WOJ mini-Bomb: Noel's stock drops

[celticsclay]

I miss him. Wonder what happened.

Related to Noel will happen if he is still on philly and everyone is healthy

[apc]

This obsession with Noel....what if he wasn't from Boston area?

[blink]

This is all not a surprise but a good indication for the Celtics, nonetheless. Even if the C's don't make a deal for Noel, specifically, a cooling market for centers is a good news for a team in need of help around the basket.

And I would still try to make a move for Noel. If his stock is really dropping like that, maybe Noel could get got for something like Young, Mickey, and a 2nd rounder.

If his stock is dropping, all the better.  Get a jump on it, get him for cheap, evaluate him this year and see what happens.  Can he really hurt our interior D and rebounding?  Seriously?

[hwangjini_1]

Is Noel even good? We've only seen flashes. Time is ticking. Same for Okafor.

Philly's problem may not be crowded talent, but just an overall lack of it. Noel and Okafor may only be bench players from what we've seen so maybe we should value them like bench players and Philly shouldn't act like their giving up starting level talent for a discount. This is basically what some predicted back at the draft. Their value would only go down and it has.

Interesting point. And if accurate it bodes very poorly for hinkies approach to a rebuild.

Not really.  Hinkie's approach was to maximize the quality and quantity of picks because you can't count on a particular pick or draft for success.  They have Embiid and Simmons to build around regardless of how well Okafor and Noel turn out or what they trade them for.  They have the Laker 17/18 1st and the Kings 19 1st in addition to their 1sts over the next 3 years.  They also have maintained great cap space.  Maximizing opportunities while maintaining flexibility is the best approach to a rebuild.

But then all your eggs are in one draft basket, which is dangerous. Minnesota has how many top draft picks now?

Lest wait. Really, lets wait for 4 years and see. 

I see the fact that Noel and Okafor might not pan out as a reason why Hinkie had the strategy he did. In the past some teams may have tanked for a year or two and ended up with a couple high picks like Noel and Okafor, who might prove not to be worth tanking for. So Hinkie's strategy was to acquire as many high picks as possible so even though you may end up with a Noel, you also get an Embiid.

It's not that Hinkie's strategy doesn't work. I don't think there's a valid argument against it's concept. The question is whether the Hinkie process is worth the cost. And the cost turns out to be more than just wins and losses and dates on a calendar. It's the psychological wear and tear, the perception of and pressure on relationships within the team and around the league etc. It may be a larger cost than anticipated and requires more investment each year.

It still may be worth it. You tank for cornerstone guys and if you get one or two of them, it's worth it. They have Embiid who looks absolutely worth it if he can stay healthy. And maybe Simmons. They have another high pick coming this year. If they end up with even two legit stars, it doesn't matter who else comes and goes.

Ironically, this was all about "the process" and will ultimately be judged by "the result". Like you said, we'll wait and see.

There are two elements of Hinkie's strategy, however, that you don't need any more time to evaluate.

1.  His strategy is entirely dependent on luck.  In all these years of tanking, they only got the #1 pick once.  If the ping pong balls bounce a little different, they don't get Simmons.  If Embiid isn't hurt, they don't get him with the third pick.

Now, most winning teams get lucky but their strategy is to do the best they can and then hope for a little luck to put them over the top.  Hinkie's strategy was the equivalent of mortgaging your house to buy lottery tickets.

2.  The drive to be as bad as possible to all those extra ping pong balls meant that when the tank was over, meant the team would have no secondary or tertiary assets.  They have no real way of improving the team that doesn't involve trading one of their core pieces.

Mike

You don't really understand the Sixers strategy.  It was about maximizing the opportunity to acquire franchise altering talent.  They determined (and perhaps rightly so) that the best way to do that was to acquire that franchise altering talent through the draft.  And because the draft is a crap shoot, you have to give yourself as many opportunities as possible as high in the draft as possible.  The best way to do that is for your team to be very bad to increase the likelihood of a high pick for multiple years and acquire other 1st round picks to fill in with depth.  It is nothing like a lottery pick which is totally random. 

And the Sixers had the #1 pick one year because the Sixers were the worst team that one year.  The other two years of the tank, the Sixers weren't the worst team in the league.  Through their crafty trading they acquired 2 other lottery picks in those 4 years and still have the potential for multiple other lottery picks from other teams over the next few. 

The Timberwolves did basically the same thing.  In 2013, traded 9 (Burke) for 14 (Muhammad), 21 (Dieng).   Then they really started tanking in the summer of 2014.  They got Lavine at 13 and then later that summer traded Love for Wiggins (1 in 2014) ensuring a tank job. Ended up with the worst record and the 1st pick and took Towns at 1 in 2015 and followed that up with Dunn at 5 in 2016.  Not quite as many trades, but the Wolves have quietly been tanking for awhile now and appear headed for another high pick this year.

actually, we do understand. but we are reaching different conclusions. for me, holding out minnesota as a success story doesnt convince me.

to each their own. this wont play out for a long time yet. but clearly the ownership of philly has publically declared their opinions about hinkie's plan. i doubt they would repeat this "process" exactly as done so far.

[Moranis]

Is Noel even good? We've only seen flashes. Time is ticking. Same for Okafor.

Philly's problem may not be crowded talent, but just an overall lack of it. Noel and Okafor may only be bench players from what we've seen so maybe we should value them like bench players and Philly shouldn't act like their giving up starting level talent for a discount. This is basically what some predicted back at the draft. Their value would only go down and it has.

Interesting point. And if accurate it bodes very poorly for hinkies approach to a rebuild.

Not really.  Hinkie's approach was to maximize the quality and quantity of picks because you can't count on a particular pick or draft for success.  They have Embiid and Simmons to build around regardless of how well Okafor and Noel turn out or what they trade them for.  They have the Laker 17/18 1st and the Kings 19 1st in addition to their 1sts over the next 3 years.  They also have maintained great cap space.  Maximizing opportunities while maintaining flexibility is the best approach to a rebuild.

But then all your eggs are in one draft basket, which is dangerous. Minnesota has how many top draft picks now?

Lest wait. Really, lets wait for 4 years and see. 

I see the fact that Noel and Okafor might not pan out as a reason why Hinkie had the strategy he did. In the past some teams may have tanked for a year or two and ended up with a couple high picks like Noel and Okafor, who might prove not to be worth tanking for. So Hinkie's strategy was to acquire as many high picks as possible so even though you may end up with a Noel, you also get an Embiid.

It's not that Hinkie's strategy doesn't work. I don't think there's a valid argument against it's concept. The question is whether the Hinkie process is worth the cost. And the cost turns out to be more than just wins and losses and dates on a calendar. It's the psychological wear and tear, the perception of and pressure on relationships within the team and around the league etc. It may be a larger cost than anticipated and requires more investment each year.

It still may be worth it. You tank for cornerstone guys and if you get one or two of them, it's worth it. They have Embiid who looks absolutely worth it if he can stay healthy. And maybe Simmons. They have another high pick coming this year. If they end up with even two legit stars, it doesn't matter who else comes and goes.

Ironically, this was all about "the process" and will ultimately be judged by "the result". Like you said, we'll wait and see.

There are two elements of Hinkie's strategy, however, that you don't need any more time to evaluate.

1.  His strategy is entirely dependent on luck.  In all these years of tanking, they only got the #1 pick once.  If the ping pong balls bounce a little different, they don't get Simmons.  If Embiid isn't hurt, they don't get him with the third pick.

Now, most winning teams get lucky but their strategy is to do the best they can and then hope for a little luck to put them over the top.  Hinkie's strategy was the equivalent of mortgaging your house to buy lottery tickets.

2.  The drive to be as bad as possible to all those extra ping pong balls meant that when the tank was over, meant the team would have no secondary or tertiary assets.  They have no real way of improving the team that doesn't involve trading one of their core pieces.

Mike

You don't really understand the Sixers strategy.  It was about maximizing the opportunity to acquire franchise altering talent.  They determined (and perhaps rightly so) that the best way to do that was to acquire that franchise altering talent through the draft.  And because the draft is a crap shoot, you have to give yourself as many opportunities as possible as high in the draft as possible.  The best way to do that is for your team to be very bad to increase the likelihood of a high pick for multiple years and acquire other 1st round picks to fill in with depth.  It is nothing like a lottery pick which is totally random. 

And the Sixers had the #1 pick one year because the Sixers were the worst team that one year.  The other two years of the tank, the Sixers weren't the worst team in the league.  Through their crafty trading they acquired 2 other lottery picks in those 4 years and still have the potential for multiple other lottery picks from other teams over the next few. 

The Timberwolves did basically the same thing.  In 2013, traded 9 (Burke) for 14 (Muhammad), 21 (Dieng).   Then they really started tanking in the summer of 2014.  They got Lavine at 13 and then later that summer traded Love for Wiggins (1 in 2014) ensuring a tank job. Ended up with the worst record and the 1st pick and took Towns at 1 in 2015 and followed that up with Dunn at 5 in 2016.  Not quite as many trades, but the Wolves have quietly been tanking for awhile now and appear headed for another high pick this year.

actually, we do understand. but we are reaching different conclusions. for me, holding out minnesota as a success story doesnt convince me.

to each their own. this wont play out for a long time yet. but clearly the ownership of philly has publically declared their opinions about hinkie's plan. i doubt they would repeat this "process" exactly as done so far.

I didn't hold out Minnesota as a success story, though they certainly could be.  I was merely pointing out that the Sixers strategy is used all the time by many teams, including one (i.e. Minnesota) at the exact same time as the Sixers.

[MBunge]

Is Noel even good? We've only seen flashes. Time is ticking. Same for Okafor.

Philly's problem may not be crowded talent, but just an overall lack of it. Noel and Okafor may only be bench players from what we've seen so maybe we should value them like bench players and Philly shouldn't act like their giving up starting level talent for a discount. This is basically what some predicted back at the draft. Their value would only go down and it has.

Interesting point. And if accurate it bodes very poorly for hinkies approach to a rebuild.

Not really.  Hinkie's approach was to maximize the quality and quantity of picks because you can't count on a particular pick or draft for success.  They have Embiid and Simmons to build around regardless of how well Okafor and Noel turn out or what they trade them for.  They have the Laker 17/18 1st and the Kings 19 1st in addition to their 1sts over the next 3 years.  They also have maintained great cap space.  Maximizing opportunities while maintaining flexibility is the best approach to a rebuild.

But then all your eggs are in one draft basket, which is dangerous. Minnesota has how many top draft picks now?

Lest wait. Really, lets wait for 4 years and see. 

I see the fact that Noel and Okafor might not pan out as a reason why Hinkie had the strategy he did. In the past some teams may have tanked for a year or two and ended up with a couple high picks like Noel and Okafor, who might prove not to be worth tanking for. So Hinkie's strategy was to acquire as many high picks as possible so even though you may end up with a Noel, you also get an Embiid.

It's not that Hinkie's strategy doesn't work. I don't think there's a valid argument against it's concept. The question is whether the Hinkie process is worth the cost. And the cost turns out to be more than just wins and losses and dates on a calendar. It's the psychological wear and tear, the perception of and pressure on relationships within the team and around the league etc. It may be a larger cost than anticipated and requires more investment each year.

It still may be worth it. You tank for cornerstone guys and if you get one or two of them, it's worth it. They have Embiid who looks absolutely worth it if he can stay healthy. And maybe Simmons. They have another high pick coming this year. If they end up with even two legit stars, it doesn't matter who else comes and goes.

Ironically, this was all about "the process" and will ultimately be judged by "the result". Like you said, we'll wait and see.

There are two elements of Hinkie's strategy, however, that you don't need any more time to evaluate.

1.  His strategy is entirely dependent on luck.  In all these years of tanking, they only got the #1 pick once.  If the ping pong balls bounce a little different, they don't get Simmons.  If Embiid isn't hurt, they don't get him with the third pick.

Now, most winning teams get lucky but their strategy is to do the best they can and then hope for a little luck to put them over the top.  Hinkie's strategy was the equivalent of mortgaging your house to buy lottery tickets.

2.  The drive to be as bad as possible to all those extra ping pong balls meant that when the tank was over, meant the team would have no secondary or tertiary assets.  They have no real way of improving the team that doesn't involve trading one of their core pieces.

Mike

You don't really understand the Sixers strategy.  It was about maximizing the opportunity to acquire franchise altering talent.  They determined (and perhaps rightly so) that the best way to do that was to acquire that franchise altering talent through the draft.  And because the draft is a crap shoot, you have to give yourself as many opportunities as possible as high in the draft as possible.  The best way to do that is for your team to be very bad to increase the likelihood of a high pick for multiple years and acquire other 1st round picks to fill in with depth.  It is nothing like a lottery pick which is totally random. 

And the Sixers had the #1 pick one year because the Sixers were the worst team that one year.  The other two years of the tank, the Sixers weren't the worst team in the league.  Through their crafty trading they acquired 2 other lottery picks in those 4 years and still have the potential for multiple other lottery picks from other teams over the next few. 

The Timberwolves did basically the same thing.  In 2013, traded 9 (Burke) for 14 (Muhammad), 21 (Dieng).   Then they really started tanking in the summer of 2014.  They got Lavine at 13 and then later that summer traded Love for Wiggins (1 in 2014) ensuring a tank job. Ended up with the worst record and the 1st pick and took Towns at 1 in 2015 and followed that up with Dunn at 5 in 2016.  Not quite as many trades, but the Wolves have quietly been tanking for awhile now and appear headed for another high pick this year.

At the risk of starting this nonsense over again, YOU are the one who does not understand Hinkie's strategy and you manage to do that even as you point out the perfect counter-example in the Wolves.

In the NBA lottery, the worst record in the league has a 75% chance of NOT getting the #1 pick.  If you have the worst record the next year, you have a 75% chance of NOT getting the #1 pick.  If you have the worst record for a third year in a row, you still have a  75% chance of NOT getting the #1 pick.  It does not matter how bad you are.  It does not matter how long you suck.  You are still mostly likely NOT going to get the #1 pick, so a tanking strategy built on getting the #1 pick is entirely dependent on luck.

And the Wolves are the great counter-example because they did not tank like the Sixers.  They did not trade off every decent player to try and be as bad as they could be, but they still wound up getting as many #1 picks in the last 4 years as Philly.  And you know who Philly could have picked instead of getting Elfrid Payton and trading him for the rights to Dario Saric?  Zach Levine.

Now, the Hinkie strategy wasn't completely crazy and he might still be in charge if he'd managed the whole thing a bit better.  BUT IT'S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE.  People like me perfectly understand it.  We just have a different opinion as to its merits.

Mike

[moiso]

Mike is right.  The Wolves never tanked like the Sixers.  Moving on from Love, who wanted out, is not tanking.  Signing Pekovic, Dieng, and Rubio is not tanking.  Hiring Thibs is not tanking.  Just because they are a young team with several guys with very high upside does not mean they have been trying to lose games.   

[Moranis]

Mike is right.  The Wolves never tanked like the Sixers.  Moving on from Love, who wanted out, is not tanking.  Signing Pekovic, Dieng, and Rubio is not tanking.  Hiring Thibs is not tanking.  Just because they are a young team with several guys with very high upside does not mean they have been trying to lose games.

Wolves moves of note since July 1, 2014 (not including the draft)

Trade - Love, Mbah a Moute, Shved for Wiggins, Bennett, Young
Re-Sign - Rubio
Trade - Brewer, Turiaf for Daniels, '15 2nd, '16 2nd, cash
Trade - highly protected '17 1st (likely will be a 2nd) for Payne
Trade - Williams, Daniels, cash for Neal, 2nd
Trade - Young for Garnett
Trade - Osman, Christmas, 2nd for Jones
Re-Sign - Garnett
Sign - Bjelica (who was a draft pick of theirs from 2010)
Sign - Miller and Prince as free agents
Waived - Miller
Waived - Martin
Fired - Mitchell
Hired - Thibs
Sign - Rush, Aldrich, Hill in free agency
Re-Sign - Dieng

That doesn't exactly strike me as a team that is trying to win.  Strikes me as a team that pretty consistently traded veteran talent for future assets and signed a couple of veterans that wouldn't move the needle in the win department at all while re-signing a couple of their young guys (Rubio and Dieng). 

Did Minnesota go around announcing to the world that they were tanking, of course not, but they were clearly tanking.  Their moves in the last 2+ years all lead to that conclusion.  Now obviously they hired Thibs because they thought he was the guy that could get all of that young talent they had acquired to start living up to the potential.  Thus far that hasn't happened, but I would expect the Wolves to start making win now type moves because they have Towns and Wiggins to build around with Lavine and Dieng showing nice promise as 3rd and 4th options.  You tank to acquire what you believe is a championship core.  You stop tanking once you acquire those players.  The Wolves and Sixers both are entering that building towards a winner phase because they both acquired what they believe to be a possible championship core. 

[celticsclay]

Mike is right.  The Wolves never tanked like the Sixers.  Moving on from Love, who wanted out, is not tanking.  Signing Pekovic, Dieng, and Rubio is not tanking.  Hiring Thibs is not tanking.  Just because they are a young team with several guys with very high upside does not mean they have been trying to lose games.

It was a 85% tank which is what most tanks are. I believe they had guys like Thad young, Kevin Martin, Andre Miller, KG, Pekovic (when it seemed like he still had some talent). These guys didn't move the needle Much in terms of wins but players like KAT have spoken repeatedly about how being around KG helped him. As moranis points out this was probably one of the mistakes hinkie made. Not having more players like KG,Miller or Brand around sooner. Hinkie wanted to use those last spots trying to find more assets/not give the team a chance to steal a win or two more.

[celticsclay]

By the way this thread was supposed to be about Noel 😔

[Moranis]

Is Noel even good? We've only seen flashes. Time is ticking. Same for Okafor.

Philly's problem may not be crowded talent, but just an overall lack of it. Noel and Okafor may only be bench players from what we've seen so maybe we should value them like bench players and Philly shouldn't act like their giving up starting level talent for a discount. This is basically what some predicted back at the draft. Their value would only go down and it has.

Interesting point. And if accurate it bodes very poorly for hinkies approach to a rebuild.

Not really.  Hinkie's approach was to maximize the quality and quantity of picks because you can't count on a particular pick or draft for success.  They have Embiid and Simmons to build around regardless of how well Okafor and Noel turn out or what they trade them for.  They have the Laker 17/18 1st and the Kings 19 1st in addition to their 1sts over the next 3 years.  They also have maintained great cap space.  Maximizing opportunities while maintaining flexibility is the best approach to a rebuild.

But then all your eggs are in one draft basket, which is dangerous. Minnesota has how many top draft picks now?

Lest wait. Really, lets wait for 4 years and see. 

I see the fact that Noel and Okafor might not pan out as a reason why Hinkie had the strategy he did. In the past some teams may have tanked for a year or two and ended up with a couple high picks like Noel and Okafor, who might prove not to be worth tanking for. So Hinkie's strategy was to acquire as many high picks as possible so even though you may end up with a Noel, you also get an Embiid.

It's not that Hinkie's strategy doesn't work. I don't think there's a valid argument against it's concept. The question is whether the Hinkie process is worth the cost. And the cost turns out to be more than just wins and losses and dates on a calendar. It's the psychological wear and tear, the perception of and pressure on relationships within the team and around the league etc. It may be a larger cost than anticipated and requires more investment each year.

It still may be worth it. You tank for cornerstone guys and if you get one or two of them, it's worth it. They have Embiid who looks absolutely worth it if he can stay healthy. And maybe Simmons. They have another high pick coming this year. If they end up with even two legit stars, it doesn't matter who else comes and goes.

Ironically, this was all about "the process" and will ultimately be judged by "the result". Like you said, we'll wait and see.

There are two elements of Hinkie's strategy, however, that you don't need any more time to evaluate.

1.  His strategy is entirely dependent on luck.  In all these years of tanking, they only got the #1 pick once.  If the ping pong balls bounce a little different, they don't get Simmons.  If Embiid isn't hurt, they don't get him with the third pick.

Now, most winning teams get lucky but their strategy is to do the best they can and then hope for a little luck to put them over the top.  Hinkie's strategy was the equivalent of mortgaging your house to buy lottery tickets.

2.  The drive to be as bad as possible to all those extra ping pong balls meant that when the tank was over, meant the team would have no secondary or tertiary assets.  They have no real way of improving the team that doesn't involve trading one of their core pieces.

Mike

You don't really understand the Sixers strategy.  It was about maximizing the opportunity to acquire franchise altering talent.  They determined (and perhaps rightly so) that the best way to do that was to acquire that franchise altering talent through the draft.  And because the draft is a crap shoot, you have to give yourself as many opportunities as possible as high in the draft as possible.  The best way to do that is for your team to be very bad to increase the likelihood of a high pick for multiple years and acquire other 1st round picks to fill in with depth.  It is nothing like a lottery pick which is totally random. 

And the Sixers had the #1 pick one year because the Sixers were the worst team that one year.  The other two years of the tank, the Sixers weren't the worst team in the league.  Through their crafty trading they acquired 2 other lottery picks in those 4 years and still have the potential for multiple other lottery picks from other teams over the next few. 

The Timberwolves did basically the same thing.  In 2013, traded 9 (Burke) for 14 (Muhammad), 21 (Dieng).   Then they really started tanking in the summer of 2014.  They got Lavine at 13 and then later that summer traded Love for Wiggins (1 in 2014) ensuring a tank job. Ended up with the worst record and the 1st pick and took Towns at 1 in 2015 and followed that up with Dunn at 5 in 2016.  Not quite as many trades, but the Wolves have quietly been tanking for awhile now and appear headed for another high pick this year.

At the risk of starting this nonsense over again, YOU are the one who does not understand Hinkie's strategy and you manage to do that even as you point out the perfect counter-example in the Wolves.

In the NBA lottery, the worst record in the league has a 75% chance of NOT getting the #1 pick.  If you have the worst record the next year, you have a 75% chance of NOT getting the #1 pick.  If you have the worst record for a third year in a row, you still have a  75% chance of NOT getting the #1 pick.  It does not matter how bad you are.  It does not matter how long you suck.  You are still mostly likely NOT going to get the #1 pick, so a tanking strategy built on getting the #1 pick is entirely dependent on luck.

And the Wolves are the great counter-example because they did not tank like the Sixers.  They did not trade off every decent player to try and be as bad as they could be, but they still wound up getting as many #1 picks in the last 4 years as Philly.  And you know who Philly could have picked instead of getting Elfrid Payton and trading him for the rights to Dario Saric?  Zach Levine.

Now, the Hinkie strategy wasn't completely crazy and he might still be in charge if he'd managed the whole thing a bit better.  BUT IT'S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE.  People like me perfectly understand it.  We just have a different opinion as to its merits.

Mike

The Sixers strategy wasn't to acquire #1 picks.  It was to acquire high draft picks so that they would be in a position to acquire franchise altering talent.  That is exactly what they did.  They made sure they were bad enough that they would be guaranteed a top 5 pick, which they were for three straight years and in which they ended up drafting 3, 3, 1.  They traded other players to acquire 6 and 12 in other drafts and still have the Lakers 1st and some Sacto 1st's in future drafts.  The strategy was never let's get the #1 pick because as you point out it takes luck to get the #1, the strategy was to guarantee a high draft pick, because high draft picks turn into franchise altering talent far more often then even picks 5-10.  Now sure, landing the #1 pick every year would have been preferred for their strategy, but it wasn't about acquiring the #1 pick, it was about putting themselves in the best position to draft as high as possible and they didn't even do that right as 2 of the 3 years of the tank they didn't even end up with the worst record in the league.

[tazzmaniac]

Noel is listed as questionable but he practiced yesterday.  Just might see Embiid, Okafor and Noel all playing together for the 1st time tonight against the Lakers. 

[Eddie20]

Noel is listed as questionable but he practiced yesterday.  Just might see Embiid, Okafor and Noel all playing together for the 1st time tonight against the Lakers.

Scary and not in a good way.

[celticsclay]

Embiid has now called Noel his best friend and says he wants to try playing with him. Interesting stuff

[tankcity!]

Embiid has now called Noel his best friend and says he wants to try playing with him. Interesting stuff

I'm starting to think they're going to trade Okafor instead.