A little surprised Saric ended behind Embiid or the MIA pick that is going to require a major injury to fall into the late lottery. I'm not high on Saric at all, but the general consensus is better. Thought the following was somewhat noteworthy for news content. Agree that it's best to hold Embiid and hope rather than take a mid-first. hit-or-miss pick. Embiid's issue is health rather than potential talent though some of the Librety Ballers have been excessive about a guy who had minimal playing time against people rather than chairs. Think the bit about Divac is silly. Kings may well win that deal at the end of the day.
If the Sixers hypothetically tried to move Embiid right now, what might they get in return? As a rough thought experiment, I asked around. One longtime league executive said he’s worth “a real protected first.” When I asked if the Sixers could get into the lottery for Embiid, the reply was quick: “No.” Another longtime front office man disagreed slightly and said he’d go “back end of the lottery, maybe” for Embiid. He called it a “dice roll” for teams that are starting over and want to gamble. Those are just two opinions, and Hinkie has done pretty well for himself when negotiating with other front offices (poor, overmatched Vlade Divac), but it’s evident that, at present, it would be hard to find a return approaching the third overall pick that the Sixers invested in Embiid. It’s hold him and hope, or move him and take a huge loss on the investment. The first option seems smartest and most likely.
For financial reasons, Saric most likely will stay in Europe two more seasons which drops his value. The Sixers can't lose the Kings trade because they didn't give up anything important. Even if the Kings do well, the Sixers still picked up Stauskas and a 1st rounder.
Yes, but Saric’s situation was known when the Sixers drafted him. I was referring to how he was ranked below a MIA pick that is not likely to be very good in a supposedly weaker 2016 draft and Embiid, whom GMs had evaluated as worth a mid-rounder currently. Last year in a supposedly very strong draft Saric went 12th.
On the second point, the article writer says Divac got fleeced. Sixers are paying $26 million in cap for a pick that they will get in 3 or 4 years out which is where all the real trade value is. If they get it 3 years, it will be at best a mid-first and a clear loss for PHI. If it’s a high 2019 first, PHI wins.
SAC is using that cap room to improve their defense dramatically (Bellinelli, Koufos, Rondo, Caron Butler, and A Moute) as well as the pick for WCS that they had already made. They had a pretty clear plan, but people got distracted by a clown show that wasn’t Divac’s fault. I think there is a very good chance they improve as lot defensively. Offensively it is pretty much a push unless Rondo reverts towards his mean career performance. I expect some, but not much.
Stauskas who was nearly the worst player in the NBA for most of the season and played well enough offensively under Karl as to not be a complete loss though his defense was putrid throughout. TS% of 49% and a strong candidate for the Kings worst defender with a 113 defensive rating on one of the worst defensive teams in the NBA. Put the two stats together and you have a below average shooter (bottom 30%) and a defensive disaster (bottom 5%) in the NBA. He was an 8th pick, but he was a reach/riser and he’s in the NBA.
.
The fillers don’t add anything to the team and they have no market value other than as fillers.
The swaps are complicated, but very over-valued. Without a PG, PHI is going to stink for at least 2 years . SI has them as the worst and it’s tough to see anyone edging them out. Maybe they end up 3rd and SAC who was 9th lucks out and gets 1st. Happens every day. PHI gets the 1st and SAC gets stuck with the 3rd. Long odds and not much downside for SAC. Anyway, no one is built as bad as PHI. In addition, if SAC improves just a bit, the odds are long against the swaps. If SAC improves a decent amount out of the bottom 10, the swaps are useless. So PHI does not win much if anything unless they get a lot better than expected and SAC gets worse.
Compare this deal to the Zeller/Thornton trade-dump. We took on $10M, got a much better prospect in Zeller (who was decent coming in AND a big) than Stauskas, and got a much better filler in Thornton who was very flippable because of his one NBA skill. No one is looking for Thompson or Landry for their stretch run. We had to wait one year for a pick expected to be in the 20s vs three years for a pick expected to be in the teens or worse or four years for a pick expected to be in the in the top 10 or worse. I happen to like our deal better. But there are other big dump deals out there that are basically in the same market range too.
There are other dump deals for dumps of $10+ million like the Richard Jefferson/Biedrens trade for $24M. Warriors were a mediocre team and gave out an unprotected first likely to be in high teens/low 20s the next year and another unprotected first 4 years out. There was another trade that I ran across recently that had the same type of market value (i.e., $ 10 million for a mid-first). Here PHI is getting but one first that is 3 -4 years out for $26. It’s based on SAC staying bad when the trade helps them get better because they have the money to sign decent mid-tier free agents.
Doesn’t look anything like a fleecing to me. PHI took on more risk for a better return and bet against the trend (SAC on paper is getting better).
