Sixers Season 3

[SD_Eagle5]

If hating the NBA makes me a homo than I have nothing to argue with you about. Might as well slap a dress on me because the NBA farging sucks.

You're 100% correct, if I wasn't a Sixers fan, I wouldn't follow it.

[MDS]

If hating the NBA makes me a homo than I have nothing to argue with you about. Might as well slap a dress on me because the NBA farging sucks.

The last 2 minutes of some playoff games are somewhat entertaining. Other than that, yea, it blows.

[rjs246]

I grew up a Sixers fan. Love Dr. J and Sir Charles. Something happened to the league along the way that has made it almost as boring as baseball. And that's hard to do.

[hunt]

bitch slapped around the court, huh?  nothing like making crap up to support your obsession


this goes all the way back to when his parents sent him to that corny private school...

so webber isn't thug enough for you, huh?  i figured that was it...he should get a bunch of tats or something.

[hunt]

I grew up a Sixers fan. Love Dr. J and Sir Charles. Something happened to the league along the way that has made it almost as boring as baseball. And that's hard to do.

the nba has turned into street ball where there's more emphasis on athleticism than on basketball skill...that's why it sucks.

[Rome]

I agree with rjs that the NBA has become about as boring and predictable as can be.  I don't agree that baseball is boring but that's an argument better suited for another thread.

The NBA is farging painful to watch anymore.  I'd rather sit here and mock it on a message board than actually attend a game or watch one on television.

That's how boring and insufferable it's become.

[Sgt PSN]

The NBA has gotten so bad that even if you win the championship, it's really not worth bragging about.  It's like winning a gold medal in the Special Olympics.  That's cool and all but you're still retarded. 

[Rome]

David Aldridge | Trade Iverson? A nutty notion

The 76ers' problems lie elsewhere, not with the superstar.By David AldridgeInquirer Staff WriterI have listened and read with the greatest of interest in the last few weeks as folks in these pages and on the airwaves have introduced the idea into the local zeitgeist that the Sixers should consider trading Allen Iverson.

The hypothesis, if I have listened and read carefully, goes like this: The team isn't going anywhere, and Iverson has lost his ability to draw fans to the Wachovia Center, so why not package him for a bunch of players and build the team in a different way?

It is a notion that can draw only one response, and it didn't originate with me. It is a colloquialism long favored by a former colleague, and current play-by-play man for the Los Angeles Dodgers, Charley Steiner:
"What are you, nuts?"

Trading Iverson would be - how should I put it? - dumb.

Not just dumb.

New Coke Dumb.

Ted Kennedy Challenging The Incumbent President Of His Own Party Dumb.
Sanford Arms Dumb. (This refers to the decision of NBC suits in the late 1970s to continue the hit show Sanford and Son, but without Sanford (Redd Foxx) and Son (Demond Wilson). It had everything else - much of the same supporting cast, same plots - just no Sanford. Or Son. It, um, didn't last.)

Here's hoping that Billy King, who's Duke-smart, doesn't act on that whim.

Forget for a minute that, entering play last night, Iverson was averaging 33.3 points per game, second in the league to Kobe Bryant. Forget that he was first in the league in free-throw attempts (11.3 average) - which has the added bonus of getting opposing players in foul trouble. Forget that he was eighth in the league in assists. Forget that he still keeps opposing coaches up nights trying to figure out a way to slow him down.

Forget all that.

You never get true value for a superstar. It doesn't matter what sport.

Pop quiz: Whom did the Edmonton Oilers get for Wayne Gretzky? And how did they do afterward?

Whom did the Toronto Blue Jays get for Roger Clemens? How'd that work out?

Whom did the Milwaukee Bucks get for Kareem Abdul-Jabbar? And how many titles did that bring them?

For that matter, whom did the Sixers get for Charles Barkley?

It was Tim Perry, Jeff Hornacek and Andrew Lang. And the Sixers' record the next season, without Barkley and with all that new depth, was a sparkling 26-56. Which was followed by sterling marks of 25-57, 24-58 and - wait for it - 18-64.
The last of which was so bad that the Sixers got the first pick in the 1996 draft. Which they used to select... Allen Iverson.

You don't win in the NBA with role players. You win with superstars. Which is where Iverson comes in. With Iverson, you have a chance to win every night. Not some nights. Every night. That doesn't mean you win every night; you need contributions from a number of players. But you start with a chance.

Has everyone around here forgotten what it was like to have no chance to win? To be at the bottom of the NBA food chain? To be unimportant, unlamented, not in the opening rip of highlights on SportsCenter?

The Sixers are, indeed, what they are: a defensively challenged team that will likely last one round in the postseason.

That is not the championship level of play this town craves, to be sure. But it is a doggone sight better than being in the draft lottery the next three or four years.

Next year's draft does not appear to have the kind of impact players who can turn a franchise around, and after that, the young guys who can make a difference - such as Greg Oden, the Ohio high school phenom - will have to do at least a year in college before making themselves eligible for the pros.

And even if there is a team willing to discuss trading its superstar - a pool including, but not limited to, talents such as Paul Pierce and Steve Francis - ask yourself this: How much better would the Sixers be with those guys than with Iverson? They'd still stink on defense, and they'd still be fodder for the Pistons and Heat of the East.

Without Iverson, what exactly do the Sixers have to build around? They have Andre Iguodala and maybe Samuel Dalembert. You can't build around Chris Webber. His remaining career will not be measured by the half-decade, but by the year.

The frustration level is understandable. The Sixers do appear to be stuck in mud, going nowhere fast. But to lay that at Iverson's feet makes no sense. It's the kind of knee-jerk reaction that fans had in Baltimore when Cal Ripken had a couple of .240 seasons, or that they had in Denver when John Elway struggled to lead the Broncos to a championship for a decade.

Just a few years later, each finished his career where he started, as a hero. And Iverson deserves the same consideration.

It remains King's job to find the pieces that make the most sense around Iverson. Whether or not he's doing that is a fair question. To me, it makes no sense to have anything but defensive-oriented players around him. But that's not Iverson's responsibility.

And he shouldn't be sent packing because others aren't handling their business.

Yay for mediocrity!

[PG]  [/PG]

[Rome]

BTW: Is Aldrich seriously comparing Iverson to guys like Clemens, Gretzky & Kareem??!!??!!??!!??!!

Ahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Classic.

[Sgt PSN]

BTW: Is Aldrich seriously comparing Iverson to guys like Clemens, Gretzky & Kareem??!!??!!??!!??!!

Ahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Classic.

I don't think he's comparing them to him at all.  What he's saying is that these are 3 of the best players of all time in their respective sport.  Gretzky actually being the greatest hockey player ever, Clemens possibly the greatest pitcher ever and Kareem the all time leader in scoring. 

All 3 were traded in their primes and the teams that did the trading got little to nothing in return.  So if trading some of the best pro athletes ever has done nothing to improve a team then why would trading Iverson net the Sixers a few diamonds when everyone else got stuck with coal? 

Trading Iverson will accomplish nothing.  Drafting and/or signing players like Ben Wallace, Chauncy Billups, Tony Parker or even Tayshawn Prince is what this team needs.   It's finding those "diamonds in the rough."  Iggy seems to be that and Dalembert could be that.  Those are about the only 2 successful moves the Sixers have made in the last 5 years.  Every other move since they went to the finals has blown up in their face. 

[Rome]

If he wasn't comparing Iverson to those three then why did he list them in his column?

He was comparing Iverson to them, Sarge, and his comparisons are laughable.

[ice grillin you]

so webber isn't thug enough for you, huh?  i figured that was it...he should get a bunch of tats or something.

negative on that chief...what it did was make him soft and give him a silver spoon syndrome...not only did he not play with anyone of his caliber he didnt play against anyone of his caliber...thus the people he went up against were also in complete awe of him...he was never challenged

that brought him to expecting payments to go to michigan...after all im chris webber from country day..you want me you gots to pay...the first really tough situation he was even in was the carolina game and we know what happened there...he looked like he wanted his woobie and some warm milk...he was never the same after that...that took away what little heart he had to begin with....again he was always a good player because of talent..but he never had the fortitiude heart and work ethic to make himself a great player and to stand up to tough people and moments...

listen to his interviews this year...hes such a whining little puss it sickening...almost to the point of crying a few times...

in closing....HES A BITCH

[PhillyPhreak54]

Thank you for posting that RomeyHatesAI. You saved me the trouble of doing so.

And I agree with him. And AI compares very much to those people he named. Whether you think so or not, AI is one of the greatest to play in the NBA.

And he made the same points that some of us have made on here -- trading him would get you nothing close to value in return. And then the team would be even WORSE than it is now. He made a good point...would having your boy Stevie Franchise make this team better? Hell no.

Its up to King to do what Benedict Larry did in 2001...put great defensive players around him.

[ice grillin you]

If he wasn't comparing Iverson to those three then why did he list them in his column?

He was comparing Iverson to them, Sarge, and his comparisons are laughable.

dook he just blasted your whole notion down in his post...and you respond with the same comment that the compariosn is laughable?...you dont understand the comparison...or you dont want to see what aldridge was really saying....

id release iverson tomorrow without a second thought if it would get rid of his contract...but aldridge makes a correct and valid point in what hes saying

[Sgt PSN]

If he wasn't comparing Iverson to those three then why did he list them in his column?

He was comparing Iverson to them, Sarge, and his comparisons are laughable.

And I don't think he was comparing them because I don't think you can compare AI to Clemens, Gretzky or Kareem.  AI is one of the best players in the NBA but these are all time greats he's talking about and as much as I love AI, I can't honestly put him up on that high of a pedestal.  Sure, he's a great player but those guys are 1st tier great.  AI is 2nd tier in terms of greatness. 

The bottom line is that the teams that traded those guys didn't get jack in return.  So why would AI be any different?