PGs, the draft and other stuff (split from Beno thread)

[SacKings7]

I keep hearing the same argument against obtaining a high draft pick. Here's my take on them:


1. There is no guarantee in a draft.

Well, there's no guarantee that we can be competitive without a high draft pick. There is no guarantee that we can sign a star player. There's no guarantee in anything, period. If there's a guaranteed method that surely guarantee us a championship, let's hear it. Until then, getting a high draft pick is still the best way to turn around a franchise for a small market team.

2. A lot of luck is involved in landing a high draft pick.

A lot of luck is involved in winning a championship too. Does that mean we shouldn't even try? I really don't get this "luck" thing. As if they're saying that since "luck" is such a random and uncontrollable element, we shouldn't do anything that involves luck. What's wrong with just putting the team in a position for a high draft pick and let luck runs its course? If the Kings are in a high enough position (draft-wise), even luck can't ruin things. The T-Wolves were unlucky in landing the #3 spot. They still got Kevin Love and Mike Miller. See what I mean?

3. We'll be tanking year after year.

Not if we draft the right player. Did Cleveland tank every year after they drafted Lebron? In fact, landing a high draft pick is a very good way to avoid having to tank year after year, because that young star is going to lift your team. Now, on the flip side, trying to go for that 8th spot with an average team IS the surest way to go lottery year after year. You end up with a late lottery pick every year so your team hardly improve. Witness the Kings during the 90s.

4. There's no guarantee that you'll draft the player that you want.

You think Miami and Atlanta are sobbing that they have Beasley and Horford instead of Rose and Oden? Of course not, they're grinning from ear to ear. A good player is a good player wether or not he's the one you originally wanted. We may not get the guy we want with a high draft pick, but we will get a potential star player. That's the bottom line.

5. Just look at Atlanta

In fact, the Hawks is exhibit A on why you should build through the draft. Look closely and you'll see that the Hawks were always in a win-now mode, which is why they once traded the #8 pick for Lorenzen Wright. If you chart their history, they got better once they settled down and started keeping the draft picks instead of trading them away. Also, the Hawks were miserable at drafting talent. The lesson here is that even a franchise as incompetent as the Hawks managed to assemble a very exciting team with high draft picks. So what does that tell you about the power of high lottery?

6. We don't need high picks. We can sign or trade for a star player.

Er, who? Lebron is not coming. Dwight Howard is not coming. Oden is not coming. Kobe, Yao, Arenas, Bosh, Dirk, Wade are not coming. You know who maybe interested in coming to Sacto? Andre Miller (maybe), or Okafor (doubt it). At best we sign a very good role player. That's it. And now that Memphis has traded all its stars (except Rudy Gay), good luck finding a team dumb enough to give us a franchise player like Washington gave us Chris Webber.


7. "Tanking" is bad for business

Sometimes we have to take two steps back in order to go four steps forward. Look at the Celtics. All I have to say is, if you don't have the balls to endure a couple of (really) bad losing seasons, maybe you don't deserve to win that championship.

Agreed 100%. Good post

 

[Jerryaki]

7. "Tanking" is bad for business

Sometimes we have to take two steps back in order to go four steps forward. Look at the Celtics. All I have to say is, if you don't have the balls to endure a couple of (really) bad losing seasons, maybe you don't deserve to win that championship.

ding ding ding!!! exactly. MEDIOCRITY is bad for business.

 

[Showtime]

holy cow, why why WHY do people who poo-poo the draft keep thinking the rest of us thinks it's the answer to all of our prayers??? a high draft pick just gives you the BEST ODDS of getting a franchise player in the draft, not a guarantee. why would you not want the highest percentage of getting a good player??? why would you not want the highest draft pick you can get just as a trading asset? WTF?!?!?!?!

for goodness sakes, there's only three ways we're going to get an elite player:

1) draft
2) trade
3) free agency

which of those is the most viable to a team? hint: #1. especially if (like our team) you don't have many tradeable assets and you don't have cap space.

Why would I not want the highest percentage of getting a good player? Because of what that entails. If just getting a top pick (not ending up with a top player, I mean just being in the 1-4 range) might entail several seasons of 50-60 losses, then count me out. I'd rather see a team try to rebuild through midrange drafts, trades, and free agency than to refuse to sign players just to lose for a pick. Let's remember it hasn't been that long since the team really started to rebuild. They still need to dump some big contracts that are left over, and they can't do that for another season. The real step comes when Miller is an expiring and the team will have a prime Martin, and hopefully a more developed Hawes and cap space.

 

[Bricklayer]

Why would I not want the highest percentage of getting a good player? Because of what that entails. If just getting a top pick (not ending up with a top player, I mean just being in the 1-4 range) might entail several seasons of 50-60 losses, then count me out. I'd rather see a team try to rebuild through midrange drafts, trades, and free agency than to refuse to sign players just to lose for a pick.

Well I would like to lose weight without actually having to go on a diet -- not how it works.

Nor, for those who have any inkling of history, how we did it ourselves the ONLY time we ever built a team worth building. We gave up 97-98. Started a rooklie 2nd round pick at PG (Anthony Johnson in fact). Collpased down the strecth as we went into the tank. Lost 50+ games. But all in the pursuit of caproom and draft picks. End result? We rebuilt.

 

[Jerryaki]

it hasn't been that long because we haven't really started to rebuild. i understand that you don't want to see several seasons of losing 50-60 games. i on the other hand don't want to see several seasons of 35+ losses in a brutal western conference; there's really not much difference between the two except for the draft pick.

honestly speaking, have you really been happy with the kings' 1) performance, 2) entertainment value, and 3) direction since 2004?

 

[Warhawk]

There were a lot of games last season that were fun to watch and we beat some great teams.

I, for one, am looking forward to a season with Beno, Kevin, Hawes, Thompson, and maybe Salmons on the floor. I think that could be a fun group to watch with Cisco off the bench.

And as much as I have really liked Brad over the years, it may be time for him to go to make room for the younger guys to grow. Artest has REALLY worn out his welcome. Some Mikki, Sean, and Shelden off the bench would be OK to see as well, especially to evaluate Sean and Shelden more. SAR and KT really need to go to free up some bench room for more young players.

Still not expecting much from PE Jr. or QD at this point.

 

[Jerryaki]

I, for one, am looking forward to a season with Beno, Kevin, Hawes, Thompson, and maybe Salmons on the floor. I think that could be a fun group to watch with Cisco off the bench.

And as much as I have really liked Brad over the years, it may be time for him to go to make room for the younger guys to grow. Artest has REALLY worn out his welcome. Some Mikki, Sean, and Shelden off the bench would be OK to see as well, especially to evaluate Sean and Shelden more. SAR and KT really need to go to free up some bench room for more young players.

i can agree with you there, and if that is the direction we go in, i can be on board with that.

now, how many people here really believe that we're not going to see brad, mikki, and ron getting a ton of starter minutes next season? that is what has me irked.

 

[JB_kings]

Ok lets look at the Atlanta Hawks since they are being held up as the example of the way to rebuild using those lottery picks:

2007: Al Horford (#3)
Acie Law (#11)

2006: Shelden Williams (#5)

2005: Marvin Williams (#2)

2004: Josh Childress (#6)

Ok so there is 5 lottery picks in 4 drafts. Al Horford is the cream of the crop there. Well worth that #3. Then you have Shelden Williams who was traded and quite honestly hasn't been an impact player and may just be a career backup. Then you have Marvin Williams who really hasn't been a bad player at 12 points and 5 rebounds, but certainly not what was expected of him. And then you have Josh Childress who has been an 11 point a game guy. It took the Hawks 4 years to get their impact guy and then they made it to the first round of the playoffs. They were fortunate to be in the Eastern Conference too.

 

[JB_kings]

This is kind of an interesting debate... I don't think there is any sure fire way to rebuild a team. It all involves a lot of luck and being wise with your picks. It also takes veteran talent to win along with those stud rookies. The rare Tim Duncan, Shaq, LeBron does come along... but it's just not very common. I guess I would rather focus on mixing my best vets with my rookies and letting the chips fall where they may. It could very well end up being that a few key injuries send the season down the tubes and they end up with a premium lottery pick. If that is the way it happens, then so be it. I just have a problem planning to fail on purpose. It's a losing mentality that gets the ball rolling downhill and it gets tough to stop that downward momentum.

 

[Showtime]

I keep hearing the same argument against obtaining a high draft pick. Here's my take on them:


1. There is no guarantee in a draft.

Well, there's no guarantee that we can be competitive without a high draft pick. There is no guarantee that we can sign a star player. There's no guarantee in anything, period. If there's a guaranteed method that surely guarantee us a championship, let's hear it. Until then, getting a high draft pick is still the best way to turn around a franchise for a small market team.

Maybe you didn't understand my points. Would you be willing to wait 5-10 years of losing for a franchise player through the draft? I still haven't had an answer.

Many teams who drafted 4 seasons ago thought they had a franchise guy, and they didn't. Many teams who did get that franchise guy still aren't at a contending level, 4 years later.

I agree that nothing in this business is guaranteed, and that's why I wouldn't want to sit through 5+ years of 25 win teams in the hopes that the team might get the chance at picking a player who might turn out the save the franchise.

2. A lot of luck is involved in landing a high draft pick.

A lot of luck is involved in winning a championship too. Does that mean we shouldn't even try? I really don't get this "luck" thing. As if they're saying that since "luck" is such a random and uncontrollable element, we shouldn't do anything that involves luck. What's wrong with just putting the team in a position for a high draft pick and let luck runs its course? If the Kings are in a high enough position (draft-wise), even luck can't ruin things. The T-Wolves were unlucky in landing the #3 spot. They still got Kevin Love and Mike Miller. See what I mean?

"What's wrong with just putting the team in a position for a high draft pick and let luck runs its course?"

What I think is wrong isn't the destination, it's the path. I'm not willing, as a fan, to sit through what might be more than 5 seasons of 20-30 win teams for a chance at something. How long will you wait? So again, I will ask, how long will you be happy with a team that doesn't sign any talent so they won't win in the hopes of landing a franchise star? How many seasons of bottom-of-the-barrel play will you accept? You may think "as long as it takes", but that's not the case for the majority of fans. The majority of the fanbase isn't willing to sit through years of being horrible just to get the chance at getting a guy who might pan out.

3. We'll be tanking year after year.

Not if we draft the right player. Did Cleveland tank every year after they drafted Lebron? In fact, landing a high draft pick is a very good way to avoid having to tank year after year, because that young star is going to lift your team. Now, on the flip side, trying to go for that 8th spot with an average team IS the surest way to go lottery year after year. You end up with a late lottery pick every year so your team hardly improve. Witness the Kings during the 90s.

"Not if we draft the right player" Wait, how do you get the top pick in the first place to get said player if you don't tank? That's my point. How do you "put the team in position" to get a top lottery pick if they don't lose 50-60 games?

Some teams got future all-star level guys, and many of them aren't at a contending level 4 or 5 years later. How are the Nuggets doing with Melo? Orlando got Dwight, got some talent around him, and still can't get past the first round. The Hornets just broke out this year, but still don't have the pieces to go on a serious run. The Jazz got Deron, made the WCF, but this season took a step back in the playoffs and during the season were one of the worst road teams in the league. Toronto has talent and got Bosh, but they aren't anywhere near contending level yet. Even teams that got their guy aren't ready for a title several years down the road.

4. There's no guarantee that you'll draft the player that you want.

You think Miami and Atlanta are sobbing that they have Beasley and Horford instead of Rose and Oden? Of course not, they're grinning from ear to ear. A good player is a good player wether or not he's the one you originally wanted. We may not get the guy we want with a high draft pick, but we will get a potential star player. That's the bottom line.

It's not about who the team wants, it's about making a pick that might turn into a bust. Do you think Marvin Williams > Deron and Chris Paul, or Darko > Melo, and Wade? How would you feel if the Kings lost 60 games, and finally got a top 3 pick, and you were so happy your plan worked out, only to have the Kings select their Darko?

5. Just look at Atlanta

In fact, the Hawks is exhibit A on why you should build through the draft. Look closely and you'll see that the Hawks were always in a win-now mode, which is why they once traded the #8 pick for Lorenzen Wright. If you chart their history, they got better once they settled down and started keeping the draft picks instead of trading them away. Also, the Hawks were miserable at drafting talent. The lesson here is that even a franchise as incompetent as the Hawks managed to assemble a very exciting team with high draft picks. So what does that tell you about the power of high lottery?

A very exciting team that won 37 games in the east? That's what you want for the Kings? They might lose Smith and Childress to free agency too, and then what would they look like? Is that a bright future? The point about bringing up the Hawks wasn't to show how to run a team, but to illustrate the point that getting top picks often doesn't = success. And that's not just with the Hawks either. It happens a lot. The premise a lot of people are using is that the "best" chance at a top player is with a top pick, and that said player will make the team contenders. That's not the case.

6. We don't need high picks. We can sign or trade for a star player.

Er, who? Lebron is not coming. Dwight Howard is not coming. Oden is not coming. Kobe, Yao, Arenas, Bosh, Dirk, Wade are not coming. You know who maybe interested in coming to Sacto? Andre Miller (maybe), or Okafor (doubt it). At best we sign a very good role player. That's it. And now that Memphis has traded all its stars (except Rudy Gay), good luck finding a team dumb enough to give us a franchise player like Washington gave us Chris Webber.

You mean a team dumb enough to trade Gasol for salary flexibility? A team dumb enough to trade Caron Butler for Kwame Brown? A team dumb enough to let Zeke have carte blanch and build a 90 mil salary for one of the worst teams in the league? A team dumb enough to give Ben Wallace a huge deal after trading Chandler for players they didn't even keep? A team dumb enough to trade Marion for old Shaq? A team dumb enough to give up Harris, Diop, and first round picks for an aging Kidd? Yes, there are teams in different situations who will make deals that don't seem logical. There are GM's who won't always make the best decisions. Saying that there are no teams in the league that will make bad decisions isn't true.

7. "Tanking" is bad for business

Sometimes we have to take two steps back in order to go four steps forward. Look at the Celtics. All I have to say is, if you don't have the balls to endure a couple of (really) bad losing seasons, maybe you don't deserve to win that championship.

Look at the Celtics? Yes, let's look at the Celtics. They tanked in the hopes of getting Oden or Durant. They ended up with the #5 pick, and then they had to go to plan B. Danny called his fellow Celtic buddy, and got KG. The sonics were going through their own troubles, and wanted to dump Ray as he's on the downside of his career and the team didn't want to pay him or Lewis. They got deals done with two teams that were struggling and needed a change and dealt their aging stars.

If things had gone according to plan for Boston, they would have ended up with Durant or Oden, and then how long until a championship? They wouldn't have won a ring if things had ended up like they were supposed to.

"if you don't have the balls to endure a couple of (really) bad losing seasons, maybe you don't deserve to win that championship."

Wow, it must be really nice for you. You say a "couple", yet it could end up being over 5 years before the team becomes a contender, if they even get that far. Are you the one losing millions each year as ARCO stuggles to put 10k people in the stands? Because I'll tell you what: a team like that won't end up staying in Sacramento. This season they ranked 27th in average attendance, and that's with 38 win team which was a better, more competitive, more exciting team than last season.

The bottom line is that your plan for getting a top pick sometimes works, and sometimes doesn't. There are teams that end up lucky with a Tim Duncan, and there are teams that end up with a Marvin Williams. The strategy you suggest isn't a probable, viable strategy for building a contender. It takes a combination of things to happen, not just a star player.

 

[Showtime]

Well I would like to lose weight without actually having to go on a diet -- not how it works.

Nor, for those who have any inkling of history, how we did it ourselves the ONLY time we ever built a team worth building. We gave up 97-98. Started a rooklie 2nd round pick at PG (Anthony Johnson in fact). Collpased down the strecth as we went into the tank. Lost 50+ games. But all in the pursuit of caproom and draft picks. End result? We rebuilt.

Yes, and who was the most instrumental in changing the team? Vlade and Webber, two players who weren't drafted. One was a FA signing, the other came in a trade.

 

[Jerryaki]

Ok lets look at the Atlanta Hawks since they are being held up as the example of the way to rebuild using those lottery picks:

2007: Al Horford (#3)
Acie Law (#11)

2006: Shelden Williams (#5)

2005: Marvin Williams (#2)

2004: Josh Childress (#6)

Ok so there is 5 lottery picks in 4 drafts. Al Horford is the cream of the crop there. Well worth that #3. Then you have Shelden Williams who was traded and quite honestly hasn't been an impact player and may just be a career backup. Then you have Marvin Williams who really hasn't been a bad player at 12 points and 5 rebounds, but certainly not what was expected of him. And then you have Josh Childress who has been an 11 point a game guy. It took the Hawks 4 years to get their impact guy and then they made it to the first round of the playoffs. They were fortunate to be in the Eastern Conference too.

wrote this before:

that's not the fault of the method, that's the fault of the hawk's ineptitude to actually, you know, draft.

consider the results:

2001 - drafted Pau Gasol #3, traded for Abdur-Rahim (Hawk's fault)
2002 - no first round (I didn't look into where this went)
2003 - drafted Diaw #21, failed to develop him the way phoenix has, also could've drafted Barbosa or Josh Howard
2004 - drafted Childress #6, could've drafted Deng, Iguodola, Biedrins, Al Jefferson, or Kevin Martin
2005 - drafted Marvin Williams #2 (even though they had Childress), could've drafted Deron Williams or Chris Paul, Bynum, or Granger (or even David Lee)
2006 - drafted Shelden Williams #5, could've had Brandon Roy, Rudy Gay, or Jordan Farmar

in any one isolated draft, yes, i buy the argument "team's mess up in the draft each year, you have the benefit of hindsight." the hawks messed up every year. that is not an indictment of rebuilding through the draft, that is an indictment of the hawks' stupidity.

 

[ninjabiscuit]

Tanking? I'd rather be mediocre.

Here's a question for those who advocate tanking in order to get a high draft pick:

1) If the Kings were intentionally losing games, and it was obvious to you, would you still watch them play game in and game out?

If the answer is "yes," would you be rooting for them to lose? I'd rather not watch than root for them to lose.

If the answer is "no," then who do you expect to support the team, if you, the "hardcore Kings fan," won't even do it? And how many years do they have to do this before you are satisfied and willing to watch games again? Could be a while before they're great, so you might not be watching for years. Wouldn't that be fun?

I guess it's just me, and maybe I'm [sic] olde fashioned...I'm never going to be in favor of the Kings losing games on purpose. I think that misses the entire point of the sport.

 

[Section 101]

I keep hearing the same argument against obtaining a high draft pick. Here's my take on them:


1. There is no guarantee in a draft.

Well, there's no guarantee that we can be competitive without a high draft pick. There is no guarantee that we can sign a star player. There's no guarantee in anything, period. If there's a guaranteed method that surely guarantee us a championship, let's hear it. Until then, getting a high draft pick is still the best way to turn around a franchise for a small market team.

2. A lot of luck is involved in landing a high draft pick.

A lot of luck is involved in winning a championship too. Does that mean we shouldn't even try? I really don't get this "luck" thing. As if they're saying that since "luck" is such a random and uncontrollable element, we shouldn't do anything that involves luck. What's wrong with just putting the team in a position for a high draft pick and let luck runs its course? If the Kings are in a high enough position (draft-wise), even luck can't ruin things. The T-Wolves were unlucky in landing the #3 spot. They still got Kevin Love and Mike Miller. See what I mean?

3. We'll be tanking year after year.

Not if we draft the right player. Did Cleveland tank every year after they drafted Lebron? In fact, landing a high draft pick is a very good way to avoid having to tank year after year, because that young star is going to lift your team. Now, on the flip side, trying to go for that 8th spot with an average team IS the surest way to go lottery year after year. You end up with a late lottery pick every year so your team hardly improve. Witness the Kings during the 90s.

4. There's no guarantee that you'll draft the player that you want.

You think Miami and Atlanta are sobbing that they have Beasley and Horford instead of Rose and Oden? Of course not, they're grinning from ear to ear. A good player is a good player wether or not he's the one you originally wanted. We may not get the guy we want with a high draft pick, but we will get a potential star player. That's the bottom line.

5. Just look at Atlanta

In fact, the Hawks is exhibit A on why you should build through the draft. Look closely and you'll see that the Hawks were always in a win-now mode, which is why they once traded the #8 pick for Lorenzen Wright. If you chart their history, they got better once they settled down and started keeping the draft picks instead of trading them away. Also, the Hawks were miserable at drafting talent. The lesson here is that even a franchise as incompetent as the Hawks managed to assemble a very exciting team with high draft picks. So what does that tell you about the power of high lottery?

6. We don't need high picks. We can sign or trade for a star player.

Er, who? Lebron is not coming. Dwight Howard is not coming. Oden is not coming. Kobe, Yao, Arenas, Bosh, Dirk, Wade are not coming. You know who maybe interested in coming to Sacto? Andre Miller (maybe), or Okafor (doubt it). At best we sign a very good role player. That's it. And now that Memphis has traded all its stars (except Rudy Gay), good luck finding a team dumb enough to give us a franchise player like Washington gave us Chris Webber.


7. "Tanking" is bad for business

Sometimes we have to take two steps back in order to go four steps forward. Look at the Celtics. All I have to say is, if you don't have the balls to endure a couple of (really) bad losing seasons, maybe you don't deserve to win that championship.

Are you a seaon ticket holder?

I have been since 1990 and do not want to go back to the early 90's ways. I'd rather have a team that wins at home and makes the 8th seed every year.

 

[Jerryaki]

Yes, and who was the most instrumental in changing the team? Vlade and Webber, two players who weren't drafted. One was a FA signing, the other came in a trade.

i saw that you have a longer post that i have to read through, but i'll answer this one first.

who did we trade to get webber? mitch richmond (#5 pick by warriors, who we got with our 1991 #3 pick billy owens, plus our 1984 #9 pick otis thorpe). so, yes, our high draft picks helped us get the best player we ever had.

 

[Jerryaki]

Here's a question for those who advocate tanking in order to get a high draft pick:

1) If the Kings were intentionally losing games, and it was obvious to you, would you still watch them play game in and game out?

If the answer is "yes," would you be rooting for them to lose? I'd rather not watch than root for them to lose.

If the answer is "no," then who do you expect to support the team, if you, the "hardcore Kings fan," won't even do it? And how many years do they have to do this before you are satisfied and willing to watch games again? Could be a while before they're great, so you might not be watching for years. Wouldn't that be fun?

I guess it's just me, and maybe I'm [sic] olde fashioned...I'm never going to be in favor of the Kings losing games on purpose. I think that misses the entire point of the sport.

i love this time of year. =)

tell me this, next season would you rather see the lion's share of minutes go to mikki, artest, and brad?

 

[est.1999]

the hawks have some kind of future all because of joe Johnson. And he was traded there not drafted

 

[Jerryaki]

I'd rather have a team that wins at home and makes the 8th seed every year.

that's a bit ironic, seeing as how we probably won't be getting that the next few seasons.

 

[Jerryaki]

the hawks have some kind of future all because of joe Johnson. And he was traded there not drafted

except he was traded there for diaw and 2 future first rounders. when GP starts trading our draft picks for players, i'll get off his back about rebuilding.

 

[Showtime]

it hasn't been that long because we haven't really started to rebuild.

In '05, it was clear that Webber wasn't going to work with the team, and needed to be moved. It was also clear that the Peja/Bibby/Miller core actually won without Chris in '04, and didn't just win, was a top team in the west too. Geoff, understandably, thought that just re-tooling might work out if he kept the Peja/Bibby/Miller core. Well, during the '06 campaign, it was clear that is wasn't working out. That's when the Artest trade happened. That's when Geoff decided his idea that a Peja/Bibby/Miller team wasn't going to work, and that's when the real decision to rebuild happened.

Remember, when they signed Webber, Miller, and Bibby, they didn't anticipate the team becoming bad that fast. They thought they had many more years of good play, so when things went down hill quickly, they realized they couldn't really start over until those big, long contracts could be moved. They just were able to move Mike this season, and won't move Miller until possibly after next year.

So to say they are "treading water" instead of rebuilding is something I disagree with. I think they are treading water until they are in the position to start over. You can't just move a Bibby or Miller with those contracts because you want to.

i understand that you don't want to see several seasons of losing 50-60 games. i on the other hand don't want to see several seasons of 35+ losses in a brutal western conference; there's really not much difference between the two except for the draft pick.

I don't see it that way. I see, as stated above, a team trying to recover from the past era, and haven't done a bad job in getting pieces now for that time in two years. There's no doubt they were treading water by signing SAR, Moore, etc. but I think you have the idea that this is the strategy for the team for years to come, when in reality it's been the strategy only for a few years until Mike and Brad can be moved.

By the time this team is really free of the big contracts, all those "treading water" deals won't be there, which I think was part of the plan, and I think the team is moving in the right direction. I think if this team can win 38 games with all the crap that went on in the toughest western conference in league history, that the team stands a good chance of being something in a few seasons.

honestly speaking, have you really been happy with the kings' 1) performance, 2) entertainment value, and 3) direction since 2004?

I may not like the result, but I understand the reasoning, and I was pleased with the energy, hustle, and heart of the team this last year (and that didn't include Artest). I understand the team was forced to face a reality they weren't expecting with the Webber injury and decline. I understand they thought they could do it without him. I understand that quickly changed, and then the idea was to tread water until they could be free of the huge deals. I understand all that, and can accept it because I see a lot of teams that are worse off, and I saw this season a team that has a future, especially in two years. The team defense was great at times, the heart was there that wasn't there in '07, and because of the hustle, the climate of the team changed. I think you expect more mediocrity like the past two seasons, and I don't. I think they team turned a corner this last season, and are heading in the right direction.

 

[Jerryaki]

clearly we have different philosophies. but taking a look at your reasoning, i can see where you are coming from. i still disagree that it's the best approach, and here's why.

i do believe that it's possible the kings are trying to clear cap room for the 2010 offseason, as that is when KT, SAR, and brad's contracts come off the books. whether or not that's actually the plan, we'll see, because it's very possible that they trade those guys in the 2009 season as expiring contracts, in attempts to "win more games now!" but that's conjecture. so let's say they are clearing it for the 2010 offseason. this is the free agent list (unrestricted + player option guys):

LeBron James / Dirk Nowitzki / Josh Howard / Dwyane Wade / Michael Redd / Amare Stoudemire / Joe Johnson / Ben Wallace / Marcus Camby / Richard Hamilton / Amir Johnson / Antonio McDyess / Tracy McGrady / Jermaine O’Neal / Darko Milicic / Steve Nash / Shaquille O’Neal / Manu Ginobili / Carlos Boozer / Mehmet Okur

i bolded the guys who, in two years' time, i feel will still be strong, cornerstone type players. now, with several other teams doing the same thing, and at least NJ and NY in bigger and more attractive markets, what do you think the odds are of those guys wanting to play for sacramento over another franchise

not only that, if all this time we've been treading water by signing vets to the MLE and not drafting high for possible young talent, do you think that makes these guys want to play in sacramento more?

and therein lies the problem with free agency. the player has a say in it.

now, with trading, you have several other problems. you need to find a transaction that works mathematically, and if that doesn't work you need multiple teams involved. and then if you're looking to get top level talent back, you probably need to be sending out talent of your own, talent we don't have because we've been signing mediocre vets instead of drafting young talent who we could at least sell as a "potential upside" guy. and so in the end, what you're really hoping for, as you mentioned earlier, is a dumb team. so again, you're depending on someone else.

now, the draft isn't perfect. there's going to be errors made by teams and good moves made by teams. but when it's your turn to pick, it's on YOU and your research and your instinct. you hope that the guy you pick is a cornerstone. he may not be. but at least through the draft: 1) the guy's salary comes cheap, 2) if he shows any promise but you don't like him, you can trade him reasonably easily, and 3) of the three methods, it's the one that's least dependent on another team.

 

[Sptsjunkie]

for goodness sakes, there's only three ways we're going to get an elite player:

1) draft
2) trade
3) free agency

which of those is the most viable to a team? hint: #1. especially if (like our team) you don't have many tradeable assets and you don't have cap space.

I'm not going to discount the draft by any means and am very luke warm on the Beno signing, but #2 is an equally (if not more viable) option for us at this point. Over the next two years, our whole team is essentially going to be tradeable assets:

Win now assets - Ron Artest, K-Mart, Brad Miller, John Salmons, Cisco, Beno

Building block assets - Martin, Cisco, Hawes, Thompson, Beno, and Salmons, numerous draft picks (leaving Douby, Singletary and Ewing off the list for now, although that could change this year)

Expiring contracts - Miller, KT, Shareef, Artest, Moore

This is more than enough assets to acquire a players if the right deal comes along.

 

[Showtime]

Jerry, I don't think the team is just looking at clearing cap space to sign a big time FA. I think they are also looking at the possiblity of trading expiring deals to teams that need cap for possible talent and picks. It may not be about going after Wade or Dirk, it may be dealing for picks and youth to go along the pieces that have already shown something. With that being said, players might see something in the kings, and might go there if the price is right. I wouldn't say Sac is off the radar for those free agents.

 

[Jerryaki]

I'm not going to discount the draft by any means and am very luke warm on the Beno signing, but #2 is an equally (if not more viable) option for us at this point. Over the next two years, our whole team is essentially going to be tradeable assets:

Win now assets - Ron Artest, K-Mart, Brad Miller, John Salmons, Cisco, Beno

Building block assets - Martin, Cisco, Hawes, Thompson, Beno, and Salmons, numerous draft picks (leaving Douby, Singletary and Ewing off the list for now, although that could change this year)

Expiring contracts - Miller, KT, Shareef, Artest, Moore

This is more than enough assets to acquire a players if the right deal comes along.

good point. but i think we're approaching a chicken-and-egg moment. the guys we would be trading over the next two years as expiring contracts are our better, more talented players. so if you're going to trade them, you better be playing the more inexperienced guys, so that they will be somewhat dependable/good when traded player X comes on board. and that's fine if that's our gameplan.

if that's the case, then it follows that we would be playing the kids more and would likely be losing more. but *gasp* tanking is bad!!!!!! we have to win as many games as possible!!! play the vets!!!!!

so there you have it. play the vets to win now, use them as expiring contracts, and then have a stud player get traded to us to play with inexperienced greenhorns?

or play the kids now, oh no we lose, but then possibly have an experienced team with some cohesion once player X arrives?

as you can see, the people who want to "win now!" can't have it both ways.

 

[Jerryaki]

Jerry, I don't think the team is just looking at clearing cap space to sign a big time FA. I think they are also looking at the possiblity of trading expiring deals to teams that need cap for possible talent and picks. It may not be about going after Wade or Dirk, it may be dealing for picks and youth to go along the pieces that have already shown something. With that being said, players might see something in the kings, and might go there if the price is right. I wouldn't say Sac is off the radar for those free agents.

to be honest, the annual rebuild/tanking vs. win now mentality (your argument is slightly different, but still a variant) really comes down to whether or not the debators have faith in the front office or not.

and looking at GP's record...i mean, he's not really traded to move up in the draft or to get high picks. and he hasn't really traded for young talent that i can think of other than mike bibby. he's a play it safe kind of guy, and it just doesn't instill a lot of confidence in me or in our future.

 

[Sptsjunkie]

good point. but i think we're approaching a chicken-and-egg moment. the guys we would be trading over the next two years as expiring contracts are our better, more talented players. so if you're going to trade them, you better be playing the more inexperienced guys, so that they will be somewhat dependable/good when traded player X comes on board. and that's fine if that's our gameplan.

if that's the case, then it follows that we would be playing the kids more and would likely be losing more. but *gasp* tanking is bad!!!!!! we have to win as many games as possible!!! play the vets!!!!!

so there you have it. play the vets to win now, use them as expiring contracts, and then have a stud player get traded to us to play with inexperienced greenhorns?

or play the kids now, oh no we lose, but then possibly have an experienced team with some cohesion once player X arrives?

as you can see, the people who want to "win now!" can't effin' have it both ways.

I understand your point, but I think you are oversimlifying things to split people into two camps (even if you are purposefully exaggerating).

On a personal level, I fully understand why the team does not "tank" and sell off every asset until we acquire s superstar with a top 3 pick. However, that does not mean play the veterans at the expense of the young players just to win extra games. That was one of the things I hated about our team two years ago. We limped to a bad record playing veterans non-stop while Martin took a secondary role and Garcia, Douby and Williams did not play at all.

My point in the last post, was that from where we are right now, trading becomes a very viable means of acquiring better players. And we have enough of a diversity of assets that we can either trade for a player who makes us immdiatley better or a more long term deal.

 

[Bricklayer]

Are you a seaon ticket holder?

I have been since 1990 and do not want to go back to the early 90's ways. I'd rather have a team that wins at home and makes the 8th seed every year.

I'm sorry, but that is just bordering on...many words that would qualify as personal attacks. In general terms though, there is nothing even remotely respectable about that desire.

At that point you might as well just check out of the argument, because philosophically and valuewise you have said everything that needs to be said, and there there is no common ground, no common goal, to even discuss. You want to watch a sticom with a laugh track, you only care about what happens right immediately before you, today, in our own arena. Its a very small and limited world. There's no strategy there. No anything to discuss really.

And I was a season ticket holder until last year -- I abandoned them for being idiots and not rebuilding. The day they actually commit to a rebuilding plan, the day they accept that losses are inevitable and put in place a plan to one day be winners once again -- not mediocre bore you to death crap, but actual winners -- I may come back. 60 losses or no. Be amazed at how much there is to see and be of interest when you gain a little long term perspective. The Portland fans have it figured out. Watching the future = FUN, if the future is bright.

 

[Jerryaki]

My point in the last post, was that from where we are right now, trading becomes a very viable means of acquiring better players. And we have enough of a diversity of assets that we can either trade for a player who makes us immdiatley better or a more long term deal.

i hope so. i dread a season where mikki is taking huge chunks of time from thompson, and brad from spencer. we'll see how it goes, though.

then of course, there's the possibility that they are taking huge chunks of time because spencer and jason are just not very good on the pro level. in which case, we're just flat out screwed.

 

[Sptsjunkie]

i saw that you have a longer post that i have to read through, but i'll answer this one first.

who did we trade to get webber? mitch richmond (#5 pick by warriors, who we got with our 1991 #3 pick billy owens, plus our 1984 #9 pick otis thorpe). so, yes, our high draft picks helped us get the best player we ever had.

This is only partially true, I understand the logic that #3 = Owens = Richmond = Webber. However, Otis Thorpe who we traded a long time ago and had just acquired back that year for OP (if my memory serves me) was hardly a high draft pick that we used to acquire Webber.

 

[Jerryaki]

This is only partially true, I understand the logic that #3 = Owens = Richmond = Webber. However, Otis Thorpe who we traded a long time ago and had just acquired back that year for OP (if my memory serves me) was hardly a high draft pick that we used to acquire Webber.

granted, but the partially true part is the important one. without that #3, we likely do not get webb.