The Official 2015-2016 NBA Regular Season Thread

[Groundhog]

I've always been a Diaw fan. Both Phoenix (back then) and SA are perfect spots for his skillset. He's got his limitations physically, but not many guys in the world have his versatility or are as crafty on the offensive end. Hell, his D on LeBron in the finals was pretty good too.

[wustin]

Anthony Davis done for the year.

He also loses out on some money.

[korme]

My 1st place fantasy team weeps.

[Groundhog]

I had the #2 pick in my league's draft and grabbed Curry, while the #1 guy grabbed Davis. Playoffs just started, so he's not too happy either.

[Atocep]

Would Austin Rivers be playing 20+ minutes a night for anyone other than his dad?

[Groundhog]

Rivers would probably be in the NBDL or Europe if not for his dad.

[Groundhog]

On a related note, I can't remember the last time there were three "good" teams who all looked as miserable playing professional basketball with winning records (well, almost in Houston's case) as the Clippers, Cavaliers, and Rockets do this year.

[Alf]

I've always been a Diaw fan. Both Phoenix (back then) and SA are perfect spots for his skillset. He's got his limitations physically, but not many guys in the world have his versatility or are as crafty on the offensive end. Hell, his D on LeBron in the finals was pretty good too.

Amen.

He started playing in the PROS in France for my favourite team "Pau Orthez", and the guys is from the Bordeaux area. And he is a really nice and easy guy.

If he could take care of his overweight issues, he would be way better.

[nol]

Anthony Davis done for the year.

He also loses out on some money.

He'll probably still make an All-NBA team. He played more center this year, and people voting for centers don't have much to choose from after Cousins. Recent 3rd team All-NBA honorees include Al Jefferson, David Lee, and Goran Dragic, so I wouldn't rule out 60 games of AD being enough.

And it comes out today that Davis has been playing with a torn labrum for the past 3 seasons. Between this, all the injury-prone players New Orleans has surrounded him with, and the recent trade wherein Detroit changed its mind based on the Donatas Montiejunas physical, I'm even more inclined to believe that the Jrue Holiday trade was just incompetence and nearsightedness on New Orleans' part rather than Philadelphia trying to pull a fast one.

[whomario]

yahoo Podcast with Bill Walton as guest. One of the most interesting people in Basketball, definitely. Truly inspirational personality.


<iframe src="https://art19.com/shows/vertical/episodes/55f6c535-681a-4c27-bd6a-66884368c616/embed?theme=light-orange" style="width: 100%; height: 200px; border: 0 none;" scrolling="no"></iframe>

[Groundhog]

Assuming Warriors hold on to win tonight, that leaves 11 games, with 9-2 needed to break the record. Their schedule felt a little soft the first half of the year, but a pretty tough finish with Spurs and Griz both x 2, as well as danger games against Celtics, Wizards, and Blazers.

[Brian Swartz]

That's making the large assumption the Spurs play anybody who will be on their playoff roster in those games though. Since sitting half the team wasn't enough to lose to Memphis, they are now basically going to rest the starting lineup against OKC. I think the last matchup with Golden State is the last time the Warriors will see their normal lineup until at least the WCF. 74 wouldn't surprise me, but I think Golden State will reach 73. Not coincidentally, San Antonio could now lose their last ten and still be the #2 seed. They aren't catching the Warriors either, so it's full-on walk-through mode for them until the playoffs.

[stevew]

Yeah, so LeBron is leaving this summer, right?

[Groundhog]

It never ceases to amaze me how the Spurs can just seemingly throw any 5 guys out on the court and still manage to play like, well, the Spurs.

[Groundhog]

Yeah, so LeBron is leaving this summer, right?

At this point, good riddance.

[miami_fan]

Yeah, so LeBron is leaving this summer, right?

Just be careful about any draft advice he may give you going into this off season. ;)

Call me gullible but I don't think there is any chance he is going anywhere. I would be much more concerned with who brought in to replace Irving and/or Love.

On a related note, anybody else find "Dickish" Lebron absolutely hilarious? I mean besides Cavs fans. I mean,he reminds me of the guy that got promoted to a supervisory position and then tries to act the way a supervisor is "supposed" to act when everyone in the office knows that all if his actions are fake.

[Logan]

How has D'Angelo Russell not been murdered yet?

[MrBug708]

Russell is destined to be a Kings player this next offseason

[Neuqua]

Sacramento Kings to extend contract of VP Vlade Divac (http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/15097196/sacramento-kings-extend-contract-vp-vlade-divac)

That organization is a mess.

[miami_fan]

How has D'Angelo Russell not been murdered yet?

Because his current situation is a fate worse than death.

[Neuqua]

Promising young Laker alienating his teammates?

The Lakers found their next Kobe!

[nol]

That the Lakers not only still employ Nick Young but also have allowed their potential franchise savior to hang out with him (to say nothing of the Byron Scott situation) is a pretty good indicator that they really are one of the worst-run organizations in professional sports as opposed to pulling off a stealth tanking/rebuilding project underneath the shadows of Kobe's retirement tour.

The Jazz game from the other day was hilariously bad to watch even without the knowledge that Russell was being frozen out. Rodney Hood had something like 7 threes (actually was 8, with the first 3 coming on Kobe) in the first half, and after that Kobe went from playing zero defense to matching back up with Hood and furiously face-guarding him (also to the detriment of the Lakers' overall defense, but who cares at this point). What a competitor, going all-out like that in a 40-point blowout just to preserve his single-game three-pointers record!

[wustin]

Imagine the stress of having to deal with Russell and Ben Simmons one the same team.

[Young Drachma]

I just caught up on this Russell thing. I just don't understand what he was trying to do. Like what's in it for him?

Yeah, so LeBron is leaving this summer, right?

Seems like it, but like someone else said, I can't imagine him actually leaving unless he's adamant about taking a paycut and going where he wants to go with whoever he wants to be there. But that team isn't fun to watch, he's never going to be satisfied and at this point, maybe just being hated is better.

[miami_fan]

I just caught up on this Russell thing. I just don't understand what he was trying to do. Like what's in it for him?


Maybe he thinks he is going to be the nice guy that Iggy (or another woman) falls in love with for exposing his cheating friend.

[rjolley]

Lebron's big problem right now is the emergence of Steph Curry into a juggernaut and the Warriors into one of the most dominate and well rounded teams in recent memory, not to mention the Spurs are still the Spurs. If Steph and the Warriors weren't playing the way they were, we'd be talking about a Cavs/Spurs matchup in the finals with Lebron slightly favored.

I don't think the merging of Lebron/Wade/Melo/Paul makes them better than the Warriors or Spurs at this stage of their respective careers. It would be interesting to see, though.

If Love and Irving stay healthy and Shumpert can play the type of defense he was known for, I could see putting Shumpert on Curry to pick him up at mid-court, then everyone else play solid on their men.

I don't know where Lebron can go to have a better chance to win if he can gel with Love and Irving. Still a bit too much unevenness with their performance for me.

[Groundhog]

Only possible reason I can think of as to why he 'did it' is that he didn't intend for it to get out, and through his own stupidity or carelessness it did.

[Groundhog]

LeBron's big problem right now is LeBron, IMO. There's no question that the Cavs are a mish-mash of questionably-fitting pieces, but the joyless way they approach each game and the 'deer-in-headlights' performances they put in most 4th quarters stems from the man at the top, from what I can see. Their talent gets them wins, but too often they look like guys playing not to lose.

They still should make it to the Finals (although I think Miami are a wildcard if Wade is healthy), but I would be shocked if they did much more than win a home game or two.

[nol]

If Steph and the Warriors weren't playing the way they were, we'd be talking about a Cavs/Spurs matchup in the finals with Lebron slightly favored..

No, we'd just be talking about how the Spurs were possibly the best team of all time due to keeping pace with the '96 Bulls' record for much of the year even while deliberately punting away regular season games away for rest. That would certainly be the first playoff series I can remember in which a team would be favored over an opponent that finished 10 or more games above it during the regular season.

[korme]

That felt like a playoff game. Wow.

[korme]

Warriors make League Pass like premium cable must watch tv

[Brian Swartz]

That would certainly be the first playoff series I can remember in which a team would be favored over an opponent that finished 10 or more games above it during the regular season.

I agree. A Cleveland team at the top of it's game is a danger to anyone, but I have yet to see that team for a long-enough stretch to think it's going to magically show up come Finals time.

[stevew]

I just caught up on this Russell thing. I just don't understand what he was trying to do. Like what's in it for him?



Seems like it, but like someone else said, I can't imagine him actually leaving unless he's adamant about taking a paycut and going where he wants to go with whoever he wants to be there. But that team isn't fun to watch, he's never going to be satisfied and at this point, maybe just being hated is better.


LeBron and Wade split the MLE on the Clippers and Blake and some guys Pierce? (maybe) and Rivers for Carmelo pretty much forms the LA super team LeBron would want. Perhaps they also trade DeAndre so LeBron and Wade can make like 10M a piece.

[nol]

I agree. A Cleveland team at the top of it's game is a danger to anyone, but I have yet to see that team for a long-enough stretch to think it's going to magically show up come Finals time.

Even that is not giving the Spurs enough credit. If both teams play to their capabilities the Spurs win convincingly. In 2014 the Spurs were worse and LeBron was better, and it wasn't close then.

It's quite the power LeBron has to make the general public not only root against him but preemptively overstate his team's prowess to either diminish a championship or accentuate a loss. LeBron's team has been the favorite in 2 of 6 Finals appearances and LeBron has 2 championships.

[wustin]

I don't even want to get started as to why the Cavs are not good. The real finals is the WCF matchup between GSW and Spurs. Winner does a victory lap, Lebron goes 2-5.

Edit: The most important trait for a championship team is having good team defense, the sum should be greater than the parts. Cleveland has never exhibited that since Lebron came back.

[Vince, Pt. II]

Austin Rivers is absolutely torching Russell Westbrook tonight.

[wustin]

He still sucks

[jbergey22]

I don't even want to get started as to why the Cavs are not good. The real finals is the WCF matchup between GSW and Spurs. Winner does a victory lap, Lebron goes 2-5.

Edit: The most important trait for a championship team is having good team defense, the sum should be greater than the parts. Cleveland has never exhibited that since Lebron came back.

If the Cavs are "not good", how many teams in the NBA do you consider good? Sure the Warriors are the big favs and the Spurs are the 2nd best team in the NBA by a wide margin. Wouldnt you consider the Thunder, Cavs, Raptors, Clippers all in that next set of contenders?

[wustin]

If the Cavs are "not good", how many teams in the NBA do you consider good? Sure the Warriors are the big favs and the Spurs are the 2nd best team in the NBA by a wide margin. Wouldnt you consider the Thunder, Cavs, Raptors, Clippers all in that next set of contenders?

good was probably not the right word to use but any team from the east is pretty much irrelevant this season.

Reminds me of the 2002 playoffs tbh. Lakers were the team to beat, Kings not too far behind but definitely as good as the 2-peat Lakers squad, then the Spurs and Mavs. And on the east you had the Nets being carried by Jason Kidd. Just like this year, it doesn't really matter who comes to the finals from the east, they're just going to get trounced.

Unless Irving and Love somehow magically turn into good perimeter defenders it's not happening.

[jbergey22]

good was probably not the right word to use but any team from the east is pretty much irrelevant this season.

Reminds me of the 2002 playoffs tbh. Lakers were the team to beat, Kings not too far behind but definitely as good as the 2-peat Lakers squad, then the Spurs and Mavs. And on the east you had the Nets being carried by Jason Kidd. Just like this year, it doesn't really matter who comes to the finals from the east, they're just going to get trounced.

Unless Irving and Love somehow magically turn into good perimeter defenders it's not happening.

I am sure you have it nailed. A cold shooting playoff series or a physical series could be the Warriors downfall but unlikely to happen. The Spurs would be that team to present them problems but the Cavs dont match up much better with them than they do the Warriors.

[Brian Swartz]

If both teams play to their capabilities the Spurs win convincingly. In 2014 the Spurs were worse and LeBron was better, and it wasn't close then.


As a Spurs homer, I'm not at all certain they are better this year. No question they are in terms of regular-season accomplishments, but in terms of playoff ceiling and likelihood of getting to that peak(which would seem the relevant question in this context), they won't be better offensively(an insanely high bar there given how well they scored in the '14 Finals) and much of their defensive excellence has consisted of them being better than everyone else at shutting down average and poor teams consistently. That's a great thing, but it won't help them in the playoffs. They've struggled a lot more to slow down top-quality offenses than they have against the league at large.

[Groundhog]

Kyrie doing everything he can to give the Hawks a W tonight.

[Brian Swartz]

Cavs are still the team to beat though. Just ask him.

[Vince, Pt. II]

Hell of an effort by the Celtics tonight.

[Sublime 2]

Fun game! C's have given the Warriors all they can handle in both meetings this year.

[Brian Swartz]

Meanwhile, Drummond looks like a lock at this point to break Wilt's free-throw shooting record. That's one of those I didn't think would ever be broken. I have to think that dooms Detroit against whoever they play in the playoffs.

[Vince, Pt. II]

Fun game! C's have given the Warriors all they can handle in both meetings this year.

They really have. I figured this game would illustrate that the first time was because Klay and Harrison didn't play, but they were pretty awesome all game, on the second night of a road back-to-back. With all those draft picks they have...they could be a scary team in a couple years.

[nol]

I'd be really interested to see what the narrative would be if San Antonio took both of the remaining games from the Warriors to ensure Golden State could at best tie the Bulls' record. I'd still give the edge to the Ws in a series because of homecourt, but if the teams were within 2-3 games of one another (despite the Spurs punting a few games for rest) and San Antonio had won the last 3 head-to-head meetings, that would ratchet up the intrigue even more. As much as Popovich professes to not care about regular season accomplishments, I'm still not sure the Spurs would sit everyone and and gift-wrap the record to the Warriors next Sunday.

[wustin]

The last time Golden State won at San Antonio was 1997...

[whomario]

Spurs can also still become the first team in history to go undefeated at home (a redcord Pop almost punted away already recently, so pretty sure he´ll do it again). Was kinda hoping both records would be set, just to see some of the old-timers responses explaining it away ... Not likely to happen now i guess ...

[Young Drachma]

If the Spurs punted down the stretch, it's not like anyone would remember that and go "man but that record doesn't really count." They did give one away last night, but suspected they would during this run.

[whomario]

If the Spurs punted down the stretch, it's not like anyone would remember that and go "man but that record doesn't really count." They did give one away last night, but suspected they would during this run.

I meant that the Spurs almost punted away the chance at going 41-0 at home resting a couple starters at home a few days ago :)

[Groundhog]

Can anyone tell me why Brice Johnson isn't a more highly rated NBA prospect with his pogo-stick jumping, athleticism, and ability to hit FT line jumpers? I know he's "ancient" (21) and just under 6'10 without a freakish wingspan, but my eyes tell me he's a better prospect than an early-mid 2nd rounder, especially looking at how much he's improved the last couple of years, and it seems that the height stuff is less important these days, anyway.

[wustin]

Can anyone tell me why Brice Johnson isn't a more highly rated NBA prospect with his pogo-stick jumping, athleticism, and ability to hit FT line jumpers? I know he's "ancient" (21) and just under 6'10 without a freakish wingspan, but my eyes tell me he's a better prospect than an early-mid 2nd rounder, especially looking at how much he's improved the last couple of years, and it seems that the height stuff is less important these days, anyway.

He'd be a good starting center if he bulked up.

[nol]

Can anyone tell me why Brice Johnson isn't a more highly rated NBA prospect with his pogo-stick jumping, athleticism, and ability to hit FT line jumpers? I know he's "ancient" (21) and just under 6'10 without a freakish wingspan, but my eyes tell me he's a better prospect than an early-mid 2nd rounder, especially looking at how much he's improved the last couple of years, and it seems that the height stuff is less important these days, anyway.

He is stuck between 4 and 5 and hasn't gotten a whole lot stronger the past few years.

[Groundhog]

Which isn't really as much of a problem any more. Against most teams you can get away with a 4 man at the 5 spot, and most scoring bigs are facing up and driving rather than backing down.

[Groundhog]

dola

I'm not saying he's necessarily going to be a beast or anything, just seems like he's as good a chance as any to be a legit rotation guy in the NBA.

[wustin]

The comparison every site is making is Taj Gibson, which is very accurate. Taj has been a serviceable big man for almost 8 years now.

[nol]

Which isn't really as much of a problem any more. Against most teams you can get away with a 4 man at the 5 spot, and most scoring bigs are facing up and driving rather than backing down.

No, you always need at least one person out there who can block shots and act as somewhat as a deterrent against drivers. You can only get away with that if the 5 is a defender like Draymond Green or Gibson (who was a much more accomplished shot-blocker and defender than Johnson even in college and then got to be coached by Thibodeau), or if the other team is playing very small (in which case Johnson would be matched up against a perimeter player he'd have a tough time keeping up with). He'll be a little bit higher now after the tournament run, and late first round is commensurate with someone who has a chance to be a rotation player.

[Groundhog]

No, you always need at least one person out there who can block shots and act as somewhat as a deterrent against drivers. You can only get away with that if the 5 is a defender like Draymond Green or Gibson (who was a much more accomplished shot-blocker and defender than Johnson even in college and then got to be coached by Thibodeau), or if the other team is playing very small (in which case Johnson would be matched up against a perimeter player he'd have a tough time keeping up with).

No kidding, you're saying that personnel matters?

Teams can 'get away with' a lot of things depending on the situation. Bottom line is that for all this talk about what guys can't do and what teams shouldn't do, if a guy produces more than he gives away, he will get minutes.

[nol]

No kidding, you're saying that personnel matters?

Teams can 'get away with' a lot of things depending on the situation. Bottom line is that for all this talk about what guys can't do and what teams shouldn't do, if a guy produces more than he gives away, he will get minutes.

Well, by throwing out 'against most teams you can get away with the 4 at the 5 position' you are saying personnel does not matter at all. It works if that guy is All-Defense caliber or can shoot 3s (Blake Griffin is about as good offensively as a power forward can be without having a three-point shot, and the Clippers' lineups with him at center haven't been able to make it up on the offensive end) but otherwise teams would gladly keep a Nikola Vucevic or Clint Capela in there because Johnson is not as skilled from the perimeter to cancel out the sizable disadvantage he'd have down low.

Ironically, if the height stuff did matter as much he'd probably be considered a higher first round pick but as you mentioned his wingspan mitigates that and would allow teams to match up on him with a bigger wing unless Johnson were to develop a much better post game (Taj Gibson, who has a 7'4" wingspan, even runs into this more often now). I'm looking at a mock draft and the players immediately surroundin him are Grayson Allen, DeAndre Bembry, and Dejounte Murray, other players who could certainly develop into rotation-level players if enough things break the right way.

[Chief Rum]

Speaking of Blake, he is finally back on the court.

[nol]

The T-Wolves are up 4 with 4 minutes left in overtime at Golden State. This whole 73 win thing is really taking its toll on the Warriors - kind of a sloppy and listless game from them.

A Minnesota win probably secures Sam Mitchell's job for next year at least.

[wustin]

Would really be funny if they end up 69-13

[RainMaker]

Karl Anthony Towns is insanely good.

And that is a franchise that should be dumping a truckload of money at Thibodeau's feet.

[Young Drachma]

Yeah...W's pursuit took a major hit tonight for sure. I hope they get the record, but having no down time heading into the first round is a bummer.

[wustin]

They should just start resting their starters at this point. Screw the record.

[nol]

If the Spurs do rest players against the Warriors, April 13, 7:30 Pacific time would be the tip time for the Warriors going for the record at home against the depleted Grizzlies and Kobe's last game. Honestly would not surprise me if ESPN went with the Lakers.

I'd be really interested to see what the narrative would be if San Antonio took both of the remaining games from the Warriors to ensure Golden State could at best tie the Bulls' record. I'd still give the edge to the Ws in a series because of homecourt, but if the teams were within 2-3 games of one another (despite the Spurs punting a few games for rest) and San Antonio had won the last 3 head-to-head meetings, that would ratchet up the intrigue even more. As much as Popovich professes to not care about regular season accomplishments, I'm still not sure the Spurs would sit everyone and and gift-wrap the record to the Warriors next Sunday.

To add to this, if Kawhi Leonard were to play well while Steph comparatively struggled in these matchups it would be extremely interesting to see how the MVP vote would shake out. I don't think people would have that much recency bias, but it could be surprisingly close considering how long I've thought Curry would end up being the first unanimous MVP.

[Vince, Pt. II]

Honestly, the turnovers keep killing them. And it continues to happen game after game. They've been sloppy and listless for long stretches for a few weeks now. Part of that is playing without major rotational pieces for a long time - Ezeli just came back after 31 games out, Iguodala played his first game in a month or so two days ago, etc - but I think the strain of having to give it your all every night because everyone is coming to get you is starting to finally wear on them.

What worries me as a Warriors fan is that the Spurs have been quietly amazing all year long - while adapting several new players into the system and adjusting tons of things as they went. The more comfortable they get...eesh. It's going to be ridiculous the meltdown that most fans will do if the Warriors miss out on both the record AND the title. Which will be sad, because even if both of those things happen, this has been an incredible, incredible season.

[Brian Swartz]

I wouldn't get too worried yet. If they start stumbling/struggling in the playoffs, then yeah, but I think it's just that time of year. With all the comparisons to the Jordan Bulls I think it's worth noting that they had a bit of a rough end to their year with a couple of home losses -- and lost one more game, total, in the first three rounds of the playoffs. I think the Warriors will suffer more than that, but the sky isn't falling.

Spurs aren't tearing the league up right now either like they were earlier in the year. Almost lost to Toronto with Lowry/DeRozan sitting, and had to play bigger starter minutes than they like to in order to win; almost blew another lead at Utah yesterday again with big minutes from Leonard/Aldridge and only Diaw sitting.

Not that I wouldn't mind seeing GS come back to earth a bit and even things, but once the playoffs start, particularly with Iguodala getting back into the swing of things, they should be fine. Anybody could still suffer key injuries, but that's a problem every team has.

[sovereignstar v2]

And that is a franchise that should be dumping a truckload of money at Thibodeau's feet.

One problem with that. Glen Taylor.

Karl Anthony Towns is insanely good.

Highest PER by rookies since 1985:
26.3 David Robinson
25.8 Michael Jordan
22.9 Karl-Anthony Towns
22.9 Shaquille O'Neal
22.6 Tim Duncan

[miami_fan]

Sam Hinkie has stepped down.

[miami_fan]

Sam Hinkie steps down as Philadelphia 76ers general manager, president of basketball operations (http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/15150185/sam-hinkie-steps-philadelphia-76ers-general-manager-president-basketball-operations)

In a letter to members of the Sixers' ownership group, obtained by ESPN.com, Hinkie wrote: "There has been much criticism of our approach. There will be more. A competitive league like the NBA necessitates a zig while our competitors comfortably zag. We often chose not to defend ourselves against much of the criticism, largely in an effort to stay true to the ideal of having the longest view in the room.

"... Given all the changes to our organization, I no longer have the confidence that I can make good decisions on behalf of investors in the Sixers -- you. So I should step down. And I have."

[cuervo72]

Oh, boy, the Sixers can now get on their way back to being Wizards North.

[murrayyyyy]

Sam Hinkie has stepped down.

It's all part of "the process"

[nol]

How convenient! Now Jerry Colangelo's son, with his outstanding resume as an NBA GM, gets to step in just in time for all of the Sixers' draft picks to hit the court. The Sixers definitely have the assets to put together a nice trade package for Rudy Gay.

[miami_fan]

So anyone got an idea what Philly is doing now? Seems strange going out and hiring Colangelo as their Chairman of Basketball Operations. Is he there to handcuff Hinkie?

If by handcuff you meant force him out, then yes.

[murrayyyyy]

If by handcuff you meant force him out, then yes.

Actually I meant preventing him from making any moves before they fired him but yeah the same thing...

[Shkspr]

Oh, boy, the Sixers can now get on their way back to being Wizards North.

They can't be Wizards North; they've got draft picks.

[Brian Swartz]

Portland now officially in the playoffs, which basically nobody predicted at the beginning of the season. A part of that is other teams being disappointing, but they were picked near the bottom of the conference. Very impressed by what they've done after losing Aldridge etc. , even if it may not be for the best long-term.

[stevew]

So zig is now short-handed for "not even fucking trying."

[nol]

Portland now officially in the playoffs, which basically nobody predicted at the beginning of the season. A part of that is other teams being disappointing, but they were picked near the bottom of the conference. Very impressed by what they've done after losing Aldridge etc. , even if it may not be for the best long-term.

I liked their offseason quite a bit and think Neil Olshey should be Executive of the Year, but the Rockets imploding and the Blazers' injury luck compared to Utah and Memphis plays a much bigger role in their record this year. Portland was .500 at the All-Star break, and in most years in the West that's also-ran status (the Spurs were 34-19 and in 7th place at the break last season). If 7th-8th was the best they could have done, they absolutely would have liberally rested Lillard, who's in year 1 of a big-money deal, and kept their first-rounder. The draft being weak also shifted them more towards making a playoff run, I'm sure.

[JPhillips]

I hope Hinkie enjoyed his 13 page resignation letter, because that level of bitchiness is going to keep him out of NBA front offices for quite a long time.

[Shkspr]

I hope Hinkie enjoyed his 13 page resignation letter, because that level of bitchiness is going to keep him out of NBA front offices for quite a long time.

Yeah, but the Browns are still hiring.

[murrayyyyy]

I hope Hinkie enjoyed his 13 page resignation letter, because that level of bitchiness is going to keep him out of NBA front offices for quite a long time.

Someone will be his Rod Tidwell...

[murrayyyyy]

Anyone listen to the dead man walking podcast (I mean Lowe-Hienke podcast) from Tuesday?

Lowe: Sam Hinkie - ESPN (http://espn.go.com/espnradio/play?id=15139625)

[nol]

Anyone listen to the dead man walking podcast (I mean Lowe-Hienke podcast) from Tuesday?

Lowe: Sam Hinkie - ESPN (http://espn.go.com/espnradio/play?id=15139625)

Yeah, it was definitely meant to be an explainer for other teams looking to hire. He had plenty of opportunities to respond to questions in ways that would have made him look better but was very careful to be diplomatic and at least more subtly indicate what he thought.

In responding to the "it's easy to be the worst team but you could have just as easily gone for 45 wins" strawman he correctly indicates both that the team won 34 games the season before and was trending downward the following year, and that you can look at the bottom of the standings every year and see it littered with teams that had the "let's just win 40-45 games and compete for the playoffs year in and year out" m.o.

The 76ers' owners sure come out of this smelling like a rose. They hired a guy on the premise that he'd tear things down completely, then when he excecuted that and they couldn't take the heat, they passive-aggressively fired him. They undid all of the crappy moves they signed off on prior to Hinkie and are set up much better for the future, they probably earned a bucketload of money by keeping salary low while the league's TV revenues boomed, and they're banking on the notion that the guy they hired will be the scapegoat for doing what he was hired to do.

[Arles]

Did Sam Hinkie help or hurt Philadelphia 76ers? - NBA (http://espn.go.com/nba/insider/story/_/id/15150647/did-sam-hinkie-help-hurt-philadelphia-76ers-nba)

I really enjoy Pelton's work, but this is a bit of a strawman argument. Of course, if you stink for 3 years, don't sign any FAs and sell all players for draft picks (to go along with your own top 5 picks for sucking) - you will be in "better shape". But what about the fans and the product you are subjecting them to over that period? There has to be a cost for that.

So many teams (Boston, Portland, Detroit, Atlanta) have found ways to rebuild on the fly without being dreadful for three seasons. There are better ways to put yourself in a good spot for the future than just completely tanking for 3-4 seasons. I'm still shocked that people like Pelton, Barnwell and others are looking at this Philly thing as some kind of success story. Do people really think Philly is in better shape than Boston, Portland or Detroit? All three of these teams had the option to go the Philly route - but instead chose to make smart deals, bring in FAs and continue to get better (and all may be in the playoffs with a solid future). The success of Boston, Portland and Detroit/Atlanta/Indiana/Toronto/... should show that the Philly plan is overly draconian and punitive. You don't have to be awful for three years to put yourself in a good position to succeed.

[JPhillips]

And on the Hinkie plan they are going to be a lottery pick for how many years in the future, two? three?

Again, there's no genius in getting top five picks until enough of them are good players.

[nol]

Did Sam Hinkie help or hurt Philadelphia 76ers? - NBA (http://espn.go.com/nba/insider/story/_/id/15150647/did-sam-hinkie-help-hurt-philadelphia-76ers-nba)

I really enjoy Pelton's work, but this is a bit of a strawman argument. Of course, if you stink for 3 years, don't sign any FAs and sell all players for draft picks (to go along with your own top 5 picks for sucking) - you will be in "better shape". But what about the fans and the product you are subjecting them to over that period? There has to be a cost for that.

So many teams (Boston, Portland, Detroit, Atlanta) have found ways to rebuild on the fly without being dreadful for three seasons. There are better ways to put yourself in a good spot for the future than just completely tanking for 3-4 seasons. I'm still shocked that people like Pelton, Barnwell and others are looking at this Philly thing as some kind of success story. Do people really think Philly is in better shape than Boston, Portland or Detroit? All three of these teams had the option to go the Philly route - but instead chose to make smart deals, bring in FAs and continue to get better (and all may be in the playoffs with a solid future). The success of Boston, Portland and Detroit/Atlanta/Indiana/Toronto/... should show that the Philly plan is overly draconian and punitive. You don't have to be awful for three years to put yourself in a good position to succeed.

Haha, very rich from a Suns fan. Again, the goalposts continually move from year to year as to which teams constitute a successful rebuild. Last year it was Milwaukee and Atlanta, this year it's Portland, the year before it was Phoenix. Toronto is a funny example because its last 3 years under Colangelo featured 23 and 23 wins, followed by a panic trade for a nominal star player on a max contract that helped them improve to 34 wins. It was bad enough that his replacement went into the following season with the intent to tear down and tank for Wiggins but actually improved the team simply by ridding it of the Rudy Gay albatross contract. If having a shot at making the playoffs every 3-4 years when over half the teams in the league do makes the fans think the product they're watching is that much better, that says more about the fans than anyone else.

Also very funny to see people just starting to pick up on how much of a franchise-changer Towns is while in the next breath making fun of the Embiid pick (who even with the injury factored in was a prospect of that magnitude and happened to be so much of a 'gamble' that he'd have been selected with the following pick regardless).

Also shout-out to everyone who was so sure Hinkie's entire strategy was just some cynical ploy to stay perpetually employed.

[JonInMiddleGA]

So many teams (Boston, Portland, Detroit, Atlanta) have found ways to rebuild on the fly without being dreadful for three seasons.

Might want to reconsider one of those examples. Atlanta was no more relevant, nor even interesting, during their "rebuild" than the Sixers. They'd been pretty much meaningless for around 20 years prior to last season.

[nol]

Might want to reconsider one of those examples. Atlanta was no more relevant, nor even interesting, during their "rebuild" than the Sixers. They'd been pretty much meaningless for around 20 years prior to last season.

Also Portland was the pre-Sonics/Thunder, pre-Philadelphia example in terms of stockpiling draft picks.

2005: 6th, 22nd, and 27th
2006: 2nd, 6th, and 30th
2007: 1st and 30th

In addition to either being bad those years or getting really lucky and moving up in the lottery, they were very aggressive in buying late first-rounders with cash (something teams aren't dumb enough to give up anymore). Wouldn't call that run of draft choices a rebuild on the fly, nor would I say they hit a home run on every single pick, but that gave them the foundation to become a playoff team. When people talk about how much 'luck' a strategy like Philadelphia's is relying on, please consider that the model of success Philadelphia was supposed to have kept together backed into the playoffs with a 34-48 record and won a first round series after the other team's 3 best players got injured. Or that the current best team in the NBA is in the position they're in because a guy who was one more ankle sprain from being out of the league has been completely healthy the past four years while, oh yeah, also improving his game as much as anyone ever has over that timeframe.

If you applied the same level of scrutiny to every single team besides Philly, you'd find that at least half of them are in a worse position than they were three years ago, and most of those teams have made at best a token playoff appearance at best during that span while probably doubling Philadelphia's salary expenditures.

Someone will be his Rod Tidwell...

That has Embiid written all over it. In a just and hilarious world, Hinkie would take over Sacramento and trade Cousins to the Sixers for all the picks and young players he'd been accumulating.

[murrayyyyy]

Also very funny to see people just starting to pick up on how much of a franchise-changer Towns is while in the next breath making fun of the Embiid pick (who even with the injury factored in was a prospect of that magnitude and happened to be so much of a 'gamble' that he'd have been selected with the following pick regardless).

Also shout-out to everyone who was so sure Hinkie's entire strategy was just some cynical ploy to stay perpetually employed.

But isn't this part of the point that Lowe was trying to make. The Wolves aren't a great team but they have a building block ahead of the 76ers right now. Their starting 5 is young and decent, Shabazz and Nikola are nice pieces... they just have no depth or that middle of the road FA (yet). They are in place with the cap to sign those missing pieces. Their major players shoot great FT%.

The 76ers on the other hand have poor FT shooters getting the most attempts. Out of those (four) who get at least 3 a game, Okafor is the best @ 68%. Only one player started 50 games this year for them so far. Even from a drafting analysis view of what the 76ers do it just never seems right.

Wasn't he the one always going to Sloan preaching statistical analysis? The 76ers are the worst scoring team, 2nd worst FG% team, 4th worst FT% team, 5th worst def FG% team, 4th worst 3PFG% team, worst team rebounding difference by a full rebound a game and finally commit the 2nd most turnovers a game. Who should be ultimately responsible for the team that has failed in almost every category this season? The head coach or the GM?

There are major flaws across an entire roster that won't be fixed with a lottery pick or two and I can't think of a free agent who would step into a cluster like this team even at the mid-level. Those guys are going to Minnesota and the like.

[Atocep]

But isn't this part of the point that Lowe was trying to make. The Wolves aren't a great team but they have a building block ahead of the 76ers right now. Their starting 5 is young and decent, Shabazz and Nikola are nice pieces... they just have no depth or that middle of the road FA (yet). They are in place with the cap to sign those missing pieces. Their major players shoot great FT%.

The gains that come from 10 years of tanking.

[nol]

But isn't this part of the point that Lowe was trying to make. The Wolves aren't a great team but they have a building block ahead of the 76ers right now. Their starting 5 is young and decent, Shabazz and Nikola are nice pieces... they just have no depth or that middle of the road FA (yet). They are in place with the cap to sign those missing pieces. Their major players shoot great FT%.

The 76ers on the other hand have poor FT shooters getting the most attempts. Out of those (four) who get at least 3 a game, Okafor is the best @ 68%. Only one player started 50 games this year for them so far. Even from a drafting analysis view of what the 76ers do it just never seems right.

Wasn't he the one always going to Sloan preaching statistical analysis? The 76ers are the worst scoring team, 2nd worst FG% team, 4th worst FT% team, 5th worst def FG% team, 4th worst 3PFG% team, worst team rebounding difference by a full rebound a game and finally commit the 2nd most turnovers a game. Who should be ultimately responsible for the team that has failed in almost every category this season? The head coach or the GM?

There are major flaws across an entire roster that won't be fixed with a lottery pick or two and I can't think of a free agent who would step into a cluster like this team even at the mid-level. Those guys are going to Minnesota and the like.

Minnesota is the best example of this process! They've sucked for 10+ years, blown lottery pick after lottery pick, but because a broken clock is right twice a day they now have a couple young stars to build around. If Golden State had been dumb enough to trade Kevin Love for a package including Klay Thompson like pretty much everyone wanted, the Wolves wouldn't have had Wiggins and then would have won 25 or so games last year and missed out on Towns as well. They don't have depth for a reason! They tied up a bunch of money on guys like Kevin Martin and Pekovic, who even when healthy were not making the team competitive and would have prevented young players from getting PT; Pekovic is north of 30 and has been godawful over the last few seasons, so the idea that he's a nice piece is laughable. But they were able to trade one of their two non-bust lottery picks since KG left for a future star because it just so happened that the team with the first pick in the draft was in win-now mode (when was the last time that was the case?) and made a trade that took all of six months for everyone else to realize how short-sighted it was. But yes, what a shining example of an NBA franchise Sam Hinkie should have tried to emulate instead. The idea that a Timberwolves level of regular season futility might be combined with someone who knows what he's doing making the draft choices is what caused people around the league to freak out this much in the first place. Everyone was more than happy to let Glen Taylor hire his buddies while the T-Wolves sucked - more good players for everyone else!

Also the whole point of Hinkie was that once he was hired as GM, he didn't preach anything and tried to run things Belichick style. Well, that resulted in the media being pissed about a lack of access and seeking out anyone who would go on the record saying anything negative about him. That was a 'mistake' in that Hinkie assumed his ownership group would continue regarding that as useless noise based on the plan he laid out before being hired. Talking and trying to defend your job is counterproductive if you think you're going to be the GM and see things out - it would not have helped the 76ers going forward if Hinkie had done a few interviews explicitly spelling out "Hey, remember those trades where everyone was calling me an idiot at the time? Well, it turns out we really ripped New Orleans/Houston/Milwaukee/Sacramento/etc. off!" or "Spencer Hawes, Andre Iguodala, Thad Young, Evan Turner, and Jrue Holiday all have had nowhere near the impact people thought they were going to have going forward, so it wasn't such a bad choice to move them when we did, was it?" That'd have been entirely counterproductive to the team's ability to make more deals going forward.

[Arles]

Haha, very rich from a Suns fan. Again, the goalposts continually move from year to year as to which teams constitute a successful rebuild. Last year it was Milwaukee and Atlanta, this year it's Portland, the year before it was Phoenix. Toronto is a funny example because its last 3 years under Colangelo featured 23 and 23 wins, followed by a panic trade for a nominal star player on a max contract that helped them improve to 34 wins.
Yes, but all these teams (even the Suns) have been watchable over the past 3 seasons. The Sixers have not been. Back in 2012-13, the Sixers, Raptors, Pistons, Suns and Trailblazers were all between 25 and 38 wins (Sixers were at 34). Each of the other teams have had atleast one entertaining season over the past three seasons and all are in better shape than Philly. The Suns are the worst of the non-Philly teams - and they have a ton of picks (including a top 5) and cap space, plus some building blocks in Booker, Len, Bledsoe and Warren. Even a guy like Brandon Knight (who's been a disappointment) is still just 24 and has a solid contract with the cap increases coming. I'd much rather have watched the Suns product the last three years over Philly and have their roster right now - and their management has been pretty much incompetent. Boston won 25 games in 2013-14 and they are in much better shape than Philly - same goes for Portland. Detroit is on the upswing, as is Toronto.

There are so many great examples of teams pivoting after 1-2 bad seasons and being competitive (if not vying for a title). The only team that has done the "bottom out for 3 years and then be great" has been OKC. They were bad for three season, got Durant, Westbrook, Ibaka and Harden - then won 50 games during the 4th. Philly is no closer to winning 50 games as they are to winning 2. Minnesota been sucking for close to a decade and they finally may win 28 games. The problem with "bottoming out" is there's no blueprint for how long to suffer. It may be three years if you have a rabbit foot up your butt like Seattle/OKC - or it may be that you are still winning only 30 games after 10 like Minnesota. And atleast Minnesota has signed veterans like KG, Kevin Martin, Tayshawn Prince and Pekovic to help mentor the young guys. They didn't trade Rubio or Garnett away for a bag of balls and draft picks to keep sucking.

There are so many examples of teams pivoting successful over the past 5-6 years without tanking for 3-4 seasons. Even Utah (who won 25 games in 13-14) now has a playoff team with a ton of upside. Just look at the transactions that Boston and Portland have made the past two seasons - there are ways to put out a watchable young team with smart FA contracts/trades and still rebuild. This "empty cupboard" Philly tactic is and was a joke. Had Philly just traded for/signed guys like Jae Crowder, Isaiah Thomas, Evan Turner (who they had), Amir Johnson, Aminu, Plumlee and even a guy like Noah Vonleh - they would be in much better shape right now. But taking smart FA, veteran trades off the table and tanking is just stupid.

[Arles]

Also the whole point of Hinkie was that once he was hired as GM, he didn't preach anything and tried to run things Belichick style.
I'm guessing you mean Belichick in Cleveland because the NE version has never had a three year stretch like this.

Well, that resulted in the media being pissed about a lack of access and seeking out anyone who would go on the record saying anything negative about him. That was a 'mistake' in that Hinkie assumed his ownership group would continue regarding that as useless noise based on the plan he laid out before being hired. Talking and trying to defend your job is counterproductive if you think you're going to be the GM and see things out - it would not have helped the 76ers going forward if Hinkie had done a few interviews explicitly spelling out "Hey, remember those trades where everyone was calling me an idiot at the time? Well, it turns out we really ripped New Orleans/Houston/Milwaukee/Sacramento/etc. off!" or "Spencer Hawes, Andre Iguodala, Thad Young, Evan Turner, and Jrue Holiday all have had nowhere near the impact people thought they were going to have going forward, so it wasn't such a bad choice to move them when we did, was it?" That'd have been entirely counterproductive to the team's ability to make more deals going forward.
No, the problem was he kept selling off anyone who could play for magic beans and not taking any chances on FAs or trades for players. He completely ignored two of the three ways to improve (trade for vets, FAs) just to suck and get a chance at a better pick. It didn't work and he created an unwatchable product that is still years from being competitive. He gambled and loss, hence the team bringing in additional people. I'm shocked the owners even allowed this sham to begin with, but it is entirely defensive-able to start transitioning away from Hinkie running things after this debacle. If I were a Philly owner and saw what Boston, Portland and Detroit have done the past few seasons - I'd be pissed too when I looked at this Philly cast of characters on the court.

[stevew]

No offense to any fans of the Rockets, but a Dwight Howard and James Harden free playoffs would be great.

[Atocep]

What I've learned the past few years is it's ok to suck for a decade as long as you appear to be trying to win. It's ok to suck in every sport except the NBA even if you're not trying to win. In the NBA it offends people to suck for the purpose of rebuilding through the draft.

Two of the teams that were examples of how the 76ers are supposed to rebuild (Bucks and Suns) have imploded with a total 1 above .500 record between them over the past 3 years. The Hawks are itching to tear it down and rebuild again. No one was mentioning the Pistons and Blazers as prime examples of how to rebuild prior to some success this season.

It's funny, as mentioned earlier, how the goalposts keep moving as far as examples of how to rebuild go. I don't get why being upfront about what they're doing so deeply offends people. They could have brought Barkley out of retirement to play 30 minutes a night as a "farewell" and called it trying and it seems people would have been less pissed.

[JonInMiddleGA]

No one was mentioning the Pistons and Blazers as prime examples of how to rebuild prior to some success this season.

And having watching the Hawks regression, odds seem pretty good that at least one of those two (either) won't be a prime example by this time next year either.

[Atocep]

No, the problem was he kept selling off anyone who could play for magic beans and not taking any chances on FAs or trades for players. He completely ignored two of the three ways to improve (trade for vets, FAs) just to suck and get a chance at a better pick.

The 76ers had a deal set with Atlanta to land Dennis Schroder at the deadline that the Hawks backed out of at the last minute. It's not like Hinkie was sitting around doing nothing but lose and stockpiling picks.



If I were a Philly owner and saw what Boston, Portland and Detroit have done the past few seasons - I'd be pissed too when I looked at this Philly cast of characters on the court.

They can also look to the Suns and Bucks as cautionary tales of why you don't try to take shortcuts when rebuilding.

[nol]

Yes, but all these teams (even the Suns) have been watchable over the past 3 seasons. The Sixers have not been. Back in 2012-13, the Sixers, Raptors, Pistons, Suns and Trailblazers were all between 25 and 38 wins (Sixers were at 34). Each of the other teams have had atleast one entertaining season over the past three seasons and all are in better shape than Philly.

And the Sixers had the worst outlook of all those teams at the time because they'd traded their best player, their previous two first round picks, and two conditional future firsts for ANDREW BYNUM. The only comparably bad situation from the recent past or the foreseeable future will be the Nets, and at least free agents would be more likely to want to play in Brooklyn. How many times does that idea need to be repeated, or that you are arbitrarily setting 20 wins as the cut-off for 'unwatchable' basketball. If you think a team that wins 25, 28, 32 games is more watchable because it loses just the same to the actually good opponents while being able to handle the Philadelphias of the world thanks to some average veteran who makes more money than Philly's starting five combined (without realizing where that veteran's salary is ultimately coming from), well, a fool and his money are easily parted.

The Suns are the worst of the non-Philly teams - and they have a ton of picks (including a top 5) and cap space, plus some building blocks in Booker, Len, Bledsoe and Warren. Even a guy like Brandon Knight (who's been a disappointment) is still just 24 and has a solid contract with the cap increases coming. I'd much rather have watched the Suns product the last three years over Philly and have their roster right now - and their management has been pretty much incompetent. Boston won 25 games in 2013-14 and they are in much better shape than Philly - same goes for Portland. Detroit is on the upswing, as is Toronto.

Pretty much every shitty team can say it is 'on the upswing' until it isn't. You can play out the string, take your lottery season or first-round playoff stomping, talk yourself into the rookie you drafted, etc. until your team performs under expectations, the sky is falling, and you make a stupid panic trade. It takes guts to say "yeah, our guy got Rookie of the Year, but is he really that great?" and make a move.

The easy, mediocre path in the NBA would have been for Philadelphia let inertia take them forward, win 20-25 games the following season and probably stagnate the season after that. Then, Michael Carter-Williams is an easy scapegoat because he had so much promise his rookie season, you were told he was the centerpiece of the team going forward because he won ROY and maybe got some lucrative extension, but he just never put the work in to develop a jump shot or whatever. Now he's the one the fans will say set the team back a few years because he had the nerve to be a basketball player with limitations who accepted the contract offered to him.

The problem with "bottoming out" is there's no blueprint for how long to suffer. It may be three years if you have a rabbit foot up your butt like Seattle/OKC - or it may be that you are still winning only 30 games after 10 like Minnesota. And atleast Minnesota has signed veterans like KG, Kevin Martin, Tayshawn Prince and Pekovic to help mentor the young guys. They didn't trade Rubio or Garnett away for a bag of balls and draft picks to keep sucking.

Yes, if there's one type of blueprint NBA fans need, it's for more Prokhorovs and Buss children who will guarantee them the team will be contenders in X amount of years. Sure, they'll end up being wrong and will likely do something stupid and dig themselves into an even bigger hole the second it seems like they're not making constant progress towards that arbitrary goal, but it sure feels nice and comforting to hear someone tell you that it's gonna be all right :)

Thank God the Wolves didn't trade away Garnett for a bag of balls. Even better! They traded Thad Young (who they traded a first-rounder and a couple other players for) so KG could be a glorified assistant coach who costs $8 million/year while taking up a roster spot and cap space. If you want KG's leadership, you could have waited a few months for Brooklyn to buy him out and then brought him in for cheap, but that wouldn't have gotten the good fans of Minnesota to buy tickets to meaningless games last February that KG didn't even suit up for.

[murrayyyyy]

Minnesota is the best example of this process!

You mean a team who traded to acquire picks and had four 1st rounders in 2009 and draft guards (two b2b) and turned around by trading the most productive of the four for a future first round draft pick? Well I'm glad Heinke was so deep in the process that he couldn't back out of drafting the same position (oh wait...) or couldn't help from trading talent to develop for a future first round pi (oh wait...). So he really has followed the Wolves process. I'm sure the fans will be excited when the 76ers finally break 26 wins with those 13? 2nd round picks that teams owe them.

This hasn't even begun to look at the part of the process that no one talks about. He really like Porzingus and wanted to draft him. The problem is that hte player and the agent didn't want to sign up for the process.

--Miller didn't make it easy for Philadelphia to draft Porzingis at No. 3. The Sixers wouldn't be afforded Porzingis' physical, nor get a private workout, nor even a face-to-face meeting. After most of the pro day executives cleared out of the gym in Vegas in mid-June, 76ers general manager Sam Hinkie lingered to meet with Miller. Hinkie stopped him in the lobby area and asked Miller about a chance to sit down and visit with Porzingis.

"You said that I would get a meeting with him here," Hinkie told Miller.

"I said, 'I'd try,' and it's not going to work out, Sam," Miller responded.

An awkward silence lingered, the GM and agent, standing and staring. The Porzingis camp wanted no part of the Sixers' situation at No 3. Miller couldn't stop Philadelphia from drafting Porzingis, but he could limit the information they had to make a decision. And did. No physical. No meeting. No workout. The Sixers passed on Porzingis on draft night, clearing the way for the Knicks to select him.
--

Miller is also Nerlens Noel's agent. Guess who would not staying in Philly when he gets the chance during the process? Hollis Thompson is also his client. He's also the agent of some guy in Minnesota named KG. When KG takes his front office job he might have the inside track on some of Miller's new free agents to come to Minnesota instead of where Heinke starts Process 2.0. (and I've come full circle)

In his 13 page letter, he never reflected on what went wrong with the process with regards to having players lose and lose often.

[nol]

You mean a team who traded to acquire picks and had four 1st rounders in 2009 and draft guards (two b2b) and turned around by trading the most productive of the four for a future first round draft pick? Well I'm glad Heinke was so deep in the process that he couldn't back out of drafting the same position (oh wait...) or couldn't help from trading talent to develop for a future first round pi (oh wait...). So he really has followed the Wolves process. I'm sure the fans will be excited when the 76ers finally break 26 wins with those 13? 2nd round picks that teams owe them.

Yeah, the team had plenty of extra picks because they had so mismanaged Garnett's prime that they had to completely tear apart the roster; that gives a rebuild a much better starting point than having to figure what to do with the Sixers' in 2012-13. Even though watching any basketball in the past 3 years would tell you the players on that roster didn't have much of a future together, let's say you know something everyone else doesn't and they could have managed to be to competitive. Congrats! Then they'd owe their first round pick to Orlando for a trade that (for the 1000th time) was made before Hinkie (who you seem pretty obsessed with for not being able to spell his name. It's 6 letters long) was hired.

This hasn't even begun to look at the part of the process that no one talks about. He really like Porzingus and wanted to draft him. The problem is that hte player and the agent didn't want to sign up for the process.

Oh man, a player's agent wanted his client to get drafted one spot later and play in New York? I need to find my fainting couch.

In his 13 page letter, he never reflected on what went wrong with the process with regards to having players lose and lose often.

"You hired me to execute a strategy that everyone knew going in could take a long time, but now you don't like where it is three years in and I don't agree with the changes you're trying to make."

[Gary Gorski]

If I were a Philly owner and saw what Boston, Portland and Detroit have done the past few seasons - I'd be pissed too when I looked at this Philly cast of characters on the court.

First I'm not a Hinkie defender - I don't disagree with the concept but I think he both a) made bad decisions like drafting MCW (which in fairness he did dump him) and drafting Okafor when you already have Noel and Embiid and b) played a too-long version of this game by drafting Embiid and Saric. Yeah he didn't know Embiid would miss two years but first it was Noel who would miss a year and then Embiid for sure would miss one and everyone knew Saric wasn't coming right away - once, sure. Twice, eh? Three guys that you used very high picks on? It was just terrible execution of a decent idea.

How different would this team look if you had Randle and Rodney Hood (those would have been my picks at their spots) along with Noel and then assuming Randle still would have gotten hurt they would have been in the 3-5 range in 2015 and could have traded down to 6th or something for Darren Collison, the pick (which could have been Justise Winslow) and another future pick - Collison, Hood, Winslow, Randle and Noel is a competent lineup with four guys who have very high upside, probably would have ended up the lottery one more time plus you would still have all those future 1sts coming. You would have had "the process" without essentially putting a d-league squad on the floor and that was the real issue that was so distasteful about this. It's one thing to lose with guys people perceive to have some talent and promise and future - its another to lose with guys who more than likely would not play for any other team in the league and have zero future with an even sort-of good team.

That said - I don't think that's a fair comparison nor a banner to be waiving.

First Portland both had a legitimate all-star in Aldridge and nailed a draft pick with Lillard who immediately was a stud. With three years of those guys playing at an extremely high level they went 148-96, finished worse each season and didn't even make the playoffs last year. They nailed the McCollum pick too and now have an excellent backcourt surrounded by guys who are good role players but will never be anything more than that. Houston totally imploded, New Orleans was a complete disaster - Portland proved that what matters is consistency from the top and solid leadership/coaching. I think that if you apply that to HOU, NO, SAC, PHX and even MIN those teams would be better than Portland. In the end this Portland team isn't going anywhere without landing a big time free agent but they're no comparison to Philly either. Philly hasn't drafted a Lillard yet. Without him to not only produce what he does but also make it easier on guys like McCollum they would be rivaling anyone in the league for the top lottery spot.

Detroit? Maybe but Detroit is much later in "the process". Again, Detroit has an elite player to build around in Drummond and thank goodness SVG finally realized that the Drummond/Monroe combo was never going to work but remember this team hasn't been to the playoffs since 08-09 and if it weren't for the complete meltdown of the Bulls and Wizards that streak would still be alive. I actually like the makeup of the team with Jackson, Drummond and Harris (and wished we would have taken Winslow but Johnson has shown some good stuff). Harris only came about because they undid two previous mistakes (Jennings/Ilyasova). This could be the route Philly is destined to be on by undoing MCW and possibly one of Okafor/Embiid. Detroit was never going to be a FA destination for any of the top players so the best they could hope for was take advantage of solid players that other teams wanted to unload for whatever reason and they've done that giving up virtually nothing for the chance to resign Jackson and trading broken down parts for Harris.

Boston I think is a good comparison for the opposite of what Philly did but is that something to aspire to? The East blows and they have a really good coach who's able to push the right buttons most nights and get a team of hard working, blue collar guys to play over their heads. Thomas, Bradley, Smart, Crowder, Amir - I love what these guys bring to the table but where's the next level? I still think you would rather be Indiana, Chicago (assuming they keep Butler) or Washington than Boston. Hell I'd rather be Milwaukee than Boston because Giannis is such a freak.

The bottom line is that Hinkie had no control over the most important part of the whole thing - the lottery. If Philly won the lottery and grabbed KAT people would be fawning over "the process" and Hinkie would be lauded as a genious for having KAT with Noel and Saric on the way and the ability to trade Embiid for something else good plus a ton of picks in the bank and plenty of salary to bring someone amazing to Philly. Even if he won the lottery the year before and took Wiggins he wouldn't have the Embiid mess on his hands and the team would look better than it does now. At the end of the day winning the lottery was essential to the plan and it never happened - he then compounded it by drafting guys who wouldn't play for a year (or ever so far) - what could have been a great plan ended up blowing up in his face due to poor luck and poor execution of the hands he was dealt.

[Arles]

Here are the players who have been taken after Philly's pick since Hinkie came in:
2015 - Porzingis, Hezonja, Mudiay, Winslow, Myles Turner, Trey Lyles and Devin Booker. I'd rather have any of the above players for Philly over Okafor given their other guys. They fill a bigger need and look to have a higher upside.

2014 - Aaron Gordon, Marcus Smart, Julius Randle and even Exum are guys I'd rather have than Embiid. Throw in LaVine, TJ Warren, Nurkic, Gary Harris, Rodney Hood and Clint Capela as guys I'd rather have than Saric. And these are just first round comps - not even mentioning the Jordan Clarkson types in the 2nd. Once again, the Sixers could have had Gordon or Smart and LaVine/Harris/Nurkic instead of Embiid and Saric.

2013 - CJ McCollum was right after Noel. Throw in Giannis, Schroeder and Gobert as guys right after MCW.

It's not like Hinkie "barely missed" on a couple guys in bad drafts - he pretty much blew every pick in a 3 year stretch where he had 5 picks in the top 12. Normally, that's no big deal. I mean Boston missed on a bunch of James Youngs and Feb Melos in prior drafts. But, Boston wasn't putting all their eggs in the draft basket. They traded for Isaiah Thomas and Jae Crowder, signed FAs like Evan Turner, Amir Johnson and kept vets like Avery Bradley and Sullinger. Had Philly done other transactions to improve the team - the draft misses could be covered up. But Hinkie completely blew the Embiid and Saric picks and left a bunch of better options on the table with Okafor and Noel. If you are going to stake the entire rebuilding process on the draft and draft only, you need to hit paydirt on atleast 3 of those 5 picks (a la OKC). Now, if you want to take a smarter route and trade for a Reggie Jackson, Tobias Harris, Isaiah Thomas or Jae Crowder and find some nice FAs like Aminu, Ed Davis, Kyle Korver or Paul Milsap - you can afford to miss on a few picks. But Hinkie gambled everything on nailing his 5 lottery picks and he just didn't do that. So, I think it is extremely fair to call an audible 3+ years in when this team is light years away from fielding a competitive team and created a terrible reputation that is preventing them from signing/trading for players even if they wanted to.

The morale here is that it is short-sighted to only allow yourself one way to improve in the NBA (high draft picks). If you look at all the up and coming teams (Boston, Utah, Portland, Detroit, Milwaukee and even the T-Wolves) - every one of them used a trade or FA to capture a key building block. Now, that doesn't guarantee success, but it gives you a higher probability than just praying for good lottery balls and nailing those picks. Which, to come full circle, wasn't that the point of this "process" to begin with?

[Gary Gorski]

I'm not going to kill him on Noel - he's looked very good at times especially when not playing with Okafor. As for MCW absolutely - I never thought he was a NBA player and Giannis would have made so much more sense for a team who was all about playing for a few years out. At least he got a valuable asset for MCW though but it won't amount to what Giannis is going to be worth.

I don't even hate the Embiid pick in of itself because if healthy he's the #1 pick in the draft and if he comes close to what his projected ceiling was he's a franchise changing talent. You can wait a year for that guy. The problem is he just taken a guy who sat out a year hurt and punted the pick a few picks later down the road with Saric and it turns out Noel really needs to play the 5 to be effective so on the basis of those items it was totally the wrong pick as was Saric.

Porzingis was a guy he wanted and Porzingis and his agent wanted nothing to do with Philly. They did everything possible to prevent Hinkie from taking him so I understand why he didn't pull the trigger there. Had he been Darko 2.0 that was the end of his job. What I don't understand is why he took Okafor. It's like Matt Millen selecting WRs. I very much agree a guy like Winslow or Booker would have been great for the team but you couldn't take that guy at 3. He needed to either trade some of those assets he collected to move up to 2 (hell he should have offered everything he had to Minny for 1) but at least he could have gotten Russell or moved down, picked up one of those guys plus a capable NBA player/more picks.

Hinkie absolutely blew the drafts - like I said I'm no defender of him and I think it's the right move to show him the door. I only defended bottoming out and building through the draft but yes you have to hit the picks to do that. Portland and Detroit wouldn't be even as far as they are (which isn't very far really) without both completely nailing a draft pick four years ago. If you take Lillard and Drummond away Portland is a dumpster fire and Detroit probably has a ton of money tied up in Greg Monroe and continues to be a perpetual lottery team.

Boston is just quirky in that its almost like Stevens coaching at Butler - he's got a bunch of scrappy guys that nobody really wanted and he pushes the right buttons to make it work but I can't see them ever being any better than what they are unless they somehow bring in a big talent. It's almost feels like they have all the pieces of the Mavs title team...except Dirk. Why do you want to be that team? I'd rather be a team like Phoenix that has two potential superstar guards (and Brandon Knight who needs to go) along with Len who looked very good at times this year.

You need stars to win - the Pistons team that won in 04 was such an outlier (and 12 years ago now). Look at every champion since. Spurs x3, Wade/Shaq Heat, Kobe/Pau/Bynum Lakers x2, Boston's big 3, Dirk Mavs, Heat big 3 x2 and Golden State. If you aspire to be Boston (or Portland or Detroit) you'll be a probable playoff team that could squeak out one series if you don't end up as a 7/8 seed. Why try to be that team?

[nol]

I'm not going to kill him on Noel - he's looked very good at times especially when not playing with Okafor. As for MCW absolutely - I never thought he was a NBA player and Giannis would have made so much more sense for a team who was all about playing for a few years out. At least he got a valuable asset for MCW though but it won't amount to what Giannis is going to be worth.

Uhh, MCW was the lowest-drafted ROY since 1988 and they got a higher future pick for him. That's much better than what you normally end up with for the 11th pick, especially in a draft as weak as 2013. Any team drafting before Philadelphia that year except Orlando (who picked 2nd) and maybe Portland would currently be overjoyed to have the Lakers' pick rather than the player they drafted.

If you take Lillard and Drummond away Portland is a dumpster fire and Detroit probably has a ton of money tied up in Greg Monroe and continues to be a perpetual lottery team.

Right, any of those teams is one unlucky break like that from being back to square one (to say nothing of where teams like Minnesota or the Lakers or the Pelicans would be without being fortunate in the lottery). That's already happened multiple times to Philadelphia between injuries and overall lottery luck (not only their own picks not yet moving up but the Lakers/Heat picks never moving down and transferring to them), and they're still set up for the majority of their talented players to be arriving this year. These past two seasons were 100 percent lost for Philadelphia - they had no first rounder had they made the playoffs so it was a choice between being bottom-three bad or basically the Kings with no DeMarcus Cousins. Everyone just makes the same tired arguments about Philadelphia 'shutting off' their options to improve - no, if they'd gotten someone like Corey Joseph or Jeremy Lin they'd just be the 2nd or 3rd-worst rather than the worst team this season. One of those guys on his own is not doing anything, and then when you say 'well that's why you sign other good players to fit around them' you're now spending just as much money as any other mediocre team for a roster that still isn't close to playoff caliber.

You and Arles use a very strange definition of 'blowing the draft.' If any team at all drafts a better player with a later pick, that's blowing it? The whole freaking point of Philadelphia's strategy is that they don't need to be much better than average when it comes to making selections once you actually get to make those selections. They could have drafted Booker, Turner, Lyles, Cam Payne or Winslow not by moving down, but by trading an average veteran for them. That's what they did 2 years ago by trading Thad Young, but Chris Bosh ended up with blood clots and as a result Miami was in position to tank the last few weeks of the regular season and keep the pick.

The CJ McCollum part is particularly funny. First, he also was injured at the time of the draft and was to miss most of his rookie season as well, and if there's one thing that's clear (when using selective 20-20 hindsight) it's that drafting any player who will be injured is automatically a bad move! Also, McCollum is not good at defense and therefore not much better than Noel on balance despite being 3 years older than Noel; I guarantee you the majority of teams in the league would prefer Noel going forward.

[Gary Gorski]

Uhh, MCW was the lowest-drafted ROY since 1988 and they got a higher future pick for him. That's much better than what you normally end up with for the 11th pick, especially in a draft as weak as 2013. Any team drafting before Philadelphia that year except Orlando (who picked 2nd) and maybe Portland would currently be overjoyed to have the Lakers' pick rather than the player they drafted.

I don't care that he was ROY - he had free reign on an awful team to put up numbers. He shot 70% from the line, 44% from 2P and 26% from 3P in that ROY campaign. He was replaced as PG in Philly and now has been replaced as PG in Milwaukee by Giannis. He's not a good NBA player. Yes the pick they will get will undoubtedly be a better asset but still not better than Giannis will be and for a team playing for 5 years down the road why wouldn't they have been the ones to take a flier on him. It's not like drafting Caboclo or something - there was hype around Giannis.


You and Arles use a very strange definition of 'blowing the draft.' If any team at all drafts a better player with a later pick, that's blowing it? The whole freaking point of Philadelphia's strategy is that you don't need to be omnipotent when it comes to the draft. They could have drafted Booker, Turner, Lyles, Cam Payne or Winslow not by moving down, but by trading an average veteran for them. That's what they did 2 years ago by trading Thad Young, but Chris Bosh ended up with blood clots and as a result Miami was in position to tank the last few weeks of the regular season and keep the pick.

What exactly was their drafting strategy? They drafted a PG who was neither a good playmaker or shooter, they drafted 3 centers in consecutive seasons and drafted a 6'10 Euro who is an all around skilled player and excellent overseas but is too slow to defend wings and probably not strong enough to defend true PFs and hasn't shown up yet. Sure you don't need to end up with the best guy if you're picking capable players and surrounding them with other capable NBA vets but 2 of the 5 picks have never played in the NBA and the other 3 were surrounded with d-league talent. Again if you never draft the superstar of the bunch (and he's 0/5 unless Embiid ever gets healthy and turns into Hakeem-lite) you're not going to be great and if you don't surround non-superstars with NBA level talent you're going to be impossibly bad.

The CJ McCollum part is particularly funny. First, he also was injured at the time of the draft and was to miss most of his rookie season as well, and if there's one thing that's clear (when using selective 20-20 hindsight) it's that drafting any player who will be injured is automatically a bad move! Also, McCollum is not good at defense and therefore not much better than Noel on balance despite being 3 years older; I guarantee you the majority of teams in the league would prefer Noel going forward.

I would prefer Noel myself - never said I wouldn't. In fact I think if you let Noel play the 5 and essentially do what Drummond is good at he's going to be kind of similar (although obviously not as good of a rebounder). As for McCollum who knows what he would be if he was on Philly and Noel was on Portland. I doubt he would be nearly as effective without Lillard next to him.

I also never said that drafting an injured player is a bad move - I said it was a bad move in drafting Embiid BECAUSE his last pick not only just sat out a year injured and happened to not project realistically as anything but a center but he followed Embiid 9 picks later with another guy who wasn't going to be on the roster. Embiid was totally worth a flier for some team and I would have taken him over anyone not named Wiggins, Parker or Randle.

Realistically how would Noel and Embiid have worked? Clearly much like how Noel and Okafor worked which was awful. But now he ended up with all 3 of them and two of them have to go because none of them can play together (if Embiid is ever healthy). That's not good drafting - its one thing if you're talking about late picks and you're picking whoever might be the BPA but he spent a 6th and two 3rds on the same position.

As I said before the strategy and idea behind it was totally logical but the execution was anything but. Maybe if he had surrounded these guys with some Jae Crowder types it might have looked at least somewhat like they were going somewhere but at the end of the day you've got Noel and Okafor (one of which you have to trade), who knows if you have anything in Embiid or Saric and a bunch of picks - basically you're still in the starting blocks after 3 years. That wasn't supposed to be part of "the process".

[Arles]

I think Gary makes some good points and there is a strategy to where you bottom out for 2-3 years, reload and then take a shot. But, that strategy has to be more than selling any player with a pulse for future picks (including your own draft picks), passing on any FA with NBA talent, never trading for a solid player and putting all your eggs into 4-5 lottery picks. Unless you hit home runs with atleast 2 of those 5 picks, you are still going to be in bad shape after the 3-year process.

Draft picks and young players are assets, but you can't just keep punting on them and asking for more time. Part of the reason he failed is that he took high risk guys like Noel, Saric and Embiid with the idea that they would still be terrible the next season and get another pick. That's not the best way to draft. You don't want to be "upset" if 2-3 of your draft picks end up having years like Porzingis or Booker and you suddenly have a competent team. I feel like that's how Hinkie would have reacted and he may have sold a guy like Booker for future picks to keep tanking and have a shot at that superstar.

Your odds are better if you bottom out for a season or two, take your best shot at a star in the draft and then collect assets you can move for a young talent. There's no reason Hinkie shouldn't have been kicking the tires on trades for Isaiah Thomas, Tobias Harris, Reggie Jackson, Jae Crowder, Eric Bledsoe and similar guys who have been available the past three seasons. Had he done this during his first two seasons, he might have had an environment that people were interested in joining and more FAs/final year guys would you have been open to Philly. He probably wouldn't have had the issue with getting Porzingis had he taken a more balanced approach. Even if "the process" worked this year and Hinkie got the first pick - you don't think Ben Simmons and his agent would have been campaigning for Philly to not take him? How about when Noel (his best pick) is a free agent in 2017 - do you think he would even consider anything other than a 1-year QO with Philly? If you are constantly trying to suck, no one is going to want to play there.

You get 1-2 seasons of tanking before improvement needs to be there. That's the way it works and it was naive for Hinkie to think he could bottom out for 3-4 seasons and not face repercussions with ownership, have agents politic against his team in the draft and potential FAs (that might fit his long term strategy) to completely shun him. The only people on Philly right now are draft picks and young players with no other suitors. That's not the way to make a winning environment even if you get lucky and land a star. Okafor and Noel may be better than we think, but when they play with D-league guards it is hard to tell. You don't think after 2-3 years of that frustration they will be trying to do everything in their power to get out? You need atleast a few good pros on your team to help the young guys and ensure they develop.

[nol]

I don't care that he was ROY - he had free reign on an awful team to put up numbers. He shot 70% from the line, 44% from 2P and 26% from 3P in that ROY campaign. He was replaced as PG in Philly and now has been replaced as PG in Milwaukee by Giannis. He's not a good NBA player. Yes the pick they will get will undoubtedly be a better asset but still not better than Giannis will be and for a team playing for 5 years down the road why wouldn't they have been the ones to take a flier on him. It's not like drafting Caboclo or something - there was hype around Giannis.

It. was. the. 11th. pick. Most of the time the 11th pick doesn't even stick around in the league and is a total sunk cost. As everyone in this thread likes to say, shooting is the easiest skill to learn. Philly took a player who could have been very intriguing had he developed a jump shot and then used the information at their disposal to quickly conclude that wasn't likely to happen and traded him while other teams still thought enough of the possibility to give up a lot of value for him. Look what Milwaukee got for waiting an extra year to decide that a young player (Knight) wasn't going to be in their future plans - MCW!

What exactly was their drafting strategy? They drafted a PG who was neither a good playmaker or shooter, they drafted 3 centers in consecutive seasons and drafted a 6'10 Euro who is an all around skilled player and excellent overseas but is too slow to defend wings and probably not strong enough to defend true PFs and hasn't shown up yet. Sure you don't need to end up with the best guy if you're picking capable players and surrounding them with other capable NBA vets but 2 of the 5 picks have never played in the NBA and the other 3 were surrounded with d-league talent. Again if you never draft the superstar of the bunch (and he's 0/5 unless Embiid ever gets healthy and turns into Hakeem-lite) you're not going to be great and if you don't surround non-superstars with NBA level talent you're going to be impossibly bad.

I don't think I could name a player drafted in 2014 who has done anything to look more likely to become a good player than he was going into the season. Exum tore his ACL, Randle has been bad (43% shooting from the field, bad defense, no three-point shot), Nurkic has been hurt and bad while playing, Smart's jumper has gotten even worse. Aaron Gordon did some cool dunks in the dunk contest, I guess. It's easy to talk about any of those players in dismissive language, too! Some of them will get better, some of them won't and will end up wasted picks.

When a non-Sixers young player is injured, it's automatically assumed that the player will return at full strength, if not better than before whereas a Sixers player is written off.

Realistically how would Noel and Embiid have worked? Clearly much like how Noel and Okafor worked which was awful.

Because they're both good. You're probably one of those people who was hand-wringing about how Westbrook and Durant were gonna fit together because they were both 'scorers.' If you think Okafor and Embiid were ever even close to the same level as far as defensive ability or potential would be concerned, I don't know what sport you've been watching. Karl-Anthony Towns is playing alongside Dieng right now in Minnesota - why would you say that particular combination of two centers doesn't happen to be a disaster?

[JonInMiddleGA]

I believe this has been mentioned in the thread previously but ... it really is interesting that the Sixers are a more compelling discussion than virtually everything else in the league this year.

The Ws (hip, trendy guy that I am) are damned impressive but at some point they basically feels like watching a video game on medium difficulty. The Spurs are pretty darned good team but does anyone outside of San Antonio really think that even they could win a best of 7 against GS? That leaves the Cavs and their dysfunction, and even that wouldn't be interesting if it didn't involve you know who.

Maybe it's like this every year though, I mean basically it was the angst generated by the Miami super roster that revived my (still limited) interest in the NBA, I could actually root for them just for the hater hilarity that followed every time they won a game. This year, heck, I don't have anything against Golden State particularly so no fun in rooting against, but watching them do their thing right now is about as much fun as watching the UConn women run over people. {shrug}

[Gary Gorski]

It. was. the. 11th. pick. Most of the time the 11th pick doesn't even stick around in the league and is a total sunk cost. As everyone in this thread likes to say, shooting is the easiest skill to learn. Philly took a player who could have been very intriguing had he developed a jump shot and then used the information at their disposal to quickly conclude that wasn't likely to happen and traded him while other teams still thought enough of the possibility to give up a lot of value for him. Look what Milwaukee got for waiting an extra year to decide that a young player (Knight) wasn't going to be in their future plans - MCW!

Last 3 years picked at 11 or later
2015 : Turner, Lyles, Booker, Justin Anderson, Portis, RHJ
2014 : McDermott, LaVine, Warren, Gary Harris, Hood, Capela
2013 : Giannis, Schroeder, Dieng, Gobert

Don't pretend 11 is a total crap shoot that really has little chance of having value. I don't know who thinks shooting is the easiest skill to learn but its not me. MCW couldn't shoot in college, hasn't been able to shoot yet and won't be able to shoot. And I said that it was a good move getting rid of him and getting what they did for him. The only bad move was picking him in the first place but at least he did something positive with it in the end.


When a non-Sixers young player is injured, it's automatically assumed that the player will return at full strength, if not better than before whereas a Sixers player is written off.

Embiid hasn't.played.one.second. He's also had issues over that time with gaining weight and other assorted things that may or may not have screwed up his recovery from the initial surgery. He also came in with a giant question mark given his particular injury and the impact it has had on the careers of other big men. It has nothing to do with being on the Sixers. I think its fair to legitimately question what kind of career he will have given that he's missed two years already with his particular injury. Maybe you're holding out hope for Greg Oden still? Now maybe Embiid fully recovers and becomes a stud all-star center (I sure hope so since I own him in a dynasty fantasy league) but I think its at least fair to question that at this point.


Because they're both good. You're probably one of those people who was hand-wringing about how Westbrook and Durant were gonna fit together because they were both 'scorers.' If you think Okafor and Embiid were ever even close to the same level as far as defensive ability or potential would be concerned, I don't know what sport you've been watching. Karl-Anthony Towns is playing alongside Dieng right now in Minnesota - why would you say that particular combination of two centers doesn't happen to be a disaster?

No, I certainly never had an issue with Westbrook and Durant - in fact that's pretty much what Philly (or anyone) would love to replicate with the multiple early lottery picks. It has nothing to do with Okafor and Embiid skill wise - If Embiid ever plays to his potential he will be WAAAAY better than Okafor.

The issue as a matter of fact is exactly what I spent such a focus on in the latest version of DDS: Pro Basketball. The problem is Noel can't operate offensively anywhere outside of the paint. He's shooting 28/111 - 25.2% outside the paint. He's not a good passer or good with the ball and if you look at his stats when Okafor plays as opposed to the games he didn't you would see a huge difference. Noel is most effective running the pick and roll where he can dive to the basket - hard to do that with Okafor, Embiid or any other big clogging up the paint.

It has nothing to do with height or centers as you're trying to point out with KAT and Dieng - both of those players can step out and be a threat from midrange (KAT even from 3). Either one of those guys could work with Noel but Noel/Okafor doesn't work. Drummond/Monroe didn't work. Noel/Embiid won't work.

[nol]

Last 3 years picked at 11 or later
2015 : Turner, Lyles, Booker, Justin Anderson, Portis, RHJ
2014 : McDermott, LaVine, Warren, Gary Harris, Hood, Capela
2013 : Giannis, Schroeder, Dieng, Gobert

Don't pretend 11 is a total crap shoot that really has little chance of having value.

Yet you list 16 players out of 57 who were drafted between 11 and 30 those years. That's the definition of a crapshoot, especially when half of these guys definitely would not have returned a lottery pick if traded and aren't even guaranteed to be as productive as Carter-Williams (pretend you hadn't heard someone else say that Bobby Portis, Justin Anderson, and TJ Warren were 'draft steals' at some point and just look at what they have actually done so far).

Even someone like Devin Booker has been putting up numbers alongside D-league players (again, which is only an issue when a Philadelphia rookie has produced well); Phoenix is 9-39 since he started getting heavy minutes. That's the exact same record Philadelphia has over that span. He's not a good defender at all (and may never be) and has shot under 30% from three since the All-Star break.

The very structure of the list shows that you erroneously assume all rookies will automatically progress; you probably would have listed Tony Snell as an example of late first round value in 2013 (he got more minutes than Justin Anderson did and played for a better team) but two years of limited growth have made him an afterthought. There are a handful of 2014-2015 players you listed you'd do the same to if they don't significantly improve next season - they'll be the same players they are now, but you just don't have the benefit of hindsight to identify them.

I don't know who thinks shooting is the easiest skill to learn but its not me. MCW couldn't shoot in college, hasn't been able to shoot yet and won't be able to shoot.

Just do a quick search for Ben Simmons in this thread and hold onto your hat!

Embiid hasn't.played.one.second. He's also had issues over that time with gaining weight and other assorted things that may or may not have screwed up his recovery from the initial surgery. He also came in with a giant question mark given his particular injury and the impact it has had on the careers of other big men. It has nothing to do with being on the Sixers.

Most of these guys you so confidently list as better picks than Embiid have been injured and not played too many seconds either (or worse, have played significant minutes and shown themselves to not be that good), and these are guys who would have needed to have everything go right to even approximate what Embiid was capable of doing immediately out of Kansas. Nobody cared that Julius Randle put on a bunch of weight when he was injured because 1) a basketball player putting on weight while not being able to practice and getting back into shape once he resumes physical activity is a non-story and 2) Randle just isn't that good and he wasn't on the 76ers.

It has nothing to do with height or centers as you're trying to point out with KAT and Dieng - both of those players can step out and be a threat from midrange (KAT even from 3). Either one of those guys could work with Noel but Noel/Okafor doesn't work. Drummond/Monroe didn't work. Noel/Embiid won't work.

If Dieng qualifies as a threat from midrange Embiid certainly does. In addition, Embiid and Noel would be a better defensive tandem, but even that is ignoring the simplest explanation that you can trade whomever you want when you're concerned with getting a better 'fit.'

I believe this has been mentioned in the thread previously but ... it really is interesting that the Sixers are a more compelling discussion than virtually everything else in the league this year.

Because it's a good litmus test for who's actually thinking of things and who's just running in circles based on whatever happened 15 minutes ago: "They should have done what Phoenix did! I mean, what Atlanta did! I mean, what Milwaukee did! No, actually Portland!"

[Brian Swartz]

The Spurs are pretty darned good team but does anyone outside of San Antonio really think that even they could win a best of 7 against GS?

Yes. Would I favor them? No, but I think they have a decent chance of pulling the upset, mostly like I'd take Warriors in 6 as the most likely outcome at this point. They aren't the only team that has a chance at Golden State -- the Thunder could do it as well although it's much less likely. Stranger things have happened, 1 seeds have lost in the first round, the best Spurs regular-season team ever(prior to this year) got beat by Memphis that way. That's why all the 'stat heads' have Golden State as a coin-flip possibility to win the title. Too many things, some of them like injuries out of their control, could go wrong at this point. It really comes down to who is playing well/healthy/etc. The Spurs in 2014 are a great example. They almost lost to Dallas in the first round ... and then started playing better at the end of that series, and completely reached their peak by the time they needed to against OKC/Miami. But that doesn't always happen, there's a lot of variance in possible, and even in fairly likely, outcomes.


watching them do their thing right now is about as much fun as watching the UConn women run over people.

As a basketball guy, I think it's very entertaining. I don't get sick of watching Curry do things that nobody else has ever been able to do at the same level. I guess the differences between us at this point are that I think there are other interesting things(in particular, how teams like Boston and Toronto do in the East playoffs), I don't view the Warriors' repeating without breaking a sweat as totally inevitable(even the 72-win Bulls were pushed to 6 by Seattle) though of course they are the clear favorites and should be, and so on.

[JonInMiddleGA]

(in particular, how teams like Boston and Toronto do in the East playoffs)

Yeah, that's definitely a difference.

I'm not even able to work up any genuine interest in how the Hawks fare as a playoff afterthought this year, much less the teams you mention.

It's a two team league this year, three simply because LBJ is LBJ and he's interesting even if his team really isn't.

[kingfc22]

In San Antonio on the back end of a back-to-back, again, and the W's get it done.

Hit 72 wins, ends the streak of losing in SA since 96/97 and also ensures their own home winning streak record can't be matched.

[Young Drachma]

Glad they tied it at least. I think they'll beat Memphis for the record, but either way, at least we have to always reference this team future-wise. Just a great effort all year.

[wustin]

Curry needs 8 more 3-pointers to hit 400, I think 41 points to average 30PPG for the season.

[Groundhog]

Just do a quick search for Ben Simmons in this thread and hold onto your hat!


Re: shooting being the easiest skill to learn, I stand by that comment 100%. It doesn't mean it's easy and most guys will not put in the time needed to become great shooters, but that's really all the separates the freakishly good shooters and the not-so-freakishly good shooters - a ton of time in a gym with a ball putting up hundreds (or more - I've heard some guys taking up to 1,000) of shots a day. It's easy in theory for any professional basketballer to do that with their free time, but the reality is that most players don't. The guys out there hitting close to or over .500 do, though.

As someone who played a high level of basketball through my youth, I can probably count on one hand the amount of hours we spent focused solely on shooting - and nearly all of that before we turned 16. You are expected to do this on your own time and not during team practice time, and that's the reason most professionals don't become great shooters.

[whomario]

Was also the Spurs first go home loss of the season, could have been the first to go unbeaten at home. Curry was terrific and the fact he could still hit 400 3s is so insane. I mean, he will beat his own mark by at least 37%. Do that math with other records and think about it for a Minute... And doing it on 45% ...

[Groundhog]

I'm a bit bummed the Spurs didn't win today, to be honest. I'm trying to delude myself that this season is a two-horse race, but it's just not the case. As good as the Spurs are, it will take a massive Curry shooting slump for 2-3 games to give them even half a chance.

[Brian Swartz]

Eh, I don't think that game told us anything we didn't already know. The Spurs need to make a lot more shots than that to beat Golden State. You aren't going to shut down Curry, so you need to score consistently. Only Aldridge really held up his end. If Diaw is healthy that will have some effect, but I don't think anything there changed the basic outlook(San Antonio has a chance, but only if they play well on both ends. The better team usually wins and there's little doubt that's the Warriors).

[Gary Gorski]

Yet you list 16 players out of 57 who were drafted between 11 and 30 those years. That's the definition of a crapshoot, especially when half of these guys definitely would not have returned a lottery pick if traded and aren't even guaranteed to be as productive as Carter-Williams (pretend you hadn't heard someone else say that Bobby Portis, Justin Anderson, and TJ Warren were 'draft steals' at some point and just look at what they have actually done so far).

You said most of the time the 11th pick doesn't even stick around in the league so I pointed out guys who not only have stuck around but are either already good players or at least have the probability of being rotation players. Out of the last 10 years of #11 picks (Turner, McDermott, MCW, Myers Leonard, Klay Thompson, Cole Aldrich, Terrence Williams, Jerryd Bayless, Acie Law, JJ Redick) only 2 are no longer in the league (2009, 2007). That's not exactly "most" of #11 picks flaming out.

Even someone like Devin Booker has been putting up numbers alongside D-league players (again, which is only an issue when a Philadelphia rookie has produced well); Phoenix is 9-39 since he started getting heavy minutes. That's the exact same record Philadelphia has over that span. He's not a good defender at all (and may never be) and has shot under 30% from three since the All-Star break.

What are you talking about playing alongside d-league players? Alex Len, PJ Tucker, Tyson Chandler (certainly not what he once was), Mirza Teletovic - these guys are not D-league players. Yes Booker is not a great defender although compare his Def Rtg (109.4) and Def WS (.01) to Okafor (108.7 / .013), Russell (110.3 / .006) and even Towns (108.0 / .017) - nobody is in Kawhi/Draymond territory (96.1 / .068 averaged). The only really, really good defender IMO from this draft was Winslow and the numbers back that up (99.0 / .048) but a big factor in defense too is the team you play on. Miami is a top 5 defensive team, Phoenix, Philly and LA are all bottom 5.

Also on the subject of Booker he's averaging nearly 20 a game in that time (yes its poor/bulk shooting except from the FT line where's he's figuring out how to get to 5-6 times a game) and oh yeah, he's 19 years old .

The very structure of the list shows that you erroneously assume all rookies will automatically progress; you probably would have listed Tony Snell as an example of late first round value in 2013 (he got more minutes than Justin Anderson did and played for a better team) but two years of limited growth have made him an afterthought. There are a handful of 2014-2015 players you listed you'd do the same to if they don't significantly improve next season - they'll be the same players they are now, but you just don't have the benefit of hindsight to identify them.

I think all rookies will automatically progress? Where do you get such an idea? Because I listed 6 guys from the past two drafts and only 4 from the prior one? Could it be the last two drafts had more talent? I did not think that of Tony Snell despite him having a couple of very nice games here and there. I don't think he's very good but I guess he could be listed as being capable of being a rotation player. You don't seem to like Justin Anderson much - he needs to improve his 3 point shooting but the last two weeks have proven he's capable of doing everything on the floor - he rebounds, he accumulates stocks, he doesn't turn the ball over much and he can score. He's probably not ever going to be an all-star but he can't be a better Jae Crowder?


Most of these guys you so confidently list as better picks than Embiid have been injured and not played too many seconds either (or worse, have played significant minutes and shown themselves to not be that good), and these are guys who would have needed to have everything go right to even approximate what Embiid was capable of doing immediately out of Kansas.

I'm not sure what you read when I post but I didn't confidently list anyone as better picks than Embiid (other than KAT). In fact if everybody was 100% healthy going into a draft from the past two seasons and we threw out anything that has happened since college I would probably take Embiid for the #1 pick. I said Embiid was the wrong pick in hindsight for Philly because of the surrounding circumstances. Hinkie's plan hinged only on drafting players - he didn't trade for guys who could have been had cheap like Jackson or Thomas and he didn't bring in free agents (not even talking big free agents).

The whole plan was build only from the draft which I'm not even faulting him for but in order for that plan to work you need to a) hit the picks and b) start making some progress from day one.

Year one he trades his star point guard (who I love but his injury history makes me not slam Hinkie on this deal) and starts "the process" with a guy who is going to miss the entire year and another who really doesn't have what it takes to be a NBA point guard. Trades Hawes and Evan Turner for 2nd round picks. So essentially year one is an attempt to bottom out totally.

Year two he drafts an injured guy and a euro and trades Thad Young for a nothing first to complete bottom out. Noel debuts and looks to have promise, plucks Covington from the NBDL who plays well, MCW shoots worse from 2, 3 and FT, with more TOs and less PPG and is shipped out for a good future first. Great deal for the future but after two full seasons Philly has possibly TWO future NBA player on the floor.

Year three drafts another big man, previous year's selections still are hurt and overseas, trades for Stauskas who maybe can develop down the line, has to trade two second round picks to get Ish back after they let him walk, Noel/Okafor pairing totally unworkable. Three years in, best asset still hasn't seen the floor due to injury so has virtually no trade value, two other best assets are centers so at least one if not both have to be traded depending on Embiid, possibly three other future rosterable players (Smith, Stauskas, Covington) all who are probably best served in bench roles.

The Sixers have been through 75% of Noel's rookie contract and 50% of Embiid's and what do they have? Even if all the stars align and Embiid plays next year and Saric comes over and they nail the pick this year (in a draft nobody is crazy about) they're only in the starting stage. Then they have to pay Noel or he will take a QO and walk after that. Then the next year repeat for Embiid and if he's anything as promised they will have to break the bank for him.

This year the cap is set to explode - had the Sixers spent three years putting together a proven young core maybe with all the cap room someone good would take their money knowing they could a) get paid and b) play with good young players.

Those are the reasons this was such a failure - you said #11 was basically worthless most of the time - what good was it to acquire a million second round picks then? Why give away Thad Young? He chose to completely strip it down to nothing but three years in and nobody really knows what they have other than some similar parts and a bunch of hopes that the other stuff that hasn't been on the floor or drafted yet will work out.

Be honest - out of the ten worst teams (Denver, Sacramento, New Orleans, Minnesota, Phoenix, LA, Milwaukee, New York, Brooklyn and Philly) where would you put Philly in the list of teams you want to take over given everyone's situation at this very minute? I don't think anyone wants to be Brooklyn but who else can you put them over?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Be honest - out of the ten worst teams (Denver, Sacramento, New Orleans, Minnesota, Phoenix, LA, Milwaukee, New York, Brooklyn and Philly) where would you put Philly in the list of teams you want to take over given everyone's situation at this very minute? I don't think anyone wants to be Brooklyn but who else can you put them over?

Hmm ... an empty cupboard -- which seems to be what you're suggesting Philly is -- might be preferable to several of those situations IMO.

Specifically? I'd personally at least look at the Philly job before taking Minnesota or Sacramento, as well as the aforementioned Brooklyn gig. And due to things like fan tolerance/expectations, maybe both LA & New York too.

[albionmoonlight]

Other than Bulls/Jordan fans, is anyone rooting against the Warriors getting to 73?

[jbergey22]

Other than Bulls/Jordan fans, is anyone rooting against the Warriors getting to 73?

Its good for them as a team and it shows their dominance especially early in the season. I just wished it could have been done in a time when teams werent tanking, benching their starters, purposely losing to get higher odds in the lottery. Not a fault of Golden State at all just a flaw in the NBA right now. Teams didnt tank at this level back when the Bulls did this.

[jbergey22]

Be honest - out of the ten worst teams (Denver, Sacramento, New Orleans, Minnesota, Phoenix, LA, Milwaukee, New York, Brooklyn and Philly) where would you put Philly in the list of teams you want to take over given everyone's situation at this very minute? I don't think anyone wants to be Brooklyn but who else can you put them over?

Interesting conversation in regards to the Philadelphia rebuilding techniques. I agree that the strategy itself isnt such a terrible idea and also agree that the pieces just arent fitting the puzzle at all. I would probably consider Noel a strong piece of a puzzle down the road but what else have they drafted that they can bank on right now? These players also are missing out on learning from vets(possible reason Okafor had so many issues this past year) and learning how to win games. Sure, KG is an overpaid assistant but KAT is learning from a Hall of Famer and one of the most competitive players to ever play the game.

1. Minnesota - KAT/Wiggins appear to both be future All-Stars. Lavine has loads of upside.
2. New Orleans - Should be easy to build around Anthony Davis
3. Sacramento - Cousins has the talent to be the best big in the NBA. Bring in a respected coach and they are a top 5 team in the West.
4. LA Lakers - Will attract marquee free agents
5. New York Knicks - See above
6. Phoenix - Loaded young backcourt. Bledsoe could lead a team
7. Milwaukee - Giannis is a potential All Star to build around. They just dont have much else going and appear to have made a mistake with Monroe
8. Philadelphia - They have accumulated some talent but nothing that really makes sense. Perhaps they can trade out of the mess they are in or get lucky in the draft
9. Denver - Building some young talent but they dont have a future star to build around. In need of a go to guy
10. Brooklyn- Hard to know what is going on with this team. A bunch of placeholders without much in place for the future. Would eventually be a nice location for free agents to sign if they can show signs of progress.

[digamma]

I might rank Philly only behind Minnesota as most attractive opportunities (climate and culture ignored, of course).

[Arles]

Be honest - out of the ten worst teams (Denver, Sacramento, New Orleans, Minnesota, Phoenix, LA, Milwaukee, New York, Brooklyn and Philly) where would you put Philly in the list of teams you want to take over given everyone's situation at this very minute? I don't think anyone wants to be Brooklyn but who else can you put them over?
Milwaukee, New Orleans and Minnesota are probably the top 3 given their top end young players (The Brow, Wiggins/Towns and Giannis/Middleton). New York is interesting as they have a nice young player (Porzingis), an asset to deal in Melo and a ton of upcoming cap space in a major market. Lakers are similar with Kobe leaving (ton of cap) and three intriguing pieces (Clarkson, Russel and Randle). Denver also has a ton of assets (Mudiay, Gallo, Harris, Barton, Jokic/Nurkic) and upcoming cap space. Phoenix is a little below that, but similar with Booker, Len, Bledsoe, 5 1sts in the next 3 drafts and cap space. I'd say the bottom 3 in that list are Philly, Sacramento and Brooklyn. Philly has a million 2nds and a some firsts coming up (but prob won't get the Laker pick) - but the only real roster assets they have are Noel and Okafor. Also, don't forget, if Hinkie had stayed it would be virtually a lock that Noel would have played out his QO next offseason and left in FA (if they couldn't trade him). Now, without Hinkie's stench to agents and players, he might stay if Colangelo brings in NBA players this offseason.

Long story short, I'd put Philly over Sacramento and Brooklyn - but that's it (and Sac is tough because they have Cousins - but their culture/leadership is so lousy). Which is really a shame because the Suns, Bucks and Pelicans have all been in playoff races over the past 3 seasons, while Denver and Minnesota have been exciting teams to watch with a bunch of nice young players. The fact that Philly has been so bad and yet is still behind these five teams in terms of developing players has to be a hard pill to stomach for their fans. It was really a crime what Hinkie did. To put your fans through 3 years of unwatchable basketball and end up only with a poo poo platter of Noel, Okafor and a broken down Embiid is a major disappointment. But, hey, he might get 6 2nd round picks next year - that makes all the sucking worthwhile! :banghead:

[Gary Gorski]

Specifically? I'd personally at least look at the Philly job before taking Minnesota or Sacramento, as well as the aforementioned Brooklyn gig.

Wait a second - I can at least reason not wanting Sacramento because Cousins is such a handful (but yet sooooooo talented) but why on earth would you look at taking Philly over KAT/Wiggins/Rubio/Dieng/LaVine in Minnesota? You give them a real coach and that's a very dangerous team in the coming years.

[Gary Gorski]

Long story short, I'd put Philly over Sacramento and Brooklyn - but that's it (and Sac is tough because they have Cousins - but their culture/leadership is so lousy). Which is really a shame because the Suns, Bucks and Pelicans have all been in playoff races over the past 3 seasons, while Denver and Minnesota have been exciting teams to watch with a bunch of nice young players. The fact that Philly has been so bad and yet is still behind these five teams in terms of developing players has to be a hard pill to stomach for their fans. It was really a crime what Hinkie did. To put your fans through 3 years of unwatchable basketball and end up only with a poo poo platter of Noel, Okafor and a broken down Embiid is a major disappointment. But, hey, he might get 6 2nd round picks next year - that makes all the sucking worthwhile! :banghead:

Bolded for emphasis - that's why this was such a disaster.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Wait a second - I can at least reason not wanting Sacramento because Cousins is such a handful (but yet sooooooo talented) but why on earth would you look at taking Philly over KAT/Wiggins/Rubio/Dieng/LaVine in Minnesota? You give them a real coach and that's a very dangerous team in the coming years.

Feels like a largely poisoned franchise to me {shrug}. Something will happen there, feels almost bankable to me. I like the majority of the parts you mentioned, fwiw, it's just not a job I'd take willingly over some other options (including Philly).

As for Sacto, Cousins was not a negative to me honestly. If anything, he's more of a reason that I hesitated over whether they were before/after Philly. Just another franchise I don't think I'd want any part of.

[nol]

You said most of the time the 11th pick doesn't even stick around in the league so I pointed out guys who not only have stuck around but are either already good players or at least have the probability of being rotation players. Out of the last 10 years of #11 picks (Turner, McDermott, MCW, Myers Leonard, Klay Thompson, Cole Aldrich, Terrence Williams, Jerryd Bayless, Acie Law, JJ Redick) only 2 are no longer in the league (2009, 2007). That's not exactly "most" of #11 picks flaming out.

Michael Carter-Williams is a rotation player. If you trade a rotation player for a lottery pick that's a really good deal. I don't even have to look to know that Klay Thompson is likely to end up as the best #11 pick in NBA history, and he and Turner are the only players who'd have even close to the trade value MCW had 1 1/2 years in. JJ Redick got traded for the #19 pick because the Bucks were desperate to make the playoffs, and even at the time that was considered a massive overpay for Redick. So again, very good outcome for the 11th pick in what will end up being the weakest or 2nd-weakest draft of the 10 previous seasons.

What are you talking about playing alongside d-league players? Alex Len, PJ Tucker, Tyson Chandler (certainly not what he once was), Mirza Teletovic - these guys are not D-league players.

Their W/L since Bledsoe got hurt is the same as Philadelphia's since getting Ish Smith, and they actually were swept by Philly. Either both teams or neither are composed of players playing at a D-league level. The only difference is the uniform, which is the same reason someone like Julius Randle gets to be considered an 'intriguing young player' while Nerlens Noel and Jahlil Okafor are part of a 'poo poo platter.'

It's much more comfortable for fans to have a GM who will just go and declare that the team will be competitive (and if not, there are players to trade and coaches to fire!). It's much more comfortable to be a bad team that limits its future options by overpaying 'name' players with no upside. Look around the league and see how many other times a head coach outlasted the GM who hired him.

I think all rookies will automatically progress? Where do you get such an idea? Because I listed 6 guys from the past two drafts and only 4 from the prior one?

Exactly. You listed rookies who are not doing very well this season and would have to improve significantly to be good NBA players. If Nerlens Noel (who is younger than Justin Anderson) improved as much offensively as Anderson would have to to be considered a valuable rotation player, Noel would be on an All-NBA team for the next 10+ years.

By the way, Jae Crowder was one of the first 2-3 guys left off the All-Star team, so a better Jae Crowder is an all-star. Crowder (who as a rookie looked like Dirk compared to how Justin Anderson is shooting the ball) could have the exact same year next year and he'd receive heavy all-star consideration just because he'd have more name recognition.

Year one he trades his star point guard (who I love but his injury history makes me not slam Hinkie on this deal) and starts "the process" with a guy who is going to miss the entire year and another who really doesn't have what it takes to be a NBA point guard. Trades Hawes and Evan Turner for 2nd round picks. So essentially year one is an attempt to bottom out totally.

Wow, getting 2 lottery picks for an injury-prone player who was maybe the 10th-best point guard in the league when healthy (and who was just an All-Star by virtue of playing in the JV conference the year Derrick Rose was injured) is a deal you won't slam? How generous! Of course it was an attempt to bottom out totally - they had no draft pick unless it was in the lottery. Evan Turner and Spencer Hawes were both upcoming free agents who were not going to sign with Philadelphia, so getting anything for them was a bonus. I'm sure Indiana and Cleveland both wish they hadn't given up a draft pick for 20-odd games of a guy who didn't help them (or was actively detrimental, as Turner was for Indy) and then signed with another team in the summer.

Year two he drafts an injured guy and a euro and trades Thad Young for a nothing first to complete bottom out.

Everybody thought it was a nothing first at the time because the Heat were still gonna be good when LeBron left - popular perception of his supporting cast was closer to 'Big Three' than '2009 Cleveland.' Except then Miami wasn't good, and then Chris Bosh got blood clots, which allowed Miami to tank more egregiously than Philadelphia down the stretch and be in position to keep the pick. What are the odds of that happening? Otherwise they traded Thad Young for Winslow (or all the picks teams were allegedly offering for Winslow), Booker, or anyone else who was on the board in that 11-15 range. The Nets were trying to trade Thad Young for matching salary and a first round pick this season and couldn't get anyone to bite; Philadelphia is ending up a higher pick for Young after making a deal that had 99 percent chance of yielding an even more valuable pick.


The Sixers have been through 75% of Noel's rookie contract and 50% of Embiid's and what do they have? Even if all the stars align and Embiid plays next year and Saric comes over and they nail the pick this year (in a draft nobody is crazy about) they're only in the starting stage. Then they have to pay Noel or he will take a QO and walk after that. Then the next year repeat for Embiid and if he's anything as promised they will have to break the bank for him.

Well that's a disingenuous paragraph. The point of a rookie contract is that it turns into a second contract and you get 9 years before the player becomes an unrestricted free agent. Nobody has ever taken the qualifying offer and walked.

This year the cap is set to explode - had the Sixers spent three years putting together a proven young core maybe with all the cap room someone good would take their money knowing they could a) get paid and b) play with good young players.

Oh, like what Phoenix did to get a meeting with LaMarcus Aldridge this year? Or how Milwaukee got the privilege of signing Greg Monroe to a max deal? Because Philadelphia was realistic about its prospects of signing a big free agent even if everything went right for them.

Those are the reasons this was such a failure - you said #11 was basically worthless most of the time - what good was it to acquire a million second round picks then? Why give away Thad Young?

Because the odds of any one pick outside the top 5 or so being valuable are low enough that it's generally better to have more picks rather than believing that your organization is the unicorn that gets to play the magical 'any player we draft will be better than every player selected after him' card. Denver traded the 11th pick for the 16th and 19th in 2014, and if you were to list the value you could find from both of those draft slots (especially if you set the bar low enough to consider someone like Bobby Portis to be a surefire valuable player) it would look much better than just the 11th pick.

Be honest - out of the ten worst teams (Denver, Sacramento, New Orleans, Minnesota, Phoenix, LA, Milwaukee, New York, Brooklyn and Philly) where would you put Philly in the list of teams you want to take over given everyone's situation at this very minute? I don't think anyone wants to be Brooklyn but who else can you put them over?

That's mostly academic because the lottery changes things so much (Cleveland had a 1.8% chance of winning the lottery in 2014 and they were the only lottery team that would have even considered trading the pick for Kevin Love). If you're looking to win a playoff series or two going forward, Philadelphia is in a better situation than Sacramento, New Orleans, Phoenix, New York, and Brooklyn. I'd only consider the Lakers to be ahead if the 55 percent chance of keeping the pick holds and even then, that's based on being located in Los Angeles rather than Philadelphia.

This is all assuming that Embiid is just whatever going forward and will at his peak be the kind of player he would have been his rookie season in 2014; a good shot blocker who gets a few double doubles. If he's better than that, it vaults Philadelphia ahead of every team but Minnesota. Why limit it to the bottom 10 though? There are going to be 8 teams in the league that lose in the first round this year, and almost all of them will be on the downswing. If a team like Toronto loses in the first or second round, the Raptors go from being the "see this is how you rebuild, Philadelphia" flavor of the month to "uh, do we REALLY want to give Demar Derozan a max contract?"

[JonInMiddleGA]

Nobody has ever taken the qualifying offer and walked.

Seriously? Nobody? Ever?

I mean, I don't know that I'd ever really thought about that a whole lot but I guess I'm kind of surprised that it hasn't happened at least once or twice.

[nol]

Seriously? Nobody? Ever?

I mean, I don't know that I'd ever really thought about that a whole lot but I guess I'm kind of surprised that it hasn't happened at least once or twice.

Greg Monroe would be the closest example, but that was obviously more of a mutual decision with Detroit wanting to build around Drummond and using the cap savings to bring in a player like Tobias Harris.

Bolded for emphasis - that's why this was such a disaster.

Such a concern troll. Philadelphia has long had an apathetic fan base that cared for maybe 2-3 years at the peak of Iverson's career. You could look at any number, from local TV ratings to attendance to what the franchise sold for, and see that this was the case long before Hinkie was hired. Again, if you consider Philadelphia to be the one unwatchable team in the league, that's more evidence in favor of the notion that fans are not very discerning consumers and teams should go ahead and do whatever they feel is right.

The dumbest thing about all of this is that people now act like Hinkie invented the idea of a long-term rebuild when a) he played a large part in constructing the Rockets' "this is how you rebuild without tanking" roster and b) if there was ever a time and place that called for burning everything to the ground and starting over, it was Philadelphia in 2013.

[murrayyyyy]

Michael Carter-Williams is a rotation player. If you trade a rotation player for a lottery pick that's a really good deal. I don't even have to look to know that Klay Thompson is the best #11 pick in NBA history

Reggie Miller *cough *cough

[stevew]

Nobody has ever turned down the Max and taken the QO. There's been several mid level guys who have taken it.

[Gary Gorski]

First off I want to say I appreciate the conversation and debate - I think its a good one.

Michael Carter-Williams is a rotation player. If you trade a rotation player for a lottery pick that's a really good deal.

I said multiple times this was a very good deal - for the future. The MCW pick did absolutely zero to help the franchise in the 3 year timeline Hinkie was in charge. One "punt" of the present day for the future is certainly fine but the problem became that just about every move was punt today for the future and the future still hasn't gotten here - that's all. The whole process just turned into an empty shell game.


Their W/L since Bledsoe got hurt is the same as Philadelphia's since getting Ish Smith, and they actually were swept by Philly. Either both teams or neither are composed of players playing at a D-league level. The only difference is the uniform, which is the same reason someone like Julius Randle gets to be considered an 'intriguing young player' while Nerlens Noel and Jahlil Okafor are part of a 'poo platter.'

First off I've said it already that I like Noel and think he can be a very good player when used correctly which made the Okafor pick incredibly stupid. When Noel is put in place as the pick and roll, look for a dunk, attack the glass, rack up stocks type player he's very good and very promising. I absolutely think Noel is a solid building piece going forward - the ONE they have right now.

As for "D-league" level players there is a difference between capable NBA players who are not playing well and guys who have no business on a NBA roster and you're smart enough to know that. You really think TJ McConnell, Hollis Thompson and Richaun Holmes are getting a look from anyone else? Do you really think Carl Landry can go anywhere else and put up those stats (or even play)? Phoenix not only has Bledsoe hurt (who is a major impact player) but BK and Warren have been hurt for significant amounts of time too. So ok, scrap all those guys and you've got a team who is playing NBA bench players as starters and losing as opposed to Philly who over the past three years has done nothing of the sort and they have done it by choice - not because normal starters have been injured.

Exactly. You listed rookies who are not doing very well this season and would have to improve significantly to be good NBA players.

I listed Turner, Lyles, Booker, Justin Anderson, Portis and RHJ as #11 picks or later who look promising from this class. Every one of those guys either starts or is a rotation player already and could be seen as a future starter really with the exception of Lyles because Favors and Gobert are young still. I don't see players who are "not doing very well" on that list considering they were picked past the threshold you set for essentially being worthless most of the time.

If Nerlens Noel (who is younger than Justin Anderson) improved as much offensively as Anderson would have to to be considered a valuable rotation player, Noel would be on an All-NBA team for the next 10+ years.

Anderson is already a valuable rotation player - he doesn't have to be a star or an offensive juggernaut. He's starting now since Parsons is done and is averaging .85 steals and 1.28 blocks and 7 rebounds per game to go with 8.3 points as a starter and that's after he didn't even get a chance to play and develop for most of the year.

By the way, Jae Crowder was one of the first 2-3 guys left off the All-Star team, so a better Jae Crowder is an all-star. Crowder (who as a rookie looked like Dirk compared to how Justin Anderson is shooting the ball) could have the exact same year next year and he'd receive heavy all-star consideration just because he'd have more name recognition.

Jae Crowder as a rookie shot 38.4% from the field and 32.8% from 3 on 2.5 3PA per game averaging only 5.0 PPG, 2.4 RPG and 0.8 SPG in 17.3 MPG in Dallas with 78 GP and 16 GS. In fact four years in Crowder is still only shooting 44.3% with 33.8% from 3 (a whole 1% increase) but is taking twice as many 3s per game now. As a rookie Anderson is shooting 40.4% from the floor and yes a paltry 26.9% for 3 but only 1.5 3PAPG. Hardly "Dirk-like" when compared to Anderson especially considering he was actually worse in FG%.

If some playoff team at the deadline had offered the Nets their first round pick this year for Thad Young, the Nets would've absolutely jumped at the chance, and that's what Philadelphia is ending up with for Young after making a deal that had 99 percent chance of yielding an even more valuable pick.

So in the MCW talk it was a good move to trade him for a pick which will probably be a better player (which I agree with) but still a good move to trade Young (a career 14/6/1.5 steals) player for what will probably be a worse player? I understand why a team would do it but you can't say that move made them better or would have made Brooklyn better. When Philly traded the pick there was no expectation it would turn out to be a player with a higher ceiling than Young. The only point being maybe had they built with Young and Noel they could have been a little further ahead then once again having nothing to show for Young.


Well that's a disingenuous paragraph. The point of a rookie contract is that it turns into a second contract and you get 9 years before the player becomes an unrestricted free agent. Nobody has ever taken the qualifying offer and walked.

Well as you already pointed out that isn't true but it's not disingenuous at all. If you're going to go all-in on picks then isn't the ideal situation to get to year four of the first guy (which is where they are now) with having three high picks that have produced at least one star and two starters so you go into year 4 with those three, a lottery pick and a crap load of cap space? The Sixers had 5 cracks at getting those three players. If that's not the point of ignoring all other roster building options but the draft then what is? Once you hit year 5 of this plan the 1st guy starts getting paid. Is Noel a franchise player? Are you going to pay him like one to keep him?

Let's assume Embiid comes back next year and after two years away from basketball even if he's eventually going to be one of the great big men (and that's a BIG if given his particular injury - he's not sidelined with something meaningless) nobody is going to expect a big year next year. Fair? So you're going to get one season of kind-of a look at Noel/Embiid together and then you have to decide do you want to pay Noel or not because if you don't I think someone else will.

This is a bigger deal than you're willing to admit. Lets say Embiid's career is essentially over - he either never recovers or comes back as a very average, injury riddled player. Is Noel a) worth paying top dollar for and b) worth paying top dollar for on a lottery team for the next few seasons? If Embiid is worthless do you trade Noel while you can and just essentially start with Okafor? We already know they can't play together so you have to trade one.

The thing is you have no idea what you have in Embiid. Maybe he comes back and turns into the second coming of Hakeem and you throw everything into the future into building around him. That's a pretty good outcome. Maybe he's good and he and Noel can play together and you build around those two - also a nice outcome. The problem is if one of those two scenarios don't play out then you've not only completely wasted three seasons for nothing but you're also faced with decisions on Noel and Okafor that could end up hamstringing the team far into the future as well. All this talk about trading and value - you think you're going to get a top 3 pick for Okafor?

Literally everything hinges on a guy halfway through his rookie contract who hasn't played at all and is a 7 footer with foot problems - problems which have been career ending for other 7 footers. If Embiid doesn't work out its not "oh well, too bad" - it's a total, unmitigated waste of a few seasons and the potential to screw up the franchise going forward based on the decisions you have to make with Noel and Okafor.

[Arles]

Michael Carter-Williams is a rotation player. If you trade a rotation player for a lottery pick that's a really good deal.
Yeah, but that "deal" isn't looking so great if the Lakers keep their pick (which odds suggest they will). Next season, they will have 3 top 10 picks (Russell, Randle and Simmons/Ingram), some rotational players (Clarkson, Lou Williams, Nance) and a boatload of cap space (~$60 mil). If LA can sign 2 big names and a couple solid vets, that pick may end up being in the 10-15 range. Not exactly great value in moving the #11 pick in 2013 for the #11 pick in 2017.

Their W/L since Bledsoe got hurt is the same as Philadelphia's since getting Ish Smith, and they actually were swept by Philly. Either both teams or neither are composed of players playing at a D-league level. The only difference is the uniform, which is the same reason someone like Julius Randle gets to be considered an 'intriguing young player' while Nerlens Noel and Jahlil Okafor are part of a 'poo poo platter.'
Bledsoe, Knight and Warren (3 of their top 6 guys) have missed a combined 116 games. They sold their 4th best player (Markieff Morris) for a draft pick and obviously didn't get him in the 2nd half. Add in Tyson Chandler missing 15 games and you have 5 of their top 6 players going into the season either missing the entire 2nd half or most of it. So, yeah, the team has looked pretty bad when all those guys were down. Still, since the all star break, the Suns have gone 8-18 without Bledsoe, Warren, Morris and only about 7 games of Knight. Their rotation of Booker, PJ Tucket, Teletovic, Len and Chandler has actually looked somewhat competent. Philly, with a "full" roster, has gone 2-25. Given how they've finished and adding in Bledsoe, Knight, Warren, a top 5 pick and a bunch of cap space to use - I could see the Suns being competitive next year. There is no scenario where Philly is competitive in the next two years - nor are they remotely close to having the pieces for an eventual title.

I still think it's funny that people are trying to argue that setting up process only concerned with drafting players ends up being a failure when you botch a bunch of draft picks. Had Hinkie drafted KD, Westbrook, Ibaka and Harden, it would be lauded as a success. But, his drafts were terrible and therefore it is a pretty clear failure.

Had the 76ers just played it out with Holiday, Thad Young, Evan Turner, MCW and two lottery picks (ie, no Saric or Noel picks) - they would be in similar shape right now and atleast have been watchable for 2-3 seasons. There's also the chance they could have made Boston or Detroit type deals and landed a guy like Crowder, Thomas, Reggie Jackson or Tobias Harris. Hinkie clearly made the 76er team, reputation and fan outlook much worse in his three seasons. If this were a video game, you could just burn the save game and start over with no harm/no foul. But in the real world, the Colangelos now have to deal with a pissed off fan base who is realizing they've been witnessing an unwatchable product and are no closer to a title (or even being competitive).

[nol]

Reggie Miller *cough *cough

Yeah, I know who Reggie Miller is. If you're arguing one player who *may* have been better (Thompson has more all-star appearances 5 seasons in than Miller did, and that even gives Miller the benefit of starting his career at an older age), that does a lot to strengthen the case that you're not going to find too many franchise-altering players at that draft slot.


I still think it's funny that people are trying to argue that setting up process only concerned with drafting players ends up being a failure when you botch a bunch of draft picks. Had Hinkie drafted KD, Westbrook, Ibaka and Harden, it would be lauded as a success. But, his drafts were terrible and therefore it is a pretty clear failure.

2 years in you were probably saying James Harden was a terribly botched pick when the Thunder could've had Tyreke Evans or Brandon Jennings, so this insistence on using the past tense when discussing a bunch of players who are 20-22 years old is silly.

But in the real world, the Colangelos now have to deal with a pissed off fan base who is realizing they've been witnessing an unwatchable product and are no closer to a title (or even being competitive)

If they're pissed, they have a funny way of showing it because attendance is just as bad as it was in 2007 or 2011 or any other random year. Pissed or not, people in Philadelphia would rather watch the Eagles go 4-12 than a playoff 76ers team.

Had the 76ers just played it out with Holiday, Thad Young, Evan Turner, MCW and two lottery picks (ie, no Saric or Noel picks) - they would be in similar shape right now and atleast have been watchable for 2-3 seasons

Awful strawman. They had the latter 3 players (and might as well have had Holiday in addition for how much he's played) for the majority of 2012-13 and 2013-14 and sucked; 15-39 and the 2nd-worst record in the league at the time they traded Turner. 'Playing it out' would then involve re-signing those players and being in salary cap purgatory to boot. Having 3 fewer first round picks is not even close to being 'in similar shape' going forward; otherwise, Brooklyn is in similar shape going forward to where the Nets would've been without having traded for Pierce and KG.

Yeah, but that "deal" isn't looking so great if the Lakers keep their pick (which odds suggest they will). Next season, they will have 3 top 10 picks (Russell, Randle and Simmons/Ingram), some rotational players (Clarkson, Lou Williams, Nance) and a boatload of cap space (~$60 mil). If LA can sign 2 big names and a couple solid vets, that pick may end up being in the 10-15 range. Not exactly great value in moving the #11 pick in 2013 for the #11 pick in 2017.

That's a hell of a lot of ifs that would have to break the Lakers' way for it to merely be 'not great' value. Player-wise, Clarkson is a free agent who will take a chunk of their cap space, Randle might not be that great, and 45% is not an insignificant risk when talking about the difference between having a top-3 pick and having nothing. Again, why are Larry Nance Jr. and Lou Williams rotational players and Robert Covington and Jerami Grant not other than the uniform they wear? The Lakers were injury-free and apparently have 7-8 intriguing rotation players to the Sixers' one or two, yet have only managed to win 6 more games.

As for "D-league" level players there is a difference between capable NBA players who are not playing well and guys who have no business on a NBA roster and you're smart enough to know that. You really think TJ McConnell, Hollis Thompson and Richaun Holmes are getting a look from anyone else?

Yeah, the difference is that the former are getting paid 5-10 times more and are never going to get any better; the difference between getting just what you paid for and being massively ripped off. The 76ers waived their 15th guy at the trade deadline (oops, I need to say "a player they didn't value very much going forward who had fallen out of the rotation" so I don't get someone coming in again and saying "well he played the 10th-most total minutes for them so your entire premise is wrong") and he got picked up immediately, so I guarantee you the other players would get a look.

So in the MCW talk it was a good move to trade him for a pick which will probably be a better player (which I agree with) but still a good move to trade Young (a career 14/6/1.5 steals) player for what will probably be a worse player?

Young was about to be a free agent! It's also fair to note that he played in the exact same 76ers system that inflated MCW's numbers and has not come close to the 17.8 ppg he scored in 2013. For all this talk about punting and giving away good players, every one but Carter-Williams was in the last season of their deal. So then it comes down to either letting them walk for nothing or re-signing them when, to a man, all of these players have managed to look even worse since leaving Philadelphia. New Orleans couldn't find a first-round pick for Ryan Anderson this season, which tells you how the league values first-round picks compared to half-season rentals of decent free agents to-be. So then, that leaves "well use the cap space to sign veteran free agents and maybe you'd be where Detroit is now if you nailed every one of the signings, just without having a top young player like Drummond to build around."

[JonInMiddleGA]

If they're pissed, they have a funny way of showing it because attendance is just as bad as it was in 2007 or 2011 or any other random year. Pissed or not, people in Philadelphia would rather watch the Eagles go 4-12 than a playoff 76ers team.

That's a pretty fair point as it turns out.

by year, percentage of arena capacity, record
2016 - 73.2 - 10-70
2015 - 68.6 - 18-64
2014 - 68.2 - 19-63
2013 - 82.2 - 34-48
2012 - 86.1 - 8th place, conference semis
2011 - 72.6 - 7th place, 1st round
2010 - 70.0 - 27-55
2009 - 79.7 - 41-41
2008 - 72.7 - 40-42
2007 - 72.6 - 35-47

So in the last decade, this year's attendance was actually higher than 4 years, including a year when they made the playoffs (and two others at/virtually .500)

[molson]

Boston I think is a good comparison for the opposite of what Philly did but is that something to aspire to? The East blows and they have a really good coach who's able to push the right buttons most nights and get a team of hard working, blue collar guys to play over their heads. Thomas, Bradley, Smart, Crowder, Amir - I love what these guys bring to the table but where's the next level? I still think you would rather be Indiana, Chicago (assuming they keep Butler) or Washington than Boston. Hell I'd rather be Milwaukee than Boston because Giannis is such a freak.

A few days late on this, but of course, the Celtics do have the Nets' first round picks for the next three years - all unprotected (next year they Celtics just have the right to swap picks with the nets, so its practically unprotected). They also have the Maverick's 1st-round pick this year, in addition to their own. So they basically get to draft as if they were the 76ers for the immediate future, they just don't have to also suck. I'm not a super-close NBA follower anymore, but as a fan, I definitely prefer that approach. Playoff basketball and winning seasons have some value, even if they don't necessarily lead to a championship (and it's not like the 76ers approach guarantees a championship either).

[Groundhog]

Playoff basketball and winning seasons have some value, even if they don't necessarily lead to a championship (and it's not like the 76ers approach guarantees a championship either).

Agree with this 100%.

[nol]

Agree with this 100%.

Me three. I just knew the point Hinkie was starting from made being a winning (or even playoff) team next to impossible over the next few years no matter which path was chosen.

[larrymcg421]

I think much of this stems from so much focus on championships at the cost of everything else, as in either win a championship or don't even bother. It seems to get more ridiculous every year.

Someone, I forgot who, once posted they'd rather have their team go for 19 losing seasons and 1 championship than have 20 good season but no championship. We had a thread that argued Billy Beane's strategy was useless because it didn't produce a championship. Some athletes' careers are defined by the fact that they never won the championship or haven't won it yet. I just don't get this sentiment at all. It's such a joyless, reductive way of looking at sports.

I say get rid of the current lottery and just make it completely random with every team in the league eligible. Or even reward the mid-level teams by giving the 8th seeded playoff teams the first picks or best odds. But any system where a team going 17-65 can be considered to have a good strategy while the teams going 42-40 are just wasting everyone's time should be scrapped immediately.

[cuervo72]

I still keep coming back to the Wizards - a team which keeps trying to make the playoffs (and is a generally good comparison for Philly). I'd rather have the Sixers do what they were doing than what the Wizards have been doing.

[Groundhog]

Wiz are an odd collection of poorly-fitting parts, but I'd tune in for a Wizards game on TV any day of the week rather than Okafor/Noel and the Travelling DLeague All-Stars. If I were a Sixers fan living in Philly I couldn't imagine paying money to attend a game unless it was the Warriors or Spurs. Maybe.

[nol]

I think much of this stems from so much focus on championships at the cost of everything else, as in either win a championship or don't even bother. It seems to get more ridiculous every year.

I think it gets oversimplified to that and overlooks that Philadelphia in 2013 was quantitatively in a bigger hole than just about any NBA team's ever been in, in terms of coaching, the market, the cap situation, young talent, and future talent. It's not "if you won't win the championship why other trying," it's "if you won't make the playoffs why bother trying." Seriously, you could point at any other team in 2012-13 and it would not be difficult to show how Philadelphia's overall outlook for the immediate future was significantly worse.

It cannot be overstated that no matter what goal you set for Philadelphia from 2013-2016, whether it be 25 wins, 30 wins, the playoffs, the championship, whatever, the odds of having the lottery balls bounce slightly differently dwarf the odds of getting a slew of veteran free agent bargains who were willing to play in Philadelphia with that nucleus.

When you nitpick at the draft selections 2 years in when it's still not even remotely settled, consider that you could make a dream team of the absolute best players selected at Philadelphia's picks or later from 2013-15, and that team would obviously look like a formidable future power (something like Hood, Porzingis, Gobert, Giannis, Smart), but I wouldn't even guarantee that it would make it out of the first round of the playoffs this season.

Same with free agents; it's a matter of knowing that your Bazemore or Jeremy Lin types have the impact they do because they fit in alongside better veteran players, most of whom are in place because of moves that took place longer than three years ago. If you did the same thing for rookies and threw out all of the Aldridge/Love types who would never have signed with the Sixers in a million years, you'd realize that signing the absolute best of all players who ultimately did change teams would also result in a borderline playoff contender, without even accounting for how much they would cost (Thomas, Monroe, Parsons, Gasol, Carroll?).

Wiz are an odd collection of poorly-fitting parts, but I'd tune in for a Wizards game on TV any day of the week rather than Okafor/Noel and the Travelling DLeague All-Stars. If I were a Sixers fan living in Philly I couldn't imagine paying money to attend a game unless it was the Warriors or Spurs. Maybe.

Every team that loses is by definition going to have poorly-fitting parts. There are enough talented athletes in the NBA that you can easily imagine a lot of guys flourishing if they ended up in the perfect situation. The Wizards are more watchable because they have no. 1 and no. 3 draft picks John Wall and Bradley Beal, and those guys were much less watchable in their first and second seasons (aka how long Hinkie's draft picks have been in the league) than they are now.

If you are a Sixers fan in Philly you generally realize that the team's in a much, much better position for the future and the present was going to be a wash regardless (attendance holding constant despite the team being worse would be a very good indicator). If you're a sports fan in Philly in general you're more likely to be obsessing over who the Eagles are gonna draft or how the Phillies are looking, and there are only so many things to care about at once.

[molson]

I still keep coming back to the Wizards - a team which keeps trying to make the playoffs (and is a generally good comparison for Philly). I'd rather have the Sixers do what they were doing than what the Wizards have been doing.

The Wizards had high draft picks from 2009-2013. At what point does a fan want to see their team start to try to win? 5 years isn't long enough to suck? It's pretty unlikely a team can go from 20 wins right to 65 and a championship. At some point you have to make the jump up to playoff contender and see if you can add the final pieces to make a title run. But still, there's no guarantee that 5 years of sucking even leads to a decent run of 45-win playoff teams.

I don't follow the Wizards, but I imagine there's some sentiment now to "blow everything up" and suck for 5 more years for some vague hope that in 2021 they can have lots of highly drafted players and suddenly be a championship team. I just don't think it's that easy. There's 30 teams, many are trying to do the same thing, and some are already there. The odds are against you no matter what. I'd rather my team be competitive more often than not, make smart moves, and maybe overcome the odds and catch lighting in a bottle with the right mix of luck and good team building. But for being a sports fan to be enjoyable I think you do have to understand the odds and adjust your expectations. All things being equal, your team is going to win a championship once every 30 years. If you get 2 in that time, you're way ahead of the curve. Many teams, maybe most, will have zero. If that's the only thing that counts as success anymore, ya, the vast majority of fans are going to miserable most of the time.

[larrymcg421]

It cannot be overstated that no matter what goal you set for Philadelphia from 2013-2016, whether it be 25 wins, 30 wins, the playoffs, the championship, whatever, the odds of having the lottery balls bounce slightly differently dwarf the odds of getting a slew of veteran free agent bargains who were willing to play in Philadelphia with that nucleus.

Which is exactly why I proposed a full random lottery with no weighting. Say there are two teams in the same situation as Philadelphia was in 2012-13. It's absurd that the team who tries to win would be in a worse situation than the team who doesn't try to win. That's a bad design for a sports league.

[molson]

I'm sure I've ranted it about here a lot, but one of the main things that turned me off from the NBA was how much losing is rewarded. And the sentiment seems to be increasing every year. It used to be that you didn't want to be a pretty good team that just missed the playoffs. Now 45 wins is the bad place to be. Maybe there's only 4 teams that have a chance to win a championship in a given year and the other 26 should all try to lose. I don't know where the line is, and it's frustrating to even try to figure that out and follow an NBA season.

When I'm watching a sporting event, I generally want the winner to be better off than the loser after the game. I want to know that both teams, and their fanbases, and their front offices, want to win. But for so many NBA games, it's apparently the opposite. (If that way of thinking is correct - I certainly hope the 76ers are dead forever to prove that way of thinking wrong, because it ruins basketball for me). I stopped following the Celtics when sentiment among the fanbase seemed to be 50/50 whether they wanted to them to win or lose any particular regular season game. What's the point if I don't even know if I'm supposed to root for my own team to win the games or not? I don't want to have to make that choice. If I'm not even sure that I'd rather my team win than lose, it's hard to care.

I'm back in it a little bit now because I'm 100% sure they're trying to win every game, and everybody seems to be on the same page with that. But if they slipped a bit next year, decided to "blow everything up", and then I'm supposed to root for them to lose as much as possible for the next 5 years and hope they'll be good in 2021, I'm out.

So ya, I love the idea of a totally random lottery, 1-30. Why is it so important that the crappy teams be given extra help? It wouldn't be the end of the world if a rising team, or even a really good team, got some luck in the lottery even though they committed the cardinal NBA sin of winning too many games without winning a championship. It's just so backwards that NBA teams can hit this wall of as a franchise BECAUSE they won too much, whereas they would have been in a much better position if they played worse, or just tried to lose. Smaller market teams, especially, I think are hurt by this system, because they can do the sucking part (really not that much of an accomplishment, as much as it's valued in the NBA), but then they struggle with the endgame and free agents once they're outside the lottery. With a random lottery draft, a good 45-win small market team has at least the chance to add some top prospects.

[cuervo72]

I don't follow the Wizards

Yeah, not many do. :p

Seriously though, they come off as an afterthought here. No doubt some of this is from Snyder having control over a few media outlets, but the Redskins suck up about 90% of the air in the room, it seems to me. (And they suck!) Right now the Caps probably get much of the remaining percent.

I think people like some of the young players here (when they can stay healthy), and there was some excitement over winning a playoff series (not doing so for what, 20 years will do that), but I think there's also the realization that barring a major FA coming here the team has pretty much reached its limit (and even regressed this year). But, who is going to want to come to DC? Kevin Durant maybe because he is from here. But that's far from certain. It's the same thing Philly has to deal with -- it's just not a marquee destination.

So you either have to either be a really shrewd organization (Ernie Grunfeld is ok, but eh. He may not even be in town next season.) or be really lucky. They've been neither.

I get the once every thirty year thing. I think of that angle regularly; opening night when the Royals played, the broadcast got wistful over how it had been 30 years. Well, that's going to be the average! That's what you get for having a huge league. Basketball seems worse than other sports though. For one, the divisions seem to be damn near meaningless. So you win one. *shurg* The regular season is just a slog that has to be endured to get to the playoffs. The main focus is on where you fall 1-8. And really, if you are 5-8 -- good luck. And, there is little parity in the NBA. In 15 years, only twelve teams have made the finals. Teams don't catch fire and have lucky runs. You need stars.

[nol]

I'm sure I've ranted it about here a lot, but one of the main things that turned me off from the NBA was how much losing is rewarded. And the sentiment seems to be increasing every year. It used to be that you didn't want to be a pretty good team that just missed the playoffs. Now 45 wins is the bad place to be.

That's simply not the case. There are currently 10 teams with 45 wins. If you were to assume the playoffs were chalk all the way through, which of those teams would feel as though they're in a bad place?

Cleveland, Toronto, Golden State, San Antonio, Oklahoma City - obviously not, even though Toronto and Oklahoma City fans would surely have rationale to think 'is this as good as it's going to get with the current roster?' with large impending free agent decisions.

Clippers - possibly going to blow it up following a second-round exit to the Warriors and have certainly have not significantly upgraded their roster over the last few years despite being in a win-now position with Paul, Griffin, and Jordan.

Boston - anything they do is gravy with the Nets' picks they got, which they acquired as a result of moves that were made 10+ years ago. A first round playoff loss would certainly have people wondering whether they're the kind of team that gives it their all during the regular season and doesn't have that extra gear for the playoffs.

Atlanta - another tough decision in terms of either likely taking a step back by losing Horford or maxing him out until he's 36 even though the current team is not likely to achieve greater heights than the conference semis going forward.

Miami - maxed out Bosh until he's 36 years old, traded 2 future firsts for the ability to sign Dragic (who's 29) to a big deal, will have to pay big money to Whiteside, who's been their best player since he started getting playing time. Nucleus of the team is not getting any younger and guys like Winslow and Richardson would have to get much, much better to make up for that decline.

Charlotte - great success story considering how much the franchise has suffered in the past. Nic Batum (who they traded a recent top 10 pick and a decent veteran drafted in the 2009 lottery for) has been crucial to their improvement from last season, and he is about to be a free agent.

Portland - probably said enough about them. Hit on as many young veteran free agents as you could possibly expect to and still look to be in that first round loss + no first round pick dead zone. They should actually look to sign Whiteside to a big deal to keep the momentum going, and if you know anything about Whiteside that's just as much a risk as hoping the lottery balls bounce the right way, that nobody gets injured, or anything else.

Memphis - their current reign of success, which is certainly nothing to be ashamed of, was built upon the players they acquired during a 2006-09 stretch of winning 22, 22, and 24 games. After a first round loss would have to decide between losing Conley/blowing it up versus re-signing him to an aging core. No first round pick this year either. Oh yeah, and Marc Gasol is 31 with the same injury as Embiid; who's saying he will never play an NBA game again?

Outside of the true contenders, there's ample fluctuation from year to year based solely on stuff like injuries. If the Cavs make the finals, LeBron's team will have won 18 of the 42 total playoff series played in the Eastern Conference the past 6 years, so that leaves 14 teams playing for a really small piece of the pie. Assuming that holds this year, every team in the East will have made the playoffs at least once during this stretch. From year to year, you can have a 28-win team the previous year surprise everybody at the start of the year and make the playoffs, but they still lose to the better opponent in the first round.

When I'm watching a sporting event, I generally want the winner to be better off than the loser after the game.

When watching a sporting event, I generally want the winner to have played better than the loser after the game. Basketball offers that more than any sport. A 5-11 team can be an 8-8 playoff team in football if a few fumbles or tipped passes bounce its way. It can just take a few bloop singles for worst baseball team to beat the best team on any given day. In basketball there are enough games and enough chances for the better team to assert itself over the course of a contest that bad teams can't rely on that fantasy.

Think of how many close games Philadelphia has lost down the stretch this year (this is an area where had Sam Hinkie been a sufficiently charismatic figure to swing his dick around saying 'I expect us to contend for the playoffs this season OR ELSE,' the Sixers' offensive execution down the stretch of several winnable games, when examined more closely, would have left Brett Brown's head very close to the chopping block). Obviously much of that can be explained by teams not taking them too seriously and then turning up the intensity in a close game in the last few minutes, but the point is that Philadelphia went up and down the court 80-90 times with these teams and the score was even, whereas in baseball you get about 40 chances for batters to go up to the plate and score runs and in football you get the ball 10 or so times per game.

[Groundhog]

Every team that loses is by definition going to have poorly-fitting parts.

Unless you count 'fringe-NBA talent' as a poor fitting part, that's not necessarily true. Sixers have done a good job of bringing in 'metric darlings' who are really good at a few things, but sub-NBA talents elsewhere.


There are enough talented athletes in the NBA that you can easily imagine a lot of guys flourishing if they ended up in the perfect situation. The Wizards are more watchable because they have no. 1 and no. 3 draft picks John Wall and Bradley Beal, and those guys were much less watchable in their first and second seasons (aka how long Hinkie's draft picks have been in the league) than they are now.

Wall and Beal are no small part of it obviously, as the team's best two players, but so is the fact that from day 1 in Wall's career the Wizards have tried to surround him with a core of NBA talent. You can question a lot of those personnel decisions in hindsight (some of them even at the time), and you can also question a lot of the picks the Wiz made too. I don't think you can question the value of having young players in an environment when they aren't 10-15 point underdogs every single night of the week.


If you are a Sixers fan in Philly you generally realize that the team's in a much, much better position for the future and the present was going to be a wash regardless (attendance holding constant despite the team being worse would be a very good indicator). If you're a sports fan in Philly in general you're more likely to be obsessing over who the Eagles are gonna draft or how the Phillies are looking, and there are only so many things to care about at once.

Are they? I don't know. I place a lot of value in team culture, and the Sixers have none. The lottery picks have so far netted them two guys with red flags (one I'd class as major red flags, and we've had a story featuring Noel now as well), and none of them look like sure-fire pieces you build a team around. If the Sixers had not thrown the last three seasons away and actually tried to be respectable, maybe they're a playoff team today? Who knows. I sure as hell don't expect them to be a playoff team next year barring a sensational draft and/or Saric coming over and being the Next Big Thing. I don't expect either. Best case maybe they're this season's Timberwolves and begin to show signs of what they are capable of. Maybe 5-6 years down the track they are finally winning some games and challenging for a playoff spot. As a fan, is that a better experience than watching a team play .500 ball? For me, it's not.

[Atocep]

If the Sixers had not thrown the last three seasons away and actually tried to be respectable, maybe they're a playoff team today?

And what would it matter? If I'm a fan of a team I want that organization pushing to win a title. Not just be a playoff team. Considering the amount of weight people put on titles in sports I think it's safe to say most tend to agree with me. I don't expect my teams to win titles every year or very often at all (Mets fan), but I would like to see it as the ultimate goal of the organization.

The lowest seeded team in NBA history to win a title is the Rockets in '95 (only possible because of Jordan's retirement). After that the biggest title winning upset is who? The 69 Celtics (4 seed)? The '04 Pistons (3 seed)?

The NBA doesn't operate like other sports. Simply making the playoffs doesn't give you a chance.


Philly's situation was so bad when Hinkie took over there's no guarantees they'd be a playoff team now and if they were it's certainly nothing close to a title winning team. The roster was bad, the cap situation was bad, and the draft pick situation was bad. The team was going nowhere. Why not blow it up and patiently wait for the right situation to come along?

[nol]

Unless you count 'fringe-NBA talent' as a poor fitting part, that's not necessarily true. Sixers have done a good job of bringing in 'metric darlings' who are really good at a few things, but sub-NBA talents elsewhere.

No, I mean that pretty much every player in the league would look better if he were replacing Andre Iguodala as the 5th option in the Warriors' best lineup and pretty much every player would look shitty if surrounded by crappy players. 'Casual darlings' who played for a while, were merely decent, and who cost more do not have an appreciable chance of helping a team. For every Kent Bazemore acquired for essentially nothing, there are 5 guys like Grevis Vasquez and Justin Holiday who make you go "oh yeah, THAT'S who he's playing for now." For every Isaiah Thomas on the Celtics, there are 5 Isaiah Thomas on the Suns/Kings situations.

Wall and Beal are no small part of it obviously, as the team's best two players, but so is the fact that from day 1 in Wall's career the Wizards have tried to surround him with a core of NBA talent. You can question a lot of those personnel decisions in hindsight (some of them even at the time), and you can also question a lot of the picks the Wiz made too.

Uh, I can't think of a team that would have Otto Porter over Nerlens Noel going forward, but the 76ers are the only team I see getting slammed for missing out on Giannis. I suppose Porter contributed a whopping 2.1 points per game his rookie season to make up for the fact he was ready to go unlike Noel. Maybe if they hadn't already traded away future assets to acquire players like Gortat and Nene, they'd have been comfortable with making that relatively safe gamble. Maybe then they'd have made the playoffs one fewer season (in 2014 I remember them being not even good enough to beat an Indiana team that was in the process of imploding. They were less competitive with the Pacers than the 8-seed Hawks were) but would have had a better chance of enticing Durant with a slightly worse team and a Wall/Beal/Noel core and even more cap space where Durant could pick out an established veteran to join him.

You can question a lot of moves teams make, and most GMs get a long enough tenure that it's statistically likely that at some stretch over 8+ years enough moves will have gone well enough to result in a competitive team one of those years. The Wizards had stretches in which they blew picks and signings and were a laughingstock, and then they got a #1 pick they couldn't blow in John Wall and followed that up with a good selection at #3 in Beal, and that's enough talent to make them 'competitive.'

There are 18 guys who have been in their position longer than Hinkie was, and the majority of the remaining guys will ultimately get longer than 3 years. You surely cannot say that 25 or more teams are heading in a positive direction.

If the Sixers had not thrown the last three seasons away and actually tried to be respectable, maybe they're a playoff team today? Who knows.

You personally didn't know, but that didn't stop me and other people who knew more about basketball from seeing that it wouldn't be the case. Just as there's not much to be gained in being right after the fact, there's not much to be lost in getting rid of players who wouldn't have constituted a respectable team. There was a lot of concern that the Celtics were going to be the last team to realize that KG/Pierce/Rondo was no longer the nucleus to a good team, but Danny Ainge found maybe the one team that was still desperate/dumb enough in Brooklyn. The 2012-13 Celtics with Pierce and KG were 41-40 and lost in the first round; if Ainge waits another six months for Pierce and KG to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they're no longer nearly as effective, he gets nothing for them. The Celtics would have been just as bad as they'd have been while 'tanking' 2013-14 and would not have had the picks going forward.

Do you think Brooklyn will make the playoffs once over the next few seasons? They'd probably have a better chance than 2013 Philly did if only for the possibility they'd have to throw a lot of money around to hire Calipari, then sign Wall/Cousins to a big market. Otherwise, they also have reached that critical mass of bad decisions where the playoffs are out of the question for the time being. There's a lot of wiggle room outside of knowing that the Spurs, the LeBron team, and the Warriors will be title contenders going into the season, and not overreacting on year-to-year fluctuations that are dependent on random stuff like injuries is crucial. Detroit could have made the exact same moves, and if Washington hadn't been as injured this season, the Wizards are likely in the 8th playoff spot rather than Detroit; does that mean that Detroit is in a much worse position going forward than if they'd gotten swept by the Cavs? The Jazz look to be the 9th place team in the West this year; in other words, they weren't built to withstand an injury to their 5th-best player this season. Does that invalidate the construction of the roster?

In the NFL 10 teams out of 32 make the playoffs. In the NBA 16 teams out of 30 do. That's an extra 22.5 percent of teams that can placate their fans with "at least we made the playoffs and played 'winning' basketball" despite being no better relative to the rest of the league than the Eagles or the Lions were this season. In this era, being a 'pretty good team that misses' the playoffs is in large part a misnomer; the Bulls and Jazz are set to be 42-40 and just miss the playoffs, and diehard fans of those teams are able to watch enough games and read enough about the NBA to give you a pretty thorough explanation of all the areas in which the Bulls/Jazz came up short this year.

Think of what the perception of Anthony Davis and New Orleans would be if the team hadn't yet made the playoffs as opposed to making the playoffs once and getting swept by the best team in recent memory (oh yeah, and the Pelicans made the playoffs in the first place because Kevin Durant and Russell Westbrook were both injured for huge chunks of last season), despite trading future first round picks and handicapping their ability to acquire a better supporting cast in the future. The player is just as young, just as talented, but he wouldn't have a "playoffs run" attached to his resume.

[Groundhog]

You do a really good job of sounding like a condescending asshole nol. Well done. I'll go back to ignoring your wordy posts in this thread again Mr basketball genius.

[molson]

That's simply not the case. There are currently 10 teams with 45 wins. If you were to assume the playoffs were chalk all the way through, which of those teams would feel as though they're in a bad place?


I want to believe that all of the teams you listed are in a better position than Philadelphia, but the fact that it's even a debate makes me sad. As does how beloved the 76er approach was among 76ers fans and how pissed most of them were when Hinke resigned. An 8-year old could build a crappy team with the goal of losing, win 10 games a year, and then just draft whoever the mock drafts say to draft at the #1 or #2 spot and be in the same position the 76ers are now are, and perhaps better depending on the mock draft they relied on.

And as another post says here, you can't win a championship unless you're the #1 or #2 team in a conference. And really, I'm not sure how many championship teams have won less than 55 games. So if winning a championship is all that matters (which I disagree with), those 45-win teams really should have held everybody back, or just lost intentionally, and won maybe 20 games instead. They'd be better off the next year. Every win made their future outlook worse. Edit: for example, the Celtics aren't winning the championship this year - wouldn't it have been better for them to tank, win 20 games, and then have two picks in the top 5 and maybe go for it for real next year or the year after?

[Groundhog]

And what would it matter? If I'm a fan of a team I want that organization pushing to win a title. Not just be a playoff team. Considering the amount of weight people put on titles in sports I think it's safe to say most tend to agree with me. I don't expect my teams to win titles every year or very often at all (Mets fan), but I would like to see it as the ultimate goal of the organization.

To me? It would matter a great deal. Championships should be the goal, of course, but without a lot of luck it's just not going to happen - which means for most teams, it's not going to happen. By all means go for it, but not at the expense of everything else. To me, I'm happy going along and cheering for my team if they put a watchable product on the court, finish just outside the playoffs or bomb out in the first round. I love basketball. Winning is great and nothing sucks like watching a team bow out of their last game of the year with a loss, but such is life. I don't go for the championships, but they are the cherry on top. I would never get behind a team doing with the Sixers are doing. I understand what they hope to achieve, but as a basketball fan first and foremost I don't support it or think it's the best way to build a championship contender.

[nol]

I want to believe that all of the teams you listed are in a better position than Philadelphia, but the fact that it's even a debate makes me sad. As does how beloved the 76er approach was among 76ers fans and how pissed most of them were when Hinke resigned. An 8-year old could build a crappy team with the goal of losing, win 10 games a year, and then just draft whoever the mock drafts say to draft at the #1 or #2 spot and be in the same position the 76ers are now are, and perhaps better depending on the mock draft they relied on.

That's the whole point. Basketball is a sport in which any idiot could have selected Towns/Duncan/LeBron/Durant/etc. with a high draft pick, and that by itself buys you a *lot* of wiggle room when it comes to building an eventual contender. More players on the field = more chaos, and a sport like football is obviously set up for the few difference-making players to have a much higher chance of being injured. There are relatively few things that would have had to break well for the 76ers to be considered an up-and-coming team that's going to destroy the league, and even in the absence of them the team is still set up quite well for the future.

The owners of the 76ers are not brought up enough in this. They have the money and certainly have the right to change things as they see fit, but they were quite alright with being terrible, having the lowest payroll, etc., the last two seasons. Now they're essentially gambling on the fact that the picks they'll have going forward will be in a high enough position that any idiot could nail them, while the Colangelos' collective juice ("I'm in charge of selecting the USA Olympic team, so are you sure you don't want to consider signing with us?") could make up for having worse decision making going forward.

And as another post says here, you can't win a championship unless you're the #1 or #2 team in a conference. And really, I'm not sure how many championship teams have won less than 55 games. So if winning a championship is all that matters (which I disagree with), those 45-win teams really should have held everybody back, or just lost intentionally, and won maybe 20 games instead. They'd be better off the next year. Every win made their future outlook worse.

You can disagree on that, believe a consistent peak of 45 or so wins is great for most teams, and STILL know that the 76ers were further from that goal than any other team at the time would've been and it just would not have been feasible for Philadelphia given the situation they were in before Hinkie. It was emptier than an empty cupboard. If every single sub-45 win team honestly believed tanking was the best possible outcome, then there would be a massive advantage to be gained by doing something similar to what Cleveland has done by trading future picks for any non-star player on a sub-45-team (because those players are certainly better than what pretty much any rookie would be over the first couple years of his career), except oh wait, Cleveland acquired LeBron by virtue of him growing up there. Instead, the moves the 76ers are most criticized for are moves in which they got a modest return for mediocre future free agents who would have helped them win 21-23 rather than 18 games during a year in which the team with the absolute worst record in the league got a future MVP with the first pick.

The Philadelphia 76ers specifically were in a situation where they could make the playoffs and still be a bottom five team in terms of attendance. That's the epitome of a situation where the brief loss in profitability (during a period in which NBA teams' values went up at an astronomical rate) from really sucking as opposed to kind of sucking is much less than the benefit gained from being a top-tier franchise going forward; do you think any 8-year-old who absolutely *needs* a Steph Curry jersey or any current NBA free agent gives a crap that the Warriors sucked as recently as 2012 and had won a grand total of one playoff series in the 20 years before that?

[Gary Gorski]

The Philadelphia 76ers specifically were in a situation where they could make the playoffs and still be a bottom five team in terms of attendance.

You pointed out the attendance numbers for the past decade but look prior to that

2006 21st 677,278 16,518 80.8
2005 10th 732,686 17,870 87.4
2004 4th 788,128 19,222 94.0
2003 4th 807,097 19,685 96.3
2002 3rd 842,976 20,560 100.6
2001 5th 805,692 19,651 (NBA Finals year)

So in other words after the team had been to the playoffs for two years and won a playoff series in those years then the next five they were in the top 10 for attendance even though three of those five seasons ended with a first round knockout or missing the playoffs.

It's amazing how people will show up when there's a) an electric/star player on the team and b) when the team has a short history of winning something. I think in addition to the numbers that comments in this thread prove out that if you put out a team that at least has the hopes of winning a playoff series you're going to get people to show up especially in the NBA where I think most fans are smart enough to realize that unless you have one of the elite stars you probably don't stand much of a chance of winning it all.

That's the epitome of a situation where the brief loss in profitability (during a period in which NBA teams' values went up at an astronomical rate) from really sucking as opposed to kind of sucking is much less than the benefit gained from being a top-tier franchise going forward

But they're not a top-tier franchise. For three seasons they've been a complete joke and they've managed to regress in wins every year from 19 to 18 to 10! Nobody else in the league has purposefully gone into seasons with intentions to just flat out suck. Other teams have had bad years and years where they packed it in - sure - but it is always because of injury or the realization with a few games left that they're fighting for a lottery seed so then the tank comes out. Nobody has started out basically saying they don't even care about the results. They have purposefully tanked for 246 games in a row.

Had it worked and they ended up with a Durant/Westbrook we wouldn't have this discussion. Hinkie would be a modern day genius with the blueprint for every team to follow and the fans would be selling out the arena for the next decade because that team would win.

I think Philly and Detroit are similar sports towns - from 2003 to 2009 Detroit was #1 in attendance every year but one (then they were 2nd). Then drop was fast and steep. Even this year they are 25th in attendance and are a playoff team - but they've been so awful the past few years people are only just now starting to care and take a peek to see if what they have is sustainable. When you have other teams to care about especially if hockey is a viable alternative you can't suck and think people will care.

I think you're kind of glossing over that ok maybe they didn't lose a whole lot when they started this process but how long is it going to take for those people to come back unless the team either stumbles onto another Iverson or somehow is a serious contender? Neither of those are the case and there doesn't seem to be a player like that in the draft this year so even if things to start to slowly improve from here what's going to be the financial ramifications of paying Noel and Embiid post-rookie contracts when the team still only has average or poor support.

Hinkie played this out like a video game where none of those ramifications mattered and had he "won" and ended up with a Westbrook/Durant they wouldn't have mattered. People would be showing up in droves to see the team. Instead not only are people not showing up but articles say they're not even watching on TV.

[nol]

It's amazing how people will show up when there's a) an electric/star player on the team and b) when the team has a short history of winning something.

It's not amazing how that electric star player was the #1 pick in the draft acquired the season after Philadelphia had the worst record in the league. Are you joking with that? Apparently those fans did not hold too much of a grudge over the five-year run of 26, 25, 24, 18, and 22 wins that preceded Iverson's rise to stardom, who would have guessed?

It's also not amazing that as soon as that team/player declined into mediocrity the fans didn't show up anymore. Again, no decline in attendance compared to when the team was 'competitive' and winning 35-40 games. The Timberwolves had even worse attendance than the 76ers this season - is it going to surprise you that bandwagon fans will come out of the woodwork to watch number one overall picks Towns and Wiggins going forward?

As far as owners go, 'financial ramifications' is a ridiculous notion. The Sixers' owners bought the team for about $300 million and can sell it for at least twice that if they ever feel strapped for cash. If only there were some (http://deadspin.com/what-the-nbas-insane-new-tv-deal-means-for-the-league-a-1642926274) other (http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/CBA-111128/how-new-nba-deal-compares-last-one) revenue streams that have recently opened up that would make up for slightly fewer Philadelphians watching the games now compared to 2007.

[molson]

Even with Iverson the 76ers only got to 50+ wins once.

I don't know how many 76ers fans were disappointed with the run at the time (the attendance numbers suggest there was some buzz), but I'm sure today, it would definitely be viewed by more fans as a big failure and there would have been more calls to blow everything up when they slipped to 43 wins after their finals run.

[murrayyyyy]

Even with Iverson the 76ers only got to 50+ wins once.

I don't know how many 76ers fans were disappointed with the run at the time (the attendance numbers suggest there was some buzz), but I'm sure today, it would definitely be viewed by more fans as a big failure and there would have been more calls to blow everything up when they slipped to 43 wins after their finals run.

Think Iverson was hurt just about every other week in Philly. I guess a good look at how they would react would be looking at the Bulls situation with Rose right now. Obviously Rose missed more time it's 50/50 with their fans on what to do right now with the team.

[nol]

I don't know how many 76ers fans were disappointed with the run at the time (the attendance numbers suggest there was some buzz), but I'm sure today, it would definitely be viewed by more fans as a big failure and there would have been more calls to blow everything up when they slipped to 43 wins after their finals run.

And in retrospect (just as it was at the time), it would have been a much, much better decision than throwing shit at the wall for an additional 3-4 years by acquiring random washed-up guys like Chris Webber and Glenn Robinson to be the 'second star' alongside a clearly diminished Iverson.

[molson]

And in retrospect (just as it was at the time), it would have been a much, much better decision than throwing shit at the wall for an additional 3-4 years by acquiring random washed-up guys like Chris Webber and Glenn Robinson to be the 'second star' alongside a clearly diminished Iverson.

So 7 years of tanking to finally get lucky and hit on Iverson, then a 3-year run that includes two second-round exits and one loss in the finals, then blow everything up for maybe 7 more years of tanking to hopefully get lucky enough to get another 2-year stretch of 49-55 wins (or maybe not get that good again - players like Iverson don't come around all the time), and then blow it all up again, repeat.

Sounds like fun. I'm glad there's sports fans that can be excited today about some small probability of being good in 2022 or 2023, but that's definitely not for me. I think you lose generations of fans with that approach. I got addicted to the teams I root for today because they all had a little success in the mid 80s (only one won a championship, but I remember the heartbreak just as sentimentally). I wonder if I would have been hooked if the teams just tanked for my entire childhood, and didn't play in any meaningful games the fanbase was actually rooting for them to win.

[cuervo72]

You need a star. I was lucky enough to catch the tail end of Dr. J's career, which then lead into Charles Barkley's. The Sixers were very, very good. They only won one ring, but they had (I thought) a legitimate shot almost all of those years. Once Chuck was gone, it was just crap. There was nothing to sell. Hersey Hawkins? Jeff Hornacek? Clarence Weatherspoon? You need a guy to sell jerseys, keep fans engaged, and to get the team on national broadcasts. Do what you need to to get that guy.

[Logan]

I'm glad I'm not much of a fan of an NBA team (thanks for killing that for me, Scott Layden/Isiah Thomas). I have celebrated a championship two times in my life, the last being when I was 11 years old. Now 32, I've very much enjoyed being a fan of teams in all other sports for the past 20+ years.

[Logan]

BTW, I was at an event last night that was related to the MSG charity the Garden of Dreams. There weren't a ton of athletes there, but guys like John Starks and even Herb Williams were getting picture requests; meanwhile I see Isiah walking around, seemingly unnoticed by everyone but me.

[molson]

You need a star. I was lucky enough to catch the tail end of Dr. J's career, which then lead into Charles Barkley's. The Sixers were very, very good. They only won one ring, but they had (I thought) a legitimate shot almost all of those years. Once Chuck was gone, it was just crap. There was nothing to sell. Hersey Hawkins? Jeff Hornacek? Clarence Weatherspoon? You need a guy to sell jerseys, keep fans engaged, and to get the team on national broadcasts. Do what you need to to get that guy.

I loved Barkley from afar, but his teams never got close either. Never even to the conference finals with Philly once it became his team. They peaked at 53 wins. Today they would have blown it up much earlier and then tanked, killing the Barkley years and those memories. (And it wasn't just because the Celtics were in the way, the Barkley 76ers never got far enough to play the Celtics after 1985).

[nol]

So 7 years of tanking to finally get lucky and hit on Iverson, then a 3-year run that includes two second-round exits and one loss in the finals, then blow everything up for maybe 7 more years of tanking to hopefully get lucky enough to get another 2-year stretch of 49-55 wins (or maybe not get that good again - players like Iverson don't come around all the time), and then blow it all up again, repeat.

The Spurs have been good that entire time. The Spurs, Lakers, and Heat have won the vast majority of titles since then, so that doesn't leave a lot of winning for other teams. In other words, you could summarize the last 15 years for pretty much every team in terms like that, especially if you're just using 'tanking' as a generic term for losing a lot of games in a year regardless of what moves the organization is actually making.

It's a very silly false equivalence you're making. The Sixers decided to be among the 2-3 worst teams rather than the 5th-6th worst the last 3 years. The Evan Turner/Andrew Bynum/traded away four consecutive first round picks pre-Hinkie 76ers were not going to make any happy memories for young sports fans (Oh dear! When will they think of the children?).

[molson]

The Sixers decided to be among the very 2-3 worst teams rather than the 7th-8th worst the last 3 years.

I think it's going to be longer than a 3-year thing.

Edit: I'm not opposed to trading away players and going young. It can be fun as a fan to have that young team with lots of talent, and know that you're going to be better the next year, and then the year after that, etc. That's not really what the 76ers are doing. They've bottomed out in year 3.

I'm not a fan of perpetual long-term tanking, the sentiment that championships are the only things that matter, and most of all, the way the NBA rewards losing so much more than winning, and all the weird rooting dilemmas that come from that for so many NBA teams.

[JPhillips]

Yeah, I think at best the 76ers will make the playoffs in year five of the rebuild.

[molson]

Yeah, I think at best the 76ers will make the playoffs in year five of the rebuild.

I'm expecting them to blow everything up under new leadership before then.

But if they do stay the course, and win a championship in year 8 or whatever, it will be interesting to see what happens when more teams try the same. There will be heated competition to lose tons of games year after year, and only so many losses to go around. The Warriors' record might not last long.

[nol]

I'm expecting them to blow everything up under new leadership before then.

But if they do stay the course, and win a championship in year 8 or whatever, it will be interesting to see what happens when more teams try the same. There will be heated competition to lose tons of games year after year, and only so many losses to go around. The Warriors' record might not last long.

It's cool that you've just stumbled upon the notion that the worst teams in the league get a higher draft choice, but this is nothing new. You can look at the standings year after year and see that a few teams lose 60+ games each season regardless of how much attention is paid to tanking or the draft or whatever.

Perhaps the biggest factor working against Sam Hinkie was that the Knicks and Lakers are the worst they've ever been, and when you add in the Celtics post Big-Three, you had a lot of people who never thought much about the draft before (why care about the best young players heading into the league when you can just sign them or pull off a lopsided trade for them a few years down the road?) learning about how it works all at once. The Lakers could very well end up with higher draft selections than Philadelphia over the last three seasons, but nobody got too worked up about it because it's just good old-fashioned incompetence going on there.

[molson]

It's cool that you've just stumbled upon the notion that the worst teams in the league get a higher draft choice, but this is nothing new. You can look at the standings year after year and see that a few teams lose 60+ games each season regardless of how much attention is paid to tanking or the draft or whatever.

It seems as though the draft is more of an exact science, and thus, more predictable and important, than it was a few decades ago. The Clippers could get high draft pick after high draft pick but they still always sucked because their team management sucked. Or maybe teams have always tanked and only the media and fan perception has changed, but we used to mock the teams that sucked, rather than celebrate the genius of their GMs before they won anything. And we used to more uniformly root for our teams to win basketball games. Like I've posted, if you look back at some of the memorable stars and teams that didn't win championships, I think we'd look at them a lot differently today. Everything looks different when there's a huge conflict between winning games and winning championships.

[JonInMiddleGA]

And really, I'm not sure how many championship teams have won less than 55 games.

Dammit, you would go & make me curious

2015 GS 67, final four 53+
2014 SA 62, final four 54+
2013 MIA 66, final four 49+
2012 MIA 46 (projects to 57), final four 48+ (projected)
2011 DAL 57, final four 55+
2010 LAL 57, final four 50+
2009 LAL 65, final four 54+
2008 BOS 66, final four 56+
2007 SA 58, final four 50+
2006 MIA 52, final four 52+
2005 SA 59, final four 54+
2004 DET 54, final four 56+

So the answer is once since Lebron was a rookie.
5 of 12 have won 62 or more

Of conference finalists, 11 of 12 years have had no team with under 50 wins

[wustin]

That 2006 Miami team got atrocious refball. Pretty sure Wade averaged around 15 free throw attempts in the series against Dallas and got so many phantom fouls called for him. The last two games of that series I know Wade had over 40 free throw attempts. Dallas lost both of those games with a combined margin of less than 5 points.

[nol]

It seems as though the draft is more of an exact science, and thus, more predictable and important, than it was a few decades ago. The Clippers could get high draft pick after high draft pick but they still always sucked because their team management sucked. Or maybe teams have always tanked and only the media and fan perception has changed, but we used to mock the teams that sucked, rather than celebrate the genius of their GMs before they won anything. And we used to more uniformly root for our teams to win basketball games. I think we'd look at them a lot differently today. Everything looks different when there's a huge conflict between winning games and winning championships.

There's possibly more continuity at the top of the league than there has ever been. Consider the West, where the only thing preventing the same 8 teams from making the playoffs the last 3 seasons is Westbrook and Durant being injured for most of last year, which allowed New Orleans to make the playoffs on the last day of the season via tiebreaker, get swept, and promptly regress. There have seen no serious discussions about the Clippers, Thunder, Mavericks, Rockets, Grizzlies, Blazers, Spurs, or Warriors needing to completely blow things up over the past few years. The Blazers are the only one of these teams to even go as far as not re-signing every single key player, and that wasn't for a lack of trying. So much for "it's only about winning championships and teams would rather be last place than make the playoffs." Take any non-playoff team in the West at the time Hinkie was hired (and restating the obvious that all these teams had rosters that were better set up to be competitive over the next three years), and even with the extremely modest goal of "be more competitive at some point over the next few years," how many achieved even that?

The rising cap, the new CBA, and the new TV deal have made decisions like "is Gordon Hayward worth a max contract?" much easier over the past few years; James Harden would have never been made available in today's financial climate, so that and buying first round picks are two big "stack your team for the future without tanking" avenues that are simply not available anymore. For all the talk about "oh no the agents hate Hinkie," it would have been one thing to put on the bravado when every team is throwing money around and another to talk a client out of going somewhere that's offering significantly more money and a bigger role.

So, it's easier for teams to hold onto their good players than it's been since free agency became a thing (and Philadelphia in 2012-13 had fewer good players to hold onto than any other team thanks to Hinkie's predecessors) and the talent that has come into the league has not been particularly strong. No player drafted from 2013-15 has been named to an All-Star or All-NBA team yet, which is pretty rare when talking about players who are in some cases 3 years into the league. Had the Sixers actually been competitive by now, it would have made Moneyball look elementary.

[cartman]

The Houston conundrum:

Win tonight and make the playoffs, only to face Golden State in the first round
Lose tonight, miss the playoffs, and keep their lottery protected first round pick.

[albionmoonlight]

Kobe's last game and the Warriors going for 73 are scheduled against each other. Seems kind of crazy that the NBA didn't move one of the games to an earlier slot.

If this were the NFL, they would have figured out a way to play each quarter of each game separately and make it into an eight-night event with each night having a different sponsor and musical guest.

[Gary Gorski]

So, it's easier for teams to hold onto their good players than it's been since free agency became a thing (and Philadelphia in 2012-13 had fewer good players to hold onto than any other team thanks to Hinkie's predecessors)

You keep saying this but its not really the case. That Sixers team had Jrue Holiday who in his 4th season in 12-13 made the All-Star team with averages of 17.7/8.0/1.6 spg. He was a 22 year old all-star and injuries had not yet been a problem in his career. They also had Thad Young, 24 at the time, who went for 14.8/7.5/1.8 spg that season. There was still also expectations for Evan Turner who also at 24 averaged 13.3/6.3 rpg/4.3 apg. You had your future star in Jrue and two 24 year old guys that would at least be decent starters.

But above all that there was one injured big man the team pinned all its future hopes on (sound familiar?) - Andrew Bynum. We know how it turned out but had he gotten healthy towards the end of the season you know Philly would have had to lay out a huge contract for him or at the very least he would have been a S&T asset. Even as it were they still had to consider whether or not to take a chance on him getting healthy - otherwise they traded an awful lot for literally nothing which of course turned out to be the case.

Hinkie did not inherit a glorified d-league squad that was light years worse than anyone else and a healthy/engaged Bynum changes everything making Philly among the best teams in the East with two all-stars 25 and under and one of them being the best big man in the league.

Teams equally bad or worse at that point - Cleveland (Kyrie/Waiters/Tristan), Charlotte (Kemba/MKG/Gerald Henderson), Phoenix (Dragic/Gortat/Markieff), Orlando (Vuc/Tobias/Afflalo)

and the talent that has come into the league has not been particularly strong. No player drafted from 2013-15 has been named to an All-Star or All-NBA team yet, which is pretty rare when talking about players who are in some cases 3 years into the league.

There's only a handful of players who can be all-stars and even fewer all-nba - who did you think someone could draft that would leap LeBron, Durant, Westbrook, Curry, Paul, Harden, George, Blake, Duncan, Melo, Kobe, Cousins, Gasol (both), Wade, Kawhi, Bosh, Millsap, Wall, Butler, Kyrie, Klay, Draymond and even the 2012 class of Davis, Lillard, Drummond... etc? Anthony Davis is one of the best players drafted in recent history and it took him 3 years to make All-NBA. The league has had the most talent its had in a LONG time so it is going to take time for Towns, Wiggins or whoever else to jump ahead of any of these guys.

Had the Sixers actually been competitive by now, it would have made Moneyball look elementary.

Sure - had it worked at least a handful of other teams would be willing to punt multiple seasons to end up better. But since after year three they are still on the bottom I don't think too many more GMs are going to risk that sort of plan. Kind of ironic though that blowing valuable assets on an injured big man opened the door for Hinkie's experiment and in the end was one of the downfalls of it.

[Arles]

And what would it matter? If I'm a fan of a team I want that organization pushing to win a title. Not just be a playoff team.
This is one of my biggest pet peeve in the NBA right now. The "well, if we can't have a great chance to win a title, let's miss the playoffs and suck" attitude. Some of the most fun I've had as an NBA fan has been rooting for non-Title winning teams. The D'Antoni Suns never made the NBA finals, but that's the most fun I've had watching the NBA in 10 years. The Shaq-Penny Magic, Durant-Westbrook OKC teams, Barkley Suns, Webber Kings and Lob City Clippers have been extremely entertaining teams to watch over the past 25 years. They've also combined for 0 titles. I would much rather have a run like the Suns had from 2004 to 2010 or OKC from 2009 to now than have a Miami Heat situation from 2001 to 2008 where they had two 45+ win seasons but won a title.

There's so much randomness with winning a title and the breaks required to make that the end all be all for NBA team success/enjoyment. It's nice to be in the title mix, but you can have a run of sustained success, enjoyable basketball for your fans and just not have players who can beat Jordan/Duncan/Lebron/Curry. That doesn't mean you should tear it up and stink for 3-4 seasons - you just need to hope for some breaks while you try to incrementally improve each season. There's such an advantage to having the best player (two of the top 5) in the NBA that you may just be SOL for the primes of guys like Jordan/Pippen, Shaq/Kobe, Duncan/Parker/Manu, Lebron/Wade and Curry/Klay/Draymond. But that doesn't mean you should just pull a Philly and be terrible for 4-5 seasons since you are facing Golden State in their prime. It just means you keep trying to get better and maybe FA or an injury opens the door for you. But even if it doesn't, there's no shame in having an extremely entertaining and competitive team for a 6-7 year run that never wins a title.

[JPhillips]

This is one of my biggest pet peeve in the NBA right now. The "well, if we can't have a great chance to win a title, let's miss the playoffs and suck" attitude. Some of the most fun I've had as an NBA fan has been rooting for non-Title winning teams. The D'Antoni Suns never made the NBA finals, but that's the most fun I've had watching the NBA in 10 years. The Shaq-Penny Magic, Durant-Westbrook OKC teams, Barkley Suns, Webber Kings and Lob City Clippers have been extremely entertaining teams to watch over the past 25 years. They've also combined for 0 titles. I would much rather have a run like the Suns had from 2004 to 2010 or OKC from 2009 to now than have a Miami Heat situation from 2001 to 2008 where they had two 45+ win seasons but won a title.

There's so much randomness with winning a title and the breaks required to make that the end all be all for NBA team success/enjoyment. It's nice to be in the title mix, but you can have a run of sustained success, enjoyable basketball for your fans and just not have players who can beat Jordan/Duncan/Lebron/Curry. That doesn't mean you should tear it up and stink for 3-4 seasons - you just need to hope for some breaks while you try to incrementally improve each season. There's such an advantage to having the best player (two of the top 5) in the NBA that you may just be SOL for the primes of guys like Jordan/Pippen, Shaq/Kobe, Duncan/Parker/Manu, Lebron/Wade and Curry/Klay/Draymond. But that doesn't mean you should just pull a Philly and be terrible for 4-5 seasons since you are facing Golden State in their prime. It just means you keep trying to get better and maybe FA or an injury opens the door for you. But even if it doesn't, there's no shame in having an extremely entertaining and competitive team for a 6-7 year run that never wins a title.

Especially if multiple teams do this. There are very few superstars, so if ten or fifteen teams decide to tank, most of them won't even be successful.

[Atocep]

This is one of my biggest pet peeve in the NBA right now. The "well, if we can't have a great chance to win a title, let's miss the playoffs and suck" attitude. Some of the most fun I've had as an NBA fan has been rooting for non-Title winning teams. The D'Antoni Suns never made the NBA finals, but that's the most fun I've had watching the NBA in 10 years. The Shaq-Penny Magic, Durant-Westbrook OKC teams, Barkley Suns, Webber Kings and Lob City Clippers have been extremely entertaining teams to watch over the past 25 years. They've also combined for 0 titles. I would much rather have a run like the Suns had from 2004 to 2010 or OKC from 2009 to now than have a Miami Heat situation from 2001 to 2008 where they had two 45+ win seasons but won a title.

You mean the Phoenix teams that won 62, 54, 61, and 55 games? An Orlando Magic team that went to the finals? An Oklahoma City team that's won 50+ games 6 out of 8 years (it would be 8 out 8 if not for Durant's injury and a shortened season), Barkley's Suns that played for a title, Webber's Kings that were one of the best teams in the NBA, and the Clippers who have been one of the best teams in the NBA?

I'm fairly certain every single team you mentioned would easily fall under "pushing to win a title". None of them were trying to be a 6 through 8 seed in their conference.

There's so much randomness with winning a title and the breaks required to make that the end all be all for NBA team success/enjoyment.

Of course there's a lot of randomness. Which is exactly why it's absurd to expect a title. Asking your team to have it as its ultimate goal isn't absurd.

The randomness in the NBA is far less than MLB and the NFL where by simply making the playoffs you have a legitimate chance at winning a title. In the NBA if you're not building a team to be a top 3 seed you have to ask yourself what the hell you're doing.

[Young Drachma]

Didn't realize how many Kobe fans there are/were until I hit the hashtag. It's sort of bizarre to me, but I'm not an NBA fan like that...and maybe it's because he's so polarizing.

[molson]

I think every team wants to ultimately win a lot of games, some are just trying to do it this year, and others are trying to do in in 2022.

But don't you have to be good before you can be great? Not a lot of teams are going to go from 20 to 60 wins in one season. At some point you have to put out a team where the high-end of expectations in just getting to the playoffs. The 76ers aren't going to win 15 games for 5 years and then suddenly decide - OK, this year we're a championship team.

I also wonder if there's a human factor at play that can hold back the 76ers and the long-term tanking strategy. I was listening to Bill Simmons talk about that this morning. The players in Philadelphia aren't really a part of a team gaining momentum, they're "assets" in an experiment who probably are not going to be there very long. And they're not going to play in any meaningful games that the fans or the front office actually want them to win. It's different in a standard re-build where you might win 20, then 35, than 50, then contend for a title, all with mostly the same core of players v. winning 10-20 games for 5 straight seasons or however long phase one of this genius experiment is. I can't know for sure how much that impacts human beings on NBA teams, or free agents who may consider signing there, or whether you can just turn on a switch after playing 5 years of meaningless games that your fans and employers want you to lose, but it was interesting to hear it discussed.

Edit: And if winning and competing for a title is all that matters, and only the top 3 seeds can do that - the NBA season and even the majority of the playoffs are a huge waste of time, aren't they? Maybe the season should be 50 games and only the top 3 teams in each conference make the playoffs.

[Atocep]

But don't you have to be good before you can be great?

Using teams in the example above:

Suns: '87-'88 won 28 games. '88-'89 won 55 games and stayed in that range until their title appearance season of 62 wins.

The Suns again under D'Antoni: '03-'04 won 29 games. In '04-'05 they won 62.

The Clippers: '10-'11 won 32 games (.390 winning percentage) and in '11-'12 won 40 games (.606 winning percentage in a shortened season).

Oklahoma City: '08-'09 won 23 games and in '09-'10 won 50.


Sacramento Kings: Probably the only example of a team that built themselves steadily upward. Every other team either had a big 1 year jump or a jump over 2 years (Magic and Heat).

[nol]

You keep saying this but its not really the case. That Sixers team had Jrue Holiday who in his 4th season in 12-13 made the All-Star team with averages of 17.7/8.0/1.6 spg. He was a 22 year old all-star and injuries had not yet been a problem in his career. They also had Thad Young, 24 at the time, who went for 14.8/7.5/1.8 spg that season. There was still also expectations for Evan Turner who also at 24 averaged 13.3/6.3 rpg/4.3 apg. You had your future star in Jrue and two 24 year old guys that would at least be decent starters.

If your three best players top out as 'decent starters' that's an awful, awful team! Thad Young is the 2nd-best player on the 21-60 Nets (who did not even have incentive to be bad) right now. Evan Turner does not start and is not even a Sixth Man of the Year contender. Holiday was traded for not one, but two players you'd rather have than him going forward. You could look at what those guys have done since leaving Philadelphia, or you could use common sense and know that a 24-year-old player on average is not going to get very much better.

But above all that there was one injured big man the team pinned all its future hopes on (sound familiar?) - Andrew Bynum.

Yeah, there's a pretty significant difference between using one first-round pick and trading your best player, two most recent first-round picks, and two conditional future first round picks for a guy who earns 5 times as much as the #3 pick makes. Joel Embiid did not affect their ability to acquire other players (and in fact even helped it after considering Philly was 2 losses away from picking Towns).


Teams equally bad or worse at that point - Cleveland (Kyrie/Waiters/Tristan), Charlotte (Kemba/MKG/Gerald Henderson), Phoenix (Dragic/Gortat/Markieff), Orlando (Vuc/Tobias/Afflalo)

Finally, some examples to show how screwed Philadelphia was! Cleveland had the first overall pick in the draft, and all three of those players (even Waiters) have gone on to be paid much more than Young and Turner. Even if you were to assume that Holiday would be completely healthy going forward and was an equal to Kyrie, Kyrie had more value going forward by virtue of being younger.

In Phoenix (5th pick, not 11th), Dragic went on to be 2nd team all-NBA, which is a far cry from what Thad Young has done for the Timberwolves and Nets over the past couple seasons, and they got Bledsoe for Jared Dudley, a guy who the Clippers desired due to his skillset and cheap contract. In other words, even if Philly had somehow decided that a Holiday-Bledsoe backcourt was going to be the path to relevance, there was nothing to trade that the Clippers would've wanted. Can't even throw in a future first to sweeten the deal because those were already traded to Orlando.

Charlotte had the 4th pick. Al Jefferson and Kemba Walker have done much more than any player on the Sixers has gone on to do. Kidd-Gilchrist was (and still is even with the injury this season) a younger and more valuable player than Turner. He's younger right now than Evan Turner was upon entering the league.

Orlando: picking 2nd, not 11th. Their best player you listed was traded from Philadelphia for nothing! All players you listed since free agency have earned significantly more money than the Philly players (4/$64 for Harris, 4/$53 for Vucevic, compared to 2/$6.7 for Turner and 4/$50 for Young).

Add to that the handful of teams that were in even better situations in 2013 and somehow are ending 2016 with a worse future outlook than Philadelphia.

There's only a handful of players who can be all-stars and even fewer all-nba - who did you think someone could draft that would leap LeBron, Durant, Westbrook, Curry, Paul, Harden, George, Blake, Duncan, Melo, Kobe, Cousins, Gasol (both), Wade, Kawhi, Bosh, Millsap, Wall, Butler, Kyrie, Klay, Draymond and even the 2012 class of Davis, Lillard, Drummond... etc? Anthony Davis is one of the best players drafted in recent history and it took him 3 years to make All-NBA. The league has had the most talent its had in a LONG time so it is going to take time for Towns, Wiggins or whoever else to jump ahead of any of these guys.

My point exactly. There are a lot of really talented guys (many of whom were at an All-Star/All-NBA level by their second season) in the league right now, and how many of them have been even close to changing teams over the past 3 years? If you're going to hammer the draft choices (who again are 20-22 years old and still have any number of possible future outcomes), keep in mind that almost all of the alternatives are quite a ways away from being able to consistently help an NBA team compete in games.

The fact that nobody from the 2014 draft had a phenomenal rookie season, and nobody has made a huge leap forward this year makes it more likely that none of the alternatives would have resulted in a competitive team.

Think of it this way: when it was announced that Embiid was supposed to have a bone graft and miss the season, you probably could have said something along the lines of, "Now Marcus Smart has a much higher chance of ever becoming a future good starter/future All-Star/whatever than Embiid because Embiid is probably not gonna ever play whereas if Smart were to have a nice little breakout season of 12-14 points per game on good defense for a playoff team I could totally envision people talking about him as a real up-and-coming star." Over the past 6 months, those odds have certainly shifted. Embiid has rehabbed without any setbacks or stories about his lack of focus, while Smart has not improved (and regressed significantly in terms of his three-point shooting) following one year of experience. Same thing with comparing Saric to the alternatives: once it was known he wasn't coming over this season, he's certainly improved his future outlook by improving and playing well in Europe.

[digamma]

Didn't realize how many Kobe fans there are/were until I hit the hashtag. It's sort of bizarre to me, but I'm not an NBA fan like that...and maybe it's because he's so polarizing.

I've never been a Kobe fan, but living in LA for so long, I'm weirdly moved/intrigued by tonight.

[molson]

So under the Sixers plan, what year do they expect to make the jump to 60 wins and championship contention? Are they saying, "we're going to intentionally have the worst team possible until 2019, and then win it all in 2020?" Or are they trying to build a team that improves every year, but have just failed at that so far? Edit: If 20-50 wins is the terrible place to be, and most great teams skip that range, it would seem like under the Sixers plan they really have to pick the year they stop tanking and get that year right.

[bhlloy]

This argument just goes to show how the NBA has a really stupid model and should probably be contracted by 10 teams. Why would I be a fan of a team that has zero chance of being a contender in the next 10 years unless they hit a 1% lottery of drafting a superstar?

[Dutch]

The NBA sweet spot was probably 16 teams.

[korme]

16 teams? What?

[Gary Gorski]

If your three best players top out as 'decent starters' that's an awful, awful team! Thad Young is the 2nd-best player on the 21-60 Nets (who did not even have incentive to be bad) right now. Evan Turner does not start and is not even a Sixth Man of the Year contender. Holiday was traded for not one, but two players you'd rather have than him going forward. You could look at what those guys have done since leaving Philadelphia, or you could use common sense and know that a 24-year-old player on average is not going to get very much better.

I didn't say the three best were "decent starters" - I said that was Young and Turner. I said Holiday was poised to be a star. He was 22, averaging 18/8 and an all-star. You really think assuming he didn't get hurt that what he was there was his ceiling?

Yeah, there's a pretty significant difference between using one first-round pick and trading your best player, two most recent first-round picks, and two conditional future first round picks for a guy who earns 5 times as much as the #3 pick makes. Joel Embiid did not affect their ability to acquire other players (and in fact even helped it after considering Philly was 2 losses away from picking Towns).

First I thought financial matters meant nothing? Who cares what you would have paid Bynum - had he been healthy and continued on from what he did in LA then Philly and everyone else in the league would have gladly maxed him because he was the best big man in the league and getting better.

I would argue Embiid did affect their ability to acquire other players - first off his attitude/actions towards his injury has been suspect. Second his selection showed the rest of the players and agents in the league that Philly wasn't serious about competing anytime in the near future. Maybe without that problem then Porzingis would be a Sixer right now.

And what on earth does "2 losses away from picking Towns" mean? You're really arguing that part of what made Embiid a good pick is that because of him they almost were able to lose the most games in the league and almost were able to pick Towns? Maybe if they would have picked someone who saw the floor they could have won 4 more games then and ended up with the 2nd pick, right?


Cleveland had the first overall pick in the draft, and all three of those players (even Waiters) have gone on to be paid much more than Young and Turner.

Who cares what Waiters or Thompson have been paid. From a talent standpoint I would take a bag of balls over Waiters any day so Turner was clearly better than him and Thompson is 2 years younger but I can't say I would rather have him over Thad Young.


In Phoenix (5th pick, not 11th), Dragic went on to be 2nd team all-NBA, which is a far cry from what Thad Young has done for the Timberwolves and Nets over the past couple seasons

Why are you comparing Dragic to Young? Dragic should be compared to Holiday - the best player both teams had at the time if you are comparing who had it worse. And what difference does the 5th vs 11th make in that draft? Its not like there were 5 good players and Philly was stuck at 11 - there was Dipo and Noel (who was hurt) and that was it for any real interesting players.

and they got Bledsoe for Jared Dudley, a guy who the Clippers desired due to his skillset and cheap contract. In other words, even if Philly had somehow decided that a Holiday-Bledsoe backcourt was going to be the path to relevance, there was nothing to trade that the Clippers would've wanted.

What? They didn't desire Jared Dudley - they wanted JJ Redick. They loved Dudley so much and were willing to give up a future star for him that they benched him midway through the year and traded him along with a 1st round pick for two guys that would never play for them after that, right?

This is EXACTLY the kind of deal the 76ers or any other team could have made. The Clippers knew they weren't paying Bledsoe and had to deal him soon. Turner's contract was pretty similar to Dudley. The problem is Philly never even considered this sort of thing because it meant *gasp* paying someone and *double gasp* bringing in a good player might make them win some games now.

The fact that nobody from the 2014 draft had a phenomenal rookie season, and nobody has made a huge leap forward this year makes it more likely that none of the alternatives would have resulted in a competitive team.

So in other words except for had they got Towns (or maybe if Porzingis wanted anything to do with them) there was nothing they could have done in the last 3 years anyways to prevent them from being an abomination and being the worst team in the league at this point anyways. Gotcha.

Think of it this way: when it was announced that Embiid was supposed to have a bone graft and miss the season, you probably could have said something along the lines of, "Now Marcus Smart has a much higher chance of ever becoming a future good starter/future All-Star/whatever than Embiid because Embiid is probably not gonna ever play whereas if Smart were to have a nice little breakout season of 12-14 points per game on good defense for a playoff team I could totally envision people talking about him as a real up-and-coming star." Over the past 6 months, those odds have certainly shifted. Embiid has rehabbed without any setbacks or stories about his lack of focus, while Smart has not improved (and regressed significantly in terms of his three-point shooting) following one year of experience. Same thing with comparing Saric to the alternatives: once it was known he wasn't coming over this season, he's certainly improved his future outlook by improving and playing well in Europe.

Obviously you're a big Philly fan so for your sake I hope it works out but what you've essentially said here is we've completely sucked for three years but we have Noel and there's hope for the future - Embiid might get healthy, Saric might translate to the NBA, they might win the lottery, maybe that Lakers pick will end up being ok still or...

Noel could also leave after next season (or could at least sign a huge offer that Philly would then have to match). Embiid may or may not be healthy and if he's healthy will he have a full career? Playing well in Europe is no indicator of NBA success assuming Saric does come over. What if Philly gets boned in the lottery and is staring at Buddy Hield with the 3rd pick? What if the Lakers don't give up the pick this year and they turn their way into the 10-15th pick next year?

Everything you're banking on and talking about making Philly a desirable team is hope. Noel (and I guess Okafor although I don't like him) is what is real and what they actually have right now. I think they're going to be lucky if two out of Embiid/Saric/lottery/Lakers pick actually works out and that's just not going to be enough to make them competitive let alone anywhere near a contending team.

[Arles]

Using teams in the example above:

Suns: '87-'88 won 28 games. '88-'89 won 55 games and stayed in that range until their title appearance season of 62 wins.

Oklahoma City: '08-'09 won 23 games and in '09-'10 won 50.

The Clippers: '10-'11 won 32 games (.390 winning percentage) and in '11-'12 won 40 games (.606 winning percentage in a shortened season).
They got a transcendent talent in Barkley, Durant and Chris Paul. Much like with Lebron, if you add a phenomenal talent, your team will get better. The problem is there are only a handful in the league and banking on landing one is fool's gold.

The Suns again under D'Antoni: '03-'04 won 29 games. In '04-'05 they won 62.
In 2002-03 they made the playoffs and in 2001 they won 51 games. In 03-04, they traded some of their top players to the (Starbury, Penny) and had 2-3 injuries (Amare, centers) and essentially tanked that one season. But they had a pretty strong nucleus of Amare, Shawn Marion and Joe Johnson during that 03-04 season. They just used cap space to go out and get two more pieces in Nash and Richardson. But, it's not like they were dreadful for 5-6 seasons and then got good. The Suns won 56, 27 (strike), 53, 51 and 44 games before the 03-04 season. They were a good team who tanked for one season and then reloaded. That's exactly the type of strategy that I think works. Build excellence over time and look for a key FA or draft pick to put you over the top. The Suns weren't drafting in the top 5 for 6-7 years before they had their best season. They kept building a solid nucleus. The Spurs, Grizzlies, Trail Blazers, Pacers, Suns and Bulls have all been consistent playoff teams over the past decade by using this strategy. Outside of Rose, their good players haven't been top 3 picks. They've been acquired via later picks, FAs and trades.

Again, you can choose to model off OKC like Philly did and put all your eggs in the draft basket. But, what if you don't win in the lottery or make a few bad picks? You're screwed. You can use an occasional lottery pick to help, but you need to also build via FA and trade to get a solid infrastructure. Then, when you have a shot at that transcendent talent, you can either trade or tank for the one season. Continually tanking just reduces your options and makes you an eyesore on the league. And refusing to add good players via FA and trade is just stupid. There's no reason Philly shouldn't have gotten into the sweepstakes for many of these up-and-comers on the market with all their assets. They could have landed guys like Bledsoe, Isaiah Thomas, Crowder, Tobias Harris and Reggie Jackson in trades. They had more assets than everyone, but they never even tried.

[nol]

I didn't say the three best were "decent starters" - I said that was Young and Turner. I said Holiday was poised to be a star. He was 22, averaging 18/8 and an all-star. You really think assuming he didn't get hurt that what he was there was his ceiling?

I already mentioned that he was an all-star in a historically weak conference and only because Derrick Rose was injured. I forget who said this first but it's stuck with me: there are 80 points and 40 rebounds to be had every night just by showing up, and somebody on the team has got to get them.

Players are much closer to their peak production at 22-23 than you imagine them to be. Chris Paul put up his statistically most impressive seasons at that age, so you're chastising the Sixers for relying on hope while saying that the obvious alternative move was to hold onto a guy who ended up playing half of the games over the next three seasons while hoping he would massively improve (and become what, the best player on a team that wins 25 games? If James Harden or Damian Lillard were subbed for that optimal, fully-healthy version of Holiday, the Blazers and Rockets would not be particularly close to making the playoffs). Additionally, an organization full of pencil-pushing nerds would not need to reach too far into its bag of tricks to see that the "18 and 8" were achieved while playing more minutes per game than a player of his stature probably should have been (http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=single&type=totals&per_minute_base=36&per_poss_base=100&lg_id=NBA&is_playoffs=N&year_min=2013&year_max=2013&franch_id=&season_start=1&season_end=-1&age_min=0&age_max=99&height_min=0&height_max=99&shoot_hand=&birth_country_is=Y&birth_country=&birth_state=&college_id=&draft_year=&is_active=&debut_yr_nba_start=&debut_yr_nba_end=&debut_yr_aba_start=&debut_yr_aba_end=&is_hof=&is_as=&as_comp=gt&as_val=&award=&pos_is_g=Y&pos_is_gf=Y&pos_is_f=Y&pos_is_fg=Y&pos_is_fc=Y&pos_is_c=Y&pos_is_cf=Y&qual=&c1stat=mp_per_g&c1comp=gt&c1val=36&c2stat=&c2comp=gt&c2val=&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&c5stat=&c5comp=gt&c6mult=1.0&c6stat=&order_by=ws) and that as a result, future health and stardom were less likely.

First I thought financial matters meant nothing? Who cares what you would have paid Bynum - had he been healthy and continued on from what he did in LA then Philly and everyone else in the league would have gladly maxed him because he was the best big man in the league and getting better.

$17 million is much more significant in the context of a salary cap versus the balance sheet of an organization that has increased in value from $300 million to $700 million by virtue of being in the NBA.


Who cares what Waiters or Thompson have been paid. From a talent standpoint I would take a bag of balls over Waiters any day so Turner was clearly better than him and Thompson is 2 years younger but I can't say I would rather have him over Thad Young.

Because I have faith that a marketplace of 30 teams, all of whom employ people who are well-compensated to acquire the best basketball players on the planet when billions of dollars are at stake, will in general do a better job of assessing a player's future value than some schmoe going "this guy scored 14 points per game, he's good!" The same organization that made the Durant and Westbrook and Ibaka selections we all know and love also chose to trade a first round pick for Waiters (who is about to be a free agent) when Evan Turner was quite available; you think Danny Ainge is having any second thoughts if some team were insane enough to offer a first round pick for Evan Turner?

Why are you comparing Dragic to Young? Dragic should be compared to Holiday - the best player both teams had at the time if you are comparing who had it worse. And what difference does the 5th vs 11th make in that draft? Its not like there were 5 good players and Philly was stuck at 11 - there was Dipo and Noel (who was hurt) and that was it for any real interesting players.

Did you seriously just ask why it's better to have the 5th pick in the draft than the 11th? I laid out that all but the absolute best combinations of players drafted from 2013-15 would not have resulted in a competitive team, so it follows that if one had been hellbent on making the 76ers competitive in the 2013-16 period, going full Brooklyn and trading even more young players and picks would have been the option. Maybe with the 5th pick instead for the 11th, a trade package looks marginally better and you get some veteran who is able to slide Holiday/Young/Turner/etc. down a notch; then you may make a run for the 8th seed with a capped out team that would have had zero first round picks from 2010-15, but hey, competitive!

Your point about Bynum is a great example of what the Sixers did very well under Hinkie. For all the 'hurr hurr it's a Ponzi scheme designed for infinite job security,' talk, if he'd really wanted job security keeping Bynum around would have been his best possible move. 2012-13 was full of all sorts of melodrama about what Bynum was doing off the court; he's the perfect scapegoat have signed to a long-term deal so you could say "yeah we could've been something if he'd given a crap about playing, but look at him goofing around and taking all our money after how much we sacrificed for him. He really screwed us over." Hinkie saw it was a sunk cost and moved on.

What? They didn't desire Jared Dudley - they wanted JJ Redick. They loved Dudley so much and were willing to give up a future star for him that they benched him midway through the year and traded him along with a 1st round pick for two guys that would never play for them after that, right?

You didn't follow along very well. Dudley was thrown in the deal because he was a cheap role player. The Sixers did not have any such players, so even had they hatched a plan to be 'competitive' and use their cap space to acquire Bledsoe and max him (which with Bynum still with the team would have essentially put them at the cap) their best offer was beaten by Phoenix.




So in other words except for had they got Towns (or maybe if Porzingis wanted anything to do with them) there was nothing they could have done in the last 3 years anyways to prevent them from being an abomination and being the worst team in the league at this point anyways. Gotcha.

Yep, it's a very convincing argument supported by lots of data. There are things they could have done to win 15-20 games this year and 20-25 games last year. Just like it didn't require going out on much of a limb 2 years ago to know that Brooklyn was going to be in for an extended run of suckiness.



Playing well in Europe is no indicator of NBA success assuming Saric does come over. What if Philly gets boned in the lottery and is staring at Buddy Hield with the 3rd pick? What if the Lakers don't give up the pick this year and they turn their way into the 10-15th pick next year?

I suppose if you disagree with the radical line of thinking that says it's better to have the 5th pick in the draft than the 11th pick, you'd also dispute the notion that a player performing well is a better sign for the future than that player performing poorly.

What if Minnesota or Portland get boned by Andrew Wiggins or Damian Lillard getting injured in the playoffs or while competing to qualify for the Olympics? What if Atlanta and Memphis get boned by Al Horford or Mike Conley leaving in free agency?

Everything has its odds regardless of whether you choose to focus on them. You don't get to claim stuff like 'odds suggest the Lakers will keep the pick this year' and 'what if the Sixers fell out of the top two?' You worry about both things or neither.

There's no reason Philly shouldn't have gotten into the sweepstakes for many of these up-and-comers on the market with all their assets. They could have landed guys like Bledsoe, Isaiah Thomas, Crowder, Tobias Harris and Reggie Jackson in trades. They had more assets than everyone, but they never even tried.

No, 2013 started with Philadelphia having far fewer assets than everyone. It's explained pretty clearly how they couldn't have gotten Bledsoe. Even if Philadelphia had wanted to do something extremely foolhardy and offer the 11th pick and some other future draft choice to max Bledsoe, the Clippers are built for the present to such an extent that Doc Rivers still would have preferred the veteran offer. Crowder was acquired for Rondo in a panic trade based on Rondo's name and his past reputation; the Sixers had nobody with that cachet.

You are declaring a lot of these teams to be resounding successes even though the most significant games of the season have not been played. If Detroit ends its five-year playoff drought getting trounced by the Cavs, the Pistons go into the offseason trying to sign one max player, then max Drummond like what San Antonio did with Aldridge and Leonard. If they don't get that guy, they max Drummond and that's essentially going to be the team going forward. Nothing wrong with that for certain, but you are essentially saying that had the Sixers nailed every move they'd be in that position at best (and likely lower because they didn't have Andre Drummond on their roster to start).

[whomario]

Just a quick thing: I think Saric will be great in a supporting role, with the way the league is shifting i can definitely see him play the small-ball 4 really well.

[whomario]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qQYz0I5dE_A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

yeah, that´s a well done video. Every story needs a "villain", Kobe was certainly good in that regard. Personally i always admired his ability and drive, as well as his fundamentally sound abilities. Yes, he was a relentless chucker but also developed phenomenal footwork, added tons of skills SGs don´t naturally have and certainly dominated for a time. I also doubt we´ll see another 6´6 SG operating from the ellbow and through isos any time soon with the shift in playstyle. On the other hand, he certainly was an egotistical maniac who gave a whole new meaning to "hero ball", which i basically despise out of principle.

In the theme of the Nike ad: Thanks for everything but good riddance, Mr. Bryant.

[Gary Gorski]

I already mentioned that he was an all-star in a historically weak conference and only because Derrick Rose was injured. I forget who said this first but it's stuck with me: there are 80 points and 40 rebounds to be had every night just by showing up, and somebody on the team has got to get them.

...so you're chastising the Sixers for relying on hope while saying that the obvious alternative move was to hold onto a guy who ended up playing half of the games over the next three seasons while hoping he would massively improve

He didn't put up his numbers on the modern day Sixers - I get it, you don't think Holiday is a good player. I happen to think that Holiday was on his way to being a very good player - of course we will never know but even the great Sam Hinkie didn't know he would spend the next three seasons injured and have his career path altered.


Because I have faith that a marketplace of 30 teams, all of whom employ people who are well-compensated to acquire the best basketball players on the planet when billions of dollars are at stake, will in general do a better job of assessing a player's future value

You mean the same marketplace that has let people like Isiah Thomas run a team, let Billy King run two different teams into the ground, let Elgin Baylor ruin a team for two decades, lets anyone in Sacramento make a basketball personnel decision and of course let David Kahnnnnnnnnnnn do his thing. Just because a team hired a guy to run things doesn't mean he knows what he's doing. With his failed record Sam Hinkie earned his way onto this list now.

Did you seriously just ask why it's better to have the 5th pick in the draft than the 11th?

No but nice try. I said "And what difference does the 5th vs 11th make in that draft?" You said the 2013 draft was worthless seeing as how the 11th pick won ROY.

then you may make a run for the 8th seed with a capped out team that would have had zero first round picks from 2010-15, but hey, competitive!

And this discussion would be moot if the Sixers were anywhere near competitive after three years of Hinkie's experiment. I guess if the choices are being .500 and playoff bound but going nowhere against completely sucking and going nowhere the former is better.

Your point about Bynum is a great example of what the Sixers did very well under Hinkie. For all the 'hurr hurr it's a Ponzi scheme designed for infinite job security,' talk, ... Hinkie saw it was a sunk cost and moved on.

I never said his plan was about job security and I actually agree moving on from Bynum was the right choice since he seemed to care very little about getting healthy in the first place (kind of like a certain injured center on the roster now)

You didn't follow along very well. Dudley was thrown in the deal because he was a cheap role player.

0/2

Jared Dudley, a guy who the Clippers desired due to his skillset and cheap contract.

You said the Clippers wanted Dudley for his skillset when I correctly stated the Clippers wanted Redick and knew they had to move Bledsoe because they weren't going to pay him. Phoenix saw an opportunity, pounced and made a killer deal. I'd rather have Bledsoe on my team right now than anyone Philly has. Turner would have been a better throw in - same kind of salary, all around skill set and on his rookie deal still. You can't be serious that anyone would have wanted Jared Dudley over Evan Turner at that point in time (or ever probably).

you'd also dispute the notion that a player performing well is a better sign for the future than that player performing poorly.

Three strikes - you're out. I was enjoying debating the merits of Hinkie's failed reign but at this point clearly you're done trying to validate his reign with discussion and are simply just trying to make snarky things up. My quote was "Playing well in Europe is no indicator of NBA success" - show me where I said a player sucking in Europe is a better sign than a player playing well. There have been some guys who have been great overseas and lousy here or even don't like playing here or who decide never to bother coming here at all (right Orlando?).

Time will tell what comes of this - in the meantime maybe next year we will get to see Philly try another new tactic like playing large ball with Saric, Embiid, Noel and Okafor so all their assets can play at once.

[Dutch]

It's almost painful to watch Kobe play tonight....I think I could take him one on one right now. :)

[Dutch]

So then he blocks a layup and goes coast to coast for 2...so I rescind the challenge offer.

[Dutch]

Followed by a jumper.....and then a reverse layup...and one....

[Dutch]

....and a near 3-pter from the corner....but it counts for 2...

[Dutch]

....and now a 3-pter....that's enough....I spoke too soon.

[MrBug708]

And then he shots a shot even vintage Kobe wouldn't have done

[cartman]

Curry really wants the 30ppg and make 400 threes in a season milestones. He has 20 points and 6 threes in the first quarter.

[cartman]

Jack Nicholson Wishes Girlfriend Old Enough To Have Seen Kobe In Heyday - The Onion - America's Finest News Source (http://www.theonion.com/graphic/jack-nicholson-wishes-girlfriend-old-enough-have-s-52736)

[nol]

He didn't put up his numbers on the modern day Sixers - I get it, you don't think Holiday is a good player. I happen to think that Holiday was on his way to being a very good player - of course we will never know but even the great Sam Hinkie didn't know he would spend the next three seasons injured and have his career path altered.

He knew that Holiday wasn't on the path to being a star, and he got Nerlens Noel and Dario Saric. You have to give up something to get something. This trade was regarded as very smart at the time and has only looked better since then, so pretty stupid hill to die on.


No but nice try. I said "And what difference does the 5th vs 11th make in that draft?" You said the 2013 draft was worthless seeing as how the 11th pick won ROY.

Having the 5th pick is more valuable than the 11th pick no matter how you slice it. If you don't like the players from 5-10, you get to trade down and pick up stuff for free! You could have done what the Wizards did in 2009 and traded the 5th pick and filler (oops, could have been Steph Curry) for a couple veterans in Randy Foye and Mike Miller. Of course, the Wizards still ended up sucking that season so it gets called tanking after the fact by people who weren't paying attention, but that's just the sort of trade that isn't getting accomplished with the 11th pick, which is why I said when accounting for everything, from market to cap situation to draft position to current roster to young talent, the Sixers were in a bigger hole than everyone else by a *long* shot.


You said the Clippers wanted Dudley for his skillset when I correctly stated the Clippers wanted Redick and knew they had to move Bledsoe because they weren't going to pay him. Phoenix saw an opportunity, pounced and made a killer deal.

And for the fifth(?) time, there was no opportunity for Philadelphia to see there. The 76ers could not have made that deal because they didn't have anything the Clippers would have traded for. This is just the sort of move where the Sixers were still empty-handed because they were a year removed from flushing Vucevic, Harkless, and a first round pick down the toilet. The Clippers wanted to get more than just Redick in return for dealing Bledsoe, and that ended up being Dudley. You can't have it both ways by saying Hinkie failed to build 'a culture' by reducing the players to mere assets and then pretending that he wasn't doing his due diligence to see what it would take to acquire a player like Eric Bledsoe (who is good and all, but also has had some knee issues before and since signing his contract while also not meshing well enough with two pretty good players the Suns then had to trade away). Had the Clippers just randomly decided to be charitable and let the Sixers sign-and-trade for Bledsoe, the narrative at this point is "LOL Hinkie's plan was to a guy who had knee problems, and guess what, has more knee problems now! What a 'genius' move that was."

Time will tell what comes of this - in the meantime maybe next year we will get to see Philly try another new tactic like playing large ball with Saric, Embiid, Noel and Okafor so all their assets can play at once.

Oh no, you made a snarky (and very original) comment about the 76ers - gonna go cry for a bit.

I'm a fan of good basketball being played and thus was in favor of Philadelphia making smart moves that increased the likelihood that if they acquired a star rookie they'd be able to build a good team rather than waste him like Sacramento and New Orleans and countless other organizations have done. I don't get butthurt about the 76ers being an 'abomination to the game' because there are 29 other NBA teams that I can watch as I please without having to care whether Philadelphia should have been winning 20 instead of 10 games this season (which would have resulted in me going out of my way to watch them play this season the exact same number of times). Seriously, what kind of backwards sadist would you have to be to think the Golden State Warriors are too boring and repetitive to watch while getting worked into a lather over the Sixers (who certainly have not been on national TV at any point lately)?

Hell, the 76ers' point differential (which tends to be an even better predictor of future performance than W-L) was the same as it has been the past few years, so they won 10 games rather than 16 due to crappy luck (and this is referring only to the luck they encountered in terms of stuff like players on the active roster being injured this season, all the late leads they blew due to not being able to score down the stretch when one lucky garbage shot could have allowed them to hold on, teams making half court buzzer beaters on them without getting into the bad luck of not having had one pick transfer over yet when it could have gotten them an extra semi-promising player who'd have the current roster looking shitty as opposed to super shitty). On one hand, it's kind of funny for people to see how injuries to not-good players can have a team winning 10 games instead of 15-20, just as how injuries to okay players can have a 40-ish win team in New Orleans near the bottom, but beyond that bad is bad and last place is last place. God forbid they didn't just hand the first pick to the Lakers (who have had zero organizational fallout from having the two worst seasons in franchise history back-to-back).

The whole point of Sam Hinkie's tenure is that you should come away from it thinking the NBA (and all other pro sports leagues) has some dumb rules in place. Getting high draft choices is only a mathematically better strategy because everybody has agreed it's okay that the best young basketball players in the world first have to spend a year in college making money for other people, and then spend the next 4 years of their career earning below their market value while playing somewhere they didn't necessarily want to be. Building around stars is mathematically better because you only have to pay a guy like LeBron $20 million when he's worth $75 million. That's not even coming from a 'championship or bust' mindset; if you have a true top-tier player, you can mess up everything else and still be a playoff team year in and year out as long as those guys are decently healthy. The teams like Utah and New Orleans are only good enough to make the playoffs if everyone's healthy, whereas the Houstons can be really disappointing and still make the playoffs as long as James Harden is the one staying injury-free.

[jbergey22]

The whole point of Sam Hinkie's tenure is that you should come away from it thinking the NBA (and all other pro sports leagues) has some dumb rules in place. Getting high draft choices is only a mathematically better strategy because everybody has agreed it's okay that the best young basketball players in the world first have to spend a year in college making money for other people, and then spend the next 4 years of their career earning below their market value while playing somewhere they didn't necessarily want to be. Building around stars is mathematically better because you only have to pay a guy like LeBron $20 million when he's worth $75 million. That's not even coming from a 'championship or bust' mindset; if you have a true top-tier player, you can mess up everything else and still be a playoff team year in and year out as long as those guys are decently healthy. The teams like Utah and New Orleans are only good enough to make the playoffs if everyone's healthy, whereas the Houstons can be really disappointing and still make the playoffs as long as James Harden is the one staying injury-free.

This paragraph is very well said and I agree completely. I just think its funny that the NBA has such a screwed up system that it can even be argued that a team as awful as Philly can be debated having a decent long term stategy.

[Dutch]

They are having fun in LA....56 points for Kobe. :)

[bhlloy]

I hate Kobe and this season has been a circus... but what a finish this would be

[jbergey22]

Kobe's dream! 50 shots and 21 3 point attempts.

[MrBug708]

Kobe playing his way might actually win his way

[jbergey22]

Vince McMahon booked that game. At least Kobe gets to go out a winner. 60 points in his Final game and the Jazz gifting Kobe a win.

[nol]

This is insane and I can't wait for it to inspire the "Kobe mulling a comeback" stories we'll all be seeing in 2018.


EDIT: What if it came out that starting at like game 20, Kobe realized he didn't have it anymore and decided to just use every illegal PED in the book to gear up for one last legendary performance? Would anyone even be that mad?

[bhlloy]

That was pretty cool. I don't think they were giving him anything - he just rolled back the years one more time in the fourth

[Simbo Klice]

I think the 96 Bulls have something to worry about.

Gonna give myself a quick pat on the back for calling this so early.

[jbergey22]

Cavs over 56.5 WIN
Hawks under 49.5 WIN
Wizards over 45.5(is this a sucker line?) LOSS
Knicks over 31.5 WIN
Warriors under 60.5 LOSS
Spurs under 58.5 LOSS
Thunder under 57.5 WIN
Clippers under 56.5 WIN
Pelicans over 47.5 LOSS

5-4 The ones I lost I lost real bad! And the Wizards made me a sucker. My basis for taking so many west unders was thinking the top teams would be beating on each other and that the conference would have more depth this year. Turns out I was completely off on that theory.

[stevew]

This is insane and I can't wait for it to inspire the "Kobe mulling a comeback" stories we'll all be seeing in 2018.


EDIT: What if it came out that starting at like game 20, Kobe realized he didn't have it anymore and decided to just use every illegal PED in the book to gear up for one last legendary performance? Would anyone even be that mad?

For one game, sure. I'll allow it.

[Thomkal]

Glad Kobe had a big game for his last ever game after struggling so much. Fans deserved one last one. Happy retirement. It will be curious to see what the Lakers do now that they don't have that big contract to deal with.

[MrBug708]

Wonder what the ratings will be for the two games

[Arles]

That Laker game had to have a huge rating. The Golden State game had more "meaning", but it was a blowout. The last 3-4 minutes of that Laker game was fantastic viewing (and I'm not even a Kobe guy).

[Dutch]

I started on ESPN2, looked at ESPN, realized I couldn't give a shit and switched back and stuck with ESPN2 the rest of the way.

[vex]

That was the first time I've ever cheered for Kobe or the Lakers. Felt weird, but it was nice seeing him go out like that.

[Subby]

That Laker game had to have a huge rating. The Golden State game had more "meaning", but it was a blowout. The last 3-4 minutes of that Laker game was fantastic viewing (and I'm not even a Kobe guy).

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Warriors game did a 2.7 overnight on ESPN. Kobe did a 2.6 overnight on ESPN2. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/sportsbiz?src=hash">#sportsbiz</a></p>&mdash; Scott Soshnick (@soshnick) <a href="https://twitter.com/soshnick/status/720632116095119360">April 14, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[Subby]

Kobe game did a 6.5 in the LA market - purportedly best ever for a regular season game. I believe it was also the highest rated NBA game ever televised on ESPN2. ESPN2 only has about 16k less subscribers than ESPN.

[MrBug708]

I wonder how many people switched over once the GS game was out of reach

[whomario]

Not a big story, but the Mavs leapfrogged into 6th and now theres at least a miniscule chance at an upset against the Thunder.

As a side note, Hubie Brown comentating was a perfect fit as well for Kobes last one.

Glad Kobe had a big game for his last ever game after struggling so much. Fans deserved one last one. Happy retirement. It will be curious to see what the Lakers do now that they don't have that big contract to deal with.

between this and the cap rising, the Lakers could go all out this summer.


Also, is there any doubt that Curry could semi-reliably shoot to get 70+ if he truly gunned for it ? I mean, it felt like he was yesterday but he still had less than half of Kobes FG attempts ;)

[wustin]

between this and the cap rising, the Lakers could go all out this summer.


I don't think they're going to land Westbrook or Durant. They'll probably get Whiteside and (mistakenly) give Harrison Barnes a max contract.

[murrayyyyy]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Warriors game did a 2.7 overnight on ESPN. Kobe did a 2.6 overnight on ESPN2. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/sportsbiz?src=hash">#sportsbiz</a></p>&mdash; Scott Soshnick (@soshnick) <a href="https://twitter.com/soshnick/status/720632116095119360">April 14, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

To be honest, I watch the Lakers game on their TWC Sportsnet since their coverage started earlier and ended later than ESPN2. Not sure how many chose this option instead of ESPN2.

[Vince, Pt. II]

Also, is there any doubt that Curry could semi-reliably shoot to get 70+ if he truly gunned for it ? I mean, it felt like he was yesterday but he still had less than half of Kobes FG attempts ;)

He also played fewer than 30 minutes. It would be crazy to see what he could accomplish if he went full-on ball hog against a bad defensive team and got the minutes.

[digamma]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Warriors game did a 2.7 overnight on ESPN. Kobe did a 2.6 overnight on ESPN2. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/sportsbiz?src=hash">#sportsbiz</a></p>&mdash; Scott Soshnick (@soshnick) <a href="https://twitter.com/soshnick/status/720632116095119360">April 14, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Tweet is almost perfect. Kobe, not the Lake Show, got the rating.

[Ryche]

I just hope ESPN gives Duncan half the hype when he retires considering he was a better player.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I just hope ESPN gives Duncan half the hype when he retires considering he was a better player.

You are kidding, right? Never mind about the comparison of the two players, I mean about any chance of the same level of hype occurring.

Then again, hell, I don't even like Kobe but concede that he's the far more interesting of the pair. Combine that factor with media markets, and the fact that I don't see Duncan doing a season-long farewell tour in order to generate the hype in the first place, you might get me voting for Sanders before Duncan gets even half the hype of the Kobe Voyage tour.

[whomario]

He also played fewer than 30 minutes. It would be crazy to see what he could accomplish if he went full-on ball hog against a bad defensive team and got the minutes.

Definitely a factor as well. Also when looking at season numbers. I did a post on this a couple weeks (months ?) ago and while he slowed down a bit his numbers are still up there with the Jordans or Gervins (or Bryants crazy season back when).

If you look at his basketball-reference page that gives you some idea. F.e. he lead the league in PPG and True Shooting percentage. Also in 3s, Steals, FT%, PER, VORP, Win Shares, +-, while being 2nd in Usage, 3p%.

Historically speaking he had the highest TS% of any 25+ ppg scorer, had the 7th highest PPG per 100 posessions, 5th highest per 36 minutes. He´s absolutely in the same ballpark as Wilt, Jordan or Kobes crazy season when you adjust to minutes/posessions (to be fair, so were others in the last couple years) while being way more statistically efficient than any of them thanks to his crazy 3 point ability.

[vex]

I just hope ESPN gives Duncan half the hype when he retires considering he was a better player.

Duncan will just retire in the offseason when no one is expecting it.

[Young Drachma]

This argument just goes to show how the NBA has a really stupid model and should probably be contracted by 10 teams. Why would I be a fan of a team that has zero chance of being a contender in the next 10 years unless they hit a 1% lottery of drafting a superstar?

LOL you guys kill me with this contraction stuff. It's never happening unless there's a huge hit to tv, people stop watching and yeah it's just insane.

By this theory the Warriors and Cavs wouldn't have existed long enough to get LeBron or Steph because of how terrible they were for so long. Or the Nets don't make back to back Finals appearances with Kidd or the Clippers don't become respectable.

The NBA is decent at parity, just titles tend to only go to the best teams. But it's not like any American sport is anything like watching European football where only 2 or 3 or 4 teams have a chance at a title save for a Leicester City.

Life sucks knowing a title might never happen due to terrible management, but contraction as a solution for that? C'mon.

[Groundhog]

Duncan will just retire in the offseason when no one is expecting it.

Yep, he'll just ride off into the sunset with little to no fanfare. I'd rather see that than have him shoot 50 shots in his last game, to be honest.

[Vince, Pt. II]

Definitely a factor as well. Also when looking at season numbers. I did a post on this a couple weeks (months ?) ago and while he slowed down a bit his numbers are still up there with the Jordans or Gervins (or Bryants crazy season back when).

If you look at his basketball-reference page that gives you some idea. F.e. he lead the league in PPG and True Shooting percentage. Also in 3s, Steals, FT%, PER, VORP, Win Shares, +-, while being 2nd in Usage, 3p%.

Historically speaking he had the highest TS% of any 25+ ppg scorer, had the 7th highest PPG per 100 posessions, 5th highest per 36 minutes. He´s absolutely in the same ballpark as Wilt, Jordan or Kobes crazy season when you adjust to minutes/posessions (to be fair, so were others in the last couple years) while being way more statistically efficient than any of them thanks to his crazy 3 point ability.

It's been fun to watch, and mind blowing to really consider what he has accomplished...but after months of seeing it, what really has me amazed right now is Russell Westbrook.

FiveThirtyEight wrote an article (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/russell-westbrook-is-the-greatest-triple-double-machine-in-recorded-history/) about how he's the greatest triple-double machine the league has ever seen, based upon the premise that he's getting them at an absurd rate while in an era where possessions per game are far fewer than in days of yore. For those who don't want to click through to the article, they essentially adjusted his statistics for pace of play by increasing them to a 100-possessions-per-game pace. Then they took it further by weighting the statistics evenly, so someone who contributes evenly in each of the three statistics (points, rebounds, and assists) is more 'impressive' than someone who kills it in points and rebounds, but barely notches any assists. Westbrook in the last two seasons is significantly better than anyone else there are recorded statistics for.

I'm still more impressed with Steph, but my respect for Westbrook (which was already fairly considerable) has risen dramatically since looking at his numbers in this light.

[Chief Rum]

Duncan will announce a couple hours before his last game that he is retiring...and then Pop will sit him.

[Brian Swartz]

Duncan will announce a couple hours before his last game that he is retiring...and then Pop will sit him.

ROFL. Seriously though, Groundhog's suggestion is more what will likely happen -- and what a lot of Spurs fans, at least those who are active in the blogosphere at places like Pounding the Rock want. The most Duncan thing to do, say they lose to the Warriors in the WCF as most expect, would be to simply say at the end of the presser, 'By the way this was my last game', then get up and walk out. Doing a farewell tour would really not be his style, and if he did that I'd be disappointed.

[jbergey22]

Which of these teams of All-Time greats to you think would win a higher percentage against each other.(Playing at their peak)

PG Chris Paul
SG Jerry West
SF Lebron James
PF Tim Duncan
C Bill Russell

vs

PG Stephen Curry
SG Kobe Bryant
SF Michael Jordan
PF Charles Barkley
C Wilt Chamberlain

Assume that the bench is made up of the same people.

[cartman]

My gut tells me the second team, but I'm not sure there are enough points to go around for them. The first team has West and Duncan, who can dish the ball off.

[JPhillips]

One game? The second team.

Multiple games? The first team. The egos on the second team would blow it up fairly quickly.

[Ajaxab]

I'll take team one in a heartbeat. Kobe and Jordan would be fighting over shots and Steph would be left not knowing what to do with himself after having to defer time and time again. And we haven't started to talk about combustible Barkley.

Swap Jordan for Lebron and it's a lot more even for me.

[murrayyyyy]

The 2nd team since Kobe would murder West being 4 inches taller and 40 lbs heavier. James has the advantage back but the refs would never call Jordan on his hand checking, if they did then James couldn't guard Jordan. I'd always take a team with more "modern" players on it for the simple size/conditioning reason.

Another problem is that team one doesn't have a real outside shooter so Curry's five 3PM a game would add extra points that they couldn't account for and create spacing that would make defense harder on team one.

[Brian Swartz]

Uh, didn't West shoot(and make) an awful lot of outside shots? I'm not saying he would equalize Curry but I'd definitely think he's a guy that would fit the spacing the floor need. .

[murrayyyyy]

Uh, didn't West shoot(and make) an awful lot of outside shots? I'm not saying he would equalize Curry but I'd definitely think he's a guy that would fit the spacing the floor need. .

In a no-defense era of basketball(stats were inflated with pace back then). This is where me being the same size as Jerry West would hurt him. Been on the court with Kobe and there is no way I could guard him or shoot over him.

Every time I watch a game from that era it's 2-3 passes for a 15 ft jumper. I don't think with today's defense (which is better than in 1970) that he could easily get off those shots.

I guess another factor is if it's a close game, who wants to shoot the last shot on team 1? Team 2 has at least 3 guys you would have to guard for that last shot.