If Josh decides to have the process here in 24, would you be for or against?

[Searchingforaqb]

9 hours ago, Stihl89 said:

1000% for. There’s not a single player on the team I’d be hurt losing. A true total from the ground rebuild is the one thing this team hasn’t done in 20+ years. Do it right 

Yep, the only indispensable player this team has had for the past 15 years is Williams 

 

I wouldn't be hurt about losing anyone but keep one of Payne/Allen

[KDawg]

You can’t really do much with it in a complete rebuild type of situation.

 

But you commit to negotiating with players before their contract expires and trading them if you don’t think you get a deal done.

 

You use draft capital wisely. Moving up, or down, to nag the talent you believe can make your roster better while maximizing value. 
 

You focus on not overpaying anyone. If the market doesn’t dictate a large sum but they won’t sign unless we give it, trade them if they are currently rostered or move on to the next target. Smart drafting is essential.

[kingdaddy]

Sixers fan here.....Harris only went along with the process because his GM, Sam Hinkie, convinced him it was the way to go. It worked perfectly to but the Sixers blew the lottery picks year after year after year. No way Harris does the process here but if he did I'd be fine with it. It was actually fun to follow while it was ongoing.

[El Mexican]

10 hours ago, 88Comrade2000 said:

Would you be in favor of this or against it?

 

For me, if braintrust determined this was the best path; I’ll be all for it.

 

Can't see what's the problem by cleaning house?

 

They need to trade the players that have any value at all to fill huge gaps on the team, starting with our O-line.

 

Terry and some guys in the D-line should be traded ASAP.

[PeterMP]

51 minutes ago, kingdaddy said:

Sixers fan here.....Harris only went along with the process because his GM, Sam Hinkie, convinced him it was the way to go. It worked perfectly to but the Sixers blew the lottery picks year after year after year. No way Harris does the process here but if he did I'd be fine with it. It was actually fun to follow while it was ongoing.

 

Just to be clear, it wasn't like Hinkie had been GM and then convinced Harris on the Process.  Hinkie was hired with the understanding that he would start and over see the process.  Hinkie was working with Rockets and was hired to begin the process.  

 

Hinkie had previously interviewed for a GM job with the Sixers.  It is likely that they discussed tearing everything down during that interview, and Harris went in another direction and promoted somebody from within.  After that failed, he went back to Hinkie.  But Harris must have accepted that it was the proper course on his own.  It wasn't like Hinkie was there on a regular basis advocating for the process. 

Edited October 7, 2023 by PeterMP

[PeterMP]

39 minutes ago, El Mexican said:

 

Can't see what's the problem by cleaning house?

 

They need to trade the players that have any value at all to fill huge gaps on the team, starting with our O-line.

 

Terry and some guys in the D-line should be traded ASAP.

 

The problem is that in trading Terry, you accelerate the effect of his signing bonus which impacts their salary cap.  That has a negative impact on their ability to actually bring in talent.  Then you take into his yearly salary and what teams would want him and have cap space for him, and there's not much of a market for him, so you'll probably not get enough back to get a player as good as he is.  

 

The end result is that it probably doesn't make much sense to trade Terry.

 

The guys that FA's at the end of the year, you could trade now and that works.  Maybe somebody like St. Juste.  Just from a Roster management stand point, I'm not sure why Crowder is on the team.  I wouldn't have signed him to start with.  I doubt you'd get anything in a trade for Crowder, but I'd cut him.  I don't think they've had anybody that properly valued a roster spot since Casserly was here.

Edited October 7, 2023 by PeterMP

[illone]

It would probably look slightly different than what you’ve described as there are still valuable pieces in the building. 
 

I’d imagine the overhaul would be more from the top down i.e. bring in a true GM type that would be responsible to make these decisions, not ownership. 
 

Last thing I’d want is another meddling owner that knows very little about football to be anywhere near those types of decisions. 
 

Save this thread for the offseason, though. This feels more like sour grapes after a dumb loss than actual strategy that produces positive outcomes. 

[DCSaints_fan]

I don't ever recall any team ever doing full roster teardown in a single year.  Even if you wanted to, it is impractical to cut/trade everyone because of cap hits.  You can turn over the roster completely in maybe three years.

Edited October 7, 2023 by DCSaints_fan

[NewCliche21]

10 hours ago, KDawg said:

Who are we trading?

 

Unhappy fans for happy funs, obvi.

[method man]

Separate topic but I am liking someone in the Roseman mold as the FO leader. What I mean by that is a well rounded executive who understands analytics, contracts, cap, strategy, negotiation, scouting, etc. The issue with most NFL GMs is they are one dimensional or limited. A lot of these guys rose in the ranks as personnel people but I feel they haven’t mastered all elements. I would almost rather have a guy who may be weaker on personnel and scouting but has fantastic lieutenants he can fall back on for that element. One crazy idea would be for Josh & co to go outside the box and bring in a well respected powerful agent like Mulugheta. This tactic has paid off in other sports like the NBA - Bob Myers was an agent before coming to the Warriors

[NoVaSkins21]

32 minutes ago, method man said:

Separate topic but I am liking someone in the Roseman mold as the FO leader. What I mean by that is a well rounded executive who understands analytics, contracts, cap, strategy, negotiation, scouting, etc. The issue with most NFL GMs is they are one dimensional or limited. A lot of these guys rose in the ranks as personnel people but I feel they haven’t mastered all elements. I would almost rather have a guy who may be weaker on personnel and scouting but has fantastic lieutenants he can fall back on for that element. One crazy idea would be for Josh & co to go outside the box and bring in a well respected powerful agent like Mulugheta. This tactic has paid off in other sports like the NBA - Bob Myers was an agent before coming to the Warriors

Here's hoping they can find someone in the Roseman mold that is shrewd in drafting and good at attracting FA  They've been lacking in this area for so long and been behind the 8 ball.  Here's hoping that Harris has someone in mind already for GM.  

[Rufus T Firefly]

15 hours ago, KDawg said:

You can’t really do much with it in a complete rebuild type of situation.

 

But you commit to negotiating with players before their contract expires and trading them if you don’t think you get a deal done.

 

You use draft capital wisely. Moving up, or down, to nag the talent you believe can make your roster better while maximizing value. 
 

You focus on not overpaying anyone. If the market doesn’t dictate a large sum but they won’t sign unless we give it, trade them if they are currently rostered or move on to the next target. Smart drafting is essential.

There's actually plenty you can do with a full tear down style rebuild. In reality it would have been more beneficial a year or two earlier though. 

 

The questions are whether this team is the one to do it with and what actual deals could be pulled off. And whether to consider it or not probably depends mainly on Howell.

 

The issue with not doing something drastic is this team could be stuck (again) in a mediocrity trap. The good players are becoming expensive and not far from passing their prime, while there are many holes to fill to become a real contender and the team is too good to draft high. I know some people think after the Chicago game that we're headed for a top 5 pick, but that's nonsense. We have these kinds of breakouts every year. 

[KDawg]

5 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

There's actually plenty you can do with a full tear down style rebuild. In reality it would have been more beneficial a year or two earlier though. 

 

The questions are whether this team is the one to do it with and what actual deals could be pulled off. And whether to consider it or not probably depends mainly on Howell.

 

The issue with not doing something drastic is this team could be stuck (again) in a mediocrity trap. The good players are becoming expensive and not far from passing their prime, while there are many holes to fill to become a real contender and the team is too good to draft high. I know some people think after the Chicago game that we're headed for a top 5 pick, but that's nonsense. We have these kinds of breakouts every year. 

Salary cap means you can’t.

[Rufus T Firefly]

13 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

The problem is that in trading Terry, you accelerate the effect of his signing bonus which impacts their salary cap.  That has a negative impact on their ability to actually bring in talent.  Then you take into his yearly salary and what teams would want him and have cap space for him, and there's not much of a market for him, so you'll probably not get enough back to get a player as good as he is.  

 

The end result is that it probably doesn't make much sense to trade Terry.

So, if you are truly "rebuilding" then the fact that you lose out on cap resources to sign players for a year isn't really the issue you should be focusing on.

 

And I completely disagree on McLaurin's trade value. A WR at his level who would cost a team 17-18 mil for the next two years would be a vary valued trade commodity. 

1 minute ago, KDawg said:

Salary cap means you can’t.

It doesn't, no. 

 

The problem is defining terms. I mean, could we trade all our high-priced players today? No, you're right. Could we move most of them within the next year? Easily. 

 

Obviously it isn't going to happen. And, again, I am not necessarily saying it should. But it definitely can. 

[Daniel.redskins]

We are not trading Terry, he is so good. McLaughlin, Payne, and Allen are the only safe players (I can't image the new regime would get rid of those guys). Will probably resign either Sweat or Young. Everything else is on the table. Hopefully Howell and EB impress enough to keep. If Howell keeps on his current path, he will finish top 10 in passing yards. Really can't ask for more from a first year starter. This team needs to be rebuilt starting with o-line and linebackers.  

Edited October 7, 2023 by Daniel.redskins

[XxSpearheadxX]

All I want is something that instills optimism. Whatever that is, including a total strip down, is better than last Thursday 

[Rufus T Firefly]

48 minutes ago, Daniel.redskins said:

We are not trading Terry, he is so good. McLaughlin, Payne, and Allen are the only safe players (I can't image the new regime would get rid of those guys). Will probably resign either Sweat or Young. Everything else is on the table. Hopefully Howell and EB impress enough to keep. If Howell keeps on his current path, he will finish top 10 in passing yards. Really can't ask for more from a first year starter. This team needs to be rebuilt starting with o-line and linebackers.  

So then that's nothing close to a rebuild. Which is a fine position to take, But you can't say you want a rebuild but hold on to all your good and expensive players. It's one or the other. 

[PeterMP]

9 hours ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

So, if you are truly "rebuilding" then the fact that you lose out on cap resources to sign players for a year isn't really the issue you should be focusing on.

 

And I completely disagree on McLaurin's trade value. A WR at his level who would cost a team 17-18 mil for the next two years would be a vary valued trade commodity. 

It doesn't, no. 

 

The problem is defining terms. I mean, could we trade all our high-priced players today? No, you're right. Could we move most of them within the next year? Easily. 

 

Obviously it isn't going to happen. And, again, I am not necessarily saying it should. But it definitely can. 

 

You can look at what other WRs were worth and get a sense for what he's likely to bring back.  The Eagles gave up a 2022 1st round pick which was #18 over all and a 3rd round pick which was 101 overall.  AJ Brown is a better player, still had a year on his rookie deal, and was traded in the offseason so there would be more competition to get him and the team that traded for him had him for the full season that year. As part of the trade, the Eagles did give him a big new contract but with a year left on his rookie deal they also had room to negotiate and his contract that year resulted in a cap hit of under a $1 million.

 

Washington is not likely getting a 1st and 3rd for McLaurin.  Here's a site that reviews the other recent WR trades and talks about trading McLaurin to the Colts.  They start with Washington getting a 1st even up for McLaurin, but then pivot to that's more than what the Colts will likely to give up.

 

https://atozsports.com/indianapolis/colts-three-trade-ideas-for-commanders-wr-terry-mclaurin/

 

They settle on Taylor and a 3rd pick.  That doesn't sound like an incredible commodity.

 

McLaurin was a 3rd round pick, but he's been very productive for a 3rd round pick.  That same draft there were 2 WRs taken in the first round, and he's realistically done better than both of them.  AJ Brown and Debo Samuels in the same draft as 2nd picks have been better than him probably.  In the draft the year before, there were 2 first WRs and he's preformed at about the same level as them.  If you go back and do a re-draft of any of those drafts, McLaurin is going to warrant a 1st round grade, and you aren't likely going to get that back for him.

 

And even if you are rebuilding you'll need to protect and have people for your young QB to throw to so that they can perform in a reasonable offense.  Also the nature of the NFL since so many people play is that you can't gut the team and get people signed in a few years.  In any given year, there are going to people that make sense to sign to longer term contracts even if you are rebuilding.  The NBA is very different where you really only play 8 guys or so.  And even in the NBA where cap space is used to bring back bad contracts and get future assets, having cap space has value.  But what you do with the cap space doesn't really matter.  Whether you are signing free agents because they'll have value in terms of protecting a QB, you can get them on a good deal and they'll be useful a few years down the road, or you're going to use the cap space to bring in some guys on not good contracts and get assets for it, having cap space has value.  And you can't just ignore that.  By trading McLaurin, you're hurting your ability to run a competent offense and so hurting your ability to protect and evaluate any young QB, not likely bring much back in terms of value, and constricting your cap space. 

 

The end result is that it probably doesn't make sense to trade him.

 

(With that said, there's always a point where it makes sense to trade somebody.  I'd want more than a mid to late first round pick for him.  I wouldn't do the McLaurin for the Colts first round pick.  Maybe next years 1st and 4th the following year, and I'd be interested.  And realistically, he's probably not worth that much to the Colts.)

7 hours ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

So then that's nothing close to a rebuild. Which is a fine position to take, But you can't say you want a rebuild but hold on to all your good and expensive players. It's one or the other. 

 

It isn't about wanting to.  It is about getting value back.  Good and expensive cancel out in the NFL.  The NFL cap and salary structure is such other than for very special cases and players, you just aren't going to get value back for those players in most cases.  What you are going to get back is not worth getting rid of those players where there is value of putting out a semi-competent team in terms of evaluating the young players you have.

Edited October 8, 2023 by PeterMP

[Renegade7]

How did we go from "there's too much talent on defense" to "lets trade everyone to hopefully get better players"?

 

One of the biggest reasons the 76ers did The Process was because no matter what they did they couldn't get past the 2nd round of the playoffs.

 

They still haven't since, have only one player left from all those lottery picks they got, and he's hinting he wants out now.

 

Why in the world would we try something that crazy that didn't work? 

 

The goal isn't to be competitive when you kick everyone out and intentionally be uncompetitive for multiple seasons in a row.  It's to get a championship, 76ers still haven't, forget that that's a completely different sport where one pick hitting means a helluva lot more then on a roster of 53 players.

[PeterMP]

20 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

How did we go from "there's too much talent on defense" to "lets trade everyone to hopefully get better players"?

 

One of the biggest reasons the 76ers did The Process was because no matter what they did they couldn't get past the 2nd round of the playoffs.

 

They still haven't since, have only one player left from all those lottery picks they got, and he's hinting he wants out now.

 

Why in the world would we try something that crazy that didn't work? 

 

The goal isn't to be competitive when you kick everyone out and intentionally be uncompetitive for multiple seasons in a row.  It's to get a championship, 76ers still haven't, forget that that's a completely different sport where one pick hitting means a helluva lot more then on a roster of 53 players.

 

I don't know how you determined the process was crazy.  Hinkie isn't stupid, and the Rockets and OKC have both essentially tired to do the same thing.  And the people running those teams don't seem crazy.

 

And if everybody ever said, that didn't work we shouldn't do that, all sorts of things would never have happened.  If the Wright brothers had tried to fly once and when it didn't work people said well that's crazy and didn't work, we should never try that again, there would be no airplanes today.

When something doesn't work, you look at it, try to figure out why it didn't work, and go from there.  There are lessons in to why the Sixers process hasn't been super successful that have value in trying to carry out a similar process.

[MartinC]

On 10/6/2023 at 10:37 AM, Professor_Nutter_Butter said:

Mixed bag. Because then that likely means bye to McLaurin, Allen, Curl and possibly Dotson.

I wouldn’t trade EVERYONE. It’s hard finding Pro Bowl quality players in their peak years, I wouldn’t be in a massive hurry to trade the ones we have.

 

I’d keep Terry, Allen and Payne. Those are guys you can add to. 
 

I still don’t think this roster is too far away from being legit good - with good coaching!

 

Sam is showing promise. Let’s see how he continues to develop. If we can fix the sack issue (which is not just on him at all) he’s showed enough to still think he could be a top half NFL starting QB. I don’t think we have to trade the farm to get into a position to draft a QB.

 

Add a stud LT (Joe Alt) in the draft, find another quality O’line in free agency. Add a quality TE as well.
 

On D find a starting calibre LB and a FS. I’d let Young walk and if Sweat wants top 5 DE money he can get that somewhere else as well - so a restock at DE would be needed. 

 

But the key is we need MUCH better coaching on the defensive side in particular under a new HC. 

[Renegade7]

46 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

I don't know how you determined the process was crazy.  Hinkie isn't stupid, and the Rockets and OKC have both essentially tired to do the same thing.  And the people running those teams don't seem crazy.

 

To me it totally is if the goal is to win at least one championship and none of the teams you or I mentioned did so after doing that.

 

46 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

And if everybody ever said, that didn't work we shouldn't do that, all sorts of things would never have happened.  If the Wright brothers had tried to fly once and when it didn't work people said well that's crazy and didn't work, we should never try that again, there would be no airplanes today.

 

Yes, if everytime someone said something was crazy we didn't do it, this would be a different world.

 

Are you insinuating that you want more teams to tank in order to help perfect this course of action until its figured out and nearly every team does it?

 

Because I don't.

 

Quote

When something doesn't work, you look at it, try to figure out why it didn't work, and go from there.  There are lessons in to why the Sixers process hasn't been super successful that have value in trying to carry out a similar process.

 

This is on the premise of being okay with losing.  Losing does happen, but I'm not okay with it.  I'm not okay with intentionally doing it either.  I'd love to met players that have won championships that do, or GMs, or coaches. 

 

It's always fans that can't wait to lose as much as possible after they've determine like a quarter into a season that the players themselves still have to play is totally pointless.  Usually it's not to them.

 

I was furious when folks were blasting me for not being happy folks were rooting for us to lose in our own gameday thread in that Dallas game that ended the season before we got Young.  We had to do it, he's generational talent, you clearly don't want to win...this dude is about to be gone and we might not even get a compensation pick for him. 

 

Call me hard-headed, I've been called worse, but I feel vindicated by that blowing up in our face and calling it how I see it that plenty of folks learned absolutely nothing from that.  I wanted Chase to work out here after we did it...now, I don't want to even entertain the idea of losing to get someone else.

 

Tanking is fn stupid, leagues have made changes over the years because they don't want teams to do that, yet you're suggesting it needs to be perfected?

 

Look I don't question anyone's Fandom for wanting to lose despite getting that towards me plenty of times over the years for not wanting to. I'm not saying you are here, but that's another reason why I hate this topic probably more then any other in sports.

[Stihl89]

2 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

How did we go from "there's too much talent on defense" to "lets trade everyone to hopefully get better players"?

 

One of the biggest reasons the 76ers did The Process was because no matter what they did they couldn't get past the 2nd round of the playoffs.

 

They still haven't since, have only one player left from all those lottery picks they got, and he's hinting he wants out now.

 

Why in the world would we try something that crazy that didn't work? 

 

The goal isn't to be competitive when you kick everyone out and intentionally be uncompetitive for multiple seasons in a row.  It's to get a championship, 76ers still haven't, forget that that's a completely different sport where one pick hitting means a helluva lot more then on a roster of 53 players.

I think the talent is too concentrated into one position group 

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

This is on the premise of being okay with losing.  Losing does happen, but I'm not okay with it.  I'm not okay with intentionally doing it either.  I'd love to met players that have won championships that do, or GMs, or coaches. 

 

You are conflating tanking and the process as the same.  They aren't.

 

In terms of who has won from losing, it is largely acknowledged that the Devils and the Penguins both tanked to finish at the bottom to try to acquire Mario Lemieux.  The Rockets tanked to put themselves in a position to draft Hakeem (they actually weren't a bad team that year even and just didn't play their best players much).  Before their current run, the Astros finished last in MLB for 3 years in a row.  That's not something that happens without trying.  The NBA and NHL adopted lotteries to try to desentivize tanking.  They didn't do it because it wasn't happening pretty regularly.  And teams weren't doing it pretty regularly because it wasn't working.

 

To pretend otherwise is just ignorance and stupidity.

 

Nothing is prefect and works 100% of the time, but there is a long history of teams tanking to get better and being successful.

 

The process is essentially the result of tanking being unsuccessful and the institution of the NBA draft lottery.  Hinkie essentially said being bad for a season isn't enough.  The belief is that it getting a top pick wasn't enough even if that player was a great player, but you also had to get enough assets that you also had the ability to get other good and even great players.  If it was simply about tanking, then Hinkie could have done something similar to what the Rockets had done and just benched his starters.  They were at best a borderline playoff team.  Benching the likes of Holiday and Young would have put them near the bottom and in a good place to get a high draft pick.

 

All the NBAs changes have done is made it that much more important to go through a process.  They've made tanking even less valuable than it was before.  That means it is just that much more important to make sure you have a collection of assets.

 

We're talking about 3 teams and 2 of them are both very young.  That they haven't won a championship holds essentially no value on the utility of doing it.

 

I wouldn't say anything in sports has to be perfected.  It is just sports.  There's also an issue with the more teams that are going through a process or are taking the less value it has.  If a lot of teams are trading their best players for draft picks, then the value of good players is going to go down and the value of draft picks is going to be up.  Under those conditions, going through a process makes less sense.

 

(In the context of the NFL and what to do if you wanted to do something, looking at the Rockets from that year where the drafted Hakeem might make sense.  Don't trade McLaurin, simply bench him.  He stays healthy.  The team loses.  You keep cap space that you can use for other things.  Even next offseason some players to reasonable two year contracts but front load them so the first year they are getting paid more.  In year 2, they have more value and you can trade them.  In two years or so, trading McLaurin doesn't come with the same cap penalties.  Then you trade him if you think you need more assets.  You'll have been bad for a few years and acquired more assets from trading people that you signed and traded and eventually you trade McLarin if you need to help build up a reasonable chest of assets and it makes more sense to do so from a cap perspective.)

Edited October 8, 2023 by PeterMP

[Renegade7]

58 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

You are conflating tanking and the process as the same.  They aren't.

 

In terms of who has won from losing, it is largely acknowledged that the Devils and the Penguins both tanked to finish at the bottom to try to acquire Mario Lemieux.  The Rockets tanked to put themselves in a position to draft Hakeem (they actually weren't a bad team that year even and just didn't play their best players much).  Before their current run, the Astros finished last in MLB for 3 years in a row.  That's not something that happens without trying.  The NBA and NHL adopted lotteries to try to desentivize tanking.  They didn't do it because it wasn't happening pretty regularly.  And teams weren't doing it pretty regularly because it wasn't working.

 

To pretend otherwise is just ignorance and stupidity.

 

*sigh...

 

I bolded that line because I even said that in the post you responded to yet cropped in order to make your response.  So I have concerns you even read it before deciding to call me ignorant and stupid.

 

Most people I've seen talk about The Process understand even if they don't know every detail that it was intentionally losing multiple seasons in a row for highest draft picks they could get.

 

Saying tanking is typically to one season but The Process is completely different because it involved multiple...ok...

 

Once upon a time i started a thread on tanking and found an article showing the math of front officies intentionally losing for high picks versus those that didnt.  Its not new, most sports fans get tanking has been around for a while, the problem continues to be how rarely it works. 

 

Basically the math said typically teams that choose to lose intentionally are bad front officies to begin with and draft poorly even with the high picks. Again, 76ers only have one of those lottery picks left on the team (Embiid), so this to me is evidence to support that. 

 

Good front officies typically dont try to intentionally lose, but because they are good they have higher rate of success on their draft picks even if they arent high as teams that tank or got through The Process.

 

Over nearly a century of professional sports thats what the law of averages says about that.  Good for teams that that worked for, the vast majority it didnt and odds are high we'd jus be another.  So again, hard pass.

 

The thread i started is archived now, but below is a similar piece to one of a couple i used in that thread with respectable math in it (written after Hinkie resigned) that came to a similar conclusion:

 

Quote

So it’s important to hire the best GM. But this new study also finds franchise effects that exist independently of the general manager, as certain organizations are simply more likely to squeeze wins from their draft picks. The researchers credit these franchise differences largely to player development, especially when it comes to “developing players who might not have been highly regarded entering the NBA.” This is proof that “winning cultures” are a real thing, and that a select few NBA teams are able to consistently instill the habits required to maximize the talent of their players. Draft picks are nice. Organizations win championships. And tanking is no way to build an organization.

 

https://www.exploringthemind.com/human-behaviour/is-tanking-an-effective-strategy-in-the-nba.html

 

I cant speak to the Astros trying to be in last place multiple seasons in a row like thats hard or something.  Nationals started their stint in DC with three 100 lose seasons in a row, i do not remember us intentionally trying to do that.

 

Plenty of baseball teams I look at the standings over the years and they are almost always in last place.  Is that their version of The Process or they just stuck on stupid?   

 

58 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

Nothing is prefect and works 100% of the time, but there is a long history of teams tanking to get better and being successful.

 

The process is essentially the result of tanking being unsuccessful and the institution of the NBA draft lottery.  Hinkie essentially said being bad for a season isn't enough.  The belief is that it getting a top pick wasn't enough even if that player was a great player, but you also had to get enough assets that you also had the ability to get other good and even great players.  If it was simply about tanking, then Hinkie could have done something similar to what the Rockets had done and just benched his starters.  They were at best a borderline playoff team.  Benching the likes of Holiday and Young would have put them near the bottom and in a good place to get a high draft pick.

 

All the NBAs changes have done is made it that much more important to go through a process.  They've made tanking even less valuable than it was before.  That means it is just that much more important to make sure you have a collection of assets.

 

We're talking about 3 teams and 2 of them are both very young.  That they haven't won a championship holds essentially no value on the utility of doing it.

 

If OKC couldnt figure it out after drafting Durant, Westbrook, and Harden, I'm not holding my breathe to see what they do next with anything.  Rockets also handed out a bunch of dumb contracts that will likely come back to haunt them to keep from their salary being too low.  Again, to me a sign of a bad front office.

 

You again come across like you think what Hinkie did was not only okay but something that could and should be more common as part of a rebuild process.  I don't, he resigned, his team still hasn't made it past the second round.  It was controversial for a reason and if it does catch on I expect the NBA to respond to it similarly to how they implement and have changed the draft lottery over the years.

 

58 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

I wouldn't say anything in sports has to be perfected.  It is just sports.  There's also an issue with the more teams that are going through a process or are taking the less value it has.  If a lot of teams are trading their best players for draft picks, then the value of good players is going to go down and the value of draft picks is going to be up.  Under those conditions, going through a process makes less sense.

 

Fair and agreed.

 

58 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

(In the context of the NFL and what to do if you wanted to do something, looking at the Rockets from that year where the drafted Hakeem might make sense.  Don't trade McLaurin, simply bench him.  He stays healthy.  The team loses.  You keep cap space that you can use for other things.  Even next offseason some players to reasonable two year contracts but front load them so the first year they are getting paid more.  In year 2, they have more value and you can trade them.  In two years or so, trading McLaurin doesn't come with the same cap penalties.  Then you trade him if you think you need more assets.  You'll have been bad for a few years and acquired more assets from trading people that you signed and traded and eventually you trade McLarin if you need to help build up a reasonable chest of assets and it makes more sense to do so from a cap perspective.)

 

I couldn't with a straight face bench McLaurin and claim I was trying to win in the long run.  I mentioned several times leading up to the the Chase Young draft trading down to accumulate picks for a potential future trade up since we supposedly didn't like any QBs in that draft but still needed one.  There's more then one way to accumulate more draft assets then what you're proposing here.