Absolutely.
One of the funner things I've read is this semi-acknowledgment that maybe Embiid's window is like 3-4 years tops so the Kings picks aren't very attractive.
Is it possible they are shipping the wrong guy?
It's an interesting question! The obvious rule of thumb is that you
never trade a superstar in his prime, not unless there are mitigating circumstances or irreconcilable differences that result from a trade demand, locker room toxicity, career-jeopardizing health concerns, etc. And with Embiid, there are legitimate concerns about his health and longevity. Honestly, the Sixers give themselves a better shot at a title with Joel Embiid across the next few seasons than without him. But, hypothetically speaking, what if Morey were to look at the market for Ben Simmons, blanch at trading a strong asset just entering his prime for pennies on the dollar, then pivot to the extremely risky maneuver of trading Joel Embiid instead?
Given the terrible fit between Embiid/Simmons and their peak result of multiple second round exits, do the Sixers ultimately look better with a lineup that features Embiid + whatever you can get for Simmons at rock-bottom-value, or with a lineup that features Simmons + the haul you would presumably get for Joel Embiid coming off an MVP-caliber season? Setting aside the ludicrousness of shipping out your best player to accommodate your second-best player, I think it's still a reasonable question. Simmons is younger and healthier than Embiid, and your window would get considerably longer if you could find a way to build a contender around Simmons. It's psychotic, of course. Again, who the hell trades a superstar in his prime when there's no internal or external pressure to do so? Even a notoriously trigger-happy GM like Morey wouldn't entertain such a notion. But what a pivot that would be!