Comments on: Sixers Hold Off Rockets For Much Needed Win

By: Mike D

Mike D — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 18:30:01 +0000

What caused that unleashing on Iguodala? I come to this blog to talk to educated and informative Sixers fans. But Im not sure I can respect your opinion on Iguodala or the Sixers after reading that. Im sorry, but im just a little bit confused right now….

Call it what you want but I’m not impressed with his play, not even a little bit, this year. He got paid more than he should have and now everyone can see that he didn’t deserve that contract. Miller, Brand, and Thad are more valuable on this team than Iggy. Maybe the Salmons comment was a little harsh but I’m frustrated with this guy thinking he’s a star when he’s nothing more than a good role player.

As far as the team sucks comment, they do… they have the potential to be good but are dramatically underperforming, therefore they suck. You can make your opinions based on potential but I’ll make mine on reality.

By: Mike Donnelly

Mike Donnelly — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 02:43:13 +0000

Looks like somebody is using my handle “Mike D” or simply has the same name as me, but I’d never rag on Iggy like that, he’s still my #2 guy on Dannie’s list. When you go thru the league and look at other #2’s on teams I think Iggy stacks up just fine.

The biggest difference is this team doesn’t have a #1, so Iggy has to do more than he can handle. If we had a true superstar who commanded all the attention, then Iggy would be just fine.

Still hoping Elton can be a #1 maybe next year, maybe it takes that long to get over his injury.

PS Haven’t been very active on this blog ’cause I got laid off and that really sucks, so I’ve been full time job hunting and these days that ain’t easy.

By: Ryan F

Ryan F — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 02:16:38 +0000

No problem, I knew it was some complicated stuff. I was trying to figure it out and it didn’t make much sense to me. I just couldn’t believe when I saw that he had a clause in his contract, you would think the excessive dollar amount would have been enough to sign him.

By: Dannie

Dannie — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 00:47:12 +0000

Ryan F – Sorry for the delay I was researching this and will probably dedicate a short post to it because I think it’s extremely important information when considering trades.

I read today that Dalembert has a 15% trade kicker. The best way to explain a trade kicker is by simply calling it a “trade bonus.” Meaning if the player is traded (the first time) he gets some sort of monetary bonus. It can be a set dollar figure our a percentage of the remaining contract up to a maximum of 15% (this depreciates during the season).

I will probably go into more depth because it is kind of complicated stuff from what I am reading.

Just know this – Billy King is a f’ing idiot and his terrible contracts are still killing the Sixers to this day.

By: deepsixersuede

deepsixersuede — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 00:45:37 +0000

Zack, I just think because we don!t have a legitimite #1 guy that we need 5 guys that can score. I see no available p.g.! s in the league or draft that fit this team [deep threat, good defender and some size] so if A.Miller ,Iggy and Elton are our big,,okay medium three than a shooter at the 5 and 2 works for me. I like Jason because he seemed,like Reggie to bring energy every night. Elton, well we were just starting to see Elton before his injury so he just needs to get his points in the flow of the game when he comes back. Iggy has been playing well but until we get some wins I am going to temper my enthusiasm.

By: guest

guest — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 00:16:11 +0000

Dannie,

I agree with your assessment about untouchable players. Majority of them will one day be Hall of Fame players, or Hall of Fame potential. They will consistantly win games for their ball club and is a near lock for the All Star Game…every single year.

But I think just because your not untouchable for one team, might not mean your arent for another. An example? Hmmmmm, I don’t really know a great example, but I’ll just use this one. Kevin Garnett was traded from Minny and almost immediatly became “untouchable” for the C’s. Granted, the T’wolves traded for the future getting draft picks and Al Jeff.

The only way we are going to get an “untouchable” player by trade, is if it is another KG type of trade…where we trade our future, for their present. Looking at possible scenarios, I don’t really see one. Allen Iverson, would have been a possible trade for us to make if he didn’t get traded to the Pistons first.

So let’s just say we do get one of these “untouchable” players. We would have to trade draft picks and our “future.” Names that come to mind would have to be Lou, Thad, Speights, and/or Iggy. For my purposes, let’s keep Iggy and trade Thad, Lou, and a couple draft picks for one of these untouchable players. Could we win with an “Allen Iverson” type player…added with Brand, Iggy, Miller, and Sammy/Speights?

I think we would have a legit chance with that starting lineup. The problem would then be the bench.

What do you think guys?

By: Ryan F

Ryan F — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 00:03:48 +0000

Dannie – “Make Sense?” Certainly, and agreed. Those terms are sometimes used loosely to define players on ability or expectation, while there are honestly only a few who actually deserve the true meaning of the words. The real “untouchable” and or “great” players are measured by absurd talent, legacy and how their fingers shine in the summers.

Also, I never got a response about that “trade kicker” in Sammy D’s contract. Is that common, or is it typically reserved for those players we’re discussing, and does that affect the receiving teams cap space or is it just something paid to the player? I tried Google a couple times and the only other names I could find was KG and CP3. I know it is off topic but I figured I had your attention and would ask.

By: Dannie

Dannie — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 23:14:29 +0000

Ken/Ryan F – I get what you are saying and don’t disagree about having a core group of guys.

I would add that probably 99% of all current NBA players would not be characterized as “untouchable”

EXACTLY! The untouchable tag is for maybe two hand fulls of players in the NBA. Core players and untouchable players are completely different things in my book. You can have core guys but that doesn’t mean any one of them is untouchable.

Let me put it a different way. It was stated Thad, Lou, Dala, Speights are all part of the Sixers young core. I am cool with that. But I am not attached to any one of those players in terms of I wouldn’t consider moving them like some people are. In fact until the “core” starts winning not some, but a lot of games I would trade any one of them if I thought it meant more victories over a reasonable number of seasons. In my mind trading an “untouchable” player in his prime or near it has little to no chance of improving the team in terms of wins over an extended period of time, they are simply that good and have that much impact on winning games. Out of those guys who would you categorize like that?

Instead of using the term “untouchable” I would simply stay within the context of the Sixers and rank the players based on my propensity to move them and how much return I must get in doing so. So you put the guys you most would trade for the least return at the front of the line and the guys you would least want to move and if you did would need to net you the most return at the back of the list. A player that is untouchable is kept off the list. I don’t think the Sixers has anyone worthy of being kept of the list. Meaning someone could probably offer a realistic deal for any one on the roster that I would take. Who could realistic offer a deal for Kobe or LeBron etc. except exchanging those exact players.

Make sense?

Again, some terms I am more strict with and tend to use less liberally as other. “untouchable” and “great” are certainly on that list. I just think they are handed out way to quickly and to often.

By: Ryan F

Ryan F — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 22:26:46 +0000

Dannie – I guess what I am trying to say is, that moving either of the younger guys (Lou/Speights/Thad/IGG) doesn’t make any sense to me unless you can find and impact player in return. If there was a way to package them all up and pull in a All-Star year in and year out or a player that can take over a game all by themselves, that would be worth it. I am not a person that thinks any of these players are going to be the next Wade, Bryant or Duncan, but I think with the exception of Iguodala (and I hope he hasn’t), none of them have hit their ceiling and they are already showing glimpses, and maybe just maybe one of them does become something similar to one of those players, quality wise. I think Thad is going to be good, not as good as some people say, and Speights, it is just too early for a verdict, at the least I think both will be solid contributers on a winning team within the next few years and I ‘d rather it be in Phila. This team needs a little restructuring around these players, and it should be possible without anything too drastic. I think that there are two very movable players that could bring the team some good pieces/picks/money in return, I say go that route, evaluate the rest of the year and go from there. I am far from an expert and my opinion is probably swayed by sentiment as much as by the thought of more W’s.

By: Ken

Ken — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 22:22:27 +0000

Dannie,

Your arguement about “untouchables” makes perfect sense but I would add that probably 99% of all current NBA players would not be characterized as “untouchable”. Who wouldn’t trade anyone to get a player like Kobe, Paul, LeBron, Wade, or Derron Williams? The point is these guys aren’t available and never will be available unless they’re a free agent. The Sixers must maintain a core of players for continuity regardless of whether or not they meet the definition of “untouchable”. At the moment I believe the Sixers core players are Brand and the youngsters (Williams, Young, Speights) until someone better comes along.