Blow It Up
- Thread starter SLAB
- Start date
The path to redemption for this team goes through multiple top3 draft picks in consecutive years. (yes somewhat like philly's "process".)
I have been advocating this for around 10-15 years. We usually have like the #7 draft pick, but rarely have we had top3 picks, and never drafted first (in past 20 years).
Unfortunately NBA draft lottery rules have changed, but tanking is still beneficial for us.
I have been advocating this for around 10-15 years. We usually have like the #7 draft pick, but rarely have we had top3 picks, and never drafted first (in past 20 years).
Unfortunately NBA draft lottery rules have changed, but tanking is still beneficial for us.
This line of silly thinking is seemingly prevalent yet just flat wrong. It’s been proven wrong.
Go back and look at every draft for the past dozen and more years and look what star players could have been had by the KINGS from where they stood. A comprehensive list has been provided numerous times. Yet ignored.
For the last freaking time. Top 3 picks aren’t the answer. Drafting correctly (and consistently) from whatever position they are drafting from is THE answer.
FWIW, during the SAC era the KINGS have drafted in the top 3 THREE times and came up empty on each and every occasion (Ellison, Owens, Bagley), although the Owens selection netted Mitch Richmond so we’ll label that the only win.
They’ve drafted 4th or 5th another 4x and many KINGS fans wanted to run 2 of the 4 out of town on most of the days the player played here (Cousins and Fox). The other two players weren’t star players either. One (Robinson) was a complete bust and the other (Evans) flamed out after several years and isn’t even in the league anymore.
Yet, here you are preaching top lottery picks as the answer. SMH.
Again, it doesn’t matter where the team selects — selecting the wrong player and/or matching up incompatible players over several drafts never works. And that is what the KINGS have largely been doing.
However they possibly got one right with Tyrese Haliburton and didn’t need a top 3 pick to do it. And EASILY could have built a title contender from all the picks they had in the 5-14 range had they just drafted the right players.
The Warriors dynasty didn’t involve a single draft pick higher than 7 among their core players (not including KD who signed as a FA). Same goes for perennial playoff contenders Miami, Denver, Milwaukee and Utah — just to name a few.
Please stop with the insanity! It’s a lazy approach. And ignores what could have been accomplished w/o top 3 picks had the previous GM’s (and the controlling ownership) merely been competent.
That can be changed going forward and maybe has begun to change judging by the past 2 draft picks — both outside the top 8.
Go back and look at every draft for the past dozen and more years and look what star players could have been had by the KINGS from where they stood. A comprehensive list has been provided numerous times. Yet ignored.
For the last freaking time. Top 3 picks aren’t the answer. Drafting correctly (and consistently) from whatever position they are drafting from is THE answer.
FWIW, during the SAC era the KINGS have drafted in the top 3 THREE times and came up empty on each and every occasion (Ellison, Owens, Bagley), although the Owens selection netted Mitch Richmond so we’ll label that the only win.
They’ve drafted 4th or 5th another 4x and many KINGS fans wanted to run 2 of the 4 out of town on most of the days the player played here (Cousins and Fox). The other two players weren’t star players either. One (Robinson) was a complete bust and the other (Evans) flamed out after several years and isn’t even in the league anymore.
Yet, here you are preaching top lottery picks as the answer. SMH.
Again, it doesn’t matter where the team selects — selecting the wrong player and/or matching up incompatible players over several drafts never works. And that is what the KINGS have largely been doing.
However they possibly got one right with Tyrese Haliburton and didn’t need a top 3 pick to do it. And EASILY could have built a title contender from all the picks they had in the 5-14 range had they just drafted the right players.
The Warriors dynasty didn’t involve a single draft pick higher than 7 among their core players (not including KD who signed as a FA). Same goes for perennial playoff contenders Miami, Denver, Milwaukee and Utah — just to name a few.
Please stop with the insanity! It’s a lazy approach. And ignores what could have been accomplished w/o top 3 picks had the previous GM’s (and the controlling ownership) merely been competent.
That can be changed going forward and maybe has begun to change judging by the past 2 draft picks — both outside the top 8.
Last edited:
Vivek seemingly was the biggest stumbling block early on, for at least the first few years.
IDK to what degree he remains an issue. But if he is still interfering and influencing as has been rumored in the past, I can’t imagine it’ll change anytime soon. If he hasn’t learned the lesson by now, it’s doubtful he ever will. It’s nearly been a full decade.
Even if he has taken a hands off approach, is he capable of hiring the right people capable of making the right decisions on a consistent basis?
The fact that he has yet to gut the entire front office tells me he still doesn’t get it and things are as political as they’ve always been.
IDK to what degree he remains an issue. But if he is still interfering and influencing as has been rumored in the past, I can’t imagine it’ll change anytime soon. If he hasn’t learned the lesson by now, it’s doubtful he ever will. It’s nearly been a full decade.
Even if he has taken a hands off approach, is he capable of hiring the right people capable of making the right decisions on a consistent basis?
The fact that he has yet to gut the entire front office tells me he still doesn’t get it and things are as political as they’ve always been.
As someone who has lived through and remembers every season since this team got here from Kansas City, IMO, this is the most distraught I’ve ever seen the kings fan base, at least what’s left of it. It’s disturbing to see a still gleaming G1 arena so empty for games and even more disturbing how many fans have just checked out. They don’t care anymore. To see ownership and a front office so unwilling to change direction tells me there is something more going on that fans don’t know about. It’s gotta be the financial aspect of the franchise. Maybe they CANT afford to make any moves.
You guys can argue back and forth about if tanking for a top 3 pick or not is needed to get a franchise player or even a good team but @KingsFanSince85 is right about needing the right gm to choose those players. Yes your odds are better with top 3 but if you have a bone head gm, you can definitely miss on the other hand if you have a great talent evaluator, a great team could be made with picks the kings had if they just chose correctly. We can even play a little game. Choose a team from a range like 2010-2020 (maybe leave out years try e kings didn’t have a pick). Pro tankers choose only top 3, anti tankers choose only from where the king’s chose or later. I’d bet good money both teams would be very close in talent.
On average the teams with top picks draft much better players than teams with lower picks. Thats a fact wether one likes it or not. Every single good draft pick outside of top 3 is included in that data. Having a GM able to beat those odds even somehow significantly is very rare. Hoping to have that type of GM to sign with Kings is an extremely long shot. The data is out there, its stated here multiple times. There is not much else to say and arguing about it is pretty much useless.
What it comes down to is how and where we are going to get the talent that can lift this franchise from hoping to be the 20th best team in a 30 team league to a sustainable top 8 team. If your answer is draft then act according to data because hoping to be the outlier isnt smart decision making. Basing your strategy on stuff like that isnt acceptable anywhere. If you hope that a trade accomplishes that, be realistic and think what you would have to give up for a fringe all star level guy and how that affects the overall talent level and the amount of assets for a team.
Drafting at the top gives you a proven, clear advantage compared to drafting 8-12th. There pretty much no point on arguing about that. Once you have enough talent, then you can focus on if you can shape your roster better by trading Hield or Barnes or Fox or Holmes but untill then giving up future draft capital for a player like Jerami Grant wont solve anything
What it comes down to is how and where we are going to get the talent that can lift this franchise from hoping to be the 20th best team in a 30 team league to a sustainable top 8 team. If your answer is draft then act according to data because hoping to be the outlier isnt smart decision making. Basing your strategy on stuff like that isnt acceptable anywhere. If you hope that a trade accomplishes that, be realistic and think what you would have to give up for a fringe all star level guy and how that affects the overall talent level and the amount of assets for a team.
Drafting at the top gives you a proven, clear advantage compared to drafting 8-12th. There pretty much no point on arguing about that. Once you have enough talent, then you can focus on if you can shape your roster better by trading Hield or Barnes or Fox or Holmes but untill then giving up future draft capital for a player like Jerami Grant wont solve anything
Last edited:
Of course because your compares the odds of getting an all-star in 3 chances versus getting an all-star in 52 chances. Of course the odds will even out. But in reality no one gets 52 chances, they get 1 chance.
A fair comparison would be compare the top 3 versus any other range of three picks. It might even be reasonable to say you will compare the top 3 against any range of 6 picks. But to say I’m going to compare the chances in 3 picks versus the chances in 52 picks just highlights a fundamental problem with math.
A fair comparison would be compare the top 3 versus any other range of three picks. It might even be reasonable to say you will compare the top 3 against any range of 6 picks. But to say I’m going to compare the chances in 3 picks versus the chances in 52 picks just highlights a fundamental problem with math.
It's not a debate. If each team gets to pick five players during those years, the pool of players at each pick is 52, 52, 52, 52, 52 vs. 49, 49, 49, 49, 49. Whatever iteration the second team picks, the first team can pick the same team and equal it or do one tweak and beat it. That said, I just don't get the argument when the numbers are clear as day--getting a top 5 pick is the best and cheapest way to acquire talent.
All this talk about drafting all stars and what not ignores the fact that these players don't become all stars in a vacuum. So many variables. Drafting in the top 3 may increase the odds of better talent, but the player himself may not be able to overcome the dysfunction of the organization itself. In which case, fans will label him a bust.
A stable, well run organization may be able to cultivate a talented player picked 7+ into an all star caliber type player.
A stable, well run organization may be able to cultivate a talented player picked 7+ into an all star caliber type player.