Sam Hinkie: The anti-Olshey

For the record: I'll take "dumb luck" over "no luck" any day of the week.

 

Let's play the "Which Front Office Drafts Best" game. To my mind, in recent years, Golden State and Utah are clear winners. In fact, I would say Utah has the front office I'm most envious of, because they've consistently built winners in a market that's, if anything, smaller and less attractive than ours. And they've done it by a mixture of great drafting and canny signings (Joe Ingles). Of course I'm a fan of all their foreign players, but Donovan Mitchell is their crown jewel right now.

 

This seems relevant to the discussion:
https://247sports.com/nba/mavericks...l-star-selections-by-draft-position-102419898

 

Do you guys really think there's no way to build contenders without bottoming out?

How is Boston doing this? How about Houston? Hell, what about Utah or Toronto? Even before CP forced his way to HOU, they were on their way to contention, so don't bring that market size/free agent destination argument here. These are teams that didn't tank their way to the bottom and are still winning in the playoffs with an outside shot at the finals.

And on the other end of the spectrum, look at teams trying to follow Hinkie's approach: Phoenix-- no, Orlando-- not even close, SAC-- lol, Bulls-- i'd rather have our future, Hawks-- 0 building blocks yet.

Bottom line is regardless of approach, we just need to be smart with our draft picks and judicious in handing out contracts. But I'd rather win 50 games and get lucky with a pick or signing than building yet again from scratch.

 

Except didn't the Rockets kind of do it with Hakeem and the Spurs definitely did it with Robinson/Duncan. You start by drafting young big men that time more time to develop and are less likely to contribute to winning right away, then you close in on wings and guards, hoping for that really great one at some point in your 3-4 year lottery window.

 

Depends on the market. The game theory answer for Portland is "probably not." The only way they've gotten close in the last 15 years is by drafting high and drafting well, the only trouble is that they either got killed by career-ending injuries and/or the guys they picked didn't turn out to be one of those top-10 players you need to pull you to title contention.

If the assumption that you need an MVP-caliber player to reasonably contend is true, then the other two primary methods of player acquisition are longer shots than the draft.

 

In the last twelve years, we've had

#1- Oden
#2- Aldridge
#6- Roy/Dame
#10- CJ/Collins
#11- Bayless /Meyers

3 all stars and a big old franchise changing bust at #1.

Looking at Philly since 06:

1. Simmons/Fultz
2. Turner
3. Embiid/ Okafor
10. Elfrid Payton
11. MCW
13. Thabo
15. Harkless

So many busts. They got lucky. This has nothing to do with probability, etc. Embiid played 31 games total in his first three years. He was on his way to being the next Oden. One more injury to him, and all they would have had to show for their embarrassing display of three consecutive < 19 win seasons would have been Simmons.

 

The Rockets tank was so obvious and unprecedented at the time it was featured in a comic strip. And if not for a coin flip, he'd have been ours. I called heads, BTW.

 

Just because they drafted poorly doesn't mean it wasn't a good plan. Substitute Turner with Cousins or George (who went after him), substituted MCW with Adams or Giannis, and things start looking differently. They had a great strategy, they just chose poorly. Apart from obvious injuries, the last time we did a lottery window we did very well and probably had a team that was good enough to contend, if they hadn't fallen apart physically.

 

They got lucky. No one was going to draft Giannis in the top 10. Or Porzingis over Okafor. Or pass over ET. The same way KP would have been flogged for passing on Oden for KD. GS' highest pick over the past ten years have been Ekpe Udoh (6th) and Steph/Barnes (7th), and they're one of the all time great teams. They didn't completely bottom out to get where they are.

This Philly fanbase had to endure three consecutive seasons where they won 19, 18, and 10(!) games and deliberately tried to lose as many games as possible. There is very little joy in following that kind of team, especially when the rewards aren't necessarily guaranteed.

 

I'm all on the fire Olshey bandwagon because his moves have been shortsighted he doesn't see to stick to a plan. But I'd much rather have a GM actually try to build a roster that will be sustainable and win instead of losing every game possible.

What Hinkie did is easy. Trade away any legit talent and lose for 4 consecutive years. That isn't a strategy-- there is no nuance in that.

 

Yeah, but the Blazers have too often had "dumb no luck" in the past with top draft picks.

 

Golden State is a major market in San Fran that draws free agents. You absolutely cannot compare Portland to GS. Yes, they did draft well, but they have also benefitted from free agency which does not happen in Portland, unless the target likes to fish.

I did not mention Porzingis, so that is a straw man. You also cannot compare ET and MCW as total no brainers in the same camp as Oden. Neither were top picks and were in a pool over other talented players.

Unless Dame can figure out a way to use his charm to draw FA to Portland, our path is through the draft and clever trades for value.

 

All snark aside, no, but Olshey kept working the deal and was in a position to get Paul when the Commish decided that the Lakers deal wasn't in New Orleans' best long term interests.

The OP made the usual straw man argument that Olshey is content with just being a "nice little team" that makes the playoffs and gets ousted in the first round. If you read the article I linked, in his Clippers GM role, Olshey started his off-season moves by laying out scenarios to dramatically upgrade the Clips by acquiring one of three superstars: Dwight Howard, Deron Williams, or Chris Paul. He was ultimately able to pull off the trade to acquire Chris Paul. The important thing to note is that he kept his assets (Eric Gordon, Kaman, and Aminu) available and ready until the right deal came around. People keep posting on this board, "what's the most we can get for CJ?". I'd be willing to wager that Olshey has a plan for this summer with trade targets picked out and he's only going to move CJ and other players if it nets a superstar in return. I'd be surprised if Leonard isn't near the top of the list. The point is that Olshey's record is that he has a plan with multiple contingencies and he keeps after it until he gets what he wants. If it doesn't work out, the plan adjusts to new targets. That's an actual plan as opposed to "Let's blow things up and keep tanking until we get good."

 

Neither Roy nor Oden had a clean medical history. They took them knowing (or should have known?) that they were a massive risk health-wise.

 

It's inelegant and ugly, but there's no doubt it's a strategy and it's starting to prove to be brilliant.

 

Before KD, the biggest FA draws for the GS team were Iggy and Livingston. Not really world beaters even given the pseudo finals MVP award that Iggy received (that should have gone to Steph/Lebron). They got KD the season after they won 73 games and even his addition was serendipitous with the massive jump in cap. If we make smart trades and contend, I'm sure we can get in the market for top level FAs as well.

 

Let's see, Boston bottomed out in 2006-2007. Traded for Allen and Garnett, then traded stars for draft picks. Then bottomed out again in 13-14.

Boston, Houston and Toronto are all big markets.

Utah bottomed out a few years ago as well.

Also, ALL of those teams have far superior GMs than we do.

 

First of all, I think we have different definitions of bottoming out. Utah winning 25 games for one year and bouncing back to try to fight for the playoffs the next two is not equivalent to what Hinkie did. Same thing with BOS tanking for one year to try to get Oden/KD. They missed the playoffs twice. Again, not what Hinkie did.

You're missing my point about markets. Their success now has nothing to do with the free agents they landed (there aren't many, that they did land, btw).

 

The Rockets were 48-34 in Olajuwon's rookie year. People would be complaining that we were stuck in mediocrity. It took 10 years for them to win a title and who knows if even that would've happened if Jordan didn't play baseball.

Robinson didn't play for his first two years because of the Navy. His rookie year they won 56 games and were good every year until he got hurt. They then got lucky jumping Boston for the 1st pick. They won a title 12 years after Robinson was drafted.

Lets say we traded Dame for #1 and drafted Ayton. Do you think that would set us on a path to contention? Wouldn't we be lucky to get someone as good as Dame? Most picks aren't. Why did the Rockets and Spurs get over 10 years to win a title and the Blazers for sure won't ever contend after 6 years of Dame? As discussed before it was Drexler's 7th year that the Blazers finally did anything in the playoffs. Jordan didn't win a title until his 7th year either.