Why does Hinkie get so much flak, but Suns are even more of joke?

[Novocaine]

Most 76er fans were perfectly happy being patient and playing the long game. :

Sure. The issue is that Hinkie's strategy creates a huge collective action problem for the rest of the league. So the other teams had to step in and get rid of him - as they did by pressuring the Sixers to hire Jerry Colangelo (Hinkie was gone as the top decision-maker since that moment). This isn't hard to understand. You can't follow that type of strategy in the NBA because it only works if nobody else follows it and it's not really that difficult to.

I'm confused. The rest of the league didn't like his strategy because they were worried they themselves would commit to it? There are no rules against what we are doing. It was not up to other owners to meddle when we are acting within the CBA. Don't like it? Wait till the next CBA to change it.

Tanking has been around long before Sam Hinkie became a GM. I don't feel the need to point you to specific cases. We just took a rational approach to it. And again, the funny thing is we didn't even finish with the worst record the first 2 years. Our team consistently played hard and was actually quite the joy to watch. the 2015 76ers were a lot more fun to watch than the last year of the Doug Collins Era.

I don't think you understand what a collective action problem is. Do you?

And no, what Sam Hinkie was doing wasn't what all the other teams do. If you think that, you disagree with the man himself - he's explicitly explained the radical newness of his approach in his resignation letter, how he would zig while everyone else has been zagging forever. There's bottoming how to start a rebuild, then there's Hinkie's strategy.

[CoreyGallagher]

Uh? I was just pointing out what Hinkie himself illustrated in his letter when he said that drafting Embiid was the right thing to do even if never plays because process matters more than outcome and his underlying process was the correct one.

- draft BPA every draft, fill the roster with those rookies and other young, cheap players - your team will be horrible and not even get close to 20 wins

Draft BPA with the high picks (that way, if one guy busts, you can still claim you were wrong by the right reasons and that the underlying process was correct)

Seems like a convoluted way to point that out.

Maybe not completely, but to a large extent.

So, you believe that a high school kid on part-time could have made the trades that Hinkie did?

An algorithm surely could. And any other GM surely would- I mean, I described it in 3 sentences.

An algorithm surely could do what? Any other GM surely would do what? This seems like gibberish to me.

[kingofthecourt67]

Sure. The issue is that Hinkie's strategy creates a huge collective action problem for the rest of the league. So the other teams had to step in and get rid of him - as they did by pressuring the Sixers to hire Jerry Colangelo (Hinkie was gone as the top decision-maker since that moment). This isn't hard to understand. You can't follow that type of strategy in the NBA because it only works if nobody else follows it and it's not really that difficult to.

I'm confused. The rest of the league didn't like his strategy because they were worried they themselves would commit to it? There are no rules against what we are doing. It was not up to other owners to meddle when we are acting within the CBA. Don't like it? Wait till the next CBA to change it.

Tanking has been around long before Sam Hinkie became a GM. I don't feel the need to point you to specific cases. We just took a rational approach to it. And again, the funny thing is we didn't even finish with the worst record the first 2 years. Our team consistently played hard and was actually quite the joy to watch. the 2015 76ers were a lot more fun to watch than the last year of the Doug Collins Era.

I don't think you understand what a collective action problem is. Do you?

And no, what Sam Hinkie was doing wasn't what all the other teams do. If you think that, you disagree with the man himself - he's explicitly explained the radical newness of his approach in his resignation letter, how he would zig while everyone else has been zagging forever. There's bottoming how to start a rebuild, then there's Hinkie's strategy.

You said that the issue was this strategy was it's only okay if nobody else follows it...perhaps I'm misinterpreting what you are saying. Please explain.

And of course it's not the same, but it's in a similar line of thinking that has been acceptable--just to a greater extreme. That's to say, it's not against the rules.

[Novocaine]

There is so much ignorance in this thread, but I'll just respond to the most blatant display of it. Much effort? Did you not see the number of trades we made and the dumpster bin D-leaguers that we cycled through our system in order to find the Robert Covingtons? We literally tracked every shot that our player took in a 76er sanctioned gym. Our organization paid more attention to detail than any other that I can think of. We were taking baby steps and the running strides were about to come.

Go look at the the status of the team in terms of players and assets before and after Hinkie's tenure and come back and tell me that there wasn't effort.

You're a nasty rude individual. Why call people ignorant just because you disagree with them? learn some manners, then I'll discuss with you.

I'm calling your argument ignorant because you are looking at the surface of what we are doing and failing to point out the steps that are being taken in addition to it in the short-term and the long-term consequences of this "process" that you so sarcastically mocked. Don't play victim here--you're condescending attitude was clear in your initial post. I even took the time out properly respond to your post and backed up why I thought it was ignorant, so take it how you please.

Or maybe I don't put everything I know in a single comment?

Calling someone ignorant because of disagreement is something that shows rudeness and nastiness. Not saying it's your fault - we all have different upbringings and that plays a big role. You can't pick your own parents, so it's not really your fault.

Anyway, perhaps it's an opportunity for you to learn something: it's fine to disagree and it isn't necessary to be as nasty as you are and start shouting ignorant to anyone who disagrees with you. Having manners and some humility won't hurt you.

[Mik317]

Because being incompetent is okay when it supports your rhetoric. The Suns are lucky they had this down year, they could end up with a star and now they know the twin PG thing can't work anymore. Both are good things for them LONGTERM.

also this thread is pointless at this point. The process is over. Yall did it. Now please no more threads on it

[kingofthecourt67]

You're a nasty rude individual. Why call people ignorant just because you disagree with them? learn some manners, then I'll discuss with you.

I'm calling your argument ignorant because you are looking at the surface of what we are doing and failing to point out the steps that are being taken in addition to it in the short-term and the long-term consequences of this "process" that you so sarcastically mocked. Don't play victim here--you're condescending attitude was clear in your initial post. I even took the time out properly respond to your post and backed up why I thought it was ignorant, so take it how you please.

Or maybe I don't put everything I know in a single comment?

Calling someone ignorant because of disagreement is something that shows rudeness and nastiness. Not saying it's your fault - we all have different upbringings and that plays a big role. You can't pick your own parents, so it's not really your fault.

Anyway, perhaps it's an opportunity for you to learn something: it's fine to disagree and it isn't necessary to be as nasty as you are and start shouting ignorant to anyone who disagrees with you. Having manners and some humility won't hurt you.

Woah man, I was calling your argument ignorant. I never once made a personal attack on you. Not cool. I think I'm done here.

[Novocaine]

I'm confused. The rest of the league didn't like his strategy because they were worried they themselves would commit to it? There are no rules against what we are doing. It was not up to other owners to meddle when we are acting within the CBA. Don't like it? Wait till the next CBA to change it.

Tanking has been around long before Sam Hinkie became a GM. I don't feel the need to point you to specific cases. We just took a rational approach to it. And again, the funny thing is we didn't even finish with the worst record the first 2 years. Our team consistently played hard and was actually quite the joy to watch. the 2015 76ers were a lot more fun to watch than the last year of the Doug Collins Era.

I don't think you understand what a collective action problem is. Do you?

And no, what Sam Hinkie was doing wasn't what all the other teams do. If you think that, you disagree with the man himself - he's explicitly explained the radical newness of his approach in his resignation letter, how he would zig while everyone else has been zagging forever. There's bottoming how to start a rebuild, then there's Hinkie's strategy.

You said that the issue was this strategy was it's only okay if nobody else follows it...perhaps I'm misinterpreting what you are saying. Please explain.

And of course it's not the same, but it's in a similar line of thinking that has been acceptable--just to a greater extreme. That's to say, it's not against the rules.

I said it? Even Hinkie himself implicitly said it in his letter - when he said that to have success you have to go zig while everyone is zagging. If others starts zigging, that road is blocked.

Just imagine if every team without a superstar that can lead them to a title, like LeBron, Curry or Durant or a player who projects to be that sort of superstar, like Towns or Davis -that's what, at least 15 teams?- decides to follow the 76ers example - trade away or let walk every decent player who isn't a star to collect asset and bottom down, fill the roster up with rookies and D-Leaguers to preserve cap and assets, and then do it year after year after year until they luck into that superstar or at least a super-core.

What do you think it 'd happen? Do you think it'd still be a winning strategy? What would be the effects for the league?

[Cappy_Smurf]

Ssssh

[Ponchos]

it isn't like Hinkie was purposely sabotaging the 76ers so that we'd lose games.

THIS IS WHERE PEOPLE COMPLETELY MISUNDERSTAND THE PROCESS.

Based on his interviews etc. his 76ers rebuilding process boils down to 2 goals;

1) Find a superstar, because having one increases your chance to win a title exponentially.
2) Avoid mediocrity by not overpaying or signing players before your team is in a position to compete.

To do this he stripped the 76ers down by unloading some of the few veteran assets we had (Evan Turner, Hawes, Jrue, etc.)....These players had 0 value to us. Not only did they hurt us by giving us more wins, these players wouldn't be around in the future anyway. He got what he could for these players. I don't want to go through the list of Hinkie transactions, but the amount of assets he stockpiled for us is simply mind-boggling.

When Hinkie was rolling what people would call D-League talent out every year, his goal wasn't to put garbage on the court so that we'd lose the most games possible. He felt the 76ers were in a position to afford to roll out extremely young guys to see which guys might be diamonds in the rough. Robert Covington, Jeremi Grant for example have real shots at being role players on the 76ers in the future when we become contenders. The result of this was us having an absolutely dismal record. Losing was just a by product of the experiment.

Hinkie has also stated numerous times that this method needs luck. The Embiid thing was simply unlucky, though it remains to be seen with him....

I love how the same people who bash Hinkie are the ones who support GMs who roll out mediocre talent every year. Just because your team is a 4-5 seed doesn't mean **** in the NBA. The NBA is unlike any other league. You need to have superstar(s) to win.

It also takes time. The Warriors won like 20 something games with Curry & Thompson on the same team. The Sonics/ Thunder won 21 game sor so with Durant & Westbrook on the same team.

I coudl go on and on but I give up.

the thing is, it would be ok if Hinkie only did this for 1 year. But he did it for 3 full years. Still no superstars, the team is still a mess. It is just mind blowing how Sixers can support a blatant tank for so long.

imagine if every team bought into that strategy. NBA would be unwatchable

It's only a viable strategy if there are few teams doing it. Besides, if every team in the NBA tried to fail, there would still be great teams because of the great players. Not sure what your argument is.

[Novocaine]

I'm calling your argument ignorant because you are looking at the surface of what we are doing and failing to point out the steps that are being taken in addition to it in the short-term and the long-term consequences of this "process" that you so sarcastically mocked. Don't play victim here--you're condescending attitude was clear in your initial post. I even took the time out properly respond to your post and backed up why I thought it was ignorant, so take it how you please.

Or maybe I don't put everything I know in a single comment?

Calling someone ignorant because of disagreement is something that shows rudeness and nastiness. Not saying it's your fault - we all have different upbringings and that plays a big role. You can't pick your own parents, so it's not really your fault.

Anyway, perhaps it's an opportunity for you to learn something: it's fine to disagree and it isn't necessary to be as nasty as you are and start shouting ignorant to anyone who disagrees with you. Having manners and some humility won't hurt you.

Woah man, I was calling your argument ignorant. I never once made a personal attack on you. Not cool. I think I'm done here.

Look, accusing someone of "displaying their ignorance" is a personal attack - you're accusing that person of being ignorant and showing it.

An educated person would disagree with the argument and point out those disagreements on a civil way, like I'm doing here. You went on a rant talking about how those who disagree with you simply "don't know enough" - even though you had no clue on what others would know or not.

Not only you lacked the integrity and character to apologize, you now try to play the victim.

[Novocaine]

it isn't like Hinkie was purposely sabotaging the 76ers so that we'd lose games.

THIS IS WHERE PEOPLE COMPLETELY MISUNDERSTAND THE PROCESS.

Based on his interviews etc. his 76ers rebuilding process boils down to 2 goals;

1) Find a superstar, because having one increases your chance to win a title exponentially.
2) Avoid mediocrity by not overpaying or signing players before your team is in a position to compete.

To do this he stripped the 76ers down by unloading some of the few veteran assets we had (Evan Turner, Hawes, Jrue, etc.)....These players had 0 value to us. Not only did they hurt us by giving us more wins, these players wouldn't be around in the future anyway. He got what he could for these players. I don't want to go through the list of Hinkie transactions, but the amount of assets he stockpiled for us is simply mind-boggling.

When Hinkie was rolling what people would call D-League talent out every year, his goal wasn't to put garbage on the court so that we'd lose the most games possible. He felt the 76ers were in a position to afford to roll out extremely young guys to see which guys might be diamonds in the rough. Robert Covington, Jeremi Grant for example have real shots at being role players on the 76ers in the future when we become contenders. The result of this was us having an absolutely dismal record. Losing was just a by product of the experiment.

Hinkie has also stated numerous times that this method needs luck. The Embiid thing was simply unlucky, though it remains to be seen with him....

I love how the same people who bash Hinkie are the ones who support GMs who roll out mediocre talent every year. Just because your team is a 4-5 seed doesn't mean **** in the NBA. The NBA is unlike any other league. You need to have superstar(s) to win.

It also takes time. The Warriors won like 20 something games with Curry & Thompson on the same team. The Sonics/ Thunder won 21 game sor so with Durant & Westbrook on the same team.

I coudl go on and on but I give up.

the thing is, it would be ok if Hinkie only did this for 1 year. But he did it for 3 full years. Still no superstars, the team is still a mess. It is just mind blowing how Sixers can support a blatant tank for so long.

imagine if every team bought into that strategy. NBA would be unwatchable

It's only a viable strategy if there are few teams doing it... Not sure what your argument is.

I mean, don't you think that's exactly the problem?


And the NBA is the NBA because most of the top-400 or so best players in the world are in it. Not the top-50 players plus a few hundred of young kids, of which 90% will be soon out of the league because they're not that good anyway and the other 10% are the future top-50 players of tomorrow. A league where 1/3 of the games are last years Sixers versus this year Sixers would implode.

One party can't pursue a strategy saying "this will work for me; and you could do it too because it's not that complicated, but if you do everybody dies, so suck it up".

People who can't understand this, can't understand anything.

[Mik317]

not every team is in position to tank. Most teams have actual youth to build around/with. Aren't as cash and asset strapped as we were. and thus won't have to go as far...and at the end of the day there will always be bad teams...I hate to bring other teams into it (which is why this thread is dumb as ****) but the Lakers have been pretty awful over the last 3 years. As have the Magic and Kings...the difference is that they are bad by mistake and somehow that makes it okay...which I will never get. Hinkie went too far in many cases for sure but at the end of the day a bad team is a bad team. The fact that people would be okay with "the process" if Hinkie signed some old scrub in the name of trying to win, knowing damn well that they wouldn't, they;d be more lenient..and that to me will never stop being dumb.

but again yall got your wish. Its over. And I am sure we will now be like every other team and yall can go back to not caring about how Sixers fans are being treated again.

[bondom34]

I think I understand the collective action problem. It's kind of like how the human race is going to die out very soon, because some people are homosexual. You see, once humans see that some people are attracted to the same sex, it's only a matter of time before we all become homosexual. I think then, it's pretty obvious that we can never have children again.

The world is doomed.

No, you don't understand it - not only that, you don't seem to have the interest to educate yourself, hence you resort to juvenile sarcasm. And you might dismiss it as much as you want - at the end of the day, it was the reason why the other teams pressured to get Jerry Colangelo in there and Hinkie out. It is what it is.

Sort of what you've shown with Philly's plan.

[Novocaine]

I think I understand the collective action problem. It's kind of like how the human race is going to die out very soon, because some people are homosexual. You see, once humans see that some people are attracted to the same sex, it's only a matter of time before we all become homosexual. I think then, it's pretty obvious that we can never have children again.

The world is doomed.

No, you don't understand it - not only that, you don't seem to have the interest to educate yourself, hence you resort to juvenile sarcasm. And you might dismiss it as much as you want - at the end of the day, it was the reason why the other teams pressured to get Jerry Colangelo in there and Hinkie out. It is what it is.

Sort of what you've shown with Philly's plan.

Really? Then what I didn't understand about Philly's plan? Why don't you try to explain that instead of nasty cheap shot? I'll wait.

[Mik317]

pro-tip: telling people to educate themselves in a debate based off of mainly opinions makes you come off as a giant too. So perhaps the cheap shots are a YOU problem. No one likes to conversate with a person with a holier than thou attitude.

jus sayin

[bondom34]

No, you don't understand it - not only that, you don't seem to have the interest to educate yourself, hence you resort to juvenile sarcasm. And you might dismiss it as much as you want - at the end of the day, it was the reason why the other teams pressured to get Jerry Colangelo in there and Hinkie out. It is what it is.

Sort of what you've shown with Philly's plan.

Really? Then what I didn't understand about Philly's plan? Why don't you try to explain that instead of nasty cheap shot? I'll wait.

The plan was to take a team with no assets,no good young players, and no above average players and find a way to get the maximum amount of all three. To clear cap, gain draft picks, get younger, and better long term at the cost of short term. To do this you don't sign average vets, you trade for picks, you sell off mediocre players, and yes short term you lose. You also maximize chances on getting a better future.

[Novocaine]

not every team is in position to tank.

The problem isn't" tanking". "Tanking" in the sense of bottoming down to start a rebuild isn't a problem, it has existed for decades, since the NBA is around.

Why are people pretending that "tanking" in that sense is the issue when Hinkie himself states he was doing something different?

Most teams have actual youth to build around/with. Aren't as cash and asset strapped as we were. and thus won't have to go as far...

It was because they were cashstrapped last season that they let Ish Smith walk away and traded McDaniels?

at the end of the day there will always As have the Magic and Kings...the difference is that they are bad by mistake and somehow that makes it okay...which I will never get. Hinkie went too far in many cases for sure but at the end of the day a bad team is a bad team. The fact that people would be okay with "the process" if Hinkie signed some old scrub in the name of trying to win, knowing damn well that they wouldn't, they;d be more lenient..and that to me will never stop being dumb.

Yeps, you never fail if you never try. It's obvious that lots of teams being built will have little to no plausible path to the title. Do you think most GMs are just delusional know-nothings who can't see that their core isn't good enough and they'll fail? Really, is that what you think? if not, what is it?

And it doesn't make it okay. That's why GMs get fired. Hinkie had a great con going - he'd never fail, so he assumed he'd never be fired.

but again yall got your wish. Its over. And I am sure we will now be like every other team and yall can go back to not caring about how Sixers fans are being treated again.

Why did you ever think you could be different from any other team? Mind you, if other 10 teams without good enough players to win a title did the same, your strategy would completely fail. So why did you think you were the one entitled to it? do you understand how entitled that makes you sound?

[Novocaine]

Sort of what you've shown with Philly's plan.

Really? Then what I didn't understand about Philly's plan? Why don't you try to explain that instead of nasty cheap shot? I'll wait.

The plan was to take a team with no assets,no good young players, and no above average players and find a way to get the maximum amount of all three. To clear cap, gain draft picks, get younger, and better long term at the cost of short term. To do this you don't sign average vets, you trade for picks, you sell off mediocre players, and yes short term you lose. You also maximize chances on getting a better future.

Okay, and why did you believe I didn't understand that? I've described that exact process over and over, so it seems we're in complete agreement? So why did you say I didn't understand it, can you explain that?

[bondom34]

Really? Then what I didn't understand about Philly's plan? Why don't you try to explain that instead of nasty cheap shot? I'll wait.

The plan was to take a team with no assets,no good young players, and no above average players and find a way to get the maximum amount of all three. To clear cap, gain draft picks, get younger, and better long term at the cost of short term. To do this you don't sign average vets, you trade for picks, you sell off mediocre players, and yes short term you lose. You also maximize chances on getting a better future.

Okay, and why did you believe I didn't understand that? I've described that exact process over and over, so it seems we're in complete agreement? So why did you say I didn't understand it, can you explain that?

You seem to not by your other posts.

[Novocaine]

One amazing thing about Hinkie supporters is that they still don't understand why he was fired, why the other teams and Silver pressured the 76ers ownership to bring in Jerry Colangelo and take away the decision making from Hinkie.

What's amusingly ironic is that while they're incapable of understand this -it's not trivial, it implies dynamic thinking-, they actually believe that those who do are the ones who lack the ability to understand Hinkie's strategy of bottoming out for consecutive years. You can't make this stuff up.