Being labeled soft

DirtyAcres said:
Which did you prefer, being labeled "soft" or dropping that label and dealing with Ron Artest?
Click to expand...

They are not mutually exclusive (might be in Artest's case). Harping is a tough enforcer, without any of the baggage that Ron brings. You are welcome to ignore it, but Ron's ticking is definitely a distraction.

As for trading him, that depends on the team's plans for this as well as future seasons, and what we can get for him. If the idea is to try and play for a playoff spot as long as mathematically possible, and offers before the deadline are not good, keep him around. On the other hand, if the management sees the writing on the wall about the inevitability of missing playoffs this year, they should take the best offer on Artest and build for the future, while giving more time to Salmons and Garcia (not to talk of Cisco and Jones).
 
DirtyAcres said:
What does he do when other teams aren't offering him anything more?
Click to expand...

He's Ron Artest. He could decide to take Evel Knievel's spot and become a motorcycle daredevil...

;)
 
DirtyAcres said:
If only we could see this night in and night out.
Click to expand...

That would be great and I’m sure the fans would be enjoying headache less game nights. But I wouldn’t hold my breath. And even if he did find a way to play within the team I just don’t see him being part of us in the near future. I think we’re at a point that we need to trade players in order to get much better or else we’re still stuck. No matter what Artest can bring or even Mike, we need to get better and that’s through trades and player signing. We need to fill some spots and improve and having Ron just keeps us in the same position no matter how hard he tries.

You want to keep him and that’s great. I just don’t see him part of the team (even if people start to call us “soft” again). I don’t know if you paid attention to the games that both Mike and Ron were out (I think it was in December). We had a different team, a different dynamic in our system. We need that dynamic back and improve upon that.
 
I would like him if he just stopped shooting more than .5 threes a game average and maybe I would like to see 7 or 8 boards a game and a higher shooting percentage..

Maybe he could use that big body better and learn a thing or two from Corliss...
 
Last edited:
People keep wishing Ron would be this or Ron would be that to their peril and eventual disappointment. Ron Artest is Ron Artest. He isn't going to change; you either accept who he is and what he can bring to your team or you don't. The Kings took a chance and now it's time for them to move on. Wishing for him to change is the road to destruction.
 
VF21 said:
People keep wishing Ron would be this or Ron would be that to their peril and eventual disappointment. Ron Artest is Ron Artest. He isn't going to change; you either accept who he is and what he can bring to your team or you don't. The Kings took a chance and now it's time for them to move on. Wishing for him to change is the road to destruction.
Click to expand...
True. But I'm not one who really wishes he'd change. I've accepted him and like the guy. It's not my choice on whether he stays or not so it doesn't really bother me. I've been hoping Bibby would change and have accepted the fact that he never will either. So be it. Hopefully we aren't stuck with two guys who have failed to change their games.:eek:
 
Let's keep in mind there's a possibility no-one will want to take a chance on Artest, no matter how hard Petrie will try to trade him. If he's still in a Kings uniform at the end of the season and he walks for nothing in return, it could be addition by subtraction. Salmons will move into the starting lineup in 08-09, and Garcia and Douby will have more prominent roles off the bench.

If Artest wants to stay and Petrie signs him long-term, he'll have to flip-flop his way of thinking and trade Salmons or Garcia in a package deal for a PF. There's no way in the world we're going to have all 3 of those guys on the team next year no matter what happens.
 
Fresno King said:
If Artest wants to stay and Petrie signs him long-term, he'll have to flip-flop his way of thinking and trade Salmons or Garcia in a package deal for a PF. There's no way in the world we're going to have all 3 of those guys on the team next year no matter what happens.
Click to expand...

GP is not going to re-sign Ron. Book mark it.
 
I honestly think the Maloofs will stay as far away from this as they possibly can.
 
Fresno King said:
Let's keep in mind there's a possibility no-one will want to take a chance on Artest, no matter how hard Petrie will try to trade him. If he's still in a Kings uniform at the end of the season and he walks for nothing in return, it could be addition by subtraction. Salmons will move into the starting lineup in 08-09, and Garcia and Douby will have more prominent roles off the bench.

If Artest wants to stay and Petrie signs him long-term, he'll have to flip-flop his way of thinking and trade Salmons or Garcia in a package deal for a PF. There's no way in the world we're going to have all 3 of those guys on the team next year no matter what happens.
Click to expand...

If the Kings were to re-sign Artest why do we have to trade Salmons AND Garcia. I would agree that we'd have to trade Salmons. He would become unhappy and he NEEDS to start, he's proved he's good enough. In that unlikely scenario we have Garcia to back up the 2/3, and Douby to back up the 2, and Beno backing up the 1. Oh, yeah, by the way, we'd be crazy not to sign Beno.
 
There seem to be two different discussions here - I'll do my best:
1. You know, I've always wondered why other NBA teams don't give us any respect. It's cause we're soft. For all intensive purposes, this part of the thread should be sent into Bolivian.

2. If the Kings re-sign Artest, the logjam at the 2/3 spot will continue to exist. Players will have to be moved. I agree it doesn't have to be both Salmons AND Garcia, but one will go. Whether or not they bring back a young PF is to be debated.

Thesis:
Ron Artest re-signing with the Kings implies that they are no longer looking to rebuild.

If this is the case, we would be foolish to keep our young talent and allow it to grow. With a core roster of Bibby, Martin, Artest, Miller, and filler, the impetus would be to make moves for older vets to compete in the west, sacrificing youth and development.

Disprove it. In fact, maybe this should be a split thread.
 
I see a lot of Artest hatred here. Good point Spike, resigning Artest brings quite a few problems with the roster full of wingmen. Reminds me of the Hawks.

Artest is a good player that the Kings really need unless they are planning to tank and rebuild. He's the only inside threat. He brings a lot of that tru warrior to the game that fans don't like but is needed on a team. It's really interpersonal relations that needs to be managed. Reggie is a good teacher, I don't know how well he'll manage egos. If Artest isn't traded we'll get a nice soap opera considering Artest is showcasing.
 
so if youre on a team full of bullys you have a better chance to win the NBA title? its about skill, experience, talent. who cares what people think about this team.
 
kyo2002 said:
I see a lot of Artest hatred here. Good point Spike, resigning Artest brings quite a few problems with the roster full of wingmen. Reminds me of the Hawks.

Artest is a good player that the Kings really need unless they are planning to tank and rebuild. He's the only inside threat. He brings a lot of that tru warrior to the game that fans don't like but is needed on a team. It's really interpersonal relations that needs to be managed. Reggie is a good teacher, I don't know how well he'll manage egos. If Artest isn't traded we'll get a nice soap opera considering Artest is showcasing.
Click to expand...

I disagree wholeheartedly. We like the inside threat and warrior mentality, we just don't like the fact that he has "issues" and tends to dominate the ball way too much.
 
I for one don't hate Artest, and appreciate his game, but nevertheless would like to see him moved. I'm not feeling desperate about it, though. Given our current roster, I'm not sure that our record will suffer at all if we simply subtract Artest. But if we trade him for someone else, and that someone else gets real PT, then I certainly hope it's for a PF who brings a defensive presence and a bit of a low post game.
But if he remains a King, so be it. He brings a lot to the table for any team. Sure wish he could take a quick trip to Africa during the All-Star break, however, to get some perspective. The chest thumping does seem to be a sign that something is wrong beneath the surface...
 
DirtyAcres said:
Having followed the Kings for quite some time now, I have been used to hearing others refer to our team as "soft". I hated hearing the term and tried my best to defend my team, but really had nothing to come back with. For years and years my Kings team was in fact soft. We had no enforcer, we had no thug, we had no defense. We were a bunch of jumpshooting offensive minded flopping pansies.

Then, we acquired Ron Artest. Our team image instantly changed. We finally had the guy who was the definition of toughness. We got what we wanted, or did we? I personally like what Artest brings to the court for the Sacramento Kings. I like his heart, his effort, his talent, and his tenacity. I realize he's had problems but hey, who doesn't? We'd look a lot worse if we had media following us around and reporting/twisting all the bad things we've done.

Having read over a lot of posts here by some well established members I have this question:

Which did you prefer, being labeled "soft" or dropping that label and dealing with Ron Artest?
Click to expand...

I think it's somewhat of a fair question. Artest is definitely tough, the toughest player that we have. If we lose him we will probably lose toughness, which will hurt this team somewhat. But Salmons isn't soft, so it's not all or nothing. I think we need to lose Ron Ron and get on with a rebuild. Ron Ron is fools gold. He's not exactly what I would have in mind as the foundation for this team for years to come. He can crumble at any minute.

We really need toughness at the 4 position.
 
Artest is very, very close to being an elite player and I think he just needs the right coach
Click to expand...

Dr. Phil already has a good job, and I doubt he would want to coach the Kings!!!!:rolleyes:
 
First, I'm tired of people saying this team was always soft. In the 02-03 season, the Kings were considered, arguably, the best defensive team in the league. If I have to, I'll try and find the stats again.

As to Artest? I don't hate him, but I'd prefer he be gone by the trade deadline. I just don't see him as part of the future.
 
kennadog said:
First, I'm tired of people saying this team was always soft. In the 02-03 season, the Kings were considered, arguably, the best defensive team in the league. If I have to, I'll try and find the stats again.

As to Artest? I don't hate him, but I'd prefer he be gone by the trade deadline. I just don't see him as part of the future.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I think one the stats was point differential, or something to that extent.
 
Wicked said:
Quote:
Artest is very, very close to being an elite player and I think he just needs the right coach
Click to expand...
Artest is perennially close to being an elite player. Thing is, he never quite gets there wherever he has played. There is always something holding him back and apparently there always will be. How long does a franchise have to wait before he breaks out or breaks down?
 
fnordius said:
Also holding opponents to really wretched shooting, .420 FG and .320 for 3s. This year, there is not a team in the NBA doing that to opponents' FG%, and the only team that can match on 3s is the Celtics.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAC/2003.html
Click to expand...
Isn't this the same year where we gave up 83 points in the first half to the Mavs in the post season? Sadly, this abysmal first half is better than what happened in the second half.
 
coolhandluke said:
Isn't this the same year where we gave up 83 points in the first half to the Mavs in the post season? Sadly, this abysmal first half is better than what happened in the second half.
Click to expand...

Yes, although Sacramento scored 60+ in the first half too, and might have won the game if Webber's knee had lasted much into the 3rd quarter.

Even good teams lose games sometimes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Spike
What Do The Kings Mean to You?
Replies
10
Views
869
ppine
P
King Baller
This is why we love the Kings
Replies
9
Views
1K
MizzouKing
MizzouKing
N
Mike Brown
2
Replies
52
Views
4K
pdxKingsFan
pdxKingsFan
K
Why aren't we near as good at Home anymore?
Replies
19
Views
1K
LoungeLizard
LoungeLizard
AmaranthineBB
7 year old with Leukemia done wrong
Replies
10
Views
2K
Jdbraver137
J
Back
Top