Kings Should Offer Artest a Contract
- Thread starter Purple Reign
- Start date
It's called humor, Entity. You might want to look into it. It's also called a light-hearted attempt to defuse an escalating situation.
BTW? It's "condescending"... If you're going to toss insults around, you might want to keep your Funk & Wagnalls handy. Nothing takes the air out of a retort faster than poor spelling.
BTW? It's "condescending"... If you're going to toss insults around, you might want to keep your Funk & Wagnalls handy. Nothing takes the air out of a retort faster than poor spelling.
I know a real easy way that we'd be guaranteed to get a Top 5 pick. But, contrary to popular opinion, I don't actually condone it.
Now, on the other hand, if Petrie had had the foresight to trade Artest and Thomas for expirings and/or draft picks to go along with the Bibby trade, and then he, in turn, parlayed that draft pick (and maybe our draft pick as well) into an All-Star/borderline All-Star, the way Boston did... well then, maybe (just maybe), a team that already has Martin + Miller + a borderline All-Star just might be good enough to get a superstar to think they could carry us there.
Taking a shot at that would definitely beat the hell out of what we're doing instead.
Now, on the other hand, if Petrie had had the foresight to trade Artest and Thomas for expirings and/or draft picks to go along with the Bibby trade, and then he, in turn, parlayed that draft pick (and maybe our draft pick as well) into an All-Star/borderline All-Star, the way Boston did... well then, maybe (just maybe), a team that already has Martin + Miller + a borderline All-Star just might be good enough to get a superstar to think they could carry us there.
Taking a shot at that would definitely beat the hell out of what we're doing instead.
So you don't see us losing either with the talent we do have. so we agree on that. Now as far as the rest of you post goes it all is based on the trade for Artest and THOMAS. that ends it all. Nobody wants KT no matter what. the only wat to get rid of him is to take an equally bad contract with an equally bad player so your method of rebuilding stops there.
Got anything else?
i just want to see how everybody expects us to get a top 5 pick.
I don't see a team saying hell yeah Ill take Artest for 2 months and KT for 2 years and give my 13 mil expiring contract that I was going to use to clear cap space oh and btw here is my first round draft pick would you like some cash considerations to go with that.
and you call me misguided. what team in their right mind would do that.
Got anything else?
i just want to see how everybody expects us to get a top 5 pick.
I don't see a team saying hell yeah Ill take Artest for 2 months and KT for 2 years and give my 13 mil expiring contract that I was going to use to clear cap space oh and btw here is my first round draft pick would you like some cash considerations to go with that.
and you call me misguided. what team in their right mind would do that.
I'll bite.
The last 10 years only 2 top 3 picks have a championship. Duncan and Billups got a ring, but was Billups the "leader"?
The last 20 years you can add Shaq, David Robinson (does he count as a lead or was it duncan?), Zo and Laettner (see D wade and shaq, funny #1-3 in the 1992 draft on the same team), Sean Elliot and Gary Payton won championships, but neither lead their teams.
And now go 30 years you can add MJ, Hakeem, Isiah Thomas and Magic as leading their teams. James Worthy , Kevin McHale, , Bill Cartwright , Mychal Thompson got rings too.
So of the past 90 top 3 picks only 16 have rings I'd say only 6-7 of them were the "superstar" that lead their teams to it.
You realize that the Lakers traded Gail Goodrich to the New Orleans Jazz for the #1 pick, they drafted Magic. They didn't "tank" to get that pick.
So No, a top 3 pick has more to do with luck with who's in the draft then anything. The superstars come along about once every 6-7 years and few of them get rings.
So lets look at the other "Superstars" of the past 30 years with rings and where they were drafted that lead their teams.
Larry Bird #6
Kobe #13 (Was he a superstar then?)
D Wade #5
Anyone have any other "superstars" drafted the past 30 years that have rings?
Oh and look at the list of players, how many were on the team that drafted them?
The last 10 years only 2 top 3 picks have a championship. Duncan and Billups got a ring, but was Billups the "leader"?
The last 20 years you can add Shaq, David Robinson (does he count as a lead or was it duncan?), Zo and Laettner (see D wade and shaq, funny #1-3 in the 1992 draft on the same team), Sean Elliot and Gary Payton won championships, but neither lead their teams.
And now go 30 years you can add MJ, Hakeem, Isiah Thomas and Magic as leading their teams. James Worthy , Kevin McHale, , Bill Cartwright , Mychal Thompson got rings too.
So of the past 90 top 3 picks only 16 have rings I'd say only 6-7 of them were the "superstar" that lead their teams to it.
You realize that the Lakers traded Gail Goodrich to the New Orleans Jazz for the #1 pick, they drafted Magic. They didn't "tank" to get that pick.
So No, a top 3 pick has more to do with luck with who's in the draft then anything. The superstars come along about once every 6-7 years and few of them get rings.
So lets look at the other "Superstars" of the past 30 years with rings and where they were drafted that lead their teams.
Larry Bird #6
Kobe #13 (Was he a superstar then?)
D Wade #5
Anyone have any other "superstars" drafted the past 30 years that have rings?
Oh and look at the list of players, how many were on the team that drafted them?
Last edited:
1. No, we don't agree. I didn't say I don't see us losing. I do see us losing. I see us trying hard, and losing. This team isn't finishing about .500, with or without Artest. But I'll betcha we'd have a better shot at a Top 5 pick if he weren't here.
2. How do you know nobody wants to take Thomas? How does anybody? How hard did he try? Who knows? For all we know, he's made up his mind to hold onto Thomas until 2010. I've already established that I don't feel I owe Petrie benefit of the doubt. There are at least three teams that are fighting for a playoff spot (note that I did not say contending for a championship) that Thomas would fit in with. I don't know that Petrie didn't make an offer to any of those teams, but I have no reason to believe that he did, either.
2. How do you know nobody wants to take Thomas? How does anybody? How hard did he try? Who knows? For all we know, he's made up his mind to hold onto Thomas until 2010. I've already established that I don't feel I owe Petrie benefit of the doubt. There are at least three teams that are fighting for a playoff spot (note that I did not say contending for a championship) that Thomas would fit in with. I don't know that Petrie didn't make an offer to any of those teams, but I have no reason to believe that he did, either.
Spelling smack!?!?
He was the Finals MVP... You tell me.
I see what you did there... very interesting. Now, let me turn it around on you: of the twenty-four players in the history of the NBA that have been Finals MVP, do you know how many of them didn't win it for the team that drafted them? Four. Five if you count Kareem, but he's also the only player in history to be Finals MVP for two different teams, and he did win it for the team that drafted him.
I see what you did there... very interesting. Now, let me turn it around on you: of the twenty-four players in the history of the NBA that have been Finals MVP, do you know how many of them didn't win it for the team that drafted them? Four. Five if you count Kareem, but he's also the only player in history to be Finals MVP for two different teams, and he did win it for the team that drafted him.
No, but I see the possibility of a team trading us one for one full year of Artest at his current salary (assuming he does not opt out) and the ability to retain his Bird's rights (without him having a player's option at the end of the year). The player option was one of the sticking points, I think.
All this is based on his playing well for the last 30 games and acting somewhat normal, of course.
All this is based on his playing well for the last 30 games and acting somewhat normal, of course.
I guess in your world Kenny Thomas just gets packaged with Artest for a nonexistent $14 million expiring contract and it's just easy as pie. Or maybe package those two together with Bibby for that magic bullet $27 million expiring.
And since that didn't happen it means Petrie is sitting on his hands.
LOGIC. It left the building.
And since that didn't happen it means Petrie is sitting on his hands.
LOGIC. It left the building.
Thats not my point anyway, im just talking about what it LOOKS like and what might happen. Artest does not "expire" anyway because he can pick up his option and thats what this whole discussion is about anyway before we got to the forver "are we rebuilding or not" conversation.
Salmons has been absolutely awful off the bench this season behind artest and it wont be any different behind Garcia. I dont want players who dont have the mental ability to simply come off the bench and play 7-10 minutes less than usual.
Im not arguing for or against artest staying because right now im not sure what to think. Im just that Salmons has got to go.
Salmons has been absolutely awful off the bench this season behind artest and it wont be any different behind Garcia. I dont want players who dont have the mental ability to simply come off the bench and play 7-10 minutes less than usual.
Im not arguing for or against artest staying because right now im not sure what to think. Im just that Salmons has got to go.
Actually, his play has been up and down and he has had outbursts and legal problems. He elects not to play minutes before the game starts on occasion (perhaps with reason, but still....).
His effort isn't questioned when he plays, but his choices are sometimes very suspect when he tries to take over the game and just pounds the rock....
His effort isn't questioned when he plays, but his choices are sometimes very suspect when he tries to take over the game and just pounds the rock....
I don't think I would call Billups a "Superstar" though, he did lead his team for 1 year to the ring.
Of those 24, 9 were drafted after the third pick and 9 were first overall picks. Note: Wilt was a territorial pick for the phili warriors, look it up.
It's also important to look at that 24 MVP's, that's over 44 seasons.
Of those 24, 9 were drafted after the third pick and 9 were first overall picks. Note: Wilt was a territorial pick for the phili warriors, look it up.
It's also important to look at that 24 MVP's, that's over 44 seasons.
I wasn't being condescending. Sarcastic? Absolutely. But that's just how I am, no disrespect implied.
I just read an entire thread of people airing their grievances against Geoff, and some pretty solid complaints were brought up. But I think it's safe to say that most of us are not zealots on the "Fire Petrie NOW!" bandwagon, and there are a couple of obvious reasons for that. One might be fear of who the Maloofs would pick as a replacement, but another is pretty broadspread acceptance of the idea that Petrie has consistently done okay in the draft. Yes, he overlooked some doozies, but everyone does. He did not pick any bombs in the first round, as far as we can yet tell. And pulling KMart out of the bottom of the scrap heap was good. In giving him credit for those things, we are implying that there is a lot of skill involved.
And that's where these "draft is a total crapshoot" arguments break down. Even if we could ignore the clear significance of the chart that was posted, if we accept that line of reasoning, then Geoff has just been one heck of a lucky guy, and our whole view of the team and its management has to change. The biggest point in his favor vanishes before our eyes. What else does he do? He might make trades and sign FAs, but the record in both those departments has been very mixed over the last 5 years, and it's unclear who is making those decisions anyway. Ditto for coaching changes. The draft is what he unambiguously has going for him, so if it's SO much of a crapshoot that skill takes a backseat to luck, then it seems like any bozo who has found draftexpress.com could do his job about as well, and cost the franchise millions less per year. Might want to consider firing the scouts while we're at it.
But those are not the operating assumptions of NBA franchises, nor are they the assumptions of most fans. So I give Geoff some benefit of the doubt, and try to find it within myself to show yet more patience.
Because we all agree that he has shown some degree of skill in the draft, don't we?
I just read an entire thread of people airing their grievances against Geoff, and some pretty solid complaints were brought up. But I think it's safe to say that most of us are not zealots on the "Fire Petrie NOW!" bandwagon, and there are a couple of obvious reasons for that. One might be fear of who the Maloofs would pick as a replacement, but another is pretty broadspread acceptance of the idea that Petrie has consistently done okay in the draft. Yes, he overlooked some doozies, but everyone does. He did not pick any bombs in the first round, as far as we can yet tell. And pulling KMart out of the bottom of the scrap heap was good. In giving him credit for those things, we are implying that there is a lot of skill involved.
And that's where these "draft is a total crapshoot" arguments break down. Even if we could ignore the clear significance of the chart that was posted, if we accept that line of reasoning, then Geoff has just been one heck of a lucky guy, and our whole view of the team and its management has to change. The biggest point in his favor vanishes before our eyes. What else does he do? He might make trades and sign FAs, but the record in both those departments has been very mixed over the last 5 years, and it's unclear who is making those decisions anyway. Ditto for coaching changes. The draft is what he unambiguously has going for him, so if it's SO much of a crapshoot that skill takes a backseat to luck, then it seems like any bozo who has found draftexpress.com could do his job about as well, and cost the franchise millions less per year. Might want to consider firing the scouts while we're at it.
But those are not the operating assumptions of NBA franchises, nor are they the assumptions of most fans. So I give Geoff some benefit of the doubt, and try to find it within myself to show yet more patience.
Because we all agree that he has shown some degree of skill in the draft, don't we?
But it proves getting that player isn't as simple as just drafing high. That player needs to be in the draft in the first place. I think we have a better chance of getting a Lebron, Wade, Bosh in 2010 through free agency than drafing the "superstar" over the next 3 years even if we have the #1 pick each year.
And I'm going to tell you the same thing that I told Entity: I dare you to find a single post of mine where I have ever said that it's just that simple. I said that you have a better chance of getting a superstar with a high draft pick than you do of trading for one. Even the one superstar that we've ever had, we got indirectly because we had a Top 3 pick once. But I've never said that the draft was the end-all/be-all, ever, and I'll bet you an avatar change for thirty days that you can't find a single post that I've ever made that says otherwise.
Not a chance in hell; LeBron ain't coming to Sacramento as a free agent, even if we could give him the max. Nobody can pay him more than the Cavaliers, anyway: if he leaves Cleveland, it'll be to chase the ring. And I don't see Bosh coming here, either; he'll go to Texas, if he leaves Toronto at all.
Not a chance in hell; LeBron ain't coming to Sacramento as a free agent, even if we could give him the max. Nobody can pay him more than the Cavaliers, anyway: if he leaves Cleveland, it'll be to chase the ring. And I don't see Bosh coming here, either; he'll go to Texas, if he leaves Toronto at all.
Last edited:
That's not how it works. Picks don't count in trades for salary purposes. Sura was waived and can't be traded. Thomas and Morris Peterson don't match, nor he is an expiring, nor is Brian Cardinal. Heck, Morris Peterson has a longer contract than KT!
Dude, you might consider brushing up on your trade rules if you're going to be casting so many stones against Petrie. At least run this stuff through a trade checker.
Dude, you might consider brushing up on your trade rules if you're going to be casting so many stones against Petrie. At least run this stuff through a trade checker.
When it comest to getting rid of Thomas, getting back expirings is of a secondary concern to me; addition by subtraction.
And surely you're not assessing me based on what I come up with off the top of my head in five minutes, without doing any research into it at all, are you? Not when you're ostensibly comparing me with someone who's alleged to be good at his job, and has access to the best resources money can buy?
Look, I'm not a capologist; I go to NME for my salary cap information... but I'm pretty good with math. I'm sure that, if I even spent an hour peering it over, I could come up with a dozen scenarios for offloading Kenny Thomas that would be mutually beneficial to both teams, but I don't feel that I need to to make my point... Not when my only point in this regard is that I don't particularly feel that Petrie gave due diligence in trying to move Thomas, and don't take the fact that he didn't get a deal done as any particular evidence that he tried to get a deal done. Why should I?
And surely you're not assessing me based on what I come up with off the top of my head in five minutes, without doing any research into it at all, are you? Not when you're ostensibly comparing me with someone who's alleged to be good at his job, and has access to the best resources money can buy?
Look, I'm not a capologist; I go to NME for my salary cap information... but I'm pretty good with math. I'm sure that, if I even spent an hour peering it over, I could come up with a dozen scenarios for offloading Kenny Thomas that would be mutually beneficial to both teams, but I don't feel that I need to to make my point... Not when my only point in this regard is that I don't particularly feel that Petrie gave due diligence in trying to move Thomas, and don't take the fact that he didn't get a deal done as any particular evidence that he tried to get a deal done. Why should I?