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

[HartfordWhalers]

Seriously, you're being an ass and should step down from your mod duties if you can't treat people who disagree with you better than this. I've been on the board for months, and this is the first time you've disagreed with me on anything, as far as I know. Throughout this discourse, I have done nothing but respectfully disagreed. I didn't attack you, or insinuate that you were lying. I simply said I thought you were wrong in your interpretation. It's frankly absurd that you haven't checked yourself at this point, because you're a great poster usually and should know you've been out of line.

Yes, We shoudl relate the value of MCW to Irving and Lillard and Griffin, but not even Tyreke and then answer if Philly got a bad trade of MCW because they didn't get what Griffin is worth.

Again, misinterpreting what I said. The point isn't that Philly didn't get enough in a trade. The point is that trading a ROY for a top-three protected pick isn't something to brag about. Drafting the ROY at 11 is pretty nice, but you completely ignore that when valuing their drafting skills. Had that Lakers pick ended up being used last year (sixth overall), do I think it's an automatic win? No. I like WCS and Mudiay and Winslow as much as anyone, but they aren't instantly better than MCW with another year in the system under his belt.

I don't think misrepresenting means what you think it means. For everyone else, it doesn't mean I will now make up something entirely different from the conversation of questionable value and pretend that that is the discussion.

You are definitely right that the Sixers got bad value for Lillard and Blake Griffin. However, you misrepresented the conversation as we were instead talking about them trading MCW.

If you think I'm being an ass to you, stop posting nonsense accusing me of misrepresenting something? Cause you are really misrepresenting there. Thanks!

[bondom34]

Would be smarter to make one asking about the pick values for past ROYs the year after they won the award. I think Wiggins gets a top-three protected pick easily. And Lillard, and Irving, and Griffin. Maybe not Tyreke, but the next few before him. It's actually a pretty clean sweep for how valuable reigning ROY winners are.

If we're going to act all teleological, let's wait until after that pick is used and the player is differentiated before trying to tally the score, shall we?

And this is entirely shifting goalposts.

Maybe. Maybe it doesn't make sense to look at everyone else in MCW's position for analogous value (and I say that seriously, not sarcastically). I'm willing to grant that. But I think the other part of that post is more important. A pick is only good to have if it's used well. If it becomes a bad player or even one that Philly trades for a 2020 unprotected first, then it becomes a real question of overall value.

And there's the rub. MCW was not a very good player. He's still not terribly good, even though he's improved. To add, he was a terrible fit in Philly where they need a point who can maybe shoot some. To move on from an older rookie who was at peak value to get a better asset is just easily good management. There's literally zero debatable about that trade. Zilch, it was instantly a good move for them.

[Chinook]

You're in that case:
1. Much higher on MCW than myself (and most people probably).
2. Much higher on the Lakers near term future.

Nah, I don't care about MCW. I don't think it made sense to trade him, though. Nor do I understand why Milwaukee traded for him.

And yes, I think the Lakers can be pretty good. They're almost being artificially suppressed by Kobe and Scott right now.

So in this case, you think they should have kept a bad player, which is counter to the entire debate you've been going through here. And the Lakers aren't held back by just that. They're held back by a lack of good players.

I never disagreed that the Sixers should have traded MCW. I just said the fact that they traded him for a potentially good/great pick doesn't make that draft an A or a B.

The Lakers have some talent but lack a star. It's assumed a star doesn't want to play with Kobe (may or may not be true). And they are suffering from a lack of good coaching, which makes their talent look worse. A fresh start may help a lot more and a lot more quickly than people realize.

[bondom34]

Nah, I don't care about MCW. I don't think it made sense to trade him, though. Nor do I understand why Milwaukee traded for him.

And yes, I think the Lakers can be pretty good. They're almost being artificially suppressed by Kobe and Scott right now.

So in this case, you think they should have kept a bad player, which is counter to the entire debate you've been going through here. And the Lakers aren't held back by just that. They're held back by a lack of good players.

I never disagreed that the Sixers should have traded MCW. I just said the fact that they traded him for a potentially good/great pick doesn't make that draft an A or a B.

The Lakers have some talent but lack a star. It's assumed a star doesn't want to play with Kobe (may or may not be true). And they are suffering from a lack of good coaching, which makes their talent look worse. A fresh start may help a lot more and a lot more quickly than people realize.

Yeah not next year. Because that means they drop Kobe, drop Scott, and a superstar decides to go play alongside a group of rookies who've shown absolutely nothing. And if you don't disagree with trading MCW I have no idea what you disagree with what the Sixers have done.

[Chinook]

And this is entirely shifting goalposts.

Maybe. Maybe it doesn't make sense to look at everyone else in MCW's position for analogous value (and I say that seriously, not sarcastically). I'm willing to grant that. But I think the other part of that post is more important. A pick is only good to have if it's used well. If it becomes a bad player or even one that Philly trades for a 2020 unprotected first, then it becomes a real question of overall value.

And there's the rub. MCW was not a very good player. He's still not terribly good, even though he's improved. To add, he was a terrible fit in Philly where they need a point who can maybe shoot some. To move on from an older rookie who was at peak value to get a better asset is just easily good management. There's literally zero debatable about that trade. Zilch, it was instantly a good move for them.

The trade was fine. Maybe it was good. But that doesn't make the 2013 draft good. If the 11th-overall pick in 2013 becomes a player in 2017 that's eventually traded for another player in 2020 who's eventually trade for... was it a good draft? The buck has to stop.

[Knosh]

If anything, you can call trading the reigning ROY for a top-five pick a push.

Please start a poll on which you would rather have right now, the Lakers top 3 protected pick or MCW. I eagerly await the numbers of people that also think that is a push.

Would be smarter to make one asking about the pick values for past ROYs the year after they won the award.

Hold on, so instead of judging the trade based on the actual player traded, you think it's smarter to judge it based on other players?

[bondom34]

Maybe. Maybe it doesn't make sense to look at everyone else in MCW's position for analogous value (and I say that seriously, not sarcastically). I'm willing to grant that. But I think the other part of that post is more important. A pick is only good to have if it's used well. If it becomes a bad player or even one that Philly trades for a 2020 unprotected first, then it becomes a real question of overall value.

And there's the rub. MCW was not a very good player. He's still not terribly good, even though he's improved. To add, he was a terrible fit in Philly where they need a point who can maybe shoot some. To move on from an older rookie who was at peak value to get a better asset is just easily good management. There's literally zero debatable about that trade. Zilch, it was instantly a good move for them.

The trade was fine. Maybe it was good. But that doesn't make the 2013 draft good. If the 11th-overall pick in 2013 becomes a player in 2017 that's eventually traded for another player in 2020 who's eventually trade for... was it a good draft? The buck has to stop.

So you seriously think that's the plan? Well in that case there's literally no way to win the debate because you're playing in some warped hypothetical that obviously won't happen. And yea, was still a good draft, they still got Noel.

[Chinook]

So in this case, you think they should have kept a bad player, which is counter to the entire debate you've been going through here. And the Lakers aren't held back by just that. They're held back by a lack of good players.

I never disagreed that the Sixers should have traded MCW. I just said the fact that they traded him for a potentially good/great pick doesn't make that draft an A or a B.

The Lakers have some talent but lack a star. It's assumed a star doesn't want to play with Kobe (may or may not be true). And they are suffering from a lack of good coaching, which makes their talent look worse. A fresh start may help a lot more and a lot more quickly than people realize.

Yeah not next year. Because that means they drop Kobe, drop Scott, and a superstar decides to go play alongside a group of rookies who've shown absolutely nothing. And if you don't disagree with trading MCW I have no idea what you disagree with what the Sixers have done.

I disagree that the 2013 draft was an obvious success. I think Philly did the best they could, drafting a ROY and trading for a good prospect. But I don't think it was an A, especially for a team that's tanking. The reason why I would doubt the plan is because after three drafts they only have two bigs who are awkward fits next to each other, some average cheap guys and a load of picks. The load of picks gets an INC from me. I don't think that factors in yet. They have to draft better or get better players with those picks than they got from their previous picks in order to win me over.

[bondom34]

I never disagreed that the Sixers should have traded MCW. I just said the fact that they traded him for a potentially good/great pick doesn't make that draft an A or a B.

The Lakers have some talent but lack a star. It's assumed a star doesn't want to play with Kobe (may or may not be true). And they are suffering from a lack of good coaching, which makes their talent look worse. A fresh start may help a lot more and a lot more quickly than people realize.

Yeah not next year. Because that means they drop Kobe, drop Scott, and a superstar decides to go play alongside a group of rookies who've shown absolutely nothing. And if you don't disagree with trading MCW I have no idea what you disagree with what the Sixers have done.

I disagree that the 2013 draft was an obvious success. I think Philly did the best they could, drafting a ROY and trading for a good prospect. But I don't think it was an A, especially for a team that's tanking. The reason why I would doubt the plan is because after three drafts they only have two bigs who are awkward fits next to each other, some average cheap guys and a load of picks. The load of picks gets an INC from me. I don't think that factors in yet. They have to draft better or get better players with those picks than they got from their previous picks in order to win me over.

If that draft isn't an A or B I don't know what is, it was a ROY and a ROY third place finish last year in Noel.

[Chinook]

And there's the rub. MCW was not a very good player. He's still not terribly good, even though he's improved. To add, he was a terrible fit in Philly where they need a point who can maybe shoot some. To move on from an older rookie who was at peak value to get a better asset is just easily good management. There's literally zero debatable about that trade. Zilch, it was instantly a good move for them.

The trade was fine. Maybe it was good. But that doesn't make the 2013 draft good. If the 11th-overall pick in 2013 becomes a player in 2017 that's eventually traded for another player in 2020 who's eventually trade for... was it a good draft? The buck has to stop.

So you seriously think that's the plan? Well in that case there's literally no way to win the debate because you're playing in some warped hypothetical that obviously won't happen. And yea, was still a good draft, they still got Noel.

I'm not playing a hypothetical. You guys are by assuming that pick will be a good player. For the 2013 draft, they got a player who they traded (the actually return being unknown at this point) and a really good prospect who's not playing well this year. That's what we know this year. That it's so up in the air after three drafts is why one would question the plan.

I don't know if there is a plan even, or if there's just a philosophy. There has to be an endgame, and the stay bad until something great happens doesn't seem to have enough cohesion.

[Chinook]

Yeah not next year. Because that means they drop Kobe, drop Scott, and a superstar decides to go play alongside a group of rookies who've shown absolutely nothing. And if you don't disagree with trading MCW I have no idea what you disagree with what the Sixers have done.

I disagree that the 2013 draft was an obvious success. I think Philly did the best they could, drafting a ROY and trading for a good prospect. But I don't think it was an A, especially for a team that's tanking. The reason why I would doubt the plan is because after three drafts they only have two bigs who are awkward fits next to each other, some average cheap guys and a load of picks. The load of picks gets an INC from me. I don't think that factors in yet. They have to draft better or get better players with those picks than they got from their previous picks in order to win me over.

If that draft isn't an A or B I don't know what is, it was a ROY and a ROY third place finish last year in Noel.

It was a ROY who got traded in the middle of the next season, one who no one but me seems to have spoken for -- and even I don't care about him. HW doesn't even acknowledge the ROY part. And that underscores why Noel can't be assumed to be on a successful path. I like him a lot, but I'm not willing to call that draft a success yet. There were better drafts out there.

[Johnny Firpo]

Yes. They need to find a superstar first and foremost, the draft is your best chance for that. Once you have a legitimate franchise player, you can start getting creative with the roster.

[bondom34]

The trade was fine. Maybe it was good. But that doesn't make the 2013 draft good. If the 11th-overall pick in 2013 becomes a player in 2017 that's eventually traded for another player in 2020 who's eventually trade for... was it a good draft? The buck has to stop.

So you seriously think that's the plan? Well in that case there's literally no way to win the debate because you're playing in some warped hypothetical that obviously won't happen. And yea, was still a good draft, they still got Noel.

I'm not playing a hypothetical. You guys are by assuming that pick will be a good player. For the 2013 draft, they got a player who they traded (the actually return being unknown at this point) and a really good prospect who's not playing well this year. That's what we know this year. That it's so up in the air after three drafts is why one would question the plan.

I don't know if there is a plan even, or if there's just a philosophy. There has to be an endgame, and the stay bad until something great happens doesn't seem to have enough cohesion.

OK. I'm going to simplify this very much...

They traded a player for a pick which is clearly, by nearly everyone's measure, more valuable than the player actually was. Yes, the return is unknown, but if I told you you could have that player or that pick, a large proportion of people take the pick.

The prospect "not playing well" is 8 games into the year. Victor Oladipo isn't playing well either, so he's a bust to I assume. The Rockets are out of the playoffs and the Nuggets in. 8 games.

"There has to be an end game"....this has been going on for the enormous length of.......2 years. Prior to that the Sixers were bad, but not tanking, they were just bad and old and without any high end assets. What was at the time a pretty miserable looking future.

[bondom34]

I disagree that the 2013 draft was an obvious success. I think Philly did the best they could, drafting a ROY and trading for a good prospect. But I don't think it was an A, especially for a team that's tanking. The reason why I would doubt the plan is because after three drafts they only have two bigs who are awkward fits next to each other, some average cheap guys and a load of picks. The load of picks gets an INC from me. I don't think that factors in yet. They have to draft better or get better players with those picks than they got from their previous picks in order to win me over.

If that draft isn't an A or B I don't know what is, it was a ROY and a ROY third place finish last year in Noel.

It was a ROY who got traded in the middle of the next season, one who no one but me seems to have spoken for -- and even I don't care about him. HW doesn't even acknowledge the ROY part. And that underscores why Noel can't be assumed to be on a successful path. I like him a lot, but I'm not willing to call that draft a success yet. There were better drafts out there.

2013? Name em. Giannis? Probably. Gobert? Maybe, its debatable at least, but you take him at 11 and you're nuts on draft night. So the 3rd best draft, at worst.

[HartfordWhalers]

I disagree that the 2013 draft was an obvious success. I think Philly did the best they could, drafting a ROY and trading for a good prospect. But I don't think it was an A, especially for a team that's tanking. The reason why I would doubt the plan is because after three drafts they only have two bigs who are awkward fits next to each other, some average cheap guys and a load of picks. The load of picks gets an INC from me. I don't think that factors in yet. They have to draft better or get better players with those picks than they got from their previous picks in order to win me over.

If that draft isn't an A or B I don't know what is, it was a ROY and a ROY third place finish last year in Noel.

It was a ROY who got traded in the middle of the next season, one who no one but me seems to have spoken for -- and even I don't care about him. HW doesn't even acknowledge the ROY part. And that underscores why Noel can't be assumed to be on a successful path. I like him a lot, but I'm not willing to call that draft a success yet. There were better drafts out there.

I acknowledged it. I politely said it was asinine to say his value should be related not even to average ROY award winners, but only the best (your exclusion of Tyreke was priceless).
I also answered your question as to whether it or Noel's rookie year was more impressive.

It is cute that you feel the need to keep trying to throw comments like that out there.

[Chinook]

So you seriously think that's the plan? Well in that case there's literally no way to win the debate because you're playing in some warped hypothetical that obviously won't happen. And yea, was still a good draft, they still got Noel.

I'm not playing a hypothetical. You guys are by assuming that pick will be a good player. For the 2013 draft, they got a player who they traded (the actually return being unknown at this point) and a really good prospect who's not playing well this year. That's what we know this year. That it's so up in the air after three drafts is why one would question the plan.

I don't know if there is a plan even, or if there's just a philosophy. There has to be an endgame, and the stay bad until something great happens doesn't seem to have enough cohesion.

OK. I'm going to simplify this very much...

They traded a player for a pick which is clearly, by nearly everyone's measure, more valuable than the player actually was. Yes, the return is unknown, but if I told you you could have that player or that pick, a large proportion of people take the pick.

That doesn't matter. You want to draft a player who can actually stick with your club at 11, not one could can be a top-five pick three years down the road. The pick is only valuable if the Sixers draft well. If them drafting well means drafting a player they can trade for a higher pick three years down the line, then their plan won't work.

The prospect "not playing well" is 8 games into the year. Victor Oladipo isn't playing well either, so he's a bust to I assume. The Rockets are out of the playoffs and the Nuggets in. 8 games.

I don't know how many times I have to say that I don't think Noel is a bad player. But it looks ugly right now, both on the court and his body language. There's a gap between busting and "Wow, you really didn't kill that draft, did you?"

"There has to be an end game"....this has been going on for the enormous length of.......2 years. Prior to that the Sixers were bad, but not tanking, they were just bad and old and without any high end assets. What was at the time a pretty miserable looking future.

This is Year Three of the tank. Even if the Sixers get an OKC trend going starting next year, they are, what, seven or eight years for a total plan length to be contenders. That's an eternity in pro sports. And it has to work very soon to get that to start happening.

As far as future draft prospects go, there are ways to get good players in the draft without tanking. You could argue Vuc is as good as anyone they have drafted so far, though I would take Okafor over him. And yes, I know Hinkie didn't trade Vuc. I'm just saying they managed to grab a very nice player and might have been on their way to an Indy-style rebuild had they stayed the course and made smart, conservative trades.

[bondom34]

I'm not playing a hypothetical. You guys are by assuming that pick will be a good player. For the 2013 draft, they got a player who they traded (the actually return being unknown at this point) and a really good prospect who's not playing well this year. That's what we know this year. That it's so up in the air after three drafts is why one would question the plan.

I don't know if there is a plan even, or if there's just a philosophy. There has to be an endgame, and the stay bad until something great happens doesn't seem to have enough cohesion.

OK. I'm going to simplify this very much...

They traded a player for a pick which is clearly, by nearly everyone's measure, more valuable than the player actually was. Yes, the return is unknown, but if I told you you could have that player or that pick, a large proportion of people take the pick.

That doesn't matter. You want to draft a player who can actually stick with your club at 11, not one could can be a top-five pick three years down the road. The pick is only valuable if the Sixers draft well. If them drafting well means drafting a player they can trade for a higher pick three years down the line, then their plan won't work.

The prospect "not playing well" is 8 games into the year. Victor Oladipo isn't playing well either, so he's a bust to I assume. The Rockets are out of the playoffs and the Nuggets in. 8 games.

I don't know how many times I have to say that I don't think Noel is a bad player. But it looks ugly right now, both on the court and his body language. There's a gap between busting and "Wow, you really didn't kill that draft, did you?"

"There has to be an end game"....this has been going on for the enormous length of.......2 years. Prior to that the Sixers were bad, but not tanking, they were just bad and old and without any high end assets. What was at the time a pretty miserable looking future.

This is Year Three of the tank. Even if the Sixers get an OKC trend going starting next year, they are, what, seven or eight years for a total plan length to be contenders. That's an eternity in pro sports. And it has to work very soon to get that to start happening.

As far as future draft prospects go, there are ways to get good players in the draft without tanking. You could argue Vuc is as good as anyone they have drafted so far, though I would take Okafor over him. And yes, I know Hinkie didn't trade Vuc. I'm just saying they managed to grab a very nice player and might have been on their way to an Indy-style rebuild had they stayed the course and made smart, conservative trades.

Honestly I don't even know where to begin, because there's goalposts moving and the wording changes ever so slightly to make this seem like you're saying something when you're not. Its really baffling. You like Noel, but he's bad. This tank will be another 4 years, no it won't because you can sign a free agent with the money you didn't waste on the middling vets everyone wants them to sign. Vuc is as good as anyone they drafted: Hinkie didn't trade him for Bynum? You admit that but still somehow make it seem like its his fault. This is just a terribly useless and illogical debate.

[Knosh]

That doesn't matter. You want to draft a player who can actually stick with your club at 11, not one could can be a top-five pick three years down the road. The pick is only valuable if the Sixers draft well. If them drafting well means drafting a player they can trade for a higher pick three years down the line, then their plan won't work.

A player being good and able to stick with your club and a player being able to net a top five pick in a trade aren't mutually exclusive. In fact I would argue they are highly correlated. I would say that them being able to consistently draft players that could be traded for a higher pick down the line would be pretty awesome.

[Texas Chuck]

I don't understand what about winning ROY relates to trade value. Blake Griffin actually didn't play at all the year after he was drafted. But then he did play and won ROY. I'm not sure if that means I am supposed to rule his drafting a total failure and then turn around the next year and rule it a home run? But neither of those things is why his trade value was through the roof. His trade value was super high because of the type of player/prospect he was.

Anthony Davis wasn't named rookie of the year. Lillard was. Not a person alive would have traded AD for a package highlighted by Lillard because Davis projected a much much higher ceiling.

MCW won the ROY putting up big counting stats on a terrible team where he dominated the ball. That doesn't automatically make him the best or most valuable prospect from that draft.


Your main point is valid--if you are going to go all-in on the draft in terms of building a team and are willing to sacrifice multiple seasons in doing so--yeah you need to hit on a superstar and hopefully some other key pieces. But like HW says--that's kind of obvious and not really worth much discussion.

But all this arbitrary tossing around of good and bad value based on meaningless accolades is just not a very accurate way of determining value.

[Texas Chuck]

Interesting nugget (to me anyway) considering all the talk about Sixers drafting:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/LakerGMC/status/666378199866077184[/tweet]