Why trade for pennies on the dollar?

[Spike]

And Atlanta was not dancing with us for Mike Bibby last year. Things change in a hurry in the NBA. I can't predict which team, but somebody will want one of the best two-way player in the NBA.

There's also a chance that after this year's playoffs, some team will decide that Artest IS the one player they are missing for a championship run. Right now, most teams think they can win it all with what they have. Houston, Denver, San Antonio, et al, may change their minds after things shake out in the spring.

 

[fnordius]

Let's look at it this way: here's a guy who tried to get a job at Best Buy, while playing for the Bulls, just so he can get the employee discount.

Excellent point. Nobody who is making $95,000 a month (as he was at the time) needs to work at Best Buy to get the employee discount. That's why his talking about doing that is often cited as an example of the strange and nonsensical decisions he sometimes reaches. When you're making $550,000 a month off of the NBA, you should not be asking for time off to be a musician, when you're so bad that you can't even sell as many records as Kevin Federline. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGL3qigrgqk Not even close - he sold 343 copies the first week his album was on sale, K-Fed sold about 20 times as many. He made more in an hour as an NBA player as in his entire career as a musician.

If he were so worried about his money, why would he have text messaged all of his teammates to say that he was retiring, even though that would mean forfeiting about $23M?

The guy has no judgment! When the time comes, he'll do whatever he feels like.

 

[beb0p]

Excellent point.

If he were so worried about his money, why would he have text messaged all of his teammates to say that he was retiring, even though that would mean forfeiting about $23M?

The guy has no judgment! When the time comes, he'll do whatever he feels like.

Ron Ron is implusive. He'll probably change his mind a thousand times between now and summer. But the process at which he arrive at a decision is irrelevant. The only relevant part is that he will ultimately decides to stay or leave via sign-n-trade. Just like he has ultimately decided not to retire after texting his teammates.

Also, some of us seem to have forgotten two points: Petrie did get Denver to blink and Karl didn't want to trade with us. They were prepared to send us Kleiza, but Karl wanted to keep the team intact. Meaning even if we accept JR Smith, Karl still wouldn't have given his consent.

 

[fnordius]

Also, some of us seem to have forgotten two points: Petrie did get Denver to blink and Karl didn't want to trade with us. They were prepared to send us Kleiza, but Karl wanted to keep the team intact. Meaning even if we accept JR Smith, Karl still wouldn't have given his consent.

"But Karl liked the direction of his team and could not be convinced that the Nuggets would be better off relinquishing a pair of complementary forwards in Linas Kleiza and Eduardo Najera (as well as a draft pick)."
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/ian_thomsen/02/21/trade.recap/

Now, I have never heard anyone say that Karl (or anyone else) objected to trading Smith, but there was a rock-solid reason why Kleiza was never an option, that being that he is best friends with the son of the owner of the team, and has been for years.

Kleiza holdup in Artest deal

By Adrian Wojnarowski
Thursday, Feb 21, 2008 1:23 am EST

As the Denver Nuggets make the hard choice about including Linas Kleiza into the package it will take to pry Ron Artest out of Sacramento, it should be remembered that on several levels parting with Kleiza wouldn't be so simple.
Kleiza isn't just a player for Denver, but part of the ownership's family. Stan Kroenke has known Kleiza since his days at Missouri, when he was a teammate and close friend of Kroenke's son, Josh. The Nuggets traded for Kleiza, a 6-foot-8 Lithuanian, on draft day in 2005 and watched him develop into a terrific young player.
"There's a feeling from ownership that, ‘Hey, we've helped turn this kid into a player, so how can we let him go'" an Eastern Conference executive said.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/nba_experts/post/Kleiza-holdup-in-Artest-deal?urn=nba,67844

I don't think it even mattered what Karl might have claimed to want, I think it only mattered what Josh Kroenke wanted.

 

[beb0p]

"But Karl liked the direction of his team and could not be convinced that the Nuggets would be better off relinquishing a pair of complementary forwards in Linas Kleiza and Eduardo Najera (as well as a draft pick)."
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/ian_thomsen/02/21/trade.recap/

Now, I have never heard anyone say that Karl (or anyone else) objected to trading Smith, but there was a rock-solid reason why Kleiza was never an option, that being that he is best friends with the son of the owner of the team, and has been for years.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/nba_experts/post/Kleiza-holdup-in-Artest-deal?urn=nba,67844

I don't think it even mattered what Karl might have claimed to want, I think it only mattered what Josh Kroenke wanted.

From the same article that you quoted:

"Reports circulating Wednesday that the Nuggets had lost interest in dealing for Artest turned out to be premature, as owner Stan Kroenke emerged as a proponent of the trade even though a deal for Artest could have added to his already exorbitant payroll. ... But Karl liked the direction of his team and could not be convinced that the Nuggets would be better off relinquishing a pair of complementary forwards in Linas Kleiza and Eduardo Najera (as well as a draft pick)."

The article couldn't be more clear. Kroenke wanted to trade for Artest. He asked Karl, who said no. The reason? See below:

"My understanding is that Karl held to a sincere and credible position that the Nuggets would be a more promising team with their current makeup."

Karl believes the Nuggets is "a more promising team" with their "current lineup." What does that mean? It means: "Forget Artest, we are going forward with the same team. I wouldn't change this team for Artest, not even JR Smith and Najera!"

Just as I said, Korenke blinked. Karl was steadfast. There was never going to be a trade with Denver even if we settled for their garbage.

 

[beb0p]

why would you compare their situations, when it's one intensely loyal guy who's one of the best PFs in the game ever, and one guy who's a nutter? just because they are/were both in bad situations doesn't mean they would respond the same (which is what you did imply, and is misleading). KG would not leave the wolves and sign with the lakers for the MLE (because he is insanely loyal) and artest would not leave the kings to sign with a contender for the MLE (um, why not?). their situations are different because of who they are.

and talk about a guy who's not going to leave money on the table. he got suspended for two games for that CD stunt (lost wages), a whole season for the brawl (lost wages), and more than a month i think for the trade demand in indiana (lost wages). that really sound like a guy who's putting money first?

Like I said, I compare the situations, not the players. Ron And KG are two very different players in similar situations and the outcome are going to be similar, even if they are very different people. I don't know why that concept is so difficult for you to understand.

Sure, Ron's impulsiveness has costed him money. But that does NOT mean he will purposely go against his financial interest. What you're saying is that everyone who gets a speeding ticket does not put money first.

Don't confuse impulsiveness with stupidity. Unless Isiah Thomas can prove in the court of law that punching a bystander in the street of Manhattan constitute to signing an MLE with the Knicks, then Ron is not going to leave millions on the table and join with them, or any other team.

 

[Superman]

This is ridiculous. I've already said my preference is to trade him. But the point is the trade needs to be at least not a complete rip-off. Not looking for a fair trade, but we shouldn't give away Artest either.

Yes, Artest can forgo his millions on the table and leave. But he won't do it. If there's one thing we can all predict about Artest, it's that he's either staying put or he's gone in a sign-n-trade. We are going to have another crack at trading him. The argument some of you need to make is NOT why we should trade him now, but Why can't we wait until the summer for a better deal.

I think it's been sufficiently covered, but I'd just like to chime in and say this:

We do not know what Ron Artest is going to do. The ball is in his court.

That's my official reason for why we should have done a deal this season, rather than waiting until this summer. We are at his mercy, because he controls whether he opts out or not, not us. And he could very well opt out. Even if it is highly unlikely, it's not up to us.

It was up to us, before the deadline, to make sure we got some sort of compensation for the player you call one of the best two way players in the NBA. So if Artest opts out and signs somewhere else, where does that leave us? We just lost a player that we could have used in a trade to improve our situation. Instead, we let him walk and got nothing in return. If that's what happens this summer, what is your reaction then? Wouldn't you prefer that we at least get something, anything, than nothing?

Which brings me back to the original question. If Ron Artest opts out, would you prefer to re-sign him to a long term contract as opposed to losing him for nothing? If so, how do you justify keeping Ron Artest around, long term, when he is Ron "I want to win a championship" Artest and we're the non-contending Kings? What makes you think that he even wants to stay here, especially if he decides to opt out?

That's the quandry that we're in right now. We may lose Ron Artest for nothing, when we could have prevented it. And now, we have to wait and see what he does, and hope it works out in our favor. That's not good.

 

[beb0p]

It was up to us, before the deadline, to make sure we got some sort of compensation for the player you call one of the best two way players in the NBA. So if Artest opts out and signs somewhere else, where does that leave us? We just lost a player that we could have used in a trade to improve our situation. Instead, we let him walk and got nothing in return. If that's what happens this summer, what is your reaction then? Wouldn't you prefer that we at least get something, anything, than nothing?

Which brings me back to the original question. If Ron Artest opts out, would you prefer to re-sign him to a long term contract as opposed to losing him for nothing? If so, how do you justify keeping Ron Artest around, long term, when he is Ron "I want to win a championship" Artest and we're the non-contending Kings? What makes you think that he even wants to stay here, especially if he decides to opt out?

That's the quandry that we're in right now. We may lose Ron Artest for nothing, when we could have prevented it. And now, we have to wait and see what he does, and hope it works out in our favor. That's not good.

What is that "something" we could have gotten in return for Artest? Only Denver showed interest and George Karl decided he didn't need Ron Ron. If there is another trade in the works then I'm afraid I don't know about it.

If we lose Artest, that's about $8 millions and one crazy guy off the book. I can live with that.

 

[LPKingsFan]

We could at least have gotten Najera's expiring and Denver's 08 first. Perhaps Phoenix's trade exception and the ATL first? Petrie was playing hardball, held out for Kleiza, and lost. Would those somethings have been better than nothing? I would imagine so, since it's becoming more and more clear that trading Ron would have been addition by subtraction.

 

[Spike]

I'm under the impression now that there was NO WAY Karl wanted Artest on the team, so I'm filing it under "wasn't going to happen." It's a shame for Denver, as I think he could have helped them. Perhaps they should re-examine this relationship in the off-season. It would have to be a sign & trade, obviously.

 

[Superman]

What is that "something" we could have gotten in return for Artest? Only Denver showed interest and George Karl decided he didn't need Ron Ron. If there is another trade in the works then I'm afraid I don't know about it.

If we lose Artest, that's about $8 millions and one crazy guy off the book. I can live with that.

That $8 million off the books doesn't help us because we're still over the cap, barring a significant increase in the cap. Addition by subtraction, sure, but if you have the chance to get a draft pick or a young prospect, you pull the trigger. Surely the best two way player in the NBA can bring something back, no?

If Artest opts out, then I just hope we don't offer him a new contract. That's all I'm worried about at this point. I'm disappointed that we didn't deal him before the deadline, but now I just hope that the front office doesn't try to fix their mistake by retaining his services long-term. It's best that the Kings part ways with Ron Artest.

The best scenario is for Artest to not opt out, we trade him at next year's deadline as an expiring contract, and hope to get better. But again, we're at his mercy. We shouldn't be.

 

[Warhawk]

I'm under the impression now that there was NO WAY Karl wanted Artest on the team, so I'm filing it under "wasn't going to happen." It's a shame for Denver, as I think he could have helped them. Perhaps they should re-examine this relationship in the off-season. It would have to be a sign & trade, obviously.

Only if he opts out....

 

[beb0p]

We could at least have gotten Najera's expiring and Denver's 08 first. Perhaps Phoenix's trade exception and the ATL first? Petrie was playing hardball, held out for Kleiza, and lost. Would those somethings have been better than nothing? I would imagine so, since it's becoming more and more clear that trading Ron would have been addition by subtraction.

Spike is right. George Karl didn't want Artest even though the owner was ready to give Petrie exactly what GP wanted. So Denver didn't want Artest, that's the bottom line. And Phoenix was never serious.

There was nothing on the table.