Ainge receives praise from Hinkie

[Moranis]

sure, the rebuild was taking too long, but this was something Hinkie had made clear from day 1.

Is there any public comment from Hinkie that "The Process" was going to last at least three years, with Philly winning fewer games in year three than in year one?

And judging from his resignation letter, doesn't it seem like a big issue is that Hinkie wanted to keep the option open of extending the tank for yet another year?  I mean, if he was on board with trying to win now, why would he feel the need to quit?

Mike

Yes.  Hinkie's proposal was to basically tank for 3 years while building assets, and then start to turn it around in years 4 and 5, and then start going to the next level after that.  That was his proposal when he took over and it has been stated by numerous people within or close to the Philly organization. 

[Csfan1984]

Hink would still be in Philly if he actually hit on his picks. Not once did he land the stud of the draft or even a draft steal. The plan wasn't that bad he just didn't get lucky.

[fubar089]

I have more knowledge about embiid's health than almost every single person on this forum,

You should make this your signature.

[Eddie20]

Tp.  Some people just aren't going to "get it" with Philly until they see them improve.  They will cite "magic" as the reason for the sudden influx of talent.

The team is basically in perfect position for a quick turnaround.

Everyone "gets it" with Philly.  We just don't give them any credit for pursuing strategy that takes a steaming dump over the sport and we don't give them credit for success before it happens.

After three years of tanking, Philly doesn't have a legitimate starting point guard.  It doesn't have a legitimate back up point guard.  It doesn't have a legitimate starting shooting guard.  It doesn't have a legitimate back up shooting guard.  It doesn't have a legitimate starting small forward.  It doesn't have a legitimate starting power forward.  The only legitimate back up power forward on the roster is 32 years old.

Yet despite decades of basketball and dozens (hundreds?) of teams that had even more talent and never amounted to anything, Philly is perfectly positioned for a quick turnaround?

Mike

Like I said, you don't get it

At this point, you aren't going to get it until you see results.  No point in posting about it back and forth.   There's a fundamental misunderstanding of what hinkie has succeeded in doing for that team.

Who was wrong about Embiid's health?  Who was wrong about what the hiring of Colangelo meant for Hinkie?

That would be you.
 
Mike

I have more knowledge about embiid's health than almost every single person on this forum, because I actually read all of the articles associated with his story instead of just buying Twitter posts that called him the next oden.  Most here still don't understand why embiid didn't play this year.

You definitely do, doctor. You had him playing in the summer league and said the reports being circulated were to cause confusion as to who Hinkie would draft. Shortly after he had another surgery and his future still remains in jeopardy. You should consider changing your reading material.

[Dino Pitino]

I think he'd have approached things more or less just like Hinkie did.

We can say with a large degree of certainty that Ainge would not have done what Hinkie did because he already had the opportunity to do so in the past.  When he took over, he blew up the core of a team that made the playoffs.  And even in the seasons after that when things looked bleak, he didn't strip mine the roster and fill the team with guys who should't be in the league.

There's also the fact that Ainge has been a competitor his whole life and wants to win through hard work and determination, not a parasite who wants everything handed to him.

Mike

He had Paul Pierce. He almost did trade Pierce. Which would've left the roster about as bleak as the Sixers, full of players who barely lasted in the NBA plus a few promising prospects. That's why I asked what he would've done if KG and Pierce just randomly retired in 2013. Because it would've left Ainge with a situation somewhat close to Hinkie's. To get really close to the same situation, we should also assume Rondo re-injured his knee and had zero trade value all the way through to free agency. What would Ainge have done with no significant trade pieces and no good players. Ainge has never been in a situation like Hinkie inherited. Your "large degree of certainty" is a crock.

[guava_wrench]

I think he'd have approached things more or less just like Hinkie did.

We can say with a large degree of certainty that Ainge would not have done what Hinkie did because he already had the opportunity to do so in the past.  When he took over, he blew up the core of a team that made the playoffs.  And even in the seasons after that when things looked bleak, he didn't strip mine the roster and fill the team with guys who should't be in the league.

There's also the fact that Ainge has been a competitor his whole life and wants to win through hard work and determination, not a parasite who wants everything handed to him.

Mike

He had Paul Pierce. He almost did trade Pierce. Which would've left the roster about as bleak as the Sixers, full of players who barely lasted in the NBA plus a few promising prospects. That's why I asked what he would've done if KG and Pierce just randomly retired in 2013. Because it would've left Ainge with a situation somewhat close to Hinkie's. To get really close to the same situation, we should also assume Rondo re-injured his knee and had zero trade value all the way through to free agency. What would Ainge have done with no significant trade pieces and no good players. Ainge has never been in a situation like Hinkie inherited. Your "large degree of certainty" is a crock.

The trade rumors I remember involved trading Pierce for players of his tier, not just picks.

Trading Pierce for CP3, for example, would not have made our roster any worse.

[JohnBoy65]

I've read through every post thus far and I think some are mixing up arguments.

1) As many have said, and even Hinkie mentions in his letter, there are very few Lebrons, Durants, Kobes that come out of college. With that being said Hinkie's picks need to develop, just like every other team hopes their picks develop.

2) He mentioned the process takes time. Why would Hinkie care about fit when his goal is to lose as many games as possible? Noel and JO don't fit together? Who cares, he's hoping they are a diamond in the rough and obtain super star status.

3) How come we allow rookies or young players to develop on winning teams, but we require instant development on losing teams. My point is this: Marcus Smart was picked 6th. He's no where near fulfilled his potential, but most fans, not all, but most seem to give him the benefit of the doubt on development. Why, just because Philly is bad, don't JO, Noel, Embid, etc get these same benefit of the doubts?

4) Lastly, I saw some posts about the draft picks not being valuable because they can change and the 'who knows what can happen' mentality. If that's the case, why are people so high on the value of the Memphis pick and Brooklyn '18 pick?

[celticsclay]

Tp.  Some people just aren't going to "get it" with Philly until they see them improve.  They will cite "magic" as the reason for the sudden influx of talent.

The team is basically in perfect position for a quick turnaround.

Everyone "gets it" with Philly.  We just don't give them any credit for pursuing strategy that takes a steaming dump over the sport and we don't give them credit for success before it happens.

After three years of tanking, Philly doesn't have a legitimate starting point guard.  It doesn't have a legitimate back up point guard.  It doesn't have a legitimate starting shooting guard.  It doesn't have a legitimate back up shooting guard.  It doesn't have a legitimate starting small forward.  It doesn't have a legitimate starting power forward.  The only legitimate back up power forward on the roster is 32 years old.

Yet despite decades of basketball and dozens (hundreds?) of teams that had even more talent and never amounted to anything, Philly is perfectly positioned for a quick turnaround?

Mike

Like I said, you don't get it

At this point, you aren't going to get it until you see results.  No point in posting about it back and forth.   There's a fundamental misunderstanding of what hinkie has succeeded in doing for that team.

Who was wrong about Embiid's health?  Who was wrong about what the hiring of Colangelo meant for Hinkie?

That would be you.
 
Mike

I have more knowledge about embiid's health than almost every single person on this forum, because I actually read all of the articles associated with his story instead of just buying Twitter posts that called him the next oden.  Most here still don't understand why embiid didn't play this year.

As for colangeo I was right 100% in what his hiring meant for the short term implications for that franchise.  Nothing changed.  The real moves will happen as summer.  I never cared about what that meant for Sam Hinkie.  My focus was on what it meant for phillys process.  It had no impact.

lol you keep doing you larbrd.

[celticsclay]

I've read through every post thus far and I think some are mixing up arguments.

1) As many have said, and even Hinkie mentions in his letter, there are very few Lebrons, Durants, Kobes that come out of college. With that being said Hinkie's picks need to develop, just like every other team hopes their picks develop.

2) He mentioned the process takes time. Why would Hinkie care about fit when his goal is to lose as many games as possible? Noel and JO don't fit together? Who cares, he's hoping they are a diamond in the rough and obtain super star status.

3) How come we allow rookies or young players to develop on winning teams, but we require instant development on losing teams. My point is this: Marcus Smart was picked 6th. He's no where near fulfilled his potential, but most fans, not all, but most seem to give him the benefit of the doubt on development. Why, just because Philly is bad, do JO, Noel, Embid, etc get these same benefit of the doubts?

4) Lastly, I saw some posts about the draft picks not being valuable because they can change and the 'who knows what can happen' mentality. If that's the case, why are people so high on the value of the Memphis pick and Brooklyn '18 pick?

Most people, from what I have read, are cautiously optimistic about those picks but really reluctant to say they will for sure be good. More like "it will be awesome if they are." TBH I do think it was probably a mistake to overly invest in picks with so many protections because it makes planning really difficult when you don't know when a pick will arrive. For example, last year with about 2 weeks left in the season it really looked like the 76ers would get 4 first round draft picks in last years draft. The Thunder and Heat surprisingly didn't make the playoffs, the Lakers pick didn't convey and they were left with only their own pick. I feel like that has to make it tough to plan and build a team.

[LarBrd33]

Tp.  Some people just aren't going to "get it" with Philly until they see them improve.  They will cite "magic" as the reason for the sudden influx of talent.

The team is basically in perfect position for a quick turnaround.

Everyone "gets it" with Philly.  We just don't give them any credit for pursuing strategy that takes a steaming dump over the sport and we don't give them credit for success before it happens.

After three years of tanking, Philly doesn't have a legitimate starting point guard.  It doesn't have a legitimate back up point guard.  It doesn't have a legitimate starting shooting guard.  It doesn't have a legitimate back up shooting guard.  It doesn't have a legitimate starting small forward.  It doesn't have a legitimate starting power forward.  The only legitimate back up power forward on the roster is 32 years old.

Yet despite decades of basketball and dozens (hundreds?) of teams that had even more talent and never amounted to anything, Philly is perfectly positioned for a quick turnaround?

Mike

Like I said, you don't get it

At this point, you aren't going to get it until you see results.  No point in posting about it back and forth.   There's a fundamental misunderstanding of what hinkie has succeeded in doing for that team.

Who was wrong about Embiid's health?  Who was wrong about what the hiring of Colangelo meant for Hinkie?

That would be you.
 
Mike

I have more knowledge about embiid's health than almost every single person on this forum, because I actually read all of the articles associated with his story instead of just buying Twitter posts that called him the next oden.  Most here still don't understand why embiid didn't play this year.

And yet, everyone else here was right in what was happening with Embiid. 

Not even remotely.  Most said he reinjured himself and the team was hiding it.  Go back and read those posts and my analysis of what was happening was closer to reality.   Nobody was completely correct, but the details I shared proved to be accurate.

The aspect I was "wrong" about was that I guessed he'd play.  But my reasoning was sound. He had no pain and was running around dunking on people. These proved to be accurate.  My guess was that the team wanted to make sure he was 100% healthy before he played so not to risk rejury. This proved to be true. The bone graft is intended to give him the best chance at a long career.  I guessed that he could play if the team wasn't concerned with his long term health.  From what I understand, this is also true... He could have played this season had they not cared about his long term health.  Yet ask most people here and they will probably tell you he rebroke something in rehab. Not accurate.

So, let me see if I understand this.

1.  You claim to be better informed about Embiid's health than any other person on this board.
2.  Despite that, you were still wrong about his health and whether he would play this past season.

That's your story?

Yup.  Most just said he wouldn't play because Greg oden didn't play.  There were few, if any, that were actually researching the situation. At the time the team wasn't exposing much information so anyone could really do was read second hand reports, interviews with people around the team and come up with an educated guess.

Based on available info (it not healing 100% yet), and remarks from actual doctors (that the tissue around the bone probably hadnt filled in yet leaving it susceptible to future re-injury), as well as reports from those around embiid (that he was pain free, dunking on people, and believed he would play), and reports from the team that he'd play in the summer league,  I made my educated guess that they were going to make the decision to hold him out of summer league and he'd play opening day.

It was never a guarantee. I admitted at the time that none of us really knew what was going on there, because the team wasn't being very open.  But unlike the majority of this forum, I was actually looking into the situation and not just saying "cuz oden". Turns out months later we learned that almost everything I had shared was accurate.  He was pain free, he was running around without a boot and dunking, he wanted to play, he probably could have played, the team wasn't completely comfortable with the level of healing around the bone and wanted to do whatever possibile to ensure long-term health.   It took several weeks until we even realized what the team ended up deciding to do (lots of misreports about him reinjuring himself which has been soundly denied).  They opted to have a bone graft procedure done.  There's been recent success with bone grafts for players like Kevin Durant and Brook Lopez.  Clearly the team felt like this gave embiid the best chance as a long and healthy career.   

Unless you are telling me somewhere here predicted the team would make embiid have a bone graft, nobody here can gloat about being "right". Most are still wrong months later.

Also, this is an Internet forum. The best we can hope for is for folks to share information and come up with guesses and their own analysis as to what that means.  I admitted that my guess that embiid would play opening day was wrong. I took my licks for it.  But understand that without me you would have just had a bunch of posts about "lol embiid prob isn't gonna play cuz of Greg oden". There's people here who genuinely believe his career is over and he isn't worth a 2nd round pick, but they aren't at all familiar with his actual current status.  Instead of trying to prove my educated guesses wrong, you should be thanking me for my glorious contributions to this forum.  You're lucky to have me.

[Dino Pitino]

I think he'd have approached things more or less just like Hinkie did.

We can say with a large degree of certainty that Ainge would not have done what Hinkie did because he already had the opportunity to do so in the past.  When he took over, he blew up the core of a team that made the playoffs.  And even in the seasons after that when things looked bleak, he didn't strip mine the roster and fill the team with guys who should't be in the league.

There's also the fact that Ainge has been a competitor his whole life and wants to win through hard work and determination, not a parasite who wants everything handed to him.

Mike

He had Paul Pierce. He almost did trade Pierce. Which would've left the roster about as bleak as the Sixers, full of players who barely lasted in the NBA plus a few promising prospects. That's why I asked what he would've done if KG and Pierce just randomly retired in 2013. Because it would've left Ainge with a situation somewhat close to Hinkie's. To get really close to the same situation, we should also assume Rondo re-injured his knee and had zero trade value all the way through to free agency. What would Ainge have done with no significant trade pieces and no good players. Ainge has never been in a situation like Hinkie inherited. Your "large degree of certainty" is a crock.

The trade rumors I remember involved trading Pierce for players of his tier, not just picks.

Trading Pierce for CP3, for example, would not have made our roster any worse.

Chris Paul wasn't Chris Paul yet. He was a prospect. The day that trade is made, most Celtics fans would've felt like the roster was as bad as Philly's is now.

Anyway, again, Ainge had Pierce to do that with to begin with. Hinkie did not. Let's say Pierce abruptly quit the NBA to become a monk in 2004 or 2005. What is Ainge left with then? How does Ainge then proceed? I think he would've been Hinkie-like. We would've bottomed out for a couple years. Maybe three. EDIT: And we nearly did anyway! Even with Pierce.

[Moranis]

I think he'd have approached things more or less just like Hinkie did.

We can say with a large degree of certainty that Ainge would not have done what Hinkie did because he already had the opportunity to do so in the past.  When he took over, he blew up the core of a team that made the playoffs.  And even in the seasons after that when things looked bleak, he didn't strip mine the roster and fill the team with guys who should't be in the league.

There's also the fact that Ainge has been a competitor his whole life and wants to win through hard work and determination, not a parasite who wants everything handed to him.

Mike

He had Paul Pierce. He almost did trade Pierce. Which would've left the roster about as bleak as the Sixers, full of players who barely lasted in the NBA plus a few promising prospects. That's why I asked what he would've done if KG and Pierce just randomly retired in 2013. Because it would've left Ainge with a situation somewhat close to Hinkie's. To get really close to the same situation, we should also assume Rondo re-injured his knee and had zero trade value all the way through to free agency. What would Ainge have done with no significant trade pieces and no good players. Ainge has never been in a situation like Hinkie inherited. Your "large degree of certainty" is a crock.

The trade rumors I remember involved trading Pierce for players of his tier, not just picks.

Trading Pierce for CP3, for example, would not have made our roster any worse.

Chris Paul wasn't Chris Paul yet. He was a prospect. The day that trade is made, most Celtics fans would've felt like the roster was as bad as Philly's is now.

Anyway, again, Ainge had Pierce to do that with to begin with. Hinkie did not. Let's say Pierce abruptly quit the NBA to become a monk in 2004 or 2005. What is Ainge left with then? How does Ainge then proceed? I think he would've been Hinkie-like. We would've bottomed out for a couple years. Maybe three. EDIT: And we nearly did anyway! Even with Pierce.

Yep, he was a guy drafted behind Andrew Bogut, Marvin Williams, and Deron Williams and who shot a whopping 28% from three his 1st year.  He did have pretty good stats as a rookie (aside from the shooting), but no where near Paul Pierce level.

[PhoSita]

I've read through every post thus far and I think some are mixing up arguments.

1) As many have said, and even Hinkie mentions in his letter, there are very few Lebrons, Durants, Kobes that come out of college. With that being said Hinkie's picks need to develop, just like every other team hopes their picks develop.

2) He mentioned the process takes time. Why would Hinkie care about fit when his goal is to lose as many games as possible? Noel and JO don't fit together? Who cares, he's hoping they are a diamond in the rough and obtain super star status.

3) How come we allow rookies or young players to develop on winning teams, but we require instant development on losing teams. My point is this: Marcus Smart was picked 6th. He's no where near fulfilled his potential, but most fans, not all, but most seem to give him the benefit of the doubt on development. Why, just because Philly is bad, don't JO, Noel, Embid, etc get these same benefit of the doubts?

4) Lastly, I saw some posts about the draft picks not being valuable because they can change and the 'who knows what can happen' mentality. If that's the case, why are people so high on the value of the Memphis pick and Brooklyn '18 pick?

You get a TP from here for this.  Excellent post.

[greece66]

sure, the rebuild was taking too long, but this was something Hinkie had made clear from day 1.

Is there any public comment from Hinkie that "The Process" was going to last at least three years, with Philly winning fewer games in year three than in year one?

And judging from his resignation letter, doesn't it seem like a big issue is that Hinkie wanted to keep the option open of extending the tank for yet another year?  I mean, if he was on board with trying to win now, why would he feel the need to quit?

Mike

Yes.  Hinkie's proposal was to basically tank for 3 years while building assets, and then start to turn it around in years 4 and 5, and then start going to the next level after that.  That was his proposal when he took over and it has been stated by numerous people within or close to the Philly organization.

^this

Doug Collins said he left Philly because he didn't like how long term the rebuild was going to be. But his interview with Bill Simmons is no longer available on YouTube.

You can also see how Hinkie emphasizes patience in a talk in July 2013. If you look at Liberty Ballers articles from 2013, there was much excitement that Hinkie planned to make them contenders again but it was also understood that this would take time, even if  they got super lucky like OKC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ikj_Q_psDjk

[crimson_stallion]

The difference between Ainge and Hinkie or Buford and Hinkie is that those guys had plans that were always going to work, just maybe not work well enough to win a title.  Ainge was accumulating assets he was always going to cash in for a star player.  Buford was creating cap space while still keeping the Spurs a title contender and he was always going to get someone to sign there.  Maybe Ainge doesn't get Ray and KG and maybe Buford doesn't get Aldridge, but they would still have had an option B, C and D to fall back on.

And they wouldn't have turned their franchises into steaming piles of garbage to do so.

Hinkie, on the other hand, had a plan that consisted of two parts.

1.  Suck.
2.  Get lucky.

And he had no fallback position when #2 didn't work.

Mike

This is a wild oversimplification, but it's illustrative of why casual fans love to hate on Hinkie.

Is it really?

I mean, at the end of the day that was the plan. 

Over the past three seasons the 76ers have gone 19-63, 18-64 and so far this year 10-69.  That's a combined record of 47-196 (19.3%)  over a three year period.

I'm not sure if that is an official NBA record for the worst regular season record ever recorded over a three year period, but if it isn't it must be darn close to it.

Intentionally making making your team bad isn't a new strategy, teams have done it before.  But blatantly taking three full seasons is disgusting on a whole other level.  I don't see anything respectable or ethical about what Hinkie did, and I think Karma has well and truly come back around to bite him on the back-side.

Either way I think that summary is pretty accurate though.  He intentionally made the team as bad as they possible could be purely on the hope that he would strike it gold and get a handful of cost-controlled future superstars out of it.  What he got was a stash guy, an annual DNP, a nice defensive role player, and an out of conditioned head case.

I actually love how this turned out because it sends a very clear messages to all the other teams out there - if you are thinking of throwing games in the hope of an easy rise to stardom, then think very carefully about how it COULD turn out.