PDA

View Full Version : If Ron Isn't Moved By The Deadline.....



DG-33
01-22-2006, 04:44 AM
If Ron isn't moved by the deadline, that means after 2 1/2 months, teams are still too turned off by his past to take a chance on him.Teams will still be turned off by his past come offseason. That means, the only way to regain trade value is to play Ron the rest of the season, and hope that everything goes smooth.

If Ron isn't traded by the deadline, he must return to the Pacers lineup for the remainder of the season if we ever have any hopes of trading him for anything worthwhile.

Pingu
01-22-2006, 04:45 AM
BTW, when is exactly the deadline?

Mourning
01-22-2006, 04:54 AM
If Ron isn't traded by the deadline, he must return to the Pacers lineup for the remainder of the season

You can forget about this.

PacerMan
01-22-2006, 11:28 AM
If Ron isn't moved by the deadline, that means after 2 1/2 months, teams are still too turned off by his past to take a chance on him.Teams will still be turned off by his past come offseason. That means, the only way to regain trade value is to play Ron the rest of the season, and hope that everything goes smooth.

If Ron isn't traded by the deadline, he must return to the Pacers lineup for the remainder of the season if we ever have any hopes of trading him for anything worthwhile.

No

DG-33
01-22-2006, 01:55 PM
Yes.

It's about what's best for the team. If it takes playing Ron Artest to get something of value for him in the offseason, then Jermaine O'Neal will have to stop crying, suck it up and do what's best for the team.

Lord Helmet
01-22-2006, 02:00 PM
Ron will never play for the Pacers again.

DG-33
01-22-2006, 02:07 PM
He will if it's what's best for the team.

Hicks
01-22-2006, 02:07 PM
He will if it's what's best for the team.

It's not, and he won't.

DG-33
01-22-2006, 02:17 PM
Someone explain to me how having Ron Artest play for the team hurts the team? You have so much bitterness towards Ron that you put hurting him above helpong the team.

Artest Plays:
We Pull Ahead Of .500
We Make Some Noice In The Playoffs
Rons Trade Value Greatly Increases (Provided No More Incidents)
Ron Gets Traded For Something Worthwhile
We're Back On Track For The Coming Seasons

Artest Doesnt Play:
We're a .500 Team
We Get Eliminated In The 1st Round
Ron Has 0 Trade Value And No Hope Of Increasing It
He Gets Traded For Crap
We're a .500 Trade For The Forseeable Future

The positives far, far outweigh the negatives. If Artest isn't traded, it greatly benefits the Pacers to play him. If Jermaine O'Neal has a problem with that, then I, and the rest of you, should have a problem with him. Team before individuals. JO needs to understand that.

Kstat
01-22-2006, 02:20 PM
Interesting how you just assume Ron's teamates will accept him back with open arms.

Newsflash: You dont play good basketball if your best players CANT STAND each other. Shaq and Kobe could barely do that, and Ron and JO are nowhere near Shaq and Kobe.

Yes, JO would play with Artest, not for the good of the team (which it wouldnt be), but because he wants to continue earning a paycheck.

In the meanwhile, his level of play would drop off, and he'd almost definately ask Donnie to trade him.


If Jermaine O'Neal has a problem with that, then I, and the rest of you, should have a problem with him. Team before individuals. JO needs to understand that.

Wow. You can't get much more hypocritical than that.

....so the fans should have a problem with the all-star that actually WANTS to play for the pacers, instead of the all-star that REFUSED to play for the Pacers?

Did I miss a meeting?

"Team before individuals?" Did you just say that and blissfully overlook that's been the antithesis of Ron's whole career?

JO doesn't want Ron back because he knows Ron can't be trusted not to hurt the team MORE than he already has. He wants teamates that will be loyal to the TEAM. That's called being a good teamate TO THE TEAMATES THAT ACTUALLY MATTER. He won't let Ron screw over the TEAM any more than he has.

In that aspect, I respect Jermaine O'Neal. He had the balls to pick a side and stick with it, wheras Pacers management has kowtowed to Ron's will every time.

Hicks
01-22-2006, 02:22 PM
Someone explain to me how having Ron Artest play for the team hurts the team? You have so much bitterness towards Ron that you put hurting him above helpong the team.

Artest Plays:
We Pull Ahead Of .500
We Make Some Noice In The Playoffs
Rons Trade Value Greatly Increases (Provided No More Incidents)
Ron Gets Traded For Something Worthwhile
We're Back On Track For The Coming Seasons

Artest Doesnt Play:
We're a .500 Team
We Get Eliminated In The 1st Round
Ron Has 0 Trade Value And No Hope Of Increasing It
He Gets Traded For Crap
We're a .500 Trade For The Forseeable Future

The positives far, far outweigh the negatives. If Artest isn't traded, it greatly benefits the Pacers to play him. If Jermaine O'Neal has a problem with that, then I, and the rest of you, should have a problem with him. Team before individuals. JO needs to understand that.

Are you totally in the dark about his chemistry issues? Do you not understand them? Did someone not fax you that memo? They are OBVIOUS. And yes, they matter. A lot. So much so that the GM who babied him for 3 years is finally done with him. So much so that the OTHER GM who's here that assisted in the babying, says he feels BETRAYED be him. And that's not even to mention how JO feels. Or the rest of the team not named Stephen Jackson. And THAT is to not even mention his laundry list of issues developed the past three years. It is unbelievable you can't see the obvious here.

rexnom
01-22-2006, 02:26 PM
Interesting how you just assume Ron's teamates will accept him back with open arms.

Newsflash: You dont play good basketball if your best players CANT STAND each other. Shaq and Kobe could barely do that, and Ron and JO are nowhere near Shaq and Kobe.

Yes, JO would play with Artest, not for the good of the team (which it wouldnt be), but because he wants to continue earnign a paycheck.

In the meanwhile, his level of play would drop off, and he'd almost definately ask Donnie to trade him.

Yeah, originally I was a proponent for taking Ron back. All of that was before J.O.'s "me or him" quote and the supposed vote in the lockerroom. Ron can't come back if the players don't want him back. If he came back our team would have lockerroom riots, Artest's power would go to his head, Carlisle would have NO authority, like Kstat said, J.O. would probably ask to be traded, Granger and Harrison's development would be terrible, Freddie will leave, Saras will wish he hadn't stayed, I haven't the faintest what Jack would do (which is a problem in and of itself), and Tinsley would prolly be injured, etc.

In short: Artest + return to Pacers = Disaster.

rexnom
01-22-2006, 02:30 PM
Are you totally in the dark about his chemistry issues? Do you not understand them? Did someone not fax you that memo? They are OBVIOUS. And yes, they matter. A lot. So much so that the GM who babied him for 3 years is finally done with him. So much so that the OTHER GM who's here that assisted in the babying, says he feels BETRAYED be him. And that's not even to mention how JO feels. Or the rest of the team not named Stephen Jackson. And THAT is to not even mention his laundry list of issues developed the past three years. It is unbelievable you can't see the obvious here.

What hurts me the most is that Ron went with J.O. and Jack asking to keep the team together for a championship run and then he has the audacity to demand a trade IN PUBLIC and claim it's for the better of the team. I wonder if he would have said the same had we started like the Pistons. I seriously wonder. I have no idea what goes through his head these days. I don't think anyone can control him and any team that trades him is in for a rude awakening. After a nice honeymoon the guy is pretty much fool's gold and he will destroy whatever team we are lucky enough to trade him too.

DG-33
01-22-2006, 02:31 PM
Interesting how you just assume Ron's teamates will accept him back with open arms.

Newsflash: You dont play good basketball if your best players CANT STAND each other. Shaq and Kobe could barely do that, and Ron and JO are nowhere near Shaq and Kobe.

Yes, JO would play with Artest, not for the good of the team (which it wouldnt be), but because he wants to continue earnign a paycheck.

In the meanwhile, his level of play would drop off, and he'd almost definately ask Donnie to trade him.

The Pacers players might not want Ron back (I don't blame them), but in the end it's about whats best for the team. Playing Ron has far more benefits to the Pacers than not playing Ron. If JO or Austin Croshere want to whine about that, then they seriously need their loyalty questioned.

If Ron Artest isn't traded by the deadline it's for one reason - all Donnie Walsh is getting is crap offers. There's no logical reason to expect things to change by the offseason, so the only hope of increasing Ron's trade value would be to play him, and have things go well with him and the team.

It's not about doing what you want, it's about doing what you have to do to get what you need. If Austin Croshere would prefer playing on a .500 team for the forseeable future rather than play 30 something games with Artest in the lineup, then Crosheres needs to be moved just as badly as Ron does.

Bball
01-22-2006, 02:35 PM
Peck was right...

The fans will find a point to start clamoring for Artest's return.

-Bball

Kstat
01-22-2006, 02:35 PM
The Pacers players might not want Ron back (I don't blame them), but in the end it's about whats best for the team. Playing Ron has far more benefits to the Pacers than not playing Ron. If JO or Austin Croshere want to whine about that, then they seriously need their loyalty questioned.

If Ron Artest isn't traded by the deadline it's for one reason - all Donnie Walsh is getting is crap offers. There's no logical reason to expect things to change by the offseason, so the only hope of increasing Ron's trade value would be to play him, and have things go well with him and the team.

It's not about doing what you want, it's about doing what you have to do to get what you need. If Austin Croshere would prefer playing on a .500 team for the forseeable future rather than play 30 something games with Artest in the lineup, then Crosheres needs to be moved just as badly as Ron does.

The Pacers would not be much better than .500 WITH Artest, so the point is moot.

If you have no chemistry you cannot win, and Indiana's chemistry only gets worse if Ron comes back.

Croshere would probably rather play on a .500 team that take on a player that might take Indiana out of the playoffs altogether.

Ron would put up fine numbers, but it'd be for naught. The team woudlnt win because they don't believe in Ron anymore. This isn't a pick-up-game, you need CHEMISTRY to win in the NBA.

Ron does not bring winning, he only brings more headaches and problems. The players probably realize this a lot better than you do.

Bball
01-22-2006, 02:50 PM
The Pacers would not be much better than .500 WITH Artest, so the point is moot.

If you have no chemistry you cannot win, and Indiana's chemistry only gets worse if Ron comes back.

Croshere would probably rather play on a .500 team that take on a player that might take Indiana out of the playoffs altogether.

Ron would put up fine numbers, but it'd be for naught. The team woudlnt win because they don't believe in Ron anymore. This isn't a pick-up-game, you need CHEMISTRY to win in the NBA.

Ron does not bring winning, he only brings more headaches and problems. The players probably realize this a lot better than you do.


I believe some are arguing we will never trade Artest (for anything other than popcorn) unless we let him play and the on the court product right now doesn't matter much anyway (at this point). That is a different issue than what you're speaking to. IOW- You go to the players and frame the question differently- Would you allow Artest back in hopes of increasing his (abysmal) trade value?

Now, some are saying he'd improve the team but not everyone is saying that. They're saying we put ourselves into the worst possible position for trading Artest and allowing him back could improve that. ...and that we are losing and have chemistry problems just fine without him.

Note: Which comes first, losing or chemistry problems?

-Bball

DG-33
01-22-2006, 02:59 PM
Interesting how you just assume Ron's teamates will accept him back with open arms.

Newsflash: You dont play good basketball if your best players CANT STAND each other. Shaq and Kobe could barely do that, and Ron and JO are nowhere near Shaq and Kobe.

Yes, JO would play with Artest, not for the good of the team (which it wouldnt be), but because he wants to continue earning a paycheck.

In the meanwhile, his level of play would drop off, and he'd almost definately ask Donnie to trade him.



[QUOTE=Kstat]Wow. You can't get much more hypocritical than that.

....so the fans should have a problem with the all-star that actually WANTS to play for the pacers, instead of the all-star that REFUSED to play for the Pacers?

Did I miss a meeting?
I said the fans shouldn't have a problem with Artest? That's news to me.
The fans, myself included, should and do have a problem with Ron Artest. But this isn't about doing whats good for Ron, it's about doing what's good for the Pacers. Playing Ron is good for the Pacers future, and if Jermaine O'Neal would have a problem with that, then we all should have a problem with Jermaine.
You honestly think I'm for Ron playing for Rons sake? Not a chance in hell. But the team needs more talent to compete, and Ron Artest, as his value stands now, wont get that neccesary talent. If he could play the rest of the season without incident (a big if I know), his trade value would skyrocket. He could then be traded for something worthwhile in the offseason, and the Pacers future is suddenly respectable again.


"Team before individuals?" Did you just say that and blissfully overlook that's been the antithesis of Ron's whole career?
Read above. It's not about Ron. It's about the Pacers. You don't seem to understand that.


JO doesn't want Ron back because he knows Ron can't be trusted not to hurt the team MORE than he already has. He wants teamates that will be loyal to the TEAM. That's called being a good teamate TO THE TEAMATES THAT ACTUALLY MATTER. He won't let Ron screw over the TEAM any more than he has.

In that aspect, I respect Jermaine O'Neal. He had the balls to pick a side and stick with it, wheras Pacers management has kowtowed to Ron's will every time.
JO knows we're a better team with Ron. I know it, you know it, Jose Canseco knows it, the drummer for Geen Day knows it.
JO doesn't want Ron back because he doesnt like him personally. Remember, Jermaine O'Neal's mentality, while not on Rons level. isn't exactly mature. He's the type of guy who would put his own grudges above the teams needs. Remember when he threatened to not resign if we fired Isiah Thomas? Isiah was a terrible coach ,everyone knew that included Jermaine. But because he was JO's buddy, JO would rather have him here then a coach who could actually get the team somewhere. Thats a testament to how self-centered and "my wants before the teams needs" Jermaine O'Neal can be. Refusing to allow Ron to return, when it would be best for the teams future if he did so, would be yet another selfish move by Jermaine. And yes all Pacer fans should have a problem with that.

DG-33
01-22-2006, 03:00 PM
Are you totally in the dark about his chemistry issues? Do you not understand them? Did someone not fax you that memo? They are OBVIOUS. And yes, they matter. A lot. So much so that the GM who babied him for 3 years is finally done with him. So much so that the OTHER GM who's here that assisted in the babying, says he feels BETRAYED be him. And that's not even to mention how JO feels. Or the rest of the team not named Stephen Jackson. And THAT is to not even mention his laundry list of issues developed the past three years. It is unbelievable you can't see the obvious here.
Ron's added talent far outweighs the hit against team chemistry he brings, hence why we we're as good as any team in the league wtih him and the chemistry issues, and are barely .500 without him. So in that sense, we would be a far beter team the rest of the year. But that's just an added "bonus". The real reason we'd need to play Ron would be to increase his trade value. That's what's needed for the betterment of the teams future, and thats something that can only be obtained via playing Ron.

SoupIsGood
01-22-2006, 03:06 PM
Ron has already ruined our past two seasons. He came out and said that he didn't want to be here. He does not want to play for our team.


Or for any team, for that matter. In the end, it was always about Ron-Ron.

DG-33
01-22-2006, 03:08 PM
The Pacers would not be much better than .500 WITH Artest, so the point is moot.
Do you have anything even close to reasonable to support this claim? I seem to recall a Pacers team, that was less evolved than this current team, winning 62 games and having a hard fought conference Finals with the eventual champions that year. And please don't say that team had good chemistry, becase you and I both know it didn't.


If you have no chemistry you cannot win, and Indiana's chemistry only gets worse if Ron comes back.

[QUOTE=Kstat]Croshere would probably rather play on a .500 team that take on a player that might take Indiana out of the playoffs altogether.

Ron would put up fine numbers, but it'd be for naught. The team woudlnt win because they don't believe in Ron anymore. This isn't a pick-up-game, you need CHEMISTRY to win in the NBA.

Ron does not bring winning, he only brings more headaches and problems. The players probably realize this a lot better than you do.
Noone's talking about winning the world championship. But chemistry or not, we'd be a better team with Ron here. But.....
It's not about this season. This season is awash. It's about 06-07, and the decade following that. Donnie Walsh should go to the team and tell them play the remainder of the season with Ron so we can increase his trade value, then when the offseason comes, we can actually get something beneficial to the team for him, and you don't have to deal with it anymore.
If we dont play Ron, we've got a .500 future. I'm sorry, but I'd sacrafice playing 30 something games with an All-Star small forward if it made us better for the next decade.

Suaveness
01-22-2006, 03:09 PM
I'm sorry, but that's just stupid. His talent does not outweigh chemisty. I'm one of Ron's biggest supporters, but even I realize that it just won't happen. We won't win.

Jermaine is not an idiot. Why should he sacrifice so much for the team when Ron will come back to ruin it all again? No, no one should have to put up with Ron. The Pacers will win nothing with Ron coming back. Get over it.

Kstat
01-22-2006, 03:17 PM
Exactly how much would Ron playing increase his trade value?

What could he POSSIBLY show if he came back that would make teams offer more for him?

Do you think his talent or play on the court has ANYTHING to do with why nobody wants him?

DG-33
01-22-2006, 03:18 PM
I'm sorry, but that's just stupid. His talent does not outweigh chemisty. I'm one of Ron's biggest supporters, but even I realize that it just won't happen. We won't win.
Then explain why we won 61 games with Ron and why we're a .500 team without him.


Jermaine is not an idiot. Why should he sacrifice so much for the team when Ron will come back to ruin it all again? No, no one should have to put up with Ron. The Pacers will win nothing with Ron coming back. Get over it.
He's not an idiot no, but he's not exactly Mr. Maturity either. Why should he sacrafice for the team? Because they're paying him about $17,000,000 a year to do so? And the seasons already been ruined, nothing Artest can do now to make it any worse. And you're yet another person who cant see the forest for the trees. Appearantly this is the last season in NBA history, and nothing beyond the remainder of this season matters, huh?

Fine then. Let's just not play Ron, keep JO happy (as if his $17,000,000 a year salary wouldnt make him happy enough), finish 40-42, be swept in the 1st round by the Nets, then trade Ron for Kevin Martin and a 2nd, and repeat the whole process over again next year.

shags
01-22-2006, 03:20 PM
The only way this would work is if Walsh and Bird sat down with Jermaine O'Neal, explained the situation, and O'Neal was okay with it (which is highly unlikely). Then O'Neal, Walsh, and/or Bird would have to have a team meeting, explain the situation, and the team would have to be okay with it (once again, highly unlikely).

Even if you've passed those hurdles, it's still an enormous risk, because when he comes back the Pacers would be hoping the most disruptive player in NBA history would be problem-free for essentially a two month trial period before you're shipped to another team. That's not to mention the outcry the organization would get from allowing Artest back.

If the Pacers don't do all of the things listed in the above paragraph, I imagine that the day after Ron Artest is brought back, Jermaine O'Neal would demand a trade, and would be unhappy until it happened. Because they would have essentially told Jermaine O'Neal this:

The Indiana Pacers are Ron Artest's team.

Kstat
01-22-2006, 03:20 PM
Then explain why we won 61 games with Ron and why we're a .500 team without him.

You also had a semi-healthy tinsley and Bender, Al Harrington off the bench, Reggie Miller plus the team didn't all hate each other.

Comparitively, the chemistry on the 2004 team was heavenly compared to this one.

Stryder
01-22-2006, 03:20 PM
Someone explain to me how having Ron Artest play for the team hurts the team? You have so much bitterness towards Ron that you put hurting him above helpong the team.

Artest Plays:
We Pull Ahead Of .500
We Make Some Noice In The Playoffs
Rons Trade Value Greatly Increases (Provided No More Incidents)
Ron Gets Traded For Something Worthwhile
We're Back On Track For The Coming Seasons

Artest Doesnt Play:
We're a .500 Team
We Get Eliminated In The 1st Round
Ron Has 0 Trade Value And No Hope Of Increasing It
He Gets Traded For Crap
We're a .500 Trade For The Forseeable Future

The positives far, far outweigh the negatives. If Artest isn't traded, it greatly benefits the Pacers to play him. If Jermaine O'Neal has a problem with that, then I, and the rest of you, should have a problem with him. Team before individuals. JO needs to understand that.

Very, very speculative and a kind of sophomoric way of thinking...

DG-33
01-22-2006, 03:21 PM
Exactly how much would Ron playing increase his trade value?

What could he POSSIBLY show if he came back that would make teams offer more for him?

Do you think his talent or play on the court has ANYTHING to do with why nobody wants him?
If he could come back, and not do anything stupid (ie, not break anything, say anything extra moronic etc.) then I believe his trade value would increase to the point Donnie could get a Lamar Odom-caliber player out of him.
Ofcourse, this entire discussion would be for naught if Donnie would've done the Maggette deal.

Kstat
01-22-2006, 03:24 PM
If he could come back, and not do anything stupid (ie, not break anything, say anything extra moronic etc.) then I believe his trade value would increase to the point Donnie could get a Lamar Odom-caliber player out of him.
Ofcourse, this entire discussion would be for naught if Donnie would've done the Maggette deal.


Exactly what ididot would think all of Ron's issues could be solved if he came back and managed not to implode for 1/10th of a season?

DG-33
01-22-2006, 03:26 PM
The only way this would work is if Walsh and Bird sat down with Jermaine O'Neal, explained the situation, and O'Neal was okay with it (which is highly unlikely). Then O'Neal, Walsh, and/or Bird would have to have a team meeting, explain the situation, and the team would have to be okay with it (once again, highly unlikely).

Even if you've passed those hurdles, it's still an enormous risk, because when he comes back the Pacers would be hoping the most disruptive player in NBA history would be problem-free for essentially a two month trial period before you're shipped to another team. That's not to mention the outcry the organization would get from allowing Artest back.

If the Pacers don't do all of the things listed in the above paragraph, I imagine that the day after Ron Artest is brought back, Jermaine O'Neal would demand a trade, and would be unhappy until it happened. Because they would have essentially told Jermaine O'Neal this:

The Indiana Pacers are Ron Artest's team.
Wow, someone with a reasonable post. Im shocked.
I agree with most of this, except for the last part. You already said they'd have to explain the situation to JO. They'd explain that Ron is gone in the offseason, and the only reason he's returning at all is in hopes of increasing his trade value to get him help for the future. Sure;y he'd understand this, no? I mean come on, you're making more in a year then 90% of Americans make in a lifetime. If 25% of American mothers can raise their children by themselves on $8 an hour, I'm sure you could handle playing 30 something more games with Ron.

Los Angeles
01-22-2006, 03:29 PM
If Ron isn't moved by the deadline, that means after 2 1/2 months, teams are still too turned off by his past to take a chance on him.Teams will still be turned off by his past come offseason. That means, the only way to regain trade value is to play Ron the rest of the season, and hope that everything goes smooth.

If Ron isn't traded by the deadline, he must return to the Pacers lineup for the remainder of the season if we ever have any hopes of trading him for anything worthwhile.
I'm trying to come up with a response that doesn't result in name calling.

I can't think of one, so I'll leave you with this:

Your leaps of "logic" make me laugh. Ron is gone. He is dead to the Pacers. Give it a rest already.

DG-33
01-22-2006, 03:30 PM
Exactly what ididot would think all of Ron's issues could be solved if he came back and managed not to implode for 1/10th of a season?
Noone said they'd be all resolved, but there's zero question him coming back without incident would increase his trade value, for the simple fact that GMs could see he still has a passion for basketball and is sane enough to play without incident for a reasonably substantial amount of time.
By the way, it would be about 1/3rd of the season not 1/10th.

SoupIsGood
01-22-2006, 03:31 PM
Peck was right...

The fans will find a point to start clamoring for Artest's return.

-Bball


Is peck ever wrong?

Kstat
01-22-2006, 03:33 PM
Noone said they'd be all resolved, but there's zero question him coming back without incident would increase his trade value, for the simple fact that GMs could see he still has a passion for basketball and is sane enough to play without incident for a reasonably substantial amount of time.
By the way, it would be about 1/3rd of the season not 1/10th.

Wait...I thought you'd just be asking Ron to come back till the trade dealine...

You actually expect him to play until the end of the season?

:rotflmao:

BTW, GMs wont really care if ron plays out the year without incident. They'll still have Ron's past 4-5 seasons fresh in their memories. 1/3 of a season sin't even going to dent that concern.

No GM is going to risk his job by trading something valuable for Ron Artest. That is not ever going to change in this decade.

DG-33
01-22-2006, 03:34 PM
I'm trying to come up with a response that doesn't result in name calling.

I can't think of one, so I'll leave you with this:

Your leaps of "logic" make me laugh. Ron is gone. He is dead to the Pacers. Give it a rest already.
You're wrong, you're thinking based on the general consensus, which is also wrong, and most of all, you're putting your own distain for Ron Artest above the teams future.
And, might I add, you're also doing it in a childish manner.

shags
01-22-2006, 03:34 PM
Wow, someone with a reasonable post. Im shocked.
I agree with most of this, except for the last part. You already said they'd have to explain the situation to JO. They'd explain that Ron is gone in the offseason, and the only reason he's returning at all is in hopes of increasing his trade value to get him help for the future. Sure;y he'd understand this, no? I mean come on, you're making more in a year then 90% of Americans make in a lifetime. If 25% of American mothers can raise their children by themselves on $8 an hour, I'm sure you could handle playing 30 something more games with Ron.

First of all, Jermaine O'Neal's salary is completely and totally irrelevant in respect to this discussion. Completely. Totally. Irrelevant. Ok.

Secondly, there's no way in hell Jermaine O'Neal would sign off on this. So it'd never get past the first point. But that's what'd have to happen.

Kstat
01-22-2006, 03:36 PM
BTW, I'm sure more than %25 of American mothers would probably not want their sons back in the family if it meant sacrificing all of her other children.

Of course, bringing up mothers as an analogy and comparing JO or ROn to common people makes no sense. I fully admit that.

Hicks
01-22-2006, 03:37 PM
I'm just sickened that the rationale for DG-33 is, if the other 13 guys don't want him back, they're not loyal and they can't suck it up for the good of the team. Whereas Ron can destroy 2 seasons in a row, be a selfish infant and publically demand a trade to stab the franchise in the back after having the guts to support him through all his OTHER self-inflicted crap, and yet he can be welcomed back with open arms?? Where the HELL is the logic in that?

Suaveness
01-22-2006, 03:37 PM
Why is this even being discussed? Ron is NOT COMING BACK. Period. End of story. GET OVER IT.

DG-33
01-22-2006, 03:38 PM
Wait...I thought you'd just be asking Ron to come back till the trade dealine...

You actually expect him to play until the end of the season?

:rotflmao:

BTW, GMs wont really care if ron plays out the year without incident. They'll still have ROn's past 4-5 seasons fresh in their memories. 1/3 of a season sin't even going to dent that concern.
It wouldn't erase them, no. But it would dent them enough to where they'd substantially increase their offers to Donnie. To deny that, would be lying to try and make yourself seem right. You'd never do that, would you? http://www.pacersdigest.com/forums/images/smilies/wink_pd.gif

Hicks
01-22-2006, 03:40 PM
Why is this even being discussed? Ron is NOT COMING BACK. Period. End of story. GET OVER IT.

And that, thankfully, is the bottom line. No chance in hell is he coming back.

shags
01-22-2006, 03:41 PM
Anyone catch Walton's comment on Artest during the Wolves-Sixers game. He said something to the effect of the best team for Ron Artest is someone else's. Somewhere, Jay and Peck are shaking their head and smiling.

Kstat
01-22-2006, 03:41 PM
It wouldn't erase them, no. But it would dent them enough to where they'd substantially increase their offers to Donnie. To deny that, would be lying to try and make yourself seem right. You'd never do that, would you? http://www.pacersdigest.com/forums/images/smilies/wink_pd.gif

On the contrary, I only think they'd get worse.

Ron isn't a "must-have" item. He brings a high risk. ANy GM that trades for him will be risking his job.

GMs will just wait for ROn to have another implosion, KNOWING that when that happens, DOnnie will lower his asking price even more than he already is.

As far as Ron's concerned, it's a buyer's market and it always will be. Nobody is going to knock down Donnie's door for Artest, not now not ever.

DG-33
01-22-2006, 03:45 PM
I'm just sickened that the rationale for DG-33 is, if the other 13 guys don't want him back, they're not loyal and they can't suck it up for the good of the team. Whereas Ron can destroy 2 seasons in a row, be a selfish infant and publically demand a trade to stab the franchise in the back after having the guts to support him through all his OTHER self-inflicted crap, and yet he can be welcomed back with open arms?? Where the HELL is the logic in that?
And there's your problem. You seem to have reading comprehension problems. (OT: http://secure.hop.com/index.cfm?AFID=158 you can get 10% off Hooked On Phonics at this website) Noone's welcoming Ron back with opened arms, and if you somehow got that out of my posts then you need to read slower. Noone has to like Ron. Noone has to want Ron on the team. But the players have to be willing to "sacrafice" playing with him for the remainder of the season to greatly improve the Pacers future.
Im sorry, but if you dont think "sacraficing" the rest of the season (by playing with an All-Star http://www.pacersdigest.com/forums/images/smilies/laugh.gif) is worth it to go from a Kevin Martin-level player to a Lamar Odom type, then you don't have near the patience to give a reasonable opinion.

DG-33
01-22-2006, 03:50 PM
On the contrary, I only think they'd get worse.
No you don't. Stop lying to yourself, and to others, to support your refuted claims. It's juvenile and a waste of my time, so you either stop now or this discussion is over.

Hicks
01-22-2006, 03:51 PM
And there's your problem. You seem to have reading comprehension problems. (OT: http://secure.hop.com/index.cfm?AFID=158 you can get 10% off Hooked On Phonics at this website)

I don't need you to be a jerk.


Noone's welcoming Ron back with opened arms, and if you somehow got that out of my posts then you need to read slower. Noone has to like Ron. Noone has to want Ron on the team. But the players have to be willing to sacrafice playing with him for the remainder of the season to greatly improve the Pacers future.
Im sorry, but if you dont think "sacraficing" the rest of the season (by playing with an All-Star :laugh: is worth it to go from a Kevin Martin-level player to a Lamar Odom type, then you don't have near the patience to give a reasonable opinion.


I understand what you've been saying, but you've grown tunnel vision to try to make the point. It's not as simple as "sucking it up" as a team to play him to show him off. The other 29GMs all know exactly what he'll bring to their team, both good, and bad. Next to elevating his game to Jordan levels, or doing something dumber than he EVER has before, NOTHING is going to change their opinions one way or the other in the next 4 months. Nothing.

So that leaves you with this: How would bringing him back affect:

1) The fans
2) The other players
3) The image of this franchise.

I'll go ahead and make the obvious answers:

1) Hell will break loose
2) They may publically swallow it, but privately they will be disgusted and what little speck of chemistry we had left will be destroyed, and if this team wasn't already there, it will then without a doubt need to be blown up, and there will probably be in-house fighting the next several months, possibly physically (which already happened before).
3) We would be the laughing stock of the NBA for years to come. Donnie and Larry would look like accomodating fools. And rightfully so.

The whole franchise and its fanbase would be a joke.

shags
01-22-2006, 03:52 PM
No you don't. Stop lying to yourself, and to others, to support your refuted claims. It's juvenile and a waste of my time, so you either stop now or this discussion is over.

If it's a waste of your time, why are you still posting. No one's holding a gun to your head (at least I don't think so. Is anyone holding a gun to your head now?).

DG-33
01-22-2006, 03:54 PM
It's a risk. But it's a risk that I feel needs to be taken. If we4 don't take that risk, we're basically screwed for the future. Maybe long time Pacer fans, the guys who suffered through season after season of sub30 win teams, are ok with .500 basketball. But as someone who started watching the Pacers in 1994, I can tell you after all we've been through, .500 wont cut it.

Kstat
01-22-2006, 03:55 PM
No you don't. Stop lying to yourself, and to others, to support your refuted claims. It's juvenile and a waste of my time, so you either stop now or this discussion is over.

Wow. The authority has spoken.

It's a waste of your time because nobody here is agreeing with you.

shags
01-22-2006, 03:56 PM
I don't need you to be a jerk.




I understand what you've been saying, but you've grown tunnel vision to try to make the point. It's not as simple as "sucking it up" as a team to play him to show him off. The other 29GMs all know exactly what he'll bring to their team, both good, and bad. Next to elevating his game to Jordan levels, or doing something dumber than he EVER has before, NOTHING is going to change their opinions one way or the other in the next 4 months. Nothing.

So that leaves you with this: How would bringing him back affect:

1) The fans
2) The other players
3) The image of this franchise.

I'll go ahead and make the obvious answers:

1) Hell will break loose
2) They may publically swallow it, but privately they will be disgusted and what little speck of chemistry we had left will be destroyed, and if this team wasn't already there, it will then without a doubt need to be blown up, and there will probably be in-house fighting the next several months, possibly physically (which already happened before).
3) We would be the laughing stock of the NBA for years to come. Donnie and Larry would look like accomodating fools. And rightfully so.

The whole franchise and its fanbase would be a joke.

Another point to bring up is that, other than Jermaine O'Neal, what's in it for the other players? No one other than O'Neal is safe. So why sacrifice a season for a future they very well may not be a part of? It makes no sense.

Kstat
01-22-2006, 03:57 PM
It's a risk. But it's a risk that I feel needs to be taken. If we4 don't take that risk, we're basically screwed for the future. Maybe long time Pacer fans, the guys who suffered through season after season of sub30 win teams, are ok with .500 basketball. But as someone who started watching the Pacers in 1994, I can tell you after all we've been through, .500 wont cut it.

Oh good lord.You just dug yourself a rather large hole.

If you only started watching the Pacers then you have VERY little right to complain about other people being complacant, kid. I'd say they have a bit more right to complain than you.

I'm sure they're VERY thrilled with hearing a jonny-come-lately telling them what they will and won't put up with.

Suaveness
01-22-2006, 03:59 PM
No you don't. Stop lying to yourself, and to others, to support your refuted claims. It's juvenile and a waste of my time, so you either stop now or this discussion is over.

It's a retarded discussion in the first place. And he's right, you know.

Los Angeles
01-23-2006, 03:10 AM
You're wrong, you're thinking based on the general consensus, which is also wrong, and most of all, you're putting your own distain for Ron Artest above the teams future.
And, might I add, you're also doing it in a childish manner.
This isn't about emotional feelings.

It's about cold, hard facts. Ron couldn't make it 9 games last year. Ron couldn't make it 20 games this year. Ron lowered his value, not anyone else. THE. TEAM'S. FUTURE. IS. WITHOUT. RON. ARTEST.

You're the one that clearly doesn't care about the team or the team's future if you think Ron should come back. You care more about getting Ron playing time than you do about the locker room hell that such a move would create.

Admins - could you check to see if this guy's hookup is in Orange County? Thanks.

Dunk-OMatic
01-23-2006, 04:04 AM
In reading through this thread, how come no one has stated this REALITY in reply to the idea that if the Pacers cant trade Artest before the deadline, they might consider playing him in order to increase his trade value for the summer ....

.... in reply to that line of thought, Donnie Walsh said just this week that even if the Pacers cant trade Artest before the deadline, he WILL NOT PLAY AGAIN for Indy. No matter what.

Doesnt that finalize the issue? Whats the point of debating something that has already been eliminated from happening?