What if Philly didn't tank?

[Mapka]

What David Robinson didn't get injured in 1997? 
What if the Wolves drafted Curry instead of Flynn in 2009?
What if Kings drafted Luka instead of Bagley? 

Honestly, tanking or not, it is about executing your plan the right way, more than the plan itself. 
But tanking at some point is inevitable, whether by choice or not. This is how the league is designed

This is true.  Remember also that Philly's particular situation when Hinkie took over made the tanking strategy logical. 
They were cap strapped and asset depleted.  This was after the Andrew Bynum disaster. It's not an every team situation. 

The franchise is still in a better position today despite a pretty poor job of executing in the Post-Process era. 
The list of players you posted and I added to were all productive players that were acquired by Philly at some point because they had those tanking assets. If they failed to recognize and keep the right talent, that really can't be blamed on the tank strategy. 

I agree it would have been more interesting to watch the tank starter get to execute a few years after the tanking.

I think any of this useful players was to be had with mediocre picks and capspace and players you got out of this two. Please correct me if I'm wrong. 

Burning their assets is one thing. Fultz lol. Not extending Butler lol. Trading for Harris and maxing him lol. Giving Horford this albatross lol.

But I see their main problem  in still not having (again not having) someone to lead them. Which is also the problem leading to all this lols.

Embid and Simmons seam to be more into themself and against themself than into winning. That's an direct product of PHILLYs tanking approach to me. 

Let's say they trade one of them, how will the other fit with the new guy. 

They will have to trade both of them to clean up the mess.

Something every successful "tankjob" has in common, is keeping a roster full of vets.