Happy trails to Hinkie's Power.

[Casperian]

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.

Do you want a glass of milk with that pie in the sky? If you really believe Hinkie had no intention of keeping his job, or that it was merely an afterthought as he bravely tried to do the right thing, I don't know what to tell you.
Hinkie didn't lose his job because the owners are stupid, petty or corrupt (although they very well may be), he lost it because he didn't do a good job.

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.

See, this is basically what it boils down to. Some people believe Philly has amazing assets, others think they are mostly damaged goods, and your evaluation largely depends on which side of the fence you're on.

I just want to point out that he didn't "create a treasure chest out of nothing". Every team gets a draft pick each year. If anything, his approach ensured their picks were a bit higher than they might've ended up, otherwise. If you believe he devalued his own picks by drafting the way he did, the argument becomes even emptier. The Warriors sucked for many years, too, although never to such a degree, and then they ended up drafting Steph Curry at #7.

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.

Funny, I seem to remember you saying things like "Philly is clearly in a better position", and "there's no way we can outbid Philly when a star player becomes available" among other definite statements to declare that their approach is much better than ours. Then again, moving the goalposts and trying to be as ambiguous as possible has always been your schtick.

[MBunge]

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.

Hinkie had an all star in Jrue Holiday, a rookie of the year in MCW, Evan Turner, Spencer Hawes and didn't he also have Thaddeus Young?  Deliberately inflicting three of the worst seasons in league history also isn't nothing.  Plenty of GMs could turn that into a nice bunch of future assets.

Mike

[Moranis]

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

he didn't waive Ish Smith and didn't trade KJ McDaniels away for nothing

[Moranis]

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

Yeah but Minnesota had all of its 1st round picks and Kevin Love, that is why the comparison to Philly is flawed.  Boston had HOFer's and quality veterans that could be traded for assets, Philly only had Jrue Holiday.  That is why the comparison to Philly is flawed.

You are totally ignoring just how bad the Philly situation was when Hinkie took over.  That is why the plan to tank made a lot of sense.  Philly had almost nothing to work with. 

[Moranis]

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

You have no idea if Embiid can play with Noel or Okafor.  Sure Noel and Okafor don't work, but you can't just assume Embiid won't work with either also as Embiid is actually a fairly complete prospect on both ends of the floor. 

[Moranis]

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?

Hinkie had an 8 year plan according to Dr. J and others associated with the Sixers.  We are right about 3 years in. 

[Moranis]

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.

Hinkie had an all star in Jrue Holiday, a rookie of the year in MCW, Evan Turner, Spencer Hawes and didn't he also have Thaddeus Young?  Deliberately inflicting three of the worst seasons in league history also isn't nothing.  Plenty of GMs could turn that into a nice bunch of future assets.

Mike

Holiday had a devastating knee injury and who ended up trading for Noel and a future 1st (which he traded for more assets and took Saric with).  Hinkie drafted MCW who promptly fell off a cliff after getting traded (for what might be the 4th pick in this draft).  Turner was so bad after getting traded that Indiana didn't even want to re-sign him at basically the minimum.  Hawes is a back-up big man that no one would give anything of value for.  He got a 1st round pick for Young, which is respectable value.

[Fafnir]

An eight year plan? 8 years is basically the length of most rotation players careers.

If you ask for odds that team is a title contender 8 years from now its about even across the entire league. I guess since he was planning on throwing away at least 4 years he was making the case for a four year plan after he tried to get as many high lottery picks as possible.

[Fafnir]

They dumped Holiday when the dumping was good, don't forget they hid injury information from New Orleans and got in trouble for it.

[Donoghus]

An eight year plan? 8 years is basically the length of most rotation players careers.

If you ask for odds that team is a title contender 8 years from now its about even across the entire league. I guess since he was planning on throwing away at least 4 years he was making the case for a four year plan after he tried to get as many high lottery picks as possible.

"Congrats Sixer fans!  It'll take nearly a decade to *possibly* come to fruition but we have this incredible plan to get our organization back to relevancy & being a true contender.   However, there's actually no guarantee it'll work but please sit tight for the next 8 years."

What an absolute joke and slap in the face of their fanbase.

[Dino Pitino]

I just want to point out that he didn't "create a treasure chest out of nothing". Every team gets a draft pick each year. If anything, his approach ensured their picks were a bit higher than they might've ended up, otherwise.

Philly owed their 2015 and 2017 1sts, top 14 protected. So when Hinkie started they 1) couldn't use their own pick as trade material in advance for the next four years and 2) had to be a lottery team in those two years or else not have a pick. He got back one of them, and then added six more. We have the other one, and it turned into 2nds.

Anyway, "nothing" is relative. Next time I'll say "nothing above the minimum"...except in Philly's 1st round pick situation circa 2013, it was actually -2 below the baseline, maybe -1.459 or whatever if the protection is factored into the expected value. And he turned it into +5 above the baseline.

Also, top 3 picks aren't just a "bit" higher, they're a qualitative leap in probability versus the middle of the lottery. If we get the 7th or 8th pick this year instead of a top 3 pick, that wouldn't just be a "bit" lower.

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.

Hinkie had an all star in Jrue Holiday, a rookie of the year in MCW, Evan Turner, Spencer Hawes and didn't he also have Thaddeus Young?  Deliberately inflicting three of the worst seasons in league history also isn't nothing.  Plenty of GMs could turn that into a nice bunch of future assets.

Mike

MCW was not already there. Jrue Holiday wasn't nothing, fine. Yet. Holiday was turned into Noel and a 10th pick. Young wasn't nothing, fine. Young was turned into a 1st. Evan Turner was so valuable that he wound up signing for a whopping 3 million a year that summer. A second rounder for him then was appropriate. Hawes and the cap space sans Hawes became four 2nds.

"Nothing" was an exaggeration, okay. If that had been the Celtics roster and pick situation and cap situation, what would you have called it?

[Moranis]

An eight year plan? 8 years is basically the length of most rotation players careers.

If you ask for odds that team is a title contender 8 years from now its about even across the entire league. I guess since he was planning on throwing away at least 4 years he was making the case for a four year plan after he tried to get as many high lottery picks as possible.

I went back and looked Dr. J said it was a 7 year plan to be formidable i.e. contender. 

[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?

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

lol

So because you can't argue with anything that I actually said, you call me a "Hinkie defender" and exit the conversation. Well done.

[PhoSita]

An eight year plan? 8 years is basically the length of most rotation players careers.

If you ask for odds that team is a title contender 8 years from now its about even across the entire league. I guess since he was planning on throwing away at least 4 years he was making the case for a four year plan after he tried to get as many high lottery picks as possible.

"Congrats Sixer fans!  It'll take nearly a decade to *possibly* come to fruition but we have this incredible plan to get our organization back to relevancy & being a true contender.   However, there's actually no guarantee it'll work but please sit tight for the next 8 years."

What an absolute joke and slap in the face of their fanbase.

"8 year plan" sounds bad at face value, but plenty of teams try to get back to relevancy much shorter term than that and end up floundering with lots of turnover (of players and coaches) for a decade or more.

The Magic traded Dwight Howard before the 2012-2013 season.  Are they less than 4 more seasons away from contending for anything of significance?

Often, even when teams make it out of the wilderness, they haven't set themselves up well enough to actually stay there, so they're right back in the midden heap after only a few seasons competing for the playoffs.


If you're strongly emphasizing the draft, you've got to figure it takes a few years to put together the draft assets upon which you're going to build your team.  Then, you need another few seasons for those players to grow and learn together, and for the GM to figure out the right supporting cast to put around them.

So maybe even best case scenario you're talking 5-6 years of drafting and building if you want to go from the bottom, i.e. a bare cupboard, to a team that has a chance of making noise in the playoffs.  But the idea, I assume, is that you could sustain your success once you get there.



Not to mention, I figure most GMs probably have a 5-8 year plan for their franchise.  Unless you've got a top contender with an aging core, the last thing you want is a GM who is making decisions entirely focused on the next 2-3 seasons.

[Donoghus]

An eight year plan? 8 years is basically the length of most rotation players careers.

If you ask for odds that team is a title contender 8 years from now its about even across the entire league. I guess since he was planning on throwing away at least 4 years he was making the case for a four year plan after he tried to get as many high lottery picks as possible.

"Congrats Sixer fans!  It'll take nearly a decade to *possibly* come to fruition but we have this incredible plan to get our organization back to relevancy & being a true contender.   However, there's actually no guarantee it'll work but please sit tight for the next 8 years."

What an absolute joke and slap in the face of their fanbase.

"8 year plan" sounds bad at face value, but plenty of teams try to get back to relevancy much shorter term than that and end up floundering with lots of turnover (of players and coaches) for a decade or more.

The Magic traded Dwight Howard before the 2012-2013 season.  Are they less than 4 more seasons away from contending for anything of significance?

Often, even when teams make it out of the wilderness, they haven't set themselves up well enough to actually stay there, so they're right back in the midden heap after only a few seasons competing for the playoffs.


If you're strongly emphasizing the draft, you've got to figure it takes a few years to put together the draft assets upon which you're going to build your team.  Then, you need another few seasons for those players to grow and learn together, and for the GM to figure out the right supporting cast to put around them.

So maybe even best case scenario you're talking 5-6 years of drafting and building if you want to go from the bottom, i.e. a bare cupboard, to a team that has a chance of making noise in the playoffs.  But the idea, I assume, is that you could sustain your success once you get there.



Not to mention, I figure most GMs probably have a 5-8 year plan for their franchise.  Unless you've got a top contender with an aging core, the last thing you want is a GM who is making decisions entirely focused on the next 2-3 seasons.

And there have been plenty of instances in NBA history where teams have been able to rebuild much quicker than 8 years; make the conference finals, NBA Finals, win championships.  Given the economics and avenues available for teams to improve, it shouldn't take close to a decade. 

8 years looks bad at face value because it is bad.  Period.

It's silly to offer that to your fanbase and expect them to buy into it.  Not in the fickle nature of sports fandom. 

I've said it for a while, Hinkie's plan probably works well ina vacuum.  But when you factor in real world issues like having to deal with bad PR, the image that losing leaves on potential free agents, impatient ownership teams & dealing with an actual fanbase that will be critical then the whole plan seems to have cracks left & right.