76ciology wrote:BB_Fan wrote:They need to sign Butler and harris for long term deals. If they let them leave it is a waste of assets.
Sam Hinkie was good at accumulating assets. BC & EB are good at throwing away assets.
“Throw away assets?”
Remember how high we were on that LAL lotto pick? It’s most likely going to turn out to just be a role player. May not even start for a contender.
How about the Kings pick? Remember how people were making it sound like Kings is going to be bottom 5 teams in the league? That pick is again most likely going to end up being a role player.
How about the robbery we had when we traded Jrue for two lottery picks? Well, one of them is on a 10 day contract. The other one is a bench player that is no better than Boban. Here’s about assets.. Fans always gets it wrong. It’s not simple algebra.
And when you have to trade for star caliber players or to trade up, you always have to overpay.Mediocrity starts when teams dont take risks. If you dont want to throw away assets, maybe root for the Hornets.
We are the Sixers. It’s championship or bust. Kicking the can is for puss*ies.
I assume with the bolded you think the Sixers traded Jrue for the picks that became MCW and Nerlens, but you're incorrect. MCW was taken with our own pick that year.
Jrue was traded for the picks that became Nerlens and Elfrid Payton (which after multiple trades turned into Dario, Landry Shamet, and 2020 and 2021 2nds).
Also worth mentioning that we ran exceptionally unlucky with the Lakers pick. The expected value of that pick was a lot higher than the 10th pick we received. Here's the breakdown of our percent chance for various picks based on where the Lakers finished each year.
2015 6th pick: 16%
2015 7th pick: 1%
2016 4th pick: 32%
2016 5th pick: 12%
2017 4th pick: 23%
2017 5th pick: 27%
2017 6th pick: 4%
2018 1st pick: 1%
2018 10th pick: 87%
2018 11th pick: 9%
2018 12th/13th pick: <1%
We also had these prior to trading them for Markelle Fultz
2018 2nd pick: 1%
2018 3rd pick: 2%
When we acquired that pick, the average expected outcome was a lot higher than just ending up with a role player. We were extremely likely to receive a 4th-6th overall pick in one of those first 3 years and were unlucky. We had a right to be excited about that asset.
Second bolded is wrong too. The two biggest stars traded in recent memory were Harden and Kawhi, and neither were overpays, neither at the time nor in retrospect. This statement also seems to contradict what you said about the Jrue trade. If you are right and that the team acquiring the star always has to overpay, then we would have robbed the Pelicans right? Yet you imply here (and have said elsewhere) that the Pelicans were the ones committing the robbery. Thus, you think that the Pelicans did not have to overpay to acquire a star. So which is it?
I'm also pretty sure that critics of overpaying aren't unwilling to take risks, so you're attacking a strawman argument there. Both making a trade or not making a trade are both risks. Critics of the trade just don't want to take bad risks where the cost might not be justified. Thus, it's not about risk tolerance, but price.
Mediocrity starts when teams start making bad decisions, or when they start getting really unlucky in various ways. The cost of Tobias Harris may or may not have been a bad decision. I like Tobias Harris the player a lot and think that his fit on offense is pretty great. I also think that his defense is pretty suspect, his next contract may or may not be justified, and the price to acquire him was pretty steep.
Another thing is that your argument is based upon the need to take risks, but I think going all-in for Tobias Harris was arguably the "safe" decision. The alternative of waiting for the summer to try and go after one of the top free agents would have been the higher risk move with the highest ceiling outcome. That would have been the option with the greatest "championship or bust" mindset. Instead the Sixers wanted to lock in acquiring a great player to eliminate the possibility of striking out, which is reasonable, but contradicts your argument.
