All Things Philadelphia 76ers (merged Sixers threads)

[trickybilly]

I was looking at things today and realized we've almost achieved the Philly process while building a contender.

Philly was 34-48 as noted above and then went:

19-63 in 2013-14 (2nd lottery slot, #3 pick, Joel Embiid)
18-64 in 2014-15 (3rd lottery slot, #3 pick, Jahlil Okafor)
10-72 in 2015-16 (1st lottery slot, #1 pick, Ben Simmons)

With the Brooklyn trade we are getting, effectively, this:

21-61 in 2015-16 (3rd lottery slot, #3 pick, Jaylen Brown)
15-67 in 2016-17 estimated (1st lottery slot, pick Fultz/Ball/Jackson/Tatum)
? in 2017-18, but I'd say odds are good we get another top 4 pick

Not saying this was all in Danny's crystal ball or anything, luck played a big part. Just an observation. I don't think I'd take Embiid/Okafor/Simmons for Brown and our two picks as of today.

The process wasn't just about tanking to maximize value of the Sixers own picks.  It also entailed trading assets and using cap space to acquire additional picks.  For example, the Holiday trade to get Noel and Saric and the Kings salary dump trade to get another 1st.   Getting lucky with the Brooklyn trade is great but it isn't a rebuild strategy. 

Assuming that Embiid doesn't have a medical red flag, I would much rather have Embiid, Simmons and Okafor.  Play him 50 or 60 games during the regular season to manage his health and then let him loose in the playoffs.  With Embiid, we'd easily be the best defensive team.  With Embiid backing him up, Thomas' defensively liabilities would be greatly mitigated.  Haven't even mentioned Embiid's offensive capabilities.  Simmons would bring his elite passing and court vision and excellent rebounding that we could really use.  Could even use him as point forward at times.  We'd trade Okafor for whatever we could get for him.  We'd be able to put together a variety of nasty lineups to counter whatever the opponents tries.

Clarification needed:

When you say play Embiid 50 or 60 games, is that during one season or over the course of several seasons? Embiid might be in a full body cast if you play him in 60 games in one year.

Embiid played 31 games without any foot or back issues.  A meniscus tear and bone bruise in the knee has no relation to the previous injuries.  If it wasn't for the Sixers really bad history with injuries, I wouldn't be concerned with the latest injury. 

Edit:  Embiid's numbers in case you forgot his dominance. 
25.4 MPG, 20.2 Pts, 7.8 Reb, Ast 2.1, Blk 2.5, Stl 0.9 on 46.6 Fg%, 36.7 3p%, 78.3 Ft%. 

He was also shooting free throws at the highest rate in the league.  Thomas was top 5.  Having two of the top 5 players at getting to the line would be a big advantage in the playoffs.

Those blocks numbers are nice.

His shooting percentages aren't great, other than his good 3pt shooting numbers for his size (although v small sample). Crazy similar to Jaylen's actually.

Ah good luck to the kid.

[tazzmaniac]

Getting lucky with the Brooklyn trade is great but it isn't a rebuild strategy. 

Incredible. Denial is not just a river in egypt, eh?

I said the Brooklyn trade was great but it isn't a rebuild strategy.  How many other trades have worked out so well?  Not only did Ainge get a great return but Brooklyn has managed to bottom out so that we're getting near maximum value.  The Sixers took their swing at making a big trade and Bynum blew up in their faces.  All GMs would love to make a Brooklyn trade but it isn't something you can base your success on.  The stars have to align perfectly. 

[Androslav]

Getting lucky with the Brooklyn trade is great but it isn't a rebuild strategy. 

Incredible. Denial is not just a river in egypt, eh?

I said the Brooklyn trade was great but it isn't a rebuild strategy.  How many other trades have worked out so well?  Not only did Ainge get a great return but Brooklyn has managed to bottom out so that we're getting near maximum value.  The Sixers took their swing at making a big trade and Bynum blew up in their faces.  All GMs would love to make a Brooklyn trade but it isn't something you can base your success on.  The stars have to align perfectly.

Yea, everyone thought that BKN team with KG, PP,  DWill and Joe would be a juggernaut in year 2017 and 2018. Usually guys in their 40s rule the league. 😉

[tazzmaniac]

I was looking at things today and realized we've almost achieved the Philly process while building a contender.

Philly was 34-48 as noted above and then went:

19-63 in 2013-14 (2nd lottery slot, #3 pick, Joel Embiid)
18-64 in 2014-15 (3rd lottery slot, #3 pick, Jahlil Okafor)
10-72 in 2015-16 (1st lottery slot, #1 pick, Ben Simmons)

With the Brooklyn trade we are getting, effectively, this:

21-61 in 2015-16 (3rd lottery slot, #3 pick, Jaylen Brown)
15-67 in 2016-17 estimated (1st lottery slot, pick Fultz/Ball/Jackson/Tatum)
? in 2017-18, but I'd say odds are good we get another top 4 pick

Not saying this was all in Danny's crystal ball or anything, luck played a big part. Just an observation. I don't think I'd take Embiid/Okafor/Simmons for Brown and our two picks as of today.

The process wasn't just about tanking to maximize value of the Sixers own picks.  It also entailed trading assets and using cap space to acquire additional picks.  For example, the Holiday trade to get Noel and Saric and the Kings salary dump trade to get another 1st.   Getting lucky with the Brooklyn trade is great but it isn't a rebuild strategy. 

Assuming that Embiid doesn't have a medical red flag, I would much rather have Embiid, Simmons and Okafor.  Play him 50 or 60 games during the regular season to manage his health and then let him loose in the playoffs.  With Embiid, we'd easily be the best defensive team.  With Embiid backing him up, Thomas' defensively liabilities would be greatly mitigated.  Haven't even mentioned Embiid's offensive capabilities.  Simmons would bring his elite passing and court vision and excellent rebounding that we could really use.  Could even use him as point forward at times.  We'd trade Okafor for whatever we could get for him.  We'd be able to put together a variety of nasty lineups to counter whatever the opponents tries.

Clarification needed:

When you say play Embiid 50 or 60 games, is that during one season or over the course of several seasons? Embiid might be in a full body cast if you play him in 60 games in one year.

Embiid played 31 games without any foot or back issues.  A meniscus tear and bone bruise in the knee has no relation to the previous injuries.  If it wasn't for the Sixers really bad history with injuries, I wouldn't be concerned with the latest injury. 

Edit:  Embiid's numbers in case you forgot his dominance. 
25.4 MPG, 20.2 Pts, 7.8 Reb, Ast 2.1, Blk 2.5, Stl 0.9 on 46.6 Fg%, 36.7 3p%, 78.3 Ft%. 

He was also shooting free throws at the highest rate in the league.  Thomas was top 5.  Having two of the top 5 players at getting to the line would be a big advantage in the playoffs.

Those blocks numbers are nice.

His shooting percentages aren't great, other than his good 3pt shooting numbers for his size (although v small sample). Crazy similar to Jaylen's actually.

Ah good luck to the kid.

You have to look at how players are being used.  The centers with the high percentages do so because they get a lot of dunks and layups created by their guards/wings.  You can see below that Embiid stacks up pretty well.  Especially considering he's a rookie, coming off a 2 year injury recovery and playing with well below league average guards.  Embiid is not even particularly good in the pick and roll yet. 

                    EFG%      TS%     
Embiid          50.8         58.4
M. Gasol       50.7         55.7
Cousins        49.0         55.6
A. Davis       51.3         57.7 
Horford        52.5         54.9

His 3pt shooting is a small sample size but he was still taking 3.2 attempts per game.  How many 7 footers shoot free throws at 78.3% on 7.9 attempts per game?  You not only don't have to hide Embiid but you can use him as a force.  Opposing players can't hurt you if they're sitting on the bench in foul trouble. 

[tazzmaniac]

Getting lucky with the Brooklyn trade is great but it isn't a rebuild strategy. 

Incredible. Denial is not just a river in egypt, eh?

I said the Brooklyn trade was great but it isn't a rebuild strategy.  How many other trades have worked out so well?  Not only did Ainge get a great return but Brooklyn has managed to bottom out so that we're getting near maximum value.  The Sixers took their swing at making a big trade and Bynum blew up in their faces.  All GMs would love to make a Brooklyn trade but it isn't something you can base your success on.  The stars have to align perfectly.

Yea, everyone thought that BKN team with KG, PP,  DWill and Joe would be a juggernaut in year 2017 and 2018. Usually guys in their 40s rule the league. 😉

Thank the gods for a desperate owner with a massive ego and a stupid GM.  Even so, Brooklyn could have bottomed out as poor to mediocre team and we'd be looking at 3 mid to late lottery picks.  Which would have still been a good return but not the treasure trove of potentially 3 straight top 4 picks. 

[Moranis]

Mike,
You are hired to run the Sixers in 2013.  You just finished 34-38 and have Jrue Holiday, Evan Turner, Thad Young, Spencer Hawes, Lavoy Allen, Nick Young (impending free agent), and not much else on the roster.  You are missing 1 future 1st round pick and don't have all your 2nd round picks either.  You have the 11th pick in the upcoming draft, but your best "young" player is Moultrie. 

How do you make that team a contender?

Well, I could list a bunch of moves but then we'd just get into a stupid argument over whether they were realistic or not.

Speaking generally, you listed six guys who are still in the league today so they're all legitimate NBA players.  I might keep some.  I might trade some.  I might let some walk.  I might try to trade for other players.  I might try to trade for picks.  I might try to sign some free agents.

There are 1,001 things I might do.  Some might work.  Some might not.  Maybe I'd turn the Sixers into a contender.  Maybe I wouldn't.

What I would never do is embark on a multi-year campaign to make the team as bad as possible and hope I get lucky in the draft, which is fundamentally all Hinkie did.  That's like using your mortgage payment to buy lottery tickets.  You can get away with it for a while and it might work out in the end but the odds are very much against you.

Everybody needs a little luck to succeed but if your plan for success relies on luck, you are always going to fail.

Let's take a look at who the Sixers have now, compared to your list.

Covington?  Maybe he's better than Lavoy Allen but that's it.
Okafor?  It sure seems like the rest of the NBA would rather have 2013 Spencer Hawes than 2017 Okafor.
Saric?  Is there any guarantee he's going to be better than Nick Young?
Embiid?  Looks like a stud but hasn't even played half a season of games total in three years and just got hurt AGAIN even though he was averaging fewer minutes than 87-year-old Dirk Nowitski.
Simmons?  Looks very promising but could wind up closer to Lamar Odom than LeBron James.

Is that truly a significantly better collection of talent than Holiday, Turner, Young, Hawes, Allen and Young?  Higher upside, maybe, but dramatically better when everything is considered?  All that losing and how much better off is Philadelphia?

Mike

The problem with this analysis, is the team you are left with is pretty bad.  What is the point of being pretty bad with no hope in the future.  That is why Philly really only had 1 option and that was to go into full on tank.  And the fact that you couldn't come up with a reasonable path for the Sixers to become a contender without tanking, pretty much tells me all I need to know.  You are just blowing smoke because you are somehow offended by a team that isn't "trying" to win.  Of course, the reality is, the Sixers tanking was exactly them trying to win a title because that was their only real method to do so given where the team was in 2013.


BTW, I found our friend LarBrd's post over on Reddit about this exact topic.  He looked at every draft from 1972-2012 and performed an analysis.  I haven't checked his analysis, but its seems about right to me and I have no reason to not believe the information.

https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/5zwryt/is_tanking_worth_it_analysis_on_the_probability/

It is a rather long post, but here are the highlights.

- A top 6 pick has a 43% chance of ending up an all-star.  29% chance of all-NBA.  18% chance of Hall of Famer
- 11-16 pick has a 13% chance of ending up an all-star.  7% chance of All-NBA.  4% chance of Hall of Famer.


Now if you look at 3 years with picks in those range.

- Three Top 6 picks give you an 83.5% chance of ending up with at least 1 star.  66.5% chance of an All-NBA player.   46% chance at a hall-of-Famer
- Three 11-16 picks give you a 35.7% chance at a star.  19.7% chance at All-NBA.  12.7% chance at Hall of Famer.


If you add in that 4th top 6 pick

- Four Top 6 picks = 91.1% chance at star.  77% chance at All-NBA.  56.5% chance at Hall of Fame.
- Four 11-16 picks = 44.8% chance at star.  25.6% chance at All-NBa.  16.6% chance at Hall of Fame.   


In other words, it isn't just suck and get lucky.  Every single team has significantly higher odds of landing franchise changing talent from being a bottom 6 team vs. barely missing or barely making the playoffs.  The Sixers were a team that was in that 11-16 range and had been in that range for years.  The odds of them finding a Kawhi Leonard just weren't that good.  It might have eventually happened, of course just 1 Kawhi Leonard doesn't make them a contender without other hits as well, and those hits are just so much more difficult to come by drafting outside of the top 6.  The goal of a NBA franchise is to win a title, as strange as it sounds, the Sixers best path to winning a title was to tank.  That is why countless franchises throughout league history have tanked.  Heck the NBA put the lottery into effect because of teams tanking.  This isn't some new thing Philly did.  They were a bit more brazen about it, but tanking has existed as long as the league has existed because basketball is the one sport where 1 player can be the difference between being a bottom feeder and a perennial contender.

[RAAAAAAAANDY]

Mike,
You are hired to run the Sixers in 2013.  You just finished 34-38 and have Jrue Holiday, Evan Turner, Thad Young, Spencer Hawes, Lavoy Allen, Nick Young (impending free agent), and not much else on the roster.  You are missing 1 future 1st round pick and don't have all your 2nd round picks either.  You have the 11th pick in the upcoming draft, but your best "young" player is Moultrie. 

How do you make that team a contender?

Well, I could list a bunch of moves but then we'd just get into a stupid argument over whether they were realistic or not.

Speaking generally, you listed six guys who are still in the league today so they're all legitimate NBA players.  I might keep some.  I might trade some.  I might let some walk.  I might try to trade for other players.  I might try to trade for picks.  I might try to sign some free agents.

There are 1,001 things I might do.  Some might work.  Some might not.  Maybe I'd turn the Sixers into a contender.  Maybe I wouldn't.

What I would never do is embark on a multi-year campaign to make the team as bad as possible and hope I get lucky in the draft, which is fundamentally all Hinkie did.  That's like using your mortgage payment to buy lottery tickets.  You can get away with it for a while and it might work out in the end but the odds are very much against you.

Everybody needs a little luck to succeed but if your plan for success relies on luck, you are always going to fail.

Let's take a look at who the Sixers have now, compared to your list.

Covington?  Maybe he's better than Lavoy Allen but that's it.
Okafor?  It sure seems like the rest of the NBA would rather have 2013 Spencer Hawes than 2017 Okafor.
Saric?  Is there any guarantee he's going to be better than Nick Young?
Embiid?  Looks like a stud but hasn't even played half a season of games total in three years and just got hurt AGAIN even though he was averaging fewer minutes than 87-year-old Dirk Nowitski.
Simmons?  Looks very promising but could wind up closer to Lamar Odom than LeBron James.

Is that truly a significantly better collection of talent than Holiday, Turner, Young, Hawes, Allen and Young?  Higher upside, maybe, but dramatically better when everything is considered?  All that losing and how much better off is Philadelphia?

Mike

There's a ton wrong with this as usual, but the last bit is over the top even for you. The hilarious part is that you basically admit you're clueless about their situation, and then proceed to say that despite being clueless somebody else with an in depth knowledge of the Sixers situation is wrong.

- Robert Covington is the 10th best small forward by RPM, and he's one of the best perimeter defenders in the NBA. This is in a season in which he had the worst shooting of his career for 2-3 months. Oh and he makes around 1 million dollars this year, and around 1 million dollars next year. He's the best player of anybody not named Jrue Holiday in your post (excluding Embiid because 31 games in 3 years is, well, yeah).

- Embiid's talent is undeniable, and so is his injury history... If you're out two picks with nothing to build on that is a perfectly fine risk to take. Look at the rest of that top 10, there isn't a whole lot there.

- Dario Saric is possibly going to be the rookie of the year and he's on a rookie salary for 3 more years. Anybody with a fully functional brain would rather have him than Nick Young. 

- Gerald Henderson is the vetty vet that veterans which apparently is sooooo hard to find that you can't trade away Evan Turner (who he is a better player than btw) because you could never sign a 1 and 1 team option for him. Sam didn't acquire him, but the general point is that meh veterans are gettable every year and aren't some kind of asset and I like Gerald that isn't a shot at him.

- Thad Young is on his 4th team in 4 years, 3 of which have been bottom of the barrel finishers (bottom 3). So yes, I'd rather have the pick we got for him.

- Okafor stinks, it happens. That was a pick that made no sense at the time and makes less sense now. Maybe he can be the center on a d league team with Terry Rozier, James Young, RJ Hunter and Jordan Mickey.

- You're also ignoring that Colangelo bungled the Noel situation, and Nerlens was one of the best defensive big men by his age in NBA history. At the very least a great back up plan for Embiid.

- And finally, they have either a top 5 2017 or unprotected 2018 pick coming from the Lakers, an unprotected 2019 pick from the Kings, all their own picks (after owing 2 when he took the job) with swap rights for the Kings this year, and one of the cleanest cap sheets in the NBA.

But yeah, I'm sure keeping Jrue Holiday the "Al-Star" whose made the playoffs once despite having Anthony Davis on his team, Evan Turner who makes Brock Osweiler look underpaid, Thad Young who's a stretch 4 that can't shoot or rebound, and Spencer Hawes who is a 3rd string Center for the Hornets is a much better path ahead Mike.

This level of denial is mind numbing. It's also hilarious that Danny Ainge was trying to do the same thing when he stumbled into Isaiah Thomas and Jae Crowder.

[slamtheking]

Getting lucky with the Brooklyn trade is great but it isn't a rebuild strategy. 

Incredible. Denial is not just a river in egypt, eh?

I said the Brooklyn trade was great but it isn't a rebuild strategy.  How many other trades have worked out so well?  Not only did Ainge get a great return but Brooklyn has managed to bottom out so that we're getting near maximum value.  The Sixers took their swing at making a big trade and Bynum blew up in their faces.  All GMs would love to make a Brooklyn trade but it isn't something you can base your success on.  The stars have to align perfectly.

Yea, everyone thought that BKN team with KG, PP,  DWill and Joe would be a juggernaut in year 2017 and 2018. Usually guys in their 40s rule the league. 😉

Thank the gods for a desperate owner with a massive ego and a stupid GM.  Even so, Brooklyn could have bottomed out as poor to mediocre team and we'd be looking at 3 mid to late lottery picks.  Which would have still been a good return but not the treasure trove of potentially 3 straight top 4 picks. 

very true.

the Nets looked like a powerhouse on paper after the deal.  we're fortunate that they've become absolutely horrible and the picks will all be high in the draft. 

At the time of the deal, the expectation was that the C's would be lucky if they were getting a pick in the mid-teens by the end of the deal.  Thoughts at the time were that the Nets would be really good for a couple of years and be able to attract decent talent to that roster to play with KG, PP, Lopez, JJ and DWill.  no one really foresaw the cliff those players would fall off in terms of playing ability in such a short time. 

C's lucked out  and there's no shame in admitting that or rejoicing in the Nets' stupidity in not protecting those picks

[Casperian]

Getting lucky with the Brooklyn trade is great but it isn't a rebuild strategy. 

Incredible. Denial is not just a river in egypt, eh?

I said the Brooklyn trade was great but it isn't a rebuild strategy.  How many other trades have worked out so well?  Not only did Ainge get a great return but Brooklyn has managed to bottom out so that we're getting near maximum value.  The Sixers took their swing at making a big trade and Bynum blew up in their faces.  All GMs would love to make a Brooklyn trade but it isn't something you can base your success on.  The stars have to align perfectly.

Yeah, except we did have a rebuild strategy. What we didn't have was a masterplan.
In fact, depending on how these picks shake out, we could look at arguably the best rebuild in league history. We kept our options open and worked on the three big D's of (re-)building: draft, develop and deals. The idea was always to accumulate assets and cash them in for a star or two. The luck part is that we don't even have to do that now.

So, maybe you're technically correct, we didn't have a strategy, but we certainly had a method. As ederson said, just because you think flexibility and keeping your options open is not part of a bigger picture doesn't mean there is none.

Furthermore, you make it sound as if trading KG and Pierce for future picks was a no-brainer. It wasn't. Not every GM would trade their two best players, one of them a Celtic for life, to turbo-charge the rebuild, regardless of the value they'd receive in return. Duncan didn't get traded, Kobe didn't, Dirk won't either. Many around here were furious and calling for Danny's head when the deal went through. So no, not every GM would love to do such a deal. It was an incredibly gutsy move to do what the Celtics' FO did.

Honestly, your argument makes even less sense when you consider we're not even benefitting from the BRK picks, right now. Neither James Young nor Jaylen Brown are the reason we're sitting in 2nd place in the east 4 years in.

very true.

the Nets looked like a powerhouse on paper after the deal.  we're fortunate that they've become absolutely horrible and the picks will all be high in the draft. 

At the time of the deal, the expectation was that the C's would be lucky if they were getting a pick in the mid-teens by the end of the deal.  Thoughts at the time were that the Nets would be really good for a couple of years and be able to attract decent talent to that roster to play with KG, PP, Lopez, JJ and DWill.  no one really foresaw the cliff those players would fall off in terms of playing ability in such a short time. 

C's lucked out  and there's no shame in admitting that or rejoicing in the Nets' stupidity in not protecting those picks

No, that's not true. I remember celebrating that Nets trade with several other posters. Many thought there was a strong chance the Nets would be absolutely terrible by the time these picks would become relevant.

There may have been differing opinions, as always, but to say nobody could've predicted the Nets around the bottom of the league is patently false.

[MBunge]

Mike,
You are hired to run the Sixers in 2013.  You just finished 34-38 and have Jrue Holiday, Evan Turner, Thad Young, Spencer Hawes, Lavoy Allen, Nick Young (impending free agent), and not much else on the roster.  You are missing 1 future 1st round pick and don't have all your 2nd round picks either.  You have the 11th pick in the upcoming draft, but your best "young" player is Moultrie. 

How do you make that team a contender?

Well, I could list a bunch of moves but then we'd just get into a stupid argument over whether they were realistic or not.

Speaking generally, you listed six guys who are still in the league today so they're all legitimate NBA players.  I might keep some.  I might trade some.  I might let some walk.  I might try to trade for other players.  I might try to trade for picks.  I might try to sign some free agents.

There are 1,001 things I might do.  Some might work.  Some might not.  Maybe I'd turn the Sixers into a contender.  Maybe I wouldn't.

What I would never do is embark on a multi-year campaign to make the team as bad as possible and hope I get lucky in the draft, which is fundamentally all Hinkie did.  That's like using your mortgage payment to buy lottery tickets.  You can get away with it for a while and it might work out in the end but the odds are very much against you.

Everybody needs a little luck to succeed but if your plan for success relies on luck, you are always going to fail.

Let's take a look at who the Sixers have now, compared to your list.

Covington?  Maybe he's better than Lavoy Allen but that's it.
Okafor?  It sure seems like the rest of the NBA would rather have 2013 Spencer Hawes than 2017 Okafor.
Saric?  Is there any guarantee he's going to be better than Nick Young?
Embiid?  Looks like a stud but hasn't even played half a season of games total in three years and just got hurt AGAIN even though he was averaging fewer minutes than 87-year-old Dirk Nowitski.
Simmons?  Looks very promising but could wind up closer to Lamar Odom than LeBron James.

Is that truly a significantly better collection of talent than Holiday, Turner, Young, Hawes, Allen and Young?  Higher upside, maybe, but dramatically better when everything is considered?  All that losing and how much better off is Philadelphia?

Mike

The problem with this analysis, is the team you are left with is pretty bad.  What is the point of being pretty bad with no hope in the future.

And the problem with your analysis is the same thing that's wrong with all the Hinkie-worshipping that goes on around here.  It's all built on willful ignorance.

We don't know that we'd be left with a bad team.  We CAN'T know that.  Maybe it would be bad, maybe not.  All we can say for sure is that a million other teams have rebuilt successfully without following "The Process" so it is clearly possible.

Mike

[MBunge]

Mike,
You are hired to run the Sixers in 2013.  You just finished 34-38 and have Jrue Holiday, Evan Turner, Thad Young, Spencer Hawes, Lavoy Allen, Nick Young (impending free agent), and not much else on the roster.  You are missing 1 future 1st round pick and don't have all your 2nd round picks either.  You have the 11th pick in the upcoming draft, but your best "young" player is Moultrie. 

How do you make that team a contender?

Well, I could list a bunch of moves but then we'd just get into a stupid argument over whether they were realistic or not.

Speaking generally, you listed six guys who are still in the league today so they're all legitimate NBA players.  I might keep some.  I might trade some.  I might let some walk.  I might try to trade for other players.  I might try to trade for picks.  I might try to sign some free agents.

There are 1,001 things I might do.  Some might work.  Some might not.  Maybe I'd turn the Sixers into a contender.  Maybe I wouldn't.

What I would never do is embark on a multi-year campaign to make the team as bad as possible and hope I get lucky in the draft, which is fundamentally all Hinkie did.  That's like using your mortgage payment to buy lottery tickets.  You can get away with it for a while and it might work out in the end but the odds are very much against you.

Everybody needs a little luck to succeed but if your plan for success relies on luck, you are always going to fail.

Let's take a look at who the Sixers have now, compared to your list.

Covington?  Maybe he's better than Lavoy Allen but that's it.
Okafor?  It sure seems like the rest of the NBA would rather have 2013 Spencer Hawes than 2017 Okafor.
Saric?  Is there any guarantee he's going to be better than Nick Young?
Embiid?  Looks like a stud but hasn't even played half a season of games total in three years and just got hurt AGAIN even though he was averaging fewer minutes than 87-year-old Dirk Nowitski.
Simmons?  Looks very promising but could wind up closer to Lamar Odom than LeBron James.

Is that truly a significantly better collection of talent than Holiday, Turner, Young, Hawes, Allen and Young?  Higher upside, maybe, but dramatically better when everything is considered?  All that losing and how much better off is Philadelphia?

Mike

There's a ton wrong with this as usual, but the last bit is over the top even for you. The hilarious part is that you basically admit you're clueless about their situation, and then proceed to say that despite being clueless somebody else with an in depth knowledge of the Sixers situation is wrong.

- Robert Covington is the 10th best small forward by RPM, and he's one of the best perimeter defenders in the NBA. This is in a season in which he had the worst shooting of his career for 2-3 months. Oh and he makes around 1 million dollars this year, and around 1 million dollars next year. He's the best player of anybody not named Jrue Holiday in your post (excluding Embiid because 31 games in 3 years is, well, yeah).

- Embiid's talent is undeniable, and so is his injury history... If you're out two picks with nothing to build on that is a perfectly fine risk to take. Look at the rest of that top 10, there isn't a whole lot there.

- Dario Saric is possibly going to be the rookie of the year and he's on a rookie salary for 3 more years. Anybody with a fully functional brain would rather have him than Nick Young. 

- Gerald Henderson is the vetty vet that veterans which apparently is sooooo hard to find that you can't trade away Evan Turner (who he is a better player than btw) because you could never sign a 1 and 1 team option for him. Sam didn't acquire him, but the general point is that meh veterans are gettable every year and aren't some kind of asset and I like Gerald that isn't a shot at him.

- Thad Young is on his 4th team in 4 years, 3 of which have been bottom of the barrel finishers (bottom 3). So yes, I'd rather have the pick we got for him.

- Okafor stinks, it happens. That was a pick that made no sense at the time and makes less sense now. Maybe he can be the center on a d league team with Terry Rozier, James Young, RJ Hunter and Jordan Mickey.

- You're also ignoring that Colangelo bungled the Noel situation, and Nerlens was one of the best defensive big men by his age in NBA history. At the very least a great back up plan for Embiid.

- And finally, they have either a top 5 2017 or unprotected 2018 pick coming from the Lakers, an unprotected 2019 pick from the Kings, all their own picks (after owing 2 when he took the job) with swap rights for the Kings this year, and one of the cleanest cap sheets in the NBA.

But yeah, I'm sure keeping Jrue Holiday the "Al-Star" whose made the playoffs once despite having Anthony Davis on his team, Evan Turner who makes Brock Osweiler look underpaid, Thad Young who's a stretch 4 that can't shoot or rebound, and Spencer Hawes who is a 3rd string Center for the Hornets is a much better path ahead Mike.

This level of denial is mind numbing. It's also hilarious that Danny Ainge was trying to do the same thing when he stumbled into Isaiah Thomas and Jae Crowder.

Anyone who even vaguely implies that Covington is the 10th best small forward in the NBA either has zero knowledge of basketball or is willing to just argue any crazy thing, no matter how untrue it might be.  Such people are not worth engaging.

Mike

[Moranis]

Mike,
You are hired to run the Sixers in 2013.  You just finished 34-38 and have Jrue Holiday, Evan Turner, Thad Young, Spencer Hawes, Lavoy Allen, Nick Young (impending free agent), and not much else on the roster.  You are missing 1 future 1st round pick and don't have all your 2nd round picks either.  You have the 11th pick in the upcoming draft, but your best "young" player is Moultrie. 

How do you make that team a contender?

Well, I could list a bunch of moves but then we'd just get into a stupid argument over whether they were realistic or not.

Speaking generally, you listed six guys who are still in the league today so they're all legitimate NBA players.  I might keep some.  I might trade some.  I might let some walk.  I might try to trade for other players.  I might try to trade for picks.  I might try to sign some free agents.

There are 1,001 things I might do.  Some might work.  Some might not.  Maybe I'd turn the Sixers into a contender.  Maybe I wouldn't.

What I would never do is embark on a multi-year campaign to make the team as bad as possible and hope I get lucky in the draft, which is fundamentally all Hinkie did.  That's like using your mortgage payment to buy lottery tickets.  You can get away with it for a while and it might work out in the end but the odds are very much against you.

Everybody needs a little luck to succeed but if your plan for success relies on luck, you are always going to fail.

Let's take a look at who the Sixers have now, compared to your list.

Covington?  Maybe he's better than Lavoy Allen but that's it.
Okafor?  It sure seems like the rest of the NBA would rather have 2013 Spencer Hawes than 2017 Okafor.
Saric?  Is there any guarantee he's going to be better than Nick Young?
Embiid?  Looks like a stud but hasn't even played half a season of games total in three years and just got hurt AGAIN even though he was averaging fewer minutes than 87-year-old Dirk Nowitski.
Simmons?  Looks very promising but could wind up closer to Lamar Odom than LeBron James.

Is that truly a significantly better collection of talent than Holiday, Turner, Young, Hawes, Allen and Young?  Higher upside, maybe, but dramatically better when everything is considered?  All that losing and how much better off is Philadelphia?

Mike

The problem with this analysis, is the team you are left with is pretty bad.  What is the point of being pretty bad with no hope in the future.

And the problem with your analysis is the same thing that's wrong with all the Hinkie-worshipping that goes on around here.  It's all built on willful ignorance.

We don't know that we'd be left with a bad team.  We CAN'T know that.  Maybe it would be bad, maybe not.  All we can say for sure is that a million other teams have rebuilt successfully without following "The Process" so it is clearly possible.

Mike

I already asked you to outline how the Sixers in 2013 could have built a contender, you couldn't do it, so that pretty much answers definitively that you think they would have been a bad team.

And come on, millions of teams, don't be ridiculous, but the thing you can't seem to grasp is teams tank all the time.  Some of them for multiple seasons.  The Thunder tanked for 3 seasons.  They did basically the same thing the Sixers did.  They traded away veterans for draft picks (it started with Ray Allen, but it didn't stop with him).  They added no free agents of note and stockpiled draft picks, securing multiple top 5 picks by being terrible (and then added a bunch of other 1st round picks).  The Thunder had 10 1st round picks in a 5 year period.  They got them by doing exactly what the Sixers did.  The main difference is the Sonics actually won the lottery so instead of starting with pick 11, they started with the 2nd pick in the draft, and ended up with a franchise altering talent at the beginning of their rebuild (that would be Durant of course).  They then tanked their way to Westbrook and Harden in the two following drafts.  The Thunder amazingly selected 3 great options in 3 consecutive drafts all in the top 5 who all basically avoided injury (that is of course another difference between the organizations).   

Through this whole tanking period, the Sixers only had the worst record in the league 1 of the 4 seasons, never set the all time loss record, and don't even have the worst 3 or 4 year period in NBA history.  In other words, they aren't even the worst team in NBA history.  This notion that they are doing something new is just silly, especially when you look at the Thunder building a championship contender utilizing the exact same strategy basically 5 seasons earlier. 

[moiso]

This Moranis "keep Lrbrd33 alive" thread is pretty ridiculous at this point. 

They are injured and they suck.

Get back to us next year.

[Moranis]

This Moranis "keep Lrbrd33 alive" thread is pretty ridiculous at this point. 

They are injured and they suck.

Get back to us next year.

Thanks for chiming in, why don't you all enlighten on us for your GM plan of the Sixers in 2013.  Goal make the Sixers a contender in the quickest amount of time.

[RAAAAAAAANDY]

Mike,
You are hired to run the Sixers in 2013.  You just finished 34-38 and have Jrue Holiday, Evan Turner, Thad Young, Spencer Hawes, Lavoy Allen, Nick Young (impending free agent), and not much else on the roster.  You are missing 1 future 1st round pick and don't have all your 2nd round picks either.  You have the 11th pick in the upcoming draft, but your best "young" player is Moultrie. 

How do you make that team a contender?

Well, I could list a bunch of moves but then we'd just get into a stupid argument over whether they were realistic or not.

Speaking generally, you listed six guys who are still in the league today so they're all legitimate NBA players.  I might keep some.  I might trade some.  I might let some walk.  I might try to trade for other players.  I might try to trade for picks.  I might try to sign some free agents.

There are 1,001 things I might do.  Some might work.  Some might not.  Maybe I'd turn the Sixers into a contender.  Maybe I wouldn't.

What I would never do is embark on a multi-year campaign to make the team as bad as possible and hope I get lucky in the draft, which is fundamentally all Hinkie did.  That's like using your mortgage payment to buy lottery tickets.  You can get away with it for a while and it might work out in the end but the odds are very much against you.

Everybody needs a little luck to succeed but if your plan for success relies on luck, you are always going to fail.

Let's take a look at who the Sixers have now, compared to your list.

Covington?  Maybe he's better than Lavoy Allen but that's it.
Okafor?  It sure seems like the rest of the NBA would rather have 2013 Spencer Hawes than 2017 Okafor.
Saric?  Is there any guarantee he's going to be better than Nick Young?
Embiid?  Looks like a stud but hasn't even played half a season of games total in three years and just got hurt AGAIN even though he was averaging fewer minutes than 87-year-old Dirk Nowitski.
Simmons?  Looks very promising but could wind up closer to Lamar Odom than LeBron James.

Is that truly a significantly better collection of talent than Holiday, Turner, Young, Hawes, Allen and Young?  Higher upside, maybe, but dramatically better when everything is considered?  All that losing and how much better off is Philadelphia?

Mike

There's a ton wrong with this as usual, but the last bit is over the top even for you. The hilarious part is that you basically admit you're clueless about their situation, and then proceed to say that despite being clueless somebody else with an in depth knowledge of the Sixers situation is wrong.

- Robert Covington is the 10th best small forward by RPM, and he's one of the best perimeter defenders in the NBA. This is in a season in which he had the worst shooting of his career for 2-3 months. Oh and he makes around 1 million dollars this year, and around 1 million dollars next year. He's the best player of anybody not named Jrue Holiday in your post (excluding Embiid because 31 games in 3 years is, well, yeah).

- Embiid's talent is undeniable, and so is his injury history... If you're out two picks with nothing to build on that is a perfectly fine risk to take. Look at the rest of that top 10, there isn't a whole lot there.

- Dario Saric is possibly going to be the rookie of the year and he's on a rookie salary for 3 more years. Anybody with a fully functional brain would rather have him than Nick Young. 

- Gerald Henderson is the vetty vet that veterans which apparently is sooooo hard to find that you can't trade away Evan Turner (who he is a better player than btw) because you could never sign a 1 and 1 team option for him. Sam didn't acquire him, but the general point is that meh veterans are gettable every year and aren't some kind of asset and I like Gerald that isn't a shot at him.

- Thad Young is on his 4th team in 4 years, 3 of which have been bottom of the barrel finishers (bottom 3). So yes, I'd rather have the pick we got for him.

- Okafor stinks, it happens. That was a pick that made no sense at the time and makes less sense now. Maybe he can be the center on a d league team with Terry Rozier, James Young, RJ Hunter and Jordan Mickey.

- You're also ignoring that Colangelo bungled the Noel situation, and Nerlens was one of the best defensive big men by his age in NBA history. At the very least a great back up plan for Embiid.

- And finally, they have either a top 5 2017 or unprotected 2018 pick coming from the Lakers, an unprotected 2019 pick from the Kings, all their own picks (after owing 2 when he took the job) with swap rights for the Kings this year, and one of the cleanest cap sheets in the NBA.

But yeah, I'm sure keeping Jrue Holiday the "Al-Star" whose made the playoffs once despite having Anthony Davis on his team, Evan Turner who makes Brock Osweiler look underpaid, Thad Young who's a stretch 4 that can't shoot or rebound, and Spencer Hawes who is a 3rd string Center for the Hornets is a much better path ahead Mike.

This level of denial is mind numbing. It's also hilarious that Danny Ainge was trying to do the same thing when he stumbled into Isaiah Thomas and Jae Crowder.

Anyone who even vaguely implies that Covington is the 10th best small forward in the NBA either has zero knowledge of basketball or is willing to just argue any crazy thing, no matter how untrue it might be.  Such people are not worth engaging.

Mike

I never said he was 10th, although he's pretty clearly an above average starter. I said he was 10th in RPM, and he's 1st in DRPM (hence the claim he's one of the better perimeter defenders). That's called supporting your argument Mike, you should takes notes and try it some time. 

RPM isn't gospel, but the idea that a guy who consistently passes both the eye test and the stats test saying he's a very good player on a great contract is somehow a Lavoy Allen level player is embarrassing and ignorant.

We get it, you don't like something so you make up stuff to support an unsupportable position. Facts are facts, you aren't entitled to your own version of them.