Simmons Wants Trade / Not Going To Report To Camp (CBS Report)

[Kernewek]

Apologies if this has already been mentioned as I haven't read the entire thread, just skimmed it.

Here's a morning coffee thought: I think Moranis is right - I'm not sure that Philly really needs to trade Simmons.

Usually holdouts are the best player on the team. Simmons isn't that guy for Philadelphia.

It's feasible that the Sixers could roll out a starting lineup of Milton, Curry, Green, Harris, and Embiid and start the season, say, 22-14, to use an arbitrary positive record.

Is this a championship team? Not really. But they're very unlikely to get to that level with anything they get back from Simmons anyway... and he's a great built-in excuse for the front office (e.g. we signed a max player and he's sitting out, sorry fans. Not much we can do).

The other thing is that even though his trade value has plummeted, he's still a positive asset for other teams, even if he's allergic to big moments, so you're disinclined to trade him on that front anyway. Why would you want to send a good player to another team if you're not getting comparative assets in return?

On this line of thinking, it doesn't really hurt the Sixers to let him collect DNPs & fines, because the on-the-court product is still a decent team. The salary cap problem remains a problem, in terms of getting better, for sure, but I'm not sure that Philly comes off worse in this game of chicken.

I'm sure I haven't really spent enough time thinking all of the facets of this through, but I'll posit the point for discussion, even if I'm absolutely off the mark for reasons I just haven't thought of. 

[celticsclay]

Apologies if this has already been mentioned as I haven't read the entire thread, just skimmed it.

Here's a morning coffee thought: I think Moranis is right - I'm not sure that Philly really needs to trade Simmons.

Usually holdouts are the best player on the team. Simmons isn't that guy for Philadelphia.

It's feasible that the Sixers could roll out a starting lineup of Milton, Curry, Green, Harris, and Embiid and start the season, say, 22-14, to use an arbitrary positive record.

Is this a championship team? Not really. But they're very unlikely to get to that level with anything they get back from Simmons anyway... and he's a great built-in excuse for the front office (e.g. we signed a max player and he's sitting out, sorry fans. Not much we can do).

The other thing is that even though his trade value has plummeted, he's still a positive asset for other teams, even if he's allergic to big moments, so you're disinclined to trade him on that front anyway. Why would you want to send a good player to another team if you're not getting comparative assets in return?

On this line of thinking, it doesn't really hurt the Sixers to let him collect DNPs & fines, because the on-the-court product is still a decent team. The salary cap problem remains a problem, in terms of getting better, for sure, but I'm not sure that Philly comes off worse in this game of chicken.

I'm sure I haven't really spent enough time thinking all of the facets of this through, but I'll posit the point for discussion, even if I'm absolutely off the mark for reasons I just haven't thought of. 

I believe you not taking a few things into consideration here. For one, simmons not out there outs a ridiculous amount of pressure on Embid. He has to anchor the defense and offense completely with no simmons there and they will absolutely get dominated when he is off the floor. In addition to this increasing his injury risk (obviously already high) he is gonna rest of some games. Without him that is a pure lottery team and maybe low lottery so I doubt they are going 22-14 with that situation. Also, how good is this team without simmons or anyone replacing him. The second best player is harris. The third is I guess curry. The 4th? I don’t even know 35 year old Danny green? The regular season matters to Philly cause if they end up a 4th or 5th seed they are going through both bucks and nets on road to try reach finals and in addition to having less talent than those two teams they suck on the road.

[Moranis]

Apologies if this has already been mentioned as I haven't read the entire thread, just skimmed it.

Here's a morning coffee thought: I think Moranis is right - I'm not sure that Philly really needs to trade Simmons.

Usually holdouts are the best player on the team. Simmons isn't that guy for Philadelphia.

It's feasible that the Sixers could roll out a starting lineup of Milton, Curry, Green, Harris, and Embiid and start the season, say, 22-14, to use an arbitrary positive record.

Is this a championship team? Not really. But they're very unlikely to get to that level with anything they get back from Simmons anyway... and he's a great built-in excuse for the front office (e.g. we signed a max player and he's sitting out, sorry fans. Not much we can do).

The other thing is that even though his trade value has plummeted, he's still a positive asset for other teams, even if he's allergic to big moments, so you're disinclined to trade him on that front anyway. Why would you want to send a good player to another team if you're not getting comparative assets in return?

On this line of thinking, it doesn't really hurt the Sixers to let him collect DNPs & fines, because the on-the-court product is still a decent team. The salary cap problem remains a problem, in terms of getting better, for sure, but I'm not sure that Philly comes off worse in this game of chicken.

I'm sure I haven't really spent enough time thinking all of the facets of this through, but I'll posit the point for discussion, even if I'm absolutely off the mark for reasons I just haven't thought of. 

I believe you not taking a few things into consideration here. For one, simmons not out there outs a ridiculous amount of pressure on Embid. He has to anchor the defense and offense completely with no simmons there and they will absolutely get dominated when he is off the floor. In addition to this increasing his injury risk (obviously already high) he is gonna rest of some games. Without him that is a pure lottery team and maybe low lottery so I doubt they are going 22-14 with that situation. Also, how good is this team without simmons or anyone replacing him. The second best player is harris. The third is I guess curry. The 4th? I don’t even know 35 year old Danny green? The regular season matters to Philly cause if they end up a 4th or 5th seed they are going through both bucks and nets on road to try reach finals and in addition to having less talent than those two teams they suck on the road.

but trading Simmons for a warm body isn't going to change that at all.  That is why I don't think they will be quick to move him.  They will ride it out until they get a deal they feel is good enough value. 

[Goldstar88]

Apologies if this has already been mentioned as I haven't read the entire thread, just skimmed it.

Here's a morning coffee thought: I think Moranis is right - I'm not sure that Philly really needs to trade Simmons.

Usually holdouts are the best player on the team. Simmons isn't that guy for Philadelphia.

It's feasible that the Sixers could roll out a starting lineup of Milton, Curry, Green, Harris, and Embiid and start the season, say, 22-14, to use an arbitrary positive record.

Is this a championship team? Not really. But they're very unlikely to get to that level with anything they get back from Simmons anyway... and he's a great built-in excuse for the front office (e.g. we signed a max player and he's sitting out, sorry fans. Not much we can do).

The other thing is that even though his trade value has plummeted, he's still a positive asset for other teams, even if he's allergic to big moments, so you're disinclined to trade him on that front anyway. Why would you want to send a good player to another team if you're not getting comparative assets in return?

On this line of thinking, it doesn't really hurt the Sixers to let him collect DNPs & fines, because the on-the-court product is still a decent team. The salary cap problem remains a problem, in terms of getting better, for sure, but I'm not sure that Philly comes off worse in this game of chicken.

I'm sure I haven't really spent enough time thinking all of the facets of this through, but I'll posit the point for discussion, even if I'm absolutely off the mark for reasons I just haven't thought of. 

They don’t need to trade him right away, but at some point they will. Too much  has been said at this point and he clearly doesn’t want to be in Phillly. Is his trade value going to increase when he is away from the team and not playing in games?

[Moranis]

Apologies if this has already been mentioned as I haven't read the entire thread, just skimmed it.

Here's a morning coffee thought: I think Moranis is right - I'm not sure that Philly really needs to trade Simmons.

Usually holdouts are the best player on the team. Simmons isn't that guy for Philadelphia.

It's feasible that the Sixers could roll out a starting lineup of Milton, Curry, Green, Harris, and Embiid and start the season, say, 22-14, to use an arbitrary positive record.

Is this a championship team? Not really. But they're very unlikely to get to that level with anything they get back from Simmons anyway... and he's a great built-in excuse for the front office (e.g. we signed a max player and he's sitting out, sorry fans. Not much we can do).

The other thing is that even though his trade value has plummeted, he's still a positive asset for other teams, even if he's allergic to big moments, so you're disinclined to trade him on that front anyway. Why would you want to send a good player to another team if you're not getting comparative assets in return?

On this line of thinking, it doesn't really hurt the Sixers to let him collect DNPs & fines, because the on-the-court product is still a decent team. The salary cap problem remains a problem, in terms of getting better, for sure, but I'm not sure that Philly comes off worse in this game of chicken.

I'm sure I haven't really spent enough time thinking all of the facets of this through, but I'll posit the point for discussion, even if I'm absolutely off the mark for reasons I just haven't thought of. 

They don’t need to trade him right away, but at some point they will. Too much  has been said at this point and he clearly doesn’t want to be in Phillly. Is his trade value going to increase when he is away from the team and not playing in games?

It is more about other teams having changing priorities.  Everyone loves their team in September, but once the season starts teams start reevaluating everything.  Maybe Golden State starts off the year poorly and needs a change.  Maybe Beal or Lillard asks out (or some other similar level player).  Maybe Cleveland or Minnesota need to do something to change their fortunes after they start out very badly again.  Maybe Denver decides to go all in and puts Porter on the table.  once teams start playing, their positions and thoughts will change.  Philly's might as well.  But the likelihood of getting a deal done before teams start to play actual games I believe is pretty small, especially if Simmons holds firm to not reporting.

[footey]

D'Angelo Russell, Malik Beasley and picks for Ben Simmons. 

Consider throwing in Bolmaro too.

That seems fair to both teams.

[Wretch]

Simmons and R. Paul are doing everything they can to intentionally depress his trade value.  I think the smart play by Philly is to let him sit out, not give him what he wants until he has enough financial pain to play and build his value back up.

My guess is Paul wants a contender in the West (ahem LeBrakers) to trade for Simmons without having to gut their roster and make it harder to compete.  This would also sabotage a potential (long shot) finals opponent from the East, in Philly.

[celticsclay]

Apologies if this has already been mentioned as I haven't read the entire thread, just skimmed it.

Here's a morning coffee thought: I think Moranis is right - I'm not sure that Philly really needs to trade Simmons.

Usually holdouts are the best player on the team. Simmons isn't that guy for Philadelphia.

It's feasible that the Sixers could roll out a starting lineup of Milton, Curry, Green, Harris, and Embiid and start the season, say, 22-14, to use an arbitrary positive record.

Is this a championship team? Not really. But they're very unlikely to get to that level with anything they get back from Simmons anyway... and he's a great built-in excuse for the front office (e.g. we signed a max player and he's sitting out, sorry fans. Not much we can do).

The other thing is that even though his trade value has plummeted, he's still a positive asset for other teams, even if he's allergic to big moments, so you're disinclined to trade him on that front anyway. Why would you want to send a good player to another team if you're not getting comparative assets in return?

On this line of thinking, it doesn't really hurt the Sixers to let him collect DNPs & fines, because the on-the-court product is still a decent team. The salary cap problem remains a problem, in terms of getting better, for sure, but I'm not sure that Philly comes off worse in this game of chicken.

I'm sure I haven't really spent enough time thinking all of the facets of this through, but I'll posit the point for discussion, even if I'm absolutely off the mark for reasons I just haven't thought of. 

I believe you not taking a few things into consideration here. For one, simmons not out there outs a ridiculous amount of pressure on Embid. He has to anchor the defense and offense completely with no simmons there and they will absolutely get dominated when he is off the floor. In addition to this increasing his injury risk (obviously already high) he is gonna rest of some games. Without him that is a pure lottery team and maybe low lottery so I doubt they are going 22-14 with that situation. Also, how good is this team without simmons or anyone replacing him. The second best player is harris. The third is I guess curry. The 4th? I don’t even know 35 year old Danny green? The regular season matters to Philly cause if they end up a 4th or 5th seed they are going through both bucks and nets on road to try reach finals and in addition to having less talent than those two teams they suck on the road.

but trading Simmons for a warm body isn't going to change that at all.  That is why I don't think they will be quick to move him.  They will ride it out until they get a deal they feel is good enough value.

I don't disagree they may try to go that route for a bit, just saying I think it is pretty unlikely they are going 22-14 without anything for Simmons unless they are completely running Embid into the ground (that is about the same winning percentage as the bucks had last year over the course of the season). And them ending up with a worse regular season record or riding embid harder during regular season are both the downsides to him sitting our an extended period. 

[Jvalin]

Here's a quote form Ryen Russillo's podcast. He was wondering which teams would be interested in a trade for Simmons.

So let's look at some of the potential stuff. (...) Golden State (blah blah blah). Minnesota (...). San Antonio (...). Sacramento (...). The Celtics are interested. I don't think Daryl (Morey) is gonna do that with the Celtics. The John Wall rumor (...). I keep getting back to the Portland deal (blah blah blah).

Long story short, he thinks the Portland deal is the one that makes most sense for Philly. He mentioned the Celtics though. Is this news? I was assuming we aren't interested in Simmons. If I'm not mistaken, Woj and Shams have never mentioned the C's in the Simmons sweepstakes. All I've seen is some clickbait sites with zero credibility claiming we should go after him. Obviously, Russillo ain't Woj, but he ain't Sherrod Blakely either.

I get why the Sixers wouldn't wanna trade with us. That said:

- It's possible they'd change their mind if we pay a bit more than his current market value (which would still be a bargain deal on our part compared to his actual value).
- Fwiw, Morey started his NBA career with the C's prior to joining the Rockets. He worked with Wyc's team and Steve Pagliuca's team when they were trying to buy the Celtics. This was his gateway to the NBA. Morey also hired Mike Zarren who's our current VP of Basketball Operations.

[Kernewek]

Apologies if this has already been mentioned as I haven't read the entire thread, just skimmed it.

Here's a morning coffee thought: I think Moranis is right - I'm not sure that Philly really needs to trade Simmons.

Usually holdouts are the best player on the team. Simmons isn't that guy for Philadelphia.

It's feasible that the Sixers could roll out a starting lineup of Milton, Curry, Green, Harris, and Embiid and start the season, say, 22-14, to use an arbitrary positive record.

Is this a championship team? Not really. But they're very unlikely to get to that level with anything they get back from Simmons anyway... and he's a great built-in excuse for the front office (e.g. we signed a max player and he's sitting out, sorry fans. Not much we can do).

The other thing is that even though his trade value has plummeted, he's still a positive asset for other teams, even if he's allergic to big moments, so you're disinclined to trade him on that front anyway. Why would you want to send a good player to another team if you're not getting comparative assets in return?

On this line of thinking, it doesn't really hurt the Sixers to let him collect DNPs & fines, because the on-the-court product is still a decent team. The salary cap problem remains a problem, in terms of getting better, for sure, but I'm not sure that Philly comes off worse in this game of chicken.

I'm sure I haven't really spent enough time thinking all of the facets of this through, but I'll posit the point for discussion, even if I'm absolutely off the mark for reasons I just haven't thought of. 

I believe you not taking a few things into consideration here. For one, simmons not out there outs a ridiculous amount of pressure on Embid. He has to anchor the defense and offense completely with no simmons there and they will absolutely get dominated when he is off the floor. In addition to this increasing his injury risk (obviously already high) he is gonna rest of some games. Without him that is a pure lottery team and maybe low lottery so I doubt they are going 22-14 with that situation. Also, how good is this team without simmons or anyone replacing him. The second best player is harris. The third is I guess curry. The 4th? I don’t even know 35 year old Danny green? The regular season matters to Philly cause if they end up a 4th or 5th seed they are going through both bucks and nets on road to try reach finals and in addition to having less talent than those two teams they suck on the road.

but trading Simmons for a warm body isn't going to change that at all.  That is why I don't think they will be quick to move him.  They will ride it out until they get a deal they feel is good enough value.

I don't disagree they may try to go that route for a bit, just saying I think it is pretty unlikely they are going 22-14 without anything for Simmons unless they are completely running Embid into the ground (that is about the same winning percentage as the bucks had last year over the course of the season). And them ending up with a worse regular season record or riding embid harder during regular season are both the downsides to him sitting our an extended period.

I wouldn't get too hung up on 22-14. As I said, it's an arbitrary positive record, and I think a better way to frame my point than honing in on the 61% winning percentage would be to say "a number of games over .500 through the first half of the season."  Feel free to substitute 21-15 or 20-16 or 19-17 if you think that's more realistic, the exact number is largely tangential to the overall point.

Apologies if this has already been mentioned as I haven't read the entire thread, just skimmed it.

Here's a morning coffee thought: I think Moranis is right - I'm not sure that Philly really needs to trade Simmons.

Usually holdouts are the best player on the team. Simmons isn't that guy for Philadelphia.

It's feasible that the Sixers could roll out a starting lineup of Milton, Curry, Green, Harris, and Embiid and start the season, say, 22-14, to use an arbitrary positive record.

Is this a championship team? Not really. But they're very unlikely to get to that level with anything they get back from Simmons anyway... and he's a great built-in excuse for the front office (e.g. we signed a max player and he's sitting out, sorry fans. Not much we can do).

The other thing is that even though his trade value has plummeted, he's still a positive asset for other teams, even if he's allergic to big moments, so you're disinclined to trade him on that front anyway. Why would you want to send a good player to another team if you're not getting comparative assets in return?

On this line of thinking, it doesn't really hurt the Sixers to let him collect DNPs & fines, because the on-the-court product is still a decent team. The salary cap problem remains a problem, in terms of getting better, for sure, but I'm not sure that Philly comes off worse in this game of chicken.

I'm sure I haven't really spent enough time thinking all of the facets of this through, but I'll posit the point for discussion, even if I'm absolutely off the mark for reasons I just haven't thought of. 

They don’t need to trade him right away, but at some point they will. Too much  has been said at this point and he clearly doesn’t want to be in Phillly. Is his trade value going to increase when he is away from the team and not playing in games?

Echoing what Moranis said, I feel there's a non-zero possibility that his value will rebound once the games start being played, even if he's sitting (or especially if he's sitting). 

By way of example, I don't care for Lacob but since he opined on the matter, let's use the Dubs - if Draymond suffers a season-ending injury, their need for a player like Simmons increases significantly. Guys get hurt every year (unfortunately), teams implode, teams over-perform, and so on. It doesn't make much sense (to me) to flip him when his trade value is more or less static and in the absolute dumpster.

[Jvalin]

Bobby Marks made a list of potential suitors for Simmons. The C's are on that list.

Tier 1

• Blazers
• Wolves
• Cavs
• Spurs
• Pacers
• Raptors

Tier 2

• Hawks
• Celtics
• Warriors
• Pelicans

And here is a quote from Zach Lowe:

The wild card team to me is Boston. We talk about good teams that control all their picks. We don't hear about the Celtics very much. The Celtics I think will be looking in the situation where we are not trading Jaylen Brown, we are not trading Jayson Tatum, but hey, we got all these picks, we got all these swaps, we can get in on these trades. The problem is it would have to be a 3-team trade because they are not trading Jaylen Brown or Jayson Tatum. They like I think the idea of Simmons, plus Tatum, plus Brown as their sort of 3 super-sized wings. All good defenders. Simmons can screen and run and pass. I think that's an interesting one, but I think it would have to be a tricky 3-team trade.

[tazzmaniac]

Bobby Marks made a list of potential suitors for Simmons. The C's are on that list.

Tier 1

• Blazers
• Wolves
• Cavs
• Spurs
• Pacers
• Raptors

Tier 2

• Hawks
• Celtics
• Warriors
• Pelicans

And here is a quote from Zach Lowe:

The wild card team to me is Boston. We talk about good teams that control all their picks. We don't hear about the Celtics very much. The Celtics I think will be looking in the situation where we are not trading Jaylen Brown, we are not trading Jayson Tatum, but hey, we got all these picks, we got all these swaps, we can get in on these trades. The problem is it would have to be a 3-team trade because they are not trading Jaylen Brown or Jayson Tatum. They like I think the idea of Simmons, plus Tatum, plus Brown as their sort of 3 super-sized wings. All good defenders. Simmons can screen and run and pass. I think that's an interesting one, but I think it would have to be a tricky 3-team trade.

Is there a significance to the different team colors? 

[Moranis]

Without including Brown it would be difficult, but I think something like this might work near the deadline (if the Simmons saga extends that long)

Boston - Simmons, Looney
Golden St. - Horford, Smart
Philly - Wiggins, Nesmith, Langford, BOS 1st's (22, 24), GS 1st (earliest they can trade one)

Something like that I think makes for all 3 teams, but can't be done until Smart can be traded on January 20th. 

So Boston post-trade

Starters - Simmons, Richardson, Brown, Tatum, R.Williams
Rotation - Schroder, Pritchard, G. Williams, Parker, Kanter, Looney
Deep Bench - Hernangomez, Fernando

[Rosco917]

There was a time when the thought of obtaining Simmons for the Celtics was somewhat interesting.

As time moves on and the media continues to promote this crazy soap opera, his value continues to decline. No NBA team wants a cancer on the roster that throws teammates under the bus. Especially one that can't shoot, refuses to shoot and refuses to even try to improve. Then has the audacity to want an offense built around his own flaws. Frankly, he's beginning to look unhinged...true or not.

If I were the Sixers I'd dump this spoiled brat as soon as possible for the best deal available.   

[Phantom255x]

Just reading all these reports and "back-and-forths", this guy comes across as probably the most mentally soft player in the NBA by a long shot. Rich Paul actually came out recently and said Simmons was "frustrated at how PHI was treating him and that he wasn't really warned of the negativity that'd come his way after signing a whole 4-year max contract there". What BS. 

And to think there were also a handful on here who wanted us to trade for him not too long ago. A good instance of why sometimes it's probably best none of us are actual GMs lol