I talk to myself about the Sixers

the tendon-cy to retire is natural.
now with even more memorial.
User avatar
Kilgore Trout
Registered Broad
Posts: 2221
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 8:37 am
Has given rep: 21 times
Received rep: 16 times

Re: I talk to myself about the Sixers

Post #251 by Kilgore Trout » Tue May 17, 2016 9:44 pm

Yea, but Simmons is a Dwight Howard level loser.
User avatar
Konecny HypeTrain Captain
Registered Broad
Posts: 7555
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:43 pm
Has given rep: 29 times
Received rep: 52 times

Re: I talk to myself about the Sixers

Post #252 by Konecny HypeTrain Captain » Tue May 17, 2016 10:56 pm

Happy with either Ingram or Simmons, the team still needs Embiid to stay alive he is the key to all this.
User avatar
FlyHigh
Registered Broad
Posts: 4865
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 12:48 am
Has given rep: 5 times
Received rep: 21 times

Re: I talk to myself about the Sixers

Post #253 by FlyHigh » Wed May 18, 2016 10:52 am

Either way, they're both 4's in the long-term most likely (although Ingram can at least shoot well so he could have some time at the 3 and maybe start out there). Good thing the team hasn't used its last 3 top picks on centers. Oh, wait...
User avatar
Konecny HypeTrain Captain
Registered Broad
Posts: 7555
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:43 pm
Has given rep: 29 times
Received rep: 52 times

Re: I talk to myself about the Sixers

Post #254 by Konecny HypeTrain Captain » Thu May 19, 2016 1:18 am

Simmons' best position might honestly be PG if you watch him play. Look at what the Greek freak has done since being moved to PG. Simmons has better vision and his handles are more polished, the lanes he can create and take away from his size would be incredible. Simmons is a complete wildcard on position IMO.
User avatar
FlyHigh
Registered Broad
Posts: 4865
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 12:48 am
Has given rep: 5 times
Received rep: 21 times

Re: I talk to myself about the Sixers

Post #255 by FlyHigh » Thu May 19, 2016 9:41 am

I think that one is pretty risky. Giannis had 25 games where he dominated at PG, but outside of that the last above-average NBA PG above 6'8 was....Magic? With the Giannis thing too, I'm not completely convinced yet, he still can't shoot (like Simmons) and give NBA coaches a summer to figure out how to gameplan for him, I wouldn't be surprised if he struggled a little more next year. Bucks also have 2 decent inside-out scorers to put with him (Middleton, Parker), Sixers have none.

Just thinking about it though, you don't contend in the NBA w/out a top-5, top-10 player and it seems like most people agree that Simmons has that ceiling whereas Ingram's might be a bit lower, so if that's the case, you pick Simmons (unless there are huge red flags, apparently he prefers LA?) and figure out the rest later.
User avatar
vonbonds
Registered Broad
Posts: 13354
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2015 4:47 pm
Has given rep: 1569 times
Received rep: 724 times

Re: I talk to myself about the Sixers

Post #256 by vonbonds » Thu May 19, 2016 10:05 am

Do NBA teams without generational talents contend for championships?
User avatar
FlyHigh
Registered Broad
Posts: 4865
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 12:48 am
Has given rep: 5 times
Received rep: 21 times

Re: I talk to myself about the Sixers

Post #257 by FlyHigh » Thu May 19, 2016 11:40 am

vonbonds wrote:Do NBA teams without generational talents contend for championships?


Pistons are about it I think in recent memory and they wouldn't have won if not for the East sucking and the Lakers self-destructing. That's why I think it's hard to get too invested in a certain team. The Hawks and Raptors recently have won a lot of games and even a couple of rounds in the playoffs, but we all know they have no shot at a championship. So, are you happy winning 50-60 games per year and making the 2nd round or conference finals or do you blow it up and hope to get lucky? It also has to be frustrating to be the Celtics and have done virtually everything right for 6-7 years straight (outside of maybe blowing a couple picks) and still be no closer to contending.

Hockey is easier that way, going into the POs, I think you could argue that at least 8-10 teams had pretty realistic Cup aspirations (and you don't necessarily need a generational talent) whereas in the NBA it's consistently the 3-4 teams with at least 1-2 incredible players each.
User avatar
vonbonds
Registered Broad
Posts: 13354
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2015 4:47 pm
Has given rep: 1569 times
Received rep: 724 times

Re: I talk to myself about the Sixers

Post #258 by vonbonds » Thu May 19, 2016 12:25 pm

I thought so. Unless the NBA changes something so there's more of a likelihood of non-generational players always winning I'll continue to never watch the league.
User avatar
DeadPhish
Registered Broad
Posts: 4111
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 10:14 pm
Has given rep: 21 times
Received rep: 30 times

Re: I talk to myself about the Sixers

Post #259 by DeadPhish » Thu May 19, 2016 1:13 pm

Already annoying. Sixers ticket reps keep blowing up my phone and email. Ive never been to a basketball game, so I assume they got my info from the Flyers.
User avatar
Bow Tie
Registered Broad
Posts: 10791
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2011 11:21 am
Has given rep: 6 times
Received rep: 10 times

Re: I talk to myself about the Sixers

Post #260 by Bow Tie » Thu May 19, 2016 4:32 pm

I don't know anything about basketball. Is it fair to liken shooting to skating in hockey though? That, if the rest is all there (as it apparently is with Simmons), then it's something you can work on?

In continuing to know nothing about the NBA, I challenege letting the kids come out so young. (I get how money will never reverse it at this point, but why let it happen? What made it a good idea?) I hear all the time how these young guys are great -- just incredible talents. They're just so raw it's going to be a few years before they make genuine impact. What would be so damaging about letting them treat college like more than just a faint formality?

Then I hear arguments how the NBA is the most athletic league...like, how? I'm not asking as if it can't be true, I just don't see how. You've constantly got underdeveloped talent and a draft that's worthless outside the first few picks. You need a majority of your starters to be superstars to have a chance at winning. I don't see how it adds up.

Where's the dick jokes thread
User avatar
FlyHigh
Registered Broad
Posts: 4865
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 12:48 am
Has given rep: 5 times
Received rep: 21 times

Re: I talk to myself about the Sixers

Post #261 by FlyHigh » Thu May 19, 2016 5:44 pm

Re: shooting, it depends on a lot of stuff I think. Kawhi Leonard went from not being able to shoot in college to becoming a great NBA shooter. Conversely you can find dozens of examples of guys that never really learned to shoot. Combo of work, coaching and chance I guess.

On coming out of college, I think the argument there is that when you're 19-20 years old, you're basically an adult for legal purposes, so it isn't fair to restrict your access to a labor market. Also a lot of guys are coming from really impoverished backgrounds, so I get the reluctance to stay 2 extra years when those are 2 years when your family may not have consistent electricity/housing and may be hungry. Also, there's always the risk of a torn ACL or another injury tanking your earning potential.

On athleticism, I think it's based on raw athletic ability, jumping, running, lateral movement, etc. But a lot of that depends on how you define "athleticism." I assume that MLB/NHL guys have much better hand-eye than most NBA players, but I don't think "hand-eye" falls w/in the traditional definition of "athleticism."
User avatar
Konecny HypeTrain Captain
Registered Broad
Posts: 7555
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:43 pm
Has given rep: 29 times
Received rep: 52 times

Re: I talk to myself about the Sixers

Post #262 by Konecny HypeTrain Captain » Fri Jun 24, 2016 5:59 am

Okafor still on the team, fuck life
User avatar
Kilgore Trout
Registered Broad
Posts: 2221
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 8:37 am
Has given rep: 21 times
Received rep: 16 times

Re: I talk to myself about the Sixers

Post #263 by Kilgore Trout » Fri Jun 24, 2016 7:16 pm

FlyHigh wrote: I think the argument there is that when you're 19-20 years old, you're basically an adult for legal purposes, so it isn't fair to restrict your access to a labor market. Also a lot of guys are coming from really impoverished backgrounds, so I get the reluctance to stay 2 extra years when those are 2 years when your family may not have consistent electricity/housing and may be hungry. Also, there's always the risk of a torn ACL or another injury tanking your earning potential.


Also an argument why drafts are bullshit full stop.
User avatar
FlyHigh
Registered Broad
Posts: 4865
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 12:48 am
Has given rep: 5 times
Received rep: 21 times

Re: I talk to myself about the Sixers

Post #264 by FlyHigh » Wed Jun 29, 2016 10:24 am

Have to love the Sixers, Harrison Barnes is a perfect 4 in today's NBA, surprisingly strong, 3 point range, good defender, but not a great ball handler, can't take guys off the dribble, and isn't a playmaker. I.e. he's not a full-time 3 on a decent team. The Sixers currently have 2 4's on the roster who will expect to get serious minutes (Simmons, Saric) plus 3 5's (Embiid, Okafor, Noel).

Who are the Sixers apparently interesting in signing? Harrison Barnes.
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17499
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 9 times
Received rep: 102 times

Re: I talk to myself about the Sixers

Post #265 by jester » Wed Jun 29, 2016 11:13 am

FlyHigh wrote:Have to love the Sixers, Harrison Barnes is a perfect 4 in today's NBA, surprisingly strong, 3 point range, good defender, but not a great ball handler, can't take guys off the dribble, and isn't a playmaker. I.e. he's not a full-time 3 on a decent team. The Sixers currently have 2 4's on the roster who will expect to get serious minutes (Simmons, Saric) plus 3 5's (Embiid, Okafor, Noel).

Who are the Sixers apparently interesting in signing? Harrison Barnes.


I mean ... the plan is that the offense is going to run through Simmons, no? So, they don't necessarily need a great ball handler ... but they do need folks that can knock down some shots.
User avatar
FlyHigh
Registered Broad
Posts: 4865
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 12:48 am
Has given rep: 5 times
Received rep: 21 times

Re: I talk to myself about the Sixers

Post #266 by FlyHigh » Wed Jun 29, 2016 11:49 am

jester wrote:
FlyHigh wrote:Have to love the Sixers, Harrison Barnes is a perfect 4 in today's NBA, surprisingly strong, 3 point range, good defender, but not a great ball handler, can't take guys off the dribble, and isn't a playmaker. I.e. he's not a full-time 3 on a decent team. The Sixers currently have 2 4's on the roster who will expect to get serious minutes (Simmons, Saric) plus 3 5's (Embiid, Okafor, Noel).

Who are the Sixers apparently interesting in signing? Harrison Barnes.


I mean ... the plan is that the offense is going to run through Simmons, no? So, they don't necessarily need a great ball handler ... but they do need folks that can knock down some shots.


Yeah but first there's an opportunity cost here. The $20-25 mill the Sixers will try to give him is max money that's wasted on another non-playmaker rather than trying to find a guard than can provide some NBA-level ball-handling. Also I think the jury is very much out on exactly how good Barnes is as a player, particularly considering that he's been playing with 3 all-NBA candidates for the last 2 years. If he leaves GS his 3-point looks are suddenly going to be a heck of a lot more contested than they were previously.

Also, I think a classic mistake Hinkie made with Okafor (and with Noel to a lesser extent) is not providing them any kind of structure/environment to develop as players. The Sixers haven't had an NBA-level guard for 3 years which is kind of astounding when you're trying to develop a big man. They desperately need multiple guys who can pass the ball, handle, and ideally create their own shot. Barnes meets exactly zero of those needs.
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17499
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 9 times
Received rep: 102 times

Re: I talk to myself about the Sixers

Post #267 by jester » Wed Jun 29, 2016 12:56 pm

I mean, that's an argument for them to get a PG (which they still can do) ... not necessarily an argument against Barnes himself, who does bring things that the Sixers will need.

And, really, it wasn't a "classic mistake" by Hinkie, it was a conscious choice.
User avatar
FlyHigh
Registered Broad
Posts: 4865
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 12:48 am
Has given rep: 5 times
Received rep: 21 times

Re: I talk to myself about the Sixers

Post #268 by FlyHigh » Wed Jun 29, 2016 2:24 pm

jester wrote:I mean, that's an argument for them to get a PG (which they still can do) ... not necessarily an argument against Barnes himself, who does bring things that the Sixers will need.

And, really, it wasn't a "classic mistake" by Hinkie, it was a conscious choice.


What are those things?

And a choice can also be a mistake. Yes, they decided to not bring in any kind of point guard. And yes, that was a mistake.
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17499
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 9 times
Received rep: 102 times

Re: I talk to myself about the Sixers

Post #269 by jester » Wed Jun 29, 2016 3:10 pm

FlyHigh wrote:
jester wrote:I mean, that's an argument for them to get a PG (which they still can do) ... not necessarily an argument against Barnes himself, who does bring things that the Sixers will need.

And, really, it wasn't a "classic mistake" by Hinkie, it was a conscious choice.


What are those things?

And a choice can also be a mistake. Yes, they decided to not bring in any kind of point guard. And yes, that was a mistake.


If Simmons turns into a megastar, was it a mistake? Sixers were eyes wide open about losing. If you want to critique the strategy, that's fine ... but the choices made were not "mistakes." They were part of a conscious plan that could result in an embarrassment of riches in the coming years.

And the sixers need perimeter players ... desperately.
User avatar
FlyHigh
Registered Broad
Posts: 4865
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 12:48 am
Has given rep: 5 times
Received rep: 21 times

Re: I talk to myself about the Sixers

Post #270 by FlyHigh » Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:18 pm

jester wrote:
FlyHigh wrote:
jester wrote:I mean, that's an argument for them to get a PG (which they still can do) ... not necessarily an argument against Barnes himself, who does bring things that the Sixers will need.

And, really, it wasn't a "classic mistake" by Hinkie, it was a conscious choice.


What are those things?

And a choice can also be a mistake. Yes, they decided to not bring in any kind of point guard. And yes, that was a mistake.


If Simmons turns into a megastar, was it a mistake? Sixers were eyes wide open about losing. If you want to critique the strategy, that's fine ... but the choices made were not "mistakes." They were part of a conscious plan that could result in an embarrassment of riches in the coming years.

And the sixers need perimeter players ... desperately.


Yeah the whole point of my previous 2 posts is that Barnes is not a perimeter player in the modern NBA.

As for Hinkie and etc., I think the debate has been had previously. This article is a bit over-the-top for me (I don't think Hinkie is actually dumb), but pretty much summarizes the anti-Hinkie viewpoint (which I tend to agree with): http://deadspin.com/sam-hinkie-still-ha ... 1782821624
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17499
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 9 times
Received rep: 102 times

Re: I talk to myself about the Sixers

Post #271 by jester » Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:32 pm

Yeah, the bastion of nuanced hot takes that is deadspin. The entire lottery segment there ignores the entire point of what Hinkie was doing. Probability giveth and taketh. If the Sixers won the lottery in previous years, then things may have gone much differently. They didnt. But what he did do was assure the Sixers multiple shots to get the guys you need.

Probability is boring to watch play out. But, you ever watch someone count cards? When it turns, it gets interesting quick.
User avatar
FlyHigh
Registered Broad
Posts: 4865
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 12:48 am
Has given rep: 5 times
Received rep: 21 times

Re: I talk to myself about the Sixers

Post #272 by FlyHigh » Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:44 pm

Ha, I enjoy Deadspin. I think there are 2 main problems with Hinkie though that are separate from the takes on the "tanking as strategy" debate.

1) Agents/players/GMs/everyone hated him. This is a legitimate problem, the second best player in the draft last year literally refused to have anything to do with the Sixers. I think this is probably his biggest problem. Developing and maintaining relationships is a significant part of being a good NBA GM.

2) OK, so we never got the No.1 pick and you can give a mulligan on Embiid. But still, Sixers have repeatedly missed on NBA level talent later in the first round and in the second round. In 3 years, he's never really acquired a legit NBA talent that wasn't a top 2 or 3 pick. Succeeding in the NBA isn't just about tanking your way into an incredible player and winning championships (see: Lebron's first 7 years in Cleveland, and that's the most talented player in NBA history). You have to have to wherewithal, basketball acumen, and managerial skills to construct legit contender with a winning culture around said superstar player. I had no faith in Hinkie's ability to ever do that.

That being said, the fact that Bryan Coangelo now appears to have control should also terrify Sixers fans.
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17499
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 9 times
Received rep: 102 times

Re: I talk to myself about the Sixers

Post #273 by jester » Wed Jun 29, 2016 5:00 pm

1) Is a legit concern ... from all reports he was far too cavalier about this stuff. Of course, winning solves all ills.

2) What is the success rate on proven NBA talent from the back of the 1st round and 2nd round within two years? (Worth remembering, he flipped some of those supposed flaws into assets that they have yet to recoup).

The main problem I have with that deadspin piece--and the general Hinkie hate--is that it comes off as borderline moronic when it comes to understanding the probabilistic argument that Hinkie advanced from the first day he showed up. The second is also one that the deadspin articles dismisses out of hand ... it's too early to judge Hinkie, and it's very likely that if the Sixers are a successful team in 2-3 years it will owe a large debt to the work that Hinkie did in building up foundation of draft picks to provide the foundation of a winning team.

I will also add a final caveat about the whole situation. If you give a shit about the autonomy of organizations within the NBA, what went down with the Sixers' management group, the NBA, and the Colangelos should be deeply fucking alarming. The NBA freaked the fuck out not because they thought Hinkie was doing a bad job, but because if it works ... their entire competitive system is going to be called into question. Now, importantly, it's only in the NBA where what Hinkie laid out makes any sense because of the nature of the NBA--i.e., get a superstar or two and you can fill in the rest with HS players practically. So, this leads to a really fundamental question about the nature of the NBA offices and its organizations. Can teams work in their own best interest? Or do they have to work in the league's best interest?
User avatar
FlyHigh
Registered Broad
Posts: 4865
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 12:48 am
Has given rep: 5 times
Received rep: 21 times

Re: I talk to myself about the Sixers

Post #274 by FlyHigh » Wed Jun 29, 2016 5:34 pm

On point 1, it's a chicken and the egg thing, can't win if you can't attract any talent.

On point 2, you can give him 14 and 15 as still being open (although I think Okafor is a terrible fit in the 2016 NBA and they missed on a couple wing players that I'd much rather have right now as well as a couple bigs with outside shots that are probably better fits on 95% of NBA teams).

And yeah, the NBA likes to interfere, that's nothing new. Look at the Chris Paul-Lakers trade, or the Donald Sterling ban (which involved a very...generous...interpretation of a provision of the NBA's constitution). NBA has long demonstrated that it will step in when it thinks it should do so. Just part of being in the league.

Also, your sentence "...because of the nature of the NBA--i.e., get a superstar or two and you can fill in the rest with HS players practically." betrays a basic misunderstanding of the NBA. Look at the best teams in the league over the past 5-6 years. OKC, Cleveland from 2003-2010 and again in 14-15, Miami in 2011, Houston the past couple years, the Clippers the past few years, etc. Getting a couple of superstars gets you 80%-90% of the way there. But that remaining 10-20% requires some difficult and adroit work by team management.

Look at Sacramento. Boogie has been a top-10 player for at least the past 2-3 years....they still show up in the lottery every year. Kevin Love was top-10ish player in Minnesota for 2-3 years, lottery. Anthony Davis with the Pelicans this past year, lottery.
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17499
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 9 times
Received rep: 102 times

Re: I talk to myself about the Sixers

Post #275 by jester » Wed Jun 29, 2016 5:41 pm

Exceptions prove the rule. And, sure, if you have top 10 talent it may not guarantee success and/or a championship, but if you don't is it really worth trying?

To an extent this mirrors the conundrum of NFL teams and the QB position.

As far as point 1 being a chicken and egg ... not really. The entire point is to build through the draft (by rule talent that has no choice, and then has financial incentive to stay). If 2 years from now, Simmons and Embiid are legit, who knows what you have in addition via their numerous draft pick options. This will be an extremely appealing landing spot.
User avatar
FlyHigh
Registered Broad
Posts: 4865
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 12:48 am
Has given rep: 5 times
Received rep: 21 times

Re: I talk to myself about the Sixers

Post #276 by FlyHigh » Wed Jun 29, 2016 5:51 pm

Er, we could all keep going on "exceptions." Minny wasted KG's entire prime (from a talent perspective you could make a good argument that KG is top-20 all-time), Philly wasted Barkley and then Iverson, etc. This isn't really an "exceptions prove the rule" situation. It's more an example of "data supports the hypothesis."
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17499
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 9 times
Received rep: 102 times

Re: I talk to myself about the Sixers

Post #277 by jester » Wed Jun 29, 2016 6:13 pm

And Dan Marino never won a SB, is the idea of a franchise QB overrated?

You certainly need a good team in the NBA, but if you look at the history of the league ... individual talent is a trump card in a way it simply isn't in other sports. Crosby is a fantastic player, but he plays a third of the game. The best starter in baseball can dominate 20% of the time, and contribute nothing the rest of the time.
User avatar
FlyHigh
Registered Broad
Posts: 4865
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 12:48 am
Has given rep: 5 times
Received rep: 21 times

Re: I talk to myself about the Sixers

Post #278 by FlyHigh » Wed Jun 29, 2016 8:03 pm

Not sure why we're on Dan Marino now. The whole point is that tanking your way into a star isn't some kind of magic path to title contention. Once you have the star you still need to build the team and there's not much evidence (any?) that Hinkie was capable of doing that.
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17499
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 9 times
Received rep: 102 times

Re: I talk to myself about the Sixers

Post #279 by jester » Wed Jun 29, 2016 9:42 pm

Because you *need* the star. You're absolutely right that it isn't a magic path. However, few (if any) teams so honestly and purposefully commit to the process for a variety of reasons. The most important being that teams overvalue the short term at the expense of the long term. You're a Flyers fan, you are quite familiar with the positive and negatives of this.

Sixers got unlucky, and then Hinkie was gone at the exact moment it was time to see what would happen. So, sure, there is no evidence that Hinkie would safely manage that next step. The converse is equally true, and arguments to the opposite are pure conjecture.
User avatar
FlyHigh
Registered Broad
Posts: 4865
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 12:48 am
Has given rep: 5 times
Received rep: 21 times

Re: I talk to myself about the Sixers

Post #280 by FlyHigh » Wed Jun 29, 2016 10:38 pm

jester wrote:Because you *need* the star. You're absolutely right that it isn't a magic path. However, few (if any) teams so honestly and purposefully commit to the process for a variety of reasons. The most important being that teams overvalue the short term at the expense of the long term. You're a Flyers fan, you are quite familiar with the positive and negatives of this.

Sixers got unlucky, and then Hinkie was gone at the exact moment it was time to see what would happen. So, sure, there is no evidence that Hinkie would safely manage that next step. The converse is equally true, and arguments to the opposite are pure conjecture.


The end of your 2nd paragraph is where I disagree, I think there's a decent amount of evidence that Hinkie is not much of a talent evaluator and the aforementioned toxic relationships with everyone in the league would likely hinder that eventual team-building process.
User avatar
Konecny HypeTrain Captain
Registered Broad
Posts: 7555
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:43 pm
Has given rep: 29 times
Received rep: 52 times

Re: I talk to myself about the Sixers

Post #281 by Konecny HypeTrain Captain » Wed Jun 29, 2016 11:24 pm

I would have rather had Hinkie instead of Colangelo honestly, fuck that dude.
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17499
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 9 times
Received rep: 102 times

Re: I talk to myself about the Sixers

Post #282 by jester » Thu Jun 30, 2016 12:11 am

FlyHigh wrote:The end of your 2nd paragraph is where I disagree, I think there's a decent amount of evidence that Hinkie is not much of a talent evaluator and the aforementioned toxic relationships with everyone in the league would likely hinder that eventual team-building process.


I think his lack of attention to relationship was a real problem ... always is. That being said, I find it difficult to draw meaningful conclusions about Hinkie on that front because, he literally was not trying to build a winning team the last few years. I mean, really, two of the universally agreed upon key acquisitions he made ... never played a game under him, but will this coming season. Who knows what happens if Hinkie goes into next year with Simmons, Embiid, Saric, and the TBD situation with Noel/Okafor--BTW, one thing that seems to be pretty much undisputed is the fact that the man did well with trades.

The whole thing just comes off as a knee-jerk, premature change in leadership/course at the very moment his entire long-term plan was coming to fruition.
User avatar
FlyHigh
Registered Broad
Posts: 4865
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 12:48 am
Has given rep: 5 times
Received rep: 21 times

Re: I talk to myself about the Sixers

Post #283 by FlyHigh » Thu Jun 30, 2016 7:45 am

Well yeah, if you have the opportunity to bring in a great candidate, then fine, but the Coangelos don't exactly inspire confidence.
CantSeeColors
Registered Broad
Posts: 4826
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 10:44 am
Has given rep: 45 times
Received rep: 32 times

Re: I talk to myself about the Sixers

Post #284 by CantSeeColors » Thu Jun 30, 2016 10:41 am

FlyHigh wrote:Not sure why we're on Dan Marino now. The whole point is that tanking your way into a star isn't some kind of magic path to title contention. Once you have the star you still need to build the team and there's not much evidence (any?) that Hinkie was capable of doing that.

The point, which you both seem to be missing, is that you need multiple stars to have a team worth a damn in the NBA. All your examples of failure are teams who had one guy, failed to pair him with anyone, and stunk. Hinkie's plan, right or wrong, was about giving the team the most opportunity to get as many star players as possible.
User avatar
FlyHigh
Registered Broad
Posts: 4865
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 12:48 am
Has given rep: 5 times
Received rep: 21 times

Re: I talk to myself about the Sixers

Post #285 by FlyHigh » Thu Jun 30, 2016 10:52 am

CantSeeColors wrote:
FlyHigh wrote:Not sure why we're on Dan Marino now. The whole point is that tanking your way into a star isn't some kind of magic path to title contention. Once you have the star you still need to build the team and there's not much evidence (any?) that Hinkie was capable of doing that.

The point, which you both seem to be missing, is that you need multiple stars to have a team worth a damn in the NBA. All your examples of failure are teams who had one guy, failed to pair him with anyone, and stunk. Hinkie's plan, right or wrong, was about giving the team the most opportunity to get as many star players as possible.


NBA league history is littered with star duos and trios that never won anything. At some point, to win, you need to display team-building acumen beyond "get star players here." Someone like Daryl Morey is the absolute best-case scenario for what Hinkie would turn into (Rockets have an incredible record of finding talented players from out of nowhere in addition to acquiring stars under his leadership) and even he's had a ton of trouble doing this.

Look, at some point you just have to agree to disagree. I agree that Hinkie's initial plan was fine (even if the NBA hated it) and it was probably the best way to win. My issue was with his scorched earth style of management which appears to have alienated everyone in and around the NBA and the fact that the Sixers showed no ability/inclination to acquire anyone with talent outside of hoping for lottery balls to break their way every year.
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17499
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 9 times
Received rep: 102 times

Re: I talk to myself about the Sixers

Post #286 by jester » Thu Jun 30, 2016 11:00 am

Agreeing with Hinkie's original plan and the final statement are at odds with one another. That literally was a primary component of the plan until pieces were in place.
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17499
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 9 times
Received rep: 102 times

Re: I talk to myself about the Sixers

Post #287 by jester » Thu Jun 30, 2016 11:04 am

CantSeeColors wrote:
FlyHigh wrote:Not sure why we're on Dan Marino now. The whole point is that tanking your way into a star isn't some kind of magic path to title contention. Once you have the star you still need to build the team and there's not much evidence (any?) that Hinkie was capable of doing that.

The point, which you both seem to be missing, is that you need multiple stars to have a team worth a damn in the NBA. All your examples of failure are teams who had one guy, failed to pair him with anyone, and stunk. Hinkie's plan, right or wrong, was about giving the team the most opportunity to get as many star players as possible.


To win a championship, yes. However, that then becomes a chicken and egg situation. Once you get a transcendent talent, it greases the wheels considerably. Suddenly you have something to sell to free agents, etc.
CantSeeColors
Registered Broad
Posts: 4826
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 10:44 am
Has given rep: 45 times
Received rep: 32 times

Re: I talk to myself about the Sixers

Post #288 by CantSeeColors » Thu Jun 30, 2016 1:49 pm

FlyHigh wrote:
CantSeeColors wrote:
FlyHigh wrote:Not sure why we're on Dan Marino now. The whole point is that tanking your way into a star isn't some kind of magic path to title contention. Once you have the star you still need to build the team and there's not much evidence (any?) that Hinkie was capable of doing that.

The point, which you both seem to be missing, is that you need multiple stars to have a team worth a damn in the NBA. All your examples of failure are teams who had one guy, failed to pair him with anyone, and stunk. Hinkie's plan, right or wrong, was about giving the team the most opportunity to get as many star players as possible.


NBA league history is littered with star duos and trios that never won anything. At some point, to win, you need to display team-building acumen beyond "get star players here." Someone like Daryl Morey is the absolute best-case scenario for what Hinkie would turn into (Rockets have an incredible record of finding talented players from out of nowhere in addition to acquiring stars under his leadership) and even he's had a ton of trouble doing this.

Look, at some point you just have to agree to disagree. I agree that Hinkie's initial plan was fine (even if the NBA hated it) and it was probably the best way to win. My issue was with his scorched earth style of management which appears to have alienated everyone in and around the NBA and the fact that the Sixers showed no ability/inclination to acquire anyone with talent outside of hoping for lottery balls to break their way every year.

If they had acquired much talent, they wouldn't have been in position to draft at the top of the draft. It was intentional. That said, Robert Covington is a legit player and TJ McConnell looks like he can carve out a nice career as a backup/3rd string PG and they picked both up as undrafted FAs. Grant, Holmes, and McDaniels all showed some NBA skills as well, though it's too early to see if any of them can put it together enough to become decent role players.
User avatar
FlyHigh
Registered Broad
Posts: 4865
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 12:48 am
Has given rep: 5 times
Received rep: 21 times

Re: I talk to myself about the Sixers

Post #289 by FlyHigh » Thu Jun 30, 2016 2:00 pm

CantSeeColors wrote:
FlyHigh wrote:
CantSeeColors wrote:The point, which you both seem to be missing, is that you need multiple stars to have a team worth a damn in the NBA. All your examples of failure are teams who had one guy, failed to pair him with anyone, and stunk. Hinkie's plan, right or wrong, was about giving the team the most opportunity to get as many star players as possible.


NBA league history is littered with star duos and trios that never won anything. At some point, to win, you need to display team-building acumen beyond "get star players here." Someone like Daryl Morey is the absolute best-case scenario for what Hinkie would turn into (Rockets have an incredible record of finding talented players from out of nowhere in addition to acquiring stars under his leadership) and even he's had a ton of trouble doing this.

Look, at some point you just have to agree to disagree. I agree that Hinkie's initial plan was fine (even if the NBA hated it) and it was probably the best way to win. My issue was with his scorched earth style of management which appears to have alienated everyone in and around the NBA and the fact that the Sixers showed no ability/inclination to acquire anyone with talent outside of hoping for lottery balls to break their way every year.

If they had acquired much talent, they wouldn't have been in position to draft at the top of the draft. It was intentional. That said, Robert Covington is a legit player and TJ McConnell looks like he can carve out a nice career as a backup/3rd string PG and they picked both up as undrafted FAs. Grant, Holmes, and McDaniels all showed some NBA skills as well, though it's too early to see if any of them can put it together enough to become decent role players.


This is where we may have a fundamental disagreement. It's fine to accept losing for a few seasons. But I think it's dumb to completely waste those years. Look at how Houston has turned up guys like Capela, Parsons, Carl Landry, Montiejunas, Beverley, etc. from late picks and essentially scraps. If you're going to suck anyways, why not at least make a genuine effort to develop some players in the process so that you can flip them for assets. I have a problem with saying, "we will actively avoid trying to develop any kind of young talent because we want to be absolutely sure to finish last."

Outside of those top-3 picks, Covington is the only player they've acquired in 3 years that's at least potentially a rotation player on a decent team.
CantSeeColors
Registered Broad
Posts: 4826
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 10:44 am
Has given rep: 45 times
Received rep: 32 times

Re: I talk to myself about the Sixers

Post #290 by CantSeeColors » Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:34 pm

Developing a top 3 pick doesn't count, then? The Sixers haven't had late picks in the first round to turn guys up with. I'm not sure how you can completely discount the previous guys I mentioned, either. Grant and McDaniels have the potential to be good defenders in your rotation. McConnell can give your starting PG a rest for 10-12 minutes and keep the team moderately organized. Holmes looks like he could be a spark plug off the bench. It's just too early to judge any of these guys.The team's entire MO has been to try to develop some players and flipping them for assets - did you miss them getting the Lakers pick for MCW? The team has one of the deepest collections of assets in the league.

Nerlens wasn't picked in the top 3, btw.
User avatar
FlyHigh
Registered Broad
Posts: 4865
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 12:48 am
Has given rep: 5 times
Received rep: 21 times

Re: I talk to myself about the Sixers

Post #291 by FlyHigh » Thu Jun 30, 2016 5:25 pm

Ha, tbh I'm tired of the argument, it's irrelevant now in any case. Hope it works out, but don't think Bryan Coangelo should inspire much confidence.
User avatar
Konecny HypeTrain Captain
Registered Broad
Posts: 7555
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:43 pm
Has given rep: 29 times
Received rep: 52 times

Re: I talk to myself about the Sixers

Post #292 by Konecny HypeTrain Captain » Fri Jul 01, 2016 11:38 pm

I understand the cap is going up, but the fuck is up with some of these contracts. That Mozgov one is one of the funniest contracts I have seen in years.
CantSeeColors
Registered Broad
Posts: 4826
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 10:44 am
Has given rep: 45 times
Received rep: 32 times

Re: I talk to myself about the Sixers

Post #293 by CantSeeColors » Sat Jul 02, 2016 12:08 pm

Really glad we avoided that. Not sure how good bayless is but that contract is small potatoes in this market
User avatar
Konecny HypeTrain Captain
Registered Broad
Posts: 7555
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:43 pm
Has given rep: 29 times
Received rep: 52 times

Re: I talk to myself about the Sixers

Post #294 by Konecny HypeTrain Captain » Mon Jul 04, 2016 7:24 pm

Durant dickeating harder than Ray" Capt. Dickeat" Allen
User avatar
Konecny HypeTrain Captain
Registered Broad
Posts: 7555
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:43 pm
Has given rep: 29 times
Received rep: 52 times

Re: I talk to myself about the Sixers

Post #295 by Konecny HypeTrain Captain » Sat Oct 01, 2016 2:59 am

RIP Ben's foot

This franchise
User avatar
Sweet Dee
Registered Broad
Posts: 1934
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 8:45 pm
Location: Maple Shade, NJ
Has given rep: 11 times
Received rep: 16 times

Re: I talk to myself about the Sixers

Post #296 by Sweet Dee » Sat Oct 01, 2016 12:17 pm

They really can't win this these injuries
User avatar
Konecny HypeTrain Captain
Registered Broad
Posts: 7555
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:43 pm
Has given rep: 29 times
Received rep: 52 times

Re: I talk to myself about the Sixers

Post #297 by Konecny HypeTrain Captain » Wed Oct 26, 2016 9:32 pm

So we are at the point where at least some of the Sixers know how to play basketball, this is an improvement.
User avatar
Konecny HypeTrain Captain
Registered Broad
Posts: 7555
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:43 pm
Has given rep: 29 times
Received rep: 52 times

Re: I talk to myself about the Sixers

Post #298 by Konecny HypeTrain Captain » Thu Oct 27, 2016 6:09 pm

That guy getting thrown out yesterday is one of the funniest things I have seen in a while. Westbrook's face was priceless.

User avatar
Konecny HypeTrain Captain
Registered Broad
Posts: 7555
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:43 pm
Has given rep: 29 times
Received rep: 52 times

Re: I talk to myself about the Sixers

Post #299 by Konecny HypeTrain Captain » Fri Nov 11, 2016 2:25 pm

If this team doesn't trade Okafor it will go nowhere
User avatar
FlyHigh
Registered Broad
Posts: 4865
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 12:48 am
Has given rep: 5 times
Received rep: 21 times

Re: I talk to myself about the Sixers

Post #300 by FlyHigh » Mon Dec 19, 2016 4:46 pm

Not to kick a hornet's nest, but this Noel/Okafor/Embiid/Saric situation is exactly why I was anti-Hinkie. It's literally a no-win scenario.

Return to “The Eric Wellwood Memorial Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: FlyHigh and 2 guests