Please Stay Ron.. Sacramento needs you.. The Kings needs you

[VF21]

With all due respect, I hear this line over and over and over when justifying why Ron Artest must go NOW and should have never been brought to Sactown in the first place. It's okay, because it's mainly group think, but I see it as almost as childish as Artest sometimes appears. If this is the best you (and other Artest critics) can come up with no wonder Coach Theus felt it necessary to say loud and clear recently that Ron Artest "HAS NOT BEEN A CONSTANT DISTRACTION ."

Reggie Theus is savvy enough to choose his words in situations like that. Don't you find it a bit interesting that he actually chose to use "CONSTANT"? That certainly implies that Ron has, in fact, been a distraction at times.

If you're going to microanalyze what's being said, then you definitely have to consider the possible reasons why he chose to modify the word "distraction"...

 

[hrdboild]

Didn't Ron Artest himself say that he wants to win a championship, that that's the most important thing to him? I'm not putting words in his mouth. I'm not guessing at what he wants and what he's thinking. I'm assuming -- and this might be a stretch because of who we're talking about -- that he feels very strongly about playing for a team with a chance at contending for a championship, because that's what he said. Now he may not have meant it, but I'm not telling you what he's thinking. He already did that.

Secondly, I am also assuming that he won't be happy on the Kings because we are not in position to contend for a championship, and barring some extremely fortuitous changes in circumstances, we won't be contending for at least three seasons, realistically speaking.

I fail to see how it requires that great a leap of faith to say that he'd be neither happy nor satisfied playing for a team that struggles to win 35 games a year and finishes at the bottom of the division ... three years in a row. And considering the fact that Ron is not the most emotionally and mentally stable person in the NBA, I think it's reasonable to conclude that he would at least contribute to, if not directly cause, some tension in the locker room and with the coaches if he is unhappy with the state his team is in.

This is a player that has threatened to retire, asked for time off to promote his music label, been in domestic disputes, had trouble with the law, etc., all within the past three or four years. Just last week, he had a spat with the head coach.

I know it seems like I hate Ron Artest. I don't. I appreciate what he brings to the court as a player. I can even appreciate that he's often misunderstood and prejudged because of the brawl and some of the other things he's done, even some of the things I mentioned previously. Artest is probably one of the best two-way players in the NBA, quite honestly. If we were on the verge, just a piece or two away from being able to compete with the top teams in the NBA, I would love to see management find a way to incorporate Ron into our long-term plans.

We are not on the verge. We are in a very delicate position as a team, what with the youth, the cap situation and the rookie head coach. I don't think it wise to include a player as volatile and unpredictable as Ron Artest in your long term plans. Especially if that means signing him to a multi-year contract.

Basically your first argument was that we can't keep Artest around because he doesn't want to be here. That's where you're assuming you know what Ron Artest is thinking. Yes he said he wants to win a championship, yes he said that he hates losing -- but that's what every NBA player says, especially the good ones. Everyone was convinced Kobe had played his last game as a Laker over the summer when he demanded a trade. I live in LA, the buzz was that Kobe was gone. Everyone was pretty sure of it. And now he's happy again and people are talking MVP. Now obviously Pau Gasol isn't going to fall into our lap, but Kobe was already happy before that happened because his teammates stepped up. Just because Ron is a competitive guy doesn't mean he wants out of Sacramento. Maybe he would relish the opportunity to rub Sacramento in the Lakers faces like he did this weekend. Maybe he wants to be there when a losing team turns the corner and starts to demand respect. I don't think rebuilding has to mean sending all the competitive players on your team packing so that the guys who are okay with losing can feel better about themselves. We need somebody with fire to keep everyone motivated and playing like a team.

I bolded the part in your quote that I wanted to emphasize because I think that pretty much clarifies your attitude. Why is it acceptable for some players to say they hate losing but when Ron says it he's a team cancer and a danger? Because you're convinced that he's mentally unstable and not to be trusted. We've been back and forth about this issue already many times on this board. Neither of us knows Ron personally, we just know what we see in the games and what we read in the newspaper. I still think most of this "Ron Artest is crazy" perception is a myth created around him because it makes for a good story. The dog thing? The domestic violence incident? If you look at the details of those cases, there's nothing to suggest Ron handled them any differently than someone else would have. Getting angry at the coach? Yeah, like we haven't ever seen that in Sacramento before. Players get upset all the time. The key thing is that the good ones make the adjustments and come out to play afterwards, and Ron has done that. If you're convinced Ron Artest is crazy, than nothing he says or does is going to change your mind because you're just going to fit them into the mold you've already created.

So yes, I do think you're trying to read Ron Artest's mind and tell us what he's thinking. Just admit that you think Ron Artest is guilty until proven innocent and that's why you want him gone. Admit that and we don't have any disagreement.

 

[Warhawk]

Basically your first argument was that we can't keep Artest around because he doesn't want to be here. That's where you're assuming you know what Ron Artest is thinking. Yes he said he wants to win a championship, yes he said that he hates losing -- but that's what every NBA player says, especially the good ones. Everyone was convinced Kobe had played his last game as a Laker over the summer when he demanded a trade. I live in LA, the buzz was that Kobe was gone. Everyone was pretty sure of it. And now he's happy again and people are talking MVP. Now obviously Pau Gasol isn't going to fall into our lap, but Kobe was already happy before that happened because his teammates stepped up. Just because Ron is a competitive guy doesn't mean he wants out of Sacramento. Maybe he would relish the opportunity to rub Sacramento in the Lakers faces like he did this weekend. Maybe he wants to be there when a losing team turns the corner and starts to demand respect. I don't think rebuilding has to mean sending all the competitive players on your team packing so that the guys who are okay with losing can feel better about themselves. We need somebody with fire to keep everyone motivated and playing like a team.

I bolded the part in your quote that I wanted to emphasize because I think that pretty much clarifies your attitude. Why is it acceptable for some players to say they hate losing but when Ron says it he's a team cancer and a danger? Because you're convinced that he's mentally unstable and not to be trusted. We've been back and forth about this issue already many times on this board. Neither of us knows Ron personally, we just know what we see in the games and what we read in the newspaper. I still think most of this "Ron Artest is crazy" perception is a myth created around him because it makes for a good story. The dog thing? The domestic violence incident? If you look at the details of those cases, there's nothing to suggest Ron handled them any differently than someone else would have. Getting angry at the coach? Yeah, like we haven't ever seen that in Sacramento before. Players get upset all the time. The key thing is that the good ones make the adjustments and come out to play afterwards, and Ron has done that. If you're convinced Ron Artest is crazy, than nothing he says or does is going to change your mind because you're just going to fit them into the mold you've already created.

So yes, I do think you're trying to read Ron Artest's mind and tell us what he's thinking. Just admit that you think Ron Artest is guilty until proven innocent and that's why you want him gone. Admit that and we don't have any disagreement.

And I think you are conveniently forgetting most of the stuff coming out of his mouth.

You know, the parts about us making the playoffs (when we are all but mathematically eliminated and there is no chance of us making it) and competing for a championship (like we are the Spurs). The parts about wanting to opt out and then changing his mind. The part about texting his teammates and saying he's going to retire. The part about him being as good as Kobe. The part about texting the team that he's not playing in a game an hour before tipoff when the trainers have no idea he's "injured". The part about taking some games off because they are weaker opponents (who proceeded to beat us anyways). The parts before he got here about working at an electronics store to get the discount and wanting time off to promote his album. The part about the coach giving up on the team when Reggie is still calling timeouts at the end of a loss to try to get the right plays run and has actually pulled a couple of improbable wins out.

And that's just the stuff off the top of my head.

The guy is not malicious at all (that I can tell), he just has no filter, can't control what he says, and comes across as certifiable sometimes. Don't blame us for his actions and the natural image that comes across from them. He's the one in control of that. Or not, as the case may be.

 

[Fear the Putin]

Sacramento needs him? The Kings need him?

Well we also need Lebron James, Tim Duncan, and Chris Paul.
His defense prowess is definitely needed, but not under the mind of Artest. We will just have to settle for someone else because things are becoming to unravel piece by piece with him. Forget the losses, I'm talking about the rest of our team.

Everyone mentions his stats and his uncanny talent of playing both ends of the floor. Yes, its great, but you cant just have a maniac be on our team regardless if hes the best two-sided player in the league because at the end of the day, his game propels itself forward while the team suffers.

Whoopee dee doo, say we resign Artest....and then what? Martin's game will NOT grow, his game will only stay the same or even decline once Artest will be handed to keys. We hover around mediocrity and miss the playoffs once again. I'm not even taking into account the kinds of things that may occur with Artest mentally and emotionally.

 

[hrdboild]

You know what Warhawk, you're absolutely right. Ron has provided a lot of fuel for the fire...

But people laughed when Ron guaranteed the playoffs a couple years ago and he made it happen. People laughed when he said we'd beat the Spurs and we almost did that. And I still remember that because for the first time in awhile I was proud to be a Kings fan again. Last season Tracy McGrady said he was thinking of retiring and playing baseball, is he crazy too? Ron's not the only one guilty of thinking out loud when maybe he shouldn't. Not to mention, Ron did us a favor by taking those games off last week. Why would I be mad about that? Those were important losses to teams ahead of us in the lottery. And like he said, he came back when it mattered and helped us beat the Lakers. If Tim Duncan does the same thing, does anyone get mad? Didn't Lebron take a couple games off earlier in the season to rest? I don't argue that the guy is inconsistent in what he says and that he often comes across as certifiable, but I don't think he's nearly as crazy as people think he is. In fact, I think he gets a certain amount of enjoyment from playing to that persona (just like Rodman did) and that gets him into trouble. I'm not conveniently forgetting what Ron says, I just think that you can't always take what he says at face value.

And ultimately, what it comes down to for me is that Ron is a professional athlete. Is he good at what he does? Absolutely. Someone is always willing to take a chance on talent and I hope that somebody is the Kings because as long as Ron can play, all that off the court stuff is secondary. And I like saying that I support a team that gives players a second chance and a team that doesn't give up on people. Remember that this is Ron Artest too. Some people are still not willing to give him a second chance and I take that personally. Because everyone would want a second chance.

 

[Warhawk]

You know what Warhawk, you're absolutely right. Ron has provided a lot of fuel for the fire...

But people laughed when Ron guaranteed the playoffs a couple years ago and he made it happen. People laughed when he said we'd beat the Spurs and we almost did that. And I still remember that because for the first time in awhile I was proud to be a Kings fan again. Last season Tracy McGrady said he was thinking of retiring and playing baseball, is he crazy too? Ron's not the only one guilty of thinking out loud when maybe he shouldn't. Not to mention, Ron did us a favor by taking those games off last week. Why would I be mad about that? Those were important losses to teams ahead of us in the lottery. And like he said, he came back when it mattered and helped us beat the Lakers. If Tim Duncan does the same thing, does anyone get mad? Didn't Lebron take a couple games off earlier in the season to rest? I don't argue that the guy is inconsistent in what he says and that he often comes across as certifiable, but I don't think he's nearly as crazy as people think he is. In fact, I think he gets a certain amount of enjoyment from playing to that persona (just like Rodman did) and that gets him into trouble. I'm not conveniently forgetting what Ron says, I just think that you can't always take what he says at face value.

And ultimately, what it comes down to for me is that Ron is a professional athlete. Is he good at what he does? Absolutely. Someone is always willing to take a chance on talent and I hope that somebody is the Kings because as long as Ron can play, all that off the court stuff is secondary. And I like saying that I support a team that gives players a second chance and a team that doesn't give up on people. Remember that this is Ron Artest too. Some people are still not willing to give him a second chance and I take that personally. Because everyone would want a second chance.

We were not essentially mathematically eliminated that year. This year is is impossible to make it for all intents and purposes, and yet he continued.

TMac said he was considering it. RonRon told his team it was basically a done deal. Two different things. One due to injuries, one due to nuttiness.

If it is so important that we lose games for the lottery, then why beat the Lakers? Oh yeah, so he can "perform" in LA on the big stage and show how good he is helping the Kings beat the Lakers. It's not about the team with him all the time.

LeBron and Tim were recognized as being injured and had their staff working on them. Based on the evidence so far, Ron just decided he didn't want to play.

Of course you can't take what he says at face value. Isn't that the problem here? Or do you not see that as a problem?

The other stuff is "secondary" in the way that food is secondary to water and air for living. Sure, you can survive on air and water for a while, but you eventually need food, too. With Ron, you can put up with his stuff for so long, but after a while it tears the team up.

Yes, he does some wonderful things, and I applaud him for it. Doesn't mean he needs to be on the Kings.

 

[Superman]

Basically your first argument was that we can't keep Artest around because he doesn't want to be here. That's where you're assuming you know what Ron Artest is thinking. Yes he said he wants to win a championship, yes he said that he hates losing -- but that's what every NBA player says, especially the good ones. Everyone was convinced Kobe had played his last game as a Laker over the summer when he demanded a trade. I live in LA, the buzz was that Kobe was gone. Everyone was pretty sure of it. And now he's happy again and people are talking MVP. Now obviously Pau Gasol isn't going to fall into our lap, but Kobe was already happy before that happened because his teammates stepped up. Just because Ron is a competitive guy doesn't mean he wants out of Sacramento. Maybe he would relish the opportunity to rub Sacramento in the Lakers faces like he did this weekend. Maybe he wants to be there when a losing team turns the corner and starts to demand respect. I don't think rebuilding has to mean sending all the competitive players on your team packing so that the guys who are okay with losing can feel better about themselves. We need somebody with fire to keep everyone motivated and playing like a team.

I am not assuming that Ron doesn't want to be here. He said so himself, if I remember correctly. And if I remember incorrectly, it's irrelevant, because he also said that he wants to play for a contender and win a championship. That's not the Kings. If he's a free agent after this season, why wouldn't he sign elsewhere? The only reason I can think of is that we offer him more money, and I think that's a mistake, because Ron Artest is not a cornerstone type of player.

And this is the problem. Ron Artest is NOT Kobe Bryant, and we are certainly not the Los Angeles Lakers. The comparison is not a valid one, considering the fact that Kobe Bryant's contract isn't getting ready to expire this or next summer, and Ron Artest isn't the type of player (talking strictly on the court here) that you build a team around.

Staying completely away from Ron's "other" issues, the fact that he is not - in my opinion - a cornerstone that you build a contender around means that, for a rebuilding team, we have to heavily weigh whether or not we want to spend long-term money on him. For a player who considers himself to be one of the best all-around players in the NBA (again, not assuming, but taking words from his mouth), he will be asking for a lot of it. Do we offer him a new deal or let him walk? I don't think we should offer him a new deal, and I have yet to hear justification that we should, speaking strictly in terms of his basketball value.

And that's why I don't think we should leverage the future on Ron Artest. We don't even have to say anything about his behavior and attitude.

I bolded the part in your quote that I wanted to emphasize because I think that pretty much clarifies your attitude. Why is it acceptable for some players to say they hate losing but when Ron says it he's a team cancer and a danger? Because you're convinced that he's mentally unstable and not to be trusted.

Now who is assuming what?

We've been back and forth about this issue already many times on this board. Neither of us knows Ron personally, we just know what we see in the games and what we read in the newspaper. I still think most of this "Ron Artest is crazy" perception is a myth created around him because it makes for a good story. The dog thing? The domestic violence incident? If you look at the details of those cases, there's nothing to suggest Ron handled them any differently than someone else would have. Getting angry at the coach? Yeah, like we haven't ever seen that in Sacramento before. Players get upset all the time. The key thing is that the good ones make the adjustments and come out to play afterwards, and Ron has done that. If you're convinced Ron Artest is crazy, than nothing he says or does is going to change your mind because you're just going to fit them into the mold you've already created.

How can you separate Ron Artest's history as a wishy-washy, unpredictable, volatile, at times violent person from his career as a basketball player?

I could understand this thinking if it was just one or two isolated incidents, but this guy has a wrap sheet now. A record of serious incidents, maybe not standing alone, but certainly together, and we should just forget about that record because he plays hard? Because he's a good defender?

It's not just media perception. He has created a pattern of questionable behavior, and hasn't shown a clear inclination to staying as far away as possible from that type of behavior, at least not to me. And the reports about spats with the coach and alienating teammates on the court give me an insight into his attitude, which is not a healthy one for a young team with a young coach trying to build for the future.

And if he's so hell-bent on playing for a winning team that he's willing to make comments that the coach considers detrimental to the franchise, then why would we want to keep him on a rebuilding team? If he's that frustrated after two losing seasons, how's he going to be after five (which is where we're clearly headed, especially given how good the West is)?

So yes, I do think you're trying to read Ron Artest's mind and tell us what he's thinking. Just admit that you think Ron Artest is guilty until proven innocent and that's why you want him gone. Admit that and we don't have any disagreement.

Puh-lease.

You don't know what I think, and you are actually doing your best to prove that I think something that I've clearly come out and stated I DO NOT think! I do not care to admit to something for the sake of not disagreeing with you, because it doesn't matter what you think I think. And I reserve my right to stand by my stated opinion, whether you believe that my stated opinion is honest or not.

And again, my point is NOT that we need to get rid of Ron Artest. My point is that we should not re-sign him, and that, if we are going to let him walk, we should have dealt him for something before the deadline, since we are now at his mercy.

But I'm sure you'll find a way to interpret that as me feeling like we should cut him now and file a restraining order on him to keep him 1000 yards away from Arco Arena, because I hate the crazy, dog-killing wife beater and I hope he gets exiled from the NBA.

 

[Big Cuz 15]

With all due respect, I hear this line over and over and over when justifying why Ron Artest must go NOW and should have never been brought to Sactown in the first place. It's okay, because it's mainly group think, but I see it as almost as childish as Artest sometimes appears. If this is the best you (and other Artest critics) can come up with no wonder Coach Theus felt it necessary to say loud and clear recently that Ron Artest "HAS NOT BEEN A CONSTANT DISTRACTION ."

All the things you bring up are relatively trivial in the big picture of a long NBA season - not to be ignored - but not endlessly condemned and nailed to the cross over. The lone really major event, the brawl in Auburn Hills, Michigan is ANCIENT HISTORY and he paid the biggest penalty in NBA history for it - with lesser sanction to Stephen Jackson, Jermaine O'Neal, etc. The rest of the laundry list of relatively insignificant Artest "crimes" are really not worth comment at all, IMO. You could have added some others, like his wanting to work at Circuit City to get company discounts, stiffing Pacers Coach Carlisle a few times by not showing up to practice or showing up once wearing his bath robe. To some these seem quirky, to others worthy of immediate league suspension and heavy fines. Coach Theus thought recent comments by Artest were detrimental to the Kings and fined him $5,000 or equivalent to $35 for a person making $50,000 annual vs. Artest's current salary. Earlier Theus fined Mikki Moore and John Salmons similar amounts for similar indiscretions.

Remember the lovely and incredibly talented Dennis Rodman? He had very similar personal scandals and assorted run-ins with this or that authority figure all the while winning NBA championship after NBA championship. Michael Jordan when asked about Rodman once said, "what the hell is there for me to worry about, that he'll (Rodman) show up wearing the championship ring in his nose?"

I'm not sure I want Artest here next season (since re-building is now the push) but, I'm extremely grateful that he lived up to his own hype when he first arrived in town. He told the world the Sacramento Kings would make the playoffs when absolutely no one believed him - probably not even Kings Coach Adelman. He pulled it off with dogged determination and some star will power (plus a nice assist from disciple Bonzi). He then helped push #1 seed San Antonio to 6 games in what Coach Pop later said was such a bruising series it may have hastened their eventual demise in the WC finals.

Artest has not been perfect as a King, but I'm very happy overall with what he's brought to the court as a superior, often devastating two-way player. Not a Kobe, not a LeBron, just a RonRon - and that's been plenty good, plenty fun to watch over the past three seasons.

would your employer fire your *** if you told him that you were quitting then staying then quitting then staying? the guy is a distraction to the team. give him the deuce at the end of the season

 

[hrdboild]

I just don't understand where you're coming from. It's not like I'm twisting your words. Maybe there's just some kind of misunderstanding. Here's what you said:

I fail to see how it requires that great a leap of faith to say that he'd be neither happy nor satisfied playing for a team that struggles to win 35 games a year and finishes at the bottom of the division ... three years in a row. And considering the fact that Ron is not the most emotionally and mentally stable person in the NBA, I think it's reasonable to conclude that he would at least contribute to, if not directly cause, some tension in the locker room and with the coaches if he is unhappy with the state his team is in.

Are you or are you not saying that Ron shouldn't be re-signed because there's a danger he's going to cause an incident? Are you not relying on an insinuation that "crazy Ron" is going to blow up if we keep him here any longer? What exactly did you mean by saying "Ron is not the most emotionally and mentally stable person in the NBA" if not to imply that he's too dangerous to keep around? You're right that I don't know what you think. I don't want to intentionally misinterpret your comments. So then what do you think distinguishes Ron from all the other players who say they want to play on winning teams?

I'm not saying anything about whether we can afford to pay Ron Artest or whether he's a franchise player. That's a different argument and not what the point of this topic was about anyway. Taking a break from the whole armchair GM thing for a minute, I think Ron Artest is a person that deserves respect and appreciation for what he does right, and forgiveness and understanding for what he does wrong. He gets plenty of criticism as it is, I just think as a fan maybe I owe him some support. If Ron does want to stay (and he hasn't said that he doesn't) than I'm not against it, provided the salary requests aren't unreasonable. A lot of people here are saying "we want Ron gone, no matter what he says or does from here on out". I apologize for grouping you in that category unfairly. I guess I just feel like I'm always on the defensive just for suggesting that Ron is a decent human being.

 

[VF21]

I guess I just feel like I'm always on the defensive just for suggesting that Ron is a decent human being.

The problem is that it's not about Ron being a decent human being, or at least shouldn't be. He is the ultimate square peg trying to be hammered into the round hole. I would think it should be about that primarily, with the "ticking" as something that also has to be at least acknowledged.

Artest is an enigma. The mere presence of so many passionate opinions about him proves it.

I respect Ron's heart and hustle and his desire to win. I respect his generosity of spirit and his wanting to do the right thing.

I've said it before - Ron Artest is the living example of the tragic Shakespearean character. And, with regret, I concluded a long time ago he was fatally flawed to the extent where I believe his presence on our Kings will not be in our best interests.

He would be most effective on a team wanting to push deep into the playoffs. He would have been very effective as our SF when we were going deep into the playoffs. Now, however, he's just the wrong horse for the races we're going to be running - at least for the foreseeable future.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Why do people keep perpetuating this "almost beat the Spurs" nonsense? The series didn't go seven games: we were decisively outplayed in the fourth quarter of Game 5, and blown out in Game 6. We didn't "almost" beat anybody.

When you take a team to seven games, you can say you "almost" beat them. You don't "almost" beat somebody when a seven-game series ends in six.

 

[Entity]

I think the almost part comes in with the lucky bounce Barry got. What they fail to remember is the lucky play we got when Kevin scored at the buzzer himself. Those 2 cacel each other out if you ask me. Series over 4-2

 

[CruzDude]

RonRon stay IF you will be a team player the ENTIRE game. Do what you do best, defend and blow through the middle when it's only a double team, then hit your 3's to keep your defender honest and confused. Stay if you will help make Kevin the 25 ppg guy while you help yourself to being a 4 steals, 4 assist, 2 blocks and 8 rebound guy who happens to get 15-20 pts/gm.

 

[LPKingsFan]

I will say that the Ron/Bonzi backwards (small guys post, big guys pass) concept seemed to work somewhat, and had the Kings been anything but an 8 seed, could have had some legs. Rick was let go, however, Bonzi bungled his deal, and the team went in another direction. Any time you let the only coach in recent years who has made the playoffs go, you should probably change the team's identity, too. I would have thought about moving Ron out last year, and this year as it was clear we wanted to go young, definitely moved him at the trade deadline if there was a deal for expiring and a pick.

I do sit around and wonder sometimes what if we had kept Rick, resigned Bonzi, and made another run with that squad. Would have had to trade Brad for a decent defensive big (Tyson Chandler was available, and think the Cavs would have bitten on a Brad for Big Z swap?) and ditched Bibby as well. But, of course, these are idle thoughts for bored afternoons, or in this case when I should be studying for finals...

 

[Superman]

I just don't understand where you're coming from. It's not like I'm twisting your words. Maybe there's just some kind of misunderstanding. Here's what you said:

Are you or are you not saying that Ron shouldn't be re-signed because there's a danger he's going to cause an incident?

Are you not relying on an insinuation that "crazy Ron" is going to blow up if we keep him here any longer? What exactly did you mean by saying "Ron is not the most emotionally and mentally stable person in the NBA" if not to imply that he's too dangerous to keep around? You're right that I don't know what you think. I don't want to intentionally misinterpret your comments. So then what do you think distinguishes Ron from all the other players who say they want to play on winning teams?

I am not saying that Ron is going to blow up if we keep him here (though I'll give you 2-1 on that). I am saying that he has a history of having problems with his coaches and teammates, and since we are not going to be winning any time soon, a frustrated Ron can and likely will contribute to -- if not cause -- problems in the locker room.

If you want to argue that Ron is mentally or emotionally stable, you'll have to argue that with someone else. I will not be party to that pointless discussion.

I do think it is too dangerous to sign him long term as a cornerstone of our team, partly because of his on-court issues, mostly because of his off-court issues.

And it is that pattern of off-court issues that distinguishes him from other players who want to win. I do not have the ability to block out his many issues the way you do, or to write them off as inconsequential.

I'm not saying anything about whether we can afford to pay Ron Artest or whether he's a franchise player. That's a different argument and not what the point of this topic was about anyway. Taking a break from the whole armchair GM thing for a minute, I think Ron Artest is a person that deserves respect and appreciation for what he does right, and forgiveness and understanding for what he does wrong. He gets plenty of criticism as it is, I just think as a fan maybe I owe him some support. If Ron does want to stay (and he hasn't said that he doesn't) than I'm not against it, provided the salary requests aren't unreasonable. A lot of people here are saying "we want Ron gone, no matter what he says or does from here on out". I apologize for grouping you in that category unfairly. I guess I just feel like I'm always on the defensive just for suggesting that Ron is a decent human being.

I am not too concerned with what Ron deserves. I mean, I don't think he deserves to be endlessly villified as if he is a murderer or a rapist. Some people do take it that far, but I'm not ready to call him a bad person. But that doesn't matter to me.

My point is that, as an armchair GM, we cannot afford to re-sign Ron Artest, both from a salary cap standpoint and from a "state of the union" standpoint. That's what I think that we have to part ways with him. It does have something to do with the things he's been involved in, but it's not entirely about that. If he had another couple years on his deal, I might not be so certain that he needs to be traded. But since we are at his mercy, I'm upset that we didn't keep ourselves out of limbo before the deadline.

 

[Superman]

Why do people keep perpetuating this "almost beat the Spurs" nonsense? The series didn't go seven games: we were decisively outplayed in the fourth quarter of Game 5, and blown out in Game 6. We didn't "almost" beat anybody.

When you take a team to seven games, you can say you "almost" beat them. You don't "almost" beat somebody when a seven-game series ends in six.

Yeah I agree. We may have played them well, especially as an eight seed playing a one seed, the defending champs. But we didn't almost beat them.

 

[hrdboild]

Umm, we lost game 2 in overtime without Ron Artest, then we won game 3, then we won game 4, then we were tied with less than 2 minutes to play before losing game 5. You need 4 games to win and we were 2 minutes and an overtime away from having 4 wins in that series. Yes, I do call that an almost.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Balloonjuice. We didn't almost beat the Spurs any more than the Cavaliers almost beat the Spurs. It takes a special kind of homer to say that we almost won a series that we lost four games to two.

 

[hrdboild]

I am not saying that Ron is going to blow up if we keep him here (though I'll give you 2-1 on that).

This is the kind of comment that really annoys me because on the one hand you're saying that you're not afraid he's going to blow up, but then you throw that little aside in there which indicates that (wink wink, nudge nudge) you really do think that. Just like everyone else who said they'd give Ron Artest a second chance (but they wouldn't be surprised if he blew it). Betting against a guy to fail doesn't count as giving him a second chance.

If you want to argue that Ron is mentally or emotionally stable, you'll have to argue that with someone else. I will not be party to that pointless discussion.

So I'm not actually assuming anything you didn't say then am I?

And it is that pattern of off-court issues that distinguishes him from other players who want to win. I do not have the ability to block out his many issues the way you do, or to write them off as inconsequential.

It's not that they're inconsequential-- just that the sum total of his "distracting influence" has been within the range of what is usually tolerated from talented players. If he weren't already responsible for charging into the stands, nobody would be saying that a few comments about the coach, and a couple of minor off the court incidents made him a crazy person. He hasn't raped anybody, he hasn't tortured animals. He's just under such a big magnifying glass that every time his name comes up it gets blown way out of proportion.

Look, I think your GM assessment that Artest might be an unnecessary risk for a rebuilding team is fair. Especially when he's going to be looking for a longterm commitment from somebody with his next contract, likely to be this summer. We're not really in a place right now to know how we're going to compete longterm. Not with the roster pieces we have right now. It's not the overall content of your comments that I disagree with, just the way that you phrase certain things calls to mind for me the kind of constant negativity surrounding Ron Artest which is unwarranted. He's not a caricature, he's a real person. I didn't mean to pick on you personally.

He would be most effective on a team wanting to push deep into the playoffs. He would have been very effective as our SF when we were going deep into the playoffs. Now, however, he's just the wrong horse for the races we're going to be running - at least for the foreseeable future.

See, that's what VF21 said and I understand the sentiment. That's a reasonable suggestion. On the other hand, what team doesn't want to make a deep push into the playoffs? Isn't that what we've always wanted here? Isn't that what we still want? You're right that there's likely going to be a lot of losing before that happens and that's usually not good for team morale whether or not you have a self-professed sore loser on your team. I would suggest in counter-argument though just to be careful what you wish for because losing our most talented player is going to drop us so far out of the playoff picture that it's going to take a long time to get back in there.

 

[hrdboild]

Balloonjuice. We didn't almost beat the Spurs any more than the Cavaliers almost beat the Spurs. It takes a special kind of homer to say that we almost won a series that we lost four games to two.

Call me names if you must. Did we tie game 2 in regulation? Did we win game 3? Did we win game 4? Were we tied with 2 minutes left in game 5? We came close to winning in 4 of the 6 games we played. Maybe there was always a perception that we had no chance, but from what I remember we outplayed them significantly in games 2, 3, and 4 and at least played them even in game 5. We did stink in games 1 and 6 -- and that's why we lost the series -- but even the Spurs themselves were worried they wouldn't win that series.

 

[Gary]

I will say that the Ron/Bonzi backwards (small guys post, big guys pass) concept seemed to work somewhat, and had the Kings been anything but an 8 seed, could have had some legs.

Totally agree with that statement. Bonzi/Ron worked VERY well together because they had great chemistry. Both were strong defenders, and complimented each other VERY well. Bonzi/Ron would have been a good tandem to build around if Bonzi was a few years younger at the time of his free agency.

You know when you have a good team and things just "click". Bringing in Ron with Bonzi was a good thing.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Call me names if you must. Did we tie game 2 in regulation?

Outscored by nine in overtime. The game wasn't close when it mattered.

Did we win game 3? Did we win game 4?

Did we win Games 5 or 6?

Were we tied with 2 minutes left in game 5?

No. It was three minutes and, from that point on, we were thoroughly outplayed. Outscored 16-5 in the final three minutes, with the last two points only coming after Popovich sat Tim Duncan, and you have the nerve to call that close? Clearly, you have a far more forgiving definition of the word "close" than I do.

We came close to winning in 4 of the 6 games we played.

No, we came close to winning three games. I'll give you a pass on Game 2: at least you can make the argument that, if the game goes to overtime, you were "close." But getting outscored 16-5 in crunch time ain't a "close" game. That's a game where they showed why they're champions, and we showed why we had no business on the court. This wasn't the Kings/Lakers series where we were a bad bounce in Game 4 or an airball in Game 7 from going to the Finals. There was no one play where you could say, "well, if that didn't happen, we would have won." That series was the reason why the expression "it wasn't as close as the final score indicated" was created. They didn't get lucky in 2006; we got beat. Period.

As far as calling you names, I did no such thing: I said that it takes a special kind of homer to say that we almost won a series that we lost four games to two. That's not "calling you a name." I didn't even say it to offend you but, since you decided to take offense anyway...

:: shrugs ::

 

[hrdboild]

We didn't almost win the Lakers series, we were robbed. Both literally and figuratively. So maybe it was three minutes then, does that really make that big of a difference? An NBA basketball game is 48 minutes. So if I tell you that we were either tied or had the lead for 189 out of 192 consecutive minutes of basketball you would tell me that it's not fair to say we almost won? You don't think we almost won, fair enough. Am I really that crazy for asserting that we did? 189 out of 192?

Hell, add the overtime in there too. 190 out of 197. That's not almost?

 

[Superman]

This is the kind of comment that really annoys me because on the one hand you're saying that you're not afraid he's going to blow up, but then you throw that little aside in there which indicates that (wink wink, nudge nudge) you really do think that. Just like everyone else who said they'd give Ron Artest a second chance (but they wouldn't be surprised if he blew it). Betting against a guy to fail doesn't count as giving him a second chance.

You suggested that I feel that if we keep "crazy Ron" that he's going to blow up. That is not necessarily how I feel, but I would not be surprised if it happened. That is what my comment meant.

Furthermore, if you were willing to bet that he would NOT in fact be a problem long term if we were not contending, then I would take that bet and give you 2-1 odds.

I gave Ron Artest a second chance when I decided that I would support him as a King. I have and still do support him as a King, but I do not think that he is going to be good for us in the long run. But second chances have nothing to do with it.

So I'm not actually assuming anything you didn't say then am I?

Huh?

It's not that they're inconsequential-- just that the sum total of his "distracting influence" has been within the range of what is usually tolerated from talented players. If he weren't already responsible for charging into the stands, nobody would be saying that a few comments about the coach, and a couple of minor off the court incidents made him a crazy person.

Ah, but he has been responsible for that huge incident in the past, hasn't he? You may be able to ignore his record of detrimental behavior, but I will not. I think it is naive to say that Ron Artest has turned the corner simply because he hasn't beat a fan senseless in three years. It did happen, so that "if" is irrelevant.

He hasn't raped anybody, he hasn't tortured animals. He's just under such a big magnifying glass that every time his name comes up it gets blown way out of proportion.

I disagree wholeheartedly. Maybe he does unfairly get cast in a bad light when maybe he shouldn't, but I do not think that he is a victim of biased press. I think he is more a victim of his own bad judgment.

Look, I think your GM assessment that Artest might be an unnecessary risk for a rebuilding team is fair. Especially when he's going to be looking for a longterm commitment from somebody with his next contract, likely to be this summer. We're not really in a place right now to know how we're going to compete longterm. Not with the roster pieces we have right now. It's not the overall content of your comments that I disagree with, just the way that you phrase certain things calls to mind for me the kind of constant negativity surrounding Ron Artest which is unwarranted. He's not a caricature, he's a real person. I didn't mean to pick on you personally.

I guess you get my point, then. I don't know what else to say about the way I phrase certain things. Just because I feel that Ron's record is relevant doesn't mean that I hate him and want him gone.

I would suggest in counter-argument though just to be careful what you wish for because losing our most talented player is going to drop us so far out of the playoff picture that it's going to take a long time to get back in there.

We may also disagree on just how far out of the playoff picture we are right now, with Ron Artest. Like I said, he's not the type of player that you build around, in my opinion. Talented though he may be, I don't think he's a leader and I don't think he's good enough to dominate in the Western conference and take his team to playoffs.

 

[kings20993]

man it sucks to be a kings fan,

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

We didn't almost win the Lakers series, we were robbed. Both literally and figuratively. So maybe it was three minutes then, does that really make that big of a difference? An NBA basketball game is 48 minutes. So if I tell you that we were either tied or had the lead for 189 out of 192 consecutive minutes of basketball you would tell me that it's not fair to say we almost won? You don't think we almost won, fair enough. Am I really that crazy for asserting that we did? 189 out of 192?

Hell, add the overtime in there too. 190 out of 197. That's not almost?

Your arithmetic is faulty.

In the first place, we didn't play 197 minutes, we played 293 minutes. And, in the second place, in those 293 minutes:

We had the lead (or were tied) in Game 1 for a total of 1:52
We had the lead (or were tied) in Game 2 for a total of 33:51
We had the lead (or were tied) in Game 3 for a total of 42:11
We had the lead (or were tied) in Game 4 for a total of 43:57
We had the lead (or were tied) in Game 5 for a total of 7:37
We had the lead (or were tied) in Game 6 for a total of 9:43

That doesn't add up to 190 minutes, it adds up to 139 minutes and 11 seconds. Even if you round up to the next whole minute, that's only 140 minutes out of 293. That's not even half. If you're asking me if I think it's crazy to say that we almost won a series where we were tied or in the lead for less than half the time, my answer is... you're ****ing right it's crazy.

Like I said before, the only game besides the two we won that you could make a reasonable argument that we could have/should have won is Game 2. So, okay, we had two and a half wins in a seven-game series... That ain't "almost" won.

 

[hrdboild]

I think I've already made my point in both cases so there's no need to drag this out any further.

 

[tyrant]

Why do people keep perpetuating this "almost beat the Spurs" nonsense? The series didn't go seven games: we were decisively outplayed in the fourth quarter of Game 5, and blown out in Game 6. We didn't "almost" beat anybody.

When you take a team to seven games, you can say you "almost" beat them. You don't "almost" beat somebody when a seven-game series ends in six.

and you're not rivals with someone you never beat in a playoff series.


that was a good series. eventhough we only took them to 6 games. but it couldve been 7 if bibby didnt blow that assignment on brent barry.

 

[Jerryaki]

people seem to overlook this, it could've easily been 4 if martin missed that layup in game 3, or if the foul was called on bibby when he hacked ginobli prior to that.

 

[weakbomb]

Also Ron Artest needs Sacramento Kings. He must stay. And he will stay