Kings Should Offer Artest a Contract
- Thread starter Purple Reign
- Start date
Hate to respond to my own note but in re-reading my note that Brick responded to, I see where the confusion comes in.
I don't even need to do the math the Brick meticulously did to understand that to have a high draft pick is better than a low pick. I didn't recheck the note I was responding to. I hope there was a valid reason for pointing out the exceptions to this FACT.
Addendum: Just rechecked. It was a note full of sarcasm and because of that I wasn't clear as to the point.
I don't even need to do the math the Brick meticulously did to understand that to have a high draft pick is better than a low pick. I didn't recheck the note I was responding to. I hope there was a valid reason for pointing out the exceptions to this FACT.
Addendum: Just rechecked. It was a note full of sarcasm and because of that I wasn't clear as to the point.
Last edited:
I am glad Brick put up that stat sheet. Here I was thinking that all the best players in the NBA came from 25th-30th pick. Who in the hell would have ever thought that the best players get picked first.
In order to get to that point you have to have a horrible coach and players that are totally unwilling to try and win. I am not sure I can suffer 1 year of that much less 3 or 4 and who is to say if we do reach that point we don't draft an Olowakandi instead of Lebron. As I stated before give me a garuntee and I will take being awful for 1 year but, with no garuntee and it may take 2 or 3 years no thanks.
Side note: How hard must it be to be a fan of a team in which the roster make-up of which you would be happy with aren't even playing in college yet. Kinda like football in which every down is 4th down and you are always punting.
Straw man.
The same thing can be accomplished by a good coach with a young team that plays hard every night, and tries to win every game, but just flat out isn't good enough. Like Charlotte, or Seattle, or Minnesota. The idea that nobody fails that tries hard is absolute bull****. Sometimes people try their best, and fail anyway. And, if you're rebuilding, really and truly rebuilding, that's probably what you want for the first couple of years, anyway.
The same thing can be accomplished by a good coach with a young team that plays hard every night, and tries to win every game, but just flat out isn't good enough. Like Charlotte, or Seattle, or Minnesota. The idea that nobody fails that tries hard is absolute bull****. Sometimes people try their best, and fail anyway. And, if you're rebuilding, really and truly rebuilding, that's probably what you want for the first couple of years, anyway.
yet in trying to disprove my point you proved my point. You don't know what you are going to get in the draft. Its easy to look at those players now and see how good they are vs. how good the player they got are but, how in the hell could you have known. I recall several ppl here lustin of Darko thinking he was the next Kareem. As i said there is no garuntee.
The Hawks were just 1 example are you prepared to do this same breakdown for about 8-12 other team that have been trying to rebuild for several years now.
Orlando has taken 11 years to rebuild since they traded Shaq.
Chicago has been going 12 years since MJ left
Seattle about 10 years since Kemp was there.
Portland 10 years and counting now
New York eternity
Clippers eternity
Golden State eternity
Milwalkee
the list goes on even up to team that hit and miss the playoffs here and there Houston is topped out right now they have to add or the Yao Tmac era is going to be wasted
anyway all these teams have been rebuilding for 10+ years now and have all had top 5 pics at times if not every year and yet still nothing. That is why I am not able to jump on the lose 70 games and all of a sudden next year you start winning or even the next year or the next or the next or the next. Next thin you know you are 10 years older and the young players you thought would be good players for a rebuild are now vets and retiring and you are stuck wondering WTF we had top picks.
The Hawks were just 1 example are you prepared to do this same breakdown for about 8-12 other team that have been trying to rebuild for several years now.
Orlando has taken 11 years to rebuild since they traded Shaq.
Chicago has been going 12 years since MJ left
Seattle about 10 years since Kemp was there.
Portland 10 years and counting now
New York eternity
Clippers eternity
Golden State eternity
Milwalkee
the list goes on even up to team that hit and miss the playoffs here and there Houston is topped out right now they have to add or the Yao Tmac era is going to be wasted
anyway all these teams have been rebuilding for 10+ years now and have all had top 5 pics at times if not every year and yet still nothing. That is why I am not able to jump on the lose 70 games and all of a sudden next year you start winning or even the next year or the next or the next or the next. Next thin you know you are 10 years older and the young players you thought would be good players for a rebuild are now vets and retiring and you are stuck wondering WTF we had top picks.
This is so completely wrong, I'm not even sure where to start. You can't possibly be this... misguided (sure, that's close enough; let's go with misguided)... as to believe that most of those teams were rebuilding, never mind all of them. If you think that all of those teams have been rebuilding for the span of time you allege, you lack comprehension as to what the word "rebuild" means. Two things that you need to understand are: 1) Just because you're losing doesn't mean you rebuilding; in fact, if you're losing with "middle aged" (for athletes) talent, you're most definitely NOT rebuilding. And 2) Just because you initiated a rebuild doesn't mean that it's been a continuous rebuild process the whole time; aborted rebuilds don't count as a continuous rebuild:
Wrong. Orlando made the playoffs five out of the seven years immediately after O'Neal left (and, by the way, they didn't trade him, either), and they were .500 or better all seven of those years. They had NO young players until they drafted Mike Miller in 2000. In 2003-04 they went 21-61, but McGrady Juwan Howard, Drew Gooden and Tyronn Lue all played major minutes for that team, all while NO young players got significant minutes. That was, in no kinda way, a rebuild. Orlando's rebuild didn't start until 2004, when they traded for Dwight Howard.
1998-1999: Toni Kukoc, Ron Harper, Brent Barry, Dickey Simpkins, Mark Bryant and Randy Brown were all big minute players. Young players: 0. No rebuild.
1999-2002: Looked like a legitimate rebuild, when they drafted Elton Brand, Ron Artest and Jamal Crawford, and signed Brad Miller, only to see the idiot Krause ****can the whole rebuild and start over from the beginning. Aborted rebuild count: 1
2002-2003: Krause traded Brand to put together the Baby Bulls, and then proceeded not to play them: no development for Curry, Chandler or Crawford, meanwhile significant minutes were going to oldheads Jalen Rose, Ron Mercer, Marcus Fizer, Travis Best and Charles Oakley. Charles F. Oakley? Seriously? You can't say that you're rebuilding when Charles F. Oakley is getting major playing time for your team.
2003-2004: Paxson takes over, and the rebuild begins: draft Hinrich, trade for Deng, sign Nocioni, install Curry and Chandler as fixtures into the rotation, and away they go. They've made the playoffs three years in a row since 2005, at which point, it is no longer reasonable to say that they're rebuilding.
1997-2002: Well, let's see... the first five years after they traded Kemp, they were above .500 all five years, and made the playoffs three time. No rebuild there.
2002-2004: A two-year period during which they integrated two youngsters (Lewis and Mason) into their lineup. I suppose, if you really stretched the definition, you could make the case that they were rebuilding during this period, but they really weren't.
2004-2006: Got to the second round of the playoffs, and followed it up by only winning thirty-five games with basically the exact same lineup. That's not a rebuild, that's a relapse.
Ten years goes back to the lockout season:
1998-2003: Made the playoffs five straight years. No rebuild.
2003-2005: Went .500, and had an old core rotation, with the exception of Randolph. Followed up by winning twenty-seven games with basically the same group of players. No rebuild.
2005-2006: The last year of the Jailblazers. If you want to make the case that this was the start of the rebuild, I won't argue with it. But if you're going to say that 2005-to-now is an unreasonable amount of time for a rebuild, I'm going to call you daft.
I don't know what your definition of "eternity" is, but the Knicks were a playoff staple until 2001. And, since then:
2001-02: Houston, Thomas, Camby, Sprewell, Weatherspoon, Jackson. No rebuild.
2002-03: Houston, Thomas, Sprewell, Weatherspoon, Eisley, Anderson, Ward. No rebuild.
2003-05: Marbury, Kurt Thomas, Tim Thomas, Van Horn, Houston, Penny Hardaway. Made the playoffs one year, and thirty-three the following year with more or less the same squad. No rebuild there.
2005-present: The Curry era. Rotation consists basically of Curry, Marbury, Crawford and Quentin Richardson. With a little youth thrown in, vis a vis David Lee and Nate Robinson. But that's still not a rebuild.
Losing with old players isn't rebuilding. It's just losing.
This shouldn't even have to be explained. Anybody who's been watching the Clippers since the day before yesterday knows why the Clippers hasn't had a successful rebuild: because Sterling won't pony up. And, like I just finished saying, losing with old players isn't rebuilding: I defy you to find any given year between 1993 and 2000 when they had more than two young players in their regular rotation.
2000-2004: An earnest attempt at a rebuild: build the team around Elton Brand. And they did come close in 2001... Looked like they were on the verge of really doing something when they signed Dre Miller, Corey Maggette and Bobby Simmons. But, for some reason, it didn't really pan out.
You know what, I'll even grant you the Clippers... but that only makes you one-for-seven, in my book.
I would argue that "eternity" didn't start until 2001. Beyond that, I won't belabor the point. Two-for-eight.
1998-2006: Milwaukee was .500 or better six years in a row, and made the playoffs five out of six years. Had a one year hiccup before making the playoffs again, and are now two years into a genuine rebuild. Nothing to see here.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong! If you're constantly in the playoff hunt, you are not rebuilding! Houston missed the playoffs from 1999-2003, the Rockets missed the playoffs four years in a row, but they still more or less kept the same core of players. Hell, they still had Dream until 2001; that ain't no rebuild!
You seriously need to get your nomenclatures correct.
Wrong. Orlando made the playoffs five out of the seven years immediately after O'Neal left (and, by the way, they didn't trade him, either), and they were .500 or better all seven of those years. They had NO young players until they drafted Mike Miller in 2000. In 2003-04 they went 21-61, but McGrady Juwan Howard, Drew Gooden and Tyronn Lue all played major minutes for that team, all while NO young players got significant minutes. That was, in no kinda way, a rebuild. Orlando's rebuild didn't start until 2004, when they traded for Dwight Howard.
1998-1999: Toni Kukoc, Ron Harper, Brent Barry, Dickey Simpkins, Mark Bryant and Randy Brown were all big minute players. Young players: 0. No rebuild.
1999-2002: Looked like a legitimate rebuild, when they drafted Elton Brand, Ron Artest and Jamal Crawford, and signed Brad Miller, only to see the idiot Krause ****can the whole rebuild and start over from the beginning. Aborted rebuild count: 1
2002-2003: Krause traded Brand to put together the Baby Bulls, and then proceeded not to play them: no development for Curry, Chandler or Crawford, meanwhile significant minutes were going to oldheads Jalen Rose, Ron Mercer, Marcus Fizer, Travis Best and Charles Oakley. Charles F. Oakley? Seriously? You can't say that you're rebuilding when Charles F. Oakley is getting major playing time for your team.
2003-2004: Paxson takes over, and the rebuild begins: draft Hinrich, trade for Deng, sign Nocioni, install Curry and Chandler as fixtures into the rotation, and away they go. They've made the playoffs three years in a row since 2005, at which point, it is no longer reasonable to say that they're rebuilding.
1997-2002: Well, let's see... the first five years after they traded Kemp, they were above .500 all five years, and made the playoffs three time. No rebuild there.
2002-2004: A two-year period during which they integrated two youngsters (Lewis and Mason) into their lineup. I suppose, if you really stretched the definition, you could make the case that they were rebuilding during this period, but they really weren't.
2004-2006: Got to the second round of the playoffs, and followed it up by only winning thirty-five games with basically the exact same lineup. That's not a rebuild, that's a relapse.
Ten years goes back to the lockout season:
1998-2003: Made the playoffs five straight years. No rebuild.
2003-2005: Went .500, and had an old core rotation, with the exception of Randolph. Followed up by winning twenty-seven games with basically the same group of players. No rebuild.
2005-2006: The last year of the Jailblazers. If you want to make the case that this was the start of the rebuild, I won't argue with it. But if you're going to say that 2005-to-now is an unreasonable amount of time for a rebuild, I'm going to call you daft.
I don't know what your definition of "eternity" is, but the Knicks were a playoff staple until 2001. And, since then:
2001-02: Houston, Thomas, Camby, Sprewell, Weatherspoon, Jackson. No rebuild.
2002-03: Houston, Thomas, Sprewell, Weatherspoon, Eisley, Anderson, Ward. No rebuild.
2003-05: Marbury, Kurt Thomas, Tim Thomas, Van Horn, Houston, Penny Hardaway. Made the playoffs one year, and thirty-three the following year with more or less the same squad. No rebuild there.
2005-present: The Curry era. Rotation consists basically of Curry, Marbury, Crawford and Quentin Richardson. With a little youth thrown in, vis a vis David Lee and Nate Robinson. But that's still not a rebuild.
Losing with old players isn't rebuilding. It's just losing.
This shouldn't even have to be explained. Anybody who's been watching the Clippers since the day before yesterday knows why the Clippers hasn't had a successful rebuild: because Sterling won't pony up. And, like I just finished saying, losing with old players isn't rebuilding: I defy you to find any given year between 1993 and 2000 when they had more than two young players in their regular rotation.
2000-2004: An earnest attempt at a rebuild: build the team around Elton Brand. And they did come close in 2001... Looked like they were on the verge of really doing something when they signed Dre Miller, Corey Maggette and Bobby Simmons. But, for some reason, it didn't really pan out.
You know what, I'll even grant you the Clippers... but that only makes you one-for-seven, in my book.
I would argue that "eternity" didn't start until 2001. Beyond that, I won't belabor the point. Two-for-eight.
1998-2006: Milwaukee was .500 or better six years in a row, and made the playoffs five out of six years. Had a one year hiccup before making the playoffs again, and are now two years into a genuine rebuild. Nothing to see here.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong! If you're constantly in the playoff hunt, you are not rebuilding! Houston missed the playoffs from 1999-2003, the Rockets missed the playoffs four years in a row, but they still more or less kept the same core of players. Hell, they still had Dream until 2001; that ain't no rebuild!
You seriously need to get your nomenclatures correct.
Let me get something straight. Those teams all just making the playoffs is good enough to prove your point i guess. But as for us having a team that just makes the playoffs we should rebuild???? WTF are you trying to say All those teams you stated when they got to the playoffs and .500 records thats were we are at and its not good enough for you Unless is proves your point then its good enough.
Just admit that the draft is not a one way ticket to a championship that is all I am trying to say and you seem to **** around with all this nonsense acting as if these teams are top teams via the draft and they aren't they are all 6th 7th and 8th seed teams if not out of the playoffs every year.
So if all the team are so succesful in rebuilding then where are their rings?????
Just admit that the draft is not a one way ticket to a championship that is all I am trying to say and you seem to **** around with all this nonsense acting as if these teams are top teams via the draft and they aren't they are all 6th 7th and 8th seed teams if not out of the playoffs every year.
So if all the team are so succesful in rebuilding then where are their rings?????
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow. And all this time I have given Geoff credit for evaluating draft picks. I had no idea that it was all luck. Now that I know that he's just calling Cleo's psychic hotline to determine his draft picks, I'm going to have to re-evaluate what I think of the guy.
Petrie takes the number of garlic fries he had for lunch, adds in the attendance of the last four home games, calculates the distance in centimeters from his phone to his parking spot, adds in the aggregate weight and height of the first player drafted, subtracts the number of players who have gone before him, and reduces it to a core number.
He then compares the core number he has to baseline birth numbers of each of the players left available and makes his selection. If more than one player has the same baseline number as his core number, he counts the number of letters in their name that are the same as his.
I really thought EVERYONE knew that...
Wow. And all this time I have given Geoff credit for evaluating draft picks. I had no idea that it was all luck. Now that I know that he's just calling Cleo's psychic hotline to determine his draft picks, I'm going to have to re-evaluate what I think of the guy.
you know good and damn well what I am talking about. Don't condenscend me. I am talking about the hundreds of top 5 draft picks over the years that were and are worthless.
not answering for Slim here, but...we are not a +.500 team at the moment, and even if we were...9th place in the west right now is 12 games above .500. we are not competitive with the current western conference. those teams making the playoffs with their records is fine for them, for their time.
for us, i am in favor of a rebuild.
you act as if this is like the office depot. Like we have a rebuild button. The Bibby trade should have been some clue to you ppl it is starting. Hell we got a young core. I have seen ppl talk about 7 ppl over 30 but only 2 of them play I want to add. I am not so certain that if we trade Artest and Miller we can still be bad enough to get a top 5 pick. Beno, Martin, Garcia, Salmons, Hawes and douby and even Williams now are good enough to get 25 wins a years and that will land you about the 8th pick in the draft. So what do we do trade Garcia and Martin also???????
no, they are young. we certainly can't get a top 5 pick now, because we were still playing for something, with this being theus' first year and all. but make no mistake, there is a button, and that button could've been pressed several years ago. i was in your position the same year that webber got traded. and then i watch them sign middling vet after middling vet with the MLE, retooling on the fly (Maloofs' words, i think), chasing the playoffs each year.
no more, please. we've tried it the way you've advocated. we've tried it for THREE years. no more. please.
btw, if artest is signed to a max deal, it will pee me off, but i won't leave this board. as much as you would hope that to be the case.
no more, please. we've tried it the way you've advocated. we've tried it for THREE years. no more. please.
btw, if artest is signed to a max deal, it will pee me off, but i won't leave this board. as much as you would hope that to be the case.
Don't get it twisted; we're not a team that just makes the playoffs. We're not a team that can compete in the west as constructed. The fact that we're not mathematically eliminated is little more than a technicality at this point. We're eight games out of the playoffs, and the teams ahead of us aren't getting any worse. Holding on to the delusion that we're good enough as is, and that we just need to tweak a couple of things, maybe add one or two pieces and we're good to go, that's what we've been doing for the last four years. Are you asking me if I'd rather rebuild than keep doing that? You're damned right I would.
Stop intentionally misunderstanding the point. I never said that it was "good enough." I said that it's not rebuilding. Don't compare the results, compare the personnel. We're doing the same thing that all those other teams have been doing. And we stink at it.
I dare you to find one single post where I have ever said that the draft was a one-way ticket, or the end-all/be-all.
Go ahead; I'll wait.
I'll tell you what I have said: I've said that championship teams, almost without exception, are built around a superstar. I've said that you've got a better chance of getting a superstar with a high draft pick than you have of signing one as a free agent, especially when you're in a small market like Sacramento. I've said that Sacramento isn't going to be able to sign a significant free agent, no matter how much cap space we have, because players of consequence don't want to come to Sacramento. And there's nobody on this team that we can get a star for in return in a trade.
Only a sucker thinks that the draft is a sure thing, but I'll take the "crap shoot" of the draft over the pipe dream of some miracle trade, or superstar free agent that decides to sign here.
I'll answer that by asking another question in return: one team in the last thirty years has won a championship without a bonafide Great player. One. And we don't have one... how we gonna get one?
Stop intentionally misunderstanding the point. I never said that it was "good enough." I said that it's not rebuilding. Don't compare the results, compare the personnel. We're doing the same thing that all those other teams have been doing. And we stink at it.
I dare you to find one single post where I have ever said that the draft was a one-way ticket, or the end-all/be-all.
Go ahead; I'll wait.
I'll tell you what I have said: I've said that championship teams, almost without exception, are built around a superstar. I've said that you've got a better chance of getting a superstar with a high draft pick than you have of signing one as a free agent, especially when you're in a small market like Sacramento. I've said that Sacramento isn't going to be able to sign a significant free agent, no matter how much cap space we have, because players of consequence don't want to come to Sacramento. And there's nobody on this team that we can get a star for in return in a trade.
Only a sucker thinks that the draft is a sure thing, but I'll take the "crap shoot" of the draft over the pipe dream of some miracle trade, or superstar free agent that decides to sign here.
I'll answer that by asking another question in return: one team in the last thirty years has won a championship without a bonafide Great player. One. And we don't have one... how we gonna get one?
you, leaving the board?
***
you know you're losing the battle when you have to resort to the "i wish you'd get out of my face" defense. even more so when you would WILLINGLY sabotage your team by signing PJ Brown just to get rid of someone!
it's all in good cheer. i have nothing against you, as you seem to have against us in the opposite camp.
***
you know you're losing the battle when you have to resort to the "i wish you'd get out of my face" defense. even more so when you would WILLINGLY sabotage your team by signing PJ Brown just to get rid of someone!
it's all in good cheer. i have nothing against you, as you seem to have against us in the opposite camp.
Last edited:
Answer me this. What do we have to do to get enough losses to get that draft pick. We have all the other pieces just not the star. So do you trade all of them away for crap. Then get the star and have no pieces for him. Ask Kevin Garnett how well that worked out for him. The fact is for us to get a top 5 draft pick Martin and at least Garcia have to go for nothing because they are good players and with any decent team around them you can trade all the vets you want we are still a 10th pick in the draft. I am in agreement on one thing we have to do something but the draft is not our answer because we are simply not bad enough so stop dwelling on the draft and come up with some new ideas already. do you understand what I am saying? We bad enough to win. LOL
There isn't an exageration icon. Once again you got the point but, lets not talk about that lets go with the exactness of numbers. cool the perfect icon.
cool the perfect icon.
Last edited: