"Tanking" - blessing or curse?

[uolj]

My feeling is that you always play your hardest, try to win as many games as you can and build through a combination of drafting well, and making astute trades and free agent signings. You simply can't put all your chips on winning the draft lottery.

Agreed. But is anybody really advocating the "put all your chips on winning the draft lottery" strategy?

The problem with your Salmons discussion is that the chances of him being the cornerstone of a championship team are practically nil. The goal of a getting a high pick in the draft is to greatly improve your chances at obtaining that cornerstone.

It's still not easy to find that cornerstone with a top pick, but it's almost impossible to do so without it.

 

[Spike]

As far as I know the people who are advocating "tanking" agree with Spike's #1, #2 and #3, they just think the best way to accomplish #3 is for Petrie to make moves that bring in expiring contracts and draft picks that provide the added benefit of a young team that doesn't end up winning as many games no matter how hard they try, which leads to a top draft pick.

True. My point is that some people want the bench people to take the bulk of the minutes from the starters in order to facilitate said tanking. You don't throw out a lineup of KT, Moore, Hawes, Douby, and Garcia to win games. You're just trying to lose games at that point. Now, if players were traded, leaving them as the only option, then hey, fire away. (It'd be some pretty sad trades, though.)

 

[uolj]

True. My point is that some people want the bench people to take the bulk of the minutes from the starters in order to facilitate said tanking. You don't throw out a lineup of KT, Moore, Hawes, Douby, and Garcia to win games. You're just trying to lose games at that point. Now, if players were traded, leaving them as the only option, then hey, fire away. (It'd be some pretty sad trades, though.)

I agree there. But I also think that giving more minutes to developing youngsters (e.g. not Thomas and Moore) over middling veterans is acceptable if their play isn't too different.

If there's a real good shot at a playoff spot then I'd want the coach to play the best players possible, but I don't think the Kings are there right now.

 

[fnordius]

True. My point is that some people want the bench people to take the bulk of the minutes from the starters in order to facilitate said tanking. You don't throw out a lineup of KT, Moore, Hawes, Douby, and Garcia to win games. You're just trying to lose games at that point. Now, if players were traded, leaving them as the only option, then hey, fire away. (It'd be some pretty sad trades, though.)

I'm not sure that many think that. Personally, I would never argue for minutes for KT or Moore, because they have no place on a rebuilding team. As unimpressed as I've been with Hawes or Douby so far, and despite my mixed feelings about Garcia, GP has made them the future of the Kings, so, for better or worse, they should all get regular minutes. Ditto for Udrih, Salmons, Williams and Jones, even though each of them arguably makes our team play better. And, in that regard, I have a conflict.

Yes, losing games has some utility. Not much this year, but a little, still. Player development always has utility. Looking at recent games, I'm not at all sure that playing, say, Udrih, Martin, Salmons, Williams and Miller, with Jones coming off the bench, would lose us any games at all. In fact, it might win more games, and they'd almost certainly be more fun to watch.

I want the team to improve. I don't really care what mechanisms are used, but I want to see it happening in a very clear way. What we've been doing is mostly the opposite, playing vets who will only get worse, who don't necessarily make the team better, and who won't be around three years from now. It's like... what the heck? Could we do anything more pointless? Showcasing for trades is fine, but not when you drag it on for years and don't manage to actually trade any of them. Adding Mikki, who I think a lot of us would be happy to trade away this very minute, is another sign of this bewildering exercise in futility.

Anyway, I think that playing the youth isn't a tanking strategy for most of us, it's development, fun basketball, and putting an eye on our future. And I think that most of us who want some nice lottery picks would still want to see the kids play, even if it netted us a few extra wins. It would at least give us some cause for hope in the future, which watching the vets really doesn't do.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

^Word.

 

[Spike]

Vets are vets for a reason. They've already suffered the mistake of youth. My argument is more reasoning for why Bibby and Artest are playing over Beno and Garcia. Your scenario works if Bibby and Artest are no longer on the team. However, they are still here.

FTR, I enjoy watching the young kids grow and mature, but to play youth just for the sake of youth does not make sense. You play them when there isn't an option, or if they've worked themselves into the starting rotation.

 

[Jerryaki]

I think it is possible to rebuild without losing 60-70 games. Good draft picks aren't just gotten in the first 5 picks. I don't need to put up example you all know them. Also I don't need somebody to put up this long history of how many top picks make it vs. lower picks I am well aware of that I am not an idiot. I just don't believe its a MUST to be aweful to be good again.

it's not a MUST but your odds are certainly BETTER with that high draft pick. if management accepts that it's not a must, then the road to improving feels passive and awfully luck-dependent.

i once read a quote that said "there is no such thing as luck, only preparation meeting opportunity." in the nba world, there are many ways to improve, but all of them require preparation. so yes, you don't have to be awful, but you sure as hell better be preparing...

 

[thedofd]

Agreed. But is anybody really advocating the "put all your chips on winning the draft lottery" strategy?

Well, the thread is about tanking. To me, that means playing to improve your position in the draft rather than to win games.

The problem with your Salmons discussion is that the chances of him being the cornerstone of a championship team are practically nil. The goal of a getting a high pick in the draft is to greatly improve your chances at obtaining that cornerstone.

I wasn't saying that Salmons is the cornerstone of a championship team. What I said was that Salmons, the kind of player who's available every year for the midlevel exception, is as good as or better than roughly half the lottery picks of the last three years. That's not a ringing endorsement for the strategy of playing to get into the draft lottery.

And the notion of getting a cornerstone in the draft generally is a crapshoot unless A) it's an exceptional year (such as this year's draft) or B) you're willing to wait 3-4 years for development. Judging from the crowds at Kings games this year, I'd say most people are unwilling to wait that long.

It's still not easy to find that cornerstone with a top pick, but it's almost impossible to do so without it.

If you had to pick the best player on the Kings going forward, would it be Kevin Martin? Not exactly a lottery pick, was he? The draft can be a crapshoot.

As I said initially, it's a combination of drafting, free-agent signings and trades. The Celtics have the best record in the league. They sucked for many years, never finding that "cornerstone" in the draft. What they did was stockpile some good young players and draft picks and turn them into a couple of veterans who give the franchise a solid 2- or 3-year window of hope.

I'm hopeful that some of the Kings' players who got extended playing time this year because of injuries -- Salmons, Garcia, Udrih -- have proven their values. The more talented players you have, the more trade possibilities you have. Aside from the power forward position, the Kings seem to have decent starters and reserves.

I don't see them making the playoffs this season; they've missed too many man-games to injury and there are too many quality opponents. But if they can upgrade the 4 spot without giving up too much depth, I can see them being a solid playoff team next year.

 

[uolj]

Well, the thread is about tanking. To me, that means playing to improve your position in the draft rather than to win games.

Actually, the thread is about "tanking". Your perception of what is meant by tanking is not accurate, I think. Generally, people advocating tanking are not saying that the players or coach should try to lose games, nor are they saying that the only way to succeed is to win the draft lottery. They are saying the front office should make moves that will have the side effect of putting more inexperienced players on the floor which means winning fewer games and getting a better draft pick. The point is not to try to lose games, it is to not be afraid of losing games and allow that to happen.

Nobody on the Kings right now is the cornerstone of a championship contender. That's the whole point. You almost always need a superstar to win a championship, and to get that superstar you almost always need to have a high draft pick.

The rest of the team can be filled out with people like Martin and Salmons, but until you get your superstar(s) they don't help much as far as contending for titles goes.

As I said initially, it's a combination of drafting, free-agent signings and trades. The Celtics have the best record in the league. They sucked for many years, never finding that "cornerstone" in the draft. What they did was stockpile some good young players and draft picks and turn them into a couple of veterans who give the franchise a solid 2- or 3-year window of hope.

The Celtics got good because they did what the people advocating "tanking" want the Kings to do. They stockpiled young players and expiring contracts. They allowed the team to lose some games (I actually think they went a little too far in almost trying to lose) when their star was injured and got a top draft pick because of it. They ended up trading those assets away for Garnett and Allen.

To me, if the team is not on its way up, then it should be stockpiling assets to obtain a superstar and supporting cast. Assets in this league are draft picks, young players and expiring contracts. If you can find and keep some reasonably priced supporting players, great. But on the Kings right now, there is Miller, Thomas, Abdur-Rahim, Moore, Artest and Bibby that are all "in the way" of building a new team. It's possible that one or two will be around for the next incarnation of the contending Kings, but that still leaves at least four that can be moved for those assets. And if they're moved, that leaves room for younger players to gain experience, and that also means that the team might lose more games and gain the asset of a higher draft pick. It all makes sense if you're willing to allow it to happen.

 

[Jerryaki]

If you had to pick the best player on the Kings going forward, would it be Kevin Martin? Not exactly a lottery pick, was he? The draft can be a crapshoot.

if you had to pick the best player from that draft, would it be...dwight howard? not exactly a #26 pick, that one.

 

[thedofd]

Actually, the thread is about "tanking". Your perception of what is meant by tanking is not accurate, I think. Generally, people advocating tanking are not saying that the players or coach should try to lose games, nor are they saying that the only way to succeed is to win the draft lottery. They are saying the front office should make moves that will have the side effect of putting more inexperienced players on the floor which means winning fewer games and getting a better draft pick. The point is not to try to lose games, it is to not be afraid of losing games and allow that to happen.

You say tomato, I say to-mah-to ... Whether you're tanking to intentionally lose games or tanking to "not be afraid of losing games" to get a better drat pick, it still strikes me as a risky strategy -- especially when your fan base has started to tune you out. Maybe you want to pay $100 for a ticket to watch Quincy Douby, Justin Williams and Spencer Hawes try to establish themselves as players, but not me.

Nobody on the Kings right now is the cornerstone of a championship contender. That's the whole point. You almost always need a superstar to win a championship, and to get that superstar you almost always need to have a high draft pick.

The rest of the team can be filled out with people like Martin and Salmons, but until you get your superstar(s) they don't help much as far as contending for titles goes.

I wonder how the Houston Rockets -- or Miami Heat, though that's not really fair given Shaq's physical state -- blessed with 2 "superstars," would respond to the latter part of your statement.

Yeah, I'd agree that you almost always need a superstar to win a championship. But if you're implying that you need to draft that superstar, I disagree.

Since the Kings had the No. 1 overall pick in the 1989 draft, Pervis Ellison, exactly two No. 1 overall picks have been the key player in winning a championship: Shaq (1992) and Duncan. Iverson got his team to the Finals.

There's certainly hope for Dwight Howard, LeBron James and, maybe, Yao. But there's not much hope for Kwame Brown, Kenyon Martin, Michael Olowokandi, Joe Smith, Glenn Robinson or Chris Webber to be the main guy on a championship team.

Also, since 1989, only six different teams -- Detroit, Chicago, Houston, San Antonio, the Lakers, and one-and-done Miami -- have won championships. So having a superstar clearly doesn't guarantee a championship.[/quote]

The Celtics got good because they did what the people advocating "tanking" want the Kings to do. They stockpiled young players and expiring contracts. They allowed the team to lose some games (I actually think they went a little too far in almost trying to lose) when their star was injured and got a top draft pick because of it. They ended up trading those assets away for Garnett and Allen.

I'm not an expert on the Celtics, but my recollection is that they made the trades for KG and Allen because Ainge was on the verge of being fired because the Celtics fans and management were tired of sucking. If my math is correct, from the time Bird retired, the Celtics on average finished about 17 games out of first place in their division, including the 2004-05 season when they won it. They went from being a flagship franchise to a laughingstock, so, yeah, maybe they went a little too far in almost trying to lose.

Again, if you look at the history of the lottery, you tend to see many of the same teams participating over and over again. If you don't get lucky, you may not get out.

To me, if the team is not on its way up, then it should be stockpiling assets to obtain a superstar and supporting cast. Assets in this league are draft picks, young players and expiring contracts. If you can find and keep some reasonably priced supporting players, great. But on the Kings right now, there is Miller, Thomas, Abdur-Rahim, Moore, Artest and Bibby that are all "in the way" of building a new team. It's possible that one or two will be around for the next incarnation of the contending Kings, but that still leaves at least four that can be moved for those assets. And if they're moved, that leaves room for younger players to gain experience, and that also means that the team might lose more games and gain the asset of a higher draft pick. It all makes sense if you're willing to allow it to happen.

Here we have some common ground. I'm not adverse to moving guys in the right deal. I'd love to see the Kings get rid of Thomas and Abdur-Rahim in particular, but I don't see how that happens unless you're willing to take equally bad contracts/talent/attitude back.

The good news, as I said before, is that it appears some guys who perhaps had marginal value before -- Salmons, Garcia and Udrih -- are players, meaning the Kings have more options for moves. The resurrection of Miller has been encouraging. And I wonder whether Theus decided to put Bibby and Artest into the starting lineup sooner rather than later in order to re-establish their value with the trade deadline a month away.

As for getting younger guys more playing time, I think Martin and Garcia are coming along nicely. I'd argue that Hawes should be getting some "Moore" minutes (pun intended). Douby, Justin Williams, Jones, ... eh, can't get excited one way or the other.

 

[Jerryaki]

Yeah, I'd agree that you almost always need a superstar to win a championship. But if you're implying that you need to draft that superstar, I disagree.

Since the Kings had the No. 1 overall pick in the 1989 draft, Pervis Ellison, exactly two No. 1 overall picks have been the key player in winning a championship: Shaq (1992) and Duncan. Iverson got his team to the Finals.

There's certainly hope for Dwight Howard, LeBron James and, maybe, Yao. But there's not much hope for Kwame Brown, Kenyon Martin, Michael Olowokandi, Joe Smith, Glenn Robinson or Chris Webber to be the main guy on a championship team.

Also, since 1989, only six different teams -- Detroit, Chicago, Houston, San Antonio, the Lakers, and one-and-done Miami -- have won championships. So having a superstar clearly doesn't guarantee a championship.

[/quote]

sorry, two questions:

1) why was your argument only restricted to the #1 pick versus, say, the top 5 or 10 lottery picks??

2) each of those teams that did win did have at least one superstar, no??? the contrapositive of your statement is true, not having a superstar guarantees that you won't win a championship.

 

[uolj]

Yeah, I'd agree that you almost always need a superstar to win a championship. But if you're implying that you need to draft that superstar, I disagree.

No, and that's the point. You don't need to draft that superstar, you need to acquire assets. The easiest way to get one is to draft him, but simply by allowing the team to be filled with young players and expiring contracts is another solution. Either way, though, the method and the result will be the same. You'll probably end up losing more in the short term, and you'll be more likely to acquire top talent through the draft.

So having a superstar clearly doesn't guarantee a championship.

It's all about likelihoods and probabilities, not guarantees. Jerryaki just made the point, but not looking for a superstar virtually guarantees that you won't win.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Since the Kings had the No. 1 overall pick in the 1989 draft, Pervis Ellison, exactly two No. 1 overall picks have been the key player in winning a championship: Shaq (1992) and Duncan. Iverson got his team to the Finals.

There's certainly hope for Dwight Howard, LeBron James and, maybe, Yao. But there's not much hope for Kwame Brown, Kenyon Martin, Michael Olowokandi, Joe Smith, Glenn Robinson or Chris Webber to be the main guy on a championship team.

Also, since 1989, only six different teams -- Detroit, Chicago, Houston, San Antonio, the Lakers, and one-and-done Miami -- have won championships. So having a superstar clearly doesn't guarantee a championship.

Here's some more history for you: in the history of the NBA, the Finals MVP has been a player taken out of the top ten five times. In the history of the lottery, it's only happened twice. Hell, as a matter of fact, the Finals MVP has only been a player taken out of the top THREE a whopping four times in the history of the draft lottery, and one of those four times was Larry F. Bird (who, inexplicably, dropped all the way to #6 in 1978). Only three players in NBA history that were taken in the bottom third of the draft have ever earned Finals MVP, and all three had the luxury of playing alongside at least one other hall-of-fame player AND Finals MVP.

The lottery might not be a guarantee, but it's certainly where the smart money is...

 

[thedofd]

sorry, two questions:

1) why was your argument only restricted to the #1 pick versus, say, the top 5 or 10 lottery picks??

2) each of those teams that did win did have at least one superstar, no??? the contrapositive of your statement is true, not having a superstar guarantees that you won't win a championship.[/quote]

1) Honestly, didn't set out to write a masters thesis. But if the argument is that the best place to find a superstar is in the lottery, then it seems to follow that the absolute best place is with the first pick in the lottery. But practical experience shows that not to be the case. Again, I'm not saying high draft picks are bad, just that there are no guarantees.

2) The 2003-04 Pistons are the exception to the rule. I'll concede that not having a superstar, or maybe even two, means that winning a championship is pretty much out of the picture. I'm not advocating against trying to get a superstar, just pointing out that having one (or even two) is no guarantee of a championship.

 

[Jerryaki]

1) Honestly, didn't set out to write a masters thesis. But if the argument is that the best place to find a superstar is in the lottery, then it seems to follow that the absolute best place is with the first pick in the lottery. But practical experience shows that not to be the case. Again, I'm not saying high draft picks are bad, just that there are no guarantees.

2) The 2003-04 Pistons are the exception to the rule. I'll concede that not having a superstar, or maybe even two, means that winning a championship is pretty much out of the picture. I'm not advocating against trying to get a superstar, just pointing out that having one (or even two) is no guarantee of a championship.

1) but practical experience does show that it's pretty tremendously helpful to have a top 5 draft pick. others have gone on at length on this analysis, so i'll leave it at that. there are no guarantees in life, but that seems kind of a silly reason to not play the percentages.

2) again, there are no guarantees. again, you should put your team in the best position with the best odds to win the title.

 

[thedofd]

No, and that's the point. You don't need to draft that superstar, you need to acquire assets. The easiest way to get one is to draft him, but simply by allowing the team to be filled with young players and expiring contracts is another solution. Either way, though, the method and the result will be the same. You'll probably end up losing more in the short term, and you'll be more likely to acquire top talent through the draft.

I'd argue that the Kings have put some pretty good assets in place. If they can showcase Artest and Bibby for the next month, they may be able to move them for something of value, whether it's expirings, draft picks, or young talent. Maybe they can now pair, for example, Garcia with Kenny Thomas, whereas before Garcia's value wasn't high enough to envision that.

It's all about likelihoods and probabilities, not guarantees. Jerryaki just made the point, but not looking for a superstar virtually guarantees that you won't win.

Never said the Kings shouldn't look for a superstar; you're advocating doing it through the draft, I'm advocating doing it through a trade. Either way, you have to get a bit lucky.

Again, the thread is about "tanking." If the argument is that Kings fans should take the long view -- be willing to go through 3-4 bad seasons in order to build up talent -- here's another long view: crowds continue to dwindle, a new arena doesn't get built, and the Boise Kings fan board comes to life in a couple of years.

Sure, I'd love the Kings to be championship contenders. But if they're playing hard and are fun to watch, I'll live with the results.

 

[Jerryaki]

I'd argue that the Kings have put some pretty good assets in place.

Never said the Kings shouldn't look for a superstar; you're advocating doing it through the draft, I'm advocating doing it through a trade.

they have some assets, but "good" assets? apparently not anyone that we could've swung a deal with, as evidenced by the relative trading inactivity over the past few years.

and most certainly not anyone/combination of players that would've landed us a superstar. you can advocate doing it through a trade. but we don't have the assets to do so.

 

[thedofd]

Here's some more history for you: in the history of the NBA, the Finals MVP has been a player taken out of the top ten five times. In the history of the lottery, it's only happened twice. Hell, as a matter of fact, the Finals MVP has only been a player taken out of the top THREE a whopping four times in the history of the draft lottery, and one of those four times was Larry F. Bird (who, inexplicably, dropped all the way to #6 in 1978). Only three players in NBA history that were taken in the bottom third of the draft have ever earned Finals MVP, and all three had the luxury of playing alongside at least one other hall-of-fame player AND Finals MVP.

The lottery might not be a guarantee, but it's certainly where the smart money is...

What did Twain say about lies, damned lies and statistics?

Of the 23 Finals MVPs in the lottery era, 14 awards have been won by four players: Jordan (6), Shaq (3), Duncan (3) and Hakeem (2). Of the remaining nine, two, including the most recent, were won by players taken out of the lottery: Joe Dumars (the 1989 MVP, picked 18th) and Tony Parker (28th pick).

Let's face it: If you don't have a great player and a supporting case, you're not going to win a championship. On the other hand, in any given year, the odds of A) correctly identifying and B) drafting (given the lottery setting) such a transcendent player are so high as to nullify any advantage gained by tanking.

So, if the lottery prize is Jordan or Shaq, I'm all for tanking. Otherwise, let's play ball and see what happens.

 

[VF21]

Sure, I'd love the Kings to be championship contenders. But if they're playing hard and are fun to watch, I'll live with the results.

And that's pretty much how I look at it - with one more addition. As long as they're playing hard and are fun to watch I'll continue to spend the time and money whenever I can to come to Arco to see them.

 

[thedofd]

they have some assets, but "good" assets? apparently not anyone that we could've swung a deal with, as evidenced by the relative trading inactivity over the past few years.

and most certainly not anyone/combination of players that would've landed us a superstar. you can advocate doing it through a trade. but we don't have the assets to do so.

Let's see what happens by the trade deadline. We all know it's difficult to make a trade, but at least you have some control over it, whereas the lottery comes down to luck.

I don't pretend to know what other teams think of our players, but I'd wager that the aforementioned guys who weren't on anyone's radar before -- Salmons, Garcia and Udrih -- certainly are up and that Bibby and Artest have a chance to increase or at least reinstate their value over the next month. People have to be looking differently at Miller this year than they were last year.

I also don't know exactly what it takes to get a superstar, although I thought what the Nuggets and Celtics gave up for Allen Iverson and Ray Allen, respectively, was pretty reasonable.

Maybe you don't make a trade for a guy who's a superstar right at the moment, but a guy who, put in a certain situation, would blossom into one.

For example (and I'm not suggesting you would or could make a deal for any of these guys): What if you acquired Paul Millsap from Utah and gave him 35 minutes a game; could be be a 12-rebound-a-game guy? And if he could, what would that do for your fortunes? What if you could acquire Calderon from Toronto and he, as Jerry Reynolds suggested on TV last week, turned into John Stockton?

Going a bit further, what if the Grizz decided to part ways with Gasol or the Bobcats with Okafor? Not saying that they're available or available to the Kings for what they could offer, but I think either would have a huge impact on the Kings. And, yeah, both of those scenarios may be pipedreams. But are they bigger pipedreams than finding that one end-all, be-all guy in the lottery?

 

[uolj]

On the other hand, in any given year, the odds of A) correctly identifying and B) drafting (given the lottery setting) such a transcendent player are so high as to nullify any advantage gained by tanking.

This is incorrect, and it's not even close.

1) The odds of correctly identifying and then drafting such a transcendent player might be long, but the odds of getting a championship caliber team in any other way are much, much longer. Therefore, the advantage gained by "tanking" still exists.

2) If the team fails to obtain the transcendent player because they fail to correctly identify such a player or are not in position to draft him, "tanking" still provides the ancillary benefit of having a good shot at a very good player that can either serve as a #2 to an eventual #1 or as the centerpiece of a trade for a true #1.

Either way, the advantages are still there.

 

[uolj]

And that's pretty much how I look at it - with one more addition. As long as they're playing hard and are fun to watch I'll continue to spend the time and money whenever I can to come to Arco to see them.

And the team before the three starters came back was playing hard and fun to watch, right?

Trading away veterans for picks, youth and expiring contracts can make the product on the floor more entertaining even while it leads to fewer wins short term.

 

[Bricklayer]

I'd argue that the Kings have put some pretty good assets in place. If they can showcase Artest and Bibby for the next month, they may be able to move them for something of value, whether it's expirings, draft picks, or young talent. Maybe they can now pair, for example, Garcia with Kenny Thomas, whereas before Garcia's value wasn't high enough to envision that.



Never said the Kings shouldn't look for a superstar; you're advocating doing it through the draft, I'm advocating doing it through a trade. Either way, you have to get a bit lucky.

Again, the thread is about "tanking." If the argument is that Kings fans should take the long view -- be willing to go through 3-4 bad seasons in order to build up talent -- here's another long view: crowds continue to dwindle, a new arena doesn't get built, and the Boise Kings fan board comes to life in a couple of years.

Sure, I'd love the Kings to be championship contenders. But if they're playing hard and are fun to watch, I'll live with the results.

If we call these the Top 15 players in the league, and 15 is a major stretch for the term "superstar" -- 10 would be closer. But let's go 15 just to get virtually everybody:

Kobe
KG
LeBron
Wade
Duncan
Dirk
Nash
Howard
Yao
Paul
----
Arenas
Kidd
Bosh
Amare
Pierce
-----

(A.I., Melo etc.)

Of those only 4 of the 15 have changed addresses (KG, Nash, Kidd, Arenas). And none of the others is likely to do so. And of the 4 who changed addresses, only 2 were by trade. Nash and Arenas were both freakish FA signings (which of course requires cap room) -- Nash the out of nowhere shocker, and Arenas only signable because of a now-closed loophole in the FA rules penalizing teams for having good 2nd round picks. The two guys who were traded were traded deep in their careers: KG at 32, and Kidd at 28. As a rule you are talking short windows when you trade for a superstar -- nobody lets them go until they have failed, failed again, failed once more, and might now be getting about ready to slowdown. Same would apply to A.I. if you wanted him to break the Top 15. None of those guys who have moved, BTW, have any rings on their fingers.

Comparatively the 11/15 acquired through the draft is a sure thing. You have to get if anything luckier in trade, and in the end its not in your control. The other team can just walk away from the table and keep their guy. Draft picks don't walk away.

 

[thedofd]

And the team before the three starters came back was playing hard and fun to watch, right?

Trading away veterans for picks, youth and expiring contracts can make the product on the floor more entertaining even while it leads to fewer wins short term.

In all fairness, they were pretty fun to watch last night, too, and that was the team they envisioned having all season.

 

[VF21]

And the team before the three starters came back was playing hard and fun to watch, right?

Trading away veterans for picks, youth and expiring contracts can make the product on the floor more entertaining even while it leads to fewer wins short term.

I'm not saying trading away the veterans would necessarily end the fun and entertainment value. I was making a personal observation as witnessed by:

As long as they're playing hard and are fun to watch I'll continue to spend the time and money whenever I can to come to Arco to see them.

We have no way of knowing for sure if trading away veterans for picks, youth and expiring contracts would make the product on the floor more entertaining. You made an extension to my observation that may or may not be true.

 

[thedofd]

If we call these the Top 15 players in the league, and 15 is a major stretch for the term "superstar" -- 10 would be closer. But let's go 15 just to get virtually everybody:

Kobe
KG
LeBron
Wade
Duncan
Dirk
Nash
Howard
Yao
Paul
----
Arenas
Kidd
Bosh
Amare
Pierce
-----

(A.I., Melo etc.)

Of those only 4 of the 15 have changed addresses (KG, Nash, Kidd, Arenas). And none of the others is likely to do so. And of the 4 who changed addresses, only 2 were by trade. Nash and Arenas were both freakish FA signings (which of course requires cap room) -- Nash the out of nowhere shocker, and Arenas only signable because of a now-closed loophole in the FA rules penalizing teams for having good 2nd round picks. The two guys who were traded were traded deep in their careers: KG at 32, and Kidd at 28. As a rule you are talking short windows when you trade for a superstar -- nobody lets them go until they have failed, failed again, failed once more, and might now be getting about ready to slowdown. Same would apply to A.I. if you wanted him to break the Top 15. None of those guys who have moved, BTW, have any rings on their fingers.

Comparatively the 11/15 acquired through the draft is a sure thing. You have to get if anything luckier in trade, and in the end its not in your control. The other team can just walk away from the table and keep their guy. Draft picks don't walk away.

You're covering the 1995 draft to the present, right? Pardon my math skills, but that's 14 drafts, or about 182 players (give or take; not sure off the top when the lottery became 13 teams). So out of the 182 lottery picks in the drafts you're discussing, we have 15 superstars. That's roughly, what, a 1 in 12 chance of drafting a superstar in a given year? To put it another way, less than one superstar per draft.

Again, not knocking the draft, just saying the odds are long. Yes, teams can walk away from trade talks. Yes, you get to keep your draft pick. On the other hand, if the lottery hands you the 10th pick and there are eight legitimate players, you're on the hook for, what, four years?

Yeah, I get it. If you draft a superstar, you're likely to keep him and the cap rules are set up to encourage guys staying put. But as someone who's followed the Kings for 22 years -- including a number of years in which they truly deserved divine intervention in the lottery -- I can count the number of times they've gotten really good players via the draft on maybe a hand and a half. So forgive me if I appear somewhat lacking in faith in the draft.

You mentioned that none of the superstars who've been traded have won any rings. That's a bit disingenuous, since only three of the 15 have won championships: Kobe, Wade and Duncan. Oh, and technically, Kobe was traded: the Hornets drafted him, didn't call his bluff when he pouted, and sent him to L.A. for our man Vlade 15 days later.

Like I said, there's a lot of luck involved.

 

[uolj]

I'm not saying trading away the veterans would necessarily end the fun and entertainment value. I was making a personal observation as witnessed by:

We have no way of knowing for sure if trading away veterans for picks, youth and expiring contracts would make the product on the floor more entertaining. You made an extension to my observation that may or may not be true.

I was adding to your comment, not disagreeing with it.

 

[Superman]

I hate that I'm saying this, but last night's game, combined with the previous two, was a definite "woss". Now people "believe in the Kings," and the Maloofs and Geoff are probably running the numbers to see what we have to do to make the playoffs as we speak. So much for moving Mike and/or Ron at the deadline. We are destined to win 38 games this year and get the 13th pick in the Draft. And we'll do nothing to get better in the offseason, except maybe sign a 31 year old average power forward to a four year, $21 million contract.

I bet Rod Thorn, eager to get back at us for out-bidding him on Mikki Moore, planned this sequence of events, and instructed Lawrence Frank to throw the game last night in hopes of convincing the Maloofs that the Kings are viable as they are currently comprised.

 

[Jerryaki]

Again, not knocking the draft, just saying the odds are long. Yes, teams can walk away from trade talks. Yes, you get to keep your draft pick. On the other hand, if the lottery hands you the 10th pick and there are eight legitimate players, you're on the hook for, what, four years?

so trade that 10th pick to a team who's looking to move up.

you've already stated that you think the draft is a crapshoot. doesn't it stand to reason that it's more of a crapshoot at the bottom of the draft than at the top? history has shown that a larger portion of the talent is at the top; if you whiff, that is your fault (GMs) for not picking the right player.

and even so, since it's a crapshoot, then trade that pick to a team who wants it for an asset that you're comfortable with! the 10th pick has more value than anything less than the tenth pick!