76ers will become dynasty in 10 years

[realfung]

Good luck.
If the Warriors can do it, you guys can do it too.
But I doubt your current roster can do it.

[sixerswillrule]

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.

Two years ago. It's been two years. Hinkie was hired in May 2013 and Jrue was traded on draft night.

Do you want them to sign a bunch of mediocre veteran FAs this summer? Would that satisfy you?

[psualltheway5]

Good luck.
If the Warriors can do it, you guys can do it too.
But I doubt your current roster can do it.

Lol. Thanks.

[Sixerscan]

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.

We're just operating in degrees here. Your Bucks could have easily traded Giannis or your pick that became Jabari for some veterans and spared opposing fans from your 2013-2014 slopfest. (Which lost more games than either of our tanking years) But somehow what the Bucks did is ok and what the Sixers did isn't. All seems like a lot of moral grandstanding BS if you ask me. Let teams do what they want and leave them alone IMO.

Anyway, I don't think opposing fans will be happy if/when we start winning, especially if that means that their own teams lose more games and we sign some of their favorite players away from them. Fans generally don't like it when their teams get worse.

[HartfordWhalers]

This is so incredibly stupid. I'm not talking about the Sixers -- that could end any number of ways, including multiple championships -- I'm talking about the article.

Unless the CBA changes, a max player can earn about 35% of the cap. You can't have 3 true max players with contracts signed under the new cap, which is what the Sixers will have if all of Embiid, Noel, and the 3rd pick (not to mention any future guys) pan out that well.

It's called math. Or seriously punitive luxury tax, I suppose, because you need other guys on the roster.

Just to be clear, your math is wrong.

A max player coming off a rookie contract gets 25% of the cap, not 35%. Even if they qualify as Rose max, the number is still 30%.

You absolutely can have 3 true max players, even at the 35% figure that should come into play in about 7 years if it does, so long as you already have their Bird rights.

[Sixerscan]

This is so incredibly stupid. I'm not talking about the Sixers -- that could end any number of ways, including multiple championships -- I'm talking about the article.

Unless the CBA changes, a max player can earn about 35% of the cap. You can't have 3 true max players with contracts signed under the new cap, which is what the Sixers will have if all of Embiid, Noel, and the 3rd pick (not to mention any future guys) pan out that well.

It's called math. Or seriously punitive luxury tax, I suppose, because you need other guys on the roster.

Just to be clear, your math is wrong.

A max player coming off a rookie contract gets 25% of the cap, not 35%. Even if they qualify as Rose max, the number is still 30%.

You absolutely can have 3 true max players, even at the 35% figure that should come into play in about 7 years if it does, so long as you already have their Bird rights.

I also love this argument. Like every championship contending team doesn't have multiple guys on huge contracts. Pretty sure LeBron, Kyrie and Kevin Love all make the league minimum.

Anyway, Hinkie makes more trades than anyone in the NBA. I think you can absolutely question his basketball eye, but when it comes to finance I think he's in good shape. Was probably a factor in why we traded MCW for a first round pick that will be on a rookie deal 3 years after MCW's expires.

[ufsports]

Even Brooklyn can be a dinasty in 10 years.

What's a dinasty and how do you become one?

[mateo82]

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.

We're just operating in degrees here. Your Bucks could have easily traded Giannis or your pick that became Jabari for some veterans and spared opposing fans from your 2013-2014 slopfest. (Which lost more games than either of our tanking years) But somehow what the Bucks did is ok and what the Sixers did isn't. All seems like a lot of moral grandstanding BS if you ask me. Let teams do what they want and leave them alone IMO.

It's the brazenness that attracts such ire. The 76ers have essentially said that they intend to be terrible until they get lucky. There's an implicit bit with every other rebuilding team that they are trying to develop a team, while the 76ers looks as every player merely as an asset. They aren't trying to rebuild anything, they're playing the slot machine.

Let me ask you this as a 76ers fan, which year does it stop being ok to tank? When you do expect them to try and win?

[Rendei]

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

I like Brett Brown, and I totally understand. Especially with the attached hope factor. But ultimately that team made it to the 2nd round of the playoffs and this team consistently pulls one of the 5 worst records in the league.

Two years ago. It's been two years. Hinkie was hired in May 2013 and Jrue was traded on draft night.

Do you want them to sign a bunch of mediocre veteran FAs this summer? Would that satisfy you?

You may hate this answer, but I think I'll be satisfied if they don't trade away more of their best young players for future draft picks and expiring contracts. That's literally it. I know it's been two years. I said 3-4 so that I would land safely in the window of the previous regime.

[rumdiary]

There's a lot of different strategies that GMs can employ.

The lengths to which GMs can employ these strategies are determined by their Team Owner and also luck.

Sam Hinkie and the 76ers are employing one strategy to the absolute extreme and I'm fascinated to see where it leads.

The Sixers strategy basically gives 110% free reign to the GM, Sam Hinkie. When Hinkie felt like their very own Rookie of the Year would not pan-out, he traded him for picks the year after. That's GM free reign, but it's also sensible.

It's a brutal strategy for the players involved, but I think as a method for achieving long-term success it might end up being the best there is.

[Rendei]

We're just operating in degrees here. Your Bucks could have easily traded Giannis or your pick that became Jabari for some veterans and spared opposing fans from your 2013-2014 slopfest. (Which lost more games than either of our tanking years) But somehow what the Bucks did is ok and what the Sixers did isn't. All seems like a lot of moral grandstanding BS if you ask me. Let teams do what they want and leave them alone IMO.

Anyway, I don't think opposing fans will be happy if/when we start winning, especially if that means that their own teams lose more games and we sign some of their favorite players away from them. Fans generally don't like it when their teams get worse.

The Bucks management tried their very best to sabotage their future to get the 8th seed and failed miserably. It was absurdly pathetic and lucky, but there's no way that any opposing fanbases would take issue with it.

[Sixerscan]

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.

We're just operating in degrees here. Your Bucks could have easily traded Giannis or your pick that became Jabari for some veterans and spared opposing fans from your 2013-2014 slopfest. (Which lost more games than either of our tanking years) But somehow what the Bucks did is ok and what the Sixers did isn't. All seems like a lot of moral grandstanding BS if you ask me. Let teams do what they want and leave them alone IMO.

It's the brazenness that attracts such ire. The 76ers have essentially said that they intend to be terrible until they get lucky. There's an implicit bit with every other rebuilding team that they are trying to develop a team, while the 76ers looks as every player merely as an asset. They aren't trying to rebuild anything, they're playing the slot machine.

Let me ask you this as a 76ers fan, which year does it stop being ok to tank? When you do expect them to try and win?

I don't think in those terms. As long as they are going in the right direction it's fine. I have no idea how long it's going to take. If I have an issue with something they do, it will because I don't think it is in the best interest of the team, NOT that it's taking too long or something.

But that's different. I'm a 76ers fan. I want them to be good. You aren't, you shouldn't care/should want them to fail. So if you really think that this isn't the best way to do it, you shouldn't care/be happy that we're acting like idiots.

As long as we're asking questions, would it make you happy if we signed LMA and Wes this summer? Unless you don't like those players (In which case fill in your own hypothetical players you would like to keep around a team you like) I'm guessing not.

My point is that fans of other teams should want us to tank as long as possible. If we win X more games, that means, on average, you will lose X/29 more games. If we get X more talent, that means you will have X/29 less talent. (IDK if those numbers are exactly right but you get my point)

[sixerswillrule]

Two years ago. It's been two years. Hinkie was hired in May 2013 and Jrue was traded on draft night.

Do you want them to sign a bunch of mediocre veteran FAs this summer? Would that satisfy you?

You may hate this answer, but I think I'll be satisfied if they don't trade away more of their best young players for future draft picks and expiring contracts. That's literally it. I know it's been two years. I said 3-4 so that I would land safely in the window of the previous regime.

Regarding the MCW trade

I think it's a pretty big jump from trading MCW to trading Noel or Embiid. Both of them are far better prospects. I'd be shocked if either gets traded any time soon.

[HartfordWhalers]

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'm not sold on the floor being bad. I mean, the team's attendance is down, but not massively from when they won 35 games (which was down a ton from the 55 win Iverson teams). Meanwhile, by lots of measures interest is up, and substantially. The team was already one of the leaders in new season tickets, local polls always show the plan is wildly popular, and 5-600 people showed up for a draft lottery party of all things.

So, having a team that wins 17 games instead of 35 really isn't much lower of a floor. Especially when the 17 games are while waiting for Embiid and Saric and future picks, so it is not just you suck but eventually things come around, but rather, there are wins being intentionally deferred. People on here can act outraged, or national media can demand free tickets for us (thanks?), but all this pity over how awful the team is can just be saved for someone that wants it. (Oh yeah, and the team pretty consistently seems to be outperforming the talent they have, playing hard and competing. I would rather watch Jakarr Sampson trying his hardest than Carlos Boozer not so much, even if that Laker team won an extra 2 games).

But back on the point, the argument is simplistic -- if you need a superstar increasing your odds of drafting one from .1% to .2% might seem like a small increase so why bother? But even taking those pessimistic numbers (and there is no way the odds of a 35 win team drafting a superstar is just half of a 17-18 win team), then you still just doubled what you want. How is doubling that not consequential? It might still be unlikely (it is), but making it less unlikely is the name of the game, not standing around waiting for lightning to hit you.

{Also worth mentioning is the other ways the team could get a star. One is that a star could be available in trade. Melo, Deron (yeah, I know), Love, and especially Harden have all been traded. Having those high picks and promising assets greatly increase your chances of being able to offer the best trade and get the star that way.

And if th Philly youth hit it off, the team will have a brand new training facility, and has kept maximum cap space available so they could try an offer ~2 maximum salaries in a year and woo top tier free agents with the allure of a big market, owners willing to do anything, and the possibility of adding two top players to a bunch of upcoming top players. Still a long shot, but again, more likley than it was before.}

[Sixersftw]

[
It's the brazenness that attracts such ire. The 76ers have essentially said that they intend to be terrible until they get lucky. There's an implicit bit with every other rebuilding team that they are trying to develop a team, while the 76ers looks as every player merely as an asset. They aren't trying to rebuild anything, they're playing the slot machine.

Here are a number of things that I just don't understand. Who cares if its brazen? It is moral grandstanding, to borrow Sixerscan's phrase, if you think our public tanking is worse then underwraps tanking. Teams tank to hopefully get better, it shouldn't matter and in fact I'll say its more honest that our front office isn't shoveling fans crap about making the playoffs.

Also, all the team does is develop. They pick players they perceive are undervalued in the hopes of molding them into something useful long term - Covington, Ish Smith, Jeremy Grant, Trob, Sampson etc. The perception that they aren't trying to develop a team and are kinda just waiting around for the draft twiddling their fingers irks me because that coach and those players work hard. Players aren't viewed as assets here. As fans we might joke about this or use the term but until i hear a former player complain this is just BS. All of them have glowing things to say about the program.

[Xsy]

There's still so many holes in the 76ers plan. This team is just as likely to bust as it is to boom. I don't buy into the hype whatsoever. I'll buy in when there's reason to.

Until then, I'm still gonna say the Jazz, Wolves, Bucks, Magic, Pelicans, and Celtics are in better situations.

[Shootdabull]

This is a similar approach the bulls started in 99. The championship run was over and we tanked big time posting a string of losing seasons. 99 we picked (brand #1 & Artest) 00 Fizer #4 crawford #8 (traded Mihm #7) 01 Chandler #2 & Curry #4 02 Jay Williams #2 03 Hinrick #7 04 Gordon #3 & Deng #7. That is a lot of high level picks which got us a team that could when one round in the playoffs That's hardly a dynasty. Since then we added a #1 in rose a #2 in LA (to bad we traded him for Thomas) and we still are stuck in the second round. The strategy could pay off 76ers but its to early to how the players will pan out. After a few years the players will start looking for the big contract and if the team is still losing it will be hard to keep them around. If you get a lot of talented player you'll make it into the playoffs but you need to get that special player to get you over the hump. I don't see that player yet on the sixers but maybe Embiid will be that guy.

[wickedwrister]

There's a lot of different strategies that GMs can employ.

The lengths to which GMs can employ these strategies are determined by their Team Owner and also luck.

Sam Hinkie and the 76ers are employing one strategy to the absolute extreme and I'm fascinated to see where it leads.

The Sixers strategy basically gives 110% free reign to the GM, Sam Hinkie. When Hinkie felt like their very own Rookie of the Year would not pan-out, he traded him for picks the year after. That's GM free reign, but it's also sensible.

It's a brutal strategy for the players involved, but I think as a method for achieving long-term success it might end up being the best there is.

Agree with everything you said except for the last line. I think if you had a team full of veterans it would be brutal for them. A guy who has been in the league for 10 years is likely not going to be happy with this (props to Jason Richardson for being an awesome vet who bought in this year). The younger guys get more playing time and attention here than they would get anywhere else. When he was hurt for the year Noel got an hour of the head coaches time daily and they worked to fix his free throw mechanics. Guys like Thomas Robinson called being claimed by the Sixers the best thing that's happened to him during his career because the coaches actually talk and work with him to improve their game.

I understand your point that players hate losing and its tough to be on a team that loses a lot. Is it any worse than being on the Kings the last 2 years? Or the Magic? Or the Lakers? Those teams have lost a ton of games too. No one seems to be worrying about how all the losing is hurting Oladipo.

[Rendei]

Regarding the MCW trade

I think it's a pretty big jump from trading MCW to trading Noel or Embiid. Both of them are far better prospects. I'd be shocked if either gets traded any time soon.

Yeah, that's fine, they didn't think MCW was the guy they wanted long term to run point. KJ had his unique contract and his mom hated the way the Sixers operate. Everyone has a story and building a team requires trimming the right parts. But from the outside these two guys and Noel were basically the Sixers and two of them were mercilessly flipped.

But I'm not even necessarily talking about trading Noel or Embiid, because a deal like that would be difficult to work out. Are they going to flip Covington for a future first when they realize he'll get offered more than they want to pay when he eventually hits free agency? They've done a good job at developing some nice young role players. Those are who I have my eye on. The guys that are needed to build a team, but add needless wins to a team that's trying to lose.

[Ponchos]

I don't really understand the 0.1% chance of drafting a superstar number that some posters are throwing around(I think it's low) so I decided to do some research.

I looked at a 10 year period, 2001-2010. 50 total picks, selected in the 1-5 range.

Over 10 years picks 1-5 produced 7 Superstars (LeBron, KD, Paul, Wade etc.) 14 Stars (Wall, Cousins, Love, Bosh, Gasol etc.) 10 Good players (Favors, Okafor, Bogut etc.) 8 Ok players (Marvin Williams, Livingston, Gooden, Dunleavy etc.) and 11 bad players (Thabeet, Oden, Eddy Curry etc.).

Note that some of the stars have potential to be superstars like Wall/Cousins.

Anyhow in any given year with a top 5 pick you have:

14% chance of drafting a Superstar
28% chance of drafting a Star
20% chance of drafting a Good player
16% chance of drafting an OK player
22% chance of drafting a Bad player

Getting as many top 5 picks as possible seems like a pretty great strategy to acquire talent by those numbers.