Happy trails to Hinkie's Power.

[BDeCosta26]

Count Jeff Van Gundy amongst those basketball minds who actually get it with Hinkie: 

If you just look at the facts, you can make an argument, I think a valid argument, that he did a lot of good things that put them in great position going forward, but was pushed out.

I think Sam is really, really bright. If I was an organization right now, I would try to get him on the phone and have him be the contrarian to whatever my plan was, whether it's a paid position or just free advice.One thing I knew from my time in Houston and I continue to know now, is he's an exceptionally bright guy who works hard.

You cannot judge Sam Hinkie's three-year tenure today. You have to wait and see if [Joel Embiid] develops. If Embiid doesn't ever play, there's something. If Embiid goes on to be a perennial All-Star, then you have to give Sam Hinkie a lot of credit. Same with [Jahlil] Okafor, [Dario Saric] who may or may not be coming over this year.

This isn't just a Sam Hinkie plan, you don't get to do whatever you want as a general manager. This is a collaborative plan, that was cosigned by whoever in ownership has that ability to do that. I hate when people it's Sam Hinkie coming up with this; yeah he had some of these ideas, but they had to be approved.

The record is awful, historically bad. But there are things that were done very well, and a lot remains to be seen on his plan. I think we have to wait for judgment. I think if he had played the media game better and more, I think that will serve him going forward in his next job.

Most of this whooshes over the heads of casual fans.  Thank heavens for guys like Barkley, Zach Lowe and Van Gundy who have made comments about how well philly is now positioned. If all I had at my disposal were the opinions of uninformed homers and ignorant shock media, I'd lose my mind.

I think most people get what he was doing and why LB. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that top picks are ultra valuable, and being really bad for a long time gets you a bunch of them.

Hinkie made some really great trades, his "plan" wasn't really a bad one. His execution of that plan was.

If you got three straight top 5 picks, would you use them all on centers who couldn't play together? Would you actively ship off or avoid any player that could make you slightly better? Would you shop away KJ McD for nothing, just cause you didn't wanna pay him a few bucks? Would you waive Ish Smith even though he's the closest thing to a competent PG you have? Would you put together a team of D-Leaguers and shamelessly make it clear you intend to lose as much as humanely possible?

Probably not. Hinkie's plan isn't "wrong". It's guaranteed to work if you have enough time. But as JVG said, Hinkie ignored all of the human factors that play into building a successful franchise. You can't actively avoid the media if your doing what they did. You can't burn bridges with agents the way he did. You can't build a team as bad as the one they have and not think it's not going to negatively effect those blue chip prospects you picked. You can't just assume that your owners are going to stomach absolute suckery without tangible progress for however long you need them too. Basically, you can't be one of the worst teams in the league for three years in a row, trade off any talent you have for extra picks, and still have no semblance of an actual roster or a team identity being built. These are people, not just "assets".

Those people you mention from the national media have made this same point. Hinkie may have done some good things there. Made good trades, collected some very good assets. But he made a whole lot of mistakes when it came time to turn theory into reality. As a Celtic fan, I don't get how you can defend him so profusely. Tanking isn't a new idea. Hinkie made the ultra-tank, and throughout that "process" made a number of major mistakes that slowed down the progression of that franchise and called his entire approach into question. Drafting 3 guys in a row at the top of the lottery who can never play together is part of those mistakes. Hinkie blew it man, just accept it and move on. Just be glad we have Danny Ainge instead

I'll concede that by your personal measure (as a fan) of what makes a good GM, Hinkie may have failed in your eyes.  Perhaps you feel positioning them as a treadmill 35-45 win team with a mid 1st on the way would have been the mark of a successful GM.   That very clearly wasn't the goal.  The goal was to lose more games, land more top picks, and start building a team in the summer.

The reality is that Hinkie succeeded so far in what he set out to do.  Whether or not his plan was successful remains to be seen.  Id say "the jury is still out", but really the jury hasn't even been selected yet.   You can't judge something you haven't yet seen.   

Hinkie wanted to tank this year - so philly tanked this year.  They are adding another guaranteed top 4 pick to their stockpile of assets.  For a team that set out to tank this year, you literally can't get any more successful than finishing with the league's worst record.

I don't think it really matters what I as a fan view as successful, if your a GM, what matters is what your owners consider successful. Part of your job as a GM is to keep your owners and the local media in check by being clear about what you wanna do and why. If you don't do that and you lose your job, what good is all that asset collection and your "plan" if you can't even see it through. Hinkie failed as GM of the Sixers the minute he lost that job, and everything done from here out is Colangelo's work. So really, the jury is already out. His job as GM of PHI was to bring that city a championship contender and he failed to do that because he neglected the very real, human factors that come along with the job like corralling the owners, placating the media, doing right by agents, and building an actual team identity. Still being employed when your team becomes good is a very important part of being a successful GM.

And where's this idea that the Sixers had to do this or else they would become a "treadmill" team coming from? I think that's nonsense. Hinkie could've just made a few slightly different moves and still have had both his job and that team set up with assets for the future. They could've drafted Porzingas or Mudiay, taken someone they actually planned to keep with the MCW pick, and he'd still likely have his job while they'd still be the 4th worst or 5th worst team with a high pick.

I don't think the point is that "the process" was wrong. If your bad enough for long enough, and you get enough high draft picks, you'll almost surely be able to acquire a foundational "star" at some point or another. But to think you can just do that for as many years as neccesary, putting d-league rosters out on the floor, and one day your gonna just flip the switch and become contenders is senile. You have to show tangible progress, you have to give owners and fans reasons to believe in what your doing and you have to set up an environment in which your high draft picks will develop. Hinkie's failure to do those things has made his tenure a failure, and even if Colangelo picks up the pieces and makes a contender out of it, that doesn't make Hinkie's rule any less of a failure.

[LarBrd33]

Count Jeff Van Gundy amongst those basketball minds who actually get it with Hinkie: 

If you just look at the facts, you can make an argument, I think a valid argument, that he did a lot of good things that put them in great position going forward, but was pushed out.

I think Sam is really, really bright. If I was an organization right now, I would try to get him on the phone and have him be the contrarian to whatever my plan was, whether it's a paid position or just free advice.One thing I knew from my time in Houston and I continue to know now, is he's an exceptionally bright guy who works hard.

You cannot judge Sam Hinkie's three-year tenure today. You have to wait and see if [Joel Embiid] develops. If Embiid doesn't ever play, there's something. If Embiid goes on to be a perennial All-Star, then you have to give Sam Hinkie a lot of credit. Same with [Jahlil] Okafor, [Dario Saric] who may or may not be coming over this year.

This isn't just a Sam Hinkie plan, you don't get to do whatever you want as a general manager. This is a collaborative plan, that was cosigned by whoever in ownership has that ability to do that. I hate when people it's Sam Hinkie coming up with this; yeah he had some of these ideas, but they had to be approved.

The record is awful, historically bad. But there are things that were done very well, and a lot remains to be seen on his plan. I think we have to wait for judgment. I think if he had played the media game better and more, I think that will serve him going forward in his next job.

Most of this whooshes over the heads of casual fans.  Thank heavens for guys like Barkley, Zach Lowe and Van Gundy who have made comments about how well philly is now positioned. If all I had at my disposal were the opinions of uninformed homers and ignorant shock media, I'd lose my mind.

I think most people get what he was doing and why LB. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that top picks are ultra valuable, and being really bad for a long time gets you a bunch of them.

Hinkie made some really great trades, his "plan" wasn't really a bad one. His execution of that plan was.

If you got three straight top 5 picks, would you use them all on centers who couldn't play together? Would you actively ship off or avoid any player that could make you slightly better? Would you shop away KJ McD for nothing, just cause you didn't wanna pay him a few bucks? Would you waive Ish Smith even though he's the closest thing to a competent PG you have? Would you put together a team of D-Leaguers and shamelessly make it clear you intend to lose as much as humanely possible?

Probably not. Hinkie's plan isn't "wrong". It's guaranteed to work if you have enough time. But as JVG said, Hinkie ignored all of the human factors that play into building a successful franchise. You can't actively avoid the media if your doing what they did. You can't burn bridges with agents the way he did. You can't build a team as bad as the one they have and not think it's not going to negatively effect those blue chip prospects you picked. You can't just assume that your owners are going to stomach absolute suckery without tangible progress for however long you need them too. Basically, you can't be one of the worst teams in the league for three years in a row, trade off any talent you have for extra picks, and still have no semblance of an actual roster or a team identity being built. These are people, not just "assets".

Those people you mention from the national media have made this same point. Hinkie may have done some good things there. Made good trades, collected some very good assets. But he made a whole lot of mistakes when it came time to turn theory into reality. As a Celtic fan, I don't get how you can defend him so profusely. Tanking isn't a new idea. Hinkie made the ultra-tank, and throughout that "process" made a number of major mistakes that slowed down the progression of that franchise and called his entire approach into question. Drafting 3 guys in a row at the top of the lottery who can never play together is part of those mistakes. Hinkie blew it man, just accept it and move on. Just be glad we have Danny Ainge instead

I'll concede that by your personal measure (as a fan) of what makes a good GM, Hinkie may have failed in your eyes.  Perhaps you feel positioning them as a treadmill 35-45 win team with a mid 1st on the way would have been the mark of a successful GM.   That very clearly wasn't the goal.  The goal was to lose more games, land more top picks, and start building a team in the summer.

The reality is that Hinkie succeeded so far in what he set out to do.  Whether or not his plan was successful remains to be seen.  Id say "the jury is still out", but really the jury hasn't even been selected yet.   You can't judge something you haven't yet seen.   

Hinkie wanted to tank this year - so philly tanked this year.  They are adding another guaranteed top 4 pick to their stockpile of assets.  For a team that set out to tank this year, you literally can't get any more successful than finishing with the league's worst record.

I don't think it really matters what I as a fan view as successful, if your a GM, what matters is what your owners consider successful. Part of your job as a GM is to keep your owners and the local media in check by being clear about what you wanna do and why. If you don't do that and you lose your job, what good is all that asset collection and your "plan" if you can't even see it through. Hinkie failed as GM of the Sixers the minute he lost that job.

Fact:  Hinkie quit.  He wasn't fired.  It makes sense why the 76ers wanted colangelo part of the team as they entered the next phase.  There was outside pressure from agents and other GM's to do somethings. Hiring jerry colangelo placated those rabble rousers, but he's also a proven team builder widely respected around the league.  Colangelo publicly said that after talking with hinkie, he understood the plan and wanted hinkie to stay.  It's clear this was true, because they stayed 100% on course with the tank job and finished with the desired worst record.  Hinkie didn't want to share power, though. And there a rumors that the ownership is planning on selling the tram to a group involving colangelo - so hinkie stepped down.

Also, even if he had been fired, which he wasn't, the premise is flawed.  Teams with young players pretty frequently hire coaches who are great at developing talent.  Once they are ready to take the next step, they fire that coach in favor of one who has playoff success.  Does that make the earlier coach a failure ?  Nope.   Plenty of teams have bought off on entering tank mode and the GM didn't survive the aftermath.  Does that make that GM a failure ?  Nope - he did what he was asked to do.

Hinkie took over a team over the cap with no stars, no significant assets, and missing draft picks.  He set out to change that by shamelessly tanking for 3 years and collecting assets and draft picks.   He succeeded in what he set out to do.  Whether or not hinkie was the right guy to put those pieces together is another question entirely.   Ownership bought off on Hinkies plan.  He did exactly what he wanted to do over the past 3 years.  And now the team is ready to take the next step.  Hinkie did them a solid by stepping down, because I think the amount of burnt bridges with agents would have hurt them in free agency.

[Dino Pitino]

The Process was a great strategy given Philly's circumstances. But given the miserable failure on the court it required, Hinkie had to give it close to A+ execution and get close to A+ luck in terms of picking the right prospects in order for owners and media and half the fans to feel like it was really working in the middle of the process, the turning point, which is now. Otherwise doubt would creep in, and he'd risk being deposed. Which he was. His final grade is still Incomplete, and it could still turn into a belated A, but his mid-term is a B or B- at best. Great plan, but only good execution. Still could turn into a C- or D+, too, if Embiid isn't a healthy star, if Saric is a nothingburger. But did he fail? Hell no. Just didn't do well enough.

[PhoSita]

It strikes me that one of the major lessons from the Hinkie saga is that the price you pay for prioritizing competing for a championship above all else can be high.

Isn't that what Hinkie did?  He basically approached rebuilding with the all-or-nothing logic that it's all about championships.  And his strategy was defensible as such.  But it threw to the wayside a lot of things that don't necessarily factor into aiming for the top, but that clearly matter -- entertaining  fans, placating media, maintaining relationships with players and agents, providing some evidence in the short term that you're actually building something on the court.

After all, to compete for a championship you've pretty much got to have one of the top 3-5 players in the league, if not the best guy in the league.  If you're serious about making that your one and only priority, going for the highest pick in the draft makes sense.

But saying that a championship is your only priority glosses over the fact that actually succeeding in that pursuit is very unlikely.  10% chance of getting the next big thing and competing for titles for a decade, 90% chance of descending even deeper into purgatory for the foreseeable future.

So it's probably better to just aim to build a 50-55 win team and keep your options open, hope that the right opportunity will come along to give you at least one chance at making the Finals.  Maybe your odds of reaching the very top are lower that way, but you're more likely to have an actual team to watch in the meantime.


TLDR --- the whole Hinkie thing might make us ask: Can you reasonably plan to build a championship contender from the bottom up, or is it better to just try to build a very good team and hope something unexpected goes your way? (e.g the #7 pick turning into the greatest shooter ever)

[Dino Pitino]

TLDR --- the whole Hinkie thing might make us ask: Can you reasonably plan to build a championship contender from the bottom up, or is it better to just try to build a very good team and hope something unexpected goes your way? (e.g the #7 pick turning into the greatest shooter ever)

[Big333223]

This conversation is so tired. It all comes down to the fact that we still don't know anything. We don't know how Okafor or Noel will develop or what their true value is on the trade market. We don't know if Embiid will play or when Saric will come over or how good either will be when/if they hit the court. We don't know who the team will draft this year or even how many top 5 picks they might have (I'm still hoping LA gets leapt by a couple of teams and we see that pick go to Philly).

This is neither good nor bad it just makes anyone making declarative statements about Hinkie's performance in Philly so far look kind of silly in my eyes. Especially those calling his plan a failure when you have no idea how it'll turn out.

[LarBrd33]

This conversation is so tired. It all comes down to the fact that we still don't know anything. We don't know how Okafor or Noel will develop or what their true value is on the trade market. We don't know if Embiid will play or when Saric will come over or how good either will be when/if they hit the court. We don't know who the team will draft this year or even how many top 5 picks they might have (I'm still hoping LA gets leapt by a couple of teams and we see that pick go to Philly).

This is neither good nor bad it just makes anyone making declarative statements about Hinkie's performance in Philly so far look kind of silly in my eyes. Especially those calling his plan a failure when you have no idea how it'll turn out.

Exactly.  TP.  It remains to be seen if Philly's plan failed. It still may prove to be a failure.  It still may prove to be a success.  Just have to wait and see.

[MBunge]

Also, even if he had been fired, which he wasn't, the premise is flawed.

Nope - he did what he was asked to do.

Hinkie took over a team over the cap with no stars, no significant assets, and missing draft picks.  He set out to change that by shamelessly tanking for 3 years and collecting assets and draft picks.   He succeeded in what he set out to do.  Whether or not hinkie was the right guy to put those pieces together is another question entirely.   Ownership bought off on Hinkies plan.  He did exactly what he wanted to do over the past 3 years.  And now the team is ready to take the next step.

1.  Hinkie quit because Sixers ownership was no longer satisfied with his management and no longer had faith in his leadership.  They brought in an NBA legend with whom Hinkie was at minimum going to share power with and quite probably be subordinate to.  But that gets back to you being completely wrong about the hiring of Colangelo.

2.  Hinkie wasn't asked to do a anything.  It was his plan, his vision and his responsibility when it didn't work out.

3.  Philly is in good shape for your typical rebuilding team, but Philly isn't your typical rebuilding team.  They pursued an extraordinarily painful and costly strategy which can only be justified if it is extraordinarily successful.  Is Philly in better shape than Boston, Orlando, Utah, Milewaukee or Minnesota?  Those teams were in rebuild mode at the same time as Philly and, right now, they are all in better shape.  That could change depending on Embiid's health and the 2016 draft, but that's kind of the point.  Three years into Hinkie's plan and Philly's future still hinges on beating lottery odds and a player who was hurt when he was drafted and has been too hurt to play for two straight seasons.


4.  Minnesota has Wiggins, Townes, Rubio, Lavine, Deng, Shabazz and veteran leaders, including KG.  They still sucked.  The "next step" for Philly is to only suck as bad as Minny did this year.

Mike

[MBunge]

This conversation is so tired. It all comes down to the fact that we still don't know anything.

We know that Noel, Embiid and Okafor can't play together.

We know Philly is most likely not going to get the top pick in the lottery.

We know Philly has less active talent on their current roster than any other team in the NBA.

We know Philly ownership was no longer happy with Hinkie's management.

We know Hinkie had a horrible reputation with agents around the league.

Mike

[SHAQATTACK]

Goodness ......

Say n good bye


Takes a long time .   LOL

[nickagneta]

Well, when exactly and how exactly does one determine whether Hinkie's tanktastic plan worked. LB explained that he did a Hinkie tank in a fantasy basketball league and then cashed in his assets and cruised to a title. Is winning a title how one should measure whether Hinkie's plan worked? Given the lengths the team went to get bad to add draft pick assets, is just getting competitive or to a contending level even good enough to be considered a success? Shouldn't the barometer be a title win?

And if a title is the real measuring stick, when should it be expected to be considered to have happened due to Hinkie's plan? Next year? The year after that? 4 years later? When? What is a timetable that can be given that assures the success was because of this tank? When do we know when this has been a success or a failure?

I honestly can't see Philly having a winning record for three more years, never mind being a contender or winning a title. That's 6 years after the start of the plan. Is the plan still in effect at that point? I mean if there was a plan, there had to be a timetable. When exactly was this team supposed to start turning things around and start showing that the plan had real merit? 2 years after they stop tanking? 3? 4?

This is stuff I have not seen discussed by those that agree with Hinkie's plan. What was the original timetable? What is considered success? What is considered a failure?

[Big333223]

This conversation is so tired. It all comes down to the fact that we still don't know anything.

We know that Noel, Embiid and Okafor can't play together.

We know Philly is most likely not going to get the top pick in the lottery.

We know Philly has less active talent on their current roster than any other team in the NBA.

We know Philly ownership was no longer happy with Hinkie's management.

We know Hinkie had a horrible reputation with agents around the league.

Mike

Does any of this matter?

Noel, Okafor, and Embiid don't have to be able to play together if their trade value is as good or better than the other players that might have been drafted with those picks.

Saying Philly is most likely not going to pick #1 is disingenuous as they have better odds to pick #1 than anyone else does and that's all they could possibly have control over.

The rest of this has basically no bearing on whether or not the plan was a success because of all of the things I listed that we just don't know yet.

[MBunge]

This conversation is so tired. It all comes down to the fact that we still don't know anything.

We know that Noel, Embiid and Okafor can't play together.

We know Philly is most likely not going to get the top pick in the lottery.

We know Philly has less active talent on their current roster than any other team in the NBA.

We know Philly ownership was no longer happy with Hinkie's management.

We know Hinkie had a horrible reputation with agents around the league.

Mike

Does any of this matter?

Nothing matters to Hinkie defenders.  People usually have to actually do something to inspire this kind of blind devotion, but all Hinkie has done is offer an undefined fantasy.

Mike

[BDeCosta26]

This conversation is so tired. It all comes down to the fact that we still don't know anything. We don't know how Okafor or Noel will develop or what their true value is on the trade market. We don't know if Embiid will play or when Saric will come over or how good either will be when/if they hit the court. We don't know who the team will draft this year or even how many top 5 picks they might have (I'm still hoping LA gets leapt by a couple of teams and we see that pick go to Philly).

This is neither good nor bad it just makes anyone making declarative statements about Hinkie's performance in Philly so far look kind of silly in my eyes. Especially those calling his plan a failure when you have no idea how it'll turn out.

Exactly.  TP.  It remains to be seen if Philly's plan failed. It still may prove to be a failure.  It still may prove to be a success.  Just have to wait and see.

Yeah, okay but that's still missing the point.

As a GM of an NBA team, a MAJOR part of your job is keeping your billionaire owner happy. A major part of your job is recognizing what your owner will and won't approve of. Failing to recognize that and reconcile that, is as much as failure for an NBA GM as anything that happens on the court, because both can cost you your job.

What your failing to realize here is that Hinkie's "process" wasn't a wrong headed approach. If you've got the stomach to take it, it's as good of an idea as almost any to become contenders. But you can follow Hinkie's approach without fielding a team of d-leaguers or drafting three centers in a row. Better yet, you can do something very similar to Hinkie (See:Minnesota), and still maintain a measure of competitiveness and be able to point towards tangible progress toward the future. I'd much rather be Minnesota right now.

Except in certain academic circles (including CB Forums), Hinkie's process failed just be pure virtue of being unable to complete it. If Colangelo turns that team into a contender in 3 years, Colangelo will get credit for building a team out of the ashes of the Hinkie era. Gaining all those assets means very little to you if your not around to capitalize on them. The fact they marginalized Hinkie to the point of writing that ridiculous 13 page resignation later is proof enough that "The Process" was a failure.

Yet, that doesn't make Hinkie's plan a wrong headed one. That doesn't mean the things he did for Philly won't  be helpful in the future, thus providing fruits to the pains of outright suckery. But it does mean that ignoring the human aspect that goes into building a franchise (fan base, ownership, environment, identity, press relations, agent relations, etc.) and treating this like a fantasy basketball league is a poor decision. Is the premise sound? Sure. But is the result sound? No. After three years they should have seen more progress than this. You can't just flip a switch and be good, it takes years for a team to gel and build chemistry around a core, especially if your building through the draft. You can't validate "The Process" if your not the person who builds a contender.

Results are the bottom line in this league. Ironically, that's the premise behind Hinkie's whole strategy. But that sword cuts both ways. If your three years into a rebuild and your team is still historically bad with no semblance of an NBA roster, your results will matter. Hinkie will be judged on what he did in his time there, not by what the Colangelo's do with what he's left behind. Right or wrong.

[Dino Pitino]

This conversation is so tired. It all comes down to the fact that we still don't know anything. We don't know how Okafor or Noel will develop or what their true value is on the trade market. We don't know if Embiid will play or when Saric will come over or how good either will be when/if they hit the court. We don't know who the team will draft this year or even how many top 5 picks they might have (I'm still hoping LA gets leapt by a couple of teams and we see that pick go to Philly).

This is neither good nor bad it just makes anyone making declarative statements about Hinkie's performance in Philly so far look kind of silly in my eyes. Especially those calling his plan a failure when you have no idea how it'll turn out.

Exactly.  TP.  It remains to be seen if Philly's plan failed. It still may prove to be a failure.  It still may prove to be a success.  Just have to wait and see.

Yeah, okay but that's still missing the point.

As a GM of an NBA team, a MAJOR part of your job is keeping your billionaire owner happy. A major part of your job is recognizing what your owner will and won't approve of. Failing to recognize that and reconcile that, is as much as failure for an NBA GM as anything that happens on the court, because both can cost you your job.

No. His job is to do his job. Not to keep his job. An employee can do his job perfectly and honorably but if the owners or management are stupid, petty, or corrupt then they could be unhappy and he could lose his job, anyway. Maybe even because he was too good. Not necessarily the case with Hinkie, but it is all too common in life. As a general statement what you said is terrible for the world.

What your failing to realize here is that Hinkie's "process" wasn't a wrong headed approach. If you've got the stomach to take it, it's as good of an idea as almost any to become contenders. But you can follow Hinkie's approach without fielding a team of d-leaguers or drafting three centers in a row. Better yet, you can do something very similar to Hinkie (See:Minnesota), and still maintain a measure of competitiveness and be able to point towards tangible progress toward the future. I'd much rather be Minnesota right now.

Except in certain academic circles (including CB Forums), Hinkie's process failed just be pure virtue of being unable to complete it. If Colangelo turns that team into a contender in 3 years, Colangelo will get credit for building a team out of the ashes of the Hinkie era. Gaining all those assets means very little to you if your not around to capitalize on them. The fact they marginalized Hinkie to the point of writing that ridiculous 13 page resignation later is proof enough that "The Process" was a failure.

If you think getting the credit for doing a great job is more important than doing the great job itself, if you think doing a great job but not being around to get the credit for it is a form of failure, then you desperately need a new philosophy of life. I recommend the book Antifragile.

Yet, that doesn't make Hinkie's plan a wrong headed one. That doesn't mean the things he did for Philly won't  be helpful in the future, thus providing fruits to the pains of outright suckery. But it does mean that ignoring the human aspect that goes into building a franchise (fan base, ownership, environment, identity, press relations, agent relations, etc.) and treating this like a fantasy basketball league is a poor decision. Is the premise sound? Sure. But is the result sound? No. After three years they should have seen more progress than this. You can't just flip a switch and be good, it takes years for a team to gel and build chemistry around a core, especially if your building through the draft. You can't validate "The Process" if your not the person who builds a contender.

If Danny Ainge were Hinkie's successor, he could probably turn Philly's assets into a contender this summer.

Results are the bottom line in this league. Ironically, that's the premise behind Hinkie's whole strategy. But that sword cuts both ways. If your three years into a rebuild and your team is still historically bad with no semblance of an NBA roster, your results will matter. Hinkie will be judged on what he did in his time there, not by what the Colangelo's do with what he's left behind. Right or wrong.

Hinkie created a treasure chest of assets out of nothing. That's what he did in his time there. If Colangelo fashions a contender from it, then fairminded human beings would assign a lot of the credit for that to Hinkie. Denying him any credit would be wrong. I prefer doing the right thing.