Ben Simmons trades go here (and here only): Expect warnings if not following forum rules

[BoogieTime]

There are very few teams that could use Ben Simmons . Clippers , blazers , Kings that’s it . The wolves aren’t willing let go dlo . The 76ers options limited . To think otherwise is naive

Yep, ok, sure. I'm naive for thinking the Sixers won't trade Simmons for Bagley, Hield and some unarticulated "first". You've shown me the errors of my logic merely by repeating yourself a million times.

And you continue to rudely downgrade other teams players also so where are we? Two people who disagree and have ridiculous positions that don’t make any sense.

Sound familiar? It should. This is the kind of nonsense that Darryl Morey is slipping out through his media mouthpieces asking fir a ransom for a player with some very serious issues in his game and a now huge question about both his work ethic and his attitude.

At the same time, that offer is a joke - and I’m a Kings fan.

That being said, we have some reality check items to list off here.

First, Simmons has put Philly over a barrel and on the clock. And like everything else in this situation, this is not a simple single issue. There is the half the years salary factor on the first - which a trading team will NOT be reimbursing. There is the factor of in a few days when he makes good and no shows to camp his return value immediately plummets like a rock. Right now Morey can still get some good value. After camp starts? Forget it. Other GM’s aren’t dumb and are likely circling like sharks.

Second, the alleged interest in Beal and Lilliard.
Let’s all be adults here and be realistic. This isn’t going to happen in the short available time frame. Philly fans can talk big about “let him sit and rot” and all that nonsense. How about a reality check? You want to find the single fastest way back into ten years if “the Process” and NBA hell? Try doing that to a Klutch client at this particular juncture. You will not see a free agent for at least that long. Add to that that this is a complete pipe dream. Washington has literally cleared every other guy who could remotely be their number one guy off the roster and built around Beal. He’s not going anywhere. And Lilliard IS Portland for the foreseeable future. Ok et will cintinue to shovel pieces around him until they either make a Finals run or he is in his final year and then he will rebuild on the fly. That’s how they do business. They don’t give up their key star. So those hopes are fools gold.

Third, the League.

Do not think fir one second that the League - ie Adam Silver - is not watching this with a microscope. The NBA is allergic to negative press. And there will come a pint where quiet pressure happens to make this quiet down and go away. And that pressure will be on Philly and Morey, not Ben and Klutch - guaranteed. They will only allow this to go so far and I am positive that their perception is that PHILLY allowed this to blow up by not muzzling their star and coach and letting the media rage out of control and roast Ben and they will want it fixed and gone before the season.

So with all that my sense of what it will take is a similar player package - maybe a bit more - but not stars because you just don’t ever get that in a star trade. Period. When you trade stars in the NBA it is never a dollar for a dollar. It just doesn’t happen. Nobody looking to pick up that dollar is giving up their dollars to get it because that is a lateral move. And I mean REAL stars not borderline or role guys who have one career year. You hope to get a fifty cent piece and some quarters but usually you’re going to get a mush mash of change and you try to make it pieces that fit needs. I think that SAC will need to include at least two unprotected firsts - the 2025 to replace the one Philly has lost and hopefully a 2023. Then likely a pick swap which could be either next year or ‘24.

There is no world where I see any of our young three guys going out because there is no pint to trading that way. And it doesn’t actually make sense. Philly wants to win now. You need vets for that not young guys. And they have to do that because Embiid is not getting a union get and DOES have an injury history to be concerned about.

Anyway, that’s what I see happening and I don’t see anyone else I. The possibles that can afford to pony up two or three picks and be considered still competitive and trending upward.

Hey bro, I respect your views on Hield/Bagley, though I'd personally say that they aren't holding much value currently.

I also respect your views on how tempting our picks may be given the inherent ineptitude the organization has shown. Though with Simmons added to the core not sure if they would be as tempting

I agree with some of what you say about Philly's position, but Simmons is a very good talent and there are 28 other teams. The Spurs are about where the Kings are in the standings and would give proven fitting players with those picks

I think the notion of giving away our spare players and some picks that are discussed on other mediums is kind of local favoritism. I think that if one of Fox/Haliburton aren't on the Sixers, Simmons wont be here (Kings value Mitchell and I don't want to part with Mitchell, but around the league he needs to produce before he has near that centerpiece league wide value).

[K_chile22]

if that's what they are willing to do , I don't see any teams changing their minds by the deadline.

Teams performing below expectations typically look to change

Happens every year.

Right now about 26-30 teams think they're playoff contenders. This very forum was losing it after multiple teams were eliminated. And right now we're at peak preseason optimism.

Right, but what really good player is a bumpy start away from asking out/getting traded? Lillard is the closest thing but it sure seems like he's going to give billups a year at least. What we're talking about here usually just affects the role players, not stars. Plus the play in game is a thing now that gives teams less concern about a bumpy start

[bondom34]

Teams performing below expectations typically look to change

Happens every year.

Right now about 26-30 teams think they're playoff contenders. This very forum was losing it after multiple teams were eliminated. And right now we're at peak preseason optimism.

Right, but what really good player is a bumpy start away from asking out/getting traded? Lillard is the closest thing but it sure seems like he's going to give billups a year at least. What we're talking about here usually just affects the role players, not stars. Plus the play in game is a thing now that gives teams less concern about a bumpy start

I'd guess they at least wait for Beal to sign the extension. But then again, we never really know who's going to be the next star to ask out until they do.

But then again if not it leaves them back with asking for futures. But then again I could see Morey of all GMs hold out on this.

[K_chile22]

Happens every year.

Right now about 26-30 teams think they're playoff contenders. This very forum was losing it after multiple teams were eliminated. And right now we're at peak preseason optimism.

Right, but what really good player is a bumpy start away from asking out/getting traded? Lillard is the closest thing but it sure seems like he's going to give billups a year at least. What we're talking about here usually just affects the role players, not stars. Plus the play in game is a thing now that gives teams less concern about a bumpy start

I'd guess they at least wait for Beal to sign the extension. But then again, we never really know who's going to be the next star to ask out until they do.

But then again if not it leaves them back with asking for futures. But then again I could see Morey of all GMs hold out on this.

But if you buy that Ben won't play (I know you and I don't, but hypothetically if he makes it clear to the 6ers he's willing to sit) and you're getting fair pick value for Ben, what's the difference if he's going to sit out anyways? At least you get the help of the salary flotsam in the meantime and you can have a pick package bigger than the Harden package ready and waiting (combining philly's own picks with those from Ben)

[the_process]

I think it's at the point where it's bigger than the trade itself. I think on pure ownership saying enough is enough on player control, Philly isn't going to trade him until he plays. They'll let him sit out the next 4 years IMO.

if he doesn't get traded by deadline i think buyout rumors just might happen. The NBPA and league will get involved.

Zero shot of a buyout. Literally zero.

If anything, the league will get involved to make Simmons honor his contract. What do you think the fallout is around the league if players with 4 years left can demand out? Come on now.

[bondom34]

Right, but what really good player is a bumpy start away from asking out/getting traded? Lillard is the closest thing but it sure seems like he's going to give billups a year at least. What we're talking about here usually just affects the role players, not stars. Plus the play in game is a thing now that gives teams less concern about a bumpy start

I'd guess they at least wait for Beal to sign the extension. But then again, we never really know who's going to be the next star to ask out until they do.

But then again if not it leaves them back with asking for futures. But then again I could see Morey of all GMs hold out on this.

But if you buy that Ben won't play (I know you and I don't, but hypothetically if he makes it clear to the 6ers he's willing to sit) and you're getting fair pick value for Ben, what's the difference if he's going to sit out anyways? At least you get the help of the salary flotsam in the meantime and you can have a pick package bigger than the Harden package ready and waiting (combining philly's own picks with those from Ben)

If he actually is 100% going to sit and forego salary, then I'd say yeah taking futures/picks makes sense for that reason. I'd wonder how that gets handled in terms of the cap/tax (yes I'm a nerd), but just having assets to trade if he's for sure not playing well into the season would be better than no assets and not having him play.

Don't think we've ever seen a guy actually do that, and I'm still struggling seeing it especially going well into the season. And Simmons isn't quite the caliber of player like past examples where someone has had this sort of threat.

[nolang1]

Celtics better with Ben than Brown/Schroeder
Spurs better with Ben than Murray/Vassell/Poeltl
Sacramento better with Ben than Fox

This is just a relevant few.

Wow that is really bad reading comprehension. I explicitly said better in a relevant way and pointed to the Kings as an example of a team that wouldn't be likely to make the playoffs with or without Simmons. The same could be said for the Spurs, and the Celtics as currently constructed wouldn't be favored to get out of the first round in the East with or without Simmons.

What makes you think I didn't read your post? I'm re-iterating that these teams would be better, in a meaningful way in the context of your post. I disagree that Kings would not make playoffs. They would with Simmons. But these are also growing teams, it may not happen in year 1 but long term they are better as presently constructed.

So which two of the Jazz, Suns, Lakers, Nuggets, Warriors, Mavericks, Blazers, Clippers, and Grizzlies would the Kings with Simmons be better than? Keep in mind that in the scenario you listed they'd be trading their best player to get Simmons rather than just picking him up off the waiver wire. Anyway, you're already agreeing with my premise that the only teams where Simmons makes remotely any sense in a 2-team deal are mediocre ones who think he would incrementally increase their chances of sneaking into the playoffs but not making much noise when there (the foundation of countless winning trades, I'm sure).

I would certainly differ on the Celtics (Brown makes significantly less money, is younger, has a much better trajectory of improvement, and was on the same tier as Simmons this past season but just received fewer accolades due to Embiid dragging Philadelphia to the 1 seed) and it should be pretty obvious that teams like San Antonio and Sacramento would be weary of giving up much of value for someone who by any account seems disinterested in playing there long-term, but disregarding that it's funny to see how Simmons breaks the typical RealGM logic as to the type of trades teams in that kind of situation should make.

Normally there's not a young 'star' on the block, so the most typical avenue for improvement a fringe playoff team (or a fringe contender that maybe wants a slightly better chance of advancing another round) has to improve itself in the short term is to give up draft capital for a veteran. I distinctly remember in 2017-18 proposing trades centered around the idea of Philadelphia's first-round pick for Lou Williams (in peak 6MOY form and a guy who could run some half-court offense if maybe there was nobody else on the team who could do that) and in general it was seen as silly because why give up future assets when Philadelphia is a team of the future (they used that pick on Landry Shamet and the following year traded him, two other 1sts, and two other 2nds for Tobias Harris). So I'm just not sure where the calculus comes in where trading a late 1st for a positive player on a mid-level type of contract is not good, but trading more than that for a max contract player who's not a whole lot better is.

[nolang1]

Right, but what really good player is a bumpy start away from asking out/getting traded? Lillard is the closest thing but it sure seems like he's going to give billups a year at least. What we're talking about here usually just affects the role players, not stars. Plus the play in game is a thing now that gives teams less concern about a bumpy start

I'd guess they at least wait for Beal to sign the extension. But then again, we never really know who's going to be the next star to ask out until they do.

But then again if not it leaves them back with asking for futures. But then again I could see Morey of all GMs hold out on this.

But if you buy that Ben won't play (I know you and I don't, but hypothetically if he makes it clear to the 6ers he's willing to sit) and you're getting fair pick value for Ben, what's the difference if he's going to sit out anyways? At least you get the help of the salary flotsam in the meantime and you can have a pick package bigger than the Harden package ready and waiting (combining philly's own picks with those from Ben)

Even if he does play and puts up his same numbers, teams like Washington or Portland should be much more willing to blow it up for a package of young players than trade Beal/Lillard for a worse player. You can say Simmons is younger, but he's all of 3 years younger than Beal and you'd be hard-pressed to find too many players who have substantially improved past age 25; like Beal himself was an all-star at 24 and despite improving since then was not good enough to lead his team to over .500.

[NYG]

I think it's at the point where it's bigger than the trade itself. I think on pure ownership saying enough is enough on player control, Philly isn't going to trade him until he plays. They'll let him sit out the next 4 years IMO.

if he doesn't get traded by deadline i think buyout rumors just might happen. The NBPA and league will get involved.

Zero shot of a buyout. Literally zero.

If anything, the league will get involved to make Simmons honor his contract. What do you think the fallout is around the league if players with 4 years left can demand out? Come on now.

Agreed... I'm starting think zero shot at them trading him without playing which makes me wonder when the league would step in and what they could/would even do if everyone was stubborn about it? Could Ben Simmons get thrown out of the NBA if he doesn't honor his contract? Like what even happens there and at what point?

[K_chile22]

if he doesn't get traded by deadline i think buyout rumors just might happen. The NBPA and league will get involved.

Zero shot of a buyout. Literally zero.

If anything, the league will get involved to make Simmons honor his contract. What do you think the fallout is around the league if players with 4 years left can demand out? Come on now.

Agreed... I'm starting think zero shot at them trading him without playing which makes me wonder when the league would step in and what they could/would even do if everyone was stubborn about it? Could Ben Simmons get thrown out of the NBA if he doesn't honor his contract? Like what even happens there and at what point?

It's in the cba, he doesn't get paid and if he doesn't show up all year the year doesn't come off his contract, so he'd still have four more years left on his deal

[NYG]

Zero shot of a buyout. Literally zero.

If anything, the league will get involved to make Simmons honor his contract. What do you think the fallout is around the league if players with 4 years left can demand out? Come on now.

Agreed... I'm starting think zero shot at them trading him without playing which makes me wonder when the league would step in and what they could/would even do if everyone was stubborn about it? Could Ben Simmons get thrown out of the NBA if he doesn't honor his contract? Like what even happens there and at what point?

It's in the cba, he doesn't get paid and if he doesn't show up all year the year doesn't come off his contract, so he'd still have four more years left on his deal

Oh man, I think this is going to get ugly then especially with Klutch involved.

[Ballerhogger]

Zero shot of a buyout. Literally zero.

If anything, the league will get involved to make Simmons honor his contract. What do you think the fallout is around the league if players with 4 years left can demand out? Come on now.

Agreed... I'm starting think zero shot at them trading him without playing which makes me wonder when the league would step in and what they could/would even do if everyone was stubborn about it? Could Ben Simmons get thrown out of the NBA if he doesn't honor his contract? Like what even happens there and at what point?

It's in the cba, he doesn't get paid and if he doesn't show up all year the year doesn't come off his contract, so he'd still have four more years left on his deal

That’s what it says but will that actually happen… I like it to . Highly doubtful

[Ballerhogger]

Teams performing below expectations typically look to change

Happens every year.

Right now about 26-30 teams think they're playoff contenders. This very forum was losing it after multiple teams were eliminated. And right now we're at peak preseason optimism.

Right, but what really good player is a bumpy start away from asking out/getting traded? Lillard is the closest thing but it sure seems like he's going to give billups a year at least. What we're talking about here usually just affects the role players, not stars. Plus the play in game is a thing now that gives teams less concern I about a bumpy start

Yea my point as well , a slow start is not the end world anymore .

[LarsV8]

Feel bad for Philly, seems like Brogdon is the best offer out there. I think expectation is multiple unprotected picks and good players. I don't see anyone offering close to that.

Hard to even imagine a place were Simmons fits.

[Ballerhogger]

Feel bad for Philly, seems like Brogdon is the best offer out there. I think expectation is multiple unprotected picks and good players. I don't see anyone offering close to that.

Hard to even imagine a place were Simmons fits.

Ben doesn’t fit carlie system at all . That won’t work

[Ballerhogger]

Feel bad for Philly, seems like Brogdon is the best offer out there. I think expectation is multiple unprotected picks and good players. I don't see anyone offering close to that.

Hard to even imagine a place were Simmons fits.

Ideally the blazers .

[zimpy27]

Wow that is really bad reading comprehension. I explicitly said better in a relevant way and pointed to the Kings as an example of a team that wouldn't be likely to make the playoffs with or without Simmons. The same could be said for the Spurs, and the Celtics as currently constructed wouldn't be favored to get out of the first round in the East with or without Simmons.

What makes you think I didn't read your post? I'm re-iterating that these teams would be better, in a meaningful way in the context of your post. I disagree that Kings would not make playoffs. They would with Simmons. But these are also growing teams, it may not happen in year 1 but long term they are better as presently constructed.

So which two of the Jazz, Suns, Lakers, Nuggets, Warriors, Mavericks, Blazers, Clippers, and Grizzlies would the Kings with Simmons be better than? Keep in mind that in the scenario you listed they'd be trading their best player to get Simmons rather than just picking him up off the waiver wire. Anyway, you're already agreeing with my premise that the only teams where Simmons makes remotely any sense in a 2-team deal are mediocre ones who think he would incrementally increase their chances of sneaking into the playoffs but not making much noise when there (the foundation of countless winning trades, I'm sure).

I would certainly differ on the Celtics (Brown makes significantly less money, is younger, has a much better trajectory of improvement, and was on the same tier as Simmons this past season but just received fewer accolades due to Embiid dragging Philadelphia to the 1 seed) and it should be pretty obvious that teams like San Antonio and Sacramento would be weary of giving up much of value for someone who by any account seems disinterested in playing there long-term, but disregarding that it's funny to see how Simmons breaks the typical RealGM logic as to the type of trades teams in that kind of situation should make.

Normally there's not a young 'star' on the block, so the most typical avenue for improvement a fringe playoff team (or a fringe contender that maybe wants a slightly better chance of advancing another round) has to improve itself in the short term is to give up draft capital for a veteran. I distinctly remember in 2017-18 proposing trades centered around the idea of Philadelphia's first-round pick for Lou Williams (in peak 6MOY form and a guy who could run some half-court offense if maybe there was nobody else on the team who could do that) and in general it was seen as silly because why give up future assets when Philadelphia is a team of the future (they used that pick on Landry Shamet and the following year traded him, two other 1sts, and two other 2nds for Tobias Harris). So I'm just not sure where the calculus comes in where trading a late 1st for a positive player on a mid-level type of contract is not good, but trading more than that for a max contract player who's not a whole lot better is.

Kings with Simmons will be better than two of those teams. I'd have them above Warrior, Grizzlies and Clippers as being most likely. But obviously it can vary based on health.

I think Simmons is quite a bit better than Brown and fits a need better on the Celtics.

Yeah I agree, very unusual for a young guy like SImmons to be on the block like this and it makes it tough to value him. Teams aren't really et up to receive players like him. I definitely think that limits his value on the market.

[babyjax13]

Feel bad for Philly, seems like Brogdon is the best offer out there. I think expectation is multiple unprotected picks and good players. I don't see anyone offering close to that.

Hard to even imagine a place were Simmons fits.

I wonder if that offer is even available now. Wasn't it before Rick was hired? I do like the fit, though.

[K_chile22]

Feel bad for Philly, seems like Brogdon is the best offer out there. I think expectation is multiple unprotected picks and good players. I don't see anyone offering close to that.

Hard to even imagine a place were Simmons fits.

I wonder if that offer is even available now. Wasn't it before Rick was hired? I do like the fit, though.

For the Pacers or Sixers? Because I imagine the pacers would have to find a home for Sabonis if they did this

[jbk1234]

I'd guess they at least wait for Beal to sign the extension. But then again, we never really know who's going to be the next star to ask out until they do.

But then again if not it leaves them back with asking for futures. But then again I could see Morey of all GMs hold out on this.

But if you buy that Ben won't play (I know you and I don't, but hypothetically if he makes it clear to the 6ers he's willing to sit) and you're getting fair pick value for Ben, what's the difference if he's going to sit out anyways? At least you get the help of the salary flotsam in the meantime and you can have a pick package bigger than the Harden package ready and waiting (combining philly's own picks with those from Ben)

If he actually is 100% going to sit and forego salary, then I'd say yeah taking futures/picks makes sense for that reason. I'd wonder how that gets handled in terms of the cap/tax (yes I'm a nerd), but just having assets to trade if he's for sure not playing well into the season would be better than no assets and not having him play.

Don't think we've ever seen a guy actually do that, and I'm still struggling seeing it especially going well into the season. And Simmons isn't quite the caliber of player like past examples where someone has had this sort of threat.

He's low key doing the Sixers a favor IMO. He doesn't have to go full Jimmy Butler on the Wolves to further tank his value. He could show up, say I'm contractually obligated to be here and I have no further comment a few dozen times, and they'd have to move him.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app