I keep hearing the same argument against obtaining a high draft pick. Here's my take on them:
1. There is no guarantee in a draft.
Well, there's no guarantee that we can be competitive without a high draft pick. There is no guarantee that we can sign a star player. There's no guarantee in anything, period. If there's a guaranteed method that surely guarantee us a championship, let's hear it. Until then, getting a high draft pick is still the best way to turn around a franchise for a small market team.
Maybe you didn't understand my points. Would you be willing to wait 5-10 years of losing for a franchise player through the draft? I still haven't had an answer.
Many teams who drafted 4 seasons ago thought they had a franchise guy, and they didn't. Many teams who
did get that franchise guy still aren't at a contending level, 4 years later.
I agree that nothing in this business is guaranteed, and that's why I wouldn't want to sit through 5+ years of 25 win teams in the hopes that the team might get the chance at picking a player who might turn out the save the franchise.
2. A lot of luck is involved in landing a high draft pick.
A lot of luck is involved in winning a championship too. Does that mean we shouldn't even try? I really don't get this "luck" thing. As if they're saying that since "luck" is such a random and uncontrollable element, we shouldn't do anything that involves luck. What's wrong with just putting the team in a position for a high draft pick and let luck runs its course? If the Kings are in a high enough position (draft-wise), even luck can't ruin things. The T-Wolves were unlucky in landing the #3 spot. They still got Kevin Love and Mike Miller. See what I mean?
"What's wrong with just putting the team in a position for a high draft pick and let luck runs its course?"
What I think is wrong isn't the destination, it's the path. I'm not willing, as a fan, to sit through what might be more than 5 seasons of 20-30 win teams for a chance at something. How long will you wait? So again, I will ask, how long will you be happy with a team that doesn't sign any talent so they won't win in the hopes of landing a franchise star? How many seasons of bottom-of-the-barrel play will you accept? You may think "as long as it takes", but that's not the case for the majority of fans. The majority of the fanbase isn't willing to sit through years of being horrible just to get the chance at getting a guy who might pan out.
3. We'll be tanking year after year.
Not if we draft the right player. Did Cleveland tank every year after they drafted Lebron? In fact, landing a high draft pick is a very good way to avoid having to tank year after year, because that young star is going to lift your team. Now, on the flip side, trying to go for that 8th spot with an average team IS the surest way to go lottery year after year. You end up with a late lottery pick every year so your team hardly improve. Witness the Kings during the 90s.
"Not if we draft the right player" Wait, how do you get the top pick in the first place to get said player if you don't tank? That's my point. How do you "put the team in position" to get a top lottery pick if they don't lose 50-60 games?
Some teams got future all-star level guys, and many of them aren't at a contending level 4 or 5 years later. How are the Nuggets doing with Melo? Orlando got Dwight, got some talent around him, and still can't get past the first round. The Hornets just broke out this year, but still don't have the pieces to go on a serious run. The Jazz got Deron, made the WCF, but this season took a step back in the playoffs and during the season were one of the worst road teams in the league. Toronto has talent and got Bosh, but they aren't anywhere near contending level yet. Even teams that got their guy aren't ready for a title several years down the road.
4. There's no guarantee that you'll draft the player that you want.
You think Miami and Atlanta are sobbing that they have Beasley and Horford instead of Rose and Oden? Of course not, they're grinning from ear to ear. A good player is a good player wether or not he's the one you originally wanted. We may not get the guy we want with a high draft pick, but we will get a potential star player. That's the bottom line.
It's not about who the team wants, it's about making a pick that might turn into a bust. Do you think Marvin Williams > Deron and Chris Paul, or Darko > Melo, and Wade? How would you feel if the Kings lost 60 games, and finally got a top 3 pick, and you were so happy your plan worked out, only to have the Kings select their Darko?
5. Just look at Atlanta
In fact, the Hawks is exhibit A on why you should build through the draft. Look closely and you'll see that the Hawks were always in a win-now mode, which is why they once traded the #8 pick for Lorenzen Wright. If you chart their history, they got better once they settled down and started keeping the draft picks instead of trading them away. Also, the Hawks were miserable at drafting talent. The lesson here is that even a franchise as incompetent as the Hawks managed to assemble a very exciting team with high draft picks. So what does that tell you about the power of high lottery?
A very exciting team that won 37 games in the east? That's what you want for the Kings? They might lose Smith and Childress to free agency too, and then what would they look like? Is that a bright future? The point about bringing up the Hawks wasn't to show how to run a team, but to illustrate the point that getting top picks often doesn't = success. And that's not just with the Hawks either. It happens a lot. The premise a lot of people are using is that the "best" chance at a top player is with a top pick, and that said player will make the team contenders. That's not the case.
6. We don't need high picks. We can sign or trade for a star player.
Er, who? Lebron is not coming. Dwight Howard is not coming. Oden is not coming. Kobe, Yao, Arenas, Bosh, Dirk, Wade are not coming. You know who maybe interested in coming to Sacto? Andre Miller (maybe), or Okafor (doubt it). At best we sign a very good role player. That's it. And now that Memphis has traded all its stars (except Rudy Gay), good luck finding a team dumb enough to give us a franchise player like Washington gave us Chris Webber.
You mean a team dumb enough to trade Gasol for salary flexibility? A team dumb enough to trade Caron Butler for Kwame Brown? A team dumb enough to let Zeke have carte blanch and build a 90 mil salary for one of the worst teams in the league? A team dumb enough to give Ben Wallace a huge deal after trading Chandler for players they didn't even keep? A team dumb enough to trade Marion for old Shaq? A team dumb enough to give up Harris, Diop, and first round picks for an aging Kidd? Yes, there are teams in different situations who will make deals that don't seem logical. There are GM's who won't always make the best decisions. Saying that there are no teams in the league that will make bad decisions isn't true.
7. "Tanking" is bad for business
Sometimes we have to take two steps back in order to go four steps forward. Look at the Celtics. All I have to say is, if you don't have the balls to endure a couple of (really) bad losing seasons, maybe you don't deserve to win that championship.
Look at the Celtics? Yes, let's look at the Celtics. They tanked in the hopes of getting Oden or Durant. They ended up with the #5 pick, and then they had to go to plan B. Danny called his fellow Celtic buddy, and got KG. The sonics were going through their own troubles, and wanted to dump Ray as he's on the downside of his career and the team didn't want to pay him or Lewis. They got deals done with two teams that were struggling and needed a change and dealt their aging stars.
If things had gone according to plan for Boston, they would have ended up with Durant or Oden, and then how long until a championship? They wouldn't have won a ring if things had ended up like they were supposed to.
"if you don't have the balls to endure a couple of (really) bad losing seasons, maybe you don't deserve to win that championship."
Wow, it must be really nice for you. You say a "couple", yet it could end up being over 5 years before the team becomes a contender, if they even get that far. Are you the one losing millions each year as ARCO stuggles to put 10k people in the stands? Because I'll tell you what: a team like that won't end up staying in Sacramento. This season they ranked 27th in average attendance, and that's with 38 win team which was a better, more competitive, more exciting team than last season.
The bottom line is that your plan for getting a top pick sometimes works, and sometimes doesn't. There are teams that end up lucky with a Tim Duncan, and there are teams that end up with a Marvin Williams. The strategy you suggest isn't a probable, viable strategy for building a contender. It takes a combination of things to happen, not just a star player.