The sixers and building a winner
- Thread starter LondonSox
- Start date
- Status
I agree that HRB nailed it.
As a Sixers fan who has been all in on Hinkie and the process I'd add that another that another key to his downfall was an absence of luck. With better luck, the Sixers might have had three picks in last year's stacked first round, and with great luck, four, including two of the top four. But in the end that might have been the problem with the Hinkie plan, that it relied too much on the team stacking lottery chance after lottery chance and hoping to luck their way into a core of franchise players. Maybe if the ping pong balls fell more in our favor and we were sitting with Wiggins, Noel, and Russell instead of three guys who all play the same position, the owners would have continued to overlook his deficiencies as a communicator that led to his alienation of agents, players, media, and to a lesser degree, fans. But it's hard to maintain a commitment to a strategy that relies so heavily on luck when the evidence of the past few years shows how slim the returns can be. There's a reason why playing the lottery is not considered a sound investment strategy.
As a Sixers fan who has been all in on Hinkie and the process I'd add that another that another key to his downfall was an absence of luck. With better luck, the Sixers might have had three picks in last year's stacked first round, and with great luck, four, including two of the top four. But in the end that might have been the problem with the Hinkie plan, that it relied too much on the team stacking lottery chance after lottery chance and hoping to luck their way into a core of franchise players. Maybe if the ping pong balls fell more in our favor and we were sitting with Wiggins, Noel, and Russell instead of three guys who all play the same position, the owners would have continued to overlook his deficiencies as a communicator that led to his alienation of agents, players, media, and to a lesser degree, fans. But it's hard to maintain a commitment to a strategy that relies so heavily on luck when the evidence of the past few years shows how slim the returns can be. There's a reason why playing the lottery is not considered a sound investment strategy.
Kind of funny the way he started that letter off with what looks like a dig at the business guy "will separate fans from their wallets".
Wonder how many of the 76ers owners got through the first two pages.
And as for Hinkie, maybe all we need to know about him in is these two paragraphs:
"We also put ourselves into position to draft in the second round, where we found two 22-year-old gems to date, including Jerami Grant (#39) and Richaun Holmes (#37). Outside of the top 60 selections delivered two more players with real NBA futures in 24-year-old T.J. McConnell and 25-year-old Robert Covington.
Robert is a mistake I rubbed my own nose in for over a year. The 2013 Draft was a flurry of activity for us—a handful of trades and selections in both the first and second rounds. We had more action following the draft as we tried to finalize our summer league team and get the myriad trade calls set up with the NBA. I could see this coming a few days before and we informed the media that this kind of approach might lead to an unusually late start for the post-draft press conference. Several of you were still there late that night. At about 1:00 a.m. I went downstairs to address an equally exhausted media on deadline from their editors. When I returned upstairs, the undrafted Robert Covington was gone, having agreed to play for another club’s summer league team, eventually making their regular season roster. He torched the D-League that year, haunting me all the while. When he became available 17 months later, we pounced. But I shudder, even now, at that (nearly) missed opportunity."
Sam really likes to show how much smarter he is than everyone else in the room, doesn't he?
You mean the first two pages wherein he cites three different billionaires in such a way as to attempt to draw comparisons to himself?
It just came across to me as super condescending and holier than thou. Here is a guy that was resigning his job, and on the way out, he had to let everyone know that yes, truly, he was indeed still the smartest guy in the room. And, yet, because he is such a good person, he truly wishes good things for the organization that he is choosing to leave behind. And, by the way, if you disagree with me or hear bad things about me going forward, keep in mind that all of these great bastions of society pretty much agree with me -- in my mind.
To me, the tone of the letter itself seems to show why the guy failed. He was so convinced that he was right, and so intent on having to be right, that nothing else mattered.
There is nothing worse than the guy who gets fired who sends out the "good-bye" email and feels the need to rationalize everything, pities everyone that is left behind, and lets everyone know how much he'll be rooting for them.
To me, the tone of the letter itself seems to show why the guy failed. He was so convinced that he was right, and so intent on having to be right, that nothing else mattered.
There is nothing worse than the guy who gets fired who sends out the "good-bye" email and feels the need to rationalize everything, pities everyone that is left behind, and lets everyone know how much he'll be rooting for them.
His social skills suck, but I think he was a decent GM. The guy replacing him is a very bad GM, who will probably do well because of the pieces Hinkie put in place.
He does. On the other hand, he is.
This might be true, and if so will be used by the Cafardos here and elsewhere to justify dismissing modern, effective approaches to sports in general and basketball in particular.
I'm surprised at how many Sixers fans are reacting negatively to this. Fanbases in general are pretty dumb, but it seems like at least the loud ones realize what they had. Enjoy Bryan Colangelo, I guess?
Yep, that's my feeling too. And I suspect this resignation letter, coupled with the Lowe Post appearance, was just an attempt to respond to the criticism for the first time in 3 years. He has silently stood by while people accused him of ruining the sanctity of basketball. I can forgive the guy writing 12 pages in an attempt to explain himself, given the level of criticism pointed his way.
He was a decent GM? His team is 10-68 in his 3rd year. He cites Covington and McConnell as relevant players. His roster does not have a single guy who is a consensus future all-star (admittedly he has a couple of possibles). If rumors are true, many agents and fellow GMs were unwilling to deal with him. How does that add up to "decent"? You can say he was courageous or inventive or even that he has a decent eye for talent, but not that he was a decent GM.
Bryan Colangelo isn't a bad GM, he does overvalue PGs a bit though (which occasioned his second to worst decision as a GM). And Boston has the great fortune to have a top 6 pick coming in a draft with a very good PG.
EDIT: Also, Hinkie was a terrible GM. The worst thing you can do to young players is to strip the roster of vets and let them spend years wallowing in failure in hopes that one day you'll find your franchise player. The assumtion being that after years of losing you'll be able to somehow change course on the asylum. Usually that involves a cleaning of the Stygian Stables. Even everyone's favourite poster child for building through the draft was smart enough to keep experienced players around to show their kids the rope.
Hey now, he predicted that a 3pt shooting team would win a title soon. In 3 years he didn't try build his team that way but so what!
He was tasked with acquiring assets without regard to winning games short term. The team has a number of valuable assets that he acquired.
The robbery of Sacramento.
Moving MCW for the Lakers pick.
Noel and a pick (Saric and a lottery 1st) for Holliday
He made a lot of good moves and the roster has assets as well as picks and cap space. Everyone should have known it was a 5 year plan maybe more. Now a combination of luck and strict BPA may have hurt, but the strategy wasn't terrible. If they have better lottery luck and end up with Towns and Wiggins instead of Okafor and Embiid it looks better.
I think he made mistakes in not factoring risk and fit in enough in drafting, and I thought he could have been better at picking cheap vets who won't help you win too much but will help development, but overall given the stated goals it was a decent job.
Colangelo is a bad GM. He's incredibly short sighted and a master of dramatically overpaying marginal talent. He'd never get a job from anyone other than his father. He's the kind of GM who gets you on the treadmill for a decade because keeping his job is priorities 1-6 on his top 10 list.
I agree on the roster stripping it's the big flaw both with Hinkie and the strategy. But all things are balance, he was excellent at some parts of the job poor at others given his mission from the ownership. That to me makes him decent.
How many GMs accomplish this in their first 3 drafts? Has Ainge drafted a consensus all star in the last 3 years? Does he have a consensus all star on the roster? Thomas made the team -- but barely. Would anybody have looked at him and said he was a consensus all star? How many consensus all stars have entered the league in the last 3 years? Towns, of course. Giannis, probably. But Is Wiggins? Porzingis? Oladipo?
I think this is a dumb (or perhaps not dumb, but super repetitive) debate because it will essentially just come down to whether you buy into the idea the tanking for years on end and/or only championships matter mentality.
It's pretty hard to get a handle on him otherwise because his goals were so counter to competing in the league year to year.
It's pretty hard to get a handle on him otherwise because his goals were so counter to competing in the league year to year.
Wait a minute, let's think about this. Once the go-ahead was given to strip his rosters of players, is there anyone - including most of the people on this board - who couldn't have shopped Holiday around gotten that deal from NO? Is someone really going to settle for less?
Lots of GM came to Hinkie because he had cap space. He asked for the moon and sometimes got it. To me, that isn't the mark of a great GM. Hinkie was a good salesman - at least of himself - and had the intestinal fortitude (or narcissism, which may be one and the same) to stand up to some very pointed criticism but quite frankly he took the consensus best player available at every chance and it's not like he hit on any second round or free agent nuggets like Draymond Green.
I would have thought much more highly of him if he took Aaron Gordon and Marcus Smart and (when combined with Noel) tried to see if they could win games 70-66. (only half serious).
How can one be a good GM without the necessary social skills for your boss to continue having faith in your ability? The relationships that Colangelo has established over the years will serve him well in Philly.....certainly better than Hinkie's as those very same people were the ones most critical of his ability to work with them.
It's Colangelo's relationships with these individuals that allowed him to turn over rosters in the past and be named Executive of the Year in two different cities. Yes he's the better choice to move this organization forward today than Hinkie.
Last edited:
It's hard for me to not feel biased having watched the Celtics begin a rebuild two months after Hinkie was hired. Ainge didn't have the best of lotto luck or always make the perfect pick either, but two seasons ago the C's won 6 more games than Philly and now they're about to win 40 more with plenty of upside to take another leap.
Still have no idea for sure if this was really discussed in depth, but I think this makes it less likely that the Sixers will discuss any kind of Okafor for draft pick trade. The first big move of Colangelo Squared will not be to kick the can for another year and ride with Noel and a team full of rookies.
When you have multiple top three picks someone has to show the potential to be an all star. Ainge had a lottery pick, the sixth pick in a five player draft. And somehow he's turned that into a team that's about to get home court advantage in the playoffs. Hinkie might be better if he gets a second chance somewhere, but he may need to wait a while.
Ainge had 2 future hall of gamers to use as trade bait and a multi time all star PG. Hinkie had an oft injured Jrue Holiday and Evan Turner.
You don't think Okafor has shown the potential to be an all star? What if he turns into a league average defender?
Hinkie should probably be the quant guy at a hedge fund or something. He's clearly a very smart person and I actually agreed with their strategy. Even though he wasn't a great fit for the roster, I don't really blame him for drafting Okafor. Nobody was taking an unknown like Porzingis over a centerpiece player from a Duke championship team.
Ultimately, he got nothing from Embiid and Saric after 2 years. Tough for fans to trust "the process" when they aren't seeing any tangible improvements.
Ultimately, he got nothing from Embiid and Saric after 2 years. Tough for fans to trust "the process" when they aren't seeing any tangible improvements.
Actually I take the opposite position on this. Colangelo & Sons Ltd. overvalue point guards, and all reports are that they want Dunn out of this draft pool. But I'm not in the "Bryan Colangelo sux0rs!!!!" camp. I'm fairly certain that they understand that their 17 C roster badly needs perimeter shooting and scoring. So if Philly lands #1 I expect the new management to immediately begin looking to pick up an extra top five pick to add Dunn. If Boston lands the first pick I imagine that Ainge will be looking for a haul to give Philly the chance to build around Dunn, Ingram, Saric, and one of their 26 centers.
Colangelo won't be looking to trade Okafor for draft picks necessarily but rather as a piece to acquire a guard and/or perimeter players. The lottery results next month will provide much more info as to what assets the Sixers will have leading up to the draft. If they can't acquire one of the Hawks PG's or sign say a Conley all the talk is about them drafting Dunn or swapping picks that land them Dunn who can step in from Day One. I'd never expect Okafor to be moved for future picks down the road.....those days are gone and it's time now to put a real NBA product on the floor.
Look you Hinkie haters can criticize his mistakes, most of which he's admitted himself.
He did, however, do exactly what he said he would do and improve the team drastically for the future. At the price of today. His communication was awful. But he JUST did a very candid pod cast for an hour with Lowe. He took the criticism and adjusted.
How anyone expects someone to fist have jerry colangelo put on his shoulder and then be asked to partner with the son too, to get more voices in the discussion. Really a father and son and some other guy who has been demoted twice. The arrogance to think he would suck that up is crazy.
The comment above us about right. I wonder how many even read past page 2.
This is the attitude of his critics and those who have got rid of him. You have no patience. You can't turn a shit franchise with no assets into a contender in no time. Three years in with a lot of bad luck the team has balance issues and questions but it has gone from a team with one all star and no picks to a team with Noel, embiid, Okafor, Covington, stauskas, saric up to 4 picks this year, the kings unprotected first and swap rights. Plus the third most 2nd round picks of any team.
By any sensible goal that is a success. This is the first year they've had the worst record in basketball. By the way. The Lakers have been almost as bad.
You can critize the plan, but given that ownership said to go with this plan and commit to pain now for the long term. He did it. He did it well overall. I think he'd admit he underestimated veteran importance and generally the human element. What losing does to players, what communication means to fans etc.
The sixers GM job is one of the best in basketball, now. Imo. Because they are ready to start improving and ending the tank. They have a lot of assets and flexibility and cap space. Any GM can build his vision realistically. It's been torn down.
But instead of any search it's the nepotism show. The GM who was fired in part for racism. A guy who wanted to go over the cap to push a bad raptors team over the top because they were close. He's got one good skill the draft. So fine he's not all bad. But really is he the best option? If you really want lots of voices does the son help? What crock of shit.
They better get the top pick now as a reward for selling out the plan.
I'm sick about it.
Oh and the rumors BTW say the Okafor pick was at least partly ownership pressure. So if that's the problem. The owners need to take a look in the mirror.
You don't build a success story in three years from nothing. You can build it from where the sixers are now in a few years, potentially.
I know most non sixers fans hate Hinkie. And I should note he talks like I talk about risk and decision making, and as a hedge fund manager given his background that's not a shock, so I have some bias. But I think he did a great job given the goals. The goals were not to win but to build the foundation to win in the future. He's done that. And then gets squeezed out by the old guard. Regardless. Which having been through also myself is painful, sucks and is likely a huge mistake.
This is why we can't have nice things anymore because everyone has the attention span of a fucking gnat. That letter is awesome.
He did, however, do exactly what he said he would do and improve the team drastically for the future. At the price of today. His communication was awful. But he JUST did a very candid pod cast for an hour with Lowe. He took the criticism and adjusted.
How anyone expects someone to fist have jerry colangelo put on his shoulder and then be asked to partner with the son too, to get more voices in the discussion. Really a father and son and some other guy who has been demoted twice. The arrogance to think he would suck that up is crazy.
The comment above us about right. I wonder how many even read past page 2.
This is the attitude of his critics and those who have got rid of him. You have no patience. You can't turn a shit franchise with no assets into a contender in no time. Three years in with a lot of bad luck the team has balance issues and questions but it has gone from a team with one all star and no picks to a team with Noel, embiid, Okafor, Covington, stauskas, saric up to 4 picks this year, the kings unprotected first and swap rights. Plus the third most 2nd round picks of any team.
By any sensible goal that is a success. This is the first year they've had the worst record in basketball. By the way. The Lakers have been almost as bad.
You can critize the plan, but given that ownership said to go with this plan and commit to pain now for the long term. He did it. He did it well overall. I think he'd admit he underestimated veteran importance and generally the human element. What losing does to players, what communication means to fans etc.
The sixers GM job is one of the best in basketball, now. Imo. Because they are ready to start improving and ending the tank. They have a lot of assets and flexibility and cap space. Any GM can build his vision realistically. It's been torn down.
But instead of any search it's the nepotism show. The GM who was fired in part for racism. A guy who wanted to go over the cap to push a bad raptors team over the top because they were close. He's got one good skill the draft. So fine he's not all bad. But really is he the best option? If you really want lots of voices does the son help? What crock of shit.
They better get the top pick now as a reward for selling out the plan.
I'm sick about it.
Oh and the rumors BTW say the Okafor pick was at least partly ownership pressure. So if that's the problem. The owners need to take a look in the mirror.
You don't build a success story in three years from nothing. You can build it from where the sixers are now in a few years, potentially.
I know most non sixers fans hate Hinkie. And I should note he talks like I talk about risk and decision making, and as a hedge fund manager given his background that's not a shock, so I have some bias. But I think he did a great job given the goals. The goals were not to win but to build the foundation to win in the future. He's done that. And then gets squeezed out by the old guard. Regardless. Which having been through also myself is painful, sucks and is likely a huge mistake.
This is why we can't have nice things anymore because everyone has the attention span of a fucking gnat. That letter is awesome.
Philly is more efficient on both ends of the floor when he's out. So, no, pretty post moves aside, I'm not seeing an all star. I'm seeing The Little Big Lazy.
Most non-Sixers fans don't care enough about the team to "hate" Hinkie. The whole perception changes if he lands Simmons or Ingram, Saric comes over, Embiid gets healthy, etc. But ownership is now on their 6th GM in 5 years (if you count Jerry C). I don't think they had the necessary patience for Hinkie's long game.
I imagine some of it is the reality that many casual Sixer fans gave up a couple years ago and couldn't name the current gm, and many hard core fans who dislike The Process have probably given up by now as well. So the only voices left for the most part are the believers.
I don't think anyone on this forum would be surprised that I hate the idea of The Process, and hope for its abject failure, not just for schadenfreude purposes (I grew up hating the Sixers as much as the Lakers) but because the entire idea of giving up for several seaosns in a row just to obtain draft picks is abhorrent to me, and I find the NBA "fans" who think you should be tanking if you aren't at least a favorite to make the conference finals to be absurdly annoying. If all you care about is the trophy, go to the trophy store.
That said, I have no strong opinion on Hinkie himself. He seemed to do the job he was asked, but that job is so unique that it's hard to judge how well he really did.
That said, I have no strong opinion on Hinkie himself. He seemed to do the job he was asked, but that job is so unique that it's hard to judge how well he really did.
Except that nobody actually thinks that and the entire thing is an outgrowth from the universally accepted idea that being a bubble team is in the majority of cases a route to irrelevance, but sure, what does a reasonable representation of the other side matter when you've got make some pronouncements?
Yes, when I've clearly identified my bias it's important to point out that I have a bias.
Never change, dude. You are the righteous champion of all things right, which is, coincidentally, all things you agree with.
Never change, dude. You are the righteous champion of all things right, which is, coincidentally, all things you agree with.
Oh horseshit and worse words. You aren't covered for inventing things that do not exist when you disclaim a bias. This isn't righteousness--I think Hinkie is one of the least pleasant NBA people I've ever met and I sure won't miss him--this is not being down with you making shit up.
You're Plymping. Stop.
You're Plymping. Stop.
I don't think Hinkie did an awful job by any means, I just think that a 13 page resignation letter is obnoxious and probably indicative of his lack of social skills and interpersonal skills professionally speaking. As someone above mentioned, he seems like the really smart quant guy who was too stubborn to use any sort of fundamental approach (hey, let's not get 3 centers!").
Who knows, I could see someone like Ainge hiring a guy like this, but I'd be surprised if he is ever the de facto #1 in an NBA organization again any time soon. Clearly, he has communication/leadership issues that I don't think I would trust if I were an NBA owner at this point.
Who knows, I could see someone like Ainge hiring a guy like this, but I'd be surprised if he is ever the de facto #1 in an NBA organization again any time soon. Clearly, he has communication/leadership issues that I don't think I would trust if I were an NBA owner at this point.
What started out as one page became twenty-five. Suddenly I was my father's son. I was remembering the simple pleasures of this job, how I ended up here out of law school, the way a stadium sounds when one of my players performs well on the field...
Hey, I'll be the first to admit it. What I was writing was somewhat "touchy feely." I didn't care. I had lost the ability to bullshit. It was the me I'd always wanted to be.
Fine. I'm not a huge Okafor guy myself -- of course, my hypothetical posited that he'd be a league average defender-- but that's beside the point I want to make.
Which is this: How many "consensus all stars" are in each draft? And is it a realistic expectation that a GM with 3 straight top 3 picks necessarily find one of them? Last year there was Towns--a fantastic, perhaps generational talent. And he was gone before Hinkie picked. Who else is there in that draft that's a consensus All Star? Porzingis has looked very good. He has a long way to go before he's a consensus future all star. Is Wiggins a guaranteed all star? He's going to be a good player in this league for a while, but it's a lot harder to make an all star team than people realize, and Wiggins plays in a conference with Leonard, Durant, and a bunch of other very good forwards. And who else in that draft is a "consensus all star"? Is there anybody closer than Wiggins? Gordon's an interesting player with a ways to go. I like plenty of other guys -- Smart, Exum, Nurkic--but consensus all star is a high bar to clear. And as for 2013, who in the top 10 qualifies? Oladipo? Nice enough player, not a consensus all star even at a weak position. McCollum, maybe? And of course, Gainnis. But hard to know what you're getting, and Hinkie would have been burnt at the stake for witchcraft had he take Giannis over Nerlens at 6.
So somehow, Sam Hinkie had to find a player that was all star capable despite the fact that there were very, very few of those guys on the board for him to take.
The only question that matters to me now is this: What are the odds that the Colangelos will fuck up in a way that Danny Ainge can capitalize on?
Winning an NBA title is an extremely hard thing to do. Hinkie has/had his faults but looking at history, he was correct in that a team has to get a HOF talent player through the draft. Every NBA champion for the last 30-40 years outside the 2004 Pistons has drafted at least 1 HOF player. Drafting that player doesn't mean you will win a title but it sure does seem like you can't win a title without drafting one. Maybe the Celtics will do it this year.
Lakers - Magic #1 overall, Worthy #1 overall
Celts - Bird #6 overall, McHale #3 overall
Pistons - Thomas #2 overall
Bulls - Jordan #3 overall
Rockets - Olajuwon #1 overall
Spurs - Duncan #1 overall
Lakers - Kobe #13 overall
Pistons - NONE
Heat - Wade #5 overall
Celts - Pierce #10 overall
Mavs - Dirk #9 overall
GS - Curry #7 overall
In the case of Kobe and Dirk, they don't slip in today's draft environment. They would easily be top 5 picks.
The 2nd Heat run, they don't get James and Bosh without having drafted Wade. The Celtics don't get Garnett and Allen without having drafted Pierce.
Teams can find HOF players at any position in the draft, but it is much more likely to find them at the top of the draft. It makes sense to maximize your chances to get that HOF player by obtaining as many picks as possible at the top of the draft. A team like the Sixers is not winning an NBA title by drafting solid players and signing free agents.
Lakers - Magic #1 overall, Worthy #1 overall
Celts - Bird #6 overall, McHale #3 overall
Pistons - Thomas #2 overall
Bulls - Jordan #3 overall
Rockets - Olajuwon #1 overall
Spurs - Duncan #1 overall
Lakers - Kobe #13 overall
Pistons - NONE
Heat - Wade #5 overall
Celts - Pierce #10 overall
Mavs - Dirk #9 overall
GS - Curry #7 overall
In the case of Kobe and Dirk, they don't slip in today's draft environment. They would easily be top 5 picks.
The 2nd Heat run, they don't get James and Bosh without having drafted Wade. The Celtics don't get Garnett and Allen without having drafted Pierce.
Teams can find HOF players at any position in the draft, but it is much more likely to find them at the top of the draft. It makes sense to maximize your chances to get that HOF player by obtaining as many picks as possible at the top of the draft. A team like the Sixers is not winning an NBA title by drafting solid players and signing free agents.
Funny, but I think that breakdown further illustrates the flaw in Hinke's plan. About half of those teams were in bubble/mediocrity land when they drafted their star. There is limited benefit to being the absolute worst team since the #1 pick is often not the ticket to the promised land. This list also ignores the number of top 25 players in the league drafted relatively late (Butler, IT, Drummond, Klay, Paul George, etc.). If there was a clear HOF player in every draft, the top 2 slots would be more valuable, but I'd say Hinke way over-valued that.
As an aside, his "shock" this AM at the letter getting public just shows how naive he is.
As an aside, his "shock" this AM at the letter getting public just shows how naive he is.
Here is one Philly writer suggesting that it was Hinkie himself who leaked the email. And so it begins.....
http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/sixers/20160408_Ford__Hinkie_likes_to_color_outisde_the_lines__Will_it_work_.html
When this is your starting point, you've already gone past why Hinkie failed. Flags fly forever, but so do 10 win seasons. The cost of putting out a truly historically awful product 82 games a year for three seasons is real. It just sucks to watch that for years on end, and it's perfectly reasonable to value just being able to watch a team that has a shot to win most nights.
And what's the upside? It's not like you guarantee a title or even a title contender after three years of ruin. You may improve your title odds, but like you said, it's hard to win a title. You've increased your odds, but the Sixers are still a longshot to be a contender in the next 5 years or so (even if they'd kept Hinkie).
It's easy to do a tear-down rebuild when you're playing NBA2K. Hinkie is no genius there - hundreds of 12-year-olds are doing it right now. Hinkie wasn't the first guy to think of this. He's not even the first GM. He was just the first GM with an ownership group naive enough to think you could get away with it without a lot of pushback from the fans and the league.
You've unwittingly illustrated the weakness of Hinkie's plan and his fatal flaw in executing it. In the first place the last Boston contender doesn't go anywhere without the guys they traded for. Who didn't help their old franchises win despite being hall of fame players. See the current iteration of the Thunder for another example. I'm pretty sure that both Westbrook and Durant will make the hall of fame, but despite drafting two of those guys the party likely ends this year without a title.
Contending does require hall of fame players, but it doesn't matter where they come from. For example, the Lakers threepeat squad at the turn of the century certainly wasn't relying on Kobe Bryant to carry them to those titles. Until the third title he was arguably just along for the ride. Much like Wade during the LeBron years. Wade might have been a hall of fame used car salesman, but I think you find those guys throughout the draft.
But there's another point here, the Greek Freak is increasingly looking like the best player from the 2013 draft, but does he still end up this good if instead of stepping on to a team focused on winning every game it possibly could he landed on one whose guiding philosophy was "Oh well, we didn't find a hall of famer this year, let's just kick the can down the road"? He actively ignored player development in favour of playing draft roulette, and the roulette wheel is for losers.
Citation please.
I know Sam Hinkie inspires varied opinions, many of which are very passionate. Let's all agree to talk about him like rational people though. The notion that an NBA GM "actively ignored player development" is absolutely crazy. It's not supported by any of the available evidence, and looking at one player on a different franchise who did develop well and saying basically "Hinkie should have done that, and because he didn't, he wasn't even trying to" is pretty ridiculous.
When you stripmine your roster of all veteran presence, commit to losing every game you can, and filling every roster spot with rookies and D-leaguers, you're not focused on player development, you're focused on praying for the lottery to save you. Sorry.
Yeah, a team that filled it's roster with young players is not invested in player development. Good point.
What isn't rational about recognizing that a losing culture without leadership or any positive results hinders a young mans motivation and growth? It happens in all industries where the human element is in play not only the NBA. Everything revolves around leadership.
If that's what Nighthob had said, that would be a rational argument to make. Instead, what he said was "He actively ignored player development in favour of playing draft roulette, and the roulette wheel is for losers." The Sixers didn't ignore player development. They went about in a way you and Nighthob disagree with. Those are two entirely different things.
Thank you. Tremendous post. None of the Hinkie supporters ever seem to acknowledge that his "plan" required the very real cost of perpetrating multiple years of intentionally non-competitive basketball on fans of the Sixers and the league.
- Status