the internet has become such a deleterious and toxic breeding ground of one-upmanship that even great long form writers like bill simmons must resort to quippy nonsense in order to meet the zeitgeist's requirement for snark; the kings have been the butt of bad jokes for the better part of a decade now, and i'm regularly amazed at the pride so many "journalists" seem to take in sniping at such an easy target. that said, i'm not terribly bothered by the shallow observations of the national media in the immediate sense. but if the kings actually manage to make a serious playoff push this season with this reconfigured roster, i will be bothered by the inevitable rain of bullcrap about how the kings have sacrificed their "future flexibility" for a first round exit at the hands of the warriors or the spurs or the grizzlies. at what point did trying to win become so worthy of ridicule? at what point did selling fans a competitive roster become so without virtue?
every season, bust after bust after bust reveal themselves to us. every season, former lottery picks are traded or flat-out waived for failing to meet their potential. the knicks just signed ex-#2 overall pick derrick williams, a player who has been a perpetual disappointment at every stop. the nets just "outbid" the kings for the services of ex-#1 pick andrea bargnani, a player who has never even cared enough to try. and we've literally just discovered that joel embiid will miss his second straight year with foot problems, having not played a single career game of nba basketball. where are all the snarky think pieces about how "trusting the process" in philadelphia is as likely to leave that franchise mired in unfulfilled potential as the kings have been for years on end? i'm continually stunned by the value that franchises, fans, and sports writers place on hope, because hope is what most draft picks boil down to. yes, rookie scale contracts are very useful commodities in the contemporary nba, but that's not really what motivates a franchise attempting to sell tickets despite its losing roster. at that point, you're not selling a team that figures to have a chance at winning on any given night; you're selling the idea of your team winning someday, and for whatever reason, that is an extremely powerful idea to sell...
here's a though experiment: which is likely to cost a team more assets? trading for the #2 pick in advance of the 2011 draft, without knowing which player you will select in that draft? or trading for derrick williams, the actual player that draft position represents, a year or two after he was drafted (but before he was officially labeled a "bust")? in general, 2011 was a sh*tty draft year, but even in a sh*tty draft year, it's intoxicatingly easy to sell the ideas of "hope" and "potential." i don't know why it should be so much more difficult to sell the idea that a team with a superstar entering his prime and a poor roster around him should want to improve that roster with veteran talent, rather than the lollipops and rainbows of once-a-year lottery hopes-and-dreams...
now, none of this is to say that there's no value in rebuilding through the draft. there absolutely is value in it, but only up to a point. the kings, for example, snagged their superstar in the 2010 draft. but then they f***ed up four subsequent lottery picks, and their rebuild-through-the-draft strategy was completely shot. the mistake was not in clearing capspace to sign rajon rondo, marco belinelli, kosto koufos, and omri casspi this offseason. the mistake was in drafting jimmer fredette, thomas robinson, ben mclemore, and nik stauskas. however, vlade divac can do nothing about the mistakes of his predecessors. all he can do is attempt to put a competitive roster around demarcus cousins as quickly as possible in order to a) take advantage of demarcus' prime, and b) give demarcus a reason to stay...