# Would u trade?



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

Allen iverson 2007 first rounder fillers for
Sebastian telfair,Gerald Green,Ryan Gomes,Wally s?


----------



## BEEZ (Jun 12, 2002)

yes, i would minus the 07 first rounder


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

BEEZ said:


> yes, i would minus the 07 first rounder


Yeah, this is exactly what I was going to say.


----------



## thaKEAF (Mar 8, 2004)

Our team would be stacked with young talent.

Telfair
Iguodala
Carney
Green
Gomes


----------



## BroadStBullies (Oct 2, 2005)

I would of done the deal they had in order.

Green, Jefferson and #7 for Iverson, but there was a 3rd team involved, Utah and they backed out.

I'd do a West, Jefferson, Wally, 2007 1st for Iverson even


----------



## BEEZ (Jun 12, 2002)

a 2007 draft pick is out of the question. Too much talent is next years draft


----------



## Ras (Jul 25, 2005)

BEEZ said:


> a 2007 draft pick is out of the question. Too much talent is next years draft


Agreed, especially with the chance that Sixers can get one of the top talents.


----------



## Sliccat (Oct 16, 2004)

No no no no no NO! we're stacked with SG/SF's. We need big men, and a GOOD point guard if we get rid of AI. Gerald Green and Wally are worthless to us. I don't know who Ryan Gomes is.


----------



## BEEZ (Jun 12, 2002)

sliccat said:


> No no no no no NO! we're stacked with SG/SF's. We need big men, and a GOOD point guard if we get rid of AI. Gerald Green and Wally are worthless to us. I don't know who Ryan Gomes is.


 ahh sliccat hadnt paid any attention to Coatesvillian's write ups on him. Thats who we should have picked over Louis Williams. Now who are these players that we are stacked at the wing positions? Outside of Iggy what other wing on our team has the promise and potential of Gerald Green?


----------



## AriGold23 (Jul 19, 2002)

BEEZ said:


> ahh sliccat hadnt paid any attention to Coatesvillian's write ups on him. Thats who we should have picked over Louis Williams. Now who are these players that we are stacked at the wing positions? Outside of Iggy what other wing on our team has the promise and potential of Gerald Green?


You obviously weren't watching the draft since we got a player who is already and will be a better NBA player than Gerald Green, in Rodney Carney. As well as already having Iggy, Korver, Salmons, Bobby Jones... Trading Allen Iverson for West, Jefferson, and Wally is a joke. West is a nothing more than a backup player no more valuable than Salmons. Wally is Kyle Korver+10Mil in salary. Jefferson is a good post prospect, but is that worth a guy who can take over a game at any given time and has led a team to the finals all by himself? Please.... What Billy King needs to do, is get rid of Dalembert and his inflated contract and start Hunter at center. If we could move Webber that would be terrific as well, but I don't see anyone taking on that contract. Maybe a swap for another team's overpaid/unwanted PF? Like a Zach Randolph(although the Blazers are in a youth movement so that seems unlikely) or a Kenyon Martin? A lineup of Iverson, Igoudala, Carney, Martin, and Hunter in a fast pace offense would do damage in the east. I'm not saying Championships, but it would definitly put us back into the upper-tier in the Eastern conference.

Oh, but I do agree with you that we should have drafted Gomes in the 2nd round rather than Williams. But the 2nd round is such a crapshoot, you can't blame King for not taking him. I do think we should stop trying to draft the next AI in the 2nd round though(Willie Green before, and Williams last year).


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

BEEZ said:


> ahh sliccat hadnt paid any attention to Coatesvillian's write ups on him. Thats who we should have picked over Louis Williams. Now who are these players that we are stacked at the wing positions? Outside of Iggy what other wing on our team has the promise and potential of Gerald Green?


Oh yeah, I talked him up enough didn't I? :laugh: If we can get Gomes, I'd love it. He won't be a superstar but he's the type of guy I'd love to have coming off the bench and starting in a pinch. He would have been the Sixers smartest and best reserve, had the Sixers taken him.

And to answer your second question, none. I like Rodney Carney, but I really think the ceiling for him is a rich man's Devean George. He's fast, and a great athlete who can finish, and shoot from the perimeter.. but his middle game is as suspect as his handle.

I think having Green and Iguodala on the wings, with Carney and Jones off the bench is pretty good, especially for the future. Green isn't the caliber of defender as the others, but this would be an exciting grouping. Green has the potential to be a superstar.


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

I have to break this down.. because really.. I mean.. really.



iverson3 said:


> You obviously weren't watching the draft since we got a player who is already and will be a better NBA player than Gerald Green, in Rodney Carney.


Rodney Carney's edge is in end to end speed, and defense. When it comes to perimeter shooting, I think they're about even. Both struggle with their middle game, and they're both strong finishers. I give the advantage to Green as a pure scorer, as Carney has the tendency to fade out of games.



> As well as already having Iggy, Korver, Salmons, Bobby Jones...


Salmons is gone, so exclude him.



> Trading Allen Iverson for West, Jefferson, and Wally is a joke. West is a nothing more than a backup player no more valuable than Salmons.


Delonte West is a better player than John Salmons, not only is he a smart player, he hustles. Can knock down the open shot, and he doesn't dominate the ball and force up terrible shots. West is a glue guy, who even though he's a tweener is a guy who belongs in the league. If Iguodala develops into a player who is more comfortable handling the ball, West is a perfect pairing with him in the back court.

Salmons can probably score more than West, but when he scores it comes at the sacrifice of the team's offense (even moreso than Iverson). When Salmons handles the ball, he overdribbles and often takes too long to make his decision. His shot selection is very suspect as well.



> Wally is Kyle Korver+10Mil in salary.


I don't like Wally at all, but his defense and athleticism make him different than Korver. It's also been stated that the Sixers have no interest in Wally. So if Sczcerbiak is involved in any trade with Iverson, it'll involve three teams.



> Jefferson is a good post prospect, but is that worth a guy who can take over a game at any given time and has led a team to the finals all by himself?


Jefferson is a good post prospect who had a terrible year last year, after high expectations the year prior. Who knows how he'll respond, but I like idea of having him work with Moses Malone and the prospect of a high lotto pick in 2007.

Also, Iverson is capable of taking games over offensively all by himself still even 10 years into the game.. but.. BUT... *BUT!* he did not take the team to the Finals by himself. That's the biggest misconception that is always bandied about in basketball circles. If you honestly think that was the case, you didn't watch the games that season. If you think that you surely didn't see game seven of the Eastern Semis when McKie had to take on the brunt of the scoring load because Iverson's shot was off. There were so many huge plays made by the Sixers in that run that weren't Iverson, that the claim that he lead them to the finals by himself just seems out and out riddiculous.



> Please.... What Billy King needs to do, is get rid of Dalembert and his inflated contract and start Hunter at center. If we could move Webber that would be terrific as well, but I don't see anyone taking on that contract. Maybe a swap for another team's overpaid/unwanted PF? Like a Zach Randolph(although the Blazers are in a youth movement so that seems unlikely) or a Kenyon Martin? A lineup of Iverson, Igoudala, Carney, Martin, and Hunter in a fast pace offense would do damage in the east. I'm not saying Championships, but it would definitly put us back into the upper-tier in the Eastern conference.


If you're not talking about winning a championship, why make a deal that'll lock you into a contract that has five years left? Why? That just doesn't make sense to me. If you're keeping Iverson, and you're making a move to obtain a player with a long term contract, you better be talking about a championship.. or it's pointless.


----------



## AriGold23 (Jul 19, 2002)

Coatesvillain said:


> Rodney Carney's edge is in end to end speed, and defense. When it comes to perimeter shooting, I think they're about even. Both struggle with their middle game, and they're both strong finishers. I give the advantage to Green as a pure scorer, as Carney has the tendency to fade out of games.


And this would be based on Green when he played in high school or in the NBDL? While Carney was playing at Memphis. I guess we have to agree to disagree about who we feel is the better of the 2 for both present and future.




Coatesvillain said:


> Salmons is gone, so exclude him..


He was tendered, and therefore still on the roster, so I included him. He most likely won't be back, I understand that.




Coatesvillain said:


> Delonte West is a better player than John Salmons, not only is he a smart player, he hustles. Can knock down the open shot, and he doesn't dominate the ball and force up terrible shots. West is a glue guy, who even though he's a tweener is a guy who belongs in the league. If Iguodala develops into a player who is more comfortable handling the ball, West is a perfect pairing with him in the back court.


I don't see enough of an increase in talent with West over Salmons enough to warrant trading for him.




Coatesvillain said:


> I don't like Wally at all, but his defense and athleticism make him different than Korver. It's also been stated that the Sixers have no interest in Wally. So if Sczcerbiak is involved in any trade with Iverson, it'll involve three teams.


Wally and the words defense and athleticism should never be in the same sentence unless it is being used to describe his lack of them. 




Coatesvillain said:


> Jefferson is a good post prospect who had a terrible year last year, after high expectations the year prior. Who knows how he'll respond, but I like idea of having him work with Moses Malone and the prospect of a high lotto pick in 2007.


I mentioned that I do feel Jefferson is a good post prospect. Would I like to have him on my team? Of course, but I'm not about to give up an MVP caliber player to get him. It looks like you feel the Sixers should cut their losses and rebuild, while I would rather field a quality team. Correct me if I'm wrong there, but it just seems that you want to start over and build around some of the Celtics prospects, draft picks and Iggy.



Coatesvillain said:


> Also, Iverson is capable of taking games over offensively all by himself still even 10 years into the game.. but.. BUT... *BUT!* he did not take the team to the Finals by himself. That's the biggest misconception that is always bandied about in basketball circles. If you honestly think that was the case, you didn't watch the games that season. If you think that you surely didn't see game seven of the Eastern Semis when McKie had to take on the brunt of the scoring load because Iverson's shot was off. There were so many huge plays made by the Sixers in that run that weren't Iverson, that the claim that he lead them to the finals by himself just seems out and out riddiculous.


You are absolutely correct. I should not have put "all by himself" but more along the lines of "carried the burden." I recognize the work that McKie, Snow, Mutombo, even Tyrone Hill did that helped the Sixers reach the finals, but it was Iverson who carried this team to the finals during that MVP season.



Coatesvillain said:


> If you're not talking about winning a championship, why make a deal that'll lock you into a contract that has five years left? Why? That just doesn't make sense to me. If you're keeping Iverson, and you're making a move to obtain a player with a long term contract, you better be talking about a championship.. or it's pointless.


Cap room is not something that is in the Sixers near future with the contracts they have compiled. Again, to me it seems that you are interested in rebuilding, while I am interested in putting the best team out there right now. Dalembert's deal has 5 years left. Webber has 2 years, but at $40MIL+, and when his contract expires Iggy will be up for an extension. If we can't dump Dalembert, our cap space dreams are pretty much done. So why not try and field the best team possible and make a run? A Wallace leaving Detroit, an injury to a top Eastern conference team, could vault us into the Finals. I just don't feel a team led by Gerald Green and Igoudala is going to get us anywhere. Maybe you are dreaming for Greg Oden next year, I don't know. But I do know that dealing Iverson for a couple solid if not unspectacular prospects is not the best way to go. It's all opinion, and perhaps my bias towards AI is showing, but I just don't think it's the right way to go.


----------



## Sliccat (Oct 16, 2004)

BEEZ said:


> ahh sliccat hadnt paid any attention to Coatesvillian's write ups on him. Thats who we should have picked over Louis Williams. Now who are these players that we are stacked at the wing positions? Outside of Iggy what other wing on our team has the promise and potential of Gerald Green?


It's not about them having more talent... I don't like trading your best player in one position to get players in positions where you already have people. Doing something like this puts them in a position of still having to make deals to be good. Take a look at the Knicks... you can't just put talent together, it has to be balanced. Getting a bunch of talented SF/SG's together isn't the answer to their situation, it just complicates it. They already have Iggy, Carney, and Jones, all of whom need minutes in those positions to develop, and if you add three more, you become the Hawks.

If you want to trade AI, fine. But trade him so that you fill in weaknesses, or have the potential to, they're fine at SF/SG. If you want to trade Carney for Green, cool, but for Iverson, you need to get a big or a point that's either proven or extremely talented, plus picks.


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

sliccat said:


> It's not about them having more talent... I don't like trading your best player in one position to get players in positions where you already have people. Doing something like this puts them in a position of still having to make deals to be good. Take a look at the Knicks... you can't just put talent together, it has to be balanced. Getting a bunch of talented SF/SG's together isn't the answer to their situation, it just complicates it. They already have Iggy, Carney, and Jones, all of whom need minutes in those positions to develop, and if you add three more, you become the Hawks.
> 
> If you want to trade AI, fine. But trade him so that you fill in weaknesses, or have the potential to, they're fine at SF/SG. If you want to trade Carney for Green, cool, but for Iverson, you need to get a big or a point that's either proven or extremely talented, plus picks.


The Knicks are different, they have albatross contracts. When dealing with young prospects, and knowing you're going to be bad, you try to get the best young prospect available.

It's similar to the thinking involving the draft, even if you have perceived depth at a position, you try to get the best prospect available. The Portland Trailblazers passed on Chris Paul, because they had Sebastian Telfair and instead took Martell Webster. Chris Paul goes on to have an All-Star type season, wins Rookie of the Year, and the Blazers trade Telfair in the offseason.

Or like the Raptors who were sure on the wings, they pass up Iguodala, and Josh Smith to draft Rafael Araujo.


----------



## Ras (Jul 25, 2005)

iverson3 said:


> And this would be based on Green when he played in high school or in the NBDL? While Carney was playing at Memphis. I guess we have to agree to disagree about who we feel is the better of the 2 for both present and future.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why are you so content with "putting the best team out there." The best team Philly could put out could maybe sneak in the playoffs, but there is absolutely no way they'd sneak into the Finals, let alone win them. Rebuilding would be the smart and logical move for the franchise. They aren't going to be able to build a team around AI thats going to win a championship anymore, so why not trade him while his value is high? The other option would be keeping him until his contract ends and the Sixers go through several more mediocre seasons. Then they'd also have the burden of resiging him.


----------



## Sliccat (Oct 16, 2004)

Coatesvillain said:


> The Knicks are different, they have albatross contracts. When dealing with young prospects, and knowing you're going to be bad, you try to get the best young prospect available.
> 
> It's similar to the thinking involving the draft, even if you have perceived depth at a position, you try to get the best prospect available. The Portland Trailblazers passed on Chris Paul, because they had Sebastian Telfair and instead took Martell Webster. Chris Paul goes on to have an All-Star type season, wins Rookie of the Year, and the Blazers trade Telfair in the offseason.
> 
> Or like the Raptors who were sure on the wings, they pass up Iguodala, and Josh Smith to draft Rafael Araujo.


albatross? People use the word albatross? Fascinating.

Anyways hording young players at the same position just doesn't work. Even if a few develop, you leave one or two out to dry, and you don't win. The Hornets were successful because they have a widespread young core of talent. Clippers as well. The Hawks don't, and look at them. Joe Johnson, Josh Childress, Josh Smith, and Marvin Williams is just too much. It you might end up being slightly better at that position, but only at the sacrifice of others. If, in the draft, talent comes in contrast with position, the best move is to trade the pick, or get rid of the player you had. Nothing ever comes from getting the same player over and over again except stagnation.


----------



## AriGold23 (Jul 19, 2002)

Ras said:


> Why are you so content with "putting the best team out there." The best team Philly could put out could maybe sneak in the playoffs, but there is absolutely no way they'd sneak into the Finals, let alone win them. Rebuilding would be the smart and logical move for the franchise. They aren't going to be able to build a team around AI thats going to win a championship anymore, so why not trade him while his value is high? The other option would be keeping him until his contract ends and the Sixers go through several more mediocre seasons. Then they'd also have the burden of resiging him.


Because I would rather watch Allen Iverson try and lead this team somewhere rather than Sebastian Telfair or Gerald Green. You speak of AI's value being high but I have yet to hear of a team offering anything close to Iverson's worth on the court. If a team offered a deal including a couple of excellent prospects(not at the swingmen position) that we could build a future championship contender around, I would be on board, but I'm sorry, I cannot for one second believe this franchise would be better off with Telfair and Green over Iverson. You talk about several more mediocre seasons, but if you trade AI, your seasons will be uninteresting and even more mediocre while losing all fan interest and still not having cap room because you are saddled with CWebbs contract as well as Dalembert's. I say, until we get a worthy offer for AI, we should not be pursuing ways to get rid of our best player and former league MVP.


----------



## DieSlow69 (Apr 18, 2005)

iverson3 said:


> Because I would rather watch Allen Iverson try and lead this team somewhere rather than Sebastian Telfair or Gerald Green. You speak of AI's value being high but I have yet to hear of a team offering anything close to Iverson's worth on the court. If a team offered a deal including a couple of excellent prospects(not at the swingmen position) that we could build a future championship contender around, I would be on board, but I'm sorry, I cannot for one second believe this franchise would be better off with Telfair and Green over Iverson. You talk about several more mediocre seasons, but if you trade AI, your seasons will be uninteresting and even more mediocre while losing all fan interest and still not having cap room because you are saddled with CWebbs contract as well as Dalembert's. I say, until we get a worthy offer for AI, we should not be pursuing ways to get rid of our best player and former league MVP.



That is what I've been saying all along!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

sliccat said:


> albatross? People use the word albatross? Fascinating.
> 
> Anyways hording young players at the same position just doesn't work. Even if a few develop, you leave one or two out to dry, and you don't win. The Hornets were successful because they have a widespread young core of talent. Clippers as well. The Hawks don't, and look at them. Joe Johnson, Josh Childress, Josh Smith, and Marvin Williams is just too much. It you might end up being slightly better at that position, but only at the sacrifice of others. If, in the draft, talent comes in contrast with position, the best move is to trade the pick, or get rid of the player you had. Nothing ever comes from getting the same player over and over again except stagnation.


You use the Hawks as an example, but their major flaw was their complete lack of front court defense. Offensively they were pretty good especially in the stretch run.

If you have a ton of players and none of them really have shown the ability to be a star, you make a move. For example look at the Blazers again, they once thought they had a logjam at the SF spot only to find out a few years later that most of those guys can't play.

It's all about the best prospect available, if you don't acquire the best prospect in a deal involving youth and instead get a position you need but not the talent.. you lose.


----------



## Ras (Jul 25, 2005)

iverson3 said:


> Because I would rather watch Allen Iverson try and lead this team somewhere rather than Sebastian Telfair or Gerald Green. You speak of AI's value being high but I have yet to hear of a team offering anything close to Iverson's worth on the court. If a team offered a deal including a couple of excellent prospects(not at the swingmen position) that we could build a future championship contender around, I would be on board, but I'm sorry, I cannot for one second believe this franchise would be better off with Telfair and Green over Iverson. You talk about several more mediocre seasons, but if you trade AI, your seasons will be uninteresting and even more mediocre while losing all fan interest and still not having cap room because you are saddled with CWebbs contract as well as Dalembert's. I say, until we get a worthy offer for AI, we should not be pursuing ways to get rid of our best player and former league MVP.


No, because those horrible seasons that would follow AIs departure would pay off. Next years draft is possibly the most talented draft in years, and the Sixers landing a high pick would really improve their future. Not to mention when C-Webb's contract comes off the books, they'd have some room because they wouldn't have Iverson's contract as well. This is all called the rebuliding stage. It takes some losing seasons to get a shot at a championship. The Sixers have gotten all they can out of Iverson, and they aren't going anywhere with him now. They should scrap it, go for young players and cap room, and continue to slowly build a better team. I'd rather have a crappy team for a few years that eventually leads to a great team, then a mediocre team that stays mediocre.


----------



## melo4life (Jun 5, 2006)

would u trade AI for KMART and Eduardo Najera?


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

melo4life said:


> would u trade AI for KMART and Eduardo Najera?


Not a chance.


----------



## Sliccat (Oct 16, 2004)

Coatesvillain said:


> *You use the Hawks as an example, but their major flaw was their complete lack of front court defense. Offensively they were pretty good especially in the stretch run.*
> 
> If you have a ton of players and none of them really have shown the ability to be a star, you make a move. For example look at the Blazers again, they once thought they had a logjam at the SF spot only to find out a few years later that most of those guys can't play.
> 
> It's all about the best prospect available, if you don't acquire the best prospect in a deal involving youth and instead get a position you need but not the talent.. you lose.


This proves my point rather effectively.


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

sliccat said:


> This proves my point rather effectively.


Not really, because what the Hawks had last year worked better than what the had the year prior. They doubled their win total and were a more competitive team.

The thing with acquiring young talent is as long as a player is still on their rookie deal, it is possible to use them as a piece in a deal. To avoid what you perceive as best available to just fill a position, you're just shooting yourself in the foot.


----------



## BEEZ (Jun 12, 2002)

Coatesvillain said:


> Not really, because what the Hawks had last year worked better than what the had the year prior. They doubled their win total and were a more competitive team.
> 
> The thing with acquiring young talent is as long as a player is still on their rookie deal, it is possible to use them as a piece in a deal. To avoid what you perceive as best available to just fill a position, you're just shooting yourself in the foot.


 I'd have to agree, there is no harm in acquiring young talent regardless of position because it gives you future leverage via trade or what have you. We meaning the Sixers are in a bad state right now, and I think with Ben Wallace moving it opens the gates for a Iverson trade. Not that Ben Wallace means anything to the Sixers, its that Ben Wallace moved from a championship contender that lets you know, stars can and will be moved.


----------

