Actually, the thread is about "tanking". Your perception of what is meant by tanking is not accurate, I think. Generally, people advocating tanking are not saying that the players or coach should try to lose games, nor are they saying that the only way to succeed is to win the draft lottery. They are saying the front office should make moves that will have the side effect of putting more inexperienced players on the floor which means winning fewer games and getting a better draft pick. The point is not to try to lose games, it is to not be afraid of losing games and allow that to happen.
You say tomato, I say to-mah-to ... Whether you're tanking to intentionally lose games or tanking to "not be afraid of losing games" to get a better drat pick, it still strikes me as a risky strategy -- especially when your fan base has started to tune you out. Maybe you want to pay $100 for a ticket to watch Quincy Douby, Justin Williams and Spencer Hawes try to establish themselves as players, but not me.
Nobody on the Kings right now is the cornerstone of a championship contender. That's the whole point. You almost always need a superstar to win a championship, and to get that superstar you almost always need to have a high draft pick.
The rest of the team can be filled out with people like Martin and Salmons, but until you get your superstar(s) they don't help much as far as contending for titles goes.
I wonder how the Houston Rockets -- or Miami Heat, though that's not really fair given Shaq's physical state -- blessed with 2 "superstars," would respond to the latter part of your statement.
Yeah, I'd agree that you almost always need a superstar to win a championship. But if you're implying that you need to
draft that superstar, I disagree.
Since the Kings had the No. 1 overall pick in the 1989 draft, Pervis Ellison, exactly two No. 1 overall picks have been the key player in winning a championship: Shaq (1992) and Duncan. Iverson got his team to the Finals.
There's certainly hope for Dwight Howard, LeBron James and, maybe, Yao. But there's not much hope for Kwame Brown, Kenyon Martin, Michael Olowokandi, Joe Smith, Glenn Robinson or Chris Webber to be the main guy on a championship team.
Also, since 1989, only six different teams -- Detroit, Chicago, Houston, San Antonio, the Lakers, and one-and-done Miami -- have won championships. So having a superstar clearly doesn't guarantee a championship.[/quote]
The Celtics got good because they did what the people advocating "tanking" want the Kings to do. They stockpiled young players and expiring contracts. They allowed the team to lose some games (I actually think they went a little too far in almost trying to lose) when their star was injured and got a top draft pick because of it. They ended up trading those assets away for Garnett and Allen.
I'm not an expert on the Celtics, but my recollection is that they made the trades for KG and Allen because Ainge was on the verge of being fired because the Celtics fans and management were tired of sucking. If my math is correct, from the time Bird retired, the Celtics on average finished about 17 games out of first place in their division, including the 2004-05 season when they won it. They went from being a flagship franchise to a laughingstock, so, yeah, maybe they went a little too far in almost trying to lose.
Again, if you look at the history of the lottery, you tend to see many of the same teams participating over and over again. If you don't get lucky, you may not get out.
To me, if the team is not on its way up, then it should be stockpiling assets to obtain a superstar and supporting cast. Assets in this league are draft picks, young players and expiring contracts. If you can find and keep some reasonably priced supporting players, great. But on the Kings right now, there is Miller, Thomas, Abdur-Rahim, Moore, Artest and Bibby that are all "in the way" of building a new team. It's possible that one or two will be around for the next incarnation of the contending Kings, but that still leaves at least four that can be moved for those assets. And if they're moved, that leaves room for younger players to gain experience, and that also means that the team might lose more games and gain the asset of a higher draft pick. It all makes sense if you're willing to allow it to happen.
Here we have some common ground. I'm not adverse to moving guys in the right deal. I'd love to see the Kings get rid of Thomas and Abdur-Rahim in particular, but I don't see how that happens unless you're willing to take equally bad contracts/talent/attitude back.
The good news, as I said before, is that it appears some guys who perhaps had marginal value before -- Salmons, Garcia and Udrih -- are players, meaning the Kings have more options for moves. The resurrection of Miller has been encouraging. And I wonder whether Theus decided to put Bibby and Artest into the starting lineup sooner rather than later in order to re-establish their value with the trade deadline a month away.
As for getting younger guys more playing time, I think Martin and Garcia are coming along nicely. I'd argue that Hawes should be getting some "Moore" minutes (pun intended). Douby, Justin Williams, Jones, ... eh, can't get excited one way or the other.