It's weird...in every thread we've had about whether the Suns should tank, I come out against. There's still a risk you won't get the player you want; there's a risk the player you do want may not pan out or may get injured; getting used to losing doesn't set you up for winning and it's a long turnaround. But at the same time I don't necessarily think the Sixers are making a mockery of anything (other than themselves potentially, which is for them to address with their fans).
There's a rationale behind it that I can respect: why should you necessarily strive to be second-rate competition to the few teams who have genuine superstars and therefore the ability to attract the best short-term free agents at cap-friendly deals--only to be potentially too good to get into the lottery when those same teams decide to blow it up?
But again, still a risk. Teams chose Hasheem Thabeet, Tyreke Evans, and Johnny Flynn ahead of Curry in the 2009 draft... And Curry won a championship in year 6. But then, mostly I just think a fate worse than death would be to have the worst record and watch other teams leapfrog you for the top picks.
But what is the Sixers actual plan? if it is to suck every year and save money they're doing that. The problem is attendance is so bad at Sixer games road and home it's hurting the other teams bottom line.
If they have an actual plan to get better and they're a year or two away great, it just doesn't appear to be the case.
Compare them with the T Wolves and it appears Minnesota is doing it much better now.
As you said, the Warriors were in that situation for years, they got lucky that Curry fell. Klay Thompson turned out better than expected and Green and Barnes and Ezeli in one draft were all great picks(and I hated the Barnes pick at the time).
It CAN be done, it's just not easy.
If the Sixers get Simmons this year and he's as good as he looks, maybe they finally get respectable, he certainly looks like he has a chance to be a great NBA player.
