CelticsStrong
Around the League => Around the NBA => Topic started by: KG Living Legend on April 14, 2018, 11:15:29 PM
-
Hinkie already won this team is an outstanding success already at this stage and he told ownership he was executing a 7-year plan. He's way ahead of schedule and imagine if they drafted Porzingis instead of Okafor.
Or if they sign LeBron next year they will win a ring next year. And what thanks does Hinkie get. Fired. Tanking works. That's really weak how they treated that guy, he should have a GM job right now.
-
(http://gif.mocksession.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/BORED-BILL-RUSSELL.gif)
-
Or you can have actual player development instead of the Edited. Profanity and masked profanity are against forum rules and may result in discipline.show we’ve watched.. A 7 year rebuild to be the fourth or fifth best team in the east isn’t exactly dazzling.
-
if we were tanking we would've had a chance at simmons and Jaylen. instead we were glad we had a dead end team that was in a rush to lose in the 1st rnd.
-
Things look good for them at the moment, but they haven't won anything yet, or even come close. And I still expect Embiid to get injured again.
-
I guess drafting Nerlens Noel and Jahlil Okafor worked well for them. ::)
-
Things look good for them at the moment, but they haven't won anything yet, or even come close. And I still expect Embiid to get injured again.
We have won anything yet or even come close either.
-
Or you can have actual player development instead of the ****show we’ve watched.. A 7 year rebuild to be the fourth or fifth best team in the east isn’t exactly dazzling.
It was a 4 year rebuild. This is the 5th season and they finished with the 5th best record in the league and had the 4th best point differential.
-
I never understood why they fired him. Why would you allow him to execute a 7 year plan but not give him 7 years? IIRC he offered management a 3 year, 5 year, and 7 year rebuild and they chose the 7 year plan, but then fired him 3 years in. Doesn't make sense.
-
Yes. Hinkie is a genius. In 5 years, the Process has already succeeded. With continued growth of their two franchise players, possibly the Lakers pick and a max FA this offseason, and whatever Fultz gives you... this is the team to beat for the future of the East.
But let's not forget all the other individuals that made this success possible:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58BexRFV2sw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58BexRFV2sw)
-
I never understood why they fired him. Why would you allow him to execute a 7 year plan but not give him 7 years? IIRC he offered management a 3 year, 5 year, and 7 year rebuild and they chose the 7 year plan, but then fired him 3 years in. Doesn't make sense.
Because he would have continued his blatant tanking even after acquiring franchise players. It was only in Collangelo's tenure that the organization decided to stop tanking by signing solid veteran players. Part of the Sixer's success this season are veteran presence like Amir, Reddick and Bellinelli.
-
Things look good for them at the moment, but they haven't won anything yet, or even come close. And I still expect Embiid to get injured again.
We have won anything yet or even come close either.
Exactly. If you take off the green tinted glasses, their young core is just as good as ours is.
-
I never understood why they fired him. Why would you allow him to execute a 7 year plan but not give him 7 years? IIRC he offered management a 3 year, 5 year, and 7 year rebuild and they chose the 7 year plan, but then fired him 3 years in. Doesn't make sense.
Because he would have continued his blatant tanking even after acquiring franchise players. It was only in Collangelo's tenure that the organization decided to stop tanking by signing solid veteran players. Part of the Sixer's success this season are veteran presence like Amir, Reddick and Bellinelli.
Maybe, but who's to say that's a better strategy. It simply doesn't make sense for the 76ers management to endorse a 7 year plan, and then only give him 3.
-
I never understood why they fired him. Why would you allow him to execute a 7 year plan but not give him 7 years? IIRC he offered management a 3 year, 5 year, and 7 year rebuild and they chose the 7 year plan, but then fired him 3 years in. Doesn't make sense.
Because he would have continued his blatant tanking even after acquiring franchise players. It was only in Collangelo's tenure that the organization decided to stop tanking by signing solid veteran players. Part of the Sixer's success this season are veteran presence like Amir, Reddick and Bellinelli.
Maybe, but who's to say that's a better strategy. It simply doesn't make sense for the 76ers management to endorse a 7 year plan, and then only give him 3.
Sixers showed no improvement during his 3-year tenure. I would fire someone too if I see no improvements with the team in that time span. At least with Danny, we see improvements every year. Let's not forget he have wasted two top 10 picks already for nothing. That's like praising the Cavs management for drafting Lebron James when it was a no-brainer.
-
Things look good for them at the moment, but they haven't won anything yet, or even come close. And I still expect Embiid to get injured again.
We have won anything yet or even come close either.
Exactly. If you take off the green tinted glasses, their young core is just as good as ours is.
I think people are tired of hearing the sixers and how good they're going to be.
-
Things look good for them at the moment, but they haven't won anything yet, or even come close. And I still expect Embiid to get injured again.
We have won anything yet or even come close either.
Exactly. If you take off the green tinted glasses, their young core is just as good as ours is.
No, we haven't, but I didn't say we had (not that you did, just saying that I didn't). They have a good young core, but only time will tell the full tale, for them and for us.
-
They are just hot right now... it won't last long
-
I never understood why they fired him. Why would you allow him to execute a 7 year plan but not give him 7 years? IIRC he offered management a 3 year, 5 year, and 7 year rebuild and they chose the 7 year plan, but then fired him 3 years in. Doesn't make sense.
Because he would have continued his blatant tanking even after acquiring franchise players. It was only in Collangelo's tenure that the organization decided to stop tanking by signing solid veteran players. Part of the Sixer's success this season are veteran presence like Amir, Reddick and Bellinelli.
Maybe, but who's to say that's a better strategy. It simply doesn't make sense for the 76ers management to endorse a 7 year plan, and then only give him 3.
Sixers showed no improvement during his 3-year tenure. I would fire someone too if I see no improvements with the team in that time span. At least with Danny, we see improvements every year. Let's not forget he have wasted two top 10 picks already for nothing. That's like praising the Cavs management for drafting Lebron James when it was a no-brainer.
You're missing the point. If the 76ers wanted improvement within 3 years, they should have gone with the 3 year plan. Since they chose the 7 year plan, you would think they would let him try to implement the plan that management chose. Instead they fired him not even halfway into the 7 years. I don't know why you're not grasping this concept.
-
I never understood why they fired him. Why would you allow him to execute a 7 year plan but not give him 7 years? IIRC he offered management a 3 year, 5 year, and 7 year rebuild and they chose the 7 year plan, but then fired him 3 years in. Doesn't make sense.
Because he would have continued his blatant tanking even after acquiring franchise players. It was only in Collangelo's tenure that the organization decided to stop tanking by signing solid veteran players. Part of the Sixer's success this season are veteran presence like Amir, Reddick and Bellinelli.
Maybe, but who's to say that's a better strategy. It simply doesn't make sense for the 76ers management to endorse a 7 year plan, and then only give him 3.
Sixers showed no improvement during his 3-year tenure. I would fire someone too if I see no improvements with the team in that time span. At least with Danny, we see improvements every year. Let's not forget he have wasted two top 10 picks already for nothing. That's like praising the Cavs management for drafting Lebron James when it was a no-brainer.
You're missing the point. If the 76ers wanted improvement within 3 years, they should have gone with the 3 year plan. Since they chose the 7 year plan, you would think they would let him try to implement the plan that management chose. Instead they fired him not even halfway into the 7 years. I don't know why you're not grasping this concept.
I don't know where did you get those 7 year plan from. The standard plan was to develop players and improve the team which Hinkie didn't do. Sixers just lucked out with the ping pong balls. That sure paved off for now, but that's not a hard thing to do when luck bounces your way.
So you're gonna ignore the part where I said they have wasted the talents of both Noel and Okafor? They couldn't even get a decent return for them. It's okay when someone waste mid-late 1st rounders. Its another when its in top 10 lottery, especially if you tanked hard for those.
So in short, the OP is wrong when he said Hinkie is 100% right. Its more than a luck than a calculated move.
-
I never understood why they fired him. Why would you allow him to execute a 7 year plan but not give him 7 years? IIRC he offered management a 3 year, 5 year, and 7 year rebuild and they chose the 7 year plan, but then fired him 3 years in. Doesn't make sense.
Because he would have continued his blatant tanking even after acquiring franchise players. It was only in Collangelo's tenure that the organization decided to stop tanking by signing solid veteran players. Part of the Sixer's success this season are veteran presence like Amir, Reddick and Bellinelli.
Maybe, but who's to say that's a better strategy. It simply doesn't make sense for the 76ers management to endorse a 7 year plan, and then only give him 3.
Sixers showed no improvement during his 3-year tenure. I would fire someone too if I see no improvements with the team in that time span. At least with Danny, we see improvements every year. Let's not forget he have wasted two top 10 picks already for nothing. That's like praising the Cavs management for drafting Lebron James when it was a no-brainer.
You're missing the point. If the 76ers wanted improvement within 3 years, they should have gone with the 3 year plan. Since they chose the 7 year plan, you would think they would let him try to implement the plan that management chose. Instead they fired him not even halfway into the 7 years. I don't know why you're not grasping this concept.
I don't know where did you get those 7 year plan from. The standard plan was to develop players and improve the team which Hinkie didn't do. Sixers just lucked out with the ping pong balls. That sure paved off for now, but that's not a hard thing to do when luck bounces your way.
So you're gonna ignore the part where I said they have wasted the talents of both Noel and Okafor? They couldn't even get a decent return for them. It's okay when someone waste mid-late 1st rounders. Its another when its in top 10 lottery, especially if you tanked hard for those.
So in short, the OP is wrong when he said Hinkie is 100% right. Its more than a luck than a calculated move.
Lol you've never even heard of Hinkie's 7 year plan and yet here you are arguing. If you don't know what you're talking about, there's no reason to try to create something out of nothing. Go do a little research and then come back with what you find.
-
Classic early overover reaction thread. A 7 year tank job is a fan nightmare. That team is going to be good, but to early to tell, plus, when embiid plays 70 games in a season, I will be convinced that he can be healthy enough to make them a contenser. Simmons is better than advertised, but how eill he and fultz coexist is beyond me.
Lebron joining them, thats a whole different animal, but still, Boston will be a killer team with star/superstar players in kyrie/al/hayward/brown/tatum/smart
-
Hnkie is not the only GM who managed to rebuild the team in 5y. In fact the way he took was the one who demanded the least GM talent. In fact imho he didn't actually do that good. When you draft that high you cannot miss half of your picks. Simmons and Embiid are studs , we are waiting for Fultz and Noel and Okafor were huge misses. All top3 picks (at the same time Ainge gets heat for poor drafting at the end of the first round!)
https://www.sbnation.com/2018/4/9/17214238/philadelphia-76ers-process-sam-hinkie-nba-playoffs
-
Hnkie is not the only GM who managed to rebuild the team in 5y. In fact the way he took was the one who demanded the least GM talent. In fact imho he didn't actually do that good. When you draft that high you cannot miss half of your picks.
Agreed, people are just desperate to be proven right.
-
Doesn't take a genius to TANK for 7 years...Danny Ainge is a Genius. We'd be a Top 2 team, with no injuries...Looking at Ring 18
-
A lot of sour grapes in this thread. Give credit where it's due: Sixers have a really good young core and will be a factor in the East for years to come.
-
A lot of sour grapes in this thread. Give credit where it's due: Sixers have a really good young core and will be a factor in the East for years to come.
Even I can pull the 7 year tank and get some nice young core
Their best MAX player is made of glass, 2nd and 3rd player can not shoot outside the paint and on the line lol
-
A lot of sour grapes in this thread. Give credit where it's due: Sixers have a really good young core and will be a factor in the East for years to come.
Credit is one thing ... Calling him a genius though is too much.
One way or another he turned sixers into good team with bright future. That is true. But acting like he is me magician GM who turned coal into diamonds is silly especially when other GMs have done it without turning their teams into an embarrassment first
-
7 years is a long time. If I add 7 years to my age I'd seem like an old man. I'd never want the Celtics to wait that long to contend. That's a pretty big chunk of my life.
-
A lot of sour grapes in this thread. Give credit where it's due: Sixers have a really good young core and will be a factor in the East for years to come.
Credit is one thing ... Calling him a genius though is too much.
One way or another he turned sixers into good team with bright future. That is true. But acting like he is me magician GM who turned coal into diamonds is silly especially when other GMs have done it without turning their teams into an embarrassment first
I agree with your takes. Hinkie isn't a genius; he just actually had the nerve to continue to lose year after year. Being in a stable market like Philly probably helped a lot, too. If he had been in say NOP or MEM and did such a thing, the teams probably would have packed up and moved to Seattle or Vegas.
It worked out even better for him that the most of the top players he took were injured for a year plus. It ensured that they couldn't possible improve their record by playing actual good players.
I understand that things seem to be working out for PHI, but look no further than our own Danny Ainge when searching for an NBA GM genius. He continues to pull off the most lopsided of trades and has proven to be a very good evaluator of talent in the draft. Heck, the Cs were even rated as the team with the best free agent pitches across the league.
Frankly, two of the best moves I think Hinkie made were to trade MCW for the Lakers pick and take on Landry, Thompson, and Stauskas for the Sac pick. Those were actually shrewd moves.
And as far as Lebron goes - just about any team would become a championship contender with him on their team! We had max cap space for each of the last two seasons, too; wouldn't it have been pretty cool if Lebron wanted to sign with us?
-
Hinkie did a good job cleaning up the old mediocre Sixers roster for assets to build a real contender with. Though I feel he went a little overboard with the tank job and some of his high risk lottery drafts haven't panned out. This means Colangelo had an easier job than most to turn a young team into a contender than most
Hinkie did a decent job, but to call him a genius who was 100% right is a bite much
-
Would still take the rebuild Ainge did to that of Hinkie. Right now have better team. Have stars with playoff experience. Have 2 stud young guys who are great 2 way players. Have won back to back 50+ game seasons. Have been in playoffs 4 straight years. Have gone to ECF. When healthy next year will be favorite to go to Finals from east. Have better coach. Have about 8-10 year contending window
-
Would still take the rebuild Ainge did to that of Hinkie. Right now have better team. Have stars with playoff experience. Have 2 stud young guys who are great 2 way players. Have won back to back 50+ game seasons. Have been in playoffs 4 straight years. Have gone to ECF. When healthy next year will be favorite to go to Finals from east. Have better coach. Have about 8-10 year contending window
I think that is the biggest difference. In terms of the process, you also have to count the process it takes to get there for the team and the fans. We had competitive and fun games while it must’ve been really hard for Philly fans. The end result may have been the same but I’ll take our games any day.
-
Would still take the rebuild Ainge did to that of Hinkie. Right now have better team. Have stars with playoff experience. Have 2 stud young guys who are great 2 way players. Have won back to back 50+ game seasons. Have been in playoffs 4 straight years. Have gone to ECF. When healthy next year will be favorite to go to Finals from east. Have better coach. Have about 8-10 year contending window
The window should be larger if DA hits with Lakers/Kings and Grizz picks.
I agree DAs rebuild is much better.
-
Would still take the rebuild Ainge did to that of Hinkie. Right now have better team. Have stars with playoff experience. Have 2 stud young guys who are great 2 way players. Have won back to back 50+ game seasons. Have been in playoffs 4 straight years. Have gone to ECF. When healthy next year will be favorite to go to Finals from east. Have better coach. Have about 8-10 year contending window
Which is completely irrelevant because the Sixers and Celtics were in very different situations 5 years ago. The Sixers were a mediocre team at best that just had the Bynum trade blow up in their faces. They had limited assets and didn't even have all their 1st round picks. We on the other hand were on the downside of a championship caliber team with good trade assets. If the Brooklyn trade hadn't occurred, where would our rebuild be?
On the other hand, teams like the Kings and Magic are still bad teams with little to show for the last 5 years. The Bucks have Giannis but not much more and they don't have cap space. Unless they get lucky, they're going to be locked into mediocrity. The TWolves finally made the playoffs as an 8th seed this season but that was to a large degree because of Butler. They don't have cap space. I think their upside is limited unless they move Wiggins for a good return.
So which teams would you rank as being better positioned than the Sixers? I'd say GSW, Celtics and possibly the Rockets (think their age limited). If I knew Embiid was going to be healthy, I'd just say GSW.
-
Hinkie already won this team is an outstanding success already at this stage and he told ownership he was executing a 7-year plan. He's way ahead of schedule and imagine if they drafted Porzingis instead of Okafor.
Or if they sign LeBron next year they will win a ring next year. And what thanks does Hinkie get? Fired. Tanking works. That's really weak how they treated that guy, he should have a GM job right now.
He should have had a stipulation in his contract- incentives for making playoffs and games won in the regular season. Trust the Hinkie!
-
Okafor and Noel would disagree with the original poster.
-
all I know is people are talking about ben simmons... no one's talking about our 1st rnd. loss that year.
-
Okafor and Noel would disagree with the original poster.
I understand people bringing up Okafor even though I think it is irrelevant and would suggest Okafor busting is no different than all the other teams' draft busts that don't get near the attention on here. Okafor didn't do squat to improve his situation in his time with the Nets either. In most cases, the fault predominantly rests with the player himself.
But Noel? Hinkie and the Process gave him a lot of playing time and led to a 4yr/70M offer from Dallas. The only thing he should be upset about is his ego and stupidity for turning down that deal.
-
Yup, I feel badly for Hinckie. He had the right idea. His problem was the blatant nature of the continued tank.
Didn't the NBA step in and request that philly hire someone else??
Two seasons of tanking was probably okay, but the third and fourth etc wore on people and the league. If he were a little better with league politics and not so obvious, he may have been able to continue (even while losing).
The process paid off 1000%, but I think they could have done even better.
-
Okafor and Noel would disagree with the original poster.
I understand people bringing up Okafor even though I think it is irrelevant and would suggest Okafor busting is no different than all the other teams' draft busts that don't get near the attention on here. Okafor didn't do squat to improve his situation in his time with the Nets either. In most cases, the fault predominantly rests with the player himself.
But Noel? Hinkie and the Process gave him a lot of playing time and led to a 4yr/70M offer from Dallas. The only thing he should be upset about is his ego and stupidity for turning down that deal.
How is it irrelevant ??? He is method was to get top picks , he got 4 of them and then when he had some real GM job to do he wasted 2 of them. Here we still can't let go DA's failed picks in the middle of the draft.
The only compliment for Hinkie is that he wasn't as bad as Kahn and managed to turn his picks into something.
-
Would still take the rebuild Ainge did to that of Hinkie. Right now have better team. Have stars with playoff experience. Have 2 stud young guys who are great 2 way players. Have won back to back 50+ game seasons. Have been in playoffs 4 straight years. Have gone to ECF. When healthy next year will be favorite to go to Finals from east. Have better coach. Have about 8-10 year contending window
Which is completely irrelevant because the Sixers and Celtics were in very different situations 5 years ago. The Sixers were a mediocre team at best that just had the Bynum trade blow up in their faces. They had limited assets and didn't even have all their 1st round picks. We on the other hand were on the downside of a championship caliber team with good trade assets. If the Brooklyn trade hadn't occurred, where would our rebuild be?
On the other hand, teams like the Kings and Magic are still bad teams with little to show for the last 5 years. The Bucks have Giannis but not much more and they don't have cap space. Unless they get lucky, they're going to be locked into mediocrity. The TWolves finally made the playoffs as an 8th seed this season but that was to a large degree because of Butler. They don't have cap space. I think their upside is limited unless they move Wiggins for a good return.
So which teams would you rank as being better positioned than the Sixers? I'd say GSW, Celtics and possibly the Rockets (think their age limited). If I knew Embiid was going to be healthy, I'd just say GSW.
But it did happen. That's like saying if the Sixers decided to build around Jrue Holiday, where would their rebuild be today?
What the Sixers did was such an embarrassment they had to reform the entire lottery because of them. Also, the other owners basically forced Silver to step in regards to the blatant tanking that was taking place - not only because of the losing, but because of lost revenue to home teams facing a woeful Philly squad.
Everybody gets it, losing increases one's odds of getting a higher pick; however, that doesn't mean that what they did was respectable or that they shouldn't have been punished for it. As I said before, I was much more impressed with Philly's MCW/Lakers pick deal and the Stauskas, Landry, Thompson, Sac pick for cap space deal than the total disregard they had for the integrity of the league and game. It isn't original and it's just not morally correct.
-
Things look good for them at the moment, but they haven't won anything yet, or even come close. And I still expect Embiid to get injured again.
And the rest of the league is still waiting for Kyrie to get injured again. Neither will happen imo.
-
Okafor and Noel would disagree with the original poster.
I understand people bringing up Okafor even though I think it is irrelevant and would suggest Okafor busting is no different than all the other teams' draft busts that don't get near the attention on here. Okafor didn't do squat to improve his situation in his time with the Nets either. In most cases, the fault predominantly rests with the player himself.
But Noel? Hinkie and the Process gave him a lot of playing time and led to a 4yr/70M offer from Dallas. The only thing he should be upset about is his ego and stupidity for turning down that deal.
How is it irrelevant ??? He is method was to get top picks , he got 4 of them and then when he had some real GM job to do he wasted 2 of them. Here we still can't let go DA's failed picks in the middle of the draft.
The only compliment for Hinkie is that he wasn't as bad as Kahn and managed to turn his picks into something.
I complain about Ainge choosing Olynyk over Giannis. I don't complain about his failed picks (Melo, Young, etc). Every GM has failed picks. A GMs draft successes are much more important.
Hinkie didn't ever claim to be a draft savant. He didn't think that it was possible to be that much better drafting than other GMs. So the best way to maximize draft success was to increase the quality and quantity of your picks.
I don't know if Hinkie is a genius. I do know that he had a good viable rebuild plan and he stuck to that plan. The moves he made and didn't make were consistent with that plan. He is certainly better than a lot of the current GMs.
-
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the Sixers weren't the first team to tank for multiple seasons, they don't have any team futility records, and only had the worst record 1 time. Thus, I find the criticism of their team to be quite silly and likely borne out of jealously.
-
The culture of winning thing will come out these playoffs or they will bitterly fail. It is the one downside of tanking your team culture. The Hawks a few years ago proved the regular season does not mean crap once the playoffs start. So many teams were tanking this year that it remains to be seen how good the Sixers are given so many were trying to lose.
-
Would still take the rebuild Ainge did to that of Hinkie. Right now have better team. Have stars with playoff experience. Have 2 stud young guys who are great 2 way players. Have won back to back 50+ game seasons. Have been in playoffs 4 straight years. Have gone to ECF. When healthy next year will be favorite to go to Finals from east. Have better coach. Have about 8-10 year contending window
Which is completely irrelevant because the Sixers and Celtics were in very different situations 5 years ago. The Sixers were a mediocre team at best that just had the Bynum trade blow up in their faces. They had limited assets and didn't even have all their 1st round picks. We on the other hand were on the downside of a championship caliber team with good trade assets. If the Brooklyn trade hadn't occurred, where would our rebuild be?
On the other hand, teams like the Kings and Magic are still bad teams with little to show for the last 5 years. The Bucks have Giannis but not much more and they don't have cap space. Unless they get lucky, they're going to be locked into mediocrity. The TWolves finally made the playoffs as an 8th seed this season but that was to a large degree because of Butler. They don't have cap space. I think their upside is limited unless they move Wiggins for a good return.
So which teams would you rank as being better positioned than the Sixers? I'd say GSW, Celtics and possibly the Rockets (think their age limited). If I knew Embiid was going to be healthy, I'd just say GSW.
But it did happen. That's like saying if the Sixers decided to build around Jrue Holiday, where would their rebuild be today?
What the Sixers did was such an embarrassment they had to reform the entire lottery because of them. Also, the other owners basically forced Silver to step in regards to the blatant tanking that was taking place - not only because of the losing, but because of lost revenue to home teams facing a woeful Philly squad.
Everybody gets it, losing increases one's odds of getting a higher pick; however, that doesn't mean that what they did was respectable or that they shouldn't have been punished for it. As I said before, I was much more impressed with Philly's MCW/Lakers pick deal and the Stauskas, Landry, Thompson, Sac pick for cap space deal than the total disregard they had for the integrity of the league and game. It isn't original and it's just not morally correct.
If the Sixers had tried to rebuild around Jrue, their rebuild would be in the crapper today. He's not a star to build around.
Personally, I find the Sixers tanking more respectable than this nonsense that teams pull at the end of the season sitting out healthy more talented players. Those deals you mention were a key part of the Process. As was trading Jrue for Noel and a 1st and the subsequent trade with the Magic.
-
The culture of winning thing will come out these playoffs or they will bitterly fail. It is the one downside of tanking your team culture. The Hawks a few years ago proved the regular season does not mean crap once the playoffs start. So many teams were tanking this year that it remains to be seen how good the Sixers are given so many were trying to lose.
You could say that every season though, and teams don't get the #3 seed just because everyone else is tanking. Thats BS. There were hard fought battles to make the playoffs this season.
They got the #3 seed, and may go farther than us in the playoffs, despite our 'winning culture'.
-
The culture of winning thing will come out these playoffs or they will bitterly fail. It is the one downside of tanking your team culture. The Hawks a few years ago proved the regular season does not mean crap once the playoffs start. So many teams were tanking this year that it remains to be seen how good the Sixers are given so many were trying to lose.
You could say that every season though, and teams don't get the #3 seed just because everyone else is tanking. Thats BS. There were hard fought battles to make the playoffs this season.
They got the #3 seed, and may go farther than us in the playoffs, despite our 'winning culture'.
The Celtics improved every year and went to the ECF last year. They do have a wining culture and I’m tired of people downplaying it because of the sixers.
-
avoiding playingg and losing ON PURpOsE is nothing to be proud of .
12 year olds plan to cheat the system. instead of playing the game putting your best effort forth is nothing to brag about.
NBA never figured people would act this unprofessional to get a draft pick.
they were wrong .....philly set a new low .
-
The culture of winning thing will come out these playoffs or they will bitterly fail. It is the one downside of tanking your team culture. The Hawks a few years ago proved the regular season does not mean crap once the playoffs start. So many teams were tanking this year that it remains to be seen how good the Sixers are given so many were trying to lose.
You could say that every season though, and teams don't get the #3 seed just because everyone else is tanking. Thats BS. There were hard fought battles to make the playoffs this season.
They got the #3 seed, and may go farther than us in the playoffs, despite our 'winning culture'.
The Celtics improved every year and went to the ECF last year. They do have a wining culture and I’m tired of people downplaying it because of the sixers.
I'm not downplaying it, I prefer what the Celtics have done, but don't downplay the Sixers, they are on our heels.
As for us making the ECF last season, we got rid of almost the entire roster from that team, so what effect does that winning culture have on this year's team? Most of them weren't there.
-
A lot of sour grapes in this thread. Give credit where it's due: Sixers have a really good young core and will be a factor in the East for years to come.
These “sour grapes” is because people seem to love to throw the Celtics aside as though they don’t have any good players.
-
The culture of winning thing will come out these playoffs or they will bitterly fail. It is the one downside of tanking your team culture. The Hawks a few years ago proved the regular season does not mean crap once the playoffs start. So many teams were tanking this year that it remains to be seen how good the Sixers are given so many were trying to lose.
You could say that every season though, and teams don't get the #3 seed just because everyone else is tanking. Thats BS. There were hard fought battles to make the playoffs this season.
They got the #3 seed, and may go farther than us in the playoffs, despite our 'winning culture'.
The Celtics improved every year and went to the ECF last year. They do have a wining culture and I’m tired of people downplaying it because of the sixers.
I'm not downplaying it, I prefer what the Celtics have done, but don't downplay the Sixers, they are on our heels.
As for us making the ECF last season, we got rid of almost the entire roster from that team, so what effect does that winning culture have on this year's team? Most of them weren't there.
Despite that roster overhaul, they’ve improved. Despite the injuries they’ve endured they became one of the best defensive teams in the NBA that’s a winning culture.
-
Things look good for them at the moment, but they haven't won anything yet, or even come close. And I still expect Embiid to get injured again.
And the rest of the league is still waiting for Kyrie to get injured again. Neither will happen imo.
Both will happen in my opinion.
-
Too bad the environment he created at the time probably cost them Porzingis.
Talk about a "what if".
Things are certainly looking up for that franchise now but they crapped all over their fanbase for a handful of years.
Was it worth it? Who knows? I do know that if I was a STH during those years, I would've been p*ssed since it was basically lighting hard earning $ on fire.
-
Signing of Ilyasova and Benillini after trade deadline huge for their rise from bottom tier playoff team to top 3. Multiple 3 point shooters further unleashed Simmons’ best assets as playmaker, and minimize his outside shooting weakness. Ditto for Fultz. Fact their streak was largely without Embiid speaks volumes.
-
The culture of winning thing will come out these playoffs or they will bitterly fail. It is the one downside of tanking your team culture. The Hawks a few years ago proved the regular season does not mean crap once the playoffs start. So many teams were tanking this year that it remains to be seen how good the Sixers are given so many were trying to lose.
You could say that every season though, and teams don't get the #3 seed just because everyone else is tanking. Thats BS. There were hard fought battles to make the playoffs this season.
They got the #3 seed, and may go farther than us in the playoffs, despite our 'winning culture'.
The Celtics improved every year and went to the ECF last year. They do have a wining culture and I’m tired of people downplaying it because of the sixers.
I'm not downplaying it, I prefer what the Celtics have done, but don't downplay the Sixers, they are on our heels.
As for us making the ECF last season, we got rid of almost the entire roster from that team, so what effect does that winning culture have on this year's team? Most of them weren't there.
Despite that roster overhaul, they’ve improved. Despite the injuries they’ve endured they became one of the best defensive teams in the NBA that’s a winning culture.
Sure. I love what the Celtics have done. What the Sixers have put together is great too though. Both approaches can work, it doesn't have to be one or the other.
The people saying that Embiid will get hurt again ignore Kyrie's extensive injury history though, and the possibility that Hayward may never be the same player again.
-
Signing of Ilyasova and Benillini after trade deadline huge for their rise from bottom tier playoff team to top 3. Multiple 3 point shooters further unleashed Simmons’ best assets as playmaker, and minimize his outside shooting weakness. Ditto for Fultz. Fact their streak was largely without Embiid speaks volumes.
The 1st 7 games of the streak were with Embiid. Ilyasova and Belinelli signing with the Sixers really improved their bench. The Sixers starting 5 had the best net rating in the league but their weak bench kept losing their big leads in the 4th.
Ilyasova and Belinelli signing with them should have put these silly culture arguments to rest. Ilyasova played with the Sixers last season so he knows their culture. Those two had plenty of good teams including us that they could have signed with. They chose the Sixers and they did so for the vet minimum.
-
I know it's not really to the point of the thread but a question I have is hypothetical one based on the way to rebuild a team.
If DA decided to hold onto KG and Pierce (maybe Rondo as well). Wouldn't it be expected that such a decision would put this team in a bad low pick/ low asset situation for a few years?
I look at Mavs as an example no matter if you throw $ at guys in FA with such low impact guys availble sometimes it requires bottoming out to rebuild if you keep guys till retirement.
That could have forced C's into 76ers multi year bottom tanking.
C's cut bait early and it worked out.
-
Too bad the environment he created at the time probably cost them Porzingis.
Talk about a "what if".
Things are certainly looking up for that franchise now but they crapped all over their fanbase for a handful of years.
Was it worth it? Who knows? I do know that if I was a STH during those years, I would've been p*ssed since it was basically lighting hard earning $ on fire.
if they had Porzingis they don't have Simmons or Fultz. I'm sure they are ok with the tradeoff
-
Too bad the environment he created at the time probably cost them Porzingis.
Talk about a "what if".
Things are certainly looking up for that franchise now but they crapped all over their fanbase for a handful of years.
Was it worth it? Who knows? I do know that if I was a STH during those years, I would've been p*ssed since it was basically lighting hard earning $ on fire.
if they had Porzingis they don't have Simmons or Fultz. I'm sure they are ok with the tradeoff
Sure. Still doesn't mean that they didn't botch the situation at the time, though.
Porzingis' reps wouldn't even deal with the Sixers because of the situation put in place by Hinkie. That rests on Hinkie & the process. Not everything came up rosy.
And still doesn't negate the fact that the fanbase & especially the STHs got shafted for a handful of years.
-
Too bad the environment he created at the time probably cost them Porzingis.
Talk about a "what if".
Things are certainly looking up for that franchise now but they crapped all over their fanbase for a handful of years.
Was it worth it? Who knows? I do know that if I was a STH during those years, I would've been p*ssed since it was basically lighting hard earning $ on fire.
if they had Porzingis they don't have Simmons or Fultz. I'm sure they are ok with the tradeoff
Sure. Still doesn't mean that they didn't botch the situation at the time, though.
Porzingis' reps wouldn't even deal with the Sixers because of the situation put in place by Hinkie. That rests on Hinkie & the process. Not everything came up rosy.
And still doesn't negate the fact that the fanbase & especially the STHs got shafted for a handful of years.
No one got shafted. Being a fan or a season ticket holder doesn't mean the team promises to win each year. Pretty much every team in the league has had several seasons or more of losing teams, including bottom of the league records. The Celtics certainly did for a long time in the years of ML Carr with captain Rick Fox, Pervis Ellison, Brent Szabo, etc. Did those season ticket holders get shafted? Did it ruin our chances of ever winning? Things don't work that way. People recognize that as organizations change the players and coaches they have, the perspective of the team changes too. Its not static, and not based on past history so much. Nobody looks at the Bulls team and thinks I want to sign with them or that they should be a winning franchise because Jordan and Pippen were there or even the Rose MVP year Bulls era. Those Bulls fans aren't shafted though, they are doing what they need to do to try to build a new winning team. That's how things go.
-
Too bad the environment he created at the time probably cost them Porzingis.
Talk about a "what if".
Things are certainly looking up for that franchise now but they crapped all over their fanbase for a handful of years.
Was it worth it? Who knows? I do know that if I was a STH during those years, I would've been p*ssed since it was basically lighting hard earning $ on fire.
if they had Porzingis they don't have Simmons or Fultz. I'm sure they are ok with the tradeoff
Sure. Still doesn't mean that they didn't botch the situation at the time, though.
Porzingis' reps wouldn't even deal with the Sixers because of the situation put in place by Hinkie. That rests on Hinkie & the process. Not everything came up rosy.
And still doesn't negate the fact that the fanbase & especially the STHs got shafted for a handful of years.
Josh Jackson wouldn't deal with the Celtics either. I guess the C's culture was so bad it turned him off. Porzingis wanted to be in N.Y., it really was that simple.
-
Too bad the environment he created at the time probably cost them Porzingis.
Talk about a "what if".
Things are certainly looking up for that franchise now but they crapped all over their fanbase for a handful of years.
Was it worth it? Who knows? I do know that if I was a STH during those years, I would've been p*ssed since it was basically lighting hard earning $ on fire.
if they had Porzingis they don't have Simmons or Fultz. I'm sure they are ok with the tradeoff
Sure. Still doesn't mean that they didn't botch the situation at the time, though.
Porzingis' reps wouldn't even deal with the Sixers because of the situation put in place by Hinkie. That rests on Hinkie & the process. Not everything came up rosy.
And still doesn't negate the fact that the fanbase & especially the STHs got shafted for a handful of years.
No one got shafted. Being a fan or a season ticket holder doesn't mean the team promises to win each year. Pretty much every team in the league has had several seasons or more of losing teams, including bottom of the league records. The Celtics certainly did for a long time in the years of ML Carr with captain Rick Fox, Pervis Ellison, Brent Szabo, etc. Did those season ticket holders get shafted? Did it ruin our chances of ever winning? Things don't work that way. People recognize that as organizations change the players and coaches they have, the perspective of the team changes too. Its not static, and not based on past history so much. Nobody looks at the Bulls team and thinks I want to sign with them or that they should be a winning franchise because Jordan and Pippen were there or even the Rose MVP year Bulls era. Those Bulls fans aren't shafted though, they are doing what they need to do to try to build a new winning team. That's how things go.
When there is a concerted effort by an organization not to win games for multiple years as part of a "process", yeah, I think the fanbase gets shafted. It's ultimately up to the consumer whether or not they want to fork over the money but most do out of loyalty to the team. It just sucks when the team has no real intention of winning games.
They're getting rewarded now but that stretch as a sports fan would suck.
-
I don't remember if this has been posted in this forum before. It's Ryan Bernadoni's latest take on THE PROCESS.
http://www.celticshub.com/2018/04/09/misplacing-trust-process/
-
Too bad the environment he created at the time probably cost them Porzingis.
Talk about a "what if".
Things are certainly looking up for that franchise now but they crapped all over their fanbase for a handful of years.
Was it worth it? Who knows? I do know that if I was a STH during those years, I would've been p*ssed since it was basically lighting hard earning $ on fire.
if they had Porzingis they don't have Simmons or Fultz. I'm sure they are ok with the tradeoff
Sure. Still doesn't mean that they didn't botch the situation at the time, though.
Porzingis' reps wouldn't even deal with the Sixers because of the situation put in place by Hinkie. That rests on Hinkie & the process. Not everything came up rosy.
And still doesn't negate the fact that the fanbase & especially the STHs got shafted for a handful of years.
No one got shafted. Being a fan or a season ticket holder doesn't mean the team promises to win each year. Pretty much every team in the league has had several seasons or more of losing teams, including bottom of the league records. The Celtics certainly did for a long time in the years of ML Carr with captain Rick Fox, Pervis Ellison, Brent Szabo, etc. Did those season ticket holders get shafted? Did it ruin our chances of ever winning? Things don't work that way. People recognize that as organizations change the players and coaches they have, the perspective of the team changes too. Its not static, and not based on past history so much. Nobody looks at the Bulls team and thinks I want to sign with them or that they should be a winning franchise because Jordan and Pippen were there or even the Rose MVP year Bulls era. Those Bulls fans aren't shafted though, they are doing what they need to do to try to build a new winning team. That's how things go.
When there is a concerted effort by an organization not to win games for multiple years as part of a "process", yeah, I think the fanbase gets shafted. It's ultimately up to the consumer whether or not they want to fork over the money but most do out of loyalty to the team. It just sucks when the team has no real intention of winning games.
They're getting rewarded now but that stretch as a sports fan would suck.
A lot of franchises do that though. The Celtics did that hard for Tim Duncan, it just didnt work. If it had, everyone would have said it was brilliant. Many more franchises still are content in putting out a mediocre product that will sell some playoff tickets but don't spend the money to build a winner. At least the Sixers had a plan to become elite in several years, a lot of franchises don't, they just want to sell tickets.
The players and coaches however never go out to lose a game. They all want to perform well and get their next contracts.
-
Ya, I mean I dont the preoccupation with the Sixes a lot of Celtics fans have. I think given where they are right now with two all-nba levels players on their team its safe to say their plan worked. They tanked, got stars, and are now set up to compete. People like to point out they wiff on noel and Okafor, that's true, but its also sort of factored into Hinkie's plan. You still for a long time and pile up assets to get multiple shots, because you wont hit every time. Anti-hinkies also like to say that you cant develop a winning culture in that environment, but the 76ers just went form 27 to 50 wins this season and they seem to have developed a strong defensive culture even while losing, so I'm not sure that argument holds water either.
Now, in the Celtics case is it fair to ask whether our way of rebuilding was better? Sure. Winning allowed us to sign two all star free agents, trade for a top 15 NBA player and build a culture with a great coach. We are as well set as the 76ers to compete for years, But we often ignore that it was a once in a lifetime rebuild due to the Nets picks. Most NBA teams dont have a steady stream of outsourced lottery picks to do their tanking for them. If we didn't have those picks what exactly would our team look like? No Brown, No Tatum, No Kyrie with a big three of Hayward, Thomas and Horford. Assuming those guys still sign with us.
So while those losing years suck for 76ers fans, I dont see how you make a real argument that it wasn't the right call. For all we like to rag on the 76ers for their losing the pass couple of years I think its fir to point out that we have won exactly 2 more playoff series then them during the rebuild. Now we get to watch these two teams battle in the east for years to come. Its gonna be fun.
-
Too bad the environment he created at the time probably cost them Porzingis.
Talk about a "what if".
Things are certainly looking up for that franchise now but they crapped all over their fanbase for a handful of years.
Was it worth it? Who knows? I do know that if I was a STH during those years, I would've been p*ssed since it was basically lighting hard earning $ on fire.
if they had Porzingis they don't have Simmons or Fultz. I'm sure they are ok with the tradeoff
Sure. Still doesn't mean that they didn't botch the situation at the time, though.
Porzingis' reps wouldn't even deal with the Sixers because of the situation put in place by Hinkie. That rests on Hinkie & the process. Not everything came up rosy.
And still doesn't negate the fact that the fanbase & especially the STHs got shafted for a handful of years.
Josh Jackson wouldn't deal with the Celtics either. I guess the C's culture was so bad it turned him off. Porzingis wanted to be in N.Y., it really was that simple.
Don't be so obtuse & deflectory. Outside of your speculation, can you cite where Jackson's team actually mentioned that?
Woj actually reported that Porzingis' camp wanted nothing to do with You really think it had nothing to do at what was going in Philly at the time? That's just ignorant. The reason he wanted to be in NY was because he knew he didn't want to be in Philly and New York had the pick after them and there was a really good chance New York was gonna take him.
-
Too bad the environment he created at the time probably cost them Porzingis.
Talk about a "what if".
Things are certainly looking up for that franchise now but they crapped all over their fanbase for a handful of years.
Was it worth it? Who knows? I do know that if I was a STH during those years, I would've been p*ssed since it was basically lighting hard earning $ on fire.
if they had Porzingis they don't have Simmons or Fultz. I'm sure they are ok with the tradeoff
Sure. Still doesn't mean that they didn't botch the situation at the time, though.
Porzingis' reps wouldn't even deal with the Sixers because of the situation put in place by Hinkie. That rests on Hinkie & the process. Not everything came up rosy.
And still doesn't negate the fact that the fanbase & especially the STHs got shafted for a handful of years.
Josh Jackson wouldn't deal with the Celtics either. I guess the C's culture was so bad it turned him off. Porzingis wanted to be in N.Y., it really was that simple.
Don't be so obtuse & deflectory. Outside of your speculation, can you cite where Jackson's team actually mentioned that?
Woj actually reported that Porzingis' camp wanted nothing to do with You really think it had nothing to do at what was going in Philly at the time? That's just ignorant. The reason he wanted to be in NY was because he knew he didn't want to be in Philly and New York had the pick after them and there was a really good chance New York was gonna take him.
Jackson didn't want to be in Boston. There were all kinds of reports to that nature and he basically refused to workout for the Celtics (even worse cancelling a workout after the Celtics team was already on route). I was being sarcastic about the reason being the culture of Boston, and used that as a point.
Porzingis wanted to be in New York, so his agent didn't give any information to the Sixers because he didn't want to be in Philly and the hope was that would stop the Sixers from drafting him. I mean here is the Woj article. https://sports.yahoo.com/news/the-unlikely-story-of-how-kristaps-porzingis-found-his-way-to-the-knicks-072828935.html
"As the 2015 draft approached, Orlando was no longer the primary target for Porzingis, who had become increasingly determined to play for the Knicks. Porzingis' camp knew that it had a draft night floor of No. 5 with Orlando, but its target became New York."
The article then talks about how Miller refused to let him workout for the Sixers with some vague reference about Miller not liking the Philly situation (with no actual quotes mind you), but the reality is, the first part I quoted. Porzingis wanted to play in NY. NY had the 4th pick, so they did whatever they could to stop Philly at 3 from taking him.
That happens all the time in draft situations, just as we saw last summer with Josh Jackson. Players have preferences, they use their agents to achieve those preferences.
-
Too bad the environment he created at the time probably cost them Porzingis.
Talk about a "what if".
Things are certainly looking up for that franchise now but they crapped all over their fanbase for a handful of years.
Was it worth it? Who knows? I do know that if I was a STH during those years, I would've been p*ssed since it was basically lighting hard earning $ on fire.
if they had Porzingis they don't have Simmons or Fultz. I'm sure they are ok with the tradeoff
Sure. Still doesn't mean that they didn't botch the situation at the time, though.
Porzingis' reps wouldn't even deal with the Sixers because of the situation put in place by Hinkie. That rests on Hinkie & the process. Not everything came up rosy.
And still doesn't negate the fact that the fanbase & especially the STHs got shafted for a handful of years.
Josh Jackson wouldn't deal with the Celtics either. I guess the C's culture was so bad it turned him off. Porzingis wanted to be in N.Y., it really was that simple.
Don't be so obtuse & deflectory. Outside of your speculation, can you cite where Jackson's team actually mentioned that?
Woj actually reported that Porzingis' camp wanted nothing to do with You really think it had nothing to do at what was going in Philly at the time? That's just ignorant. The reason he wanted to be in NY was because he knew he didn't want to be in Philly and New York had the pick after them and there was a really good chance New York was gonna take him.
Jackson didn't want to be in Boston. There were all kinds of reports to that nature and he basically refused to workout for the Celtics (even worse cancelling a workout after the Celtics team was already on route). I was being sarcastic about the reason being the culture of Boston, and used that as a point.
Porzingis wanted to be in New York, so his agent didn't give any information to the Sixers because he didn't want to be in Philly and the hope was that would stop the Sixers from drafting him. I mean here is the Woj article. https://sports.yahoo.com/news/the-unlikely-story-of-how-kristaps-porzingis-found-his-way-to-the-knicks-072828935.html
"As the 2015 draft approached, Orlando was no longer the primary target for Porzingis, who had become increasingly determined to play for the Knicks. Porzingis' camp knew that it had a draft night floor of No. 5 with Orlando, but its target became New York."
The article then talks about how Miller refused to let him workout for the Sixers with some vague reference about Miller not liking the Philly situation (with no actual quotes mind you), but the reality is, the first part I quoted. Porzingis wanted to play in NY. NY had the 4th pick, so they did whatever they could to stop Philly at 3 from taking him.
That happens all the time in draft situations, just as we saw last summer with Josh Jackson. Players have preferences, they use their agents to achieve those preferences.
And you really think that the agent steering him to NY had zero to do with what was going on in Philly at the time? That it was no reflection in any way, shape, or form on the environment going on in Philly brought on as a side effect to the Process?
-
Hinkie was the low scum nobody else wanted to go there .....the Philly owners were desperate and did not care about ethics or anything else .
So you got a willing set of Owners , GM flunky with no scruples and a coach desperate to gomalong with the scheme. .....if you cheat enough ......they might get ahead FOR a while ......I only hopemthe Karma catches up with them
-
And you really think that the agent steering him to NY had zero to do with what was going on in Philly at the time? That it was no reflection in any way, shape, or form on the environment going on in Philly brought on as a side effect to the Process?
Agreed who would want to go to Philly? It was a chop shop with no player development.
Also Philly is not “set.” You people act as if they’re Golden State. Suppose they don’t get a big free agent? The point is there is no such thing as a process in the NBA. You can’t cheat fundamentals. They have bad coaching, bad management, bad scouting, bad training staff. 2 allstars aren’t going to make them champs. By the time the warriors implode financially, the celtics will have potentially 4 allstars. Please don’t compare the two teams as if they’re anywhere in the same league.
-
Things look good for them at the moment, but they haven't won anything yet, or even come close. And I still expect Embiid to get injured again.
We have won anything yet or even come close either.
Exactly. If you take off the green tinted glasses, their young core is just as good as ours is.
Yes. Their young core (of Simmons, Embiid, Fultz, and Saric) is every bit as good as Tatum, Brown, Rozier, and Smart, and wouldn’t be a stretch to say perhaps better.
But, who do they have that’s as good as Kyrie, Hayward, and Horford?
-
Things look good for them at the moment, but they haven't won anything yet, or even come close. And I still expect Embiid to get injured again.
We have won anything yet or even come close either.
Exactly. If you take off the green tinted glasses, their young core is just as good as ours is.
Yes. Their young core (of Simmons, Embiid, Fultz, and Saric) is every bit as good as Tatum, Brown, Rozier, and Smart, and wouldn’t be a stretch to say perhaps better.
But, who do they have that’s as good as Kyrie, Hayward, and Horford?
It would be a stretch to say ours is better frankly. I love Tatum and Brown, but right now Simmons and Embiid is clearly superior.
-
Things look good for them at the moment, but they haven't won anything yet, or even come close. And I still expect Embiid to get injured again.
We have won anything yet or even come close either.
Exactly. If you take off the green tinted glasses, their young core is just as good as ours is.
Yes. Their young core (of Simmons, Embiid, Fultz, and Saric) is every bit as good as Tatum, Brown, Rozier, and Smart, and wouldn’t be a stretch to say perhaps better.
But, who do they have that’s as good as Kyrie, Hayward, and Horford?
It would be a stretch to say ours is better frankly. I love Tatum and Brown, but right now Simmons and Embiid is clearly superior.
They will also have the cap space this summer to sign a max free agent.
-
Popular post on Reddit from an old friend LB33
https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/8astd4/prior_to_today_the_76ers_had_only_won_50_games/
-
Things look good for them at the moment, but they haven't won anything yet, or even come close. And I still expect Embiid to get injured again.
We have won anything yet or even come close either.
Exactly. If you take off the green tinted glasses, their young core is just as good as ours is.
Yes. Their young core (of Simmons, Embiid, Fultz, and Saric) is every bit as good as Tatum, Brown, Rozier, and Smart, and wouldn’t be a stretch to say perhaps better.
But, who do they have that’s as good as Kyrie, Hayward, and Horford?
It would be a stretch to say ours is better frankly. I love Tatum and Brown, but right now Simmons and Embiid is clearly superior.
Maybe I wasn’t clear, but I meant it as their young core is perhaps considered better than ours.
Regardless of which core you trust more over the next 3-8 years, we have three veteran all-stars that they do not.
-
Embiid + Simmons > Tatum + Brown
Good thing the Celtics have Kyrie, Hayward, and Horford on their team going forward. Fultz, Saric, and another player would need to see a lot of development to match the Celtics on paper.
-
if we were tanking we would've had a chance at simmons and Jaylen. instead we were glad we had a dead end team that was in a rush to lose in the 1st rnd.
I'm still glad. I thought it was below the standards of the Celtics and their fans to endure an extended tankathon. Danny also could have picked the Greek Freak. I'm very happy with how everything has unfolded.
-
I like both Simmons and embiid.... but I believe in Brown and Tatum to become superstars.. butler and George... 2 way players... you got 2 guys like that without tanking
-
Hinkie already won this team is an outstanding success already at this stage and he told ownership he was executing a 7-year plan. He's way ahead of schedule and imagine if they drafted Porzingis instead of Okafor.
Or if they sign LeBron next year they will win a ring next year. And what thanks does Hinkie get. Fired. Tanking works. That's really weak how they treated that guy, he should have a GM job right now.
Explain to me how tanking got them JJ Reddick, Ilyasova, and Bellineli.
-
Embiid + Simmons > Tatum + Brown
Good thing the Celtics have Kyrie, Hayward, and Horford on their team going forward. Fultz, Saric, and another player would need to see a lot of development to match the Celtics on paper.
Philly is going to be great for a while, especially if they are able to add a Lebron or PG13 to their core. That being said, the Cs will be getting back Kyrie/Hayward as well so they are going to be a force as well. These 2 teams will be the teams to beat in the East for a while.
It will be interesting to see how Brown/Tatum develop. If they get to that next level as well, watch out. SAC pick could be huge too for Cs.
-
I like both Simmons and embiid.... but I believe in Brown and Tatum to become superstars.. butler and George... 2 way players... you got 2 guys like that without tanking
Yes, but the Celts did that by pulling off an absolute steal of a trade and also got a little lucky. If The Nets had been even mediocre after that trade the Celts would not have had as good a draft haul.
-
I like both Simmons and embiid.... but I believe in Brown and Tatum to become superstars.. butler and George... 2 way players... you got 2 guys like that without tanking
Yes, but the Celts did that by pulling off an absolute steal of a trade and also got a little lucky. If The Nets had been even mediocre after that trade the Celts would not have had as good a draft haul.
And Philly got lucky to get the top pick the year Simmons came out. There's luck in both executions of rebuilds.
-
I like both Simmons and embiid.... but I believe in Brown and Tatum to become superstars.. butler and George... 2 way players... you got 2 guys like that without tanking
Yes, but the Celts did that by pulling off an absolute steal of a trade and also got a little lucky. If The Nets had been even mediocre after that trade the Celts would not have had as good a draft haul.
And Philly got lucky to get the top pick the year Simmons came out. There's luck in both executions of rebuilds.
that was Hinkie's plan though. To be bad enough and long enough to ensure at least 1 HOF talent cpuld be drafted. He knew the draft was a crapshoot and maximized the chances of landing that type of player. So yeah it was luck but it also wasn't luck either
-
I like both Simmons and embiid.... but I believe in Brown and Tatum to become superstars.. butler and George... 2 way players... you got 2 guys like that without tanking
Yes, but the Celts did that by pulling off an absolute steal of a trade and also got a little lucky. If The Nets had been even mediocre after that trade the Celts would not have had as good a draft haul.
And Philly got lucky to get the top pick the year Simmons came out. There's luck in both executions of rebuilds.
that was Hinkie's plan though. To be bad enough and long enough to ensure at least 1 HOF talent cpuld be drafted. He knew the draft was a crapshoot and maximized the chances of landing that type of player. So yeah it was luck but it also wasn't luck either
It was luck that caused Embiid to fall to #3 from his injuries, and guts by Hinkie to take him though. That draft choice defines 'The Process'. It was all about swinging for the fences for a HOF level talent.
Wiggins and Parker, the two guys taken before Embiid, do not look like HOF players at this point.
-
I like both Simmons and embiid.... but I believe in Brown and Tatum to become superstars.. butler and George... 2 way players... you got 2 guys like that without tanking
Yes, but the Celts did that by pulling off an absolute steal of a trade and also got a little lucky. If The Nets had been even mediocre after that trade the Celts would not have had as good a draft haul.
And Philly got lucky to get the top pick the year Simmons came out. There's luck in both executions of rebuilds.
that was Hinkie's plan though. To be bad enough and long enough to ensure at least 1 HOF talent cpuld be drafted. He knew the draft was a crapshoot and maximized the chances of landing that type of player. So yeah it was luck but it also wasn't luck either
Hinkie did everything he could to maximize their chances. Including getting those pick swaps included in the Kings deal. If he hadn't done that, the Sixers would have been at #5 not #3 in the last draft. In which case, the Fultz trade wouldn't have been possible. Ainge would have drafted Tatum at #1 but we wouldn't have the LaKings pick. So we got quite lucky due to a really small chance of a Sixers/Kings pick swap occurring.
-
I like both Simmons and embiid.... but I believe in Brown and Tatum to become superstars.. butler and George... 2 way players... you got 2 guys like that without tanking
Yes, but the Celts did that by pulling off an absolute steal of a trade and also got a little lucky. If The Nets had been even mediocre after that trade the Celts would not have had as good a draft haul.
And Philly got lucky to get the top pick the year Simmons came out. There's luck in both executions of rebuilds.
that was Hinkie's plan though. To be bad enough and long enough to ensure at least 1 HOF talent cpuld be drafted. He knew the draft was a crapshoot and maximized the chances of landing that type of player. So yeah it was luck but it also wasn't luck either
It was luck that caused Embiid to fall to #3 from his injuries, and guts by Hinkie to take him though. That draft choice defines 'The Process'. It was all about swinging for the fences for a HOF level talent.
Wiggins and Parker, the two guys taken before Embiid, do not look like HOF players at this point.
I think Embiid at #3 was an easy choice especially because of the Process. Embiid by far had the best star potential of anyone available. Taking him at #1 would have been gutzy.
-
I like both Simmons and embiid.... but I believe in Brown and Tatum to become superstars.. butler and George... 2 way players... you got 2 guys like that without tanking
Yes, but the Celts did that by pulling off an absolute steal of a trade and also got a little lucky. If The Nets had been even mediocre after that trade the Celts would not have had as good a draft haul.
And Philly got lucky to get the top pick the year Simmons came out. There's luck in both executions of rebuilds.
that was Hinkie's plan though. To be bad enough and long enough to ensure at least 1 HOF talent cpuld be drafted. He knew the draft was a crapshoot and maximized the chances of landing that type of player. So yeah it was luck but it also wasn't luck either
It was luck...they won a freaking lottery. That's basically the definition of luck. Just because you try to maximize your chance at getting lucky doesn't mean it wasn't luck when you get lucky.
-
I like both Simmons and embiid.... but I believe in Brown and Tatum to become superstars.. butler and George... 2 way players... you got 2 guys like that without tanking
Yes, but the Celts did that by pulling off an absolute steal of a trade and also got a little lucky. If The Nets had been even mediocre after that trade the Celts would not have had as good a draft haul.
And Philly got lucky to get the top pick the year Simmons came out. There's luck in both executions of rebuilds.
that was Hinkie's plan though. To be bad enough and long enough to ensure at least 1 HOF talent cpuld be drafted. He knew the draft was a crapshoot and maximized the chances of landing that type of player. So yeah it was luck but it also wasn't luck either
It was luck...they won a freaking lottery. That's basically the definition of luck. Just because you try to maximize your chance at getting lucky doesn't mean it wasn't luck when you get lucky.
If you use that logic then every single rebuild ever was lucky. That's just the way the lottery is set up. It's not like the 76ers struck gold (Spurs getting Duncan, Bulls getting Rose, Cavs getting all those #1s). They had the best odds and won. They also got unlucky a number of times, like when the Lakers kept their pick back to back years.
-
I like both Simmons and embiid.... but I believe in Brown and Tatum to become superstars.. butler and George... 2 way players... you got 2 guys like that without tanking
Yes, but the Celts did that by pulling off an absolute steal of a trade and also got a little lucky. If The Nets had been even mediocre after that trade the Celts would not have had as good a draft haul.
And Philly got lucky to get the top pick the year Simmons came out. There's luck in both executions of rebuilds.
that was Hinkie's plan though. To be bad enough and long enough to ensure at least 1 HOF talent cpuld be drafted. He knew the draft was a crapshoot and maximized the chances of landing that type of player. So yeah it was luck but it also wasn't luck either
It was luck...they won a freaking lottery. That's basically the definition of luck. Just because you try to maximize your chance at getting lucky doesn't mean it wasn't luck when you get lucky.
If you use that logic then every single rebuild ever was lucky. That's just the way the lottery is set up. It's not like the 76ers struck gold (Spurs getting Duncan, Bulls getting Rose, Cavs getting all those #1s). They had the best odds and won. They also got unlucky a number of times, like when the Lakers kept their pick back to back years.
Well ya, every single succesuful rebuild requires some amount of luck. Picking the right guy, that guy being in the draft, injuries, ect. Golden stae is a prime exmaple. If Curry desnt have ankle issue he gets the max right off the bta, no cap room for Durant, and they are really good but not a super team. Our rebuild path required soeme luck. Irving becming available being one exmaple.
-
I like both Simmons and embiid.... but I believe in Brown and Tatum to become superstars.. butler and George... 2 way players... you got 2 guys like that without tanking
Yes, but the Celts did that by pulling off an absolute steal of a trade and also got a little lucky. If The Nets had been even mediocre after that trade the Celts would not have had as good a draft haul.
And Philly got lucky to get the top pick the year Simmons came out. There's luck in both executions of rebuilds.
that was Hinkie's plan though. To be bad enough and long enough to ensure at least 1 HOF talent cpuld be drafted. He knew the draft was a crapshoot and maximized the chances of landing that type of player. So yeah it was luck but it also wasn't luck either
It was luck...they won a freaking lottery. That's basically the definition of luck. Just because you try to maximize your chance at getting lucky doesn't mean it wasn't luck when you get lucky.
If you use that logic then every single rebuild ever was lucky. That's just the way the lottery is set up. It's not like the 76ers struck gold (Spurs getting Duncan, Bulls getting Rose, Cavs getting all those #1s). They had the best odds and won. They also got unlucky a number of times, like when the Lakers kept their pick back to back years.
Whether you have the best odds of winning or not, the odds are against you and so if you win, you're lucky. I also only claimed they were lucky with the Simmons pick. You win a lottery to get the best pick, that's luck. You're picking after the first pick because you were bad, then you are using scouting and hoping other team pick bad to get the player you want. They didn't get Embiid #1. That's good drafting, not luck. But the Simmons pick was luck. THEY WON A LOTTERY!!
-
I like both Simmons and embiid.... but I believe in Brown and Tatum to become superstars.. butler and George... 2 way players... you got 2 guys like that without tanking
Yes, but the Celts did that by pulling off an absolute steal of a trade and also got a little lucky. If The Nets had been even mediocre after that trade the Celts would not have had as good a draft haul.
And Philly got lucky to get the top pick the year Simmons came out. There's luck in both executions of rebuilds.
that was Hinkie's plan though. To be bad enough and long enough to ensure at least 1 HOF talent cpuld be drafted. He knew the draft was a crapshoot and maximized the chances of landing that type of player. So yeah it was luck but it also wasn't luck either
It was luck...they won a freaking lottery. That's basically the definition of luck. Just because you try to maximize your chance at getting lucky doesn't mean it wasn't luck when you get lucky.
The Sixers winning the lottery one time by maximizing their odds across four drafts makes them a lot less lucky than other teams that won it. Without even factoring in the additional chances from the 2 years of Kings pick swaps, the chances of the Sixers not getting the #1 pick in any of those 4 seasons was less than 45%. If that had occurred, they would have been somewhat unlucky.
Now the Cavs winning the lottery from the #8 and #9 slots in less than a decade, that's really lucky.
-
Have we considered making a dedicated part of this forum for general panic about the 76ers potential greatness and fear of Lebron going there? It seems like people want to keep making threads about it and it would be easiest to have a dedicated spot.
Side note: I get they are not in the same division, but the warriors have won 2 of the last 3 seasons and set the all time win mark and we have less threads about their dominance potential/dominance.
-
Embiid + Simmons > Tatum + Brown
Good thing the Celtics have Kyrie, Hayward, and Horford on their team going forward. Fultz, Saric, and another player would need to see a lot of development to match the Celtics on paper.
Philly is going to be great for a while, especially if they are able to add a Lebron or PG13 to their core. That being said, the Cs will be getting back Kyrie/Hayward as well so they are going to be a force as well. These 2 teams will be the teams to beat in the East for a while.
It will be interesting to see how Brown/Tatum develop. If they get to that next level as well, watch out. SAC pick could be huge too for Cs.
Even if Brown and Tatum end up being just 75% of Simmons and Embiid, we shouldn't forget that we got that (plus Rozier for a good measure) with one swing of the bat... and the 76ers had to endure years in the purgatory. I'd take our deal every day.
-
Have we considered making a dedicated part of this forum for general panic about the 76ers potential greatness and fear of Lebron going there? It seems like people want to keep making threads about it and it would be easiest to have a dedicated spot.
Side note: I get they are not in the same division, but the warriors have won 2 of the last 3 seasons and set the all time win mark and we have less threads about their dominance potential/dominance.
Sixers talk seems to be more inflammatory. That probably fuels more discussion about them. I'm guilty of it because Kyrie. But I also like the Sixers. But it is also fun to talk about because of all the strong opinions. So to answer your question, nope.. let's keeping making new threads for inflammatory discussions within forum rules.
-
For all further posts about Hinkie I'm just gonna link people to Ryan Bernardoni's great piece on the subject:
http://www.celticshub.com/2018/04/09/misplacing-trust-process/
-
For all further posts about Hinkie I'm just gonna link people to Ryan Bernardoni's great piece on the subject:
http://www.celticshub.com/2018/04/09/misplacing-trust-process/
I like this piece a lot Phosita. I particularly liked this discussion point:
"The supportive fans certainly feel like they’ve been vindicated and won, which maybe is all that matters in something as ethereal as sports fandom. They’ve leaned into tribalism and self-aggrandizement as much as any fan base in recent American sports memory. They make Deflategate-period Patriots fans look rational. As strong an argument can be made that they sacrificed years of enjoying their team to end up in the same place as their peers, though. Do Jazz fans wish that they had tanked away a four year span? Maybe the defiance from Process Trusters is as much a coping mechanism as true search for vindication."
I think that in a nutshell is why we see so many of these threads popping up. Even our fans that were invested in this process and debated it over the years now want to try and prove that they were very intelligent in their invested arguments over the year even though a team like the jazz or timberwolves is in a very similar spot from a completely different path. (When I was watching the wolves yesterday I couldn't help but they they would be favorites to win the east if they were in it)
-
HE is a genius?
He is a cheater imo
League allowing a team to tank repeated is ridiculous. I can't blame Mark Cuban for trying to do the same
-
For all further posts about Hinkie I'm just gonna link people to Ryan Bernardoni's great piece on the subject:
http://www.celticshub.com/2018/04/09/misplacing-trust-process/
I like this piece a lot Phosita. I particularly liked this discussion point:
"The supportive fans certainly feel like they’ve been vindicated and won, which maybe is all that matters in something as ethereal as sports fandom. They’ve leaned into tribalism and self-aggrandizement as much as any fan base in recent American sports memory. They make Deflategate-period Patriots fans look rational. As strong an argument can be made that they sacrificed years of enjoying their team to end up in the same place as their peers, though. Do Jazz fans wish that they had tanked away a four year span? Maybe the defiance from Process Trusters is as much a coping mechanism as true search for vindication."
I think that in a nutshell is why we see so many of these threads popping up. Even our fans that were invested in this process and debated it over the years now want to try and prove that they were very intelligent in their invested arguments over the year even though a team like the jazz or timberwolves is in a very similar spot from a completely different path. (When I was watching the wolves yesterday I couldn't help but they they would be favorites to win the east if they were in it)
Patriots fans were the only rational fans in the NFL during Deflategate. They were the only ones that understood that cold weather can deflate a football a couple to a few tenths of a pound per square inch of pressure. 😁
-
Hinkie picked... Williams noel okafor Simmons and embiid... If if embiid can stay healthy it is 2 out of 5...for so many lost years... and the Sixers are playing well because for the first time in several years their supporting cast is decent..
-
For all further posts about Hinkie I'm just gonna link people to Ryan Bernardoni's great piece on the subject:
http://www.celticshub.com/2018/04/09/misplacing-trust-process/
I like this piece a lot Phosita. I particularly liked this discussion point:
"The supportive fans certainly feel like they’ve been vindicated and won, which maybe is all that matters in something as ethereal as sports fandom. They’ve leaned into tribalism and self-aggrandizement as much as any fan base in recent American sports memory. They make Deflategate-period Patriots fans look rational. As strong an argument can be made that they sacrificed years of enjoying their team to end up in the same place as their peers, though. Do Jazz fans wish that they had tanked away a four year span? Maybe the defiance from Process Trusters is as much a coping mechanism as true search for vindication."
I think that in a nutshell is why we see so many of these threads popping up. Even our fans that were invested in this process and debated it over the years now want to try and prove that they were very intelligent in their invested arguments over the year even though a team like the jazz or timberwolves is in a very similar spot from a completely different path. (When I was watching the wolves yesterday I couldn't help but they they would be favorites to win the east if they were in it)
To say the Jazz and the Sixers are in the same place is pretty silly. This season they did end up around the same amount of wins (though the Sixers are a betting favorite for the ECF and the Jazz likely won't get out of the 1st round), but what do people think next year will look like, or the year after, or the year after, or the 5 to 10 years after that.
-
For all further posts about Hinkie I'm just gonna link people to Ryan Bernardoni's great piece on the subject:
http://www.celticshub.com/2018/04/09/misplacing-trust-process/
I like this piece a lot Phosita. I particularly liked this discussion point:
"The supportive fans certainly feel like they’ve been vindicated and won, which maybe is all that matters in something as ethereal as sports fandom. They’ve leaned into tribalism and self-aggrandizement as much as any fan base in recent American sports memory. They make Deflategate-period Patriots fans look rational. As strong an argument can be made that they sacrificed years of enjoying their team to end up in the same place as their peers, though. Do Jazz fans wish that they had tanked away a four year span? Maybe the defiance from Process Trusters is as much a coping mechanism as true search for vindication."
I think that in a nutshell is why we see so many of these threads popping up. Even our fans that were invested in this process and debated it over the years now want to try and prove that they were very intelligent in their invested arguments over the year even though a team like the jazz or timberwolves is in a very similar spot from a completely different path. (When I was watching the wolves yesterday I couldn't help but they they would be favorites to win the east if they were in it)
Patriots fans were the only rational fans in the NFL during Deflategate. They were the only ones that understood that cold weather can deflate a football a couple to a few tenths of a pound per square inch of pressure. 😁
Pretty much my thinking, Nick.
-
Danny Ainge drafts Fab Melo at 22 and he gets eviscerated on these boards.
Sam Hinkie makes high lottery picks out of Jahlil Okafor and Nerlens Noel and he's a genius.
-
For all further posts about Hinkie I'm just gonna link people to Ryan Bernardoni's great piece on the subject:
http://www.celticshub.com/2018/04/09/misplacing-trust-process/
Great piece. In addition to what CClay posted, I also liked these parts:
...It ignores that the most basic thing that the league actually requires is that you try, because having two teams trying is how a sports league makes money. Before you get to play in the league, you have to agree to that...
...The job of an NBA franchise is, first, to make money for the league. Again, the 76ers are a major market with history and will always make enough local revenues to survive just fine, especially if part of their strategy is to run the lowest possible payroll expense. The issue becomes that the 4th largest media market is a non-entity for the national broadcast partners. A marquee matchup becomes an unsellable ticket to 29 partner franchises. A team you expect to be contributing into revenue sharing and the luxury tax pool is instead doing neither. Strategic tanking cannot be supported anywhere, but it’s particularly insidious if a market that already has ingrained advantages and an outsized importance for the league does it...
The only real winner from The Process is the primary perpetrators, the 76ers owners. They ran a con and won, which should be no surprise to anyone familiar with wealthy people in America running cons. They bought a team on the cheap, ran it on the cheap to the detriment of their partners, grabbed their partners’ charity with both hands, and are left in a far better place with no major repercussions for themselves.
People can feel jealous of the results of 'The Process', but should be appalled by the idea.
-
For all further posts about Hinkie I'm just gonna link people to Ryan Bernardoni's great piece on the subject:
http://www.celticshub.com/2018/04/09/misplacing-trust-process/
I like this piece a lot Phosita. I particularly liked this discussion point:
"The supportive fans certainly feel like they’ve been vindicated and won, which maybe is all that matters in something as ethereal as sports fandom. They’ve leaned into tribalism and self-aggrandizement as much as any fan base in recent American sports memory. They make Deflategate-period Patriots fans look rational. As strong an argument can be made that they sacrificed years of enjoying their team to end up in the same place as their peers, though. Do Jazz fans wish that they had tanked away a four year span? Maybe the defiance from Process Trusters is as much a coping mechanism as true search for vindication."
I think that in a nutshell is why we see so many of these threads popping up. Even our fans that were invested in this process and debated it over the years now want to try and prove that they were very intelligent in their invested arguments over the year even though a team like the jazz or timberwolves is in a very similar spot from a completely different path. (When I was watching the wolves yesterday I couldn't help but they they would be favorites to win the east if they were in it)
To say the Jazz and the Sixers are in the same place is pretty silly. This season they did end up around the same amount of wins (though the Sixers are a betting favorite for the ECF and the Jazz likely won't get out of the 1st round), but what do people think next year will look like, or the year after, or the year after, or the 5 to 10 years after that.
If you switch the Jazz and 76ers conferences the exact same is true. The 76ers would probably lose to OKC in the first round themselves. Lets not fall into this trap of pretending east teams are better than they are because the top 2 contenders from last year were decimated by chemistry (Kyrie Trade), Injuries (hayward) and 3-4 of the all-stars from last season went west (including dramatic game changers in George and Butler).
The jazz have a potentially transcendent star in Mitchell. Gobert is an incredible defensive player and is only a year older than embiid with less injury history. The Jazz also have 25 million in expiring deals they can trade next season and have cap space this offseason. If are going to say the Jazz somehow can't handle a franchise player in free agency the next two offseasons because they are not a desirable place for free agency that's not really their fault.
The timberwolves would also be betting favorite to make the the ECF if they were in the east also. They lost by 3 on the road to the best team in the league despite their allstar going for 8 points.
-
For all further posts about Hinkie I'm just gonna link people to Ryan Bernardoni's great piece on the subject:
http://www.celticshub.com/2018/04/09/misplacing-trust-process/
I like this piece a lot Phosita. I particularly liked this discussion point:
"The supportive fans certainly feel like they’ve been vindicated and won, which maybe is all that matters in something as ethereal as sports fandom. They’ve leaned into tribalism and self-aggrandizement as much as any fan base in recent American sports memory. They make Deflategate-period Patriots fans look rational. As strong an argument can be made that they sacrificed years of enjoying their team to end up in the same place as their peers, though. Do Jazz fans wish that they had tanked away a four year span? Maybe the defiance from Process Trusters is as much a coping mechanism as true search for vindication."
I think that in a nutshell is why we see so many of these threads popping up. Even our fans that were invested in this process and debated it over the years now want to try and prove that they were very intelligent in their invested arguments over the year even though a team like the jazz or timberwolves is in a very similar spot from a completely different path. (When I was watching the wolves yesterday I couldn't help but they they would be favorites to win the east if they were in it)
To say the Jazz and the Sixers are in the same place is pretty silly. This season they did end up around the same amount of wins (though the Sixers are a betting favorite for the ECF and the Jazz likely won't get out of the 1st round), but what do people think next year will look like, or the year after, or the year after, or the 5 to 10 years after that.
This. I mean it depends on what your goal is. The jazz are gonna be good, but id ventura to guess at no point in the next ten years will the be favored to win a chip. 76ers will. Thats before even knowing what their cap space or Fultz turn into. You can sit there and say you dont like the way the 76ers did it, but given the incentive that existed its hard say they didnt make the right call
-
For all further posts about Hinkie I'm just gonna link people to Ryan Bernardoni's great piece on the subject:
http://www.celticshub.com/2018/04/09/misplacing-trust-process/
I like this piece a lot Phosita. I particularly liked this discussion point:
"The supportive fans certainly feel like they’ve been vindicated and won, which maybe is all that matters in something as ethereal as sports fandom. They’ve leaned into tribalism and self-aggrandizement as much as any fan base in recent American sports memory. They make Deflategate-period Patriots fans look rational. As strong an argument can be made that they sacrificed years of enjoying their team to end up in the same place as their peers, though. Do Jazz fans wish that they had tanked away a four year span? Maybe the defiance from Process Trusters is as much a coping mechanism as true search for vindication."
I think that in a nutshell is why we see so many of these threads popping up. Even our fans that were invested in this process and debated it over the years now want to try and prove that they were very intelligent in their invested arguments over the year even though a team like the jazz or timberwolves is in a very similar spot from a completely different path. (When I was watching the wolves yesterday I couldn't help but they they would be favorites to win the east if they were in it)
To say the Jazz and the Sixers are in the same place is pretty silly. This season they did end up around the same amount of wins (though the Sixers are a betting favorite for the ECF and the Jazz likely won't get out of the 1st round), but what do people think next year will look like, or the year after, or the year after, or the 5 to 10 years after that.
If you switch the Jazz and 76ers conferences the exact same is true. The 76ers would probably lose to OKC in the first round themselves. Lets not fall into this trap of pretending east teams are better than they are because the top 2 contenders from last year were decimated by chemistry (Kyrie Trade), Injuries (hayward) and 3-4 of the all-stars from last season went west (including dramatic game changers in George and Butler).
The jazz have a potentially transcendent star in Mitchell. Gobert is an incredible defensive player and is only a year older than embiid with less injury history. The Jazz also have 25 million in expiring deals they can trade next season and have cap space this offseason. If are going to say the Jazz somehow can't handle a franchise player in free agency the next two offseasons because they are not a desirable place for free agency that's not really their fault.
The timberwolves would also be betting favorite to make the the ECF if they were in the east also. They lost by 3 on the road to the best team in the league despite their allstar going for 8 points.
The Sixers might lose to the Thunder, but I don't see the Jazz as being favored to make the ECF if they were the 3 seed in the East. I think Miami could absolutely beat the Jazz and so could Boston or Milwaukee. The Jazz just aren't on the same tier as the Sixers, both in current talent or projected future.
Mitchell has had a great rookie year, but I don't see him as some sort of transcendent player in the vein of Embiid or Simmons. Gobert is a fantastic defender and excellent rebounder, but he is a terrible offensive player. Favors is the oldest 26 year old I've ever seen. Ingles, Rubio, Crowder, etc. are role players. Unless Exum wakes up as a different person, they only have Mitchell (and Gobert if you want to call him young) as any sort of young talent. They have no great draft assets. The Sixers on the other hand have 2 legitimate transcendent talents in Embiid and Simmons. They have Saric who looks like he could be an all star. They have Fultz who was the #1 pick and clearly has talent, how much is to be determined. They have Covington who is basically a slightly lesser wing version of Gobert (i.e. great defender, good 3 shooter, but not much else). They also have the Lakers pick (or the Sacto pick). The Sixers even have the better veteran role players in Redick, Ilyasova, Belinelli, and Johnson.
It is just a strange take to have the Jazz and Sixers as basically in the same place. They aren't. The Sixers are in a much better position, both in potential transcendent talent and in the ability to make roster moves (i.e. the Sixers have more cap space and more trade-able assets).
-
Dude got fired, which was one of the risks of his strategy. So I beg to differ that he was right.
-
Patriots fans were the only rational fans in the NFL during Deflategate. They were the only ones that understood that cold weather can deflate a football a couple to a few tenths of a pound per square inch of pressure. 😁
I had the same thought, but then I am a Pats fan, so go figure.
-
Embiid has played 93 games in 4 years. When he gets to the point that he can play in 93 games in one season, playoffs and regular season combined, I will call the tankathon a success. Until then, they still goguaranteed.to me they have long term success guaranteed.
-
Re: Jazz / Wolves / Sixers:
The point of The Process, I thought, was to become a contender, not just a very good team.
All three of those teams has the talent on their roster to be very good for years to come. Not clear yet if any of those three will seriously contend.
I think Simmons / Embiid is clearly the best combo of top talent out of those three teams.
That said, Butler / Towns and Mitchell / Gobert are pretty great combos as well, to the point where I think it really will just come down to coaching and how good a job those teams do in building a supporting cast.
Plus luck, of course.
It would be fair to point out that the Wolves missed the playoffs for over a decade in getting to where they are now, though. The Jazz are a much more interesting comparison.
-
For all further posts about Hinkie I'm just gonna link people to Ryan Bernardoni's great piece on the subject:
http://www.celticshub.com/2018/04/09/misplacing-trust-process/
I like this piece a lot Phosita. I particularly liked this discussion point:
"The supportive fans certainly feel like they’ve been vindicated and won, which maybe is all that matters in something as ethereal as sports fandom. They’ve leaned into tribalism and self-aggrandizement as much as any fan base in recent American sports memory. They make Deflategate-period Patriots fans look rational. As strong an argument can be made that they sacrificed years of enjoying their team to end up in the same place as their peers, though. Do Jazz fans wish that they had tanked away a four year span? Maybe the defiance from Process Trusters is as much a coping mechanism as true search for vindication."
I think that in a nutshell is why we see so many of these threads popping up. Even our fans that were invested in this process and debated it over the years now want to try and prove that they were very intelligent in their invested arguments over the year even though a team like the jazz or timberwolves is in a very similar spot from a completely different path. (When I was watching the wolves yesterday I couldn't help but they they would be favorites to win the east if they were in it)
To say the Jazz and the Sixers are in the same place is pretty silly. This season they did end up around the same amount of wins (though the Sixers are a betting favorite for the ECF and the Jazz likely won't get out of the 1st round), but what do people think next year will look like, or the year after, or the year after, or the 5 to 10 years after that.
If you switch the Jazz and 76ers conferences the exact same is true. The 76ers would probably lose to OKC in the first round themselves. Lets not fall into this trap of pretending east teams are better than they are because the top 2 contenders from last year were decimated by chemistry (Kyrie Trade), Injuries (hayward) and 3-4 of the all-stars from last season went west (including dramatic game changers in George and Butler).
The jazz have a potentially transcendent star in Mitchell. Gobert is an incredible defensive player and is only a year older than embiid with less injury history. The Jazz also have 25 million in expiring deals they can trade next season and have cap space this offseason. If are going to say the Jazz somehow can't handle a franchise player in free agency the next two offseasons because they are not a desirable place for free agency that's not really their fault.
The timberwolves would also be betting favorite to make the the ECF if they were in the east also. They lost by 3 on the road to the best team in the league despite their allstar going for 8 points.
The Sixers might lose to the Thunder, but I don't see the Jazz as being favored to make the ECF if they were the 3 seed in the East. I think Miami could absolutely beat the Jazz and so could Boston or Milwaukee. The Jazz just aren't on the same tier as the Sixers, both in current talent or projected future.
Mitchell has had a great rookie year, but I don't see him as some sort of transcendent player in the vein of Embiid or Simmons. Gobert is a fantastic defender and excellent rebounder, but he is a terrible offensive player. Favors is the oldest 26 year old I've ever seen. Ingles, Rubio, Crowder, etc. are role players. Unless Exum wakes up as a different person, they only have Mitchell (and Gobert if you want to call him young) as any sort of young talent. They have no great draft assets. The Sixers on the other hand have 2 legitimate transcendent talents in Embiid and Simmons. They have Saric who looks like he could be an all star. They have Fultz who was the #1 pick and clearly has talent, how much is to be determined. They have Covington who is basically a slightly lesser wing version of Gobert (i.e. great defender, good 3 shooter, but not much else). They also have the Lakers pick (or the Sacto pick). The Sixers even have the better veteran role players in Redick, Ilyasova, Belinelli, and Johnson.
It is just a strange take to have the Jazz and Sixers as basically in the same place. They aren't. The Sixers are in a much better position, both in potential transcendent talent and in the ability to make roster moves (i.e. the Sixers have more cap space and more trade-able assets).
You think Covington is a slightly less anything of Gobert? Jeez talk about criminally underrating Gobert. Gobert is the best defensive player in the league by a pretty decent margin and will definitely make some all-star games (most thought he deserved it last year, this year he was injured). Covington will never make an all-star team. I also would be very very surprised if Saric made an all-star game (a viewpoint i have seen many 76ers fan express). He is a very elite role player, but I don't think think he has enough athleticism or ability to create his own shot to become a fulltime star.
Regarding Mitchell, what does a rookie have to do to impress you? How many rookies in the last 20 years came in and scored 20 points a game for a mid-tier playoff team? I honestly can't think of any off the top of my head... who knows how he will develop but he definitely could be one of the best players in the entire league in the next few years and I don't understand the point of acting like he couldn't. It seems quite strange.
-
Hinkie already won this team is an outstanding success already at this stage and he told ownership he was executing a 7-year plan. He's way ahead of schedule and imagine if they drafted Porzingis instead of Okafor.
Or if they sign LeBron next year they will win a ring next year. And what thanks does Hinkie get. Fired. Tanking works. That's really weak how they treated that guy, he should have a GM job right now.
Oh boy... I don't even know what to start with, and I'm sure you won't listen to the arguments but anyway.
Just to be clear, I think Hinkie was a good GM but you vastly exaggerate how good he was. This is what we disagree about. So:
1/Other teams have achieved similar results without getting exposed by the league.
2/Doesn't the current GM deserve some credit for the teams achievements?
3/Similarly, if (that's a big if) Lebron ends up in Philly why should Hinkie get the credit.
4/Philly's model is nearly impossible to replicate esp. with the new rules.
5/If he was so good, why did he lose his job?
tl;dr Hinkie is far from offering a blueprint for successful rebuildings. He made a very interesting experiment in Philly with some good results, but this kind of hardcore tanking is dead for good now.
-
For all further posts about Hinkie I'm just gonna link people to Ryan Bernardoni's great piece on the subject:
http://www.celticshub.com/2018/04/09/misplacing-trust-process/
I like this piece a lot Phosita. I particularly liked this discussion point:
"The supportive fans certainly feel like they’ve been vindicated and won, which maybe is all that matters in something as ethereal as sports fandom. They’ve leaned into tribalism and self-aggrandizement as much as any fan base in recent American sports memory. They make Deflategate-period Patriots fans look rational. As strong an argument can be made that they sacrificed years of enjoying their team to end up in the same place as their peers, though. Do Jazz fans wish that they had tanked away a four year span? Maybe the defiance from Process Trusters is as much a coping mechanism as true search for vindication."
I think that in a nutshell is why we see so many of these threads popping up. Even our fans that were invested in this process and debated it over the years now want to try and prove that they were very intelligent in their invested arguments over the year even though a team like the jazz or timberwolves is in a very similar spot from a completely different path. (When I was watching the wolves yesterday I couldn't help but they they would be favorites to win the east if they were in it)
To say the Jazz and the Sixers are in the same place is pretty silly. This season they did end up around the same amount of wins (though the Sixers are a betting favorite for the ECF and the Jazz likely won't get out of the 1st round), but what do people think next year will look like, or the year after, or the year after, or the 5 to 10 years after that.
If you switch the Jazz and 76ers conferences the exact same is true. The 76ers would probably lose to OKC in the first round themselves. Lets not fall into this trap of pretending east teams are better than they are because the top 2 contenders from last year were decimated by chemistry (Kyrie Trade), Injuries (hayward) and 3-4 of the all-stars from last season went west (including dramatic game changers in George and Butler).
The jazz have a potentially transcendent star in Mitchell. Gobert is an incredible defensive player and is only a year older than embiid with less injury history. The Jazz also have 25 million in expiring deals they can trade next season and have cap space this offseason. If are going to say the Jazz somehow can't handle a franchise player in free agency the next two offseasons because they are not a desirable place for free agency that's not really their fault.
The timberwolves would also be betting favorite to make the the ECF if they were in the east also. They lost by 3 on the road to the best team in the league despite their allstar going for 8 points.
The Sixers might lose to the Thunder, but I don't see the Jazz as being favored to make the ECF if they were the 3 seed in the East. I think Miami could absolutely beat the Jazz and so could Boston or Milwaukee. The Jazz just aren't on the same tier as the Sixers, both in current talent or projected future.
Mitchell has had a great rookie year, but I don't see him as some sort of transcendent player in the vein of Embiid or Simmons. Gobert is a fantastic defender and excellent rebounder, but he is a terrible offensive player. Favors is the oldest 26 year old I've ever seen. Ingles, Rubio, Crowder, etc. are role players. Unless Exum wakes up as a different person, they only have Mitchell (and Gobert if you want to call him young) as any sort of young talent. They have no great draft assets. The Sixers on the other hand have 2 legitimate transcendent talents in Embiid and Simmons. They have Saric who looks like he could be an all star. They have Fultz who was the #1 pick and clearly has talent, how much is to be determined. They have Covington who is basically a slightly lesser wing version of Gobert (i.e. great defender, good 3 shooter, but not much else). They also have the Lakers pick (or the Sacto pick). The Sixers even have the better veteran role players in Redick, Ilyasova, Belinelli, and Johnson.
It is just a strange take to have the Jazz and Sixers as basically in the same place. They aren't. The Sixers are in a much better position, both in potential transcendent talent and in the ability to make roster moves (i.e. the Sixers have more cap space and more trade-able assets).
You think Covington is a slightly less anything of Gobert? Jeez talk about criminally underrating Gobert. Gobert is the best defensive player in the league by a pretty decent margin and will definitely make some all-star games (most thought he deserved it last year, this year he was injured). Covington will never make an all-star team. I also would be very very surprised if Saric made an all-star game (a viewpoint i have seen many 76ers fan express). He is a very elite role player, but I don't think think he has enough athleticism or ability to create his own shot to become a fulltime star.
Regarding Mitchell, what does a rookie have to do to impress you? How many rookies in the last 20 years came in and scored 20 points a game for a mid-tier playoff team? I honestly can't think of any off the top of my head... who knows how he will develop but he definitely could be one of the best players in the entire league in the next few years and I don't understand the point of acting like he couldn't. It seems quite strange.
Mitchell is also a two-way player, not just a scorer. He was drafted primarily for his defense. His offensive output combined with his defense makes him a candidate to be a top tier player in the league for years if he keeps it up and develops a little bit in the next year.
-
Doesn’t take genius to tank for several consecutive years.
Just hutzpah.
It has paid off.
He actually got lucky with Embiid, who slipped to 3 due to injury concerns. Philly wanted Wiggins.
Okafor was a poor pick. Smart scouts rated Porzingis as better prospect. Certainly smart bloggers did.
Simmons they got with the first pick. He was consensus number 1.
-
For all further posts about Hinkie I'm just gonna link people to Ryan Bernardoni's great piece on the subject:
http://www.celticshub.com/2018/04/09/misplacing-trust-process/
I like this piece a lot Phosita. I particularly liked this discussion point:
"The supportive fans certainly feel like they’ve been vindicated and won, which maybe is all that matters in something as ethereal as sports fandom. They’ve leaned into tribalism and self-aggrandizement as much as any fan base in recent American sports memory. They make Deflategate-period Patriots fans look rational. As strong an argument can be made that they sacrificed years of enjoying their team to end up in the same place as their peers, though. Do Jazz fans wish that they had tanked away a four year span? Maybe the defiance from Process Trusters is as much a coping mechanism as true search for vindication."
I think that in a nutshell is why we see so many of these threads popping up. Even our fans that were invested in this process and debated it over the years now want to try and prove that they were very intelligent in their invested arguments over the year even though a team like the jazz or timberwolves is in a very similar spot from a completely different path. (When I was watching the wolves yesterday I couldn't help but they they would be favorites to win the east if they were in it)
To say the Jazz and the Sixers are in the same place is pretty silly. This season they did end up around the same amount of wins (though the Sixers are a betting favorite for the ECF and the Jazz likely won't get out of the 1st round), but what do people think next year will look like, or the year after, or the year after, or the 5 to 10 years after that.
If you switch the Jazz and 76ers conferences the exact same is true. The 76ers would probably lose to OKC in the first round themselves. Lets not fall into this trap of pretending east teams are better than they are because the top 2 contenders from last year were decimated by chemistry (Kyrie Trade), Injuries (hayward) and 3-4 of the all-stars from last season went west (including dramatic game changers in George and Butler).
The jazz have a potentially transcendent star in Mitchell. Gobert is an incredible defensive player and is only a year older than embiid with less injury history. The Jazz also have 25 million in expiring deals they can trade next season and have cap space this offseason. If are going to say the Jazz somehow can't handle a franchise player in free agency the next two offseasons because they are not a desirable place for free agency that's not really their fault.
The timberwolves would also be betting favorite to make the the ECF if they were in the east also. They lost by 3 on the road to the best team in the league despite their allstar going for 8 points.
The Sixers might lose to the Thunder, but I don't see the Jazz as being favored to make the ECF if they were the 3 seed in the East. I think Miami could absolutely beat the Jazz and so could Boston or Milwaukee. The Jazz just aren't on the same tier as the Sixers, both in current talent or projected future.
Mitchell has had a great rookie year, but I don't see him as some sort of transcendent player in the vein of Embiid or Simmons. Gobert is a fantastic defender and excellent rebounder, but he is a terrible offensive player. Favors is the oldest 26 year old I've ever seen. Ingles, Rubio, Crowder, etc. are role players. Unless Exum wakes up as a different person, they only have Mitchell (and Gobert if you want to call him young) as any sort of young talent. They have no great draft assets. The Sixers on the other hand have 2 legitimate transcendent talents in Embiid and Simmons. They have Saric who looks like he could be an all star. They have Fultz who was the #1 pick and clearly has talent, how much is to be determined. They have Covington who is basically a slightly lesser wing version of Gobert (i.e. great defender, good 3 shooter, but not much else). They also have the Lakers pick (or the Sacto pick). The Sixers even have the better veteran role players in Redick, Ilyasova, Belinelli, and Johnson.
It is just a strange take to have the Jazz and Sixers as basically in the same place. They aren't. The Sixers are in a much better position, both in potential transcendent talent and in the ability to make roster moves (i.e. the Sixers have more cap space and more trade-able assets).
You think Covington is a slightly less anything of Gobert? Jeez talk about criminally underrating Gobert. Gobert is the best defensive player in the league by a pretty decent margin and will definitely make some all-star games (most thought he deserved it last year, this year he was injured). Covington will never make an all-star team. I also would be very very surprised if Saric made an all-star game (a viewpoint i have seen many 76ers fan express). He is a very elite role player, but I don't think think he has enough athleticism or ability to create his own shot to become a fulltime star.
Regarding Mitchell, what does a rookie have to do to impress you? How many rookies in the last 20 years came in and scored 20 points a game for a mid-tier playoff team? I honestly can't think of any off the top of my head... who knows how he will develop but he definitely could be one of the best players in the entire league in the next few years and I don't understand the point of acting like he couldn't. It seems quite strange.
Mitchell is also a two-way player, not just a scorer. He was drafted primarily for his defense. His offensive output combined with his defense makes him a candidate to be a top tier player in the league for years if he keeps it up and develops a little bit in the next year.
yea. I don't know anyone can look at what he is done and think he doesn't have a chance to be a top player in the league. Sounds like just belittling to pump up another team.
-
For all further posts about Hinkie I'm just gonna link people to Ryan Bernardoni's great piece on the subject:
http://www.celticshub.com/2018/04/09/misplacing-trust-process/
I like this piece a lot Phosita. I particularly liked this discussion point:
"The supportive fans certainly feel like they’ve been vindicated and won, which maybe is all that matters in something as ethereal as sports fandom. They’ve leaned into tribalism and self-aggrandizement as much as any fan base in recent American sports memory. They make Deflategate-period Patriots fans look rational. As strong an argument can be made that they sacrificed years of enjoying their team to end up in the same place as their peers, though. Do Jazz fans wish that they had tanked away a four year span? Maybe the defiance from Process Trusters is as much a coping mechanism as true search for vindication."
I think that in a nutshell is why we see so many of these threads popping up. Even our fans that were invested in this process and debated it over the years now want to try and prove that they were very intelligent in their invested arguments over the year even though a team like the jazz or timberwolves is in a very similar spot from a completely different path. (When I was watching the wolves yesterday I couldn't help but they they would be favorites to win the east if they were in it)
To say the Jazz and the Sixers are in the same place is pretty silly. This season they did end up around the same amount of wins (though the Sixers are a betting favorite for the ECF and the Jazz likely won't get out of the 1st round), but what do people think next year will look like, or the year after, or the year after, or the 5 to 10 years after that.
If you switch the Jazz and 76ers conferences the exact same is true. The 76ers would probably lose to OKC in the first round themselves. Lets not fall into this trap of pretending east teams are better than they are because the top 2 contenders from last year were decimated by chemistry (Kyrie Trade), Injuries (hayward) and 3-4 of the all-stars from last season went west (including dramatic game changers in George and Butler).
The jazz have a potentially transcendent star in Mitchell. Gobert is an incredible defensive player and is only a year older than embiid with less injury history. The Jazz also have 25 million in expiring deals they can trade next season and have cap space this offseason. If are going to say the Jazz somehow can't handle a franchise player in free agency the next two offseasons because they are not a desirable place for free agency that's not really their fault.
The timberwolves would also be betting favorite to make the the ECF if they were in the east also. They lost by 3 on the road to the best team in the league despite their allstar going for 8 points.
The Sixers might lose to the Thunder, but I don't see the Jazz as being favored to make the ECF if they were the 3 seed in the East. I think Miami could absolutely beat the Jazz and so could Boston or Milwaukee. The Jazz just aren't on the same tier as the Sixers, both in current talent or projected future.
Mitchell has had a great rookie year, but I don't see him as some sort of transcendent player in the vein of Embiid or Simmons. Gobert is a fantastic defender and excellent rebounder, but he is a terrible offensive player. Favors is the oldest 26 year old I've ever seen. Ingles, Rubio, Crowder, etc. are role players. Unless Exum wakes up as a different person, they only have Mitchell (and Gobert if you want to call him young) as any sort of young talent. They have no great draft assets. The Sixers on the other hand have 2 legitimate transcendent talents in Embiid and Simmons. They have Saric who looks like he could be an all star. They have Fultz who was the #1 pick and clearly has talent, how much is to be determined. They have Covington who is basically a slightly lesser wing version of Gobert (i.e. great defender, good 3 shooter, but not much else). They also have the Lakers pick (or the Sacto pick). The Sixers even have the better veteran role players in Redick, Ilyasova, Belinelli, and Johnson.
It is just a strange take to have the Jazz and Sixers as basically in the same place. They aren't. The Sixers are in a much better position, both in potential transcendent talent and in the ability to make roster moves (i.e. the Sixers have more cap space and more trade-able assets).
You think Covington is a slightly less anything of Gobert? Jeez talk about criminally underrating Gobert. Gobert is the best defensive player in the league by a pretty decent margin and will definitely make some all-star games (most thought he deserved it last year, this year he was injured). Covington will never make an all-star team. I also would be very very surprised if Saric made an all-star game (a viewpoint i have seen many 76ers fan express). He is a very elite role player, but I don't think think he has enough athleticism or ability to create his own shot to become a fulltime star.
Regarding Mitchell, what does a rookie have to do to impress you? How many rookies in the last 20 years came in and scored 20 points a game for a mid-tier playoff team? I honestly can't think of any off the top of my head... who knows how he will develop but he definitely could be one of the best players in the entire league in the next few years and I don't understand the point of acting like he couldn't. It seems quite strange.
Mitchell is also a two-way player, not just a scorer. He was drafted primarily for his defense. His offensive output combined with his defense makes him a candidate to be a top tier player in the league for years if he keeps it up and develops a little bit in the next year.
yea. I don't know anyone can look at what he is done and think he doesn't have a chance to be a top player in the league. Sounds like just belittling to pump up another team.
transcendent is a very special class of players, and I just don't see Mitchell as being that type of player. He could certainly have a Paul Pierce level career, but I don't see him as a Larry Bird level of player (and I'm not talking about style of play). I think Simmons and Embiid could both be a Larry Bird level of player. But just because those players could be those things, doesn't mean they will and Mitchell might very well end up better than both Embiid and Simmons (though that seems unlikely). That said, even if you put Mitchell in the same class, there is just 1 Mitchell and there are 2 Embiid/Simmons. The teams just aren't really in the same place for that reason alone.
-
I'll consider Simmons transcendent when he can do what he does, shoot over 30% from three on a few threes per game and can hit free throws over 75%. He ain't anywhere near that so I don't see him as a transcendent talent.
-
I'll consider Simmons transcendent when he can do what he does, shoot over 30% from three on a few threes per game and can hit free throws over 75%. He ain't anywhere near that so I don't see him as a transcendent talent.
For 9 years, Magic Johnson barely shot a 3 pointer (though he did hit his foul shots). Heck Michael Jordan ended his career shooting 32.7% from 3. Then you have all the big guys who don't shoot well from anywhere. I mean Tim Duncan's rookie year he averaged 21.1/11.9/2.7 without hitting a 3 pointer and shooting 66.2% from the line. He was 6'11", 250 pounds. Why shouldn't Simmons be held more to that standard given he is 6'10", 230 (or whatever he is now)? 16/8/8 from anyone, let alone a rookie, is an incredible stat line.
-
Doesn’t take genius to tank for several consecutive years.
Just hutzpah.
It has paid off.
He actually got lucky with Embiid, who slipped to 3 due to injury concerns. Philly wanted Wiggins.
Okafor was a poor pick. Smart scouts rated Porzingis as better prospect. Certainly smart bloggers did.
Simmons they got with the first pick. He was consensus number 1.
Correct, if so then the Clippers would be a library of scholarly work.
-
I'll consider Simmons transcendent when he can do what he does, shoot over 30% from three on a few threes per game and can hit free throws over 75%. He ain't anywhere near that so I don't see him as a transcendent talent.
For 9 years, Magic Johnson barely shot a 3 pointer (though he did hit his foul shots). Heck Michael Jordan ended his career shooting 32.7% from 3. Then you have all the big guys who don't shoot well from anywhere. I mean Tim Duncan's rookie year he averaged 21.1/11.9/2.7 without hitting a 3 pointer and shooting 66.2% from the line. He was 6'11", 250 pounds. Why shouldn't Simmons be held more to that standard given he is 6'10", 230 (or whatever he is now)? 16/8/8 from anyone, let alone a rookie, is an incredible stat line.
Magic and MJ played in a completely different era where teams didn’t live by the three-ball.
In fact, only FIVE of the top 200 3PA in a season occurred prior to MJ’s first retirement.
The three is a vital part of the game now andwasn’t utilized as such back in the 80’s.
It’s very difficult to be an elite player without a respectable shot. You are even seeing a lot of dominant bigs expanding their shots beyond the arc.
-
I'll consider Simmons transcendent when he can do what he does, shoot over 30% from three on a few threes per game and can hit free throws over 75%. He ain't anywhere near that so I don't see him as a transcendent talent.
For 9 years, Magic Johnson barely shot a 3 pointer (though he did hit his foul shots). Heck Michael Jordan ended his career shooting 32.7% from 3. Then you have all the big guys who don't shoot well from anywhere. I mean Tim Duncan's rookie year he averaged 21.1/11.9/2.7 without hitting a 3 pointer and shooting 66.2% from the line. He was 6'11", 250 pounds. Why shouldn't Simmons be held more to that standard given he is 6'10", 230 (or whatever he is now)? 16/8/8 from anyone, let alone a rookie, is an incredible stat line.
Are you really asking him to explain why the 3 pointer is more important now than in the 80's and why we don't compare Simmons' shooting to a plodding center that never brought the ball up court? This is quite humorous.
-
I'll consider Simmons transcendent when he can do what he does, shoot over 30% from three on a few threes per game and can hit free throws over 75%. He ain't anywhere near that so I don't see him as a transcendent talent.
I don’t often agree with Moranis but think Simmons has already proven to be a transformative player, despite lacking 3 point shot. You can just see it. He is that special.
-
I'll consider Simmons transcendent when he can do what he does, shoot over 30% from three on a few threes per game and can hit free throws over 75%. He ain't anywhere near that so I don't see him as a transcendent talent.
For 9 years, Magic Johnson barely shot a 3 pointer (though he did hit his foul shots). Heck Michael Jordan ended his career shooting 32.7% from 3. Then you have all the big guys who don't shoot well from anywhere. I mean Tim Duncan's rookie year he averaged 21.1/11.9/2.7 without hitting a 3 pointer and shooting 66.2% from the line. He was 6'11", 250 pounds. Why shouldn't Simmons be held more to that standard given he is 6'10", 230 (or whatever he is now)? 16/8/8 from anyone, let alone a rookie, is an incredible stat line.
Different time...different game. I am not saying Simmons won't be a great player, but until he can shoot an outside shot and not be a complete liability to his team at the line, he's not transcendental. I don't see that as being a very controversial statement given how the game is played and how he plays. If Giannis(similar game) could only make 50% of his fts and was completely useless from outside, he wouldn't be anywhere near a 1st team All NBA.
-
I'll consider Simmons transcendent when he can do what he does, shoot over 30% from three on a few threes per game and can hit free throws over 75%. He ain't anywhere near that so I don't see him as a transcendent talent.
For 9 years, Magic Johnson barely shot a 3 pointer (though he did hit his foul shots). Heck Michael Jordan ended his career shooting 32.7% from 3. Then you have all the big guys who don't shoot well from anywhere. I mean Tim Duncan's rookie year he averaged 21.1/11.9/2.7 without hitting a 3 pointer and shooting 66.2% from the line. He was 6'11", 250 pounds. Why shouldn't Simmons be held more to that standard given he is 6'10", 230 (or whatever he is now)? 16/8/8 from anyone, let alone a rookie, is an incredible stat line.
Different time...different game. I am not saying Simmons won't be a great player, but until he can shoot an outside shot and not be a complete liability to his team at the line, he's not transcendental. I don't see that as being a very controversial statement given how the game is played and how he plays. If Giannis(similar game) could only make 50% of his fts and was completely useless from outside, he wouldn't be anywhere near a 1st team All NBA.
Nick I am 100% with you on this one. Plus the comparison to Duncan made me chuckle.
-
I'll consider Simmons transcendent when he can do what he does, shoot over 30% from three on a few threes per game and can hit free throws over 75%. He ain't anywhere near that so I don't see him as a transcendent talent.
For 9 years, Magic Johnson barely shot a 3 pointer (though he did hit his foul shots). Heck Michael Jordan ended his career shooting 32.7% from 3. Then you have all the big guys who don't shoot well from anywhere. I mean Tim Duncan's rookie year he averaged 21.1/11.9/2.7 without hitting a 3 pointer and shooting 66.2% from the line. He was 6'11", 250 pounds. Why shouldn't Simmons be held more to that standard given he is 6'10", 230 (or whatever he is now)? 16/8/8 from anyone, let alone a rookie, is an incredible stat line.
Different time...different game. I am not saying Simmons won't be a great player, but until he can shoot an outside shot and not be a complete liability to his team at the line, he's not transcendental. I don't see that as being a very controversial statement given how the game is played and how he plays. If Giannis(similar game) could only make 50% of his fts and was completely useless from outside, he wouldn't be anywhere near a 1st team All NBA.
you'd rather have Simmons shoot 28% on 1 5 shots a game from 3 rather then him shoot inside or oass the ball?
That seems like an odd criticism. Maybe he should be Westbrook and bomb away at 31%. Knowing your limitations and playing to your strengths is not a weakness. And if you dont like the Duncan comparison how about KG. Better FT shooter of course, but very similar build to Simmons and not an outside shooter at all.
-
I'll consider Simmons transcendent when he can do what he does, shoot over 30% from three on a few threes per game and can hit free throws over 75%. He ain't anywhere near that so I don't see him as a transcendent talent.
For 9 years, Magic Johnson barely shot a 3 pointer (though he did hit his foul shots). Heck Michael Jordan ended his career shooting 32.7% from 3. Then you have all the big guys who don't shoot well from anywhere. I mean Tim Duncan's rookie year he averaged 21.1/11.9/2.7 without hitting a 3 pointer and shooting 66.2% from the line. He was 6'11", 250 pounds. Why shouldn't Simmons be held more to that standard given he is 6'10", 230 (or whatever he is now)? 16/8/8 from anyone, let alone a rookie, is an incredible stat line.
Different time...different game. I am not saying Simmons won't be a great player, but until he can shoot an outside shot and not be a complete liability to his team at the line, he's not transcendental. I don't see that as being a very controversial statement given how the game is played and how he plays. If Giannis(similar game) could only make 50% of his fts and was completely useless from outside, he wouldn't be anywhere near a 1st team All NBA.
you'd rather have Simmons shoot 28% on 1 5 shots a game from 3 rather then him shoot inside or oass the ball?
That seems like an odd criticism. Maybe he should be Westbrook and bomb away at 31%. Knowing your limitations and playing to your strengths is not a weakness. And if you dont like the Duncan comparison how about KG. Better FT shooter of course, but very similar build to Simmons and not an outside shooter at all.
KG didn't shoot 3s but he was a good long 2 shooter. I agree that the focus on Simmons shooting 3s even at a poor percentage is misplaced. He'd be better off focusing on his mid-range game. He does need to shoot better at the line but he did shoot 67% in college. If Simmons becomes a transcendent player, it will be because he is a 6'10" Rondo-esque PG in a PF body who can defend 1-4 at a high level.
-
I'll consider Simmons transcendent when he can do what he does, shoot over 30% from three on a few threes per game and can hit free throws over 75%. He ain't anywhere near that so I don't see him as a transcendent talent.
For 9 years, Magic Johnson barely shot a 3 pointer (though he did hit his foul shots). Heck Michael Jordan ended his career shooting 32.7% from 3. Then you have all the big guys who don't shoot well from anywhere. I mean Tim Duncan's rookie year he averaged 21.1/11.9/2.7 without hitting a 3 pointer and shooting 66.2% from the line. He was 6'11", 250 pounds. Why shouldn't Simmons be held more to that standard given he is 6'10", 230 (or whatever he is now)? 16/8/8 from anyone, let alone a rookie, is an incredible stat line.
Different time...different game. I am not saying Simmons won't be a great player, but until he can shoot an outside shot and not be a complete liability to his team at the line, he's not transcendental. I don't see that as being a very controversial statement given how the game is played and how he plays. If Giannis(similar game) could only make 50% of his fts and was completely useless from outside, he wouldn't be anywhere near a 1st team All NBA.
you'd rather have Simmons shoot 28% on 1 5 shots a game from 3 rather then him shoot inside or oass the ball?
That seems like an odd criticism. Maybe he should be Westbrook and bomb away at 31%. Knowing your limitations and playing to your strengths is not a weakness. And if you dont like the Duncan comparison how about KG. Better FT shooter of course, but very similar build to Simmons and not an outside shooter at all.
Moranis I hope you are watching the Philly game cause it is really everything we are talking about here. The 76ers desparately need offense (4 points in 8 minutes) , but Simmons handling the ball is being sagged off and it has completely mucked up the game. He can be an allstar regardless but he absolutely needs to improve his range a little bit to be a franchise level player (I think he will). However arguing otherwise while simultaneously bashing on a two way player with range in Mitchell seems pretty silly
-
I'll consider Simmons transcendent when he can do what he does, shoot over 30% from three on a few threes per game and can hit free throws over 75%. He ain't anywhere near that so I don't see him as a transcendent talent.
For 9 years, Magic Johnson barely shot a 3 pointer (though he did hit his foul shots). Heck Michael Jordan ended his career shooting 32.7% from 3. Then you have all the big guys who don't shoot well from anywhere. I mean Tim Duncan's rookie year he averaged 21.1/11.9/2.7 without hitting a 3 pointer and shooting 66.2% from the line. He was 6'11", 250 pounds. Why shouldn't Simmons be held more to that standard given he is 6'10", 230 (or whatever he is now)? 16/8/8 from anyone, let alone a rookie, is an incredible stat line.
Different time...different game. I am not saying Simmons won't be a great player, but until he can shoot an outside shot and not be a complete liability to his team at the line, he's not transcendental. I don't see that as being a very controversial statement given how the game is played and how he plays. If Giannis(similar game) could only make 50% of his fts and was completely useless from outside, he wouldn't be anywhere near a 1st team All NBA.
you'd rather have Simmons shoot 28% on 1 5 shots a game from 3 rather then him shoot inside or oass the ball?
That seems like an odd criticism. Maybe he should be Westbrook and bomb away at 31%. Knowing your limitations and playing to your strengths is not a weakness. And if you dont like the Duncan comparison how about KG. Better FT shooter of course, but very similar build to Simmons and not an outside shooter at all.
KG didn't shoot 3s but he was a good long 2 shooter. I agree that the focus on Simmons shooting 3s even at a poor percentage is misplaced. He'd be better off focusing on his mid-range game. He does need to shoot better at the line but he did shoot 67% in college. If Simmons becomes a transcendent player, it will be because he is a 6'10" Rondo-esque PG in a PF body who can defend 1-4 at a high level.
Thing is he is already that. Guy is a border line all nba defender and one of the best passers in the league right now.
-
I'll consider Simmons transcendent when he can do what he does, shoot over 30% from three on a few threes per game and can hit free throws over 75%. He ain't anywhere near that so I don't see him as a transcendent talent.
For 9 years, Magic Johnson barely shot a 3 pointer (though he did hit his foul shots). Heck Michael Jordan ended his career shooting 32.7% from 3. Then you have all the big guys who don't shoot well from anywhere. I mean Tim Duncan's rookie year he averaged 21.1/11.9/2.7 without hitting a 3 pointer and shooting 66.2% from the line. He was 6'11", 250 pounds. Why shouldn't Simmons be held more to that standard given he is 6'10", 230 (or whatever he is now)? 16/8/8 from anyone, let alone a rookie, is an incredible stat line.
Different time...different game. I am not saying Simmons won't be a great player, but until he can shoot an outside shot and not be a complete liability to his team at the line, he's not transcendental. I don't see that as being a very controversial statement given how the game is played and how he plays. If Giannis(similar game) could only make 50% of his fts and was completely useless from outside, he wouldn't be anywhere near a 1st team All NBA.
you'd rather have Simmons shoot 28% on 1 5 shots a game from 3 rather then him shoot inside or oass the ball?
That seems like an odd criticism. Maybe he should be Westbrook and bomb away at 31%. Knowing your limitations and playing to your strengths is not a weakness. And if you dont like the Duncan comparison how about KG. Better FT shooter of course, but very similar build to Simmons and not an outside shooter at all.
Transcendental stars who are basically ball handlers and drivers of the ball, in today's game of spread offenses and the importance of outside shooting, can not be a detriment to their team at the FT line or outside of 16 feet.
This isn't the 1980s through early 2000s. Completely different game.
I don't consider Russell Westbrook transcendental. Same for Harden. Paul.
Lebron, Durant, Curry, Davis...yes. Possibly in the future, Embiid and Giannis.
Thats all I see in the NBA right now.
-
I'll consider Simmons transcendent when he can do what he does, shoot over 30% from three on a few threes per game and can hit free throws over 75%. He ain't anywhere near that so I don't see him as a transcendent talent.
For 9 years, Magic Johnson barely shot a 3 pointer (though he did hit his foul shots). Heck Michael Jordan ended his career shooting 32.7% from 3. Then you have all the big guys who don't shoot well from anywhere. I mean Tim Duncan's rookie year he averaged 21.1/11.9/2.7 without hitting a 3 pointer and shooting 66.2% from the line. He was 6'11", 250 pounds. Why shouldn't Simmons be held more to that standard given he is 6'10", 230 (or whatever he is now)? 16/8/8 from anyone, let alone a rookie, is an incredible stat line.
Different time...different game. I am not saying Simmons won't be a great player, but until he can shoot an outside shot and not be a complete liability to his team at the line, he's not transcendental. I don't see that as being a very controversial statement given how the game is played and how he plays. If Giannis(similar game) could only make 50% of his fts and was completely useless from outside, he wouldn't be anywhere near a 1st team All NBA.
you'd rather have Simmons shoot 28% on 1 5 shots a game from 3 rather then him shoot inside or oass the ball?
That seems like an odd criticism. Maybe he should be Westbrook and bomb away at 31%. Knowing your limitations and playing to your strengths is not a weakness. And if you dont like the Duncan comparison how about KG. Better FT shooter of course, but very similar build to Simmons and not an outside shooter at all.
Transcendental stars who are basically ball handlers and drivers of the ball, in today's game of spread offenses and the importance of outside shooting, can not be a detriment to their team at the FT line or outside of 16 feet.
This isn't the 1980s through early 2000s. Completely different game.
I don't consider Russell Westbrook transcendental. Same for Harden. Paul.
Lebron, Durant, Curry, Davis...yes. Possibly in the future, Embiid and Giannis.
Thats all I see in the NBA right now.
Simmons could be more transcendent than Embiid in my book.
-
Kevin O'Conner wrote this today, seems related:
The Sixers are in good hands with Brown. One of the misconceptions about the Process was that they were outright tanking with no focus on player development. But that’s not the case. Philadelphia doesn’t play any differently now than it did during its losing seasons.
Brown laid the groundwork for the team’s present success by installing a 3-point-shooting team that emphasized a fast pace and ball movement. Philly has ranked 20 or lower in deep-midrange shot frequency since Brown was hired as head coach in 2013-14, per Cleaning the Glass, while routinely ranking near the top of the NBA in 3-pointers per 100 possessions, per NBA.com/Stats. They’ve also ranked in the top seven in pace in each of Brown’s five seasons. The only thing that’s changed is the talent level. Sam Hinkie won every trade he made to add the talent, and Bryan Colangelo has added more complementary pieces like Redick and Marco Belinelli, but Brown also deserves a great deal of credit for laying the groundwork with a beautiful system.
-
Looks like the check engine light may be coming on the 86ers bandwagon
-
I'll consider Simmons transcendent when he can do what he does, shoot over 30% from three on a few threes per game and can hit free throws over 75%. He ain't anywhere near that so I don't see him as a transcendent talent.
For 9 years, Magic Johnson barely shot a 3 pointer (though he did hit his foul shots). Heck Michael Jordan ended his career shooting 32.7% from 3. Then you have all the big guys who don't shoot well from anywhere. I mean Tim Duncan's rookie year he averaged 21.1/11.9/2.7 without hitting a 3 pointer and shooting 66.2% from the line. He was 6'11", 250 pounds. Why shouldn't Simmons be held more to that standard given he is 6'10", 230 (or whatever he is now)? 16/8/8 from anyone, let alone a rookie, is an incredible stat line.
Different time...different game. I am not saying Simmons won't be a great player, but until he can shoot an outside shot and not be a complete liability to his team at the line, he's not transcendental. I don't see that as being a very controversial statement given how the game is played and how he plays. If Giannis(similar game) could only make 50% of his fts and was completely useless from outside, he wouldn't be anywhere near a 1st team All NBA.
you'd rather have Simmons shoot 28% on 1 5 shots a game from 3 rather then him shoot inside or oass the ball?
That seems like an odd criticism. Maybe he should be Westbrook and bomb away at 31%. Knowing your limitations and playing to your strengths is not a weakness. And if you dont like the Duncan comparison how about KG. Better FT shooter of course, but very similar build to Simmons and not an outside shooter at all.
Transcendental stars who are basically ball handlers and drivers of the ball, in today's game of spread offenses and the importance of outside shooting, can not be a detriment to their team at the FT line or outside of 16 feet.
This isn't the 1980s through early 2000s. Completely different game.
I don't consider Russell Westbrook transcendental. Same for Harden. Paul.
Lebron, Durant, Curry, Davis...yes. Possibly in the future, Embiid and Giannis.
Thats all I see in the NBA right now.
Simmons could be more transcendent than Embiid in my book.
Interesting. I can't really see this being the case unless Embiid is hit with injuries throughout his career. He's already the second best center in the league, and still has areas he can definitely improve (conditioning, IQ on the offensive end [i.e. attacking the post more, not settling for outside jumpshots], and knowing when to pass).
On the other hand, Simmons is probably a top 8 PG in the league (Westbrook, Curry, Irving, Paul, Harden, Lillard and Wall are all ahead of him imo), and his flaws are more significant - mainly his inability to score almost at all from the mid-range and perimeter.
It'll be interesting, but I can't see Simmons ever really being a legit MVP candidate guy - Embiid I can
-
100% low life
-
Not convinced they needed to be so, so bad as to not even have hardly any veterans at all during some of those years. Makes everything harder for anyone to learn when everyone is screwing up at once. And maybe they could have still lost in a more respectable way.
-
Not convinced they needed to be so, so bad as to not even have hardly any veterans at all during some of those years. Makes everything harder for anyone to learn when everyone is screwing up at once. And maybe they could have still lost in a more respectable way.
This.
-
I mean imagine if they drafted Tatum instead of Fultz.
Simmons
Covington
Taytum
Saric
Embid
------------
Redick
Plus they would still get upcoming picks smdh
-
I mean imagine if they drafted Tatum instead of Fultz.
Simmons
Covington
Taytum
Saric
Embid
------------
Redick
Plus they would still get upcoming picks smdh
That would have been really sly of them, if they pretended like they wanted Fultz only to draft Tatum #1. We probably would have thought we killed that trade at the time, only to be regretting it now.
-
I mean imagine if they drafted Tatum instead of Fultz.
Simmons
Covington
Taytum
Saric
Embid
------------
Redick
Plus they would still get upcoming picks smdh
That would have been really sly of them, if they pretended like they wanted Fultz only to draft Tatum #1. We probably would have thought we killed that trade at the time, only to be regretting it now.
Ainge would've then flipped #3 (Ball or Fultz) to Phoenix for (#4) Josh Jackson and their #1 from this year (unprotected)! ;)
-
contending
You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means...
-
I always thought that he was great at his job.
Colangelo supplanted him, but IMO he is less lucid and creative official, he is not bending the rules to the limit as SH did. Some liked that rule bending, some despised it (NBA). Colangelo (his father is a part of the NBA family) just kind of goes with the natural flow. His best moves are the natural continuation of Hinkies work (2013-2016). Embiid (resign the All NBA guy), Simmons (draft a clear 1st pick), Covington (resign), Šarić (still on that fab rookie deal), TJ (as Ro.Co. he signed a 4 year "Hinkie special" and is still there) all of their best core players were here before him. He hired Brown too. They can even draft 1st this year (while having 50 wins) since Hinkie sold MCW at a ridiculously high price. MCW might be out of the league next year and he is healthy.
If I am a rebuilding team, there are at least 8 of those right now, I would call him.
-
Didn't Hinkie lose a ton of games, as well as drafting Nerlens Noel, MCW, and Jahlil Okafor?
What a genius.
-
I always thought that he was great at his job.
Colangelo supplanted him, but IMO he is less lucid and creative official, he is not bending the rules to the limit as SH did. Some liked that rule bending, some despised it (NBA). Colangelo (his father is a part of the NBA family) just kind of goes with the natural flow. His best moves are the natural continuation of Hinkies work (2013-2016). Embiid (resign the All NBA guy), Simmons (draft a clear 1st pick), Covington (resign), Šarić (still on that fab rookie deal), TJ (as Ro.Co. he signed a 4 year "Hinkie special" and is still there) all of their best core players were here before him. He hired Brown too. They can even draft 1st this year (while having 50 wins) since Hinkie sold MCW at a ridiculously high price. MCW might be out of the league next year and he is healthy.
If I am a rebuilding team, there are at least 8 of those right now, I would call him.
Did he?
It's not that hard to purposely lose. You sit or trade your best players and pick best available. They didn't make large decisions in the drafts. Simmons fell info their lap and even if Embiid wasn't able to play that fits into their strategy. The rest of their picks were trash.
Regarding MCW you can believe that Hinkle had the foresight but in reality he was most likely deferring the pick for tanking purposes. It turns out at the end of the day he will have sold the 11 pick for 10 most likely. Not exactly Ainge level moves.
I mean imagine if they drafted Tatum instead of Fultz.
Simmons
Covington
Taytum
Saric
Embid
------------
Redick
Plus they would still get upcoming picks smdh
Well Tatum also fits their team better. Why draft Fultz when Simmons is your point? They have no legit SF (sorry Covington is massively overrated).
-
I mean imagine if they drafted Tatum instead of Fultz.
Simmons
Covington
Taytum
Saric
Embid
------------
Redick
Plus they would still get upcoming picks smdh
That would have been really sly of them, if they pretended like they wanted Fultz only to draft Tatum #1. We probably would have thought we killed that trade at the time, only to be regretting it now.
That would never happen. Ainge wanted Tatum and would never have agreed to the deal if Colangelo wasn't committed to taking Fultz. If Colangelo had lied about it, he'd be done as a GM. No one would trust him.
-
I mean imagine if they drafted Tatum instead of Fultz.
Simmons
Covington
Taytum
Saric
Embid
------------
Redick
Plus they would still get upcoming picks smdh
That would have been really sly of them, if they pretended like they wanted Fultz only to draft Tatum #1. We probably would have thought we killed that trade at the time, only to be regretting it now.
That would never happen. Ainge wanted Tatum and would never have agreed to the deal if Colangelo wasn't committed to taking Fultz. If Colangelo had lied about it, he'd be done as a GM. No one would trust him.
except Colangelo had no reason to tell Ainge who he would draft and almost certainly did not.
-
I mean imagine if they drafted Tatum instead of Fultz.
Simmons
Covington
Taytum
Saric
Embid
------------
Redick
Plus they would still get upcoming picks smdh
That would have been really sly of them, if they pretended like they wanted Fultz only to draft Tatum #1. We probably would have thought we killed that trade at the time, only to be regretting it now.
That would never happen. Ainge wanted Tatum and would never have agreed to the deal if Colangelo wasn't committed to taking Fultz. If Colangelo had lied about it, he'd be done as a GM. No one would trust him.
except Colangelo had no reason to tell Ainge who he would draft and almost certainly did not.
if this is true, would this have to be in writing somehow? like, we will deal #1 for your #3 as long as Philly HAVE to take Fultz with the #1 and hope LA takes Ball at 2?
I feel deals like this usually have to have some sort of agreement between the two parties right?
-
I mean imagine if they drafted Tatum instead of Fultz.
Simmons
Covington
Taytum
Saric
Embid
------------
Redick
Plus they would still get upcoming picks smdh
That would have been really sly of them, if they pretended like they wanted Fultz only to draft Tatum #1. We probably would have thought we killed that trade at the time, only to be regretting it now.
That would never happen. Ainge wanted Tatum and would never have agreed to the deal if Colangelo wasn't committed to taking Fultz. If Colangelo had lied about it, he'd be done as a GM. No one would trust him.
except Colangelo had no reason to tell Ainge who he would draft and almost certainly did not.
if this is true, would this have to be in writing somehow? like, we will deal #1 for your #3 as long as Philly HAVE to take Fultz with the #1 and hope LA takes Ball at 2?
I feel deals like this usually have to have some sort of agreement between the two parties right?
Not at all. There is absolutely no reason for Philly to tell Boston who they are going to draft. None at all. Now I'm sure Ainge felt pretty confident that Philly was going to take Fultz, but there is no way Colangelo would tell Ainge that.
-
I mean imagine if they drafted Tatum instead of Fultz.
Simmons
Covington
Taytum
Saric
Embid
------------
Redick
Plus they would still get upcoming picks smdh
That would have been really sly of them, if they pretended like they wanted Fultz only to draft Tatum #1. We probably would have thought we killed that trade at the time, only to be regretting it now.
That would never happen. Ainge wanted Tatum and would never have agreed to the deal if Colangelo wasn't committed to taking Fultz. If Colangelo had lied about it, he'd be done as a GM. No one would trust him.
except Colangelo had no reason to tell Ainge who he would draft and almost certainly did not.
Sure he did. Colangelo wanted to get the deal done. Ainge wouldn't have traded down a couple spots unless he knew Tatum would still be available. Remember the rushed Sixers workout of Fultz.
-
I mean imagine if they drafted Tatum instead of Fultz.
Simmons
Covington
Taytum
Saric
Embid
------------
Redick
Plus they would still get upcoming picks smdh
That would have been really sly of them, if they pretended like they wanted Fultz only to draft Tatum #1. We probably would have thought we killed that trade at the time, only to be regretting it now.
That would never happen. Ainge wanted Tatum and would never have agreed to the deal if Colangelo wasn't committed to taking Fultz. If Colangelo had lied about it, he'd be done as a GM. No one would trust him.
except Colangelo had no reason to tell Ainge who he would draft and almost certainly did not.
Sure he did. Colangelo wanted to get the deal done. Ainge wouldn't have traded down a couple spots unless he knew Tatum would still be available. Remember the rushed Sixers workout of Fultz.
I agree. I don't think it was a big risk for Colangelo to tell Danny that they wanted Fultz, considering IT just came off a huge year. At that time, many GMs would have been right to assume that IT would be with the Celtics for the foreseeable future. Tatum was certainly more of a need than Fultz for the Celtics.
Interestingly now, Tatum would be a better fit for Philly, unless Fultz becomes a Klay Thompson type shooter that doesn't need the ball in his hands. I'm guessing Ben Simmons is their PG for the future.
-
I mean imagine if they drafted Tatum instead of Fultz.
Simmons
Covington
Taytum
Saric
Embid
------------
Redick
Plus they would still get upcoming picks smdh
That would have been really sly of them, if they pretended like they wanted Fultz only to draft Tatum #1. We probably would have thought we killed that trade at the time, only to be regretting it now.
That would never happen. Ainge wanted Tatum and would never have agreed to the deal if Colangelo wasn't committed to taking Fultz. If Colangelo had lied about it, he'd be done as a GM. No one would trust him.
except Colangelo had no reason to tell Ainge who he would draft and almost certainly did not.
Sure he did. Colangelo wanted to get the deal done. Ainge wouldn't have traded down a couple spots unless he knew Tatum would still be available. Remember the rushed Sixers workout of Fultz.
and what if the rushed workout of Fultz led them to the conclusion that they didn't want him and they ended up taking Ball or Tatum instead. Then he is locked in and ruins his reputation. There was no reason in the world for Colangelo to put himself into a corner with Ainge, especially since they hadn't seen Fultz at the time the trade was made. It just doesn't work that way.
Again, I'm sure Ainge believed the Sixers would take Fultz, and the Sixers obviously had that intention, but I'd be stunned if Colangelo had committed to taking Fultz when he was dealing with Ainge because that just doesn't make any sense.
-
I always thought that he was great at his job.
Colangelo supplanted him, but IMO he is less lucid and creative official, he is not bending the rules to the limit as SH did. Some liked that rule bending, some despised it (NBA). Colangelo (his father is a part of the NBA family) just kind of goes with the natural flow. His best moves are the natural continuation of Hinkies work (2013-2016). Embiid (resign the All NBA guy), Simmons (draft a clear 1st pick), Covington (resign), Šarić (still on that fab rookie deal), TJ (as Ro.Co. he signed a 4 year "Hinkie special" and is still there) all of their best core players were here before him. He hired Brown too. They can even draft 1st this year (while having 50 wins) since Hinkie sold MCW at a ridiculously high price. MCW might be out of the league next year and he is healthy.
If I am a rebuilding team, there are at least 8 of those right now, I would call him.
Did he?
It's not that hard to purposely lose. You sit or trade your best players and pick best available. They didn't make large decisions in the drafts. Simmons fell info their lap and even if Embiid wasn't able to play that fits into their strategy. The rest of their picks were trash.
Regarding MCW you can believe that Hinkle had the foresight but in reality he was most likely deferring the pick for tanking purposes. It turns out at the end of the day he will have sold the 11 pick for 10 most likely. Not exactly Ainge level moves.
I think he did Erik.
Androslav: "Play it Sam!" ;)
(Sam plays ‘As Time Goes By.’)
Ainge level moves:
*June 26, 2014: Traded Elfrid Payton to the Orlando Magic for Dario Saric, a 2015 2nd round draft pick (Willy Hernangomez was later selected) and a 2017 1st round draft pick (De'Aaron Fox was later selected).
Note : he knew Orlando was high on EP and he basicaly lured 2 picks for 2 spots in late lottery.
*February 19, 2015: As part of a 3-team trade, the Philadelphia 76ers traded Michael Carter-Williams to the Milwaukee Bucks; the Milwaukee Bucks traded Brandon Knight and Kendall Marshall to the Phoenix Suns; the Phoenix Suns traded Tyler Ennis and Miles Plumlee to the Milwaukee Bucks; and the Phoenix Suns traded a 2018 1st round draft pick to the Philadelphia 76ers. (PHI 1st round pick received from PHO is LAL's and is top-5 protected in 2015 and top-3 protected in 2016 & 2017. Became unprotected 2018 pick)
Note: he knew how "good" MCW was, he had him. He saw the teeth from his horse and sold him when his price was at the absolute highest. BTW, he made sure there is no other ballhandlers in the year prior so that MCW can up his raw stats. It was his deal all the way through.
*November 15, 2014: Signed Robert Covington. Signed RO-CO for a "Hinkie special" - Ainge actually copied his contract for Mickey and Semi deals. It became a standard!
July 19, 2015: Signed a multi-year contract with the Boston Celtics
July 19, 2017: Signed Semi Ojeleye to a multi-year contract.
Ainge made a Hinkie move.
"Imitation is the highest form of compliment"
“That’s sort of the the crime of it,” said one agent who’s recently negotiated with the Sixers.
“Certain guys, they don’t have a market to get a solid deal in the NBA elsewhere and they say, ‘We have to do this.’ I’d be prepared to sign this deal if we have to, it’s just a tough spot. It’s not really that fair to the kid.”
They are contenders in the making now, and it is not Colangelo's work that was crucial it was Sam. You might not like how the "Process" was processed aesthetically, but I believe that those are convincing facts.
-
I mean imagine if they drafted Tatum instead of Fultz.
Simmons
Covington
Taytum
Saric
Embid
------------
Redick
Plus they would still get upcoming picks smdh
That would have been really sly of them, if they pretended like they wanted Fultz only to draft Tatum #1. We probably would have thought we killed that trade at the time, only to be regretting it now.
That would never happen. Ainge wanted Tatum and would never have agreed to the deal if Colangelo wasn't committed to taking Fultz. If Colangelo had lied about it, he'd be done as a GM. No one would trust him.
except Colangelo had no reason to tell Ainge who he would draft and almost certainly did not.
Sure he did. Colangelo wanted to get the deal done. Ainge wouldn't have traded down a couple spots unless he knew Tatum would still be available. Remember the rushed Sixers workout of Fultz.
and what if the rushed workout of Fultz led them to the conclusion that they didn't want him and they ended up taking Ball or Tatum instead. Then he is locked in and ruins his reputation. There was no reason in the world for Colangelo to put himself into a corner with Ainge, especially since they hadn't seen Fultz at the time the trade was made. It just doesn't work that way.
Again, I'm sure Ainge believed the Sixers would take Fultz, and the Sixers obviously had that intention, but I'd be stunned if Colangelo had committed to taking Fultz when he was dealing with Ainge because that just doesn't make any sense.
The rushed workout occurred during the trade discussions not after the trade. The trade was completed the next day I think. Colangelo would have been really stupid to trade up without having worked out Fultz.
Edit: Trade completion was actually two days after the workout.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/2017/06/17/markelle-fultz-work-out-sixers-saturday/406295001/celtics_trade_finalized_details_of_markelle.html
-
Obviously Simmons and Embiid are both really good.
They still need to fill in the roster though. They currently have a bunch of place-holder shooters (Reddick, Bellinelli, Bayless, and Illyasova).
ROCO can probably fit into their long-term plans, but he is basically James Posey. I'm not sure he can be the 3rd-4th best player on a championship team.
I like Saric a lot, but playing him next to ROCO, Simmons, and Embiid forces one of them to defend down a position or two, and it isn't easy to chase little guys around screens all game.
Fultz may be the third guy, but with as NBA-ready as Simmons and Embiid are, how long can they wait on him to be ready to compete on both ends in the playoffs.
The Sixers definitely have a good team, but they also have quite a bit of roster formation to go in order to be a true contender. They have the assets to get there, but we'll see if they do.
-
Obviously Simmons and Embiid are both really good.
They still need to fill in the roster though. They currently have a bunch of place-holder shooters (Reddick, Bellinelli, Bayless, and Illyasova).
ROCO can probably fit into their long-term plans, but he is basically James Posey. I'm not sure he can be the 3rd-4th best player on a championship team.
I like Saric a lot, but playing him next to ROCO, Simmons, and Embiid forces one of them to defend down a position or two, and it isn't easy to chase little guys around screens all game.
Fultz may be the third guy, but with as NBA-ready as Simmons and Embiid are, how long can they wait on him to be ready to compete on both ends in the playoffs.
The Sixers definitely have a good team, but they also have quite a bit of roster formation to go in order to be a true contender. They have the assets to get there, but we'll see if they do.
Simmons and Covington are both very versatile, high level defenders. They are some of the more positionless players guarding 1 through 4. Having Embiid guarding the lane really helps too. The Sixers do a lot of switching rather than fighting through screens.
I agree Covington shouldn't be their 3rd best player long-term. However Embiid and Simmons are still developing so they can certainly wait on Fultz for another season. They shouldn't waste their cap space trying to rush the Process.
Besides PG13 and Lebron, I don't see anyone on the free agency list that really helps them. I definitely wouldn't waste cap space on Bradley like some people suggest. If I'm the Sixers while everyone is courting Lebron, I'd go hard after PG13. He seems like a near perfect fit for them.
http://hoopshype.com/2018/02/13/nba-free-agency-2018-the-top-players/
-
Obviously Simmons and Embiid are both really good.
They still need to fill in the roster though. They currently have a bunch of place-holder shooters (Reddick, Bellinelli, Bayless, and Illyasova).
ROCO can probably fit into their long-term plans, but he is basically James Posey. I'm not sure he can be the 3rd-4th best player on a championship team.
I like Saric a lot, but playing him next to ROCO, Simmons, and Embiid forces one of them to defend down a position or two, and it isn't easy to chase little guys around screens all game.
Fultz may be the third guy, but with as NBA-ready as Simmons and Embiid are, how long can they wait on him to be ready to compete on both ends in the playoffs.
The Sixers definitely have a good team, but they also have quite a bit of roster formation to go in order to be a true contender. They have the assets to get there, but we'll see if they do.
Simmons and Covington are both very versatile, high level defenders. They are some of the more positionless players guarding 1 through 4. Having Embiid guarding the lane really helps too. The Sixers do a lot of switching rather than fighting through screens.
I agree Covington shouldn't be their 3rd best player long-term. However Embiid and Simmons are still developing so they can certainly wait on Fultz for another season. They shouldn't waste their cap space trying to rush the Process.
Besides PG13 and Lebron, I don't see anyone on the free agency list that really helps them. I definitely wouldn't waste cap space on Bradley like some people suggest. If I'm the Sixers while everyone is courting Lebron, I'd go hard after PG13. He seems like a near perfect fit for them.
http://hoopshype.com/2018/02/13/nba-free-agency-2018-the-top-players/
I think you could reasonably argue that Saric is already better than Covington and the gap is only going to increase (not to mention Redick was pretty clearly their 3rd best player this year).
-
Obviously Simmons and Embiid are both really good.
They still need to fill in the roster though. They currently have a bunch of place-holder shooters (Reddick, Bellinelli, Bayless, and Illyasova).
ROCO can probably fit into their long-term plans, but he is basically James Posey. I'm not sure he can be the 3rd-4th best player on a championship team.
I like Saric a lot, but playing him next to ROCO, Simmons, and Embiid forces one of them to defend down a position or two, and it isn't easy to chase little guys around screens all game.
Fultz may be the third guy, but with as NBA-ready as Simmons and Embiid are, how long can they wait on him to be ready to compete on both ends in the playoffs.
The Sixers definitely have a good team, but they also have quite a bit of roster formation to go in order to be a true contender. They have the assets to get there, but we'll see if they do.
Simmons and Covington are both very versatile, high level defenders. They are some of the more positionless players guarding 1 through 4. Having Embiid guarding the lane really helps too. The Sixers do a lot of switching rather than fighting through screens.
I agree Covington shouldn't be their 3rd best player long-term. However Embiid and Simmons are still developing so they can certainly wait on Fultz for another season. They shouldn't waste their cap space trying to rush the Process.
Besides PG13 and Lebron, I don't see anyone on the free agency list that really helps them. I definitely wouldn't waste cap space on Bradley like some people suggest. If I'm the Sixers while everyone is courting Lebron, I'd go hard after PG13. He seems like a near perfect fit for them.
http://hoopshype.com/2018/02/13/nba-free-agency-2018-the-top-players/
On ball both ROCO and Simmons are pretty good 1-4. The problem is the pick-and-roll. Neither player is that good at fighting through the screen. Smart teams would run the pick-and-roll with Embiid's man. If they switch Embiid out, he can be taken off the dribble. If they don't, Simmons or ROCO have to fight through the screen.
In the playoffs, that problem would be exploited time and time again (it's the exact play the Pacers abused the Cavs on with Oladipo). That also puts Embiid in a situation where he is likely to get tired and to pick up dumb fouls.
Fultz and Reddick aren't the guys they need to defend the perimeter.
They have the cap space, so I don't mind them signing a guard like Bradley, but more ideally they could draft a solid two-way guard, not a two-way forward.
On the other hand, Paul George might be one of the best in the NBA at slipping and fighting through screens. He would be ideal, but I think he has his eyes set on LA.
-
Sixers 3rd in the league for merchandise sales (GS and CLE are 1 and 2) and since March have been the top team in the league. Embiid was 8th and Simmons was 10th in jersey sales. Both Irving and the Celtics were 5th in their respective lists.
http://www.nba.com/article/2018/04/17/stephen-curry-golden-state-warriors-lead-most-popular-merchandise-list-2017-18
-
76ers lost yesterday. Embiid may not be ready for game 3 and is pouting on instagram. Heat now have homecourt Bethune 36 year old Wade
-
Personally, I don't really see what Philly did as being more or less "honorable" than what the Lakers, Magic, Kings, and Suns have done for the last 5 years.
-
Obviously Simmons and Embiid are both really good.
They still need to fill in the roster though. They currently have a bunch of place-holder shooters (Reddick, Bellinelli, Bayless, and Illyasova).
ROCO can probably fit into their long-term plans, but he is basically James Posey. I'm not sure he can be the 3rd-4th best player on a championship team.
I like Saric a lot, but playing him next to ROCO, Simmons, and Embiid forces one of them to defend down a position or two, and it isn't easy to chase little guys around screens all game.
Fultz may be the third guy, but with as NBA-ready as Simmons and Embiid are, how long can they wait on him to be ready to compete on both ends in the playoffs.
The Sixers definitely have a good team, but they also have quite a bit of roster formation to go in order to be a true contender. They have the assets to get there, but we'll see if they do.
Simmons and Covington are both very versatile, high level defenders. They are some of the more positionless players guarding 1 through 4. Having Embiid guarding the lane really helps too. The Sixers do a lot of switching rather than fighting through screens.
I agree Covington shouldn't be their 3rd best player long-term. However Embiid and Simmons are still developing so they can certainly wait on Fultz for another season. They shouldn't waste their cap space trying to rush the Process.
Besides PG13 and Lebron, I don't see anyone on the free agency list that really helps them. I definitely wouldn't waste cap space on Bradley like some people suggest. If I'm the Sixers while everyone is courting Lebron, I'd go hard after PG13. He seems like a near perfect fit for them.
http://hoopshype.com/2018/02/13/nba-free-agency-2018-the-top-players/
I think you could reasonably argue that Saric is already better than Covington and the gap is only going to increase (not to mention Redick was pretty clearly their 3rd best player this year).
I think an argument could be made for any of the three being their 3rd best player. Covington's defense is very important to their success. Longer term I don't think any of the three fit the bill as their 3rd best player if they want to be a Championship contender.
-
Obviously Simmons and Embiid are both really good.
They still need to fill in the roster though. They currently have a bunch of place-holder shooters (Reddick, Bellinelli, Bayless, and Illyasova).
ROCO can probably fit into their long-term plans, but he is basically James Posey. I'm not sure he can be the 3rd-4th best player on a championship team.
I like Saric a lot, but playing him next to ROCO, Simmons, and Embiid forces one of them to defend down a position or two, and it isn't easy to chase little guys around screens all game.
Fultz may be the third guy, but with as NBA-ready as Simmons and Embiid are, how long can they wait on him to be ready to compete on both ends in the playoffs.
The Sixers definitely have a good team, but they also have quite a bit of roster formation to go in order to be a true contender. They have the assets to get there, but we'll see if they do.
Simmons and Covington are both very versatile, high level defenders. They are some of the more positionless players guarding 1 through 4. Having Embiid guarding the lane really helps too. The Sixers do a lot of switching rather than fighting through screens.
I agree Covington shouldn't be their 3rd best player long-term. However Embiid and Simmons are still developing so they can certainly wait on Fultz for another season. They shouldn't waste their cap space trying to rush the Process.
Besides PG13 and Lebron, I don't see anyone on the free agency list that really helps them. I definitely wouldn't waste cap space on Bradley like some people suggest. If I'm the Sixers while everyone is courting Lebron, I'd go hard after PG13. He seems like a near perfect fit for them.
http://hoopshype.com/2018/02/13/nba-free-agency-2018-the-top-players/
I think you could reasonably argue that Saric is already better than Covington and the gap is only going to increase (not to mention Redick was pretty clearly their 3rd best player this year).
I think an argument could be made for any of the three being their 3rd best player. Covington's defense is very important to their success. Longer term I don't think any of the three fit the bill as their 3rd best player if they want to be a Championship contender.
Covington is their Jae Crowder; decent, but pure role type player.
-
Obviously Simmons and Embiid are both really good.
They still need to fill in the roster though. They currently have a bunch of place-holder shooters (Reddick, Bellinelli, Bayless, and Illyasova).
ROCO can probably fit into their long-term plans, but he is basically James Posey. I'm not sure he can be the 3rd-4th best player on a championship team.
I like Saric a lot, but playing him next to ROCO, Simmons, and Embiid forces one of them to defend down a position or two, and it isn't easy to chase little guys around screens all game.
Fultz may be the third guy, but with as NBA-ready as Simmons and Embiid are, how long can they wait on him to be ready to compete on both ends in the playoffs.
The Sixers definitely have a good team, but they also have quite a bit of roster formation to go in order to be a true contender. They have the assets to get there, but we'll see if they do.
Simmons and Covington are both very versatile, high level defenders. They are some of the more positionless players guarding 1 through 4. Having Embiid guarding the lane really helps too. The Sixers do a lot of switching rather than fighting through screens.
I agree Covington shouldn't be their 3rd best player long-term. However Embiid and Simmons are still developing so they can certainly wait on Fultz for another season. They shouldn't waste their cap space trying to rush the Process.
Besides PG13 and Lebron, I don't see anyone on the free agency list that really helps them. I definitely wouldn't waste cap space on Bradley like some people suggest. If I'm the Sixers while everyone is courting Lebron, I'd go hard after PG13. He seems like a near perfect fit for them.
http://hoopshype.com/2018/02/13/nba-free-agency-2018-the-top-players/
I think you could reasonably argue that Saric is already better than Covington and the gap is only going to increase (not to mention Redick was pretty clearly their 3rd best player this year).
I think an argument could be made for any of the three being their 3rd best player. Covington's defense is very important to their success. Longer term I don't think any of the three fit the bill as their 3rd best player if they want to be a Championship contender.
Covington is their Jae Crowder; decent, but pure role type player.
Never said he wasn't a role player. Redick and Saric are role players too. I rate Covington higher than Crowder. He's also a very good fit with Embiid and Simmons and on a team friendly contract.
-
Obviously Simmons and Embiid are both really good.
They still need to fill in the roster though. They currently have a bunch of place-holder shooters (Reddick, Bellinelli, Bayless, and Illyasova).
ROCO can probably fit into their long-term plans, but he is basically James Posey. I'm not sure he can be the 3rd-4th best player on a championship team.
I like Saric a lot, but playing him next to ROCO, Simmons, and Embiid forces one of them to defend down a position or two, and it isn't easy to chase little guys around screens all game.
Fultz may be the third guy, but with as NBA-ready as Simmons and Embiid are, how long can they wait on him to be ready to compete on both ends in the playoffs.
The Sixers definitely have a good team, but they also have quite a bit of roster formation to go in order to be a true contender. They have the assets to get there, but we'll see if they do.
Simmons and Covington are both very versatile, high level defenders. They are some of the more positionless players guarding 1 through 4. Having Embiid guarding the lane really helps too. The Sixers do a lot of switching rather than fighting through screens.
I agree Covington shouldn't be their 3rd best player long-term. However Embiid and Simmons are still developing so they can certainly wait on Fultz for another season. They shouldn't waste their cap space trying to rush the Process.
Besides PG13 and Lebron, I don't see anyone on the free agency list that really helps them. I definitely wouldn't waste cap space on Bradley like some people suggest. If I'm the Sixers while everyone is courting Lebron, I'd go hard after PG13. He seems like a near perfect fit for them.
http://hoopshype.com/2018/02/13/nba-free-agency-2018-the-top-players/
I think you could reasonably argue that Saric is already better than Covington and the gap is only going to increase (not to mention Redick was pretty clearly their 3rd best player this year).
I think an argument could be made for any of the three being their 3rd best player. Covington's defense is very important to their success. Longer term I don't think any of the three fit the bill as their 3rd best player if they want to be a Championship contender.
Covington is their Jae Crowder; decent, but pure role type player.
Never said he wasn't a role player. Redick and Saric are role players too. I rate Covington higher than Crowder. He's also a very good fit with Embiid and Simmons and on a team friendly contract.
I think Saric has a lot more than role player potential. 4th option offensively this year and put up 14.6 ppg on 11.4 shots. 39.3% from three, 50.1% from two, and 86% from the line. 6.7 rpg on a team with Embiid and Simmons grabbing boards like crazy. Decent passer at 2.6 apg. Needs to work on his defense, but I could easily see Saric as a 20/9/5 type player on a team where he had more looks, especially if he continues to progress like he did from year 1 to year 2 (and I know he is older which curbs some of that growth potential, but he just turned 24 and is in only his 2nd year in the NBA).
-
Obviously Simmons and Embiid are both really good.
They still need to fill in the roster though. They currently have a bunch of place-holder shooters (Reddick, Bellinelli, Bayless, and Illyasova).
ROCO can probably fit into their long-term plans, but he is basically James Posey. I'm not sure he can be the 3rd-4th best player on a championship team.
I like Saric a lot, but playing him next to ROCO, Simmons, and Embiid forces one of them to defend down a position or two, and it isn't easy to chase little guys around screens all game.
Fultz may be the third guy, but with as NBA-ready as Simmons and Embiid are, how long can they wait on him to be ready to compete on both ends in the playoffs.
The Sixers definitely have a good team, but they also have quite a bit of roster formation to go in order to be a true contender. They have the assets to get there, but we'll see if they do.
Simmons and Covington are both very versatile, high level defenders. They are some of the more positionless players guarding 1 through 4. Having Embiid guarding the lane really helps too. The Sixers do a lot of switching rather than fighting through screens.
I agree Covington shouldn't be their 3rd best player long-term. However Embiid and Simmons are still developing so they can certainly wait on Fultz for another season. They shouldn't waste their cap space trying to rush the Process.
Besides PG13 and Lebron, I don't see anyone on the free agency list that really helps them. I definitely wouldn't waste cap space on Bradley like some people suggest. If I'm the Sixers while everyone is courting Lebron, I'd go hard after PG13. He seems like a near perfect fit for them.
http://hoopshype.com/2018/02/13/nba-free-agency-2018-the-top-players/
I think you could reasonably argue that Saric is already better than Covington and the gap is only going to increase (not to mention Redick was pretty clearly their 3rd best player this year).
I think an argument could be made for any of the three being their 3rd best player. Covington's defense is very important to their success. Longer term I don't think any of the three fit the bill as their 3rd best player if they want to be a Championship contender.
Covington is their Jae Crowder; decent, but pure role type player.
Never said he wasn't a role player. Redick and Saric are role players too. I rate Covington higher than Crowder. He's also a very good fit with Embiid and Simmons and on a team friendly contract.
I think Saric has a lot more than role player potential. 4th option offensively this year and put up 14.6 ppg on 11.4 shots. 39.3% from three, 50.1% from two, and 86% from the line. 6.7 rpg on a team with Embiid and Simmons grabbing boards like crazy. Decent passer at 2.6 apg. Needs to work on his defense, but I could easily see Saric as a 20/9/5 type player on a team where he had more looks, especially if he continues to progress like he did from year 1 to year 2 (and I know he is older which curbs some of that growth potential, but he just turned 24 and is in only his 2nd year in the NBA).
I think we have seen time and time again that a guy getting good numbers as a 3rd or 4th option does necessarily translate to a starring role elsewhere. Saric has definitely benefitted from excellent looks being generated by simmons, defenses doubling Embiid, and teams not being able to give Reddick an inch.
You could have easily said coming into last year that Crowder was scoring 14 points on the Celtics shooting 46% from field and 40% from 3 and act like the numbers were going to blow up if he was given more shots. In reality he was in the perfect situation for himself.
Want another one? Look no further than his teammate Illasova who at 24 was putting up 13 points and 9 rebounds on 49% shooting with 46% from 3 as a secondary option for the Bucks.
Some could have said he was ready to blow up with a bigger opportunity. Again he was in a great situation for himself.
The funny part is, as ravenous and hyped up as the 76ers fans are, most of them acknowledge Saric with his limited athleticism and creation off the bench is a perfect role player and you very rarely see the people watching him every game saying he will be an allstar. I also think Philly is probably good enough with out people needlessly pumping up their role players.
-
contending
You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means...
Actually quite certain I do know what it means and used it properly in the post referenced, which is most likely why you erased every word of that post except for the word "contending".
Would still take the rebuild Ainge did to that of Hinkie. Right now have better team. Have stars with playoff experience. Have 2 stud young guys who are great 2 way players. Have won back to back 50+ game seasons. Have been in playoffs 4 straight years. Have gone to ECF. When healthy next year will be favorite to go to Finals from east. Have better coach. Have about 8-10 year contending window
Contending - realistic chance to win a championship
-
Obviously Simmons and Embiid are both really good.
They still need to fill in the roster though. They currently have a bunch of place-holder shooters (Reddick, Bellinelli, Bayless, and Illyasova).
ROCO can probably fit into their long-term plans, but he is basically James Posey. I'm not sure he can be the 3rd-4th best player on a championship team.
I like Saric a lot, but playing him next to ROCO, Simmons, and Embiid forces one of them to defend down a position or two, and it isn't easy to chase little guys around screens all game.
Fultz may be the third guy, but with as NBA-ready as Simmons and Embiid are, how long can they wait on him to be ready to compete on both ends in the playoffs.
The Sixers definitely have a good team, but they also have quite a bit of roster formation to go in order to be a true contender. They have the assets to get there, but we'll see if they do.
Simmons and Covington are both very versatile, high level defenders. They are some of the more positionless players guarding 1 through 4. Having Embiid guarding the lane really helps too. The Sixers do a lot of switching rather than fighting through screens.
I agree Covington shouldn't be their 3rd best player long-term. However Embiid and Simmons are still developing so they can certainly wait on Fultz for another season. They shouldn't waste their cap space trying to rush the Process.
Besides PG13 and Lebron, I don't see anyone on the free agency list that really helps them. I definitely wouldn't waste cap space on Bradley like some people suggest. If I'm the Sixers while everyone is courting Lebron, I'd go hard after PG13. He seems like a near perfect fit for them.
http://hoopshype.com/2018/02/13/nba-free-agency-2018-the-top-players/
I think you could reasonably argue that Saric is already better than Covington and the gap is only going to increase (not to mention Redick was pretty clearly their 3rd best player this year).
I think an argument could be made for any of the three being their 3rd best player. Covington's defense is very important to their success. Longer term I don't think any of the three fit the bill as their 3rd best player if they want to be a Championship contender.
Covington is their Jae Crowder; decent, but pure role type player.
Never said he wasn't a role player. Redick and Saric are role players too. I rate Covington higher than Crowder. He's also a very good fit with Embiid and Simmons and on a team friendly contract.
I think Saric has a lot more than role player potential. 4th option offensively this year and put up 14.6 ppg on 11.4 shots. 39.3% from three, 50.1% from two, and 86% from the line. 6.7 rpg on a team with Embiid and Simmons grabbing boards like crazy. Decent passer at 2.6 apg. Needs to work on his defense, but I could easily see Saric as a 20/9/5 type player on a team where he had more looks, especially if he continues to progress like he did from year 1 to year 2 (and I know he is older which curbs some of that growth potential, but he just turned 24 and is in only his 2nd year in the NBA).
Agree with this. I really like Saric. Not sure about 20/9/5. Maybe tone that down a wee to 18/8/4 on a good team playing next to a real #1 guy. Heck wouldn't rule out him getting those numbers as a #3 guy on this team if the core stays together for a while and Fultz is a flop.
-
Obviously Simmons and Embiid are both really good.
They still need to fill in the roster though. They currently have a bunch of place-holder shooters (Reddick, Bellinelli, Bayless, and Illyasova).
ROCO can probably fit into their long-term plans, but he is basically James Posey. I'm not sure he can be the 3rd-4th best player on a championship team.
I like Saric a lot, but playing him next to ROCO, Simmons, and Embiid forces one of them to defend down a position or two, and it isn't easy to chase little guys around screens all game.
Fultz may be the third guy, but with as NBA-ready as Simmons and Embiid are, how long can they wait on him to be ready to compete on both ends in the playoffs.
The Sixers definitely have a good team, but they also have quite a bit of roster formation to go in order to be a true contender. They have the assets to get there, but we'll see if they do.
Simmons and Covington are both very versatile, high level defenders. They are some of the more positionless players guarding 1 through 4. Having Embiid guarding the lane really helps too. The Sixers do a lot of switching rather than fighting through screens.
I agree Covington shouldn't be their 3rd best player long-term. However Embiid and Simmons are still developing so they can certainly wait on Fultz for another season. They shouldn't waste their cap space trying to rush the Process.
Besides PG13 and Lebron, I don't see anyone on the free agency list that really helps them. I definitely wouldn't waste cap space on Bradley like some people suggest. If I'm the Sixers while everyone is courting Lebron, I'd go hard after PG13. He seems like a near perfect fit for them.
http://hoopshype.com/2018/02/13/nba-free-agency-2018-the-top-players/
I think you could reasonably argue that Saric is already better than Covington and the gap is only going to increase (not to mention Redick was pretty clearly their 3rd best player this year).
I think an argument could be made for any of the three being their 3rd best player. Covington's defense is very important to their success. Longer term I don't think any of the three fit the bill as their 3rd best player if they want to be a Championship contender.
Covington is their Jae Crowder; decent, but pure role type player.
Never said he wasn't a role player. Redick and Saric are role players too. I rate Covington higher than Crowder. He's also a very good fit with Embiid and Simmons and on a team friendly contract.
I think Saric has a lot more than role player potential. 4th option offensively this year and put up 14.6 ppg on 11.4 shots. 39.3% from three, 50.1% from two, and 86% from the line. 6.7 rpg on a team with Embiid and Simmons grabbing boards like crazy. Decent passer at 2.6 apg. Needs to work on his defense, but I could easily see Saric as a 20/9/5 type player on a team where he had more looks, especially if he continues to progress like he did from year 1 to year 2 (and I know he is older which curbs some of that growth potential, but he just turned 24 and is in only his 2nd year in the NBA).
Agree with this. I really like Saric. Not sure about 20/9/5. Maybe tone that down a wee to 18/8/4 on a good team playing next to a real #1 guy. Heck wouldn't rule out him getting those numbers as a #3 guy on this team if the core stays together for a while and Fultz is a flop.
To put this in perspective the only players in the entire NBA to average 20 points, 9 rebounds and 5 assists per game were Demarcus Cousins and Russell Westbrook.
Even if you go down to Nick's "modest" 18, 8 and 4 the list expands to include Lebron, Greek Freak and Jokic. Seriously what the heck are you guys watching that see Saric putting up MVP level numbers on a different team.... wow
-
Obviously Simmons and Embiid are both really good.
They still need to fill in the roster though. They currently have a bunch of place-holder shooters (Reddick, Bellinelli, Bayless, and Illyasova).
ROCO can probably fit into their long-term plans, but he is basically James Posey. I'm not sure he can be the 3rd-4th best player on a championship team.
I like Saric a lot, but playing him next to ROCO, Simmons, and Embiid forces one of them to defend down a position or two, and it isn't easy to chase little guys around screens all game.
Fultz may be the third guy, but with as NBA-ready as Simmons and Embiid are, how long can they wait on him to be ready to compete on both ends in the playoffs.
The Sixers definitely have a good team, but they also have quite a bit of roster formation to go in order to be a true contender. They have the assets to get there, but we'll see if they do.
Simmons and Covington are both very versatile, high level defenders. They are some of the more positionless players guarding 1 through 4. Having Embiid guarding the lane really helps too. The Sixers do a lot of switching rather than fighting through screens.
I agree Covington shouldn't be their 3rd best player long-term. However Embiid and Simmons are still developing so they can certainly wait on Fultz for another season. They shouldn't waste their cap space trying to rush the Process.
Besides PG13 and Lebron, I don't see anyone on the free agency list that really helps them. I definitely wouldn't waste cap space on Bradley like some people suggest. If I'm the Sixers while everyone is courting Lebron, I'd go hard after PG13. He seems like a near perfect fit for them.
http://hoopshype.com/2018/02/13/nba-free-agency-2018-the-top-players/
I think you could reasonably argue that Saric is already better than Covington and the gap is only going to increase (not to mention Redick was pretty clearly their 3rd best player this year).
I think an argument could be made for any of the three being their 3rd best player. Covington's defense is very important to their success. Longer term I don't think any of the three fit the bill as their 3rd best player if they want to be a Championship contender.
Covington is their Jae Crowder; decent, but pure role type player.
Never said he wasn't a role player. Redick and Saric are role players too. I rate Covington higher than Crowder. He's also a very good fit with Embiid and Simmons and on a team friendly contract.
I think Saric has a lot more than role player potential. 4th option offensively this year and put up 14.6 ppg on 11.4 shots. 39.3% from three, 50.1% from two, and 86% from the line. 6.7 rpg on a team with Embiid and Simmons grabbing boards like crazy. Decent passer at 2.6 apg. Needs to work on his defense, but I could easily see Saric as a 20/9/5 type player on a team where he had more looks, especially if he continues to progress like he did from year 1 to year 2 (and I know he is older which curbs some of that growth potential, but he just turned 24 and is in only his 2nd year in the NBA).
Agree with this. I really like Saric. Not sure about 20/9/5. Maybe tone that down a wee to 18/8/4 on a good team playing next to a real #1 guy. Heck wouldn't rule out him getting those numbers as a #3 guy on this team if the core stays together for a while and Fultz is a flop.
To put this in perspective the only players in the entire NBA to average 20 points, 9 rebounds and 5 assists per game were Demarcus Cousins and Russell Westbrook.
Even if you go down to Nick's "modest" 18, 8 and 4 the list expands to include Lebron, Greek Freak and Jokic. Seriously what the heck are you guys watching that see Saric putting up MVP level numbers on a different team.... wow
I was rounding up😄
-
Obviously Simmons and Embiid are both really good.
They still need to fill in the roster though. They currently have a bunch of place-holder shooters (Reddick, Bellinelli, Bayless, and Illyasova).
ROCO can probably fit into their long-term plans, but he is basically James Posey. I'm not sure he can be the 3rd-4th best player on a championship team.
I like Saric a lot, but playing him next to ROCO, Simmons, and Embiid forces one of them to defend down a position or two, and it isn't easy to chase little guys around screens all game.
Fultz may be the third guy, but with as NBA-ready as Simmons and Embiid are, how long can they wait on him to be ready to compete on both ends in the playoffs.
The Sixers definitely have a good team, but they also have quite a bit of roster formation to go in order to be a true contender. They have the assets to get there, but we'll see if they do.
Simmons and Covington are both very versatile, high level defenders. They are some of the more positionless players guarding 1 through 4. Having Embiid guarding the lane really helps too. The Sixers do a lot of switching rather than fighting through screens.
I agree Covington shouldn't be their 3rd best player long-term. However Embiid and Simmons are still developing so they can certainly wait on Fultz for another season. They shouldn't waste their cap space trying to rush the Process.
Besides PG13 and Lebron, I don't see anyone on the free agency list that really helps them. I definitely wouldn't waste cap space on Bradley like some people suggest. If I'm the Sixers while everyone is courting Lebron, I'd go hard after PG13. He seems like a near perfect fit for them.
http://hoopshype.com/2018/02/13/nba-free-agency-2018-the-top-players/
I think you could reasonably argue that Saric is already better than Covington and the gap is only going to increase (not to mention Redick was pretty clearly their 3rd best player this year).
I think an argument could be made for any of the three being their 3rd best player. Covington's defense is very important to their success. Longer term I don't think any of the three fit the bill as their 3rd best player if they want to be a Championship contender.
Covington is their Jae Crowder; decent, but pure role type player.
Never said he wasn't a role player. Redick and Saric are role players too. I rate Covington higher than Crowder. He's also a very good fit with Embiid and Simmons and on a team friendly contract.
I think Saric has a lot more than role player potential. 4th option offensively this year and put up 14.6 ppg on 11.4 shots. 39.3% from three, 50.1% from two, and 86% from the line. 6.7 rpg on a team with Embiid and Simmons grabbing boards like crazy. Decent passer at 2.6 apg. Needs to work on his defense, but I could easily see Saric as a 20/9/5 type player on a team where he had more looks, especially if he continues to progress like he did from year 1 to year 2 (and I know he is older which curbs some of that growth potential, but he just turned 24 and is in only his 2nd year in the NBA).
Agree with this. I really like Saric. Not sure about 20/9/5. Maybe tone that down a wee to 18/8/4 on a good team playing next to a real #1 guy. Heck wouldn't rule out him getting those numbers as a #3 guy on this team if the core stays together for a while and Fultz is a flop.
To put this in perspective the only players in the entire NBA to average 20 points, 9 rebounds and 5 assists per game were Demarcus Cousins and Russell Westbrook.
Even if you go down to Nick's "modest" 18, 8 and 4 the list expands to include Lebron, Greek Freak and Jokic. Seriously what the heck are you guys watching that see Saric putting up MVP level numbers on a different team.... wow
Those are Antoine Walker MVP level numbers!
'01: 23.4ppg. 8.9rpg, 5.5apg, 1.7spg in 81 games.
It's amazing how good those numbers look in a vacuum.
-
In the games this year where Saric played at least 36 minutes these are his stat lines from p/r/a
13/11/4
14/8/3
16/8/4
18/10/9
20/7/1
26/14/5
23/9/3 (game 2 yesterday)
if you expand it to 34 minutes or more these are the additional games
25/10/1
13/10/2
18/10/4
17/9/6
20/9/6
22/10/2
21/7/2
He had 13 other games where he scored at least 20 points, had 5 other games where he had at least 5 assists, and 14 other games with at least 9 rebounds.
It is his 2nd year and he is on a team with a lot of talent. I don't think he can be a #1 scoring option as he isn't athletic enough, but he absolutely could put up all star level numbers quite easily. Frankly, he could have had all star level numbers this year, if he just had more than 29.6 mpg and wasn't sharing the ball as much as he was.
-
Obviously Simmons and Embiid are both really good.
They still need to fill in the roster though. They currently have a bunch of place-holder shooters (Reddick, Bellinelli, Bayless, and Illyasova).
ROCO can probably fit into their long-term plans, but he is basically James Posey. I'm not sure he can be the 3rd-4th best player on a championship team.
I like Saric a lot, but playing him next to ROCO, Simmons, and Embiid forces one of them to defend down a position or two, and it isn't easy to chase little guys around screens all game.
Fultz may be the third guy, but with as NBA-ready as Simmons and Embiid are, how long can they wait on him to be ready to compete on both ends in the playoffs.
The Sixers definitely have a good team, but they also have quite a bit of roster formation to go in order to be a true contender. They have the assets to get there, but we'll see if they do.
Simmons and Covington are both very versatile, high level defenders. They are some of the more positionless players guarding 1 through 4. Having Embiid guarding the lane really helps too. The Sixers do a lot of switching rather than fighting through screens.
I agree Covington shouldn't be their 3rd best player long-term. However Embiid and Simmons are still developing so they can certainly wait on Fultz for another season. They shouldn't waste their cap space trying to rush the Process.
Besides PG13 and Lebron, I don't see anyone on the free agency list that really helps them. I definitely wouldn't waste cap space on Bradley like some people suggest. If I'm the Sixers while everyone is courting Lebron, I'd go hard after PG13. He seems like a near perfect fit for them.
http://hoopshype.com/2018/02/13/nba-free-agency-2018-the-top-players/
I think you could reasonably argue that Saric is already better than Covington and the gap is only going to increase (not to mention Redick was pretty clearly their 3rd best player this year).
I think an argument could be made for any of the three being their 3rd best player. Covington's defense is very important to their success. Longer term I don't think any of the three fit the bill as their 3rd best player if they want to be a Championship contender.
Covington is their Jae Crowder; decent, but pure role type player.
Never said he wasn't a role player. Redick and Saric are role players too. I rate Covington higher than Crowder. He's also a very good fit with Embiid and Simmons and on a team friendly contract.
I think Saric has a lot more than role player potential. 4th option offensively this year and put up 14.6 ppg on 11.4 shots. 39.3% from three, 50.1% from two, and 86% from the line. 6.7 rpg on a team with Embiid and Simmons grabbing boards like crazy. Decent passer at 2.6 apg. Needs to work on his defense, but I could easily see Saric as a 20/9/5 type player on a team where he had more looks, especially if he continues to progress like he did from year 1 to year 2 (and I know he is older which curbs some of that growth potential, but he just turned 24 and is in only his 2nd year in the NBA).
Agree with this. I really like Saric. Not sure about 20/9/5. Maybe tone that down a wee to 18/8/4 on a good team playing next to a real #1 guy. Heck wouldn't rule out him getting those numbers as a #3 guy on this team if the core stays together for a while and Fultz is a flop.
To put this in perspective the only players in the entire NBA to average 20 points, 9 rebounds and 5 assists per game were Demarcus Cousins and Russell Westbrook.
Even if you go down to Nick's "modest" 18, 8 and 4 the list expands to include Lebron, Greek Freak and Jokic. Seriously what the heck are you guys watching that see Saric putting up MVP level numbers on a different team.... wow
Those are Antoine Walker MVP level numbers!
'01: 23.4ppg. 8.9rpg, 5.5apg, 1.7spg in 81 games.
It's amazing how good those numbers look in a vacuum.
Antoine in today's NBA, imagine how many 3 pointers he would have attempted. He was ahead of his time.
-
Obviously Simmons and Embiid are both really good.
They still need to fill in the roster though. They currently have a bunch of place-holder shooters (Reddick, Bellinelli, Bayless, and Illyasova).
ROCO can probably fit into their long-term plans, but he is basically James Posey. I'm not sure he can be the 3rd-4th best player on a championship team.
I like Saric a lot, but playing him next to ROCO, Simmons, and Embiid forces one of them to defend down a position or two, and it isn't easy to chase little guys around screens all game.
Fultz may be the third guy, but with as NBA-ready as Simmons and Embiid are, how long can they wait on him to be ready to compete on both ends in the playoffs.
The Sixers definitely have a good team, but they also have quite a bit of roster formation to go in order to be a true contender. They have the assets to get there, but we'll see if they do.
Simmons and Covington are both very versatile, high level defenders. They are some of the more positionless players guarding 1 through 4. Having Embiid guarding the lane really helps too. The Sixers do a lot of switching rather than fighting through screens.
I agree Covington shouldn't be their 3rd best player long-term. However Embiid and Simmons are still developing so they can certainly wait on Fultz for another season. They shouldn't waste their cap space trying to rush the Process.
Besides PG13 and Lebron, I don't see anyone on the free agency list that really helps them. I definitely wouldn't waste cap space on Bradley like some people suggest. If I'm the Sixers while everyone is courting Lebron, I'd go hard after PG13. He seems like a near perfect fit for them.
http://hoopshype.com/2018/02/13/nba-free-agency-2018-the-top-players/
I think you could reasonably argue that Saric is already better than Covington and the gap is only going to increase (not to mention Redick was pretty clearly their 3rd best player this year).
I think an argument could be made for any of the three being their 3rd best player. Covington's defense is very important to their success. Longer term I don't think any of the three fit the bill as their 3rd best player if they want to be a Championship contender.
Covington is their Jae Crowder; decent, but pure role type player.
Never said he wasn't a role player. Redick and Saric are role players too. I rate Covington higher than Crowder. He's also a very good fit with Embiid and Simmons and on a team friendly contract.
I think Saric has a lot more than role player potential. 4th option offensively this year and put up 14.6 ppg on 11.4 shots. 39.3% from three, 50.1% from two, and 86% from the line. 6.7 rpg on a team with Embiid and Simmons grabbing boards like crazy. Decent passer at 2.6 apg. Needs to work on his defense, but I could easily see Saric as a 20/9/5 type player on a team where he had more looks, especially if he continues to progress like he did from year 1 to year 2 (and I know he is older which curbs some of that growth potential, but he just turned 24 and is in only his 2nd year in the NBA).
Agree with this. I really like Saric. Not sure about 20/9/5. Maybe tone that down a wee to 18/8/4 on a good team playing next to a real #1 guy. Heck wouldn't rule out him getting those numbers as a #3 guy on this team if the core stays together for a while and Fultz is a flop.
To put this in perspective the only players in the entire NBA to average 20 points, 9 rebounds and 5 assists per game were Demarcus Cousins and Russell Westbrook.
Even if you go down to Nick's "modest" 18, 8 and 4 the list expands to include Lebron, Greek Freak and Jokic. Seriously what the heck are you guys watching that see Saric putting up MVP level numbers on a different team.... wow
Those are Antoine Walker MVP level numbers!
'01: 23.4ppg. 8.9rpg, 5.5apg, 1.7spg in 81 games.
It's amazing how good those numbers look in a vacuum.
Antoine in today's NBA, imagine how many 3 pointers he would have attempted. He was ahead of his time.
All of them ;D
-
In the games this year where Saric played at least 36 minutes these are his stat lines from p/r/a
13/11/4
14/8/3
16/8/4
18/10/9
20/7/1
26/14/5
23/9/3 (game 2 yesterday)
if you expand it to 34 minutes or more these are the additional games
25/10/1
13/10/2
18/10/4
17/9/6
20/9/6
22/10/2
21/7/2
He had 13 other games where he scored at least 20 points, had 5 other games where he had at least 5 assists, and 14 other games with at least 9 rebounds.
It is his 2nd year and he is on a team with a lot of talent. I don't think he can be a #1 scoring option as he isn't athletic enough, but he absolutely could put up all star level numbers quite easily. Frankly, he could have had all star level numbers this year, if he just had more than 29.6 mpg and wasn't sharing the ball as much as he was.
What a silly attempt to manipulate statistics.
Do you think in games where Saric is playing good, is not in any foul trouble, and is scoring/rebounding well he is inevitably going to be given more minutes than if he was not? Yes, kind of common sense. You would expect his numbers to look better in those games.
Then, where is this magical 36 minutes coming from? Saric is never going to average 36 minutes a game in the NBA. He is a pretty big guy with limited athleticism. Do you know how many small forward, power forwards and centers averaged 36 a game this season? 8 in the entire league and it includes superstars like GA, Lebron, Jimmy Butler, Davis and Paul George.
Even if you go down to 34 minutes for sf-c you are still at 11 players in the entire NBA Durant, Lebron, GA, Davis, Cousins, Kat, Butler, Middletown etc. He just isn't going to play that many minutes anywhere.
I'll repeat cause you seem to skim over this, 2 players in the entire league averaged 20, 9 and 4 and one of them (Cousins) didn't make it through the season cause their coach was running his body into the ground. Saric is never joining that club. I feel bad Saric honestly that someone is even putting out these ridiculous expectations for the guy. He isn't a Westbrook or Lebron style player and even he would admit it himself. Lets have a reasonable discussion about this guy without the bizarre pie in the sky hyperbole.
-
I think Saric is a sneaky good player in the NBA. I can see the optimistic projections of his game. I'm not sure if he is a volume scorer, but he's very solid.
-
Obviously Simmons and Embiid are both really good.
They still need to fill in the roster though. They currently have a bunch of place-holder shooters (Reddick, Bellinelli, Bayless, and Illyasova).
ROCO can probably fit into their long-term plans, but he is basically James Posey. I'm not sure he can be the 3rd-4th best player on a championship team.
I like Saric a lot, but playing him next to ROCO, Simmons, and Embiid forces one of them to defend down a position or two, and it isn't easy to chase little guys around screens all game.
Fultz may be the third guy, but with as NBA-ready as Simmons and Embiid are, how long can they wait on him to be ready to compete on both ends in the playoffs.
The Sixers definitely have a good team, but they also have quite a bit of roster formation to go in order to be a true contender. They have the assets to get there, but we'll see if they do.
Simmons and Covington are both very versatile, high level defenders. They are some of the more positionless players guarding 1 through 4. Having Embiid guarding the lane really helps too. The Sixers do a lot of switching rather than fighting through screens.
I agree Covington shouldn't be their 3rd best player long-term. However Embiid and Simmons are still developing so they can certainly wait on Fultz for another season. They shouldn't waste their cap space trying to rush the Process.
Besides PG13 and Lebron, I don't see anyone on the free agency list that really helps them. I definitely wouldn't waste cap space on Bradley like some people suggest. If I'm the Sixers while everyone is courting Lebron, I'd go hard after PG13. He seems like a near perfect fit for them.
http://hoopshype.com/2018/02/13/nba-free-agency-2018-the-top-players/
I think you could reasonably argue that Saric is already better than Covington and the gap is only going to increase (not to mention Redick was pretty clearly their 3rd best player this year).
I think an argument could be made for any of the three being their 3rd best player. Covington's defense is very important to their success. Longer term I don't think any of the three fit the bill as their 3rd best player if they want to be a Championship contender.
Covington is their Jae Crowder; decent, but pure role type player.
Never said he wasn't a role player. Redick and Saric are role players too. I rate Covington higher than Crowder. He's also a very good fit with Embiid and Simmons and on a team friendly contract.
I think Saric has a lot more than role player potential. 4th option offensively this year and put up 14.6 ppg on 11.4 shots. 39.3% from three, 50.1% from two, and 86% from the line. 6.7 rpg on a team with Embiid and Simmons grabbing boards like crazy. Decent passer at 2.6 apg. Needs to work on his defense, but I could easily see Saric as a 20/9/5 type player on a team where he had more looks, especially if he continues to progress like he did from year 1 to year 2 (and I know he is older which curbs some of that growth potential, but he just turned 24 and is in only his 2nd year in the NBA).
Agree with this. I really like Saric. Not sure about 20/9/5. Maybe tone that down a wee to 18/8/4 on a good team playing next to a real #1 guy. Heck wouldn't rule out him getting those numbers as a #3 guy on this team if the core stays together for a while and Fultz is a flop.
To put this in perspective the only players in the entire NBA to average 20 points, 9 rebounds and 5 assists per game were Demarcus Cousins and Russell Westbrook.
Even if you go down to Nick's "modest" 18, 8 and 4 the list expands to include Lebron, Greek Freak and Jokic. Seriously what the heck are you guys watching that see Saric putting up MVP level numbers on a different team.... wow
Those are Antoine Walker MVP level numbers!
'01: 23.4ppg. 8.9rpg, 5.5apg, 1.7spg in 81 games.
It's amazing how good those numbers look in a vacuum.
Antoine in today's NBA, imagine how many 3 pointers he would have attempted. He was ahead of his time.
All of them ;D
Antoine could never up those numbers in today's NBA for quite a few reasons. For one he was playing 42 minutes a game which would never happen with what is known about injury prevention and rest.
2) with what is known about true shooting percentages and advanced analytics he wouldn't be given the green light to throw up 21 shots a game at 41% (nobody in the league even averaged 21 this year, harden led at 20) . Of players shooting 42% or worse the most attempts any were allowed was Covington at 10.5. Insane to think about.
-
Obviously Simmons and Embiid are both really good.
They still need to fill in the roster though. They currently have a bunch of place-holder shooters (Reddick, Bellinelli, Bayless, and Illyasova).
ROCO can probably fit into their long-term plans, but he is basically James Posey. I'm not sure he can be the 3rd-4th best player on a championship team.
I like Saric a lot, but playing him next to ROCO, Simmons, and Embiid forces one of them to defend down a position or two, and it isn't easy to chase little guys around screens all game.
Fultz may be the third guy, but with as NBA-ready as Simmons and Embiid are, how long can they wait on him to be ready to compete on both ends in the playoffs.
The Sixers definitely have a good team, but they also have quite a bit of roster formation to go in order to be a true contender. They have the assets to get there, but we'll see if they do.
Simmons and Covington are both very versatile, high level defenders. They are some of the more positionless players guarding 1 through 4. Having Embiid guarding the lane really helps too. The Sixers do a lot of switching rather than fighting through screens.
I agree Covington shouldn't be their 3rd best player long-term. However Embiid and Simmons are still developing so they can certainly wait on Fultz for another season. They shouldn't waste their cap space trying to rush the Process.
Besides PG13 and Lebron, I don't see anyone on the free agency list that really helps them. I definitely wouldn't waste cap space on Bradley like some people suggest. If I'm the Sixers while everyone is courting Lebron, I'd go hard after PG13. He seems like a near perfect fit for them.
http://hoopshype.com/2018/02/13/nba-free-agency-2018-the-top-players/
I think you could reasonably argue that Saric is already better than Covington and the gap is only going to increase (not to mention Redick was pretty clearly their 3rd best player this year).
I think an argument could be made for any of the three being their 3rd best player. Covington's defense is very important to their success. Longer term I don't think any of the three fit the bill as their 3rd best player if they want to be a Championship contender.
Covington is their Jae Crowder; decent, but pure role type player.
Never said he wasn't a role player. Redick and Saric are role players too. I rate Covington higher than Crowder. He's also a very good fit with Embiid and Simmons and on a team friendly contract.
I think Saric has a lot more than role player potential. 4th option offensively this year and put up 14.6 ppg on 11.4 shots. 39.3% from three, 50.1% from two, and 86% from the line. 6.7 rpg on a team with Embiid and Simmons grabbing boards like crazy. Decent passer at 2.6 apg. Needs to work on his defense, but I could easily see Saric as a 20/9/5 type player on a team where he had more looks, especially if he continues to progress like he did from year 1 to year 2 (and I know he is older which curbs some of that growth potential, but he just turned 24 and is in only his 2nd year in the NBA).
Agree with this. I really like Saric. Not sure about 20/9/5. Maybe tone that down a wee to 18/8/4 on a good team playing next to a real #1 guy. Heck wouldn't rule out him getting those numbers as a #3 guy on this team if the core stays together for a while and Fultz is a flop.
To me comparing Covington to crowder is a gross comparassion. Covington is known as a marksman crowder was just someone who would shoot it in hopes it goes in. Crowder is no where near a good shooter. Only reason who took so many 3s was because of the team we had (which I hated and glad we have a new team now).
-
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2771039-nba-owner-reportedly-berated-tanking-teams-coach-for-winning-on-road?src=rss
-
Obviously Simmons and Embiid are both really good.
They still need to fill in the roster though. They currently have a bunch of place-holder shooters (Reddick, Bellinelli, Bayless, and Illyasova).
ROCO can probably fit into their long-term plans, but he is basically James Posey. I'm not sure he can be the 3rd-4th best player on a championship team.
I like Saric a lot, but playing him next to ROCO, Simmons, and Embiid forces one of them to defend down a position or two, and it isn't easy to chase little guys around screens all game.
Fultz may be the third guy, but with as NBA-ready as Simmons and Embiid are, how long can they wait on him to be ready to compete on both ends in the playoffs.
The Sixers definitely have a good team, but they also have quite a bit of roster formation to go in order to be a true contender. They have the assets to get there, but we'll see if they do.
Simmons and Covington are both very versatile, high level defenders. They are some of the more positionless players guarding 1 through 4. Having Embiid guarding the lane really helps too. The Sixers do a lot of switching rather than fighting through screens.
I agree Covington shouldn't be their 3rd best player long-term. However Embiid and Simmons are still developing so they can certainly wait on Fultz for another season. They shouldn't waste their cap space trying to rush the Process.
Besides PG13 and Lebron, I don't see anyone on the free agency list that really helps them. I definitely wouldn't waste cap space on Bradley like some people suggest. If I'm the Sixers while everyone is courting Lebron, I'd go hard after PG13. He seems like a near perfect fit for them.
http://hoopshype.com/2018/02/13/nba-free-agency-2018-the-top-players/
I think you could reasonably argue that Saric is already better than Covington and the gap is only going to increase (not to mention Redick was pretty clearly their 3rd best player this year).
I think an argument could be made for any of the three being their 3rd best player. Covington's defense is very important to their success. Longer term I don't think any of the three fit the bill as their 3rd best player if they want to be a Championship contender.
Covington is their Jae Crowder; decent, but pure role type player.
Never said he wasn't a role player. Redick and Saric are role players too. I rate Covington higher than Crowder. He's also a very good fit with Embiid and Simmons and on a team friendly contract.
I think Saric has a lot more than role player potential. 4th option offensively this year and put up 14.6 ppg on 11.4 shots. 39.3% from three, 50.1% from two, and 86% from the line. 6.7 rpg on a team with Embiid and Simmons grabbing boards like crazy. Decent passer at 2.6 apg. Needs to work on his defense, but I could easily see Saric as a 20/9/5 type player on a team where he had more looks, especially if he continues to progress like he did from year 1 to year 2 (and I know he is older which curbs some of that growth potential, but he just turned 24 and is in only his 2nd year in the NBA).
Agree with this. I really like Saric. Not sure about 20/9/5. Maybe tone that down a wee to 18/8/4 on a good team playing next to a real #1 guy. Heck wouldn't rule out him getting those numbers as a #3 guy on this team if the core stays together for a while and Fultz is a flop.
To me comparing Covington to crowder is a gross comparassion. Covington is known as a marksman crowder was just someone who would shoot it in hopes it goes in. Crowder is no where near a good shooter. Only reason who took so many 3s was because of the team we had (which I hated and glad we have a new team now).
Robert "Marksman" Covington: 39% from field for career, 35% from 3
Jae "hopes it goes in" crowder: 43% from field for career, 34% from 3
lol, should we try that again?
Edit: I get that Crowder is having a bad shooting season, but for a guy with a track record as long as his it is pretty likely he is going to be around that 33-36% range from 3 when he is in a good system. Covington will probably be in the 33-37% range (he is notoriously streaky). As shooters there is a pretty extensive body of evidence they are similar.
-
For all further posts about Hinkie I'm just gonna link people to Ryan Bernardoni's great piece on the subject:
http://www.celticshub.com/2018/04/09/misplacing-trust-process/
I like this piece a lot Phosita. I particularly liked this discussion point:
"The supportive fans certainly feel like they’ve been vindicated and won, which maybe is all that matters in something as ethereal as sports fandom. They’ve leaned into tribalism and self-aggrandizement as much as any fan base in recent American sports memory. They make Deflategate-period Patriots fans look rational. As strong an argument can be made that they sacrificed years of enjoying their team to end up in the same place as their peers, though. Do Jazz fans wish that they had tanked away a four year span? Maybe the defiance from Process Trusters is as much a coping mechanism as true search for vindication."
I think that in a nutshell is why we see so many of these threads popping up. Even our fans that were invested in this process and debated it over the years now want to try and prove that they were very intelligent in their invested arguments over the year even though a team like the jazz or timberwolves is in a very similar spot from a completely different path. (When I was watching the wolves yesterday I couldn't help but they they would be favorites to win the east if they were in it)
To say the Jazz and the Sixers are in the same place is pretty silly. This season they did end up around the same amount of wins (though the Sixers are a betting favorite for the ECF and the Jazz likely won't get out of the 1st round), but what do people think next year will look like, or the year after, or the year after, or the 5 to 10 years after that.
This certainly seems less silly by the day as both teams are now up 3-1 with the Jazz playing a superior opponent in the first round. Look for the Jazz to give Houston some trouble if they reach the second round as their defense is very legit. Gobert is a true difference maker.
-
If Hinkie was so smart, why didn't the Sixers draft better players?
Rozier, Smart, Brown, Tatum > Okafor, Noel, Simmons, Embiid
He forgot to draft a wing.
-
Obviously Simmons and Embiid are both really good.
They still need to fill in the roster though. They currently have a bunch of place-holder shooters (Reddick, Bellinelli, Bayless, and Illyasova).
ROCO can probably fit into their long-term plans, but he is basically James Posey. I'm not sure he can be the 3rd-4th best player on a championship team.
I like Saric a lot, but playing him next to ROCO, Simmons, and Embiid forces one of them to defend down a position or two, and it isn't easy to chase little guys around screens all game.
Fultz may be the third guy, but with as NBA-ready as Simmons and Embiid are, how long can they wait on him to be ready to compete on both ends in the playoffs.
The Sixers definitely have a good team, but they also have quite a bit of roster formation to go in order to be a true contender. They have the assets to get there, but we'll see if they do.
Simmons and Covington are both very versatile, high level defenders. They are some of the more positionless players guarding 1 through 4. Having Embiid guarding the lane really helps too. The Sixers do a lot of switching rather than fighting through screens.
I agree Covington shouldn't be their 3rd best player long-term. However Embiid and Simmons are still developing so they can certainly wait on Fultz for another season. They shouldn't waste their cap space trying to rush the Process.
Besides PG13 and Lebron, I don't see anyone on the free agency list that really helps them. I definitely wouldn't waste cap space on Bradley like some people suggest. If I'm the Sixers while everyone is courting Lebron, I'd go hard after PG13. He seems like a near perfect fit for them.
http://hoopshype.com/2018/02/13/nba-free-agency-2018-the-top-players/
I think you could reasonably argue that Saric is already better than Covington and the gap is only going to increase (not to mention Redick was pretty clearly their 3rd best player this year).
I think an argument could be made for any of the three being their 3rd best player. Covington's defense is very important to their success. Longer term I don't think any of the three fit the bill as their 3rd best player if they want to be a Championship contender.
Covington is their Jae Crowder; decent, but pure role type player.
Never said he wasn't a role player. Redick and Saric are role players too. I rate Covington higher than Crowder. He's also a very good fit with Embiid and Simmons and on a team friendly contract.
I think Saric has a lot more than role player potential. 4th option offensively this year and put up 14.6 ppg on 11.4 shots. 39.3% from three, 50.1% from two, and 86% from the line. 6.7 rpg on a team with Embiid and Simmons grabbing boards like crazy. Decent passer at 2.6 apg. Needs to work on his defense, but I could easily see Saric as a 20/9/5 type player on a team where he had more looks, especially if he continues to progress like he did from year 1 to year 2 (and I know he is older which curbs some of that growth potential, but he just turned 24 and is in only his 2nd year in the NBA).
Agree with this. I really like Saric. Not sure about 20/9/5. Maybe tone that down a wee to 18/8/4 on a good team playing next to a real #1 guy. Heck wouldn't rule out him getting those numbers as a #3 guy on this team if the core stays together for a while and Fultz is a flop.
To put this in perspective the only players in the entire NBA to average 20 points, 9 rebounds and 5 assists per game were Demarcus Cousins and Russell Westbrook.
Even if you go down to Nick's "modest" 18, 8 and 4 the list expands to include Lebron, Greek Freak and Jokic. Seriously what the heck are you guys watching that see Saric putting up MVP level numbers on a different team.... wow
I was rounding up😄
I couldn't remember where I had seen these saric numbers so tp for this being bumped. Genuinely curious if people are watching saric this series and somehow still have the ludicrous take of him averaging 18.8 and 4 and being an all star? Philly fans are convinced he would be best in a 6th man role and that his lack of athleticism has been exposed.
-
I really hope Moranis doesn't still think Saric would average 20, 9, and 5.
-
I ain't impressed with the Sixers at all. We're spanking them with our JV team. What do those chumps think is gonna happen when we're fully healthy?
Sixers fans might as well go crawl back under their rock.
-
Too bad the environment he created at the time probably cost them Porzingis.
Talk about a "what if".
Things are certainly looking up for that franchise now but they crapped all over their fanbase for a handful of years.
Was it worth it? Who knows? I do know that if I was a STH during those years, I would've been p*ssed since it was basically lighting hard earning $ on fire.
if they had Porzingis they don't have Simmons or Fultz. I'm sure they are ok with the tradeoff
Nah, they would have sat Porzingis for the season so that his broken toe nail could heal.
You seriously can’t believe they don’t regret taking Porzingis over Okafor.
-
I wonder how much impact the constant losing has had on the 76ers young players. The Celts are just more focused with their execution. I don't think the talent is inferior, but Simmons and Embiid are not used to high level execution like the Celts are. Embiid has an excuse; he's coming back from injury, so maybe his lack of fitness and focus is excusable. But Simmons just hasn't exhibited a world class "compete level" whereas the Celtics young players are more focused/consistent/competitive. They aren't more talented, just more committed to doing the things that lead to winning.
#Don'ttrusttheprocess....
-
I mean imagine if they drafted Tatum instead of Fultz.
Simmons
Covington
Taytum
Saric
Embid
------------
Redick
Plus they would still get upcoming picks smdh
That would have been really sly of them, if they pretended like they wanted Fultz only to draft Tatum #1. We probably would have thought we killed that trade at the time, only to be regretting it now.
That would never happen. Ainge wanted Tatum and would never have agreed to the deal if Colangelo wasn't committed to taking Fultz. If Colangelo had lied about it, he'd be done as a GM. No one would trust him.
except Colangelo had no reason to tell Ainge who he would draft and almost certainly did not.
if this is true, would this have to be in writing somehow? like, we will deal #1 for your #3 as long as Philly HAVE to take Fultz with the #1 and hope LA takes Ball at 2?
I feel deals like this usually have to have some sort of agreement between the two parties right?
Not at all. There is absolutely no reason for Philly to tell Boston who they are going to draft. None at all. Now I'm sure Ainge felt pretty confident that Philly was going to take Fultz, but there is no way Colangelo would tell Ainge that.
No basis for making this claim unless there is something in the CBA that prohibits building such a condition into the trade agreement. Would be interesting to see what in fact is agreed upon.
-
I wonder how much impact the constant losing has had on the 76ers young players. The Celts are just more focused with their execution. I don't think the talent is inferior, but Simmons and Embiid are not used to high level execution like the Celts are. Embiid has an excuse; he's coming back from injury, so maybe his lack of fitness and focus is excusable. But Simmons just hasn't exhibited a world class "compete level" whereas the Celtics young players are more focused/consistent/competitive. They aren't more talented, just more committed to doing the things that lead to winning.
#Don'ttrusttheprocess....
Zero impact. Simmons isn't having a bad series because the Sixers tanked. He's having a bad series because he's not yet a complete offensive player and has been beaten by the game plan.
-
Obviously Simmons and Embiid are both really good.
They still need to fill in the roster though. They currently have a bunch of place-holder shooters (Reddick, Bellinelli, Bayless, and Illyasova).
ROCO can probably fit into their long-term plans, but he is basically James Posey. I'm not sure he can be the 3rd-4th best player on a championship team.
I like Saric a lot, but playing him next to ROCO, Simmons, and Embiid forces one of them to defend down a position or two, and it isn't easy to chase little guys around screens all game.
Fultz may be the third guy, but with as NBA-ready as Simmons and Embiid are, how long can they wait on him to be ready to compete on both ends in the playoffs.
The Sixers definitely have a good team, but they also have quite a bit of roster formation to go in order to be a true contender. They have the assets to get there, but we'll see if they do.
Simmons and Covington are both very versatile, high level defenders. They are some of the more positionless players guarding 1 through 4. Having Embiid guarding the lane really helps too. The Sixers do a lot of switching rather than fighting through screens.
I agree Covington shouldn't be their 3rd best player long-term. However Embiid and Simmons are still developing so they can certainly wait on Fultz for another season. They shouldn't waste their cap space trying to rush the Process.
Besides PG13 and Lebron, I don't see anyone on the free agency list that really helps them. I definitely wouldn't waste cap space on Bradley like some people suggest. If I'm the Sixers while everyone is courting Lebron, I'd go hard after PG13. He seems like a near perfect fit for them.
http://hoopshype.com/2018/02/13/nba-free-agency-2018-the-top-players/
I think you could reasonably argue that Saric is already better than Covington and the gap is only going to increase (not to mention Redick was pretty clearly their 3rd best player this year).
I think an argument could be made for any of the three being their 3rd best player. Covington's defense is very important to their success. Longer term I don't think any of the three fit the bill as their 3rd best player if they want to be a Championship contender.
Covington is their Jae Crowder; decent, but pure role type player.
Never said he wasn't a role player. Redick and Saric are role players too. I rate Covington higher than Crowder. He's also a very good fit with Embiid and Simmons and on a team friendly contract.
I think Saric has a lot more than role player potential. 4th option offensively this year and put up 14.6 ppg on 11.4 shots. 39.3% from three, 50.1% from two, and 86% from the line. 6.7 rpg on a team with Embiid and Simmons grabbing boards like crazy. Decent passer at 2.6 apg. Needs to work on his defense, but I could easily see Saric as a 20/9/5 type player on a team where he had more looks, especially if he continues to progress like he did from year 1 to year 2 (and I know he is older which curbs some of that growth potential, but he just turned 24 and is in only his 2nd year in the NBA).
Agree with this. I really like Saric. Not sure about 20/9/5. Maybe tone that down a wee to 18/8/4 on a good team playing next to a real #1 guy. Heck wouldn't rule out him getting those numbers as a #3 guy on this team if the core stays together for a while and Fultz is a flop.
To put this in perspective the only players in the entire NBA to average 20 points, 9 rebounds and 5 assists per game were Demarcus Cousins and Russell Westbrook.
Even if you go down to Nick's "modest" 18, 8 and 4 the list expands to include Lebron, Greek Freak and Jokic. Seriously what the heck are you guys watching that see Saric putting up MVP level numbers on a different team.... wow
I was rounding up
I couldn't remember where I had seen these saric numbers so tp for this being bumped. Genuinely curious if people are watching saric this series and somehow still have the ludicrous take of him averaging 18.8 and 4 and being an all star? Philly fans are convinced he would be best in a 6th man role and that his lack of athleticism has been exposed.
Way to just ignore Saric's best attribute: he is absolutely elite at going over people's backs and somehow not realising that it's a foul
Honestly, it's like he's new to the game, but he's been a pro for 9 years
-
Covington has been more disappoint than Saric IMO, considering his contract.
-
Not sure it takes a genius to say "lets be as bad as possible and get top picks each year!" but so far the sixers have whiffed on many of their top picks.
Celtics draft haul - Tatum, Brown, Rozier, Smart vs. Simmons, Embiid, Okafor, Fultz
All of the celtics picks are contributing to team wins. and Tatum/Brown look like potential all-stars. of the sixers haul. one guy cant get on the court, okafor is already gone. and Simmons/Embiid look like potential all-stars.
but it remains to be seen if you can build a championship team if your 2 best players are a big man and a Point guard who cant shoot/hit free throws.
if you add in Noel/Michael carter williams then the sixers are 2 for 6 in hitting on the draft lottery....and the remainder of their picks arent even with the team/on the court as roleplayers. and they had higher picks than the celtics.
-
I don't think it's zero impact. Simmons has be an incomplete player all year and has don'e well. He has been uneven this series, which is in part due to his limitations, but also due to his uneven focus and effort. That's not from offensive limitations, that's just not understanding what it takes to win at this level. The question is whether this is a permanent problem or part of a learning process. Regardless, the Celtics young players already understand.
-
He wasn’t a genius but he made some quality trades and Philly’s plan to bottom out over multiple years made it statistically probable they would end up with a star. They hit home runs on 2 out of 3 picks and have found themselves with arguably their best season in nearly 20 years in their first year together. It was absolutely a success. They changed the lotto rules for a reason
-
contending
You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means...
Haha. That’s all this dude has for ammunition. Rough couple of weeks for the pessimists / crybabies.
-
For all further posts about Hinkie I'm just gonna link people to Ryan Bernardoni's great piece on the subject:
http://www.celticshub.com/2018/04/09/misplacing-trust-process/
I like this piece a lot Phosita. I particularly liked this discussion point:
"The supportive fans certainly feel like they’ve been vindicated and won, which maybe is all that matters in something as ethereal as sports fandom. They’ve leaned into tribalism and self-aggrandizement as much as any fan base in recent American sports memory. They make Deflategate-period Patriots fans look rational. As strong an argument can be made that they sacrificed years of enjoying their team to end up in the same place as their peers, though. Do Jazz fans wish that they had tanked away a four year span? Maybe the defiance from Process Trusters is as much a coping mechanism as true search for vindication."
I think that in a nutshell is why we see so many of these threads popping up. Even our fans that were invested in this process and debated it over the years now want to try and prove that they were very intelligent in their invested arguments over the year even though a team like the jazz or timberwolves is in a very similar spot from a completely different path. (When I was watching the wolves yesterday I couldn't help but they they would be favorites to win the east if they were in it)
To say the Jazz and the Sixers are in the same place is pretty silly. This season they did end up around the same amount of wins (though the Sixers are a betting favorite for the ECF and the Jazz likely won't get out of the 1st round), but what do people think next year will look like, or the year after, or the year after, or the 5 to 10 years after that.
This certainly seems less silly by the day as both teams are now up 3-1 with the Jazz playing a superior opponent in the first round. Look for the Jazz to give Houston some trouble if they reach the second round as their defense is very legit. Gobert is a true difference maker.
No Clay, wrong, it’s silly to compare Philly and Utah.
Utah won a game in the second round on the road against the #1 seed without their point guard. Philly will be lucky to win a second round game at all while fully healthy and getting all the calls.
-
He wasn’t a genius but he made some quality trades and Philly’s plan to bottom out over multiple years made it statistically probable they would end up with a star. They hit home runs on 2 out of 3 picks and have found themselves with arguably their best season in nearly 20 years in their first year together. It was absolutely a success. They changed the lotto rules for a reason
Is it true that the Sixers planned to be at the bottom for several years? They got lucky/unlucky when Embiid suffered injuries that kept him out multiple years. I think they stayed at the bottom involuntarily. Suppose Embiid is healthy when he was picked. He might have dragged that team to the middle of the lottery ranks with a half-decent supporting cast, especially in the depleted East of a few years ago. That would mean no Simmons. And while Embiid is good, the "process" story can turn into a plan to capture multiple stars - including Simmons. I don't think they really planned it that way.
The Sixers are one of the most weirdly lucky/unlucky teams.
-
He wasn’t a genius but he made some quality trades and Philly’s plan to bottom out over multiple years made it statistically probable they would end up with a star. They hit home runs on 2 out of 3 picks and have found themselves with arguably their best season in nearly 20 years in their first year together. It was absolutely a success. They changed the lotto rules for a reason
Is it true that the Sixers planned to be at the bottom for several years? They got lucky/unlucky when Embiid suffered injuries that kept him out multiple years. I think they stayed at the bottom involuntarily. Suppose Embiid is healthy when he was picked. He might have dragged that team to the middle of the lottery ranks with a half-decent supporting cast, especially in the depleted East of a few years ago. That would mean no Simmons. And while Embiid is good, the "process" story can turn into a plan to capture multiple stars - including Simmons. I don't think they really planned it that way.
The Sixers are one of the most weirdly lucky/unlucky teams.
A little of both. There were at least two seasons where they punted on the present with the explicit goal of maximizing their draft chances. It started when they moved Jrue Holiday for future assets - which helped them bottom out for Embiid. Then, they took Embiid despite the fact he was going to miss a full season. Embiid missing the second season was a bit unexpected, but at that point they made the decision to avoid being competitive. They did that by filling their roster with d-league talent and avoiding signing veterans. That gave them 3 cracks at a star - Embiid, Okafor and Simmons. They nailed 2 out of 3.
-
He wasn’t a genius but he made some quality trades and Philly’s plan to bottom out over multiple years made it statistically probable they would end up with a star. They hit home runs on 2 out of 3 picks and have found themselves with arguably their best season in nearly 20 years in their first year together. It was absolutely a success. They changed the lotto rules for a reason
Is it true that the Sixers planned to be at the bottom for several years? They got lucky/unlucky when Embiid suffered injuries that kept him out multiple years. I think they stayed at the bottom involuntarily. Suppose Embiid is healthy when he was picked. He might have dragged that team to the middle of the lottery ranks with a half-decent supporting cast, especially in the depleted East of a few years ago. That would mean no Simmons. And while Embiid is good, the "process" story can turn into a plan to capture multiple stars - including Simmons. I don't think they really planned it that way.
The Sixers are one of the most weirdly lucky/unlucky teams.
A little of both. There were at least two seasons where they punted on the present with the explicit goal of maximizing their draft chances. It started when they moved Jrue Holiday for future assets - which helped them bottom out for Embiid. Then, they took Embiid despite the fact he was going to miss a full season. Embiid missing the second season was a bit unexpected, but at that point they made the decision to avoid being competitive. They did that by filling their roster with d-league talent and avoiding signing veterans. That gave them 3 cracks at a star - Embiid, Okafor and Simmons. They nailed 2 out of 3.
Why is Simmons a star? Is it because he gets numbers? He is talented, athletic, and has the ball in his hands a large majority of the time, so getting numbers go with the territory. However, a large percentage of those are empty, he can't shoot a lick, and makes really bad decisions during crucial moments. Plus, he doesn't seem like he really "wants it". There's very little fight in him. Very reminiscent of Jeff Green when it comes to his lackadaisical on-court attitude.
-
He wasn’t a genius but he made some quality trades and Philly’s plan to bottom out over multiple years made it statistically probable they would end up with a star. They hit home runs on 2 out of 3 picks and have found themselves with arguably their best season in nearly 20 years in their first year together. It was absolutely a success. They changed the lotto rules for a reason
Is it true that the Sixers planned to be at the bottom for several years? They got lucky/unlucky when Embiid suffered injuries that kept him out multiple years. I think they stayed at the bottom involuntarily. Suppose Embiid is healthy when he was picked. He might have dragged that team to the middle of the lottery ranks with a half-decent supporting cast, especially in the depleted East of a few years ago. That would mean no Simmons. And while Embiid is good, the "process" story can turn into a plan to capture multiple stars - including Simmons. I don't think they really planned it that way.
The Sixers are one of the most weirdly lucky/unlucky teams.
A little of both. There were at least two seasons where they punted on the present with the explicit goal of maximizing their draft chances. It started when they moved Jrue Holiday for future assets - which helped them bottom out for Embiid. Then, they took Embiid despite the fact he was going to miss a full season. Embiid missing the second season was a bit unexpected, but at that point they made the decision to avoid being competitive. They did that by filling their roster with d-league talent and avoiding signing veterans. That gave them 3 cracks at a star - Embiid, Okafor and Simmons. They nailed 2 out of 3.
They probably should have tanked longer and moved Okafor when he had value. Hink would have done what it took to secure a big three.
-
He wasn’t a genius but he made some quality trades and Philly’s plan to bottom out over multiple years made it statistically probable they would end up with a star. They hit home runs on 2 out of 3 picks and have found themselves with arguably their best season in nearly 20 years in their first year together. It was absolutely a success. They changed the lotto rules for a reason
Is it true that the Sixers planned to be at the bottom for several years? They got lucky/unlucky when Embiid suffered injuries that kept him out multiple years. I think they stayed at the bottom involuntarily. Suppose Embiid is healthy when he was picked. He might have dragged that team to the middle of the lottery ranks with a half-decent supporting cast, especially in the depleted East of a few years ago. That would mean no Simmons. And while Embiid is good, the "process" story can turn into a plan to capture multiple stars - including Simmons. I don't think they really planned it that way.
The Sixers are one of the most weirdly lucky/unlucky teams.
A little of both. There were at least two seasons where they punted on the present with the explicit goal of maximizing their draft chances. It started when they moved Jrue Holiday for future assets - which helped them bottom out for Embiid. Then, they took Embiid despite the fact he was going to miss a full season. Embiid missing the second season was a bit unexpected, but at that point they made the decision to avoid being competitive. They did that by filling their roster with d-league talent and avoiding signing veterans. That gave them 3 cracks at a star - Embiid, Okafor and Simmons. They nailed 2 out of 3.
Why is Simmons a star? Is it because he gets numbers? He is talented, athletic, and has the ball in his hands a large majority of the time, so getting numbers go with the territory. However, a large percentage of those are empty, he can't shoot a lick, and makes really bad decisions during crucial moments. Plus, he doesn't seem like he really "wants it". There's very little fight in him. Very reminiscent of Jeff Green when it comes to his lackadaisical on-court attitude.
I think we're playing amazing basketball against the rookie and he's struggled big time against our defensive schemes. Simmons has obvious flaws in his games, but he's also incredible. He's played bad in this series. No-doubt. But he's also a kid who put up rookie stats on a par with Magic Johnson and averaged 18 points, 10.6 rebounds, 9 assists and 2.4 steals with 50% shooting in Round 1.
I think in the effort to bash Philly we're underselling just how incredible Boston has been in Round 2. Between Horford frustrating the heck out of Embiid, our defense (hot off having to deal with Giannis) limiting Simmons, and the otherworldly consistent offense from Rozier/Tatum, the big story of this series has been what Boston is doing.
Something you and I never agreed on, Ed. I believed it was possible for Philly's plan to be a success while at the same time falling short of what Boston accomplished. You seem to measure Philly's success by whether or not they end up better than Boston.
That was never my point. My point was that Philly had been irrelevant for the better part of 30 years and I supported the drastic measures they were taking to change that. When compared to other teams in the league, it's pretty clear this has been an amazing turn-around for them that would not have happened unless they took those drastic steps. There's 6 teams with playoff droughts 5+ years. Teams like Orlando who have hovered around 20-35 wins the past 6 years (total of 157 wins) didn't go all-in while a team like Philly who suffered through a few sub-20 win seasons over the past 6 years (total of 161 wins) are now one of the best team's in the East. This has been their best season in nearly 20 years. They are set up beautifully heading forward. Both of those statements can be true while at the same time saying "Boston is even more incredible".
Same reason I'm not going to consider Boston's season a failure if Golden State sweeps through the Finals.
-
He wasn’t a genius but he made some quality trades and Philly’s plan to bottom out over multiple years made it statistically probable they would end up with a star. They hit home runs on 2 out of 3 picks and have found themselves with arguably their best season in nearly 20 years in their first year together. It was absolutely a success. They changed the lotto rules for a reason
Is it true that the Sixers planned to be at the bottom for several years? They got lucky/unlucky when Embiid suffered injuries that kept him out multiple years. I think they stayed at the bottom involuntarily. Suppose Embiid is healthy when he was picked. He might have dragged that team to the middle of the lottery ranks with a half-decent supporting cast, especially in the depleted East of a few years ago. That would mean no Simmons. And while Embiid is good, the "process" story can turn into a plan to capture multiple stars - including Simmons. I don't think they really planned it that way.
The Sixers are one of the most weirdly lucky/unlucky teams.
A little of both. There were at least two seasons where they punted on the present with the explicit goal of maximizing their draft chances. It started when they moved Jrue Holiday for future assets - which helped them bottom out for Embiid. Then, they took Embiid despite the fact he was going to miss a full season. Embiid missing the second season was a bit unexpected, but at that point they made the decision to avoid being competitive. They did that by filling their roster with d-league talent and avoiding signing veterans. That gave them 3 cracks at a star - Embiid, Okafor and Simmons. They nailed 2 out of 3.
TP. I remember playing against Jrue. He was a pest - gave the Celtics trouble. And you're right they knew Embiid was hurt when they drafted him.
-
He wasn’t a genius but he made some quality trades and Philly’s plan to bottom out over multiple years made it statistically probable they would end up with a star. They hit home runs on 2 out of 3 picks and have found themselves with arguably their best season in nearly 20 years in their first year together. It was absolutely a success. They changed the lotto rules for a reason
Is it true that the Sixers planned to be at the bottom for several years? They got lucky/unlucky when Embiid suffered injuries that kept him out multiple years. I think they stayed at the bottom involuntarily. Suppose Embiid is healthy when he was picked. He might have dragged that team to the middle of the lottery ranks with a half-decent supporting cast, especially in the depleted East of a few years ago. That would mean no Simmons. And while Embiid is good, the "process" story can turn into a plan to capture multiple stars - including Simmons. I don't think they really planned it that way.
The Sixers are one of the most weirdly lucky/unlucky teams.
A little of both. There were at least two seasons where they punted on the present with the explicit goal of maximizing their draft chances. It started when they moved Jrue Holiday for future assets - which helped them bottom out for Embiid. Then, they took Embiid despite the fact he was going to miss a full season. Embiid missing the second season was a bit unexpected, but at that point they made the decision to avoid being competitive. They did that by filling their roster with d-league talent and avoiding signing veterans. That gave them 3 cracks at a star - Embiid, Okafor and Simmons. They nailed 2 out of 3.
Why is Simmons a star? Is it because he gets numbers? He is talented, athletic, and has the ball in his hands a large majority of the time, so getting numbers go with the territory. However, a large percentage of those are empty, he can't shoot a lick, and makes really bad decisions during crucial moments. Plus, he doesn't seem like he really "wants it". There's very little fight in him. Very reminiscent of Jeff Green when it comes to his lackadaisical on-court attitude.
I think we're playing amazing basketball against the rookie and he's struggled big time against our defensive schemes. Simmons has obvious flaws in his games, but he's also incredible. He's played bad in this series. No-doubt. But he's also a kid who put up rookie stats on a par with Magic Johnson and averaged 18 points, 10.6 rebounds, 9 assists and 2.4 steals with 50% shooting in Round 1.
I think in the effort to bash Philly we're underselling just how incredible Boston has been in Round 1. Between Horford frustrating the heck out of Embiid, our defense (hot off having to deal with Giannis) limiting Simmons, and the otherworldly consistent offense from Rozier/Tatum, the big story of this series has been what Boston is doing.
Simmons is running into one of the best defenses in the NBA, which also has exactly the right personnel and scheme to jam up his game. Result is, he's having trouble. But he's done a lot of damage against other teams - ask Miami, like it says above.
-
He wasn’t a genius but he made some quality trades and Philly’s plan to bottom out over multiple years made it statistically probable they would end up with a star. They hit home runs on 2 out of 3 picks and have found themselves with arguably their best season in nearly 20 years in their first year together. It was absolutely a success. They changed the lotto rules for a reason
Is it true that the Sixers planned to be at the bottom for several years? They got lucky/unlucky when Embiid suffered injuries that kept him out multiple years. I think they stayed at the bottom involuntarily. Suppose Embiid is healthy when he was picked. He might have dragged that team to the middle of the lottery ranks with a half-decent supporting cast, especially in the depleted East of a few years ago. That would mean no Simmons. And while Embiid is good, the "process" story can turn into a plan to capture multiple stars - including Simmons. I don't think they really planned it that way.
The Sixers are one of the most weirdly lucky/unlucky teams.
A little of both. There were at least two seasons where they punted on the present with the explicit goal of maximizing their draft chances. It started when they moved Jrue Holiday for future assets - which helped them bottom out for Embiid. Then, they took Embiid despite the fact he was going to miss a full season. Embiid missing the second season was a bit unexpected, but at that point they made the decision to avoid being competitive. They did that by filling their roster with d-league talent and avoiding signing veterans. That gave them 3 cracks at a star - Embiid, Okafor and Simmons. They nailed 2 out of 3.
Why is Simmons a star? Is it because he gets numbers? He is talented, athletic, and has the ball in his hands a large majority of the time, so getting numbers go with the territory. However, a large percentage of those are empty, he can't shoot a lick, and makes really bad decisions during crucial moments. Plus, he doesn't seem like he really "wants it". There's very little fight in him. Very reminiscent of Jeff Green when it comes to his lackadaisical on-court attitude.
I think we're playing amazing basketball against the rookie and he's struggled big time against our defensive schemes. Simmons has obvious flaws in his games, but he's also incredible. He's played bad in this series. No-doubt. But he's also a kid who put up rookie stats on a par with Magic Johnson and averaged 18 points, 10.6 rebounds, 9 assists and 2.4 steals with 50% shooting in Round 1.
I think in the effort to bash Philly we're underselling just how incredible Boston has been in Round 2. Between Horford frustrating the heck out of Embiid, our defense (hot off having to deal with Giannis) limiting Simmons, and the otherworldly consistent offense from Rozier/Tatum, the big story of this series has been what Boston is doing.
Something you and I never agreed on, Ed. I believed it was possible for Philly's plan to be a success while at the same time falling short of what Boston accomplished. You seem to measure Philly's success by whether or not they end up better than Boston.
That was never my point. My point was that Philly had been irrelevant for the better part of 30 years and I supported the drastic measures they were taking to change that. When compared to other teams in the league, it's pretty clear this has been an amazing turn-around for them that would not have happened unless they took those drastic steps. There's 6 teams with playoff droughts 5+ years. Teams like Orlando who have hovered around 20-35 wins the past 6 years (total of 157 wins) didn't go all-in while a team like Philly who suffered through a few sub-20 win seasons over the past 6 years (total of 161 wins) are now one of the best team's in the East. This has been their best season in nearly 20 years. They are set up beautifully heading forward. Both of those statements can be true while at the same time saying "Boston is even more incredible".
Same reason I'm not going to consider Boston's season a failure if Golden State sweeps through the Finals.
Simmons is running into one of the best defenses in the NBA, which also has exactly the right personnel and scheme to jam up his game. Result is, he's having trouble. But he's done a lot of damage against other teams - ask Miami, like it says above.
I admire what they've accomplished in such a short period of time. You'd rather be a Philly fan right now than an Orlando fan, for instance. Kings are going on 12+ seasons without a playoff appearance and rookie Ben Simmons just took Philly to the 2nd round. That's impressive.
I can be impressed by that while being even more impressed by what Boston is doing.
There was something like 75/1 odds we swept Philly in this series. That might actually happen. I hope people put money on the Celts. This has been pretty incredible.
For a team that was being predicted to win about 35 games this season, Philly has to take this season as a massive win. The issues they are having against Boston will give the young guys things to work on. Iverson only won 50+ games once in his entire career. Simmons did it his rookie season. That's something.
-
He wasn’t a genius but he made some quality trades and Philly’s plan to bottom out over multiple years made it statistically probable they would end up with a star. They hit home runs on 2 out of 3 picks and have found themselves with arguably their best season in nearly 20 years in their first year together. It was absolutely a success. They changed the lotto rules for a reason
Is it true that the Sixers planned to be at the bottom for several years? They got lucky/unlucky when Embiid suffered injuries that kept him out multiple years. I think they stayed at the bottom involuntarily. Suppose Embiid is healthy when he was picked. He might have dragged that team to the middle of the lottery ranks with a half-decent supporting cast, especially in the depleted East of a few years ago. That would mean no Simmons. And while Embiid is good, the "process" story can turn into a plan to capture multiple stars - including Simmons. I don't think they really planned it that way.
The Sixers are one of the most weirdly lucky/unlucky teams.
A little of both. There were at least two seasons where they punted on the present with the explicit goal of maximizing their draft chances. It started when they moved Jrue Holiday for future assets - which helped them bottom out for Embiid. Then, they took Embiid despite the fact he was going to miss a full season. Embiid missing the second season was a bit unexpected, but at that point they made the decision to avoid being competitive. They did that by filling their roster with d-league talent and avoiding signing veterans. That gave them 3 cracks at a star - Embiid, Okafor and Simmons. They nailed 2 out of 3.
Why is Simmons a star? Is it because he gets numbers? He is talented, athletic, and has the ball in his hands a large majority of the time, so getting numbers go with the territory. However, a large percentage of those are empty, he can't shoot a lick, and makes really bad decisions during crucial moments. Plus, he doesn't seem like he really "wants it". There's very little fight in him. Very reminiscent of Jeff Green when it comes to his lackadaisical on-court attitude.
I think we're playing amazing basketball against the rookie and he's struggled big time against our defensive schemes. Simmons has obvious flaws in his games, but he's also incredible. He's played bad in this series. No-doubt. But he's also a kid who put up rookie stats on a par with Magic Johnson and averaged 18 points, 10.6 rebounds, 9 assists and 2.4 steals with 50% shooting in Round 1.
I think in the effort to bash Philly we're underselling just how incredible Boston has been in Round 2. Between Horford frustrating the heck out of Embiid, our defense (hot off having to deal with Giannis) limiting Simmons, and the otherworldly consistent offense from Rozier/Tatum, the big story of this series has been what Boston is doing.
Something you and I never agreed on, Ed. I believed it was possible for Philly's plan to be a success while at the same time falling short of what Boston accomplished. You seem to measure Philly's success by whether or not they end up better than Boston.
That was never my point. My point was that Philly had been irrelevant for the better part of 30 years and I supported the drastic measures they were taking to change that. When compared to other teams in the league, it's pretty clear this has been an amazing turn-around for them that would not have happened unless they took those drastic steps. There's 6 teams with playoff droughts 5+ years. Teams like Orlando who have hovered around 20-35 wins the past 6 years (total of 157 wins) didn't go all-in while a team like Philly who suffered through a few sub-20 win seasons over the past 6 years (total of 161 wins) are now one of the best team's in the East. This has been their best season in nearly 20 years. They are set up beautifully heading forward. Both of those statements can be true while at the same time saying "Boston is even more incredible".
Same reason I'm not going to consider Boston's season a failure if Golden State sweeps through the Finals.
The bolded part is definitely not true. I do think tanking teams could eventually find success by having great players fall in their lap. My main disagreement with you is that you thought EVERY player they ever drafted in the lottery (see Noel, Okafor, Saric, etc.) was that said great player. Clearly time has shown who's correct on those guys.
We'll see what happens with Embiid, who is a generational type talent, but I still remain dubious that we've seen the last of his injury issues. One season of relatively good health (Walton 86) doesn't mean he won't have those same issues persist down the road. That's a big dude, carrying a lot of weight, on some feet that don't seem built to last.
-
He wasn’t a genius but he made some quality trades and Philly’s plan to bottom out over multiple years made it statistically probable they would end up with a star. They hit home runs on 2 out of 3 picks and have found themselves with arguably their best season in nearly 20 years in their first year together. It was absolutely a success. They changed the lotto rules for a reason
Is it true that the Sixers planned to be at the bottom for several years? They got lucky/unlucky when Embiid suffered injuries that kept him out multiple years. I think they stayed at the bottom involuntarily. Suppose Embiid is healthy when he was picked. He might have dragged that team to the middle of the lottery ranks with a half-decent supporting cast, especially in the depleted East of a few years ago. That would mean no Simmons. And while Embiid is good, the "process" story can turn into a plan to capture multiple stars - including Simmons. I don't think they really planned it that way.
The Sixers are one of the most weirdly lucky/unlucky teams.
A little of both. There were at least two seasons where they punted on the present with the explicit goal of maximizing their draft chances. It started when they moved Jrue Holiday for future assets - which helped them bottom out for Embiid. Then, they took Embiid despite the fact he was going to miss a full season. Embiid missing the second season was a bit unexpected, but at that point they made the decision to avoid being competitive. They did that by filling their roster with d-league talent and avoiding signing veterans. That gave them 3 cracks at a star - Embiid, Okafor and Simmons. They nailed 2 out of 3.
Why is Simmons a star? Is it because he gets numbers? He is talented, athletic, and has the ball in his hands a large majority of the time, so getting numbers go with the territory. However, a large percentage of those are empty, he can't shoot a lick, and makes really bad decisions during crucial moments. Plus, he doesn't seem like he really "wants it". There's very little fight in him. Very reminiscent of Jeff Green when it comes to his lackadaisical on-court attitude.
I think we're playing amazing basketball against the rookie and he's struggled big time against our defensive schemes. Simmons has obvious flaws in his games, but he's also incredible. He's played bad in this series. No-doubt. But he's also a kid who put up rookie stats on a par with Magic Johnson and averaged 18 points, 10.6 rebounds, 9 assists and 2.4 steals with 50% shooting in Round 1.
I think in the effort to bash Philly we're underselling just how incredible Boston has been in Round 2. Between Horford frustrating the heck out of Embiid, our defense (hot off having to deal with Giannis) limiting Simmons, and the otherworldly consistent offense from Rozier/Tatum, the big story of this series has been what Boston is doing.
Something you and I never agreed on, Ed. I believed it was possible for Philly's plan to be a success while at the same time falling short of what Boston accomplished. You seem to measure Philly's success by whether or not they end up better than Boston.
That was never my point. My point was that Philly had been irrelevant for the better part of 30 years and I supported the drastic measures they were taking to change that. When compared to other teams in the league, it's pretty clear this has been an amazing turn-around for them that would not have happened unless they took those drastic steps. There's 6 teams with playoff droughts 5+ years. Teams like Orlando who have hovered around 20-35 wins the past 6 years (total of 157 wins) didn't go all-in while a team like Philly who suffered through a few sub-20 win seasons over the past 6 years (total of 161 wins) are now one of the best team's in the East. This has been their best season in nearly 20 years. They are set up beautifully heading forward. Both of those statements can be true while at the same time saying "Boston is even more incredible".
Same reason I'm not going to consider Boston's season a failure if Golden State sweeps through the Finals.
The bolded part is definitely not true. I do think tanking teams could eventually find success by having great players fall in their lap. My main disagreement with you is that you thought EVERY player they ever drafted in the lottery (see Noel, Okafor, Saric, etc.) was that said great player. Clearly time has shown who's correct on those guys.
We'll see what happens with Embiid, who is a generational type talent, but I still remain dubious that we've seen the last of his injury issues. One season of relatively good health (Walton 86) doesn't mean he won't have those same issues persist down the road. That's a big dude, carrying a lot of weight, on some feet that don't seem built to last.
I try not to speculate on future injury concerns considering the two best players on my team played less games combined than Joel Embiid this season and neither of them are participating in the playoffs.
The Flat Mamba has been injury prone for years and we have no idea if Granton Hillward will ever return value on his fat contract.
-
He wasn’t a genius but he made some quality trades and Philly’s plan to bottom out over multiple years made it statistically probable they would end up with a star. They hit home runs on 2 out of 3 picks and have found themselves with arguably their best season in nearly 20 years in their first year together. It was absolutely a success. They changed the lotto rules for a reason
Is it true that the Sixers planned to be at the bottom for several years? They got lucky/unlucky when Embiid suffered injuries that kept him out multiple years. I think they stayed at the bottom involuntarily. Suppose Embiid is healthy when he was picked. He might have dragged that team to the middle of the lottery ranks with a half-decent supporting cast, especially in the depleted East of a few years ago. That would mean no Simmons. And while Embiid is good, the "process" story can turn into a plan to capture multiple stars - including Simmons. I don't think they really planned it that way.
The Sixers are one of the most weirdly lucky/unlucky teams.
A little of both. There were at least two seasons where they punted on the present with the explicit goal of maximizing their draft chances. It started when they moved Jrue Holiday for future assets - which helped them bottom out for Embiid. Then, they took Embiid despite the fact he was going to miss a full season. Embiid missing the second season was a bit unexpected, but at that point they made the decision to avoid being competitive. They did that by filling their roster with d-league talent and avoiding signing veterans. That gave them 3 cracks at a star - Embiid, Okafor and Simmons. They nailed 2 out of 3.
Why is Simmons a star? Is it because he gets numbers? He is talented, athletic, and has the ball in his hands a large majority of the time, so getting numbers go with the territory. However, a large percentage of those are empty, he can't shoot a lick, and makes really bad decisions during crucial moments. Plus, he doesn't seem like he really "wants it". There's very little fight in him. Very reminiscent of Jeff Green when it comes to his lackadaisical on-court attitude.
I think we're playing amazing basketball against the rookie and he's struggled big time against our defensive schemes. Simmons has obvious flaws in his games, but he's also incredible. He's played bad in this series. No-doubt. But he's also a kid who put up rookie stats on a par with Magic Johnson and averaged 18 points, 10.6 rebounds, 9 assists and 2.4 steals with 50% shooting in Round 1.
I think in the effort to bash Philly we're underselling just how incredible Boston has been in Round 2. Between Horford frustrating the heck out of Embiid, our defense (hot off having to deal with Giannis) limiting Simmons, and the otherworldly consistent offense from Rozier/Tatum, the big story of this series has been what Boston is doing.
Something you and I never agreed on, Ed. I believed it was possible for Philly's plan to be a success while at the same time falling short of what Boston accomplished. You seem to measure Philly's success by whether or not they end up better than Boston.
That was never my point. My point was that Philly had been irrelevant for the better part of 30 years and I supported the drastic measures they were taking to change that. When compared to other teams in the league, it's pretty clear this has been an amazing turn-around for them that would not have happened unless they took those drastic steps. There's 6 teams with playoff droughts 5+ years. Teams like Orlando who have hovered around 20-35 wins the past 6 years (total of 157 wins) didn't go all-in while a team like Philly who suffered through a few sub-20 win seasons over the past 6 years (total of 161 wins) are now one of the best team's in the East. This has been their best season in nearly 20 years. They are set up beautifully heading forward. Both of those statements can be true while at the same time saying "Boston is even more incredible".
Same reason I'm not going to consider Boston's season a failure if Golden State sweeps through the Finals.
The bolded part is definitely not true. I do think tanking teams could eventually find success by having great players fall in their lap. My main disagreement with you is that you thought EVERY player they ever drafted in the lottery (see Noel, Okafor, Saric, etc.) was that said great player. Clearly time has shown who's correct on those guys.
We'll see what happens with Embiid, who is a generational type talent, but I still remain dubious that we've seen the last of his injury issues. One season of relatively good health (Walton 86) doesn't mean he won't have those same issues persist down the road. That's a big dude, carrying a lot of weight, on some feet that don't seem built to last.
I try not to speculate on future injury concerns considering the two best players on my team played less games combined than Joel Embiid this season and neither of them are participating in the playoffs.
Right. Because a freak injury to Hayward, a player that has been a pillar of health, is similar to Embiid's injury history. You can make a case for some concerns with Irving's knee, but not at the same level you'd have for Embiid.
It's okay for you to admit that. It's pretty obvious.
It must be a scary thought for you to think that all of the Sixers hopes are pinned to Embiid's body holding up. We could have Hayward not be the same, doubtful but let's say that's true, and what he turns into Joe Ingles? A smart player that can kill you deep, space the floor, and provide sound play on both ends of the floor. Again, scary stuff since we're beating you guys up without Irving or Hayward, while you have Embiid.
-
He wasn’t a genius but he made some quality trades and Philly’s plan to bottom out over multiple years made it statistically probable they would end up with a star. They hit home runs on 2 out of 3 picks and have found themselves with arguably their best season in nearly 20 years in their first year together. It was absolutely a success. They changed the lotto rules for a reason
Is it true that the Sixers planned to be at the bottom for several years? They got lucky/unlucky when Embiid suffered injuries that kept him out multiple years. I think they stayed at the bottom involuntarily. Suppose Embiid is healthy when he was picked. He might have dragged that team to the middle of the lottery ranks with a half-decent supporting cast, especially in the depleted East of a few years ago. That would mean no Simmons. And while Embiid is good, the "process" story can turn into a plan to capture multiple stars - including Simmons. I don't think they really planned it that way.
The Sixers are one of the most weirdly lucky/unlucky teams.
A little of both. There were at least two seasons where they punted on the present with the explicit goal of maximizing their draft chances. It started when they moved Jrue Holiday for future assets - which helped them bottom out for Embiid. Then, they took Embiid despite the fact he was going to miss a full season. Embiid missing the second season was a bit unexpected, but at that point they made the decision to avoid being competitive. They did that by filling their roster with d-league talent and avoiding signing veterans. That gave them 3 cracks at a star - Embiid, Okafor and Simmons. They nailed 2 out of 3.
Why is Simmons a star? Is it because he gets numbers? He is talented, athletic, and has the ball in his hands a large majority of the time, so getting numbers go with the territory. However, a large percentage of those are empty, he can't shoot a lick, and makes really bad decisions during crucial moments. Plus, he doesn't seem like he really "wants it". There's very little fight in him. Very reminiscent of Jeff Green when it comes to his lackadaisical on-court attitude.
I think we're playing amazing basketball against the rookie and he's struggled big time against our defensive schemes. Simmons has obvious flaws in his games, but he's also incredible. He's played bad in this series. No-doubt. But he's also a kid who put up rookie stats on a par with Magic Johnson and averaged 18 points, 10.6 rebounds, 9 assists and 2.4 steals with 50% shooting in Round 1.
I think in the effort to bash Philly we're underselling just how incredible Boston has been in Round 2. Between Horford frustrating the heck out of Embiid, our defense (hot off having to deal with Giannis) limiting Simmons, and the otherworldly consistent offense from Rozier/Tatum, the big story of this series has been what Boston is doing.
Something you and I never agreed on, Ed. I believed it was possible for Philly's plan to be a success while at the same time falling short of what Boston accomplished. You seem to measure Philly's success by whether or not they end up better than Boston.
That was never my point. My point was that Philly had been irrelevant for the better part of 30 years and I supported the drastic measures they were taking to change that. When compared to other teams in the league, it's pretty clear this has been an amazing turn-around for them that would not have happened unless they took those drastic steps. There's 6 teams with playoff droughts 5+ years. Teams like Orlando who have hovered around 20-35 wins the past 6 years (total of 157 wins) didn't go all-in while a team like Philly who suffered through a few sub-20 win seasons over the past 6 years (total of 161 wins) are now one of the best team's in the East. This has been their best season in nearly 20 years. They are set up beautifully heading forward. Both of those statements can be true while at the same time saying "Boston is even more incredible".
Same reason I'm not going to consider Boston's season a failure if Golden State sweeps through the Finals.
The bolded part is definitely not true. I do think tanking teams could eventually find success by having great players fall in their lap. My main disagreement with you is that you thought EVERY player they ever drafted in the lottery (see Noel, Okafor, Saric, etc.) was that said great player. Clearly time has shown who's correct on those guys.
We'll see what happens with Embiid, who is a generational type talent, but I still remain dubious that we've seen the last of his injury issues. One season of relatively good health (Walton 86) doesn't mean he won't have those same issues persist down the road. That's a big dude, carrying a lot of weight, on some feet that don't seem built to last.
I try not to speculate on future injury concerns considering the two best players on my team played less games combined than Joel Embiid this season and neither of them are participating in the playoffs.
The Flat Mamba has been injury prone for years and we have no idea if Granton Hillward will ever return value on his fat contract.
Your love for all things Celtics just oozes out of you when you use derogatory names for our 2 stars. Funny I don't remember you doing the same thing for any Sixer players.
-
For all further posts about Hinkie I'm just gonna link people to Ryan Bernardoni's great piece on the subject:
http://www.celticshub.com/2018/04/09/misplacing-trust-process/
I like this piece a lot Phosita. I particularly liked this discussion point:
"The supportive fans certainly feel like they’ve been vindicated and won, which maybe is all that matters in something as ethereal as sports fandom. They’ve leaned into tribalism and self-aggrandizement as much as any fan base in recent American sports memory. They make Deflategate-period Patriots fans look rational. As strong an argument can be made that they sacrificed years of enjoying their team to end up in the same place as their peers, though. Do Jazz fans wish that they had tanked away a four year span? Maybe the defiance from Process Trusters is as much a coping mechanism as true search for vindication."
I think that in a nutshell is why we see so many of these threads popping up. Even our fans that were invested in this process and debated it over the years now want to try and prove that they were very intelligent in their invested arguments over the year even though a team like the jazz or timberwolves is in a very similar spot from a completely different path. (When I was watching the wolves yesterday I couldn't help but they they would be favorites to win the east if they were in it)
To say the Jazz and the Sixers are in the same place is pretty silly. This season they did end up around the same amount of wins (though the Sixers are a betting favorite for the ECF and the Jazz likely won't get out of the 1st round), but what do people think next year will look like, or the year after, or the year after, or the 5 to 10 years after that.
This certainly seems less silly by the day as both teams are now up 3-1 with the Jazz playing a superior opponent in the first round. Look for the Jazz to give Houston some trouble if they reach the second round as their defense is very legit. Gobert is a true difference maker.
No Clay, wrong, it’s silly to compare Philly and Utah.
Utah won a game in the second round on the road against the #1 seed without their point guard. Philly will be lucky to win a second round game at all while fully healthy and getting all the calls.
Right? And Mitchell has performed constistently across two rounds of the playoffs and Simmons has disappeared. Yet somehow Simmons is transcendent and Mitchell is meh? Then still waiting on response from the 20-9-4 saric crowd
-
He wasn’t a genius but he made some quality trades and Philly’s plan to bottom out over multiple years made it statistically probable they would end up with a star. They hit home runs on 2 out of 3 picks and have found themselves with arguably their best season in nearly 20 years in their first year together. It was absolutely a success. They changed the lotto rules for a reason
Is it true that the Sixers planned to be at the bottom for several years? They got lucky/unlucky when Embiid suffered injuries that kept him out multiple years. I think they stayed at the bottom involuntarily. Suppose Embiid is healthy when he was picked. He might have dragged that team to the middle of the lottery ranks with a half-decent supporting cast, especially in the depleted East of a few years ago. That would mean no Simmons. And while Embiid is good, the "process" story can turn into a plan to capture multiple stars - including Simmons. I don't think they really planned it that way.
The Sixers are one of the most weirdly lucky/unlucky teams.
A little of both. There were at least two seasons where they punted on the present with the explicit goal of maximizing their draft chances. It started when they moved Jrue Holiday for future assets - which helped them bottom out for Embiid. Then, they took Embiid despite the fact he was going to miss a full season. Embiid missing the second season was a bit unexpected, but at that point they made the decision to avoid being competitive. They did that by filling their roster with d-league talent and avoiding signing veterans. That gave them 3 cracks at a star - Embiid, Okafor and Simmons. They nailed 2 out of 3.
Why is Simmons a star? Is it because he gets numbers? He is talented, athletic, and has the ball in his hands a large majority of the time, so getting numbers go with the territory. However, a large percentage of those are empty, he can't shoot a lick, and makes really bad decisions during crucial moments. Plus, he doesn't seem like he really "wants it". There's very little fight in him. Very reminiscent of Jeff Green when it comes to his lackadaisical on-court attitude.
I think we're playing amazing basketball against the rookie and he's struggled big time against our defensive schemes. Simmons has obvious flaws in his games, but he's also incredible. He's played bad in this series. No-doubt. But he's also a kid who put up rookie stats on a par with Magic Johnson and averaged 18 points, 10.6 rebounds, 9 assists and 2.4 steals with 50% shooting in Round 1.
I think in the effort to bash Philly we're underselling just how incredible Boston has been in Round 2. Between Horford frustrating the heck out of Embiid, our defense (hot off having to deal with Giannis) limiting Simmons, and the otherworldly consistent offense from Rozier/Tatum, the big story of this series has been what Boston is doing.
Something you and I never agreed on, Ed. I believed it was possible for Philly's plan to be a success while at the same time falling short of what Boston accomplished. You seem to measure Philly's success by whether or not they end up better than Boston.
That was never my point. My point was that Philly had been irrelevant for the better part of 30 years and I supported the drastic measures they were taking to change that. When compared to other teams in the league, it's pretty clear this has been an amazing turn-around for them that would not have happened unless they took those drastic steps. There's 6 teams with playoff droughts 5+ years. Teams like Orlando who have hovered around 20-35 wins the past 6 years (total of 157 wins) didn't go all-in while a team like Philly who suffered through a few sub-20 win seasons over the past 6 years (total of 161 wins) are now one of the best team's in the East. This has been their best season in nearly 20 years. They are set up beautifully heading forward. Both of those statements can be true while at the same time saying "Boston is even more incredible".
Same reason I'm not going to consider Boston's season a failure if Golden State sweeps through the Finals.
The bolded part is definitely not true. I do think tanking teams could eventually find success by having great players fall in their lap. My main disagreement with you is that you thought EVERY player they ever drafted in the lottery (see Noel, Okafor, Saric, etc.) was that said great player. Clearly time has shown who's correct on those guys.
We'll see what happens with Embiid, who is a generational type talent, but I still remain dubious that we've seen the last of his injury issues. One season of relatively good health (Walton 86) doesn't mean he won't have those same issues persist down the road. That's a big dude, carrying a lot of weight, on some feet that don't seem built to last.
I try not to speculate on future injury concerns considering the two best players on my team played less games combined than Joel Embiid this season and neither of them are participating in the playoffs.
The Flat Mamba has been injury prone for years and we have no idea if Granton Hillward will ever return value on his fat contract.
Your love for all things Celtics just oozes out of you when you use derogatory names for our 2 stars. Funny I don't remember you doing the same thing for any Sixer players.
It's not really derogatory, he's just making lame jokes to rile Celtics fans up. The reason he is resulting to making fun of the injured guys is because he has nothing to say about the waxing we're giving his team on the court ;D
-
For all further posts about Hinkie I'm just gonna link people to Ryan Bernardoni's great piece on the subject:
http://www.celticshub.com/2018/04/09/misplacing-trust-process/
I like this piece a lot Phosita. I particularly liked this discussion point:
"The supportive fans certainly feel like they’ve been vindicated and won, which maybe is all that matters in something as ethereal as sports fandom. They’ve leaned into tribalism and self-aggrandizement as much as any fan base in recent American sports memory. They make Deflategate-period Patriots fans look rational. As strong an argument can be made that they sacrificed years of enjoying their team to end up in the same place as their peers, though. Do Jazz fans wish that they had tanked away a four year span? Maybe the defiance from Process Trusters is as much a coping mechanism as true search for vindication."
I think that in a nutshell is why we see so many of these threads popping up. Even our fans that were invested in this process and debated it over the years now want to try and prove that they were very intelligent in their invested arguments over the year even though a team like the jazz or timberwolves is in a very similar spot from a completely different path. (When I was watching the wolves yesterday I couldn't help but they they would be favorites to win the east if they were in it)
To say the Jazz and the Sixers are in the same place is pretty silly. This season they did end up around the same amount of wins (though the Sixers are a betting favorite for the ECF and the Jazz likely won't get out of the 1st round), but what do people think next year will look like, or the year after, or the year after, or the 5 to 10 years after that.
This certainly seems less silly by the day as both teams are now up 3-1 with the Jazz playing a superior opponent in the first round. Look for the Jazz to give Houston some trouble if they reach the second round as their defense is very legit. Gobert is a true difference maker.
No Clay, wrong, it’s silly to compare Philly and Utah.
Utah won a game in the second round on the road against the #1 seed without their point guard. Philly will be lucky to win a second round game at all while fully healthy and getting all the calls.
Right? And Mitchell has performed constistently across two rounds of the playoffs and Simmons has disappeared. Yet somehow Simmons is transcendent and Mitchell is meh? Then still waiting on response from the 20-9-4 saric crowd
Yeah Mitchell really came through in game 3 :angel: Tatum has been by far the best and most consistent rookie in the playoffs.
-
For all further posts about Hinkie I'm just gonna link people to Ryan Bernardoni's great piece on the subject:
http://www.celticshub.com/2018/04/09/misplacing-trust-process/
I like this piece a lot Phosita. I particularly liked this discussion point:
"The supportive fans certainly feel like they’ve been vindicated and won, which maybe is all that matters in something as ethereal as sports fandom. They’ve leaned into tribalism and self-aggrandizement as much as any fan base in recent American sports memory. They make Deflategate-period Patriots fans look rational. As strong an argument can be made that they sacrificed years of enjoying their team to end up in the same place as their peers, though. Do Jazz fans wish that they had tanked away a four year span? Maybe the defiance from Process Trusters is as much a coping mechanism as true search for vindication."
I think that in a nutshell is why we see so many of these threads popping up. Even our fans that were invested in this process and debated it over the years now want to try and prove that they were very intelligent in their invested arguments over the year even though a team like the jazz or timberwolves is in a very similar spot from a completely different path. (When I was watching the wolves yesterday I couldn't help but they they would be favorites to win the east if they were in it)
To say the Jazz and the Sixers are in the same place is pretty silly. This season they did end up around the same amount of wins (though the Sixers are a betting favorite for the ECF and the Jazz likely won't get out of the 1st round), but what do people think next year will look like, or the year after, or the year after, or the 5 to 10 years after that.
This certainly seems less silly by the day as both teams are now up 3-1 with the Jazz playing a superior opponent in the first round. Look for the Jazz to give Houston some trouble if they reach the second round as their defense is very legit. Gobert is a true difference maker.
No Clay, wrong, it’s silly to compare Philly and Utah.
Utah won a game in the second round on the road against the #1 seed without their point guard. Philly will be lucky to win a second round game at all while fully healthy and getting all the calls.
Right? And Mitchell has performed constistently across two rounds of the playoffs and Simmons has disappeared. Yet somehow Simmons is transcendent and Mitchell is meh? Then still waiting on response from the 20-9-4 saric crowd
Yeah Mitchell really came through in game 3 :angel: Tatum has been by far the best and most consistent rookie in the playoffs.
Yeah, and yet when ESPN asked which rookie postseason star is the real ROY, they didn't even bring up Jayson Tatum. ESPN sucks.
http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/23379710/who-best-rookie-season-ben-simmons-donovan-mitchell
-
He wasn’t a genius but he made some quality trades and Philly’s plan to bottom out over multiple years made it statistically probable they would end up with a star. They hit home runs on 2 out of 3 picks and have found themselves with arguably their best season in nearly 20 years in their first year together. It was absolutely a success. They changed the lotto rules for a reason
Is it true that the Sixers planned to be at the bottom for several years? They got lucky/unlucky when Embiid suffered injuries that kept him out multiple years. I think they stayed at the bottom involuntarily. Suppose Embiid is healthy when he was picked. He might have dragged that team to the middle of the lottery ranks with a half-decent supporting cast, especially in the depleted East of a few years ago. That would mean no Simmons. And while Embiid is good, the "process" story can turn into a plan to capture multiple stars - including Simmons. I don't think they really planned it that way.
The Sixers are one of the most weirdly lucky/unlucky teams.
A little of both. There were at least two seasons where they punted on the present with the explicit goal of maximizing their draft chances. It started when they moved Jrue Holiday for future assets - which helped them bottom out for Embiid. Then, they took Embiid despite the fact he was going to miss a full season. Embiid missing the second season was a bit unexpected, but at that point they made the decision to avoid being competitive. They did that by filling their roster with d-league talent and avoiding signing veterans. That gave them 3 cracks at a star - Embiid, Okafor and Simmons. They nailed 2 out of 3.
Why is Simmons a star? Is it because he gets numbers? He is talented, athletic, and has the ball in his hands a large majority of the time, so getting numbers go with the territory. However, a large percentage of those are empty, he can't shoot a lick, and makes really bad decisions during crucial moments. Plus, he doesn't seem like he really "wants it". There's very little fight in him. Very reminiscent of Jeff Green when it comes to his lackadaisical on-court attitude.
I think we're playing amazing basketball against the rookie and he's struggled big time against our defensive schemes. Simmons has obvious flaws in his games, but he's also incredible. He's played bad in this series. No-doubt. But he's also a kid who put up rookie stats on a par with Magic Johnson and averaged 18 points, 10.6 rebounds, 9 assists and 2.4 steals with 50% shooting in Round 1.
I think in the effort to bash Philly we're underselling just how incredible Boston has been in Round 2. Between Horford frustrating the heck out of Embiid, our defense (hot off having to deal with Giannis) limiting Simmons, and the otherworldly consistent offense from Rozier/Tatum, the big story of this series has been what Boston is doing.
Something you and I never agreed on, Ed. I believed it was possible for Philly's plan to be a success while at the same time falling short of what Boston accomplished. You seem to measure Philly's success by whether or not they end up better than Boston.
That was never my point. My point was that Philly had been irrelevant for the better part of 30 years and I supported the drastic measures they were taking to change that. When compared to other teams in the league, it's pretty clear this has been an amazing turn-around for them that would not have happened unless they took those drastic steps. There's 6 teams with playoff droughts 5+ years. Teams like Orlando who have hovered around 20-35 wins the past 6 years (total of 157 wins) didn't go all-in while a team like Philly who suffered through a few sub-20 win seasons over the past 6 years (total of 161 wins) are now one of the best team's in the East. This has been their best season in nearly 20 years. They are set up beautifully heading forward. Both of those statements can be true while at the same time saying "Boston is even more incredible".
Same reason I'm not going to consider Boston's season a failure if Golden State sweeps through the Finals.
The bolded part is definitely not true. I do think tanking teams could eventually find success by having great players fall in their lap. My main disagreement with you is that you thought EVERY player they ever drafted in the lottery (see Noel, Okafor, Saric, etc.) was that said great player. Clearly time has shown who's correct on those guys.
We'll see what happens with Embiid, who is a generational type talent, but I still remain dubious that we've seen the last of his injury issues. One season of relatively good health (Walton 86) doesn't mean he won't have those same issues persist down the road. That's a big dude, carrying a lot of weight, on some feet that don't seem built to last.
I try not to speculate on future injury concerns considering the two best players on my team played less games combined than Joel Embiid this season and neither of them are participating in the playoffs.
The Flat Mamba has been injury prone for years and we have no idea if Granton Hillward will ever return value on his fat contract.
Your love for all things Celtics just oozes out of you when you use derogatory names for our 2 stars. Funny I don't remember you doing the same thing for any Sixer players.
Flat Mamba is a name Kyrie Irving embraces as an open flat earther. Granton Hillward was just a Freudian slip. I keep thinking about the time Orlando gave grant hill max money and he ended up playing like 22 games over his contract.
Hayward might come back healthy some day. I wouldn’t go as far as to call him “one of our stars” though. He’s played 5 minutes of Celtic basketball and for all we know might be averaging 9-12 points off the bench next season.
-
He wasn’t a genius but he made some quality trades and Philly’s plan to bottom out over multiple years made it statistically probable they would end up with a star. They hit home runs on 2 out of 3 picks and have found themselves with arguably their best season in nearly 20 years in their first year together. It was absolutely a success. They changed the lotto rules for a reason
Is it true that the Sixers planned to be at the bottom for several years? They got lucky/unlucky when Embiid suffered injuries that kept him out multiple years. I think they stayed at the bottom involuntarily. Suppose Embiid is healthy when he was picked. He might have dragged that team to the middle of the lottery ranks with a half-decent supporting cast, especially in the depleted East of a few years ago. That would mean no Simmons. And while Embiid is good, the "process" story can turn into a plan to capture multiple stars - including Simmons. I don't think they really planned it that way.
The Sixers are one of the most weirdly lucky/unlucky teams.
A little of both. There were at least two seasons where they punted on the present with the explicit goal of maximizing their draft chances. It started when they moved Jrue Holiday for future assets - which helped them bottom out for Embiid. Then, they took Embiid despite the fact he was going to miss a full season. Embiid missing the second season was a bit unexpected, but at that point they made the decision to avoid being competitive. They did that by filling their roster with d-league talent and avoiding signing veterans. That gave them 3 cracks at a star - Embiid, Okafor and Simmons. They nailed 2 out of 3.
Why is Simmons a star? Is it because he gets numbers? He is talented, athletic, and has the ball in his hands a large majority of the time, so getting numbers go with the territory. However, a large percentage of those are empty, he can't shoot a lick, and makes really bad decisions during crucial moments. Plus, he doesn't seem like he really "wants it". There's very little fight in him. Very reminiscent of Jeff Green when it comes to his lackadaisical on-court attitude.
I think we're playing amazing basketball against the rookie and he's struggled big time against our defensive schemes. Simmons has obvious flaws in his games, but he's also incredible. He's played bad in this series. No-doubt. But he's also a kid who put up rookie stats on a par with Magic Johnson and averaged 18 points, 10.6 rebounds, 9 assists and 2.4 steals with 50% shooting in Round 1.
I think in the effort to bash Philly we're underselling just how incredible Boston has been in Round 2. Between Horford frustrating the heck out of Embiid, our defense (hot off having to deal with Giannis) limiting Simmons, and the otherworldly consistent offense from Rozier/Tatum, the big story of this series has been what Boston is doing.
Something you and I never agreed on, Ed. I believed it was possible for Philly's plan to be a success while at the same time falling short of what Boston accomplished. You seem to measure Philly's success by whether or not they end up better than Boston.
That was never my point. My point was that Philly had been irrelevant for the better part of 30 years and I supported the drastic measures they were taking to change that. When compared to other teams in the league, it's pretty clear this has been an amazing turn-around for them that would not have happened unless they took those drastic steps. There's 6 teams with playoff droughts 5+ years. Teams like Orlando who have hovered around 20-35 wins the past 6 years (total of 157 wins) didn't go all-in while a team like Philly who suffered through a few sub-20 win seasons over the past 6 years (total of 161 wins) are now one of the best team's in the East. This has been their best season in nearly 20 years. They are set up beautifully heading forward. Both of those statements can be true while at the same time saying "Boston is even more incredible".
Same reason I'm not going to consider Boston's season a failure if Golden State sweeps through the Finals.
The bolded part is definitely not true. I do think tanking teams could eventually find success by having great players fall in their lap. My main disagreement with you is that you thought EVERY player they ever drafted in the lottery (see Noel, Okafor, Saric, etc.) was that said great player. Clearly time has shown who's correct on those guys.
We'll see what happens with Embiid, who is a generational type talent, but I still remain dubious that we've seen the last of his injury issues. One season of relatively good health (Walton 86) doesn't mean he won't have those same issues persist down the road. That's a big dude, carrying a lot of weight, on some feet that don't seem built to last.
I try not to speculate on future injury concerns considering the two best players on my team played less games combined than Joel Embiid this season and neither of them are participating in the playoffs.
The Flat Mamba has been injury prone for years and we have no idea if Granton Hillward will ever return value on his fat contract.
Your love for all things Celtics just oozes out of you when you use derogatory names for our 2 stars. Funny I don't remember you doing the same thing for any Sixer players.
Flat Mamba is a name Kyrie Irving embraces as an open flat earther. Granton Hillward was just a Freudian slip. I keep thinking about the time Orlando gave grant hill max money and he ended up playing like 22 games over his contract.
Hayward might come back healthy some day. I wouldn’t go as far as to call him “one of our stars” though. He’s played 5 minutes of Celtic basketball and for all we know might be averaging 9-12 points off the bench next season.
Except there’s nothing indicating Hayward will be like that, but for some reason you seem to keep saying (or maybe hoping) things like “he may never come back the same”
It was a pretty horrfic and gruesome injury, but there has been no indication that he will not be the same
-
He wasn’t a genius but he made some quality trades and Philly’s plan to bottom out over multiple years made it statistically probable they would end up with a star. They hit home runs on 2 out of 3 picks and have found themselves with arguably their best season in nearly 20 years in their first year together. It was absolutely a success. They changed the lotto rules for a reason
Is it true that the Sixers planned to be at the bottom for several years? They got lucky/unlucky when Embiid suffered injuries that kept him out multiple years. I think they stayed at the bottom involuntarily. Suppose Embiid is healthy when he was picked. He might have dragged that team to the middle of the lottery ranks with a half-decent supporting cast, especially in the depleted East of a few years ago. That would mean no Simmons. And while Embiid is good, the "process" story can turn into a plan to capture multiple stars - including Simmons. I don't think they really planned it that way.
The Sixers are one of the most weirdly lucky/unlucky teams.
A little of both. There were at least two seasons where they punted on the present with the explicit goal of maximizing their draft chances. It started when they moved Jrue Holiday for future assets - which helped them bottom out for Embiid. Then, they took Embiid despite the fact he was going to miss a full season. Embiid missing the second season was a bit unexpected, but at that point they made the decision to avoid being competitive. They did that by filling their roster with d-league talent and avoiding signing veterans. That gave them 3 cracks at a star - Embiid, Okafor and Simmons. They nailed 2 out of 3.
Why is Simmons a star? Is it because he gets numbers? He is talented, athletic, and has the ball in his hands a large majority of the time, so getting numbers go with the territory. However, a large percentage of those are empty, he can't shoot a lick, and makes really bad decisions during crucial moments. Plus, he doesn't seem like he really "wants it". There's very little fight in him. Very reminiscent of Jeff Green when it comes to his lackadaisical on-court attitude.
I think we're playing amazing basketball against the rookie and he's struggled big time against our defensive schemes. Simmons has obvious flaws in his games, but he's also incredible. He's played bad in this series. No-doubt. But he's also a kid who put up rookie stats on a par with Magic Johnson and averaged 18 points, 10.6 rebounds, 9 assists and 2.4 steals with 50% shooting in Round 1.
I think in the effort to bash Philly we're underselling just how incredible Boston has been in Round 2. Between Horford frustrating the heck out of Embiid, our defense (hot off having to deal with Giannis) limiting Simmons, and the otherworldly consistent offense from Rozier/Tatum, the big story of this series has been what Boston is doing.
Something you and I never agreed on, Ed. I believed it was possible for Philly's plan to be a success while at the same time falling short of what Boston accomplished. You seem to measure Philly's success by whether or not they end up better than Boston.
That was never my point. My point was that Philly had been irrelevant for the better part of 30 years and I supported the drastic measures they were taking to change that. When compared to other teams in the league, it's pretty clear this has been an amazing turn-around for them that would not have happened unless they took those drastic steps. There's 6 teams with playoff droughts 5+ years. Teams like Orlando who have hovered around 20-35 wins the past 6 years (total of 157 wins) didn't go all-in while a team like Philly who suffered through a few sub-20 win seasons over the past 6 years (total of 161 wins) are now one of the best team's in the East. This has been their best season in nearly 20 years. They are set up beautifully heading forward. Both of those statements can be true while at the same time saying "Boston is even more incredible".
Same reason I'm not going to consider Boston's season a failure if Golden State sweeps through the Finals.
The bolded part is definitely not true. I do think tanking teams could eventually find success by having great players fall in their lap. My main disagreement with you is that you thought EVERY player they ever drafted in the lottery (see Noel, Okafor, Saric, etc.) was that said great player. Clearly time has shown who's correct on those guys.
We'll see what happens with Embiid, who is a generational type talent, but I still remain dubious that we've seen the last of his injury issues. One season of relatively good health (Walton 86) doesn't mean he won't have those same issues persist down the road. That's a big dude, carrying a lot of weight, on some feet that don't seem built to last.
I try not to speculate on future injury concerns considering the two best players on my team played less games combined than Joel Embiid this season and neither of them are participating in the playoffs.
The Flat Mamba has been injury prone for years and we have no idea if Granton Hillward will ever return value on his fat contract.
Your love for all things Celtics just oozes out of you when you use derogatory names for our 2 stars. Funny I don't remember you doing the same thing for any Sixer players.
Flat Mamba is a name Kyrie Irving embraces as an open flat earther. Granton Hillward was just a Freudian slip. I keep thinking about the time Orlando gave grant hill max money and he ended up playing like 22 games over his contract.
Hayward might come back healthy some day. I wouldn’t go as far as to call him “one of our stars” though. He’s played 5 minutes of Celtic basketball and for all we know might be averaging 9-12 points off the bench next season.
Except there’s nothing indicating Hayward will be like that, but for some reason you seem to keep saying (or maybe hoping) things like “he may never come back the same”
It was a pretty horrfic and gruesome injury, but there has been no indication that he will not be the same
Exactly. He just remembers Hill having ankle issues and immediately tries to draw comparisons between the two. The link below will help LB out.
Grant Hill discusses in provocative detail how he believes Detroit and Orlando team doctors and training staffs mismanaged his ankle injury and damaged what potentially could’ve been a transcendent career.
Hill had surgery on his ankle in May. He visited Orlando in July while still needing the help of crutches. He signed a contract in August. By Labor Day, the Magic had him participating in pickup games.
https://www.foxsports.com/nba/story/grant-hill-says-detroit-orlando-mismanaged-injuries-042711
-
Isn't Gordon Hayward's injury extremeky similar to Paul George's horrific brojen leg which he returned from and over the last three years have averaged about 23 PPG, 6.5 RPG, 3.5 APG while shooting about 45/39/85 with a PER around 20 and a win share per 48 at around .145?
Seems like Hayward should return to form if George could do so with an extremely similar injury.
-
I remember when Nerlens Noel had more trade value than Marcus Smart. Good times.
-
Isn't Gordon Hayward's injury extremeky similar to Paul George's horrific brojen leg which he returned from and over the last three years have averaged about 23 PPG, 6.5 RPG, 3.5 APG while shooting about 45/39/85 with a PER around 20 and a win share per 48 at around .145?
Seems like Hayward should return to form if George could do so with an extremely similar injury.
Exactly. And George is more of an athletic player than Hayward. No indication at all that Hayward will be "averaging 9-12 points off the bench."
Hayward turning into a worse Marcus Morris is a pretty hilarious take
-
He wasn’t a genius but he made some quality trades and Philly’s plan to bottom out over multiple years made it statistically probable they would end up with a star. They hit home runs on 2 out of 3 picks and have found themselves with arguably their best season in nearly 20 years in their first year together. It was absolutely a success. They changed the lotto rules for a reason
Is it true that the Sixers planned to be at the bottom for several years? They got lucky/unlucky when Embiid suffered injuries that kept him out multiple years. I think they stayed at the bottom involuntarily. Suppose Embiid is healthy when he was picked. He might have dragged that team to the middle of the lottery ranks with a half-decent supporting cast, especially in the depleted East of a few years ago. That would mean no Simmons. And while Embiid is good, the "process" story can turn into a plan to capture multiple stars - including Simmons. I don't think they really planned it that way.
The Sixers are one of the most weirdly lucky/unlucky teams.
A little of both. There were at least two seasons where they punted on the present with the explicit goal of maximizing their draft chances. It started when they moved Jrue Holiday for future assets - which helped them bottom out for Embiid. Then, they took Embiid despite the fact he was going to miss a full season. Embiid missing the second season was a bit unexpected, but at that point they made the decision to avoid being competitive. They did that by filling their roster with d-league talent and avoiding signing veterans. That gave them 3 cracks at a star - Embiid, Okafor and Simmons. They nailed 2 out of 3.
Why is Simmons a star? Is it because he gets numbers? He is talented, athletic, and has the ball in his hands a large majority of the time, so getting numbers go with the territory. However, a large percentage of those are empty, he can't shoot a lick, and makes really bad decisions during crucial moments. Plus, he doesn't seem like he really "wants it". There's very little fight in him. Very reminiscent of Jeff Green when it comes to his lackadaisical on-court attitude.
I think we're playing amazing basketball against the rookie and he's struggled big time against our defensive schemes. Simmons has obvious flaws in his games, but he's also incredible. He's played bad in this series. No-doubt. But he's also a kid who put up rookie stats on a par with Magic Johnson and averaged 18 points, 10.6 rebounds, 9 assists and 2.4 steals with 50% shooting in Round 1.
I think in the effort to bash Philly we're underselling just how incredible Boston has been in Round 2. Between Horford frustrating the heck out of Embiid, our defense (hot off having to deal with Giannis) limiting Simmons, and the otherworldly consistent offense from Rozier/Tatum, the big story of this series has been what Boston is doing.
Something you and I never agreed on, Ed. I believed it was possible for Philly's plan to be a success while at the same time falling short of what Boston accomplished. You seem to measure Philly's success by whether or not they end up better than Boston.
That was never my point. My point was that Philly had been irrelevant for the better part of 30 years and I supported the drastic measures they were taking to change that. When compared to other teams in the league, it's pretty clear this has been an amazing turn-around for them that would not have happened unless they took those drastic steps. There's 6 teams with playoff droughts 5+ years. Teams like Orlando who have hovered around 20-35 wins the past 6 years (total of 157 wins) didn't go all-in while a team like Philly who suffered through a few sub-20 win seasons over the past 6 years (total of 161 wins) are now one of the best team's in the East. This has been their best season in nearly 20 years. They are set up beautifully heading forward. Both of those statements can be true while at the same time saying "Boston is even more incredible".
Same reason I'm not going to consider Boston's season a failure if Golden State sweeps through the Finals.
This sounds rational and not like trolling... who is this bizarro LarBrd33?
-
He wasn’t a genius but he made some quality trades and Philly’s plan to bottom out over multiple years made it statistically probable they would end up with a star. They hit home runs on 2 out of 3 picks and have found themselves with arguably their best season in nearly 20 years in their first year together. It was absolutely a success. They changed the lotto rules for a reason
Is it true that the Sixers planned to be at the bottom for several years? They got lucky/unlucky when Embiid suffered injuries that kept him out multiple years. I think they stayed at the bottom involuntarily. Suppose Embiid is healthy when he was picked. He might have dragged that team to the middle of the lottery ranks with a half-decent supporting cast, especially in the depleted East of a few years ago. That would mean no Simmons. And while Embiid is good, the "process" story can turn into a plan to capture multiple stars - including Simmons. I don't think they really planned it that way.
The Sixers are one of the most weirdly lucky/unlucky teams.
A little of both. There were at least two seasons where they punted on the present with the explicit goal of maximizing their draft chances. It started when they moved Jrue Holiday for future assets - which helped them bottom out for Embiid. Then, they took Embiid despite the fact he was going to miss a full season. Embiid missing the second season was a bit unexpected, but at that point they made the decision to avoid being competitive. They did that by filling their roster with d-league talent and avoiding signing veterans. That gave them 3 cracks at a star - Embiid, Okafor and Simmons. They nailed 2 out of 3.
Why is Simmons a star? Is it because he gets numbers? He is talented, athletic, and has the ball in his hands a large majority of the time, so getting numbers go with the territory. However, a large percentage of those are empty, he can't shoot a lick, and makes really bad decisions during crucial moments. Plus, he doesn't seem like he really "wants it". There's very little fight in him. Very reminiscent of Jeff Green when it comes to his lackadaisical on-court attitude.
I think we're playing amazing basketball against the rookie and he's struggled big time against our defensive schemes. Simmons has obvious flaws in his games, but he's also incredible. He's played bad in this series. No-doubt. But he's also a kid who put up rookie stats on a par with Magic Johnson and averaged 18 points, 10.6 rebounds, 9 assists and 2.4 steals with 50% shooting in Round 1.
I think in the effort to bash Philly we're underselling just how incredible Boston has been in Round 2. Between Horford frustrating the heck out of Embiid, our defense (hot off having to deal with Giannis) limiting Simmons, and the otherworldly consistent offense from Rozier/Tatum, the big story of this series has been what Boston is doing.
Something you and I never agreed on, Ed. I believed it was possible for Philly's plan to be a success while at the same time falling short of what Boston accomplished. You seem to measure Philly's success by whether or not they end up better than Boston.
That was never my point. My point was that Philly had been irrelevant for the better part of 30 years and I supported the drastic measures they were taking to change that. When compared to other teams in the league, it's pretty clear this has been an amazing turn-around for them that would not have happened unless they took those drastic steps. There's 6 teams with playoff droughts 5+ years. Teams like Orlando who have hovered around 20-35 wins the past 6 years (total of 157 wins) didn't go all-in while a team like Philly who suffered through a few sub-20 win seasons over the past 6 years (total of 161 wins) are now one of the best team's in the East. This has been their best season in nearly 20 years. They are set up beautifully heading forward. Both of those statements can be true while at the same time saying "Boston is even more incredible".
Same reason I'm not going to consider Boston's season a failure if Golden State sweeps through the Finals.
The bolded part is definitely not true. I do think tanking teams could eventually find success by having great players fall in their lap. My main disagreement with you is that you thought EVERY player they ever drafted in the lottery (see Noel, Okafor, Saric, etc.) was that said great player. Clearly time has shown who's correct on those guys.
We'll see what happens with Embiid, who is a generational type talent, but I still remain dubious that we've seen the last of his injury issues. One season of relatively good health (Walton 86) doesn't mean he won't have those same issues persist down the road. That's a big dude, carrying a lot of weight, on some feet that don't seem built to last.
I try not to speculate on future injury concerns considering the two best players on my team played less games combined than Joel Embiid this season and neither of them are participating in the playoffs.
The Flat Mamba has been injury prone for years and we have no idea if Granton Hillward will ever return value on his fat contract.
Your love for all things Celtics just oozes out of you when you use derogatory names for our 2 stars. Funny I don't remember you doing the same thing for any Sixer players.
Flat Mamba is a name Kyrie Irving embraces as an open flat earther. Granton Hillward was just a Freudian slip. I keep thinking about the time Orlando gave grant hill max money and he ended up playing like 22 games over his contract.
Hayward might come back healthy some day. I wouldn’t go as far as to call him “one of our stars” though. He’s played 5 minutes of Celtic basketball and for all we know might be averaging 9-12 points off the bench next season.
Oh, nevermind.
-
Anyone who thinks Hinkie is a genius must have an IQ of about 60. It doesn't take a genius to tank year after year and hope to get lucky in the lottery.
It may take guts because you'll be known as of the biggest losers of all time and it will cost you your job but it doesn't take smarts or talent. 4 top 3 picks the last 4 years and 5 top 6 picks in the last 5 years isn't genius. It's winning about 20 games a year and getting lucky in the lottery. It's again the product of being willing to lose a lot of games, including one of the top 3 worst seasons of all time (10-72, -10.5 point differential per game). It's then hoping that the lottery balls will go your way. Hinkie is no more a genius than someone who plays the PowerBall and somehow wins.
Two of those top picks are already gone which is a lousy record for such high picks. They've won one playoff series in six years. That's not the definition of success. Philly got their first taste of it this year but they haven't proven or done a thing except lose and lose constantly. This is somehow the work of a genius? If anyone thinks that, then I suggest they go root on the 76er forum and G.T.F.O. of here.
You know what "genius" is? It's rebuilding a team from scratch with few tangible assets and managing to do so with only ONE truly bad season. That's what Danny did. One bad year (2013) AND getting unlucky in the lottery that year - and yet here we are, another 50+ win season while missing our two best players, probably going to the ECF again, multiple great looking youngsters, great and still young All-Star veterans, multiple attractive draft picks and a FA destination. That's genius folks.
I suggest the OP learn the difference between hoping for luck and planning for success.
-
I suggest the OP learn the difference between hoping for luck and planning for success.
15 TPs for this line. Brilliant.
-
I could have done the same job and been even more incompetent for a lot cheaper.
-
Hinkie was still smarter than most of these Teams today. You still need to take the right players. Ainge is the man obviously. They missed on Fultz bad, really bad right now.
If they took Tatum or Donavon Mitchell they would be hard to beat this year.
Tatum and the Kings Lottery pick and they have DNP Fultz. How does Ainge keep destroying these GM's. It's impressive.
-
He wasn’t a genius but he made some quality trades and Philly’s plan to bottom out over multiple years made it statistically probable they would end up with a star. They hit home runs on 2 out of 3 picks and have found themselves with arguably their best season in nearly 20 years in their first year together. It was absolutely a success. They changed the lotto rules for a reason
PHI looks like they're on a good track, but they need to develop as a team. It's too early to call this a success. Getting to the 2nd round of the playoffs shouldn't be considered an absolute success. Results should matter. They're close to getting swept by a less talented and hurt underdog. LarBrd, was that you working the confetti machine last night?
-
He wasn’t a genius but he made some quality trades and Philly’s plan to bottom out over multiple years made it statistically probable they would end up with a star. They hit home runs on 2 out of 3 picks and have found themselves with arguably their best season in nearly 20 years in their first year together. It was absolutely a success. They changed the lotto rules for a reason
PHI looks like they're on a good track, but they need to develop as a team. It's too early to call this a success. Getting to the 2nd round of the playoffs shouldn't be considered an absolute success. Results should matter. They're close to getting swept by a less talented and hurt underdog. LarBrd, was that you working the confetti machine last night?
It may be poor taste for me to say this, but a part of me wishes the "Process" would fail, just to show that there's consequences to tanking, and that there's value to building a good culture.
-
Isn't Gordon Hayward's injury extremeky similar to Paul George's horrific brojen leg which he returned from and over the last three years have averaged about 23 PPG, 6.5 RPG, 3.5 APG while shooting about 45/39/85 with a PER around 20 and a win share per 48 at around .145?
Seems like Hayward should return to form if George could do so with an extremely similar injury.
Exactly. And George is more of an athletic player than Hayward. No indication at all that Hayward will be "averaging 9-12 points off the bench."
Hayward turning into a worse Marcus Morris is a pretty hilarious take
A complete tear was the "best" thing that could have happened, I remember reading - in contrast to a partial one that has long term implications.
-
Why did this guy “step down,” again? I vaguely recall him being fired, but it looks like he just stepped down. Says a lot about his genius ideas that he vacated his position...
-
Why did this guy “step down,” again? I vaguely recall him being fired, but it looks like he just stepped down. Says a lot about his genius ideas that he vacated his position...
Short version is that the rest of the league was getting pretty irritated that Philly was exploiting the lotto. Also important, NBA agents and the players union were getting irritated that Philly wasn't giving vets contracts and instead was just staying near the cap floor and bringing up d-leaguers. The media was in an uproar about it as well. So the Colangelos were brought in - some say the league forced Philly's hand. Hinkie stayed on initially, but eventually stepped down when it was clear he was going to have to share power.
Nothing really changed, though. They finished out their tank job that year. They didn't make any veteran signings. They didn't trade for any quality role players. They kept with Hinkie's plan. Basically Hinkie was the scapegoat that allowed them to say "things are different now!" when really they weren't.
-
Why did this guy “step down,” again? I vaguely recall him being fired, but it looks like he just stepped down. Says a lot about his genius ideas that he vacated his position...
Hinkie was booted because it was a bad image for the league. He got hosed and I used to make fun of the guy, but he got screwed, just when things were getting good too.
-
Someone posted this article in CB http://www.celticshub.com/2018/04/09/misplacing-trust-process/ - it is one of the few that put things in the right perspective.
We can go on debating the value of picks all we want, but Bernandoni's article brings out another important aspect of strategic tanking that often goes unnoticed, namely that it can't be tolerated for long in a closed league like the NBA.
The part of Philly's tanking that was disturbing to other franchises wasn't so much their trades (although there is something to be said about trading Jrue Holiday for an injured Noel) nor drafting an injured Embiid - despite how absured it is now for the same franchise to claim Embiid's fragile health as an excuse.
Strategic tanking was a defense of egoism at its worse, abusing the letter of the law to get highly valued assets while ignoring your team's obligations to the league, as if Philadelphia itself wasn't part of the NBA and existed in a vaccuum. It was only a question of time for NBA to interfere and ask for Hinkie to be fired teaching them that egoism is a sword that cuts both ways.
-
Someone posted this article in CB http://www.celticshub.com/2018/04/09/misplacing-trust-process/ - it is one of the few that put things in the right perspective.
We can go on debating the value of picks all we want, but Bernandoni's article brings out another important aspect of strategic tanking that often goes unnoticed, namely that it can't be tolerated for long in a closed league like the NBA.
The part of Philly's tanking that was disturbing to other franchises wasn't so much their trades (although there is something to be said about trading Jrue Holiday for an injured Noel) nor drafting an injured Embiid - despite how absured it is now for the same franchise to claim Embiid's fragile health as an excuse.
Strategic tanking was a defense of egoism at its worse, abusing the letter of the law to get highly valued assets while ignoring your team's obligations to the league, as if Philadelphia itself wasn't part of the NBA and existed in a vaccuum. It was only a question of time for NBA to interfere and ask for Hinkie to be fired teaching them that egoism is a sword that cuts both ways.
the thing is Philly doesn't have the worst season ever, doesn't have the 2 worst consecutive seasons ever, doesn't have the 3 or 4 worst seasons ever either and only finished with the worst record in the league 1 time. This idea that Philly was the worst ever just isn't true. They were bad, but not record setting bad. They weren't the first team to openly tank and aren't the last team to openly tank. The league survives just fine.
-
Someone posted this article in CB http://www.celticshub.com/2018/04/09/misplacing-trust-process/ - it is one of the few that put things in the right perspective.
We can go on debating the value of picks all we want, but Bernandoni's article brings out another important aspect of strategic tanking that often goes unnoticed, namely that it can't be tolerated for long in a closed league like the NBA.
The part of Philly's tanking that was disturbing to other franchises wasn't so much their trades (although there is something to be said about trading Jrue Holiday for an injured Noel) nor drafting an injured Embiid - despite how absured it is now for the same franchise to claim Embiid's fragile health as an excuse.
Strategic tanking was a defense of egoism at its worse, abusing the letter of the law to get highly valued assets while ignoring your team's obligations to the league, as if Philadelphia itself wasn't part of the NBA and existed in a vaccuum. It was only a question of time for NBA to interfere and ask for Hinkie to be fired teaching them that egoism is a sword that cuts both ways.
the thing is Philly doesn't have the worst season ever, doesn't have the 2 worst consecutive seasons ever, doesn't have the 3 or 4 worst seasons ever either and only finished with the worst record in the league 1 time. This idea that Philly was the worst ever just isn't true. They were bad, but not record setting bad. They weren't the first team to openly tank and aren't the last team to openly tank. The league survives just fine.
The Regular Season record is besides the point tbh. This is more about how you get the losses.
-
Why did this guy “step down,” again? I vaguely recall him being fired, but it looks like he just stepped down. Says a lot about his genius ideas that he vacated his position...
Short version is that the rest of the league was getting pretty irritated that Philly was exploiting the lotto. Also important, NBA agents and the players union were getting irritated that Philly wasn't giving vets contracts and instead was just staying near the cap floor and bringing up d-leaguers. The media was in an uproar about it as well. So the Colangelos were brought in - some say the league forced Philly's hand. Hinkie stayed on initially, but eventually stepped down when it was clear he was going to have to share power.
Nothing really changed, though. They finished out their tank job that year. They didn't make any veteran signings. They didn't trade for any quality role players. They kept with Hinkie's plan. Basically Hinkie was the scapegoat that allowed them to say "things are different now!" when really they weren't.
Yeah, it's not like they signed JJ Redick for 1 year, $23 million.
Oh wait...
-
Someone posted this article in CB http://www.celticshub.com/2018/04/09/misplacing-trust-process/ - it is one of the few that put things in the right perspective.
We can go on debating the value of picks all we want, but Bernandoni's article brings out another important aspect of strategic tanking that often goes unnoticed, namely that it can't be tolerated for long in a closed league like the NBA.
The part of Philly's tanking that was disturbing to other franchises wasn't so much their trades (although there is something to be said about trading Jrue Holiday for an injured Noel) nor drafting an injured Embiid - despite how absured it is now for the same franchise to claim Embiid's fragile health as an excuse.
Strategic tanking was a defense of egoism at its worse, abusing the letter of the law to get highly valued assets while ignoring your team's obligations to the league, as if Philadelphia itself wasn't part of the NBA and existed in a vaccuum. It was only a question of time for NBA to interfere and ask for Hinkie to be fired teaching them that egoism is a sword that cuts both ways.
the thing is Philly doesn't have the worst season ever, doesn't have the 2 worst consecutive seasons ever, doesn't have the 3 or 4 worst seasons ever either and only finished with the worst record in the league 1 time. This idea that Philly was the worst ever just isn't true. They were bad, but not record setting bad. They weren't the first team to openly tank and aren't the last team to openly tank. The league survives just fine.
What point are you trying to make? I don't see anyone who said the 76ers were the worst team ever. Per their record they were the 3rd worst team ever which was preceded by two seasons of under 20 wins. It may not be the worst 3 year stretch ever but it's close. The Dallas Mavs of 91-93 probably were worse as were one of Sterling's Clippers teams and maybe the expansion Grizzlies but it's tough to find many more cases of teams that were truly horrible. That they're not the "worst ever" isn't really an argument to make in favor of Hinkie. If that's your argument then you've lost the plot.
As I said before, Hinkie's entire game plan was hoping for luck. This doesn't take a genius to figure out nor did it take any imagination. It simply means you play those odds long enough for them to swing in your favor. I find it laughable that anyone thinks this is some sort of brilliant strategy.
-
Someone posted this article in CB http://www.celticshub.com/2018/04/09/misplacing-trust-process/ - it is one of the few that put things in the right perspective.
We can go on debating the value of picks all we want, but Bernandoni's article brings out another important aspect of strategic tanking that often goes unnoticed, namely that it can't be tolerated for long in a closed league like the NBA.
The part of Philly's tanking that was disturbing to other franchises wasn't so much their trades (although there is something to be said about trading Jrue Holiday for an injured Noel) nor drafting an injured Embiid - despite how absured it is now for the same franchise to claim Embiid's fragile health as an excuse.
Strategic tanking was a defense of egoism at its worse, abusing the letter of the law to get highly valued assets while ignoring your team's obligations to the league, as if Philadelphia itself wasn't part of the NBA and existed in a vaccuum. It was only a question of time for NBA to interfere and ask for Hinkie to be fired teaching them that egoism is a sword that cuts both ways.
the thing is Philly doesn't have the worst season ever, doesn't have the 2 worst consecutive seasons ever, doesn't have the 3 or 4 worst seasons ever either and only finished with the worst record in the league 1 time. This idea that Philly was the worst ever just isn't true. They were bad, but not record setting bad. They weren't the first team to openly tank and aren't the last team to openly tank. The league survives just fine.
What point are you trying to make? I don't see anyone who said the 76ers were the worst team ever. Per their record they were the 3rd worst team ever which was preceded by two seasons of under 20 wins. It may not be the worst 3 year stretch ever but it's close. The Dallas Mavs of 91-93 probably were worse as were one of Sterling's Clippers teams and maybe the expansion Grizzlies but it's tough to find many more cases of teams that were truly horrible. That they're not the "worst ever" isn't really an argument to make in favor of Hinkie. If that's your argument then you've lost the plot.
As I said before, Hinkie's entire game plan was hoping for luck. This doesn't take a genius to figure out nor did it take any imagination. It simply means you play those odds long enough for them to swing in your favor. I find it laughable that anyone thinks this is some sort of brilliant strategy.
would you rather be the Sixers or the Kings? Or maybe you prefer to be the Suns? Perhaps the Magic or Lakers? Maybe the Knicks are more your style?
Playing the odds isn't luck, it is in fact a strategy. Maybe if those 5 teams above were a bit smarter they wouldn't still be so bad and might have a brighter outlook. I mean the Kings haven't made the playoffs in 12 seasons, the Suns have now gone 8 seasons, the Magic are at 6 and counting. Even the Knicks and Lakers are now 5 years in without making the playoffs, which is the exact amount of time the Sixers were out of the playoffs (the Nuggets are 5 years in as well, though they at least just missed the playoffs this year).
Or maybe you'd rather be a franchise like the Hornets that has now gone 15 seasons without reaching the 2nd round of the playoffs and only had 3 1st round losses in that time. Does that seem like a winning strategy? The Pistons have 1 playoff appearance in the last 9 seasons and just 1 winning season in the last 10 seasons. Are they employing a winning strategy?
-
Someone posted this article in CB http://www.celticshub.com/2018/04/09/misplacing-trust-process/ - it is one of the few that put things in the right perspective.
We can go on debating the value of picks all we want, but Bernandoni's article brings out another important aspect of strategic tanking that often goes unnoticed, namely that it can't be tolerated for long in a closed league like the NBA.
The part of Philly's tanking that was disturbing to other franchises wasn't so much their trades (although there is something to be said about trading Jrue Holiday for an injured Noel) nor drafting an injured Embiid - despite how absured it is now for the same franchise to claim Embiid's fragile health as an excuse.
Strategic tanking was a defense of egoism at its worse, abusing the letter of the law to get highly valued assets while ignoring your team's obligations to the league, as if Philadelphia itself wasn't part of the NBA and existed in a vaccuum. It was only a question of time for NBA to interfere and ask for Hinkie to be fired teaching them that egoism is a sword that cuts both ways.
the thing is Philly doesn't have the worst season ever, doesn't have the 2 worst consecutive seasons ever, doesn't have the 3 or 4 worst seasons ever either and only finished with the worst record in the league 1 time. This idea that Philly was the worst ever just isn't true. They were bad, but not record setting bad. They weren't the first team to openly tank and aren't the last team to openly tank. The league survives just fine.
What point are you trying to make? I don't see anyone who said the 76ers were the worst team ever. Per their record they were the 3rd worst team ever which was preceded by two seasons of under 20 wins. It may not be the worst 3 year stretch ever but it's close. The Dallas Mavs of 91-93 probably were worse as were one of Sterling's Clippers teams and maybe the expansion Grizzlies but it's tough to find many more cases of teams that were truly horrible. That they're not the "worst ever" isn't really an argument to make in favor of Hinkie. If that's your argument then you've lost the plot.
As I said before, Hinkie's entire game plan was hoping for luck. This doesn't take a genius to figure out nor did it take any imagination. It simply means you play those odds long enough for them to swing in your favor. I find it laughable that anyone thinks this is some sort of brilliant strategy.
would you rather be the Sixers or the Kings? Or maybe you prefer to be the Suns? Perhaps the Magic or Lakers? Maybe the Knicks are more your style?
Playing the odds isn't luck, it is in fact a strategy. Maybe if those 5 teams above were a bit smarter they wouldn't still be so bad and might have a brighter outlook. I mean the Kings haven't made the playoffs in 12 seasons, the Suns have now gone 8 seasons, the Magic are at 6 and counting. Even the Knicks and Lakers are now 5 years in without making the playoffs, which is the exact amount of time the Sixers were out of the playoffs (the Nuggets are 5 years in as well, though they at least just missed the playoffs this year).
Or maybe you'd rather be a franchise like the Hornets that has now gone 15 seasons without reaching the 2nd round of the playoffs and only had 3 1st round losses in that time. Does that seem like a winning strategy? The Pistons have 1 playoff appearance in the last 9 seasons and just 1 winning season in the last 10 seasons. Are they employing a winning strategy?
No, those teams stink. They are embarrassing, with the exception of the Lakers, who have had too much historic success to be lumped with the Kings and Knicks.
To find a winning strategy, you'll need to look at the other end of the NBA standings.
I think that Hinkie's strategy will end up working. That being said, it is pathetic. Long-term intentional losing is a strategy that a middling franchise can deal with, but one that a proud fan should look at with pity.
Call me bullheaded, but I'm not dropping $300 so my wife and I can watch a team's worst players get smoked by 20pts. Far too many things to do to support that BS.
-
We'll see how good it worked Fultz is still in question they missed on Okafor and Noel so right now half their lottery picks aren't very good, one is in question another is injury prone and one can't shoot. Hard for me to say genius!
-
Someone posted this article in CB http://www.celticshub.com/2018/04/09/misplacing-trust-process/ - it is one of the few that put things in the right perspective.
We can go on debating the value of picks all we want, but Bernandoni's article brings out another important aspect of strategic tanking that often goes unnoticed, namely that it can't be tolerated for long in a closed league like the NBA.
The part of Philly's tanking that was disturbing to other franchises wasn't so much their trades (although there is something to be said about trading Jrue Holiday for an injured Noel) nor drafting an injured Embiid - despite how absured it is now for the same franchise to claim Embiid's fragile health as an excuse.
Strategic tanking was a defense of egoism at its worse, abusing the letter of the law to get highly valued assets while ignoring your team's obligations to the league, as if Philadelphia itself wasn't part of the NBA and existed in a vaccuum. It was only a question of time for NBA to interfere and ask for Hinkie to be fired teaching them that egoism is a sword that cuts both ways.
the thing is Philly doesn't have the worst season ever, doesn't have the 2 worst consecutive seasons ever, doesn't have the 3 or 4 worst seasons ever either and only finished with the worst record in the league 1 time. This idea that Philly was the worst ever just isn't true. They were bad, but not record setting bad. They weren't the first team to openly tank and aren't the last team to openly tank. The league survives just fine.
What point are you trying to make? I don't see anyone who said the 76ers were the worst team ever. Per their record they were the 3rd worst team ever which was preceded by two seasons of under 20 wins. It may not be the worst 3 year stretch ever but it's close. The Dallas Mavs of 91-93 probably were worse as were one of Sterling's Clippers teams and maybe the expansion Grizzlies but it's tough to find many more cases of teams that were truly horrible. That they're not the "worst ever" isn't really an argument to make in favor of Hinkie. If that's your argument then you've lost the plot.
As I said before, Hinkie's entire game plan was hoping for luck. This doesn't take a genius to figure out nor did it take any imagination. It simply means you play those odds long enough for them to swing in your favor. I find it laughable that anyone thinks this is some sort of brilliant strategy.
would you rather be the Sixers or the Kings? Or maybe you prefer to be the Suns? Perhaps the Magic or Lakers? Maybe the Knicks are more your style?
Playing the odds isn't luck, it is in fact a strategy. Maybe if those 5 teams above were a bit smarter they wouldn't still be so bad and might have a brighter outlook. I mean the Kings haven't made the playoffs in 12 seasons, the Suns have now gone 8 seasons, the Magic are at 6 and counting. Even the Knicks and Lakers are now 5 years in without making the playoffs, which is the exact amount of time the Sixers were out of the playoffs (the Nuggets are 5 years in as well, though they at least just missed the playoffs this year).
Or maybe you'd rather be a franchise like the Hornets that has now gone 15 seasons without reaching the 2nd round of the playoffs and only had 3 1st round losses in that time. Does that seem like a winning strategy? The Pistons have 1 playoff appearance in the last 9 seasons and just 1 winning season in the last 10 seasons. Are they employing a winning strategy?
"Tanking" and "being bad for a long time" aren't the only options. A team with good ownership and good GM can put themselves into a great position without tanking.
-
Genius? I don’t know. A lot of those draft picks didn’t work out, and Embiid kind of fell into their lap. If they’d gotten the second pick that year and had picked Jabari Parker, the “process” would be an abject failure.
But, Hinkie did pull off two fantastic trades, picking up extra lotto picks from the Lakers and Kings without trading any real assets.
-
Someone posted this article in CB http://www.celticshub.com/2018/04/09/misplacing-trust-process/ - it is one of the few that put things in the right perspective.
We can go on debating the value of picks all we want, but Bernandoni's article brings out another important aspect of strategic tanking that often goes unnoticed, namely that it can't be tolerated for long in a closed league like the NBA.
The part of Philly's tanking that was disturbing to other franchises wasn't so much their trades (although there is something to be said about trading Jrue Holiday for an injured Noel) nor drafting an injured Embiid - despite how absured it is now for the same franchise to claim Embiid's fragile health as an excuse.
Strategic tanking was a defense of egoism at its worse, abusing the letter of the law to get highly valued assets while ignoring your team's obligations to the league, as if Philadelphia itself wasn't part of the NBA and existed in a vaccuum. It was only a question of time for NBA to interfere and ask for Hinkie to be fired teaching them that egoism is a sword that cuts both ways.
the thing is Philly doesn't have the worst season ever, doesn't have the 2 worst consecutive seasons ever, doesn't have the 3 or 4 worst seasons ever either and only finished with the worst record in the league 1 time. This idea that Philly was the worst ever just isn't true. They were bad, but not record setting bad. They weren't the first team to openly tank and aren't the last team to openly tank. The league survives just fine.
What point are you trying to make? I don't see anyone who said the 76ers were the worst team ever. Per their record they were the 3rd worst team ever which was preceded by two seasons of under 20 wins. It may not be the worst 3 year stretch ever but it's close. The Dallas Mavs of 91-93 probably were worse as were one of Sterling's Clippers teams and maybe the expansion Grizzlies but it's tough to find many more cases of teams that were truly horrible. That they're not the "worst ever" isn't really an argument to make in favor of Hinkie. If that's your argument then you've lost the plot.
As I said before, Hinkie's entire game plan was hoping for luck. This doesn't take a genius to figure out nor did it take any imagination. It simply means you play those odds long enough for them to swing in your favor. I find it laughable that anyone thinks this is some sort of brilliant strategy.
would you rather be the Sixers or the Kings? Or maybe you prefer to be the Suns? Perhaps the Magic or Lakers? Maybe the Knicks are more your style?
Playing the odds isn't luck, it is in fact a strategy. Maybe if those 5 teams above were a bit smarter they wouldn't still be so bad and might have a brighter outlook. I mean the Kings haven't made the playoffs in 12 seasons, the Suns have now gone 8 seasons, the Magic are at 6 and counting. Even the Knicks and Lakers are now 5 years in without making the playoffs, which is the exact amount of time the Sixers were out of the playoffs (the Nuggets are 5 years in as well, though they at least just missed the playoffs this year).
Or maybe you'd rather be a franchise like the Hornets that has now gone 15 seasons without reaching the 2nd round of the playoffs and only had 3 1st round losses in that time. Does that seem like a winning strategy? The Pistons have 1 playoff appearance in the last 9 seasons and just 1 winning season in the last 10 seasons. Are they employing a winning strategy?
Let’s see what this Philly team has actually accomplished before reaching any conclusions. Since they started down this tank strategy 5-6 years ago, what have they accomplished to date? One trip to the 2nd round. Until this series began everyone proclaimed them this great juggernaut. Funny how the actual games got in the way. I’m more upbeat about Milwaukee’s future.
-
Someone posted this article in CB http://www.celticshub.com/2018/04/09/misplacing-trust-process/ - it is one of the few that put things in the right perspective.
We can go on debating the value of picks all we want, but Bernandoni's article brings out another important aspect of strategic tanking that often goes unnoticed, namely that it can't be tolerated for long in a closed league like the NBA.
The part of Philly's tanking that was disturbing to other franchises wasn't so much their trades (although there is something to be said about trading Jrue Holiday for an injured Noel) nor drafting an injured Embiid - despite how absured it is now for the same franchise to claim Embiid's fragile health as an excuse.
Strategic tanking was a defense of egoism at its worse, abusing the letter of the law to get highly valued assets while ignoring your team's obligations to the league, as if Philadelphia itself wasn't part of the NBA and existed in a vaccuum. It was only a question of time for NBA to interfere and ask for Hinkie to be fired teaching them that egoism is a sword that cuts both ways.
the thing is Philly doesn't have the worst season ever, doesn't have the 2 worst consecutive seasons ever, doesn't have the 3 or 4 worst seasons ever either and only finished with the worst record in the league 1 time. This idea that Philly was the worst ever just isn't true. They were bad, but not record setting bad. They weren't the first team to openly tank and aren't the last team to openly tank. The league survives just fine.
What point are you trying to make? I don't see anyone who said the 76ers were the worst team ever. Per their record they were the 3rd worst team ever which was preceded by two seasons of under 20 wins. It may not be the worst 3 year stretch ever but it's close. The Dallas Mavs of 91-93 probably were worse as were one of Sterling's Clippers teams and maybe the expansion Grizzlies but it's tough to find many more cases of teams that were truly horrible. That they're not the "worst ever" isn't really an argument to make in favor of Hinkie. If that's your argument then you've lost the plot.
As I said before, Hinkie's entire game plan was hoping for luck. This doesn't take a genius to figure out nor did it take any imagination. It simply means you play those odds long enough for them to swing in your favor. I find it laughable that anyone thinks this is some sort of brilliant strategy.
would you rather be the Sixers or the Kings? Or maybe you prefer to be the Suns? Perhaps the Magic or Lakers? Maybe the Knicks are more your style?
Playing the odds isn't luck, it is in fact a strategy. Maybe if those 5 teams above were a bit smarter they wouldn't still be so bad and might have a brighter outlook. I mean the Kings haven't made the playoffs in 12 seasons, the Suns have now gone 8 seasons, the Magic are at 6 and counting. Even the Knicks and Lakers are now 5 years in without making the playoffs, which is the exact amount of time the Sixers were out of the playoffs (the Nuggets are 5 years in as well, though they at least just missed the playoffs this year).
Or maybe you'd rather be a franchise like the Hornets that has now gone 15 seasons without reaching the 2nd round of the playoffs and only had 3 1st round losses in that time. Does that seem like a winning strategy? The Pistons have 1 playoff appearance in the last 9 seasons and just 1 winning season in the last 10 seasons. Are they employing a winning strategy?
"Tanking" and "being bad for a long time" aren't the only options. A team with good ownership and good GM can put themselves into a great position without tanking.
Sure a team can get super lucky and find Kawhi Leonard at 15 (of course the Spurs tanked for Duncan - as did Boston which didn't exactly work out). Or a team can find a desperate team tired of losing that acquires past their prime players for unprotected draft picks (thank you Brooklyn - though Boston tried to tank in the Embiid draft also). Or a team can plod along in mediocrity for years (Hawks) or be good but not great (Raptors). Or a team can try to land free agents and fail and then claim they are just bad rather than tanking (Mavericks). Or a team can make a trade using future draft assets that actually pays dividends which then uses cap space and savvy trades to add to it (Rockets). Or a team can take advantage of a cap spike to add to an all world player to a team full of all world players drafted using mostly lottery picks (Warriors). Or a team can lure a home grown free agent home and then use its high draft picks to acquire other all star level players (Cavs).
There are a lots of ways to build a team. They all require luck, but some require far more luck than others. The best way to ensure future success is by acquiring all world talent, and the vast majority of all world talent is drafted in the top 5 picks (that doesn't mean you have to be the one drafting them, but that is where they mostly come from).
The reality is, the Sixers were in a bad spot when Hinkie took over. They had traded some of their own future draft picks, were a mid 30's win team without any franchise altering talent, and no real prospects to acquire said talent. There hasn't been a single person I've asked the following question to, that has come up with a better/faster way to get the Sixers to the point they are now, but maybe you can come up with one. So here it is:
You are Hinkie, you are hired to take over the Sixers following their 34-48 season in 2012-13 season. What do you do to make them the team they are today with an outlook as positive as they have?
-
Someone posted this article in CB http://www.celticshub.com/2018/04/09/misplacing-trust-process/ - it is one of the few that put things in the right perspective.
We can go on debating the value of picks all we want, but Bernandoni's article brings out another important aspect of strategic tanking that often goes unnoticed, namely that it can't be tolerated for long in a closed league like the NBA.
The part of Philly's tanking that was disturbing to other franchises wasn't so much their trades (although there is something to be said about trading Jrue Holiday for an injured Noel) nor drafting an injured Embiid - despite how absured it is now for the same franchise to claim Embiid's fragile health as an excuse.
Strategic tanking was a defense of egoism at its worse, abusing the letter of the law to get highly valued assets while ignoring your team's obligations to the league, as if Philadelphia itself wasn't part of the NBA and existed in a vaccuum. It was only a question of time for NBA to interfere and ask for Hinkie to be fired teaching them that egoism is a sword that cuts both ways.
the thing is Philly doesn't have the worst season ever, doesn't have the 2 worst consecutive seasons ever, doesn't have the 3 or 4 worst seasons ever either and only finished with the worst record in the league 1 time. This idea that Philly was the worst ever just isn't true. They were bad, but not record setting bad. They weren't the first team to openly tank and aren't the last team to openly tank. The league survives just fine.
What point are you trying to make? I don't see anyone who said the 76ers were the worst team ever. Per their record they were the 3rd worst team ever which was preceded by two seasons of under 20 wins. It may not be the worst 3 year stretch ever but it's close. The Dallas Mavs of 91-93 probably were worse as were one of Sterling's Clippers teams and maybe the expansion Grizzlies but it's tough to find many more cases of teams that were truly horrible. That they're not the "worst ever" isn't really an argument to make in favor of Hinkie. If that's your argument then you've lost the plot.
As I said before, Hinkie's entire game plan was hoping for luck. This doesn't take a genius to figure out nor did it take any imagination. It simply means you play those odds long enough for them to swing in your favor. I find it laughable that anyone thinks this is some sort of brilliant strategy.
would you rather be the Sixers or the Kings? Or maybe you prefer to be the Suns? Perhaps the Magic or Lakers? Maybe the Knicks are more your style?
Playing the odds isn't luck, it is in fact a strategy. Maybe if those 5 teams above were a bit smarter they wouldn't still be so bad and might have a brighter outlook. I mean the Kings haven't made the playoffs in 12 seasons, the Suns have now gone 8 seasons, the Magic are at 6 and counting. Even the Knicks and Lakers are now 5 years in without making the playoffs, which is the exact amount of time the Sixers were out of the playoffs (the Nuggets are 5 years in as well, though they at least just missed the playoffs this year).
Or maybe you'd rather be a franchise like the Hornets that has now gone 15 seasons without reaching the 2nd round of the playoffs and only had 3 1st round losses in that time. Does that seem like a winning strategy? The Pistons have 1 playoff appearance in the last 9 seasons and just 1 winning season in the last 10 seasons. Are they employing a winning strategy?
Let’s see what this Philly team has actually accomplished before reaching any conclusions. Since they started down this tank strategy 5-6 years ago, what have they accomplished to date? One trip to the 2nd round. Until this series began everyone proclaimed them this great juggernaut. Funny how the actual games got in the way. I’m more upbeat about Milwaukee’s future.
I think Embiid + Simmons > Giannis + whatever
Both MIL and PHI have bright futures. Fortunately, so does BOS, and Danny didn't have to sell his soul to intentionally lose games to get Tatum or Brown.
-
Someone posted this article in CB http://www.celticshub.com/2018/04/09/misplacing-trust-process/ - it is one of the few that put things in the right perspective.
We can go on debating the value of picks all we want, but Bernandoni's article brings out another important aspect of strategic tanking that often goes unnoticed, namely that it can't be tolerated for long in a closed league like the NBA.
The part of Philly's tanking that was disturbing to other franchises wasn't so much their trades (although there is something to be said about trading Jrue Holiday for an injured Noel) nor drafting an injured Embiid - despite how absured it is now for the same franchise to claim Embiid's fragile health as an excuse.
Strategic tanking was a defense of egoism at its worse, abusing the letter of the law to get highly valued assets while ignoring your team's obligations to the league, as if Philadelphia itself wasn't part of the NBA and existed in a vaccuum. It was only a question of time for NBA to interfere and ask for Hinkie to be fired teaching them that egoism is a sword that cuts both ways.
the thing is Philly doesn't have the worst season ever, doesn't have the 2 worst consecutive seasons ever, doesn't have the 3 or 4 worst seasons ever either and only finished with the worst record in the league 1 time. This idea that Philly was the worst ever just isn't true. They were bad, but not record setting bad. They weren't the first team to openly tank and aren't the last team to openly tank. The league survives just fine.
What point are you trying to make? I don't see anyone who said the 76ers were the worst team ever. Per their record they were the 3rd worst team ever which was preceded by two seasons of under 20 wins. It may not be the worst 3 year stretch ever but it's close. The Dallas Mavs of 91-93 probably were worse as were one of Sterling's Clippers teams and maybe the expansion Grizzlies but it's tough to find many more cases of teams that were truly horrible. That they're not the "worst ever" isn't really an argument to make in favor of Hinkie. If that's your argument then you've lost the plot.
As I said before, Hinkie's entire game plan was hoping for luck. This doesn't take a genius to figure out nor did it take any imagination. It simply means you play those odds long enough for them to swing in your favor. I find it laughable that anyone thinks this is some sort of brilliant strategy.
would you rather be the Sixers or the Kings? Or maybe you prefer to be the Suns? Perhaps the Magic or Lakers? Maybe the Knicks are more your style?
Playing the odds isn't luck, it is in fact a strategy. Maybe if those 5 teams above were a bit smarter they wouldn't still be so bad and might have a brighter outlook. I mean the Kings haven't made the playoffs in 12 seasons, the Suns have now gone 8 seasons, the Magic are at 6 and counting. Even the Knicks and Lakers are now 5 years in without making the playoffs, which is the exact amount of time the Sixers were out of the playoffs (the Nuggets are 5 years in as well, though they at least just missed the playoffs this year).
Or maybe you'd rather be a franchise like the Hornets that has now gone 15 seasons without reaching the 2nd round of the playoffs and only had 3 1st round losses in that time. Does that seem like a winning strategy? The Pistons have 1 playoff appearance in the last 9 seasons and just 1 winning season in the last 10 seasons. Are they employing a winning strategy?
Let’s see what this Philly team has actually accomplished before reaching any conclusions. Since they started down this tank strategy 5-6 years ago, what have they accomplished to date? One trip to the 2nd round. Until this series began everyone proclaimed them this great juggernaut. Funny how the actual games got in the way. I’m more upbeat about Milwaukee’s future.
Do you know when the Sixers last had a 50 win regular season? Just so you don't have to look it up, it was the 56 win season when Iverson led them to the Finals in 2000-01. Before that it was 89-90 season. Heck the last full season the Sixers finished above .500 was 04-05 (they were also above .500 in the 66 game 11-12 season).
Some, including LarBrd, would argue the fact the Sixers won 50 games has already made the tank a success. I'm not one of those persons, as I think they need to sustain it over multiple seasons, but given the Sixers history and where they were as a franchise after the 12-13 season, I can totally understand that logic, especially when you see how much talent Embiid and Simmons actually have.
-
Someone posted this article in CB http://www.celticshub.com/2018/04/09/misplacing-trust-process/ - it is one of the few that put things in the right perspective.
We can go on debating the value of picks all we want, but Bernandoni's article brings out another important aspect of strategic tanking that often goes unnoticed, namely that it can't be tolerated for long in a closed league like the NBA.
The part of Philly's tanking that was disturbing to other franchises wasn't so much their trades (although there is something to be said about trading Jrue Holiday for an injured Noel) nor drafting an injured Embiid - despite how absured it is now for the same franchise to claim Embiid's fragile health as an excuse.
Strategic tanking was a defense of egoism at its worse, abusing the letter of the law to get highly valued assets while ignoring your team's obligations to the league, as if Philadelphia itself wasn't part of the NBA and existed in a vaccuum. It was only a question of time for NBA to interfere and ask for Hinkie to be fired teaching them that egoism is a sword that cuts both ways.
the thing is Philly doesn't have the worst season ever, doesn't have the 2 worst consecutive seasons ever, doesn't have the 3 or 4 worst seasons ever either and only finished with the worst record in the league 1 time. This idea that Philly was the worst ever just isn't true. They were bad, but not record setting bad. They weren't the first team to openly tank and aren't the last team to openly tank. The league survives just fine.
What point are you trying to make? I don't see anyone who said the 76ers were the worst team ever. Per their record they were the 3rd worst team ever which was preceded by two seasons of under 20 wins. It may not be the worst 3 year stretch ever but it's close. The Dallas Mavs of 91-93 probably were worse as were one of Sterling's Clippers teams and maybe the expansion Grizzlies but it's tough to find many more cases of teams that were truly horrible. That they're not the "worst ever" isn't really an argument to make in favor of Hinkie. If that's your argument then you've lost the plot.
As I said before, Hinkie's entire game plan was hoping for luck. This doesn't take a genius to figure out nor did it take any imagination. It simply means you play those odds long enough for them to swing in your favor. I find it laughable that anyone thinks this is some sort of brilliant strategy.
would you rather be the Sixers or the Kings? Or maybe you prefer to be the Suns? Perhaps the Magic or Lakers? Maybe the Knicks are more your style?
Playing the odds isn't luck, it is in fact a strategy. Maybe if those 5 teams above were a bit smarter they wouldn't still be so bad and might have a brighter outlook. I mean the Kings haven't made the playoffs in 12 seasons, the Suns have now gone 8 seasons, the Magic are at 6 and counting. Even the Knicks and Lakers are now 5 years in without making the playoffs, which is the exact amount of time the Sixers were out of the playoffs (the Nuggets are 5 years in as well, though they at least just missed the playoffs this year).
Or maybe you'd rather be a franchise like the Hornets that has now gone 15 seasons without reaching the 2nd round of the playoffs and only had 3 1st round losses in that time. Does that seem like a winning strategy? The Pistons have 1 playoff appearance in the last 9 seasons and just 1 winning season in the last 10 seasons. Are they employing a winning strategy?
"Tanking" and "being bad for a long time" aren't the only options. A team with good ownership and good GM can put themselves into a great position without tanking.
Sure a team can get super lucky and find Kawhi Leonard at 15 (of course the Spurs tanked for Duncan - as did Boston which didn't exactly work out). Or a team can find a desperate team tired of losing that acquires past their prime players for unprotected draft picks (thank you Brooklyn - though Boston tried to tank in the Embiid draft also). Or a team can plod along in mediocrity for years (Hawks) or be good but not great (Raptors). Or a team can try to land free agents and fail and then claim they are just bad rather than tanking (Mavericks). Or a team can make a trade using future draft assets that actually pays dividends which then uses cap space and savvy trades to add to it (Rockets). Or a team can take advantage of a cap spike to add to an all world player to a team full of all world players drafted using mostly lottery picks (Warriors). Or a team can lure a home grown free agent home and then use its high draft picks to acquire other all star level players (Cavs).
There are a lots of ways to build a team. They all require luck, but some require far more luck than others. The best way to ensure future success is by acquiring all world talent, and the vast majority of all world talent is drafted in the top 5 picks (that doesn't mean you have to be the one drafting them, but that is where they mostly come from).
The reality is, the Sixers were in a bad spot when Hinkie took over. They had traded some of their own future draft picks, were a mid 30's win team without any franchise altering talent, and no real prospects to acquire said talent. There hasn't been a single person I've asked the following question to, that has come up with a better/faster way to get the Sixers to the point they are now, but maybe you can come up with one. So here it is:
You are Hinkie, you are hired to take over the Sixers following their 34-48 season in 2012-13 season. What do you do to make them the team they are today with an outlook as positive as they have?
1) Draft Steven Adams, Greek Freak or Rudy Gobert over MCW
2) Draft CJ McCollum over Nerlens Noel
3) Draft Porzingis, Myles Turner, Devin Booker or even Rozier over Okafor
So Hinkie could easily have had:
Ben Simmons, CJ McCollum, Devin Booker, Greek Freak, and Embiid
Still a genius?
-
Those who are arguing against the Sixers 'strategy' aren't saying that it hasn't produced quality players and a team full of potential (you get enough top 5 picks you are bound to hit on some of them); they are simply making a point about how it was a dirty way to go about business. They lost other teams money and made a mockery of the lottery system which was already set in place to prevent blatant tanking.
It is about common decency and playing by the unspoken rules of basketball. Since this series began, a number of people in my life who aren't too familiar with the NBA have asked me about what exactly the 'process' is. When I explain it to them, they are immediately turned off and each of them have used the word, 'cheaters.'
The Sixers weren't innovative, they were just basically scoundrels. The best thing they did was make the trades for the LAL pick and SAC pick - those were actual sound NBA decisions. They don't deserve Lebron or Kawhi or whatever star falls in their lap. May the basketball gods come down hard on the Sixers for years to come...
-
Someone posted this article in CB http://www.celticshub.com/2018/04/09/misplacing-trust-process/ - it is one of the few that put things in the right perspective.
We can go on debating the value of picks all we want, but Bernandoni's article brings out another important aspect of strategic tanking that often goes unnoticed, namely that it can't be tolerated for long in a closed league like the NBA.
The part of Philly's tanking that was disturbing to other franchises wasn't so much their trades (although there is something to be said about trading Jrue Holiday for an injured Noel) nor drafting an injured Embiid - despite how absured it is now for the same franchise to claim Embiid's fragile health as an excuse.
Strategic tanking was a defense of egoism at its worse, abusing the letter of the law to get highly valued assets while ignoring your team's obligations to the league, as if Philadelphia itself wasn't part of the NBA and existed in a vaccuum. It was only a question of time for NBA to interfere and ask for Hinkie to be fired teaching them that egoism is a sword that cuts both ways.
the thing is Philly doesn't have the worst season ever, doesn't have the 2 worst consecutive seasons ever, doesn't have the 3 or 4 worst seasons ever either and only finished with the worst record in the league 1 time. This idea that Philly was the worst ever just isn't true. They were bad, but not record setting bad. They weren't the first team to openly tank and aren't the last team to openly tank. The league survives just fine.
What point are you trying to make? I don't see anyone who said the 76ers were the worst team ever. Per their record they were the 3rd worst team ever which was preceded by two seasons of under 20 wins. It may not be the worst 3 year stretch ever but it's close. The Dallas Mavs of 91-93 probably were worse as were one of Sterling's Clippers teams and maybe the expansion Grizzlies but it's tough to find many more cases of teams that were truly horrible. That they're not the "worst ever" isn't really an argument to make in favor of Hinkie. If that's your argument then you've lost the plot.
As I said before, Hinkie's entire game plan was hoping for luck. This doesn't take a genius to figure out nor did it take any imagination. It simply means you play those odds long enough for them to swing in your favor. I find it laughable that anyone thinks this is some sort of brilliant strategy.
would you rather be the Sixers or the Kings? Or maybe you prefer to be the Suns? Perhaps the Magic or Lakers? Maybe the Knicks are more your style?
Playing the odds isn't luck, it is in fact a strategy. Maybe if those 5 teams above were a bit smarter they wouldn't still be so bad and might have a brighter outlook. I mean the Kings haven't made the playoffs in 12 seasons, the Suns have now gone 8 seasons, the Magic are at 6 and counting. Even the Knicks and Lakers are now 5 years in without making the playoffs, which is the exact amount of time the Sixers were out of the playoffs (the Nuggets are 5 years in as well, though they at least just missed the playoffs this year).
Or maybe you'd rather be a franchise like the Hornets that has now gone 15 seasons without reaching the 2nd round of the playoffs and only had 3 1st round losses in that time. Does that seem like a winning strategy? The Pistons have 1 playoff appearance in the last 9 seasons and just 1 winning season in the last 10 seasons. Are they employing a winning strategy?
Let’s see what this Philly team has actually accomplished before reaching any conclusions. Since they started down this tank strategy 5-6 years ago, what have they accomplished to date? One trip to the 2nd round. Until this series began everyone proclaimed them this great juggernaut. Funny how the actual games got in the way. I’m more upbeat about Milwaukee’s future.
Do you know when the Sixers last had a 50 win regular season? Just so you don't have to look it up, it was the 56 win season when Iverson led them to the Finals in 2000-01. Before that it was 89-90 season. Heck the last full season the Sixers finished above .500 was 04-05 (they were also above .500 in the 66 game 11-12 season).
Some, including LarBrd, would argue the fact the Sixers won 50 games has already made the tank a success. I'm not one of those persons, as I think they need to sustain it over multiple seasons, but given the Sixers history and where they were as a franchise after the 12-13 season, I can totally understand that logic, especially when you see how much talent Embiid and Simmons actually have.
Fair point. I'm just saying the final results are not in. I don't think it was their goal to tank for 4-5 years so that they could one day win 50 games, and you don't think so either.
I also want to go on record as saying I really have no issue with the manner in which the Sixers went about their strategy of blatantly tanking over a several season stretch. I hate it when other teams tank (especially the Lakers), but it would be hypocritical to take the moral high ground, when I remember how PO'd I got when we won a couple of games at the end of the season of the Embiid draft. When your team is bad, you want them to tank. Philly just took it to its next logical step, and said, hey, tanking one year alone is not mathematically sufficient, you have to do it for several years for the odds to work our for you.
Philly's record of drafting during the process has been a mixture of luck (Embiid only fell to 3 because of injury; and Philly tried to trade up to get Wiggins), whiffs (Okafor, maybe Fultz) and no-brainer (taking Simmons with the no. 1 pick, although too soon to see whether they won the draft that year).
-
Someone posted this article in CB http://www.celticshub.com/2018/04/09/misplacing-trust-process/ - it is one of the few that put things in the right perspective.
We can go on debating the value of picks all we want, but Bernandoni's article brings out another important aspect of strategic tanking that often goes unnoticed, namely that it can't be tolerated for long in a closed league like the NBA.
The part of Philly's tanking that was disturbing to other franchises wasn't so much their trades (although there is something to be said about trading Jrue Holiday for an injured Noel) nor drafting an injured Embiid - despite how absured it is now for the same franchise to claim Embiid's fragile health as an excuse.
Strategic tanking was a defense of egoism at its worse, abusing the letter of the law to get highly valued assets while ignoring your team's obligations to the league, as if Philadelphia itself wasn't part of the NBA and existed in a vaccuum. It was only a question of time for NBA to interfere and ask for Hinkie to be fired teaching them that egoism is a sword that cuts both ways.
the thing is Philly doesn't have the worst season ever, doesn't have the 2 worst consecutive seasons ever, doesn't have the 3 or 4 worst seasons ever either and only finished with the worst record in the league 1 time. This idea that Philly was the worst ever just isn't true. They were bad, but not record setting bad. They weren't the first team to openly tank and aren't the last team to openly tank. The league survives just fine.
What point are you trying to make? I don't see anyone who said the 76ers were the worst team ever. Per their record they were the 3rd worst team ever which was preceded by two seasons of under 20 wins. It may not be the worst 3 year stretch ever but it's close. The Dallas Mavs of 91-93 probably were worse as were one of Sterling's Clippers teams and maybe the expansion Grizzlies but it's tough to find many more cases of teams that were truly horrible. That they're not the "worst ever" isn't really an argument to make in favor of Hinkie. If that's your argument then you've lost the plot.
As I said before, Hinkie's entire game plan was hoping for luck. This doesn't take a genius to figure out nor did it take any imagination. It simply means you play those odds long enough for them to swing in your favor. I find it laughable that anyone thinks this is some sort of brilliant strategy.
would you rather be the Sixers or the Kings? Or maybe you prefer to be the Suns? Perhaps the Magic or Lakers? Maybe the Knicks are more your style?
Playing the odds isn't luck, it is in fact a strategy. Maybe if those 5 teams above were a bit smarter they wouldn't still be so bad and might have a brighter outlook. I mean the Kings haven't made the playoffs in 12 seasons, the Suns have now gone 8 seasons, the Magic are at 6 and counting. Even the Knicks and Lakers are now 5 years in without making the playoffs, which is the exact amount of time the Sixers were out of the playoffs (the Nuggets are 5 years in as well, though they at least just missed the playoffs this year).
Or maybe you'd rather be a franchise like the Hornets that has now gone 15 seasons without reaching the 2nd round of the playoffs and only had 3 1st round losses in that time. Does that seem like a winning strategy? The Pistons have 1 playoff appearance in the last 9 seasons and just 1 winning season in the last 10 seasons. Are they employing a winning strategy?
"Tanking" and "being bad for a long time" aren't the only options. A team with good ownership and good GM can put themselves into a great position without tanking.
Sure a team can get super lucky and find Kawhi Leonard at 15 (of course the Spurs tanked for Duncan - as did Boston which didn't exactly work out). Or a team can find a desperate team tired of losing that acquires past their prime players for unprotected draft picks (thank you Brooklyn - though Boston tried to tank in the Embiid draft also). Or a team can plod along in mediocrity for years (Hawks) or be good but not great (Raptors). Or a team can try to land free agents and fail and then claim they are just bad rather than tanking (Mavericks). Or a team can make a trade using future draft assets that actually pays dividends which then uses cap space and savvy trades to add to it (Rockets). Or a team can take advantage of a cap spike to add to an all world player to a team full of all world players drafted using mostly lottery picks (Warriors). Or a team can lure a home grown free agent home and then use its high draft picks to acquire other all star level players (Cavs).
There are a lots of ways to build a team. They all require luck, but some require far more luck than others. The best way to ensure future success is by acquiring all world talent, and the vast majority of all world talent is drafted in the top 5 picks (that doesn't mean you have to be the one drafting them, but that is where they mostly come from).
The reality is, the Sixers were in a bad spot when Hinkie took over. They had traded some of their own future draft picks, were a mid 30's win team without any franchise altering talent, and no real prospects to acquire said talent. There hasn't been a single person I've asked the following question to, that has come up with a better/faster way to get the Sixers to the point they are now, but maybe you can come up with one. So here it is:
You are Hinkie, you are hired to take over the Sixers following their 34-48 season in 2012-13 season. What do you do to make them the team they are today with an outlook as positive as they have?
1) Draft Steven Adams, Greek Freak or Rudy Gobert over MCW
2) Draft CJ McCollum over Nerlens Noel
3) Draft Porzingis, Myles Turner, Devin Booker or even Rozier over Okafor
So Hinkie could easily have had:
Ben Simmons, CJ McCollum, Devin Booker, Greek Freak, and Embiid
Still a genius?
i think a key point to keep in mind is the worth of the plan versus the ability of the plan's leader. these are not the same.
i understand the plan - super tank, get picks, trade away anyone remotely good for years to get picks, take on toxic salaries in exchange for more picks. the logic is there. but with the plan comes a hideous price. the nba itself is demeaned. the team sucks - really really sucks - for years.
the biggest flaw is that even if done correctly, the odds of creating a championship are small. i do believe it will create a credible, playoff level team, which is what the sixers are now. they are not a championship team and serious questions exist concerning each and every draft pick they still have. the process is anything BUT a sure thing.
but, is this the only, let alone, best way to go? is it worth paying this terrible price for a "okay floor, high but unlikely ceiling"? that is the question moranis poses above. after all, there are many ways to make a team good enough for the playoffs. teams do that each and every year.
we dont have many examples of the process since it is so toxic that the only gm to implement it was fired. not an incentive for anyone to want to repeat it.
next, the plan/process means nothing if the picks dont work out, if the team management are not good. a risky bet to say the least, as the sixers are demonstrating.
so, i can see the attraction of the process. but i think other teams demonstrate a less toxic way of acheiving credibility. as for championships? i dont see the process producing them yet.
but, we have a long time to go to pass final judgement on that.
-
Those who are arguing against the Sixers 'strategy' aren't saying that it hasn't produced quality players and a team full of potential (you get enough top 5 picks you are bound to hit on some of them); they are simply making a point about how it was a dirty way to go about business. They lost other teams money and made a mockery of the lottery system which was already set in place to prevent blatant tanking.
It is about common decency and playing by the unspoken rules of basketball. Since this series began, a number of people in my life who aren't too familiar with the NBA have asked me about what exactly the 'process' is. When I explain it to them, they are immediately turned off and each of them have used the word, 'cheaters.'
The Sixers weren't innovative, they were just basically scoundrels. The best thing they did was make the trades for the LAL pick and SAC pick - those were actual sound NBA decisions. They don't deserve Lebron or Kawhi or whatever star falls in their lap. May the basketball gods come down hard on the Sixers for years to come...
Yep. It's p obvious to see both that strategic tanking works (at least regarding delivering high picks) and why other teams were annoyed by it.
-
Those who are arguing against the Sixers 'strategy' aren't saying that it hasn't produced quality players and a team full of potential (you get enough top 5 picks you are bound to hit on some of them); they are simply making a point about how it was a dirty way to go about business. They lost other teams money and made a mockery of the lottery system which was already set in place to prevent blatant tanking.
It is about common decency and playing by the unspoken rules of basketball. Since this series began, a number of people in my life who aren't too familiar with the NBA have asked me about what exactly the 'process' is. When I explain it to them, they are immediately turned off and each of them have used the word, 'cheaters.'
The Sixers weren't innovative, they were just basically scoundrels. The best thing they did was make the trades for the LAL pick and SAC pick - those were actual sound NBA decisions. They don't deserve Lebron or Kawhi or whatever star falls in their lap. May the basketball gods come down hard on the Sixers for years to come...
Tp....great post...my sentiments exactly.....hopefully karma is that female dog for philly!
To underscore other teams getting hurt by it, I want to relay my Garden experiences for Philly games during that time.
First, it was great for me (and my family). As a father of four who were all at home at the time, my wife and I were able to take the kids to the Philly games without breaking the bank. A few times I was able to secure 6 tix from Stubhub for under $100, not great seats in the balcony admittedly, but because the place was never packed, we could always move down.
Crowds were definitely smaller and younger for Cs/Philly games at the time. Consequently vendors got hurt both inside and outside the Garden regarding both sales and tips.
Other, smaller franchises who don’t have the following that our Cs have got hurt as they didn’t sell out when Philly came to town, in addition to their vendors getting hurt.
Yeah, Philly played by the “rules”, but many resent(ed) them for it, And in my opinion rightfully so.
-
I have always maintained that to truly measure the success of Hinkie-ism, you need to remember the costs and weigh those against the rewards. It's easy to just look at the rewards now that they are coming to fruition. But don't forget the costs: this team averaged 22 wins for a five year period. It was disgusting. They made their fans miserable laughingstocks for half a decade and humiliated themselves around the league.
All this for... what exactly? To be one of the best young teams in the league whose future is tied to a stud center with back and foot issues, who's played an average of 24 games per year over his first four seasons; and savant do-everything-ballhandler/passer/rebounder who also happens to have the worst jumpshot in the league?
Point is, to justify how massively painful those five years were and the total embarrassment you turned your franchise into, you have to basically guarantee a championship or championships. And that's far from guaranteed for this squad.
-
Someone posted this article in CB http://www.celticshub.com/2018/04/09/misplacing-trust-process/ - it is one of the few that put things in the right perspective.
We can go on debating the value of picks all we want, but Bernandoni's article brings out another important aspect of strategic tanking that often goes unnoticed, namely that it can't be tolerated for long in a closed league like the NBA.
The part of Philly's tanking that was disturbing to other franchises wasn't so much their trades (although there is something to be said about trading Jrue Holiday for an injured Noel) nor drafting an injured Embiid - despite how absured it is now for the same franchise to claim Embiid's fragile health as an excuse.
Strategic tanking was a defense of egoism at its worse, abusing the letter of the law to get highly valued assets while ignoring your team's obligations to the league, as if Philadelphia itself wasn't part of the NBA and existed in a vaccuum. It was only a question of time for NBA to interfere and ask for Hinkie to be fired teaching them that egoism is a sword that cuts both ways.
the thing is Philly doesn't have the worst season ever, doesn't have the 2 worst consecutive seasons ever, doesn't have the 3 or 4 worst seasons ever either and only finished with the worst record in the league 1 time. This idea that Philly was the worst ever just isn't true. They were bad, but not record setting bad. They weren't the first team to openly tank and aren't the last team to openly tank. The league survives just fine.
What point are you trying to make? I don't see anyone who said the 76ers were the worst team ever. Per their record they were the 3rd worst team ever which was preceded by two seasons of under 20 wins. It may not be the worst 3 year stretch ever but it's close. The Dallas Mavs of 91-93 probably were worse as were one of Sterling's Clippers teams and maybe the expansion Grizzlies but it's tough to find many more cases of teams that were truly horrible. That they're not the "worst ever" isn't really an argument to make in favor of Hinkie. If that's your argument then you've lost the plot.
As I said before, Hinkie's entire game plan was hoping for luck. This doesn't take a genius to figure out nor did it take any imagination. It simply means you play those odds long enough for them to swing in your favor. I find it laughable that anyone thinks this is some sort of brilliant strategy.
would you rather be the Sixers or the Kings? Or maybe you prefer to be the Suns? Perhaps the Magic or Lakers? Maybe the Knicks are more your style?
Playing the odds isn't luck, it is in fact a strategy. Maybe if those 5 teams above were a bit smarter they wouldn't still be so bad and might have a brighter outlook. I mean the Kings haven't made the playoffs in 12 seasons, the Suns have now gone 8 seasons, the Magic are at 6 and counting. Even the Knicks and Lakers are now 5 years in without making the playoffs, which is the exact amount of time the Sixers were out of the playoffs (the Nuggets are 5 years in as well, though they at least just missed the playoffs this year).
Or maybe you'd rather be a franchise like the Hornets that has now gone 15 seasons without reaching the 2nd round of the playoffs and only had 3 1st round losses in that time. Does that seem like a winning strategy? The Pistons have 1 playoff appearance in the last 9 seasons and just 1 winning season in the last 10 seasons. Are they employing a winning strategy?
"Tanking" and "being bad for a long time" aren't the only options. A team with good ownership and good GM can put themselves into a great position without tanking.
Sure a team can get super lucky and find Kawhi Leonard at 15 (of course the Spurs tanked for Duncan - as did Boston which didn't exactly work out). Or a team can find a desperate team tired of losing that acquires past their prime players for unprotected draft picks (thank you Brooklyn - though Boston tried to tank in the Embiid draft also). Or a team can plod along in mediocrity for years (Hawks) or be good but not great (Raptors). Or a team can try to land free agents and fail and then claim they are just bad rather than tanking (Mavericks). Or a team can make a trade using future draft assets that actually pays dividends which then uses cap space and savvy trades to add to it (Rockets). Or a team can take advantage of a cap spike to add to an all world player to a team full of all world players drafted using mostly lottery picks (Warriors). Or a team can lure a home grown free agent home and then use its high draft picks to acquire other all star level players (Cavs).
There are a lots of ways to build a team. They all require luck, but some require far more luck than others. The best way to ensure future success is by acquiring all world talent, and the vast majority of all world talent is drafted in the top 5 picks (that doesn't mean you have to be the one drafting them, but that is where they mostly come from).
The reality is, the Sixers were in a bad spot when Hinkie took over. They had traded some of their own future draft picks, were a mid 30's win team without any franchise altering talent, and no real prospects to acquire said talent. There hasn't been a single person I've asked the following question to, that has come up with a better/faster way to get the Sixers to the point they are now, but maybe you can come up with one. So here it is:
You are Hinkie, you are hired to take over the Sixers following their 34-48 season in 2012-13 season. What do you do to make them the team they are today with an outlook as positive as they have?
1) Draft Steven Adams, Greek Freak or Rudy Gobert over MCW
2) Draft CJ McCollum over Nerlens Noel
3) Draft Porzingis, Myles Turner, Devin Booker or even Rozier over Okafor
So Hinkie could easily have had:
Ben Simmons, CJ McCollum, Devin Booker, Greek Freak, and Embiid
Still a genius?
they probably don't have Embiid and certainly don't have Simmons if you change the earlier draft picks. And no team gets it right 100% of the time in hind sight. I mean Ainge passed on Giannis also, and unlike Hinkie, Ainge didn't trade his "mistake" for a lottery pick.
-
I do think Hinkie was a genius at one aspect of tanking - being able to trade assets of any value for a much higher future value. He was exceptional at this. Danny is also a genius at this aspect (Brooklyn trade!).
I am quite confident that the Sixers today have a brighter future than they would have had they tried to grow without tanking. But the League absolutely should have stepped in years ago because what the Sixers did was detrimental to the league, league revenue, and other teams too. And for that, I hope the Sixers never have any meaningful success in the next 10-years.
-
Someone posted this article in CB http://www.celticshub.com/2018/04/09/misplacing-trust-process/ - it is one of the few that put things in the right perspective.
We can go on debating the value of picks all we want, but Bernandoni's article brings out another important aspect of strategic tanking that often goes unnoticed, namely that it can't be tolerated for long in a closed league like the NBA.
The part of Philly's tanking that was disturbing to other franchises wasn't so much their trades (although there is something to be said about trading Jrue Holiday for an injured Noel) nor drafting an injured Embiid - despite how absured it is now for the same franchise to claim Embiid's fragile health as an excuse.
Strategic tanking was a defense of egoism at its worse, abusing the letter of the law to get highly valued assets while ignoring your team's obligations to the league, as if Philadelphia itself wasn't part of the NBA and existed in a vaccuum. It was only a question of time for NBA to interfere and ask for Hinkie to be fired teaching them that egoism is a sword that cuts both ways.
the thing is Philly doesn't have the worst season ever, doesn't have the 2 worst consecutive seasons ever, doesn't have the 3 or 4 worst seasons ever either and only finished with the worst record in the league 1 time. This idea that Philly was the worst ever just isn't true. They were bad, but not record setting bad. They weren't the first team to openly tank and aren't the last team to openly tank. The league survives just fine.
What point are you trying to make? I don't see anyone who said the 76ers were the worst team ever. Per their record they were the 3rd worst team ever which was preceded by two seasons of under 20 wins. It may not be the worst 3 year stretch ever but it's close. The Dallas Mavs of 91-93 probably were worse as were one of Sterling's Clippers teams and maybe the expansion Grizzlies but it's tough to find many more cases of teams that were truly horrible. That they're not the "worst ever" isn't really an argument to make in favor of Hinkie. If that's your argument then you've lost the plot.
As I said before, Hinkie's entire game plan was hoping for luck. This doesn't take a genius to figure out nor did it take any imagination. It simply means you play those odds long enough for them to swing in your favor. I find it laughable that anyone thinks this is some sort of brilliant strategy.
would you rather be the Sixers or the Kings? Or maybe you prefer to be the Suns? Perhaps the Magic or Lakers? Maybe the Knicks are more your style?
Playing the odds isn't luck, it is in fact a strategy. Maybe if those 5 teams above were a bit smarter they wouldn't still be so bad and might have a brighter outlook. I mean the Kings haven't made the playoffs in 12 seasons, the Suns have now gone 8 seasons, the Magic are at 6 and counting. Even the Knicks and Lakers are now 5 years in without making the playoffs, which is the exact amount of time the Sixers were out of the playoffs (the Nuggets are 5 years in as well, though they at least just missed the playoffs this year).
Or maybe you'd rather be a franchise like the Hornets that has now gone 15 seasons without reaching the 2nd round of the playoffs and only had 3 1st round losses in that time. Does that seem like a winning strategy? The Pistons have 1 playoff appearance in the last 9 seasons and just 1 winning season in the last 10 seasons. Are they employing a winning strategy?
"Tanking" and "being bad for a long time" aren't the only options. A team with good ownership and good GM can put themselves into a great position without tanking.
Sure a team can get super lucky and find Kawhi Leonard at 15 (of course the Spurs tanked for Duncan - as did Boston which didn't exactly work out). Or a team can find a desperate team tired of losing that acquires past their prime players for unprotected draft picks (thank you Brooklyn - though Boston tried to tank in the Embiid draft also). Or a team can plod along in mediocrity for years (Hawks) or be good but not great (Raptors). Or a team can try to land free agents and fail and then claim they are just bad rather than tanking (Mavericks). Or a team can make a trade using future draft assets that actually pays dividends which then uses cap space and savvy trades to add to it (Rockets). Or a team can take advantage of a cap spike to add to an all world player to a team full of all world players drafted using mostly lottery picks (Warriors). Or a team can lure a home grown free agent home and then use its high draft picks to acquire other all star level players (Cavs).
There are a lots of ways to build a team. They all require luck, but some require far more luck than others. The best way to ensure future success is by acquiring all world talent, and the vast majority of all world talent is drafted in the top 5 picks (that doesn't mean you have to be the one drafting them, but that is where they mostly come from).
The reality is, the Sixers were in a bad spot when Hinkie took over. They had traded some of their own future draft picks, were a mid 30's win team without any franchise altering talent, and no real prospects to acquire said talent. There hasn't been a single person I've asked the following question to, that has come up with a better/faster way to get the Sixers to the point they are now, but maybe you can come up with one. So here it is:
You are Hinkie, you are hired to take over the Sixers following their 34-48 season in 2012-13 season. What do you do to make them the team they are today with an outlook as positive as they have?
1) Draft Steven Adams, Greek Freak or Rudy Gobert over MCW
2) Draft CJ McCollum over Nerlens Noel
3) Draft Porzingis, Myles Turner, Devin Booker or even Rozier over Okafor
So Hinkie could easily have had:
Ben Simmons, CJ McCollum, Devin Booker, Greek Freak, and Embiid
Still a genius?
i think a key point to keep in mind is the worth of the plan versus the ability of the plan's leader. these are not the same.
i understand the plan - super tank, get picks, trade away anyone remotely good for years to get picks, take on toxic salaries in exchange for more picks. the logic is there. but with the plan comes a hideous price. the nba itself is demeaned. the team sucks - really really sucks - for years.
the biggest flaw is that even if done correctly, the odds of creating a championship are small. i do believe it will create a credible, playoff level team, which is what the sixers are now. they are not a championship team and serious questions exist concerning each and every draft pick they still have. the process is anything BUT a sure thing.
but, is this the only, let alone, best way to go? is it worth paying this terrible price for a "okay floor, high but unlikely ceiling"? that is the question moranis poses above. after all, there are many ways to make a team good enough for the playoffs. teams do that each and every year.
we dont have many examples of the process since it is so toxic that the only gm to implement it was fired. not an incentive for anyone to want to repeat it.
next, the plan/process means nothing if the picks dont work out, if the team management are not good. a risky bet to say the least, as the sixers are demonstrating.
so, i can see the attraction of the process. but i think other teams demonstrate a less toxic way of acheiving credibility. as for championships? i dont see the process producing them yet.
but, we have a long time to go to pass final judgement on that.
The Sonics/Thunder tanked for a solid 2.5 seasons. Had they not had a terribly cheap owner, they would have most certainly won a title as a result of the tanking (I mean they made the Finals and then let Harden go over 4.5 million dollars spread over 4 seasons).
-
Those who are arguing against the Sixers 'strategy' aren't saying that it hasn't produced quality players and a team full of potential (you get enough top 5 picks you are bound to hit on some of them); they are simply making a point about how it was a dirty way to go about business. They lost other teams money and made a mockery of the lottery system which was already set in place to prevent blatant tanking.
It is about common decency and playing by the unspoken rules of basketball. Since this series began, a number of people in my life who aren't too familiar with the NBA have asked me about what exactly the 'process' is. When I explain it to them, they are immediately turned off and each of them have used the word, 'cheaters.'
The Sixers weren't innovative, they were just basically scoundrels. The best thing they did was make the trades for the LAL pick and SAC pick - those were actual sound NBA decisions. They don't deserve Lebron or Kawhi or whatever star falls in their lap. May the basketball gods come down hard on the Sixers for years to come...
Tp....great post...my sentiments exactly.....hopefully karma is that female dog for philly!
To underscore other teams getting hurt by it, I want to relay my Garden experiences for Philly games during that time.
First, it was great for me (and my family). As a father of four who were all at home at the time, my wife and I were able to take the kids to the Philly games without breaking the bank. A few times I was able to secure 6 tix from Stubhub for under $100, not great seats in the balcony admittedly, but because the place was never packed, we could always move down.
Crowds were definitely smaller and younger for Cs/Philly games at the time. Consequently vendors got hurt both inside and outside the Garden regarding both sales and tips.
Other, smaller franchises who don’t have the following that our Cs have got hurt as they didn’t sell out when Philly came to town, in addition to their vendors getting hurt.
Yeah, Philly played by the “rules”, but many resent(ed) them for it, And in my opinion rightfully so.
But if the Sixers were a 25 to 30 win team instead of a 10 to 20 win team, the arenas still would have been empty, and they would still be empty when the Sixers come to town now instead of the big draw they are. That is where that argument loses steam. I mean it isn't like Philly chose to be a dreg instead of a title contender, they chose to be a dreg instead of a tier slightly above dreg (think the Kings over the last decade). There was going to be almost no difference in the overall quality of the product from a drawing on the road standpoint. There is however now that they have landed real and quality stars.
-
Someone posted this article in CB http://www.celticshub.com/2018/04/09/misplacing-trust-process/ - it is one of the few that put things in the right perspective.
We can go on debating the value of picks all we want, but Bernandoni's article brings out another important aspect of strategic tanking that often goes unnoticed, namely that it can't be tolerated for long in a closed league like the NBA.
The part of Philly's tanking that was disturbing to other franchises wasn't so much their trades (although there is something to be said about trading Jrue Holiday for an injured Noel) nor drafting an injured Embiid - despite how absured it is now for the same franchise to claim Embiid's fragile health as an excuse.
Strategic tanking was a defense of egoism at its worse, abusing the letter of the law to get highly valued assets while ignoring your team's obligations to the league, as if Philadelphia itself wasn't part of the NBA and existed in a vaccuum. It was only a question of time for NBA to interfere and ask for Hinkie to be fired teaching them that egoism is a sword that cuts both ways.
the thing is Philly doesn't have the worst season ever, doesn't have the 2 worst consecutive seasons ever, doesn't have the 3 or 4 worst seasons ever either and only finished with the worst record in the league 1 time. This idea that Philly was the worst ever just isn't true. They were bad, but not record setting bad. They weren't the first team to openly tank and aren't the last team to openly tank. The league survives just fine.
What point are you trying to make? I don't see anyone who said the 76ers were the worst team ever. Per their record they were the 3rd worst team ever which was preceded by two seasons of under 20 wins. It may not be the worst 3 year stretch ever but it's close. The Dallas Mavs of 91-93 probably were worse as were one of Sterling's Clippers teams and maybe the expansion Grizzlies but it's tough to find many more cases of teams that were truly horrible. That they're not the "worst ever" isn't really an argument to make in favor of Hinkie. If that's your argument then you've lost the plot.
As I said before, Hinkie's entire game plan was hoping for luck. This doesn't take a genius to figure out nor did it take any imagination. It simply means you play those odds long enough for them to swing in your favor. I find it laughable that anyone thinks this is some sort of brilliant strategy.
would you rather be the Sixers or the Kings? Or maybe you prefer to be the Suns? Perhaps the Magic or Lakers? Maybe the Knicks are more your style?
Playing the odds isn't luck, it is in fact a strategy. Maybe if those 5 teams above were a bit smarter they wouldn't still be so bad and might have a brighter outlook. I mean the Kings haven't made the playoffs in 12 seasons, the Suns have now gone 8 seasons, the Magic are at 6 and counting. Even the Knicks and Lakers are now 5 years in without making the playoffs, which is the exact amount of time the Sixers were out of the playoffs (the Nuggets are 5 years in as well, though they at least just missed the playoffs this year).
Or maybe you'd rather be a franchise like the Hornets that has now gone 15 seasons without reaching the 2nd round of the playoffs and only had 3 1st round losses in that time. Does that seem like a winning strategy? The Pistons have 1 playoff appearance in the last 9 seasons and just 1 winning season in the last 10 seasons. Are they employing a winning strategy?
"Tanking" and "being bad for a long time" aren't the only options. A team with good ownership and good GM can put themselves into a great position without tanking.
Sure a team can get super lucky and find Kawhi Leonard at 15 (of course the Spurs tanked for Duncan - as did Boston which didn't exactly work out). Or a team can find a desperate team tired of losing that acquires past their prime players for unprotected draft picks (thank you Brooklyn - though Boston tried to tank in the Embiid draft also). Or a team can plod along in mediocrity for years (Hawks) or be good but not great (Raptors). Or a team can try to land free agents and fail and then claim they are just bad rather than tanking (Mavericks). Or a team can make a trade using future draft assets that actually pays dividends which then uses cap space and savvy trades to add to it (Rockets). Or a team can take advantage of a cap spike to add to an all world player to a team full of all world players drafted using mostly lottery picks (Warriors). Or a team can lure a home grown free agent home and then use its high draft picks to acquire other all star level players (Cavs).
There are a lots of ways to build a team. They all require luck, but some require far more luck than others. The best way to ensure future success is by acquiring all world talent, and the vast majority of all world talent is drafted in the top 5 picks (that doesn't mean you have to be the one drafting them, but that is where they mostly come from).
The reality is, the Sixers were in a bad spot when Hinkie took over. They had traded some of their own future draft picks, were a mid 30's win team without any franchise altering talent, and no real prospects to acquire said talent. There hasn't been a single person I've asked the following question to, that has come up with a better/faster way to get the Sixers to the point they are now, but maybe you can come up with one. So here it is:
You are Hinkie, you are hired to take over the Sixers following their 34-48 season in 2012-13 season. What do you do to make them the team they are today with an outlook as positive as they have?
1) Draft Steven Adams, Greek Freak or Rudy Gobert over MCW
2) Draft CJ McCollum over Nerlens Noel
3) Draft Porzingis, Myles Turner, Devin Booker or even Rozier over Okafor
So Hinkie could easily have had:
Ben Simmons, CJ McCollum, Devin Booker, Greek Freak, and Embiid
Still a genius?
i think a key point to keep in mind is the worth of the plan versus the ability of the plan's leader. these are not the same.
i understand the plan - super tank, get picks, trade away anyone remotely good for years to get picks, take on toxic salaries in exchange for more picks. the logic is there. but with the plan comes a hideous price. the nba itself is demeaned. the team sucks - really really sucks - for years.
the biggest flaw is that even if done correctly, the odds of creating a championship are small. i do believe it will create a credible, playoff level team, which is what the sixers are now. they are not a championship team and serious questions exist concerning each and every draft pick they still have. the process is anything BUT a sure thing.
but, is this the only, let alone, best way to go? is it worth paying this terrible price for a "okay floor, high but unlikely ceiling"? that is the question moranis poses above. after all, there are many ways to make a team good enough for the playoffs. teams do that each and every year.
we dont have many examples of the process since it is so toxic that the only gm to implement it was fired. not an incentive for anyone to want to repeat it.
next, the plan/process means nothing if the picks dont work out, if the team management are not good. a risky bet to say the least, as the sixers are demonstrating.
so, i can see the attraction of the process. but i think other teams demonstrate a less toxic way of acheiving credibility. as for championships? i dont see the process producing them yet.
but, we have a long time to go to pass final judgement on that.
The Sonics/Thunder tanked for a solid 2.5 seasons. Had they not had a terribly cheap owner, they would have most certainly won a title as a result of the tanking (I mean they made the Finals and then let Harden go over 4.5 million dollars spread over 4 seasons).
Thunder are the only team I’ve seen make literally the best pick possible for 3-4 years in a row. They drafted 3 MVPs. We’re gonna have to see Embiid or Simmons make at least 1st team all NBA because we make this comparison. A lot more silly of a comparison than Philly and Utah this year.
-
Hinkie may be a smart guy, but extreme tanking for #1 picks isn't exactly rocket science. He got Simmons and Embiid basically as planned, minus all the injuries. The question is can they turn those two guys & change into a real contender?
If they can attract another star, a better coach and get some experience, maybe. But they've only really accomplished step #1: get two #1 overall guys on your squad at once. That puts them a couple steps behind teams like Golden State or Houston that have multiple stars *and* everything else, or Boston that's stacked top to bottom as an organization. And that still assumes improvement, because Simmons and Embiid as talented as they are, are not on the level of a Harden, Durant, Curry, LeBron etc that know how to win games.
-
It'll be interesting to see how they do as a FA draw this summer. Losing to us in 4-5 games certainly won't help the case.
-
It'll be interesting to see how they do as a FA draw this summer. Losing to us in 4-5 games certainly won't help the case.
I don't think it'll hurt much either. All it takes is convincing one guy that he's the missing piece to put them over the top. Philly is certainly on the rise and a high profile team.
I don't think drawing FAs will be an issue.
-
It'll be interesting to see how they do as a FA draw this summer. Losing to us in 4-5 games certainly won't help the case.
I don't think it'll hurt much either. All it takes is convincing one guy that he's the missing piece to put them over the top. Philly is certainly on the rise and a high profile team.
I don't think drawing FAs will be an issue.
I am more interested to see if they swing a trade for someone like Leonard, or just decide to run it back (assuming they don't land James) and try for Klay Thompson the following summer. With the Colangelos running the show I can totally see the Sixers wasting their cap space on mid-tier players this summer and blow a shot at Klay.
-
It'll be interesting to see how they do as a FA draw this summer. Losing to us in 4-5 games certainly won't help the case.
I don't think it'll hurt much either. All it takes is convincing one guy that he's the missing piece to put them over the top. Philly is certainly on the rise and a high profile team.
I don't think drawing FAs will be an issue.
I am more interested to see if they swing a trade for someone like Leonard, or just decide to run it back (assuming they don't land James) and try for Klay Thompson the following summer. With the Colangelos running the show I can totally see the Sixers wasting their cap space on mid-tier players this summer and blow a shot at Klay.
They need to decide what to do with Reddick. He fits, for sure. But he will want what, $3/60?
-
It'll be interesting to see how they do as a FA draw this summer. Losing to us in 4-5 games certainly won't help the case.
I don't think it'll hurt much either. All it takes is convincing one guy that he's the missing piece to put them over the top. Philly is certainly on the rise and a high profile team.
I don't think drawing FAs will be an issue.
I am more interested to see if they swing a trade for someone like Leonard, or just decide to run it back (assuming they don't land James) and try for Klay Thompson the following summer. With the Colangelos running the show I can totally see the Sixers wasting their cap space on mid-tier players this summer and blow a shot at Klay.
They need to decide what to do with Reddick. He fits, for sure. But he will want what, $3/60?
I doubt it. The Sixers overpaid to get him to come mentor the young'uns for a year. He knows that. I doubt his next contract will be $20 mil a year.
-
They have 2 picks this year if we don't get 1 and a ton of seconds to help them move up,
Fultz will be a good player. They should have a good playoff run. We need to get us a big to go them.
-
Fultz will be a good player
I'll take this bet.
-
Why did this guy “step down,” again? I vaguely recall him being fired, but it looks like he just stepped down. Says a lot about his genius ideas that he vacated his position...
Short version is that the rest of the league was getting pretty irritated that Philly was exploiting the lotto. Also important, NBA agents and the players union were getting irritated that Philly wasn't giving vets contracts and instead was just staying near the cap floor and bringing up d-leaguers. The media was in an uproar about it as well. So the Colangelos were brought in - some say the league forced Philly's hand. Hinkie stayed on initially, but eventually stepped down when it was clear he was going to have to share power.
Nothing really changed, though. They finished out their tank job that year. They didn't make any veteran signings. They didn't trade for any quality role players. They kept with Hinkie's plan. Basically Hinkie was the scapegoat that allowed them to say "things are different now!" when really they weren't.
Yeah, it's not like they signed JJ Redick for 1 year, $23 million.
Oh wait...
You misunderstood what I was saying.
When Hinkie stepped down, nothing changed. They didn't make any veteran signings (other than bring in Elton Brand which was basically just a publicity stunt). They still tanked. Even the year after once they realized Simmons was hurt, they didn't really try to put together a competitive team. That was what Hinkie would have done... maximize the chance of getting a good pick.
This year once they realized Embiid and Simmons were healthy, they finally opened up the pocketbooks and signed guys like Amir and Redick. That was always going to happen. I literally said three years ago that Philly would have no trouble signing the Amir Johnsons of the world once they were ready. The loose "plan" was to put themselves into position to a foundation talent (or two) and then fill out the roster. They did exactly that. A rare instance where a 5 year re-build actually works out. It's been less than 5 years since Hinkie was hired and Philly has gone from an irrelevant non-factor to one of the most talented teams in the East with cap space to spare.
-
Why did this guy “step down,” again? I vaguely recall him being fired, but it looks like he just stepped down. Says a lot about his genius ideas that he vacated his position...
Short version is that the rest of the league was getting pretty irritated that Philly was exploiting the lotto. Also important, NBA agents and the players union were getting irritated that Philly wasn't giving vets contracts and instead was just staying near the cap floor and bringing up d-leaguers. The media was in an uproar about it as well. So the Colangelos were brought in - some say the league forced Philly's hand. Hinkie stayed on initially, but eventually stepped down when it was clear he was going to have to share power.
Nothing really changed, though. They finished out their tank job that year. They didn't make any veteran signings. They didn't trade for any quality role players. They kept with Hinkie's plan. Basically Hinkie was the scapegoat that allowed them to say "things are different now!" when really they weren't.
Yeah, it's not like they signed JJ Redick for 1 year, $23 million.
Oh wait...
You misunderstood what I was saying.
When Hinkie stepped down, nothing changed. They didn't make any veteran signings (other than bring in Elton Brand which was basically just a publicity stunt). They still tanked. Even the year after once they realized Simmons was hurt, they didn't really try to put together a competitive team. That was what Hinkie would have done... maximize the chance of getting a good pick.
This year once they realized Embiid and Simmons were healthy, they finally opened up the pocketbooks and signed guys like Amir and Redick. That was always going to happen. I literally said three years ago that Philly would have no trouble signing the Amir Johnsons of the world once they were ready. The loose "plan" was to put themselves into position to a foundation talent (or two) and then fill out the roster. They did exactly that. A rare instance where a 5 year re-build actually works out. It's been less than 5 years since Hinkie was hired and Philly has gone from an irrelevant non-factor to one of the most talented teams in the East with cap space to spare.
You said "Nothing really changed, though". That's why I told you that things have changed. If you meant to say to things didn't change until last offseason, you should have said that. Then I would know what you're trying to articulate.
-
Not a genius. Not 100% right.
He made a lot of good moves and some bad ones. PO'd a lot of people though, especially agents.
-
Why did this guy “step down,” again? I vaguely recall him being fired, but it looks like he just stepped down. Says a lot about his genius ideas that he vacated his position...
Short version is that the rest of the league was getting pretty irritated that Philly was exploiting the lotto. Also important, NBA agents and the players union were getting irritated that Philly wasn't giving vets contracts and instead was just staying near the cap floor and bringing up d-leaguers. The media was in an uproar about it as well. So the Colangelos were brought in - some say the league forced Philly's hand. Hinkie stayed on initially, but eventually stepped down when it was clear he was going to have to share power.
Nothing really changed, though. They finished out their tank job that year. They didn't make any veteran signings. They didn't trade for any quality role players. They kept with Hinkie's plan. Basically Hinkie was the scapegoat that allowed them to say "things are different now!" when really they weren't.
Yeah, it's not like they signed JJ Redick for 1 year, $23 million.
Oh wait...
You misunderstood what I was saying.
When Hinkie stepped down, nothing changed. They didn't make any veteran signings (other than bring in Elton Brand which was basically just a publicity stunt). They still tanked. Even the year after once they realized Simmons was hurt, they didn't really try to put together a competitive team. That was what Hinkie would have done... maximize the chance of getting a good pick.
This year once they realized Embiid and Simmons were healthy, they finally opened up the pocketbooks and signed guys like Amir and Redick. That was always going to happen. I literally said three years ago that Philly would have no trouble signing the Amir Johnsons of the world once they were ready. The loose "plan" was to put themselves into position to a foundation talent (or two) and then fill out the roster. They did exactly that. A rare instance where a 5 year re-build actually works out. It's been less than 5 years since Hinkie was hired and Philly has gone from an irrelevant non-factor to one of the most talented teams in the East with cap space to spare.
You said "Nothing really changed, though". That's why I told you that things have changed. If you meant to say to things didn't change until last offseason, you should have said that. Then I would know what you're trying to articulate.
Nothing changed with the plan. I was specifically referring to the season Hinkie stepped down. People expected some immediate change now that Hinkie had been vanquished, but he was just a fallguy that allowed Philly to keep chugging along with the plan while taking less heat from the naysayers.
Hinkie wouldn't have perpetually tanked. At some point he was going to fill out the rosters with the Amir Johnsons of the world. I told people that in 2016.
But in the short-term it made the most sense to tank. I'm specifically talking about when Hinkie stepped down in April 6th 2016.
That very same day I had the following to say on Celticsblog:
The other thing, like you say, is that the process was never a guarantee to land the next Lebron James. Having skimmed hinkies letter it's clear he's aware of this. He said at best an elite prospect has a 10% chance of ending up a superstar. But you miss every shot you don't take. The team was dedicated to the idea that you need a superstar to contend in this league (fact) and they needed to do everything possible to maximize their chances at getting one. So for 3 years they avoided doing anything (like sign the Amir johnsons and Brandon basses of the world) to maximize their chance of getting stars via the draft. They decided free agency wasn't a viable option for them (at the time they were over the cap) and they didn't have the assets to trade for one.
Now, when the dust settles on this, one of their 6+ seeds might actually end up growing into a superstar. Beyond that they now have 80 mil in cap space so they can at least go after big name free agents... Lastly, they can probably add about 15-20 wins just by opening their pockets for some veteran role players. Even if the Durants of the world are unlikely, I guarantee you the Amir johnsons and Brandon basses of the world will be happy to take Philly's money when offered.
They are in great position for a quick turnaround. Some folks just don't get it. Tunnel vision prevents some fans from seeing the possibilities there.
When Hinkie stepped down there was all sorts of celebration about how the league was forcing Philly to stop tanking. That they'd trade their assets for decent players. That they'd sign a bunch of veterans immediately and go all-in on winning. I knew that was ridiculous. They finished out the tank job that season and landed Ben Simmons. They didn't make any additions that following Summer that would take them out of the bottom 5. They actually went for one more bonus tank job.
Then, sure enough just as I guaranteed, as soon as they saw Embiid and Simmons were going to be healthy, they literally signed Amir Johnson on July 2017. Just as I promised, vets were more than willing to take PHilly's money - and JJ Reddick took 23 million that same month.
The point I was making was that the general plan that Hinkie laid out (and I explained the day he stepped down) didn't really change.
-
Why did this guy “step down,” again? I vaguely recall him being fired, but it looks like he just stepped down. Says a lot about his genius ideas that he vacated his position...
Short version is that the rest of the league was getting pretty irritated that Philly was exploiting the lotto. Also important, NBA agents and the players union were getting irritated that Philly wasn't giving vets contracts and instead was just staying near the cap floor and bringing up d-leaguers. The media was in an uproar about it as well. So the Colangelos were brought in - some say the league forced Philly's hand. Hinkie stayed on initially, but eventually stepped down when it was clear he was going to have to share power.
Nothing really changed, though. They finished out their tank job that year. They didn't make any veteran signings. They didn't trade for any quality role players. They kept with Hinkie's plan. Basically Hinkie was the scapegoat that allowed them to say "things are different now!" when really they weren't.
Yeah, it's not like they signed JJ Redick for 1 year, $23 million.
Oh wait...
You misunderstood what I was saying.
When Hinkie stepped down, nothing changed. They didn't make any veteran signings (other than bring in Elton Brand which was basically just a publicity stunt). They still tanked. Even the year after once they realized Simmons was hurt, they didn't really try to put together a competitive team. That was what Hinkie would have done... maximize the chance of getting a good pick.
This year once they realized Embiid and Simmons were healthy, they finally opened up the pocketbooks and signed guys like Amir and Redick. That was always going to happen. I literally said three years ago that Philly would have no trouble signing the Amir Johnsons of the world once they were ready. The loose "plan" was to put themselves into position to a foundation talent (or two) and then fill out the roster. They did exactly that. A rare instance where a 5 year re-build actually works out. It's been less than 5 years since Hinkie was hired and Philly has gone from an irrelevant non-factor to one of the most talented teams in the East with cap space to spare.
You said "Nothing really changed, though". That's why I told you that things have changed. If you meant to say to things didn't change until last offseason, you should have said that. Then I would know what you're trying to articulate.
Nothing changed with the plan. I was specifically referring to the season Hinkie stepped down. People expected some immediate change now that Hinkie had been vanquished, but he was just a fallguy that allowed Philly to keep chugging along with the plan while taking less heat from the naysayers.
Hinkie wouldn't have perpetually tanked. At some point he was going to fill out the rosters with the Amir Johnsons of the world. I told people that in 2016.
But in the short-term it made the most sense to tank. I'm specifically talking about when Hinkie stepped down in April 6th 2016.
That very same day I had the following to say on Celticsblog:
The other thing, like you say, is that the process was never a guarantee to land the next Lebron James. Having skimmed hinkies letter it's clear he's aware of this. He said at best an elite prospect has a 10% chance of ending up a superstar. But you miss every shot you don't take. The team was dedicated to the idea that you need a superstar to contend in this league (fact) and they needed to do everything possible to maximize their chances at getting one. So for 3 years they avoided doing anything (like sign the Amir johnsons and Brandon basses of the world) to maximize their chance of getting stars via the draft. They decided free agency wasn't a viable option for them (at the time they were over the cap) and they didn't have the assets to trade for one.
Now, when the dust settles on this, one of their 6+ seeds might actually end up growing into a superstar. Beyond that they now have 80 mil in cap space so they can at least go after big name free agents... Lastly, they can probably add about 15-20 wins just by opening their pockets for some veteran role players. Even if the Durants of the world are unlikely, I guarantee you the Amir johnsons and Brandon basses of the world will be happy to take Philly's money when offered.
They are in great position for a quick turnaround. Some folks just don't get it. Tunnel vision prevents some fans from seeing the possibilities there.
When Hinkie stepped down there was all sorts of celebration about how the league was forcing Philly to stop tanking. That they'd trade their assets for decent players. That they'd sign a bunch of veterans immediately and go all-in on winning. I knew that was ridiculous. They finished out the tank job that season and landed Ben Simmons. They didn't make any additions that following Summer that would take them out of the bottom 5. They actually went for one more bonus tank job.
Then, sure enough just as I guaranteed, as soon as they saw Embiid and Simmons were going to be healthy, they literally signed Amir Johnson on July 2017. Just as I promised, vets were more than willing to take PHilly's money - and JJ Reddick took 23 million that same month.
The point I was making was that the general plan that Hinkie laid out (and I explained the day he stepped down) didn't really change.
I understand what you were trying to say now. You just need to articulate yourself better. I can only read what you're writing, not what you're thinking. So when you make a statement like, "nothing really changed, though", I'm going to assume you think nothing changed.
-
Why did this guy “step down,” again? I vaguely recall him being fired, but it looks like he just stepped down. Says a lot about his genius ideas that he vacated his position...
Short version is that the rest of the league was getting pretty irritated that Philly was exploiting the lotto. Also important, NBA agents and the players union were getting irritated that Philly wasn't giving vets contracts and instead was just staying near the cap floor and bringing up d-leaguers. The media was in an uproar about it as well. So the Colangelos were brought in - some say the league forced Philly's hand. Hinkie stayed on initially, but eventually stepped down when it was clear he was going to have to share power.
Nothing really changed, though. They finished out their tank job that year. They didn't make any veteran signings. They didn't trade for any quality role players. They kept with Hinkie's plan. Basically Hinkie was the scapegoat that allowed them to say "things are different now!" when really they weren't.
Yeah, it's not like they signed JJ Redick for 1 year, $23 million.
Oh wait...
You misunderstood what I was saying.
When Hinkie stepped down, nothing changed. They didn't make any veteran signings (other than bring in Elton Brand which was basically just a publicity stunt). They still tanked. Even the year after once they realized Simmons was hurt, they didn't really try to put together a competitive team. That was what Hinkie would have done... maximize the chance of getting a good pick.
This year once they realized Embiid and Simmons were healthy, they finally opened up the pocketbooks and signed guys like Amir and Redick. That was always going to happen. I literally said three years ago that Philly would have no trouble signing the Amir Johnsons of the world once they were ready. The loose "plan" was to put themselves into position to a foundation talent (or two) and then fill out the roster. They did exactly that. A rare instance where a 5 year re-build actually works out. It's been less than 5 years since Hinkie was hired and Philly has gone from an irrelevant non-factor to one of the most talented teams in the East with cap space to spare.
You said "Nothing really changed, though". That's why I told you that things have changed. If you meant to say to things didn't change until last offseason, you should have said that. Then I would know what you're trying to articulate.
Nothing changed with the plan. I was specifically referring to the season Hinkie stepped down. People expected some immediate change now that Hinkie had been vanquished, but he was just a fallguy that allowed Philly to keep chugging along with the plan while taking less heat from the naysayers.
Hinkie wouldn't have perpetually tanked. At some point he was going to fill out the rosters with the Amir Johnsons of the world. I told people that in 2016.
But in the short-term it made the most sense to tank. I'm specifically talking about when Hinkie stepped down in April 6th 2016.
That very same day I had the following to say on Celticsblog:
The other thing, like you say, is that the process was never a guarantee to land the next Lebron James. Having skimmed hinkies letter it's clear he's aware of this. He said at best an elite prospect has a 10% chance of ending up a superstar. But you miss every shot you don't take. The team was dedicated to the idea that you need a superstar to contend in this league (fact) and they needed to do everything possible to maximize their chances at getting one. So for 3 years they avoided doing anything (like sign the Amir johnsons and Brandon basses of the world) to maximize their chance of getting stars via the draft. They decided free agency wasn't a viable option for them (at the time they were over the cap) and they didn't have the assets to trade for one.
Now, when the dust settles on this, one of their 6+ seeds might actually end up growing into a superstar. Beyond that they now have 80 mil in cap space so they can at least go after big name free agents... Lastly, they can probably add about 15-20 wins just by opening their pockets for some veteran role players. Even if the Durants of the world are unlikely, I guarantee you the Amir johnsons and Brandon basses of the world will be happy to take Philly's money when offered.
They are in great position for a quick turnaround. Some folks just don't get it. Tunnel vision prevents some fans from seeing the possibilities there.
When Hinkie stepped down there was all sorts of celebration about how the league was forcing Philly to stop tanking. That they'd trade their assets for decent players. That they'd sign a bunch of veterans immediately and go all-in on winning. I knew that was ridiculous. They finished out the tank job that season and landed Ben Simmons. They didn't make any additions that following Summer that would take them out of the bottom 5. They actually went for one more bonus tank job.
Then, sure enough just as I guaranteed, as soon as they saw Embiid and Simmons were going to be healthy, they literally signed Amir Johnson on July 2017. Just as I promised, vets were more than willing to take PHilly's money - and JJ Reddick took 23 million that same month.
The point I was making was that the general plan that Hinkie laid out (and I explained the day he stepped down) didn't really change.
I understand what you were trying to say now. You just need to articulate yourself better. I can only read what you're writing, not what you're thinking. So when you make a statement like, "nothing really changed, though", I'm going to assume you think nothing changed.
it was pretty clear whay he meant
-
Someone posted this article in CB http://www.celticshub.com/2018/04/09/misplacing-trust-process/ - it is one of the few that put things in the right perspective.
We can go on debating the value of picks all we want, but Bernandoni's article brings out another important aspect of strategic tanking that often goes unnoticed, namely that it can't be tolerated for long in a closed league like the NBA.
The part of Philly's tanking that was disturbing to other franchises wasn't so much their trades (although there is something to be said about trading Jrue Holiday for an injured Noel) nor drafting an injured Embiid - despite how absured it is now for the same franchise to claim Embiid's fragile health as an excuse.
Strategic tanking was a defense of egoism at its worse, abusing the letter of the law to get highly valued assets while ignoring your team's obligations to the league, as if Philadelphia itself wasn't part of the NBA and existed in a vaccuum. It was only a question of time for NBA to interfere and ask for Hinkie to be fired teaching them that egoism is a sword that cuts both ways.
the thing is Philly doesn't have the worst season ever, doesn't have the 2 worst consecutive seasons ever, doesn't have the 3 or 4 worst seasons ever either and only finished with the worst record in the league 1 time. This idea that Philly was the worst ever just isn't true. They were bad, but not record setting bad. They weren't the first team to openly tank and aren't the last team to openly tank. The league survives just fine.
What point are you trying to make? I don't see anyone who said the 76ers were the worst team ever. Per their record they were the 3rd worst team ever which was preceded by two seasons of under 20 wins. It may not be the worst 3 year stretch ever but it's close. The Dallas Mavs of 91-93 probably were worse as were one of Sterling's Clippers teams and maybe the expansion Grizzlies but it's tough to find many more cases of teams that were truly horrible. That they're not the "worst ever" isn't really an argument to make in favor of Hinkie. If that's your argument then you've lost the plot.
As I said before, Hinkie's entire game plan was hoping for luck. This doesn't take a genius to figure out nor did it take any imagination. It simply means you play those odds long enough for them to swing in your favor. I find it laughable that anyone thinks this is some sort of brilliant strategy.
would you rather be the Sixers or the Kings? Or maybe you prefer to be the Suns? Perhaps the Magic or Lakers? Maybe the Knicks are more your style?
Playing the odds isn't luck, it is in fact a strategy. Maybe if those 5 teams above were a bit smarter they wouldn't still be so bad and might have a brighter outlook. I mean the Kings haven't made the playoffs in 12 seasons, the Suns have now gone 8 seasons, the Magic are at 6 and counting. Even the Knicks and Lakers are now 5 years in without making the playoffs, which is the exact amount of time the Sixers were out of the playoffs (the Nuggets are 5 years in as well, though they at least just missed the playoffs this year).
Or maybe you'd rather be a franchise like the Hornets that has now gone 15 seasons without reaching the 2nd round of the playoffs and only had 3 1st round losses in that time. Does that seem like a winning strategy? The Pistons have 1 playoff appearance in the last 9 seasons and just 1 winning season in the last 10 seasons. Are they employing a winning strategy?
Id rather be the Celtics.
-
http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/23435394/philadelphia-76ers-future-bright-was-process-worth-nba
-
I really hope Moranis doesn't still think Saric would average 20, 9, and 5.
Of course I do, one series shouldn't change anyone's opinion on a player. I absolutely believe that if Saric was given more opportunities he could absolutely be a 20/9/5 type player. The assists would be the most problematic one of those 3 as he is not a great playmaker, but he still has that type of talent.
-
I really hope Moranis doesn't still think Saric would average 20, 9, and 5.
Of course I do, one series shouldn't change anyone's opinion on a player. I absolutely believe that if Saric was given more opportunities he could absolutely be a 20/9/5 type player. The assists would be the most problematic one of those 3 as he is not a great playmaker, but he still has that type of talent.
Jeez. Super strong disagree
-
I really hope Moranis doesn't still think Saric would average 20, 9, and 5.
Of course I do, one series shouldn't change anyone's opinion on a player. I absolutely believe that if Saric was given more opportunities he could absolutely be a 20/9/5 type player. The assists would be the most problematic one of those 3 as he is not a great playmaker, but he still has that type of talent.
I agree that Saric is a special player. I'd love to have him in green. He's smart, crafty, and competitive.
I'm not sure he is gifted enough to be a 20 point scorer on a good team, especially in the playoffs. I know he had 24 last night, but it seems like he'd be a better fit as a 4th option getting 15 points a game and spotting up.
15-8-5 on a playoff team is very doable.
-
I really hope Moranis doesn't still think Saric would average 20, 9, and 5.
Of course I do, one series shouldn't change anyone's opinion on a player. I absolutely believe that if Saric was given more opportunities he could absolutely be a 20/9/5 type player. The assists would be the most problematic one of those 3 as he is not a great playmaker, but he still has that type of talent.
Jeez. Super strong disagree
he basically averaged 18/8/3.5 against the C's. He did that while being 5th on the Sixers in USG and he was actually ahead of Redick (who had more shots then him). He shoots well from basically everywhere on the floor, doesn't turn it over, and was much more aggressive defensively (getting over a steal a game against the C's). He just turned 24 (so is a bit older), but is in just his 2nd year coming over from a foreign country, and improved a great deal from his rookie year to year 2, so he should continue to improve.
Saric isn't a very athletic player, but I absolutely could see him as a Kevin Love type player, but with a bit less rebounding and a bit more passing, in the right role and the right situation.
-
Thrilled we beat them. Probably not the last of that rivalry. It will be interesting to see how this series might look heading forward if we get fully healthy and they sign some stars.
-
I really hope Moranis doesn't still think Saric would average 20, 9, and 5.
Of course I do, one series shouldn't change anyone's opinion on a player. I absolutely believe that if Saric was given more opportunities he could absolutely be a 20/9/5 type player. The assists would be the most problematic one of those 3 as he is not a great playmaker, but he still has that type of talent.
Jeez. Super strong disagree
he basically averaged 18/8/3.5 against the C's. He did that while being 5th on the Sixers in USG and he was actually ahead of Redick (who had more shots then him). He shoots well from basically everywhere on the floor, doesn't turn it over, and was much more aggressive defensively (getting over a steal a game against the C's). He just turned 24 (so is a bit older), but is in just his 2nd year coming over from a foreign country, and improved a great deal from his rookie year to year 2, so he should continue to improve.
Saric isn't a very athletic player, but I absolutely could see him as a Kevin Love type player, but with a bit less rebounding and a bit more passing, in the right role and the right situation.
This is just such a wild take, and at odds what the consensus is among 76ers fans (who want him off the bench as their team improves). The fact tht you can watch that series and the lack of athleticism he has and think that he will put up numbers that only 2 others guys in the league did actually lowers my opinion of your basketball knowledge. Know when to back down and admit you got ahead of yourself...
-
I really hope Moranis doesn't still think Saric would average 20, 9, and 5.
Of course I do, one series shouldn't change anyone's opinion on a player. I absolutely believe that if Saric was given more opportunities he could absolutely be a 20/9/5 type player. The assists would be the most problematic one of those 3 as he is not a great playmaker, but he still has that type of talent.
Jeez. Super strong disagree
Yeah to reiterate the only guys that put up the numbers moranis proposed in the entire league were cousins and Westbrook. Woof
-
I really hope Moranis doesn't still think Saric would average 20, 9, and 5.
Of course I do, one series shouldn't change anyone's opinion on a player. I absolutely believe that if Saric was given more opportunities he could absolutely be a 20/9/5 type player. The assists would be the most problematic one of those 3 as he is not a great playmaker, but he still has that type of talent.
Jeez. Super strong disagree
he basically averaged 18/8/3.5 against the C's. He did that while being 5th on the Sixers in USG and he was actually ahead of Redick (who had more shots then him). He shoots well from basically everywhere on the floor, doesn't turn it over, and was much more aggressive defensively (getting over a steal a game against the C's). He just turned 24 (so is a bit older), but is in just his 2nd year coming over from a foreign country, and improved a great deal from his rookie year to year 2, so he should continue to improve.
Saric isn't a very athletic player, but I absolutely could see him as a Kevin Love type player, but with a bit less rebounding and a bit more passing, in the right role and the right situation.
This is just such a wild take, and at odds what the consensus is among 76ers fans (who want him off the bench as their team improves). The fact tht you can watch that series and the lack of athleticism he has and think that he will put up numbers that only 2 others guys in the league did actually lowers my opinion of your basketball knowledge. Know when to back down and admit you got ahead of yourself...
I doubted Moranis on this, but watching Saric the last couple of games, he is a very good player, who we really have trouble matching up against. He reminds me of Tristan Thompson with 3 point range, the way he grabs offensive boards. I completely discounted him going into the series, but have become a believer in his game.
-
I really hope Moranis doesn't still think Saric would average 20, 9, and 5.
Of course I do, one series shouldn't change anyone's opinion on a player. I absolutely believe that if Saric was given more opportunities he could absolutely be a 20/9/5 type player. The assists would be the most problematic one of those 3 as he is not a great playmaker, but he still has that type of talent.
Jeez. Super strong disagree
Yeah to reiterate the only guys that put up the numbers moranis proposed in the entire league were cousins and Westbrook. Woof
Lol, that would be quite a remarkable jump.
I really hope Moranis doesn't still think Saric would average 20, 9, and 5.
Of course I do, one series shouldn't change anyone's opinion on a player. I absolutely believe that if Saric was given more opportunities he could absolutely be a 20/9/5 type player. The assists would be the most problematic one of those 3 as he is not a great playmaker, but he still has that type of talent.
Jeez. Super strong disagree
he basically averaged 18/8/3.5 against the C's. He did that while being 5th on the Sixers in USG and he was actually ahead of Redick (who had more shots then him). He shoots well from basically everywhere on the floor, doesn't turn it over, and was much more aggressive defensively (getting over a steal a game against the C's). He just turned 24 (so is a bit older), but is in just his 2nd year coming over from a foreign country, and improved a great deal from his rookie year to year 2, so he should continue to improve.
Saric isn't a very athletic player, but I absolutely could see him as a Kevin Love type player, but with a bit less rebounding and a bit more passing, in the right role and the right situation.
This is just such a wild take, and at odds what the consensus is among 76ers fans (who want him off the bench as their team improves). The fact tht you can watch that series and the lack of athleticism he has and think that he will put up numbers that only 2 others guys in the league did actually lowers my opinion of your basketball knowledge. Know when to back down and admit you got ahead of yourself...
I doubted Moranis on this, but watching Saric the last couple of games, he is a very good player, who we really have trouble matching up against. He reminds me of Tristan Thompson with 3 point range, the way he grabs offensive boards. I completely discounted him going into the series, but have become a believer in his game.
The problem is he doesn't grab offensive rebounds like that against most teams. His ORB% is worse than Aron Baynes and Daniel Theis. That's just from Boston. He is nowhere near a 20/9/5 guy, that's insane.
-
I really hope Moranis doesn't still think Saric would average 20, 9, and 5.
Of course I do, one series shouldn't change anyone's opinion on a player. I absolutely believe that if Saric was given more opportunities he could absolutely be a 20/9/5 type player. The assists would be the most problematic one of those 3 as he is not a great playmaker, but he still has that type of talent.
Jeez. Super strong disagree
he basically averaged 18/8/3.5 against the C's. He did that while being 5th on the Sixers in USG and he was actually ahead of Redick (who had more shots then him). He shoots well from basically everywhere on the floor, doesn't turn it over, and was much more aggressive defensively (getting over a steal a game against the C's). He just turned 24 (so is a bit older), but is in just his 2nd year coming over from a foreign country, and improved a great deal from his rookie year to year 2, so he should continue to improve.
Saric isn't a very athletic player, but I absolutely could see him as a Kevin Love type player, but with a bit less rebounding and a bit more passing, in the right role and the right situation.
This is just such a wild take, and at odds what the consensus is among 76ers fans (who want him off the bench as their team improves). The fact tht you can watch that series and the lack of athleticism he has and think that he will put up numbers that only 2 others guys in the league did actually lowers my opinion of your basketball knowledge. Know when to back down and admit you got ahead of yourself...
I doubted Moranis on this, but watching Saric the last couple of games, he is a very good player, who we really have trouble matching up against. He reminds me of Tristan Thompson with 3 point range, the way he grabs offensive boards. I completely discounted him going into the series, but have become a believer in his game.
I like Saric; very well rounded game, still going to get better. I think the issue is with the numbers thrown out. 20/9/5 is pretty lofty.
For fun, I threw in just 15/7/3 for the '17-'18 regular season, and got just 11 hits. Lebron, Giannis, Westbrook, cousins, Embiid, Griffin, Jokic, Marc Gasol, Vucevic, Simmons, Drummond. It's hard to get to 20/9/5.
-
I really hope Moranis doesn't still think Saric would average 20, 9, and 5.
Of course I do, one series shouldn't change anyone's opinion on a player. I absolutely believe that if Saric was given more opportunities he could absolutely be a 20/9/5 type player. The assists would be the most problematic one of those 3 as he is not a great playmaker, but he still has that type of talent.
Jeez. Super strong disagree
Yeah to reiterate the only guys that put up the numbers moranis proposed in the entire league were cousins and Westbrook. Woof
Lol, that would be quite a remarkable jump.
I really hope Moranis doesn't still think Saric would average 20, 9, and 5.
Of course I do, one series shouldn't change anyone's opinion on a player. I absolutely believe that if Saric was given more opportunities he could absolutely be a 20/9/5 type player. The assists would be the most problematic one of those 3 as he is not a great playmaker, but he still has that type of talent.
Jeez. Super strong disagree
he basically averaged 18/8/3.5 against the C's. He did that while being 5th on the Sixers in USG and he was actually ahead of Redick (who had more shots then him). He shoots well from basically everywhere on the floor, doesn't turn it over, and was much more aggressive defensively (getting over a steal a game against the C's). He just turned 24 (so is a bit older), but is in just his 2nd year coming over from a foreign country, and improved a great deal from his rookie year to year 2, so he should continue to improve.
Saric isn't a very athletic player, but I absolutely could see him as a Kevin Love type player, but with a bit less rebounding and a bit more passing, in the right role and the right situation.
This is just such a wild take, and at odds what the consensus is among 76ers fans (who want him off the bench as their team improves). The fact tht you can watch that series and the lack of athleticism he has and think that he will put up numbers that only 2 others guys in the league did actually lowers my opinion of your basketball knowledge. Know when to back down and admit you got ahead of yourself...
I doubted Moranis on this, but watching Saric the last couple of games, he is a very good player, who we really have trouble matching up against. He reminds me of Tristan Thompson with 3 point range, the way he grabs offensive boards. I completely discounted him going into the series, but have become a believer in his game.
The problem is he doesn't grab offensive rebounds like that against most teams. His ORB% is worse than Aron Baynes and Daniel Theis. That's just from Boston. He is nowhere near a 20/9/5 guy, that's insane.
Sure, but he is playing next to Embiid, Simmons, Holmes, Johnson, Covington, Ilyasova, etc. Not a collective bunch of crap rebounders like Horford, Morris, Tatum, etc. Monroe and Baynes (and maybe Theis) are the only above average rebounders (even for their position) on the Celtics. It is much easier to grab rebounds when you aren't playing next to good rebounders.
-
In fact, if you look at 20/9/5, you only get
'17-'18: Westbrook, cousins
'16-'17: Westbrook
Then you have to go back to '04-'05 to get to the last person to do it, and it was KG. He was also the only one to do it in '03-'04, and in '02-'03 it was KG and Webber. Then just KG again for the three year stretch from '99-'00 to '01-'02.
So it is really rare. Also, how good was KG?
-
And let me be clear, I said I could see him as a 20/9/5 type player, that doesn't exactly mean I think he will average 20/9/5 in any given season. I mean Lebron James could quite easily average those numbers if he wanted to. So could Durant. So could Blake Griffin. So could Love (he was about a half assist away at one point in his career). And so could countless other players. I mean, Giannis pretty much did this year and last year (simple rounding and he was there). Saric absolutely has that statistical ability to get those averages. Frankly, he is on a team with 2 players that could also fairly realistic get those averages in the right situation and with the right progression (Embiid and Simmons).
-
In fact, if you look at 20/9/5, you only get
'17-'18: Westbrook, cousins
'16-'17: Westbrook
Then you have to go back to '04-'05 to get to the last person to do it, and it was KG. He was also the only one to do it in '03-'04, and in '02-'03 it was KG and Webber. Then just KG again for the three year stretch from '99-'00 to '01-'02.
So it is really rare. Also, how good was KG?
KG wasn't that good. :angel:
-
Pans out just like i thought, Baynes alone on Embiid is more than enough and Simmons has too many flows, in my eyes they are far from so called generational talent/future superstars
If i'm their GM i go all in(throw Simmons if must) on Kawhi and try to sign Lebron, then push hard for 3~4 years , hope to snab 1~2 rings and call it a success
-
Pans out just like i thought, Baynes alone on Embiid is more than enough and Simmons has too many flows, in my eyes they are far from so called generational talent/future superstars
If i'm their GM i go all in(throw Simmons if must) on Kawhi and try to sign Lebron, then push hard for 3~4 years , hope to snab 1~2 rings and call it a success
Wow. 16-8-8 and advancing to the second round as a rookie not good enough. Dang.
-
Pans out just like i thought, Baynes alone on Embiid is more than enough and Simmons has too many flows, in my eyes they are far from so called generational talent/future superstars
If i'm their GM i go all in(throw Simmons if must) on Kawhi and try to sign Lebron, then push hard for 3~4 years , hope to snab 1~2 rings and call it a success
Wow. 16-8-8 and advancing to the second round as a rookie not good enough. Dang.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DczidzqW0AAGOlD?format=jpg)
Whenever we throw out his counting stats, I want to hear people's thoughts on this.
-
Pans out just like i thought, Baynes alone on Embiid is more than enough and Simmons has too many flows, in my eyes they are far from so called generational talent/future superstars
If i'm their GM i go all in(throw Simmons if must) on Kawhi and try to sign Lebron, then push hard for 3~4 years , hope to snab 1~2 rings and call it a success
Wow. 16-8-8 and advancing to the second round as a rookie not good enough. Dang.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DczidzqW0AAGOlD?format=jpg)
Whenever we throw out his counting stats, I want to hear people's thoughts on this.
Rudy Gobert was -62 against the Rockets while the Jazz were only outscored by 50 in the series (so the Jazz were +12 while Gobert was on the bench). Obviously not quite the discrepancy but used to show those aren't exactly the most effective ways to determine things. A couple of bad runs can significantly skew those numbers in a short amount of games, but they generally even out over the course of a season. Baynes was -40, Smart was just plus 1 (the C's were +14 when he was on the bench). Brown was just +7 (C's were +8 when he was on the bench).
-
Simmons is just flat out not very skilled. He throws up a lot of awkward looking shots near the rim that have little to no chance of going in. A lot of his rebounds are uncontested. If Kyrie is at one end of the "inexplicably uncanny instinctual ability to throw the ball up with just the perfect spin and parabolic amplitude to make it through the hoop", Simmons is undoubtedly on the other end.
-
Pans out just like i thought, Baynes alone on Embiid is more than enough and Simmons has too many flows, in my eyes they are far from so called generational talent/future superstars
If i'm their GM i go all in(throw Simmons if must) on Kawhi and try to sign Lebron, then push hard for 3~4 years , hope to snab 1~2 rings and call it a success
Wow. 16-8-8 and advancing to the second round as a rookie not good enough. Dang.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DczidzqW0AAGOlD?format=jpg)
Whenever we throw out his counting stats, I want to hear people's thoughts on this.
Rudy Gobert was -62 against the Rockets while the Jazz were only outscored by 50 in the series (so the Jazz were +12 while Gobert was on the bench). Obviously not quite the discrepancy but used to show those aren't exactly the most effective ways to determine things. A couple of bad runs can significantly skew those numbers in a short amount of games, but they generally even out over the course of a season. Baynes was -40, Smart was just plus 1 (the C's were +14 when he was on the bench). Brown was just +7 (C's were +8 when he was on the bench).
i like the mention of gobert
great player
ALSO can't shoot
hmmm
-
Pans out just like i thought, Baynes alone on Embiid is more than enough and Simmons has too many flows, in my eyes they are far from so called generational talent/future superstars
If i'm their GM i go all in(throw Simmons if must) on Kawhi and try to sign Lebron, then push hard for 3~4 years , hope to snab 1~2 rings and call it a success
Wow. 16-8-8 and advancing to the second round as a rookie not good enough. Dang.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DczidzqW0AAGOlD?format=jpg)
Whenever we throw out his counting stats, I want to hear people's thoughts on this.
Rudy Gobert was -62 against the Rockets while the Jazz were only outscored by 50 in the series (so the Jazz were +12 while Gobert was on the bench). Obviously not quite the discrepancy but used to show those aren't exactly the most effective ways to determine things. A couple of bad runs can significantly skew those numbers in a short amount of games, but they generally even out over the course of a season. Baynes was -40, Smart was just plus 1 (the C's were +14 when he was on the bench). Brown was just +7 (C's were +8 when he was on the bench).
i like the mention of gobert
great player
ALSO can't shoot
hmmm
Yea, just shows at a minimum Gobert was not a good matchup against the Rockets. We can argue that Simmons may just be a bad matchup against the Celtics, but I do think they also showed a blueprint on how to defend him that other teams will copy.
-
Pans out just like i thought, Baynes alone on Embiid is more than enough and Simmons has too many flows, in my eyes they are far from so called generational talent/future superstars
If i'm their GM i go all in(throw Simmons if must) on Kawhi and try to sign Lebron, then push hard for 3~4 years , hope to snab 1~2 rings and call it a success
Wow. 16-8-8 and advancing to the second round as a rookie not good enough. Dang.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DczidzqW0AAGOlD?format=jpg)
Whenever we throw out his counting stats, I want to hear people's thoughts on this.
Rudy Gobert was -62 against the Rockets while the Jazz were only outscored by 50 in the series (so the Jazz were +12 while Gobert was on the bench). Obviously not quite the discrepancy but used to show those aren't exactly the most effective ways to determine things. A couple of bad runs can significantly skew those numbers in a short amount of games, but they generally even out over the course of a season. Baynes was -40, Smart was just plus 1 (the C's were +14 when he was on the bench). Brown was just +7 (C's were +8 when he was on the bench).
i like the mention of gobert
great player
ALSO can't shoot
hmmm
Well if you watched Gobert is clearly a liability on their team, can't defend perimeter and can't attack mismatchs.
Those numbers sounds correct
-
Those who are arguing against the Sixers 'strategy' aren't saying that it hasn't produced quality players and a team full of potential (you get enough top 5 picks you are bound to hit on some of them); they are simply making a point about how it was a dirty way to go about business. They lost other teams money and made a mockery of the lottery system which was already set in place to prevent blatant tanking.
It is about common decency and playing by the unspoken rules of basketball. Since this series began, a number of people in my life who aren't too familiar with the NBA have asked me about what exactly the 'process' is. When I explain it to them, they are immediately turned off and each of them have used the word, 'cheaters.'
The Sixers weren't innovative, they were just basically scoundrels. The best thing they did was make the trades for the LAL pick and SAC pick - those were actual sound NBA decisions. They don't deserve Lebron or Kawhi or whatever star falls in their lap. May the basketball gods come down hard on the Sixers for years to come...
Tp....great post...my sentiments exactly.....hopefully karma is that female dog for philly!
To underscore other teams getting hurt by it, I want to relay my Garden experiences for Philly games during that time.
First, it was great for me (and my family). As a father of four who were all at home at the time, my wife and I were able to take the kids to the Philly games without breaking the bank. A few times I was able to secure 6 tix from Stubhub for under $100, not great seats in the balcony admittedly, but because the place was never packed, we could always move down.
Crowds were definitely smaller and younger for Cs/Philly games at the time. Consequently vendors got hurt both inside and outside the Garden regarding both sales and tips.
Other, smaller franchises who don’t have the following that our Cs have got hurt as they didn’t sell out when Philly came to town, in addition to their vendors getting hurt.
Yeah, Philly played by the “rules”, but many resent(ed) them for it, And in my opinion rightfully so.
But if the Sixers were a 25 to 30 win team instead of a 10 to 20 win team, the arenas still would have been empty, and they would still be empty when the Sixers come to town now instead of the big draw they are. That is where that argument loses steam. I mean it isn't like Philly chose to be a dreg instead of a title contender, they chose to be a dreg instead of a tier slightly above dreg (think the Kings over the last decade). There was going to be almost no difference in the overall quality of the product from a drawing on the road standpoint. There is however now that they have landed real and quality stars.
I know you have said the same thing repeatedly about 100 times in this thread but you've still failed to address the point, which is very simple:
How does doing the obvious and easy make Hinkie a genius?
It's not like Hinkie created tanking. Dump for Duncan, Lose for Lebron, Offend for Olajuwon...this has been around for decades. Sammy just decided to throw in the towel and pull a Donald Sterling for a few years until he got Lucky in the Lottery. This doesn't take brains since this is the most obvious and easy strategy to try to get new talent. Meanwhile, it's cost his owner millions in revenue in lost merchandise sales, their team valuation dropped to 21 from being in the top 10 and they've been jokes of the NBA for half of a decade now.
If Hinkie was a genius, he would have found a great young coach like Stevens who raises everyone's level. He'd have found hidden gems like Isaiah Thomas at bargain prices. He'd have held on to assets and flipped them at the optimal time. He didn't do any of this. He lost, repeatedly, until he got lucky in the lottery and still couldn't keep his job. Meanwhile the team has won one playoff series. Big whoop.
Yes, the franchise was moribund the decade before (and the half decade after) he took over. That happens when you have bad GMing (Billy King, Ed Stefnaski) and coaches who prefer veterans. That doesn't excuse or improve Hinkie's plan.
Hinkie's big plan was to lose and pray. That's not a well thought out plan. That would be the BACKUP to an actual plan.
(http://imoviequotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/404-Meet-the-Robinsons-quotes.gif)
-
Those who are arguing against the Sixers 'strategy' aren't saying that it hasn't produced quality players and a team full of potential (you get enough top 5 picks you are bound to hit on some of them); they are simply making a point about how it was a dirty way to go about business. They lost other teams money and made a mockery of the lottery system which was already set in place to prevent blatant tanking.
It is about common decency and playing by the unspoken rules of basketball. Since this series began, a number of people in my life who aren't too familiar with the NBA have asked me about what exactly the 'process' is. When I explain it to them, they are immediately turned off and each of them have used the word, 'cheaters.'
The Sixers weren't innovative, they were just basically scoundrels. The best thing they did was make the trades for the LAL pick and SAC pick - those were actual sound NBA decisions. They don't deserve Lebron or Kawhi or whatever star falls in their lap. May the basketball gods come down hard on the Sixers for years to come...
Tp....great post...my sentiments exactly.....hopefully karma is that female dog for philly!
To underscore other teams getting hurt by it, I want to relay my Garden experiences for Philly games during that time.
First, it was great for me (and my family). As a father of four who were all at home at the time, my wife and I were able to take the kids to the Philly games without breaking the bank. A few times I was able to secure 6 tix from Stubhub for under $100, not great seats in the balcony admittedly, but because the place was never packed, we could always move down.
Crowds were definitely smaller and younger for Cs/Philly games at the time. Consequently vendors got hurt both inside and outside the Garden regarding both sales and tips.
Other, smaller franchises who don’t have the following that our Cs have got hurt as they didn’t sell out when Philly came to town, in addition to their vendors getting hurt.
Yeah, Philly played by the “rules”, but many resent(ed) them for it, And in my opinion rightfully so.
But if the Sixers were a 25 to 30 win team instead of a 10 to 20 win team, the arenas still would have been empty, and they would still be empty when the Sixers come to town now instead of the big draw they are. That is where that argument loses steam. I mean it isn't like Philly chose to be a dreg instead of a title contender, they chose to be a dreg instead of a tier slightly above dreg (think the Kings over the last decade). There was going to be almost no difference in the overall quality of the product from a drawing on the road standpoint. There is however now that they have landed real and quality stars.
I know you have said the same thing repeatedly about 100 times in this thread but you've still failed to address the point, which is very simple:
How does doing the obvious and easy make Hinkie a genius?
It's not like Hinkie created tanking. Dump for Duncan, Lose for Lebron, Offend for Olajuwon...this has been around for decades. Sammy just decided to throw in the towel and pull a Donald Sterling for a few years until he got Lucky in the Lottery. This doesn't take brains since this is the most obvious and easy strategy to try to get new talent. Meanwhile, it's cost his owner millions in revenue in lost merchandise sales, their team valuation dropped to 21 from being in the top 10 and they've been jokes of the NBA for half of a decade now.
If Hinkie was a genius, he would have found a great young coach like Stevens who raises everyone's level. He'd have found hidden gems like Isaiah Thomas at bargain prices. He'd have held on to assets and flipped them at the optimal time. He didn't do any of this. He lost, repeatedly, until he got lucky in the lottery and still couldn't keep his job. Meanwhile the team has won one playoff series. Big whoop.
Yes, the franchise was moribund the decade before (and the half decade after) he took over. That happens when you have bad GMing (Billy King, Ed Stefnaski) and coaches who prefer veterans. That doesn't excuse or improve Hinkie's plan.
Hinkie's big plan was to lose and pray. That's not a well thought out plan. That would be the BACKUP to an actual plan.
(http://imoviequotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/404-Meet-the-Robinsons-quotes.gif)
except he did find gems. Covington, McConnell, Grant, Holmes, Smith, etc. all undrafted, 2nd round gems, or castaways from other teams. He got the Lakers pick and Sacramento pick in brilliant trades. He manufactured numerous trades where he got 2nd round picks for absolutely nothing. Bret Brown may not be Stevens but he is a very good coach that instilled a great system in Philly. This idea that what Hinkie did was easy and luck just isn't based in reality. He made a lot of brilliant moves and found plenty of gems off the scrap heap.
-
Those who are arguing against the Sixers 'strategy' aren't saying that it hasn't produced quality players and a team full of potential (you get enough top 5 picks you are bound to hit on some of them); they are simply making a point about how it was a dirty way to go about business. They lost other teams money and made a mockery of the lottery system which was already set in place to prevent blatant tanking.
It is about common decency and playing by the unspoken rules of basketball. Since this series began, a number of people in my life who aren't too familiar with the NBA have asked me about what exactly the 'process' is. When I explain it to them, they are immediately turned off and each of them have used the word, 'cheaters.'
The Sixers weren't innovative, they were just basically scoundrels. The best thing they did was make the trades for the LAL pick and SAC pick - those were actual sound NBA decisions. They don't deserve Lebron or Kawhi or whatever star falls in their lap. May the basketball gods come down hard on the Sixers for years to come...
Tp....great post...my sentiments exactly.....hopefully karma is that female dog for philly!
To underscore other teams getting hurt by it, I want to relay my Garden experiences for Philly games during that time.
First, it was great for me (and my family). As a father of four who were all at home at the time, my wife and I were able to take the kids to the Philly games without breaking the bank. A few times I was able to secure 6 tix from Stubhub for under $100, not great seats in the balcony admittedly, but because the place was never packed, we could always move down.
Crowds were definitely smaller and younger for Cs/Philly games at the time. Consequently vendors got hurt both inside and outside the Garden regarding both sales and tips.
Other, smaller franchises who don’t have the following that our Cs have got hurt as they didn’t sell out when Philly came to town, in addition to their vendors getting hurt.
Yeah, Philly played by the “rules”, but many resent(ed) them for it, And in my opinion rightfully so.
But if the Sixers were a 25 to 30 win team instead of a 10 to 20 win team, the arenas still would have been empty, and they would still be empty when the Sixers come to town now instead of the big draw they are. That is where that argument loses steam. I mean it isn't like Philly chose to be a dreg instead of a title contender, they chose to be a dreg instead of a tier slightly above dreg (think the Kings over the last decade). There was going to be almost no difference in the overall quality of the product from a drawing on the road standpoint. There is however now that they have landed real and quality stars.
I know you have said the same thing repeatedly about 100 times in this thread but you've still failed to address the point, which is very simple:
How does doing the obvious and easy make Hinkie a genius?
It's not like Hinkie created tanking. Dump for Duncan, Lose for Lebron, Offend for Olajuwon...this has been around for decades. Sammy just decided to throw in the towel and pull a Donald Sterling for a few years until he got Lucky in the Lottery. This doesn't take brains since this is the most obvious and easy strategy to try to get new talent. Meanwhile, it's cost his owner millions in revenue in lost merchandise sales, their team valuation dropped to 21 from being in the top 10 and they've been jokes of the NBA for half of a decade now.
If Hinkie was a genius, he would have found a great young coach like Stevens who raises everyone's level. He'd have found hidden gems like Isaiah Thomas at bargain prices. He'd have held on to assets and flipped them at the optimal time. He didn't do any of this. He lost, repeatedly, until he got lucky in the lottery and still couldn't keep his job. Meanwhile the team has won one playoff series. Big whoop.
Yes, the franchise was moribund the decade before (and the half decade after) he took over. That happens when you have bad GMing (Billy King, Ed Stefnaski) and coaches who prefer veterans. That doesn't excuse or improve Hinkie's plan.
Hinkie's big plan was to lose and pray. That's not a well thought out plan. That would be the BACKUP to an actual plan.
(http://imoviequotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/404-Meet-the-Robinsons-quotes.gif)
I think that's the best I've heard someone articulate that argument besides me lol, TP. It's obvious which GM in the league right now would be considered a "genius" or "100% right now". It's Danny Ainge. He tanked for half a year, and then we were back in the playoffs. He turned aging veterans into blue chip prospects, and bargain players into valuable assets. We went from old playoff team that was getting worse fast, to going to back to back ECF with the brightest future in the league within 5 years, even with a ridiculous amount of injuries (Rondo, IT, Hayward, Kyrie) . It sucks that "Celtics" fans can't appreciate that.
And Hinkie is so clearly NOT "100% right now". That was the whole premise of his plan. That he would tank so hard that he would have multiple shots at stars. Okafor and Noel were MASSIVE misses. I do give him credit for committing to one plan, a lot of GMs are too scared to do so. I think this gave Philly the best shot to win at the time if you don't have a GM like Danny who can turn water into wine.
But for "Celtics" fans to kneel before him like he is God, when we have Danny mother f ing Ainge, is mind boggling.