Sactown Royalty: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Around SBN: Race to the BCS: rankings, in-game scores & blogs Bar-right-arrows

The Perfect Plan

Tom_toon_tiny by Ziller on

Carl alluded to it in the comments in the below thread, but to emphasize: This is perfect, on every level, for the Kings.

  1. Geoff Petrie won't take any crap from fans or the local TV media for trading the "loose cannon" Ron Artest after Artest has requested a trade through the media.
  2. Reggie Theus can't possibly be mad at Petrie for trading his "best player" once that player has requested a trade.
  3. Mama Maloof gets some press.
  4. Mark Stevens goes back to real estate, or whatever.

Petrie won't take a bad offer if he knows good ones are out there ... so Artest could last in Sacramento until the winter. The other top players -- Kevin Martin, Brad Miller, Beno Udrih -- know they only have to wait out Artest's on-court temperment a few months at most. (They may genuinely like him in the locker room, but it's clear he is one of the most difficult players to share the court with. Have fun, Kobe.)

Really, we owe Ron-Ron our gratitude for requesting a trade. Thank you, Ron.

0 recs | Comment 76 comments

Read Related

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Some potential negatives

1) Artest’s comments make him seem all the more volatile and unpredictable to outsiders. This is particularly bad if we decide to hold onto him during the season with a view towards trading him at or around the deadline. Teams will not be willing to give up much for what very well might amount to a rental. A team making such a deal would want some assurance from Artest that he would sign a long term contract, but with his current flip-flopping it makes it that much more difficult to take Artrest at his word. Finally, not trading Ron likely will make Ron very unhappy, meaning that he is all the more likely to torpedo his trade value through some stunt.

2) Artest’s comments essentially force us into trading him, which weakens our ability to negotiate with other teams. Teams that might previously had given up more in order to secure Artest might now hold back, hoping that the Kings will eventually just take whatever offer is on the table out of necessity.

by dmj on Jul 14, 2008 8:31 AM PDT   0 recs

Disagree
Artest’s comments essentially force us into trading him, which weakens our ability to negotiate with other teams

Lots of guys demand trades and don’t get traded. Kobe, notably, but there have many. The team has Artest under contract. They can keep him. If his behavior/comments start to be a major disruption to the team, they can bench him or suspend him.

Artest demanded a trade from Indiana, too. They didn’t trade him until the deadline, and we gave them PEJA. Not exactly a crap offer.

TickTickTickTickTickTick

by LeaguePassAddict on Jul 14, 2008 9:41 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

bullshit

most people are afraid to buy ron artest and would prefer to rent first. The teams interested are win-now teams and would be happy if he came, got them over the top, and then left for his money.
And theres no forcing Petrie to do something he was already planning on doing.

"everything was beautiful and nothing hurt"

by richmond02 on Jul 14, 2008 10:44 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

If people are renting

Then the Kings won’t get good value. I certainly ain’t gonna pay top dollar to rent something.

Denver didn’t want to part with Kleiza because Denver wanted to rent Artest.

BOOK IT!

by kingme18 on Jul 14, 2008 11:37 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

perhaps

getting locked into a shorter-term lease (and having gotten swept by the Lakers) will be more intriguing to Denver.

by misterbrister on Jul 14, 2008 11:38 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Denver

I live in Colorado, so I’m able to follow the Nuggets with almost no effort at all. Denver primary concern was that they liked Kleiza’s potential, and they were concerned that Artest would opt out. Now knowing that he won’t opt out, he might be more valuable, especially if a team trades for him at the beginning of the season, rather than the trade deadline.

This being said, I’d be surprised if Denver made a play for Artest at this point, per PickAxeAndRoll.

Ultimately, my point is that I do not think him being a “rental” is as big a concern when we’re still in the preseason.

Never forget: I am a complete idiot

by Exhibit G on Jul 14, 2008 11:56 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Add to that

The team acquiring Artest retains his Bird rights (thanks Pookey!), so they still have a potential asset even if Artest doesn’t want to resign after the season.

Although, there is always the potential for an Artest volcanic explosion that would bottom out his value. In my mind, that’s the greatest concern a team has picking him up.

Kevin Pritchard has Chuck Norris tied up in the trunk of his car.

by otis29 on Jul 14, 2008 11:58 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

It makes it easier to do a S&T next summer

With more teams having potential available cap room. Artest didn’t realize this, but the Free Agency bonanza was limited to Brand and Davis, and they didn’t break the bank on either deal. Players like the “idea” of Free Agency, but at the end of the day they just want to be paid what they believe their worth.

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on

by pookeyguru on Jul 14, 2008 1:53 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I would think

The Warriors could have offered Artest something similar to what they offered Corey Maggette.

BOOK IT!

by kingme18 on Jul 14, 2008 2:17 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Not exactly

You’re right in that people aren’t going to want to commit long term right off the bat. But they aren’t going to give up anything of value or take back a bad contract for a player who can bolt after several months leaving them empty handed.

And teams that are “win-now” mode would be ok with the scenario you described, but only under the condition that they didn’t give up too much. Teams aren’t going to be willing to risk losing players like Odom, Howard, etc. without being certain or near certain that they will get some value back.

by dmj on Jul 14, 2008 11:58 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

To the East?

Here’s a crazy idea (dedicated to LttG)....

First, from the New York Post:

The Knicks are shopping Zach Randolph’s contract in their bid to get under the 2010 salary cap and may have to hook Davis Lee in to entice teams. The under-the-cap Clippers and the Knicks have discussed a Randolph trade, reportedly with L.A. offering a second-round pick. Donnie Walsh prefers getting at least some talent back.

Knicks get: William “Ron” Artest & Kenny Thomas
(roughly $16.5M out & $16M in)
Clippers get: Zach Randolph
(about $14.6M in)
Kings get: David Lee & LAC 2nd (possibly a 1st? Maybe Minny’s protected 1st?)
(roughly $16M out & $1.8M in)

The Knicks get some talent back for Randolph, as long as Walsh is ok with bringing Artest back (better than a 2nd Rounder, plus he’s expiring so there’s no long-term commitment). Maybe they simply re-package Artest with one of their own bad contracts (Jared Jeffries?) to LAL for Odom . . . that would get Randolph & Jeffries off of their 2010 cap, while bringing in Odom for this year, and possibly longer if they re-sign him to a reasonable contract. In this scenario, Artest still ends up on the Lakers, but at least the Kings didn’t send him there, right LttG?

The total salary shed for NYK would be $16.4M in 2009 using D.Lee’s offer sheet (or around $13M with D.Lee deal starting at roughly a $6M) and $24.2M in 2010.

The Clippers get Randolph for a 2nd (or maybe 1st) Round Pick, which would be a decent “get” for them after losing Brand.

This nets the Kings a (similar) package to the LAL-Odom deal, in that K9 is off the books and a PF is coming back in the deal. Lee is a rebounding machine and would sign a much more reasonable contract than Odom next year, so he’s not simply an Expiring Contract. Plus, with LAC absorbing salary in the deal, the Kings shed a ton of it this season as well (opening the door to take more back in another deal, for Miller perhaps?).

The salary shed by the Kings would be over $14M in 2008 and $6M in 2009 (or $2M with a $6M D.Lee contract).

The pick (as rumored to be offered) is currently a 2nd Rounder, but perhaps that could be negotiated up to their 1st or even Minny’s protected 1st, although some extra incentive may have to be thrown in. I’m also not sure that LAC could absorb all of Randolph’s contract, so perhaps throwing in Mikki Moore for Tim Thomas would be enough to pry a better pick (or 2?) away. Tim Thomas & a 1st for Zach Randoph & Mikki Moore is a really good deal from LAC’s perspective, which makes me wonder if another 1st couldn’t be pried away as well.

Again, this is kind of “out there”, but I think it meets most of the criteria that I’ve seen from StR in regards to a potential Ron-Bill trade, and the most likely “send him East” scenario I can think of at the moment.

by smgmatt on Jul 14, 2008 8:39 AM PDT   1 recs

Guh

The “Davis” Lee typo in the block quote was from Hoopsworld, where I found the NYP link. I should have looked closer (or copied from the actual story) before copy-pasting it. My apologies.

by smgmatt on Jul 14, 2008 8:42 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Okay, I thought maybe David changed his name too

We get rid of Bill and Fido (didn’t K-9 change his name?) and get back Davis. I like it!

"Being loquacious and being right aren't necessarily always the same."
GP, the man, the myth, the legend, puts the smackdown on Reggie

by SavageBeast on Jul 14, 2008 8:47 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Not a bad deal

David Lee would be a nice piece of the puzzle for the future. Would the Clips want to deal with Randolph though?

Kevin Pritchard has Chuck Norris tied up in the trunk of his car.

by otis29 on Jul 14, 2008 8:42 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

It looks like it

They’ve already reportedly offered a 2nd Round Pick to the Knicks for him (I read this on ESPN as well, so I don’t think it’s just a New York Post thing).

by smgmatt on Jul 14, 2008 8:49 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

does this work out Salary wise?

I tried this on the trade machine, and LAC is taking on way more salary than they’re dishing out. Don’t get me wrong, I like the idea. Just think it needs tweaking

by misterbrister on Jul 14, 2008 9:37 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Looking at the numbers....

I can’t use the ESPN trade machine at the moment, and RealGM’s Trade Checker didn’t like LAC not sending anyone out, but from what I understand, LAC is $12M under the cap.

I don’t know if this means that they can absorb all of Randolph’s contract or not, but if not, the Kings would likely need to send someone over to LAC that makes less than Tim Thomas to make the salaries match.

The downside to bringing in Tim Thomas is that you’re now looking at more 2009 salary, but the upside is that it would likely improve the pick that the Kings would get from LAC.

by smgmatt on Jul 14, 2008 9:42 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

The Kings could sign a Free Agent for 2 million

And send them over to the Clippers. That’s one option in your scenario.

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on

by pookeyguru on Jul 14, 2008 1:55 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

If so...

would they have to wait until December 15th (I think that’s the date) to include a newly signed FA?

by cabz on Jul 14, 2008 2:38 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Not in a sign & trade they don't

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on

by pookeyguru on Jul 14, 2008 4:26 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Hmm

I thought you had to have a player’s Bird Rights to use them in a S&T. Beno, for example, couldn’t have been used in a S&T, could he?

I’m pretty sure that’s how Dallas used Keith Van Horn in the Kidd deal, and the reason why PJ Brown waited so long (after the trade deadline expired) to join a team last year in the hopes of getting another big payday.

Is that not correct?

by smgmatt on Jul 15, 2008 6:22 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Knicks

So the Knicks are essentially trading Randolph and Lee for Artest and (less) dead salary. I think it works for the Kings, but I’m not sure it works from New York’s perspective. David Lee is really the only asset they have, and I don’t see them trading him just to dump Randolph and get Artest.

by Carl on Jul 14, 2008 9:42 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Yup

The Knicks won’t do the trade as written. They may be the ones getting the draft pick(s), not the Kings.

He can shoot, and he looks great in a suit. Hey, everybody - It's REGGIE TIME!

by dalt99 on Jul 14, 2008 9:44 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Normally

I would agree, but this isn’t the first time that the Walsh-run Knicks have reportedly used Lee to dump an undesirable salary.

I wouldn’t have posted this had I not seen it in multiple places, but upon further review, this probably should have been a fan post.

by smgmatt on Jul 14, 2008 9:44 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Knicks

Hey, maybe the ghost of Isiah Thomas haunts the halls, and they do this deal. It certainly isn’t impossible, but I wouldn’t do it.

by Carl on Jul 14, 2008 10:00 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Ironically

Walsh seems much less reluctant to part with Lee than Isiah ever was.

Walsh’s plan seems to be to (wisely) use the advantage of being in New York to lure a big name in 2010. To do this, he is going to first have to clean up the roster mess that Isiah made, and will likely have to part with some assets to do so.

As a reference, the Kings were trying to use Bibby to dump K9’s contract, and couldn’t even pull that off. Now they’re doing the same with Artest, hopefully with a better result.

by smgmatt on Jul 14, 2008 10:13 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

It's actually two different issues

The Clips have been trying to get Randolph. The Knicks want his salary off the books. So far the Clips haven’t been unable to convince the Knicks to get nothing back, but it’s been talked about.

The second part of the deal then is essentially Artest for Lee and possibly a pick. That all works until you add K-9. If the Knicks wouldn’t do the first half of the deal with the Clips, why would they essentially take on K-9’s salary as part of an Artest for Lee deal that they wouldn’t do last year? I don’t see it happening.

"Being loquacious and being right aren't necessarily always the same."
GP, the man, the myth, the legend, puts the smackdown on Reggie

by SavageBeast on Jul 14, 2008 10:38 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

That's an interesting point

The trade would actually still work without K9 in the mix, so the question then becomes:

“Do you trade Artest for Lee and a pick?”

The problem with this is that Lee will be getting paid in the $6M+ range next year, and K9’s salary would still be on the books, pushing the Kings back into Luxury Tax territory.

The catch might be convincing LAC that they could also dump Tim Thomas for a useable piece, such as Mikki Moore, John Salmons, etc. (or toss in Shelden on the Knicks side) to keep the K9 in the mix.

NYK needs LAC more than LAC needs NYK, so the Clippers could really direct a deal in their favor if they’re smart. I just thought it would be interesting to see if the Kings could be facilitators in the deal and end up with a “better-than-Odom” return on Artest.

by smgmatt on Jul 14, 2008 10:59 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

No, it wouldn't push us into luxury tax

Artest’s 8 mil/season contract would come off the books. We’re actually saving 2 mil/season from this trade.

by CloudyEyes on Jul 14, 2008 2:47 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

You're forgetting three things

1. Artest is only making $7.4M this year, so $6M+ isn’t much different at all,

2. Everyone on the roster will be making more next year then they are this year (Martin & Miller alone make up the $2M gap you mention, which isn’t even $2M – see #1), and

3. The salary cap may not increase next season.

by smgmatt on Jul 15, 2008 6:27 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

D'antoni doesnt like Lee

Theyve been shopping him all summer

"everything was beautiful and nothing hurt"

by richmond02 on Jul 14, 2008 10:49 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

You know what...

That may just be crazy enough to work.

I can see the Knicks doing that deal because the Knicks would get their cap relief. The Kings, at least if I were the Kings, would do that deal because Lee gives up a valuable piece along with a pick and the Clippers don’t give up more than a 2nd round draft pick like they hoped.

BOOK IT!

by kingme18 on Jul 14, 2008 2:22 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Another PF? (smgmatt)

(Sigh) and one that is looking for a big extension as well. Has already killed a draft day deal to the Griz – assuring them he wouldn’t re-sign there.

It is value though. Where would we go from there? We’d still have too many PFs.

I’ll throw it out there again though I don’t know how realistic it is: For some reason Iguadala still hasn’t been resigned in 76r land. What about a sign and trade? (I saw someones comment that it wouldn’t include K-9 – but do we really care in that case?

Also, a recent rumor that Gerald Wallace may be available from Charlotte – we’d be all over that wouldn’t we?

eternal skeptical optimist

by lietothegirls on Jul 14, 2008 9:26 AM PDT   0 recs

true

Another PF to add to the mix. Albeit, a VERY tradeable piece, in my opinion. I can’t think of many teams in the league that wouldn’t want David Lee. I’d think he’s worth AT LEAST a project player and a pick.

by misterbrister on Jul 14, 2008 9:32 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

The question isn't

How many PFs we have – it’s how many decent PFs we have.

Kevin Pritchard has Chuck Norris tied up in the trunk of his car.

by otis29 on Jul 14, 2008 9:37 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Iguadala would be a great fit for the Kings and that guy can dunk I’d be happy to see an Artest trade if we could make AI#2 a part of the franchise.

by LivesInSac on Jul 14, 2008 12:54 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Just no way

The Sixers see Igoudala the way we see Kevin Martin. There is no way in the world they trade him for Ron Artest.

by Carl on Jul 14, 2008 12:58 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

They just picked up a large Brand contract..and i haven’t heard anything about them offering AI2 a new contract so I’m assuming he’s going to a new team unless they throw something big on the table. But man It would be great seeing him slam down in a Kings uniform..I just don’t know how it can happen he could help the team in the long run much better then Lamar “Softie” Odom and we wouldn’t be helping the Lakers win a Championship

by LivesInSac on Jul 14, 2008 1:02 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

AI2

Just know that if the Kings could get AI2 in a S&T (Artest & Miller?), there goes the “big FA in 2010” money. It’s not likely that they could afford to do both, because even though K9 & SAR will still come off the books, they wouldn’t give the Kings the same kind of cap space with AI2’s salary.

Being under the Luxury Tax (like now) and being under the Salary Cap (to sign a FA) are two totally different things.

If the Kings could get AI2, is that the piece the Kings need alongside Martin to make a serious run at a Championship?

Just askin’.

by smgmatt on Jul 14, 2008 1:02 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Honestly i haven’t seen AI2 play much, just dunk but the pieces would be there to make it in the playoffs but taking the Championship I’m not sure. Signing a big FA in 2010 is a going to be a gamble anyways. I don’t know but I’m listening to all Ideas outside a LO trade..

by LivesInSac on Jul 14, 2008 1:08 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Agreed

I’m more than willing to listen, I just disagree with taking less to avoid dealing with the Lakers.

by smgmatt on Jul 14, 2008 1:38 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

No he isn't that piece in my opinion

He just has doesn’t have enough impact offensively to make up for Martin’s defensive shortcoming’s from where I stand. I really would rather not mortgage a piece or two to get AI2.

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on

by pookeyguru on Jul 14, 2008 1:58 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I agree

But I thought I’d throw it out there for people to chew on.

by smgmatt on Jul 14, 2008 2:40 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Quibbles...

My only quibble is that Petrie would be nuts to let Artest go into the season as a King. Artest says he wants to go and I believe him. If you don’t trade Artest now, there is a chance that he’ll become a major disruption and/or do something that destroys his trade value completely. Artest MUST be traded before camp.

by Carl on Jul 14, 2008 9:37 AM PDT   0 recs

agreed

I think the pain of having Bad Ron around until the deadline potentially offsets any additional value you might get for him. If GP gets a good offer before October, take it!

by misterbrister on Jul 14, 2008 9:39 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Hmmm.

Ideally I would like to see k9+Sar out, though I suppose Mikki could take SAR’s place and Sar can be the mentor for our younger guys. I could see GP waiting until the deadline to see if k9 and/or SAR become decent roleplayers trying to make a comeback to make them more tradable. As well as seeing if Shelden can a useful tradepiece if he can raise his stock through some minutes.

Then GP can try throwing out a deal with say Artest+k9+Shelden for an expiring Marion contract? I don’t know… I keep having revelations that only half-heartedly come back when I begin to put them into writing.

by dkons21 on Jul 14, 2008 10:41 AM PDT   0 recs

so

your giving Shelden, K9, and SAR minutes to raise their stock then we have Mikki Moore, Jason Thompson and i think its important to give Hawes some minutes alongside Miller. Sounds like a plan, give each player 8 minutes and watch the success come. Come back to reality my friend, K9 and SAR will not be leaving the bench next year, Shelden and Thompson will duke it out for a backup spot and the loser will be sitting next to K9 and SAR. The pat riley teams of old used to run a 7 man rotation into the playoffs and you want a 6 man rotation at the 4, youre nuts.

"everything was beautiful and nothing hurt"

by richmond02 on Jul 14, 2008 11:04 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I'd have to agree

I don’t see K9 or SAR getting playing time unless the Kings have some serious injury problems.

Never forget: I am a complete idiot

by Exhibit G on Jul 14, 2008 11:58 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Like I said...

My ideas are falling apart right now in my half-hearted attempts to put them into words.
I see our 4/5 rotations looking like

Miller/shawes
Mikki/thompson

But I believe one person can slide a few produtive minutes inbetween there somewhere, because it is never completely a 2-man rotation… Just look at the start of the season, no miller for 5 games. Shawes definately won’t be playing 48 minutes a game for 5 games straight.

I see at least one of (SAR/K9/Sheldan) picking up some minutes in there, maybe even two of them. I’m not saying we’ll have some crazy rotation of 4-6 people between 1-2 positions, but there are always opportunities for someone to raise their stock, which will help in shedding at least one hydra head with artest before the deadline.

by dkons21 on Jul 14, 2008 12:13 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

True

I think they might see a few minutes here and there, but I don’t see them getting enough minutes to increase their trade value.

Never forget: I am a complete idiot

by Exhibit G on Jul 14, 2008 12:56 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Viable Trading Partners

When you look at teams capable of exchanging enough in expiring contracts to take Artest + a bad contract, there are about 15 teams out there. Of those 15, I think we can safely rule out POR, OKC, and IND b/c of chemistry concerns. Of the remaining 12 teams, 7(CLE, MIN, CHI, MIA, HOU, GS, and DEN) already have a viable starting SF. Of the remaining 5, I think it is safe to assume DAL won’t trade Kidd.

So, here’s my list of viable trading partners, w/ the big contracts in parentheses:

1. LAL
2. NY(Marbury)
3. LAC
4. DET

"I've hacked into your brain. You're throwing a party and no one's showing up."

by ignign*kt on Jul 14, 2008 1:07 PM PDT   0 recs

wouldn’t you want to rule out detroit because of….well, because it’s detroit?

by sactoreg on Jul 14, 2008 1:28 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Good point

Three years later Artest still gets booed in their arena. There would be rioting in the streets if they traded for Artest. Especially if they gave us the kind of value we’re looking for.

And the idea of trading for Marbury makes my inner child want to run away from home.

TickTickTickTickTickTick

by LeaguePassAddict on Jul 14, 2008 1:35 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Well, this would be a real longshot.

They’d have to give up Rasheed Wallace, and find room for Artest in the starting lineup.

Dumars does want to inject some passion and fire into the Pistons. If there is some discussion, I expect rumors of a deal to make it into the media, if only to gauge the public reaction to it.

Detroit does have some young prospects they could send the Kings way, but in doing so they’d be gutting their bench.

Yea this one you can probably rule out.

"I've hacked into your brain. You're throwing a party and no one's showing up."

by ignign*kt on Jul 14, 2008 5:58 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Joe Maloof

Joe Maloof said yesterday that about seven teams want Ron Artest. It’s entirely possible that Joe is speculating or exaggerating to drive up the market for Artest, but that’s what he said. I’m not disagreeing with you – just saying that there may be teams making offers that we haven’t considered.

by Carl on Jul 14, 2008 1:41 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Rick Carlisle holds no ill will against Artest

Why would Donnie Walsh necessarily? Trading him from Indiana was one thing, but bringing him to the Knicks is quite another. I’m not so sure we can rule the Knicks out because of Walsh’s presence. (That is unless everyone around the Knicks say so. Then we can be safely assured that won’t happen.)

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on

by pookeyguru on Jul 14, 2008 2:00 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Well...

Using ignign’kt’s list LAL, NYK, & LAC make 3, so we need 4 more:

Cleveland could find a way to put James & Artest on the floor at the same time. ONE
Minnesota . . . nope, still out.
Chicago might take a chance, especially if they trade Deng (who knows why they would though). TWO
Miami could play Marion at the 4 and Haslem at the 5 to get Artest in the lineup. THREE
Houston could play Artest & Battier together, run out a really big lineup with T-Mac bringing the ball up, or have a deep bench. FOUR
Golden State, with Jackson & Maggette I just don’t see it, unless they wanted Artest to play the 4 regularly. Pass.
Denver could maybe still want Artest, especially after their sad exit in the Playoffs, but I think that ship has sailed.

Using this highly scientific method of evaluation, the seven teams are: LAL, NYK, LAC, CLE, CHI, MIA, & HOU.

by smgmatt on Jul 14, 2008 2:39 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Add

Phoenix, and maybe SA.

Ball movement ... is like jogging for most people: They do it occasionally, and it makes them happy. Then they go back to not doing it. - Henry Abbott

by Kfan in Korea on Jul 14, 2008 3:04 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Shoot

Now we have to eliminate teams again . . . thanks a lot Kfan.

by smgmatt on Jul 15, 2008 6:29 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Joe and a lot of other folks

have been spending too much time with Brad “Stony” Miller. It’s starting to show. There is certainly no need to bring back Fantasy Island reruns. Just read on.

by coolcatreportdotcom on Jul 14, 2008 9:13 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

I've read this post six times

And I still don’t know what it means.

I mean, I get that you’re dissing BMiller for his pot suspension. But the rest is a little murky. Just read on… what?

Not bashing on you, I just really am puzzled by this one.

TickTickTickTickTickTick

by LeaguePassAddict on Jul 15, 2008 9:21 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Joe

said 7 teams are interested. He is living on Fantasy Island or smoking out with BRad. Just ignore what Joe said.

At least that’s what I thought CC was saying.

Ball movement ... is like jogging for most people: They do it occasionally, and it makes them happy. Then they go back to not doing it. - Henry Abbott

by Kfan in Korea on Jul 15, 2008 3:19 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Fantasy Island

Fantasy Island = just about anything coming out of Joe Maloof’s mouth. This guy is lecturing Ron Artest on talking out of turn? That’s rich.

Fantasy Island = “it’s clear he is one of the most difficult players to share the court with.” I’m sure Kevin Martin was really pissed to have to share the court with Ron Artest when he stepped in between him and Matt Harpring.

Fantasy Island = those who think the Kings are heading into full-on rebuilding mode, or that Reggie and Petrie are going to tank games or “play the kids.” Sure, they’ll play the kids in garbage time and crunch time when they have shown they can contribute.

Fantasy Island = “Artest’s comments essentially force us into trading him.” No, people want Artest to be traded, so they will rationalize reasons why it’s going happen. And it just might happen “quick.” LOL.

Naturally there’s also a lot of good stuff on here as well: decent, thoughtful commentary that is not so “Fantasy Island.” Which is why I read the board.

by coolcatreportdotcom on Jul 15, 2008 11:12 PM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Artest says he wants to be traded too or at least intimates it

It’s not just Fantasy Island. I said I wanted the Kings to trade Artest long before you posted. It’s not a new thing for me. I was willing to trade him for less a year ago than I am now with the Wally deal and a 1st round pick.

That being said your interpretation of fantasy island narrating to other’s opinions is a tad off-base if you will. Nothing wrong in expressing your opinion, but you act if the majority of people here have panicked because Ron got all angry that he didn’t hear about an extension. You seem to forget that it was RON who started this by emailing Marck Stein among others. Yet, it’s this “board” (called a blog dude) that is over-reacting to the Artest emails? MMMM kay!

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on

by pookeyguru on Jul 16, 2008 12:24 AM PDT to parent up   0 recs

Dude

Just because you have a differing opinion, does not automatically make you the voice of reason.

Sam Amick (not anyone at StR) reported that an Artest trade “could happen quickly” . . . but it didn’t. You seem to think that because it didn’t happen right away that it won’t happen at all, and the worst part is that it appears as though you’re going to constantly repeat this rhetoric until he is traded, and then it’ll all go away because nobody else is going to constantly post, “I knew Artest would be traded last week/month/season!” Just let it go.

Also, maybe a trade was about to happen, and Petrie found out that there was more interest than he thought (again, Denver passed on Klieza & #20 last year, so he might not have expected much). If that’s the case, then he’s doing his due diligence, which is what I believe you’ve asked for since Day 1 (Day 1 being when you first accepted that he could be traded, anyway).

I just don’t get what point you’re trying to get across, unless it’s simply an “in your face!” to everyone who thinks the Kings can be better without Artest than with . . . and if that’s the case, then I’m sad. I’m sad because I like the fact that you bring a different opi