Kings foolish to make a trade

[reid1boys]

No you don't get guaranteed improvement, but you clean house. Again, there is no short-term or long-term benefit to keeping these guys on the team. So we can either tread water for the next several years, or we can take a couple steps back in hopes of straightening out a path for the future.


So you clean house just for the sake of cleaning house?? Sorry, i dont understand that logic. You ASSUME that by cleaning house and starting over everything will go in the direction you want and the team will turn around. Like someone else stated, we have a nice mix of youth and vets. im ok with that mix. And I dont see us just treading water with this group. This CURRENT lineup is NOT a 35-40 wins team. We will win that much even after the massive amount of games missed due to injury this year. Healthy, this is a 50 win team.


But at 22-24, we also lose most nights. I don't know where you get the impression that we're capable of being one of the four best teams in the Western conference. You must be stuck in 2003. I wish I was back there with you; those were good times.


Remember we started out like 11-18 or something like that at the start. Not because we suck, but because of all those injuries.I get the impression they can be a 4 seed by the ball movement(with a healthy team) and the impressive wins they have had against the top teams in the league.



Phoenix Suns (Steve Nash), Chicago Bulls (Ben Wallace).


I hope you are kidding? Ben wallace a TOP player in the league? Ask the Bulls if they would like to go back in time and rethink that deal. Ill give you Nash, but that dont happen much, and many extra reasons as to why that deal did happen.



No, you're missing my point. It's not about a specific young superstar or a specific draft selection or any of that. It's about the specific players on our team with real value that we can use to put ourselves in better position going forward. There are a number of ways that we can do that, but keeping them doesn't make us any better. It actually just further hamstrings us.



Im not missing your point, i disagree with your point. You seem to think trading Bibby, Miller, and Artest for expiring contracts, crappy old players, or draft picks makes us better, I disagree in a big way with your point. The only approach I like is draft picks, but those take time to develop and no sure thing in the draft. So in that case, you HOPE to get god players. Take those 3 guys off our team.... remember they were injured, and what was the team like at that point? Something like 11-18 if I remember correctly. With them back, we are well above 500, and just beat the top team in West.



I don't think are chances of keeping Ron Artest are as good as you think they are (he wants to be on a contender), and I really see no benefit for us in keeping him anyways, especially if we're not contending, as he's not quite as good as he seems to think he is.



Ron isnt going to sign on any contender. Contenders arent going to have 8-10 million a year or more to sign him. Contenders are at the cap already. Name me a contender with an extra 10 mill lying around? He could only go and sign for some loser team with big bucks, unless a sign and trade. Plenty of players say stuff in the media to get more money. I think he signs with the Kings if the deal is offered. And we also disagree on his ability. I hate when he goes into 1 on 1 mode, but he has been playing GREAT over the last 2 weeks. Not good, GREAT.



I am all for trading any player if it improves the team. I have failed to see ANY proposal on this board that states how trading these guys will improve us. Just trading them does NOT improve us. They are not locked into long term deals, if they walk, oh well. But you seem to think we can trade Ron and get something great in return. I think we trade Ron and get something ****ty in return. We dont need another KT sitting the bench and waiting for his contract to expire.

 

[Superman]

So you clean house just for the sake of cleaning house?? Sorry, i dont understand that logic. You ASSUME that by cleaning house and starting over everything will go in the direction you want and the team will turn around. Like someone else stated, we have a nice mix of youth and vets. im ok with that mix. And I dont see us just treading water with this group. This CURRENT lineup is NOT a 35-40 wins team. We will win that much even after the massive amount of games missed due to injury this year. Healthy, this is a 50 win team.

If you clean house and start over, you push things in the direction you want them to go. If it doesn't go in that direction, it's your fault. Unless you have bad luck and your draft picks don't pan out and you suffer major injuries all season long.

I just don't see how this is a 50 win team. Yeah, since Martin, Bibby and Artest came back, we've been winning more. But that doesn't mean we're a 50 win team.

And like I said earlier, 50 wins isn't enough. You don't put together a team and say "I think we can win 50 games this year", and then you're done. Every team in the NBA has the goal of eventually winning a championship, otherwise, what are you in the League for? Fifty wins isn't necessarily a badge of honor, and it might not even get you a playoff bid in the Western conference, the way things are shaping up this year. Golden State is on pace for 53 wins, and they're the 8th seed.

Remember we started out like 11-18 or something like that at the start. Not because we suck, but because of all those injuries.I get the impression they can be a 4 seed by the ball movement(with a healthy team) and the impressive wins they have had against the top teams in the league.

1) Phoenix 34-18
2) Dallas 32-15
3) New Orleans 32-15
4) Utah 31-18
5) Lakers 30-16
6) San Antonio 29-16
7) Denver 29-18
8) Golden State 29-19

In what universe are we better than any of those teams? Much less the top four. I don't give a goose's gut how good our ball movement is, we are NOT a top four team in the West. We're not even a top four team in the East (Boston, Orlando, Detroit, Cleveland).

I hope you are kidding? Ben wallace a TOP player in the league? Ask the Bulls if they would like to go back in time and rethink that deal. Ill give you Nash, but that dont happen much, and many extra reasons as to why that deal did happen.

You dared me to name two teams that have signed star players via free agency in the past four years. I just did. Now you have more conditions because I met the challenge.

(Knock Ben Wallace's contract all you want, but how much better would we be with him instead of Mikki Moore? We might be a 50 win team.)

Bottom line is that, with cap space, you give yourself an additional avenue of possibly adding contributors to your team. Without cap space, you're left with just the MLE and the junk you already have, which is how we got to where we are.

Im not missing your point, i disagree with your point. You seem to think trading Bibby, Miller, and Artest for expiring contracts, crappy old players, or draft picks makes us better, I disagree in a big way with your point. The only approach I like is draft picks, but those take time to develop and no sure thing in the draft. So in that case, you HOPE to get god players. Take those 3 guys off our team.... remember they were injured, and what was the team like at that point? Something like 11-18 if I remember correctly. With them back, we are well above 500, and just beat the top team in West.

When the Lakers were three-peating, they'd lose at least two games a year to the Warriors. Every year. The Warriors didn't finish above .500 any of those years. It don't matter how many top teams we beat if we can't crack the top eight. All we're doing is treading water.

And I don't agree that we're good enough, the way this team is currently comprised, to crack the top eight. And even if we could, I'm not happy with just barely making the playoffs every year (thereby eliminating our chances at a Lottery pick) and getting bounced in the first round. The Memphis Grizzlies tried that a couple years ago; they're losing their fan base quicker than Donald Trump is losing hair. That's not success.

As a professional, are you happy making the same amount of money every year, not enough to set yourself up for retirement, but enough to get by? Wouldn't you rather see some tangible improvement year by year?

Success is relative, and I guess the biggest question is "how do you measure success?" Is it by winning a championship? Making the playoffs? Finishing with a winning season? I'm not saying that we have to win championships every year to be successful, but being stuck at 45-50 wins every year with no real chance of competing for a ring is not my idea of success. I guess that's where we differ.

Not to mention the fact that I don't think we're good enough to win 45-50 games in the Western conference.

By the way, I don't want to just trade those three guys for the sake of trading them. I want to trade them because I think we need to get signficantly better, and by trading them, we have a chance to do that, either now or later. By keeping them, we get worse, as they get worse.

Ron isnt going to sign on any contender. Contenders arent going to have 8-10 million a year or more to sign him. Contenders are at the cap already. Name me a contender with an extra 10 mill lying around? He could only go and sign for some loser team with big bucks, unless a sign and trade. Plenty of players say stuff in the media to get more money. I think he signs with the Kings if the deal is offered. And we also disagree on his ability. I hate when he goes into 1 on 1 mode, but he has been playing GREAT over the last 2 weeks. Not good, GREAT.

Ron is a very good player, but he's not the key to a successful season, not by any means. I think that, if he wants to win a ring and the Kings are not willing to give him a big contract (which I don't think we should), he will sign with a contender like the Lakers or Mavs or Suns (who are reportedly interested in trading Marion for Shaq) or someone like that for the MLE. I don't see any good reason why we should keep Ron Artest in Sacramento if he opts out of his contract.

I am all for trading any player if it improves the team. I have failed to see ANY proposal on this board that states how trading these guys will improve us. Just trading them does NOT improve us. They are not locked into long term deals, if they walk, oh well. But you seem to think we can trade Ron and get something great in return. I think we trade Ron and get something ****ty in return. We dont need another KT sitting the bench and waiting for his contract to expire.

Like I said, don't trade them if it doesn't make financial/talent sense. But I don't think we should just hold on to them in hopes we can win 50 games with them. And even if we could win 50 games, that's not necessarily enough.

If management sees a need to get better (and I like to think that they do), then using Miller, Bibby and Artest as tradeable assets is the only way to do it. You also have to move Kenny Thomas and Mikki Moore eventually. Or we can just wait for them all to fall off the books and then build from the ground up. But I don't think that re-signing Artest long-term has any benefit for us, and definitely don't think that we're better off keeping Mike Bibby any longer than we're already on the hook for.

 

[reid1boys]

If you clean house and start over, you push things in the direction you want them to go. If it doesn't go in that direction, it's your fault. Unless you have bad luck and your draft picks don't pan out and you suffer major injuries all season long.


Every year their are teams that draft player after player that appears to be a stud, and they dont pan out. Joe Smith, Ron Francis, comes to mind. So when you say it is "Your fault" if it doesnt work out, that isnt entirely accurate. The draft is always a crap shoot, unless you get a Shaq or Duncan type player. I remember a guy named Daughtery (spelling?) being drafted over Jordan.





And like I said earlier, 50 wins isn't enough. You don't put together a team and say "I think we can win 50 games this year", and then you're done.


You are right, but f you have a 50 win team(which I think we do) you try to add a piece or 2 here or there to get to that next level.

Every team in the NBA has the goal of eventually winning a championship, otherwise, what are you in the League for? Fifty wins isn't necessarily a badge of honor,

50 wins means you arent too far away from being in contention.

and it might not even get you a playoff bid in the Western conference, the way things are shaping up this year. Golden State is on pace for 53 wins, and they're the 8th seed.


and if they win 53 games, they will be damn happy. If they end up 8th, not much you can do about that. So if they finish 8th, who should they start getting rid of so they can be "contenders?"



1) Phoenix 34-18
2) Dallas 32-15
3) New Orleans 32-15
4) Utah 31-18
5) Lakers 30-16
6) San Antonio 29-16
7) Denver 29-18
8) Golden State 29-19



The Lakers and Hornets were nothng last year, so lets not make it like they have been perennial powers. Id put Phoenix, Dallas, and San Antonio as clearly better than Sac. Not the others. Remove Dirk, Nash, and Duncan from their teams, and the Kings are better than all of them IMO. So how far off are the Kings? But there is no way to land a Nash, Dirk, or Duncan, so what do you do? Just throw the hands up and say "we suck" lets get rid of everyone and hope we luck out in the draft???????????????????????????????????




You dared me to name two teams that have signed star players via free agency in the past four years. I just did. Now you have more conditions because I met the challenge.



You met the challenge with Nash, Wallace is NOT a star player. He was WAY over paid, and he wouldnt do anything for our team. If the Bulls could go back in time, they would never do that deal again.


Bottom line is that, with cap space, you give yourself an additional avenue of possibly adding contributors to your team.


You need 10-15 million in cap space to get a major impact player, and that just isnt going to happen anytime soon, for almost ANY team in the NBA.






When the Lakers were three-peating, they'd lose at least two games a year to the Warriors. Every year. The Warriors didn't finish above .500 any of those years. It don't matter how many top teams we beat if we can't crack the top eight. All we're doing is treading water.



Lets just agree to disagree. Cause I am saying that this team, as it is NOW is a playoff team in the West. How high up??? Dont know, but the horrible start has put them where they are now and is not a reflection of this teams ability.

And I don't agree that we're good enough, the way this team is currently comprised, to crack the top eight. And even if we could, I'm not happy with just barely making the playoffs every year (thereby eliminating our chances at a Lottery pick) and getting bounced in the first round. The Memphis Grizzlies tried that a couple years ago; they're losing their fan base quicker than Donald Trump is losing hair. That's not success.



So you want to be a lottery team? Not I. How many titles have the Kings won since they have been in Sac? They stunk it up pretty good for quite a while and should have been able to build through the draft and they didnt. So you want to see that again?

As a professional, are you happy making the same amount of money every year, not enough to set yourself up for retirement, but enough to get by? Wouldn't you rather see some tangible improvement year by year?


Again, you assume we would actually see some improvement, which there is no guarantee that would happen if we did what you suggest.

Success is relative, and I guess the biggest question is "how do you measure success?" Is it by winning a championship? Making the playoffs? Finishing with a winning season? I'm not saying that we have to win championships every year to be successful, but being stuck at 45-50 wins every year with no real chance of competing for a ring is not my idea of success. I guess that's where we differ.


They have NEVER won a title since they have been in Sac. So have they never had success? I didnt say get to 50 wins and that s it, I am happy, but 50 wins means you arent to far from where you want to be. Do as you say, and they are a LONG way from getting to that contending status.




Ron is a very good player, but he's not the key to a successful season, not by any means. I think that, if he wants to win a ring and the Kings are not willing to give him a big contract (which I don't think we should), he will sign with a contender like the Lakers or Mavs or Suns (who are reportedly interested in trading Marion for Shaq) or someone like that for the MLE. I don't see any good reason why we should keep Ron Artest in Sacramento if he opts out of his contract.


You think Artest signs with one of those teams on the cheap? Doubt it.





I You also have to move Kenny Thomas and Mikki Moore eventually. Or we can just wait for them all to fall off the books and then build from the ground up. But I don't think that re-signing Artest long-term has any benefit for us, and definitely don't think that we're better off keeping Mike Bibby any longer than we're already on the hook for.

Well seeing how they just signed Moore, he aint going anywhere soon, and how the heck do you move KT?? We are stuck with him for a long time. Sure they should move him, we all know that, but that isnt possible, unless you trade one crappy contract for another.

 

[Superman]

Every year their are teams that draft player after player that appears to be a stud, and they dont pan out. Joe Smith, Ron Francis, comes to mind. So when you say it is "Your fault" if it doesnt work out, that isnt entirely accurate. The draft is always a crap shoot, unless you get a Shaq or Duncan type player.

It’s not a crap shoot. It is not a sure thing, but it is not like you have to just throw darts at the draft board with a blindfold on. We all knew that Greg Oden and Kevin Durant were going to be the real deal. It does not take a Ouija board and a voodoo witch doctor to make good draft choices.

I remember a guy named Daughtery (spelling?) being drafted over Jordan.

No, you do not. Not in the 1984 NBA Draft.

And the fact that Jordan went third only furthers my argument: the Bulls needed a top three pick to get him. Not the 15th or 20th pick. Unless you like Vern Fleming.

You are right, but f you have a 50 win team(which I think we do) you try to add a piece or 2 here or there to get to that next level.

Not when that 50 win team doesn’t have a top 20 player on it, or anything close to it. Especially not when your team is not getting any better.

50 wins means you arent too far away from being in contention.

Not necessarily. Especially if you have no legitimate franchise player and three of your four best players are on the decline.

and if they win 53 games, they will be damn happy. If they end up 8th, not much you can do about that. So if they finish 8th, who should they start getting rid of so they can be "contenders?"

Are you kidding me?

There can be a good 50 win season and a bad 50 win season. And if you are not getting better and eliminating yourself from the possibility of getting a high draft pick, you might just be having a bad 50 win season. Especially if you string three or four of them together and keep getting bounced in the first round of the playoffs.

The Lakers and Hornets were nothng last year, so lets not make it like they have been perennial powers. Id put Phoenix, Dallas, and San Antonio as clearly better than Sac. Not the others. Remove Dirk, Nash, and Duncan from their teams, and the Kings are better than all of them IMO. So how far off are the Kings? But there is no way to land a Nash, Dirk, or Duncan, so what do you do? Just throw the hands up and say "we suck" lets get rid of everyone and hope we luck out in the draft???????????????????????????????????

The Lakers and Hornets are better than we are NOW, and will be better for the foreseeable future. The Lakers, because of Kobe Bryant, Andrew Bynum and Pau Gasol, the Hornets because of Chris Paul, David West and Tyson Chandler, all of whom are under 30 years old and better than any of our players at the same positions.

I disagree with your assertion that Phoenix Dallas and San Antonio are only better than us because of their star players, but I can understand where you’re coming from there. It is pretty irrelevant, though, since they do have their star players, and we do not.

I have not advocating just getting rid of everyone in hopes that we land stars in the Draft. I am saying that keeping Artest, Bibby and Miller because we might win 50 games with them all healthy (which I do not think we would) is not the way to improve and eventually contend.

And once again, I think you grossly overestimate the collective talent level of this team. We are obviously going to have to agree to disagree on that. So there we are.

You met the challenge with Nash, Wallace is NOT a star player. He was WAY over paid, and he wouldnt do anything for our team. If the Bulls could go back in time, they would never do that deal again.

Well, I think the Bulls considered him a star player. I think that’s what matters. Even if you don’t. And if you can get significantly under the cap, at least you have a chance to get a major contributor in free agency. If you don’t get under the cap, you are out of the running. How is that a better situation to be in?

You need 10-15 million in cap space to get a major impact player, and that just isnt going to happen anytime soon, for almost ANY team in the NBA.

That is certainly not going to happen if we keep our team the way it is, and especially not if we re-sign Ron Artest.

Lets just agree to disagree. Cause I am saying that this team, as it is NOW is a playoff team in the West. How high up??? Dont know, but the horrible start has put them where they are now and is not a reflection of this teams ability.

Yeah, let’s.

So you want to be a lottery team? Not I. How many titles have the Kings won since they have been in Sac? They stunk it up pretty good for quite a while and should have been able to build through the draft and they didnt. So you want to see that again?

We are a Lottery team. Might as well embrace it and use it to our advantage.

We drafted Jason Williams (turned him into Mike Bibby), Peja Stojakovic and Hedo Turkoglu. That is a significant portion of the team that went to the 2002 Western Conference Finals. Kevin Martin played a major role in the 2005 playoffs series with the Spurs.

Are you saying the Draft doesn’t have it’s merits?

Again, you assume we would actually see some improvement, which there is no guarantee that would happen if we did what you suggest.

I can guarantee that we will NOT see improvement if we do what you suggest.

They have NEVER won a title since they have been in Sac. So have they never had success? I didnt say get to 50 wins and that s it, I am happy, but 50 wins means you arent to far from where you want to be. Do as you say, and they are a LONG way from getting to that contending status.

Again, there is a difference between winning 50 on your way up and winning 50 on your way down. This team, in my most humble opinion, is not on its way up.

And, to quote Ricky Bobby, “If you ain't first, you're last. If you‘re not winnin’, you‘re losin’.”

We have had successful seasons, but we have not achieved that ultimate success that every team and every player in the NBA wants.

You think Artest signs with one of those teams on the cheap? Doubt it.

He does if we don’t offer him anything. I highly doubt anyone offers him $10-12 million a year. I hope we don’t.

Well seeing how they just signed Moore, he aint going anywhere soon, and how the heck do you move KT?? We are stuck with him for a long time. Sure they should move him, we all know that, but that isnt possible, unless you trade one crappy contract for another.

It’s possible after next season, when he’s an expiring contract. Same thing with SAR and Mikki Moore. We can be significantly under the cap after the 2009 season, provided we don’t re-sign Artest and we don’t spend money signing middling players to MLE contracts.

 

[VF21]

At this point, I am not beyond KEEPING Ron and resigning him. As much as some of you hate that thought, Ron has been playing like a monster since his return. You will not come close to getting equal quality by trading Artest. I really dont want to hear about how much of a distraction he is. I just dont see it. Sign the guy to a deal and any talk of leaving goes out the window. i think all of that talk is posturing to get a bigger deal anyway. He is a 12 million type player and right now he makes peanuts(relative to other nba players of course)

1. Ron does NOT want to be on a .500 team.
2. Ron is showcasing himself right now.
3. It's not about getting equal quality. It's about getting a deal done before it's too late.
4. You not wanting to hear about how much of a distraction he is doesn't change the facts.
5. He's made noises about leaving teams before, remember? It's not just posturing with Ron. He means it at the time he says it... AND I think it's really obvious that he is, in fact, being truthful about wanting to play for a contender.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. If Ron wants to leave, we let him go. He'll opt out anyway at the end of the year so trading him now at least gets us something in return.

 

[ovrush]

1. Ron does NOT want to be on a .500 team.
2. Ron is showcasing himself right now.
3. It's not about getting equal quality. It's about getting a deal done before it's too late.
4. You not wanting to hear about how much of a distraction he is doesn't change the facts.
5. He's made noises about leaving teams before, remember? It's not just posturing with Ron. He means it at the time he says it... AND I think it's really obvious that he is, in fact, being truthful about wanting to play for a contender.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. If Ron wants to leave, we let him go. He'll opt out anyway at the end of the year so trading him now at least gets us something in return.

this is all so simple and so true. We should make it a banner for all the "keep Artest" people.

 

[kyo2002]

At this point get any expiring, a pick, and me a bag of hot cheetos.