|
euphronius posted:I mean maybe from a pr perspective. But 2nds are valuable. He turned two seconds into the absolute fleecing of Sacramento. I don't wanna read the letter =/ Maybe I'm wrong, but I get the feeling that Hinkie didn't really care about giving the fans something on the court to get excited about. He seemed to think that they would get excited about future picks. Remember how excited Knicks fans were about Shump and Landry Fields? Philly needed something like that. Hell, look at Tim Frazier blowing up on NOP. Philly cut him. Portland got Moe Harkless for a 55-60 2021 2nd round pick. I'm sure there are other examples I can't think of.
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 14:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 13:31 |
|
|
His job wasn't to get fans excited about garbage players.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 14:38
|
|
|
Hashtag Banterzone posted:I don't wanna read the letter =/ Okay now you're just trolling.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 14:46
|
|
|
I don't think tanking like this really does much for player development.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
euphronius posted:His job wasn't to get fans excited about garbage players. I disagree. Part of being a GM is keeping the fans, the media, the owners and the agents on your side. I think spending some future assets on a Clarkson or a Langston Galloway would've helped.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 14:49
|
|
|
I'm sure over a long enough time frame it would probably work because at some point you're going to be bad enough to get the top pick at the right time, but the truly franchise changing guys are rare and it seems like an impractical approach given that in the meantime you're putting an awful product on the court for your fans, alienating potential free agents, and arguably hurting the development of the players you have. The thunder grabbing Durant, Westbrook, Harden, and Ibaka in short order made the "be bad for a little while and build a contender through the draft" thing seem a lot easier and faster than it really is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 14:55
|
|
|
Redgrendel2001 posted:This isn't crazy, loony tunes stuff to me, but I'm heavily entrenched in science academics so I'm probably biased to perceive this style of writing/thinking as "normal". I can definitely see how it comes off as a little over the top, but should he have simply yelled " YOLO!!!" while running out the door and tweeting middle finger emojis to @Sixera It'd have been significantly more likable
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 14:58
|
|
|
What over-the-hill superstar are the 76ers going to hilariously overpay for this offseason?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
Paul Zuvella posted:What over-the-hill superstar are the 76ers going to hilariously overpay for this offseason? Nah, it's all about going all-in on Harrison Barnes and Ryan Anderson.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
Kibner posted:Nah, it's all about going all-in on Harrison Barnes and Ryan Anderson. Mox deal Harrison Barnes seems like 100% a lock for them. I mean he's the 7th best player on an amazing team! Who says no?!!!!? e: Actually, max deal Hassan Whiteside would be funnier. Paul Zuvella fucked around with this message at 15:48 on Apr 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
Maxing Harrison Barnes and Ryan Anderson would be Lakers style, "oh gosh we wanted to be good but we keeping having this bad luck," covert Lakers style tanking
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
MourningView posted:I'm sure over a long enough time frame it would probably work because at some point you're going to be bad enough to get the top pick at the right time, but the truly franchise changing guys are rare and it seems like an impractical approach given that in the meantime you're putting an awful product on the court for your fans, alienating potential free agents, and arguably hurting the development of the players you have. Yeah, I think even if you handed a team 3 #1 overalls in a row, three straight 1st team all-nba guys would be extremely rare. It's also crazy that they drafted two guys as good as Durant and Westbrook but were still bad enough to draft third. The whole thing just seems shortsighted to me because very few teams have maintained sustained success with a top 3 or so pick recently but many teams have maintained success with someone else's top 3 who got disgruntled trying to carry a team lovely enough to have been picking top 3. With this strategy, barring an OKC-style miracle, you're either putting a lot of faith in a team's ability to flip the switch on developing and recruiting good basketball players when the multi-year plan was to not have good basketball players, or resigning yourself to spending two seasons hearing Stephen A. Smith tell you Great Player is going to the Lakers before he signs with someone else. that said while i hate the philosophy, it's dumb to just abandon ship this quickly, and the replacement hire is even worse. The Sixers rot runs deep.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
Paul Zuvella posted:What over-the-hill superstar are the 76ers going to hilariously overpay for this offseason? Dion waiters is a lock.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
MourningView posted:The thunder grabbing Durant, Westbrook, Harden, and Ibaka in short order made the "be bad for a little while and build a contender through the draft" thing seem a lot easier and faster than it really is. Agreed. I'm just saying that if this was something you were trying to emulate then having as many high picks as possible is essential. Of course things like player development and some of the other stuff you mentioned was also critical for OKC but I was just talking about the beep-boop numbers side of it since that's all Hinkie was looking at. Dejan Bimble posted:Maxing Harrison Barnes and Ryan Anderson would be Lakers style, "oh gosh we wanted to be good but we keeping having this bad luck," covert Lakers style tanking Ryan Anderson is getting a max offer from Sacramento. drat near everyone here in the media expects it and it would be one of those "hey look I made a big splashy move that on outside appearances fills a need but will end up not moving the needle for us" moves that Vlade seems to like in the off-season. WhyteRyce fucked around with this message at 16:14 on Apr 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
Most egregious thing about Hinkie is that even after they tanked 3 years running and had future trade chips and assets he made no attempt to even try to bolster the roster with anything representing a NBA quality player. Nik Stauskus and maybe Ish Smith are the two shining additions and both are bench guys. At some point in time you need to be able to develop young guys around old guys. Every single team does it, but Hinkie didn't. That's why I hated the Process. It was an embarrassment for Philadelphia and the players on that team. They went into games knowing they were being set up to lose. Hinkie couldn't attract a single free agent because he was either terrible with players agents or laid his tanking cards too obviously. I can excuse Morey for being a pure analytics guy but Hinkie tried gaming the system and ruined it for legitimate GMs that realize basketball isn't a video game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:I don't think tanking like this really does much for player development. Hinkie's strategy was all right in a vacuum, but they completely poo poo the bed on player development, pissed off the rest of the league's owners (because ticket sales to games against Philly were so poo poo) and half of their fanbase (the ones that value a watchable product over the chance of being great). It wasn't a terrible plan, but Hinkie was so focused on the odds and assets angle that he never attempted to run a competent basketball team in the meantime or appeal to anything other than the chance of future greatness. Competent =/= good. You can still have a lottery team in the bottom of the standings while having some roster stability, an actual point guard and maybe a veteran or two. Instead he turned the team's reputation into a laughing stock and poisoned the well in free agent negotiations by preferring to rotate through an insane cast of d-leaguers. Like the dude saying that they needed to get people excited about a Landry Fields type guy is kind of an extreme case, but I get the sentiment. I doubt anyone but the most extreme diehard fan could name their starting lineup (if they even have one, I know they change it constantly). There's no team to get excited about, there's just Okafor, Noel and a rotating cast of miscellaneous chumps. I know there's a million things more important to running a basketball team than fan appeal, but the reason they've turned into the butt of jokes in the league is because not only are they terrible (there's lots of terrible teams), there's just nothing to cheer for. Outside of two players there's 0 appeal to their roster and no coherent plan as a team. Brooklyn has a way worse future ahead of them, but they still manage to actually resemble a basketball team (loosely). Is putting a real basketball team on the floor part of a GM's job description, even in rebuilding years? Hinkie tried to get around that, but I think it's necessary. Otherwise abject hopelessness takes over for both the fans and players. Your profits go in the shitter, the players don't like you and want to leave, and the guys in the draft talk about how they want to be drafted by anyone but your team. It's nice having assets, but I think that if you foster a culture of failure and instability that kinda outweighs the benefits. Maybe five years down the road the team will be in a great place everyone will be like HINKIE WAS RIGHT!!! but I think there's got to be a better way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
KJ McDaniels could have been the guy Sixers fans could attach to but he would have cost money so the heck with that I guess
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
There's probably a lot to be said in general about whether OKC and Philadelphia are comparable Processes. One thing I would point out as someone who watched those bad Thunder teams closely is that they had solid locker room veterans on the team. Like, you legitimately need the Nick Collison/Kevin Ollie/Malik Rose guys to help keep the locker room intact during consecutive years of losing. I don't think Elton Brand 3 years into the tank is enough. Not that that would've changed the overall winning trajectory of the team in one season, but I guess I'm saying Veteran Leadership is actually an important thing that Hinkie seemed to ignore. e: I mean that's obvious or whatever, but I'd rather have the modern day equivalent of Kevin Ollie on my team than prime Landry Fields if I'm tanking.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
Every sixers team has had veterans in the roster. No one is in the club house to know if they are leaders I guess. Again I don't even really care anymore, but these are simple factual issues.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
WhyteRyce posted:Agreed. I'm just saying that if this was something you were trying to emulate then having as many high picks as possible is essential. Yeah I don't think we really disagree. If you're heart's set on getting players that good through high draft picks, you definitely want a lot of picks. I was just saying I don't think that is a very well thought-out plan for reasons other people have articulated a lot better than I could.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
MourningView posted:I'm sure over a long enough time frame it would probably work because at some point you're going to be bad enough to get the top pick at the right time, but the truly franchise changing guys are rare and it seems like an impractical approach given that in the meantime you're putting an awful product on the court for your fans, alienating potential free agents, and arguably hurting the development of the players you have. I think a good point brought up is the chance to get a superstar by tanking that much greater than the chance to get one through being mediocre that it is worth being one of the bottom three teams for that marginal increase. I think so but it is totally valid to not think so.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
I actually thought they really should've tried to sign Jeremy Lin this season. Theoretically a really good fit for him as a pg. Anyway, I'm mostly disappointed in the timing of this and nepotism. It just sucks they didn't even do their part in a proper gm search process.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Every sixers team has had veterans in the roster. Jason Richardson last year and Elton Brand halfway through this season. The longest tenured vet on the 13-14 team was Hawes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
WhyteRyce posted:KJ McDaniels could have been the guy Sixers fans could attach to but he would have cost money so the heck with that I guess Yeah KJ would've been perfect. I just find it odd that so many other teams are able to find productive players in the 2nd round or from the D-League or stuck on other teams bench, but Philly couldn't.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
Other teams 2nd rounders or d-leaguers usually have NBA players to pass to/to learn from.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Every sixers team has had veterans in the roster. http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/PHI/2014.html http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/PHI/2015.html http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/PHI/2016.html Look at those rosters stacked with starting quality veterans like ancient Jason Richardson and crown prince Luc Mbah a Moute. They needed veteran starters, not guys who would sit at the 10-12 spot on competitive teams.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
It reminds me of how efficiency goes down with usage. Other teams sometimes find productive players in the 2nd round or d-league, but they're on teams with real NBA players and don't usually have to carry the offense. Hinkie cut out the middle man and decided to field an entire team of rookies, second round flyers and d-league randoms hoping that someone would rise to the occasion, but I think the chances of that happening get severely diminished when the players are surrounded by garbage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I think a good point brought up is the chance to get a superstar by tanking that much greater than the chance to get one through being mediocre that it is worth being one of the bottom three teams for that marginal increase. I mean obviously this is true over a long enough period, it just seems unrealistic to intentionally set out to do it because of everything else people mentioned. Like I said, I think if you give it a long enough time it will almost certainly work, but you're doing a lot of damage to the franchise in the meantime and I don't think it's unreasonable for fans or owners to not want to go through that. Being stuck in a perpetual 8-6 seed sucks on some level too but there is something to be said for being able to watch 82 games a year and knowing that your team has a reasonable chance of being at least competitive in them. Like the whole idea of sports is that it's an inherently competitive endeavor where you're trying to win, people taking issue with someone intentionally doing the exact opposite makes sense to me, even if it's something that may be beneficial 5-10 years down the line. MourningView fucked around with this message at 16:44 on Apr 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
Yes . They were a long way from being an 8th seed though. If any roster was ready for this experiment it was that one. Well now the idea is dead and will never be tried again so at least we had some variety.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
It was a bold idea and it's going in basketball history books, that's for sure. Life is strange.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
I think Hinkie's first two years are pretty drat defensible from most angles. The post Bynum Sixers were terribly positioned and likely would've been bottom feeders much in the same way the Nets are today, with very little hope for the future. Hinkie took that reality and tried to make the most of future assets, including regaining draft picks (they wouldn't even have their own 2017 pick if not for the Payton trade). This past summer was where things got a bit more questionable, moreso insofar as he just didn't do much. Weak moves and an O-K draft. Kendall Marshall as the veteran presence. As bad as the Sixers were to become, I think it was a tough pill to swallow for them to become such a laughing stock and they bottomed out earlier this season. Which clearly, ownership took to heart.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
Dutchy posted:Stepping away from the letter for a sec: From 1999 to 2008, the star level players who weren't top 5 picks are: 1999: Marion (9th), Ginobili (59th) 2000: No one 2001: Parker (28th) 2002: Stoudemire (9th) 2003: No one 2004: No one 2005: No one 2006: No one 2007: Noah (9th), M. Gasol (48th) 2008: Jordan (35th) Parker is probably the best player here. That's a 10 year span where I don't think you'd be able to build a real contender even if you drafted perfectly, even ignoring that Marion, Amare and Joakim were still fairly high picks (as was Curry).
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
The comparison was brought up before, but Morey basically kept churning through players but always fielded a decent team that made some playoffs runs. He didn't just bottom feed hoping the draft would get him what he needed and he was (and is) able to create assets almost out of thin air sometimes via the D-League or second rounders.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I think a good point brought up is the chance to get a superstar by tanking that much greater than the chance to get one through being mediocre that it is worth being one of the bottom three teams for that marginal increase. I think it may be a good strategy for one year when there's actually a superstar at the top. Going all in to get a Lebron, or AD, or someone of that caliber is a decent strategy. The problem is when you tank repeatedly you're gambling not only on getting a top pick, but that the top player will be worth tanking for. Now, people aren't always gonna be correct in assessing the top player (like I think KAT's looking a lot better than he was probably projected to be), but tanking for a dude like Anthony Bennett is just dumb.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
WhyteRyce posted:The comparison was brought up before, but Morey basically kept churning through players but always fielded a decent team that made some playoffs runs. He didn't just bottom feed hoping the draft would get him what he needed and he was (and is) able to create assets almost out of thin air sometimes via the D-League or second rounders. Even Hinkie (who was there) admitted that only worked based on luck even greater than hitting a #1 pick. I mean who trades James Harden for nothing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
The Sixers still would have been really bad if they had three or four NBA-caliber experienced role players to fill out the rotation beyond the legitimate prospects, too. Plus, if you're into asset accumulation, it seems like a better idea to sign productive players you can spin off a year or two later than it is to hold out for second-round picks teams want to give away. Stat padders could have feasted in Philadelphia
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I mean who trades James Harden for nothing. Ask me this after Cousins gets shipped out 
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
WhyteRyce posted:Ask me this after Cousins gets shipped out And two months later they will still fire Karl, just because.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
WhyteRyce posted:Ask me this after Cousins gets shipped out Cousins is headed into his big deal. Harden was coming off his rookie deal! It's amazing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 13:31 |
|
|
I still believe Nerlens Noel could be loving awesome on the right team, or with the right teammates. There was a stretch when I watched 76ers replays just to see him do athletic stuff.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 17:38
|
|