The most talked about inconsequential trade?

[celticsclay]

Since this somehow got resurrected today to become the 8th millionth post to debate the merits of the 76ers tanking, I'll add the Lakers have clearly performed much worse when than they would in the beginning of the season. Injuries seemed to hurt them a bit losing Russell, Nick Young and Randle for various parts before losing Nance indefinitely. Not sure if I was giving Walton too much credit, they rely too much on streaky outside shooting or what. However, even when everyone has playing they have had some really brutual losses. On the flip side It was fair to point how bad the bottom of the west is because the Lakers have stayed within a stones throw of a playoff spot somehow despite winning at like a .200 percentage for a long time.

Really no idea what will happen with that pick or really any of the picks. Philly looks like they could start winning and raise up to 6th or 7th record wise. This is great news for the Brooklyn pick.

[Smitty77]

I found the neatest little blog:  http://www.libertyballers.com/

 

Smitty77

[greece66]

@tazzmaniac

I know who Hinkie and MCW are. Thank you.

[greece66]

Since this somehow got resurrected today to become the 8th millionth post to debate the merits of the 76ers tanking, I'll add the Lakers have clearly performed much worse when than they would in the beginning of the season. Injuries seemed to hurt them a bit losing Russell, Nick Young and Randle for various parts before losing Nance indefinitely. Not sure if I was giving Walton too much credit, they rely too much on streaky outside shooting or what. However, even when everyone has playing they have had some really brutual losses. On the flip side It was fair to point how bad the bottom of the west is because the Lakers have stayed within a stones throw of a playoff spot somehow despite winning at like a .200 percentage for a long time.

Really no idea what will happen with that pick or really any of the picks. Philly looks like they could start winning and raise up to 6th or 7th record wise. This is great news for the Brooklyn pick.

The point I was making was that, with hingsight, keeping MCW was probably the better option for Philly. To make that claim though, one has to examine the assets involved in their context; each player and pick have a different value for every team, depending on roster, stage of development, cap space, coach etc.

One would also think that the "resignation" of the GM who made the trade, would also suggest sthg about its outcome, but whatever...

Philly is such a heated issue that whenever it is mentioned people hardly read what you write, they just place you into pro/anti- tanking camp and reply accordingly. I find this intellectually dishonest, so I just leave it here.

Again, I think the points you raised at the OP are good and worthy of discussion, but it looks like it's too early to do this now.

Regarding LAL, I think Walton does a fine job based on the roster he has. Relying on the 3 is a good option when you have Nick Young, Russell, and Lou Williams. The flip side of the coin is that you lose games when your shooters are not hot. But making a playoff contender of this young team is nothing to scoff at IMO.

Last, regarding where Philly will end in the rankings. I think the will stay within the bottom 5; Denver is 14-23 compared to Philly's 10-25, it is unlikely that Philly will catch up. Dallas has a terrible roster but they are not tanking. This leaves Philly with Brooklyn, Miami,  PHX, and Minny.

Personally, I think Philly has invested so much in being a bottom 3 pick that they will not take any risks and tank hard when necessary. (There is a significant drop in the pick odds between the 3rd and 4th teams.)

I have read several times the argument that Simmons will make them better, and it is true that he is a good player. But coming a rookie coming back from an injury and playing at a new position will take time to adjust. Rodriguez was p good before his injury, I think it is likely that Philly will be worse off in its results with Simmons during his first month. Philly's roster is thus constructed (lots of C's and PFs, no guards or perimeter shooting - add the recent waiving of Hollis Thompson) that I expect them to stay at the bottom 3.

[Moranis]

Since this somehow got resurrected today to become the 8th millionth post to debate the merits of the 76ers tanking, I'll add the Lakers have clearly performed much worse when than they would in the beginning of the season. Injuries seemed to hurt them a bit losing Russell, Nick Young and Randle for various parts before losing Nance indefinitely. Not sure if I was giving Walton too much credit, they rely too much on streaky outside shooting or what. However, even when everyone has playing they have had some really brutual losses. On the flip side It was fair to point how bad the bottom of the west is because the Lakers have stayed within a stones throw of a playoff spot somehow despite winning at like a .200 percentage for a long time.

Really no idea what will happen with that pick or really any of the picks. Philly looks like they could start winning and raise up to 6th or 7th record wise. This is great news for the Brooklyn pick.

The Lakers had a very easy schedule to start the year.  Once the schedule got harder the true nature of the team appeared.  The Lakers aren't a very good team and no one thought they would be a very good team.  Sure sometimes the projected bottom feeders do quite well, but you couldn't really project that with the Lakers given how easy their schedule was to start the year (even with them somehow beating GS, though the second game was a 40 point beat down).   And sure they've had some injuries, but really no more than most teams, they just quite simply aren't very good and were never going to be very good.  That is why I thought this thread was a bit silly because it presumed that LA was going to make the playoffs, which just seemed odd since LA is not very good.

[celticsclay]

Since this somehow got resurrected today to become the 8th millionth post to debate the merits of the 76ers tanking, I'll add the Lakers have clearly performed much worse when than they would in the beginning of the season. Injuries seemed to hurt them a bit losing Russell, Nick Young and Randle for various parts before losing Nance indefinitely. Not sure if I was giving Walton too much credit, they rely too much on streaky outside shooting or what. However, even when everyone has playing they have had some really brutual losses. On the flip side It was fair to point how bad the bottom of the west is because the Lakers have stayed within a stones throw of a playoff spot somehow despite winning at like a .200 percentage for a long time.

Really no idea what will happen with that pick or really any of the picks. Philly looks like they could start winning and raise up to 6th or 7th record wise. This is great news for the Brooklyn pick.

The Lakers had a very easy schedule to start the year.  Once the schedule got harder the true nature of the team appeared.  The Lakers aren't a very good team and no one thought they would be a very good team.  Sure sometimes the projected bottom feeders do quite well, but you couldn't really project that with the Lakers given how easy their schedule was to start the year (even with them somehow beating GS, though the second game was a 40 point beat down).   And sure they've had some injuries, but really no more than most teams, they just quite simply aren't very good and were never going to be very good.  That is why I thought this thread was a bit silly because it presumed that LA was going to make the playoffs, which just seemed odd since LA is not very good.

You literally just pointed out they are 2 games out of the playoffs halfway into the season. How silly is it to think they could make it> All these teams are bad teams. That is the whole point.

[tazzmaniac]

Since this somehow got resurrected today to become the 8th millionth post to debate the merits of the 76ers tanking, I'll add the Lakers have clearly performed much worse when than they would in the beginning of the season. Injuries seemed to hurt them a bit losing Russell, Nick Young and Randle for various parts before losing Nance indefinitely. Not sure if I was giving Walton too much credit, they rely too much on streaky outside shooting or what. However, even when everyone has playing they have had some really brutual losses. On the flip side It was fair to point how bad the bottom of the west is because the Lakers have stayed within a stones throw of a playoff spot somehow despite winning at like a .200 percentage for a long time.

Really no idea what will happen with that pick or really any of the picks. Philly looks like they could start winning and raise up to 6th or 7th record wise. This is great news for the Brooklyn pick.

The point I was making was that, with hingsight, keeping MCW was probably the better option for Philly. To make that claim though, one has to examine the assets involved in their context; each player and pick have a different value for every team, depending on roster, stage of development, cap space, coach etc.

One would also think that the "resignation" of the GM who made the trade, would also suggest sthg about its outcome, but whatever...

Philly is such a heated issue that whenever it is mentioned people hardly read what you write, they just place you into pro/anti- tanking camp and reply accordingly. I find this intellectually dishonest, so I just leave it here.

Again, I think the points you raised at the OP are good and worthy of discussion, but it looks like it's too early to do this now.

Regarding LAL, I think Walton does a fine job based on the roster he has. Relying on the 3 is a good option when you have Nick Young, Russell, and Lou Williams. The flip side of the coin is that you lose games when your shooters are not hot. But making a playoff contender of this young team is nothing to scoff at IMO.

Last, regarding where Philly will end in the rankings. I think the will stay within the bottom 5; Denver is 14-23 compared to Philly's 10-25, it is unlikely that Philly will catch up. Dallas has a terrible roster but they are not tanking. This leaves Philly with Brooklyn, Miami,  PHX, and Minny.

Personally, I think Philly has invested so much in being a bottom 3 pick that they will not take any risks and tank hard when necessary. (There is a significant drop in the pick odds between the 3rd and 4th teams.)

I have read several times the argument that Simmons will make them better, and it is true that he is a good player. But coming a rookie coming back from an injury and playing at a new position will take time to adjust. Rodriguez was p good before his injury, I think it is likely that Philly will be worse off in its results with Simmons during his first month. Philly's roster is thus constructed (lots of C's and PFs, no guards or perimeter shooting - add the recent waiving of Hollis Thompson) that I expect them to stay at the bottom 3.

I read your post and can't believe anyone is still claiming the Sixers would have been better off keeping MCW.  The Bucks giving up on MCW and only being able to get Snell for him should have been the final stake in that argument and it really doesn't matter where the Lakers pick ends up.  Once the Sixers determined MCW was not their future starting PG, the only smart move was to trade him while his value was still high.  It is funny that there is another thread going on knocking the Sixers for missing out on selling Okafor high even though there was no real opportunity to trade Okafor for a good return. 

I expect Simmons to be on a conservative minutes restriction so I don't expect he'll make much difference in their win total this season but he should easily replace Rodriguez's production.  When Simmons starts, I'd expect their lineup to be Simmons, Stauskas, Covington, Ilyasova and Embiid.  Of note is that they've been putting Simmons through the same shooting drills as they did with Embiid.  With his skillset, he really only needs a decent jumper.   

[tazzmaniac]

Since this somehow got resurrected today to become the 8th millionth post to debate the merits of the 76ers tanking, I'll add the Lakers have clearly performed much worse when than they would in the beginning of the season. Injuries seemed to hurt them a bit losing Russell, Nick Young and Randle for various parts before losing Nance indefinitely. Not sure if I was giving Walton too much credit, they rely too much on streaky outside shooting or what. However, even when everyone has playing they have had some really brutual losses. On the flip side It was fair to point how bad the bottom of the west is because the Lakers have stayed within a stones throw of a playoff spot somehow despite winning at like a .200 percentage for a long time.

Really no idea what will happen with that pick or really any of the picks. Philly looks like they could start winning and raise up to 6th or 7th record wise. This is great news for the Brooklyn pick.

The Lakers had a very easy schedule to start the year.  Once the schedule got harder the true nature of the team appeared.  The Lakers aren't a very good team and no one thought they would be a very good team.  Sure sometimes the projected bottom feeders do quite well, but you couldn't really project that with the Lakers given how easy their schedule was to start the year (even with them somehow beating GS, though the second game was a 40 point beat down).   And sure they've had some injuries, but really no more than most teams, they just quite simply aren't very good and were never going to be very good.  That is why I thought this thread was a bit silly because it presumed that LA was going to make the playoffs, which just seemed odd since LA is not very good.

You literally just pointed out they are 2 games out of the playoffs halfway into the season. How silly is it to think they could make it> All these teams are bad teams. That is the whole point.

Yep.  Even the last place Mavs are only 4.5 games out of 8th.  At this point, I wouldn't be surprise if the Lakers finish 8th in the West or last in the West.  Hopefully it won't be the latter since I want them to lose both their 2017 and 2019 picks.  From a Sixers standpoint, I'm not sure if I'd rather get the 15th pick in this strong draft or an unprotected pick in the 2018 draft. 

[Moranis]

Since this somehow got resurrected today to become the 8th millionth post to debate the merits of the 76ers tanking, I'll add the Lakers have clearly performed much worse when than they would in the beginning of the season. Injuries seemed to hurt them a bit losing Russell, Nick Young and Randle for various parts before losing Nance indefinitely. Not sure if I was giving Walton too much credit, they rely too much on streaky outside shooting or what. However, even when everyone has playing they have had some really brutual losses. On the flip side It was fair to point how bad the bottom of the west is because the Lakers have stayed within a stones throw of a playoff spot somehow despite winning at like a .200 percentage for a long time.

Really no idea what will happen with that pick or really any of the picks. Philly looks like they could start winning and raise up to 6th or 7th record wise. This is great news for the Brooklyn pick.

The Lakers had a very easy schedule to start the year.  Once the schedule got harder the true nature of the team appeared.  The Lakers aren't a very good team and no one thought they would be a very good team.  Sure sometimes the projected bottom feeders do quite well, but you couldn't really project that with the Lakers given how easy their schedule was to start the year (even with them somehow beating GS, though the second game was a 40 point beat down).   And sure they've had some injuries, but really no more than most teams, they just quite simply aren't very good and were never going to be very good.  That is why I thought this thread was a bit silly because it presumed that LA was going to make the playoffs, which just seemed odd since LA is not very good.

You literally just pointed out they are 2 games out of the playoffs halfway into the season. How silly is it to think they could make it> All these teams are bad teams. That is the whole point.

because the Lakers are a worse team than the teams directly ahead of them.  And let's not underestimate they have to pass 4 teams to make the playoffs.  So even if 3 of them crap the bed, they still have to pass the 4th.  The Lakers are not going to make the playoffs.  They aren't good enough, which is why your initial post and the premise of this thread has been flawed the whole time. 

[celticsclay]

Since this somehow got resurrected today to become the 8th millionth post to debate the merits of the 76ers tanking, I'll add the Lakers have clearly performed much worse when than they would in the beginning of the season. Injuries seemed to hurt them a bit losing Russell, Nick Young and Randle for various parts before losing Nance indefinitely. Not sure if I was giving Walton too much credit, they rely too much on streaky outside shooting or what. However, even when everyone has playing they have had some really brutual losses. On the flip side It was fair to point how bad the bottom of the west is because the Lakers have stayed within a stones throw of a playoff spot somehow despite winning at like a .200 percentage for a long time.

Really no idea what will happen with that pick or really any of the picks. Philly looks like they could start winning and raise up to 6th or 7th record wise. This is great news for the Brooklyn pick.

The Lakers had a very easy schedule to start the year.  Once the schedule got harder the true nature of the team appeared.  The Lakers aren't a very good team and no one thought they would be a very good team.  Sure sometimes the projected bottom feeders do quite well, but you couldn't really project that with the Lakers given how easy their schedule was to start the year (even with them somehow beating GS, though the second game was a 40 point beat down).   And sure they've had some injuries, but really no more than most teams, they just quite simply aren't very good and were never going to be very good.  That is why I thought this thread was a bit silly because it presumed that LA was going to make the playoffs, which just seemed odd since LA is not very good.

You literally just pointed out they are 2 games out of the playoffs halfway into the season. How silly is it to think they could make it> All these teams are bad teams. That is the whole point.

because the Lakers are a worse team than the teams directly ahead of them.  And let's not underestimate they have to pass 4 teams to make the playoffs.  So even if 3 of them crap the bed, they still have to pass the 4th.  The Lakers are not going to make the playoffs.  They aren't good enough, which is why your initial post and the premise of this thread has been flawed the whole time.

Would you say you have been flawed this whole time?

[Moranis]

Since this somehow got resurrected today to become the 8th millionth post to debate the merits of the 76ers tanking, I'll add the Lakers have clearly performed much worse when than they would in the beginning of the season. Injuries seemed to hurt them a bit losing Russell, Nick Young and Randle for various parts before losing Nance indefinitely. Not sure if I was giving Walton too much credit, they rely too much on streaky outside shooting or what. However, even when everyone has playing they have had some really brutual losses. On the flip side It was fair to point how bad the bottom of the west is because the Lakers have stayed within a stones throw of a playoff spot somehow despite winning at like a .200 percentage for a long time.

Really no idea what will happen with that pick or really any of the picks. Philly looks like they could start winning and raise up to 6th or 7th record wise. This is great news for the Brooklyn pick.

The Lakers had a very easy schedule to start the year.  Once the schedule got harder the true nature of the team appeared.  The Lakers aren't a very good team and no one thought they would be a very good team.  Sure sometimes the projected bottom feeders do quite well, but you couldn't really project that with the Lakers given how easy their schedule was to start the year (even with them somehow beating GS, though the second game was a 40 point beat down).   And sure they've had some injuries, but really no more than most teams, they just quite simply aren't very good and were never going to be very good.  That is why I thought this thread was a bit silly because it presumed that LA was going to make the playoffs, which just seemed odd since LA is not very good.

You literally just pointed out they are 2 games out of the playoffs halfway into the season. How silly is it to think they could make it> All these teams are bad teams. That is the whole point.

because the Lakers are a worse team than the teams directly ahead of them.  And let's not underestimate they have to pass 4 teams to make the playoffs.  So even if 3 of them crap the bed, they still have to pass the 4th.  The Lakers are not going to make the playoffs.  They aren't good enough, which is why your initial post and the premise of this thread has been flawed the whole time.

Would you say you have been flawed this whole time?

I'm not the one that made a thread based on the premise that the Lakers were going to make the playoffs 7 games into the season.  I'm also not the one that claimed Houston and Memphis were mediocre and that Lakers were going to finish ahead of one of them to make the playoffs. 

[celticsclay]

Since this somehow got resurrected today to become the 8th millionth post to debate the merits of the 76ers tanking, I'll add the Lakers have clearly performed much worse when than they would in the beginning of the season. Injuries seemed to hurt them a bit losing Russell, Nick Young and Randle for various parts before losing Nance indefinitely. Not sure if I was giving Walton too much credit, they rely too much on streaky outside shooting or what. However, even when everyone has playing they have had some really brutual losses. On the flip side It was fair to point how bad the bottom of the west is because the Lakers have stayed within a stones throw of a playoff spot somehow despite winning at like a .200 percentage for a long time.

Really no idea what will happen with that pick or really any of the picks. Philly looks like they could start winning and raise up to 6th or 7th record wise. This is great news for the Brooklyn pick.

The Lakers had a very easy schedule to start the year.  Once the schedule got harder the true nature of the team appeared.  The Lakers aren't a very good team and no one thought they would be a very good team.  Sure sometimes the projected bottom feeders do quite well, but you couldn't really project that with the Lakers given how easy their schedule was to start the year (even with them somehow beating GS, though the second game was a 40 point beat down).   And sure they've had some injuries, but really no more than most teams, they just quite simply aren't very good and were never going to be very good.  That is why I thought this thread was a bit silly because it presumed that LA was going to make the playoffs, which just seemed odd since LA is not very good.

You literally just pointed out they are 2 games out of the playoffs halfway into the season. How silly is it to think they could make it> All these teams are bad teams. That is the whole point.

because the Lakers are a worse team than the teams directly ahead of them.  And let's not underestimate they have to pass 4 teams to make the playoffs.  So even if 3 of them crap the bed, they still have to pass the 4th.  The Lakers are not going to make the playoffs.  They aren't good enough, which is why your initial post and the premise of this thread has been flawed the whole time.

Would you say you have been flawed this whole time?

I'm not the one that made a thread based on the premise that the Lakers were going to make the playoffs 7 games into the season.  I'm also not the one that claimed Houston and Memphis were mediocre and that Lakers were going to finish ahead of one of them to make the playoffs.

Moranis, unlike you I constantly admit when I am wrong about things. I take it, acknowledge it and move on to keep good interesting discussion about it. Since you mentioned it, I'll again say I was clearly wrong about Houston. They have wildly exceeded my expectations through the combination of Harden at PG, Gordon and Anderson having a really nice bounce back season and somehow not getting completely destroyed inside despite relying on a 35 year old nene and a young Rookie nobody expected anything from.

 By the same token I thought a team that was relying on ancient players (by NBA standards) like Tony Allen and Randolph with a number of undrafted players in the rotation would be very average behind an aging Gasol and Conley. They have certainly exceeded my expectations by a lot, especially considering they lost Conley for a significant stretch.   

I will also add I wasn't predicting something insane here (like saying the warriors would finish .500) and thinking those teams would be very average was understandable with the Rockets losing a starting calibar NBA center in Howard and adding a coach in D'Antonio that has struggled in his stops since Phoenix. Predicting Memphis would be worse because of age wasn't really crazy either.

You on the other hand take outlandish contrarian views saying things like Hollis Thompson would have played 20 minutes a game for the Warriors last year or that Henry Sims was equivalent to Jae Crowder. It is hard to be that wrong. Instead of saying, wow that was crazy stuff I was way off on You just move on and make an outlandish pro Philly or pro cavs comment or some overly negative comment about a Celtics player on a new topic (while finding the time to attack other posts and posters for trying to foster an interesting discussion after a surprising start).

Take a page from this thread and notice their is an opportunity for improved discourse if we can admit when we were off on something (and hypothesis why) and we can focus on discussion rather than calling people's arguments "flawed the whole time" etc.

[green_bballers13]

I'm very surprised by Houston's record. Are you guys convinced it will last? And if it does, who cares? They get crushed by GSW in the WCF.

The NBA is boring right now in a sense that only two teams have a legit chance of winning. I'd favor the Houston Texans winning the SB over a non GSW-CLE team winning the NBA championship (well, maybe the Spurs have a better chance, but still not a good one).

[celticsclay]

I'm very surprised by Houston's record. Are you guys convinced it will last? And if it does, who cares? They get crushed by GSW in the WCF.

The NBA is boring right now in a sense that only two teams have a legit chance of winning. I'd favor the Houston Texans winning the SB over a non GSW-CLE team winning the NBA championship (well, maybe the Spurs have a better chance, but still not a good one).

I am starting to believe it will last. They have been missing Capela for a few weeks who is a solid interior defender and on the boards and they have kept plugging along. Gordon is playing really really well and Beverly has been awesome as a defensive guard playing off the ball a lot more. Ariza has always been solid and Anderson was thought of as a very good player a few years ago before being derailed by injuries. I think Golden State is a pretty awful matchup for them because they are trying to beat the Warriors at their own game. I will be interested in seeing them against the Cavs if for nothing besides entertainment purposes. They had a decently close game early in the season and play again in March.

[Moranis]

And now Boston owns this pick, so let's hope it is 2-5.