| 28 November 2009
Sixers’ season is approaching a pretty shocking turning point after the 86-100 home loss to Atlanta, the fifth straight and seventh in the last eight games (5-11, .312).
According to Stephen A. Smith the team is seriously considering to sign Iverson, currently a free agent after he parted ways with the Grizzlies. Of course the main question is: would this be a good move? Which would lead to more question, like: would it make sense? Would it work?
Honestly I am torn. I am an Iverson fan, always been, but I am a Sixers fan first. I was ok when we traded Iverson because his time in Philly was clearly over, and I wanted a new era to start. So I had no regrets after he was gone, and liked the direction we took then: lot of new players, a young team, new system, a mid/long term plan - that did NOT involve Iverson.
We all know it not worked well thus far: all the trades, new signings, coach changes, GM changes etc led to two seasons around the .500 mark and two straight first round exits. Not much, let’s be honest, but enough to hope for further improvement, especially looking at possible scenarios in 2-3 years.
At the end of the day, only sixteen games into the 2009/2010 season, Sixers seem to be in a very uncomfortable position. We are already way below .500, with a very tough upcoming road trip that includes stops at San Antonio, Dallas, Oklahoma City and Charlotte, the only of those team with a losing record, but coming off three consecutive wins.
Add that we have our starting PG injured for the next couple of months, another key player sidelined for more or less the same period (Speights) and we are the second last franchise as for attendance, trailing… the Memphis Grizzlies, how ironic. Therefore, the idea of signing Iverson popped out. We have to seriously consider it.
THE PROS
1) Clearly, adding Iverson would mean improving the overall talent of the roster. Besides Iguodala, and with Lou Williams out, a back court of Holiday, Green, Carney and Ivey is way below average. Allen won’t have troubles finding his place in the rotation. He will simply make the team better.
2) Iverson would be highly motivated. He is not stupid and knows that everyone in the League, and perhaps in the world, thinks he’s done as an elite player, he’s just a headcase, a locker room cancer etc etc. He would want to prove his critics wrong, in a town that made him feel happy and beloved for more than a decade: the perfect situation for a turnaround. I think the large majority of fans would welcome him, the arousing standing ovation he got in his first game as an opponent is an evidence of that sentiment.
3) adding Iverson could provide a boost in terms of attitude, confidence FOR THE TEAM, a nice shake for a pretty depressed environment, a positive twist. All the losses, the injuries, the struggles are obviously effecting us, the season looks “inevitably” going south. I’ve already heard tons of “let’s tank it” talks, many fans are happy for the losing streak and think about the next draft, they consider this season already lost. If you are not in this group, and think that making the playoffs again would be better in the growing process of our young core, then you should join the “Welcome home Bubba Chuck” party.
4) there are more considerations to be made. Quickly: Iverson would come for cheap (he signed with Memphis for ‘only’ 3.5 millions last summer), he shouldn’t affect our salary cap as he would probably get a 1-year deal, we would see more seats filled, he would finish his career in a way that is more fitting with his track record. “Waived by the Grizzlies” as final chapter of Allen’s book would give the wonderful story of a future hall of famer a pretty sad, and dare I say undeserved, end.
THE CONS
1) from a mere basketball point of view, Iverson is a tough fit in Eddie Jordan’s system (assuming he has one, cuz we didn’t see yet…). It’s crystal clear that he won’t change his game at 34 y/o, so dominating the ball, jacking up crazy shots etc won’t help much in the process of learning the Princeton offense. Also, he would start NOW, of course, but what with Lou will be back? Defensively, he would just decrease our (already low) efficacy.
2) I think Iverson could clash with Iguodala, now the (supposed to be?) franchise player, and maybe with other guys that played with him during his prime, when HE was Sixers’ leader, without a doubt. Locker room management could become extremely dangerous with a strong personality like Allen, not easy to handle. This, regardless of his behaviours, I would say. Not sure about the feeling with a guy like Brand, to name another.
3) Iverson would take (a lot of) minutes from guys than need to play in order to get better. Think Holiday now, of course, but also Lou Williams when he’ll return. The only good aspect of Williams’ injury, is that it opened the door to our rookie, that has a chance to log significant minutes, and speed up his growth.
4) other quick thoughts to be put in this section: probably Allen will help us in winning more games, but probably not enough to push Sixers to the playoffs: tankers will surely be against the move, but I must say that they are right in thinking that a 35-37 W season is the worst thing that can happen this year, I’d rather go on with the young guys and win 27-30. Signing Iverson would also mean that Sixers don’t stick to their plan, sort of contradiction for our management.
So my final thought is: we would be better off WITHOUT Iverson, as much as I love the guy. I have no control over the move, so I will root for Iverson and for the team if Sixers will sign him, but thinking long term - that is what a good front office should do - I don’t see this move benefit us.
Now a short recap of the Hawks game, in the usual S4g sections (after the jump)THEEE ANSWERS
1) No, with Williams, Speights and Brand (again) out, we couldn’t win this game. It would be stupid to pick on the guys' shortcomings after such losses, we are playing, and losing, against better teams, period.
2) Yes, Carney is showing that he’s improved. Maybe I should revisit my thoughts about him. He does a lot of things that he wasn’t doing before, especially rebounding and passing
3) Yes, Hawks can shoot the ball. 9/18 from three point land, with Bibby hitting all of his first four. Bibby ate Holiday alive: not to put the kid down, it’s normal that he will have nights like this against good veterans. He will learn.
THREE QUESTIONS
1) Will the Thad haters give the guy a break now? He’s coming along after a tough stretch of games. Gotta love the 3/3 from behind the arc, but he also often played in the low post when guarded by smaller opponents, scoring at a high rate. Rebounding must improve, though.
2) How about Jason Smith? He blocked Josh Smith twice and was our go-to-guy in the third. Another solid game, well done. Some extra box-out drills won’t be bad.
3) Who will tell Iguodala that his behind-the-back passes on fastbreaks 70% of the times result into a turnover? This is getting on my nerves. Like often of late, Andre didn’t shoot the ball well, but was extremely efficient in rebounding and passing. I have to say good game overall.
REASONS
Why we lost the game
Atlanta scored timely, hitting all shots everytime we came close (4-5 points). We couldn’t get any stop when needed.
To be optimistic.
Sixers always play hard despite adversities. Carney is becoming a good NBA player. Sam was a factor defensively (6 blocks) and limited his fouls.
To be worried
We didn’t take advantage of the fact that Atlanta was playing in the second night of a back-to-back. We got outscored in each of the four quarters. All our runs were followed by Hawks’ breaks. We got badly outrebounded again (32-42).
Sunday at San Antonio. Ouch.
