Sixers: 3 players who could get traded in offseason

Furkan Korkmaz, Sixers (Photo by Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)
Furkan Korkmaz, Sixers (Photo by Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images) /
2 of 3
(Photo by Christian Petersen/Getty Images)
(Photo by Christian Petersen/Getty Images) /

3 players the Sixers could trade in the offseason: Danny Green

Danny Green‘s season ended in the most unfortunate manner imaginable, with Joel Embiid tumbling headlong into his leg and tearing both his ACL and his LCL. Now the 35-year-old Green faces a lengthy rehab and serious concern over his future in the NBA. The Sixers face a choice: bring back Green, whose $10 million contract for next season in non-guaranteed, or clear his cap hit from the books.

Ideally, the Sixers have a real basketball-related plan here. Either bring Green back, get him paid for good measure, and look to trade his expiring contract, or let him go as part of a larger plan to clear significant cap space (more on that later). What the Sixers shouldn’t do is let Green walk to avoid the luxury tax. It would be more palatable to pay him, plus his contract is quite the useful tool for Morey and the front office. Again, with no real cap space to maneuver with, the Sixers’ best chance at bringing back an impact player is via trade.

If you combine Green’s $10 million and Korkmaz’s $5 million, then that’s $15 million of salary to dangle on the trade market. You might not get another star for that money, but you could fill out the bench or find a quality fifth starter for that money. Even if Green doesn’t get to spend his season rehabbing in Philadelphia, this would also allow him to spend his time rehabbing with the added financial security of $10 million in the bank. It’s win-win for team and player.

It will be fascinating to see how the Sixers ultimately handle Green’s contract. It could be a real litmus test for ownership’s desire to compete. You’re trying to maximize Joel Embiid’s window right now. Letting $10 million walk out the door for tax purposes would be pretty disheartening.