Series Thread: 6) Miami Heat vs. 3) Philadelphia 76ers

[trojanfan12]

As a Heat fan, I think your stance makes sense. You guys have won the title a few times recently. I’ve never seen the 76ers win a title. Outside of the Iverson years, they’ve been pretty bad during most of my prime fandom years. I totally supported the process. But maybe if the 76ers had a few titles under their belt, maybe I’d feel differently.

Yep. I agree with what @tlance said...if your team isn't a destination city, what the Sixers did is the best way to build a contender. Just be as open as you can to make sure your fans are on board and then tank hard so you can get "homegrown" talent.

Eventually, those players will all have to be paid, so the Sixers cap situation will get a lot more complicated in a few years. But even then, they can trade guys for younger, less expensive talent if they need to.

 

[tlance]

And they also got really lucky imo. You really need to absolutely hit on several of your lottery/first round picks. Thankfully for your sixers, they struck gold on Embiid, Simmons, Saric, & possibly Fultz.

If one of those 3 turned out to be a bust, the heavy tanking during that 5 year period would seem like a waste

I disagree.

They actually got somewhat unlucky.

They were worst in the league for years, yet always seemed to pick 3 or 4.

They got Embiid because he was damaged goods and the teams ahead of them didn't want to risk it. They hit the lottery once and drafted Simmons, then traded up to get Fultz.

What sets the 6ers apart is that they were willing to take risks on injured players like Embiid and Noel, and they were also willing to blow it up on the fly multiple teams when they realized the guy they took was not the franchise star they coveted.

Cleveland got lucky hitting number 1 3 times in 4 years. Philly earned this.

 

[tlance]

Yep. I agree with what @tlance said...if your team isn't a destination city, what the Sixers did is the best way to build a contender. Just be as open as you can to make sure your fans are on board and then tank hard so you can get "homegrown" talent.

Eventually, those players will all have to be paid, so the Sixers cap situation will get a lot more complicated in a few years. But even then, they can trade guys for younger, less expensive talent if they need to.

And, the crazy thing is now they are a destination franchise. Because of the process.

 

[Mecca]

Many more Sixers fans on this forum, but we have been posting on the Eagles Forum under OT: Sixers threads for several years.

I hope you guys come here for the playoffs.

The more the merrier.

Congrats on a good win and a great Season.

 

[Mecca]

Only took the Sixers one half to get into playoff mode. That was easy.

27 point win. Hey that's almost 30.

Gotta give you props for that because I thought you were nuts.

 

[Iggloo]

I am starting to think they can seriously make the finals. It was just one playoff game, but we are talking about a team with 17 straight wins now, only one home loss since the all-star break. Toronto doesn't look that good. I think it will come down to Sixers-Cavs in the conference finals, and I think with home court advantage we may be able to win it.

 

[Mecca]

Saw the score.
Have not watched the game yet.
That was unexpected, though Eaglesnut was pretty close to winning by 30.....

Yeah, I have to give him his due for that.

Dude called it.

 

[Iggloo]

Oh cmon, my man Eaglesnut predicts a blowout every time a Philly team plays anyone. Broken clock's right twice a day and all that...

 

[DJ]

Full slate of games available:

http://sportshoop.la/betting-exchange/

 

[Heatles84]

BS.

That is how you have to build if you aren't a destination city. Miami is a destination city, so you won't ever have to worry about it. But don't knock what the 6ers did. It was brilliant.

They will contend for the next decade because they were horrible for 5 years. Well worth it.

I disagree.

I'll use the Spurs as an example. San Antonio is far from a destination city. They endured an injury to David Robinson which allowed them to get the no. 1 pick in Tim Duncan. Twenty years later, they've had one of the most dominant long-tenured runs in NBA history. The Spurs didn't rely on years of tanking to stock pile talent. They had one bad year where they got a corner stone piece, then relied on superior talent evaluating when they got Manu and Parker later on in their respective drafts.

I couldn't go through 5 years of my team being an abysmal piece of crap tanking games purposefully. It's full blown pathetic.

 

[Heatles84]

I disagree.

They actually got somewhat unlucky.

They were worst in the league for years, yet always seemed to pick 3 or 4.

They got Embiid because he was damaged goods and the teams ahead of them didn't want to risk it. They hit the lottery once and drafted Simmons, then traded up to get Fultz.

What sets the 6ers apart is that they were willing to take risks on injured players like Embiid and Noel, and they were also willing to blow it up on the fly multiple teams when they realized the guy they took was not the franchise star they coveted.

Cleveland got lucky hitting number 1 3 times in 4 years. Philly earned this.

Eh, I guess I kind of see it with Philly now. I did forget that Philly was quick to give up on certain players like Noel - which turned out to be a good move. But again, I couldn't go through 5 years of purposefully tanking.

 

[tlance]

I disagree.

I'll use the Spurs as an example. San Antonio is far from a destination city. They endured an injury to David Robinson which allowed them to get the no. 1 pick in Tim Duncan. Twenty years later, they've had one of the most dominant long-tenured runs in NBA history. The Spurs didn't rely on years of tanking to stock pile talent. They had one bad year where they got a corner stone piece, then relied on superior talent evaluating when they got Manu and Parker later on in their respective drafts.

I couldn't go through 5 years of my team being an abysmal piece of crap tanking games purposefully. It's full blown pathetic.

No they didn't.

But, they had 2 franchise superstars already. They drafted Robinson when they sucked and they hit the lottery when he was injured. That was extremely lucky circumstance. Their entire run doesn't happen if Robinson stays healthy and they don't draft Duncan. As good as Manu and Parker are, they aren't franchise superstars.

Philly knew they needed stars, and they got them the only way they possibly could. San Antonio was ridiculously lucky to not have to suck for years and still get those two.

 

[tlance]

Eh, I guess I kind of see it with Philly now. I did forget that Philly was quick to give up on certain players like Noel - which turned out to be a good move. But again, I couldn't go through 5 years of purposefully tanking.

And to be honest, the result of not going through that for almost all franchises is a 45-50 win ceiling and a first round playoff exit. The Heat are there now. No thanks. I want my team to shoot for more, even if it takes time to build.

 

[ericd7633]

Team future is def looking bright, but it doesn’t erase what had to be endured to get there.
As a fan and STH, I wouldn’t support it.

Does everyone realize how bad the 6ers were before they went full tank mode? My guess is probably not. Prior to the first tank year of 2013-2014, the 6ers were a combined 38 games under .500 the previous 5 years winning ONE playoff series, because Derrick Rose got injured.And if you gave back 5 years prior to that it looks even worse. The best seed the 6ers had was a 6 seed in 2008-2009 season. The franchise was below average prior to going full tank mode. It was 4 atrocious years, instead of 4 below average years, I don't understand why anybody wouldn't support it given where they were, and the direction the team was going.

They largely whiffed in the 2013 draft, but because of trading Jrue Holiday, that netted the 6ers Saric the following year, and trading the awful Michael Carter Williams netted them the assets to help trade up for Fultz last year. They also got Covington as an undrafted rookie that off-season.

It's a complete myth that the fanbase had to "endure" such awful seasons, when it reality they had already been doing it for a decade.

 

[ericd7633]

I disagree.

I'll use the Spurs as an example. San Antonio is far from a destination city. They endured an injury to David Robinson which allowed them to get the no. 1 pick in Tim Duncan. Twenty years later, they've had one of the most dominant long-tenured runs in NBA history. The Spurs didn't rely on years of tanking to stock pile talent. They had one bad year where they got a corner stone piece, then relied on superior talent evaluating when they got Manu and Parker later on in their respective drafts.

I couldn't go through 5 years of my team being an abysmal piece of crap tanking games purposefully. It's full blown pathetic.

Going into the 2012-2013 the 6ers traded for Bynum. That turned out to be one of the worst trades in NBA history. They literally got nothing out of Bynum and gave up Iggy, Vucevic and Harkless in the process. In the off-season of 2013, what the hell was there to try and be good? The 6ers literally had ONE asset at that point. And they managed to turn that into Saric.

 

[flyerhawk]

I disagree.

I'll use the Spurs as an example. San Antonio is far from a destination city. They endured an injury to David Robinson which allowed them to get the no. 1 pick in Tim Duncan. Twenty years later, they've had one of the most dominant long-tenured runs in NBA history. The Spurs didn't rely on years of tanking to stock pile talent. They had one bad year where they got a corner stone piece, then relied on superior talent evaluating when they got Manu and Parker later on in their respective drafts.

I couldn't go through 5 years of my team being an abysmal piece of crap tanking games purposefully. It's full blown pathetic.

The Spurs got lucky and hit the No. 1 pick and got a generational player. They also have arguably the greatest coach in NBA history and they did a remarkable of finding talent overseas.

But if the Spurs don't get the No. 1 pick they would likely have wound up with Keith Van Horn or Chauncey Billips and the last 20 years of Spurs dominance never happens.

People act as if the Sixers had a choice between being a perennial playoff contender or being atrocious. They didn't. They had a choice between being medicore for years and hoping to get lucky in the draft or being terrible for a few years and trying to hit it big. But the Sixers were terrible because they were willing to trade their assets for future assets. Can you list a single trade/move Hinkie did that was purely for tanking purposes and not as a way to get more assets for the Sixers?

 

[flyerhawk]

It's a complete myth that the fanbase had to "endure" such awful seasons, when it reality they had already been doing it for a decade.

Part of the problem is that the Sixers did things that people accused them of tanking but were simply ways to improve the team. They didn't trade Michael Carter-Williams because he harmed their tanking goals but that was the narrative at the time. Trading Jhrue Holiday for Noel and a lottery pick the next year IMPROVED the team. But it did mean that it would be a while before that improvement would manifest itself.

Ultimately what the Sixers did to tank was refuse to sign competent journneymen that would have brought them from a top 3 pick to a top 14 pick. Would anyone really want that?

 

[TurnUpTheHeat]

BS.

That is how you have to build if you aren't a destination city. Miami is a destination city, so you won't ever have to worry about it. But don't knock what the 6ers did. It was brilliant.

They will contend for the next decade because they were horrible for 5 years. Well worth it.

As a Heat fan, I think your stance makes sense. You guys have won the title a few times recently. I’ve never seen the 76ers win a title. Outside of the Iverson years, they’ve been pretty bad during most of my prime fandom years. I totally supported the process. But maybe if the 76ers had a few titles under their belt, maybe I’d feel differently.

Yep. I agree with what @tlance said...if your team isn't a destination city, what the Sixers did is the best way to build a contender. Just be as open as you can to make sure your fans are on board and then tank hard so you can get "homegrown" talent.

Eventually, those players will all have to be paid, so the Sixers cap situation will get a lot more complicated in a few years. But even then, they can trade guys for younger, less expensive talent if they need to.

I disagree.

I'll use the Spurs as an example. San Antonio is far from a destination city. They endured an injury to David Robinson which allowed them to get the no. 1 pick in Tim Duncan. Twenty years later, they've had one of the most dominant long-tenured runs in NBA history. The Spurs didn't rely on years of tanking to stock pile talent. They had one bad year where they got a corner stone piece, then relied on superior talent evaluating when they got Manu and Parker later on in their respective drafts.

I couldn't go through 5 years of my team being an abysmal piece of crap tanking games purposefully. It's full blown pathetic.

I think the question that needs to be asked and answered is this.

Who here would invest in season tickets, plus the time commitment it takes to go to the games and be happy if the team sucked intentionally or not, for as long as Philly did/has?
Sitting players who can play on purpose, just to suck worse (like Simmons last year)?

It's one think to know your team sucks, not care, and then just not invest the time, but with me, that wasn't/isn't the case.

 

[ericd7633]

The Spurs got lucky and hit the No. 1 pick and got a generational player. They also have arguably the greatest coach in NBA history and they did a remarkable of finding talent overseas.

But if the Spurs don't get the No. 1 pick they would likely have wound up with Keith Van Horn or Chauncey Billips and the last 20 years of Spurs dominance never happens.

People act as if the Sixers had a choice between being a perennial playoff contender or being atrocious. They didn't. They had a choice between being medicore for years and hoping to get lucky in the draft or being terrible for a few years and trying to hit it big. But the Sixers were terrible because they were willing to trade their assets for future assets. Can you list a single trade/move Hinkie did that was purely for tanking purposes and not as a way to get more assets for the Sixers?

The climax of the bitching/making fun of the Sixers was because they traded MCW. lmao.

 

[ericd7633]

Part of the problem is that the Sixers did things that people accused them of tanking but were simply ways to improve the team. They didn't trade Michael Carter-Williams because he harmed their tanking goals but that was the narrative at the time. Trading Jhrue Holiday for Noel and a lottery pick the next year IMPROVED the team. But it did mean that it would be a while before that improvement would manifest itself.

Ultimately what the Sixers did to tank was refuse to sign competent journneymen that would have brought them from a top 3 pick to a top 14 pick. Would anyone really want that?

Exactly. And the off-season of 2013 in reality turned out pretty well for the Sixers, who had NOTHING going for them heading into the upcoming season. Traded Holiday for what became of Saric, drafted MCW which turned into getting Fultz, signed RoCo as an UFA. Even if Hinkie never started the tank in the off-season of 2013, would the Sixers have been anything other than terrible in 2013-2014, no.