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

[Warhawk]

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?

Don't get me wrong - I think you can absolutely do well in the draft and really move a franchise forward.

Now, when you talk about free agency, how many players will want to come here if we just sign cheap plugs to "hold us over", lose more and more games hoping for that wonder pick to fall into our laps in a year when a LeBron is available, and don't sign decent talent like Beno? You honestly think having AJ at the point would make a Garnett happier if he's looking at Sacramento?

I think we are (very slowly) building a good talent base with Martin, Beno, Cisco, Hawes, etc. Maybe not all-stars, but good, solid players that can complement stars at the very least. And I think we are looking for a bigger splash in another year or two depending on how some trades and drafts go. You have to have talent to draw other talent.

We trade Ron and hopefully get some talent and maybe a pick in return. Maybe Brad can bring back some value and a pick as well in the next year or so. Then we take what we have (players that run, hustle, and scrap) and try to draft/get that star that can put us over the top. Using draft picks from others works just as well as our own.

I think some place too much emphasis on the draft and others on trades and others on free agency. It takes a balance of all 3.

 

[beb0p]

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.

Only 5 years of losing for a franchise player? HELL YESSS!!! You know some teams waited for two decades and still don't have one, right? Let's do the math, Chris Webber went down in 2003. It is now 2008. If we had followed this high-pick strategy, we'd have another franchise player today and ready to challenge. Why the hell not!!!

Btw, tanking for "5+ seasons" is an exergeration expounded by the anti-high-pick group. It's virtually impossible to tank for 5 straight seasons and still don't have significant improvment. Even the Hawks managed to get it right in about that time frame.

How many team had 5 straight seasons of top 5 picks and still suck? I honestly can't think of one.

"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.

I don't know where that magic number "5" comes from. As in "5 seaons of 20-30 win", that number can easily be "1", "2", or "3". I can almost assure you that it won't be "6", "7", or more. It's just impossible to get, say, 5 straight years of high picks and not get it right at least once. If we "tank" (I hate that word, btw) next season, we may end up with that franchise player next summer. I just don't understand where the idea that we WILL suck for more than FIVE seasons come from. We most likely won't.

"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.

The Nuggets, Magic, Bobcats, Hawks, Clippers, Trailblazers, Jazz, Hornets and Raptors are in hell of a lot better positions than we are. That's fo' sure. Why? High draft picks.

I'm not here to argue semantics. The fact of matter is that all the teams who picked high in recent years are all in much better positions to challenge for the rings than the Kings are.

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?

And how do feel if you spent a lot of money on a date only to find out she doesn't like you? So the lesson is never ask another girl out again because of one bad experience? I don't understand this line of logic.

Let me put it this way: would you prefer Millicic, Marcus Banks, Reese Gaines, or Troy Bell? If picking #2 vs picking in late lottery means the difference between Millicic and Troy Bell, then I think it strenghten my argument even more.

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.

Com'on now, as a Kings fan you know that Mike Bibby didn't join the Hawks until late in the season. That team is not going to win just 37 games next season.

If you want to demonstrate that "getting top picks often doesn't = success" maybe you should provide an example. The Hawks' recent success effectively refuted your assertion.

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.

I find it puzzling that people who don't want to take a chance at the draft (where there is a limited set of certainties) would go all hung-ho about other teams wanting to trade a superstar to us (where there is absolutely no certainty).

If you think it takes 5+ seasons of tanking to draft a franchise player, then using your math, it can easily be 20+ seasons before a team trade us a franchise player.

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.

And how many top five pick did Boston have in the last ten seasons???

One. Last year.

Ironic that the season following their one and only top 5 pick in over a decade, they won the championship, isn't it?

In fact, Boston is another team that tried to win-now until they finally realized their mistake and decided to tank. They only tanked one season. One season and then they won the championship. Think about it.

"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.

This is all about priorities isn't it? If your priority is winning a championship, then you go my route.

If your priority is about gate receipts and revenue, then I'm afraid you won't like my plan very much.

But please don't link wins/losses with the new arena. If there's a correlation between a team's wins and the willingness of the public to finance a new arena, I'd like to see that study.

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.

LOL. First you say it works sometimes and then you say it's not a viable strategy. Then you say it takes a combination of things to happen, but you don't say what combination.

Let me tell you this: whatever combination you have in mind, it most defintely involves landing a franchise player. You want to keep doing the same thing but expect different result. Good luck with that.

Btw, what's wrong with Marvin Williams? He's going to be a good player, much better than the scrub we'll pick at #14 (where I anticipate we'll pick next year).

 

[beb0p]

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.

No, I'm afraid not. I live in San Francisco so I can't attend most games. I go to the Warriors/Kings whenever I can though.

Perhaps I'd have a different view if I am a season tickets holder. But for now, I'm for getting a high pick.

 

[Showtime]

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.

So because he hasn't made those moves, that means he won't or that he didn't want to? How do you know he didn't try to move up? How do you know what deals were proposed and rejected? I don't. That doesn't mean I think Geoff isn't the GM who can build a contender, because he has done it before.

That 8 year run (and in my mind would have been a championship team if Webber didn't go down) is enough to trust him to take another whack at it in the next few years. Honestly, if the kings had won a ring in '03, would we even be having this discussion about him? Things blew up in his face, and he was forced with cleaning up the mess. I'll wait and see where the team goes in the next few years before I say Geoff isn't the guy anymore.

 

[Big Cuz 15]

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.

why is it "TANKING"? its called positioning yourself. just like when you box out to get a rebound. you POSITION yourself to get that rebound. if we position ourselves like, dump the vets, play the kids, be financially responsible instead of signing every MLE vet that wags its tail at us. we'll be positioned to do something.

 

[Section 101]

No, I'm afraid not. I live in San Francisco so I can't attend most games. I go to the Warriors/Kings whenever I can though.

Perhaps I'd have a different view if I am a season tickets holder. But for now, I'm for getting a high pick.

Thanks for the info. It's my assumption that's its easy to say be bad for x amount of years if your not paying for the games. I think they would lose a lot more season ticket holders if they tanked it for 5 years.

 

[Section 101]

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.

Explain how we gave up on 97-98? It's not like they were that great in the first place.

We made the 8th seed the year before.

Mitch was in full pout mode.

We lost Grant the year before to free agency.

What trades were done to free cap space?

I recall Hurley and Smith for Otis, but its not like they were making a ton.

Hurley was the starter till he was traded, then it was Abdul-Rauf till he got hurt. It's not like the plan was to start AJ. The season started trying to improve in the 8th seed.

Oh, and we ended up with the 7th pick not a top 5.

 

[Showtime]

Only 5 years of losing for a franchise player? HELL YESSS!!!

Well, then that's where we disagree. Not only is it not probable that the team lands a franchise level player, but even if they get that guy that doesn't mean he changes the team into a contender.

You know some teams waited for two decades and still don't have one, right? Let's do the math, Chris Webber went down in 2003. It is now 2008. If we had followed this high-pick strategy, we'd have another franchise player today and ready to challenge. Why the hell not!!!

As I said before, the recent history shows that even teams that get all-star players in the lottery don't become contenders. That's why.

And I also disagree with your idea that the team should have tanked after '03. That just wasn't an option at the time, so no, we wouldn't have had the new contender by now.

Btw, tanking for "5+ seasons" is an exergeration expounded by the anti-high-pick group. It's virtually impossible to tank for 5 straight seasons and still don't have significant improvment. Even the Hawks managed to get it right in about that time frame.

I didn't say tank for 5+ years and not get talent, I said that it might take multiple seasons to get a franchise level player in the draft, and even then it might take even longer for the team to build to become a contender, if at all.

How many team had 5 straight seasons of top 5 picks and still suck? I honestly can't think of one.

I don't know where that magic number "5" comes from. As in "5 seaons of 20-30 win", that number can easily be "1", "2", or "3". I can almost assure you that it won't be "6", "7", or more. It's just impossible to get, say, 5 straight years of high picks and not get it right at least once. If we "tank" (I hate that word, btw) next season, we may end up with that franchise player next summer. I just don't understand where the idea that we WILL suck for more than FIVE seasons come from. We most likely won't.

Again, refer to my post showing teams since the '04 draft and how they either didn't get the franchise player, or got him but still aren't serious contenders yet, and how some are still mediocre/losing. That's what I meant when I asked are you prepared to have 5+ seasons of losing so that things might work out. It might take a few to get the guy, then it might take several more for the team to reach a contending level instead of just being a mediocre team with a superstar.

The Nuggets, Magic, Bobcats, Hawks, Clippers, Trailblazers, Jazz, Hornets and Raptors are in hell of a lot better positions than we are. That's fo' sure. Why? High draft picks.

Are they serious contenders yet? That's my point about the time frame before contention. Because contending is the point that people are bringing up about the draft. They want that top pick to get a franchise player, because they don't want "mediocrity", they want a contending team. All of the teams you just listed need more work to get to that level, and that's 3 or 4 seasons after getting their franchise guy. So they are looking at 5+ seasons from the time they get their franchise player to the time where they might be serious contenders.

I'm not here to argue semantics. The fact of matter is that all the teams who picked high in recent years are all in much better positions to challenge for the rings than the Kings are.

I'm not arguing semantics, I'm saying that not only can you NOT build a contending team by just drafting one guy, but that it often takes several years to acquire him and then get the pieces around him to build a team to a level of being a serious contender.

And how do feel if you spent a lot of money on a date only to find out she doesn't like you? So the lesson is never ask another girl out again because of one bad experience? I don't understand this line of logic.

"Dates" don't last several years. Let's say you got married and invested a lot and sacrificed for somebody who you thought you could build a life and a future with and be happy, only for it to not work out years later and you look back and ask yourself "was that time and sacrifice worth it?"

Let me put it this way: would you prefer Millicic, Marcus Banks, Reese Gaines, or Troy Bell? If picking #2 vs picking in late lottery means the difference between Millicic and Troy Bell, then I think it strenghten my argument even more.

I don't get how this addresses my point, which was that it's not probable that you will get your Tim Duncan just because you have a high lottery pick.

Com'on now, as a Kings fan you know that Mike Bibby didn't join the Hawks until late in the season. That team is not going to win just 37 games next season.

So you think that team has more upside than the Kings? They still haven't retained Smith and Childriss, and haven't shown any signs of becoming a great team. I don't see, at this point in time, how they have a much brighter future than the Kings. Put the Kings in the east too and see what happens, for that matter.

If you want to demonstrate that "getting top picks often doesn't = success" maybe you should provide an example. The Hawks' recent success effectively refuted your assertion.

Are the Hawks a "successful" team? Are they on the cusp of reaching the contending status that Kings fans want for their team? I don't see how they refute my assertion at all. My assertion is that high picks don't always translate into a successful, contending franchise. That remains true until proven otherwise in the case of the hawks.

I find it puzzling that people who don't want to take a chance at the draft (where there is a limited set of certainties) would go all hung-ho about other teams wanting to trade a superstar to us (where there is absolutely no certainty).

That wasn't my point at all. I was simply refuting the assertion that no team would be dumb enough to trade a star to the kings, therefore limiting the team's options of obtaining star talent to the draft only. That viewpoint is plain false.

If you think it takes 5+ seasons of tanking to draft a franchise player, then using your math, it can easily be 20+ seasons before a team trade us a franchise player.

And what are you using for the basis of your 20 year projection? I'm using real life examples of that time period. Not all teams get that guy in the draft, and it sometimes takes several drafts to grab that franchise player, which then turns into several more years before the team can be built up to become a serious contender. Meanwhile, all-star players change teams almost every year. What is the basis of your 20 year theory?

And how many top five pick did Boston have in the last ten seasons???

One. Last year.

Ironic that the season following their one and only top 5 pick in over a decade, they won the championship, isn't it?

Uh, you fail to see the point. If things had gone according to the plan you are setting out for the kings, they would have used the pick to draft a franchise player. That's the point of your posts, which is to acquire talent in the draft. You point wasn't to acquire talent by getting a top 5 pick and then dealing it and some pieces to losing teams and nabbing up their aging stars for a short term run. Now you want to shift from getting a franchise guy in the lottery and building long term to making short term runs by trading picks and pieces? Which is it?

In fact, Boston is another team that tried to win-now until they finally realized their mistake and decided to tank. They only tanked one season. One season and then they won the championship. Think about it.

If you think that's "about it", then don't respond, because you are clearly delusional. We have been debating for several pages on philosophy of the direction of the team, which stemmed from the Beno deal. You wanted the team to stop the "win now" or "tread water" approach, and lose so they can draft a franchise player to build a contending team around for the long term.

I brought up that if the Boston scenario happend to Sacramento where they had a top 5 pick, that according to your plan that we have been discussing, they should have picked a player for the long term. Boston didn't do that. Boston traded pieces to losing teams and got their aging talent to "win NOW" and didn't build their championship team around a franchise player they got in the draft. So why the contradiction?

This is all about priorities isn't it? If your priority is winning a championship, then you go my route.

If your priority is about gate receipts and revenue, then I'm afraid you won't like my plan very much.

And I'm afraid that with your route, there's a good chance the team won't stay in Sacramento, and then I guess there wouldn't be anything to disagree about.

But please don't link wins/losses with the new arena. If there's a correlation between a team's wins and the willingness of the public to finance a new arena, I'd like to see that study.

I didn't say one word about an arena. My comment was about the potential of several 12-15 place seasons with your approach, and how attendance would fall in that scenario, thus the team would probably leave.

LOL. First you say it works sometimes and then you say it's not a viable strategy. Then you say it takes a combination of things to happen, but you don't say what combination.

Do you know what "probable" means? Just because sometimes it works doesn't mean that approach is viable (you can look that one up too). If it were probable, you'd see it work a lot more than it does. I can only think of two recent examples of tanking/horrible teams getting a franchise player who won a ring, and that's Wade and Duncan. I think in if it were a viable approach, you'd see more than 2 players in over ten years.

And let me be clear about this: I'm not dismissing the draft itself, I'm being specific about a top lottery pick turning into a franchise player that can be built around for a team to contend for a title. My other point is that it takes more than just one player. It takes complimentary players, possibly another star, the right coach, the right situation (no injuries), etc.

Let me tell you this: whatever combination you have in mind, it most defintely involves landing a franchise player. You want to keep doing the same thing but expect different result. Good luck with that.

It's not that I expect "the same thing". I don't expect the Kings to keep signing average talent to MLE deals, and treading water. I have said I understand why that approach has been taken, and that that specific period of time will soon be over. I'm not saying the things the Kings have done for the past 3 seasons has been the correct approach to build a championship team. I'm saying I think there are serious flaws in the reasoning you have.

Btw, what's wrong with Marvin Williams? He's going to be a good player, much better than the scrub we'll pick at #14 (where I anticipate we'll pick next year).

There's nothing wrong with Marvin Williams, just like there's nothing wrong with Kwame Brown. My point was the pick that they were chosen at, and how that shows that just getting a top pick doesn't mean the kings will get a franchise player, because the majority of top lottery picks don't become that guy.

 

[sdballer]

Thanks for the info. It's my assumption that's its easy to say be bad for x amount of years if your not paying for the games. I think they would lose a lot more season ticket holders if they tanked it for 5 years.

Not necessarily. Again, like everything with this discussion, it depends on how you define success. Would two years of trading more established vets for youngsters/picks and playing those young guys lead to more losses? Probably. And no one really likes watching losses, regardless of how hard the team plays.

But if that strategy is thoughtfully put together with the intention of having a team that can legitimately grow into a contender, then I think you make that move.

Its sacrificing for a short while with the intention of big returns in the future. If not, you slowly bleed fan loyalty and $ with no real upside in the future. Frankly, its not a great strategy for business and its one that usually fails.

 

[Jerryaki]

So because he hasn't made those moves, that means he won't or that he didn't want to? How do you know he didn't try to move up? How do you know what deals were proposed and rejected? I don't. That doesn't mean I think Geoff isn't the GM who can build a contender, because he has done it before.

That 8 year run (and in my mind would have been a championship team if Webber didn't go down) is enough to trust him to take another whack at it in the next few years. Honestly, if the kings had won a ring in '03, would we even be having this discussion about him? Things blew up in his face, and he was forced with cleaning up the mess. I'll wait and see where the team goes in the next few years before I say Geoff isn't the guy anymore.

i fail to see how trying yet failing to make a trade is in anyway better than not doing anything at all; it nets the same result.

you can't tell me "high draft picks are not worth it, let's go the trade route" and then come back and say "oh well, they tried to trade, but no one's dealing." our franchise won't go anywhere by that reasoning.

and it's not just GP; it's also the maloofs and the whole front office. hell yeah it's easy to build a contender when the maloofs were dishing out the cash. are they going to do it again? can GP build a contender without all that extra dough? magic eight ball says future looks murky.

 

[Showtime]

i fail to see how trying yet failing to make a trade is in anyway better than not doing anything at all; it nets the same result.

Yes, and your comment was about putting confidence in a guy who didn't want to get a deal done because he's so conservative, specifically in the draft which you referenced. My response was that I have no idea how much effort he went to, so I can't say what his mindset is. How can I withdraw my confidence in him because of his attitude if I don't even know what his attitude is? See the point?

I will have confidence in him for a few more years, because that's the real time where we will see where he takes this team.

you can't tell me "high draft picks are not worth it, let's go the trade route" and then come back and say "oh well, they tried to trade, but no one's dealing." our franchise won't go anywhere by that reasoning.

I don't believe just one route is the correct route. I believe it takes many different factors for a team to be a contender, and the draft and trades are part of it. I just disagree with some people's approach.

and it's not just GP; it's also the maloofs and the whole front office. hell yeah it's easy to build a contender when the maloofs were dishing out the cash. are they going to do it again? can GP build a contender without all that extra dough? magic eight ball says future looks murky.

How do you know they won't spend the cash to build a contender? That's pure conjecture. They paid K-Mart, so what makes you think they wouldn't pay someone else? How can you say the future looks mirky when they just won 38 games with all the crap and distractions and in the tightest west ever?

 

[Showtime]

why is it "TANKING"? its called positioning yourself. just like when you box out to get a rebound. you POSITION yourself to get that rebound. if we position ourselves like, dump the vets, play the kids, be financially responsible instead of signing every MLE vet that wags its tail at us. we'll be positioned to do something.

Tanking means intentionally losing games just to get a high pick. Now, I personally think the draft system is providing incentive for this to happen, and should be corrected. If a team doesn't even want to win, and isn't fielding their best, what's the reason for the fans to show up? For that matter, what's the reason for even playing the game in the first place?

There's a fine line too, because last season I thought that when the team wasn't going to make the playoffs, that Theus should have played Hawes, Douby, and Sheldon more. I don't mind this, because there's a difference in playing guys more minutes to develop and evaluate them more while trying to win, and in checking out to get a pick and not wanting to be competitive.

If you try to lose for the draft position, by whatever means, it's tanking.

 

[est.1999]

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.

oh god. If GP were to trade two future first round picks and a player for joe Johnson this entire kings fan base would be calling for his head more than they are now

 

[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.

Another point on this (which I wrote earlier but got signed out, ugh!) is that, while I understand your point that lottery picks = better odds at a better asset = better chance of acquiring a star; there are other ways of acquiring top players. As I listed earlier, we are building up plenty of diverse assets and while you can easily trace Webber back to an early draft pick, plenty of stars have been acquired without giving up players drafted early.

• Garnett was acquired by Boston for four players drafted outside of the top 10 (Jefferson, Telfair, Gomes, and Green) and an expiring contract
• Kobe was acquired for a second round draft pick (Vlade)
• Baron Davis was acquired for the #20 pick (Speedy Claxton) and cap relief and now was just signed as a free agent
• Steve Nash was signed as a free agent, years after he was acquired for a varitable poo poo platter
• Pau Gasol was acquired for an expring contract (not crediting Kwame as a #1 pick here, because he was purley brough on for cap relief and not potential/talent), a pick out of the top 20 (Critterton) and two first round picks (projected out of the top 20)
• Carlos Boozer was signed as a free agent
• Rasheed Wallace was acquired by Detroit for scraps (no lottery picks) after being acquired by Portland for two players picked out of the top 10 (Harvey Grand and Rod Strickland)
• Jason Kidd was acquired by the Suns for two picks in the 20s (Finley and Cassell)
• Allen Iverson was traded to Denver for a #8 pick (Andre Miller), an expiring contract (Joe Smith, similar to Kwame, he was in no way dealt for upside or talent), 2 first round picks (projected late first round)
• Vince Carter was acquired for 3 expiring contract (same caveat on old Alonzo as Kwame and Joe)
• Tracy McGrady was acquired by Orlando in a sign and trade for a conditional first round pick - protected against being a "star pick," ended up being #11
• This might be too old for relevance, but Steve Francis was first acquired by the Rockets for the #14 pick (Dickerson), another mid teens pick (Brent Price - one shining moment), Othella Harrington and Antonie Carr

The point of all of this is not that high draft picks are not helpful. But that there are more than one way to acquire top tier talent and that from where we are today, we are probably better off continuing to compile assets and having Petrie be both aggressive and patient in finding us the right deal instead of stripping down all of our assets in hope of landing a star player in the early lottery.

 

[bajaden]

Please God, close this thread.. Haven't any of you figured out that your never going to come to an agreement on this. How many times on how many threads are we going to have this same discussion.

The definition of insanity is to keep repeating the same process over and over again and expecting a different result.

Adios, Mas Tarde....

 

[tradepeja]

Wow, there are some of the biggest posts I've seen on any board ever in this thread.

I gotta hand it to you guys, because I've been on a lot of forums.

 

[Showtime]

Wow, there are some of the biggest posts I've seen on any board ever in this thread.

I gotta hand it to you guys, because I've been on a lot of forums.

I've gone past character limits before. Kind of sucks when you have a huge post you have to cut apart.

 

[Warhawk]

What I am gathering is that some think we should (re-sign, where necessary, and) trot out AJ, SAR, KT, Mikki and QD as 30+ minute starters all year in hopes of getting the #1 pick next year, win the lottery, draft our #1 pick superstud, and we have the championship locked up in 2009-2010 season. Because that is how you win championships.

Or did I miss something?

 

[Big Cuz 15]

Tanking means intentionally losing games just to get a high pick. Now, I personally think the draft system is providing incentive for this to happen, and should be corrected. If a team doesn't even want to win, and isn't fielding their best,

>It depends on how you look at it. By playing the young players will come with losses. Consequently that is due to lack of experience or overall ability. Tanking would be what the miami heat did last season. Blowing out the opponent in the first half then intentionally losing the second half.

what's the reason for the fans to show up? For that matter, what's the reason for even playing the game in the first place?

>Fans show up to see the cheerleaders and slamson. Didn't you know? someone left you out of the loop..

There's a fine line too, because last season I thought that when the team wasn't going to make the playoffs, that Theus should have played Hawes, Douby, and Sheldon more. I don't mind this, because there's a difference in playing guys more minutes to develop and evaluate them more while trying to win, and in checking out to get a pick and not wanting to be competitive.

>Isn't that what my post was about that you replied to?

If you try to lose for the draft position, by whatever means, it's tanking.

>..... sigh...really lost for words.

 

[Big Cuz 15]

What I am gathering is that some think we should (re-sign, where necessary, and) trot out AJ, SAR, KT, Mikki and QD as 30+ minute starters all year in hopes of getting the #1 pick next year, win the lottery, draft our #1 pick superstud, and we have the championship locked up in 2009-2010 season. Because that is how you win championships.

Or did I miss something?

LOL if we manage to do what orlando did and win back 2 back 1st's that would be tremendous.

 

[Bricklayer]

What I am gathering is that some think we should (re-sign, where necessary, and) trot out AJ, SAR, KT, Mikki and QD as 30+ minute starters all year in hopes of getting the #1 pick next year, win the lottery, draft our #1 pick superstud, and we have the championship locked up in 2009-2010 season. Because that is how you win championships.

Or did I miss something?

That is indeed how most championships are won -- just ask the Lakers (Magic), Rockets (Hakeem), Spurs (Admiral AND Duncan). But you know, if you are very very lucky, you might be able to get it done with a #2 (Zeke -- playing alongside the guy who was picked #1 ahead of him (Aguirre), #3 (M.J. -- only if the team picking ahead of you screws up), or even a #5 (Wade), but only if you have a highly mercenary former #1 (Shaq) passing through town.

My little dialog there encompasses every team in the last 25 years except a) the 80's Celtics, where Bird was only a #7, but only because he could not play the year he was drafted -- otherwise he's a #2; b) the Pistons of '04 (a freak occurrence at best); and c) the Celtics of '08 (where there own tank and #5 pick created their entire champinship team -- trade #5 for one star, all of a sudden the second star wants to come...voila.


Of course it takes a few years longer than 09-10. But that is where having perspective helps. Cavs fans and Hornets fans have every reason to think that they are going to be in the hunt for a long time, and that if management can just get the mix right...

 

[Section 101]

That is indeed how most championships are won -- just ask the Lakers (Magic), Rockets (Hakeem), Spurs (Admiral AND Duncan). But you know, if you are very very lucky, you might be able to get it done with a #2 (Zeke -- playing alongside the guy who was picked #1 ahead of him (Aguirre), #3 (M.J. -- only if the team picking ahead of you screws up), or even a #5 (Wade), but only if you have a highly mercenary former #1 (Shaq) passing through town.

My little dialog there encompasses every team in the last 25 years except a) the 80's Celtics, where Bird was only a #7, but only because he could not play the year he was drafted -- otherwise he's a #2; b) the Pistons of '04 (a freak occurrence at best); and c) the Celtics of '08 (where there own tank and #5 pick created their entire champinship team -- trade #5 for one star, all of a sudden the second star wants to come...voila.


Of course it takes a few years longer than 09-10. But that is where having perspective helps. Cavs fans and Hornets fans have every reason to think that they are going to be in the hunt for a long time, and that if management can just get the mix right...

The Lakers got #1 pick because the Jazz signed Gail Goodrich to a FA contract and they got compensation for it 3 years later. They didn't tank for it.

It took the admiral 10 years and TD to win one. Remember they got the #1 pick after Robinson was hurt the whole year. It's not like they planned it.

It took MJ how long to win one? 8 years. Hakeem took 11 years. Shaq took 8 years.

So even if you get one of those types of players unless you already have soemthing it will take on average 8 years to win a title.

And your just proving the opposite too. Those type players come around every 6-8 years. You not only have to have a top pick, but the player has to be there.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

You know what always amuses me? How people will swear on their own children that Petrie is an above-average-to-elite GM... unless it comes to the subject of using a high draft pick to acquire a top player, then he gets compared to the likes of Elgin Baylor and Billy Knight.

We shouldn't try to get a high pick, because we might not get a franchise player? We shouldn't try to get a high pick because other teams have gotten a high pick and were back in the lottery the next year? Well sure, that happened to bad teams, with ****ty GM's... but I thought that Petrie wasn't one of those? Why is it that, judging by what appears to be the general consensus around here, Petrie is considered to be elite among his peers except for when it comes to his perceived ability to pick stars at the top of the draft? I mean, what do you mean we'd continue to suck for years to come? Isn't Petrie the man? In the history of the draft lottery, there's only been one year where there haven't been at least two very good-to-great players to come out, and that was 2000. If you trust in Petrie, then you have to believe that he would either be able to draft a star with a top pick, or parlay the pick into a bonafide star. You mean to tell me that you believe that this guy can do anything except turn a top-5 pick into gold?

This has been one of my biggest hangups when the anti-rebuild/anti-draft people start up, because good GM's don't fail to rebuild, and they don't have a five-year "learning curve." When a good GM builds a team around a top-5 pick, it doesn't take more than three years to go from lottery to second round of the playoffs. And, contrary to popular opinion, you are contending at that point. Am I meant to believe that Oz couldn't turn a team with a top-5 pick around immediately? That he's such a great GM that, even with at top-5 pick, we'd still be in the lottery five years from now?

And this other argument makes even less sense: even MJ, Dream and the Admiral took years before they won a championship? yeah, but they were contenders throughout all that time. And, not only that, but it's always easier to acquire complimentary pieces when you have that star player already.

It took Dream eleven years... oh no! Why don't you ask Rockets fans if it was worth the wait? If the Beyonder comes up to me and says that I can have a 10 percent chance to win a championship within a ten year period, and that I never have to be worse than a forty-win team, or I can have a 50 percent chance to win a championship within ten years, but I have to be willing to be a thirty-win team or worse for at least two of those years... well, I'm taking the second option a hundred times out of a hundred.

 

[beb0p]

Well, then that's where we disagree. Not only is it not probable that the team lands a franchise level player, but even if they get that guy that doesn't mean he changes the team into a contender.

Sure it does. If we have the second coming of Lebron James, we will be a contender. That I can guarantee you.

As I said before, the recent history shows that even teams that get all-star players in the lottery don't become contenders. That's why.

What history? What team? You keep talking about history, but you never get into specifics?

And I also disagree with your idea that the team should have tanked after '03. That just wasn't an option at the time, so no, we wouldn't have had the new contender by now.

Er, we're talking about hypothetical... If we had started "tanking" five years ago, we'd be at or on the verge of contending now. That's your math.

I didn't say tank for 5+ years and not get talent, I said that it might take multiple seasons to get a franchise level player in the draft, and even then it might take even longer for the team to build to become a contender, if at all.

5+ seasons to build the team into a contender versus endless summer of being in the lottery? It's a no-brainer if you ask me.

Again, refer to my post showing teams since the '04 draft and how they either didn't get the franchise player, or got him but still aren't serious contenders yet, and how some are still mediocre/losing. That's what I meant when I asked are you prepared to have 5+ seasons of losing so that things might work out. It might take a few to get the guy, then it might take several more for the team to reach a contending level instead of just being a mediocre team with a superstar.

Mediocore and losing? Can't be the Magic, Mavs, Bulls, Raptors, or Clippers.... You're talking about the Bobcats? They won't be mediocore for very long. In fact, they're on the verge of being a very good team, they just need to stay healthy.

Are they serious contenders yet? That's my point about the time frame before contention. Because contending is the point that people are bringing up about the draft. They want that top pick to get a franchise player, because they don't want "mediocrity", they want a contending team. All of the teams you just listed need more work to get to that level, and that's 3 or 4 seasons after getting their franchise guy. So they are looking at 5+ seasons from the time they get their franchise player to the time where they might be serious contenders.

Sure. Most are. Like the Magic, Raptors, and now probably the Clippers too. The only team that isn't there yet is the Bobcats but they will be there soon.

I'm not arguing semantics, I'm saying that not only can you NOT build a contending team by just drafting one guy, but that it often takes several years to acquire him and then get the pieces around him to build a team to a level of being a serious contender.

So taking several years to build a serious contender is a problem???

If you know of a way to build it overnight, I suggest you contact Geoff Petrie.

"Dates" don't last several years. Let's say you got married and invested a lot and sacrificed for somebody who you thought you could build a life and a future with and be happy, only for it to not work out years later and you look back and ask yourself "was that time and sacrifice worth it?"

If your analogy is marrying someone; now we're talking basketball's equivalent of a max long-term contract. Was investing in Chris Webber worth it? Of course. Will investing in the next franchise player worth it even if we don't win the championship? Of course.

I don't get how this addresses my point, which was that it's not probable that you will get your Tim Duncan just because you have a high lottery pick.

My point is, even if you don't end up with Duncan, you're still in a better position than if you have a late lottery pick. Which is where your plan will take this team.

So you think that team has more upside than the Kings? They still haven't retained Smith and Childriss, and haven't shown any signs of becoming a great team. I don't see, at this point in time, how they have a much brighter future than the Kings. Put the Kings in the east too and see what happens, for that matter.

The Hawks HAVE more upside than the Kings! If you ask ten neutral fans, ten fans will tell you that the Hawks have more upside than the Kings. And they will roll their eyes too.

Are the Hawks a "successful" team? Are they on the cusp of reaching the contending status that Kings fans want for their team? I don't see how they refute my assertion at all. My assertion is that high picks don't always translate into a successful, contending franchise. That remains true until proven otherwise in the case of the hawks.

Of course the Hawks is a successful team (on the court at least) based on last season. Any team that made the playoff, generally speaking, had a good season. You can try to spin it but there's no refuting that last season was a huge turnaround for the Hawks, and they did it mainly because they had a #3 pick. And they have a good chance on improving from last season as well.

That wasn't my point at all. I was simply refuting the assertion that no team would be dumb enough to trade a star to the kings, therefore limiting the team's options of obtaining star talent to the draft only. That viewpoint is plain false.

I NEVER said no team would be dumb enough to give away a superstar to the Kings. What I said is that it IS dumb to expect such a thing will happen.

And what are you using for the basis of your 20 year projection? I'm using real life examples of that time period. Not all teams get that guy in the draft, and it sometimes takes several drafts to grab that franchise player, which then turns into several more years before the team can be built up to become a serious contender. Meanwhile, all-star players change teams almost every year. What is the basis of your 20 year theory?

20 years is roughly how long the Celtics, Bulls, Sixers, Cavs, Hawks, and many other teams have gone without getting a superstar via a trade. That's the basis of that number.

Uh, you fail to see the point. If things had gone according to the plan you are setting out for the kings, they would have used the pick to draft a franchise player. That's the point of your posts, which is to acquire talent in the draft. You point wasn't to acquire talent by getting a top 5 pick and then dealing it and some pieces to losing teams and nabbing up their aging stars for a short term run. Now you want to shift from getting a franchise guy in the lottery and building long term to making short term runs by trading picks and pieces? Which is it?

Where did I say I oppose trading a high pick for the right player?

If you think that's "about it", then don't respond, because you are clearly delusional. We have been debating for several pages on philosophy of the direction of the team, which stemmed from the Beno deal. You wanted the team to stop the "win now" or "tread water" approach, and lose so they can draft a franchise player to build a contending team around for the long term.

I brought up that if the Boston scenario happend to Sacramento where they had a top 5 pick, that according to your plan that we have been discussing, they should have picked a player for the long term. Boston didn't do that. Boston traded pieces to losing teams and got their aging talent to "win NOW" and didn't build their championship team around a franchise player they got in the draft. So why the contradiction?

Again, did I say I oppose trading a high pick for the right player?

And I'm afraid that with your route, there's a good chance the team won't stay in Sacramento, and then I guess there wouldn't be anything to disagree about.

If you think a couple of losing seasons would drive away an NBA team, then you really don't know the business.

I didn't say one word about an arena. My comment was about the potential of several 12-15 place seasons with your approach, and how attendance would fall in that scenario, thus the team would probably leave.

Hmm... the late 80s to late 90's anyone? If what you said is true then I'm afraid the Kings have already left town...

Do you know what "probable" means? Just because sometimes it works doesn't mean that approach is viable (you can look that one up too). If it were probable, you'd see it work a lot more than it does. I can only think of two recent examples of tanking/horrible teams getting a franchise player who won a ring, and that's Wade and Duncan. I think in if it were a viable approach, you'd see more than 2 players in over ten years.

We're not talking (or I AM not talking) about actually winning a ring. I'm talking about contending. You were talking about contending until this paragraph that completely switches the point.

And let me be clear about this: I'm not dismissing the draft itself, I'm being specific about a top lottery pick turning into a franchise player that can be built around for a team to contend for a title. My other point is that it takes more than just one player. It takes complimentary players, possibly another star, the right coach, the right situation (no injuries), etc.

We already have the complimentary players. We need the star.

It's not that I expect "the same thing". I don't expect the Kings to keep signing average talent to MLE deals, and treading water. I have said I understand why that approach has been taken, and that that specific period of time will soon be over. I'm not saying the things the Kings have done for the past 3 seasons has been the correct approach to build a championship team. I'm saying I think there are serious flaws in the reasoning you have.


There's nothing wrong with Marvin Williams, just like there's nothing wrong with Kwame Brown. My point was the pick that they were chosen at, and how that shows that just getting a top pick doesn't mean the kings will get a franchise player, because the majority of top lottery picks don't become that guy.

Actually your point doesn't refute my point.
The point isn't about the % of high picks turning into superstars. The point is that it is the best way for us to acquire that superstar. Your logic is equivalent to telling a fighter pilot in a crashing jet: don't eject because ejections are dangerous; there's no guarantee you can survive the ejection! The point is not that the draft is a sure thing, far from it actually. The point is that sometimes you have to take the best of several crappy options.

 

[Showtime]

]We shouldn't try to get a high pick, because we might not get a franchise player? We shouldn't try to get a high pick because other teams have gotten a high pick and were back in the lottery the next year? Well sure, that happened to bad teams, with ****ty GM's... but I thought that Petrie wasn't one of those? Why is it that, judging by what appears to be the general consensus around here, Petrie is considered to be elite among his peers except for when it comes to his perceived ability to pick stars at the top of the draft? [/COLOR][/FONT]I mean, what do you mean we'd continue to suck for years to come? Isn't Petrie the man? In the history of the draft lottery, there's only been one year where there haven't been at least two very good-to-great players to come out, and that was 2000. If you trust in Petrie, then you have to believe that he would either be able to draft a star with a top pick, or parlay the pick into a bonafide star. You mean to tell me that you believe that this guy can do anything except turn a top-5 pick into gold?

It's not always about the competency of the GM. Often times, either there isn't that franchise guy at the spot, or the player who is considered a "sure thing" turns out not to be, etc. It isn't about Geoff will mess it up, it's that there are maybe 2 franchise guys per draft, and the rest are question marks. I can say the exact same thing I have said before, so I'm not going to reply with the same posts. My point about time frame and risk/reward remain.

This has been one of my biggest hangups when the anti-rebuild/anti-draft people start up, because good GM's don't fail to rebuild, and they don't have a five-year "learning curve." When a good GM builds a team around a top-5 pick, it doesn't take more than three years to go from lottery to second round of the playoffs. And, contrary to popular opinion, you are contending at that point. Am I meant to believe that Oz couldn't turn a team with a top-5 pick around immediately? That he's such a great GM that, even with at top-5 pick, we'd still be in the lottery five years from now?

So, by your account, the second round is being a serious title contender? IMO, you can't be a serious title contender unless you make a serious run, and if the best you can do is the second round, then that's not cutting it.

Also, I will point out again the several previously listed examples of teams who acquired talent years ago and still aren't ready to win a title, and some teams are still mediocre, but mediocre with an all-star. Getting a top pick often times (and by often, I mean the majority of the time), doesn't mean that a contending team will happen. Again, I've made several points addressing this in previous posts.

And this other argument makes even less sense: even MJ, Dream and the Admiral took years before they won a championship? yeah, but they were contenders throughout all that time. And, not only that, but it's always easier to acquire complimentary pieces when you have that star player already.

This kind of proves the point I was making earlier, which is that getting a single franchise guy doesn't make the team a success, so why bank on it and waste several seasons on going after a top position? It takes more than just one player, which is why so many teams don't succeed with their franchise star. Getting that guy (which is unlikely to begin with) is no guarantee that the team will get to where we want it to go, and that's why I don't think the tanking method is a practical approach.

It took Dream eleven years... oh no! Why don't you ask Rockets fans if it was worth the wait? If the Beyonder comes up to me and says that I can have a 10 percent chance to win a championship within a ten year period, and that I never have to be worse than a forty-win team, or I can have a 50 percent chance to win a championship within ten years, but I have to be willing to be a thirty-win team or worse for at least two of those years... well, I'm taking the second option a hundred times out of a hundred.

Well, then that's where we disagree. I don't think the fanbase or the owners would be willing to risk becoming one of the league's worst teams for several years to get a chance at a franchise player. There are very few stars that stay with the team that drafted them, and to say that tanking for the lottery is the best chance at landing that one guy that could be built around to make a contender is something that I don't agree with.

 

[beb0p]

Thanks for the info. It's my assumption that's its easy to say be bad for x amount of years if your not paying for the games. I think they would lose a lot more season ticket holders if they tanked it for 5 years.

Now that I think about it, I won't have a problem paying for games even if the team sucks. I still go to the Kings game whenever I can even if they aren't a good team anymore. That's what being a fan is all about. Take for example, Jack Nicholson, you can say what you want about the man but he was right there in the seat even when the Lakers' best player was Sedale Thread (sp?).

What I do have a problem with is low expectation. If the Kings' goal is just to be an 8th seed every year, they'd lose me as a fan.

And they won't tank for 5 years. I don't know where that number "5" comes from, but it won't be 5 years if you do it right.

 

[Showtime]

Sure it does. If we have the second coming of Lebron James, we will be a contender. That I can guarantee you.

Cool, now let's just go get that Lebron part two that's always there at every draft...oh wait...

What history? What team? You keep talking about history, but you never get into specifics?

This topic was split from the Beno thread. Check there.

Er, we're talking about hypothetical... If we had started "tanking" five years ago, we'd be at or on the verge of contending now. That's your math.

You are the one that came up with the '03 year in order to illustrate how the team would be a contender this season, and the fact is that there's no way that team tanks in '03. You chose a poor way to make your point.

5+ seasons to build the team into a contender versus endless summer of being in the lottery? It's a no-brainer if you ask me.

*sigh*, I'm tired of repeating the same crap. The point is it's unlikely, even after wasting those seasons to get a pick, that the team will end up contending because of the pick. If it were as easy as you are making it (5 years and BOOM! Contending!), then you would see more teams doing that. To sum it up: the approach of tanking = losing is guaranteed, but the success isn't. That's not something I want for this team.

Mediocore and losing? Can't be the Magic, Mavs, Bulls, Raptors, or Clippers.... You're talking about the Bobcats? They won't be mediocore for very long. In fact, they're on the verge of being a very good team, they just need to stay healthy.

Sure. Most are. Like the Magic, Raptors, and now probably the Clippers too. The only team that isn't there yet is the Bobcats but they will be there soon.

Apparently, we have differing ideas of what it means to be a serious contender. First and second round exits, or .500 play isn't it.

So taking several years to build a serious contender is a problem???

If you know of a way to build it overnight, I suggest you contact Geoff Petrie.

There's a difference in several years at the bottom of the conference, and taking several years to rebuild. Tanking is not the approach I want for this team, and history has shown that tanking for a higher pick for that franchise guy isn't probable. There are other ways to build a team.

If your analogy is marrying someone; now we're talking basketball's equivalent of a max long-term contract. Was investing in Chris Webber worth it? Of course. Will investing in the next franchise player worth it even if we don't win the championship? Of course.

No, I was illustrating the marriage to the commitment of losing for several years. At the end of the day, if things don't pan out, would it be worth it if you looked back and saw that losing for that pick was meaningless? I can't say "well, we gave it a shot" and be satisfied, knowing that there are alternatives to losing on purpose.

My point is, even if you don't end up with Duncan, you're still in a better position than if you have a late lottery pick. Which is where your plan will take this team.

I don't see it that way. I don't see how guaranteed losing for a while is worth a not-so-guaranteed chance for a player.

The Hawks HAVE more upside than the Kings! If you ask ten neutral fans, ten fans will tell you that the Hawks have more upside than the Kings. And they will roll their eyes too.

Well, I guess this is another point at which we will disagree.

Of course the Hawks is a successful team (on the court at least) based on last season. Any team that made the playoff, generally speaking, had a good season. You can try to spin it but there's no refuting that last season was a huge turnaround for the Hawks, and they did it mainly because they had a #3 pick. And they have a good chance on improving from last season as well.

Well, I'm done with you after I finish responding in this post. I'm not going to discuss anything further with somebody who thinks the Hawks are legit title contenders. Our perception of what success is is clearly not on the same level. I've stated in several sentences how the ultimate goal is a ring, and therefore a successful team is one that is a serious contender.

I NEVER said no team would be dumb enough to give away a superstar to the Kings. What I said is that it IS dumb to expect such a thing will happen.

"good luck finding a team dumb enough to give us a franchise player"

Apparently, a lot of teams have found those dumb trade partners.

20 years is roughly how long the Celtics, Bulls, Sixers, Cavs, Hawks, and many other teams have gone without getting a superstar via a trade. That's the basis of that number.

Ok, so the Kings could go 20 years without one. It's a possibility, a very unlikely possibility in today's NBA, but a possibility nonetheless.

Where did I say I oppose trading a high pick for the right player?

Again, did I say I oppose trading a high pick for the right player?

I didn't say you were opposed, what I was saying was that your entire arguments up until that point was to build around a franchise player for the long term that was obtained with a high draft pick. That's what you've been saying all along, so I don't understand why you suddenly changed your tune.

You changed it up from a long term, build-around-a-high-draft-pick argument to supporting a short term, acquire-aging-stars approach.

If you think a couple of losing seasons would drive away an NBA team, then you really don't know the business.

I guess I don't know the business. I guess that me thinking that several years of very low attendance at ARCO could result in the team moving. Oh wait, maybe I shouldn't listen to somebody who lives in SF. Did you even read what this guy said: http://www.kingsfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=552336&postcount=66

Hmm... the late 80s to late 90's anyone? If what you said is true then I'm afraid the Kings have already left town...

LOL

We're not talking (or I AM not talking) about actually winning a ring. I'm talking about contending. You were talking about contending until this paragraph that completely switches the point.

What does contending mean? It means competing for a title. It means having a legit shot at winning it all. It doesn't mean first and second round exits. It means being among the best and having a legit shot at bringing home some hardware. I showed where only two players in recent history accomplished that goal using your approach. Only two. My point was that with those odds, it might not be the best approach.

We already have the complimentary players. We need the star.

Well, that's your opinion, and you certainly have your own ideas of the best way to get that star.

Actually your point doesn't refute my point.
The point isn't about the % of high picks turning into superstars. The point is that it is the best way for us to acquire that superstar. Your logic is equivalent to telling a fighter pilot in a crashing jet: don't eject because ejections are dangerous; there's no guarantee you can survive the ejection! The point is not that the draft is a sure thing, far from it actually. The point is that sometimes you have to take the best of several crappy options.

I think we are pretty much done. We can just agree to disagree, and say nothing more on the topic, because we have both presented our arguments, and I'm not going to get into further detail about it. You think tanking for a top pick is the best way to build a championship team, and I have shown why I don't think it's the best way.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

It's not always about the competency of the GM. Often times, either there isn't that franchise guy at the spot, or the player who is considered a "sure thing" turns out not to be, etc. It isn't about Geoff will mess it up, it's that there are maybe 2 franchise guys per draft, and the rest are question marks. I can say the exact same thing I have said before, so I'm not going to reply with the same posts. My point about time frame and risk/reward remain.

This is fallacious reasoning. Again:

If you trust in Petrie, then you have to believe that he would either be able to draft a star with a top pick, or parlay the pick into a bonafide star. You mean to tell me that you believe that this guy can do anything except turn a top-5 pick into gold?

Even if you can't get a superstar with top-5 pick in a given year, it's still a tradeable asset. A more valuable asset, I might add, than anything we've got. You get top-5 pick, you can trade it on draft day, sight unseen, for an all-star. Nobody's doing that for the #12.

Sacramento's not New York, and it's not Los Angeles. It's not even Phoenix. We're not going to get LeBron James or Dwyane Wade, or even Steve Nash or Chris Bosh. A franchise-changing free agent isn't signing in Sacramento; we've got a better chance of Martin becoming the next Michael Jordan. You draft a star or you trade for one, and if you're a small-market team, you've got substantially better odds of drafting one.

So, by your account, the second round is being a serious title contender? IMO, you can't be a serious title contender unless you make a serious run, and if the best you can do is the second round, then that's not cutting it.

If you're perennially in the second round, you're a contender. Because if you're perennially in the second round, then you're occasionally in the conference finals. If you're one of the four best teams in your conference, then you're in contention.

Also, I will point out again the several previously listed examples of teams who acquired talent years ago and still aren't ready to win a title, and some teams are still mediocre, but mediocre with an all-star. Getting a top pick often times (and by often, I mean the majority of the time), doesn't mean that a contending team will happen. Again, I've made several points addressing this in previous posts.

No, you've named one. The Hawks are the only team you've mentioned that could be considered mediocre by any reasonable standard. All those other teams you mentioned are much closer to achieving their goals than we are and, when the inevitable paradigm shift occurs (read: San Antonio, Detroit, et al falling back to the pack), they're going to be poised to leapfrog their way into the conference finals and Finals for years to come.

This kind of proves the point I was making earlier, which is that getting a single franchise guy doesn't make the team a success, so why bank on it and waste several seasons on going after a top position? It takes more than just one player, which is why so many teams don't succeed with their franchise star. Getting that guy (which is unlikely to begin with) is no guarantee that the team will get to where we want it to go, and that's why I don't think the tanking method is a practical approach.

This, again, is fallacious reasoning. On team in the last thirty has won a championship without a franchise player. Nobody's trading us a franchise player for what we've got. No franchise player is signing here as a free agent. Where else are you going to get one?

Well, then that's where we disagree. I don't think the fanbase or the owners would be willing to risk becoming one of the league's worst teams for several years to get a chance at a franchise player. There are very few stars that stay with the team that drafted them, and to say that tanking for the lottery is the best chance at landing that one guy that could be built around to make a contender is something that I don't agree with.

This is hardly true. And, on the occasions where it can be said to be true, it is rarely the fault of the player. Only three franchise players that I can think of left the teams that drafted them as free agents: Shaquille O'Neal (left for the glitz of LA), Karl Malone (who is a filthy carpetbagger but, to be fair, only left after Stockton retired and his told him that they were going to start rebuilding, which he didn't want to stick around for) and Michael Jordan (after his second retirement... and was practically pushed out by Krause).

 

[Jerryaki]

It's not always about the competency of the GM. Often times, either there isn't that franchise guy at the spot, or the player who is considered a "sure thing" turns out not to be, etc. It isn't about Geoff will mess it up, it's that there are maybe 2 franchise guys per draft, and the rest are question marks. I can say the exact same thing I have said before, so I'm not going to reply with the same posts. My point about time frame and risk/reward remain.

so trade the pick to another team for a good player. if there are no franchise guys, trade the pick + one of the assets that you think our team has and get a better play. why not do that?

So, by your account, the second round is being a serious title contender? IMO, you can't be a serious title contender unless you make a serious run, and if the best you can do is the second round, then that's not cutting it.

Also, I will point out again the several previously listed examples of teams who acquired talent years ago and still aren't ready to win a title, and some teams are still mediocre, but mediocre with an all-star. Getting a top pick often times (and by often, I mean the majority of the time), doesn't mean that a contending team will happen. Again, I've made several points addressing this in previous posts.

second round > where we are at
mediocre team w/ all-star > where we are at
not ready to win a title but at least still winning > where we are at

This kind of proves the point I was making earlier, which is that getting a single franchise guy doesn't make the team a success, so why bank on it and waste several seasons on going after a top position? It takes more than just one player, which is why so many teams don't succeed with their franchise star. Getting that guy (which is unlikely to begin with) is no guarantee that the team will get to where we want it to go, and that's why I don't think the tanking method is a practical approach.

having a franchise player = more wins > where we are at

i don't get it, i thought you want us to just win? wouldn't a franchise player help in that goal?

and teams with franchise players AND competent GMs win. if we had one and you believed in GP, wouldn't we be a WINNING team?

Well, then that's where we disagree. I don't think the fanbase or the owners would be willing to risk becoming one of the league's worst teams for several years to get a chance at a franchise player. There are very few stars that stay with the team that drafted them, and to say that tanking for the lottery is the best chance at landing that one guy that could be built around to make a contender is something that I don't agree with.

agreed. and that is why we are where we are, record-wise: irrelevant.

 

[Showtime]

so trade the pick to another team for a good player. if there are no franchise guys, trade the pick + one of the assets that you think our team has and get a better play. why not do that?

There's nothing wrong with trading picks, but there are other ways of obtaining picks other than tanking seasons.

second round > where we are at
mediocre team w/ all-star > where we are at
not ready to win a title but at least still winning > where we are at

I thought the goal wasn't just to be > where the team is at now, but to win a title. Isn't that why they play? So in my mind, where we are at = where some other teams with stars are at, because some of those teams aren't anywhere near making a title run.

having a franchise player = more wins > where we are at

Mitch Richmond had how many playoff appearances in Sacramento? He was arguably the best 2 guard outside MJ, and a franchise player, so I guess that worked out. Yeah, he was traded for Chris, but did Mitch = better situation when he was here like you said?

i don't get it, i thought you want us to just win? wouldn't a franchise player help in that goal?

A franchise player gives them a better chance at contending, but it's about the risk/reward in the tanking scenario. I don't want guaranteed losing for a non-guaranteed success.

and teams with franchise players AND competent GMs win. if we had one and you believed in GP, wouldn't we be a WINNING team?

There are many teams that have talent and a decent GM that aren't serious contenders. Rockets, Warriors, Nuggets, Magic, Raptors, Wizards, etc. Are they winning more games that the kings and making the playoffs? Yes, but they are not a threat to win a title, which is the goal we are all talking about. My goal isn't just to get good enough to get back to the playoffs, or just to be better than we are right now, the goal is to win it all.

agreed. and that is why we are where we are, record-wise: irrelevant.

Yes, but we aren't stagnant and aren't getting worse. The team is getting better. Anybody who watched the team last season saw that the team was hustling, giving more effort, and fighting more than the year before, and because of that, they were competitive with the top teams. Not only did players get better, but they added some promising talent in the draft, so I don't understand why people feel that the team isn't going anywhere. They are already on their way to becoming relevant, and in the next few years could get that star player people are looking for. They won't be back to success until they become contenders, but I don't see how people think there's no hope in getting there without tanking for a pick.