Playoffs or high draft picks?

[HighFlyingMonkey]

I understand that people want to be have a championship team eventually. The only problem is that to have a championship team, you need to be led by a Hall of Famer.

Look at the last 15 years. If you disregard the 04 Pistons as an anomaly, there have been 5 franchise cornerstones who have won the championship. Jordan, Hakeem, Shaq, Duncan, Wade. That's it. All of these guys have been Top 3 picks (Well, except for Wade, but for the sake of argument, he's close enough).

BUT the problem is that how many Top 3 picks have there been in the last 15 years? 45. That means that, even if we get a Top 3 pick, we have a 1/8 chance of picking up a Finals MVP caliber Hall of Famer. Do we really want to sit around in the lottery for 8 years hoping to find one?

Sure, if we tank, we might pick up a "superstar" in the draft to build around. But is that enough? Just because we pick up a Dirk Nowtizki, Chris Bosh, Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, Mitch Richmond, Glen Rice, etc. does that mean we are any closer to a championship? Look at the potential 08 lottery picks. Beasley, Rose, Mayo, etc. look fantastic. But will any of them transcend the Vin Baker/Shareef Abdur-Rahim/Antoine Walker/Antonio McDyss level to the rarified Jordan/Wade territory?

I was firmly on the tank bandwagon last year, because of Oden. He has the physical tools to become that type of Hall of Famer. But we missed out. Grr, Boo hoo, Fire Petrie, whatever your feeling on last year is, we have to move on.

Point is, I'm not seeing any of that Hall of Fame potential in these 08 picks. Or the 09 picks for that matter. So what is the point of tanking if it's not getting us any closer to championship territory. I'm fine with playing an entertaining brand of basketball for the near future. This current core might not win us a championship. Will we be any closer with one of the 08 or 09 lottery picks as our core? I'd rather take a calculated dive into the lottery than just recklessly throw all of our talent away.

NOTE: For the record, I know that those stats on the chances of getting a HoF Franchise cornerstone are not accurate. It's simply to make a point that chances are still very slim, and I think that the real stats would be closer. I'm just too lazy to do that hard work

 

[Jerryaki]

crushed???? What series did you watch? 6 games, and a very lucky bounce on a Brent Barry 3 ball or we might have upset them or at least pushed to a seventh game. Two rousing games at Arco.

I'll take a repeat of the '05 playoffs over a tankfest any day of the week and twice Sunday.

Where do you get "crushed"?

and a lucky kevin martin bounce in game 3 and it could've been a sweep. save for game 4 where we blew them out, it wasn't really close:

Game 1 - SA, 122 - 88 (crushed)
Game 2 - SA, 128 - 119 OT (brent barry lucky bounce, eventually get crushed in OT)
Game 3 - SAC 94 - 93
Game 4 - SAC 102 - 84 (crushed the other way)
Game 5 - SA 109 - 98 (crushed)
Game 6 - SA 105 - 83 (and crushed)

they beat us by an average of 19 points in each win. i'd say that was a crushing.

also i put the wrong year, it was 06.

while it was an entertaining series, i agree with jechtsphere; it'd rather have a real chance to win it all than to just be bounced in the playoffs year after year.

 

[Jerryaki]

Do we really want to sit around in the lottery for 8 years hoping to find one?

the draft is only one piece of the solution. getting bounced from the first round of the playoffs isn't.

 

[Warhawk]

There is also the option of trying to get a pick in a trade.....

Which kinda falls in no-man's-land in this conversation. There are just too many options to make a clear-cut statement about what the team should or should not do. Ideally we would get a couple #1 picks in a row, grab a couple studs and be set for the next decade.

With the draft lottery, I don't think I like our chances of actually getting the high draft pick. Never seems to work out well for us.

Then again, fighting for the 8th seed every year isn't much fun either, knowing you will probably get bounced in relatively short order....

I think at times like this when some frustration might set in I take a page from VF's playbook and watch the games and root for wins. Besides, I'd have a hard time telling my 4.5-year old son to do any different!

 

[Warhawk]

and a lucky kevin martin bounce in game 3 and it could've been a sweep. save for game 4 where we blew them out, it wasn't really close:

Game 1 - SA, 122 - 88 (crushed)
Game 2 - SA, 128 - 119 OT (brent barry lucky bounce, eventually get crushed in OT)
Game 3 - SAC 94 - 93
Game 4 - SAC 102 - 84 (crushed the other way)
Game 5 - SA 109 - 98 (crushed)
Game 6 - SA 105 - 83 (and crushed)

they beat us by an average of 19 points in each win. i'd say that was a crushing.

also i put the wrong year, it was 06.

while it was an entertaining series, i agree with jechtsphere; it'd rather have a real chance to win it all than to just be bounced in the playoffs year after year.

OK, to quibble, I don't think a 9-point loss is getting "crushed". But that's neither here nor there....

 

[Jerryaki]

^^i agree, but the extra 2 points, making it 11, does. (j/k)

nvm, think you meant to bold game two.

 

[twocents]

...

Critical keys to wins in the hostile-environment road games are three things:

• Assists
• Boards
• Drives to the basket

...

i believe that this is a historic moment when someone finally used the bullet environment. i will make sure that the posterity know i witnessed this remarkable occasion.

 

[Warhawk]

^^i agree, but the extra 2 points, making it 11, does. (j/k)

nvm, think you meant to bold game two.

No, I bolded the right game, I just can't subtract in my noggin today. And I missed the "crushed" in game 2. I think crushed may be 15-20 points. about 10? Not for my definition of the word. No matter either way.

I think I need to get some caffiene.....

 

[Tarindel]

For me, trying to get a good draft spot isn't even about trying to draft a team that's going to win it all. It's about drafting a team that's not going to just slink in at #8 (if they're lucky) and then go 4 to 6 games in the first round before being crushed by much better teams year after year.

Really what it all comes down to is hope. If you're good, you have hope that your team will go all the way. If you're bad, you hope you'll be able to draft that guy who will make you good. If you're stuck in the middle, all you really have to look forward to is each night's game, because you already know what's going to happen -- you're either going to miss the playoffs altogether, or you're going to slink into the 8 spot and get bounced. And then next year when you've got the 14th or 16th pick, you're going to draft a mediocre fill in, and the rest of your guys are going to be one year older, slower, less athletic, and cost more, and the cycle is going to repeat itself.

In my mind, there's possibly nothing worse than teetering on the edge of mediocrity for an extended period of time. That's why I've been a proponent of blowing this team up since last year. That's why I think signing players like Mikki "Oven Mitts" Moore was a bad idea. All you do is reinforce the status quo, when any of the alternatives would be better.

Anyway, just my thoughts.

 

[Mozart]

<g>

i believe that this is a historic moment when someone finally used the bullet environment. i will make sure that the posterity know i witnessed this remarkable occasion.

<g>I'm a firm believer in having ammo on hand and to make history with it.

 

[Glenn]

For me, going 8 years in a row without making the playoffs is the worst experience. Wasn't that an NBA record for impotence?

I wonder if there is a generational difference in how the Kings are viewed. There is now a whole generation of people who grew up with the Kings. They are not old enough to remember when this city had no pro basketball team. There certainly is a smaller part that doesn't remember the horror of that streak where making the playoffs would have been a wonderful experience.

My expectations are much different than most. I do not expect a championship. I do not expect to play for one. (For twocents I propose two questions in this manner )

1. Does anyone know when we last played for a championship?
2. Does anyone know when we last won a championship?

(I'd like to see who under 30 years of age can answer these questions besides a moderator.)

To win seems to require three major studs and even then, it is no guarantee. A team with Stoudemire, Nash, and Marion hasn't won. We aren't close to having that many great players. We only have one player in this league right now, IMO. Now we need two more and that is no guarantee that they can be obtained. I could make a convincing argument that acquiring two more through the draft is not possible 'cause once you have one or two studs, you have a team that is far better than a bottom three team.

To acquire three studs requires a trade or free agent acquisition also. I also am of the opinion that you do not trade away a major stud once you have him.

Bottom line is that I am satisfied with much less than having a team capable of winning an NBA championship. This brings a perspective that is quite different than what at times seems to be a majority of the posters.

 

[bajaden]

I agree with you on almost every point. But then, I'm an old fart so I guess my prospective is going to be different than most. As for the questions, I would have to guess. I believe the kings played for the championship in Cincinnati as the Royal's, and I think they won a championship in Syacuse. I was a St Louis Hawk's fan in those days. Bob Petit and crew.
I've never been a fan of tanking a season. Especially with young players. Your trying to teach them how to win, not lose. As Lombardi said, " Show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser." If you like that one, how about " Winning isn't everything, its the only thing". Gotta love that man.

 

[Jerryaki]

1. Does anyone know when we last played for a championship?
2. Does anyone know when we last won a championship?

(I'd like to see who under 30 years of age can answer these questions besides a moderator.)

we last played for a championship (in fact, not in technicalities) in 2002. we last won one in 1951, when we were still the rochester royals.

 

[Glenn]

we last played for a championship (in fact, not in technicalities) in 2002. we last won one in 1951, when we were still the rochester royals.

What I meant was playing in the NBA championship game. I don't know the answer.

Playing for a championship is a little different and I want us to have a team that gets out of the first round. Can't get out of the first round without getting into the first round.

Bingo on our last win. Only 57 years ago as it was the 1950-51 season. I don't remember how many NBA teams there were but it was probably 8 so the odds of winning if just by chance were reasonably high.

 

[Jerryaki]

Can't get out of the first round without getting into the first round.

i've thought about that too, from the view of the get-into-the-playoffs supporters. it seems that when the team is good enough to compete, then they'll be back in the playoffs; it should not be that hard, since 16 out of 30 teams make it!

 

[=LarryLegend=]

Espn says the following playoff and lottery chances:

espn says we will have a record of 38-44

we have a 9.3% chance of making playoffs.


chances of winning lottery:

Minnesota 22.7%
Seattle 14.7%
La Clippers 13.5%
Charlotte 12.5%
Sacramento 0.8%

wow...good no one really knows yet. because thats GARBAGE.

 

[Kingster]

For me, trying to get a good draft spot isn't even about trying to draft a team that's going to win it all. It's about drafting a team that's not going to just slink in at #8 (if they're lucky) and then go 4 to 6 games in the first round before being crushed by much better teams year after year.

Really what it all comes down to is hope. If you're good, you have hope that your team will go all the way. If you're bad, you hope you'll be able to draft that guy who will make you good. If you're stuck in the middle, all you really have to look forward to is each night's game, because you already know what's going to happen -- you're either going to miss the playoffs altogether, or you're going to slink into the 8 spot and get bounced. And then next year when you've got the 14th or 16th pick, you're going to draft a mediocre fill in, and the rest of your guys are going to be one year older, slower, less athletic, and cost more, and the cycle is going to repeat itself.

In my mind, there's possibly nothing worse than teetering on the edge of mediocrity for an extended period of time. That's why I've been a proponent of blowing this team up since last year. That's why I think signing players like Mikki "Oven Mitts" Moore was a bad idea. All you do is reinforce the status quo, when any of the alternatives would be better.

Anyway, just my thoughts.

Bingo. Perfectly said.

 

[Entity]

Playoffs or high draft picks?

Geez. I think the answer is obvious, NEITHER.

Right in the middle = mediocreville.

Kings will not make the playoffs. But they are to good to get a high draft pick. GP is going to have to make it happen in trades.

Ding Ding Ding. You have hit the right answer on the nose. We aren't good enough to make a dent in the playoffs. Yet we will be lucky to get the 10th pick this year. Ron Artest is putting together an All-Star season and unless he is gone with Him Bibby and Martin and Brad Miller playing at a high level with Salmons and Garcia getting better and Mikki being better than KT was last year. The playoffs are not out of the question.

 

[Bricklayer]

I have decided to create a universal quiz that can be reused every time yet another iteration of this same tiresome topic pops up again:

1) Do you believe that this team, as currently constructed, can compete for a championship this year?

2) Are you under the impression that you will either no longer be a fan or not live long enough to see any more seasons of basketball after this one?

3) What would you sacrifice to watch 83-88 Kings basketball games this season, as opposed to 82? Does it matter that 4 of the extra 4-6 games will be losses for your team?

4) Who would you rather have drafted this past year, Greg Oden, or Spenser Hawes?

5) If you are extremely overweight and on a diet with a goal of returning to your high school weight, do you eagerly seek out that extra piece of pie anyway?

6) If your answer to the above question is yes, is it because you choose to deny the extra food will set back your diet, because you lack self confidence that the diet can succeed, or because you live for the moment and have trouble focusing on long term goals?

7) If you are heavily in debt and have already maxed out several credit cards and are having to use a new one to make payments on the old one, and you happen to see a hot dress/cool jersey/whatever in the window of a store, do you go on in and slap it onto that new credit card anyway?

8) If your answer to the above question is yes, is it because you refuse to believe that adding more debt will slow down or make it impossible for you to work out of your current debt, because you do not believe you can ever escape your debt and are determined to have the good things no matter the consequences, or because you live in the moment and have trouble focusing on long term goals and responsibilities?

9) If you are engaged to the man/woman of your dreams, and have hopes of living happily ever after with them, plans for a house, kids, vacations, whips, chains, handcuffs, you name it, and one night at a bar you encounter a decent looking, but far from handsome/beautiful member of the opposite sex who you think you might be able to sleep with that night with a little work/flirtation, do you go ahead and put the moves on that person?

10) If your answer to the above question is yes, is it because you think/hope you can get away with it with no consequences, because you secretly do not believe that you and your fiance will live happily ever after, or because you live in the moment and have trouble focusing on long term goals/happiness when confronted by instant gratification.

 

[Entity]

Anyway. The only way we could the 1st is to trade kevin, Ron and Mike. and I am not sure John and Cisco and Brad couldn't win. Its not that we want to watch 4 more games Brick. You act as if its something we as fans can do. I am sorry they don't suck enough to get that top pick. I am sorry they ARE good enough to not even get a top 10 pick.

 

[kupman]

The Kings will try and win every game.....its what professional athletes do.....next topic.

 

[Entity]

The Kings will try and win every game.....its what professional athletes do.....next topic.

thank you. Some ppl act as if these 14 players are going to say hey guys lets lose alot of games so we can get some 19 year old kid who may or may not be able to play at this level so he can SAVE the franchise whooopie.

 

[Bricklayer]

thank you. Some ppl act as if these 14 players are going to say hey guys lets lose alot of games so we can get some 19 year old kid who may or may not be able to play at this level so he can SAVE the franchise whooopie.

These 14 players are completely irrelevant.

Quick, name the 14 players on the roster in 1991-92. Or 92-93. or whenever. Just irrelevant.

We aren't discussing them. They get paid millions of dollars to bounce a ball. Decisions about the franchise aren't theirs to make. They will play as they play, and its not for love of the franchise. Its for their own careers. The decisions and responsibility for the greater fate of the frachise rest with men who should have a wider vision.

 

[Entity]

But those 14 are on the court and win or lose the games. If you want to build through the draft you have to get rid of those players for worse players and picks. Its not up to us is what I am trying to say.

 

[Mozart]

Interesting draft stat

I just so happened to see the TNT broadcast just for a few seconds while channel-surfing and, during that brief time, I saw the answer to a question posted, which was: "What team in the NBA has the highest number of 1st-round draft picks?" (paraphrased).


The answer: The New York Knicks with 12 1st-round draft picks on the roster! TWELVE! (12)


And the Knicks are 6-11 and power-rated below the Kings!


What does that tell you? The draft ain't everything.

 

[kupman]

Maybe this should be our new line-up:

PG: Kenny Thomas
SG: SAR
SF: Daryl Watkins
PF: Mikki Moore
C: Douby

Towel boy: Kmart
newest Royal court dancer: Artest (he's got the skills)

new head coach: Jerry Reynolds

 

[Sptsjunkie]

Thoughts on this topic:

1 - Making the playoffs is great if it is driven by the young players. If our young core (Kevin, Cisco, Hawes, etc.) can get us there it is a great sign for the future and we can eventually get a star through FA to put us over the top. However, if by the second half of the season we are playing Bibby, Artest, Moore, Thomas, etc. to limp to the playoffs that says nothing about our future and is not worth it.

2 - Several people have shown diffent lottery statistics with the same morale: being in the lottery a lot does not guarentee future success. The only problem with these statistics is that those teams who are perpetually terrible despite having great draft picks is that those teams usually have lousy GMs. So they get great draft positions then draft terrible players. If you (like I) believe that Petrie is a really good GM and great talent evaluator, than these stats do not really apply. If you think he is a bad GM, than this debate is irrelevant because we are screwed either way.

To summarize: If our young players can take us to the playoffs, that is great for our franchise and I am all for it. If we are going to limp there with our mediocre veterans, than I would rather get a good lottery pick and let Petrie work his genius.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I just so happened to see the TNT broadcast just for a few seconds while channel-surfing and, during that brief time, I saw the answer to a question posted, which was: "What team in the NBA has the highest number of 1st-round draft picks?" (paraphrased).


The answer: The New York Knicks with 12 1st-round draft picks on the roster! TWELVE! (12)


And the Knicks are 6-11 and power-rated below the Kings!


What does that tell you? The draft ain't everything.

I call shenanigans on this post: it reminds me of a process I learned about when I was in the Navy called meaconing...

In the first place, it tells you that a lot of people don't know how to draft. In the second place, mentioning that the Knicks have twelve first-round draft picks without any additional context makes it sound like New York drafted all twelve of them, or even most of them, when they actually only drafted four of them; the fact of the matter is that a lot of those guys (Balkman, Collins, Chandler, Robinson, Jeffries) had absolutely no business being taken in the first round and, in Balkman's case specifically, I can recall a great deal of furor over the fact that New York took him so high (#20), since most everybody felt that he would not only still be there when they picked again at #29, but that he still would have been there when they picked in the second round.

In the third place, six of their twelve first-round picks are guards, and not even Don Nelson is going to put more than three guards on the floor at the same time. In the fourth place, Isaiah Thomas can't coach worth a ****. And, in the fifth place... "power rankings?" Seriously?

This goes back to my biggest bone of contention with people who seem to represent themselves as anti-draft/tank. These people always seem to want to fabricate this Straw Man where they pretend as if anybody here has ever said that the draft was the end-all and be-all, when no one actually has. If anything, people want the team to get a high draft pick because 1) the chance of getting a superstar to sign as a free agent is ridiculously unlikely, and 2) history shows that the odds of acquiring a player that can win you a championship overwhelmingly favor the draft/lottery over other methods. Not only is it true that only three players have ever been Finals MVP that were not a top-ten pick [Joe Dumars (18th in 1985), Cedrick Maxwell (12th in 1977) and Dennis Johnson (12th in 1976)], but it's also true that, out of the twenty-four different players that have been Finals MVP in the history of the league, only four of them ever won Finals MVP for a team other than the one that drafted them [Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (who is the only player in history to win Finals MVP for two different teams), Moses Malone and Chauncey Billups].

Only an idiot would ever say that the lottery is foolproof (cougharaujocough), and nobody on this board has ever said that. But, given the odds of getting a superstar in the lottery, getting a superstar via trade, and getting a superstar through free agency, I'll take my chances with the lottery ninety-nine times out of a hundred.

2 - Several people have shown diffent lottery statistics with the same morale: being in the lottery a lot does not guarentee future success. The only problem with these statistics is that those teams who are perpetually terrible despite having great draft picks is that those teams usually have lousy GMs. So they get great draft positions then draft terrible players. If you (like I) believe that Petrie is a really good GM and great talent evaluator, than these stats do not really apply. If you think he is a bad GM, than this debate is irrelevant because we are screwed either way.

This is a very salient point, and it reminds me of something else that frustrates me about this board: there are scads of people that want you to give your unqualified faith to Petrie, because they think he's such a great GM, but an unbelievable percentage of these same people want to also tell you that the draft is a crapshoot, and that it's not worth trying to get a high draft pick, because it might not work out... well, which is it? Because if Petrie is half as good a GM that many people here think he is, then it's got to be an absolute stone-cold lead pipe cinch that he would unquestionably be able to get us a franchise-cornerstone superstar with a top-5 pick. I mean, how can you possibly reconcile "In Petrie we Trust" with "the draft is a crapshoot?" If you believe that Petrie is worth a damn as a GM, then you HAVE to believe that he would get us the Golden Goose with a top pick.

 

[Kingzrool]

I call shenanigans on this post: it reminds me of a process I learned about when I was in the Navy called meaconing...
etc.

So what does this mean to you? The players should purposely lose games so the team will get a better draft pick? The coach should purposely bench players that he knows wil help win a game in order to acheive a worse record? The GM should trade away all good players so the team will lose lots of games and focus soley on youth developement?

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

So what does this mean to you? The players should purposely lose games so the team will get a better draft pick? The coach should purposely bench players that he knows wil help win a game in order to acheive a worse record? The GM should trade away all good players so the team will lose lots of games and focus soley on youth developement?

I expect the players to play as hard as they can. I expect the coach to coach the team with the intent to win. I expect the GM, however, to do what is in the best interests of the team in the long term, which is not necessarily (and is not, in this case, in my opinion) winning in the short term. If that means getting rid of "all the good players," then so be it.

EDIT - Let me put it like this: I'd give anything short of my first born to trade our roster wholesale for Portland's.