One of the fun parts of the early process was seeing edge players get some run and discovering guys like TJ and Covington. That door is always there but you need to make room for it. And I'm sure there are long term plays like Saric was available every draft. You do those two things you can at least get the thrill of getting some surprise value seemingly from nowhere. I don't think the franchise should have viewed aspects of that part of the process as temporary. I think it should be baked into their mode of operation. Otherwise your stuck in a zero sum game with other teams and inevitably Zugzwang.
Jeez. You really ought to pause a little before just mindlessly disputing everything someone else writes.
Eg: Embiid's value. It isn't purely a function of where he ranks in The Ringer's rankings. In fact I'm not sure NBA execs grant The Ringer much cred at all. But, just for the sake of argument, let's say they do. Embiid's value would be determined by, yes, how well he's playing now but also by the obligations in his (long, big) contract and how well they feel he'll play over the course of it.
His play this season helps, but his availability doesn't. I doubt very many people in the league think a yet-to-start three year max for an oft-injured 30+ player with meniscus issues represents a significant net positive value.
I think you have it mostly right on the messy board position the Sixers are in with their current crop of chess pieces. I differ with you on which option of the future I am more willing to gamble. And that kind of takes us back to the early days of the Ricky that you reference.
In my view, the thing that we were all defending in the early years of the Ricky was Hinkie’s long-term plan for the franchise. A plan that described a PROCESS of gradually building a winner around high draft picks. I think the early Ricky crew shared a common belief that watching our team stink for several years was worth it if we could then acquire a couple of franchise players. We knew that any one draft might not yield a star player for us at the top of the first round. We had lived through disappointing guys like Evan Turner. I think we also realized that having just one star player wasn’t enough. Iverson and Barkley proved this. We needed a couple of them at the same time. To attempt it was surely a big risk because the Sixers could easily whiff on a bunch of those high picks (which is ultimately what happened). Tension was created because not everyone in Sixersland believed in the risk of this Process. There were people who hated all that losing and those awful rosters. There will always be folks who are risk averse. The Ricky used to be about people who bought-in to the risk.
Ironically, many of them have now pivoted to supporting the status quo and being scared of the risk of moving on from Embiid and even Paul George. Maybe they’re still too pot-committed to Embiid because of what he used to mean to the franchise? Or maybe they just have convinced themselves we couldn’t possibly get anything back in a deal for him that would be better than keeping him. But I am still, fundamentally, a Sixers fan who embraces the risks needed to see the team return to a place where they can be considered a frontrunner for a title.
What does that mean now? Well, it means that there is nothing left to prove about the problems with the current roster construction. It is a bad approach to winning in today’s NBA. You cannot expect to win when you have two of your best three players being a day-to-day, week-to-week question about their availability to be on the court for a full game. This idea that you can manage minutes and games played during a regular season of your best players and still be a serious playoff contender is as imaginary as the concept that a political system built around Libertarianism can be successful. There is no example of a successful Libertarian government on this planet and there is no example of a NBA title team that played a regular season managing games and minutes played of multiple, veteran, star players.
You sort of casually use a reference for a Sixers team that “runs it back” next season as one that will “probably win 40-46 games.” Sure, they may win that volume of games this year, but last year, with about the same roster, they had Embiid and George miss even more time and won just 24 games. So you’re hanging on to a win total that is convenient for your argument but certainly not anything to feel confident about. Embiid and George as just as likely at their advanced ages and health issues to miss games next season that resemble 2024-25 as much as the games missed in 2025-26. And that says nothing of the possibility that Maxey begins showing wear and tear from having to shoulder such a big load for yet another season.
I’ve always liked the phrase for tackling hard stuff of “the only way past is through.” And, in this case, the only way past the current problem of two, aging, expensive, constantly unavailable veteran players is by getting rid of them for whatever you can get. We need to push through this Embiid era (that now includes Paul George). Throw around nearly ANY trade scenario for them and I would argue that as long as you’re getting back players who can be available to play the full season (in other words, not injury-prone vets), then you’re better off. Look at the Boston Celtics this season. Clearly, it’s a way better run franchise than our Sixers, but what they have done this season is, in my view, proof of concept that you can scale-down a veteran heavy team and run a system built around players who can commit to it, and win. THIS should be our model for how we put a better product on the floor without Embiid and George. And this is not a hypothetical or an example of something that we saw during Damian Lillard’s prime with Portland. It’s happening NOW. This season. In today’s NBA.
Does that get us back to where we all want to be as a franchise? Hypothetically, is a 40 win team built around Maxey and VJ with a bunch of role players committing to a “system” better for the Ricky crowd than a 40 win team built around Maxey, VJ, Embiid and George? I would argue that it IS. Why? Because the NBA is changing. Style of play are evolving. And with the former kind of roster the Sixers will have a chance to adjust to winning basketball styles in ways that the latter kind of roster can’t. Additionally, the NBA is going to mess with the draft order going forward to where a team in the middle, like the Sixers might be after ditching Embiid and George, could still have a shot at a top pick. So there’s a path to getting better so long as the team doesn’t ditch too many picks beyond 2028 when trading Embiid and George. Whoever is our GM after this season needs to have the marching orders to preserve the post-2028 first round picks in making those key deals. THIS is our new “Process” to get behind with the Ricky.
With all due respect, I think you're misusing the "straw man" reference with what I wrote. But I get the point that you disagree and appreciate you taking the time to read it.
"Ironically, many of them have now pivoted to supporting the status quo and being scared of the risk of moving on from Embiid and even Paul George" - This is a straw man. Who in the world is scared of moving on from Paul George? Who is even scared of moving on from Embiid at this point? The issue is not moving on from Embiid, it's doing so without giving up draft picks/young players as most people assume he has negative value.
The problem with your argument is you want to get rid of Paul George and Joel Embiid and not give up any draft picks (impossible), and get useful players in return, and use the Celtics as a model. The Celtics, even without Tatum, were starting two top-20 players, one of them is currently 5th in MVP odds. They also have the best coach in the NBA. The problem certainly isn't moving on from Paul George and Embiid.
I wrote “…scared of the RISK of moving on from Embiid and Paul George.” This was not simply a reference to not having them on the roster, but also the cost of doing it. As you then explained, there is a “problem” associated with moving on from them. Which is why people are now not sure it’s worth doing. This was a big part of the article that I was commenting on. The question of whether it was worth tackling the cost of trading them. I simply think it is and tried to explain why.
Further, I never wrote that I’d expect the Sixers to rid themselves of Embiid and George without giving up picks. Instead, I advocated for limiting the future first round draft picks included, and limiting any players we got in return to not be guys with similar health issues that make them a high risk for missing a ton of games like we have now with Embiid and George. CBS Sportline recently published an article about the 15 worst contracts in the NBA. Bad news is that both Embiid and George are on that list (Embiid at #1). Good news (potentially) is that are at least 13 other pretty bad contracts on that list who might be swappable for Embiid or George without the Sixers having to add-in a bunch of first round picks. And some of those other bad contracts are for players who are more likely to stay on the court across a season and make it easier to scheme-up a system that works better than what the Sixers have been trying to do this season.
And finally, not sure who the second of the two, top 20, players you’re referring to with the Celtics, but according to The Ringer’s mid-season player rankings, Jaylen Brown comes in at number eleven on their ranking (Maxey is #13), and the next Celtics player is Derek White at number thirty three (one ahead of Embiid – certainly NOT an indication of him having “negative value” as you put it). The Celtics have a far different starting lineup than last season and it’s no straw man sort of point to say that this team was not expected to be very good this year with Brown and White anchoring their rotation. But look at the games played by their rotation this season. Out of their 65 games played, almost everyone has played at least 57 games. The Celtics have two really good players and then a bunch of guys in their rotation who they know will play pretty much every game. Those players have roles within that offense and defense that are consistent from game to game. Without Embiid and George, the Sixers could potentially have something like this too. Obviously Maxey is already in a category close to Jaylen Brown. And it’s not a stretch to think that VJ could be a top 40 kind of Derek White piece by the end of next season. So why is it so ridiculous to cite the Celtics as a possible comp to what the Sixers could be? Sure, you may disagree, but it’s not a straw man argument. And, of course, I conceded that the Celtics are a better run organization (which includes their head coach as compared to our current head coach).
All due respect to the RTRS legacy, I'm not a Hinkie guy, but hopefully the days of the Church of Sam are now long gone.
But I think among all of those play-in-hell futures--which I agree are the likely outcome of anything you do here--you have to look at *the range* of possibilities in each scenario. Having a bunch of Nurse guys--young, 6-9, long-limbed guys--probably puts you in the 40-50 win area no matter what. You've got several of them, so one getting injured isn't a catastrophe, but none of them is really good enough to win you a bunch of extra games. So you are pretty much locking up that 45-ish win team.
If you swap out Embiid for some other center, you are then vulnerable to *that guy* getting a catastrophic injury, so you could certainly lose more than the 30-40. Maybe maybe maybe the guards figure out a way to make the thing work a better than the 45 wins . . . but then upside, we're ~Lillard-era Portland, and that seemed pretty frustrating. And you have very little in the way of assets to get better.
Standing pat and keeping the draft choices gives you a few upside possibilities: Maybe Embiid pulls out one more Top 20 season, PG fills his role and the rest of the team thrives in the space those two allow them. This, I imagine is the bet they're making.
Downside, Embiid doesn't really play and things fall apart and they get into the lottery. And maybe the Clippers fall apart, too. I think the standing pat scenario really has the best risk/reward landscape by a longshot, and that's why they'll be doing it. Likely outcome, more or less the same, but the floor is no worse and the ceiling is better. And you have assets to make other choices later. I think it's hard to argue against.
One of the fun parts of the early process was seeing edge players get some run and discovering guys like TJ and Covington. That door is always there but you need to make room for it. And I'm sure there are long term plays like Saric was available every draft. You do those two things you can at least get the thrill of getting some surprise value seemingly from nowhere. I don't think the franchise should have viewed aspects of that part of the process as temporary. I think it should be baked into their mode of operation. Otherwise your stuck in a zero sum game with other teams and inevitably Zugzwang.
In reply to Rob
Jeez. You really ought to pause a little before just mindlessly disputing everything someone else writes.
Eg: Embiid's value. It isn't purely a function of where he ranks in The Ringer's rankings. In fact I'm not sure NBA execs grant The Ringer much cred at all. But, just for the sake of argument, let's say they do. Embiid's value would be determined by, yes, how well he's playing now but also by the obligations in his (long, big) contract and how well they feel he'll play over the course of it.
His play this season helps, but his availability doesn't. I doubt very many people in the league think a yet-to-start three year max for an oft-injured 30+ player with meniscus issues represents a significant net positive value.
I think you have it mostly right on the messy board position the Sixers are in with their current crop of chess pieces. I differ with you on which option of the future I am more willing to gamble. And that kind of takes us back to the early days of the Ricky that you reference.
In my view, the thing that we were all defending in the early years of the Ricky was Hinkie’s long-term plan for the franchise. A plan that described a PROCESS of gradually building a winner around high draft picks. I think the early Ricky crew shared a common belief that watching our team stink for several years was worth it if we could then acquire a couple of franchise players. We knew that any one draft might not yield a star player for us at the top of the first round. We had lived through disappointing guys like Evan Turner. I think we also realized that having just one star player wasn’t enough. Iverson and Barkley proved this. We needed a couple of them at the same time. To attempt it was surely a big risk because the Sixers could easily whiff on a bunch of those high picks (which is ultimately what happened). Tension was created because not everyone in Sixersland believed in the risk of this Process. There were people who hated all that losing and those awful rosters. There will always be folks who are risk averse. The Ricky used to be about people who bought-in to the risk.
Ironically, many of them have now pivoted to supporting the status quo and being scared of the risk of moving on from Embiid and even Paul George. Maybe they’re still too pot-committed to Embiid because of what he used to mean to the franchise? Or maybe they just have convinced themselves we couldn’t possibly get anything back in a deal for him that would be better than keeping him. But I am still, fundamentally, a Sixers fan who embraces the risks needed to see the team return to a place where they can be considered a frontrunner for a title.
What does that mean now? Well, it means that there is nothing left to prove about the problems with the current roster construction. It is a bad approach to winning in today’s NBA. You cannot expect to win when you have two of your best three players being a day-to-day, week-to-week question about their availability to be on the court for a full game. This idea that you can manage minutes and games played during a regular season of your best players and still be a serious playoff contender is as imaginary as the concept that a political system built around Libertarianism can be successful. There is no example of a successful Libertarian government on this planet and there is no example of a NBA title team that played a regular season managing games and minutes played of multiple, veteran, star players.
You sort of casually use a reference for a Sixers team that “runs it back” next season as one that will “probably win 40-46 games.” Sure, they may win that volume of games this year, but last year, with about the same roster, they had Embiid and George miss even more time and won just 24 games. So you’re hanging on to a win total that is convenient for your argument but certainly not anything to feel confident about. Embiid and George as just as likely at their advanced ages and health issues to miss games next season that resemble 2024-25 as much as the games missed in 2025-26. And that says nothing of the possibility that Maxey begins showing wear and tear from having to shoulder such a big load for yet another season.
I’ve always liked the phrase for tackling hard stuff of “the only way past is through.” And, in this case, the only way past the current problem of two, aging, expensive, constantly unavailable veteran players is by getting rid of them for whatever you can get. We need to push through this Embiid era (that now includes Paul George). Throw around nearly ANY trade scenario for them and I would argue that as long as you’re getting back players who can be available to play the full season (in other words, not injury-prone vets), then you’re better off. Look at the Boston Celtics this season. Clearly, it’s a way better run franchise than our Sixers, but what they have done this season is, in my view, proof of concept that you can scale-down a veteran heavy team and run a system built around players who can commit to it, and win. THIS should be our model for how we put a better product on the floor without Embiid and George. And this is not a hypothetical or an example of something that we saw during Damian Lillard’s prime with Portland. It’s happening NOW. This season. In today’s NBA.
Does that get us back to where we all want to be as a franchise? Hypothetically, is a 40 win team built around Maxey and VJ with a bunch of role players committing to a “system” better for the Ricky crowd than a 40 win team built around Maxey, VJ, Embiid and George? I would argue that it IS. Why? Because the NBA is changing. Style of play are evolving. And with the former kind of roster the Sixers will have a chance to adjust to winning basketball styles in ways that the latter kind of roster can’t. Additionally, the NBA is going to mess with the draft order going forward to where a team in the middle, like the Sixers might be after ditching Embiid and George, could still have a shot at a top pick. So there’s a path to getting better so long as the team doesn’t ditch too many picks beyond 2028 when trading Embiid and George. Whoever is our GM after this season needs to have the marching orders to preserve the post-2028 first round picks in making those key deals. THIS is our new “Process” to get behind with the Ricky.
I appreciate your long comment but it is full of straw man arguments/inaccurate statements.
With all due respect, I think you're misusing the "straw man" reference with what I wrote. But I get the point that you disagree and appreciate you taking the time to read it.
I don't think I am.
"Ironically, many of them have now pivoted to supporting the status quo and being scared of the risk of moving on from Embiid and even Paul George" - This is a straw man. Who in the world is scared of moving on from Paul George? Who is even scared of moving on from Embiid at this point? The issue is not moving on from Embiid, it's doing so without giving up draft picks/young players as most people assume he has negative value.
The problem with your argument is you want to get rid of Paul George and Joel Embiid and not give up any draft picks (impossible), and get useful players in return, and use the Celtics as a model. The Celtics, even without Tatum, were starting two top-20 players, one of them is currently 5th in MVP odds. They also have the best coach in the NBA. The problem certainly isn't moving on from Paul George and Embiid.
I wrote “…scared of the RISK of moving on from Embiid and Paul George.” This was not simply a reference to not having them on the roster, but also the cost of doing it. As you then explained, there is a “problem” associated with moving on from them. Which is why people are now not sure it’s worth doing. This was a big part of the article that I was commenting on. The question of whether it was worth tackling the cost of trading them. I simply think it is and tried to explain why.
Further, I never wrote that I’d expect the Sixers to rid themselves of Embiid and George without giving up picks. Instead, I advocated for limiting the future first round draft picks included, and limiting any players we got in return to not be guys with similar health issues that make them a high risk for missing a ton of games like we have now with Embiid and George. CBS Sportline recently published an article about the 15 worst contracts in the NBA. Bad news is that both Embiid and George are on that list (Embiid at #1). Good news (potentially) is that are at least 13 other pretty bad contracts on that list who might be swappable for Embiid or George without the Sixers having to add-in a bunch of first round picks. And some of those other bad contracts are for players who are more likely to stay on the court across a season and make it easier to scheme-up a system that works better than what the Sixers have been trying to do this season.
And finally, not sure who the second of the two, top 20, players you’re referring to with the Celtics, but according to The Ringer’s mid-season player rankings, Jaylen Brown comes in at number eleven on their ranking (Maxey is #13), and the next Celtics player is Derek White at number thirty three (one ahead of Embiid – certainly NOT an indication of him having “negative value” as you put it). The Celtics have a far different starting lineup than last season and it’s no straw man sort of point to say that this team was not expected to be very good this year with Brown and White anchoring their rotation. But look at the games played by their rotation this season. Out of their 65 games played, almost everyone has played at least 57 games. The Celtics have two really good players and then a bunch of guys in their rotation who they know will play pretty much every game. Those players have roles within that offense and defense that are consistent from game to game. Without Embiid and George, the Sixers could potentially have something like this too. Obviously Maxey is already in a category close to Jaylen Brown. And it’s not a stretch to think that VJ could be a top 40 kind of Derek White piece by the end of next season. So why is it so ridiculous to cite the Celtics as a possible comp to what the Sixers could be? Sure, you may disagree, but it’s not a straw man argument. And, of course, I conceded that the Celtics are a better run organization (which includes their head coach as compared to our current head coach).
All due respect to the RTRS legacy, I'm not a Hinkie guy, but hopefully the days of the Church of Sam are now long gone.
But I think among all of those play-in-hell futures--which I agree are the likely outcome of anything you do here--you have to look at *the range* of possibilities in each scenario. Having a bunch of Nurse guys--young, 6-9, long-limbed guys--probably puts you in the 40-50 win area no matter what. You've got several of them, so one getting injured isn't a catastrophe, but none of them is really good enough to win you a bunch of extra games. So you are pretty much locking up that 45-ish win team.
If you swap out Embiid for some other center, you are then vulnerable to *that guy* getting a catastrophic injury, so you could certainly lose more than the 30-40. Maybe maybe maybe the guards figure out a way to make the thing work a better than the 45 wins . . . but then upside, we're ~Lillard-era Portland, and that seemed pretty frustrating. And you have very little in the way of assets to get better.
Standing pat and keeping the draft choices gives you a few upside possibilities: Maybe Embiid pulls out one more Top 20 season, PG fills his role and the rest of the team thrives in the space those two allow them. This, I imagine is the bet they're making.
Downside, Embiid doesn't really play and things fall apart and they get into the lottery. And maybe the Clippers fall apart, too. I think the standing pat scenario really has the best risk/reward landscape by a longshot, and that's why they'll be doing it. Likely outcome, more or less the same, but the floor is no worse and the ceiling is better. And you have assets to make other choices later. I think it's hard to argue against.