Is next season going to be a tank year?

[Telemachus]

When I talk of perennial all-stars, I talk of guys who make 4-5, or more, all star teams. Of course a lot of it depends on how good the team is, how much chance you get, when you make the jump, injuries, etc. E.g., in our own case when we were good, we had a 5 time all star in Chris, and a 3 time all star in Peja. They could have potentially been more successful, but for injuries, etc. They were also surrounded by extremely strong group of vets, and a bench who could have taken many starting 5s in the league.

However, I digress. My point is that most drafts give 1-2 players who are at that level. Some may be great, and give several such players (2003 draft), or one which can be a relative dud (2001, though Gasol and Parker from that draft went on to have excellent careers, including being key pieces on championship teams). Again, it's too early to rate the 2016 draft, but early returns don't point to a plethora of this kind of talent.

Whether one of our four guys will be at this level in some years, no one knows. That's a really elite level though, and I won't bet on it.

I guess we look at a draft differently (in a way). While you always hope to get a player who is a perennial all-star, you also realize the odds are against you (especially if you don't have a top 3 pick.) If you can consistently come away with players who are solid contributors (1-8 in the rotation) you are doing well. Hopefully some of those players turn into all-star talent. This is one of the reasons I have never been big on drafting those players with high bust potential (even though their ceiling is really high). I have found that they are more likely to bust than succeed, but that is another discussion.

 

[kingsfan101]

I'm not sure whether this is you making a strawman argument, or whether you and I are just not using the word "tank" the same way. When you say that you're not sold on the team being too good to tank, you seem to be arguing as if you think that what I'm saying is that I think these kids will be competing for the 8th seed, when all I'm actually saying by "too good to tank" is that I think that they'll be too good to be a Bottom 3-4 team in the league.

Joerger's a good coach, who does a pretty good job developing players. Even if the kids the Kings have on the roster right now have already capped out on their potential, that's likely going to be a 28-win team, which is going to be too good for a Bottom 3 record. Those guys plus at least three more lottery picks are probably going to be at worst a 28-32 win squad, just by virtue of playing hard every night. If you don't think that the Kings will be even that good, then you are in fact admitting that you don't think that any of the kids will play any role in the Kings being a winning team in the future, despite your previous claims.

You keep praising Philly, but let's not pretend that the Sixers have made even a token effort to develop any talent: they traded guys for picks, and then they drafted those guys, and if those guys had anything less than superstar potential, they traded them for more picks. They aren't trying to develop anybody: they don't actually know what they did or didn't have.

If the Kings' plans involves player development on any level, then they're not going to be a 20-23 win team four years in a row (which is what they would need to be in order to "tank it out").

Well, it depends on who "those guys" are.

We had a 26 win pace after the trade. Sure, we didn't play our vets in lot of those games, but so did many other teams who were trying to tank harder than us. Plus, in many cases, our vets played significant minutes, and did help get the W.

How many of those vets will be returning next year? How will the kids handle the 82 games grind, particularly when teams are not actively trying to lose, and have scouted them better? How much time will the rookies get, given that even future stars struggle in the beginning?

I personally think that if we bring back just some of the vets (DC/Lawson, Temple, Tolliver, KK), and give the rest of the minutes to the kids (including rookies), we will be BAD, in like top 3 pick bad. I personally agree with Kingjatt that that's a good thing.

 

[kingsfan101]

I guess we look at a draft differently (in a way). While you always hope to get a player who is a perennial all-star, you also realize the odds are against you (especially if you don't have a top 3 pick.) If you can consistently come away with players who are solid contributors (1-8 in the rotation) you are doing well. Hopefully some of those players turn into all-star talent. This is one of the reasons I have never been big on drafting those players with high bust potential (even though their ceiling is really high). I have found that they are more likely to bust than succeed, but that is another discussion.

Yes. However, any contending team needs these perennial all star/franchise level players. Apart from Pistons in recent history (and two of their players were 4 time all stars, and all 5 starting players could have made the team. In fact 4 did), no team has won, or even come close without one or two HOF type guys. You want to hit singles instead of striking out, particularly when you have those guys, and want to put pieces around them. Else, you swing for the fences, and hope to do so with one of the top 3 picks.

And yes, player development is important. We had one of those guys till two months back, but we were too incompetent to put a decent team around him. Hope we do it right this time.

 

[Telemachus]

Well, it depends on who "those guys" are.

We had a 26 win pace after the trade. Sure, we didn't play our vets in lot of those games, but so did many other teams who were trying to tank harder than us. Plus, in many cases, our vets played significant minutes, and did help get the W.

How many of those vets will be returning next year? How will the kids handle the 82 games grind, particularly when teams are not actively trying to lose, and have scouted them better? How much time will the rookies get, given that even future stars struggle in the beginning?

I personally think that if we bring back just some of the vets (DC/Lawson, Temple, Tolliver, KK), and give the rest of the minutes to the kids (including rookies), we will be BAD, in like top 3 pick bad. I personally agree with Kingjatt that that's a good thing.

This is where coaching makes a big difference IMO. Coach Joerger's teams have always played hard to the end. This is one of the reasons why Memphis is known as a gritty team. Yes, the players are part of that, but I also feel that is a reflection of the coach. We saw a lot of that mentally this year with the Kings. It didn't translate to wins early in the season, but he was also trying to teach the team how to win (there is a big difference between expecting to win and hoping to win). That is part of why they started winning more as the season progressed. Obviously, after the trade, things crashed. But they still never stopped fighting. If they take that into next season, they will likely win more games than will be expected of them.

 

[Telemachus]

Yes. However, any contending team needs these perennial all star/franchise level players. Apart from Pistons in recent history (and two of their players were 4 time all stars, and all 5 starting players could have made the team. In fact 4 did), no team has won, or even come close without one or two HOF type guys. You want to hit singles instead of striking out, particularly when you have those guys, and want to put pieces around them. Else, you swing for the fences, and hope to do so with one of the top 3 picks.

And yes, player development is important. We had one of those guys till two months back, but we were too incompetent to put a decent team around him. Hope we do it right this time.

Obviously, you need all-star level talent on your team to contend. My point is that if you can consistently pick quality players in the draft, the chances of 1 or 2 of them reaching that level increases. You can't always hit a home run, but if you keep getting hits, good things are bound to happen. If you keep striking out or hitting weak grounders, you find yourself losing a lot.

 

[itzcoatl]

I think our guys will compete and try hard, but ultimately we are going to lose a lot due to inexperience and frankly lack of overall talent. That's OK. Our 2018 pick will be high and hey - we might have a chance at getting DeAndre Ayton. We could pair him up with Hield for our own version of the Baha men. hahah.

 

[jcassio]

You guys who are fixated on having a top 3 pick to become our savior (or, for the Hinkie fans, a series of them, to become our saviors) are re-writing history in your minds. I invite you to take a look at the top 3 picks in past drafts and see for yourself. On average, only one of the three in each draft are worthy of a top 3 pick. So, yeah, a top 3 pick will work out great - if you're lucky enough to choose the one of the three that will prove worthy of your faith.

 

[kingjatt]

I'm not sure whether this is you making a strawman argument, or whether you and I are just not using the word "tank" the same way. When you say that you're not sold on the team being too good to tank, you seem to be arguing as if you think that what I'm saying is that I think these kids will be competing for the 8th seed, when all I'm actually saying by "too good to tank" is that I think that they'll be too good to be a Bottom 3-4 team in the league.

Joerger's a good coach, who does a pretty good job developing players. Even if the kids the Kings have on the roster right now have already capped out on their potential, that's likely going to be a 28-win team, which is going to be too good for a Bottom 3 record. Those guys plus at least three more lottery picks are probably going to be at worst a 28-32 win squad, just by virtue of playing hard every night. If you don't think that the Kings will be even that good, then you are in fact admitting that you don't think that any of the kids will play any role in the Kings being a winning team in the future, despite your previous claims.

You keep praising Philly, but let's not pretend that the Sixers have made even a token effort to develop any talent: they traded guys for picks, and then they drafted those guys, and if those guys had anything less than superstar potential, they traded them for more picks. They aren't trying to develop anybody: they don't actually know what they did or didn't have.

If the Kings' plans involves player development on any level, then they're not going to be a 20-23 win team four years in a row (which is what they would need to be in order to "tank it out").

By 2019 they will still be a bottom 3-5 team talent wise, and talent wins in this league. These guys plus another kid or two is not going to win 28 games in 2019. The talent disparity between us and even the top 10 rosters in the west is too large to fix in 2 drafts. These guys and a few magic beans are not at worst a 28-32 win team against teams actually trying to win. Hard work alone everynight does not win much in this league. Talent takes over in the end, ask any coach he will take a group of lazy superstars over a group of hard working role players......and these guys are not even developed role players yet. We will be peak Sixers bad next year.....that does not get fixed into 32 wins in one year unless Lebron was born in your city and decides to come back or your looking at things thru your Grant Napear certified purple glasses.

What are you basing your claim on that the Sixers did not try to develop any talent? This sounds like another headline reading type kings fan who only watches kings games. Take a listen to Brett Browns latest interview with Woj, He busted his tail developing guys like covington, saric, holmes and mcconnell who are coming along quite nicely and are NOT superstar level players, you really sound like you have no idea about what your talking about. Not to mention the excellent work he did with Embiid who took the league by storm the second he stepped on the court. Brown worked with him the entire year he was hurt to get his body NBA ready. They did not tank just to tank, there was a method to their madness.

Joerger has shown success at developing players but lets not get carried away, its still hit and miss with these players. Brett Brown was the Director of Player Development with the Spurs for years and had a little success , you may have thought the Sixers were not developing guys but NO its just that dam hard to win in the NBA and I watched a good chumk of Sixers games and those guys fight just as hard as us if not harder.....see the game vs us for example. There "process" is being emulated because competent GMs have the foresight to see that it worked.

 

[Telemachus]

By 2019 they will still be a bottom 3-5 team talent wise, and talent wins in this league. These guys plus another kid or two is not going to win 28 games in 2019. The talent disparity between us and even the top 10 rosters in the west is too large to fix in 2 drafts. These guys and a few magic beans are not at worst a 28-32 win team against teams actually trying to win. Hard work alone everynight does not win much in this league. Talent takes over in the end, ask any coach he will take a group of lazy superstars over a group of hard working role players......and these guys are not even developed role players yet. We will be peak Sixers bad next year.....that does not get fixed into 32 wins in one year unless Lebron was born in your city and decides to come back or your looking at things thru your Grant Napear certified purple glasses.

What are you basing your claim on that the Sixers did not try to develop any talent? This sounds like another headline reading type kings fan who only watches kings games. Take a listen to Brett Browns latest interview with Woj, He busted his tail developing guys like covington, saric, holmes and mcconnell who are coming along quite nicely and are NOT superstar level players, you really sound like you have no idea about what your talking about. Not to mention the excellent work he did with Embiid who took the league by storm the second he stepped on the court. Brown worked with him the entire year he was hurt to get his body NBA ready. They did not tank just to tank, there was a method to their madness.

Joerger has shown success at developing players but lets not get carried away, its still hit and miss with these players. Brett Brown was the Director of Player Development with the Spurs for years and had a little success , you may have thought the Sixers were not developing guys but NO its just that dam hard to win in the NBA and I watched a good chumk of Sixers games and those guys fight just as hard as us if not harder.....see the game vs us for example. There "process" is being emulated because competent GMs have the foresight to see that it worked.

Sorry, but no team is emulating what Hinkie did in Philadelphia. Teams tanking at the end of a season once they realize they can't make the playoffs has been going on since the 80s. It is not new. What Hinkie did was to take that to the extreme, and decide to tank for 2 straight seasons (which became longer when players were injured). This had never been done before (that I can recall) and I have seen no indication that anyone else is going that route.

As to what the talent level of the Kings will be in 2019, there is no way of knowing that right now. We have no idea how quickly our young players will progress or how good they will become. We don't know who will even be drafted this year or next, much less who might be signed in the mean time. Now you can make predictions, but you have a habit of talking in absolutes. That is always dangerous to do.

 

[Brick Wall]

I personally think that if we bring back just some of the vets (DC/Lawson, Temple, Tolliver, KK), and give the rest of the minutes to the kids (including rookies), we will be BAD, in like top 3 pick bad. I personally agree with Kingjatt that that's a good thing.

Okay... and? Kingjatt said that he wants to tank until 2021-22: that's four years in a row. I don't think that anybody's trying to argue that they won't be bad next year. That's not what we're really talking about here. I mean, this isn't rocket surgery: if you're not trying to finish with a Bottom 3 record in the league, then you're not really trying to tank. And, based on the fact that this has been the first season since 2009-10 that there wasn't at least three teams with 24 or fewer wins, if you're winning 24+ games, odds are that you're not going to be a Bottom 3 team. If the Kings are still a sub-24 win team four years from now, then that means that WCS, Skal, Buddy, Malachi and Papa are all busts. There's no other way to look at it.

 

[kingjatt]

Sorry, but no team is emulating what Hinkie did in Philadelphia. Teams tanking at the end of a season once they realize they can't make the playoffs has been going on since the 80s. It is not new. What Hinkie did was to take that to the extreme, and decide to tank for 2 straight seasons (which became longer when players were injured). This had never been done before (that I can recall) and I have seen no indication that anyone else is going that route.

As to what the talent level of the Kings will be in 2019, there is no way of knowing that right now. We have no idea how quickly our young players will progress or how good they will become. We don't know who will even be drafted this year or next, much less who might be signed in the mean time. Now you can make predictions, but you have a habit of talking in absolutes. That is always dangerous to do.

No one is emulating it exactly because every situation is a little bit different but teams tanking multiple years is pretty common, theres a reason why teams end up top 5-6 in the lotto time after time it may be more bold now but multiple tanking years has gone on for years, most recently the lakers in fact they started tanking this year at around the 25 game mark to save that top 3 spot. I simply use the Philly model because they utilized every possible avenue to get better, D-league players who panned out, renting out cap space for picks, taking on expirings for assets etc. Our path of course can be a little different but they have set the blueprint for teams wanting to build a potential championship roster without diva free agents and within the rules of the CBA.

I just want patience from our front office for once, no more short sighted moves to save jobs or sacrificing assets to the determent of the long term no matter what casual fans or minority owners say. Build an asset base to go along with young franchise player level talent who you acquire thru years of tanking and you will see a winner at the end of it.

Whoever we draft is most likely not going to be playoff ready for 2-3 years at the absolute best, take a look around, rookies are not taking the league by storm anymore no matter how big a blue chippers they are, the competition level in the league is insane and these veterans have access to training and nutrition/recovery methods that they never had before. Its taking a longer and longer time to get a young talented squad developed and into the playoffs, ....see KAT, Porzingus, Ingram, DLO(we have no prospect on any of their levels nor does our draft position this season indicate we are getting one) While that development happens you tank tank tank and build up assets.

I'm not being absolute, I'm very open to early success, I would love it, I just chose to be realistic and not wanting to operate and make moves like we are going to be competitive in 2019, as I have said those itchy trigger fingers are what created this mess. I do not know what the talent level will be in 2019, but I am more confident that it will not be playoff ready than it being playoff ready based on multiple factors like current talent, western conference rosters, historical trends of other successfully rebuilt teams thru the draft etc, the time its taking for young guys to develop.

I want to be playoff ready by 2019 as much as everyone but I take a step back and realize we are the least talented, most asset deprived team in the entire league and until we work towards truely changing that, nothing is going to change, no one has skipped asset accumulation and became perennial high seeded playoff teams in two years....no one.

I am not even going to get into signings, we haven't had a significant signing since Vlade himself. With the reputation we have around the league we would be lucky to even sign the same caliber washed vets we signed last season. No point in overpaying for a player who cannot perform to his salary level, been down that road many times in this Vivek era. Its all about the ping pong balls now no more watching Matt Barnes drag us to 30 wins only to draft the leftovers of the top prospects in the draft, we are getting the first plate.

 

[dude12]

This team is going to suck next year....lmfao for those who think that not tanking would be an option.

 

[Brick Wall]

By 2019 they will still be a bottom 3-5 team talent wise, and talent wins in this league. These guys plus another kid or two is not going to win 28 games in 2019. The talent disparity between us and even the top 10 rosters in the west is too large to fix in 2 drafts. These guys and a few magic beans are not at worst a 28-32 win team against teams actually trying to win. Hard work alone everynight does not win much in this league. Talent takes over in the end, ask any coach he will take a group of lazy superstars over a group of hard working role players......and these guys are not even developed role players yet. We will be peak Sixers bad next year.....that does not get fixed into 32 wins in one year unless Lebron was born in your city and decides to come back or your looking at things thru your Grant Napear certified purple glasses.

You didn't say 2019, you said 2021-22. That's a full two seasons after 2019. Going into the 2020-21 season, Buddy, Skal, Malachi and Papa will all be 5-year vets, and WCS will be a 6-year vet, if he's even still with the team by then (since they would have had to at least sign him to an extension by that point). If those guys, plus whoever the Kings get between now and then are still a sub-28 win team by then, they're all busts, and the front office has failed.

What are you basing your claim on that the Sixers did not try to develop any talent? This sounds like another headline reading type kings fan who only watches kings games. Take a listen to Brett Browns latest interview with Woj, He busted his tail developing guys like covington, saric, holmes and mcconnell who are coming along quite nicely and are NOT superstar level players, you really sound like you have no idea about what your talking about.

In what way has Covington developed? Aside from rebounding, his numbers are actually going backwards (his assist rate, PER, 3PT%, TS%, etc. have all gone down each year that Covington has been in Philly); he's just getting more minutes. Exactly how do you rationalize a player who gets less efficient the longer he plays for a coach as developing? And you know what Saric, Holmes and McConnell all have in common? They've all been there for two years or less. The problem with that is that Brett Brown has been there for four years. And do you know how many players that were on the roster the year that Brown was hired are still on the Sixers? Zero, that's how many. There's been a literal 100 percent turnover in the roster between when Brett Brown was hired, and now. That's not development, you can't call it development when you don't keep anybody past three years. You're not developing players, if you're getting rid of anybody that shows anything resembling NBA talent every other season. That's not what development means.

 

[kingsfan101]

This is where coaching makes a big difference IMO. Coach Joerger's teams have always played hard to the end. This is one of the reasons why Memphis is known as a gritty team. Yes, the players are part of that, but I also feel that is a reflection of the coach. We saw a lot of that mentally this year with the Kings. It didn't translate to wins early in the season, but he was also trying to teach the team how to win (there is a big difference between expecting to win and hoping to win). That is part of why they started winning more as the season progressed. Obviously, after the trade, things crashed. But they still never stopped fighting. If they take that into next season, they will likely win more games than will be expected of them.

To be fair, Memphis was known as a gritty team even under Hollins. They beat the top seeded spurs as an 8th seed, lost to OKC in 7 games, and went to WCF two years later.

As for winning more games next season, if the kids lead the charge, and we win more games, I'll be happy. Damn the draft pick then. I just don't want to see Rudy, KK, Tolliver, Lawson, new vets signed, etc. playing major minutes, and screwing up the pick.

I'm not even suggesting to throw the kids to the wolves. There may be a case of signing good vets who can mentor the kids, and take some pressure off of them. These will have to be smart, short term signings though, and certainly not easy. The ownership, management, coaching staff, players, and the fans, have all to understand that there may be short term pain involved. For example, if you see a 28 win team next season, and they fall way short, you might the kids as bust. This is where we (and more importantly management) has to temper expectations.

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse, but any vet who's not in our long term plans, or doesn't help the growth of kids either by on court play, or off court mentoring should be traded for whatever we can get. If we win, we need to win with the kids, not with the vets.

 

[kingsfan101]

Obviously, you need all-star level talent on your team to contend. My point is that if you can consistently pick quality players in the draft, the chances of 1 or 2 of them reaching that level increases. You can't always hit a home run, but if you keep getting hits, good things are bound to happen. If you keep striking out or hitting weak grounders, you find yourself losing a lot.

Yes. I too don't suggest picking players with high bust potential just for getting franchise level talent. Perhaps, swinging for the fences was the wrong analogy there. It might be a good option if you are drafting really low (e.g., a draft and stash player with high potential like Manu), you can take a little risk.

Again, I'm all for picking quality players consistently. Hell, we did it so well for a long period ourselves, getting excellent talent with low picks. That said, it's easier to get guys to play around your all-stars with low picks, than the stars themselves. There are exceptions of course.

 

[kingsfan101]

You guys who are fixated on having a top 3 pick to become our savior (or, for the Hinkie fans, a series of them, to become our saviors) are re-writing history in your minds. I invite you to take a look at the top 3 picks in past drafts and see for yourself. On average, only one of the three in each draft are worthy of a top 3 pick. So, yeah, a top 3 pick will work out great - if you're lucky enough to choose the one of the three that will prove worthy of your faith.

Speaking for myself, I certainly think that even if we have an all star candidate in our current group of kids, or one in the upcoming draft, we need at least one more. A top 3 pick, if we get one in 2018, gives a better chance to land one, than a later pick.

Sure, great players are picked later in the draft every year. I would much rather have a high pick though. Not saying that you deliberately try to lose. Just don't try to win by signing vets without a long term plan.

 

[kingsfan101]

Okay... and? Kingjatt said that he wants to tank until 2021-22: that's four years in a row. I don't think that anybody's trying to argue that they won't be bad next year. That's not what we're really talking about here. I mean, this isn't rocket surgery: if you're not trying to finish with a Bottom 3 record in the league, then you're not really trying to tank. And, based on the fact that this has been the first season since 2009-10 that there wasn't at least three teams with 24 or fewer wins, if you're winning 24+ games, odds are that you're not going to be a Bottom 3 team. If the Kings are still a sub-24 win team four years from now, then that means that WCS, Skal, Buddy, Malachi and Papa are all busts. There's no other way to look at it.

Which is why I said that I expect us to be much better in a couple of years (post 57).

 

[funkykingston]

You want the Kings to have a top 3 pick?

All they have to do is draft whatever PG is there at #8 (Fox, Smith, Ntilikina, maybe even Monk) and hand them the starting job.

But that hasn't been Joerger's way. He'll play whatever vets he has until the young guys earn their minutes.

The Kings won't be good because they lack talent. But they won't give up on the season like the Suns seemingly did this year. They'll fight and try to win. And I'm glad that's the approach.

 

[kingsfan101]

You want the Kings to have a top 3 pick?

All they have to do is draft whatever PG is there at #8 (Fox, Smith, Ntilikina, maybe even Monk) and hand them the starting job.

But that hasn't been Joerger's way. He'll play whatever vets he has until the young guys earn their minutes.

The Kings won't be good because they lack talent. But they won't give up on the season likecthe Suns seemingly did this year. They'll fight and try to win. And I'm glad that's the approach.

I am not advocating actively trying to lose. I'm also not suggesting that you throw the kids out to the wolves. There have to be good vets to teach the kids about responsibility and professionalism. Just don't want to sign some vets in the hopes of making PO next year. Get good leaders, even if you have to overpay a little. Have them mentor the kids. Play hard, and try to win. I don't think we win much this way, but if we do, great.

 

[jcassio]

Sure, great players are picked later in the draft every year. I would much rather have a high pick though. Not saying that you deliberately try to lose. Just don't try to win by signing vets without a long term plan.

Again, I invite anyone fixated on this top 3 draft quest to look at the historical record. Does a #1 pick give you a better chance at drafting a great player than a #2? A #2 better than a #3? And so on? Of course. But by the thinnest of margins. And a good evaluator of talent can do better with the #10 pick than a poor evaluator can do with a top 3 pick. Having a top 3 pick as some people continue to argue does not push you past some threshold into the promised land. All the tanking and losing required to get a top 3 pick only guarantees two things: that your team will be losers (again), and getting out of the pond scum will take even longer.

 

[kingsfan101]

Again, I invite anyone fixated on this top 3 draft quest to look at the historical record. Does a #1 pick give you a better chance at drafting a great player than a #2? A #2 better than a #3? And so on? Of course. But by the thinnest of margins. And a good evaluator of talent can do better with the #10 pick than a poor evaluator can do with a top 3 pick. Having a top 3 pick as some people continue to argue does not push you past some threshold into the promised land. All the tanking and losing required to get a top 3 pick only guarantees two things: that your team will be losers (again), and getting out of the pond scum will take even longer.

I honestly don't understand this position. Yes, good picks can be had, and are picked later in the draft every year. Yes, there are busts at the top, as they are at the lower end too. Just don't get the same notice. I don't think anyone is arguing against that, just as you also agree that higher picks give you a better shot.

I'm also not arguing that you lose for the sake of a high pick. The question is how do you try to win? Do you win with extended play by Rudy, KK, DC, Afflalo, Temple, Tolliver, or do you play the kids more? If the former, I think it's a bad strategy. If the latter, I think we won't have to tank.

Do we risk setting up a losing culture if we trade all vets? Will that undermine the growth of the kids, instead of speeding it along? I think that's quite possible. Which is why I've been saying that we need to have a good mix of vets and kids. Who those vets will be, how much they'll play, etc. Frankly, I don't have the knowledge or expertise to even pretend that I've any clues. I hope that the brain trust knows better.

All I'm arguing is that Vivek should not be driven by ego/short term profits/pressure from minority owners to sign a deal that gives short term benefits, at the cost of long term pain (e.g., just for the sake of argument, getting Melo). Similarly, Vlade, minority owners, and yes, fans, need to have patience, and not count the next season as a loss, if we win very few games. As long as the kids develop, and we get a high pick, we should be ok. The coaches and players need to understand what our (fans, management, ownership) expectations are. If we make unrealistic projections/demands, someone will feel the pressure, and make a bad short term move.

Personally, I don't have anything to add to this discussion. Likely will be my last post on this topic.

 

[Kingz19]

No. I think we'll be better than expected because Hield and WCS will enter the next notch, Rudy will play well and WITHIN the team concept... And our bench will be good with improved Skaletor, Papa G, arriving all around player like Bogdan, and good veteran presence in Temple and Tolliver.

Probably still won't be that great but far better than tank mode. Should be interesting to hear Carmichael Dave actively root against the team for the full 82 since we won't be THERE yet and we NEED that draft pick because we won't have one the following year..and at our pace..a win in November against the Blazers will prove to be WORTHLESS

 

[andjel]

 

[Larry David]

Folks can cherry pick through the draft record to support a case that teams are just as likely to succeed in the draft at 7-9 as 1-3. Knock yourselves out.

Beyond the flaws in those arguments, a ton of the late hits involved teams with deep scouting departments, who tested those hunches with workouts that test the game and personality of these prospects. Many prospects have flat refused to work out for the Kings, who have a shallow bench of scouts.

 

[Mike]

I don't see us tanking next season like the 76ers did when they spent three seasons not really attempting to win games, and trading almost anyone and everyone with any value for more draft picks. I can't see Dave Joerger, Vlade Divac or Vivek Ranadive going down that road and buying into that philosophy when they have spent the post-Cousins trade banging on about changing the culture of this team. It wouldn't fit the profile of a coach like Dave Joerger and I doubt he would want to stick around a team that is preparing to tank like the 76ers did. It wouldn't fit with a former player like Vlade who only missed the play offs twice in his career, he's used to playing for winning basketball teams and I honestly believe he wants to bring back a winning culture to the Kings and will not not sign off on losing for the sake of it. And it doesn't fit with a successful businessman like Vivek, he wants to win and granted his decisions haven't always helped, but his decisions were made on the basis that he thought they would help us win. With that in mind, tanking would go against what the people in charge have said since the Cousins trade went down.

Furthermore, it would be counterproductive to embrace tanking when their desire is to start a new positive era of Kings basketball. We are still in a long play off drought and have not had a winning season since the 2005-06 season. So the last thing we should do as a team is embrace losing for the sake of it. We can't afford for our players to get used to losing games. What we should be doing is building the foundations of what comes next. If we want to become a team that shoots more threes, has greater ball and man movement - like how the best teams in the league play - then that is something we should embrace and encourage on a nightly basis next season. The Brooklyn Nets have done that this season. Obviously they have lost a lot of games, but over half of those defeats were by less than ten points, so they competed and managed to do it by playing a style akin to the top teams in the league - the difference between them and the top teams is they lack the game changing talent. Could their head coach have organised the Nets differently and won more games? Perhaps, but it would have been a shortsighted approach. Instead, they used this season to build the foundations for future success. It was about developing their offense, their style of play, and the culture for the players that have a future with them and the players they will bring to their team in the future. The Nets have been the antithesis of the model team, but after years of doing things the wrong way, they now appear to be moving in the right direction. Sure they lost a lot of games, but they competed and played with grit and determination, with more quality the Nets would have won more games.

Now the main positive I take from our play after the Cousins trade is that on most nights our team competed and played with grit and determination. They went out onto that court and tried to win. There were times when they were simply not good enough and got beat - sometimes by quite a margin - but they never gave up and threw in the towel, they picked themselves up and fought on. At no point was there a desire to embrace losing in order to get a better chance of a higher pick. Instead, the desire was to compete. That is the desire we need to take into next season, along with embracing the process that needs to be put in place to play a style of basketball more akin to the top teams, and to implement a positive culture that can take us forwards. It is going to take time to build a winner, but at no point should we embrace tanking and losing for the sake of it. Instead, we should embrace competing, effort, and trying to win just like we did after the Cousins trade went down.

So for me, no we won't tank next season, but it is pretty likely we will end up in the 20 to 30 win range and end up with a high end draft pick. But as long as we play with desire and invest in developing our young talent, then hopefully we will be moving in the right direction and building a strong foundation for future success. As I said, the last thing we need to do is embrace losing. Tanking isn't the way forwards for this team and if we do we'll regret it.

 

[Oldman]

Next season I think will be a developing year for the Kings. They still don't know who's playing Small Forward, who's staying and who's going, what kind of impact the draft picks will have and who's gonna step up and become the top 3 scorers. I expect the Kings to suck unless Skal and Buddy quickly develop to a viable 1st and second option.

 

[jcassio]

Folks can cherry pick through the draft record to support a case that teams are just as likely to succeed in the draft at 7-9 as 1-3. Knock yourselves out.

Beyond the flaws in those arguments, a ton of the late hits involved teams with deep scouting departments, who tested those hunches with workouts that test the game and personality of these prospects. Many prospects have flat refused to work out for the Kings, who have a shallow bench of scouts.

That's a straw man argument. I don't believe anyone here said what you are claiming they said. If you were responding to my post, I said that the advantage of a top 3 pick is overrated, but at the same time, I also acknowledged that the higher the pick, the better your chances. It's just (IMO) not worth the sacrifice for what little advantage you get in return.

 

[Kingster]

The word "tank" is a loaded word, implying there is an actual intent to have a very poor win-loss record. The Kings won't tank next year, but my guess is there is a 100% chance they will be in the bottom 10 of the league, with a 50% chance they will be in the bottom 5. I just don't see how they can do better when they probably will have seven very young players on their team next year. The only way that changes in my view is if management opts to trade away young talent for mediocre vets and to add some decent veteran FAs. I sure hope they don't go for the latter approach.

 

[pshn80]

Should the Kings plan on tanking next year?

No, the Kings should first plan on fielding a team. Their will be 17 players on our team and most of them are on our team now. Right now the rotations will be:
C and PF- Koufos, Papaguinnes, Cayley-Stien, Tolliver, Labisserie.
sF- Gay, Richardson.
SG- Hield, Temple.
PG- Collison, Lawson.
We may or may not have Galloway, McLemote, Afflalo, Evans

Through FA or trade we will attempt to get a vet preferably as a starter or one who would be a solid rotation guy.
We will draft one candidate to vie for stardom.
We will draft or trade to shore up SF and after that BPA.
If we fail to get a starter we will get one or two immediate rotation players.
The final 17 are nknown now.
So our team will be largely who we have now.
The team will be trained to win games through good offense and good defense.
The team will immediately be tested by playing other teams.
Will the team be capable of beating thePelicans or the Warriors or the Lakers?
During this whole process our team will be playing it's ass off to win games, to beat the other guys.
Now what was the question again?

 

[VF21]

NOTE: Discussion of the timing of the lottery has been split off into the NBA forum.