Hollinger's Team Forecast: Sacramento Kings

[bajaden]

We didn't have high draft picks in the first 12-13 years. That WAS THE PROBLEM!!! We had a #1 pick in a weak draft in 89 and then a #3 pick that ended up being Mitch Richmond (and then subsequently Chris Webber), and that was it!! All other picks were in the middle to late lottery. THAT was a big reason we sucked. We could never draft the good players.

Imagine if we hadn't sucked so badly in the 90-91 season. Imagine instead of a #3 pick, we had another mid-lottery. We wouldn't have used that pick to trade for Mitch. And we wouldn't end up with Webber. Now, that would have been years upon years of hopeless losing. This is where we'll be if we continue to be just bad enough to be in lottery but good enough to stay out of the top draft spots.

I'm happy with a 55 win season. But if we do suck, we need to really suck. That's how teams get ahead in the NBA.

What you say is only partly true. Its true that for the most part we had middle lottery picks. Its not true that we couldn't have drafted talent. Lets go for a little ride back through history. First will be the Kings pick that year. Second will be the players that were drafted after their pick.

1985- Joe Kleine #6 -- Chris Mullin #7, Detlef Schrempt #8, Charles Oakley#9, Karl Malone #13

1986-Harold Presley #17-- Scott Skiles #22, Arvidas Sabonis #24

1987- Kenny Smith #6-- Kevin Johnson #7, Horace Grant #10, Reggie Miller#11

1988- Traded original pick. Later acquired a late round pick and took Ricky Berry.

1989-Pervis Ellison #1-- Sean Elliott#3, Glen Rice #4, Valde Divac #26

1990-Lionel Simmons #7-- Tyrone Hill #11, Elden Campbell #27
Travis Mays #14
Duane(no hands)Causwell #18
Anthony Bonner #23

1991-Billy Owens(Mitch Richmond)#3-- Dikembe Mutombo #4, Steve Smith#5
Stacy Augmon #9

1992-Walt Williams #7--Robert Horry #11, Malik Sealy #14, Doug Christie #17
Latrell Sprewell #24

1993-Bobby Hurley #7-- Allan Houston #11, George Lynch #12, Sam Cassell
#24

1994-Brian Grant #8-- Eddie Jones #10, Jalen Rose #13, Wesley Person #23

1995-Corliss Williamson #13-- Theo Ratliff #18, Michael Finley #21
Number 1 pick that year was Joe Smith. Number 5 pick Kevin Garnett

1996-Peja Stojakovic #14-- Steve Nash #15, Jermaine O'Neal #17
Number 13 pick-Kobe Bryant. Number 3 pick-SAR, Number 12 pick-Potapenko

I don't think we need go any farther to see that early on the Kings passed on a lot of talent. Once they started drafting the best player available their drafts improved. Coincidently, that started to happen when Petrie arrived.
This is a team that arrived with Otis Thorpe on it and then traded him to Houston for a pair of bad knees. Traded Mike Woodson and Drew to the Clippers for another pair of bad knee's.

This is a team that could have had Karl Malone instead of Kleine. Kenny Smith was not a bad choice, but Kevin Johnson was a better one. You can't always find a star in the bottom of the round, but the good GM's will usually find a productive player. Now that I've reviewed this, I've made myself sick. Excuse me while I go throw up.

 

[Gary]

I hope Holl's right. 27 wins will seriously put us in contention for a top 3 pick. A Derrick Rose/Martin back court would be dynamite!

But my prediction is 40-42 and just missing the playoff... Sigh.

ewww.. not a 40 win team...

I am predicting 30 at the most.. Holl is correct I think, which is sad and good at the same time

 

[Vlade4GM]

Who says that the Kings aren't rebuilding through the draft as we speak. I like the future lineup outlook of:

Quincy Douby (Pick)
Kevin Martin (Pick)
Francisco Garcia (Pick)
Justin Williams (Undrafted)
Spencer Hawes (Pick)

lol, if they are then they're doing a very pee poor job of it. If that lineup is the fruit of our struggles the last few years then I'd be extremely disappointed. Depending on draft picks ranging from mid 1st to undrafted (minus Hawes of course) is a very bad way to build through the draft.

 

[Vlade4GM]

YOu can't just NOT say "the hawks" and say that purposely getting worse is going to help this team or any other.

There's a difference, I didn't use the hawks or "not the hawks" as a reason for my argument. You however did. I used the tight salary cap restrictions and bird rights to support how rebuilding through the draft is much more important than building through the MLE, mediocre vets, and mid to late draft picks. We gain nothing from being .500 teams every year, I'd rather us be a lottery team that develops young players by giving them significant time on the court and get high draft picks while we're at it. I'm not the biggest Petrie fan but I think he can manage to draft better than the hawks and our ownership is not as chaotic theirs either.

 

[Vlade4GM]

All that shows is that we have in fact had a draft pick each of the last four years. Same could be said of a number of teams. Actually having a pick is not the same thing as rebuilding. And yet while I doubt that lienup is at any point going to have much success in the NBA, that is precisely what I would like to see this season. Unfortunately even the kids we have there are likely to average about 10mpg, 35mpg, 20mpg, 8mpg and 12mpg as the roster stands.

Precisely. People keep saying that we have good young players, but we don't have a young core that is really future contending material. We have a nice group of young players, but all these guys (minus Martin) are relatively unproven and are just getting hyped up because they're our young players. Douby only played 9 mpg last year, Garcia 18 mpg, Williams 13 mpg, and Hawes 0 mpg. I like these guys, don't get me wrong but are these the guys we're going to be depending on as "the core" to future title runs? I think not. That's why rebuilding teams have to rebuild through the lottery and careful cap plans, so far we've failed at doing that.

 

[kingsfan101]

First, even most Spurs fans will admit that they tanked that season after Admiral went down. And they'll do it with a knowing gotcha smile on their faces too. They didn't intentionally lose robinson, but once he was gone they were SMART, wicked smart, and with their chances at a title out the window that year had absolutely no interest in winniing anything they did not have to...except the lottery of course.

And that's where the difference between a team built around a star and one like ours comes up.

Apart from the PG position, we have almost equal quality backups at each position. We can quibble that Cisco and Salmons don't compare with Martin and Ron. Point though is, that we have decent replacements for people who are either yet to establish as stars, or not in the top tier (even if Artest believes otherwise). Loss of any player other than Bibby to injuryis not likely to result in a huge difference in the Win/Loss results for the season.

 

[cfechter]

There's a difference, I didn't use the hawks or "not the hawks" as a reason for my argument. You however did. I used the tight salary cap restrictions and bird rights to support how rebuilding through the draft is much more important than building through the MLE, mediocre vets, and mid to late draft picks. We gain nothing from being .500 teams every year, I'd rather us be a lottery team that develops young players by giving them significant time on the court and get high draft picks while we're at it. I'm not the biggest Petrie fan but I think he can manage to draft better than the hawks and our ownership is not as chaotic theirs either.

Sure I did - the hawks are horrible, have been horrible for almost 10 years. If you wish to have a crappy time and your front office purposely tries to have a crappy team, you may get a crappy team that can't get out of being a crappy team.

I'm in complete agreement with you, I thought the signing of Salmons at the time was questionable and I thought the signing of Moore was horrible - I'd much rather watch Hawes and Williams struggle through a season than watch the mediocrity of Moore get us another 3 wins.

However, you appear to root for the team to be crappy and get a low level of wins to get a high draft pick. I realize that the majority of franchise players are found within the top 5 draft picks, but again, we had years and years of draft picks that were within the top 7 and not much came out of them.

 

[Vlade4GM]

Sure I did - the hawks are horrible, have been horrible for almost 10 years. If you wish to have a crappy time and your front office purposely tries to have a crappy team, you may get a crappy team that can't get out of being a crappy team.

I'm in complete agreement with you, I thought the signing of Salmons at the time was questionable and I thought the signing of Moore was horrible - I'd much rather watch Hawes and Williams struggle through a season than watch the mediocrity of Moore get us another 3 wins.

However, you appear to root for the team to be crappy and get a low level of wins to get a high draft pick. I realize that the majority of franchise players are found within the top 5 draft picks, but again, we had years and years of draft picks that were within the top 7 and not much came out of them.

The hawks have bad management and a chaotic ownership situation, they would suck no matter what strategy they tried because their management sucks. Also, they haven't exactly stuck to their guns on the rebuilding plan, they've flip flopped back and forth because of crappy management. If the kings really decide to rebuild through the draft and they still end up sucking it's because the management botched the draft picks and the FO just plain sucks, they'd screw up any plan. They're screwing up right now because they simply have no plan, they're just kind of winging it with whatever gut feeling they have at the moment. At least with rebuilding through the draft, even if you have a incompetent FO you can still get lucky in the lottery and end up with a high pick and a near sure thing alll-star, like a Derrick Rose or Greg Monroe. I like that over botching 8th seed at best seasons with veterans that have no room grow. I'd rather be at the bottom of the barrel with hope of one day contending than stuck in mediocrity for a long time. The draft = hope that one day we can become much better. It starts with a strong young core, which we (contrary to optimistic belief) don't have.

No. I don't root for mediocrity, there is a difference. Mediocrity accomplishes nothing, I don't look at the win/loss record in a black and white way where 40 wins is better than 30 wins because there are other factors at hand. I'd rather them play the young players and let the record be whatever it's going to be. If they gave most of the minutes to the young players and they got into the playoffs on their own accord, then I would be ecstatic because that would mean that they could not only get to the playoffs but they're likely to get better since young talented players tend to progress in ability as oppose to guys like Moore, SAR, Artest, Bibby, and Miller who are stuck in the same talent range if not declining.

 

[beb0p]

What you say is only partly true. Its true that for the most part we had middle lottery picks. Its not true that we couldn't have drafted talent. Lets go for a little ride back through history. First will be the Kings pick that year. Second will be the players that were drafted after their pick.

Point taken. I'll give you 85 and 93. When we could have drafted some real talent. I didn't start following bball until the very late 80s so I don't know why we drafted Joe Kline. He must have been a great college player. But I did watched a rerun of the 87 draft, KJ was considered a giant reach at #7, I remember the analysts blasted the Cavs, saying KJ was a 6'1 shooting guard; and no one thought Reggie would turn out to be Reggie. I think we made a safe pick that year with Kenny Smith. And that's another one of the downfall of drafting in the middle - it's so tough to pick the best available from there.

I always thought Bill Russell made some great draft picks. Ricky Berry, RIP, was a steal. I really thought he'd be something special. Pervis was a very good pick, he'd have challenged Shawn Kemp and Tim Hardaway as the best player from that draft if not because of injury.

Was it Jerry Reynolds who took over from Russell? Those darks years before Petrie when we couldn't make a good draft pick if one falls from the sky and hit us on the head really compounded the problem.

 

[beb0p]

but again, we had years and years of draft picks that were within the top 7 and not much came out of them.

No we didn't.

 

[bajaden]

Point taken. I'll give you 85 and 93. When we could have drafted some real talent. I didn't start following bball until the very late 80s so I don't know why we drafted Joe Kline. He must have been a great college player. But I did watched a rerun of the 87 draft, KJ was considered a giant reach at #7, I remember the analysts blasted the Cavs, saying KJ was a 6'1 shooting guard; and no one thought Reggie would turn out to be Reggie. I think we made a safe pick that year with Kenny Smith. And that's another one of the downfall of drafting in the middle - it's so tough to pick the best available from there.

I always thought Bill Russell made some great draft picks. Ricky Berry, RIP, was a steal. I really thought he'd be something special. Pervis was a very good pick, he'd have challenged Shawn Kemp and Tim Hardaway as the best player from that draft if not because of injury.

Was it Jerry Reynolds who took over from Russell? Those darks years before Petrie when we couldn't make a good draft pick if one falls from the sky and hit us on the head really compounded the problem.

There is no doubt that its easy to make mistakes in the draft. Thats why having a GM thats a good judge of talent is manditory. I would agree with you on Reggie Miller, but having been a Cal fan, anyone who watched KJ would know he was a very good player who actually was being held back by the system he was force to play in. If I knew he was going to be a good player, I'm sure professional evaluators knew. Kenny Smith was not a bad choice, and your right, he was the safe choice. The question is, do you build a championship team with safe choice's? Was Peja a safe choice? Was J Will a safe choice? Was trading Mitch Richmond for Webb, a safe choice?

By the way, in the first few years of our drafting we had the 1st pick, the 3rd pick several 6 picks and 7 picks. Some of those drafts were weak on talent, but a good GM would have gotten more out of them.

 

[cfechter]

No we didn't.

Sure we did - as was outlined above, almost 10 straight years with top 7 picks and nary an all-star was produced.

 

[cfechter]

The hawks have bad management and a chaotic ownership situation, they would suck no matter what strategy they tried because their management sucks. Also, they haven't exactly stuck to their guns on the rebuilding plan, they've flip flopped back and forth because of crappy management. If the kings really decide to rebuild through the draft and they still end up sucking it's because the management botched the draft picks and the FO just plain sucks, they'd screw up any plan. They're screwing up right now because they simply have no plan, they're just kind of winging it with whatever gut feeling they have at the moment. At least with rebuilding through the draft, even if you have a incompetent FO you can still get lucky in the lottery and end up with a high pick and a near sure thing alll-star, like a Derrick Rose or Greg Monroe. I like that over botching 8th seed at best seasons with veterans that have no room grow. I'd rather be at the bottom of the barrel with hope of one day contending than stuck in mediocrity for a long time. The draft = hope that one day we can become much better. It starts with a strong young core, which we (contrary to optimistic belief) don't have.

No. I don't root for mediocrity, there is a difference. Mediocrity accomplishes nothing, I don't look at the win/loss record in a black and white way where 40 wins is better than 30 wins because there are other factors at hand. I'd rather them play the young players and let the record be whatever it's going to be. If they gave most of the minutes to the young players and they got into the playoffs on their own accord, then I would be ecstatic because that would mean that they could not only get to the playoffs but they're likely to get better since young talented players tend to progress in ability as oppose to guys like Moore, SAR, Artest, Bibby, and Miller who are stuck in the same talent range if not declining.

We agree on most points here - again, I'd rather watch Hawes and Williams struggle than a mediocre player like Moore get us another 3 wins.

However, I don't think losing basketball games for the sake of getting a higher draft pick does anything for us in the long run other than foster a culture of losing.

 

[Bricklayer]

Sure we did - as was outlined above, almost 10 straight years with top 7 picks and nary an all-star was produced.

This is a load of hooey. And here's why: what we had was almost 10 straight years of #6/#7 picks, and one unlucky #1 (terrible year for a #1, although we still could have had Glen Rice). That's like saying nthe Spurs have had a decade of "Top #30" picks. True as far as it goes but highly deceptive nonetheless.

Ignoring for a moment the rampant incompetence that saw us draft Joe Kleine over Karl Malone, Kenny Smith over Kevin Johnson etc. etc. this is precisely why its essential to get REALLY bad for a year or two. Why being cowards and trying to win 35 every year is a loser's strategy. If you picked #1 every year (obviously not happening, but just for example) you WOULD draft stars, and pretty damn quicly. You WOULD rebuild, you WOULD be a contender. And all in short order. You have your choice of every star player in the draft. You will not make the right choice everytime. But given 3 or 4 or 5 correct choices from that position, you will make it enough times for a quick turnaround. By the time you reach #7, #10 #12 whatever there is still often an opportunity for you to get aa star, but now its needle in the haystack time. Now its picking the 1 or 2 last guys out of all the dreck surrounding them.

 

[Vlade4GM]

There is no doubt that its easy to make mistakes in the draft. Thats why having a GM thats a good judge of talent is manditory. I would agree with you on Reggie Miller, but having been a Cal fan, anyone who watched KJ would know he was a very good player who actually was being held back by the system he was force to play in. If I knew he was going to be a good player, I'm sure professional evaluators knew. Kenny Smith was not a bad choice, and your right, he was the safe choice. The question is, do you build a championship team with safe choice's? Was Peja a safe choice? Was J Will a safe choice? Was trading Mitch Richmond for Webb, a safe choice?

By the way, in the first few years of our drafting we had the 1st pick, the 3rd pick several 6 picks and 7 picks. Some of those drafts were weak on talent, but a good GM would have gotten more out of them.

Well Brandon Roy was seen as a safe pick in 06 and he ended up being by far the best player at the time and probably in the future. in the 98 draft Pierce was easily the "safe" pick when we were on the clock and he ended up being the best player on the board.

 

[Vlade4GM]

We agree on most points here - again, I'd rather watch Hawes and Williams struggle than a mediocre player like Moore get us another 3 wins.

However, I don't think losing basketball games for the sake of getting a higher draft pick does anything for us in the long run other than foster a culture of losing.

It's not just for the sake of losing games, losing games is just a welcomed byproduct (if you're still building a young core). The other point of it is to get your young players lots of time. It's exactly how I expressed it in my previous post, it's about playing your young players and letting the w/l record fall where it falls. As far as a "culture of losing" goes, I don't really know what that means specifically but at least with a "culture of losing" you get high draft picks and can get lucky with a future superstar. With a "culture of mediocrity" you get first round exits at best and mid to late first round picks. The blazers have been a losing team for the last few years and they were last year but there was a big winning buzz this offseason because of the young players they already had and adding a tremendous prospect in Oden. Oden got injured, but that's beside the point. It doesn't take a whole lot to create a winning buzz within the community. It's not all about w/l records.

 

[beb0p]

Sure we did - as was outlined above, almost 10 straight years with top 7 picks and nary an all-star was produced.

1985 - #6
1986 - #17
1988 - #18
1989 - #1
1990 - #7
1991 - #3
1992 - #7
1993 - #7
1994 - #8
1995 - #13
1996 - #14
1997 - #11

Which 10 straight years?

And besides, most of us are talking about sneaking into the top 3. Not top 7. The draft talent usually drops off after the first 5 pick. In the two years that we got a top 3 pick, we got a 20-10 big man (though injury would ruined his career) and Mitch Richmond. It just seems to strenghten our case even more.

 

[cfechter]

This is a load of hooey. And here's why: what we had was almost 10 straight years of #6/#7 picks, and one unlucky #1 (terrible year for a #1, although we still could have had Glen Rice). That's like saying nthe Spurs have had a decade of "Top #30" picks. True as far as it goes but highly deceptive nonetheless.

Ignoring for a moment the rampant incompetence that saw us draft Joe Kleine over Karl Malone, Kenny Smith over Kevin Johnson etc. etc. this is precisely why its essential to get REALLY bad for a year or two. Why being cowards and trying to win 35 every year is a loser's strategy. If you picked #1 every year (obviously not happening, but just for example) you WOULD draft stars, and pretty damn quicly. You WOULD rebuild, you WOULD be a contender. And all in short order. You have your choice of every star player in the draft. You will not make the right choice everytime. But given 3 or 4 or 5 correct choices from that position, you will make it enough times for a quick turnaround. By the time you reach #7, #10 #12 whatever there is still often an opportunity for you to get aa star, but now its needle in the haystack time. Now its picking the 1 or 2 last guys out of all the dreck surrounding them.

It's not a load of hoey, it's the plain and simple truth. We had high draft picks for years upon years upon years, and not once did we get an all-star.

Look, I'm not advocating signing mediocre players to long-term deals as we have over the past couple of years when we're not anywhere near contention - again, for the fourth or fifth time, I"d rather see Justin and Spencer struggle for a season than watch Moore get us a few extra wins.

However, actively rooting for our team for lose is another thing entirely and for the front office to behave as such would be unacceptable in my opinion.

Let's look at the top five or six teams, shall we:

1. Phoenix - built around a free agent signing (Nash), late round pick (Marion) and the dreaded "middling" pick, Stoudamire.
2. Spurs - tanked, got Duncan, and almost everything else doesn't really matter (they got Parker and Ginobili in later round, round two)
3. Utah - Free agent signing (Boozer), a few middling picks, and one higher draft pick (WIlliams), traded for Okur (right??)
4. Detroit - built around "middling" picks and free agent signings
5. Cleveland - BRON - #1 pick
6. Dallas - mostly built around the dreaded "middling" pick of Nowitzki (at #9), Howard (late first rounder), higher pick of Harris (although he's really not a huge part of the success)
7. Bulls - have had a bit of success with the "be crappy for a lot of years and get lots of high first rounders"

As illustrated, there are other ways to build a team than intentionally being crappy for a number of years. I think being lucky has something to do with it (who could have guessed that Nowitzki or Stoudamire would be great, or that Howard would be an allstar, or that Nash would go from very good, to MVP).

 

[cfechter]

1985 - #6
1986 - #17
1988 - #18
1989 - #1
1990 - #7
1991 - #3
1992 - #7
1993 - #7
1994 - #8
1995 - #13
1996 - #14
1997 - #11

Which 10 straight years?

And besides, most of us are talking about sneaking into the top 3. Not top 7. The draft talent usually drops off after the first 5 pick. In the two years that we got a top 3 pick, we got a 20-10 big man (though injury would ruined his career) and Mitch Richmond. It just seems to strenghten our case even more.

'

Re-read my post - Key word - almost

 

[Kingster]

It's not a load of hoey, it's the plain and simple truth. We had high draft picks for years upon years upon years, and not once did we get an all-star.

Look, I'm not advocating signing mediocre players to long-term deals as we have over the past couple of years when we're not anywhere near contention - again, for the fourth or fifth time, I"d rather see Justin and Spencer struggle for a season than watch Moore get us a few extra wins.

However, actively rooting for our team for lose is another thing entirely and for the front office to behave as such would be unacceptable in my opinion.

Let's look at the top five or six teams, shall we:

1. Phoenix - built around a free agent signing (Nash), late round pick (Marion) and the dreaded "middling" pick, Stoudamire.
2. Spurs - tanked, got Duncan, and almost everything else doesn't really matter (they got Parker and Ginobili in later round, round two)
3. Utah - Free agent signing (Boozer), a few middling picks, and one higher draft pick (WIlliams), traded for Okur (right??)
4. Detroit - built around "middling" picks and free agent signings
5. Cleveland - BRON - #1 pick
6. Dallas - mostly built around the dreaded "middling" pick of Nowitzki (at #9), Howard (late first rounder), higher pick of Harris (although he's really not a huge part of the success)
7. Bulls - have had a bit of success with the "be crappy for a lot of years and get lots of high first rounders"

As illustrated, there are other ways to build a team than intentionally being crappy for a number of years. I think being lucky has something to do with it (who could have guessed that Nowitzki or Stoudamire would be great, or that Howard would be an allstar, or that Nash would go from very good, to MVP).

When I read your list above, the exception to the rule is Detroit. The others do/did have high picks that were instrumental to them winning. I don't regard #9 as middling either. It's in the top 3rd of the draft. As a corollary to the rule that high picks do matter, I really think that Utah's incredibly consistent winning with Malone and Stockton precluded them from winning a championship. If one of them hadn't been so darned durable and went down for a year, causing a poor record, they would have had a shot at that third key player that could have put over the top. (See San Antonio with David Robinson).

 

[Vlade4GM]

It's not a load of hoey, it's the plain and simple truth. We had high draft picks for years upon years upon years, and not once did we get an all-star.

Look, I'm not advocating signing mediocre players to long-term deals as we have over the past couple of years when we're not anywhere near contention - again, for the fourth or fifth time, I"d rather see Justin and Spencer struggle for a season than watch Moore get us a few extra wins.

However, actively rooting for our team for lose is another thing entirely and for the front office to behave as such would be unacceptable in my opinion.

Let's look at the top five or six teams, shall we:

1. Phoenix - built around a free agent signing (Nash), late round pick (Marion) and the dreaded "middling" pick, Stoudamire.
2. Spurs - tanked, got Duncan, and almost everything else doesn't really matter (they got Parker and Ginobili in later round, round two)
3. Utah - Free agent signing (Boozer), a few middling picks, and one higher draft pick (WIlliams), traded for Okur (right??)
4. Detroit - built around "middling" picks and free agent signings
5. Cleveland - BRON - #1 pick
6. Dallas - mostly built around the dreaded "middling" pick of Nowitzki (at #9), Howard (late first rounder), higher pick of Harris (although he's really not a huge part of the success)
7. Bulls - have had a bit of success with the "be crappy for a lot of years and get lots of high first rounders"

As illustrated, there are other ways to build a team than intentionally being crappy for a number of years. I think being lucky has something to do with it (who could have guessed that Nowitzki or Stoudamire would be great, or that Howard would be an allstar, or that Nash would go from very good, to MVP).

The spurs, mavs, suns, cavs, utah and bulls have all gotten huge parts of their team in the top 10 picks (Duncan, Dirk, Amare, James, Williams, Deng, Hinrich, and Gordon). Also, the kings aren't really set for any real cap space for two more seasons after this one. What do we do until then? Pray we diamonds in the rough in the mid to late first round? Artest and Bibby become free agents so you can't rely on them as a supporting cast. Then you have to actually pull off getting that superstar. Trades? Well, you can wait around forever for mitch/webber part 2 and it will likely never come. The truth is Artest, Miller, and Bibby do nothing but take slots away from us in the draft, that's all they do. These are meaningless wins and all these veterans take minutes away from our young players. We gain nothing long term or short term from keeping and playing these guys. You can call it rooting to lose all you want, that doesn't change the reality of the situation and that is multiple lottery picks are the kings best hope to return to the top.

 

[cfechter]

The spurs, mavs, suns, cavs, utah and bulls have all gotten huge parts of their team in the top 10 picks (Duncan, Dirk, Amare, James, Williams, Deng, Hinrich, and Gordon). Also, the kings aren't really set for any real cap space for two more seasons after this one. What do we do until then? Pray we diamonds in the rough in the mid to late first round? Artest and Bibby become free agents so you can't rely on them as a supporting cast. Then you have to actually pull off getting that superstar. Trades? Well, you can wait around forever for mitch/webber part 2 and it will likely never come. The truth is Artest, Miller, and Bibby do nothing but take slots away from us in the draft, that's all they do. These are meaningless wins and all these veterans take minutes away from our young players. We gain nothing long term or short term from keeping and playing these guys. You can call it rooting to lose all you want, that doesn't change the reality of the situation and that is multiple lottery picks are the kings best hope to return to the top.

Dirk and Amare were at #9, which is middling, right? My point was about half of those teams built their squads from "high first rounders", the other half built from good free agent transactions and good picks that are beyond the top five.

I agree with you, our vets are going no-where in the long-term so why not try to get max long-term value for them now? I'd take WRight + first rounder and filler for Artest in a heartbeat.

Look, I"m not advocating us continuing to shoot for 35-40 wins each year with mediocre vets, I"m all for building as much as possible for the future - however, openly rooting for us to suck is just a bit sickening to me.

 

[Vlade4GM]

Dirk and Amare were at #9, which is middling, right? My point was about half of those teams built their squads from "high first rounders", the other half built from good free agent transactions and good picks that are beyond the top five.

I agree with you, our vets are going no-where in the long-term so why not try to get max long-term value for them now? I'd take WRight + first rounder and filler for Artest in a heartbeat.

Look, I"m not advocating us continuing to shoot for 35-40 wins each year with mediocre vets, I"m all for building as much as possible for the future - however, openly rooting for us to suck is just a bit sickening to me.

#9 picks aren't ideal for rebuilding teams but that's still a lot better than the 14-17 area. No one builds their team entirely from lottery picks, that would take too long and might have problems keeping those players. The idea is to get the core franchise players and then build around them with trades, free agent signings and later draft picks.

The definition of what is "sucking" is completely subjective, from my point of view 40 wins sucks a lot more than < 30 wins. Would I prefer 55 win seasons to either of the previous two scenarios? Of course I would, but that is not a realistic option. So I root for prospect development, smart rebuilding minded personnel moves, and a higher draft position. Does that mean in a round about way I root for losses over wins? Sure, I'm not afraid to admit that. Just because that is taboo to say, doesn't mean it's wrong. However I prefer to call them "lins" and "wosses"

 

[Entity]

The kicker is you have to have good people around that star pick or he is wasted potential his whole career ala Mitch Richmond. Bibby, Miller, Artest, and Martin are perfect role players for that star. Not all of them but, at least 2 I'd say Bibby and Martin paired with a Webber type PF and a Dampier type Center throw in Cisco's Hustle and energy at the 3 and Williams Hustle and energy off the bench with a decent backup pg and maybe even keep Salmons to backup the 2 and 3 and you have a team worth watching again. You can't just get rid of all these vets and hope some rookie is going to turn it around completly. the Bron, Mello, Wade drafts are few and far between.

 

[Entity]

#9 picks aren't ideal for rebuilding teams but that's still a lot better than the 14-17 area. No one builds their team entirely from lottery picks, that would take too long and might have problems keeping those players. The idea is to get the core franchise players and then build around them with trades, free agent signings and later draft picks.

The definition of what is "sucking" is completely subjective, from my point of view 40 wins sucks a lot more than < 30 wins. Would I prefer 55 win seasons to either of the previous two scenarios? Of course I would, but that is not a realistic option. So I root for prospect development, smart rebuilding minded personnel moves, and a higher draft position. Does that mean in a round about way I root for losses over wins? Sure, I'm not afraid to admit that. Just because that is taboo to say, doesn't mean it's wrong. However I prefer to call them "lins" and "wosses"

I see alot of ppl with this same sentiment. I wonder how true it really is. Are you really Happy with a loss? I mean think about it 1 team wins the championship every year out of 30. So lets say we go 4 or 5 years without breaking in the playoffs. Isn't that alot of time to hope for losses. I mean in the end when do you ever cheer for this team to win? Lets say we get that Star you want and we start off the season like 25-4 and your hopes are high and for the first time in 6 years you are rooting for wins and then that star get a career ending injury. do you then subject yourself to another 6 years of rooting for losses. By then its been 12 years of you rooting for "Your Favoirt Team" to lose so they can maybe win another 6 years from now.

I like alot of others here are not willing to wait 18 years for the perfect team to come aboout in fact it may never come. So why not enjoy the good times (wins) and rant about the bad times (losses) and see how that turns out for you. I understand that we don't have a contending team this year. I hope for a playoff seed be it the 8th seed or whatever just to be able to watch this team I love so much for a few more games. I am not nor will I ever put my hopes for my team on an 20 year old who right now as I type this is probably grounded for not cutting the grass or taking out the trash.

 

[cfechter]

#9 picks aren't ideal for rebuilding teams but that's still a lot better than the 14-17 area. No one builds their team entirely from lottery picks, that would take too long and might have problems keeping those players. The idea is to get the core franchise players and then build around them with trades, free agent signings and later draft picks.

The definition of what is "sucking" is completely subjective, from my point of view 40 wins sucks a lot more than < 30 wins. Would I prefer 55 win seasons to either of the previous two scenarios? Of course I would, but that is not a realistic option. So I root for prospect development, smart rebuilding minded personnel moves, and a higher draft position. Does that mean in a round about way I root for losses over wins? Sure, I'm not afraid to admit that. Just because that is taboo to say, doesn't mean it's wrong. However I prefer to call them "lins" and "wosses"

Of course #9 picks are hard to build teams around, but in several of the examples above, teams did it.

I think that 35 wins sucks more than 25 wins only in one circumstance - that it's a group of veterans winning the games instead of a group of kids. Otherwise, no way in the world winning 35-40 games sucks more than winning 25.

 

[cfechter]

I see alot of ppl with this same sentiment. I wonder how true it really is. Are you really Happy with a loss? I mean think about it 1 team wins the championship every year out of 30. So lets say we go 4 or 5 years without breaking in the playoffs. Isn't that alot of time to hope for losses. I mean in the end when do you ever cheer for this team to win? Lets say we get that Star you want and we start off the season like 25-4 and your hopes are high and for the first time in 6 years you are rooting for wins and then that star get a career ending injury. do you then subject yourself to another 6 years of rooting for losses. By then its been 12 years of you rooting for "Your Favoirt Team" to lose so they can maybe win another 6 years from now.

I like alot of others here are not willing to wait 18 years for the perfect team to come aboout in fact it may never come. So why not enjoy the good times (wins) and rant about the bad times (losses) and see how that turns out for you. I understand that we don't have a contending team this year. I hope for a playoff seed be it the 8th seed or whatever just to be able to watch this team I love so much for a few more games. I am not nor will I ever put my hopes for my team on an 20 year old who right now as I type this is probably grounded for not cutting the grass or taking out the trash.

Amen - I think Entity here articulated what I had been trying to say in about 20 different posts.

 

[BudWright]

Thanks Entity--we agree! Bud and Annie.

 

[beb0p]

'

Re-read my post - Key word - almost

Dude, 5 is NOT almost 10.

 

[cfechter]

I see alot of ppl with this same sentiment. I wonder how true it really is. Are you really Happy with a loss? I mean think about it 1 team wins the championship every year out of 30. So lets say we go 4 or 5 years without breaking in the playoffs. Isn't that alot of time to hope for losses. I mean in the end when do you ever cheer for this team to win? Lets say we get that Star you want and we start off the season like 25-4 and your hopes are high and for the first time in 6 years you are rooting for wins and then that star get a career ending injury. do you then subject yourself to another 6 years of rooting for losses. By then its been 12 years of you rooting for "Your Favoirt Team" to lose so they can maybe win another 6 years from now.

I like alot of others here are not willing to wait 18 years for the perfect team to come aboout in fact it may never come. So why not enjoy the good times (wins) and rant about the bad times (losses) and see how that turns out for you. I understand that we don't have a contending team this year. I hope for a playoff seed be it the 8th seed or whatever just to be able to watch this team I love so much for a few more games. I am not nor will I ever put my hopes for my team on an 20 year old who right now as I type this is probably grounded for not cutting the grass or taking out the trash.

Amen - I think Entity here articulated what I had been trying to say in about 20 different posts.