Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What if Philly didn't tank?
#1
I was just reading about how successful the 76s tank job was, because they got two Top20(?) players. 

So I thought about an alternative timeline where Philly didn't trank and how their team could look.

I think something like

Jure Holiday - Butler - Covington - Grant - Holmes could have been easyly done. 

Is this illusional or thinkable?
[-] The following 2 users Like Mapka's post:
  • Dahlsim, KillerLeft


#2
(09-27-2020, 06:13 AM)Mapka Wrote: I was just reading about how successful the 76s tank job was, because they got two Top20(?) players. 

So I thought about an alternative timeline where Philly didn't trank and how their team could look.

I think something like

Jure Holiday - Butler - Covington - Grant - Holmes could have been easyly done. 

Is this illusional or thinkable?

The tanking years of the "The Process" were under Hinkie.  That really only amounted to 3 years of intentional tanking followed by some unintentional time of just being bad because Embiid has time lost to injury, then Simmons started off with an injury loss year, later Fultz became another injury casualty. 

In your scenario I think only the Jrue Holiday trade could easily be rolled back as realistic 'alternative' to the tanking.  Jrue wasn't a bad trade a time as he turned into 2 lottery picks, Nerlens Noel and Dario Saric (via Elfrid Payton Pic).  Jrue continued to grow into a stud after he was able to stay healthy longer but overall Hinkie's tanking strategy left the Philly with a stacked treasure of picks and the ability to stack young talent. 

The trades and decisions the franchise made afterwards were pretty much like any other franchise, not from tanking but franchise decisions like losing Jimmy Butler and cycling through young talent like Covington, Grant, Holmes and a revolving roster of players many of which are now looking very good or at least productive. 
That includes guys you mentioned and others like TJ McConnell, Shamet, Markelle Fultz (who appears to be recovering and bouncing back), Nerlens Noel and this season Boban and Trey Burke showed productivity and promise in Dallas after a cycle through Philly.   

Now they have finally rotated the Coach they hired for the Tanking years, Brett Brown, probably waiting too long for that move. 
There are many 'alternative' rosters realistically because the bottom line is that franchise has yet to settle in and stick with any consistent supporting roster around their Embiid/Simmons core.


#3
In hindsight it's easy to imagine a path for any team to assemble a really good team over a 3-5 year period regardless of existing assets or draft position.  Evaluating talent and fit is apparently harder in real time.
[-] The following 2 users Like Benskix2's post:
  • Dahlsim, KillerLeft


#4
Thanks for your answers.
The team I proposed is then to "optimistic". Didn't want to play the if we took Giannis game. Just used players they cycled trough to stay as near as possible.

The thing I was after, was something a little else. I got the feeling Butler couldn't fit the Philly core of Simmons/Embid like he didn't with Wiggins/Towns and both "cores" are influenced by tanking. 
If Philly didn't tank they had Jrue/Jimmy and pieces as we asume the trade happens. 
I'd take them 20 times out of 10 over the other four.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Mapka's post:
  • KillerLeft


#5
Tanking is tricky. 

Our Mavs did it for a year or two and it paid off, but only because they lucked into a generational player. If the prize had been two DSJ level guys, they'd be probably still be tanking, but not by choice. 

I think it makes sense when you do it for an extremely short stint every once in a while, like Golden State this year or when the Spurs got Tim Duncan. 

But yeah, the Philly thing was kind of ridiculous. Still, I would rather have seen Hinkie get the chance to see the process through, if only for entertainment.
[-] The following 2 users Like KillerLeft's post:
  • Dahlsim, Mapka


#6
What David Robinson didn't get injured in 1997? 
What if the Wolves drafted Curry instead of Flynn in 2009?
What if Kings drafted Luka instead of Bagley? 

Honestly, tanking or not, it is about executing your plan the right way, more than the plan itself. 
But tanking at some point is inevitable, whether by choice or not. This is how the league is designed
[-] The following 2 users Like khaled1987's post:
  • Dahlsim, KillerLeft


#7
(09-30-2020, 08:39 AM)khaled1987 Wrote: What David Robinson didn't get injured in 1997? 
What if the Wolves drafted Curry instead of Flynn in 2009?
What if Kings drafted Luka instead of Bagley? 

Honestly, tanking or not, it is about executing your plan the right way, more than the plan itself. 
But tanking at some point is inevitable, whether by choice or not. This is how the league is designed

This is true.  Remember also that Philly's particular situation when Hinkie took over made the tanking strategy logical. 
They were cap strapped and asset depleted.  This was after the Andrew Bynum disaster. It's not an every team situation. 

The franchise is still in a better position today despite a pretty poor job of executing in the Post-Process era. 
The list of players you posted and I added to were all productive players that were acquired by Philly at some point because they had those tanking assets. If they failed to recognize and keep the right talent, that really can't be blamed on the tank strategy. 

I agree it would have been more interesting to watch the tank starter get to execute a few years after the tanking.


#8
(10-01-2020, 02:56 PM)Dahlsim Wrote:
(09-30-2020, 08:39 AM)khaled1987 Wrote: What David Robinson didn't get injured in 1997? 
What if the Wolves drafted Curry instead of Flynn in 2009?
What if Kings drafted Luka instead of Bagley? 

Honestly, tanking or not, it is about executing your plan the right way, more than the plan itself. 
But tanking at some point is inevitable, whether by choice or not. This is how the league is designed

This is true.  Remember also that Philly's particular situation when Hinkie took over made the tanking strategy logical. 
They were cap strapped and asset depleted.  This was after the Andrew Bynum disaster. It's not an every team situation. 

The franchise is still in a better position today despite a pretty poor job of executing in the Post-Process era. 
The list of players you posted and I added to were all productive players that were acquired by Philly at some point because they had those tanking assets. If they failed to recognize and keep the right talent, that really can't be blamed on the tank strategy. 

I agree it would have been more interesting to watch the tank starter get to execute a few years after the tanking.

I think any of this useful players was to be had with mediocre picks and capspace and players you got out of this two. Please correct me if I'm wrong. 

Burning their assets is one thing. Fultz lol. Not extending Butler lol. Trading for Harris and maxing him lol. Giving Horford this albatross lol.

But I see their main problem  in still not having (again not having) someone to lead them. Which is also the problem leading to all this lols.

Embid and Simmons seam to be more into themself and against themself than into winning. That's an direct product of PHILLYs tanking approach to me. 

Let's say they trade one of them, how will the other fit with the new guy. 

They will have to trade both of them to clean up the mess.

Something every successful "tankjob" has in common, is keeping a roster full of vets.


  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

What if Philly didn't tank?00