Jesus, just realized Philly has six picks in this year's draft, is that right?

Wonder if they'll try to package a bunch of picks to swap with somebody like Orlando who needs to do a full rebuild and might be willing to trade down a few spots in order to take tons of cheap bets. Probably not in this year's top heavy draft, I guess.

Pretty sure Philly's picks are not all guaranteed.

1) likely first pick is the Lakers pick but the Celtics own it between 2-5
2) their own pick--likely in the 10-20 range
3-6) 2nd round picks--1st one is from Brooklyn, 2nd one is from the Knicks, 3rd one is theres, 4th one is Houstons

I think trading up for a stud makes sense given what they have and need.

I think signing 1 top flight FA who can play the 1/2/4 is what they need. Obviously if they can get Lebron even better but that looks unlikely. They really need another great shooter if Redick leaves or is just too old.

They still have the following for the next season:

1) Simmons, Fultz
2) Bayless, Young
3) Roco
4) Saric, Booker
5) Embiid, Holmes

I loved to see them trade up for Trae Young. Guy can shoot, handle the ball when Simmons is out (just like Fultz) and balls out. Porter, Bagley and Anton are great, but other than Bagley don't really fit that well with the current squad. Doncic seems great as well but seems like a better shooting Simmons. Jarren Jackson also seems like a decent, fall back option if they decide to trade up.

They can also trade the Sacto pick from next year if the Celtics take the Lakers pick this year.

ayton is definitely a superior athlete, he's pretty much a freak. guys like jjj has a good case, bamba's tools are elite, michael porter is arguably a better athlete

reasons for knocking bagley's athleticism:
not ultra fast or explosive, more of a smooth athlete
only 7' span which is below average for a big

he's good, but i don't think he's quite a good enough athlete for his current playing style to translate, he's just not going to get that many orebs or post up as much in the nba

Wingspan has nothing to with being athletic nor does height. Athleticism is fitness,speed,strength, and agility. His wingspan isnt ideal which limits him as rim protector but thats a diff then being athletic.

Hes an amazing athlete. Watch the dude move down the court. Hes 6'10 but he moves like a wing. Plays above the rim etc.

a better shooting simmons is already pretty ridiculous

Simmons/Doncic/RoCo/Saric/Embiid is ****ing scary

doncic can probably play sg, might what he ends up doing defensively anyway since his ability to defend really quick pgs in the nba is a bit of a question mark

there's some good arguments for differing definitions of athleticism and where to draw the line, but ignoring height and wingspan makes no sense

People thought Ball might not be able to defend the quick PGs of the NBA and he's done a decent job. Being really tall helps, you can sag off quite a bit more

wat? obviously both factor into the total package, but height and wingspan have nothing to do with athleticism.

is that consensus? i saw some good clips of him defending westbrook in 2016 a while back.

i dunno how you'd assign him on sixers but everyone would be really freaking tall and they'd be elite on D.

it's often mentioned as a potential weakness, for a recent example ben falk's breakdown mentioned it. i don't think anyone is totally sure though, idk about the rwb sample but size/effort can go a long way and he seems to try reasonably hard

either way it wouldn't be the first time a big primary ballhandler ended up not guarding the pg full time, that move is often just as much about energy conservation for your best offensive guy as it is about hiding him

i'm not into a semantic debate but when most people use the term athleticism it's basically a catch all term for physical impact, so i don't think definitions of athleticism that exclude height/reach are very useful. yellowfever apparently thinks bagley is the among the best athletes in the draft even ignoring height/reach. i have no idea what his definition of athleticism captures because there are dozens of college players that run faster, jump higher, have better balance etc than bagley but suck because they are shorter than 6'10 and worse at bball

I think athleticism can definitely incorporate something like length/wingspan and how you use it effectively.

That can make a "not as great" athlete more athletic than a "pretty good" shorter athlete.

sexton's shot looks pretty weird but i guess if it goes in...

shouldnt current nba be super overrating prospects like sexton?

some of the worst contracts in the league these days are going to pointguards who are very good but not the best (wall, conley)

new elite point guards come out every year. point forwards are gonna become a thing.

idk, i just see point guards like how the NFL sees running backs. you can find guys that contribute better on a dollar per winshares value farther back in the draft, no? save the top of the draft for the wings/flamethrowers/talented big men

PG is the most important position though

What ?

who are the super point guards better than John Wall and Conley ? Kyrie , Dame looks better because Wall sucks this season, but previous year Wall was a better player. Curry, Westbrook, Harden drafted before him ...

Ball, Fox, Smith, Ntilikina are all dogs to reach Wall level in their career

The thing happening is team are slowly getting rid of PG and playing a traditional SG in the PG position next to some other pick & roll ball handlers

Ben Simmons is not a PG he's the evolution of the NBA, the new position Ball handler, that doesn't need to be the smallest player in the team to get the ball because that's really the only utility of sub-6"5 players

I don't think giving a big contract now to a PG will be a liability because the league won't evolve to the 4 wings one being a primary ball handler that fast. But I think drafting a short PG now hoping to lock him for the next 8/9 year might be a bad thing. If the game goes big everywhere, they are gonna be like IT in this current world on D, while now top athletic 6"7+ players can stay in front of PG, because evolution of science and training is more rewarding for their bodies

Players are overpaid because 95% of the time you can't break a play-off team by not accepting to pay your star a lot just because he might have 2 ****ty year at the end of his 4/5 year contract, and anyway somewhere another GM would give this player a max to get a play-off spot

I think this is the genesis of a good idea, but probably means amending. Probably more true that elite PG prospects are more frequent, but hitting on them is still kind of difficult, especially since even the ones who turn out are likely negative assets for a year or two.

if we consider the truly elite point guard prospects, the ones that have been good enough to individually merit title sweats in the last 6 years, there aren't many. maybe that's the fault of lebron/GSW not allowing us to assess value in a signal'y manner?

if i'm at the top of the draft i want to get a player that makes me go whoa (doncic, trae) or a player that has the potential to be a super stud wing or unicorn.

6'3 point guards that play well out of the PNR and shoot 36% from 3 ought to grow from trees by now. i would have sexton lower on my board than most people, and would hope to trade down if it came to it.

basically every draft should have a guy like dejounte or dinwiddie that's either underrated or you're buying the dip cuz of injury. would wayyyy prefer getting extra picks + take a risk late in the first round versus taking a shot on sexton as my franchise guy.

maybe i'm just biased cuz i'm looking around at the landscape of teams with players that remind me of sexton, and in this day and age all of those teams are in the absolute worst position (playoff team that wont win title and cant get a lottery pick)

I think this is a pretty bad analogy.

In the NFL, *veteran* runningbacks are devalued because they fall off really hard as they age, and *cheap rookie* runningbacks aren't a huge dropoff from veterans, so NFL teams figured out that it's better to constantly draft rookies rather than overpay a veteran for a long contract, and just plug n play them.

In the NBA, PGs almost always take ~3 years before they become good, whereas 2-4s can be good within a year or two. Plus, great ones can play a really long time and aren't as dependent on athleticism as 2-4s.

So constantly replacing your PGs via draft so you have cheap young PGs is not a good strategy... in fact the opposite. You'd want to use your high draft pick to get a great PG that you can develop over time and have for a decade, while you can probably rely on the draft to supply you with a decent 3 or 4 when the time is right.

I think Sexton is pretty sweet. He displays good non ball handling attributes as well

+1

Any guy who can score 40 going 3 on 5 is A-Okay in my book !

Its the least important position, always has and always will be

Positions were only created to make it easier for the fans to follow basketball.

Like if you ask Walt Frazier if he was a shooting guard or a point guard he'll tell you that he was simply a guard.