All Things Philadelphia 76ers (merged Sixers threads)

[oldtype]

Question for Process supporters: At what point will you be willing to say that it hasn't worked?  If they don't make the playoffs next year? In two years?  Or if the Process is about more than just making the playoffs, how far do they need to advance in the playoffs, and in what time frame?  And is it about sustainability?  Do they need to have multiple years of deep playoff runs?

I'm not trying to bait anyone.  From my perspective, it has failed already.  They've gone through a full-cycle of rookie contracts, have already had to jettison their first two lottery picks, and are still a bottom 5 team.  But for those who think it is still working, what is your benchmark?  There has to be something to say it was worth it, right?

Why? Philly has Embiid, Saric, Simmons, a top 5 pick this season and a Lakers pick that could still deliver a valuable player. If that core wins a championship 7 or 8 years from now, will you still think it was a failure?

First of all, eight year plans are ridiculous in any professional sport.  You obviously have to have some idea of where you are going in the future, like when considering the draft or freeing up salary cap space, but 8 years is almost twice the length of the average NBA career.

Secondly, if all the Hinkie plan gets you is one championship in 10 or 11 years, you might not consider it a failure but it is clearly inferior to most other successful plans pursued by NBA teams.  Ainge, for example, took over in 2003 and won a title in 2008.  That's half the time with about 1/4 the painful losing.

Mike

This doesn't make any sense to me. You're saying winning one championship in 10 or 11 years isn't good but you use Ainge as an example of a good manager but Ainge has only won one championship in 14 years.

Confused logic aside, my point was: how can you judge The Process when the players it has garnered haven't shown what they can do yet?

Ainge has already rebuilt lottery teams to good teams twice in that timeframe.

Love, love, love this point!

TP

Most teams will only win one championship every 15 years or so, no matter how well run they are.  The question is what you're willing to accept being when you're not winning a championship.

Is it better to be a laughing stock for 7~8 years at a time just so maybe you win a ring once every 13 years instead of once every 15 years? Or is it better to have a respectable team even when you're not in title contention?

[Moranis]

Question for Process supporters: At what point will you be willing to say that it hasn't worked?  If they don't make the playoffs next year? In two years?  Or if the Process is about more than just making the playoffs, how far do they need to advance in the playoffs, and in what time frame?  And is it about sustainability?  Do they need to have multiple years of deep playoff runs?

I'm not trying to bait anyone.  From my perspective, it has failed already.  They've gone through a full-cycle of rookie contracts, have already had to jettison their first two lottery picks, and are still a bottom 5 team.  But for those who think it is still working, what is your benchmark?  There has to be something to say it was worth it, right?

Why? Philly has Embiid, Saric, Simmons, a top 5 pick this season and a Lakers pick that could still deliver a valuable player. If that core wins a championship 7 or 8 years from now, will you still think it was a failure?

First of all, eight year plans are ridiculous in any professional sport.  You obviously have to have some idea of where you are going in the future, like when considering the draft or freeing up salary cap space, but 8 years is almost twice the length of the average NBA career.

Secondly, if all the Hinkie plan gets you is one championship in 10 or 11 years, you might not consider it a failure but it is clearly inferior to most other successful plans pursued by NBA teams.  Ainge, for example, took over in 2003 and won a title in 2008.  That's half the time with about 1/4 the painful losing.

Mike

This doesn't make any sense to me. You're saying winning one championship in 10 or 11 years isn't good but you use Ainge as an example of a good manager but Ainge has only won one championship in 14 years.

Confused logic aside, my point was: how can you judge The Process when the players it has garnered haven't shown what they can do yet?

Ainge has already rebuilt lottery teams to good teams twice in that timeframe.

Love, love, love this point!

TP

Most teams will only win one championship every 15 years or so, no matter how well run they are.  The question is what you're willing to accept being when you're not winning a championship.

Is it better to be a laughing stock for 7~8 years at a time just so maybe you win a ring once every 13 years instead of once every 15 years? Or is it better to have a respectable team even when you're not in title contention?

7-8 years of being a laughing stock?  this is the 4th year, unless you are counting the Bynum year then you are in the 5th year, and I highly doubt the Sixers are a laughing stock next year (as they borderline aren't one this year).  They won't be good or anything, but unless they have a bunch more injuries, I can't see how they aren't at least a mid-30 win team.  I mean they are on pace for just over 29 wins this year, and they have been devastated by injuries and will add at least 1 more top 10 pick this summer (plus will have the #1 pick in the last draft come back from injury). 

The Sixers won the 82/83 title.  They went to the Finals in 00/01, were in the conference finals in 84/85, but otherwise 2nd round was the best they did.  They've won 50 games 1 time since the 89/90 season (that was the 01 Finals team).  You aren't talking about the Celtics or Lakers here, and frankly the Sixers have a better history (even since the title in 83) then more than half the teams in the league.  Winning a title is difficult.  Only 1 team does it every season, which means 29 teams don't win the title.  And if you look at the titles since the Bulls began their run (26 completed seasons), Jordan won 6, Duncan won 5, Shaq won 4, and James has won 3, which leaves just 8 titles to everyone else.  Of course of those 8, 2 of those went to the Dream and 2 of those went to Kobe.  That leaves just the 4 single title winners of the Celtics, Pistons, Mavs, and Warriors (who might go on to win multiple titles themselves).  Even pre-dating the Bulls the Lakers won 5, Celtics won 3, Pistons won 2, and the Sixers won 1.  That is every title since 1980. 

It just isn't easy to win a title, so making that the requirement just seems like a strange thing to do, especially since the Sixers only had the worst team in the league once, and haven't even had the worst 3 (or 4) year period in league history.  They are bad, but they aren't even the worst team ever. 

[oldtype]

It just isn't easy to win a title, so making that the requirement just seems like a strange thing to do, especially since the Sixers only had the worst team in the league once, and haven't even had the worst 3 (or 4) year period in league history.  They are bad, but they aren't even the worst team ever.

The numbers are purposefully arbitrary as to illustrate the point.  The actual point is this: in exchange for being in contention slightly more often, are you willing to accept that your team won't even be trying to win every season where they're not?

I wouldn't take that trade. I guess some people would.

[Moranis]

It just isn't easy to win a title, so making that the requirement just seems like a strange thing to do, especially since the Sixers only had the worst team in the league once, and haven't even had the worst 3 (or 4) year period in league history.  They are bad, but they aren't even the worst team ever.

The numbers are purposefully arbitrary as to illustrate the point.  The actual point is this: in exchange for being in contention slightly more often, are you willing to accept that your team won't even be trying to win every season where they're not?

I wouldn't take that trade. I guess some people would.

If I'm the fan of a team that has had 1 50 win season in over 25 years, I'd be willing to suffer a few seasons of crap for a nice 5-10 year run where the team was pretty darn good even if they fell short of the title (think the Mavs before they finally broke through).  The real question is of course, will the Sixers provide the seasons of being pretty darn good.  That is the payoff that much be reached.

[Ilikesports17]

It just isn't easy to win a title, so making that the requirement just seems like a strange thing to do, especially since the Sixers only had the worst team in the league once, and haven't even had the worst 3 (or 4) year period in league history.  They are bad, but they aren't even the worst team ever.

The numbers are purposefully arbitrary as to illustrate the point.  The actual point is this: in exchange for being in contention slightly more often, are you willing to accept that your team won't even be trying to win every season where they're not?

I wouldn't take that trade. I guess some people would.

If I'm the fan of a team that has had 1 50 win season in over 25 years, I'd be willing to suffer a few seasons of crap for a nice 5-10 year run where the team was pretty darn good even if they fell short of the title (think the Mavs before they finally broke through).  The real question is of course, will the Sixers provide the seasons of being pretty darn good.  That is the payoff that much be reached.

I dont think past futility should be used to validate a rebuild.

The Dallas Mavericks seem like a decent bar for success. I think you could even be less successful then them and be happy with the rebuild.

The Mavs won 50 games every year for a decade and eclipsed 60 wins three times including one year where they won 67(!) games.

Even without a championship that is a lot of success. 

[nickagneta]

Off the topic of everything going on here but I would like to say, as a Celtic fan since 1974:


SIXERS SUCK!!!

That is all. You can continue with your debate now.

[tazzmaniac]

Question for Process supporters: At what point will you be willing to say that it hasn't worked?  If they don't make the playoffs next year? In two years?  Or if the Process is about more than just making the playoffs, how far do they need to advance in the playoffs, and in what time frame?  And is it about sustainability?  Do they need to have multiple years of deep playoff runs?

I'm not trying to bait anyone.  From my perspective, it has failed already.  They've gone through a full-cycle of rookie contracts, have already had to jettison their first two lottery picks, and are still a bottom 5 team.  But for those who think it is still working, what is your benchmark?  There has to be something to say it was worth it, right?

The Sixers haven't gone through a full-cycle of rookie contracts.  They didn't tank for MCW and they traded for Noel.  Embiid was their 1st acquisition from tanking a season and he has 1 more year on his rookie contract.  Do rebuilds have a 4 year limit?   Rebuilding around draft picks takes time in the best of circumstances.   

All the process bashers around here were pointing to the TWolves as a good rebuild.  They haven't made the playoffs yet and they're just 4 games ahead of the Sixers this season.  When is the TWolves rebuild going to be a success or failure? 

[tazzmaniac]

Hinkie outlined an 8 year plan, they are in year 4.  Probably gotta at least see where they are in year 8, if that was the plan all along, right?

Where do they have to be in year 8?  How about year 9?

Actually, according to this article it was a 7-year plan to be a title contender, not a mere playoff team.  To me that's a top-2 record in the conference or a run to at least the conference finals.

http://www.businessinsider.com/philadelphia-76ers-have-a-7-year-rebuilding-plan-2015-7

To me, the only justification for all that losing is a title. If they don't have one in 7 years, the "process" failed. However, I'm sure our resident 76ers lover will continue to move the goalposts forever until the 76ers are finally good and then smugly say "I told you so".

The Philadelphia 76ers make the 2027 ECF Finals!
"See, The Process worked. I told you so."

How is the Sixers losing worse than all the losing of the TWolves, Lakers, Kings, etc? 

[fairweatherfan]

Hinkie outlined an 8 year plan, they are in year 4.  Probably gotta at least see where they are in year 8, if that was the plan all along, right?

Where do they have to be in year 8?  How about year 9?

Actually, according to this article it was a 7-year plan to be a title contender, not a mere playoff team.  To me that's a top-2 record in the conference or a run to at least the conference finals.

http://www.businessinsider.com/philadelphia-76ers-have-a-7-year-rebuilding-plan-2015-7

To me, the only justification for all that losing is a title. If they don't have one in 7 years, the "process" failed. However, I'm sure our resident 76ers lover will continue to move the goalposts forever until the 76ers are finally good and then smugly say "I told you so".

The Philadelphia 76ers make the 2027 ECF Finals!
"See, The Process worked. I told you so."

How is the Sixers losing worse than all the losing of the TWolves, Lakers, Kings, etc?

There's an interesting philosophical question there - is it worse to suck for years by design or through old-fashioned incompetence/bad luck? I really don't know which way I go on that one.

[Ilikesports17]

Hinkie outlined an 8 year plan, they are in year 4.  Probably gotta at least see where they are in year 8, if that was the plan all along, right?

Where do they have to be in year 8?  How about year 9?

Actually, according to this article it was a 7-year plan to be a title contender, not a mere playoff team.  To me that's a top-2 record in the conference or a run to at least the conference finals.

http://www.businessinsider.com/philadelphia-76ers-have-a-7-year-rebuilding-plan-2015-7

To me, the only justification for all that losing is a title. If they don't have one in 7 years, the "process" failed. However, I'm sure our resident 76ers lover will continue to move the goalposts forever until the 76ers are finally good and then smugly say "I told you so".

The Philadelphia 76ers make the 2027 ECF Finals!
"See, The Process worked. I told you so."

How is the Sixers losing worse than all the losing of the TWolves, Lakers, Kings, etc?

There's an interesting philosophical question there - is it worse to suck for years by design or through old-fashioned incompetence/bad luck? I really don't know which way I go on that one.

design. I dont think its that close.

[celticsclay]

Question for Process supporters: At what point will you be willing to say that it hasn't worked?  If they don't make the playoffs next year? In two years?  Or if the Process is about more than just making the playoffs, how far do they need to advance in the playoffs, and in what time frame?  And is it about sustainability?  Do they need to have multiple years of deep playoff runs?

I'm not trying to bait anyone.  From my perspective, it has failed already.  They've gone through a full-cycle of rookie contracts, have already had to jettison their first two lottery picks, and are still a bottom 5 team.  But for those who think it is still working, what is your benchmark?  There has to be something to say it was worth it, right?

The Sixers haven't gone through a full-cycle of rookie contracts.  They didn't tank for MCW and they traded for Noel.  Embiid was their 1st acquisition from tanking a season and he has 1 more year on his rookie contract.  Do rebuilds have a 4 year limit?   Rebuilding around draft picks takes time in the best of circumstances.   

All the process bashers around here were pointing to the TWolves as a good rebuild.  They haven't made the playoffs yet and they're just 4 games ahead of the Sixers this season.  When is the TWolves rebuild going to be a success or failure?

I think a lot of people have come this year to being disappointed in the Twolves question and questioning whether their core will ever be great because of how bad defensively they are. However, that being said they actually could make the playoffs this year. They have been playing really good ball lately (hopefully we don't see that tonight). Have won something like 9 out of 12 and beat the wizards, warriors, clippers, raptors etc. They also still have 3 games left against the Lakers. 3 losses is a lot to make up, but Denver has a crazy stretch to end the season with 10 out of their last 12 on the road. I could definitely see that stretch going poorly for them and opening up the west playoff race.

Another big difference is aside from a freak injury to Levine, the twolves don't have the same injury concerns with their core.

Noel, since traded, was still missing time with his knee this year and is now missing some games ont he mavericks.
Okafor is still experiencing soreness and struggling with conditioning over a year after a surgery with a 6 week recovery time.
Embiid has played 31 games in 3 years and has missed time with his back, knee, leg etc. I would be pleasantly surprised if he starts playing more than 50 games a year or has a long career.
Simmons has obviously not played yet.

That is serious injury concerns for their last 4 high draft picks which is not surprising given 3 of them were drafted injured.

[tazzmaniac]

Analysing 'The Process', if you looking at their available picks for being the worst that they can be, it doesn't pain a portrait of intelligence.

2013 Picks:

Nerlens Noel - only available because of injury, destroyed his confidence and created poor habits by over stocking Centres...result: now gone

Michael Carter-Williams- poor pick period...result: now gone

Players available to them: Giannis Antetokounmpo, Kelly Olynyk, Dennis Schröder, Rudy Gobert,

2014 Picks:

Joel Embiid - Franchise talent only available because of injury, missed 2 seasons because of red flags, may never play a full season, created poor habits early on

Dario Šarić - actually good pick but with 12th selection not worth tanking for

Players available to them: Zach LaVine, Nikola Jokić, Jordan Clarkson

2015 Picks:

Jahlil Okafor - Poor pick, poor management of player, created attitude issues...result: tried to trade, role player now gone possible soon.

Players available to them: Kristaps Porziņģis, Myles Turner, Devin Booker

2016 Picks:

Ben Simmons - Finally gets extremely lucky but player misses first season to broken foot


Is destroying your franchises name for a .250% chance at a first pick that may not turn out to be good worth it? Resounding no IMO, you would also think with the money saved on salaries they would put in into the best possible scouts and drafter in the league but it seems they haven't done this.

To my mind, this is all an argument for The Process, not against it.

The draft is too much of a crap shoot. Even when you get a high pick, you can still wind up with nothing to show for it for a myriad of reasons (injury, bust, etc.). There's no way to ensure that you'll hit a home run but The Process was meant to ensure that they got as many swings of the bat as possible, increasing their odds of landing someone like Embiid or Simmons (assuming they aren't lost to injury).

I also think we should be careful of conflating critiques of The Process with critiques of the Sixers' ability to draft. Taking Okafor over Porzingis isn't a problem with The Process as a strategy, only with a specific organization's decision making.

"The Process" as you've stated is to have as many swings as possible.  that directly translates into sucking for many years.  That's the problem. 
- The draft is a crapshoot as you've agreed to so there's no guarantee that the high pick you use will be a 'franchise' level talent nor that even if they're a top talent they can stay healthy. 
- by sucking that badly for so long, you alienate your fanbase.  you're only able to retain the fans that are absolute diehards and even then you're still alienating them from supporting 'the process' and buying tickets/merchandise --> less franchise income and less income for the rest of the league that has to play your garbage team.
- by sucking so badly, you're not a draw for any free agent worth signing.  sure, you can get the bottom of the barrel players hanging on in the league or someone with personality/drug/other issues that no other team would touch but those players won't make the team better in the short or longterm (since they're only short signing anyway)
- by sucking so long, you create an atmosphere of losing that has an impact on the players development on your team.  it creates a toxic playing environment that gets the players looking elsewhere to find their success.  Any player dedicated to winning will want to play for a franchise that's trying to win, not lose.  play out the rookie contract and either get the team to trade you because they don't want to invest the money in re-upping your deal or play out the QO and become a UFA (or tell the team you'll only sign the QO so you can leave and force them to trade you to get some value for you)

"The Process" is not a winning proposition or way to run a team.

You're just regurgitating the typical nonsense. 

The draft isn't a crapshoot in the top 10 and especially the top 5.  That's where the predominant draft success comes from.   

The Sixers fanbase isn't alienated.  They certainly had significantly reduced attendance the past 3 seasons.  This season with Embiid's great play/charisma and the team's improved performance their attendance has already bounced back to their 2013 pre-process levels. 
Their home crowds are also quite energized (at least when Embiid was playing). 
http://www.espn.com/nba/attendance

The Sixers were tanking so they had no need of free agents.  Even if they weren't tanking, they wouldn't have had a shot at good free agents.  This season they signed Henderson and Bayless to reasonable contracts. Not great but not bottom of the barrel troubled players as you claim.  The fact is most free agents would prioritize money and playing time ahead of winning.  The Sixers will have both to offer this offseason. 

The Sixers don't have a toxic atmosphere or even a losing atmosphere.  Coach Brown has focused on defense and effort throughout the tanking.  Bad atmospheres generally come from veterans which is a good reason not to have them around when you're tanking.  Young players are focused on making it in the league.  The Sixers are still playing hard most games even though Embiid is out for the season now.  They appear to have good team camaraderie. 

Like any other team, the Sixers will resign their rookies if they want to do so.  Rookies don't force trades.  I can't think of any rookie besides Monroe to accept the QO and that was because he didn't like the Pistons offer. 

[celticsclay]

Analysing 'The Process', if you looking at their available picks for being the worst that they can be, it doesn't pain a portrait of intelligence.

2013 Picks:

Nerlens Noel - only available because of injury, destroyed his confidence and created poor habits by over stocking Centres...result: now gone

Michael Carter-Williams- poor pick period...result: now gone

Players available to them: Giannis Antetokounmpo, Kelly Olynyk, Dennis Schröder, Rudy Gobert,

2014 Picks:

Joel Embiid - Franchise talent only available because of injury, missed 2 seasons because of red flags, may never play a full season, created poor habits early on

Dario Šarić - actually good pick but with 12th selection not worth tanking for

Players available to them: Zach LaVine, Nikola Jokić, Jordan Clarkson

2015 Picks:

Jahlil Okafor - Poor pick, poor management of player, created attitude issues...result: tried to trade, role player now gone possible soon.

Players available to them: Kristaps Porziņģis, Myles Turner, Devin Booker

2016 Picks:

Ben Simmons - Finally gets extremely lucky but player misses first season to broken foot


Is destroying your franchises name for a .250% chance at a first pick that may not turn out to be good worth it? Resounding no IMO, you would also think with the money saved on salaries they would put in into the best possible scouts and drafter in the league but it seems they haven't done this.

To my mind, this is all an argument for The Process, not against it.

The draft is too much of a crap shoot. Even when you get a high pick, you can still wind up with nothing to show for it for a myriad of reasons (injury, bust, etc.). There's no way to ensure that you'll hit a home run but The Process was meant to ensure that they got as many swings of the bat as possible, increasing their odds of landing someone like Embiid or Simmons (assuming they aren't lost to injury).

I also think we should be careful of conflating critiques of The Process with critiques of the Sixers' ability to draft. Taking Okafor over Porzingis isn't a problem with The Process as a strategy, only with a specific organization's decision making.

"The Process" as you've stated is to have as many swings as possible.  that directly translates into sucking for many years.  That's the problem. 
- The draft is a crapshoot as you've agreed to so there's no guarantee that the high pick you use will be a 'franchise' level talent nor that even if they're a top talent they can stay healthy. 
- by sucking that badly for so long, you alienate your fanbase.  you're only able to retain the fans that are absolute diehards and even then you're still alienating them from supporting 'the process' and buying tickets/merchandise --> less franchise income and less income for the rest of the league that has to play your garbage team.
- by sucking so badly, you're not a draw for any free agent worth signing.  sure, you can get the bottom of the barrel players hanging on in the league or someone with personality/drug/other issues that no other team would touch but those players won't make the team better in the short or longterm (since they're only short signing anyway)
- by sucking so long, you create an atmosphere of losing that has an impact on the players development on your team.  it creates a toxic playing environment that gets the players looking elsewhere to find their success.  Any player dedicated to winning will want to play for a franchise that's trying to win, not lose.  play out the rookie contract and either get the team to trade you because they don't want to invest the money in re-upping your deal or play out the QO and become a UFA (or tell the team you'll only sign the QO so you can leave and force them to trade you to get some value for you)

"The Process" is not a winning proposition or way to run a team.

You're just regurgitating the typical nonsense. 

The draft isn't a crapshoot in the top 10 and especially the top 5.  That's where the predominant draft success comes from.   

The Sixers fanbase isn't alienated.  They certainly had significantly reduced attendance the past 3 seasons.  This season with Embiid's great play/charisma and the team's improved performance their attendance has already bounced back to their 2013 pre-process levels. 
Their home crowds are also quite energized (at least when Embiid was playing). 
http://www.espn.com/nba/attendance

The Sixers were tanking so they had no need of free agents.  Even if they weren't tanking, they wouldn't have had a shot at good free agents.  This season they signed Henderson and Bayless to reasonable contracts. Not great but not bottom of the barrel troubled players as you claim.  The fact is most free agents would prioritize money and playing time ahead of winning.  The Sixers will have both to offer this offseason. 

The Sixers don't have a toxic atmosphere or even a losing atmosphere.  Coach Brown has focused on defense and effort throughout the tanking.  Bad atmospheres generally come from veterans which is a good reason not to have them around when you're tanking.  Young players are focused on making it in the league.  The Sixers are still playing hard most games even though Embiid is out for the season now.  They appear to have good team camaraderie. 

Like any other team, the Sixers will resign their rookies if they want to do so.  Rookies don't force trades.  I can't think of any rookie besides Monroe to accept the QO and that was because he didn't like the Pistons offer.

I think everything else you said was fair except for this. They signed Bayless, Henderson and Sergio Rodriguez. Rodriguez does not belong in the NBA and he was given a 8 million a year contract. He is 30 years old and will be back in Europe this offseason.

Henderson is a pretty meh player. He shoots average from field and three, can score a few points and do little else. They signed him for 2 years at 9 million a year and he is a backup even on a lottery team.

Bayless, while it wont kill them, is probably the more regretable as it is for 3 years at 9 million a year. He is a really mediocre player (don't forget we actually had him here for a spell, but he is that forgettable. Committing 3 years to him was probably an example of the kind of overpay they had to do for a mediocre player this offseason because of all the tom foolery the last 3 years. (I think he would have signed for 2 years with a better team personally).

Now there were rumors they were interested in Jamal Crawford, Manu Ginobli and perhaps Jr Smith. None of those guys seemed to have any interest in going there even for an overpay. Perhaps they can sign some more legit people this offseason, but holding up those three guys as evidence they can get good free agents on reasonable deals is strange. (I admit none of those contracts will kill them cause they are short except for bayless).

[saltlover]

Question for Process supporters: At what point will you be willing to say that it hasn't worked?  If they don't make the playoffs next year? In two years?  Or if the Process is about more than just making the playoffs, how far do they need to advance in the playoffs, and in what time frame?  And is it about sustainability?  Do they need to have multiple years of deep playoff runs?

I'm not trying to bait anyone.  From my perspective, it has failed already.  They've gone through a full-cycle of rookie contracts, have already had to jettison their first two lottery picks, and are still a bottom 5 team.  But for those who think it is still working, what is your benchmark?  There has to be something to say it was worth it, right?

The Sixers haven't gone through a full-cycle of rookie contracts.  They didn't tank for MCW and they traded for Noel.  Embiid was their 1st acquisition from tanking a season and he has 1 more year on his rookie contract.  Do rebuilds have a 4 year limit?   Rebuilding around draft picks takes time in the best of circumstances.   

All the process bashers around here were pointing to the TWolves as a good rebuild.  They haven't made the playoffs yet and they're just 4 games ahead of the Sixers this season.  When is the TWolves rebuild going to be a success or failure?

The tank started with acquiring Noel.  The goal is to become competitive while your rookie-scale guys are still cheap, so you can leverage that cost-savings in free agency or trade.  Now admittedly they punted a bit, getting potentially a good pick for MCW, and they won't have Noel's second contract on the books at least.  But they should at least have been presenting themselves as a free agency option this year, and they're not. 

As for the Wolves, they traded Love a year later, so yeah, if they're not an actual playoff team next season, I'll call them a failure.  I'm really close as is on that, but I don't want to jinx tonight's game by giving them bulletin board material.  (They also get a slight pass because of Saunders' death, which caused a year of organizational stagnation.)

[tazzmaniac]

Question for Process supporters: At what point will you be willing to say that it hasn't worked?  If they don't make the playoffs next year? In two years?  Or if the Process is about more than just making the playoffs, how far do they need to advance in the playoffs, and in what time frame?  And is it about sustainability?  Do they need to have multiple years of deep playoff runs?

I'm not trying to bait anyone.  From my perspective, it has failed already.  They've gone through a full-cycle of rookie contracts, have already had to jettison their first two lottery picks, and are still a bottom 5 team.  But for those who think it is still working, what is your benchmark?  There has to be something to say it was worth it, right?

The Sixers haven't gone through a full-cycle of rookie contracts.  They didn't tank for MCW and they traded for Noel.  Embiid was their 1st acquisition from tanking a season and he has 1 more year on his rookie contract.  Do rebuilds have a 4 year limit?   Rebuilding around draft picks takes time in the best of circumstances.   

All the process bashers around here were pointing to the TWolves as a good rebuild.  They haven't made the playoffs yet and they're just 4 games ahead of the Sixers this season.  When is the TWolves rebuild going to be a success or failure?

I think a lot of people have come this year to being disappointed in the Twolves question and questioning whether their core will ever be great because of how bad defensively they are. However, that being said they actually could make the playoffs this year. They have been playing really good ball lately (hopefully we don't see that tonight). Have won something like 9 out of 12 and beat the wizards, warriors, clippers, raptors etc. They also still have 3 games left against the Lakers. 3 losses is a lot to make up, but Denver has a crazy stretch to end the season with 10 out of their last 12 on the road. I could definitely see that stretch going poorly for them and opening up the west playoff race.

Another big difference is aside from a freak injury to Levine, the twolves don't have the same injury concerns with their core.

Noel, since traded, was still missing time with his knee this year and is now missing some games ont he mavericks.
Okafor is still experiencing soreness and struggling with conditioning over a year after a surgery with a 6 week recovery time.
Embiid has played 31 games in 3 years and has missed time with his back, knee, leg etc. I would be pleasantly surprised if he starts playing more than 50 games a year or has a long career.
Simmons has obviously not played yet.

That is serious injury concerns for their last 4 high draft picks which is not surprising given 3 of them were drafted injured.

The Sixers have had to deal with all the injuries and yet they are still only 4 games back of the TWolves.   How is LaVine's injury a freak injury and Simmons is not? 

Towns, Wiggins and LaVine are all offensive focused and poor defenders.  Hard to build a winning team with those three as starters.  Not surprising that they are playing better after LaVine's injury.  Maybe the TWolves will back into the playoffs because the 8th spot is so weak but I wouldn't consider that a success. 

As I've said before, Noel and Okafor don't really matter.  Simmons is important but Embiid's health is the key to the Sixers success.  I'd rather have a healthy Embiid than Towns.  I'd rather have Simmons than Wiggins.  I'd rather have Saric than LaVine.  They are a better core with varied skillsets.  Covington has developed into a nice player and fits well with them. 

The Sixers have much better cap space and better picks over the next few years.  Their young talent doesn't have to be paid as soon.  Saric coming over after 2 years in Europe is a big plus.