Beyond EJ- Time for the Nuclear Option

[P2K]

"I know some are stubborn to the concept, but you have to have a superstar. The league is built around that concept."


We had one for ten years and made one finals. We've won two championships in over forty years. This blow everything up and suffer for ten more years is just ridiculous for me. I might not have ten more years. And after a few decades of that you might not want ten more years.

Doesn't anyone just enjoy watching good basketball anymore? I understand championships can give us something we are missing in our personal lives, but fans wanting bad basketball by plan, or intent, just does not make sense to me. It seems antithetical to what sports should be about.

It should be such a beautiful team game. I will not discount the Detroit model. Is it more fun to watch New Orleans than Atlanta this year? How many Shaqs are there and what are the chances of getting one of the few in the lottery, and especially in the one year you have the number one pick? How did the Clippers do even with some great picks? I think the secret of enjoyable basketball is more the good team part, than the superstar thing.

There can also be beauty in watching five good players, playing good team ball, for a good coach. A potential superstar will always seek such a destination. I'm surprised that with so many statisticians on this board that we believe the odds of tanking to get a superstar are so good just because it happened with Duncan. Hell, even if we get lucky and draft one, he will most likely want to go to LA or NY for the shoe dollars before he is ready to provide a championship.

If we legitimately suck and land a good player who ultimately leads us to a championship, I will not object, although it is hard for me to trust to luck, and I will not enjoy the losing part. But to intentionally self inflict horrible basketball just seems wrong to me on so many levels, but primarily because of my love for the game itself.

Are the Sixers playing beautiful basketball now?

[Dedicated_76ers_fan]

The Pistons are not a once-in-a-blue model, or at least they shouldn't be. That is the greatest myth in basketball history. That the Pistons are some legendary team. The Pistons team can be summed up in one word: Build the best lineup possible, period!

And if my GM isn't trying to do that? I'd fire him on the spot if I were the owner. The Pistons aren't a "once-in-a-lifetime" blue model, rather they are the optimal model. The model that'll always win championships. Take a look at the Lakers. Best lineup, most talent=championship.

That's how it's always been, that's how it'll always be. It's no "fluke", it's what you should do as a GM if you take your job seriously.

And honestly, we're right there. Our PF position has to be one of the top out-east with Elton Brand and M-16. Thaddeus Young will hold the SF Spot and Jrue/Lou looks to be a foundation at PG.

We're just missing a starting SG, a Back-up SF and a Starting C. If Speights proves to be consistent on the defensive end, then that's one problem solved.

But we need a starting SG and a back-up SF. Trade Iggy, get a package of players+ a top 10-12 pick
and we're on our merry way to building a contender.

We need to tweak, not blow it up. We have a puzzle right here in front of us. We just need to acknowledge our flaws as they are. Which is, we lack a serious shooting guard. Young and Jrue may improve as shooters but that's not something we can count on.

[ZigZag]

SHOULD OF NEVER SIGNED IGGY TO BEGIN WITH...I WOULD OF RATHER TRADED HIM IF HE WOULDN'T SIGNED FOR A REASONABLE 65 MIL.

[tk76]

1984-2009 Finals. Teams that made the finals:25 years and 50 teams.

35 of 50 (70%) featured a superstar (top 10 NBA player) drafted in the top 5 picks by the team that was in the Finals. No way those teams make the Finals without that star leading them (Jordan, Magic, Bird, Duncan, Hakeem... etc) In almost every case that team drafted that superstar after having a 55+ loss season either by tanking/injury or just being horrible. The last Sixer pick in the top 5 was Iverson, who made this list.

So if having a terrible and getting a top 5 pick as a result of a losing season was absolutely necessary for 70% of the teams that have made the finals in the last 25 years. 19 of 25 Champions (76%) fit this criteria. You can not dismiss this.

[76ers76ers]

SHOULD OF NEVER SIGNED IGGY TO BEGIN WITH...I WOULD OF RATHER TRADED HIM IF HE WOULDN'T SIGNED FOR A REASONABLE 65 MIL.

OKAY

[ChuckS]

[quote] "Are the Sixers playing beautiful basketball now?"


Do we have "five good players, playing good team ball, for a good coach"?

Well...maybe the five good players part.

[P2K]

1984-2009 Finals. Teams that made the finals:25 years and 50 teams.

35 of 50 (70%) featured a superstar (top 10 NBA player) drafted in the top 5 picks by the team that was in the Finals. No way those teams make the Finals without that star leading them (Jordan, Magic, Bird, Duncan, Hakeem... etc) In almost every case that team drafted that superstar after having a 55+ loss season either by tanking/injury or just being horrible. The last Sixer pick in the top 5 was Iverson, who made this list.

So if having a terrible and getting a top 5 pick as a result of a losing season was absolutely necessary for 70% of the teams that have made the finals in the last 25 years. 19 of 25 Champions (76%) fit this criteria. You can not dismiss this.

That's good stuff right there.

Dedicated brought up the Lakers..they have Kobe.

[P2K]

"Are the Sixers playing beautiful basketball now?"


Do we have "five good players, playing good team ball, for a good coach"?

Well...maybe the five good players part.

That can't be true since none can shoot.

[Mojo7]

Pistons' model worked ONCE. People really need to stop bringing them up. That team was a once in a blue moon squad coming out of a bad conference.

You're not getting past the Dancing LeBrons, Celtics, Magic or even the Hawks with the talent on this team, even with a legit coach. Iguodala is not a player to build around, nor is anyone else on this team.

I know some are stubborn to the concept, but you have to have a superstar. The league is built around that concept.

Actually, that would be twice, since they made the Finals and lost in a close matchup with the Spurs.

[tk76]

The Pistons won in great part because the were able to get Rasheed for expiring contracts and draft picks ( per wikipedia Detroit sent guards Chucky Atkins, Lindsey Hunter, and a first-round draft pick to Boston and guard Bobby Sura, center Zeljko Rebraca, and a first-round draft pick to Atlanta..)

But even so, Detroit was unique in that they had no one dominant player. Can't think of many NBA Finals teams built this way.

[Mojo7]

Mojo, you are right about the details of my exaggerated statement- but the general premise holds true.

It may have taken more than four years for many of the top 5 picks for 60+ loss teams to get to the finals... but most of those teams were very good and legit contenders within 4 years:

Shaq: 21 win team -> finals in 2 years
Howard: 21 win team -> 52 wins, conf finals 4 years, Finals 5 years
Ewing: 23 win team -> 52 wins, conf semi-finals 3 years
Jordan: 27 win team -> 50 wins win team -> conf finals in 4 years
Robinson: 21 win team -> 56 wins, conf semi-finals in 1 year!
Duncan: 20 win (tanking) team -> 56 wins, conf semi-finals in 1 year, Won Finals next year
Iverson: 18 win team -> 49 wins, conf semi-finals in 4 years, Finals 5 years
Lebron: 17 win team -> 50 wins, conf semi-finals in 3 year, finals 4 years
Wade: 25 win team -> 59 wins, conf finals in 2 years!, won finals in 3 years
Hakeem: 29 win team -> 51 wins, Finals in 1 year!


This list accounts for the majority of NBA champions in the past 20+ years. They had a 20-26 win season and were quickly in the hunt within 1-4 years (most cases 3 years.) Sure there were extenuating circumstances. Just like there are for the Sixers (they have much more talent than a typical 25 win team.)

And I realize lots of teams stay bad and go to the lottery year after year... But we are talking about the teams that have won- and these teams all were very bad and turned it around quickly after they bottomed out and got a top 5 pick.

The Sixers last top 5 pick was AI.

Fair enough, but these improvements weren't made in a vacuum.

Shaq: 21 win team -> finals in 2 years

His 1st year, Shaq was the engine of a .500 team that got supremely lucky and got #1 pick again which turned into #3 - Penny.

Howard: 21 win team -> 52 wins, conf finals 4 years, Finals 5 years

Ewing: 23 win team -> 52 wins, conf semi-finals 3 years

Also Added ROY Mark Jackson, who slipped to 18th.

Jordan: 27 win team -> 50 wins win team -> conf finals in 4 years

Added 2 top-10 picks(Pippen and Grant) in 1987 draft

Robinson: 21 win team -> 56 wins, conf semi-finals in 1 year!

Robinson was drafted in 87, spent 2 years in the Navy before joining the Spurs in 89, with top-3 pick Sean Elliot and Hall-of-Fame coach Larry Brown.

Duncan: 20 win (tanking) team -> 56 wins, conf semi-finals in 1 year, Won Finals next year

Robinson and Elliott were still on team, enough said.

Iverson: 18 win team -> 49 wins, conf semi-finals in 4 years, Finals 5 years

Used previous top-3 pick as method to gain key cogs that eventually netted DPOY and 6MoY. Even then, that team has elements of unsustainability

Lebron: 17 win team -> 50 wins, conf semi-finals in 3 year, finals 4 years
A better version of the 2001 Sixers model - a singular star surrounded by great defenders. A contender that hasn't gotten over the top and struggles against the elite teams

Wade: 25 win team -> 59 wins, conf finals in 2 years!, won finals in 3 years

Traded for #1 pick - Shaq that forced his way out

Hakeem: 29 win team -> 51 wins, Finals in 1 year!

Back to back #1 picks(Sampson was the 1st) in the pre-lottery era

So, yes. If you bottom out in the right year, get lucky in the lottery AND make the right choice(Portland's Big Man issues = exhibit A & B), you can go "uptown" as Jordan would say, provided you have either 1) an additional talent influx that complements that high pick or 2) That talent is joining an already capable roster that was "bad" due to odd circumstances(injuries etc).

Here is the interesting thing about this thought experiment: If Jordan stays the whole season, there is a distinct chance that the Sixers would have the top-5 pick you covet, w/o having to move Brand or Iguodala at all. That is the only argument that I have for allowing Jordan the whole year. He is a nuclear option to himself. He is the 96-97 Spurs injury plague, a veritable black hole where basketball success goes to die.

[tk76]

No question, being bad does not guarantee success. But I'm trying to look at how the successful teams got to the finals (the 3 ways I listed in the other post.)

This was all triggered by a comment, I think buy ChuckS. He basically said that great organizations always win, and that should be the focus. My rebuttal is that these "great organizations"
for the most part became great as a direct result of getting a top 5 pick after a losing season. So bottoming out this year and getting a top 5 pick is not a bad thing for this team. In fact it is there best hope of becoming a contender anytime soon.

[tk76]

Also, it is possible that the current roster + a top 5 pick this year will be enough...

My concern is that keeping this roster intact (and firing EJ) I don't expect any more top 5 picks for the foreseeable future. So you better strike rich this year or the next 5 years you are mediocre and back in purgatory.

But with the nuclear option you have a core of young talent, tons of cap space and an open ended chance at rebuilding. Sure it could go horribly wrong- but I'd argue its already headed in that direction

[Mojo7]

1984-2009 Finals. Teams that made the finals:25 years and 50 teams.

35 of 50 (70%) featured a superstar (top 10 NBA player) drafted in the top 5 picks by the team that was in the Finals. No way those teams make the Finals without that star leading them (Jordan, Magic, Bird, Duncan, Hakeem... etc) In almost every case that team drafted that superstar after having a 55+ loss season either by tanking/injury or just being horrible. The last Sixer pick in the top 5 was Iverson, who made this list.

So if having a terrible and getting a top 5 pick as a result of a losing season was absolutely necessary for 70% of the teams that have made the finals in the last 25 years. 19 of 25 Champions (76%) fit this criteria. You can not dismiss this.

Let's look at the Post-Jordan era, which has been much different compared to the incredibly draft heavy period before it:

1) Spurs/Knicks - Yes on both(though Ewing was not the main cog).
2) Lakers/Pacers - Yes to Pacers
3) Lakers/Sixers - Yes to Sixers
4) Lakers/Nets - Yes to Nets
5) Spurs/Nets - Yes to both
6) Lakers/Pistons - No to both
7)Pistons/Spurs - Yes to Spurs
8) Heat/Mavs - Yes to Heat
9)Spurs/Cavs - yes to both
10) Celtics/Lakers - No to both
11) Lakers/Magic - Yes to Magic

So, out of 22 teams, you have 12 out of 22 that meet your qualification. The rest acquired a superstar by trade(Celtics, Lakers), free agency(Lakers) or by finding an overlooked diamond in the draft(Mavs). Now, in that 12, I counted both the Pacers and the Nets as a yes, even though the players on the team that qualify for your standard were Kenyon Martin and Rik Smits, not really superstars in the way you mean it. If you remove those 2, now you have just 10 out of 22, which is just 45%, a far cry from the 70% of your cumulative study.

That means that in this era, you have just as good a chance of building a finalist via alternative means other then just pure tanking to hit a homerun in the draft.

[Mojo7]

Also, it is possible that the current roster + a top 5 pick this year will be enough...

My concern is that keeping this roster intact (and firing EJ) I don't expect any more top 5 picks for the foreseeable future. So you better strike rich this year or the next 5 years you are mediocre and back in purgatory.

But with the nuclear option you have a core of young talent, tons of cap space and an open ended chance at rebuilding. Sure it could go horribly wrong- but I'd argue its already headed in that direction

I get your point. But I'd argue that the situation is only looking pear-shaped primarily because Stefanski made 3 bad decisions, based on his mistaken belief that they could retool and compete on the fly, while developing the young players to take them the rest of the way. If they had not believed they could make the jump by 1) signing Brand 2) keeping Miller & 3) hiring Jordan, with all his uptown talk, then they would be focusing on player development, not trying to have your cake and eat it too.

That being said, Miller is already gone & Jordan soon will be. If Jordan stays the whole year, you likely will get your top pick. If Brand can show himself as capable, there is a chance that a near-contender with some desperation might be willing to make a deal. If that happens, all 3 mistakes would be corrected.

[ChuckS]

I ain't no good at these number thingys, but instead of just thinking about that 70% or 45%, whichever was the number of lottery winners who became champions, wouldn't it be more realistic in determining our real chances, to come up with a percentage among the total number of teams that were in those lotteries? That might produce more realistic odds, which should be what we're debating, because we know already that some lottery winners have also become champions.

If this makes no sense, please ignore me.

[Mojo7]

I ain't no good at these number thingys, but instead of just thinking about that 70% or 45%, whichever was the number of lottery winners who became champions, wouldn't it be more realistic in determining our real chances, to come up with a percentage among the total number of teams that were in those lotteries? That might produce more realistic odds, which should be what we're debating, because we know already that some lottery winners have also become champions.

If this makes no sense, please ignore me.

That would be something to look at. Off the top of my head, the number would be fairly low when analyzed in a gestalt format like that. The reason I say that is because so many of the champions/finalists, either during the Post-Jordan era or 30 years back, featured repeaters, either among the teams(like the Lakers and Spurs) or among the Players(like Shaq, Karl Malone, Gary Payton, Drexler) who went to the Finals with multiple franchises. I'll get back to you on it.

[tk76]

ChuckS, I definitely understand where your going... but no matter how you look at it the odds are stacked against you in the NBA. That's why some teams have gotten lots of top picks and never gone anywhere. Its more than just bad management, its bad luck. If the Clippers draft Duncan/MJ/Shaq one of those bad years...they would quickly become a great franchise.

Its a league where a few superstars tend to dominate and the rest of the teams are left out. Its not like other sports where you can cut players or build a farm system or have a coach make a huge difference. Teams that go to the Finals tend to have a top 10 NBA All Star or two, along with a couple of other second level stars.

The Sixers have the second level stars and complementary pieces. Right now they are too young, ill fitting and poorly coached. But even when you fix all that they will still need a stud player to go anywhere. So the big question is how to get there.... and I'd love to just trade or sign that missing superstar. But I see the 160M committed to Brand and Iguodala as a long term roadblock (well mostly Brand.)

[tk76]

Mojo, I guess your right that the last 10 years have been less dominated by home grown superstars. Maybe you are right that the CBA has shifted the equation to where more stars are traded in their prime. Certainly the KG, Shaq, Sheed and Gasol trades shifted the competitive balance of the league.

But, as I've said befoer, you need cap space, picks and expirings to make those trades. the Sixers have 2 of the 3, but the big contracts will make it hard to make a move and stay under the tax.

[is1531]

I want Iggy out of here for the right price only. It has to be a high lottery pick and a player that can help us. It's amazing that year after year Iggy still never trails the pack in shooting those airballs,lol.