Draft positioning thread
- Thread starter Big Cuz 15
- Start date
- Status
If they have a chance at Barnes, they will take him. If they end up in the 7th spot (which is where I think they will end up), he'll be gone. Looking at most of the mocks, I'd say we either go BPA and take Bradley Beal, and maybe deal Thornton, or we trade back to around the 10th spot, and hope Terrence Jones is still available.
You know, I am very sorry that I enjoyed rooting for my favorite team to win tonight from the comfort of my couch. I know it had everything to do with their winning the season ending home game against the hated Lakers (who decided to rest everyone of consequence they have on their roster). How stupid of me to want to see my favorite team play well.
/sarcasm off
It's funny - had we won one of those nail-biters earlier this season and lost this one we would be in exactly the same position as we are now and nobody would be complaining about the win 2 months ago. What happens if we do end up with a #1-3 pick after the draft lottery? Will everyone rooting for a loss tonight change their minds about cheering on the team in a "meaningless" game?
Get a grip and realize that the team, the coach, and the fans want to see wins. Coach Smart is not going to lose a winnable game on purpose - he may not be around to coach next year if he does. And the players don't give a rat's a** about the draft - they want to keep the PT they have and don't want more competition.
So please quit whining about those of us who enjoy watching our favorite sports team win.
/sarcasm off
It's funny - had we won one of those nail-biters earlier this season and lost this one we would be in exactly the same position as we are now and nobody would be complaining about the win 2 months ago. What happens if we do end up with a #1-3 pick after the draft lottery? Will everyone rooting for a loss tonight change their minds about cheering on the team in a "meaningless" game?
Get a grip and realize that the team, the coach, and the fans want to see wins. Coach Smart is not going to lose a winnable game on purpose - he may not be around to coach next year if he does. And the players don't give a rat's a** about the draft - they want to keep the PT they have and don't want more competition.
So please quit whining about those of us who enjoy watching our favorite sports team win.
Well, don't think as many people would be whining if we actually beat Kobe and all. But a win against the team LA threw at us is pretty meaningless if you ask me, and hurts our odds at getting a higher draft pick. So you can't exactly compare this with a nailbiter loss 2 months ago. Also, had we won a couple more games we wouldn't be in this situation now, so we'd just accept the fact and root for the Kings to win anyway. Given our situation though, one has to see the bigger picture - which is that in the long run winning this game has a higher probability of hurting us for years to come than helping us. If you were offered two scenarios whereby the Kings either lose tonight's game and become a playoff contender for the next 7+ years, or win and then stay a lottery team for the next 2, which would you rather have? Nothing is certain, but if I was a Kings player I would certainly pick the 1st. On top of that, beating a bunch of scrubs would hardly give me much satisfaction as a player.
There is no right or wrong, and everything discussed is still about probabilities and not certainties.
There is no right or wrong, and everything discussed is still about probabilities and not certainties.
So what if we had lost tonight and we still end up with the 4th, 5th or 6th pick? I'm really tired of people talking about the big picture. It's not cast in concrete. It's a cloud picture, subject to change.
A lot of the "tank" group act as though everything is either one or the other. It's not, and Kings fans should certainly know that by now. If we had gotten the first pick one year, we'd have Greg Oden. Oh, that would have been wonderful, wouldn't it?
A lot of the "tank" group act as though everything is either one or the other. It's not, and Kings fans should certainly know that by now. If we had gotten the first pick one year, we'd have Greg Oden. Oh, that would have been wonderful, wouldn't it?
I thought this thread was where the "tank group" could go, seeing as how strategy of winning games or losing games discussion can't be in the game thread.
The statistics are all there. They do not lie. The percentages are spelled out. Probability wise, there is nothing anyone with any modicum of statistical knowledge can say to refute it. Hence the issue we have in this thread.
The cloud picture is a cloud, yes. But there is irrefutable evidence that picking as early as possible gives the best chance for a good player. No one disputes that. Now winning this game gives us a less chances of a lottery pick and a lower draft pick, plain and simple. Hence, winning this game gave us a worse CHANCE at a good player. Not even factoring mock drafts, talent tiers, and where the best fit players go (which we might have missed out on).
Plain and simple: Winning against the Laker's 13th men gave us worse chances of landing a good player. Not made us get a worse player. There are no guarantees, but the higher the pick, the better the CHANCE of a guarantee.
Do you people go to the casino and keep hitting on 17 because you feel like it? Or do you hit 17 because one time a friend didn't hit on 17 and a 4 came out next? Because this is exactly the kind of argument you guys are trying to make. You play the odds as best you can. I can't fathom intentionally screwing the odds because you may end up with the same scenario. Why not start with better odds in the first place?
But hey, at least we stuck it to Devin frickin Ebanks while he was wearing purple. W00t. Let's all hang our cellar dwelling hats on THAT.
The statistics are all there. They do not lie. The percentages are spelled out. Probability wise, there is nothing anyone with any modicum of statistical knowledge can say to refute it. Hence the issue we have in this thread.
The cloud picture is a cloud, yes. But there is irrefutable evidence that picking as early as possible gives the best chance for a good player. No one disputes that. Now winning this game gives us a less chances of a lottery pick and a lower draft pick, plain and simple. Hence, winning this game gave us a worse CHANCE at a good player. Not even factoring mock drafts, talent tiers, and where the best fit players go (which we might have missed out on).
Plain and simple: Winning against the Laker's 13th men gave us worse chances of landing a good player. Not made us get a worse player. There are no guarantees, but the higher the pick, the better the CHANCE of a guarantee.
Do you people go to the casino and keep hitting on 17 because you feel like it? Or do you hit 17 because one time a friend didn't hit on 17 and a 4 came out next? Because this is exactly the kind of argument you guys are trying to make. You play the odds as best you can. I can't fathom intentionally screwing the odds because you may end up with the same scenario. Why not start with better odds in the first place?
But hey, at least we stuck it to Devin frickin Ebanks while he was wearing purple. W00t. Let's all hang our cellar dwelling hats on THAT.
It isn't cast in concrete and still subject to change. That doesn't mean you shouldn't do what is in the best interest of your team to win a championship. The Lakers, Spurs and Heat did what was in their best interest to achieve that tonight by resting their stars. All the little things add up and my life experiences have taught me to take any advantage I can get, no matter how small.
You know, I'm proud that our team didn't tank. And we didn't tank -- not even a little bit. And we never tank either. But when teams like New Orleans pull a 6 point fourth quarter out of their belt to narrowly avoid winning, I feel like we're playing against a stacked deck. They absolutely told their guys to lay down and it's very likely going to earn them a shot to draft a player that would have greatly helped our team. Cleveland milked Irving's sore shoulder at least a week longer than they needed to and then he mysteriously gets "the flu" and can't play in the last game.
I'd really like to ignore what the rest of the league does and just go about our business the right way with head held high but I guess it's the 6 year old in me that can't help but point at Cleveland and New Orleans and say "that's not fair!" These are both teams that were just in the playoffs recently led by two of the best young players in the game. Heck, New Orleans was in the playoffs last year. Cleveland was in the playoffs 2 years ago and then won the 1st and the 4th pick in the draft. Meanwhile we've been in basketball purgatory for 6 straight years now. Why can't we have nice things?
I'd really like to ignore what the rest of the league does and just go about our business the right way with head held high but I guess it's the 6 year old in me that can't help but point at Cleveland and New Orleans and say "that's not fair!" These are both teams that were just in the playoffs recently led by two of the best young players in the game. Heck, New Orleans was in the playoffs last year. Cleveland was in the playoffs 2 years ago and then won the 1st and the 4th pick in the draft. Meanwhile we've been in basketball purgatory for 6 straight years now. Why can't we have nice things?
I know it's a meaningless win, but we really couldn't do much to lose this game against this Lakers team. I keep telling myself that we will be lucky sometimes in the lottery, and maybe this is the time. I believe that if you play the right way, good things happen. Like VF21 said, we could have won this game and still end up with the 6th pick or worse.
Look at recent history: this is the list of the lottery winners from year 2000 and their position in the lottery.
2000 - Nets - 7th worst
2001 - Wizards - 3rd worst
2002 - Rockets - 5th worst
2003 - Cavs - worst (T)
2004 - Magic - worst
2005 - Bucks - 6th worst
2006 - Raptors - 5th worst
2007 - Blazers - 6th worst
2008 - Bulls - 9th worst
2009 - Clippers - 2nd worst
2010 - Wizards - 5th worst
2011 - Clippers (conveyed to the Cavs) - 8th worst
Over 12 years, just in 4 years the first pick went to one of the 4 teams with better odds. So, let's wait and see.
Look at recent history: this is the list of the lottery winners from year 2000 and their position in the lottery.
2000 - Nets - 7th worst
2001 - Wizards - 3rd worst
2002 - Rockets - 5th worst
2003 - Cavs - worst (T)
2004 - Magic - worst
2005 - Bucks - 6th worst
2006 - Raptors - 5th worst
2007 - Blazers - 6th worst
2008 - Bulls - 9th worst
2009 - Clippers - 2nd worst
2010 - Wizards - 5th worst
2011 - Clippers (conveyed to the Cavs) - 8th worst
Over 12 years, just in 4 years the first pick went to one of the 4 teams with better odds. So, let's wait and see.
You're right, it's not fair. We didn't tank one bit. We're the only team 1-10 to not have any tank in us. Now, if there is a basketball god, we should be rewarded for our righteousness, right? Ball don't lie.
It's how the rules are; they make you tank. That's how the game goes. It's not a good way, but it is how the system is currently set up. You can turn your nose up at it, for it does fly against the spirit of competition per game, but per franchise, these things are just part of the cycle of NBA life.
It's how the rules are; they make you tank. That's how the game goes. It's not a good way, but it is how the system is currently set up. You can turn your nose up at it, for it does fly against the spirit of competition per game, but per franchise, these things are just part of the cycle of NBA life.
And that is why I specifically said "There is no right or wrong, and everything discussed is still about probabilities and not certainties".
At the end of the day, we are all rooting for our team to win. I feel that losing just this ONE game will help us a lot more in the future. Would I necessarily have been correct? No, and I will gladly admit as much! But just as some teams drop games to get more favorable playoff match ups (like Memphis vs the Spurs last year), sometimes you have to play in a way that gives you what you think is a better shot at significant winning in the long run.
In any case, I doubt any of the "tank group" was screaming at their TVs for the Kings to miss shots or not play D or anything like that.
Bottomline is - if we don't do what it takes to give us a better CHANCE at becoming a winning team then we can't complain about being a losing one. And you all know how important the draft is to a team like ours.
Still, I feel there is no right and wrong. I certainly won't say someone is wrong for rooting for the Kings to win a game against the Laker scrubs, nor do I feel it is wrong to hope for a better probability of getting a higher pick, which gives us a higher probability of picking a player who has a higher probability of being a better player than players picked after him. At the end of the day, we all want our Kings to be a playoff team ASAP.
At the end of the day, we are all rooting for our team to win. I feel that losing just this ONE game will help us a lot more in the future. Would I necessarily have been correct? No, and I will gladly admit as much! But just as some teams drop games to get more favorable playoff match ups (like Memphis vs the Spurs last year), sometimes you have to play in a way that gives you what you think is a better shot at significant winning in the long run.
In any case, I doubt any of the "tank group" was screaming at their TVs for the Kings to miss shots or not play D or anything like that.
Bottomline is - if we don't do what it takes to give us a better CHANCE at becoming a winning team then we can't complain about being a losing one. And you all know how important the draft is to a team like ours.
Still, I feel there is no right and wrong. I certainly won't say someone is wrong for rooting for the Kings to win a game against the Laker scrubs, nor do I feel it is wrong to hope for a better probability of getting a higher pick, which gives us a higher probability of picking a player who has a higher probability of being a better player than players picked after him. At the end of the day, we all want our Kings to be a playoff team ASAP.
I don't see it that way. Let's use a couple of our players for example. You have Jimmer and Cousins outside the three point line open for a shot. Who do you kick the ball out to? Neither of the players is a 100 percent shooter and might miss, yet the right play to make is clear.
edit: It also is probably going to be more entertaining when Cousins hits that 3... but is it really what you want?
edit: It also is probably going to be more entertaining when Cousins hits that 3... but is it really what you want?
Last edited:
When I look at the box score, I can see that Gary Forbes, Solomon Alabi, Jerome Dyson and Chris Wright got 40+ minutes each. Teams that were playing meaningless games were resting their key players and guys like Forbes, Alabi, Wright, Dyson, D.J. Kennedy, Darryl Watkins and a bunch of guys most fans have never heard of got major floor time.
It's not rocket science, when the game is meaningless and obligatory, rest your key guys and send out the untested younguns. It's about being smart and fair. Many of these guys worked hard all season long and didn't play much, now is their chance to shine. Give them the opportunity to play, I mean, that's all they really wanted; playing time. Plus, it's wise to protect your mega million dollar investment - by resting your key guys and preventing even the slight chance that they pick up injuries.
You don't get too many games like this one. Where you can say to your players, "Don't worry about mistakes, just play." This is a golden opportunity to see how Jimmer fares in 40+ minutes, to see Honeycutt plays a full game, to experiment and see how it works out.
If the Kings had played the kids and they beat the Lakers, I'd be all for it. But nope. Apparently it's very important that we win this game by playing our stars.
You don't play your star players when the game is meaningless. Haven't we learned that lesson after Chris Webber went down in a blown out game?
It's not rocket science, when the game is meaningless and obligatory, rest your key guys and send out the untested younguns. It's about being smart and fair. Many of these guys worked hard all season long and didn't play much, now is their chance to shine. Give them the opportunity to play, I mean, that's all they really wanted; playing time. Plus, it's wise to protect your mega million dollar investment - by resting your key guys and preventing even the slight chance that they pick up injuries.
You don't get too many games like this one. Where you can say to your players, "Don't worry about mistakes, just play." This is a golden opportunity to see how Jimmer fares in 40+ minutes, to see Honeycutt plays a full game, to experiment and see how it works out.
If the Kings had played the kids and they beat the Lakers, I'd be all for it. But nope. Apparently it's very important that we win this game by playing our stars.
You don't play your star players when the game is meaningless. Haven't we learned that lesson after Chris Webber went down in a blown out game?
Last edited:
What I quoted was a response to VF21's post about the "tank group" acting as if "everything is one way or another". And you added that you said there was neither a right or wrong way as everything is about probabilities and not certainties. I agree with your post and doing what it takes to give us a better chance. I just disagreed about there not being a a right or wrong. To me it is very clear that there is a "right or wrong" and it isn't subjective.
- Status