Should the Kings rebuild?

[VF21]

And yet I know you were a fan of the Kings in 1990. And that after all was when we tried exactly the same tactic -- traded away the whole damn team for draft picks, 4 #1s actually, and decided to gamble on the future. Knew when we did it we would lose games, and a lot of them, in the short term. Hoped that in the end we would win more than we would ever have otherwise (of course we executed the plan incompetently).

Its about perspective, scope. Fans normally lack it, and even if you have it you have to trust that the frront office sticks to its guns. Successful franchises have to have it at some point. If you are a front office that thinks like a fan you become the New York Knicks -- too terrified to ever rebuild and have a bad season that you admit to and know is coming, so you wallow and shift around crappy assets in a feeble attempt to fool the fanbase.

ALL franchises try to win (possible exception of the Clippers). It is just a question of timing. You can be focused on making sure you win 40 every single year and never get any better. Or you can be focused on trying to win 60 in 3 years, and accept winning 30 the next few as the cost. You are still trying to win, in fact the latter team is the one really trying to WIN. The other one is just trying not to lose. You're just taking the longer view and trying to win big in the long run, rather than small in the short run. Neither the Spurs, nor their fans, lose a moment of sleep over having a horrible season back in '96 or '97 or whenever that was. They are too busy admiring all the rings on their fingers.

A potential "rebuild" for us at this point is moving 3, maybe 4, players. That is all it takes to tip the scale, grab a high pick, clear up a ton of capspace to sign a major free agent, probably grab a few other picks and prospects along the way. Its certainly a viable strategy from our current position, and one explicitly aimed at "winning", as in really WINNING.

P.S. and this "tanking" language inserted into this thread is inappropriate. The players ALWAYS try to win. The question is what is the front office trying to win, and when?

My objection is to "tanking" the season, which is exactly what Packt said. Retooling, rebuilding, etc. is different. It happens.

As an aside, I make a conscious effort not to look back on the last time the Kings tried a major rebuild. It gives me nightmares. Simmons, Mays, Causwell and Bonner. Anyone who isn't a long-time Kings fan would be hard-pressed to pick any of those first-round picks out of a picture of players of that era...

Packt - The terms may be "semantics" to you, but to a lot of us they have a very different meaning. "Tanking" is intentionally losing; "rebuilding" is accepting a short-term downgrade by moving players, etc. as part of a plan to make the team better in the long run. BIG difference. The Chicago White Sox TANKED the 1919 World Series.

 

[BMiller52]

Okay Brick why don't you make a rebuilding plan and post it in the personnel section if you're so confident in your GMing abillities.

 

[Bricklayer]

Okay Brick why don't you make a rebuilding plan and post it in the personnel section if you're so confident in your GMing abillities.

Well that is a rather pointless challenge -- its not too hard to rebuild the Kings in the Personnel Section. Every trade is accepted, every draft pick a star, and every FA accepts your money.

The general principles however are time tested and proven.

1) Define who your stars are. Keep them unless they are too old to be part of rebuilding.
2) Keep your current youth (for the most part 25 and younger).
3) Trade anybody who does not fit the above categories for one of the following, or some combination thereof: a) young players, b) players with expiring contracts; c) draft picks

Applied to the Kings that means:

Artest, Martin, Garcia and Douby are the obvious keepers, and take care of most of your SF/SG needs. Bibby and Salmons are grey area guys. If they return your PG position is mostly full too. Corliss, Potapenko, Hart and Woods are all enders, and will be gone + free up $10-$12 mil in caproom (which does us little good in and of itself since it leaves us up around the cap). Price, Admundson, and Williams are largely irrelevant, but if one of them shows something, certainly fit the youth mold.

So take all that, and then take your three target guys (Brad, SAR, Thomas) and apply #3 above. A possible mix would be something like 1 young big, 2 #1s, and then cap room from enders. With $20 million in salary in those three, even if you don't free it all, if you get most of it, combined with the Corliss et.al. enders it will give you room to make runs at the restricted FA bigs like Kaman and Milicic. If you get two #1s, then you try to take 2 of the 3 (and ours at least is likely lottery) and move up into the top 10, while still having a spare pick. Then you take your (in that scenario Mike was retained, as likely was Salmons) Bibby, Salmons, Martin, Douby, Artest, Cisco core of littles, add in your young big you got from the trades (let's just say David Harrison on the theory Indiana is one team that would like to have Brad), a big $$ FA you nabbed, and then, again just for example, the #7 and #19 picks in the draft (just looking at the draft projections maybe a Brandon Wright (compared to KG) or Josh McRoberts (compared to Webb) at #7 and then a big hoss like Roy Hibbert at #19). Then sprinkle in lower $$ free agents or returning Price/Admundson/Williams types to fill out the roster. All fo a sudden Bibby is the old man, you are loaded with young talent, and you can settle in and grow. Also still should have enough money under the tax to give Ron his raise.

 

[Packt]

Packt - The terms may be "semantics" to you, but to a lot of us they have a very different meaning. "Tanking" is intentionally losing; "rebuilding" is accepting a short-term downgrade by moving players, etc. as part of a plan to make the team better in the long run. BIG difference. The Chicago White Sox TANKED the 1919 World Series.

That's a very elegant way to put it, but in the end it's still losing. We're a 6-8 seed currently, maybe better. If we're chasing the lottery, it means we're tanking or have given up on the current team.

I'll just step away and abandon my previous comments and refrain from using the word "tank" because the word has too many negative associations --"rebuilding" is the more positive and progressive word. No matter what you call it, a plan that has you losing now, and looking towards the future is okay with me.

 

[HndsmCelt]

That's a very elegant way to put it, but in the end it's still losing. We're a 6-8 seed currently, maybe better. If we're chasing the lottery, it means we're tanking or have given up on the current team.

I'll just step away and abandon my previous comments and refrain from using the word "tank" because the word has too many negative associations --"rebuilding" is the more positive and progressive word. No matter what you call it, a plan that has you losing now, and looking towards the future is okay with me.

Words are spesific tools each with it's own individual meaning. The effort to confound or confuse meanings is usually a prelude to poorly constructed argument that depends upon the misdirection of the bad defination to apear valid. Some people can get by with a hamaer and a cresent wrench, but don't get upset with the person who realizes that your insistance that your cresent wrench is socket set.

"Tanking" as applied to the intentional loss of a game is MUCH different than loosing games beceause you do not have the tallent, but still play to win. Sure the casual fan only sees a loss in either case but deeper examination of a team in rebuild mode makes the losses a bit easier to take. Take from a long time Fresno State fan who had to sit and watch my team obviously shave points and actually "tank" games.

 

[TheJoker]

The only way i accept missing the playoffs this year is "if we try" which means we have to play our hearts out but if we're gonna lose like we don't care then i'm gonna be up-set.

 

[thatguy]

The only way i accept missing the playoffs this year is "if we try" which means we have to play our hearts out but if we're gonna lose like we don't care then i'm gonna be up-set.

What if the Kings try and don't make the playoffs? Indifference? Acceptance?

 

[TheJoker]

If they try, then i accept. if other teams are better then it's understandable there is a difference between trying and not trying obviously the first is something you want even if it doesn't go the way you want because you atleast saw you're team try and things just didn't go the way they wanted.

a tanking job is something you would see in the 97-98 Spurs squad that year they win something like 13 wins if i'm not mistaken and sat David Robinson intentionally to get a top pick.

 

[BMiller52]

Well that is a rather pointless challenge -- its not too hard to rebuild the Kings in the Personnel Section. Every trade is accepted, every draft pick a star, and every FA accepts your money.

The general principles however are time tested and proven.

1) Define who your stars are. Keep them unless they are too old to be part of rebuilding.
2) Keep your current youth (for the most part 25 and younger).
3) Trade anybody who does not fit the above categories for one of the following, or some combination thereof: a) young players, b) players with expiring contracts; c) draft picks

Applied to the Kings that means:

Artest, Martin, Garcia and Douby are the obvious keepers, and take care of most of your SF/SG needs. Bibby and Salmons are grey area guys. If they return your PG position is mostly full too. Corliss, Potapenko, Hart and Woods are all enders, and will be gone + free up $10-$12 mil in caproom (which does us little good in and of itself since it leaves us up around the cap). Price, Admundson, and Williams are largely irrelevant, but if one of them shows something, certainly fit the youth mold.

So take all that, and then take your three target guys (Brad, SAR, Thomas) and apply #3 above. A possible mix would be something like 1 young big, 2 #1s, and then cap room from enders. With $20 million in salary in those three, even if you don't free it all, if you get most of it, combined with the Corliss et.al. enders it will give you room to make runs at the restricted FA bigs like Kaman and Milicic. If you get two #1s, then you try to take 2 of the 3 (and ours at least is likely lottery) and move up into the top 10, while still having a spare pick. Then you take your (in that scenario Mike was retained, as likely was Salmons) Bibby, Salmons, Martin, Douby, Artest, Cisco core of littles, add in your young big you got from the trades (let's just say David Harrison on the theory Indiana is one team that would like to have Brad), a big $$ FA you nabbed, and then, again just for example, the #7 and #19 picks in the draft (just looking at the draft projections maybe a Brandon Wright (compared to KG) or Josh McRoberts (compared to Webb) at #7 and then a big hoss like Roy Hibbert at #19). Then sprinkle in lower $$ free agents or returning Price/Admundson/Williams types to fill out the roster. All fo a sudden Bibby is the old man, you are loaded with young talent, and you can settle in and grow. Also still should have enough money under the tax to give Ron his raise.

That sounds nice but you make it sound real easy when in reality it's not. Honestly depending on the trades you pull off and who you trade you might not have to even lose a lot of games.

 

[SacTownKid]

One question. How many teams "settle in and grow" and end up winning anything?

 

[Jerryaki]

That sounds nice but you make it sound real easy when in reality it's not. Honestly depending on the trades you pull off and who you trade you might not have to even lose a lot of games.

it might not be easy, and like anything else in sports will depend on some luck, but a lot of what brick said did make sense. a good a way to go as any, i guess.

i thought he was just answering the question of "what would you do" which you had challenged him to.

 

[Bricklayer]

One question. How many teams "settle in and grow" and end up winning anything?

Probably half of the great teams ever assembled. But just for one, let's say the Bulls dynasty. Take one young star (Jordan), draft a couple young kids (Pippen, Grant), then wait for it while adding litte roleplayers around the edges. The "settling in and growing" thing is something that nearly every winning team has to do, but it doesn't do you any good if you don't have the talent, or if its so scattered agewise that just as one guy is coming into his prime an older guy is starting to decline.

As an aside, I would just assume trade for KG, get our superstar that way, and start the winning now. But that is rather unlikely (it would be lightning striking twice after we stole Webb), so the accepted route to greatness is generally to dive into the draft and try to come up with a gem.

 

[Jerryaki]

As an aside, I would just assume trade for KG, get our superstar that way, and start the winning now. But that is rather unlikely (it would be lightning striking twice after we stole Webb), so the accepted route to greatness is generally to dive into the draft and try to come up with a gem.

there is also the route of trying to find a guy buried on someone's bench who might be a superstar, like a jermaine o'neal or someone of the ilk. darko may fit that eventually, at which point it would've sucked that we couldn't get him last year when the pistons put him on the block.

 

[thatguy]

Can someone explain to me why I had a post deleted? It looked like this:

Well that is a rather pointless challenge

So why the rest?

Thanks.

 

[Packt]

Words are spesific tools each with it's own individual meaning. The effort to confound or confuse meanings is usually a prelude to poorly constructed argument that depends upon the misdirection of the bad defination to apear valid. Some people can get by with a hamaer and a cresent wrench, but don't get upset with the person who realizes that your insistance that your cresent wrench is socket set.

"Tanking" as applied to the intentional loss of a game is MUCH different than loosing games beceause you do not have the tallent, but still play to win. Sure the casual fan only sees a loss in either case but deeper examination of a team in rebuild mode makes the losses a bit easier to take. Take from a long time Fresno State fan who had to sit and watch my team obviously shave points and actually "tank" games.

I find this response odd considering you advocate setting the team up to lose, and chase a top pick, yourself

We can pretend there is no one at the wheel, but that is far from the truth. Somebody has to make the decision that losing is okay for now and steer us in that direction. We're not going to just lose, there has to be a conscious effort for this team to lose, or lose enough to be in the lottery. So, it's okay to lose as long as we first trade- intentionally and methodically- away players who would help us win.

You talked about reality earlier, but it seems you want to maintain a façade.

 

[Bricklayer]

Can someone explain to me why I had a post deleted? It looked like this:



Thanks.

Because you were just being a tool and feebly trying to provoke me?

We're trying to have a little conversation over here about the future of the team, thx. If you've got nothing to contribute then just move along.

 

[thatguy]

Actually, I wasn't.

 

[BMiller52]

Well brick I mean that is a decent plan but don't you think you should wait until you've seen this team play, you've seen what kind of coach Musselman is, and you've seen what opportunities present themself(as far as getting the shotblocker we need goes)?

 

[VF21]

1) Define who your stars are. Keep them unless they are too old to be part of rebuilding.
2) Keep your current youth (for the most part 25 and younger).
3) Trade anybody who does not fit the above categories for one of the following, or some combination thereof: a) young players, b) players with expiring contracts; c) draft picks

Applied to the Kings that means:

Artest, Martin, Garcia and Douby are the obvious keepers, and take care of most of your SF/SG needs. Bibby and Salmons are grey area guys. If they return your PG position is mostly full too. Corliss, Potapenko, Hart and Woods are all enders, and will be gone + free up $10-$12 mil in caproom (which does us little good in and of itself since it leaves us up around the cap). Price, Admundson, and Williams are largely irrelevant, but if one of them shows something, certainly fit the youth mold.

So take all that, and then take your three target guys (Brad, SAR, Thomas) and apply #3 above. A possible mix would be something like 1 young big, 2 #1s, and then cap room from enders. With $20 million in salary in those three, even if you don't free it all, if you get most of it, combined with the Corliss et.al. enders it will give you room to make runs at the restricted FA bigs like Kaman and Milicic. If you get two #1s, then you try to take 2 of the 3 (and ours at least is likely lottery) and move up into the top 10, while still having a spare pick. Then you take your (in that scenario Mike was retained, as likely was Salmons) Bibby, Salmons, Martin, Douby, Artest, Cisco core of littles, add in your young big you got from the trades (let's just say David Harrison on the theory Indiana is one team that would like to have Brad), a big $$ FA you nabbed, and then, again just for example, the #7 and #19 picks in the draft (just looking at the draft projections maybe a Brandon Wright (compared to KG) or Josh McRoberts (compared to Webb) at #7 and then a big hoss like Roy Hibbert at #19). Then sprinkle in lower $$ free agents or returning Price/Admundson/Williams types to fill out the roster. All fo a sudden Bibby is the old man, you are loaded with young talent, and you can settle in and grow. Also still should have enough money under the tax to give Ron his raise.

As Jean-Luc Picard would say, "Make it so."

 

[GoGoGadget]

Well brick I mean that is a decent plan but don't you think you should wait until you've seen this team play, you've seen what kind of coach Musselman is, and you've seen what opportunities present themself(as far as getting the shotblocker we need goes)?

There's a problem with always waiting things out, however, in that the worthwhile opportunities are going to be presenting themselves to the teams that aren't sitting on their hands.

You wait AFTER you've made the aggressive moves. AFTER you've gotten superstar(s), youth and cap space. The reality of the situation is that waiting things out with the roster as it currently stands won't do much of anything but make our youth less young, our vets near elderly and our cap/contract situation just as ugly.

 

[HndsmCelt]

Because you were just being a tool and feebly trying to provoke me?

We're trying to have a little conversation over here about the future of the team, thx. If you've got nothing to contribute then just move along.

Um, I believe he took umbrage to my suggestion that that Tanking and loosing games due to retooling was not equivalent and efforts to make them such were semantical efforts in the effort to win an argument by muddying the waters.

Regardless and more to the point now waiting to shee how this team does is pointlessly optmistic. The only real change in line up since last season is the loss of Bonzi and subsequent insertion of Kevin into the starting line up and brining in Salmons... do we really need to see this road tested? All the kids folks are so excited to see are really not the issue since their contracts are too small to be an issue and their reps dont garner trade interest. Heck if folks REALLY think that Amudson, Williams, Doubey and company might be answer then the dumping SAR, Kenny, Brad and maybe even Bibby could give the kids more pt to proove themselves.

 

[VF21]

Um, I believe he took umbrage to my suggestion that that Tanking and loosing games due to retooling was not equivalent and efforts to make them such were semantical efforts in the effort to win an argument by muddying the waters.

Actually, he took swipes at both of you.

Regardless and more to the point now waiting to shee how this team does is pointlessly optmistic. The only real change in line up since last season is the loss of Bonzi and subsequent insertion of Kevin into the starting line up and brining in Salmons... do we really need to see this road tested? All the kids folks are so excited to see are really not the issue since their contracts are too small to be an issue and their reps dont garner trade interest. Heck if folks REALLY think that Amudson, Williams, Doubey and company might be answer then the dumping SAR, Kenny, Brad and maybe even Bibby could give the kids more pt to proove themselves.

I don't think waiting to see what happens is entirely pointless, for the simple reason we don't know what Petrie has in mind. I still maintain he thinks like a chess player and while we're busily complaining about what he's done so far THIS off-season he may be working on something that won't come to fruition until next TDOS.

I continue to object to the idea that being optimistic is somehow inferior to being coldly pessimistic. There's room for both. And one is never going to change the other anyway.

 

[Jerryaki]

There's a problem with always waiting things out, however, in that the worthwhile opportunities are going to be presenting themselves to the teams that aren't sitting on their hands.

well put. i find my angst early in the offseason being met with comments like "there's a long time between now and october."

now it'll be "we've got until the trade deadline, that's when the magic happens."

and then it'll be "there's always offseason to address our weaknesses."

i've been antsy since the offseason we just signed Tag!

 

[KP]

well put. i find my angst early in the offseason being met with comments like "there's a long time between now and october."

now it'll be "we've got until the trade deadline, that's when the magic happens."

and then it'll be "there's always offseason to address our weaknesses."

i've been antsy since the offseason we just signed Tag!

This post is so on point it's not even funny ^.

 

[SacTownKid]

Probably half of the great teams ever assembled. But just for one, let's say the Bulls dynasty. Take one young star (Jordan), draft a couple young kids (Pippen, Grant), then wait for it while adding litte roleplayers around the edges. The "settling in and growing" thing is something that nearly every winning team has to do, but it doesn't do you any good if you don't have the talent, or if its so scattered agewise that just as one guy is coming into his prime an older guy is starting to decline.

As an aside, I would just assume trade for KG, get our superstar that way, and start the winning now. But that is rather unlikely (it would be lightning striking twice after we stole Webb), so the accepted route to greatness is generally to dive into the draft and try to come up with a gem.

You mention the Jordan Bulls, which according to many of the things you've stated previously is the ultimate exception to almost everything. How many teams in the current era went young and settled in and did anything great?