Rebuild...ahead of schedule?

[VF21]

For example Porter looks like a player that will be great. And since Kings dont have '19 pick its important that we are in a position to draft a good player next draft.

You cant keep living in denial just because you dont have patience to wait one year. Diminishing the value of a draft is just stupid. Look at the all nba teams. How many of those players were drafted by their team? It doesnt make sence to throw out an example of a worst draft in nba history, you need to look at the average values of a certain draft pick. Anything else is stupid at this point when we have not seen a lot of these prospects play college ball.

Excuse me, but most of us here have been Kings fans for an eternity and we've waited MUCH LONGER than one year. You can have a decent debate/discussion without deciding that any point that does not agree with yours is "stupid."

As far as always reaching for the net best franchise player goes, ask Portland how that worked out for them with Greg Oden.

 

[VF21]

I don't think the goal is win as many game as possible by playing vets (Hill, Kosta, Zbo and Temple) 30+ MPG. I think the goal is win as many games as possible by having vets on your roster to support individual and collective success and defer to the coach to allocate MPG. The team winning 35 games for example and getting 14th pick is superior to winning 18 games and getting the 2nd pick. In the former case you likely had guys perform and validate their expectation or exceeding. The team was cohesive to come together and overcome their inexperience and youth and win. You likely have guys building on rookie years and rookies landing on the All-Rookie team.

In latter case you have a team that only gets "schedule wins", does no better than an expansion team. You likely have guys under-performing or regressing and possible fractured locker room. Can you play hard and most player meet or exceed expectations be on a path to a dominant team and win 18 games with the roster as currently constructed? I don't think so. There's too much talent on the roster offensively and defensively to not approach 30 wins at least if the team plays together. I don't think we can be one of the worst 5 teams next year and think we are on the path to prominence and relevance. Look at these crappy teams:

• Lakers
• Hawks
• Suns
• Knicks
• Bulls
• Magic

Finishing below any of the teams next year would be a disappointment IMHO even before we added Hill and Z-Bo. The 5th pick in the draft per Draft Express next year is Miles Bridges. He is a guy we may have took at #10 this year. Above Bridges is Doncic who I think would be the 15th man and G-League player based on the limited clips I watched. So this notion we have to maximize our draft position to get "our franchise player" is not consistent with what the plethora of unproven and proven and semi-proven assets currently have and landscape of the league and prospects for the draft.

tl/dr.....just win baby

Time for the VF21 stupid question of the day. What does tl/dr mean?

Other than that, I pretty much agree with your entire post.

 

[mac]

Time for the VF21 stupid question of the day. What does tl/dr mean?

Other than that, I pretty much agree with your entire post.

Too long didn't read, i.e. the short version.

 

[ESP47]

Here's where patience is important. I think the FO (ownership?) panicked too early last year and we went into "blow it up" mode, resulting in (on paper) strong draft results. What if the team is winning at a respectable clip, and they look like they'll end up with a lower lottery pick this upcoming year? Are they going to be so hell-bent on getting that high pick in 2018 that they're going to sacrifice the progress that they've been making in 2017? We can't keep relying on next year's draft class. At some point, we're going to have to go to war with and develop who we have, and let the chips fall where they may. If this current roster isn't good enough to make noise, then the pick will bear itself out, and we'll have a high pick in 2018 without having to "tank". If this combination of youth AND vets seems to be gelling and making positive progress, then damn the draft. You don't get better by always trying to land the first pick in the draft year after year after year.

I have a feeling this year will give us the FO's true intentions.

You're making it seem like the Kings have been the Sixers when you say that they can't keep relying on the next years draft class. So far I've only seen the team "tank" once and that was last year. I wouldn't even call it a full tank since they were developing the rookies at the same time. They didn't tank during the Cousins years. The players gave up every year after the all star break.

The Kings went almost a decade without winning much at all but never losing enough to get up into the top 3 picks. This year we have the opportunity to get another possible De'Aaron Fox level player while developing the rookies at the same time. It's a win win situation for a team that won't be able to make the playoffs anyway. When you look back at the last 10 years of losing, you don't think fondly of 2015 and the 33 win season we had under Karl and then look back on 2011's 22 win season and think about how awful that was in comparison. Both seasons are unmemorable and were no fun to watch. But the 22 win season has a high chance of netting us an all star while the 33 win season has a very low chance. In the world of GM's, "letting the chips fall where they may" is playing checkers while the rest of them are playing chess. If you don't control your environment, you're essentially hoping for luck to fall into your hands. We finally have two excellent drafts on paper after years of swinging and missing. I have more faith than ever that we could land another excellent prospect next year that'll help set us on the road to winning. It takes more than one great player and a bunch of good players to win these days. The Kings need to give themselves the best chance they can get and pounce on the opportunity when the time is right.

 

[Gguod]

Excuse me, but most of us here have been Kings fans for an eternity and we've waited MUCH LONGER than one year. You can have a decent debate/discussion without deciding that any point that does not agree with yours is "stupid."

As far as always reaching for the net best franchise player goes, ask Portland how that worked out for them with Greg Oden.

But you can have decent debate when your awnser to statistic data is to point out a one unique situation and consider it overruling my argument?

Plus the kings havent been trying to get a good lottery position with Cousins. Its basically been win now mode for years. One year without being win now should be doable for fans if they would understand how much it could possibly improve the franchise long term.

 

[Kingster]

The problem with the Hayward situation was he came on late. Last season was his first all-star appearance after entering his seventh season so there are always late bloomers. Kyle Lowry is another perfect example who came on later than expected to become an all-star caliber player.

Essentially, Divac is going to have to use the same crystal ball skills used in determining who is worthy of long term contracts that he's been using in the draft to determine who can play in the NBA. As with Thomas, Lowry, and Hayward, it's usually not going to be obviously transparent who is going to be an All Star going forward.

 

[Telemachus]

Who would that be?

Marvin Bagley, III. He is a 6'11", 220 lbs as a HS junior. He is going to be a dominant player in the NBA IMO.

 

[King Baller]

Because usually the superstars are number 1 or 2 pick in the draft.

Really? Name the top 10 players in the NBA and where they were drafted.

 

[upinsmoke]

There are going to be some crappy teams this year I don't think we can out tank them anyways.

 

[kingsfan101]

You're leaving out Vlade's negatives in your callout. Vlade turned...

2016 #8
Belinelli
Cousins
2017 #3
2019 1st rounder

into

Papagiannis (via 2016 #8)
Labissiere (via 2016 #8)
Bogdanovic (via 2016 #8)
Richardson (via Belinelli)
Hield (via Cousins)
Jackson (via Cousins)
Giles (via Cousins)
Fox (via #3)
Koufos (via 2019 1st Rounder - cap space)

I didn't include the 2019 pick, since that trade was made before we switched directions towards a rebuild. Not saying that it should not be used to evaluate Vlade, just a different set of parameters.

As to 2017 #3, I excluded our own pick, since we wouldn't have had that pick had we not traded DMC. This is the reason I mentioned that while the trade itself was not good, our draft status made it less obnoxious.

I did miss out including our second round pick in our list of original assets though.

 

[roasthawg]

Really? Name the top 10 players in the NBA and where they were drafted.

Better yet look at the most successful small market teams in the league and see how they got put together. Spurs, Memphis, OKC, etc. There's no clear cut blue print on how to get good and remain that way for awhile. Our own history of being good in the early 2000's didn't involve us winning the lottery. All things being equal I'd rather have a higher pick. All things aren't equal though and losing comes with it's own opportunity costs in terms of culture, ability to attract free agents, ability to retain your own players, etc. Vlade has a plan and I think it starts with the culture.

 

[Telemachus]

YlThe Kings went almost a decade without winning much at all but never losing enough to get up into the top 3 picks. This year we have the opportunity to get another possible De'Aaron Fox level player while developing the rookies at the same time. It's a win win situation for a team that won't be able to make the playoffs anyway. When you look back at the last 10 years of losing, you don't think fondly of 2015 and the 33 win season we had under Karl and then look back on 2011's 22 win season and think about how awful that was in comparison. Both seasons are unmemorable and were no fun to watch. But the 22 win season has a high chance of netting us an all star while the 33 win season has a very low chance. In the world of GM's, "letting the chips fall where they may" is playing checkers while the rest of them are playing chess. If you don't control your environment, you're essentially hoping for luck to fall into your hands. We finally have two excellent drafts on paper after years of swinging and missing. I have more faith than ever that we could land another excellent prospect next year that'll help set us on the road to winning. It takes more than one great player and a bunch of good players to win these days. The Kings need to give themselves the best chance they can get and pounce on the opportunity when the time is right.

The Kings have finished with the worst record before (picked 5th), and with the 2nd worst record (picked 4th). There is no guarantee of a top 3 pick.

The Kings are going to be as good as their young players take them this season. The vets will make a much bigger difference in helping to school the young players (and showing them how to win) than they will with their contribution on the floor. So if they end up winning 35+ games, it is a
sign that our young guys are better than some may have expected.

 

[ESP47]

The Kings have finished with the worst record before (picked 5th), and with the 2nd worst record (picked 4th). There is no guarantee of a top 3 pick.

The Kings are going to be as good as their young players take them this season. The vets will make a much bigger difference in helping to school the young players (and showing them how to win) than they will with their contribution on the floor. So if they end up winning 35+ games, it is a
sign that our young guys are better than some may have expected.

I know there are no guarantees of anything but people keep acting as if the entire thing is a crap shoot. You can up your odds tremendously by playing your cards right. You have no realistic chance at winning the lottery but you'd damn sure take 1,000 tickets over 1 ticket. The logic some people are using is that you can win with 1 ticket so it doesn't really matter anyway. I'm all about playing the odds. You win some, you lose some but you'll win more with better odds.

If the young guys win us 35 games, I'll be ecstatic and next years pick wont really matter all that much because the sky will be the limit with the current roster. My only worry is veterans playing big minutes and winning us 6-8 extra games on the year while having no shot at the playoffs. That's my main concern. If we're winning because the young guys are tearing it up, I'll be very happy. But if we drop down and pick 10th while the rookie picked 5th turns into an all star and the veterans that caused us to pick 10th are gone while the rest of the team isn't developed enough to make a playoff run....then I'll be pretty irritated.

 

[Gguod]

Really? Name the top 10 players in the NBA and where they were drafted.

Well here are last number one picks: KAT, Wiggins, Bennet, AD, Irving, Wall, Griffin, Rose, Oden, Bargani, Bogut, Dwight, Lebron, Yao, Kwame, Kenyon Martin, Brand, Olowakandi, Duncan, Iverson ect. I can also give you statistcs on how number one pick is on average the far superior pick. But yeah apparently hoping to draft Paul George at 10 or Giannis at 25 seems legit strategy. I could probably give you the odds on drafting an all nba talent on 10th or lower pick but i guess that doesnt matter to you or anyone who is set on winning now.

 

[Telemachus]

I know there are no guarantees of anything but people keep acting as if the entire thing is a crap shoot. You can up your odds tremendously by playing your cards right. You have no realistic chance at winning the lottery but you'd damn sure take 1,000 tickets over 1 ticket. The logic some people are using is that you can win with 1 ticket so it doesn't really matter anyway. I'm all about playing the odds. You win some, you lose some but you'll win more with better odds.

If the young guys win us 35 games, I'll be ecstatic and next years pick wont really matter all that much because the sky will be the limit with the current roster. My only worry is veterans playing big minutes and winning us 6-8 extra games on the year while having no shot at the playoffs. That's my main concern. If we're winning because the young guys are tearing it up, I'll be very happy. But if we drop down and pick 10th while the rookie picked 5th turns into an all star and the veterans that caused us to pick 10th are gone while the rest of the team isn't developed enough to make a playoff run....then I'll be pretty irritated.

Actually, using the lottery is a bad example. The odds of winning with 1000 tickets is not much greater than with 1. You are better off saving $999 and only buy

 

[kingsboi]

Well here are last number one picks: KAT, Wiggins, Bennet, AD, Irving, Wall, Griffin, Rose, Oden, Bargani, Bogut, Dwight, Lebron, Yao, Kwame, Kenyon Martin, Brand, Olowakandi, Duncan, Iverson ect. I can also give you statistcs on how number one pick is on average the far superior pick. But yeah apparently hoping to draft Paul George at 10 or Giannis at 25 seems legit strategy. I could probably give you the odds on drafting an all nba talent on 10th or lower pick but i guess that doesnt matter to you or anyone who is set on winning now.

Giannis was 15th overall
Butler 28th overall
Leonard 14th overall
Steph 7th overall
Dirk 9th overall
Wade 5th overall

just to name a few, point is....there are stars to be found all over, it doesn't have to be at the expense of a top 3 pick. It also requires a lot of luck, hard work and proper player development.

 

[ESP47]

Actually, using the lottery is a bad example. The odds of winning with 1000 tickets is not much greater than with 1. You are better off saving $999 and only buy

Yeah that's why I don't play the lottery lol.

You know what I meant though.

 

[Gguod]

Giannis was 15th overall
Butler 28th overall
Leonard 14th overall
Steph 7th overall
Dirk 9th overall
Wade 5th overall

just to name a few, point is....there are stars to be found all over, it doesn't have to be at the expense of a top 3 pick. It also requires a lot of luck, hard work and proper player development.

And I could give you tens of players that turned bad at those picks, whats the point? Its not a crapshoot. There is data available to see whats the odds on drafting an all star at different picks. Its simple: The higher the pick, the better chances on drafting an all star. On average the difference between 1st and 7th pick is tremendous. Its obvious that anything can happen, but there just is simple math involved that cannot be passed on.

The better your pick is, more likely you are to draft an all star. Its possible to draft an all star at 60 but it allmost never happens. You can draft a bust at 1st but its so much rarer than drafting a bust at 10th. Its just math, odds and data collected trough the years and its unintelligent to argue against it.

Its just that simple that it shouldnt even be a conversation. The discussion shouldnt be "does getting top odds to lottery matter" it should be about why being in a best possible position to draft a good player doesnt matter much to someone. And from there the discussion should be wich route is the better one. But arguing that good positioning on lottery isnt that important is not even logical.

 

[VF21]

But you can have decent debate when your awnser to statistic data is to point out a one unique situation and consider it overruling my argument?

Plus the kings havent been trying to get a good lottery position with Cousins. Its basically been win now mode for years. One year without being win now should be doable for fans if they would understand how much it could possibly improve the franchise long term.

So if fans don't agree with you or your statistics it's because they just don't understand? I hope I'm misunderstanding your intent, because it's beginning to appear as though you think your opinion is the only right one.

 

[The Hammer]

I just hope the optimism doesn't fade if guys struggle in summer league. It's normal and hardly indicative of what will happen down the line.

Guys might struggle, but we have guys like Mason and Bogdanovich to keep our team afloat. Plus we just have way more actual NBA players on our SL team. I can see us winning the tourney. Keep in mind though I also predict 50 wins this year... so, ya know, grain of salt and all that

 

[VF21]

Well here are last number one picks: KAT, Wiggins, Bennet, AD, Irving, Wall, Griffin, Rose, Oden, Bargani, Bogut, Dwight, Lebron, Yao, Kwame, Kenyon Martin, Brand, Olowakandi, Duncan, Iverson ect. I can also give you statistcs on how number one pick is on average the far superior pick. But yeah apparently hoping to draft Paul George at 10 or Giannis at 25 seems legit strategy. I could probably give you the odds on drafting an all nba talent on 10th or lower pick but i guess that doesnt matter to you or anyone who is set on winning now.

MOD VOICE: You'll get along a lot better around here if you quit with the smug sarcasm.

 

[Gguod]

So if fans don't agree with you or your statistics it's because they just don't understand? I hope I'm misunderstanding your intent, because it's beginning to appear as though you think your opinion is the only right one.

I can discuss about the value of draft picks till the end of the world but usually when there are statistics involved in an objective and clear yes or no question, it shouldnt be a very long discussion. I would much rather discuss about the pros of winning now with vets. In order to do that it'd be nice that it was understood that decreasing our lottery odds is a con about that and statistically on average it really does matter considering the outcome of the draft.

 

[kingsboi]

And I could give you tens of players that turned bad at those picks, whats the point? Its not a crapshoot. There is data available to see whats the odds on drafting an all star at different picks. Its simple: The higher the pick, the better chances on drafting an all star. On average the difference between 1st and 7th pick is tremendous. Its obvious that anything can happen, but there just is simple math involved that cannot be passed on.

The better your pick is, more likely you are to draft an all star. Its possible to draft an all star at 60 but it allmost never happens. You can draft a bust at 1st but its so much rarer than drafting a bust at 10th. Its just math, odds and data collected trough the years and its unintelligent to argue against it.

Its just that simple that it shouldnt even be a conversation. The discussion shouldnt be "does getting top odds to lottery matter" it should be about why being in a best possible position to draft a good player doesnt matter much to someone. And from there the discussion should be wich route is the better one. But arguing that good positioning on lottery isnt that important is not even logical.

You honestly believe it's not a crapshoot? So every front office goes into the draft thinking about the "math" involved? I'm not arguing that having a higher pick can possibly net you a higher chance of a all-star caliber player, but I want to simply point out that you don't have to have a high pick in order to attain that player. You can look back in every draft and point out players that should of been drafted in the top 5 that turned into good players.

One other thing to consider, the franchise that player gets drafted to is vital IMO. Not all teams are going to groom and develop their players into all-star players and it sometimes takes a team to get rid of that player in order for him to shine and break out.

Lastly, no where in my post did I bring up drafting a all-star at 60 because you and I both realize that's once in a lifetime type of luck. I'm strictly keeping this conversation in the first round of the draft and showing players that have dropped for whatever the reason may be to turn into studs. The Kings simply do not have good lottery luck as far as getting a top 3 pick so the highest they've drafted other than 4th in 2009 has been the 5th pick which the Kings have had three times now since 2010.

 

[jpsls]

I can discuss about the value of draft picks till the end of the world but usually when there are statistics involved in an objective and clear yes or no question, it shouldnt be a very long discussion. I would much rather discuss about the pros of winning now with vets. In order to do that it'd be nice that it was understood that decreasing our lottery odds is a con about that and statistically on average it really does matter considering the outcome of the draft.

An injury prone Hill and 37 year old Randolph won't affect the win total very much. I agree that picking higher in the lottery is better, but I just don't see the two veterans moving the needle.

 

[Gguod]

You honestly believe it's not a crapshoot? So every front office goes into the draft thinking about the "math" involved? I'm not arguing that having a higher pick can possibly net you a higher chance of a all-star caliber player, but I want to simply point out that you don't have to have a high pick in order to attain that player. You can look back in every draft and point out players that should of been drafted in the top 5 that turned into good players.

One other thing to consider, the franchise that player gets drafted to is vital IMO. Not all teams are going to groom and develop their players into all-star players and it sometimes takes a team to get rid of that player in order for him to shine and break out.

Lastly, no where in my post did I bring up drafting a all-star at 60 because you and I both realize that's once in a lifetime type of luck. I'm strictly keeping this conversation in the first round of the draft and showing players that have dropped for whatever the reason may be to turn into studs. The Kings simply do not have good lottery luck as far as getting a top 3 pick so the highest they've drafted other than 4th in 2009 has been the 5th pick which the Kings have had three times now since 2010.

Its not crapshoot in the sence that there are data available to support the fact that the higher draft pick, the better odds to land an all star and the 1st pick is on average a superior pick. So when you know that if u complete a draft simulation a thousand times, the results are better with a 2nd pick than 7th pick. That way its not a crapshoot. You know that on average you are allways better off with as high pick as possible.

The way it can be a crapshoot is that the odds are what they suppose to be, odds. 80% likelyhood of something allways leaves 20% chance it wont happen so in a draft you never have 100% chance of anything. But having 50% odds for all star is way better than 20% eventough it could go either way. But in the long run 50% odds beats 20% odds.

And on a last note, I cant off the top off my head think of many all nba talent that have been drafted by their team but let go before they have "broke out". But if you know those type of situations im happy to be corrected.

 

[The Hammer]

Well here are last number one picks: KAT, Wiggins, Bennet, AD, Irving, Wall, Griffin, Rose, Oden, Bargani, Bogut, Dwight, Lebron, Yao, Kwame, Kenyon Martin, Brand, Olowakandi, Duncan, Iverson ect. I can also give you statistcs on how number one pick is on average the far superior pick. But yeah apparently hoping to draft Paul George at 10 or Giannis at 25 seems legit strategy. I could probably give you the odds on drafting an all nba talent on 10th or lower pick but i guess that doesnt matter to you or anyone who is set on winning now.

Hold up I said HOLD UP!

You're telling me you can STATISTICALLY PROVE that number 1 draft picks are the best players in a draft?!?!

Stop what you are doing.

WRITE A BOOK.

You need to cash in on this absolutely earth shattering insight.

 

[kingsboi]

Its not crapshoot in the sence that there are data available to support the fact that the higher draft pick, the better odds to land an all star and the 1st pick is on average a superior pick. So when you know that if u complete a draft simulation a thousand times, the results are better with a 2nd pick than 7th pick. That way its not a crapshoot. You know that on average you are allways better off with as high pick as possible.

The way it can be a crapshoot is that the odds are what they suppose to be, odds. 80% likelyhood of something allways leaves 20% chance it wont happen so in a draft you never have 100% chance of anything. But having 50% odds for all star is way better than 20% eventough it could go either way. But in the long run 50% odds beats 20% odds.

And on a last note, I cant off the top off my head think of many all nba talent that have been drafted by their team but let go before they have "broke out". But if you know those type of situations im happy to be corrected.

Okay since you are a numbers guy, tell me the percentage that a number one overall pick, second overall pick or even third overall pick pans out better than a 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th or 9th pick. I'm curious to see how the percentages fare with top 3 picks vs picks in the 6-10 range or higher.

A few players I can think of that needed a change of scenery in order to showcase their complete repertoire are Harden, Millsap, I. Thomas, Whiteside & Lowry. Whether they left for financial reasons, lack of development or both...it goes to show you that not all players pan out with their drafted teams and there are cases where the player needs to go elsewhere to prosper.

 

[VF21]

Okay since you are a numbers guy, tell me the percentage that a number one overall pick, second overall pick or even third overall pick pans out better than a 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th or 9th pick. I'm curious to see how the percentages fare with top 3 picks vs picks in the 6-10 range or higher..

That whole argument has been done before. I'm just too lazy to go back and find it.

 

[Gguod]

Okay since you are a numbers guy, tell me the percentage that a number one overall pick, second overall pick or even third overall pick pans out better than a 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th or 9th pick. I'm curious to see how the percentages fare with top 3 picks vs picks in the 6-10 range or higher.

A few players I can think of that needed a change of scenery in order to showcase their complete repertoire are Harden, Millsap, I. Thomas, Whiteside & Lowry. Whether they left for financial reasons, lack of development or both...it goes to show you that not all players pan out with their drafted teams and there are cases where the player needs to go elsewhere to prosper.

I posted a couple of good articles here before:
http://sports.sites.yale.edu/nba-draft-pick-value
https://www.google.fi/amp/fansided....e-friday-expected-value-in-the-nba-draft/amp/

If you dont feel like reading them both then this is a good quote from the latter:

• The first overall pick has historically had a very high floor. Almost 60% of first overall picks become All-Stars, and almost 25% become All-NBA First Teamers.

• The mid-lottery range (picks 4-10) is unlikely (<25%) to produce an All-Star, and has a very low chance of producing an All-NBA First Teamer.

• The late lottery (11-14) does not give teams a large advantage over picking in the mid to late first (15-30) in regards to picking All-Stars or All-NBA Players. It does give teams a larger chance of getting a rotation player (~50% vs ~40%).

And yeah Harden is a good example. In order to get guys like him via trade it would be good if we had as many assets as possible but thats a different conversation.

 

[ESP47]

I really don't understand why this is a back and forth discussion. You have some people saying that the higher you pick in the draft, the higher ODDS you have of landing an all star. You have other people saying it doesn't matter because you CAN land an all star at any spot, whether it's inside the lottery or not.

Both statements are true. One has higher odds. That's really the end of the discussion. The fact that no GM has ever straight up traded the 5th pick for the 6th pick means it's not even up for debate because it makes zero sense.

Everyone agrees that you can find an all star at 15 but you are wrong if you think the odds of finding one at 15 are just as good as finding one at the top of the lottery. There are no variables that make pick 15 better than a top pick.

Think of why Vegas exists. People go there to try and defy the odds. A few people do defy the odds and come home much richer. Most don't. The one thing that stays the same is the fact that Vegas always wins in the long run. The draft is no different. This is a discussion about odds, not absolutes.