Blow It Up

[Warhawk]

In fairness Warhawk, in the context of this discussion, your comment appears to suggest that both outcomes are of equal value/potential (the outcomes being a 10th pick or a top 3 pick). Otherwise why even make the comment. I get that you're pointing out that nothing is guaranteed, but everybody is aware of that already.

This discussion happens every year, and there are always people pointing out that not every top pick is a guaranteed star, and that stars can be picked later in the lottery. But we already know this. It is not the salient point. The point is that statistically you are much more likely to get that star at the top of the draft.

This franchise has been wallowing in suckitude and mediocrity for the last decade and a half because they can't get it through their thick skulls that clamoring for the 8th seed is not going to get them anywhere. And it's mind numbingly painful that they keep doing it, year after year.

EDIT: If there is frustration and bitterness in my post, it is not directed at you, Warhawk. It's toward this organisation.

I'm not arguing any of that. I never said that a top 3 pick is equivalent to a top 15 pick. I never said that we should continue to shoot for mediocrity. I'm fine with picking a route and going for it as long as it's an educated, well thought out approach.

I also specifically said this, which isn't saying both outcomes are equal value/potential:

All I'm saying is the draft is a bit of a crapshoot - higher picks tend to do better, but even high picks can fail miserably or, like Oden or Bias, it's not even skill/effort-based but outside stuff that derails them.

I just don't think that a lot of folks clamoring for tanking / pulling a Hinke are being truthful about the actual possible / likely ramifications or significant chance for continuing (slightly better?) mediocrity after that process.

Some here act like "all we need is a top 3 pick and OMG we are set - guaranteed rings by 2025!!! How come we are all so stupid to not see the brilliance in the approach?!?!" Then you look at the fact that while isolated superstars that are acquired that way can get you rings, for some teams you instead dumped all the good players you had, suffered through years of losing seasons (often worse than what we've been going through), and they still are first or second round exits once they do make the PO with your drafted "star". Our drafted lottery "stars" sure haven't been able to single-handedly pull us out of the muck.

Personally I would put a bit more stock in getting very good players through trades than the draft - while using good draft picks to fill around them (and hopefully you still do get lucky and hit upon a superstar with a pick - but you can't bank on that). Draft picks are an asset, but definitely one that seem to have a much higher chance of "busting" than trading for a young star in the making or one who wants out of their current situation. I know we don't have much luck with signing stars as FA, so that option is unfortunately not as feasible for us.

 

[sactowndog]

I'm not arguing any of that. I never said that a top 3 pick is equivalent to a top 15 pick. I never said that we should continue to shoot for mediocrity. I'm fine with picking a route and going for it as long as it's an educated, well thought out approach.

I also specifically said this, which isn't saying both outcomes are equal value/potential:


I just don't think that a lot of folks clamoring for tanking / pulling a Hinke are being truthful about the actual possible / likely ramifications or significant chance for continuing (slightly better?) mediocrity after that process.

Some here act like "all we need is a top 3 pick and OMG we are set - guaranteed rings by 2025!!! How come we are all so stupid to not see the brilliance in the approach?!?!" Then you look at the fact that while isolated superstars that are acquired that way can get you rings, for some teams you instead dumped all the good players you had, suffered through years of losing seasons (often worse than what we've been going through), and they still are first or second round exits once they do make the PO with your drafted "star". Our drafted lottery "stars" sure haven't been able to single-handedly pull us out of the muck.

Personally I would put a bit more stock in getting very good players through trades than the draft - while using good draft picks to fill around them (and hopefully you still do get lucky and hit upon a superstar with a pick - but you can't bank on that). Draft picks are an asset, but definitely one that seem to have a much higher chance of "busting" than trading for a young star in the making or one who wants out of their current situation. I know we don't have much luck with signing stars as FA, so that option is unfortunately not as feasible for us.

People don’t usually trade stars. The instances of a Webber are rare.

 

[Tetsujin]

People don’t usually trade stars. The instances of a Webber are rare.

They may not trade stars but they are perfectly capable of giving up on players that can become stars way too early (like the T-Wolves letting Lavine go to Chicago or the Lakers giving up on Randle way too early because Luke Walton gave all his touches to Brook Lopez). That’s why the Cam Reddish non-deal is such a big deal to certain Kings fans. Sure there is a 60% chance the dude flames out and winds up a depth guy but there’s also a chance those flashes his showed are real and he turns into a bonafide player.

 

[Warhawk]

People don’t usually trade stars. The instances of a Webber are rare.

Maybe so. But Harden, Westbrook, Howard, Chris Paul, Carmelo, and others have been traded, sometimes multiple times.

Acting like all we need is a top 3 pick and we are golden is equally wrong. Bagley shows us that for a nice recent example.

 

[iowamcnabb]

Draft good players, trade for good players, develop good players and instill a winning culture is the way. Maybe that’s through a top 3 pick or maybe not. Finding a superstar doesn’t even guarantee winning. Having multiple star wings doesn’t guarantee winning. Tanking doesn’t guarantee winning.

Chemistry matters. Culture matters. Mentality matters. Coaching matters.

I also think fans should let go of the last 15
Years and concentrate on the last 2 and move forward.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

I mean, with all due respect to Sam Bowie, he was still a bust compared to the other two guys in the top three of his class and the multiple HoFers drafted later in the round.

I'm pretty sure that the 1984 draft was to counter my "Best Draft Ever 2003" statement, not the "usually a bust in the top three" discussion. Which is a fair point.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Draft good players, trade for good players, develop good players and instill a winning culture is the way. Maybe that’s through a top 3 pick or maybe not. Finding a superstar doesn’t even guarantee winning. Having multiple star wings doesn’t guarantee winning. Tanking doesn’t guarantee winning.

Chemistry matters. Culture matters. Mentality matters. Coaching matters.

Sadly, I don't think we've done a good job of the bolded above in the recent past, and I'm not really sure there's been any real effort to address it.

 

[iowamcnabb]

Sadly, I don't think we've done a good job of the bolded above in the recent past, and I'm not really sure there's been any real effort to address it.

we sure haven’t in the past but I’m not ready to make that judgment on the current regime (Tinker) just yet. Metu has improved for sure and Bagley has gotten better defensively. Jury still out on Neemy, King, Mitchell and the rest.

 

[SacTownKid]

They may not trade stars but they are perfectly capable of giving up on players that can become stars way too early (like the T-Wolves letting Lavine go to Chicago or the Lakers giving up on Randle way too early because Luke Walton gave all his touches to Brook Lopez). That’s why the Cam Reddish non-deal is such a big deal to certain Kings fans. Sure there is a 60% chance the dude flames out and winds up a depth guy but there’s also a chance those flashes his showed are real and he turns into a bonafide player.

And he's as close as what comes to available in the things that the Kings simply don't have, nor does there look to be anything similar coming with at least that next first round pick.

 

[Tetsujin]

And he's as close as what comes to available in the things that the Kings simply don't have, nor does there looking to be anything similar coming with at least that next first round pick.

Nah, with the way this draft class is shaping up, there are probably going to be a couple of solid wing prospects right in the range we're currently slated to be drafting (Griffin, Baldwin, Brown, Dyson Daniels, Mathurin) who stand a chance of being just as good in the NBA as Reddish is on his current career path. There is an argument to be made that you'd still be able to acquire one of those guys anyways if the pick we gave up was lotto protected but who knows if the Hawks were willing to trade with us with the pick protected.

 

[SacTownKid]

Nah, with the way this draft class is shaping up, there are probably going to be a couple of solid wing prospects right in the range we're currently slated to be drafting (Griffin, Baldwin, Brown, Dyson Daniels, Mathurin) who stand a chance of being just as good in the NBA as Reddish is on his current career path. There is an argument to be made that you'd still be able to acquire one of those guys anyways if the pick we gave up was lotto protected but who knows if the Hawks were willing to trade with us with the pick protected.

I'd put Reddish above most of them, especially coming into college. Dude was a major prospect coming into Duke. He's also shown in limited stretches proven ability. Murray is interesting, there's a few others but this next draft really does look like a legit combo G draft again. Reddish has time left on his deal to be great fluff up pieces that dials it in at the right time like Miles Bridges. I think someone like Reddish is the best of both worlds. The Kings are trying to compete so rookies are going to have a tough road to find footing in time to get into the mix IMO. I don't really like the fit under Thibs but on the right team Reddish had major explosion potential.

 

[hrdboild]

True because someone has a Vlade. But for every Vlade you have an Ainge, Ujiri, Presti that don’t miss with top 3 picks.

Look it up. There have been maybe 3 drafts in the last 20 years that didn't include a bust in the top 3. And you have to first win the lottery for the right to pick in that range. It's far from a sure thing.

 

[sactowndog]

Look it up. There have been maybe 3 drafts in the last 20 years that didn't include a bust in the top 3. And you have to first win the lottery for the right to pick in that range. It's far from a sure thing.

Sure their has but you still have a 2/3 chance at a likely all star. If you aren’t Vlade or Dumars or anyone else Vivek turns to for advice those are pretty good odds.

 

[The_Jamal]

Lou King is still what he is physically. That matters. Reddish has beast potential.

To quote Billy Beane in Moneyball:

"If he can hit, then why doesn't he hit good?"

 

[hrdboild]

Sure their has but you still have a 2/3 chance at a likely all star. If you aren’t Vlade or Dumars or anyone else Vivek turns to for advice those are pretty good odds.

Okay so finishing with the worst record in the league gets you a roughly 40% chance at a 66% chance of drafting a likely All Star. And if it doesn't work you get to throw away another season on the same odds. Let's say you're only marginally awful or you just get bested by the other would-be Sam Hinkies across the league and you finish with the fifth worst record. Then you have a roughly 30% chance at a 66% chance of drafting a likely All Star. So somewhere between 20 and 27% overall or you wasted your season. That might be good enough for you but to me chasing a top 3 pick sounds like a recipe for 10 more years of missing the playoffs.

 

[sactowndog]

Okay so finishing with the worst record in the league gets you a roughly 40% chance at a 66% chance of drafting a likely All Star. And if it doesn't work you get to throw away another season on the same odds. Let's say you're only marginally awful or you just get bested by the other would-be Sam Hinkies across the league and you finish with the fifth worst record. Then you have a roughly 30% chance at a 66% chance of drafting a likely All Star. So somewhere between 20 and 27% overall or you wasted your season. That might be good enough for you but to me chasing a top 3 pick sounds like a recipe for 10 more years of missing the playoffs.

Depends on the year. Last year was a good draft so your odds were better. Other years are possibly worse.

 

[hrdboild]

Depends on the year. Last year was a good draft so your odds were better. Other years are possibly worse.

Right but we're talking over a 20 year span here. If we agree that maybe 2 out of 3 top picks are generally pretty solid those are the odds. It's actually very rare that all 3 top picks become All Stars or even good pros. And if everyone knows there's a Lebron in the draft it gets that much harder to out tank the rest of the field. The goal is to get multiple All Stars to become competitive now so you really need to get them within a 3 or 4 year span before your first star makes you too good to get those additional top 3 picks. So now we're talking about multiplying those 1/4 odds and we're down to like 6% chance of nailing two top 3 picks in the same rebuild (1/4 x 1/4).

Basically, the building through the draft strategy either requires you to get exceptionally lucky or to be able to find those stars with picks in the later part of the draft.

 

[sactowndog]

Right but we're talking over a 20 year span here. If we agree that maybe 2 out of 3 top picks are generally pretty solid those are the odds. It's actually very rare that all 3 top picks become All Stars or even good pros. And if everyone knows there's a Lebron in the draft it gets that much harder to out tank the rest of the field. The goal is to get multiple All Stars to become competitive now so you really need to get them within a 3 or 4 year span before your first star makes you too good to get those additional top 3 picks. So now we're talking about multiplying those 1/4 odds and we're down to like 6% chance of nailing two top 3 picks in the same rebuild (1/4 x 1/4).

Basically, the building through the draft strategy either requires you to get exceptionally lucky or to be able to find those stars with picks in the later part of the draft.

Well if it’s a good year it expands to top 5 and your odds get better.

 

[Warhawk]

Okay so finishing with the worst record in the league gets you a roughly 40% chance at a 66% chance of drafting a likely All Star.

Good reminder - with the changes in the lottery odds recently the "tanking for a top pick" approach also got less reliable than when Hinke was doing it.

 

[hrdboild]

Well if it’s a good year it expands to top 5 and your odds get better.

Yeah, but by how much? In an average year you have somewhere around a 25% chance of both winning a top 3 pick and picking an All Star if you finish somewhere in the bottom 5 record-wise. In a good year let's be exceedingly generous and say you have a 50% chance of winning a top 5 pick and picking an All Star. That's still only 12% overall (1/4 x 1/2) of getting two near All Stars in the draft which is the bare minimum for contending. Obviously there are examples of it working out in the past but look at Philly with it's two All Stars chosen in the top 3 and that lineup has never won a playoff series past the first round.

I'm not saying it won't work, I'm just saying it's far from a sure thing. Obviously you can cite circumstantial evidence and say that the Kings haven't been able to win because they haven't sold out and gone for the full tank over a span of multiple years but other teams have tried and failed with that strategy too. The lottery is a lottery. It works really well for a few lucky teams and the rest need to make the best of other opportunities -- free agency, trades, G League development, etc.

 

[Dongoodboy]

Yeah, but by how much? In an average year you have somewhere around a 25% chance of both winning a top 3 pick and picking an All Star if you finish somewhere in the bottom 5 record-wise. In a good year let's be exceedingly generous and say you have a 50% chance of winning a top 5 pick and picking an All Star. That's still only 12% overall (1/4 x 1/2) of getting two near All Stars in the draft which is the bare minimum for contending. Obviously there are examples of it working out in the past but look at Philly with it's two All Stars chosen in the top 3 and that lineup has never won a playoff series past the first round.

I'm not saying it won't work, I'm just saying it's far from a sure thing. Obviously you can cite circumstantial evidence and say that the Kings haven't been able to win because they haven't sold out and gone for the full tank over a span of multiple years but other teams have tried and failed with that strategy too. The lottery is a lottery. It works really well for a few lucky teams and the rest need to make the best of other opportunities -- free agency, trades, G League development, etc.

As if free agency, trades and G League development worked out for the Kings

 

[hrdboild]

As if free agency, trades and G League development worked out for the Kings

Which is the point I'm trying to make ultimately. The Kings are terrible because of organizational problems which have nothing to do with the draft. They've had as many or more bites at the apple as any team in the league over the last 15 years and yet we're the only team who hasn't made the playoffs even once during that span. Had they tanked more and gotten a John Wall or a Kevin Durant I'm not sure that it would have mattered since they've shown a complete lack of understanding about how to put together a good roster around the few stars they did draft.

EDIT -- This might also be a good time to remind everyone that the franchise best lineup of Bibby/Christie/Peja/CWebb/Vlade included just one player who was drafted by the Kings.

 

[Dongoodboy]

Which is the point I'm trying to make ultimately. The Kings are terrible because of organizational problems which have nothing to do with the draft. They've had as many or more bites at the apple as any team in the league over the last 15 years and yet we're the only team who hasn't made the playoffs even once during that span. Had they tanked more and gotten a John Wall or a Kevin Durant I'm not sure that it would have mattered since they've shown a complete lack of understanding about how to put together a good roster around the few stars they did draft.

We don't know that, but we know for sure this team is in purgatory now. We already know free agent is not working for Kings even if we are not bad. If you want to do a trade you will need assets. That is why I still root for a full tanking and asset acquisition phase for this team. Even if Monte is a competent GM you have to give him something to work on.

 

[EIM86]

I agree with you both in principle @Livinthedream and @kb02 : Vlade's core hasn't worked out. Additionally, Barnes, Buddy, and Holmes are all aging out of any realistic playoff window. All of them should be moved during this season if possible. I'm just hoping Monte can package them somehow for a key player since all of these guys would be valuable on a contending team -- Buddy because of his shooting, Barnes because he's a solid veteran contributor for teams needing wings, and Holmes because he's a high-efficiency player on a reasonable contract.

As I've already said elsewhere, I think most of the players Monte has picked up are keepers. Haliburton, Mitchell, Davis, Metu, Jones, and Queta are the beginnings of a new younger core, but most of them are probably better as rotation players not starters. The main point of disagreement for me is that I still don't think moving Fox is addition by subtraction. We're seriously lacking in star power and go-to scorers. I'm open to trading him if it's an overall talent upgrade but I feel like that's going to be hard to accomplish while his value has cratered. He's young enough to fit with a new core and his contract is pretty reasonable for his production. And while us nerds tend to overvalue the high efficiency guys, NBA teams are built around stars. So for me the calculus is still Fox + ? until proven otherwise.

yeah but Simmons is the Webber 2.0. He’s never scored over 20 PPG while Webber did it by his second season!

 

[hrdboild]

We don't know that, but we know for sure this team is in purgatory now. We already know free agent is not working for Kings even if we are not bad. If you want to do a trade you will need assets. That is why I still root for a full tanking and asset acquisition phase for this team. Even if Monte is a competent GM you have to give him something to work on.

A full tank involves selling off existing assets (Fox, Buddy, Barnes, etc) for draft picks which may or may not become better assets than the ones they replaced. With those three players you're talking about better than average career production for their draft position (5th, 6th, and 7th respectively). So for that reason and because of the odds I outlined above I think the odds are against a full tank working in our favor. Trying to find ways to turn our existing assets into better assets without getting impatient and blowing it up completely is easier said than done but it's the smarter path to success imo.

 

[Dongoodboy]

A full tank involves selling off existing assets (Fox, Buddy, Barnes, etc) for draft picks which may or may not become better assets than the ones they replaced. With those three players you're talking about better than average career production for their draft position (5th, 6th, and 7th respectively). So for that reason and because of the odds I outlined above I think the odds are against a full tank working in our favor. Trying to find ways to turn our existing assets into better assets without getting impatient and blowing it up completely is easier said than done but it's the smarter path to success imo.

That is Vivek's mindset and see what that brings us to. We may have passed the best point to sell Barnes and Buddy. Even in a season that the West is incredibly bad we are still hanging in the 11th place, keeping all these guys not in rookie contract and let their value perish doesn't seems to be good asset management.

 

[hrdboild]

That is Vivek's mindset and see what that brings us to. We may have passed the best point to sell Barnes and Buddy. Even in a season that the West is incredibly bad we are still hanging in the 11th place, keeping all these guys not in rookie contract and let their value perish doesn't seems to be good asset management.

I agree that big changes need to happen. I think we need to trade half the roster and we need to do it by this trade deadline while we still have a chance to generate some momentum that might attract a decent NBA head coach in the off-season. That's my goal more than making the playoffs: just look like a team on the rise. Trading everybody but Hali and the rookies for draft picks and cap space might be what a majority of the fans want but I don't want to spend the next 5 years waiting for prospects to develop who will probably just get us right back to where we are now.

 

[ESP47]

A full tank involves selling off existing assets (Fox, Buddy, Barnes, etc) for draft picks which may or may not become better assets than the ones they replaced. With those three players you're talking about better than average career production for their draft position (5th, 6th, and 7th respectively). So for that reason and because of the odds I outlined above I think the odds are against a full tank working in our favor. Trying to find ways to turn our existing assets into better assets without getting impatient and blowing it up completely is easier said than done but it's the smarter path to success imo.

Turning our existing assets into better assets requires swindling other GMs on a handful of trades. I just don't see that happening realistically.

The Simmons situation is the only real situation available where a talented player has lost value that doesn't have much of anything to do with his play on the court. Even with Simmons, he didn't win anything until the moment Embiid stepped on the court. If you turn Fox into Simmons, we're more than likely going to be in the same place because we don't have an Embiid type talent.

Now you've got to get an Embiid type talent out of Hali, Barnes, Buddy and a first round pick(assuming none of them were used in the Simmons trade). That ain't happening. The only way it could would be if a GM let go of a young player who has yet to break out and winds up becoming a top 15 player with us.

I think the odds of these types of scenarios happening are much lower than the odds of drafting our next playoff core.

 

[hrdboild]

Turning our existing assets into better assets requires swindling other GMs on a handful of trades. I just don't see that happening realistically.

The Simmons situation is the only real situation available where a talented player has lost value that doesn't have much of anything to do with his play on the court. Even with Simmons, he didn't win anything until the moment Embiid stepped on the court. If you turn Fox into Simmons, we're more than likely going to be in the same place because we don't have an Embiid type talent.

Now you've got to get an Embiid type talent out of Hali, Barnes, Buddy and a first round pick(assuming none of them were used in the Simmons trade). That ain't happening. The only way it could would be if a GM let go of a young player who has yet to break out and winds up becoming a top 15 player with us.

I think the odds of these types of scenarios happening are much lower than the odds of drafting our next playoff core.

First of all, Embiid is an MVP type of talent when he's healthy. Nobody is trading that regardless.

Secondly, I think most here are under-valuing our assets....

(1) Buddy is a top 5 shooter in the league for his career so far and he only has two years left on his deal.

(2) Barnes is the type of vet playoff teams are always looking to add at the trade deadline and his contract only has 1 year remaining so it's even more appealing than Buddy's.

(3) Fox had an All Star level season last year at age 23. He didn't make the team because our team record was bad (what else is new) and we don't get the large market fan voting bump but 25/7/3 and finishing 15th overall in ppg, 12th overall in apg, 15th overall in spg, and 10th overall in fta per game is an All Star season. It's a "what have you done for me lately" world so people are going around talking about him like he's washed up at 24 years old or something but he should be talked about as a top 25 player. Top 20 if he played for the Celtics, Lakers, or Knicks.

(4) Tyrese so far this season joins Jarrett Allen, Ja Morant, and Trae Young as the only players under 25 in the top 20 in VORP. That's a list that includes all of the top MVP candidates and most of this year's consensus All Stars.

Additionally, other teams are overvaluing first round picks like crazy and we still have all of ours. It's pretty much a given that you can't trade for an established star without throwing in first round picks and any team taking on our draft capitol has to feel pretty good about their chances of cashing in. I'm not including Davion since he's yet to get his offense going or Holmes who has been MIA since he had to miss time with the latest eye injury and COVID results.

We have pieces to trade for a star, maybe even two if we move both Fox and Haliburton -- it's just a matter of waiting for the right target to become available and then choosing who to keep based on fit and defensive potential.

 

[SacTownKid]

Which is the point I'm trying to make ultimately. The Kings are terrible because of organizational problems which have nothing to do with the draft. They've had as many or more bites at the apple as any team in the league over the last 15 years and yet we're the only team who hasn't made the playoffs even once during that span. Had they tanked more and gotten a John Wall or a Kevin Durant I'm not sure that it would have mattered since they've shown a complete lack of understanding about how to put together a good roster around the few stars they did draft.

EDIT -- This might also be a good time to remind everyone that the franchise best lineup of Bibby/Christie/Peja/CWebb/Vlade included just one player who was drafted by the Kings.

And that unit was partially created using pieces they did draft, and didn't completely ruin or tank during their development. They traded pieces that didn't completely fit for ones that did. Like Corliss for Christie.