Bee: Deal or no deal?

[Vlade4GM]

If hes gonna get payed more than its more reason to stay, he got less money in Ind and stayed, and whos to say we are in for some big losing seasons? I didnt know you could see straight into the future.

Anyway, im done with this topic now.

he's a more established player now and he's going to want the biggest deal he can get, he knows this is his career contract coming up. as far as the losing seasons, i'm merely speaking in hypothetical terms if the team chose to rebuild like they should. if not, expect annual .500 teams and first round exits, but you probably wouldn't mind that.

 

[Vlade4GM]

I really don't see Artest bolting...Sure, he will opt out, but I think the Maloofs will do their hardest, and succeed, in keeping him here.

Artest is a Maloof kind of guy, and I think that they will want to keep him as the cornerstone...And I personally do not disagree with that one bit.

And answer me this...By trading our best all-around player/talent, what can we get to possibly better ourself? Sure, if we aquire a PF for him we are better by default, but then we have a gaping hole at the SF...Okay, fine...Fill that in with John Salmons...Then we have a huge gap where the super-utility man should go...I know for sure Cisco is not good/consistent enough for that role yet, and I really would not look forward to any lineup with John Salmons as a starter.

Then the new PF logjams our current situation and cancer sparks fly.

Honestly, Artest is really the last guy that should be on our trade list, and that shouldn't be changed unless some team goes crazy and offers, say David Lee and Nate Robinson or Al Jefferson/filler....And thats not going to happen...Count on it.

while artest can be a good complimentary player on a winning team, he is not a cornerstone. not for a winning contending team that is, a mediocre team sure.

we're not even on the same wavelengths. i'm assuming for discussion purposes that we're planning on rebuilding and if that's the case then i think we'd be better off with a good young player, an expiring contract, and a pick than we would with artest. artest is not going to win us any championships and i don't see how we get the necessary pieces by giving him a big contract (and that's putting a lot of faith in a guy who has proved over his career to be unpredictable and a loose cannon, just because he's doing better now doesn't mean it's going to stay that way). a superstar is not going to just fall into our laps like it did with webber, we're going to have to stop the patchwork and start over for real instead of trying to have our cake and eat it too which doesn't work.

 

[BMiller52]

while artest can be a good complimentary player on a winning team, he is not a cornerstone. not for a winning contending team that is, a mediocre team sure.

we're not even on the same wavelengths. i'm assuming for discussion purposes that we're planning on rebuilding and if that's the case then i think we'd be better off with a good young player, an expiring contract, and a pick than we would with artest. artest is not going to win us any championships and i don't see how we get the necessary pieces by giving him a big contract (and that's putting a lot of faith in a guy who has proved over his career to be unpredictable and a loose cannon, just because he's doing better now doesn't mean it's going to stay that way). a superstar is not going to just fall into our laps like it did with webber, we're going to have to stop the patchwork and start over for real instead of trying to have our cake and eat it too which doesn't work.

I agree, I would rather see us get a young player, a pick, and an expiring than keep Ron. It is pretty risky if we're about to lose a lot and he'll opt out next year anyway. If we give him a huge payday than that's not too smart considering he's not a guy you build around so you limit other options and he's kind of a loose cannon. It'll be hard to get a good PF in the draft as long as he's here anyway, he's too good to let a team he's on be like 5th worst in the league.

I don't get this frontcourt log jam everyone else is saying we'll have if we get a good PF. Kenny sucks and deserves no PT at all/ever, SAR doesn't fit this team at all but his contract is friendly so we can deal him for an expirer or whatever. If Kenny complains more about a new young PF taking his minutes than so what? Are you really going to let Kenny Thomas of all people hold your franchise back because he complains and makes a lot of money? That's not something you should do at all.

 

[VF21]

I don't get this frontcourt log jam everyone else is saying we'll have if we get a good PF. Kenny sucks and deserves no PT at all/ever, SAR doesn't fit this team at all but his contract is friendly so we can deal him for an expirer or whatever. If Kenny complains more about a new young PF taking his minutes than so what? Are you really going to let Kenny Thomas of all people hold your franchise back because he complains and makes a lot of money? That's not something you should do at all.

Could you point me in the direction of some of those frontcourt log jam threads? I think I must have missed them. I'm sorry, but this makes no sense at all to me...

 

[BMiller52]

I'm talking about comments like this:

I really don't see Artest bolting...Sure, he will opt out, but I think the Maloofs will do their hardest, and succeed, in keeping him here.

Artest is a Maloof kind of guy, and I think that they will want to keep him as the cornerstone...And I personally do not disagree with that one bit.

And answer me this...By trading our best all-around player/talent, what can we get to possibly better ourself? Sure, if we aquire a PF for him we are better by default, but then we have a gaping hole at the SF...Okay, fine...Fill that in with John Salmons...Then we have a huge gap where the super-utility man should go...I know for sure Cisco is not good/consistent enough for that role yet, and I really would not look forward to any lineup with John Salmons as a starter.

Then the new PF logjams our current situation and cancer sparks fly.

Honestly, Artest is really the last guy that should be on our trade list, and that shouldn't be changed unless some team goes crazy and offers, say David Lee and Nate Robinson or Al Jefferson/filler....And thats not going to happen...Count on it.

I've seen a few of them recently(like 2-3) and it doesn't really make sense to me because Kenny's not a guy you actually care about if you're the GM and Shareef isn't a long term player either.

 

[VF21]

I'm talking about comments like this:





I've seen a few of them recently(like 2-3) and it doesn't really make sense to me because Kenny's not a guy you actually care about if you're the GM and Shareef isn't a long term player either.

I'm not interpreting it the same way you are, I guess. I don't see ANY mention of Kenny Thomas whatsoever.

In the post in question, SLAB was addressing the possibility of trading Artest to get a PF and the problems that would result by having to shift someone else into Artest's position and not having the right players to backfill. I don't think anyone has actually said we'd have a logjam AT the power forward position. It's more that trading Artest for a power forward might well create a roster logjam...

 

[Bricklayer]

Its not a reason to do, or not to do, an Artest deal. We have Salmons and Cisco who could fill in well enough if needed at SF. Not to mention Corliss. We have nobody worth a damn at PF. An Artest trade isn;t held back because of positional concerns. We have the palyer sto cover his position, albeit obviously not at his level -- but that;s true regardless of which starter you trade. And the PFs are irrelevant. Almsot by defintiion anybody you brought in would bump them, and good riddance.

An Artest trade does not depend upon such minutiae. He's a major player. And amajor headcase. he might kill your franchise. He might kill somebody else's. He could also be a #2 on a contending team...if he would hang in there long enough for us to get a #1. And if he would accept somebody above him -- did not work in Indiana. Trading him is a major thing involving a lot of issues, Kenny Thomas or Shareef Abdur Rahim are rleative irrelvancies comparatively.

As an aside, the Maloof's comment about wanting more form the Clippers int eh Maggette deal was actually kind of telling -- meant a) we talked; and b) we actually had a price in mind. Wasn't a hang up the phone type of situation. probably means we either wanted their #1 or Livingston. Suppose we might have been after Kaman, but that would have been kinda silly.

 

[Kingster]

An Artest trade does not depend upon such minutiae. He's a major player. And amajor headcase. he might kill your franchise. He might kill somebody else's. He could also be a #2 on a contending team...if he would hang in there long enough for us to get a #1. And if he would accept somebody above him -- did not work in Indiana. Trading him is a major thing involving a lot of issues, Kenny Thomas or Shareef Abdur Rahim are rleative irrelvancies comparatively.

I've heard people say he's a top 20 player in this league - when his head is on right. But that's like saying an 80% high growth rate high tech company with one product and with major competition is a great buy. As you mention above, the fact is that Artest is high risk. No one denies it. And with a high risk asset you discount for the risk. Should it be 10-20-30-40-50% for the risk? I don't know. But if he's a good to very good player when his head is right, then he's not a good to very good player because he's shown historically that his head is not on all right. He could be as low as a "fair player" or as high as a "good player", depending on how you discount him for risk, but he's certainly NOT a top 20 player in this league. And he's absolutely not the guy you build a franchise around as some on this board have said.
If some other GM wants to give Artest a top 20 rank in this league, Petrie should make the deal, pronto.

 

[Burrito06]

trading isn't all about dumping bad players. it's about moving one type of commodity for another type of commodity in an attempt to better yourself for the present or the future.

Perect example of this is the Chris Webber trade. We traded him for 3 easily movable parts. 3 years later we still have 2 and Potapenko

 

[Circa_1985_Fan]

Perect example of this is the Chris Webber trade. We traded him for 3 easily movable parts. 3 years later we still have 2 and Potapenko

Yup, and we benefited from that deal SO much!!

 

[Vlade4GM]

Perect example of this is the Chris Webber trade. We traded him for 3 easily movable parts. 3 years later we still have 2 and Potapenko

how you came to that conclusion i have no idea. that's a very specific type of trade, my definition was a lot more general than that.

 

[chelle]

Do we have until midnight tonight or midnight tomorrow night?

 

[piksi]

Do we have until midnight tonight or midnight tomorrow night?

3 pm tomorrow as far as I am informed

 

[chelle]

Thanks. That's not much time, is it??? I really hope that something is in the works.

 

[piksi]

Thanks. That's not much time, is it??? I really hope that something is in the works.

plenty of time for those incompetent GMs to lose jobs over a bad deal. Whatever it is in the works - it won't make us any better right now

 

[chelle]

I'm not really looking for better now. I just want some indicatation that there is hope for the future. I want them to at least look like they have a new plan in place to improve things over the next couple of seasons.

 

[CruzDude]

Don't be suprised if no trades involving Kings occur. Other than Bibby, and he is making $12.5M, who do Kings have tradeable that others would want? I leave out Kevin and Cisco and maybe even Ronnie (after the great way he played last night).

 

[love_them_kings]

Yup, and we benefited from that deal SO much!!

yep, this team has really turned itself around since we got rid of Webb.

 

[Smills91]

under 27 hours now...tick tock tick tock...