[h2]
Are the Warriors desperate for Artest, too? (My guess: No, if you analyze it carefully)[/h2]
By Tim Kawakami
Tuesday, February 12th, 2008 at 9:14 pm in
NBA,
Warriors.
* Note: With Shaquille O'Neal out for tomorrow's game at Oracle A, the next time he can face the Warriors is March 13 at Phoenix, then April 14 also in Phoenix. What are the odds that Webber and Shaq play both future games? I'd say 20% Actually I'd say there's a 80% shot neither plays in that last one.
Essential caveat: Chris Mullin and Don Nelson are acting a little desperate these days, so I really can't predict what desperate addition they might be contemplating or finalizing right now.
There's something a little weird going on with the Warriors' thinking, especially for a team that just went to 31-20 (albeit with three very sloppy games, which I credit to…
the weird desperateness, not to any dread terribleness on the part of the roster or the system).
I believe it's a push-pull thing between Nelson, who sounds like he's getting sick of his roster, and Mullin, who has given me no indication that he's sick of his roster and I don't think he should be sick of anything.
No signs of desperation from Mulin, except, of course, the willy-nilly-silly short-term madness signing of Chris Webber late last month.
But there's the weirdness: Mullin did a desperate thing because, I'm assuming, he's being pushed by Nelson's total desperation and it's showing the smartest side of neither man.
So what about Ron Artest? If you look into the Warriors' desperate eyes, you can sense that the Warriors are hungry for somebody like Artest.
Artest is available. They're desperate. My good friend and acknowledged superior hoops brainiac MT-2 has argued the Warriors should acquire Artest-for toughness and respect-and I have to acknowledge that.
But I disagree. I understand what Marcus is saying (and understand he was partly tongue-in-cheek in the post-Webber weirdness), and I don't disagree with some of that logic.
I still disagree with the entire idea of being so desperate that they have to screw up up their roster in order to add other team's problems or players that no other team wants that badly.
Here's why I think the Warriors won't, can't, and shouldn't make a deal for Artest, despite their temptation to do another silly thing (
other than: it doesn't make much sense and it probably will make them worse, not better):
* Sacramento isn't going to give Artest away, and most definitely won't give him away to:
-a West rival;
-a Pacific Division rival;
-or a battle-for-Northern-California-supremacy rival that just added former King Chris Webber.
* The Kings aren't dummies, and right now, only will trade Artest or Mike Bibby if they can also off-load the bad contract of Kenny Thomas.
That means, at the moment, the Warriors CANNOT GET ARTEST for the fun-filled package of Mickael Pietrus and Patrick O'Bryant. Sorry.
If it's just Pietrus and O'Bryant, sure, maybe I'd understand some of this. But that's not the package the Kings would entertain.
Why would the Kings give up Artest for two players they can get for free in the off-season, and that's assuming the Kings want either one of them? They wouldn't do that, I'd guess.
So, in the real parameters (must take back Thomas), the Warriors would have give up Pietrus and O'Bryant for Artest + use a big chunk of their $10M trade exception to take Thomas.
That's the same Kenny Thomas who makes $7.3M this year, and is due $7.9M next year and $8.6M in 2009-'10.
If the Kings refuse to do this deal unless the Warriors take Thomas-and why wouldn't they?-and if the Warriors still do it, they'd be:
-Ensuring luxury-tax penalties, assuming they re-sign any or all of the Monta Ellis/Andris Biedrins/Matt Barnes, possibly Baron Davis F/A class this summer;
-Clogging up what has been a very clean salary structure needless for the next two years;
-And there's no way Artest would lead to a title.
Therefore: Adding him would be dumb in this scenario.
* OK, let's say the Kings shock the world and drop the demand to take Thomas in any Artest deal… My point:
Artest is a very good player, but, like Webber, he doesn't fit the Warriors' style.
I know I keep saying that about Webber and Don and Chris still tell me I'm wrong. I'm defending the integrity of their system, they're the ones frantically compromising it-weird, isn't huh?
I know Artest is a much, much, much, much better player right now than Webber and Artest is tough and could possibly defend some of the guys who give the Warriors trouble.
But he's not a power forward. He's a small forward. That's Stephen Jackson's position. And SJax ain't sitting down for any long period in my world, period.
So Artest plays power forward? He'd have to. (If he plays small forward, that bumps SJax to two-guard… so you're sitting Ellis? NO CHANCE. The Warriors are crazy but not that crazy.)
Artest is a dribble-dribble-dribble guy, so that's bad in an offense that's supposed to feature Baron. (And man, doesn't BD seem soooo pleased that Nellie is catering to Webber so deeply in the half-court offense?)
Artest is not a runner. I know Nellie might say: Hey, we don't need Webber
or Artest running! We can still run! And I will say: You're wrong, like you're wrong about Webber.
Plus, Artest is going to stop Carlos Boozer and Tim Duncan and Amare Stoudemire? Maybe he has a better shot than the other Warriors (except Brandan Wright)… But he's not going to stop them.
And Artest isn't going to limit a great power forward as much as his stagnant offensive game is going to limit the Warriors' run game.
Result: No gain from Artest, possible major loss. (Duplicates SJax, bogs down offense.)
* Chemistry, people! It's fragile and some smart NBA people tell me the Warriors were lucky to get away with Baron/SJax/Nellie last season and are tempting fate this year.
Then they added Webber.
What if they add Artest to the unstable chemical compound? I think that'd be crazy. I think he's a very talented player who does not fit the Warriors, though I seem to care more about that than the Warriors do right now.
* Also: Artest can opt-out and become an unrestricted F/A this summer.
That probably doesn't scare the Warriors as much as it would other franchises-they seem to like their players to be pending F/As and I kind of admire that about Mullin-it's still problematic.
-They'd risk chemistry by adding Artest.
-I'm not sure he'd help them a ton, and he'd hurt them on offense. Put him and Webber on the floor together and I don't think the Warriors offense is ever the same.
-He might force the Warriors to use a big part of their TE on a player they don't want and cause them to barrell into luxury tax.
-He might walk this summer or at least cause major agita the whole time.
-Oh, and he's as close to nuts as any pro athlete ever.
Summary: I have no idea what the Warriors are thinking these days, so the only thing that would shock me right now would be to do the logical thing.
No on Artest.
I really don't think the Warriors are going to do this. Even they're not that desperate. They might trade Pietrus. They might do some other littler things. But I don't think they're crazy enough to trade that much for Artest.
Possibly.
