Sixers Draft '10: 2nd Pick Brings Questions
by Jordan Sams on May 18, 2010 6:45 PM PDT
Email
PrintThe Sixers have the number 2 pick. I'm still in shock. There are many things to cover in the coming weeks, but here are a few questions to wet your appetite in the meantime:
Will the Wizards pass on Wall?
Will the Sixers take Turner, Favors, or Cousins?
Will the Sixers trade the pick?
What does this mean for Andre Iguodala?
What does this mean - if anything - for the ongoing coaching search?
Will Ed Stefanski remain the GM?
Answer these questions in the comments, and vote in the poll. I'm going to get some fresh air, gather myself, come back and delve into some of these questions and debates. Tanner and Derek should also have some content from the Lottery soon.
Keep it civil.
And celebrate the number 2 pick!!!
101 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
It has to be Turner. You don’t play around with it. In the NBA, you have to pick the best player available. Wall and Turner are the clear 1-2 best talent in this draft. Assuming Wall goes to the Wiz… then you have to go Turner.
That’s not correct.
DeMarcus Cousins has #1 talent he just has some seeming red flags that warn people off.
I voted turner – but if the sixers think cousins warning issues are easy to fix i trust they know what they’re doing.
by jemagee on May 18, 2010 6:54 PM PDT up reply actions
And this is my opinion – as is everything ever written on a blog (aside from stats you know) it’s opinion
by jemagee on May 18, 2010 6:55 PM PDT up reply actions
An opinion written in stone on the man’s harddrive which is locked away somewhere in Nevada. Be careful ;).
I voted Turner. I also think this will thin the ice that Stefanski currently stands on.
I think Stefanski should be fired ‘more’ now because it’s a much more important kind of draft now.
Actually, if you want to be precise – the data is not stored in Nevada
by jemagee on May 18, 2010 7:05 PM PDT up reply actions
I agree. I think now that Snider/Luuko has something seriously (potentially) awesome to play with, they need to have a heightened sense of do-or-die. Bringing Shue in was just the beginning…I’ll go out on a limb and say I’d be shocked if Stefanski makes the call—GM or not.
I think Tony Dileo has been making the draft calls for years…and should continue to do so – you listen to your draft experts unless you’re Jerry Jones.
This makes me want Sam Mitchell as the head coach more now than Doug Collins. Doug Collins is going to care more about winning than developing.
by jemagee on May 18, 2010 7:09 PM PDT up reply actions
If you don’t trust your GM to make your first round pick, then why do you still employ him?
If Stefanski still has the job come draft day, that’s gotta be evidence enough that he has the final call right?
Follow Bleeding Green Nation on Twitter & Facebook
Who knows? If you trust him to conduct a coaching search, why have someone there looking over his back?
Same deal really, just a bit more intense now IMHO.
About as intense as you can get…. This is a career defining pick for Ed.
Follow Bleeding Green Nation on Twitter & Facebook
Unless he didn’t have the final call on speights or holiday either
Part of being a GM and a leader is knowing where you’re strong and weak and listening to those who know more in an area you don’t – Dileo seems quite good at evaluating talent – and he outlived billy king
by jemagee on May 18, 2010 7:53 PM PDT up reply actions
I’m not 100% sure how you got to that from what I said. DiLeo is good at evaluating draft talent – that doesn’t qualify him to be a GM since being a GM encompasses a lot more – I have no clue if he’s qualified to be a GM but history indicates he knows his crap when it comes to drafting – so the GM listening to him ABOUT the draft shouldn’t say anything about his strength and weakenss of a GM – in fact a GM who ignores all his talent evaluators and picks ‘who he wants’ contrary to all the evidence is how you end up with larry hughes instead of paul pierce or dirk nowitzki (king may have had the title – but brown ran the show)
I don’t like Stefanski all that much, and probably he should be fired, but listening to DiLeo on who to draft shouldn’t be seen as a move of weakness
by jemagee on May 18, 2010 8:02 PM PDT up reply actions
It was a question, not an interpretation of what you said.
Follow Bleeding Green Nation on Twitter & Facebook
OK – then a real long round about way of saying i don’t know :)
by jemagee on May 18, 2010 8:28 PM PDT up reply actions
kind of interesting...
since 1996 players picked in the draft. draft position – players to make at least one all-star appearance or all-nba team:
- - 9 players
- - 2
- - 7
- - 4
- - 4
Gotta take turner
This was our DREAM PICK!!! Now we don’t have to draft another point guard and worry about development. Sixers can draft Turner and play him at the two at least with Lou starting and Turner the first one off the bench. Say goodbye to Willie Green!!!
It really is a dream come true
my vote is for Turner all the way.
Will the Wizards pass on Wall?
I doubt it, unless they swap bad contracts to get rid of Gilbert, but they would be completely stupid for doing that. However, bad franchises make bad decisions, so I think it’s possible.
Will the Sixers take Turner, Favors, or Cousins?
I think this will mostly depend upon workouts and interviews. We as fans will probably have a better idea in the coming weeks.
Will the Sixers trade the pick?
That would be all kinds of stupid. Even if they unloaded Brand’s contract with this pick and got cap space, and even if they wanted to use this cap space to try to compete in the FA battle this summer, the sixers aren’t nearly as desirable as other locations.
What does this mean for Andre Iguodala?
I think for right now it means nothing. I think they should give Iguodala and #2 draft pick a year to play together to see if they aren’t Tyreke Evans and Kevin Martin.
What does this mean – if anything – for the ongoing coaching search?
Jeff Van Gundy momentarily wakes up, scratches his bald spot, goes back to sleep
Will Ed Stefanski remain the GM?
I think Stefanski’s future depends on next season.
I know you wouldn't necessarily want to trade, but..
Lets say Minnesota wants to trade up to 2. Do you take back a player, go to 4, and end up with either whichever of Favors/Cousins that New Jersey passes up or Wes Johnson?
“A player” he better be pretty damn good – and it better be #4 AND one of the wolves other picks.
by jemagee on May 18, 2010 8:00 PM PDT up reply actions
My opinion is that at this stage the sixers need to get their hands on the best draft choice available – someone who will hopefully flourish alongside Jrue and Iguodala. Trading down to #4 doesn’t do that. I think the best thing for this sixers team right now is to acquire the best pick and see what unfolds. We’re in no position to contend, but we could be in several years after Brand’s contract expires.
“this ia a big piece for us. I think they’ll be a lot of teams interested in moving (picks). I’ve seen Turner play live once.”
Frontline
The Sixers are going to get better immediately if they take Turner and are in Salary cap purgatory for the foreseeable future without factoring in how a new CBA may change things for the worse.
The only two bigs on the roster after next season are Speights and Brand. I don’t know how you pass on Cousins or Favors to pick a redundant piece in Turner. Is Iggy going to get you a big via trade? Mose people don’t even want to trade Iggy from what I read.
Does the fact that Stefanski has only seen Turner play live once reinforce that he is targeting Bigs? I just don’t see that Turner is the unequivocal #2. When Cousins measures out as 6-11 with a 7-6 wingspan and Favors jumps out of the gym, this pick will not be a rubber stamp for Turner.
Doesn't theory hold that much water
First, the salary cap situation limits you and you have to realize that. You guys took it on the chin with Brand and that salary will hamstring you guys until he comes off the books. Stacking up on young talent is exactly what you want to so you can compete once you get out of that position. Also, by having “redundant” pieces, you allow for trades to help get you out of that situation. If you don’t have any bigs after next season, maybe you should draft a big next season. Dalembert is capable of doing what he does well. Speights has the chance to boom or bust. I think it’s too early to give up on him.
I think the biggest thing is that your only true PG is too young to drink. He seems more like the guy you need to bring your team to contender status, and having a young, bigger gun would be invaluable in that. Iggy isn’t the guy, and who knows how long he will be on the team. The forseeable future (ie. the next 2 seasons) could be about watching your young stars bloom (and trust me, that’s awesome). Then you have chips to trade and money to work with. Your future would at that point be back in your control. Unless you think Cousins is the missing piece that brings you a championship in the next couple of years, just go with the BPA.
Iguodala isn’t “the guy,” but he would be a great guy to have next to “the guy.”
Let’s say we draft Turner. If they complement each other, you definitely keep them. The thing is, Iguodala doesn’t need to be the man, and I think when someone on the team proves to be better than him, he has no problem playing second fiddle (as all the cool people say). He has shown this in the past (next to Iverson/…Webber?).
If they can’t play well together, Iguodala will make a good trade piece toward the end of his contract. Who’s to say we couldn’t acquire a solid big with this trade?
Also, I would favor giving Sam another contract if he is willing to cut his 12+ million a year to six or seven million.
Who’s to say we couldn’t acquire a solid big with this trade?
The entire history of the NBA says you won’t trade a guard for a solid big. Flawed big, yes, solid big, no.
a semantics argument is always a poor argument.
Iguodala is not just an ordinary guard and I see no reason why another team wouldn’t want to acquire him for a solid big. By solid, I mean not a superstar, but can defend, rebound, fits with the team (perhaps better than his current team), has more go-to moves than Dalembert (so at least one), etc.
I don't stand corrected
Bigs aren’t traded unless its for other bigs. Look at who the Kings got for Kevin Martin, Carl Landry. That is the type of big you’d get for Iggy. This has nothing to do with Semantics, just the reality that good bigs tend to be drafted in the Top 5. If they show any modicum of success, their team resigns them with a lavish extension. The onlyw ay they become available is when they become overpaid and/or injured. This isn’t semantics, it’s reality. Of the final 4 teams in the playoffs, Garnett and Gasol were the only bigs acquired via trade and both were traded for other bigs. I’m not throwing out semantics, just reality.
What’s Wrong with Carl Landry?
Kevin Martin is a fragile kid who does one thing well (and very little else)
Contrary to the implication – Kevin Martin ain’t better than ANdre Iguodala
by jemagee on May 19, 2010 6:51 AM PDT up reply actions
Carl Landry is a flawed big, he doesn’t defend. Look around the teams in the lottery and every one of them has “post defense” as a need. Why? Because their aren’t very many people that are good at this skill. If you can defend the post and also play a little bit of offense, like jefu mentions above, you are even rarer.
I also agree that Iggy is better than Kevin Martin because Iggy can defend, but again, it’s not about Iggy, its about what’s actual able to be traded for. I suppose you may get a guy like Al Jefferson, but again, he isn’t a defender. You could probably get a lottery pick as a part of a package for Iggy, but that’s taking a gamble for an extremely productive player.
Watch a lot of rockets (and kings) fan as a t’wolves fan do you?
Maybe if you weren’t coming from a position of bias…
by jemagee on May 19, 2010 6:58 AM PDT up reply actions
That doesn’t make you an expert on anything…
I didn’t say anything bout you LIVING in minnesota, you’re a t’wolves fan coming from a position of bias.
Course most wolves fans think the wolves should (basically) trade al jefferson for evan turner
by jemagee on May 19, 2010 7:25 AM PDT up reply actions
I would trade Jefferson
For deng, iggy, prince, turner, etc. BTW, even though I think Turner is the best fit in the Top 4 for the Wolves, I also think Cousins is the best player in the draft, it just creates a situation where they have get value for Jefferson.
I would rather have Cousins + Veteran Wing than Turner + Jefferson.
There are reports out there on talent alone that Cousins would compete with Wall for #1 – but there’s personal issues
by jemagee on May 19, 2010 9:52 AM PDT up reply actions
Agreed
Whoever selects Cousins are going to have to interview him and do their research to see what’s “under the hood” so to speak.
ANd that’s where the sixers have their ‘secret weapon’ (it seems) in Tony DiLeo
which is why IF the sixers trade back to #4 to get cousins I’m ok with the thought process because as of now I trust dileos ability to evaluate players – i know he’d put him through a massive ringer cause it’s a much bigger decision than speights at 16
by jemagee on May 19, 2010 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions
whether or not you stand corrected is not for you (or me) to decide. Afterall, we are mostly stating opinions here.
However, despite your mentioning three times that this isnt about semantics, it is. You failed to understand what I meant by a solid big. You can be solid and still have flaws. It’s safe to say that just about every player in the league has flaws. My definition of a solid player is on whom can contribute at both ends of the court, but doesn’t necessarily excel at both.
The only thing you’re, “throwing out,” is a couple examples of bigs being traded for other bigs and one example involving Kevin Martin. What two teams decide to do in a trade does not hold precedent for every other type of trade in the future. That, my friend is reality.
Fair enough
But I follow a lot of teams, not just a local team, and everybody needs bigs, especially defensive bigs. My point was the established defensive bigs rarely if ever get traded. You dispute that, that’s fine. But if you don’t resign dalembert and your stuck picking mid-first round looking for a compliment to Speights and Brand in the frontcourt, it’s going to be difficult.
On twitter:
LibertyBallers: Trading the number 2 pick for a veteran would be wrong on so many levels, and a massive mistake.
me: @LibertyBallers Unless it lets us dump Sammie D, Iggy and Brand all in the same trade and we sign LeBron. Then it makes sense dreams
LibertyBallers: @scotkess lol then i’d say, sign me up.
"College is only 4 years, but the Eagles are for life." - Ironhank
At some point people will realize that
A. Sam Dalembert is a pretty good center in the NBA these days , and unusually healthy
B. His contract expires this year so if you even WANT to trade him – he has value
C. ANDRE IGUODALA ISN"T A BAD CONTRACT
by jemagee on May 19, 2010 6:47 AM PDT up reply actions
agreed
Sammy takes too much of a beating. yes, he makes some dumb plays from time to time, but he is a decent center in this league and he plays every game. I guess people expect dwight howard numbers from a center, but look around the league and see what other teams have for centers. Yes, his contract is way too high but that’s not his fault. It is in-line with haywood, biedrins, okafor, etc. I liked what Sam Mitchell said about letting Sammy play 35-38 minutes and just worry about defense and rebounding. He is getting better in my opinion and would love to have him back at a reduced number next season.
Dude, not sure how long you’ve been reading this, but you have to understand what it means for me to say Sam isn’t bad…:)
He’s not terrible, and he’s healthy, and i’d re-sign him this off season for 2-3 years 7-8 million if he’d take it
by jemagee on May 19, 2010 7:24 AM PDT up reply actions
I was just making a joke about how the second overall pick could grab LeBron, hence the dumping of the three largest contracts on the team. Sammie D isn’t a bad player, but he hasn’t developed enough since leaving Seton Hall for me to consider him a good one. I don’t want to trade him, considering we have no one who can step right in to replace him. Iggy’s contract isn’t a bad contract, but if you could dump it in order to grab LeBron, wouldn’t you?
"College is only 4 years, but the Eagles are for life." - Ironhank
by Scott Kessler on May 19, 2010 9:16 AM PDT up reply actions
Probably, I know one blogger who would immediately start a list dedicated to lebron whiny excuses :)
Sam isn’t a good player
he’s a center, he plays good defense, and he’s healthy
In todays nba that’s a 10 million dollar a year player
Chandler
Curry
Dalembert
they were all free agents at the same time and ended up with the same contracts
Dalembert has been the msot consistent and healthiest of all 3
by jemagee on May 19, 2010 9:26 AM PDT up reply actions
I can’t argue with that logic. For people like me, who enjoy football and baseball more than basketball, it just seems weird to have guys making $10 million when they aren’t that good. But I guess that’s the way that the NBA salary cap crumbles.
"College is only 4 years, but the Eagles are for life." - Ironhank
by Scott Kessler on May 19, 2010 9:32 AM PDT up reply actions
Wait – you follow baseball and you think it’s weird to have guys making lots of money who aren’t that good?
Which baseball are you fllowing.
Baseball has a huge majority of ‘over paid’ players – an entire category usually called relief pitchers…
by jemagee on May 19, 2010 9:54 AM PDT up reply actions
Baseball doesn’t have a cap though, so it’s not as important.
"College is only 4 years, but the Eagles are for life." - Ironhank
by Scott Kessler on May 19, 2010 9:56 AM PDT up reply actions
Well now you’re changing the point
And baseball has a tax – and very few teams agree to go over that number and pay the tax
by jemagee on May 19, 2010 10:03 AM PDT up reply actions
But when you have a numbered ceiling and someone you don’t even consider good takes up, lets say 10% of that ceiling, it’s more identifiable than a pitcher in baseball (I’m looking at you Adam Eaton) .
"College is only 4 years, but the Eagles are for life." - Ironhank
by Scott Kessler on May 19, 2010 10:12 AM PDT up reply actions
Over paid is over paid, whether you have a cap or not…the point is that there are a whole lot of over paid baseball players (Hello Derek jeter, Hello Jason Varitek, Hello Raul Ibanez) so to say you pay attention to the NFL and baseball more than basketball and say there are ‘more’ over paid players in basketball – how exactly should I take that when I believe it’s just a false statement that’s not supportable
by jemagee on May 19, 2010 10:19 AM PDT up reply actions
There’s a distinct difference between pay in a capped league and a non-capped league. Baseball gives the ability for teams to spend as much as they wish (sans the luxury tax). Basketball holds you accountable for every single move you make and that’s why it is so hard for teams to get out of the bottom.
"College is only 4 years, but the Eagles are for life." - Ironhank
by Scott Kessler on May 19, 2010 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions
I’m not arguing that. I’m arguing why even though Sammy D is paid an “average” salary for his talent/position level, it’s still seen as overpaid.
"College is only 4 years, but the Eagles are for life." - Ironhank
by Scott Kessler on May 19, 2010 11:34 AM PDT up reply actions
It’s seen as over paid because it’s the mem that he’s been over paid since he signed the contract (close to five years ago) and it’s easier to say ’he’s over paid’ still then to look at the facts.
Again
Curry
Chandler
Dalembert
all signed the same contract – which player (including health) played up to it the best?
by jemagee on May 19, 2010 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions
Again, that’s not what I’m arguing. I’ll just cede to you because it’s not going to go anyway. Agree to disagree.
"College is only 4 years, but the Eagles are for life." - Ironhank
by Scott Kessler on May 19, 2010 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions
Actually I agreed that it’s seen as over paid
but what is seen and what is true isn’t the same thing
Let’s take baseball which you claim to foloow much more closely – everyone talks about the yankees ‘buying’ titles because they have the highest payroll – and yet they have one title in the last, what, 10 years? But the meme exists that they are evil and buying championships even though the fact is they aren’t.
by jemagee on May 19, 2010 12:01 PM PDT up reply actions
What is seen is the ESPN truth.
^^Fact of life in today’s sports world.
"College is only 4 years, but the Eagles are for life." - Ironhank
by Scott Kessler on May 19, 2010 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, seel, that’s where you’re wrong. Just like the electorate (or american idol voters) the majority chooses to accept what they are told – that doesn’t make it truth – it just makes the majority lazy and stupid.
And as the saying goes, fat dumb and stupid is no way to go through life.
If one believes that ESPN is the truth – one should sterilize themselves, solves over population so fast
by jemagee on May 19, 2010 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions
I smiled at the last part of your comment. Can’t agree more.
"College is only 4 years, but the Eagles are for life." - Ironhank
by Scott Kessler on May 19, 2010 12:21 PM PDT up reply actions
And baseball has a tax – and very few teams agree to go over that number and pay the tax
Too be fair, that’s because the tax is so high that it only really effects the Yankees. It’s estimated to be at $170 million this year.
And the red sox usually pay
and most teams operate on a self imposed cap – it’s called a budget – salary caps are anti competetive and pro stupidity
by jemagee on May 19, 2010 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions
And I personally don’t care one way or the other, i applaud MLB for not having a salary cap – mayve their revenue sharing is a mess because there is so much more money in ‘local rights’ than there are for the other sports – but i hate salary caps – all they really do is prevent owners from making stupid mistakes too much – it’s anti competetive, it’s freaking socialism
by jemagee on May 19, 2010 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions
I was happy with Cousins at #4. Now at two….I really don’t know btwn Cousins or Turner. They need scoring, as the stats say they were 22nd in the league in PPG. Turner provides that, but I think defense wins championships. Personally, I think Cousins is the pick, but I wouldn’t be unhappy about taking Turner. I just like the intensity that Cousins plays with. And the fact that the sixers have a bunch of big men that are considered “soft” in my opinion, Cousins would be a nice change of pace from them. Again, I am happy with either Cousins or Turner. Wouldn’t really be happy with Favors, as he seems more of a project, reminds me of Speights. But I will be honest, I have the least knowledge on Favors.
" Favors, as he seems more of a project, reminds me of Speights"
You said it, not me. What’s more, you also stated that you have the “least knowledge on Favors.”
I agree in that Favors seems more of a project, but he projects to be much, much better than Speights. Thus, I would never compare him to Speights.
huh?
what ‘other player’ would we pick? My point was before we would take a someone else, we’d trade the pick instead.
by sf drift king on May 18, 2010 9:45 PM PDT up reply actions
Please to be explaining to us then – i re-watched F&F 3 and still am clueless
by jemagee on May 19, 2010 5:28 PM PDT up reply actions
I think he’s saying that if the Sixers were to opt to draft someone other than Turner, ie. the “Someone Else” option, then the front office should plan to “trade the pick”. I think. I am curious as to how many bong hits it took to spit that out and assume that other people would have any clue as to what he was talking about.
Just to make it clear, did you think watching the fast and the furious would help you come to a conclusion about this and why? This is such a confusing thread.
'other player'
Hassan Whiteside; guy will be a starter in the league for years. Hassan is a super value in this draft. I think we sould trade to get back into the draft to get Whiteside to be that ‘other player’.
I cannot believe we are going to get Turner. Happy day for 76ers fans!
First up, aawww yeah Baby!
There’s an interview with Ed Stefanski on the Sixers website after the draft lottery. It’s not always easy to read in to peoples thought processes from such interviews, but it certainly read like Stefanski might be higher on Derrick Favors than Evan Turner. It’s a little interesting that DeMarcus Cousins wasn’t mentioned in the interview.
I voted for Evan Turner becuase he’s a ready to contribute now talent on both ends of the court.
Will the Wizards pass on Wall?
I can’t see the Wizards passing on John Wall.
Will the Sixers take Turner, Favors, or Cousins?
I’m not going to try and guess. It depends on who Stefanski and Tony Dileo thinks is the best talent. I’m not sure if they’re going to look at the team mid to long term and factor this in to thier decision.
Will the Sixers trade the pick?
Oh, I hope not.
What does this mean for Andre Iguodala?
Again, who knows. Untill the pick is made, it’s not worth speculating about it right know.
What does this mean – if anything – for the ongoing coaching search?
According to Stefanski, nothing.
Will Ed Stefanski remain the GM?
Probably for atleast one more season. No ones really discussed, or brought up any names as a possiblereplacement.
EPSN just had us taking Wesley Johnson at #2.
Ewwwwwwwwww.
"College is only 4 years, but the Eagles are for life." - Ironhank
They did one of those “we’ll have two analysts talk about a draft, in front of a big TV screen that is touch screen and they will move names and talk about teams picking said names.”
They only did the top there:
(1) John Wall – Washington Wizards
(2) Wesley Johnson – Philadelphia 76ers
(3) Derrick Favors – New Jersey Nets
First off, how do we take Johnson over Turner and Favors?
Secondly, Turner falls out of the top three?
Third, they said the Nets need athletic, big time front court help… so why not Demarcus Cousins?
"College is only 4 years, but the Eagles are for life." - Ironhank
by Scott Kessler on May 19, 2010 11:33 AM PDT up reply actions
On Sportscenter
"College is only 4 years, but the Eagles are for life." - Ironhank
by Scott Kessler on May 19, 2010 11:33 AM PDT up reply actions
I was waiting for them to put Evan Turner up for us and it didn’t happen :(
"College is only 4 years, but the Eagles are for life." - Ironhank
by Scott Kessler on May 19, 2010 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions
I hate doug gottleib – but those big touch screen toys on ESPN and CNN – I want one
by jemagee on May 19, 2010 11:35 AM PDT reply actions
It’s nice to discuss who would be the better fit for the Sixers, Turner or Cousins, but at the end of the day, all the hours spent on here by certain individuals debating players really is a waiste of time.
Untill the Sixers make thier choice on draft day, there’s really nothing to get bent out of shape about.
I find it interesting that many people here had Derrick Favors ranked third on thier Big Boards, yet there is no mention of his name as a possible selection with the second pick.
I’d like to hear from Derek Bodner on who he projects to be the better long term player, Turner, Favors or Cousins. And which player would be the better long pick for the Sixers.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Liberty Ballers
Related FanShots on Liberty Ballers
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
