Happy trails to Hinkie's Power.

[hpantazo]

As much as the Sixers have publicly changed course, we honestly can't evaluate the success or lackthereof of Hinkie's plan for at least another two years. We haven't even seen Embiid , Saric, and whoever they draft in June play yet. Noel and Okafor are not the center pieces, those guys are

[Moranis]

If Golden State is the comparison then Philly better be winning a championship to be considered a success story. Golden State might have been bad but they never blatantly threw away three seasons and bottomed out in a historical manner to get super high picks and use them for stars. Golden State tried and did improve, even in those early bad years. If you are going to become historically bad over three seasons on purpose, the end result better be that you are going to be historically good for the plan to be considered a success in its execution

Except that 23 (28.5 over 82) win season was not GS' 1st season.  Golden State went from a team that won 48 games to winning 29 games in one season.  Then 26, then 36, but then back down to 23 (28.5 over 82).  In the middle of that crap, they traded away their best player. 

I really don't get the revisionist history here.  Golden State was a pretty bad team for 4 straight years and racked up lottery picks.  Now sure they weren't bottom of the barrel bad, but bad is still bad.  And let's also not forget that Golden State had a 5 season string in the late 90's early 00's of winning 19, 21 (34.4 over 82), 19, 17, and 21 games (the last three years they went from 3rd worst to 2nd worst to the worst team in the league).  The fruit of that labor was a 48 win team 6 years after being the worst team in the league.

[Moranis]

If Golden State is the comparison then Philly better be winning a championship to be considered a success story. Golden State might have been bad but they never blatantly threw away three seasons and bottomed out in a historical manner to get super high picks and use them for stars. Golden State tried and did improve, even in those early bad years. If you are going to become historically bad over three seasons on purpose, the end result better be that you are going to be historically good for the plan to be considered a success in its execution

The Golden State history lesson/comparison is dainty & all but it's anecdotal at best.  Is this when I'm supposed to pull out the early to mid 90s Dallas Mavericks?

There is very little I see from Philadelphia right now that instills in me that they are headed in the direction of Golden State.

I don't think they are similar either, merely used Golden State as the most recent example of a team taking 7 years to rebuild.  7 to 8 years is probably an undersell if you look at history, but this notion that teams rebuild in less than 7 or 8 years is just crazy.  Look at the Bulls (after Jordan) or the Magic (after Shaq or even after Howard).  Look at the C's for two decades.  Or the Mavericks.  etc.

Saying out loud you are running a 7 year plan probably isn't the smartest thing to do, but knowing that you are on a 7 year plan probably makes sense as generally there is a year or 2 of getting rid of players, 2 or 3 of being bad and getting picks, 2 or 3 of building up, and then contention 5 to 8 years after you start the process.  And that is of course if everything goes right in the draft and player development. 

[Who]

5 years to get back into the playoffs
6-7 years to move from playoff team to title contender