Which team is worse off right today and moving forward?

Poll question: Lakers vs Sixers

Poll result (9 votes) Lakers (2 votes) Vote Sixers (7 votes) Vote

The Sixers straight lack NBA talent across most of their roster. Half their squad shouldn't even be in the league.

really mean nothing without some studs.

if you want to attract a free agent. Without studs they aren't winning, but you need a set of complimentary players who actually belong in the NBA if you have any hope of attracting FA talent.

Can you see any free agent signing in Philly in the next year or two? I think once Kobe (and hopefully Bryon) bounce at the end of the year, things will open up a bit in LA. Philly just seems farther out to me.

But I think the fact that philly has so many non nba dudes on their roster, it calls into question their desire to win. That is a deterrent for fagents.

So I guess I agree with your bottom line, but not for the specific reason you cite.

Admittedly he's not a huge free agent draw, but he's a credible enough NBA player. I guess my point wasn't so much that LA's roster is a draw for free agents, but at least it's not an active deterrent like Philly's roster.

I think we're more or less on the same page.

Clarkson, Russell and Randle are all they have and they are all maybes.

The Sixers have Okafor, better than any of those three guys, Noel, at least as good and then they have Saric, possibly Embiid and four first rounders this year most likely.

The stand-in veterans the Lakers have don't mean shit. Hibbert is probably gone after this year, Williams after next if not sooner.

I don't think either team is in a great position but the Sixers took a longer view to this process while the Lakers initially couldn't dictate what was happening (failed D12/Nash experiment) and then later had to put things on hold for financial reasons (had to sign Kobe despite being worthless from a bball/rebuilding standpoint).

in any event i agree with the rest, except philly has a rep of being ok with losing (maybe colangelo changes that) and the Lakers don't plus its LA. But you ain't big on fagents apparently

CC has this funny bias of being bullish on the Sixers young talent and bearish on our prospects....this is the same guy, in the DLo vs Okafor post, saying that both Okafor and DLo were both being described with the same level of NBA readiness.

sure it's TBD in the way that any rookie vs any rookie is TBD but even before the two players landed where they did i never had any doubt okafor was the better bet.

as far as traditions go, obviously you are right, philly has 30 years of mediocrity behind them and the lakers are generally a must-win-now-and-everything type of franchise. but that is not really known until the current regimes. so far both teams have talked a big game but not backed it up.

and yes, banking on UFAs to do anything but fill gaps (vet minimum guys, the occasional "could extend his minutes" signings and specialists) is a losing proposition.

How LA's youngsters turn out is still less certain.

Something about having a squad of NBA D-Leaguers just rubs me the wrong way. Shit could be biasing my view, as well as losing by 50 to the Spurs backups just yesterday.

In LA once Kobe bounces things are going to open up a bit, and they can look at putting actual vets and complimentary pieces in place.

I don't think any of the vets on the roster are guaranteed future roles, necessarily, but player's agents still seem to be willing to send their players to LA. I think Philly's burn it down/d-league roster approach has turned a lot of agents and players off. That could all turn around under Colangelo, though...

The Lakers are revolting in their own way but what the Sixers have done these past three seasons is hard to watch even as a fan who sees the potential benefit, let alone an uninterested party. I can see the resentment from without but internally I think most diehard fans understand that we have middled long enough and that this was ripe ground to try something extreme.

the young core is about even.

Let's face it for every Bosh there are five Charlie Vs.

sign some.

OK, sure, they will sign *some* free agents but the type that you have to court and spend big money on? probably not. the idea would be to bring in glue guys and bridge players, because the stars are going to come from the draft.

but i dont think they will make a play for the big names, more guys to fill out the roster and make them appear like a professional team.

for the worst record in the league or if he'll tap out early and let the young guns get some Ws.

It's his going away tour.

The Sixers have a great pair of complementary bigs but really need some guard play to be able to dictate offensively and limit perimeter penetration....they have the draft picks to make that happen.

For us, I think the pieces are very complementary as well. Randle we know is a double-double machine and once he improves his jumper, will be deadly in PnR and on the high post....Clarkson has significantly improved his set shooting and is great attacking on or off the ball....DLo can be a 1 or a 2 with the ability to distribute and score. Nance will be the epitome of a glue guy...really high level of awareness on each end, great motor, already our best off-ball and PnR defender, and you can see that his jumper is going to become consistent in order to make him an offense spacing and PnR threat. I think it's a great core that you can build around and with us having their rights, we have so much money to add stars or other complements around them (we really need a agile defensive 5 who can finish at the rim and a 3 who can space the floor). I'm already excited seeing these guys play and how they fit with each other and if we can keep this top 3 pick...oooh boy.

they only need 1 mediocre 7th seed in the west kind of year to become a prime destination for FAgents
especially with kobe gone

sixers still trusting the process and have netted 1 one dimensional stud after 3-4 yrs of tanking (okafor)
(noel is good but looks like just a guy/mostly unrealized potential so far and his deal is set to be reupped already)

>they only need 1 mediocre 7th seed in the west kind of year
>to become a prime destination for FAgents
>especially with kobe gone
>
>sixers still trusting the process and have netted 1 one
>dimensional stud after 3-4 yrs of tanking (okafor)
>(noel is good but looks like just a guy/mostly unrealized
>potential so far and his deal is set to be reupped already)


For the last three years...got meetings with everybody. Got two with LMA and Melo gave you his time.

Haul.

Lou Willz, Brandon Bass, Metta World Peace and Carlos Boozer.

I peeped how the narrative shifted. Last year this time it was WHEN the FA's sign to maybe we can fleece Sacto for boogie, to when we get decent enough they'll come. This is the third straight year in the lottery. Y'all some shit. Just like us. Admit it. Everything else is BS...that franchise is not around the corner from anything else, but another losing season.


----------------------------
Same as it ever was!

clearly they were right

i dont think he held things up too much this past year (probably the year prior, yes). i don't blame him. i think the other things they didn't have going for them made them a weak fit for any UFA (guys in their prime or older) and not many RFAs changed hands anyway.

Because of some tradition? The vestiges of which don't even exist? No West, no Phil, no Jerry Buss, no Chick, no Riley, etc. What there is now is a halfway functional organization with a lot of complicated obligations. Even the lure of the "big market" has largely proven to be a bust. I guess it got the Knicks Melo (whooptydamndo) but beyond that the game and its marketing are national/global now. You can be the most visible player in the NBA and play in Oklahoma City, as KD proved. You can be the biggest money generator and play for a franchise with limited tradition, a small market or both as LeBron proved.

The Lakers maybe have a minor edge in some all-things-equal situations still but I wouldn't proclaim them to be a prime FA destination, and even if what you said were 100% true, they are a long from being a 7 seed in the West.

> You can be the most visible player in the NBA and play in Oklahoma City, as KD proved. You can be the biggest money generator and play for a franchise with limited tradition, a small market or both as LeBron proved.


Just the other day someone in the nba was complaining that Kristaps is only on sportscenter bc he's in NY. The same thing was said about Lin. Either the market help, or it don't. Many still believe it does.

putting aside that i didn't say any of that about lin and zingis, yeah ESPN is NY-centric as fuck. you'd think being in connecticut that they were a local station and not an international news outfit the way they cover the yankees, knicks, red sox, pats, giants, jets (why???) and so forth.

but has any of that put money in lin's pocket? maybe the initial houston deal but that was sort of an aberration. since then he has straggled around and not exactly cleaned up. i am talking the shoe deals, the phone ads, the shit that pays. and DAT ZINGIS da gawd would be on TV if he played on saturn.

sure you can cite the free agents they missed out on when kobe was damn near actively sabotaging the pitches
and even then the fact remains none of those FAgents visited (or had even remote interest in) philadelphia
for every example of someone being a star outside of a big market there is one of someone expanding their footprint in one

anyway you want to flip it i just think LA is more attractive all things being equal
i'm not sure how u can really debate otherwise