Zack Lowe article on rebuilding vs reloading

[celticsclay]

Would you rather:
a) Be really bad (like wooden spoon bad) for 4 years, then become a contender in he 5th year
b) Be solid (but not spectacular) for 4 years, then become a contender in the 5th year

Since (as we've already determined) both scenarios carry about the same probability of eventual success, I figure you may as well take the path that at least gives you something to cheer for in the meantime.

Have we determined that? I agree that if possible the 2nd scenario would be better, but I don't really agree with this framing because it paints all scenarios from the same starting point.

The Sixers had no cap flexibility, owed 2 first round picks(lottery protected) to other teams, a bad roster and no young talent aside from Jrue Holiday when Sam Hinkie took over.

Ainge began his rebuild by having two HOF'ers to use as trade chips, a PG in his "prime" (whose value hadn't caught up with the deterioration of his game) and a roster he built personally.

That's not really apples to apples.

I agree that the "would you rather..." scenario set up above is a bit artificial.

But I think you're also underselling what PHI had when Hinkie took over in the summer of 2013. The 34-48 Sixers had:

-- Jrue Holiday (22) had just made the all-star team (though PHI may have known about his injuries) -- 18/4/8 + 1.5 stl
-- Evan Turner (24) was coming off a 13/6/4 season
-- Thad Young (24) put up 15/7/1.5 + 2 stl and nearly a block/gm
-- Spencer Hawes (24) went for 11/7/2 + 1.5 blocks

That's not *no* young talent. Hinkie might have not liked the talent but you could argue that that core is as good as our core now. And ironically Turner was the only top-10 pick.

Holiday -- a steal at 17 -- I think is a great example of what I and others have said: that outperforming your draft slot wherever you pick is the key to long-term success. Let's say -- just for argument's sake -- Rozier turns out to be as good as Holiday, that gives Ainge (as it did the incoming Hinkie) the opp. to turn him into a guy like Noel and a 1st later.

Hinkie's done well to reposition the Sixers. The Holiday/Noel trade was very smart. But where i think he's not done as well as Ainge is in building up the overall talent of the team.

Building a team is an quasi-organic process. You don't know how palyers will play together, how quickly (or at all they'll develop), or what the landscape of your conference (i.e. chance of making the finals) will be.

Noel or Okafor or Embiid *may* turn out to be a star (one probably will) but IMO you're wasting a significant chunk of their prime to wait until you've got that "star" to surround them with talent... since liek the C's have the last 2 summers you may miss out on your top targets.

The Sixers are like 5 years from any of those players primes. 

To your overall point, in the 2 years since Holiday, Young, Turner, and Hawes were traded, have any of them improved enough to reach that next level.  I mean it isn't like they left the Sixers and had a James Harden like boom.  In fact, I think it is probably pretty fair to say that all 4 of those guys had their best seasons to date in Philadelphia.  They are certainly all still young enough to get better and still have their best seasons, but they aren't young enough to project any of them into that next level.  That really is the point.  The Sixers could have gone along in the status quo and been a bottom tier playoff team, but they had no real way of improving because soon they were going to have to pay all those guys and use up the cap space and none of them would have been good enough to carry a contender or trade for a better star (because the older they got the less of an asset they became at their skill level). 

As for building a team, I actually like what the Sixers have even if Embiid never plays. 
This team looks like it could be a real contender in a couple of seasons

C - Okafor, (Embiid), Noel
PF - Noel, Aldemir, Landry, J. Thompson, Sampson
SF - Saric, H. Thompson, Covington, Grant
SG - H. Thompson, Stauskas
PG - Wroten, Canaan, Smith

Probably could use a better starting guard at at least one of the spots, which I'm sure they will draft next summer, but that seems like a pretty darn good team.  Now admittedly I'm higher on Aldemir and H. Thompson then most people, and I really believe Noel is a once and a generation defensive talent (in the mold of Ben Wallace and Dennis Rodman) who will work so well with Okafor who could be a once and a generation offensive talent (just sad that Embiid is a combination of them both and now may never play - sucks).

That is one ugly depth chart

edit: I didn't realize that was their summer league roster. That makes it a little less embarassing.

[Gainesville Celtic]

Would you rather:
a) Be really bad (like wooden spoon bad) for 4 years, then become a contender in he 5th year
b) Be solid (but not spectacular) for 4 years, then become a contender in the 5th year

Since (as we've already determined) both scenarios carry about the same probability of eventual success, I figure you may as well take the path that at least gives you something to cheer for in the meantime.

Have we determined that? I agree that if possible the 2nd scenario would be better, but I don't really agree with this framing because it paints all scenarios from the same starting point.

The Sixers had no cap flexibility, owed 2 first round picks(lottery protected) to other teams, a bad roster and no young talent aside from Jrue Holiday when Sam Hinkie took over.

Ainge began his rebuild by having two HOF'ers to use as trade chips, a PG in his "prime" (whose value hadn't caught up with the deterioration of his game) and a roster he built personally.

That's not really apples to apples.

I agree that the "would you rather..." scenario set up above is a bit artificial.

But I think you're also underselling what PHI had when Hinkie took over in the summer of 2013. The 34-48 Sixers had:

-- Jrue Holiday (22) had just made the all-star team (though PHI may have known about his injuries) -- 18/4/8 + 1.5 stl
-- Evan Turner (24) was coming off a 13/6/4 season
-- Thad Young (24) put up 15/7/1.5 + 2 stl and nearly a block/gm
-- Spencer Hawes (24) went for 11/7/2 + 1.5 blocks

That's not *no* young talent. Hinkie might have not liked the talent but you could argue that that core is as good as our core now. And ironically Turner was the only top-10 pick.

Holiday -- a steal at 17 -- I think is a great example of what I and others have said: that outperforming your draft slot wherever you pick is the key to long-term success. Let's say -- just for argument's sake -- Rozier turns out to be as good as Holiday, that gives Ainge (as it did the incoming Hinkie) the opp. to turn him into a guy like Noel and a 1st later.

Hinkie's done well to reposition the Sixers. The Holiday/Noel trade was very smart. But where i think he's not done as well as Ainge is in building up the overall talent of the team.

Building a team is an quasi-organic process. You don't know how palyers will play together, how quickly (or at all they'll develop), or what the landscape of your conference (i.e. chance of making the finals) will be.

Noel or Okafor or Embiid *may* turn out to be a star (one probably will) but IMO you're wasting a significant chunk of their prime to wait until you've got that "star" to surround them with talent... since liek the C's have the last 2 summers you may miss out on your top targets.

Thad Young was not young, and was traded this year for half a season of 45 yr old Kevin Garnett... And he was by far the best player aside from Holiday.

Hawes and Turner are below average NBA players. At any age.

Holiday was the only good young player they had, and he was overrated because he had a hot start to the season and made the all-star team in a year PGs were ravaged by injury.

Sam Hinkie took over a garbage starting point, it was a step above the Nets barren awfulness.

I don't think that's garbage. It certainly wasn't contending with Miami that year, but Holiday, Turner, Young and Hawes are all NBA top-8 rotation guys. If they're as bad as you say they could have kept them and still gotten Embiid and Okafor


Lets say PHI keeps Holiday, still drafts MCW, still trades Hawes, keeps Thad Young, drafts Aaron Gordon or Randle last year (they "fall" to 6 from 3 with 10 more wins) instead of Embiid, and Okafor this year and still rip off the clueless Kings for Sauce Castillo.... it's not inconceivable that PHI has a lineup of:

Holiday Wroten
MCW / Stauskas /
Thad Young / Hollis Thompson
Randle (or Gordon)  / Covington
Okafor

I don't see how that's ALL that different or less able to become a top team that what they have now. My main point was that I don't agree that this was Hinkie's only choice (and therefore the right choice for Ainge).

(BTW, I suspect that all of this 'Hinkie Process' has some roots in the private equity investment background of their owner. It's not that diff. from when investors buy an otherwise healthy if unspectacular company, strip it down (ie. fire working folks), then sell of the parts at a profit. They bought the club for $280M, it's worth $490M now and if they save a few million each year on salaries (they didn't even hit the salary floor last year) they'll add to what's gonna be a probable $500M profit when they sell the team.)

[Moranis]

Would you rather:
a) Be really bad (like wooden spoon bad) for 4 years, then become a contender in he 5th year
b) Be solid (but not spectacular) for 4 years, then become a contender in the 5th year

Since (as we've already determined) both scenarios carry about the same probability of eventual success, I figure you may as well take the path that at least gives you something to cheer for in the meantime.

Have we determined that? I agree that if possible the 2nd scenario would be better, but I don't really agree with this framing because it paints all scenarios from the same starting point.

The Sixers had no cap flexibility, owed 2 first round picks(lottery protected) to other teams, a bad roster and no young talent aside from Jrue Holiday when Sam Hinkie took over.

Ainge began his rebuild by having two HOF'ers to use as trade chips, a PG in his "prime" (whose value hadn't caught up with the deterioration of his game) and a roster he built personally.

That's not really apples to apples.

I agree that the "would you rather..." scenario set up above is a bit artificial.

But I think you're also underselling what PHI had when Hinkie took over in the summer of 2013. The 34-48 Sixers had:

-- Jrue Holiday (22) had just made the all-star team (though PHI may have known about his injuries) -- 18/4/8 + 1.5 stl
-- Evan Turner (24) was coming off a 13/6/4 season
-- Thad Young (24) put up 15/7/1.5 + 2 stl and nearly a block/gm
-- Spencer Hawes (24) went for 11/7/2 + 1.5 blocks

That's not *no* young talent. Hinkie might have not liked the talent but you could argue that that core is as good as our core now. And ironically Turner was the only top-10 pick.

Holiday -- a steal at 17 -- I think is a great example of what I and others have said: that outperforming your draft slot wherever you pick is the key to long-term success. Let's say -- just for argument's sake -- Rozier turns out to be as good as Holiday, that gives Ainge (as it did the incoming Hinkie) the opp. to turn him into a guy like Noel and a 1st later.

Hinkie's done well to reposition the Sixers. The Holiday/Noel trade was very smart. But where i think he's not done as well as Ainge is in building up the overall talent of the team.

Building a team is an quasi-organic process. You don't know how palyers will play together, how quickly (or at all they'll develop), or what the landscape of your conference (i.e. chance of making the finals) will be.

Noel or Okafor or Embiid *may* turn out to be a star (one probably will) but IMO you're wasting a significant chunk of their prime to wait until you've got that "star" to surround them with talent... since liek the C's have the last 2 summers you may miss out on your top targets.

Thad Young was not young, and was traded this year for half a season of 45 yr old Kevin Garnett... And he was by far the best player aside from Holiday.

Hawes and Turner are below average NBA players. At any age.

Holiday was the only good young player they had, and he was overrated because he had a hot start to the season and made the all-star team in a year PGs were ravaged by injury.

Sam Hinkie took over a garbage starting point, it was a step above the Nets barren awfulness.

I don't think that's garbage. It certainly wasn't contending with Miami that year, but Holiday, Turner, Young and Hawes are all NBA top-8 rotation guys. If they're as bad as you say they could have kept them and still gotten Embiid and Okafor


Lets say PHI keeps Holiday, still drafts MCW, still trades Hawes, keeps Thad Young, drafts Aaron Gordon or Randle last year (they "fall" to 6 from 3 with 10 more wins) instead of Embiid, and Okafor this year and still rip off the clueless Kings for Sauce Castillo.... it's not inconceivable that PHI has a lineup of:

Holiday Wroten
MCW / Stauskas /
Thad Young / Hollis Thompson
Randle (or Gordon)  / Covington
Okafor

I don't see how that's ALL that different or less able to become a top team that what they have now. My main point was that I don't agree that this was Hinkie's only choice (and therefore the right choice for Ainge).

(BTW, I suspect that all of this 'Hinkie Process' has some roots in the private equity investment background of their owner. It's not that diff. from when investors buy an otherwise healthy if unspectacular company, strip it down (ie. fire working folks), then sell of the parts at a profit. They bought the club for $280M, it's worth $490M now and if they save a few million each year on salaries (they didn't even hit the salary floor last year) they'll add to what's gonna be a probable $500M profit when they sell the team.)

They wouldn't have been in a position to draft Okafor this year.  And thus the team they had would be missing the two or three (with Embiid) best players.

And that team was a 34 win team.  Not great but was drafting at the end of the lottery (that was what led to MCW at 11).  That was probably Philly's future.  Somewhere in the 30-40 win range.  If everything goes great maybe 45 wins, if they have a bunch of injuries maybe 25 wins.  If by some chance they hit on a mid 1st rounder, then maybe they make the leap up to the next level.  And they couldn't have made the Stauskas trade because they wouldn't have had cap room with Holiday, Young, etc. on nice new contracts. 

It would have been a long term losing strategy because that team was destined for mediocrity with no likely way out.