« Reply #887 on: March 15, 2017, 12:11:11 PM »
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?
Logged
1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008