Author Topic: #1 for Ben Simmons - would you do it?  (Read 11562 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

#1 for Ben Simmons - would you do it?
« on: May 28, 2017, 08:02:51 AM »

Offline crimson_stallion

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5964
  • Tommy Points: 875
Ben Simmons has been considered as one of the most talented young players to come through the draft in years, and has incredibly high upside.

Fultz is being talked about also as one of the best talents to come in to the league in years - possibly the best PG since the likes of CP3/Rose/Westbrook.  Similarly high upside. 

Boston has a logjam at the PG spot, and they desperately needs a power forward, yet they find themselves picking at #1 in a draft where the top two prospects are point guards. 

The Sixers have a logjam up front (Embiid, Simmons, Okafor, Saric) and are in desperate need for a skilled offensive PG, yet they find themselves picking at #3 at which point the two best players available will likely be Jackson and Tatum - tweener forwards. 

By trading #1 to Philly for Simmons:

* Boston gets a 20 year old PF who has the potential to be a franchise player, and who could start at the PF position from day one and immediately help with Boston's rebounding issues

* Philly gets a 19 year old PG who would make an immediate impact at PG and who has the potential to be a franchise player

* Philly keeps their #3 pick and has an opportunity to draft either Jackson or Tatum to replace Simmons and to start alongside Saric and Embiid

I know some people don't like Simmons, but I seriously think that this is a win-win for both teams.   

Thoughts?

Re: #1 for Ben Simmons - would you do it?
« Reply #1 on: May 28, 2017, 08:04:54 AM »

Offline hodgy03038

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3701
  • Tommy Points: 440
  • Marcus Smart #1 Fan
Personally even if it is a win-win you don't make teams in your division - your rivals better. Absolutely no trade with Philly unless we rip them off.

Re: #1 for Ben Simmons - would you do it?
« Reply #2 on: May 28, 2017, 08:09:41 AM »

Offline crimson_stallion

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5964
  • Tommy Points: 875
Personally even if it is a win-win you don't make teams in your division - your rivals better. Absolutely no trade with Philly unless we rip them off.

So you would hold your own team back purely for the sake of holding an opponent back?

Remembering that we are way, way ahead of Philly in the rebuild process right now AND that we still have the 2018 Brookyn 1st next year, which we will get regardless of how good we are.  We could potentially take the #1 seed, make the ECF and get a #1 pick for the second straight year (unlikely, but not out of the question). 

On the other hand Philly only get's their high pick if they continue to really suck.  If Philly gets significantly better next year, then their opportunity for picking high lottery picks ends there. 

Re: #1 for Ben Simmons - would you do it?
« Reply #3 on: May 28, 2017, 08:12:18 AM »

Offline moiso

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7640
  • Tommy Points: 441
Ainge has been saying for a couple years that what he wants most is to acquire a guy who can score buckets at the end of games.  Fultz fits that description as well as anyone.  So I doubt he would do it.

Simmons can be awesome though.  His combination of rebounding and passing is amazing.  We will see how his shooting and scoring come around.

Re: #1 for Ben Simmons - would you do it?
« Reply #4 on: May 28, 2017, 08:16:28 AM »

Offline hodgy03038

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3701
  • Tommy Points: 440
  • Marcus Smart #1 Fan
I wouldn't consider it holding us back by keeping our own #1 pick - a player that they say is one every 10 years type of player.

Philly was pretty good at times last year. Consider if they play with a healthy Embid and their other pieces if we gave them a future superstar point guard. All they lose is a guy that hasn't yet played due to injury.

First, I am not sold on Simmons as a PF. So you think he can hold his own with the likes of Anthony Davis or Kevin Durant? He would be crushed. And as far as I can remember Simmons can't shoot.

Absolutely not. This is not a win-win. It would be a killing by Philly.

Sorry, not buying it.

Re: #1 for Ben Simmons - would you do it?
« Reply #5 on: May 28, 2017, 08:16:50 AM »

Offline slamtheking

  • NCE
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31869
  • Tommy Points: 10047
I keep the pick. 
-Simmons looked good in summer league but didn't play all year so we have no idea how he'll play against real competition. 
-Simmons looked good because he always had the ball in his hands.  that won't be the case on the C's.
-Simmons didn't shoot from outside particularly well.  we need that skill from anyone we acquire in a deal.  Fultz can shoot.
-IT, AB and Smart are all coming up on payday years.  Someone's likely being traded.  The logjam will clear for financial reasons.  Fultz provides a cheaper alternative for years.
-Fultz will provide another ball handler behind IT and hopefully in place of IT.
-Fultz has the size at PG that other teams cannot take him into the post nor can opposing PGs easily see over him to make shots or passes.
-Simmons has one less year on his rookie deal so one less year of being cost-controlled

I'd certainly like to have Simmons but I'm not giving up the #1 pick for him.

Re: #1 for Ben Simmons - would you do it?
« Reply #6 on: May 28, 2017, 08:37:56 AM »

Offline Csfan1984

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8825
  • Tommy Points: 289
Pre IT injury I was yes on this. I have no idea how IT will rebound from his injury so I'm not going for this. Fultz is a need right now because as others have mentioned he can score.

Re: #1 for Ben Simmons - would you do it?
« Reply #7 on: May 28, 2017, 09:52:23 AM »

Offline crimson_stallion

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5964
  • Tommy Points: 875
I wouldn't consider it holding us back by keeping our own #1 pick - a player that they say is one every 10 years type of player.

They are saying Fultz could be a one in 10 years type of player, but to be fair people said that same thing about Simmons too.  They even said it about Wiggins - and as capable a scorer as he is, he's been quite a dissapointment IMHO.   

We drafted Brown last year at #3 - he's been buried behind Crowder on the bench and only played 17 MPG (in which he averaged 6.6 points, 2.8 reb, 0.8 assists).  We have seen that he has talent, and I think we can all safely conclude that if he played on a team that gave him starters minutes, he'd be up there in ROY voting right now and would almost certainly be on an All-Rookie 1st team. 

At the guard spots we are even deeper then we are at SF, so the risk is even higher.  Instead of playing behind Crowder (a guy who only this season got promoted from 6th man to permanent starter) Fultz would be playing behind an All-Star (Thomas) and a two-way guard who also happens to be the longest tenured player on this team (Bradley).   Smart is a young prospect who had a huge impact in the playoffs and is a coach and fan favourite - trading him to free up minutes for an unproven rookie seems like a big call.  Rozier has been buried on the bench for years and has shown potential, he deserves minutes - so maybe they trade Rozier to another team where he can hopefully get more opportunity.  Even if that's the case, all that does is free up Rozier's 17 MPG for Fultz.

If Fultz plays 17 MPG then he's in the same boat as Brown.  He could be one of the few #1 picks to come in to the NBA, be healthy, and still not make an All Rookie Team, due purely to lack of opportunity.

I'm genuinely concerned about this team potentially drafting Fultz with the #1 pick, only to have him struggle to earn more then 20 MPG off the bench, leading to restricted development.

I'm also seriously concerned that they might go the opposite route and trade a proven contributor like Bradley or Smart in order to gift Fultz a role, only to find that it takes him 2-3 seasons to get to the point where he can actually help us win games.

If we traded him for Simmons, then our desperate need for a PF guarantees we'd never need to worry about that.  He would absolutely get starters minutes - and if nothing else, he's almost certainly assist us with our rebounding issues from day one.

Philly was pretty good at times last year. Consider if they play with a healthy Embid and their other pieces if we gave them a future superstar point guard. All they lose is a guy that hasn't yet played due to injury.


I love how you describe Fultz as a "one in 10 years type player", but describe Simmons as just "a guy that hasn't played yet due to injury". 

Fultz hasn't played a game in the NBA yet either, so Philly could argue all we are losing is "a guy who hasn't played a game outside of college yet".   At least Simmons has played in Summer League and has practised and been around NBA games, has had access to NBA trainers, etc for the past season. 

Fultz will be coming in fresh from college with no NBA experience whatsoever.

Simmons, even if it's for that reason alone, is far more likely to be playing in ROY form this year  then Fultz is.  Not saying it's a given, but top shelf prospects who missed their first year due to injury often end up coming back with a vengeance the following year.  Blake Griffin for example misses his first year, then came back in his second season averaging 22/12/4 - and Griffin is a very, very similar player to Simmons (if anything Simmons is more versatile and has a higher upside). 

Simmons and Fultz both have the potential to be "once in 10 year" type players, so by doing this trade the 76ers would be giving that up just like us.  Both teams take risk here.  If Simmons ends up a star and Fultz ends up dissapointing, then the Sixers look like idiots.  If the opposite happens, Boston looks like idiots. 

It's an equal risk for both teams.

First, I am not sold on Simmons as a PF. So you think he can hold his own with the likes of Anthony Davis or Kevin Durant? He would be crushed. And as far as I can remember Simmons can't shoot.

Why wouldn't Simmons be able to hold his own against AD or KD?  He's just as tall as those guys, he's stronger then either of them, and he's arguably more athletic then either of them.  He gives up length against them sure, but he certainly has the size, stength and athleticism to compete against them.

Also, I'm not sure why you would raise his shooting/scoring ability as a concern.  Lets look at the college stats:

* Simmons averaged 19.2 points, 11.8 rebounds, 4.8 assists, 2.0 steals, 0.8 blocks in 35 minutes as a 19 year old freshman

* Fultz averaged 23.2 points, 5.7 rebounds, 5.9 assists, 1.6 steals, 1.2 blocks in 36 minutes as an 18 year old freshman

Simmons averaged 19 PPG as a freshman in college DESPITE the fact that he's a pass-first player who doesn't have a consistent jumper.  Even with those limitations, he STILL dominated on offence.   

Fultz is already a developed scorer in all aspects, and he's a ball dominate shoot-first PG, yet he didn't really average THAT much more then Simmons did. 

My concern here wouldn't be the fact that Simmons isn't a consistent shooter.  My concern here would be how utterly devastating Simmons could be if he ever DOES become a consistent shooter.

There is also the other question - what can Fultz offer his team when his shot is not falling?  He has the same issues as Simmons on defence (high upside, inconsistent effort) and while he's a skilled passer and rebounder, he's not dominant in either of those two areas.

The greatest stars in this league are usually the guys who will always make an impact on the game, even if/when their shot is not falling.  In addition to his scoring potential, Simmons is an elite rebounder and passer at the PF spot - so when his shot isn't falling he can still contribute on the boards and by create shots for others.

In addition to that, Simmons has unbelievable versatility. He might be only the 3rd player in NBA history (along with Magic and Lebron) who has the legitimate ability to play all 5 positions on the court. 

At 6'10" / 240 lbs / 7' wingspan Simmons has the physical measurements of Al Horford, combined with the athletic ability of Jaylen Brown, the rebounding ability of Kevin Love, and the passing ability of Lebron James.  Defensively he has the ability to switch on to ANY position - you cannot begin to describe how valuable that is. 

The biggest thing people criticise Simmons for are his lack of a jumpshot, and his questionable effort on defence.  People had those exact same criticisms of Lebron, and those weaknesses have stuck with Lebron his entire career - he's still an inconsistent shooter, and he still frequently takes plays off on defence.

Yet those flaws have little impact on James' success because although he's never developed a deadly jumper, he can still make you pay (in a big way) if you sag off him.  And as much as his defensive effort is questionable, what he gives up in effort is nothing compared to the positive impact his teams gain from his ability to switch and defend all five positions. 

On the other hand Fultz looks like he's going to be an amazing player - I have incredibly high hopes for him, and I feel like he's almost certain to become a perennial All-Star.  But what I'm not certain about is whether he will be a one trick pony. 

* Is he ever going to develop into the defensive player he has the POTENTIAL to become?  Because he's not a great defender right now. 

* Is he ever going to develop into a game changing passer?  Because right now he's more Derek Rose then Chris Paul in that regard. 

* When teams find a way to take him out of the game offensively, is he going to be able to find other ways to help his team? 

Maybe he will.  He certainly has a lot of POTENTIAL in areas beyond scoring - rebounding, passing, defence, etc.  But while he has potential and ability in those areas, he's not elite at them, so you still have to ask if he will ever be. 

Simmons on the other hand is already elite as a rebounder and a passer, and he's unstoppable in transition, so if his jumper isn't falling you know he's going to be able to help the team in other ways.   


Absolutely not. This is not a win-win. It would be a killing by Philly.

Sorry, not buying it.

Fair enough.  Though I disagree, you do have the right to your opinion!
« Last Edit: May 28, 2017, 09:59:35 AM by crimson_stallion »

Re: #1 for Ben Simmons - would you do it?
« Reply #8 on: May 28, 2017, 10:10:33 AM »

Offline hodgy03038

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3701
  • Tommy Points: 440
  • Marcus Smart #1 Fan
Simmons is stronger than both Anthony Davis and KD? Where do you get that from?

Simmons is potentially damaged goods due to his injury. Missed the entire season. That is a scary proposition. I don't recall anyone saying Simmons was a one in 10 year type of player. Yes, I agree there was a lot of accolades about him but not a 1 in 10 year type player.

You may be right and I may be wrong but I don't want damaged goods. He is tall and weighs 240 but a foot injury could plague him his entire career. Plus he can't shoot. We need someone that can shoot other than IT.

Re: #1 for Ben Simmons - would you do it?
« Reply #9 on: May 28, 2017, 10:13:46 AM »

Offline A Future of Stevens

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2524
  • Tommy Points: 486
I honestly think you have to think long and hard about it if our team doctors confirm he has grown to 7'0.

I think you still end up saying no. The way the game has been trending, shooting is probably the most important skill to have. While Simmons could ONE DAY develop a passable jump shot, everything his college career and summer league pointed to says he has a long way to go. This is in contrast to Fultz who can score from anywhere on the floor.

Edit: I agree with Triboy on Simmons attitude below. Only difference is Beasley can shoot haha.
#JKJB

Re: #1 for Ben Simmons - would you do it?
« Reply #10 on: May 28, 2017, 10:14:05 AM »

Offline Tr1boy

  • Paul Pierce
  • ***************************
  • Posts: 27260
  • Tommy Points: 867
Simmons will be the next Beasley

just not a fan of his attitude

Re: #1 for Ben Simmons - would you do it?
« Reply #11 on: May 28, 2017, 10:20:43 AM »

Offline gouki88

  • NCE
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31552
  • Tommy Points: 3141
  • 2019 & 2021 CS Historical Draft Champion
No thanks.
'23 Historical Draft: Orlando Magic.

PG: Terry Porter (90-91) / Steve Francis (00-01)
SG: Joe Dumars (92-93) / Jeff Hornacek (91-92) / Jerry Stackhouse (00-01)
SF: Brandon Roy (08-09) / Walter Davis (78-79)
PF: Terry Cummings (84-85) / Paul Millsap (15-16)
C: Chris Webber (00-01) / Ralph Sampson (83-84) / Andrew Bogut (09-10)

Re: #1 for Ben Simmons - would you do it?
« Reply #12 on: May 28, 2017, 10:53:25 AM »

Offline crimson_stallion

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5964
  • Tommy Points: 875
Simmons is stronger than both Anthony Davis and KD? Where do you get that from?

Where did you get the alternative option from?

Anthony Davis came in to this league as a 6'10" stick figure.  After five years of building up his body with NBA trainers he's still only 6'10" / 250 lbs.

Kevin Durant was an even skinnier stick figure then Davis when he came in to the league, and now 10 seasons later he is 'optimistically' listed at 6'9" / 240 lbs.  One look at Durant and it's clear to see he's still one of the skinnest (if not THE skinniest) stars in the NBA, and his overall physique is still that of a stick figure - albiet one that now has a wee bit more muscle added on.   

Ben Simmons measured at 6'10" / 240 pounds as a 19 year old college player in 2015.  Davis added about 30 pounds in four seasons, Durant added about 40 pounds in 10 seasons - you going to try to tell me Simmons isn't going to add more muscle on top of his college build, at which point he was already as big as Davis and significantly bigger then Durant?

If you think Durant is stronger then Ben Simmons in LSU in 2015 then I'll say you're crazy.  If you think Durant is stronger then Simmons will be after a year of being around NBA trainers, then I'll say you're completely out of your mind. 

Now Anthony Davis has put on a singifcant amount of bulk since he entered the NBA, no doubt, but he's still a pretty slim guy.  Even at this point in his career, he doesn't look to have any more muscle on that frame then Simmons does at a (now 20) year old. 



Simmons is potentially damaged goods due to his injury. Missed the entire season. That is a scary proposition. I don't recall anyone saying Simmons was a one in 10 year type of player. Yes, I agree there was a lot of accolades about him but not a 1 in 10 year type player.

If you don't recall that, then you must not have been listening to much during draft time last year.  People were hyping Simmons as the next Lebron / Magic before he even made it to College. 

A 6'10" big man who can rebound, score, pass, dribble - all as well as he can?  We haven't seen that since Lebron. 

The Simmons hype train never stopped from the start of the season to the end.  Seems every second thread on this forum was about Simmons. 
 

You may be right and I may be wrong but I don't want damaged goods. He is tall and weighs 240 but a foot injury could plague him his entire career. Plus he can't shoot. We need someone that can shoot other than IT.

Didn't Fultz miss significant time in college due to a knee injury?   Guess he's out of the running too then, since you don't want damaged goods and all. 

So who then? Ball?


Plus he can't shoot. We need someone that can shoot other than IT.

People said Bradley can't shoot when we drafted him, and kept complaining about it even after he put together multiple quality shooting seasons and this year he shot 39% from three. 

People said Jae Crowder can't shoot when we traded for him, he improved each season with us and this year shot 39% from three. 

People said Jaylen Brown can't shoot as a draftee, yet he shot very respectably this year for a rookie. 

Lebron was criticised for his lack of a jumper in the draft.  People still criticise him for it, and yet he just wiped the floor with out butts (and the butts of every other team in the East). 

Moral of the story?  Sometimes guys who are looked at as bad shooters grow to become quite good shooters.  Sometime they grow to become so [dang] dominant in every other way that their shooting ability (or lack thereof) doesn't even matter. 

I'd be interested to come back here 12 months from now (when next season ends) and see which of these two players is looking like the better prospect.  Honestly I don't know which was it'll go because they both look like they have the potential to be great - but if Simmons is dominating guys while Fultz is playing 20 MPG off the bench, then this may look like a massively missed opportunity.

I'm super hyped about Fultz, and if we keep the pick and take him I will be incredibly thrilled and excited - I have very high hopes for him.  But as I said before, I am VERY concerned about Brad Steven's tendency to make peculiar rotational decisions and I am VERY concerned about the potential for Fultz to end up wasting away on the bench while Steven's continues to blossom his inexplicable love affair for giving Marcus Smart 30 minutes and 10 shot attempts a game. 

Re: #1 for Ben Simmons - would you do it?
« Reply #13 on: May 28, 2017, 10:57:25 AM »

Offline crimson_stallion

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5964
  • Tommy Points: 875
Simmons will be the next Beasley

just not a fan of his attitude

That is just an utterly nonsensical comment. 

Beasley never had a fraction of the talent Simmons has.  Beasley was just another undersized offensive oriented tweener - no different from all the other such players that we've seen come and go over the years.

Simmons has a level of talent and versatility that we haven't seen since Lebron James.  Not even Kevin Durant can claim the same level of versatility Simmons has.   

Comparing Simmons to Beasley is like comparing Fultz to Jamaal Crawford. Crawford is a big PG who can shoot and can dribble - shall I just go right ahead and say that Fultz is going to follow in Crawford's footsteps and build a nice lengthy career as a perennial 6th man?

Re: #1 for Ben Simmons - would you do it?
« Reply #14 on: May 28, 2017, 11:00:26 AM »

Offline playdream

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1665
  • Tommy Points: 88
Big no! Simmons can't shoot to save his life and he is injury prone and cocky attitude
You just send him to the line and it's over