76ciology wrote:Things don’t usually end up well if you don’t praise and worship hinkie. Just be open and comprehend in listening to other people’s opinion.
Hinkie drafted Okafor because LA got Hinkie’s guy, DLO. While KP didn’t want to play for him. This is why Morey believes the priority in the draft is being flexible and not be fixated.
So what happened? he drafts the best player available.
Was the rationale warranted?
Yes, if you don’t take into consideration that the center position is dying that teams are shying away from drafting bigs that high (kupchak). And if you look at the angle that it’s very rare for a defensive liability center in college to turn it around to the pros.
If you don’t consider that pace and space is quickly changing the game.
Then I believe this incident is one of the factors that scare away the owner.
Does this GM really knows basketball? Beating pace and space with Violence at the rim (bully ball), is that a real thing?
Will we encounter the same problem again in the draft where a top pick will refuse to be drafted to us? We can’t verify this but colangelogates have said that Ben’s camp wouldnt want to be drafted by Hinkie.
How can Hinkie sign a max FA with the capspace if agents wouldnt want to deal with him?
Will Hinkie have problems dealing with GMs or team owners if they have negative feelings about him?
Not only that, if you listen to Hinkie interview, there was high degree of uncertainty on Embiid’s health back then.
After tanking hard for multiple years, all we had were paper assets and not much materialized talent.
You realize that the 2017 team was entirely on the back of Hinkie players? Where we were still fairly loaded with assets? Where we had completely whiffed on cashing in on Fultz and still were in fantastic position?
The only thing Colangelo added of positive value that season was an overpaid JJ signing and a couple of savvy waiver wire additions.
Who cares if he screwed up the Okafor draft. Yes, he could’ve done better, and we could’ve been in even better shape if he hit on that pick or made any other number of better moves, but he built an amazing young team that came to fruition. There’s literally no debating against it because that team’s success was nearly entirely on the back of what he built.
You have to go through some truly remarkable acrobatics to think the team he built wasn’t an amazing feat and had us set up for great success.
Really the only argument against him is if you believe most people could’ve succeeded bottoming out like we did with a green light from ownership and he “lucked into” the two young stars we got, but if we’re going to judge any other GM based off results I’m not sure why we’re not going to judge Hinkie off gathering two young stars, cap space for at least another star, productive young role players and picks for another star trade.
We were loaded and the best positioned team in the league by a mile. Again, not really sure how one could argue against that.
76ciology wrote:Things don’t usually end up well if you don’t praise and worship hinkie. Just be open and comprehend in listening to other people’s opinion.
Hinkie drafted Okafor because LA got Hinkie’s guy, DLO. While KP didn’t want to play for him. This is why Morey believes the priority in the draft is being flexible and not be fixated.
So what happened? he drafts the best player available.
Was the rationale warranted?
Yes, if you don’t take into consideration that the center position is dying that teams are shying away from drafting bigs that high (kupchak). And if you look at the angle that it’s very rare for a defensive liability center in college to turn it around to the pros.
If you don’t consider that pace and space is quickly changing the game.
Then I believe this incident is one of the factors that scare away the owner.
Does this GM really knows basketball? Beating pace and space with Violence at the rim (bully ball), is that a real thing?
Will we encounter the same problem again in the draft where a top pick will refuse to be drafted to us? We can’t verify this but colangelogates have said that Ben’s camp wouldnt want to be drafted by Hinkie.
How can Hinkie sign a max FA with the capspace if agents wouldnt want to deal with him?
Will Hinkie have problems dealing with GMs or team owners if they have negative feelings about him?
Not only that, if you listen to Hinkie interview, there was high degree of uncertainty on Embiid’s health back then.
After tanking hard for multiple years, all we had were paper assets and not much materialized talent.
You realize that the 2017 team was entirely on the back of Hinkie players? Where we were still fairly loaded with assets? Where we had completely whiffed on cashing in on Fultz and still were in fantastic position?
The only thing Colangelo added of positive value that season was an overpaid JJ signing and a couple of savvy waiver wire additions.
Who cares if he screwed up the Okafor draft. Yes, he could’ve done better, and we could’ve been in even better shape if he hit on that pick or made any other number of better moves, but he built an amazing young team that came to fruition. There’s literally no debating against it because that team’s success was nearly entirely on the back of what he built.
You have to go through some truly remarkable acrobatics to think the team he built wasn’t an amazing feat and had us set up for great success.
Really the only argument against him is if you believe most people could’ve succeeded bottoming out like we did with a green light from ownership and he “lucked into” the two young stars we got, but if we’re going to judge any other GM based off results I’m not sure why we’re not going to judge Hinkie off gathering two young stars, cap space for at least another star, productive young role players and picks for another star trade.
We were loaded and the best positioned team in the league by a mile. Again, not really sure how one could argue against that.
My post is about Hinkie not Colangelos.
And I mentioned how Hinkie did a great job in getting us those paper assets, so that is in line with your statement that we are fully loaded of assets. Which Im not denying.
Again.. getting assets like picks and clearing cap space, Hinkie did a great job. No one denies that.
But in terms of talent? I have my doubts with his talent evaluation and his future capability of getting talents (bad relationship with agents and owners).
Getting paper assets is easy. Because it’s easier to control. There are less variables and the variables are fixed. Turning them into talent is hard. There are a lot of things to be considered and there is a big role of variance. The later one is what Hinkie is not good at and something we need from 2017 onwards.
Why? Because by that time all we had are mostly paper assets, which didnt turn into as valuable as what we hoped for. And we turn all the lottery picks we had for 3 years into drafting busts, role players and a guy who has a fair chance of not being able to play again. When all we dreamed was multiple franchise players. The dream is to have KD, Harden and RW and we had Noel, Okafor and a guy who may never be able to play. And what’s worse, all three can’t play together because they’re all centers.
Now moving on from Hinkie, the colangelos on the other hand were bad on managing assets but were a lot better in getting talent.
If you look at what we’re building right now, it’s basically a rich man’s version of our 2017-2018 team. The direction of the team Colangelo envisioned. It’s not violence at the rim or building around a couple of top 5 or MVP caliber guys. It’s about accepting Biid and Ben’s limitation then surrounding them with shooters to set a more favorable environment for then to perform.
Fultz was the right pick. And the fact that we still kept mentioning how much we need a perimeter playmaker, resonates this.
And if only Fultz didnt have that bizarre injury, we could have that 2017-2018 team with a star perimeter playmaker? That’s like having our team right now with a poor man’s James Harden. Or atleast close to our “run it back” team.
Where colangelo experience went wrong was first, the transition to colangelo should have went smoother. It felt like it was immoral and was unrightfully stolen. Then they sold Okafor and Noel too low. They were really unlucky with Fultz. And finally, the colangelogate, which i dont really understand why IMO is more of the mistake of Bryan’s wife than himself.
As rightfully that we have to end the Hinkie experience, we also were right to end the Colangelo experience. And everything works out in the end, we’re in a really good place now.
So i hope there’s no arguing and all of these are just for discussion.
No need to stress it out. Be happy
There’s never been a time in history when we look back and say that the people who were censoring free speech were the good guys.
76ciology wrote:Things don’t usually end up well if you don’t praise and worship hinkie. Just be open and comprehend in listening to other people’s opinion.
Hinkie drafted Okafor because LA got Hinkie’s guy, DLO. While KP didn’t want to play for him. This is why Morey believes the priority in the draft is being flexible and not be fixated.
So what happened? he drafts the best player available.
Was the rationale warranted?
Yes, if you don’t take into consideration that the center position is dying that teams are shying away from drafting bigs that high (kupchak). And if you look at the angle that it’s very rare for a defensive liability center in college to turn it around to the pros.
If you don’t consider that pace and space is quickly changing the game.
Then I believe this incident is one of the factors that scare away the owner.
Does this GM really knows basketball? Beating pace and space with Violence at the rim (bully ball), is that a real thing?
Will we encounter the same problem again in the draft where a top pick will refuse to be drafted to us? We can’t verify this but colangelogates have said that Ben’s camp wouldnt want to be drafted by Hinkie.
How can Hinkie sign a max FA with the capspace if agents wouldnt want to deal with him?
Will Hinkie have problems dealing with GMs or team owners if they have negative feelings about him?
Not only that, if you listen to Hinkie interview, there was high degree of uncertainty on Embiid’s health back then.
After tanking hard for multiple years, all we had were paper assets and not much materialized talent.
You realize that the 2017 team was entirely on the back of Hinkie players? Where we were still fairly loaded with assets? Where we had completely whiffed on cashing in on Fultz and still were in fantastic position?
The only thing Colangelo added of positive value that season was an overpaid JJ signing and a couple of savvy waiver wire additions.
Who cares if he screwed up the Okafor draft. Yes, he could’ve done better, and we could’ve been in even better shape if he hit on that pick or made any other number of better moves, but he built an amazing young team that came to fruition. There’s literally no debating against it because that team’s success was nearly entirely on the back of what he built.
You have to go through some truly remarkable acrobatics to think the team he built wasn’t an amazing feat and had us set up for great success.
Really the only argument against him is if you believe most people could’ve succeeded bottoming out like we did with a green light from ownership and he “lucked into” the two young stars we got, but if we’re going to judge any other GM based off results I’m not sure why we’re not going to judge Hinkie off gathering two young stars, cap space for at least another star, productive young role players and picks for another star trade.
We were loaded and the best positioned team in the league by a mile. Again, not really sure how one could argue against that.
My post is about Hinkie not Colangelos.
And I mentioned how Hinkie did a great job in getting us those paper assets, so that is in line with your statement that we are fully loaded of assets. Which Im not denying.
Again.. getting assets like picks and clearing cap space, Hinkie did a great job. No one denies that.
But in terms of talent? I have my doubts with his talent evaluation and his future capability of getting talents (bad relationship with agents and owners).
Getting paper assets is easy. Because it’s easier to control. There are less variables and the variables are fixed. Turning them into talent is hard. There are a lot of things to be considered and there is a big role of variance. The later one is what Hinkie is not good at and something we need from 2017 onwards.
Why? Because by that time all we had are mostly paper assets, which didnt turn into as valuable as what we hoped for. And we turn all the lottery picks we had for 3 years into drafting busts, role players and a guy who has a fair chance of not being able to play again. When all we dreamed was multiple franchise players. The dream is to have KD, Harden and RW and we had Noel, Okafor and a guy who may never be able to play. And what’s worse, all three can’t play together because they’re all centers.
Now moving on from Hinkie, the colangelos on the other hand were bad on managing assets but were a lot better in getting talent.
If you look at what we’re building right now, it’s basically a rich man’s version of our 2017-2018 team. The direction of the team Colangelo envisioned. It’s not violence at the rim or building around a couple of top 5 or MVP caliber guys. It’s about accepting Biid and Ben’s limitation then surrounding them with shooters to set a more favorable environment for then to perform.
Fultz was the right pick. And the fact that we still kept mentioning how much we need a perimeter playmaker, resonates this.
And if only Fultz didnt have that bizarre injury, we could have that 2017-2018 team with a star perimeter playmaker? That’s like having our team right now with a poor man’s James Harden. Or atleast close to our “run it back” team.
Where colangelo experience went wrong was first, the transition to colangelo should have went smoother. It felt like it was immoral and was unrightfully stolen. Then they sold Okafor and Noel too low. They were really unlucky with Fultz. And finally, the colangelogate, which i dont really understand why IMO is more of the mistake of Bryan’s wife than himself.
As rightfully that we have to end the Hinkie experience, we also were right to end the Colangelo experience. And everything works out in the end, we’re in a really good place now.
So i hope there’s no arguing and all of these are just for discussion.
No need to stress it out. Be happy
But I just don’t get what you mean. The year we lost to the Celtics in the playoffs a few years ago is what we are trying to chase right now with this roster construction. That team was good on paper. Sure, maybe it wasn’t fully built to contend, but like I said, there were plenty of moves left to be made with the assets and flexibility.
You’re making it seem like it was only assets. We had a huge win streak on the back of Hinkie acquired players and had moderate playoff success with an extremely young core. Covington, Saric, Embiid, Simmons, and that’s with a total Markelle no-show.
Where is this paper assets you’re talking about? We were a good team in real life, even winning games without Embiid. And we had changes that could be made.
Again, people are excited about the team now because we are basically replicating that year’s success. So in what world were we not a good roster on the actual floor then?
HardenToSixers wrote:You realize that the 2017 team was entirely on the back of Hinkie players? Where we were still fairly loaded with assets? Where we had completely whiffed on cashing in on Fultz and still were in fantastic position?
The only thing Colangelo added of positive value that season was an overpaid JJ signing and a couple of savvy waiver wire additions.
Who cares if he screwed up the Okafor draft. Yes, he could’ve done better, and we could’ve been in even better shape if he hit on that pick or made any other number of better moves, but he built an amazing young team that came to fruition. There’s literally no debating against it because that team’s success was nearly entirely on the back of what he built.
You have to go through some truly remarkable acrobatics to think the team he built wasn’t an amazing feat and had us set up for great success.
Really the only argument against him is if you believe most people could’ve succeeded bottoming out like we did with a green light from ownership and he “lucked into” the two young stars we got, but if we’re going to judge any other GM based off results I’m not sure why we’re not going to judge Hinkie off gathering two young stars, cap space for at least another star, productive young role players and picks for another star trade.
We were loaded and the best positioned team in the league by a mile. Again, not really sure how one could argue against that.
My post is about Hinkie not Colangelos.
And I mentioned how Hinkie did a great job in getting us those paper assets, so that is in line with your statement that we are fully loaded of assets. Which Im not denying.
Again.. getting assets like picks and clearing cap space, Hinkie did a great job. No one denies that.
But in terms of talent? I have my doubts with his talent evaluation and his future capability of getting talents (bad relationship with agents and owners).
Getting paper assets is easy. Because it’s easier to control. There are less variables and the variables are fixed. Turning them into talent is hard. There are a lot of things to be considered and there is a big role of variance. The later one is what Hinkie is not good at and something we need from 2017 onwards.
Why? Because by that time all we had are mostly paper assets, which didnt turn into as valuable as what we hoped for. And we turn all the lottery picks we had for 3 years into drafting busts, role players and a guy who has a fair chance of not being able to play again. When all we dreamed was multiple franchise players. The dream is to have KD, Harden and RW and we had Noel, Okafor and a guy who may never be able to play. And what’s worse, all three can’t play together because they’re all centers.
Now moving on from Hinkie, the colangelos on the other hand were bad on managing assets but were a lot better in getting talent.
If you look at what we’re building right now, it’s basically a rich man’s version of our 2017-2018 team. The direction of the team Colangelo envisioned. It’s not violence at the rim or building around a couple of top 5 or MVP caliber guys. It’s about accepting Biid and Ben’s limitation then surrounding them with shooters to set a more favorable environment for then to perform.
Fultz was the right pick. And the fact that we still kept mentioning how much we need a perimeter playmaker, resonates this.
And if only Fultz didnt have that bizarre injury, we could have that 2017-2018 team with a star perimeter playmaker? That’s like having our team right now with a poor man’s James Harden. Or atleast close to our “run it back” team.
Where colangelo experience went wrong was first, the transition to colangelo should have went smoother. It felt like it was immoral and was unrightfully stolen. Then they sold Okafor and Noel too low. They were really unlucky with Fultz. And finally, the colangelogate, which i dont really understand why IMO is more of the mistake of Bryan’s wife than himself.
As rightfully that we have to end the Hinkie experience, we also were right to end the Colangelo experience. And everything works out in the end, we’re in a really good place now.
So i hope there’s no arguing and all of these are just for discussion.
No need to stress it out. Be happy
But I just don’t get what you mean. The year we lost to the Celtics in the playoffs a few years ago is what we are trying to chase right now with this roster construction. That team was good on paper. Sure, maybe it wasn’t fully built to contend, but like I said, there were plenty of moves left to be made with the assets and flexibility.
You’re making it seem like it was only assets. We had a huge win streak on the back of Hinkie acquired players and had moderate playoff success with an extremely young core. Covington, Saric, Embiid, Simmons, and that’s with a total Markelle no-show.
Where is this paper assets you’re talking about? We were a good team in real life, even winning games without Embiid. And we had changes that could be made.
Again, people are excited about the team now because we are basically replicating that year’s success. So in what world were we not a good roster on the actual floor then?
Considering we went from a 28 win team from 2016-2017 to a 52 win team in 2017-2018 (our highest winning%), i’d say the biggest difference was JJ, not Dario and Roco. Which Morey explicitly acknowledges when he mentioned how JJ with Biid and Ben had high NetRtg, to justify his addition of Seth. That is aside from the addition of ilya and beli who both also played well for our team and was really instrumental during our late season run and the playoffs.
During the paper assets era of 2013-2016 (Embiid, role players and picks), we won a total of 48 games. That would still be less than the wins we had in 2017-2018.
What really turned this team around was adding JJ. When JJ was here, he was our second best player on the team on most nights. We look for him when we needed baskets. That’s how big he was for us.
Im not saying JJ is better or more valuable than Embiid. Im just saying adding JJ lead us to the jump from one of the worst teams in the lead to a contender. I’d go as far to say that JJ played a bigger role than Ben did though.
Regarding the assets. Where Colangelo failed was turning the two busts (Noel and Okafor), role players and the late lottery picks (kings and lakers) into a top 5 player in the league. Which is possible but not realistic IMO. But then EB and our FO was actually able to do that in 2018-2019, when we probably had our most talented starting unit with the addition of Jimmy and Tobi.
Im not saying EB was flawless. He gambled on that squad in 2019-2020. Real NBA executives, scouts, most media people and analytics (ESPN and 538), had us as the favorites to win it all. But again, luck went against us, then it come blowing up on our face. Luckily we’re able to get Morey to clean our mistakes.
And where the Sixers made the biggest mistake was not categorizing Biid and Ben as assets, which sets us apart from the Lakers. If Ben was traded for Kawhi, then we do the trades we did in 2018-2019, then we could have easily win the championship. If Kawhi walks, then we could easily build around Jimmy and Biid.
And what Im afraid is they maybe digging this deeper by not trading Ben for Harden.
There’s never been a time in history when we look back and say that the people who were censoring free speech were the good guys.
Stanford wrote:Hinkie took Okafor because he was forced to by Josh Harris.
That's an undisputed fact. Because I said so.
I appreciate your contribution to alternative fact day, but I thought the non-cannon myth was that Harris blocked Hinkie from moving Okafor on draft night following Jah's rookie year?
Hinkie was outright giddy during the "violence at the rim" presser. It's hard to fake that.
After that, Irving says he hopes his fine money is used to help communities in need. He then says, “Stop distracting me and my team and appreciate the art. We move different over here.” Irving ends his statement saying he doesn’t talk to pawns, and that his “attention is worth more.”
After that, Irving says he hopes his fine money is used to help communities in need. He then says, “Stop distracting me and my team and appreciate the art. We move different over here.” Irving ends his statement saying he doesn’t talk to pawns, and that his “attention is worth more.”
76ciology wrote: And where the Sixers made the biggest mistake was not categorizing Biid and Ben as assets, which sets us apart from the Lakers. If Ben was traded for Kawhi, then we do the trades we did in 2018-2019, then we could have easily win the championship. If Kawhi walks, then we could easily build around Jimmy and Biid.
And what Im afraid is they maybe digging this deeper by not trading Ben for Harden.
There's nothing "easy" about it. If we did what you advocate, we'd likely be sitting here with Embiid plus NOTHING. Kawhi obviously would have gone to LA, and there's no reason to think this incompetent org would have kept Butler. So thank god we didn't do that.
And in that case w/Joel but no Ben, no way we get top tier coaching and GM candidates like Doc and Morey to come here. We'd be stuck w/garbage there too.
Monix wrote:the drafting Okafor was an abomination, pretty much a fireable act
It did get him fired.
Fischella wrote:I think none of you guys that are pro-Embiid no how basketball works today.. is way easier to win it all with Omer Asik than Olajuwon. Actually if you ask me which Center I want for my perfect championship caliber team, I will chose Asik hands down
76ciology wrote: My post is about Hinkie not Colangelos.
And I mentioned how Hinkie did a great job in getting us those paper assets, so that is in line with your statement that we are fully loaded of assets. Which Im not denying.
Again.. getting assets like picks and clearing cap space, Hinkie did a great job. No one denies that.
But in terms of talent? I have my doubts with his talent evaluation and his future capability of getting talents (bad relationship with agents and owners).
Getting paper assets is easy. Because it’s easier to control. There are less variables and the variables are fixed. Turning them into talent is hard. There are a lot of things to be considered and there is a big role of variance. The later one is what Hinkie is not good at and something we need from 2017 onwards.
Why? Because by that time all we had are mostly paper assets, which didnt turn into as valuable as what we hoped for. And we turn all the lottery picks we had for 3 years into drafting busts, role players and a guy who has a fair chance of not being able to play again. When all we dreamed was multiple franchise players. The dream is to have KD, Harden and RW and we had Noel, Okafor and a guy who may never be able to play. And what’s worse, all three can’t play together because they’re all centers.
Now moving on from Hinkie, the colangelos on the other hand were bad on managing assets but were a lot better in getting talent.
If you look at what we’re building right now, it’s basically a rich man’s version of our 2017-2018 team. The direction of the team Colangelo envisioned. It’s not violence at the rim or building around a couple of top 5 or MVP caliber guys. It’s about accepting Biid and Ben’s limitation then surrounding them with shooters to set a more favorable environment for then to perform.
Fultz was the right pick. And the fact that we still kept mentioning how much we need a perimeter playmaker, resonates this.
And if only Fultz didnt have that bizarre injury, we could have that 2017-2018 team with a star perimeter playmaker? That’s like having our team right now with a poor man’s James Harden. Or atleast close to our “run it back” team.
Where colangelo experience went wrong was first, the transition to colangelo should have went smoother. It felt like it was immoral and was unrightfully stolen. Then they sold Okafor and Noel too low. They were really unlucky with Fultz. And finally, the colangelogate, which i dont really understand why IMO is more of the mistake of Bryan’s wife than himself.
As rightfully that we have to end the Hinkie experience, we also were right to end the Colangelo experience. And everything works out in the end, we’re in a really good place now.
So i hope there’s no arguing and all of these are just for discussion.
No need to stress it out. Be happy
But I just don’t get what you mean. The year we lost to the Celtics in the playoffs a few years ago is what we are trying to chase right now with this roster construction. That team was good on paper. Sure, maybe it wasn’t fully built to contend, but like I said, there were plenty of moves left to be made with the assets and flexibility.
You’re making it seem like it was only assets. We had a huge win streak on the back of Hinkie acquired players and had moderate playoff success with an extremely young core. Covington, Saric, Embiid, Simmons, and that’s with a total Markelle no-show.
Where is this paper assets you’re talking about? We were a good team in real life, even winning games without Embiid. And we had changes that could be made.
Again, people are excited about the team now because we are basically replicating that year’s success. So in what world were we not a good roster on the actual floor then?
Considering we went from a 28 win team from 2016-2017 to a 52 win team in 2017-2018 (our highest winning%), i’d say the biggest difference was JJ, not Dario and Roco. Which Morey explicitly acknowledges when he mentioned how JJ with Biid and Ben had high NetRtg, to justify his addition of Seth. That is aside from the addition of ilya and beli who both also played well for our team and was really instrumental during our late season run and the playoffs.
During the paper assets era of 2013-2016 (Embiid, role players and picks), we won a total of 48 games. That would still be less than the wins we had in 2017-2018.
What really turned this team around was adding JJ. When JJ was here, he was our second best player on the team on most nights. We look for him when we needed baskets. That’s how big he was for us.
Im not saying JJ is better or more valuable than Embiid. Im just saying adding JJ lead us to the jump from one of the worst teams in the lead to a contender. I’d go as far to say that JJ played a bigger role than Ben did though.
Regarding the assets. Where Colangelo failed was turning the two busts (Noel and Okafor), role players and the late lottery picks (kings and lakers) into a top 5 player in the league. Which is possible but not realistic IMO. But then EB and our FO was actually able to do that in 2018-2019, when we probably had our most talented starting unit with the addition of Jimmy and Tobi.
Im not saying EB was flawless. He gambled on that squad in 2019-2020. Real NBA executives, scouts, most media people and analytics (ESPN and 538), had us as the favorites to win it all. But again, luck went against us, then it come blowing up on our face. Luckily we’re able to get Morey to clean our mistakes.
And where the Sixers made the biggest mistake was not categorizing Biid and Ben as assets, which sets us apart from the Lakers. If Ben was traded for Kawhi, then we do the trades we did in 2018-2019, then we could have easily win the championship. If Kawhi walks, then we could easily build around Jimmy and Biid.
And what Im afraid is they maybe digging this deeper by not trading Ben for Harden.
It was JJ, and not the growth of Embiid, the addition of Simmons, RoCo, and Covington? Redick was no doubt huge offensively, but that is just such a drastic overstatement of what he did.
Boiling everything down that I just said into "JJ made the impact, so therefore Hinkie doesn't deserve the credit" as if he is the reason we were propelled to a 50+ win team is exactly the complete mental acrobatics I'm referring to.
Again, Hinkie is the one who gave us the cap space in addition to the team. Cap space is an asset. So the discussion isn't just that JJ provided that for us. It is the incremental value of whoever else we decided to use that cap space for and the other person who we would be giving minutes to at the 2.
If you really think JJ was responsible for like 15 additional wins over the next incremental option that Hinkie would've gone for I'm not sure what to say to you.
Morey even said himself he thinks Hinkie would've pushed the chips in in a big way, so it probably would have been an even bigger splash than Redick, using assets and more cap space. If not that year, then the next.
And focusing on Redick is honestly just being completely disingenuous and completely losing sight of the big picture the team was in. The team was in an elite position, ready to compete now, and ready to compete in the future, with plenty of assets in the chamber, with due to the foundation. Redick is a blip on the radar.
To say otherwise is complete mental acrobatics and either you have some deep down you don't want to admit it or you are purposefully just playing devil's advocate.
HardenToSixers wrote: But I just don’t get what you mean. The year we lost to the Celtics in the playoffs a few years ago is what we are trying to chase right now with this roster construction. That team was good on paper. Sure, maybe it wasn’t fully built to contend, but like I said, there were plenty of moves left to be made with the assets and flexibility.
You’re making it seem like it was only assets. We had a huge win streak on the back of Hinkie acquired players and had moderate playoff success with an extremely young core. Covington, Saric, Embiid, Simmons, and that’s with a total Markelle no-show.
Where is this paper assets you’re talking about? We were a good team in real life, even winning games without Embiid. And we had changes that could be made.
Again, people are excited about the team now because we are basically replicating that year’s success. So in what world were we not a good roster on the actual floor then?
Considering we went from a 28 win team from 2016-2017 to a 52 win team in 2017-2018 (our highest winning%), i’d say the biggest difference was JJ, not Dario and Roco. Which Morey explicitly acknowledges when he mentioned how JJ with Biid and Ben had high NetRtg, to justify his addition of Seth. That is aside from the addition of ilya and beli who both also played well for our team and was really instrumental during our late season run and the playoffs.
During the paper assets era of 2013-2016 (Embiid, role players and picks), we won a total of 48 games. That would still be less than the wins we had in 2017-2018.
What really turned this team around was adding JJ. When JJ was here, he was our second best player on the team on most nights. We look for him when we needed baskets. That’s how big he was for us.
Im not saying JJ is better or more valuable than Embiid. Im just saying adding JJ lead us to the jump from one of the worst teams in the lead to a contender. I’d go as far to say that JJ played a bigger role than Ben did though.
Regarding the assets. Where Colangelo failed was turning the two busts (Noel and Okafor), role players and the late lottery picks (kings and lakers) into a top 5 player in the league. Which is possible but not realistic IMO. But then EB and our FO was actually able to do that in 2018-2019, when we probably had our most talented starting unit with the addition of Jimmy and Tobi.
Im not saying EB was flawless. He gambled on that squad in 2019-2020. Real NBA executives, scouts, most media people and analytics (ESPN and 538), had us as the favorites to win it all. But again, luck went against us, then it come blowing up on our face. Luckily we’re able to get Morey to clean our mistakes.
And where the Sixers made the biggest mistake was not categorizing Biid and Ben as assets, which sets us apart from the Lakers. If Ben was traded for Kawhi, then we do the trades we did in 2018-2019, then we could have easily win the championship. If Kawhi walks, then we could easily build around Jimmy and Biid.
And what Im afraid is they maybe digging this deeper by not trading Ben for Harden.
It was JJ, and not the growth of Embiid, the addition of Simmons, RoCo, and Covington? Redick was no doubt huge offensively, but that is just such a drastic overstatement of what he did.
Boiling everything down that I just said into "JJ made the impact, so therefore Hinkie doesn't deserve the credit" as if he is the reason we were propelled to a 50+ win team is exactly the complete mental acrobatics I'm referring to.
Again, Hinkie is the one who gave us the cap space in addition to the team. Cap space is an asset. So the discussion isn't just that JJ provided that for us. It is the incremental value of whoever else we decided to use that cap space for and the other person who we would be giving minutes to at the 2.
If you really think JJ was responsible for like 15 additional wins over the next incremental option that Hinkie would've gone for I'm not sure what to say to you.
Morey even said himself he thinks Hinkie would've pushed the chips in in a big way, so it probably would have been an even bigger splash than Redick, using assets and more cap space. If not that year, then the next.
And focusing on Redick is honestly just being completely disingenuous and completely losing sight of the big picture the team was in. The team was in an elite position, ready to compete now, and ready to compete in the future, with plenty of assets in the chamber, with due to the foundation. Redick is a blip on the radar.
To say otherwise is complete mental acrobatics and either you have some deep down you don't want to admit it or you are purposefully just playing devil's advocate.
Compare our team before JJ (2013-2016) and after JJ (2016-2019) and last season when JJ left (2019-2020). Even Embiid himself felt that void Jj left. It was arguably a bigger void than what Jimmy left.
Based on my experience, fans overvalue cap space and picks.
Cap space is really valuable if you are the Lakers, MIA or Knicks where top tier FAs would demand to be traded to your team. For our franchise, guys like Tobias, Al or JJ is just as good as it gets. It’s something i realized lately. Another thing ive learned is.. look at the Celtics. Class A FO right? Their cap space only was useful when they have to overpay Al, Hayward or a broken Kemba. Looking back, we were delusional when we though we could land LeBron or Kawhi with the max capspace.
Then for picks, they are valuable but what you do on those picks is what ultimately determines the value of those picks. If you have a 5 lottery picks and you’re just going to draft Noel, MCW, Okafor, Saric, Romeo Langford and Mikal Bridges, then i dont think its that valuable.
Ive read in social media, and i believe you also share the same sentiment, about how we wasted so much asset that we could have traded for Harden without Biid or Ben if only we had better asset management. I dont know man.. but Pop wanted Biid or Ben for Kawhi. Fertita wanted Biid or Ben for Harden. I dont think you can trade for a top tier player with Noel, Okafor, top 10 pick (lakers) and top 15 pick (kings) in the draft.
In real life, real people values real talent over paper assets by a wide margin.
Yup, hinkie generated cap space and picks. Again, ive said that he did a great job accumulating these paper assets. But turning them into talent, it’s a completely different ball game. A game i wouldn’t trust him to play given his track record. And that’s the game we had to play in 2016 onwards because of the cap situation (includes okafor, noel, biid and Ben’s contracts) and we can’t really keep kicking the can because we were already going extreme with all the losing at that point.
Just think about this one. There are several rumors that Hinkie wanted Wiggins in the 2014 draft. Let’s say we didn’t end up with Embiid, either we traded up for Wiggins or Embiid was selected by the Bucks or the Wolves. How would you view Hinkie’s talent evaluation? Do you know that in 2013, Anthony Bennett was one of the guys we were eyeing on that draft?
I know the draft is a crapshoot. But just look at the thought process of the players he target in the draft. The vision of a team winning by “violence at the rim”.
I want Hinkie to get me picks. To clear my team’s cap space. To be an adviser in trades. He’s a good personnel to have as an adviser to a guy like Morey or Pat Riley.
But i dont trust Hinkie to build my team.
Personally, im tired of this discussion and nothing really good really comes out from this but stress. It’s like looking back on a bad relationship.
There’s never been a time in history when we look back and say that the people who were censoring free speech were the good guys.
Stanford wrote:Hinkie took Okafor because he was forced to by Josh Harris.
That's an undisputed fact. Because I said so.
I appreciate your contribution to alternative fact day, but I thought the non-cannon myth was that Harris blocked Hinkie from moving Okafor on draft night following Jah's rookie year?
Hinkie was outright giddy during the "violence at the rim" presser. It's hard to fake that.
Couldn't both be true? I also don't think the GM is going to be unenthusiastic about his pick at #3.
I just don't think Okafor really makes sense in terms of how Hinkie drafted to that point:
The American college players are all athletic, defensive focused players. The rest are Euro picks that were mostly stashes.
Okafor doesn't really fit in his mold. I'm willing to believe that he did make that pick, but I can completely understand believing the conspiracy theories behind him not making the pick.
Stanford wrote:Hinkie took Okafor because he was forced to by Josh Harris.
That's an undisputed fact. Because I said so.
I appreciate your contribution to alternative fact day, but I thought the non-cannon myth was that Harris blocked Hinkie from moving Okafor on draft night following Jah's rookie year?
Hinkie was outright giddy during the "violence at the rim" presser. It's hard to fake that.
Couldn't both be true? I also don't think the GM is going to be unenthusiastic about his pick at #3.
I just don't think Okafor really makes sense in terms of how Hinkie drafted to that point:
The American college players are all athletic, defensive focused players. The rest are Euro picks that were mostly stashes.
Okafor doesn't really fit in his mold. I'm willing to believe that he did make that pick, but I can completely understand believing the conspiracy theories behind him not making the pick.
"Violence at the rim" was the post Embiid draft press conference, btw.
Main thing I remember from the Okafor press conference was someone asking Hinkie if they still would have taken Okafor if Embiid hadn't had a setback and he said "I'd like to think we would have had the courage to do so" or whatever.
I don't have any issue with putting Okafor on Hinkie, part of the job of a GM is to save ownership from itself and so even if ownership/O'Neill wanted the pick, it was Hinkie's job to convince them otherwise and he failed.
Clearly on the whole though he provided tremendous value to the franchise and in terms of building a winner we'll never know what he would have done because the league made the team hire Jerry who made the team hire his son, the end.
Stanford wrote:Hinkie took Okafor because he was forced to by Josh Harris.
That's an undisputed fact. Because I said so.
I appreciate your contribution to alternative fact day, but I thought the non-cannon myth was that Harris blocked Hinkie from moving Okafor on draft night following Jah's rookie year?
Hinkie was outright giddy during the "violence at the rim" presser. It's hard to fake that.
Couldn't both be true? I also don't think the GM is going to be unenthusiastic about his pick at #3.
I just don't think Okafor really makes sense in terms of how Hinkie drafted to that point:
The American college players are all athletic, defensive focused players. The rest are Euro picks that were mostly stashes.
Okafor doesn't really fit in his mold. I'm willing to believe that he did make that pick, but I can completely understand believing the conspiracy theories behind him not making the pick.
You know what fits the mold? In drafting with a lottery pick, he just followed who was BPA in draftexpress. While guys like Ferry, Hammond, Presti, Ujiri or Hennigan did their homework during the 2013 draft.
If he knows basketball, he should have seen that the value of the center position was declining. That planning to use them as assets in the future or cornerstone was a terrible idea.
If you know that companies could artificially produce gold, would you invest on them with the hopes of trying to sell them at a higher price in the future?
To be fair though, I didnt know it back then but I definitely read or heard that GMs were shying away from bigs during that time.
There’s never been a time in history when we look back and say that the people who were censoring free speech were the good guys.
Hinkie said during the Okafor pressconference that struck me was something like.. he knows Okafor does not fit the modern NBA but what if Okafor can change the trend or something.
There’s never been a time in history when we look back and say that the people who were censoring free speech were the good guys.
76ciology wrote:Hinkie said during the Okafor pressconference that struck me was something like.. he knows Okafor does not fit the modern NBA but what if Okafor can change the trend or something.
Kobblehead wrote:I appreciate your contribution to alternative fact day, but I thought the non-cannon myth was that Harris blocked Hinkie from moving Okafor on draft night following Jah's rookie year?
Hinkie was outright giddy during the "violence at the rim" presser. It's hard to fake that.
Couldn't both be true? I also don't think the GM is going to be unenthusiastic about his pick at #3.
I just don't think Okafor really makes sense in terms of how Hinkie drafted to that point:
The American college players are all athletic, defensive focused players. The rest are Euro picks that were mostly stashes.
Okafor doesn't really fit in his mold. I'm willing to believe that he did make that pick, but I can completely understand believing the conspiracy theories behind him not making the pick.
You know what fits the mold? In drafting with a lottery pick, he just followed who was BPA in draftexpress. While guys like Ferry, Hammond, Presti, Ujiri or Hennigan did their homework during the 2013 draft.
If he knows basketball, he should have seen that the value of the center position was declining. That planning to use them as assets in the future or cornerstone was a terrible idea.
If you know that companies could artificially produce gold, would you invest on them with the hopes of trying to sell them at a higher price in the future?
To be fair though, I didnt know it back then but I definitely read or heard that GMs were shying away from bigs during that time.
The devaluation of bigs is kinda silly to me.
Unskilled, defensive bigs or solely post bigs have become antiquated, but if you are a stud big (Embiid, Jokic, Davis, Porzingis), you're still extremely highly valued, possibly more so than star guards.
I didn't like the Okafor pick at the time and obviously still don't. I'm just saying it didn't fit with the mold of player that he was drafting at the time. It could have just been a surprise pick that ended up being his undoing, but I can see the apprehension of thinking it was his pick. Either way, he's gone and our team looks pretty good, so I'm fine with moving on.
The American college players are all athletic, defensive focused players. The rest are Euro picks that were mostly stashes.
Okafor doesn't really fit in his mold. I'm willing to believe that he did make that pick, but I can completely understand believing the conspiracy theories behind him not making the pick.
Sure, it's possible they are both true.
I don't think Sam outright planned to select Okafor for months leading up to the draft. I do think he panicked and took him, though. Saric proves that Hinkie was willing to take unathletic defensive zero in the lotto, regardless if he's domestic or international.
76ciology wrote:Hinkie said during the Okafor pressconference that struck me was something like.. he knows Okafor does not fit the modern NBA but what if Okafor can change the trend or something.
Arguably Hinkie's biggest flaw, philosophically. He failed to see which direction the league was going. He spent the overwhelming majority of his draft capital on frontcourt players.
