I think it's fair to say their top assets (Noel, Embiid, pick this year) are better than our 3 top assets but after that I can't agree with their assets being as good as ours.
Hinkie has let it be known that pretty much anyone on the Sixers roster that can be had for a second round pick. The back end players on the Sixers would have been moved if they had any real value. That makes it really easy to know what the gms around the league think of the Sixers roster.
The Sixers have a bright future, but having a bright future and realizing it are something different. Even if all their players develop perfectly I don't see them being better than us for at least 3 more years.
Our ability to be competitive now gives us a huge edge over them in free agency and even in trades for established talent (no big name player is agreeing to go to Philly anytime soon). So the C's are better now and if they are able to leverage this into attracting talent that Philly won't be able to the C's will also be better long term.
thank you. Common logic has escaped this thread. Somehow a team that has intentionally tried to lose as many games as possible, has filled their roster with second round and undrafted players has an insane amount of NBA quality players on their team... I am not sure I have bumped a thread before in all my years on the forum. But I am definitely bumping this a year or two from now when all the Philly guys are out of the league and zeller and crowder are still plugging along.
What the Sixers are doing is interesting, and they deserve all the credit for building some elite assets that could turn into good players. But to stating a lot of their bench guys are as good as ours doesn't make sense. Our bench has consistently been one of the better ones in the league and produces positively in most games. The Sixers bench might put up some solid traditional numbers but their team performs poorly with them on the court. I'm not sure how you can reasonably compare their ancillary players to ours when our ancillary players are essentially leading us to the playoffs and the Sixers ancillary players are one of the worst units in the league.
well their ancillary players are starting and playing bigger minutes because unlike Boston, Philadelphia has very few starter level players. I guess that is the big difference. Philadelphia doesn't have IT, Turner, Bradley, and Smart in the backcourt. So guys like Wroten, Covington, and Thompson instead of being in bench roles are starting (or playing a lot more minutes than they should be). That doesn't however mean that Philadelphia's bench level players aren't basically equivalent to Boston's bench level players. They just have different roles because Boston has more overall talent.
That Boston is more talented doesn't mean that Philadelphia's bench level players aren't equivalent to Boston's. I agree with that. The thing that makes our bench level players better, is the team performs better when they are in than the Philly performs when their bench level players are in.
You have to know that around the league the Boston bench players are viewed of more highly than the Philly bench level players though. Hinkie has been trying to trade anyone he can for picks, and that guys like Wroten, Sims and Thompson are still on the team speaks volumes to their value around the league.
Where Crowder was one of the main pieces in trading for a former all star, Turner was traded to Indi for a first the year before and Zeller was the player the C's thought enough of to ask for when Cleveland needed to create space for LeBron.
The NBA asset market shows that the Celtics bench players are valued much higher than the Sixers.
The traditional stats just don't tell the whole story when comparing the two, once 82games updates their site I will show you some numbers that better explain the difference between the two groups of players.
TP for the discussion.
But the Philly bench players are in the game against starters so of course they aren't going to perform as well as Boston's bench players which are in the game against other teams bench players. Tony Wroten can't keep up with Steph Curry, but would be able to keep up with Shaun Livingston and Leandro Barbosa (or at least keep up much better). That is why having a better starting unit matters. I mean Philly's starting lineup against Washington (Philly's last game) was Noel, Aldemir, Grant, Sampson, and Smith. If you look at minutes the 5 guys with the most minutes in that game were in order Noel, Smith, Thompson, Covington, and Robinson. If Philly had a better starting unit and most of those guys were shifted to the bench, they would perform better. You can't expect bench players to perform like starters even when they are starting. It just doesn't work that way. I'm just of the belief there isn't much difference between those Philly players (aside from Noel) and guys like Zeller, Crowder, Jerekbo, etc.
EDIT: And for the record if I'm ranking the teams on actual playing right now, of the first 7 or so 6 would be on Boston (in no particular order - Noel, Thomas, Smart, Turner, Bass, Bradley, Olynyk). Mbah a Moute would probably be a close 8. Sullinger would be there if he was healthy as well. That however is not a measure of "assets" or value going forward and that is where Noel, Embiid, Saric, and the Philly 1st come out much more ahead (all are easily 2nd tier or better assets) than Boston where you really only have Smart, IT, and maybe Sullinger as 2nd tier or better assets. Obviously if Boston misses the playoffs and wins a top 3 pick in the lottery that would greatly alter the landscape. The Brooklyn and Lakers pick are too uncertain to be rated as assets, but all of them could end up anywhere from 1st tier to 4th tier assets depending on what happens with those teams.
Topic: Great C's article by Zach Lowe (Read 30064 times)