Beat the LA Lakers or higher draft position ?

[Merdiesel]

our rivals? since when, exactly?! its been damn near a decade since that rivalry actually mattered. do you know how many kings are left from the team that took the lakers to game seven of the western conference finals? zero. hell, kobe bryant and derek fisher are the only lakers left from those days...

a perennial title contender and a lottery-bound basement dweller are NOT rivals. they just aren't, no matter how many bitter kings fans still cling to events from eight years ago. however, there is the wonderful possibility that the kings could, one day, reignite the rivalry, but that requires the kings to continue pursuing this rebuild as intentionally as they can. this includes putting the team in the best possible position come draft day. the kings are an insignificant speck of dust to the lakers right now. they're not even a spoiler worth the effort of the lakers to trot out their best players...

repeat this with me, over and over again: turner, wall, cousins, favors...

one of those names very well could appear on the back of a sacramento kings uniform at the beginning of next season, and the chances of that happening increase GREATLY if the kings are able to lock down the third worst record in the league. personally, i favor a couple of those names over the other two, but no matter which of those four an individual perceives to be the best of the bunch, or the most likely fit, each could go a long way in helping the kings achieve their goal of competing in the playoffs again...

just look at oklahoma city's trajectory. i like their trajectory. its appealing to me, because it ends with them getting a shot at toppling the lakers in a first round playoff series. how did they do it? they drafted well. they hired the right coach. they preached defense. and, most importantly, they put the ball in the hands of their franchise player. the kings could follow a similar trajectory. we've drafted well so far, but more pieces are required to make this team go. we've hired a coach who has the potential to develop a special and symbiotic relationship with his young players, provided we shove the rest of the vets aside. and we've put the ball in the hands of our franchise player...

all signs point toward a positive future, but i like that future a HELLUVALOT more if it includes a starting backcourt of evans and turner, or wall and evans, or a starting small-big combo of evans and cousins, or evans and favors. the potential of ANY of those scenarios is worth salivating over, and THAT is where the kings would have their chance to make noise in the nba. THAT is where the kings would have their chance to reignite a rivalry with the lakers. that moment is not now, though. there is work to do. a loss tonight goes a LONG way toward reaching that goal, because tie-breaker or no tie-breaker, the balls still have to bounce the kings way, and i, as a kings fan, will play the percentages EVERY SINGLE TIME...

first of all, are you serious? You couldn't have summed up this novel?

Also, when was the last time tanking actually work to a teams favor? It almost always backfires. Losing breeds losers. Always has, always will.

don't blow a blood vessel over tunnel vision or short sighted kings fans.

what a bunch of pompous BS this is. Get off your high horse.
Because people on here disagree with you they're automatically short sighted. Lame.

 

[Grawlix]

And children lacking all perspective.

You are far too shrill to touch any real nerves just by not getting it, but you are going to have to stop being a jerk to people who have put up with years of losing.

As an aside you are not troling for the Kings to win, you are trolling for them to LOSE in the long term, whic I have always dound offensive. don't come on here and root fro my team to lose int he future and then get self-righteous about it.

Who says the Kings will lose with a lower draft pick? You? The draft is not a science. You of all people with your perceived command of all things basketball should know this.

Guess what, you and all the other posters wishing the Kings to lose are not the only Kings fan on the planet and this is my team too. Don't question my dedication or loyalty to this team because I loathe seeing this team lose.

Rather I question this forum's dedication to the team if the rest of you can't stand another losing season. BTW, Merdiesel is right. Losing breeds losers. Fans obsessed with losing must come with the package I guess.

 

[Sac.1989]

God dam lost to the lakers, arrrgh, silver lining is the long term i guess. Golden state lost also to keep things interesting

 

[Vlade4GM]

First off, there's no one way to be a fan, and to judge the way someone else chooses to be a fan is uncool. Secondly, to question someone else's dedication or loyalty to a team because they have a different rebuilding philosophy is also uncool. If you can't take a bit of your own medicine, then don't dish it out to begin with. You don't have some moral high ground just because you're rooting for a meaningless win.

 

[cstorm]

Losing breeds losers. Always has, always will.

You make it to the NBA you better have a stronger backbone than that. The only thing that makes a winning player a losing player is being stuck on a perennial lottery team. I would prefer to build a team that WINNERS want to play for.

If losing a couple of games at the end of the season breaks your spirit, you have no business playing professional basketball.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

And guess what? I am effectively TROLLING on a Kings message board for a Kings win. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.

You're trolling by dishing out personal attacks and questioning fans' loyalties over the difference of opinion.

I happen to agree that losing breeds losers, for what that's worth. But we were talking about one final game in a losing season with a lot of guys who won't be Kings soon, not throwing a whole season away. The season had already been lost, losing tonight may have salvaged it the way drafting Tyreke salvaged our efforts for last season.

 

[Padrino]

first of all, are you serious? You couldn't have summed up this novel?

Also, when was the last time tanking actually work to a teams favor? It almost always backfires. Losing breeds losers. Always has, always will.




what a bunch of pompous BS this is. Get off your high horse.
Because people on here disagree with you they're automatically short sighted. Lame.

i don't drop by kingsfans.com nearly as much as i used to. when i do, its because i have something to say...

if you have a problem with the kings losing gracefully to the lakers tonight in a meaningless game, take it up with management, who are undoubtedly appreciative of the lottery percentages...

 

[Merdiesel]

There's a lot wrong w/this: No where does he expressly root for the Kings to lose in the future. We can only take things as they come in the present. Today we had a game against a team everyone should hate to lose against. That's it. Hate the loss. Be content w/the record, but it is embarrassing to see people hoping to lose. That's a characteristic you'll never be able to rid yourselves of: That it is ok to lose in certain circumstances.

The future will work itself out. I'm all for "going out and getting it," but if you think "going and getting it" is accomplished through losing for any reason, that explains some things about why Sacramento hasn't won anything. On the other hand, trade for draft picks like Portland or something. That's going and getting it.

Spot on.
Could not have said it any better.

 

[cstorm]

...but it is embarrassing to see people hoping to lose.

That's the point of all this. I am NOT hoping to lose, I'm hoping to win. If you think 'winning' is defined by beating a Kobeless Lakers team in a meaningless game at the end of the season, more power to ya.

I call winning building a team that doesn't have meaningless games at the end of the season by drafting the best player possible and REALLY beating the Lakers. Like in the WCF. THAT is a real win!

 

[cstorm]

Well, the Lakers and their fans seemed pretty excited at the end of the game to beat the Kings in the game even though it was essentially meaningless in terms of this season's outcome. They stood up and cheered when the game was won and did all sorts of things winners do. And some Kings fans sat on their hands and cheered when JT airballed a 3 because it sealed the game for the Lakers.

Not that I want to have the arrogance of Laker fans, but they seem to be doing something right as a collective with all that winning and everything. I have never once heard a Laker fan reminisce about days where he or she was glad they lost because it improved their draft position. I have been mocked for thinking such things by them though.

I think there is more meaning in that game than you give credit--and that being, there is no contempt for losing in Sacramento (And I mean "losing--period.") We'll see how well that works out next time we face the Lakers in the WCF's. Worked so well last time, right?

Yawn. Sorry, but you have met my criteria for "Troll".

 

[Bricklayer]

There's a lot wrong w/this: No where does he expressly root for the Kings to lose in the future. We can only take things as they come in the present. Today we had a game against a team everyone should hate to lose against. That's it. Hate the loss. Be content w/the record, but it is embarrassing to see people hoping to lose. That's a characteristic you'll never be able to rid yourselves of: That it is ok to lose in certain circumstances.

The future will work itself out. I'm all for "going out and getting it," but if you think "going and getting it" is accomplished through losing for any reason, that explains some things about why Sacramento hasn't won anything. On the other hand, trade for draft picks like Portland or something. That's going and getting it.

There is an innocence to this that would be cute if it were not so potentially destructive. As you go through life you will find very little just works itself out -- you make your own luck. If you are smart, you make a lot of it.

What terminal must win now types don't understand is just how much more hardcore about winning I am than you are. This is Macchiavelli -- you do whatever it takes to win. You plan for it, plot it out, and absolutely maximize your chances of achieving it. Attempting to attach such an attitude to being a "loser" is comically naive. You might not find a significant winner on the planet right now who doesn't understand it intrinsically. The folding of the cards. The saving of assets for another day. Saving your strength for the next round. Pulling your top players down 20 because you have another game tommorow. Its called strategic thinking, and it eats mindless rah rah for lunch.

 

[Bricklayer]

That's cool. You're wrong, but I can't change what you think. However, I can control what I think and witnessing the complacency w/losing for any reason is a bit of a motivation for me. Let's just say I'm vocalizing my thoughts to myself for reference purposes.

I'm not starting anything by mentioning 2002. But the fact is that they lost and I've always been in denial about why. Laker fans always observe that it's because Sacramento doesn't demand winning and I always denied it. How can I anymore? Laker fans never think about next year or last year. They always think about today. Last years championship doesn't matter anymore. Nor does next years.

Lakers fans are spoiled children with the I.Q.s of lima beans. It only gets more comical when they try to attribute their own spoiledness to their team winning. I happen to live in a city that makes their spoiled child act look like amateur hour. There is no greater concentration of alpha types absolutely demanding victory at all times then there is in New York City. You can see how well that's worked for them. Take away the Lakers advantages of glamour and glitz and what you have is the Clippers. Life can be tough when you have to play by the same rules as everybody else.

 

[BMiller52]

Who says the Kings will lose with a lower draft pick? You? The draft is not a science. You of all people with your perceived command of all things basketball should know this.

Guess what, you and all the other posters wishing the Kings to lose are not the only Kings fan on the planet and this is my team too. Don't question my dedication or loyalty to this team because I loathe seeing this team lose.

Rather I question this forum's dedication to the team if the rest of you can't stand another losing season. BTW, Merdiesel is right. Losing breeds losers. Fans obsessed with losing must come with the package I guess.

cosigned. Who says the first pick is going to be a great player? Remember that guys like Olowokandi have been first overall picks while guys like Kobe and Nash were drafted in the middle of the first.

 

[Bricklayer]

cosigned. Who says the first pick is going to be a great player? Remember that guys like Olowokandi have been first overall picks while guys like Kobe and Nash were drafted in the middle of the first.

There's a hole in your logic -- not only a hole, a classic logical fallacy. I hope you are not a betting man or you are going to lose your shirt. This is "I'm not going to bet on the #1 seed because remember that Golden State and Denver have won as #8 seeds, and Dallas and Seattle have lost as #1 seeds" stuff. You don't learn your lessons from the exceptions.

I have posted this thing half a dozen times on here. Peopel who don't want it to be true like to close their eyes and plug their fingers in their ears when it comes up, but tough cookies -- this is the way it is, and our job in life isn't to go through it seeing only what we want to see, but rather to understand it, break the system down, and take advantage of it.

Pan over to the AllStar column -- over a 20 year period, 16 of 20 #1 picks became All Stars at elast once. That's a hit percentage of 80%. By the time you are picking 6th you're down to 4 of 20, 20%. To state that you do not care whether you are in the 80% All Star selection poisiton or the 20% All Star selection position is nonsensical. Indeed the NBA itself would be shocked since the whole entire reason the draft is held in inverse order or record is precisely because the higher you pick the more likely you are to get a good player to help you.

And fortunately this season we ended up doing good, whether we intended it or not. Now sit back and watch the results. If losing kills you that much, well you are in luck -- with another top pick and free agent money to spend those days may finally be about at an end. An end brought about by us getting terrible, losing a ton of games, picking higher than we had in 15 years, and landing our star.

 

[Rookie]

cosigned. Who says the first pick is going to be a great player? Remember that guys like Olowokandi have been first overall picks while guys like Kobe and Nash were drafted in the middle of the first.

It's not about the pick itself but the opportunity to choose. Kobe and Nash were there for the GM to pick if they wanted it them. Maybe our thought process is different but in any case I prefer to have as many choices as I can have instead of limited one.

Anyway it doesn't matter, at least Reke and the Kings know what they need to get done to be ready for next season. GO KINGS.

Top draft pick (hopefully luck be on our side) + good FA will definitely give my playoff hope for next season a chance.

 

[rhythmless]

cosigned. Who says the first pick is going to be a great player? Remember that guys like Olowokandi have been first overall picks while guys like Kobe and Nash were drafted in the middle of the first.

Remember the statistic of all stars at 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, and past that? Your example reeks of such failure. A lower pick is a lower pick. Plugging in X player or Y player into lower picks gives lower picks zero merit. The reason for those exceptions was bad judgement from the general managers picking, not the picks themselves. If you cannot understand that, then I feel very sorry for you.

 

[pshn80]

There is an innocence to this that would be cute if it were not so potentially destructive. As you go through life you will find very little just works itself out -- you make your own luck. If you are smart, you make a lot of it.

What terminal must win now types don't understand is just how much more hardcore about winning I am than you are. This is Macchiavelli -- you do whatever it takes to win. You plan for it, plot it out, and absolutely maximize your chances of achieving it. Attempting to attach such an attitude to being a "loser" is comically naive. You might not find a significant winner on the planet right now who doesn't understand it intrinsically. The folding of the cards. The saving of assets for another day. Saving your strength for the next round. Pulling your top players down 20 because you have another game tommorow. Its called strategic thinking, and it eats mindless rah rah for lunch.

Yes, but what do you tell the coach, the players - that's my hangup. I don't think you guys regard yourselfs as tankers but I don't know how to answer that question about you guys. And the Kings lost the last three which pleased me but I was rooting for wins in each case. Please quit calling me stupid.

 

[kupman]

There should never, ever be a conflict of interest in trying to win a game in this league, or any other league for that matter. I totally get why most of you would want the team to lose to increase the chances of a better future. I totally get it.

But you must also understand those that do not believe in sacrificing the integrity of the game in a attempt "to get ahead." That may not be your personal choice, but you must understand and be tolerant of the perspective.

I really believe that Stern needs to devise a better system. This system only creates a form of dishonesty which is distasteful. He is a smart guy. I am sure that he can come-up with something better than this.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Kupman, with all due respect it was the win every night crowd that launched the first salvos of personal attacks against those of us who saw winning last night as a Pyrrhic victory at best.

I agree that a better system would be desirable, but they all have their flaws. And certainly us winning against a Lakers team that sits their star player doesn't do more for the integrity of the game then us losing by 4, intentionally or otherwise.

 

[Rookie]

Personally I'm satisfied with the system. I'm too tired to even state why but when you can come up with a better system, proposed it to Stern.

The objective is to make bad team good and it's evidently working well. Ex: Thunder.

 

[Superman]

Right. The "integrity of the game" argument loses momentum when you recognize how many key players have been sitting out games for the past two weeks to get ready for the playoffs. There's nothing pure about us beating a team that's resting their superstar just to say we did. We don't gain anything, they don't lose anything, we go home for the summer, they get ready for the tournament. This is a bit overblown at this point. I can entertain the argument in February when we're rooting for lins/wosses, because it doesn't feel right to root against your team when they're on the floor playing (or supposed to be playing) their hearts out, and they still have a remote chance of taking a step up in the NBA hierarchy by finishing strong and being a high 30-win team as opposed to a mid-20 win team. But on the last day of the season, you don't gain anything by being 26-56 as opposed to 25-57.

 

[Superman]

Personally I'm satisfied with the system. I'm too tired to even state why but when you can come up with a better system, proposed it to Stern.

The objective is to make bad team good and it's evidently working well. Ex: Thunder.

The objective is to give bad teams a shot to be good, provided they don't get in their own way. I hope we follow the Portland/OKC mold and are looking at a playoff berth in a couple of years.

 

[Larry89]

There's a hole in your logic -- not only a hole, a classic logical fallacy. I hope you are not a betting man or you are going to lose your shirt. This is "I'm not going to bet on the #1 seed because remember that Golden State and Denver have won as #8 seeds, and Dallas and Seattle have lost as #1 seeds" stuff. You don't learn your lessons from the exceptions.

I have posted this thing half a dozen times on here. Peopel who don't want it to be true like to close their eyes and plug their fingers in their ears when it comes up, but tough cookies -- this is the way it is, and our job in life isn't to go through it seeing only what we want to see, but rather to understand it, break the system down, and take advantage of it.

Pan over to the AllStar column -- over a 20 year period, 16 of 20 #1 picks became All Stars at elast once. That's a hit percentage of 80%. By the time you are picking 6th you're down to 4 of 20, 20%. To state that you do not care whether you are in the 80% All Star selection poisiton or the 20% All Star selection position is nonsensical. Indeed the NBA itself would be shocked since the whole entire reason the draft is held in inverse order or record is precisely because the higher you pick the more likely you are to get a good player to help you.

And fortunately this season we ended up doing good, whether we intended it or not. Now sit back and watch the results. If losing kills you that much, well you are in luck -- with another top pick and free agent money to spend those days may finally be about at an end. An end brought about by us getting terrible, losing a ton of games, picking higher than we had in 15 years, and landing our star.

We'll be golden with the 8th pick in the draft, 50% of those players are 20+ ppg 75% of them are 10+ rebounders!!!!!! 100% of them are all defensive team members!

 

[kennadog]

cosigned. Who says the first pick is going to be a great player? Remember that guys like Olowokandi have been first overall picks while guys like Kobe and Nash were drafted in the middle of the first.

That's merely because of what GMs picked ahead of them and why. If I was picking first in the years Kobe and Nash were drafted, I had the opportunity to choose either of those players.

If I'm picking at 10th, for example, there are already 9 players that I have no opportunity to draft. And among those nine players, I could not draft, I'd lay odds at least one of them would be a better choice than the player I do draft. For example, we missed Noah by one spot and drafted Hawes. The Kings liked Noah, but didn't have the opportunity to choose him.

I don't advocate intentionally losing. I was not cheering for the Lakers to win (never happen). I will loathe the Lakers unto death. However, I was not avid about winning last night, because it was meaningless. It was not a crushing or even an unhappy loss to me, mainly because I had the comfort of knowing it could well position my team to be much better next year.

Besides, I was satisfied with the effort last night. They played and competed up to the end. The effort and heart was still there. That's all I could ask for. Those did not look like players with any sort of "losing mentality" to me, whatsoever. To me, they looked like a team determined to figure out how to win and dedicated to improving.

EDIT: I'm late on pointing out the "opportunity" to pick. Others above pointed that out while I got delayed in the middle of my post. Always late to the party.

 

[Warhawk]

We'll be golden with the 8th pick in the draft, 50% of those players are 20+ ppg 75% of them are 10+ rebounders!!!!!! 100% of them are all defensive team members!

Uh, no. 3/20 players are 20+ ppg and 10+ rebounders with 1 all-defense player. the second number is years (so 3/6 means 3 players for a total of 6 years) out of 20.

 

[Insomniacal Fan]

Tanking is the organization level equivalent to flopping, and I have no problem with it.

 

[Bricklayer]

I really believe that Stern needs to devise a better system. This system only creates a form of dishonesty which is distasteful. He is a smart guy. I am sure that he can come-up with something better than this.

People say that a lot, witout ever acknowledging that the league ALREADY is the only major sports league (in North America at least) with ANY kind of deterrence to tanking. The only one who has come up with the lottery idea to try to muddle matters. All the other leagues -- NFL, MLB, NHL, they just go by straight inverse order. In other words tanking should be a MORE direct problem everywhere BUT the NBA.

The problem isn't the NBA not trying to address the issue, the problem is the unique challenges of basketball/the sport itself. Its much easier/more direct for teams in those other leagues to tank, but its less talked about. Why? Because in none of them does a single tremendous player have the impact that it does in the NBA, nowhere is it of such paramount importance, and because for all the claims that its all a crapshoot etc. etc. those truly great players in basketball are routinely identified or at least heavily suspected. And its a flat out conundrum. The league in the past has dorked around with the lottery odds, how many teams were in the lottery etc., but that's all just tweeking. And when they open things up so that the top teams are less likely to get the top players all that does is allow pretty good teams like Orlando to get those megatalents, and leaves the terrible teams out in the cold, shortcircuiting the entire process of renewal and hope that the draft represents. As bad as tanking is, its nothing compared to the effects of year after year after year of losing for terrible franchises unable to ever get the player they need to turn things around.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

The NHL does in fact have a lottery but the odds are weighted more in the favor of the worst team than they are in the NBA.

It is interesting though because the number one pick in baseball seems to be a complete crapshoot and the NFL the number one pick is a curse thanks to the salary structure.

Given the size of the rosters and the effect that any one player can have I think each league has it about right. One thing that might be interesting for the NBA to consider would be taking a snapshot of the standings at 60 games for lottery placement, at least then you'd have eliminated teams giving their all in the final month and a half.

 

[hammystyle]

There's a lot wrong w/this: No where does he expressly root for the Kings to lose in the future. We can only take things as they come in the present. Today we had a game against a team everyone should hate to lose against. That's it. Hate the loss. Be content w/the record, but it is embarrassing to see people hoping to lose. That's a characteristic you'll never be able to rid yourselves of: That it is ok to lose in certain circumstances.

The future will work itself out. I'm all for "going out and getting it," but if you think "going and getting it" is accomplished through losing for any reason, that explains some things about why Sacramento hasn't won anything. On the other hand, trade for draft picks like Portland or something. That's going and getting it.

Sorry, but this just comes off as a combination of moral whimsy and naivety. As though athlete is too stupid to understand circumstances and will think to themselves, "We purposely lost to the Lakers three years ago in the last game, so now I guess its ok to lose to them in game 7 of the Western Conference Finals." Athletes are probably the most pragmatic of the bunch. Don't you think that Tyreke has a solid understanding of who the top prospects are? Don't you think he'd prefer Cousins or Favors as a running mate to Aldrich or Udoh?

The Heat in 2008 and the Celtics in 2007 tanked more aggressively and blatantly than any teams I can remember. Both team managed to rid themselves of the losing virus the very next year when they went to the playoffs. The Celtics won the championship! And before you say, "but yeah they got KG and Ray Allen."...Well, the T-Wolves tanked with KG and the Sonics tanked with Ray Allen. They all were infected with the losing on purpose virus and it was so hard to get rid of that they lost THREE out of their first 32 games the next year!

 

[Rookie]

Doesn't matter any more...we lost.

Now if the Warrior and Washington can only listen to some of the people in here and win. It's the only smart thing to do.