Shaq is BECAUSE Philadelphia wants to put the ball in Ben’s hands. And when you foul a ball handler, it’s not one FT and a possession. Moreover, it’s a lot harder to call a foul intentional if a player is going for the ball, and in addition, you might actually get lucky and get a turnover.

In summary, if PHI tries to get the ball to Simmons to facilitate, he gets immediately fouled, and that’s bad for PHI. If they keep the ball out of his hands, he can’t shoot, so he is of no use on offensive possessions. He is going to have to learn to shoot to be playable in crunch time, and we have seen no evidence of improvement in all his time in the league.

If it's a good strategy late it's a good strategy all game long. If he's not playable late then he's never playable. I don't buy it. I think he's playable in the first minute and playable in the last.

If a coach played it all game long, he’d foul out his players. Or maybe when Ben is in the game, you put a bench schlub in the game to “defend” him? Of course, this gets the team into the bonus faster ..

Also, doing it in late game situations increases the pressure on Ben, which may make his free throw shooting even worse.

Here’s a couple videos after WAS successfully did this to Simmons, which have me worried:

https://www.nbcsports.com/philadelphia/video/flat-out-it-worked-marc-jackson-wizards-hack-ben-strategy

And

Watch on YouTube

Yeah i get the bonus comes in sooner if you do it all game. Just make sure it's always Ben going to the line. Yep put in players you don't care about fouling out to do the Hack a Ben. It won't work. You can show a game or two where it may have been successful. That is meaningless.

[jpatrick]

Here me out...

Is there a world where Simmons goes to GSW and we get Draymond?

Even though he just threw the Warriors management under the bus in that Durant interview, I see no world where they trade him. He’s meant too much to the franchise culture. If they acquire him, they’ll have Draymond play full time center and play Simmons at PF. Not a perfect fit offensively (helps to have Curry/Thompson to shoot), but the defense/passing would be absolutely elite.

[Merc_Porto]

Here me out...

Is there a world where Simmons goes to GSW and we get Draymond?

Draymond is the definition of a washed player.
Also, I don't think Golden State is going to do that to Draymond (dealing him to anywhere)

They could, but it will be a surprise.

[Note30]

The rule changed about 5 years ago. If you intentionally foul under 2 minutes, the team gets a FT and the ball. Why was Doc taking out one of the best facilitators in the game in the last minutes?

I think you are answering your own question. Here’s the rule:

The current rule for away-from-the-play fouls applicable to the last two minutes of the fourth period (and last two minutes of any overtime) – pursuant to which the fouled team is awarded one free throw and retains possession of the ball – will be extended to the last two minutes of each period.”

I’ve read that the reason Hack-a-Ben is even more useful than Hack-a-Shaq is BECAUSE Philadelphia wants to put the ball in Ben’s hands. And when you foul a ball handler, it’s not one FT and a possession. Moreover, it’s a lot harder to call a foul intentional if a player is going for the ball, and in addition, you might actually get lucky and get a turnover.

In summary, if PHI tries to get the ball to Simmons to facilitate, he gets immediately fouled, and that’s bad for PHI. If they keep the ball out of his hands, he can’t shoot, so he is of no use on offensive possessions. He is going to have to learn to shoot to be playable in crunch time, and we have seen no evidence of improvement in all his time in the league.

If it's a good strategy late it's a good strategy all game long. If he's not playable late then he's never playable. I don't buy it. I think he's playable in the first minute and playable in the last.

Game strategies change in the last few minutes.

[KGdaBom]

I think you are answering your own question. Here’s the rule:


I’ve read that the reason Hack-a-Ben is even more useful than Hack-a-Shaq is BECAUSE Philadelphia wants to put the ball in Ben’s hands. And when you foul a ball handler, it’s not one FT and a possession. Moreover, it’s a lot harder to call a foul intentional if a player is going for the ball, and in addition, you might actually get lucky and get a turnover.

In summary, if PHI tries to get the ball to Simmons to facilitate, he gets immediately fouled, and that’s bad for PHI. If they keep the ball out of his hands, he can’t shoot, so he is of no use on offensive possessions. He is going to have to learn to shoot to be playable in crunch time, and we have seen no evidence of improvement in all his time in the league.

If it's a good strategy late it's a good strategy all game long. If he's not playable late then he's never playable. I don't buy it. I think he's playable in the first minute and playable in the last.

Game strategies change in the last few minutes.

They shouldn't. If it's a successful way to play it should be all game. If not it shouldn't be used at all. I'd be very happy having Ben play for us in the last few minutes and if teams want to foul him they can be my guest.

[FinnTheHuman]

Here me out...

Is there a world where Simmons goes to GSW and we get Draymond?

Draymond is the definition of a washed player.
Also, I don't think Golden State is going to do that to Draymond (dealing him to anywhere)

They could, but it will be a surprise.

Draymond is not washed, wtf are you talking about? Have you watched the guy play last season? He’s not at his peak, but he didn’t drop far from it. I’d be absolutely thrilled to have him on the Wolves, he’d do more for both our defense and offense than Simmons.

[NYSixersFan]

I'm sure you don't want KAT or Anthony Edwards. You just couldn't use them right?
I'm guessing you meant that we don't have any players you think we would give up that you want.
I think that too would be a mistake. Beasley is an amazing shooter and McDaniels might not start, but he would bring quality depth guarding forwards. We might be willing to trade Russell and with Simmons gone I believe you could use him. Also you wouldn't want any FRPs?

I meant players you're willing to trade.

Here’s my question for 76ers fans that post this opinion. Lillard and Beal are not being traded this offseason. Maybe at the deadline at the very earliest.

So, since they are not an option, would you prefer a package that includes more win-now pieces, something like Beasley, Russell (or three way getting you someone like Brogdon) but no picks or maybe one pick. Helps more now but eliminates you from a Lillard or Beal deal at the deadline because you probably don’t have the assets.

Or something like Beverly/Beasley and a boatload of picks/swaps. Doesn’t help as much now but gives you a bunch of currency when that star does become available. Portland/Washington are going to want picks if they trade their star because they’re going full rebuild, not as much players.

My answer would be somewhere in between what you proposed...If I could get something like CJ McCollum, Beverly and a couple of picks, I'd probably take it.....I don't think the Sixers would want Russell....Russell and Curry backcourt would be a disaster defensively.

[SO_MONEY]

I meant players you're willing to trade.

Here’s my question for 76ers fans that post this opinion. Lillard and Beal are not being traded this offseason. Maybe at the deadline at the very earliest.

So, since they are not an option, would you prefer a package that includes more win-now pieces, something like Beasley, Russell (or three way getting you someone like Brogdon) but no picks or maybe one pick. Helps more now but eliminates you from a Lillard or Beal deal at the deadline because you probably don’t have the assets.

Or something like Beverly/Beasley and a boatload of picks/swaps. Doesn’t help as much now but gives you a bunch of currency when that star does become available. Portland/Washington are going to want picks if they trade their star because they’re going full rebuild, not as much players.

My answer would be somewhere in between what you proposed...If I could get something like CJ McCollum, Beverly and a couple of picks, I'd probably take it.....I don't think the Sixers would want Russell....Russell and Curry backcourt would be a disaster defensively.

I don't really see the value difference between McCollum and Simmons being much more than a 1st and I am not sure it is that much.

[NYSixersFan]

I'm sure you don't want KAT or Anthony Edwards. You just couldn't use them right?
I'm guessing you meant that we don't have any players you think we would give up that you want.
I think that too would be a mistake. Beasley is an amazing shooter and McDaniels might not start, but he would bring quality depth guarding forwards. We might be willing to trade Russell and with Simmons gone I believe you could use him. Also you wouldn't want any FRPs?

I meant players you're willing to trade.

Yeah I said that and addressed it. You really wouldn't want Beasley, McDaniels or first round picks? It's not out of the question that we would trade Russell, but kind of unlikely.

I like Beasley. No interest in McDaniels or first round picks unless we could flip them

[Baseline81]

Here me out...

Is there a world where Simmons goes to GSW and we get Draymond?

That's not a world I want to live in. A few posters explained their distain for Beverley. I have an even bigger problem with Green.

[NYSixersFan]

Here’s my question for 76ers fans that post this opinion. Lillard and Beal are not being traded this offseason. Maybe at the deadline at the very earliest.

So, since they are not an option, would you prefer a package that includes more win-now pieces, something like Beasley, Russell (or three way getting you someone like Brogdon) but no picks or maybe one pick. Helps more now but eliminates you from a Lillard or Beal deal at the deadline because you probably don’t have the assets.

Or something like Beverly/Beasley and a boatload of picks/swaps. Doesn’t help as much now but gives you a bunch of currency when that star does become available. Portland/Washington are going to want picks if they trade their star because they’re going full rebuild, not as much players.

My answer would be somewhere in between what you proposed...If I could get something like CJ McCollum, Beverly and a couple of picks, I'd probably take it.....I don't think the Sixers would want Russell....Russell and Curry backcourt would be a disaster defensively.

I don't really see the value difference between McCollum and Simmons being much more than a 1st and I am not sure it is that much.

Simmons is 5 years younger...that's a big difference

[Merc_Porto]

I don't really see the value difference between McCollum and Simmons being much more than a 1st and I am not sure it is that much.

I actually see a big difference. But I have never been a fan of McCollum.
I think that trade would have been done already if the Sixers were willing to do it...

Same for the Pacers offer with Brogdon.