PDA

View Full Version : There Will Never Be Another Process, or a GM Job for Sam Hinkie



warfelg
02-21-2018, 09:40 AM
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2759830-there-will-never-be-another-process-or-a-gm-job-for-sam-hinkie?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=programming-national

IMO this article really does prove why there are so many terrible teams and few good teams in the NBA right now. The article is from Ric Bucher, where he talked to some front office types. This is one of those instances where I wish he would have to attach names to who said what.

Some of the quotes from the article:

"I have respect for what he did because he had a plan and he stuck with it," said one Western Conference GM who spoke favorably of Hinkie. "It took balls to do what he did. I do [view what he did as a success.] But if they hadn't drafted Embiid, the experiment would've been a colossal failure. Look at their record when he's out. If Embiid can't stay healthy, they'll be horrible."

So as a Sixers fan, point of contention here. Yes we would be horrible because he's a stud and the team is built to work around him and his unique skillset. He is the go to player. He's also great defensively, and that's something we gave up in Noel when we stupidly traded him. More on that later.


"They didn't have to be that bad," one owner said. "It was just over the top. It was a disservice to their players. They weren't given a chance to be any good. Their owners said to me, 'We didn't have to be that bad.'"

The NBA apparently told the 76ers to tone down their unbridled effort to lose.

"The league office told them multiple times, 'It's too much,'" a second Western Conference GM said. "Sam didn't come up with anything original. People have been [tanking] for years. They just didn't go to the extremes Sam did. The league doesn't care if you win 22 games; they just don't want you winning 15. It's optics. He rubbed everybody's nose in it to the point the league had to do something."

Again another point of contention here; we only finished with the worse record 1 time in Hinkie's time with the Sixers. So how can we be rubbing everybody's nose in it if we only had the worse record one time?


His former peers fall roughly into three camps—those who say the experiment failed because the multiple years of losing haven't lifted the 76ers above mediocrity yet, those who believe it's still too early to tell and those who consider the experiment over because Hinkie is no longer conducting it.

IMO the ones saying that it failed because we haven't lifted above mediocrity yet are idiots.


He set the tone right from his first draft, dealing All-Star point guard Jrue Holiday to New Orleans for two first-round picks, the first of which he spent on Nerlens Noel at No. 6. He then used the Sixers' own pick to take point guard Michael Carter-Williams at No. 11.

To the GMs consulted at the Phil Knight tournament, selecting Carter-Williams was a whiff, since the Sixers could've had one of two quality big men—Thunder center Steven Adams (12th) or All-Pro Jazz center Rudy Gobert (27th)—and All-Pro point forward Giannis Antetokounmpo (15th). What the GMs didn't take into account, though, is that Hinkie moved Carter-Williams before his Rookie of the Year honor lost its luster for what is now the Lakers' 2018 first-round pick. Sure, Hinkie missed the chance to take a true superstar in Antetokounmpo, but he also acquired a lottery pick for a role player now on his fourth team.

While Hinkie didn't trade Noel, Colangelo did, sending him to the Dallas Mavericks at last year's trade deadline for Justin Anderson, a pair of conditional second-round picks and Andrew Bogut's expiring contract. After falling out of Dallas head coach Rick Carlisle's rotation this season, Noel was caught sneaking into the media room at halftime to eat a hot dog. Soon afterward, the Mavericks announced Noel was undergoing surgery on his thumb and would miss several weeks.

Again this shows the shortsightedness of NBA FO types.....they mock us for taking MCW over Adams, Gobert, and Antetokoumpo. Well we 'drafted' Noel already at that point; so why would we take Adams or Gobert? That stupid thinking to say "well those guys are good now so you should have drafted them". Like the article says, if we take Antetokoumpo, whats the odds we flip him a little later for a high lotto pick? 0. Ignoring the resulting trade and how it impacted shows the way FO types think and how short their thinking is.


Beyond the inconsistent production of the Sixers' lottery selections, the GMs also questioned the return from Hinkie's accumulation of second-round picks. In three drafts, Hinkie collected and used 12 second-round picks, but only one (Richaun Holmes) is currently on the roster. On the other hand, two undrafted players—Robert Covington and TJ McConnell—not only stuck but are part of the regular rotation. Covington has started at small forward the last two seasons, while McConnell is a backup point guard who often is part of Philadelphia's finishing lineup.

Ok this is stupid. (1) There's some of our other 2nd round picks floating around the NBA right now. (2) So these FO guys are saying they hit on more than 1/12 of their 2nd round picks? GTFO with that.


"Was it all worth it?" the front office executive of a perennial playoff team said. "You have to spend some time in the middle of it to know what they went through to say that for sure. But you have two guys who have already bounced out in Nerlens and Jahlil, so you can't say they nailed it."

That's one assessment. A younger Western Conference GM who believes Hinkie's approach had merit had a sunnier view: "Embiid is the centerpiece. He's a monster if he stays healthy. It all rests on his shoulders."

Again, Nerlens was bounced by Colangelo....he was performing here, so how was that on Hinkie? That should be on Colangelo for not making a move sooner to get better value or keeping him. At this point Jahlil Okafor is just a bust, so getting anything for him....that's not bouncing a guy out, that's making something out of nothing.


While Hinkie's critics acknowledge drafting talent is an inexact science that no team has mastered, an array of agents, executives, owners and former Sixers employees took the greatest issue with his administrative skills.

Oh nowwwww that's said, but it's still ok to bash the guy over?


"When guys started getting in trouble, there was no structure or adult supervision," an agent said in reference to Okafor's reckless driving incident and several bar fights. "He had zero management over the players. They didn't go to meetings, and they were late for everything."

The perennially playoff-bound front office executive had a similar impression.

"They didn't put much structure in place there," he said. "That's the problem with an approach like that, when your decisions are based strictly on numbers. You're not evaluating culture and character. There's so much that has to be handled when your team is that young. You've got to have support that's beyond the wheelhouse—personal development, professional development, familial management."[QUOTE]

Completely the opposite of what every player who spent time here has said.

[QUOTE]Some paid him back by refusing to share information with him or provide access to their players, no matter where they were expected to fall in the draft. Porzingis' refusal to visit or work out for Philly is one example; league sources say Hinkie also didn't have full access to Okafor's medical records prior to drafting him.

"The environment was so toxic that agents, schools and teams wanted nothing to do with him," the second Western Conference GM said.

Executives who have spent time with Hinkie insist he was aloof by choice, not by nature.

"Sam could've helped himself by cultivating relationships," the first Western Conference GM said. "He has more personality than the public really knows."

While I get that having better relationships could have helped Hinkie; associating that draft and Porzingis and Okafor's situations as a relationship problem is just beyond stupid and horrible journalism by Boucher. Those guys refused to do so because we already had Nerlens and Embiid, and the agent (at the time) for Nerlens and Porz were the same guy, and Okafor's agent didn't want him here because he knew it would be an uphill battle.


"They clearly changed the rules on Sam," the longtime front office executive said. "That wasn't all on him. If he lasts five more months, maybe it all looks different and he is given credit for what they're doing now."

I'm guessing this has to be someone like RC Beuford or Jerry West because they have been supporters of Hinkie.

These aren't actually quotes, but the might as well be:
966101327905525760
966103176704339972

The question here isn't do you think that the Process worked, but rather what do you think of the reaction by GM's when talking about if it worked or didn't? Personally I think some of what they said is justified, but a lot of it comes off rather bitter.

Vinylman
02-21-2018, 09:59 AM
sour grapes by other GM's Hinkie wasn't perfect but his approach was damn near perfect.

Like I said when they let him go ... Colangelo will eventually **** it all up and I still believe he has made some seriously bad decisions when it comes to trades that Hinkie never would have.

Philly has an opportunity to be real good if players stay healthy and progress in a normal way...

That is a result of the process not removing Hinkie

More-Than-Most
02-21-2018, 10:03 AM
sour grapes by other GM's Hinkie wasn't perfect but his approach was damn near perfect.

Like I said when they let him go ... Colangelo will eventually **** it all up and I still believe he has made some seriously bad decisions when it comes to trades that Hinkie never would have.

Philly has an opportunity to be real good if players stay healthy and progress in a normal way...

That is a result of the process not removing Hinkie

didnt cuban just come out and admit he was tanking as well?

Scoots
02-21-2018, 10:26 AM
Hinkie was different in that he made it clear they were tanking ... that is the "rubbing peoples noses in it" part and it's true, he did.

Did it work? Maybe.

I thought it was really interesting and it actually invigorated the league because Hinkie made the Sixers a dumping ground for overpaid players, it would just cost you a draft pick or two to get rid of that bad contract.

I've said elsewhere that there are deals people are unwilling to do because it makes it evident that the team is in a multi-year tank ... but if you are going to tank for multiple years and try to hide it it's not really maximizing the strategy. Hinkie had balls, and he did short change it ... and he shouldn't have been fired. The Sixers would, I have no doubt, be in better shape now if Hinkie was still there.

Giannis94
02-21-2018, 10:58 AM
I feel like Hinkie's process was elongated becacause he continually picked guys that wouldn't play. Specifically higher-end picks

Embi and Saric in one class . Everyone knew Saric wasn't gonna come over, Noel, and now the new regime picked Fultz.

I know I shouldn't be talking about the 76ers. But they did the benefit of the doubt by the players not being contributors. Embi, saric, etc. all are good enough where they would probably keep the 76ers in more compettive games their first year.

mike_noodles
02-21-2018, 11:18 AM
I have zero issues withi Hinkie's approach. If the NBA doesn't like it then they need to find a way to stop super teams from assembling. Because if you aren't in one of the major attractive markets, the only way to get a super team is to draft and develop them yourself. 3 all star players don't just come to join a crappy team in a crappy city.

Vinylman
02-21-2018, 11:21 AM
Hinkie was different in that he made it clear they were tanking ... that is the "rubbing peoples noses in it" part and it's true, he did.

Did it work? Maybe.

I thought it was really interesting and it actually invigorated the league because Hinkie made the Sixers a dumping ground for overpaid players, it would just cost you a draft pick or two to get rid of that bad contract.

I've said elsewhere that there are deals people are unwilling to do because it makes it evident that the team is in a multi-year tank ... but if you are going to tank for multiple years and try to hide it it's not really maximizing the strategy. Hinkie had balls, and he did short change it ... and he shouldn't have been fired. The Sixers would, I have no doubt, be in better shape now if Hinkie was still there.

There is zero doubt in my mind that the bolded is the case ....

Colangelo is old school and doesn't really understand value like Hinkie and has made some poor decisions... some by inaction and others by action. The Fultz trade is a prime example ... not because Fultz might bust or isn't playing (to early to say on that). Just that he gave up to much to move up to take him... no one in this past draft is transcendent and deserved an extra top 10 pick in the next draft to secure.

I also think Hinkie gets more value out of Noel/okafor than Colangelo did... I also think he probably would have traded Covington for the right price/piece

ewing
02-21-2018, 11:33 AM
Good

Young$avage
02-21-2018, 11:39 AM
Basketball is a business though. Of course, the goal is to be competitive, sell tickets, make money... but sometimes you gotta take an L up front to set up for the dubya on the back end.

KnicksorBust
02-21-2018, 12:39 PM
sour grapes by other GM's Hinkie wasn't perfect but his approach was damn near perfect.

Like I said when they let him go ... Colangelo will eventually **** it all up and I still believe he has made some seriously bad decisions when it comes to trades that Hinkie never would have.

Philly has an opportunity to be real good if players stay healthy and progress in a normal way...

That is a result of the process not removing Hinkie

Well said. You can critique any GM for mistakes. But at the end of the day it is about results and in my opinion he gets credit for Simmons, Saric, and Embiid and those 3 together are the best young core in the NBA and can win a championship. If you told any Sixers fan 5 years ago that's what Hinkie would give them they would kiss his feet.

KingPosey
02-21-2018, 01:04 PM
I applaud his guts to openly go for it with zero apologies, but he didn't do anything innovative. He just didn't mask his agenda with false words or an extra 4 wins.

I will say pulling him at the 10 yard line was stupid, and Colangelo has butchered some stuff, like losing a ton of value on some of their bigs for really no reason. But it looks like they have two legitimate cornerstone talents, IF they can stay healthy, which isn't a sure thing with Embiid.

**** dude my King's haven't drafted one franchise changing talent in like 20 years or so, whenever we drafted Peja.

Scoots
02-21-2018, 05:04 PM
I applaud his guts to openly go for it with zero apologies, but he didn't do anything innovative. He just didn't mask his agenda with false words or an extra 4 wins.

I will say pulling him at the 10 yard line was stupid, and Colangelo has butchered some stuff, like losing a ton of value on some of their bigs for really no reason. But it looks like they have two legitimate cornerstone talents, IF they can stay healthy, which isn't a sure thing with Embiid.

**** dude my King's haven't drafted one franchise changing talent in like 20 years or so, whenever we drafted Peja.

He did do some innovative things though. Because he was so blatant about it he was able to pick up so many picks just taking on bad veteran contracts one after the other. No other GM has ever come CLOSE to doing it the way Hinkie did. Hinkie literally changed the mid-season trade market and reinvigorated other teams seasons in cap hell by being that pressure valve. It had never happened before and it's unlikely to ever happen again the way he did it because no other GM is likely to essentially announce a planned multi-year tank which is what everybody knows it is when you start taking on non-expiring bad contracts.

C-ross12
02-21-2018, 05:25 PM
I have zero issues withi Hinkie's approach. If the NBA doesn't like it then they need to find a way to stop super teams from assembling. Because if you aren't in one of the major attractive markets, the only way to get a super team is to draft and develop them yourself. 3 all star players don't just come to join a crappy team in a crappy city.

Agreed. When you have your best NBA players going to the best NBA teams, you have to have a dramatic plan in place to compete. It the NBA doesn't want teams to tank like that, they need to totally revamp the FA and draft process.

Hustla23
02-21-2018, 06:50 PM
Hinkie was a forward thinking G.M. who actually tried to innovate in regards to team building concepts rather than just trot out the same ol' rehashed philosophies over and over again.

The Sixers got rid of him too soon. No doubt in my mind that he wouldn't most likely have been doing a better job with all those assets than Colangelo has up to this point.

An example of the resistance to change in the status quo in today's league is Scott Perry, who is unfortunately the G.M. of the Knicks. This fool just absolutely refuses to tank despite the Knicks being horrible and continuously cites superficial platitudes like "building a winning culture" as the rationalization behind his idiotic moves. The Knicks are losing so many games in spite of this completely clueless guy purposely trying to win which kind of speaks to how horrible of a G.M. he is.

LeonFSU
02-21-2018, 07:22 PM
I guess having idiotic, short-sighted general managers is a win for everyone (except fans ). Players like Mahinmi, Biyombo, Solomon Hill and Tim Hardaway get paid a ton; their agents profit. Those teams look like they're "trying" to win games, which maybe sells a few more tickets for awhile . GMs continue to have jobs because the standard around the league is so low.

Scoots
02-21-2018, 08:02 PM
Agreed. When you have your best NBA players going to the best NBA teams, you have to have a dramatic plan in place to compete. It the NBA doesn't want teams to tank like that, they need to totally revamp the FA and draft process.

Nah ... it's all about the owners. The best owners win, the worst owners lose. Twas ever thus. Until the NBA finds some way to either make owners better or get rid of them there will always be haves and have nots in the NBA talent pool.

Scoots
02-21-2018, 08:03 PM
Basketball is a business though. Of course, the goal is to make money.

Fixed it for you.

Scoots
02-21-2018, 08:05 PM
I guess having idiotic, short-sighted general managers is a win for everyone (except fans ). Players like Mahinmi, Biyombo, Solomon Hill and Tim Hardaway get paid a ton; their agents profit. Those teams look like they're "trying" to win games, which maybe sells a few more tickets for awhile . GMs continue to have jobs because the standard around the league is so low.

Well, that and fans keep buying it, and the owners/GMs know they will keep buying it because what other choice do they have?

warfelg
02-21-2018, 11:38 PM
Well, that and fans keep buying it, and the owners/GMs know they will keep buying it because what other choice do they have?

Sadly I put the shortsightedness more on that than anything. Fans buy false hope too easily.

More-Than-Most
02-22-2018, 01:45 AM
Hinkie was a forward thinking G.M. who actually tried to innovate in regards to team building concepts rather than just trot out the same ol' rehashed philosophies over and over again.

The Sixers got rid of him too soon. No doubt in my mind that he wouldn't most likely have been doing a better job with all those assets than Colangelo has up to this point.

An example of the resistance to change in the status quo in today's league is Scott Perry, who is unfortunately the G.M. of the Knicks. This fool just absolutely refuses to tank despite the Knicks being horrible and continuously cites superficial platitudes like "building a winning culture" as the rationalization behind his idiotic moves. The Knicks are losing so many games in spite of this completely clueless guy purposely trying to win which kind of speaks to how horrible of a G.M. he is.

We really had no choice but basically every sixer fan agrees... We think The colangelos are old school thinking trash and they proved it with how they handled Okafor/Noel.... If this gets messed up it wont be because of Embiids health but because of the colangelos.

I am alright with trading for fultz and giving up the lakers or kings pick going forward... Fultz is our perfect fit and has the most upside at the time.

Vinylman
02-22-2018, 06:55 AM
Nah ... it's all about the owners. The best owners win, the worst owners lose. Twas ever thus. Until the NBA finds some way to either make owners better or get rid of them there will always be haves and have nots in the NBA talent pool.

SMFH...

If you don't see the structural problems with the league I feel sorry for you...

The NBA past 5 teams is a **** show at this point

tp13baby
02-22-2018, 09:43 AM
SMFH...

If you don't see the structural problems with the league I feel sorry for you...

The NBA past 5 teams is a **** show at this point

Exactly. Golden state fans act all high and mighty but the teams they go up against are nothing like the early 2000s on a night to night basis. GS doesn’t play a level like that on a nightly basis.

beasted86
02-22-2018, 09:49 AM
At this point, the Sixers were tanking to contend. How can the plan not be viewed as a failure since they aren't contending?

Washington did the same thing for several years post Gilbert Arenas just not as blatant as Philly. Neither team is contending or close to contending.

Assuming Philly can't attract a superstar this summer, their chance at building a contender are slim without Fultz doing a 180 spin-around and becoming superstar-like himself.

I see Philly as a Milwaukee team. Yes you have yourself a superstar, sure but they're not at all positioned to contend.

Scoots
02-22-2018, 10:27 AM
SMFH...

If you don't see the structural problems with the league I feel sorry for you...

The NBA past 5 teams is a **** show at this point

So if I make 1 point you think it automatically invalidates all other points others have made? My point is that bad owners always lose even with all the advantages they get, and good owners tend to win more on average. The best GMs are more willing to work for the better owners, better owners tend to have more stability, they spend money to maximize the team environment.

The Clippers had high pick after high pick after high pick underperform under Sterling, the Pelicans cheap owner has resulted in the players being injured more often because he had the football trainers training the basketball players too. Ownership matters.

Scoots
02-22-2018, 10:28 AM
Exactly. Golden state fans act all high and mighty but the teams they go up against are nothing like the early 2000s on a night to night basis. GS doesn’t play a level like that on a nightly basis.

Nothing I said had anything to do with the Warriors, and I was saying the same thing when the Warriors sucked.

My point is, and has been, that no matter the rules there will be a few teams that take better advantage of the rules, and the key is ownership.

Scoots
02-22-2018, 10:31 AM
At this point, the Sixers were tanking to contend. How can the plan not be viewed as a failure since they aren't contending?

Washington did the same thing for several years post Gilbert Arenas just not as blatant as Philly. Neither team is contending or close to contending.

Assuming Philly can't attract a superstar this summer, their chance at building a contender are slim without Fultz doing a 180 spin-around and becoming superstar-like himself.

I see Philly as a Milwaukee team. Yes you have yourself a superstar, sure but they're not at all positioned to contend.

Declaring a 7 year plan a failure after 4 is a reach.

warfelg
02-22-2018, 10:42 AM
Declaring a 7 year plan a failure after 4 is a reach.

Also declaring a team with 3 starters (4 if Fultz was playing) and 3 other players on rookie contracts a failure and not positioned to contend is a reach IMO.

Really think about it....still playing on rookie contracts on this team are: Embiid, Simmons, Saric, TJ McConnell, Justin Anderson, Richaun Holmes, Robert Covington (technically). Other guys on rookie contracts that haven't played or are developing: Markelle Fultz, Timothy Luwawu-Cabarrot, Furkan Korkmaz. Amir Johnson, JJ Reddick, Trevor Booker all come off the books at the end of this season.

How is a team still that young a failure?

3 guys that were counted on to be the cornerstones have still yet to play a full season. 3 main contributor guys still haven't played more than 3 seasons.

Only with Philly would people say it's a failure as opposed to something on the upswing.

The Timberwolves last year were almost exactly like this years Sixers, and everyone talked about them being up and coming. But this year with the Sixers it's "I'm not sure how much further they will go".

.....And people wonder why we're defensive.

Vinylman
02-22-2018, 10:50 AM
So if I make 1 point you think it automatically invalidates all other points others have made? My point is that bad owners always lose even with all the advantages they get, and good owners tend to win more on average. The best GMs are more willing to work for the better owners, better owners tend to have more stability, they spend money to maximize the team environment.

The Clippers had high pick after high pick after high pick underperform under Sterling, the Pelicans cheap owner has resulted in the players being injured more often because he had the football trainers training the basketball players too. Ownership matters.

you gave 1 valid example (the clippers). the pelicans have no financial resources ....

You can have great ownership and still not get the desired results because of the structural problems in the league...

What is better for parity (hell I would settle for 8 high quality teams)...

1. Hard cap or no hard cap
2. Max contracts or no max contracts
3. Salary exceptions BAE/MLE/TPE or no salary exceptions other than the vets min
4. Extension restrictions or no extension restrictions

The league is a **** show ... I don't necessarily blame you for not seeing it... it is hard to have perspective when you are looking down from the mountain top :p

Vinylman
02-22-2018, 10:51 AM
at this point, the sixers were tanking to contend. How can the plan not be viewed as a failure since they aren't contending?

Washington did the same thing for several years post gilbert arenas just not as blatant as philly. Neither team is contending or close to contending.

Assuming philly can't attract a superstar this summer, their chance at building a contender are slim without fultz doing a 180 spin-around and becoming superstar-like himself.

I see philly as a milwaukee team. Yes you have yourself a superstar, sure but they're not at all positioned to contend.

sigh!

warfelg
02-22-2018, 11:03 AM
you gave 1 valid example (the clippers). the pelicans have no financial resources ....

You can have great ownership and still not get the desired results because of the structural problems in the league...

What is better for parity (hell I would settle for 8 high quality teams)...

1. Hard cap or no hard cap
2. Max contracts or no max contracts
3. Salary exceptions BAE/MLE/TPE or no salary exceptions other than the vets min
4. Extension restrictions or no extension restrictions

The league is a **** show ... I don't necessarily blame you for not seeing it... it is hard to have perspective when you are looking down from the mountain top :p

I've said it a few times, but there's things to "fix" the issue while making both sides happy.

I've said a few times a cap+2 system would work amazingly. Basically a hard cap for 13-15 players, and every team has the ability to pay 2 guys whatever they want outside the cap as long as they drafted or traded for the player. Otherwise you have to find a way to fit them under the cap.

Of they don't want that:
Get rid of every exemption that's not the MLE and make it that you can't be in the tax to use it. Put qualifications on the max (for achievements) so owners don't stupidly hand it out to anyone. Seriously. The only reason half of RFA's get a max offer is to try to screw the team holding rights. The max for RFA's should be seriously different for the team holding rights vs teams not holding it.

Something I would love to see: Pick compensation for letting RFA's sign with another team or for losing FA's. NFL, MLB, NHL all have it in place and it's (IMO) part of the reason that they have the necessary parity (Not to mention the fact that 1 player doesn't have as big of an impact). What if you had to give up a top 10 protected 1st and a 2nd in order to sign a RFA? What if letting a FA walk gave you an extra pick.

What if OKC got an after lotto pick in 2017 for losing KD in 2016 FA? Utah gets 15th pick (bumping everyone else back one) for losing Hayward?

I'm not suggesting having 5-10 of these every year, but rather 1-3 for the top FA's available.

And I would add that if you lost a max FA (only way you get this) you can't bring in a max FA and still get the pick.

Giannis94
02-22-2018, 11:30 AM
What do you..guys think about my post earlier and how I said they kinda got lucky? I mean i think it was a valid point

warfelg
02-22-2018, 11:34 AM
What do you..guys think about my post earlier and how I said they kinda got lucky? I mean i think it was a valid point

So did Milwaukee, so did Garden State, so did Boston, so did many other teams.

Giannis94
02-22-2018, 11:42 AM
So did Milwaukee, so did Garden State, so did Boston, so did many other teams.

Cute. But I'm saying that Philly wouldn't have been so bad so long and the process isn't replicable because their top picks were injured or kept getting injured. Embi playing his first teo years keeps them put of the top 3 most likely. Noel used to be a beast and he probably does the same thing.

Vinylman
02-22-2018, 11:50 AM
I've said it a few times, but there's things to "fix" the issue while making both sides happy.

I've said a few times a cap+2 system would work amazingly. Basically a hard cap for 13-15 players, and every team has the ability to pay 2 guys whatever they want outside the cap as long as they drafted or traded for the player. Otherwise you have to find a way to fit them under the cap.

Of they don't want that:
Get rid of every exemption that's not the MLE and make it that you can't be in the tax to use it. Put qualifications on the max (for achievements) so owners don't stupidly hand it out to anyone. Seriously. The only reason half of RFA's get a max offer is to try to screw the team holding rights. The max for RFA's should be seriously different for the team holding rights vs teams not holding it.

Something I would love to see: Pick compensation for letting RFA's sign with another team or for losing FA's. NFL, MLB, NHL all have it in place and it's (IMO) part of the reason that they have the necessary parity (Not to mention the fact that 1 player doesn't have as big of an impact). What if you had to give up a top 10 protected 1st and a 2nd in order to sign a RFA? What if letting a FA walk gave you an extra pick.

What if OKC got an after lotto pick in 2017 for losing KD in 2016 FA? Utah gets 15th pick (bumping everyone else back one) for losing Hayward?

I'm not suggesting having 5-10 of these every year, but rather 1-3 for the top FA's available.

And I would add that if you lost a max FA (only way you get this) you can't bring in a max FA and still get the pick.

all good ideas ... the real issue is teams who are in the tax can continue to improve their teams SIGNIFICANTLY through these exceptions and ridiculous cap rules ... the newest one is signing a guy to a 3 or 4 year deal with only the first two years guaranteed and having a buyout in year 3 of say $1 million on a $15 million deal knowing they are never going to see year 3 just to create an asset (ie another work around) to create trades or even create a TPE out of it

In the above example you trade a guy in the offseason after year 2 for a bag of doughnuts to a team with lots of cap before FA... the trading team creates a $15 million TPE out of it and the purchasing team just renounces the option during the moratorium and poof the original team has a massive asset

warfelg
02-22-2018, 11:56 AM
Cute. But I'm saying that Philly wouldn't have been so bad so long and the process isn't replicable because their top picks were injured or kept getting injured. Embi playing his first teo years keeps them put of the top 3 most likely. Noel used to be a beast and he probably does the same thing.

Noel doesn’t do the same thing seeing as he did play and we got a top 3 pick.

Now that that’s out of the way:
Picking injured players isn’t luck. We know Noel is likely out the year is a risk not luck. Picking Embiid knowing he’s out at least a year is a risk not luck. Teams willing to pass on those guys because of the injuries is luck. Orlando falling for the ploy of the Saric trade is luck. What wasn’t luck was Saric signing that new deal for two years before the draft. What was luck was no one willing to wait.

Your combining luck and patience to make one thing.

Scoots
02-22-2018, 12:00 PM
you gave 1 valid example (the clippers). the pelicans have no financial resources ....

You can have great ownership and still not get the desired results because of the structural problems in the league...

What is better for parity (hell I would settle for 8 high quality teams)...

1. Hard cap or no hard cap
2. Max contracts or no max contracts
3. Salary exceptions BAE/MLE/TPE or no salary exceptions other than the vets min
4. Extension restrictions or no extension restrictions

The league is a **** show ... I don't necessarily blame you for not seeing it... it is hard to have perspective when you are looking down from the mountain top :p

In my experience no matter what the rules are a few teams will rise to the top and stay there and ownership is often the difference. Yes, the rules could change and it might make a difference but every time there has been a rule change we end up back here because teams do it better.

And like I said, I had the same opinion when the Warriors were a joke. I watched the 49ers go from a joke, change owners, become great, change owners and become a joke again.

As for the Pelicans having no financial resources ... Tom Benson owns the Saints and the Pelicans and is worth $3B ... he could spend money on the teams if he wanted to.

beasted86
02-22-2018, 12:05 PM
Declaring a 7 year plan a failure after 4 is a reach.

This is the 5th year. Do you envision the Sixers contending top 3 in the conference within the next 2 years?

If yes, great. You win. If not, then how is the plan not a failure?

beasted86
02-22-2018, 12:11 PM
Also declaring a team with 3 starters (4 if Fultz was playing) and 3 other players on rookie contracts a failure and not positioned to contend is a reach IMO.

Really think about it....still playing on rookie contracts on this team are: Embiid, Simmons, Saric, TJ McConnell, Justin Anderson, Richaun Holmes, Robert Covington (technically). Other guys on rookie contracts that haven't played or are developing: Markelle Fultz, Timothy Luwawu-Cabarrot, Furkan Korkmaz. Amir Johnson, JJ Reddick, Trevor Booker all come off the books at the end of this season.

How is a team still that young a failure?

3 guys that were counted on to be the cornerstones have still yet to play a full season. 3 main contributor guys still haven't played more than 3 seasons.

Only with Philly would people say it's a failure as opposed to something on the upswing.

The Timberwolves last year were almost exactly like this years Sixers, and everyone talked about them being up and coming. But this year with the Sixers it's "I'm not sure how much further they will go".

.....And people wonder why we're defensive.
We're not discussing whether Philly is on the upswing.

We're specifically discussing whether the egregious tanking was a valid strategy in building a contender (and not just a solid playoff team).

Time will tell all. LeBron could swiftly decline or get injured, switch teams, Raptors and Celtics similar, etc. But if you put a gun to your head and would bet your life on it, would you say Philly will play in a conference final in the next 2 or 3 years?

For me at this point that's a deadly bet.

warfelg
02-22-2018, 12:19 PM
Yes. I’m willing to.

Scoots
02-22-2018, 12:27 PM
This is the 5th year. Do you envision the Sixers contending top 3 in the conference within the next 2 years?

If yes, great. You win. If not, then how is the plan not a failure?

I said after 4 ... the 5th year IS after 4.

And yes, they can contend in the next 3 years.

Giannis94
02-22-2018, 12:49 PM
Noel doesn’t do the same thing seeing as he did play and we got a top 3 pick.

Now that that’s out of the way:
Picking injured players isn’t luck. We know Noel is likely out the year is a risk not luck. Picking Embiid knowing he’s out at least a year is a risk not luck. Teams willing to pass on those guys because of the injuries is luck. Orlando falling for the ploy of the Saric trade is luck. What wasn’t luck was Saric signing that new deal for two years before the draft. What was luck was no one willing to wait.

Your combining luck and patience to make one thing.

You guys made some great trades with LAc/Kings/Orlando. but I am not shocked at all that those are the teams that gave the picks away. Lakers gonna lakers. Kings gonna kings and magic are gonna magic.

warfelg
02-22-2018, 12:58 PM
You guys made some great trades with LAc/Kings/Orlando. but I am not shocked at all that those are the teams that gave the picks away. Lakers gonna lakers. Kings gonna kings and magic are gonna magic.

Actually we got that LAL pick from you guys....

smith&wesson
02-22-2018, 01:46 PM
They gave up MCW, Noel, Okafor. In all the years they tanked, they didn’t come away with great talent. We still have to see how Fults shapes out.

On the flip side they got Embid, Simmons, & Saric who are three very good gets from their drafts.

I think you can view this either way but in the long term it could all be worth it.

warfelg
02-22-2018, 02:07 PM
They gave up MCW, Noel, Okafor. In all the years they tanked, they didn’t come away with great talent. We still have to see how Fults shapes out.

On the flip side they got Embid, Simmons, & Saric who are three very good gets from their drafts.

I think you can view this either way but in the long term it could all be worth it.

Embiid, Simmons, Covington, TJ, Saric all came from the tanking. 1 currently franchise changing player, a potential other, 3 great role players. I would say we came away with a great pool from the tanking.

jimboslice15
02-22-2018, 03:24 PM
Embiid, Simmons, Covington, TJ, Saric all came from the tanking. 1 currently franchise changing player, a potential other, 3 great role players. I would say we came away with a great pool from the tanking.

Honestly, I don't think you should have to defend the Sixers nearly as much as you've been doing within this thread.

As a Knicks fan, I am envious of your teams current situation. Good young coach, tons of young assets, cap space...I wish we would have followed a similar model.

When you compare where the sixers were in 2013 with the 10 other teams that picked ahead of them in the lottery that year, you can see that they are much better positioned to win moving forward. Examples -
#2)Orlando Magic
#4)Charlotte Bobcats
#5)Phoenix Suns
#6)New Orleans Pelicans (traded to Philly)
#7)Sacramento Kings
#8) Detroit Pistons

All of these teams picked ahead of the sixers that year, and could have chosen to follow a similar process to rebuilding. However they did not, and what do they have to show for it?

Of the teams not mentioned are teams like Cleveland, who had the gift of Lebron James returning and saving the franchise, and then Washington, Portland and Minnesota... but Washington already had Wall & Beal at that point, Portland had Lillard and Minnesota got their piece in Towns the next year by winning the lottery. So for the 76ers, who did not have assets like the above mentioned, they maximized their probabilities of gaining similar assets in the future.

I guess my point here is that for a team that was in their current situation - middle of the road NBA team stuck in NBA purgatory - Hinkie made an extremely calculated, deliberate plan to create assets, and turned those assets into what is now a young, exciting NBA team.

I would argue that half the league, if not two-thirds, would trade their core pieces for the sixers core pieces... I think most rational people would consider that a successful rebuild...

Wrigheyes4MVP
02-22-2018, 04:50 PM
The 76ers didn't hit on a lot of their draft picks, but imagine if they did. The philosophy was the right one. The execution just wasn't the best.

With that said, they still got Simmons and Embiid out of it. If you have enough high draft picks, you're gonna hit on some of them.

warfelg
02-22-2018, 05:37 PM
The 76ers didn't hit on a lot of their draft picks, but imagine if they did. The philosophy was the right one. The execution just wasn't the best.

With that said, they still got Simmons and Embiid out of it. If you have enough high draft picks, you're gonna hit on some of them.

How many teams hit at a higher rate though?

PAOboston
02-22-2018, 05:47 PM
There are multiple ways to rebuild a team. Hinkie went full build through the draft though. The losing on purpose was obvious and I think that was the issue with other owners.

IF Embiid stays healthy, I don't think it matters. Of course, that is still a massive question mark. Simmons is 2nd year player who may or may not turn out to be great. Time will tell. Ditto for Fultz (will he ever remember how to shoot?).

Overall, I would be slightly underwhelmed at the results at this point. So many lottery picks and so few have actually panned out. I understand the draft is a crap shoot but it makes you wonder if Philly could have done a better job. For example, they could have been better off by maybe not drafting 3 centers in a row. It feels like some of that was self inflicted.

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk

warfelg
02-22-2018, 06:28 PM
There are multiple ways to rebuild a team. Hinkie went full build through the draft though. The losing on purpose was obvious and I think that was the issue with other owners.

IF Embiid stays healthy, I don't think it matters. Of course, that is still a massive question mark. Simmons is 2nd year player who may or may not turn out to be great. Time will tell. Ditto for Fultz (will he ever remember how to shoot?).

Overall, I would be slightly underwhelmed at the results at this point. So many lottery picks and so few have actually panned out. I understand the draft is a crap shoot but it makes you wonder if Philly could have done a better job. For example, they could have been better off by maybe not drafting 3 centers in a row. It feels like some of that was self inflicted.

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk

Sorry but that's a false narrative.

Lotto picks under Hinkie and what they were:
2013 Pick 6 - Nerlens Noel - Sat out year 1, had a big defensive impact year 2, shuffled positions a bunch in year 3, panic traded year 3 after again shuffling positions. Still a possible impact defender for teams in the NBA.

2013 Pick 11 - Michael Carter-Williams - Strong but inefficient year 1, had labrum surgery in the offseason, Smartly traded before the league realized what he was.

2014 Pick 3 - Joel Embiid. Stud when he plays.

2014 Pick 10 - Elfrid Peyton - Traded on draft night for Dario Saric (good starter/6th man player). Got us a 2015 2nd rounder and guaranteed our 2017 1st was ours again (Andrew Bynum Trade). That 2017 was pick swapped, and moved up from to get Markelle Fultz. So the other lotto player we came out with Saric is good.

2015 Pick 3 - Jahlil Okafor - Straight up bust.

And the last pick that was due to Hinkie:
2016 Pick 1 - Ben Simmons.

So for those scoring at home Picks resulting from Hinkie:
2 potential studs
2 starter/role player
1 bad bench player
1 bust

Not as bad as some make it out to be.

Especially when looking at:
2013 drafted ahead of Noel - Bennett, Dipo, Porter, Zeller, Len. Between Noel and MCW: McLemore, Caldwell-Pope, Burke, McCollum. Out of those top 11 you got 1 All Star and 1 stud.

2014 we know who went ahead of Embiid and neither guy is as good. Between Embiid and Saric? Gordon, Exum, Smart, Randle, Stauskas, Vonleh, Payton, McDermott. Who out of that would your take over Saric? Maybe Gordon because of upside?

sjbirds
02-24-2018, 01:57 AM
You guys made some great trades with LAc/Kings/Orlando. but I am not shocked at all that those are the teams that gave the picks away. Lakers gonna lakers. Kings gonna kings and magic are gonna magic.

Actually we got that LAL pick from you guys....
I guess bucks are gonna bucks

beasted86
02-24-2018, 04:49 AM
Sorry but that's a false narrative.

Lotto picks under Hinkie and what they were:
2013 Pick 6 - Nerlens Noel - Sat out year 1, had a big defensive impact year 2, shuffled positions a bunch in year 3, panic traded year 3 after again shuffling positions. Still a possible impact defender for teams in the NBA.

2013 Pick 11 - Michael Carter-Williams - Strong but inefficient year 1, had labrum surgery in the offseason, Smartly traded before the league realized what he was.

2014 Pick 3 - Joel Embiid. Stud when he plays.

2014 Pick 10 - Elfrid Peyton - Traded on draft night for Dario Saric (good starter/6th man player). Got us a 2015 2nd rounder and guaranteed our 2017 1st was ours again (Andrew Bynum Trade). That 2017 was pick swapped, and moved up from to get Markelle Fultz. So the other lotto player we came out with Saric is good.

2015 Pick 3 - Jahlil Okafor - Straight up bust.

And the last pick that was due to Hinkie:
2016 Pick 1 - Ben Simmons.

So for those scoring at home Picks resulting from Hinkie:
2 potential studs
2 starter/role player
1 bad bench player
1 bust

Not as bad as some make it out to be.

Especially when looking at:
2013 drafted ahead of Noel - Bennett, Dipo, Porter, Zeller, Len. Between Noel and MCW: McLemore, Caldwell-Pope, Burke, McCollum. Out of those top 11 you got 1 All Star and 1 stud.

2014 we know who went ahead of Embiid and neither guy is as good. Between Embiid and Saric? Gordon, Exum, Smart, Randle, Stauskas, Vonleh, Payton, McDermott. Who out of that would your take over Saric? Maybe Gordon because of upside?

Giannis? McCollum? Gobert? Porzingis?

JasonJohnHorn
02-24-2018, 05:57 PM
I would hope this never happens again.

I realize some of this was bad luck, but over 4 years, they only won 75 games (just a couple more than the Warriors won in one season WITHOUT ever bottoming out like the Sixers did).

They were 75-253: the worst four-year stretch for any team in NBA history, and as far as I know, any professional sports team (though I may be wrong about that).

They took a 4-grader's response: How do you get a lot of good players? Just lose really bad for four or five years and then you'll have lots of draft picks.

Problem? Most of those picks (Noel, Nerlens, MWC) aren't even on the team and weren't/aren't that good.

The remaining guys? Embiid, Fultz, and Simmons? Of 496 games, they have ony played a total 135.

This approach takes zero brains, and the fact that they haven't drafted well demonstrates how utterly useless high picks are when you don't have effective scouting.

Dario Saric is the exception here and proves the approach was flawed. He's only missed 2 games, and has been ther most consistent player. He was a lottery pick, yes, but he was the 12th pick over all: you didn't have to bottom out to get him. You just had to be have good scouting.

The Spurs have had one losing season in 25 years and they have had only one lottery pick in 25 year, but they still managed to turn one bad year into unprecedented success. That was good scouting.

The Thunder got lucky wth KD, and had a few bad seasons, but they built around him with guys like Harden and Westbrook by scouting effectively and taking the best available players.

The Warriors, the best team in the league, used shrewd scouting to land Curry, Klay, Green and Barnes, none of whom was picked higher that 6 (their highest pick in that time was six, and they Udoh with that).

With two 7's, an 11, and a 35, they put together a core that helped them win 73 games. The 76ers have a 12 two 1s, a 3's, just gave away a 3, and they struggle to stay at .500


You don't build a team by losing and picking high; you build a team but scouting, establishing a winning culture, recruiting free agents, and making shrewd trades.


The Spurs. The Warriors. Boston. To a lesser extend, the Thunder. All have been able to build great teams through (with varying degrees of playoff success).

The 76ers have just proved how limited intellect, dedication, and effort might get you high picks, but it won't bring you titles.

They essentially are the fool at the roulette table who doubles up on every bet and stays on the same colour asuming it will eventually pay off, but failing to realize that once a in a while, red shows up 12 times in a row and if it does, you'll go bankrupt.

I hope Simmons, Fultz and Embiid stay healthy and reach their potential, but Saric is the template of success. Scout well and get the best available talent. You might not always win a title, but you will put yourself in a position to content.

Bottom line: try to win a title, not the lottery.

JasonJohnHorn
02-24-2018, 06:05 PM
The 76ers didn't hit on a lot of their draft picks, but imagine if they did. The philosophy was the right one. The execution just wasn't the best.

With that said, they still got Simmons and Embiid out of it. If you have enough high draft picks, you're gonna hit on some of them.

If the philosophy wa right, every team would do it.


The problem with trying to win the lottery instead of winning a championship is that you never win the championship AND you build a losing culture. That repels free agents and leads to your own players losing motivation and wanting out.

The Warriors never bottomed out once, and never got a pick higher than six, and the put together a core that won 73 games that way. How? Thorough scouting (Green, Curry, Barnes, and Klay), smart free agent signigns (Iggy) and shrewd trades (Bogut).

The Sixers got back-to-back number ones, two 3's and a couple of ther lottery picks and struggle to stay at .500.

That 'philosophy' is not sound. It's how a forth grader would operate a team as a GM. They'd be like "I'll just lose eveyr year for a few years and then get the top pick in the draft."

The problem? If you got $#!t scouts, it doesn't matter how high your pick is.


The Spurs bottomed out twice, once because they were just legitimately bad, and the other due to a huge injury, and sure. They got lucky both times. Those two first picks got them one title.

What got the other ones? Greta scouting. Duncan stayed for so long because they got him help with late picks like Manu and Parker and Leonard. They wouldn't have nearls 20 decades of 50-win seasons shooting for the lottery.


Losing is a horrible philsophy. It is lazy.

Lakers + Giants
02-24-2018, 07:10 PM
Actually we got that LAL pick from you guys....


:laugh:
:laugh::laugh:
:laugh::laugh::laugh:
:laugh::laugh:
:laugh:

More-Than-Most
02-24-2018, 07:30 PM
everyone wanted to see a prime shaq/prime lebron together... they would have been amazing but their skill sets wouldnt have been a perfect match... a prime keem and prime lebron would have been a much much better fit and we might have that in big ben and god jojo.

warfelg
02-24-2018, 09:27 PM
Giannis? McCollum? Gobert? Porzingis?

Then the other GMs that passed on those guys are bad GMs too right?

ChiSox219
02-25-2018, 02:15 AM
I would hope this never happens again.

I realize some of this was bad luck, but over 4 years, they only won 75 games (just a couple more than the Warriors won in one season WITHOUT ever bottoming out like the Sixers did).

They were 75-253: the worst four-year stretch for any team in NBA history, and as far as I know, any professional sports team (though I may be wrong about that).

They took a 4-grader's response: How do you get a lot of good players? Just lose really bad for four or five years and then you'll have lots of draft picks.

Problem? Most of those picks (Noel, Nerlens, MWC) aren't even on the team and weren't/aren't that good.

The remaining guys? Embiid, Fultz, and Simmons? Of 496 games, they have ony played a total 135.

This approach takes zero brains, and the fact that they haven't drafted well demonstrates how utterly useless high picks are when you don't have effective scouting.

Dario Saric is the exception here and proves the approach was flawed. He's only missed 2 games, and has been ther most consistent player. He was a lottery pick, yes, but he was the 12th pick over all: you didn't have to bottom out to get him. You just had to be have good scouting.

The Spurs have had one losing season in 25 years and they have had only one lottery pick in 25 year, but they still managed to turn one bad year into unprecedented success. That was good scouting.

The Thunder got lucky wth KD, and had a few bad seasons, but they built around him with guys like Harden and Westbrook by scouting effectively and taking the best available players.

The Warriors, the best team in the league, used shrewd scouting to land Curry, Klay, Green and Barnes, none of whom was picked higher that 6 (their highest pick in that time was six, and they Udoh with that).

With two 7's, an 11, and a 35, they put together a core that helped them win 73 games. The 76ers have a 12 two 1s, a 3's, just gave away a 3, and they struggle to stay at .500


You don't build a team by losing and picking high; you build a team but scouting, establishing a winning culture, recruiting free agents, and making shrewd trades.


The Spurs. The Warriors. Boston. To a lesser extend, the Thunder. All have been able to build great teams through (with varying degrees of playoff success).

The 76ers have just proved how limited intellect, dedication, and effort might get you high picks, but it won't bring you titles.

They essentially are the fool at the roulette table who doubles up on every bet and stays on the same colour asuming it will eventually pay off, but failing to realize that once a in a while, red shows up 12 times in a row and if it does, you'll go bankrupt.

I hope Simmons, Fultz and Embiid stay healthy and reach their potential, but Saric is the template of success. Scout well and get the best available talent. You might not always win a title, but you will put yourself in a position to content.

Bottom line: try to win a title, not the lottery.

People forget that Hinkie took over a team that had pretty much peaked, was capped out, and had few draft picks:

Because of the Bynum trade, as well as one with the Miami Heat for Arnett Moultrie, when Hinkie arrived the 76ers had full control over just two of their first-round picks over a six-year span dating back to 2011.


Then the other GMs that passed on those guys are bad GMs too right?

Isnt the rumor that Hinkie wanted Porzingis but he was forced to take Okafor?

More-Than-Most
02-25-2018, 03:36 AM
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/orlando-magic/os-sp-orlando-magic-notes-0225-story.html


“He’s one of the best players in the league,” Magic coach Frank Vogel said.

warfelg
02-25-2018, 02:59 PM
People forget that Hinkie took over a team that had pretty much peaked, was capped out, and had few draft picks:

Because of the Bynum trade, as well as one with the Miami Heat for Arnett Moultrie, when Hinkie arrived the 76ers had full control over just two of their first-round picks over a six-year span dating back to 2011.



Isnt the rumor that Hinkie wanted Porzingis but he was forced to take Okafor?

Yes. That draft was the signs of division.

All speculation from rumors:
Ownership was ready to move on from Embiid and felt it was a sunk cost. Hinkie was willing to take Porz even though his (Porz’s) agent didn’t want the Sixers to meet with him. (The agent represented Noel at the time) The other part was ownership (who has a few Dukies in it, hence the love for them) was enthralled with Okafors scoring, so much that they thought his other flaws didn’t matter.

So between Porz being withheld from us, Ownership wanting to dump Embiid, and ownership being goo goo over Okafor we got the pick; despite most of the FA being against it.

warfelg
02-25-2018, 03:01 PM
I should put together and oral history of the process to correct a lot of inaccuracies thrown around.

hugepatsfan
02-25-2018, 03:13 PM
Hinkie did a good job of marketing his plan as something unique and special. Many other teams have done what he did - focused on development of players over winning now. Many just don't draft the right guys. Hinkie hit a home run with Embiid and picking him... and he lucked out that he was injured so much they sucked and could take Simmons #1 overall (which was the clear cut choice so it's not like I give him a ton of credit for nailing that).

So he nailed his evaluation of getting a franchise guy in Embiid and then lucked out that the injuries afforded him the opportunity for another. He obviously did a good job overall too with great picks like Saric and some shrewd trades. Obviously had his mistakes like Okafor too. But really it's comical how he marketed himself as doing something revolutionary and built a cult following. He didn't do anything strategically that was unique. He just nailed the Embiid pick and got a generational talent.

ChiSox219
02-25-2018, 03:18 PM
Hinkie did a good job of marketing his plan as something unique and special. Many other teams have done what he did - focused on development of players over winning now. Many just don't draft the right guys. Hinkie hit a home run with Embiid and picking him... and he lucked out that he was injured so much they sucked and could take Simmons #1 overall (which was the clear cut choice so it's not like I give him a ton of credit for nailing that).

So he nailed his evaluation of getting a franchise guy in Embiid and then lucked out that the injuries afforded him the opportunity for another. He obviously did a good job overall too with great picks like Saric and some shrewd trades. Obviously had his mistakes like Okafor too. But really it's comical how he marketed himself as doing something revolutionary and built a cult following. He didn't do anything strategically that was unique. He just nailed the Embiid pick and got a generational talent.

If anything, the problem was Hinkie didnt market himself and the plan enough as he mostly stayed out of the media. You can say his plan to tank wasn't unique but its execution certainly was.


I should put together and oral history of the process to correct a lot of inaccuracies thrown around.

Do you think there is any chance Hinkie wouldve made the Fultz trade?

warfelg
02-25-2018, 03:33 PM
If anything, the problem was Hinkie didnt market himself and the plan enough as he mostly stayed out of the media. You can say his plan to tank wasn't unique but its execution certainly was.



Do you think there is any chance Hinkie wouldve made the Fultz trade?

Yes. But I think he would have gotten a better deal and sold Ainge on the Celtics needed to make the trade not the other way around.

topdog
02-25-2018, 08:39 PM
Honestly, Hinkie reminds me of another much-maligned GM from my home state - David Kahn. Whereas Kahn was too "unfiltered", Hinkie was too aloof.

Based solely on roster moves, Kahn smartly eliminated bad contracts and dead money his first year and then bought low in an attempt to resurrect the careers of young promising players like Michael Beasley, Anthony Randolph and Martell Webster. Unfortunately, none of them panned out.

In the meantime, he drafted high and took players who were mostly supposed to be "safe bets" based on consensus... who didn't turn out.

He hired than fund-raised money (through the draft) to fire Kurt Rambis and brought on a proven coach in Rick Adelman (whose best campaign would be 40-42)

He rubbed certain people the wrong way and called Kevin Love "the 3rd best player on a championship team". Hmmm... that sounds somehow familiar. He was fired, but, in the end, I daresay that the Wolves were left in a better position than they started.

So, by comparison, Hinkie cleared out his bad contracts but rather than attempting to give young former top picks a "change of scenery" instead decided to accumulate more picks. In the meantime, he sold the people of Philly on "The Process" and hired a fresh new coach up to the task, but rubbed people across the league and across fan-bases the wrong way by so clearly avoiding anyone resembling an actual NBA player with potential.

Ultimately, poor draft luck also did Hinkie in by leaving him with a logjam in the frontcourt and a lack of talent in the backcourt. The ascendant talent he was willing to wait for by and large did not materialize and what did is on shaky footing (pun intended).

There is no surefire way to tank into contention. Honestly, there are too many GMs who are better salesmen and accountants than evaluators of talent. Teams that succeed with longevity make smart rather than high picks and know who is and isn't replaceable i.e. Morey with the Rockets, Bob Myers with Golden State, RC Buford with the Spurs.

beasted86
02-25-2018, 09:44 PM
Then the other GMs that passed on those guys are bad GMs too right?

They are. They all made mistakes. But the teams who are perennial bottom feeders failed harder since you plan to be bad and knowing you'll be picking early years ahead. Unlike for example the Grizzlies who may be picking top 3 this year... But they weren't planning from 3 years ago watching the top draft guys for this very draft.

Also you've missed out on criticizing all the OTHER picks... Meaning the top 2nd round picks which are essentially a late 1st rounder. You've missed criticizing the other 2nds and draft picks gained by taking bad contracts. And you've also missed the mark in the farming system.

Outside of their lottery picks, through all the other picks and walk on players the Sixers have 1 player to show for it in Covington, maybe give a 1.5 in McConnell he maybe (might) be in another playoff teams rotation. Over the past 5 years the team has drafted 24 times in the first or 2nd round. So excluding Embiid and Simmons who are can't miss top 3 picks and usually have a good chance of panning out. They have 2 other players who were scouted, developed and farmed to be good rotation guys for the foreseeable future (Covington, Saric). Right now the drafting and farm system probably has a D grade. But if Fultz ends up a bust this would be probably the worst draft and develop front office that I can remember since expansion Bobcats. Don't know many other teams who drafted that many players in the top 10 consecutively to only come away with 2 or less.

The front office hasn't been horrible, but I'll draw the line at painting their decisions as good as you've tried

D-Leethal
02-26-2018, 11:20 AM
Hinkie did a good job of marketing his plan as something unique and special. Many other teams have done what he did - focused on development of players over winning now. Many just don't draft the right guys. Hinkie hit a home run with Embiid and picking him... and he lucked out that he was injured so much they sucked and could take Simmons #1 overall (which was the clear cut choice so it's not like I give him a ton of credit for nailing that).

So he nailed his evaluation of getting a franchise guy in Embiid and then lucked out that the injuries afforded him the opportunity for another. He obviously did a good job overall too with great picks like Saric and some shrewd trades. Obviously had his mistakes like Okafor too. But really it's comical how he marketed himself as doing something revolutionary and built a cult following. He didn't do anything strategically that was unique. He just nailed the Embiid pick and got a generational talent.

I do think he took tanking to the next level as the article suggested. He bottomed out talent-wise worse than any team has ever done before. Literally refused to sign anyone and would trade for guys and cut them just to hit the salary floor. I think most teams that tank hit the salary floor by filling out there roster with table scrap FAs that can at least compete every now and then. Hinkie had no interest in that. That said, his strategy to field a D-League team didn't really lead to a worse 3-4 year run record-wise than some teams that were just flat out bad during the same stretch (I think the OP pointed that out).

I would be interested in the point differential though. I know record-wise they didn't always finish with the worst record during his stretch. But IIRC they were getting blown the **** out when they did lose, regardless if they were able to squeak out 17 wins to another teams 15. They didn't seem to care that they were losing by 30 on a nightly basis. Other teams at least want to compete for 3 quarters. I think that is where NBA and media people took offense more than anything.

Scoots
02-26-2018, 12:12 PM
Hinkie getting replaced at the point the turn was coming is more evidence how important ownership is to good teams.

Westbrook36
02-26-2018, 12:36 PM
They are. They all made mistakes. But the teams who are perennial bottom feeders failed harder since you plan to be bad and knowing you'll be picking early years ahead. Unlike for example the Grizzlies who may be picking top 3 this year... But they weren't planning from 3 years ago watching the top draft guys for this very draft.

Also you've missed out on criticizing all the OTHER picks... Meaning the top 2nd round picks which are essentially a late 1st rounder. You've missed criticizing the other 2nds and draft picks gained by taking bad contracts. And you've also missed the mark in the farming system.

Outside of their lottery picks, through all the other picks and walk on players the Sixers have 1 player to show for it in Covington, maybe give a 1.5 in McConnell he maybe (might) be in another playoff teams rotation. Over the past 5 years the team has drafted 24 times in the first or 2nd round. So excluding Embiid and Simmons who are can't miss top 3 picks and usually have a good chance of panning out. They have 2 other players who were scouted, developed and farmed to be good rotation guys for the foreseeable future (Covington, Saric). Right now the drafting and farm system probably has a D grade. But if Fultz ends up a bust this would be probably the worst draft and develop front office that I can remember since expansion Bobcats. Don't know many other teams who drafted that many players in the top 10 consecutively to only come away with 2 or less.

The front office hasn't been horrible, but I'll draw the line at painting their decisions as good as you've tried

If we're talking pure Hinkie then these are the draft picks:

2013 - Nerlens Noel & MCW
--Traded him for the LAL pick of 2018--
2014 - Joel Embiid & Elfred Payton
--Payton traded for Dario Saric and our own 1st round pick in 2016 (Ben Simmons)--
2015 - Jahlil Okafor (Bust)
2016 - Ben Simmons

He was fired before being able to select Ben Simmons, but that was a given. 76ers had two other draft picks that year in TLC and Korkmaz who were drafted by Colangelo, both of whom are still fairly young.

beasted86
02-27-2018, 12:18 PM
If we're talking pure Hinkie then these are the draft picks:

2013 - Nerlens Noel & MCW
--Traded him for the LAL pick of 2018--
2014 - Joel Embiid & Elfred Payton
--Payton traded for Dario Saric and our own 1st round pick in 2016 (Ben Simmons)--
2015 - Jahlil Okafor (Bust)
2016 - Ben Simmons

He was fired before being able to select Ben Simmons, but that was a given. 76ers had two other draft picks that year in TLC and Korkmaz who were drafted by Colangelo, both of whom are still fairly young.

Nah, the Sixers drafted a ton more players.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_76ers_draft_history

And kicked the tires on a ton of 10 days contracts, and undrafted players. They don't have much to show for it outside the top 3 picks in Embiid and Simmons. This tells me their scouting and development team isn't so good.

warfelg
02-27-2018, 02:21 PM
Nah, the Sixers drafted a ton more players.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_76ers_draft_history

And kicked the tires on a ton of 10 days contracts, and undrafted players. They don't have much to show for it outside the top 3 picks in Embiid and Simmons. This tells me their scouting and development team isn't so good.

Don’t have much to show for it?

TJ McConnell, Robert Covington, Dario Saric, Richaun Holmes, TLC.

At least two of those guys could start for almost any team in the league.

JasonJohnHorn
02-27-2018, 02:43 PM
Honestly, Hinkie reminds me of another much-maligned GM from my home state - David Kahn. Whereas Kahn was too "unfiltered", Hinkie was too aloof.

Based solely on roster moves, Kahn smartly eliminated bad contracts and dead money his first year and then bought low in an attempt to resurrect the careers of young promising players like Michael Beasley, Anthony Randolph and Martell Webster. Unfortunately, none of them panned out.

In the meantime, he drafted high and took players who were mostly supposed to be "safe bets" based on consensus... who didn't turn out.

He hired than fund-raised money (through the draft) to fire Kurt Rambis and brought on a proven coach in Rick Adelman (whose best campaign would be 40-42)

He rubbed certain people the wrong way and called Kevin Love "the 3rd best player on a championship team". Hmmm... that sounds somehow familiar. He was fired, but, in the end, I daresay that the Wolves were left in a better position than they started.

So, by comparison, Hinkie cleared out his bad contracts but rather than attempting to give young former top picks a "change of scenery" instead decided to accumulate more picks. In the meantime, he sold the people of Philly on "The Process" and hired a fresh new coach up to the task, but rubbed people across the league and across fan-bases the wrong way by so clearly avoiding anyone resembling an actual NBA player with potential.

Ultimately, poor draft luck also did Hinkie in by leaving him with a logjam in the frontcourt and a lack of talent in the backcourt. The ascendant talent he was willing to wait for by and large did not materialize and what did is on shaky footing (pun intended).

There is no surefire way to tank into contention. Honestly, there are too many GMs who are better salesmen and accountants than evaluators of talent. Teams that succeed with longevity make smart rather than high picks and know who is and isn't replaceable i.e. Morey with the Rockets, Bob Myers with Golden State, RC Buford with the Spurs.


You are spot on about Kahn. He may not have been great at his job, but he had a solid approach: get rid of bad contracts, develop the guys you have, take a cheap gamble on affordable, promising guys, and bring in a helluva coach.

This is what Dumars did for the Pistons. It won't work every time, but losing never works. Dumars took a gamble on Chauncey, got rid of a bad contract (STackhoue) for a promising young niche player, used an out-going star to bring in a building block (Big Ben) and made shrewd trades (Sheed) and signings (McDysse).

This is what Kahn was tyring. Bring in yung guys with potential on the cheap, bring in a great coach, and develop your guys. He wasn't lucky in the draft, but hey...


Hinkie's plan was LOSE! LOSE! LOSE! DRAFT! DRAFT! DRAFT! For that to work, you have to know who you are picking. But it's called the lottery for a reason, and his approach sounded like a guy who used his student loan to buy a thousand tickets for the power ball instead of paying his tuition with it. It's foolist.

The Warriros never bottomed out. After missing the playoffs after the 48-win season, they saw marked improvement every year save the year Ellis, Curry, and Lee all missed significant time (when 3/5th of your starting line-up miss between 25-75% of the season, you won't improve).

The Thunder, after the Sonic's 20-win season, saw improvement each year, and even when KD left, didn't say "Let's tank and draft a star to play alongside Westbrook". They played hard and made trades.

Houston has had the same approach. They could have tanked after Dwight left. They made a coaching change and worked to win. Now it's a gret landing spot for free agents and the guys they trade for want to stay.


If losing was a winning strategy, the Kings, Clippers, and Knicks would be in the middle of the most dominant dynasties in the history of the game.

The only way to achieve greatness is to strive for greatness.

When you strive to lose, you lose. And lose. And lose.

TheDish87
02-27-2018, 02:49 PM
so you think Hiknie didnt strive for greatness? he was just gonna tank year after year? Look at the landscape of the East when he took over, it was Lebrons league and a team like the Sixers had no chance in hell of beating him anytime soon. He thought all of this out and timed it perfectly

ChiSox219
02-27-2018, 04:35 PM
You are spot on about Kahn. He may not have been great at his job, but he had a solid approach: get rid of bad contracts, develop the guys you have, take a cheap gamble on affordable, promising guys, and bring in a helluva coach.

This is what Dumars did for the Pistons. It won't work every time, but losing never works. Dumars took a gamble on Chauncey, got rid of a bad contract (STackhoue) for a promising young niche player, used an out-going star to bring in a building block (Big Ben) and made shrewd trades (Sheed) and signings (McDysse).

This is what Kahn was tyring. Bring in yung guys with potential on the cheap, bring in a great coach, and develop your guys. He wasn't lucky in the draft, but hey...


Hinkie's plan was LOSE! LOSE! LOSE! DRAFT! DRAFT! DRAFT! For that to work, you have to know who you are picking. But it's called the lottery for a reason, and his approach sounded like a guy who used his student loan to buy a thousand tickets for the power ball instead of paying his tuition with it. It's foolist.

The Warriros never bottomed out. After missing the playoffs after the 48-win season, they saw marked improvement every year save the year Ellis, Curry, and Lee all missed significant time (when 3/5th of your starting line-up miss between 25-75% of the season, you won't improve).

The Thunder, after the Sonic's 20-win season, saw improvement each year, and even when KD left, didn't say "Let's tank and draft a star to play alongside Westbrook". They played hard and made trades.

Houston has had the same approach. They could have tanked after Dwight left. They made a coaching change and worked to win. Now it's a gret landing spot for free agents and the guys they trade for want to stay.


If losing was a winning strategy, the Kings, Clippers, and Knicks would be in the middle of the most dominant dynasties in the history of the game.

The only way to achieve greatness is to strive for greatness.

When you strive to lose, you lose. And lose. And lose.


You really think Hinkie wouldve tanked if he already had a player of Westbrook or Harden's caliber?

warfelg
02-27-2018, 05:00 PM
You really think Hinkie wouldve tanked if he already had a player of Westbrook or Harden's caliber?

Definitely not. Which is why when people say things about him just wanted to sink forever is silly. He knew the value of not only getting a star, but also putting the right parts around him. What good is it having Pacers PG, Giannis, Last Years Westbrook with those teammates? Nothing. You got to have the right players around him.

To me that’s the part that Hinkie did differently that people hated. He didn’t draft a player and then just go hog wild signing role players.

beasted86
02-27-2018, 06:42 PM
Don’t have much to show for it?

TJ McConnell, Robert Covington, Dario Saric, Richaun Holmes, TLC.

At least two of those guys could start for almost any team in the league.

Covington and Saric would be in the rotation for every team, true.

But TLC sucks and is lucky to be in any NBA rotation. McConnell and Holmes would not be in the rotation for most of teams, and probably none of the playoff teams. Miami is the weakest playoff team in both conferences and I can tell you sure as ever neither of them would be in the rotation on our team.

During this rebuild, Philly has drafted 4 times in the top 3 of the draft and as of right now are basically shooting 2 (Embiid, Simmons) out of 4.

Outside of the top 3 Philly has drafted 20 other times in the later 1st or 2nd round and has 1 player (Saric) to show for it.

Outside of the draft entirely, Philly has signed and played who knows?? 50 players? In at least one NBA game who were undrafted and non-veteran players and have maybe 1 (Covington) true solidified rotation player to show for it.

These aren't good outcomes numbers of their draft and development team. They are not the worst all time or anything, but they're not good numbers at all.

More-Than-Most
02-28-2018, 02:01 AM
Covington and Saric would be in the rotation for every team, true.

But TLC sucks and is lucky to be in any NBA rotation. McConnell and Holmes would not be in the rotation for most of teams, and probably none of the playoff teams. Miami is the weakest playoff team in both conferences and I can tell you sure as ever neither of them would be in the rotation on our team.

During this rebuild, Philly has drafted 4 times in the top 3 of the draft and as of right now are basically shooting 2 (Embiid, Simmons) out of 4.

Outside of the top 3 Philly has drafted 20 other times in the later 1st or 2nd round and has 1 player (Saric) to show for it.

Outside of the draft entirely, Philly has signed and played who knows?? 50 players? In at least one NBA game who were undrafted and non-veteran players and have maybe 1 (Covington) true solidified rotation player to show for it.

These aren't good outcomes numbers of their draft and development team. They are not the worst all time or anything, but they're not good numbers at all.

cavs wanted TJ badly last season... he is even better now. :shrug:

CHICAGO - T.J. McConnell came into the NBA as an undrafted rookie out of Arizona, battling for a final roster spot.

A season-and-a-half later, the point guard has been a major player in the 76ers' turnaround. And opposing teams are taking notice.

The Cleveland Cavaliers approached the Sixers several weeks ago about acquiring McConnell in a trade, according to several sources. The Sixers declined the offer.

The Cavs wanted to put together a deal that would have brought Jordan McRae back to Philly. The Sixers acquired McRae in the second round of the 2014 draft. The Sixers sent him to Australia to play for Melbourne United during the 2014-15 season. McRae was waived by the Sixers on Oct. 26, 2015.

beasted86
02-28-2018, 09:48 AM
cavs wanted TJ badly last season... he is even better now. :shrug:

CHICAGO - T.J. McConnell came into the NBA as an undrafted rookie out of Arizona, battling for a final roster spot.

A season-and-a-half later, the point guard has been a major player in the 76ers' turnaround. And opposing teams are taking notice.

The Cleveland Cavaliers approached the Sixers several weeks ago about acquiring McConnell in a trade, according to several sources. The Sixers declined the offer.

The Cavs wanted to put together a deal that would have brought Jordan McRae back to Philly. The Sixers acquired McRae in the second round of the 2014 draft. The Sixers sent him to Australia to play for Melbourne United during the 2014-15 season. McRae was waived by the Sixers on Oct. 26, 2015.

First thing is that was last year.

Second, the Cavs felt so highly of McConnell they were willing to trade an expiring guy riding the bench who they waived a few weeks later.

But sure McConnell is solid and could make a few rotations around the league and I said that a few posts ago. Still leaves overall bad stats regarding the undrafted outcomes.

TheDish87
02-28-2018, 09:53 AM
the NBA is the hardest sport to consistently hit on and Hinkie acknowledged there would be misses. Even on our misses we didnt really miss out on anyone that would make a difference here short of maybe Porzingis but then we probably wouldnt have Simmons which worked out in our favor. Oh and lets not forget about the cap space we we still have to work with after this season when we are one of the more appealing to teams to join.

JasonJohnHorn
02-28-2018, 10:28 AM
You really think Hinkie wouldve tanked if he already had a player of Westbrook or Harden's caliber?

What I know is he tanked... every year... and that is all he did, and a 14-year-old could run a team like that.

He set a new standard (literally) for losing. The four losingest four-year stretch in NBA history.


If all he had was Harden and Westbrook, and not the other pieces that their GMs put around them, YES, Hinkie would have tanked because he would have had nobdoy to support either of them based on how he has put teams together.

Hinkie showed ZERO ability to put a team together. The only skill he showed is his abiltiy to get assets by losing, and assests don't equal wins.


Why anybody works THIS hard to defend somebody who put together the most historically woeful team in NBA (and perhaps all of sports) history is beyond me. I don't see anybody praising LBJ for sucking on bricks on the 4th quarter during the finals against Mavs? Why? Because ANYBODY can do that.

Literally.... a 14-year-old could do what Hinkie did.


Again... you want greatness, you strive for greatness. That is the only way.

At what point did Hinkie ever do that? He strived to lose and he built a loser. Period. He had some bad luck, sure, but all teams do, and nobody has ever lost the way Hinkie did.

Well... except the Washington Generals... but if that's a club you want to join, by all means.

warfelg
02-28-2018, 11:19 AM
So you are saying we were better off with Jrue, Turner, and Thad?

TheDish87
02-28-2018, 12:00 PM
What I know is he tanked... every year... and that is all he did, and a 14-year-old could run a team like that.

He set a new standard (literally) for losing. The four losingest four-year stretch in NBA history.


If all he had was Harden and Westbrook, and not the other pieces that their GMs put around them, YES, Hinkie would have tanked because he would have had nobdoy to support either of them based on how he has put teams together.

Hinkie showed ZERO ability to put a team together. The only skill he showed is his abiltiy to get assets by losing, and assests don't equal wins.


Why anybody works THIS hard to defend somebody who put together the most historically woeful team in NBA (and perhaps all of sports) history is beyond me. I don't see anybody praising LBJ for sucking on bricks on the 4th quarter during the finals against Mavs? Why? Because ANYBODY can do that.

Literally.... a 14-year-old could do what Hinkie did.


Again... you want greatness, you strive for greatness. That is the only way.

At what point did Hinkie ever do that? He strived to lose and he built a loser. Period. He had some bad luck, sure, but all teams do, and nobody has ever lost the way Hinkie did.

Well... except the Washington Generals... but if that's a club you want to join, by all means.

just stop, dude. you are embarrassing yourself.

Vinylman
02-28-2018, 12:15 PM
just stop, dude. you are embarrassing yourself.

it's sad isn't it...

KnicksorBust
02-28-2018, 12:23 PM
The name of the game is superstars. He got them 2. Now that team will be competitive for the next decade.

Winner.

TheDish87
02-28-2018, 12:40 PM
like its fine if you dont like Hinkies approach. I trust the process and even i know he went a little overboard but his wheeling and dealing was amazing and is the reason we are in the position we are in right now. But hey im sure any 14 year old could pull of those Magic and Kings trades

ChiSox219
02-28-2018, 07:59 PM
just stop, dude. you are embarrassing yourself.


it's sad isn't it...

This

JasonJohnHorn
02-28-2018, 10:15 PM
just stop, dude. you are embarrassing yourself.

That comment has absolutley zero substance.

You are defending a GM who did nothing but tank and set a historic standard for losing.

And you say I'm embarassing myself?

It's pretty clear who is on shakey ground here since all you could do is fire back with "If he had talent he wouldn't tank." That's easy to say, but there is no evidence to support that. That is purely conjecture on your part.

What is clear is that he set a new low for losing. And you are defending that.

Now go throw your baseless, substanceless comments somewhere else. They are immature and irrational.

JasonJohnHorn
02-28-2018, 10:18 PM
it's sad isn't it...


Another comment with substance.

It's sad that you and your buddies have nothing better to do than PM each other about me ;-)

Also... believe you were the one who made some disparaging comment when somebody agreed with me about how irrational you were being about 'circling the wagons'. Niice to see you are still engaging in the behvior your criticize others for. It's consistent at least.


Next time you feel like 'contributing' somehting, contribute. Your personal insults do nothign to add to the covnersation. They just show how petty, childish, and immature you are.

beasted86
03-01-2018, 12:03 AM
The name of the game is superstars. He got them 2. Now that team will be competitive for the next decade.

Winner.

They were already competitive. They were looking for the easiest route to improve while saving money while doing it.

Its a fine and dandy strategy. But don't expect anyone to be showing praise to Hinkie or branding him a genius until they make sustained deep playoff runs. What he did was easy. What's harder is doing what Rockets did, building a contender without ever bottoming out.

Also, there are other teams that tanked for 2 all-stars and never put anything together. Wizards is one I discussed earlier in this thread. Haven't even gotten past the 2nd round.

ChiSox219
03-01-2018, 12:18 AM
That comment has absolutley zero substance.

You are defending a GM who did nothing but tank and set a historic standard for losing.

And you say I'm embarassing myself?

It's pretty clear who is on shakey ground here since all you could do is fire back with "If he had talent he wouldn't tank." That's easy to say, but there is no evidence to support that. That is purely conjecture on your part.

What is clear is that he set a new low for losing. And you are defending that.

Now go throw your baseless, substanceless comments somewhere else. They are immature and irrational.


Another comment with substance.

It's sad that you and your buddies have nothing better to do than PM each other about me ;-)

Also... believe you were the one who made some disparaging comment when somebody agreed with me about how irrational you were being about 'circling the wagons'. Niice to see you are still engaging in the behvior your criticize others for. It's consistent at least.


Next time you feel like 'contributing' somehting, contribute. Your personal insults do nothign to add to the covnersation. They just show how petty, childish, and immature you are.

Jason you have clearly demonstrated a lack of understanding of what Hinkie was doing and the situation he inherited. The counter arguments you've used, like the Thunder not tanking when KD left or the Warriors not bottoming out are at best misguided. But the the real cherry on top is you mentioning Houston never tanking. Do you know who was Morey's right hand man through those years? It was Sam Hinkie.

I suggest you do some reading or listening to some interviews to better understand The Process.

ChiSox219
03-01-2018, 12:26 AM
They were already competitive. They were looking for the easiest route to improve while saving money while doing it.

Its a fine and dandy strategy. But don't expect anyone to be showing praise to Hinkie or branding him a genius until they make sustained deep playoff runs. What he did was easy. What's harder is doing what Rockets did, building a contender without ever bottoming out.

Also, there are other teams that tanked for 2 all-stars and never put anything together. Wizards is one I discussed earlier in this thread. Haven't even gotten past the 2nd round.

I guess it depends on how you define competitive but the 6ers missed the playoffs the year before Hinkie took over. Their three best players were Jrue, Thad Young, and Evan Turner. None of those are a #3 on a championship contender, maybe Jrue but thats boarderline.

Another mention of Houston not tanking when Hinkie played a key role in that success.

Scoots
03-01-2018, 01:33 AM
I still don't get the hate for Hinkie.

Vinylman
03-01-2018, 08:17 AM
like its fine if you dont like Hinkies approach. I trust the process and even i know he went a little overboard but his wheeling and dealing was amazing and is the reason we are in the position we are in right now. But hey im sure any 14 year old could pull of those Magic and Kings trades

I heard he was consulting his 12 year old nephew on his strategy.

Vinylman
03-01-2018, 08:19 AM
Jason you have clearly demonstrated a lack of understanding of what Hinkie was doing and the situation he inherited. The counter arguments you've used, like the Thunder not tanking when KD left or the Warriors not bottoming out are at best misguided. But the the real cherry on top is you mentioning Houston never tanking. Do you know who was Morey's right hand man through those years? It was Sam Hinkie.

I suggest you do some reading or listening to some interviews to better understand The Process.

lol

he is beyond hope and rational thought for that matter

KnicksorBust
03-01-2018, 08:54 AM
I honestly thought this thread was silly at first but with that massive Mark Cuban fine and Adam Silver's comments lately I think this title is spot on. The NBA is clearly trying to make a stand when it comes to blatant tanking. "The Process" might be a one and done strategy. See what I did there?

warfelg
03-01-2018, 09:10 AM
I still don't get the hate for Hinkie.

One of the better articles I read about the process had a theory that was multi-part:
1 - A reason for hating Hinkie was he got assets in trades that other teams wish they could have gotten. We got a first for buying out Javale McGee (turned into TLC), the pick swap and another first and 3 players for the rights to two players who will never come (turned into Fultz), a first for MCW after his ROY and shoulder surgery.

2 - the fact that he was given the green light to do what he did and other teams stuck like we were have not done the same.

3 - he met with the media minimally. Which is BS. How often do we hear from RC Beauford? I couldn’t even tell you who GSW’s GM is. Colangelo has made less media appearances that Hinkie did in his first two years.

4 - he was open about the fact that he wasn’t interested in signing vets early on but instead trying to use the 10 day contracts and UDFA to find guys who can contribute a certain skill.

To me it funny because here’s a list of guys Hinkie brought in that still had bites with other teams (or are still players for us):
Hollis Thompson, Nerlens Noel, MCW, Robert Covington, Jerami Grant, Thad Young, Ish Smith, Luc Mbah a Moute, Evan Turner, JaKarr Sampson, Nik Stauskas, Spence Hawes, Jahlil Okafor, TJ McConnell, KJ McDaniels, Lavoy Allen, Richaun Holmes, Arnett Moultrie, Tim Frazier, Glenn Robinson, Dewayne Dedmon, Christian Wood, Eric Maybor, JaVale McGee, Isaiah Canaan.

And he was charged with not bringing in vets? Then what are Luc Mbah a Moute, Carl Landry, Kendall Marshall, Jason Richardson, Elton Brand? Their times rarely overlapped but at least one of them was always on the team.

Like I’ve said often:
Hinkie never blew smoke up our ***** by signing an over the hill past Sixer to be a starter. He never brought in a C level FA on an A player contract. He used his roster to find quite a few of those guys and to have the flexibility to make those trades that he did.

TheDish87
03-01-2018, 09:43 AM
That comment has absolutley zero substance.

You are defending a GM who did nothing but tank and set a historic standard for losing.

And you say I'm embarassing myself?

It's pretty clear who is on shakey ground here since all you could do is fire back with "If he had talent he wouldn't tank." That's easy to say, but there is no evidence to support that. That is purely conjecture on your part.

What is clear is that he set a new low for losing. And you are defending that.

Now go throw your baseless, substanceless comments somewhere else. They are immature and irrational.

lol look at the team now, we are in the hunt for a top 3 seed and its strictly a result of Hinkies work. its not his fault ownership didnt let him finish it out.

warfelg
03-01-2018, 09:48 AM
I guess it depends on how you define competitive but the 6ers missed the playoffs the year before Hinkie took over. Their three best players were Jrue, Thad Young, and Evan Turner. None of those are a #3 on a championship contender, maybe Jrue but thats boarderline.

Another mention of Houston not tanking when Hinkie played a key role in that success.

I always laugh at this "we were always competitive" talk. No we weren't. We traded away AI in the 06-07 season for going back even one year before that:

05-06: 38-44
06-07: 35-47
07-08: 40-42 1st round playoff exit
08-09: 41-41 1st round playoff exit
09-10: 27-55
10-11: 41-41 1st round playoff exit
11-12: 35-31 (lockout year) 2nd round playoff exit* *- Derrick Rose got injured in a blow out game 1; Joakim Noah (still good at the time) went out in game 3 (missed the next two both Sixers wins)
12-13: 34-48

If that's competing then the league is ****ed. LOL.

People forget just how bad that Sixers roster was right before Hinkie:
Jrue Holiday - Maalik Wayns - Charles Jenkins
Damien Wilkins - Nick Young - Royal Ivey - Justin Joliday - Jeremy Pargo - Jason Richardson
Evan Turner - Dorell Wright
Thad Young - Arnett Moultrie
Spencer Hawes - Lavoy Allen - Kwame Brown

We also had Andrew Bynum who never suited up at this point, 2 of our next 6 1sts were owned by us (4 by someone else), the salary cap was $58,044,000 and we had $84,032,270 invested in that roster.

There's no future for that team. It's a slightly below .500 team playing iso Doug Collins ball, relying on midrange 2's, that needs luck and injuries to make the playoffs.

JasonJohnHorn
03-01-2018, 10:26 AM
I still don't get the hate for Hinkie.

I don't hate him. I understand what he did. I know why he did it. I just think it was lazy. I think setting an unprecedented record for losing is not only bad for the sport in general, but bad for the team.

Even the seasns where D-Rob got injured, the Spurs didn't just say "We suck, let's lose." Pop fired the coach, and improved the team as ahead coach, and to give the team a scoring option he went out and got the best scorer on the market: Dominque Wilkens.

He helped the team improve that season when it was in the 'best interest' to lose and get a good draft pick.

Hinkie at one point was so disinterested in brinnging in talent that the salary cap was below the minimum and were forced to give the entire team got a raise so that they would be above the minimum salary.

Four years of historic losing is nothing to boat about or point to as a 'great approach'. People can say the Sixers are in a good position now (and that remains to be seen), but this approach is good for the sport or the team.

warfelg
03-01-2018, 10:30 AM
Yet again you're referencing a team that already had a superstar though in trying to point out the "laziness" of Hinkie.

warfelg
03-01-2018, 10:44 AM
Also missed in this:
Hinkie always contended that there were three ways to get a superstar player.

The first and the easiest was the draft, but it was still a long shot. But you need as many chances as you can get in order to draft the superstar. By increasing future owned picks (outright) from 2 up to 8 he certainly did that.

Next was the ability to trade for one. This one could be a little more debatable if it was done, but he gave himself assets to use in a trade of it ever came up. He actually talked at length once about being the guy that negotiated the Harden trade and how it was the plethora of assets that got the deal done even though Houston lacked the star to send out.

Last and the hardest to do is sign one via FA. When Hinkie came in we were $30 mil over the cap at the time. Quickly we got under that by enough that we could outright sign LeBron or any other max FA in the 2018 offseason and not have to cut or salary dump anyone important.

What Hinkie did was give himself the availability and flexibility to use anyone of those three routes and we may just get a star from all three avenues to get one.

Based on theory of what he was trying to do, the process was a success. He took a team with a limited future and no assets and set it up for a decade+ run.

Scoots
03-01-2018, 10:45 AM
One of the better articles I read about the process had a theory that was multi-part:
1 - A reason for hating Hinkie was he got assets in trades that other teams wish they could have gotten. We got a first for buying out Javale McGee (turned into TLC), the pick swap and another first and 3 players for the rights to two players who will never come (turned into Fultz), a first for MCW after his ROY and shoulder surgery.

2 - the fact that he was given the green light to do what he did and other teams stuck like we were have not done the same.

3 - he met with the media minimally. Which is BS. How often do we hear from RC Beauford? I couldn’t even tell you who GSW’s GM is. Colangelo has made less media appearances that Hinkie did in his first two years.

4 - he was open about the fact that he wasn’t interested in signing vets early on but instead trying to use the 10 day contracts and UDFA to find guys who can contribute a certain skill.

To me it funny because here’s a list of guys Hinkie brought in that still had bites with other teams (or are still players for us):
Hollis Thompson, Nerlens Noel, MCW, Robert Covington, Jerami Grant, Thad Young, Ish Smith, Luc Mbah a Moute, Evan Turner, JaKarr Sampson, Nik Stauskas, Spence Hawes, Jahlil Okafor, TJ McConnell, KJ McDaniels, Lavoy Allen, Richaun Holmes, Arnett Moultrie, Tim Frazier, Glenn Robinson, Dewayne Dedmon, Christian Wood, Eric Maybor, JaVale McGee, Isaiah Canaan.

And he was charged with not bringing in vets? Then what are Luc Mbah a Moute, Carl Landry, Kendall Marshall, Jason Richardson, Elton Brand? Their times rarely overlapped but at least one of them was always on the team.

Like I’ve said often:
Hinkie never blew smoke up our ***** by signing an over the hill past Sixer to be a starter. He never brought in a C level FA on an A player contract. He used his roster to find quite a few of those guys and to have the flexibility to make those trades that he did.

1. Other teams hating him doesn't explain fan hate here. I think it's more hard line fundamentalists who just hate tanking and they've made Hinkie the linchpin of that whole issue.
2. I assume all GMs who tank have approval to do it, Hinkie just was up front about it.
3. Every team has their GM speaking publicly on a regular basis, you not knowing doesn't mean it's not happening. Hinkie not talking to the press made him an easier target. Most GMs realize that giving the press a little something makes them a little invested in that person keeping their job as a source.
4. I think this and his willingness to not even try to build anything close to a cohesive team was a significant factor in the annoyance of the league and non-philly fans.

JasonJohnHorn
03-01-2018, 10:46 AM
lol look at the team now, we are in the hunt for a top 3 seed and its strictly a result of Hinkies work. its not his fault ownership didnt let him finish it out.

You could say they are in the hunt for third.... or for 9th.


If you are excited about the Sixers right now, you have every reason to be just as or more excited for the Bucks, Jazz, Heat, Pacers, Nuggets, Blazers, Pelicans, Clippers, and T-Wolves because they are all doing about as well. The only reason people are awing over them is because their .500 records don't look like a stark improvement over the historically bad 4 years the Sixers just came out of.

It's Hinkie's fault he got fired. That what happens when you put together a team that has the losing 4-year stretch in NBA history. You don't get promotions for that.

warfelg
03-01-2018, 10:46 AM
.500 club playing the hardest record in the NBA to that point.

3 games out of the 3 seed, 4 games up on the 9 seed right now.

So you made up one thing and failed to acknowledge part of another.

TheDish87
03-01-2018, 10:51 AM
lol what does it matter what are record for a few games before the break? the present day record is what matters. he lost more than anyone yet only had the worst record ONCE so what does that say for the rest of the league and their 'striving for greatness'? the same teams that were with us in the basement are still there with 0 future while we have 2 future superstars with one having best player in the game upside.

Scoots
03-01-2018, 11:07 AM
lol what does it matter what are record for a few games before the break? the present day record is what matters. he lost more than anyone yet only had the worst record ONCE so what does that say for the rest of the league and their 'striving for greatness'? the same teams that were with us in the basement are still there with 0 future while we have 2 future superstars with one having best player in the game upside.

And there are what, 9 teams tanking this year? Somehow people must be blaming Hinkie for that to be so annoyed.

Oh, and the Warriors tanked in Klay Thompson's rookie year with Curry on the roster to get more talent.

Pop ABSOLUTELY tanked HARD his first year as coach. The old coach was let go because he refused to tank hard enough to get a shot at Duncan, but Pop was willing to do the hard thing and lose hard to win and it worked out well for him, but at the time he was heavily criticized.

warfelg
03-01-2018, 11:20 AM
And there are what, 9 teams tanking this year? Somehow people must be blaming Hinkie for that to be so annoyed.

Oh, and the Warriors tanked in Klay Thompson's rookie year with Curry on the roster to get more talent.

Pop ABSOLUTELY tanked HARD his first year as coach. The old coach was let go because he refused to tank hard enough to get a shot at Duncan, but Pop was willing to do the hard thing and lose hard to win and it worked out well for him, but at the time he was heavily criticized.

Yup. I was going to bring up that even though the Warriors were never as bad as us you guys 100% did the same thing. Got better picks, got assets to use in a trade, gave yourselves cap flexibility to sign players.

The Spurs 1000% tanked but never had to get as bad because they already had a star on the team in DRob. He was just hurt. So it’s not like they had to tank and build together. They just had to tank for the second star. After that the focus was on players who had a skill set that rounded out the team. Parker was a fast moving pure passer when he first came in the league. Ginobli was just a jump shooter. Kwahi was an athlete slasher. People only think of what those guys are now and forget how raw they were.

Let’s also not forget how much luck goes into this. Right when we started our tank, the Suns and Celtics started theirs as well. Celtics got lucky with some trades, who was available to them, and health. The suns got really lucky in that they just bonded quickly and accidentally complemented each other well.

Scoots
03-01-2018, 11:39 AM
Yup. I was going to bring up that even though the Warriors were never as bad as us you guys 100% did the same thing. Got better picks, got assets to use in a trade, gave yourselves cap flexibility to sign players.

The Spurs 1000% tanked but never had to get as bad because they already had a star on the team in DRob. He was just hurt. So it’s not like they had to tank and build together. They just had to tank for the second star. After that the focus was on players who had a skill set that rounded out the team. Parker was a fast moving pure passer when he first came in the league. Ginobli was just a jump shooter. Kwahi was an athlete slasher. People only think of what those guys are now and forget how raw they were.

Let’s also not forget how much luck goes into this. Right when we started our tank, the Suns and Celtics started theirs as well. Celtics got lucky with some trades, who was available to them, and health. The suns got really lucky in that they just bonded quickly and accidentally complemented each other well.

The Warriors tanked HARD down the stretch in that tanking season. They won something like 4 of their last 25 games after being over .400 to that point in the season. They just sucked before that and sort of lucked into a GM that was good at talent evaluation before the new owner, but as soon as the new owner took over they quickly realized they had to lose games and trade players to build a real team so they shut down their best players and ran through a bunch of castoffs. By the end of that season they had, I think, 9 players with under 3 years of experience in the NBA on the active roster.

Hinkie didn't do it first, and the team didn't suck for a record amount of time (Warriors and Clippers and Kings all had longer runs at the bottom which is hard to do considering they are in the same division), his biggest sin was being proud of it I guess.

warfelg
03-01-2018, 11:54 AM
The Warriors tanked HARD down the stretch in that tanking season. They won something like 4 of their last 25 games after being over .400 to that point in the season. They just sucked before that and sort of lucked into a GM that was good at talent evaluation before the new owner, but as soon as the new owner took over they quickly realized they had to lose games and trade players to build a real team so they shut down their best players and ran through a bunch of castoffs. By the end of that season they had, I think, 9 players with under 3 years of experience in the NBA on the active roster.

Hinkie didn't do it first, and the team didn't suck for a record amount of time (Warriors and Clippers and Kings all had longer runs at the bottom which is hard to do considering they are in the same division), his biggest sin was being proud of it I guess.

I don’t even think Hinkie was “proud” of what he did. I would say he was more “unapologetic” of the optics of it.

Scoots
03-01-2018, 12:15 PM
I don’t even think Hinkie was “proud” of what he did. I would say he was more “unapologetic” of the optics of it.

The two look the same to the public.

KnicksorBust
03-01-2018, 12:32 PM
Also missed in this:
Hinkie always contended that there were three ways to get a superstar player.

The first and the easiest was the draft, but it was still a long shot. But you need as many chances as you can get in order to draft the superstar. By increasing future owned picks (outright) from 2 up to 8 he certainly did that.

Next was the ability to trade for one. This one could be a little more debatable if it was done, but he gave himself assets to use in a trade of it ever came up. He actually talked at length once about being the guy that negotiated the Harden trade and how it was the plethora of assets that got the deal done even though Houston lacked the star to send out.

Last and the hardest to do is sign one via FA. When Hinkie came in we were $30 mil over the cap at the time. Quickly we got under that by enough that we could outright sign LeBron or any other max FA in the 2018 offseason and not have to cut or salary dump anyone important.

What Hinkie did was give himself the availability and flexibility to use anyone of those three routes and we may just get a star from all three avenues to get one.

Based on theory of what he was trying to do, the process was a success. He took a team with a limited future and no assets and set it up for a decade+ run.

This. The best people to judge Hinkie's results are the Sixers fans and it seems like they back him.

warfelg
03-01-2018, 01:45 PM
The two look the same to the public.

Which is stupid. Welcome to the twitter age.