Kings Should Offer Artest a Contract
- Thread starter Purple Reign
- Start date
nbrans
All-Star
I would LOVE to see scenarios where we move Kenny Thomas that are beneficial to us and the other team.
Of course, you'd have to be a magician as well as a capologist. Because you'd need to conjure them out of thin air.
But hey. In your book it's Petrie's JOB to be a magician. Abracadabra, Petrie! Wave that magic wand and make Kenny disappear!
If he's half as smart as people around here make him out to be, it should be easy.
nbrans
All-Star
Where are all of these people posting? The "I hate Petrie" thread or the "I'm mad at Petrie because" thread?
You're better than that... Don't act like you don't remember all those "Petrie's the greatest" threads during the offseason; hell, you spearheaded half of them. Just because most of those people aren't as vocal as you are, don't think you can act like it didn't happen.
nbrans
All-Star
You'll have to dig these up for me, because I seem to remember spending my summer trashing the Spencer Hawes pick and Mikki Moore signing (still think both were bad).
But yes -- I do think Petrie is smart and one of the better (note I'm not saying best) GMs in the league. May the lightning bolts of the Kingsfans.com "Petrie-should-be-a-magician Club" strike me down!!
I have it on good authority that Wonder Woman bracelets can ward off the lightning bolts.
He's not in the top ten percent of his profession. What is your criteria for "one of the better in the league?"
nbrans
All-Star
He's been voted Executive of the Year twice. Clearly I'm not the only one who feels that he's one of the better GMs.
Gary
All-Star
OK technically he doesn't expire.. But he isn't going to pick up the option. I will be the first to come here and say I was wrong if he does, ok?
I can come up with a hundred arguments why Artest shouldn't be on this team. Can you come up with half that many on why he should?
bajaden
Hall of Famer
I guess I could be an *** and ask you to list your hundred arguments first, but I won't, and to be honest, God I hate when people say to ( be honest ) I mean, aren't they honest all the time. I'm starting to talk like an attorney. No offense Bricky. By the way, "The Washington Generals". That one made me laugh out loud. I thought they were being paid to lose.
Anyway, I, like you, for the longest time wanted Artest gone. And, I sort of made a mental list of why I didn't want him around, and I tried to be fair about it. When I was done, most of the things I didn't like pretained to off the court, and really, very little of it had to do with on the court.
If one can block out for a moment all the off the court stuff and pretend it didn't happen, there' a lot to like about him. Does he at times make a bonehead play, or hog the ball? Yes, but so did Webb, and so did Bibby, and we thought they were pretty good players to keep around. And, of late he's seems to be playing within the system Reggie wants.
He's a guy who can get you 20pt's, 5 to 6 rebounds, a couple of steals and shut down just about anybody he has to guard. He's a very unique player and there aren't many like him around. In my opinion he's one of the top ten players in the NBA. A subjective opinion I know.
He is, in other words, a difference maker. He can be the difference between winning and losing a game. So, do you gamble on him or not? Well, its not my money, so its not for me to say. But I would think long and hard about whether to dump him or not.
One more thing. Bricky earlier made a statement about the age of the Kings, and how seven of their players are over 30yrs of age. Well, True enough, but as usual, its not that black and white. Judge for yourself.
Starting 5:
Miller-31 yrs old
Moore-32 yrs old
Artest-28 yrs old
Martin-25 yrs old
Beno-25 yrs old
Current rotation players:
Salmons-28 yrs old
Garcia-26 yrs old
Hawes- 20 yrs old
Williams-24 yrs old
Douby-23 yrs old
Johnson-33 yrs old
Non rotation players, and probably wonh't play:
Lue-30 yrs old
Wright-32 yrs old
SAR-32 yrs old
K. Thomas-30 yrs old
Three of the plus 30 yr olds probably won't be on the team after this year, and two more probably won't see the floor. So in truth, after this season ends there will probably be two players over 30 who will be contributing to the team, with the addition of at least one more draft pick that makes the team, one more young player will be added.
The Kings' own history suggests that draft picks are not the road to success. People are talking about tanking the season so that we can move from, say, 12th pick in June to a top ten pick. But in the 13 years from 1985/86 to 97/98, the kings had a top ten pick in 8 years. But they didn't have a single winning record until 98/99, and only made the playoffs twice.
More importantly, in the years four years 94/95 to 97/98, the Kings only had one top ten draft, and that was Jason Williams in 98. The following year the Kings ascent began. It seems that the turnaround in summer 98 wasn't due to draft picks, but rather a big trade and a big free agent.
Unless we're talking about a considerable lag of five or more years, it just strikes me that all the under-30 win seasons didn't get us too much. (the Kings did have three years of 30-40 wins in the mid 90s) The Kings even had a top three pick in 88/89 and 90/91, and there was no turn around until 98/99 (or 94/95 if you count a 39 win season a turnaround).
Of course, there is a huge random element to it,so looking at only one team may not be representative. It would take a hard look at all teams to gauge how helpful draft picks are. I'd be very interested to see if anyone has looked at this question over many teams over many years.
More importantly, in the years four years 94/95 to 97/98, the Kings only had one top ten draft, and that was Jason Williams in 98. The following year the Kings ascent began. It seems that the turnaround in summer 98 wasn't due to draft picks, but rather a big trade and a big free agent.
Unless we're talking about a considerable lag of five or more years, it just strikes me that all the under-30 win seasons didn't get us too much. (the Kings did have three years of 30-40 wins in the mid 90s) The Kings even had a top three pick in 88/89 and 90/91, and there was no turn around until 98/99 (or 94/95 if you count a 39 win season a turnaround).
Of course, there is a huge random element to it,so looking at only one team may not be representative. It would take a hard look at all teams to gauge how helpful draft picks are. I'd be very interested to see if anyone has looked at this question over many teams over many years.
I don't think anyone's talking about that, moving more than one draft position in either direction is nearly impossible at this stage. Maybe they meant a future year?
The Kings draft history before Petrie took over is entirely irrelevant... If Petrie is still the "Exec of the Year"-caliber GM that some people want me to believe that he is (which I actually don't believe that he is, but being proven wrong wouldn't break my heart), then a Top 5 pick ought to be money in the bank with him. Either you have to admit that the blown lottery picks before Petrie took over don't count as proof of anything, or you're saying that Petrie is a fraud.
uolj
Starter
You, like many, are looking at this from the wrong angle (in my opinion). You should not be looking for examples of when getting high draft picks didn't work. You should instead look for examples of when a team became elite without using high draft picks. Those are much fewer and farther between.
What that means is that while going young and trading vets for expiring contracts and picks doesn't guarantee success (as you and others have documented), not doing so comes awfully close to guaranteeing failure.
I think Ron reads this place:
Great...
Can't we just support our team???
http://www.sacbee.com/100/story/733154.html
Great...
Can't we just support our team???
I think Ron reads this place:
http://www.sacbee.com/100/story/733154.html
Great...
Can't we just support our team???
Yes, clearly blind optimism is what message boards are created for. This is like people that accuse those that are anti-war of not being patriotic. Just because there are those that dislike some of the recent decisions Petrie has made doesn't mean they don't support the Kings. The very fact that many people feel strongly enough about it to post their arguments on a message board proves that they care.
Last edited:
Elektrik
Starter
3.0 points and 3.0 rebounds on the Atlanta Hawks pretty much sums it up from where I sit.
Elektrik
Starter
I think Ron reads this place:
http://www.sacbee.com/100/story/733154.html
Great...
quote]
So what. He's right. Not alot of people like him. Lots of people outside of Sacramento dont like him either. Lots of reasons for it. Mostly though, he's done it himself. I dont feel sorry for him. He would have been traded if someone out there actually wanted to take a risk on him. Obviously no one did. We couldn't even unload him for Linus Kleiza. So we're stuck with him. Hopefully he opts out at the end of this season. We werent able to trade him for anything worthwhile this season. Why would we be able to trade him for something next season. Just cut our losses ASAP and get on with it.
KingKong
Starter
If you are reading this, I concur with Entity.
TR_9
Prospect
Same here.
D13
Bench
oldenpolynice
Prospect
I hate the idea of losing for the sake of getting a higher draft pick. It's a slippery slope. I don't think Petrie would keep Artest unless he has plans to re-sign him in the offseason. So I have a feeling Artest will be back as our marquee player. I don't mind that choice. Artest is one of the hardest players in the NBA to guard, plus he is a competitor and wants to win the championship very badly.
I'll be glad to see the Kings up near (and hopefully past) .500 at the end of the season. It's a good improvement from last year and a sign of Theus' influence.
I'll be glad to see the Kings up near (and hopefully past) .500 at the end of the season. It's a good improvement from last year and a sign of Theus' influence.
