Chandler Parsons and Chase Budinger are some of the many notable exceptions to your statement. I think you mean to say they aren't great at drafting in the first round, which I agree on whole heartily.
Give it up. All you can spout is general nonsense that supposedly lumps them together. Morey has made mistakes, but equating him with Hinkie is just intellectually dumb and lazy.
It's funny, because Tad Brown was livid when we saw him at a Blazer game and I mentioned that some compare the two in the same light. The Rockets management is not, and never will be about tanking. If you can't see this team's successes in the Morey era go be a Warriors fan.
Jesus Christ nevermind. That guy is crazy. Sounded like I was reading a Harry Potter book. I think reading too many fantasy book can make cuckoo. Those comparisons he makes, very Morey-like.
Yeah well.. Hinkie didn't draft well in any round. With all those picks.. What matters how many picks you have when you don't even have one star potential healthy player in the roster right now. Even with their best case scenario, that Saric would decide to come over next, Embiid being healthy enough to play 15 minutes a game and non b2b and they get to draft at 4 one of Murray or Dunn that team IF EVERYTHING GOES WELL, and most of the picks hit and not bust, would still need 3-4 years to even be in the conversationfor a outside contender. Because that's what young teams do, they take 3-4 years to actually do well. By that time Noel, Embiid and Okafor would need to be paid/traded. The problem wasn't only tanking. It was wasting years of player development. Morey is MUCH better than Hinkie. Morey hasn't pissed off agents, and he does a good job selling himself and in PR. Maybe some people hate him for it, but he goes out and defends his job. Meanwhile Hinkie had fully denied access for years to all Philly reporters and wasn't accessible even for national writers until recently. And the circumstances are vastly different too. It's one thing to not care that much for characters in a VET team and quite another in a all youth team. I'm sure if Morey was in Hinkie's place he would have managed to keep his job if nothing else. Probably would have drafted Porzingis as well since he wouldnt' have pissed off the agents.
People here always say Les wouldn't let Morey tank. How Les holds Morey back blah blah.. Thank you Les.
there is a balance lol in the NBA You get top tier talent, do not trade them after 2, 3 years and build a playoff team step by step Hinkie did not do that. Hinkie also was unlucky with injuries to Noelle...... Perhaps Hinkie and Morey should work together again
And the first time there is a minimum shuffling, the coach got fired and the players are not motivated.
I tried reading his resignation letter too, but wow, the guy is literally delusional. He might need to be put on suicide watch or at least medication because he seems mentally unstable. On top of that, he's a terrible researcher. Lol at fabricating quotes and attributing them to presidents. Whoever thinks this guy will ever get a job as a GM of an NBA team ever again is as delusional as Hinkie and his "process."
What's horrifying is the overwhelming support for the "brilliance" of that letter, from highly respected writers to fans. Even going so far to analyze it paragraph by paragraph and quote it like a masterpiece. Like I really hope Popovich and Carlisle, Kerr, maybe even Ernie Johnson, respected people in the NBA, have a chance to glance at that bull**** and someone asks him about on TNT, so maybe at the very last people will think twice. Scary fan responses: "This should be shown to kids all around the world, what a great man and example Sam Hinkie is. It's a shame." *FACEPALM*
Poor Kwame da Klown - he tried to read the letter but he started talking about math that was more complicated than counting to 21 and referring to Tversky and he got intimidated and went back to watching "First Take" with Skip & Stephen A.
I get that many have pointed out how the one season Morey stopped his shuffling turned out to be the most disastrous one. But the assumption behind this line of thought is that shuffling wins and stability lose, which is of course the proverbial logical fallacy of equating correlation with causation. The fact that this current team--the team he thought was worth keeping--needs to be overhauled shows that Morey did not know (unlike some of his fans think) what type of players he should keep and what type of players he should let go. What he knows is how much MARKET value a player has and trade them or sign them accordingly. And he is damn good at it. He is like the day traders in the stock market rather than long term investors, focusing on the trade value rather than long term value of a stock.
Hinkie didn't succeed for a number of reasons: 1) He simply did not get lucky. Not just in terms of the lottery bounces or injuries- but statistically speaking- Hinkie should have found a nice "diamond in the rough" guy. Look at how many d-leaguers Hinkie gave an opportunity to. You would imagine (and this is probably what he was banking on) that at least one of those guys would have had a linsanity story and turned out to be a starter or at least a rotational player. I don't follow the 76ers, but it seemed like that wasn't the case. I think Hinkie was really banking on selling high on a lot of diamond in the rough guys (like what Morey did what Landry) but that just never happened. 2) More importantly, he didn't try to develop any of the younger guys he did have. Look at how OKC did it. Yes, they had Durant, Jeff Green, Westbrook etc. but those guys came into a vet heavy team. IMO a lot of the 76ers' young talent would be miles better if they had some older guys to learn from. In all honesty, I think Hinkie was too focused on the trading aspect. I don't think he ever intended for Noel, Embiid, and Okafor to ever play with each other. I think his plan was to trade Noel during his rookie year or shortly after. The problem is, I think everyone else knew that also- so he either had to sell low or keep him. I understand the logic of keeping him- but drafting Okafor when it was clear that they would have to keep Noel was just dumb. He probably should have traded down or picked up Herzonja or Mudiay. In this sense, Hinkie reminds me a lot of David Kahn- in that he was more concerned with drafting "the third best player in the draft" with the 3rd pick versus picking "the best fit for Philly". It's one thing to draft BPA when there's a big gap in talent (like in the mid 1st or 2nd round) it's another thing to do so very early on when the gap is relatively small.
but that's sort of the point. people (not saying you and this post isn't directed at you) tend to talk about stability like it's a tonic for everything and that if you just keep a team together, they'll just keep getting better and you'll win a championship. and of course that's not how it works. nobody does that. look at the spurs, the model of stability according to most. while they have actually been pretty stable the previous few years, look at them over the past 2 decades. they've had tons of different players and supporting casts in there. the stability has only been pop, duncan, parker, and ginobili - the championship core and the championship coach. that's the only time you should be stable, when you have those (or some close approximation). if you don't, there's no point to stability. and there are only so many championship cores and championship coaches to go around. you should avoid stability until you have those. i've liked a ton of players that have been on the rockets in morey's tenure. it would be great to still root for lowry and dragic and hayes and scola. but paying them what they want and keeping the gang all together when the gang wins 45 games a year makes no sense. you have to churn. until you find a harden. and then you keep that piece stable. and you churn with others. sure there's a chance that someone won't play as hard as possible because they think they won't be with the team next year (although all of the guys i mentioned certainly played hard), but that's the trade-off. i suppose you can keep everyone happy from the 45 win gang, or you can keep trying to build the 55-60 win gang. people say it makes the players just feel like assets. but that's what every single team in the league does. i think people just somehow attach that "assets" words to analytical teams because they seem to be more about assigning market values to players (even if they never do publicly). but no team in the league who isn't winning 55-60 games has players who think there's no chance they'll be traded. they all know it's a business and have no reason to expect job security when they're on a 45 win team. stability is overrated unless you have something for which to be stable.
