# If you could re-do history would you switch 96 lottery win for 97 lottery win?



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

Pat Croce brought the Lucky Charms and the 76ers landed the #1 pick in the 1996 draft that ended up being Allen Iverson. A year later, the 76ers came up second in the lottery and got their hands on Keith Van Horn who they traded for Tim Thomas (among a laundry list of other players).

The hands of fate weren't in the Sixers favor that night in 1997 when they drew the ping-pong balls. So that leaves us with the hypothetical question, would you have rather won the lottery in 97 instead of 96, to get Duncan instead of Iverson?


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Of course you'd want Duncan, unless you enjoy one finals in the last 9 years.


----------



## Kunlun (Jun 22, 2003)

Oh wow, that is a tough tough question. I can't answer it for myself, but I do know this... The franchise would be better with Duncan and in the previous draft we still would've gotten a nice player with the second pick and Duncan goes well with anyone. We might've won a championship or championships by now with Duncan instead of Iverson and we would probably never miss the playoffs.


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

I think people already know I'd take Duncan in a heartbeat. We could've competed every year even with Larry Brown tinkering with the roster every offseason.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

Give me Duncan. I think...but AI is Philly!........Give me.......Duncan! Why. Duncan is a pure winner, but would that be different in Philly? I would like to think I could take Duncan because what he has done (in S.A.), but would he be the Timmy we know now being in a different situation? This is a good question based on pure speculation.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Of course he would be the same Duncan. He's a HOF big man, one of the best 15 players in the history of the game.


----------



## SixersFan (Dec 19, 2004)

Yup. Keep in mind we had Jerry Stackhouse at SG back then too.


----------



## jpk (May 4, 2005)

Come on! Ultra-skilled big men are extremely rare and almost always make for championship contenders. Talented guards area a dime a dozen. Sure, they don't all have the heart or talent of Allen Iverson, but championship teams can do just fine with a Chauncy Billups instead of an AI. Tough to replace Kareem, Hakeem, Shaq, or Duncan with just any big guy.

Why do you think the 76ers were willing to do such a moronic thing as to draft Shawn Bradley?


----------



## Kunlun (Jun 22, 2003)

jpk said:


> Why do you think the 76ers were willing to do such a moronic thing as to draft Shawn Bradley?


Shawn Bradley is 7'6 and he was a beast in college. He was an amazing shot blocker and he was pretty agile and athletic for his size, he never really improved his entire career though and that's why he's considered a bust.


----------



## Vermillion (Mar 23, 2004)

Nope, even if i know Duncan would have been the best choice. Iverson is what made me a Sixers fan.


----------



## Dizmatic (Apr 14, 2005)

Duncan without question. We would have had a big time post present that is a franchise player. The fact that he is a winner, makes it even more of a no brainer. Guards are easier to find anyway. If we had the second pick in 96, who would you have selected?

Camby
Abdur Rahim
Marbury 
Ray Allen
Antoine Walker


----------



## Kunlun (Jun 22, 2003)

Dizmatic said:


> If we had the second pick in 96, who would you have selected?
> 
> Camby
> Abdur Rahim
> ...


Out of those guys probably Ray Allen. Imagine Ray Allen with Tim Duncan inside. Only in dreams...


----------



## Dizmatic (Apr 14, 2005)

> Out of those guys probably Ray Allen. Imagine Ray Allen with Tim Duncan inside. Only in dreams...




Even with Stackhouse slotted at the 2?


----------



## digital jello (Jan 10, 2003)

You don't pass up on a player like Tim Duncan.


----------



## BEEZ (Jun 12, 2002)

I think I would still have stayed with AI and I will tell you why. It has nothing to do with talent because, you take Tim Duncan everyday and every time. The Sixers would still have been in shambles and the minute he could leave he would have. The Sixers even today still have not shown a semblance of stability as an organization and that means alot to Tim Duncan case in point the flirtation with Orlando.


----------



## Kunlun (Jun 22, 2003)

Dizmatic said:


> Even with Stackhouse slotted at the 2?


Remember Stackhouse was a very selfish player before and he cared mostly about his own scoring, I don't think him and Duncan would have gotten along well. So we could've traded him and had Ray Allen playing two guard draining threes and driving the lane and some other nice peices from the Stackhouse trade.


----------



## SixersFan (Dec 19, 2004)

Kunlun said:


> Remember Stackhouse was a very selfish player before and he cared mostly about his own scoring, I don't think him and Duncan would have gotten along well. So we could've traded him and had Ray Allen playing two guard draining threes and driving the lane and some other nice peices from the Stackhouse trade.


I think Stack could have been a better player if he had been coached better early on and given a big man in Duncan to play with. He really had a lot of talent back then.


----------



## SirCharles34 (Nov 16, 2004)

BEEZ said:


> I think I would still have stayed with AI and I will tell you why. It has nothing to do with talent because, you take Tim Duncan everyday and every time. The Sixers would still have been in shambles and the minute he could leave he would have. The Sixers even today still have not shown a semblance of stability as an organization and that means alot to Tim Duncan case in point the flirtation with Orlando.


What!?!?
I don't understand how you can say that. He and Pat Croce would have gotten along great, then you have a championship caliber coach in Larry Brown, and throw in the talented supporting cast back then plus a player like Marbury or R.Allen he would have had playing with him. You can question the stability after Brown and Croce left but we would have inked Duncan to a long term contract by then. 
I love AI but I would take Duncan anyday. I agree with JPK, it's harder to find an Olajuwon or Ewing type but it's easier to find a good guard to play alongside your franchise bigman.


----------



## SirCharles34 (Nov 16, 2004)

SixersFan said:


> I think Stack could have been a better player if he had been coached better early on and given a big man in Duncan to play with. He really had a lot of talent back then.


Exactly! 

Remember, when Larry Brown became the Sixer's coach, Stackhouse was already traded to Detroit. Brown even said after he was hired that he would have liked to have coached Stackhouse. 

BTW, great post Phillyphanatic.


----------



## BEEZ (Jun 12, 2002)

alleninsf said:


> What!?!?
> I don't understand how you can say that. He and Pat Croce would have gotten along great, then you have a championship caliber coach in Larry Brown, and throw in the talented supporting cast back then plus a player like Marbury or R.Allen he would have had playing with him. You can question the stability after Brown and Croce left but we would have inked Duncan to a long term contract by then.
> I love AI but I would take Duncan anyday. I agree with JPK, it's harder to find an Olajuwon or Ewing type but it's easier to find a good guard to play alongside your franchise bigman.


 Whats hard to understand? Tim Duncan would and does prefer warm weather. That is the first thing that would have to be taken into account. I mean its all nice and dandy to bring up Pat Croce but that does nothing but strengthen my point. Duncan most likely would have looked at the situation Pat C had with Ed Snider and would have been like, this organization which it still shows today is not a stable one.


----------



## bkbballer16 (Apr 28, 2005)

I would of done it.


----------

