Eli1005 wrote:This is all just BS anyway. No way Sacramento is asking for just Balkman. and if it's Lee and/or Nate that they want, I don't see why we wouldn't trade Nate. Nate scores a lot of points and hustles, but he's NEVER going to fit in here. Don't you see that the only times when he looks great is when we're down by 20+ points?? It's cause that's when he can play with reckless abandon and not be the pass-first guard that we need.
The only way we get artest is if Isiah can swing a deal involving either Q or Jeffries and without including Lee. We have way too many SF's as it is. It would be nice if we had Artest, with Balkman and/or Chandler right behind him, but no way we get rid of both Q and Jeff. Our bright young SF's will rot on the bench.
Great post.
-----------
But Nate is redundant for the Kings (Douby/Beno/Bibby (until he's dealt he's still on the team), Salmons/Garcia seeing time at the point as part of their roles), there's no real reason for the Kings to get Nate, and there's no actual quote from a Kings official that says they're interested or "wouldn't mind" having him. Wouldn't mind, as proposed in the OE, isn't an adjective of serious interest.
Nate just doesn't make sense for the Kings. Only would if Douby's going somewhere, except, that doesn't make sense either. As Douby was just drafted and why out of a sudden does Petrie and Theus give up on him when he's still playing limited minutes and developing in his 2nd year in the league behind a couple other players who are already established? No apparent reason.
lol at people proposing the Kings include their R1 pick with Artest.
MANSY wrote:Kings have no leverage, give them Balkman + Malik. They don't accept then screw 'em.
Just a garbage, unrealistic proposal. Irrelevant to what is already established in what's considered for a trade for Artest.