Watch for it - Maurice Taylor (merged)

[kingsfan101]

Do you want to hit the playoffs every year and not go anywhere, just like the hawks used to do earlier or the cavs earlier or would you want to be in the bulls, pistons, lakers, spurs mode where you hit the playoffs and have a shot at the ring most of the time, though you might have slipped for a couple of years and not make the playoffs.

In my last post I mentioned that if it is possible to seriously improve next year, then this season is a price we should be willing to pay. Obviously, not every fan shall agree with this. We also don't know where the Maloof's stand on this, particularly with the arena thing up in the air, and whether there is enough interest in some of our vets (particularly our bigs), to make it feasible.

Also, I had mentioned the following
Over the last 7-8 years, only Kings, Spurs and Mavs have managed to hit the playoffs each year.

Sorry for the error as some of you pointed out. I missed Pacers since I was referring only to West. Cross checked about Mavs, and they have made only six straight trips, as against 7-8, I thought. Apologies.

My point however, was that it is not easy to remain competitive while staying within the tax. In the West, only the Spurs have managed that, and they are being led by one of the top 20 (some may say top 10) players of all time. (Mavs are doing great, but continue to be high spenders. Suns have a chance for another couple of years if Nash is able to maintain a high level, and Amare returns strong).

We were serious title contenders for a few seasons, and had a few things gone in our favor (a lucky bounce, a lesser injury, a few more made free throws, fair refs), we might have had a couple of championships. Of course, we paid our future as the price for those years, and that is what we are seeing now. We didn't have any draft picks in 02 or 03, and we left our 01 draft pick (Wallace), unexposed in the expansion draft, when there was every indication that he is an excellent player who shall be picked by the Bobcats.

Another interesting thing I observed about the Kings since I have been a fan is that the team has always had great depth, but has lacked that mega-star. Webber is the closest we have had. Superstars of course are rare, and we were lucky to get one in Webber (Artest has potential. Let's see if he has the head). Depth is the second best option. It provides a tremendous cushion, but keeps you from becoming brutally bad, and landing a high pick. We survived major injuries in recent years without virtually any problem. Even last year, we lost our starting PF and SG for extended periods, but were good enough to to make the playoffs. Some other teams depending on some superstars become extremely bad if they lose them for some time, and get much better next year.

Don't know if having a deep team is a Petrie thing, or is necessitated by the unavailability of a superstar. Interestingly another highly regarded GM in Memphis has had to take the depth route, accompanied with early exits from the playoffs without winning any games, since he migrated from LA.

 

[Bricklayer]

Another interesting thing I observed about the Kings since I have been a fan is that the team has always had great depth, but has lacked that mega-star. Webber is the closest we have had. Superstars of course are rare, and we were lucky to get one in Webber (Artest has potential. Let's see if he has the head). Depth is the second best option. It provides a tremendous cushion, but keeps you from becoming brutally bad, and landing a high pick. We survived major injuries in recent years without virtually any problem. Even last year, we lost our starting PF and SG for extended periods, but were good enough to to make the playoffs. Some other teams depending on some superstars become extremely bad if they lose them for some time, and get much better next year.

Don't know if having a deep team is a Petrie thing, or is necessitated by the unavailability of a superstar. Interestingly another highly regarded GM in Memphis has had to take the depth route, accompanied with early exits from the playoffs without winning any games, since he migrated from LA.

My goodness, a thoughtful, intelligent post on the board -- be still my beating heart!

I have asked that above question myself...a lot. And the answer is rather critical. In fact at our peak I made exactly the argument you suggest above -- that the unavailability of a megastar (Webb was damn close at his peak, but maybe just south of the legends) FORCED us to go with the depth approach as the next best thing. That it was the intelligent approach given our situation even though the ensemble cast is almost always a losing proposition in the end.

However, events in recent years have caused me to reassess, and now I am not so sure. Initially of course, back in '98-'99, we were godawful and assembled all of that talent in one summer (Webb, Peja, Vlade, JWill) and good moves that those all were (well, the JWill pick looks a TAD shaky given that Dirk and Pierce were drafted a few spots later), I doubt we were concerned at the time about how best to be a contender -- how best not to suck balls was more like it. And so the core of the eventual ensemble contenders came in without there necessarily being any real knowledge that a few years down the line they would all be famous starters for one of the hottest teams in the league.. We could nto have known they would be a high quality ensemble, and so quickly.

And its hard to miss the fact that whatever the initial intentions 8 years ago, that of late Geoff has CONSCIOUSLY pursued an ensemble strategy, and not a terribly successful one either. Even if he understood the value of the clear #1 (Webb) and roleplayer (Doug, Scot) once upon a time, he certainly hasn't demonstrated that understanding in recent years, and the obvious strategy has been just accumulating a stack of middling to good offensive players. Which isn't so smart. And so now you throw in the fact that Geoff is a lifetime Blazer, and that the Blazers have ALWAYS followed an ensemble strategy (with the resultant elite years + no titles), and it begins to look a bit suspicious. Did his Blazers experience mean that he actually PREFERS the ensemble approach? Did the Kings own peak years cause him to adopt the approach permanently, except missing the details that made it work (the Webb level superstar and top roleplayers)? Or is he just accumulating large piles of middling to good players in an effort to use them to barter for a superstar (the KG theory)? Unknown. But certainly as the glory years have faded and one of the few things that has lingered since that time is the ensemble approach, only with less and less talent every year, its suspicious. Its become almost our trademark, so much so that some Kings fans see it as who we are and who we WANT to be. And for the sake of our eventual championship hopes I pray to god that's not true. Geoff has zero rings. So do the Blazers since Walton was a megastar. So do we. You can get close the ensemble way -- so close in fact (Game 7 OT) that you are tempted to say its possible to sneak in. But only Detroit has made it work in the last 25 years of the league. That's not a hit percentage you want to intentionally pursue.

 

[nbrans]

I'm certainly not about to follow up a few intelligent posts with one of my own, but just a few things: if Ron Artest shows up and plays like he did before the brawl (25 ppg plus defense) the Kings just might have their star. He was unstoppable.

Otherwise, I don't think you can really plan for getting a megastar. You might -- might -- get one by tanking your season and getting lucky if the ping pong balls bounce right etc. etc. etc. You might get one through a fortuitous trade. In recent history the draft has been the most successful route, but given the talk of trading KG and AI, that might change in the very near future.

Also, I think Bricklayer underplays the value of the ensemble a bit. If you include the Sheed/Sabonis Blazer team that choked in the 4th Quarter against the Lakers and the Kings who choked in game 7 against... the Lakers, that's two more teams that could/should have won a title. They were both within spitting distance. Now, obviously it's not the preferred route, but it's been known to work.

All this is to say that I'd like to see what this team looks like. After all, we're either lottery bound (according to ESPN) or title contenders (according Dime Mag). But I'd much rather take the patient approach than the blow it up approach. The blow it up approach has worked for one team in recent history. Miami. The Bulls, Hawks, Hornets, Blazers and countless other teams are all still waiting for it to work.

 

[kingsfan101]

The blow it up approach has worked for one team in recent history. Miami.

Phoenix too. I know they haven't won the title (not yet at least), but they have been contenders for two seasons, and might still win if Nash's back and Amare's knees hold up.

 

[Bricklayer]

Phoenix too. I know they haven't won the title (not yet at least), but they have been contenders for two seasons, and might still win if Nash's back and Amare's knees hold up.

And Dallas -- awful for years and it netted them Dirk, as well as JKidd who became Nash/Finley.

And likely soon Cleveland (LeBron).

And although they kinda cheated the system, San Antonio -- how they got both Duncan and the Admiral. How the Bulls got Jordan. How the Rockets got Hakeem. The Lakers would be the cheaters, stealing Shaq just because they were the Lakers in L.A. and getting Kobe because Kobe wasn't going to report for other teams. They play by their own rules.

 

[nbrans]

I hardly think Dallas can be cited as an example of blowing things up, because they are only recently contenders. They're not a team that blew everything up and got good soon, they're more the model that I'm talking about. Slowly fill in around the edges and be patient, making the playoffs year after year until you have a contender.

 

[supamari0]

If you're going to tank, this is the year. The draft this year will be loaded from all of the high school prospects who couldn't get in last year plus whatever shows up from the NCAA. There are a handful of guys who could be "superstars."

The draft is by far the easiest way to acquire one. You either need to have tons of cap room or find a stupid GM willing to trade away their guy. That's how we got McGrady in Houston. Weisbrod was stupid enough to deal him for our backcourt tandem of Francis and Mobley who aren't going anywhere.

The Sixers at some point will dump Iverson but he relies almost entirely on his speed so he'll really start to suck the moment his quick first step slows down. KG should be on the market but he's the only thing keeping the T-Wolves relevant so they almost feel the need to hold on to him. One of those teams with superstars will blow up their team and start from scratch but those firesales are few and far between.

I would seriously recommend pulling a San Antonio and tanking and going for it all in Greg Oden. Memphis will almost certainly try that now that Pau is injured. Just let Ron Artest work on his album for a year, get a good draft pick and get Oden or Durant and then you'll be fine.

 

[VF21]

If the arena vote doesn't pass, this MIGHT be the Kings' last year in Sacramento. If TPTB decided to tank the season, too, we might just have to change our name to Charlotte.

 

[GoGoGadget]

My goodness, a thoughtful, intelligent post on the board -- be still my beating heart!

It happens every now and then.

Smart ***.