HotelVitale wrote:No idea where you pulled an argument about who made better trades from, but in any case I was trying to say there's not as much difference between what Hinkie did and what everyone else facing a long rebuild did. Marks obviously should've made that trade and it's a very solid return on Young. Doubt anyone (except severe Celtics haters) would disagree.
I got it from you contrasting the two starting placing. Both started with Young, and they both made similar but critically different deals using him. I think it highlights a potential difference in their philosophies.
I get that there's a difference between the models but it's not because one is 'old-fashioned' and values character or whatever--it's because Marks has no draft picks or usual ways to get high-end young talent, so things look a little different. The principle is the same, since all rebuilding is a few variations on the same moves of dumping older vets or guys who are going to leave for what you can, and trying to get young talent in any way you can. If Marks had draft picks, he would've drafted young guys and tried to build around them; he didn't/doesn't, so he got rid of his older players and anyone with trade value (except Lopez), and then tried to sign anyone who was young and promising and wanted to come play for them. He traded Young for a swing-for-fences injury gamble, traded up to get Whitehead (another upside guy), then threw a huge amount of $ at some young okay-not-great guys--all to have some semblance of a young core to build with. And those also built on last year's moves of trading for (high upside) RHJ and (injury-risk) McCullough. None of those moves were about 'fit' or 'roles' or anything else--they were all BPA moves with an eye to upside.
First, I said nothing about "character". That's moving the conversation in a different direction. I was talking about culture, which you can only build over time and with people who can instill and maintain it. It's an open question to as to how well that can work without great players. It was easy to stay the course with Duncan. It wouldn't be with a bad team.
Anyway, I don't think it makes sense to say Marks is doing a lot like Hinkie. There weren't any huge salary absorptions for assets. There doesn't seem to be this scouring to low-value guys with upside. Sure, it's easy to swap out first-round guys for mid-tier FAs can say it's essentially the same besides that. But it isn't. The Nets seem to be looking at team-building and talent acquisition differently even in places where they could do the same thing. That's actually how the Philly comparisons in this thread started.
The only thing that's weird about the Nets' rebuild is (obviously) that they have been/will be bad for three years without corresponding draft picks, so they a) don't have elite young talent to build around and b) don't have extra incentive to be a little worse while that talent develops. There's no way you believe that Marks was like 'hmm, I know we have no use for Young but the only player I will possibly trade him for is Caris Levert, the perfect fit for us!' (Also, didn't that trade happen before the draft actually started? So there's no way they could've known for sure Levert would be there).
Was Kawhi Leonard the only player the Spurs would've traded Hill for? We don't know for sure about the 2011 draft, but they were willing to move him the year before but the Pacers very smartly refused when PG fell. We don't know if they were okay with a Morris or Faried or Klay or whatever. They certainly didn't move Hill for a future pick, though. In Marks' case, its ambiguous as to how much they wanted LeVert. I admit that. And it could also be that the agreed-to trade was leaked where as other agreed-to trades weren't. It wasn't official until after the draft, though that's like possibly just because of moratorium reasons.
You're also creating a caricature of the Hinkie special--that's a very minor, peripheral part of the Sixers rebuild, and it's also worked out pretty well overall. I don't think anyone hates on having R Covington, Richaun Holmes, and J Grant on 4 year minimum deals. Like I said, the only reason this looks weird is that because Hinkie made the mistake last year of letting their cheap vets walk (Ish Smith, Mbah a Moute, J Rich) and having them end up a terrible 10-win team instead of a terrible 20-win team.
This minor, peripheral part is the only part we're really discussing. Some were wondering why Marks didn't pull more Hinkie specials. I was giving my opinion as to why. That doesn't make them good or bad. The Spurs gave DeJuan play a similar contract back in 2009, after all. As I said, I'm not trying to make this a Hinkie bashing or affirmation thread. This topic deserves better than to be derailed. So I can refrain from continuing this line of discussion if that is the only result that can occur if we don't.
+ 
= 
