Poll: Were Sixers wise to take $148M gamble on Joel Embiid?
Philadelphia 76ers general manager Bryan Colangelo made a bold gamble on franchise center Joel Embiid.
A series of serious injuries have limited Embiid to just 31 appearances over three seasons, but Colangelo nevertheless reportedly awarded the affable Cameroonian with a maximum extension worth $148 million on Monday night.
Were the Sixers wise to lock down their franchise player for the next half-decade, or did they jump the gun by making a massive commitment on a chronically injured center?
Yes, Embiid's talent is worth the money
It's hard to overstate just now dominant Embiid was in his long-awaited rookie season. He was truly a game-changing force on both ends of the floor.
Embiid scored with ease to the tune of 28.7 points per 36 minutes. He was dominant in the post, flashing a knack for both finesse finishes and overpowering physicality. He also hit 37 percent when he stretched beyond the 3-point arc, and teased an impressive set of handles for a big man. The rookie routinely made veteran defenders look foolish with his Dream Shake.
He made an even bigger impact on defense. Embiid recorded 3.5 blocks per 36 minutes while limiting opponents to a stingy 40.8 percent shooting at the rim. That mark topped Defensive Player of the Year finalists Rudy Gobert (43.8) and Draymond Green (43.9), while Embiid also challenged a higher rate of shots per minute.
Or put it this way: Philadelphia somehow outscored opponents by 67 in the 786 minutes that Embiid played; otherwise they were minus 534. Embiid single-handedly turned a roster of washed up veterans and inexperienced prospects into a respectable side.
There's also the bigger picture to consider. Locking in a potential superstar gives the Sixers a tangible foundation to build upon over the next half-decade. Embiid is the crown jewel of all of Sam Hinkie's cynical tanking and Embiid deserved a chance to see this through.
No, gambling on Embiid's injury-wrecked body is silly
The downside to this deal is obvious: Embiid can't seem to stay healthy. He broke his foot twice and had his meniscus removed in the last three years.
Embiid has played just 31 games since 2014 and yet that somehow oversells his performance. Those 31 appearances were cherry picked as carefully as possible. He was held out of back-to-backs and had his minutes capped at 25 per game, but even that formula couldn't keep Embiid on the court.
To put his limited resume into perspective, Embiid's career total of 786 minutes is roughly a quarter of the amount of time James Harden logged just last season alone. Did that really warrant a $148-million gamble?
It wasn't as if the Sixers were deciding between keeping or losing Embiid. He has one year left on his rookie deal and would become a restricted free agent next summer, so Philadelphia held all the cards. Embiid wasn't going anywhere.
If the Sixers believed in his abilities to the point of awarding him the maximum allowable salary, why not give Embiid another year to show he can stay healthy? Where was the downside in that?
And if Embiid doesn't pan out due to chronically poor health, there's potential franchise cornerstones in Ben Simmons and Markelle Fultz waiting in the wings. That's not exactly a disaster.