fishmike wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

bigbasketballs wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

nyk4ever wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:The bottom line is if the Sixers get Simmons in this draft Hinkie will be a genius.

he was a genius for getting embiid too, right?

Wow, then Minnesota must really have some geniuses running their organization to have both towns and wiggins. Is every team that gets the first pick in the draft a genius or just lucky? Being really bad doesn't make you a genius. Now if you are getting compensated for another team being really bad like the celtics are with Brooklyn, that makes you a genius.

See my other comment. I dont necessarily agree with this viewpoint. The general public tends to have an ends justify the means mentality which may absolve him in the end. That's all I was saying.

The Pelicans are 3-11 this year.

There are no one-player saviors in the NBA and I'm not sure a freshman playing his first 2 weeks of college ball will change that.

OK, OK, IM NOT SAYING WINNING THE LOTTERY WILL MAKE THEM GOOD. Actually, forget it, my point is not registering. Forget it.

you are not the one registering... your point was heard, just nobody agrees with it. You can add the most talented young guys it doesnt matter if you dont build the team. Simmons isnt taking them worst to first, and the talent that is there will be desperate to leave.

Again: I'm not the best communicator at getting my point across I guess. I wasn't intending to pick a side, Hinkie or anti Hinke. I was attempting to make a side point that in the end how Hinkies tenure will be judged will be independent of if what he did was smart or dumb. That the public often has a myopic or results oriented view long after the fact using a hindsight is 20/20 approach. But whatever sorry for not being more clear.

Hinke gets people heated. Jeez.

nyk4ever wrote:

mreinman wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

bigbasketballs wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

nyk4ever wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:The bottom line is if the Sixers get Simmons in this draft Hinkie will be a genius.

he was a genius for getting embiid too, right?

Wow, then Minnesota must really have some geniuses running their organization to have both towns and wiggins. Is every team that gets the first pick in the draft a genius or just lucky? Being really bad doesn't make you a genius. Now if you are getting compensated for another team being really bad like the celtics are with Brooklyn, that makes you a genius.

See my other comment. I dont necessarily agree with this viewpoint. The general public tends to have an ends justify the means mentality which may absolve him in the end. That's all I was saying.

The Pelicans are 3-11 this year.

There are no one-player saviors in the NBA and I'm not sure a freshman playing his first 2 weeks of college ball will change that.

OK, OK, IM NOT SAYING WINNING THE LOTTERY WILL MAKE THEM GOOD. Actually, forget it, my point is not registering. Forget it.

hard to make any point to a crowd that has zero interest in being objective.

Hinkie may be a genius or he may just be an idiot (in peoples eyes). Every genius was first viewed as an idiot.

Is Hinkie making genius moves? We really have no clue since we are all pretty clueless even if we think that we are closet GM's.

We pretty much know the Hinkie is a genius and we know that he is experimenting. Is he making idiot moves? We have not idea. Will Hinkie be looked at in five years as the GM-genius that got us Lebron or the idiot GM who got us Embiid and made us the laughing stock that we still are.

I personally have no idea what the outcome will be since I am obviously not as good of a GM as many on this board are.

that's right, play the "aww shucks, nobody listens to me" card.

not at all if your read the post and its children

mreinman wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

bigbasketballs wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

nyk4ever wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:The bottom line is if the Sixers get Simmons in this draft Hinkie will be a genius.

he was a genius for getting embiid too, right?

Wow, then Minnesota must really have some geniuses running their organization to have both towns and wiggins. Is every team that gets the first pick in the draft a genius or just lucky? Being really bad doesn't make you a genius. Now if you are getting compensated for another team being really bad like the celtics are with Brooklyn, that makes you a genius.

See my other comment. I dont necessarily agree with this viewpoint. The general public tends to have an ends justify the means mentality which may absolve him in the end. That's all I was saying.

The Pelicans are 3-11 this year.

There are no one-player saviors in the NBA and I'm not sure a freshman playing his first 2 weeks of college ball will change that.

OK, OK, IM NOT SAYING WINNING THE LOTTERY WILL MAKE THEM GOOD. Actually, forget it, my point is not registering. Forget it.

hard to make any point to a crowd that has zero interest in being objective.

Hinkie may be a genius or he may just be an idiot (in peoples eyes). Every genius was first viewed as an idiot.

Is Hinkie making genius moves? We really have no clue since we are all pretty clueless even if we think that we are closet GM's.

We pretty much know the Hinkie is a genius and we know that he is experimenting. Is he making idiot moves? We have not idea. Will Hinkie be looked at in five years as the GM-genius that got us Lebron or the idiot GM who got us Embiid and made us the laughing stock that we still are.

I personally have no idea what the outcome will be since I am obviously not as good of a GM as many on this board are.

CrushAlot wrote:

mreinman wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

bigbasketballs wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

nyk4ever wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:The bottom line is if the Sixers get Simmons in this draft Hinkie will be a genius.

he was a genius for getting embiid too, right?

Wow, then Minnesota must really have some geniuses running their organization to have both towns and wiggins. Is every team that gets the first pick in the draft a genius or just lucky? Being really bad doesn't make you a genius. Now if you are getting compensated for another team being really bad like the celtics are with Brooklyn, that makes you a genius.

See my other comment. I dont necessarily agree with this viewpoint. The general public tends to have an ends justify the means mentality which may absolve him in the end. That's all I was saying.

The Pelicans are 3-11 this year.

There are no one-player saviors in the NBA and I'm not sure a freshman playing his first 2 weeks of college ball will change that.

OK, OK, IM NOT SAYING WINNING THE LOTTERY WILL MAKE THEM GOOD. Actually, forget it, my point is not registering. Forget it.

hard to make any point to a crowd that has zero interest in being objective.

Hinkie may be a genius or he may just be an idiot (in peoples eyes). Every genius was first viewed as an idiot.

Is Hinkie making genius moves? We really have no clue since we are all pretty clueless even if we think that we are closet GM's.

We pretty much know the Hinkie is a genius and we know that he is experimenting. Is he making idiot moves? We have not idea. Will Hinkie be looked at in five years as the GM-genius that got us Lebron or the idiot GM who got us Embiid and made us the laughing stock that we still are.

I personally have no idea what the outcome will be since I am obviously not as good of a GM as many on this board are.

There are areas that he just neglects in team building. Brett Brown said he is the veteran voice for the team because they don't have vets. The team he has built does look a lot like year one of a roster flush. Saric is reportedly leaning towards waiting until 2017 to come over so he can get paid more. He has lost his fan base. I can't imagine waiting for what Bobby Marks says will be another three to four years before they can compete for a playoff spot. Does it take a genius to do a 7 or 8 year rebuild before you can compete for a playoff spot?

Agreed, he is so obsessed with one characteristic of his rebuild that its all that matters to him. Draft picks are not the end-all-be-all. It can be the foundation, but need to take into account leadership, personnel management, fan interest (for homecourt advantage purpose), and some sort of fit. He has literally done none of that. He wants d-league talent to surround lottery picks. And the craziest thing of all is he has been doing this for 3 drafts now and only has 2 lottery picks currently on the floor, both of which play the same position. He is a genius in the fact that he has sold the organization and fanbase on a science project which ensures his job security in a way that most GM's in the league don't have because they are so committed to seeing this thing through, and now they are 3 years in and have no choice. Great for him, terrible for everyone else.

mreinman wrote:hard to make any point to a crowd that has zero interest in being objective.

Hinkie may be a genius or he may just be an idiot (in peoples eyes). Every genius was first viewed as an idiot.

Is Hinkie making genius moves? We really have no clue since we are all pretty clueless even if we think that we are closet GM's.

We pretty much know the Hinkie is a genius and we know that he is experimenting. Is he making idiot moves? We have not idea. Will Hinkie be looked at in five years as the GM-genius that got us Lebron or the idiot GM who got us Embiid and made us the laughing stock that we still are.

I personally have no idea what the outcome will be since I am obviously not as good of a GM as many on this board are.

I live for objective. So let's be objective.

When is it permissible to begin objectively qualifying Hinkie's effectiveness?

I subjectively perceive there to be a dynamic among his fans or his non-critics who regard themselves as open-minded to give him further credit for engineering another bad year. Each additional sub-20 win season just gives him yet another lottery asset and as a natural extension yet another future season it'll require for his plan to see fruition.

So objectively, when can be start judging? When is it fair to expect to see something resembling the premise of the game as opposed to more lottery balls?

If 5 years from now the cycle continues can we try to draw conclusions?

I'm really asking?

bigbasketballs wrote:

mreinman wrote:hard to make any point to a crowd that has zero interest in being objective.

Hinkie may be a genius or he may just be an idiot (in peoples eyes). Every genius was first viewed as an idiot.

Is Hinkie making genius moves? We really have no clue since we are all pretty clueless even if we think that we are closet GM's.

We pretty much know the Hinkie is a genius and we know that he is experimenting. Is he making idiot moves? We have not idea. Will Hinkie be looked at in five years as the GM-genius that got us Lebron or the idiot GM who got us Embiid and made us the laughing stock that we still are.

I personally have no idea what the outcome will be since I am obviously not as good of a GM as many on this board are.

I live for objective. So let's be objective.

When is it permissible to begin objectively qualifying Hinkie's effectiveness?

I subjectively perceive there to be a dynamic among his fans or his non-critics who regard themselves as open-minded to give him further credit for engineering another bad year. Each additional sub-20 win season just gives him yet another lottery asset and as a natural extension yet another future season it'll require for his plan to see fruition.

So objectively, when can be start judging? When is it fair to expect to see something resembling the premise of the game as opposed to more lottery balls?

If 5 years from now the cycle continues can we try to draw conclusions?

I'm really asking?

Valid question. I don't think that he can keep his job unless he strikes it big this off season in the draft (simmons) and / or FA/trade. No way the philly fans will take too much more of this.

When is it permissible to judge? Who knows ... who decides what is permissible?

He is going to need some luck too for this to work. So far he has not been lucky in the draft. He NEEDS the number one pick.

bigbasketballs wrote:

mreinman wrote:

bigbasketballs wrote:

mreinman wrote:hard to make any point to a crowd that has zero interest in being objective.

Hinkie may be a genius or he may just be an idiot (in peoples eyes). Every genius was first viewed as an idiot.

Is Hinkie making genius moves? We really have no clue since we are all pretty clueless even if we think that we are closet GM's.

We pretty much know the Hinkie is a genius and we know that he is experimenting. Is he making idiot moves? We have not idea. Will Hinkie be looked at in five years as the GM-genius that got us Lebron or the idiot GM who got us Embiid and made us the laughing stock that we still are.

I personally have no idea what the outcome will be since I am obviously not as good of a GM as many on this board are.

I live for objective. So let's be objective.

When is it permissible to begin objectively qualifying Hinkie's effectiveness?

I subjectively perceive there to be a dynamic among his fans or his non-critics who regard themselves as open-minded to give him further credit for engineering another bad year. Each additional sub-20 win season just gives him yet another lottery asset and as a natural extension yet another future season it'll require for his plan to see fruition.

So objectively, when can be start judging? When is it fair to expect to see something resembling the premise of the game as opposed to more lottery balls?

If 5 years from now the cycle continues can we try to draw conclusions?

I'm really asking?

Valid question. I don't think that he can keep his job unless he strikes it big this off season in the draft (simmons) and / or FA/trade. No way the philly fans will take too much more of this.

When is it permissible to judge? Who knows ... who decides what is permissible?

I think it's fair to say you just did to a deegree. You seem to conclude his window is closing.

He is going to need some luck too for this to work. So far he has not been lucky in the draft. He NEEDS the number one pick.

Which illuminates a shortcoming in the plan. He's taken an extreme route that at the end of the day is totally reliant upon on its very foundation something out of his control.

Is that an objective conclusion?

To that I'd again again the timetable he has to work in, which is no infinite, which is going to start turning these guys into FA's soon and one after the other, which is also not subjective.

Utterly subjective is the Lord of the Flies quality to the experiment in which he's dropping these young players off onto their own island and hoping they mature into a functioning society sans any guidance without 'killing' their NBA lives in the process.

I'm subjectively dubious its smart and wonder who the hell has the conch?

Yes its an objective conclusion but that may not affect the outcome of the experiment.

Needing luck does not illuminate the the shortcoming of the plan. It is always a required ingredient to any plan in sports.

Hinkie also believes that you can't rely on the luck of only hitting on 1 out of 5 lottery picks. He is trying to significantly increase his odds of hitting the jackpot.

I am not predicting success, I just see that there is method to the madness. If the last two years he was lucky enough to draft Towns and Wiggins, he may have looked much smarter than he is looking now. Nobody here wants to even entertain the plausible scenarios.

I think that there is a good chance that Hinkie will be fired within the year and even if he is fired, it will be too premature to judge him.

bigbasketballs wrote:

mreinman wrote:hard to make any point to a crowd that has zero interest in being objective.

Hinkie may be a genius or he may just be an idiot (in peoples eyes). Every genius was first viewed as an idiot.

Is Hinkie making genius moves? We really have no clue since we are all pretty clueless even if we think that we are closet GM's.

We pretty much know the Hinkie is a genius and we know that he is experimenting. Is he making idiot moves? We have not idea. Will Hinkie be looked at in five years as the GM-genius that got us Lebron or the idiot GM who got us Embiid and made us the laughing stock that we still are.

I personally have no idea what the outcome will be since I am obviously not as good of a GM as many on this board are.

I live for objective. So let's be objective.

When is it permissible to begin objectively qualifying Hinkie's effectiveness?

I subjectively perceive there to be a dynamic among his fans or his non-critics who regard themselves as open-minded to give him further credit for engineering another bad year. Each additional sub-20 win season just gives him yet another lottery asset and as a natural extension yet another future season it'll require for his plan to see fruition.

So objectively, when can be start judging? When is it fair to expect to see something resembling the premise of the game as opposed to more lottery balls?

If 5 years from now the cycle continues can we try to draw conclusions?

I'm really asking?

I believe he took over a 34-win team. We are in year 3 and the team is regressing. It is safe to say that after 5 years, it is highly unlikely this team will even meet the 34-win season when Hinkie took over. So i think it is safe to start judging now, because they simply aren't pacing themselves fast enough for the torture the fan base has endured. But of course things can always change. They need luck.

mreinman wrote:

bigbasketballs wrote:

mreinman wrote:

bigbasketballs wrote:

mreinman wrote:hard to make any point to a crowd that has zero interest in being objective.

Hinkie may be a genius or he may just be an idiot (in peoples eyes). Every genius was first viewed as an idiot.

Is Hinkie making genius moves? We really have no clue since we are all pretty clueless even if we think that we are closet GM's.

We pretty much know the Hinkie is a genius and we know that he is experimenting. Is he making idiot moves? We have not idea. Will Hinkie be looked at in five years as the GM-genius that got us Lebron or the idiot GM who got us Embiid and made us the laughing stock that we still are.

I personally have no idea what the outcome will be since I am obviously not as good of a GM as many on this board are.

I live for objective. So let's be objective.

When is it permissible to begin objectively qualifying Hinkie's effectiveness?

I subjectively perceive there to be a dynamic among his fans or his non-critics who regard themselves as open-minded to give him further credit for engineering another bad year. Each additional sub-20 win season just gives him yet another lottery asset and as a natural extension yet another future season it'll require for his plan to see fruition.

So objectively, when can be start judging? When is it fair to expect to see something resembling the premise of the game as opposed to more lottery balls?

If 5 years from now the cycle continues can we try to draw conclusions?

I'm really asking?

Valid question. I don't think that he can keep his job unless he strikes it big this off season in the draft (simmons) and / or FA/trade. No way the philly fans will take too much more of this.

When is it permissible to judge? Who knows ... who decides what is permissible?

I think it's fair to say you just did to a deegree. You seem to conclude his window is closing.

He is going to need some luck too for this to work. So far he has not been lucky in the draft. He NEEDS the number one pick.

Which illuminates a shortcoming in the plan. He's taken an extreme route that at the end of the day is totally reliant upon on its very foundation something out of his control.

Is that an objective conclusion?

To that I'd again again the timetable he has to work in, which is no infinite, which is going to start turning these guys into FA's soon and one after the other, which is also not subjective.

Utterly subjective is the Lord of the Flies quality to the experiment in which he's dropping these young players off onto their own island and hoping they mature into a functioning society sans any guidance without 'killing' their NBA lives in the process.

I'm subjectively dubious its smart and wonder who the hell has the conch?

Yes its an objective conclusion but that may not affect the outcome of the experiment.

Needing luck does not illuminate the the shortcoming of the plan. It is always a required ingredient to any plan in sports.

True, but Hinkie didn't design his plan with a net, which we'll get to in a minute.

I am not predicting success, I just see that there is method to the madness. If the last two years he was lucky enough to draft Towns and Wiggins, he may have looked much smarter than he is looking now. Nobody here wants to even entertain the plausible scenarios.

I think that there is a good chance that Hinkie will be fired within the year and even if he is fired, it will be too premature to judge him.

Everyone sees the plan. Your language suggest a underlying quality one can only recognize if you're smart enough. Both the method and the madness are perfectly obvious.

But NO GM gets to operate in a vacuum in a commercial enterprise. Hinkie's genius can and should also be judged by his ability to see it through.

If the mousetrap he built doesn't give him an out after the egg timer goes off, then he engineered his own demise, which only gets you so many genius points.

I think you can 100% fairly judge someone on their ability to retain their own job, particularly when it'd be real harder to argue he wasn't given an unusually long rope.

martin wrote:Hinkie may have missed one of the biggest jackpots in the history of the last 10 years: KP.

If KP progresses as he has - even if that levels off after a bit - should we conclude Hinkie has failed?

Did he scout KP enough? Looks like the answer is No.

I think Hinkie's Sixers experiment is based off of getting a franchise player in the draft, if that is the case, why didn't he draft KP over OK4? OK4 was the safer pick, right?

Absolutely agree! I think that he caved to the fan based by taking Ok4. Could you imagine how many crying kids there would have been in Philly if he took kp? He would have had to go into hiding.

He did scout KP. From what I read, no other GM saw him more in person overseas.

Again, was this bad luck or bad move? What would phil have done if he had the #3 pick? I would love to think that he would have taken KP but I think that he takes Ok4.

And with all the Hinkie talk, how about Kupchak? At least he has a city that can attract players.