Sacbee: Kings/Nuggets talking Artest for Nene?

RIPskaterdude · Post #41 » by **RIPskaterdude** » Sat Feb 2, 2008 5:26 am

yunggunz wrote:Really? Is that a basic economics principle?

So when I go buy a gallon of gas, it makes the person across the street want to drive that much more? Or when I get Minnie Wheats, it makes my sister in law want them even more?

Since when did Disney make a new cereal? :wink:

SacKingZZZ · Post #42 » by **SacKingZZZ** » Sat Feb 2, 2008 8:20 am

Well, I just read over on Amicks blog that he is hearing Nene wouldn't be part of a denver deal. So...

That would mean most likely no dumping Kenny, and getting back Kleiza, crap, but maybe a pick! I guess it's better than nothing.

Ballings7 · Post #43 » by **Ballings7** » Sat Feb 2, 2008 8:30 am

I dig Kleiza. Big SF, better than average defender, tough, athletic, can shoot the ball, hustles around the basket, rebounds. Kleiza did score 41 pts recently, and has been scoring well a number of times this season.

Plus a R1 pick? I'd be fine with that. But we shouldn't settle for that, if it's a legitimate story.

Post #44 » by **pillwenney** » Sat Feb 2, 2008 8:32 am

Kleiza would probably play a lot of PF here just out of necessity. He wouldn't be ideal.

Ballings7 · Post #45 » by **Ballings7** » Sat Feb 2, 2008 8:43 am

Well, it wouldn't be for long if so, and we'd be one significant step closer to rebuilding anyway. Just Mike would need to be moved for that to be set, basically.

Smills91 · Post #46 » by **Smills91** » Sat Feb 2, 2008 3:05 pm

SacKingZZZ wrote:Well, I just read over on Amicks blog that he is hearing Nene wouldn't be part of a denver deal. So...

That would mean most likely no dumping Kenny, and getting back Kleiza, crap, but maybe a pick! I guess it's better than nothing.

Screw Denver them...let them sweat it out just MAKING the playoffs. I like our chances WITH Ron.

SacKingZZZ · Post #47 » by **SacKingZZZ** » Sun Feb 3, 2008 6:57 am

Smills91 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Screw Denver them...let them sweat it out just MAKING the playoffs. I like our chances WITH Ron.

Well the truth is they really have nothing else to offer. The only way we could "dump" Kenny is to take on Hunter who's deal is just as long, although smaller. That or get a higher priced player like Nene, and with his problems recently that is no sure thing.

Post #48 » by **pillwenney** » Sun Feb 3, 2008 10:29 am

SacKingZZZ wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Well the truth is they really have nothing else to offer. The only way we could "dump" Kenny is to take on Hunter who's deal is just as long, although smaller. That or get a higher priced player like Nene, and with his problems recently that is no sure thing.

I wouldn't really mind taking on Hunter. I think that taking on a smaller deal of the same length is probably going to be our only way of getting rid of Kenny anyway.

Post #49 » by **floppymoose** » Sun Feb 3, 2008 10:54 am

Does the Kings resurgence decrease the chance that Artest will be traded?

Post #50 » by **pillwenney** » Sun Feb 3, 2008 12:39 pm

floppymoose wrote:Does the Kings resurgence decrease the chance that Artest will be traded?

I wouldn't think so, simply because we won't be able to re-sign him in the offseason anyway because it would put us far into the luxury tax.

But if we really start to go on some crazy streak (like 10 or more wins in a row or something like that), then maybe.

Post #51 » by **KingInExile** » Sun Feb 3, 2008 4:41 pm

mitchweber wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

I wouldn't think so, simply because we won't be able to re-sign him in the offseason anyway because it would put us far into the luxury tax.

But if we really start to go on some crazy streak (like 10 or more wins in a row or something like that), then maybe.

To add to this, I also don't think that Artest has been a huge factor in the "resurgence". Yes he has made strong contributions. But the Kings were doing well when he was injured. I think we're covered just fine (maybe better in some ways) with Salmons and Garcia, so Ron is still expendable.

Post #52 » by **ICMTM** » Sun Feb 3, 2008 5:57 pm

Completely disagree.

We couldn't close out games when Ron was out.

Smills91 · Post #53 » by **Smills91** » Sun Feb 3, 2008 6:12 pm

ICMTM wrote:Completely disagree.

We couldn't close out games when Ron was out.

I'm with you on this one ICMTM. I think the 'resurgence' keeps this team intact AND keeps the Kings in the driver's seat for retaining Artest.

Ballings7 · Post #54 » by **Ballings7** » Sun Feb 3, 2008 6:26 pm

ICMTM wrote:Completely disagree.

We couldn't close out games when Ron was out.

Gotta agree, too. We definitely had some nice games when Ron was out, but other than that, we weren't as good of a team overall. That includes earlier in the year too, but I know this is more to when he was out two weeks.

I agree Salmons replacing Ron was and will be fine, obviously with how John has emerged for us steadily over the last year - but, they're still different versatile players in what they bring, in terms of skill.

sackings916 · Post #55 » by **sackings916** » Sun Feb 3, 2008 7:18 pm

KingInExile wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

To add to this, I also don't think that Artest has been a huge factor in the "resurgence". Yes he has made strong contributions. But the Kings were doing well when he was injured. I think we're covered just fine (maybe better in some ways) with Salmons and Garcia, so Ron is still expendable.

How'd you figure this? Ron has been the go to guy at the end of games and has delivered and has also been a nightmare for teams to match up with.

Post #56 » by **KingInExile** » Sun Feb 3, 2008 7:42 pm

Meh...I just don't think Ron has been a "huge" factor. A factor, sure. But getting healthy and having Miller playing out of his mind IMO has contributed as much, if not more, to the resurgence. I'm not trying to downplay what he brings. I am just saying that I think we will be just fine without him.

Smills91 · Post #57 » by **Smills91** » Sun Feb 3, 2008 7:57 pm

KingInExile wrote:Meh...I just don't think Ron has been a "huge" factor. A factor, sure. But getting healthy and having Miller playing out of his mind IMO has contributed as much, if not more, to the resurgence. I'm not trying to downplay what he brings. I am just saying that I think we will be just fine without him.

You sure like being wrong don't you. :wink:

This is quickly becoming Chris Webber part deux in Sac-town.

Kings are better WITH Artest playing, period.

Post #58 » by **KingInExile** » Sun Feb 3, 2008 8:19 pm

Smills91 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

You sure like being wrong don't you. This is quickly becoming Chris Webber part deux in Sac-town.

Kings are better WITH Artest playing, period.

Whatever. Let's just wait an see how many championships we win with him.

_SRV_ · Post #59 » by **_SRV_** » Sun Feb 3, 2008 8:21 pm

I don't think it's absolutely certain that we're letting Artest go, if this group proves thatit can win, the Maloofs might pay tax for one year, and wait for Bibby to expire, instead of just letting talent go away.
The more I think about, I'm pretty sure Petrie will not be cornered in the off season, he signed Moore knowing that this is the situation, if he lets Artest go it's planed, and if he wishes to keep him, he'd do it despite the tax.

SactownHrtBrks8 · Post #60 » by **SactownHrtBrks8** » Sun Feb 3, 2008 9:16 pm

He's won us these games. At the moment, we need Artest. We are only playing two bigs and Artest.