Race to the Bottom thread

[Warhawk]

The top 5 this year stand out from the rest from a scouting standpoint. You want to ensure you nab one of them and if it doesn't work out, then it doesn't work out. I wouldn't even be mad at the franchise because from my point of view, they took the best player available.

You know who else "stood out" to scouts? Greg Oden. Bennett. Darko. Bowie. Kwame. Bender. Billy Owens (we actually came out ahead on that one - rare). Etc., etc.

If we draft pretty high (top 5 or so) and it doesn't work out, I will be upset. Because given the value of first rounders right now, we could probably grab a pretty darn good young player with the pick and some matching salary (say, Keon if we aren't going to actually play him, or Carter (ditto), or whoever else is relatively cheap or a middling salary and productive) instead of gambling yet again on someone who may likely bust.

Many keep treating a top 5 pick as a savior to our franchise when over and over again history has proven otherwise, to us and others.

 

[QWERTYLICIOUS]

The top 5 this year stand out from the rest from a scouting standpoint. You want to ensure you nab one of them and if it doesn't work out, then it doesn't work out. I wouldn't even be mad at the franchise because from my point of view, they took the best player available.

I've heard this way too often to then later find out/realize that most, if not all, of the top 5 have become very underwhelming performers on the court. Way too often, at least, to convince myself to say, "Yeah, let's go ahead and bottom out so hard that we guarantee ourselves a top 5 pick because that is the only we we will assure ourselves of a potential franchise-altering centerpiece".

 

[QWERTYLICIOUS]

Many keep treating a top 5 pick as a savior to our franchise when over and over again history has proven otherwise, to us and others.

I mean...if our idiot of a GM (at the time) and front office didn't decide to draft based on need, and actually went with the better prospect...

 

[ESP47]

You know who else "stood out" to scouts? Greg Oden. Bennett. Darko. Bowie. Kwame. Bender. Billy Owens (we actually came out ahead on that one - rare). Etc., etc.

If we draft pretty high (top 5 or so) and it doesn't work out, I will be upset. Because given the value of first rounders right now, we could probably grab a pretty darn good young player with the pick and some matching salary (say, Keon if we aren't going to actually play him, or Carter (ditto), or whoever else is relatively cheap or a middling salary and productive) instead of gambling yet again on someone who may likely bust.

Many keep treating a top 5 pick as a savior to our franchise when over and over again history has proven otherwise, to us and others.

I've heard this way too often to then later find out/realize that most, if not all, of the top 5 have become very underwhelming performers on the court. Way too often, at least, to convince myself to say, "Yeah, let's go ahead and bottom out so hard that we guarantee ourselves a top 5 pick because that is the only we we will assure ourselves of a potential franchise-altering centerpiece".

Hey if you guys want to argue that worse odds is the way to go, then have at it. Outliers can be found anywhere. The fact is that the best players are found at the top of the draft and the further down you go, the less you'll find talented players.

If your argument is that seeking a trade for our pick would be better than utilizing the pick, then at least you have somewhat of an argument. Problem is it's an argument you can't really put much on unless Perry actually does trade away with the pick because you have no idea what player or players could be acquired for that pick.

If your argument is that Darko, Kwame and company sucked, therefore it doesn't matter if we pick 2nd or say 7th, then I really don't know what to tell you other than you aren't thinking logically here.

If I get to choose the 2nd pick and you get to choose the 7th pick every year, I won't beat you every time but I'll certainly wind up with the better player more often than you will.

 

[Padrino]

You know who else "stood out" to scouts? Greg Oden. Bennett. Darko. Bowie. Kwame. Bender. Billy Owens (we actually came out ahead on that one - rare). Etc., etc.

If we draft pretty high (top 5 or so) and it doesn't work out, I will be upset. Because given the value of first rounders right now, we could probably grab a pretty darn good young player with the pick and some matching salary (say, Keon if we aren't going to actually play him, or Carter (ditto), or whoever else is relatively cheap or a middling salary and productive) instead of gambling yet again on someone who may likely bust.

Many keep treating a top 5 pick as a savior to our franchise when over and over again history has proven otherwise, to us and others.

A "pretty darn good young player" gets the Kings no closer to becoming a sustainable playoff contender. They need to leverage the draft for at least the next three seasons in order to build something worth rooting for. They need to use their own first round picks wisely, try their best to pull in a few more first rounders from other teams, and snag extra second rounders wherever they can.

You get nowhere trading this mid-level guy for that one and committing the cardinal NBA sin of shipping off future lottery-bound picks for big money players. The only teams in recent memory that have made such a strategy work are the Los Angeles Clippers, the Los Angeles Lakers, and the New York Knicks. And that's because they're... the Los Angeles Lakers, the Los Angeles Clippers, and the New York Knicks. And even then, the Lakers are barely holding on above the play-in line, the Clippers are desperate to cling to their play-in hopes, and the Knicks will be lucky to keep a .600 or better season together in the talent poor Eastern Conference.

Just look up and down the standings. Most of the teams in the NBA that are worth a damn in 2026 understood the value of building through the draft. And many of them also understood the value of prying other teams' first rounders away from them in order to give themselves more bites at the apple since, as you've pointed out, not every promising young talent develops into a star. But the fact that many first round talents have busted in the past is not a worthy argument for shunning the value of the draft in the present nor in the future. The Kings are simply not in any kind of position to pretend that the draft does not matter immensely to the probability of their long-term success. They need to draft often, they need to draft well, and then they need to develop those they've drafted instead of frittering away their careers.

 

[QWERTYLICIOUS]

Hey if you guys want to argue that worse odds is the way to go, then have at it. Outliers can be found anywhere. The fact is that the best players are found at the top of the draft and the further down you go, the less you'll find talented players.

If your argument is that seeking a trade for our pick would be better than utilizing the pick, then at least you have somewhat of an argument. Problem is it's an argument you can't really put much on unless Perry actually does trade away with the pick because you have no idea what player or players could be acquired for that pick.

If your argument is that Darko, Kwame and company sucked, therefore it doesn't matter if we pick 2nd or say 7th, then I really don't know what to tell you other than you aren't thinking logically here.

If I get to choose the 2nd pick and you get to choose the 7th pick every year, I won't beat you every time but I'll certainly wind up with the better player more often than you will.

I'm not necessarily arguing that "worse odds is the way to go". I'm arguing that, even with better odds, nothing is guaranteed, and we shouldn't just bank on the worst odds in order to then turn this franchise around. Sure, if there is a Tim Duncan-level or LeBron James-level prospect coming out, then, if we have the opportunity to, we should work our way towards setting ourselves up to potentially have a shot at getting that 1st overall pick.

But, a competent GM and front office who is great at assessing talent should be able to find gems later in the first round or somewhere in the 2nd round, and shouldn't HAVE to rely on top 5 picks every year in order to turn their franchise around...That is what I am trying to say.

 

[Insomniacal Fan]

We were never going to be the #1± seed based on wins/losses. We have too much talent. The average pick location for seeds 1-4 is 4 based on lottery odds (rounded). Statistically, they are all pretty much equivalent.

There's also no reason that a pick at, say, 6-10, can't be better than some of the picks at 1-5. Happens every single year that top picks gets injured or is outperformed by later picks. The secret is good drafting wherever you are at and a very healthy dose of luck. A top 5 pick guarantees nothing in the long run.

I did an analysis on this topic a while back in this post https://community.kingsfans.com/threads/are-the-kings-entering-a-rebuild-phase.103071/post-1909979

So sure, a 6-10 pick can be better than a top 5 pick, but if you're looking for a great player, a top 5 pick is worth about 5 times as much as a 6-10. That's the difference between 5 years rebuilding and 25 years of "rebuilding"

 

[QWERTYLICIOUS]

I did an analysis on this topic a while back in this post https://community.kingsfans.com/threads/are-the-kings-entering-a-rebuild-phase.103071/post-1909979

So sure, a 6-10 pick can be better than a top 5 pick, but if you're looking for a great player, a top 5 pick is worth about 5 times as much as a 6-10. That's the difference between 5 years rebuilding and 25 years of "rebuilding"

Tyreke Evans (#4), DeMarcus Cousins (#5), Thomas Robinson (#5), De'Aaron Fox (#5), and Marvin Bagley (#2) are all waiting for you on line 1.

 

[QWERTYLICIOUS]

The Kings are simply not in any kind of position to pretend that the draft does not matter immensely to the probability of their long-term success. They need to draft often, they need to draft well, and then they need to develop those they've drafted instead of frittering away their careers.

And the Kings need to do this regardless of their pick/position in the draft. Whether it be #1, #15, #30, or #60. Draft well, and you have nothing to worry about.

 

[Padrino]

I'm not necessarily arguing that "worse odds is the way to go". I'm arguing that, even with better odds, nothing is guaranteed, and we shouldn't just bank on the worst odds in order to then turn this franchise around. Sure, if there is a Tim Duncan-level or LeBron James-level prospect coming out, then, if we have the opportunity to, we should work our way towards setting ourselves up to potentially have a shot at getting that 1st overall pick.

But, a competent GM and front office who is great at assessing talent should be able to find gems later in the first round or somewhere in the 2nd round, and shouldn't HAVE to rely on top 5 picks every year in order to turn their franchise around...That is what I am trying to say.

Eh, there's just about nothing you can bank on, period, when you're a small market franchise. In the fraught years since Jerry Buss' death, the Los Angeles Lakers have remained a team that falls ass-backwards into superstar talent, waits for free agents to fall into their open arms, and receives the NBA's most generous whistle. They're the league's "premiere franchise" (); they can bank on success, even when they're poorly-managed. The Sacramento Kings will simply never be the Los Angeles Lakers.

So when you're the laughingstock of the league and you have nothing to bank on, what do you do? You push your chips onto the spaces that render you most likely to set yourself up for long-term success. As @Insomniacal Fan noted above, that means trying to grab yourself at least one top-5 pick when you begin the arduous process of rebuilding.

Tyreke Evans (#4), DeMarcus Cousins (#5), Thomas Robinson (#5), De'Aaron Fox (#5), and Marvin Bagley (#2) are all waiting for you on line 1.

Also, these names are not evidence that undermines the strategy of aiming for the area of the draft most likely to yield difference-making talent. The math is the math. And I mean, what's the alternative? Hoping that you can kludge together a playoff team from middling first round picks, mid-level talent, undrafted gems, other teams' cast-offs, and whatever big name veteran-past-his-prime you can coax your way via free agency? Hope is not a strategy.

Rebuilding requires patience, effective scouting, a developmental program worth a damn, and the will to see your plan through. Does it always pay off? No. But that's professional sports. It's hard to win at this level. All I know is I'd rather aim for a Thunder or Rockets styled approach to cultivating talent than pretend I can get away with doing a bad impression of the New York Knicks stumbling into a winning roster by throwing sh*t at the wall to see what sticks.

 

[Padrino]

And the Kings need to do this regardless of their pick/position in the draft. Whether it be #1, #15, #30, or #60. Draft well, and you have nothing to worry about.

If you draft well at #30, given the average talent you can acquire at #30, that doesn't get you anything. If you draft well at #1 or #5, given the average talent you can acquire at #1 or #5, it can get you to the playoffs.

 

[Warhawk]

Hey if you guys want to argue that worse odds is the way to go, then have at it. Outliers can be found anywhere. The fact is that the best players are found at the top of the draft and the further down you go, the less you'll find talented players.

If your argument is that seeking a trade for our pick would be better than utilizing the pick, then at least you have somewhat of an argument. Problem is it's an argument you can't really put much on unless Perry actually does trade away with the pick because you have no idea what player or players could be acquired for that pick.

If your argument is that Darko, Kwame and company sucked, therefore it doesn't matter if we pick 2nd or say 7th, then I really don't know what to tell you other than you aren't thinking logically here.

If I get to choose the 2nd pick and you get to choose the 7th pick every year, I won't beat you every time but I'll certainly wind up with the better player more often than you will.

Nobody is saying that a better pick isn't a better outcome. That's...stupid.

I'm saying that the only Kings hope is getting a top 5 pick or bust is a false argument.

A "pretty darn good young player" gets the Kings no closer to becoming a sustainable playoff contender. They need to leverage the draft for at least the next three seasons in order to build something worth rooting for. They need to use their own first round picks wisely, try their best to pull in a few more first rounders from other teams, and snag extra second rounders wherever they can.

You get nowhere trading this mid-level guy for that one and committing the cardinal NBA sin of shipping off future lottery-bound picks for big money players. The only teams in recent memory that have made such a strategy work are the Los Angeles Clippers, the Los Angeles Lakers, and the New York Knicks. And that's because they're... the Los Angeles Lakers, the Los Angeles Clippers, and the New York Knicks. And even then, the Lakers are barely holding on above the play-in line, the Clippers are desperate to cling to their play-in hopes, and the Knicks will be lucky to keep a .600 or better season together in the talent poor Eastern Conference.

Just look up and down the standings. Most of the teams in the NBA that are worth a damn in 2026 understood the value of building through the draft. And many of them also understood the value of prying other teams' first rounders away from them in order to give themselves more bites at the apple since, as you've pointed out, not every promising young talent develops into a star. But the fact that many first round talents have busted in the past is not a worthy argument for shunning the value of the draft in the present nor in the future. The Kings are simply not in any kind of position to pretend that the draft does not matter immensely to the probability of their long-term success. They need to draft often, they need to draft well, and then they need to develop those they've drafted instead of frittering away their careers.

Sorry, maybe my language wasn't the most precise to express my thoughts.

Trading Billy for Mitch, for example. Rondo for the pick that became Fernandez. Aldridge for a pick and player. Vince Carter for the pick that became Antawn Jamison. My point is, the actual draft itself isn't the end-all be-all of success or failure. Sometimes making a trade with an asset (in this discussion, a pick) is a better option than using that asset as-is. Sometimes those "pretty good young players" turn out to be a lot better than the pick itself.

I'm not saying that high picks aren't valuable. But tanking for high picks over and over doesn't always work (lottery odds, injuries, etc.). This repeated idea that "if we land a top 3 pick (or whatever) our franchise is saved" has been proven wrong over and over after the pick is made. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. Getting more picks helps, but getting proven young up-and-coming studs is even better in my book.

 

[QWERTYLICIOUS]

And I mean, what's the alternative? Hoping that you can kludge together a playoff team from middling first round picks, mid-level talent, undrafted gems, other teams' cast-offs, and whatever big name veteran-past-his-prime you can coax your way via free agency? Hope is not a strategy.

A competent GM with an eye for talent doesn't necessarily have to rely on "hope" as his strategy to build a team into legitimate championship contenders.

Rebuilding requires patience, effective scouting, a developmental program worth a damn, and the will to see your plan through. Does it always pay off? No. But that's professional sports. It's hard to win at this level. All I know is I'd rather aim for a Thunder or Rockets styled approach to cultivating talent than pretend I can get away with doing a bad impression of the New York Knicks stumbling into a winning roster by throwing sh*t at the wall to see what sticks.

Chet Holmgren is, quite literally, the ONLY top 5 pick by the Thunder who was on their championship winning roster. And lets not start acting like he was some undeniable force in their run to winning the title. Yes, I will agree that they don't win without him. But...they don't win without a handful of others more than they don't without Chet.

And the Rockets are still a big question mark to me. They need to at least make it all the way to the finals for me to buy into their approach of "cultivating talent".

 

[QWERTYLICIOUS]

If you draft well at #30, given the average talent you can acquire at #30, that doesn't get you anything. If you draft well at #1 or #5, given the average talent you can acquire at #1 or #5, it can get you to the playoffs.

Also...

Tony Parker (#28) and Manu Ginobili (#57) are waiting for you on line 1.

And even you, @Padrino, can agree with me that San Antonio doesn't win as many championships as they did without both of them on the roster.

 

[The_Jamal]

Hey if you guys want to argue that worse odds is the way to go, then have at it. Outliers can be found anywhere. The fact is that the best players are found at the top of the draft and the further down you go, the less you'll find talented players.

If your argument is that seeking a trade for our pick would be better than utilizing the pick, then at least you have somewhat of an argument. Problem is it's an argument you can't really put much on unless Perry actually does trade away with the pick because you have no idea what player or players could be acquired for that pick.

If your argument is that Darko, Kwame and company sucked, therefore it doesn't matter if we pick 2nd or say 7th, then I really don't know what to tell you other than you aren't thinking logically here.

If I get to choose the 2nd pick and you get to choose the 7th pick every year, I won't beat you every time but I'll certainly wind up with the better player more often than you will.

As "our side" has continously argued, process matters. Winning 30 games is vastly different if Carter, Nique, Keon, Max, Cardwell, Keegan are leading the charge as opposed to Russ, Dennis, DDR, Monk, etc.

Focus on development with young guys and if they go win games, is what it is. What we are doing now by throwing out one of the oldest cores in basketball is toeing a very fragile line; we are very bad, but if that pivots to us being "mediocre" its a complete disaster.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Also...

Tony Parker (#28) and Manu Ginobili (#57) are waiting for you on line 1.

And even you, @Padrino, can agree with me that San Antonio doesn't win as many championships as they did without both of them on the roster.

Yes, but “average” had a meaning in that sentence. Most years, you can’t count on finding a Parker or Ginobili (or Jokić) that late in the draft.

 

[QWERTYLICIOUS]

Yes, but “average” had a meaning in that sentence. Most years, you can’t count on finding a Parker or Ginobili (or Jokić) that late in the draft.

Understood, but my underlying point is that you don't always need a top 5 pick in the draft to successfully build a roster and that talent potentially can be found later in the draft.

 

[Padrino]

Also...

Tony Parker (#28) and Manu Ginobili (#57) are waiting for you on line 1.

And even you, @Padrino, can agree with me that San Antonio doesn't win as many championships as they did without both of them on the roster.

Probably not. But they're coming nowhere near it without Tim Duncan.

 

[Warhawk]

I did an analysis on this topic a while back in this post https://community.kingsfans.com/threads/are-the-kings-entering-a-rebuild-phase.103071/post-1909979

So sure, a 6-10 pick can be better than a top 5 pick, but if you're looking for a great player, a top 5 pick is worth about 5 times as much as a 6-10. That's the difference between 5 years rebuilding and 25 years of "rebuilding"

I don't disagree overall (in theory). But our team isn't anywhere near the worst team in the league unless we are starting and playing major (30+) minutes to, say, Dennis, Saric, Stevens, Plowden, and Eubanks. It just ain't happening. If we do that we get hammered by the league and maybe lose our pick anyways. You're putting your faith into something that isn't real. We have a much better (realistic) chance of landing in the 5-10 range and "moving up" than we do of ever landing 1-3 (pre lottery).

You're getting frustrated at people saying "don't bank on being #1 pre-lottery" (guaranteed top 5 pick) when it is a virtual impossibility to begin with.

Nobody is saying a #1 pick isn't better than a #10 (theoretically). But how have the top 8 picks (to keep it easy for a top 4 pre-lottery) worked out for us overall (Sacramento Kings time frame)? I think this is everyone (best players for us bolded, IMHO):

1. Ellison
2. Bagley
3. Owens (never played for us, but good in trade - making my point)
4. Murray, Evans
5. Fox, Robinson, DMC
6. WCS, Kenny Smith, Kleine
7. McLemore, Bismack (never played for us, traded for Fredette), Jason Williams, Hurley, Walt Williams, L-Train
8. Chriss, Stauskas, Grant

Sorry, that is showing me that tanking alone isn't cutting it. At all. At least for the Kings. We need to be smarter with our assets and make solid trades. Drafting ain't cutting it.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Speaking of Race to the Bottom, the Locked In network steals the show by making James Ham their new Kings host.

 

[BillyStrings]

Good night for the tank. Pacers and Pels win!

 

[sactowndog]

Nice day today. Didn’t have OKC loosing to Indiana on my bingo card.

 

[Joshyjosh31]

Good night for the tank. Pacers and Pels win!

Sacramento won tonight

 

[Joshyjosh31]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2014899985775525985

Smh

 

[sactowndog]

I don't disagree overall (in theory). But our team isn't anywhere near the worst team in the league unless we are starting and playing major (30+) minutes to, say, Dennis, Saric, Stevens, Plowden, and Eubanks. It just ain't happening. If we do that we get hammered by the league and maybe lose our pick anyways. You're putting your faith into something that isn't real. We have a much better (realistic) chance of landing in the 5-10 range and "moving up" than we do of ever landing 1-3 (pre lottery).

You're getting frustrated at people saying "don't bank on being #1 pre-lottery" (guaranteed top 5 pick) when it is a virtual impossibility to begin with.

Nobody is saying a #1 pick isn't better than a #10 (theoretically). But how have the top 8 picks (to keep it easy for a top 4 pre-lottery) worked out for us overall (Sacramento Kings time frame)? I think this is everyone (best players for us bolded, IMHO):

1. Ellison
2. Bagley
3. Owens (never played for us, but good in trade - making my point)
4. Murray, Evans
5. Fox, Robinson, DMC
6. WCS, Kenny Smith, Kleine
7. McLemore, Bismack (never played for us, traded for Fredette), Jason Williams, Hurley, Walt Williams, L-Train
8. Chriss, Stauskas, Grant

Sorry, that is showing me that tanking alone isn't cutting it. At all. At least for the Kings. We need to be smarter with our assets and make solid trades. Drafting ain't cutting it.

You are using the most incompetent team in the league to make your point. You also are ignoring how few of those were type 5 picks. If you just look at those ……

1. Worse draft in a long time
2. Bagley missed on JJJ and Luka (both top 5) and you don’t get if out of 5….
3. Owen’s traded for one of our all time best ever again showing the value.
—————————————————
If you look at the data top 3 does matter.
4. Evans was Rookie of the Year. (Blake Griffin and James Harden go in top 3). Murray ( Banchero and Chet )
5) Fox and DMC…. Remember 3 was our pick and it become Jayson Tatum. Fox was great underscoring top 5 but he is not Tatum.

Really the Kings problems are not getting top 3 picks in good drafts (3 in our total crappy history). Some of it is bad luck and some of it is poor strategy.

What it is not is an understatement is the importance of getting a top 3 pick in the draft and at worst 5. And then yes you have to pick the right guy but get top 5 and for sure top 3…… he is there.

 

[Insomniacal Fan]

I don't disagree overall (in theory). But our team isn't anywhere near the worst team in the league unless we are starting and playing major (30+) minutes to, say, Dennis, Saric, Stevens, Plowden, and Eubanks. It just ain't happening. If we do that we get hammered by the league and maybe lose our pick anyways. You're putting your faith into something that isn't real. We have a much better (realistic) chance of landing in the 5-10 range and "moving up" than we do of ever landing 1-3 (pre lottery).

You're getting frustrated at people saying "don't bank on being #1 pre-lottery" (guaranteed top 5 pick) when it is a virtual impossibility to begin with.

Nobody is saying a #1 pick isn't better than a #10 (theoretically). But how have the top 8 picks (to keep it easy for a top 4 pre-lottery) worked out for us overall (Sacramento Kings time frame)? I think this is everyone (best players for us bolded, IMHO):

1. Ellison
2. Bagley
3. Owens (never played for us, but good in trade - making my point)
4. Murray, Evans
5. Fox, Robinson, DMC
6. WCS, Kenny Smith, Kleine
7. McLemore, Bismack (never played for us, traded for Fredette), Jason Williams, Hurley, Walt Williams, L-Train
8. Chriss, Stauskas, Grant

Sorry, that is showing me that tanking alone isn't cutting it. At all. At least for the Kings. We need to be smarter with our assets and make solid trades. Drafting ain't cutting it.

Well, to start out with I agree that the team probably is too talented to expect to get the worst record in the league. I expected us to just miss the play-in. Who knows how well we'd do if we started the season healthy.

To correct you factually, I'm not personally upset with not being in last place. Even if we do get a top 5 pick, I believe that we're in agreement that there's so much noise in the draft, that we can hardly guarantee that a single pick will transform the franchise. Where I think you are flatly wrong is the philosophy that because the draft is noisy, it's not worth prioritizing. With a top 5 pick, we're looking at about a 20-25% chance of getting a transformational player in a given year, given past draft performances. From that, I believe we should be expecting a 4-5 year rebuild, though we can accelerate that if we can swap our remaining assets for more valuable picks.


Looking at the historical record, I'm not sure what your point is. We've got a fairly average level of hits and misses. What's astonishing to me is that despite the team being remarkably uncompetitive, we have only received 8 top 5 picks in the last 40 years. The average for the league is 7, but wouldn't we agree the Kings have been below average for most of that 40? (We've only had 9 winning records). Over the same epoch, the Kings have had 22 picks in the 6-15 range, more than any other team in the league. I don't think you should fetishize mid-level moves, especially when we don't have a player to build around.

---
I'm not sure where the disconnect is, but I can try and layout the logic as I see it. Feel free to point out anything you think isn't sound or valid.

Premise 1:
The best way to get the best players in the league are top 5 draft picks (My evidence is the graph)

Premise 2:
In a competitive league, teams require the best players to compete

Premise 3:
The Kings want to compete. (I suspect that this is where we differ. Perhaps some fans don't care anymore about the Kings competing for a championship)

Conclusion:
The best thing for the Kings to do is to try and get top 5 draft picks

 

[QWERTYLICIOUS]

Probably not. But they're coming nowhere near it without Tim Duncan.

And, to my earlier point, Tim Duncan was a generational prospect in his time. So, that was a great year to "tank", and shoot for that high draft pick (which San Antonio "executed" perfectly with the David Robinson injury). But that doesn't necessarily mean that it should be the norm every single year. Because prospects like Tim Duncan and LeBron James don't come around every single year.

 

[Warhawk]

You are using the most incompetent team in the league to make your point. You also are ignoring how few of those were type 5 picks. If you just look at those ……

1. Worse draft in a long time
2. Bagley missed on JJJ and Luka (both top 5) and you don’t get if out of 5….
3. Owen’s traded for one of our all time best ever again showing the value.
—————————————————
If you look at the data top 3 does matter.
4. Evans was Rookie of the Year. (Blake Griffin and James Harden go in top 3). Murray ( Banchero and Chet )
5) Fox and DMC…. Remember 3 was our pick and it become Jayson Tatum. Fox was great underscoring top 5 but he is not Tatum.

Really the Kings problems are not getting top 3 picks in good drafts (3 in our total crappy history). Some of it is bad luck and some of it is poor strategy.

What it is not is an understatement is the importance of getting a top 3 pick in the draft and at worst 5. And then yes you have to pick the right guy but get top 5 and for sure top 3…… he is there.

When you are one of the most incompetent teams in the league, that is entirely the point.

You act like we aren’t. That’s ignoring reality.

 

[Warhawk]

Well, to start out with I agree that the team probably is too talented to expect to get the worst record in the league. I expected us to just miss the play-in. Who knows how well we'd do if we started the season healthy.

To correct you factually, I'm not personally upset with not being in last place. Even if we do get a top 5 pick, I believe that we're in agreement that there's so much noise in the draft, that we can hardly guarantee that a single pick will transform the franchise. Where I think you are flatly wrong is the philosophy that because the draft is noisy, it's not worth prioritizing. With a top 5 pick, we're looking at about a 20-25% chance of getting a transformational player in a given year, given past draft performances. From that, I believe we should be expecting a 4-5 year rebuild, though we can accelerate that if we can swap our remaining assets for more valuable picks.


Looking at the historical record, I'm not sure what your point is. We've got a fairly average level of hits and misses. What's astonishing to me is that despite the team being remarkably uncompetitive, we have only received 8 top 5 picks in the last 40 years. The average for the league is 7, but wouldn't we agree the Kings have been below average for most of that 40? (We've only had 9 winning records). Over the same epoch, the Kings have had 22 picks in the 6-15 range, more than any other team in the league. I don't think you should fetishize mid-level moves, especially when we don't have a player to build around.

---
I'm not sure where the disconnect is, but I can try and layout the logic as I see it. Feel free to point out anything you think isn't sound or valid.

Premise 1:
The best way to get the best players in the league are top 5 draft picks (My evidence is the graph)

Premise 2:
In a competitive league, teams require the best players to compete

Premise 3:
The Kings want to compete. (I suspect that this is where we differ. Perhaps some fans don't care anymore about the Kings competing for a championship)

Conclusion:
The best thing for the Kings to do is to try and get top 5 draft picks

I've never said that we shouldn't get high picks. Ever. That's stupid.

I've said that they aren't the guarantee to winning everyone seems to think they are. Over and over again I keep seeing that we need to hit in the top 5 in this draft (every year it seems to be the same) or we'll suck forever, that the team is doomed, etc., etc. Wailing and gnashing of teeth. Sackcloth and ashes.

Yes, we've had bad luck. Yes, we've sucked at the draft. No, we can't ignore that history because it's who this team is.

I disagree that the "best" way to get the best players in the league is necessarily the draft. It is a good way, but I think it can be overvalued. Our history points to it. Our best two players in the Sacramento area are likely Mitch and Webber. Both came through trades, not the draft. Vlade was a free agent. Bibby was a trade. DC was a trade. Brad was a trade. BJax was a trade. Out of our top 5+ players during that time only Peja and JWill were drafted by us. Sabonis was a trade, too. He's also right up there in my book. DMC and Fox were drafted, but neither had the impact on our record we hoped for despite being (mostly) great players.

Is it possible to draft a franchise savior? Of course! But you don't bet on the "tank" in a draft alone. I've said that if we trade Sabonis we should get more picks than just the one most seemed to be happy with in a trade hypothetical. Why? Because picks are a crapshoot. If you are trading a good player for primarily picks you damn well better get several, not just one. I value them like they are pellets in a shotgun shell - one alone may not be (is likely not!) effective. In order to hit you probably need a lot of them. The problem is you only get one first rounder a year. The rebuild process takes a LONG time if you just tank and take your pick. You hope there's good drafts in there and that you get a high pick and that there's no injuries and you draft the right player and that you can develop that player, etc., etc. It's all a string of hopes and dreams. Most teams don't get too lucky that way. We sucked for two decades and have had only one good season in that time. All those picks after all those crappy, crappy years led to what? Absolutely nothing.

Also for instance, the Lakers best players in recent history? The team everyone here has been hoping the Kings will be better than for the last two decades? Kobe - trade. Shaq - trade. Kareem - trade. Magic was a draft pick, but they got the #1 pick that year through a trade and a lucky coin flip, not by tanking. LeBron - free agent. Street Clothes - trade. Malone and Payton - free agency. Pau - trade. Luka - trade.

Let's be smarter and if possible, use our pick(s) in trade to bring back a star. Your chart shows that the hit rate for a high pick is less than 25%. Why are we gambling on that instead of going for a much better bet? Two firsts in trade could bring back what 3-4 picks in the draft would probably fail to do (by the numbers).

I'm not saying ignore draft position and don't draft well. I'm saying we can't count on it and need to be better in all aspects of talent acquisition rather than just having a crappy record year after year and praying that the lottery gods smile on us. We aren't bad enough to land there pre-lottery, so don't wail and moan that we're winning a few games here and there. We're bad enough already. We just have to be smarter.

 

[Insomniacal Fan]

You're wrong about emulating the Lakers, Kobe was effectively a draft pick. Kareem was a trade request from a GOAT candidate. Shaq figured he could make more money in LA selling product. Lebron... etc. LA is LA, the Kings don't get to be LA unless they move to LA.

On trades in general, trades for significant players are special circumstances, and not easily replicated. We got Webber off a string of injuries and sex assault allegations. It's not a red paperclip story. It's not replicable, and it's more wishful thinking than a strategy of building off of a budding star in the draft. For roleplayers like Bibby, trades make a lot more sense.

Loading the pellet gun with birdshot is analogous to what the Kings have been doing by trying to hoard late lottery picks. That's mostly why we've failed to get great players in the draft. 4 nickels is worth less than 1 quarter. We don't know what trades are available for Sabonis, but in my opinion, a 20% chance at a great player that can take us to the playoffs is better than a 100% chance of a good player that can't (sorry Domas fans)