I absolutely was not saying this last spring.
This is people smarts. You gotta know your people. Our people now. Last spring the whole organization was at odds. The coach was almost fired at the All Star break, he wanted to win to save his job. The organization wanted him gone. I am more than half convinced the players tanked what was a very winnable schedule because they wanted him gone and were protesting.
Completely different situation now. Now the organization is unified in goals from star player all the way to owner. And actually maybe even from roleplayers all the way to owner. The only people kinda not with the program are a certain subset of fans.
This isn't really a tactical thing or a skill thing at this point. The tactical arguments, the skill arguments, are both 100% correct and 100% missing the point. Its about building will to win. Anyone who has ever been in a fight knows its not always the biggest and strongest guy who wins (although it certainly helps). Its that tough mean S.O.B. who never quits and fights hard and dirty by second nature that you have to worry about. Size of the fight in the dog and all that.
And what makes you think you can't build that "will to win" with a team that will finish bottom 10? Keeping the pick and building a will to win are not mutually exclusive.
The biggest and strongest might not
always win, but they win more often than not. Our strategy as an organization shouldn't rely on the
exception. It should rely on the
rule with hopes that our big, strong guy becomes a tough, mean S.O.B. who never quits and fights hard and dirty.
And what happens when we "build this will to win" and potentially have upwards of 8 players leave next year? Do we just "rebuild" our will to win? There's a lot of talk about avoiding a rebuild from a talent standpoint but it goes both ways with a "will to win."
And let's just play through your scenario and say we make the playoffs as a sub .500 team. Then what? What do we do next year? Gay & Barnes are more than likely going to opt in and McLemore will more than likely not get a QO. That leaves us with $7.1 mil in cap space next year with Collison (cap hold for bird rights), Temple, Afflalo, Richardson, Gay, Barnes, Tolliver, Cauley-Stein, Labissiere, Cousins, Koufos, & Papagiannis under contract. Bogdanovic will probably make around $8 mil/year next year so we're looking at being over the cap with that team. Where is the improvement going to come from?
Sure the kids might continue to progress and get better bumping us to maybe around a .500 team now, but where's the vision? Where's the future? Where's the path that leads us to becoming a top team in the West? I'm not even sure I see it if we keep our 1st this year let alone lose it, but at least we have a better shot with that additional asset.
I'm weary of plans that rely on big time FA acquisitions. Even my Wall/Bledsoe idea above is a stretch, and it's entirely based on the existing relationship they have with Cousins. Let's face it. Our best FA acquisition in recent memory was Vlade (a 10-8-3 C the year before). We haven't signed someone of the caliber of a Bledsoe or a Wall. Moving forward with a plan that
relies on free agency as a team in Sacramento is risky at best and disastrous at worst. Trades & drafting. That's how small market teams become relevant. That's how the Kings become relevant.
The 2017 pick is a great chance to pick up a very valuable player/asset. Losing it with the intention of building a "will to win" is not a good excuse especially considering you can keep the pick and still build a will to win.
