Are the Sixers insane or shrewd?

[flyerhawk]

The 76ers signed Joel Embiid for 5 years 148 million. The contract has some really complex language in it. Basically if gives the Sixers an out if Embiid misses a lot of time due to previous injuries, specifically related to his feet and back.

On the face of it, it seems like a pretty crazy decision by the Sixers. Regardless of the injury risks, Embiid has only played 31 games in his NBA career. Can you really assume that those 31 games are what his career will be? What if he was just hot?

Those supporting the deal will say that his kind of play is undeniably good. He was en elite rim protector from the moment he stepped on the court. He has better foot speed that almost any other 7 footer in memory. If you can reliably get 70 games a year out of him there is no question that he would be as good or better than a Hassan Whiteside.

To me, from a purely basketball perspective, there was no reason to make this deal. They could have waited to see how he does this season and acted accordingly.

HOWEVER, the off the court factors weigh heavily. The Sixers engaged in arguably the most extreme case of tankapalooza in NBA history. The fans mostly stuck through it. Now they are expecting something in return. They want to believe in Embiid and see that the organization does as well. JoJo is one of the most popular young players in the league and maybe the biggest star in Philly. Even if he can't stay healthy, he is an icon that the Sixers can't let go.

 

[LogicMan]

Flyer I was thinking these same things. I think the sixers were smart in their contract design, and apparently the deal requires him to miss no more than 25 games per season if it is related to existing chronic injury items he is trying to overcome. So in this sense it seems fine.

On the otherhand, regardless the deal it suggest or has implications:

1. They will tie up serious money on him at 30 per season.
2. They are not convinced he is injury free or long term reliability.

But, "the Process" always had a tight window of about 5 years as many of these picks no are becoming free agents. They cast their lot in this model and they were placed in a corner to protect it at this point.

 

[knowyourenemy]

I'm not sure what the downside to the Sixers is. You might say there is an enormous risk that Embiid gets injured. But if he gets injured, their whole plan is pretty much destroyed anyway. Sure, they could build around Simmons/Fultz/Saric . . . but unless Simmons takes the league by storm, I don't think there are any difference making players that would be convinced to sign with the Embiid-less 76ers.

It basically confirms what we already knew -- the 76ers need Embiid to be healthy and play games to have a realistic chance of winning a championship in the next 4-5 years.

 

[gordontrue]

Yes.

 

[CitySushi]

Yes, and here's why:

Even with the structure of the deal to help alleviate their concerns about his injury history, the Sixers overpaid by a ton of money. At worst, at the end of the year Embiid was a restricted free agent. If he signed with another team, the 76ers would have matching rights and at a much lower price point than the super max they just gave him because of the CBA and what opposing teams can pay him.

Just look at what happened with Steph Curry's situation. He was coming off a massive ankle injury and the franchise and Curry were both unsure of what his future would be. Would he be the same player? Neither side really knew. But they paid Curry that summer less money than Ty Lawson got on his extension.

The Sixers held all the leverage and just decided to throw it all away on locking up a big who they were retaining anyways by way of restricted free agency. On top of that, if they really felt Embiid didn't want to be there if they didn't give him the max, they could EASILY trade him this year for any number of great quality talent. Lastly the Sixers could just tell the entire league that they're going to match any deal for Embiid. That turns away suitors and teams don't want to waste their time on a lost cause. Even then there are very limited teams this coming off-season with any real cap space making the market for him even less.

What the Sixers should have done, IMO, is give him a 4 year guaranteed deal money below the ceiling of an opposing teams max. It would show good will to him that they're invested in him. Embiid would be financially secure for life even if he got injured next year. On top of that it would retain their best young player on the team and potential franchise player on a team friendly deal if he met expectations.

You tell Embiid, look we're invested and you and want you here long term. You're recovering from injury and have only played 31 games in your entire career. We want to give you a 4 year 75M deal all guaranteed, no contingencies. That's our best offer.

Then his options are to 1) play out the year, hope he's free of injury and hope another team signs him to an offer sheet. 2) Take the deal and be financially secure for life.

 

[knowyourenemy]

Yes, and here's why:

Even with the structure of the deal to help alleviate their concerns about his injury history, the Sixers overpaid by a ton of money. At worst, at the end of the year Embiid was a restricted free agent. If he signed with another team, the 76ers would have matching rights and at a much lower price point than the super max they just gave him because of the CBA and what opposing teams can pay him.

Just look at what happened with Steph Curry's situation. He was coming off a massive ankle injury and the franchise and Curry were both unsure of what his future would be. Would he be the same player? Neither side really knew. But they paid Curry that summer less money than Ty Lawson got on his extension.

Different situation for a number of reasons.

The Sixers held all the leverage and just decided to throw it all away on locking up a big who they were retaining anyways by way of restricted free agency. On top of that, if they really felt Embiid didn't want to be there if they didn't give him the max, they could EASILY trade him this year for any number of great quality talent.

Who? None would have as big of an impact as Embiid. "Quality talent" seems like a nice way to say "mediocre players."

Lastly the Sixers could just tell the entire league that they're going to match any deal for Embiid. That turns away suitors and teams don't want to waste their time on a lost cause.

That's not allowed.

Even then there are very limited teams this coming off-season with any real cap space making the market for him even less.

What the Sixers should have done, IMO, is give him a 4 year guaranteed deal money below the ceiling of an opposing teams max. It would show good will to him that they're invested in him. Embiid would be financially secure for life even if he got injured next year. On top of that it would retain their best young player on the team and potential franchise player on a team friendly deal if he met expectations.

You tell Embiid, look we're invested and you and want you here long term. You're recovering from injury and have only played 31 games in your entire career. We want to give you a 4 year 75M deal all guaranteed, no contingencies. That's our best offer.

Unrealistic.

Then his options are to 1) play out the year, hope he's free of injury and hope another team signs him to an offer sheet. 2) Take the deal and be financially secure for life.

That sounds like a great way to piss off the guy you plan on building your franchise around.

 

[CitySushi]

Different situation for a number of reasons.



Who? None would have as big of an impact as Embiid. "Quality talent" seems like a nice way to say "mediocre players."



That's not allowed.



Unrealistic.



That sounds like a great way to piss off the guy you plan on building your franchise around.

Well I mean of course it's just my opinion and if you disagree fine, but I don't think Curry's situation is any different then Embiid's. Curry was the franchise player the Warriors were building around. They traded their best and most popular player in Monta Ellis just to clear up space for Curry to flourish. Embiid is clearly the center piece of the team, much in the way Curry was. How is that a different situation.

For the trade, I wasn't saying it was the BEST option, but an option nonetheless. You think if the Sixers offered Embiid to the Cavs right now for the Brooklyn pick they couldn't get it? What about all the Picks Boston has? Think the Kings wouldn't love to throw their future firsts at the 76ers for him? Hell you could probably even call the Knicks about Porzingas since he's disgruntled with the organization. There are options from a leverage stand point.

You do know that every year that there "leaks" from teams or reports from unnamed sources within the organization about things that are happening. All it takes is one "unnamed source" to place a call to Woj and say the 76ers are intending to match any contract for Embiid and it makes the rounds. Of course it's not allowed, there's lots of things that aren't allowed yet there are ways around it.

Unrealistic in what capacity?

How is pissing off your franchise player offering him big guaranteed money when he's only played 31 games in his career. You tell them you want him to be their center piece but based off his injury history they do have to be cautious. How many teams out there do you know would give a guy that kind of contract with 31 games under his belt?

 

[flyerhawk]

Yes, and here's why:

I think you are overlooking a few things. I won't go point by point but I'll say this...

1. I cannot imagine a situation where the Sixers could trade Embiid for anything of value. If they trade then that means that he is a bust. I don't think it would be POSSIBLE for them to get enough value to justify a trade if Embiid stays healthy.

2. One thing that you didn't factor in is other contracts. Let's assume they do what you suggest they do and they DON'T sign him to a big deal and instead let him test the RFA waters. What then? Sign him for a big contract? Waste a year of big cap space and now have his big contract compete with contracts for Simmons and even Fulz? If they are going to have a chance to keep their core together they need to spread out when the max contracts come due.

The only way the Sixers can get really screwed is if Embiid hurts himself in some new way or he really flops which I really have a hard time seeing.

 

[flyerhawk]

Well I mean of course it's just my opinion and if you disagree fine, but I don't think Curry's situation is any different then Embiid's. Curry was the franchise player the Warriors were building around. They traded their best and most popular player in Monta Ellis just to clear up space for Curry to flourish. Embiid is clearly the center piece of the team, much in the way Curry was. How is that a different situation.

The difference is that the Warriors, at the time, didn't have a bunch of high draft pick players they needed to pay off. And Curry was FAR less certain to become a dominant player. Would you really argue that people thought that Curry had the same upside as JoJo at this point in his career?

For the trade, I wasn't saying it was the BEST option, but an option nonetheless. You think if the Sixers offered Embiid to the Cavs right now for the Brooklyn pick they couldn't get it? What about all the Picks Boston has? Think the Kings wouldn't love to throw their future firsts at the 76ers for him? Hell you could probably even call the Knicks about Porzingas since he's disgruntled with the organization. There are options from a leverage stand point.

The fans would literally put Colangelo's head on a spike if he traded Embiid for a draft pick. Again, the Kings situation was very different.

You do know that every year that there "leaks" from teams or reports from unnamed sources within the organization about things that are happening. All it takes is one "unnamed source" to place a call to Woj and say the 76ers are intending to match any contract for Embiid and it makes the rounds. Of course it's not allowed, there's lots of things that aren't allowed yet there are ways around it.

And teams offer max deals to RFAs all the time. If for no other reason than to test the resolve of the other team and to force them to commit as much money as possible to the player. Ask the the Wizards about that.

 

[CitySushi]

The difference is that the Warriors, at the time, didn't have a bunch of high draft pick players they needed to pay off. And Curry was FAR less certain to become a dominant player. Would you really argue that people thought that Curry had the same upside as JoJo at this point in his career?



The fans would literally put Colangelo's head on a spike if he traded Embiid for a draft pick. Again, the Kings situation was very different.


And teams offer max deals to RFAs all the time. If for no other reason than to test the resolve of the other team and to force them to commit as much money as possible to the player. Ask the the Wizards about that.

Steph Curry's first two years in the NBA:

36.2 MPG 17.5 PPG, 5.9 APG, 4.5 RPG
33.6 MPG 18.6 PPG, 5.8 APG, 3.9 RPG

Not exactly a slouch. Definitely no clue he would go on to be a 2x MVP, but it showed that he was at least on an all-star level trajectory. I wouldn't argue Embiid's value over Curry's for sure. But the 76ers are staggered in having to pay contracts, much in the way that the Warriors drafted Curry ('09), Klay('11) and Draymond('12). This situation is the exact situation as Embiid('14), Simmons('16) and Fultz('17). Simmons and Fultz are still locked in at multiple years before even discussion extensions. The 76ers don't have any lingering contracts committed yet, which means they still have financial flexibility.

Again, and I can't stress this enough, I'm not advocating they trade Embiid. But I was saying it was a leverage advantage that the 76ers had. That is all. I'm not saying trade him if he doesn't accept the deal. I'm saying it's in their back pocket if ALL ELSE FAILS. This is a last resort option.

Yes, you're correct. Teams offer RFA's deals all the time to players to prevent them from testing the open market. There's a huge difference in this one though, which I know you're aware.

I'm happy you guys have your long time solution and I hope it works out. Embiid's a fantastic player and one of the most fun to watch in the league. What I'm saying is that I believe the Sixers could have done a bit better than to just max cash out a guy who was drafted in 2014, sat 2 full years due to injury, then played in 31 games, on restricted minutes, then got shut down for injury yet again. If you disagree then that's fine. But I 100% would say the exact same thing if the Warriors had given Curry a max extension at the time of his injury. And adding to that, I cannot remember the last time a huge extension was given out to a guy off of an injury, let alone a career trajectory Embiid has had dealing with them.

 

[tlance]

I'm not sure what the downside to the Sixers is. You might say there is an enormous risk that Embiid gets injured. But if he gets injured, their whole plan is pretty much destroyed anyway. Sure, they could build around Simmons/Fultz/Saric . . . but unless Simmons takes the league by storm, I don't think there are any difference making players that would be convinced to sign with the Embiid-less 76ers.

It basically confirms what we already knew -- the 76ers need Embiid to be healthy and play games to have a realistic chance of winning a championship in the next 4-5 years.

I agree.

The plan is completely busted if Embiid is anything less than a franchise superstar.

 

[tlance]

Yes, and here's why:

Even with the structure of the deal to help alleviate their concerns about his injury history, the Sixers overpaid by a ton of money. At worst, at the end of the year Embiid was a restricted free agent. If he signed with another team, the 76ers would have matching rights and at a much lower price point than the super max they just gave him because of the CBA and what opposing teams can pay him.

Just look at what happened with Steph Curry's situation. He was coming off a massive ankle injury and the franchise and Curry were both unsure of what his future would be. Would he be the same player? Neither side really knew. But they paid Curry that summer less money than Ty Lawson got on his extension.

The Sixers held all the leverage and just decided to throw it all away on locking up a big who they were retaining anyways by way of restricted free agency. On top of that, if they really felt Embiid didn't want to be there if they didn't give him the max, they could EASILY trade him this year for any number of great quality talent. Lastly the Sixers could just tell the entire league that they're going to match any deal for Embiid. That turns away suitors and teams don't want to waste their time on a lost cause. Even then there are very limited teams this coming off-season with any real cap space making the market for him even less.

What the Sixers should have done, IMO, is give him a 4 year guaranteed deal money below the ceiling of an opposing teams max. It would show good will to him that they're invested in him. Embiid would be financially secure for life even if he got injured next year. On top of that it would retain their best young player on the team and potential franchise player on a team friendly deal if he met expectations.

You tell Embiid, look we're invested and you and want you here long term. You're recovering from injury and have only played 31 games in your entire career. We want to give you a 4 year 75M deal all guaranteed, no contingencies. That's our best offer.

Then his options are to 1) play out the year, hope he's free of injury and hope another team signs him to an offer sheet. 2) Take the deal and be financially secure for life.

I agree with this too.

It was unnecessary for sure. Perhaps even unwise.

At the same time though, they already bet big on Embiid. Might as well go all in. They have too much committed to the pot to fold.

 

[flyerhawk]

Steph Curry's first two years in the NBA:

36.2 MPG 17.5 PPG, 5.9 APG, 4.5 RPG
33.6 MPG 18.6 PPG, 5.8 APG, 3.9 RPG

Not exactly a slouch. Definitely no clue he would go on to be a 2x MVP, but it showed that he was at least on an all-star level trajectory. I wouldn't argue Embiid's value over Curry's for sure. But the 76ers are staggered in having to pay contracts, much in the way that the Warriors drafted Curry ('09), Klay('11) and Draymond('12). This situation is the exact situation as Embiid('14), Simmons('16) and Fultz('17). Simmons and Fultz are still locked in at multiple years before even discussion extensions. The 76ers don't have any lingering contracts committed yet, which means they still have financial flexibility.

To be clear I am in no way diminishing Steph Curry as a player before much less after he signed his RFA contract. But I think it is fair to say that when he signed that RFA deal just about EVERYONE looked at him as an exciting all-star caliber PG with a great outside shot. NO ONE thought he would be an MVP quality top 5 player. OTOH, I think there are MANY people who think that if Embiid can stay healthy he has the potential to be a top 5 player. My point about the contract is that they are staggered provided that each player remains on track. If you push out Embiid a year on his max contract it starts to cause other problems The Kings situation was different because Curry and Clay and Draymond didn't become world beaters until AFTER Steph signed his tender.

Again, and I can't stress this enough, I'm not advocating they trade Embiid. But I was saying it was a leverage advantage that the 76ers had. That is all. I'm not saying trade him if he doesn't accept the deal. I'm saying it's in their back pocket if ALL ELSE FAILS. This is a last resort option.

I know you aren't suggesting he should be traded. And I certainly understand your point. I just don't think the threat is all that compelling given the off the court factors. Right or wrong Embiid IS the Process. They trade him away for draft picks and the entire past 5 years were a waste of time.

Yes, you're correct. Teams offer RFA's deals all the time to players to prevent them from testing the open market. There's a huge difference in this one though, which I know you're aware.

If Embiid plays 65 games this year at or near the level he played last year, do you really think no one would try to lure him over to their team?

I'm happy you guys have your long time solution and I hope it works out. Embiid's a fantastic player and one of the most fun to watch in the league. What I'm saying is that I believe the Sixers could have done a bit better than to just max cash out a guy who was drafted in 2014, sat 2 full years due to injury, then played in 31 games, on restricted minutes, then got shut down for injury yet again. If you disagree then that's fine. But I 100% would say the exact same thing if the Warriors had given Curry a max extension at the time of his injury. And adding to that, I cannot remember the last time a huge extension was given out to a guy off of an injury, let alone a career trajectory Embiid has had dealing with them.

Well, as I said, there are a riders in the contract to cover the risk of Embiid suffering from the problems that have plagued him. So if he winds up playing 20 games this year then the Sixers can opt out. Same with next year.

It's certainly not an ideal situation. And there are other ways they could have gone. But I get why the Sixers did what they did. Embiid is a generational talent. Even if he has to stay on a minutes restriction for most of his career you still do everything you can to keep him.

 

[CitySushi]

I agree with this too.

It was unnecessary for sure. Perhaps even unwise.

At the same time though, they already bet big on Embiid. Might as well go all in. They have too much committed to the pot to fold.

That's why you put out a stopper bet at the end. Folding isn't an option, you're check calling at the worst with RFA. You put a stopper bet out of what you're comfortable losing and if the guy shoves and puts you in a tough spot, then you re-assess. Much like Embiid's injury history. You'd have to re-assess after the season, but you can put an offer out there that is reasonable.

 

[flyerhawk]

I agree with this too.

It was unnecessary for sure. Perhaps even unwise.

At the same time though, they already bet big on Embiid. Might as well go all in. They have too much committed to the pot to fold.

This is what it boils down to. This was the deal the organization made with the fans. The fans will forgive the team if Embiid can never stay healthy. They would never forgive it if they let Embiid walk and he does something somewhere else. Draft picks in perpetuity isn't getting it done.

 

[CitySushi]

This is what it boils down to. This was the deal the organization made with the fans. The fans will forgive the team if Embiid can never stay healthy. They would never forgive it if they let Embiid walk and he does something somewhere else. Draft picks in perpetuity isn't getting it done.

That's just the thing though, he was never in jeopardy of walking because of RFA. I see your point though and agree to an extent. All my argument was basically over $. I feel like Philly overpaid for an asset they would retain for the next 5 years at minimum.

At that point if Embiid stayed healthy and flourished, the 76ers retained his bird rights and could pay him WAAAY more than any other team. This extension felt rushed. Again I also don't know what happened behind closed doors.

 

[flyerhawk]

That's just the thing though, he was never in jeopardy of walking because of RFA. I see your point though and agree to an extent. All my argument was basically over $. I feel like Philly overpaid for an asset they would retain for the next 5 years at minimum.

At that point if Embiid stayed healthy and flourished, the 76ers retained his bird rights and could pay him WAAAY more than any other team. This extension felt rushed. Again I also don't know what happened behind closed doors.

I really feel the Sixers wanted to get this year on the books for his contract since they had the cap space. Next year Okafor will be an RFA that they may or may not give any offer to but certainly not a max deal barring a transformational season this year. So Embiid has 2 of 5 years booked to years that don't constrain their cap.

 

[DJ]

Holy fuck.

 

[tlance]

That's just the thing though, he was never in jeopardy of walking because of RFA. I see your point though and agree to an extent. All my argument was basically over $. I feel like Philly overpaid for an asset they would retain for the next 5 years at minimum.

At that point if Embiid stayed healthy and flourished, the 76ers retained his bird rights and could pay him WAAAY more than any other team. This extension felt rushed. Again I also don't know what happened behind closed doors.

Yeah.

In theory, no team should ever extend an RFA before they have to.

That said, I get why the 6ers did it anyway. It is a clear statement to fans that the process is over and that they are ready to start winning.

 

[trojanfan12]

Seems simple enough. If it works, they're shrewd. If it doesn't, they're insane.