All Things Philadelphia 76ers (merged Sixers threads)

[LarBrd33]

Again, what is he good at?

Drafting? (probably not)
Trading? (seems decent)
Establishing relationships? (definitely not)

Recognizing that super-tanking could be a lucrative strategy for a team with no assets is not hard.  The only thing that distinguishes Hinkie from other GMs (other than his savant-ish ticks) is that he had the guts to actually try.  He was fired for his troubles.

Who caresabout establishing relationships? Everybody like Billy King... How'd that go?

Hinkie literally has never lost a trade. He's pretty much either won outright, or it has been mutually beneficial. He's a phenomenal trader, and probably an average drafter.

What trades has Hinkie won outright?

The only thing I notice is the MCW trade.

The only other major trade I see is the Jrue Holiday/Nerlens Noel trade, as of now I'd say it's a wash considering the number of games both Noel and Holiday have played (though what happens to Noel in the future could tip the scales one way or the other).  The other part of that trade was getting Elfrid Payton (who they traded for Saric).  The jury's really still out here (and will be for a couple of more years as Noel, Payton, Saric establish themselves).  To me that's hard to call it anything but a wash, at the most it's a slight win.

Everything seems barely significant to me.  Unless you value acquiring 2nd round picks, he pretty much just traded scraps for scraps, or expiring contracts for scraps. 

Though he did acquire a couple of late firsts and a pick swap (which is unlikely to materialize) in salary dumps, not bad.  Those are definitely good moves for a GM without much else to work with.

But still, it looks to me like he won one trade outright.

To be fair, I don't think he was around long enough or had enough assets to really establish himself one way or the other.  Had he had maybe another year or two to let him try to fill the roster around Embiid/Simmons and flip the other pieces, it would have been interesting to see what he could have done.

I find it really hard to call Hinkie a phenomenal trader though with what he actually did.

He got an unprotected pick and two pick swaps from Sacramento for nothing. And Nik Stauskas, who isn't very good but as the 8th pick was worth a free look at.

He got two top 10 picks (6 in 2013, 10 in 2014) for Jrue Holiday.

He got a Sixers 1st round pick back from ORL and the 12th pick in 2014 for the Elfrid Payton pick.

He owns every NY Knicks 2nd rounder until like 2020 for a 3rd string draft and stash center.

He got a 1st round pick to waive JaVale McGee and eat the cap hit...

He got  a probable top 10 pick for Michael Carter Williams.

And in terms of signings he's got a starting caliber wing in Covington on a minimum contract, and a young backup quality PG on a minimum contract that both went for 4 years. 2 years left on Covington's deal, 3 on McConnell's.

He made bad moves (OKAFOR!!!!) along the way, but the positives vastly outweigh the negatives.

I don't think any team would have taken Porzingis over Okafor.  Knicks would have gladly taken Okafor over Porzingis.  The alternative to taking Okafor would have been Mudiay... who hasn't really done much either.  Kid is shooting 37% from the field and 30% from three.   They could have taken Hezonja - who has done jack squat so far.  Next pick was Willie Cauley-Stein - taking him would have made no sense at all.   Should they have reached for Stanley Johnson at #3?   He's doing absolutely nothing this year.  Next pick was Kaminski... c'mon. 

You can judge Hinkie for not having a crystal ball and taking Porzingis despite the fact everyone would have taken Okafor over him and that wouldn't exactly solve their center logjam problem...  but it's like the people who cry about us taking Olynyk over Giannis.  It happens. 

I think the only reasonable alternative to taking Okafor would have been them taking Mudiay at that pick.   

The logic in taking Okafor was sound.  He was one of the two biggest names of the draft and you KNEW he was going to produce right out of the gate.  That made him asset.  It's uncertain what kind of asset he is at this point, but he was definitely an asset.

I will say that if the rumors are true, they turned down a package built around the 2016 Brooklyn 1st for Okafor during the trade deadline.  You can maybe get on their case for not accepting that.  That was a bold decision considering at the time that pick could have theoretically ended up being Ben Simmons, but it fell to #3 so it's a moot point.  Okafor is still probably a better prospect than Jaylen Brown or any of the other mediocre prospects that were available in the 3-8 range.  So whatever.

Don't agree. Sophisticated judges of talent understood Porzingis was likely to become a really special player. Remember that stretch bigs were already becoming hot and low post guys less attractive. Danny was keen on Porzingis the year before, until he dropped out of the draft. Hinkie, like some guys on this blog, are really good at numbers, stats. But they just don't have a good eye for talent. We all have our limitations. I give him credit for a common sense system to hoard high draft picks. Too bad he didn't have enough sense to maximize the great opportunity they provided him.

You retroactively disagree with everyone... which is fine, because you're looking at it in hindsight.  Nobody was taking Porzingis over Okafor during that draft.  And Okafor actually had a pretty solid statistical rookie season.  He's still someone that might end up becoming a star long-term. 

[celticsclay]

Again, what is he good at?

Drafting? (probably not)
Trading? (seems decent)
Establishing relationships? (definitely not)

Recognizing that super-tanking could be a lucrative strategy for a team with no assets is not hard.  The only thing that distinguishes Hinkie from other GMs (other than his savant-ish ticks) is that he had the guts to actually try.  He was fired for his troubles.

Who caresabout establishing relationships? Everybody like Billy King... How'd that go?

Hinkie literally has never lost a trade. He's pretty much either won outright, or it has been mutually beneficial. He's a phenomenal trader, and probably an average drafter.

What trades has Hinkie won outright?

The only thing I notice is the MCW trade.

The only other major trade I see is the Jrue Holiday/Nerlens Noel trade, as of now I'd say it's a wash considering the number of games both Noel and Holiday have played (though what happens to Noel in the future could tip the scales one way or the other).  The other part of that trade was getting Elfrid Payton (who they traded for Saric).  The jury's really still out here (and will be for a couple of more years as Noel, Payton, Saric establish themselves).  To me that's hard to call it anything but a wash, at the most it's a slight win.

Everything seems barely significant to me.  Unless you value acquiring 2nd round picks, he pretty much just traded scraps for scraps, or expiring contracts for scraps. 

Though he did acquire a couple of late firsts and a pick swap (which is unlikely to materialize) in salary dumps, not bad.  Those are definitely good moves for a GM without much else to work with.

But still, it looks to me like he won one trade outright.

To be fair, I don't think he was around long enough or had enough assets to really establish himself one way or the other.  Had he had maybe another year or two to let him try to fill the roster around Embiid/Simmons and flip the other pieces, it would have been interesting to see what he could have done.

I find it really hard to call Hinkie a phenomenal trader though with what he actually did.

He got an unprotected pick and two pick swaps from Sacramento for nothing. And Nik Stauskas, who isn't very good but as the 8th pick was worth a free look at.

He got two top 10 picks (6 in 2013, 10 in 2014) for Jrue Holiday.

He got a Sixers 1st round pick back from ORL and the 12th pick in 2014 for the Elfrid Payton pick.

He owns every NY Knicks 2nd rounder until like 2020 for a 3rd string draft and stash center.

He got a 1st round pick to waive JaVale McGee and eat the cap hit...

He got  a probable top 10 pick for Michael Carter Williams.

And in terms of signings he's got a starting caliber wing in Covington on a minimum contract, and a young backup quality PG on a minimum contract that both went for 4 years. 2 years left on Covington's deal, 3 on McConnell's.

He made bad moves (OKAFOR!!!!) along the way, but the positives vastly outweigh the negatives.

I don't think any team would have taken Porzingis over Okafor.  Knicks would have gladly taken Okafor over Porzingis.  The alternative to taking Okafor would have been Mudiay... who hasn't really done much either.  Kid is shooting 37% from the field and 30% from three.   They could have taken Hezonja - who has done jack squat so far.  Next pick was Willie Cauley-Stein - taking him would have made no sense at all.   Should they have reached for Stanley Johnson at #3?   He's doing absolutely nothing this year.  Next pick was Kaminski... c'mon. 

You can judge Hinkie for not having a crystal ball and taking Porzingis despite the fact everyone would have taken Okafor over him and that wouldn't exactly solve their center logjam problem...  but it's like the people who cry about us taking Olynyk over Giannis.  It happens. 

I think the only reasonable alternative to taking Okafor would have been them taking Mudiay at that pick.   

The logic in taking Okafor was sound.  He was one of the two biggest names of the draft and you KNEW he was going to produce right out of the gate.  That made him asset.  It's uncertain what kind of asset he is at this point, but he was definitely an asset.

I will say that if the rumors are true, they turned down a package built around the 2016 Brooklyn 1st for Okafor during the trade deadline.  You can maybe get on their case for not accepting that.  That was a bold decision considering at the time that pick could have theoretically ended up being Ben Simmons, but it fell to #3 so it's a moot point.  Okafor is still probably a better prospect than Jaylen Brown or any of the other mediocre prospects that were available in the 3-8 range.  So whatever.

Don't agree. Sophisticated judges of talent understood Porzingis was likely to become a really special player. Remember that stretch bigs were already becoming hot and low post guys less attractive. Danny was keen on Porzingis the year before, until he dropped out of the draft. Hinkie, like some guys on this blog, are really good at numbers, stats. But they just don't have a good eye for talent. We all have our limitations. I give him credit for a common sense system to hoard high draft picks. Too bad he didn't have enough sense to maximize the great opportunity they provided him.

You retroactively disagree with everyone... which is fine, because you're looking at it in hindsight.  Nobody was taking Porzingis over Okafor during that draft.  And Okafor actually had a pretty solid statistical rookie season.  He's still someone that might end up becoming a star long-term.

you come off like you don't understand basketball every time you say this.

[footey]

Again, what is he good at?

Drafting? (probably not)
Trading? (seems decent)
Establishing relationships? (definitely not)

Recognizing that super-tanking could be a lucrative strategy for a team with no assets is not hard.  The only thing that distinguishes Hinkie from other GMs (other than his savant-ish ticks) is that he had the guts to actually try.  He was fired for his troubles.

Who caresabout establishing relationships? Everybody like Billy King... How'd that go?

Hinkie literally has never lost a trade. He's pretty much either won outright, or it has been mutually beneficial. He's a phenomenal trader, and probably an average drafter.

What trades has Hinkie won outright?

The only thing I notice is the MCW trade.

The only other major trade I see is the Jrue Holiday/Nerlens Noel trade, as of now I'd say it's a wash considering the number of games both Noel and Holiday have played (though what happens to Noel in the future could tip the scales one way or the other).  The other part of that trade was getting Elfrid Payton (who they traded for Saric).  The jury's really still out here (and will be for a couple of more years as Noel, Payton, Saric establish themselves).  To me that's hard to call it anything but a wash, at the most it's a slight win.

Everything seems barely significant to me.  Unless you value acquiring 2nd round picks, he pretty much just traded scraps for scraps, or expiring contracts for scraps. 

Though he did acquire a couple of late firsts and a pick swap (which is unlikely to materialize) in salary dumps, not bad.  Those are definitely good moves for a GM without much else to work with.

But still, it looks to me like he won one trade outright.

To be fair, I don't think he was around long enough or had enough assets to really establish himself one way or the other.  Had he had maybe another year or two to let him try to fill the roster around Embiid/Simmons and flip the other pieces, it would have been interesting to see what he could have done.

I find it really hard to call Hinkie a phenomenal trader though with what he actually did.

He got an unprotected pick and two pick swaps from Sacramento for nothing. And Nik Stauskas, who isn't very good but as the 8th pick was worth a free look at.

He got two top 10 picks (6 in 2013, 10 in 2014) for Jrue Holiday.

He got a Sixers 1st round pick back from ORL and the 12th pick in 2014 for the Elfrid Payton pick.

He owns every NY Knicks 2nd rounder until like 2020 for a 3rd string draft and stash center.

He got a 1st round pick to waive JaVale McGee and eat the cap hit...

He got  a probable top 10 pick for Michael Carter Williams.

And in terms of signings he's got a starting caliber wing in Covington on a minimum contract, and a young backup quality PG on a minimum contract that both went for 4 years. 2 years left on Covington's deal, 3 on McConnell's.

He made bad moves (OKAFOR!!!!) along the way, but the positives vastly outweigh the negatives.

I don't think any team would have taken Porzingis over Okafor.  Knicks would have gladly taken Okafor over Porzingis.  The alternative to taking Okafor would have been Mudiay... who hasn't really done much either.  Kid is shooting 37% from the field and 30% from three.   They could have taken Hezonja - who has done jack squat so far.  Next pick was Willie Cauley-Stein - taking him would have made no sense at all.   Should they have reached for Stanley Johnson at #3?   He's doing absolutely nothing this year.  Next pick was Kaminski... c'mon. 

You can judge Hinkie for not having a crystal ball and taking Porzingis despite the fact everyone would have taken Okafor over him and that wouldn't exactly solve their center logjam problem...  but it's like the people who cry about us taking Olynyk over Giannis.  It happens. 

I think the only reasonable alternative to taking Okafor would have been them taking Mudiay at that pick.   

The logic in taking Okafor was sound.  He was one of the two biggest names of the draft and you KNEW he was going to produce right out of the gate.  That made him asset.  It's uncertain what kind of asset he is at this point, but he was definitely an asset.

I will say that if the rumors are true, they turned down a package built around the 2016 Brooklyn 1st for Okafor during the trade deadline.  You can maybe get on their case for not accepting that.  That was a bold decision considering at the time that pick could have theoretically ended up being Ben Simmons, but it fell to #3 so it's a moot point.  Okafor is still probably a better prospect than Jaylen Brown or any of the other mediocre prospects that were available in the 3-8 range.  So whatever.

Don't agree. Sophisticated judges of talent understood Porzingis was likely to become a really special player. Remember that stretch bigs were already becoming hot and low post guys less attractive. Danny was keen on Porzingis the year before, until he dropped out of the draft. Hinkie, like some guys on this blog, are really good at numbers, stats. But they just don't have a good eye for talent. We all have our limitations. I give him credit for a common sense system to hoard high draft picks. Too bad he didn't have enough sense to maximize the great opportunity they provided him.

You retroactively disagree with everyone... which is fine, because you're looking at it in hindsight.  Nobody was taking Porzingis over Okafor during that draft.  And Okafor actually had a pretty solid statistical rookie season.  He's still someone that might end up becoming a star long-term.

you come off like you don't understand basketball every time you say this.

He doesn't, CC. That's why we love him.

[tazzmaniac]

Again, what is he good at?

Drafting? (probably not)
Trading? (seems decent)
Establishing relationships? (definitely not)

Recognizing that super-tanking could be a lucrative strategy for a team with no assets is not hard.  The only thing that distinguishes Hinkie from other GMs (other than his savant-ish ticks) is that he had the guts to actually try.  He was fired for his troubles.

Who caresabout establishing relationships? Everybody like Billy King... How'd that go?

Hinkie literally has never lost a trade. He's pretty much either won outright, or it has been mutually beneficial. He's a phenomenal trader, and probably an average drafter.

What trades has Hinkie won outright?

The only thing I notice is the MCW trade.

The only other major trade I see is the Jrue Holiday/Nerlens Noel trade, as of now I'd say it's a wash considering the number of games both Noel and Holiday have played (though what happens to Noel in the future could tip the scales one way or the other).  The other part of that trade was getting Elfrid Payton (who they traded for Saric).  The jury's really still out here (and will be for a couple of more years as Noel, Payton, Saric establish themselves).  To me that's hard to call it anything but a wash, at the most it's a slight win.

Everything seems barely significant to me.  Unless you value acquiring 2nd round picks, he pretty much just traded scraps for scraps, or expiring contracts for scraps. 

Though he did acquire a couple of late firsts and a pick swap (which is unlikely to materialize) in salary dumps, not bad.  Those are definitely good moves for a GM without much else to work with.

But still, it looks to me like he won one trade outright.

To be fair, I don't think he was around long enough or had enough assets to really establish himself one way or the other.  Had he had maybe another year or two to let him try to fill the roster around Embiid/Simmons and flip the other pieces, it would have been interesting to see what he could have done.

I find it really hard to call Hinkie a phenomenal trader though with what he actually did.

He got an unprotected pick and two pick swaps from Sacramento for nothing. And Nik Stauskas, who isn't very good but as the 8th pick was worth a free look at.

He got two top 10 picks (6 in 2013, 10 in 2014) for Jrue Holiday.

He got a Sixers 1st round pick back from ORL and the 12th pick in 2014 for the Elfrid Payton pick.

He owns every NY Knicks 2nd rounder until like 2020 for a 3rd string draft and stash center.

He got a 1st round pick to waive JaVale McGee and eat the cap hit...

He got  a probable top 10 pick for Michael Carter Williams.

And in terms of signings he's got a starting caliber wing in Covington on a minimum contract, and a young backup quality PG on a minimum contract that both went for 4 years. 2 years left on Covington's deal, 3 on McConnell's.

He made bad moves (OKAFOR!!!!) along the way, but the positives vastly outweigh the negatives.

I don't think any team would have taken Porzingis over Okafor.  Knicks would have gladly taken Okafor over Porzingis.  The alternative to taking Okafor would have been Mudiay... who hasn't really done much either.  Kid is shooting 37% from the field and 30% from three.   They could have taken Hezonja - who has done jack squat so far.  Next pick was Willie Cauley-Stein - taking him would have made no sense at all.   Should they have reached for Stanley Johnson at #3?   He's doing absolutely nothing this year.  Next pick was Kaminski... c'mon. 

You can judge Hinkie for not having a crystal ball and taking Porzingis despite the fact everyone would have taken Okafor over him and that wouldn't exactly solve their center logjam problem...  but it's like the people who cry about us taking Olynyk over Giannis.  It happens. 

I think the only reasonable alternative to taking Okafor would have been them taking Mudiay at that pick.   

The logic in taking Okafor was sound.  He was one of the two biggest names of the draft and you KNEW he was going to produce right out of the gate.  That made him asset.  It's uncertain what kind of asset he is at this point, but he was definitely an asset.

I will say that if the rumors are true, they turned down a package built around the 2016 Brooklyn 1st for Okafor during the trade deadline.  You can maybe get on their case for not accepting that.  That was a bold decision considering at the time that pick could have theoretically ended up being Ben Simmons, but it fell to #3 so it's a moot point.  Okafor is still probably a better prospect than Jaylen Brown or any of the other mediocre prospects that were available in the 3-8 range.  So whatever.

Don't agree. Sophisticated judges of talent understood Porzingis was likely to become a really special player. Remember that stretch bigs were already becoming hot and low post guys less attractive. Danny was keen on Porzingis the year before, until he dropped out of the draft. Hinkie, like some guys on this blog, are really good at numbers, stats. But they just don't have a good eye for talent. We all have our limitations. I give him credit for a common sense system to hoard high draft picks. Too bad he didn't have enough sense to maximize the great opportunity they provided him.

You retroactively disagree with everyone... which is fine, because you're looking at it in hindsight.  Nobody was taking Porzingis over Okafor during that draft.  And Okafor actually had a pretty solid statistical rookie season.  He's still someone that might end up becoming a star long-term.

you come off like you don't understand basketball every time you say this.

LB has to be over the top.  I think it is safe to say most GMs wouldn't have taken Porzingis over Okafor. 

The situation was: 
1)  Embiid had suffered his re-injury and was going to miss his next season.   His 1st year of recovery hadn't gone smoothly.
2)  The Sixers really wanted Russell but the Lakers got the 2nd pick and somewhat surprisingly decided to take Russell.   
3)  Porzingis really wanted to get selected by New York so he wouldn't do a workout for the Sixers.
4)  Porzingis was perceived as a raw prospect with very high upside.  I remember hearing he could be the best player from the draft in 5 years. 
5)  Okafor was perceived as NBA ready with some star potential.  Probably not the upside of Porzingis but a safe pick. 

With the huge uncertainty of Embiid's health, Hinkie chose to go with the safe pick over the prospect that might take several years to develop.  Not an unreasonable decision considering they were entering the 3rd year of The Process. 

Setting aside Porzingis, the rest of the top 10 was Hezonja, WCS, Mudiay, Johnson, Kaminsky and Winslow.  None of them have done much so far.  So while Okafor hasn't been a great success, he's the 4th best from the top 10 so far. 

[LarBrd33]

Again, what is he good at?

Drafting? (probably not)
Trading? (seems decent)
Establishing relationships? (definitely not)

Recognizing that super-tanking could be a lucrative strategy for a team with no assets is not hard.  The only thing that distinguishes Hinkie from other GMs (other than his savant-ish ticks) is that he had the guts to actually try.  He was fired for his troubles.

Who caresabout establishing relationships? Everybody like Billy King... How'd that go?

Hinkie literally has never lost a trade. He's pretty much either won outright, or it has been mutually beneficial. He's a phenomenal trader, and probably an average drafter.

What trades has Hinkie won outright?

The only thing I notice is the MCW trade.

The only other major trade I see is the Jrue Holiday/Nerlens Noel trade, as of now I'd say it's a wash considering the number of games both Noel and Holiday have played (though what happens to Noel in the future could tip the scales one way or the other).  The other part of that trade was getting Elfrid Payton (who they traded for Saric).  The jury's really still out here (and will be for a couple of more years as Noel, Payton, Saric establish themselves).  To me that's hard to call it anything but a wash, at the most it's a slight win.

Everything seems barely significant to me.  Unless you value acquiring 2nd round picks, he pretty much just traded scraps for scraps, or expiring contracts for scraps. 

Though he did acquire a couple of late firsts and a pick swap (which is unlikely to materialize) in salary dumps, not bad.  Those are definitely good moves for a GM without much else to work with.

But still, it looks to me like he won one trade outright.

To be fair, I don't think he was around long enough or had enough assets to really establish himself one way or the other.  Had he had maybe another year or two to let him try to fill the roster around Embiid/Simmons and flip the other pieces, it would have been interesting to see what he could have done.

I find it really hard to call Hinkie a phenomenal trader though with what he actually did.

He got an unprotected pick and two pick swaps from Sacramento for nothing. And Nik Stauskas, who isn't very good but as the 8th pick was worth a free look at.

He got two top 10 picks (6 in 2013, 10 in 2014) for Jrue Holiday.

He got a Sixers 1st round pick back from ORL and the 12th pick in 2014 for the Elfrid Payton pick.

He owns every NY Knicks 2nd rounder until like 2020 for a 3rd string draft and stash center.

He got a 1st round pick to waive JaVale McGee and eat the cap hit...

He got  a probable top 10 pick for Michael Carter Williams.

And in terms of signings he's got a starting caliber wing in Covington on a minimum contract, and a young backup quality PG on a minimum contract that both went for 4 years. 2 years left on Covington's deal, 3 on McConnell's.

He made bad moves (OKAFOR!!!!) along the way, but the positives vastly outweigh the negatives.

I don't think any team would have taken Porzingis over Okafor.  Knicks would have gladly taken Okafor over Porzingis.  The alternative to taking Okafor would have been Mudiay... who hasn't really done much either.  Kid is shooting 37% from the field and 30% from three.   They could have taken Hezonja - who has done jack squat so far.  Next pick was Willie Cauley-Stein - taking him would have made no sense at all.   Should they have reached for Stanley Johnson at #3?   He's doing absolutely nothing this year.  Next pick was Kaminski... c'mon. 

You can judge Hinkie for not having a crystal ball and taking Porzingis despite the fact everyone would have taken Okafor over him and that wouldn't exactly solve their center logjam problem...  but it's like the people who cry about us taking Olynyk over Giannis.  It happens. 

I think the only reasonable alternative to taking Okafor would have been them taking Mudiay at that pick.   

The logic in taking Okafor was sound.  He was one of the two biggest names of the draft and you KNEW he was going to produce right out of the gate.  That made him asset.  It's uncertain what kind of asset he is at this point, but he was definitely an asset.

I will say that if the rumors are true, they turned down a package built around the 2016 Brooklyn 1st for Okafor during the trade deadline.  You can maybe get on their case for not accepting that.  That was a bold decision considering at the time that pick could have theoretically ended up being Ben Simmons, but it fell to #3 so it's a moot point.  Okafor is still probably a better prospect than Jaylen Brown or any of the other mediocre prospects that were available in the 3-8 range.  So whatever.

Don't agree. Sophisticated judges of talent understood Porzingis was likely to become a really special player. Remember that stretch bigs were already becoming hot and low post guys less attractive. Danny was keen on Porzingis the year before, until he dropped out of the draft. Hinkie, like some guys on this blog, are really good at numbers, stats. But they just don't have a good eye for talent. We all have our limitations. I give him credit for a common sense system to hoard high draft picks. Too bad he didn't have enough sense to maximize the great opportunity they provided him.

You retroactively disagree with everyone... which is fine, because you're looking at it in hindsight.  Nobody was taking Porzingis over Okafor during that draft.  And Okafor actually had a pretty solid statistical rookie season.  He's still someone that might end up becoming a star long-term.

you come off like you don't understand basketball every time you say this.

LB has to be over the top.  I think it is safe to say most GMs wouldn't have taken Porzingis over Okafor. 

The situation was: 
1)  Embiid had suffered his re-injury and was going to miss his next season.   His 1st year of recovery hadn't gone smoothly.
2)  The Sixers really wanted Russell but the Lakers got the 2nd pick and somewhat surprisingly decided to take Russell.   
3)  Porzingis really wanted to get selected by New York so he wouldn't do a workout for the Sixers.
4)  Porzingis was perceived as a raw prospect with very high upside.  I remember hearing he could be the best player from the draft in 5 years. 
5)  Okafor was perceived as NBA ready with some star potential.  Probably not the upside of Porzingis but a safe pick. 

With the huge uncertainty of Embiid's health, Hinkie chose to go with the safe pick over the prospect that might take several years to develop.  Not an unreasonable decision considering they were entering the 3rd year of The Process. 

Setting aside Porzingis, the rest of the top 10 was Hezonja, WCS, Mudiay, Johnson, Kaminsky and Winslow.  None of them have done much so far.  So while Okafor hasn't been a great success, he's the 4th best from the top 10 so far.

Leading up to the draft Minnesota was still debating between towns and okafor.  Don't misunderstand what I'm saying.  Obviously nobody would take Olynyk over Giannis in retrospect. Obviously nobody would take okafor over porzingis in retrospect.  But on draft night anyone picking 3rd that night had okafor there.  In fact a lot of people flipped the Lakers didn't take him 2nd.  A lot of analysis suggested the Lakers wanted okafor and were trying to take advantage of Philly by making them trade up for the guard they wanted. 

[LarBrd33]

Again, what is he good at?

Drafting? (probably not)
Trading? (seems decent)
Establishing relationships? (definitely not)

Recognizing that super-tanking could be a lucrative strategy for a team with no assets is not hard.  The only thing that distinguishes Hinkie from other GMs (other than his savant-ish ticks) is that he had the guts to actually try.  He was fired for his troubles.

Who caresabout establishing relationships? Everybody like Billy King... How'd that go?

Hinkie literally has never lost a trade. He's pretty much either won outright, or it has been mutually beneficial. He's a phenomenal trader, and probably an average drafter.

What trades has Hinkie won outright?

The only thing I notice is the MCW trade.

The only other major trade I see is the Jrue Holiday/Nerlens Noel trade, as of now I'd say it's a wash considering the number of games both Noel and Holiday have played (though what happens to Noel in the future could tip the scales one way or the other).  The other part of that trade was getting Elfrid Payton (who they traded for Saric).  The jury's really still out here (and will be for a couple of more years as Noel, Payton, Saric establish themselves).  To me that's hard to call it anything but a wash, at the most it's a slight win.

Everything seems barely significant to me.  Unless you value acquiring 2nd round picks, he pretty much just traded scraps for scraps, or expiring contracts for scraps. 

Though he did acquire a couple of late firsts and a pick swap (which is unlikely to materialize) in salary dumps, not bad.  Those are definitely good moves for a GM without much else to work with.

But still, it looks to me like he won one trade outright.

To be fair, I don't think he was around long enough or had enough assets to really establish himself one way or the other.  Had he had maybe another year or two to let him try to fill the roster around Embiid/Simmons and flip the other pieces, it would have been interesting to see what he could have done.

I find it really hard to call Hinkie a phenomenal trader though with what he actually did.

He got an unprotected pick and two pick swaps from Sacramento for nothing. And Nik Stauskas, who isn't very good but as the 8th pick was worth a free look at.

He got two top 10 picks (6 in 2013, 10 in 2014) for Jrue Holiday.

He got a Sixers 1st round pick back from ORL and the 12th pick in 2014 for the Elfrid Payton pick.

He owns every NY Knicks 2nd rounder until like 2020 for a 3rd string draft and stash center.

He got a 1st round pick to waive JaVale McGee and eat the cap hit...

He got  a probable top 10 pick for Michael Carter Williams.

And in terms of signings he's got a starting caliber wing in Covington on a minimum contract, and a young backup quality PG on a minimum contract that both went for 4 years. 2 years left on Covington's deal, 3 on McConnell's.

He made bad moves (OKAFOR!!!!) along the way, but the positives vastly outweigh the negatives.

I don't think any team would have taken Porzingis over Okafor.  Knicks would have gladly taken Okafor over Porzingis.  The alternative to taking Okafor would have been Mudiay... who hasn't really done much either.  Kid is shooting 37% from the field and 30% from three.   They could have taken Hezonja - who has done jack squat so far.  Next pick was Willie Cauley-Stein - taking him would have made no sense at all.   Should they have reached for Stanley Johnson at #3?   He's doing absolutely nothing this year.  Next pick was Kaminski... c'mon. 

You can judge Hinkie for not having a crystal ball and taking Porzingis despite the fact everyone would have taken Okafor over him and that wouldn't exactly solve their center logjam problem...  but it's like the people who cry about us taking Olynyk over Giannis.  It happens. 

I think the only reasonable alternative to taking Okafor would have been them taking Mudiay at that pick.   

The logic in taking Okafor was sound.  He was one of the two biggest names of the draft and you KNEW he was going to produce right out of the gate.  That made him asset.  It's uncertain what kind of asset he is at this point, but he was definitely an asset.

I will say that if the rumors are true, they turned down a package built around the 2016 Brooklyn 1st for Okafor during the trade deadline.  You can maybe get on their case for not accepting that.  That was a bold decision considering at the time that pick could have theoretically ended up being Ben Simmons, but it fell to #3 so it's a moot point.  Okafor is still probably a better prospect than Jaylen Brown or any of the other mediocre prospects that were available in the 3-8 range.  So whatever.

Don't agree. Sophisticated judges of talent understood Porzingis was likely to become a really special player. Remember that stretch bigs were already becoming hot and low post guys less attractive. Danny was keen on Porzingis the year before, until he dropped out of the draft. Hinkie, like some guys on this blog, are really good at numbers, stats. But they just don't have a good eye for talent. We all have our limitations. I give him credit for a common sense system to hoard high draft picks. Too bad he didn't have enough sense to maximize the great opportunity they provided him.

You retroactively disagree with everyone... which is fine, because you're looking at it in hindsight.  Nobody was taking Porzingis over Okafor during that draft.  And Okafor actually had a pretty solid statistical rookie season.  He's still someone that might end up becoming a star long-term.

you come off like you don't understand basketball every time you say this.

He doesn't, CC. That's why we love him.

I constantly wake up with night sweats at the thought of Philly having already leapfrogged us.  Up until our narrow victory tonight, Philly had an identical record to us this year... all without Ben Simmons having suited up.  I'm on edge right now. We're barely keeping that lit franchise at bay.

[Ilikesports17]

Okafor was a no-brainer at  3. Many expected him to go second. To say anything else is revisionist history.

[celticsclay]

Okafor was a no-brainer at  3. Many expected him to go second. To say anything else is revisionist history.

There are busts all the time. It happens

[tazzmaniac]

Again, what is he good at?

Drafting? (probably not)
Trading? (seems decent)
Establishing relationships? (definitely not)

Recognizing that super-tanking could be a lucrative strategy for a team with no assets is not hard.  The only thing that distinguishes Hinkie from other GMs (other than his savant-ish ticks) is that he had the guts to actually try.  He was fired for his troubles.

Who caresabout establishing relationships? Everybody like Billy King... How'd that go?

Hinkie literally has never lost a trade. He's pretty much either won outright, or it has been mutually beneficial. He's a phenomenal trader, and probably an average drafter.

What trades has Hinkie won outright?

The only thing I notice is the MCW trade.

The only other major trade I see is the Jrue Holiday/Nerlens Noel trade, as of now I'd say it's a wash considering the number of games both Noel and Holiday have played (though what happens to Noel in the future could tip the scales one way or the other).  The other part of that trade was getting Elfrid Payton (who they traded for Saric).  The jury's really still out here (and will be for a couple of more years as Noel, Payton, Saric establish themselves).  To me that's hard to call it anything but a wash, at the most it's a slight win.

Everything seems barely significant to me.  Unless you value acquiring 2nd round picks, he pretty much just traded scraps for scraps, or expiring contracts for scraps. 

Though he did acquire a couple of late firsts and a pick swap (which is unlikely to materialize) in salary dumps, not bad.  Those are definitely good moves for a GM without much else to work with.

But still, it looks to me like he won one trade outright.

To be fair, I don't think he was around long enough or had enough assets to really establish himself one way or the other.  Had he had maybe another year or two to let him try to fill the roster around Embiid/Simmons and flip the other pieces, it would have been interesting to see what he could have done.

I find it really hard to call Hinkie a phenomenal trader though with what he actually did.

He got an unprotected pick and two pick swaps from Sacramento for nothing. And Nik Stauskas, who isn't very good but as the 8th pick was worth a free look at.

He got two top 10 picks (6 in 2013, 10 in 2014) for Jrue Holiday.

He got a Sixers 1st round pick back from ORL and the 12th pick in 2014 for the Elfrid Payton pick.

He owns every NY Knicks 2nd rounder until like 2020 for a 3rd string draft and stash center.

He got a 1st round pick to waive JaVale McGee and eat the cap hit...

He got  a probable top 10 pick for Michael Carter Williams.

And in terms of signings he's got a starting caliber wing in Covington on a minimum contract, and a young backup quality PG on a minimum contract that both went for 4 years. 2 years left on Covington's deal, 3 on McConnell's.

He made bad moves (OKAFOR!!!!) along the way, but the positives vastly outweigh the negatives.

I don't think any team would have taken Porzingis over Okafor.  Knicks would have gladly taken Okafor over Porzingis.  The alternative to taking Okafor would have been Mudiay... who hasn't really done much either.  Kid is shooting 37% from the field and 30% from three.   They could have taken Hezonja - who has done jack squat so far.  Next pick was Willie Cauley-Stein - taking him would have made no sense at all.   Should they have reached for Stanley Johnson at #3?   He's doing absolutely nothing this year.  Next pick was Kaminski... c'mon. 

You can judge Hinkie for not having a crystal ball and taking Porzingis despite the fact everyone would have taken Okafor over him and that wouldn't exactly solve their center logjam problem...  but it's like the people who cry about us taking Olynyk over Giannis.  It happens. 

I think the only reasonable alternative to taking Okafor would have been them taking Mudiay at that pick.   

The logic in taking Okafor was sound.  He was one of the two biggest names of the draft and you KNEW he was going to produce right out of the gate.  That made him asset.  It's uncertain what kind of asset he is at this point, but he was definitely an asset.

I will say that if the rumors are true, they turned down a package built around the 2016 Brooklyn 1st for Okafor during the trade deadline.  You can maybe get on their case for not accepting that.  That was a bold decision considering at the time that pick could have theoretically ended up being Ben Simmons, but it fell to #3 so it's a moot point.  Okafor is still probably a better prospect than Jaylen Brown or any of the other mediocre prospects that were available in the 3-8 range.  So whatever.

Don't agree. Sophisticated judges of talent understood Porzingis was likely to become a really special player. Remember that stretch bigs were already becoming hot and low post guys less attractive. Danny was keen on Porzingis the year before, until he dropped out of the draft. Hinkie, like some guys on this blog, are really good at numbers, stats. But they just don't have a good eye for talent. We all have our limitations. I give him credit for a common sense system to hoard high draft picks. Too bad he didn't have enough sense to maximize the great opportunity they provided him.

You retroactively disagree with everyone... which is fine, because you're looking at it in hindsight.  Nobody was taking Porzingis over Okafor during that draft.  And Okafor actually had a pretty solid statistical rookie season.  He's still someone that might end up becoming a star long-term.

you come off like you don't understand basketball every time you say this.

LB has to be over the top.  I think it is safe to say most GMs wouldn't have taken Porzingis over Okafor. 

The situation was: 
1)  Embiid had suffered his re-injury and was going to miss his next season.   His 1st year of recovery hadn't gone smoothly.
2)  The Sixers really wanted Russell but the Lakers got the 2nd pick and somewhat surprisingly decided to take Russell.   
3)  Porzingis really wanted to get selected by New York so he wouldn't do a workout for the Sixers.
4)  Porzingis was perceived as a raw prospect with very high upside.  I remember hearing he could be the best player from the draft in 5 years. 
5)  Okafor was perceived as NBA ready with some star potential.  Probably not the upside of Porzingis but a safe pick. 

With the huge uncertainty of Embiid's health, Hinkie chose to go with the safe pick over the prospect that might take several years to develop.  Not an unreasonable decision considering they were entering the 3rd year of The Process. 

Setting aside Porzingis, the rest of the top 10 was Hezonja, WCS, Mudiay, Johnson, Kaminsky and Winslow.  None of them have done much so far.  So while Okafor hasn't been a great success, he's the 4th best from the top 10 so far.

Leading up to the draft Minnesota was still debating between towns and okafor.  Don't misunderstand what I'm saying.  Obviously nobody would take Olynyk over Giannis in retrospect. Obviously nobody would take okafor over porzingis in retrospect.  But on draft night anyone picking 3rd that night had okafor there.  In fact a lot of people flipped the Lakers didn't take him 2nd.  A lot of analysis suggested the Lakers wanted okafor and were trying to take advantage of Philly by making them trade up for the guard they wanted.

You don't know what every team's big board was.  To say no team would have picked Porzingis over Okafor is just baseless opinion.  Okafor's flaws (limited athleticism, mediocre rebounder, poor defender) were evident from his play at Duke.   Porzingis was the riskier but higher upside pick. 

So you're saying that the Lakers really wanted Okafor rather than Russell but when they couldn't get the Sixers to trade up they went ahead and took the player they didn't want rather than the player they really wanted.  Why in the heck would they do that?  Spite?  Abject stupidity?  Did they accidently turn in the wrong name when they made their selection?   

[Moranis]

Again, what is he good at?

Drafting? (probably not)
Trading? (seems decent)
Establishing relationships? (definitely not)

Recognizing that super-tanking could be a lucrative strategy for a team with no assets is not hard.  The only thing that distinguishes Hinkie from other GMs (other than his savant-ish ticks) is that he had the guts to actually try.  He was fired for his troubles.

Who caresabout establishing relationships? Everybody like Billy King... How'd that go?

Hinkie literally has never lost a trade. He's pretty much either won outright, or it has been mutually beneficial. He's a phenomenal trader, and probably an average drafter.

What trades has Hinkie won outright?

The only thing I notice is the MCW trade.

The only other major trade I see is the Jrue Holiday/Nerlens Noel trade, as of now I'd say it's a wash considering the number of games both Noel and Holiday have played (though what happens to Noel in the future could tip the scales one way or the other).  The other part of that trade was getting Elfrid Payton (who they traded for Saric).  The jury's really still out here (and will be for a couple of more years as Noel, Payton, Saric establish themselves).  To me that's hard to call it anything but a wash, at the most it's a slight win.

Everything seems barely significant to me.  Unless you value acquiring 2nd round picks, he pretty much just traded scraps for scraps, or expiring contracts for scraps. 

Though he did acquire a couple of late firsts and a pick swap (which is unlikely to materialize) in salary dumps, not bad.  Those are definitely good moves for a GM without much else to work with.

But still, it looks to me like he won one trade outright.

To be fair, I don't think he was around long enough or had enough assets to really establish himself one way or the other.  Had he had maybe another year or two to let him try to fill the roster around Embiid/Simmons and flip the other pieces, it would have been interesting to see what he could have done.

I find it really hard to call Hinkie a phenomenal trader though with what he actually did.

He got an unprotected pick and two pick swaps from Sacramento for nothing. And Nik Stauskas, who isn't very good but as the 8th pick was worth a free look at.

He got two top 10 picks (6 in 2013, 10 in 2014) for Jrue Holiday.

He got a Sixers 1st round pick back from ORL and the 12th pick in 2014 for the Elfrid Payton pick.

He owns every NY Knicks 2nd rounder until like 2020 for a 3rd string draft and stash center.

He got a 1st round pick to waive JaVale McGee and eat the cap hit...

He got  a probable top 10 pick for Michael Carter Williams.

And in terms of signings he's got a starting caliber wing in Covington on a minimum contract, and a young backup quality PG on a minimum contract that both went for 4 years. 2 years left on Covington's deal, 3 on McConnell's.

He made bad moves (OKAFOR!!!!) along the way, but the positives vastly outweigh the negatives.

I don't think any team would have taken Porzingis over Okafor.  Knicks would have gladly taken Okafor over Porzingis.  The alternative to taking Okafor would have been Mudiay... who hasn't really done much either.  Kid is shooting 37% from the field and 30% from three.   They could have taken Hezonja - who has done jack squat so far.  Next pick was Willie Cauley-Stein - taking him would have made no sense at all.   Should they have reached for Stanley Johnson at #3?   He's doing absolutely nothing this year.  Next pick was Kaminski... c'mon. 

You can judge Hinkie for not having a crystal ball and taking Porzingis despite the fact everyone would have taken Okafor over him and that wouldn't exactly solve their center logjam problem...  but it's like the people who cry about us taking Olynyk over Giannis.  It happens. 

I think the only reasonable alternative to taking Okafor would have been them taking Mudiay at that pick.   

The logic in taking Okafor was sound.  He was one of the two biggest names of the draft and you KNEW he was going to produce right out of the gate.  That made him asset.  It's uncertain what kind of asset he is at this point, but he was definitely an asset.

I will say that if the rumors are true, they turned down a package built around the 2016 Brooklyn 1st for Okafor during the trade deadline.  You can maybe get on their case for not accepting that.  That was a bold decision considering at the time that pick could have theoretically ended up being Ben Simmons, but it fell to #3 so it's a moot point.  Okafor is still probably a better prospect than Jaylen Brown or any of the other mediocre prospects that were available in the 3-8 range.  So whatever.

Don't agree. Sophisticated judges of talent understood Porzingis was likely to become a really special player. Remember that stretch bigs were already becoming hot and low post guys less attractive. Danny was keen on Porzingis the year before, until he dropped out of the draft. Hinkie, like some guys on this blog, are really good at numbers, stats. But they just don't have a good eye for talent. We all have our limitations. I give him credit for a common sense system to hoard high draft picks. Too bad he didn't have enough sense to maximize the great opportunity they provided him.

that just isn't true.  No one had Porzingis ahead of Okafor.  In fact, many had Okafor ahead of Russell and the Lakers took a bit of flak initially for taking Russell over Okafor. 

[Moranis]

Again, what is he good at?

Drafting? (probably not)
Trading? (seems decent)
Establishing relationships? (definitely not)

Recognizing that super-tanking could be a lucrative strategy for a team with no assets is not hard.  The only thing that distinguishes Hinkie from other GMs (other than his savant-ish ticks) is that he had the guts to actually try.  He was fired for his troubles.

Who caresabout establishing relationships? Everybody like Billy King... How'd that go?

Hinkie literally has never lost a trade. He's pretty much either won outright, or it has been mutually beneficial. He's a phenomenal trader, and probably an average drafter.

What trades has Hinkie won outright?

The only thing I notice is the MCW trade.

The only other major trade I see is the Jrue Holiday/Nerlens Noel trade, as of now I'd say it's a wash considering the number of games both Noel and Holiday have played (though what happens to Noel in the future could tip the scales one way or the other).  The other part of that trade was getting Elfrid Payton (who they traded for Saric).  The jury's really still out here (and will be for a couple of more years as Noel, Payton, Saric establish themselves).  To me that's hard to call it anything but a wash, at the most it's a slight win.

Everything seems barely significant to me.  Unless you value acquiring 2nd round picks, he pretty much just traded scraps for scraps, or expiring contracts for scraps. 

Though he did acquire a couple of late firsts and a pick swap (which is unlikely to materialize) in salary dumps, not bad.  Those are definitely good moves for a GM without much else to work with.

But still, it looks to me like he won one trade outright.

To be fair, I don't think he was around long enough or had enough assets to really establish himself one way or the other.  Had he had maybe another year or two to let him try to fill the roster around Embiid/Simmons and flip the other pieces, it would have been interesting to see what he could have done.

I find it really hard to call Hinkie a phenomenal trader though with what he actually did.

He got an unprotected pick and two pick swaps from Sacramento for nothing. And Nik Stauskas, who isn't very good but as the 8th pick was worth a free look at.

He got two top 10 picks (6 in 2013, 10 in 2014) for Jrue Holiday.

He got a Sixers 1st round pick back from ORL and the 12th pick in 2014 for the Elfrid Payton pick.

He owns every NY Knicks 2nd rounder until like 2020 for a 3rd string draft and stash center.

He got a 1st round pick to waive JaVale McGee and eat the cap hit...

He got  a probable top 10 pick for Michael Carter Williams.

And in terms of signings he's got a starting caliber wing in Covington on a minimum contract, and a young backup quality PG on a minimum contract that both went for 4 years. 2 years left on Covington's deal, 3 on McConnell's.

He made bad moves (OKAFOR!!!!) along the way, but the positives vastly outweigh the negatives.

I don't think any team would have taken Porzingis over Okafor.  Knicks would have gladly taken Okafor over Porzingis.  The alternative to taking Okafor would have been Mudiay... who hasn't really done much either.  Kid is shooting 37% from the field and 30% from three.   They could have taken Hezonja - who has done jack squat so far.  Next pick was Willie Cauley-Stein - taking him would have made no sense at all.   Should they have reached for Stanley Johnson at #3?   He's doing absolutely nothing this year.  Next pick was Kaminski... c'mon. 

You can judge Hinkie for not having a crystal ball and taking Porzingis despite the fact everyone would have taken Okafor over him and that wouldn't exactly solve their center logjam problem...  but it's like the people who cry about us taking Olynyk over Giannis.  It happens. 

I think the only reasonable alternative to taking Okafor would have been them taking Mudiay at that pick.   

The logic in taking Okafor was sound.  He was one of the two biggest names of the draft and you KNEW he was going to produce right out of the gate.  That made him asset.  It's uncertain what kind of asset he is at this point, but he was definitely an asset.

I will say that if the rumors are true, they turned down a package built around the 2016 Brooklyn 1st for Okafor during the trade deadline.  You can maybe get on their case for not accepting that.  That was a bold decision considering at the time that pick could have theoretically ended up being Ben Simmons, but it fell to #3 so it's a moot point.  Okafor is still probably a better prospect than Jaylen Brown or any of the other mediocre prospects that were available in the 3-8 range.  So whatever.

Don't agree. Sophisticated judges of talent understood Porzingis was likely to become a really special player. Remember that stretch bigs were already becoming hot and low post guys less attractive. Danny was keen on Porzingis the year before, until he dropped out of the draft. Hinkie, like some guys on this blog, are really good at numbers, stats. But they just don't have a good eye for talent. We all have our limitations. I give him credit for a common sense system to hoard high draft picks. Too bad he didn't have enough sense to maximize the great opportunity they provided him.

You retroactively disagree with everyone... which is fine, because you're looking at it in hindsight.  Nobody was taking Porzingis over Okafor during that draft.  And Okafor actually had a pretty solid statistical rookie season.  He's still someone that might end up becoming a star long-term.

you come off like you don't understand basketball every time you say this.

LB has to be over the top.  I think it is safe to say most GMs wouldn't have taken Porzingis over Okafor. 

The situation was: 
1)  Embiid had suffered his re-injury and was going to miss his next season.   His 1st year of recovery hadn't gone smoothly.
2)  The Sixers really wanted Russell but the Lakers got the 2nd pick and somewhat surprisingly decided to take Russell.   
3)  Porzingis really wanted to get selected by New York so he wouldn't do a workout for the Sixers.
4)  Porzingis was perceived as a raw prospect with very high upside.  I remember hearing he could be the best player from the draft in 5 years. 
5)  Okafor was perceived as NBA ready with some star potential.  Probably not the upside of Porzingis but a safe pick. 

With the huge uncertainty of Embiid's health, Hinkie chose to go with the safe pick over the prospect that might take several years to develop.  Not an unreasonable decision considering they were entering the 3rd year of The Process. 

Setting aside Porzingis, the rest of the top 10 was Hezonja, WCS, Mudiay, Johnson, Kaminsky and Winslow.  None of them have done much so far.  So while Okafor hasn't been a great success, he's the 4th best from the top 10 so far.

Leading up to the draft Minnesota was still debating between towns and okafor.  Don't misunderstand what I'm saying.  Obviously nobody would take Olynyk over Giannis in retrospect. Obviously nobody would take okafor over porzingis in retrospect.  But on draft night anyone picking 3rd that night had okafor there.  In fact a lot of people flipped the Lakers didn't take him 2nd.  A lot of analysis suggested the Lakers wanted okafor and were trying to take advantage of Philly by making them trade up for the guard they wanted.

You don't know what every team's big board was.  To say no team would have picked Porzingis over Okafor is just baseless opinion.  Okafor's flaws (limited athleticism, mediocre rebounder, poor defender) were evident from his play at Duke.   Porzingis was the riskier but higher upside pick. 

So you're saying that the Lakers really wanted Okafor rather than Russell but when they couldn't get the Sixers to trade up they went ahead and took the player they didn't want rather than the player they really wanted.  Why in the heck would they do that?  Spite?  Abject stupidity?  Did they accidently turn in the wrong name when they made their selection?   

that isn't what he said at all.

[mctyson]

Hinkie as a strategist I have no problem with. Lose as many games as possible to get high draft picks.

His drafting ability has been pretty spotty though. Embiid was a no brainer and in fact he wanted Wiggins. Okafor over Porzingis was a terrible decision.

Simmons the jury is out on until he plays. Certainly is exciting to watch. Whether he will be a great NBA player remains an open question.

Embiid is not a no-brainer.  The guy clearly has All-NBA talent but he had a serious foot problem that caused him to miss his first 2 seasons!! If he gets hurt again what then?

[saltlover]

that just isn't true.  No one had Porzingis ahead of Okafor.  In fact, many had Okafor ahead of Russell and the Lakers took a bit of flak initially for taking Russell over Okafor.

You have no idea that no one had Porzingis above Okafor.  At the very least, some in the media were suggesting it might be possible, even if it didn't ultimately come to pass:

Marc Stein
Marc Stein – Verified account ‏@ESPNSteinLine

Draft scuttle: Hearing Porzingis not only in play for Philly at No. 3 but now giving Lakers something to ponder at No. 2. Stock rising fast
9:13 AM - 13 Jun 2015

[footey]

Hinkie as a strategist I have no problem with. Lose as many games as possible to get high draft picks.

His drafting ability has been pretty spotty though. Embiid was a no brainer and in fact he wanted Wiggins. Okafor over Porzingis was a terrible decision.

Simmons the jury is out on until he plays. Certainly is exciting to watch. Whether he will be a great NBA player remains an open question.

Embiid is not a no-brainer.  The guy clearly has All-NBA talent but he had a serious foot problem that caused him to miss his first 2 seasons!! If he gets hurt again what then?

He was easily the number 1 pick until his injury surfaced. His showcase to teams was off the charts.  He had actually grown a couple of inches since he was shut down by Kansas.  That was the only reason he dropped to 3. Yes, there was injury risk, but the upside in talent was so big, it made sense to take the gamble. Danny with the 6th pick said he would have taken Embiid had he dropped to him.  We were clamoring on this board to trade up to get him.  The drop off on talent from the top 3 in that draft to 4-6 (Gordon, Exum and Smart) was palpable. 

[Moranis]

that just isn't true.  No one had Porzingis ahead of Okafor.  In fact, many had Okafor ahead of Russell and the Lakers took a bit of flak initially for taking Russell over Okafor.

You have no idea that no one had Porzingis above Okafor.  At the very least, some in the media were suggesting it might be possible, even if it didn't ultimately come to pass:

Marc Stein
Marc Stein – Verified account ‏@ESPNSteinLine

Draft scuttle: Hearing Porzingis not only in play for Philly at No. 3 but now giving Lakers something to ponder at No. 2. Stock rising fast
9:13 AM - 13 Jun 2015

and yet Russell went 2 and Okafor went 3, so that report was much ado about nothing.  In fact those type of reports are often leaked to reporters so that teams can try to generate interest for their pick so they can trade it.  Philly, especially, was considered a seller if Russell was off the board then.