Be careful what you wish for

[Stroms]

Everyone out there hoping for the Kings to be dismal in order to position ourselves for the draft better be careful. You might get more than you bargained for. Once losing begins, it becomes difficult to escape the "losers" mentality. A lot of us remember this all too well and don't want to go back to it. We've been spoiled with 8 (give or take) consecutive years in the playoffs. A couple of years in the lottery and people will be screaming at Petrie (or whoever) to make some moves so we can get in the playoffs.

I'm not saying we shouldn't look to trade some of our veterans and get younger, but I'd be resistant to trade them for cap space. Who's going to sign with us when were one of the worst teams? No one's coming for the city itself. Before Atlanta got Joe Johnson, they couldn't give their money away and they're still terrible after that signing.

Anyways, I think it would be bad mentally for the guys that are going to remain on the team to get used to losing. I don't want Sac to be basketball "hell" again.

 

[rings4Kings]

.

I'm not saying we shouldn't look to trade some of our veterans and get younger, but I'd be resistant to trade them for cap space. Who's going to sign with us when were one of the worst teams? No one's coming for the city itself. Before Atlanta got Joe Johnson, they couldn't give their money away and they're still terrible after that signing.

That coming from the city of depression and rain...? What usually happens is players complain about being exiled to Sacramento, than they tell everyone how much they love it once they get here.

 

[kennadog]

Losing is what can create a losing mentality. No matter what direction we go. If we stay a mediocre 8th seed going no where, it can also create a losing mentality.

 

[Stroms]

^^^
I'm a native of Sac and know all the great things it has to offer, but it's no metropolitan mecca that is going to attract today's NBA stars. Don't take offence, it's just reality.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Losing is what can create a losing mentality. No matter what direction we go. If we stay a mediocre 8th seed going no where, it can also create a losing mentality.

Word. We already have it. We certainly don't have the home court swagger we used to. Even in our best years I think we lacked the ultimate killer instinct that would have been needed to clinch Game 7 but we were close. We haven't had anything resembling that in 3 seasons now.

 

[ImAKing]

Once losing begins, it becomes difficult to escape the "losers" mentality. A lot of us remember this all too well and don't want to go back to it.

Every teams will go through tough years. We'll just have to except that "losers" mentality again. A few years in the lottery is how we can rebuild an elite team. Just look at all the good teams now. They were all horrible a few years before when they were in the lottery. After a high pick and moves, they are where they are now.

 

[tyrant]

i dont want the kings to tank. i at least want to get in the playoffs. its dumb to try and rebuild through the draft when all you have to do is make 1 lousy trade

 

[Stroms]

I accept the fact that we may already be headed towards a losers mentality. I would prefer to stay away from that as much as possible instead of embracing it. I would rather stay competitive than starting from scratch with the slight chance to pick up a franchise player in the lottery, where we could stay for year after year. Unless we get one of the first couple of picks, you might as well have a mid-round pick. The draft is just way to unpredictable to count on.

 

[diggining]

The issue is not really that of the loser's mentality, but that rebuilding isn't easy as everyone claims. If a team tanks, it usually takes a few years to get back to being playoff contenders. The only real exceptions I can think of are when teams have to deal with injuries (or "injuries") to key players, like the year the Spurs got Duncan. I thought it was funny when Bill Simmons talked about fantanking--even talked about the Spurs getting him. Did he conveniently forget that that was the same year his beloved Celtics struggled, had 2 first round picks, all the fans were rooting for them to lose so they could get pick #1 and get Duncan? And who did they end up with? Billups and Mercer--Billups was traded away before he became a very good player, and Mercer never amounted to anything (and was also traded away). Look at where the Celtics have been since the year they tanked--nowhere.

I obviously wouldn't mind if the Kings struggle this year if I know they can get out of it soon. But the wait could be one year, it could be three years, it could be five years. Maybe, just maybe, that it's easier to improve from being a 41-41 team to a championship contender than from a 21-61 team than to a championship contender. Yes, you don't get the high lottery picks. But the amount of improvement you have to make is also less daunting.

 

[Vlade4GM]

The issue is not really that of the loser's mentality, but that rebuilding isn't easy as everyone claims. If a team tanks, it usually takes a few years to get back to being playoff contenders. The only real exceptions I can think of are when teams have to deal with injuries (or "injuries") to key players, like the year the Spurs got Duncan. I thought it was funny when Bill Simmons talked about fantanking--even talked about the Spurs getting him. Did he conveniently forget that that was the same year his beloved Celtics struggled, had 2 first round picks, all the fans were rooting for them to lose so they could get pick #1 and get Duncan? And who did they end up with? Billups and Mercer--Billups was traded away before he became a very good player, and Mercer never amounted to anything (and was also traded away). Look at where the Celtics have been since the year they tanked--nowhere.

I obviously wouldn't mind if the Kings struggle this year if I know they can get out of it soon. But the wait could be one year, it could be three years, it could be five years. Maybe, just maybe, that it's easier to improve from being a 41-41 team to a championship contender than from a 21-61 team than to a championship contender. Yes, you don't get the high lottery picks. But the amount of improvement you have to make is also less daunting.

are people really claiming it as the "easy" way or just the best/only way? try really reading what people have to say. we don't live in a black and white world, there are shades of gray and just because a team's record is better doesn't mean they're closer to a championship.

 

[Vlade4GM]

hmmm...become a losing team and get high draft picks or become a mediocre team and get nothing. wow, decisions are hard. please, all mediocre teams get is a nice stiff boot out of the first round of the playoffs if they're lucky.

 

[Kev.in]

This team is already a losing team with too many guys on the downside of their careers, we're just wishing for the best chance to get back to respectability and eventually title contention. The NBA is the most competitive of the major three pro sports leagues where if you're not a title contender, recent title winner or building towards a Finals run then you're a nobody. Right now we're in the nobody category and the mental effects of wins/losses for the next 2.5 months aren't going to make a difference either way on whether the Maloofs and Petrie can make this team into something again soon.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

The issue is not really that of the loser's mentality, but that rebuilding isn't easy as everyone claims. If a team tanks, it usually takes a few years to get back to being playoff contenders. The only real exceptions I can think of are when teams have to deal with injuries (or "injuries") to key players, like the year the Spurs got Duncan. I thought it was funny when Bill Simmons talked about fantanking--even talked about the Spurs getting him. Did he conveniently forget that that was the same year his beloved Celtics struggled, had 2 first round picks, all the fans were rooting for them to lose so they could get pick #1 and get Duncan? And who did they end up with? Billups and Mercer--Billups was traded away before he became a very good player, and Mercer never amounted to anything (and was also traded away). Look at where the Celtics have been since the year they tanked--nowhere.

I remember this (and commented on it in the thread about Simmon's article). But that was entirely different - that year had one clear number one and one other surefire guy (who was something of a dud) whereas this year has a number of big guys including 2 that are presumed to be superstuds. Also the Celts pretty much just lost without purpose that year - Pitino came in and shredded the roster of some actual talent and brought in a bunch of junk. Most of us that are smart about "tanking" aren't advocating losing just for losing's sake - we're talking about trading vet talent for young guys that may result in some losses now with huge payoff later. And we're talking about playing the young guys we have as much as possible. In fact most of us just want a cohesive plan because right now it seems the team has no plan and no direction. If they actually wanted to win with this roster we have now it seems implausible that we haven't brought a legitimate big man in. Yet they obviously are trying to win. I also thought it was completely without purpose to whack the coach, bring a new one in with a new system and after a few early struggles have the new coach start running the old schemes (to less effect). In any event this team is still on a steady decline and the lottery is inevitable. I just think (along with many) that we may as well do it now and hope for some good fortune then finally hit the jackpot the year that no good players come out.

 

[kennadog]

I accept the fact that we may already be headed towards a losers mentality. I would prefer to stay away from that as much as possible instead of embracing it. I would rather stay competitive than starting from scratch with the slight chance to pick up a franchise player in the lottery, where we could stay for year after year. Unless we get one of the first couple of picks, you might as well have a mid-round pick. The draft is just way to unpredictable to count on.

How does a team "stay competitive" and still get a slight chance to pick up a franchise payer in the draft. How many "franchise players" weren't a lottery pick? And what is competitive? Being a 7th or 8th seed isn't "competitive" to me. That's just being first-round fodder and getting embarassed

 

[Bibby's Tattoo's]

I'm just curious if the Kings keep losing,fan apathy continues, no arena is built, and the Maloofs move the team out of Sacramento how many of you would still be fans of the team?

 

[ZanesvilleFan]

My prediction is that we will end up with the 6th or 7th seed and get by the first round of the playoffs. Then I will have to bring this thread back up when the 2nd round of the playoffs get here.

 

[Vlade4GM]

I'm just curious if the Kings keep losing,fan apathy continues, no arena is built, and the Maloofs move the team out of Sacramento how many of you would still be fans of the team?

haha, yea because fans love 15th overall picks and first round exits SOOO much, that arena will be up in no time with the way we're going. lol!

 

[kennadog]

I'm just curious if the Kings keep losing,fan apathy continues, no arena is built, and the Maloofs move the team out of Sacramento how many of you would still be fans of the team?

I think for me, it depends on where they go. If its SoCal, I'm not sure I could stand it.

Oh, and winning is no guarantee the team will stay. That's going to depend on an arena in Sac. And fans of the Kings alone are never going to make that happen.

 

[Vlade4GM]

I think for me, it depends on where they go. If its SoCal, I'm not sure I could stand it.

Oh, and winning is no guarantee the team will stay. That's going to depend on an arena in Sac. And fans of the Kings alone are never going to make that happen.

even though i would feel for the sac fans, i would be ecstatic if they moved to socal.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

The issue is not really that of the loser's mentality, but that rebuilding isn't easy as everyone claims. If a team tanks, it usually takes a few years to get back to being playoff contenders. The only real exceptions I can think of are when teams have to deal with injuries (or "injuries") to key players, like the year the Spurs got Duncan. I thought it was funny when Bill Simmons talked about fantanking--even talked about the Spurs getting him. Did he conveniently forget that that was the same year his beloved Celtics struggled, had 2 first round picks, all the fans were rooting for them to lose so they could get pick #1 and get Duncan? And who did they end up with? Billups and Mercer--Billups was traded away before he became a very good player, and Mercer never amounted to anything (and was also traded away). Look at where the Celtics have been since the year they tanked--nowhere.

I remember this (and commented on it in the thread about Simmon's article). But that was entirely different - that year had one clear number one and one other surefire guy (who was something of a dud) whereas this year has a number of big guys including 2 that are presumed to be superstuds. Also the Celts pretty much just lost without purpose that year - Pitino came in and shredded the roster of some actual talent and brought in a bunch of junk. Most of us that are smart about "tanking" aren't advocating losing just for losing's sake - we're talking about trading vet talent for young guys that may result in some losses now with huge payoff later. And we're talking about playing the young guys we have as much as possible. In fact most of us just want a cohesive plan because right now it seems the team has no plan and no direction. If they actually wanted to win with this roster we have now it seems implausible that we haven't brought a legitimate big man in. Yet they obviously are trying to win. I also thought it was completely without purpose to whack the coach, bring a new one in with a new system and after a few early struggles have the new coach start running the old schemes (to less effect). In any event this team is still on a steady decline and the lottery is inevitable. I just think (along with many) that we may as well do it now and hope for some good fortune then finally hit the jackpot the year that no good players come out.

Bolded for emphasis and truth.

It is no small coincidence that, every time someone wants to point out the potential negatives of tanking, that they only use historically weak drafts as examples. How come nobody talks about how bad an idea it was for Cleveland to tank for LeBron James? Because tanking in a deep draft year is usually a good idea, that's why.

 

[Circa_1985_Fan]

Losing is what can create a losing mentality. No matter what direction we go. If we stay a mediocre 8th seed going no where, it can also create a losing mentality.

Ding Ding Ding!! WINNER!!

 

[Stroms]

How does a team "stay competitive" and still get a slight chance to pick up a franchise payer in the draft. How many "franchise players" weren't a lottery pick? And what is competitive? Being a 7th or 8th seed isn't "competitive" to me. That's just being first-round fodder and getting embarassed

The chances of getting a "franchise" player in the lottery are slim to none. They come around only once in a while and you have to get lucky.

Actually, for me it's not championship or bust. Being a 7th or 8th seed could be competitiv IMO (See last year against Spurs). No we weren't on the road to a championship, but how many teams are (I think the NBA has had 7 or 8 different teams win a title in the last 25 years). I loved the years when we competed for the title, but I'm also realistic and can be content with my team playing entertaining and inspired basketball (Not happening too often this year). So I'm fine with making moves for draft picks and such just not trading for the sake of dumping salaries.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I'm not; I want to see this team making progress, not treading water.

 

[Vlade4GM]

The chances of getting a "franchise" player in the lottery are slim to none. They come around only once in a while and you have to get lucky.

what are you high? where do you think franchise players come from? the stork?

 

[VF21]

Must be a really BIG stork.

 

[diggining]

But that was entirely different - that year had one clear number one and one other surefire guy (who was something of a dud) whereas this year has a number of big guys including 2 that are presumed to be superstuds.

Bolded for emphasis and truth.

The funny thing is that I was all ready to quote the same passage, but for the reason that I disagree with it very much. I did not quote a particularly weak draft; what we're interested right now is in the first pick or two, picks that might actually be worth tanking for, and Tim Duncan was probably the most sure-fire prospect in the last 10, 15 years coming out of college. How often do we get a dominant big man who is a college senior (low risk) but still has the super-star ceiling? Just checking his pre-draft profile right now on the usenet draft site (http://www.ibiblio.org/craig/draft/1997_draft/scout/c.html#Duncan), I'm seeing comments like "He may be the most complete player to enter the NBA in the last ten years" and "Duncan is one of college's most dominating players since HAKEEM OLAJUWAN". The point is that not only does he have superstar potential, but he was as safe as it gets, a proven college senior--those players just don't happen anymore. Oden may have superstar potential, but he's certainly a lot less of a sure thing than Duncan was when he entered the draft, and Durant is a significant step below both of them.

Every year we hear talks of a strong draft, and this year is no exception. Is this year really better than average? Probably, but the most prized players are no sure thing. This certainly does not seem as strong as the Lebron-Melo-Darko (as we now know, Lebron-Melo-Wade-Bosh) draft year--the hype today can't compare with the hype that year.

When I emphasized how difficult it is to rebuild through the draft, all I am trying to say is that it's not clear that the best chance of the Kings building a championship contender is to tank this year. If one were to make the argument that the Kings are more talented than the Celts that year, so we can tank one year and come back to prominance soon, then we have to take into account the fact that tanking probably won't get us the top-3 or 4 ping-pong jockeying position this year.

The Kings are still a talented team--they are not as far away from promised land as people think, imo. Certainly some interior defense is needed, and maybe a new coach. But Geoff has had fairly good success drafting in the mid-teens (better success than drafting in the single digits!--we got Peja, Corliss, and Hedo, 2 of the 3 ended up being better players than most of the players drafted in the single digits that year (don't remember what happened with Grant's year tbh), and Jason Williams and then-Olivier Saint-Jean with picks in the single-digits), and I think that people have a tendency to overestimate the team when things are good, and underestimate the team when things are struggling--and they are underestimating how good this team could still be without major renovation right now.

Always look on the bright side of life... http://www.kingsfans.com/forums/member.php?u=33

 

[diggining]

One thing just struck me: in the early-mid 90s, after we've been a horrible for a long time, I was so happy and excited to see a team that was mediocre, barely made the playoffs, and got knocked out 3-1 by the Sonics in the first round. Now we actually want the team to play as badly as they did then so we can avoid having a mediocre team that gets knocked out in the first round in the next couple of years.

How times have changed...

 

[Vlade4GM]

One thing just struck me: in the early-mid 90s, after we've been a horrible for a long time, I was so happy and excited to see a team that was mediocre, barely made the playoffs, and got knocked out 3-1 by the Sonics in the first round. Now we actually want the team to play as badly as they did then so we can avoid having a mediocre team that gets knocked out in the first round in the next couple of years.

How times have changed...

results aren't black and white like that. with our team right now we're talking mediocre with peaking/past their prime vets and only one good young player. not a whole lot to build on for the future.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

The funny thing is that I was all ready to quote the same passage, but for the reason that I disagree with it very much. I did not quote a particularly weak draft...

Oooooh... yes you did; the 1997 draft was a [Walton]HOOOORIBLE[/Walton] draft! It had one can't-miss superstar (Duncan), one guy who figured to be a solid NBA player (Van Horn), and a bunch of guys that you couldn't pick out of a lineup; I distinctly remember people saying that, if you didn't get one of the top-two picks in that draft, you were pretty much screwed.

I think that Oden is every bit as much a sure thing as Duncan was; at the very least, he's as much a sure thing as Carmelo Anthony was... I'll also dispute that Durant is a "significant" step below Oden or Duncan, and he may not be any kind of step below either of them. Howe'er, comma, Durant isn't seven feet tall, and I'll take a can't-miss center over a can't-miss swingman any day of the week, and twice on Sunday. In fact, Durant may very well end up being the Jordan to Oden's Olajuwon, but I can't imagine that Houston felt like it made a mistake drafting Olajuwon.

Every year we hear talks of a strong draft, and this year is no exception...

Oooooh... no we don't... Nobody said that the 2006 draft was strong, and the fact that nobody raised an eyebrow at the fact that Bargnani was taken number one in the draft is a direct reflection of that fact. Nobody said that the 2001 draft was strong... NOBODY said that the 2000 draft was strong; that was one of the weakest drafts in recent memory. It was so weak, in fact, that the guy who was taken #1 in the draft was injured on draft day. The list of drafts that people thought were strong pools of talent BEFORE DRAFT DAY are remarkably few.

The Kings are still a talented team--they are not as far away from promised land as people think, imo...

I'd be willing to bet that, even if they're closer than I think they are, they're a lot further away than you think they are; this team isn't a piece away, it isn't two pieces away, and it isn't three pieces away. Nobody's saying that we will solve all our problems in one OMGZMIRCALEDRAFTLOLZ~!!!!1111, but if we can get a franchise player in the draft, we can build a winning team around him, and be legitimate championship (not merely playoff, championship) contenders within five years.

There is nobody on this team that a championship team can be built around, not Bibby, not Martin, not Artest, not anybody. And there's no one player (and probably not any two players) on this team that we could trade to GET a franchise player. There's nobody that we could trade for that would make this a significant playoff team without trading at least a third of our top talent... and there's nobody that we could get in a trade that would make this a significant playoff team with a third of the currently existing talent gone. Hoping for some miracle free agent is a fool's errand.

Certainly some interior defense is needed, and maybe a new coach. But Geoff has had fairly good success drafting in the mid-teens (better success than drafting in the single digits!--we got Peja, Corliss, and Hedo, 2 of the 3 ended up being better players than most of the players drafted in the single digits that year (don't remember what happened with Grant's year tbh), and Jason Williams and then-Olivier Saint-Jean with picks in the single-digits), and I think that people have a tendency to overestimate the team when things are good, and underestimate the team when things are struggling--and they are underestimating how good this team could still be without major renovation right now.

1) The only player that Petrie ever drafted in the single-digits was Jason Williams, and that was hardly a bad pick, even though Nowtizki and Pierce turned out to be better players in hindsight (but, we already had Webber, and Petrie had a jones for Stojakovic, so what the hell would we have done with Nowitzki, anyway?).

2) History has already proven that, as good as all those mid-level guys might have been, they were all worthless without a franchise-level talent. Petrie assembled one of the most talented teams in the league, and it all came down like a house of cards the second we lost our franchise player. And that's the point; more mid-level draft picks are self-defeating at this point. They can't help us because all we can do is put them with more guys like them. We don't need more guys like that, because we already have a team full of guys like that; getting more of them would be a waste of time.

Guys like Bibby and Artest, Miller and Martin... they aren't stars; those are the guys that you put around stars.

They're all Robin's.

We don't need another Robin, we need the next Batman. And you ain't gonna get Batman with the fifteenth pick in the draft.

 

[kennadog]

^^^^Hallelujah!! <member of the choir here >