NBA about to implement anti-tanking measure?

[LondonSox]

I still like the Simmons proposal: the first pick goes to the team that piles up the most wins after being mathematically eliminated from the playoffs. Terrible teams get eliminated first and have a longer time to accumulate post-elim wins. Near-miss playoff teams have only a handful of games.
At the same time you give advantage to bad teams while incentivizing wins.

 
Well not really, this is another proposal that hurts the worst teams.
The worst team is not unable to get the best pick.
 
I don't understand what the issue is, the worst team gets the top pick, like it is in every sport. Basketball is different in that one player can change a franchise, and can influence the play more than any other sport other than maybe a QB in football.
In decades we're had how many multi year tanking teams? I mean the Cavs were not tanking and got 3 number picks.
This is a solution to a one off problem, the Sixers and frankly there is a pretty good chance without the lottery they wouldn't be tanking as hard this year. IF they had the number 2 pick behind the Bucks, they probably draft Wiggins and then maybe not Saric, and they are immediately in a different area.
The stupid lottery already created another super team with Cavs luck. They didn't tank.
 
Any solution that helps the 10th worst team get the number one pick I think is flawed. 

 

[Blacken]

That people think this is a problem amazes me. The Sixers are one of the most interesting things about this NBA season. Their fans are good with it. Why get your knickers in a twist?

 

[Sprowl]

That people think this is a problem amazes me. The Sixers are one of the most interesting things about this NBA season. Their fans are good with it. Why get your knickers in a twist?

Because having a systemic incentive for losing degrades the product and destroys the soul.

 

[Blacken]

Except tanking leads to winning, and winning is awesome, and you're not going to remove the urge to get-bad-to-get-good with any proposal out there without at the same time increasing the importance of FA and therefore destroying small market competition. Fixing what isn't broke befuddles me.

Maybe it's because my circle of basketball people is more analytical and media-based, but worrying about particular teams being bad for whatever length of time seems related to the investment of a fan in a particular team, and I don't get that. In basketball in particular, but more and more in ll sports. I watch players I enjoy seeing play basketball, a team tanking has no impact on my enjoyment of the game. They'll eventually be good, and somebody else will eventually be bad, and, hey, whatever.

 

[Infield Infidel]

I still like the Simmons proposal: the first pick goes to the team that piles up the most wins after being mathematically eliminated from the playoffs. Terrible teams get eliminated first and have a longer time to accumulate post-elim wins. Near-miss playoff teams have only a handful of games.
At the same time you give advantage to bad teams while incentivizing wins.

 
I like the proposal too but it's not really Simmons' http://www.sloansportsconference.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Gold-Adam-HowToCureTanking1.pdf
 
 

 
Well not really, this is another proposal that hurts the worst teams.
The worst team is not unable to get the best pick.
 
I don't understand what the issue is, the worst team gets the top pick, like it is in every sport. Basketball is different in that one player can change a franchise, and can influence the play more than any other sport other than maybe a QB in football.
In decades we're had how many multi year tanking teams? I mean the Cavs were not tanking and got 3 number picks.
This is a solution to a one off problem, the Sixers and frankly there is a pretty good chance without the lottery they wouldn't be tanking as hard this year. IF they had the number 2 pick behind the Bucks, they probably draft Wiggins and then maybe not Saric, and they are immediately in a different area.
The stupid lottery already created another super team with Cavs luck. They didn't tank.
 
Any solution that helps the 10th worst team get the number one pick I think is flawed. 

 
 
No one has any idea what team is "the worst team". Let's say the "third worst team" plays their players in a way to play worse than normal, like two starters with a mild injuries sit for a month instead of a week. Then they finish with the worst record; are they the worst team? This is why the lottery exists. 
 
This is why I like the proposal above, there's no incentive to run out backups late in the season. Early in the year a team or two might tank, but if a team has a remote chance at contending for the playoffs, say all but 5 or so teams, that's not a compelling option. By the time that is sorted, 20-25 teams would have already be out of the running for the top few draft picks. For the bottom teams, fans can root for their teams to win games at the end of the season instead of rooting for them to lose. It's be like a relegation battle. 
 
To add, I also agree with those that the max should go up. I'd like to see teams able to offer their own guys a max 50% of the cap x 5 years, and free agents 35% or 40% of the cap for 4 years. They cap may grow to $100m over the next few years. Leaving $90m on the table probably isn't an option for all but the LeBron/Durants of the league. There would almost certainly be fewer max guys too. 

 

[Devizier]

Again, I think the penalty structure has to be financial. Yes, there's an inherent financial disincentive for losing, but the prospect of great players is a huge financial incentive. 

 

[moly99]

None of the different systems proposed gets around the fact that as long as marginal improvement is not attractive, then teams will look for ways to trade short term failure for long term success. What needs to happen is reform that makes it viable for teams to aim for contention through marginal improvement like in the NFL or MLB.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

None of the different systems proposed gets around the fact that as long as marginal improvement is not attractive, then teams will look for ways to trade short term failure for long term success. What needs to happen is reform that makes it viable for teams to aim for contention through marginal improvement like in the NFL or MLB.

Over 50% of the teams qualify for playoff post-season revenue. That is a greater pct than both the NFL or MLB. It already is more viable.

The bigger issue is that the top players have a small bundle of cities they wish to spend Oct-Mar between the weather, state tax ramifications, and marketing opportunities. No reform is going to make Milwaukee, Minnesota, Cleveland, Sacramento, Boston, Utah, Charlotte, and others an attractive destination without extenuating circumstances.

It isn't even the top guys.....Jordan Crawford rejected the Kings guaranteed contract to play in the NBA to make $1m to play in China. That's a problem reform cannot help.

 

[zenter]

It's not the problem, though. It's a symptom of a disease: a league completely dominated by superstars.

 
Tanking shenanigans is related to a disease, but the superstar culture ain't it (and heck, what do you think Bird vs Magic was?)... In any case, it's like saying buying chicken soup is a related to having a cold. It's not necessarily a bad thing. But since it rankles people, divorcing this year's performance from this year's draft is a way to make things less annoying.
 
But in reality, any problems that exist in basketball player movement (and related FO behavior) stems from the fact that players and teams are restricted from competing competently in the talent marketplace. That is a result of owners not being willing to spend money to win and barndoor-closing-assholes like Jordan trying to punish subsequent players.
 
I'm not saying there shouldn't be a level of balance when it comes this whole universe, but the lengths to which the NBA goes to prevent separating billionaires from their money is absurd... And it is the reason why the 13 teams voted against restructuring the draft - this is the cheapest way to build a contending team.
 
Bust the monolith and you'll see a lot of creative ways to build a contender, not just the one. In the meantime: the NBA made this bed. They should lie in it with no lottery whatsoever.

 

[ALiveH]

the lottery is especially insidious because it provides the illusion of a get-good-quick scheme.  Unless you're in a year with consensus generational #1 overall pick, which probably happens about once every 5 years, the franchise players tend to be pretty well scattered through the lottery (i.e., hard to predict).  You're much more likely to become a contender if you are actually trying to win, barely miss the playoffs but pick well & make good moves for a few years than if you're absolutely horrendous and land the typical (i.e, not Lebron, Shaq or Duncan) #1 overall pick.
 
There are lots of teams in a vicious cycle of not really trying to win or being badly mismanaged, and ending up in the lottery every year.  The 76ers are going to risk losing Noels & MCW to free agency in a few years (or overpaying them) if they're still horrible.  There is definitely a "culture of losing" that can set in in basketball.  It's not like one can just flip a switch and go to being awesome overnight.  It's really hard to increase by more than 10 wins without the infusion of superstar talent.  If the 76ers still plan on being terrible this year, then at best they'll be mediocre by the time Noels & MCW hit free agency.
 
The celtics had their one crappy year.  Now they need to start developing talent and actually trying to win.  The next step is to try to become a 35-win team.  The next step after that is to try to become a 45-win team.  And the next step after that is to try to become a contender.  It can be by drafting well & developing talent & chemistry or it can be by trading assets for veterans.
 
Also, like Sprowl said, intentionally trying to lose degrades the product & destroys the soul.

 

[Remagellan]

Because having a systemic incentive for losing degrades the product and destroys the soul.

 
 
This is bullshit.  Every other American team sport has the same incentive, are they incentivizing losing and degrading the product and destroying the soul?   But they have better "social mobility" than the NBA does because they just let the worst teams have the best shot at the best players and climb out of their hells.  But the NBA, because the Rockets took this tack in the 80's and actually became a championship caliber team, decided that they had to interfere with the process.  And they will continue to do so, because now what they have is a media show, the NBA lottery, but not a process that allows bad teams to get better.
 
The Sixers won't "risk losing Noel or MCW to free agency".  They will make smart decisions in those players just as they did with Evan Turner and Spencer Hawes, two bench quality players that caused all this damn hand-wringing about whether or not the team was serious about being competitive.  Think about that, the Sixers's desire to become a good team is being questioned because they refused to pay starter money to two players they realized wouldn't be starters on a good team.  How is that not trying to build a competitive team.  
 
As I wrote before, if it weren't for the abomination that is the NBA lottery, the Sixers would have Andrew Wiggins and probably Doug McDermott on their team right now, and would like look a lot more like a team that was heading in the right direction.  It was the lottery that forced them to take a longer path to contention.  

 

[moly99]

 
Tanking shenanigans is related to a disease, but the superstar culture ain't it (and heck, what do you think Bird vs Magic was?)...

 
There was no max contract size back then. Prior to the max contract era, teams could spend themselves into oblivion with one superstar player, so it was viable to build a team around second and third tier players. Just look at Minnesota with KG.
 

 
But in reality, any problems that exist in basketball player movement (and related FO behavior) stems from the fact that players and teams are restricted from competing competently in the talent marketplace. That is a result of owners not being willing to spend money to win and barndoor-closing-assholes like Jordan trying to punish subsequent players.

 
"Spending to win" is tough to reconcile with parity and a financially stable league, though. Soccer leagues in Europe and South America don't have salary caps (well, except for Ireland) and have billionaire oil sheik owners who are prepared to lose money every year. They also have many teams that go bankrupt and/or can't afford to pay their players. Even FC Barcelona -one of the top 5 clubs in the world- couldn't pay its wages at one point in 2010.
 
If you aren't advocating ditching the cap, then I'm not sure what exactly you are advocating. The problem is not that small market teams like Milwaukee and Detroit aren't willing to spend. The problem is that the truly elite players (who will end up being massively underpaid anyway) prefer big cities, warm weather and low state income tax. So Detroit ends up overpaying for Brandon Jennings and Josh Smith instead of being able to outbid those other markets.
 

The bigger issue is that the top players have a small bundle of cities they wish to spend Oct-Mar between the weather, state tax ramifications, and marketing opportunities. No reform is going to make Milwaukee, Minnesota, Cleveland, Sacramento, Boston, Utah, Charlotte, and others an attractive destination without extenuating circumstances.

 
Money. That's what those other teams can offer. If small market teams were able to outbid the warm weather teams they would at least have one option for building a contender; front load contracts and stockpile cost effective players until you can acquire a superstar. Right now the cold weather, small to mid-sized markets don't have any way to build through free agency.
 
Conversely getting rid of the max contract would also force the more attractive markets to pay more to land the superstars. Which opens up opportunities for teams to build around four really good players rather than two superstars.

 

[ALiveH]

Moly, there's a pretty good cross-section of large, small, cold, warm, high and low tax markets on this list during the free agent, lottery and salary cap eras so I'm not sure the situation is nearly as dire as you make it out to be:
http://www.nba.com/history/nba-season-recaps/index.html
 
It's not supposed to be easy to build a contender.  There can only be a handful of them each year and there's pretty good continuity among the contenders year-over-year.
 
Remagellan - you do understand that the NBA is pretty unique in that one mega star can drag a bunch of JAGs to borderline contederdom like Lebron's Cavs.  There's a lot more incentive to tank.  Even transcendent Pedro couldn't single-handedly take otherwise decent Sox teams to the world series in the late '90s.  It doesn't matter how awesome Brady is, without good coaching & supporting cast he'll look like a scrub.  So, no basketball is not just like every other sport and this point has been discussed ad nauseum here.
 
I'm glad you brought up Turner, the #2 overall pick in the 2010 draft.  Cause he proved my point on a couple levels - 1) that a high pick in the lottery is no sure thing, and 2) your 19-year old high picks of today won't be sticking around if the franchise is still a loser by the time he hits free agency as a 23 year old just entering his prime.
 
Lastly, if the 5 worst teams are actively trying to lose, how can you be sure that the team that finishes with the worst record is really the "worst" team and therefore most deserving of the top pick?  you can't, hence the lottery.
 
The 76ers fans attitudes seem to be laughing at the rest of the league that they are successfully gaming the system by being terrible every year & stockpiling assets.  Then there's simultaneous whining that they get called out on trying to game the system.  Meanwhile, there's no guarantee it will end up working out in the end so I'm not even sure it's a viable strategy.

 

[Remagellan]

We're not whining, you Celtic fans are whining.  Your team is as terrible as ours is except you have Rondo, and Jeff Green, who in some ways is the perfect example of a player with the type of contract this Sixers management team avoided when they let Hawes and Turner go.   This team will gather assets and take time to evaluate the players they bring in, and then spend money to retain them and bring in other stars when it is sensible to do so.  Who was the player on free agency this past year that we were supposed to open the vault for?  Just tell me that before you criticize them for not bringing in guys to make the team more competitive.  
 
We've been through the Iggy years, and if we learned anything from that experience it is just because a player is the "star" of your team, it does not make him a superstar.   And paying him like one is the surest way to never landing a superstar. 
 
Trust me, Turner would have been happy to stay with the Sixers if we paid him what he was seeking, which it turned out was money no team in the league was willing to offer him when he hit the market.  
 
If we eventually let MCW and Noel go, it will be because after watching them play for a few years, the team will have decided they're not worth the money they're seeking.  Because if they are, there will be no team who can offer them more, or have the flexibility to match whatever offer they receive regardless of how it is structured.  But by the time those guys hit free agency, this team will be in contention, because the long-term plan is not to be terrible indefinitely.   

 

[Brickowski]

We're not whining, you Celtic fans are whining.  Your team is as terrible as ours is except you have Rondo, and Jeff Green, who in some ways is the perfect example of a player with the type of contract this Sixers management team avoided when they let Hawes and Turner go.     

Is this the party line?  I don't see the Sixers getting anywhere close to the playoffs in the next 5-6 years.  Losing begets losing. I will go out on  a limb and predict that the Celtics will become a serious contender long before the Sixers. Embiid is going to be a stud, but Noel isn't.  

 

[Remagellan]

I agree on Noel, but we'll see about which of our teams is a serious contender sooner.  Remember you guys are still looking to deal Rondo, which means your team hasn't bottomed out yet.  

 

[HomeRunBaker]

I agree on Noel, but we'll see about which of our teams is a serious contender sooner.  Remember you guys are still looking to deal Rondo, which means your team hasn't bottomed out yet.  

I'm gonna confidently go with neither in that 5-6 year window. Unless something extremely rare occurs (Larry Bird, KG, Moses, Barkley, etc) once you hit the lottery you have a hard time getting out much less competing for a championship.

This is why I'm so giddy about those Unprotected Nets picks as next year or the year after should begin their demise with JJ and Deron aging while Lopez continues with his foot issues.

 

[Brickowski]

I agree on Noel, but we'll see about which of our teams is a serious contender sooner.  Remember you guys are still looking to deal Rondo, which means your team hasn't bottomed out yet.  

Bottoming out is not necessarily a road to contention.  
 
I try not to view the world through emerald-colored glasses, but after watching the preseason I'm really bullish on the current Celtics roster.  And it has little or nothing to do with Rondo or Green.
 
The Jrue Holiday-Iguodala-Turner-Hawes-Thaddeus young  Sixers were not well-coached.  That's a group that could have been dangerous with the addition of 1-2 more good players and a better coach.  It remains to be seen if gutting that team was the right thing to do.

 

[moly99]

Moly, there's a pretty good cross-section of large, small, cold, warm, high and low tax markets on this list during the free agent, lottery and salary cap eras so I'm not sure the situation is nearly as dire as you make it out to be:
http://www.nba.com/history/nba-season-recaps/index.html

 
Virtually all of those small market teams used the draft to build. The Spurs would not have won their championships if they hadn't "tanked" that one year David Robinson got hurt and ended up winning the lottery with Tim Duncan.
 
The counterpoint to those people arguing that the Sixers are wrong is that the Sixers don't really have the option to build a contender through free agency, so they've naturally decided to build through the draft. If the NBA wants teams to choose to build through free agency and signing mid level players, then the NBA has to make that a realistic path to contention. If tanking is punished but the draft is still the only viable way of improving, then all the NBA will accomplish is to lengthen the rebuilding process for teams.

 

[LondonSox]

Is this the party line?  I don't see the Sixers getting anywhere close to the playoffs in the next 5-6 years.  Losing begets losing. I will go out on  a limb and predict that the Celtics will become a serious contender long before the Sixers. Embiid is going to be a stud, but Noel isn't.  

You don't think the sixers will be in playoff competition for 5-6 years despite 4 talented young players, a bunch of picks and no payrolls commitments?
Fuck teams with no young talent and limited flexibility have turned it around in less. That's just a ridiculous statement. Let alone on top of that a really smart front office.

MCW Noel embiid saric a high pick next year some talented young high second round picks this year and as much cap space to add parts as possible in a not great East.

Next year on the right guys I could see them spending, Eg klay Thompson that kind of thing.

I see no sign of the sixers laughing or anything else. They are trying to build a contender. If you aren't a long term potential solution here's the door. Spend on a aging average player? Why? Try out a variety of young talent who fell through the gaps, injury or tweeter etc instead. Things we praise in baseball teams rebuilding are offensive in basketball because?

 

[Brickowski]

You don't think the sixers will be in playoff competition for 5-6 years despite 4 talented young players, a bunch of picks and no payrolls commitments?
 

Oh they may make the playoffs but the won't be legitimate contenders. Except for Embiid, the "4 talented young players" aren't that talented and have not yet shown that they know how to play together.  They will need at least two more huge draft hits-- not just getting high picks, but using those picks to select the right players-- to move past 45 wins or so during the next half decade.  

 

[moly99]

Except for Embiid, the "4 talented young players" aren't that talented

 
While I agree that their rebuild could easily flounder saying that Nerlens Noel, rookie of the year MCW and Dario Saric (Adriatic League MVP at age 19) don't have much talent is just sour grapes.
 
Noel and Embiid could have their careers derailed by injury, MCW could end up being nothing more than a volume scorer, and Saric might not transition well to America and the NBA. But those dudes have the potential to be the core of a championship team by themselves, irrespective of whatever Philly does in the draft next year. A healthy core of Embiid, Noel and Williams could be an absolute nightmare on defense if they can find one more quality wing ala Igoudala or Deng.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

You don't think the sixers will be in playoff competition for 5-6 years despite 4 talented young players, a bunch of picks and no payrolls commitments?
Fuck teams with no young talent and limited flexibility have turned it around in less. That's just a ridiculous statement. Let alone on top of that a really smart front office.

MCW Noel embiid saric a high pick next year some talented young high second round picks this year and as much cap space to add parts as possible in a not great East.

Next year on the right guys I could see them spending, Eg klay Thompson that kind of thing.

I see no sign of the sixers laughing or anything else. They are trying to build a contender. If you aren't a long term potential solution here's the door. Spend on a aging average player? Why? Try out a variety of young talent who fell through the gaps, injury or tweeter etc instead. Things we praise in baseball teams rebuilding are offensive in basketball because?

In the NBA you win with stars and veterans. None of these 21-year olds will be ready to win in this league consistently for quite some time and the only one with star upside is Embiid......the others all look to develop into solid role players at best. If everything and i mean everything works perfectly this core group will be on the cusp of contention in 6-7 years. Good luck with that.

 

[nighthob]

You don't think the sixers will be in playoff competition for 5-6 years despite 4 talented young players, a bunch of picks and no payrolls commitments?
Fuck teams with no young talent and limited flexibility have turned it around in less. That's just a ridiculous statement. Let alone on top of that a really smart front office.

That really smart front office apparently disagrees with you as they spent the run-up to the draft trying to trade one of the talented young players. The rest of the NBA front offices also seem leery of your assessment as none of them would bite. Nerlens Noel has the ability to be an impact roleplayer, but he isn't a star. Embiid has that sort of potential, but the back and foot issues mean that he could also be out of the league in five years, and if he busts out that really smart front office won't be long on the job.

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

Oh they may make the playoffs but the won't be legitimate contenders. Except for Embiid, the "4 talented young players" aren't that talented and have not yet shown that they know how to play together.  They will need at least two more huge draft hits-- not just getting high picks, but using those picks to select the right players-- to move past 45 wins or so during the next half decade.  

 
Before I weigh in on this, can you do me a favor and tell me who the 2020 Sixers have on their roster?

 

[HomeRunBaker]

 
Before I weigh in on this, can you do me a favor and tell me who the 2020 Sixers have on their roster?

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Y58j8Pifspw

 

[Blacken]

It's like it never entered Brick's head that he isn't as smart as and doesn't have the same access to data as the Sixers front office.

 

[crystalline]

It's like it never entered Brick's head that he isn't as smart as and doesn't have the same access to data as the Sixers front office.

Hey hey, that's not fair. All of us here are in the prognostication business when we talk about players and teams. If we have to assume that all front offices have all the answers, conversations about the NBA would be deadly boring.

 

[LondonSox]

That really smart front office apparently disagrees with you as they spent the run-up to the draft trying to trade one of the talented young players. The rest of the NBA front offices also seem leery of your assessment as none of them would bite. Nerlens Noel has the ability to be an impact roleplayer, but he isn't a star. Embiid has that sort of potential, but the back and foot issues mean that he could also be out of the league in five years, and if he busts out that really smart front office won't be long on the job.

You saw what they got last time they did that right?

 

[Blacken]

Hey hey, that's not fair. All of us here are in the prognostication business when we talk about players and teams. If we have to assume that all front offices have all the answers, conversations about the NBA would be deadly boring.

I don't assume all front offices have all the answers.
 
I assume the fucking brilliant ones have most of the answers. Or at least some of them. I certainly don't dismiss out-of-hand the plan being put forth by the smartest dude in the NBA.

 

[nighthob]

You saw what they got last time they did that right?

The last time they failed to trade someone?

 

[Brickowski]

LOL.  Maybe R.C. Buford has all of the answers, but Sam Hinkie sure as hell doesn't.  You don't need inside information or advanced proprietary statistical models to figure this out.  Just look at the roster.
 
Hinkie made the choice that 99.99% of the GMs who ever worked in the NBA would have made by taking Embiid when he fell into his lap.  Otherwise, his choices have been underwhelming, starting with the fact that in a league with a three point shot, he hasn't drafted a single player who can shoot, never mind shoot threes.  There isn't a player on the roster other than Embiid who has the potential to be as good as Jrue Holiday or Andre Iguodala (who can't shoot either, but that's a separate issue).  The fact is that they didn't want to pay Holiday or Iguodala.
 
What I see when I look at the Sixers is a team designed to be inexpensive.  It's Noel, Embid (injured), MCW (injured), Saric (stashed in Europe for at least 2 years) and a bunch of d-leaguers.  They have multiple second round picks--except for the good ones (their own early second round unprotected picks in 2015 and 2016) that Doug Collins traded to Miami for Arnett Moultrie (who? And oh by the way he's also injured), picks which the C's subsequently acquired.
 
When I look at the Sixers I look at an ownership group that would make Robert Sarver look like the last of the big spenders, and which is attempting to dupe the fanbase into thinking that it is all a part of some masterful rebuilding plan.. 

 

[Blacken]

Keep talking. It's funny.

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

LOL.  Maybe R.C. Buford has all of the answers, but Sam Hinkie sure as hell doesn't.  You don't need inside information or advanced proprietary statistical models to figure this out.  Just look at the roster.
 
Hinkie made the choice that 99.99% of the GMs who ever worked in the NBA would have made by taking Embiid when he fell into his lap.  Otherwise, his choices have been underwhelming, starting with the fact that in a league with a three point shot, he hasn't drafted a single player who can shoot, never mind shoot threes.  There isn't a player on the roster other than Embiid who has the potential to be as good as Jrue Holiday or Andre Iguodala (who can't shoot either, but that's a separate issue).  The fact is that they didn't want to pay Holiday or Iguodala.
 
What I see when I look at the Sixers is a team designed to be inexpensive.  It's Noel, Embid (injured), MCW (injured), Saric (stashed in Europe for at least 2 years) and a bunch of d-leaguers.  They have multiple second round picks--except for the good ones (their own early second round unprotected picks in 2015 and 2016) that they traded to Miami for Arnett Moultrie (who? And oh by the way he's also injured), picks which the C's subsequently acquired.
 
When I look at the Sixers I look at an ownership group that would make Robert Sarver look like the last of the big spenders, and which is attempting to dupe the fanbase into thinking that it is all a part of some masterful rebuilding plan.. 

 
 
First, Hinkie didn't trade Iguodala. That trade was executed by the previous regime/ownership group and resulted in the failed Andrew Bynum experiment. That trade is what necessitated the rebuild. 
 
Second, the idea that failing to draft a shooter (in two drafts) is somehow indicative that this rebuild has no grand strategy is absurd and you know it. Not drafting a shooter (though, Saric's shooting projects to improve substantially) in two years doesn't mean that they NEVER intend to add a shooter any more than not spending in free agency in two years indicates that they'll never spend in free agency. You, of course, know that. 
 
Meanwhile, you've spent hundreds of posts over the last 18 months opining about how the Celtics will never be competitive again until they acquire a rim protector. The Sixers, in the last two drafts, have used top 6 picks on two players who project to be elite rim protectors. One of them also projects as a plus offensive player. But because you've dug in on your "the Sixers have no plan" stance, now suddenly not drafting shooters dooms you to irrelevancy forever. Three point shooting is certainly a hugely important aspect of building a contender. So is rim-protection. The Sixers may very well have the league's best defensive front court in the next handful of years. But that's apparently only important for the Celtics. 
 
But most importantly, and I can't stress this enough, you know nothing about what the NBA will look like in 4 or 5 years. You couldn't possibly. You don't know what the cap will look like, whether there will still be max contracts, how the draft lottery will be weighted, who will be on the Sixers roster, who will be on the other 31 rosters, etc. etc. etc. And you know that. Everybody knows you know that. But you've taken a stance and like every stance you take, it's got to be as extreme as possible. So, Sam Hinkie's never gonna draft a shooter, doesn't have a plan, and the ownership group will never spend money. Got it. 

 

[Brickowski]

 
 
 
But most importantly, and I can't stress this enough, you know nothing about what the NBA will look like in 4 or 5 years. You couldn't possibly.

Neither does Hinkie. Look, I'm not blaming him for every mistake they've made, jut some of them.  I don't think Noel was a good pick.
The Celtics do need a rim protector.  The Sixers need everything else (assuming that Noel and Embiid turn out to be good NBA players).
 
 I admit my position on this is way off to one side.  But to say that the Sixers have some brilliant plan that is the best route to  a competitive, watchable product (if not now, then within some reasonable timeframe) is equally skewed.

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

Neither does Hinkie. Look, I'm not blaming him for every mistake they've made, jut some of them.  I don't think Noel was a good pick.
The Celtics do need a rim protector.  The Sixers need everything else (assuming that Noel and Embiid turn out to be good NBA players).
 
 I admit my position on this is way off to one side.  But to say that the Sixers have some brilliant plan that is the best route to  a competitive, watchable product (if not now, then within some reasonable timeframe) is equally skewed.

So your major criticism of Hinkie is that he didn't get good value out of the worst draft in a decade? In a draft where he got the rookie of the year, and one of the three or four favorites to be this year's rookie of the year?

 

[Brickowski]

So your major criticism of Hinkie is that he didn't get good value out of the worst draft in a decade? In a draft where he got the rookie of the year, and one of the three or four favorites to be this year's rookie of the year?

Hindsight is 20-20 of course, but given the position the Sixers were in, Hinkle should have taken the Greek kid, as Ainge should have.  As far as ROY is concerned, I thought that should have gone to Oladipo.
 
As for Noel, he's a one-trick pony who cost them Jrue Holiday and other assets.  He blocks shots but doesn't rebound particularly well and is very raw (dare I say unskilled?) offensively.  And do you really think he's among the  "favorites" for ROY in a class that includes Wiggins, Parker, Gordon, Randle and Stauskas?

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

Hindsight is 20-20 of course, but given the position the Sixers were in, Hinkle should have taken the Greek kid, as Ainge should have.  As far as ROY is concerned, I thought that should have gone to Oladipo.
 
As for Noel, he's a one-trick pony who cost them Jrue Holiday and other assets.  He blocks shots but doesn't rebound particularly well and is very raw (dare I say unskilled?) offensively.  And do you really think he's among the  "favorites" for ROY in a class that includes Wiggins, Parker, Gordon, Randle and Stauskas?

 
So there was single guy, who 13 teams passed on, that he should have taken ahead of Noel? And because Hinkie didn't take that guy, he and the Sixers new ownership group have no plan (other than to refuse to pay for players) and are just pitching this as a masterful rebuild to dupe their fans? Seems reasonable. 
 
As for Noel, here are the actual Vegas odds for ROY: Parker 5/2, Wiggins 15/4, Noel 11/2, McDermott 9/1, Smart 12/1, Payton 15/1, Exum 18/1, Warren 18/1, and Stauskus 25/1. So yeah, I'd consider having the 3rd best odds as being "among the favorites."

 

[Brickowski]

I'm questioning the Sixers blow it up strategy as a whole.  It's one thing to blow it up when your stars are in their mid to late 30s, as Ainge did.  It's another when your best players are in their late 20s, as Philly did.
 
I guess the Vegas oddsmakers didn't think much of Randle or some of the others.  

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

I'm questioning the Sixers blow it up strategy as a whole.  It's one thing to blow it up when your stars are in their mid to late 30s, as Ainge did.  It's another when your best players are in their late 20s, as Philly did.
 
I guess the Vegas oddsmakers didn't think much of Randle or some of the others.  

Their best players were Jrue Holiday, Evan Turner, Thad Young and Spencer Hawes and their last season together they won 34 games. That's the sort of core you blow up, regardless of age.

 

[Brickowski]

But in 2011-2102, with Iguodala and Elton Brand, they were 35-31 in that lockout-shortened year and beat the Bulls in the first round of the playoffs.
 
I'll grant you that after the Bynum deal (in which the lost Igouodala) they had to do something. Terrible move.

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

But in 2011-2102, with Iguodala and Elton Brand, they were 35-31 in that lockout-shortened year and beat the Bulls in the first round of the playoffs.
 
I'll grant you that after the Bynum deal (in which the lost Igouodala) they had to do something. Terrible move.

And as I pointed out, the Iguodala-Bynum deal was made by the previous GM.

 

[Brickowski]

And as I pointed out, the Iguodala-Bynum deal was made by the previous GM.

Yes, but the ownership group was the same.
 
I suppose that Hinkie is trying to replicate the Sam Presti model.  Presti unloaded Ray Allen and Rasheed Wallace from a 50-win team in order to start from scratch; in Hinkle's case, some of those decisions were made for him.  But the players that Hinkie has drafted to date are vastly inferior to Durant, Westbrook, Ibaka and Harden-- and even with those drafts OKC has not won a title (although they have been to the finals).  You have to weigh the chances of succeeding with the "Presti strategy" as against making incremental improvements to a team that already has some decent players, Unlike Seattle-OKC, Philly is not a small market team, and in my view the strategy of improving by accretion would have served them much better.

 

[mauf]

 
I guess the Vegas oddsmakers didn't think much of Randle or some of the others.  

I think the oddsmakers assume that ROY voters mostly rely on scoresheet stats, and Randle isn't going to get to fill the sheet on a team that's built around feeding Kobe Bryant the ball.

I think Parker is a prohibitive ROY favorite -- with his polished game and on a team with no other options, he'll score 18 a night.

 

[LondonSox]

Yes, but the ownership group was the same.
 
I suppose that Hinkie is trying to replicate the Sam Presti model.  Presti unloaded Ray Allen and Rasheed Wallace from a 50-win team in order to start from scratch; in Hinkle's case, some of those decisions were made for him.  But the players that Hinkie has drafted to date are vastly inferior to Durant, Westbrook, Ibaka and Harden-- and even with those drafts OKC has not won a title (although they have been to the finals).  You have to weigh the chances of succeeding with the "Presti strategy" as against making incremental improvements to a team that already has some decent players, Unlike Seattle-OKC, Philly is not a small market team, and in my view the strategy of improving by accretion would have served them much better.

Can you let us know what embiid and saric and Noel are then? Since you know or are able to see the future?
Noel seems to have the defensive, esp blocking, potential of an ibaka. Embiid as you have yourself said has the potential to be a star and we don't know much about what saric can be. They are all extremely young.
Are any of the sixers talent likely Durant level? No I think that's a long shot for any prospect, ever. Certainly before they have played to be compared to Durant is crazy.

But you seem to have written off three players who are yet to play a game?

Writing them off at this point seems as crazy as deciding that the sixers are doomed for 5-6 years. I get it you don't like it. But your criticisms are ridiculous. He didn't take this kid over another so clearly that's a bad choice?

Clearly this could go badly. But you only need one or two of these picks to pan out and then build around.

 

[Brickowski]

Let's agree that Embiid might  be a star they can build around.  They will need to add at least one more "star magnitude" player to become a serious contender.
 
And I didn't say they were "doomed."   In 5-6 years they might have a team as good as the one they broke up, which got to the second round of the playoffs in 2012.  

 

[Blacken]

Those goalposts are sure heavy. You should get a truck or something when you move them.

 

[Brickowski]

Those goalposts are sure heavy. You should get a truck or something when you move them.

You're right, I did move the goalposts from my first post.. Let me reset them.  Given where the Sixers are today and looking out over the next half decade, my best guess would be:
 
The odds of being mired in 30 wins or less hell are probably 20%.  
The odds of being in 40 win purgatory 5 years from now are 60%. They make sneak into the playoffs but won't go far.
The odds of becoming a serious contender 5 years out are 18%
The odds of winning a championship in 5 years are 2%.
 
Then you have to compare those odds with what might have been accomplished if they had left their 2012 team basically intact (they were already up to purgatory level) and tried to get lucky in the draft with an Ibaka (picked in the 20s) or a Marc Gasol (picked in the 40s), and with some good free agent signings. 

 

[Blacken]

Sure, but you're still moving the goalposts. You're judging Sam Hinkie as sucking when he came in after they blew up the team.

Sam has a legitimate claim at being the dude in basketball best able to synthesize metrics and general basketball knowledge to build a team. (If he's not, he's top three.) You are not. Neither am I, but I'm deferring to the dude who I know is.

 

[CSteinhardt]

Why not have teams bid cap space for lottery picks?  If you're, say, the 3rd worst team, then you start out with $3,689,700 in bidding points, and you can add any dollar from your cap space that you'd like to in order to move up.  Every dollar you pay to move up in the draft order is added to the first year (and percentage raises from there as currently) of the rookie deal.  So, for example, if you're 3rd worst, pay nothing, and end up 7th, you draft 7th and pay 7th pick money.  If you're 11th worst and want to spend $10M in cap room to get the #1 pick, you're paying him $14.6M for the first year as his rookie contract.   
 
This would basically make signing draftees an alternative to signing free agents, which is good for small-market teams, while not allowing teams to really do both.  It makes the rookie wage scale a bit more fair, but won't make it take over like in the NFL, since the rookies don't have bargaining power after being drafted and since it would still not make sense to pay a rookie who might develop into an important piece in 3-4 years more than the player who is already an important piece.  And, there's still a benefit for bad teams, but the benefit comes more from cap space than directly from losing, which means that teams have an incentive to clear space much more than they have an incentive to actually lose.