Kings lose tie breaker, get #7 pick!
- Thread starter ockingsfan
- Start date
- Status
Here is the thing, Houston was not trying to actively lose the game. They had nothing to gain by winning or losing. They didn't care either way.
The Kings had everything (the #6 pick to themselves) to lose for, but didn't.
If the Kings sat all their "established" players, i.e. Buddy, Bogdan, Fox, WCS, we would had lost.
The Kings had everything (the #6 pick to themselves) to lose for, but didn't.
If the Kings sat all their "established" players, i.e. Buddy, Bogdan, Fox, WCS, we would had lost.
If you want optimism, Porter has a lot of control over where he goes because he can control who gets his medicals.
If Porter looks at our wide open SF slot, next to quite a lot of potential in Fox/Bogie/Buddy at G and Giles/WCS/Skal as bigs, he might try to get here. He could have gone to a limelight school but chose Mizzou, maybe he would prefer Sac to Chicago. I can't see him declining a top three pick, but if he slides a bit, it might become about destination and fit.
If Porter looks at our wide open SF slot, next to quite a lot of potential in Fox/Bogie/Buddy at G and Giles/WCS/Skal as bigs, he might try to get here. He could have gone to a limelight school but chose Mizzou, maybe he would prefer Sac to Chicago. I can't see him declining a top three pick, but if he slides a bit, it might become about destination and fit.
I get the feeling of frustration and anger, but what exactly was the FO and coaching staff supposed to do? Play the vets more, or ask the kids to deliberately play bad?
The only thing I can fault them for is not playing Bruno more. I feel that given our requirement at 3, and our obvious interest in him, we should have played him more. Perhaps the coaching staff saw enough during practice, and he has fallen off our plans completely (signing Nigel would also suggest that), but in any case, playing him more would have let us see what we have, and could have contributed to some losses (given the number of close games we won, it could have been significant).
Other than that, what exactly could we have done? Unlike some other teams, that have few stars, and then role players surrounding them, we have several high picks in our team, some of whom we hope to develop into stars. Sure, I would also love to get a star in the draft, but tanking is relatively easier for such teams. If the stars are out with a real (or exaggerated) injury, they can afford to play a G-league team, and stink up their record.
We kind of did that last year, where we traded our best player to retain our pick, and added another, to go from 0 picks to 2 first rounders (which we then parlayed into 3). We can argue about the trade, its timing, the value we received, and again, not following through by trading some more vets to completely stink our way to a top 3 pick. Again, we can argue about signing vets in the first place this year, not using our cap space as rental to pick more assets and so on. I can agree on many of those things. However as for picking up these late season wins, the coaching staff and the players were doing exactly what they are supposed to do. Play hard and make an effort to win each game. Unlike Sixers during the "process", we expect many of the kids currently on the roster to be here for some time (or be attractive enough for trades). Maintaining the integrity of the game is vital to this process, I feel.
As some other people have pointed out, we have not only drafted poorly, we have also failed to develop any of our kids. Good organizations are able to turn late picks into useful players/stars. There was a time when we did that too, constantly finding late round gems like Peja, Hedo, Gerald Wallace, Kevin Martin, etc. Was it a function only of scouting, or a combination of scouting, and strong organization that helps players succeed? I think it was the latter. In fact, during the Adelman era, virtually all our late round picks turned out to be stars or at least useful contributors. Since then, even our high first rounders have often failed to live to potential. The only success we had in developing a late draft pick is IT, who too had his best seasons away from us (excluding Whiteside, since when we cut him, we had no idea of the player he will develop into). This is the first year in a long time, where several players have shown promise. Long way to go, but most of the kids have shown that they belong in the league. We need to develop that. I feel that will be more important to the future of the franchise, than picking two spots higher (as much as I would have loved that).
That said, I hope the BB gods smile on us on lottery day.
The only thing I can fault them for is not playing Bruno more. I feel that given our requirement at 3, and our obvious interest in him, we should have played him more. Perhaps the coaching staff saw enough during practice, and he has fallen off our plans completely (signing Nigel would also suggest that), but in any case, playing him more would have let us see what we have, and could have contributed to some losses (given the number of close games we won, it could have been significant).
Other than that, what exactly could we have done? Unlike some other teams, that have few stars, and then role players surrounding them, we have several high picks in our team, some of whom we hope to develop into stars. Sure, I would also love to get a star in the draft, but tanking is relatively easier for such teams. If the stars are out with a real (or exaggerated) injury, they can afford to play a G-league team, and stink up their record.
We kind of did that last year, where we traded our best player to retain our pick, and added another, to go from 0 picks to 2 first rounders (which we then parlayed into 3). We can argue about the trade, its timing, the value we received, and again, not following through by trading some more vets to completely stink our way to a top 3 pick. Again, we can argue about signing vets in the first place this year, not using our cap space as rental to pick more assets and so on. I can agree on many of those things. However as for picking up these late season wins, the coaching staff and the players were doing exactly what they are supposed to do. Play hard and make an effort to win each game. Unlike Sixers during the "process", we expect many of the kids currently on the roster to be here for some time (or be attractive enough for trades). Maintaining the integrity of the game is vital to this process, I feel.
As some other people have pointed out, we have not only drafted poorly, we have also failed to develop any of our kids. Good organizations are able to turn late picks into useful players/stars. There was a time when we did that too, constantly finding late round gems like Peja, Hedo, Gerald Wallace, Kevin Martin, etc. Was it a function only of scouting, or a combination of scouting, and strong organization that helps players succeed? I think it was the latter. In fact, during the Adelman era, virtually all our late round picks turned out to be stars or at least useful contributors. Since then, even our high first rounders have often failed to live to potential. The only success we had in developing a late draft pick is IT, who too had his best seasons away from us (excluding Whiteside, since when we cut him, we had no idea of the player he will develop into). This is the first year in a long time, where several players have shown promise. Long way to go, but most of the kids have shown that they belong in the league. We need to develop that. I feel that will be more important to the future of the franchise, than picking two spots higher (as much as I would have loved that).
That said, I hope the BB gods smile on us on lottery day.
Is it really accurate to say that they didn't account for the odds, when they apparently said straight up in the post-season presser that that wasn't what they were trying to do?
Boy, fans across the sports landscape stay steady overestimating their ability to influence management, don't they?
Boy, fans across the sports landscape stay steady overestimating their ability to influence management, don't they?
Holy crap how many times do we have to answer this dumb question ?
DO WHAT EVERYONE ELSE DID
Sit their young talented guys for 1 freakin game or even half the damn game. Sit all the damn vets. You think the Mavs fans are feeling bad because DSJ didn’t get too much burn or the Bulls are in panic mode because they sat Lauri Markkanen almost every half in the last week? Buddy, WCS, Fox, and Bogi shouldn’t have played at all.
DO WHAT EVERYONE ELSE DID
Sit their young talented guys for 1 freakin game or even half the damn game. Sit all the damn vets. You think the Mavs fans are feeling bad because DSJ didn’t get too much burn or the Bulls are in panic mode because they sat Lauri Markkanen almost every half in the last week? Buddy, WCS, Fox, and Bogi shouldn’t have played at all.
What I think is that Kings ownership and management made their decision on how they were going to go into the 2017-18 NBA season, and what they wanted to get out of it, with only a nominal (at best) consideration to what any particular segment of fans claim to have wanted. I think that Divac sold Ranadivé on his "three-year plan," or however many years it was, and after all of the turnover surrounding his first few years of ownership, Ranadivé was willing to let Divac try it his way, without interference, even if it looked like it was running counter to what all the other non-playoff teams were doing. I think that Divac convinced him that, in order for his plan to work, he couldn't do what the other teams were doing, and Ranadivé bought it.
Okay, look, I'll stipulate to not listening to the post-season press conference personally, because I wasn't interested... But, you guys tell me, was @burekijogurt's synopsis of it in the other thread inaccurate? And, if not, why are we still talking about this as if we're working from the premise that the Kings were trying to tank, and just didn't do it right? If @burekijogurt's synopsis was accurate, then they weren't trying to tank: that's the end.
I mean, by all means, feel free to continue to argue over whether the Kings should have tanked, and whether choosing not to tank was a bad idea, but why are we still arguing over the idea of the Kings doing a bad job of something that they weren't actually doing?
I mean, by all means, feel free to continue to argue over whether the Kings should have tanked, and whether choosing not to tank was a bad idea, but why are we still arguing over the idea of the Kings doing a bad job of something that they weren't actually doing?
:: shrugs ::
You'd have to ask him that. I don't know, and I'm not really interested; I was answering the question of do I think the Kings "don't care" what their customers think. Whether or not Divac game-planned for the 7th pick doesn't really make a difference, as it pertains to my answer.
But, I'll try to answer your question in good faith, anyway, for the sake of argument: since, apparently, the Kings weren't trying to tank, I think that whatever pick the Kings ended up with in the 2018 NBA Draft didn't factor into Divac's 'master plan,' one way or the other.
You'd have to ask him that. I don't know, and I'm not really interested; I was answering the question of do I think the Kings "don't care" what their customers think. Whether or not Divac game-planned for the 7th pick doesn't really make a difference, as it pertains to my answer.
But, I'll try to answer your question in good faith, anyway, for the sake of argument: since, apparently, the Kings weren't trying to tank, I think that whatever pick the Kings ended up with in the 2018 NBA Draft didn't factor into Divac's 'master plan,' one way or the other.
- Status