Great C's article by Zach Lowe

[celticsclay]

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.

Wroten tore his ACL in January so that nixed whatever trade plans, if any, that Hinkie had.  Regarding Turner, Philly tried to trade Turner for a 1st but no team would do it.  The Philly/Indy trade was Granger and a 2nd round pick for Turner and Lavoy Allen. 

A player's value to their current team may not match that player's value around the league.  From rumors, Bradley is apparently worth a late 1st around the league but Ainge values him higher.  Apparently no one offered a 1st for Bass so he's still with the team.  Would anyone offer even a late 1st for an injured, overweight Sully?  I'd say Noel and Smart are the only active players on either team worth more than a late 1st.

redundant deleted

[JHTruth]

All that jibber-jabber to say what many have been saying here for some time now. TANK TO GET A TOP-5 PICK..

[BitterJim]

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.

Wroten tore his ACL in January so that nixed whatever trade plans, if any, that Hinkie had.  Regarding Turner, Philly tried to trade Turner for a 1st but no team would do it.  The Philly/Indy trade was Granger and a 2nd round pick for Turner and Lavoy Allen. 

A player's value to their current team may not match that player's value around the league.  From rumors, Bradley is apparently worth a late 1st around the league but Ainge values him higher.  Apparently no one offered a 1st for Bass so he's still with the team.  Would anyone offer even a late 1st for an injured, overweight Sully?  I'd say Noel and Smart are the only active players on either team worth more than a late 1st.

Isaiah Thomas?

[Moranis]

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.

Wroten tore his ACL in January so that nixed whatever trade plans, if any, that Hinkie had.  Regarding Turner, Philly tried to trade Turner for a 1st but no team would do it.  The Philly/Indy trade was Granger and a 2nd round pick for Turner and Lavoy Allen. 

A player's value to their current team may not match that player's value around the league.  From rumors, Bradley is apparently worth a late 1st around the league but Ainge values him higher.  Apparently no one offered a 1st for Bass so he's still with the team.  Would anyone offer even a late 1st for an injured, overweight Sully?  I'd say Noel and Smart are the only active players on either team worth more than a late 1st.

Isaiah Thomas?

Boston just acquired him for a late 1st and Thornton.  So no, not so much.

[colincb]

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.

Wroten tore his ACL in January so that nixed whatever trade plans, if any, that Hinkie had.  Regarding Turner, Philly tried to trade Turner for a 1st but no team would do it.  The Philly/Indy trade was Granger and a 2nd round pick for Turner and Lavoy Allen. 

A player's value to their current team may not match that player's value around the league.  From rumors, Bradley is apparently worth a late 1st around the league but Ainge values him higher.  Apparently no one offered a 1st for Bass so he's still with the team.  Would anyone offer even a late 1st for an injured, overweight Sully?  I'd say Noel and Smart are the only active players on either team worth more than a late 1st.

Isaiah Thomas?

Boston just acquired him for a late 1st and Thornton.  So no, not so much.

That's a strange way to assess a trade of a first and an expiring contract. Thornton made the deal work. That was the extent of his value.

Edit: Don't agree with your assessment. Getting a rotation player for a late first is good value.

[Moranis]

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.

Wroten tore his ACL in January so that nixed whatever trade plans, if any, that Hinkie had.  Regarding Turner, Philly tried to trade Turner for a 1st but no team would do it.  The Philly/Indy trade was Granger and a 2nd round pick for Turner and Lavoy Allen. 

A player's value to their current team may not match that player's value around the league.  From rumors, Bradley is apparently worth a late 1st around the league but Ainge values him higher.  Apparently no one offered a 1st for Bass so he's still with the team.  Would anyone offer even a late 1st for an injured, overweight Sully?  I'd say Noel and Smart are the only active players on either team worth more than a late 1st.

Isaiah Thomas?

Boston just acquired him for a late 1st and Thornton.  So no, not so much.

That's a strange way to assess a trade of a first and an expiring contract. Thornton made the deal work. That was the extent of his value.

Edit: Don't agree with your assessment. Getting a rotation player for a late first is good value.

what does you post have to do with mine?  Someone said the only players on either team worth more than a late first were Noel and Smart.  Someone else then asked about Thomas.  My response was that considering Thomas was just traded for a late first and Thornton that Thomas pretty clearly doesn't have value more than a late 1st since you know he was just traded for a late 1st and salary filler (Thornton has barely played in Phoenix so they clearly only acquired him because they needed salary to make the trade work).

[BudweiserCeltic]

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.

Wroten tore his ACL in January so that nixed whatever trade plans, if any, that Hinkie had.  Regarding Turner, Philly tried to trade Turner for a 1st but no team would do it.  The Philly/Indy trade was Granger and a 2nd round pick for Turner and Lavoy Allen. 

A player's value to their current team may not match that player's value around the league.  From rumors, Bradley is apparently worth a late 1st around the league but Ainge values him higher.  Apparently no one offered a 1st for Bass so he's still with the team.  Would anyone offer even a late 1st for an injured, overweight Sully?  I'd say Noel and Smart are the only active players on either team worth more than a late 1st.

Isaiah Thomas?

Boston just acquired him for a late 1st and Thornton.  So no, not so much.

That's a strange way to assess a trade of a first and an expiring contract. Thornton made the deal work. That was the extent of his value.

Edit: Don't agree with your assessment. Getting a rotation player for a late first is good value.

what does you post have to do with mine?  Someone said the only players on either team worth more than a late first were Noel and Smart.  Someone else then asked about Thomas.  My response was that considering Thomas was just traded for a late first and Thornton that Thomas pretty clearly doesn't have value more than a late 1st since you know he was just traded for a late 1st and salary filler (Thornton has barely played in Phoenix so they clearly only acquired him because they needed salary to make the trade work).

Just the same, Thomas was traded at low value because of circumstances, and his value was estimated to be higher during free-agency, which is why Ainge struck the deal when he did.

That Thomas was traded for what he was says more about the Suns' overcrowded PG situation and interest in moving away from Thomas, than it says about Thomas' value in the market, particularly during the trade deadline when the trade assets teams have at their disposal are not at their most optimal.

[slamtheking]

Dear God, this is horrifying. When Sixers fans come on here and say our four best assets are all better than anything you have, they have a legit argument. I think Philly and Boston will be interesting to compare for the next decades as they took such different roots in the rebuild.

But when you start acting like Jakarr something or other and Henry Sims and Ish Smith...Ish Smith, and Isiah Canaan are worth anything in the whole world you lose all, and I mean all credibility. Go back and look at any big time tank operation and you will see a bunch of guys putting up reasonable stats, because someone has got to put the ball in the basket. Lets look at last year. Evan Turner and MCW put up great stats for philly, better stats than anyone that you guys are touting as hidden gems. Since then it has been discovered that these players are not good.

STOP BONING PHILLLY!!!!*

When discussing Embiid, Noel, a top5 pick, and Saric boning is permitted, but not when you are talking about ish ****ing smith

Ish Smith and Isiah Canaan were bench players on playoff teams before coming to Philly.  Hell Canaan even started 9 games for Houston this year.  Sure they are getting more minutes and thus producing better on Philly because Philly is not a playoff team, but if they could be bench players on playoff teams in the past, one would reason they would be bench players on playoff teams in the future. 

MCW post trade on a per minute basis is scoring the same, has upped his steals, lowered his turnovers, though his assists and rebounds are down.  He went from a terrible team to the 6th seed in the East and is about the same player.  And he is a volume scorer type player. 

A guy like Hollis Thompson isn't going to forget how to shoot if he was on a better team and there aren't many guys 6'8" who enter the league and are over 39% from three that early on.  Most players take awhile to get up to that sort of real shooting. 


Again these guys are bench players that are being forced to start because Philly only has one quality starter (Noel).  You aren't going to win if you are starting and playing bench players huge minutes.  My point in this thread has been merely there isn't much difference between guys like Zeller and Crowder and guys like Sims and Thompson.  You can't call the Boston players assets and the Philly guys scrubs.  The numbers just don't bear that out.  I'd be perfectly fine if you called them all scrubs though because lets face it they are all nothing more than bench players.

They're all just bench-quality players on the C's.  the Philly roster is loaded with players that if they made someone's bench they'd be at the very tail end of the bench if not in street clothes.  The C's players though would actually make the rotation on other teams.

is there really anyone playing for Philly right now that you'd add to the C's roster other than Noel?  I wouldn't.  Smith, Canaan and Sims are the bigger names there but even our bench-quality players are better than them.

Jerami Grant is a good one too. Plays good defense. Rebounds. Hits the outside shot. Has size and athleticism. Good 3+D player. I think he has starter potential (at SF).

Noel and Grant. They are the only two guys I'd be interested in.

You could debate their backup quality wings vs Boston's backup quality wings but that is nothing to get excited about. I think James Young has best long term potential out of all of those players albeit a couple of those Philly guys are out-playing him right now.

I'd take Wroten, Sims, Covington, and Thompson over Pressey, Randolph, Wallace, and Datome and wouldn't give it a second thought.  If Boston was better I'd certainly look Mbah a Moute, Canaan, and Smith as opposed to guys like Crowder and Zeller. 

Thomas Robinson I would add over every single guy on Boston I mentioned above. 

And I have no idea what to make of Furkan Aldemir who had a fairly decent career in Turkey before coming to Philly in December of this season.

It would be kind of cool if you could quit making up straw man arguments and staying stuff that is blatantly inaccurate.

The part in bolded isn't what anyone is, or has been talking about in this conversation. You mentioned the 4 worst players on Boston who play a combined 12 minutes a game with 3 of them usually receiving DNPs and compared them to 4 guys on Philly who play, when healthy a combined 100 minutes a game and all of whom have started at times this seasons. That a BS comparison and you know it.

Secondly you talk about Ish Smith getting minutes on a playoff team. He has played in 4 games combined in 3 years in the playoffs and taken a grand total of 4 shots. He has never ever been in a playoff rotation. Canaan actually did get a few minutes on Houston because they have probably the worst point guard rotation in the league. He still did not play a single minute in the playoffs for them last year.

We have a pretty astute Philly fan on these boards and he gave a legit run down on the players on his team in the love of Philadelphia friend. The fact that your evaluation of their talent exceeds his by a very wide margin, as well as the fact that you are constantly making up and stretching facts, says a lot about you and your "evaluation."

Finally Cannaan and Smith over Crowder? Crowder is no all star, but his value as an nba player compared to Smith in particularly is not really debatable and Crowder will score a much better contract than either of those guys this offseason.

TP for beating me to the punch in calling this out as a foolish rebuttal.

[slamtheking]

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. 

how does Boston have starter level players?  everyone of them would be coming off the bench if we had decent talent on this team.  how you can equate them to starter quality while raving about how Philly's team has more talent while saying they're bench players.  makes no sense whatsoever.

[KeepRondo]

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. 

how does Boston have starter level players?  everyone of them would be coming off the bench if we had decent talent on this team.  how you can equate them to starter quality while raving about how Philly's team has more talent while saying they're bench players.  makes no sense whatsoever.

TY. That's pretty much what I said. You could consider Bradley and Turner as bench players. And if you group them with Olynyk and Thomas who actually come off the bench, there is no comparison to any 4 players you take from the sixers.

[celticsclay]

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. 

how does Boston have starter level players?  everyone of them would be coming off the bench if we had decent talent on this team.  how you can equate them to starter quality while raving about how Philly's team has more talent while saying they're bench players.  makes no sense whatsoever.

TY. That's pretty much what I said. You could consider Bradley and Turner as bench players. And if you group them with Olynyk and Thomas who actually come off the bench, there is no comparison to any 4 players you take from the sixers.

TP do you both. Seeing Moranis try twist and turn and try to battle logic as well as 4 or 5 other posters in this thread has been weird. It is made even stranger by the fact that this is also over fringe NBA players that the 76ers don't particularly value and most likely won't be in the league next year or the year after. It would be one thing if it was our own lightening rod talent like Rondo. Keep digging those heels in! Don't give up an inch.

[slamtheking]

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. 

how does Boston have starter level players?  everyone of them would be coming off the bench if we had decent talent on this team.  how you can equate them to starter quality while raving about how Philly's team has more talent while saying they're bench players.  makes no sense whatsoever.

TY. That's pretty much what I said. You could consider Bradley and Turner as bench players. And if you group them with Olynyk and Thomas who actually come off the bench, there is no comparison to any 4 players you take from the sixers.

I realized that after I read through the rest of the thread.  I was playing catchup on the responses to my earlier posts.  TP for beating me to it.

[Moranis]

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. 

how does Boston have starter level players?  everyone of them would be coming off the bench if we had decent talent on this team.  how you can equate them to starter quality while raving about how Philly's team has more talent while saying they're bench players.  makes no sense whatsoever.

Bradley was starting for a team that made the ECF before he got hurt during the playoffs and that was his 2nd year in the league.  Turner started on a team that made the ECSF.  Thomas most definitely could start on a number of teams.  But yeah I'm the crazy one calling those starter level players.

[tazzmaniac]

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.

Wroten tore his ACL in January so that nixed whatever trade plans, if any, that Hinkie had.  Regarding Turner, Philly tried to trade Turner for a 1st but no team would do it.  The Philly/Indy trade was Granger and a 2nd round pick for Turner and Lavoy Allen. 

A player's value to their current team may not match that player's value around the league.  From rumors, Bradley is apparently worth a late 1st around the league but Ainge values him higher.  Apparently no one offered a 1st for Bass so he's still with the team.  Would anyone offer even a late 1st for an injured, overweight Sully?  I'd say Noel and Smart are the only active players on either team worth more than a late 1st.

Isaiah Thomas?

Boston just acquired him for a late 1st and Thornton.  So no, not so much.

That's a strange way to assess a trade of a first and an expiring contract. Thornton made the deal work. That was the extent of his value.

Edit: Don't agree with your assessment. Getting a rotation player for a late first is good value.

what does you post have to do with mine?  Someone said the only players on either team worth more than a late first were Noel and Smart.  Someone else then asked about Thomas.  My response was that considering Thomas was just traded for a late first and Thornton that Thomas pretty clearly doesn't have value more than a late 1st since you know he was just traded for a late 1st and salary filler (Thornton has barely played in Phoenix so they clearly only acquired him because they needed salary to make the trade work).

Just the same, Thomas was traded at low value because of circumstances, and his value was estimated to be higher during free-agency, which is why Ainge struck the deal when he did.

That Thomas was traded for what he was says more about the Suns' overcrowded PG situation and interest in moving away from Thomas, than it says about Thomas' value in the market, particularly during the trade deadline when the trade assets teams have at their disposal are not at their most optimal.

After trading Dragic, the Suns could have stuck with Bledsoe and Thomas.  Instead they went after Knight and got rid of Thomas.  If the Suns thought the could get more value than a late 1st for Thomas in the offseason, they could have waited to trade him.   They didn't even get the Clippers 1st this year but instead got the Cavs 2016 1st. 

[ViolentGhandi]

this thread is the most entertaining I ever read on here - its like someone desperate is trying to sell us Phillys players but well our bench is allready full and its past deadline anyways.

also I don't even bother to compare those players - its fairly simple for me the C's overperformed as we all know and many sources state. so why on earth would I if I was GM take my players who without a doubt musst have improofed and look to replace them with players who had the chance to do the same but couldnt. C's have something to build on - it will be about improofing bit and pieces (and might mean the some parts get shifted around) - C's allready look for something with real impact - PHI has nothing of that yet. If they were even remotly equially stacked with talent they should be competing against each other for that playoff spot right now.