Ball considering workout with 76ers after declining Celtics

[max215]

He should. Philadelphia is a far better fit for him than LA, and Philly's outlook is much brighter than LA's.

[vjcsmoke]

Dude are you a Sixers fan?  Just come out with it then.  If you actually are a Celtics fan we are not in the business of making Conference opponents better.  Giving up the rights to Fultz and Bradley would be suicidal within the conference.

Why trade a perfectly healthy #1 overall prospect for Simmons when the guy clearly had health issues and didn't play a single minute of NBA ball?  Just sounds incredibly stupid and more of a 2k17 fantasy GM move then a realistic basketball move that would help the Celtics organization.

I think Philly would be hilarious, because Simmons and Ball don't seem like they'd be compatible together. They both need the ball in their hands to set up others, and that's just taking even more touches away from their best player in Embiid.

Philly should make a hard push for Fultz, who would fit absolutely perfectly for them. If I was Philly, I'd trade number 3 to Sacramento for numbers 5 and 10 and then offer Danny Simmons and number 10 for number 1. They could then take Monk at 5 and a really good core moving forward of Fultz, Monk, Covington, Saric, and Embiid. I love the two-way potential of that group, and I think it fits much better together than anything they'd currently get at 3 to add to their group.

Philly should trade Simmons to the Lakers for #2 and give us #2&#3 for # 1. Now that's a trade Danny has to consider. That's a godfather offer.

Who would you take with those picks, assuming Sixers take Fultz?

Ball and jackson or tatum.

If Philly were that infatuated with Fultz so as to give up Simmons, itd make more sense to cut out the middle man. Simmons+3 could get them #1 and then some.

I was thinking about this. AB would be a really good fit for them, and they wanted him at the deadline. I wonder if a deal could be made there: Simmons and number 3 for Bradley and number 1?

Not sure that would work. That's why I said in another thread that they should trade the number 3 to Sacramento for 5 and 10 then offer Simmons and number 5 (ideally is probably what it would take over number 10) for Bradley and number 1. I love that long-term lineup for them: Fultz, AB, Covington, Saric, and Embiid, along with whoever they would take at 10 and then their future picks from LA and Sacramento. That's a tremendous two-way potential team. And the best part is that I think Colangelo would go for something like that, because they want to add more vets like AB to their young core.

That'd also work really well for us. Pick-up Monk for more scoring off of the bench and an ideal fit next to both Smart and Rozier. Then you can add Hayward this summer and go into next year with the following lineup:

PG: IT, Smart, Rozier
SG: Brown, Monk
SF: Hayward, Crowder
PF: Simmons, ?
C: Horford, Zizic

[Big333223]

I'd love to see Ball alongside Simmons. I think they would be great together. Great passing.

I'd love to see Lou Williams return to Philly and play PG alongside them two. A scorer like Lou Will would be a great fit alongside their passing ability.

Lou Williams has another year on his contract in Houston.  Is there some indication that they want to trade him?   

I'm not sold on Ball but I think he'd work best sharing the load running the offense with someone like Simmons.  I think he'd fail as a ball dominant PG.  You can never have too much great passing.  It would really make life easier and probably healthier for Embiid not to have to create so much offense on his own.

Lou Williams = no, just a picture of what type of guard I'd like to see alongside Ball & Simmons.

Agreed on Ball. I think he's best off with a lot of help. A second ball-handling guard and a playmaking forward like Simmons would be excellent for him. Do not like Ball in a PG-centric offense where he has to create everything.

I just don't see or like that fit there with Simmons. It seems like Embiid should have the ball in his hands a lot, and having both Simmons and Ball on the team wouldn't be a good fit with as ball-dominant all of them are. They'd just take away touches and opportunities for Embiid.

Fultz fits much better with Embiid in my opinion, especially with Simmons in the mix, too, though it'd be impossible to get all three of them together.

I'd say Fultz is more ball dominant than Ball.  Ball played off-ball quite a bit in UCLA's half court offense and was pretty effective with catch and shoot 3s and cuts to the basket.  Simmons and Ball are both pass first which would greatly benefit Embiid.  Embiid will get plenty of good, easy shots from their passing.  His turnovers should go down significantly and he'll be able to spend more energy dominating defensively.  Embiid averaged 2.1 assists with the Sixers poor shooting which should go up significantly if Ball's funky shot continues to fall at a high rate.   

All that being said if Fultz and Ball are available at #3 the Sixers are taking Fultz.  However  unless Fultz has a medical red flag, I don't see anyway he falls to 3.   

I'm not sure that I agree with any of that. I think Ball is clearly more ball-dominant than Fultz (or at least Fultz's game is much more compatible off the ball), but Fultz's terrible team this past year made him much more ball-dominant than Ball on a much better team with many more options.

I also disagree with the assessment that Fultz is a pass-first guy. Ball clearly is, but I think while Fultz is a willing and good passer, he's got more of an "attack and score" mentality than a "pass first/set up others" mentality.

I'm also suspicious of Ball's shot translating to the NBA. Yeah, he took a lot of deep threes, but I don't think that much movement on his shot translates to sustained shooting success in the NBA.

And I think Ball and Simmons have a very similar game, or as similar of a game as a PG and Point Power Forward can have. They're both looking more to make plays and set others up rather than score. But that requires having the ball much of the time and being the primary initiator of the offense, which I think takes away too many touches from a stud like Embiid.

I just think they'd maximize their team with only one of those types of playmakers (Simmons, Ball, or Fultz) alongside Embiid, who should probably have the ball in his hands 60-70% of the time anyways. Once he learns to pass out of double-teams, he'll be unstoppable, just like Lebron is unstoppable by being a great passer out of double teams. Having two other playmakers will only take precious touches away from your best player.

I didn't say Fultz is pass first.  I said Simmons and Ball are pass first.  I agree that Fultz is more attack and score which is what makes him more ball dominant.  Ball doesn't have the skillset to be successful being ball dominant.  He's not Rondo.  He's not Westbrook.  In the half court, he's much more suited as a slick passing two guard assuming his funky shot holds up.  If I'm the Sixers, Fultz, Jackson and Fox would definitely be ahead of Ball.  After that, Ball, Tatum, Monk and Smith would be in the mix for 4th. 

I'm as high as anyone on Embiid.  If he's healthy, he'd be who I'd take to build my franchise.  However he should not have the ball 60-70% of the time on offense.  The Sixers need to form a well balanced offense around Embiid and then let Embiid dominate on defense.   

From everything I've read, Fultz is considered to be the better off-ball player because of his ability to both spot up and move away from the ball.

Ball is more ball dominant because his best attribute is his passing/playmaking and you can't pass if you don't have the ball in your hands to make the plays. Ball can shoot but that slow/weird release could hinder his spot-up game and he's not someone who is going to crash the basket on cuts.

[playdream]

Dude are you a Sixers fan?  Just come out with it then.  If you actually are a Celtics fan we are not in the business of making Conference opponents better.  Giving up the rights to Fultz and Bradley would be suicidal within the conference.

Why trade a perfectly healthy #1 overall prospect for Simmons when the guy clearly had health issues and didn't play a single minute of NBA ball?  Just sounds incredibly stupid and more of a 2k17 fantasy GM move then a realistic basketball move that would help the Celtics organization.

I think Philly would be hilarious, because Simmons and Ball don't seem like they'd be compatible together. They both need the ball in their hands to set up others, and that's just taking even more touches away from their best player in Embiid.

Philly should make a hard push for Fultz, who would fit absolutely perfectly for them. If I was Philly, I'd trade number 3 to Sacramento for numbers 5 and 10 and then offer Danny Simmons and number 10 for number 1. They could then take Monk at 5 and a really good core moving forward of Fultz, Monk, Covington, Saric, and Embiid. I love the two-way potential of that group, and I think it fits much better together than anything they'd currently get at 3 to add to their group.

Philly should trade Simmons to the Lakers for #2 and give us #2&#3 for # 1. Now that's a trade Danny has to consider. That's a godfather offer.

Who would you take with those picks, assuming Sixers take Fultz?

Ball and jackson or tatum.

If Philly were that infatuated with Fultz so as to give up Simmons, itd make more sense to cut out the middle man. Simmons+3 could get them #1 and then some.

I was thinking about this. AB would be a really good fit for them, and they wanted him at the deadline. I wonder if a deal could be made there: Simmons and number 3 for Bradley and number 1?

Not sure that would work. That's why I said in another thread that they should trade the number 3 to Sacramento for 5 and 10 then offer Simmons and number 5 (ideally is probably what it would take over number 10) for Bradley and number 1. I love that long-term lineup for them: Fultz, AB, Covington, Saric, and Embiid, along with whoever they would take at 10 and then their future picks from LA and Sacramento. That's a tremendous two-way potential team. And the best part is that I think Colangelo would go for something like that, because they want to add more vets like AB to their young core.

That'd also work really well for us. Pick-up Monk for more scoring off of the bench and an ideal fit next to both Smart and Rozier. Then you can add Hayward this summer and go into next year with the following lineup:

PG: IT, Smart, Rozier
SG: Brown, Monk
SF: Hayward, Crowder
PF: Simmons, ?
C: Horford, Zizic

Fulz had season ending knee problems, not "perfectly healthy"

[Ilikesports17]

I think Philly would be hilarious, because Simmons and Ball don't seem like they'd be compatible together. They both need the ball in their hands to set up others, and that's just taking even more touches away from their best player in Embiid.

Philly should make a hard push for Fultz, who would fit absolutely perfectly for them. If I was Philly, I'd trade number 3 to Sacramento for numbers 5 and 10 and then offer Danny Simmons and number 10 for number 1. They could then take Monk at 5 and a really good core moving forward of Fultz, Monk, Covington, Saric, and Embiid. I love the two-way potential of that group, and I think it fits much better together than anything they'd currently get at 3 to add to their group.

Philly should trade Simmons to the Lakers for #2 and give us #2&#3 for # 1. Now that's a trade Danny has to consider. That's a godfather offer.

Who would you take with those picks, assuming Sixers take Fultz?

Ball and jackson or tatum.

If Philly were that infatuated with Fultz so as to give up Simmons, itd make more sense to cut out the middle man. Simmons+3 could get them #1 and then some.

I was thinking about this. AB would be a really good fit for them, and they wanted him at the deadline. I wonder if a deal could be made there: Simmons and number 3 for Bradley and number 1?

Not sure that would work. That's why I said in another thread that they should trade the number 3 to Sacramento for 5 and 10 then offer Simmons and number 5 (ideally is probably what it would take over number 10) for Bradley and number 1. I love that long-term lineup for them: Fultz, AB, Covington, Saric, and Embiid, along with whoever they would take at 10 and then their future picks from LA and Sacramento. That's a tremendous two-way potential team. And the best part is that I think Colangelo would go for something like that, because they want to add more vets like AB to their young core.

That'd also work really well for us. Pick-up Monk for more scoring off of the bench and an ideal fit next to both Smart and Rozier. Then you can add Hayward this summer and go into next year with the following lineup:

PG: IT, Smart, Rozier
SG: Brown, Monk
SF: Hayward, Crowder
PF: Simmons, ?
C: Horford, Zizic

Dude are you a Sixers fan?  Just come out with it then.  If you actually are a Celtics fan we are not in the business of making Conference opponents better.  Giving up the rights to Fultz and Bradley would be suicidal within the conference.

Why trade a perfectly healthy #1 overall prospect for Simmons when the guy clearly had health issues and didn't play a single minute of NBA ball?  Just sounds incredibly stupid and more of a 2k17 fantasy GM move then a realistic basketball move that would help the Celtics organization.

From a value standpoint boston probably wins the trade.

Simmons was a prospect of similar level to Fultz a year ago, and his injury has caused him to drop in value a bit. That value is recouped by the #3 pick which has FAR more value than Avery Bradley.

[jpotter33]

I'd love to see Ball alongside Simmons. I think they would be great together. Great passing.

I'd love to see Lou Williams return to Philly and play PG alongside them two. A scorer like Lou Will would be a great fit alongside their passing ability.

Lou Williams has another year on his contract in Houston.  Is there some indication that they want to trade him?   

I'm not sold on Ball but I think he'd work best sharing the load running the offense with someone like Simmons.  I think he'd fail as a ball dominant PG.  You can never have too much great passing.  It would really make life easier and probably healthier for Embiid not to have to create so much offense on his own.

Lou Williams = no, just a picture of what type of guard I'd like to see alongside Ball & Simmons.

Agreed on Ball. I think he's best off with a lot of help. A second ball-handling guard and a playmaking forward like Simmons would be excellent for him. Do not like Ball in a PG-centric offense where he has to create everything.

I just don't see or like that fit there with Simmons. It seems like Embiid should have the ball in his hands a lot, and having both Simmons and Ball on the team wouldn't be a good fit with as ball-dominant all of them are. They'd just take away touches and opportunities for Embiid.

Fultz fits much better with Embiid in my opinion, especially with Simmons in the mix, too, though it'd be impossible to get all three of them together.

I'd say Fultz is more ball dominant than Ball.  Ball played off-ball quite a bit in UCLA's half court offense and was pretty effective with catch and shoot 3s and cuts to the basket.  Simmons and Ball are both pass first which would greatly benefit Embiid.  Embiid will get plenty of good, easy shots from their passing.  His turnovers should go down significantly and he'll be able to spend more energy dominating defensively.  Embiid averaged 2.1 assists with the Sixers poor shooting which should go up significantly if Ball's funky shot continues to fall at a high rate.   

All that being said if Fultz and Ball are available at #3 the Sixers are taking Fultz.  However  unless Fultz has a medical red flag, I don't see anyway he falls to 3.   

I'm not sure that I agree with any of that. I think Ball is clearly more ball-dominant than Fultz (or at least Fultz's game is much more compatible off the ball), but Fultz's terrible team this past year made him much more ball-dominant than Ball on a much better team with many more options.

I also disagree with the assessment that Fultz is a pass-first guy. Ball clearly is, but I think while Fultz is a willing and good passer, he's got more of an "attack and score" mentality than a "pass first/set up others" mentality.

I'm also suspicious of Ball's shot translating to the NBA. Yeah, he took a lot of deep threes, but I don't think that much movement on his shot translates to sustained shooting success in the NBA.

And I think Ball and Simmons have a very similar game, or as similar of a game as a PG and Point Power Forward can have. They're both looking more to make plays and set others up rather than score. But that requires having the ball much of the time and being the primary initiator of the offense, which I think takes away too many touches from a stud like Embiid.

I just think they'd maximize their team with only one of those types of playmakers (Simmons, Ball, or Fultz) alongside Embiid, who should probably have the ball in his hands 60-70% of the time anyways. Once he learns to pass out of double-teams, he'll be unstoppable, just like Lebron is unstoppable by being a great passer out of double teams. Having two other playmakers will only take precious touches away from your best player.

I didn't say Fultz is pass first.  I said Simmons and Ball are pass first.  I agree that Fultz is more attack and score which is what makes him more ball dominant.  Ball doesn't have the skillset to be successful being ball dominant.  He's not Rondo.  He's not Westbrook.  In the half court, he's much more suited as a slick passing two guard assuming his funky shot holds up.  If I'm the Sixers, Fultz, Jackson and Fox would definitely be ahead of Ball.  After that, Ball, Tatum, Monk and Smith would be in the mix for 4th. 

I'm as high as anyone on Embiid.  If he's healthy, he'd be who I'd take to build my franchise.  However he should not have the ball 60-70% of the time on offense.  The Sixers need to form a well balanced offense around Embiid and then let Embiid dominate on defense.   

From everything I've read, Fultz is considered to be the better off-ball player because of his ability to both spot up and move away from the ball.

Ball is more ball dominant because his best attribute is his passing/playmaking and you can't pass if you don't have the ball in your hands to make the plays. Ball can shoot but that slow/weird release could hinder his spot-up game and he's not someone who is going to crash the basket on cuts.

This is pretty much what I was getting at.