What would Iverson have to do in Philly...

[CelticG1]

Just wanted to throw out a question to people. What would Iverson have to do in Philly in order for people here to think he could have helped us. I would like it to be somewhat realistic. I'm wondering if Iverson led Philly into the playoffs would that be enough? If he accepted and thrived as a 6th man when WIlliams comes back would that be enough? It seems like most people on the board were very against signing Iverson to a 1 year vet min. I wasn't, simply because there was no risk and a pretty high reward. I'm just wondering what Iverson would have to do for people to say "gee I guess he could have helped us".

[nickagneta]

Nothing. He wouldn't have helped us because he wouldn't have come in in a secondary role. He negotiated his position at Philly to be the starter. That had to be part of the equation in order to sign.

Just making sure that was part of the deal proves he could never have helped us.

[Edgar]

He will kick behinds in Phily.

[ToppersBsktball10]

He wants it bad.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4711022

[CelticG1]

Nothing. He wouldn't have helped us because he wouldn't have come in in a secondary role. He negotiated his position at Philly to be the starter. That had to be part of the equation in order to sign.

Just making sure that was part of the deal proves he could never have helped us.

Ok.. but the question is what would he have to do this season for you to look back and say "hey he might have been able to help us". Say we lose the championship this year, which if we did there will be plenty of "what if" scenarios. Lets say Iverson does very well in Philly, team oriented  and all that mushy stuff that people love. You really think that if we lost the ship that you won't look back and say maybe we should have signed him? I think that's kind of ridiculous to say that there is nothing he can do. You are judging him on the past and saying that he can't change or do anything different this season. Basically AI could be the perfect teammate and bball player and your still saying that there is nothing he could do for you to change your mind. Thats just odd to me

[Who]

Iverson would have to accept a 15 minute a night role + play very well as a complementary player.

[fairweatherfan]

Posted this over from the game thread to not put this there:

Wow...hope anyone who thinks Iverson is just a selfish punk watched that.  He's never been a great teammate, but it's not for lack of caring.  Philly is the perfect spot for him.  Hope he makes it work there as long as we continue to stomp em.

i did and i do think Iverson is a selfish punk.  No offense to you or anything, thats just my opinion.

The fact that he blames the reason for no team wanting anything to do with him on mistakes he made when he was young is completely laughable to me.  

Hey, I respect that.  I'm not a big defender of him and I've thought he was overrated for a long time.  And he's done nothing but damage to his career since the Denver trade.

But he wasn't blaming past mistakes for no one wanting to sign him - he was talking about things he'd done when he played there before, presumably saying that was why he was glad to have another chance.  

[Roy Hobbs]

If he plays 20 minutes per game, and does so effectively and without complaining, I'll be impressed.  However, I don't think that's what he was brought into Philly to do.

[nickagneta]

Nothing. He wouldn't have helped us because he wouldn't have come in in a secondary role. He negotiated his position at Philly to be the starter. That had to be part of the equation in order to sign.

Just making sure that was part of the deal proves he could never have helped us.

Ok.. but the question is what would he have to do this season for you to look back and say "hey he might have been able to help us". Say we lose the championship this year, which if we did there will be plenty of "what if" scenarios. Lets say Iverson does very well in Philly, team oriented  and all that mushy stuff that people love. You really think that if we lost the ship that you won't look back and say maybe we should have signed him? I think that's kind of ridiculous to say that there is nothing he can do. You are judging him on the past and saying that he can't change or do anything different this season. Basically AI could be the perfect teammate and bball player and your still saying that there is nothing he could do for you to change your mind. Thats just odd to me

I think it's ridiculous to talk in hypotheticals with if this and if that and if this other thing. To me he won't prove he could ever have performed in a secondary role and accepted it. Nothing he is going to do in Philly after he has already negotiated a need to start is going to prove to me that he could have done anything positive for us here.

[Who]

If he plays 20 minutes per game, and does so effectively and without complaining, I'll be impressed.  However, I don't think that's what he was brought into Philly to do.

Agreed -- Phily will ask Iverson to fill a different role than the one he'd have to have accepted in Boston. Consequently, Iverson won't be able to prove whether he could have been a positive addition to the Celtics.

AI could still prove he would have been a negative addition by playing poorly/selfishly in his larger role.

[Redz]

Can;t really compare the two situations.  Sixers aren't contenders.

[Fafnir]

Can;t really compare the two situations.  Sixers aren't contenders.

And can offer him a starting role/minutes.

[CelticG1]

Can;t really compare the two situations.  Sixers aren't contenders.

Yeah thats true. I guess I was thinking along the lines of if he improved their team chemistry (ha ha) and helped them into the playoffs that I would be pretty impressed by him. If he is doing that by scoring 30 points a night then I guess it doens't really say much either though because he wouldn't have been on our team for that reason. I'm glad that we don't have to watch this "experiment" on a team like the cavs, orlando, hawks, lakers, or spurs though. That would have been a scary thought. Just like when nuggets acquired him I thought that could be scary. That didn't work out but that doesn't mean that AI can't make a team better just by being on it.

[nickagneta]

Can;t really compare the two situations.  Sixers aren't contenders.

Yeah thats true. I guess I was thinking along the lines of if he improved their team chemistry (ha ha) and helped them into the playoffs that I would be pretty impressed by him. If he is doing that by scoring 30 points a night then I guess it doens't really say much either though because he wouldn't have been on our team for that reason. I'm glad that we don't have to watch this "experiment" on a team like the cavs, orlando, hawks, lakers, or spurs though. That would have been a scary thought. Just like when nuggets acquired him I thought that could be scary. That didn't work out but that doesn't mean that AI can't make a team better just by being on it.

AI definitely has what it takes to make teams better. The caveat there is he has to start, has to have the offense revolve around him and the team has to be bad to begin with. If those conditions exist, then AI can make teams better.

If he has to play a secondary supportive role or come off the bench or if he is already on a good team, he's not going to make that team much better and could make them much worse depending on how much he screws with the chemistry on the team.

[Redz]

I guess my point is, he could could average a triple double the rest of the season and have the Sixers go on a miraculous undefeated streak that lasts through the championship, but in order to do that he's going to have to play 40 minutes a night - and while that certainly might convince us that he can still play, and he's a winner and all that, he would never have been given the same opportunity hear, so the point is moot.