only 2 games out!

[Cal-Kings]

Your first mistake. Jerry Reynolds was a complete idiot when he ran the Kings. Nothing has changed, except now he's a talking head.

As for the rest of that post...its not one of your best. Not sure where to even start.

Let's see: you mention Dallas, Phoenix, Miami, Utah and San Antonio in various ways. But seem really shaky on the history. San Antonio DID tank, were rewarded by Duncan, and won a title within 2 years. Phoenix also tanked, blew up a #8 type team when they traded away Marbury et. al., and got Amare (as well as the cap room to get Nash). Miami did not tank so much as lose their franchise guy in Zo, much as we did with Webb. They however went with it and got bad. Because of that they drafted Wade. They won the title last year. Dallas was bad forever. By being bad forever they drafted Dirk (actually traded down 2 spots in the draft to get him). Dirk may well win the MVP this year as his team rolls to a title. Utah lingered too long with the Stockton/Malone duo, took a dive, freed up massive capspace to sign Okur and Boozer, and were bad enough (25 wins) to draft Deron Williams at #3. And whadya know, here they are again.

NONE of those teams even remotely supports your position. Quite the opposite.

As for your proposition that it takes years to clear a losing attitude -- you are right, but not in the way you think you are. It takes years to clear the losing struggle we are engaged in now. The drab medicority. On the other hand teams ROUTINELY change losing attitudes in the space of a year. ROUTINELY. But they do it preceisely by rebuilding. New personnel = new attitude. Every year you see it. Every year. This year its Utah, Toronto, Orlando. Last year the Clippers, Cavs, Lakers and to the degree thye kicked it up a notch, the Mavs. The year before that the Suns, Nuggets etc. etc. Every single year "losing" teams are reborn like the mythological (not city) phoenix becasue they are smart, rebuild, and reemerge. In fact you are ignoring the history of our own franchise: the only reason the Kings ever became good is because they were "losers" with a "losing mentality", and it took all of one summer to change all of that. Big cap room and a FA (Vlade), a lottery pick (JWill) (actually two lottery picks since Peja came over the same year), a good trade (Webb), a total rebuild. And in one year we went from "losers" to NBA darlings.

Being drab is what you cannot recover from. Being boring. Being mediocre. Not having a plan or a hope. Losing is nothing. Its part of the process. Medicority is what is deadly.

We just see it so differently. I'll leave it at that.

I've been a sports fan too long and recognize a "loser" mentality in an organization when I see one and don't want to go anywhere near that with the Kings.

 

[thedofd]

Your first mistake. Jerry Reynolds was a complete idiot when he ran the Kings. Nothing has changed, except now he's a talking head.

As I recall, JR brought in Mitch Richmond for Billy Owens. I think it's absurd to call him a "complete idiot" when the entire franchise was screwed up. I know you're a big wheel on this board, but that comment's over the top.

 

[thedofd]

No it isn't. There are only six games between us and the third-worst record in the league... there's plenty of time left to tank, if management commits to it.

I don't know if you're being serious or facetious, but how would you go about doing that? I mean, if you paid $300 to take you family to the ballgame and Bibby, Artest, Martin and Miller sat on the bench the whole game, wouldn't you raise holy hell? In other words, how do you consciously tank without alienating the majority of your fan base?

And, not to beat a dead horse, but what does getting in the lottery gain you if you don't have a top-four pick? ESPN.com has a mock lottery online http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/index for fun. The Kings come up 11th and take D.J. Augustin, a 5-11 point guard from Texas. Does that make them contenders? I'm not too excited about that prospect.

Finally, even if the Kings started tanking, what would prevent the teams below them from tanking, too?

 

[Bricklayer]

but that comment's over the top.

Oh really?

Why perchance? Because Jerry is a really nice guy? Being amiable does not excuse you from being an idiot.

As an aside, I do not recall if Jerry was the GM for that move or not. Suspect that Motta may have been running the show that year. In any case, it would also presumably be the same person who traded Antoine Carr for Dwayne Schintzius. Relying on ANYONE who was a GM, coach, or waterboy during that entire era for advice on how to run your team is like BMW hiring an engineer who helped design the last Yugo.

 

[Jerryaki]

I don't know if you're being serious or facetious, but how would you go about doing that? I mean, if you paid $300 to take you family to the ballgame and Bibby, Artest, Martin and Miller sat on the bench the whole game, wouldn't you raise holy hell? In other words, how do you consciously tank without alienating the majority of your fan base?

And, not to beat a dead horse, but what does getting in the lottery gain you if you don't have a top-four pick? ESPN.com has a mock lottery online http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/index for fun. The Kings come up 11th and take D.J. Augustin, a 5-11 point guard from Texas. Does that make them contenders? I'm not too excited about that prospect.

Finally, even if the Kings started tanking, what would prevent the teams below them from tanking, too?

1) tank on the road.

2) that is why we are trying to move up the draft board.

3) hopefully their management is dumber than ours.

 

[Cal-Kings]

Oh really?

Why perchance? Because Jerry is a really nice guy? Being amiable does not excuse you from being an idiot.

As an aside, I do not recall if Jerry was the GM for that move or not. Suspect that Motta may have been running the show that year. In any case, it would also presumably be the same person who traded Antoine Carr for Dwayne Schintzius. Relying on ANYONE who was a GM, coach, or waterboy during that entire era for advice on how to run your team is like BMW hiring an engineer who helped design the last Yugo.

Jerry Reynolds at least has about 40 years more experience in the NBA than anyone here.

And any serious review of draft picks - their rank in the draft related to winning championships - will also show that the relationship of lottery picks to championships is not as high as one might think.

It's still a crap shoot by and large. Maybe slightly better odds, but not to the degree where anything is near guaranteed.

Old saying ... eggs... one basket...

 

[Warhawk]

I don't know if you're being serious or facetious, but how would you go about doing that? I mean, if you paid $300 to take you family to the ballgame and Bibby, Artest, Martin and Miller sat on the bench the whole game, wouldn't you raise holy hell? In other words, how do you consciously tank without alienating the majority of your fan base?

And, not to beat a dead horse, but what does getting in the lottery gain you if you don't have a top-four pick? ESPN.com has a mock lottery online http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/index for fun. The Kings come up 11th and take D.J. Augustin, a 5-11 point guard from Texas. Does that make them contenders? I'm not too excited about that prospect.

Finally, even if the Kings started tanking, what would prevent the teams below them from tanking, too?

First off, playing the youngsters more does not mean a less exciting game. I think some of the best effort and hustle has been when the youngsters are on the floor.

Again, the lower the number of your pick, the better players should be available. And who looks at mock drafts, anyways? Bunch of guys guessing who different GMs will draft and are just sticking their fingers in the wind to see who passes gas most recently.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

And any serious review of draft picks - their rank in the draft related to winning championships - will also show that the relationship of lottery picks to championships is not as high as one might think.

And, like I pointed out last year, there have only been four players in the entire history of the NBA to be named Finals MVP that weren't a top-10 pick.

Methinks that relationship is higher than you want to accept.

 

[Warhawk]

Jerry Reynolds at least has about 40 years more experience in the NBA than anyone here.

And any serious review of draft picks - their rank in the draft related to winning championships - will also show that the relationship of lottery picks to championships is not as high as one might think.

It's still a crap shoot by and large. Maybe slightly better odds, but not to the degree where anything is near guaranteed.

Old saying ... eggs... one basket...

So do Dick Motta and half a dozen other coaches/managers from the 80s and 90s in the Kings glory years. What's your point?

The relationship between middling .500 teams and championships is probably even less defined. Getting a 1-2 pick in a strong draft is always a nice thing to have, and means you are adding "baskets", rather than just sitting on the talent you have that isn't getting you anywhere near your goal - that's just one "basket".

 

[Cal-Kings]

And, like I pointed out last year, there have only been four players in the entire history of the NBA to be named Finals MVP that weren't a top-10 pick.

Methinks that relationship is higher than you want to accept.

That leaves how many top 10 picks that never won a championship?

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

That leaves how many top 10 picks that never won a championship?

Nice straw man there.

Nobody's said that you're guaranteed to get a cornerstone in the lottery; what people are saying is that you're pretty much guaranteed to not get a cornerstone if you're not in the lottery. The proof isn't in who didn't win the championship, it's in who did.

The point at which you can see guys like Jordan, Olajuwon, Duncan, O'Neal, Wade, Thomas, Bird, Johnson, Walton, etc win championships and Finals MVP trophies, and then completely ignore that and point to a Pervis Ellison and say, "well, see, Pervis didn't win one, so it doesn't work" is the point where you're just being deliberately obtuse.

 

[Cal-Kings]

So do Dick Motta and half a dozen other coaches/managers from the 80s and 90s in the Kings glory years. What's your point?

The relationship between middling .500 teams and championships is probably even less defined. Getting a 1-2 pick in a strong draft is always a nice thing to have, and means you are adding "baskets", rather than just sitting on the talent you have that isn't getting you anywhere near your goal - that's just one "basket".

MISCONCEPTION: The alternative to "tanking" is not "sitting on the talent you have".

3 Factors that go into winning a championship.
1. Quality Draft picks
2. Quality Free Agents
3. Players who actually want to play on your team.

I'll give 33% weight to each of those.

If it's all draft picks, then you require some amount of luck to get a quality player. Shawn Bradley anyone?

If it's all Free Agents, then your team is likely too old or too many egos. Trailblazers of 2001-03.

The third factor is the one I feel is as critical to success as much as the other 2. If your organization is a "loser" (see LA Clippers) then you will not attrack free agents and you will not keep quality draft picks.

It's simple. Players want to play on a team that is not publically in "rebuild" mode. Players want to feel secure, witness Bibby's play after the deadline vs. before the deadline. Veteran players don't want to waste the end of their career on a rebuild (see Webber in Philly).

Tanking in order to bet on ping pong balls is not only poor sportsmanship, but deadly to the organization because it puts all the eggs in Factor #1 while sacrificing Factors #2 and #3.

 

[thedofd]

Oh really?

Why perchance? Because Jerry is a really nice guy? Being amiable does not excuse you from being an idiot.

As an aside, I do not recall if Jerry was the GM for that move or not. Suspect that Motta may have been running the show that year. In any case, it would also presumably be the same person who traded Antoine Carr for Dwayne Schintzius. Relying on ANYONE who was a GM, coach, or waterboy during that entire era for advice on how to run your team is like BMW hiring an engineer who helped design the last Yugo.

Jerry was the GM for the trade. Yes, he also traded Antoine Carr -- a decision dictated by ownership after Carr had the audacity to ask for a new contract.

Yes, Jerry's a nice guy. He's also a very smart guy. Not defending every move he made or that was made in that era, but when you call someone an idiot in a public forum, it calls into question your qualifications for making that judgment. I mean, were you around back then? Do you remember how the Kings were basically a mom and pop store going against Wal-Mart? I don't know that Red Auerbach could helped. They had cheap ownership, poor luck in the draft (remember Pervis Ellison?) and in other areas (remember Ricky Berry?), and set themselves back 5 years by breaking up a playoff team to acquire a "superstar" (remember Derek Smith?).

All I'm saying is that it's easy to take cheap shots, but not particularly helpful to solving the Kings' problems. What might be helpful is remembering things like the Ellison draft and the Smith trade. Yes, sometimes you have to take a step back to go forward. But there are no guarantees.

 

[Cal-Kings]

Nice straw man there.

Nobody's said that you're guaranteed to get a cornerstone in the lottery; what people are saying is that you're pretty much guaranteed to not get a cornerstone if you're not in the lottery. The proof isn't in who didn't win the championship, it's in who did.

The point at which you can see guys like Jordan, Olajuwon, O'Neal, Wade, Thomas, Bird, Johnson, Walton, etc win championships and Finals MVP trophies, and then point to Pervis Ellison and say, "well, see, Pervis didn't win one, so it doesn't work" is the point where you're just being deliberately obtuse.

And you can't make a point without a personal insult? Nice.

So tell me then, are you calling for the team to tank? Because it appears that's what you're asking for. And IMHO, that has huge negative consequences for an organization.

 

[sidney]

1) tank on the road.

Good one. Try getting Muss (trying to keep his job) and the players (trying to play for their next contract + pride) to buy into that.

The ONLY way to really do that is to trade away vet talent so you only have those young guys to play. The lose while trying. See Philly, Portland, Boston, etc.

Argue for tanking all you want, but the only chance we get a higher pick now is to trade for one.

 

[VF21]

Reminder: Could we please maintain a modicum of civility? Thanks...

At this point, I think this is a tempest in a teapot compared to what may well happen considering Artest's arrest.

You guys can feel free to argue all you like about whether or not the team should "lose to win" or whatever you want to call it without resorting to name-calling, insults, etc.

 

[sidney]

So tell me then, are you calling for the team to tank? Because it appears that's what you're asking for. And IMHO, that has huge negative consequences for an organization.

Exactly. If the organization tanks and it works out they are geniuses - forward-thinkers. If the team tanks they are tainted, losers, a fraud. One is bad, the other is not.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

And you can't make a point without a personal insult? Nice.

So tell me then, are you calling for the team to tank? Because it appears that's what you're asking for. And IMHO, that has huge negative consequences for an organization.

That wasn't a personal attack; when I actually call you names, that's a personal attack. That wasn't any more a personal attack than saying that someone has a stupid idea is the same as saying that person is stupid... which it isn't.

And if you'd been paying attention for the past six months, you wouldn't have to ask me whether I was calling for the team to tank.

 

[thedofd]

Let's see: you mention Dallas, Phoenix, Miami, Utah and San Antonio in various ways. But seem really shaky on the history. San Antonio DID tank, were rewarded by Duncan, and won a title within 2 years./quote]

Not trying to pick a fight with you, Brick, and I'm not going to go through this team by team, but the Spurs didn't "tank." They didn't need to. The previous two seasons, they'd won 62 and 59 games. They '96-97 season, the Spurs were decimated by injuries, with Robinson missing 76 games with a broken foot.

http://www.nba.com/spurs/history/spurs_history.html#20

Following that horrific season, they lucked out in the lottery -- not only in terms of getting a No. 1 pick, but also getting it in a year when there was a no-brainer top pick in Duncan and also a guy who perfectly complemented their other star, Robinson.

I don't think that's necessarily a blueprint for success that other teams can follow.

 

[Bricklayer]

Let's see: you mention Dallas, Phoenix, Miami, Utah and San Antonio in various ways. But seem really shaky on the history. San Antonio DID tank, were rewarded by Duncan, and won a title within 2 years./quote]

Not trying to pick a fight with you, Brick, and I'm not going to go through this team by team, but the Spurs didn't "tank." They didn't need to. The previous two seasons, they'd won 62 and 59 games. They '96-97 season, the Spurs were decimated by injuries, with Robinson missing 76 games with a broken foot.

http://www.nba.com/spurs/history/spurs_history.html#20

Following that horrific season, they lucked out in the lottery -- not only in terms of getting a No. 1 pick, but also getting it in a year when there was a no-brainer top pick in Duncan and also a guy who perfectly complemented their other star, Robinson.

I don't think that's necessarily a blueprint for success that other teams can follow.

Oh yes they did "tank" -- they saw the way the water was flowing and went with it, particularly down the strecth fo the season when not only did they not "rush" anybody back, they did not even put up resistance. It was a thing of beauty. And a franchise maker. You will encounter ratehr less orgnaized resistance than you might think to that concept even amongst Spurs fans, let alone everyone else watching the debacle. They had a choice of striving for "respectability" or giving nature a little push, they chose the little push. And they chose correctly. Not the only Texas team to have successfully performed that maneuver either -- the entire lottery was invented after the Rockets successfully guaranteed themselves of a future title by diving for Hakeem.

 

[thedofd]

Oh yes they did "tank" -- they saw the way the water was flowing and went with it, particularly down the strecth fo the season when not only did they not "rsuh" anybody back, they did not even put up resistance. It was a thing of beauty. And a franchise maker.

A franchise-maker? They were coming off, essentially, back to back 60-win seasons.

Again, even if they DID tank -- and all we have to go on here is your recollection -- it's not a script that other teams can follow. The opportunity to draft a Tim Duncan, let alone pair him with David Robinson, simply doesn't come along that often.

Let's say the Kings tanked the rest of the season and finished with third-worst record in the league. The lottery odds are still pretty long that you'll get a franchise-changer. Would they get help? Certainly. But does, say, Joaquin Noah make the Kings better than Dallas, Phoenix and San Antonio? And in the meantime, some fans will recognize the tanking for what it is and speak loudly with their wallets.

 

[Bricklayer]

Yes, Jerry's a nice guy. He's also a very smart guy. Not defending every move he made or that was made in that era, but when you call someone an idiot in a public forum, it calls into question your qualifications for making that judgment. I mean, were you around back then?

If there actually were any such requirement it would be time for me to obnoxiously note that I can viurtually guarantee you I actually AM "smarter" than Jerry Reynolds, and that you can put that in the book and send it to the line. As however there is no such requirement, and PARTICULARLY not in the case of a talking boob who not only has a very public job record but prattles on inanely for our listening enjoyment 82 games a year (well less if you happen to be across the country like myself, so maybe he saves his smart stuff for the lcoals). Every single person on this board is qualified to judge Jerry's acumen. You can judge it as he explains to you how overrated shotblocking is, how Reef is better at center, how Bibby is an All Star, and how K9 is going to cause problems for "fill in your much better/bigger PF here" with his quickness.

Do you remember how the Kings were basically a mom and pop store going against Wal-Mart? I don't know that Red Auerbach could helped. They had cheap ownership, poor luck in the draft (remember Pervis Ellison?) and in other areas (remember Ricky Berry?), and set themselves back 5 years by breaking up a playoff team to acquire a "superstar" (remember Derek Smith?).

I was around, and I remember quite well thank you. And the mom and pop store hired a mom and pop GM, and the incompetence was predictable. When Jerry says the draft is a crapshoot, read in "if you're an idiot". Hey, I understand where Jerry was coming from -- he presumably was the GM for the 1990 draft as well then correct? The one where we drafted Lionel Simmons instad of Ty Hill (reasoinable enough until he blew out his knee) Travis Mays instead of Terry Mills or Dee Brown, Duane Causewell instead of Jayson Williams, Anthony Bonner instead of Elden Campbell or Toni Kukoc, and Bimbo Coles instead of Cedric Ceballos or Antonio Davis? Drafting is always a crapshoot if you're an idiot.

 

[Warhawk]

Let's say the Kings tanked the rest of the season and finished with third-worst record in the league. The lottery odds are still pretty long that you'll get a franchise-changer. Would they get help? Certainly. But does, say, Joaquin Noah make the Kings better than Dallas, Phoenix and San Antonio? And in the meantime, some fans will recognize the tanking for what it is and speak loudly with their wallets.

And your other option is, in all likelihood, trying to become the 8th seed, not quite making it, and getting "11th and take D.J. Augustin, a 5-11 point guard from Texas" or some stuff. Which would you rather have? And which would put more fans in the seats? Which makes the franchise better next year?

 

[HndsmCelt]

Awww man let the fans who want a win or two now have their day. Heck even I have to admit that game to game I WANT to see the Kings win. (Remember I was touting the idea of gutting the team for a lotto run BEFORE the season started and I still think that would have been the smart move. Besides at this point it would be hard for the Kings to out tank about 5 or so other teams that are CLEARLY racing to the bottom with a good head start on Sac... so we might as well enjoy a few wins while we have them. In short the lotto gate is clsoing fast and the Kings are still out in the pasture with the big boys. If this team is going to actually resurect this post season it is like going to be through trades but I have my fears/doubts there as well. The ugly truth now is that the powers be (blame the Maloofs, Petrie or who ever) have placed the team right smack in between a rock and a hard place- under powered for a serious play off showing and over tallented to loose enough games to get a grip of loto balls... now the preverbal hard place is shrinking so as a pragmatist I say enjoy the rock!

 

[thedofd]

I actually AM "smarter" than Jerry Reynolds.

As evidenced by your ad hominen attack. Pardon me if I don't take your word for it.

I presume you agree that Geoff Petrie is a fairly smart guy, Ivy League educated, etc. Being smart, I assume Geoff could sniff out an "idiot" and remove him from his staff. But he's chosen not to. Maybe Jerry's just that good a guy. Or, maybe he brings some things to the party, insight-wise.

Hey, I understand where Jerry was coming from -- he presumably was the GM for the 1990 draft as well then correct? The one where we drafted Lionel Simmons instad of Ty Hill (reasoinable enough until he blew out his knee) Travis Mays instead of Terry Mills or Dee Brown, Duane Causewell instead of Jayson Williams, Anthony Bonner instead of Elden Campbell or Toni Kukoc, and Bimbo Coles instead of Cedric Ceballos or Antonio Davis? Drafting is always a crapshoot if you're an idiot.

Why even bring up Lionel Simmons? The guy was runner-up for rookie of the year and was a double-double guy until he got hurt. Yeah, you can rag on the other picks, but it doesn't take a brain surgeon to go through the draft lists and, with 20-20 hindsight, find room for improvement. I've done the same thing with Petrie, who's pretty good at what he does. If you're trying to make the case that any of those players -- Terry Mills, Elden Campbell, etc. -- would have made a huge difference for the Kings of that era, well, I'm skeptical.

Yeah, you're within your rights to call a public figure an idiot. Lord knows I've done it. But being within your rights doesn't make it right, nor does it make you right.

 

[thedofd]

And your other option is, in all likelihood, trying to become the 8th seed, not quite making it, and getting "11th and take D.J. Augustin, a 5-11 point guard from Texas" or some stuff. Which would you rather have? And which would put more fans in the seats? Which makes the franchise better next year?

Certainly, I'd rather have Noah. But, as you know, there's not a direct correlation between where you finish and where you pick in the lottery. No guarantee of success, no guarantee that other teams below you in the standings wouldn't do the same, no guarantee that our management or our fans are as a group smarter or more clever than any other team's.

As far as putting fans in the seat, while I don't buy the sellout streak, the Kings are doing fairly well, attendance-wise. I think a perceived tank -- if it doesn't have a franchise-altering result; that is, if it doesn't bring Oden or Durant -- would do more harm than good to the bottom line.

 

[Bricklayer]

I presume you agree that Geoff Petrie is a fairly smart guy, Ivy League educated, etc.

Unfortunately Geoff Petrie went to Princeton and there is a clause in my Penn grant stipulating that Princetonites cannot be credited with intelligence under any circumstances.

So sorry, no, Geoff is an idiot too.

 

[Warhawk]

Certainly, I'd rather have Noah. But, as you know, there's not a direct correlation between where you finish and where you pick in the lottery. No guarantee of success, no guarantee that other teams below you in the standings wouldn't do the same, no guarantee that our management or our fans are as a group smarter or more clever than any other team's.

As far as putting fans in the seat, while I don't buy the sellout streak, the Kings are doing fairly well, attendance-wise. I think a perceived tank -- if it doesn't have a franchise-altering result; that is, if it doesn't bring Oden or Durant -- would do more harm than good to the bottom line.

Uh, after the first 3 spots, yes, there is. And those first 3 spots are more than likely going to be taken up by at least 2 of the bottom 3. So finishing 5th instead of 11th in the lottery race could be huge.

Attendence is dropping quickly because of the lack of excitement and mediocre play. How is a mid-late draft pick going to help, whether they make or miss the PO? We are not talented enough to win it all this year and lack front-court size. Moving up to 5th or so with a better chance at 1 sounds like a darn good idea to me.

All they have to do is say that we are going to cut the vets minutes by say 10% or so and evaluate the talent for next year a little more to prepare for trades and draft. Let the young guys run and gun more. Have some fun out there. I'd watch with more interest than I do now, and I know a lot of others would as well.

 

[Jerryaki]

MISCONCEPTION: The alternative to "tanking" is not "sitting on the talent you have".

3 Factors that go into winning a championship.
1. Quality Draft picks
2. Quality Free Agents
3. Players who actually want to play on your team.

I'll give 33% weight to each of those.

let's look at these three factors. you assume that the kings still have and should maintain a "winning mentality" so #3, players wanting to play for sacramento, can happen. most of the league perceives us as cellar dwellers at this point (come on, teams aren't just DROOLING when they see us on the schedule??), and with the lack of free agent money and draft talent (a la chris paul), no one actually WANTS to play for the kings. we also have little in the ways of trade assets, since all we have are aging vets, one good potential kid (martin), and questionable youngsters who we have not developed this season. so we can't even TRADE for someone who would want to play for us.

we have no cap space this year to get a quality free agent. not unless rashard wants to sign for the MLE.

so what does that leave? draft. we may have the other two down the road, but we do not have them now and will not have them for a few years to come.

 

[thedofd]

Uh, after the first 3 spots, yes, there is. And those first 3 spots are more than likely going to be taken up by at least 2 of the bottom 3. So finishing 5th instead of 11th in the lottery race could be huge.

Right you are. I was thinking in terms of this being a 2-franchise-player draft. Yes, there could be a difference between 5th and 11th; my question is whether the risk of alienating fans by "tanking" is balanced by that difference in talent. It's not a no-brainer.

Attendence is dropping quickly because of the lack of excitement and mediocre play.

It will be interesting to see what the attendance is like tomorrow -- winning streak vs. the distateful Artest suituation.

How is a mid-late draft pick going to help, whether they make or miss the PO? We are not talented enough to win it all this year and lack front-court size. Moving up to 5th or so with a better chance at 1 sounds like a darn good idea to me.

No, we are not talented enough to win it all; ultimately, only one team is. But we may be talented enough to make the playoffs, and I'd be surprised if the Kings didn't try to do that. The coaching job may be at stake. Roster decisions are at stake. Postseason cash for the players is at stake. Moving up to get a top-five pick may make sense from a fan's perspective, but from the players, coaches and management may have a different perspective, for different reasons.

Again, if you're sure you're going to get a top-two pick, by all means tank. But there are no guarantees; it's all luck.

All they have to do is say that we are going to cut the vets minutes by say 10% or so and evaluate the talent for next year a little more to prepare for trades and draft. Let the young guys run and gun more. Have some fun out there. I'd watch with more interest than I do now, and I know a lot of others would as well.

Can't argue with that. I've advocated more PT for Garcia and Price, especially, and I think their work on the halfcourt trap has, ironically enough, contributed to the Kings' recent improvement.