Do you agree with hinkie's rebuild plan for the sixers?

[Curmudgeon]

If we are evaluating his ability to pick a good player--he pulled the ROY @ #11. I'd say thats pretty solid? In the following year, when said ROY began to loose some of his promise, he was moved for a potentially amazing pick. In that same draft he also took the delayed gratification route and ended up with Noel who had a pretty good argument for getting the ROY the following season.

You can't have it both ways with MCW, who by the way seems to be doing ok in Milwaukee.

If MCW "began to lose some of his promise" after just a year, then it wasn't a good pick. Hinkie could have taken Steven Adams, Giannis Adetokounbo or Rudy Gobert with that pick.

[moocow007]

I just enjoyed the best Astros season in 10 years.

That was pretty much the result of what Hinkie is doing. Probably even more extreme, to be honest.

I don't like the idea of tanking, but looking at this young Astros team that is at least two years ahead of where they should be I really can't argue against it.

The problems with this comparison though is that you don't risk losing your top picks in 4 years to free agency in the majors like you do in the NBA and you don't have a lot of room to develop players in the NBA like you do in the minors (i.e. no real minor leagues in the NBA). The clock ticks a lot faster in the NBA and GM's of NBA teams don't have the same type of luxury that GM's of MLB teams have.

As far as Hinkie and the Plan goes?

I'm actually not quite clear on his plan (beyond tanking for picks, which in and of itself is not really a plan but a thing you do to get high picks). Is it keep losing and swing for the fences until you hit a homerun? If you get a man on 1st are you looking to move them to second or do you just keep swinging for the fences and risk grounding into double play after double play? It is a "swing for the fences" type plan right? Keep getting yourself in the lottery until you get a Lebron or a Duncan, if you don't find one of those then keep losing until you do? Is that the crux and bottom line of the plan? Being honest here, not trying to be facetious.

So when evaluating players, is the focus purely on home run potential or is it based on readiness to contribute or proven ability in some area, etc., etc.

[HartfordWhalers]

http://www.phillymag.com/news/2015/10/21/sixers-rebuild-sam-hinkie/

[BullyKing]

Hope springs eternal in the human breast. Sure, Okafor might become a star, but he certainly hasn't played like one.

Plus, Philadelphia isn't exactly Miami or Los Angeles. No South Beach, no Malibu. It's just another cold Northeastern city. Hinkie's chance of attracting a major free agent or two are slim to none. He can't even get Saric to leave Europe.

You're right, if Hinkie was so amazing he would have the ability to break Turkish contracts. Honestly, throwing in nonsense like that just makes you come off as biased.

[BullyKing]

If we are evaluating his ability to pick a good player--he pulled the ROY @ #11. I'd say thats pretty solid? In the following year, when said ROY began to loose some of his promise, he was moved for a potentially amazing pick. In that same draft he also took the delayed gratification route and ended up with Noel who had a pretty good argument for getting the ROY the following season.

You can't have it both ways with MCW, who by the way seems to be doing ok in Milwaukee.

If MCW "began to lose some of his promise" after just a year, then it wasn't a good pick. Hinkie could have taken Steven Adams, Giannis Adetokounbo or Rudy Gobert with that pick.

So the standard for whether someone has the ability to pick a good player is that they must select the absolute best player available regardless of the perceived value at the time or they are bad at it. Seems reasonable.

[Texas Chuck]

So the standard for whether someone has the ability to pick a good player is that they must select the absolute best player available regardless of the perceived value at the time or they are bad at it. Seems reasonable.

Does this work in reverse? Like can I give Donnie a pass for drafting horrible players because he might could have drafted even more horrible ones?

Oh and by his logic, picking Dream was terrible talent evaluation because Houston could have drafted Mike....... Forget he's one of the best 10 or 12 players of all-time....

[yosemiteben]

My biggest philsophical problem with the 76ers' approach is the utilitarian argument that it would both make for a terrible NBA product and make it even more difficult to use this approach if all bottom feeder teams went this route. What if the bottom 5 NBA teams who knew they would not be in playoff contention took this approach - you would have the issue of multiple franchises throwing away ratings and fan support, all in a race to the bottom to gain a leg up an a drafting strategy that is now increasingly less likely to guarantee future success. I have a hard time encouraging an approach that would be destructive to the league, and if we had five teams taking this multi-year tanking approach, I think that would absolutely be destructive to the league. If this is truly the best way to build a team, we may as well allow teams that aren't going to at least attempt to build a competitive roster for a multi-year period to lock in subsequent top 5 picks and just join the D league for a set period.

[bondom34]

If we are evaluating his ability to pick a good player--he pulled the ROY @ #11. I'd say thats pretty solid? In the following year, when said ROY began to loose some of his promise, he was moved for a potentially amazing pick. In that same draft he also took the delayed gratification route and ended up with Noel who had a pretty good argument for getting the ROY the following season.

You can't have it both ways with MCW, who by the way seems to be doing ok in Milwaukee.

If MCW "began to lose some of his promise" after just a year, then it wasn't a good pick. Hinkie could have taken Steven Adams, Giannis Adetokounbo or Rudy Gobert with that pick.

If this is your opinion, you haven't seen him. They've been much worse since he got there. He still can't shoot or really do much of anything offensively. And they got a top 5 or so pick for him.

[winter_mute_13]

http://www.phillymag.com/news/2015/10/21/sixers-rebuild-sam-hinkie/

Pretty balanced article, and it asks these important questions:

So how does one go about rating the Sixers front office, if wins and losses aren't immediately relevant? Winning and losing is so ingrained in our mindset as sports fans that throwing this to the wind, even if just in the short-term, is counterintuitive. Is it impossible to hold the Sixers accountable because there's no expectation of winning in the short-term?

The way I look at it is this: are they maximizing their chances to capitalize on luck, and have they missed opportunities to acquire great players?

Those are good questions, I think, but unfortunately the article fails to address Giannis and Gobert, 2 players who are probably closest to being great that the Sixers passed on. Now it's fair to say that many other teams passed on these guys, but Hinkie has made it his goal to find players like them, unlike his competitors who are focused on short term gains (in the article's words).

[Ell Curry]

Yes. He's had varying luck but generally done well. Vegas has the Sixers getting the #1 and #6 (Lakers) lotto slots in next year's draft and they have 2 good young bigs Noel and Okafor who should be solid starters, along with what should be okay wing talent in Covington, Thompson and Stauskas. So, if they get let's say the #2 and #6 pick next year, that should yield at least one starting perimeter player. They'll have massive amounts of cap space, only Noel is anywhere near getting paid and they have other potential pieces like Embiid, the Kings pick and some late 1st rounders to package to try to move up or just use. They also have a good coach.

In the East, I'd say only Cleveland, Milwaukee and Washington would be crazy to trade rosters + picks with Philly, if you're talking about odds to win a title over the next 10 years. Orlando, Miami, Chicago, Atlanta and Toronto are in decent shape but either not likely to ever beat the Cavs and probably wouldn't, but maybe should, and everyone else is still a mess or lacks more than one great piece (Detroit, New York, Indy).

[HartfordWhalers]

http://www.phillymag.com/news/2015/10/21/sixers-rebuild-sam-hinkie/

Pretty balanced article, and it asks these important questions:

So how does one go about rating the Sixers front office, if wins and losses aren't immediately relevant? Winning and losing is so ingrained in our mindset as sports fans that throwing this to the wind, even if just in the short-term, is counterintuitive. Is it impossible to hold the Sixers accountable because there's no expectation of winning in the short-term?

The way I look at it is this: are they maximizing their chances to capitalize on luck, and have they missed opportunities to acquire great players?

Those are good questions, I think, but unfortunately the article fails to address Giannis and Gobert, 2 players who are probably closest to being great that the Sixers passed on. Now it's fair to say that many other teams passed on these guys, but Hinkie has made it his goal to find players like them, unlike his competitors who are focused on short term gains (in the article's words).

For every Gobert and Giannis, there are a good 5 Lucas Noguierra's etc that were also toolsy and have been no where near as good (as even MCW). Would it be greta to have Giannis instead of the Lakers pick? Maybe, but Hinkie still absolutely outperformed.

I don't get the argument that look 2 picks out of the 49 after MCW played better than him so Hinkie failed.

[winter_mute_13]

I don't get the argument that look 2 picks out of the 49 after MCW played better than him so Hinkie failed.

Failed? Well the process is supposed to produce a certain outcome, and if that outcome doesn't come to pass at some point, is it ok to call it a failure? But it's only year 3. Way too early to conclude anything, right?

We *are* talking about rating the current progress though. And from the results so far, I would say Hinkie is a good drafter, but he doesn't significantly outperform his peers. Fair or not?

[moocow007]

http://www.phillymag.com/news/2015/10/21/sixers-rebuild-sam-hinkie/

So basically the keep going until you hit a homerun (i.e. draft a superstar player), don't worry about singles (drafting a player that turns out to be just decent), doubles (drafting a player that turns out to be real good) or triples (drafting a player that is a borderline star), advancing men, sending runners, etc.? Once you draft that superstar (i.e. hit that homerun), THEN start worrying about building and moving the team forward around this superstar?

If that's the plan then fine. But superstars don't grow on trees, even if you are perennially in the top 3 of the lotto (as the Sixers have found out for how many years now?). Not disagreeing with the plan, it may indeed be the only option for Hinkie. Just questionnable.

Also not understand the following statement made by the author...which kind of compounds the doubts of the plan.

There's restricted free agency, which essentially guarantees that a team that drafts a superstar will not lose him in free agency for the first nine years of his career.

That's only true if that player values money only above anything else, no? Even a guy that a lot of folks call a selfish guy only worried about money (i.e. Carmelo Anthony) lasted only 7.5 years in Denver. Lebron James lasted only 7 years in Cleveland and he was home AND doing great.

[Curmudgeon]

If this is your opinion, you haven't seen him. They've been much worse since he got there. He still can't shoot or really do much of anything offensively. And they got a top 5 or so pick for him.

You are just making my point that MCW wasn't a good pick. As far as flipping him for Laker pick (which is top 3 protected for the next two years and in any event may not even be a top 10 pick if you believe what the Laker fans here are saying about the "new and improved" Lakers) Hinkie was just kicking the can down the road.

That's the problem with Hinkie's approach: the present sucks, the foreseeable future sucks, but at some mystical, magical point in the future the angel Gabriel will blow his trumpet and the team's resurrection will be at hand.

How many years before they win even 40 games? I'm guessing at least three.

[LApwnd]

there's nothing special bout Hinkie plans, tankings been done.....

[Curmudgeon]

there's nothing special bout Hinkie plans, tankings been done.....

But never a "deep" tank for this long, at least not intentionally. Hinkie's approach is cynical and new.

[LApwnd]

there's nothing special bout Hinkie plans, tankings been done.....

But never a "deep" tank for this long, at least not intentionally. Hinkie's approach is cynical and new.

how do we know this? I've heard stories of more dubious tankings than this.

[BullyKing]

If this is your opinion, you haven't seen him. They've been much worse since he got there. He still can't shoot or really do much of anything offensively. And they got a top 5 or so pick for him.

How many years before they win even 40 games? I'm guessing at least three.

If they win 40 games in 2017-18 with a young up and coming team (i.e., did not shift strategy and just sign a bunch of vets), would your opinion on the tank change?

[HornetJail]

The whole point of tanking is to get star talent. A lot will depend on the 2016 draft, where they have multiple picks, but I think they've whiffed on their draft picks to this point. Not really a fan of anybody they've drafted.

I think the strategy is fine, but it's going to go on for an excessive amount of time if they keep drafting like they have. As it stands, Noel, Covington, and possibly even Okafor will be on their second contracts by the time they make the playoffs.

[bondom34]

If this is your opinion, you haven't seen him. They've been much worse since he got there. He still can't shoot or really do much of anything offensively. And they got a top 5 or so pick for him.

You are just making my point that MCW wasn't a good pick. As far as flipping him for Laker pick (which is top 3 protected for the next two years and in any event may not even be a top 10 pick if you believe what the Laker fans here are saying about the "new and improved" Lakers) Hinkie was just kicking the can down the road.

That's the problem with Hinkie's approach: the present sucks, the foreseeable future sucks, but at some mystical, magical point in the future the angel Gabriel will blow his trumpet and the team's resurrection will be at hand.

How many years before they win even 40 games? I'm guessing at least three.

So he made a pick that won ROY in a bad year, you criticized him for trading the player for value above what he should have fetched? You're reaching. And the goal is for them to not become what Boston looks like right now, a bunch of mediocre assets with no distinct plan or future. Yeah, maybe it takes a few years to get there, but its better than being stuck in the middle for the foreseeable future. As a fan of neither team and a team who's currently contending, I'd much rather be a Philly fan than Boston, or for that matter any east team outside Milwaukee, Cleveland, or maybe 2-3 others at most. Hinkie did what Ainge hasn't, traded assets at peak value.