PDA

View Full Version : The Ron Artest Myth



Hicks
04-20-2005, 09:06 AM
Commonly I see his defenders talk about how we won't win a title without him, or that we'll sink to mediocrity if we trade him. What they never seem to admit is that the clock will continue to tick. We might be there for a while, but if you don't think this franchise will move on within 3 years you are crazy. That doesn't mean we will win a title in 3 years if we trade Artest. Just like keeping Ron doesn't mean we will win a title next season. But it astounds me how some people would have you think time will freeze when Ron is gone (if he is) and we'll be in mediocrity for ever and ever and ever.

travmil
04-20-2005, 09:21 AM
But it astounds me how some people would have you think time will freeze when Ron is gone (if he is) and we'll be in mediocrity for ever and ever and ever.

Where was Ron Artest when this team went to the NBA finals?

'Nuff said.

It can be done with or without him. Does he make it easier? Maybe. However, this year, he made it very much harder.

ABADays
04-20-2005, 09:24 AM
Nuclear winters are hard.

RWB
04-20-2005, 09:25 AM
I'm sorry I don't get it. You can apply this logic to any player we have and the majority of players in the NBA except for maybe Shaq or that Duncan guy.

Peck
04-20-2005, 09:31 AM
I'm sorry I don't get it. You can apply this logic to any player we have and the majority of players in the NBA except for maybe Shaq or that Duncan guy.

Actually, if I understand what Hicks is writing, I think you do get it. No one player (minus super superstars) is bigger than TEAM.

Reggie4Three
04-20-2005, 09:40 AM
That doesn't mean we will win a title in 3 years if we trade Artest. Just like keeping Ron doesn't mean we will win a title next season.

I think this part signals my feelings on why we should not get rid of Artest. We know we are close with him. I know we take a big step down without him. I know it's going to be next to impossible to trade him for anything close to equal value. If we trade Artest, I can't imagine getting enough in return to keep us in championship contention. If we keep Ron, we will have the talent to compete. It's just up to Bird and Carlisle to figure out how to keep everything on track and everything on the same page. It's not a guaranteed title in the next 3 years, but I believe it's 3 guaranteed (reasonable) chances. If we trade him, I don't think we'll have those chances. I'll take the chances of another brawl-like blowup out of Artest (imo, chances are like 0% to happen again) in order to keep those 3 chances since I think without him we won't have any at this point.

Grant
04-20-2005, 09:47 AM
Where was Ron Artest when this team went to the NBA finals?

The same place Jermaine O'Neal was? A different roster? :shrug:

The Finals team was a very different team. I think that the current team needs Artest to win it all. For that matter the current team needs Tinsley as well.

Maybe if the Pacers got a good player in return, but for now:

Artest = Contenders
No Artest = Pretenders

beast23
04-20-2005, 09:55 AM
But, by the same token, there have been teams who kept their core of players together that were in the finals, even won the finals, year after year.

Chicago, Boston, LA.

There is a lot to be said about continuity.

Our team that got us to the finals didn't appear overnight. It matured over a period of years, knocking on the door, but not quite getting in. We did make minor tweaks through the years, but the constant players seemed to be Dale, Rik and Reggie.

Suaveness
04-20-2005, 10:00 AM
Team is great and all, but you need great players to win you titles. Only Detroit in the last decade has seem to done this without a top player. But most great teams have great players, so losing Artest in my opinion is a mistake. You will not get equal value for him.

Unclebuck
04-20-2005, 10:25 AM
I still believe in the superstar theory. A team is only as good as its best 1 or 2 players.

The Pistons might be the exception, but they have 5 current allstar caliber players. No other team comes close to that.

So is it easier to get two great players and build around those two or is it easier to try and get 5 allstar caliber players.

well considering the Pacers already have two great players, I think will be easier to build around those two than to go out trade Artest and hope to add 3 allstars later.

If we could trade Artest for 3 of the Pistons players, then I say, lets do it

Mushmouth
04-20-2005, 10:39 AM
But, by the same token, there have been teams who kept their core of players together that were in the finals, even won the finals, year after year.

Chicago, Boston, LA.

There is a lot to be said about continuity.

Our team that got us to the finals didn't appear overnight. It matured over a period of years, knocking on the door, but not quite getting in. We did make minor tweaks through the years, but the constant players seemed to be Dale, Rik and Reggie.

The basketball gods (and football gods) LOVE continuity. We will remain contenders, serious contenders, so long as Artest and JO are the core of this team.

However, of course you're right Hicks. It won't cause the Pacers to lose their fanbase and move to Vegas.

But that doesn't mean it should happen.

Hicks
04-20-2005, 11:04 AM
Actually, if I understand what Hicks is writing, I think you do get it. No one player (minus super superstars) is bigger than TEAM.

Ding! Especially after what I've seen Rick and this bunch do all year.

ChicagoJ
04-20-2005, 11:04 AM
Until the Reggie and Dale revitalization projects, this team was playing with only 3 or 4 starting-caliber players.

I think its twisted logic to only look at the subtraction of Ron in a vacuum. Take T. Parker or Ginobolli away from SA and replace them with a Michael Curry/ Tremaine Fowlkes type of player and see if they're still a contender?

The point is, the Pacers are going to get something in return for him. And it may not be "as good" on paper but it will make "the team" better. This team already has one superstar and another young player on the edge of stardom (*if* he can ever figure out how to stay healthy for the playoffs), so I don't really see where 'trading the third-most-important-player' is that big of a no-no. We already pass the 'superstar' test but just subtracting Ron without any suitable replacement was too big a hurdle for this team to overcome once the season began (especially with the injury problems).

However, I feel strongly that if you give DW and Rick the entire summer to tweak and prepare the team to move on without Ron, I'm confident they could keep us at a contending level.

It actually amazes me how little confidence the pro-Ron crowd actually has in Rick and the front office. I criticize them because they aren't perfect, but I'm generally quite confident in those folks.

We traded our third-most-important-player last summer, and nobody (save Tim) was jumping off a bridge or declaring we "were no longer contenders".

As I've been saying for more than a year, if you don't think Ron is reliable, this team isn't well-balanced and it may take multiple moves for them to remain contenders. If DD still has enough left in the tank (which, outside of Peck's mind, is still up-for-debate), then that may be one of those moves that makes it easier for the Pacers to replace Ron.

Hicks
04-20-2005, 11:10 AM
Unclebuck, I think Stephen Jackson and Jamaal Tinsley are border-line all-star players themselves, or have the potential to be soon. That would be one superstar and two all-stars right there w/o Ron. I will also add that we won't trade him for a bag of potatoes. We will get a good player back, good enough to fill the hole at SF just fine for Rick to work with it.

Unclebuck
04-20-2005, 11:12 AM
Hicks, I guess I don't consider Artest the 3rd most important player on the Pacers. He is 1A.


I have complete confidence in DW, LB and RC that they will make the right decision. I am confident they won't trade Artest. They all know basketball and they know better than any of us what Artest means to the team. The current players know as well as most of them are breaking down physically right about now, as they were forced to assume larger roles than they were capable of.

Face it the current Pacers team is built around Artest and J.O. So unless you are willing to take a step back for a couple of seasons, keep Artest.

Los Angeles
04-20-2005, 11:13 AM
Ron will either get old, get injured, or get traded. Just like every other player that ever played in a Pacers uniform. I'm with the Pacers organization with him or without him.

And speaking of continuity: none of the past 3 years has been incident free with Ron. With the exception of the majority (but not entirity) of last year, he's been a continual distractive, disruptive jack***. Don't know what all this continuity talk is about as Ron's "continuity" is what is keeping us from the Finals, NOT what is getting us there.

You can't preach continuity and then turn around and claim that Ron will be a changed man. That's a contradiction in my humble opinion.

ChicagoJ
04-20-2005, 11:21 AM
Face it the current Pacers team is built around Artest and J.O. So unless you are willing to take a step back for a couple of seasons, keep Artest.

That's less true now that it was in October.

The return of DD provides a source of "toughness" that makes Ron's look, well, fake.

The emergence of Jamaal Tinsley (when healthy) provides a suitable inside/out compliment to JO.

Yes, the Pacers still need a consistent wing player. SJax can be really, really good, or really, really bad. Even in his resurgence, Reggie hasn't exactly been consistent.

With or without Ron, we need at least one starting-caliber perimeter player that can be relied on for 100+ games per season. Because as both this season and last spring's playoffs proved, counting on Ron as a key player is a 'fatal' mistake for a team with championship aspirations. And I think DW & Co. are smart enough to not repeat this mistake.

BTW, I'd be open to keeping Ron in a sixth-man role. At least in that role, his outstanding on-court play is a bonus and when he's distracted, you've still got a full team of players.

Reggie4Three
04-20-2005, 11:25 AM
That's less true now that it was in October.

The return of DD provides a source of "toughness" that makes Ron's look, well, fake.

The emergence of Jamaal Tinsley (when healthy) provides a suitable inside/out compliment to JO.

Yes, the Pacers still need a consistent wing player. SJax can be really, really good, or really, really bad. Even in his resurgence, Reggie hasn't exactly been consistent.

With or without Ron, we need at least one starting-caliber perimeter player that can be relied on for 100+ games per season. Because as both this season and last spring's playoffs proved, counting on Ron as a key player is a 'fatal' mistake for a team with championship aspirations. And I think DW & Co. are smart enough to not repeat this mistake.

BTW, I'd be open to keeping Ron in a sixth-man role. At least in that role, his outstanding on-court play is a bonus and when he's distracted, you've still got a full team of players.

I completely disagree that last spring's playoffs proved that counting on Ron as a key player is a 'fatal' mistake for a team with championship aspirations.

Los Angeles
04-20-2005, 11:29 AM
BTW, I'd be open to keeping Ron in a sixth-man role. At least in that role, his outstanding on-court play is a bonus and when he's distracted, you've still got a full team of players.
Ron's ego is WAY too fragile for that. He's a starter, and always will be regardless of location. (Except when he's suspended by the league or by his own coach.)

ChicagoJ
04-20-2005, 11:38 AM
I completely disagree that last spring's playoffs proved that counting on Ron as a key player is a 'fatal' mistake for a team with championship aspirations.

What part of "migraine-gate" makes him the cornerstone of a contender?

There's some seriously disturbing stuff going on at the airport(s) and at practice or at home while skipping practice, I think his teammates and coaches were rapidly losing confidence in him. I wonder, if JO and Tinsley were remotely healthy, if Rick would've suspended him from Game #6? Because, in hind-sight, he should have.

Reggie4Three
04-20-2005, 11:55 AM
What part of "migraine-gate" makes him the cornerstone of a contender?

There's some seriously disturbing stuff going on at the airport(s) and at practice or at home while skipping practice, I think his teammates and coaches were rapidly losing confidence in him. I wonder, if JO and Tinsley were remotely healthy, if Rick would've suspended him from Game #6? Because, in hind-sight, he should have.

Without Ron there is no "migraine-gate" because we lose to Miami.

Kstat
04-20-2005, 12:01 PM
Without Ron there is no "migraine-gate"

I think thats the point Jay was trying to make.....

ChicagoJ
04-20-2005, 12:03 PM
Without Ron there is no "migraine-gate" because we lose to Miami.

Uh... To the best of my knowledge, Migraine-gate began in the Miami airport, after game #4, and continued throughout the rest of the playoffs. This problem wasn't isolated to game #6 of the ECFs, it just hadn't spilled over to the public 'stage' yet.

And on a lesser point, I've always disagreed with the notion that we won the Miami series because of Ron (amply documented in our archives). It wasn't Ron's presence that caused SVG to triple-team JO and let the rest of the team pick up all the tablescraps. There's a reason we had a variety of guys all have career games in that series, SVG knew he had to slow down JO at all costs and let guys like Ron, Tinsley, and even Foster have plenty of 'leftovers'.

And Miami was a good enough home team that they made it very interesting.

Hicks
04-20-2005, 12:09 PM
Face it the current Pacers team is built around Artest and J.O. So unless you are willing to take a step back for a couple of seasons, keep Artest.

This is true. My problem is every year Ron's had one thing or another to screw with the team. A part of me thinks this punishment was so long/harsh, that he might finally "get it" and we're good to go. However, I still can't ignore all that's gone on the past 3 seasons. You know what's gone on each year, so I won't list them. That's a lot of history suggesting that somehow, someway, he will find a way to hurt us every year that we keep him.

And if that's true, then the dream of Ron leading us to anything is fools gold, not real gold. I'd say 14 months from now I will know if it's fools gold or not. That will be long enough for him to have shown he's either grown up, or will never change.

indygeezer
04-20-2005, 12:11 PM
What part of "migraine-gate" makes him the cornerstone of a contender?

There's some seriously disturbing stuff going on at the airport(s) and at practice or at home while skipping practice, I think his teammates and coaches were rapidly losing confidence in him. I wonder, if JO and Tinsley were remotely healthy, if Rick would've suspended him from Game #6? Because, in hind-sight, he should have.


Jay, you know where I stand on this. Firmly and completely. But, if he is truelly working on his "issues" might they be working on these other things too? Hopefully? THe one problem I see with that....destructive behavior isn't learned overnight and it isn't de-programmed in 3 months either. It's like these stoners going off to rehab for 2 weeks and claiming to be "cured". THey may be dried out, but they ain't cured. Learning a new set of behaviours is gonna take years of effort on his part and in the meantime his fans and teammates will turn blue from holding their breath.

ChicagoJ
04-20-2005, 12:12 PM
And if that's true, then the dream of Ron leading us to anything is fools gold, not real gold. I'd say 14 months from now I will know if it's fools gold or not. That will be long enough for him to have shown he's either grown up, or will never change.

But that was also true 14 months ago.

At some point in time, you've got to say 'enough's enough.'

rabid
04-20-2005, 12:12 PM
Eh. We'll be a better team with him next year. All this other talk is just circular argument.

Don't we all know where we stand on this by now? Both sides believe strongly in their opinion, and there's no way to "prove" either side.

I'm ready to talk about Reggie and the playoffs. There'll be plenty of time for this talk during the offseason...

Reggie4Three
04-20-2005, 12:17 PM
Uh... To the best of my knowledge, Migraine-gate began in the Miami airport, after game #4, and continued throughout the rest of the playoffs. This problem wasn't isolated to game #6 of the ECFs, it just hadn't spilled over to the public 'stage' yet.

And on a lesser point, I've always disagreed with the notion that we won the Miami series because of Ron (amply documented in our archives). It wasn't Ron's presence that caused SVG to triple-team JO and let the rest of the team pick up all the tablescraps. There's a reason we had a variety of guys all have career games in that series, SVG knew he had to slow down JO at all costs and let guys like Ron, Tinsley, and even Foster have plenty of 'leftovers'.

And Miami was a good enough home team that they made it very interesting.

We lose the Miami series without Ron. Whatever you want to blame on Ron last season, he was our best overall player in the playoffs. Ron is an easy excuse for the poor play of other players (injuries to JO and Tinsley seemed to be the biggest factor to me).

Kstat
04-20-2005, 12:18 PM
We lose the Miami series without Ron. Whatever you want to blame on Ron last season, he was our best overall player in the playoffs. Ron is an easy excuse for the poor play of other players (injuries to JO and Tinsley seemed to be the biggest factor to me).

I think Ron MADE himself an easy excuse. Its not like people are blaming him out of nowhere.....

Hicks
04-20-2005, 12:21 PM
But that was also true 14 months ago.

At some point in time, you've got to say 'enough's enough.'

It might have been true, but for different reasons. Back then it was "will he stop breaking things, flipping people off, and getting too many flagrants"? And for the most part, he did.

Then 11/19 happened and opened up a whole new can of worms (more like a barrel of them), and now I think in about 14 months I'll know if he's learned that 1) he has limits that can never be crossed. Ever. and 2) It's do or die time in completely cleaning up his side-show acts or else his career will go in the toilet.

I predict I will have a good idea of the answers to these questions by next June or so.

So it's similar to what we were going through before, but it's on a different plane this time. He, for all intents and purposes, passed the test last time, but can he pass this one? 14 months.

Hicks
04-20-2005, 12:24 PM
Eh. We'll be a better team with him next year. All this other talk is just circular argument.

Don't we all know where we stand on this by now? Both sides believe strongly in their opinion, and there's no way to "prove" either side.

I'm ready to talk about Reggie and the playoffs. There'll be plenty of time for this talk during the offseason...

That's really true. I think the collective focus of PD should and probably will change to Reggie and the playoffs for the next few weeks.

Last summer was filled with Brad Miller talk, I'm sure this summer will be filled with Ron Artest talk.

Anthem
04-20-2005, 12:26 PM
Can we wait on this discussion until the offseason?

Or, perhaps, never?

There's nothing else to say. Nobody's going to change their minds. Let it go already.

Kstat
04-20-2005, 12:26 PM
Can we wait on this discussion until the offseason?

Or, perhaps, never?

There's nothing else to say. Nobody's going to change their minds. Let it go already.

You're giving me a migrane. I'll excuse myself from this thread for a few days....

Shade
04-20-2005, 12:30 PM
Actually, if I understand what Hicks is writing, I think you do get it. No one player (minus super superstars) is bigger than TEAM.


...except Brad Miller and Dale Davis, of course... ;)

ChicagoJ
04-20-2005, 12:34 PM
It might have been true, but for different reasons. Back then it was "will he stop breaking things, flipping people off, and getting too many flagrants"? And for the most part, he did.

Then 11/19 happened and opened up a whole new can of worms (more like a barrel of them), and now I think in about 14 months I'll know if he's learned that 1) he has limits that can never be crossed. Ever. and 2) It's do or die time in completely cleaning up his side-show acts or else his career will go in the toilet.

I predict I will have a good idea of the answers to these questions by next June or so.

So it's similar to what we were going through before, but it's on a different plane this time. He, for all intents and purposes, passed the test last time, but can he pass this one? 14 months.

To me, all of this stuff still falls into the same "bucket" - he's constantly doing things to undermine "the team". Different flavors, but the same problem. And presumably the same root cause.

Hicks
04-20-2005, 12:36 PM
To me, all of this stuff still falls into the same "bucket" - he's constantly doing things to undermine "the team". Different flavors, but the same problem. And presumably the same root cause.

True, but some of the "flavors" have already been taken care of, so that leaves me with some hope that the others will be too.

ChicagoJ
04-20-2005, 12:44 PM
Can we wait on this discussion until the offseason?

Or, perhaps, never?

There's nothing else to say. Nobody's going to change their minds. Let it go already.


Its like watching a train wreck. I just can't help myself some days. :blush:

Mourning
04-20-2005, 12:53 PM
Yeah, let's just get Bonzi!!! :rolleyes:

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

Anthem
04-20-2005, 12:59 PM
You're giving me a migrane. I'll excuse myself from this thread for a few days....

Feel free!

Bball
04-20-2005, 01:05 PM
It actually amazes me how little confidence the pro-Ron crowd actually has in Rick and the front office. I criticize them because they aren't perfect, but I'm generally quite confident in those folks.



:wave: Let me take that and I am not in the pro Artest crowd...

Perhaps it is because these people know that if Ron is sent packing and things do not immediately work with the replacement that management's philosophy (historically) has been to 'wait it out' rather than quickly look to rectify a mistake. It is always possibe trading Artest is the right thing... but the player in return is the wrong player. I'm not necessarily talking in an equal value sense, just possibly in various aspects of the game (chemistry problem, head case, worthless on the court, etc).

NOTE: Yes I know you get some of that with Artest BUT there is no argument he CAN play and pull his weight on the court... when he doesn't have a CD to promote.

-Bball

DisplacedKnick
04-20-2005, 01:12 PM
It might have been true, but for different reasons. Back then it was "will he stop breaking things, flipping people off, and getting too many flagrants"? And for the most part, he did.



I must have referred to that differently. I'm pretty sure my thoughts were, "Will he quit all the distracting, stupid, behaviors that detract from the team?"

IMO 11/19 was the last straw. Actually, for me the whole "time off to promote my album because I'm tired 5 games into the season" was the last straw but at that point I thought the Pacers had some time before he became a huge negative and could spend some time making a good deal.

Guess I was wrong. Anyway, I'm glad he's on your team and not mine because he's used up all the "Get Out of Jail Free" cards I have to give.

Los Angeles
04-20-2005, 01:19 PM
Guess I was wrong. Anyway, I'm glad he's on your team and not mine because he's used up all the "Get Out of Jail Free" cards I have to give.
Oh, Man. You shouldn't have said that. :o

Talk about jinx!

Chest Rockwell
04-20-2005, 01:24 PM
I'm sure Walsh and Bird are compiling a list with two columns - "pros" and "cons"

Pros - Young, passionate player who is an elite defender at 3 different positions. Unlike Rodman, also posesses scoring ability.

Cons - Complete nutjob.

They have to decide if the pros outweigh the cons. I think they can, especially since at times Ron seems downright serene. I'm rooting for him, because if he gets his act together, he can be the most complete player in the league. I'd hate to see him do that on another franchise.

Trading him would bring a less talented player who also has less baggage. I'm thinking someone like Lamar Odom. That doesn't really do much for me. I'd rather roll the dice with Artest.

DisplacedKnick
04-20-2005, 01:40 PM
Oh, Man. You shouldn't have said that. :o

Talk about jinx!

Yeah I know - and Isiah'd be the guy to get him.

At times I think we're so screwed up it wouldn't matter. Then I look at the small kiddie corps we have who MIGHT turn into players - Butler, Sweetney & Ariza, (and I'm not sure all hope is lost for Crawford either) and think that I don't want them around Ron.

I wish he'd get his head on straight because I love how he plays the game - but at some you have to give up the ghost.

Will Galen
04-20-2005, 06:00 PM
Commonly I see his defenders talk about how we won't win a title without him, or that we'll sink to mediocrity if we trade him. What they never seem to admit is that the clock will continue to tick. We might be there for a while, but if you don't think this franchise will move on within 3 years you are crazy. That doesn't mean we will win a title in 3 years if we trade Artest. Just like keeping Ron doesn't mean we will win a title next season. But it astounds me how some people would have you think time will freeze when Ron is gone (if he is) and we'll be in mediocrity for ever and ever and ever.

Not to defend those posters you are talking about . . . well yes I guess that's what I'm going to do. When they say we won't win a title or we will sink to mediocrity without Ron, well I don't agree with them, but common sense tells me they don't mean forever.

I think the three years you mentioned would be about right if we cut Ron and didn't get anything back for him. Posters suggesting that are sillier than Silly Putty in my estimation though.

I think Ron is a top ten player, but for instant if we traded Ron for Odom, (LA Laker's) I don't think the team would miss a beat. Now some of the other trades people purpose to trade Ron for (Bonsi Wells) yes trades like that would set us back.

However, like Unclebuck said in another post I have confidence in Pacer management and they will do what is best for the Pacers. If they trade Ron, I'll believe it was for the best. If they keep him, I'll believe it was for the best.

Bird was a player on championship teams, he knows what it takes to win championships. He knows whether Ron is to much of a distraction or not and he will act accordingly.

Harmonica
04-20-2005, 09:25 PM
I think when the dust settles on this season, Donnie and Larry will be at exactly the same place they were after the ECFs last season—that Ron needs to go. Although their options will be extremely limited. And if his ludicrous request for a month off to promote his CD and his locker room announcement to his teammates that he was planning to retire at the end of this season and 11/19 have somehow convinced them otherwise, then I need a long vacation to figure that one out.

Since86
04-20-2005, 09:33 PM
I think when the dust settles on this season, Donnie and Larry will be at exactly the same place they were after the ECFs last season—that Ron needs to go. Although their options will be extremely limited. And if his ludicrous request for a month off to promote his CD and his locker room announcement to his teammates that he was planning to retire at the end of this season and 11/19 have somehow convinced them otherwise, then I need a long vacation to figure that one out.

Do you ever post about anything else? I mean come on, you just say the same things over and over.

PS Don't forget to send PD a post card on that long vacation of yours.

Harmonica
04-20-2005, 09:42 PM
Do you ever post about anything else? I mean come on, you just say the same things over and over.

Really? Show me where I've said that before. And if you didn't notice, this is a Ron Artest thread. Now, care to contribute to the discussion or was it your intention to derail it?

Since86
04-20-2005, 09:54 PM
Any thread mentioning Artest. I can understand when you add something to your original arguement, but that's not the case.

It's also one thing to sit back and tell us what's going to happen from Donnie and Bird, and another just to say you wish he was traded. You don't know what goes on in the front office.

Harmonica
04-20-2005, 09:55 PM
It's also one thing to sit back and tell us what's going to happen from Donnie and Bird, and another just to say you wish he was traded. You don't know what goes on in the front office.

Okay, whatever you say.

Since86
04-20-2005, 10:00 PM
Okay, whatever you say.

Well, if you have an inside source, please share. Otherwise it's pure speculation.