| Iverson: Shortsighted At Best Authored by Derek Bodner - November 29, 2009 - 7:39 pm
With reports trickling out that the Philadelphia 76ers may be on the verge of bringing back Allen Iverson, they have moved to the forefront of the Philadelphia sports landscape, dominating headlines and radio airwaves.
If you were wondering why the Sixers are considering such a move, you already have your answer.
They are last in the league in attendance filling a measly 58% of the seats at the Wachovia Center, and that's with numerous ticket promotions that are practically giving away seats. Interest in the team is seemingly at an all-time low. The future doesn't look any more promising, with mounting injuries and a five-game losing streak.
In the face of such adversity, the front office needs to keep their focus on the long-term goal of this (and any) organization: winning a championship.
At best, signing Allen Iverson is shortsighted.
At worst, it's detrimental to the ultimate goal of winning a title.
Limited (Basketball) Rewards
Any thought of Iverson transforming this collection of talent into a serious contender is vastly over-stating his current basketball talent, and possibly the effect he ever had. Allen Iverson is not going to fix this team's defensive issues -- the Sixers are currently ranked 28th in Defensive Rating and 27th in terms of opponents eFG%.
In fact, if he starts over Jrue Holiday, he'll make them worse. He's also not going to fix the team's defensive rebounding problem, which again has the Sixers in the bottom third in the league. If this signing "works" he might sneak them into the 37-win range and allow them to play another quick series against the Orlando Magic. And that's if everything goes right.
Short-term Attendance Boost
The signing of Iverson would likely lead to a boost in attendance, but that boost will be short lived. As was shown in the twilight of Iverson's first stint he alone is not enough to pack the Wachovia Center. As the Sixers win total dipped, so did attendance. During the 2005-2006 season, the Sixers went from 10th in the league in attendance to 21st, then to 23rd in the league in 2006-2007, the season Iverson was dealt.
Simply making the playoffs and losing in the first round is unlikely to drastically change this team's long-term attendance prospects. After going .500 last year and heading back to Philadelphia tied 1-1 with the Orlando Magic, the Sixers drew a meager 16,000 fans for Game 3 at home.
After stunning the Magic in Game 3 to take a 2-1 lead?
16,000 again.
That's only 80% capacity, which would put the Sixers at 23rd in the league if they averaged that on a daily basis in the regular season. And we've talking about a playoff game.
A short-term sideshow isn't likely to increase attendance long-term. It didn't last time Iverson was here. Making the playoffs to be first round fodder for a legitimate contender likely isn't going to draw the fans in droves either, as last year's "run" showed. If you want
to fix the attendance problem you need to make this team into a legitimate contender.
You have a much better chance to do that by developing the talent you already have and by increasing your flexibility to make future moves. Signing Allen Iverson does neither. He won't be here in three years when most of this team reaches it's prime and he won't be able to will this team to contention right away.
Stunting Player Development
If the Sixers were the Celtics or the Magic, a team with legitimate title talent and possibly one piece away, I could understand the thought, and even then it wouldn't be a slam dunk. But that does not describe the Sixers at all, which means the potential gain the Sixers can receive is limited. So is it worth the damage?
Outside of the obvious players, Holiday and Louis Williams (when he returns), the addition of Iverson could also take
touches and scoring opportunities away from Thaddeus Young and Marreese Speights, two developing scorers critical to the long-term success of the team.
It's debatable how many minutes is too many for the young Holiday, but if he's able to play through his mistakes, knowing he has minutes available to him every night, that could speed up his development quite a bit. His talent (on both ends of the floor) is obvious, and each and every night is a learning experience for him. I could understand relegating him to 12th man role if the Sixers were contenders, but doing so for the sole reason of selling tickets is a huge set-back for this team. As would taking touches away from Young and Williams.
Lineup Craziness
Part of what's flying under the radar is
the craziness that has reportedly been coming From Eddie Jordan.
From Stephen A. Smith's article:
"Team sources confirmed on Friday that Iverson would be a starter because Jordan had planned on starting Williams with rookie Jrue Holiday anyway, just to put some excitement and more ball-handlers into his Princeton-style offense. So even once Williams returns from injury, he'd
be in the starting lineup with Iverson."
If that doesn't prove that Eddie Jordan is merely playing lip service to defense (or, perhaps even scarier, has no clue about defense), I don't know what else can. Iverson and Williams starting in the backcourt, with Thaddeus Young at the four is so poor defensively and on the glass it's
almost laughable. If that's what the head coach is thinking this team is in some serious long term trouble. Opposing guards will be penetrating at will, Philadelphia's problems defending the three will only get worse, and they'll
get killed on a nightly basis on the glass. But they'll be more exciting!
The thought of moving Thaddeus Young back to the power forward spot to accommodate this change also, in my mind, is another reason this move could stunt the long term development of one of this team's core players. It has
become clear that Young is not a long-term solution at power forward and asking him to change his position (and hence his role) yet again only delays the development of the 21-year-old's future at his true position, small forward.
Short-term Gain Not Worth Long-term Penalty
Also from Smith's report:
"Eddie needs a playmaker," another source said. "He needs an identity. Something to create some excitement."
...
"But let's face it: We're very, very boring right now," a team source said. "We have absolutely nothing to lose by bringing Iverson back. Nothing at all."
There you have it. If this does come to fruition, this is a purely financial decision made to generate excitement. But it smacks of a move made out of desperation, moves which rarely turn out well. This does nothing to enhance the long-term success of the team, perhaps even
greatly stunts the teams development, and will not fix their attendance problems. That can only be fixed by acquiring and developing talent that can work together as a cohesive group. If the Sixers brass thinks this is a good for the team, then I question their ability to lead the Sixers.
Generating a circus atmosphere should not be the goal of the organization, but it seems they are likely to do so in order to increase the bottom line.
Let's hope Ed Stefanski has the vision and wherewithal to not succumb to that temptation.
--Derek Bodner can be reached at derek.bodner@phillyarena.com |
