To tank or not?
- Thread starter Gguod
- Start date
15 years of this and you're calling to run it back again? I admire your stubbornness but I'd like to see them actually make the playoffs instead of half baked runs at the playoffs with inferior talent ever year. They got lucky as hell getting Haliburton at 12. Lets not rely on luck and lets rely on smarts to give ourselves the best chance at another Haliburton in the top 5 next year.
They have hardly any trade capital and pretty much solely rely on the draft to acquire talent and you want to make it more difficult for them to draft talented players so they can win a few extra games to build on something for the next year? They've tried that almost every year for the last 15 years and it has not once worked out.
They have hardly any trade capital and pretty much solely rely on the draft to acquire talent and you want to make it more difficult for them to draft talented players so they can win a few extra games to build on something for the next year? They've tried that almost every year for the last 15 years and it has not once worked out.
They might as well. They aren't a playoff team in a year where the bar to get into the playoffs is the lowest it's been in a while. They are historically bad on defense and not coached well. This team's ceiling is an 8th seed only if a few teams get hit with major injuries. Nothing sucks worse than the realization that this entire rebuild has been pointless, but it is what it is.
There are currently only 12 teams with winning records in the NBA. I assume we will see teams start falling in place soon. 538 has us finishing 26-46. Third worst record in the NBA. I don’t see it. I still have them finishing with the 7th-11th worst record unless Barnes is traded.
bold prediction. Kings win 4 of 6 including the win versus the Knicks before running into a Buzz saw In February
bold prediction. Kings win 4 of 6 including the win versus the Knicks before running into a Buzz saw In February
Last edited:
You are describing very poorly what people are suggesting and probably on purpose.
What people are saying is that if you identify your team as not good enough to compete for playoffs in the short term and in the long term basically a star away from being a competitive playoff team for multiple years, then you have different options on what to do. One is what we have done basically as long as our playoff drought has lasted: use your assets and cap space for short term moves trying to reach the 8th seed aka signing what vets you can and hope they could reach even once that .500 mark.
The other option (basically the opposite of what we've done) is setting a time table for couple of years where you operate in a way that you are in a best possible posion to start competing after those couple of seasons. That means developing young players, using cap space to add extra draft capital and to find young players to fit your timeline and putting yourself in a position to draft high unless your young players are good enough to not be a bottom 4 team.
Then you can do something in between like a lot of people now are suggesting. Notice that the team lacks talent long term and short term so take the rest of the season to give your young players some experience, getting future assets for your vets if you can and letting the young players determine the draft position.
If you want to have some type of rational conversation about the subject then I'm actually interested on what you think is the big downside of giving young players experience on Nba level especially if you recognize that your team wont be seriously competing for a playoff spot. If you are already determined that its mafia level way of operating then there is nothing to talk about because there are actual rational arguments that should not be dismissed as a mob way of operating. Especially when a) other franchises have operated that way, some more some less and b) the win with the vets tactic has failed 15 years in a row so its perfectly natural that fans want to try something dofferent.
What people are saying is that if you identify your team as not good enough to compete for playoffs in the short term and in the long term basically a star away from being a competitive playoff team for multiple years, then you have different options on what to do. One is what we have done basically as long as our playoff drought has lasted: use your assets and cap space for short term moves trying to reach the 8th seed aka signing what vets you can and hope they could reach even once that .500 mark.
The other option (basically the opposite of what we've done) is setting a time table for couple of years where you operate in a way that you are in a best possible posion to start competing after those couple of seasons. That means developing young players, using cap space to add extra draft capital and to find young players to fit your timeline and putting yourself in a position to draft high unless your young players are good enough to not be a bottom 4 team.
Then you can do something in between like a lot of people now are suggesting. Notice that the team lacks talent long term and short term so take the rest of the season to give your young players some experience, getting future assets for your vets if you can and letting the young players determine the draft position.
If you want to have some type of rational conversation about the subject then I'm actually interested on what you think is the big downside of giving young players experience on Nba level especially if you recognize that your team wont be seriously competing for a playoff spot. If you are already determined that its mafia level way of operating then there is nothing to talk about because there are actual rational arguments that should not be dismissed as a mob way of operating. Especially when a) other franchises have operated that way, some more some less and b) the win with the vets tactic has failed 15 years in a row so its perfectly natural that fans want to try something dofferent.
I'm tired of all this tank talk. I want the team to play hard and win every game they can. If this negatively impacts the draft position, so be it.
I understand that the question is more of "should we trade away the vets for future assets, and play the kids more?" To that, the answer is yes. However, that's easier said than done. While we don't have any BAD contracts, we don't have any stars/enticing vets who can get us a bounty either. Some of our vets playing on a minimum may get us a second rounder (and yes, we should get that, if we can). Barnes and Buddy won't get us much. Their salaries are too big to get just some prospects back, and their play not great enough to get enders along with prospects/picks. Holmes could be a useful chip, and we should look to trade him if we think his next contract will be too rich for us, but teams trading for him also know that they will need to pay up, or risk losing him for nothing. So, we aren't getting a huge haul for him either.
The bigger question for me is the debate between draft position and culture. Of course a worse record gets a better shot at getting a star, and we desperately need one. However, we have consistently been doing it wrong, and even with a new GM, we won't fix the issue, till we, as an organization, prioritize winning.
We have constantly been picking in the lottery for well over a decade now, but barring very few exceptions, haven't had virtually anyone who had a stellar career with us. IIRC, DMC and IT are the only all stars we drafted since the Adelman era. Worse, we have not even had many players who had reasonably successful career. I doubt any other team has such a horrible record as ours in this aspect.
During our glory years, we hit a home run (or at least a single) with virtually every draft pick. We got all stars like Hedo and GW from low low picks (I understand that they became all stars elsewhere, but we were competing for a championship then, and couldn't play them. At least we got Brad for Hedo, though losing GW for nothing will always be bitter. I still believe though that Geoff did that as a favor to him). Even later, we picked Kevin Martin and Cisco with high 20s picks, who went on to have decent (particularly Martin) careers in the league.
Even the vets we got, be it Jim Jackson, or Brad Miller, or even Keon Clark (issues aside), were great to solid contributors. I think all this happened due to the system and culture that was in place.
Contrast that with recent years. Recently, Bleacher Report did a report on top 10 teams with young prospects. We didn't feature in that. Perhaps some of our youngsters will make a case for it in near future, but it's hard to argue for it at this time. This is despite consistently picking in the lottery for so many years. Many other teams have found stars or at least good rotation players with value around the league with lower picks. Meanwhile, we haven't had an all star since we traded DMC, and are unlikely to have one this year (or perhaps in near future) either. Even Fox, our franchise player, who just signed a max, hasn't made the cut yet, and might not make it soon. Two players from his draft class picked behind him have already earned that distinction.
Same goes for the vets we have signed. Other than Holmes, and to some extent Barnes, most players we have signed have played well below their potential. George Hill didn't play too well for us, and we ended up getting two second rounders for him (one directly, and one via Shumpert). By contrast, he is playing much better for a rebuilding OKC at half the salary he got from us, and I wouldn't be surprised if they turned him into a first round pick.
Bottom line, getting a high draft pick would be great. Modern championship level teams are built around 2-3 stars and bunch of vets who know their roles. We don't even have one star yet (I'm not giving Fox that title till he makes the all-star at least), and yes, draft is the best bet for us. That said, no amount of draft and lottery luck will fix us till we get a culture and system in place, and I don't think that happens if we don't make an effort to win (including from the organization).
I also don't think that happens under Walton. Know too little of BB to judge him as a coach, but he hasn't shown anything yet, and given that he was a hire of the previous regime, chances are that he gets canned when Monte gets a chance. I think players realize it too, and might find it tough to follow him, knowing he might not be around long enough.
I understand that the question is more of "should we trade away the vets for future assets, and play the kids more?" To that, the answer is yes. However, that's easier said than done. While we don't have any BAD contracts, we don't have any stars/enticing vets who can get us a bounty either. Some of our vets playing on a minimum may get us a second rounder (and yes, we should get that, if we can). Barnes and Buddy won't get us much. Their salaries are too big to get just some prospects back, and their play not great enough to get enders along with prospects/picks. Holmes could be a useful chip, and we should look to trade him if we think his next contract will be too rich for us, but teams trading for him also know that they will need to pay up, or risk losing him for nothing. So, we aren't getting a huge haul for him either.
The bigger question for me is the debate between draft position and culture. Of course a worse record gets a better shot at getting a star, and we desperately need one. However, we have consistently been doing it wrong, and even with a new GM, we won't fix the issue, till we, as an organization, prioritize winning.
We have constantly been picking in the lottery for well over a decade now, but barring very few exceptions, haven't had virtually anyone who had a stellar career with us. IIRC, DMC and IT are the only all stars we drafted since the Adelman era. Worse, we have not even had many players who had reasonably successful career. I doubt any other team has such a horrible record as ours in this aspect.
During our glory years, we hit a home run (or at least a single) with virtually every draft pick. We got all stars like Hedo and GW from low low picks (I understand that they became all stars elsewhere, but we were competing for a championship then, and couldn't play them. At least we got Brad for Hedo, though losing GW for nothing will always be bitter. I still believe though that Geoff did that as a favor to him). Even later, we picked Kevin Martin and Cisco with high 20s picks, who went on to have decent (particularly Martin) careers in the league.
Even the vets we got, be it Jim Jackson, or Brad Miller, or even Keon Clark (issues aside), were great to solid contributors. I think all this happened due to the system and culture that was in place.
Contrast that with recent years. Recently, Bleacher Report did a report on top 10 teams with young prospects. We didn't feature in that. Perhaps some of our youngsters will make a case for it in near future, but it's hard to argue for it at this time. This is despite consistently picking in the lottery for so many years. Many other teams have found stars or at least good rotation players with value around the league with lower picks. Meanwhile, we haven't had an all star since we traded DMC, and are unlikely to have one this year (or perhaps in near future) either. Even Fox, our franchise player, who just signed a max, hasn't made the cut yet, and might not make it soon. Two players from his draft class picked behind him have already earned that distinction.
Same goes for the vets we have signed. Other than Holmes, and to some extent Barnes, most players we have signed have played well below their potential. George Hill didn't play too well for us, and we ended up getting two second rounders for him (one directly, and one via Shumpert). By contrast, he is playing much better for a rebuilding OKC at half the salary he got from us, and I wouldn't be surprised if they turned him into a first round pick.
Bottom line, getting a high draft pick would be great. Modern championship level teams are built around 2-3 stars and bunch of vets who know their roles. We don't even have one star yet (I'm not giving Fox that title till he makes the all-star at least), and yes, draft is the best bet for us. That said, no amount of draft and lottery luck will fix us till we get a culture and system in place, and I don't think that happens if we don't make an effort to win (including from the organization).
I also don't think that happens under Walton. Know too little of BB to judge him as a coach, but he hasn't shown anything yet, and given that he was a hire of the previous regime, chances are that he gets canned when Monte gets a chance. I think players realize it too, and might find it tough to follow him, knowing he might not be around long enough.
I don't think any team (barring injury) sits vets like Banes and Buddy to accommodate second round picks at this stage in the season. I'm pretty sure they won't want to sit on the bench (nor will their agents). So, it's not so much on the coach. He should play his best players, and he should play to win.
I can understand trading away the vets to get prospects/picks, and also open time for the kids. It's easier said than done though. None of our vets is an established star. Most have largish salaries and some have few years left on their contract. Which teams do you see eager to add them, and give us what we seek in return? Teams that are already in rebuilding mode have no use for the vets. Teams that are competing for a championship can't usually afford to add them, or give us what we need. Some middle of the pack teams, like Dallas or Miami (even though they reached the finals last year, they might find the retooled East tougher this time), or multi-team trades might get things done, and I guess Monte would work the phone lines, but it won't be easy.
That said, are the kids ready for playing time? If they are too raw, does it help or hurt them to be facing the Brons and the Paul Georges etc of NBA? How does it impact players like Fox, who will obviously want to win, but see it as a sign that management has given up on the season? Do they agree to it as part of the larger picture, or disagree with it?
We actually had our chance when we traded DMC. Even though our cupboard was pretty bare, we had multiple first round picks in a good draft, and Vlade, for all his mistakes, made a smart bet on Bogs. Next year, we again got lucky moving up in the draft, but I would rather not bring that up again
I can understand trading away the vets to get prospects/picks, and also open time for the kids. It's easier said than done though. None of our vets is an established star. Most have largish salaries and some have few years left on their contract. Which teams do you see eager to add them, and give us what we seek in return? Teams that are already in rebuilding mode have no use for the vets. Teams that are competing for a championship can't usually afford to add them, or give us what we need. Some middle of the pack teams, like Dallas or Miami (even though they reached the finals last year, they might find the retooled East tougher this time), or multi-team trades might get things done, and I guess Monte would work the phone lines, but it won't be easy.
That said, are the kids ready for playing time? If they are too raw, does it help or hurt them to be facing the Brons and the Paul Georges etc of NBA? How does it impact players like Fox, who will obviously want to win, but see it as a sign that management has given up on the season? Do they agree to it as part of the larger picture, or disagree with it?
We actually had our chance when we traded DMC. Even though our cupboard was pretty bare, we had multiple first round picks in a good draft, and Vlade, for all his mistakes, made a smart bet on Bogs. Next year, we again got lucky moving up in the draft, but I would rather not bring that up again
I don't think any team (barring injury) sits vets like Banes and Buddy to accommodate second round picks at this stage in the season. I'm pretty sure they won't want to sit on the bench (nor will their agents). So, it's not so much on the coach. He should play his best players, and he should play to win.
I can understand trading away the vets to get prospects/picks, and also open time for the kids. It's easier said than done though. None of our vets is an established star. Most have largish salaries and some have few years left on their contract. Which teams do you see eager to add them, and give us what we seek in return? Teams that are already in rebuilding mode have no use for the vets. Teams that are competing for a championship can't usually afford to add them, or give us what we need. Some middle of the pack teams, like Dallas or Miami (even though they reached the finals last year, they might find the retooled East tougher this time), or multi-team trades might get things done, and I guess Monte would work the phone lines, but it won't be easy.
That said, are the kids ready for playing time? If they are too raw, does it help or hurt them to be facing the Brons and the Paul Georges etc of NBA? How does it impact players like Fox, who will obviously want to win, but see it as a sign that management has given up on the season? Do they agree to it as part of the larger picture, or disagree with it?
We actually had our chance when we traded DMC. Even though our cupboard was pretty bare, we had multiple first round picks in a good draft, and Vlade, for all his mistakes, made a smart bet on Bogs. Next year, we again got lucky moving up in the draft, but I would rather not bring that up again
I can understand trading away the vets to get prospects/picks, and also open time for the kids. It's easier said than done though. None of our vets is an established star. Most have largish salaries and some have few years left on their contract. Which teams do you see eager to add them, and give us what we seek in return? Teams that are already in rebuilding mode have no use for the vets. Teams that are competing for a championship can't usually afford to add them, or give us what we need. Some middle of the pack teams, like Dallas or Miami (even though they reached the finals last year, they might find the retooled East tougher this time), or multi-team trades might get things done, and I guess Monte would work the phone lines, but it won't be easy.
That said, are the kids ready for playing time? If they are too raw, does it help or hurt them to be facing the Brons and the Paul Georges etc of NBA? How does it impact players like Fox, who will obviously want to win, but see it as a sign that management has given up on the season? Do they agree to it as part of the larger picture, or disagree with it?
We actually had our chance when we traded DMC. Even though our cupboard was pretty bare, we had multiple first round picks in a good draft, and Vlade, for all his mistakes, made a smart bet on Bogs. Next year, we again got lucky moving up in the draft, but I would rather not bring that up again
You said it yourself, our vets probably won't fetch us a whole lot in return. Hield is playing very poorly, Bjelica isn't playing at all and Holmes can just be signed next year. Barnes is the only one with any trade value but I wouldn't expect anything better than the 25th pick in the draft max.
The issue I take with your philosophy is that you can't develop a winning culture when the team can't win no matter how hard they try. Teams win because of talent. The winning culture is a byproduct of having that talent. Belicheck sure did have a winning culture going on in New England and look at what happened when he lost his most talented player?
The logic that it's ok to pick further down in the draft because good players have been found down there doesn't sit well with me because it's proven that the best players get picked most often at the top of the draft and the talent dwindles as you go down. They struck gold in the lottery a couple years ago and a normal GM would have made the one decision that would have made the Kings a playoff team for the next decade. He screwed up. That doesn't mean that picking high in the draft is pointless, it means that our GM was not a very good GM. Give me a good GM and a high draft pick and the odds of becoming a playoff team are much greater than a franchise with a winning philosophy that eeks 33 wins out of a 30 win team.
That's not what I meant. Perhaps, wasn't very clear. I think a winning culture is developed when a team tries to win, a process that includes giving the vets optimal number of minutes. So, you don't cut Barnes minutes below a certain threshold to give Woodard some burn. You try to win with the players you have.
Does this stunt the development of the kids? I would think so, and there it goes on the GM. Getting vets who can mentor the kids, play hard while on the court to set an example, while willingly taking a back seat when the time arises is, I think, as tough as finding a superstar. Personally, I think Barnes is as close to it as one can get. Trading him away for some prospect might still help, but getting some vet to match salary, who doesn't want to be here, or doesn't play hard is probably going to end up worse than the current scenario.
The only point I'll add here is that your vets should complement the kids. There was no point drafting Fox, and have him bring the ball up, throw it to Randolph, and watch him make post moves.
Again, not quite the point I was making. Sure, I'll pick higher in the draft than lower, and obviously there is a much better chance at finding a superstar there. I do believe that good franchises will typically do better with their picks, and bad ones will kill even good prospects.
Sure, there will always be hits and misses, but taking the example of Fox, and comparing him to Bam and Mitchell, probably not a single GM would have picked them over Fox at that time. However, right now, probably not a single GM would pick Fox as a franchise cornerstone over either of them.
It's still early. The kids are playing on their rookie contracts, and Fox has shown a steady improvement. He still might end up being better than both, and more than that, wanted to be here. My simple point is that while picking high helps, we will keep turning good prospects into mediocre players until we prioritize winning (or rather trying to win with the team we have).
We are currently in the 13th place, will likely equal the inglorious record of post-season drought, and will not have any all-star this year either. We are capped out, and play in the tough West. We need a lot more than a future star to pull us up. Some of the future star power needs to come from the current group (Fox, Tyrese, Bagley, Holmes), and they should not feel that the season is already lost. I believe the team needs to have vets who play hard and want to win, and if that results in some wins at the cost of draft position, I'm okay with it, since I believe that otherwise, we will keep having the same discussion on the rebuild year after year.
That said, I'm not against trading some of our vets for prospects/picks. Given their salaries and play, I don't expect much in terms of returns. I certainly don't want to replace them with some vets who don't want to be here and are a bad influence on the kids.
Does this stunt the development of the kids? I would think so, and there it goes on the GM. Getting vets who can mentor the kids, play hard while on the court to set an example, while willingly taking a back seat when the time arises is, I think, as tough as finding a superstar. Personally, I think Barnes is as close to it as one can get. Trading him away for some prospect might still help, but getting some vet to match salary, who doesn't want to be here, or doesn't play hard is probably going to end up worse than the current scenario.
The only point I'll add here is that your vets should complement the kids. There was no point drafting Fox, and have him bring the ball up, throw it to Randolph, and watch him make post moves.
Again, not quite the point I was making. Sure, I'll pick higher in the draft than lower, and obviously there is a much better chance at finding a superstar there. I do believe that good franchises will typically do better with their picks, and bad ones will kill even good prospects.
Sure, there will always be hits and misses, but taking the example of Fox, and comparing him to Bam and Mitchell, probably not a single GM would have picked them over Fox at that time. However, right now, probably not a single GM would pick Fox as a franchise cornerstone over either of them.
It's still early. The kids are playing on their rookie contracts, and Fox has shown a steady improvement. He still might end up being better than both, and more than that, wanted to be here. My simple point is that while picking high helps, we will keep turning good prospects into mediocre players until we prioritize winning (or rather trying to win with the team we have).
We are currently in the 13th place, will likely equal the inglorious record of post-season drought, and will not have any all-star this year either. We are capped out, and play in the tough West. We need a lot more than a future star to pull us up. Some of the future star power needs to come from the current group (Fox, Tyrese, Bagley, Holmes), and they should not feel that the season is already lost. I believe the team needs to have vets who play hard and want to win, and if that results in some wins at the cost of draft position, I'm okay with it, since I believe that otherwise, we will keep having the same discussion on the rebuild year after year.
That said, I'm not against trading some of our vets for prospects/picks. Given their salaries and play, I don't expect much in terms of returns. I certainly don't want to replace them with some vets who don't want to be here and are a bad influence on the kids.
Oh I know, I was just being snarky. But you're right and Buddy had a terrific last game.
In all honesty I wasn't ever that concerned about Hield's outside shot. It's his 2p% that has been really concerning. Buddy at his best is more than a shooter, he's a scorer. And he needs that piece of his game back to help the Kings and/or raise his trade value.
In all honesty I wasn't ever that concerned about Hield's outside shot. It's his 2p% that has been really concerning. Buddy at his best is more than a shooter, he's a scorer. And he needs that piece of his game back to help the Kings and/or raise his trade value.
The issue with the 2p% for me was that he just stopped taking 2pt jumpers. He's only taken 64 shots all season that weren't from behind the three point line and that includes dunks and layups. Abandoning that little dribble to the top of the key and pull-up move accounts for his drop in scoring this season. It's also hard to get to the free throw line if all you're doing is firing threes. And it becomes too easy to defend your three if you never counter with a dribble move into a pull-up jumper. As good a shooter as he is, I don't think he's being utilized properly if all he does is fire threes. What I liked in that Orlando game is that he took a couple long jumpers first and saw them go in, then he started the three point barrage.
Exactly. I think we'd all agree that the 2018-2019 season was Buddy's best so far. That season he averaged 16.6 shots per game vs 13.9 per game this year. Yet, this season he's averaging 10 3's per game and two years ago it was only 8. Which means he's gone from 8.6 shots inside the arc to just 3.8. Less than half the attempts.
And even that year we said for Hield to reach the next level he had to draw more fouls. He only averaged 2.4 FTA. Well this year he's going to the line about half as often. And all of this is with him averaging almost 2 more mpg than two years ago.
He's regressed as a scorer. Part of that may be scheme related but most of it (to my eyes) is Buddy being less aggressive on offense.
And even that year we said for Hield to reach the next level he had to draw more fouls. He only averaged 2.4 FTA. Well this year he's going to the line about half as often. And all of this is with him averaging almost 2 more mpg than two years ago.
He's regressed as a scorer. Part of that may be scheme related but most of it (to my eyes) is Buddy being less aggressive on offense.
Yeah, I think Buddy's still figuring out the ideal balance of being aggressive while making the right play, being efficient etc. I have a strong suspicion that he came into the season thinking "Efficient. Analytics = 3s and layups", which is great provided you're making them; problem is when you become one-dimensional. To his credit, I really think that he has by and large played the right way within the flow of the offense this year, mostly making the right passes and generally taking shots you want him to take. He does need to find a way to get to the line more. He said in the post-game interview that right now he needs to do a better job finishing around the rim but is confident that those will come as the season goes on.
I get what you're saying but the Kings have almost always prioritized winning. They try to win hard every year and usually give up and tank with about 2 weeks left. The smarter teams saw the writing on the wall and tanked earlier and usually they wind up with the better draft picks.
We all know there are outliers in every draft but no matter how many times people bring them up, it never changes the fact that choosing higher is better overall. Some franchises like San Antonio can find diamonds in the rough better than anyone but eventually even they struggle because they wouldn't have won any championships without being able to pick Duncan at #1. You're seeing it right now. They have a handful of really solid players they drafted in the last few years but they'll never compete with them because they don't have the true #1 option.
We may agree to disagree that we need a future star to pull us up but I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that drafting Cade would give us a heck of a lot better shot at the playoffs a few years than running it back with the current group would. Thing is that we could have all those guys + Cade and I highly doubt that the psychological effects of tanking this year would stay with them for the rest of their careers and turn them into perennial losers. But at the same time, playing as hard as you can and knowing that you have no way of ever winning in your current situation has to be pretty demoralizing as well. Players know when their roster just simply doesn't have enough talent.
We all know there are outliers in every draft but no matter how many times people bring them up, it never changes the fact that choosing higher is better overall. Some franchises like San Antonio can find diamonds in the rough better than anyone but eventually even they struggle because they wouldn't have won any championships without being able to pick Duncan at #1. You're seeing it right now. They have a handful of really solid players they drafted in the last few years but they'll never compete with them because they don't have the true #1 option.
We may agree to disagree that we need a future star to pull us up but I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that drafting Cade would give us a heck of a lot better shot at the playoffs a few years than running it back with the current group would. Thing is that we could have all those guys + Cade and I highly doubt that the psychological effects of tanking this year would stay with them for the rest of their careers and turn them into perennial losers. But at the same time, playing as hard as you can and knowing that you have no way of ever winning in your current situation has to be pretty demoralizing as well. Players know when their roster just simply doesn't have enough talent.
Another +1 for ESP47's insight. Losing every game may bump your odds for a higher draft pick, while simultaneously establishing a culture of learned helplessness in a team that has become accustomed to...wait for it....Losing Every Game. Build a winning culture instead, or at least a group of guys who knows what winning feels like and fights like hell for it every night. Sprinkle in the rooks with the most potential, let them marinade in the values of hard work and tenacity, and then watch them grow into their own with solid rooting. True, you're not gonna make the playoffs next year with this approach. However, you will build something that lasts over time ("Yeah, I'm looking at You, SA Spurs") and becomes an environment better players want to spend their time in. In the meantime, you obsess less on "OMG, will we make the Playoffs?!?!?", settling back and focusing on The Love of the Game that brought you to this point in the first place all those years ago.
I don't want to lose games. I love watching Buddy learn to play defense, and I sure as heck don't want to trade Barnes (who appears to have actually been worth that big contract). I also love how Bagley is developing by leaps and bounds (basketball humor) over these last few games, and am still excited about what Big Rich continually brings to the table. These guys keep fans coming back and engaged, whatever their daddies and their agents tweet. As for the sprinkles, Hali-B was a blessing from the basketball gods, Metu may even eclipse him, and Kyle Guy is that guy you celebrate every bucket with. Enough with the obsession about how fast we can get to a ring that only one team will earn every year. For now let's root for people we like and care about, in a game we love, as we steadily get better at it over time.
Mizzou King
I don't want to lose games. I love watching Buddy learn to play defense, and I sure as heck don't want to trade Barnes (who appears to have actually been worth that big contract). I also love how Bagley is developing by leaps and bounds (basketball humor) over these last few games, and am still excited about what Big Rich continually brings to the table. These guys keep fans coming back and engaged, whatever their daddies and their agents tweet. As for the sprinkles, Hali-B was a blessing from the basketball gods, Metu may even eclipse him, and Kyle Guy is that guy you celebrate every bucket with. Enough with the obsession about how fast we can get to a ring that only one team will earn every year. For now let's root for people we like and care about, in a game we love, as we steadily get better at it over time.
Mizzou King
I think we are pretty much agreeing on most points, with some minor differences
- Is the team bad enough to have one of the worst records in the league? Based on last couple of year's performance, and at the beginning of the season, I would have said no. Some of their recent play might suggest otherwise, but I think we are not that bad.
- Given that the current roster will not allow us to be so bad that we end up with one of the worst records, should we
- Sit the vets/reduce their minutes, and develop the kids?
- Trade the vets to go to a full tank mode with the hopes of landing a stud to pair with Fox, Tyrese and whatever we can get.
They aren't bad enough to have one of the worst records in the league, yet not good enough to make the playoffs. That's the worst position to be in unless you own other team's draft picks, which they don't.
Trading a vet for another vet would be completely pointless unless the other vet was younger or good enough to get them into the playoffs. Not likely either way. Trading for a low first just depends on who you're trading away. It's like well we're not going to win with this vet but we're not going to lose enough with him to be able to pick high enough in the draft. So sometimes you just have to make a decision, even if the value doesn't get returned in the trade. The value could come from him not pointlessly winning you extra games.
There's one thing we know with a reasonable amount of certainty and that's that this roster isn't good enough to be a playoff team. I see no point in running it back over and over. It literally wastes years off of careers and it wastes the fan's time. If you aren't bad enough to tank and you aren't good enough to win, then what are you? You're a team that's just wasting everyone's time. A good GM should get his team out of that predicament as soon as he recognizes it. I don't know what's going through McNair's head but if his idea this year was to grab Whiteside, GRIII and make a run for the playoffs, then I have huge doubts about his ability to ever make this team successful outside of getting lucky like Haliburton falling to him in the draft. A clear plan would be nice but they always have one toe in a playoff run, one toe in player development and one toe in tanking eventually. In the end they always wind up mediocre because of it and the cycle keeps repeating itself.
Trading a vet for another vet would be completely pointless unless the other vet was younger or good enough to get them into the playoffs. Not likely either way. Trading for a low first just depends on who you're trading away. It's like well we're not going to win with this vet but we're not going to lose enough with him to be able to pick high enough in the draft. So sometimes you just have to make a decision, even if the value doesn't get returned in the trade. The value could come from him not pointlessly winning you extra games.
There's one thing we know with a reasonable amount of certainty and that's that this roster isn't good enough to be a playoff team. I see no point in running it back over and over. It literally wastes years off of careers and it wastes the fan's time. If you aren't bad enough to tank and you aren't good enough to win, then what are you? You're a team that's just wasting everyone's time. A good GM should get his team out of that predicament as soon as he recognizes it. I don't know what's going through McNair's head but if his idea this year was to grab Whiteside, GRIII and make a run for the playoffs, then I have huge doubts about his ability to ever make this team successful outside of getting lucky like Haliburton falling to him in the draft. A clear plan would be nice but they always have one toe in a playoff run, one toe in player development and one toe in tanking eventually. In the end they always wind up mediocre because of it and the cycle keeps repeating itself.
