Zack Lowe article on rebuilding vs reloading

[Celtics18]

  I doubt that there's a minimum on how long a rebuild takes.

Can you give me an example of a team that rebuilt from one contending core to a different one within one or two years?


Note that I mean an entirely different core, as the Celtics are trying to do, not keeping your main guy and shuffling the rest of the roster around him.

We are already two years into the rebuild.  Given that, I don't see how anyone could think we would be able to rebuild into a contender within two years; that window has passed.   It's not impossible that we could be a contender within two years from now without tanking, though. 

[BudweiserCeltic]

  I doubt that there's a minimum on how long a rebuild takes.

Can you give me an example of a team that rebuilt from one contending core to a different one within one or two years?


Note that I mean an entirely different core, as the Celtics are trying to do, not keeping your main guy and shuffling the rest of the roster around him.

We are already two years into the rebuild.  Given that, I don't see how anyone could think we would be able to rebuild into a contender within two years; that window has passed.   It's not impossible that we could be a contender within two years from now without tanking, though. 

Depends on when you start counting when we began the actual rebuild. In my opinion, it was this precise year when I can comfortably say our rebuild in earnest began because we finally we got rid of most of our old contracts to the point that we acquired cap space (Bass, Rondo, Green gone).

So while we may have began adding pieces and collecting assets, the deconstruction of the initial team hadn't finished as of yet. And even this year we still have Wallace's lingering contract, which was converted to Lee, so there's that.

[crimson_stallion]

I think Houston are another example of this that people don't give credit to.

Houston are without a doubt one of the stronger and more dangerous teams in the West right now, but 3 years or so ago things were looking pretty bleak there.  But they pulled in a ton of players (a random collection of players who seemed to fit horribly together) and draft picks and freed up a ton of cap space. 

That mismash of seemingly mediocre assets were the pieces they essentially used to bring Harden in from OKC, and that trade changed everything for them.  But who did they actually trade to OKC in return for Harden? Kevin Martin, a couple of young prospects who never got anywhere, a first round pick or two?  I can't remember the exact specifics, but I remember it wasn't far off from the type of assets we have right now.

Honestly, that Harden trade instantly put Houston on the map.  Getting Harden and having all that cap space was all it took to get Dwight to join in on the fun, and once they put those two guys together they were pretty much an instant contender.   

[Gainesville Celtic]

That level of uncertainty to me is not worth suffering through 2-3 more seasons of godawful basketball, especially since we already failed at it once in 13-14.  And I don't see the likelihood of success as higher than the approach we're taking now.  I respect your perspective, and I definitely share your frustration that that real push toward a contending core hasn't happened yet, but I think we're not going to see eye-to-eye on it.

Right.  I think it comes down to a difference in philosophy, or maybe just faith.

Do you believe more in trades / free agency or more in the draft?  How much do you value getting to watch a halfway decent team in the meantime?

The answers to those questions determine how you feel about the current path, and there isn't really a wrong answer, because there is no path that leads to a certain result.

My point is I respect where you're coming from, and I certainly don't think you're "wrong."  I can see the logic behind the way the Celts appear to be going, it's just not the way I'd have chosen.

I see where you're coming from PhoSita, but tend to agree with what FWF is saying.

IMO, OKC's success has skewed the perception of how easy it is to load up on top7 players, wait 2 years and boom: contend. At the same time the summer of 2007 and relative speed with which that team came together has probably made C's fans impatient for this rebuild.

But I think back to those Mavs (Kidd/Mashburn/JJ) and Nets (Kenny Anderson, DC and Billy Owens) teams that looked like they'd be really great, but imploded. Not to mention the graveyard of teams that added 1 star and 2 disappointments in 3-4 lottery picks.

I think there's a real value to building a team that believes in itself and overachieves -- a team you can add a difference maker *too* -- over a team that has come to accept losing, like the 76ers have. I'm not saying the players on PHI are losers or that they want to lose, but I can't imagine they actually go into games thinking "we've got a pretty good shot at winning". That stuff builds and lingers IMO.

Reading Johnathan Abrams stuff on Grantland and hearing Jalen Rose talk about his on-team experiences in DEN, PHO and NYK make me a firm believer that the context a young player (leaving out the transcendent exceptions like a Durant or KG) comes into has a lot to do with his success.

It could be that my faith is getting a bit blind as my beard gets gray, but I know we're gonna hit on a star or 2 in the next year or 2... Lots of things can happen. A guy gets tired of losing, a team faces tough cap decisions (less likely with the spike, but not impossible), Billy King gets hired somewhere else and trades us a great player.... I think it will be a 'surprise' in the way Paul George, Jimmy Butler or Draymond Green have been or the way PHO grabbed Eric Bledsoe or MIA swiped Dragic.

ubuntu!

[crimson_stallion]

That level of uncertainty to me is not worth suffering through 2-3 more seasons of godawful basketball, especially since we already failed at it once in 13-14.  And I don't see the likelihood of success as higher than the approach we're taking now.  I respect your perspective, and I definitely share your frustration that that real push toward a contending core hasn't happened yet, but I think we're not going to see eye-to-eye on it.

Right.  I think it comes down to a difference in philosophy, or maybe just faith.

Do you believe more in trades / free agency or more in the draft?  How much do you value getting to watch a halfway decent team in the meantime?

The answers to those questions determine how you feel about the current path, and there isn't really a wrong answer, because there is no path that leads to a certain result.

My point is I respect where you're coming from, and I certainly don't think you're "wrong."  I can see the logic behind the way the Celts appear to be going, it's just not the way I'd have chosen.

I see where you're coming from PhoSita, but tend to agree with what FWF is saying.

IMO, OKC's success has skewed the perception of how easy it is to load up on top7 players, wait 2 years and boom: contend. At the same time the summer of 2007 and relative speed with which that team came together has probably made C's fans impatient for this rebuild.

But I think back to those Mavs (Kidd/Mashburn/JJ) and Nets (Kenny Anderson, DC and Billy Owens) teams that looked like they'd be really great, but imploded. Not to mention the graveyard of teams that added 1 star and 2 disappointments in 3-4 lottery picks.

I think there's a real value to building a team that believes in itself and overachieves -- a team you can add a difference maker *too* -- over a team that has come to accept losing, like the 76ers have. I'm not saying the players on PHI are losers or that they want to lose, but I can't imagine they actually go into games thinking "we've got a pretty good shot at winning". That stuff builds and lingers IMO.

Reading Johnathan Abrams stuff on Grantland and hearing Jalen Rose talk about his on-team experiences in DEN, PHO and NYK make me a firm believer that the context a young player (leaving out the transcendent exceptions like a Durant or KG) comes into has a lot to do with his success.

It could be that my faith is getting a bit blind as my beard gets gray, but I know we're gonna hit on a star or 2 in the next year or 2... Lots of things can happen. A guy gets tired of losing, a team faces tough cap decisions (less likely with the spike, but not impossible), Billy King gets hired somewhere else and trades us a great player.... I think it will be a 'surprise' in the way Paul George, Jimmy Butler or Draymond Green have been or the way PHO grabbed Eric Bledsoe or MIA swiped Dragic.

ubuntu!

I'm in the same boat.

I totally understand both arguments because there is no certain path to success, and both approaches present a similar level of risk.  Both require equal parts preparation and luck.

The way I see it is that regardless of which approach you take, chances are you're almost certainly not going to be in a position to contend again for at least another 3-4 years.  Just look at the 76ers and the Celtics - both teams are entering at least their 3rd season (since blowing things up) and neither looks like it has a chance of being a contender this year.

So, my point of view is this. 

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.

This team wasn't a true contender last year, not even close.  But I still thoroughly enjoyed watching these guys play, and cheering for a group of guys that were full of heart, and who genuinely played like a team (rather than a group of individuals).  I still got excited by the thought of coming home each day, and watching every game.

If we took the Philly approach, I wouldn't get that.  I wouldn't have any interest in coming home and watching my team play, knowing full well that:

1) The team was assembled specifically to lose games
2) It's a roster full of temp players, and 80% of the guys won't be there 2 years from now

The ultimate goal in basketball is to win a championship, no doubt.  But that doesn't mean I can only appreciate a team that is on that level.  Only one team in the big 3 era won a title, but I loved every one of those teams.

Assuming best case scenario and the team wins it all, then you're going to be happy no matter how the team gets there.  But what if you get stuck in the worst case?  I'd personally much rather watch 6 years of Atlanta Hawks first round exits rather than 6 years of Timberwolves lottery.

So again I do completely understand why some people believe in the the tank approach, and that is certainly a valid approach in team building.  I personally prefer the Danny Ainge method though. 

[Jayman]

Let's look at every meaningful transaction Boston has made since the KG/PP trade.

1. Sent Courtney Lee to Memphis for Jerryd Bayless
Reason: Cleared off Lee's long-term deal for an expiring so we would have more space to work with. Good move.

2. Traded Jordan Crawford (whom Stevens single-handedly got a player of the week award) for a conditional first round pick.
Reason: Got an asset for a player who was not part of our future, and isn't even in the league anymore. Good move.

3. Selected Marcus Smart, and James Young in the 2014 draft.
Reason: Ainge thought they were BPA, and it's too early to argue with him. Smart has shown more than guy's drafted after him e.g. Vonleh. And most of us were high on Young at the time of the draft too, only 19 years old, gotta give him some time. Good move.

4. Acquired Marcus Thornton, Tyler Zeller and a first round pick, and all we gave up was a trade exception. No explanation require here. Great move.

5. Re-signed Avery Bradley to a deal that will look really good when the cap goes up. And it isn't even bad value now - remember teams were offering up first round picks at the deadline for AB. It's a valuable deal. Good move.

6. Signed Evan Turner to a cheap deal, and he showed enough last season to prove it was worth it. I'm interested to see if Ainge can flip him in the coming months. Good move.

7. Got rid of the Joel Anthony contract for Will Bynum.
Reason: Helped our cap. A small, but a good move. Anthony was just dead salary.

8. Traded Rondo for Nelson, Crowder, Wright and a first round pick.
Reason: We weren't going to re-sign Rondo, and he was showing signs of a heavy decline anyway. Looking back on it, getting the first round pick alone was good value for Rondo, let alone Crowder who we know now is a really productive role player. Great move.

9. Traded Brandon Wright for a first round pick
Reason: Ainge managed to somehow get a first round pick, for an expiring contract. Good move.

10. Sent Jeff Green to Memphis for a first round pick and Tayshaun Prince.
Reason: Green wasn't playing well for us, and Ainge still managed to get a first round pick for him. He ended up somewhat falling out of the rotation with Memphis. Great move.

11. Acquired Isaiah Thomas for Marcus Thornton and Cleveland's first round pick.
Reason: Isaiah Thomas is a really good player, on a bargain deal, and all Ainge had to give up was an expiring and a low first. Great move.

12. Sent Tayshaun Prince to Detroit for Jerebko and Datome.
Reason: I think we saw in the last half of the season that Jerebko is a decent role player, and a much better fit than Prince who is near the end of his career anyway. Good move.

13. Drafted Terry Rozier, RJ Hunter, Jordan Mickey, and Marcus Thornton
Reason: Ainge saw each guy as BPA, and it's too early to question him on that. I wasn't the biggest fan of Rozier at the time, but I'm willing to give him a chance. Hunter and Mickey look like steals. Good move AInge.

14. Signed Jae Crowder to a 7 million dollar per year deal.
Reason: He's a really good role player, and will look like a great deal next year with the higher salary cap. Just take a look at what Aminu got - I'd rather have Crowder. Good move/

15. Signed Amir Johnson to a 2-year deal with the second year non-guaranteed.
Reason: The advanced metrics really like Amir, and when healthy, he's a really good player. Ainge got him at a low-risk deal, essentially adding another asset. Good move.

16. Traded Gerald Wallace for David Lee
Reason: Would you rather have Wallace (bench scrub, basically dead salary) for 10 million or Lee (2 years ago was a really really good player) for 15 million. I'd definitely prefer Lee, and seems like Ainge would too. Another good move.

17. Traded a 2nd round pick for Perry Jones and two 2nd round picks.
Don't even need to say anything on this one. Even if Jones doesn't work, we still got a free 2nd round pick. Good move.


What I'm trying to say is that literally every single noteworthy move Ainge has made since the rebuild began has been a good one, and increased our assets. If we continue on this path, we're in a great position to attract a great player through free agency, and/or trade for one with our mountain of assets. Breaking each deal down, you can clearly see Ainge has done a great job, and I trust him in this rebuild/reload/whatever you want to call it.

[PhoSita]

We are already two years into the rebuild.  Given that, I don't see how anyone could think we would be able to rebuild into a contender within two years; that window has passed.   

"Fireworks"

[celticsclay]

That level of uncertainty to me is not worth suffering through 2-3 more seasons of godawful basketball, especially since we already failed at it once in 13-14.  And I don't see the likelihood of success as higher than the approach we're taking now.  I respect your perspective, and I definitely share your frustration that that real push toward a contending core hasn't happened yet, but I think we're not going to see eye-to-eye on it.

Right.  I think it comes down to a difference in philosophy, or maybe just faith.

Do you believe more in trades / free agency or more in the draft?  How much do you value getting to watch a halfway decent team in the meantime?

The answers to those questions determine how you feel about the current path, and there isn't really a wrong answer, because there is no path that leads to a certain result.

My point is I respect where you're coming from, and I certainly don't think you're "wrong."  I can see the logic behind the way the Celts appear to be going, it's just not the way I'd have chosen.

I see where you're coming from PhoSita, but tend to agree with what FWF is saying.

IMO, OKC's success has skewed the perception of how easy it is to load up on top7 players, wait 2 years and boom: contend. At the same time the summer of 2007 and relative speed with which that team came together has probably made C's fans impatient for this rebuild.

But I think back to those Mavs (Kidd/Mashburn/JJ) and Nets (Kenny Anderson, DC and Billy Owens) teams that looked like they'd be really great, but imploded. Not to mention the graveyard of teams that added 1 star and 2 disappointments in 3-4 lottery picks.

I think there's a real value to building a team that believes in itself and overachieves -- a team you can add a difference maker *too* -- over a team that has come to accept losing, like the 76ers have. I'm not saying the players on PHI are losers or that they want to lose, but I can't imagine they actually go into games thinking "we've got a pretty good shot at winning". That stuff builds and lingers IMO.

Reading Johnathan Abrams stuff on Grantland and hearing Jalen Rose talk about his on-team experiences in DEN, PHO and NYK make me a firm believer that the context a young player (leaving out the transcendent exceptions like a Durant or KG) comes into has a lot to do with his success.

It could be that my faith is getting a bit blind as my beard gets gray, but I know we're gonna hit on a star or 2 in the next year or 2... Lots of things can happen. A guy gets tired of losing, a team faces tough cap decisions (less likely with the spike, but not impossible), Billy King gets hired somewhere else and trades us a great player.... I think it will be a 'surprise' in the way Paul George, Jimmy Butler or Draymond Green have been or the way PHO grabbed Eric Bledsoe or MIA swiped Dragic.

ubuntu!

I'm in the same boat.

I totally understand both arguments because there is no certain path to success, and both approaches present a similar level of risk.  Both require equal parts preparation and luck.

The way I see it is that regardless of which approach you take, chances are you're almost certainly not going to be in a position to contend again for at least another 3-4 years.  Just look at the 76ers and the Celtics - both teams are entering at least their 3rd season (since blowing things up) and neither looks like it has a chance of being a contender this year.

So, my point of view is this. 

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.

This team wasn't a true contender last year, not even close.  But I still thoroughly enjoyed watching these guys play, and cheering for a group of guys that were full of heart, and who genuinely played like a team (rather than a group of individuals).  I still got excited by the thought of coming home each day, and watching every game.

If we took the Philly approach, I wouldn't get that.  I wouldn't have any interest in coming home and watching my team play, knowing full well that:

1) The team was assembled specifically to lose games
2) It's a roster full of temp players, and 80% of the guys won't be there 2 years from now

The ultimate goal in basketball is to win a championship, no doubt.  But that doesn't mean I can only appreciate a team that is on that level.  Only one team in the big 3 era won a title, but I loved every one of those teams.

Assuming best case scenario and the team wins it all, then you're going to be happy no matter how the team gets there.  But what if you get stuck in the worst case?  I'd personally much rather watch 6 years of Atlanta Hawks first round exits rather than 6 years of Timberwolves lottery.

So again I do completely understand why some people believe in the the tank approach, and that is certainly a valid approach in team building.  I personally prefer the Danny Ainge method though. 

This discussion has been really enjoyable to read. Polite, good points, and good conversation. We should put this up as a model thread somewhere.

[JoeyAinge]

Cavs if not for lebron returning their rebuild would still be pending 3 1st overall picks mind you. And two high 1sts.

Kyrie
Wiggins
Bennett
Waiters
Thompson

Al good players but that team probably still would not beat us out.

You can't just draft guys. Need to hit on free agency, Vet Min. Trades, and drafts to be a successful rebuild. Danny is doing a great job, and I doubt be strikes out next offseason. I think he'll put it all out there.

[RAAAAAAAANDY]

That level of uncertainty to me is not worth suffering through 2-3 more seasons of godawful basketball, especially since we already failed at it once in 13-14.  And I don't see the likelihood of success as higher than the approach we're taking now.  I respect your perspective, and I definitely share your frustration that that real push toward a contending core hasn't happened yet, but I think we're not going to see eye-to-eye on it.

Right.  I think it comes down to a difference in philosophy, or maybe just faith.

Do you believe more in trades / free agency or more in the draft?  How much do you value getting to watch a halfway decent team in the meantime?

The answers to those questions determine how you feel about the current path, and there isn't really a wrong answer, because there is no path that leads to a certain result.

My point is I respect where you're coming from, and I certainly don't think you're "wrong."  I can see the logic behind the way the Celts appear to be going, it's just not the way I'd have chosen.

I see where you're coming from PhoSita, but tend to agree with what FWF is saying.

IMO, OKC's success has skewed the perception of how easy it is to load up on top7 players, wait 2 years and boom: contend. At the same time the summer of 2007 and relative speed with which that team came together has probably made C's fans impatient for this rebuild.

But I think back to those Mavs (Kidd/Mashburn/JJ) and Nets (Kenny Anderson, DC and Billy Owens) teams that looked like they'd be really great, but imploded. Not to mention the graveyard of teams that added 1 star and 2 disappointments in 3-4 lottery picks.

I think there's a real value to building a team that believes in itself and overachieves -- a team you can add a difference maker *too* -- over a team that has come to accept losing, like the 76ers have. I'm not saying the players on PHI are losers or that they want to lose, but I can't imagine they actually go into games thinking "we've got a pretty good shot at winning". That stuff builds and lingers IMO.

Reading Johnathan Abrams stuff on Grantland and hearing Jalen Rose talk about his on-team experiences in DEN, PHO and NYK make me a firm believer that the context a young player (leaving out the transcendent exceptions like a Durant or KG) comes into has a lot to do with his success.

It could be that my faith is getting a bit blind as my beard gets gray, but I know we're gonna hit on a star or 2 in the next year or 2... Lots of things can happen. A guy gets tired of losing, a team faces tough cap decisions (less likely with the spike, but not impossible), Billy King gets hired somewhere else and trades us a great player.... I think it will be a 'surprise' in the way Paul George, Jimmy Butler or Draymond Green have been or the way PHO grabbed Eric Bledsoe or MIA swiped Dragic.

ubuntu!

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.

[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.

[Celtics4ever]

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.

I really think Noel will jump ship to us, someday, this is his home.

[JSD]

Dear Zack Lowe, put out a new podcast already, I'm dying over here.

[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.

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). 

[RAAAAAAAANDY]

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.