What are the Sixers doing?

[nrockwaychicago]

Hinkie is doing everything right IMO.

These players are all "nice" but they're not superstars. He want's his superstar. If the ping pong balls bounce a little differently last year or Embiid doesn't get injured and they are a core of MCW, McDaniels, Wiggins, Noel

They didn't didn't get Wiggins, so he's trying it again, holding onto Embiid, and seeing if he can get another shot at it. you need that "go to" guy, not a bunch of average players to wallow in mediocrity for 5 more years.

You need stars. You can't win without one and the last 20 years has proven it. Spurs, Heat, Mavs, Celtics, Lakers, Bulls, Rockets... all the teams sans the Pistons (the one outlier, but they had 5 really above average/all-stars in their primes) had STARS. You have to do what you can to get one, even if it's giving up on a nice player like MCW, it isn't the end of the world.

That's a perfectly fine process. The question it raises is: what happens if Noel and Embiid don't turn out that good either? Teams can't just keep hitting the re-set button year after year in perpetuity; at some point they will have to play the hand they're dealt even if there isn't an Anthony Davis in the bunch.

Why?

[loserX]

Hinkie is doing everything right IMO.

These players are all "nice" but they're not superstars. He want's his superstar. If the ping pong balls bounce a little differently last year or Embiid doesn't get injured and they are a core of MCW, McDaniels, Wiggins, Noel

They didn't didn't get Wiggins, so he's trying it again, holding onto Embiid, and seeing if he can get another shot at it. you need that "go to" guy, not a bunch of average players to wallow in mediocrity for 5 more years.

You need stars. You can't win without one and the last 20 years has proven it. Spurs, Heat, Mavs, Celtics, Lakers, Bulls, Rockets... all the teams sans the Pistons (the one outlier, but they had 5 really above average/all-stars in their primes) had STARS. You have to do what you can to get one, even if it's giving up on a nice player like MCW, it isn't the end of the world.

That's a perfectly fine process. The question it raises is: what happens if Noel and Embiid don't turn out that good either? Teams can't just keep hitting the re-set button year after year in perpetuity; at some point they will have to play the hand they're dealt even if there isn't an Anthony Davis in the bunch.

Why?

Because fans tend not to react well to 20-year rebuilds You can't just tell them "next year for SURE we'll be good! Unless it doesn't work, then we'll throw our fish back in the pond and start all over again. But after that for SURE we'll be good." Fans will get sick of all the losing, and if you keep showing them that your high-drafted players aren't worth keeping, why should they trust you with the next pick?

[dunkman04]

What the Sixers are doing is showing the NBA that the lottery system needs to be changed.

I'd love to see either everyone have equal odds or a much less sharp distribution of chances. Maybe worst record has a 10% chance and #14 has a 5% chance. Every team in the lottery needs a lot of help to be able to contend, not just the worst few.

[Yoshun]

Because fans tend not to react well to 20-year rebuilds You can't just tell them "next year for SURE we'll be good! Unless it doesn't work, then we'll throw our fish back in the pond and start all over again. But after that for SURE we'll be good." Fans will get sick of all the losing, and if you keep showing them that your high-drafted players aren't worth keeping, why should they trust you with the next pick?

This is definitely true.

The thing is however, Hinkie really hasn't been there that long. It hasn't even been 2 season yet. If he trades Noel, Embid, or even Covington (who I like) within the next season or two, then I'd say there's a problem. Until then I think we have to give him the benefit of the doubt and a few seasons to determine whether or not it's working. Besides, it doesn't seem to bother Sixer fans too much.

[loserX]

Because fans tend not to react well to 20-year rebuilds You can't just tell them "next year for SURE we'll be good! Unless it doesn't work, then we'll throw our fish back in the pond and start all over again. But after that for SURE we'll be good." Fans will get sick of all the losing, and if you keep showing them that your high-drafted players aren't worth keeping, why should they trust you with the next pick?

This is definitely true.

The thing is however, Hinkie really hasn't been there that long. It hasn't even been 2 season yet. If he trades Noel, Embid, or even Covington (who I like) within the next season or two, then I'd say there's a problem. Until then I think we have to give him the benefit of the doubt and a few seasons to determine whether or not it's working. Besides, it doesn't seem to bother Sixer fans too much.

Yeah, I wasn't necessarily referring to Philadelphia specifically. Just an earlier post that said teams should keep cashing out on "good" players until they get a "great" one. You can do that short-term...but not long-term.

[Ruzious]

What the Sixers are doing is showing the NBA that the lottery system needs to be changed.

I'd love to see either everyone have equal odds or a much less sharp distribution of chances. Maybe worst record has a 10% chance and #14 has a 5% chance. Every team in the lottery needs a lot of help to be able to contend, not just the worst few.

That's on the right track, imo. I'd be fine with all the lottery teams having the same chance - make it an un-weighted lottery for all the non-playoff teams. Take away as many incentives for losing while still helping the poor.

[nrockwaychicago]

That's a perfectly fine process. The question it raises is: what happens if Noel and Embiid don't turn out that good either? Teams can't just keep hitting the re-set button year after year in perpetuity; at some point they will have to play the hand they're dealt even if there isn't an Anthony Davis in the bunch.

Why?

Because fans tend not to react well to 20-year rebuilds You can't just tell them "next year for SURE we'll be good! Unless it doesn't work, then we'll throw our fish back in the pond and start all over again. But after that for SURE we'll be good." Fans will get sick of all the losing, and if you keep showing them that your high-drafted players aren't worth keeping, why should they trust you with the next pick?

Yeah but you're saying that at some point a front office should just be content with mediocrity.

[elBJ]

Trading Carter-Williams for the Lakers' pick was savvy.

Trading McDaniels was also savvy. When you're confident that you're losing a player, you should cash-in. No if ands or buts about it.

Trading for McGee was equivalent to a squirrel collecting nuts, but I wonder if there'll be any minutes for him next season to showcase him (before he's re-traded). Eventually, I think McGee isn't flipped.

I think it was more about the free first round pick than McGee himself.

No "thinking" about it. He was definitely acquired for that reason. Chances are he'll be an expensive third string center and insurance policy until his contract runs out ... and that's cool.

insurance policy, like hitmen give their targets one to the heart and then one to the head, to be sure (team stays dead)

[loserX]

Why?

Because fans tend not to react well to 20-year rebuilds You can't just tell them "next year for SURE we'll be good! Unless it doesn't work, then we'll throw our fish back in the pond and start all over again. But after that for SURE we'll be good." Fans will get sick of all the losing, and if you keep showing them that your high-drafted players aren't worth keeping, why should they trust you with the next pick?

Yeah but you're saying that at some point a front office should just be content with mediocrity.

Not at all. Just that they can't be content with terribility There are other ways to improve your team than tanking for a decade, and eventually you have to try one of them.

[The411]

Sixers gonna six

[Higga]

They remind me of the Clipppers of the late 90s/early 00s. Remember all that young talent? Odom, Olowakandi, etc. But it never panned out. You can't just suck for years and years and hope to win because you get high picks. OKC is really the exception landing Durant/Westbrook/Ibaka/Harden but that was really fortunate on their part. At some point you gotta commit to winning and go out and get some guys who know how to get it done. A team of nothing but ~22 year olds won't develop properly.

[LofJ]

What are the Sixers doing?

Banking on a Lebron James/Shaq/MJ/Magic in the next 3-4 drafts.

One problem: There will never be another for the next 15-20 years.

Championship winning Star players come around about once every 5 years. The last one was Anthony Davis in 2012, so...I guess Hinkie must be planning on tanking until 2017.

[Ruzious]

And while I think the 6ers made a solid move in the MCW trade, when you're in rebuild mode and trade the guy who just won ROY for you last season, ya gotta wonder - if they keep doing that kind of thing - how are they ever going to develop a team? Are they going to get themselves in an unending rebuild loop? The trade - in and of itself - made sense, but where are they headed?

[gipper08]

They remind me of the Clipppers of the late 90s/early 00s.

The Sixers FO are on the opposite end of the spectrum of the 90s Clippers Fo

[BullyKing]

And while I think the 6ers made a solid move in the MCW trade, when you're in rebuild mode and trade the guy who just won ROY for you last season, ya gotta wonder - if they keep doing that kind of thing - how are they ever going to develop a team? Are they going to get themselves in an unending rebuild loop? The trade - in and of itself - made sense, but where are they headed?

Only if you are looking for reasons to bash the Sixers constantly. Otherwise, you would evaluate it like every other trade and say they got good value for a guy and be done with it.

[loserX]

And while I think the 6ers made a solid move in the MCW trade, when you're in rebuild mode and trade the guy who just won ROY for you last season, ya gotta wonder - if they keep doing that kind of thing - how are they ever going to develop a team? Are they going to get themselves in an unending rebuild loop? The trade - in and of itself - made sense, but where are they headed?

Only if you are looking for reasons to bash the Sixers constantly. Otherwise, you would evaluate it like every other trade and say they got good value for a guy and be done with it.

Or you could do what most people do and evaluate trades in context. It is entirely possible to make trades that look good in a vacuum individually and still not be better off.

[nikster]

What are the Sixers doing?

Banking on a Lebron James/Shaq/MJ/Magic in the next 3-4 drafts.

One problem: There will never be another for the next 15-20 years.

Championship winning Star players come around about once every 5 years. The last one was Anthony Davis in 2012, so...I guess Hinkie must be planning on tanking until 2017.

franchise-changing talents come across about once every 2 years

[BullyKing]

And while I think the 6ers made a solid move in the MCW trade, when you're in rebuild mode and trade the guy who just won ROY for you last season, ya gotta wonder - if they keep doing that kind of thing - how are they ever going to develop a team? Are they going to get themselves in an unending rebuild loop? The trade - in and of itself - made sense, but where are they headed?

Only if you are looking for reasons to bash the Sixers constantly. Otherwise, you would evaluate it like every other trade and say they got good value for a guy and be done with it.

Or you could do what most people do and evaluate trades in context. It is entirely possible to make trades that look good in a vacuum individually and still not be better off.

Almost everyone agrees that the Sixers got somewhere between a good to ridiculous return for MCW. Yet, I guess this entire thread is necessary to provide the context to it? Is this is what most people do, like I said earlier, why is there not a similar thread discussing the context as to what the Suns, the team that surrendered the ridiculous return, are doing?

[BullyKing]

Only if you are looking for reasons to bash the Sixers constantly. Otherwise, you would evaluate it like every other trade and say they got good value for a guy and be done with it.

Or you could do what most people do and evaluate trades in context. It is entirely possible to make trades that look good in a vacuum individually and still not be better off.

Almost everyone agrees that the Sixers got somewhere between a good to ridiculous return for MCW. Yet, I guess this entire thread is necessary to provide the context to it? Is this is what most people do, like I said earlier, why is there not a similar thread discussing the context as to what the Suns, the team that surrendered the ridiculous return, are doing?

By the way, this is from Andrew Sharp, a guy who definitely is not a Hinkie fluffer:

The real reason the Suns are losers after Thursday is the second trade. Giving up a likely top-10 Lakers pick (probably in either 2015 or 2016) is just incomprehensible. In July, Phoenix will have either given that pick away for nothing (if Brandon Knight leaves), or it will have given that pick away so it can pay Knight $15 million a year. I don’t even know which scenario is more depressing.

[Mik317]

It won't take that long to find out if this was a good move or not....

This draft is pretty much judgement day. You come out of it with better prospects than MCW and KJ (ideally at their same spots..pls lord) and suddenly this isn't a big deal. Big ass IF. But all the worries about tanking forever are silly. This will come to a head soon