The Artest Era Comes Down to This

by Ziller on Apr 28, 2006 10:01 AM PDT in News Comment 30 comments

It's amazing how quickly a season can turn around.

It's likely none of us will soon forget January 24 and January 25 - The Trade. It surpassed the first and second Webber trades in terms of heartwrenching uncertainty, and by late March had finally passed Webber trade #1 as far as hopefulness goes. Mix with that how freaking crazy it was for two days and how it's been the past week, as the media insists on reminding us of "Old Artest."

With the Kings now down 2-0, on the back of the most unlikely of shots, the young era that began in January is on trial. Had Brent Barry missed, it might a different story - the Kings were fully in it, having stolen homecourt advantage from the Spurs. During the Artest era (though the man in question sat in a hotel room), the Kings beat the Spurs in San Antonio in the playoffs. A statement, of sorts, that the risk was worth it.

But alas, rubber bounces off steel and glass and occasionally some funny hops. Oh well. All is not lost - the era can survive. But only if the Kings make that statement they were so preciously close to screaming Tuesday night.

And they have to make it tonight. Going down 3-0 and winning a mostly meaningless Sunday affair does nothing. No sting subsides, no dignity replenished. Nothing. Without winning tonight, the season and possibly the era is over.

Should it come down to this? Over 40 games, Artest - and Geoff Petrie and the Maloofs and really the whole forced-to-adapt team, notably Mike Bibby - proved their worth to the franchise and the city. From the dregs, they came into the playoffs with not only a chance, but a swagger that had the fanbase rallying. On Saturday's Game 1 pre-tipoff show on KHTK, Jim Crandall had difficulty finding callers who didn't think the Kings were going to take it in six or seven. I thought I was one of just a few crazies who thought maybe, just maybe, there was a chance. I was wrong - everyone drank Ron-Ron's Kool-Aid, and it tasted plenty good going down.

But after going down 2-0, it's not good enough. If you can't beat the Spurs now, after going on this amazing roll and facing a gimpy Tim Duncan, it's not going to happen next season. Like Chris Webber's ticking timebomb of a knee was deemed a nonbeneficial hazard last season, Ron Artest's ticking timebomb temper looks like it will just as nonbeneficial to the team's future and plenty hazardous in the trade market.

If the Kings can win tonight to keep the blood flowing to their championship dream's heart, then the Artest era gets a pardon. But Sunday's the same game - 3-1 is over, 2-2 is a whole new ballgame. If the Kings can make the Spurs play six - whether Sacramento moves on or not - the era is salvaged. "This team can run with the Spurs," we'll say. "With a full season of chemistry-building and an improved bench, we can beat the Spurs." Whether it's true or not at that point is anyone's guess. None of us know, or else we might be GMs in the NBA or something.

The symbolism placed on a single moment in sports is really overwhelming at times. It's cliche to say, but a fraction of an inch and a fraction of a second sometimes make all the difference the world - between heros and chokers, between the ecstacy of celebration and the painful throes of defeat, between hope and resignation.

But you go to war with the burdensome minusculity of decisive moments in athletic competition that you have. As we will tonight. Let's go Kings.

0 recs | Comment 30 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

It's time to go with what is working NOW

SAR needs to start in place of Kenny Thomas. Why did we let his ego dictate our starting line up in the first place? Just because of the possibility he might not like it, and may cause drama? So freaking what. We need SAR to get quality minutes. We need him taking it to the hole along with Bonzi. We also need Artest taking it to the hole, not taking crazy 3 pointers.

Anyone agree?

by evanmeagan on Apr 28, 2006 11:03 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Yes

I planned on getting into more detail about this later, but I definitely support getting Reef back in the starting lineup.

The Bibby/Wells/Artest/Abdur-Rahim/Miller lineup has the best results of any lineup used at any time by the Kings this season, according to 82games.com. (Bibby/Martin/Artest/Thomas/Miller is actually second. My currently preferred lineup for next season - Bibby/Martin/Artest/Abdur-Rahim/Miller - has only played 36 minutes together, with above-average results.

by Ziller on Apr 28, 2006 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think it was done

Because it allowed both guys (KT and Shareef) to be somewhat productive. Kenny coming off the bench was a disaster.

So I can't really kick Adelman for this one. At the very least, he's bumped up KT's trade value in the offseason - at best, he's got a pretty good 1-2 punch at that position.

But I do agree that all that stuff needs to go out the window. If Shareef is up for 40, let's give him 40. I also agree 100% with your Artest take...

by otis29 on Apr 28, 2006 2:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

is this possible?

re-sign Wells, and throw in Thomas, Miller and Garcia for Garnett? I don't know if this is even possible, in addition to the fact that Minnesota has repeatedly said they don't wanna trade Garnett.

But imagine a line up consisting of Bibby, Martin, Artest, SAR, Garnett.

by evanmeagan on Apr 28, 2006 12:17 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Possible...but don't count on it

The T-Wolves have 20M owed to Garnett in '07 and a team commitment of 54M. In '08 they owe Garnett 22M with a team commitment of 57M. 24M to KG and 51M team in '09 so basically they are stuck with their team for three years with KG taking a little less than half the cap. They are a lottery team and barring some veteran signing for league minimum they aren't getting much better. Their only option for short-term change is to trade KG. SO...anythings possible.

by Mityt on Apr 28, 2006 12:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

My previous Garnett suggestion was a bit different

I think I had Artest, Reef and a re-signed Wells. The lineup would then be Bibby/Martin/Garcia or Thomas/Garnett/Miller, which would be rather nice if not hella expensive. Unless you unload Bibby or Miller, Garnett makes too much to sign anyone else of note. So you'd have to keep the youngsters you do have and try to find cheaper options at the back-up positions.

by Ziller on Apr 28, 2006 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

"Capwise" this one works...

Only difference is sending VP and keeping Bonzi. Bonzi's salary could put us over the cap though...but we wouldnt have a true center??

Sacramento Trade Breakdown
Outgoing
Brad Miller
7-0 C from Purdue
15.0 ppg, 7.8 rpg, 4.7 apg in 37.0 minutes
Kenny Thomas
6-7 PF from New Mexico
9.1 ppg, 7.5 rpg, 2.0 apg in 28.0 minutes
Vitaly Potapenko
6-10 C from Wright State
2.5 ppg, 1.9 rpg, 0.3 apg in 10.6 minutes
Francisco Garcia
6-7 SF from Louisville
5.6 ppg, 2.8 rpg, 1.4 apg in 19.3 minutes
Incoming
Kevin Garnett
6-11 PF from Farragut Academy (HS)
21.8 ppg, 12.7 rpg, 4.0 apg in 39.0 minutes
Change in team outlook: -10.4 ppg, -7.3 rpg, and -4.4 apg.

Minnesota Trade Breakdown
Outgoing
Kevin Garnett
6-11 PF from Farragut Academy (HS)
21.8 ppg, 12.7 rpg, 4.0 apg in 39.0 minutes
Incoming
Brad Miller
7-0 C from Purdue
15.0 ppg, 7.8 rpg, 4.7 apg in 37.0 minutes
Kenny Thomas
6-7 PF from New Mexico
9.1 ppg, 7.5 rpg, 2.0 apg in 28.0 minutes
Vitaly Potapenko
6-10 C from Wright State
2.5 ppg, 1.9 rpg, 0.3 apg in 10.6 minutes
Francisco Garcia
6-7 SF from Louisville
5.6 ppg, 2.8 rpg, 1.4 apg in 19.3 minutes
Change in team outlook: +10.4 ppg, +7.3 rpg, and +4.4 apg.

Successful Scenario
Due to Sacramento and Minnesota being over the cap, the 25% trade rule is invoked. Sacramento and Minnesota had to be no more than 125% plus $100,000 of the salary given out for the trade to be accepted, which did happen here. This trade satisfies the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Russman

by ridnour8 on Apr 28, 2006 1:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

How bout this...

I said in an earlier post that Artest is waiting to explode and I stand by it. Next year, two years... it is inevitable. Trade Artest basically straight-up (with some salary tweekings) for Paul Pierce. Boston said they don't want to move him but they haven't had much success and Artest wanted to go East before Sac trade. Imagine if you will Miller/SAR/Pierce/Martin(Wells)/Bibby. We lose some defense but PP is not horrible...and we get a proven clutch scorer...but lose a leader.

by Mityt on Apr 28, 2006 12:26 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Actually..

Pierce is a solid defender and has turned into a leader this season. He has three years of max salary left, I believe, so you'd need some filler.

I'd do this trade in a microsecond, by the way. Nothing against Ron-Ron; it's just a value thing. On a playoff team, Pierce would've been a top 10 MVP candidate.

by Ziller on Apr 28, 2006 12:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

This one works too...

But we have SAR in the starting line up and dont loose Cisco.

Sacramento Trade Breakdown
Outgoing
Ron Artest
6-7 SF from St. John's
17.6 ppg, 5.1 rpg, 3.6 apg in 39.4 minutes
Kenny Thomas
6-7 PF from New Mexico
9.1 ppg, 7.5 rpg, 2.0 apg in 28.0 minutes
Incoming
Paul Pierce
6-6 SG from Kansas
26.8 ppg, 6.7 rpg, 4.8 apg in 39.0 minutes
Change in team outlook: +0.1 ppg, -5.9 rpg, and -0.8 apg.

Boston Trade Breakdown
Outgoing
Paul Pierce
6-6 SG from Kansas
26.8 ppg, 6.7 rpg, 4.8 apg in 39.0 minutes
Incoming
Ron Artest
6-7 SF from St. John's
17.6 ppg, 5.1 rpg, 3.6 apg in 39.4 minutes
Kenny Thomas
6-7 PF from New Mexico
9.1 ppg, 7.5 rpg, 2.0 apg in 28.0 minutes
Change in team outlook: -0.1 ppg, +5.9 rpg, and +0.8 apg.

Successful Scenario
Due to Sacramento and Boston being over the cap, the 25% trade rule is invoked. Sacramento and Boston had to be no more than 125% plus $100,000 of the salary given out for the trade to be accepted, which did happen here. This trade satisfies the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Russman

by ridnour8 on Apr 28, 2006 1:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

never been much of a Paul Pierce fan

And any line up that consists of Brad Miller is pretty much a team that will go nowhere. No doubt about it.

by evanmeagan on Apr 28, 2006 12:40 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Come on, dude..

You're being a bit harsh on Miller. Below average season, god-awful series. But he's not a franchise killer, by any means.

by Ziller on Apr 28, 2006 12:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

In addition to how heinous he's played all year

and series, he can't run, he can't jump, he can't defend, he can't rebound, he can't do shit. What is he good for exactly?

These aren't new gripes about him either. These have always been his knocks.

by evanmeagan on Apr 28, 2006 12:48 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Well...

He can pass and he can shoot. None of which he has done against SA. He believe I remember him saying SAS size bothers him. That is a wuss excuse if you ask me. He allowed Jerome James to get 5M for 5 years cause he took Brad's lunch last year. He needs ot step up or be ashamed to come back to SAC next year. That being said I love B52...you just can't tell right now.

by Mityt on Apr 28, 2006 12:53 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Aside

Take a look at this by the way....man are the Knicks screwed for the next five years or what. How does Isiah have a job??
http://www.hoopshype.com/salaries/new_york.htm

by Mityt on Apr 28, 2006 12:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry, but no

Coming close to beating the Spurs is hardly indicative of things to come. Last year, a team pushed the Spurs to the limit, almost beating the eventual champions. So what happened this year, they finished 35-47, with many of those wins coming after the playoffs were already out of reach. The team? The Seattle Supersonics.
Whether or not the Kings put up a fight in this series is for the most part inconsequential (unless of course they go on to actually winning the series). I see other similarities between this Kings team and the Sonics from last year as well, mainly being that Adelman could very well not be the coach next year, much like Nate McMillian wasn't the coach for the Sonics this year. The main difference is that the Maloof's aren't nearly as cheap as the Shultz.

by LanceUppercut on Apr 28, 2006 1:34 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Difference

The Sonics blazed out early last season and trailed off significantly as the season wore on. As few people thought the Kings could beat the Spurs this time, even fewer thought the Sonics could manhandle the surging Spurs last season. The Kings were playing like one of the best teams in the lead going into this, so the result matters more. If this team can't beat the champs in these conditions - Kings surging, Spurs mildly hobbling compared to other seasons - then the Kings can't be the champs.

by Ziller on Apr 28, 2006 1:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

On Brad

Not to start career retrospectives in the middle of a playoff series or anything, but...

Brad is the best big man passer in the game.

Brad is the best shooting center in the game.

Brad is perfect for the high-post offense.

He was nowhere near game shape in the playoffs last season - in fact, if Brian Skinner hadn't also been hobbled with those thumbs of doom, I'm not sure Miller would've played after his horrendous game 1. Also, the team that included Brad in 03-04 was the best in the league before Chris came back and the chemistry fell apart.

by Ziller on Apr 28, 2006 1:35 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

On Brad

Brad may be the best shooting center from outside, but I would rather have a traditional center who takes high percentage close-in shots. And while he's there, grabs rebounds and blocks shots. I don't know, that's just me.

by evanmeagan on Apr 28, 2006 2:00 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

You ask for...

LaSalle Thompson? Wayman Tisdale?

by Ziller on Apr 28, 2006 2:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

So those are the names that come to mind?

I was thinking more along the lines of Duane Causwell or Marty Conlon. I think Alaa Abdelnaby might be out of work as well. Hmmm...

No but seriously I think the next time we make a move for a center, it needs to be someone who is physical, can rebound and can defend, and I stress defend. And maybe someone who has a vertical jump that exceeds 7.5 inches.

Hell, bring back Lawrence Funderburke. By the way did you know he wrote a book?

by evanmeagan on Apr 28, 2006 2:27 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Did you know?

That he appeared in the playoffs for the Bulls last year? I was shocked to see him - thought he had retired...

by otis29 on Apr 28, 2006 2:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

TZ, as an aside

This was a finely written piece. Between you and Grant over at McCovey Chronicles, I'd have to say we Kings/Giants fans are spoiled.

How does SB Nation pick the guys to handle their blogs? Most of the writers are great, but I've checked in on the Spurs (Pounding the Rock) blog during the series, and that guy needs a frickin' escalator just to reach inane.

by otis29 on Apr 28, 2006 2:56 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Hey Now!

I like Matt at Pounding the Rock a lot. We disagree a lot on Manu and Ron-Ron and the like, but he's damn well-versed. He's even said he doesn't think the Spurs will win the title, and he pointed out that Bibby's defense (hello Game 1?) and Adelman's lack of strategery (what up Game 2!) would be the causes for the Spurs series win. He's been rather correct in his assessment. And he's damn funny, too.

As for Grant, that guy's my hero. I actually started blogging the Kings because of him. Without sounding corny or anything, he's been an inspiration. No one in the blogosphere is funnier.

And as always, thanks for the kind words.

by Ziller on Apr 28, 2006 3:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

NOTE

When I mention Grant in the above reply, it's not anything remotely close to Grant Napear. It's Grant Brisbee from McCoveyChronicles.com and FSN Bay Area's website. Please god don't let anyone think I'm calling Grant Napear an inspiration.

by Ziller on Apr 28, 2006 3:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hey now yourself!

Don't get in the way of my trolling. I know he's shown his face here a few times, and I'd like to slap him around a little. First here, then on his turf. <cue evil laugh>

And as you point out, he's hammered Bibby, Miller and Adelman pretty good. True or not, his words are fighting words - nobody gets away with badmouthing our Kings - except for, uhm, Kings fans.

by otis29 on Apr 28, 2006 3:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

True that, sir.

Only we are allowed to talk about poisoning Adelman to give Elston Turner an audition!

by Ziller on Apr 28, 2006 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No I didn't

but he always gave us his all and he probably could have received better minutes with alot of teams.

by evanmeagan on Apr 28, 2006 3:04 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

Looks like he was a late season pickup and added to the Bulls roster for the playoffs. My guess is the Bulls had an injury right at playoff time so they grabbed him.

Thanks for the heads up on the book. I just found it online and will order a copy (even though Bill Walton endorsed it).

Lawrence was always a quality guy, and a fun player to watch. I think he was unfairly labeled as a malcontent coming out of college, due to his problems with Bobby Knight. Turns out he was one of the true gentlemen the Kings have had the pleasure to employ.

by otis29 on Apr 28, 2006 3:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

LFund

Isn't Funderburke's book about money management or something? I remember glancing at something in the Bee on it last summer. It's very foggy.

(As for books: I'm horrible at finishing them. I bought Jerry Reynolds' book at like New Year's and haven't gotten past the first chapter. I actually just finished Malcolm Gladwell's Blink. I've had it from the St. Helena Public Library (of all places) for two months now. God bless online renewal and regional public library systems.

by Ziller on Apr 28, 2006 3:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs