Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Shaq As Orlando Magic General Manager? Don't Bet On It

Sixers 2011-12 Season: What's Wrong with Realism?

Things have gotten rather heated in the comments section lately, mostly in regards to the 2011-12 Philadelphia 76ers season previews Jordan and I posted this past week. Jordan went company man and waxed about the intrigue of the coming season, keeping a very grounded approach as to what he was expecting. I, meanwhile, brought the Existential Angst Hammer (TM) down on the coming seasons without remorse and got a few people riled up in the comments section.

The discussion will last us at least the rest of the season and possibly a lifetime so I wanted to continue it here rather than back in the archives. There are a number of facts that all of us can agree on and some that seem to be philosophical differences in the way we think about basketball than how we assess the current team. I'd like to lay those out quickly here, after the jump.

Star-divide

Truths
  1. The Sixers are going to make the playoffs this season.
  2. The Sixers could potentially win a playoff series, but nothing more.
  3. Currently, the roster does not have an offensive superstar or a dominant big man.
  4. Because of Truth #3, the team has a hard time scoring in the half court.

Now here's where it gets fuzzy.

Points of Contention

  1. The Realists believe that #3 means they have no chance at winning a championship with this roster so finishing with a record slightly above .500 (as all of us generally predict) just means they'll continue to be mediocre. Meanwhile, the Optimists cherish every win and see that as an indicator that they are improving and will eventually contend for a title because of those improvements.
  2. As a young team, the Optimists think some of the players (Jrue Holiday, Evan Turner, Thaddeus Young) will become superstars and attract free agents to sign here. The Realists, on the other hand, see the team still in the hands of Andre Iguodala and Elton Brand as the cheap early primes of the young guard are wasted in cap inflexibility.
  3. The Realists see every win as an indicator that the team will happily (dumbly) continue to re-sign their players to retain mediocrity while the Optimists see wins as value boosters to Iguodala and Brand as assets that make them more moveable on the open market.
  4. The intention of each NBA team should be to win a championship. Realists see that to mean everything short of that is failure and teams should therefore always be building to that. Optimists enjoy making the playoffs and as long as the team is competitive, they are happy.
  5. The Realists enjoy basketball. The Optimists don't think the Realists enjoy basketball.

Have I covered most of it? Let's get a reasonable discussion going that addresses the cap inflexibility, the lack of a superstar here, and whether or not teams should be going championship or bust. There's a lot to cover and we'll be butting heads on the most basic of competitive fandom, but I think it'll be a good exercise in defending your point and understanding where the other side is coming from.

Or it'll create a Liberty Ballers Civil War, in which case I have dibs on being General Sherman.

Comment 49 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

I’m an optimist. I want to see the team win. I think the team was really close to doing some really good things last year, as evidenced by their pythagorean wins (45) and their record in games decided by 3 or less points (3-8). A couple of things go different ways (they were in all but one of those games against the Heat) and we’re talking about an up and coming team in the East. I think they should have traded Andre for Monta Ellis to get that closing scoring punch, and it is definitely possible for Turner to become an all-star (let’s not forget many people thought he could be the #1 pick 2 years ago). So what does that make me? Contradictory? IDK.

by mrprice33 on Dec 28, 2011 1:50 PM PST reply actions  

I appreciate the statistical bits, and I agree with you on some of your points. But this won’t win you many supporters around here:

I think they should have traded Andre for Monta Ellis

And I don’t think Turner becomes the player he can become (“All-Star” doesn’t substantiate anything) until Andre is gone. And not for Ellis either. Glorified Lou, we’ve proven.

by Michael Levin on Dec 28, 2011 2:03 PM PST up reply actions  

Gotta love inefficiency…

"They say that nobody is perfect. Then they tell you practice makes perfect. I wish they'd make up their minds." - Wilt Chamberlain

by soman319 on Dec 28, 2011 2:09 PM PST up reply actions  

Monta Ellis + Dong Shots = Championship

xEgan on Twitter

by xEgan on Dec 28, 2011 3:12 PM PST up reply actions  

That was a really thorough analysis. I see the error of my thinking for sure.

With regards to the team going forward, I think every team has windows where they can jump up out of mediocrity to become a contender. The Clippers just took their opportunity, the Heat did last year, and I feel as though the Sixers chance will come in the next 2/3 years as they decide what to do with the Iguodala and Brand contracts. By then the core of the team (Holiday, Williams, Turner, Young) will still all be under 28 (Lou will be the oldest) and entering their professional primes. There could be opportunities to make a big free agent signing (like the Brand signing a few years ago) and make the leap. Or, like the Brand signing, they’ll make a mistake/get unlucky and slip back down.

by mrprice33 on Dec 29, 2011 7:16 AM PST up reply actions  

No thank you to Ellis

"Great, I got that "excited/scared" feeling. Like 98% excited, 2% scared. Or maybe it's more - It could be two - it could be 98% scared, 2% excited but that's what makes it so intense."

-Armageddon

by flyrman57 on Dec 31, 2011 4:29 PM PST via mobile up reply actions  

Disagree. The discussion is not just with Mike, nor is it a guessing game on how MIke really feels. If you have read this blog long enough you would already know where he stands. However, the differences between the two stances are intriguing enough (at least in my opinion) where they can be debated and there is enough room for convincing others on particular matters.

"If Iguodala were a legitimate "true" 17 PPG scorer, we’d be a better team. When at least 8 of those points come off the fast break, his true offensive production is a reality: 8-11 PPG." - LeQuan Glover

by jefu on Dec 28, 2011 3:35 PM PST up reply actions  

When you already label a point of you view that happens to be yours as being that of a realist

it changes things a little. All of a sudden those with a different view aren’t living in the real. It slants the entire conversation. Look, I actually agree with the “realist” or Michael’s point of view. I am also not guessing it, he often lays it out quite bluntly.

by wallywagon11 on Dec 28, 2011 4:31 PM PST up reply actions  

I tend to disagree, in general, with the idea of reading too deeply into labels. The two sides discussed in this post have been summarized well and have long been debated here. Whether one was labeled as `realist` or `optimist` is irrelevant in my opinion. I believe most of the regulars on here knew this as well.

"If Iguodala were a legitimate "true" 17 PPG scorer, we’d be a better team. When at least 8 of those points come off the fast break, his true offensive production is a reality: 8-11 PPG." - LeQuan Glover

by jefu on Dec 28, 2011 5:52 PM PST up reply actions  

This is one of the greatest things I've ever read in this type of forum.

Realists unite. Optimists make a case, but ultimately be wrong. The grass is greener on acknowledging weaknesses and addressing them side.

by saveourbluths on Dec 28, 2011 1:54 PM PST reply actions  

The last word

I agree with Wally. I think you’ve summarized well the points on which we all agree, covered the basic points on which we disagree [albeit with self-serving labels], rendering further discussion unnecessary.

Still, glad for the forum – and to be watching Sixers basketball again.

by Toney2Turner on Dec 28, 2011 2:14 PM PST reply actions  

I prefer being General Grant...

…he was drunk all the time, and still managed to kick everyone’s butt. Gotta like that.

I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, there will be no trade for Monta!

by dweebowitz on Dec 28, 2011 2:45 PM PST reply actions  

“The intention of each NBA team should be to win a championship.”
I’m not sure if this is just me making a minor distinction, but I feel that the intention should be to put a team in a position to win championships for a long period of time. Thus, not win a championship, but multiple ones, or at least to be a championship-caliber team for several years.

by philsandthrills on Dec 28, 2011 2:52 PM PST reply actions  

I can agree. Either way you slice it, this Sixers team isn’t currently built for a championship run now or for multiple years.

by Michael Levin on Dec 28, 2011 2:54 PM PST up reply actions  

My stand:

If we blow up the team and keep guys like Jrue, Turner, etc. I dont think we will be bad enough to hit rock bottom and pick up a #1-#3 lottery pick. This could keep us bottom feeders for a long time.
By being a winning team, we could look more attractive to free agents, but this is doubtful as we are not a proven team.
My hope is that we stay afloat long enough to where Iguodala and Brands contracts expire and we have enough cap flexibility to really make a push at either free agents or trades with other teams to pick up the necessary pieces. While doing so, we remain a winning team that is fun to watch. If this fails, we blow up everything and start again.

This is what happens when you have guys who are really talented, but not talented enough to win a championship. This is not their fault. Rather, it is completely on the GM and new ownership to figure out a plan on how to bring a championship to Philly.

"If Iguodala were a legitimate "true" 17 PPG scorer, we’d be a better team. When at least 8 of those points come off the fast break, his true offensive production is a reality: 8-11 PPG." - LeQuan Glover

by jefu on Dec 28, 2011 3:33 PM PST reply actions  

This pretty much sums up my point of view.

"Great, I got that "excited/scared" feeling. Like 98% excited, 2% scared. Or maybe it's more - It could be two - it could be 98% scared, 2% excited but that's what makes it so intense."

-Armageddon

by flyrman57 on Dec 31, 2011 4:33 PM PST via mobile up reply actions  

The realist point of view you present is a narrow minded way of building a contender. You’re basically saying the only way to become great is through the draft. It is a way to build a great team, but not the only way.

Take a look at the teams that contended last year. In the East you had Chicago, Boston and Miami. Chicago got extremely lucky and got the number one pick with the 8th best odds – I think? Other than Rose their team isn’t made up of lottery talent. We don’t even need to discuss Miami or Boston.

In the West you had Dallas, LA, SA and OKC. Dallas has had a steady build up of great teams, built around a guy picked 9th and an owner who’s willing to shell out the money for a winner. LA is built around a guy picked 13th and raped other teams via trade. SA had a tank year and got a lucky ping pong ball. And then you have OKC – the team who I can assume is your model of success. A team who sucked for years on end and amassed elite talent through the draft.

So out of the seven teams who had a reasonable shot last year, you have three teams who it can be said built a team your way. Two of which got elite talent from single fluke years.

Elite teams are built around elite players and getting other elite players to come play with them. Granted, the draft is a way to do this, but its not the only way. It also deserves to be said that the sixers have players (Jrue and Turner) that could become elite building blocks, but there’s no guarantee they will.

I think people get pissed when it’s presented to them that this year will just be pointless – Just another year of marginal improvement. We’ve all experienced a lost year all too recently. And we got a lucky ping pong ball out of it. No one wants to hear that we should do that again.

Teams fortunes can change overnight through trades or free agent signings or extreme player development. Just take a look at 6 of the 7 contenders from last year.

by mopey on Dec 28, 2011 3:34 PM PST reply actions  

To win a championship you need:

1. 3 guys that are top 8 in the NBA at their position
2. Great Defense (interior and perimeter)
3. Great bench

Name me any championship team that didn’t have those things.

by mopey on Dec 28, 2011 3:47 PM PST up reply actions  

I can’t speak for Mike but I’ll share my opinions on what I think are similar beliefs.

The realist point of view you present is a narrow minded way of building a contender. You’re basically saying the only way to become great is through the draft. It is a way to build a great team, but not the only way.

While there are different ways to make a championship contender, I don’t think there’s any realistic way for these current Sixers to become a contender outside of the draft. The key is to get at least one superstar player and it doesn’t seam realistic to acquire one through free agency or through trade as the Sixers are currently constructed.

While you said that we don’t need to discuss Miami or Boston I don’t think it’s fair to exclude them in the discussion. Miami won a championship built around a 5th overall pick in a deep draft. They were able to attract other free agents because of this player that they drafted.

Boston took an obviously different route but they still used the draft in a way. Ray Allen was acquired in a package that involved the 5th overall draft pick as the main piece. Garnett was acquired with a future almost sure lottery pick (which happened to be Minnesota’s own pick).

Dallas and LA were pretty lucky to get their superstars. Dirk was a Euro draft picks before Euros were widely accepted as high draft picks. Kobe fell in the draft because he refused to play for anyone but LA or Philly (and LA was the only team that had a reasonable chance to acquire him). He was also the first ever high school guard to be drafted so he was also uncharted territory. Even when you go by the fact that they didn’t get these players at the very top of the draft, the fact is that almost every one of these contenders got a superstar from the draft.

And then you have OKC – the team who I can assume is your model of success.

I wouldn’t call then the model but they are one good team to emulate. It only took them one season after trading Allen and Rashard Lewis to get the 2nd overall pick. Then one more bad season to get Westbrook. But they’ve done a good job in all of their picks and transactions.

Elite teams are built around elite players and getting other elite players to come play with them. Granted, the draft is a way to do this, but its not the only way.

But how are we going to get this talent through any other means? We’re not New York (or a team soon to be moving to Brooklyn) and we’re not in a warm weather location. We do not have a superstar to lure other superstars. Our only real trading assets are Iguodala and Holiday, neither of which would make sense to trade away if we were going to try to become a contender.

I think people get pissed when it’s presented to them that this year will just be pointless – Just another year of marginal improvement.

I think the “realists” are equally pissed. I know I am. I don’t want to have a team that isn’t playing for anything but an empty win total. At least when I’m watching the Phillies and Eagles (and I assume the Flyers but I don’t watch hockey) I know the team has a shot to contend for the title. If a championship is your only goal as a fan then this season is pretty pointless. The only thing we have is hoping for improvement of the young players so that when/if we can actually acquire that star player he’ll have a nice group to play with.

Teams fortunes can change overnight through trades or free agent signings or extreme player development. Just take a look at 6 of the 7 contenders from last year.

Six of which, as I pointed out, got a superstar player from the draft.

by yosoysean on Dec 28, 2011 4:34 PM PST up reply actions  

I think the whole point of the “realist” way of thinking is that the team has no future if it keeps going in the direction that it’s currently going. The draft isn’t the only way to change this. If they could somehow acquire a star through other means then it would definitely be welcomed. Winning 40-50 games and maintaining status quo is seen as the worst possible thing the franchise can do.

by yosoysean on Dec 28, 2011 4:44 PM PST up reply actions  

Sean is much, much better at saying things than I am. This is probably unfortunate for me. I love Sean.

by Michael Levin on Dec 28, 2011 6:07 PM PST up reply actions  

Guess I would be a realist only because I am not convinced that the roster that we have can win a championship. I’d like to see Andre and Elton go. Andre to be traded for a young PF or/and picks that could pick up a PF. If there were some way to keep Andre, Jrue, Turner and a very good big man the let’s do that. It’s time to make some kind of move since the current way is 41-41 with a quick playoff exit. I want championship.

I’d be OK seeing this team lose if it’s able to gather the peices to contend in 3 seasons later. I can agree that the lottery isn’t the ultimate way of doing things but Sixers can’t sign a big time player and the players taking up the money that the team has won’t really return a worthwhile asset, unless it’s from a bad team where a lottery pick would land in the top 5 spots. But that team wouldn’t trade that pick away for Iguodala, which is the team’s best trade piece. In this situation, the draft is the best option.

Just my opinion.

Dante Nelson-Staff Writer at "The Sixer Sense" and "Hardcourt Mayhem"
Follow on Twitter @Dantewrites

by Dalanel on Dec 28, 2011 4:30 PM PST reply actions  

Go easy on me here, I'm somewhat of a casual Sixers fan:

Back when the lockout had just ended, I joked that I was glad the Sixers were back because they guarantee me mediocrity: unlike the Eagles/Phillies/Flyers, who get my hopes up for title contention and fall short.

I don’t consider myself extremely informed on the NBA/Sixers, so I can’t pretend like I know what would fix the Sixers. That said, I don’t think the Sixers are anywhere NEAR competing for a NBA title anytime soon. Hopefully, with the new ownership in place, they’re starting to head in that direction, but I’m not so sure.

I like the youth on this team. I like Doug Collins. I don’t like that we’re paying big $ to players that aren’t true superstars (Iguodala, Brand). From what I’ve read on this site, the “tanking” method seems like a more legitimate way to build a team. Build through the draft. I don’t have a problem with losing for losses if they, in the greater picture, actually help the team. But that’s no fun, right? Losses suck. I think the optimists have a fair case for their argument, but I don’t agree with it ultimately. Unfortunately, though, I think I have to say I’m a realist and hope this team doesn’t do well (and in order to do so, trade away some of our “good” players) so that they can build through the draft.


Writer at Iggles Nest
#HireSpags

by PhiladelphiaEagles on Dec 28, 2011 4:49 PM PST reply actions  

Sorry but this is pretty smug dude.

by jrb5094 on Dec 28, 2011 5:35 PM PST reply actions  

In a vacuum, yes, but when you factor in the reality of the NBA as a whole, it`s not.

"If Iguodala were a legitimate "true" 17 PPG scorer, we’d be a better team. When at least 8 of those points come off the fast break, his true offensive production is a reality: 8-11 PPG." - LeQuan Glover

by jefu on Dec 28, 2011 5:53 PM PST up reply actions  

Refreshing Discussion

I’m so glad to have found this blog community a few days ago. The Internet is now saving me from the purgatory of listening to knuckle-head callers constantly take turns saying, “Fire Andy Reid!…Iguodala sucks!”

The reason I mention this is because Mike and Jordan’s columns were BOTH convincing and intriguing. I found both perspectives to be based on sound reasoning and insight.

This notion is what I loved about the discussion. This is not a world of “blacks and whites.” Realizing the reality of both is what enables us to see the shades of gray. So let’s all keep this fine discussion alive…both without being talking heads like Cataldi.

P.S. Mike, it’s ok to label oneself a pessimist. Calling yourself a “realist” only serves to cheapen and depreciate your opinions.

by Blunt Philly Guy on Dec 28, 2011 6:17 PM PST via iPhone app reply actions  

I went the pessimist rout last week. Figured this way I wouldn’t scare off people who didn’t want to read a negative article about their Sixers.

by Michael Levin on Dec 28, 2011 11:09 PM PST up reply actions  

The Sixers are a prime example of why the NBA has become dull

we all know that there is no chance the Sixers will win a championship with this team. The Sixers are a “filler” team to provide a little bit of competition to the teams that have paid big money to get superstars. I am a casual NBA fan and don’t tend to pay much attention until midseason but it doesn’t take a genius to know that the Clippers, Thunder. Lakers or Mavericks will win the west and the Heat, Knicks, Celtics or Magic will win the East. The NFL, NHL and even baseball are much more entertaining because almost anybody can win. Teams like the Kings and Bobcats have less than zero chance and the Sixers have zero chance.

Cowboys suck.

by stinkypants on Dec 28, 2011 6:24 PM PST reply actions  

Substitute the Magic with the Bulls in the above comment, and you’re pretty much dead on, though I’d be willing to bet the deed on the house that I don’t own that the Knicks won’t make the finals.

The only other thing that I would question is this: When was the afore mentioned “state of the union” not the case in the NBA? If anything, there are actually more teams that are contenders now than there were in previous years. In the 80’s, it was the Lakers and Celtics. 90’s was the Jazz, Lakers, Bulls, Pistons, Rockets, Knicks and Pacers. Anyone else? Keep in mind that with those lists we’re talking about an entire decade, as plenty of those teams in the 90’s list weren’t viable at some point during that time span. Also, as a side note, I’m sure that there were other viable teams in the 80’s, but I was born in 1983 so I’m certainly not an expert on 80’s basketball.

by The Crooked Man on Dec 28, 2011 7:07 PM PST up reply actions  

I’d rather replace the Knicks than the Magic.

by yosoysean on Dec 28, 2011 7:12 PM PST up reply actions  

Clearly you’re not an expert on 80’s basketball or you would have included the 76ers who won in 1983 and were battling it out with the Celts for the first half of the decade…

by Vince1129 on Dec 29, 2011 5:37 AM PST up reply actions  

I’m not sure how realistic anyone is when their expectations are for championships. It’s as though they think that if the owners were really slick and drafted the right way and got the better of their trade with other teams that we’d be the ones with titles.

There are 30 teams in the NBA all with dreams of filling their ceiling rafters with banners commemorating year after year of Division and Conference Titles and NBA Championships. All playing by the same basic rules, some with a lot more revenue and deep pockets than others.

Realistically, you want your team to be above average, more entertaining and more successful than the other guys. Your proud of your Sixers, but you wish they had success like the Lakers, who have managed to stay relevant almost every year since they met the Sixers in the Finals.

Can’t do anything about the past, so you want them to become like the Lakers have been NOW. It doesn’t work that way, everyone who made a trade had some gimmick like former Laker Jerry West peddling Pau Gasol, or Ex-Celtic Kevin McHale giving Boston Garnett. Miami got away easy, lots of players want to play with Flash.

The Sixers don’t have Flash. Iguodala is a nice player, and Howard likes him, but probably not enough to come to Philly. Every team is trying to assemble a championship club and what they have in common is hoping and praying that somehow they get the next Tim Duncan, or Olajuwon or Shaq. In other words they have talent, but not all the pieces.

There’s no way to know who that player will be or how the Sixers will get him or if they can manage to have the top pick in the year when that player comes out. That’s what makes a great team, having that pick in the right year- some team has to get that pick and it makes all the difference for that franchise as long as that player is at the top of their game, like Kobe or Wade. That’s realism for you, it’s almost as hard as winning the lottery is for any of us.

It’s too early to know how good the new owners will be. We all know who they have and what they are and are not. There’s nothing we can do about it except try to enjoy what we have and argue about which moves we could have made and should have made. If you are only a fan when your team has a realistic chance at winning it all, most of the time your going to be an unhappy sports fan. If you want to see a team build, first you need that superstar to built around. It was great to watch the Sixers try to construct a team around Iverson.

You want the Sixers in a Championship sooner, figure out a way to get Dwight Howard out of Orlando.

by RickoT on Dec 28, 2011 8:46 PM PST reply actions  

No one is expecting a championship. All I ask is that we have a team that can be in the discussion as a team that is competing for one. The goal should be a championship. The problem is that it appears like the goal of the team is much smaller in scale at the moment.

by yosoysean on Dec 29, 2011 3:04 AM PST up reply actions  

Even that isn’t realistic. At most there are 10 teams in the discussion that can be seen as legitimate competitors.

Yes, the goal should be a championship, but you should also have a philosophy or a MO that you practice to improve your team year over year no matter where you draft.

1. Always select the most talented player, but draft for need. In other words don’t draft a small forward when you need a center.

2. Try to stockpile talent, develop your players to their maximum potential and build a team that can win games.

3. Once you amass enough talent, you look to fill the holes, or replace the weak links. Jodi Meeks is not a starting NBA 2-guard, this is something the team should be able to address right away with little difficulty. Aren’t there a lot of unemployed free agents out there better than Jodi. WTF!

4. You know you have talent when other teams start coming to you asking about them. In other words, don’t b.s. yourself. Don’t worry about what they want, worry about how your long term goal to win a Championship is affected by the trade. If you know what you need to add, that shouldn’t be a problem.

That’s how I would run a franchise and how I think the fans would want me to. I don’t tank, unless I’m already really bad. I try to put a decent team out every year knowing full well that unless I got real lucky, I have an incomplete team without all the parts and some parts that aren’t as good as the other teams. I get a coach who tries to hide the weaknesses and enhance the strengths and we get what we get.

I think the Sixers are on the right track, finally getting a good teaching coach to teach these young talented players how to play and to evaluate them. I think they have a good talent level and are relatively young, with two older stars a year away from expiring contracts. That appears to be a good direction to me, even if we won’t see immediate results. As a fan, other than the 2 guard situation, I think the Sixers are doing as well as can be expected.

by RickoT on Dec 29, 2011 10:10 AM PST up reply actions  

Good points, but they contradict

Point #1 contradicts directly with point #3 and indirectly with point #2…

by Vince1129 on Dec 29, 2011 10:48 AM PST up reply actions  

Optimist point of view?

I don’t really know where to classify myself, but here’s where I see the Sixers going in the next 3 or so years and reasons why I think they should go this way instead of tanking.

1. Jrue and Evan emerge into a great backcourt duo and become mainstays of the sixers backcourt for the next decade as they are both incredibly young and will grow together. Tanking will likely mean they are not playing well and/or might hinder their growth as we’ve seen with other teams (see: Clippers any year pre 2010). These two become our main reason as to why a superstar (not all star) center/big man want to come here, in addition to having tons of cash with the departures of Andre/Elton…

2. Trading away Andre/Elton for nothing (which is what the NBA is offering) will not help the young talent mentioned in point 1 grow into the players they can become. I do not think that Evan/Jrue are ready to completely carry this team until the start of the 2013-2014 season when Jrue has already become a perennial all-star and Evan is coming off of an all-star appearance in his 3rd year of the league.

3. Everyone makes the case that we don’t have the huge amounts of money to go after free-agents, well that’s because we used it all on Elton and annointed him our 20/10 king that would take us to contention…Well that didn’t happen folks and until 2013 we won’t have him off our books in order to spend like NY on a guy that would play here for Elton’s inflated salary. With Dre/EB off of our books, and still cheap young talent like ET/JH we could throw some huge cash piles at 1-2 big name guys and get them to come here for the money, the big key will be developing our talent into so people want to come play here with them.

I’m not saying it’s a fail safe plan, but the draft is an absolute crapshoot get rich quick scheme that didn’t work for a lot of teams. So many more teams have tanked in order to get a high draft pick and either pick a bust, or there not be a deep draft pool, or not even get the draft pick because of the wrong lottery bounce that no one here seems to mention it is incredible the benign neglect in overlooking those failed franchises that have floundered at the bottom of the league like a fish out of water. The way we are built as a team with DC at coach and the players right now we are building for the future that is a year or two away and stay patient and steadily climb the ranks.

by Vince1129 on Dec 29, 2011 6:03 AM PST reply actions  

hey "realists"

Do you know what is unrealistic? The idea that losing ever makes your team better. Losing is bad for a team, it decreases interest from fans, the media, and potential players. While Elton Brand’s contract does kill our cap flexibility, waiving him to sign (who was good and wanted to sign here this offseason? tell me when you have some names) another player that could be had at his salary would have done very little. Not to mention we still have Andres Nocioni’s awful contract riding the very end of the bench. We shed Nocioni’s contract and Brand’s contract and don’t foolishly throw away a player in his prime, and we could have a great team.
Realistically, the Sixers right now are a team that will be well-positioned to make the right kind of deals and attract the right kind of players to become a contender in 2012-13. Giving away Iguodala for nothing and having a losing season will not help the Sixers accomplish that goal. Losing is always bad for a team, unless they win the draft lottery and are lucky enough to pick a player who can produce in the NBA at a superstar level. There are maybe 3 of those players per year and there’s no assurance the Sixers would get one of them.

by Dan Pearson on Dec 30, 2011 10:30 AM PST reply actions  

I haven't commented on this in the past couple of days but this is my point of view:

The Ownership:
The Sixers now have new owners who just spend several hundred million dollars to buy the team. All of their promotional actions show their goal is to attract more fans back to the Sixers and make money on their brand new investment. Making the playoffs every year and staying competitive accomplishes that for them.

The Coach:
Doug Collins has made moves last season in terms of playing players for wins over development at times. From everything he has said and done shows he plans on improving this team and thinks they can be real competitors. He also plans on keeping players like Iguodala around who could be a good trade asset for rebuilding.

The Team:
This team is a young, athletic, and competitive team who should make the playoffs as high as a 5 seed. Jrue looks like he is a player who could be great and is already really good. Turner was a second overall pick who could be a player like Iguodala and has a lot of potential. Lou Williams is a BOSS who can be a source of scoring off the bench, but take a lot of shots. Thad is a raw mismatch scorer of the bench who has potential but needs to improve his jumpshots, defense, and rebounding. Brand is aging and isn’t going to be here more than the rest of his contract. Meeks is a nice shooter but that is it. Finally, Hawes and Vuc are unathletic centers who aren’t to be relied on for rebounding or defense, and can provide some offensive support (as long as they don’t take those stupid jumpshots). This team has no superstar, and isn’t going to improve to the point of being a title contender. This team is a big man and a star away from becoming a title contender.

Summing It Up:
The ownership wants fans in the seats, the coach wants to win with this team, and this team is several pieces away from achieving anything more than the playoffs. This all points to the team continuing on with being good enough to make the playoffs and that’s it. This will result in drafting in the middle of the draft, which is not where superstars are drafted. Not much is gonna change. I don’t think that it is necessarily good or bad, just is. I am just going to be a fan and try to enjoy the experience. I don’t know if I am an optimist, pesimist, realist, or whatever. I am just going to enjoy the Sixers with the guys from the Liberty Ballers.

"Great, I got that "excited/scared" feeling. Like 98% excited, 2% scared. Or maybe it's more - It could be two - it could be 98% scared, 2% excited but that's what makes it so intense."

-Armageddon

by flyrman57 on Dec 31, 2011 5:02 PM PST via mobile reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools


Editor

Morris_small Jordan Sams

Sharone_wright_sixers_small Michael Levin

Associate Editor

Lourdre2_small Tanner Steidel

Twitter_small Derek Bodner

Contributor

Autographed-photo-ben-rivera-phillies1_05ba981348520854b79233eacee8eeee_small Dave Rueter