Suns
Mavs
Spurs
Hornets
Lakers
Blazers
Nuggets
Warriors
Rockets
Jazz
Those are the teams ahead of the kings. 10 teams ahead, and 8 playoff spots, meaning they need to beat out 3 of those to take a spot. The Kings haven't even won a game against a divisional opponent, and are 7-13 against western teams, so even if they manage to tie records for a spot in the top 8, they will lose the tiebreaker matchup.
They don't have a different record.
Having your top 3 players all miss 15+ games...those previous stats are all MOOT. This is a DIFFERENT team than what we saw the first 2.5 months of the season.
That would only be relevant if the other thirty-six games didn't count... But they do. So it's not.Sure they do, this group is now 3-1 since the return of Bibby/Artest...
A) we have played 4 East teams.
B) New Jersey and Detroit have been spiraling
C) we have already used up 20 of our 30 games against the East this year, and in fact our record is considerably padded by the fact that we have thus far played 20 against the East (11-9), 20 against the West (7-13). Rest of the season? 10 against the East, 32 against the West.
So have the Bobcats. They suck, too, but at least they're moving in the right direction.Yet, our strength of schedule is at .522 (season win/loss percentage of team's opponents) and only the Raptors have a higher SOS at .529. This would run against the "padded" schedule theory.
We have also demonstrated that we are fully capable of beating the best teams in the league.
I don't agree that the Kings are a playoff quality team. Not by a long shot.
But, even if I did, they sure as hell aren't a finals quality team, so where's the point in making the playoffs?
I know that the instinctual response for many (for most?) is that playoffs = ooohh yippee!! However, we're talking about a team that is still just a few years removed from legitimate title contention and has been sliding, but has not yet fully rebuilt. While getting bumped in the first round would mean a better season record than last year, it wouldn't actually indicate ANY progress for a team in our situation. Just more of the same.
So, at this point in time, what would you rather do? We're locked into a 10th-14th draft pick at this point. Even if we dump Bibby, Artest and Miller, we're not going to catch the tankers who have a half-season lead on us at this point. And besides, Beno/Salmons/Martin/Garcia have proven that they can still ball without Bibby/Artest, and Theus has shown he has no intention of throwing games intentionally. It's the price we already paid for playing on and increasing our vet's values, which have ballooned significantly.
I don't agree that the Kings are a playoff quality team. Not by a long shot.
But, even if I did, they sure as hell aren't a finals quality team, so where's the point in making the playoffs?
I know that the instinctual response for many (for most?) is that playoffs = ooohh yippee!! However, we're talking about a team that is still just a few years removed from legitimate title contention and has been sliding, but has not yet fully rebuilt. While getting bumped in the first round would mean a better season record than last year, it wouldn't actually indicate ANY progress for a team in our situation. Just more of the same.
So have the Bobcats. They suck, too, but at least they're moving in the right direction.
Without agreeing or disagreeing with your statement, I would like to add that making the playoffs does do one thing - it puts money into the pockets of the Maloofs. And, from that standpoint only, it would arguably have some value.
This time last season, we were the same amount of games better than the Bobcats. Come the end of the season, we had the same record. We aren't as good as we look right now (which, honestly, isn't that good to begin with), and they aren't as bad.At 9 games below .500 and in the bottom half of the Least, I am not too envious of the Bobcats. But hey, at least they look good on paper.
what i'd like to see is this analysis applied to the celtics. sales records this season indicate that celtics merchandise have jumped to the top of the league, and i am assuming that they are selling out well for home games. i'd like to see whether or not having one playoff series is really that much more beneficial financially than having a winning team that's a title contender (adjusted for net present value).
That being said, why trade anybody? What are you going to get for artest? Equal pay, which means an avg player in return or 2 crappy players. Artest is not avg, so keep him.
Trade Bibby for what? You certainly arent going to get quality in return. And since the salaries have to be close, you are not going to get a player making 13 mill a year that is producing, you will get a player making 13 million that is sucking, and why would we want that.
Just clearing cap room doesnt really help. It is rare to get a quality player in free agency as you can not go over the cap to sign them. So huge impact player will be demanding big bucks, not many people have that much cap space. When was the last time a free agent signed a 100 million dollar deal with a NEW team?
At this point, I say keep em all, play out the season and see what happens. I think this team CAN make the playoffs. They need to continue to beat the weaker teams and pull off some occasional wins against teams that are "better" then we are.
What would I rather do?
I'd rather hit the big rewind button and go back to the offseason and actually get something done so that we wouldn't be in this position right now. I'd rather watch the team, and those in charge, start making some aggressive moves instead of sitting around and waiting to see what happens. That's what I'd rather.
But, I don't think that's going to happen any time soon. So at this point I'd say it's time to start making deals for youth, draft picks, and expiring contracts so that we can work towards having some actual flexibility. So that maybe, just maybe, we position ourselves to be the ones making the moves, rather than the ones reacting to the moves everyone else is making.
As far as trying to figure out if one playoff series is better than "a winning team that's a title contender," that's just silly. (No offense meant at all...) Of course it's not better but it's not the choice right now.
What would I rather do?
I'd rather hit the big rewind button and go back to the offseason and actually get something done so that we wouldn't be in this position right now. I'd rather watch the team, and those in charge, start making some aggressive moves instead of sitting around and waiting to see what happens. That's what I'd rather.
But, I don't think that's going to happen any time soon. So at this point I'd say it's time to start making deals for youth, draft picks, and expiring contracts so that we can work towards having some actual flexibility. So that maybe, just maybe, we position ourselves to be the ones making the moves, rather than the ones reacting to the moves everyone else is making.
none taken. but from the perspective that you brought up, i think it's a valid question: is it better financially to have one down year followed by a good year, or two so-so years? if the quantified solution measured by net income is "having so-so years is still better than ever having a down year followed by a good year," then we can see what the maloofs incentives are, and once you know their incentives, well then you can explain their actions.
Any questions?
I have one--why trade Bibby?
If...when the Kings make the playoffs, 'ol Bibs is going to be VERY valuable and totally worth his high $ for his sharp shooting and playoff experience, yes? The Bibs/Beno team is working very well, so I see no reason to trade Bibs--he can help lead the Kings to not only the playoffs, but a chance at the Finals, I think.