Clyde Frazier wrote:Every team's goal should be to eventually contend for a championship...
And yes, I'm asking if you agree with hinkie's plan to achieve that.
Ok, so why do you think team chemistry and team building matters at this stage for the Sixers? The way I see it, Hinkie is trying to get a MVP caliber player first, because having that superstar is key to contending. Chemistry and actually building a roster that fits is obviously important too, but are secondary to getting that superstar. Are you disagreeing with that emphasis on the superstar or do you think the lack of actual team building could prevent that superstar from developing in Philly?
When I say team building, i'm not talking about signing above average vets to long term contracts. I'm talking about drafting well, creating a winning culture and having some sort of base to continue to build on.
Look at the warriors -- almost entirely built through the draft, which yes, is rare, but it still took them 6 seasons since curry was drafted to truly contend for a title. You don't think building chemistry over time was a part of that success?
Going into year 3, the sixers just aren't moving in that direction. The idea of collecting assets to trade for let's say a top 10 player is certainly viable, but it's not common that the opportunity arises. There's definite luck and timing involved. Maybe hinkie continues to hold out for that superstar, or maybe he folds at the request of ownership and trades for a less talented player. My fear is that they may end up with nothing to show for it, and in the process haven't built a real team.
And as an aside, which I didn't quite touch on, I don't completely condone tanking, but I do think it's the responsibility of the organization to put a competitive team on the floor. A roster filled with fringe NBA guys is pretty questionable.
Crabman wrote:I made it clear what I was claiming in that post. The post and your reply is there to read. Lol, now you're backtracking? Don't worry, I'll let it go. XOXOXO
I'm not backtracking. I said the same thing throughout. Philly got their guy, and then some.
Trying to argue they didn't was stupid. Trying to argue that anyone was saying there was zero value in Payton was stupid. Feel free to argue with yourself over those, but it doesn't change the point: Philly got their guy, and then some. It was clearly a win.
That this is so hard to understand, or is deflected from so much is absolutely amazing.
Definition of a straw man argument right there. I made it clear it was a good deal for Philly. Again, I made my point clear in my post and the reply is there to read. Lol I'm starting to feel bad for you. You're a moderator and have a reputation to maintain. Not my fault you made a fool of yourself though. Maybe next time you won't to be so quick to insult someone. Hopefully you came out of this with a lesson. LMAO
The Sixers were prepared to take Saric with the 10th overall pick before calling the Magic with 30 seconds left on the clock and offering Payton, sources. The Magic then took Saric at No. 12 to complete the deal.
So, Philly wanted Saric. They took Payton to trade him. Let it go. Please let the thread move on.
MyUniBroDavis wrote: he was like YALL PEOPLE WHO DOUBT ME WILL SEE YALLS STATS ARE WRONG I HAVE THE BIG BRAIN PLAYS MUCHO NASTY BIG BRAIN BIG CHUNGUS BRAIN YOU BOYS ON UR BBALL REFERENCE NO UNDERSTANDO
This Sixer fan is more than okay with Hinkie's plan.
Last 2 years have been more fun than the decade before it. First time franchise has had any legitimate hope since the Webber trade in 2005 or maybe the Elton Brand signing in 2008 which only lasted until we actually saw Brand play and realized he wasn't the same guy anymore.
The feedback I've received from our fans is they understand we are trying to build something great. Good decisions come from having a broad set of options and making tough calls. We will do it unblinkingly. We have to be willing to take smart risks-Hinkie
Crabman wrote:I made it clear it was a good deal for Philly. Again, I made my point clear in my post...
Actually here is what you said:
Crabman wrote:If the Sixers loved him so much over Payton they wouldn't have taken the gamble.
And yet all reports are they did like him over Payton. Including Woj. You have since backpedalled so far, you keep falling on your ass. Feel free to keep laughing, but maybe think before posting.
Clyde Frazier wrote:Every team's goal should be to eventually contend for a championship...
And yes, I'm asking if you agree with hinkie's plan to achieve that.
Ok, so why do you think team chemistry and team building matters at this stage for the Sixers? The way I see it, Hinkie is trying to get a MVP caliber player first, because having that superstar is key to contending. Chemistry and actually building a roster that fits is obviously important too, but are secondary to getting that superstar. Are you disagreeing with that emphasis on the superstar or do you think the lack of actual team building could prevent that superstar from developing in Philly?
When I say team building, i'm not talking about signing above average vets to long term contracts. I'm talking about drafting well, creating a winning culture and having some sort of base to continue to build on.
Look at the warriors -- almost entirely built through the draft, which yes, is rare, but it still took them 6 seasons since curry was drafted to truly contend for a title. You don't think building chemistry over time was a part of that success?
Going into year 3, the sixers just aren't moving in that direction. The idea of collecting assets to trade for let's say a top 10 player is certainly viable, but it's not common that the opportunity arises. There's definite luck and timing involved. Maybe hinkie continues to hold out for that superstar, or maybe he folds at the request of ownership and trades for a less talented player. My fear is that they may end up with nothing to show for it, and in the process haven't built a real team.
And as an aside, which I didn't quite touch on, I don't completely condone tanking, but I do think it's the responsibility of the organization to put a competitive team on the floor. A roster filled with fringe NBA guys is pretty questionable.
Looking at GSW, Curry is the only player from their championship team that was on the team in his 2009 rookie season. Yes, building chemistry was part of that success, but it started after they got Curry, not before.
Right now, the Sixers haven't found their Curry. Maybe it turns out to be Embiid if he can get healthy. Maybe it's Okafor. Maybe it 's their '16 pick or the '16 Lakers pick or maybe they will get it via some trade. And yes, maybe none of that happens and the ownership gets impatient. But that wouldn't mean Hinkie's plan was bad, just that ownership didn't know what it wants. Imo, if you want to make a case that Hinkie's strategy is bad, you should be able to present a better strategy, not just point out why Hinkie's strategy isn't perfect.
Regarding putting a competitive team on the floor: That's a reasonable opinion, but that's really a criticism of ownership. Ownership sets the parameters, the GM operates within those parameters.
Crabman wrote:I made it clear it was a good deal for Philly. Again, I made my point clear in my post...
Actually here is what you said:
Crabman wrote:If the Sixers loved him so much over Payton they wouldn't have taken the gamble.
And yet all reports are they did like him over Payton. Including Woj. You have since backpedalled so far, you keep falling on your ass. Feel free to keep laughing, but maybe think before posting.
Lol those two statements don't contradict each other at all. Here's what I said in one of my posts
I never said it wasn't a good deal of Philly, but lets not act like it was a rip off for the Magic like some people claim.
I guess I didn't make it CLEAR it was a good deal, but it was certainly implied when you read that statement.
HartfordWhalers wrote: I'm not backtracking. I said the same thing throughout. Philly got their guy, and then some.
Trying to argue they didn't was stupid. Trying to argue that anyone was saying there was zero value in Payton was stupid. Feel free to argue with yourself over those, but it doesn't change the point: Philly got their guy, and then some. It was clearly a win.
That this is so hard to understand, or is deflected from so much is absolutely amazing.
Definition of a straw man argument right there. I made it clear it was a good deal for Philly. Again, I made my point clear in my post and the reply is there to read. Lol I'm starting to feel bad for you. You're a moderator and have a reputation to maintain. Not my fault you made a fool of yourself though. Maybe next time you won't to be so quick to insult someone. Hopefully you came out of this with a lesson. LMAO
The Sixers were prepared to take Saric with the 10th overall pick before calling the Magic with 30 seconds left on the clock and offering Payton, sources. The Magic then took Saric at No. 12 to complete the deal.
So, Philly wanted Saric. They took Payton to trade him. Let it go. Please let the thread move on.
See I can believe that. It makes sense. Henny was probably worried someone else would pick up Payton.
BUT, Wailers never presented that piece of information. I'd say he was baited me when he threw the first insults. I can admit when I'm wrong. Already done that once in this thread. I'm not claiming I know it all, nor do I act like it (contrary to others). So maybe you can educate your boy about how to have a proper conversation. Patronizing and insulting other members isn't having a proper conversation.
Crabman wrote:I made it clear it was a good deal for Philly. Again, I made my point clear in my post...
Actually here is what you said:
Crabman wrote:If the Sixers loved him so much over Payton they wouldn't have taken the gamble.
And yet all reports are they did like him over Payton. Including Woj. You have since backpedalled so far, you keep falling on your ass. Feel free to keep laughing, but maybe think before posting.
Lol those two statements don't contradict each other at all. Here's what I said in one of my posts
I never said it wasn't a good deal of Philly, but lets not act like it was a rip off for the Magic like some people claim.
I guess I didn't make it CLEAR it was a good deal, but it was certainly implied when you read that statement.
Our discussion was over the correction in bold. Glad we got it cleared up.
HartfordWhalers wrote: Actually here is what you said:
And yet all reports are they did like him over Payton. Including Woj. You have since backpedalled so far, you keep falling on your ass. Feel free to keep laughing, but maybe think before posting.
Lol those two statements don't contradict each other at all. Here's what I said in one of my posts
I never said it wasn't a good deal of Philly, but lets not act like it was a rip off for the Magic like some people claim.
I guess I didn't make it CLEAR it was a good deal, but it was certainly implied when you read that statement.
Our discussion was over the correction in bold. Glad we got it cleared up.
Yeah, thanks Bondom. Major gamble by Hinkie though if Saric was his only target. It paid off, but they could've ended up with McBuckets. He is a decent prospect, but not as good as Saric. I love Saric's game. I'm not sure he's a great fit as a SF starter next to Noel and Okafor, but there's time for their games to develop, and their back court can help the pieces fit. After next draft things will become clearer as to how well Hinkle has built this team, but I think its safe to say Hinkie knows what he's doing.
Knosh wrote: Ok, so why do you think team chemistry and team building matters at this stage for the Sixers? The way I see it, Hinkie is trying to get a MVP caliber player first, because having that superstar is key to contending. Chemistry and actually building a roster that fits is obviously important too, but are secondary to getting that superstar. Are you disagreeing with that emphasis on the superstar or do you think the lack of actual team building could prevent that superstar from developing in Philly?
When I say team building, i'm not talking about signing above average vets to long term contracts. I'm talking about drafting well, creating a winning culture and having some sort of base to continue to build on.
Look at the warriors -- almost entirely built through the draft, which yes, is rare, but it still took them 6 seasons since curry was drafted to truly contend for a title. You don't think building chemistry over time was a part of that success?
Going into year 3, the sixers just aren't moving in that direction. The idea of collecting assets to trade for let's say a top 10 player is certainly viable, but it's not common that the opportunity arises. There's definite luck and timing involved. Maybe hinkie continues to hold out for that superstar, or maybe he folds at the request of ownership and trades for a less talented player. My fear is that they may end up with nothing to show for it, and in the process haven't built a real team.
And as an aside, which I didn't quite touch on, I don't completely condone tanking, but I do think it's the responsibility of the organization to put a competitive team on the floor. A roster filled with fringe NBA guys is pretty questionable.
Looking at GSW, Curry is the only player from their championship team that was on the team in his 2009 rookie season. Yes, building chemistry was part of that success, but it started after they got Curry, not before.
Right now, the Sixers haven't found their Curry. Maybe it turns out to be Embiid if he can get healthy. Maybe it's Okafor. Maybe it 's their '16 pick or the '16 Lakers pick or maybe they will get it via some trade. And yes, maybe none of that happens and the ownership gets impatient. But that wouldn't mean Hinkie's plan was bad, just that ownership didn't know what it wants. Imo, if you want to make a case that Hinkie's strategy is bad, you should be able to present a better strategy, not just point out why Hinkie's strategy isn't perfect.
Regarding putting a competitive team on the floor: That's a reasonable opinion, but that's really a criticism of ownership. Ownership sets the parameters, the GM operates within those parameters.
I'm trying to be as clear as possible with what i'm saying, but i feel like you're misinterpreting some of it. I wasn't saying that a foundation was created before curry got there. He was obviously the start of it. However, the warriors continued to add pieces via the draft who had roles right away. In 2011 it was klay, and 2012 it was barnes, ezeli and draymond.
With hinkie taking risks on injury prone players and taking multiple guys who won't play the season they're drafted, he's inherently delaying that team development. This is the core of my criticism of his plan.
Your attempt to separate what ownership wants and what hinkie's doing really seems like a reach. He's been given autonomy by ownership, which is great. However, if he doesn't come through within a reasonable amount of time (5 years or so), then I'd say his plan failed.
As for an alternative plan, If i need to spell it out, it's simple: blow up the initial roster just like he did, but draft with the intention of building a team from the ground up with players who will play right away. I'm not saying take zero risks in the draft, but you have to hedge more than he has.
If you can flip one of those guys for a better player or set of assets, go for it, but continue to build a team in the process. Sign an legitmiate free agent here and there (easier now with the cap going up). The hope that you can trade assets for a top 10 player should be in the back pocket, not at the expense of the team itself.
As for tanking, just don't do it as blatantly as he has by putting together a roster of fringe NBA players. And i'm repeating myself, but if you're building a team from day 1, that won't happen, and you'll still have a high draft position in the early years.
Clyde Frazier wrote: When I say team building, i'm not talking about signing above average vets to long term contracts. I'm talking about drafting well, creating a winning culture and having some sort of base to continue to build on.
Look at the warriors -- almost entirely built through the draft, which yes, is rare, but it still took them 6 seasons since curry was drafted to truly contend for a title. You don't think building chemistry over time was a part of that success?
Going into year 3, the sixers just aren't moving in that direction. The idea of collecting assets to trade for let's say a top 10 player is certainly viable, but it's not common that the opportunity arises. There's definite luck and timing involved. Maybe hinkie continues to hold out for that superstar, or maybe he folds at the request of ownership and trades for a less talented player. My fear is that they may end up with nothing to show for it, and in the process haven't built a real team.
And as an aside, which I didn't quite touch on, I don't completely condone tanking, but I do think it's the responsibility of the organization to put a competitive team on the floor. A roster filled with fringe NBA guys is pretty questionable.
Looking at GSW, Curry is the only player from their championship team that was on the team in his 2009 rookie season. Yes, building chemistry was part of that success, but it started after they got Curry, not before.
Right now, the Sixers haven't found their Curry. Maybe it turns out to be Embiid if he can get healthy. Maybe it's Okafor. Maybe it 's their '16 pick or the '16 Lakers pick or maybe they will get it via some trade. And yes, maybe none of that happens and the ownership gets impatient. But that wouldn't mean Hinkie's plan was bad, just that ownership didn't know what it wants. Imo, if you want to make a case that Hinkie's strategy is bad, you should be able to present a better strategy, not just point out why Hinkie's strategy isn't perfect.
Regarding putting a competitive team on the floor: That's a reasonable opinion, but that's really a criticism of ownership. Ownership sets the parameters, the GM operates within those parameters.
I'm trying to be as clear as possible with what i'm saying, but i feel like you're misinterpreting some of it. I wasn't saying that a foundation was created before curry got there. He was obviously the start of it. However, the warriors continued to add pieces via the draft who had roles right away. In 2011 it was klay, and 2012 it was barnes, ezeli and draymond.
With hinkie taking risks on injury prone players and taking multiple guys who won't play the season they're drafted, he's inherently delaying that team development. This is the core of my criticism of his plan.
Your attempt to separate what ownership wants and what hinkie's doing really seems like a reach. He's been given autonomy by ownership, which is great. However, if he doesn't come through within a reasonable amount of time (5 years or so), then I'd say his plan failed.
As for an alternative plan, If i need to spell it out, it's simple: blow up the initial roster just like he did, but draft with the intention of building a team from the ground up with players who will play right away. I'm not saying take zero risks in the draft, but you have to hedge more than he has.
If you can flip one of those guys for a better player or set of assets, go for it, but continue to build a team in the process. Sign an legitmiate free agent here and there (easier now with the cap going up). The hope that you can trade assets for a top 10 player should be in the back pocket, not at the expense of the team itself.
As for tanking, just don't do it as blatantly as he has by putting together a roster of fringe NBA players. And i'm repeating myself, but if you're building a team from day 1, that won't happen, and you'll still have a high draft position in the early years.
The turnaround didn't happen when we drafted Steph Curry. The turnaround happened when we changed ownership. Its not just about the players.
I happened to come across this while going through youtube looking for Warriors stuff. Being a long suffering (until last year) Warriors fan, of course i watched the whole thing. Since they were brought up as an example of building a team - (and i brought up my primary issue with Hinkie's plan is that i don't think he's treading on dangerous water culture wise) i think it is relevant to the conversation. Its quite long, and there is some fluff here, but overall quite interesting if you care about the topic of - building an elite team / culture / organization and i recommend watching in its entirety.
In all you gotta have the players. But its not just the players. And its not just talent. Character matters. The character you project throughout the organization matters. I fear this is where Hinkie's plan falls short... but i don't know the inner workings of whats going on there. I just think it can't be good for Nerlins Noel's development (or any of the other players) to be around a bunch of people that do not care about winning... are not even trying to win... that actually are planning to lose... whose STRATEGY is to lose. Again, i'm ignorant to the inner workings in Philly but i can't see how having a plan to tank can be good for developing your young guys.
LF75 wrote: It was a dumb idea..And yes I'm a dick.
Knosh wrote:Yeah, I just disagree fundamentally. Imo risk taking is key, hedging is bad here. Acquiring top 10 player should absolutely be the top priority.
Risk taking is fine. Drafting multiple players with injury histories is too big of a risk in my opinion. I certainly didn't mean hedging as far as taking 4 year players or something. High ceiling / potential players are key.
The top 10 player thing we'll agree to disagree on. I just don't think the probability of landing one is high enough to ignore developing a roster over the course of a few years. There are too many variables in play to not having an option of going either way.
Posted in the embiid thread on the general forums but I will post this here as well. This is pretty much the safest way to get long term top talent.
Look at last year's all NBA team: Out of the 15 players on the All-NBA teams 33% were number one overall picks and 73% were in the top 5.
FIRST TEAM F: LeBron James (1) F: Anthony Davis (1) C: Marc Gasol (48) G: Stephen Curry (7) G: James Harden (3)
SECOND TEAM F: LaMarcus Aldridge (2) F: DeMarcus Cousins (5) C: Pau Gasol (3) G: Russell Westbrook (4) G: Chris Paul (4)
THIRD TEAM F: Blake Griffin (1) F: Tim Duncan (1) C: DeAndre Jordan (35) G: Klay Thompson (11) G: Kyrie Irving (1)
There are never any guarantees with the NBA draft but the strategy the 76ers are employing is the best way to acquire and keep top level talent. 80% of the players on the All-NBA team last year were on the team that originally drafted them.
amk233 wrote:Posted in the embiid thread on the general forums but I will post this here as well. This is pretty much the safest way to get long term top talent.
Look at last year's all NBA team: Out of the 15 players on the All-NBA teams 33% were number one overall picks and 73% were in the top 5.
FIRST TEAM F: LeBron James (1) F: Anthony Davis (1) C: Marc Gasol (48) G: Stephen Curry (7) G: James Harden (3)
SECOND TEAM F: LaMarcus Aldridge (2) F: DeMarcus Cousins (5) C: Pau Gasol (3) G: Russell Westbrook (4) G: Chris Paul (4)
THIRD TEAM F: Blake Griffin (1) F: Tim Duncan (1) C: DeAndre Jordan (35) G: Klay Thompson (11) G: Kyrie Irving (1)
There are never any guarantees with the NBA draft but the strategy the 76ers are employing is the best way to acquire and keep top level talent. 80% of the players on the All-NBA team last year were on the team that originally drafted them.
I like the fact someone has the balls to go against the grain. However by forcing a losing culture I believe the Sixers fall in the bottom half of the league in developmental environments for their young draft picks. Many obstacles to overcome for young boys becoming men. Noel has done a fine job, Embiid has not. My last issue (lack of a better word) would point out some teams don't realize they have drafted a Star until he develops, how will the Sixers know they have their Star? And when they find him is it possible to quickly assemble a positive culture around him? The process here is risky but the reward seems high. Kudos to the Owner for allowing Hinkie to do his thing. I'm not sure it works out the way he hoped but I'm enjoying watching how it unfolds.
City of Trees wrote:I like the fact someone has the balls to go against the grain. However by forcing a losing culture I believe the Sixers fall in the bottom half of the league in developmental environments for their young draft picks. Sent from my Z970 using Tapatalk
This is going to sound pretty weird, but I don't get the feel of a losing culture when you hear our young guys interviewed (especially last season). Guys were always positive, they hated the losing, but they saw improvement in their game, they saw that they were being heavily invested in unlike anything they'd received before. The sixers seem to be on the cutting edge using technology to help their players, they are working on this 'mecca' type practice facility... they've got a coach who is a straight shooter and seems to have a great relationship with the players, even when said players are suffering with major immaturity issues.
Having experienced years of mediocre ball, knowing our team has no real chance to win anything unless two of the other teams best players get hurt or have career bad games... I was totally ready to try to a new approach. While this approach has been radical and incredibly loss heavy, its also been very interesting. Philly was going to be losing anyway. Jrue & Iggy weren't going anywhere. Philly was one of the most ignored/irrelevant franchises in the league.
So yeah, we went all in and are gambling on a strategy to hopefully establish something incredibly special. I'd rather try something great and fail, than try nothing and succeed. (pretty sure that's on a motivational poster somewhere )
Knosh wrote:Imo, if you want to make a case that Hinkie's strategy is bad, you should be able to present a better strategy, not just point out why Hinkie's strategy isn't perfect.
I just want to comment on this point, which seems to come up a lot. That's kind of a circular argument, because to Hinkie supporters that strategy is the best possible one anyway.
Instead, I'd point to the 29 other teams who aren't employing Hinkie's strategy. If Hinkie doesn't produce an outcome superior to the 29 other teams at some point in time, wouldn't that mean that his strategy wasn't the best after all? And yes I know that luck, etc plays a huge part in teams' successes, which calls to question why Hinkie is spending so much effort optimizing those slim odds anyway.
Knosh wrote:Imo, if you want to make a case that Hinkie's strategy is bad, you should be able to present a better strategy, not just point out why Hinkie's strategy isn't perfect.
I just want to comment on this point, which seems to come up a lot. That's kind of a circular argument, because to Hinkie supporters that strategy is the best possible one anyway.
Hinkie's strategy not being perfect isn't an argument at all, because no one disagrees.
Instead, I'd point to the 29 other teams who aren't employing Hinkie's strategy. If Hinkie doesn't produce an outcome superior to the 29 other teams at some point in time, wouldn't that mean that his strategy wasn't the best after all?
No, it wouldn't. And yes, the reason is luck. And even if it would, you don't know the outcome yet, so it doesn't matter for this thread at all.
And yes I know that luck, etc plays a huge part in teams' successes, which calls to question why Hinkie is spending so much effort optimizing those slim odds anyway.
Knosh wrote:Imo, if you want to make a case that Hinkie's strategy is bad, you should be able to present a better strategy, not just point out why Hinkie's strategy isn't perfect.
I just want to comment on this point, which seems to come up a lot. That's kind of a circular argument, because to Hinkie supporters that strategy is the best possible one anyway.
Instead, I'd point to the 29 other teams who aren't employing Hinkie's strategy. If Hinkie doesn't produce an outcome superior to the 29 other teams at some point in time, wouldn't that mean that his strategy wasn't the best after all? And yes I know that luck, etc plays a huge part in teams' successes, which calls to question why Hinkie is spending so much effort optimizing those slim odds anyway.
That logic assumes that everyone was at the same starting point, which obviously wasn't the case.
And it's a perfectly valid question. The only people Hinkie inherited who really had any value were Jrue and Thad. Since Jrue was traded for the equivalent of first round picks the Sixers already owed to others, they were basically one Thad Young away from being an expansion team.
NYSixersFan wrote: the plan is to get as good as quickly as possible....I fully believe we could have been a borderline playoff team last year by adding young veterans....using or draft picks and cap space.....can I specifically tell you who? no.
)