New article takes in depth look at 76ers strategy

[slamtheking]

I'm way to lazy to do it myself but I'd love to see somebody take on the fact that the media types who seem most in love with Hinkie's strategy appear to be the analytics crowd.  But I've never seen anyone actually crunch the numbers on whether what Hinkie is doing will lead to any statistically meaningful advantages.  Like how much of a correlation can you draw in NBA history between having one of the bottom two records in a season and getting a franchise-level star in the draft because of it.

Mike

Duncan's the easy one (obviously). Hakeem.

If you give me a barometer of 'franchise level' I can whip something up. It's a slow day for me.

Nope, Duncan does not count.  San Antonio only had the third worst record in the league, they won 5 and 6 more games than the bottom two teams and had only one more loss than the 4th worst record.

And since the pro-tanking argument is all about championships, the standard should probably be best player on a team that makes it to the Finals with the team that drafted him.

Mike

Well I know the Cavs did that.  They tied for the worst record in the league, landed the #1 pick, took Lebron, and reached the finals in Lebron's 4th season (same draft the Heat had the 4th worst record and drafted Wade).

Magic were the 2nd worst team in the league, landed the #1 pick, took Shaq, and reached the finals in Shaq's 3rd season (it did help that they won the lottery the next year after barely missing the playoffs).

Houston was the worst team in the league took Ralph Sampson at #1 and then was the 2nd worst team in the league the next year and took Hakeem at #1.  That seemed to work out fairly well for them. 

It is much more about being bad in the right draft then being bad. 

very true about getting the top pick in the right draft. 

The Magic, Spurs and Houston examples are what I would consider tainted examples of this process.  Each team had multiple lottery wins and other top picks in very good drafts to get to success. 
Houston had Sampson AND Rodney Mccray before getting Olajuwon.
Spurs had Robinson before getting really lucky for Duncan
Orlando landed the top pick after having Shaq to flip it for Penny and assets. 

to look at Philly, their top 4 "prizes" so far have been
1. MCW who's been shipped out after winning ROY in a weak draft class (and personally, I think it should have gone to Oladipo)
2. Noel who slipped to 6 after a knee injury.  if healthy, he's taken probably #1 well ahead of Bennett who'd possibly have been the player taken at 6 --> how'd the Sixers look now if THAT had been the player they'd taken?
3. Embiid who would have gone number 1 if healthy.  they still would have gotten either Wiggins or Parker but if it'd been Parker, they'd have lost him to injury for the year.  would have had a good player but not a center that other teams want.
4. Saric who's yet to play a game for them and not a sure thing to leave Europe to join their dumpster fire of a team. 
So, if things played out as though no players were injured, Philly would have MCW, Bennett, Parker and Saric.  With that roster, would anyone truly be advocating that Philly has a great game plan for improvement?

[RAAAAAAAANDY]

It's like every NBA writer has to tackle this subject to make themselves feel relevant? This is such a tired topic. This exact article has been written more then a couple of times in the past year.

And there is nothing special about this strategy. Its a cowardly way to run a team. Clearly they have no confidence in their coaching and development and instead of working hard to make your players better you just intentionally lose until maybe you get a player that's already good to hide your coaching\development deficiencies.

They place more emphasis on player development than any team in the NBA... It is literally the sole purpose of their coaching staff right now. Teams that don't care about player development don't hire a guy who specialized in that for the Spurs as their HC.

And that's not their strategy either so the moot is moot to begin with.

They could have as many as 4 first round draft picks this year, unlikely but still possible. Unless I've missed something there haven't been a whole lot of GMs who've set tehir team up with the possibility of 1, 6, 11, 19 in the first round of a single draft.

Now realistically barring some sort of miracle It'll probably be closer to 2-3, 12-15, 19-20 for 3 picks. But I do find the bashing funny considering it is the exact same thing Danny Aigne is doing, Sam Hinkie just started it with a signficantly worse team that had been gutted by the Bynum trade.

I thought Sharp's article was terrible, which was sad because he made a few interesting points. The thing about those interesting points is that they're things most defenders of the Sixers plan would agree with...

1. Yes, you need a lot of luck regardless of strategy. (harden being available, the Chris Paul veto, the Spurs being gutted by injuries in the Duncan draft and not the Kwame Brown draft, the Cavs winning every lottery ever, Wade falling to Miami because the Pistons took Darko, the Lakers winning because the NBA fixed game 6 against the Kings, etc)
2. Yes, you do need to foster an environment that develops players... Yanking their minutes the first time they make a mistake isn't developing players. At all.
3. It is hard to draft a superstar, so why wouldn't you trade for one if available? Do you seriously think the Sixers don't have the ammo to do this?

Lastly, who here actually watched Michael Carter Williams this year? For all the trashing of Rubio that's gone on in this thread on MCW is a worse version of him.

KJ McDaniels was offered the most guaranteed money ever for a 2nd round pick. He turned it down because he was in a rare situation where he knew he'd get enough time to showcase himself as a 2nd round pick. He was also our 3rd best rookie this year... Since getting traded to Houston he's played five minutes and failed to register a single statistic other than the 3 shots he's missed.

I don't think it's the only way to build a team, or the "best" way(there is no best way). I think it is the route that made the most sense for a team that had given up anything of value not bolted to the floor or named Jrue Holiday for Andrew Bynum.

[RAAAAAAAANDY]

I'm way to lazy to do it myself but I'd love to see somebody take on the fact that the media types who seem most in love with Hinkie's strategy appear to be the analytics crowd.  But I've never seen anyone actually crunch the numbers on whether what Hinkie is doing will lead to any statistically meaningful advantages.  Like how much of a correlation can you draw in NBA history between having one of the bottom two records in a season and getting a franchise-level star in the draft because of it.

Mike

Duncan's the easy one (obviously). Hakeem.

If you give me a barometer of 'franchise level' I can whip something up. It's a slow day for me.

Nope, Duncan does not count.  San Antonio only had the third worst record in the league, they won 5 and 6 more games than the bottom two teams and had only one more loss than the 4th worst record.

And since the pro-tanking argument is all about championships, the standard should probably be best player on a team that makes it to the Finals with the team that drafted him.

Mike

Well I know the Cavs did that.  They tied for the worst record in the league, landed the #1 pick, took Lebron, and reached the finals in Lebron's 4th season (same draft the Heat had the 4th worst record and drafted Wade).

Magic were the 2nd worst team in the league, landed the #1 pick, took Shaq, and reached the finals in Shaq's 3rd season (it did help that they won the lottery the next year after barely missing the playoffs).

Houston was the worst team in the league took Ralph Sampson at #1 and then was the 2nd worst team in the league the next year and took Hakeem at #1.  That seemed to work out fairly well for them. 

It is much more about being bad in the right draft then being bad. 

very true about getting the top pick in the right draft. 

The Magic, Spurs and Houston examples are what I would consider tainted examples of this process.  Each team had multiple lottery wins and other top picks in very good drafts to get to success. 
Houston had Sampson AND Rodney Mccray before getting Olajuwon.
Spurs had Robinson before getting really lucky for Duncan
Orlando landed the top pick after having Shaq to flip it for Penny and assets. 

to look at Philly, their top 4 "prizes" so far have been
1. MCW who's been shipped out after winning ROY in a weak draft class (and personally, I think it should have gone to Oladipo)
2. Noel who slipped to 6 after a knee injury.  if healthy, he's taken probably #1 well ahead of Bennett who'd possibly have been the player taken at 6 --> how'd the Sixers look now if THAT had been the player they'd taken?
3. Embiid who would have gone number 1 if healthy.  they still would have gotten either Wiggins or Parker but if it'd been Parker, they'd have lost him to injury for the year.  would have had a good player but not a center that other teams want.
4. Saric who's yet to play a game for them and not a sure thing to leave Europe to join their dumpster fire of a team. 
So, if things played out as though no players were injured, Philly would have MCW, Bennett, Parker and Saric.  With that roster, would anyone truly be advocating that Philly has a great game plan for improvement?

Are you even serious with the bold parts? The Sixers we're the first team to bite the bullet on an injured Noel. That's why they have him, and how on Earth do you know that Bennett is the pick there? Or if they even make the trade to begin with?  The idea that they'd have done everything exactly same with those guys is extreely far fetched. Maybe they take Gobert since they wouldn't have had a center. Maybe they keep Elfrid Payton instead of trading him to the Magic. Maybe they take Wiggins because everybody and their mother was saying the Bucks wanted Jabari regardless of who the top pick was.

But yes, if you're allowed to make your fantasy universe where you can make things go worst case scenario for other NBA franchises then sure. They'd be in trouble.

If KG hurt his knee a year earlier then Ainge tanked for nothing in 2007... What an idiot! That didn't happen though. So it's a pretty ridiculous argument.

[Moranis]

^The Bulls example is a great one for looking at the sort of middling disaster that can emerge from this strategy, particularly when you're impatient.

Off the top of my head (i.e. I think, but I'd need to double check), they could've fielded a team that featured some combination of (a motivated) Eddy Curry, Tyson Chandler, (pre-ACL) Brand, and LaMarcus Aldridge. That's an intimidating frontcourt, to say the least.

IIRC Simmons did the same thing. The split was pretty even between the two camps.
[/quote]they traded Brand for Tyson Chandler and Brian Skinner.  So they couldn't have had both.  Had they kept Brand, I don't think they would have ended up in a spot to draft Aldridge.  In part what kept them so bad was that the year after Curry/Chandler they took Jay Williams at #2 and injuries totally derailed him (of course that draft was horrible though with Brand they probably end up in the middle of the lottery and in a prime spot to take a flyer on Amare though with Brand they might not do that).  The following year was the Lebron draft, but Chicago fell to 7th where there was a clear drop off in talent and ended up taking Hinrich.  They then dropped back into the top 5 and took Gordon and their pick was Aldridge (though for someone reason they traded it and a 2nd rounder for Tyrus Thomas and Viktor Khryapa (good call Chicago).  And for the record they only had that pick because they acquired it in the Eddy Curry trade, so again that lineup you think they could have had, was not possible.

[slamtheking]

I'm way to lazy to do it myself but I'd love to see somebody take on the fact that the media types who seem most in love with Hinkie's strategy appear to be the analytics crowd.  But I've never seen anyone actually crunch the numbers on whether what Hinkie is doing will lead to any statistically meaningful advantages.  Like how much of a correlation can you draw in NBA history between having one of the bottom two records in a season and getting a franchise-level star in the draft because of it.

Mike

Duncan's the easy one (obviously). Hakeem.

If you give me a barometer of 'franchise level' I can whip something up. It's a slow day for me.

Nope, Duncan does not count.  San Antonio only had the third worst record in the league, they won 5 and 6 more games than the bottom two teams and had only one more loss than the 4th worst record.

And since the pro-tanking argument is all about championships, the standard should probably be best player on a team that makes it to the Finals with the team that drafted him.

Mike

Well I know the Cavs did that.  They tied for the worst record in the league, landed the #1 pick, took Lebron, and reached the finals in Lebron's 4th season (same draft the Heat had the 4th worst record and drafted Wade).

Magic were the 2nd worst team in the league, landed the #1 pick, took Shaq, and reached the finals in Shaq's 3rd season (it did help that they won the lottery the next year after barely missing the playoffs).

Houston was the worst team in the league took Ralph Sampson at #1 and then was the 2nd worst team in the league the next year and took Hakeem at #1.  That seemed to work out fairly well for them. 

It is much more about being bad in the right draft then being bad. 

very true about getting the top pick in the right draft. 

The Magic, Spurs and Houston examples are what I would consider tainted examples of this process.  Each team had multiple lottery wins and other top picks in very good drafts to get to success. 
Houston had Sampson AND Rodney Mccray before getting Olajuwon.
Spurs had Robinson before getting really lucky for Duncan
Orlando landed the top pick after having Shaq to flip it for Penny and assets. 

to look at Philly, their top 4 "prizes" so far have been
1. MCW who's been shipped out after winning ROY in a weak draft class (and personally, I think it should have gone to Oladipo)
2. Noel who slipped to 6 after a knee injury.  if healthy, he's taken probably #1 well ahead of Bennett who'd possibly have been the player taken at 6 --> how'd the Sixers look now if THAT had been the player they'd taken?
3. Embiid who would have gone number 1 if healthy.  they still would have gotten either Wiggins or Parker but if it'd been Parker, they'd have lost him to injury for the year.  would have had a good player but not a center that other teams want.
4. Saric who's yet to play a game for them and not a sure thing to leave Europe to join their dumpster fire of a team. 
So, if things played out as though no players were injured, Philly would have MCW, Bennett, Parker and Saric.  With that roster, would anyone truly be advocating that Philly has a great game plan for improvement?

Are you even serious with the bold parts? The Sixers we're the first team to bite the bullet on an injured Noel. That's why they have him, and how on Earth do you know that Bennett is the pick there? Or if they even make the trade to begin with?  The idea that they'd have done everything exactly same with those guys is extreely far fetched. Maybe they take Gobert since they wouldn't have had a center. Maybe they keep Elfrid Payton instead of trading him to the Magic. Maybe they take Wiggins because everybody and their mother was saying the Bucks wanted Jabari regardless of who the top pick was.

But yes, if you're allowed to make your fantasy universe where you can make things go worst case scenario for other NBA franchises then sure. They'd be in trouble.

If KG hurt his knee a year earlier then Ainge tanked for nothing in 2007... What an idiot! That didn't happen though. So it's a pretty ridiculous argument.

my goodness, you really are a Philly fan.  if nothing else, you're certainly consistent in your defense of their 'plan'.

nothing ridiculous about what I said.  what's unrealistic about Noel going higher than #6 if he's healthy?  the answer, nothing.

What's untrue about Embiid going higher if healthy?  nothing.

bottom line, Philly has 'lucked' out in these drafts not because they got the top pick but that the top prospect in the drafts fell to them due to injury concerns.  that's not planning or strategy, just plain luck.  Sure, the players I proposed they end up taking if Noel/Embiid aren't injured could have been different from what I suggested but have to put something out there and it was a reasonable option.   To suggest that Philly has Noel and Embiid through master planning/strategy is ignoring reality

[D.o.s.]

^The Bulls example is a great one for looking at the sort of middling disaster that can emerge from this strategy, particularly when you're impatient.

Off the top of my head (i.e. I think, but I'd need to double check), they could've fielded a team that featured some combination of (a motivated) Eddy Curry, Tyson Chandler, (pre-ACL) Brand, and LaMarcus Aldridge. That's an intimidating frontcourt, to say the least.

they traded Brand for Tyson Chandler and Brian Skinner.  So they couldn't have had both.  Had they kept Brand, I don't think they would have ended up in a spot to draft Aldridge.  In part what kept them so bad was that the year after Curry/Chandler they took Jay Williams at #2 and injuries totally derailed him (of course that draft was horrible though with Brand they probably end up in the middle of the lottery and in a prime spot to take a flyer on Amare though with Brand they might not do that).  The following year was the Lebron draft, but Chicago fell to 7th where there was a clear drop off in talent and ended up taking Hinrich.  They then dropped back into the top 5 and took Gordon and their pick was Aldridge (though for someone reason they traded it and a 2nd rounder for Tyrus Thomas and Viktor Khryapa (good call Chicago).  And for the record they only had that pick because they acquired it in the Eddy Curry trade, so again that lineup you think they could have had, was not possible.

Aha. TP for the legwork -- I figured it was something like that (hence 'some combination of') but I'm a little stretched for time.

[celticsclay]

I'm way to lazy to do it myself but I'd love to see somebody take on the fact that the media types who seem most in love with Hinkie's strategy appear to be the analytics crowd.  But I've never seen anyone actually crunch the numbers on whether what Hinkie is doing will lead to any statistically meaningful advantages.  Like how much of a correlation can you draw in NBA history between having one of the bottom two records in a season and getting a franchise-level star in the draft because of it.

Mike

Duncan's the easy one (obviously). Hakeem.

If you give me a barometer of 'franchise level' I can whip something up. It's a slow day for me.

Nope, Duncan does not count.  San Antonio only had the third worst record in the league, they won 5 and 6 more games than the bottom two teams and had only one more loss than the 4th worst record.

And since the pro-tanking argument is all about championships, the standard should probably be best player on a team that makes it to the Finals with the team that drafted him.

Mike

Well I know the Cavs did that.  They tied for the worst record in the league, landed the #1 pick, took Lebron, and reached the finals in Lebron's 4th season (same draft the Heat had the 4th worst record and drafted Wade).

Magic were the 2nd worst team in the league, landed the #1 pick, took Shaq, and reached the finals in Shaq's 3rd season (it did help that they won the lottery the next year after barely missing the playoffs).

Houston was the worst team in the league took Ralph Sampson at #1 and then was the 2nd worst team in the league the next year and took Hakeem at #1.  That seemed to work out fairly well for them. 

It is much more about being bad in the right draft then being bad. 

very true about getting the top pick in the right draft. 

The Magic, Spurs and Houston examples are what I would consider tainted examples of this process.  Each team had multiple lottery wins and other top picks in very good drafts to get to success. 
Houston had Sampson AND Rodney Mccray before getting Olajuwon.
Spurs had Robinson before getting really lucky for Duncan
Orlando landed the top pick after having Shaq to flip it for Penny and assets. 

to look at Philly, their top 4 "prizes" so far have been
1. MCW who's been shipped out after winning ROY in a weak draft class (and personally, I think it should have gone to Oladipo)
2. Noel who slipped to 6 after a knee injury.  if healthy, he's taken probably #1 well ahead of Bennett who'd possibly have been the player taken at 6 --> how'd the Sixers look now if THAT had been the player they'd taken?
3. Embiid who would have gone number 1 if healthy.  they still would have gotten either Wiggins or Parker but if it'd been Parker, they'd have lost him to injury for the year.  would have had a good player but not a center that other teams want.
4. Saric who's yet to play a game for them and not a sure thing to leave Europe to join their dumpster fire of a team. 
So, if things played out as though no players were injured, Philly would have MCW, Bennett, Parker and Saric.  With that roster, would anyone truly be advocating that Philly has a great game plan for improvement?

Are you even serious with the bold parts? The Sixers we're the first team to bite the bullet on an injured Noel. That's why they have him, and how on Earth do you know that Bennett is the pick there? Or if they even make the trade to begin with?  The idea that they'd have done everything exactly same with those guys is extreely far fetched. Maybe they take Gobert since they wouldn't have had a center. Maybe they keep Elfrid Payton instead of trading him to the Magic. Maybe they take Wiggins because everybody and their mother was saying the Bucks wanted Jabari regardless of who the top pick was.

But yes, if you're allowed to make your fantasy universe where you can make things go worst case scenario for other NBA franchises then sure. They'd be in trouble.

If KG hurt his knee a year earlier then Ainge tanked for nothing in 2007... What an idiot! That didn't happen though. So it's a pretty ridiculous argument.

Raaaandy do you also love the McCoy trade? I want to know if we think all the Philadelphia organizations are flawless right now.

[loco_91]

I think what's missing from this discussion is: what are the Sixers' alternatives? They aren't a big FA destination like LA, NY, Houston, or Miami. They can rebuild through the draft or through trades-- that is, by trading their draft picks. Either way, they are better off with better draft picks, and tanking is obviously an effective way to get higher picks.

Maybe the Sixers could be a mediocre team with a mediocre future, but is that really better than being a bad team with the hope of a bright future?

[D.o.s.]

I think what's missing from this discussion is: what are the Sixers' alternatives? They aren't a big FA destination like LA, NY, Houston, or Miami. They can rebuild through the draft or through trades-- that is, by trading their draft picks. Either way, they are better off with better draft picks, and tanking is obviously an effective way to get higher picks.

Maybe the Sixers could be a mediocre team with a mediocre future, but is that really better than being a bad team with the hope of a bright future?

Miami wasn't really considered a big free agent destination prior to LeBron. Neither was Houston, really.

The amount of money a team can throw at a player is still the largest qualifier in most free agency cases. It just so happens that teams like Los Angeles and New York are/were much more willing to throw large amounts of money at players. THat's not entirely a big market thing -- under the previous CBA, the trail blazers were notorious for overpaying players.

[Boris Badenov]

I think what's missing from this discussion is: what are the Sixers' alternatives? They aren't a big FA destination like LA, NY, Houston, or Miami. They can rebuild through the draft or through trades-- that is, by trading their draft picks. Either way, they are better off with better draft picks, and tanking is obviously an effective way to get higher picks.

Maybe the Sixers could be a mediocre team with a mediocre future, but is that really better than being a bad team with the hope of a bright future?

Miami wasn't really considered a big free agent destination prior to LeBron. Neither was Houston, really.

The amount of money a team can throw at a player is still the largest qualifier in most free agency cases. It just so happens that teams like Los Angeles and New York are/were much more willing to throw large amounts of money at players. THat's not entirely a big market thing -- under the previous CBA, the trail blazers were notorious for overpaying players.

Yeah, but the Florida and Texas teams have natural tax advantages that will always give them an edge. Effectively, with the cap, teams in those states have the ability to throw more money at the top stars than any other teams.

And NY and LA have more non-salary money to throw because of endorsements.

[D.o.s.]

I think what's missing from this discussion is: what are the Sixers' alternatives? They aren't a big FA destination like LA, NY, Houston, or Miami. They can rebuild through the draft or through trades-- that is, by trading their draft picks. Either way, they are better off with better draft picks, and tanking is obviously an effective way to get higher picks.

Maybe the Sixers could be a mediocre team with a mediocre future, but is that really better than being a bad team with the hope of a bright future?

Miami wasn't really considered a big free agent destination prior to LeBron. Neither was Houston, really.

The amount of money a team can throw at a player is still the largest qualifier in most free agency cases. It just so happens that teams like Los Angeles and New York are/were much more willing to throw large amounts of money at players. THat's not entirely a big market thing -- under the previous CBA, the trail blazers were notorious for overpaying players.

Yeah, but the Florida and Texas teams have natural tax advantages that will always give them an edge. Effectively, with the cap, teams in those states have the ability to throw more money at the top stars than any other teams.

And NY and LA have more non-salary money to throw because of endorsements.

In regards to Florida and Texas you're correct, but that's part of the reason why a player's Bird Rights are so important -- that extra year helps mitigate the difference.

[Boris Badenov]

I think what's missing from this discussion is: what are the Sixers' alternatives? They aren't a big FA destination like LA, NY, Houston, or Miami. They can rebuild through the draft or through trades-- that is, by trading their draft picks. Either way, they are better off with better draft picks, and tanking is obviously an effective way to get higher picks.

Maybe the Sixers could be a mediocre team with a mediocre future, but is that really better than being a bad team with the hope of a bright future?

Miami wasn't really considered a big free agent destination prior to LeBron. Neither was Houston, really.

The amount of money a team can throw at a player is still the largest qualifier in most free agency cases. It just so happens that teams like Los Angeles and New York are/were much more willing to throw large amounts of money at players. THat's not entirely a big market thing -- under the previous CBA, the trail blazers were notorious for overpaying players.

Yeah, but the Florida and Texas teams have natural tax advantages that will always give them an edge. Effectively, with the cap, teams in those states have the ability to throw more money at the top stars than any other teams.

And NY and LA have more non-salary money to throw because of endorsements.

In regards to Florida and Texas you're correct, but that's part of the reason why a player's Bird Rights are so important -- that extra year helps mitigate the difference.

Fair point, although I think it's moot if Philly is competing with one of those other teams for a free agent with Bird rights held by another team.

Getting back to the main topic, I think Philly's doing some good things. We hear the "lottery is a crapshoot" dismissal far too often, in my opinion. Among other things, it ignores the fact that all other strategies are crapshoots too.

The real bottom line is that good GMs make their strategies work and bad GMs screw up whatever strategies they pick. Ainge is great. The jury's out on Hinkie.

[slamtheking]

I think what's missing from this discussion is: what are the Sixers' alternatives? They aren't a big FA destination like LA, NY, Houston, or Miami. They can rebuild through the draft or through trades-- that is, by trading their draft picks. Either way, they are better off with better draft picks, and tanking is obviously an effective way to get higher picks.

Maybe the Sixers could be a mediocre team with a mediocre future, but is that really better than being a bad team with the hope of a bright future?

Miami wasn't really considered a big free agent destination prior to LeBron. Neither was Houston, really.

The amount of money a team can throw at a player is still the largest qualifier in most free agency cases. It just so happens that teams like Los Angeles and New York are/were much more willing to throw large amounts of money at players. THat's not entirely a big market thing -- under the previous CBA, the trail blazers were notorious for overpaying players.

Yeah, but the Florida and Texas teams have natural tax advantages that will always give them an edge. Effectively, with the cap, teams in those states have the ability to throw more money at the top stars than any other teams.

And NY and LA have more non-salary money to throw because of endorsements.

that's not completely true.  Being in Cleveland hasn't hurt Lebron's marketability.  Being in Chicago (large city but not NY or LA) didn't hurt Jordan.  Durant seems to be doing ok in OKC.  Shaq did fine everywhere he went.  Penny Hardaway was doing great in Orlando.  it goes on.  top players get noticed no matter where they are and will get the offers.   

[D.o.s.]

I think what's missing from this discussion is: what are the Sixers' alternatives? They aren't a big FA destination like LA, NY, Houston, or Miami. They can rebuild through the draft or through trades-- that is, by trading their draft picks. Either way, they are better off with better draft picks, and tanking is obviously an effective way to get higher picks.

Maybe the Sixers could be a mediocre team with a mediocre future, but is that really better than being a bad team with the hope of a bright future?

Miami wasn't really considered a big free agent destination prior to LeBron. Neither was Houston, really.

The amount of money a team can throw at a player is still the largest qualifier in most free agency cases. It just so happens that teams like Los Angeles and New York are/were much more willing to throw large amounts of money at players. THat's not entirely a big market thing -- under the previous CBA, the trail blazers were notorious for overpaying players.

Yeah, but the Florida and Texas teams have natural tax advantages that will always give them an edge. Effectively, with the cap, teams in those states have the ability to throw more money at the top stars than any other teams.

And NY and LA have more non-salary money to throw because of endorsements.

that's not completely true.  Being in Cleveland hasn't hurt Lebron's marketability.  Being in Chicago (large city but not NY or LA) didn't hurt Jordan.  Durant seems to be doing ok in OKC.  Shaq did fine everywhere he went.  Penny Hardaway was doing great in Orlando.  it goes on.  top players get noticed no matter where they are and will get the offers.

Shaq was already doing movies and things before he moved to LA; Penny was fortunate enough to A) play with Shaq and B) hook up with Chris Rock for Lil' Penny; Chicago is the third largest media market in the country; and LeBron is the league's best player in the Internet age.

But! You know who's a great example of the kind of player that sees his stock as a celebrity/brand/marketing item skyrocket on a team like LA or New York? Chris Paul.

[Moranis]

I think what's missing from this discussion is: what are the Sixers' alternatives? They aren't a big FA destination like LA, NY, Houston, or Miami. They can rebuild through the draft or through trades-- that is, by trading their draft picks. Either way, they are better off with better draft picks, and tanking is obviously an effective way to get higher picks.

Maybe the Sixers could be a mediocre team with a mediocre future, but is that really better than being a bad team with the hope of a bright future?

Miami wasn't really considered a big free agent destination prior to LeBron. Neither was Houston, really.

The amount of money a team can throw at a player is still the largest qualifier in most free agency cases. It just so happens that teams like Los Angeles and New York are/were much more willing to throw large amounts of money at players. THat's not entirely a big market thing -- under the previous CBA, the trail blazers were notorious for overpaying players.

Yeah, but the Florida and Texas teams have natural tax advantages that will always give them an edge. Effectively, with the cap, teams in those states have the ability to throw more money at the top stars than any other teams.

And NY and LA have more non-salary money to throw because of endorsements.

In regards to Florida and Texas you're correct, but that's part of the reason why a player's Bird Rights are so important -- that extra year helps mitigate the difference.

but you don't have Bird rights if the player isn't on your team.  So, how is a team that isn't a natural free agent destination going to attract those players?