Happy trails to Hinkie's Power.

[celticsclay]

For the people that continue to think that the Colangelo move means nothing in Philly.

From Ken Berger of CBS Sports today:

Josh Harris' office is located six city blocks from Adam Silver's, so given their mutual interest in the success of a $5 billion business, it's no surprise that they'd occasionally bump into each other and talk.

As a member of the NBA's planning committee, Harris often has formal business to conduct with the commissioner. But this business was more pressing. This was Harris, as the managing owner of the Philadelphia 76ers, realizing he had a problem on his hands.

The problem, as outlined here, was that his team was awful -- and in the view of observers around the league, getting worse. As teams go through cycles of winning and rebuilding and then doing it all over again, it's a common refrain among personnel decision-makers that you can only sell two things in the NBA: success and hope.

Harris' Sixers had neither.

The tipping point was the revelation that the team's foundational star, No. 3 pick Jahlil Okafor, had gone rogue with a series of legal transgressions -- including a much-publicized fight outside a Boston nightclub. Not that a grown, 19-year-old man needs a babysitter, but Okafor had arrived after one championship season at Duke and been dropped into a rancid dunk tank of losing, with virtually no veterans around to show him the way.

It's not clear who called whom, or exactly when, but it was around this time when Harris and Silver first spoke about how best to reroute the organization's course.

"[Harris] realized this is a tremendous asset that he has, and that it's not just about my draft picks and not just about my wins and losses," a league source familiar with the discussions told CBS Sports.

Harris and his partners, including fellow private equity titan David Blitzer, came to the conclusion that they needed what one league source described as a "course correction."

"It was him saying, 'I need help,'" the source said.

Enter Jerry Colangelo, the 76-year-old architect of USA Basketball's renaissance, former Suns owner and past chairman of the league's Board of Governors to save the day.

For Silver, I'm guessing that a team on the West Coast that's 23-0 and one on the East Coast that's 1-21 isn't what he had in mind when he reconstructed the league's collective bargaining agreement four years ago in search of competitive balance. But while the commissioner had a role in the Sixers hiring Colangelo to right the ship, how proactive Silver was has been a bit misunderstood.

Silver did not compel Harris to make the change, nor did other owners twist his arm to intervene, a person familiar with the highest levels of the talks told CBS Sports. When Harris asked for advice, Silver gave it in the form of a list of people with what one person described as "real-life experiences" to consider for the job. At the top of the list was Colangelo, who Silver has known since his first day in the NBA 23 years ago.

Silver spoke with Colangelo to gage his interest, made the introduction to Harris, and then stepped aside, league sources said. Silver is not even privy to the details of Colangelo's contract, which league sources speculate includes an ownership stake in addition to control over basketball decisions. His official title: Special Advisor to the Managing General Partner and Chairman of Basketball Operations.

Sam Hinkie, architect of the Sixers' three-year strategy of rebuilding through scraping the bottom of the standings while collecting future draft picks like bubble-gum cards, remains the general manager in title alone. No one in the league expects Hinkie's voice to carry over Colangelo's when it comes to personnel decisions going forward. That ship has sailed, along with the needlessly complex equations that built it.

...Waits for the Hinkieologists to move the goal posts....

[MBunge]

Philly ownership can't exactly blame Hinkie for the current state of the team.  Hinkie has followed a clear cut strategy and never deviated from it. 

Unless he sold them on an entirely different plan than the one he's implemented, I'm guessing they gave him the green light when they hired him, and now they're having trouble living with the consequences.

It seems silly to look down on Hinkie now that it turns out the Sixers didn't have the stomach for his plan.  The fact that the Sixers are 1-21 isn't evidence that he's done a poor job, because according to the plan he's followed, having a terrible team in the third year of this process was highly likely.  Ownership can't blame the architect for building what they hired him to build.

Ownership signed off on "The Process" but when they okayed the trade of Holiday for Noel, I seriously doubt they did so with the expectation or any statements from Hinkie that 2 1/2 years into it they'd be in this situation.  They approved the destination but Hinkie was the one steering the ship.  And when they had their big meeting at the end of last season, I'd bet money that Hinkie didn't look ownership in the eye and say "You do realize it's going to be a lot worse next season?"

The ironic thing is that "The Process" is all about the big picture but it's the small picture where Hinkie looks best.  Many of his moves, when considered on an individual and isolated basis, are arguably pretty smart and show some testicular fortitude, but all of those tactical decisions were in the service of a flawed strategy.

Mike

[PhoSita]

Philly ownership can't exactly blame Hinkie for the current state of the team.  Hinkie has followed a clear cut strategy and never deviated from it. 

Unless he sold them on an entirely different plan than the one he's implemented, I'm guessing they gave him the green light when they hired him, and now they're having trouble living with the consequences.

It seems silly to look down on Hinkie now that it turns out the Sixers didn't have the stomach for his plan.  The fact that the Sixers are 1-21 isn't evidence that he's done a poor job, because according to the plan he's followed, having a terrible team in the third year of this process was highly likely.  Ownership can't blame the architect for building what they hired him to build.

Ownership signed off on "The Process" but when they okayed the trade of Holiday for Noel, I seriously doubt they did so with the expectation or any statements from Hinkie that 2 1/2 years into it they'd be in this situation.  They approved the destination but Hinkie was the one steering the ship.  And when they had their big meeting at the end of last season, I'd bet money that Hinkie didn't look ownership in the eye and say "You do realize it's going to be a lot worse next season?"

Everything I've read indicates that Philly hired Hinkie because he presented his plan for rebuilding the team in great detail and they approved of it.  That plan from the beginning has been "we're gonna be bad for a while and reap multiple top 5 picks in the draft, and we're not going to commit  to anybody until we've got multiple star prospects on the roster." 

I don't think they can claim after three years that they're surprised and unhappy with how things are going.  If that's their position, then my guess is they deluded themselves into thinking this was a guaranteed thing, that they'd DEFINITELY get lucky in the lottery and end up where the T-Wolves are by now. 

If so, then they're morons.  Because of the way the lottery works, even if you maximize your chances of getting a top pick by all-out tanking, you still could go 5 or 6 years before you've got multiple no-doubt star prospects.

[BballTim]

Philly ownership can't exactly blame Hinkie for the current state of the team.  Hinkie has followed a clear cut strategy and never deviated from it. 

Unless he sold them on an entirely different plan than the one he's implemented, I'm guessing they gave him the green light when they hired him, and now they're having trouble living with the consequences.

It seems silly to look down on Hinkie now that it turns out the Sixers didn't have the stomach for his plan.  The fact that the Sixers are 1-21 isn't evidence that he's done a poor job, because according to the plan he's followed, having a terrible team in the third year of this process was highly likely.  Ownership can't blame the architect for building what they hired him to build.

Ownership signed off on "The Process" but when they okayed the trade of Holiday for Noel, I seriously doubt they did so with the expectation or any statements from Hinkie that 2 1/2 years into it they'd be in this situation.  They approved the destination but Hinkie was the one steering the ship.  And when they had their big meeting at the end of last season, I'd bet money that Hinkie didn't look ownership in the eye and say "You do realize it's going to be a lot worse next season?"

Everything I've read indicates that Philly hired Hinkie because he presented his plan for rebuilding the team in great detail and they approved of it.  That plan from the beginning has been "we're gonna be bad for a while and reap multiple top 5 picks in the draft, and we're not going to commit  to anybody until we've got multiple star prospects on the roster." 

  He must be quite a salesman, because at least half the posters here would be able to implement a "suck until you get lucky in the lottery" plan.

[slamtheking]

Philly ownership can't exactly blame Hinkie for the current state of the team.  Hinkie has followed a clear cut strategy and never deviated from it. 

Unless he sold them on an entirely different plan than the one he's implemented, I'm guessing they gave him the green light when they hired him, and now they're having trouble living with the consequences.

It seems silly to look down on Hinkie now that it turns out the Sixers didn't have the stomach for his plan.  The fact that the Sixers are 1-21 isn't evidence that he's done a poor job, because according to the plan he's followed, having a terrible team in the third year of this process was highly likely.  Ownership can't blame the architect for building what they hired him to build.

Ownership signed off on "The Process" but when they okayed the trade of Holiday for Noel, I seriously doubt they did so with the expectation or any statements from Hinkie that 2 1/2 years into it they'd be in this situation.  They approved the destination but Hinkie was the one steering the ship.  And when they had their big meeting at the end of last season, I'd bet money that Hinkie didn't look ownership in the eye and say "You do realize it's going to be a lot worse next season?"

Everything I've read indicates that Philly hired Hinkie because he presented his plan for rebuilding the team in great detail and they approved of it.  That plan from the beginning has been "we're gonna be bad for a while and reap multiple top 5 picks in the draft, and we're not going to commit  to anybody until we've got multiple star prospects on the roster." 

  He must be quite a salesman, because at least half the posters here would be able to implement a "suck until you get lucky in the lottery" plan.

and that's while trying NOT to suck

[MBunge]

Philly ownership can't exactly blame Hinkie for the current state of the team.  Hinkie has followed a clear cut strategy and never deviated from it. 

Unless he sold them on an entirely different plan than the one he's implemented, I'm guessing they gave him the green light when they hired him, and now they're having trouble living with the consequences.

It seems silly to look down on Hinkie now that it turns out the Sixers didn't have the stomach for his plan.  The fact that the Sixers are 1-21 isn't evidence that he's done a poor job, because according to the plan he's followed, having a terrible team in the third year of this process was highly likely.  Ownership can't blame the architect for building what they hired him to build.

Ownership signed off on "The Process" but when they okayed the trade of Holiday for Noel, I seriously doubt they did so with the expectation or any statements from Hinkie that 2 1/2 years into it they'd be in this situation.  They approved the destination but Hinkie was the one steering the ship.  And when they had their big meeting at the end of last season, I'd bet money that Hinkie didn't look ownership in the eye and say "You do realize it's going to be a lot worse next season?"

Everything I've read indicates that Philly hired Hinkie because he presented his plan for rebuilding the team in great detail and they approved of it.  That plan from the beginning has been "we're gonna be bad for a while and reap multiple top 5 picks in the draft, and we're not going to commit  to anybody until we've got multiple star prospects on the roster." 

I don't think they can claim after three years that they're surprised and unhappy with how things are going.  If that's their position, then my guess is they deluded themselves into thinking this was a guaranteed thing, that they'd DEFINITELY get lucky in the lottery and end up where the T-Wolves are by now. 

If so, then they're morons.  Because of the way the lottery works, even if you maximize your chances of getting a top pick by all-out tanking, you still could go 5 or 6 years before you've got multiple no-doubt star prospects.

I don't want to absolve ownership.  They are ultimately responsible for the state of the franchise.  Given Hinkie's bizarrely bad interactions with media and agents, it's hard to believe he somehow bamboozled the owners into buying his plan.

But I don't believe Hinkie really prepared them for being a complete laughingstock 2 1/2 years into the tank or for what happens when the coach starts rebelling against all the losing or told them he was going to alienate huge chunks or the NBA community.

Mike

[PhoSita]

  He must be quite a salesman, because at least half the posters here would be able to implement a "suck until you get lucky in the lottery" plan.

I think being a fantastic salesman is pretty much in the job description for GM.  Plus, it's easy to have a "suck until you get lucky" plan as a general theory, but in Philly, for all the negative things you can say about it, it's evident that there's a detailed philosophy behind it, right down to structuring contracts for 2nd round picks.

[Csfan1984]

Wonder if the ownership is indeed losing faith due to the selections themselves and not plan. Like Embid, MCW, Saric, Okafor and Noel could have been Smart, LaVine, Giannis, Porzingis, and Noel. If 76ers hit on their picks they would be very good shape.

[PhoSita]

Wonder if the ownership is indeed losing faith due to the selections themselves and not plan. Like Embid, MCW, Saric, Okafor and Noel could have been Smart, LaVine, Giannis, Porzingis, and Noel. If 76ers hit on their picks they would be very good shape.

Embiid was a calculated risk.  Most talented prospect on the board at that time.  MCW you can question, but it was a weak draft.  Saric we don't know about.  Okafor and Noel were also the most talented prospect on the board where they were taken.  Hinkie was just staying true to his philosophy ... don't worry about actually building a team until you've got the young stars in place.

[Csfan1984]

Wonder if the ownership is indeed losing faith due to the selections themselves and not plan. Like Embid, MCW, Saric, Okafor and Noel could have been Smart, LaVine, Giannis, Porzingis, and Noel. If 76ers hit on their picks they would be very good shape.

Embiid was a calculated risk.  Most talented prospect on the board at that time.  MCW you can question, but it was a weak draft.  Saric we don't know about.  Okafor and Noel were also the most talented prospect on the board where they were taken.  Hinkie was just staying true to his philosophy ... don't worry about actually building a team until you've got the young stars in place.

I didn't purposely pick positions but it did work that way lol. I was talking hitting where they were picking. If they had a do over based on players available when they picked it should be Smart over Embid (one could have passed on health), LaVine over Payton(LaVine had more upside IMO), Porzingis over Okafor(Porzingis looked like a better fit next to Noel), Greek freak over MCW (MCW was flawed to start with) and still take Noel.

[PhoSita]

Wonder if the ownership is indeed losing faith due to the selections themselves and not plan. Like Embid, MCW, Saric, Okafor and Noel could have been Smart, LaVine, Giannis, Porzingis, and Noel. If 76ers hit on their picks they would be very good shape.

Embiid was a calculated risk.  Most talented prospect on the board at that time.  MCW you can question, but it was a weak draft.  Saric we don't know about.  Okafor and Noel were also the most talented prospect on the board where they were taken.  Hinkie was just staying true to his philosophy ... don't worry about actually building a team until you've got the young stars in place.

I didn't purposely pick positions but it did work that way lol. I was talking hitting where they were picking. If they had a do over based on players available when they picked it should be Smart over Embid (one could have passed on health), LaVine over Payton(LaVine had more upside IMO), Porzingis over Okafor(Porzingis looked like a better fit next to Noel), Greek freak over MCW (MCW was flawed to start with) and still take Noel.

Sure, but a GM's drafting can't be evaluated retroactively like that.  You have to assess their decision based on the information available at the time.

When you look at how the prospects they chose turned out, then you're evaluating the player's adjustment to the NBA and the team's development process, not the GM's drafting.

[Moranis]

Wonder if the ownership is indeed losing faith due to the selections themselves and not plan. Like Embid, MCW, Saric, Okafor and Noel could have been Smart, LaVine, Giannis, Porzingis, and Noel. If 76ers hit on their picks they would be very good shape.

Embiid was a calculated risk.  Most talented prospect on the board at that time.  MCW you can question, but it was a weak draft.  Saric we don't know about.  Okafor and Noel were also the most talented prospect on the board where they were taken.  Hinkie was just staying true to his philosophy ... don't worry about actually building a team until you've got the young stars in place.

I didn't purposely pick positions but it did work that way lol. I was talking hitting where they were picking. If they had a do over based on players available when they picked it should be Smart over Embid (one could have passed on health), LaVine over Payton(LaVine had more upside IMO), Porzingis over Okafor(Porzingis looked like a better fit next to Noel), Greek freak over MCW (MCW was flawed to start with) and still take Noel.

Sure, but a GM's drafting can't be evaluated retroactively like that.  You have to assess their decision based on the information available at the time.

When you look at how the prospects they chose turned out, then you're evaluating the player's adjustment to the NBA and the team's development process, not the GM's drafting.

Well that and they didn't draft Payton, Orlando did. 

[Csfan1984]

Wonder if the ownership is indeed losing faith due to the selections themselves and not plan. Like Embid, MCW, Saric, Okafor and Noel could have been Smart, LaVine, Giannis, Porzingis, and Noel. If 76ers hit on their picks they would be very good shape.

Embiid was a calculated risk.  Most talented prospect on the board at that time.  MCW you can question, but it was a weak draft.  Saric we don't know about.  Okafor and Noel were also the most talented prospect on the board where they were taken.  Hinkie was just staying true to his philosophy ... don't worry about actually building a team until you've got the young stars in place.

I didn't purposely pick positions but it did work that way lol. I was talking hitting where they were picking. If they had a do over based on players available when they picked it should be Smart over Embid (one could have passed on health), LaVine over Payton(LaVine had more upside IMO), Porzingis over Okafor(Porzingis looked like a better fit next to Noel), Greek freak over MCW (MCW was flawed to start with) and still take Noel.

Sure, but a GM's drafting can't be evaluated retroactively like that.  You have to assess their decision based on the information available at the time.

When you look at how the prospects they chose turned out, then you're evaluating the player's adjustment to the NBA and the team's development process, not the GM's drafting.

You really aren't following. Let me break it down another way. The owners wouldn't have an issue with all the tanking if Hinkie hit on all his picks. When you miss on a pick no matter the information at the time it is all on you. It is your job to make good picks. The owners are sacrificing millions of dollars on the idea that you will make the right choices. More millions when you are talking tanking and not just accounting for  player's salaries. After so many misses no GM last. It's not all because they are tanking 3 years in a row it's likely based on the misses.

[Csfan1984]

Wonder if the ownership is indeed losing faith due to the selections themselves and not plan. Like Embid, MCW, Saric, Okafor and Noel could have been Smart, LaVine, Giannis, Porzingis, and Noel. If 76ers hit on their picks they would be very good shape.

Embiid was a calculated risk.  Most talented prospect on the board at that time.  MCW you can question, but it was a weak draft.  Saric we don't know about.  Okafor and Noel were also the most talented prospect on the board where they were taken.  Hinkie was just staying true to his philosophy ... don't worry about actually building a team until you've got the young stars in place.

I didn't purposely pick positions but it did work that way lol. I was talking hitting where they were picking. If they had a do over based on players available when they picked it should be Smart over Embid (one could have passed on health), LaVine over Payton(LaVine had more upside IMO), Porzingis over Okafor(Porzingis looked like a better fit next to Noel), Greek freak over MCW (MCW was flawed to start with) and still take Noel.

Sure, but a GM's drafting can't be evaluated retroactively like that.  You have to assess their decision based on the information available at the time.

When you look at how the prospects they chose turned out, then you're evaluating the player's adjustment to the NBA and the team's development process, not the GM's drafting.

Well that and they didn't draft Payton, Orlando did.

76ers drafted Payton and traded him to Magic for Saric + extras.

[Who]

Draft Picks

* Noel = excellent pick, top marks
* MCW = excellent pick, top marks

* Embiid = did not like, thought it was too risky injury-wise. Docs cleared him though and it was an understandable risk to take given Embiid's enormous talent.
* Saric = do not know enough about him, seems respectable. I am skeptical though. Worry about concerns about which position he can defend and questionable shooting ability. Too early to judge this pick.

* Okafor = I did not like this pick. I thought there were better talents available. Mudiay was my first choice. Porzingis I was uncertain about due to lack of info but definitely had a higher ceiling if he was a good prospect. I probably would have taken Winslow and S.Johnson ahead of Okafor as well. Just ... not a fan of this pick. I thought this was falling into consensus instead of thinking for himself and properly evaluating player and alternatives. I thought trading down and picking up an additional asset was also a fantastic option given Okafor's oversized reputation / trade value.


Main Trades

* Holiday for N.Noel and future lotto pick = excellent trade
* Turner, Hawes for 2nd rounders = meh, great commitment but lousy to watch, didn't change much either way
* E.Payton trade = excellent, got the player they rated highest and extra pick.
* Thad Young for a 1st rounder = Young wanted out, good return. Good trade.
* MCW trade = strong return getting that Lakers pick. Very good trade.
* KJ McDaniels trade = good trade. He wanted too much money and had proved too little. Inflated stats playing on lousy Sixers team. They would have had to overpay to keep him.
* Stauskas trade = good trade. Picked up a solid prospect in a cap dump.