Tank or Win ?

[uolj]

Why the heck would I waste my money on a team that's intentionally losing games?

FYI... That's not really what tanking is.

And this team is extremely unlikely to make the playoffs. But I'm still in root for them to win mode. With all the heartbreaking losses I can't bear to want them to stay close but just miss anymore.

 

[Aenadin]

I think i speak for most of the kings fans who suffered a 17 win season that we want to WIN more than ever.

we dont want to be the clippers... just play through it try to win!

 

[DeaconBlues]

I know this isn't really an articulate and well reasoned post, but...

WHAAAAAAT???

 

[Andriod_KiNg]

I read this about ten times and tried to come up with a tactful way to say this...








and failed.

Are you out of your freaking mind? Really?

We have an incredible young player leading the pack for ROY, and you want to rest him so we can "give more playing time" ... blah, blah, blah?

Good grief, dude.

I do not mean any personal insult by this, but I do believe this might qualify as the dumbest thing I've seen posted on this board ever. And I mean EVER.

Come on it was a question I was asking my cousin during the game, Why not "showcase" guys like Noc and Beno and give some other guys the pt they need ?

At this point we will finish middle of the pack out of the playoffs and a high draft choice with no shot a big name free agent next year, the draft is the only thing we got going for us. As we never trade up or down and our luck we will win enough games and have a team selecting two or three spots above us take guy we wanted.

 

[Spike]

It isn't about the draft anymore...or it shouldn't be. True, we need one more big guy, whether its through the draft or via free agency, but this is a young team on the upswing. We're not an aging team on the downswing trying to plug holes to keep ourselves in the hunt. If we finish in the middle of the pack by playing the kids that's a good thing.
Teams know what they'll get from Beno and Nocioni at this stage of their careers. If they need them, they'll call. It would be nice, however, if Nocs could hit some shots from time to time.

 

[Aenadin]

show casing noc and beno giving them more pt. only delays the growth of our young players... well beno id give him ample time as a 6th man till cisco recovers. then see how effective cisco can still be THEN start talking about business. the only time we will move beno is during the off season... if we trade him NOw that leaves sergio as back up and im pretty sure he will bolt for europe this summer. the draft positioning will determine who we get. bigman is the main goal in this draft.

noc playing will just hurt and kill the team... as a matter of fact he shouldnt be passed the ball unless every one is guarded. the moment you pass it to him even if theres like 15 secs left he either chucks a three. or runs into the defense with reckless abandon. either drwing a foul (yay!). making it (relieved sigh) having the ball stripped or blocked or misses it (kings fans baring their fangs here)

no to tanking

we need to win now!

try winning now

 

[Rug King]

I hope they keep Beno. He's as good a back-up PG as we're going to get and he's done very well this year.

As far as tanking for a lottery pick, it's not neccessary. The King's aren't cracking the 8th spot this year as they're too busy learning a new system with new coaches and players. They'll get a good pick plus they're in great position for a blockbuster trade/free agent signing this summer.

 

[Aenadin]

its not going to be hard to lure a free agent this summer...

with a scoring back court of evans and martin. (if martin sticks).. and a young core.

 

[pshn80]

Tank? Young core. Showcase? My hope is that the Kings play better tonight and win.

 

[dbfish]

No Tanking.

There is absolutely no reason to tank. For one, to tank in order to get a good "BIG" isn't going to happen. There isn't any big men in college that are going to be difference makers IMHO.
It makes more sense to make a deal for Dalembert, Okafor or Jefferson.
How that gets done is up to Petrie.

 

[John Galt]

I was kind of afraid that when the schedule turned tougher and the pink cloud wore off, a lot of our greatest fans in the NBA would freak out.

It's all right... the "8th spot" stuff was nutty absent a move for a significant big man.

We won't have to "tank" to get a high lottery spot - it is the destiny of this roster to be in the lottery one more year.

Then... look out.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Why the heck would I waste my money on a team that's intentionally losing games?

FYI... That's not really what tanking is.

That's actually exactly what "tanking" is... Or, at least, one of the two accepted definitions of it; which is why there was such heated discussion over whether or not we should have done it in seasons past.

Intentionally losing = tanking.
Not playing your best players = tanking.
Getting rid of your "best" players to play who's left, win/lose/draw = not tanking.

In our case, our best players are the kids; not playing them would be tanking, and we don't need it. ****, we've finally hit the bottom of the slope, and are on the way back up; why take another two steps back?

 

[nickmcclure]

All I can say is pshhhhhhhhhhh. Why would we tank? I don't think we need to get a high draft pick. We nailed Evans and Casspi (and even Brockman) this year, no need to crowd the bench with youth, we have that. Now it's time to get these kids (Donte/Thompson included) aclimated to each other and to closing out games.

 

[JerN820]

Tanking..... what a stupid idea. We had far and away the worst record last year and look what it got us. The FOURTH pick in the draft. Always play hard and go for wins. Thats the only way these young guys are going to get their confidence going and get better.

 

[Bricklayer]

All I can say is pshhhhhhhhhhh. Why would we tank? I don't think we need to get a high draft pick. We nailed Evans and Casspi (and even Brockman) this year, no need to crowd the bench with youth, we have that. Now it's time to get these kids (Donte/Thompson included) aclimated to each other and to closing out games.

Well that's not true -- we need to get another stud in here, somehow, someway. And a high draft pick, as was proven beyond any shadow of a doubt, is a great way to go about that.

That's not the problem. The problem is that the way you "tank" is by playing your kids. Which of course isn't tanking at all, but just tactics and foresight and being smarter than the idiots screaming for mediocre vets. But in our case our kids win a decent percentage of their games. So in order for us to tank, we would have to actually "tank". As in intentionally throw games. And that's a bit of ugliness that you really don't want to be associated with, and especially not now that things have finally turned in a feel good way. It is just not worth it to screw things up. We have a stroing situation here going forward. We've got talented youth. Guys who like each other and the coach. Be really dumb to reach in fro the outside and mess up a good thing before it even gets a chance to get off the ground.

 

[John Galt]

...So in order for us to tank, we would have to actually "tank". As in intentionally throw games. And that's a bit of ugliness that you really don't want to be associated with....

amen amen amen amen, as usual Bricklayer and I in 100% agreement on the subject of tanking.

 

[fnordius]

It's too late for this question.

 

[uolj]

That's actually exactly what "tanking" is... Or, at least, one of the two accepted definitions of it; which is why there was such heated discussion over whether or not we should have done it in seasons past.

I know we've had this discussion in the past, but it is absurd to talk about intentionally losing games because nobody would really do it. (Yes, I'm aware that that is one acceptable definition, but that definition is pretty irrelevant to the discussion for that reason.) If the discussion was heated because people thought it was being suggested that the team intentionally lose games, it was their misunderstanding.

Intentionally losing = tanking.
Not playing your best players = tanking.
Getting rid of your "best" players to play who's left, win/lose/draw = not tanking.

Intentionally losing - one type of tanking, but irrelevant to this discussion since nobody is suggesting the team lose intentionally.
Not playing your best players - is done with the idea that you are playing young players that you want to see develop, nobody (or maybe only one person) is suggesting we bench the best players in favor of guys who have no shot of being part of the future.
Getting rid of your "best" players to play who's left, win/lose/draw - absolutely "tanking", or at least the relevant definition. Get rid of your best players if they aren't likely to be part of a future competitive team and stockpile young players, cap room and draft picks.

In our case, our best players are the kids; not playing them would be tanking, and we don't need it. ****, we've finally hit the bottom of the slope, and are on the way back up; why take another two steps back?

I agree, by the way, with this. I just think it's important if you're going to have a discussion to be clear about what is being discussed. The question is whether it makes sense to make winning less of a priority in favor of developing the team for the future with the potential bonus of a good draft lottery position.

I don't think it does, I think the team stands to gain more from trying to win now as it does from any other option. But that's the question. It is most certainly not whether the team should intentionally try to lose games.

 

[uolj]

Tanking..... what a stupid idea. We had far and away the worst record last year and look what it got us. The FOURTH pick in the draft. Always play hard and go for wins. Thats the only way these young guys are going to get their confidence going and get better.

"Tanking" got the Kings Tyreke Evans. If they hadn't traded their older veterans and lost so many games, they wouldn't have gotten a superstar in the draft.

Always play hard and go for wins in the game is absolutely true, but as I mentioned in the previous post that's not what people generally mean when they consider "tanking".

 

[Big Cuz 15]

Foolishness; this team is doing exactly what they're supposed to be doing. What do you mean "tank?"

yep,

we aren't "tanking we are doing exactly what we should be doing. experimenting, gaining experience in close situations and developing our young talent. in a year or two we should be ready to compete with those experiences under their belt. the past few years, i was a advocate of tanking because we had a pee poor team with aging vets and not getting anywhere. kings future was bleak the way it was constructed.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Getting rid of your "best" players to play who's left, win/lose/draw - absolutely "tanking", or at least the relevant definition. Get rid of your best players if they aren't likely to be part of a future competitive team and stockpile young players, cap room and draft picks.

Bull****. Playing to win is not tanking.

 

[uolj]

Bull****. Playing to win is not tanking.

Again, we've had this discussion before. You might think the term is being used incorrectly, but tough. That's how it's being used.

The term "tanking" has been appropriated to mean benching or trading veterans not expected to be part of the team's future in order to gain playing time and experience for younger players that have the potential to be part of the team's future, as well as acquiring cap space, draft picks, and/or more young players, with the knowledge and expectation that doing so will lead to more losses than the team would otherwise incur and the chances of landing a higher pick in the following draft will increase. Note that this definition does not include anything other than hard work from the players in individual games, or good coaching from coaches in individual games (except for the aforementioned preference for using young players potentially part of the team's future over players not expected to be part of the future).

Lobbying for your preferred definition only confuses the conversation. Perhaps we should just stipulate that you don't like the way the term "tanking" has been appropriated to mean something different than it originally meant. Beyond that, your only recourse is to come up with another word and get it into the sports lexicon.

If it helps you, I will nominate one possibility: Douby. As in, this team sucks and is going nowhere. I really hope we Douby for the rest of the year and get lucky enough to grab John Wall.

 

[Kings Fan Gerard]

This isn't really going to happen but what if the kings get the number 1 pick in thhe draft?

John Wall and Tyreke Evans backcourt anyone? Would it work?

 

[Sluggah]

where's my "just let them play basketball" option

 

[AriesMar27]

This isn't really going to happen but what if the kings get the number 1 pick in thhe draft?

John Wall and Tyreke Evans backcourt anyone? Would it work?

no... it wouldnt work because i doubt that evans can play with another ball dominant guard. he would probably play better with a spot up shooter of some sort. either a pg sized spot up shooter and put evans at sg or force the opposing teams to defend him with their pg by playing him next to a taller shooter like casspi or greene.


evans and wall wont work for the same reason chris paul wouldnt work with evans, tyreke cant play without the ball in his hands. im starting to believe that he is the type of player that cant play with another scorer... i doubt it matters what position the other player plays. martin is a pure sg, he shouldnt have any problems playing with another player at anyother position. but for some reason it doesnt work with evans. its not that evans is a bad player, neither is martin... they just dont work on the court kinda like how the bobcats tried to play gerald wallace and jason richardson together. it doesnt work.

unless john wall can play without the ball i dont see how that is gonna work with evans. if we were lucky enough to get him, we would have "trade evans" threads after everygame.

 

[Bricklayer]

This isn't really going to happen but what if the kings get the number 1 pick in thhe draft?

John Wall and Tyreke Evans backcourt anyone? Would it work?

I actually don't think it would -- be a bad mix of two ball dominant guards with shaky shots (be a great mix of two unstoppable to the rim players who play both sides of the ball however).

And yet I think you would absolutely have to try it anyway and see what happened. If nothing else you have an absolutely enormous trade chit if one of the guys has to go.