We put our franchise's long term viability on the line for a salary dump. We're in a situation where we perpetually need to sign free agents to stay afloat. Most free agents are not the highest quality player. If they are good, you have to max them out. Franchise players don't hit the free agent market. So you're maxing out 2nd and 3rd tier players who don't have the ability to win you a title.
Philly had nothing to lose and everything to gain. Of course they're laughing at us. I don't like what Philly is doing, but it's an actual plan. We deserve to be laughed at until we show we know what we're doing.
Philly had nothing to lose and everything to gain. Of course they're laughing at us. I don't like what Philly is doing, but it's an actual plan. We deserve to be laughed at until we show we know what we're doing.
Except it wasn't a salary dump in as much as we went out and immediately signed players with that money. Some of whom may have an impact this coming season. And we had loftier targets than we wound up with, but we still wound up with guys that should have gotten us to the playoffs if they weren't misplayed by an inept coach.
Why is our long term viability so badly "on the line" because in a worst case disaster scenario we lose one lotto pick in 2019. If that's the case it is only the cost of a single year of extra suckitude.
If doomsayers are right, we will suck bad in enough beyond 2019 to get many many more high lotto picks.... so what's to worry about? Was a blue-chipper in the 2019 draft gonna save the day any more than a blue chipper in 2020 will? Was Cuz more likely to stay if we stood pat with Nik & Top Hat?
If doomsayers are right, we will suck bad in enough beyond 2019 to get many many more high lotto picks.... so what's to worry about? Was a blue-chipper in the 2019 draft gonna save the day any more than a blue chipper in 2020 will? Was Cuz more likely to stay if we stood pat with Nik & Top Hat?
So the way I understand is this:
- 2017: if our pick falls inside the top ten we keep it and don't send it to Chicago, and, Philly has the opportunity to swap.
- 2018: we retain our first round draft pick
- 2019: we send our first round pick to Philly
The deal with Philly was a necessary devil to get rid of some bad contracts and to free up cap space to make moves. Granted we never took the desired steps this season, but we have managed to hold onto our pick because it didn't fall outside the top ten and it wasn't better than Philly's. Now we have a new head coach, fingers crossed we kick on and become a play off team. If that happens in 2017, our draft pick ends up in Chicago, and Philly will not have had the opportunity to swap picks. And then in 2019, as we ascend up the standings - which has to be the aim - then all we convey to Philly is a mid to late first round pick.
So in a sense the deal that our front office made was only dangerous if we were a worse team than Philly or 'won' the lottery. Granted some of the moves we made didn't work out, others did to an extent. But from here on out as long as we make progress and become a winning team (ideally a play off team), then Philly doesn't really get much of a return for the trade they made. The only time it becomes problem is if we are a lottery team in 2017 and/or 2019 and 'win' the lottery, at which point Philly will be rubbing their hands. But as it stands, as long as we progress forwards under Joeger, the draft pick heads to Chicago next year, we keep our 2018 pick, and in 2019 we send them a mid to late first round pick.
- 2017: if our pick falls inside the top ten we keep it and don't send it to Chicago, and, Philly has the opportunity to swap.
- 2018: we retain our first round draft pick
- 2019: we send our first round pick to Philly
The deal with Philly was a necessary devil to get rid of some bad contracts and to free up cap space to make moves. Granted we never took the desired steps this season, but we have managed to hold onto our pick because it didn't fall outside the top ten and it wasn't better than Philly's. Now we have a new head coach, fingers crossed we kick on and become a play off team. If that happens in 2017, our draft pick ends up in Chicago, and Philly will not have had the opportunity to swap picks. And then in 2019, as we ascend up the standings - which has to be the aim - then all we convey to Philly is a mid to late first round pick.
So in a sense the deal that our front office made was only dangerous if we were a worse team than Philly or 'won' the lottery. Granted some of the moves we made didn't work out, others did to an extent. But from here on out as long as we make progress and become a winning team (ideally a play off team), then Philly doesn't really get much of a return for the trade they made. The only time it becomes problem is if we are a lottery team in 2017 and/or 2019 and 'win' the lottery, at which point Philly will be rubbing their hands. But as it stands, as long as we progress forwards under Joeger, the draft pick heads to Chicago next year, we keep our 2018 pick, and in 2019 we send them a mid to late first round pick.
This perspective continues to perplex. You could just as easily say:
I don't understand how continuing to gamble on trades and free agency with a front office that (until now?) has a horrific history of evaluating talent provides long term stability.
or even
I don't understand how continuing to assume a new coach with a front office that (until now?) has a horrific history of hiring coaches provides long term stability.
We've been bad at almost everything. The one thing the current FO has done better than anything else is drafting (small sample, of course). If we don't trust their savvy to draft, though, then we really shouldn't trust them with anything else. If you want to argue that the draft is riskier than trades or free agency, well, that's a different point.
I don't understand how continuing to gamble on trades and free agency with a front office that (until now?) has a horrific history of evaluating talent provides long term stability.
or even
I don't understand how continuing to assume a new coach with a front office that (until now?) has a horrific history of hiring coaches provides long term stability.
We've been bad at almost everything. The one thing the current FO has done better than anything else is drafting (small sample, of course). If we don't trust their savvy to draft, though, then we really shouldn't trust them with anything else. If you want to argue that the draft is riskier than trades or free agency, well, that's a different point.
Last edited:
Hmmmm.
Jimmer - traded for him because owners wanted his jersey sales.
TRob - never given an opportunity to develop here. Has NBA talent. Just undersized. Portland got use out him because Portland is smart enough to get use out of all their players.
BMac - drafted correctly for draft class. Raw and the instability of the franchise and inability to develop players stunts his growth
Nik - never should have drafted back to back SG. Owner scouted him from YouTube videos. Nuff said..
This all sounds like franchise issues. Not draft / young player issues.
Jimmer - traded for him because owners wanted his jersey sales.
TRob - never given an opportunity to develop here. Has NBA talent. Just undersized. Portland got use out him because Portland is smart enough to get use out of all their players.
BMac - drafted correctly for draft class. Raw and the instability of the franchise and inability to develop players stunts his growth
Nik - never should have drafted back to back SG. Owner scouted him from YouTube videos. Nuff said..
This all sounds like franchise issues. Not draft / young player issues.
Are we really talking about a 2019 draft pick here? That's three years away. The Kings still owe Chicago one. This was the last season I condoned for getting a lottery pick because I believe in Vlade and I hope that this lottery issue won't be a burden any longer, if the team can start talking playoffs again. At the same time, you do not want to jeopardize your future so down the road Vlade can make some calls in order to land a mid to late first round pick, if anything.
Don't like the latter part, but when you say lose Cousins, I think we can assume that we won't just lose him with nothing in return. It's likely we'll receive a player or two, and probably a draft pick or two, which would make up for the pick we lose to Philly. This season is make or break for the Cousins era in my opinion. Whether it's Cousins fault or not, if your not looking like a team on the rise after this season, I think you have to consider trading Cousins, for fear of his walking at seasons end the following year. Problem is, the other teams know your between a rock and a hard place, and the squeeze is on. Don't want it to come to that, so I'm hopeful for a huge improvement this coming season.
But was it necessary though? we could've signed Rondo and Marco just by stretching Landry and making small adjustments...
Trading a pick that can become unprotected so easily is irresponsible- it's very rare for team to make that trade, especially for so little value and especially since it's due a year after the franchise player contract expires, we basically pushed our rebuild one more year away if things don't work out for very little gain.
It's not catastrophic but it was a bad trade- we locked ourselves to a risky plan because we have far less incentive to rebuild (even if it will be what we should be doing) and we can't trade a pick until 2021 (and we don't have a lot of trade assets to begin with)- and the gain from the trade is pretty unclear.
Trading a pick that can become unprotected so easily is irresponsible- it's very rare for team to make that trade, especially for so little value and especially since it's due a year after the franchise player contract expires, we basically pushed our rebuild one more year away if things don't work out for very little gain.
It's not catastrophic but it was a bad trade- we locked ourselves to a risky plan because we have far less incentive to rebuild (even if it will be what we should be doing) and we can't trade a pick until 2021 (and we don't have a lot of trade assets to begin with)- and the gain from the trade is pretty unclear.
Not necessarily. Blowing it up will likely mean trading away veteran players to start over, and that would probably mean we would, or could acquire a first round pick or two in the process of blowing it up. For instance, if our pick would have been in the twentys next year and we lose it, but we could trade Koufos for a late first round pick, and he was part of the deal that lost us that pick, then it's sort of a push.
Apparently he didn't know the stretch provision existed.
http://www.sactownroyalty.com/2016/...cted-to-hire-gm-and-head-coach-this-offseason
http://www.sactownroyalty.com/2016/...cted-to-hire-gm-and-head-coach-this-offseason
I agree with you. Just about every player playing in the NBA was drafted by someone, therefore, it's sort of ridiculous to discard the draft as unimportant, or useless. The truth is, some teams are batter at evaluating talent than others. So the problem isn't the draft, it's the people doing the drafting. When Petrie arrived, he brought in a golden era of drafting, starting out with Brian Grant, Michael Smith, and Funderburke all in one draft. His record was terrific until the Kings ran out of money, depleted their scouting dept, and started drafting for PR purposes instead of abilities.
Under Vlade so far, that seems to have changed. We only have one draft to judge, but he's off to a good start. As I have pointed out before, just about every core player on the Warriors team was drafted by the Warriors, and not one of them was a top six pick. They do their homework, and there's no reason the Kings can't do the same. We can't blame the sins of the past on Vlade.
To my mind, building through the draft, and building through freeagency are two different, and separate issues. It's not one at the expense of the other. It's not either/or. You use both to the best of your ability. To say that one is of no importance, is to shoot yourself in the foot. Every team, regardless of where they are in the standings, needs to have a solid foundation, and part of that foundation is having young talented players in place being developed. The desire being, to get to the point where when you draft a player, he's not expected to be the savior of the franchise, but instead a future building block to be molded.
Under Vlade so far, that seems to have changed. We only have one draft to judge, but he's off to a good start. As I have pointed out before, just about every core player on the Warriors team was drafted by the Warriors, and not one of them was a top six pick. They do their homework, and there's no reason the Kings can't do the same. We can't blame the sins of the past on Vlade.
To my mind, building through the draft, and building through freeagency are two different, and separate issues. It's not one at the expense of the other. It's not either/or. You use both to the best of your ability. To say that one is of no importance, is to shoot yourself in the foot. Every team, regardless of where they are in the standings, needs to have a solid foundation, and part of that foundation is having young talented players in place being developed. The desire being, to get to the point where when you draft a player, he's not expected to be the savior of the franchise, but instead a future building block to be molded.
Look, I don't have a crystal ball, and you or I can speculate all we want about what the return would be. We'll probably find out this summer because I suspect that the Kings will try and move Belinelli and/or McLemore. It is what it is and I'm not going to sit around and wring my hands over it. If you make a mistake, you move on. Just like when you miss a shot. The great thing about being a fan is that you can praise a trade at the time, and then divorce yourself from it a year later and criticize it. Unfortunately the GM can't do that. By the way, I was speaking in general terms and not pointing the finger at you. Gotta qualify everything around here with the sensitivity meter at a 100%.
In regards to Nik, he wasn't a 'bad' pick. Granted most teams don't draft SGs in back to back years, but McLemore didn't set the world alight as a rookie (and arguably still hasn't), and as a team we did (and arguably still do) lack shooting. Do teams generally use top ten picks to draft shooters for the bench? No, but I can see the logic in drafting a player that was an excellent shooter in college because we really needed to add someone to help space the floor. It also gave McLemore competition and reason to improve, and if he didn't, then perhaps Nik could have developed into a very solid shooting guard in the mould of a JJ Reddick.
That said, who else was realistically available to us in 2014?
Noah Vonleh went #9, and as a PF he potentially could have been a fit with what we wanted to run. Problem is, he was (and still is) raw. When a team that drafts a player ninth overall trades them the following off season that tells you that Vonleh is a ways off being ready to meaningfully contribute.
Elfrid Payton went #10 to Orlando via Philly. He's been steady since coming into the league. But the issue with Payton is that he was a developmental prospect that wasn't a very good shooter, and while he has improved, his shooting is still a weakness. Now if he can become a poor man's Rajon Rondo, fine, but he wasn't an ideal fit for us and still has a ways to go in his development.
After that there was Doug McDermott (a steady player, but he would have come off the bench like Nik), Dario Saric (has yet to come over and play in the NBA), and Zach LaVine (streaky player, athletic and excellent dunker). In hindsight we probably should have taken LaVine, or Rodney Hood who somehow fell to #23, but in reality we didn't have an abundance of choice in the 2014 draft class because the choice after the top seven picks was below average to average. So our front office went for a kid who was an excellent shooter in college in the hope he could be a contributor off the bench, and possibly develop into a player capable of pushing McLemore for the starting gig.
That said, who else was realistically available to us in 2014?
Noah Vonleh went #9, and as a PF he potentially could have been a fit with what we wanted to run. Problem is, he was (and still is) raw. When a team that drafts a player ninth overall trades them the following off season that tells you that Vonleh is a ways off being ready to meaningfully contribute.
Elfrid Payton went #10 to Orlando via Philly. He's been steady since coming into the league. But the issue with Payton is that he was a developmental prospect that wasn't a very good shooter, and while he has improved, his shooting is still a weakness. Now if he can become a poor man's Rajon Rondo, fine, but he wasn't an ideal fit for us and still has a ways to go in his development.
After that there was Doug McDermott (a steady player, but he would have come off the bench like Nik), Dario Saric (has yet to come over and play in the NBA), and Zach LaVine (streaky player, athletic and excellent dunker). In hindsight we probably should have taken LaVine, or Rodney Hood who somehow fell to #23, but in reality we didn't have an abundance of choice in the 2014 draft class because the choice after the top seven picks was below average to average. So our front office went for a kid who was an excellent shooter in college in the hope he could be a contributor off the bench, and possibly develop into a player capable of pushing McLemore for the starting gig.
I call it the Cousins era because he's the most polarizing figure on the team for the last six years, and I can't think of one other person on the team that I could bestow that on. It wasn't mean't as a criticism, but simply as what is. I'll leave it up to the pundits and the fans to decide where the blame lies. But let me say this, and I'm pointing at you, but I find it difficult to even mention Cousins name anymore without someone either attacking him, or defending him. An as a fan, frankly, I'm sick and tired of it. Can't we have honest discussions about a player without having an all out war? Because if we can't, then I think I'm done here. I've got better things to do with my life.
There were some pretty obvious red flags about all those players, but you know which of those players had the fewest flags, Nik! I liked Nik coming out of college, and I still think he turn into a good player. The biggest knock on Nik was whether he was a one year wonder. He had a terrific season at Michigan and did a little bit of everything. He led the team in assists and shot over 40% from the three. There was a question about his overall strengh, but that was about it. He has a good feel for the game. Sometimes, things just don't pan out, and you can't explain it. All the others, lived up to their criticisms.
First thing to consider here is that no one in the front office should be thinking: 'what if this goes wrong and we don't improve?', or, 'wait a minute, we need to be careful just in case Cousins leaves in free agency years from now'. Those types of questions and thoughts are not at the forefront of their decision making, nor should they be. In their mind they are making a move that is going to help this team get to where they want to go. It is easy to criticise them for this move, but they made a bold move to help this team, unfortunately it didn't work out as planned but you never expect to fail when you make a move - you expect to succeed.
Second thing to consider here is this 'rebuild' idea or 'assets'. This move was made to free up cap space to sign players they believed would make a difference and help them compete for a play off spot. If we had made the play offs we would have been sending the a draft pick in the range of #15-30 to Chicago. After that, if we continued to make the play offs, Philly wouldn't swap their draft pick for ours, and when we did come to owe them a draft pick it would have been in the range of #15-30. A lot of play off teams throw those mid to late first round picks at veteran players, or to do deals to create cap space to sign veteran free agents. So yes, we have lost a future first round pick that could hurt a potential rebuild. However, if rebuilding was on this team's mind we wouldn't have made this trade, and arguably, we would have potentially traded Cousins and Gay for draft picks and young players to develop.
That said, you are right that we could have signed players without doing this trade, but we would not have been able to construct the roster we did. Now ok it didn't work out and we didn't achieve what our front office aimed to achieve. However, if we did achieve what our front office aimed to achieve (ie play offs), we wouldn't be having this 'negative' conversation about this trade. Instead, we would be talking about this trade in a more positive manner and about what went right and wrong with our play off run, and what we can do this off season in order to go deeper into the play offs.
Was it a good deal in hindsight? Probably not. But at the same time, they took a risk and so far they have got away with it. And as long as we improve and get better, the draft pick we send to Philly may not even cross our minds if we end up being a play off team under Joerger.
Second thing to consider here is this 'rebuild' idea or 'assets'. This move was made to free up cap space to sign players they believed would make a difference and help them compete for a play off spot. If we had made the play offs we would have been sending the a draft pick in the range of #15-30 to Chicago. After that, if we continued to make the play offs, Philly wouldn't swap their draft pick for ours, and when we did come to owe them a draft pick it would have been in the range of #15-30. A lot of play off teams throw those mid to late first round picks at veteran players, or to do deals to create cap space to sign veteran free agents. So yes, we have lost a future first round pick that could hurt a potential rebuild. However, if rebuilding was on this team's mind we wouldn't have made this trade, and arguably, we would have potentially traded Cousins and Gay for draft picks and young players to develop.
That said, you are right that we could have signed players without doing this trade, but we would not have been able to construct the roster we did. Now ok it didn't work out and we didn't achieve what our front office aimed to achieve. However, if we did achieve what our front office aimed to achieve (ie play offs), we wouldn't be having this 'negative' conversation about this trade. Instead, we would be talking about this trade in a more positive manner and about what went right and wrong with our play off run, and what we can do this off season in order to go deeper into the play offs.
Was it a good deal in hindsight? Probably not. But at the same time, they took a risk and so far they have got away with it. And as long as we improve and get better, the draft pick we send to Philly may not even cross our minds if we end up being a play off team under Joerger.
While true, there is a huge element of luck involved. Talent is one thing. But judging character or someone's innate desire to succeed is something else entirely.
Despite what the scouts and experts believe, it's a crap shoot as to how well many of these players will develop. You just can't predict how money, guaranteed contracts, fame, etc. will affect a players desire to really push themselves to become the best players they can be. Nor can you know whether those same players will develop into a 'team' player versus a 'me' player that's been coddled and enabled by everyone in their life.
For example, no chance the Warriors or their scouts could have ever envisioned what Steph Curry has become, let alone predicted it. I'm no expert or scout, but I championed for Curry really hard going into that draft. I'd be lying if I said I saw any of this coming.
Same goes for Kobe Bryant. While lots of GM's and scouts thought he'd be a heckuva player -- nobody knew the drive the kid had to become one of the all-time greats.
Closer to home, the Kings drafted Isaiah Thomas with the #60 and final selection in the 2011 draft. Like these other teams, they simply got lucky in that he exceeded every expectation and developed into a damn good player. If the Kings were really that smart, they would have drafted him much sooner --- ahead of Jimmer for sure.
Talent really isn't that hard to evaluate. It's the intangibles and drive that's hard. And I'm not convinced that many front offices are all that better at it -- they just get lucky with it at times. Other than blue chip talents such as LeBron, Shaq, Patrick Ewing, etc that are always clear cut, no doubt #1 picks, the draft is very much a crap shoot IMO. I find it easier to pick out the players I'm sure won't cut it than the one's I'm certain that will.
Despite what the scouts and experts believe, it's a crap shoot as to how well many of these players will develop. You just can't predict how money, guaranteed contracts, fame, etc. will affect a players desire to really push themselves to become the best players they can be. Nor can you know whether those same players will develop into a 'team' player versus a 'me' player that's been coddled and enabled by everyone in their life.
For example, no chance the Warriors or their scouts could have ever envisioned what Steph Curry has become, let alone predicted it. I'm no expert or scout, but I championed for Curry really hard going into that draft. I'd be lying if I said I saw any of this coming.
Same goes for Kobe Bryant. While lots of GM's and scouts thought he'd be a heckuva player -- nobody knew the drive the kid had to become one of the all-time greats.
Closer to home, the Kings drafted Isaiah Thomas with the #60 and final selection in the 2011 draft. Like these other teams, they simply got lucky in that he exceeded every expectation and developed into a damn good player. If the Kings were really that smart, they would have drafted him much sooner --- ahead of Jimmer for sure.
Talent really isn't that hard to evaluate. It's the intangibles and drive that's hard. And I'm not convinced that many front offices are all that better at it -- they just get lucky with it at times. Other than blue chip talents such as LeBron, Shaq, Patrick Ewing, etc that are always clear cut, no doubt #1 picks, the draft is very much a crap shoot IMO. I find it easier to pick out the players I'm sure won't cut it than the one's I'm certain that will.
Good post! Well thought out. In general I agree with almost all of it, and what I don't agree with isn't worth discussing. What I will say is that when you evaluate the trade, I think you also have to look at why it came about to begin with. When Vivek took over ownership, he brought with him a sense of urgency. He wanted to win now, or at least by the time we moved into the new building. Great idea, and an idea the fans loved. Who wouldn't? But in reality, it was a tall order. The Kings didn't have a lot of cap room, and also had the threat of losing their first round pick hanging over their head. Not a great starting point.
So, we had a team that won 28/29 games with regularity, and the job was to immediately make them into a playoff team. It sounds good, but in reality, anytime you try and take shortcuts, you usually make mistakes. Truth is, there aren't any shortcuts unless you get lucky, and the Kings haven't been lucky for a long time. When Petrie took over, he was faced with a similar situation, and he took a different approach. He waited! He built up the scouting dept, especially over in Europe, and when it came time to draft, he made smart choices, and when we finally freed up some capspace, he made his move. It took time, and the fan's were impatient. The fans booed when he drafted some player they never heard of, who couldn't come over and play right away.
However, it worked in the end. Vlade did his best to appease Vivek, and the impatient fanbase. At the time, most, not all, but most, were happy with the trade and signings. Hindsight is a 100% as they say. But I doubt anyone would have predicted the horrible year that Belinelli had. Personally, I think Koufos was as advertised, and Butler never got much of a chance to play. Whether you like the style of play that Rondo brings, or not, I think he qualifies as a success signing. So, some good, some bad. It's the end result we don't like, and a lot of that has to be laid at Karl's feet.
So, we had a team that won 28/29 games with regularity, and the job was to immediately make them into a playoff team. It sounds good, but in reality, anytime you try and take shortcuts, you usually make mistakes. Truth is, there aren't any shortcuts unless you get lucky, and the Kings haven't been lucky for a long time. When Petrie took over, he was faced with a similar situation, and he took a different approach. He waited! He built up the scouting dept, especially over in Europe, and when it came time to draft, he made smart choices, and when we finally freed up some capspace, he made his move. It took time, and the fan's were impatient. The fans booed when he drafted some player they never heard of, who couldn't come over and play right away.
However, it worked in the end. Vlade did his best to appease Vivek, and the impatient fanbase. At the time, most, not all, but most, were happy with the trade and signings. Hindsight is a 100% as they say. But I doubt anyone would have predicted the horrible year that Belinelli had. Personally, I think Koufos was as advertised, and Butler never got much of a chance to play. Whether you like the style of play that Rondo brings, or not, I think he qualifies as a success signing. So, some good, some bad. It's the end result we don't like, and a lot of that has to be laid at Karl's feet.
But keep in mind that if you stretch a player, you still do have to pay them. Between JT and Landry, we rid ourselves of over $21M worth of contracts, and that's $21M that we would have had to pay out had we stretched them. Assuming we don't swap picks with Philly next year, Philly gave us $21M and the rights to two players currently in Europe for a first-round pick in 2019 that may or may not be any good and two players we didn't want anyway.
If you take Nate Silver's assessment of the value of a draft pick seriously (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-is-winning-the-nba-draft-lottery-really-worth/), then accounting for the jump in the cap, if the pick we send them is about 11 or higher, Philly probably overpaid. At any rate, we gambled on getting better. Let's hope we do, for the sake of all of us!
If you take Nate Silver's assessment of the value of a draft pick seriously (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-is-winning-the-nba-draft-lottery-really-worth/), then accounting for the jump in the cap, if the pick we send them is about 11 or higher, Philly probably overpaid. At any rate, we gambled on getting better. Let's hope we do, for the sake of all of us!