Quote:
Originally Posted by TingsRgunagetGROSS
Anyone could have done what Hinkie did and it would have been difficult to do it worse than Hinkie did it
This is a really bad take. He created so much value out of nothing. He ran pretty badly with draft picks he acquired via trades (Lakers, Heat, Thunder picks). He turned taking on like $16 million in salary into jumping from 5 to 3 AND Sacramento's unprotected 1st next year. That is one of the most valuable picks that has been traded in recent memory.
He acquired so many 2nds out of thin air that Bryan Colangelo doesn't know how to get rid of them in a league where 2nds have never been more valuable. Hell, there was not much action at the deadline because teams were hoarding their second round picks.
I would appreciate it if you could explain what he should have done better (without hindsight) besides the Okafor pick. Which, I will add, was the consensus pick. I know 2+2 hated it.
I should point out that he had his hands tied early on in Okafor's rookie year and reportedly had a trade lined up to send him to the Celtics but Colangelo/Ownership vetoed it. Who knows what his plan with Okafor was - but, I do think he deserves criticism for it.
Although, I do think we give too much credit for successful draft picks and too much criticism for bad picks. I'd rather hire a GM based on their trade history than based on their draft history.
The truth is that what he was doing (with hindsight) looks fairly obvious and simple to an outsider. But, he was an assassin at negotiating and planning ahead so he'd maximize his leverage in every situation. Give him credit for consistently making teams overpay. It was because he read the market, new other teams' incentives/pressure points and extracted every ounce of value from them.
I hate to say it because it's good to listen and learn from all viewpoints but Hinkie is a great litmus test for whether I respect your opinion. Not just basketball opinion but your opinion in general.
Last edited by jwd; 03-25-2018 at 02:49 PM.