To recap:
- I liked Noel well before he was on the 76ers... so did a lot of people here.
- I liked Embiid well before he was on the 76ers... as did Danny Ainge. He tried to trade up for him.
- I liked Okafor well before he was on the 76ers... as did Danny Ainge. He tried to trade up for him.
They all ended up on Philly. All three are better than every chip on our team.
Right now, at this present point in time, Avery Bradley, Jared Sullinger and Isaiah Thomas are all better NBA players (or at the very least AS GOOD) as the best player on the 76ers roster.
The best player the sixers have right now is Nerlens Noel. It's very difficult to argue that Noel is better RIGHT NOW than Bradley, Sully or Thomas. You can probably make a legit argument that he is on par with those guys, but certainly not better.
All of the value the 76ers have right now, is in that mystical entity we like to call "potential".
potential
adjective: potential
having or showing the capacity to develop into something in the future.
noun: potential
latent qualities or abilities that may be developed and lead to future success or usefulness.
Potential is, by definition, an ability that somebody doesn't have...but that you hope they might one day have.
Until Okafor and Embiid have played sufficient time in the NBA, 'potential' is all that they have.
Until Noel can prove that he can develop his offensive game enough to not be a major liability on that end of the floor, potential is the only thing that makes him superior to our own talents.
Those three guys may be more valuable "assets" right now than what we have on the Celtics, but every day they don't show signs if reaching their 'potential' that value drops.
Every game Embiid misses due to injury his value drops
Every game Noel's offensive issues get exploited, his value drops
Every game that Okafor gets on the court and DOESN'T look like a #3 pick, his value drops
Personally, I think Embiid is not going to come close to his perceived potential and will be a good starter at best.
I think Noel Is never going to be a positive offensive player, and will be lucky to ever become Tyson Chandler good on that end. If he can become at least neutral then he'll have a great career, but if he's a permanent liability then he's never going to be much more valuable than Omer Asik.
I think Okafor is going to come out strong pretty much from the get go. I think he's going to be a fantastic player and worthy of his pick. I have a lot of confidence in him. But what if he doesn't?
The entire Philly team is full of question marks - there is nothing surefire, nothing set in stone. Three years from how Hinkie could look like an NBA god, or he could just as easily be the laughing stock of the NBA.
That's the difference - he's taking a big risk in a high stakes poker game, and he's putting a lot of faith in something he doesn't have a whole lot of control over, basically purely in the hope that he gets lucky and the domino's fall the right way.
Make no mistake - there is nothing intelligent about what the 76ers are doing. There is nothing calculated, no formula, no strategy. They are taking their entire household savings from the past 10 years, going to the nearest poker machine, and putting it all on 'Red'. They're hoping luck falls their way and they double up, because the only other option is that they lose everything and the entire past 3 years are for nothing.
Btw Eddie... if you wouldn't trade our entire roster/assets straight up for Philly's roster/assets... you're lying.
There is no way in hell that I would even dream of trading all of our assets for all of Philly's assets.
Not in a million years.
I would look Hinkie in the eyes and laugh hysterically in his face. Then I'd give him a pat on the back for trying.
There are two types of people in the world - those who are risk takers, the 'calculated risk' takers, and the cautious.
You obviously are part of group #1 - the risk takers. That's fine, and it's a valid approach. High risk general equals high reward or bust. You'd rather risk a bust in order to give yourself the chance at hitting the jackpot - fair enough.
I'm in group #2 - calculated risk taker. I'm all for taking a risk, but I need to know that the worst case scenario (just in case we hit it) is not a complete disaster, and will still leave us in a position where we can jump to a plan B and/or remain somewhat competitive.
I think Danny is also in group #2 - happy to invest in somebody's ceiling, but only if he's convinced that the floor is high enough that the trade can be still be considered acceptable even if it doesn't pan out as expected.
