Do you agree with hinkie's rebuild plan for the sixers?

[ratrac]

Oh Please. Posey was an established veteran with 8 years of experience which included a ring with Miami in 2006, where he was a key rotation player. Covington was in the D league a year ago.

And I forgot to mention PJ Brown.

Seriously, this argument? If that so, if I was a contender, I would take the Kendrick Perkins championship pedigree over let's say Hassan Whiteside, the crappy guy, who fell out of league in two years after drafted and only year ago played in China/Lebanon/D-League. You can make a case that Posey was a better player than Covington is, but you gotta try harder (e.g. Covington will have a hard time reaching to be as good as defensively as Posey was).

[pacers33granger]

It will be impossible for the Sixers to replicate what Ainge did in 2007. First, Ainge already had one veteran star (Pierce). The Sixers do not. Second, Ainge found a GM who was blowing up a small market team about to move to an even smaller market, who was peddling two valuable young veteran stars (Allen and Rashared Lewis) as part of his own tank (which eventually netted Durant and then Harden). Third, after Hinkie gets two veteran studs, who is going to be the third? That requires a guy who is disgruntled with his current situation and enough remaining trade assets (plus cap space and expirings) to get another GM to part with his franchise player. The odds of this kind of "perfect storm" are slim to none. Fourth, Ainge built a credible bench. He still had Tony Allen, drafted Leon Powe in the second round and signed James Posey and Eddie House as free agents. Where is Hinckie going to find a player as good as Posey for the MLE?

The most likely outcome of all this tanking is that the Sixers become the Sacramento Kings East, winning in the high 20s low 30's year after year with young players who haven't learned how to win.

He can still bring in stars other ways. If their players develop, Hinkie could have 50 mil or so in cap space in 2 years to add to:

/Marshall
/Stauskas
Covington/Grant
Noel/Saric/Holmes/Wood
Okafor/

Along with whoever they get with the ton of picks they have coming. And both Noel/Okafor could be that first star. And if even one of their bench prospects become a legitimate rotation player, he's got them locked up cheap. That could easily be a roster that two stars would want to sign with in a couple years if the guys develop well and that's without giving up any assets. Or Noel, Okafor, and whoever they draft next year could all pan out and reach their full potential and there's your three stars.

It's not likely that two stars sign there, but Hinkie is setting himself up for a shot at it, so it's definitely not impossible.

[Curmudgeon]

Hope springs eternal in the human breast. Sure, Okafor might become a star, but he certainly hasn't played like one.

Plus, Philadelphia isn't exactly Miami or Los Angeles. No South Beach, no Malibu. It's just another cold Northeastern city. Hinkie's chance of attracting a major free agent or two are slim to none. He can't even get Saric to leave Europe.

[Goner]

It is interesting to note that Hinkie claims outright that his effort is to reduce the 'luck' factor. In many instances, the interpretation of something being either luck or skill depends upon who is viewing the effort. A 'lucky' shot is a 'skillful' shot for the winning team. In the same hand, Hinkie is simply trying to increase his handicap during the draft by tanking HAM.

There have been plenty of examples of teams drafting early in the lottery not making actual competitive headway, and they have already been mentioned, but there are also a lot of examples of teams completing a rebuild (interpreted as crystallizing a 'core' and 'identity') without making such a concerted effort to tanking. Utah and Chicago are fine examples of this. Most of those teams heavy hitters were not drafted early in the lottery, yet, year after year, their GM's tend to hit on draft picks. From here, it seems clear that Hinkie, instead of bringing a new "eye for talent" to the organization and rebuilding by accumulating higher quality players from the same respective draft position, is simply trying to dumb the drafting process down. If you accept this, then it is an obvious indictment of Hinkie's abilities as a GM.

However, I do not think that that accurately sums up Hinkie's effort in this rebuild. I think Hinkie's rebuild revolves as much around drafting as it does replacing the term 'talent' for the term 'value'. I think that is why some fans are so averse to this style of rebuild. Plainly speaking, he is viewing the Sixers not as a team, but as an economy, believing that if he maximizes the value of the team on the trade market, in total, then that will invariably lead to a maximal increase in talent on the hardwood, at least eventually. If I am correct in this, then I believe that he (Hinkie) is making a mistake in his overall plan for rebuilding the Sixers.

[HartfordWhalers]

You don't build a winner by losing, not in the NBA or in any other form of human endeavor of which I am aware.

The Celtics tanked for one year, 24 wins in 2006-07.

Cognitive dissonance.

[pacers33granger]

Hope springs eternal in the human breast. Sure, Okafor might become a star, but he certainly hasn't played like one.

It's preseason and he's 19.

Plus, Philadelphia isn't exactly Miami or Los Angeles. No South Beach, no Malibu. It's just another cold Northeastern city. Hinkie's chance of attracting a major free agent or two are slim to none. He can't even get Saric to leave Europe.

Saric has a contract in Europe and the Sixers couldn't negotiate a buyout with his team (and the Sixers are very limited in what they can pay, the rest has to come out of Saric's pocket), so I'm not sure how that's on Hinkie.

And we've seen more max free agents choosing better teams over specific cities lately. If they have a core that could support a star for the life of his contract, that star will take a look.

[winter_mute_13]

There have been plenty of examples of teams drafting early in the lottery not making actual competitive headway, and they have already been mentioned, but there are also a lot of examples of teams completing a rebuild (interpreted as crystallizing a 'core' and 'identity') without making such a concerted effort to tanking. Utah and Chicago are fine examples of this. Most of those teams heavy hitters were not drafted early in the lottery, yet, year after year, their GM's tend to hit on draft picks. From here, it seems clear that Hinkie, instead of bringing a new "eye for talent" to the organization and rebuilding by accumulating higher quality players from the same respective draft position, is simply trying to dumb the drafting process down. If you accept this, then it is an obvious indictment of Hinkie's abilities as a GM.

That's one way to look at it. Alternatively, maybe those other GMs didn't have any special "eye for talent"; instead perhaps they had a superior player development process that is able to turn a raw prospect like Jimmy Butler into a star level player. I would posit that playing on a so-called "treadmill" team tends to be better for player development than playing on a tanking team, hence that is why some of those treadmill teams can make an unexpected leap now and then.

However, I do not think that that accurately sums up Hinkie's effort in this rebuild. I think Hinkie's rebuild revolves as much around drafting as it does replacing the term 'talent' for the term 'value'. I think that is why some fans are so averse to this style of rebuild. Plainly speaking, he is viewing the Sixers not as a team, but as an economy, believing that if he maximizes the value of the team on the trade market, in total, then that will invariably lead to a maximal increase in talent on the hardwood, at least eventually. If I am correct in this, then I believe that he (Hinkie) is making a mistake in his overall plan for rebuilding the Sixers.

Ainge and Morey have done this already, and more successfully. The key with both Ainge and Morey is the ability to draft well with lower picks to obtain good players and then packaging these players for disgruntled stars. Hinkie is probably following the same general strategy, except that he's stacking the deck to start with higher picks than Ainge or Morey normally did. So far though his drafting results have been... well, incomplete at best. The one young player he's traded so far, he essentially swapped for a mulligan in the draft process, rather than in some sort of consolidation trade.

EDIT: I forgot about KJ McDaniels who he just sort of... gave away

[HotelVitale]

Of course its relevant. A huge part of Hinkie's plan is to build through the draft. So you absolutely have to take a look at teams who have had high picks over a 5+ year window to see how effective a strategy that has been historically.

We were talking about fan interest in the Sixers, and the comment was using something we all know (draft picks don't always work out and the Sixers strategy might not succeed) to speak to that tangientially.

[HotelVitale]

But what do you do if the players just aren't good? Say Okafor either flops or isn't close to ready, Embiid's done, and next year's pick doesn't amount to much.

^ Then he gets fired. Plain and simple, just like any other GM. You can dress everything else up however you want and set forth whatever type of timeframe you want, but as Jimmy Johnson once said about this Cowboys dynasty, building a successful team ultimately comes down to talent evaluation. If Hinkie — or any GM of any team in any sport — blows that part and picks bad players, there is zero defense for him keeping his job. Zero.

Okay, but that's just the usual sports scapegoating--we've all been following the game long enough to know that the draft is at least 75% luck and random development. Even if I get that 5 years without success means your time is up, and I could acknowledge that Hinkie should be gone if the roster still sucks--at the point it's about him as a 'bad drafter' and not the Hinkie strategy as such.

[HotelVitale]

EDIT: I forgot about KJ McDaniels who he just sort of... gave away

I don't have time to summarize right now, but KJ was pretty bad overall last year. Had a fun opening month and then two really bad ones, and he was up for a $6-7m a year contract that the Sixers weren't interested in. (Mostly because they already have like 5 SFs signed to cheap-o multi-year deals).

[Goner]

Ainge and Morey have done this already, and more successfully. The key with both Ainge and Morey is the ability to draft well with lower picks to obtain good players and then packaging these players for disgruntled stars. Hinkie is probably following the same general strategy, except that he's stacking the deck to start with higher picks than Ainge or Morey normally did. So far though his drafting results have been... well, incomplete at best. The one young player he's traded so far, he essentially swapped for a mulligan in the draft process, rather than in some sort of consolidation trade.

EDIT: I forgot about KJ McDaniels who he just sort of... gave away

Yeah, incomplete is the most complete way of putting it. And this style of rebuilding seems like it will, at best, be not enough until it is too much e.g. Embiid does come back and show merit, Oak pans out, Saric being held out as long as possible to further the tank etc. It could, in theory, all come together beautifully and Hinkie could be seen as brilliant, but as of right now there is no way to gauge it.

[winter_mute_13]

EDIT: I forgot about KJ McDaniels who he just sort of... gave away

I don't have time to summarize right now, but KJ was pretty bad overall last year. Had a fun opening month and then two really bad ones, and he was up for a $6-7m a year contract that the Sixers weren't interested in. (Mostly because they already have like 5 SFs signed to cheap-o multi-year deals).

$6-7m a year is nothing in the new salary cap era, haven't you heard? And in reality, McDaniels signed for just over $3m a year. And anyway, the point is that the Sixers would still control his RFA rights. They didn't have to trade him.

On a team that is supposed to be all about long adds of adding a star, why did they let a young guy with potential go? Yes McDaniels was bad last year ... but a lot of rookies are. And the Sixers are by design in a position to patiently develop players. It just doesn't make sense. Unless this is some more supposed brilliance that no one else understands.

[Foshan]

Ainge and Morey have done this already, and more successfully. The key with both Ainge and Morey is the ability to draft well with lower picks to obtain good players and then packaging these players for disgruntled stars. Hinkie is probably following the same general strategy, except that he's stacking the deck to start with higher picks than Ainge or Morey normally did. So far though his drafting results have been... well, incomplete at best. The one young player he's traded so far, he essentially swapped for a mulligan in the draft process, rather than in some sort of consolidation trade.

While I agree that the verdict is still out on his drafting results, i think you are over-spinning it a bit here. If we are evaluating his ability to pick a good player--he pulled the ROY @ #11. I'd say thats pretty solid? In the following year, when said ROY began to loose some of his promise, he was moved for a potentially amazing pick. In that same draft he also took the delayed gratification route and ended up with Noel who had a pretty good argument for getting the ROY the following season.

EDIT: I forgot about KJ McDaniels who he just sort of... gave away

If KJ is so special, then I think that would be yet another good argument for Hinkie's ability to nab talent at different spots in the draft. To say he gave him away is an incredibly simplistic view of a pretty complex situation. You must have missed all the threads around RealGM where posters were talking about paying KJ 10M/per. His position on the team/playing time was always a distraction via his mother (lol seriously), and he wasn't actually that good aside from some amazingly athletic blocks/dunks (granted, very fun to watch in highlight reelz). So KJ (#32 pick) was turned into the #34 pick from the yr before and the #37pick the year after (i'm a big fan of Holmes). So considering Philly probably wouldn't have resigned him at the money he wanted, I don't think you can say he was given away.

[winter_mute_13]

If we are evaluating his ability to pick a good player--he pulled the ROY @ #11. I'd say thats pretty solid?

Yes it is. If my team managed to do that, I'd expect to a) either build around that player, or b) trade that player in a package for a real star. As for the amazing pick you got, how is it different from the gazillion amazing picks the Sixers already own?

If KJ is so special, then I think that would be yet another good argument for Hinkie's ability to nab talent at different spots in the draft.

Just to be clear I don't think McDaniels is super special or anything - but he is a good prospect with potential. And yes, I thought the choice spoke well of Hinkie's drafting ability. So why did he let him ago instead of extracting more value?

I'm sure his mom was problematic, but to say that your organization isn't competent enough to handle a player's mom is even more of a problem isn't it? I mean, by your argument, you would be happy if the Sixers decide to trade Embiid (taken #3) for the previous year's #3/#4 (Porter/Zeller) plus a future pick, all because the Sixers decide they can't handle his attitude anymore. Or do you say, hey this guy has talent, we'd be better off holding unto him at least until we know whether his talent will pan out or not.

[mtron929]

Hope springs eternal in the human breast. Sure, Okafor might become a star, but he certainly hasn't played like one.

Plus, Philadelphia isn't exactly Miami or Los Angeles. No South Beach, no Malibu. It's just another cold Northeastern city. Hinkie's chance of attracting a major free agent or two are slim to none. He can't even get Saric to leave Europe.

And this is precisely why his strategy (whether it works or no) is the most rational one. You need a superstar to win in this league. You can get them largely in three ways: (1) through the draft and (2) through free agency and (3) through a trade. As you mention, Philly does not attract major free agents so option #2 is gone, which means it is through the draft or trade. Either way, the best ways to maximize the chances is to draft higher and more frequently. And that is what Philly is doing. Obviously, this also requires Philly to draft well but this is in some sense a separate issue. The optimal plan to get a superstar is the one that Heinke is currently implemeting.

[Foshan]

If we are evaluating his ability to pick a good player--he pulled the ROY @ #11. I'd say thats pretty solid?

Yes it is. If my team managed to do that, I'd expect to a) either build around that player, or b) trade that player in a package for a real star. As for the amazing pick you got, how is it different from the gazillion amazing picks the Sixers already own?

Thats a great point. However, while MCW did win rookie of the year, he is definitely not a player that you build around, which was becoming more and more obvious. To turn him into a high potential pick seems like a huge win. As far as our 'gazillion amazing picks' we already own, again, this seems testimony to the good job Hinkie is doing. he started with a totally crap roster and in debt two picks. So to turn that around to being a team with a lot of future assets is pretty impressive.

If KJ is so special, then I think that would be yet another good argument for Hinkie's ability to nab talent at different spots in the draft.

Just to be clear I don't think McDaniels is super special or anything - but he is a good prospect with potential. And yes, I thought the choice spoke well of Hinkie's drafting ability. So why did he let him ago instead of extracting more value?

I'm sure his mom was problematic, but to say that your organization isn't competent enough to handle a player's mom is even more of a problem isn't it? I mean, by your argument, you would be happy if the Sixers decide to trade Embiid (taken #3) for the previous year's #3/#4 (Porter/Zeller) plus a future pick, all because the Sixers decide they can't handle his attitude anymore. Or do you say, hey this guy has talent, we'd be better off holding unto him at least until we know whether his talent will pan out or not.

Okay, so i think the money was significantly more important than the mom thing But for a team trying to gel together and build something, to have continual tweets from a players parent about how badly said player is being tweeted is incredibly unprofessional and not something I want on my team. Its not like we are benching AI here... Also if Embiid were to be moved in a similar scenario, it would be Embiid for Porter(year before) & Muliday(year after a couple picks later), which I think is a conversation worth having. ((Not a proposed trade!))

A lot of Philly fans didn't like the KJ trade when it happened. So you are very right it seemed like he was given away. But when you consider the context of the deal, there is just too much going on to say he was given away. KJ went to a 'winning team' where he was benched basically the remainder of the season. That had to have a HUGE impact on his earning potential the next year. So sure he doesn't look awful at 3m per, but if he'd stayed on the sixers we could be talking 10M per come FA. Then he walks for absolutely nothing (no way hinkie pays him that) and he leaves for nothing, as well as encouraging future Sixer 2nd round picks to sign a 1yr deal and 'bet on yourself' rather than going with a more traditional team friendly 2nd round deal.

For all the crap Hinkie gets, and all the Realgm'ers who talk about the injustice to the 6ers fans... I think interest in the team is higher than its been in a very long time, heck its definitely in the media now more than ever.

[HotelVitale]

EDIT: I forgot about KJ McDaniels who he just sort of... gave away

I don't have time to summarize right now, but KJ was pretty bad overall last year. Had a fun opening month and then two really bad ones, and he was up for a $6-7m a year contract that the Sixers weren't interested in. (Mostly because they already have like 5 SFs signed to cheap-o multi-year deals).

$6-7m a year is nothing in the new salary cap era, haven't you heard? And in reality, McDaniels signed for just over $3m a year. And anyway, the point is that the Sixers would still control his RFA rights. They didn't have to trade him. On a team that is supposed to be all about long adds of adding a star, why did they let a young guy with potential go? Yes McDaniels was bad last year ... but a lot of rookies are. And the Sixers are by design in a position to patiently develop players. It just doesn't make sense. Unless this is some more supposed brilliance that no one else understands.

It's not brilliant but it's not weird or hard to understand. They have lots of athletic wing prospects, and they didn't want to pay KJ much money because they didn't think he was worth it. I mean, the only reason you've even heard of the guy was because he made a couple cool blocks and dunks during games when he shouldn't have been playing (and then proceeded to play badly for the rest of the season). The Sixers let better young players like Thomas Robinson go and you didn't bat an eye, so why is it suddenly a hilarious comedy of errors when they decide against re-signing a redundant, decent prospect who wanted more money than they offered. (Also KJ signed for $3m because he played like 8 minutes total during the last half of the season. If the Sixers could have locked him up for like 3/6 they would've done that, but he wasn't into it.)

To be clear, KJ might be good and I'm not trying to play him off as sour grapes. It's just that non-Sixers fans often think he was a super prospect because they saw the highlights, and we Philly people all saw him playing worse then Covington and Sampson and looking no more promising than Jerami Grant. Right now their strategy is to sign guys like that that they think they can develop for really cheap, with the idea that they can mold them to what they need (athletic shooters, essentially) and keep them around long enough that they can contribute. KJ wasn't interested in that and they didn't think he was good enough to make an exception for. Pretty simple.

[HartfordWhalers]

I don't have time to summarize right now, but KJ was pretty bad overall last year. Had a fun opening month and then two really bad ones, and he was up for a $6-7m a year contract that the Sixers weren't interested in. (Mostly because they already have like 5 SFs signed to cheap-o multi-year deals).

$6-7m a year is nothing in the new salary cap era, haven't you heard? And in reality, McDaniels signed for just over $3m a year. And anyway, the point is that the Sixers would still control his RFA rights. They didn't have to trade him. On a team that is supposed to be all about long adds of adding a star, why did they let a young guy with potential go? Yes McDaniels was bad last year ... but a lot of rookies are. And the Sixers are by design in a position to patiently develop players. It just doesn't make sense. Unless this is some more supposed brilliance that no one else understands.

It's not brilliant but it's not weird or hard to understand. They have lots of athletic wing prospects, and they didn't want to pay KJ much money because they didn't think he was worth it. I mean, the only reason you've even heard of the guy was because he made a couple cool blocks and dunks during games when he shouldn't have been playing (and then proceeded to play badly for the rest of the season). The Sixers let better young players like Thomas Robinson go and you didn't bat an eye, so why is it suddenly a hilarious comedy of errors when they decide against re-signing a redundant, decent prospect who wanted more money than they offered. (Also KJ signed for $3m because he played like 8 minutes total during the last half of the season. If the Sixers could have locked him up for like 3/6 they would've done that, but he wasn't into it.)

To be clear, KJ might be good and I'm not trying to play him off as sour grapes. It's just that non-Sixers fans often think he was a super prospect because they saw the highlights, and we Philly people all saw him playing worse then Covington and Sampson and looking no more promising than Jerami Grant. Right now their strategy is to sign guys like that that they think they can develop for really cheap, with the idea that they can mold them to what they need (athletic shooters, essentially) and keep them around long enough that they can contribute. KJ wasn't interested in that and they didn't think he was good enough to make an exception for. Pretty simple.

There is no way Jakarr was better than KJ last year.

[Foshan]

^ I agree, Jakarr sucked. But Thompson / Covington looked better, and Grant looked like his upside was about equal.
*edit* however after KJ left, Jakarr did improve and showed he could actually dribble a little, something the other 4 can't do

[MalonesElbows]

It's looking like Noel is going to be their only prize, so I would say no.