Colangelo hints at shrinking role for Hinkie

[TheSundanceKid]

I find it fascinating that a few people are fascinated by Hinkie's "strategy".
Agree with those who counter that it is a completely obvious
approach to attempt to collect future stars.  The only difference was Hinkie's commitment to
how long to be bad and the degree of badness (being so bad that a top 3 pick is a certainty).  So, perhaps what people are fascinated by is that Hinkie was willing to be completely hated/villified by various parties.  Is that the fascinating part??  Or that he would do the fantasy GM thing in a real league?

A.  The degree of Sixer badness
B.  The length of time being horrible
C.  The damage to the franchise via A and B, plus alienated fans, agents, other teams, the league office, etc..

A plus B plus C added together is the reason Hinkie won't get to play with his accumulated assets, and if i were him I'd be majorly depressed about it, but he made his own bed with his excess (the other part I guess some are fascinated by).

What Hinkie-obsessed Celtic bloggers haven't answered in this or other threads is:  What is his definition of a successful plan if one considers the level and quantity of suffering (which Boston fans would NOT have gone through...sorry but Hinkie would have lasted 8 months or so in Boston) endured?

Don't the Sixers have to win multiple titles starting a few years from now in order to be able to look back and say: wow it actually worked (the plan working is still not the same as saying it was worth it...that debates will also continue)

Colangelo has an easy job, which is to make the Sixers competitive again.  Is that success?  To be competitive again?  I don't think so.  That was not the point of such a massive tank.  The point was stars and titles.  And from that perspective the whole thing was an epic fail.  You can only pay so many stars at once and keep so many self-groomed players. 

Welcome back to competitive bball next year or the year after Sixers and Sixer fans.  If you're really lucky you'll end up somewhere a bit better than the Magic, Nuggets, Wolves and Celtics 2 or 3 or 4 years from now.  You may even be the Thunder of a few years back.

Hinkie is no magician, anyone can tank. We did it for Duncan way back, perhaps even more obviously. What is interesting with Hinkie is how he has managed to use his cap space to acquire extra assets.

Most of our big assets have come from the Nets trade, shipping out All stars for great value. The rest have come from savvy cap management by Ainge and opportunistic moves.
Hinkie didn't have garnett or Pierce on the team. He had Turner, Young, Holiday. So given that he couldn't produce the same haul we did he's decided to utilise cap space to absorb deals for picks, collecting assets that way. Yes at the same time he has tried to make the 76ers suck hard which does bring a questionable reputation.

I do believe there should have been some veteran presence in that dressing room the last few years. It wouldn't have added many if any wins but it would have added some professionalism to the locker room. Keeping Wallace would have been one such move.

However there is nothing wrong with taking advantage of the draft system. Hinkie was hired in May 2013, so he has had 3 years of tanking.

His first move netted Noel, solid.
Traded ROY Carter-Williams for the Lakers first, I think that's a good move.
Drafted Embiid, if he ever plays this was a good pick. At the time it was the right one.
Drafted Okafor, questionable given Porzingis was there but still he's a good player

Now if Embiid had been healthy, this year would be his sophomore year and I think we would start to see them build around him. It didn't work out, he re-injured himself and they tanked again.

Now they have 2 potential cornerstones in Okafor and Embiid and in the next year I expect them to decide which one to keep. The other will have great trade value as I'm pretty certain there will be multiple suitors. Add one of Simmons, Ingram and Dunn to that and it's a nice 1-2 punch. Some might say it's close to the Wiggins-Towns combo.

TL:DR Philly didn't have the stars to trade like Boston(or even Minnesota) so they did the best they could with the system that is in place

[wiley]

I find it fascinating that a few people are fascinated by Hinkie's "strategy".
Agree with those who counter that it is a completely obvious
approach to attempt to collect future stars.  The only difference was Hinkie's commitment to
how long to be bad and the degree of badness (being so bad that a top 3 pick is a certainty).  So, perhaps what people are fascinated by is that Hinkie was willing to be completely hated/villified by various parties.  Is that the fascinating part??  Or that he would do the fantasy GM thing in a real league?

A.  The degree of Sixer badness
B.  The length of time being horrible
C.  The damage to the franchise via A and B, plus alienated fans, agents, other teams, the league office, etc..

A plus B plus C added together is the reason Hinkie won't get to play with his accumulated assets, and if i were him I'd be majorly depressed about it, but he made his own bed with his excess (the other part I guess some are fascinated by).

What Hinkie-obsessed Celtic bloggers haven't answered in this or other threads is:  What is his definition of a successful plan if one considers the level and quantity of suffering (which Boston fans would NOT have gone through...sorry but Hinkie would have lasted 8 months or so in Boston) endured?

Don't the Sixers have to win multiple titles starting a few years from now in order to be able to look back and say: wow it actually worked (the plan working is still not the same as saying it was worth it...that debates will also continue)

Colangelo has an easy job, which is to make the Sixers competitive again.  Is that success?  To be competitive again?  I don't think so.  That was not the point of such a massive tank.  The point was stars and titles.  And from that perspective the whole thing was an epic fail.  You can only pay so many stars at once and keep so many self-groomed players. 

Welcome back to competitive bball next year or the year after Sixers and Sixer fans.  If you're really lucky you'll end up somewhere a bit better than the Magic, Nuggets, Wolves and Celtics 2 or 3 or 4 years from now.  You may even be the Thunder of a few years back.

Hinkie is no magician, anyone can tank. We did it for Duncan way back, perhaps even more obviously. What is interesting with Hinkie is how he has managed to use his cap space to acquire extra assets.

Most of our big assets have come from the Nets trade, shipping out All stars for great value. The rest have come from savvy cap management by Ainge and opportunistic moves.
Hinkie didn't have garnett or Pierce on the team. He had Turner, Young, Holiday. So given that he couldn't produce the same haul we did he's decided to utilise cap space to absorb deals for picks, collecting assets that way. Yes at the same time he has tried to make the 76ers suck hard which does bring a questionable reputation.

I do believe there should have been some veteran presence in that dressing room the last few years. It wouldn't have added many if any wins but it would have added some professionalism to the locker room. Keeping Wallace would have been one such move.

However there is nothing wrong with taking advantage of the draft system. Hinkie was hired in May 2013, so he has had 3 years of tanking.

His first move netted Noel, solid.
Traded ROY Carter-Williams for the Lakers first, I think that's a good move.
Drafted Embiid, if he ever plays this was a good pick. At the time it was the right one.
Drafted Okafor, questionable given Porzingis was there but still he's a good player

Now if Embiid had been healthy, this year would be his sophomore year and I think we would start to see them build around him. It didn't work out, he re-injured himself and they tanked again.

Now they have 2 potential cornerstones in Okafor and Embiid and in the next year I expect them to decide which one to keep. The other will have great trade value as I'm pretty certain there will be multiple suitors. Add one of Simmons, Ingram and Dunn to that and it's a nice 1-2 punch. Some might say it's close to the Wiggins-Towns combo.

TL:DR Philly didn't have the stars to trade like Boston(or even Minnesota) so they did the best they could with the system that is in place

Very good post.  I agree it should be quite easy now to get Philly on a track back to competitive team.  Colangelo would not have joined up if this were not the case. 

My question was about the cost. How much success, as in how great does Philly have to become in the next decade to say:  well, that **** show was worth it after all.

I would like to hear Hinkie supporters (who feel the Sixers are a big basket of gold) lay it on the line and talk about titles.  I mean if you're bringing the gold metaphor isn't that where the discussion should go? 

If it's too soon to make predictions, I'd like to hear some predictions about when we can start predicting...the day after the 2016 draft?

My own prediction is that they'll pretty easily get back to 8th seed territory two years from now (not next season). And the year after that they'll be looking about like current Indiana/Atlanta/Miami/Utah.
I can't predict if they'll be at that level with room to move up from there or if they'll sort of peak there like the vast majority of teams do.

The other question is how good will Minny/New Orleans/Boston/Utah/Orlando, etc etc. be by that time?Some of Philly's picks will likely team up with other stars at the end of their rookie deals or shortly after that.  Such as joining Karl Towns or Anthony Davis wherever they may be down the road.  I guess with Colangelo the point will be to lure the Town's/ADavis's of the league to come play with Ben Simmons (the hoped for BS)

[celticsclay]

I think it is a fair point that just about anyone on this board could have done what Hinkie did. It wasn't recreating the game. He basically tried to be as bad as possible for as many years as he could to increase the chances of landing a superstar. All that being said, hitting on those draft picks becomes that much more important. It really look like he may missed out on the one superstar that was available at the slot of his draft in Taking okafor. He also did a gamble on Embiid's health and that has not worked out either. Hasn't done anything that crazy though, and hasn't done anything that great.

I don't know about that. They've been incredibly opportunistic in using their cap space to gain assets. The Lakers pick and the Sacramento deal in the summer spring to mind.

I think if Embiid had recovered from his injury then this year would've been the first year angling toward the playoffs. Next year they will move up the league. Colangelo will definitely help them in that process but he hasn't changed the direction of the team.

If anything it must be annoying for Hinkie that he's had to do the "dirty work" and not be given the reigns to pull them out of it, showing the NBA that his strategy was indeed sound. If they succeed now people will say it was in spite of Hinkie. If the next time they get to the playoffs it is with a core that was built using the assets HE acquired, then he deserves some of the credit

Well whether the Lakers pick conveys this year pretty much determines if it is a good or bad trade. At the absolute worst, MCW is a very strong defensive guard that would be in a rotation on a really good team. At times, he looks like he could be a starting caliber point guard. It is starting to look like his shot won't improve so getting rid of him was a good idea. However, if the Lakers pick doesn't come through this year, it seems hard to believe that it will be much better than 10th-12th next year after another year of development from Randle, Russel and Clarkson, hiring an actual competent coach and losing the net negative of Kobe taking tons of shots. There is also a change it drops down further if they can sign any halfway decent free agents (I do think at least some players will want to play there with Kobe gone).

So MCW coming off ROY for a pick that is 4th or 5th that you wait a year for, outstanding trade.
If it ends up being MCW for a mid first pick in the draft that you wait 2.5 years to get, I think they could have gotten better for him than that at the time.

Regarding the Sacramento trade I never quite got why Barnwell  (at Grantland) was so excited about it at the time. I am not sure Stauskas finishes his rookie contract he seems like a net negative asset at this time that could get cut. He has been that bad. For all the train wreck that has been Sacramento's season, they are going to have less than a 1% chance of swapping picks with Philly this season (and possible it is zero if they rise above some of the garbage in the race for 8th). It is cool they have those extra ping pong balls, but nothing I would say is absolutely brilliant.

Last offseason, you claimed that the Lakers would just miss the playoffs this season and therefore Philly would be a loser because they'd only end up with the 12th-14th pick in this upcoming draft.  Now you're regurgitating that same claim for next season.  Unless the Lakers have a good free agency, there's a good chance they'll be a bottom 5 team again next season.  Also next year's draft is projected to be much better than this year's draft so it may benefit the Sixers if the pick doesn't convey until next year even if it ends up in the 6th-10th range.   
http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=79603.msg1921933#msg1921933

Regarding the Sacramento trade, you failed to mention that the pick swaps are for both this year's draft and next year's draft.  You also didn't mention the best asset the Sixers got in the trade.  They got a Kings 1st (2018 top 10 protected, 2019 unprotected).  That's a very good asset to have from a very dysfunctional team and organization.  Also Stauskas has been playing better the last month so I wouldn't write him off yet.  I doubt if he'll end up a starter but he could be a good shooter off the bench.   

Little creepy to go back in threads from 7 months ago looking for specific projections from posters not even related to the Celtics. Waaaay too much time on your hands? I will be the firs to admit i definitely thought that the Lakers would be better this year than they have. The Kobe farewell tour and him somehow staying healthy for the first time in 4 years, coupled with Scott going full tank, less than anticipated contributions from Hibbert and Bass (and Nick Young falling off a cliff from average to unplayable) has made the Lakers waaaay less than competitive than I thought they would be. Now, as a Philly fan, don't you think this offseason there is an even better chance of them making a leap this with Kobe officially gone and his 25 million dollar cap number (plus ball hoggery)?

I don't think i am saying anything conroversial to say the Lakers are tanking this year. Even with this years collection of talent they could easily have 8 or so more wins if they were trying like hell to win. You add that to development from their young guys and a top 3 pick and saying they would finish 10th seems fairly conservative no? How is any of this worth arguing over? It seems pretty obvious if the lakers pick doesn't convey this year it was a gamble that didn't work out for the 76ers. Do you feel like it it wouldn't be?

I'll grant you the 2018 protected sacramento is a solid asset (again had forgotten it, but not obsessed with the 76ers here), but nothing amazing. It is similar to the pick we are owed from Memphis. Hard to get excited cause it is far in the future. It was a solid trade, but not something to gleefully laugh about into the night. I guess it is cool if Stauskas turns out to be a bench player.

I thought I remembered you making the projection but I wanted to make sure I wasn't confusing you with one of the other prolific anti-Sixers posters.  The forum has a search feature so it just took a couple minutes to find your previous post.  I think you've called me a Sixers fan before and I've had to correct you.  I'm an Embiid fan so that's predominantly why I'm keeping up with the Sixers plus I find the Hinkie strategy interesting. 

The Lakers do have a chance to make improvements this offseason but they haven't been able to do much the past few off seasons.  They didn't come close to getting Melo or Aldridge.  I think they need to fix their front office before that changes much.  The top free agents this year seem like they'll stay with their current team or would prefer somewhere else besides the Lakers.  I thought they might get DeRozen but he seems happy in Toronto.  I don't see Durant going to the Lakers.  What impactful free agents do you think the Lakers are going to get?  Not sure why you think 10th is a conservative projection.  The TWolves have a much better roster and they're the 5th worst team this season. 

I've never thought much of MCW.  Before the Sixers traded him, many of the posters on this blog correctly said he was an overrated ROY because it was a weak draft.  Hinkie did good getting the Lakers 1st for him.  I can't see the Bucks getting nearly that much for him if they tried to trade him now.  Other than Simmons and Ingram, I don't particularly like any other top 10 possibilities more than the late lottery possibilities.  The Sixers have the Heat pick (top 10 protected) which has a good chance being late lottery with the Bosh injury.  If we had the Laker's pick, I'd probably want it to roll over to next year's draft which is projected to be much better top 10.  So no I don't think the Sixers necessarily lose out if the Lakers pick rolls over to next draft.

I wrote a really long response to this last night, and then it timed out, so here is a shorter version and I will do it mostly in question form. The Lakers have 11 wins right now and still have a number of games left versus the dregs of the league. Lets say they finish with 18 (seems like about what they are on pace for). Now from there lets ask
1) How many games have the Lakers lost by having Scott as their coach. He is terrible at developing young players, has a terrible history with the lakers at end of games, and everything I have ever read from Lakers fans or otherwise pegs him as one of the worst coaches in the league that is hired only to be a puppet and lose game. Firing him and replacing him with even an average coach would seem to be worth 3 wins over the course of the season. Agree/Disagree?

2) Kobe's swan song. Kobe is playing off awful and for the better part of the season has also been shooting at a really low percentage (35%!) at a very high volume. Statheads can chime in, but I have seen a lot of people put in stats that show him to be one of the worst players in the NBA. Replacing him with even an average NBA player (a jeff green?) would seem to be worth 2 or 3 wins. Agree or Disagree?

3) Not actively tanking: While I realize this is definitely tied to point number 1, We have all presumably watched a few of both the Nets and Lakers games this season. There is a pretty obvious difference in how hard the Nets are trying to win (at least in my opinion and a few others). Playing Brook and Thad 35+ minutes, especially under Hollins to eek out wins was visibly very different than the Lakers shuttling their players well (Russell, Clarkson and Bass at times) in out of the lineups, even in crunch time. If the Lakers did not know there pick is lost if it falls outside the top 3 I don't think is crazy to think they would have 5 more wins. Agree, Disagree?

4) Free agents and Kobe: A lot has been written about how players did not want to play with twilight level Kobe. Why would they? He plays no defense, his salary hold was preventing them from filling out the roster, he takes long contested j's and worst of all, he is a living legend in the town that can do no wrong. What kind of competent NBA player or near star wants to go play for them? I am not surprised at all that Aldridge or Melo didn't want to or that Howard left. That being said, with him gone I think that is a major attraction for free agents. I agree they will not get durant or derozen most likely, but what about some of the other next tier guys. Conley? Whitesite? Batum? Al Jefferson? Noah? With lots of cash, no longer competing with Kobe and still being able to offer the LA lifestyle and weather, it is hard to believe they couldn't attract at least a few of these guys. Everyone is convinced that Brooklyn can do this, so how can we not think LA will?

5) Some of the old guard in the west is starting to crumble. It appears that Gasol's injury was the end of the grindhouse team of the Grizzlies. Allen and Randolph are late 30's, Conley is a free agent and there is basically no talent there. How they avoid a rebuild is beyond me. Dallas: Does Dirk retire this offseason? When do they stop cobbling together a team of mid 30's veterans? Having their pick back may mean they do it next season. Denver, Phoenix and Portland will almost certainly not be juggernauts. Houston does not seem likely to keep their core together. There is going to be a lot of mediocrity in the bottom half of the Western conference. Does LA, not owning  not pick up a few wins from this?

Based on all of this it seems hard to believe the Lakers couldn't at least sniff 30 wins next year with a solid chance of 35(provided they have an unprotected pick going to Philly). I would like to know why others think they wouldn't?

[Who]

2) Kobe's swan song. Kobe is playing off awful and for the better part of the season has also been shooting at a really low percentage (35%!) at a very high volume. Statheads can chime in, but I have seen a lot of people put in stats that show him to be one of the worst players in the NBA. Replacing him with even an average NBA player (a jeff green?) would seem to be worth 2 or 3 wins. Agree or Disagree?

Replacing Kobe with an average player = 10 win improvement

2-3 wins is way too low.

[Moranis]

2) Kobe's swan song. Kobe is playing off awful and for the better part of the season has also been shooting at a really low percentage (35%!) at a very high volume. Statheads can chime in, but I have seen a lot of people put in stats that show him to be one of the worst players in the NBA. Replacing him with even an average NBA player (a jeff green?) would seem to be worth 2 or 3 wins. Agree or Disagree?

Replacing Kobe with an average player = 10 win improvement

2-3 wins is way too low.

Sure on a good team, but on a bad team, it is probably only a couple of wins.

[celticsclay]

2) Kobe's swan song. Kobe is playing off awful and for the better part of the season has also been shooting at a really low percentage (35%!) at a very high volume. Statheads can chime in, but I have seen a lot of people put in stats that show him to be one of the worst players in the NBA. Replacing him with even an average NBA player (a jeff green?) would seem to be worth 2 or 3 wins. Agree or Disagree?

Replacing Kobe with an average player = 10 win improvement

2-3 wins is way too low.

I was trying to be conservative in my projections. Obviously anything is possible, but it just seems really hard to say the Lakers won't make a jump into mediocrity next year if they don't own their first round pick at all and have fired scott and gotten rid of Kobe. I don't know why this makes people that are fans of the process recall. It was one of many moves. If it ends up being MCW for the number 15 pick 3 drafts down the road it is probably a pretty mediocre trade, but it is not even a terrible trade.

[TheSundanceKid]

I find it fascinating that a few people are fascinated by Hinkie's "strategy".
Agree with those who counter that it is a completely obvious
approach to attempt to collect future stars.  The only difference was Hinkie's commitment to
how long to be bad and the degree of badness (being so bad that a top 3 pick is a certainty).  So, perhaps what people are fascinated by is that Hinkie was willing to be completely hated/villified by various parties.  Is that the fascinating part??  Or that he would do the fantasy GM thing in a real league?

A.  The degree of Sixer badness
B.  The length of time being horrible
C.  The damage to the franchise via A and B, plus alienated fans, agents, other teams, the league office, etc..

A plus B plus C added together is the reason Hinkie won't get to play with his accumulated assets, and if i were him I'd be majorly depressed about it, but he made his own bed with his excess (the other part I guess some are fascinated by).

What Hinkie-obsessed Celtic bloggers haven't answered in this or other threads is:  What is his definition of a successful plan if one considers the level and quantity of suffering (which Boston fans would NOT have gone through...sorry but Hinkie would have lasted 8 months or so in Boston) endured?

Don't the Sixers have to win multiple titles starting a few years from now in order to be able to look back and say: wow it actually worked (the plan working is still not the same as saying it was worth it...that debates will also continue)

Colangelo has an easy job, which is to make the Sixers competitive again.  Is that success?  To be competitive again?  I don't think so.  That was not the point of such a massive tank.  The point was stars and titles.  And from that perspective the whole thing was an epic fail.  You can only pay so many stars at once and keep so many self-groomed players. 

Welcome back to competitive bball next year or the year after Sixers and Sixer fans.  If you're really lucky you'll end up somewhere a bit better than the Magic, Nuggets, Wolves and Celtics 2 or 3 or 4 years from now.  You may even be the Thunder of a few years back.

Hinkie is no magician, anyone can tank. We did it for Duncan way back, perhaps even more obviously. What is interesting with Hinkie is how he has managed to use his cap space to acquire extra assets.

Most of our big assets have come from the Nets trade, shipping out All stars for great value. The rest have come from savvy cap management by Ainge and opportunistic moves.
Hinkie didn't have garnett or Pierce on the team. He had Turner, Young, Holiday. So given that he couldn't produce the same haul we did he's decided to utilise cap space to absorb deals for picks, collecting assets that way. Yes at the same time he has tried to make the 76ers suck hard which does bring a questionable reputation.

I do believe there should have been some veteran presence in that dressing room the last few years. It wouldn't have added many if any wins but it would have added some professionalism to the locker room. Keeping Wallace would have been one such move.

However there is nothing wrong with taking advantage of the draft system. Hinkie was hired in May 2013, so he has had 3 years of tanking.

His first move netted Noel, solid.
Traded ROY Carter-Williams for the Lakers first, I think that's a good move.
Drafted Embiid, if he ever plays this was a good pick. At the time it was the right one.
Drafted Okafor, questionable given Porzingis was there but still he's a good player

Now if Embiid had been healthy, this year would be his sophomore year and I think we would start to see them build around him. It didn't work out, he re-injured himself and they tanked again.

Now they have 2 potential cornerstones in Okafor and Embiid and in the next year I expect them to decide which one to keep. The other will have great trade value as I'm pretty certain there will be multiple suitors. Add one of Simmons, Ingram and Dunn to that and it's a nice 1-2 punch. Some might say it's close to the Wiggins-Towns combo.

TL:DR Philly didn't have the stars to trade like Boston(or even Minnesota) so they did the best they could with the system that is in place

Very good post.  I agree it should be quite easy now to get Philly on a track back to competitive team.  Colangelo would not have joined up if this were not the case. 

My question was about the cost. How much success, as in how great does Philly have to become in the next decade to say:  well, that **** show was worth it after all.

I would like to hear Hinkie supporters (who feel the Sixers are a big basket of gold) lay it on the line and talk about titles.  I mean if you're bringing the gold metaphor isn't that where the discussion should go? 

If it's too soon to make predictions, I'd like to hear some predictions about when we can start predicting...the day after the 2016 draft?

My own prediction is that they'll pretty easily get back to 8th seed territory two years from now (not next season). And the year after that they'll be looking about like current Indiana/Atlanta/Miami/Utah.
I can't predict if they'll be at that level with room to move up from there or if they'll sort of peak there like the vast majority of teams do.

The other question is how good will Minny/New Orleans/Boston/Utah/Orlando, etc etc. be by that time?Some of Philly's picks will likely team up with other stars at the end of their rookie deals or shortly after that.  Such as joining Karl Towns or Anthony Davis wherever they may be down the road.  I guess with Colangelo the point will be to lure the Town's/ADavis's of the league to come play with Ben Simmons (the hoped for BS)

Personally I think a sustained run of conference finals with at least one of the current players being the cornerstone to make it worthwhile. If they managed to get a championship then it's absolutely worthwhile.

Of course there's a hell of a long way to go til then. A lot of things that could go either way for them. I really believe that if Hinkie had brought in some veterans to balance the locker room people would see this in much the same light that Minnesota are in. I think that was his biggest mistake, perception matters in a fan driven industry and he wouldn't really have had to give up his principles to do it

[LarBrd33]

I find it fascinating that a few people are fascinated by Hinkie's "strategy".
Agree with those who counter that it is a completely obvious
approach to attempt to collect future stars.  The only difference was Hinkie's commitment to
how long to be bad and the degree of badness (being so bad that a top 3 pick is a certainty).  So, perhaps what people are fascinated by is that Hinkie was willing to be completely hated/villified by various parties.  Is that the fascinating part??  Or that he would do the fantasy GM thing in a real league?

A.  The degree of Sixer badness
B.  The length of time being horrible
C.  The damage to the franchise via A and B, plus alienated fans, agents, other teams, the league office, etc..

A plus B plus C added together is the reason Hinkie won't get to play with his accumulated assets, and if i were him I'd be majorly depressed about it, but he made his own bed with his excess (the other part I guess some are fascinated by).

What Hinkie-obsessed Celtic bloggers haven't answered in this or other threads is:  What is his definition of a successful plan if one considers the level and quantity of suffering (which Boston fans would NOT have gone through...sorry but Hinkie would have lasted 8 months or so in Boston) endured?

Don't the Sixers have to win multiple titles starting a few years from now in order to be able to look back and say: wow it actually worked (the plan working is still not the same as saying it was worth it...that debates will also continue)

Colangelo has an easy job, which is to make the Sixers competitive again.  Is that success?  To be competitive again?  I don't think so.  That was not the point of such a massive tank.  The point was stars and titles.  And from that perspective the whole thing was an epic fail.  You can only pay so many stars at once and keep so many self-groomed players. 

Welcome back to competitive bball next year or the year after Sixers and Sixer fans.  If you're really lucky you'll end up somewhere a bit better than the Magic, Nuggets, Wolves and Celtics 2 or 3 or 4 years from now.  You may even be the Thunder of a few years back.

People way too focused on Hinkie.  Hinkie doesn't matter.   76ers were in "superstar or bust" mode before they hired him.  That's why they gambled hard on Andrew Bynum.   The team knew tanking was the way to go here... Hinkie just executed that plan.  The damage is already done.  If they fire him in favor of Colangelo and ask Colangelo to turn those assets into something tangible, that doesn't negate what Hinkie already accomplished for that team.  Blatant tanking usually has a fall guy.   ML Carr was getting fired regardless of whether we landed Tim Duncan.  Tanking that season was the choice of the Celtics... not Carr.

To your main points:

A - Degree of Sixer Badness - Doesn't make a lick of difference long-term.
B - Length of time being horrible - Doesn't make a lick of difference long-term
C - The damage to the franchise by alienating fans, agents, teams, etc - Overrated.  If they have a budding superstar prospect on that team next year and start winning games, nobody will give a crap.  The fans will return.  It will be a "feel good turnaround" story.   They have the assets to do it.

They are fascinating in that they went all-in on superstar or bust via the draft.  I look at that team right now and expect that somewhere between 4-6 of their best players next year aren't playing games for them right now. 

[slamtheking]

I find it fascinating that a few people are fascinated by Hinkie's "strategy".
Agree with those who counter that it is a completely obvious
approach to attempt to collect future stars.  The only difference was Hinkie's commitment to
how long to be bad and the degree of badness (being so bad that a top 3 pick is a certainty).  So, perhaps what people are fascinated by is that Hinkie was willing to be completely hated/villified by various parties.  Is that the fascinating part??  Or that he would do the fantasy GM thing in a real league?

A.  The degree of Sixer badness
B.  The length of time being horrible
C.  The damage to the franchise via A and B, plus alienated fans, agents, other teams, the league office, etc..

A plus B plus C added together is the reason Hinkie won't get to play with his accumulated assets, and if i were him I'd be majorly depressed about it, but he made his own bed with his excess (the other part I guess some are fascinated by).

What Hinkie-obsessed Celtic bloggers haven't answered in this or other threads is:  What is his definition of a successful plan if one considers the level and quantity of suffering (which Boston fans would NOT have gone through...sorry but Hinkie would have lasted 8 months or so in Boston) endured?

Don't the Sixers have to win multiple titles starting a few years from now in order to be able to look back and say: wow it actually worked (the plan working is still not the same as saying it was worth it...that debates will also continue)

Colangelo has an easy job, which is to make the Sixers competitive again.  Is that success?  To be competitive again?  I don't think so.  That was not the point of such a massive tank.  The point was stars and titles.  And from that perspective the whole thing was an epic fail.  You can only pay so many stars at once and keep so many self-groomed players. 

Welcome back to competitive bball next year or the year after Sixers and Sixer fans.  If you're really lucky you'll end up somewhere a bit better than the Magic, Nuggets, Wolves and Celtics 2 or 3 or 4 years from now.  You may even be the Thunder of a few years back.

Hinkie is no magician, anyone can tank. We did it for Duncan way back, perhaps even more obviously. What is interesting with Hinkie is how he has managed to use his cap space to acquire extra assets.

Most of our big assets have come from the Nets trade, shipping out All stars for great value. The rest have come from savvy cap management by Ainge and opportunistic moves.
Hinkie didn't have garnett or Pierce on the team. He had Turner, Young, Holiday. So given that he couldn't produce the same haul we did he's decided to utilise cap space to absorb deals for picks, collecting assets that way. Yes at the same time he has tried to make the 76ers suck hard which does bring a questionable reputation.

I do believe there should have been some veteran presence in that dressing room the last few years. It wouldn't have added many if any wins but it would have added some professionalism to the locker room. Keeping Wallace would have been one such move.

However there is nothing wrong with taking advantage of the draft system. Hinkie was hired in May 2013, so he has had 3 years of tanking.

His first move netted Noel, solid.
Traded ROY Carter-Williams for the Lakers first, I think that's a good move.
Drafted Embiid, if he ever plays this was a good pick. At the time it was the right one.
Drafted Okafor, questionable given Porzingis was there but still he's a good player

Now if Embiid had been healthy, this year would be his sophomore year and I think we would start to see them build around him. It didn't work out, he re-injured himself and they tanked again.

Now they have 2 potential cornerstones in Okafor and Embiid and in the next year I expect them to decide which one to keep. The other will have great trade value as I'm pretty certain there will be multiple suitors. Add one of Simmons, Ingram and Dunn to that and it's a nice 1-2 punch. Some might say it's close to the Wiggins-Towns combo.

TL:DR Philly didn't have the stars to trade like Boston(or even Minnesota) so they did the best they could with the system that is in place

Very good post.  I agree it should be quite easy now to get Philly on a track back to competitive team.  Colangelo would not have joined up if this were not the case. 

My question was about the cost. How much success, as in how great does Philly have to become in the next decade to say:  well, that **** show was worth it after all.

I would like to hear Hinkie supporters (who feel the Sixers are a big basket of gold) lay it on the line and talk about titles.  I mean if you're bringing the gold metaphor isn't that where the discussion should go? 

If it's too soon to make predictions, I'd like to hear some predictions about when we can start predicting...the day after the 2016 draft?

My own prediction is that they'll pretty easily get back to 8th seed territory two years from now (not next season). And the year after that they'll be looking about like current Indiana/Atlanta/Miami/Utah.
I can't predict if they'll be at that level with room to move up from there or if they'll sort of peak there like the vast majority of teams do.

The other question is how good will Minny/New Orleans/Boston/Utah/Orlando, etc etc. be by that time?Some of Philly's picks will likely team up with other stars at the end of their rookie deals or shortly after that.  Such as joining Karl Towns or Anthony Davis wherever they may be down the road.  I guess with Colangelo the point will be to lure the Town's/ADavis's of the league to come play with Ben Simmons (the hoped for BS)

Personally I think a sustained run of conference finals with at least one of the current players being the cornerstone to make it worthwhile. If they managed to get a championship then it's absolutely worthwhile.

Of course there's a hell of a long way to go til then. A lot of things that could go either way for them. I really believe that if Hinkie had brought in some veterans to balance the locker room people would see this in much the same light that Minnesota are in. I think that was his biggest mistake, perception matters in a fan driven industry and he wouldn't really have had to give up his principles to do it

that's a fair point. 

Minny is regarded as doing things right (or about as right as things get in Minny).  They're not going for an all-out tank and they brought in solid character vets who've won titles to help their youth learn how to play the game the right way.  Minny wasn't constructed to be as bad as possible, it just turns out they're not as good as expected.  for this approach, they receive little to no criticism and justifiably so.

Philly is as dumpster fire.  If other GMs had been smarter in 2 of those drafts, Philly wouldn't have gotten Noel nor Okafor.  Instead they could have ended up with Bennett and Russell to go with an injured Embiid.  How smart would Shr-Hinkie look then?  He'd be looking for a new line of work instead of just dealing with Colangelo's addition to the franchise and even the few people here who admire his handiwork wouldn't be pointing to that franchise as being a model to follow.

[LarBrd33]

I find it fascinating that a few people are fascinated by Hinkie's "strategy".
Agree with those who counter that it is a completely obvious
approach to attempt to collect future stars.  The only difference was Hinkie's commitment to
how long to be bad and the degree of badness (being so bad that a top 3 pick is a certainty).  So, perhaps what people are fascinated by is that Hinkie was willing to be completely hated/villified by various parties.  Is that the fascinating part??  Or that he would do the fantasy GM thing in a real league?

A.  The degree of Sixer badness
B.  The length of time being horrible
C.  The damage to the franchise via A and B, plus alienated fans, agents, other teams, the league office, etc..

A plus B plus C added together is the reason Hinkie won't get to play with his accumulated assets, and if i were him I'd be majorly depressed about it, but he made his own bed with his excess (the other part I guess some are fascinated by).

What Hinkie-obsessed Celtic bloggers haven't answered in this or other threads is:  What is his definition of a successful plan if one considers the level and quantity of suffering (which Boston fans would NOT have gone through...sorry but Hinkie would have lasted 8 months or so in Boston) endured?

Don't the Sixers have to win multiple titles starting a few years from now in order to be able to look back and say: wow it actually worked (the plan working is still not the same as saying it was worth it...that debates will also continue)

Colangelo has an easy job, which is to make the Sixers competitive again.  Is that success?  To be competitive again?  I don't think so.  That was not the point of such a massive tank.  The point was stars and titles.  And from that perspective the whole thing was an epic fail.  You can only pay so many stars at once and keep so many self-groomed players. 

Welcome back to competitive bball next year or the year after Sixers and Sixer fans.  If you're really lucky you'll end up somewhere a bit better than the Magic, Nuggets, Wolves and Celtics 2 or 3 or 4 years from now.  You may even be the Thunder of a few years back.

Hinkie is no magician, anyone can tank. We did it for Duncan way back, perhaps even more obviously. What is interesting with Hinkie is how he has managed to use his cap space to acquire extra assets.

Most of our big assets have come from the Nets trade, shipping out All stars for great value. The rest have come from savvy cap management by Ainge and opportunistic moves.
Hinkie didn't have garnett or Pierce on the team. He had Turner, Young, Holiday. So given that he couldn't produce the same haul we did he's decided to utilise cap space to absorb deals for picks, collecting assets that way. Yes at the same time he has tried to make the 76ers suck hard which does bring a questionable reputation.

I do believe there should have been some veteran presence in that dressing room the last few years. It wouldn't have added many if any wins but it would have added some professionalism to the locker room. Keeping Wallace would have been one such move.

However there is nothing wrong with taking advantage of the draft system. Hinkie was hired in May 2013, so he has had 3 years of tanking.

His first move netted Noel, solid.
Traded ROY Carter-Williams for the Lakers first, I think that's a good move.
Drafted Embiid, if he ever plays this was a good pick. At the time it was the right one.
Drafted Okafor, questionable given Porzingis was there but still he's a good player

Now if Embiid had been healthy, this year would be his sophomore year and I think we would start to see them build around him. It didn't work out, he re-injured himself and they tanked again.

Now they have 2 potential cornerstones in Okafor and Embiid and in the next year I expect them to decide which one to keep. The other will have great trade value as I'm pretty certain there will be multiple suitors. Add one of Simmons, Ingram and Dunn to that and it's a nice 1-2 punch. Some might say it's close to the Wiggins-Towns combo.

TL:DR Philly didn't have the stars to trade like Boston(or even Minnesota) so they did the best they could with the system that is in place

Very good post.  I agree it should be quite easy now to get Philly on a track back to competitive team.  Colangelo would not have joined up if this were not the case. 

My question was about the cost. How much success, as in how great does Philly have to become in the next decade to say:  well, that **** show was worth it after all.

I would like to hear Hinkie supporters (who feel the Sixers are a big basket of gold) lay it on the line and talk about titles.  I mean if you're bringing the gold metaphor isn't that where the discussion should go? 

If it's too soon to make predictions, I'd like to hear some predictions about when we can start predicting...the day after the 2016 draft?

My own prediction is that they'll pretty easily get back to 8th seed territory two years from now (not next season). And the year after that they'll be looking about like current Indiana/Atlanta/Miami/Utah.
I can't predict if they'll be at that level with room to move up from there or if they'll sort of peak there like the vast majority of teams do.

The other question is how good will Minny/New Orleans/Boston/Utah/Orlando, etc etc. be by that time?Some of Philly's picks will likely team up with other stars at the end of their rookie deals or shortly after that.  Such as joining Karl Towns or Anthony Davis wherever they may be down the road.  I guess with Colangelo the point will be to lure the Town's/ADavis's of the league to come play with Ben Simmons (the hoped for BS)

Personally I think a sustained run of conference finals with at least one of the current players being the cornerstone to make it worthwhile. If they managed to get a championship then it's absolutely worthwhile.

Of course there's a hell of a long way to go til then. A lot of things that could go either way for them. I really believe that if Hinkie had brought in some veterans to balance the locker room people would see this in much the same light that Minnesota are in. I think that was his biggest mistake, perception matters in a fan driven industry and he wouldn't really have had to give up his principles to do it

that's a fair point. 

Minny is regarded as doing things right (or about as right as things get in Minny).  They're not going for an all-out tank and they brought in solid character vets who've won titles to help their youth learn how to play the game the right way.  Minny wasn't constructed to be as bad as possible, it just turns out they're not as good as expected.  for this approach, they receive little to no criticism and justifiably so.

Philly is as dumpster fire.  If other GMs had been smarter in 2 of those drafts, Philly wouldn't have gotten Noel nor Okafor.  Instead they could have ended up with Bennett and Russell to go with an injured Embiid.  How smart would Shr-Hinkie look then?  He'd be looking for a new line of work instead of just dealing with Colangelo's addition to the franchise and even the few people here who admire his handiwork wouldn't be pointing to that franchise as being a model to follow.

I get the idea behind Minny doing it "right" while 76ers doing it "wrong".

Important notes:

Kevin Love was seen as a top 5 superstar.   They only get Wiggins by having that superstar in the first place.

Had Philly ended up with Towns in this draft and Minny ended up with Mudiay, people would talk about it different.

Minny has some other quality young guys they picked up like Lavine and Shabazz Muhammad.   Meanwhile, Philly has "let it ride" by moving what could have been quality assets (Elfrid Payton, and Michael Carter Williams for instance) into future pieces (Dario Saric and the Lakers pick).   These are tangible assets that will eventually become tangible players.  WHen casuals look at Philly, they gloss over that.  They also gloss over the fact that Minny has 5th best odds in this draft while Philly has #1 odds... a position Philly is in, because they have let it ride with their assets.   

Granted, Minny could luck out again and land Ben Simmons in this draft.  That's in play.  But I still respect Philly's blatant attempt to put themselves in that same position by throwing away the short-term.  It'll be interesting.

[slamtheking]

I find it fascinating that a few people are fascinated by Hinkie's "strategy".
Agree with those who counter that it is a completely obvious
approach to attempt to collect future stars.  The only difference was Hinkie's commitment to
how long to be bad and the degree of badness (being so bad that a top 3 pick is a certainty).  So, perhaps what people are fascinated by is that Hinkie was willing to be completely hated/villified by various parties.  Is that the fascinating part??  Or that he would do the fantasy GM thing in a real league?

A.  The degree of Sixer badness
B.  The length of time being horrible
C.  The damage to the franchise via A and B, plus alienated fans, agents, other teams, the league office, etc..

A plus B plus C added together is the reason Hinkie won't get to play with his accumulated assets, and if i were him I'd be majorly depressed about it, but he made his own bed with his excess (the other part I guess some are fascinated by).

What Hinkie-obsessed Celtic bloggers haven't answered in this or other threads is:  What is his definition of a successful plan if one considers the level and quantity of suffering (which Boston fans would NOT have gone through...sorry but Hinkie would have lasted 8 months or so in Boston) endured?

Don't the Sixers have to win multiple titles starting a few years from now in order to be able to look back and say: wow it actually worked (the plan working is still not the same as saying it was worth it...that debates will also continue)

Colangelo has an easy job, which is to make the Sixers competitive again.  Is that success?  To be competitive again?  I don't think so.  That was not the point of such a massive tank.  The point was stars and titles.  And from that perspective the whole thing was an epic fail.  You can only pay so many stars at once and keep so many self-groomed players. 

Welcome back to competitive bball next year or the year after Sixers and Sixer fans.  If you're really lucky you'll end up somewhere a bit better than the Magic, Nuggets, Wolves and Celtics 2 or 3 or 4 years from now.  You may even be the Thunder of a few years back.

Hinkie is no magician, anyone can tank. We did it for Duncan way back, perhaps even more obviously. What is interesting with Hinkie is how he has managed to use his cap space to acquire extra assets.

Most of our big assets have come from the Nets trade, shipping out All stars for great value. The rest have come from savvy cap management by Ainge and opportunistic moves.
Hinkie didn't have garnett or Pierce on the team. He had Turner, Young, Holiday. So given that he couldn't produce the same haul we did he's decided to utilise cap space to absorb deals for picks, collecting assets that way. Yes at the same time he has tried to make the 76ers suck hard which does bring a questionable reputation.

I do believe there should have been some veteran presence in that dressing room the last few years. It wouldn't have added many if any wins but it would have added some professionalism to the locker room. Keeping Wallace would have been one such move.

However there is nothing wrong with taking advantage of the draft system. Hinkie was hired in May 2013, so he has had 3 years of tanking.

His first move netted Noel, solid.
Traded ROY Carter-Williams for the Lakers first, I think that's a good move.
Drafted Embiid, if he ever plays this was a good pick. At the time it was the right one.
Drafted Okafor, questionable given Porzingis was there but still he's a good player

Now if Embiid had been healthy, this year would be his sophomore year and I think we would start to see them build around him. It didn't work out, he re-injured himself and they tanked again.

Now they have 2 potential cornerstones in Okafor and Embiid and in the next year I expect them to decide which one to keep. The other will have great trade value as I'm pretty certain there will be multiple suitors. Add one of Simmons, Ingram and Dunn to that and it's a nice 1-2 punch. Some might say it's close to the Wiggins-Towns combo.

TL:DR Philly didn't have the stars to trade like Boston(or even Minnesota) so they did the best they could with the system that is in place

Very good post.  I agree it should be quite easy now to get Philly on a track back to competitive team.  Colangelo would not have joined up if this were not the case. 

My question was about the cost. How much success, as in how great does Philly have to become in the next decade to say:  well, that **** show was worth it after all.

I would like to hear Hinkie supporters (who feel the Sixers are a big basket of gold) lay it on the line and talk about titles.  I mean if you're bringing the gold metaphor isn't that where the discussion should go? 

If it's too soon to make predictions, I'd like to hear some predictions about when we can start predicting...the day after the 2016 draft?

My own prediction is that they'll pretty easily get back to 8th seed territory two years from now (not next season). And the year after that they'll be looking about like current Indiana/Atlanta/Miami/Utah.
I can't predict if they'll be at that level with room to move up from there or if they'll sort of peak there like the vast majority of teams do.

The other question is how good will Minny/New Orleans/Boston/Utah/Orlando, etc etc. be by that time?Some of Philly's picks will likely team up with other stars at the end of their rookie deals or shortly after that.  Such as joining Karl Towns or Anthony Davis wherever they may be down the road.  I guess with Colangelo the point will be to lure the Town's/ADavis's of the league to come play with Ben Simmons (the hoped for BS)

Personally I think a sustained run of conference finals with at least one of the current players being the cornerstone to make it worthwhile. If they managed to get a championship then it's absolutely worthwhile.

Of course there's a hell of a long way to go til then. A lot of things that could go either way for them. I really believe that if Hinkie had brought in some veterans to balance the locker room people would see this in much the same light that Minnesota are in. I think that was his biggest mistake, perception matters in a fan driven industry and he wouldn't really have had to give up his principles to do it

that's a fair point. 

Minny is regarded as doing things right (or about as right as things get in Minny).  They're not going for an all-out tank and they brought in solid character vets who've won titles to help their youth learn how to play the game the right way.  Minny wasn't constructed to be as bad as possible, it just turns out they're not as good as expected.  for this approach, they receive little to no criticism and justifiably so.

Philly is as dumpster fire.  If other GMs had been smarter in 2 of those drafts, Philly wouldn't have gotten Noel nor Okafor.  Instead they could have ended up with Bennett and Russell to go with an injured Embiid.  How smart would Shr-Hinkie look then?  He'd be looking for a new line of work instead of just dealing with Colangelo's addition to the franchise and even the few people here who admire his handiwork wouldn't be pointing to that franchise as being a model to follow.

I get the idea behind Minny doing it "right" while 76ers doing it "wrong".

Important notes:

Kevin Love was seen as a top 5 superstar.   They only get Wiggins by having that superstar in the first place.

Had Philly ended up with Towns in this draft and Minny ended up with Mudiay, people would talk about it different.

Minny has some other quality young guys they picked up like Lavine and Shabazz Muhammad.   Meanwhile, Philly has "let it ride" by moving what could have been quality assets (Elfrid Payton, and Michael Carter Williams for instance) into future pieces (Dario Saric and the Lakers pick).   These are tangible assets that will eventually become tangible players.  WHen casuals look at Philly, they gloss over that.  They also gloss over the fact that Minny has 5th best odds in this draft while Philly has #1 odds... a position Philly is in, because they have let it ride with their assets.   

Granted, Minny could luck out again and land Ben Simmons in this draft.  That's in play.  But I still respect Philly's blatant attempt to put themselves in that same position by throwing away the short-term.  It'll be interesting.

fair points except on the Philly getting Towns piece.  I'm taking that's in response to my comment that Philly is lucky to have gotten Noel and Okafor as opposed to Bennett and Russell. 

The difference is that Philly had no shot at Towns in the draft because he was never going to slide to #3 for them to pick.  Most projections had Okafor going at #2 leaving Philly to pick whoever was left.  They were fortunate to have Okafor there for them to pick instead of Russell.  Their selection of Noel is very similar.  If Cleveland (or the 4 other teams ahead of Philly) had taken Noel as the top prospect which is what he was considered pre-injury, Philly doesn't get the chance to pick him.  It's no guarantee they blow that pick on Bennett but he'll do as an example of player that was picked ahead of Noel and shouldn't have been which would mean he should have been available at Philly's pick.

again, Philly is fortunate to have dumb GMs picking ahead of them in those 2 drafts to get prospects of that quality.  I don't see that as genius on the part of Shr-Hinkie, just luck. 
now the maneuvers to unload MCW, Holiday (a bit sleazy knowing he was injured and not disclosing it) and Payton for other assets is a business call and can be argued as solid depending on how that Laker pick and Saric turn out.  Let's face it, keeping Payton may have been the better move since that team really needs a PG --> look what adding a fringe-quality PG like Ish Smith has done for them. Thing is, Philly's such a mess, Saric has no incentive to come over.  The Laker pick probably rolls to next year and they'll likely be handing over a mid-lottery pick instead of a #4 pick.

I don't respect Philly's methods but I do respect Minny's gameplan.  short of the C's getting the top pick thanks to the Nets, I'd be fine seeing Minny rewarded yet another top pick while trying to build a winner the 'right' way.

[wiley]

I find it fascinating that a few people are fascinated by Hinkie's "strategy".
Agree with those who counter that it is a completely obvious
approach to attempt to collect future stars.  The only difference was Hinkie's commitment to
how long to be bad and the degree of badness (being so bad that a top 3 pick is a certainty).  So, perhaps what people are fascinated by is that Hinkie was willing to be completely hated/villified by various parties.  Is that the fascinating part??  Or that he would do the fantasy GM thing in a real league?

A.  The degree of Sixer badness
B.  The length of time being horrible
C.  The damage to the franchise via A and B, plus alienated fans, agents, other teams, the league office, etc..

A plus B plus C added together is the reason Hinkie won't get to play with his accumulated assets, and if i were him I'd be majorly depressed about it, but he made his own bed with his excess (the other part I guess some are fascinated by).

What Hinkie-obsessed Celtic bloggers haven't answered in this or other threads is:  What is his definition of a successful plan if one considers the level and quantity of suffering (which Boston fans would NOT have gone through...sorry but Hinkie would have lasted 8 months or so in Boston) endured?

Don't the Sixers have to win multiple titles starting a few years from now in order to be able to look back and say: wow it actually worked (the plan working is still not the same as saying it was worth it...that debates will also continue)

Colangelo has an easy job, which is to make the Sixers competitive again.  Is that success?  To be competitive again?  I don't think so.  That was not the point of such a massive tank.  The point was stars and titles.  And from that perspective the whole thing was an epic fail.  You can only pay so many stars at once and keep so many self-groomed players. 

Welcome back to competitive bball next year or the year after Sixers and Sixer fans.  If you're really lucky you'll end up somewhere a bit better than the Magic, Nuggets, Wolves and Celtics 2 or 3 or 4 years from now.  You may even be the Thunder of a few years back.

People way too focused on Hinkie.  Hinkie doesn't matter.   76ers were in "superstar or bust" mode before they hired him.  That's why they gambled hard on Andrew Bynum.   The team knew tanking was the way to go here... Hinkie just executed that plan.  The damage is already done.  If they fire him in favor of Colangelo and ask Colangelo to turn those assets into something tangible, that doesn't negate what Hinkie already accomplished for that team.  Blatant tanking usually has a fall guy.   ML Carr was getting fired regardless of whether we landed Tim Duncan.  Tanking that season was the choice of the Celtics... not Carr.

To your main points:

A - Degree of Sixer Badness - Doesn't make a lick of difference long-term.
B - Length of time being horrible - Doesn't make a lick of difference long-term
C - The damage to the franchise by alienating fans, agents, teams, etc - Overrated. If they have a budding superstar prospect on that team next year and start winning games, nobody will give a crap.  The fans will return.  It will be a "feel good turnaround" story.   They have the assets to do it.

They are fascinating in that they went all-in on superstar or bust via the draft.  I look at that team right now and expect that somewhere between 4-6 of their best players next year aren't playing games for them right now.

I agree with you that the Sixers will be a good team again in two years.  My question is when will they be great?  If they win a title 8 years from now with Ben Simmons, are you going to say:  See guys?  It worked?  To me a single title 4-8 years from now will not justify the Philly tank.  That's too far away and not enough titles.  The only thing that will justify the recent misery is if they can build a team that contends each year for at least 4-5 years.  Jordan era Bulls, Warriors, Spurs, Boston's 4-year run (only bad luck prevented more than a single title)--that's the level they'd better reach.  The Thunder with their one title appearance?  Not good enough of a justification. 

Regarding the bolded part above, that's easy for you to say that as a Celtics fan.  And you may be alone on this blog and among Bostonians who would have tolerated 3 years of M.L. Carr as coach with the job of getting worse and worse.  You may have found that fun and fascinating but most wouldn't.

You can still say, doesn't matter, but that's very much the position of the semi-ethical, or a fantasy GM.

Curious to know what level of success the Sixers have to reach for you to say this "interesting" plan can be justified.  Thunder level success?  One title or title appearance?  etc...

[LarBrd33]

I find it fascinating that a few people are fascinated by Hinkie's "strategy".
Agree with those who counter that it is a completely obvious
approach to attempt to collect future stars.  The only difference was Hinkie's commitment to
how long to be bad and the degree of badness (being so bad that a top 3 pick is a certainty).  So, perhaps what people are fascinated by is that Hinkie was willing to be completely hated/villified by various parties.  Is that the fascinating part??  Or that he would do the fantasy GM thing in a real league?

A.  The degree of Sixer badness
B.  The length of time being horrible
C.  The damage to the franchise via A and B, plus alienated fans, agents, other teams, the league office, etc..

A plus B plus C added together is the reason Hinkie won't get to play with his accumulated assets, and if i were him I'd be majorly depressed about it, but he made his own bed with his excess (the other part I guess some are fascinated by).

What Hinkie-obsessed Celtic bloggers haven't answered in this or other threads is:  What is his definition of a successful plan if one considers the level and quantity of suffering (which Boston fans would NOT have gone through...sorry but Hinkie would have lasted 8 months or so in Boston) endured?

Don't the Sixers have to win multiple titles starting a few years from now in order to be able to look back and say: wow it actually worked (the plan working is still not the same as saying it was worth it...that debates will also continue)

Colangelo has an easy job, which is to make the Sixers competitive again.  Is that success?  To be competitive again?  I don't think so.  That was not the point of such a massive tank.  The point was stars and titles.  And from that perspective the whole thing was an epic fail.  You can only pay so many stars at once and keep so many self-groomed players. 

Welcome back to competitive bball next year or the year after Sixers and Sixer fans.  If you're really lucky you'll end up somewhere a bit better than the Magic, Nuggets, Wolves and Celtics 2 or 3 or 4 years from now.  You may even be the Thunder of a few years back.

Hinkie is no magician, anyone can tank. We did it for Duncan way back, perhaps even more obviously. What is interesting with Hinkie is how he has managed to use his cap space to acquire extra assets.

Most of our big assets have come from the Nets trade, shipping out All stars for great value. The rest have come from savvy cap management by Ainge and opportunistic moves.
Hinkie didn't have garnett or Pierce on the team. He had Turner, Young, Holiday. So given that he couldn't produce the same haul we did he's decided to utilise cap space to absorb deals for picks, collecting assets that way. Yes at the same time he has tried to make the 76ers suck hard which does bring a questionable reputation.

I do believe there should have been some veteran presence in that dressing room the last few years. It wouldn't have added many if any wins but it would have added some professionalism to the locker room. Keeping Wallace would have been one such move.

However there is nothing wrong with taking advantage of the draft system. Hinkie was hired in May 2013, so he has had 3 years of tanking.

His first move netted Noel, solid.
Traded ROY Carter-Williams for the Lakers first, I think that's a good move.
Drafted Embiid, if he ever plays this was a good pick. At the time it was the right one.
Drafted Okafor, questionable given Porzingis was there but still he's a good player

Now if Embiid had been healthy, this year would be his sophomore year and I think we would start to see them build around him. It didn't work out, he re-injured himself and they tanked again.

Now they have 2 potential cornerstones in Okafor and Embiid and in the next year I expect them to decide which one to keep. The other will have great trade value as I'm pretty certain there will be multiple suitors. Add one of Simmons, Ingram and Dunn to that and it's a nice 1-2 punch. Some might say it's close to the Wiggins-Towns combo.

TL:DR Philly didn't have the stars to trade like Boston(or even Minnesota) so they did the best they could with the system that is in place

Very good post.  I agree it should be quite easy now to get Philly on a track back to competitive team.  Colangelo would not have joined up if this were not the case. 

My question was about the cost. How much success, as in how great does Philly have to become in the next decade to say:  well, that **** show was worth it after all.

I would like to hear Hinkie supporters (who feel the Sixers are a big basket of gold) lay it on the line and talk about titles.  I mean if you're bringing the gold metaphor isn't that where the discussion should go? 

If it's too soon to make predictions, I'd like to hear some predictions about when we can start predicting...the day after the 2016 draft?

My own prediction is that they'll pretty easily get back to 8th seed territory two years from now (not next season). And the year after that they'll be looking about like current Indiana/Atlanta/Miami/Utah.
I can't predict if they'll be at that level with room to move up from there or if they'll sort of peak there like the vast majority of teams do.

The other question is how good will Minny/New Orleans/Boston/Utah/Orlando, etc etc. be by that time?Some of Philly's picks will likely team up with other stars at the end of their rookie deals or shortly after that.  Such as joining Karl Towns or Anthony Davis wherever they may be down the road.  I guess with Colangelo the point will be to lure the Town's/ADavis's of the league to come play with Ben Simmons (the hoped for BS)

Personally I think a sustained run of conference finals with at least one of the current players being the cornerstone to make it worthwhile. If they managed to get a championship then it's absolutely worthwhile.

Of course there's a hell of a long way to go til then. A lot of things that could go either way for them. I really believe that if Hinkie had brought in some veterans to balance the locker room people would see this in much the same light that Minnesota are in. I think that was his biggest mistake, perception matters in a fan driven industry and he wouldn't really have had to give up his principles to do it

that's a fair point. 

Minny is regarded as doing things right (or about as right as things get in Minny).  They're not going for an all-out tank and they brought in solid character vets who've won titles to help their youth learn how to play the game the right way.  Minny wasn't constructed to be as bad as possible, it just turns out they're not as good as expected.  for this approach, they receive little to no criticism and justifiably so.

Philly is as dumpster fire.  If other GMs had been smarter in 2 of those drafts, Philly wouldn't have gotten Noel nor Okafor.  Instead they could have ended up with Bennett and Russell to go with an injured Embiid.  How smart would Shr-Hinkie look then?  He'd be looking for a new line of work instead of just dealing with Colangelo's addition to the franchise and even the few people here who admire his handiwork wouldn't be pointing to that franchise as being a model to follow.

I get the idea behind Minny doing it "right" while 76ers doing it "wrong".

Important notes:

Kevin Love was seen as a top 5 superstar.   They only get Wiggins by having that superstar in the first place.

Had Philly ended up with Towns in this draft and Minny ended up with Mudiay, people would talk about it different.

Minny has some other quality young guys they picked up like Lavine and Shabazz Muhammad.   Meanwhile, Philly has "let it ride" by moving what could have been quality assets (Elfrid Payton, and Michael Carter Williams for instance) into future pieces (Dario Saric and the Lakers pick).   These are tangible assets that will eventually become tangible players.  WHen casuals look at Philly, they gloss over that.  They also gloss over the fact that Minny has 5th best odds in this draft while Philly has #1 odds... a position Philly is in, because they have let it ride with their assets.   

Granted, Minny could luck out again and land Ben Simmons in this draft.  That's in play.  But I still respect Philly's blatant attempt to put themselves in that same position by throwing away the short-term.  It'll be interesting.

fair points except on the Philly getting Towns piece.  I'm taking that's in response to my comment that Philly is lucky to have gotten Noel and Okafor as opposed to Bennett and Russell. 

The difference is that Philly had no shot at Towns in the draft because he was never going to slide to #3 for them to pick.  Most projections had Okafor going at #2 leaving Philly to pick whoever was left.  They were fortunate to have Okafor there for them to pick instead of Russell.  Their selection of Noel is very similar.  If Cleveland (or the 4 other teams ahead of Philly) had taken Noel as the top prospect which is what he was considered pre-injury, Philly doesn't get the chance to pick him.  It's no guarantee they blow that pick on Bennett but he'll do as an example of player that was picked ahead of Noel and shouldn't have been which would mean he should have been available at Philly's pick.

again, Philly is fortunate to have dumb GMs picking ahead of them in those 2 drafts to get prospects of that quality.  I don't see that as genius on the part of Shr-Hinkie, just luck. 
now the maneuvers to unload MCW, Holiday (a bit sleazy knowing he was injured and not disclosing it) and Payton for other assets is a business call and can be argued as solid depending on how that Laker pick and Saric turn out.  Let's face it, keeping Payton may have been the better move since that team really needs a PG --> look what adding a fringe-quality PG like Ish Smith has done for them. Thing is, Philly's such a mess, Saric has no incentive to come over.  The Laker pick probably rolls to next year and they'll likely be handing over a mid-lottery pick instead of a #4 pick.

I don't respect Philly's methods but I do respect Minny's gameplan.  short of the C's getting the top pick thanks to the Nets, I'd be fine seeing Minny rewarded yet another top pick while trying to build a winner the 'right' way.

My point in towns vs Okafor was that the difference was dumb luck.  Wolves weren't expected to get the top pick. It was ping pong balls.  Okafor was still a terrific grab for philly. He holds a lot of trade value. 

[tazzmaniac]

I think it is a fair point that just about anyone on this board could have done what Hinkie did. It wasn't recreating the game. He basically tried to be as bad as possible for as many years as he could to increase the chances of landing a superstar. All that being said, hitting on those draft picks becomes that much more important. It really look like he may missed out on the one superstar that was available at the slot of his draft in Taking okafor. He also did a gamble on Embiid's health and that has not worked out either. Hasn't done anything that crazy though, and hasn't done anything that great.

I don't know about that. They've been incredibly opportunistic in using their cap space to gain assets. The Lakers pick and the Sacramento deal in the summer spring to mind.

I think if Embiid had recovered from his injury then this year would've been the first year angling toward the playoffs. Next year they will move up the league. Colangelo will definitely help them in that process but he hasn't changed the direction of the team.

If anything it must be annoying for Hinkie that he's had to do the "dirty work" and not be given the reigns to pull them out of it, showing the NBA that his strategy was indeed sound. If they succeed now people will say it was in spite of Hinkie. If the next time they get to the playoffs it is with a core that was built using the assets HE acquired, then he deserves some of the credit

Well whether the Lakers pick conveys this year pretty much determines if it is a good or bad trade. At the absolute worst, MCW is a very strong defensive guard that would be in a rotation on a really good team. At times, he looks like he could be a starting caliber point guard. It is starting to look like his shot won't improve so getting rid of him was a good idea. However, if the Lakers pick doesn't come through this year, it seems hard to believe that it will be much better than 10th-12th next year after another year of development from Randle, Russel and Clarkson, hiring an actual competent coach and losing the net negative of Kobe taking tons of shots. There is also a change it drops down further if they can sign any halfway decent free agents (I do think at least some players will want to play there with Kobe gone).

So MCW coming off ROY for a pick that is 4th or 5th that you wait a year for, outstanding trade.
If it ends up being MCW for a mid first pick in the draft that you wait 2.5 years to get, I think they could have gotten better for him than that at the time.

Regarding the Sacramento trade I never quite got why Barnwell  (at Grantland) was so excited about it at the time. I am not sure Stauskas finishes his rookie contract he seems like a net negative asset at this time that could get cut. He has been that bad. For all the train wreck that has been Sacramento's season, they are going to have less than a 1% chance of swapping picks with Philly this season (and possible it is zero if they rise above some of the garbage in the race for 8th). It is cool they have those extra ping pong balls, but nothing I would say is absolutely brilliant.

Last offseason, you claimed that the Lakers would just miss the playoffs this season and therefore Philly would be a loser because they'd only end up with the 12th-14th pick in this upcoming draft.  Now you're regurgitating that same claim for next season.  Unless the Lakers have a good free agency, there's a good chance they'll be a bottom 5 team again next season.  Also next year's draft is projected to be much better than this year's draft so it may benefit the Sixers if the pick doesn't convey until next year even if it ends up in the 6th-10th range.   
http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=79603.msg1921933#msg1921933

Regarding the Sacramento trade, you failed to mention that the pick swaps are for both this year's draft and next year's draft.  You also didn't mention the best asset the Sixers got in the trade.  They got a Kings 1st (2018 top 10 protected, 2019 unprotected).  That's a very good asset to have from a very dysfunctional team and organization.  Also Stauskas has been playing better the last month so I wouldn't write him off yet.  I doubt if he'll end up a starter but he could be a good shooter off the bench.   

Little creepy to go back in threads from 7 months ago looking for specific projections from posters not even related to the Celtics. Waaaay too much time on your hands? I will be the firs to admit i definitely thought that the Lakers would be better this year than they have. The Kobe farewell tour and him somehow staying healthy for the first time in 4 years, coupled with Scott going full tank, less than anticipated contributions from Hibbert and Bass (and Nick Young falling off a cliff from average to unplayable) has made the Lakers waaaay less than competitive than I thought they would be. Now, as a Philly fan, don't you think this offseason there is an even better chance of them making a leap this with Kobe officially gone and his 25 million dollar cap number (plus ball hoggery)?

I don't think i am saying anything conroversial to say the Lakers are tanking this year. Even with this years collection of talent they could easily have 8 or so more wins if they were trying like hell to win. You add that to development from their young guys and a top 3 pick and saying they would finish 10th seems fairly conservative no? How is any of this worth arguing over? It seems pretty obvious if the lakers pick doesn't convey this year it was a gamble that didn't work out for the 76ers. Do you feel like it it wouldn't be?

I'll grant you the 2018 protected sacramento is a solid asset (again had forgotten it, but not obsessed with the 76ers here), but nothing amazing. It is similar to the pick we are owed from Memphis. Hard to get excited cause it is far in the future. It was a solid trade, but not something to gleefully laugh about into the night. I guess it is cool if Stauskas turns out to be a bench player.

I thought I remembered you making the projection but I wanted to make sure I wasn't confusing you with one of the other prolific anti-Sixers posters.  The forum has a search feature so it just took a couple minutes to find your previous post.  I think you've called me a Sixers fan before and I've had to correct you.  I'm an Embiid fan so that's predominantly why I'm keeping up with the Sixers plus I find the Hinkie strategy interesting. 

The Lakers do have a chance to make improvements this offseason but they haven't been able to do much the past few off seasons.  They didn't come close to getting Melo or Aldridge.  I think they need to fix their front office before that changes much.  The top free agents this year seem like they'll stay with their current team or would prefer somewhere else besides the Lakers.  I thought they might get DeRozen but he seems happy in Toronto.  I don't see Durant going to the Lakers.  What impactful free agents do you think the Lakers are going to get?  Not sure why you think 10th is a conservative projection.  The TWolves have a much better roster and they're the 5th worst team this season. 

I've never thought much of MCW.  Before the Sixers traded him, many of the posters on this blog correctly said he was an overrated ROY because it was a weak draft.  Hinkie did good getting the Lakers 1st for him.  I can't see the Bucks getting nearly that much for him if they tried to trade him now.  Other than Simmons and Ingram, I don't particularly like any other top 10 possibilities more than the late lottery possibilities.  The Sixers have the Heat pick (top 10 protected) which has a good chance being late lottery with the Bosh injury.  If we had the Laker's pick, I'd probably want it to roll over to next year's draft which is projected to be much better top 10.  So no I don't think the Sixers necessarily lose out if the Lakers pick rolls over to next draft.

I wrote a really long response to this last night, and then it timed out, so here is a shorter version and I will do it mostly in question form. The Lakers have 11 wins right now and still have a number of games left versus the dregs of the league. Lets say they finish with 18 (seems like about what they are on pace for). Now from there lets ask
1) How many games have the Lakers lost by having Scott as their coach. He is terrible at developing young players, has a terrible history with the lakers at end of games, and everything I have ever read from Lakers fans or otherwise pegs him as one of the worst coaches in the league that is hired only to be a puppet and lose game. Firing him and replacing him with even an average coach would seem to be worth 3 wins over the course of the season. Agree/Disagree?

2) Kobe's swan song. Kobe is playing off awful and for the better part of the season has also been shooting at a really low percentage (35%!) at a very high volume. Statheads can chime in, but I have seen a lot of people put in stats that show him to be one of the worst players in the NBA. Replacing him with even an average NBA player (a jeff green?) would seem to be worth 2 or 3 wins. Agree or Disagree?

3) Not actively tanking: While I realize this is definitely tied to point number 1, We have all presumably watched a few of both the Nets and Lakers games this season. There is a pretty obvious difference in how hard the Nets are trying to win (at least in my opinion and a few others). Playing Brook and Thad 35+ minutes, especially under Hollins to eek out wins was visibly very different than the Lakers shuttling their players well (Russell, Clarkson and Bass at times) in out of the lineups, even in crunch time. If the Lakers did not know there pick is lost if it falls outside the top 3 I don't think is crazy to think they would have 5 more wins. Agree, Disagree?

4) Free agents and Kobe: A lot has been written about how players did not want to play with twilight level Kobe. Why would they? He plays no defense, his salary hold was preventing them from filling out the roster, he takes long contested j's and worst of all, he is a living legend in the town that can do no wrong. What kind of competent NBA player or near star wants to go play for them? I am not surprised at all that Aldridge or Melo didn't want to or that Howard left. That being said, with him gone I think that is a major attraction for free agents. I agree they will not get durant or derozen most likely, but what about some of the other next tier guys. Conley? Whitesite? Batum? Al Jefferson? Noah? With lots of cash, no longer competing with Kobe and still being able to offer the LA lifestyle and weather, it is hard to believe they couldn't attract at least a few of these guys. Everyone is convinced that Brooklyn can do this, so how can we not think LA will?

5) Some of the old guard in the west is starting to crumble. It appears that Gasol's injury was the end of the grindhouse team of the Grizzlies. Allen and Randolph are late 30's, Conley is a free agent and there is basically no talent there. How they avoid a rebuild is beyond me. Dallas: Does Dirk retire this offseason? When do they stop cobbling together a team of mid 30's veterans? Having their pick back may mean they do it next season. Denver, Phoenix and Portland will almost certainly not be juggernauts. Houston does not seem likely to keep their core together. There is going to be a lot of mediocrity in the bottom half of the Western conference. Does LA, not owning  not pick up a few wins from this?

Based on all of this it seems hard to believe the Lakers couldn't at least sniff 30 wins next year with a solid chance of 35(provided they have an unprotected pick going to Philly). I would like to know why others think they wouldn't?

Last season, Denver had 30 wins and they were the 7th worst team.  If they'd gotten to 35 wins, they would have been the 9th worst team.  So even with your projections, the Sixers should still end up with a top 10 pick next year in what is projected to be a better draft.   I think you're underestimating how bad the Lakers are.  They are the worst defensive team and 2nd worst offensive team.  The Lakers point differential is -9.6 per game.  Last years, 30 win Nuggets team had a -3.5 point differential.  That's a big difference to makeup if the Lakers can only make modest improvements.  I think they'll be able to improve their offense some but I think their defense is still going to suck. 

Scott is a lousy coach but it isn't clear that the Lakers are going to get rid of him.  Kobe is playing terribly but an average player like Green doesn't move the needle much. The Lakers aren't focused on winning but I don't think they are actively tanking.  Remember the god-awful starting lineups the Lakers used at the end of last season.  That's how you tank.  They could pickup some mediocre free agents but I don't see anyone moving the needle much.  Conley should have better options including us.  Probably the same for Batum.  Whiteside is very overrated.  Jefferson and Noah are not very productive any more.  I'd also point out that Clarkson will be an RFA.  I'm guessing it will take 8-10mil per year for the Lakers to retain him. 

I'll point out again that the TWolves are the 5th worst team in the league.  They certainly seem to have better young players although this upcoming draft might close the gap.  Do you really think next year's Lakers roster is going to be significantly better than this year's TWolves roster? 

[GC003332]

I find it fascinating that a few people are fascinated by Hinkie's "strategy".
Agree with those who counter that it is a completely obvious
approach to attempt to collect future stars.  The only difference was Hinkie's commitment to
how long to be bad and the degree of badness (being so bad that a top 3 pick is a certainty).  So, perhaps what people are fascinated by is that Hinkie was willing to be completely hated/villified by various parties.  Is that the fascinating part??  Or that he would do the fantasy GM thing in a real league?

A.  The degree of Sixer badness
B.  The length of time being horrible
C.  The damage to the franchise via A and B, plus alienated fans, agents, other teams, the league office, etc..

A plus B plus C added together is the reason Hinkie won't get to play with his accumulated assets, and if i were him I'd be majorly depressed about it, but he made his own bed with his excess (the other part I guess some are fascinated by).

What Hinkie-obsessed Celtic bloggers haven't answered in this or other threads is:  What is his definition of a successful plan if one considers the level and quantity of suffering (which Boston fans would NOT have gone through...sorry but Hinkie would have lasted 8 months or so in Boston) endured?

Don't the Sixers have to win multiple titles starting a few years from now in order to be able to look back and say: wow it actually worked (the plan working is still not the same as saying it was worth it...that debates will also continue)

Colangelo has an easy job, which is to make the Sixers competitive again.  Is that success?  To be competitive again?  I don't think so.  That was not the point of such a massive tank.  The point was stars and titles.  And from that perspective the whole thing was an epic fail.  You can only pay so many stars at once and keep so many self-groomed players. 

Welcome back to competitive bball next year or the year after Sixers and Sixer fans.  If you're really lucky you'll end up somewhere a bit better than the Magic, Nuggets, Wolves and Celtics 2 or 3 or 4 years from now.  You may even be the Thunder of a few years back.

Hinkie is no magician, anyone can tank. We did it for Duncan way back, perhaps even more obviously. What is interesting with Hinkie is how he has managed to use his cap space to acquire extra assets.

Most of our big assets have come from the Nets trade, shipping out All stars for great value. The rest have come from savvy cap management by Ainge and opportunistic moves.
Hinkie didn't have garnett or Pierce on the team. He had Turner, Young, Holiday. So given that he couldn't produce the same haul we did he's decided to utilise cap space to absorb deals for picks, collecting assets that way. Yes at the same time he has tried to make the 76ers suck hard which does bring a questionable reputation.

I do believe there should have been some veteran presence in that dressing room the last few years. It wouldn't have added many if any wins but it would have added some professionalism to the locker room. Keeping Wallace would have been one such move.

However there is nothing wrong with taking advantage of the draft system. Hinkie was hired in May 2013, so he has had 3 years of tanking.

His first move netted Noel, solid.
Traded ROY Carter-Williams for the Lakers first, I think that's a good move.
Drafted Embiid, if he ever plays this was a good pick. At the time it was the right one.
Drafted Okafor, questionable given Porzingis was there but still he's a good player

Now if Embiid had been healthy, this year would be his sophomore year and I think we would start to see them build around him. It didn't work out, he re-injured himself and they tanked again.

Now they have 2 potential cornerstones in Okafor and Embiid and in the next year I expect them to decide which one to keep. The other will have great trade value as I'm pretty certain there will be multiple suitors. Add one of Simmons, Ingram and Dunn to that and it's a nice 1-2 punch. Some might say it's close to the Wiggins-Towns combo.

TL:DR Philly didn't have the stars to trade like Boston(or even Minnesota) so they did the best they could with the system that is in place

Very good post.  I agree it should be quite easy now to get Philly on a track back to competitive team.  Colangelo would not have joined up if this were not the case. 

My question was about the cost. How much success, as in how great does Philly have to become in the next decade to say:  well, that **** show was worth it after all.

I would like to hear Hinkie supporters (who feel the Sixers are a big basket of gold) lay it on the line and talk about titles.  I mean if you're bringing the gold metaphor isn't that where the discussion should go? 

If it's too soon to make predictions, I'd like to hear some predictions about when we can start predicting...the day after the 2016 draft?

My own prediction is that they'll pretty easily get back to 8th seed territory two years from now (not next season). And the year after that they'll be looking about like current Indiana/Atlanta/Miami/Utah.
I can't predict if they'll be at that level with room to move up from there or if they'll sort of peak there like the vast majority of teams do.

The other question is how good will Minny/New Orleans/Boston/Utah/Orlando, etc etc. be by that time?Some of Philly's picks will likely team up with other stars at the end of their rookie deals or shortly after that.  Such as joining Karl Towns or Anthony Davis wherever they may be down the road.  I guess with Colangelo the point will be to lure the Town's/ADavis's of the league to come play with Ben Simmons (the hoped for BS)

I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for any concrete predictions about what constitutes this rebuild a success from the notable Sixers fanatics , that way they can hide behind all these great assets and proclaim them to be magical and continue to milk them for all the play time they can get.
That would require someone to have the courage of their convictions to stand behind their predictions, and let's just say judging by the other notable thread that is not a strong suit of that particular poster.
There is a reason that most veteran posters don't engage in 76ers talk on this board, it is basically a vehicle for that one particular poster to troll this forum.