Our Remaining Schedule, George Karl's History, And the Fate of Our Draft Pick

[twslam07]

So let me ask you, do you think this franchise can afford to wait another x years for a POTENTIAL draft pick to pan out and make an impact? The support for this franchise will grow EXPONENTIALLY if we make WINNING NOW our priority as opposed to being satisfied with mediocrity or a good draft pick. Our goal is to have this team make the playoffs and compete on a consistent basis while playing in our brand new arena. Proven players in this league are going to help this team, and if you really believe the draft is our savior, ultimately that makes you accept losing and that's exactly the mentality we cannot have as an organization.

Not that I disagree with all of your post, but if you;re going to say "our goal" it better end in "championship."

The fact that the success of our team or the timeline of the success is trying to be tied to a new arena is very annoying to me. We should push for success because our team is ready for it and because it makes logical sense to maximize the team's potential to win a championship.

 

[Double-K]

And a number of guys on this list with player options I see opting out, they aren't in good situations.

http://hoopshype.com/free_agency_2015.htm

Just thinking of the unrestricted, former defensive player of the year, Marc Gasol teaming up with Cuz forming the new twin towers...

#AManCanDream

 

[Livinthedream]

Maybe I'm dense, but are you implying that Cleveland trading two first overall picks for Kevin Love is in some way analogous to us giving away our pick to Chicago for nothing so that we can start a culture of winning in a losing season? They didn't just decide to start winning, they signed the best player in the game aa a free agent in the same off-season that they won the draft lottery. If anything, their success right now reinforces my point about how badly we need that pick to be competitive next year.

Nope. First, Chicago gets our pick for Hickson. Some may argue, that's nothing, but there was an asset involved. It's our issue what we did with that asset.

Second, I was stating that a rookie draft pick on our team will not be the key to start winning immediately. It will be vets that help us turn the corner.

If we are a .500 team with our current staters and a garbage bench in the West, then we are not that far off. So winning games doesn't bother me because there is some hope there.

If you lose this years draft pick because of a great run with Karl, you're now free to trade the following years #1 to acquire a vet.

 

[Glenn]

Nope. First, Chicago gets our pick for Hickson. Some may argue, that's nothing, but there was an asset involved. It's our issue what we did with that asset.

Second, I was stating that a rookie draft pick on our team will not be the key to start winning immediately. It will be vets that help us turn the corner.

If we are a .500 team with our current staters and a garbage bench in the West, then we are not that far off. So winning games doesn't bother me because there is some hope there.

If you lose this years draft pick because of a great run with Karl, you're now free to trade the following years #1 to acquire a vet.

Gee, I agree.

 

[bajaden]

Dang man who are you!?

Someone, that due to an injury, never quite made it to the show. In today's world, with the medical procedures that they have, I might have. That's life! No regrets, it was fun while it lasted.

 

[bajaden]

I think Stein will be available. I have high doubts that the Kings will draft him, but I think he'll be around.

I know a lot of folks here follow the BPA model. I'm more of a 'need' guy when the talent is close, and in the top 10ish, the talent level is usually close. There are exceptions to the rule, obviously.

Of the teams in our draft range, I don't know if Philly, Orlando, Utah, Detroit, or Indiana will have any real interest in WCS. That's 5 of the top-10. IF we keep the pick, I think we'll have our shot.

Of course, we could always trade up if he was our target. I wouldn't hesitate to do that. Other teams could also jump ahead of us to grab him.

You could be right, and I certainly hope you are. He would be the perfect fit next to Cousins. Of course he's not a floor spreader, but he certainly protects the rim, he rebounds, defends the pick and roll as well as any big man I've seen, and he's not chopped liver on offense. Not to mention, he runs the floor like a deer. Watch the NBA screw the entire thing up and give us the first pick in the draft.

 

[Glenn]

You could be right, and I certainly hope you are. He would be the perfect fit next to Cousins. Of course he's not a floor spreader, but he certainly protects the rim, he rebounds, defends the pick and roll as well as any big man I've seen, and he's not chopped liver on offense. Not to mention, he runs the floor like a deer. Watch the NBA screw the entire thing up and give us the first pick in the draft.

Will he come out this year? I've been waiting several years and we have been in a position of "maybe" getting him if he came out. I think on the whole bajaden rates him higher than most but if he was available between 8-10, I'd be very happy. Seems like there are a few shot blockers this year but WCS would look very nice next to Cuz. I don't follow college ball but DO follow WCS ball.

 

[GQ_Gabriel]

Not that I disagree with all of your post, but if you;re going to say "our goal" it better end in "championship."

The fact that the success of our team or the timeline of the success is trying to be tied to a new arena is very annoying to me. We should push for success because our team is ready for it and because it makes logical sense to maximize the team's potential to win a championship.

Unfortunately, I would tend to disagree.

This team, as currently constructed, is NOT ready to compete on that level. (Competing for a championship)

The team has proven, albeit early in the season, that they can be successful and compete for a low playoff seed. If we're talking about making a championship, there are steps we need to take. Trades, acquisitions, team chemistry, familiarity, and stability will all come with time. The future is bright indeed.

 

[sdballer]

If we're talking about making a championship, there are steps we need to take. Trades, acquisitions, team chemistry, familiarity, and stability will all come with time. The future is bright indeed.

Unfortunately we currently lack the assets and likely the competent FO to make that leap.

 

[Ron]

I say we go 18-12 or better!
(Yes, 18 more wins, doubling the number of wins we have so far! That's how good I think we can be)

Plus, with all the rest of them tanking around - I say we need to go as bad as 10-20 or something NOT to lose the blooming pick.

So... not even close!

 

[Henkel]

Depends on health and the next couple of weeks. If this doesn't turn around quick we should shut Rudy down. Too many nagging injuries and a top 10 pick this year is a better asset than a future pick.

 

[GQ_Gabriel]

Depends on health and the next couple of weeks. If this doesn't turn around quick we should shut Rudy down. Too many nagging injuries and a top 10 pick this year is a better asset than a future pick.

This.

This is the mindset and mentality that the Kings can no longer afford to have nor put their fans through. I don't care if losing games will get us a good draft pick, we play to win every game.

 

[Henkel]

This.

This is the mindset and mentality that the Kings can no longer afford to have nor put their fans through. I don't care if losing games will get us a good draft pick, we play to win every game.

Not how things usually play out. No incentive for the player or organization to force a guy out there with nagging injuries come March and April. If we get off to a hot start then you ride that momentum into the off-season, if not don't be surprised if the Kings keep to form with the rest of the league.

 

[ParniValjak]

I think this will depend in a lot of ways on what happens at the trade deadline. If the team remains intact, I expect us to play .500 ball. If we blow up and trade contracts to shed salary rather than improve, I would expect us to be under .500 team.

It will take some time for the team to grasp Karl's game plan both defensively and offensively.

 

[captain bill]

We know this team has talent, and we know Karl has a history of quickly turning around teams. 2 of the top 5 (I believe) midseason turnarounds in winning percentage in NBA history have come when Karl took the reigns during the all-star break. We are already on the bottom-10 bubble as-is, and we need to be #7 in draft standings to guarantee that we keep it, so I say lose it, and it won't be close (barring a miracle ball bounce and lottery win).

 

[ElRey]

We know this team has talent, and we know Karl has a history of quickly turning around teams. 2 of the top 5 (I believe) midseason turnarounds in winning percentage in NBA history have come when Karl took the reigns during the all-star break. We are already on the bottom-10 bubble as-is, and we need to be #7 in draft standings to guarantee that we keep it, so I say lose it, and it won't be close (barring a miracle ball bounce and lottery win).

#7? I thought this year's draft pick is Top 10 protected.

 

[whozit]

#7? I thought this year's draft pick is Top 10 protected.

It is. The #7 guarantees that even if three teams jump ahead we would still have the pick at #10.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

#7? I thought this year's draft pick is Top 10 protected.

Because of the fact that we can drop as many as three spots in the lottery, we need to go into the lottery at #7 to guarantee we fall no farther than #10 and keep the pick. Of course, falling more than one spot is very unlikely, so going into the lottery at #9 would be a "barring-disaster guarantee".

However, the tank is so strong this year that even now we are only 2.5 games out of the #11 spot, where we'd need a relative miracle to hit the lottery and keep our pick. With the Karl hire, it would appear that a finish in the #11/#12 range is very likely.

 

[ElRey]

It is. The #7 guarantees that even if three teams jump ahead we would still have the pick at #10.

oh okay, you guys are thinking worse case scenarios. Very unlikely for a #10 or higher draft team to jump into the top 3 but it has happened before.

 

[parker]

For what it's worth, Karl suggested in his press conference that it would not be unreasonable to expect them to play .500 ball for the rest of the season (I believe he said "get 15 wins.")

 

[Bricklayer]

For what it's worth, Karl suggested in his press conference that it would not be unreasonable to expect them to play .500 ball for the rest of the season (I believe he said "get 15 wins.")

And I don't think it is. We were under Malone. Karl has repeatedly come in and led big midseason turnarounds. Depends on health and whether everybody, Karl included, buys in and wants it.

 

[hrdboild]

Nope. First, Chicago gets our pick for Hickson. Some may argue, that's nothing, but there was an asset involved. It's our issue what we did with that asset.

Second, I was stating that a rookie draft pick on our team will not be the key to start winning immediately. It will be vets that help us turn the corner.

If we are a .500 team with our current staters and a garbage bench in the West, then we are not that far off. So winning games doesn't bother me because there is some hope there.

If you lose this years draft pick because of a great run with Karl, you're now free to trade the following years #1 to acquire a vet.

It's frankly not worth arguing anymore as far as I'm concerned if you're just going to ignore my points repeatedly. Nothing you said proves that Cleveland didn't need their draft picks to succeed this season (since obviously they're not getting Kevin Love without trading Wiggins). Furthermore, whichever vets might be available this off-season for a future pick of unspecified value in a future draft of unspecified date can clearly be acquired with a 6-10 pick in this year's draft instead. Anyone making your trade (the future pick trade) knows Goerge Karl, DeMarcus Cousins, and Rudy Gay are on the team now and the value is probably only going down from here. The value of a future pick is dubious anyway. Our current pick (top 10 protected) is owed to Chicago because of a trade that went down in 2011 with Cleveland for a player (Hickson) who last played for the Kings in 2012. I can't see why so many of you would be eager to finally lose that pick once and for all (for it's maximum possible value, btw) in order to immediately repeat the same mistake again.

 

[Livinthedream]

It's frankly not worth arguing anymore as far as I'm concerned if you're just going to ignore my points repeatedly. Nothing you said proves that Cleveland didn't need their draft picks to succeed this season (since obviously they're not getting Kevin Love without trading Wiggins).

Cleveland used their draft picks. They got rid of Wiggins to get Kevin Love. Wiggins has staggering potential and Love is very good but limited. Lebron wants to win now, so they gave up on a future star to get a solid vet that's never won anything. Bring in Mike Miller and Shawn Marion. Get rid of a talented young player in Waiters for some talented, but limited vets. THAT is what you do when you're in win now mode. So my point remains that if you have a core, you need to surround them with vets. We can't pull off what Cleveland did because of a number of reasons. We don't have a potential star rookie on our team. We don't have a previous #1 pick on our team that we don't need because we have a superstar like Lebron and another all star in Irving.

Furthermore, whichever vets might be available this off-season for a future pick of unspecified value in a future draft of unspecified date can clearly be acquired with a 6-10 pick in this year's draft instead. Anyone making your trade (the future pick trade) knows Goerge Karl, DeMarcus Cousins, and Rudy Gay are on the team now and the value is probably only going down from here. The value of a future pick is dubious anyway. Our current pick (top 10 protected) is owed to Chicago because of a trade that went down in 2011 with Cleveland for a player (Hickson) who last played for the Kings in 2012. I can't see why so many of you would be eager to finally lose that pick once and for all (for it's maximum possible value, btw) in order to immediately repeat the same mistake again.

We lost that pick when Hickson didn't work out. If Hickson works out and we lose our pick, it's a win/win situation. The minute Hickson tanked so he didn't have to play here is when that pick became a sunk cost. The only way to recover is to keep losing until we hit 2017. So by that logic, we should tank this year and next no matter what.

If we're winning so many games next year, or we look so good this year that our future #1 has no real value, then I'll take that 100 times out of 100.

 

[Bricklayer]

Cleveland used their draft picks. They got rid of Wiggins to get Kevin Love. Wiggins has staggering potential and Love is very good but limited. Lebron wants to win now, so they gave up on a future star to get a solid vet that's never won anything. Bring in Mike Miller and Shawn Marion. Get rid of a talented young player in Waiters for some talented, but limited vets. THAT is what you do when you're in win now mode. So my point remains that if you have a core, you need to surround them with vets. We can't pull off what Cleveland did because of a number of reasons. We don't have a potential star rookie on our team. We don't have a previous #1 pick on our team that we don't need because we have a superstar like Lebron and another all star in Irving.



We lost that pick when Hickson didn't work out. If Hickson works out and we lose our pick, it's a win/win situation. The minute Hickson tanked so he didn't have to play here is when that pick became a sunk cost. The only way to recover is to keep losing until we hit 2017. So by that logic, we should tank this year and next no matter what.

If we're winning so many games next year, or we look so good this year that our future #1 has no real value, then I'll take that 100 times out of 100.

But we DO have a Ben, a Nik, AND a previous #2 pick (DWill). Bring on the win now superstar!!

 

[VF21]

Because of the fact that we can drop as many as three spots in the lottery, we need to go into the lottery at #7 to guarantee we fall no farther than #10 and keep the pick. Of course, falling more than one spot is very unlikely, so going into the lottery at #9 would be a "barring-disaster guarantee".

You do remember what team you're talking about, right?

oh okay, you guys are thinking worse case scenarios. Very unlikely for a #10 or higher draft team to jump into the top 3 but it has happened before.

See comment above.

 

[Glenn]

You do remember what team you're talking about, right?

It's all about mathematical probabilities and not luck, voodoo or anything else.

I'm trying to make Capt. Factorial proud of me.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

It's all about mathematical probabilities and not luck, voodoo or anything else.

I'm trying to make Capt. Factorial proud of me.

Indeed. There's nothing in it to make me believe that the ping-pong balls actually hate us.

That said, we've been terribly, terribly unlucky in the lottery era. So very terribly unlucky that I've considered running simulations just to point out exactly HOW unlucky we have been. I don't think the results would be pretty, and I hesitate to think what kinds of unclean thoughts might be stirred up by such results.

 

[hrdboild]

Cleveland used their draft picks. They got rid of Wiggins to get Kevin Love. Wiggins has staggering potential and Love is very good but limited. Lebron wants to win now, so they gave up on a future star to get a solid vet that's never won anything. Bring in Mike Miller and Shawn Marion. Get rid of a talented young player in Waiters for some talented, but limited vets. THAT is what you do when you're in win now mode. So my point remains that if you have a core, you need to surround them with vets. We can't pull off what Cleveland did because of a number of reasons. We don't have a potential star rookie on our team. We don't have a previous #1 pick on our team that we don't need because we have a superstar like Lebron and another all star in Irving.

We lost that pick when Hickson didn't work out. If Hickson works out and we lose our pick, it's a win/win situation. The minute Hickson tanked so he didn't have to play here is when that pick became a sunk cost. The only way to recover is to keep losing until we hit 2017. So by that logic, we should tank this year and next no matter what.

If we're winning so many games next year, or we look so good this year that our future #1 has no real value, then I'll take that 100 times out of 100.

Point is, they didn't get Kevin Love for free. They traded an asset to get him. If the season ended today, we currently have an asset we can use to obtain a veteran player (the #6 pick in the draft). Wiggins is a solid prospect with a lot of potential. So are Jahlil Okafor, Karl Towns, Emmanuel Mudiay, D'Angelo Russell, Stanley Johnson, Myles Turner, Justise Winslow, and a few others depending on who you ask. Obviously the decision was already made to hire George Karl and win now so this argument is already moot, but perhaps we would have been better served keeping that valuable asset and hiring George Karl immediately after the season ends. Can we get Kevin Love for our pick? Probably not. But I think we can get a player who would help us a lot.

Is the pick already a sunk cost? In a way it is. However, that pick could be anywhere from 11-30 or nothing at all depending on what happens the next 3 years. No I don't think we need to lose the next two seasons too to keep the pick. Yes I think we should keep this year's pick after PDA already blew up the season anyway and give Chicago a future pick in the 16-25 range instead -- a pick we're going to miss a whole lot less than a 6-8 pick in this year's draft.

 

[Glenn]

Indeed. There's nothing in it to make me believe that the ping-pong balls actually hate us.

That said, we've been terribly, terribly unlucky in the lottery era. So very terribly unlucky that I've considered running simulations just to point out exactly HOW unlucky we have been. I don't think the results would be pretty, and I hesitate to think what kinds of unclean thoughts might be stirred up by such results.

I'd be interested because it must be horrible. Unfortunately, no matter how bad it is, it does not change anything going forward and THAT will confuse people.

 

[VF21]

Indeed. There's nothing in it to make me believe that the ping-pong balls actually hate us.

That said, we've been terribly, terribly unlucky in the lottery era. So very terribly unlucky that I've considered running simulations just to point out exactly HOW unlucky we have been. I don't think the results would be pretty, and I hesitate to think what kinds of unclean thoughts might be stirred up by such results.

Are you trying to give me a stroke? Doing that would challenge "worse" as in "well, considering how unlucky we've been in the past things couldn't possibly get worse"... Geez, dude.

I'd be interested because it must be horrible. Unfortunately, no matter how bad it is, it does not change anything going forward and THAT will confuse people.

See above.