NBA Draft Lottery Tuesday May, 17 2016

[IcemanGervin]

Simmons is too much of a prima donna not to end up in LA. It's too perfect.

[DuckIII]

I don't get the Hinkie love. The guy had a legitimate idea, but executed it poorly. He was a slave to the numbers, and failed. Just like Morey.

There's a lot to like about their approaches in very general terms, but both thought they were the smartest guys in the room and it bit them in the ass.

Hinkie needed to accept the nuance of basketball. But didn't.

[snowyseven]

glad we didnt trade jimmy to boston.

definitely still should if can't pry 2 from lakers, think 3 +16 + other stuff from Boston is the way to go.

[kodo]

glad we didnt trade jimmy to boston.

definitely still should if can't pry 2 from lakers, think 3 +16 + other stuff from Boston is the way to go.

Not IMO, I could only see trading Jimmy for a true franchise potential rook like Simmons.

We're going to trade Butler for Dragan Bender or Kris Dunn?

[TyrusRose2425]

Jimmy has always been unlikely to be moved, time to move on to other trade ideas guys lol

[RedBulls23]

I'm sickened. If ever a team didn't deserve the top pick it's the Sixers. They should be banished from the draft for the next five years.

i'll take it. philly fans deserve something good to happen, boston doesn't get a huge bump, and yet more evidence that the draft isn't rigged. wish LA had fallen out of top 2, but whatever

But Mutombo knew, so clearly that means the draft IS rigged.

[Dominator83]

Jimmy has always been unlikely to be moved, time to move on to other trade ideas guys lol

Unfortunately there aren't any other trade chips on the roster that interests anybody. You think Philly would be interested in trading one of their late 1sts for Derrick?

[BeatDaCavs420]

glad we didnt trade jimmy to boston.

definitely still should if can't pry 2 from lakers, think 3 +16 + other stuff from Boston is the way to go.

[veji1]

I just can't agree with anyone that says that Hinkie did a terrible job. If they landed the 1st pick last season, he's considered a genius. Regardless, they've got so many assets and talent. If they can build something, it will be because of the work and trades he's made. He robbed every GM he traded with and still has picks to come from LA and Sacramento.

I don't think he did a terrible job, I think what he did was an utter optimisation of the draft/lottery game with complete disregard for the actual playing of basketball, competing and giving the fans a valid show.

So to me, particularly because of its overall potential for success, this strategy should be penalised by the league one way or the other, or if not by the league, by Karma : May Embiid always have bad feet and Okafor have many off-court problems until he leaves the Sixers.

[kingkirk]

I don't think he did a terrible job, I think what he did was an utter optimisation of the draft/lottery game with complete disregard for the actual playing of basketball, competing and giving the fans a valid show.

So to me, particularly because of its overall potential for success, this strategy should be penalised by the league one way or the other, or if not by the league, by Karma : May Embiid always have bad feet and Okafor have many off-court problems until he leaves the Sixers.

Yes. Let us pray that these young players careers falter because their team tanked in order to acquire them.

That'll show them.

What kind of an absurd take is that?

[kingkirk]

I don't get the Hinkie love. The guy had a legitimate idea, but executed it poorly. He was a slave to the numbers, and failed. Just like Morey.

There's a lot to like about their approaches in very general terms, but both thought they were the smartest guys in the room and it bit them in the ass.

Hinkie needed to accept the nuance of basketball. But didn't.

How did Hinkie fail?

There story hasn't been written and they've just walked into 3 1st round picks, including the top pick.

Hinkie failed to surround his younger guys with a couple nor vets, particularly at point guard, but in transactions, he was brilliant.

It's the Sixers owners who failed. They signed up for this. They bought into his vision and didn't let him complete it.

[Ralphb07]

Jimmy has always been unlikely to be moved, time to move on to other trade ideas guys lol

Unfortunately there aren't any other trade chips on the roster that interests anybody. You think Philly would be interested in trading one of their late 1sts for Derrick?

Derrick isn't going anywhere. I see the Bulls at the draft trying to deal MDJ or Snell for space and a 2nd rounder or they look to deal Taj but I'd be really surprised if Rose, Butler, Doug, Niko or Bobby aren't on the roster in training camp.

[DuckIII]

I don't get the Hinkie love. The guy had a legitimate idea, but executed it poorly. He was a slave to the numbers, and failed. Just like Morey.

There's a lot to like about their approaches in very general terms, but both thought they were the smartest guys in the room and it bit them in the ass.

Hinkie needed to accept the nuance of basketball. But didn't.

How did Hinkie fail?

There story hasn't been written and they've just walked into 3 1st round picks, including the top pick.

Hinkie failed to surround his younger guys with a couple nor vets, particularly at point guard, but in transactions, he was brilliant.

It's the Sixers owners who failed. They signed up for this. They bought into his vision and didn't let him complete it.

None of his pieces fit. And he completely disregarded glue players, veterans, and chemistry at all costs in order to keep overloading on these non-fitting high draft picks.

There are a significant number of transactions that still need to be made before any of what he acquired makes any sense. And we have no evidence to suggest he had any talent at making those types of transactions. Moreover, the guys he did acquire won't be on rookie contracts forever.

He showed that he was good at making trades that returned picks. He showed that he was ballsy enough to gut his roster of any talent level between NBDL and high lottery pick, in order to be terrible for more high picks. He never showed anything by way of using those things to actually develop a roster that works.

I'm sure once Philly ends up not sucking there will be some who will want to retrospectively credit Hinkie. He's become sort of a cult hero. But its not that much different than crediting David Kahn for what the Wolves had. He "made" a terrible team with high pick assets that Flip Saunders was able to turn into a good one.

[DuckIII]

Jimmy has always been unlikely to be moved, time to move on to other trade ideas guys lol

Appears so. I agree with Homo's take that the Jen Swanson article appears to confirm that the Bulls are executing a step by step plan to firmly move into the Butler era.

But is it completely outside the realm of possibility that the Lakers try to trade for Butler? Wouldn't he be a better chip for using their free agency money successfully?

I'm not saying I think its likely. But I can see a rationale for it happening from LA's perspective. And I couldn't be more on record as seeing it from the Bulls' perspective.

[kingkirk]

None of his pieces fit. And he completely disregarded glue players, veterans, and chemistry at all costs in order to keep overloading on these non-fitting high draft picks.

There are a significant number of transactions that still need to be made before any of what he acquired makes any sense. And we have no evidence to suggest he had any talent and making those types of transactions.

He showed that he was good at making trades that returned picks. He showed that he was ballsy enough to gut his roster of any talent level between NBDL and high lottery pick, in order to be terrible for more high picks. He never showed anything by way of using those things to actually develop a roster that works.

I'm sure once Philly ends up not sucking there will be some who will want to retrospectively credit Hinkie. He's become sort of a cult hero. But its not that much different than crediting David Kahn for what the Wolves had. He "made" a terrible team with high pick assets that Flip Saunders was able to turn into a good one.

He never developed a roster that could function because that wasn't part of the plan. Creating a functional roster with pieces that fit would have gone against the plan of creating a terrible team and increasing the odds in the draft. So, to me, that seems like an unfair standard because his initial plan was to create chaos.

I agree. The pieces he currently has don't fit, but they all won't remain. He took BPA or a player with the highest potential. There isn't anything wrong with that logic so long as he intends to flip the player at a latter point.

If Philly do manage to turn this thing around with many of the assets and players he acquired contributing to that, why wouldn't he retrospectively deserve credit? If Simmons or Ingram become a star, shouldn't Hinkie deserve praise? What if Embiid gets on the court and becomes a really nice big? No credit there? What about next season should the Sixers land another top-5 pick courtesy of the Lakers?

As for the David Khan/Minnesota comparison, that's not even remotely fair or applicable. Khan was incompetent on all levels and showed no signs of a plan. He constantly made bad personnel decisions and had no clue whatsoever in building a team. With Hinkie, his plan was clear and he schooled many GMs with acquiring assets.

Hinkie isn't in a job right now because he was terrible at playing the PR game. His actual methods were largely sound.

As I mentioned before, if Hinkie had landed into Karl Towns instead of Minnesota, the perception and landscape of the league is very different, with Hinkie being hailed as a genius.

[DuckIII]

He never developed a roster that could function because that wasn't part of the plan. Creating a functional roster with pieces that fit would have gone against the plan of creating a terrible team and increasing the odds in the draft. So, to me, that seems like an unfair standard because his initial plan was to create chaos.

I understand that. And to be clear, I support the bottoming out strategy. I, today, want the Bulls to trade Butler and Rose and start over. But it isn't a perpetual strategy. I understand he wanted it to be that - just be terrible for so long that you'll eventually get a franchise talent - but there is nothing difficult about executing that strategy. The important part is the transitional phase. And Hinkie never made a single move into that transitional phase. He never showed any deft touch to making a roster work.

Its fine to say he never got the chance, and so who knows what he could have done. But the reality there's no evidence he could have done it. And he had some glue type guys that he dumped over and over again. There was not balance to his approach, and it failed.

Its not a coincidence that Morey has the same flaw. (Sidenote: Wiretap is reporting Pringles is getting a second interview in Houston. The fact that he's being interviewed at all further evidences Morey's blind spot.)

I agree. The pieces he currently has don't fit, but they all won't remain. He took BPA or a player with the highest potential. There isn't anything wrong with that logic so long as he intends to flip the player at a latter point.

But that's my point. He never flipped anyone. He kept everyone. And none of them fit. Intentions don't mean anything. These guys are going to start moving out of their rookie contracts. Moreover, everyone is going to know Philly has to flip them. His strategy winnows away at his own leverage to make the "phase II" moves that matter most. A trained monkey can tank. The tanking isn't the hard part.

If Philly do manage to turn this thing around with many of the assets and players he acquired contributing to that, why wouldn't he retrospectively deserve credit? If Simmons or Ingram become a star, shouldn't Hinkie deserve praise? What if Embiid gets on the court and becomes a really nice big? No credit there? What about next season should the Sixers land another top-5 pick courtesy of the Lakers?

If the Sixers turn it around with the actual players Hinkie acquired, he'll deserve some credit. If they turn it around because of the moves the Colangelo's make with those assets and through their acquisitions of veterans and role players, Hinkie won't deserve any credit at all beyond "he was good at making that team suck." But that can be said of any GM who tanks. Which, again, isn't hard to do.

As for the David Khan/Minnesota comparison, that's not even remotely fair or applicable. Khan was incompetent on all levels and showed no signs of a plan. He constantly made bad personnel decisions and had no clue whatsoever in building a team. With Hinkie, his plan was clear and he schooled many GMs with acquiring assets.

Hinkie isn't in a job right now because he was terrible at playing the PR game. His actual methods were largely sound.

I agree that the Kahn comparison isn't on all fours. And that Kahn was worse in that Hinkie had a clear plan. But his plan disregarded a key element to GM'ing.

As I mentioned before, if Hinkie had landed into Karl Towns instead of Minnesota, the perception and landscape of the league is very different, with Hinkie being hailed as a genius.

Tank planners don't get that argument. And inherent downside to the strategy is the uncertainty of the lottery and draft. This argument is essentially saying "hey, if it had worked it would have worked!" And again, I'm a supporter of tanking.

[DJhitek]

I think Hinkie should absolutely get some credit for the Sixers if the current group improves and Simmons/Ingram become stars. He could never move any assets because those players were always hurt. Not saying the cat was a genius but I think the strategy is sound considering the NBA landscape now.

[kingkirk]

I understand that. And to be clear, I support the bottoming out strategy. I, today, want the Bulls to trade Butler and Rose and start over. But it isn't a perpetual strategy. I understand he wanted it to be that - just be terrible for so long that you'll eventually get a franchise talent - but there is nothing difficult about executing that strategy. The important part is the transitional phase. And Hinkie never made a single move into that transitional phase. He never showed any deft touch to making a roster work.

Its fine to say he never got the chance, and so who knows what he could have done. But the reality there's no evidence he could have done it. And he had some glue type guys that he dumped over and over again. There was not balance to his approach, and it failed.

Its not a coincidence that Morey has the same flaw. (Sidenote: Wiretap is reporting Pringles is getting a second interview in Houston. The fact that he's being interviewed at all further evidences Morey's blind spot.)

But he didn't want it to be a perpetual strategy. His strategy had only been in place for 2.5 seasons. That's not a long time.

He was also on Zach Lowe's podcast prior to his exit suggesting that after 3 years in the draft, that they'd turn to free agency with more vigor than they had in the past. He said he was planning on investing on outside players this offseason. Obviously, he won't get the opportunity to do so. Even last season, he checked in on both Jimmy Butler and Kawhi Leonard to see if he could steal them in free agency.

No, we have no evidence to suggest he could have created a roster that could have transitioned from seller dweller to playoff contender, but I think you're also selling him short by suggesting that he simply bottomed out. He did far more than that, with many of the trades he made continually increased the chances of his team finding talent.

What glue guys did he dump, though? He also did find guys like Robert Covington and Jerami Grant. TJ McConnell will be a decent backup in the league. He tried out young players from all over the place, not just at the top of the draft.

The only I see that someone can see Hinkie failed is if you're suggesting he was terrible at tanking. That was the strategy. Building a cohesive unit with a balanced approach wasn't part of the plan, so to judge him like that seems unfair to me.

As for D'Antoni, I won't delve into that one too much because I know you don't rate him and I happen to think he's a good coach, so i'll just leave that at that.

But that's my point. He never flipped anyone. He kept everyone. And none of them fit. Intentions don't mean anything. These guys are going to start moving out of their rookie contracts. Moreover, everyone is going to know Philly has to flip them. His strategy winnows away at his own leverage to make the "phase II" moves that matter most. A trained monkey can tank. The tanking isn't the hard part.

Okafor has played one season. He wasn't going to flip him now after he killed his value with all these off-court incidences. They tried to make it work with Noel and Okafor, so he wasn't going to go just yet. But it's clear that one of them will go. It's only a matter of time.

As for Embiid. If you take him at 3, you're not dealing him until you know what you have.

For the positions he drafted these players, he took players who were very credible and worthy of their draft selection. He didn't reach. He didn't make bad decisions by taking wrong players. He took the BPA or the guy with the highest ceiling. I can't fault that logic.

If the Sixers turn it around with the actual players Hinkie acquired, he'll deserve some credit. If they turn it around because of the moves the Colangelo's make with those assets and through their acquisitions of veterans and role players, Hinkie won't deserve any credit at all beyond "he was good at making that team suck." But that can be said of any GM who tanks. Which, again, isn't hard to do.

If they turn it around with the players he acquired being the catalyst for that, he deserves all the credit. If Ben Simmons becomes a routine All-Star, that's Hinkie's work, not Colangelo's. If Saric or Embiid become stars, that's Hinkie.

Again, what Hinkie did wasn't a typical tank job. We've never seen any GM acquire so many picks and give his team this many chances to find superstar talent. He tanked, but in no way did he play it like others have done. He maximised his odds of finding the best talent. When you're tanking, that's the game, and he did a great job of ensuring his team had the most possible chances of finding the best talent.

I agree that the Kahn comparison isn't on all fours. And that Kahn was worse in that Hinkie had a clear plan. But his plan disregarded a key element to GM'ing.

I accept that Hinkie ignored several things he shouldn't have. He certainly underestimated several important factors, but I don't see why he should cop the brunt of the criticism when his management group signed up to what he was selling and thought it was a sound solution.

Tank planners don't get that argument. And inherent downside to the strategy is the uncertainty of the lottery and draft. This argument is essentially saying "hey, if it had worked it would have worked!" And again, I'm a supporter of tanking.

That's fine. I get that, but I just find it amusing how different the perception of Hinkie and his work would be if he had lucked into Towns instead of Okafor. He'd be hailed a hero instead of a martyr. It's unfortunate for him, and that's the risk of the game, but it's an interesting what if.

[veji1]

I don't think he did a terrible job, I think what he did was an utter optimisation of the draft/lottery game with complete disregard for the actual playing of basketball, competing and giving the fans a valid show.

So to me, particularly because of its overall potential for success, this strategy should be penalised by the league one way or the other, or if not by the league, by Karma : May Embiid always have bad feet and Okafor have many off-court problems until he leaves the Sixers.

Yes. Let us pray that these young players careers falter because their team tanked in order to acquire them.

That'll show them.

What kind of an absurd take is that?

Chill dude, what do you want me to tell you, may all their players be healthy and happy but the ball always rim out on important shots until their hopes of competing are shattered but yet they remain happy adults with a healthy outlook on life ?

You got my point I think.

[veji1]

As I mentioned before, if Hinkie had landed into Karl Towns instead of Minnesota, the perception and landscape of the league is very different, with Hinkie being hailed as a genius.

And the reason he isn't one is precisely that : He spent several years dismantling any semblance of a basketball team to get the "best odds" year after year, and yet he failed at landing Towns... I mean if you want to be the statistics guy who plays money ball, you better win it, you can't just be "oh shucks bad luck"... it's like the complete opposite of the approach he was taking !