I wouldn't be talking about either team if their franchise pieces are missing, that's not how we go about this, we assume best case scenario where everyone is healthy and in that scenario we know who has the better players.
The entire point of me layering an alternative outcome of Embiid being out of the picture is to show you the 76ers would have considerably less foundation to work with (as opposed to Celtics being without theirs), to point out how all their eggs are in a one [broken] basket. After all, aren't we talking about the future of their 76ers as a whole? The 76ers are completely reliant upon Embiid staying healthy and turning into a superstar (else they're essentially going back to square one), the Celtics are not reliant on ONE player, which is why I don't see your logic in how "
long term the Sixers & Bucks will put a rain on their parade".
It simply doesn't make any sense.
Greater coaching, greater top-end talent*, better FO, better environment, provability, and visible success is all in the Celtics' favor - that's what long-term success is built on, and remains, regardless of what misfortune a franchise finds themselves dealing with.
And I don't know why you're talking about "best case scenario" when you haven't applied it to the Celtics, in the same manner.
This would be like removing Hakeem from the equation to say the Suns had the better team than them without Barkley, I mean it's true but at the end of the day the Rockets had Hakeem. You can remove JoJo from the equation when he's no longer able to play at a high level, until then he swings the balance towards the Sixers.
He really doesn't.
I'd be inclined to agree with you if his surroundings were equal to that of Boston's, but they're not. If you want to argue that Philly has more
potential because they have the best player, I most certainly wouldn't argue against that, but that's not what we're discussing here. Embiid may give Philly a higher ceiling as their teams now stand, but Boston's ceiling is much more assured than theirs.
For you to suggest that Philly (and the Bucks) are going to "rain on the parade" of Celtics in the long-term, is basically you saying Embiid's going to have a long, healthy career with little-to-no setbacks, Fultz will come back from his shoulder and yips and be a star piece, Simmons will continue to progress, behind a strong FO and top-end coaching that'll put the necessary pieces around them to succeed. All the while, Kyrie's prime is cut short and/or gets injured, Tatum and/or Brown fail to get any better or leave for greener pastures, Hayward's play regresses or becomes a non-factor, Stevens' ability to coach is swallowed by a black hole of amnesia and the Celtics org. fail to put the proper pieces around or fail to sign any stars in the future.
You're basically suggesting everything will go right for the 76ers, and nothing will go right for the Celtics. Which not only goes against any sense of pragmaticism, but it goes against the very state both teams are in at the moment.
Beloved, you're not getting it on this one, the draft pick belongs to the Sixers right now, if the draft were today the Sixers would be drafting 9th and keeping the pick. If the pick falls, it means they don't get it which turns into it the less valuable 2019 pick.
Yes, I'm well aware of this, which again, it doesn't matter where it falls because they can still use it as a package for a big man, if it doesn't fall to them in this year's draft. It's still a valuable asset, regardless. In fact, it's actually more valuable for a team looking to rebuild in 2019, because they'll receive the more favourable pick from Philly/Sac, with only a 1st-pick protection.
Lets keep this civil, more sure with the rock than CP3
More like, more drivel drivel, oh my bad, I meant more dribble dribble.