All Things Philadelphia 76ers (merged Sixers threads)

[celticsclay]

Question for Process supporters: At what point will you be willing to say that it hasn't worked?  If they don't make the playoffs next year? In two years?  Or if the Process is about more than just making the playoffs, how far do they need to advance in the playoffs, and in what time frame?  And is it about sustainability?  Do they need to have multiple years of deep playoff runs?

I'm not trying to bait anyone.  From my perspective, it has failed already.  They've gone through a full-cycle of rookie contracts, have already had to jettison their first two lottery picks, and are still a bottom 5 team.  But for those who think it is still working, what is your benchmark?  There has to be something to say it was worth it, right?

The Sixers haven't gone through a full-cycle of rookie contracts.  They didn't tank for MCW and they traded for Noel.  Embiid was their 1st acquisition from tanking a season and he has 1 more year on his rookie contract.  Do rebuilds have a 4 year limit?   Rebuilding around draft picks takes time in the best of circumstances.   

All the process bashers around here were pointing to the TWolves as a good rebuild.  They haven't made the playoffs yet and they're just 4 games ahead of the Sixers this season.  When is the TWolves rebuild going to be a success or failure?

I think a lot of people have come this year to being disappointed in the Twolves question and questioning whether their core will ever be great because of how bad defensively they are. However, that being said they actually could make the playoffs this year. They have been playing really good ball lately (hopefully we don't see that tonight). Have won something like 9 out of 12 and beat the wizards, warriors, clippers, raptors etc. They also still have 3 games left against the Lakers. 3 losses is a lot to make up, but Denver has a crazy stretch to end the season with 10 out of their last 12 on the road. I could definitely see that stretch going poorly for them and opening up the west playoff race.

Another big difference is aside from a freak injury to Levine, the twolves don't have the same injury concerns with their core.

Noel, since traded, was still missing time with his knee this year and is now missing some games ont he mavericks.
Okafor is still experiencing soreness and struggling with conditioning over a year after a surgery with a 6 week recovery time.
Embiid has played 31 games in 3 years and has missed time with his back, knee, leg etc. I would be pleasantly surprised if he starts playing more than 50 games a year or has a long career.
Simmons has obviously not played yet.

That is serious injury concerns for their last 4 high draft picks which is not surprising given 3 of them were drafted injured.

The Sixers have had to deal with all the injuries and yet they are still only 4 games back of the TWolves.   How is LaVine's injury a freak injury and Simmons is not? 

Towns, Wiggins and LaVine are all offensive focused and poor defenders.  Hard to build a winning team with those three as starters.  Not surprising that they are playing better after LaVine's injury.  Maybe the TWolves will back into the playoffs because the 8th spot is so weak but I wouldn't consider that a success. 

As I've said before, Noel and Okafor don't really matter.  Simmons is important but Embiid's health is the key to the Sixers success.  I'd rather have a healthy Embiid than Towns.  I'd rather have Simmons than Wiggins.  I'd rather have Saric than LaVine.  They are a better core with varied skillsets.  Covington has developed into a nice player and fits well with them. 

The Sixers have much better cap space and better picks over the next few years.  Their young talent doesn't have to be paid as soon.  Saric coming over after 2 years in Europe is a big plus.   

Seems like you kind of just read past everything thing I said. So I'll repeat it again. The Wolves have been playing really good ball the last months and seem to be getting it finally. They have been disappointing throughout this year up to that point to a lot of people. Now if they keep this up for the rest of the year and grab that 8th spot I think that is a really nice development step for them. If they don't, then yea, people should definitely be disappointed with the state of their rebuild.

That being said some of your comparisons are pretty ridiculous. Saying you prefer embid over towns if he is healthy is a pretty huge IF. If my aunt had a ____ she would be my uncle right?

Also why would you prefer Simmons over Wiggins at this point? Simmons has a concerning injury that hasn't healed and is bad shooter. Wiggins, while having a long ways to go defensively, has already demonstrated he can average 23 points a game and has shown solid improvement offensively this season. Taking a flyer on an injured guy that hasn't proven anything kind of seems like philly bias.

I'd rather have saric than lavine also for the record. 

[nickagneta]

This gets really simple. If Embiid can get healthy and play, the Process has a chance of succeeding. If he is forever an injury problem, the Process was a huge failure.

[mobilija]

edit: someone beat me to it....

[tazzmaniac]

Question for Process supporters: At what point will you be willing to say that it hasn't worked?  If they don't make the playoffs next year? In two years?  Or if the Process is about more than just making the playoffs, how far do they need to advance in the playoffs, and in what time frame?  And is it about sustainability?  Do they need to have multiple years of deep playoff runs?

I'm not trying to bait anyone.  From my perspective, it has failed already.  They've gone through a full-cycle of rookie contracts, have already had to jettison their first two lottery picks, and are still a bottom 5 team.  But for those who think it is still working, what is your benchmark?  There has to be something to say it was worth it, right?

The Sixers haven't gone through a full-cycle of rookie contracts.  They didn't tank for MCW and they traded for Noel.  Embiid was their 1st acquisition from tanking a season and he has 1 more year on his rookie contract.  Do rebuilds have a 4 year limit?   Rebuilding around draft picks takes time in the best of circumstances.   

All the process bashers around here were pointing to the TWolves as a good rebuild.  They haven't made the playoffs yet and they're just 4 games ahead of the Sixers this season.  When is the TWolves rebuild going to be a success or failure?

I think a lot of people have come this year to being disappointed in the Twolves question and questioning whether their core will ever be great because of how bad defensively they are. However, that being said they actually could make the playoffs this year. They have been playing really good ball lately (hopefully we don't see that tonight). Have won something like 9 out of 12 and beat the wizards, warriors, clippers, raptors etc. They also still have 3 games left against the Lakers. 3 losses is a lot to make up, but Denver has a crazy stretch to end the season with 10 out of their last 12 on the road. I could definitely see that stretch going poorly for them and opening up the west playoff race.

Another big difference is aside from a freak injury to Levine, the twolves don't have the same injury concerns with their core.

Noel, since traded, was still missing time with his knee this year and is now missing some games ont he mavericks.
Okafor is still experiencing soreness and struggling with conditioning over a year after a surgery with a 6 week recovery time.
Embiid has played 31 games in 3 years and has missed time with his back, knee, leg etc. I would be pleasantly surprised if he starts playing more than 50 games a year or has a long career.
Simmons has obviously not played yet.

That is serious injury concerns for their last 4 high draft picks which is not surprising given 3 of them were drafted injured.

The Sixers have had to deal with all the injuries and yet they are still only 4 games back of the TWolves.   How is LaVine's injury a freak injury and Simmons is not? 

Towns, Wiggins and LaVine are all offensive focused and poor defenders.  Hard to build a winning team with those three as starters.  Not surprising that they are playing better after LaVine's injury.  Maybe the TWolves will back into the playoffs because the 8th spot is so weak but I wouldn't consider that a success. 

As I've said before, Noel and Okafor don't really matter.  Simmons is important but Embiid's health is the key to the Sixers success.  I'd rather have a healthy Embiid than Towns.  I'd rather have Simmons than Wiggins.  I'd rather have Saric than LaVine.  They are a better core with varied skillsets.  Covington has developed into a nice player and fits well with them. 

The Sixers have much better cap space and better picks over the next few years.  Their young talent doesn't have to be paid as soon.  Saric coming over after 2 years in Europe is a big plus.   

Seems like you kind of just read past everything thing I said. So I'll repeat it again. The Wolves have been playing really good ball the last months and seem to be getting it finally. They have been disappointing throughout this year up to that point to a lot of people. Now if they keep this up for the rest of the year and grab that 8th spot I think that is a really nice development step for them. If they don't, then yea, people should definitely be disappointed with the state of their rebuild.

That being said some of your comparisons are pretty ridiculous. Saying you prefer embid over towns if he is healthy is a pretty huge IF. If my aunt had a ____ she would be my uncle right?

Also why would you prefer Simmons over Wiggins at this point? Simmons has a concerning injury that hasn't healed and is bad shooter. Wiggins, while having a long ways to go defensively, has already demonstrated he can average 23 points a game and has shown solid improvement offensively this season. Taking a flyer on an injured guy that hasn't proven anything kind of seems like philly bias.

I'd rather have saric than lavine also for the record.

I said them playing better with LaVine out wasn't surprising.  They need a better balanced team.  If LaVine hadn't gotten injured, I would have tried to move him this offseason.  Just not high on Wiggins.  Don't see him as a difference maker.  Maybe Thibs will get him to be a better all around player.  No reason he shouldn't be a better defender. 

Simmons is continuing to practice including warming up before games.  I would think if they were really concerned about his foot he'd be in a walking boot and visiting specialists.  They've had Simmons going through the same shooting drills that Embiid used.  Brown said his shooting form has improved.  He really only needs to develop a decent jumper with the rest of his skillset. 

I do like Towns but a healthy Embiid is more impactful because of his defense.  He showed how dominant he could be in 31 games.  He didn't have any issues with his foot or his back and played like he had no concerns about either.  As for the knee, a meniscus tear and bone bruise shouldn't be very serious and have nothing to do with his back or foot.  That being said I don't trust the Sixers front office or medical staff.  Okafor had meniscus surgery at the end of last season that was only supposed to take a couple months recovery.  Instead he missed the offseason and has still been hampered by his knee during the season.  Embiid was supposed to be visiting his doctors over the weekend but I haven't seen any reports afterwards. 

Here's a chart showing how impactful Embiid was to the Sixers defense. 
http://www.derekbodner.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/20170308-defense.png

[Big333223]

Question for Process supporters: At what point will you be willing to say that it hasn't worked?  If they don't make the playoffs next year? In two years?  Or if the Process is about more than just making the playoffs, how far do they need to advance in the playoffs, and in what time frame?  And is it about sustainability?  Do they need to have multiple years of deep playoff runs?

I'm not trying to bait anyone.  From my perspective, it has failed already.  They've gone through a full-cycle of rookie contracts, have already had to jettison their first two lottery picks, and are still a bottom 5 team.  But for those who think it is still working, what is your benchmark?  There has to be something to say it was worth it, right?

Why? Philly has Embiid, Saric, Simmons, a top 5 pick this season and a Lakers pick that could still deliver a valuable player. If that core wins a championship 7 or 8 years from now, will you still think it was a failure?

Do you really think that core will all be there in 7-8 years?  Joel Embiid and Dario Saric will be 31 when that hypothetical window of yours closes. No one will be on their rookie deal any more, some will be on their third contract, and your roster will likely be unaffordable.  Or if it is affordable, then a bunch of those guys will have become role players at best.

Sorry I missed this initially.

Do I think that core will all be intact in 7-8 years? Almost definitely not. I'm pretty skeptical Embiid will stay healthy enough to have a real NBA career at all. But I don't see any reason to rule it out entirely.

What about just Simmons, Saric, and someone like Dennis Smith? Can a championship be built around that core? Can multiple championships?

I'm not going to bet money on any of this but it seems to me that calling The Process a failure before we've even seen the players it garnered develop is premature.

[Big333223]

Question for Process supporters: At what point will you be willing to say that it hasn't worked?  If they don't make the playoffs next year? In two years?  Or if the Process is about more than just making the playoffs, how far do they need to advance in the playoffs, and in what time frame?  And is it about sustainability?  Do they need to have multiple years of deep playoff runs?

I'm not trying to bait anyone.  From my perspective, it has failed already.  They've gone through a full-cycle of rookie contracts, have already had to jettison their first two lottery picks, and are still a bottom 5 team.  But for those who think it is still working, what is your benchmark?  There has to be something to say it was worth it, right?

Why? Philly has Embiid, Saric, Simmons, a top 5 pick this season and a Lakers pick that could still deliver a valuable player. If that core wins a championship 7 or 8 years from now, will you still think it was a failure?

First of all, eight year plans are ridiculous in any professional sport.  You obviously have to have some idea of where you are going in the future, like when considering the draft or freeing up salary cap space, but 8 years is almost twice the length of the average NBA career.

Secondly, if all the Hinkie plan gets you is one championship in 10 or 11 years, you might not consider it a failure but it is clearly inferior to most other successful plans pursued by NBA teams.  Ainge, for example, took over in 2003 and won a title in 2008.  That's half the time with about 1/4 the painful losing.

Mike

This doesn't make any sense to me. You're saying winning one championship in 10 or 11 years isn't good but you use Ainge as an example of a good manager but Ainge has only won one championship in 14 years.

Confused logic aside, my point was: how can you judge The Process when the players it has garnered haven't shown what they can do yet?

Ainge has already rebuilt lottery teams to good teams twice in that timeframe.

So you agree with me that Mike's standard of one championship in 10-11 years doesn't make sense, right?

Most teams will only win one championship every 15 years or so, no matter how well run they are.  The question is what you're willing to accept being when you're not winning a championship.

Is it better to be a laughing stock for 7~8 years at a time just so maybe you win a ring once every 13 years instead of once every 15 years? Or is it better to have a respectable team even when you're not in title contention?

I'll go even further. In the last 30 years in the NBA only 10 franchises have won a championship. So most teams won't win a championship at all, every 15 years. Most teams won't win one every 30 years.

[PAOBoston]

Not a fan of the process. I don't have an issue with utilizing the draft as part of a rebuild. But when you basically lose on purpose for like 6 years in a row to just get a lottery pick, I think it's a bad plan. The 76ers still could have utilized FA and trades better to bring in players that could actually help.

At this point, their first lotto pick of the bunch (Noel) has come and now been traded for peanuts. The 2nd (Okafor) has been mismanaged and devalued greatly (and I think the environment they have created played a role in the that). The 3rd guy (Embiid) might be good but he's got serious red flags with injuries that may or may not hamper his development and career arc. He's in year 3 of his rookie deal and has played a grand total of 31 games.

Some of their misfortune is bad luck but some to just poor management and handling of the environment. I think Noel/Okafor were treated poorly and not really developed correctly to get a good shoot at becoming good players.

[Moranis]

Not a fan of the process. I don't have an issue with utilizing the draft as part of a rebuild. But when you basically lose on purpose for like 6 years in a row to just get a lottery pick, I think it's a bad plan. The 76ers still could have utilized FA and trades better to bring in players that could actually help.

help what though?  win 17 games instead of 15 games.  What is the point in that?  They lost on purpose for 3 seasons, they certainly aren't losing on purpose this year (they are just bad). 

At this point, their first lotto pick of the bunch (Noel) has come and now been traded for peanuts. The 2nd (Okafor) has been mismanaged and devalued greatly (and I think the environment they have created played a role in the that). The 3rd guy (Embiid) might be good but he's got serious red flags with injuries that may or may not hamper his development and career arc. He's in year 3 of his rookie deal and has played a grand total of 31 games.

To be fair they traded Holiday for Noel and drafted Carter-Williams in the lottery.  They traded Carter-Williams for that yet to be transferred Lakers pick.  The next year they drafted both Embiid and Saric (who also was part of the Holiday trade) in the lottery.  Noel and Embiid were injured when they were drafted and expected to miss a year.  Noel did, Embiid suffered a set back.  Saric was always projected to stay in Europe at least 2 seasons before coming over (he stayed 2).   They then had Okafor and Simmons in the next two drafts.  Okafor is a fine offensive player, big work in progress defensively.  Simmons was the #1 player in his draft for a reason.  They still have their own pick this year as well as the potential for the Lakers pick. 

But you see that is the whole point of the process, i.e. to accumulate as many lottery picks as possible (the higher the better) because the draft is such a crap shoot, because players get injured, because guys never live up to their potential all the time, etc. 

Some of their misfortune is bad luck but some to just poor management and handling of the environment. I think Noel/Okafor were treated poorly and not really developed correctly to get a good shoot at becoming good players.

Noel and Okafor are incomplete players, thus it is hard to put them in an environment for full success, but it certainly didn't help that they kept getting injured and were always missing games as a result.  I mean Noel is still missing games in Dallas and Okafor appears to finally be healthy for the first time since his rookie year. 

[PAOBoston]

Not a fan of the process. I don't have an issue with utilizing the draft as part of a rebuild. But when you basically lose on purpose for like 6 years in a row to just get a lottery pick, I think it's a bad plan. The 76ers still could have utilized FA and trades better to bring in players that could actually help.

help what though?  win 17 games instead of 15 games.  What is the point in that?  They lost on purpose for 3 seasons, they certainly aren't losing on purpose this year (they are just bad). 

At this point, their first lotto pick of the bunch (Noel) has come and now been traded for peanuts. The 2nd (Okafor) has been mismanaged and devalued greatly (and I think the environment they have created played a role in the that). The 3rd guy (Embiid) might be good but he's got serious red flags with injuries that may or may not hamper his development and career arc. He's in year 3 of his rookie deal and has played a grand total of 31 games.

To be fair they traded Holiday for Noel and drafted Carter-Williams in the lottery.  They traded Carter-Williams for that yet to be transferred Lakers pick.  The next year they drafted both Embiid and Saric (who also was part of the Holiday trade) in the lottery.  Noel and Embiid were injured when they were drafted and expected to miss a year.  Noel did, Embiid suffered a set back.  Saric was always projected to stay in Europe at least 2 seasons before coming over (he stayed 2).   They then had Okafor and Simmons in the next two drafts.  Okafor is a fine offensive player, big work in progress defensively.  Simmons was the #1 player in his draft for a reason.  They still have their own pick this year as well as the potential for the Lakers pick. 

But you see that is the whole point of the process, i.e. to accumulate as many lottery picks as possible (the higher the better) because the draft is such a crap shoot, because players get injured, because guys never live up to their potential all the time, etc. 

Some of their misfortune is bad luck but some to just poor management and handling of the environment. I think Noel/Okafor were treated poorly and not really developed correctly to get a good shoot at becoming good players.

Noel and Okafor are incomplete players, thus it is hard to put them in an environment for full success, but it certainly didn't help that they kept getting injured and were always missing games as a result.  I mean Noel is still missing games in Dallas and Okafor appears to finally be healthy for the first time since his rookie year.

1. Making some sort of attempt to actually win and help the players on the court out.
2. You're making my point. The draft is a crap shoot. So using it as the sole mechanism to getting good again is stupid. You might be in the lottery like Philly has over the past 6 years and still not find a good player.
3. Yes, they have been injured. But that's not the reason they never really reached their full potential.

[Big333223]

Not a fan of the process. I don't have an issue with utilizing the draft as part of a rebuild. But when you basically lose on purpose for like 6 years in a row to just get a lottery pick, I think it's a bad plan. The 76ers still could have utilized FA and trades better to bring in players that could actually help.

help what though?  win 17 games instead of 15 games.  What is the point in that?  They lost on purpose for 3 seasons, they certainly aren't losing on purpose this year (they are just bad). 

At this point, their first lotto pick of the bunch (Noel) has come and now been traded for peanuts. The 2nd (Okafor) has been mismanaged and devalued greatly (and I think the environment they have created played a role in the that). The 3rd guy (Embiid) might be good but he's got serious red flags with injuries that may or may not hamper his development and career arc. He's in year 3 of his rookie deal and has played a grand total of 31 games.

To be fair they traded Holiday for Noel and drafted Carter-Williams in the lottery.  They traded Carter-Williams for that yet to be transferred Lakers pick.  The next year they drafted both Embiid and Saric (who also was part of the Holiday trade) in the lottery.  Noel and Embiid were injured when they were drafted and expected to miss a year.  Noel did, Embiid suffered a set back.  Saric was always projected to stay in Europe at least 2 seasons before coming over (he stayed 2).   They then had Okafor and Simmons in the next two drafts.  Okafor is a fine offensive player, big work in progress defensively.  Simmons was the #1 player in his draft for a reason.  They still have their own pick this year as well as the potential for the Lakers pick. 

But you see that is the whole point of the process, i.e. to accumulate as many lottery picks as possible (the higher the better) because the draft is such a crap shoot, because players get injured, because guys never live up to their potential all the time, etc. 

Some of their misfortune is bad luck but some to just poor management and handling of the environment. I think Noel/Okafor were treated poorly and not really developed correctly to get a good shoot at becoming good players.

Noel and Okafor are incomplete players, thus it is hard to put them in an environment for full success, but it certainly didn't help that they kept getting injured and were always missing games as a result.  I mean Noel is still missing games in Dallas and Okafor appears to finally be healthy for the first time since his rookie year.

1. Making some sort of attempt to actually win and help the players on the court out.
2. You're making my point. The draft is a crap shoot. So using it as the sole mechanism to getting good again is stupid. You might be in the lottery like Philly has over the past 6 years and still not find a good player.
3. Yes, they have been injured. But that's not the reason they never really reached their full potential.

This is not accurate. The draft is not the sole mechanism for Philly to get better, they're just putting off free agency and trades until they have a star. You might not like it but the draft, crap shoot though it may be, is still the best way of acquiring that star player.

[Moranis]

1. Making some sort of attempt to actually win and help the players on the court out.

But what is the point in that?  There is no practical difference between 17 wins and 15 wins, except the potential to have less lottery odds.  And here's the thing, young players reach their potential a lot faster when they actually get minutes.  Why do you think the Lakers are shutting down Mozgov and Deng.  It isn't like they were actually helping the Lakers win games, but what they were doing is taking valuable minutes from young guys.  Young guys reach their potential faster with playing time, as such there is no point in having a bunch of veterans taking minutes that don't do much of anything for the win column. 

2. You're making my point. The draft is a crap shoot. So using it as the sole mechanism to getting good again is stupid. You might be in the lottery like Philly has over the past 6 years and still not find a good player.

The Sixers aren't using it as the sole mechanism at getting good.  They are using at the mechanism to find a franchise changing talent because given where they were that was basically their only option.  They just went all in on that option because the draft is a crap shoot, they wanted as many shots at franchise altering talent as possible.  That is why they traded Holiday for Noel and an extra 1st.  That is why when it was apparent that MCW wasn't going to work out, they sold high on him.  Once the Sixers have that franchise altering talent (which they might already in Embiid and Simmons) they will make trades or sign players in free agency to balance out the roster. 

3. Yes, they have been injured. But that's not the reason they never really reached their full potential.

No my point was, that the draft is a crap shoot.  Sometimes players just totally flame out and aren't that good (Darko Milicic).  Sometimes players get hurt and are never the same (Greg Oden, Derrick Rose).  Sometimes you get lucky and get the top pick, but do so in the wrong draft (Kenyon Martin i.e. a fine player and the best player in his draft, but not a franchise altering talent).  Sometimes you just flat out select the wrong player (Andrea Bargnani instead of Lamarcus Aldridge). 

Hinkie understood this quite well.  It is why he formulated the plan that he did.  He wanted to get as many bites at the apple as he could, with the hope that he would hit on the right player in the right draft somewhere along the line.  Once the Sixers had that player, they would build the team around that player.  They hoped it would be Embiid, but his injuries are a real concern.  They still have Simmons and whomever they draft this summer.  They have the 5th worst team right now (1 loss better than Orlando for 4th worst and not far behind Phoenix for 3rd worst), but also have a pick swap with Sacto increasing their odds at landing in the top 3.  They also get the Lakers pick if it finishes outside the top 3.  They could easily end up with two top 5 picks in the upcoming draft, which is supposed to be very deep and good or they might end up with no top 5 picks and a pick at 6 or 7 (fully solidifying that the draft is a crap shoot, so you might as well maximize your chances. 

[oldtype]

1. Making some sort of attempt to actually win and help the players on the court out.

But what is the point in that? There is no practical difference between 17 wins and 15 wins, except the potential to have less lottery odds.  And here's the thing, young players reach their potential a lot faster when they actually get minutes.  Why do you think the Lakers are shutting down Mozgov and Deng.  It isn't like they were actually helping the Lakers win games, but what they were doing is taking valuable minutes from young guys.  Young guys reach their potential faster with playing time, as such there is no point in having a bunch of veterans taking minutes that don't do much of anything for the win column. 

It's not just a simple choice between 15 and 17 wins in a single season, it's a choice between whether you're actively trying to be better or actively trying to be worse.  When you're actively trying to be better, you expose yourself to unexpected avenues of improvement which mean you could end up rebuilding in ways that are not the draft.

Trade deadline 2015 illustrates this perfectly: Hinkie was offered the chance to take on Isaiah Thomas as part of the MCW trade, but turned it down because he didn't want a quality scorer that might add any wins. Ainge jumped on that opportunity and the rest is history.

Obviously Ainge did not expect that IT would become an All-NBA caliber guard, but because he was trying to get better, not worse, he opened the Celtics up to that opportunity. That's why the gap between the Celtics and the Sixers now is far broader than 15 and 17 wins.

[MBunge]

No my point was, that the draft is a crap shoot.

SNIP

Hinkie understood this quite well.

NO HE DID NOT.

If something is a "crap shoot," that means you don't put all of your hopes on it.  Period.  Trying to increase your odds in a crap shoot is like buying more lottery tickets.  It could work but it is most likely going to be a huge waste of time and effort.

The most frustrating thing about this whole Hinkie garbage is all the people who think they're being "smart" when all they're doing is demonstrating their numerical illiteracy.

Mike

[Moranis]

No my point was, that the draft is a crap shoot.

SNIP

Hinkie understood this quite well.

NO HE DID NOT.

If something is a "crap shoot," that means you don't put all of your hopes on it.  Period.  Trying to increase your odds in a crap shoot is like buying more lottery tickets.  It could work but it is most likely going to be a huge waste of time and effort.

The most frustrating thing about this whole Hinkie garbage is all the people who think they're being "smart" when all they're doing is demonstrating their numerical illiteracy.

Mike

You are mixing up topics.  Hinkie knew the draft was a crap shoot which is why he maximized his odds, but he didn't always draft particularly well (at least when looking at the team) and took a lot of high risk/high reward players.  Sometimes those guys don't work out.  He also took the BPA whether or not that player was an actual fit on the team (which is how he ended up with centers with his 1st pick 3 straight seasons).  Again though that is execution not concept.   

[MBunge]

Question for Process supporters: At what point will you be willing to say that it hasn't worked?  If they don't make the playoffs next year? In two years?  Or if the Process is about more than just making the playoffs, how far do they need to advance in the playoffs, and in what time frame?  And is it about sustainability?  Do they need to have multiple years of deep playoff runs?

I'm not trying to bait anyone.  From my perspective, it has failed already.  They've gone through a full-cycle of rookie contracts, have already had to jettison their first two lottery picks, and are still a bottom 5 team.  But for those who think it is still working, what is your benchmark?  There has to be something to say it was worth it, right?

Why? Philly has Embiid, Saric, Simmons, a top 5 pick this season and a Lakers pick that could still deliver a valuable player. If that core wins a championship 7 or 8 years from now, will you still think it was a failure?

First of all, eight year plans are ridiculous in any professional sport.  You obviously have to have some idea of where you are going in the future, like when considering the draft or freeing up salary cap space, but 8 years is almost twice the length of the average NBA career.

Secondly, if all the Hinkie plan gets you is one championship in 10 or 11 years, you might not consider it a failure but it is clearly inferior to most other successful plans pursued by NBA teams.  Ainge, for example, took over in 2003 and won a title in 2008.  That's half the time with about 1/4 the painful losing.

Mike

This doesn't make any sense to me. You're saying winning one championship in 10 or 11 years isn't good but you use Ainge as an example of a good manager but Ainge has only won one championship in 14 years.

Confused logic aside, my point was: how can you judge The Process when the players it has garnered haven't shown what they can do yet?

AAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!

The point I'm trying to make is that extreme measures are only justified by extreme results.  For example, you don't want someone to cut off you leg if you have a hangnail.  You only want to do that if you've got an infection and you'll die if they don't lop it off.

Hinkie's "Process" has produced a great deal of pain, misery and distress.  Far more than other approaches to rebuilding, such as what Ainge has now done twice.  If Hinkie's "Process" is ONLY as successful, at best, as less destructive approaches....WHAT WAS THE POINT OF ALL THAT SUFFERING?

Mike