The direction of the Carter/Randolph signings

[CelticsFan]

Dude, believe what you want. Frankly I don't give a damm what you believe. But just for the hell of it, lets concede the point to you. The Kings are trying to tank so they can get the best player in the draft. So what? Am I going to be upset with we end up with Marvin Bagley next summer? No! Matter of fact, I'll be a happy camper. I don't expect the team to win many games, but I expect them to try, and that's the difference. I happen to believe that yes, the players they brought in, were brought in to do the very thing they said. Mentor the young players.

And, if you think Cousins was traded so we could tank, then your either not thinking clearly, or all you care about is trying to prove your point while sacrificing your credibility.

You must give a damm for what I believe because your commenting on something that wasn't directed to you. I still appreciate your posts, it's a forum after all. As far as getting Bagley I would be thrilled!!! He's my favorite out of the bunch as of right now. As a matter of fact it's looks like there're will be at least 5 or so really good players at the top of the draft, I think the Kings will get one of them. The post was about what's the difference between what Philly did and what the Kings are doing?

I to expect them to try, I can't think of any professional team that doesn't do that. Not being an ass but can you educate me on the last team that didn't try? Are you telling me professional athletes would not try and risk their spot in the league and future pay? I don't think that happens.

Trading Cousins wasn't just about tanking but I hope Vlade had the vision to understand that trading a superstar will get you worse today but also get you a better draft pick. Did you expect them to be better with Cousin's off the team? What do you call intentionally making your team worse to acquire young talent and future picks? I was all for moving in that direction, there were many reasons to trade Cousins and we all know them. When you trade a superstar most of the time you get worse and sink lower into the standings or tank to the bottom. I don't think Pacers or Bulls got better when they traded Butler and Geroge, they're going to tank right to the bottom of the standings.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Are there different levels of tanking or is Philly the only team that has tanked? Yes Philly is an extreme example but it's the same idea the Kings are doing. Did the Lakers tank last year? They signed vets in Moz and Deng? Because they had those players on the team did you consider them not tanking?

Most people would be happy with giving tanking the traditional "pornography" definition (i.e. "I can't tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it.") But to be a bit more specific, I think we can say that teams that tank aren't spending their money in an attempt to win. How can we gauge that? Well, it's not a perfect measure, but in general a team should be spending the majority of their money on the players playing the majority of the time.

So here's what I did. I went back to the team logs for Philly ('14-'15, '15-'16, and '16-'17). Starting from the player who logged the most minutes and moving downwards, I added players until the total minutes played reached 15,000 minutes. This represents more than 75% of the total team minutes played (a typical season is 19,000 minutes and change, depending on how many OT periods a team plays), and in the case of these Philly teams was between 8-10 players. I then added up the salaries of those players, doing an approximate pro-rate for players traded mid-season. And the results are...

'14-'15 Sixers: Spent about $14.5M of $63M salary cap (23%) for 75%+ minutes
'15-'16 Sixers: Spent about $12M of $70M salary cap (17%) for 75%+ minutes
'16-'17 Sixers: Spent about $32M of $94M salary cap (34%) for 75%+ minutes

Compare this to another bad team that might or might not have been "tanking":

'16-'17 Kings: Spent about $66M of $94M salary cap (70%) for 75%+ minutes

Note that the Kings would have been significantly higher had Rudy been injured only slightly later in the season, as his salary would have replaced McLemore's in the calculation.

The bottom line is that the Sixers, when they were "I know it when I see it" tanking, were spending their money on players that didn't play - taking on and cutting players like JaVale McGee, Jason Thompson, Andrew Bogut, etc. Over the last three years, they have spent an average of just shy of 25% of their salary on the players playing at least 75% of their minutes! The Kings on the other hand, even with 9 players on the roster with two years or less professional experience, will still almost certainly break the $60M mark this year unless Zach Randolph doesn't play (and they certainly meant for him to). The Kings are trying to pay good players to give them minutes. The Sixers have been deliberately paying most of their money to players they never intend to put on the floor. There's your difference.

 

[CelticsFan]

No, you both said it quite well.



That, in a nutshell, is what I think CelticsFan doesn't understand.

Instead of throwing stones can you help me understand. I just asked bajden the same questions. Can you name me a professional team that didn't try? Sure maybe a bad apple or two don't try but I don't think you become a pro if you don't have the desire to compete

 

[CelticsFan]

Most people would be happy with giving tanking the traditional "pornography" definition (i.e. "I can't tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it.") But to be a bit more specific, I think we can say that teams that tank aren't spending their money in an attempt to win. How can we gauge that? Well, it's not a perfect measure, but in general a team should be spending the majority of their money on the players playing the majority of the time.

So here's what I did. I went back to the team logs for Philly ('14-'15, '15-'16, and '16-'17). Starting from the player who logged the most minutes and moving downwards, I added players until the total minutes played reached 15,000 minutes. This represents more than 75% of the total team minutes played (a typical season is 19,000 minutes and change, depending on how many OT periods a team plays), and in the case of these Philly teams was between 8-10 players. I then added up the salaries of those players, doing an approximate pro-rate for players traded mid-season. And the results are...

'14-'15 Sixers: Spent about $14.5M of $63M salary cap (23%) for 75%+ minutes
'15-'16 Sixers: Spent about $12M of $70M salary cap (17%) for 75%+ minutes
'16-'17 Sixers: Spent about $32M of $94M salary cap (34%) for 75%+ minutes

Compare this to another bad team that might or might not have been "tanking":

'16-'17 Kings: Spent about $66M of $94M salary cap (70%) for 75%+ minutes

Note that the Kings would have been significantly higher had Rudy been injured only slightly later in the season, as his salary would have replaced McLemore's in the calculation.

The bottom line is that the Sixers, when they were "I know it when I see it" tanking, were spending their money on players that didn't play - taking on and cutting players like JaVale McGee, Jason Thompson, Andrew Bogut, etc. Over the last three years, they have spent an average of just shy of 25% of their salary on the players playing at least 75% of their minutes! The Kings on the other hand, even with 9 players on the roster with two years or less professional experience, will still almost certainly break the $60M mark this year unless Zach Randolph doesn't play (and they certainly meant for him to). The Kings are trying to pay good players to give them minutes. The Sixers have been deliberately paying most of their money to players they never intend to put on the floor. There's your difference.

I appreciate your post good info! Does this mean Philly is the only team that has tanked? I used Philly as a comparison but they're an extreme example, I should have used another tanking team as an example.

 

[LPKingsFan]

I appreciate your post good info! Does this mean Philly is the only team that has tanked? I used Philly as a comparison but they're an extreme example, I should have used another tanking team as an example.

Capt's Potter Stewart definition of tanking is appropriate. The tanking debates are difficult because no one can agree on what exactly "tanking" means. Does it mean entering the season expecting to lose many games? That sounds just like rebuilding to me. Does it mean entering the season with the intention to lose many games? That sounds closer...

I think it's easiest to condemn the teams who have essentially tied both hands behind their backs down the stretch in order to benefit draft considerations, especially those with protected picks at play. Journeymen jacking up 3s, etc, things that no fan wants to pay to watch. The Kings "rested" their veterans fair amount last season, so you might say their hands are not entirely clean on this count, but speaking as a paying customer I was more interested in watching the kids, anyway.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

I appreciate your post good info! Does this mean Philly is the only team that has tanked? I used Philly as a comparison but they're an extreme example, I should have used another tanking team as an example.

Well, I didn't (and I don't plan to) go through every team to calculate a metric like this. In my eyes, Philly is the standout blatant tanker in the past few years, so I wouldn't be surprised to find them at the bottom of an analysis like this. One could possibly point to the Lakers last year, but I don't really think they signed Deng/Mozgov to dumb contracts to tank - I think they actually thought those were good moves at the time.

 

[Chupacabra]

Most people would be happy with giving tanking the traditional "pornography" definition (i.e. "I can't tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it.")

Do tell! PM me.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Do tell! PM me.

At the risk of completely missing a very dry joke on your part, the "I can't tell you what it is" was a paraphrase on my part, not a suggestion that the definition is verboten on KF.com.

The reference is to a comment by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart when writing about an obscenity case before the court in 1964. His exact quote was:

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.

 

[dude12]

"Traded away teams most productive players"

Kings traded away Boogie

"Refuse to sign FA's"

Excluding Hill both the Carter and Zbo signings aren't FA's that will help you win. Excluding Hill they brought in no players to help them get more W's for this season IMO

"Spending as little as possible"

As far as I can tell we have the 24th highest payroll out of 30 teams. I wouldn't consider us big spenders

"Drafted players that were injured or overseas"

If healthy Embiid may soon be an MVP candidate. They didn't reach for Noel he was projected at being the top overall pick but because of injury he fell to Philly at 6. In that deal they also got a future 2014 which I believe they turned into Saric who seems to be a core piece of their team. So yes they were injured but most teams wouldn't have passed on those players.

"Hoarded picks through trades"

Two years in a row Sac traded down in the draft for more picks or players stashed overseas (Bogdan). When Sac traded down the past two years they ended up with multiple picks in the same draft. Philly decided to bank on future pics.

I Don't see much of a difference.

Reading this thread, I don't understand why people think that Randolph can't play anymore. Way, way underestimating here.
In 24 minutes per game last year, he averaged 14 ppg AND his rebounding avg went up from the previous year, grabbing 8. No...it's best not to play him heavier minutes but that is extremely good production. Throw the ball into Randolph into the post and you had better have a good defender on him because he's still a load.

Carter's minutes went up from the previous year and he's become more of a 3 point shooter with time. Shot 38% from 3, avg 8 pts in 24 minutes. These are absolutely win now guys

 

[Kingsfan23]

Reading this thread, I don't understand why people think that Randolph can't play anymore. Way, way underestimating here.
In 24 minutes per game last year, he averaged 14 ppg AND his rebounding avg went up from the previous year, grabbing 8. No...it's best not to play him heavier minutes but that is extremely good production. Throw the ball into Randolph into the post and you had better have a good defender on him because he's still a load.

Carter's minutes went up from the previous year and he's become more of a 3 point shooter with time. Shot 38% from 3, avg 8 pts in 24 minutes. These are absolutely win now guys

Their ages, going on 41 and 37 (?) lend themselves to a possible cliff like production at any point. Hopefully it won't be this year. I think Zach can still be solid as a backup bench big, we'll see. Not many players are still doing this at 41, hopefully Vince has a solid year on the floor as well.

 

[bajaden]

You must give a damm for what I believe because your commenting on something that wasn't directed to you. I still appreciate your posts, it's a forum after all. As far as getting Bagley I would be thrilled!!! He's my favorite out of the bunch as of right now. As a matter of fact it's looks like there're will be at least 5 or so really good players at the top of the draft, I think the Kings will get one of them. The post was about what's the difference between what Philly did and what the Kings are doing?

I to expect them to try, I can't think of any professional team that doesn't do that. Not being an ass but can you educate me on the last team that didn't try? Are you telling me professional athletes would not try and risk their spot in the league and future pay? I don't think that happens.

Trading Cousins wasn't just about tanking but I hope Vlade had the vision to understand that trading a superstar will get you worse today but also get you a better draft pick. Did you expect them to be better with Cousin's off the team? What do you call intentionally making your team worse to acquire young talent and future picks? I was all for moving in that direction, there were many reasons to trade Cousins and we all know them. When you trade a superstar most of the time you get worse and sink lower into the standings or tank to the bottom. I don't think Pacers or Bulls got better when they traded Butler and Geroge, they're going to tank right to the bottom of the standings.

So if I think the only way I can create the team I envision, is by trading my superstar, knowing that will make the team worse in the short term, you interpret that as intentional tanking? You don't interpret that as part of a greater plan? A plan of which the bi-product is probably losing more games than you would have, had you kept your superstar. If the Kings were intentionally tanking, they could have made deals with other teams taking on bad contracts of less talented players. They didn't do that. They went out an got Hill, who when healthy (a big if) is one of the better PG's in the NBA.

I firmly believe that if this team by some miracle was to go out and win 50 games, Vlade would be the happiest man in the world. Sometimes in order to accomplish something, you have to bite the bullet, and then live with the results of that. But many times those results have nothing to do with intent. If you can't see that, then there's nothing more I can say. Have a nice day!

 

[CelticsFan]

So if I think the only way I can create the team I envision, is by trading my superstar, knowing that will make the team worse in the short term, you interpret that as intentional tanking? You don't interpret that as part of a greater plan? A plan of which the bi-product is probably losing more games than you would have, had you kept your superstar. If the Kings were intentionally tanking, they could have made deals with other teams taking on bad contracts of less talented players. They didn't do that. They went out an got Hill, who when healthy (a big if) is one of the better PG's in the NBA.

I firmly believe that if this team by some miracle was to go out and win 50 games, Vlade would be the happiest man in the world. Sometimes in order to accomplish something, you have to bite the bullet, and then live with the results of that. But many times those results have nothing to do with intent. If you can't see that, then there's nothing more I can say. Have a nice day!

It's ok to disagree on what we think tanking is. Here is a good recent article about it, they talk about the Kings at the bottom. Maybe this article is right, maybe it's wrong but at least be open minded enough to realize people have different opinions about the team and that's ok.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2722627-nba-teams-that-should-be-tanking-during-2017-18-season

 

[Jkbiker]

I like the "Investing in the future" button vs Tanking LOL

 

[VF21]

It's ok to disagree on what we think tanking is. Here is a good recent article about it, they talk about the Kings at the bottom. Maybe this article is right, maybe it's wrong but at least be open minded enough to realize people have different opinions about the team and that's ok.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2722627-nba-teams-that-should-be-tanking-during-2017-18-season

I mean no offense whatsoever, but long-time Kings fans have been having this discussion for a number of years. You, through no fault of your own, are new to the party and thus may not understand how some of us feel very strongly about this time being different. Please do not say bajaden or anyone else is not being open minded.

Again, I mean no offense, but you haven't (by your own admission) been a Kings fan for very long.

I won't continue to belabor the point or argue the issue with you (or anyone else) for the simple reason I'm looking forward to this season more than I have in at least a decade. Any talk of tanking, to me, is just counterproductive. I want to see the front office, the coaches and the players on the same page for the first time in a very long time and I'm well aware they aren't going to win a lot of games. They're going to TRY, however, and that's more than good enough for me.

 

[bajaden]

I mean no offense whatsoever, but long-time Kings fans have been having this discussion for a number of years. You, through no fault of your own, are new to the party and thus may not understand how some of us feel very strongly about this time being different. Please do not say bajaden or anyone else is not being open minded.

Again, I mean no offense, but you haven't (by your own admission) been a Kings fan for very long.

I won't continue to belabor the point or argue the issue with you (or anyone else) for the simple reason I'm looking forward to this season more than I have in at least a decade. Any talk of tanking, to me, is just counterproductive. I want to see the front office, the coaches and the players on the same page for the first time in a very long time and I'm well aware they aren't going to win a lot of games. They're going to TRY, however, and that's more than good enough for me.

Jerry West, who I have tremendous respect for, once said in an interview that the most damaging thing for a franchise is constant change. He said I like to walk into the front office and see the same people everyday. I think the Kings are living proof of that. More front office people, coaches, and players have walked in and out of our front door than I can keep track of. I'm hopeful that the revolving door has been replaced with something solid and that the franchise if finally going to develop an identity.

Arguing over tanking is a useless exercise. Everyone is capable of looking at the moves, and deciding for themselves, and as you said, we've all been down this road before many times. And frankly, I'm weary of it. I'm tired of something negative being attached to anything the organization does. Like you, I'm excited for the season to begin, and for me at least, success won't be decided by win's and losses, but by overall improvement. If the team looks dramatically improved in the last third of the season, or sooner, then I'm happy.

This is non-related, but I'd like to remind people that although we have players on the team that should be good defenders, don't expect immediate results in that area. Most players have been playing offense since they were old enough to bounce a ball, but not so when it comes to defense. In high school, you either play man to man, or a strict zone. Meaning you guard an area. Not much different in college. Very few players coming out of college are used to the complicated switching defenses that some teams in the NBA use. It takes time to get everyone on the same page where it becomes instinctive. Having Randolph and Carter, along with Hill and Temple will certainly help, but in general, it takes a couple of years for a solid team defense to emerge, and that only happens if you keep the same players.

So I have no doubt that we'll be able to put points on the board, but I suspect we'll be allowing more points than we should. That usually equals losses. Hopefully I'm wrong, but history says I'm not.

 

[jcassio]

Yawn.

 

[bajaden]

Yawn.

Nodding off isn't allowed.

 

[jcassio]

Ya know, I'm (obviously) capable of getting sucked into a good discussion on tanking. But all too often, the exercise reminds me of telling a teenage boy they should put their earnings in a savings account. People who believe that tanking is the pathway to championships? They've drunk the kool-aid.

 

[King Baller]

Ya know, I'm (obviously) capable of getting sucked into a good discussion on tanking. But all too often, the exercise reminds me of telling a teenage boy they should put their earnings in a savings account. People who believe that tanking is the pathway to championships? They've drunk the kool-aid.

But Hinkie...........................................

 

[CelticsFan]

But Hinkie...........................................

Yeah that all time tanking Philly team had 4 less wins then us last year. That tanking team will add two #1 overall picks to their team this season. Philly has a good shot to make the playoffs this year, Kings look to be at the bottom in the NBA standings

 

[ockingsfan]

Yeah that all time tanking Philly team had 4 less wins then us last year. That tanking team will add two #1 overall picks to their team this season. Philly has a good shot to make the playoffs this year, Kings look to be at the bottom in the NBA standings

The Sixers have been blatantly tanking for 5+ years, with horrible, non-watchable basketball. To subject your fan base to that horrendous of basketball and not even attempt to even pretend to win is inexcusable, to me.

For all of the Sixers players chirping about trusting the "Process" and declaring that they are the second coming of the GSW, please stop talking and tweeting and prove it on the court first.

I hate the fact that the Sixers are constantly tweeting that they will be so great, when they haven't proven anything yet on the court.

Lets win more that 35 games in a season before declaring a dynasty! And they will need everyone to stay healthy long term too, which is a huge question mark for that team.

The Sixers may look good on paper, but they haven't proven anything on the court yet.

 

[King Baller]

Yeah that all time tanking Philly team had 4 less wins then us last year. That tanking team will add two #1 overall picks to their team this season. Philly has a good shot to make the playoffs this year, Kings look to be at the bottom in the NBA standings

OK, good for Philly. They should be fun to watch and should win a few if they can stay healthy.

Sorry if my post hit a sore spot. When the former GM's name is a punch line and a legend you know it is bound to bring up discussion. I'm just glad I was not a fan of the 76ers and forced to watch that Hinkie brand of tanking.

 

[bajaden]

It's all about intent. That's why you have first degree murder, and you have manslaughter. In one case, a person intends and plans to kill someone, and in the other case, even though the result is the same, it's a careless accident. I don't happen to believe that Vlade intends to tank, even though the results may end up looking like it. If your GM wants his team to go out and try to win every game, then it isn't tanking. I realize that it's all subjective, so everyone can draw his or her own conclusion. You can't always draw a conclusion from the results.

When Petrie took over the team in 1994, he inherited a team that went 39 and 43 and made the playoffs for the first time since the team moved here other than the first year. A lot of it was due to his draft pick, Brian Grant. They repeated the next year with the same record. Then the team took a nose dive for the next couple of years with the drafting of a player, Peja, who wouldn't come over for a couple of years and losing Grant to free agency. It appeared that the future was grim. The fact was, we had little or no cap space and in one of those years, we had no first round pick. So Petrie waited.

And in 1999 he finally had cap space and signed Vlade, Peja came over from Europe, we drafted J. Will, and traded for Webber. We also added Jon Barry and Mad Max. Was that tanking, or just knowing what your limits were at the time, and being patient. Petrie took a lot of criticism during those years. But in the aftermath, you could see that he had a plan, and when the moment arrived, he executed that plan. Yes, there was probably a bit of luck involved as well. But it's amazing how lucky you get when you actually have a plan and stick to it.

Do I think there might arrive a time in the coming season when the team will actually try and lose games? Yeah, I could see that happening, depending on where we are with a third or a fourth of the season remaining. If at that point, were battling for the worse record in the league, I could see the powers that be deciding to insure we get a top draft pick. But on the other hand, if were actually battling for the eighth spot in the playoffs, I doubt there'll be any tanking. I think Vlade has a plan, and hopefully he's allowed to stick to it. I don't know if it's the right plan, but we'll never know unless he's allowed to bring it to fruition.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

I don't happen to believe that Vlade intends to tank, even though the results may end up looking like it. If your GM wants his team to go out and try to win every game, then it isn't tanking.

On a completely unrelated note, I just learned that when the British were first developing an armored vehicle to storm and cross the trenches in World War I, they decided that calling the project by its proper name - Caterpillar Machine Gun Destroyer - might give up the game. So they pretended to be developing a "water carrier", which when they realized had the same initials as a common abbreviation for the loo, was changed to "tank", and the pseudonym stuck.

 

[bajaden]

On a completely unrelated note, I just learned that when the British were first developing an armored vehicle to storm and cross the trenches in World War I, they decided that calling the project by its proper name - Caterpillar Machine Gun Destroyer - might give up the game. So they pretended to be developing a "water carrier", which when they realized had the same initials as a common abbreviation for the loo, was changed to "tank", and the pseudonym stuck.

God, I love in depth analysis. I feel enlightened with a new insight to tanking. I'll keep my eye's open for any water trucks around Golden One Center.

 

[Kingsfan23]

Aside from the value aspect of the deals, I also didn't like it from the perspective that these are vets on last legs expecting playing time. Both Carter and Randolph have made it a point that they expect roles. And for a rebuilding team, I need to see Mali/Harry/Papa or whoever getting those reps, and I will be rooting for them to beat the grizzled vets out.

If that happens will there be much counseling then? Would they amicably accept it?

 

[Vladizzle]

Rookies play better when surrounded by Vets then just being thrown into the fire.
I don't really like the idea of rebuilding by just running 5 rookies out, hardly works, 3 vets aren't going to stunt anyone's growth rather the opposite..

 

[KingsFanSince85]

And in 1999 he finally had cap space and signed Vlade, Peja came over from Europe, we drafted J. Will, and traded for Webber. We also added Jon Barry and Mad Max.

Although the shortened season didn't begin until February '99, the Webber trade, JWill draft and Adelman hiring occurred during the Spring and Summer of '98. None of that changes your point, of course.

 

[Kingsfan23]

Not happy that Fox/Skal aren’t starting for a rebuilding team.. I’m assuming Skal will start shortly, but on a rebuilding team, an NBA ready Fox should be starting..

 

[Vladizzle]

I still like what Vince offers. He plays with some heart and fire still and makes plays/shots. Although under Dave, not a great fit since Dave wants some instant offense bs.

Zbo, as big of a fan I am, just looks careless, unbearable on defense, little effort. Which I can't really blame him, he's not much of a rebuilding character. Most vets ex-stars aren't. Vince is kind of a rare exception.

Hill I still like as well. He doesn't belong playing next to 3 guys who can't create their own and a blackhole Zbo though..