Sam Hinkie was a genius. He's 100% right now.

[nickagneta]

For all further posts about Hinkie I'm just gonna link people to Ryan Bernardoni's great piece on the subject:

http://www.celticshub.com/2018/04/09/misplacing-trust-process/

I like this piece a lot Phosita. I particularly liked this discussion point:

"The supportive fans certainly feel like they’ve been vindicated and won, which maybe is all that matters in something as ethereal as sports fandom. They’ve leaned into tribalism and self-aggrandizement as much as any fan base in recent American sports memory. They make Deflategate-period Patriots fans look rational. As strong an argument can be made that they sacrificed years of enjoying their team to end up in the same place as their peers, though. Do Jazz fans wish that they had tanked away a four year span? Maybe the defiance from Process Trusters is as much a coping mechanism as true search for vindication."

I think that in a nutshell is why we see so many of these threads popping up. Even our fans that were invested in this process and debated it over the years now want to try and prove that they were very intelligent in their invested arguments over the year even though a team like the jazz or timberwolves is in a very similar spot from a completely different path. (When I was watching the wolves yesterday I couldn't help but they they would be favorites to win the east if they were in it)

To say the Jazz and the Sixers are in the same place is pretty silly.  This season they did end up around the same amount of wins (though the Sixers are a betting favorite for the ECF and the Jazz likely won't get out of the 1st round), but what do people think next year will look like, or the year after, or the year after, or the 5 to 10 years after that.

This certainly seems less silly by the day as both teams are now up 3-1 with the Jazz playing a superior opponent in the first round. Look for the Jazz to give Houston some trouble if they reach the second round as their defense is very legit. Gobert is a true difference maker.

No Clay, wrong, it’s silly to compare Philly and Utah.

Utah won a game in the second round on the road against the #1 seed without their point guard. Philly will be lucky to win a second round game at all while fully healthy and getting all the calls.

Right? And Mitchell has performed constistently across two rounds of the playoffs and Simmons has disappeared. Yet somehow Simmons is transcendent and Mitchell is meh? Then still waiting on response from the 20-9-4 saric crowd

Yeah Mitchell really came through in game 3  Tatum has been by far the best and most consistent rookie in the playoffs.

Yeah, and yet when ESPN asked which rookie postseason star is the real ROY, they didn't even bring up Jayson Tatum. ESPN sucks.

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/23379710/who-best-rookie-season-ben-simmons-donovan-mitchell

[LarBrd33]

He wasn’t a genius but he made some quality trades and Philly’s plan to bottom out over multiple years made it statistically probable they would end up with a star.   They hit home runs on 2 out of 3 picks and have found themselves with arguably their best season in nearly 20 years in their first year together.  It was absolutely a success.  They changed the lotto rules for a reason

Is it true that the Sixers planned to be at the bottom for several years? They got lucky/unlucky when Embiid suffered injuries that kept him out multiple years. I think they stayed at the bottom involuntarily. Suppose Embiid is healthy when he was picked. He might have dragged that team to the middle of the lottery ranks with a half-decent supporting cast, especially in the depleted East of a few years ago. That would mean no Simmons. And while Embiid is good, the "process" story can turn into a plan to capture multiple stars - including Simmons. I don't think they really planned it that way.

The Sixers are one of the most weirdly lucky/unlucky teams.

A little of both.  There were at least two seasons where they punted on the present with the explicit goal of maximizing their draft chances.   It started when they moved Jrue Holiday for future assets - which helped them bottom out for Embiid.  Then, they took Embiid despite the fact he was going to miss a full season.  Embiid missing the second season was a bit unexpected, but at that point they made the decision to avoid being competitive.  They did that by filling their roster with d-league talent and avoiding signing veterans.  That gave them 3 cracks at a star - Embiid, Okafor and Simmons.  They nailed 2 out of 3.

Why is Simmons a star? Is it because he gets numbers? He is talented, athletic, and has the ball in his hands a large majority of the time, so getting numbers go with the territory. However, a large percentage of those are empty, he can't shoot a lick, and makes really bad decisions during crucial moments. Plus, he doesn't seem like he really "wants it". There's very little fight in him. Very reminiscent of Jeff Green when it comes to his lackadaisical on-court attitude.

I think we're playing amazing basketball against the rookie and he's struggled big time against our defensive schemes.  Simmons has obvious flaws in his games, but he's also incredible.  He's played bad in this series.  No-doubt.  But he's also a kid who put up rookie stats on a par with Magic Johnson and averaged 18 points, 10.6 rebounds, 9 assists and 2.4 steals with 50% shooting in Round 1.   

I think in the effort to bash Philly we're underselling just how incredible Boston has been in Round 2.  Between Horford frustrating the heck out of Embiid, our defense (hot off having to deal with Giannis) limiting Simmons, and the otherworldly consistent offense from Rozier/Tatum, the big story of this series has been what Boston is doing. 

Something you and I never agreed on, Ed.  I believed it was possible for Philly's plan to be a success while at the same time falling short of what Boston accomplished.  You seem to measure Philly's success by whether or not they end up better than Boston. 

That was never my point.  My point was that Philly had been irrelevant for the better part of 30 years and I supported the drastic measures they were taking to change that.  When compared to other teams in the league, it's pretty clear this has been an amazing turn-around for them that would not have happened unless they took those drastic steps.  There's 6 teams with playoff droughts 5+ years.  Teams like Orlando who have hovered around 20-35 wins the past 6 years (total of 157 wins) didn't go all-in while a team like Philly who suffered through a few sub-20 win seasons over the past 6 years (total of 161 wins) are now one of the best team's in the East.  This has been their best season in nearly 20 years.  They are set up beautifully heading forward.  Both of those statements can be true while at the same time saying "Boston is even more incredible". 

Same reason I'm not going to consider Boston's season a failure if Golden State sweeps through the Finals.

The bolded part is definitely not true. I do think tanking teams could eventually find success by having great players fall in their lap. My main disagreement with you is that you thought EVERY player they ever drafted in the lottery (see Noel, Okafor, Saric, etc.) was that said great player. Clearly time has shown who's correct on those guys. 

We'll see what happens with Embiid, who is a generational type talent, but I still remain dubious that we've seen the last of his injury issues. One season of relatively good health (Walton 86) doesn't mean he won't have those same issues persist down the road. That's a big dude, carrying a lot of weight, on some feet that don't seem built to last.

I try not to speculate on future injury concerns considering the two best players on my team played less games combined than Joel Embiid this season and neither of them are participating in the playoffs. 

The Flat Mamba has been injury prone for years and we have no idea if Granton Hillward will ever return value on his fat contract.

Your love for all things Celtics just oozes out of you when you use derogatory names for our 2 stars. Funny I don't remember you doing the same thing for any Sixer players.

Flat Mamba is a name Kyrie Irving embraces as an open flat earther.  Granton Hillward was just a Freudian slip.  I keep thinking about the time Orlando gave grant hill max money and he ended up playing like 22 games over his contract.

Hayward might come back healthy some day.  I wouldn’t go as far as to call him “one of our stars” though.  He’s played 5 minutes of Celtic basketball and for all we know might be averaging 9-12 points off the bench next season.

[gouki88]

He wasn’t a genius but he made some quality trades and Philly’s plan to bottom out over multiple years made it statistically probable they would end up with a star.   They hit home runs on 2 out of 3 picks and have found themselves with arguably their best season in nearly 20 years in their first year together.  It was absolutely a success.  They changed the lotto rules for a reason

Is it true that the Sixers planned to be at the bottom for several years? They got lucky/unlucky when Embiid suffered injuries that kept him out multiple years. I think they stayed at the bottom involuntarily. Suppose Embiid is healthy when he was picked. He might have dragged that team to the middle of the lottery ranks with a half-decent supporting cast, especially in the depleted East of a few years ago. That would mean no Simmons. And while Embiid is good, the "process" story can turn into a plan to capture multiple stars - including Simmons. I don't think they really planned it that way.

The Sixers are one of the most weirdly lucky/unlucky teams.

A little of both.  There were at least two seasons where they punted on the present with the explicit goal of maximizing their draft chances.   It started when they moved Jrue Holiday for future assets - which helped them bottom out for Embiid.  Then, they took Embiid despite the fact he was going to miss a full season.  Embiid missing the second season was a bit unexpected, but at that point they made the decision to avoid being competitive.  They did that by filling their roster with d-league talent and avoiding signing veterans.  That gave them 3 cracks at a star - Embiid, Okafor and Simmons.  They nailed 2 out of 3.

Why is Simmons a star? Is it because he gets numbers? He is talented, athletic, and has the ball in his hands a large majority of the time, so getting numbers go with the territory. However, a large percentage of those are empty, he can't shoot a lick, and makes really bad decisions during crucial moments. Plus, he doesn't seem like he really "wants it". There's very little fight in him. Very reminiscent of Jeff Green when it comes to his lackadaisical on-court attitude.

I think we're playing amazing basketball against the rookie and he's struggled big time against our defensive schemes.  Simmons has obvious flaws in his games, but he's also incredible.  He's played bad in this series.  No-doubt.  But he's also a kid who put up rookie stats on a par with Magic Johnson and averaged 18 points, 10.6 rebounds, 9 assists and 2.4 steals with 50% shooting in Round 1.   

I think in the effort to bash Philly we're underselling just how incredible Boston has been in Round 2.  Between Horford frustrating the heck out of Embiid, our defense (hot off having to deal with Giannis) limiting Simmons, and the otherworldly consistent offense from Rozier/Tatum, the big story of this series has been what Boston is doing. 

Something you and I never agreed on, Ed.  I believed it was possible for Philly's plan to be a success while at the same time falling short of what Boston accomplished.  You seem to measure Philly's success by whether or not they end up better than Boston. 

That was never my point.  My point was that Philly had been irrelevant for the better part of 30 years and I supported the drastic measures they were taking to change that.  When compared to other teams in the league, it's pretty clear this has been an amazing turn-around for them that would not have happened unless they took those drastic steps.  There's 6 teams with playoff droughts 5+ years.  Teams like Orlando who have hovered around 20-35 wins the past 6 years (total of 157 wins) didn't go all-in while a team like Philly who suffered through a few sub-20 win seasons over the past 6 years (total of 161 wins) are now one of the best team's in the East.  This has been their best season in nearly 20 years.  They are set up beautifully heading forward.  Both of those statements can be true while at the same time saying "Boston is even more incredible". 

Same reason I'm not going to consider Boston's season a failure if Golden State sweeps through the Finals.

The bolded part is definitely not true. I do think tanking teams could eventually find success by having great players fall in their lap. My main disagreement with you is that you thought EVERY player they ever drafted in the lottery (see Noel, Okafor, Saric, etc.) was that said great player. Clearly time has shown who's correct on those guys. 

We'll see what happens with Embiid, who is a generational type talent, but I still remain dubious that we've seen the last of his injury issues. One season of relatively good health (Walton 86) doesn't mean he won't have those same issues persist down the road. That's a big dude, carrying a lot of weight, on some feet that don't seem built to last.

I try not to speculate on future injury concerns considering the two best players on my team played less games combined than Joel Embiid this season and neither of them are participating in the playoffs. 

The Flat Mamba has been injury prone for years and we have no idea if Granton Hillward will ever return value on his fat contract.

Your love for all things Celtics just oozes out of you when you use derogatory names for our 2 stars. Funny I don't remember you doing the same thing for any Sixer players.

Flat Mamba is a name Kyrie Irving embraces as an open flat earther.  Granton Hillward was just a Freudian slip.  I keep thinking about the time Orlando gave grant hill max money and he ended up playing like 22 games over his contract.

Hayward might come back healthy some day.  I wouldn’t go as far as to call him “one of our stars” though.  He’s played 5 minutes of Celtic basketball and for all we know might be averaging 9-12 points off the bench next season.

Except there’s nothing indicating Hayward will be like that, but for some reason you seem to keep saying (or maybe hoping) things like “he may never come back the same”

It was a pretty horrfic and gruesome injury, but there has been no indication that he will not be the same

[Eddie20]

He wasn’t a genius but he made some quality trades and Philly’s plan to bottom out over multiple years made it statistically probable they would end up with a star.   They hit home runs on 2 out of 3 picks and have found themselves with arguably their best season in nearly 20 years in their first year together.  It was absolutely a success.  They changed the lotto rules for a reason

Is it true that the Sixers planned to be at the bottom for several years? They got lucky/unlucky when Embiid suffered injuries that kept him out multiple years. I think they stayed at the bottom involuntarily. Suppose Embiid is healthy when he was picked. He might have dragged that team to the middle of the lottery ranks with a half-decent supporting cast, especially in the depleted East of a few years ago. That would mean no Simmons. And while Embiid is good, the "process" story can turn into a plan to capture multiple stars - including Simmons. I don't think they really planned it that way.

The Sixers are one of the most weirdly lucky/unlucky teams.

A little of both.  There were at least two seasons where they punted on the present with the explicit goal of maximizing their draft chances.   It started when they moved Jrue Holiday for future assets - which helped them bottom out for Embiid.  Then, they took Embiid despite the fact he was going to miss a full season.  Embiid missing the second season was a bit unexpected, but at that point they made the decision to avoid being competitive.  They did that by filling their roster with d-league talent and avoiding signing veterans.  That gave them 3 cracks at a star - Embiid, Okafor and Simmons.  They nailed 2 out of 3.

Why is Simmons a star? Is it because he gets numbers? He is talented, athletic, and has the ball in his hands a large majority of the time, so getting numbers go with the territory. However, a large percentage of those are empty, he can't shoot a lick, and makes really bad decisions during crucial moments. Plus, he doesn't seem like he really "wants it". There's very little fight in him. Very reminiscent of Jeff Green when it comes to his lackadaisical on-court attitude.

I think we're playing amazing basketball against the rookie and he's struggled big time against our defensive schemes.  Simmons has obvious flaws in his games, but he's also incredible.  He's played bad in this series.  No-doubt.  But he's also a kid who put up rookie stats on a par with Magic Johnson and averaged 18 points, 10.6 rebounds, 9 assists and 2.4 steals with 50% shooting in Round 1.   

I think in the effort to bash Philly we're underselling just how incredible Boston has been in Round 2.  Between Horford frustrating the heck out of Embiid, our defense (hot off having to deal with Giannis) limiting Simmons, and the otherworldly consistent offense from Rozier/Tatum, the big story of this series has been what Boston is doing. 

Something you and I never agreed on, Ed.  I believed it was possible for Philly's plan to be a success while at the same time falling short of what Boston accomplished.  You seem to measure Philly's success by whether or not they end up better than Boston. 

That was never my point.  My point was that Philly had been irrelevant for the better part of 30 years and I supported the drastic measures they were taking to change that.  When compared to other teams in the league, it's pretty clear this has been an amazing turn-around for them that would not have happened unless they took those drastic steps.  There's 6 teams with playoff droughts 5+ years.  Teams like Orlando who have hovered around 20-35 wins the past 6 years (total of 157 wins) didn't go all-in while a team like Philly who suffered through a few sub-20 win seasons over the past 6 years (total of 161 wins) are now one of the best team's in the East.  This has been their best season in nearly 20 years.  They are set up beautifully heading forward.  Both of those statements can be true while at the same time saying "Boston is even more incredible". 

Same reason I'm not going to consider Boston's season a failure if Golden State sweeps through the Finals.

The bolded part is definitely not true. I do think tanking teams could eventually find success by having great players fall in their lap. My main disagreement with you is that you thought EVERY player they ever drafted in the lottery (see Noel, Okafor, Saric, etc.) was that said great player. Clearly time has shown who's correct on those guys. 

We'll see what happens with Embiid, who is a generational type talent, but I still remain dubious that we've seen the last of his injury issues. One season of relatively good health (Walton 86) doesn't mean he won't have those same issues persist down the road. That's a big dude, carrying a lot of weight, on some feet that don't seem built to last.

I try not to speculate on future injury concerns considering the two best players on my team played less games combined than Joel Embiid this season and neither of them are participating in the playoffs. 

The Flat Mamba has been injury prone for years and we have no idea if Granton Hillward will ever return value on his fat contract.

Your love for all things Celtics just oozes out of you when you use derogatory names for our 2 stars. Funny I don't remember you doing the same thing for any Sixer players.

Flat Mamba is a name Kyrie Irving embraces as an open flat earther.  Granton Hillward was just a Freudian slip.  I keep thinking about the time Orlando gave grant hill max money and he ended up playing like 22 games over his contract.

Hayward might come back healthy some day.  I wouldn’t go as far as to call him “one of our stars” though.  He’s played 5 minutes of Celtic basketball and for all we know might be averaging 9-12 points off the bench next season.

Except there’s nothing indicating Hayward will be like that, but for some reason you seem to keep saying (or maybe hoping) things like “he may never come back the same”

It was a pretty horrfic and gruesome injury, but there has been no indication that he will not be the same

Exactly. He just remembers Hill having ankle issues and immediately tries to draw comparisons between the two. The link below will help LB out.

Grant Hill discusses in provocative detail how he believes Detroit and Orlando team doctors and training staffs mismanaged his ankle injury and damaged what potentially could’ve been a transcendent career.

Hill had surgery on his ankle in May. He visited Orlando in July while still needing the help of crutches. He signed a contract in August. By Labor Day, the Magic had him participating in pickup games.


https://www.foxsports.com/nba/story/grant-hill-says-detroit-orlando-mismanaged-injuries-042711

[nickagneta]

Isn't Gordon Hayward's injury extremeky similar to Paul George's horrific brojen leg which he returned from and over the last three years have averaged about 23 PPG, 6.5 RPG, 3.5 APG while shooting about 45/39/85 with a PER around 20 and a win share per 48 at around .145?

Seems like Hayward should return to form if George could do so with an extremely similar injury.

[Vox_Populi]

I remember when Nerlens Noel had more trade value than Marcus Smart. Good times.

[gouki88]

Isn't Gordon Hayward's injury extremeky similar to Paul George's horrific brojen leg which he returned from and over the last three years have averaged about 23 PPG, 6.5 RPG, 3.5 APG while shooting about 45/39/85 with a PER around 20 and a win share per 48 at around .145?

Seems like Hayward should return to form if George could do so with an extremely similar injury.

Exactly. And George is more of an athletic player than Hayward. No indication at all that Hayward will be "averaging 9-12 points off the bench."

Hayward turning into a worse Marcus Morris is a pretty hilarious take

[smokeablount]

He wasn’t a genius but he made some quality trades and Philly’s plan to bottom out over multiple years made it statistically probable they would end up with a star.   They hit home runs on 2 out of 3 picks and have found themselves with arguably their best season in nearly 20 years in their first year together.  It was absolutely a success.  They changed the lotto rules for a reason

Is it true that the Sixers planned to be at the bottom for several years? They got lucky/unlucky when Embiid suffered injuries that kept him out multiple years. I think they stayed at the bottom involuntarily. Suppose Embiid is healthy when he was picked. He might have dragged that team to the middle of the lottery ranks with a half-decent supporting cast, especially in the depleted East of a few years ago. That would mean no Simmons. And while Embiid is good, the "process" story can turn into a plan to capture multiple stars - including Simmons. I don't think they really planned it that way.

The Sixers are one of the most weirdly lucky/unlucky teams.

A little of both.  There were at least two seasons where they punted on the present with the explicit goal of maximizing their draft chances.   It started when they moved Jrue Holiday for future assets - which helped them bottom out for Embiid.  Then, they took Embiid despite the fact he was going to miss a full season.  Embiid missing the second season was a bit unexpected, but at that point they made the decision to avoid being competitive.  They did that by filling their roster with d-league talent and avoiding signing veterans.  That gave them 3 cracks at a star - Embiid, Okafor and Simmons.  They nailed 2 out of 3.

Why is Simmons a star? Is it because he gets numbers? He is talented, athletic, and has the ball in his hands a large majority of the time, so getting numbers go with the territory. However, a large percentage of those are empty, he can't shoot a lick, and makes really bad decisions during crucial moments. Plus, he doesn't seem like he really "wants it". There's very little fight in him. Very reminiscent of Jeff Green when it comes to his lackadaisical on-court attitude.

I think we're playing amazing basketball against the rookie and he's struggled big time against our defensive schemes.  Simmons has obvious flaws in his games, but he's also incredible.  He's played bad in this series.  No-doubt.  But he's also a kid who put up rookie stats on a par with Magic Johnson and averaged 18 points, 10.6 rebounds, 9 assists and 2.4 steals with 50% shooting in Round 1.   

I think in the effort to bash Philly we're underselling just how incredible Boston has been in Round 2.  Between Horford frustrating the heck out of Embiid, our defense (hot off having to deal with Giannis) limiting Simmons, and the otherworldly consistent offense from Rozier/Tatum, the big story of this series has been what Boston is doing. 

Something you and I never agreed on, Ed.  I believed it was possible for Philly's plan to be a success while at the same time falling short of what Boston accomplished.  You seem to measure Philly's success by whether or not they end up better than Boston. 

That was never my point.  My point was that Philly had been irrelevant for the better part of 30 years and I supported the drastic measures they were taking to change that.  When compared to other teams in the league, it's pretty clear this has been an amazing turn-around for them that would not have happened unless they took those drastic steps.  There's 6 teams with playoff droughts 5+ years.  Teams like Orlando who have hovered around 20-35 wins the past 6 years (total of 157 wins) didn't go all-in while a team like Philly who suffered through a few sub-20 win seasons over the past 6 years (total of 161 wins) are now one of the best team's in the East.  This has been their best season in nearly 20 years.  They are set up beautifully heading forward.  Both of those statements can be true while at the same time saying "Boston is even more incredible". 

Same reason I'm not going to consider Boston's season a failure if Golden State sweeps through the Finals.

This sounds rational and not like trolling... who is this bizarro LarBrd33?

[smokeablount]

He wasn’t a genius but he made some quality trades and Philly’s plan to bottom out over multiple years made it statistically probable they would end up with a star.   They hit home runs on 2 out of 3 picks and have found themselves with arguably their best season in nearly 20 years in their first year together.  It was absolutely a success.  They changed the lotto rules for a reason

Is it true that the Sixers planned to be at the bottom for several years? They got lucky/unlucky when Embiid suffered injuries that kept him out multiple years. I think they stayed at the bottom involuntarily. Suppose Embiid is healthy when he was picked. He might have dragged that team to the middle of the lottery ranks with a half-decent supporting cast, especially in the depleted East of a few years ago. That would mean no Simmons. And while Embiid is good, the "process" story can turn into a plan to capture multiple stars - including Simmons. I don't think they really planned it that way.

The Sixers are one of the most weirdly lucky/unlucky teams.

A little of both.  There were at least two seasons where they punted on the present with the explicit goal of maximizing their draft chances.   It started when they moved Jrue Holiday for future assets - which helped them bottom out for Embiid.  Then, they took Embiid despite the fact he was going to miss a full season.  Embiid missing the second season was a bit unexpected, but at that point they made the decision to avoid being competitive.  They did that by filling their roster with d-league talent and avoiding signing veterans.  That gave them 3 cracks at a star - Embiid, Okafor and Simmons.  They nailed 2 out of 3.

Why is Simmons a star? Is it because he gets numbers? He is talented, athletic, and has the ball in his hands a large majority of the time, so getting numbers go with the territory. However, a large percentage of those are empty, he can't shoot a lick, and makes really bad decisions during crucial moments. Plus, he doesn't seem like he really "wants it". There's very little fight in him. Very reminiscent of Jeff Green when it comes to his lackadaisical on-court attitude.

I think we're playing amazing basketball against the rookie and he's struggled big time against our defensive schemes.  Simmons has obvious flaws in his games, but he's also incredible.  He's played bad in this series.  No-doubt.  But he's also a kid who put up rookie stats on a par with Magic Johnson and averaged 18 points, 10.6 rebounds, 9 assists and 2.4 steals with 50% shooting in Round 1.   

I think in the effort to bash Philly we're underselling just how incredible Boston has been in Round 2.  Between Horford frustrating the heck out of Embiid, our defense (hot off having to deal with Giannis) limiting Simmons, and the otherworldly consistent offense from Rozier/Tatum, the big story of this series has been what Boston is doing. 

Something you and I never agreed on, Ed.  I believed it was possible for Philly's plan to be a success while at the same time falling short of what Boston accomplished.  You seem to measure Philly's success by whether or not they end up better than Boston. 

That was never my point.  My point was that Philly had been irrelevant for the better part of 30 years and I supported the drastic measures they were taking to change that.  When compared to other teams in the league, it's pretty clear this has been an amazing turn-around for them that would not have happened unless they took those drastic steps.  There's 6 teams with playoff droughts 5+ years.  Teams like Orlando who have hovered around 20-35 wins the past 6 years (total of 157 wins) didn't go all-in while a team like Philly who suffered through a few sub-20 win seasons over the past 6 years (total of 161 wins) are now one of the best team's in the East.  This has been their best season in nearly 20 years.  They are set up beautifully heading forward.  Both of those statements can be true while at the same time saying "Boston is even more incredible". 

Same reason I'm not going to consider Boston's season a failure if Golden State sweeps through the Finals.

The bolded part is definitely not true. I do think tanking teams could eventually find success by having great players fall in their lap. My main disagreement with you is that you thought EVERY player they ever drafted in the lottery (see Noel, Okafor, Saric, etc.) was that said great player. Clearly time has shown who's correct on those guys. 

We'll see what happens with Embiid, who is a generational type talent, but I still remain dubious that we've seen the last of his injury issues. One season of relatively good health (Walton 86) doesn't mean he won't have those same issues persist down the road. That's a big dude, carrying a lot of weight, on some feet that don't seem built to last.

I try not to speculate on future injury concerns considering the two best players on my team played less games combined than Joel Embiid this season and neither of them are participating in the playoffs. 

The Flat Mamba has been injury prone for years and we have no idea if Granton Hillward will ever return value on his fat contract.

Your love for all things Celtics just oozes out of you when you use derogatory names for our 2 stars. Funny I don't remember you doing the same thing for any Sixer players.

Flat Mamba is a name Kyrie Irving embraces as an open flat earther.  Granton Hillward was just a Freudian slip.  I keep thinking about the time Orlando gave grant hill max money and he ended up playing like 22 games over his contract.

Hayward might come back healthy some day.  I wouldn’t go as far as to call him “one of our stars” though.  He’s played 5 minutes of Celtic basketball and for all we know might be averaging 9-12 points off the bench next season.

Oh, nevermind.

[Granath]

Anyone who thinks Hinkie is a genius must have an IQ of about 60. It doesn't take a genius to tank year after year and hope to get lucky in the lottery.

It may take guts because you'll be known as of the biggest losers of all time and it will cost you your job but it doesn't take smarts or talent. 4 top 3 picks the last 4 years and 5 top 6 picks in the last 5 years isn't genius. It's winning about 20 games a year and getting lucky in the lottery. It's again the product of being willing to lose a lot of games, including one of the top 3 worst seasons of all time (10-72, -10.5 point differential per game). It's then hoping that the lottery balls will go your way. Hinkie is no more a genius than someone who plays the PowerBall and somehow wins.

Two of those top picks are already gone which is a lousy record for such high picks. They've won one playoff series in six years. That's not the definition of success. Philly got their first taste of it this year but they haven't proven or done a thing except lose and lose constantly. This is somehow the work of a genius? If anyone thinks that, then I suggest they go root on the 76er forum and G.T.F.O. of here.

You know what "genius" is? It's rebuilding a team from scratch with few tangible assets and managing to do so with only ONE truly bad season. That's what Danny did. One bad year (2013) AND getting unlucky in the lottery that year - and yet here we are, another 50+ win season while missing our two best players, probably going to the ECF again, multiple great looking youngsters, great and still young All-Star veterans, multiple attractive draft picks and a FA destination. That's genius folks.

I suggest the OP learn the difference between hoping for luck and planning for success.

[nickagneta]

I suggest the OP learn the difference between hoping for luck and planning for success.

15 TPs for this line. Brilliant.

[Emmette Bryant]

I could have done the same job and been even more incompetent for a lot cheaper.

[KG Living Legend]

 Hinkie was still smarter than most of these Teams today. You still need to take the right players. Ainge is the man obviously. They missed on Fultz bad, really bad right now.

 If they took Tatum or Donavon Mitchell they would be hard to beat this year.

 Tatum and the Kings Lottery pick and they have DNP Fultz. How does Ainge keep destroying these GM's. It's impressive.
 
 

[green_bballers13]

He wasn’t a genius but he made some quality trades and Philly’s plan to bottom out over multiple years made it statistically probable they would end up with a star.   They hit home runs on 2 out of 3 picks and have found themselves with arguably their best season in nearly 20 years in their first year together.  It was absolutely a success.  They changed the lotto rules for a reason

PHI looks like they're on a good track, but they need to develop as a team. It's too early to call this a success. Getting to the 2nd round of the playoffs shouldn't be considered an absolute success. Results should matter. They're close to getting swept by a less talented and hurt underdog. LarBrd, was that you working the confetti machine last night?

[pokeKingCurtis]

He wasn’t a genius but he made some quality trades and Philly’s plan to bottom out over multiple years made it statistically probable they would end up with a star.   They hit home runs on 2 out of 3 picks and have found themselves with arguably their best season in nearly 20 years in their first year together.  It was absolutely a success.  They changed the lotto rules for a reason

PHI looks like they're on a good track, but they need to develop as a team. It's too early to call this a success. Getting to the 2nd round of the playoffs shouldn't be considered an absolute success. Results should matter. They're close to getting swept by a less talented and hurt underdog. LarBrd, was that you working the confetti machine last night?

It may be poor taste for me to say this, but a part of me wishes the "Process" would fail, just to show that there's consequences to tanking, and that there's value to building a good culture.