76ers will become dynasty in 10 years

[Sixerscan]

The part of your post I really want to address is this Bill Simmons pushed junk about Hinkie doing this just to keep his job for an extra year or two. Think about the idea of it. Hinkie has worked his whole life to climb up the ladder to get this job and instead of trying to do the best job he can to keep it forever or make it so he will get another quickly after leaving this one instead he's going to just screw around to try to hold on to this for one extra year and ruin his reputation in the process? How does that make sense? Why would anyone do that? When Hinkie interviewed with the team in 2012 he felt this was their best course of action and told the owners that. They opted to keep Doug Collins and try the Bynum trade and didn't give Hinkie the job. After that blew up, they re interviewed him in 2013 and he got the job saying this was the plan. Ownership has bought in to the long term building plan, Hinkie wouldn't be allowed to pull this off if they weren't. I just don't get how anyone can think about this situation rationally for even a few minutes and think this is all some scheme for Hinkie to just keep his job.

FWIW, I didn't know Bill Simmons was pushing this view. I've posted similar things almost from the start of Hinkie's tenure, when he first outlined his grand plan.

All of what you say may be true. I'm coming from a different perspective, as a fan of analytics in general. Tanking for a draft superstar is an amazingly low probability event, but that's the cornerstone of Hinkie's strategy. Sure, he's doing all he can to increase the odds of that - but that's like going up from 0.1% to 0.2% (all made up numbers, but I believe it's in this kind of range). For someone as smart as Hinkie (and no report about him suggests otherwise), basing his grand strategy on such an improbable event seems... irresponsible at best.

Dunno, maybe I'm just a cynic. Anyway, there's an easy way for Hinkie to counter this sort of criticism. Start the build up phase, end with the tear down already. YMMV.

You can't really look at Hinkie's strategy without comparing it to all other possible strategies though. All strategies have a low chance of succeeding. This one might just be the best relatively.

Our path doesn't make sense for every team. It makes sense for a team that at the time Hinkie took over that no prospects on rookie deals, little cap room, and had traded away Iguodala, Vucevic, Harkless and potentially two first round picks for Andrew Bynum and Arnette Moultrie.

[Sixerscan]

I would say that it's actually more likely than not that the Sixers DON'T become some sort of dynasty in the next 10 years. But that doesn't make Heinke's strategy bad- even if it has say a 10% chance of success, that's probably better than many other strategies.

^This

[Mik317]

Getting top picks is important but not the only thing going on here. Unless dudes are absolute ass, they can be moved in trades. MCW got shat on and yet brought back a damn good asset,no? I hate the word but this is part of the optionality Hinkie speaks of. He isn't placing everything into one basket. Draft picks can be moved, we have capspace, actual youth to move in deals for once. If the owners ever want to speed up the process...we actually have the ammo to do so. However, we have tanked hard as **** this far so why **** it up by attempting to build right away before we even know what we have? If you are going to take a path that requires patience, you don't rush it in the end. That probably only increases the chances of failure if anything.

Again Im not a fan of every move the guy has made...but he also hasn't done anything I'd call disastrous. I hated the MCW and KJ trade but I also realize that if those two are what holds us back then we are still in there as they are rather replacable at the end of the day (and again I am big fans of both dudes..but lets be honest both are solid starters at best with maybe a fringe all star grade for MCW). So Hinkie hasn't done anything to make me worry too much about the future. His leash isn't as long as people think, Brett Brown gets scrublords like Ish and TRob to look servicable, and we still have methods of team building outside of just the draft.

[Sixerscan]

Getting top picks is important but not the only thing going on here. Unless dudes are absolute ass, they can be moved in trades. MCW got shat on and yet brought back a damn good asset,no? I hate the word but this is part of the optionality Hinkie speaks of. He isn't placing everything into one basket. Draft picks can be moved, we have capspace, actual youth to move in deals for once. If the owners ever want to speed up the process...we actually have the ammo to do so. However, we have tanked hard as **** this far so why **** it up by attempting to build right away before we even know what we have? If you are going to take a path that requires patience, you don't rush it in the end. That probably only increases the chances of failure if anything.

Again Im not a fan of every move the guy has made...but he also hasn't done anything I'd call disastrous. I hated the MCW and KJ trade but I also realize that if those two are what holds us back then we are still in there as they are rather replacable at the end of the day (and again I am big fans of both dudes..but lets be honest both are solid starters at best with maybe a fringe all star grade for MCW). So Hinkie hasn't done anything to make me worry too much about the future. His leash isn't as long as people think, Brett Brown gets scrublords like Ish and TRob to look servicable, and we still have methods of team building outside of just the draft.

Random side note, but I don't get why the term optionality gets such weird feedback. It's not some Hinkie created buzzword, it's a pretty common finance term. The fact that my web browser knows that it's a real word and doesn't put red lines under it should tell you something.

It's just you get these media guys that don't know their ass from their elbow when it comes to money and suddenly it becomes mystical, like it's bracketology or SABRmetrics or something like that.

[CrookedJ]

The Sixers have a true plan, I'll give them that. I'm not all that sold on it working, but its a consistent vision at least.

We are literally talking about maxing out three guys that have a combined one season of NBA playing time. Three max bigs on one team, in this completely wing / guard driven league is going to be hard to churn in to a dynasty.

[BullyKing]

But that's the point, right? Sometimes strategy and the long play don't mean near as much as luck or whatever else. You're explaining why the Wolves have a better future, not how that makes them worse than the Sizers. How can you know the Sixers are going to be in better shape? The Wolves have 2 1s and didn't embarrass themselves to get them. Wiggins and KAT are worth more than the package of players and picks the sixers have right now, and that's before factoring in the other young players that 'Sota has Shabazz, LaVine and Dieng.

There's strategy and then there's getting 3 number ones in 5 years, and having the best player on the planet be from your state. Sometimes it's better to be lucky than good.

This is some mindless drivel for early in the morning.

What about it exactly is drivel?

1. "The Wolves have 2 1s and didn't embarrass themselves to get them." Putting aside the open debate whether the Wolves are embarrassing, what does the manner in which one acquires talent have to do with an evaluation of the quality of the talent?

2. "Sometimes strategy and the long play don't mean near as much as luck or whatever else." So basically, luck is a big factor. Obviously. But since you can't plan luck, good or bad, into a strategy, what's your point? Do nothing and leave everything to fate?

3. The idea that Wiggins and KAT are worth more than Embiid, Noel, #3 and all of the players and pick the Sixers have right now.

4. Mentioning Shabazz, LaVine, Dieng but failing to account for Saric, Covington, Grant, and the ridiculous discrepancy in future picks and cap space between the two teams.

[nikster]

This strategy by philidelphia has been recent. They hired Hinkie at the start of the 2013-14 season. its only been 2 years, and there status went from treadmill team in a weak east with no future to a potential dynasty (an obvious stretch, but its crazy we are having this conversation only 2 years later).
and i think philly has more assests. I give the combo of Saric, Embiid, Noel & Russell (or whoever they draft) the edge over Wiggins, Lavine and KAT. and i take phillys collection of picks over Shabazz, and Dieng. I dont think Shabazz has a high ceiling at all and he hasnt even played 80 games in 2 years. Dieng is a solid starting big but in no means a game changer. He has little to no offensive game and he is already 25 years old.

You didn't finish the sentence though. They went from treadmill team to...what exactly? Do we even know? Other than currently they are a joke of a product right now on the court. And Minnesota's rebuild is just as current.

Also we are going to have to agree to disagree about the value of the prospects. If offered Saric and Embiid for Wiggins, I would say no quickly. If offered Noel and Russell for KAT I'd say no just as quickly, and that's before factoring in Lavine. Sprinkling in the other 4 potential picks doesn't do much for me either.

So to recap, we have one team that has offered an embarrassing product on purpose on the basketball court, and another team who kind of backed in to a rebuild due to injuries, ineptitude and luck, and they are both at about the same place in terms of rebuilding.

The difference is, one team by design, has had no pride in the product they put out on the basketball court.

76ers had a previous GM who got them nowhere. They were a treadmill team with no chance at good picks and no real assests. If you look prior to rebuild for both teams Minnesota was way ahead in terms of talent and assests. Now they are a team loaded with assests and you could argue any of Noel, Embiid, Saric and Russell are future allstars. Thats a huge difference.
I can kinda see the Wiggins over Saric and Embiid considering they havent stepped on the court. But Noel was incredible defensively, especially towards the end of the season. and Russell is a great prospect on his own, a top 3 pick in a very talented draft. Why you would shut that trade down is a loss to me.
Lavine doesnt do much for me...i bet at least 2 of those picks from 2016 end up having better careers than Lavine

[tsherkin]

The word "dynasty" should never have been a part of this conversation. I mean, really. Could they contend for a title in 5-10 years? Ya, if they're lucky, but dynasty? They'd need such a windfall of talent that it's a huuuuuuuuge stretch.

[winter_mute_13]

You can't really look at Hinkie's strategy without comparing it to all other possible strategies though. All strategies have a low chance of succeeding. This one might just be the best relatively.

True enough. This one has a really bad floor though. And I'm not sure that the slightly higher ceiling makes up for it.

Btw, part of what keeps me responding to this sort of thread is the idea being propagated that Hinkie's strategy is the best possible strategy, for every team. Obviously you're not one of those saying it, but this talk of dynasty in the OP is clearly of that ilk.

[mateo82]

I've said this before, but it's not a strategy. Multi-year tanking and hoping to eventually land on the pick that becomes Tim Duncan or LeBron James is not a strategy. It's a prayer.

I'm against Philadelphia because I think what they are doing is harmful for the league. It's not viable that any team that doesn't see a bright future will sacrifice 4+ years in the hopes of the dice landing in their favor.

[Mobby]

I do think that it's likely the 76ers will end up being one of the best teams in 6-8 years time. If they trade their assets for a superstar that is pushing his way out -- that would be another way of reaching that peak in a shorter time. However, I also like their chances of coming out ahead in the draft with all of their opportunities.

In any case, plenty of flexibility -- and it really might not take nearly as long as 10 years if they play their cards right.

[wickedwrister]

You can't really look at Hinkie's strategy without comparing it to all other possible strategies though. All strategies have a low chance of succeeding. This one might just be the best relatively.

True enough. This one has a really bad floor though. And I'm not sure that the slightly higher ceiling makes up for it.

Btw, part of what keeps me responding to this sort of thread is the idea being propagated that Hinkie's strategy is the best possible strategy, for every team. Obviously you're not one of those saying it, but this talk of dynasty in the OP is clearly of that ilk.

I think there are 2 important points here.

1) After years of being on the treadmill, Sixers fans are okay with the really bad floor for just the hope of the higher ceiling. Fans of other more successful fanbases likely wouldn't and shouldnt trade their current situations for tanking. This discrepancy leads to other fans often telling Sixers fans how annoyed they should be at the current product when most of us are content with it.

2) Tanking was right for the 2013-2015 Sixers. There are many ways to build a team, odds are most of them including this one will fail to win a title. You just want to give yourself the best chance to get there as fast as you can. I honestly believe this was/is the fastest way to take the Sixers 2013 situation and turn it into one that could produce a title contender.

It gets asked all the time in these threads, what could Hinkie really have done differently? Extend Thad, Turner and Hawes? Add Noah Vonleh or Doug McDermott to that core? Maybe take Steven Adams instead of MCW? Where is that team going?

Jrue
Turner
McDermott
Thad
Hawes/Adams

vs

Russell
???????
Covington
Noel
Embiid

Anyone who says the 1st is better than the 2nd? Oh yeah the 1st group also owes 2 1st round picks AND is capped out. The second is owed 3 1st round picks and has lots of cap space. Not only is the 2nd team likely better, I'd also much rather follow that one as a fan even if there is nothing resembling a competent SG on the roster.

[sixerswillrule]

I do think that it's likely the 76ers will end up being one of the best teams in 6-8 years time. If they trade their assets for a superstar that is pushing his way out -- that would be another way of reaching that peak in a shorter time. However, I also like their chances of coming out ahead in the draft with all of their opportunities.

In any case, plenty of flexibility -- and it really might not take nearly as long as 10 years if they play their cards right.

Yeah, maybe the 10 year prediction was meant for after establishing the dynasty, i.e. already winning a few titles? Because you're right, if the plan works, they'll first become one of the league's best teams much sooner than that.

The combination of "dynasty" and "10 years" wasn't the best. 76ers will become a contender in 5 years would have been much more reasonable.

[wickedwrister]

I've said this before, but it's not a strategy. Multi-year tanking and hoping to eventually land on the pick that becomes Tim Duncan or LeBron James is not a strategy. It's a prayer.

I'm against Philadelphia because I think what they are doing is harmful for the league. It's not viable that any team that doesn't see a bright future will sacrifice 4+ years in the hopes of the dice landing in their favor.

Okay but what if you just say the plan is to be smart at scouting and drafting. Get picks in the top 5 (Embiid, 2015 #3) and bring in talented players. This whole thing doesn't hinge on getting the next Lebron. It is based on bringing in highly talented players and hopefully hitting on the picks they do have. The team in 2013 had no high level talent, at least now they currently have guys who could make it there. Higher ceiling Jrue or Noel? Embiid or Vonleh?

As for what is best for the league, when the league figures out a way to better evenly distribute talent so most teams have an all-star level player, then you will see teams stop doing this sorta thing. Maybe that means getting rid of the max contract, I'm not sure how it happens. All Philly can do is work within the same system as the other 29 teams and try to beat them in that system.

[wickedwrister]

I do think that it's likely the 76ers will end up being one of the best teams in 6-8 years time. If they trade their assets for a superstar that is pushing his way out -- that would be another way of reaching that peak in a shorter time. However, I also like their chances of coming out ahead in the draft with all of their opportunities.

In any case, plenty of flexibility -- and it really might not take nearly as long as 10 years if they play their cards right.

Yeah, maybe the 10 year prediction was meant for after establishing the dynasty, i.e. already winning a few titles? Because you're right, if the plan works, they'll first become one of the league's best teams much sooner than that.

The combination of "dynasty" and "10 years" wasn't the best. 76ers will become a contender in 5 years would have been much more reasonable.

Phrasing it that way doesn't drive clicks to your blog. You are correct though, the measured question is will the Sixers be a top 4 seed in the East in 5 years?

[mateo82]

I've said this before, but it's not a strategy. Multi-year tanking and hoping to eventually land on the pick that becomes Tim Duncan or LeBron James is not a strategy. It's a prayer.

I'm against Philadelphia because I think what they are doing is harmful for the league. It's not viable that any team that doesn't see a bright future will sacrifice 4+ years in the hopes of the dice landing in their favor.

Okay but what if you just say the plan is to be smart at scouting and drafting. Get picks in the top 5 (Embiid, 2015 #3) and bring in talented players. This whole thing doesn't hinge on getting the next Lebron. It is based on bringing in highly talented players and hopefully hitting on the picks they do have. The team in 2013 had no high level talent, at least now they currently have guys who could make it there. Higher ceiling Jrue or Noel? Embiid or Vonleh?

Huh? The entire premise of this plan is to get a transcendent player, as those are the players who win championships. If all you want to do is get talented players multi-year tanking is not necessary, there are talented players throughout the draft (Gobert was 27th). The point of tanking is to get the generational guys.

Even getting max-level guys is not good enough. Hell DeAndre Jordan is a max player but the 76ers aren't doing much if that kind of player is your best guy. Go look at old drafts, the #1 pick is the ONLY pick where you have a better-than-average chance of getting a all-star player, every other pick is a crapshoot.

[psualltheway5]

I'm sorry, but how have the Sixers "embarrassed the league" when we have yet to finish with the worst record in our "tanking era"?

[Rendei]

yes considering two years ago our best player was Jrue Holiday, we had no cap space to use, we owe two first rounders, and was heading to resigning Turner and Hawes to contracts and ****...yeah even in the dusty state we are now it is a hell of a lot better than that...we now OWN other peeps picks (low or high..draft picks are useful tools even if it is just for filling out a roster), have cap space, and multiple prospects to hopefully develop instead of maaaaaybe one. That team had very little potential for forward movement...whether or not this one will reach it or not is left to be seen but it damn sure has more options to get better than just hoping Evan Turner figured out how to not get bodied at the rim and Jrue turned into Chris Paul.

So yeah there was a turnaround.

If you're a fan of spreadsheets, sure. But most fans care about what's actually happening on the court. And there's no way that the current 76ers team is putting a better product on the floor than Jrue's 76ers team. And Hinkie was flipping guys he drafted like MCW and KJ this season to do more tanking.

Look, I don't mean to blast the 76ers like a lot of people around here. How they want to chase championships is their business, even if I have a minor gripe about teams intentionally bringing a bad product into other teams arenas. And I absolutely agree that they're in a better position going forward now than they were 3-4 years ago. But it'd be easier for everyone if Hinkie would just decide that it was time to try to win. Then everyone could agree about a turnaround.

[Sixerscan]

You can't really look at Hinkie's strategy without comparing it to all other possible strategies though. All strategies have a low chance of succeeding. This one might just be the best relatively.

True enough. This one has a really bad floor though. And I'm not sure that the slightly higher ceiling makes up for it.

Btw, part of what keeps me responding to this sort of thread is the idea being propagated that Hinkie's strategy is the best possible strategy, for every team. Obviously you're not one of those saying it, but this talk of dynasty in the OP is clearly of that ilk.

Yeah, to extent people say that it's the best for everyone, that's wrong. The NBA is well past the point where there's one obvious path that's more efficient than all the others. It's not like there are 29 teams out there only playing 4 guys at a time and you decide to play a 5th.

[wickedwrister]

yes considering two years ago our best player was Jrue Holiday, we had no cap space to use, we owe two first rounders, and was heading to resigning Turner and Hawes to contracts and ****...yeah even in the dusty state we are now it is a hell of a lot better than that...we now OWN other peeps picks (low or high..draft picks are useful tools even if it is just for filling out a roster), have cap space, and multiple prospects to hopefully develop instead of maaaaaybe one. That team had very little potential for forward movement...whether or not this one will reach it or not is left to be seen but it damn sure has more options to get better than just hoping Evan Turner figured out how to not get bodied at the rim and Jrue turned into Chris Paul.

So yeah there was a turnaround.

If you're a fan of spreadsheets, sure. But most fans care about what's actually happening on the court. And there's no way that the current 76ers team is putting a better product on the floor that Jrue's 76ers team. And Hinkie was flipping guys he drafted like MCW and KJ this season to do more tanking.

Look, I don't mean to blast the 76ers like a lot of people around here. How they want to chase championships is their business, even if I have a minor gripe about teams intentionally bringing a bad product into other teams arenas. And I absolutely agree that they're in a better position going forward now than they were 3-4 years ago. But it'd be easier for everyone if Hinkie would just decide that it was time to try to win. Then everyone could agree about a turnaround.

Try watching a Doug Collins coached team and then a Brett Brown coached team, its a better (read: more entertaining) product right now.