Quick Divorice: Philadelphia 76ers Shopping Elton Brand Already?
News out of Philadelphia this morning is that the Philadelphia 76ers have been shopping power forward Elton Brand.
Now, while a move is unlikely because of Brand's sizeable contract, these actions will have an impact on the team this off-season into next season.
Brand, who is scheduled to make $65 million over the next four years, played just twenty-nine games for the Sixers in 08-09. He only scored 13.8 points per contest and grabbed 8.8 rebounds a game during his limited time.
Though stats are not terrible, it's not what you want to see from your $80 million investment.
At times, the 76ers and Brand seemed to not be on the same page at all. Both sides changed what they did best to try and accommodate the other. This will not help you win basketball games.
If all turns out well from this, the 76ers will be a better team next season. What you want to happen from a situation like this, ideally, is to show Mr. Brand and the whole organization that no one is untouchable or safe, and force them to play harder.
Now, on the other hand, Brand could fall into even more of a slump once he feels that the team has given up on him.
This is what we don't want.
However, with the addition of Jason Kapono, along with current players improving their shooting, Brand should have more room to roam without seeing double or triple teams.
And if he does see double, the Sixers now have some shooting on the outside to make teams pay.
It's all a game of wait and see. The off-season has just begun and there will be more changes to come.
Philadelphia General Manager Ed Stefanski has also expressed much interest in moving the 17th pick. Whether it be up or down, Mr. Stefanski is listening.
"We're exploring moving up and moving back," Stefanski said, adding that "unless the demands get less, we won't be doing that."
With the draft closing in with the turn of every hour, the wait for change is approaching fast. Stay tuned.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?