Sounds like Christmas day around here, when you open your present and find it isn't what you wanted.
1. There's a possibility that Ron opts out. If so, then Denver and other teams were probably throwing poor trade ideas our way. In addition, I'm assuming Petrie wanted to attach the albatross that is KT with any trade, creating more difficulties. I can't say I blame him. "If you want Ron, you must take KT." What teams have that kind of fungible money?
2. If 2010 is the year of true cap space, then keeping Ron around isn't damaging anything financially, as he's not lengthening problems from a monetary standpoint.
3. People are complaining that Ron = more wins. That's a bad thing? You're getting someone (for the time being) who wants to win, and wants his teammates to get better. Yes, I understand a worse record = better draft pick. However, someone did the math earlier, and noted that our slot in the draft won't improve unless we forget how to dribble a basketball. The Kings are NOT THAT BAD OF A TEAM. I don't feel like doing the math, but I'm pretty sure it's impossible to "earn" a top 10 draft pick at this stage of the game. We need negative wins, and by my count, a loss only counts as "1". Besides, who's to say that players and picks won't be packaged to move up in the draft?
4. Seeing as how Ron is still here (and I've been on the record for wanting him gone), I say "Welcome. Kick some butt and show the young guys how to play some tough D." As Kent Brockman once said, "I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords."
FIN.