SacKingZZZ wrote:No that's not what I am saying, what I am saying is the Kings have NO interest in taking on the risk you inherently take with re-signing a guy like Artest long term because the eventual and mostly immediate outcome won't yield much in the way of much greater success than without him at all. Say that in one breath!
I am saying this: Regardless of financial situation, I believe the Kings will not and do not want to re-sign Ron Artest. Period. End of story. In fact, they might not even bring Ron back if he agreed to PAY to play for the Kings.
But you were talking about "evidence" that they felt this way. The "evidence" seems to be that you feel this way.
And what you're saying at the end there is truly ridiculous. If you can get Ron to play for you on a very cheap contract (or pay to play for you, like you said), then you keep him every single time. If nothing else, his trade value would be sky high on a cheap contract.