Yes, tanking is cheating.
Flopping is also cheating (and King Flop is our GM).
Fouling a guy when you think the ref isn't looking is also cheating.
Telling season ticket holders that you are going to sign DMC to a max contract as soon as legally allowed to (at season's end) TWO DAYS before the drop dead date for ticket renewals and then trading him after people have made their choice (to renew or not to renew) is also cheating.
However.
I think the Kings are only engaged in "situational tanking".
Last year, they clearly were engaged in full-on tanking.
That was obvious when coming out of the break, they won their first game (Denver) and then fielded a different starting lineup in eaqch of the next seven games (all losses).
There is no way to get the players to tank (maybe Z-Bo - if you offer him some weed - since this is his last stop).
But the Coach can easily tank - because he calls the strategy.
Two recent examples (of situational tanking):
home with OKC. 1 second left, tie game. Westbrook is the normal inbounder in the frontcourt. The most dangerous player on a frontcourt inbounds play IS the inbounder (see D. Fox, Nets game at end of regulation). But with 1 second left, the inbounder is the LEAST dangerous player, because there is not time for a return pass. Which is why Carmelo inbounded. Putting a defender on the inbounder is a low-reward/high risk strategy. IF you have an excellent long armed defender who you think might get a fingernail on the inbounds pass, starting the clock so no one gets off a shot, well, go for it. We don't have such a player, so the correct strategy is to NOT guard the inbounder, but to put one Westbrook defender below the screener and the extra defender above the screener. Either Joerger coached poorly or he tanked.
home with Lakers (second game). 28 seconds left, Lakers up three with the ball. Sure, you COULD (at the timeout) say, "D up guys for 24 seconds and we can tie it with a trey". Low percentage. Better to play the foul game. At that point, Randle was 0-5 at the free throw line. He never made even ONE. And the ball went to him right ion front of Joerger, three guys around him. When Joerger didn't SCREAM "FOUL HIM", I assumed he was playing the low percentage. The ball then goes to Isiah and Fox fouls him (on his own? with the coach's blessing?). Automatic two points. Bogi then comes up with a four point play, cutting it to one with 18 seconds left. Another timeout to set strategy. For some reason, Lakers don't advance ball. Ball goes in to tiny Isiah who is surrounded in the backcourt. At THIS point, you DON'T foul (unless/until he get ball over midcourt) because an 8 second violation is a pretty good bet. But they foul him immediately for two more guaranteed free throws. Bad coaching? Players freelancing? Or "situational tanking"?
Now, as to why the Kings are not tanking like last year.
Maybe someone has already made this observation somewhere, but I am unaware of that - but it seems logical.
Let's say that you are the Kings braintrust at the all-star break and you want to tank.
Easy peasy.
You simply announce that Papagiannis will be working with the coaching staff 24/7 over the break and for the last 27 games after the break, he will be the starting center (Willie at PF, where he would rather play anyway) and play 35 minutes a game (fouls permitting). You announce that you owe it to the franchise and the fans to do this, because he is a lottery pick who you have invested 7 million dollars in and you simply HAVE to make a decision on him - and the fact that you are out of the playoff hunt makes this important to do do now that the time is right.
N one could criticize that decision. You NEED to find out if he can be counted on before the next draft (the last one where you have a #1).
Of course, we would have lost almost every game and he would have been revealed as a non-factor, but my point is, "If they wanted to full-on tank, they had the perfect situation and just the man for the job".
Now, for a conspiracy theory:
It made little to no sense to just cut Papa at that point. 1) you never really GAVE him those minutes, so, you have not seen whether he might have worn down other centers over 35 minutes (per game) and been strong down the stretch of close games. 2) you still have to pay him the money. 3) There isn't anybody else who needs those minutes (Bruno at PF - willie at C???) 4) he has no leverage and I doubt that with this kind of non-factoring status that he could be a locker room cancer, even if he wanted to be.
I can't think of another lottery pick cut mid-season with a year left on his contract (that you STILL have to pay him for), saving no money and freeing up time for no one who needed those minutes to prove himself.
Can you?
I suggest that either he was developing bad, self-destructive habits and had to be cut loose for that reason or (get your tinfoil hats ready), he was having or was about to have a relationship with Vlade's infatuated adopted daughter.
Crazy enough for ya?