The dreaded word that starts with the letter T

[Cold]

How do you guys feel about tanking this season?

I'm on the fence about it as I feel this team may finish .500 this year and if all the planets (inside Cousins' head) align, we may challenge for a playoff spot.

However, looking at the prospects in this upcoming draft, there is some serious talent. 6 or 7 guys with potential franchise tag.

The Kings should have tanked hard the last few of years. Really really tanked hard. Problem is we always had a temp-patch coach who pushed for wins to keep his job. Now that we have Malone who should be on board past the duration of the rebuild, I can't help but wonder if we should take a dive this season.

3 ingredients to a succcessful 2013/2014 tank: sit Landry out, play Jimmer lots of minutes (to get a better evaluation of him), and start McLemore.

 

[Glenn]

If what you say is true, 6 or 7 guys have a potential franchise tag, that means 6 or 7 teams will improve more than we do. No team with Boogie and IT on it will lose enough in a race to the bottom. Neither Boogie or IT has the word "tank" embedded anywhere in their DNA.

I HAVE wondered if the loss of a few players was a set up to having a team that will lose no matter how hard it tries but it won't lose enough.

I cannot root for a team that is tanking.

 

[ShastaKingsFan]

There's already been some mentions here, of the Landry injury being convenient. I have to say that I had a strange feeling about it as well. Some things just make you go hmm.

I think they're trying to play the guys a lot, who they're interested in keeping 'relevant' for trade opps. It may in a roundabout way, work in a different direction if they don't produce..and lead to a higher draft position.

One thing I'm fully confindent in with our new owners, management, and coach,..is that there is definitely a method to what might appear to some, to be madness at times. These guys know exactly what they're doing. This is a 3+ year of high level chess, not a 1 season game of checkers

 

[treach1976]

I'm pretty black and white when it comes to tanking. I get all of the potential benefits, and even the grey argument around player development and the future of the franchise... but at the end of the day it comes down to the fans and their time and money.

I believe the vast majority of fans come to a game to see their team win. Trying to do something other than win that game is a disservice to those fans and disrespectful regarding the dollars they spend to get there.

There are exceptions of course... E.g., there are fans that pay to watch, but see winning as a secondary goal, they are more thrilled to see their team play and study the game of basketball. But I believe this is a minority... If you ask the KF faithful, a greater % will likely be in this bucket than you would expect in the seats of course.... But I would be surprised if less than 8 out of 10 fans that go to a game would be offended to find out that their team didn't try their hardest to win that night.

 

[ShastaKingsFan]

If what you say is true, 6 or 7 guys have a potential franchise tag, that means 6 or 7 teams will improve more than we do. No team with Boogie and IT on it will lose enough in a race to the bottom. Neither Boogie or IT has the word "tank" embedded anywhere in their DNA.

I HAVE wondered if the loss of a few players was a set up to having a team that will lose no matter how hard it tries but it won't lose enough.

I cannot root for a team that is tanking.

Remember that you don't have to fall all the way to the bottom, to improve your chances in a draft that will have many good options. Just stay away from finishing near the playoffs

 

[Cold]

I cannot root for a team that is tanking.

Utah Jazz fans seem to be having a lot of fun watching their tank this year. Same for Sixers and Magic fans.

There are multiple ways to tank. One of them is playing your young players. I kind of find that attractive.

 

[sdballer]

If the Kings had a ton of young talent to develop, I'm understand that strategy. But they don't, so I actually think their current strategy makes sense. We have a number of FA to audition plus guys we'd like to move. Showcasing them to figure out who to retain plus hopefully maximizing value of other guys in trades might be more effective than trying to "tank". Now, if the guys we are trying to showcase continue to suck, it doesn't help in trade value but we'd probably end up with around the same record as if we played our youngsters so no loss in draft position.

 

[Glenn]

If the Kings had a ton of young talent to develop, I'm understand that strategy. But they don't, so I actually think their current strategy makes sense. We have a number of FA to audition plus guys we'd like to move. Showcasing them to figure out who to retain plus hopefully maximizing value of other guys in trades might be more effective than trying to "tank". Now, if the guys we are trying to showcase continue to suck, it doesn't help in trade value but we'd probably end up with around the same record as if we played our youngsters so no loss in draft position.

We could play Jimmer 30 minutes and McLemore 35 minutes. We could give significant minutes to McCallum to see if he has NBA potential. We could play N'daiye (sp?) to develop his NBA potential.

 

[TyFreak Evans]

How do you guys feel about tanking this season?

I'm on the fence about it as I feel this team may finish .500 this year and if all the planets (inside Cousins' head) align, we may challenge for a playoff spot.

However, looking at the prospects in this upcoming draft, there is some serious talent. 6 or 7 guys with potential franchise tag.

The Kings should have tanked hard the last few of years. Really really tanked hard. Problem is we always had a temp-patch coach who pushed for wins to keep his job. Now that we have Malone who should be on board past the duration of the rebuild, I can't help but wonder if we should take a dive this season.

3 ingredients to a succcessful 2013/2014 tank: sit Landry out, play Jimmer lots of minutes (to get a better evaluation of him), and start McLemore.

If you're suggesting "tanking" in order to get a top 6 or 7 draft pick, then I vote against tanking. On the other hand, if you're suggesting "tanking" in order to get a top 4 draft pick, then I too vote against tanking.

Tanking is not good.

Not good for the league. Not good for the fans. Not good for the team. Not good for the coaching staff. Not good for the players. Not good for the mascots. Not good for the dancers. Not good for the concession stands. Not good for the ticket sales people. Not good for the TV announcers. Not good for the radio announcers. Not good for the media.

The NBA draft lottery is, simply, the biggest, and most effective argument against any case for tanking. The Orlando Magic were the only team to have the best odds of landing the number pick, and then going on to do just that. Since it's inception in 1995, 13 teams with the 5th worst record or higher (meaning 5th - 1tth in the standings) have actually gone on to win the draft lottery, and secure themselves the number 1 pick in the upcoming draft. Do that math for an exact percentage, but that is above 50%.

Tanking is probably one of the worst things to do in sports. Which is why I hate the NFL's system of awarding the number 1 draft pick to the team with the worst regular season record. It's stupid. Tanking is stupid.

 

[Glenn]

Utah Jazz fans seem to be having a lot of fun watching their tank this year. Same for Sixers and Magic fans.

There are multiple ways to tank. One of them is playing your young players. I kind of find that attractive.

This is a decent way to tank. There is little point in playing Salmons, Hayes, Outlaw, and Thornton. I wouldn't mind seeing underskilled but young players busting their butt.

 

[sdballer]

We could play Jimmer 30 minutes and McLemore 35 minutes. We could give significant minutes to McCallum to see if he has NBA potential. We could play N'daiye (sp?) to develop his NBA potential.

That's 3 guards and the only real young undeveloped talent on the team. Do we bench GV and IT to play them? You could bench MT but that kills any trade value he has and really only opens up about 25 minutes per game. Not saying we couldn't do it, but I don't know that we would improve our draft position and I'd wager our overall talent base potential wouldn't be better.

There are teams where it makes sense and if you trade off veterans for young talent, you can do it. But we didn't so we have to play the hand we're holding.

 

[Cold]

If you're suggesting "tanking" in order to get a top 6 or 7 draft pick, then I vote against tanking. On the other hand, if you're suggesting "tanking" in order to get a top 4 draft pick, then I too vote against tanking.

Tanking is not good.

Not good for the league. Not good for the fans. Not good for the team. Not good for the coaching staff. Not good for the players. Not good for the Mascots. Not good for the dancers. Not good for the concession stands. Not good for the ticket sales people. Not good for the TV announcers. Not good for the radio announcers. Not good for the media.

The NBA draft lottery is, simply, the biggest, and most effective argument against any case for tanking. The Orlando Magic were the only team to have the best odds of landing the number pick, and then going on to do just that. Since it's inception in 1995, 13 teams with the 5th worst record or higher (meaning 5th - 1tth in the standings) have actually gone on to win the draft lottery, and secure themselves the number 1 pick in the upcoming draft. Do that math for an exact percentage, but that is above 50%.

Tanking is probably one of the worst things to do in sports. Which is why I hate the NFL's system of awarding the number 1 draft pick to the team with the worst regular season record. It's stupid. Tanking is stupid.

Tanking is good for young players' development and evaluation, no?

Our young guys are still going to play hard. It's not like we're going to see guys play at 50%.

 

[Glenn]

Tanking is not the new culture, I presume.

 

[Spike]

Outside of DMC spraining his ankle for the whole year, this team doesn't have the skill to tank.

• The shooters aren't shooting well, but they're not that far off from their average.
• This team is ill-built.
• We drafted a rookie who, while he has promise, is not ready to start.
• DMC needs to be DFC every night for this team to compete with the upper half of the league.

Basically, this team was built to tank in the off-season. Performing to the best of their abilities will result in what you may be looking for. We will get a team that competes every night, but will fall short due to a lack of ability. Now, BMc might exceed his growth curve, giving DMC some regular help, leading to a few more wins, but overall, they will certainly lose quite a few games.

All this is moot, however, if Jimmer starts.

 

[TyFreak Evans]

Tanking is good for young players' development and evaluation, no?

Our young guys are still going to play hard. It's not like we're going to see guys play at 50%.

You don't need to tank in order to develop and evaluate young players. That's what the D League is for...

 

[The_Jamal]

Tanking almost always backfires on you. Obviously, u don't want to be the Milwaukee Bucks of the NBA, but I'm a believer (if you're a bad team) in focusing soley on developing your young players. In whatever fashion that means. For us, it should be about who fits into the future with Cousins and McLemore. JT or Ppat? GV or IT? Does McCallum fit into the long-term plans? Do we resign Thornton past his current contract? Can Mbah be the lock-down perimeter defender we've been missing?

Those are the questions we need to answer this season.I mean heck, look how bad we've been the last 7 years and the highest picks we've gotten are 5.

 

[Glenn]

Outside of DMC spraining his ankle for the whole year, this team doesn't have the skill to tank.

As weird as this may sound, this is exactly what I meant.

 

[The_Jamal]

Outside of DMC spraining his ankle for the whole year, this team doesn't have the skill to tank.

• The shooters aren't shooting well, but they're not that far off from their average.
• This team is ill-built.
• We drafted a rookie who, while he has promise, is not ready to start.
• DMC needs to be DFC every night for this team to compete with the upper half of the league.

Basically, this team was built to tank in the off-season. Performing to the best of their abilities will result in what you may be looking for. We will get a team that competes every night, but will fall short due to a lack of ability. Now, BMc might exceed his growth curve, giving DMC some regular help, leading to a few more wins, but overall, they will certainly lose quite a few games.

All this is moot, however, if Jimmer starts.

Well now that's just silly talk. Virtually the whole team is shooting far under their talent level and career numbers.

 

[treach1976]

If you're suggesting "tanking" in order to get a top 6 or 7 draft pick, then I vote against tanking. On the other hand, if you're suggesting "tanking" in order to get a top 4 draft pick, then I too vote against tanking.

Tanking is not good.

Not good for the league. Not good for the fans. Not good for the team. Not good for the coaching staff. Not good for the players. Not good for the Mascots. Not good for the dancers. Not good for the concession stands. Not good for the ticket sales people. Not good for the TV announcers. Not good for the radio announcers. Not good for the media.

The NBA draft lottery is, simply, the biggest, and most effective argument against any case for tanking. The Orlando Magic were the only team to have the best odds of landing the number pick, and then going on to do just that. Since it's inception in 1995, 13 teams with the 5th worst record or higher (meaning 5th - 1tth in the standings) have actually gone on to win the draft lottery, and secure themselves the number 1 pick in the upcoming draft. Do that math for an exact percentage, but that is above 50%.

Tanking is probably one of the worst things to do in sports. Which is why I hate the NFL's system of awarding the number 1 draft pick to the team with the worst regular season record. It's stupid. Tanking is stupid.

Awesome, Awesome post.

 

[Spike]

Well now that's just silly talk. Virtually the whole team is shooting far under their talent level and career numbers.

The talent level is debatable, but I think it was Padrino who posted their career averages a while back...it's not that much prettier. They are average to below average shooters. If anything, MT is likely the only one who is currently "off".

Edit: In fact, I think their general lack of shooting likely also led to a shift of Evans away from PG last year. How many people throughout last year missed an open look because of his driving? (I don't want to make this about Evans, but rather a historical trend on missing shots.)

 

[Cold]

I fear the worst scenario: we finish around .500 and end up with the 11th, 12th pick. It's truly the worst place to be in in the NBA.

Marcus Smart goes 6th overall. Not to the Kings.

Imagine a Smart and Cousins combo. Smart would have been the sure-fire 1st overall selection had he declared for the draft last year.

As of right now (and things can change), this is a 6 or 7-man draft. I would EASILY take any of those 7 guys over our 2nd best player currently on the roster. 2 or 3 of those guys have a realistic shot at franchise player while the other 4, 5 are not far behind.

Like I said, I'm on the fence. But I have nightmares of us continuing to be us the next few years. Malone needs more talent to work with.

 

[twslam07]

The NBA draft lottery is, simply, the biggest, and most effective argument against any case for tanking.

It is not the most effective way. The most effective way to prevent tanking is to give an incentive to win games. In the beginning, teams try to win to make the playoffs. Towards the end, when they are out of the playoff race, teams begin to tank in order to get a better draft pick.

One idea that has surfaced is to give incentive for teams that are out of the playoffs to continue to play hard. But how do you do that? Let me dive into the structure of such a league. Once a team is mathematically eliminated from a playoff birth, they begin to accumulate points. Teams earn points by winning games. The more games you win after you are eliminated from the playoffs, the higher your pick will be in next years draft. Keep in mind, a 15th seed team will be eliminated much sooner than a team that eventually ends up in the 10th seed thus giving the 15th seed team more opportunities (games) to win and earn points. This system encourages teams to play hard the entire year. It would even make it more exciting for fans because your team is always playing for something. Imagine almost a "championship type" atmoshphere among the bottom two teams. You could have the last game of the season determine who gets the 1st overall pick. Wouldn't that be much more exciting to watch? Viewership would go way up in the NBA thus making them more profitable.

I think it would be a great system to implement and it would make the game much more enjoyable.

 

[Cold]

I mean heck, look how bad we've been the last 7 years and the highest picks we've gotten are 5.

Apparently, we weren't bad enough.

Spurs tanked hard 1 year, became a dynasty for the next 15.
OKC tanked hard for 3 years (documented). We know what happened.
Orlando tanked hard repeatedly and landed Shaq, Dwight, who in turned brought prime TMac and prime Grant Hill. They were cursed with injuries which led to guys bolting thru free agency.

IMO the only teams who can get away with never tanking are big market powerhouses like LA, Chicago, NY.

The Warriors and the Bucks set all kinds of record in futility because they continued to fight for that 8th spot year in and year out to please fans. The one year out of 20 bad years that the Warriors truly put an effort into tanking, it paid off handsomely eventho it pissed off the fans. Thousands of fans booed Joe Lacob mercilessly on national TV when Lacob sent David Lee to have a "minor surgery" and traded Monta Ellis.

There is a big difference between the top 4 picks and the 5th-12th pick. Enormous gap. The best young players in the league today, how many of them got drafted 5th-12th? Harden, westbrook, durant, lebron, Kyrie, Melo, Rose, CP3, Dwight... on and on.. they were all drafted in the top 4. Curry is the only top-10 player (if you consider him that) who is the exception. Can you think of another?

 

[TyFreak Evans]

It is not the most effective way. The most effective way to prevent tanking is to give an incentive to win games. In the beginning, teams try to win to make the playoffs. Towards the end, when they are out of the playoff race, teams begin to tank in order to get a better draft pick.

One idea that has surfaced is to give incentive for teams that are out of the playoffs to continue to play hard. But how do you do that? Let me dive into the structure of such a league. Once a team is mathematically eliminated from a playoff birth, they begin to accumulate points. Teams earn points by winning games. The more games you win after you are eliminated from the playoffs, the higher your pick will be in next years draft. Keep in mind, a 15th seed team will be eliminated much sooner than a team that eventually ends up in the 10th seed thus giving the 15th seed team more opportunities (games) to win and earn points. This system encourages teams to play hard the entire year. It would even make it more exciting for fans because your team is always playing for something. Imagine almost a "championship type" atmoshphere among the bottom two teams. You could have the last game of the season determine who gets the 1st overall pick. Wouldn't that be much more exciting to watch? Viewership would go way up in the NBA thus making them more profitable.

I think it would be a great system to implement and it would make the game much more enjoyable.

That's almost as bad a system as the one used by the NFL...Once a team is eliminated from playoff contention, star players tend to sit out to avoid potential career-threatening/ending injuries. I think avoiding injuries to your star player is far more important than "tanking" for a high draft pick, especially if your star player is an established one...

 

[twslam07]

That's almost as bad a system as the one used by the NFL...Once a team is eliminated from playoff contention, star players tend to sit out to avoid potential career-threatening/ending injuries. I think avoiding injuries to your star player is far more important than "tanking" for a high draft pick, especially if your star player is an established one...

Typically, if you have star players you are usually in playoff contention. Obviously there are exceptions here and there, but I've never seen a star player sit out the remaining 15-20 games after their team has been eliminated. You would think that player would want to play and help his team become better next year so he doesn't have to sit out another 15-20 games the next season.

 

[Cold]

It is not the most effective way. The most effective way to prevent tanking is to give an incentive to win games. In the beginning, teams try to win to make the playoffs. Towards the end, when they are out of the playoff race, teams begin to tank in order to get a better draft pick.

I'm all for that. Unfortunately, it's not like that.

 

[sdballer]

Tanking is good for young players' development and evaluation, no?

Our young guys are still going to play hard. It's not like we're going to see guys play at 50%.

Not always. Being in a good system with the right amount of development/pressure is good for young guys. Its why you regularly see young guys excel in places like San Antonio with minimal playing time while others starting in Charlotte stay unrefined.

 

[Cold]

Not always. Being in a good system with the right amount of development/pressure is good for young guys. Its why you regularly see young guys excel in places like San Antonio with minimal playing time while others starting in Charlotte stay unrefined.

I see us more like Charlotte than SA, though. Charlotte never quite landed that franchise player. Same with us.

We do have a good coach now. Charlotte never had one.

 

[Padrino]

i have no problem with this team losing enough games on its own to earn a top-10 pick. i also have no problem with this team losing enough games by "tanking" to earn a top-5 pick. this is where we're at, kings fans. the new regime allowed tyreke evans to walk. no matter how one feels about 'reke, he was a top 5 pick, former rookie of the year, with considerable talent and enough potential to bank on, and the kings did not get value for him in return. as such, they're in need of a replacement #2 to pair alongside demarcus cousins...

the front office swung-and-missed on andre iguodala in free agency this last offseason. carl landry was the best they could come up with in the scramble that followed. can they do better via free agency this upcoming offseason? unlikely, given that, for all the hoopla surrounding the new regime, sacramento is still not a free agency destination of note. so can they acquire a top tier talent via trade? also unlikely, given that the kings are short of desirable assets with which to accomplish such a trade. they can certainly acquire better-fitting roleplayers via trade, but i suspect that the only surefire way for this new regime to bring in another star-level talent is through the upcoming draft, stacked as it's supposed to be. they know it. and we know it...

now, will they tank in order to do so? we'll see how the roster is shuffled before the trade deadline, and we'll see how quickly ben mclemore gets worked into the starting lineup. there are, shall we say, tasteful ways to "tank." players and coaches don't try to lose games on purpose, but giving rookies like ben mclemore and ray mccallum big minutes over steadier veterans is a good way to ensure an extra loss or two. trading a scorer like marcus thornton in favor of a defensive roleplayer or a young unproven talent can help this team "tank." tossing out smallball lineups that are less likely to compete defensively or secure key rebounds is a good way to "tank." none of these requires that the players throw games that they should be trying to win. they are simply strategic moves that allow your team to compete while also putting the team in a position to lose more games than they will win...

the long view is terribly important at a time like this, when the franchise is either poised to ascend to greater heights or descend further into mediocrity, and with an upcoming draft class that may very well feature legitimate impact players at picks 1-5, it's a good season to find ways to tastefully "tank" while developing the few young players that actually figure into the kings' longterm plans...

 

[sdballer]

Apparently, we weren't bad enough.

Spurs tanked hard 1 year, became a dynasty for the next 15.
OKC tanked hard for 3 years (documented). We know what happened.
Orlando tanked hard repeatedly and landed Shaq, Dwight, who in turned brought prime TMac and prime Grant Hill. They were cursed with injuries which led to guys bolting thru free agency.

IMO the only teams who can get away with never tanking are big market powerhouses like LA, Chicago, NY.

The Warriors and the Bucks set all kinds of record in futility because they continued to fight for that 8th spot year in and year out to please fans. The one year out of 20 bad years that the Warriors truly put an effort into tanking, it paid off handsomely eventho it pissed off the fans. Thousands of fans booed Joe Lacob mercilessly on national TV when Lacob sent David Lee to have a "minor surgery" and traded Monta Ellis.

There is a big difference between the top 4 picks and the 5th-12th pick. Enormous gap. The best young players in the league today, how many of them got drafted 5th-12th? Harden, westbrook, durant, lebron, Kyrie, Melo, Rose, CP3, Dwight... on and on.. they were all drafted in the top 4. Curry is the only top-10 player (if you consider him that) who is the exception. Can you think of another?

These guys below aren't top 10 in the league but are all potential all stars (and this is just the last 5 drafts). And some of the teams you mentioned that got top 10 players weren't even the worst teams in the league that season. They lucked into high picks just like teams in the bottom line (Sac,Char, etc.) have frequently fallen in the lottery. Bottom line, there is little way to guarantee a stud draft pick and the process of forcing losing can create worse results than just focusing on real development.

Damian Lillard- 6th
Andre Drummond-9th
Klay Thompson-11th
Kawhi Leonard-15th
Greg Monroe-7th
Paul George-10th
Jrue Holiday-17th
Ty Lawson-18th
Brooke Lopez-10th
Roy Hibbert-17th
Joakim Noah-9th