Bad news for the tankers...

Discussion in 'Kings Rap' started by gunks, Sep 7, 2017.

  1. gunks

    gunks Well-Known Member

    So, apparently Silver and Co want to switch up how the lotto works in an effort to keep teams from tanking for better odds at the top pick.... And these changes would go into effect for THIS UPCOMING SEASON!

    Long and short of it is that the crap teams will have significantly worse odds at top picks than they do in the current system, and playoff teams (even contenders, I'd imagine) would actually have a shot at the top pick!

    I can already picture it.... Warriors get the 1st pick in the NBA draft (JK, it'll be The Cavs), while we fall to the mid teens as a 25 win team. :eek::eek::eek:

    Anyways, I figured this is as good a topic for TDOS as any, as it may very well screw up our rebuild (considering we're probably a lock for being a bottom 5 team next year).
    NewArena and VF21 like this.
  2. Capt. Factorial

    Capt. Factorial Cantry Member Staff Member Contributor

    According to Woj at ESPN, any changes (none of which have been approved - or perhaps even proposed in a rigid form) might not take place until the 2019 draft.

    And obviously, the Cavs/Warriors thing is hyperbole, of course the changes would not give playoff teams a chance at the lotto. Most likely, it sounds like the odds may get evened out a bit, particularly at the top (so there is little to no advantage of having the worst record as opposed to having the third worst record) and they may select four slots instead of three. Additionally, there has apparently been talk of disallowing a team to have a top-3 pick two consecutive years.

    But in the end, we don't really know what any proposed changes would look like just yet. Either way, it looks like they would be unlikely to affect the Kings' draft next year as it sounds like the 2018 draft will probably operate under the current rules even if there is a change approved shortly.
  3. Iced Espresso

    Iced Espresso Well-Known Member

    Sounds about right, just in time for our rebuilding/development season.
  4. KingsFanSince85

    KingsFanSince85 Well-Known Member

    I read about this earlier today. While I'm totally on board with fixing this lame lottery system, I'm not so sure the ideas proposed will work or are even good ideas.

    To me, the best idea is to NOT have a lottery at all. Go back the old way (like the NFL does now) and simply police your owners. If they're doing obvious things such as sitting or resting their best players late in the season, take care of it internally. Hell, these kinds of things should be part of the written agreement/bylaws of owning a team to where the commissioner can take necessary steps to dissuade this type of behaviour.

    Having said the above, I get that the NBA won't change it for the simple fact that people watch this stupid process on TV and they make money from the speculation, intrigue and excitement of it all. So knowing that a lottery of some form is here to stay, I'd love to see it tweaked somewhat. But I don't want to see it tweaked in a way that hurts small market teams that are in the lottery for legitimate reasons. I don't like the idea of not being able to have a top 3 pick in consecutive years. If you think a team/owner is tanking intentionally, make sure it's covered in the ownership agreement/bylaws and deal with it internally. There's no need to punish the majority for reckless behaviour of a few.
    Kingster likes this.
  5. Kingsfan23

    Kingsfan23 Well-Known Member

    But it means if we take off the following season that pick could still be embarrassingly high. Oh well
  6. Iced Espresso

    Iced Espresso Well-Known Member

    Let's hope the changes come when our pick debt is due.

    But you know it goes for us normally.
  7. upinsmoke

    upinsmoke Well-Known Member

    This last lottery was abnormal for us I'll tell you that. 5+10 was bleeping great.
    Chupacabra, NewArena and gunks like this.
  8. ockingsfan

    ockingsfan Well-Known Member

    That is why the Kings will need to make the Playoffs in 2019! ;)
  9. pdizo916

    pdizo916 Active Member

    i know tanking has been going on since forever, but a recent team that has abused the current system is philadelphia. Thank you, sixers. SMH. #trusthteprocess.
  10. SacTownKid

    SacTownKid Well-Known Member

    My conspiracy theorist side thinks this is all a ploy to keep churning out super teams. Isn't the worst team not having much better odds already in place? If anything it might be skewed the other way too much. You have about a 3 in 10 shot of getting the number 1 pick if your the worst team. Look at the Kings when they drafted Evans. All the way down to fourth.
  11. Vladizzle

    Vladizzle Well-Known Member

    Eh we might be decent anyways.
  12. John Galt

    John Galt Well-Known Member

    The last few years, from the all-star break on has sucked bad... because half the fan base or more is actively rooting for the team to lose games. The post-game chat on twitter and radio is negative as hell... "how could Joerger be so stupid as to win that game"... even from CD. And that is such a horrible state of things.. when you're at a game you paid $200 per seat for, and you feel this pressure from the "smarter than thous" to root for a loss.

    If the reform can shave a little off of that dynamic I am 100% for it. The whole "Heinke is a great genius - Kings should give a 3 year concentrated tank effort"... this is unpleasant. Not saying those people advocating for it aren't trying to play the game by the rules... but when you pay for tickets and go to the games - it freaking blows.

    I want to have the team trying hard to be 35-47 instead of 29-53, not the other way around.

    Please reform the freaking lottery - Godspeed Adam Silver get it done!!!
  13. Capt. Factorial

    Capt. Factorial Cantry Member Staff Member Contributor

    Well, I don't think that the design of the proposed lottery, as best as it has been articulated, would suggest that teams traditionally considered "stronger" would have any greater chance at winning the lottery. It sounds like they want to mostly even out the odds for the worst 4-5 teams and then have the odds for the other lotto slots stay about as they were. Since I think it's hard to make an argument that any team in that 1-5 lotto slot range is going to be that much better than any other team in the range, I don't think this is likely to help form super teams via the draft - especially if they also institute one of the things they are evidently discussing, a prohibition from a team picking top-three two years in a row.

    But yes, I think evening out the lotto odds at the top end is a bit counterproductive to the stated purpose of the "competitive balance draft". At the same time, it would discourage tanking. And that's one of the most difficult things about the draft - you can err towards rewarding worse teams with better picks, or you can err towards discouraging tanking, but it is very, very hard to do both simultaneously.
  14. kingsboi

    kingsboi Well-Known Member

    I'm all for changing up the odds in the lottery but not at the expense of giving teams that are contenders or borderline contenders a chance at the pick. Give teams 1-14 in the lottery higher odds and let the cards play out how they may. Also, have the ping pong balls picked by Silver himself on national TV.
    SacTownGrantFan likes this.
  15. Capt. Factorial

    Capt. Factorial Cantry Member Staff Member Contributor

    o_O You can't give every team higher odds - they already add to 100%!
    bajaden, biltalent and Telemachus like this.
  16. Chupacabra

    Chupacabra Well-Known Member

    The best management takes care to not micro-manage. I hope for the best.
  17. 206Fan

    206Fan Well-Known Member

    As a fan who buys tickets to watch the Kings, I agree with you. However, as a Kings fan in general, I disagree. I'll use the season 2 years ago as an example. We went 20-23 at one point, and even gained control of 8th seed for a few days.... blew up. Completely blew up at the end of January. Dysfunction, arguments, all out media brawl with Cousins, Karl, and lockerroom. Became clear that Karl-Cousins would not co-exist, and Karl will be fired. After going 20-23, we went 6-19. Leaving us with a record of 26-42. For the 8th seed competition, the Rockets were already at 34-34, with the Jazz at 33-35. We were completely out of the playoff race right at that moment. Prior to this, both Houston and Utah finished their last 6 games, 4-2, while the Kings finished 1-5. As you can see, this was the point of the season where the entire year was done for. Playoffs were out the window. Karl experiment was over. The future of this team was in question marks. We'd need to focus on a lottery prospect. We'd need to completely retool the entire coaching staff. We'd need to find a new headcoach. We'd need to figure out what we wanted to do with Cousins. Oh, and I didn't even mention that god-awful Vlade trade with the 6ers which resulted in the lost of the 2019 1st round pick for.....cap space.

    Going back to the Kings, they're 26-42 with a completely lost season. All attention should be shifted from the playoffs, to the draft. 14 games left..and we proceed to go 7-7. Why? Did I not just emphasize how much of a lost season this already was? lol I've seen the ridiculous argument about how this was supposed to "teach" Cousins how to win.

    So not only do we finish the season off with a nice .500 to end the last 14 games, we also get trapped in a 3-way tie for 8th pick. We had the same odds of having the 10th position, as the 8th. To make matters even worse, our pick was only top 10 protected. If we ended up with the 10th slot instead, there would be a 0.88% chance of the Kings losing the pick. While those are great odds for us, I'd like to remind you that Cleveland only had a 1.7% chance of winning the lotto back in 2014.
    So... by "winning" 7 of the last 14 games, we went from being on pace for the #4 pick, to being on pace for the #10 pick. Not to mention how bad this could've hurt us if we did lose our 1st round pick to Chicago. All we needed was 2 more wins to lose our entire 1st round pick.

    What a horrible trip back on memory lane. -sigh. Should I go on about the past season too? Kings traded Cousins and go for a complete youth rebuild. Our best player on the roster is now Darren Collison. However, Joerger goes ahead and gives all these vets big minutes despite them being in absolutely 0 future plans. Darren Collison 30mpg. Ty Lawson nearly 30mpg. Afflalo nearly 30mpg. Anthony Tolliver 20mpg. Fast forward 3 months later, all 4 of these 30yearolds+ are no longer on the Kings. Temple, another 31yearold journey man was also getting nearly 30mpg. Koufos' 23mpg are much more forgivable.
    What's the reason for Joerger playing a bunch of vets that wouldn't even be on the team 2 years from now? You might see it differently, but I personally did not enjoy watching the group of Lawson-Collison-Temple-Tolliver-Koufos playing 30mpg. Even in the games we won, what the hell did moral victories give to us? Teaching the young guys how to win? The 4-5 wins to 15 loses definitely made a difference?
    The Kings were clearly moving towards a youth rebuild. I want to see what the future of the Kings hold. I want to see our future franchise players. No offense, but I don't want to see a 31yearold Anthony Tolliver struggle his ass off to grab a single rebound, let alone guard anyone on the opposing team. Nor do I want to see 31yearold Arron Afflalo struggle to keep up against younger guards.

    We ended up with the 8th lotto slot. The 3 extra wins given to us by the vets was the difference between the 8th slot and the 4th slot. Oh, did I forget to mention that our pick this year's was also....-gasp TOP 10 PROTECTED. All we needed was 4 more wins to lose our entire 1st round pick. no biggie.

    Now, I hope you see where the frustrations of winning meaningless games pee a chunk of fans off. This has been our biggest problem for the past 7-8 years. We've constantly been one of the worst teams in the NBA, but we've never been horrible enough outside of 2008 to warrant a top 3 pick. We screw our own odds over by winning the most meaningless games at the ends of seasons. Don't believe me? In 2011, we finished 8-7....In 2012, we finished 3-3. The 3 extra wins was the difference between picking #5 and potentially #2. In 2013, we were horrible. In 2014, we were horrible. In 2015, we also finished 3-3. No movements since teams were tanking extra hard. Then there's 2016 and 2017.

    I understand your frustration as a season ticket holder. You're paying good money to watch professional basketball. When the Kings put out crap product year after year, all you want to see is wins. It's pathetic that they've only reached 30 wins 3 times in the past 10 years. I think we can all agree that winning is what this team needs. However, I personally don't think there's a big difference between 35 wins and 29 wins except draft position. Draft position is extremely important for a team like us. You don't need the #1 pick to build a championship team, just look at Golden State. Curry #7, Klay #11, Barnes #7, and Draymond #35. However, you'd need a competent organization who knows how to scout, develop, manage, etc. The Kings can't even go 2 years without firing their head coach... So for a team like us, having a sure-fire star at the #1 pick is much more vital to our success than good teams. As a cherry on the top, small market teams will always be a stepping stone in FA. Andre Iguodala used the Kings as contract leverage twice against the Warriors. KD would never consider the Kings even if we were a top 3 team(exactly what OKC was). Adding a more positive light. In regards to present time, it seems like the Kings are in much better hands. It wasn't too long ago where there was another dysfunctional team 90miles away while the other was the best team in the league.

    To end my entire awful rant, I hope we go 10-72 and get the #1 overall pick.
    SLAB, bajaden and CelticsFan like this.
  18. gunks

    gunks Well-Known Member

    I agree with you, I just want it to happen AFTER next season. For obvious selfish reasons. :p
  19. DesertFox

    DesertFox Well-Known Member

    I liked the idea of ordering by most wins once eliminated from playoff contention. Keeps a long season interesting, and rewards depth.
  20. jcassio

    jcassio Well-Known Member

    I read your whole post. Guess that means I'm not ADD.

    You make a lot of good points. Although when you cover so much ground at the 10k foot level, you lose a lot of detail that explains the day to day decisions. But focusing on the day to day means you've lost the big picture, which is why your post has value.

    Giving young prospects playing time and an opportunity to win games is the cleanest way to improve your draft odds while still improving your existing talent base. Trading talent for future assets is a gray water area for me - depending on whether it's a fire sale that's really focused on losing games now. Any other strategies for losing to improve draft position falls over the line for me into the black water of "tanking." I can understand tanking from a big picture perspective, but I have no tolerance for it on the day to day. It's bad for the game I'm watching and it's bad for the sport.
    John Galt likes this.
  21. King Baller

    King Baller Well-Known Member

    I abhor tanking and never want to see a team I support consider it an option 2 WEEKS BEFORE THE START OF TRAINING CAMP!. ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

    I want the Kings to GRIND for every loose ball, every rebound, every pick and every hoop to win as many games as possible.
    Warhawk and VF21 like this.
  22. John Galt

    John Galt Well-Known Member

    I read it too but I've read it all before. I don't know why tanking supporters think the rest of us can't do math or don't recognize that pick #4 is better than pick #5 for example. I get ALL that.

    I understand the divergence of opinion around how Joerger coached the team down the stretch last year. I understand both points of view. I could see the vein bulging in Carmichael Dave's forehead every time the coach played ANY vets and won. And I understand... he could have done nothing but play kids and lost more games and improved his odds (although God helped him "get away with it" by giving us Fox).

    But I think the pro-tank group insults the intelligence of the "make kids earn it" group. They don't recognize that there is a legit school of thought that runs counter to theirs. If you roll the ball out for Isaiah Cousins, Heild, Skal, WCS, Paps - sure you give the kids minutes and guarantee losses... but what are those kids going to learn? blind leading the blind and arguably becoming "entitled".

    Some people think you gotta hold a high'ish standard to earn minutes. If you eff up, Temple comes in and you go out. If you eff up, Kosta comes in and you go out. If you stand around, Tolliver comes and you go out. Darren starts until you're good enough to start. And those guys are playing because they're better than you... and you have to get better so YOU can play.

    I understand the pro-tank group, but I also understand the Joerger school and I favor the Joerger school. Now if Skal, Buddy, WCS and Paps were actually bonafide sure thing phenoms like Lebron, KG, Kobe... then that's a different story. But they ain't. Not one of those youngsters is so good that you should just give em the keys and let em rip knowing that in 2-3 years you have a superstar.

    I'm all in favor of the way Joerger decides who plays.

    I know one radio host was kinda putting it on Vlade for not trading off Temple, Tolliver, Darren & Kosta and I guess you could argue that... but I still think those guys were important mentors in Joerger's mind.
  23. bajaden

    bajaden Well-Known Member

    In a strange way, it's the chicken or egg scenario. Which came first? Are we a bad team because were tanking, or are we tanking because were a bad team. Yeah, a generalization and perhaps a bad metaphor, but in truth, just about every team in the lottery deserves (bad choice of words) to be there. No one in the NBA thinks the Kings are going to make the playoffs. Not for lack of talent, but for lack of experience. History tells us that. So at the end of the day, if we end up with one of the worse records in the NBA, are we tanking?

    To some extent, maybe just a little. Not the players, but perhaps the coaching staff. If you want the best of both worlds, then you want the players to go out and try to win every game, but at the same time, you want the best possible draft pick you can get. The Kings are in the unique position where they can, or might accomplish both those things. Those results may be the natural order of things. The Kings could be an exciting team to watch, and yet may end up with one of the top picks in the draft. That would be a win/win where everyone walks away with a good taste left in their mouth.

    The Kings are a form of entertainment. That's the bottom line. The most difficult part of a rebuild, is keeping your ticket holders entertained. Keeping them excited about the next game. If you can accomplish that, then no one cares whether you describe that as tanking or not. I'm sure the purest out there will continue to draw a line in the sand. There are baseball fans that are still complaining about the designated hitter rule. As a baseball guy, I get more excited seeing a power hitter step to the plate with the bases loaded, than a pitcher batting .125%.

    If the Kings end up with the top pick in the draft, and three years from now, their playing the Warriors in the conference finals, no one will care whether they tanked or not. Can I be bought? You bet! Just win baby, just win. :rolleyes:
  24. bajaden

    bajaden Well-Known Member

    Make no mistake, Joerger has a very tough job. Ultimately, he has to take all the young talent, and turn it into a competitive team. Simple statement to make, but it's very complicated to accomplish. Personally I think Joerger is the perfect guy for the job. But he has to be able to do his job without every move he makes being questioned. And that same approach has to be applied to the players. You can't play your best at any sport if you looking over your shoulder. You have to allow young players to make mistakes. That's how they learn.

    If Joerger decides to put Jackson into the game instead of Carter at a key deciding moment of the game, because he thinks it could be a great learning moment for him, and we lose because he makes a mistake, is that tanking, or is that Joerger developing a player for the future? Joerger's job is to keep his eye on the horizon, and not get stuck in the mud of the immediate. As I said, his job is complicated, and some people on both sides of the issue are going to question his every move. I might even be one of them. But for now, I'm happy with how the future looks, and I'm looking forward to the first game.

    Every thing in life doesn't have to be either/or. You can be for a high draft choice, and still be rooting for the players to give it their best effort. You can recognize the talent, but know in your heart that without experience, that talent alone isn't enough. You can cheer and feel good about the individual efforts you'll see during the season, while knowing that you still need another piece or two to complete the picture. If all that adds up to tanking in someone's mind, then so be it.
  25. Mike

    Mike Active Member

    I'm not sure that disallowing teams consecutive top-3 picks would be a good idea, or even a fair one. Imagine if we had a situation like a few seasons ago when Anthony Bennett went first overall, Victor Oladipo second overall, and Otto Porter third overall. Bennett is out of the league and is one of the biggest busts in recent memory, and the other two are useful players but not franchise changing ones. So imagine if your team lands a top-3 pick in a weak draft class and only gets a useful player, that team isn't going to get better, they are going to be bad again and be prevented from potentially getting a franchise changing player. In Cleveland's case they got Bennett one year and Wiggins the next. Now had they not brought back Lebron James, and in turn prevented from having consecutive top-3 picks, they would have been stuck drafting from another selection of useful but not franchise changing players just outside the top-3 picks. Granted that year McCollum went tenth and Giannis fifteenth, but I don't remember them being tipped to go much higher than they were picked.

    Is there a way to solve the tanking problem without going to these types of measures?

    The only way I can think of that would make teams have to make an effort to compete is to give every single team in the lottery the same odds. So a team that tanks like the Sixers, Lakers, Nets, and Suns would have the same odds of landing the top pick as teams like the Heat or Nuggets that tried to win and make the play offs but fell short. They would also have the same odds as teams stuck in limbo like the Hornets, Pistons, and co - the teams that aren't bad enough to get a top pick under the current format but not good enough to make the play offs. Essentially by having this type of format it makes teams have to try to get better quicker rather than spend years tanking because there's now no guarantee what pick you are going to get. The Heat could land the top pick and the Sixers could land the fourteenth pick. Is that fair for bad teams to fall that far and teams on the fringe to rise that far? Probably not, but it could solve the tanking problem because teams will no longer be able to lose on purpose to get better odds.

    I suppose the alternative is to switch up the odds for all fourteen lottery teams and no longer put restrictions or protections on how far a team can fall. By doing that it means there is a chance, albeit a small one, that the team with the best odds could fall into the teens, while a team in the teens could rise into the top few picks. This method would make things a bit less predictable. Yes, you could still argue that tanking might occur but with no protection on how far a team can fall it would be a harder sell to a team's owner to tank because the team's pick could end up being lower. So in a sense this could also give teams the incentive to try and compete because every one has a chance of moving up and down in the draft lottery to a greater degree than what currently exists.

    With that said, while I applaud the commissioner for making an effort to try and fix the tanking problem, it is going to be very hard to get rid of tanking because at some point teams will need to rebuild. The question at that point is how does the commissioner want teams to rebuild? If he feels every team can luck out like the Warriors have done with their key players not being top-3 picks, well, that is great but it is rare to see teams built in that fashion. So would he rather teams like the Hornets and Pistons continue to be stuck in limbo trying to win but not being good enough to win, instead of seeing them blow it up and tanking? If that's the case, fair enough, but at the same time having teams stuck in futility is not good for those teams because fans get bored and also it's not good for the league because they are going nowhere and are nothing teams that people aren't really interested in. So for me, they need to be careful just how much tweaking they do to the system and how many restrictions they put in place because the last thing you want is for more teams to be stuck in limbo while the rich get richer and the gap between the top teams and everyone else grows.
  26. kingsboi

    kingsboi Well-Known Member

    not every team, teams 1-14....
  27. Capt. Factorial

    Capt. Factorial Cantry Member Staff Member Contributor

    Teams 15-30 already don't participate in the lottery, so the odds for teams 1-14 already add to 100%.
  28. The Effort Police

    The Effort Police Well-Known Member

    The arguments for the Joerger way of doing things is a bit more abstract for my liking. I prefer minutes and experience for young players over those standards you were mentioning. I simply find it more important for them than the latter. That's why outright tanking isn't a concern for me; losses and a higher draft pick are possibly a lucky byproduct of doing things my preferred way, but I'm not losing sleep over whether or not they've decided to outright tank.

    And I don't think I've seen many people argue against ALL veterans. I haven't seen many people want to get rid of Temple, or oppose the Hill signing. Those are fine by me. But the way we're doing it seems... excessive. There's a lot of vets on this team now with a very vet-friendly coach. He sort of assailed my concerns the other day with his interview, but we'll have to wait until the season starts.

    And were the veterans actually better last year? These guys weren't worldbeaters, you know. These guys were bench players or even end of the bench filler at times, and Joerger played them big minutes.

    Afflalo was absolutely worthless last year; Hield was clearly better than him. Hield played big minutes so it's wasn't that egregious, but I think even Richardson would've been worth more than Afflalo last year.

    Skal was probably better than Tolliver down the stretch of the season. Tolliver has experience and floor-spacing, but Skal's general offensive repertoire is already so far beyond his. Tolliver rebounds like *** too, so even if Skal has issues in that department at the moment, Tolliver was far, far worse.

    Koufos... probably better than Skal, probably not better than WCS down the stretch.

    The two point guards were better, but there wasn't a young player at their position to play over them.

    I mean, the two worst players on our team last year were veterans. One (Barnes) made rookie mistake after rookie mistake. The other (Afflalo) was completely worthless. They both got tremendous amounts of leash.

    That won't be a concern with Hill and Randolph, but some of these guys getting the minutes they did last year at least gave me pause on Joerger's coaching style.
  29. pdxKingsFan

    pdxKingsFan Well-Known Member

    The NFL does not punish tank jobs. Suck for Luck? And the NBA actually did force Philly to take on Colangelo when Hinkie was executing the process. The biggest problem though is that the NBA more than any other league is run by a handful of superstars and so every team does everything they can to land and control one for 7 seasons.
    gunks likes this.
  30. kingsboi

    kingsboi Well-Known Member

    Explain that one to me

Share This Page