Race to the Bottom thread

Warhawk said:
You are correct. But we've been going through about 20 years of the same ineptitude (except for one abnormal bright spot a couple years back), and the current ownership was in place for over half that time. Until we see evidence of REAL change, I'll reserve the right to be skeptical that a pee-poor driver changing from a Ford to a Dodge is still going to be anything more than a pee-poor driver, just with a different car. The signing of Dennis, not working out something with Keon, etc., hasn't exactly given me a lot of hope. Playing the vets, sitting the youth, banishing Carter to the bench, etc., all indicate to me that things haven't changed that much...

What's that definition of insanity again?
Click to expand...

As always, what's the alternative? Nobody's parting with their established superstar who's young enough to take the time to build around from scratch, so what's the plan if it doesn't place a great deal of emphasis on the draft? Shipping off future first rounders for a Mikal Bridges or a Desmond Bane? Trading for a distressed asset and pinning hopes on their sudden transformation? Trying to coax a star-level free agent to Sacramento, despite the market disadvantages? I mean, the dice roll of the draft remains a more probable pathway to sustainable success than other pathways they could conceivably trod. If you're able to snag an upper-tier talent or two in the draft, you've secured an actual path forward, and then you can do the work of angling for fit on the trade market or signing mid-level free agents who can't turn their nose up at the Kings.

It's certainly not an absolutely foolproof, airtight strategy, but for the Kings, in 2026, there just aren't any attractive pathways to sustainable success. The last fifteen years are an object lesson in the dangers of not having a plan, of not executing a long-term strategy. Scott Perry might very well be another in a line of poor GMs the Kings have hired in the years since Geoff Petrie. But even poor GMs occasionally find their way to success in this league. Sometimes it's due to luck. Sometimes it's due to getting out of the way. Much of the time, emphasis on the draft for a few years can get you to a winning record even if you don't have the acumen of a Sam Presti.
 
Warhawk said:
At this point, I think I've been annoying enough to those who worship draft picks as our only savior. I'll bow out. Have fun. ✌️
Click to expand...

It's not about "worship" at all. It's just about understanding where success comes from in the modern NBA when you're a small market franchise. What path is most likely to lead to sustainable success, in spite of whatever inefficiencies may exist along that path? The math is the math, and the chances of finding an upper tier talent in the top-5 of the draft is much higher than, say, finding an available trade candidate that is young enough, cheap enough, and good enough to build around. Nobody's trading those guys. But I'd love to hear better ideas than mine, by the way. I don't relish the thought of the Kings needing to suck for the next few years in order to rebuild effectively.
 
Padrino said:
As always, what's the alternative? Nobody's parting with their established superstar who's young enough to take the time to build around from scratch, so what's the plan if it doesn't place a great deal of emphasis on the draft? Shipping off future first rounders for a Mikal Bridges or a Desmond Bane? Trading for a distressed asset and pinning hopes on their sudden transformation? Trying to coax a star-level free agent to Sacramento, despite the market disadvantages? I mean, the dice roll of the draft remains a more probable pathway to sustainable success than other pathways they could conceivably trod. If you're able to snag an upper-tier talent or two in the draft, you've secured an actual path forward, and then you can do the work of angling for fit on the trade market or signing mid-level free agents who can't turn their nose up at the Kings.

It's certainly not an absolutely foolproof, airtight strategy, but for the Kings, in 2026, there just aren't any attractive pathways to sustainable success. The last fifteen years are an object lesson in the dangers of not having a plan, of not executing a long-term strategy. Scott Perry might very well be another in a line of poor GMs the Kings have hired in the years since Geoff Petrie. But even poor GMs occasionally find their way to success in this league. Sometimes it's due to luck. Sometimes it's due to getting out of the way. Much of the time, emphasis on the draft for a few years can get you to a winning record even if you don't have the acumen of a Sam Presti.
Click to expand...

And again, where I think you and many others in this discussion would agree, the major problem isn't necessarily winning games, it's HOW (or potentially how) we're winning games. There's simply no long-term benefit to winning a game right now with Russ/LaVine/Dennis/DDR/Monk taking all the minutes and USG. It's extraordinarily likely not a single one of those 5 (6 if we include Domas) aren't on the team game 1 of the 27-28 season in a year and a half.

The good news is we're a very bad team and the rookies are mostly performing well and all 3 look like NBA players. We're very much in line for a top 5 pick if our current trend holds. But the process mistakes of not even giving an opportunity to Devin Carter to play; not just getting Keon on the damn floor for 30 minutes, even though he's done everything and then some to prove he's an NBA starter, etc. And even though the rookies are in real rotation roles right now... does that continue if Domas stays on the team after the deadline? Are they maximizing development if they don't get touch the ball on offense? What happens when Keegan comes back? What if we don't make the deals we're expected to, most of the vets remain and Doug decides to push for end of season wins to make his own record look better?

Perry's got to do some heavy lifting here at the deadline.
 
Warhawk said:
And how do we do that without losing our lottery pick for blatant tanking? We have too much talent (mismatched, but talent) to land bottom 3. And even bottom 3 still only promises a #4 pick statistically.

I'll say it again:

The league is intentionally discouraging the approach you are basing your entire premise on and has effectively GUARANTEED that nobody can "bank" on a top 3 pick.

It's up to ping-pong balls and we're going to keep seeing teams outside the top 5 dropping in to get top picks.
Click to expand...
The league gives lip service to sitting guys out. Watch Utah.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top