Race to the Bottom thread

Capt. Factorial said:
A team in our position should not draft for fit in the first round. We should draft the best player available and move forward from there. Fit should be considered in the second round, where a player who fits poorly is likely to get logjammed and never earn playing time.
Click to expand...
Especially when you're picking in the top 10. I can see where a strong argument can be made for drafting for need/fit with a later pick in the first round, though. But, for sure, you should always draft BPA with a top 10 pick (Yes, Vlade, I am looking at you).
 
hrdboild said:
Me personally? No, I do not care. I find the clash of differing points of view stimulating. The hate-watching can sometimes be disruptive when those voices take over the game thread. As a matter of decorum I think it's polite to give fans who still want to root for wins the space to do that. But in general, I don't believe in silo'ing different points of view into separate little bubbles so everyone gets to be right in their own domain. I think it's healthier to get our disagreements out there where we can all chew on them and maybe even change our minds just a little.
Click to expand...
Okay fair enough.
 
Warhawk said:
Minor edit - because we are the Kings, you know. We screw up draft picks all the time. ;)

That sparks a question for me - who is the last all-star caliber player we drafted and then kept beyond their rookie contract, besides Fox? Would it be Peja?

Man, for a team picking in the lottery/early picks for decades, that is HORRIBLE.
Click to expand...
A big part of the problem is we usually pick in the late lottery and that spot tends to be a larger crap shoot to whom you pay larger salaries.
 
Capt. Factorial said:
A team in our position should not draft for fit in the first round. We should draft the best player available and move forward from there. Fit should be considered in the second round, where a player who fits poorly is likely to get logjammed and never earn playing time.

At any rate, the only player who could be a fit issue for the Kings in any way at the top of this draft is Boozer, and that's if the FO is indeed intent on keeping Domas (which is not clear). But if Boozer is BPA, take him and figure the rest out. Or, if somebody will offer a juicy trade to move up one or at most two slots to get Boozer and you still like the available players in those slots, consider that.


The rules changed several years ago. Now the top four slots are selected in the lottery.
Click to expand...
I agree with this for this team.

But I also think if a comparable big wing is available you take them because it is much harder to find a top wing later in the draft. Because of that if we are picking 6-8 in the draft I look hard at Ament.
 
QWERTYLICIOUS said:
Especially when you're picking in the top 10. I can see where a strong argument can be made for drafting for need/fit with a later pick in the first round, though. But, for sure, you should always draft BPA with a top 10 pick (Yes, Vlade, I am looking at you).
Click to expand...
No you do not and Davion is the perfect example. He was widely considered the BPA at our spot but we had Fox and Haliburton. He had zero chance to develop and the pick was horrible for us and them.
 
QWERTYLICIOUS said:
Exactly that...The odds are more in favor of us DROPPING all the way down to the 5th pick than they are of us staying at #1 or even dropping down to 2 or 3.

Also, my comment wasn't directed at you, per se, but everyone in general who claim that we have the greatest odds at landing that #1 pick if we finish with the worst record in the league.
Click to expand...
Does anyone claim that?
 
sactowndog said:
No you do not and Davion is the perfect example. He was widely considered the BPA at our spot but we had Fox and Haliburton. He had zero chance to develop and the pick was horrible for us and them.
Click to expand...
Then you draft him with the intention of flipping him for additional assets. Or you utilize the pick to trade down and hopefully acquire multiple picks.

But you definitely don't go out and draft someone who would be available later in the first round. In my opinion, that would be considered as sacrificing value to ensure you end up with a player who "fits".
 
Last edited:
Warhawk said:
And I'm not arguing any of this, except possibly the bolded part. This is the kind of hyperbole that get said somewhat frequently when NBA drafts roll around. Then it's an Oden, or a Fultz, or whatever, and the fans and team have to stew in their disappointment for years. Let's just hope (not "expect") we get something better than a 4 or 5 pick post lottery, not put these players up on some kind of unattainable goal pedestal, and hope they all end up at least "good". Unless you think they are all as good as LeBron or Kareem?
Click to expand...
Even a "miss" in the top 5 is significantly more likely to be a Keegan Murray (a useful player) than to be a Oden/Fultz/Bagely. And currently, Keegan seems to be the only player on the team with any noticeable trade interest.

I don't think building through the trade market is even viable at this point; anyone with remote interest in a Kings player is noticing the smoke and is waiting for fire sale prices.

I suppose the remaining option is that we can keep signing Schröeder, Westbrook level vets. I personally don't consider "making the play-in" to be a prize worth competing for.

It's important to consider the worst-case scenario, "what if we get a dud in the draft", but is that really the worst-case? Isn't being a sustainable loser worse?
 
QWERTYLICIOUS said:
Then you draft him with the intention of flipping him for additional assets. Or you utilize the pick to trade down and hopefully acquire multiple picks.

But you definitely don't go out and draft someone who would be available later in the first round. In my opinion, that would be considered as sacrificing value to ensure you end up with a player who "fits".
Click to expand...

As we have proven, you can’t “flip” small guards for larger wings. We ultimately had to spend a pick to dump Davion.

If a trade down is available you can do it. But questionable large wings are going before many guards as shown by Davion and Hali.
 
sactowndog said:
As we have proven, you can’t “flip” small guards for larger wings. We ultimately had to spend a pick to dump Davion.

If a trade down is available you can do it. But questionable large wings are going before many guards as shown by Davion and Hali.
Click to expand...

That's moreso because the Kings diminish everything they get their hands on. The Kings essentially did that very thing trade wise to get Hunter. Star wings? Probably not but wings aren't impossible to get these days.
 
sactowndog said:
Well what he said is true if we finish 1-3 we will have the highest odds. One can assume he inferred exclusivity but he never actually stated that fact.
Click to expand...
We wouldn't have the highest odds, we'd be tied with others for highest odds. There is a difference. The exclusivity is indeed inferred.

It's been said before as well, but I've got work to do and I'm not going to try to hunt down other examples.
 
Warhawk said:
We wouldn't have the highest odds, we'd be tied with others for highest odds. There is a difference. The exclusivity is indeed inferred.

It's been said before as well, but I've got work to do and I'm not going to try to hunt down other examples.
Click to expand...
The exclusivity is inferred by you as the reader but not stated. Not a great example
 
sactowndog said:
Well what he said is true if we finish 1-3 we will have the highest odds. One can assume he inferred exclusivity but he never actually stated that fact.
Click to expand...
Having the highest odds and having the same odds as another team or, in this case, multiple other teams, are very much so two completely different things, so, no, one can't actually state that we have the highest odds, because that is not even remotely close to being factually true. Nor can one infer any degree of "exclusivity". "Highest odds" means just that - you have the highest odds of anyone out there. Having the same odds as another team/other teams is not considered as having the "highest odds".
 
QWERTYLICIOUS said:
Having the highest odds and having the same odds as another team or, in this case, multiple other teams, are very much so two completely different things, so, no, one can't actually state that we have the highest odds, because that is not even remotely close to being factually true. Nor can one infer any degree of "exclusivity". "Highest odds" means just that - you have the highest odds of anyone out there. Having the same odds as another team/other teams is not considered as having the "highest odds".
Click to expand...

14% odds for the first pick and 48% for a top four are the highest odds. That is a factual statement.

If we have a top 3 seed we will have those odds. That is also a factual statement.

You are adding an assumptive statement that is not factual that the highest odds are singular.
 
sactowndog said:
14% odds for the first pick and 48% for a top four are the highest odds. That is a factual statement.

If we have a top 3 seed we will have those odds. That is also a factual statement.
Click to expand...
I don't think you quite understand what I am trying to get at, so let me try to explain a little better...

When it comes to the following statement, "The Sacramento Kings will have the best/highest odds at obtaining the number 1 overall pick in the NBA draft if they finish with the worst record in the NBA", I interpret that statement to mean that, if we end up with the worst record, only we will have the best/highest odds at obtaining the number 1 overall pick. I don't interpret that to mean that, if we end up with the worst record, we will be one of the teams with the best/highest odds at obtaining the number 1 overall pick. And, I think that is where you, and many others, are trying to come from. Which, I admit, is factual. I am not denying that. However, a more accurate, and truer, statement, in my mind, would be, "The Sacramento Kings will be one of three teams with the best/highest odds at obtaining the number 1 overall pick in the NBA draft if they finish with the worst record in the NBA". THAT is a more accurate statement than the initial one. At least to me it is.

sactowndog said:
You are adding an assumptive statement that is not factual that the highest odds are singular.
Click to expand...
I never said that. As a matter of fact, I've always said the opposite.
 
To me not dropping out of the top 5 is more important and why I want the worst record. In a draft where 1-5 could be potential "first pick overall" in lesser drafts staying in that 1-5 range is what I'm most worried about. Now as people have stated before whether we chose the right person is a wild freaking guess lol I was team Luka. I get 1 also has the highest odds of getting 5 if I'm understanding what everyone is posting. To me that coin flip for 5 is worth staying exclusively in the top 5.
 
We have been the worst and most ethical team in the league almost all season. I think we just had our last day in the “Number 1” spot. Games against Indiana, Utah and Brooklyn twice are likely to produce 3 wins, maybe 4. Anything over 2 wins amongst that group likely places us 3rd or 4th pre-lottery. Nail the pick please.
 
iowamcnabb said:
We have been the worst and most ethical team in the league almost all season. I think we just had our last day in the “Number 1” spot. Games against Indiana, Utah and Brooklyn twice are likely to produce 3 wins, maybe 4. Anything over 2 wins amongst that group likely places us 3rd or 4th pre-lottery. Nail the pick please.
Click to expand...
Yeah we are not competent enough to even lose when we should.
 
iowamcnabb said:
We have been the worst and most ethical team in the league almost all season. I think we just had our last day in the “Number 1” spot. Games against Indiana, Utah and Brooklyn twice are likely to produce 3 wins, maybe 4. Anything over 2 wins amongst that group likely places us 3rd or 4th pre-lottery. Nail the pick please.
Click to expand...
Could be 5. If we are playing our starters 38 minutes it’s quite possible Utah passes us.

Hard to believe how incompetent our organization is…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top