Sixers should trade out of #1

[PaulAllen]

With a log jam at the 4/5 and problems moving Okafor for fair value (reports is they cant get a top 6 pick) they should move the pick and fill their biggest need PG...

Okafor is still great player and while some say he doesnt translate to the evolution of the game there is no reason why the sixers should trade him for pennies on the dollar..

While many reports show they love Dunn the Celtics might have some bargaining room in flipping the picks...

#3, Bradley, and future first (protected)

[jpotter33]

I agree. I think they should trade down, too.

I'm not sure what gets a deal done, but I think we could ultimately get something done, though it probably involves either our Brooklyn swap next year or the 2018 pick.

It'd be ideal if we could get Simmons AND Okafor in the deal due to his limited value right now and their major log jam. Though that'd take a Godfather offer - probably something like Okafor and Simmons for Smart, Crowder, #3, #16, and the 2018 Brooklyn pick. Not sure it's worth it.

[saltlover]

That would be idiotic for them to do.  Ben Simmons will be the best player on that team from his first practice onward.  And it isn't close.

[furball]

I have been saying this for a while.  If they are not dead set on picking Simmons (who I think should be a PG by the way) and are Ok with either Dunn or Ingram (just in case the Lakers do something strange) or even Bender if Colangelo still loves Euros, then they should trade with the Celtics.  The 3rd, 23rd, and some seconds or young players or both just makes sense. 

[dreamgreen]

It seems logical but at the same time very unlikely. I know nothing about Dunn but if they like him they can have him.

[hpantazo]

I just don't see it even crossing their mind. It goes against all reason in drafting.

#1: When you are drafting in the lottery, you should never draft for need.

#2: When you have as many needs as the Sixers do, you should never draft for need.

#3: You never trade the #1 pick unless you get a clear overpay.

Unless they are absolutely convinced that Dunn is the best player in the draft, they should not trade the #1 pick.

[jpotter33]

That would be idiotic for them to do.  Ben Simmons will be the best player on that team from his first practice onward.  And it isn't close.

Better than Embiid if he's actually healthy?

Granted, I'm also not nearly as high on him as some are. I think he's got some character issues that might hurt him throughout his career.

[jpotter33]

I just don't see it even crossing their mind. It goes against all reason in drafting.

#1: When you are drafting in the lottery, you should never draft for need.

#2: When you have as many needs as the Sixers do, you should never draft for need.

#3: You never trade the #1 pick unless you get a clear overpay.

Unless they are absolutely convinced that Dunn is the best player in the draft, they should not trade the #1 pick.

I respectfully disagree. In fact, the Sixers are a prime example of why you should never draft SOLELY on the basis of best player available. Look at the conundrum they're in now. They have three supposedly franchise centers who can't play together, and due to the fact that they can't play together and have looked like crap doing so, their value is nowhere near where it should be in the league. The fact that Okafor can't even draw a top five draft pick this draft after both his and Noel's value dropped dramatically due to looking like crap playing out of position with each other is an indictment against an absolute BPA philosophy.

They don't even really have a rotational player for a good team that can hit a three, so it's very understandable for them to trade down or take Ingram due to his much, much better got on their team both in his position and skill set.

[hpantazo]

I just don't see it even crossing their mind. It goes against all reason in drafting.

#1: When you are drafting in the lottery, you should never draft for need.

#2: When you have as many needs as the Sixers do, you should never draft for need.

#3: You never trade the #1 pick unless you get a clear overpay.

Unless they are absolutely convinced that Dunn is the best player in the draft, they should not trade the #1 pick.

I respectfully disagree. In fact, the Sixers are a prime example of why you should never draft SOLELY on the basis of best player available. Look at the conundrum they're in now. They have three supposedly franchise centers who can't play together, and due to the fact that they can't play together and have looked like crap doing so, their value is nowhere near where it should be in the league. The fact that Okafor can't even draw a top five draft pick this draft after both his and Noel's value dropped dramatically due to looking like crap playing out of position with each other is an indictment against an absolute BPA philosophy.

They don't even really have a rotational player for a good team that can hit a three, so it's very understandable for them to trade down or take Ingram due to his much, much better got on their team both in his position and skill set.

That's a reasonable argument for trading the #1 pick. I can understand the logic behind it and it has some merit. The thing is with the Sixers though, after tanking hard for several years, they FINALY land the #1 pick, and they currently have nobody on their roster that they can say is a sure-fire franchise cornerstone type of player that they can build around. Embiid has the talent, but is still a big question mark. They missed out big time by not landing Towns, who was a legit franchise cornerstone. Okafor can't even get them a top 6 pick in this draft apparently, and Saric may not even come over to the NBA, and if he does, they have no idea how he will perform.

I honestly don't know enough about Simmons to know if he is a legit franchise cornerstone type of player, but if he is, they can't pass that up, they have been after that for several years and have missed out. If he's not, then sure, trade the #1 for more assets that fit better on your roster.

[jpotter33]

I just don't see it even crossing their mind. It goes against all reason in drafting.

#1: When you are drafting in the lottery, you should never draft for need.

#2: When you have as many needs as the Sixers do, you should never draft for need.

#3: You never trade the #1 pick unless you get a clear overpay.

Unless they are absolutely convinced that Dunn is the best player in the draft, they should not trade the #1 pick.

I respectfully disagree. In fact, the Sixers are a prime example of why you should never draft SOLELY on the basis of best player available. Look at the conundrum they're in now. They have three supposedly franchise centers who can't play together, and due to the fact that they can't play together and have looked like crap doing so, their value is nowhere near where it should be in the league. The fact that Okafor can't even draw a top five draft pick this draft after both his and Noel's value dropped dramatically due to looking like crap playing out of position with each other is an indictment against an absolute BPA philosophy.

They don't even really have a rotational player for a good team that can hit a three, so it's very understandable for them to trade down or take Ingram due to his much, much better got on their team both in his position and skill set.

That's a reasonable argument for trading the #1 pick. I can understand the logic behind it and it has some merit. The thing is with the Sixers though, after tanking hard for several years, they FINALY land the #1 pick, and they currently have nobody on their roster that they can say is a sure-fire franchise cornerstone type of player that they can build around. Embiid has the talent, but is still a big question mark. They missed out big time by not landing Towns, who was a legit franchise cornerstone. Okafor can't even get them a to 6 pick in this draft apparently, and Saric may not even come over to the NBA, and if he does, they have no idea how he will perform.

I honestly don't know enough about Simmons to know if he is a legit franchise cornerstone type of player, but if he is, they can't pass that up, they have been after that for several years and have missed out. If he's not, then sure, trade the #1 for more assets that fit better on your roster.

I guess it depends upon how confident in Saric they are, or if they think Simmons can ultimately play three long-term. If so, they should absolutely pick him. I just don't think his ceiling is that much higher than someone like Ingram's ceiling to forgo fit and the major logjam they already have.

I think Philly's issue is that they went BPA with the same position three years in a row, in addition to taking players they knew couldn't play for years at a time. It'd be different if their picks were at least a little flexible positionally, but they're all pure centers. I said the whole time that they're going to ruin their values, because you can't legitimately develop that many positional prospects at the same time. Doing it twice is understandable; doing it three times leads to the predicament that they're in now.