Sixers plan being questioned again

[Vermont Green]

Why does having to wait until Saric can get a non-rookie contract "set back the program"?  They won't be good anyway, and it's not like cap space will be an issue for them.

My feeling on this exactly.  They don't care.  How is getting a better shot at Simmons setting them back?  How much more developed would the team be?  I don't see the issue at all.

I think the bigger issue could be the money that the Sixers might have to pay.  I know the cap is going up but they are going to have to pay a lot of good young players a lot of money at some point.

[MBunge]

Doesn't sound to me like they're questioning the plan at all.  If you read the piece thoroughly, the thesis seems to be that the Sixers' plan still makes sense, they simply haven't enjoyed the good luck yet that is necessary for all rebuilds to get off the ground. 

The difference is that Philly's plan is ENTIRELY dependent on luck.

Mike

I suppose you could say that it's dependent on luck in the sense that any draft pick turning into a superstar requires luck.  But I think they'd tell you that this is true of any team that chooses to build through the draft.  They have decided to maximize their odds of getting one of the top picks and turning that pick into a superstar. 

After all, there's less "luck" required in having a pick in the top 5 turn into a superstar versus picking in the 7-15 range every year, which is where they were before.

But teams DON'T just focus on getting a top 3 pick, dam the consequences.  They also hold onto decent young players and try and sign some free agents.  Look at Boston, Minny, Detroit, etc.  They all have done stuff besides just hoping to get lucky.

Hinkie, on the other hand, has gone out of his way to stock his team with nothing but 2nd round picks and marginal talent outside his lottery prizes.  How much better would the Sixers be this year with MCW, Turner and Thad Young?

Everybody needs luck to put together a great team.  Nobody besides Hinkie has ever relied exclusively on it, though.

Mike

[PhoSita]

How much better would the Sixers be this year with MCW, Turner and Thad Young?

Everybody needs luck to put together a great team.  Nobody besides Hinkie has ever relied exclusively on it, though.

Mike

I don't think the Sixers would be particularly good with MCW, Turner, and Young.  They'd just be bad instead of downright terrible.

Hinkie is placing all of his eggs in the "draft a superstar" basket, to the point where he's almost completely throwing away the opportunity to find and develop a cast of useful role players.  I'd agree that teams rarely, if ever, commit so completely to chasing the top pick that they ignore everything else.

All the role players in the world might get you to 40-45 wins, but they won't give you meaningful, lasting success, and they definitely won't win you many playoff series.  In that sense, the Sixers and the Celts will be in the same boat until one of them secures a player who is good enough to raise their ceiling beyond "good job, good effort."

By that reasoning, the Celts are relying on luck, too.  We just have the luxury of having another team do the tanking for us.  If the Nets' picks don't work out, however, we might have to rely on the incompetence or desperation of another GM to gift us a superstar.  Are the odds of that happening better than a 25% chance at the top pick?

[oldtype]

I'd consider our rebuild a smashing success if we had a chance of winning 50+ games for 5-10 years.  There's no way to guarantee a championship but putting together a 50+ win team over several years at least gives you multiple shots to get one.

I'm with you.  I think Philly fans would be even more content with a team that's simply consistently competitive e.g. what the Bulls have done over the last 5 years or so.

Hinkie doesn't need to bring a championship to Philadelphia for his "plan" to be vindicated.

So lets assume that Phily builds the future equivalent of OKC around Ben Simmons. I'm assuming this team would roughly be at the level of last year's T-Wolves in 2016-2017, respectable by around 2017-2018 and a genuine contender by 2018-2019. Sixers fans would have witnessed three seasons of utterly abject tanking and an additional one season of lottery-level play beore the team makes the playoffs again.

They are competitive and win 50-60 games for five years and make one conference finals appearance, but never win a title and eventually have to break up the team because Simmons jumps ship to LA. At this point the Sixers have to rebuild again.

Obviously this is a hypothetical scenario and maybe the Sixers win a title, but if you're a fan, was it worth it to be laughing stocks of the league for 3~4 years just to have a respectable team for a while? Especially given that the odds of you getting a similarly respectable team would probably only be slighly lower if you had just tanked a season or two and allowed the team to grow organically?

I'm fully willing to acknowledge that the Sixers probably have a better chance of succeeding than the Celtics or any other team that's rebuilding normally, but there's no guarantee that it works, and even if it works, there's no guarantee they go anywhere near a title. At the end of the day, I just don't think it's worth the long-term damage you're doing to the franchise just to increase the odds of success by a few %.

[KeepRondo]

I'd consider our rebuild a smashing success if we had a chance of winning 50+ games for 5-10 years.  There's no way to guarantee a championship but putting together a 50+ win team over several years at least gives you multiple shots to get one.

I'm with you.  I think Philly fans would be even more content with a team that's simply consistently competitive e.g. what the Bulls have done over the last 5 years or so.

Hinkie doesn't need to bring a championship to Philadelphia for his "plan" to be vindicated.

So lets assume that Phily builds the future equivalent of OKC around Ben Simmons. I'm assuming this team would roughly be at the level of last year's T-Wolves in 2016-2017, respectable by around 2017-2018 and a genuine contender by 2018-2019. Sixers fans would have witnessed three seasons of utterly abject tanking and an additional one season of lottery-level play beore the team makes the playoffs again.

They are competitive and win 50-60 games for five years and make one conference finals appearance, but never win a title and eventually have to break up the team because Simmons jumps ship to LA. At this point the Sixers have to rebuild again.

Obviously this is a hypothetical scenario and maybe the Sixers win a title, but if you're a fan, was it worth it to be laughing stocks of the league for 3~4 years just to have a respectable team for a while? Especially given that the odds of you getting a similarly respectable team would probably only be slighly lower if you had just tanked a season or two and allowed the team to grow organically?

I'm fully willing to acknowledge that the Sixers probably have a better chance of succeeding than the Celtics or any other team that's rebuilding normally, but there's no guarantee that it works, and even if it works, there's no guarantee they go anywhere near a title. At the end of the day, I just don't think it's worth the long-term damage you're doing to the franchise just to increase the odds of success by a few %.

Nice post. Seems like there are a ton of different directions this thing can go and everyone seems quick to take a stand on one side or the other.

The interesting thing will be what happens after. Say if the sixers become a power house. Do other teams repeat the model. Or if the whole thing backfires, will any GMs risk their jobs to try this marathon tank job again.

[PhoSita]

I'd consider our rebuild a smashing success if we had a chance of winning 50+ games for 5-10 years.  There's no way to guarantee a championship but putting together a 50+ win team over several years at least gives you multiple shots to get one.

I'm with you.  I think Philly fans would be even more content with a team that's simply consistently competitive e.g. what the Bulls have done over the last 5 years or so.

Hinkie doesn't need to bring a championship to Philadelphia for his "plan" to be vindicated.

So lets assume that Phily builds the future equivalent of OKC around Ben Simmons. I'm assuming this team would roughly be at the level of last year's T-Wolves in 2016-2017, respectable by around 2017-2018 and a genuine contender by 2018-2019. Sixers fans would have witnessed three seasons of utterly abject tanking and an additional one season of lottery-level play beore the team makes the playoffs again.

They are competitive and win 50-60 games for five years and make one conference finals appearance, but never win a title and eventually have to break up the team because Simmons jumps ship to LA. At this point the Sixers have to rebuild again.

Obviously this is a hypothetical scenario and maybe the Sixers win a title, but if you're a fan, was it worth it to be laughing stocks of the league for 3~4 years just to have a respectable team for a while? Especially given that the odds of you getting a similarly respectable team would probably only be slighly lower if you had just tanked a season or two and allowed the team to grow organically?

First, if the Sixers win 50-60 games for five years or so, they're probably making the Conference Finals more than once, unless the East gets a lot more competitive really quickly.

That said, I think Sixers fans would be thrilled with the scenario you outline.  Obviously not with the idea of Simmons leaving, but if we again recall that their franchise has almost never been seriously competitive since the Iverson years, I am sure they'd be overjoyed to be one of the league's darlings for half a decade.

[tarheelsxxiii]

How much better would the Sixers be this year with MCW, Turner and Thad Young?

Everybody needs luck to put together a great team.  Nobody besides Hinkie has ever relied exclusively on it, though.

Mike

I don't think the Sixers would be particularly good with MCW, Turner, and Young.  They'd just be bad instead of downright terrible.

Hinkie is placing all of his eggs in the "draft a superstar" basket, to the point where he's almost completely throwing away the opportunity to find and develop a cast of useful role players.  I'd agree that teams rarely, if ever, commit so completely to chasing the top pick that they ignore everything else.

All the role players in the world might get you to 40-45 wins, but they won't give you meaningful, lasting success, and they definitely won't win you many playoff series.  In that sense, the Sixers and the Celts will be in the same boat until one of them secures a player who is good enough to raise their ceiling beyond "good job, good effort."

By that reasoning, the Celts are relying on luck, too.  We just have the luxury of having another team do the tanking for us.  If the Nets' picks don't work out, however, we might have to rely on the incompetence or desperation of another GM to gift us a superstar.  Are the odds of that happening better than a 25% chance at the top pick?

It's an assumption that PHI even becomes a 40-45 win team. Several things have to fall into place for them to have any sort of success.

-Retain current assets. If you're Noel, for example, do you resign? I'm guessing no. They'll need to trade him anyway, right? Well, what happens to his trade value by 2017? His production since moving to the bench has taken a precipitous drop ... better hope that doesn't continue. What about the glaring holes in his game? Player development must be tough down in PHI...

-Saric needs to join the team. He will, eventually. But just showing up doesn't mean he's going to be a transcendent player. Good prospect, sure, but also a long Euro -- poor track record there. Definitely not a sure bet.

-The likelihood of winning the Simmons sweepstakes is also not good. Could they net someone else with value? The likelihood of Embiid becoming a transcendent player is likely worse. J. Brown/Ingram/whoever could work though, right? Sure, or not...

-Can Hinkie develop and manage a roster? If all the above go well, he still needs to move at least one asset and effectively fill out the roster. What FAs are going to be attracted to PHI? Realistically, next-to-none... which is partly why they've chosen this strategy to begin with. Poor timing, too -- everyone will have cap space.

It's definitely not a foregone conclusion this works out. Others have pointed to it being impossible to determine when/if the experiment fails because there is no real timeline. But there is a built-in timeline, realistically, because PHI won't be able to retain their draft picks if they don't turn the corner sooner than later. Could it work out? Sure, it could. But it could also not, and it's a far riskier experiment than what seems to be suggested.

[footey]

How much better would the Sixers be this year with MCW, Turner and Thad Young?

Everybody needs luck to put together a great team.  Nobody besides Hinkie has ever relied exclusively on it, though.

Mike

I don't think the Sixers would be particularly good with MCW, Turner, and Young.  They'd just be bad instead of downright terrible.

Hinkie is placing all of his eggs in the "draft a superstar" basket, to the point where he's almost completely throwing away the opportunity to find and develop a cast of useful role players.  I'd agree that teams rarely, if ever, commit so completely to chasing the top pick that they ignore everything else.

All the role players in the world might get you to 40-45 wins, but they won't give you meaningful, lasting success, and they definitely won't win you many playoff series.  In that sense, the Sixers and the Celts will be in the same boat until one of them secures a player who is good enough to raise their ceiling beyond "good job, good effort."

By that reasoning, the Celts are relying on luck, too.  We just have the luxury of having another team do the tanking for us.  If the Nets' picks don't work out, however, we might have to rely on the incompetence or desperation of another GM to gift us a superstar.  Are the odds of that happening better than a 25% chance at the top pick?

Let me take this a step further. He is not ignoring finding good role players. He is purposely finding bad role players so that he can continue to tank better for as long as it takes. I am not judging this. I am stating what seems to be pretty obvious.  And it is working, inasmuch as they have for several years gotten a top 3 pick, and have a darned good chance of getting another one this coming season. 

[Moranis]

After Jordan and Pippen left Chicago, the Bulls were essentially a 60 loss team for four straight seasons and a lottery team for 2 others.  They made the playoffs as 40 win teams for three seasons, fell to 33 and got lucky in the lottery to get Rose and have made the playoffs the last 7 years with some very high win seasons (injuries to Rose probably limited the true success).  Chicago is still a top level team and has no real monsters on the team aside from Rose (Butler and Noah are nice players, but not superstar guys), who never reached his potential due to injury.  Even if that is all Philly becomes, I'd say the experiment would be successful.  That said, I think Philly will have more high end success (assuming health and they keep the guys they want to keep) as I think they have players with higher upsides than the ones Chicago was drafting (i.e. Curry, Chandler, etc.).  The real question is, will they be able to keep the players they want to keep, both financially or because the players actually want to stay.  At some point the salary will become a problem if these high end prospects all want max contracts (or near max) and the losing might cause players to want to leave (it might not, maybe they like Philly and see the upswing potential). 

[Moranis]

How much better would the Sixers be this year with MCW, Turner and Thad Young?

Everybody needs luck to put together a great team.  Nobody besides Hinkie has ever relied exclusively on it, though.

Mike

I don't think the Sixers would be particularly good with MCW, Turner, and Young.  They'd just be bad instead of downright terrible.

Hinkie is placing all of his eggs in the "draft a superstar" basket, to the point where he's almost completely throwing away the opportunity to find and develop a cast of useful role players.  I'd agree that teams rarely, if ever, commit so completely to chasing the top pick that they ignore everything else.

All the role players in the world might get you to 40-45 wins, but they won't give you meaningful, lasting success, and they definitely won't win you many playoff series.  In that sense, the Sixers and the Celts will be in the same boat until one of them secures a player who is good enough to raise their ceiling beyond "good job, good effort."

By that reasoning, the Celts are relying on luck, too.  We just have the luxury of having another team do the tanking for us.  If the Nets' picks don't work out, however, we might have to rely on the incompetence or desperation of another GM to gift us a superstar.  Are the odds of that happening better than a 25% chance at the top pick?

Let me take this a step further. He is not ignoring finding good role players. He is purposely finding bad role players so that he can continue to tank better for as long as it takes. I am not judging this. I am stating what seems to be pretty obvious.  And it is working, inasmuch as they have for several years gotten a top 3 pick, and have a darned good chance of getting another one this coming season.

I don't think that is what Philly is doing at all.  I think Philly is looking for the next Ben Wallace.  A guy that fell through the cracks and became quite good.  There is no reason to sign a clear bench player that is a veteran, who you know won't be on the team when it gets better, when you might find a guy that could be a real rotation or better player when the team is better (i.e. a guy better than Covington).   

[Eddie20]

After Jordan and Pippen left Chicago, the Bulls were essentially a 60 loss team for four straight seasons and a lottery team for 2 others.  They made the playoffs as 40 win teams for three seasons, fell to 33 and got lucky in the lottery to get Rose and have made the playoffs the last 7 years with some very high win seasons (injuries to Rose probably limited the true success).  Chicago is still a top level team and has no real monsters on the team aside from Rose (Butler and Noah are nice players, but not superstar guys), who never reached his potential due to injury.  Even if that is all Philly becomes, I'd say the experiment would be successful.  That said, I think Philly will have more high end success (assuming health and they keep the guys they want to keep) as I think they have players with higher upsides than the ones Chicago was drafting (i.e. Curry, Chandler, etc.).  The real question is, will they be able to keep the players they want to keep, both financially or because the players actually want to stay.  At some point the salary will become a problem if these high end prospects all want max contracts (or near max) and the losing might cause players to want to leave (it might not, maybe they like Philly and see the upswing potential).

That's revisionist history. At the time I remember pundits saying that Curry and Chandler (both were drafted out of high school) would be like Parish and McHale.

[Moranis]

After Jordan and Pippen left Chicago, the Bulls were essentially a 60 loss team for four straight seasons and a lottery team for 2 others.  They made the playoffs as 40 win teams for three seasons, fell to 33 and got lucky in the lottery to get Rose and have made the playoffs the last 7 years with some very high win seasons (injuries to Rose probably limited the true success).  Chicago is still a top level team and has no real monsters on the team aside from Rose (Butler and Noah are nice players, but not superstar guys), who never reached his potential due to injury.  Even if that is all Philly becomes, I'd say the experiment would be successful.  That said, I think Philly will have more high end success (assuming health and they keep the guys they want to keep) as I think they have players with higher upsides than the ones Chicago was drafting (i.e. Curry, Chandler, etc.).  The real question is, will they be able to keep the players they want to keep, both financially or because the players actually want to stay.  At some point the salary will become a problem if these high end prospects all want max contracts (or near max) and the losing might cause players to want to leave (it might not, maybe they like Philly and see the upswing potential).

That's revisionist history. At the time I remember pundits saying that Curry and Chandler (both were drafted out of high school) would be like Parish and McHale.

Well yeah duh, of course it is revisionist history.  The guys Philly drafted should be better than what Curry and Chandler became (though Chandler had a nice career he isn't a star).  That is the point and that is why while I think Chicago is a nice comparison, I expect Philly to achieve greater success since Chicago had a lot of nice players, but only one that could have been great (i.e. Rose) who didn't get there because of injuries.  Again that assumes Philly keeps the players it wants to (it may not want to keep everyone) and they don't suffer any more major injuries affecting the peak.

[Eddie20]

After Jordan and Pippen left Chicago, the Bulls were essentially a 60 loss team for four straight seasons and a lottery team for 2 others.  They made the playoffs as 40 win teams for three seasons, fell to 33 and got lucky in the lottery to get Rose and have made the playoffs the last 7 years with some very high win seasons (injuries to Rose probably limited the true success).  Chicago is still a top level team and has no real monsters on the team aside from Rose (Butler and Noah are nice players, but not superstar guys), who never reached his potential due to injury.  Even if that is all Philly becomes, I'd say the experiment would be successful.  That said, I think Philly will have more high end success (assuming health and they keep the guys they want to keep) as I think they have players with higher upsides than the ones Chicago was drafting (i.e. Curry, Chandler, etc.).  The real question is, will they be able to keep the players they want to keep, both financially or because the players actually want to stay.  At some point the salary will become a problem if these high end prospects all want max contracts (or near max) and the losing might cause players to want to leave (it might not, maybe they like Philly and see the upswing potential).

That's revisionist history. At the time I remember pundits saying that Curry and Chandler (both were drafted out of high school) would be like Parish and McHale.

Well yeah duh, of course it is revisionist history.  The guys Philly drafted should be better than what Curry and Chandler became (though Chandler had a nice career he isn't a star).  That is the point and that is why while I think Chicago is a nice comparison, I expect Philly to achieve greater success since Chicago had a lot of nice players, but only one that could have been great (i.e. Rose) who didn't get there because of injuries.  Again that assumes Philly keeps the players it wants to (it may not want to keep everyone) and they don't suffer any more major injuries affecting the peak.

The way you worded it sounded as if you were suggesting Sixers players drafted (Noel and Okafor) have a higher ceiling than that of Chandler and Curry at the time. What I'm saying is that wasn't the case. Those players were ranked extremely high. They were even on SI mag cover with the title "Baby Bulls" if memory serves.

[tazzmaniac]

Doesn't sound to me like they're questioning the plan at all.  If you read the piece thoroughly, the thesis seems to be that the Sixers' plan still makes sense, they simply haven't enjoyed the good luck yet that is necessary for all rebuilds to get off the ground. 

The difference is that Philly's plan is ENTIRELY dependent on luck.

Mike

I suppose you could say that it's dependent on luck in the sense that any draft pick turning into a superstar requires luck.  But I think they'd tell you that this is true of any team that chooses to build through the draft.  They have decided to maximize their odds of getting one of the top picks and turning that pick into a superstar. 

After all, there's less "luck" required in having a pick in the top 5 turn into a superstar versus picking in the 7-15 range every year, which is where they were before.

But teams DON'T just focus on getting a top 3 pick, dam the consequences.  They also hold onto decent young players and try and sign some free agents.  Look at Boston, Minny, Detroit, etc.  They all have done stuff besides just hoping to get lucky.

Hinkie, on the other hand, has gone out of his way to stock his team with nothing but 2nd round picks and marginal talent outside his lottery prizes.  How much better would the Sixers be this year with MCW, Turner and Thad Young?

Everybody needs luck to put together a great team.  Nobody besides Hinkie has ever relied exclusively on it, though.

Mike

Putting aside Turner's own mediocre talent, Turner was due to become a restricted free agent with a minimum qualifying offer of 8.7mil.  It would have been extreme stupidity on the Sixer's part to have re-signed him for that much.  They couldn't even get a low 1st for him and had to settle for a couple 2nds from Indy.  Indy quite sensibly also declined to keep Turner. 

Young was on the last year of his contract and there was no indication that he was going to re-sign with the Sixers.  Hinkie did good to get a 1st for him. 

The Sixers had already seen enough of MCW to decide he wasn't their future PG.  Getting the Lakers 1st was a very good return for him. 

Keeping a few mediocre players to get a few more wins, does nothing but hurt the Sixers chances of getting a star.  This year they really need to tank hard to finish with the worst record.  It help their chances of getting Simmons and getting the Lakers pick. 

[trickybilly]

Eventually fan support will decline .

It'll be a rough season for them.  But unless they want to try to immediately trade Embiid and Saric for whatever they can get, it makes the most sense to tank right now.   The focus should be on seeing if one of their players like Stauskas, Wroten, or Grant can develop into a real NBA player... while trying their best to develop Noel and Okafor.   Those are the only guys who seem like they will have very productive NBA careers.   The losing will get grating... morale might bottom out.  But this season doesn't matter.

If they are tanking again next year, that's a problem.    Next year they should have Noel, Okafor, maybe a couple rotation guys who made names for themselves, whatever their top projected pick ends up, whatever they get with the Lakers pick if it falls outside of the top 3, Miami's 1st, Oklahoma's 1st, presumably Saric, presumably Embiid...   

That's an insanely young group, but it will represent actual talent (not the d-leaguers making up their roster right now)... Then based on that roster they can decide to make some moves for fit (probably have to move one of Okafor or Noel regardless if Embiid returns), decide who they want to spend their 80ish million in cap space on to fill out the roster.... and probably shift away from tank mode.   It's reasonable that they could look like the Orlando Magic next year.

THey just need to power through this year.   It's going to be ugly by design.   The only risk they run is Noel or Okafor flipping out and forcing Philly's hand to move them before it's time.

It's clearly not a popular opinion around here, but I'd say that Hinkie has done a really fine job following his plan up until this point.  Maybe they initially envisioned 2 years of tanking, but it's been extended.

Step 1:  Recognition that the team wasn't going to compete.  The Bynum gamble had busted.  Standard strategy of trading everyone for draft picks and cap space.

Step 2:   One draft day in June 2013, they go ahead and trade their star PG, Jrue HOliday, for Nerlens NOel (then injured, but seen as the best prospect in the draft) and a future 1st.   I was jealous of this move.  Check the draft thread and you'll see me freaking out about Noel slipping and begging Ainge to trade Rondo for him.   Hinkie made a baller move there... he got a prospect who would likely be better than Holiday in the long run, another top 1st... and was setting his team up for tanking.  It ensured a top pick in 2014.  Kinda like getting 3 for 1.

Step 3:  Injured Embiid slips to #3.  Obvious choice as he was seen as "by far" the best prospect when healthy leading up to the draft.  They could have traded down and taken Smart + additional assets.  They likely tried trading up to get Wiggins, Parker.  But with Embiid as the option, it once again made the most sense to extend the tank another season.  With the draft pick they got in the Holiday/Noel deal, they selected Elfrid Payton with the #10 pick.   Since tanking made the most sense, they traded Payton for Dario Saric (taken #12) and a future 2nd and 1st.   Bad move?  Would they have been better off taking Aaron Gordon at #3 and keeping Payton at #10?  Perhaps... but they wanted to bottom out again and keep the asset train going.  It was bold, but I understand it.


Step 4:  By design, they had no hope in competing in 2014.  Just to be sure, they traded away their highly overrated "star PG", Michael Carter Williams, for a future 1st from the Lakers.   That pick will convey this year if it falls outside the Top 3... otherwise it's unprotected next year.   Once again, intentionally setting the team up for failure.    Instead of having Aaron Gordon, Elfrid Payton and MCW, they pushed all assets out a year by having Embiid, Saric and the Lakers pick.


Step 5:  They may have felt this year was the one they were going to compete finally.  Embiid was on his way back.  Saric was probably coming from overseas.  The lakers pick would have conveyed if it fell outside the top 7.   They had cap space and were going to offer max deals to guys like Tobias Harris.   They expected DeAngelo Russell to be their pick at #3... they would have had an interesting lineup of Russell, Saric, who they took with the Laker pick, Noel and Embiid, then whoever they spent money on (harris?).   Embiid's need for a bone graft threw a wrench in it.  Saric was staying overseas another year.   I think the team reluctantly decided to push out the tank one final season.   Luckily, Okafor fell to them at #3.  Would they rather have Russell right now?  Probably not.    Okafor is a legit 20/10 candidate... widely seen as the best prospect for much of the year until Towns lapped him.   Are people going to claim they messed up by passing on Kristaps for Okafor?  C'mon...   That's silly.     They likely could have traded one of Okafor or Noel on draft day for an impact guard prospect like Marcus Smart, but why even bother?   Give those guys 30+ minutes per night, let the team bottom out, and try again next year. 

So maybe they could have done things slightly differently, but unless you're being thick, you have to see the logic there.   They now have the highest odds in the league of landing Ben Simmons and it's not like they have zero assets.   

- Embiid (if he returns from his bone graft... which i suspect he will)
- Noel (would command a hefty return)
- Okafor (would clearly command a hefty return)
- Saric (should still be a fine prospect)
- Their #1 - Ben simmons?
- Lakers pick if it falls outside the top 3
- OKC's 1st
- Miami's 1st

+ maybe someone like Stauskas, Wroten, Grant develops into something... they have to be seen on the same level of the Rozier's, Hunter's and Mickeys of the world.


I'm sorry, but you can't call a "plan" a failure when the plan is in the process of being executed.  I say Hinkie has done a darn good job executing his plan... the ol "3 to 5 year" declaration... he started in 2013 and now it's 2015...  He's doing it in a shameless way, but the team is set up really well for future moves.   The question is, will he succeed at the next stage?   Next year the process of turning those assets into a team will begin.  I don't know if he'll be successful at that...  but I know that a good GM could turn those assets into a decent team really quickly.   Could they move Okafor for Avery Bradley and Sully right now?  Seems highly likely to me.   Could a good GM turn this into a 35-40 win team next year?  Yes.  If they want to be impatient and flip their prospects for vets, I'm sure they could be mildly competitive.  But you never know with these young guys... they might be competitive with just a few small moves and signings... and then it becomes interesting, because they have pick-swap rights with the Kings which puts them in interesting situation if they end up being solid while the Kings struggle... Similar to what Boston has going with Brooklyn.

Based on this definition of the plan, how could Hinkie ever possibly fail?

Saric will start his rookie contract when he arrives.  Obviously too early to tell if they were better off taking Elfrid.

Actually, no.

According to Article VIII Section 2 of the CBA, if a first round draft pick does not sign with the team that holds his draft rights within 3 years following the draft that he was selected in, he can negotiate a contract (of 3+ years in length) greater than 120% of the rookie scale contract, presuming the team that holds his rights has the cap space to do so.

Actually, yes if Saric comes over next season like he stated recently that he would.  He'll have to stay in Europe an additional year for the rule you quote to apply.

Attention to detail. LB said he'll be under his rookie scale deal when he arrives, which is not correct.

I wouldn't take what Saric says too seriously. It makes no monetary sense. Better to spend one more year in Europe, for more money, and being free to negotiate a deal thereafter than bogged down under a limited rookie scale contract for years. Saric has all the leverage, even if his scouting report recently has been lackluster.

He tried to get out of his Euro contract this past offseason but the buyout was too big.  I agree it doesn't make sense financially but there is no reason for him to say he is coming over next season if he doesn't mean it.

He's giving the politically correct answer. In fact, there was the report that Saric's dad wouldn't even allow Hinkie to meet with him.


Here it is...

• Fans may have to wait a little longer for first-round pick Dario Saric. The piece states Saric's father doesn't want him playing for the Sixers any time soon. It also asserts Hinkie's face time with Saric was kept to a minimum during a trip to Turkey in 2014. "Saric’s father, who acts as a de facto representative for his son, doesn’t want the Sixers close to Saric," the article said. Supposedly Saric's father wants his son to wait until he is no longer subject to the rookie wage scale in 2017-18

Well that's what happens when you treat players like pawns and not people.

No that happens when you have a son who wants to play in the NBA and will be convinced to do so if he meets with the team and you don't want him to because you want him to make more money by waiting.

TP for combining all the worst elements of bad parenting, selfish greed, and fan delusion.