Why I'm done for the year--wake me up when Artest isn't in a Kings uniform

{UPDATE: I misstated some stuff in here (like not posting). If you read it take it as I'm extremely tired of watching this Kings team. If there hadn't been posts already I would have deleted this thing--pookeyguru}

Just a perfect day,
Drink sangria in the park,
And then later, when it gets dark,
We go home.
Just a perfect day,
Feed animals in the zoo
Then later, a movie, too,
And then home.

Oh its such a perfect day,
Im glad I spent it with you.
Oh such a perfect day,
You just keep me hanging on,
You just keep me hanging on.

Via Lou Reed. (For the record this song better speaks to how I feel when you listen to the symphony towards the end of the song.)

It's not fashionable to throw the book at Geoff Petrie and say no mas! I've already done that once. I've already posted a post-apocalyptic trade idea already. And you know what I've found? I could absolutely care less now. I'm the same guy who found this rather interesting set of points made by Senora Ziller to be rather poignant. Mostly because it's true. The truth is though, that grabbed me in November. I'm tired, and because other issues in my life press me more than pointing out every single flaw in Artest's game, and the logic that has kept him in the EC, I'd just rather drink a few beers and ruin an ergonomic keyboard.

I've watched the last several days come up with some interesting content. I watched coolcat's diary and have read some of the comments. I thought it was the pure and complete essence of CC. It was both intelligent and divisive at the same time. It was both thoughtful analysis and extremely disrespectful of Sam Amick and Sac State grads (which include my Grand Mother--who went into teaching--and my own mother who took close to 8 years to graduate; to make things worse my Grand Father helped kickstart some of the Math department at the school). It's always interesting to see people's snobbery of something. In past years it was bigger city types (NYC, LA) snubbing their nose at "That Cowtown" for daring to be a big city. (Jerry Reynolds in his bright breezy memoir bristled at the fact that when the Knicks held the 3 point shooting record it mattered. When the Kings did the record no longer did. A better example of this--not to mention a lot more famous--in recent times is Barry Bonds vs Hank Aaron.) In this case it was saying that Sac State grads aren't big time enough to be successful in a merciless corporate world that is constantly deriving it's success on 1up'ing the next guy. Ah, irony! It's the spice of life ain't it?

I'm tired of the arguing, and I'm tired of the whole merry-go-roundness of it all. (This is not me waving my sonic finger at anyone because I am the most guilty of starting crap around here. I'm just saying I see why other's are tired of it. Most of the time I don't mind being divisive, but given these mentally trying times I mind.) I haven't seen how the team is better with Artest, and truthfully I still haven't seen a single thought out argument on how Ron makes this team better. I've seen alot of opinion, and I've seen a small point here or there. But I haven't seen a group of small points, as part of a larger point, defending Artest as a keeper. (My theory? Ron Artest is not a long term solution for anything but division.) I am still waiting for such an argument. Instead I will compare Ron to C-Webb. I've always been of the opinion that Webber was overrated in the rebounding department. I always felt that if your team is a mediocre in an area, and since Webber is universally considered the best player on this team's dominant years earlier in this decade, as the Kings were in rebounding doesn't that say something about Webber? Likewise if the Kings are at the bottom of the league in defense with a player like Artest doesn't that makea difference in one's analysis of whether Artest is valuable?

Coolcat if you want people to understand your points saying stuff such as this don't confuse the issue like you did here:

Sam Amick is a Sac State graduate in his first job, and it looks like he's finally figured out that the way to make the jump out of Sactown to a "real" job is to create some controversy. It's too bad he's missing such a nice story in the process. You could say the same thing about some other "journalists" as well. TZ already pointed it out, but Amick isn't doing his first newspaper job. It seems to me he's rather interested in remaining a beat writer for the Kings. He's probably laid some roots in SacTown and probably likes it there. Perhaps his wife, and their small child, have alot of say in this matter. To call Amick a hack shows 2 things:

1. Anything that contradicts Artest is not reasonable
   
2. You're grip on reality is not always as tight as it should be

Furthermore, down in the comments part of the diary, you say this: I think Amick has gradually shifted more towards digging up dirt, especially in the past few weeks, even if it's based on pretty thin "research" and is more speculation than confirmed fact. Reread the Mikki Moore quote and how he turned that into a two-night drinking binge. Maybe it happened, maybe it didn't. But because he hinted that it did based on a non-confirmation quote from Mikki, some folks take it as gospel. First off I take nothing based on word alone. I've felt for some time that Amick doesn't just print things just to print things. In fact for a guy stirring up drama you forgot to mention that Amick is the same guy who didn't follow the team to Dallas (clearly a fact finding mission to find out the dirt on Reef's helping kids--do ya thang Yosemite Sam!) to report on an INJURED GUY'S CHARITY WORK (a real National Enquirer dirt exclusive if I ever saw one). Then you said this: If Artest was partying in Miami, ask Artest if he was. If Artest gets a fine, ask him for his response. Put these ghuys on the spot but also give them a chance to respond.

What I find absolutely fascinating about this thread is that nobody apparently cares that this is a pretty decent team when they have all the horses. I guess that part of the post was just too dry to comment on.

Umm, what? People DID comment on it. TZ did. Section did. Crown did. (And that's just noting that I saw specific comments regarding the W/L records with various players in & out of the lineups you cited Coolcat.) Let me suggest something CC. Do not respond to questions such as this: So, do you think player dissatisfaction with Musselman last season had anything to do with the 5-17 record down the stretch? And if so, would that be a fair story for a Bee reporter to discuss?

And how do you know it's idle speculation? It's not like Amick isn't with the team constantly and knows these guys a bit. Additionally, wouldn't printing unfounded rumors and flat-out lies hurt his access to the guys down the road?

You responded by saying this (don't claim I misquoted you): Probably and yes, with the following caveat. Be as specific as possible, and don't trade favorable treatment of a player for dirt. Don't say "the whole team hates Musselman" if it's in fact one or two players. Provide some context that quantifies and qualifies your premise. Dude, your critical reading skills need a LOT of work. There was nothing SAID about the entire team hating Musselman, or, for that matter, 2 players hating Muss. It was asked if player dis-satisfaction was behind Muss' demise and that's all that was said. It seemed to me, that more or less, the question was posed as about how much can asking that "type of question" is fair game for a professional journalist to ask. It wasn't asking if that type of question is merely a gossip-esque type of question. If you want professional/honest adults to take you seriously you must show seriousness in how you respond. You don't have to do this with every post, every time, in every way, but when a serious topic arises you should treat it with such respect. None of your answers show any such proclivity sir. Consider this my final response to you Coolcat.

I think the most frustrating thing is that for the first time in awhile I find myself at that nauseating level I was at just over a year ago. I started posting/flame threading/posting ridiculously long diaries that sometimes makes sense but mostly don't/annoying all on this blog (rather that glimpsing at it for every couple of weeks) and have been happy doing so. I've learned much in the process, and hope to continue to learn down the road at some point. But I've nothing left to learn over the rest of the season but shaking my head in Hueyesque disapproval. And it doesn't take the Kings to do that for me. So, instead of watching a crappilicious 2 OT game of the Kings vs Clipps, I watched a movie about a pregnant 16 year old kid whose quips and wacked out cynicism helped it win an Academy Award. Good Times indeed. Thank You Geoff Quijote! And with that I drop you a classic wondering what it has to do with this diary (I'm still trying to figure out that myself).

The problem is all inside your head, she said to me
The answer is easy if you take it logically
Id like to help you in your struggle to be free
There must be fifty ways to leave your lover

She said its really not my habit to intrude
Furthermore, I hope my meaning wont be lost or misconstrued
But Ill repeat myself at the risk of being crude
There must be fifty ways to leave your lover
Fifty ways to leave your lover

If you prefer a less cynical version of an ending song:

High time we made a stand and shook up the views of the common man
And the lovetrain rides from coast to coast
D.j.s the man we love the most
Could you be, could you be squeaky clean
And smash any hope of democracry ?
As the headline says youre free to choose
Theres egg on your face and mud on your shoes
One of these days theyre gonna call it the blues

And anything is possible when youre sowing the seeds of love
Anything is possible - sowing the seeds of love

So, yeah I think my elongated silence is needed now more than ever. I'll wake up from my Kings related slumber on April 16. See ya then.