OT: Philadelphia 76ers:

[Jtown]

It was a great deal, the dropoff between Fultz (the only sure thing in this draft) and everyone else was substantial, and Fultz is the perfect fit for the Sixers. That's certainly worth #2-5 in either draft. Not every high draft pick pans out, Turner, Jah, even Noel at #6 turned out to be a good but limited player.

It's no different than trading up to get Nico in this draft, NJ would certainly demand a top 3 or 4 pick in this draft plus a top pick in next year's draft at a minimum.

there are no sure things in any draft and fultz is a far cry from those were closest such as anthony davis , kyrie, and lebron

 

[JojoTheWhale]

there are no sure things in any draft and fultz is a far cry from those were closest such as anthony davis , kyrie, and lebron

You're putting Irving in the same breath as those two?!

If you don't think Fultz is a step above, that's fine. What's your problem with his game? Just please don't tell me it's because of anything relating to Washington as a team.

 

[Jack de la Hoya]

It was a great deal, the dropoff between Fultz (the only sure thing in this draft) and everyone else was substantial, and Fultz is the perfect fit for the Sixers. That's certainly worth #2-5 in either draft. Not every high draft pick pans out, Turner, Jah, even Noel at #6 turned out to be a good but limited player.

It's no different than trading up to get Nico in this draft, NJ would certainly demand a top 3 or 4 pick in this draft plus a top pick in next year's draft at a minimum.

I don't know. It seems to me that the #2 pick in each of the next two drafts (say, for argument's sake, Doncic and Williamson) could quite easily be seen as more valuable than Fultz by themselves, let alone once you consider who the Sixers would have picked at #3.

You're putting Irving in the same breath as those two?!

If you don't think Fultz is a step above, that's fine. What's your problem with his game? Just please don't tell me it's because of anything relating to Washington as a team.

I think he's saying that they were clear-cut consensus #1s in their respective years, not that Fultz is comparable to them.

 

[deadhead]

Plus, what are the odds the Lakers end up #2 next year?
Or Sacramento in the top 5 in 2019.

Sure, there's always the possibility the Sixers might have had a shot at a better player, but the odds are they'd end up with two players who are neither as talented nor as good of a fit.

Plus, it's not like the Sixers gave away all their assets, they still have their 1st rd picks (and if Embiid gets injured, those will be good picks), LA or Sacramento which should still be a lottery pick, and a boat load of 2nd rd picks, many of which will end up between 31-40.

 

[Jtown]

You're putting Irving in the same breath as those two?!

If you don't think Fultz is a step above, that's fine. What's your problem with his game? Just please don't tell me it's because of anything relating to Washington as a team.

no, but coming out of college kyrie was highly regarded and rightfully so.

 

[Jtown]

Plus, what are the odds the Lakers end up #2 next year?
Or Sacramento in the top 5 in 2019.

Sure, there's always the possibility the Sixers might have had a shot at a better player, but the odds are they'd end up with two players who are neither as talented nor as good of a fit.

Plus, it's not like the Sixers gave away all their assets, they still have their 1st rd picks (and if Embiid gets injured, those will be good picks), LA or Sacramento which should still be a lottery pick, and a boat load of 2nd rd picks, many of which will end up between 31-40.

sacramento will definetly be a top 5 pick. that is the worst roster in the nba and they are run by a fan.

 

[The Madrigal]

1. It was clear as day the celts did not want fultz. They want jackson or tatum

Who the Celtics want is completely irrelevant. This is about the Sixers. The Sixers got the guy they wanted, who is also the best player in the draft and a perfect compliment to Embiid and Simmons. They weren't getting him at 3, and contrary to what you seem to think you have to give up something of value to get something of value.

2. The sixers are the only team in the nba with enough assets to actually trade for the first overall pick.

That is flat out incorrect. Chicago could have simply offered up Jimmy Butler and 16 for example. The Sixers ended up giving up a future first round pick to move up two spots. The Lakers could have given up their 2019 first round pick to move up one spot. I can keep going with examples.

3. Believe it or not the sixers had the upper hand here.

Once again that is flat out incorrect. If you honestly believe that I am wasting my time but I don't think you believe that. The team who holds the number 1 overall pick in a draft always holds all of the cards.

we basically traded a top 5 pick to leap frog a team.

You have no idea what that pick they gave up will end being. Also, calling it "to leap frog one team" is absurd considering they had zero chance of getting Fultz at 3. He doesnt get by the Lakers and if the Sixers don't make this deal the Celtics would have just moved it to someone else who would have taken Fultz.

that is terrible value.

They gave up one future first round pick (when they already had two additional future firsts and all of their own future firsts) to go from 3 to 1 and get the best player in the draft and the guy who was the clear best fit to pair with Embiid and Simmons. Calling that that terrible value is laughable.

4. The reason why it was terrible value is something important to consider.

So in your opinion they should have continued to hold onto assets and continued to be a terrible team. At some point a franchise has to identify a plan and make moves to win now. They obviously feel Fultz is the right piece to help put them over the top so they made the move.

While the sixers have accumulated a ton of assets lately we still don't know what we have. Embiid looks like a generational talent but can he stay healthy? Will Ben Simmons be effective without a jumpshot in this league?

They know what they have. You might not, but they do. They can't build their team for the future with the idea that they are afraid Embiid won't stay healthy. It might continue to be a problem but planning their future around the idea that it will would be silly. Simmons is a distributor and has incredible ball handling skills for a guy who is 6'10, he doesn't need a great jump shot to be a great player. It's funny too how you are concerned about that, and yet you don't seem to get the fact that Fultz is a great fit with the Sixers because he compliments Simmonds so well.

Instead of staying at 3 and potentially having lonzo ball fall into our laps

So they should have stayed at 3 because Lonzo Ball MIGHT be there. You can't be serious.

or have the choice between tatum and jackson.

So you are worried about Simmonds because he isn't a shooter but you want Jackson who is a far worse shooter than him? Again, you can't be serious with these constant contradictions.

Two players who could turn into important pieces if embiid or simmons fail to become who we hoped they would.

Jackson and Tatum project to SF in the NBA. If Embiid can't stay healthy they do nothing for the center position, and Simmons sucks they do nothing for the team as they don't have the skill set to play point or point forward. You fail again.

If the sixers had the first overall pick I would pick fultz , but i do not believe he is worth the risk of giving up a great future draft pick.

I disagree, but that is the first (and only for the record) you have made thus far that has any substance.

The sixers did ok here out of a scale of 1-10 they probably did a 4. what really saves them are the restrictions of the picks.

In addition to everything else you have said, that puts the cherry on top and tells me you are obviously trolling.

The celts on the other hand got 10/10. They got a great future asset for apick they did not want, and they will still end up getting the player they want .

So the Celtics get a 10/10 for getting exactly what they want, but the Sixers get a 4/10 for getting exactly what they want.

Going forward the sixers have no known quantities.

Factually incorrect. Embiid is the best young big man in the NBA today other than maybe Towns. Saric might end up winning rookie of the year and will probably be a future 6th man of the year winner. Robert Covington is a defensive ace who can cover both SG and SF and also pitch in 10-15 points a game.

And giving up a future top 5 pick

Factually incorrect, you have no idea where the pick will end up being that they get. If the Lakers pick 1 or 6 or higher next year that pick could be just about anywhere in 2019 (except number 1 because they protected it from that)

is not what you do when you have such a wide open future. If we were a fultz away from being contenders it makes sense but we are not.

Fultz gives them the exact type of guard with high end potential to pair with Embiid and Simmons. He doesn't put them over the top but he makes them instantly much better.

Your post was a flat out embarrassing attempt at trolling. At least try to make it believable if you are going to troll.

 

[FatTugboatFlahr]

You'll say as much dumb **** as you need to prove your point.

 

[JojoTheWhale]

I don't know. It seems to me that the #2 pick in each of the next two drafts (say, for argument's sake, Doncic and Williamson) could quite easily be seen as more valuable than Fultz by themselves, let alone once you consider who the Sixers would have picked at #3.

It definitely could be and it's a risk, but the risk is specifically in one of the two picks landing at 2 or maybe 3, which is small. Forget about whether it hits or not. Results are irrelevant here.

Or we could have a situation like we had last year where Labissiere went into the year as DX's #1 pick and fell off a cliff and none of the secondary players showed much progress. It happens both ways. The important part is that they moved a pick for a VERY talented kid who just turned 19. That's basically 9 years of control.

I think he's saying that they were clear-cut consensus #1s in their respective years, not that Fultz is comparable to them.

Got it. Then he would be wrong on a pure talent judgment.

no, but coming out of college kyrie was highly regarded and rightfully so.

....coming out of college Markelle Fultz is highly regarded and rightfully so. What am I missing here?

*Edit* I always add an extra R to Labissiere.

 

[Striiker]

My god is that post split up into roughly 2000 quotes tough to look at.

 

[Jtown]

My god is that post split up into roughly 2000 quotes tough to look at.

im trying to reply but i go through seizures trying to read that post.

 

[The Madrigal]

You'll say as much dumb **** as you need to prove your point.

He literally made one legitimate point in his diatribe which was that he doesn't think Fultz is worth the risk of giving up a future asset to move up for. I disagree with that, but at least there was some substance to it.

The rest of his rambling consisted of pure hyperbole, contradictions, and a lack of common sense and self awareness to the point where he has to be trolling.

 

[FLYguy3911]

The guy that didn't like the Coburn trade doesn't like the Fultz trade? Shocked!

They had 4 first rounders between 2018 and 2019. Chances are at least one of those picks was getting moved eventually. At some point drafting and trying to develop too many high draft picks becomes counter-productive. There's only 10 spots in the rotation. Are you going to send top 5, top 10 picks to the D-League?

And there's protections on 1st overall in the event that they luck into another potential star.

 

[The Madrigal]

My god is that post split up into roughly 2000 quotes tough to look at.

It was enjoyable destroying his nonsense one point at a time.

 

[FLYguy3911]

My god is that post split up into roughly 2000 quotes tough to look at.

I'm still in favor of a 140 character limit on posts.

 

[deadhead]

sacramento will definetly be a top 5 pick. that is the worst roster in the nba and they are run by a fan.

Don't be so sure, they get #5 and #10 in this draft, their 1st rd pick next year and could buy a couple second tier vets - next thing you know they're picking between 6-10. A decent player but not one you'll lose sleep over losing.

 

[healthyscratch]

The guy that didn't like the Coburn trade doesn't like the Fultz trade? Shocked!

They had 4 first rounders between 2018 and 2019. Chances are at least one of those picks was getting moved eventually. At some point drafting and trying to develop too many high draft picks becomes counter-productive. There's only 10 spots in the rotation. Are you going to send top 5, top 10 picks to the D-League?

And there's protections on 1st overall in the event that they luck into another potential star.

And everyone forgetting the fact that Fultz is exactly what they need in the lineup. 4/10 though.

 

[Striiker]

im trying to reply but i go through seizures trying to read that post.

Yeah, I kinda just had to skim it.

It was enjoyable destroying his nonsense one point at a time.

Well I can appreciate the thoroughness, it's just visually a bit nuts to look at.




Won't comment on the content of either post though. I only loosely follow the NBA, so I'm nowhere near educated enough to have an opinion on the subject. Don't mind me, just a bystander.

 

[JojoTheWhale]

sacramento will definetly be a top 5 pick. that is the worst roster in the nba and they are run by a fan.

Are you sure you want to make an argument the Kings have the worst roster in the league? Especially that they will in 2019? Brooklyn, Orlando, etc.?

 

[The Madrigal]

Don't be so sure, they get #5 and #10 in this draft, their 1st rd pick next year and could buy a couple second tier vets - next thing you know they're picking between 6-10. A decent player but not one you'll lose sleep over losing.

The Sixers recently picked Okafor and 3rd and Noel 5th. Yet he acts as if getting a top 5 pick is a guarantee you are getting a hall of famer or something.

 

[Young Sandwich]

I'm not going to pretend to know anything about basketball prospects, but I look at it this way: If Fultz is the prospect I've been reading he is (I saw multiple people call him the best PG prospect of the decade), then he's certainly worth a high first round pick. Why not use one of the assets Hinkie stole and lock up your ball handler for the next 10 years now and give this young team a chance to start growing? The fit is fantastic, it just makes too much sense.

 

[Striiker]

I'm still in favor of a 140 character limit on posts.

At first thought that sounds good, until you consider that quite a few posters would take up entire pages with a single rant split up into 25 posts.

 

[Jack Straw]

1. It was clear as day the celts did not want fultz. They want jackson or tatum
2. The sixers are the only team in the nba with enough assets to actually trade for the first overall pick.
3. Believe it or not the sixers had the upper hand here. we basically traded a top 5 pick to leap frog a team. that is terrible value.

4. The reason why it was terrible value is something important to consider. While the sixers have accumulated a ton of assets lately we still don't know what we have. Embiid looks like a generational talent but can he stay healthy? Will Ben Simmons be effective without a jumpshot in this league? Instead of staying at 3 and potentially having lonzo ball fall into our laps or have the choice between tatum and jackson. Two players who could turn into important pieces if embiid or simmons fail to become who we hoped they would.

If the sixers had the first overall pick I would pick fultz , but i do not believe he is worth the risk of giving up a great future draft pick.

The sixers did ok here out of a scale of 1-10 they probably did a 4. what really saves them are the restrictions of the picks.

The celts on the other hand got 10/10. They got a great future asset for apick they did not want, and they will still end up getting the player they want .

Going forward the sixers have no known quantities. And giving up a future top 5 pick is not what you do when you have such a wide open future. If we were a fultz away from being contenders it makes sense but we are not.

You can't just look at it that way, you have to consider the value of the players available and not just the draft positions. How much do you think it would have taken to trade up from #3 to #1 last year? The difference between Jalen Brown or anyone else who was available at #3 and Ben Simmons is much more than what the Sixers gave up in this trade. Much more. The difference between Fultz and Jackson/Tatum/Fox this year is not as big as the difference between 3 and 1 last year, but it's still significant. And I say this as someone who was relentlessly pumping Fox's tires. If he gets a consistent jump shot he may even be as good as Fultz. But with Fultz there are no doubts about his game. He's the only one in this draft about whom that can be said.

 

[Jtown]

The guy that didn't like the Coburn trade doesn't like the Fultz trade? Shocked!

They had 4 first rounders between 2018 and 2019. Chances are at least one of those picks was getting moved eventually. At some point drafting and trying to develop too many high draft picks becomes counter-productive. There's only 10 spots in the rotation. Are you going to send top 5, top 10 picks to the D-League?

And there's protections on 1st overall in the event that they luck into another potential star.

no, actually. Everyone was ranting and raving about the coburn deal. I said it was fair value and by tampa going to the cup it made it worst. The only redeeming aspect of that deal was that hexy moved up to get konency. But imagine the player he wouldve gotten had he just stayed there. That is what you should evaluate that trade on.

 

[The Madrigal]

And everyone forgetting the fact that Fultz is exactly what they need in the lineup. 4/10 though.

That was one of my personal favorites out all of the trolling comments he made. The Celtics get a 10/10 for getting exactly what they want, but the Sixers get a 4/10 for getting exactly what they want.

That and how he said the Sixers should have just stayed at 3 because Lonzo Ball MIGHT be there, or if not just take Josh Jackson, right after he said Ben Simmons might be a bad NBA player because he can't shoot. He probably doesn't even know Josh Jackson is known to be a horrible shooter to the point where he was 57% on FT's last year at Kansas