Simmons: Yes or No?

[Kreamy]

Where would Barnes fit with a Ben Simmons?

FVV/Trent/OG/Barnes/Simmons
Flynn/Dragic/Svi/Achiuwa/Boucher/Birch

[JB7]

Where would Barnes fit with a Ben Simmons?

With Barnes' build, I see him more as a ball handling PF, and Simmons as the PG.

Siakam is the obvious candidate for the deal, as moving him frees up minutes for Barnes.

This team will still need a Birch type at C who can bang with bigs down low, as you don't want OG, Barnes or Simmons having to do that consistently.

[Harcore Fenton Mun]

Ideally, he'd be taking Birches spot.

[normgod6]

I'd be going into it expecting no growth, there's really no reason to expect him to change his stripes by 25+. Maybe you get lucky, but I'm not paying for that.

He's a defensive stopper who's offense dries up when it counts, he's getting paid like twice what Smart is. That's the problem. He should be making 25-27M max...not 40M.

and yet he is still an elite athlete with incredible court vision and handles. Being a non shooter isnt some fatal flaw to your game that dooms you to be a non impact offensive player. As long as he fixes his mental blocks, put the ball in his hands and not pair him up with the one of 2 post players still remaining in the league, ben can be an incredibly impactful offensive player.

Sent from my SM-A530W using RealGM mobile app

[Harcore Fenton Mun]

and yet he is still an elite athlete with incredible court vision and handles. Being a non shooter isnt some fatal flaw to your game that dooms you to be a non impact offensive player. As long as he fixes his mental blocks, put the ball in his hands and not pair him up with the one of 2 post players still remaining in the league, ben can be an incredibly impactful offensive player.

Sent from my SM-A530W using RealGM mobile app

Dude's a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.

Personally, I buy that he's shooting with his non dominant hand.

[Pointgod]

trading for a player like ben simmons when his value is artificially low due to locker room drama and reactionary takes is literally the exact type of trade you make when you are a treadmill team like us. Ben had higher upside than FVV and Siakam. Seriously, what good will holding onto a 5'11 shooting guard who cant finish around the rim and a "primary" option who cant playmake or score efficiently since 2019 do for us? Ben at least has all the tools you look for in a star. He is just mentally a wreck right now. We trade for him in the hopes a change of scenery allows him to have a bounceback year and start to maximize his potential. If he does, our ceiling becomes so much higher and we get out of the treadmill

Sent from my SM-A530W using RealGM mobile app

It’s always amazing to me that fans don’t understand the concept of a depressed asset. OMG Simmons sucks! No way we’d give up anything more than Chris Boucher for him! A player of Simmons’ caliber rarely become available. It’s pretty clear how you maximize Simmons, a very similar way to how you build around Giannis. You get Simmons on the team and take a season or two to explore and see what happens even if it’s just building back up his trade value to eventually move him.

[Knucknbuc]

Is there a HELL NO option?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[Raps in 4]

A lot of the naysayers are focused on what Ben Simmons has not done lately. Serious question for you: what do you see as his future? Do you really think he will always be as bad as you seem to think he is now – ie a lousy player and bad teammate who never helps win anything? or do you think that he might be a perennial all-star and difference maker even without developing a shot? Because if you have a chance to get a guy whose floor is perennial all-star then it seems to me you take it then you figure out how to maximize him in your system.

He's 25. He hasn't made any progress since coming into the NBA. I'd say the odds of him staying at this level are much higher than him miraculously learning to shoot.

[Raps in 4]

to me its a no brainer to trade for ben as simmons raises the teams ceiling. Hes younger and has infinitely more tools to work with than FVV or Pascal.

What tools? He's one of the most offensively limited players in the league.

One of the leagues best passers with a natural gift for mapping the floor in his head. He's also an elite ball handler with great size. Excellent defender and elite level athlete. also simmons is literally the most valuable archetype in the nba right now- a jumbo sized playmaker. every single team in the league is looking for a simmons type player. If theres a chance to snag him at his lowest value for treadmill commander pascal, i dont see how you dont make that trade

Sent from my SM-A530W using RealGM mobile app

Simmons is literally the exact opposite of the most valuable archetype on the NBA right now. Guys like Luka and Harden aren't just valuable because they're big playmakers. They're valuable because they can also create their own shot at will. Ben's offensive production is virtually non-existent.

[Raps in 4]

trading for a player like ben simmons when his value is artificially low due to locker room drama and reactionary takes is literally the exact type of trade you make when you are a treadmill team like us. Ben had higher upside than FVV and Siakam. Seriously, what good will holding onto a 5'11 shooting guard who cant finish around the rim and a "primary" option who cant playmake or score efficiently since 2019 do for us? Ben at least has all the tools you look for in a star. He is just mentally a wreck right now. We trade for him in the hopes a change of scenery allows him to have a bounceback year and start to maximize his potential. If he does, our ceiling becomes so much higher and we get out of the treadmill

Sent from my SM-A530W using RealGM mobile app

It’s always amazing to me that fans don’t understand the concept of a depressed asset. OMG Simmons sucks! No way we’d give up anything more than Chris Boucher for him! A player of Simmons’ caliber rarely become available. It’s pretty clear how you maximize Simmons, a very similar way to how you build around Giannis. You get Simmons on the team and take a season or two to explore and see what happens even if it’s just building back up his trade value to eventually move him.

The problem with Simmons is that he's been a depressed asset his entire career. He's never shown the ability to play at a higher level than this. At what point do we accept that this is the normal Simmons? He's not suddenly going to transform from an ugly ducking into a swan.

His fans think he's still a 20 year-old first overall pick with unlimited potential. In reality, he's a 25 year-old that has refused to work in his game in 4 NBA seasons.

[Raps in 4]

and yet he is still an elite athlete with incredible court vision and handles. Being a non shooter isnt some fatal flaw to your game that dooms you to be a non impact offensive player.

It absolutely is, and we see why every single year in the playoffs. Guarding a team where only 4 players can shoot, instead of 5, makes it very easy for teams to shut down the Sixers. Simmons isn't an unstoppable force in the paint like Shaq or Giannis (and even the latter shoots the ball) so it's not like he makes up for his lack of of shooting with dominant post play. His passing is also limited by the fact that opposing teams don't have to guard him. What good is a flashy pass if the receiver of the ball now has to score over double coverage because there are 5 defenders guarding 4 shooters?

[normgod6]

A lot of the naysayers are focused on what Ben Simmons has not done lately. Serious question for you: what do you see as his future? Do you really think he will always be as bad as you seem to think he is now – ie a lousy player and bad teammate who never helps win anything? or do you think that he might be a perennial all-star and difference maker even without developing a shot? Because if you have a chance to get a guy whose floor is perennial all-star then it seems to me you take it then you figure out how to maximize him in your system.

He's 25. He hasn't made any progress since coming into the NBA. I'd say the odds of him staying at this level are much higher than him miraculously learning to shoot.

Ben Simmons has been a positive impact offensive player for his entire career while playing alongside one of the few post-up centers left in the league. Despite Embiid and Simmons being a horrible fit with each other, Simmons was still able to make positive contributions on offense, even in the half court through his dribble drive game and playmaking. All these claims that Simmons is a negative impact player and hurts his team is all over reactionary takes based on a small sample size. Never judge a player in his best and worst moments. The truth is in the middle, and Simmons have proven he is a much better player than what he showed against Atlanta. To be able to trade for that level of player for either Siakam or FVV is a bargain deal with huge upside at only comes along once every few years.

[normgod6]

and yet he is still an elite athlete with incredible court vision and handles. Being a non shooter isnt some fatal flaw to your game that dooms you to be a non impact offensive player.

It absolutely is, and we see why every single year in the playoffs. Guarding a team where only 4 players can shoot, instead of 5, makes it very easy for teams to shut down the Sixers. Simmons isn't an unstoppable force in the paint like Shaq or Giannis (and even the latter shoots the ball) so it's not like he makes up for his lack of of shooting with dominant post play.

Players like Draymond, Jimmy Butler, Bam, Gobert, Ayton, Westbrook all have shown that you can have a huge impact without being a good shooter. You just need to surround them with shooters and make sure the paint is open, which the sixers couldn't do with Embiid camped in the lane. This idea that all 5 players need to shoot is overly simplistic. 4 is plenty, and you might be even get away with 3 shooters too.

[Raps in 4]

and yet he is still an elite athlete with incredible court vision and handles. Being a non shooter isnt some fatal flaw to your game that dooms you to be a non impact offensive player.

It absolutely is, and we see why every single year in the playoffs. Guarding a team where only 4 players can shoot, instead of 5, makes it very easy for teams to shut down the Sixers. Simmons isn't an unstoppable force in the paint like Shaq or Giannis (and even the latter shoots the ball) so it's not like he makes up for his lack of of shooting with dominant post play.

Players like Draymond, Jimmy Butler, Bam, Gobert, Ayton, Westbrook all have shown that you can have a huge impact without being a good shooter. You just need to surround them with shooters and make sure the paint is open, which the sixers couldn't do with Embiid camped in the lane. This idea that all 5 players need to shoot is overly simplistic. 4 is plenty, and you might be even get away with 3 shooters too.

Draymond, Jimmy, and WB all shoot the ball.

Gobert is 7'1".

Bam might be the closest comp for Simmons. But like Simmons, he's overpaid for what he provides.

[Johnny Bball]

If Raps make a deal, hopefully it's for Siakam cause Simmons and Siakam on one team is too much $.

What do you expect to pay for a 1 and 2 option with the current salary structure?

Between Siakam and Simmons I see 0 number 1 options, and there's an argument to be made that there's 0 number 2 options as well.

Well since neither is close to 45 million which superstars make which is obviously your threshold, then its no worry since they aren't even close. Paying both is not too much and that would be a shortsighted reason not to want both.

arguing against either being a number two option on a championship team is attempting to revise history.

[Jerry Lucas]

What do you expect to pay for a 1 and 2 option with the current salary structure?

Between Siakam and Simmons I see 0 number 1 options, and there's an argument to be made that there's 0 number 2 options as well.

Well since neither is close to 45 million which superstars make which is obviously your threshold, then its no worry since they aren't even close. Paying both is not too much and that would be a shortsighted reason not to want both.

arguing against either being a number two option on a championship team is attempting to revise history.

My response was to the claim that Siakam and Simmons on the same team is not too much money because "what do you expect to pay for a 1 and 2 option with the current salary structure?" I was more so responding to the Siakam and Simmons are #1/2 options part of the post than what they are getting paid.

Siakam and Simmons definitely aren't #1 options. Also when has Ben Simmons ever been the #2 option on a championship team? In regards to Siakam I also agree that he was our #2 option, all I'm saying is there is a logical case to be made otherwise (that Siakam was actually our high end #3 and Lowry was the #2 option).

[Raps in 4]

What do you expect to pay for a 1 and 2 option with the current salary structure?

Between Siakam and Simmons I see 0 number 1 options, and there's an argument to be made that there's 0 number 2 options as well.

Well since neither is close to 45 million which superstars make which is obviously your threshold, then its no worry since they aren't even close. Paying both is not too much and that would be a shortsighted reason not to want both.

arguing against either being a number two option on a championship team is attempting to revise history.

Simmons makes very close to superstar money.

[Mascot]

Pascal for Simmons, four 2nd round picks and 5 million in cash

[Vampirate]

We basically have our own Simmons, why do we want the one that's literally afraid to shoot. No amount of defense will make up for that.

Simmons needs to land on a team that has enough shooting and where they need his defense and playmaking.

The Timberwolves are a good landing choice probably.

[Johnny Bball]

Between Siakam and Simmons I see 0 number 1 options, and there's an argument to be made that there's 0 number 2 options as well.

Well since neither is close to 45 million which superstars make which is obviously your threshold, then its no worry since they aren't even close. Paying both is not too much and that would be a shortsighted reason not to want both.

arguing against either being a number two option on a championship team is attempting to revise history.

Simmons makes very close to superstar money.

Uh, they make the same basically. And come on... that is no longer superstar money, it's 10-15 million shy.