QWERTYLICIOUS
Starter
@SLAB, we may have found your long lost brother.
[Game] 49/82: Kings @ 76ers 29 JAN 2026, 4pm PT/7pm ET
- Thread starter Mr. S£im Citrus
- Start date
- Status
Joshyjosh31
Starter
Exactly you wouldn’t be feeling this way if the young guys were playing perry botched the gap year with that nonsense.
The two decades part is just nba basketball for you just turn on espn they are saying the warriors have the best package for Giannis
Nah, I wouldn't be watching if we are still getting blown out half the time and can't win games. What's the point?
Every GM we've had since Petrie has struggled. (Even Petrie did when funds got tight.) It isn't all on Scott - he just got here. We'll see how we feel about him after the trade deadline. I am not holding out much hope for anything great, though.
Joshyjosh31
Starter
The point would be building towards something having the young guys grow and show what there potential is. Winning 38 games off the back of the vets has/had no point whatsoever signing Westbrook made no sense
KingsFanSince85
All-Star
You’re spot on wrt the perils of tanking. However, I’m not understanding your comment about SAC not being a basketball town. What are you basing your opinion upon?
It surely cannot be due to fan attendance/interest (or lack there of), as during the franchise’s history in SAC they boast two separate consecutive sellout streaks of 497 and 354 games. They sold out every home game just a couple seasons ago, and despite a historically poor season thus far (and very overpriced tickets) are still averaging 16,407 fans per night in an 17,608 capacity arena.
Sure, there have been some down seasons attendance wise, but considering their long 16 season postseason drought from 2006 through 2022 and the fact that they’ve been a mediocre to subpar team for so long — their attendance numbers are actually pretty good.
What other cities could have a franchise be as futile for as long as a period of time and average a lot more fans? Not many.
If SAC is not exactly a basketball town then IDK where else is.
serbiangoat
Starter
Embiid deserves every injury he gets as does every other foul baiter, you can't even play basketball against them when the refs are just bailing them out just making a mockery out of the sport.
Amen - I'll take it one dimension further than money - I'm certainly not spending time on this train wreck. A sad state. Worried on the draft with a Bagley type decision. Trust in Baja
Knowing the Kings luck, they're picking 4th or 5th with even with the worst record.
Some Amusing YouTube comments for yuor pseudo-entertainment from Sixers/Kings game (commentary in paranthesis)
-i swear this Sixers team has proven they beat anyone.. or they can lose to anyone.
down 10 to the Kings in the 4th is not a good look. glad they pulled this one out
-Kings: 46 rebounds, Sixers: 24 rebounds
-Happy for the win. Gotta put the rough sledding in the rear window. (rear window?)
-Sacramento Kings 1st overall pick 2026 NBA DRAFT
-No westbrook no win
-76ers not Ready Bros; It’s like they are trying their Best to loose Game. (taken letter for letter)
-Giannis is the missing piece
-What are the Kings going to do about this mess? The team as constructed is awful. Gotta have a fire sale as they are already tanking.
<reply>
-- They need picks! Still can’t believe they let fox and hali go for anything but 1st rounders. At this point trade everyone including Murray.
-Look, I know that the kings are in a small market and they are definitely in a losing season, but the 76's didn't win this game. The refs gave them the win in the 4th quarter. I wouldn't be surprised if 60% of their points in the fourth came from free throws.
-What happened to Westbrook?
<reply>
--rest
<reply>
--hopefully switching teams
-76ers will not lose to a crap team like Kings. Maxey with 40 and Embiid with support of 37 points. Well played Sixers.
<reply>
--They damn near did... tf you mean. If we didnt have Embiid or PG they easily would have.
-IF you don't get why Embiid and PG were coming to Maxey at the end mad, you dont know ball. The chance of him making that 74 foot heave is way unlikely, the chance of him fouling and going to the line and making 2 out of 3, is 4 times higher. Maxey is lucky he didn't make contact. Just let him shoot with 1.3 seconds remaining. Dumb Maxey, dumb. I completely support the vets letting him know. (way unlikely vs 4 times higher?)
-i swear this Sixers team has proven they beat anyone.. or they can lose to anyone.
down 10 to the Kings in the 4th is not a good look. glad they pulled this one out-Kings: 46 rebounds, Sixers: 24 rebounds
-Happy for the win. Gotta put the rough sledding in the rear window. (rear window?)
-Sacramento Kings 1st overall pick 2026 NBA DRAFT
-No westbrook no win
-76ers not Ready Bros; It’s like they are trying their Best to loose Game. (taken letter for letter)
-Giannis is the missing piece
-What are the Kings going to do about this mess? The team as constructed is awful. Gotta have a fire sale as they are already tanking.
<reply>
-- They need picks! Still can’t believe they let fox and hali go for anything but 1st rounders. At this point trade everyone including Murray.
-Look, I know that the kings are in a small market and they are definitely in a losing season, but the 76's didn't win this game. The refs gave them the win in the 4th quarter. I wouldn't be surprised if 60% of their points in the fourth came from free throws.
-What happened to Westbrook?
<reply>
--rest
<reply>
--hopefully switching teams
-76ers will not lose to a crap team like Kings. Maxey with 40 and Embiid with support of 37 points. Well played Sixers.
<reply>
--They damn near did... tf you mean. If we didnt have Embiid or PG they easily would have.
-IF you don't get why Embiid and PG were coming to Maxey at the end mad, you dont know ball. The chance of him making that 74 foot heave is way unlikely, the chance of him fouling and going to the line and making 2 out of 3, is 4 times higher. Maxey is lucky he didn't make contact. Just let him shoot with 1.3 seconds remaining. Dumb Maxey, dumb. I completely support the vets letting him know. (way unlikely vs 4 times higher?)
Clifford is more than likely going to be a bust. He's pretty much been the worst rookie that is getting decent minutes and he's an old rookie at that. Crazy that he looked like a possible ROY with the way he looked in summer league.
Extremely impressed by Edgecomb. He just has that it factor. He's going to be legit in couple years.
Extremely impressed by Edgecomb. He just has that it factor. He's going to be legit in couple years.
Padrino
All-Star
I still have yet to see an alternative strategy presented by anyone who is frustrated by the pile-on of losses and would rather the Kings did not prioritize high draft picks in the coming seasons. How do the Kings get to a sustainably competitive place otherwise? What should they be doing instead if they're not going all-in on the draft? What's the model they should follow? Who amongst the current crop of playoff contenders built a winner without emphasizing the draft? Can we point to them as a modern equivalent and say, "That is how we should be doing things"? Or when we point to them, do we realize that they possess advantages the Kings lack, like massive market size or compelling urban trappings? Sacramento isn't Los Angeles, New York, or Miami, after all (and none of these "appealing market" teams who have largely shirked the draft are setting the league on fire, by the way).
But okay, the draft seems too volatile a risk to take for some of you. How about the trade market? The Kings could chase Giannis! Is that realistic? I wouldn't guess so. What MVP candidate is accepting a trade to Sacramento in the era of extreme player empowerment? Now, the last time the Kings did manage to build a sustainable winner required trading the beloved Mitch Richmond for a distressed asset in Chris Webber, who did not even want to come to the Kings. Quite the risk that was, but it ultimately paid off! Of course, the NBA is rather different now than it was in the late 90s/early 00s. The incentive structures have radically changed, and it's challenging to trade one-for-one a la Richmond-for-Webber. Swapping stars isn't really much of a thing anymore (and when it happens... well, there's Doncic for Davis). But I suppose we could still offer the trade block as a possible path forward. If Giannis isn't a realistic bet, then maybe instead of prioritizing the stacking of draft assets and the selection of high draft picks, the Kings could go hunting for a Webber-like distressed asset and push their chips onto that space.
However, I don't really see such a strategy as any less of a gamble then putting one's faith in the ping pong balls. You're still at the mercy of hope, but in this case you're hoping that a distressed asset, a la Ja Morant, straightens out in the same way Chris Webber did, while also reclaiming his upside (and health). Pretty high risk, that, and in my estimation, not nearly as profitable as drafting and developing a potential star in-house on a rookie-scale contract. But maybe this sounds more appealing to some of you who find yourself firmly in the anti-tank crowd? And if not Ja Morant, than what distressed asset should the Kings chase? Who can they conceivably acquire that might put them on the path to respectability, even if it's a high-risk proposition? And how do you see the Kings building around this high-risk proposition?
Well... maybe all of that risk doesn't sound so appealing, in the end. So if the Kings don't want to bank on the acquisition of a distressed asset like Morant, is there yet some other strategy they should be pursuing? We've decided that we don't want to bank on the draft because of its volatility, and we've decided realistic trade market acquisitions are only likely to deliver more volatility, so what else is there? I suppose the Kings can prioritize cap space, but not in the hopes of leveraging that cap space into the acquisition of further draft picks, because, as we've already established, it's not appealing to put our faith in the ping pong balls. Instead, we can bide our time and shed salary in the hopes of coaxing an elite talent to Sacramento whom they can sign into that cap space! I'm curious how long we might be waiting, if this is our preferred strategy.
So what will it be? You have limited avenues with which to improve your roster when you're a disadvantaged small market franchise with a dumpster fire's reputation and a mostly bare stable of assets. Nobody is trading you Luka Doncic, because you're the Sacramento Kings and not the Los Angeles Lakers. Nobody of note is inking a UFA deal with you when the most talented free agency acquisitions in Sacramento Kings history are Vlade Divac, Brad Miller, and an over-the-hill DeMar DeRozan. This leaves the draft, which is a plausible pathway to sustainable success when leveraged as an intentional strategy to give yourself as many bites at the apple as possible. Yes, it comes with an uncomfortable period of heavy losses across multiple seasons, but... what else is there? I mean, the Kings have had exactly two winning seasons in the last twenty years, so I'm not sure that we're swallowing anything different by accepting heavy losses across the next few seasons in pursuit of a draft-centric strategy.
Or... do the Kings simply march forward into the unknown as they have been, with no discernible strategy but to follow the whims of an impulsive owner, despite the fact that doing so has led them nowhere in the time since Vivek bought the team? If we're going to lose anyway, I'd rather lose well, by prioritizing young talent already on the roster, and angling for the kind of high-value draft picks that can transform a franchise's fortunes. Does such a strategy always pan out? Of course not. In fact, I'd say the odds aren't even that great! Look at Utah. Look at Washington. Hell, look at New Orleans, and they even managed to get a blue chip prospect in Zion Williamson. Still, if you're a small market franchise, the odds remain greater for success when you prioritize the draft then when you attempt to leverage any other strategy.
There is no guaranteed path to success in the NBA, so I'd rather pursue proven methods that deliver the most plausible path to success. Until somebody offers me an alternative that represents a more likely method of arriving at sustainable success, I'm going to say live with the losses (especially if you use them to develop young talent already on your roster), acquire as many future first rounders as possible, allow your scouts to do their diligence, and be decisive when draft day arrives.
But okay, the draft seems too volatile a risk to take for some of you. How about the trade market? The Kings could chase Giannis! Is that realistic? I wouldn't guess so. What MVP candidate is accepting a trade to Sacramento in the era of extreme player empowerment? Now, the last time the Kings did manage to build a sustainable winner required trading the beloved Mitch Richmond for a distressed asset in Chris Webber, who did not even want to come to the Kings. Quite the risk that was, but it ultimately paid off! Of course, the NBA is rather different now than it was in the late 90s/early 00s. The incentive structures have radically changed, and it's challenging to trade one-for-one a la Richmond-for-Webber. Swapping stars isn't really much of a thing anymore (and when it happens... well, there's Doncic for Davis). But I suppose we could still offer the trade block as a possible path forward. If Giannis isn't a realistic bet, then maybe instead of prioritizing the stacking of draft assets and the selection of high draft picks, the Kings could go hunting for a Webber-like distressed asset and push their chips onto that space.
However, I don't really see such a strategy as any less of a gamble then putting one's faith in the ping pong balls. You're still at the mercy of hope, but in this case you're hoping that a distressed asset, a la Ja Morant, straightens out in the same way Chris Webber did, while also reclaiming his upside (and health). Pretty high risk, that, and in my estimation, not nearly as profitable as drafting and developing a potential star in-house on a rookie-scale contract. But maybe this sounds more appealing to some of you who find yourself firmly in the anti-tank crowd? And if not Ja Morant, than what distressed asset should the Kings chase? Who can they conceivably acquire that might put them on the path to respectability, even if it's a high-risk proposition? And how do you see the Kings building around this high-risk proposition?
Well... maybe all of that risk doesn't sound so appealing, in the end. So if the Kings don't want to bank on the acquisition of a distressed asset like Morant, is there yet some other strategy they should be pursuing? We've decided that we don't want to bank on the draft because of its volatility, and we've decided realistic trade market acquisitions are only likely to deliver more volatility, so what else is there? I suppose the Kings can prioritize cap space, but not in the hopes of leveraging that cap space into the acquisition of further draft picks, because, as we've already established, it's not appealing to put our faith in the ping pong balls. Instead, we can bide our time and shed salary in the hopes of coaxing an elite talent to Sacramento whom they can sign into that cap space! I'm curious how long we might be waiting, if this is our preferred strategy.
So what will it be? You have limited avenues with which to improve your roster when you're a disadvantaged small market franchise with a dumpster fire's reputation and a mostly bare stable of assets. Nobody is trading you Luka Doncic, because you're the Sacramento Kings and not the Los Angeles Lakers. Nobody of note is inking a UFA deal with you when the most talented free agency acquisitions in Sacramento Kings history are Vlade Divac, Brad Miller, and an over-the-hill DeMar DeRozan. This leaves the draft, which is a plausible pathway to sustainable success when leveraged as an intentional strategy to give yourself as many bites at the apple as possible. Yes, it comes with an uncomfortable period of heavy losses across multiple seasons, but... what else is there? I mean, the Kings have had exactly two winning seasons in the last twenty years, so I'm not sure that we're swallowing anything different by accepting heavy losses across the next few seasons in pursuit of a draft-centric strategy.
Or... do the Kings simply march forward into the unknown as they have been, with no discernible strategy but to follow the whims of an impulsive owner, despite the fact that doing so has led them nowhere in the time since Vivek bought the team? If we're going to lose anyway, I'd rather lose well, by prioritizing young talent already on the roster, and angling for the kind of high-value draft picks that can transform a franchise's fortunes. Does such a strategy always pan out? Of course not. In fact, I'd say the odds aren't even that great! Look at Utah. Look at Washington. Hell, look at New Orleans, and they even managed to get a blue chip prospect in Zion Williamson. Still, if you're a small market franchise, the odds remain greater for success when you prioritize the draft then when you attempt to leverage any other strategy.
There is no guaranteed path to success in the NBA, so I'd rather pursue proven methods that deliver the most plausible path to success. Until somebody offers me an alternative that represents a more likely method of arriving at sustainable success, I'm going to say live with the losses (especially if you use them to develop young talent already on your roster), acquire as many future first rounders as possible, allow your scouts to do their diligence, and be decisive when draft day arrives.
Last edited:
I attribute that to the Kings being "the only game in town" moreso than Sacramento being a basketball town. If the Kings had stayed in Kansas City, but the Athletics had moved to Sacramento in 1985, I suspect that those games would have sold out, too.
In my Personal Record Book™, you have to either a) have more than one pro sport, and the NBA has to be more popular than the other sport(s), or b) if you don't have a pro team, college basketball has to be a bigger deal than college football in your town. Now, it's possible that if Sacramento had the Kings and the Athletics (and, by "had the Athletics," I mean that they were there to stay, and not just passing through) the Kings would still have been more popular... But I don't believe it. I think that the only reason that the Kings have ever been more popular than the A's is because Sacramentans never truly embraced the team from Oakland. But, if they had been the Sacramento Athletics, with 40 years of history in y'all's town, I think it would have been a different story.
- Even when I still considered myself a Kings fan, I only cared but so much about the Kings being "sustainably competitive." Sure, winning is cool, but I don't look at sports as zero sum, so winning is not intrinsic to my ability to enjoy sports-as-entertainment. For me, the appeal is seeing players I want to root for play hard; the results are incidental.
- I have not suggested an alternative strategy because I haven't spent any time thinking about it. I'm probably not going to start now, either. Like, I get that this is a discussion forum, and if y'all want to discuss it, I'm not gon' hold you, but it's not a subject that interests me. I want to see the output, I want to see the product. The process bores me. That's what I mean when I say you can't make me care about the draft: I don't want to scour Twitter for trade rumors, I don't want to speculate on mock drafts, I don't want to watch ping pong balls, I don't want to watch the standings, I want to watch the game. That's it.
Padrino
All-Star
And that's all well and good. I'd ask a question: since Vivek Ranadive purchased the Sacramento Kings, what would you say you have been able to enjoy about this particular team, as a non-Kings fan? I know you were a big fan of DeMarcus Cousins as a player. I was, as well. Did it never matter to you that the Kings could not build a winner around him? Did you never care that Cousins was never able to become the best version of himself as a player because he played for a dysfunctional organization through the majority of his career? Or is "sports-as-entertainment" literally just about moment-to-moment pleasures for you, and nothing else matters beyond the player, the minute, the quarter, the game? I'm genuinely curious.
For me, a professional sports franchise being "sustainably competitive" requires that the organization be competently run. The more well-run the organization, the more the on-court product benefits, and the easier it is to root for the talent on that team. The more poorly-run the organization, the more the on-court product suffers, and the harder it is to root for the talent on that team. Even enjoyable players become unenjoyable to watch when they're forced by circumstance to compete for organizations that ignore process. Fans can ignore process all they like, of course, but an organization that ignores process does so at its own peril.
If you're constantly throwing sh*t at the wall to see what sticks, while cycling through GMs every 3-4 years and head coaches every 2-3 years, it's hard to develop a competently run organization with an on-court product that's worth watching. I am very much not a "championship or bust" kind of fan, to be clear. I think that's a miserable way to experience "sports as entertainment". I just want to root for a team that has a chance to present the best version of itself on the court every single night; I want its talent to succeed because its built with an eye toward sustainability, by investing in the development of that talent such that it can evolve into the best version of itself. Personally, I don't find talent fun or interesting to watch in a vacuum. It always needs to be nurtured, and while process might not matter to you, it matters to the success of the kinds of talents in whom you take a rooting interest.
I think we'd probably agree that most playoff teams are worth watching to some degree, yes? And we'd probably agree that, for most non-playoff teams that are worth watching to some degree, it's because they could develop into playoff teams eventually, yes? Talent that is worth watching is typically talent that has an impact on winning, even if winning is not necessarily something you personally value as a sports fan. I mean, I can derive the barest amount of schadenfreude from watching Shaqtin' a Fool types like Jordan Poole or Kyle Kuzma on the basketball court, but I wouldn't say they're the kinds of players for whom I'd be inclined to root. I imagine they're not the kinds of players for whom you'd be inclined to root, either.
You and I are very different, in that I'm somebody who actually does find process terribly interesting. But even if all you want to do is watch the game, process matters to the game being worth watching. So while you may remain disengaged from process, somebody in the Kings organization probably needs to care about it if they want @Mr. S£im Citrus to keep watching, correct? If they don't invest in their young talent and keep employing over-the-hill vets who no longer bring much of value to the on-court product, it's unlikely you'll stay tuned in, I'm guessing? You've been rather adamant that they need to play the kids. Well, that's a process-oriented goal.
Jdbraver137
Starter
Then in my mind you get what you get and you don’t complain. Because the behind the scenes management is what will make the team competitive. And the fact is that the Kings are stuck with old vets on terrible contracts which really makes trades almost impossible and that leaves us with the draft.
I cared in the sense that I want to see players I like succeed, but that success (or lack thereof) is not essential to my enjoyment. I mostly just liked watching him play basketball. I found his style of play entertaining... Hell, I think I would find DeRozan's style entertaining, if the other three guys weren't on the team: if the Kings' starting lineup was Clifford-DeRozan-Murray-Sabonis-Cardwell, with Raynaud, Ellis and Carter getting the majority of the bench minutes, I feel like I would be adequately entertained, win or lose.
Padrino
All-Star
In this sense, you are probably a pretty rare breed of NBA basketball fan; engaged enough in the sport to talk about it regularly in a passionate online forum, but disengaged enough that you care little for the kinds of discussions that passionate fans typically instigate. I don't think of you as a "casual" NBA fan, but the way you consume "sports as entertainment" suggests a certain level of casualness. You know more than the average Redditor with the Trade Machine on the brain, but you have no interest in using that knowledge in discussions of process. For the record, I don't begrudge you any of this at all. I just find it sort of fascinating.
And because I generally know where you stand on these matters, my original post wasn't directed at you. It was mostly directed at Kings fans who want the team to win now and want the team to get better. But without a coherent strategy, this team won't win enough to be good nor lose enough to get better. Recent Kings history suggests this, recent NBA history suggests this, and modern NBA roster-building dynamics suggest this. This is apparently of no concern for you, but I imagine it's a concern for most Kings fans if they hope to see this team sniff the playoffs again sometime in the next twenty years. And I'm mostly curious if any amongst the anti-"lin" crowd of Kings fans do have other reasonable notions for how this team might become more competitive in a conference in which seven teams currently possess a .600 or better record. The Beam Team itself did not manage this feat. So where does the franchise go from here?
If the strategy doesn't involve leveraging the Kings' own potential to back into a top-five draft pick or two, as well as the repeated acquisition of further first round draft picks to create more opportunities for inexpensive talent acquisition, what does it involve? Does it look any different than what we've already seen from this franchise in the last twenty years? Or are Kings fans really content to just muddle through year after year in the vain hopes that this franchise will strike gold, and then know what to do with it when they do strike gold? I'm of the opinion that having a plan is important, but maybe that's not what others think.
QWERTYLICIOUS
Starter
To be fair, though, I do think that most of us actually want to see the team win (now) and get better. Because, at the end of the day, isn't that the ultimate goal - to be able to watch a winning team that is constantly improving/making changes in order to keep up with the pace?
Where fans can be distinguished, however, is by those who understand that, with the current version of the Kings, winning now will hinder our chances of getting better later. And, if we want to get better later, we have to sacrifice winning now. And by those who don't.
I actually think that "Hardcore Casual" describes me pretty well. As a matter of fact...
- Status