TripleThreat wrote:Chandler wrote:not arguing with his drafting or your logic about the choices and what he was able to amass. that's all correct. but whether through lack of trades or player development the team was awkward even if the picks were talented. And yes you need to make decisions in real time as opportunities develop. I think at the end of the day it's fair to criticize the Sixer both past (Hinkie) and present for never creating a team with all of those assets and opportunity. case in point (not Hinkie), they have Simmons and they trade the 3rd pick and a future first to get Fultz where Simmons was already against it. Even if Fultz wasn't a dud that's questionable. they needed a SF.
What is "awkward"? What is "creating a team"?
Hinkies job was to amass assets and get the best talent possible given the situation. He did that. In three years. He found two franchise cores, a host of useful side pieces and a **** load of picks and a ****load of cap space in three years.
It was Brett Brown's job, like any head coach, to try to take those pieces and try to blend them together and make them work. No head coach is ever going to get a perfect blend of talent that seamlessly match. That's impossible and unrealistic. One could say that's not fair to Brett Brown, he didn't pick those players. Who said it was going to be ****ing fair? That's the job. Spolestra, Pop, Carlisle, Coach K, Daly, Phil Jackson, none of those guys were assured of getting players who automatically fit.
You seem to want to criticize Hinkie for not doing Brett Brown's job too.
So it's fair to criticize Hinkie but the only example you are showing is a situation you say is not Hinkie and enacted by a front office when Hinkie was gone and in the areas of a responsibilities of a head coach, which was never Hinkies job.
The best argument you could make is Hinkie could have hired a better coach than Brett Brown, but you didn't start there. You started with holding Hinkie to account for things done years after he was kicked out of the franchise and for things not in his job description.
What is "awkward"? What is "creating a team"?
Let's cut to the chase here. Hinkie was railroaded by the NBA because he exposed how their internal market system is completely ****ed up. The league had to change it's entire lottery structure because of Hinkie. OK, assuming the draft is run clean (it's not and I never will believe that, but for the sake of discussion, let's work with the idea that the draft lottery is not rigged), now more teams have more opportunity at franchise changing picks. Hinkie didn't just reload the 76ers, he forced change that BENEFITED EVERY OTHER TEAM IN THE LEAGUE FOREVER.
People can't have it both ways, they can't blame Hinkie for **** done four years later and not give him credit for helping every team in the lottery for as long as the game will be played.
Do you know the kind of onions it takes to be a ****ing desk driver and stand up to a billion dollar industry and openly challenge it, prove it's system is ****ed then force the system to change because you've embarrassed it so much in the span of three years. That's some of the biggest swag gangster **** anyone has seen in any sport in human history.
What is the league narrative? That this calculator nerd is to blame for **** years later made by a GM with no actual GM experience and for **** that wasn't even in his job description. But hey, he's not a people person because he wouldn't let agents prison rape his team for **** like Noah contracts, Deng contracts, Biyombo contracts and on and on and on. All the guy tried to do was be honest and upfront about what he was doing and did his best to help his team win. Yes, he's the devil incarnate for this. He's the next Rosemary's Baby for this.
Only the NBA could **** up so badly that they need to turn a calculator nerd into a villain.
here's where i start to disagree with you a bit. Hinkie is the GM. He needs a sense of what they're trying to accomplish and why and build a team accordingly. The draft might not fall that way, but then you need to think about trades or modify the plan
Whitey Herzog for example used to say speed and defense never go in slumps. So he build teams priortizing that. Plenty of other examples, good pitching and 3 run homers was the O's mantra when they were good.
Same too for hoops. GS placed an emphasis on offense with a lot of movement, so too did the SPURs. Houston and Phoenix seven seconds or less. Sometimes it's about mental attributes, e.g., will you priortize smarts and toughness over vertical leap, height etc.
From everything I've seen Hinkie had no rhyme or reason to this. He simply thought the way to win was by assembling the best talent (almost considered in a vacuum) and throwing it together. That rarely works. Good teams need synergies. Just like food: getting the worlds best peanut butter, and worlds best pizza will not make a good dish if you combine them
Hinkie excelled at stockpiling. He did not excel at team-building and that is shown in the record and not blaming him for recent failures. Embid and Ben are two alphas who need the ball. On paper they should crush everyone yet....
the tricky part is figuring out what will work for a team. We're capped which roughly means the team with the most value from players wins. You could get that through the draft since they're capped. if they play better than rookie scale you benefit. You could get that from really elite players, e.g., Lebron is always worth more than whatever he's paid. But for most guys you're roughly getting what you pay for. SO how to succeed. Find system and strategies that work better at exploiting value. For example, perhaps outside shooting is overpriced but wing defenders who shoot poorly are under valued. If so maybe you want to build a team more around Defense. Or perhaps you think you get more value out of a lot of depth on the team with fewer big contracts even if more not cheap contracts. run for 48 minutes. resilience to injury (as opposed to a super star focused team where if the alpha goes down). the great teams seem to think about this and be a step ahead. then when everyone starts to copy that they're onto the next trick selling high and buying low. I don't think it's a coincidence you see dynasties in sports -- even though the rosters turn over again and again
the great teams make a great meal out of simple egg; the loser teams burn the steak
8/23/2020 11:39 PM LAST EDITED: 8/23/2020 11:40 PM
