PDA

View Full Version : Did the Colangelo Family & the NBA ruin the Philadelphia 76ers?



LaVar Ball
11-25-2018, 11:05 AM
Things with the Process were going just fine. Sam Hinkie was the guy running the operations. Tank tank tank and the process of tanking, although frustrating, led to 2 generational talents in Joel Embiid & Ben Simmons. We dealt with both of their early career injuries before we got the real deals.


Then the NBA steps in and can no longer take Ďthe processí. The commish steps in and brings in Jerry Colangelo to be senior adviser, such results in his idiot bastard son Bryan to become the GM. And this moron goes to trade up in the draft and loses assets to Ainge and picks Fultz over Tatum.

The organization under their stewardship totally mishandles Fultz rookie season. And then we get the ĎTweetgateí debacle from Bryan Cís wife (it was actually him we all know it), and the idiot is gone. But too little too late. Damage done. Fultz then has to start to be showcased and validate as him being the number 1 pick af the detriment of the team as Redick is forced to come off the bench.

Now they bring in Elton Brand as GM, and one of his first moves is trading nice good young players who had a great thing going last year in Covington & Saric, and they get an overrated 2nd tier bipolar malcontent in Jimmy Butler.


Sure, add Jimmy Butler was great, but at what cost?



It just seems as though what was so promising for this ball club, doesnít seem as so promising anymore. They look strong and will be contenders out east, but really in the short term only. No longer that exciting, united, long term sustainable franchise that we could foresee a decade worth of winning had they drafted for Jayson Tatum.

JAZZNC
11-26-2018, 03:44 PM
They got Embiid....they gonna be aite man.

IKnowHoops
11-26-2018, 04:33 PM
Didnít ruin, but def stopped them from being as good as they could of been

smith&wesson
11-26-2018, 04:34 PM
Yeah you can say BC ****ed it up for a while but now they seem to be back on track.

Butlers been a good fit with the 76ers no ?

TrueFan420
11-26-2018, 05:10 PM
Ruin no but we will never know what they might have been if they had gotten to stay the course

warfelg
11-26-2018, 05:16 PM
What's funny is when the Colangelo family was forced on us, not many non-Sixer fans understood what was about to happen.

Quinnsanity
11-26-2018, 05:21 PM
Gonna preface this by saying I am as pro-Hinkie as anyone on this site, but...

I feel like Hinkie would've made the same moves the Sixers have since. Hinkie's whole thing was getting stars, regardless of fit. If he had believed that Fultz was a star, which the entire NBA world sans-Danny Ainge believed, I see no reason why he wouldn't have made that trade. Remember, at the time, Fultz looked like an elite prospect and above-average shooter who filled a position of need. The cost was only one extra pick. He had the third pick in a draft most believed was only going to produce two stars. I think he would've made the deal.

The same was true of Butler. I think Hinkie, being as star-obsessed as he was, would've gone for it. The fit with Simmons wouldn't have stopped him. After all, he drafted all of those centers. He obviously would've made the Bridges swap with Phoenix. That trade was a slam dunk and right up Hinkie's alley. I think signing Redick to a one-year deal to maximize flexibility but also improve the current product (which he would have had reason to do after seeing Embiid thrive that first year) made sense. These all seem like things that Hinkie would have done.

Now, might Sam Hinkie have made smarter decisions on the fringes? Absolutely. I think he would have used his cap space last summer collecting the first-round pick from Denver that Brooklyn ultimately got, just as an example. I think he would have tried to make long-term plays when stars weren't available. But I think we need to separate Hinkie, the executive with a track record, and Hinkie, the myth.

Hinkie was great at extracting value on the fringes. He was great at discovering players that other teams weren't looking at like Covington and McConnell. He was great at maintaining flexibility. He was great at positioning himself to take big swings, be they in the draft, free agency or the trade market. These are the things that he actually did. And in all likelihood, he would have taken the same big swings that his successors took based on his actual record.

But Hinkie was no great scout at the top of the draft. Even if you're generous about the Okafor/Porzingis thing, let's not forget that the guy he really wanted was D'Angelo Russell. He took Nerlens Noel and MCW and missed on McCollum and Giannis, and even if you say that he traded MCW, he still took him. It's not like he drafted him with the expectation of dealing him. Embiid fell into his lap because of injuries, it's not as though that was a controversial pick. It was widely reported at the time that the Sixers wanted Wiggins. It's not like Hinkie would've sat still and taken Shai Gilgeous Alexander at No. 10.

The point is, yea, I think there were some real missteps from the post-Hinkie Sixers. But I think Hinkie would've made those same moves assuming they were presented to him, so it's a bit disingenous to say that the Colangelos ruined the team. I think the Sixers would probably be slightly better off with Hinkie, but the gap isn't overwhelming. It's not like if they'd stuck with Hinkie, they'd be rolling out SGH/RoCo/Tatum/Simmons/Embiid/Dario with troves of space and future picks if he were the GM.

IndyRealist
11-26-2018, 05:50 PM
I disagree. Hinkie was not about star power per se, at least at that point in time. He was about acquiring tradeable assets. For the most part, that meant losing a lot of games and then taking the best player available. Trading up at the expense of a pick doesn't seem like Hinkie at all. The long term goal was to see if anyone panned out, and then trade the rest for a star player, in the same way Morey did with Harden.

Throwing the boat at Butler is a very Hinkie move. But he probably would have cleaned house for both Kawhi and Jimmy.

Hawkeye15
11-26-2018, 06:19 PM
I disagree. Hinkie was not about star power per se, at least at that point in time. He was about acquiring tradeable assets. For the most part, that meant losing a lot of games and then taking the best player available. Trading up at the expense of a pick doesn't seem like Hinkie at all. The long term goal was to see if anyone panned out, and then trade the rest for a star player, in the same way Morey did with Harden.

Throwing the boat at Butler is a very Hinkie move. But he probably would have cleaned house for both Kawhi and Jimmy.

I think he was about star power from within. Meaning, his vision was building through the draft, and unless you do that first, ie, have legit future star power on the cheap, chasing a FA is worthless. FA completes the team, not builds it.

Hawkeye15
11-26-2018, 06:19 PM
though I just realized our posts kind of agree haha. Sorry

Vee-Rex
11-26-2018, 06:20 PM
Gonna preface this by saying I am as pro-Hinkie as anyone on this site, but...

I feel like Hinkie would've made the same moves the Sixers have since. Hinkie's whole thing was getting stars, regardless of fit. If he had believed that Fultz was a star, which the entire NBA world sans-Danny Ainge believed, I see no reason why he wouldn't have made that trade. Remember, at the time, Fultz looked like an elite prospect and above-average shooter who filled a position of need. The cost was only one extra pick. He had the third pick in a draft most believed was only going to produce two stars. I think he would've made the deal.

The same was true of Butler. I think Hinkie, being as star-obsessed as he was, would've gone for it. The fit with Simmons wouldn't have stopped him. After all, he drafted all of those centers. He obviously would've made the Bridges swap with Phoenix. That trade was a slam dunk and right up Hinkie's alley. I think signing Redick to a one-year deal to maximize flexibility but also improve the current product (which he would have had reason to do after seeing Embiid thrive that first year) made sense. These all seem like things that Hinkie would have done.

Now, might Sam Hinkie have made smarter decisions on the fringes? Absolutely. I think he would have used his cap space last summer collecting the first-round pick from Denver that Brooklyn ultimately got, just as an example. I think he would have tried to make long-term plays when stars weren't available. But I think we need to separate Hinkie, the executive with a track record, and Hinkie, the myth.

Hinkie was great at extracting value on the fringes. He was great at discovering players that other teams weren't looking at like Covington and McConnell. He was great at maintaining flexibility. He was great at positioning himself to take big swings, be they in the draft, free agency or the trade market. These are the things that he actually did. And in all likelihood, he would have taken the same big swings that his successors took based on his actual record.

But Hinkie was no great scout at the top of the draft. Even if you're generous about the Okafor/Porzingis thing, let's not forget that the guy he really wanted was D'Angelo Russell. He took Nerlens Noel and MCW and missed on McCollum and Giannis, and even if you say that he traded MCW, he still took him. It's not like he drafted him with the expectation of dealing him. Embiid fell into his lap because of injuries, it's not as though that was a controversial pick. It was widely reported at the time that the Sixers wanted Wiggins. It's not like Hinkie would've sat still and taken Shai Gilgeous Alexander at No. 10.

The point is, yea, I think there were some real missteps from the post-Hinkie Sixers. But I think Hinkie would've made those same moves assuming they were presented to him, so it's a bit disingenous to say that the Colangelos ruined the team. I think the Sixers would probably be slightly better off with Hinkie, but the gap isn't overwhelming. It's not like if they'd stuck with Hinkie, they'd be rolling out SGH/RoCo/Tatum/Simmons/Embiid/Dario with troves of space and future picks if he were the GM.

Hinkie is a legend don't you DARE TARNISH HIS NAME

QBAwayBroncos
11-27-2018, 12:55 AM
Hard to see how he ruined my sixer's...... The sixers are contenders for championships thanks to hinkie, colangelo didn't do **** but miss on fultz and the book is still open on fultz. If he ever gets his brain right and can be himself Coming off the bench we are even more deadly.

LaVar Ball
11-27-2018, 02:36 AM
Hard to see how he ruined my sixer's...... The sixers are contenders for championships thanks to hinkie, colangelo didn't do **** but miss on fultz and the book is still open on fultz. If he ever gets his brain right and can be himself Coming off the bench we are even more deadly.

Fultz is done, he's a bust, he doesn't even deserve to play in the D-league. Dude is a mental and physical trash.

More-Than-Most
11-27-2018, 02:41 AM
What's funny is when the Colangelo family was forced on us, not many non-Sixer fans understood what was about to happen.

Yup... all the morons said FINALLY someone that can make them good etc etc etc... We on the other hand called the colangelos morons.

IndyRealist
11-27-2018, 09:02 AM
though I just realized our posts kind of agree haha. Sorry

Lol all good.

TheDish87
11-27-2018, 10:23 AM
Ruined, da ****? We have arguably the front runner for MVP next to Jimmy Butelr and Ben Simmons. Yea, we are ruined i guess. future looks bleak.

ewing
11-27-2018, 10:58 AM
The Fultz debacle is a big minus for Colangelo. He was also a public embarrassment due to what went with social medi. Otherwise i see a guy that did a good job. I think he did the JJ and Cov deals and they were excellent. The Simmons pick was a consonances pick but was the right move. adding Belly and Ersan at the end of last year turned out to be great moves. Fultz is his BIG black mark

warfelg
11-27-2018, 11:09 AM
The Fultz debacle is a big minus for Colangelo. He was also a public embarrassment due to what went with social medi. Otherwise i see a guy that did a good job. I think he did the JJ and Cov deals and they were excellent. The Simmons pick was a consonances pick but was the right move. adding Belly and Ersan at the end of last year turned out to be great moves. Fultz is his BIG black mark

As well as the handling of Okafor/Noel, the late 1sts that turned into nothing. If the best you can say on a guy was taking the consensus number 1 pick and didnít screw up the cap Iím not sure you can call that a good job.

Vinylman
11-27-2018, 11:12 AM
What's funny is when the Colangelo family was forced on us, not many non-Sixer fans understood what was about to happen.

go read my posts when he was put in place... I was one of the few that said it would be a huge mistake and it has been. no way hinkie makes that deal to get fultz let alone not unload some of the other guys earlier like Noel and Okafor.

Vinylman
11-27-2018, 11:13 AM
I disagree. Hinkie was not about star power per se, at least at that point in time. He was about acquiring tradeable assets. For the most part, that meant losing a lot of games and then taking the best player available. Trading up at the expense of a pick doesn't seem like Hinkie at all. The long term goal was to see if anyone panned out, and then trade the rest for a star player, in the same way Morey did with Harden.

Throwing the boat at Butler is a very Hinkie move. But he probably would have cleaned house for both Kawhi and Jimmy.

spot on

warfelg
11-27-2018, 11:25 AM
go read my posts when he was put in place... I was one of the few that said it would be a huge mistake and it has been. no way hinkie makes that deal to get fultz let alone not unload some of the other guys earlier like Noel and Okafor.

Ok? I didnít say everyone, I said not many understood.

Personally I was rolling to be open minded about it, but my mind quickly changed with the Noel/Okafor debacle.

ewing
11-27-2018, 11:48 AM
As well as the handling of Okafor/Noel, the late 1sts that turned into nothing. If the best you can say on a guy was taking the consensus number 1 pick and didnít screw up the cap Iím not sure you can call that a good job.

You canít lose em all


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

MILLERHIGHLIFE
11-27-2018, 01:35 PM
I disagree. Hinkie was not about star power per se, at least at that point in time. He was about acquiring tradeable assets. For the most part, that meant losing a lot of games and then taking the best player available. Trading up at the expense of a pick doesn't seem like Hinkie at all. The long term goal was to see if anyone panned out, and then trade the rest for a star player, in the same way Morey did with Harden.

Throwing the boat at Butler is a very Hinkie move. But he probably would have cleaned house for both Kawhi and Jimmy.

I said that right away in the Kawhi thread. I would of gave up Simmons for Kawhi in a heartbeat. I wouldn't think twice. Then Butler after that. Trio of Embiid,Kawhi,Butler is a shoe-in for eastern team for finals. Now the trio of Embiid,Butler,Simmons is still nice. But I prefer the other trio. But letting the enemy Raptors have Kawhi instead give them hopes and possibly leap frog ya cause of it anyway. Also 76ers bench is thin and barely any shooters.

TheDish87
11-27-2018, 02:28 PM
you dont trade Simmons on a rookie contract for a player who can walk after the season. thats dumb.

MILLERHIGHLIFE
11-27-2018, 02:56 PM
you dont trade Simmons on a rookie contract for a player who can walk after the season. thats dumb.

Not if you win a ring. Winning changes minds pretty quickly in the NBA. Look at PG13 wanting to be in LA. He stayed with Westbrook. Raptors took a chance on Kawhi. 76ers took a chance on expiring Butler. Simmons cant even shoot. Kawhi on 76ers instead of Simmons increases the chances of finals appearances greatly let alone possibly winning it all.

But seems your front office botched drafting Fultz yet you had Simmons at PG anyway. Tatum on 76ers now would be gravy. Him there and Fultz on Celtics would be hurting the enemy. Yet your feeding the enemy Tatum and Kawhi. Just my opinion. Getting Kawhi. Then getting Butler would of maybe kept Kawhi in tune to stay. Besides having Embiid yet.

TheDish87
11-27-2018, 03:39 PM
PG didnt win a ring, he stayed bcuz he was able to get more money. Raps shed DD's massive deal they were in a win win spot, keeping Leonard doesnt change their books much. Sixers are still a real title contender and dont have to worry about lack of a a distributor, Simmons is now in his ideal role. Simmons/Butler/Embiid costs less than what you suggested too.

More-Than-Most
11-28-2018, 10:44 AM
Not if you win a ring. Winning changes minds pretty quickly in the NBA. Look at PG13 wanting to be in LA. He stayed with Westbrook. Raptors took a chance on Kawhi. 76ers took a chance on expiring Butler. Simmons cant even shoot. Kawhi on 76ers instead of Simmons increases the chances of finals appearances greatly let alone possibly winning it all.

But seems your front office botched drafting Fultz yet you had Simmons at PG anyway. Tatum on 76ers now would be gravy. Him there and Fultz on Celtics would be hurting the enemy. Yet your feeding the enemy Tatum and Kawhi. Just my opinion. Getting Kawhi. Then getting Butler would of maybe kept Kawhi in tune to stay. Besides having Embiid yet.

you just cant do it... not worth the risk... He walks and we were screwed... Giving up a player with simmons talent and future for a chance to win a ring which still wouldnt make us better than the warriors and praying he stays on top of destroying our cap going forward is nasty. I love KL but you dont ever trade Ben or Joel.

Now we can easily try and Sign KL next year if need be or resign butler and go get another top but not max free agent and be in a fantastic position.

warfelg
11-28-2018, 10:46 AM
you just cant do it... not worth the risk... He walks and we were screwed... Giving up a player with simmons talent and future for a chance to win a ring which still wouldnt make us better than the warriors and praying he stays on top of destroying our cap going forward is nasty. I love KL but you dont ever trade Ben or Joel.

Not only that but:

JJ, Kawhi, Butler, Joel

Who's playing the 4? Who's your play to play playing PG? Who's to say we still make the trade for Butler if we have Kawhi? Who's to say just Simmons was enough for Pops?

More-Than-Most
11-28-2018, 10:52 AM
Not only that but:

JJ, Kawhi, Butler, Joel

Who's playing the 4? Who's your play to play playing PG? Who's to say we still make the trade for Butler if we have Kawhi? Who's to say just Simmons was enough for Pops?

Yup... and honestly with the cap situation and the fact he could walk i wouldnt trade ben for KL straight up... I am hard on ben but the contract KL will get plus the fact he could walk and the fact he was injured and nobody knew he would come back like this made giving up Ben utterly moronic in a trade for KL.

QBAwayBroncos
11-28-2018, 11:28 PM
fultz is done, he's a bust, he doesn't even deserve to play in the d-league. Dude is a mental and physical trash.

stfu

QBAwayBroncos
11-28-2018, 11:50 PM
I said that right away in the Kawhi thread. I would of gave up Simmons for Kawhi in a heartbeat. I wouldn't think twice. Then Butler after that. Trio of Embiid,Kawhi,Butler is a shoe-in for eastern team for finals. Now the trio of Embiid,Butler,Simmons is still nice. But I prefer the other trio. But letting the enemy Raptors have Kawhi instead give them hopes and possibly leap frog ya cause of it anyway. Also 76ers bench is thin and barely any shooters.

Glad you aren't the GM of my sixer's because trading Simmons is moronic. Dudes already elite at what he does and only growing. He's a jump shot away from being LeBron and that's a fact. Trading him on a rookie contract for a one year rental is absurd

QBAwayBroncos
11-28-2018, 11:59 PM
Not if you win a ring. Winning changes minds pretty quickly in the NBA. Look at PG13 wanting to be in LA. He stayed with Westbrook. Raptors took a chance on Kawhi. 76ers took a chance on expiring Butler. Simmons cant even shoot. Kawhi on 76ers instead of Simmons increases the chances of finals appearances greatly let alone possibly winning it all.

But seems your front office botched drafting Fultz yet you had Simmons at PG anyway. Tatum on 76ers now would be gravy. Him there and Fultz on Celtics would be hurting the enemy. Yet your feeding the enemy Tatum and Kawhi. Just my opinion. Getting Kawhi. Then getting Butler would of maybe kept Kawhi in tune to stay. Besides having Embiid yet.

Umm Simmons bis a second year player, the shot will come. It seems like just because we are so good so soon with these guys being young you people think guy's like Simmons game is set in stone and he'll never be able to shoot........ Lmao 2nd year guy is already maxed out......... SMH

Vinylman
11-29-2018, 10:20 AM
Umm Simmons bis a second year player, the shot will come. It seems like just because we are so good so soon with these guys being young you people think guy's like Simmons game is set in stone and he'll never be able to shoot........ Lmao 2nd year guy is already maxed out......... SMH

ummmÖ I like Simmons a lot but I would be extremely concerned that the dude hasn't even attempted a 3 in 22 games this year. He obviously didn't work on his shot last offseason. What exactly did he work on? I would be concerned long term with the way the league works now... 15 years ago it wouldn't have been a big deal.

warfelg
11-29-2018, 10:38 AM
ummmÖ I like Simmons a lot but I would be extremely concerned that the dude hasn't even attempted a 3 in 22 games this year. He obviously didn't work on his shot last offseason. What exactly did he work on? I would be concerned long term with the way the league works now... 15 years ago it wouldn't have been a big deal.

:shrug: Iím not that concerned. Because Iím seeing growth. Last year he had troubles asserting himself when he had a mismatch. Last night the Knicks kept using guards to cover him, so he went into the block and fought for the ball and easy basket. Last year he was still fineness with that type of defense.

What I like about starting Chandler with Jimmy and Butler is we now have 3 guys 6í8Ē-6í11Ē on the floor and all three can put the ball on the floor and move. With most teams a smaller guard will have to take 1 of the 3, and a slower Pf will have to take 1 of the 3.

If Simmons keeps growing with recognizing which matchup he has and how to exploit it Iím a happy man. And so far he is doing that.

warfelg
11-29-2018, 10:49 AM
Sorry wanted to be on my computer to type out the remainder of my thought:

It's why I was never a fan of the Saric-Simmons pairing and have wanted Saric in a package for another star for a while. Saric operates best in the same spaces as Simmons in the half court. The mid/low post passing guy. The problem with the Saric-Simmons-Covington trio was that was easy to defend. Covington was not an on ball scorer, so you would 'hide' a weak defender on him, and usually it was a guard because despite his size. Covington was not one to work the post game to take advantage of that. Saric didn't have the speed that made a slower PF a mismatch off the face up game. So Simmons always drew the SF in those matchups, which is a tough match for him.

Think of the defenders that he's struggled with: Al Horford, Giannis, Durant, LeBron, Paul George. What do they have in common? Other than Horford, they are longer 3's with size to them. I don't think I would shock anyone saying Simmons would struggle with Kawhi on him.

Those teams had it easy when you could use your 4 on Saric and know you are fine.

Now think of it with Butler and Chandler out there with him. You have those 3's covering Simmons. Who's taking Butler? The Guards? He's way to big for them to handle. The PF's? Well he's too quick. Wilson Chandler isn't near the same level as those two, but he's good enough to take advantage of a matchup.

As long as this keeps happening it's fine with me. This is organic growth of Simmons game. Just by the sheer matchup struggles he's going to have games with easier looks. When those start to change and teams figure out how to matchup with these three guys (GSW, Bost are the only two that come to mind that will match up well) then he should start learning that he's got the throw up shots when they are given.

Vinylman
11-29-2018, 11:04 AM
I agree with all that on simmons but you have to admit the shooting is a concern long term. He is going to have to at least start taking some 3s at some point to spread the floor... he can only become truly elite if he is a threat to shoot the ball even if the percentages are only around 30%.

Also, you are now basically saying roster construction is what helped Maximize his performance which while good can't always be counted on.

At the end of the day he is going to need to be somewhat of a threat shooting the ball.

warfelg
11-29-2018, 11:15 AM
I agree with all that on simmons but you have to admit the shooting is a concern long term. He is going to have to at least start taking some 3s at some point to spread the floor... he can only become truly elite if he is a threat to shoot the ball even if the percentages are only around 30%.

Also, you are now basically saying roster construction is what helped Maximize his performance which while good can't always be counted on.

At the end of the day he is going to need to be somewhat of a threat shooting the ball.

Eventually a shot will have to be there. I disagree he needs to be at 30%. LeBron was elite even hitting them at 25-27%. What Iím saying is it doesnít have to start happening right now.

Not once did I say we have a roster that maximizes his skill. What I said is we have a roster, and more specifically a starting lineup, that will quite often have a mismatch that we can attack. Thereís no maximizing his performance.

Iíve never disagreed with you at the end of the day statement. Where Iíve disagreed with people is it all needs to happen right now. If you read the deeper dive articles they go into the same things I did where his growth this year is on something fans donít get excited about and doesnít show up in the stat sheet. But there is growth happening in terms of having a deeper understanding of where to be and whatís a favorable matchup for him.