2017 NBA OFFSEASON

as with a lot of things on the internet there are some posters itt whose ideology prevents them from evaluating evidence in front of them in an objective way.

― k3vin k., Sunday, June 18, 2017 2:38 PM (seven minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

my eyes rolled all the way around then popped out, im blind now thx a lot

"it didn't work/it hasn't worked yet therefore it was a bad idea" is not a serious argument!

thats a fine point, im srs and objective and youre ideological... is not

tho yes i agree with the highly sophisticated "just be like the spurs and hire the best coach of all time, tank so you can draft one of the 8 best players of all time, then underpay that player for 20 years" strategy, it is pretty foolproof

as with a lot of things on the internet there are some posters itt whose ideology prevents them from evaluating evidence in front of them in an objective way. i don't necessarily like white collar douchebags like hinkie more than anyone else but if your argument is really "just do what the spurs do" i'm just going to assume you're not interested in serious discussion

― k3vin k., Sunday, June 18, 2017 1:38 PM (fourteen minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

do u read my posts? im not that interested in srs discussion, thats why this board is fun

but hinkie is stinkie

thats a fine point, im srs and objective and youre ideological... is not

― lag∞n, Sunday, June 18, 2017 2:51 PM (twenty-two seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

it is very clear from numerous discussions over the years that at least part of the anti-Process is just distaste for wall street nerds running basketball. cf also lacob, vivek (tho he is actually bad at his job)

im against teams that spend half a decade trying to be the worst team of all time, thassit

tho yes i agree with the highly sophisticated "just be like the spurs and hire the best coach of all time, tank so you can draft one of the 8 best players of all time, then underpay that player for 20 years" strategy, it is pretty foolproof

― k3vin k., Sunday, June 18, 2017 1:52 PM (six minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i mean literally only one team has tried this tho and it worked out well, i would recommend it for your denver nugs

a. i think its fine to hate wall st nerds, b. a lot of what hinkie did poorly seems p closely tied to his wall st nerddom, so in conclusion imo its both ideologically and objectively right to hold that against him

compared to other rebuilds id say hinkie did a pretty bad job at everything except acquiring draft picks, for which he prob had some formula that served him well, whoever said then best lesson to take from the spurs success was to focus on player development was otm, obvs thats not easy to do but basing yr decisions on that priority will prob produce better results than not

if your argument is really "just do what the spurs do"

I'd say that deliberately tanking is fundamentally incompatible with building a successful team.

First, because loading your team with very young, talented, but inexperienced players and then filling out your roster with inexpensive D-League quality players is incompatible with building a successful team. Inexperienced players need to play with good, established players who understand their positions and the nuances of the league and can mentor the rookies. When you've been in the league two years and one of them was rehabbing, you're not well situated to lead a team.

Next, I'd say that overloading your draft picks with bigs is incompatible with building a successful team. Not only will all of them be unhappy getting stuck on a team that never wins, but they can't all be on the floor together, so some of them will not develop. They will bolt the team at the earliest moment they can and spend their tenure only looking forward to that day.

No matter how good your coach is, he'll become frustrated and unhappy with an unbalanced roster and the depressing task of deliberately tanking. What coach will take that job?

Last, I'd say that you won't attract any free agents with a philosophy of tanking. The Sixers look like a mess because they are a mess and hinkie made that mess by not understanding the league he works in, in very basic ways.

the nuggets are pursuing the banana boat + jokic strategy and it will succeed beyond anyone's wildest dreams

the fact that the sixers have had a bunch of injured and disgruntled players over the course of the process is likely related to the fact that their gm didnt understanding anything about developing players from a basketball and cultural/personal standpoint

lol omg who cares they weren't trying to win

there is an argument to be made that treating the players like pure commodities will scare off some free agents but people were worried about houston in that regard too and the concerns didnt really pan out

were they trying to maximize player value, they just lost noel for nothing

embiid is overweight plays out of control and has a very small chance of ever living up to his talent

teams wld be wise to emulate the spurs lol

well it's not really fair to use individual post-hinkie moves as a referendum on the Process as a whole. and i agree the sixers didn't draft great!

create a system/culture that helps players maximize their potential, part of that is recognizing that theyre human not interchangeable cogs, there are no nba derivatives, youve got to do the work

you can't just "emulate the spurs" what does that even mean

have a perfect coach draft really well convince everyone to take below market value hmmm great ideas!

In the same sense that it is easier to make money if you have money, success breeds success. Tanking turns that truism on its head and makes a virtue of robbing your team of success. High draft picks were always a sort of booby prize, not a rich reward.

create a system/culture that helps players maximize their potential, part of that is recognizing that theyre human not interchangeable cogs, there are no nba derivatives, youve got to do the work

― lag∞n, Sunday, June 18, 2017 3:08 PM (one minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah i mean sure, this is step 2. you need to get some assets first before you're suddenly the league's golden franchise

no it works better if you do them at the same time

it seems like youre confusing emulating the spurs process with emulating the spurs results

i mean like why do u think spurs players are constantly willing to take below market contracts

job satisfaction?

faceless min vet X's happiness during the tanking years does not really seem like a relevant metric to evaluate progress on the long term goal, which is to contend a few years down the road. obviously the transition between the tanking phase and the contention phase might have required some lol corporate outreach and it's possible that hinkie wasn't going to be good at that

but what is pretty indisputable is that hinkie sold ownership on a long term plan and ownership ended up getting cold feet. it's not really possible to say whether it was successful yet at this point. if the current core + fultz ends up being really good, which it could, it'll be pretty funny when people are suddenly colangelo fans

in conclusion i am willing to believe it is possible that hinkie was bad at his job but the jury is still out imo

but what is pretty indisputable is that hinkie sold ownership on a long term plan and ownership ended up getting cold feet.

this is can't be disconnected from the fact that hinkie drafted like a crazy person

"let me see out my longterm plan of drafting 5 players that play the same position"

yeah his drafting record was definitely not great

https://sports.yahoo.com/sources-paul-george-tells-pacers-plans-leave-franchise-prefers-joining-lakers-191520531.html

well alright

ehhhhh there arent that many cases of the spurs taking less than market on the whole of their career. tony parker signed below market, but it is now riding a contract thats above his market. ginobili signed for like 2.5 mil in 2015 and then signed for $14 mil last year. only one who took a legit haircut is duncan his last few years. spurs reward loyalty. also no state income tax. spurs have gotten some vet min bargains before, but kawhi and lamarcus both signed their deals at the maxx.
xxxxp

philly will prob never be great, if you have ownership that lets itself be sold by such and obvs under qualified grifter youre unlikely to ever put the pieces together

but most of the criticism of him is not of his drafting, it's the process itself

also then firing him and making a totally reactive move to hire the most basketbally basketball guy shows that they dont really have any idea what they want to do

xp to myself

i guess if they found some really good executive and just let them run the show, but usually doesnt work that way

i would love to start a team with fultz and simmons. two very unique, potentially franchise players. i don't like the mix w/ saric and embiid tho.

as weve discussed hinkies insane drafting flows directly from the core process philosophy that players are fungible assets producing the view that drafting a bunch of guys who play the same position is no problem

i tend to agree

i also agree about the sixers owner and what that means for the franchise longterm. some strong vivek vibes there.

hinkie was a package deal and his record was the package. success in the nba is very easy to measure. he didn't meet the minimum qualifications to be considered a success at anything he did, other than the one thing that mattered to him - getting high draft picks he could squander.

also drafting is probably more random luck than most people think, none of hinkie's picks seemed that bad at that time. when your plan is to maximize value drafting guys with an injury risk seems congruent with that plan.

like sam presti was a god for drafting those three guys and now he's seen as pretty average

im not sold on simmons at all, no shooting no defense injured and with attitude problems is not a good place to start, hes def an insane talent in a lot of ways but hes a very weird unbalanced player too on a weird franchise who hasnt successfully developed one of their picks yet

presti is a virtuoso drafter and shit at the other gm things

drafting is probably more random luck than most people think

this. it's why I said high picks are a booby prize.

also drafting is probably more random luck than most people think, none of hinkie's picks seemed that bad at that time. when your plan is to maximize value drafting guys with an injury risk seems congruent with that plan.

he had to pick okafor cuz porzingis wouldn't work out for the team because it was run by a crazy person

very high picks have a pretty good success rate tho, which is why im not stoked on the celtics trading a #1 in a year that has a clear #1 player

also joel embiid fell to the sixers bcuz of injuries and injuries prevent him from ever playing a real NBA season then that's a bad pick