So much wrong, and factually inaccurate with just about everything you wrote, but I'll try to keep it as brief as possible.
How on Earth do Rondo, Bennelli and a guy who isn't on their team improve their defense? The first two are not good defenders, the last isn't on the roster and that's not even touching on the fact Rajon Rondo is one of the worst offensive players PGs in the NBA.
2nd, Sac is the most dysfunctional organization on the NBA. They've been in the top 10 for years, their coach and best player openly don't like each other, they
What exactly is the risk Philly took? They expended cap space they weren't going to use anyway. That's it.
Your bias is seeping through pretty heavily here.
The best case scenario for the Kings is they make the playoffs as cannon fodder. The Worst case is that they lose the #1 pick.
The absolute worst case scenario for the Sixers is that they get a late lottery/mid teens 1st in 2019 and a free look at Stauskas. That's it, there's no downside.
My apologies to all. I screwed the post up royally cutting and pasting and it is a POS as is and DOA. Somehow I managed to leave the major part of the post out on the clipboard comparing the trade to similar large dump trades. Don’t know how I did it, but it’s lost to posterity and given the time it took, it’s staying that way.
Broke down the SAC/PHI trade component by component by the amount of cap used, the relative talents transferred, the flippability of the filler, the timing of the receipt of the picks, the quality of the picks, the value of the swaps (which survived), etc. Basic gist was that the deal was overall comparable in value to other large dumps like Zeller trade with the Cav, the Jefferson dump GSW-UTA etc. Generally, Hinkie got less than the other deals in exchange for the potentially significant payoff of the 2019 unprotected pick. If he ends up with the 2018 pick, he clearly got less than the value of the other deals. Hence the summary sentences:
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).
As to your points on what remained.
- 2014-15 Defensive Box +/- rankings out of 492 records in parentheses per basketball-reference.com. Rondo (105) is a big defensive upgrade over Collison (339), McCallum (349), and Sessions (377). Bellinelli (317) is below average defensively, but he’s an upgrade over Stauskas (403) who is brutal. A Moute got rejected, but last I heard they were trying to work it out. They know him and he is a defensive guy. Think Divac did very well overall in his acquisitions on the defensive end, but whether they got enough to compete for the playoff, which is their goal, time will tell.
- Agree on SAC’s FO, however Divac was not part of the problem. He won the battle with Karl who caused the most recent bumbling and the owner who is a Jerry Jones/Dan Gilbert meddling neophyte finally did one thing right and backed Divac. Should have hired him before Karl, but that’s been the type of idiocy that’s been going on with him and the prior owners. The dump deal took a lot of flack because of the nonsense that’s been going on there for a long time, but Divac seems to actually have a clue and is handling the situation with the players very well and getting their buy- in. Divac’s FA acquisitions, his handling of his players and what he’s telling them have been very good. The pick of WCS also looks to be a good fit to me.
- Not sure what bias you’re referring to. Actually follow both SAC and PHI and about half a dozen other teams because they are either candidates for fleecing, I’ve lived and worked there, and in the case of PHI, I have a very similar background to Hinkie. Hinkie’s a smart guy who executes well and consistently. I think the plan is flawed for various reasons, but the NBA is not completely comparable to the real world from a management perspective. Otherwise, think he’s mishandled his dealing with other parties in the NBA and the press. Have heard things about his personality both ways.
Like most of his major picks except Saric, though Hinkie did well in fleecing ORL on the deal. Loved Embiid early and got off the bandwagon when the injury issue became known. He did have the potential to be transcendent though he had proved little on the floor. Still has a chance to be Big Z 2.0. Would have picked him at 3 or 6 given the alternatives since Smart was the only other guy I liked in that range.
Noel was another good value and he is going to be elite defensively. Okafor is the mirror image. Do not see the combo working together on the floor. If forced to pick, it would be Okafor>Smart>Noel. Would like any of them on the Cs. Have a lot of respect for the Sixers who along with the Lakers have been our biggest rivals. Back during the 60s, getting by the Sixers was more difficult than getting by the Lakers and the weaker Western Conference. That’s the extent of my biases and feeling about the Sixers.
- Worse case for the Sixers is the opportunity cost. You don’t value the cap they used, so it’s a big win in your mind. I was comparing the deal to others and found it on par overall and not a fleecing of Divac. As for Stauskas, he was in bottom 30% on TS% and bottom 5% on defensive rating. Smart had the same TS%. Bargnani the same defensive rating. Think Stauskas can improve, but likely a role player and has a pretty high bust potential. Much preferred Zeller in the deal matchup and Thornton as flippable filler.
