Ben Simmons Thread (READ FIRST POST)

[Nick K]

Let me get thhis straight. You want to give up 20 pts a night with Dlo, 15 pts a night with Beasley and 10 pts or more from McD. That's 45 pts and we get back 14. I don't see us as a stronger team. Look at the depth we lose for a guy who can't shoot. Shooting is the most important skill in the game today. How great would Steph and Durant be if they couldn't shoot?

We get back a very good defender and a guy who can drive to the basket. It just doesn't seem fair to me.

At this point nobody is going to change anyones mind. i almost wish it were over so we could talk about something else.

Wouldn't it be great if there was a strong consensus to get the guy? When half the people here argue against that should be telling.

I've always said I'd like the guy without giving up the core of Dlo, McD, Ant or Kat. Philly is in a very bad negotiating position and it's getting worse. They know it and so does Rosas. I trust him to make the right call. I can walk from this deal very easily.

This is the point I was trying to make earlier and agree wholeheartedly.

So let me get this straight, both of you think that if we send DLo back, we're gonna score 20 points less per game? Or if we send Beasley back, we're gonna score 15 points less per game? You don't understand that somebody else is simply gonna get more shots that went to DLo or Beasley and make a lot of them?

Just like when a guy I argued with claimed that Portland is gonna smoke the Nuggets in the 1st round of last playoffs, because Lillard, McCollum and Powell combined averaged like 76 ppg in the regular season, while Campazzo, Rivers who had to start in the playoffs because of injuries averaged like 15 ppg combined in the RS, completely disregarding that they had lesser roles and lesser minutes playing behind Murray, Barton, Dozier etc. And what happened? All the Nuggets guards averaged much more in the Portland series than they averaged in the RS, because they got the increased minutes and different offensive roles in the absence of Murray, Barton and Dozier, and Nuggets took Portland out in 6.

PPG is not something you just subtract or add to your scoring total to evaluate trades, PPG is caused by minutes played per game and role on offense, not simply by individual's basketball skills. Be sure that whoever gets the minutes and/or role increased if we trade depth for Simmons is gonna average more PPG on more shots, we're not losing 35 PPG while adding 14 from Simmons, it's flat out wrong to argue that, please stop.

Here's the exchange between me and that Portland guy, just found it and I'm gonna copy it here to illustrate my point:

I've seen this dumb-ass argument on multiple occasions in this thread. How don't you people realize that what's dropping their averages is that guys like Morris and Campazzo played low-minute bench roles, plus playing alongside many scorers who take more ball for the most of the season? Comparing PPG the way you're comparing it is just stupid AF, these guys will average more PPG with the higher usage rates and minutes that they're gonna have.

Fine, use pts/36 and your trio if hapless scorers goes all the way up to a combined 35.9 pts/36. Lillard, McCollum and Powell average a combined 71.2 pts/36.

The point remains unchanged. DEN will struggle to get scoring from anyone other than Jokic and MPJ. And as a POR fan, I'd love to see Campazzo, Morris and Rivers all average 36 MPG for the series.

And what happened? On 30 min per game, this trio of two starters and one bench player (Campazzo, Rivers, Morris) is averaging 35.6pts. What happens if it's pts/36min then? Around 44pts/36 for that trio. And Por starting trio is averaging 72pts/39min, so what happens if that average drops to 36min? It's around 66pts/36. 44 compared to 66 doesn't look as gigantic as your initial 68.9 to 25.0 ppg, huh?

And what if we actually compare the starting PG/SG/SF's instead of 2 starters and 1 bench player vs 3 starters? Take Gordon or MPJ as the starting SF, doesn't matter. You plug in any decent player in a lineup with Jokic and give him higher usage rate in the absence of Murray, and that guy is gonna up his offensive output, it's pretty simple. So please, forget about ever using this awful brand of ppg or pts/36-based analysis without putting things into context

I like your argument. But still, we'd lose depth with players that aren't as good. They will makeup some of the difference but far from all. I still think it's an overall negative. And then there are the intangibles.

[Domejandro]

People are overrating scoring on here. Inflated counting stats are the worst way to judge a player. I feel like I’m making the same argument I made predraft about LaMelo when everyone was saying he was horrible.

You can’t teach Simmons’ BBIQ. He’s a low usage guy, which gives more and easier shots to those that should be taking them, especially Ant and Towns. Was Wiggins a star when he was scoring 20+ here are taking shots from Towns? No. With our scoring options, especially if Russell stays, you need guys that make are scorers life easier, not takes shots from them. We, right now, don’t have a single player that is an elite shot creator for others. A Simmons-type player, who is an elite fit with Towns, would be huge.

Plus, he’s perhaps the best defensive player in the league. How is that being ignored?

I’d love to get Simmons without giving up Russell or McDaniels. Take all the picks. I just don’t see that happening. I just hope we don’t give up both.

That's a solid argument but Kat,Dlo, and Ant don't need help creating their own shot. They don't need someone to make them better. Sure, it would be nice but...

I don't know if he'd accept the role of PF and rebound like a mad man. I don't know if he has it in him. He won't have the ball in his hands all the time either. Can he accept that? I really don't know. That could be a very big factor. He hasn't been used that way before. What about hack a Ben at the end of games. That could be maddening. I can just see us getting to the playoffs and he chokes down the stretch and costs us. Now we'd want to run him out of town. It's an amusing thought.

Of course I love his defense and ability in transition. Also I love his ability to drive to the basket. But then he has to make free throws.

I'd love to see him in with the second unit periodically. he could be amazing helping that group out. Yikes. I wish it were an easy decision. That's why we can't overpay. The less we pay, the easier it gets.

Ben Simmons already is a relatively low-usage, high-impact player. With respect, the idea that Ben Simmons constantly has the ball in his hands just isn’t accurate. His usage rate is not high, he is statistically the best non-center cutter in the League, and he is an elite screener. The data supports that he is excellent when not playing on the ball.

[KGdaBom]

Do you read? I'm not anti Simmons. I'm anti over paying to get him! You throw players and picks out there like drunken sailors. I'm all for getting Simmons if we don't give up our core. That includes McD. Although, if it came down to it, I'd go Beasley, Prince, and A protected pick. That's it!!

I'd could give up Beverly, Beasley, Prince and a protected 1st. We'll see.

I'm not anti Ben!

I could be wrong but I stand by stating McD being as good if not better overall player than Simmons in 3 years. This kid oozes talent. Let the 19 year old grow up. We'll see.

If that's all you would give for Simmons you are comparably extremely anti-Simmons. What you are willing to offer would get you hung up on and probably your calls would never be accepted again. Don't try to say you're not anti-Simmons. You are as anti-Simmons as they come.

Thanks Nick. Acting like I'm crazy for pointing out how negatively you perceive Simmons to be. Try to act like you like Simmons. Sure if we could get him for nothing but sending salary out you'd take him. Anything more and you wouldn't. That is anti Simmons. You know it. However, go ahead and try to ridicule me. It's easier than actually backing up your stance.

[SO_MONEY]

McDaniels won't be $2 million forever. And it's not like keeping McDaniels over Simmons gives you an extra $33 million to spend.

It does give you more flexibility. Comparing the two at vastly different salaries isn't going to balance.

Flexibility for what? To trade for an all-star? That's what they'd be doing...flexibility is pointless if you never take advantage of it.

Flexibility to fill the hole in our starting 5 and to be able to retain some in-house talent. Perhaps use the MLE or BAE in addition. So, not pointless.

[SO_MONEY]

If that's all you would give for Simmons you are comparably extremely anti-Simmons. What you are willing to offer would get you hung up on and probably your calls would never be accepted again. Don't try to say you're not anti-Simmons. You are as anti-Simmons as they come.

Thanks Nick. Acting like I'm crazy for pointing out how negatively you perceive Simmons to be. Try to act like you like Simmons. Sure if we could get him for nothing but sending salary out you'd take him. Anything more and you wouldn't. That is anti Simmons. You know it. However, go ahead and try to ridicule me. It's easier than actually backing up your stance.

What is the point here? Does he go off on you about how much you overvalue Simmons and how pro-Simmons you are...

It brings nothing to the table.

Additionally, speaking of nothing... Beasley, filler and a 1st isn't exactly nothing, it is just less than what you are willing to give. You are misrepresenting what he said, lying in other words and there is a pattern emerging.

I don't get why you take people's valuations of Simmons so personally that it drives you to do this.

[Baseline81]

Thanks Nick. Acting like I'm crazy for pointing out how negatively you perceive Simmons to be. Try to act like you like Simmons. Sure if we could get him for nothing but sending salary out you'd take him. Anything more and you wouldn't. That is anti Simmons. You know it. However, go ahead and try to ridicule me. It's easier than actually backing up your stance.

You do understand the word "anti" means opposing.

Again, if Nick K didn't like Simmons, he wouldn't have even offered a trade proposal. Instead, he would have argued against dealing for him.

Please stop viewing things in black and white when you know there are shades of gray.

[Slim Tubby]

If that's all you would give for Simmons you are comparably extremely anti-Simmons. What you are willing to offer would get you hung up on and probably your calls would never be accepted again. Don't try to say you're not anti-Simmons. You are as anti-Simmons as they come.

Someone that is "extremely anti-Simmons" would not want to trade for him at all.

With the offer he proposed he doesn't want to trade for Simmons at all.

I respectfully disagree with your take on this. Using your logic, you are effectively arguing that we should acquire Simmons at all cost. Baseline clearly would like Ben on the Wolves but only at an acceptable price to him. It’s 100% plausible to establish value limitations on a player yet still want him on your roster.

I do agree with you that his offer doesn’t get the job done, though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[KGdaBom]

Someone that is "extremely anti-Simmons" would not want to trade for him at all.

With the offer he proposed he doesn't want to trade for Simmons at all.

I respectfully disagree with your take on this. Using your logic, you are effectively arguing that we should acquire Simmons at all cost. Baseline clearly would like Ben on the Wolves but only at an acceptable price to him. It’s 100% plausible to establish value limitations on a player yet still want him on your roster.

I do agree with you that his offer doesn’t get the job done, though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Please don't tell me what my logic is. I absolutely don't think we should trade for Simmons at all costs. However, if you say you want a player, but aren't willing to make an offer that would even be considered for all practical purposes you don't want that player. It wasn't Baselines offer. It was Nick G's offer.

[KGdaBom]

Thanks Nick. Acting like I'm crazy for pointing out how negatively you perceive Simmons to be. Try to act like you like Simmons. Sure if we could get him for nothing but sending salary out you'd take him. Anything more and you wouldn't. That is anti Simmons. You know it. However, go ahead and try to ridicule me. It's easier than actually backing up your stance.

You do understand the word "anti" means opposing.

Again, if Nick K didn't like Simmons, he wouldn't have even offered a trade proposal. Instead, he would have argued against dealing for him.

Please stop viewing things in black and white when you know there are shades of gray.

Whatever. We're discussing trading for Simmons.Sure Nick wants him if we can get him for more or less nothing. Comparatively/for the discussion of trading for him, he is Anti-Simmons. You know he is. He knows he is and so do I.

[shrink]

https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vRVNQNDAzMzI5NjM5Nw/episode/YWZhNWJjMmMtMGYwNy0xMWViLThkY2ItNzNkNzczNjlhMTg3?hl=en&ved=2ahUKEwjCkaWPruPyAhUUCs0KHflOCAsQieUEegQIAhAF&ep=6

Brian Windhorst’s Hoop Collective just did the best pod I’ve heard on Simmons, with new info and some different takes.

- I hadn’t heard that Doc Rivers and the PHI OWNER flew to LA last week to speak in person with Ben, to try to convince him to rejoin the team. Ben told the owner no, which is a much bigger deal than having your agent do it.

- Ben’s leverage is that it makes everyone uncomfortable if he’s not traded. Everyone will be asked questions about Ben, and it will diminish their focus. However, Tim Bontemps pointed out that if there is one GM that won’t make a deal to avoid an uncomfortable situation, it’s Morey,

Lots of good stuff in here - first half is all Simmons.

[D1SGRUNTL3D]

Trading for a guy making $33-40M with shooting ineptness and can cost you possessions with his putrid FT shooting, why not empty an 11th and 12th man, to hack a Ben in the 4th qtr?

I mean that’s 12 possessions that probably net you 8-14 points.

[shrink]

One thing it made me think about:

If you consider Simmons a top 25 player, you do recognize he isn’t a top 25 value. How many franchises would trade their best player for him? Heck, even MIN automatically took our top two off the table.

[Baseline81]

https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vRVNQNDAzMzI5NjM5Nw/episode/YWZhNWJjMmMtMGYwNy0xMWViLThkY2ItNzNkNzczNjlhMTg3?hl=en&ved=2ahUKEwjCkaWPruPyAhUUCs0KHflOCAsQieUEegQIAhAF&ep=6

Brian Windhorst’s Hoop Collective just did the best pod I’ve heard on Simmons, with new info and some different takes.

- I hadn’t heard that Doc Rivers and the PHI OWNER flew to LA last week to speak in person with Ben, to try to convince him to rejoin the team. Ben told the owner no, which is a much bigger deal than having your agent do it.

- Ben’s leverage is that it makes everyone uncomfortable if he’s not traded. Everyone will be asked questions about Ben, and it will diminish their focus. However, Tim Bontemps pointed out that if there is one GM that won’t make a deal to avoid an uncomfortable situation, it’s Morey,

Lots of good stuff in here - first half is all Simmons.

It's going to be as ugly as when Butler wanted out of Minnesota.

[SO_MONEY]

With the offer he proposed he doesn't want to trade for Simmons at all.

I respectfully disagree with your take on this. Using your logic, you are effectively arguing that we should acquire Simmons at all cost. Baseline clearly would like Ben on the Wolves but only at an acceptable price to him. It’s 100% plausible to establish value limitations on a player yet still want him on your roster.

I do agree with you that his offer doesn’t get the job done, though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Please don't tell me what my logic is. I absolutely don't think we should trade for Simmons at all costs. However, if you say you want a player, but aren't willing to make an offer that would even be considered for all practical purposes you don't want that player. It wasn't Baselines offer. It was Nick G's offer.

You are imposing judgement of what offer would be accepted or rejected based on nothing but your opinion. Any offer that includes a young 20ppg elite shooter and a 1st wouldn't be offensive... Though you make it out to be. Maybe that doesn't get it done, but it is not offensive. And what do you care if some people wouldn't offer as much as you? OR *gasp* don't want him at all anyways?

[gandlogo]

One thing it made me think about:

If you consider Simmons a top 25 player, you do recognize he isn’t a top 25 value. How many franchises would trade their best player for him? Heck, even MIN automatically took our top two off the table.

That's an interesting way of looking at it. And one that now has me wasting even more time mentally going team-by-team. Work productivity is overrated. Thanks shrink.

[FinnTheHuman]

One thing it made me think about:

If you consider Simmons a top 25 player, you do recognize he isn’t a top 25 value. How many franchises would trade their best player for him? Heck, even MIN automatically took our top two off the table.

I mean, he’s not a top 25 player imo, but he’s top 40, which is still really good. But then even if he were top 25, he wants out so automatically nobody wants to give equal value back.

[jpatrick]

I wonder if this all makes Morey more resolute though. He, above all other GMs, doesn’t give an F about perception or pressure. I mean, he’s the guy that conceivably could have cost the NBA billions with his China comments but he didn’t care, he was going to say what he believes and not walk it back.

What I don’t get is the argument that they’ll just let him sit to the trade deadline or next offseason until a star is available. If a team is actually trading a star (Lillard, Beal, etc), they’re not going to want Simmons, they, like Houston last year, will want a ton of picks, salary relief, and rookie scale dudes. Simmons is good enough that you’ll never get a top 5 type pick in your rebuild.

So, why wouldn’t Morey trade Simmons now, get a couple things that can help them immediately (Bev/Beasley), a young player/trade chip (McDaniels), and a boatload of picks. Helps team now, ends the circus, and sets them up for that future superstar deal.

[Dewey]

Half of me wants to play with what we got and gauge our player off-season improvements and see what we have for chemistry. The other half wants to fill a critical need by adding a strong 1st team defender. In this case Simmons. Finch and Rosas need to understand the team fit by what they offer.

leaves me with 2 questions:
1. How reliable is Nowell with 20-30 minutes? vs. Beasley, DLo
2. Does this adequately alleviate PF and/or defensive needs.
3. If Simmons is no longer an option, do we have a Plan B or run with what we have?

[KGdaBom]

One thing it made me think about:

If you consider Simmons a top 25 player, you do recognize he isn’t a top 25 value. How many franchises would trade their best player for him? Heck, even MIN automatically took our top two off the table.

I'm not saying he is or isn't better than KAT and Ant. That stated we keep KAT as things being relatively equal you stick with what you got. We have Edwards on a rookie deal. Of course we keep him. Keeping those two is irrelevant to the value of Simmons. Simmons has a max contract and IMO he's worthy of it. Some think he isn't.

[KGdaBom]

One thing it made me think about:

If you consider Simmons a top 25 player, you do recognize he isn’t a top 25 value. How many franchises would trade their best player for him? Heck, even MIN automatically took our top two off the table.

I mean, he’s not a top 25 player imo, but he’s top 40, which is still really good. But then even if he were top 25, he wants out so automatically nobody wants to give equal value back.

As long as two or more teams want him and they're not colluding the 76ers should get a reasonable offer for Ben.