Rebuild Strategy (or WE WANT LINS!)

[chief bromden]

I'm a confused Kings fan right now like many others. I feel conflicted with wins, but I am genuinely happy for the team when they win. It must feel good to win a game in the NBA, and experiencing that is important on a level that isn't measurable.

On the other hand, the Kings need more talent and with their 2019 pick being gonzo, the 2018 pick is pretty important. So I'm all about that biz of getting the lottery chance with one of the higher chances of being top 3, or top 5 (we all know the Kings won't win the lottery). It's possible that the Kings are driving up Zbo's and Hills value while they 'try to win' so that they can flip them for younger or draft assets around the midpoint of the season and then tank like they normally do.

After that, I realize that the poster who likened the Kings to the Browns is pretty much on the money. The Kings are terrible at drafting. I am still in disbelief that they traded a top 10 pick for 15,20 ... when there are legit NBA starter potential from picks 10-14 (Maybe Jackson/Giles will prove me wrong, and that'd be great) So, what's the point of the potential high draft pick when the Kings will Browns it up anyway? That's kinda where I end up, and then I go back to appreciating Zbo's teddy bear basketball game as he is smiling all over the court and talking with everyone, and George Hill being a competent two-way player that is a notch above the Temple-caliber two-way player that we are used to.

 

[gunks]

I understand the idea that getting higher draft spot is better than the lower spot, doh.

How much it is important is another thing.

I think that poster child of the tank at all cost approach is Philly.

Philly has 4+ years of intentional tanking, year after year multiple high draft picks.
Kings, do not know how to tank, suck for 4+ years in limbo of getting nowhere, in the first year of full rebuild.

Philly has 14 wins this year, Kings have 11.
14 wins now is 38 wins on the seasonal level.
Kings on the pace to 29.

That is after 4 YEARS of doing what some folks are advertising here as if it is the main solution to Kings woes.

If you would prefer team that makes their product unwatchable for years and call 4 years later 38 wins success Kings should emulate, that is your preference.

I am glad that Kings are not doing the same.

I can't speak for others, but personally I just want to tank this year.

There are 5, count em, 5 (!) prospects this upcoming draft that scouts say all could have gone #1 last draft.

If there was ever a year to tank, it's this one. We add one stud rookie to the core of Fox, Buddy, Bogs, etc.... we're ready to learn how to win.

At least you get a shot at a great player when you tank. You don't really get anything with these 28-33 win seasons this team strings together. But whatevs, to each their own. I totally understand how irritating us tankers get.

 

[ppine]

Tank? For what some draft picks that will get traded? We have tried building with high draft picks.
Winning gets you some experienced players via trade or FA.

 

[ockingsfan]

While I can see both points of views of tank or not tank, the young players on this club still need to learn how to win and close out games.

One high draft pick in 2018 is not going to turn around this team, if the other players are entrenched in a losing mentality.

Look at the players that Philly got early on in their "Process". Most of the early draft picks got in such a losing mentality that they were eventually traded for peanuts (see Noel and Okafor). The surviving players right now (Embidd and Simmons), was "luckily" injured during all theses great years of tanking and have the better mindset and mentality now.

My point is that if you raise the kids to be losers, they will only know losing, when the time comes to start winning, it may not be just a flip of a switch.

That being said, I don't mind us winning these games at all. But, If I had to change anything, I would change the ratio of young kids with the veterans, especially in the 4th quarter. I would establish a rotation that sees 1-2 vets and at least 3 young players on the floor at most times.

I know Joeger likes his ZBo, so if he puts in ZBo and Hill or Temple, especially at the end of games, he should be required to put out at least 3 young kids with them, whether it be Fox, Buddy, Bogdan, WCS, JJ, Mason, Malichi, Skal, etc. That way, Joeger gets 2 vets leadership in and the kids gets some valuable learning time, especially in crunch time.

Maybe put a 2 vet on the court max on Joeger, so the team has 2 vets and at least 3 young players in at most times.

I think that could be a win-win-win situation!

 

[Larry David]

The team has been bad for many years or "trash" as you suggest. However, the idea that this year is a rinse and repeat ignores the fact that 4-5 1st to 3rd year players are getting significant minutes and playing important roles. This is not the same as the last decade.

People can argue whether they are getting enough minutes or whether the team is constructed properly or whether the result is going to be different (we don't know yet) , but it's clearly not the same load of laundry.

It's the same plan.

Young does not equal a foundational piece. Odds favor, the Kings have been 0 and 1 of those depending upon how good Fox is and whether the Kings botch his development. Since tank the 17-18 season was the obvious move, they had decent mathematical odds to add another this June and then none until 2020.

It is rinse repeat for the long term game plan. It's just the same. Sure, there are kids on the roster and fans can hope for them all to exceed their reasonable expectations, but it's the same plan. What's difference is the consequences for this year.

Normally, they screw this up like they always do and they get another shot to murder another pick with the same lottery odds each year. When they botch this season, it's one pick for two year and the lottery odds become much more random thereafter. Screwing up this season and the 2018 pick, might mean they are bad for a loooooooooooooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnngggggggggggggg time.

It's super dumb and the consequences are probably going to be harsh.

 

[gunks]

We aren't getting anyone through FA.

Overpays for mid tier vets, but the good FAs take less to play elsewhere.

I'm not going to try to argue that this franchise is good at drafting, they aren't, but I guess I think a top 5 pick is a safer gamble than hoping for Vlade to turn into Ainge and pull off a miracle trade or waiting for an allstar FA who actually wants to play in Sac.

 

[Larry David]

Free agency and trades? Come on now.

Sign a great FA. That's never going to happen.

Get the All Star we need by: breaking middling picks into multiple picks for more chances; a team with a horrible track record of developing players will suddenly develop many young players while also maintaining a winning culture despite winning only 34 games each season; and then pull off a trade where a team sends us a dollar and we send out a fifty cent piece and two quarters. Surreeee, that's a great plan and totally going to happen.

 

[andjel]

All of this is true, but you're ignoring the core foundational players they've acquired while tanking. Embiid and Ben Simmons look like perennial all-stars of the future. We haven't even had a chance to see what Fultz is capable of. There are of course no guarantees, but they look to be a team that's probably going to continue to get better, considering how young they are, and how good those young guys are already.

We have 11 wins on the back of Z-Bo, who's gonna be out of the league in a couple of years. What happens then?

For the record, I was against the sixers tanking, and have rooted against them for it. But at least when they decided to rebuild, they went all in. We have continually played both sides of the fence year after year, patching holes to try and stay competitive, and where has it gotten us? Right now, nobody knows if we are actually rebuilding or not, and that's a problem.

If we can't commit to a full rebuild, and do it the right way, nothing is ever going to change.

I am not ignoring it, I agree that they should be getting better without guarantees.
While the individual talent of the above two looks greater than any we have, we also do not know what will happen with our kids. Emphasizing tanking will impact their development. We have enough unknown solid potential on our team that their development should be priority over the fight to get better unicorn in the draft.

I disagree that nobody knows what we are doing, and that might be the basis of misunderstanding.
To me it is pretty clear since Vlade's arrival, initial strategy was trying to win with Cuz. Every single move Vlade made was in that direction including that 2019 draft pick.
In January he made u-turn and went back on his word (which pissed off a lot of folks here including me), and since January the priority is rebuilding and development.
In the other thread somebody posted Joerger's interview from Summer.
I sincerely do not understand when somebody directly states before season what are his goals (priority development, exploring the newbies, not win now mode...) and then we see execution of exactly the same words for the past two months... how things are not clear.

Going to lose games on purpose in December is not full rebuild, it is terrible decision on many levels (players development, financial-yes basketball is business, reputation...) and is not historically done as a default for the rebuilding teams.

 

[parker]

It's the same plan.

Young does not equal a foundational piece. Odds favor, the Kings have been 0 and 1 of those depending upon how good Fox is and whether the Kings botch his development. Since tank the 17-18 season was the obvious move, they had decent mathematical odds to add another this June and then none until 2020.

It is rinse repeat for the long term game plan. It's just the same. Sure, there are kids on the roster and fans can hope for them all to exceed their reasonable expectations, but it's the same plan. What's difference is the consequences for this year.

Normally, they screw this up like they always do and they get another shot to murder another pick with the same lottery odds each year. When they botch this season, it's one pick for two year and the lottery odds become much more random thereafter. Screwing up this season and the 2018 pick, might mean they are bad for a loooooooooooooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnngggggggggggggg time.

It's super dumb and the consequences are probably going to be harsh.

You're assuming that this year will end up as the same result as previous years---a draft pick around the 8-11 place. You might be right, you might be wrong. We'll see. But regardless of the results, this is not the same plan as the last 7-8 years.

Old plan that led to 25-30 wins: One superstar surrounded by middling veteran talent, maybe one or two young guys who didn't get many touches.
New plan that may lead to 25-30 wins: 9 young players of varying quality and future potential surrounded by middling veteran talent.

These are different plans. You suggesting/predicting that they will lead to the same result does not make them the same plan.

 

[andjel]

I can't speak for others, but personally I just want to tank this year.

There are 5, count em, 5 (!) prospects this upcoming draft that scouts say all could have gone #1 last draft.

If there was ever a year to tank, it's this one. We add one stud rookie to the core of Fox, Buddy, Bogs, etc.... we're ready to learn how to win.

At least you get a shot at a great player when you tank. You don't really get anything with these 28-33 win seasons this team strings together. But whatevs, to each their own. I totally understand how irritating us tankers get.

Understand the thinking, and it does make sense. Matter of choice.
Issue I have is when the desire of tanking is followed by criticizing everything else including winning (not referring to you of course) and other positive developments.

One thing is if the best NBA players (Hill/Zach) are playing big minutes and some kids being neglected. But if Kings can beat teams while all players are in 15-27 minute range, that is in my mind positive showcase that our kids and system are not as bad as we are deeming them to be.

 

[KingsSelecao]

I understand the idea that getting higher draft spot is better than the lower spot, doh.

How much it is important is another thing.

I think that poster child of the tank at all cost approach is Philly.

Philly has 4+ years of intentional tanking, year after year multiple high draft picks.
Kings, do not know how to tank, suck for 4+ years in limbo of getting nowhere, in the first year of full rebuild.

Philly has 14 wins this year, Kings have 11.
14 wins now is 38 wins on the seasonal level.
Kings on the pace to 29.

That is after 4 YEARS of doing what some folks are advertising here as if it is the main solution to Kings woes.

If you would prefer team that makes their product unwatchable for years and call 4 years later 38 wins success Kings should emulate, that is your preference.

I am glad that Kings are not doing the same.

It's certainly not a fair assessment. Fultz has been out the entire year. Embed has not played in 9 games. Sorry, but once all 3(Simmons, Fultz, and Embiid) are healthy(If) they are exponentially better than the Kings are right now. Those are 3 players that have All Star Potential. Kings have None that I see.

 

[Larry David]

You're assuming that this year will end up as the same result as previous years---a draft pick around the 8-11 place. You might be right, you might be wrong. We'll see. But regardless of the results, this is not the same plan as the last 7-8 years.


These are different plans. You suggesting/predicting that they will lead to the same result does not make them the same plan.

Nope, I'm not projecting results. Not at all. I'm looking at whether the armament is using the same approach. They players are different, the plan is the same. How they built this team in June and how they are doling out minutes reflects they want to win as many games as they can until they decide they need to flip the switch later in the season. That's always been their model for several years running.

In February they indicated they weren't going to do that. They were going to maximize the math once over the past 12 years. Just once. (The year we finished with the worst record, they didn't try to tank. They were just horrifically bad.)

Nope. To heck with you math, same plan.

 

[Larry David]

Going to lose games on purpose in December . . . is not historically done as a default for the rebuilding teams.

This statement is not factually correct. It's been done many times over the past 30 years, often to good results.

You set up your roster to be limited heading into the season and how you manage minutes game to game. The players play to win, the deck is just stacked to prevent that from happening.

 

[Joshoua]

I understand the idea that getting higher draft spot is better than the lower spot, doh.

How much it is important is another thing.

I think that poster child of the tank at all cost approach is Philly.

Philly has 4+ years of intentional tanking, year after year multiple high draft picks.
Kings, do not know how to tank, suck for 4+ years in limbo of getting nowhere, in the first year of full rebuild.

Philly has 14 wins this year, Kings have 11.
14 wins now is 38 wins on the seasonal level.
Kings on the pace to 29.

That is after 4 YEARS of doing what some folks are advertising here as if it is the main solution to Kings woes.

If you would prefer team that makes their product unwatchable for years and call 4 years later 38 wins success Kings should emulate, that is your preference.

I am glad that Kings are not doing the same.

Let’s kindly leave Philadelphia out of this Id gladly go 0-83 for a chance at one of Embiid and

It's certainly not a fair assessment. Fultz has been out the entire year. Embed has not played in 9 games. Sorry, but once all 3(Simmons, Fultz, and Embiid) are healthy(If) they are exponentially better than the Kings are right now. Those are 3 players that have All Star Potential. Kings have None that I see.

Embiid is top 5 player material and Simmons is a superstar I think you’re underselling them

 

[VF21]

Heh, I had a long post explaining my views to you. Just erased it because it won't change your views. I don't care to change your views. Just don't come here and demean us fans who don't agree with you. Is that how a "positive" person who "respects the opinions of others" acts? If you don't like us miserable complainers then don't read or post here at the rebuild strategy thread. No ones forcing you to.

MOD VOICE: He made an honest comment. ONE comment. Since he doesn't post very often, it's quite possible he doesn't understand that the "Rebuild Strategy" thread has turned into the de facto "Post your gripes here" thread. Cut him some slack.

 

[Larry David]

The "Rebuild Strategy" thread has turned into some fans objective looking at the disease and cures as opposed to optimistically hoping that pretty obvious symptom either aren't symptoms or luckily go away despite poor odds .

/fixed

 

[VF21]

/fixed

Whatever floats your boat. What I'm saying is if you have gripes, constant complaints about the team, organization, etc. POST THEM IN THIS THREAD. Thanks.

 

[Larry David]

Charming title change. Can I propose "Rebuilding Thread (or a conversation for those of you that didn't think John Brockman could develop into an above average starter in 2009)

 

[upinsmoke]

/fixed

Pffft.

 

[Larry David]

Whatever floats your boat. What I'm saying is if you have gripes, constant complaints about the team, organization, etc. POST THEM IN THIS THREAD. Thanks.

This thread is looking at the big picture course of the franchise over 4-5 years ... so why are all other gripes about the team being directed and later probably cut and pasted over to here?

Do you honestly think that instruction is on point and furthers a debate (that you aren't enjoying)?

Or are you tired of reading gripes in the game and post game threads and would rather funnel them into one big gripe junk drawer?

Feels like the latter. You've been a great mod during this especially frustrating past 10 months and allowed a big tent and varied content. But, this seems frustration is causing a brief lapse into classic Kingsfans.com not all viewpoints are welcome territory.

 

[ESP47]

While I can see both points of views of tank or not tank, the young players on this club still need to learn how to win and close out games.

One high draft pick in 2018 is not going to turn around this team, if the other players are entrenched in a losing mentality.

Look at the players that Philly got early on in their "Process". Most of the early draft picks got in such a losing mentality that they were eventually traded for peanuts (see Noel and Okafor). The surviving players right now (Embidd and Simmons), was "luckily" injured during all theses great years of tanking and have the better mindset and mentality now.

My point is that if you raise the kids to be losers, they will only know losing, when the time comes to start winning, it may not be just a flip of a switch.

That being said, I don't mind us winning these games at all. But, If I had to change anything, I would change the ratio of young kids with the veterans, especially in the 4th quarter. I would establish a rotation that sees 1-2 vets and at least 3 young players on the floor at most times.

I know Joeger likes his ZBo, so if he puts in ZBo and Hill or Temple, especially at the end of games, he should be required to put out at least 3 young kids with them, whether it be Fox, Buddy, Bogdan, WCS, JJ, Mason, Malichi, Skal, etc. That way, Joeger gets 2 vets leadership in and the kids gets some valuable learning time, especially in crunch time.

Maybe put a 2 vet on the court max on Joeger, so the team has 2 vets and at least 3 young players in at most times.

I think that could be a win-win-win situation!

I'm sorry but I just don't agree with your assessment of winning and losing.

Okafor isn't very good because he has an ancient skill set and plays no defense. Noel was rounding out to be a solid player but he's been devastated by injuries. Neither have anything to do with the Sixers tanking at the time. You really think these guys are so weak minded that a year or two of losing will turn them into career losers? These guys have probably won their entire lives up until this point. They know how to win. The challenge is can you now win against a bunch of other players who have always won as well? One or two years of losing isn't going to rewrite their competitive spirits.

I'm all for having more young guys on the floor at the end of games but at some point it kind of doesn't matter because they'll just be used to feed the ball to the vets.

About the Kings and their rebuilding effort and this forum’s periodic meltdowns over that process. After every win there are multiple complaints basically about winning, not getting the coveted “lin”. It usually centers around Joerger playing the vets just to get a win and not playing they young guys as many minutes as the complainant would like so that the “lin” could be achieved.

It appears that the people in the “lin” community have the opinion that Joerger should just throw the young guys out there helter-skelter with no on-the-floor guidance and they will learn and develop and learn the right way to play, they will play with the right amount of effort and preparation even though they know they are being given playing time anyway, bad habits will magically go away and their performance will improve regardless of how poorly they play (poor performance is to be hoped for and rewarded with more playing time so as to get that “lin).

They do not believe for a minute that Joerger is trying to develop young players by having a mixture of vets and young guns on the floor so that the young guys can learn his system, the team can run some semblance of offensive sets and defensive rotations, learn how to win close games, that poor performing or out of control young players can be pulled, settled down, impressed with the need to break those bad habits if they want playing time, etc. No, it’s all about how Joerger is only interested in playing his “pet player” Zach and getting a few meaningless wins and knocking the Kings out of a top 3 draft-pick. I am not buying that. I think it is all about the “lins”. I think anytime the Kings win, the “lin” people will find a reason to complain. If he played all young guys and they began performing just well enough that they won enough games to push the team’s lottery a number a little higher, they would complain that he should play the vets more so that their trade value would increase or maybe the guys on the end of the bench “to see what they got” more (hoping that maybe that would lower team performance and the Kings would get those coveted “lins”). They are rooting for their team to lose, I just don’t get that.

What you've done is take a lot of good well thought out opinions from people, twisted them into complete poo poo, reformulated them into an argument that no one has made and now you're making "points" against something that has been completely fabricated by you. Essentially you are just talking to yourself because no one here is saying that Joerger should have the young guys out there all the time and no one has said that they would be disappointed if we were winning by the young players developing and playing well. I don't know where you got any of that from but you didn't read it here.

 

[ockingsfan]

I'm sorry but I just don't agree with your assessment of winning and losing.

Okafor isn't very good because he has an ancient skill set and plays no defense. Noel was rounding out to be a solid player but he's been devastated by injuries. Neither have anything to do with the Sixers tanking at the time. You really think these guys are so weak minded that a year or two of losing will turn them into career losers? These guys have probably won their entire lives up until this point. They know how to win. The challenge is can you now win against a bunch of other players who have always won as well? One or two years of losing isn't going to rewrite their competitive spirits.

I'm all for having more young guys on the floor at the end of games but at some point it kind of doesn't matter because they'll just be used to feed the ball to the vets.

Look, winning in the NBA is a learning process. You don't just step on the floor and start winning. Pretty much every player in the NBA has come from a successful college career, yet there are perennial losing teams.

Winning games is not just due to pure talent. The teams have to learn to win in the league. Its a maturation process with all good teams. You just don't go from sucking 4-5 years and all of the sudden win big. Look at the Philly situation, tanked for 6 years and they are just a few games ahead of us in the standings.

Why teach your young players that they suck and can't compete from the get-go?

Put them in a position to succeed and the players will figure it out sooner. Put them in a position to fail, night in and night out, and I think the maturation will take much longer.

You need good players of course, but who's to say that our current players and a 2018 lottery pick can't develop into a good team in the future?

 

[swisshh]

The Kings have no options other than trade and draft and to have any trade options, they must draft well. They cannot afford to be bad at drafting and if they still are bad at drafting then fire the GM.

There is no point in playing vets to be the 9/10 seed. The Kings talked rebuild and then started being a retread team. Winning right now is good if it is your prospects getting you wins. It's not good if it relies on a ZBo based offense that sets up your youth to fail.

Somebody long-standing needs to be purged from the organization, because no matter the owner or GM, the same mistakes are made. There is always so much spin surrounding the team and very few local media who will outright say what is easily observable. Earlier this year, it was youth with vet leadership. When the team was awful at the start, the talk was "look at the Sixers!" with a dash of Hinkie hysteria. Pointing towards the fact that the Hinkie years mind-****ed their prospects from that era would not be heard. Now the spin is ZBo and "hey that Frank Mason!" None of these views are longviews based on achieving anything of worth. It's just spinning the wheel-o-fibs.

There is a sane place between retread and Hinkie. Many other teams have done this. You get a vet in a spot that you need minutes played at and then you structure the team around your young prospects. You don't play to lose, but you play to develop youth. The Kings current route is playing to win without setting up their youth to succeed. The Hinkie route is playing to lose and trading any player away that helps you win even if they're just a d-league pickup that exceeded expectations.

 

[ockingsfan]

As far as a blue print for what the Kings are doing on their rebuild, we should look at the current Champions, GSW.

They never did a years long tank job. They remained competitive during their rebuilding years (look at David Lee and Monte Ellis years). They built their dynasty, while trying to still win and be competitive. The GSW wasn't trying to instill tanking and losing on their young players, they always remained competitive.

In fact, their highest draft pick in the last 12 years was #6 on Ekpe Udoh! The rest of their picks were in the #7-14 range during their rebuilding years.

Of course you have to have a really good talent evaluator, but GSW model proves that you don't need to tank year in and year out to get a top 1 or 2 pick every year to become a championship caliber team!

 

[The Effort Police]

As far as a blue print for what the Kings are doing on their rebuild, we should look at the current Champions, GSW.

They never did a years long tank job. They remained competitive during their rebuilding years (look at David Lee and Monte Ellis years). They built their dynasty, while trying to still win and be competitive. The GSW wasn't trying to instill tanking and losing on their young players, they always remained competitive.

In fact, their highest draft pick in the last 12 years was #6 on Ekpe Udoh! The rest of their picks were in the #7-14 range during their rebuilding years.

Of course you have to have a really good talent evaluator, but GSW model proves that you don't need to tank year in and year out to get a top 1 or 2 pick every year to become a championship caliber team!

Okay, number one, the Warriors actually pulled a really blatant tank job in one of the drafts a few years back. Number two, they were mired in mediocrity for TWENTY YEARS straight before they finally struck gold I guess with the way you're suggesting. Bad drafting had much to do with that as anything and they did have a couple Top 3 picks, but from 1994-2013 they were mostly a treadmill mediocre team that was spinning its wheels.

So forgive me if the Warriors' history doesn't inspire any confidence in me.

 

[Larry David]

As far as a blue print for what the Kings are doing on their rebuild, we should look at the current Champions, GSW.

. . .

In fact, their highest draft pick in the last 12 years was #6 on Ekpe Udoh! The rest of their picks were in the #7-14 range during their rebuilding years.

This undoubted the edict of the owner. We didn't need to to drop down into the top 5 to get All-Star talents and then develop the hell out of them, why do we need to do that here. Basketball 3.0!!!

Sure it's possible to do it. The odds just get worse when you pick later. You don't have to agree with me, but 29 other teams do. All things being even, they would pick higher. That's why teams have to give up assets to move up in the draft. They move up because of the probabilities are better at the top of the draft. They ranked the players based upon their odds to succeed and the further you go down the list the odds fall. It's about the odds and probabilities.

The Kings aren't good at evaluating talent or development. They just aren't. Not good now. Not good for a decade.

So, until that changes, that Kings probably need to take a path with better odds that the Warriors right? Why is the harder and longer shot path the blue print?

At this point, about 75% of the league has managed to rebuild better and faster than the Kings during the past 12 years. Those teams fell out of the playoffs, reconstituted, and made it back. A few teams haven't had to rebuild. A couple of teams have done it twice!

For 12 years, the Kings have been charged with odds like layman hitting a three pointer to get the franchise back on track. They haven't done that because they aren't good at shooting and are fatigued. Some of us are advocating towards using methods that objectively maximize the odds of finally hitting that three pointer.

To me, saying why don't we just (do it like the Warriors / win using the treadmill of mediocrity/ find gems elsewhere in the draft / break picks up and move back) is like not hitting that three pointers 12 in a row and saying, "To heck with the math, I think that I can hit a half court shot this time instead of taking another 3." Uhhh, ok.

I'm sure these things sound good to the folks espousing them. But objectively, they don't make much sense to me.

It's easy to say, "The draft is a crap shoot. Good players get drafted all the time. So, whatever if the players feel better about winning 34 games than 24 that will payoff in the end" But, gambling is a crap shoot and -- as here -- the math matters. If you play by the rules and stop hitting at soft 17, the odds aren't horrible. If you keep changing course from hand to hand and hit until you have 19, odds favor you are more likely to fail because your conduct changed the odds.

The Kings do a lot of things to hurt their odds. Not being good at picking players or growing them into much better players probably isn't going to change that before 2020. If they did that, they would have more wiggle room regarding draft spot. They have a lot of control over their last chance to have pretty good odds at a top pick. Well, at least they did. But back to back wins on the back of guys that will retire before the Kings make the playoffs, whoot!

 

[kingsboi]

Okay, number one, the Warriors actually pulled a really blatant tank job in one of the drafts a few years back. Number two, they were mired in mediocrity for TWENTY YEARS straight before they finally struck gold I guess with the way you're suggesting. Bad drafting had much to do with that as anything and they did have a couple Top 3 picks, but from 1994-2013 they were mostly a treadmill mediocre team that was spinning its wheels.

So forgive me if the Warriors' history doesn't inspire any confidence in me.

so you're telling me that we have to wait only 7 more seasons to see a winning product out on the court? :O

 

[ockingsfan]

Okay, number one, the Warriors actually pulled a really blatant tank job in one of the drafts a few years back. Number two, they were mired in mediocrity for TWENTY YEARS straight before they finally struck gold I guess with the way you're suggesting. Bad drafting had much to do with that as anything and they did have a couple Top 3 picks, but from 1994-2013 they were mostly a treadmill mediocre team that was spinning its wheels.

So forgive me if the Warriors' history doesn't inspire any confidence in me.

The tank job they pulled was because they would lose their draft pick, because it was top 8 protected, so if they wound up outside of that, they lose their pick. I think they finished at #7 that year for Harrison Barnes.

That's hardly a tank job for the ages.

It is very much like our tank last year to keep our top 10 protected pick. Very simple, if your draft pick is dependent on staying at a certain draft range to keep your pick, then you have to tank in that situation.

 

[kingsboi]

This undoubted the edict of the owner. We didn't need to to drop down into the top 5 to get All-Star talents and then develop the hell out of them, why do we need to do that here. Basketball 3.0!!!

Sure it's possible to do it. The odds just get worse when you pick later. You don't have to agree with me, but 29 other teams do. All things being even, they would pick higher. That's why teams have to give up assets to move up in the draft. They move up because of the probabilities are better at the top of the draft. They ranked the players based upon their odds to succeed and the further you go down the list the odds fall. It's about the odds and probabilities.

The Kings aren't good at evaluating talent or development. They just aren't. Not good now. Not good for a decade.

So, until that changes, that Kings probably need to take a path with better odds that the Warriors right? Why is the harder and longer shot path the blue print?

At this point, about 75% of the league has managed to rebuild better and faster than the Kings during the past 12 years. Those teams fell out of the playoffs, reconstituted, and made it back. A few teams haven't had to rebuild. A couple of teams have done it twice!

For 12 years, the Kings have been charged with odds like layman hitting a three pointer to get the franchise back on track. They haven't done that because they aren't good at shooting and are fatigued. Some of us are advocating towards using methods that objectively maximize the odds of finally hitting that three pointer.

To me, saying why don't we just (do it like the Warriors / win using the treadmill of mediocrity/ find gems elsewhere in the draft / break picks up and move back) is like not hitting that three pointers 12 in a row and saying, "To heck with the math, I think that I can hit a half court shot this time instead of taking another 3." Uhhh, ok.

I'm sure these things sound good to the folks espousing them. But objectively, they don't make much sense to me.

It's easy to say, "The draft is a crap shoot. Good players get drafted all the time. So, whatever if the players feel better about winning 34 games than 24 that will payoff in the end" But, gambling is a crap shoot and -- as here -- the math matters. If you play by the rules and stop hitting at soft 17, the odds aren't horrible. If you keep changing course from hand to hand and hit until you have 19, odds favor you are more likely to fail because your conduct changed the odds.

The Kings do a lot of things to hurt their odds. Not being good at picking players or growing them into much better players probably isn't going to change that before 2020. If they did that, they would have more wiggle room regarding draft spot. They have a lot of control over their last chance to have pretty good odds at a top pick. Well, at least they did. But back to back wins on the back of guys that will retire before the Kings make the playoffs, whoot!

until the Kings start hitting on some of their draft picks, we can expect a continuous cycle of irrelevancy no matter where the Kings end up drafting

 

[Larry David]

until the Kings start hitting on some of their draft picks, we can expect a continuous cycle of irrelevancy no matter where the Kings end up drafting

THE ODDS IMPACT HOW LIKELY YOU ARE TO HIT ON DRAFT PICKS!

Sigh.

The Kings aren't going to make the playoffs this year. This will be the 12 season outside the playoffs. The 20th season without winning a playoff series.

After this year, they will be tied for the 3rd longest playoff drought in NBA history with 12 season. As the Twolves will make the playoffs this year and odds favor the Kings won't, they probably move into a tie for second in April 2019. The Clippers all-time record of 15 is, based upon how things are going, well in range.

5th longest for not winning a division.

They have the 8th longest streak active streak for not making it to the conference finals.

The Kings are the 80s Clippers, sans the Top 3 picks.

But sure. Let's bank on long shot odds of drafting a franchise player at 7 to avoid ripping the band aid off.