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

[Moranis]

Someone posted this article in CB http://www.celticshub.com/2018/04/09/misplacing-trust-process/ - it is one of the few that put things in the right perspective.

We can go on debating the value of picks all we want, but Bernandoni's article brings out another important aspect of strategic tanking that often goes unnoticed, namely that it can't be tolerated for long in a closed league like the NBA.

The part of Philly's tanking that was disturbing to other franchises wasn't so much their trades (although there is something to be said about trading Jrue Holiday for an injured Noel) nor drafting an injured Embiid - despite how absured it is now for the same franchise to claim Embiid's fragile health as an excuse.

Strategic tanking was a defense of egoism at its worse, abusing the letter of the law to get highly valued assets while ignoring your team's obligations to the league, as if Philadelphia itself wasn't part of the NBA and existed in a vaccuum. It was only a question of time for NBA to interfere and ask for Hinkie to be fired teaching them that egoism is a sword that cuts both ways.

the thing is Philly doesn't have the worst season ever, doesn't have the 2 worst consecutive seasons ever, doesn't have the 3 or 4 worst seasons ever either and only finished with the worst record in the league 1 time.  This idea that Philly was the worst ever just isn't true.  They were bad, but not record setting bad.  They weren't the first team to openly tank and aren't the last team to openly tank.  The league survives just fine.

What point are you trying to make? I don't see anyone who said the 76ers were the worst team ever. Per their record they were the 3rd worst team ever which was preceded by two seasons of under 20 wins. It may not be the worst 3 year stretch ever but it's close. The Dallas Mavs of 91-93 probably were worse as were one of Sterling's Clippers teams and maybe the expansion Grizzlies but it's tough to find many more cases of teams that were truly horrible. That they're not the "worst ever" isn't really an argument to make in favor of Hinkie. If that's your argument then you've lost the plot.

As I said before, Hinkie's entire game plan was hoping for luck. This doesn't take a genius to figure out nor did it take any imagination. It simply means you play those odds long enough for them to swing in your favor. I find it laughable that anyone thinks this is some sort of brilliant strategy.

would you rather be the Sixers or the Kings?  Or maybe you prefer to be the Suns?  Perhaps the Magic or Lakers?  Maybe the Knicks are more your style?

Playing the odds isn't luck, it is in fact a strategy.  Maybe if those 5 teams above were a bit smarter they wouldn't still be so bad and might have a brighter outlook.  I mean the Kings haven't made the playoffs in 12 seasons, the Suns have now gone 8 seasons, the Magic are at 6 and counting.  Even the Knicks and Lakers are now 5 years in without making the playoffs, which is the exact amount of time the Sixers were out of the playoffs (the Nuggets are 5 years in as well, though they at least just missed the playoffs this year). 

Or maybe you'd rather be a franchise like the Hornets that has now gone 15 seasons without reaching the 2nd round of the playoffs and only had 3 1st round losses in that time.  Does that seem like a winning strategy?  The Pistons have 1 playoff appearance in the last 9 seasons and just 1 winning season in the last 10 seasons.  Are they employing a winning strategy?

"Tanking" and "being bad for a long time" aren't the only options. A team with good ownership and good GM can put themselves into a great position without tanking.

Sure a team can get super lucky and find Kawhi Leonard at 15 (of course the Spurs tanked for Duncan - as did Boston which didn't exactly work out).  Or a team can find a desperate team tired of losing that acquires past their prime players for unprotected draft picks (thank you Brooklyn - though Boston tried to tank in the Embiid draft also).  Or a team can plod along in mediocrity for years (Hawks) or be good but not great (Raptors).  Or a team can try to land free agents and fail and then claim they are just bad rather than tanking (Mavericks).  Or a team can make a trade using future draft assets that actually pays dividends which then uses cap space and savvy trades to add to it (Rockets).  Or a team can take advantage of a cap spike to add to an all world player to a team full of all world players drafted using mostly lottery picks (Warriors).  Or a team can lure a home grown free agent home and then use its high draft picks to acquire other all star level players (Cavs). 

There are a lots of ways to build a team.  They all require luck, but some require far more luck than others.  The best way to ensure future success is by acquiring all world talent, and the vast majority of all world talent is drafted in the top 5 picks (that doesn't mean you have to be the one drafting them, but that is where they mostly come from). 

The reality is, the Sixers were in a bad spot when Hinkie took over.  They had traded some of their own future draft picks, were a mid 30's win team without any franchise altering talent, and no real prospects to acquire said talent.  There hasn't been a single person I've asked the following question to, that has come up with a better/faster way to get the Sixers to the point they are now, but maybe you can come up with one.  So here it is: 

You are Hinkie, you are hired to take over the Sixers following their 34-48 season in 2012-13 season.  What do you do to make them the team they are today with an outlook as positive as they have?

[green_bballers13]

Someone posted this article in CB http://www.celticshub.com/2018/04/09/misplacing-trust-process/ - it is one of the few that put things in the right perspective.

We can go on debating the value of picks all we want, but Bernandoni's article brings out another important aspect of strategic tanking that often goes unnoticed, namely that it can't be tolerated for long in a closed league like the NBA.

The part of Philly's tanking that was disturbing to other franchises wasn't so much their trades (although there is something to be said about trading Jrue Holiday for an injured Noel) nor drafting an injured Embiid - despite how absured it is now for the same franchise to claim Embiid's fragile health as an excuse.

Strategic tanking was a defense of egoism at its worse, abusing the letter of the law to get highly valued assets while ignoring your team's obligations to the league, as if Philadelphia itself wasn't part of the NBA and existed in a vaccuum. It was only a question of time for NBA to interfere and ask for Hinkie to be fired teaching them that egoism is a sword that cuts both ways.

the thing is Philly doesn't have the worst season ever, doesn't have the 2 worst consecutive seasons ever, doesn't have the 3 or 4 worst seasons ever either and only finished with the worst record in the league 1 time.  This idea that Philly was the worst ever just isn't true.  They were bad, but not record setting bad.  They weren't the first team to openly tank and aren't the last team to openly tank.  The league survives just fine.

What point are you trying to make? I don't see anyone who said the 76ers were the worst team ever. Per their record they were the 3rd worst team ever which was preceded by two seasons of under 20 wins. It may not be the worst 3 year stretch ever but it's close. The Dallas Mavs of 91-93 probably were worse as were one of Sterling's Clippers teams and maybe the expansion Grizzlies but it's tough to find many more cases of teams that were truly horrible. That they're not the "worst ever" isn't really an argument to make in favor of Hinkie. If that's your argument then you've lost the plot.

As I said before, Hinkie's entire game plan was hoping for luck. This doesn't take a genius to figure out nor did it take any imagination. It simply means you play those odds long enough for them to swing in your favor. I find it laughable that anyone thinks this is some sort of brilliant strategy.

would you rather be the Sixers or the Kings?  Or maybe you prefer to be the Suns?  Perhaps the Magic or Lakers?  Maybe the Knicks are more your style?

Playing the odds isn't luck, it is in fact a strategy.  Maybe if those 5 teams above were a bit smarter they wouldn't still be so bad and might have a brighter outlook.  I mean the Kings haven't made the playoffs in 12 seasons, the Suns have now gone 8 seasons, the Magic are at 6 and counting.  Even the Knicks and Lakers are now 5 years in without making the playoffs, which is the exact amount of time the Sixers were out of the playoffs (the Nuggets are 5 years in as well, though they at least just missed the playoffs this year). 

Or maybe you'd rather be a franchise like the Hornets that has now gone 15 seasons without reaching the 2nd round of the playoffs and only had 3 1st round losses in that time.  Does that seem like a winning strategy?  The Pistons have 1 playoff appearance in the last 9 seasons and just 1 winning season in the last 10 seasons.  Are they employing a winning strategy?

Let’s see what this Philly team has actually accomplished before reaching any conclusions. Since they started down this tank strategy 5-6 years ago, what have they accomplished to date? One trip to the 2nd round. Until this series began everyone proclaimed them this great juggernaut. Funny how the actual games got in the way. I’m more upbeat about Milwaukee’s future.

I think Embiid + Simmons > Giannis + whatever

Both MIL and PHI have bright futures. Fortunately, so does BOS, and Danny didn't have to sell his soul to intentionally lose games to get Tatum or Brown.

[Moranis]

Someone posted this article in CB http://www.celticshub.com/2018/04/09/misplacing-trust-process/ - it is one of the few that put things in the right perspective.

We can go on debating the value of picks all we want, but Bernandoni's article brings out another important aspect of strategic tanking that often goes unnoticed, namely that it can't be tolerated for long in a closed league like the NBA.

The part of Philly's tanking that was disturbing to other franchises wasn't so much their trades (although there is something to be said about trading Jrue Holiday for an injured Noel) nor drafting an injured Embiid - despite how absured it is now for the same franchise to claim Embiid's fragile health as an excuse.

Strategic tanking was a defense of egoism at its worse, abusing the letter of the law to get highly valued assets while ignoring your team's obligations to the league, as if Philadelphia itself wasn't part of the NBA and existed in a vaccuum. It was only a question of time for NBA to interfere and ask for Hinkie to be fired teaching them that egoism is a sword that cuts both ways.

the thing is Philly doesn't have the worst season ever, doesn't have the 2 worst consecutive seasons ever, doesn't have the 3 or 4 worst seasons ever either and only finished with the worst record in the league 1 time.  This idea that Philly was the worst ever just isn't true.  They were bad, but not record setting bad.  They weren't the first team to openly tank and aren't the last team to openly tank.  The league survives just fine.

What point are you trying to make? I don't see anyone who said the 76ers were the worst team ever. Per their record they were the 3rd worst team ever which was preceded by two seasons of under 20 wins. It may not be the worst 3 year stretch ever but it's close. The Dallas Mavs of 91-93 probably were worse as were one of Sterling's Clippers teams and maybe the expansion Grizzlies but it's tough to find many more cases of teams that were truly horrible. That they're not the "worst ever" isn't really an argument to make in favor of Hinkie. If that's your argument then you've lost the plot.

As I said before, Hinkie's entire game plan was hoping for luck. This doesn't take a genius to figure out nor did it take any imagination. It simply means you play those odds long enough for them to swing in your favor. I find it laughable that anyone thinks this is some sort of brilliant strategy.

would you rather be the Sixers or the Kings?  Or maybe you prefer to be the Suns?  Perhaps the Magic or Lakers?  Maybe the Knicks are more your style?

Playing the odds isn't luck, it is in fact a strategy.  Maybe if those 5 teams above were a bit smarter they wouldn't still be so bad and might have a brighter outlook.  I mean the Kings haven't made the playoffs in 12 seasons, the Suns have now gone 8 seasons, the Magic are at 6 and counting.  Even the Knicks and Lakers are now 5 years in without making the playoffs, which is the exact amount of time the Sixers were out of the playoffs (the Nuggets are 5 years in as well, though they at least just missed the playoffs this year). 

Or maybe you'd rather be a franchise like the Hornets that has now gone 15 seasons without reaching the 2nd round of the playoffs and only had 3 1st round losses in that time.  Does that seem like a winning strategy?  The Pistons have 1 playoff appearance in the last 9 seasons and just 1 winning season in the last 10 seasons.  Are they employing a winning strategy?

Let’s see what this Philly team has actually accomplished before reaching any conclusions. Since they started down this tank strategy 5-6 years ago, what have they accomplished to date? One trip to the 2nd round. Until this series began everyone proclaimed them this great juggernaut. Funny how the actual games got in the way. I’m more upbeat about Milwaukee’s future.

Do you know when the Sixers last had a 50 win regular season?  Just so you don't have to look it up, it was the 56 win season when Iverson led them to the Finals in 2000-01.    Before that it was 89-90 season.  Heck the last full season the Sixers finished above .500 was 04-05 (they were also above .500 in the 66 game 11-12 season). 

Some, including LarBrd, would argue the fact the Sixers won 50 games has already made the tank a success.  I'm not one of those persons, as I think they need to sustain it over multiple seasons, but given the Sixers history and where they were as a franchise after the 12-13 season, I can totally understand that logic, especially when you see how much talent Embiid and Simmons actually have. 

[green_bballers13]

Someone posted this article in CB http://www.celticshub.com/2018/04/09/misplacing-trust-process/ - it is one of the few that put things in the right perspective.

We can go on debating the value of picks all we want, but Bernandoni's article brings out another important aspect of strategic tanking that often goes unnoticed, namely that it can't be tolerated for long in a closed league like the NBA.

The part of Philly's tanking that was disturbing to other franchises wasn't so much their trades (although there is something to be said about trading Jrue Holiday for an injured Noel) nor drafting an injured Embiid - despite how absured it is now for the same franchise to claim Embiid's fragile health as an excuse.

Strategic tanking was a defense of egoism at its worse, abusing the letter of the law to get highly valued assets while ignoring your team's obligations to the league, as if Philadelphia itself wasn't part of the NBA and existed in a vaccuum. It was only a question of time for NBA to interfere and ask for Hinkie to be fired teaching them that egoism is a sword that cuts both ways.

the thing is Philly doesn't have the worst season ever, doesn't have the 2 worst consecutive seasons ever, doesn't have the 3 or 4 worst seasons ever either and only finished with the worst record in the league 1 time.  This idea that Philly was the worst ever just isn't true.  They were bad, but not record setting bad.  They weren't the first team to openly tank and aren't the last team to openly tank.  The league survives just fine.

What point are you trying to make? I don't see anyone who said the 76ers were the worst team ever. Per their record they were the 3rd worst team ever which was preceded by two seasons of under 20 wins. It may not be the worst 3 year stretch ever but it's close. The Dallas Mavs of 91-93 probably were worse as were one of Sterling's Clippers teams and maybe the expansion Grizzlies but it's tough to find many more cases of teams that were truly horrible. That they're not the "worst ever" isn't really an argument to make in favor of Hinkie. If that's your argument then you've lost the plot.

As I said before, Hinkie's entire game plan was hoping for luck. This doesn't take a genius to figure out nor did it take any imagination. It simply means you play those odds long enough for them to swing in your favor. I find it laughable that anyone thinks this is some sort of brilliant strategy.

would you rather be the Sixers or the Kings?  Or maybe you prefer to be the Suns?  Perhaps the Magic or Lakers?  Maybe the Knicks are more your style?

Playing the odds isn't luck, it is in fact a strategy.  Maybe if those 5 teams above were a bit smarter they wouldn't still be so bad and might have a brighter outlook.  I mean the Kings haven't made the playoffs in 12 seasons, the Suns have now gone 8 seasons, the Magic are at 6 and counting.  Even the Knicks and Lakers are now 5 years in without making the playoffs, which is the exact amount of time the Sixers were out of the playoffs (the Nuggets are 5 years in as well, though they at least just missed the playoffs this year). 

Or maybe you'd rather be a franchise like the Hornets that has now gone 15 seasons without reaching the 2nd round of the playoffs and only had 3 1st round losses in that time.  Does that seem like a winning strategy?  The Pistons have 1 playoff appearance in the last 9 seasons and just 1 winning season in the last 10 seasons.  Are they employing a winning strategy?

"Tanking" and "being bad for a long time" aren't the only options. A team with good ownership and good GM can put themselves into a great position without tanking.

Sure a team can get super lucky and find Kawhi Leonard at 15 (of course the Spurs tanked for Duncan - as did Boston which didn't exactly work out).  Or a team can find a desperate team tired of losing that acquires past their prime players for unprotected draft picks (thank you Brooklyn - though Boston tried to tank in the Embiid draft also).  Or a team can plod along in mediocrity for years (Hawks) or be good but not great (Raptors).  Or a team can try to land free agents and fail and then claim they are just bad rather than tanking (Mavericks).  Or a team can make a trade using future draft assets that actually pays dividends which then uses cap space and savvy trades to add to it (Rockets).  Or a team can take advantage of a cap spike to add to an all world player to a team full of all world players drafted using mostly lottery picks (Warriors).  Or a team can lure a home grown free agent home and then use its high draft picks to acquire other all star level players (Cavs). 

There are a lots of ways to build a team.  They all require luck, but some require far more luck than others.  The best way to ensure future success is by acquiring all world talent, and the vast majority of all world talent is drafted in the top 5 picks (that doesn't mean you have to be the one drafting them, but that is where they mostly come from). 

The reality is, the Sixers were in a bad spot when Hinkie took over.  They had traded some of their own future draft picks, were a mid 30's win team without any franchise altering talent, and no real prospects to acquire said talent.  There hasn't been a single person I've asked the following question to, that has come up with a better/faster way to get the Sixers to the point they are now, but maybe you can come up with one.  So here it is: 

You are Hinkie, you are hired to take over the Sixers following their 34-48 season in 2012-13 season.  What do you do to make them the team they are today with an outlook as positive as they have?

1) Draft Steven Adams, Greek Freak or Rudy Gobert over MCW
2) Draft CJ McCollum over Nerlens Noel
3) Draft Porzingis, Myles Turner, Devin Booker or even Rozier over Okafor


So Hinkie could easily have had:

Ben Simmons, CJ McCollum, Devin Booker, Greek Freak, and Embiid

Still a genius?

[jambr380]

Those who are arguing against the Sixers 'strategy' aren't saying that it hasn't produced quality players and a team full of potential (you get enough top 5 picks you are bound to hit on some of them); they are simply making a point about how it was a dirty way to go about business. They lost other teams money and made a mockery of the lottery system which was already set in place to prevent blatant tanking.

It is about common decency and playing by the unspoken rules of basketball. Since this series began, a number of people in my life who aren't too familiar with the NBA have asked me about what exactly the 'process' is. When I explain it to them, they are immediately turned off and each of them have used the word, 'cheaters.'

The Sixers weren't innovative, they were just basically scoundrels. The best thing they did was make the trades for the LAL pick and SAC pick - those were actual sound NBA decisions. They don't deserve Lebron or Kawhi or whatever star falls in their lap. May the basketball gods come down hard on the Sixers for years to come...

[footey]

Someone posted this article in CB http://www.celticshub.com/2018/04/09/misplacing-trust-process/ - it is one of the few that put things in the right perspective.

We can go on debating the value of picks all we want, but Bernandoni's article brings out another important aspect of strategic tanking that often goes unnoticed, namely that it can't be tolerated for long in a closed league like the NBA.

The part of Philly's tanking that was disturbing to other franchises wasn't so much their trades (although there is something to be said about trading Jrue Holiday for an injured Noel) nor drafting an injured Embiid - despite how absured it is now for the same franchise to claim Embiid's fragile health as an excuse.

Strategic tanking was a defense of egoism at its worse, abusing the letter of the law to get highly valued assets while ignoring your team's obligations to the league, as if Philadelphia itself wasn't part of the NBA and existed in a vaccuum. It was only a question of time for NBA to interfere and ask for Hinkie to be fired teaching them that egoism is a sword that cuts both ways.

the thing is Philly doesn't have the worst season ever, doesn't have the 2 worst consecutive seasons ever, doesn't have the 3 or 4 worst seasons ever either and only finished with the worst record in the league 1 time.  This idea that Philly was the worst ever just isn't true.  They were bad, but not record setting bad.  They weren't the first team to openly tank and aren't the last team to openly tank.  The league survives just fine.

What point are you trying to make? I don't see anyone who said the 76ers were the worst team ever. Per their record they were the 3rd worst team ever which was preceded by two seasons of under 20 wins. It may not be the worst 3 year stretch ever but it's close. The Dallas Mavs of 91-93 probably were worse as were one of Sterling's Clippers teams and maybe the expansion Grizzlies but it's tough to find many more cases of teams that were truly horrible. That they're not the "worst ever" isn't really an argument to make in favor of Hinkie. If that's your argument then you've lost the plot.

As I said before, Hinkie's entire game plan was hoping for luck. This doesn't take a genius to figure out nor did it take any imagination. It simply means you play those odds long enough for them to swing in your favor. I find it laughable that anyone thinks this is some sort of brilliant strategy.

would you rather be the Sixers or the Kings?  Or maybe you prefer to be the Suns?  Perhaps the Magic or Lakers?  Maybe the Knicks are more your style?

Playing the odds isn't luck, it is in fact a strategy.  Maybe if those 5 teams above were a bit smarter they wouldn't still be so bad and might have a brighter outlook.  I mean the Kings haven't made the playoffs in 12 seasons, the Suns have now gone 8 seasons, the Magic are at 6 and counting.  Even the Knicks and Lakers are now 5 years in without making the playoffs, which is the exact amount of time the Sixers were out of the playoffs (the Nuggets are 5 years in as well, though they at least just missed the playoffs this year). 

Or maybe you'd rather be a franchise like the Hornets that has now gone 15 seasons without reaching the 2nd round of the playoffs and only had 3 1st round losses in that time.  Does that seem like a winning strategy?  The Pistons have 1 playoff appearance in the last 9 seasons and just 1 winning season in the last 10 seasons.  Are they employing a winning strategy?

Let’s see what this Philly team has actually accomplished before reaching any conclusions. Since they started down this tank strategy 5-6 years ago, what have they accomplished to date? One trip to the 2nd round. Until this series began everyone proclaimed them this great juggernaut. Funny how the actual games got in the way. I’m more upbeat about Milwaukee’s future.

Do you know when the Sixers last had a 50 win regular season?  Just so you don't have to look it up, it was the 56 win season when Iverson led them to the Finals in 2000-01.    Before that it was 89-90 season.  Heck the last full season the Sixers finished above .500 was 04-05 (they were also above .500 in the 66 game 11-12 season). 

Some, including LarBrd, would argue the fact the Sixers won 50 games has already made the tank a success.  I'm not one of those persons, as I think they need to sustain it over multiple seasons, but given the Sixers history and where they were as a franchise after the 12-13 season, I can totally understand that logic, especially when you see how much talent Embiid and Simmons actually have.

Fair point. I'm just saying the final results are not in.  I don't think it was their goal to tank for 4-5 years so that they could one day win 50 games, and you don't think so either.

I also want to go on record as saying I really have no issue with the manner in which the Sixers went about their strategy of blatantly tanking over a several season stretch.  I hate it when other teams tank (especially the Lakers), but it would be hypocritical to take the moral high ground, when I remember how PO'd I got when we won a couple of games at the end of the season of the Embiid draft.  When your team is bad, you want them to tank.  Philly just took it to its next logical step, and said, hey, tanking one year alone is not mathematically sufficient, you have to do it for several years for the odds to work our for you.

Philly's record of drafting during the process has been a mixture of luck (Embiid only fell to 3 because of injury; and Philly tried to trade up to get Wiggins), whiffs (Okafor, maybe Fultz) and no-brainer (taking Simmons with the no. 1 pick, although too soon to see whether they won the draft that year). 

[hwangjini_1]

Someone posted this article in CB http://www.celticshub.com/2018/04/09/misplacing-trust-process/ - it is one of the few that put things in the right perspective.

We can go on debating the value of picks all we want, but Bernandoni's article brings out another important aspect of strategic tanking that often goes unnoticed, namely that it can't be tolerated for long in a closed league like the NBA.

The part of Philly's tanking that was disturbing to other franchises wasn't so much their trades (although there is something to be said about trading Jrue Holiday for an injured Noel) nor drafting an injured Embiid - despite how absured it is now for the same franchise to claim Embiid's fragile health as an excuse.

Strategic tanking was a defense of egoism at its worse, abusing the letter of the law to get highly valued assets while ignoring your team's obligations to the league, as if Philadelphia itself wasn't part of the NBA and existed in a vaccuum. It was only a question of time for NBA to interfere and ask for Hinkie to be fired teaching them that egoism is a sword that cuts both ways.

the thing is Philly doesn't have the worst season ever, doesn't have the 2 worst consecutive seasons ever, doesn't have the 3 or 4 worst seasons ever either and only finished with the worst record in the league 1 time.  This idea that Philly was the worst ever just isn't true.  They were bad, but not record setting bad.  They weren't the first team to openly tank and aren't the last team to openly tank.  The league survives just fine.

What point are you trying to make? I don't see anyone who said the 76ers were the worst team ever. Per their record they were the 3rd worst team ever which was preceded by two seasons of under 20 wins. It may not be the worst 3 year stretch ever but it's close. The Dallas Mavs of 91-93 probably were worse as were one of Sterling's Clippers teams and maybe the expansion Grizzlies but it's tough to find many more cases of teams that were truly horrible. That they're not the "worst ever" isn't really an argument to make in favor of Hinkie. If that's your argument then you've lost the plot.

As I said before, Hinkie's entire game plan was hoping for luck. This doesn't take a genius to figure out nor did it take any imagination. It simply means you play those odds long enough for them to swing in your favor. I find it laughable that anyone thinks this is some sort of brilliant strategy.

would you rather be the Sixers or the Kings?  Or maybe you prefer to be the Suns?  Perhaps the Magic or Lakers?  Maybe the Knicks are more your style?

Playing the odds isn't luck, it is in fact a strategy.  Maybe if those 5 teams above were a bit smarter they wouldn't still be so bad and might have a brighter outlook.  I mean the Kings haven't made the playoffs in 12 seasons, the Suns have now gone 8 seasons, the Magic are at 6 and counting.  Even the Knicks and Lakers are now 5 years in without making the playoffs, which is the exact amount of time the Sixers were out of the playoffs (the Nuggets are 5 years in as well, though they at least just missed the playoffs this year). 

Or maybe you'd rather be a franchise like the Hornets that has now gone 15 seasons without reaching the 2nd round of the playoffs and only had 3 1st round losses in that time.  Does that seem like a winning strategy?  The Pistons have 1 playoff appearance in the last 9 seasons and just 1 winning season in the last 10 seasons.  Are they employing a winning strategy?

"Tanking" and "being bad for a long time" aren't the only options. A team with good ownership and good GM can put themselves into a great position without tanking.

Sure a team can get super lucky and find Kawhi Leonard at 15 (of course the Spurs tanked for Duncan - as did Boston which didn't exactly work out).  Or a team can find a desperate team tired of losing that acquires past their prime players for unprotected draft picks (thank you Brooklyn - though Boston tried to tank in the Embiid draft also).  Or a team can plod along in mediocrity for years (Hawks) or be good but not great (Raptors).  Or a team can try to land free agents and fail and then claim they are just bad rather than tanking (Mavericks).  Or a team can make a trade using future draft assets that actually pays dividends which then uses cap space and savvy trades to add to it (Rockets).  Or a team can take advantage of a cap spike to add to an all world player to a team full of all world players drafted using mostly lottery picks (Warriors).  Or a team can lure a home grown free agent home and then use its high draft picks to acquire other all star level players (Cavs). 

There are a lots of ways to build a team.  They all require luck, but some require far more luck than others.  The best way to ensure future success is by acquiring all world talent, and the vast majority of all world talent is drafted in the top 5 picks (that doesn't mean you have to be the one drafting them, but that is where they mostly come from). 

The reality is, the Sixers were in a bad spot when Hinkie took over.  They had traded some of their own future draft picks, were a mid 30's win team without any franchise altering talent, and no real prospects to acquire said talent.  There hasn't been a single person I've asked the following question to, that has come up with a better/faster way to get the Sixers to the point they are now, but maybe you can come up with one.  So here it is: 

You are Hinkie, you are hired to take over the Sixers following their 34-48 season in 2012-13 season.  What do you do to make them the team they are today with an outlook as positive as they have?

1) Draft Steven Adams, Greek Freak or Rudy Gobert over MCW
2) Draft CJ McCollum over Nerlens Noel
3) Draft Porzingis, Myles Turner, Devin Booker or even Rozier over Okafor


So Hinkie could easily have had:

Ben Simmons, CJ McCollum, Devin Booker, Greek Freak, and Embiid

Still a genius?

i think a key point to keep in mind is the worth of the plan versus the ability of the plan's leader. these are not the same.

i understand the plan - super tank, get picks, trade away anyone remotely good for years to get picks, take on toxic salaries in exchange for more picks. the logic is there. but with the plan comes a hideous price. the nba itself is demeaned. the team sucks - really really sucks - for years.

the biggest flaw is that even if done correctly, the odds of creating a championship are small. i do believe it will create a credible, playoff level team, which is what the sixers are now. they are not a championship team and serious questions exist concerning each and every draft pick they still have. the process is anything BUT a sure thing.

but, is this the only, let alone, best way to go? is it worth paying this terrible price for a "okay floor, high but unlikely ceiling"? that is the question moranis poses above. after all, there are many ways to make a team good enough for the playoffs. teams do that each and every year.

we dont have many examples of the process since it is so toxic that the only gm to implement it was fired. not an incentive for anyone to want to repeat it.

next, the plan/process means nothing if the picks dont work out, if the team management are not good. a risky bet to say the least, as the sixers are demonstrating.

so, i can see the attraction of the process. but i think other teams demonstrate a less toxic way of acheiving credibility. as for championships? i dont see the process producing them yet.

but, we have a long time to go to pass final judgement on that.

[greece66]

Those who are arguing against the Sixers 'strategy' aren't saying that it hasn't produced quality players and a team full of potential (you get enough top 5 picks you are bound to hit on some of them); they are simply making a point about how it was a dirty way to go about business. They lost other teams money and made a mockery of the lottery system which was already set in place to prevent blatant tanking.

It is about common decency and playing by the unspoken rules of basketball. Since this series began, a number of people in my life who aren't too familiar with the NBA have asked me about what exactly the 'process' is. When I explain it to them, they are immediately turned off and each of them have used the word, 'cheaters.'

The Sixers weren't innovative, they were just basically scoundrels. The best thing they did was make the trades for the LAL pick and SAC pick - those were actual sound NBA decisions. They don't deserve Lebron or Kawhi or whatever star falls in their lap. May the basketball gods come down hard on the Sixers for years to come...

Yep. It's p obvious to see both that strategic tanking works (at least regarding delivering high picks) and why other teams were annoyed by it.

[csfansince60s]

Those who are arguing against the Sixers 'strategy' aren't saying that it hasn't produced quality players and a team full of potential (you get enough top 5 picks you are bound to hit on some of them); they are simply making a point about how it was a dirty way to go about business. They lost other teams money and made a mockery of the lottery system which was already set in place to prevent blatant tanking.

It is about common decency and playing by the unspoken rules of basketball. Since this series began, a number of people in my life who aren't too familiar with the NBA have asked me about what exactly the 'process' is. When I explain it to them, they are immediately turned off and each of them have used the word, 'cheaters.'

The Sixers weren't innovative, they were just basically scoundrels. The best thing they did was make the trades for the LAL pick and SAC pick - those were actual sound NBA decisions. They don't deserve Lebron or Kawhi or whatever star falls in their lap. May the basketball gods come down hard on the Sixers for years to come...

Tp....great post...my sentiments exactly.....hopefully karma is that female dog for philly!

To underscore other teams getting hurt by it, I want to relay my Garden experiences for Philly games during that time.

First, it was great for me (and my family). As a father of four who were all at home at the time, my wife and I were able to take the kids to the Philly games without breaking the bank. A few times I was able to secure 6 tix from Stubhub for under $100, not great seats in the balcony admittedly, but because the place was never packed, we could always move down.

Crowds were definitely smaller and younger for Cs/Philly games at the time. Consequently vendors got hurt both inside and outside the Garden regarding both sales and tips.

Other, smaller franchises who don’t have the following that our Cs have got hurt as they didn’t sell out when Philly came to town, in addition to their vendors getting hurt.

Yeah, Philly played by the “rules”, but many resent(ed) them for it, And in my opinion rightfully so.

[Ed Hollison]

I have always maintained that to truly measure the success of Hinkie-ism, you need to remember the costs and weigh those against the rewards. It's easy to just look at the rewards now that they are coming to fruition. But don't forget the costs: this team averaged 22 wins for a five year period. It was disgusting. They made their fans miserable laughingstocks for half a decade and humiliated themselves around the league.

All this for... what exactly? To be one of the best young teams in the league whose future is tied to a stud center with back and foot issues, who's played an average of 24 games per year over his first four seasons; and savant do-everything-ballhandler/passer/rebounder who also happens to have the worst jumpshot in the league?

Point is, to justify how massively painful those five years were and the total embarrassment you turned your franchise into, you have to basically guarantee a championship or championships. And that's far from guaranteed for this squad.

[Moranis]

Someone posted this article in CB http://www.celticshub.com/2018/04/09/misplacing-trust-process/ - it is one of the few that put things in the right perspective.

We can go on debating the value of picks all we want, but Bernandoni's article brings out another important aspect of strategic tanking that often goes unnoticed, namely that it can't be tolerated for long in a closed league like the NBA.

The part of Philly's tanking that was disturbing to other franchises wasn't so much their trades (although there is something to be said about trading Jrue Holiday for an injured Noel) nor drafting an injured Embiid - despite how absured it is now for the same franchise to claim Embiid's fragile health as an excuse.

Strategic tanking was a defense of egoism at its worse, abusing the letter of the law to get highly valued assets while ignoring your team's obligations to the league, as if Philadelphia itself wasn't part of the NBA and existed in a vaccuum. It was only a question of time for NBA to interfere and ask for Hinkie to be fired teaching them that egoism is a sword that cuts both ways.

the thing is Philly doesn't have the worst season ever, doesn't have the 2 worst consecutive seasons ever, doesn't have the 3 or 4 worst seasons ever either and only finished with the worst record in the league 1 time.  This idea that Philly was the worst ever just isn't true.  They were bad, but not record setting bad.  They weren't the first team to openly tank and aren't the last team to openly tank.  The league survives just fine.

What point are you trying to make? I don't see anyone who said the 76ers were the worst team ever. Per their record they were the 3rd worst team ever which was preceded by two seasons of under 20 wins. It may not be the worst 3 year stretch ever but it's close. The Dallas Mavs of 91-93 probably were worse as were one of Sterling's Clippers teams and maybe the expansion Grizzlies but it's tough to find many more cases of teams that were truly horrible. That they're not the "worst ever" isn't really an argument to make in favor of Hinkie. If that's your argument then you've lost the plot.

As I said before, Hinkie's entire game plan was hoping for luck. This doesn't take a genius to figure out nor did it take any imagination. It simply means you play those odds long enough for them to swing in your favor. I find it laughable that anyone thinks this is some sort of brilliant strategy.

would you rather be the Sixers or the Kings?  Or maybe you prefer to be the Suns?  Perhaps the Magic or Lakers?  Maybe the Knicks are more your style?

Playing the odds isn't luck, it is in fact a strategy.  Maybe if those 5 teams above were a bit smarter they wouldn't still be so bad and might have a brighter outlook.  I mean the Kings haven't made the playoffs in 12 seasons, the Suns have now gone 8 seasons, the Magic are at 6 and counting.  Even the Knicks and Lakers are now 5 years in without making the playoffs, which is the exact amount of time the Sixers were out of the playoffs (the Nuggets are 5 years in as well, though they at least just missed the playoffs this year). 

Or maybe you'd rather be a franchise like the Hornets that has now gone 15 seasons without reaching the 2nd round of the playoffs and only had 3 1st round losses in that time.  Does that seem like a winning strategy?  The Pistons have 1 playoff appearance in the last 9 seasons and just 1 winning season in the last 10 seasons.  Are they employing a winning strategy?

"Tanking" and "being bad for a long time" aren't the only options. A team with good ownership and good GM can put themselves into a great position without tanking.

Sure a team can get super lucky and find Kawhi Leonard at 15 (of course the Spurs tanked for Duncan - as did Boston which didn't exactly work out).  Or a team can find a desperate team tired of losing that acquires past their prime players for unprotected draft picks (thank you Brooklyn - though Boston tried to tank in the Embiid draft also).  Or a team can plod along in mediocrity for years (Hawks) or be good but not great (Raptors).  Or a team can try to land free agents and fail and then claim they are just bad rather than tanking (Mavericks).  Or a team can make a trade using future draft assets that actually pays dividends which then uses cap space and savvy trades to add to it (Rockets).  Or a team can take advantage of a cap spike to add to an all world player to a team full of all world players drafted using mostly lottery picks (Warriors).  Or a team can lure a home grown free agent home and then use its high draft picks to acquire other all star level players (Cavs). 

There are a lots of ways to build a team.  They all require luck, but some require far more luck than others.  The best way to ensure future success is by acquiring all world talent, and the vast majority of all world talent is drafted in the top 5 picks (that doesn't mean you have to be the one drafting them, but that is where they mostly come from). 

The reality is, the Sixers were in a bad spot when Hinkie took over.  They had traded some of their own future draft picks, were a mid 30's win team without any franchise altering talent, and no real prospects to acquire said talent.  There hasn't been a single person I've asked the following question to, that has come up with a better/faster way to get the Sixers to the point they are now, but maybe you can come up with one.  So here it is: 

You are Hinkie, you are hired to take over the Sixers following their 34-48 season in 2012-13 season.  What do you do to make them the team they are today with an outlook as positive as they have?

1) Draft Steven Adams, Greek Freak or Rudy Gobert over MCW
2) Draft CJ McCollum over Nerlens Noel
3) Draft Porzingis, Myles Turner, Devin Booker or even Rozier over Okafor


So Hinkie could easily have had:

Ben Simmons, CJ McCollum, Devin Booker, Greek Freak, and Embiid

Still a genius?

they probably don't have Embiid and certainly don't have Simmons if you change the earlier draft picks.  And no team gets it right 100% of the time in hind sight.  I mean Ainge passed on Giannis also, and unlike Hinkie, Ainge didn't trade his "mistake" for a lottery pick. 

[Spilling Green Dye]

I do think Hinkie was a genius at one aspect of tanking - being able to trade assets of any value for a much higher future value.  He was exceptional at this.  Danny is also a genius at this aspect (Brooklyn trade!).

I am quite confident that the Sixers today have a brighter future than they would have had they tried to grow without tanking.  But the League absolutely should have stepped in years ago because what the Sixers did was detrimental to the league, league revenue, and other teams too.  And for that, I hope the Sixers never have any meaningful success in the next 10-years.

[Moranis]

Someone posted this article in CB http://www.celticshub.com/2018/04/09/misplacing-trust-process/ - it is one of the few that put things in the right perspective.

We can go on debating the value of picks all we want, but Bernandoni's article brings out another important aspect of strategic tanking that often goes unnoticed, namely that it can't be tolerated for long in a closed league like the NBA.

The part of Philly's tanking that was disturbing to other franchises wasn't so much their trades (although there is something to be said about trading Jrue Holiday for an injured Noel) nor drafting an injured Embiid - despite how absured it is now for the same franchise to claim Embiid's fragile health as an excuse.

Strategic tanking was a defense of egoism at its worse, abusing the letter of the law to get highly valued assets while ignoring your team's obligations to the league, as if Philadelphia itself wasn't part of the NBA and existed in a vaccuum. It was only a question of time for NBA to interfere and ask for Hinkie to be fired teaching them that egoism is a sword that cuts both ways.

the thing is Philly doesn't have the worst season ever, doesn't have the 2 worst consecutive seasons ever, doesn't have the 3 or 4 worst seasons ever either and only finished with the worst record in the league 1 time.  This idea that Philly was the worst ever just isn't true.  They were bad, but not record setting bad.  They weren't the first team to openly tank and aren't the last team to openly tank.  The league survives just fine.

What point are you trying to make? I don't see anyone who said the 76ers were the worst team ever. Per their record they were the 3rd worst team ever which was preceded by two seasons of under 20 wins. It may not be the worst 3 year stretch ever but it's close. The Dallas Mavs of 91-93 probably were worse as were one of Sterling's Clippers teams and maybe the expansion Grizzlies but it's tough to find many more cases of teams that were truly horrible. That they're not the "worst ever" isn't really an argument to make in favor of Hinkie. If that's your argument then you've lost the plot.

As I said before, Hinkie's entire game plan was hoping for luck. This doesn't take a genius to figure out nor did it take any imagination. It simply means you play those odds long enough for them to swing in your favor. I find it laughable that anyone thinks this is some sort of brilliant strategy.

would you rather be the Sixers or the Kings?  Or maybe you prefer to be the Suns?  Perhaps the Magic or Lakers?  Maybe the Knicks are more your style?

Playing the odds isn't luck, it is in fact a strategy.  Maybe if those 5 teams above were a bit smarter they wouldn't still be so bad and might have a brighter outlook.  I mean the Kings haven't made the playoffs in 12 seasons, the Suns have now gone 8 seasons, the Magic are at 6 and counting.  Even the Knicks and Lakers are now 5 years in without making the playoffs, which is the exact amount of time the Sixers were out of the playoffs (the Nuggets are 5 years in as well, though they at least just missed the playoffs this year). 

Or maybe you'd rather be a franchise like the Hornets that has now gone 15 seasons without reaching the 2nd round of the playoffs and only had 3 1st round losses in that time.  Does that seem like a winning strategy?  The Pistons have 1 playoff appearance in the last 9 seasons and just 1 winning season in the last 10 seasons.  Are they employing a winning strategy?

"Tanking" and "being bad for a long time" aren't the only options. A team with good ownership and good GM can put themselves into a great position without tanking.

Sure a team can get super lucky and find Kawhi Leonard at 15 (of course the Spurs tanked for Duncan - as did Boston which didn't exactly work out).  Or a team can find a desperate team tired of losing that acquires past their prime players for unprotected draft picks (thank you Brooklyn - though Boston tried to tank in the Embiid draft also).  Or a team can plod along in mediocrity for years (Hawks) or be good but not great (Raptors).  Or a team can try to land free agents and fail and then claim they are just bad rather than tanking (Mavericks).  Or a team can make a trade using future draft assets that actually pays dividends which then uses cap space and savvy trades to add to it (Rockets).  Or a team can take advantage of a cap spike to add to an all world player to a team full of all world players drafted using mostly lottery picks (Warriors).  Or a team can lure a home grown free agent home and then use its high draft picks to acquire other all star level players (Cavs). 

There are a lots of ways to build a team.  They all require luck, but some require far more luck than others.  The best way to ensure future success is by acquiring all world talent, and the vast majority of all world talent is drafted in the top 5 picks (that doesn't mean you have to be the one drafting them, but that is where they mostly come from). 

The reality is, the Sixers were in a bad spot when Hinkie took over.  They had traded some of their own future draft picks, were a mid 30's win team without any franchise altering talent, and no real prospects to acquire said talent.  There hasn't been a single person I've asked the following question to, that has come up with a better/faster way to get the Sixers to the point they are now, but maybe you can come up with one.  So here it is: 

You are Hinkie, you are hired to take over the Sixers following their 34-48 season in 2012-13 season.  What do you do to make them the team they are today with an outlook as positive as they have?

1) Draft Steven Adams, Greek Freak or Rudy Gobert over MCW
2) Draft CJ McCollum over Nerlens Noel
3) Draft Porzingis, Myles Turner, Devin Booker or even Rozier over Okafor


So Hinkie could easily have had:

Ben Simmons, CJ McCollum, Devin Booker, Greek Freak, and Embiid

Still a genius?

i think a key point to keep in mind is the worth of the plan versus the ability of the plan's leader. these are not the same.

i understand the plan - super tank, get picks, trade away anyone remotely good for years to get picks, take on toxic salaries in exchange for more picks. the logic is there. but with the plan comes a hideous price. the nba itself is demeaned. the team sucks - really really sucks - for years.

the biggest flaw is that even if done correctly, the odds of creating a championship are small. i do believe it will create a credible, playoff level team, which is what the sixers are now. they are not a championship team and serious questions exist concerning each and every draft pick they still have. the process is anything BUT a sure thing.

but, is this the only, let alone, best way to go? is it worth paying this terrible price for a "okay floor, high but unlikely ceiling"? that is the question moranis poses above. after all, there are many ways to make a team good enough for the playoffs. teams do that each and every year.

we dont have many examples of the process since it is so toxic that the only gm to implement it was fired. not an incentive for anyone to want to repeat it.

next, the plan/process means nothing if the picks dont work out, if the team management are not good. a risky bet to say the least, as the sixers are demonstrating.

so, i can see the attraction of the process. but i think other teams demonstrate a less toxic way of acheiving credibility. as for championships? i dont see the process producing them yet.

but, we have a long time to go to pass final judgement on that.

The Sonics/Thunder tanked for a solid 2.5 seasons.  Had they not had a terribly cheap owner, they would have most certainly won a title as a result of the tanking (I mean they made the Finals and then let Harden go over 4.5 million dollars spread over 4 seasons). 

[Moranis]

Those who are arguing against the Sixers 'strategy' aren't saying that it hasn't produced quality players and a team full of potential (you get enough top 5 picks you are bound to hit on some of them); they are simply making a point about how it was a dirty way to go about business. They lost other teams money and made a mockery of the lottery system which was already set in place to prevent blatant tanking.

It is about common decency and playing by the unspoken rules of basketball. Since this series began, a number of people in my life who aren't too familiar with the NBA have asked me about what exactly the 'process' is. When I explain it to them, they are immediately turned off and each of them have used the word, 'cheaters.'

The Sixers weren't innovative, they were just basically scoundrels. The best thing they did was make the trades for the LAL pick and SAC pick - those were actual sound NBA decisions. They don't deserve Lebron or Kawhi or whatever star falls in their lap. May the basketball gods come down hard on the Sixers for years to come...

Tp....great post...my sentiments exactly.....hopefully karma is that female dog for philly!

To underscore other teams getting hurt by it, I want to relay my Garden experiences for Philly games during that time.

First, it was great for me (and my family). As a father of four who were all at home at the time, my wife and I were able to take the kids to the Philly games without breaking the bank. A few times I was able to secure 6 tix from Stubhub for under $100, not great seats in the balcony admittedly, but because the place was never packed, we could always move down.

Crowds were definitely smaller and younger for Cs/Philly games at the time. Consequently vendors got hurt both inside and outside the Garden regarding both sales and tips.

Other, smaller franchises who don’t have the following that our Cs have got hurt as they didn’t sell out when Philly came to town, in addition to their vendors getting hurt.

Yeah, Philly played by the “rules”, but many resent(ed) them for it, And in my opinion rightfully so.

But if the Sixers were a 25 to 30 win team instead of a 10 to 20 win team, the arenas still would have been empty, and they would still be empty when the Sixers come to town now instead of the big draw they are.  That is where that argument loses steam.  I mean it isn't like Philly chose to be a dreg instead of a title contender, they chose to be a dreg instead of a tier slightly above dreg (think the Kings over the last decade).  There was going to be almost no difference in the overall quality of the product from a drawing on the road standpoint.  There is however now that they have landed real and quality stars. 

[smokeablount]

Someone posted this article in CB http://www.celticshub.com/2018/04/09/misplacing-trust-process/ - it is one of the few that put things in the right perspective.

We can go on debating the value of picks all we want, but Bernandoni's article brings out another important aspect of strategic tanking that often goes unnoticed, namely that it can't be tolerated for long in a closed league like the NBA.

The part of Philly's tanking that was disturbing to other franchises wasn't so much their trades (although there is something to be said about trading Jrue Holiday for an injured Noel) nor drafting an injured Embiid - despite how absured it is now for the same franchise to claim Embiid's fragile health as an excuse.

Strategic tanking was a defense of egoism at its worse, abusing the letter of the law to get highly valued assets while ignoring your team's obligations to the league, as if Philadelphia itself wasn't part of the NBA and existed in a vaccuum. It was only a question of time for NBA to interfere and ask for Hinkie to be fired teaching them that egoism is a sword that cuts both ways.

the thing is Philly doesn't have the worst season ever, doesn't have the 2 worst consecutive seasons ever, doesn't have the 3 or 4 worst seasons ever either and only finished with the worst record in the league 1 time.  This idea that Philly was the worst ever just isn't true.  They were bad, but not record setting bad.  They weren't the first team to openly tank and aren't the last team to openly tank.  The league survives just fine.

What point are you trying to make? I don't see anyone who said the 76ers were the worst team ever. Per their record they were the 3rd worst team ever which was preceded by two seasons of under 20 wins. It may not be the worst 3 year stretch ever but it's close. The Dallas Mavs of 91-93 probably were worse as were one of Sterling's Clippers teams and maybe the expansion Grizzlies but it's tough to find many more cases of teams that were truly horrible. That they're not the "worst ever" isn't really an argument to make in favor of Hinkie. If that's your argument then you've lost the plot.

As I said before, Hinkie's entire game plan was hoping for luck. This doesn't take a genius to figure out nor did it take any imagination. It simply means you play those odds long enough for them to swing in your favor. I find it laughable that anyone thinks this is some sort of brilliant strategy.

would you rather be the Sixers or the Kings?  Or maybe you prefer to be the Suns?  Perhaps the Magic or Lakers?  Maybe the Knicks are more your style?

Playing the odds isn't luck, it is in fact a strategy.  Maybe if those 5 teams above were a bit smarter they wouldn't still be so bad and might have a brighter outlook.  I mean the Kings haven't made the playoffs in 12 seasons, the Suns have now gone 8 seasons, the Magic are at 6 and counting.  Even the Knicks and Lakers are now 5 years in without making the playoffs, which is the exact amount of time the Sixers were out of the playoffs (the Nuggets are 5 years in as well, though they at least just missed the playoffs this year). 

Or maybe you'd rather be a franchise like the Hornets that has now gone 15 seasons without reaching the 2nd round of the playoffs and only had 3 1st round losses in that time.  Does that seem like a winning strategy?  The Pistons have 1 playoff appearance in the last 9 seasons and just 1 winning season in the last 10 seasons.  Are they employing a winning strategy?

"Tanking" and "being bad for a long time" aren't the only options. A team with good ownership and good GM can put themselves into a great position without tanking.

Sure a team can get super lucky and find Kawhi Leonard at 15 (of course the Spurs tanked for Duncan - as did Boston which didn't exactly work out).  Or a team can find a desperate team tired of losing that acquires past their prime players for unprotected draft picks (thank you Brooklyn - though Boston tried to tank in the Embiid draft also).  Or a team can plod along in mediocrity for years (Hawks) or be good but not great (Raptors).  Or a team can try to land free agents and fail and then claim they are just bad rather than tanking (Mavericks).  Or a team can make a trade using future draft assets that actually pays dividends which then uses cap space and savvy trades to add to it (Rockets).  Or a team can take advantage of a cap spike to add to an all world player to a team full of all world players drafted using mostly lottery picks (Warriors).  Or a team can lure a home grown free agent home and then use its high draft picks to acquire other all star level players (Cavs). 

There are a lots of ways to build a team.  They all require luck, but some require far more luck than others.  The best way to ensure future success is by acquiring all world talent, and the vast majority of all world talent is drafted in the top 5 picks (that doesn't mean you have to be the one drafting them, but that is where they mostly come from). 

The reality is, the Sixers were in a bad spot when Hinkie took over.  They had traded some of their own future draft picks, were a mid 30's win team without any franchise altering talent, and no real prospects to acquire said talent.  There hasn't been a single person I've asked the following question to, that has come up with a better/faster way to get the Sixers to the point they are now, but maybe you can come up with one.  So here it is: 

You are Hinkie, you are hired to take over the Sixers following their 34-48 season in 2012-13 season.  What do you do to make them the team they are today with an outlook as positive as they have?

1) Draft Steven Adams, Greek Freak or Rudy Gobert over MCW
2) Draft CJ McCollum over Nerlens Noel
3) Draft Porzingis, Myles Turner, Devin Booker or even Rozier over Okafor


So Hinkie could easily have had:

Ben Simmons, CJ McCollum, Devin Booker, Greek Freak, and Embiid

Still a genius?

i think a key point to keep in mind is the worth of the plan versus the ability of the plan's leader. these are not the same.

i understand the plan - super tank, get picks, trade away anyone remotely good for years to get picks, take on toxic salaries in exchange for more picks. the logic is there. but with the plan comes a hideous price. the nba itself is demeaned. the team sucks - really really sucks - for years.

the biggest flaw is that even if done correctly, the odds of creating a championship are small. i do believe it will create a credible, playoff level team, which is what the sixers are now. they are not a championship team and serious questions exist concerning each and every draft pick they still have. the process is anything BUT a sure thing.

but, is this the only, let alone, best way to go? is it worth paying this terrible price for a "okay floor, high but unlikely ceiling"? that is the question moranis poses above. after all, there are many ways to make a team good enough for the playoffs. teams do that each and every year.

we dont have many examples of the process since it is so toxic that the only gm to implement it was fired. not an incentive for anyone to want to repeat it.

next, the plan/process means nothing if the picks dont work out, if the team management are not good. a risky bet to say the least, as the sixers are demonstrating.

so, i can see the attraction of the process. but i think other teams demonstrate a less toxic way of acheiving credibility. as for championships? i dont see the process producing them yet.

but, we have a long time to go to pass final judgement on that.

The Sonics/Thunder tanked for a solid 2.5 seasons.  Had they not had a terribly cheap owner, they would have most certainly won a title as a result of the tanking (I mean they made the Finals and then let Harden go over 4.5 million dollars spread over 4 seasons).

Thunder are the only team I’ve seen make literally the best pick possible for 3-4 years in a row. They drafted 3 MVPs. We’re gonna have to see Embiid or Simmons make at least 1st team all NBA because we make this comparison. A lot more silly of a comparison than Philly and Utah this year.