Actually, I count 7 years out of 10 where we had a pick in the top 8.
Hollinger's Team Forecast: Sacramento Kings
- Thread starter hanchiho
- Start date
Actually, I count 7 years out of 10 where we had a pick in the top 8.
Whenever I read comments like this, I have to fight the urge to make clucking noises... You can't bring about any meaningful change by being afraid to fail, and that goes for any aspect of life.
I mean, seriously, "what if we actually did try to rebuild, and got a star player, and it blew up in our faces?" What the hell, man? Why are you so afraid to fail?
Well, I guess you showed him... oh wait, except that's not what you actually said.
And no, it's not "close enough."
beb0p
Starter
First, no one is saying we purposely tank for 4-5 years. I'm saying if it looks like we'll suck anyway... this year, may as well turn that suckiness into a very good player.
Second, what if we tank our way into a franchise player (the way that Cleveland did in 2003) and then watch as he turns us into an even better team than any of us had ever dreamed of? What if that franchise player stay healthy and bring home several championship banners? Just as likely to happen as the scenario you proposed. Wouldn't you prefer that to just staying competitive?
I see where you're coming from, Entity. But for me, I see no point just making that 8th seed.
beb0p
Starter
Never saw KJ at Cal. But I'll take your word.
Yes, we were not very good at picking out talent back in the days, were we? I do consider picking Peja and the Webb trade pretty safe choices. JWill? Not at all. Although if we had made the safe choice in 98, we'd have Paul Pierce instead of White Chocolate. But we needed a PG, and it was a good pick nonetheless.
Ditto!
Last edited:
Well, it's kind of an academic point. Top 8 isn't all that hot, especially if you're doing a lousy job of picking, as we did in the '80s.
'85: we pick Kleine over Karl Malone, Chris Mullin, 5 other all-stars, and a HOFer (Joe Dumars).
'86: 17th pick. Harold Pressley, but what did you expect at #17?
'87: Kenny Smith (#7), picked over Horace Grant, Kevin Johnson and Reggie Miller, and a couple of other all-stars.
'88: 18th pick (Ricky Berry).
'89: #1 pick, Pervis. Not a great draft year, but we could have done much better.
'90: #7, Lionel Simmons. Another bad draft year, the best players were gone in the first two picks.
'91: #3, Billy Owens. We pick the only guy in the top 5 who will not be an all-star. Good thing we unloaded him.
'92, the year of Shaq and Mourning, where 4 of the top 6 picks are all-stars, but only 1 of the next 48 are. We have 7th pick, too late! So we get Walt Williams.
'93: The year of Chris Webber, but we're #7, so we get Bobby Hurley instead.
'94: The year of Jason Kidd, Glenn Robinson and Grant Hill. Four of the top 5 are all-stars, but only one of the next 49 picks are, and we're 7th again. Brian Grant.
'95, the year of KG and 'Sheed: 4 of the top 5 are all-stars, as are only 2 of the remaining 53 picks. We're 13th, so we get Corliss.
'96 and beyond: all mid to late picks.
So in retrospect, the franchise did a crappy job of picking during the early Sacramento period. By the time they wised up a little, back when Shaq was a college student, we would be starting a 16 year run without a top 6 pick.
So I don't think there's any point in trying to compare the franchise now, with its ancient history. Things have changed too much, both within the organization and within the NBA. What we always needed was a couple of good picks in the top few, and we never got that. We never got even one good pick in the top 6.
Last edited:
I resent the use of the word "ancient" to describe something that was barely twenty years ago.
Entity
Hall of Famer
I never said tank. I am talking about waiting for that star. The Atlanta Hawks have not been tanking all theses years they are just waiting for that draft pick to pan out. i don't want to slip in the same delema they are in.
Entity
Hall of Famer
not afraid to fail. Just not rooting for it as if its the end all be all of every franchise turn around. Its absurd to think for 1 second that all we have to do is get the #1 draft pick and suddenly we are elite. If we lose and get that great Lebron type pick then things went perfectly. Just don't look down on me and others for not want us to lose every game this year just so we have a chance to get a this great player who has never even played a college game yet.
Why do people here, you in particular, insist on building up this bogus straw man? "all we have to do is get the #1 draft pick and suddenly we are elite?" Nobody on this board that even kinda-sorta knows what their talking about has ever said this, even once. Why do you put so much energy into attacking a position that no one has taken? NO ONE has said that all we need to do is get a #1 pick, and we're home free; no one of consequence, at any rate. What people have said is that building a winning team STARTS with a superstar. And your chances of getting a superstar are exponentially higher with a high lottery pick than without one. NOBODY has said that's all there is to it. So your insistence in arguing against this makes no sense whatsoever.
You know what, I can't guarantee you that if the Kings Front Office committed to a true rebuild that we would get that superstar player in the lottery. And I can't guarantee you that, even if we did get that superstar player in the lottery, that it would all work out the way it's supposed to. But I can guarantee you that if Petrie keeps doing what he's been doing, we're going nowhere, slow... for a long time to come.
The Kings in 2007 are a leaky sink. I'd rather tear that sink out and put in a new one, and take my chances of ****ing it up, than to just slide a drip pan underneath the sink and pretend that everything is okay, which is the equivalent of what KFO has been doing...
Don't be afraid to fail, Petrie.
HighFlyingMonkey
Starter
Might I remind some that we are coming off of a 33 win season. Our player's values are completely in the dumpster. We are getting HORRIBLE offers for our guys. Sure, we have to rebuild and all of that, but accepting bull**** for the players who should have higher value will only set this franchise back. We need pieces for the future, but we're not going to get them for our guys who looked like garbage last year.
There really is no downside to a little patience. If we do wait a year or so, one of two things happen:
1) We play better, the value of our guys goes up
2) We play the same, and so the same crap offers available this year are available the next.
There really is no downside to a little patience. If we do wait a year or so, one of two things happen:
1) We play better, the value of our guys goes up
2) We play the same, and so the same crap offers available this year are available the next.
Vlade4GM
All-Star
Why are you so concerned about what kind of fan I am? I just don't focus on wins and losses on a rebuilding team, I focus on personnel moves and the kids getting playing time. I focus on the basketball, not the final score.
People want to rip the rebuilding through the draft idea to shreds but I don't hear anyone else coming up with better ideas on how to grab those necessary core pieces to become a contending team. Does anyone have any better ideas? Are we going to get James or Bosh as a free agent? Do you think teams are going to trade us all-stars for Bibby, Miller, or Artst? Are Garcia, Williams, and Hawes going to develop into all-stars? I'm not trying to pass this off as it is some magical bean stalk theory, but merely saying that we're so strapped in other areas we need the draft to get any real pieces.
Vlade4GM
All-Star
Seriously, like it's the only plan of action that could fail or something.
Vlade4GM
All-Star
The hawks are not suffering from a faulty strategy but from just flat out bad management. There is a nightmare situation for every route, you want to base every decision on which nightmare situation is less scary? Please, to have success in the NBA you have to take risks.
Last edited:
Vlade4GM
All-Star
Please enlighten us on who exactly is doing that and how.
bajaden
Hall of Famer
I find these conservations interesting. I think anyone who has played sports at a competitive level hates to lose. I don't beleive any true athlete can go into any game and just tank it. Not unless he's been bought. The great competiters never give up. I personally could never handle playing with quiters. I do beleive that a coach or and organization can set a team up to lose. I have always felt that it was a bad idea, and sometimes can start a trend thats hard to break. I don't think that Petrie thinks that way, nor do the Maloff's.
Not much can really change with this organization until 2009 when some money comes off the books along with some baggage. I beleive that the organization has a responsibility to try and win regardless of the situation. The question is, do you do it with the future in mind, or with the upcoming season in mind. Do you push the future a little farther away for todays gratification, or do you start taking the baby steps now. You can try to win both ways, and nether way is irresponsible.
Judgeing by the conversations on this board, whichever way is chosen is going to displease someone. Ahh, but then it gives us something to talk about
Not much can really change with this organization until 2009 when some money comes off the books along with some baggage. I beleive that the organization has a responsibility to try and win regardless of the situation. The question is, do you do it with the future in mind, or with the upcoming season in mind. Do you push the future a little farther away for todays gratification, or do you start taking the baby steps now. You can try to win both ways, and nether way is irresponsible.
Judgeing by the conversations on this board, whichever way is chosen is going to displease someone. Ahh, but then it gives us something to talk about
I don't think anyone is ripping the rebuilding through the draft idea - what we're ripping is the "rooting for the team to lose to get good draft picks" idea. High draft picks are no guarantee of having a great team (and neither is any other strategy in the NBA)
Vlade4GM
All-Star
I'm not asking players to tank, never was. I'm only asking for the team to put the w/l record into the hands of the young players and ship off most of the veterans if they can get better contracts and/or some valuable rebuilding pieces in return.
I agree with you - nothing substantive can be done until Miller's and KT's contracts come off of the books in 3 years, and I doubt we'll be able to trade either of them.
Guaranteed contracts are the bane of the NBA, in my opinion. Without them, teams would be able to clean up their messes much quicker and overall competitiveness would be better.
I completely agree with you on this point as well - once it becomes apparent that a group of vets is incapable of doing anything other than aspiring to 33 wins, it's time to get whatever value we can and move on.
chrisnu
Bench
The problem if there were no guaranteed contracts would be that everyone would be playing for stats, in order to get a better contract. I know that happens already with the "contract year", but I think it would become ubiquitous, and any resemblance of team play would disappear. In my opinion, guaranteed contracts are the lesser of two evils.
Last edited:
Vlade4GM
All-Star
Dude, it's the same thing. Unless you mean rebuilding through mid first round picks. You really can't have one without the other unless you get really lucky and I believe that the kings should make their own luck.
If all your problem is how other fans decide to support their team then why make such a big deal out of it?
Vlade4GM
All-Star
It's not the amount of money that's the problem, these teams obviously have the money. It's the lack of flexibility with the very strict cap rules.
Showtime
Starter
That problem would be solved by qualifying options. Let's say a player has a base salary, then qualifying options based on individual performance, and team performance. The better they play, and the better the team's record is, the more money they will make.
Entity
Hall of Famer
I don't mean to rip the draft. It is the best way to rebuild. But I am not going to hope for losses this year or the next or the next hoping we land that player. Don't act as if a fan that wants to see his team win every game is an idiot because if the win to many games they can't get a high pick and can't get more wins 3 years from now when you are really wanting them to win because they are now young players and should be winning because we rebuilt and the vets are gone.
Sorry. I'm 2.5x "ancient" myself, but with an average career lasting 5 years, antiquity comes pretty quickly in the NBA. We're talking about a time when Kareem still had a few more good years ahead of him, Bernard King was famous and Michael Jordan was nobody special. A lot has happened since then.
Vlade4GM
All-Star
Uh, I don't think I implied that people who have different perspectives than me are idiotic. I'd like to know what made you think that.
beb0p
Starter
The Hawks? Some people think the Hawks try to build through the draft when they were doing the exact opposite. They were doing what some of you are proposing: win now, worry about the rest later.
Not only did the Hawks not waited for their draft picks to pan out, they traded away draft picks for veterans. They are a perfect example of what happens when you try to win now instead of being patient. They traded the #8 pick for Lorenzen Wright. Traded the #3 pick for SAR. Traded two #1 picks for Joe Johnson.
Since you mention them, the Hawks is what happens when you don't try to build through the draft. They drafted players who are more ready over guys with much higher potential and tried to fill their needs through the draft instead of picking the best players (Childress over Deng/Iguodala; Shelden Williams over Roy/Gay; Law over Thornton/Critenton; Marvin Williams over Chris Paul because they thought Joe J could play PG).
We won't be like the Hawks. In fact, no other team in the NBA is anything like the Hawks. They are virtually at a level all their own. But if we had the same draft picks as they did, we'd be a dawn good team now with Gasol, Chris Paul, Iguodala and Brandon Roy. All the more reason getting a high draft pick is better for our future than finishing 8th.
Last edited:
No they drafted Williams over Roy/Gay because both were looked at as 2/3s and they had 7 or 8 G/Fs on the team at the time. Their frontcourt was empty, they had no idea that Josh Smith would get stronger and become a PF. Same reason they drafted Law over Thornton, they needed a PG. Not more 3s. They drafted Williams over Paul because Williams was looked at as a guy with potential to be a star, and they were worried with Paul's size. But everyone knew Paul was the better player. That was a pick based on potential. So you're dead wrong on that one. They drafted because a player played a certain position, not because 1 was more ready than the other.
Honestly though, when they got SAR he was still a pretty young guy. He was only 25 or 26. They thought they were getting a faily young all star PF. Unfortunately for them SAR started losing his athleticism which was what made him good and they couldn't get a good GROUP of players around him. They didn't know Gasol would be this good. They didn't know SAR would start losing his athleticism(his last 2 seasons there his BPG fell by half to 0.5). Bad trade? Yeah. But it could have just as easily turned out good for them.
I liked the Joe Johnson trade. They needed a franchise guy. He's not a franchise guy but he's the closest thing there was and he's still young. That wasn't a bad trade. Especially not if they start to play better this year.
beb0p
Starter
That's what I said - the Hawks drafted for needs. Don't understand what you're arguing here.
Again, the Hawks drafted for needs. What I said.
It was the "win now" atitude that made the Hawks do it. Gasol being this good may have surprised some people, but everyone knew JRich or Curry were pretty low risk/high reward pick. Either player would have made the Hawks a better team. But I wasn't saying it was a bad or good trade, the point is that the Hawks wasn't a team that tried to rebuild through the draft.
Maybe not, but I wasn't saying either way. I thought the Hawks paid too much, but if they manage to play better and stay out of the high lottery, that trade may have worked out ok for them.
Last edited:
