He's not even all that hard to build around. You just need a big who can actually shoot the 3 with volume. Those are hard to find. If you find that, the rest is the same as any other team.
PHI isn't trading Simmons for DraymondGS replacing Draymond would be good. Curry is the alpha and changes the court spacing, Klay is a 2nd scorer who doesn't want the ball except to shoot.
WAS with an extended Beal is a good fit, Beal can be your scorer, Simmons the 2/3 guy, that's a good pair to build around
The question was what was the best on-court fit ignoring trade feasibility..
PHI isn't trading Simmons for Draymond
What is WAS giving up if they are keeping Beal?
I'll apologize for being inconsistent with the terminology, but if Simmons is not going to be the PG, he is naturally going to shift to a more off-ball role. I think it's reasonable to ask if he is going to do that, what can he bring to the table as off-ball player. Simmons' best skills offensively come out when he is the PG dictating the pace of the game; I think if you are insisting on him not being a PG anymore, you are limiting him even further offensively.Why are they shifting him away from primary ball-handler? You asked what he would do when he didn't have the basketball. I'm assuming he will most of the time.
You seem fixated on the primary ball-handler being a traditional PG.
Did you read the quoted post? It's not counting for reality, it's just based on best fit for Simmons game..
PHI isn't trading Simmons for Draymond
What is WAS giving up if they are keeping Beal?
No one is insisting on that? We all agree he will be the primary ball-handler. That doesn't mean he'll be the PG or that if he isn't, he'll be that in more of an off ball role.I'll apologize for being inconsistent with the terminology, but if Simmons is not going to be the PG, he is naturally going to shift to a more off-ball role. I think it's reasonable to ask if he is going to do that, what can he bring to the table as off-ball player. Simmons' best skills offensively come out when he is the PG dictating the pace of the game; I think if you are insisting on him not being a PG anymore, you are limiting him even further offensively.
I think it's that I said that if people called him a PF nobody would care so much than he can't shoot 3s. The point was, not every player on the court needs to stretch, and a traditional PG doesn't really do the same thing for many teams as they did, they might bring it up, but in half court many teams spend most of the time with the ball in the hands of their best creator regardless of position.No one is insisting on that? We all agree he will be the primary ball-handler. That doesn't mean he'll be the PG or that if he isn't, he'll be that in more of an off ball role.
It really sounds more like a terminology hang up because no one is suggesting to shift him to more of an off-ball role. That would be foolish for all the reasons you stated.
The times he does play off ball, it will probably look considerably different than it did in Philly, though. Whether it makes him more effective or not remains to be seen.
Tatum, Brown, Simmons, Horford, Pritchard would be tremendousI mean a guy who would be great on a Simmons team would be...... Payton Pritchard. Simmons can do most of the initiating while Pritchard spreads the floor. Pritchard is the "PG" in that lineup, but Simmons is the one making decisions with the ball in his hands.
I think PHI would love to do that, but the problem is there really isn't another star to flip, so instead you'd get assets in the HOPE of flipping them.... problem becomes, what if you can't find a disgruntled star looking to move? What if the only one there is doesn't want to play with Embiid.You guys are way smarter at fits then me. But We do we assume that whatever they get for Ben, Philly has to keep. If they can then turn and trade "a boat load of picks" for a shooter. Or "Sabonis/Turner" to whoever for whatever DOES fit.
Makes it more complicated but Morey gets paid alot to come up with these solutions.
Trust the Process!Didn't see this one posted - now "sources" are claiming Ben not wanting to play with Joel (after yesterday's media session).
View: https://twitter.com/TheAthletic/status/1442837336958590977
If every team could magically generate max space, every team would offer him a 4 year max.
You are the one undervaluing him. Not others. His contract is not a negative. You are way off even suggesting so. Makes me wonder just how often you watch the NBA for even suggesting it.
It's laughable to suggest Simmons isn't a max guy. Go say hi to MPJ.
It makes zero sense to sign a player to a max contract unless you think he can be one of the best 2-3 guys on a contending team. Otherwise, you’re better off looking for bargains and/or signing players to short commitments, so you can continue to look for those foundation pieces.Morey has to know that Simmons is never returning to Philly and is prepared to sit out the entire season. This has to all be standard GM-speak, right?
The projection curve with Simmons is certainly very flat. I’m not sure what you mean by “limited” when discussing a 25-yr old consensus All-Star who has multiple elite skills. There isn’t a team in the league who wouldn’t take Simmons on that contract right now if they could snap their finger and do so.
Ben Simmons would be the 3rd best player on every team in the league that isn't the Brooklyn Nets, and any team but Brooklyn would jump at the chance to add him. He'd be a foundation piece just about everywhere because he's gonna give you 15-20 with 8 reb, 8 ast and elite defense in the regular season, and he doesn't need shots so you can load up on guys who can shoot. If you try to build your team by not taking any players who aren't top 10 in the league superstars, you're just gonna be out of the league in 3 years. Ben Simmons makes less money than Tobias HArris, guys way worse than him get the max all the time. It's absolutely insane to not take a top 25 player in the league for free because you worry that he might only make you a top seed but not carry you to a title.It makes zero sense to sign a player to a max contract unless you think he can be one of the best 2-3 guys on a contending team. Otherwise, you’re better off looking for bargains and/or signing players to short commitments, so you can continue to look for those foundation pieces.
The Sixers have been good in the regular season, so I could understand thinking Simmons can be one of those 2-3 foundation guys. But he can’t stretch the floor, and you have to run your offense through him. After last year’s debacle in the playoffs, I’m not sure any GMs would sign up for that. I struggle to think of a team where Simmons would fit as a foundation piece.
Now, Morey might have his own reasons for accepting a negative return for Simmons (keeps the salary slot, opens future trade possibilities), but that’s different from saying someone would jump at the opportunity to pay Simmons 4/140 in a vacuum. That is, at a minimum, an open question.
There are 50ish max contracts in the league at any year. https://www.basketball-reference.com/contracts/players.htmlNow, Morey might have his own reasons for accepting a negative return for Simmons (keeps the salary slot, opens future trade possibilities), but that’s different from saying someone would jump at the opportunity to pay Simmons 4/140 in a vacuum. That is, at a minimum, an open question.
That's the thing. And some of those teams really don't need him to shoot or even carry a big scoring load. He immediately improves a lot of teams through his ballhandling, passing, and defense.Ben Simmons would be the 3rd best player on every team in the league that isn't the Brooklyn Nets
If not Durant, Kyrie will. He'll take his ball and go home. After that, he'll probably walk the earth, meet people... get into adventures.
Dumb Fu.Kyrie Chang Caine in search of his long lost brother
FTFYThat's the thing. And some of those teams really don't need him to shoot or even carry a big scoring load. He immediately improvesa lot ofevery NBA team through his ballhandling, passing, and defense.
There are a lot of Half the "max guys"thatare worse than Ben Simmons, and I'm pretty bearish on him.
Teams don't exactly have their pick of 2nd bananas to build their team around either. These types of players don't become available that often. And a lot of locations aren't very desirable. It's not like players are pining to play in Minnesota. If Simmons was willing to take a max offer from them, they are offering it.That's the thing. And some of those teams really don't need him to shoot or even carry a big scoring load. He immediately improves a lot of teams through his ballhandling, passing, and defense.
There are a lot of "max guys" that are worse than Ben Simmons, and I'm pretty bearish on him.
If the bolded were true, there would be a robust trade market for him. There does not seem to be one.Ben Simmons would be the 3rd best player on every team in the league that isn't the Brooklyn Nets, and any team but Brooklyn would jump at the chance to add him. He'd be a foundation piece just about everywhere because he's gonna give you 15-20 with 8 reb, 8 ast and elite defense in the regular season, and he doesn't need shots so you can load up on guys who can shoot. If you try to build your team by not taking any players who aren't top 10 in the league superstars, you're just gonna be out of the league in 3 years. Ben Simmons makes less money than Tobias HArris, guys way worse than him get the max all the time. It's absolutely insane to not take a top 25 player in the league for free because you worry that he might only make you a top seed but not carry you to a title.
Agreed on both, although I'd say that there are some teams where he creates as many problems as he solves (including his current team).FTFY
I don't get how people can look at the list of max players and come to any other conclusion. Most 2nd bananas are flawed basketball players. Even Giannis is a flawed basketball player. You are almost always still better with them than without them. At least the ones that aren't past their prime/injured. There would be a huge drop off filling 35 minutes internally with the current 76ers roster if Simmons were to sit out the season. There aren't really any solutions to that problem either, besides trading Ben Simmons.FTFY
For free? Any team would. However, he isn't free.If the bolded were true, there would be a robust trade market for him. There does not seem to be one.
Simmons has 4/140 left on his deal. A lot of the guys on this list earn materially less than that.There are 50ish max contracts in the league at any year. https://www.basketball-reference.com/contracts/players.html
Look at that list and tell me with a straight face Simmons isn't a max player.
ok? What do you expect anyone to say to that? And what exactly is your point? That there are some max players better than Simmons and some max players worse?With the exception of Siakam, I’d argue that every guy on that list who is slated to earn more than $30M next season either (a) is better than Simmons (most of them), (b) is on a bad contract, (c) has more upside than Simmons, or (d) is an overpaid complementary player who fits well on his team (such as Khris Middleton and Jrue Holiday).
Nobody is going to pay Ben Simmons 4/140 because Andrew Wiggins is making similar money, or John Wall is making even more. It’s not relevant. Similarly, it’s not relevant that franchise guys are getting paid as much or more, or that guys like Jamal Murray are getting paid for upside. Nor is it relevant that great complementary players are earning that kind of money, unless you think Simmons is such a player. (In that case, we can agree to disagree, as I think you need to run your offense through Simmons.)ok? What do you expect anyone to say to that? And what exactly is your point? That there are some max players better than Simmons and some max players worse?
Seriously, you listed 4 options and 3 of those options you admit are worse players than Ben Simmons at this moment. Yet you are going to argue that Ben Simmons isn't worth his contract because other players on the max are B, C and D? Did Ben Simmons run over your dog?
edit: I want to hear your argument for Wiggins over Simmons. Oh, bad contract. See? You left yourself an out for every single player that is worse than Ben Simmons who is on a max.
For those that think Simmons would be a bad fit on the C’s, it would be like replacing TL’s 24 minutes with Simmons’ 35. It’s a significantly better player at both ends of the court while playing a similar role and for more minutes a game, and more games per year. He would absolutely make the C’s legit contenders.He just turned 25. He's 13th all-time in triple-doubles and will be the best defensive player in the NBA over the next 5 seasons.
Even with his terrible playoffs this year (12ppg/8rpg/8.8apg) where he couldn't hit a FT, the Celtics would hand over a lot for him.
People are defining his career on one play and now saying he's scared to take layups
Phila did have the best record in the EC last season, with Ben as their 2nd best player.
I get the Philly hate, watching their soap opera over the last decade has been great fodder. I have gladly crapped all over their boneheaded moves. But Ben Simmons with the JAYs would be title contenders.
Here's the thing to me... Simmons is both a much better player than, and a lot younger and healthier than Gordon Hayward. Gordon Hayward got 4/120 when he hit the market, Ben Simmons is better than Brandon Ingram... Ingram got the max, Simmons is 7 years younger than and a much better player than DeRozan, DeRozan got 28.3M a year, Tobias Harris had the first good year of his career, he was older and not as good as Simmons... he got 5/180, Middleton, same thing.Nobody is going to pay Ben Simmons 4/140 because Andrew Wiggins is making similar money, or John Wall is making even more. It’s not relevant. Similarly, it’s not relevant that franchise guys are getting paid as much or more, or that guys like Jamal Murray are getting paid for upside. Nor is it relevant that great complementary players are earning that kind of money, unless you think Simmons is such a player. (In that case, we can agree to disagree, as I think you need to run your offense through Simmons.)
Siakam is a decent parallel, and that’s not an awful deal like the Wiggins and Wall contracts. But I think the Raptors would be hard-pressed to unload that contract right now without taking back negative assets.
Simmons is one of those unique players that's incredibly difficult to build around. And he's not Robin, he's more like Marvin, Wendy, and Wonderdog. He's not good enough to be the second dog, because he just doesn't shoot the damned ball. And not just terrified of shooting outside the paint (although that's a huge fucking problem), he's increasingly afraid of shooting in the paint for fear of having to go to the free throw line (seriously, his FGA/g have gone down every year). I racked my brain trying to find NBA teams where he'd be a natural fit outside of Minnesota and Indiana. I didn't have a lot of luck.Seems like part of the problem with thinking of Simmons fitting only any team right now is that in addition to being unable to shoot outside, he can’t hit FTs and is now even scared of shooting layups. I mean, how exactly is he supposed to score?
Or are we just hand waving his run of playoff games where he took fewer shots than I have fingers in my hands in the 4th quarters combined?
Thus seems like more than a “bad fit with Embid.” It seems more like Simmons is just a broken player.
Hayward makes $29M. I'd rather have Simmons on the max. Russell I guess you would argue is a bad contract same as Will Barton. PDX would trade McCollum for Simmons if Morey would take it. Wiggins is discussed. I guess Chris Paul is more valuable than Simmons to PHX right now but that contract is going to get bad soon I think.With the exception of Siakam, I’d argue that every guy on that list who is slated to earn more than $30M next season
I don’t know how much you follow NBA contract stuff but I think plenty of teams would pay this for Simmons. It doesn’t make sense until you realize how underpaid true stars are and how much that subsidizes the salaries of very good players.Nobody is going to pay Ben Simmons 4/140 because Andrew Wiggins is making similar money, or John Wall is making even more. It’s not relevant. Similarly, it’s not relevant that franchise guys are getting paid as much or more, or that guys like Jamal Murray are getting paid for upside. Nor is it relevant that great complementary players are earning that kind of money, unless you think Simmons is such a player. (In that case, we can agree to disagree, as I think you need to run your offense through Simmons.)
Siakam is a decent parallel, and that’s not an awful deal like the Wiggins and Wall contracts. But I think the Raptors would be hard-pressed to unload that contract right now without taking back negative assets.
I was thinking that Simmons does the good things that Marcus does (defense at multiple positions and passing) better than Marcus, and does far less of that which drives this board nuts about Marcus (shoot myriad 3’s at a low %).For those that think Simmons would be a bad fit on the C’s, it would be like replacing TL’s 24 minutes with Simmons’ 35. It’s a significantly better player at both ends of the court while playing a similar role and for more minutes a game, and more games per year. He would absolutely make the C’s legit contenders.
It's weird because if Ben Simmons shot a myriad of 3s at the same low % as Smart, he'd be a top 5-10 player in the league.I was thinking that Simmons does the good things that Marcus does (defense at multiple positions and passing) better than Marcus, and does far less of that which drives this board nuts about Marcus (shoot myriad 3’s at a low %).
Ingram is the probably the better offensive player, but the defensive gap is.... woof.It's weird because if Ben Simmons shot a myriad of 3s at the same low % as Smart, he'd be a top 5-10 player in the league.
Someone said he's way better than Ingram which I'm not sure I agree with. I think he's better but in the same tier. At the same time, I think NO and Philly are both better with Ingram than Simmons. Ingram is more plug and play and I think he'd actually be a great fit with Embiid. NO might be one of the worst fits for Simmons though. The C's would be better with Simmons but they'd be a title contender with Simmons or Ingram. There aren't many players that won't work with the Jays.
Agreed with that. I was more thinking about his desire to play more small ball 5, where I think he would be a killer. He had a few games in Embiid’s absence last year that shows what he is capable of in that role (I think he had 40 against Gobert). He would probably end up playing some non-5 minutes along with Horford, where he could act as a very rich man’s Smart Swiss Army knife type.I was thinking that Simmons does the good things that Marcus does (defense at multiple positions and passing) better than Marcus, and does far less of that which drives this board nuts about Marcus (shoot myriad 3’s at a low %).
This is inherently incorrect. Even if it WAS correct then Simmons would qualify on nearly every team. The reality is that small market teams or those who would be ecstatic to climb to .500 and participate in the playoffs would also snap sign Simmons to a max tomorrow. Not every team in the league has a goal of winning a championship in the short term.It makes zero sense to sign a player to a max contract unless you think he can be one of the best 2-3 guys on a contending team.
If Simmons were as mentally tough as Marcus he'd be celebrating his second MVP award by now.I was thinking that Simmons does the good things that Marcus does (defense at multiple positions and passing) better than Marcus, and does far less of that which drives this board nuts about Marcus (shoot myriad 3’s at a low %).
This is also where the Simmons/Draymond comparisons fall apart. Hell, at this point calling him tall Rondo would be an insult to Rondo.If Simmons were as mentally tough as Marcus he'd be celebrating his second MVP award by now.
Simmons would make sense on a crappy team that aspires to be respectable— you’d run the offense through him and assemble complementary players around him to hide his inability to shoot.This is inherently incorrect. Even if it WAS correct then Simmons would qualify on nearly every team. The reality is that small market teams or those who would be ecstatic to climb to .500 and participate in the playoffs would also snap sign Simmons to a max tomorrow. Not every team in the league has a goal of winning a championship in the short term.
If Morey said that he was just going to dump Simmons into cap space without needing anything in return, there's not a team in the league that wouldn't take him - so long as they could create cap space. I don't know why this is so hard.My guess at what is clogging the Simmons market now is not a lack of teams offering stuff, it is Morey wanting a pretty hefty and also pretty specific (with short-term value, e.g. guys who can play at a high level right now) return. But as always, I could be wrong...
An Indiana deal would be interesting, something like Brogdon+picks+filler, if Brogdon agreed to extend.What It hink is being missed is what I like to call the "Nate Duncan fallacy" which is that all teams are the same in goals and situation and style at all points in time . That makes for easy analysis of the league and any team, but it's regularly off when you think it through against a specific team at a specific point in time given their real market situation and ownership preferences. So sure, in the abstract from the perspective of a big market team who wants to win a title you don't want to trade for Simmons unless he's the missing piece for a title. But that profile doesn't fit everyone, and the variance is where the opportunity is likely to lie for Morey.
To pick a "local" example of this, the Ray Allen trade for the Celtics makes no sense using the approach mauf outlines above---he didn't make them a real contender so they'd have been better off continuing the rebuild and keeping lottery picks to get stars, right? But in reality, he was part of a set of moves designed to make them appealing for the apex star--Garnett--who was potentially (and in the end, in fact) out there.
So who might fit that now? Detroit is a possibility---pair Simmons with Cade and move more rapidly to where you are a quality team who might add one more piece? Indiana (forever more interested in second round of playoffs than true contention) could consolidate some of its interesting pieces to get younger and sustain their playoffs-but-not-really-a-contender window. Cleveland could look to balance it's roster a bit (but seems less likely to me given they already have an expensive mostly non-shooter locked in). I don't think it is true that all teams think indefinite tanking and non-contenition is the right approach, and as HRB says there's likely a number of teams who see real value in Simmons---which is in part that you own his right for four years which is something many smaller market teams cannot regularly get outside of drafting someone.
My guess at what is clogging the Simmons market now is not a lack of teams offering stuff, it is Morey wanting a pretty hefty and also pretty specific (with short-term value, e.g. guys who can play at a high level right now) return. But as always, I could be wrong...
I just finished a post about MPJ in the off-season thread. He's at 4/$132M with a partial fifth year guarantee (though it's pretty likely DEN will pick up the contract unless he's injured) so make that 5/$172M with a chance (remote as it may be) that he gets to $207M. I also posted an article (earlier) that in the playoffs, opposing teams shot 57% from 3P when MPJ was "guarding" the shooter.I agree with you WBCD---and also agree with you the MPJ contract demonstrates the same. MPJ is at least as flawed a player overall as Simmons (thought their flaws are wildly different, nearly opposite) and just got the same contract. He's not much younger, has a scarier injury history by a longshot, and has shown the same lack of growth at one end that Simmons has at the other.
Which of those guys would you want? Depends for sure on your roster, but they are only a year or so apart in age. Frankly, both teams would probably be better off if they swapped them, though Denver would need to backfill some shooting especially with Murray out.
I agree. Thanks for posting that.https://www.theringer.com/nba/2021/9/28/22698824/ben-simmons-trade-philadelphia-76ers
I think this from Kevin O'Connor is good.