ImageImageImageImageImage

Orlando (22-13) at Sacramento (12-20)

Moderators: KF10, City of Trees, codydaze

sackings916
Analyst
Posts: 3,425
And1: 138
Joined: Sep 07, 2002

 

Post#121 » by sackings916 » Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:39 am

SacKingZZZ wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Where am I coming from? How about this...when Ron is on the floor he is #1. Theus will tell you as much. Ron is a great passer no doubt, but when you already have so many offensive players playing well, adding another guy that is going to look for his shot just as much as he's looking to pass is going to be a problem. Let alone adding 3 of those types at basically the same time.


Adding a player of Ron's caliber makes us a better team.He adds another dimension on our team which we currently do not have - a legit low post threat who demands a double team. We are also adding another efficient 3 pt shooter in Ron. It's when he forces shots and has terrible shot selection is where the team would suffer. With as many offensive weapons as we have when healthy there's no reason for him to force anything. I believe Theus can make Artest the best player he can be for this team and if we're winning he'll buy into it.
SacKingZZZ
RealGM
Posts: 23,945
And1: 979
Joined: Feb 19, 2005
Location: "Look at me, Dave, look. Come and touch it, Dave."

 

Post#122 » by SacKingZZZ » Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:07 am

ICMTM wrote:I don't think Ron held anyone down. Guys like Cisco, Douby had their own confidence issues. Ron doesn't play as uptempo as Cisco, Beno, or Salmons so when Ron's on the floor you don't see the ball move as much. HOWEVER Ron can draw a double and the defense reacts to him much differently than anyone else we have.

I think Ron has done a great job this year trying to integrate his style with other players on this team and as their play gets better I really don't see Artest coming back disruptive. IMO add all three injured guys and that's where the hiccups will come in.


I still contend that the other two fit in better with the personnel we have though. On paper of course. Bibby will still crunch just as much as Ron.

Ron has done a great job this year period. He has really come into his own as a legit scoring option and a person that will draw that consistent double team. I also agree that he has done his best to fit in and I was very impressed when I heard that Ron was the first one out the door to calm Salmons after his mini-meltdown in Minny. I am not using any of that as reasons why I don't think he fits in when looking at the whole picture.

Ron still plays minutes at spots where someone gets crunched that really shouldn't be crunched regardless. I don't think Ron does ANYTHING to put himself in the limelight on purpose, or that he plays in an a$$hole/ballhog fashion. He is the kind of player that would kill for his teammates, just look at him on the bench. He is still the unquestioned #1 guy by even his coach, and while he is on the floor I can't disagree with that. Once again though, I don't think he fits into the direction this team or franchise is heading in. If they want to build this team around Ron Artest then they need to move in that direction instead, and it is a different direction. I am not opposed to that but I am opposed to keeping things "as is" and hoping for the best.

The way this team is playing compared to the gap in success created between the two circumstances with Ron in the lineup and Ron not is so insignificant that I don't see the point in it. It's like saying, "well, we can either be a 35 win team or a 30 win team".

We are barely getting out of the era of being attached to personnel that we had no real use for other than them being "pieces". Now the dynamic is shifting roster wise from being mostly made up of "salvaged value" pieces to forming a team of KINGS CHOSEN draft picks and KINGS CHOSEN free agents. Ron is a great player but he still is mainly us trying to salvage value for Peja Stojakovic. (and yes, it was an absolute steal if we don't lose him for nothing or re-sign him at contract not befitting of our current roster situation and potential success). Bottom line is, as currently constructed with some nice young talent and a stacked back court full of multi-position players, I don't think Ron Artest is as important to US as he may be someone else. This team and franchise is still stuck in that transition phase. Thankfully it may be nearing it's end however, it's time that they pick a direction and go in it without half-assing it.

Like I said, we'll see what happens.
SacKingZZZ
RealGM
Posts: 23,945
And1: 979
Joined: Feb 19, 2005
Location: "Look at me, Dave, look. Come and touch it, Dave."

 

Post#123 » by SacKingZZZ » Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:22 am

sackings916 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Adding a player of Ron's caliber makes us a better team.He adds another dimension on our team which we currently do not have - a legit low post threat who demands a double team. We are also adding another efficient 3 pt shooter in Ron. It's when he forces shots and has terrible shot selection is where the team would suffer. With as many offensive weapons as we have when healthy there's no reason for him to force anything. I believe Theus can make Artest the best player he can be for this team and if we're winning he'll buy into it.



And Ron Artest as our "legit low post threat" gets us where?

With our circumstances roster wise if Ron was a legit PF that rebounded/played interior defense or covered other areas of need then sweet! But he's not. Thus it is a problem because we have plenty of guys to take minutes at SF. Putting him at PF doesn't change the fact that there aren't enough balls to go around. Ron should have the ball if we are trying to take the short route but I'd rather see John/Kevin/Spencer/Douby get those shot attempts because I think the growth inherently involved will benefit a rebuilding team more.
sackings916
Analyst
Posts: 3,425
And1: 138
Joined: Sep 07, 2002

 

Post#124 » by sackings916 » Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:21 am

SacKingZZZ wrote:-= original quote snipped =-




And Ron Artest as our "legit low post threat" gets us where?

With our circumstances roster wise if Ron was a legit PF that rebounded/played interior defense or covered other areas of need then sweet! But he's not. Thus it is a problem because we have plenty of guys to take minutes at SF. Putting him at PF doesn't change the fact that there aren't enough balls to go around. Ron should have the ball if we are trying to take the short route but I'd rather see John/Kevin/Spencer/Douby get those shot attempts because I think the growth inherently involved will benefit a rebuilding team more.


You're talking about a whole different issue than what I was referring to. Ron and our offense has nothing to do with not having a PF to provide interior defense. No SF can handle Artest in the post, and thats one thing the Kings have that no other team has. Artest as our low post threat at SF gives us a mismatch every night. If teams want to put a bigger guy on him he can take him on the perimeter off the dribble or for perimeter shot. We havent even mentioned Artests defense on the other side.

Artest is better than Salmons and Garcia, so unless we are getting a legit defensive PF or star PG for Artest which is very unlikely why would we downgrade our SF position just because we have serviceable players there?
Ballings7
RealGM
Posts: 22,877
And1: 899
Joined: Jan 04, 2006

 

Post#125 » by Ballings7 » Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:51 am

I don't have too much else left to say, really, just because I feel as I do - but I gotta sway to SK196 here.

SK916 wrote:We havent even mentioned Artests defense on the other side.


And his effective, above-average play-making ability in multiple ways.

I think Ron continuing to be with this team would be okay, Sac is one of the small amount of fitting, decent destinations for him if he opts out. On and off the court, factors, most involving continuity. I think this team is in the top three, for sure. At least he'd be a valuable piece for us, still.

Things really need to change from other teams stand-point in numerous ways, and Ron's stand-point, for an increased amount of places, for Ron to sign with.

Not saying we will keep him, but it is at least, an average possibility. I think expecting us to try to, is a good possibility.
User avatar
pillwenney
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 47,767
And1: 1,333
Joined: Sep 19, 2004
Location: Avidly reading pstyousuck.blogspot.com/
Contact:
 

 

Post#126 » by pillwenney » Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:48 pm

SacKingZZZ wrote:-= original quote snipped =-




And Ron Artest as our "legit low post threat" gets us where?

With our circumstances roster wise if Ron was a legit PF that rebounded/played interior defense or covered other areas of need then sweet! But he's not. Thus it is a problem because we have plenty of guys to take minutes at SF. Putting him at PF doesn't change the fact that there aren't enough balls to go around. Ron should have the ball if we are trying to take the short route but I'd rather see John/Kevin/Spencer/Douby get those shot attempts because I think the growth inherently involved will benefit a rebuilding team more.


Okay, then I'd rather see Brad traded because Brad's presence means that Spencer doesn't get an opportunity to run the offense himself. Brad is taking offense-running opportunities away from Spencer.

But seriously, our offense hasn't even been statistically much better without Ron. If you have compare the last 6 games we had Ron to these last 6 games without him, without him, we score 1.5 more PPG and shoot 1% better from the field. But both of those things can be at least partially attributed to playing a faster pace without him. Unfortunately this also shows up in that we have given up 3.5 more PPG without him. And perhaps most importantly, the supposed achilles heel of this team--assist/turnover ratio, went from 21.5/15.5 in our last 6 games with Ron to 18.2/17.2 in our last 6 games without him. That's a pretty big difference.
User avatar
pillwenney
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 47,767
And1: 1,333
Joined: Sep 19, 2004
Location: Avidly reading pstyousuck.blogspot.com/
Contact:
 

 

Post#127 » by pillwenney » Fri Jan 11, 2008 1:53 am

Also, regarding this game, I'd like to add that enough can't be said about that play by Cisco at the end where he tipped it out of bounds to the other end of the court. For a guy kind of known for making bonehead plays, that was a very, very heady play.
ICMTM
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 16,339
And1: 167
Joined: Jun 20, 2004
Location: Sacramento, Ca
     

 

Post#128 » by ICMTM » Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:05 am

SacKingZZZ wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



I still contend that the other two fit in better with the personnel we have though. On paper of course. Bibby will still crunch just as much as Ron.

Ron has done a great job this year period. He has really come into his own as a legit scoring option and a person that will draw that consistent double team. I also agree that he has done his best to fit in and I was very impressed when I heard that Ron was the first one out the door to calm Salmons after his mini-meltdown in Minny. I am not using any of that as reasons why I don't think he fits in when looking at the whole picture.

Ron still plays minutes at spots where someone gets crunched that really shouldn't be crunched regardless. I don't think Ron does ANYTHING to put himself in the limelight on purpose, or that he plays in an a$$hole/ballhog fashion. He is the kind of player that would kill for his teammates, just look at him on the bench. He is still the unquestioned #1 guy by even his coach, and while he is on the floor I can't disagree with that. Once again though, I don't think he fits into the direction this team or franchise is heading in. If they want to build this team around Ron Artest then they need to move in that direction instead, and it is a different direction. I am not opposed to that but I am opposed to keeping things "as is" and hoping for the best.

The way this team is playing compared to the gap in success created between the two circumstances with Ron in the lineup and Ron not is so insignificant that I don't see the point in it. It's like saying, "well, we can either be a 35 win team or a 30 win team".

We are barely getting out of the era of being attached to personnel that we had no real use for other than them being "pieces". Now the dynamic is shifting roster wise from being mostly made up of "salvaged value" pieces to forming a team of KINGS CHOSEN draft picks and KINGS CHOSEN free agents. Ron is a great player but he still is mainly us trying to salvage value for Peja Stojakovic. (and yes, it was an absolute steal [b]if
we don't lose him for nothing or re-sign him at contract not befitting of our current roster situation and potential success). Bottom line is, as currently constructed with some nice young talent and a stacked back court full of multi-position players, I don't think Ron Artest is as important to US as he may be someone else. This team and franchise is still stuck in that transition phase. Thankfully it may be nearing it's end however, it's time that they pick a direction and go in it without half-assing it.

Like I said, we'll see what happens[/b].


Ron Artest has fit in perfectly with what the Kings have been doing. This franchise hasn't even started transitioning. All the guys from the glory days are old and had to go sooner or later. The fact still remains the Kings feel like they are a good team when healthy. Bibby hasn't been traded. Artest hasn't been traded. All of our big pieces are still here. One bad coaching move and a bunch of injuries have prevented us from looking better, but the Kings feel they can win some games and contend with a healthy roster.
In Divac We Trust!
sackings916
Analyst
Posts: 3,425
And1: 138
Joined: Sep 07, 2002

 

Post#129 » by sackings916 » Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:46 am

I believe we are averaging more turnovers because we dont have players that can create right now. When Artest gets back our TOs should go down because our bench players will not be asked to create as much.
SacKingZZZ
RealGM
Posts: 23,945
And1: 979
Joined: Feb 19, 2005
Location: "Look at me, Dave, look. Come and touch it, Dave."

 

Post#130 » by SacKingZZZ » Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:57 am

mitchweber wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Okay, then I'd rather see Brad traded because Brad's presence means that Spencer doesn't get an opportunity to run the offense himself. Brad is taking offense-running opportunities away from Spencer.

But seriously, our offense hasn't even been statistically much better without Ron. If you have compare the last 6 games we had Ron to these last 6 games without him, without him, we score 1.5 more PPG and shoot 1% better from the field. But both of those things can be at least partially attributed to playing a faster pace without him. Unfortunately this also shows up in that we have given up 3.5 more PPG without him. And perhaps most importantly, the supposed achilles heel of this team--assist/turnover ratio, went from 21.5/15.5 in our last 6 games with Ron to 18.2/17.2 in our last 6 games without him. That's a pretty big difference.


Joking aside, I think that is a legit issue but I don't think trading Brad is as pressing as an issue as not letting a big name player leave in the summer or re-signing him to a team that doesn't have a superior need for him. The stats you provided even say that he really doesn't make this team all that much better or worse, we are somewhere in the grey zone. I am saying if we are going to be in the grey zone, I'd rather it be with cheaper players that put up similar stats and young players that will have a chance to grow into something down the line. I see the team play, the chemistry is starting to look like it's coming together.
SacKingZZZ
RealGM
Posts: 23,945
And1: 979
Joined: Feb 19, 2005
Location: "Look at me, Dave, look. Come and touch it, Dave."

 

Post#131 » by SacKingZZZ » Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:03 am

ICMTM wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Ron Artest has fit in perfectly with what the Kings have been doing. This franchise hasn't even started transitioning. All the guys from the glory days are old and had to go sooner or later. The fact still remains the Kings feel like they are a good team when healthy. Bibby hasn't been traded. Artest hasn't been traded. All of our big pieces are still here. One bad coaching move and a bunch of injuries have prevented us from looking better, but the Kings feel they can win some games and contend with a healthy roster.



I saw Geoff Petrie rip the heart out of a team on it's way to an easy 50 win season not too long ago. I guess we'll see in a few weeks what happens. I don't think you can dismiss last season, but you never know.

I still think the main problem is that we don't have the sudden discovery of "depth" on our hands with the recent success of John Salmons, Beno Udrih, and Cisco. I think instead we have the question of who should be the focus of this team moving forward, two entirely different things. That could lead to a very combustible situation.

Return to Sacramento Kings