PDA

View Full Version : Artest fans, what if we win it all?



PacerMan
04-10-2005, 11:24 AM
No, I don't think it's going to happen, but IF it did.

Would you be ready to trade the nutcase to get us even more help??

BigMac
04-10-2005, 11:32 AM
If we did win it without him, I think we would be so much stronger with him. To repeat (and I know I'm getting ahead of myself) but that would be the change that we would need to repeat. I don't think that we will be having any nutcase discussions next year (either he will be traded or you will not EVER see what you have previously seen from him next year).

Ragnar
04-10-2005, 11:33 AM
Remember Reggie is retiring. We will need another guy that can score 20 ppg.

Jermaniac
04-10-2005, 11:36 AM
If we win it all I dont care who we trade

Unclebuck
04-10-2005, 11:40 AM
I was waiting for someone to start a thread about this. I almost started one yesterday just to beat the clock.]

Lets see how the Pacers do in the playoffs.

I can see it now. J.O comes back and plays well, the Pacers play well , but just can't quite beat the Bulls and lose a 7th game in Chicago. Many will blame J.O.

Harmonica
04-10-2005, 11:41 AM
Good question, PM. This is similar to the Brad Miller debate in that we got farther last season than we ever did with Brad, yet a lot people still couldn't get over his departure. I suspect it would take nothing short of a championship for Artest fans as well before they would even entertain the thought of trading him.

able
04-10-2005, 11:45 AM
At any given time in the next 12 months the thought of trading Artest is besides being an obvious token of insanity, an impossibility if you want anything of near equal value in return.

The way in which you phrase your question and refer to Ron Artest makes it however more clear what your objective is with this thread.

Harmonica
04-10-2005, 11:46 AM
Remember Reggie is retiring. We will need another guy that can score 20 ppg.

Give Freddie the minutes and he's capable of scoring close to Reggie's average right now. And then of course there's Tins who showed that he's very capable of stepping it up.

Ragnar
04-10-2005, 11:47 AM
Hsrmonica this would not be like the Miller fracas. We got rid of a "coach" who could not lead his team out of a paper bag for a regular coach of the year candidate.

Harmonica
04-10-2005, 11:48 AM
Hsrmonica this would not be like the Miller fracas. We got rid of a "coach" who could not lead his team out of a paper bag for a regular coach of the year candidate.

Oh, trust me, the "Artest debate" would rage for years if he was traded.

3ptmiller
04-10-2005, 12:00 PM
Remember Reggie is retiring. We will need another guy that can score 20 ppg.

20 ppg is easy, but we need another guy who can hit clutch shots and is great shooter from SG position.. like 90% FTs, 40% 3PTs, 45% FGs.. another Reggie with other words :)

PacerMan
04-10-2005, 12:06 PM
At any given time in the next 12 months the thought of trading Artest is besides being an obvious token of insanity, an impossibility if you want anything of near equal value in return.

The way in which you phrase your question and refer to Ron Artest makes it however more clear what your objective is with this thread.

You're kind of paranoid dude.
I despise Ron Artest and have never hidden that.
HOWEVER, the objective of this thread IS TO ASK ARTEST SUPPORTERS IF WINNING IT ALL WOULD BE ENOUGH FOR THEM TO SAY "ENOUGH" OF RON ARTEST.

There's really nothing beyond that here.

Promise.

circlecitysportsfan
04-10-2005, 12:11 PM
20 ppg is easy, but we need another guy who can hit clutch shots and is great shooter from SG position.. like 90% FTs, 40% 3PTs, 45% FGs.. another Reggie with other words :)


So you are going to root for the pacers next year? Didn't see that coming.

Unclebuck
04-10-2005, 12:11 PM
You're kind of paranoid dude.
I despise Ron Artest and have never hidden that.
HOWEVER, the objective of this thread IS TO ASK ARTEST SUPPORTERS IF WINNING IT ALL WOULD BE ENOUGH FOR THEM TO SAY "ENOUGH" OF RON ARTEST.

There's really nothing beyond that here.

Promise.



OK, I'll play along if the Pacers win the championship without Artest, then they should trade him. If they win it without Tinsley, then at the very least AJ should be the starter next season.

I just don't see this as a very realistic question. If you asked, if the Pacers get to the ECF what should we do. That is a legitmate question.

3ptmiller
04-10-2005, 12:33 PM
So you are going to root for the pacers next year? Didn't see that coming.

Damn bad english i got... what do u mean with "root for the pacers"?

Harmonica
04-10-2005, 12:34 PM
OK, I'll play along if the Pacers win the championship without Artest, then they should trade him. If they win it without Tinsley, then at the very least AJ should be the starter next season.

I just don't see this as a very realistic question. If you asked, if the Pacers get to the ECF what should we do. That is a legitmate question.

Why the ECFs? I believe I asked Peck early last season how far would we have to go before he would reconsider his position on Brad (or something to that effect) and he said the ECFs. Did he? Well, we all know the answer to that.

Anthem
04-10-2005, 12:35 PM
I don't think it matters. The real question is whether Donnie and Larry think he's more of an asset or a more of a liability going forward.

If they think he's more of an asset, then keep him whether we win or not. If they think he's a liability, then trade him no matter what.

Like most of the board, I think he's more of an asset.

Anthem
04-10-2005, 12:36 PM
Why the ECFs? I believe I asked Peck early last season how far would we have to go before he would reconsider his position on Brad and he said the ECFs. Did he? Well, we all know the answer to that.

Who did you used to be, then? Because "Harmonica" wasn't a member of the board early last season.

Harmonica
04-10-2005, 12:40 PM
Who did you used to be, then? Because "Harmonica" wasn't a member of the board early last season.

Oh, Peck and I go way back. ;-)

ImCrazyB
04-10-2005, 12:40 PM
We couldn't repeat without Artest so why would we trade him?

Besides, I think his loyalty is all for the Pacers organization because they kept him and supported him through all his troubles on and off the court. The only guy I would trade Artest for would be Andrei Kirelinko because we need a shut down guy in return for Artest.

SoupIsGood
04-10-2005, 12:45 PM
At any given time in the next 12 months the thought of trading Artest is besides being an obvious token of insanity, an impossibility if you want anything of near equal value in return.

The way in which you phrase your question and refer to Ron Artest makes it however more clear what your objective is with this thread.


:shakehead


Insanity is when you do the same thing over and over again, but expect different results.

Harmonica
04-10-2005, 12:46 PM
We couldn't repeat without Artest so why would we trade him?

What kind of logic is that? First it's "we can't win a championship without Ron." Now it's, "we couldn't repeat without Ron?" That's insane. It appears the line is being redrawn now that the team is winning without him. Not to mention that we're doing it with defense.

Bball
04-10-2005, 01:18 PM
Oh, trust me, the "Artest debate" would rage for years if he was traded.

It will rage for years either way :devil:

-Bball

able
04-10-2005, 01:20 PM
What kind of logic is that? First it's "we can't win a championship without Ron." Now it's, "we couldn't repeat without Ron?" That's insane. It appears the line is being redrawn now that the team is winning without him. Not to mention that we're doing it with defense.

:rotflmao:

"line being drawn"

this is so funny, So now the line is drawn at winning, ok let's follow that "logic":

We also trade JO, after all he is grossly overpaid, and JT, since AJ is doing so good we are going to be champions and Ron, because he is "unstable", after that we twist Reggie's arm to stay on for a few more years, like DD and then Dump Hulk, since we obviously have no use for him anymoreeither as we have a winning team right now :D


See there is a line here, but that is the line between those that have feelings against Ron Artest and those thinking that perhaps he brings baggage but he is most likely to valuable a commoditty to trade away unless reasonable value is gotten in return, reasonable being at least equal value.

See most of us (Artest "fans") are seeing that with JO/RA/JT we have the nucleus of a real dynasty, those (Artest "haters") that want him gone can not bring anything to the table but that we are winning now and that he "Might" be a distraction again.

And no; besides the certainty that life ends sometime, we have no certainty about how Ron is going to be next year, as we do not know how the other players on this team will react to anything.

The likelyhood of repetition is far smaller then the likelyhood of us winning a title, be it repeat or first time with Ron.
You will not be able to replace the retiring Reggie Miller, nor the circumstances of this year which are both a very clear factor in our "winning" and whilst talking about our winning ways being equally forgetfull of the fact that we have not even qualified for the playoffs yet

Whilst a lot of people who are in support of keeping Ron are able to see the "chance" we are taking while keeping him, those who want to get rid of him fail to see the obvious points made for that decision and the utter minority they are in.

Without even answering the question of whether the devastating season we had thus far can be blamed on RA, which in my opinion it can not, since he did not ask anyone to join him into the stands, nor did he ask anyone to start hitting people in the audience what he did not do, nor did he ask to be pelted with whatever was capable of flying a trajectory long enough to come cloe or hit him, nor did he ask for an all out brawl, which was nowhere near the worst in sports history nor basketball history if you are just a little familiar with the ABA, nor did he cause JT or JO to become injured, or AJ and Regie for that matter, or Hulk, so perception has to be askew at least to even come close to making him responsible, the same people will argue it will happen again.
What foresight, you won the lottery lately ?

Bball
04-10-2005, 01:21 PM
Damn bad english i got... what do u mean with "root for the pacers"?

"root" equals "cheer" in this context.

"Cheer for the Pacers"

-BBall

Anthem
04-10-2005, 01:53 PM
Oh, Peck and I go way back. ;-)

rojo, is that you?

Harmonica
04-10-2005, 02:09 PM
See most of us (Artest "fans") are seeing that with JO/RA/JT we have the nucleus of a real dynasty, those (Artest "haters") that want him gone cannot bring anything to the table but that we are winning now and that he "Might" be a distraction again.

I don't think it's a matter of "wanting" him gone. His actions on 11/19 were so catastrophic that it seems to make his supporters forget his past transgressions. Or do they pale so much in comparison that they're simply willing to overlook them? Might? Going into the stands wasn't the first time Ron hurt this team. I could list the other times, but that's already been done ad nauseum on here. Might? I don't believe people change overnight. Maybe in the movies they do, but from my experience and observation of people in general (for which I rely on my living) they don't.

able
04-10-2005, 02:51 PM
You must be in need of support if you are relying on your observation qualities to live.

Stick to the point: "his actions on 11/19 were so catastrophic" Please explain the grand occurance to those of use who are so ignorant as we did see something totally different take place.

And please, don't start with "he went into the stands" nonsense, that has been done so many times in the ABA as well as the NBA that it isn't even close to a loose statement, it's an outright idiocy.

"His" actions were but a small part of the total transgressions that took place that evening, however the "tv" and "pr" have taken the context of the happening away, have made sinners out of believers and idiots out of wise men.

I suggest you sit down, watch it all, with the sound of and then come back and tell me what exactly it was that Ron did that was so catastrophic that is should be punished by near dead.

"The price you pay for freedom/a product's image"

Where do i keep hearing that?

Is it when I read about the "no fly list" or is it when I read about some poor mug being arrested because "sales-staff" is so "well educated" that they are even unaware of the currency available in the country they live in?

Stop living in the bubble that is presented to you every evening and start "observing" what happens around you

Harmonica
04-10-2005, 03:18 PM
You must be in need of support if you are relying on your observation qualities to live.

When someone starts out a discussion by insulting me, it pretty much ends the discussion. Let's see, who might rely on their "observation qualities" to make a living? Oh, psychologists, lawyers, writers, salespeople, almost any CEO of a company, GMs, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.



Stop living in the bubble that is presented to you every evening and start "observing" what happens around you

Oh looky, another insult. Strong and bitter words, my friend, are indication of a weak cause.

able
04-10-2005, 03:36 PM
lack of content-related answers is a far better showing of your hand.

But then, that has been your "handwriting" for a long time

Mourning
04-10-2005, 05:01 PM
Why would we want to trade Artest if we win it all this season? Reggie is gone, so we are a little less clutch late in quaters and at the end of games, might aswell add extra "D" in the form of Ron again we are going to need it.

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

TheSauceMaster
04-10-2005, 09:26 PM
I'm with UB , what if we win it all without Tinsley or even Worse without Ron , Tinsley , JO. Do we just trade all those guys or bench them ? Btw I said Tinsely cause there is nothing that shows me he will be back this year at all and I would say JO is questionable. Why would you want to bust up a 61 win team from last year ? If it wasn't for the Injuries and Suspensions we would have been on the same pace this year.

Harmonica
04-10-2005, 09:41 PM
I'm with UB , what if we win it all without Tinsley or even Worse without Ron , Tinsley , JO. Do we just trade all those guys or bench them? Btw I said Tinsely cause there is nothing that shows me he will be back this year at all and I would say JO is questionable. Why would you want to bust up a 61 win team from last year?

Because when it comes to Ron, we're not talking about his on-court abilities. Everyone knows that he is a dominant player. No one questions that. JO didn't miss flights or practices during the ECFs. Tins didn't make a locker room announcement that he was planning to retire at the end of this season or wanted to take time off to promote his rap CD. We're talking about the distractions and Ron's proven ability to wreak havoc on the team. Or as Rick called it on several occasions, his "conduct detrimental to winning."

Kegboy
04-10-2005, 10:42 PM
rojo, is that you?

I miss rojo. :cry:

At least, the rojo before he flipped out. :shrug:

SoupIsGood
04-10-2005, 10:46 PM
You must be in need of support if you are relying on your observation qualities to live.

Woah, now, keep those big guns in the holster. ;)


Stick to the point: "his actions on 11/19 were so catastrophic" Please explain the grand occurance to those of use who are so ignorant as we did see something totally different take place.

I'm not sure I understand your intent here. Are you implying his actions weren't catastrophic? He earned himself a season-long suspension, and left any chances we had at a title lying in ruins. I'm not sure it gets much more catastrophic in the NBA, in terms of what one player can do to a team.


And please, don't start with "he went into the stands" nonsense, that has been done so many times in the ABA as well as the NBA that it isn't even close to a loose statement, it's an outright idiocy.

The "'he went into the stands' nonsense?" I fail to see how that is nonsense, because it is what happened. Ron's actions were the only outright idiocy here.


"His" actions were but a small part of the total transgressions that took place that evening, however the "tv" and "pr" have taken the context of the happening away, have made sinners out of believers and idiots out of wise men.

As much as they may have been a bit overzealous of blaming the brawl on Ron, you are guilty of the same sort over-exaggeration here. It is quite the stretch to imply these television folks suddenly turned the public against Ron. TV may be influential, but I don't think viewers are quite as impressionable as you imply. Besides, most who follow the NBA probably didn't care for Ron before the brawl anyhow.




Stop living in the bubble that is presented to you every evening and start "observing" what happens around you

I told you to keep them in the holster.

TheSauceMaster
04-10-2005, 11:17 PM
Because when it comes to Ron, we're not talking about his on-court abilities. Everyone knows that he is a dominant player. No one questions that. JO didn't miss flights or practices during the ECFs. Tins didn't make a locker room announcement that he was planning to retire at the end of this season or wanted to take time off to promote his rap CD. We're talking about the distractions and Ron's proven ability to wreak havoc on the team. Or as Rick called it on several occasions, his "conduct detrimental to winning."

Well this was all before the Season ending suspension , maybe Ron will turnover a new leaf and see that being in the NBA is a privilage. I do believe though Ron has gotten a lecture from management that this was his last straw and possiably Stern has discussed or atleast passed through the channels the same thing. If the suspension doesn't wake Ron up then he deserve's to be banned for life , that may seem harsh to some. Ron is in charge of his destiny and no one can hurt Ron Artest but Ron himself.

I'm not going to act like some saint and claim if I was Ron that night I wouldn't have did the same thing , I really don't know how I would have reacted because I wasn't there. Remember there were alot of things that happen that night and not all of it was Ron Artest fault , I don't agree with going into the stands but I can see how it could have happened in any major sport. I do believe though Ron needs a chance to prove to everyone after such a punishment that he indeed is a changed man , I just don't see Bird,Walsh or Rick going around saying he is if he isn't.

I really hope Ron stays a Pacer but if he doesn't then I respect the decision that management just couldn't handle it anymore.

Anthem
04-10-2005, 11:19 PM
At least, the rojo before he flipped out. :shrug:

Yeah, I never was quite sure what happened there. He'd be good for this board.

Chauncey would, too, but he and Kstat would probably combine to give half the board apoplexy.

Hicks
04-10-2005, 11:30 PM
rojo, is that you?

rojo or 'ojor' hasn't been on PD save for the first couple weeks of its existence. I'm simply king of the kiddie corp. to him. He wouldn't touch this place with a pole. Harmonica is bulletproof.

Anthem
04-10-2005, 11:31 PM
Harmonica is bulletproof.
Are you sure? Harmonica's a lot more disagreeable than bulletproof was... :flirt:

Harmonica
04-10-2005, 11:35 PM
rojo or 'ojor' hasn't been on PD save for the first couple weeks of its existence. I'm simply king of the kiddie corp. to him. He wouldn't touch this place with a pole. Harmonica is bulletproof.

Now you've done it.

Harmonica
04-10-2005, 11:39 PM
I really hope Ron stays a Pacer but if he doesn't then I respect the decision that management just couldn't handle it anymore.

Well, it's not all about 11/19, there's a history of impulsive and self-destructive behavior that simply can't be discounted. And management couldn't handle it anymore by last summer. They just couldn't find any suckers willing to take him off our hands.

Bball
04-10-2005, 11:47 PM
FWIW: I think several NBA players would've done what Artest did in a similar situation. But saying that.... there's nobody in the NBA who's used up their 'benefit of the doubt' cards like Ron Artest. IOW, he is the last player that could've done that and gotten any chance of a light sentence (light in a relative sense ie: less than 20 games), sympathy, or 'understanding' from the league. His penalty was going to be BIG... and in fact it was [[[ H U G E ]]]. Artest should've known this and for that reason alone should not have reacted like he did. He couldn't afford to take the chance to give the league (or Pacers for that matter) any more ammo against him.

-Bball

Harmonica
04-11-2005, 11:07 AM
FWIW: I think several NBA players would've done what Artest did in a similar situation.

Name them. And even if that's true, it doesn't excuse or mitigate his actions.

Anthem
04-11-2005, 11:45 AM
Name them. And even if that's true, it doesn't excuse or mitigate his actions.
Well, of course it doesn't. But right after the brawl, they did an "around the league" and asked a bunch of players what would happen. Most players said "Yeah, most players in the league would probably respond that way." Only Grant Hill disagreed, really.

We know Kevin McHale would have... ;)

Bball hit it right on the head with this:

But saying that.... there's nobody in the NBA who's used up their 'benefit of the doubt' cards like Ron Artest. IOW, he is the last player that could've done that and gotten any chance of a light sentence (light in a relative sense ie: less than 20 games), sympathy, or 'understanding' from the league.

Bball
04-11-2005, 12:14 PM
Name them. And even if that's true, it doesn't excuse or mitigate his actions.

Did you skip over the second part of my reply?

To answer your question I think almost any starting player in the NBA would've reacted similarly in similar circumstances. Maybe not now, but on 11/19 I think it would be harder to find players (starters) who would not react similarly.

But that is beside the point. I thought the second part of my statement answered your concern.

-Bball

Harmonica
04-11-2005, 12:51 PM
Did you skip over the second part of my reply?

To answer your question I think almost any starting player in the NBA would've reacted similarly in similar circumstances. Maybe not now, but on 11/19 I think it would be harder to find players (starters) who would not react similarly.

But that is beside the point. I thought the second part of my statement answered your concern.

-Bball

I wouldn't have asked if I wasn't genuinely curious as to who you thought might go into the stands other than Ron. It doesn't really matter who said they might do the same thing after the fact because no one knows how they would respond under similar circumstances. A younger me would have probably acted similarly, but then again, I wasn't making $6 million a year in a high profile job with so much to lose when I was younger. I imagine not as many players as you might think would do the same thing Ron did. But then, I don't think many players other than Ron would have found themselves in that kind of situation. In other words, trouble seems to find certain people more than others.

ChicagoJ
04-11-2005, 01:00 PM
For everyone that says "that game was over, Rick shouldn't have had Ron in the game anymore" - and they may have a point. But our resident Harmonica player makes an interesting point, "...trouble seems to find certain people more than others."

Because if Ron doesn't even push "Gentle Ben" in the back, and "Little Bennie" gets his meaningless layup without being fouled, I'll bet both teams start jogging down the court and Rick calls a timeout when the ball gets to half-court and puts the scrubs in.

I'm not saying Ron could've predicted Ben's reaction, or the crowd's reaction, but many other players in the league would've let him have the dunk - unscathed - and would've just said, "Scoreboard" to him as they jogged down the court.

Although, with Ben and that crowd, just saying "Scoreboard" to him might've been enough to set off that tempest anyway. :shrug:

Fool
04-11-2005, 01:12 PM
You must be in need of support if you are relying on your observation qualities to live.

Stick to the point: "his actions on 11/19 were so catastrophic" Please explain the grand occurance to those of use who are so ignorant as we did see something totally different take place.

And please, don't start with "he went into the stands" nonsense, that has been done so many times in the ABA as well as the NBA that it isn't even close to a loose statement, it's an outright idiocy.

"His" actions were but a small part of the total transgressions that took place that evening, however the "tv" and "pr" have taken the context of the happening away, have made sinners out of believers and idiots out of wise men.

I suggest you sit down, watch it all, with the sound of and then come back and tell me what exactly it was that Ron did that was so catastrophic that is should be punished by near dead.

"The price you pay for freedom/a product's image"

Where do i keep hearing that?

Is it when I read about the "no fly list" or is it when I read about some poor mug being arrested because "sales-staff" is so "well educated" that they are even unaware of the currency available in the country they live in?

Stop living in the bubble that is presented to you every evening and start "observing" what happens around you

You either completely missed the argument here or this is the most blatant succesful 180 degree turn I've ever seen someone take an argument. (Well, maybe its only a 90 degree turn but the obviousness of it and its success is still outlandish)

Harmonica
04-11-2005, 01:39 PM
For everyone that says "that game was over, Rick shouldn't have had Ron in the game anymore" - and they may have a point. But our resident Harmonica player makes an interesting point, "...trouble seems to find certain people more than others."

Because if Ron doesn't even push "Gentle Ben" in the back, and "Little Bennie" gets his meaningless layup without being fouled, I'll bet both teams start jogging down the court and Rick calls a timeout when the ball gets to half-court and puts the scrubs in.

I'm not saying Ron could've predicted Ben's reaction, or the crowd's reaction, but many other players in the league would've let him have the dunk - unscathed - and would've just said, "Scoreboard" to him as they jogged down the court.

Although, with Ben and that crowd, just saying "Scoreboard" to him might've been enough to set off that tempest anyway. :shrug:

I also think most players would've taken care of business right there on the court after Ben's hard shove and wouldn't have been compelled to go and lay down on the scorer's table like a clown. Was Ron showing restraint, as some people like to point out? That's a matter of opinion. True restraint, as far as I'm concerned, would've been to go and sit down on the bench, which is what players are instructed to do when an altercation occurs. Now, one can argue that he was showing restraint by not going after Ben when he was shoved, but again, this is Ron we're talking about. He had to show restraint because of his past transgressions, but I think he made a horrible decision by going over to the scorer's table in the first place. And by doing that, he invited the trouble that followed. Ron's actions after he was shoved created this unique situation that other players simply wouldn't have created or found themselves in. So the "similar circumstances" argument is ridiculous.

Does that mean I'm discounting Ben's part in all of this or the ref's negligence in handling the situation? Absolutely not, but to me everything went awry when Ron, being the court jester that he is, went over to the scorer's table instead of the bench. Or as my mother used to like to tell me when I would get into trouble, Don't put yourself in those situations!

Bball
04-11-2005, 01:58 PM
You'll get no argument from me that Artest made himself a target...

It wouldn't surprise me that Wallace's (over)reaction wasn't calculated due to Artest's history.

Artest's history will follow him for a long time. Possibly his whole career. And if he can't stay under control it is possible his career will be shortened because of it (I guess it has already been shortened by most of a season).

I don't know that he'll ever truly be able to get back to a place where he can ever be given the benefit of the doubt. The black cloud will be hard to shake. It will be difficult for him to reinvent himself.

-Bball

Since86
04-11-2005, 03:20 PM
I also think most players would've taken care of business right there on the court after Ben's hard shove and wouldn't have been compelled to go and lay down on the scorer's table like a clown. Was Ron showing restraint, as some people like to point out? That's a matter of opinion. True restraint, as far as I'm concerned, would've been to go and sit down on the bench, which is what players are instructed to do when an altercation occurs.

Considering that the ref physically grabbed RA and rushed him to the scorer's table, I come to the conclusion that the ref wanted him in that area, or thought it was safe. If they wanted him to be at the bench, then they should of moved him there, instead of letting him stay there. I think it's kinda funny to blame Ron for being at the scorer's table when he didn't have that much control over where he ended up.



Ron's actions after he was shoved created this unique situation that other players simply wouldn't have created or found themselves in. So the "similar circumstances" argument is ridiculous.

I understand that he was no where near the scorer's table, but Micheal Finley tried to put himself in that situation just mere days after 11/19. He had to be phyiscally restrained from going into the stands, when he was injured no-less. Fan-player altercations are very common.


Does that mean I'm discounting Ben's part in all of this or the ref's negligence in handling the situation? Absolutely not, but to me everything went awry when Ron, being the court jester that he is, went over to the scorer's table instead of the bench. Or as my mother used to like to tell me when I would get into trouble, Don't put yourself in those situations!

Again, how can it be RA's fault when he was directed to the scorer's table? If he even sat on the edge, I believe he would of gotten hit. His mistake was going into the stands, not laying down on the scorer's table.

Harmonica
04-11-2005, 03:35 PM
Considering that the ref physically grabbed RA and rushed him to the scorer's table, I come to the conclusion that the ref wanted him in that area, or thought it was safe. If they wanted him to be at the bench, then they should of moved him there, instead of letting him stay there. I think it's kinda funny to blame Ron for being at the scorer's table when he didn't have that much control over where he ended up.

Ron didn't have much control where he ended up? Lying down on his back with his hands clasped behind his head? Which of course is typical of the buffoonery we've come to expect from Ron.



His mistake was going into the stands, not laying down on the scorer's table.

It was both, in my opinion, because one thing led to another. His going into the stands wasn't created in a vacuum.

Anthem
04-11-2005, 03:37 PM
Artest's history will follow him for a long time. Possibly his whole career. And if he can't stay under control it is possible his career will be shortened because of it (I guess it has already been shortened by most of a season).

If Rasheed Wallace can get himself a new image, Ron can too. But it's going to take a while. Three or four years, probably. And I agree that from here out, if there's anything controversial on the court, Ron needs to walk back to the bench, sit down, and wait for the thing to ride out.

But Since86 is right. Ron was at the scorer's table because that's where the ref put him. I don't mind that, and I don't even mind him laying back. His mistake was the stands.

Ironically, I've always felt that most of his punishment was not related to the stands, but to nailing the guy in front of the bench. That's what got the most airtime on national TV, and that's the still frame that you always saw in news reports. I haven't faulted Ron for that one, and even the Detroit prosecutor gave him a pass. But that was the most damaging to the league in terms of PR.

Anthem
04-11-2005, 03:39 PM
Ron didn't have much control where he ended up? Lying down on his back with his hands clasped behind his head? Which of course is typical of the buffoonery we've come to expect from Ron.

He's specifically responding to the "Why didn't Ron go to the bench" question.

And you know that. Enough with the manipulation.

Unclebuck
04-11-2005, 03:41 PM
Am I the only one who thinks that if Ron did not go into the stands, the floor would still have been littered with stuff the fans threw. No one remembers the the cup was not the only thing thrown prior to players going into the stands. You say well you can't see it on TV, maybe not but according to Mark and Slick and MM other things were thrown towards the court prior to the cup or at the same time as the cup.

Does this make any difference, no not really. But just an FYI


Oh, I don't blame Ron at all for sitting on the scorers table. In fact I think Ron did nothing zero, nada wrong until he went itno the stands.

Since86
04-11-2005, 03:44 PM
Ron didn't have much control where he ended up? Lying down on his back with his hands clasped behind his head? Which of course is typical of the buffoonery we've come to expect from Ron.

I don't know how long it's been since you've been grabbed and taken somewhere, but when it's not like he was going to throw the ref off of him and walk to the bench or somewhere else. When he grabbed RA and pretty much rode him to the scorer's table, common sense leads me to believe that the ref wanted him at that spot. If he wanted him at the bench, he would of taken him to the bench. Or is Ron just magically supposed to know that the ref wanted him to walk over there?



It was both, in my opinion, because one thing led to another. His going into the stands wasn't created in a vacuum.

After the fact that, it was dumb for him the lay down, but while everything was going on I laughed at him for it. It was a nonthreatening move to show that he wasn't trying to fight. It was a 'look at me, I'm just chilling here so you can't fine/suspended me for something.' I mean, come on he was actually getting ready to talk on the radio, or already was. Do you think that even if he just sat/stood there he wouldn't of had something thrown at him? He's had numerous other things thrown at him at the Palace while he was leaving the floor.

EDIT: By other times I mean during other games. Specifically coins....

Hicks
04-11-2005, 03:44 PM
Am I the only one who thinks that if Ron did not go into the stands, the floor would still have been littered with stuff the fans threw. No one remembers the the cup was not the only thing thrown prior to players going into the stands. You say well you can't see it on TV, maybe not but according to Mark and Slick and MM other things were thrown towards the court prior to the cup or at the same time as the cup.

Does this make any difference, no not really. But just an FYI

I'd heard that, but haven't seen it either. However for the first time I saw Ben Wallace throw the towel (finally found a clip from the DET broadcast, which captured that 'magic'). Ron nearly got up when that happened. He did sit back up, eyes wide looking at the ref as if to say "aren't you seeing this? aren't you going to DO anything about it?", and he gestured an arm/hand in Wallace's direction. Pacer players got him to lay back down then.

Anthem
04-11-2005, 03:46 PM
He's had numerous other things thrown at him at the Palace while he was leaving the floor.

Ron's been hit with a lot of stuff over the years... probably more than any other player in the NBA right now.

There was a time where he got hit with quarters for two or three straight games. You guys remember that? It was after the Miami incident, I think.

Also, I agree with everything UB just said.

Hicks
04-11-2005, 03:47 PM
Oh, I don't blame Ron at all for sitting on the scorers table. In fact I think Ron did nothing zero, nada wrong until he went itno the stands.

I tend to agree. I understand the argument of it looking like more clown behavior, but having seen him and how he reacted to other would-be nasty situations previously, his usual method of remaining passive was to lay on his back with his hands under his head. He did the exact same thing when Derrick Coleman gave him that flagrant foul last year. It's his usual "look at me NOT getting into this with player X". It LOOKED clownish, but I doubt it was meant to be.

Unclebuck
04-11-2005, 03:49 PM
I agree with everything UB just said.



I could really use that phrase to my advantage. Insert_______ name of poster, followed by "I agree with everything UB just said"



On a more serious note. If the Pacers players just stand there as stuff is thrown at them and don't react, do the Pistons organzation get fined. What if a Pacer player gets injured.

Since86
04-11-2005, 03:50 PM
Ron's been hit with a lot of stuff over the years... probably more than any other player in the NBA right now.

There was a time where he got hit with quarters for two or three straight games. You guys remember that? It was after the Miami incident, I think.

Also, I agree with everything UB just said.


I don't agree with Ron's actions, because it's just gonna be worse for him. But something had to give. To have a player constantly be assualted, and not expect something to break is just stupid. He informed the league that this was repeatedly happening, and as far as the public knows nothing has happened.

I know handling fans gets tricky, but something has to change in every sport. Having a first base coach get attacked by a father and his son, is a prime example.

Unclebuck
04-11-2005, 04:01 PM
Some of you are forgetting, Ron has done almost that exact type of thing before.

Unclebuck
04-11-2005, 04:08 PM
Sorry UB, this thread is getting really confusing.

What type of thing are you refering to?

Sorry, I see now it is not clear as to what I mean. I'm talking about sitting on the scorers table. There have been several incidents over the years where you hold your breath hoping Ron does not react and more often than not he doesn't.

Sorry I could to go

Harmonica
04-11-2005, 04:10 PM
He's specifically responding to the "Why didn't Ron go to the bench" question.

And you know that. Enough with the manipulation.

I know exactly what he was responding to, but my point isn't that he went over to the scorer's table, it's that he laid down on it. So I don't see how my response was manipulative.

Since86
04-11-2005, 04:16 PM
I know exactly what he was responding to, but my point isn't that he went over to the scorer's table, it's that he laid down on it. So I don't see how my response was manipulative.


Do you really think that him laying on the table got the response, or him just being there? If he gets stuff thrown at him while he's walking into the tunnel, then I find it hard to argue that he would of been fine if he would of just stood or sat there.

Again, hindsight is 20-20, but get real if you think that the reason he was targeted is because he was laying down.

Harmonica
04-11-2005, 04:19 PM
Oh, I don't blame Ron at all for sitting on the scorers table. In fact I think Ron did nothing zero, nada wrong until he went itno the stands.

I don't think he did anything wrong by lying down on the scorer's table either, but in my opinion it was a bad decision on his part because it led to everything elseóBen tossing the towel at him and inciting the crowd, John Green tossing the cup at him, etc. He invited trouble by doing that and it found him. And like I said, trouble seems to find certain people and Ron appears to be one of those people.

Harmonica
04-11-2005, 04:23 PM
Do you really think that him laying on the table got the response, or him just being there? If he gets stuff thrown at him while he's walking into the tunnel, then I find it hard to argue that he would of been fine if he would of just stood or sat there.

Again, hindsight is 20-20, but get real if you think that the reason he was targeted is because he was laying down.

I think once he laid down, he drew even more attention to himself and inflamed an already tense situation.

Mourning
04-11-2005, 04:32 PM
I don't think he did anything wrong by lying down on the scorer's table either, but in my opinion it was a bad decision on his part because it led to everything elseóBen tossing the towel at him and inciting the crowd, John Green tossing the cup at him, etc. He invited trouble by doing that and it found him. And like I said, trouble seems to find certain people and Ron appears to be one of those people.

I don't aggree with that. Using that logic you could almost turn around the blame and more importantly the responsebility 180 degrees on where it should be and that is the people taking things in there own hand by throwing stuff and Ben doing that aswell.

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

ChicagoJ
04-11-2005, 04:36 PM
Misunderstanding. There's nothing to see here.

Please ignore all future references to this post.

Since86
04-11-2005, 04:39 PM
"Where it [the blame] should be?"

Let's see:

Ron
Ben
The fans
The refs
Pistons organization.

In what order do you rank them? Who cares. I blame all five equally.


He was saying that the blame for something being thrown shouldn't be on Ron for laying down, not for the whole incident.......................

Unclebuck
04-11-2005, 04:48 PM
No one is arguing that Ron is not most at fault in the whole affair. It is just a matter of to what degree.

has anyone ever argued that Ron should not have received the longest suspension? No one ever has

Since86
04-11-2005, 04:49 PM
and Jay was saying it doesnt matter ;)

Oh, but for this particular convo, it does.

Mourning
04-11-2005, 04:51 PM
I would blame all of the previously mentioned, but that Pistons fan would be nr.1 on my list, he's who started making it really "physical" with throwing things, Ben did throw some things at Ron too, but he shouldn't have even been on the court anymore, so blame Ben AND the Refs for that.

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

Anthem
04-11-2005, 04:52 PM
This thread is now 4 pages long.

Well, I've had my fill of the Ron debate. I can't believe I keep getting dragged back into it. I'll come back to this thread in a month or so... I'm sure it will still be going then.

Mourning
04-11-2005, 04:53 PM
Off all the players involved I thinks its "logical" Ron got the hardest penalty, though I still think the whole season + playoffs was too much. 50-60 games should have been enough, but ok..... let's not go down on this road again ;).

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

ChicagoJ
04-11-2005, 04:59 PM
-snip- has anyone ever argued that Ron should not have received the longest suspension? No one ever has

I thought I argued that SJax's actions were worse than Ron's, but since SJax wasn't facing a 'habitual criminal' charge and Ron was the first one into the stands that those were mitigating circumstances.

I know for sure that I argued that SJax's suspension should've been equal to Ron's, although some of you missed my point and thought that I was trying to say Ron's punishment was too tough, not that SJax got "off the hook" easy.

While SJax was throwing haymakers in the stands, Ron was able to slip out calmly - almost undetected by ESPN but visible on the Indiana broadcast and remain fairly calm until those dip****s threatened him on the court.

ChicagoJ
04-11-2005, 05:00 PM
He was saying that the blame for something being thrown shouldn't be on Ron for laying down, not for the whole incident.......................

I've re-read Mourning's post, I think I misunderstood him originally.

Unclebuck
04-11-2005, 05:34 PM
Well I guess I was wrong then

Will Galen
04-11-2005, 05:41 PM
No, I don't think it's going to happen, but IF it did.

Would you be ready to trade the nutcase to get us even more help??


Without reading any replys. If we win it all I say great! As for more help we couldn't get anyone that would be more help.

grace
04-11-2005, 06:32 PM
I have another question: If we win it all we people stop bringing up Ron Artest every :censored: day? Lets obsess about Scot Pollard's every changing facial hair instead.

As for the original question I have no problem trading anyone if we can get equal value in return.