Joel Embiid: 'Process' Nickname Was In Response To NBA Forcing Out Sam Hinkie

[dice]

Sure, but they didn't suck (I mean really SUCK) for 5 years just to be relevant. There are better ways to get more bites at the apple. It's like betting on the stock market. There was no way Ben Simmons's value would ever be higher than it was two years ago. PHI missed that opportunity. The same could be said of WSH with Beal. He is way overvalued in the NBA. SGA with OKC. I don't know that he'll ever have a better season that last year. Jerami Grant received more buzz this trade deadline than he ever will again. DET should have taken the best deal available. He is a nice 4th or 5th piece but you can't build around him.

Bottom line, sucking on purpose is the most unsportsmanlike thing you can do that doesn't involve violence... and there are better ways to build a team.

hinkie was GM for less than 3 years...

they intentionally sucked in his first year. the process basically immediately worked before it was even "the process" by netting them "the process" in that summer's draft. embiid's injury (surely milked) motivated hinkie to intentionally build a crappy roster of youth and short-term contracts for two additional seasons, resulting in simmons. hinkie was then fired

every move over those 3 seasons made sense in a vacuum, scoring them a slew of assets that subsequent GMs squandered

the most unsportsmanlike thing you can do from a competitive standpoint is ask players not to do their best or coaches not to coach their best. that didn't happen in philly. the closest thing was convincing embiid not to play for 2 seasons. and i'm guessing there were legitimate long-term injury concerns there

hinkie was the primary reason that the nba altered its draft incentive structure, which has done a lot to mitigate the issue. i still say they should let every team participate in the lotto, 30 "balls" to the worst team, 1 to the best, draw for all 30 slots. tanking bye-bye, best nba night of the season

The sucking started before hinkie and remained after he left.

the sucking before he got there enabled him to choose the path that he did. and it didn't remain after he left. they won 18 more games the season after he was fired and have had a .630 winning % since

It became part of the culture, which is the part of the formula he missed.

obviously false. that terrible culture evaporated as soon as hinkie was canned. despite a terrible front office taking the reigns and doing its best to muck things up

10 wins in hinkie's last year, followed by:

28-54 (embiid's "rookie" year in which he plays only 31 games, simmons redshirts)
52-30
51-31
43-30
49-23
43-26

But the bottom line is that to ask fans to pay to see a team that isn't trying to win is unconscionable. That goes for home and away. It doesn't just detract from the tanking team fan experience. Why should a MIL fan want to see them play HOU or DET? We are to the point where even good team have at least a dozen BS home games.

first of all, the philly fans were supportive. and nobody is forced to pay to see nba basketball. in the long-term, philly season ticket holders won out. do you think that the fan experience was great seeing them try their hardest and still suck? of course not. and i can guarantee their fans weren't thinking "well, at least the FO is trying their hardest. that means something to me"

as for going on the road, there's nothing fans want more than to see their team win. preferably against a competitive team, sure, but they'd rather see a win against a bad team than a loss against a good team

And yes, I understand that the players are trying to win while they are on the floor. That clearly isn't what I'm talking about. If it wasn't for lottery balls Lillard would be back on the court. I am a POR fan and have lost all respect. I hope they land a nice pick, get that NOP pick, trade Dame for a few more and start working on winning again. If they plan on tanking next season they can do it with one less fan.

you're perfectly entitled to that POV. and portland management is doing this in anticipation of losing many fans such as yourself in the short-term

[dougthonus]

hinkie was the primary reason that the nba altered its draft incentive structure, which has done a lot to mitigate the issue. i still say they should let every team participate in the lotto, 30 "balls" to the worst team, 1 to the best, draw for all 30 slots. tanking bye-bye, best nba night of the season

I like the odds that encouraged tanking more than the present ones. It's already so hard for bad teams to get better, no need to compound it and give the best team in the league a reasonable chance to draft a superstar.

[GoSixersBro]

I find it hilarious the only people who moan on behalf of Philly fans having to endure the devastating seasons from 2013-2016 are ... wait for it ... fans of other teams.

They mask their jealousy and anger that the Sixers went out and did what Hinkie set out to do with fake concern for our fanbase and the integrity of an already corrupt sports league. We're already not a FA destination, so why push all our chips on guys like Iguodala and Jrue Holiday to be our "stars" for eternity? Going for a high pick is the only route, and when you don't have the assets to trade for one, the only way is the lottery.

Some hits, some misses. The Sixers got Embiid. The first MVP caliber player the city's seen since Allen Iverson. How'd they get Iverson? Number one pick in 1996. Y'all paying attention?

They also had their misses, as draft picks are never a sure thing. Laugh all you want at Noel, Okafor, Fultz, even Simmons, but even with the biggest NBA meme persona himself in Ben, they turned him into James Harden.

Please listen fans of other teams: don't blame Hinkie for taking advantage of the league's **** system. Blame the league for implementing that system and keeping it running for decades.

I've been a diehard Sixers fan for over 20 years now. I know what Philly fans feel and have felt. Hell, let's be real, people in this city are mostly bandwagoners for any of the teams that aren't the Eagles. Kids in my school laughed at me for "wasting time" watching the Sixers/NBA from when after the '01 Finals buzz wore off until 2018 when it was cool to root for the Sixers again (now that they were in the Playoffs and taken seriously).

Tickets were easy as hell to get from 2004-2013. Yeah we made it to the Playoffs as 6, 7, or 8 seeds some of those years, but most Philadelphians weren't paying real attention to this franchise for a long, long time.

When Hinkie was appointed and gutted the roster, the majority of fans of this team who spend their valuable time and money became excited. Sure you'd hear Howard Eskin's takes and a bunch of boomers complain on the radio, but I've even seen those people first hand convert to understanding Hinkie's plan once Embiid panned out and the 76ers were suddenly a 50 win team following a 28 win season. Us fans haven't tasted that success in so very long. For me I was in grade school the last time they won 50, and was a few years away from my 30th birthday in 2018 to finally see it again. When you're dialed in to a sports team that long, it felt like 50 years.

To sum my wall of text up, the Sixers fanbase knew the treadmill could have and would have gone on for eternity. This was the only way. And I know haters will mock the Sixers for not winning anything yet, but Hinkie/Embiid/The Process finally has us in the dance again, which was Sam's mission all along.

[dice]

hinkie was the primary reason that the nba altered its draft incentive structure, which has done a lot to mitigate the issue. i still say they should let every team participate in the lotto, 30 "balls" to the worst team, 1 to the best, draw for all 30 slots. tanking bye-bye, best nba night of the season

I like the odds that encouraged tanking more than the present ones. It's already so hard for bad teams to get better, no need to compound it and give the best team in the league a reasonable chance to draft a superstar.

Bad teams can get better by drafting well and giving out reasonable contracts. I'm not a fan of forced parity like basically exists in the NFL. There have to be consequences for poor decisions. I have no problem with a great team getting a great draft pick once in a blue moon. That's just a slice of life. And why should a great prospect always be subjected to being tossed into a dumpster fire? He should be able to win the lottery and go to a good team now and again too.

[dougthonus]

Bad teams can get better by drafting well and giving out reasonable contracts. I'm not a fan of forced parity like basically exists in the NFL. There have to be consequences for poor decisions. I have no problem with a great team getting a great draft pick once in a blue moon. That's just a slice of life. And why should a great prospect always be subjected to being tossed into a dumpster fire? He should be able to win the lottery and go to a good team now and again too.

If you don't care for it, it is fine. I much prefer a level playing field to a massively uneven one.

Your theory of just draft better and give out reasonable contracts isn't really feasible. Say you are random small market team that is bad. It's very difficult to give out reasonable contracts because all things being equal, no one ever chooses you. So you always have to pay more for the same players. Given that you are more likely to be bad because you are already playing on an uneven playing field, the draft with heavily favored odds for bad teams gives you a chance to help balance things, but without it, you have no chance.

I wouldn't mind your theory if you only picked the 1st spot and the rest of the spots fell in order though, or had two lotteries. One for all teams for the #1 and one for just the bottom 14 teams for 2-4.

If I could set up the league in a way that would maximize my enjoyment, I would make the rules like this:
1: Share as much money as possible (all league merchandise and local TV contracts) so that all teams have closer revenue to each other.

2: Put in a hard cap so that teams all spend the same amount of money with the only exception being minimum salary players

3: Remove the maximum salary, so that teams can pay stars however much they want, but now there are no exceptions to give teams radically different payrolls

4: Make the waiver process a bidding process (ie, if a player is waived, you don't need to take on his full deal, but can bid the minimum or any other amount)

This comes as close as you can to solving the major problems of the league IMO. No more inherent advantage of contenders stacking buyout candidates, no inherent advantage to teams in super rich areas being able to spend 100M in luxury tax and outpay people, limited advantage in terms of being a better market because you still need to fid everyone under the cap, and teams can differentiate contracts on money instead of all being locked in at 25%, 30%, and 35%, teams with depth can now compete against star teams, because star teams will likely have guys making 50% of the cap or more and differentiated contracts mean teams of good players will be competitive which will broaden the methods of competing and add more balance to the game.

Either way, most of my ideas aren't practical (rich teams will never share so much revenue, players will never go for a hard cap even if they are guaranteed the same total money, removal of the max salary is probably something no one wants as teams don't want to bid that much on players and the union as a whole should want to spread the money out more).

[Pickled Prunes]

first of all, the philly fans were supportive.

All I can say is... "Suckers!" You got duped into applauding an organization for trying to lose while justifying it by stating that the G league squad they put on the floor was trying their best. So ridiculous.

there's nothing fans want more than to see their team win.

I don't need to see the Globetrotters beat up on the Generals and I don't need to see MIA beat up on HOU... Both games are exhibitions, but at least the Globetrotters are going to make it look close.

[dice]

first of all, the philly fans were supportive.

All I can say is... "Suckers!" You got duped into applauding an organization for trying to lose while justifying it by stating that the G league squad they put on the floor was trying their best. So ridiculous.

once again, philly fans won in the end. despite the ineptitude of the post-hinkie regimes

what's ridiculous is feeling that you simply MUST watch the "G league" squads being put out there instead of spending your time doing other things while "the process" works itself out. nobody should root for laundry. life's much too short

[dice]

Bad teams can get better by drafting well and giving out reasonable contracts. I'm not a fan of forced parity like basically exists in the NFL. There have to be consequences for poor decisions. I have no problem with a great team getting a great draft pick once in a blue moon. That's just a slice of life. And why should a great prospect always be subjected to being tossed into a dumpster fire? He should be able to win the lottery and go to a good team now and again too.

If you don't care for it, it is fine. I much prefer a level playing field to a massively uneven one.

there's a middle ground. and the nba used to have it with the absence of the luxury tax. i really don't like baseball's system that genuinely makes it nearly impossible for the small markets to compete. but the nfl's isn't a whole lot better

Your theory of just draft better and give out reasonable contracts isn't really feasible. Say you are random small market team that is bad. It's very difficult to give out reasonable contracts because all things being equal, no one ever chooses you. So you always have to pay more for the same players. Given that you are more likely to be bad because you are already playing on an uneven playing field, the draft with heavily favored odds for bad teams gives you a chance to help balance things, but without it, you have no chance.

true. i just don't feel compelled to give smaller markets a level playing field. the big markets drive things anyway, and there's nothing wrong with david vs. goliath

2: Put in a hard cap so that teams all spend the same amount of money with the only exception being minimum salary players

3: Remove the maximum salary, so that teams can pay stars however much they want, but now there are no exceptions to give teams radically different payrolls

these result in constant player movement, thus reduced fan relationships with their team's players, and reduced reward for good team building because you're constantly being forced to break up teams that overperform. i want my team to be able to go over the cap to retain talent. at least on players they have drafted and developed. especially when it's teenage kids being drafted and are finally blossoming when it's time for their 2nd contract

[dougthonus]

Bad teams can get better by drafting well and giving out reasonable contracts. I'm not a fan of forced parity like basically exists in the NFL. There have to be consequences for poor decisions. I have no problem with a great team getting a great draft pick once in a blue moon. That's just a slice of life. And why should a great prospect always be subjected to being tossed into a dumpster fire? He should be able to win the lottery and go to a good team now and again too.

If you don't care for it, it is fine. I much prefer a level playing field to a massively uneven one.

there's a middle ground. and the nba used to have it with the absence of the luxury tax. i really don't like baseball's system that genuinely makes it nearly impossible for the small markets to compete. but the nfl's isn't a whole lot better

Your theory of just draft better and give out reasonable contracts isn't really feasible. Say you are random small market team that is bad. It's very difficult to give out reasonable contracts because all things being equal, no one ever chooses you. So you always have to pay more for the same players. Given that you are more likely to be bad because you are already playing on an uneven playing field, the draft with heavily favored odds for bad teams gives you a chance to help balance things, but without it, you have no chance.

true. i just don't feel compelled to give smaller markets a level playing field. the big markets drive things anyway, and there's nothing wrong with david vs. goliath

2: Put in a hard cap so that teams all spend the same amount of money with the only exception being minimum salary players

3: Remove the maximum salary, so that teams can pay stars however much they want, but now there are no exceptions to give teams radically different payrolls

these result in constant player movement, thus reduced fan relationships with their team's players, and reduced reward for good team building because you're constantly being forced to break up teams that overperform. i want my team to be able to go over the cap to retain talent. at least on players they have drafted and developed. especially when it's teenage kids being drafted and are finally blossoming when it's time for their 2nd contract

All reasonable, I just see it differently. I really like the NFL system where if I'm rooting for the smallest market team in the league, I still have relatively the same chance as any other team. I like that teams can go from awful to really good in one season as well, so you are never hopeless.

You are right that it does encourage more player movement and less continuity and fewer dynasties, but I think overall that churn and change is a much bigger positive for my interest level than continuity. Maybe I'd feel differently if the Bulls were in the midst of dynastic run for 10 years behind a healthy Derrick Rose that remained a superstar vs five years of muck with a brief reprieve to average followed by likely another five years of muck 2 years from now.

[Pickled Prunes]

first of all, the philly fans were supportive.

All I can say is... "Suckers!" You got duped into applauding an organization for trying to lose while justifying it by stating that the G league squad they put on the floor was trying their best. So ridiculous.

once again, philly fans won in the end. despite the ineptitude of the post-hinkie regimes

what's ridiculous is feeling that you simply MUST watch the "G league" squads being put out there instead of spending your time doing other things while "the process" works itself out. nobody should root for laundry. life's much too short

What did PHI fans win? They were a game away from the Conference Finals in 2012. Then they sucked for 5 years. (The 2nd longest playoff drought in team history.) And since they started trying again they haven't gotten any farther. And the East was weak through that drought so trying might have been all it took. And now Harden can walk or PHI can overpay him. Embiid will be healthy for how many more years? They just gave away draft picks to get off of Simmons. I don't see a bright future there.

I don't feel like I must watch a bad team play, which is why I don't even look at a POR box score anymore. All they would need to do to be watchable is try to win. They are trying to keep their draft pick instead. I'm not in it to watch teams vie for draft picks. Simmons, Okafor and Fultz can make my case for me. It is rare that even a high pick changes a teams fortune. It is very difficult to find a rookie good enough to build around. PHI got one in Embiid but wouldn't leave well enough alone. Maxey is a great example of a winning team picking for fit rather than a losing team swinging for the fences.

Right now you have a GM trying to win at GMing rather than humbly building a team. Take a look at CJ McCollum averaging 26/5/7 in NOP. It is widely speculated that PHI could have swapped Simmons for CJ straight up. They would have kept Curry, Drummond and their picks. But CJ isn't an All-Star and it would look like PHI lost that trade. Morey couldn't have that, but that would have been such a better team with a much more flexible roster. I just don't see what a PHI fan could think they won. I mean, PHI fans are in far better shape today than I am as a POR fan... but I know I've lost. I'm not delusional on that at all.

BTW: Thank god POR didn't trade for Simmons. I wanted no part of that.

[dice]

If you don't care for it, it is fine. I much prefer a level playing field to a massively uneven one.

there's a middle ground. and the nba used to have it with the absence of the luxury tax. i really don't like baseball's system that genuinely makes it nearly impossible for the small markets to compete. but the nfl's isn't a whole lot better

Your theory of just draft better and give out reasonable contracts isn't really feasible. Say you are random small market team that is bad. It's very difficult to give out reasonable contracts because all things being equal, no one ever chooses you. So you always have to pay more for the same players. Given that you are more likely to be bad because you are already playing on an uneven playing field, the draft with heavily favored odds for bad teams gives you a chance to help balance things, but without it, you have no chance.

true. i just don't feel compelled to give smaller markets a level playing field. the big markets drive things anyway, and there's nothing wrong with david vs. goliath

2: Put in a hard cap so that teams all spend the same amount of money with the only exception being minimum salary players

3: Remove the maximum salary, so that teams can pay stars however much they want, but now there are no exceptions to give teams radically different payrolls

these result in constant player movement, thus reduced fan relationships with their team's players, and reduced reward for good team building because you're constantly being forced to break up teams that overperform. i want my team to be able to go over the cap to retain talent. at least on players they have drafted and developed. especially when it's teenage kids being drafted and are finally blossoming when it's time for their 2nd contract

All reasonable, I just see it differently. I really like the NFL system where if I'm rooting for the smallest market team in the league, I still have relatively the same chance as any other team. I like that teams can go from awful to really good in one season as well, so you are never hopeless.

You are right that it does encourage more player movement and less continuity and fewer dynasties, but I think overall that churn and change is a much bigger positive for my interest level than continuity. Maybe I'd feel differently if the Bulls were in the midst of dynastic run for 10 years behind a healthy Derrick Rose that remained a superstar vs five years of muck with a brief reprieve to average followed by likely another five years of muck 2 years from now.

let's put it this way...

1) with your system, the 2nd bulls 3-peat doesn't happen without MJ taking a huge discount
2) with your system, the dynasty spurs (in a very small market) don't last nearly as long
3) with your system, the vaunted lakers-celtics rivalry very likely fizzles earlier ("the bird rule", after all)
4) with MY system, fanbases like the derrick rose bulls eagerly watch the draft every year for the possibility that they make a big jump to land an impact rookie that maybe leapfrogs them over their dreaded rivals (the heatles, in this case)

but yes, if i'm a fan of a small market team, or i have no rooting interest and just want a more broadly competitive league, i'm far more likely to be in favor of a hard cap

[dice]

All I can say is... "Suckers!" You got duped into applauding an organization for trying to lose while justifying it by stating that the G league squad they put on the floor was trying their best. So ridiculous.

once again, philly fans won in the end. despite the ineptitude of the post-hinkie regimes

what's ridiculous is feeling that you simply MUST watch the "G league" squads being put out there instead of spending your time doing other things while "the process" works itself out. nobody should root for laundry. life's much too short

What did PHI fans win?

you could just listen to what they're saying in the very thread (if they're satisfied...), or you could recognize that they've been contenders for several years running right now. which few teams can say at any point since hinkie was hired

at the very least, they won joel embiid

They were a game away from the Conference Finals in 2012.

they went 35-31, derrick rose got injured, then they took a marginally better celtics team on its last legs to game 7. never serious contenders

Then they sucked for 5 years.

that first season has nothing at all to do with this conversation, as i assume you already know. the previous GM foolishly gave up young assets to get a bynum rental, who sulked and milked an injury for the entire year, then signed elsewhere. the team was likely to suck for multiple more years anyway. so hinkie completely tore it down rather than fight to squeak into the playoffs indefinitely. the kind of team that you, apparently, would be proud to watch. the transition was not from contention to "the process", as you tried to frame it. it was from hopeless suckage to "the process" (hopeFULL suckage)

contention: it's all a fan base can reasonably ask for. and the minority of teams can reasonably call themselves contenders heading into any particular season. the sixers have easily been contenders for longer than the number of years (1? 2?) that hinkie added to their suckage. and again, that's DESPITE "the process" being mucked up after he left

would hinkie have traded a #3 pick and another first rounder in order to draft fultz? highly unlikely. would he have drafted tatum at #3 rather than josh jackson (who went #4)? who knows. but it would have been nice to find out. would he have traded a bevy of assets for tobias harris on an expiring contract? hell no! probably wouldn't have traded important depth in covington and saric for jimmy butler either. or if he had, he obviously would have re-signed butler instead of tobias harris

the reality is that the nba, as it was set up during the hinkie reign, gave a 21 team a more reasonable path to contention than a 35 win team. if you'd rather root for that 35 win team in its righteous effort to beat the odds, i don't hold that against you. me, i'm not watching EITHER team. but while i'm doing other things i'm more confident that the 21 win team will give me a reason to watch in the future

[dougthonus]

1) with your system, the 2nd bulls 3-peat doesn't happen without MJ taking a huge discount
2) with your system, the dynasty spurs (in a very small market) don't last nearly as long
3) with your system, the vaunted lakers-celtics rivalry very likely fizzles earlier ("the bird rule", after all)
4) with MY system, fanbases like the derrick rose bulls eagerly watch the draft every year for the possibility that they make a big jump to land an impact rookie that maybe leapfrogs them over their dreaded rivals (the heatles, in this case)

but yes, if i'm a fan of a small market team, or i have no rooting interest and just want a more broadly competitive league, i'm far more likely to be in favor of a hard cap

I would generally be good with all of those things. I think dynasties are bad for die hard fans of sports and are okay for casual fans that just want to be familiar with the great teams and aren't that excited about their local team. The spurs probably won't have a realistic chance to compete in the next 30 years, and in my system they'd have a chance every year. Same with the Bulls, same with everyone.

You'd still be just as excited about the draft, you'd just also be able to be as excited about FA as well.

[Pickled Prunes]

once again, philly fans won in the end. despite the ineptitude of the post-hinkie regimes

what's ridiculous is feeling that you simply MUST watch the "G league" squads being put out there instead of spending your time doing other things while "the process" works itself out. nobody should root for laundry. life's much too short

What did PHI fans win?

you could just listen to what they're saying in the very thread (if they're satisfied...), or you could recognize that they've been contenders for several years running right now. which few teams can say at any point since hinkie was hired

at the very least, they won joel embiid

They were a game away from the Conference Finals in 2012.

they went 35-31, derrick rose got injured, then they took a marginally better celtics team on its last legs to game 7. never serious contenders

Then they sucked for 5 years.

that first season has nothing at all to do with this conversation, as i assume you already know. the previous GM foolishly gave up young assets to get a bynum rental, who sulked and milked an injury for the entire year, then signed elsewhere. the team was likely to suck for multiple more years anyway. so hinkie completely tore it down rather than fight to squeak into the playoffs indefinitely. the kind of team that you, apparently, would be proud to watch. the transition was not from contention to "the process", as you tried to frame it. it was from hopeless suckage to "the process" (hopeFULL suckage)

contention: it's all a fan base can reasonably ask for. and the minority of teams can reasonably call themselves contenders heading into any particular season. the sixers have easily been contenders for longer than the number of years (1? 2?) that hinkie added to their suckage. and again, that's DESPITE "the process" being mucked up after he left

would hinkie have traded a #3 pick and another first rounder in order to draft fultz? highly unlikely. would he have drafted tatum at #3 rather than josh jackson (who went #4)? who knows. but it would have been nice to find out. would he have traded a bevy of assets for tobias harris on an expiring contract? hell no! probably wouldn't have traded important depth in covington and saric for jimmy butler either. or if he had, he obviously would have re-signed butler instead of tobias harris

the reality is that the nba, as it was set up during the hinkie reign, gave a 21 team a more reasonable path to contention than a 35 win team. if you'd rather root for that 35 win team in its righteous effort to beat the odds, i don't hold that against you. me, i'm not watching EITHER team. but while i'm doing other things i'm more confident that the 21 win team will give me a reason to watch in the future

Well, I didn't say PHI was a contender in 2012 and I wouldn't say they have been contenders any time since. They have a punchers chance and nothing more.

I understand why Hinkie did what he did, but my argument isn't that it's bad for PHI fans if they intentionally go from 35 to 21 wins. It's bad for the league. Every tanking team adds 82 irrelevant games to the NBA schedule. If we consider HOU, OKC, IND, ORL, DET, WAS and POR as tanking teams, that's 574 pointless games on the NBA schedule. POR, IND and WAS didn't start the season tanking but a few more will be tanking by the end. The moment a playoff spot looks unattainable the focus shifts to lottery balls and the bottom line is that there is a lot of garbage being sold. It's a problem, whether you choose to see it or not. Losing should not be rewarded to the point where it is preferable to winning.

[dice]

What did PHI fans win?

you could just listen to what they're saying in the very thread (if they're satisfied...), or you could recognize that they've been contenders for several years running right now. which few teams can say at any point since hinkie was hired

at the very least, they won joel embiid

They were a game away from the Conference Finals in 2012.

they went 35-31, derrick rose got injured, then they took a marginally better celtics team on its last legs to game 7. never serious contenders

Then they sucked for 5 years.

that first season has nothing at all to do with this conversation, as i assume you already know. the previous GM foolishly gave up young assets to get a bynum rental, who sulked and milked an injury for the entire year, then signed elsewhere. the team was likely to suck for multiple more years anyway. so hinkie completely tore it down rather than fight to squeak into the playoffs indefinitely. the kind of team that you, apparently, would be proud to watch. the transition was not from contention to "the process", as you tried to frame it. it was from hopeless suckage to "the process" (hopeFULL suckage)

contention: it's all a fan base can reasonably ask for. and the minority of teams can reasonably call themselves contenders heading into any particular season. the sixers have easily been contenders for longer than the number of years (1? 2?) that hinkie added to their suckage. and again, that's DESPITE "the process" being mucked up after he left

would hinkie have traded a #3 pick and another first rounder in order to draft fultz? highly unlikely. would he have drafted tatum at #3 rather than josh jackson (who went #4)? who knows. but it would have been nice to find out. would he have traded a bevy of assets for tobias harris on an expiring contract? hell no! probably wouldn't have traded important depth in covington and saric for jimmy butler either. or if he had, he obviously would have re-signed butler instead of tobias harris

the reality is that the nba, as it was set up during the hinkie reign, gave a 21 team a more reasonable path to contention than a 35 win team. if you'd rather root for that 35 win team in its righteous effort to beat the odds, i don't hold that against you. me, i'm not watching EITHER team. but while i'm doing other things i'm more confident that the 21 win team will give me a reason to watch in the future

Well, I didn't say PHI was a contender in 2012 and I wouldn't say they have been contenders any time since. They have a punchers chance and nothing more.

I understand why Hinkie did what he did, but my argument isn't that it's bad for PHI fans if they intentionally go from 35 to 21 wins. It's bad for the league. Every tanking team adds 82 irrelevant games to the NBA schedule. If we consider HOU, OKC, IND, ORL, DET, WAS and POR as tanking teams, that's 574 pointless games on the NBA schedule. POR, IND and WAS didn't start the season tanking but a few more will be tanking by the end. The moment a playoff spot looks unattainable the focus shifts to lottery balls and the bottom line is that there is a lot of garbage being sold. It's a problem, whether you choose to see it or not. Losing should not be rewarded to the point where it is preferable to winning.

i agree with all of this! thus my 1-30 lotto proposal

[Pickled Prunes]

you could just listen to what they're saying in the very thread (if they're satisfied...), or you could recognize that they've been contenders for several years running right now. which few teams can say at any point since hinkie was hired

at the very least, they won joel embiid




they went 35-31, derrick rose got injured, then they took a marginally better celtics team on its last legs to game 7. never serious contenders


that first season has nothing at all to do with this conversation, as i assume you already know. the previous GM foolishly gave up young assets to get a bynum rental, who sulked and milked an injury for the entire year, then signed elsewhere. the team was likely to suck for multiple more years anyway. so hinkie completely tore it down rather than fight to squeak into the playoffs indefinitely. the kind of team that you, apparently, would be proud to watch. the transition was not from contention to "the process", as you tried to frame it. it was from hopeless suckage to "the process" (hopeFULL suckage)

contention: it's all a fan base can reasonably ask for. and the minority of teams can reasonably call themselves contenders heading into any particular season. the sixers have easily been contenders for longer than the number of years (1? 2?) that hinkie added to their suckage. and again, that's DESPITE "the process" being mucked up after he left

would hinkie have traded a #3 pick and another first rounder in order to draft fultz? highly unlikely. would he have drafted tatum at #3 rather than josh jackson (who went #4)? who knows. but it would have been nice to find out. would he have traded a bevy of assets for tobias harris on an expiring contract? hell no! probably wouldn't have traded important depth in covington and saric for jimmy butler either. or if he had, he obviously would have re-signed butler instead of tobias harris

the reality is that the nba, as it was set up during the hinkie reign, gave a 21 team a more reasonable path to contention than a 35 win team. if you'd rather root for that 35 win team in its righteous effort to beat the odds, i don't hold that against you. me, i'm not watching EITHER team. but while i'm doing other things i'm more confident that the 21 win team will give me a reason to watch in the future

Well, I didn't say PHI was a contender in 2012 and I wouldn't say they have been contenders any time since. They have a punchers chance and nothing more.

I understand why Hinkie did what he did, but my argument isn't that it's bad for PHI fans if they intentionally go from 35 to 21 wins. It's bad for the league. Every tanking team adds 82 irrelevant games to the NBA schedule. If we consider HOU, OKC, IND, ORL, DET, WAS and POR as tanking teams, that's 574 pointless games on the NBA schedule. POR, IND and WAS didn't start the season tanking but a few more will be tanking by the end. The moment a playoff spot looks unattainable the focus shifts to lottery balls and the bottom line is that there is a lot of garbage being sold. It's a problem, whether you choose to see it or not. Losing should not be rewarded to the point where it is preferable to winning.

i agree with all of this! thus my 1-30 lotto proposal

And I agree with that... or at least agree that it would be better than what we have now.

[dice]

Well, I didn't say PHI was a contender in 2012 and I wouldn't say they have been contenders any time since. They have a punchers chance and nothing more.

I understand why Hinkie did what he did, but my argument isn't that it's bad for PHI fans if they intentionally go from 35 to 21 wins. It's bad for the league. Every tanking team adds 82 irrelevant games to the NBA schedule. If we consider HOU, OKC, IND, ORL, DET, WAS and POR as tanking teams, that's 574 pointless games on the NBA schedule. POR, IND and WAS didn't start the season tanking but a few more will be tanking by the end. The moment a playoff spot looks unattainable the focus shifts to lottery balls and the bottom line is that there is a lot of garbage being sold. It's a problem, whether you choose to see it or not. Losing should not be rewarded to the point where it is preferable to winning.

i agree with all of this! thus my 1-30 lotto proposal

And I agree with that... or at least agree that it would be better than what we have now.

30 envelopes, 120 minutes, TV gold

[Pickled Prunes]

i agree with all of this! thus my 1-30 lotto proposal

And I agree with that... or at least agree that it would be better than what we have now.

30 envelopes, 120 minutes, TV gold

Oh, I wouldn't watch it, but I don't watch it now. I can read abut it the next day. But if it helps eliminate tanking I'm all in. I would still like to see a penalty for the worst team. Have teams fighting to get out of that last spot. Maybe do a pre-lottery lottery where teams 2-10 have equal odds at switching lottery odds with the worst team. HOU, ORL, OKC and DET would all be scrapping right now. John Wall might even get some minutes!