Sixers 2017-2018 Season

bigegypt0417 2018-05-11 02:18:56 UTC #441

Nope...not in any scenario.

phillychuck 2018-05-11 02:44:23 UTC #442

Boston, had they kept the pick, would have taken Tatum anyway, I think. Then LA has to choose between Lorenzo and Fultz. There is a decent chance they'd still have taken Ball. It's likely Boston would have traded out of #1 to Phoenix if we hadn't taken their deal, and they still would have gotten Tatum. No way to tell now, though, so you can't be sure either way.

zambonir 2018-05-11 03:13:29 UTC #443

Right, my assumption is Boston still makes a trade, and if not, LA may have taken Fultz. Can't be sure about either thing. They wanted certainty and they wanted Fultz (and likely didn't want Ball, certainly most people here didn't).

bigegypt0417 2018-05-11 03:30:59 UTC #444

I just don't see a scenario where Fultz falls past the top 2. It's easy now to think tatum but i dont remember much buzz other than Boston knew he'd be there at 3.

zambonir 2018-05-11 04:54:15 UTC #445

Also, are the Sixers really going to miss the pick they give up to Boston? I mean, it's not nothing, and obviously if Fultz busts that is another thing entirely, but it seems to me this team needs a vet or two or some tweaks to its role players more than it needs another hot shot rookie.

jimbomill 2018-05-11 11:22:10 UTC #446

If we (76ers) don't make that trade, Boston takes Tatum anyway, as you state. LA probably takes Ball and we keep the #1 pick we dished and still get the player we wanted. Better, that pick is good trade bait for a move that would actually help us. Boston won that trade. We need to make trades where we win.

LegoDoom 2018-05-11 11:34:49 UTC #447

I've stated that I thought it was a bad trade because Boston was going to take Tatum and I don't believe they could have traded out of the top 3 in order to get him. I guess it's possible that they strike up a deal with the Lakers, but I am not sure the Lakers wanted to move up or really had the desire to give up another 1st round pick for a franchise that is rebuilding.

Maybe that would have left the Sixers with Lonzo, but I was fine with that.

And I still don't understand people saying that a Fultz "redshirt" season is no big deal. Yes, Embiid and Simmons had one, but the team was awful and Embiid not playing actually contributed to the reason the team got Simmons. If Fultz plays or the team drafts Tatum, then there's a real chance that the Sixers make the ECF.

And I am not fully evaluating the trade just yet. I know it takes years before you do that, but it had a very real impact this season.

bigegypt0417 2018-05-11 12:35:12 UTC #448

Are you sure that thr lakers pass of Fultz if he's there? They landed on Ball because they didn't think Fultz was an option. I mean...it's all guessing right now but there was virtually no one who does this for a living that didn't have fultz at #1.

phillychuck 2018-05-11 12:37:53 UTC #449

Ainge might have been the only GM where there was an indication that Fultz was not at the top of his board. Very few of the "draft gurus" went with anyone but Fultz. I really don't like either Colangelo, but I feel like somewhat of a hypocrite criticizing the Fultz trade in hindsight.

bigegypt0417 2018-05-11 15:40:04 UTC #450

with the season over I'm extremely happy with how it all turned out.

I'd be happy with an off-season where we land Paul George or Kawhi Leonard. There may need to be a trade in there to find a good defensive center to play more minutes. I'm done with Amir Johnson.

Austinfan 2018-05-11 16:18:37 UTC #451

He might have had Fultz at the top of his list, but Ainge had plenty of guard and a small forward in Brown that he wasn't certain was going to learn how to shoot.
Tatum isn't quite as good as advertised, very talented offensive player, but he got played defensively at times.
Problem was Sixers don't have an athletic small forward to match against Brown/Tatum other than Anderson.

zambonir 2018-05-11 18:32:01 UTC #452

Of course it's true that not having Fultz impacted the season but I don't know that it was the result of a scouting/drafting failure, and even if his injury/mental issues could have been more readily anticipated I don't know that it would have changed the Sixers mind on him in order to take someone who could more clearly help this season. And if they were still gonna get him at three it also doesn't change this season,only the fact that they did give up assets.

jimbomill 2018-05-11 19:17:01 UTC #453

It was mox-nix to me. If the Lakers take Fultz, we get Lonzo, or whomever they had as 3 if they didn't want to drama.
As LegoDoom so aptly put it, it takes years, but it certainly had an effect on this season.

To me, the price was too much to move up. Fultz's FT% was a red flag for me before the draft.

bigegypt0417 2018-05-11 20:30:30 UTC #454

That means there is no way you're touching Simmons...in hindsight?

LegoDoom 2018-05-11 22:05:39 UTC #455

There is a correlation between FT% and 3P%. Simmons is 6'10", can play multile positions, and is a good defender. No one thought Simmons was a good 3-point shooter. Fultz is a PG that was drafted because of his shot.

Also, Simmons FT% in college was .670 while Fultz was .649.

LegoDoom 2018-05-11 22:09:42 UTC #456

zambonir:

LegoDoom:

And I still don't understand people saying that a Fultz "redshirt" season is no big deal. Yes, Embiid and Simmons had one, but the team was awful and Embiid not playing actually contributed to the reason the team got Simmons. If Fultz plays or the team drafts Tatum, then there's a real chance that the Sixers make the ECF.

And I am not fully evaluating the trade just yet. I know it takes years before you do that, but it had a very real impact this season.

Of course it's true that not having Fultz impacted the season but I don't know that it was the result of a scouting/drafting failure, and even if his injury/mental issues could have been more readily anticipated I don't know that it would have changed the Sixers mind on him in order to take someone who could more clearly help this season. And if they were still gonna get him at three it also doesn't change this season,only the fact that they did give up assets.

Well, they could have traded up and taken Tatum. If they stayed put and the Lakers took Fultz, they could have traded back if they didn't want Ball. I know it gets said that Fultz was a great pairing with Simmons, but I've said that someone like Maarkanen was a good pairing with Embiid.

And there is always the option to trade back, picked up other assets, and draft Donovan Mitchell.

Fultz taking a redshirt was seriously the worst possible outcome being as the team was competitive.

LegoDoom 2018-05-11 22:15:34 UTC #457

Regardless of what other GMs boards were like, Ainge couldn't have traded further back than 3 in order to guarantee Tatum. This was known before the draft and a huge reason that I had an issue with the trade. Even if Fultz is at the top of your board, you know that if you stay at 3 then you get him or Lonzo. I think it's fair to criticize Colangelo for that (and the fact that he's terrible, in general).

jimbomill 2018-05-13 11:13:30 UTC #458

Your words, not mine.

bigegypt0417 2018-05-13 14:37:04 UTC #459

BC is a terrible GM for a trade no one is judging for...lol.

He hasn't made a single terrible trade or move and he's a terrible GM.

Purduke 2018-05-13 21:09:21 UTC #460

This is called the pre-2018 (specifically Feb 4, 2018) Howie Roseman treatment.

I'm pretty solidly in the Colangelo camp right now but there was one trade that I still dislike -- the sale of the two second round picks last draft for cash. That still doesn't make sense to me. Some of this I suspect is the need to resist accepting Noel and Jaleel were busts, so we choose to blame the new GM for mismanaging their playing time and therefore torpedoing their immense worth come trade time.