Happy trails to Hinkie's Power.

[PhoSita]

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. 

Sure.  Can you really plan to have it work out quicker than that?

I agree that going to your fans and saying, "Hey, we have a plan to be good in 8-10 years!" sounds horrible, and it should. 

My point is that I think a good GM should have a plan in place that accounts for as many variables as possible.  Meaning that if everything goes right, maybe you get right back to competing at the highest level within a few seasons, but if things don't go your way,  you still have a long term plan that you expect to get you on track within 7-8 years or so.

The idea being that even when things don't go your way,  you remain disciplined and patient because you have that long term, big picture plan. 

You don't make rash decisions like firing the coach or the GM, or radically altering your roster and spending money in free agency, just because things aren't going the way you hoped.


All of that means that I don't think it's so outrageous to say you have an "8 year plan."  If your plan REQUIRES 8 or more years just for your team to become decent enough that your fans will actually want to watch, then yes, that's indefensible.

[Dino Pitino]

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.

Two things to consider, everybody:

1. http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2015/07/16/dr-j-sixers-on-7-year-plan-to-be-good/

“Well when they [Joshua Harris and Sixers’ ownership group] acquired the team in 2012, maybe, I think the talk was about seven years. Seven years,” Erving said Wednesday on SiriusXM NBA Radio. “So I think it’s still on that same timeline.”

Seven years to make the playoffs?

“No. To be good,” Erving clarified. “To be good. To be formidable. To be a contender. That’s probably 18-19, right?”

2. http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/news/2011/07/13/philadelphia-76ers-sold-by-comcast-unit.html

Jul 13, 2011, 9:34pm EDT

So, it was a seven year plan, not eight, envisioned by the owners, not Hinkie, in the summer of 2011, not 2012. Now let's do some counting. Ready?

2012...one.

2013...two.

2014...three.

2015...four.

2016...five.

2017...six.

2018...

[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.

"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.

I don't think there are nearly as many teams that become contenders in under 8 years as you think there are.  I mean look at a team like the Warriors.  2013-4 they won 51 games (though lost in the first round of the playoffs) the last time the Warriors won 50 games prior to that season was 93-94 and had 12 straight seasons below .500 before two above and then four more below before the last few seasons.  The Warriors are far more typical then the abnormal teams like Spurs (who tanked for a season and ended up with Duncan). 

Chicago after Jordan and Pippen left went 13-37 (equates to 21.5 or so wins), 17-65, 15-67 before going to 21, 30, 23, and 47 wins.  Chicago didn't hit 50 wins again until winning 62 in 2010-11, which was precipitated by them winning the lottery and landing Rose with a 33 win team in 07-08. 

Indiana never quite bottomed out after the 61 win season in 03-04, but didn't hit 50 wins again until 13-14.  They had a couple of more seasons before going out of the playoffs and were in the playoffs a couple of years before 50 wins (including the prior season of 49 and the ECF). 

Those are the far more typical.  It takes a long time to build a team.  7 or 8 years should absolutely be expected if you are a team in a terrible position.  Sure if you are the Lakers and lose Shaq but still have Kobe, or the Spurs that lose Robinson to injury and then land Duncan, you can turn it around much quicker, but by and large teams take around a decade to get all the way back up from a peak.  And that is if you even do it at all.  Since Charlotte came back in 04-05 it has never won 50.  In fact the 46 this year is the highest and will be just the third playoff appearance (the other two were the only other times above 40 wins at 43 and 44)

[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.

Two things to consider, everybody:

1. http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2015/07/16/dr-j-sixers-on-7-year-plan-to-be-good/

“Well when they [Joshua Harris and Sixers’ ownership group] acquired the team in 2012, maybe, I think the talk was about seven years. Seven years,” Erving said Wednesday on SiriusXM NBA Radio. “So I think it’s still on that same timeline.”

Seven years to make the playoffs?

“No. To be good,” Erving clarified. “To be good. To be formidable. To be a contender. That’s probably 18-19, right?”

2. http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/news/2011/07/13/philadelphia-76ers-sold-by-comcast-unit.html

Jul 13, 2011, 9:34pm EDT

So, it was a seven year plan, not eight, envisioned by the owners, not Hinkie, in the summer of 2011, not 2012. Now let's do some counting. Ready?

2012...one.

2013...two.

2014...three.

2015...four.

2016...five.

2017...six.

2018...

8 was originally brought up earlier in this thread by a poster but, regardless whether its 7 or 8 years, my point remains the same. 

Good to know you have mastered mathematics & inserting gifs, though.

[Dino Pitino]

Good to know you have mastered mathematics & inserting gifs, though.

I was trying to be funny ha-ha not funny condescending, sorry. Also, I am suck at the maths, it's actually how I had to do the math, lol, sounding out the years and counting with my fingers.

Your points do all stand.

[MBunge]

It takes a long time to build a team.  7 or 8 years should absolutely be expected if you are a team in a terrible position. 

No, teams are built much more quickly than that.  Virtually every team that rebuilds gets a core of new players in place within 3 to 5 years.

Golden State drafted Curry in 2009.  By the time they started the 2013 season, they had Curry, Thompson, Green, Barnes, Bogut and Iguodala on their roster.

Now, after you've built a team, it can often take them a season or two to really hit their stride and most teams don't win a title or even compete for one, whether they're built fast or slow.

Eight years is forever.  I believe the average NBA career is only 4.8 years even Kobe only played for 20 years.

Eight drafts.  Eight free agent signing periods.  Eight trade deadlines.

That's a long time.

Mike

[Donoghus]

Eight drafts.  Eight free agent signing periods.  Eight trade deadlines.

That's a long time.

Mike

This.  x 1000.

[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

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

Okay, he chose not to retain Ish Smith, let him go to NO and then had to trade two seconds to get him back after Colangelo came. And they traded KJ for a 2nd rounder and Isaiah Canaan, who was so bad Hinkie had to trade TWO second rounders to get back that same Ish Smith he had previously let walk, just to have halfway competent PG play. Which, after all, is pretty important if your trying to showcase one of those bigs your gonna have to trade.

I don't see why people seem to think that others are saying Hinkie was a total failure and did terrible things for the 76ers. I don't think anyone can argue that. He's gotten a bunch of top picks recently for all that losing, and those guys are still valuable. They're in line for another one this year, and maybe even two. He won a ton of trades, and really destroyed the Kings in that salary dump. There is a pretty good chest of assets for the next FO to work with.

But remember, the job of a GM is to be a GENERAL manager. Your job isn't just to build a fantasy basketball team. You have fans, media, sponsors, the league and most importantly, ownership to have a handle on. At the end of the day Hinkie wasn't doing all this so he could hand over control to the Colangelo 's half way through. He wanted to prove that he was the smartest guy in the league and feel vindicated. Part of a GM's job is keeping his job, to be able to see their vision through and build a contender. Now the Colangelo's will deservedly get most of the credit if the assets he acquired turn into a contender, because that roster certainly isn't growing into one.

[Big333223]

It takes a long time to build a team.  7 or 8 years should absolutely be expected if you are a team in a terrible position. 

No, teams are built much more quickly than that.  Virtually every team that rebuilds gets a core of new players in place within 3 to 5 years.

I'm pretty sure the argument has been about how long it takes to get a team into contention, not how long it takes to get core players in place.

[Moranis]

It takes a long time to build a team.  7 or 8 years should absolutely be expected if you are a team in a terrible position. 

No, teams are built much more quickly than that.  Virtually every team that rebuilds gets a core of new players in place within 3 to 5 years.

I'm pretty sure the argument has been about how long it takes to get a team into contention, not how long it takes to get core players in place.

It is and then he starts at the 2009 draft and Curry, but Golden State didn't take Curry at the end of the 1st round, they took Curry in the lottery because they were a 29 win team to land that pick.  They were a 26 win team in Curry's rookie year, then 36 wins (Thompson), then back down to 23 wins (Barnes).  So GS had 4 seasons of crap before making the playoffs for two years and then becoming a legit contender (and actually winning) in year 7. 

I think someone could very reasonably argue that Philly is 3 years in and has a championship core in place (or at least they will after the summer).  Not hard to see how they could end up with a starting 5 of Noel, Saric, Simmons/Ingram, ?, Dunn/Hield with Embiid, Covington, Stauskas, etc. on the bench.  The ? is whomever they trade Okafor for.  Easily could see that team developing into a legit championship team down the road a couple of more seasons.

[Donoghus]

It takes a long time to build a team.  7 or 8 years should absolutely be expected if you are a team in a terrible position. 

No, teams are built much more quickly than that.  Virtually every team that rebuilds gets a core of new players in place within 3 to 5 years.

I'm pretty sure the argument has been about how long it takes to get a team into contention, not how long it takes to get core players in place.

It is and then he starts at the 2009 draft and Curry, but Golden State didn't take Curry at the end of the 1st round, they took Curry in the lottery because they were a 29 win team to land that pick.  They were a 26 win team in Curry's rookie year, then 36 wins (Thompson), then back down to 23 wins (Barnes).  So GS had 4 seasons of crap before making the playoffs for two years and then becoming a legit contender (and actually winning) in year 7. 

I think someone could very reasonably argue that Philly is 3 years in and has a championship core in place (or at least they will after the summer).  Not hard to see how they could end up with a starting 5 of Noel, Saric, Simmons/Ingram, ?, Dunn/Hield with Embiid, Covington, Stauskas, etc. on the bench.  The ? is whomever they trade Okafor for.  Easily could see that team developing into a legit championship team down the road a couple of more seasons.

And just as easily argue that they have a pile of crap in place;  A big man that has never played an NBA game due to injuries, another big man who plays one end of the floor while being a defensive liability and is considered "plodding" by today's standards (who's biggest value might be as a trade chip & not an actual part of the core), and a third big who in basically useless on the offensive end of the floor and may not even be a serviceable starter. Then you have the allure of a European who has never played an NBA game and is a big unknown.

I think Bill Simmons might be right here on this past Friday's podcast;  3 years in & is there one blue chip player on their roster?

There are still so many question marks with this team.

Its probably too early to label this thing an abject failure but the results 3 years in aren't very good.   A team that has actually regressed in win total.  And a GM who got shoved aside by management & ultimately forced to resign.  This doesn't even address the culture of the team & the possible impact when it comes to free agency.

[Moranis]

It takes a long time to build a team.  7 or 8 years should absolutely be expected if you are a team in a terrible position. 

No, teams are built much more quickly than that.  Virtually every team that rebuilds gets a core of new players in place within 3 to 5 years.

I'm pretty sure the argument has been about how long it takes to get a team into contention, not how long it takes to get core players in place.

It is and then he starts at the 2009 draft and Curry, but Golden State didn't take Curry at the end of the 1st round, they took Curry in the lottery because they were a 29 win team to land that pick.  They were a 26 win team in Curry's rookie year, then 36 wins (Thompson), then back down to 23 wins (Barnes).  So GS had 4 seasons of crap before making the playoffs for two years and then becoming a legit contender (and actually winning) in year 7. 

I think someone could very reasonably argue that Philly is 3 years in and has a championship core in place (or at least they will after the summer).  Not hard to see how they could end up with a starting 5 of Noel, Saric, Simmons/Ingram, ?, Dunn/Hield with Embiid, Covington, Stauskas, etc. on the bench.  The ? is whomever they trade Okafor for.  Easily could see that team developing into a legit championship team down the road a couple of more seasons.

And just as easily argue that they have a pile of crap in place;  A big man that has never played an NBA game due to injuries, another big man who plays one end of the floor while being a defensive liability and is considered "plodding" by today's standards (who's biggest value might be as a trade chip & not an actual part of the core), and a third big who in basically useless on the offensive end of the floor and may not even be a serviceable starter. Then you have the allure of a European who has never played an NBA game and is a big unknown.

I think Bill Simmons might be right here on this past Friday's podcast;  3 years in & is there one blue chip player on their roster?

There are still so many question marks with this team.

Its probably too early to label this thing an abject failure but the results 3 years in aren't very good.   A team that has actually regressed in win total.  And a GM who got shoved aside by management & ultimately forced to resign.  This doesn't even address the culture of the team & the possible impact when it comes to free agency.

3 years in in Golden State and you would be hard pressed to say they had a blue chip prospect on their roster as well and yet they end up 5 years later as at least a tie for the best regular season of all time after coming off a championship in year 7.  The 2010-11 Warriors were a 36 win team in Curry's 2nd season.  Monta Ellis was their best player and David Lee (along with Curry) were the only two people on that team that were still on the team for the title.  The 36 wins led to Klay Thompson in the draft.  Curry got hurt and they were a 23 win team the next year, which led to Barnes.   No one believed Curry was a blue chip prospect in his 2nd year.  He was going to be AT BEST a smaller PG version of Ray Allen, which would have been a nice player, but far from the franchise changer he would become. 

[Fafnir]

Given how exceptional Curry's rise has been I think I'd pass on using them as an argument for the 76ers.

Rephrase it as:

"If Embid turns about to be an MVP who has multiple seasons as good as KG/TD/Shaq's peak they'll be set!"

All you're saying is: "You're telling me there is a chance."

[nickagneta]

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

[Donoghus]

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.