Ben Simmons A Hawk? I'd do it in a heartbeat.

[AHF]

23 hours ago, Diesel said:

Since, you want to make the Tony Delk 53 points... let's talk about it.

Delk... Played his former team on Jan 2, 2001.  They lost this game in overtime.   Tony Delk hit NO THREE POINTERS.  This was all drive and score.   He shot 15 FTs.   Sacramento's Best interior Defender... Chris Webber played just 7 minutes.   They replaced C-Webbs interior defense with Scott Pollard.  Porous sieve like defense at best. 

Delk had the perfect storm working for him.  He had the hot hand... he had nothing stopping him from driving the lane and getting either a score or to the FT line... and Jason Kidd is the type of PG that will continue to feed the hot hand until it's stopped. 

I'm sure everytime you replace C-Webb with Scott Pollard and whatever defense Lawrence Funderburke could muster.... Tony Delk (feeling like he needs to sure up his old team) will go for big points.   But Just for grins.. in his next encounter against the same team.. C-Webb played 43 Minutes and Delk only scored 6 points.   And the time after that Delk scored 10 points on 29% shooting. 

It's randomness.  Not by design.  When Giannis went out, other guys stepped up.. Not random. 

You say we lost because Trae went out.

Does Trae make our defense better??  They shot 50.5% with Trae and Giannis out.... Does having Trae change that... in ANY WAY?  My thought is that with Trae in the game, they may have shot 55%.  Would Trae have stopped Lopez from Bullying our Big on all those lobs?   Would Trae have done anything to stop their interior scoring?  They scored 66 points in the paint.   That's better than they averaged when Giannis played. 

Trae would have gave us more scoring opp... OK.. But when he played and had his best game against Milwaukee... We scored 116 points.  Game 5, we scored 112 points.  Remember game 1, Trae scored 48 points.  Without his 48, we still scored 112.  He would have helped us with points, but our problem wasn't scoring.. our problem was stopping them from scoring.  50.5% tp 46%... that's the problem.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again, they played 9 games without Giannis this season and this was the big outlier.  Their “big non-G” three scored a ton more in this game than they did in any other game or on average and scored those points (not coincidently) way more efficiently than they did in the other 8 games.

They got hot for a game.  That happens but that isn’t sustainable for them.  The way to beat a hot team like that is to out duel them and without Trae we had no chance of doing that.  (Obviously you’d like your defense to prevent them from getting that hot but it happens.)

[Spud2nique]

5 minutes ago, AHF said:

Again, they played 9 games without Giannis this season and this was the big outlier.  Their “big non-G” three scored a ton more in this game than they did in any other game or on average and scored those points (not coincidently) way more efficiently than they did in the other 8 games.

They got hot for a game.  That happens but that isn’t sustainable for them.  The way to beat a hot team like that is to out duel them and without Trae we had no chance of doing that.  (Obviously you’d like your defense to prevent them from getting that hot but it happens.)

Still?…

[macdaddy]

So what did we decide here?  Ben Simmons or no Ben Simmons?

[AHF]

39 minutes ago, Spud2nique said:

Still?…

Airplane reference = instant like.  If I could do a combo like / laugh, you would get them both for including the girl scouts, lol.

[Gray Mule]

No to Ben Simmons.  He cost too much.  I read recently that the Cavs would have to give up 2 future first round picks, a future 2nd round pick and three players off their roster.  I don't know of three Hawks I would want to give up for him.  No.  And three future draft picks?  As I said, he costs too much.

All this aside, he's a very good player BUT I like the team we have right now.

 

Edited September 9, 2021 by Gray Mule

[AHF]

21 minutes ago, Gray Mule said:

No to Ben Simmons.  He cost too much.  I read recently that the Cavs would have to give up 2 future first round picks, a future 2nd round pick and three players off their roster.  I don't know of three Hawks I would want to give up for him.  No.  And three future draft picks?  As I said, he costs too much.

All this aside, he's a very good player BUT I like the team we have right now.

 

Guess I'd need to see which 3 players but that sounds like an optimistic leak from Philly.  Now if one of the players is Kevin Love or something (who has a negative value and whose departure is something Cleveland would have to add assets to accomplish) then that makes more sense.

[bleachkit]

35 minutes ago, Gray Mule said:

No to Ben Simmons.  He cost too much.  I read recently that the Cavs would have to give up 2 future first round picks, a future 2nd round pick and three players off their roster.  I don't know of three Hawks I would want to give up for him.  No.  And three future draft picks?  As I said, he costs too much.

All this aside, he's a very good player BUT I like the team we have right now.

 

There's a reason he hasnt been traded yet. Philly wants the moon. Hawks arent giving the moon for a good but significantly flawed player. Nor should we give the moon. He also has a max contract too, that cant be overlooked either.

[sturt]

25 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

So what did we decide here?  Ben Simmons or no Ben Simmons?

Not a thread that's interested me until today, and even now, my interest is just as one of many NBA fans who enjoy playing trade god, and trying to imagine something that makes sense... not as a Hawk fan thinking how to add a max contract player whose major flaw is too major of a flaw to justify (a) paying him what he's going to get paid and (b) moreover, giving up assets for that "privilege."

So. No. No Ben Simmons please. It's not even a discussion to me, hence my disinterest based on the title of the thread.

 

But.

It is intriguing as an outsider who enjoys jigsaw puzzles and engineering better mousetraps to think about what a "fair" trade might look like.

This article was a fascinating read, analyzing the assets and deficits of the various pieces that could be part of either a CLE or MIN trade, ostensibly the teams most often rumored to be pursuing a deal: https://www.phillyvoice.com/sixers-ben-simmons-trade-rumors-cavaliers-timberwolves-darius-garland-collin-sexton-deangelo-russell/

 

I still like DAL getting involved someway somehow. The Porzingis and DAL relationship isn't that much different from the Simmons and PHI one.

 

Fwiw... my shot at solving the puzzle... not perfect, but conceivably within range such that a draft pick or two being added to the deal makes it plausible...

 

 

 

[Atlantaholic]

18 minutes ago, bleachkit said:

There's a reason he hasnt been traded yet. Philly wants the moon. Hawks arent giving the moon for a good but significantly flawed player. Nor should we give the moon. He also has a max contract too, that cant be overlooked either.

They want the moon now, but if Simmons is dead set on forcing a trade they'll have to take less. Not saying I would be interested though. 

[macdaddy]

1 hour ago, sturt said:

Not a thread that's interested me until today, and even now, my interest is just as one of many NBA fans who enjoy playing trade god, and trying to imagine something that makes sense... not as a Hawk fan thinking how to add a max contract player whose major flaw is too major of a flaw to justify (a) paying him what he's going to get paid and (b) moreover, giving up assets for that "privilege."

So. No. No Ben Simmons please. It's not even a discussion to me, hence my disinterest based on the title of the thread.

 

But.

It is intriguing as an outsider who enjoys jigsaw puzzles and engineering better mousetraps to think about what a "fair" trade might look like.

This article was a fascinating read, analyzing the assets and deficits of the various pieces that could be part of either a CLE or MIN trade, ostensibly the teams most often rumored to be pursuing a deal: https://www.phillyvoice.com/sixers-ben-simmons-trade-rumors-cavaliers-timberwolves-darius-garland-collin-sexton-deangelo-russell/

 

I still like DAL getting involved someway somehow. The Porzingis and DAL relationship isn't that much different from the Simmons and PHI one.

 

Fwiw... my shot at solving the puzzle... not perfect, but conceivably within range such that a draft pick or two being added to the deal makes it plausible...

 

 

 

Seems like Philly is getting screwed in that trade.   

Ultimately i think it's the Cavs for a deal around Love/Sexton and picks.    Philly will claim they got 'an all star and exciting young prospect'

[sturt]

8 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

Seems like Philly is getting screwed in that trade. 

I hear ya.

Here's what I just posted at RealGM on that....

 

 

 

8 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

Love

In my best Natalie Maines voice...

There's your trouble.

 

[AHF]

19 minutes ago, sturt said:

I hear ya.

Here's what I just posted at RealGM on that....

 

 

 

In my best Natalie Maines voice...

There's your trouble.

 

This is a no-brainer laughing on the way to the bank deal for Dallas.  I can see GS embracing it as well.  More upside with this one and you don't lose that much.

The Philly fans might riot even with a pick.  Getting Wiggins back as the best player in a deal could cause Embiid to riot.  I'm  sure he remembers how stupid Cleveland and Milwaukee were to take Wiggins and Parker over him and to let go of their best asset for Wiggins and a hope that you get something in a couple of years via a player taken with a pick probably removes them from the list of legit contenders unless and  until that pick turns into a stud.  And bear in mind that both Dallas and GS are already pretty good and become even better with this trade so an unprotected pick likely translates to a non-lottery selection.

I like the creativity on this one but oof for Philly.

[Diesel]

 I still believe... when I don't consider the price... Simmons is a great Robin especially for a nondefensive team. 

As Hawks fans...we rest a lot on HOPE.

We HOPE that we can play defense....    We hope that Dieng can make us better.   We hope that Cam will step up on defense.   We hope that Hunter will step up and defend.

In the playoffs.

Knicks shot 39.8%

76ers shot 48.4%

Bucks shot 47.7% 

On our defense. 

It suggests that Every time we're in the playoffs.. we're the SacTown Kings... We have to win a shootout.   And as you ask, we shot 44.4% against the 76ers.  So.. I believe that the biggest strength that Simmons would bring would be a point of our biggest need... Defense.   The cost may inhibit us from going after him... but This idea that his biggest flaw is too big of a flaw??  That's B.S.  His greatest assets make us better. 

 

 

[macdaddy]

Simmons contract is an albatross.  He's a liability on the offensive end a lot of times and you can't pay max money for that.   

This is why i don't think the Sixers are going to get a big haul but it's conceivable they get much better.  Honestly the trade for Norman Powell and Covington seems modest for the Sixers but it makes them better than having Simmons.  

[JayBirdHawk]

16 minutes ago, Diesel said:

As Hawks fans...we rest a lot on HOPE.

We HOPE that we can play defense....    We hope that Dieng can make us better.   We hope that Cam will step up on defense.   We hope that Hunter will step up and defend.

In point of our biggest need... Defense.  

No...we hope both Hunter and Reddish were both 100% healthy for all playoff games.

[Diesel]

4 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

Simmons contract is an albatross.  He's a liability on the offensive end a lot of times and you can't pay max money for that.   

This is why i don't think the Sixers are going to get a big haul but it's conceivable they get much better.  Honestly the trade for Norman Powell and Covington seems modest for the Sixers but it makes them better than having Simmons.  

Uhm...  16 ppg, 56% FG%,  8.0 rpg, 7.7 apg...  = Liability????  Yeah.. those were his career numbers. 

To many people take that one series and want to believe that it is who he is... I hate to be the Simmons apologist here but the dude is not an offensive liability.   That's a mischaracterization.   He had one bad series.  It happens.    Did you ever watch Lebron vs. Dallas in the Finals??  Bad Series. 

 

7 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

No...we hope both Hunter and Reddish were both 100% healthy for all playoff games.

Of course.. but we EXPECT them to be our Defensive anchors.

[Spud2nique]

I’m sorry I’m not giving up Hunter, Cam, Huerter Collins or anybody for Ben Simmons. I know I’ve said it before but I really do love our core. I was always looking to get other players around the league as a Hawks fan but now I’m just in love with who we have on the squad now.

[Diesel]

1 minute ago, Spud2nique said:

I’m sorry I’m not giving up Hunter, Cam, Huerter Collins or anybody for Ben Simmons. I know I’ve said it before but I really do love our core. I was always looking to get other players around the league as a Hawks fan but now I’m just in love with who we have on the squad now.

I'm not going to love our core because we drafted them.  Simmons may not be the right trade but if a right trade comes along, these guys are  tradable.   I think sometimes we cape up too hard for guys and the only reason is because we drafted them.   There are other great players in this league and if given the opportunity to get them... I'm not going to look at them and only see flaws...like some of us do... I look at them and judge how much better they can make our team.

Many of our young guys have yet to step up and do anything.   They all run with that P word around their neck.  When they step more, is when they become less tradable. 

[Spud2nique]

50 minutes ago, Diesel said:

I think sometimes we cape up too hard for guys and the only reason is because we drafted them. 

I can see this being the case for some but I guarantee you I didn’t want to hold onto Rumeal, Cal, Roshown, etc.

If the right player comes along, possibly but swapping out guys we have making less but with more impact per dollar than Ben then we gotta keep them.

[Diesel]

5 hours ago, Spud2nique said:

I can see this being the case for some but I guarantee you I didn’t want to hold onto Rumeal, Cal, Roshown, etc.

If the right player comes along, possibly but swapping out guys we have making less but with more impact per dollar than Ben then we gotta keep them.

Like I said.. Ben might not be the right trade.  I like what he can do for us but I don't like his salary... Philly will not get 1/2 of what they want for him but he has value.   But I don't want to see no player become another Marvin.  We talk about potential so much that we fail to see that they are not meeting what we expect or need.