Outstanding video that explains Sam Hinkie

[LarBrd33]

Highly recommended for some of the folks out there that don't understand what the Hinkie tenure was all about or have a warped perception of it.  This sums it up beautifully: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gndjnj3pKhU

I think my own take on the 76ers is often misinterpreted as me thinking their path was "better" than Boston's.   For the record, I think Danny Ainge is the best GM in the league.  It's never been about Ainge vs Hinkie for me.  And the fact of the matter is, they both set out in 2013 to shamelessly tank for the 2014 draft.  They have similar philosophies.  They both have a keen understanding that a Superstar is a necessity in today's NBA.   My stance on Philly is that what they did is defensible, admirable, and possibly will even prove successful for them. 

Some key notes:

- Philly hasn't won a championship since 1983.  It's been 33 years.
- Philly has only had one 50+ win season in the past 26 years.  A dramatic new approach was warranted.
- Philly has gone through 3 years of blatant tanking, which seems horrifying until you realize the following:
   a)  It's easy to get stuck in a rut of mediocrity.  The Sacramento Kings, for instance, have missed the playoffs 10 straight years. 
   b)  Since people insist on forcing comparisons, it should be noted that during Ainge's rebuild in 2003, he took over a playoff team with two all-stars that was a year removed from the Eastern Conference Finals.  Despite this, in Ainge's 4th season after shamelessly tanking, the team had a second worst record in the entire league.  My point is let's not throw stones in glass houses. 
   c)  Should be noted that Philly had less assets to start with.  Missing draft picks and their only tangible star was Jrue Holiday.  So again, since people insist on forcing comparisons, it should be pointed out that during Ainge's second rebuild, he once again was starting with a playoff team that was a year removed from the Eastern Conference Finals.  This time around, he was able to move two major-name all-stars (KG/Pierce) as well as other veteran players (Terry, for instance), in order to jump-start the tank/rebuild (getting a massive overpay from Brooklyn) and a year later was able to move another young all-star in Rondo + another top-level scorer in Jeff Green.    Comparing the starting points of Philly/Boston in their 2013 tanking efforts is ingenuine.

For the record, I adore Ainge and love what Boston has accomplished.  They are in probably as good a position as any team without a true superstar (though Horford and Thomas are both all-star level).   Top 4 team, legit shot at 55+ wins and an ECF appearance, long long loooong shot odds at a title this year, possibly two young prospects who reasonably have star potential (Smart and Brown), two more hopefully huge draft picks coming from Brooklyn, and a great shot at trading or signing a star talent via free agency.   Boston is beautifully positioned.   Even if you ignore the fact that these two teams were starting from dramatically different places in 2003 (Boston had a lot more to deal with), I wouldn't fault anyone forcing this comparison to say that Boston has "won".   

That said, the entire goal of Philly's "process" was to acquire a superstar.  And based on that, and the fact that they have a couple/few undeniably intriguing prospects (and future picks like the Lakers top 3 protected next Summer), I remain adamant that they have done a fine job setting themselves up and I continue to believe they are one of the most intriguing teams in the league. 
 

[MBunge]

I'm not going to start yet another argument because there's no point but blatant historical revisionism should not be tolerated.

The year LarBrd says Boston was "tanking," they had on their roster Paul Pierce, Wally Sczcerbiak, Tony Allen, Al Jefferson, Kendrick Perkins, Rajon Rondo, Delonte West, Leon Powe and Gerald Green.  It was full of legitimate NBA players, starters and even had multiple guys who were or would one day be all stars.  It was bad because Pierce was lost to injury for almost half the season, Tony Allen and Sczcerbiak were lost to injury for more than half the season and the team as a whole was extremely young and young players generally don't win in the NBA.

THERE IS NO SIMILARITY BETWEEN WHAT AINGE HAS DONE AND WHAT HINKIE DID.

Also, everybody understands what Hinkie did.  We criticize it because...

1.  It makes a mockery of sportsmanship.
2.  It's a strategy hugely dependent on luck.
3.  It's a strategy that is entirely dependent on Philly benefiting, like a parasite, from the rest of the league still trying to put a credible product of the floor.
4.  It's being held up as this brilliant strategy but Hinkie-lovers have adamantly refused to ackowledge a criteria or standard by which it could be judged.  What qualifies as success?  When should it be expected?  Shouldn't both of those things be affected by the extreme cost that was paid?

I'm not going to rehash anymore of this argument except to once again point out that there is something genuinely weird about a non-Sixer fan spending years on a Boston Celtics message board fanatically defending and excusing the Sixers as they make themselves one of the worst teams the NBA has ever seen.  Hinkie quit and he's still doing it.

Mike

[LarBrd33]

Heh. If you don't think Boston tanked in 2007, I dunno what to tell ya, brotha.

They tanked in 2007.  Pierce was held out most of the season.  Doc played the part of company man and made highly suspicious game-time decisions that were reflective of a team trying to lose games (which I think is a large part of why he decided to bail rather than play that role again in another Celtic tankjob post KG/Pierce).  It was blatant.

Are you trying to say that if a team's best players are injured for most of the year, it can't technically be labelled a tankjob?   Good to know...



There are tons of similarities between what Hinkie did and Ainge did.  Especially the second Celtic tankjob of Danny's tenure when he traded all his best players over a two year period for long-term assets.  Essentially the exact same approach.  Clean house, acquire future picks, try to bottom out for a future Superstar.   This team has proven on four distinct occasions they are not above to tankjob approach ('97, '07, '13, better part of '14 before a surprise run stifled the plans).  Glass houses.  Stones.

Point I was making is, if folks like you insist on comparing these two teams, it should be noted that we're only 3 years in to Philly's dramatic rebuild starting from basically nothing.  During Danny's early tenure, he took over a playoff team a year removed from the Eastern Conference Finals... and 4 YEARS into his tenure they were a bottom 2 team tanking for a draft pick that was used to rebuild the franchise with. 

It's not even fair to compare Philly's situation to Boston's since Danny had so much more to work with.  But if we're using Danny's incredible almost unprecedented rebuild as the barometer for success, it's fair to point out that Philly has 1 more year of bottoming out to catch up to Boston.  It wasn't until year 5 that the pieces fell into place for Ainge.   In 2017-18, if Philly is still not a contender, feel free to point out that Ainge did it quicker (as to be expected... I don't know of any other GM who lived up to the whole 3-5 year rebuild promise).  But even then, who cares?  As long as Philly looks like they are on a greater path towards contending than they had been in the 30+ years prior to Hinkie, it's a win for them.  Nothing they did over the prior 3 decades had been working.

[RAAAAAAAANDY]

I'm not going to start yet another argument because there's no point but blatant historical revisionism should not be tolerated.

The year LarBrd says Boston was "tanking," they had on their roster Paul Pierce, Wally Sczcerbiak, Tony Allen, Al Jefferson, Kendrick Perkins, Rajon Rondo, Delonte West, Leon Powe and Gerald Green.  It was full of legitimate NBA players, starters and even had multiple guys who were or would one day be all stars.  It was bad because Pierce was lost to injury for almost half the season, Tony Allen and Sczcerbiak were lost to injury for more than half the season and the team as a whole was extremely young and young players generally don't win in the NBA.

THERE IS NO SIMILARITY BETWEEN WHAT AINGE HAS DONE AND WHAT HINKIE DID.

Also, everybody understands what Hinkie did.  We criticize it because...

1.  It makes a mockery of sportsmanship.
2.  It's a strategy hugely dependent on luck.
3.  It's a strategy that is entirely dependent on Philly benefiting, like a parasite, from the rest of the league still trying to put a credible product of the floor.
4.  It's being held up as this brilliant strategy but Hinkie-lovers have adamantly refused to ackowledge a criteria or standard by which it could be judged.  What qualifies as success?  When should it be expected?  Shouldn't both of those things be affected by the extreme cost that was paid?

I'm not going to rehash anymore of this argument except to once again point out that there is something genuinely weird about a non-Sixer fan spending years on a Boston Celtics message board fanatically defending and excusing the Sixers as they make themselves one of the worst teams the NBA has ever seen.  Hinkie quit and he's still doing it.

Mike

Please, your complete ignorance is embarrassing.

Starting in the 2013 offseason Danny Ainge traded his 3 best players over the course of a year and a half for picks and prospects.

The only difference is that he had a team going into a rebuild that he had been running for several years rather than a roster gutted by the Andrew Bynum trade that Sam Hinkie had.

It's the same plan, with vastly different starting points. One had a 4x All-Star PG and 2 future HOFers as trade chips, the other had Thad Young and Jrue Holiday...

Not to mention the Sixers owed a ton of draft picks due to the previous regime dumping them for Bynum and Arnett Moultrie.

[Big333223]

I still don't really understand the Hinkie ousting. Aren't hte Sixers exactly where they were supposed to be in the process? They've got a bunch of young prospects and a ton of picks left to use. What did Hinkie not do that anyone thought he would?

[LarBrd33]

I still don't really understand the Hinkie ousting. Aren't hte Sixers exactly where they were supposed to be in the process? They've got a bunch of young prospects and a ton of picks left to use. What did Hinkie not do that anyone thought he would?

thats the one thing the video kind of glosses over.  Technically, he wasn't fired.  He stepped down.   There was a lot of exterior pressure and the team had hired the elder colangelo.   The team seemed to be moving forward and hinkie seemed to be losing power.  I think he realized his presence had become a problem in dealing with other teams, agents, etc.   Hinkie became the scapegoat and him stepping down quieted the rabble rousers so the team could finish out the tank job in peace.

[PhoSita]

The Hinkie thing is like this Presidential election ... I highly doubt there are genuinely any minds left to change on this subject ....


Anyway, I'll just say -- I hope that if the Celts are ever mired in a decade plus of 30-45 win seasons with nary a first round playoff series win and not a single top 10 player on the roster, the owners will hire and support a GM with the vision and audacity to completely tear things down in order to give the franchise a chance at becoming relevant.

[celticsclay]

I still don't really understand the Hinkie ousting. Aren't hte Sixers exactly where they were supposed to be in the process? They've got a bunch of young prospects and a ton of picks left to use. What did Hinkie not do that anyone thought he would?

thats the one thing the video kind of glosses over.  Technically, he wasn't fired.  He stepped down.   There was a lot of exterior pressure and the team had hired the elder colangelo.   The team seemed to be moving forward and hinkie seemed to be losing power.  I think he realized his presence had become a problem in dealing with other teams, agents, etc.   Hinkie became the scapegoat and him stepping down quieted the rabble rousers so the team could finish out the tank job in peace.

Little more nuanced than that. He had rubbed a lot of people the wrong way and lacked people skills. Agents and other gms did not want to deal with him. A player found out he was cut while on the team bus. It was viewed as a mistake that he didn't have a single veteran around that was playing for the first half of the last season when Okafor was being a young knucklehead with no guidance. It was viewed as a mistake that he cut away Ish Smith when he was actually making a player like Noel look better. They were all small things collectively but together they led to him getting fired. Also, I think anyone that follows sports knows the "resigning" stuff is just a polite way of being fired. They had had enough of Hinkie and I believe went out of their way to sabotage him on the way out. Didn't they leak what was supposed to be an internal document as a means of embarassing him?

Anyways dude is hanging out at starbucks now and if he had just done a few small things differently he would still have a prestigious job. This is why people say Hinkie died for our sins.

Edit: Some, particularly some 76ers fan, feel like the Okafor pick was a big mistake.

[tankcity!]

Why do you feel the need to keep bringing this up? Makes no sense if you're a Celtics fan. You keep complaining about how people attack you on this board, but then you bring this subject up all over again. Do you enjoy being attacked by posters?

I really don't think about the Sixers. They're irrelevant at this point. I mean you can bring up these great points once they start winning, but until then you don't really have a leg to stand on. Nobody here can make a claim about Philly one way or the other.

Also, everyone tanks, but they don't make troll roster moves the way Hinkie did. I think how blatantly obvious it was is what turned people off.

[LarBrd33]

The Hinkie thing is like this Presidential election ... I highly doubt there are genuinely any minds left to change on this subject ....


Anyway, I'll just say -- I hope that if the Celts are ever mired in a decade plus of 30-45 win seasons with nary a first round playoff series win and not a single top 10 player on the roster, the owners will hire and support a GM with the vision and audacity to completely tear things down in order to give the franchise a chance at becoming relevant.

They sorta did.  Trading Antoine wasn't necessarily an opinion that was widely met with unanimous support.  When Ainge initially took over, the team was a couple years removed from an ECF appearance.  Most educated basketball minds realized the team wasn't a legitimate contender, though.  Ainge decided immediately that despite the fact the team had two all-stars, it couldn't win a championship with both Walker and Pierce.  He then set forth a multi-year plan to acquire assets with hopes of eventually landing a superstar.  In Ainge's 4th season, the team tanked to a bottom 5 record.   Then all the pieces fell into place for Ainge's 5th season.  Of course, that was easier with the team already ARGUABLY having a top 10 (certainly top 15) player in Paul Pierce. 

I support what Hinkie did.  The next stage is the hardest... turning that massive collection of assets into a team that makes sense.  It's not clear if Hinkie was ever going to be the guy best suited for that role.  I give him an "A" grade on asset collection and a "N/A" on team-building. 

With Simmons out, they'll probably struggle again this season.  But I wouldn't be totally shocked if things fell into place during the 5th season of the rebuild.   Dario Saric looks good so far in preseason.  Embiid is still raw/rusty, but definitely shows the potential.   Despite the naysayers, Noel and Okafor still have trade value.  Simmons injury sucks, but it's a setback that will not change the perception of him as a potentially transcendent player long-term.   And if they bottom out again this year, there's a chance they'll end up with two top 4 picks (their own and the Lakers top 3 protected).   That team probably has a brighter future than it had at any point it had since the Barkley era... and I'm including the overrated Iverson teams..


 

[LarBrd33]

Why do you feel the need to keep bringing this up?

Because Philly is a constant topic around here.  Someone starts a thread anytime they do anything.  It's one of the most interesting storylines in the NBA.  I'm fascinated with the team-building aspect of the league.  A lot of people (especially people here) still misunderstand what the Hinkie tenure was all about and what it accomplished.   It's a new video and does a good job of explaining it, so it was worth sharing.

[KG Living Legend]

Why do you feel the need to keep bringing this up?

Because Philly is a constant topic around here.  Someone starts a thread anytime they do anything.  It's one of the most interesting storylines in the NBA.  I'm fascinated with the team-building aspect of the league.  A lot of people (especially people here) still misunderstand what the Hinkie tenure was all about and what it accomplished.   It's a new video and does a good job of explaining it, so it was worth sharing.

 Two Point. First the guy couldn't pronounce Stuaskas and Udoh.

 Second point, it appears that Hinkie really was rail roaded by the NBA and forced out if his job.


 Bringing in Jerry Colangelo is basically proof of that IMO. He's at the top of the food chain and turned around USA basketball.

 They didn't want Hinkie to get the credit if Philly does indeed turn it around in the next few years.

 

[Granath]

Because Philly is a constant topic around here. 

Only because you keep making threads about them

Someone starts a thread anytime they do anything.

YOU start a thread anytime they do anything. 

It's one of the most interesting storylines in the NBA.  I'm fascinated with the team-building aspect of the league.

YOU'RE fascinated. Pretty much no one else is.
 

A lot of people (especially people here) still misunderstand what the Hinkie tenure was all about and what it accomplished.

I don't think it's hard to understand. They had multiple epic losing seasons. That's what they accomplished. 

It's a new video and does a good job of explaining it, so it was worth sharing.

It's an apologist video whose conclusions are both one-sided and illogical. There's more than one way to build a team and the Cs have proved that. Meanwhile the 76ers won 10 games last year and the Cs are widely considered to be about the 5th or 6th best team in the league.

[Sixth Man]

Why do you feel the need to keep bringing this up?

Because Philly is a constant topic around here.  Someone starts a thread anytime they do anything.  It's one of the most interesting storylines in the NBA.  I'm fascinated with the team-building aspect of the league.  A lot of people (especially people here) still misunderstand what the Hinkie tenure was all about and what it accomplished.   It's a new video and does a good job of explaining it, so it was worth sharing.

Yes, thanks to you!  What's wrong, wife won't pay attention to you at home?  Well, don't worry, you get all the attention you crave right here at CB...

[celticsclay]

I think the 76ers are finally on the verge of turning it around just caught a major break with Simmons injury. That being said, this video isn't really informative at all and didn't really have any new information. Cute graphics, but 6 minutes of wasted time mostly