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

[Texas Chuck]

You can have an opinion though..... This is the problem, whenever you or Bully are put in a position that you guys should just concede the obvious and maybe concede with the conditional of "it is what it is"... You just go into obscurity mode where a clear statement is handwaved away in favor of strawmanning.

The question was clear. Who are you guys taking off the West's roster for Simmons to make it? If Simmons was in the West would we be calling him an all-star?

An answer of "that's not how it works" isn't how you answer a simple question asking for your opinion. I understand why you don't want to answer, because the answer leads to a conclusion you don't want to admit. But strawmanning away to another tertiary topic isn't really a valid retort here.

I think Simmons is a fringe all-star "level" player. For clarity I will insert that descriptor as that was what was meant to be implied.

FWIW - It's my mistake if you took the word obtuse to mean dumb. I have always used it with the meaning of vague, or difficult to understand. I apologize if you took it for another meaning. This why I don't think calling someone's answer vague is an insult.

Bully and I are very different people with very different opinions all the time. We happen to agree oddly enough that the player who has been an all-star should be called one and the player who hasn't should not be. Because well yeah duh.

I don't think you know what a strawman is. Because literally I stuck to simply who was named an all-star and who wasn't. That's just straight historical record.

Your position is subjective--you believe Simmons would not be an all-star in the West. Fine. I have zero problems with you believing that. I've not once tried to disuade you from that position.

I made it clear that I wasn't interested in conjecture in part because its a lot of work to go through the first half of games not just of Ben Simmons but of 10-12 guards in the West and do so for each of 3 years. And again maybe you took personally took the time to do that and were able to do so remarkably quickly. I could not. It would take me a lot of time.

And frankly I just don't care. I don't think Simmons being an all-star and CJ not is particularly relevant to their value. I only commented because I was amused that someone tried to equate them similarly as all-stars when clearly the historical record says something very different.

[Texas Chuck]

While I don’t think Simmons a fringe all-star in the East, I understand the argument for the west. The guard spots in the west are quite simply, loaded. Not many people are going to get the chance with Luka, Dame, and Curry.

However, fringe doesn’t mean that he isn’t in all star, just that he is a borderline all star, which again, is understandable if you are talking about the league as a whole.

Fringe literally means the border or outer edges of a group. If you were to rank all, all stars each year that Simmons has been an all-star, I think that is a fairly apt description.

Not to mention, people place too large of an emphasis on being an all-star. If CJ had made a few All-star games in the East, does that mean CJ is somehow more valueable than if he didn’t? I’m not quite certain that would be true……Mo Williams and Big Z were also all-stars if I remember correctly.

No major disagreements with any of this. And again if Simmons was just an all-star last year as his only selection I don't think any of us end up down this rabbit hole. But again and I hate to be so redundant, but it's really vital to this whole discussion, when one of the two players in question is literally an all-star every year save their rookie year and the other guy has never been an all-star, that when using all-star to describe them as Roy chose to do, we should have a clear distinction.

Again as I already replied to Roy, I don't think all-star means much of anything in terms of their value. I do think Simmons is considerably more valuable but in reaching that conclusion I didn't once think about how many all-star appearances either had.

[Roy The Natural]

You can have an opinion though..... This is the problem, whenever you or Bully are put in a position that you guys should just concede the obvious and maybe concede with the conditional of "it is what it is"... You just go into obscurity mode where a clear statement is handwaved away in favor of strawmanning.

The question was clear. Who are you guys taking off the West's roster for Simmons to make it? If Simmons was in the West would we be calling him an all-star?

An answer of "that's not how it works" isn't how you answer a simple question asking for your opinion. I understand why you don't want to answer, because the answer leads to a conclusion you don't want to admit. But strawmanning away to another tertiary topic isn't really a valid retort here.

I think Simmons is a fringe all-star "level" player. For clarity I will insert that descriptor as that was what was meant to be implied.

FWIW - It's my mistake if you took the word obtuse to mean dumb. I have always used it with the meaning of vague, or difficult to understand. I apologize if you took it for another meaning. This why I don't think calling someone's answer vague is an insult.

Bully and I are very different people with very different opinions all the time. We happen to agree oddly enough that the player who has been an all-star should be called one and the player who hasn't should not be. Because well yeah duh.

I don't think you know what a strawman is. Because literally I stuck to simply who was named an all-star and who wasn't. That's just straight historical record.

Your position is subjective--you believe Simmons would not be an all-star in the West. Fine. I have zero problems with you believing that. I've not once tried to disuade you from that position.

I made it clear that I wasn't interested in conjecture in part because its a lot of work to go through the first half of games not just of Ben Simmons but of 10-12 guards in the West and do so for each of 3 years. And again maybe you took personally took the time to do that and were able to do so remarkably quickly. I could not. It would take me a lot of time.

And frankly I just don't care. I don't think Simmons being an all-star and CJ not is particularly relevant to their value. I only commented because I was amused that someone tried to equate them similarly as all-stars when clearly the historical record says something very different.

The scope of my question was clear. There's not much else to say. If you don't want to answer it, then that's on you. I think we all know the answer, it's not likely that Ben Simmons would have made an all-star game to this point in the West. Thus considering him a fringe all-star level player is a fairly defendable position.

I can try to be more clear in my implications. However, I think we both know that the implication wasn't that Ben Simmons hadn't literally made all-star games, but more that he should be considered a low end all-star who probably isn't getting in in the West. You know, that Ben Simmons impact falls more in line with the guards in the West who miss the cut than it does with the guys who are in.

If you don't care about the moniker than why was it your primary retort to the declaration that was clearly meant to imply that Simmons has the impact of a fringe-all star? In the hierarchy of the NBAs best guards what is Simmons? 10th? 12th? Seems like a fringe guy to me.

[Blazer1776]

While I don’t think Simmons a fringe all-star in the East, I understand the argument for the west. The guard spots in the west are quite simply, loaded. Not many people are going to get the chance with Luka, Dame, and Curry.

However, fringe doesn’t mean that he isn’t in all star, just that he is a borderline all star, which again, is understandable if you are talking about the league as a whole.

Fringe literally means the border or outer edges of a group. If you were to rank all, all stars each year that Simmons has been an all-star, I think that is a fairly apt description.

Not to mention, people place too large of an emphasis on being an all-star. If CJ had made a few All-star games in the East, does that mean CJ is somehow more valueable than if he didn’t? I’m not quite certain that would be true……Mo Williams and Big Z were also all-stars if I remember correctly.

No major disagreements with any of this. And again if Simmons was just an all-star last year as his only selection I don't think any of us end up down this rabbit hole. But again and I hate to be so redundant, but it's really vital to this whole discussion, when one of the two players in question is literally an all-star every year save their rookie year and the other guy has never been an all-star, that when using all-star to describe them as Roy chose to do, we should have a clear distinction.

Again as I already replied to Roy, I don't think all-star means much of anything in terms of their value. I do think Simmons is considerably more valuable but in reaching that conclusion I didn't once think about how many all-star appearances either had.

Well, I think it just just a fairly simplistic way to look at things, especially when it comes to looking at all star game selections.

Context matters. Being 3rd team all state in California likely means you are a better player than being 1st team all state in Oregon.

[Texas Chuck]

The scope of my question was clear. There's not much else to say. If you don't want to answer it, then that's on you. I think we all know the answer, it's not likely that Ben Simmons would have made an all-star game to this point in the West. Thus considering him a fringe all-star level player is a fairly defendable position.

I can try to be more clear in my implications. However, I think we both know that the implication wasn't that Ben Simmons hadn't literally made all-star games, but more that he should be considered a low end all-star who probably isn't getting in in the West. You know, that Ben Simmons impact falls more in line with the guards in the West who miss the cut than it does with the guys who are in.

If you don't care about the moniker than why was it your primary retort to the declaration that was clearly meant to imply that Simmons has the impact of a fringe-all star?

I explained why I didn't answer your question. It's a lot of work for something not very important.

And you absolutely weren't clear initially. But now that you are let me state this crystal clearly:

I do not care what level of all-star impact you think Simmons has: fringe or otherwise.
I do not care what level of all-star impact you think CJ has: fringe or otherwise.

You are entitled to those opinions and I respect that and am not trying to change your mind. Are we clear? However, I believe Simmons has significantly more impact than CJ so whatever label you wish to use I would have to use different ones. Because I feel like their impact is notably different in Simmons' favor.

So no, I personally do not agree they are both fringe all-stars. You do. And that's okay. We simply disagree.

[Texas Chuck]

Well, I think it just just a fairly simplistic way to look at things, especially when it comes to looking at all star game selections.

Context matters. Being 3rd team all state in California likely means you are a better player than being 1st team all state in Oregon.

I freely admit sometimes I do look at things simply when it seems appropriate.

As explained I think Simmons is a superior player all-star in the West or not. So if you guys need that win, claim it. I'm cool.

[WICKED17]

I believe this trade is very solid and fits all teams involved. 2 separate trades, 2nd trade to be agreed to publicly by 76er FO and ownership. 2nd trade transaction done Dec 15

CHI.. OKC.. S.A

C. White TBJ, 22 Por 1st, 23 Den 2nd, cash
D. White, Okc top 55

TPE, top 55
TBJ, cash

D. White
C. White, 22 Por 1st, 23 Den 2nd, 9.35M TPE

Why? Chi adjusts for Simmons trade
OKC returns TBJ for free Monetarily
S.A. Gets young scorer with 2 yrs on rookie deal, picks, TPE. Too good to pass up.



Trade 2, Dec. 15th Chi- PHI

Derozan, D. White, Ayo Dosunmu, 22, 24, 26 swaps unprotected, 27 1st unprotected, 2nds
SImmons, V. min

Why? Chi transforms into top 3 in East next yr. While becoming a likely lotto pick this yr. as they sit both DDR, White till Dec15, which is great for Phi as they have the swap rights. Simmons is a perfect fit as bulls have Vucevic and play four out, all four being, 38, 40, 40, 42 3 pt respectively. Builds around young core of LaVine, Simmons, Ball, Williams, long term. Bulls need more playmaking and D, Simmons provides that in spades.

Why? Phi returns high end player profile they desperately need (iso scorer, distributed, high TS%) for win now. While returning another much need starter fit in D. White, who’s plus D and overall very solid play, allows Curry to start while DW takes defensive match up. Along with last drafts 38 pick whom many experts projected as late first player. So 3 players, 3 unprotected swaps, unprotected 1st, future 2nd(s)

Phi lineup….
Curry Shake (Maxey, trade? ).
White Thybulle.
Derozen Green. Korkmaz
Harris.
Embid. Drummond

DeRozan might very well be my least liked contract of the entire offseason, which probably tells you my reaction to this deal.

Which realistic rumored trades out there do you / others prefer? With win now considerations factored in?

[Roy The Natural]

While I don’t think Simmons a fringe all-star in the East, I understand the argument for the west. The guard spots in the west are quite simply, loaded. Not many people are going to get the chance with Luka, Dame, and Curry.

However, fringe doesn’t mean that he isn’t in all star, just that he is a borderline all star, which again, is understandable if you are talking about the league as a whole.

Fringe literally means the border or outer edges of a group. If you were to rank all, all stars each year that Simmons has been an all-star, I think that is a fairly apt description.

Not to mention, people place too large of an emphasis on being an all-star. If CJ had made a few All-star games in the East, does that mean CJ is somehow more valueable than if he didn’t? I’m not quite certain that would be true……Mo Williams and Big Z were also all-stars if I remember correctly.

No major disagreements with any of this. And again if Simmons was just an all-star last year as his only selection I don't think any of us end up down this rabbit hole. But again and I hate to be so redundant, but it's really vital to this whole discussion, when one of the two players in question is literally an all-star every year save their rookie year and the other guy has never been an all-star, that when using all-star to describe them as Roy chose to do, we should have a clear distinction.

Again as I already replied to Roy, I don't think all-star means much of anything in terms of their value. I do think Simmons is considerably more valuable but in reaching that conclusion I didn't once think about how many all-star appearances either had.

Well, I think it just just a fairly simplistic way to look at things, especially when it comes to looking at all star game selections.

Context matters. Being 3rd team all state in California likely means you are a better player than being 1st team all state in Oregon.

Of course. It's the game some like to play though. Circumvent the clear scope of the debate/question with semantical wheel-spinning.

I thought the implication of my.original.post was.pretty clear. Ben Simmons is more of a fringe all-star type player impact wise than he is clear cut.

If we rip age and contracts out of the equation and just.look at on court impact where is Simmons ranking among all guards each year over the last 3 years when he made the all-star team? If the all-star game wasnt split into conferences would he make it each year? Would he be the reserve above guys like Mitchell and Booker in the West?

I don't really care about the label of all-star either. However, the argument presented against the labeling of Simmons as a fringe all-star level player went about as deep as the moniker itself. That was the only thing used to retort the notion. So naturally the reply would be... Is there a simple and reasonable context that could be presented in which that moniker is unlikely to be given?

[Blazer1776]

Well, I think it just just a fairly simplistic way to look at things, especially when it comes to looking at all star game selections.

Context matters. Being 3rd team all state in California likely means you are a better player than being 1st team all state in Oregon.

I freely admit sometimes I do look at things simply when it seems appropriate.

As explained I think Simmons is a superior player all-star in the West or not. So if you guys need that win, claim it. I'm cool.

I have no problem with you thinking Simmons is a superior player, I would tend to agree.

However, I think using the basis of someone being an all-star or not and that somehow inherently impacting their value without looking at it in context of the situation is problematic.

[Texas Chuck]

Well, I think it just just a fairly simplistic way to look at things, especially when it comes to looking at all star game selections.

Context matters. Being 3rd team all state in California likely means you are a better player than being 1st team all state in Oregon.

I freely admit sometimes I do look at things simply when it seems appropriate.

As explained I think Simmons is a superior player all-star in the West or not. So if you guys need that win, claim it. I'm cool.

I have no problem with you thinking Simmons is a superior player, I would tend to agree.

However, I think using the basis of someone being an all-star or not and that somehow inherently impacting their value without looking at it in context of the situation is problematic.

Point me perhaps to where I did that? Because I feel like I've repeated myself 4-5x at least that I put no link between all-star and value here. As we argued earlier when you first called me out--yeah I'm a stickler for accuracy. But I've not a single time for any player much less Simmons v CJ argued value citing all-star selections.

[Roy The Natural]

The scope of my question was clear. There's not much else to say. If you don't want to answer it, then that's on you. I think we all know the answer, it's not likely that Ben Simmons would have made an all-star game to this point in the West. Thus considering him a fringe all-star level player is a fairly defendable position.

I can try to be more clear in my implications. However, I think we both know that the implication wasn't that Ben Simmons hadn't literally made all-star games, but more that he should be considered a low end all-star who probably isn't getting in in the West. You know, that Ben Simmons impact falls more in line with the guards in the West who miss the cut than it does with the guys who are in.

If you don't care about the moniker than why was it your primary retort to the declaration that was clearly meant to imply that Simmons has the impact of a fringe-all star?

I explained why I didn't answer your question. It's a lot of work for something not very important.

And you absolutely weren't clear initially. But now that you are let me state this crystal clearly:

I do not care what level of all-star impact you think Simmons has: fringe or otherwise.
I do not care what level of all-star impact you think CJ has: fringe or otherwise.

You are entitled to those opinions and I respect that and am not trying to change your mind. Are we clear? However, I believe Simmons has significantly more impact than CJ so whatever label you wish to use I would have to use different ones. Because I feel like their impact is notably different in Simmons' favor.

So no, I personally do not agree they are both fringe all-stars. You do. And that's okay. We simply disagree.

True enough in the pint of valuation. Though I will repeat that it's not just CJ. My comment was in reference to the fact that no matter what other not quite all-star, or just barely all-star gets mentioned in the trade rumors, Philly's always asking for years of draft control on top. We can move this outside of the CJ centric discussion and just put it all around. I don't think Toronto needs to give up anything in a Siakam for Simmons swap... I do think Philly will want the moon on too of Siakam. I think it's the modus operandi of Philly at this point to ask for a good player and all your picks for their guy that's maybe just a bit better, or even the same.

I don't think Philly is serious about moving Simmons yet. I think they're in pearl clutching and pray for a miracle mode.

[Texas Chuck]

True enough in the pint of valuation. Though I will repeat that it's not just CJ. My comment was in reference to the fact that no matter what other not quite all-star, or just barely all-star gets mentioned in the trade rumors, Philly's always asking for years of draft control on top. We can move this outside of the CJ centric discussion and just put it all around. I don't think Toronto needs to give up anything in a Siakam for Simmons swap... I do think Philly will want the moon on too of Siakam. I think it's the modus operandi of Philly at this point to ask for a good player and all your picks for their guy that's maybe just a bit better, or even the same.

I don't think Philly is serious about moving Simmons yet. I think they're in pearl clutching and pray for a miracle mode.

Oh so much agreement now between us. I agree Philly wants good players and draft picks for Simmons. I agree they don't want to move him just to move him but want to make a deal that makes sense.

Disagree on Siakam who has his own offensive issues and who simply is not as good of a player plus he's hurt and he's had his own conflicts with his organization though clearly not anywhere near the same degree.


I also think every team with a very valuable asset they control for 4 years would ask for the moon. If Dame quietly came and wanted out, the Blazers would quite rightfully demand a king's ransom for him and not settle for less even as they would be more handcuffed as they would be trying to get him to one of his preferred destinations something Philly isn't limited by.

[toooskies]

This argument about the definition of "fringe all-star" is just about terminology. Strictly reducing them to a number, Simmons might be the 25th or 30th best player in the NBA, and McCollum might be the 30th or 35th. I think some people are taking "fringe all-star" to mean guys who aren't all stars but might be in the conversation, as opposed to a group that includes both the people who barely made it in as well as the people who just missed making it in.

[Roy The Natural]

True enough in the pint of valuation. Though I will repeat that it's not just CJ. My comment was in reference to the fact that no matter what other not quite all-star, or just barely all-star gets mentioned in the trade rumors, Philly's always asking for years of draft control on top. We can move this outside of the CJ centric discussion and just put it all around. I don't think Toronto needs to give up anything in a Siakam for Simmons swap... I do think Philly will want the moon on too of Siakam. I think it's the modus operandi of Philly at this point to ask for a good player and all your picks for their guy that's maybe just a bit better, or even the same.

I don't think Philly is serious about moving Simmons yet. I think they're in pearl clutching and pray for a miracle mode.

Oh so much agreement now between us. I agree Philly wants good players and draft picks for Simmons. I agree they don't want to move him just to move him but want to make a deal that makes sense.

Disagree on Siakam who has his own offensive issues and who simply is not as good of a player plus he's hurt and he's had his own conflicts with his organization though clearly not anywhere near the same degree.


I also think every team with a very valuable asset they control for 4 years would ask for the moon. If Dame quietly came and wanted out, the Blazers would quite rightfully demand a king's ransom for him and not settle for less even as they would be more handcuffed as they would be trying to get him to one of his preferred destinations something Philly isn't limited by.

Portland is only limited in destination out of their own goodwill. So it kind of falls a bit flat on that end. If the Pelicans are throwing a big offer out, and Lillard isn't keen on going, but it's a significantly better offer than others... I think that goodwill will dry up fast. All of Portland's trade handcuffing would be self inflicted, which leads me to believe that Portland has and is probably willing to use the key they have in their hand to unlock those handcuffs if the return isn't what they want from the "destination" teams.

[Texas Chuck]

It would be self-inflicted of course, but you can't convince me Portland would trade Dame somewhere he didn't want to go. I just don't believe that.

[eminence]

Here's an odd one, I was trying to get the big stars to their destinations and still keep them under the luxury cap. What would people think to balance with picks.

PHI In: CJ/DFS
PHI Out: Ben/Green

Need a pick or two in to close the CJ/Ben value gap.

POR In: Ben/Green
POR Out: CJ/Covington

Get their new star and stay under the luxury tax.

DAL In: Covington/Williams
DAL Out: DFS/Powell

Improve depth, upgrade the defensive forward spot (I think, I dunno, I'm pretty high on DFS)

OKC IN: Powell
OKC Out: Williams

Obviously need a pick to take Powell.

Would POR/DAL be willing to pay the ~3 picks to close the gaps here? Would PHI accept if it were only 1 pick going their way?

I would agree Dallas owes a protected 1st on value in their part. But I don't believe I would pay it. I don't have RoCo an upgrade over DFS or at least not enough of one and while clearly Kenrich is a player I like and definitely has meaningfully more value than than the negative Powell, the presence of Sterling Brown as that playable 4th wing makes me prefer to hold onto assets unless more of a needle-mover comes.

So value is fine and I like those players Dallas gets. But with so few assets to their name, I just couldn't justify dealing another first. Which is what is really frustrating about how Dallas handled the end of Dirk's career. They should have been collecting assets during this time to use once they were good again. But they didn't so after spending on KP it just makes small upgrades tough to justify.

That’s fair. What pick price would you feel is appropriate if you kept DFS and it were a Powell for Covington swap? Kenrich going to Philly then.

I might need to look for another team for the Dallas portion of the deal.

[Texas Chuck]

Here's an odd one, I was trying to get the big stars to their destinations and still keep them under the luxury cap. What would people think to balance with picks.

PHI In: CJ/DFS
PHI Out: Ben/Green

Need a pick or two in to close the CJ/Ben value gap.

POR In: Ben/Green
POR Out: CJ/Covington

Get their new star and stay under the luxury tax.

DAL In: Covington/Williams
DAL Out: DFS/Powell

Improve depth, upgrade the defensive forward spot (I think, I dunno, I'm pretty high on DFS)

OKC IN: Powell
OKC Out: Williams

Obviously need a pick to take Powell.

Would POR/DAL be willing to pay the ~3 picks to close the gaps here? Would PHI accept if it were only 1 pick going their way?

I would agree Dallas owes a protected 1st on value in their part. But I don't believe I would pay it. I don't have RoCo an upgrade over DFS or at least not enough of one and while clearly Kenrich is a player I like and definitely has meaningfully more value than than the negative Powell, the presence of Sterling Brown as that playable 4th wing makes me prefer to hold onto assets unless more of a needle-mover comes.

So value is fine and I like those players Dallas gets. But with so few assets to their name, I just couldn't justify dealing another first. Which is what is really frustrating about how Dallas handled the end of Dirk's career. They should have been collecting assets during this time to use once they were good again. But they didn't so after spending on KP it just makes small upgrades tough to justify.

That’s fair. What pick price would you feel is appropriate if you kept DFS and it were a Powell for Covington swap? Kenrich going to Philly then.

I might need to look for another team for the Dallas portion of the deal.

Dallas owes a first plus in a straight Powell/RoCo swap. Not sure even how Dallas would be able to close that value gap--the path would probably require that jayjaysee Powell+incentive for Favors swap using the Mavs TPE to take back Favors so nobody has to take back Powell in the main deal.

The problem is Powell is more negative to other teams than he is Dallas where he is a current member of the rotation and a human they like. Plus with Luka's extension kicking in next year plus the long-term deals they gave Bullock and THJ, his $11M is only a potential tax issue(though they appear well clear atm) since they have no cap space possibilities.

So other teams rightfully want a good asset to take Powell, but Dallas doesn't want to pay extra to dump him in a deal for a good player. I'm resigned to him being a Mav the next 2 years and I wouldn't be at all surprised if he spent the rest of his career as a Mav albeit at a much lower number after this contract finishes. Org loves him.

[zimpy27]

For what it's worth. Simmons would also have been an all star in the west.

At least over Aldridge in 2019
At least over Ingram in 2020
At least over conley in 2021

And that's based on him being the second guy as a poor fit in Philly. His numbers on a west coast team as a number 1 or 2nd to a perimeter player would be far better.

[zimpy27]

I think Simmons is definite top 25 and I have CJ ranked around 40th. The objective value isn't that close when you look at age.

[Roy The Natural]

I think Simmons is definite top 25 and I have CJ ranked around 40th. The objective value isn't that close when you look at age.

I have CJ around 40 and Simmons around 31-33. Not too far off though.