Statman said:I have absolutely no sympathy for a team that thinks that the only way to get better is to intentionally lose games in order to increase a minuscule percentage of landing the right to draft a 19-year-old kid who has never played a single minute of professional basketball.
Statman said:I have absolutely no sympathy for a team that thinks that the only way to get better is to intentionally lose games in order to increase a minuscule percentage of landing the right to draft a 19-year-old kid who has never played a single minute of professional basketball.
I think it's a bit much to say its the only way to rebuild. The success rate for tanking is pretty miserable, and the title winning teams in the NBA recently have not been teams doing what the Sixers are doing. You can argue its better if you're smart about it, but that goes both ways. The Rockets are probably closer to winning a title than the Sixers are for instance, and they've built that team without tanking. Not every approach to a non-tank rebuild results getting "stuck in the middle", and sometimes rebuilds that seem "stuck in the middle" win a title anyway (Dallas, 2011).LondonSox said:Spare me your righteous indignation when it's exactly what the system provides as the best (only) way to rebuild.
I think it's a bit questionable to say the Sixers are running bad. They only had a 20% chance of landing Wiggins for instance. I don't know what the odds of Embiid getting reinjured were, but there was talk of this being a possibility when he was drafted.LondonSox said:I have no idea what happens with Embiid, it obviously doesn't look good but he's not dead. As it is the Sixers have built a vastly improved team despite a lot of bad luck (never picked above 3, imagine if they had got Wiggins as planned for example, Embiid injury, all of the picks falling right on the lottery protection this year etc). Noel, Okafor, Sauce Castillo, and a bunch of role players with Saric, Embiid potentially to add in a year plus their own pick, lakers, heat and Thunder, plus a Kings pick swap.
bowiac said:I think it's a bit much to say its the only way to rebuild. The success rate for tanking is pretty miserable, and the title winning teams in the NBA recently have not been teams doing what the Sixers are doing. You can argue its better if you're smart about it, but that goes both ways. The Rockets are probably closer to winning a title than the Sixers are for instance, and they've built that team without tanking. Not every approach to a non-tank rebuild results getting "stuck in the middle", and sometimes rebuilds that seem "stuck in the middle" win a title anyway (Dallas, 2011).
Plus, there's a broader issue that "seasons matter." I don't know what your utility function is like, but I'm guessing Rockets fans enjoyed last year more than 76ers fans did, even though the teams won exactly the same number of titles. That's probably going to be true next year, and the year after that too. There is value to putting a competitive product on the court, even if it doesn't result in a title.
I think it's a bit questionable to say the Sixers are running bad. They only had a 20% chance of landing Wiggins for instance. I don't know what the odds of Embiid getting reinjured were, but there was talk of this being a possibility when he was drafted.
Houston was never considering tanking. Morey has been around for a while. They were collecting assets and rolling them over until a chance at a franchise player came around, but they were never considering a tear-down rebuild.LondonSox said:On the first point I missed the ? after only as in (only?). Houston I think may well have gone a similar path if they hadn't had a great opportunity to grab their franchise player. Bottom line that's what the Sixers are doing. Keeping every asset they can, cutting anything which isn't an asset (as playing young kids and potentially catching a big break and having them break out with playing time etc can create more assets). They haven't had a superstar be available for cents on the USD, but if one is they are in as good a shape as anyone to make a move.
They're building from the draft, and stockpiling. Which the Rockets were sort of doing. I'd argue anyway.
Non-snarkily, how would you have approached the situation (in very broad outlines) had you been in Hinkie's shoes, starting from the 2013 draft and the decision of whether or not to trade Holiday?bowiac said:I think it's a bit much to say its the only way to rebuild. The success rate for tanking is pretty miserable, and the title winning teams in the NBA recently have not been teams doing what the Sixers are doing. You can argue its better if you're smart about it, but that goes both ways. The Rockets are probably closer to winning a title than the Sixers are for instance, and they've built that team without tanking. Not every approach to a non-tank rebuild results getting "stuck in the middle", and sometimes rebuilds that seem "stuck in the middle" win a title anyway (Dallas, 2011).
I would have done almost the exact same thing, although some of my draft picks would have been different. The Holiday trade was really the inflection point I agree. Once Noel becomes available for Holiday, I'd go down that path. I'd have taken Noel, and I'd have drafted Embiid too, although that depends on how bad the health reports were. I thought Exum was a pretty plausible draft pick there (and still do). I didn't like the Saric pick - I would have gone with Nurkic or Capela there, and I don't really love Okafor (I preferred both Winslow and Mudiay). But those are quibbles really, and who knows who will be right about Saric vs. Nurkic/Capela, and Okafor vs. Winslow/Mudiay.lovegtm said:Non-snarkily, how would you have approached the situation (in very broad outlines) had you been in Hinkie's shoes, starting from the 2013 draft and the decision of whether or not to trade Holiday?
bowiac said:Houston was never considering tanking. Morey has been around for a while. They were collecting assets and rolling them over until a chance at a franchise player came around, but they were never considering a tear-down rebuild.
I think it's a big stretch to argue that the Sixers and the Rockets are doing the same thing. Even before they got Harden, Houston was acquiring NBA-talents who would keep them out of the lottery, and drafting players who could contribute at the NBA level immediately as opposed to injury/Euro stashes. The Rockets aggressively avoided bottoming out, never drafting in the top 10 during this stretch. It's about as different a form of rebuild as you can have in the NBA.
Rudy Pemberton said:I don't think there are many organizations that have the patience to do something this blatant, that's all. You need an organization that is willing to take a short term hit in revenue, get a lot of bad PR, and a GM secure enough in his job to try it. If the Sixers plan was going better, you'd see more teams trying it...:that's all.
LondonSox said:Again what would you do that is better? Even with hindsight?
Are the Knicks and Lakers doing a good job of developing young players?moly99 said:
For me the biggest issue is trading away almost all of the quality players and not having veterans to shoulder the responsibilities of being both the on court and off court leaders of the team.
If I were running an NBA team that was terrible, I would want to have someone like Kobe, Carmelo Anthony, D-Wade, Garnett, etc around. Those guys kill two birds with one stone; they won't play up to their contracts thus providing the crucial top 6 pick, and they also let the rookies be rookies instead of making some poor guy like Michael Carter-Williams try to carry the team. I have no proof, but anecdotal evidence suggests this results in poor player development.
Grin&MartyBarret said:Are the Knicks and Lakers doing a good job of developing young players?
moly99 said:
For me the biggest issue is trading away almost all of the quality players and not having veterans to shoulder the responsibilities of being both the on court and off court leaders of the team.
If I were running an NBA team that was terrible, I would want to have someone like Kobe, Carmelo Anthony, D-Wade, Garnett, etc around. Those guys kill two birds with one stone; they won't play up to their contracts thus providing the crucial top 6 pick, and they also let the rookies be rookies instead of making some poor guy like Michael Carter-Williams try to carry the team. I have no proof, but anecdotal evidence suggests this results in poor player development.
The Clippers, Wizards, Warriors, Celtics, Thunder, Suns, Bucks all say hi. The only teams that have been consistently bad the past 7 or 8 years have been the Kings and Hornets, and even that is debateable. So...yeah....your statement would be true, if it weren't demonstrably false.Devizier said:The fact is, being terrible in the NBA is a deep hold that teams rarely crawl out of.
The Clippers were terrible for 30 years! Even after their brief Renaissance during the Elton Brand years they resumed being terrible. They are the classic example of a "hole" team, littered with false starts and blowups. It took the league gifting them Chris Paul to break the cycle.lovegtm said:The Clippers, Wizards, Warriors, Celtics, Thunder, Suns, Bucks all say hi. The only teams that have been consistently bad the past 7 or 8 years have been the Kings and Hornets, and even that is debateable. So...yeah....your statement would be true, if it weren't demonstrably false.
moly99 said:
They haven't given themselves much of a chance, having traded so many of their draft picks and young players away.
The nature vs nurture thing is a never-ending chicken or egg argument in every walk of life. I don't want to derail the thread arguing over it. But in my opinion teams are better off creating a stable environment with some quality veterans even on teams that are trying to get better through the draft.
Especially since Hinkie was trading damaged goods.jscola85 said:Jrue Holiday was and is a quality veteran, but that trade was too juicy to pass up.
johnmd20 said:Embiid breaks the same bone in his foot. It'll be years between the last time he played competitive basketball and the next time he plays.
ifmanis5 said:Why would you willingly sign Kendall Marshall to a 4 year deal?
It's a lottery play.ifmanis5 said:Why would you willingly sign Kendall Marshall to a 4 year deal?
Agreed. Almost no risk. No one like him on the roster. Will help having a Passer like him to get it into the post.Drocca said:I love the signing. He will be a late bloomer, but is a great passer that can run any offense. His defense sucks, he's not a guy you win a championship with but he's a great point guard to feed young players while they learn the game.