3 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

And your theory that depth wins titles has shown to be a false narrative over the past decade. The last 10 years shows you that you need 2-3 stars to win a title.

it goes back a lot further too. prior to the outlier mavs winning, you had the kobe/gasol lakers winning a couple. the pierce/allen/garnett celtics before that. the duncan/parker/ginobili spurs won a few, the wade/shaq heat. 

Jordan never won without Pippen

6 minutes ago, mr_hunt said:

it goes back a lot further too. prior to the outlier mavs winning, you had the kobe/gasol lakers winning a couple. the pierce/allen/garnett celtics before that. the duncan/parker/ginobili spurs won a few, the wade/shaq heat. 

a lot of those are 2 guys. The "superteam" era began when teams began building a "big 3" Count em again. Thats 3. Not 2. Youre posting a bunch of 2 man teams and pretending it supports your argument for a super team. It does not. 

 

Im all for having 2 stars. And then Depth. 

Maybe you can even have good enough depth with 3. We went wrong when we tried to add a 4th. That was the Horford contract after acquiring Harris. Should have been good with 3 and the Horford money should have went towards depth. 

Now Horford is gone but that money is still tied up because we have to match money in trades being over the cap. And people are still trying to find another star. 

2 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

before super teams, super team era, now becoming deep team era. cyclical. 

Lowry by the way was known to disappear in the post-season. The bigger part of their title win was Siakam's breakout year. 

so you want to use siakam. He is averaging over 20 ppg the last two years and was an all star so that’s a star as well. And Lowry would disappear cause they had 2 no  2 stars in derozan and Lowry. and not a no.  1 guy like kawhi so he didn’t have to be in that role and could be the no  2 or even 3 with siakam’s ermegence  

so the 2000s say it hasn’t been cyclical over 2 decades 

spurs— Duncan and robinson

lakers 3 peat— kobe and shaq

pistons— billups, Hamilton and Wallace’s (fits more of your narrative)

spurs— Duncan, Parker and ginobili

celtics— kg, Pierce and Allen 

Lakers— gasol and kobe. 

So next year you see a revert back to some team like the Lakers with two stars, clippers with two stars, suns with two stars, nets with 3 win a title again.

Heck the suns might win a title this year and they did it acquiring another star alongside Booker in CP3 in order to get there. And the suns depth wasn’t made by drafting besides cam Johnson. They got saric in a deal, they found Craig and signed Payne for the bubble and he panned out. And they got crowder in FA. 

2 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

so you want to use siakam. He is averaging over 20 ppg the last two years and was an all star so that’s a star as well. And Lowry would disappear cause they had 2 no  2 stars in derozan and Lowry. and not a no.  1 guy like kawhi so he didn’t have to be in that role and could be the no  2 or even 3 with siakam’s ermegence  

so the 2000s say it hasn’t been cyclical over 2 decades 

spurs— Duncan and robinson

lakers 3 peat— kobe and shaq

pistons— billups, Hamilton and Wallace’s (fits more of your narrative)

spurs— Duncan, Parker and ginobili

celtics— kg, Pierce and Allen 

Lakers— gasol and kobe. 

So next year you see a revert back to some team like the Lakers with two stars, clippers with two stars, suns with two stars, nets with 3 win a title again.

Heck the suns might win a title this year and they did it acquiring another star alongside Booker in CP3 in order to get there. And the suns depth wasn’t made by drafting besides cam Johnson. They got saric in a deal, they found Craig and signed Payne for the bubble and he panned out. And they got crowder in FA. 

count'em. lots of 2 player teams. Thats not "super team/big 3" era. Doesnt support your argument. Nor argue against mine as I have never said I dont want 2 stars. These are disingenuous arguments against a false premise. 

if we're being honest, the sixers only have 1 superstar...embiid...a center in a league that is becoming  more & more guard/wing heavy with the 3 point shot being utilized more than ever. the only way i see them winning a title with embiid is if they get a legit #1 perimeter player who can shoulder the scoring load. that seems to be what morey is trying to accomplish....stah hunting!  hell, even shaq made the point earlier this week that all his best teams had better players than himself...penny (arguably), kobe, & d-wade...guys who could take over games & get their own shots. they'll have to put together an aggressive trade package to get a player like that. 

if they don't think it's possible to win a championship with embiid as the primary scorer, then it's full rebuild time...again. i don't think the front office is there yet...or even close.  

6 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

a lot of those are 2 guys. The "superteam" era began when teams began building a "big 3" Count em again. Thats 3. Not 2. Youre posting a bunch of 2 man teams and pretending it supports your argument for a super team. It does not. 

 

Im all for having 2 stars. And then Depth. 

Maybe you can even have good enough depth with 3. We went wrong when we tried to add a 4th. That was the Horford contract after acquiring Harris. Should have been good with 3 and the Horford money should have went towards depth. 

Now Horford is gone but that money is still tied up because we have to match money in trades being over the cap. And people are still trying to find another star. 

 

i never said big 3...you did.

i said at least a couple superstars. the sixers currently have 1.

5 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

a lot of those are 2 guys. The "superteam" era began when teams began building a "big 3" Count em again. Thats 3. Not 2. Youre posting a bunch of 2 man teams and pretending it supports your argument for a super team. It does not. 

 

Im all for having 2 stars. And then Depth. 

Maybe you can even have good enough depth with 3. We went wrong when we tried to add a 4th. That was the Horford contract after acquiring Harris. Should have been good with 3 and the Horford money should have went towards depth. 

Your last paragraph I’d agree with. However horford was a terrible fit to begin with and dumb way to spend money. They should’ve went out for depth at that point cause you had your Star in embiid. Simmons you had to hope became your no. 2 and Harris is your no. 3. At that point. No need to try and add a fourth star. Should’ve went bogdanovic and added another piece. Instead. They didn’t. 

that said even if they did that, the sixers weren’t winning a title having to rely on Harris to be a no. 2 on a title team. He’s proven time and again in 3 elimination series to come up small when asked to be that. So even if you had depth it’s not a given it’s enough to get you to a title

Just now, mr_hunt said:

if we're being honest, the sixers only have 1 superstar...embiid...a center in a league that is becoming  more & more guard/wing heavy with the 3 point shot being utilized more than ever. the only way i see them winning a title with embiid is if they get a legit #1 perimeter player who can shoulder the scoring load. that seems to be what morey is trying to accomplish....stah hunting!  hell, even shaq made the point earlier this week that all his best teams had better players than himself...penny (arguably), kobe, & d-wade...guys who could take over games & get their own shots. they'll have to put together an aggressive trade package to get a player like that. 

if they don't think it's possible to win a championship with embiid as the primary scorer, then it's full rebuild time...again. i don't think the front office is there yet...or even close.  

You are correct about us having 1 super star.

As to the bolded part- they wont. Ever. Regardless. Most 6ers fans arent ready to admit that. But its fruitless.

Im all for adding another star with Embiid. But Im not for giving up young talent and multiple picks to get it done. Because Im interested in preserving resources for the post-embiid era. Thats where the title has a chance to come. But not if we waste all of those future resources right now chasing a title that isnt there for our taking. 

6 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

count'em. lots of 2 player teams. Thats not "super team/big 3" era. Doesnt support your argument. Nor argue against mine as I have never said I dont want 2 stars. These are disingenuous arguments against a false premise. 

When did i ever say they needed three stars? That wasn’t even my argument. I said they needed another star. They currently don’t have cause Harris isn’t that and continues to prove that and either is Simmons.

My point from the beginning has been you are not winning with one superstar and a bunch of third and fourth options. You need another to star to win a championship in this league unless you wanna go to the Mavericks route and hope that 10% chance you win it. 

1 minute ago, mr_hunt said:

 

i never said big 3...you did.

i said at least a couple superstars. the sixers currently have 1.

so we agree...

1 minute ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

When did i ever say they needed three stars? That wasn’t even my argument. I said they needed another star. They currently don’t have have cause Harris isn’t that and continues to prove that and either is Simmons.

My point from the beginning has been you are not winning with one superstar and a bunch of third and fourth options. You need another to star to win a championship in this league unless you wanna go to the Mavericks route and hope that 10% chance you win it. 

yeah...he's arguing stuff that was never said. hell, he wanted to trade ben for backups the other day.   

 

anyway, to get a real 2nd superstar while embiid is still playing at an elite level, they would have to give up something. something another team would want in exchange for a superstar. 

2 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

Your last paragraph I’d agree with. However horford was a terrible fit to begin with and dumb way to spend money. They should’ve went out for depth at that point cause you had your Star in embiid. Simmons you had to hope became your no. 2 and Harris is your no. 3. At that point. No need to try and add a fourth star. Should’ve went bogdanovic and added another piece. Instead. They didn’t. 

that said even if they did that, the sixers weren’t winning a title having to rely on Harris to be a no. 2 on a title team. He’s proven time and again in 3 elimination series to come up small when asked to be that. So even if you had depth it’s not a given it’s enough to get you to a title

But, they wouldnt have had to rely on Harris if they had Bodganovic. It could have been Bodganovic's night on any given night, rather than Harris. And if you have yet another guy on that level... maybe its his night. Enough of those players someone is going to step up and you dont really have to rely on anyone. 

Just now, mr_hunt said:

yeah...he's arguing stuff that was never said. hell, he wanted to trade ben for backups the other day.   

 

anyway, to get a real 2nd superstar while embiid is still playing at an elite level, they would have to give up something. something another team would want in exchange for a superstar. 

it was said. you have trouble reading and comprehending. 

6 minutes ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

When did i ever say they needed three stars? That wasn’t even my argument. I said they needed another star. They currently don’t have have cause Harris isn’t that and continues to prove that and either is Simmons. 

you guys are arguing for a super team in the super-team era. Keep citing all the super teams in the last decade, and even prior. Then go name a bunch of duos rather than actual super teams. 

This team has spent too many resources missing on finding its stars. Now you all want to keep borrowing from the future. Its really time to admit it didnt work before you ruin the teams ability to get it right in the near future too. Depth needs to come before stars. 

2 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

 

it was said. 

what was said?    

 

Just now, mr_hunt said:

what was said?    

 

exactly...you dont know.

5 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

But, they wouldnt have had to rely on Harris if they had Bodganovic. It could have been Bodganovic's night on any given night, rather than Harris. And if you have yet another guy on that level... maybe its his night. Enough of those players someone is going to step up and you dont really have to rely on anyone. 

it was said. you have trouble reading and comprehending. 

It was said by you not us. All we said was you have to have at least two stars to win a championship and 20 years of data proves. You just don’t want to believe it so call it disingenuous because it puts a hole in hole argument of the nba is cyclical when it’s proven over 20 years not to be  

you know who’s trying to do your theory right now, the Utah jazz. How is that going for them over the last three years trying to do what you said. They have a superstar in Donovan Mitchell. And then a bunch of third and fourth option guys. And they keep getting eliminated by teams that have two Fing stars 

1 minute ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

It was said by you not us. All we said was you have to have at least who stars to win a championship and 20 years of data proves. You just don’t want to believe it so call it disingenuous because it puts a hole in hole argument of the nba is cyclical when it’s proven over 20 years not to be  

you know who’s trying to do your theory right now, the Utah jazz. How is that going for them over the last three years trying to do what you said. They have a superstar in Donovan Mitchell. And then a bunch of third and fourth option guys. And they keep getting eliminated by teams that have two Fing stars 

so why are you guys arguing when you are trying to say the same thing I have said first?

because... its not what you started out saying. You realized Im right and tried to change the goal posts. 

 

Just now, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

It was said by you not us. All we said was you have to have at least two stars to win a championship and 20 years of data proves. You just don’t want to believe it so call it disingenuous because it puts a hole in hole argument of the nba is cyclical when it’s proven over 20 years not to be  

 

I am just surprised that people are not willing to include Maxey for Lillard.  Damian F'n Lillard.  A guy who is 31 and has 3 great years left.  A dude who has to be covered 5-7 feet outside the 3 point line consistently.  A dude who can close, even better than Embiid.  A guy who can score 30-40 points when Embiid plays or doesn't play.  And a guy who would create so much space for Embiid and Curry.  Makes so sense.

1 minute ago, HazletonEagle said:

so why are you guys arguing when you are trying to say the same thing I have said first?

because... its not what you started out saying. You realized Im right and tried to change the goal posts. 

i've said all along that they need a legit superstar alongside embiid and that might require adding a pick and/or one of the young guys to simmons to get it done.  you suggested trading simmons for backups from the cleveland cavaliers..because depth. 

then you started queefing about "super teams" and "big 3's".

 

 

3 minutes ago, mr_hunt said:

i've said all along that they need a legit superstar alongside embiid and that might require adding a pick and/or one of the young guys to simmons to get it done.  you suggested trading simmons for backups from the cleveland cavaliers..because depth. 

then you started queefing about "super teams" and "big 3's".

 

 

Your reading comprehension problem showing up again. You continue to ignore the focal point of that trade was for the pick. 

The Sixers have already fielded offers for Ben Simmons but continue to hold a stance that they will only trade him for an all-star caliber player. They most recently turned down a deal with the Pacers that included Malcolm Brogdon and a 1st round pick.

— Jason Dumas (@JDumasReports) July 2, 2021

 

 

 

If Brogdon and a first rounder is the starting point for talks the #Sixers aren’t in a horrible spot by any means.

— Harrison Grimm (@Harrison_Grimm) July 2, 2021

6 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

Your reading comprehension problem showing up again. You continue to ignore the focal point of that trade was for the pick. 

nah..i understood your dumb idea perfectly.

trade for a pick...then wait for that draft pick to (hopefully) develop into a star...even though the nba draft is always a crapshoot...wasting embiid's prime years in the process. 

that was your dumb idea. 

Just now, mr_hunt said:

i've said all along that they need a legit superstar alongside embiid and that might require adding a pick and/or one of the young guys to simmons to get it done.  you suggested trading simmons for backups from the cleveland cavaliers..because depth. 

then you started queefing about "super teams" and "big 3's".

 

 

You and I both said they need another star to go with embiid to win a title. Just having depth of third and fourth options aren’t going to be enough to beat some of those other team next year that are going to be healthy that have two stars or more and superior upper echelon talent. I’m gonna go back and read how many times i mentioned super team in my argument. I’m guessing it’s less than 1. 

the utah jazz the last 3 years have gone the way of his argument. Basically what they’ve tried to do. Mitchell and a bunch of 2nd and 3rd options with depth (that’s what Conley is at this stage of his career). They keep getting eliminated by teams with 2 or more stars because when push comes to shove over the last 20 years 90% of the champions are made up of a roster built the way we want to do it.