Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

The second in a series of questions....

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 3
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 template Next
  • #1

    The second in a series of questions....

    Same idea as before, but a brief recap for those of you who did not catch the first thread.

    I want to put the past 7 seasons behind me and just jump headlong into the future of our club.

    In doing this I want to make a commitment to myself, I want to stop talking about Ron Artest, Jon Bender, Jermaine O'Neal, the 61 win season, Brad Miller, the brawl, Donnie Walsh, etc., etc    .

    I'm not saying that I know I will hold true to this but I want to try.

    But I know before I even try to do this that there are several several posts left in me on these topics. So instead of trying to supress them and have them boil over at some point in time in the future, I think what I want to do is have a series of posts where I ask some questions and get feedback from people and also I will give my opinion.

    My goal is to have this done by the end of Summer so that when we go to camp I want to be focusing on the future.

    Our first topic of discussion was managements reaction to the problems of our team. I won't rehash that thread for you, if you want to see what people thought go here http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-...ad.php?t=40372

    Today's topic really is a tie in on the first question because you can not possibly seperate the two.

    Ron Artest

    STATEMENT

    I believe now and have always believed the Ron Artest is a gifted basketball player who truely has a very rare combination of ability's that would probably make Ron one of the top basketball players in the world if all circumstances were correct.

    Ron has the strength of a center/powerforward yet the agility of a guard making him for a deadly combination.

    Ron can score and Ron can play defense.

    Given my choice of choosing Jermaine O'Neal or Ron Artest if both were on equal mental footing I would choose Ron Artest 10 out of 10 times. I honestly believe he was significantly better than Jermaine.

    However Ron has taken this gift and has pretty much squandered it away by allowing himself to be wrapped up in his own little world and now is a side show and basically has become the poster child for most of what ills the NBA.

    Ron, while being a very good player never became the truely dominate player that he could have become because Ron did not have the mental toughness to go along with the physical toughness.

    Since Ron did not become the dominate player he could have he is just a better than average player, however Ron still believes himself to be in the catagory of Koby, LeBron, etc.

    Thus Ron's sense of self worth is very high.

    A team might be able to tolerate some antics from it's top gun if that top gun is all world. Example it has been said that Mr. Jordan in his younger years was a pill to handle. However being the top player on the planet meant that the Bulls would work around that and ultimately he outgrew some of his problems.

    Ron on the other hand is not the top player on the planet, he is not even in the top 20 in the NBA.

    So teams become less and less able to tolerate his "issues".

    STATEMENT

    I do believe that Ron has an actual mental dissorder. In fact it has been diagnosed and he is supposed to be treated for this.

    From what we have been told Ron is non-compliant most of the time.

    However I also feel that fans of Ron and even not fans of Ron often times use his mental dissorder as an excuse. Often times things Ron does people just go "aw, he's nuts" thus giving him the out by not making him responsible for his actions.

    I don't know Ron's actual diagnosis but I'm sure compulsion is a problem for him. Compulsion is a problem for many people but where some people clean thier refrigerator over and over re-arranging the items inside Ron does destructive things.

    Now I understand that some people can have violent outburst with compulsion, however from my understanding this is rare.

    Ok here are some of the questions that I have.

    1. How good do you think Ron is, right now?

    2. How good could Ron have been if he didn't have self centered issues?

    3. Is a player like Ron Artest worth taking a risk on knowing the kind of behind the scene problems he can cause?

    4. Has Ron's on court career already passed the zenith and now he is just going down each year till he is out of the league?

    5. Can Ron ever turn himself around and actually be part of something?

    STATEMENT

    While I hold the members of management, most specifically Donnie Walsh, responsible for the vast majority of damage that Ron did to our franchise it would be remiss to not hold Ron responsible as well.

    Ron never could have had it better than he had it here. He had an upper management team that was forgiving and tolerant. He had a coaching staff who designed an entire offense and defense so that he was co-equal with a player who was paid significantly more. He had a legion of fans that as it turns out would only abandon him once he abandoned them (even then some still would not).

    Yet he threw it all away because he wasn't happy being co-star to Jermaine O'Neal and because in his world everyone was out to take advantage of him.

    He has already burned his bridges with the Kings and I know VF21 will be more than happy to share Kings fans opinions of Ron on here and whatever team he goes to next will already have an exit plan in mind for when it starts to fall apart on them.

    Ron and Dennis Rodman really are not that much alike other than this, both became distractions to the teams they were on and ultimately Dennis became a celeb. because of it while Ron is just going to be an outcast.

    Why the differance? Well several reasons actualy but one of them is this.

    Dennis was a winner and focused himself on becoming one of the better players in the NBA. I don't believe that Rodman was ever on a losing team that I can remember anyway.

    Also Dennis conciously made the change in himself because he enjoyed the lifestyle it brought him. In other words he knew what he was doing and he did it with gusto. Now that doesn't mean Dennis didn't have some issues of his own, the man was a manic depressive I belive and had a very strange episode where he was found alone in the parking lot with a gun.

    But Dennis knew when to turn it on and when to turn it off.

    That is the differance. Ron can't turn it off/on because it is not an act, it is him.

    I have a lot of little thoughts about Ron as well but I've already bored you more than I should have with this post.

    *BONUS QUESTION*

    6. Was the Palace the first time Ron Artest attempted to go into the stands to get a fan?

    7. If not, where was the first place?


    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: The second in a series of questions....

    Not sure that I can answer all of the questions you have listed, but I'll add some comments.

    I thought the comparison to Rodman was interesting.

    Luc Longley commented in an interview that the reason why he loved playing with Rodman was that he always made things fun and interesting, when many other members of the Bulls were very serious.

    Ron always seems to have some bizarre justification for doing the strange things that he does, where as Rodman seemed to do the crazy things he did, just to make life interesting. Without having met either of them Rodman comes off as an extrovert, where as Ron is an introvert. There are similarities between the two, but they arrive at a similar point having come from very different places.

    Much like KG in some ways, Ron has the ability to inspire his teammates to play better defense. There are very few players in the NBA with this ability. Where as KG is undoubtedly a team player and is constantly communicating to his team mates, Ron seemed to do it for stretches where his effort and ability just rubbed off on those around him.

    About the comment regarding preferring Ron to JO, if all things were equal, I think that while they never got along at any significant level on or off the court, I still think that their skills complemented each other really well.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: The second in a series of questions....

      1. How good do you think Ron is, right now? Still a starter on most teams

      2. How good could Ron have been if he didn't have self centered issues? Most likely an All Star

      3. Is a player like Ron Artest worth taking a risk on knowing the kind of behind the scene problems he can cause? No!

      4. Has Ron's on court career already passed the zenith and now he is just going down each year till he is out of the league? Yes

      5. Can Ron ever turn himself around and actually be part of something? Doubtful

      6. Was the Palace the first time Ron Artest attempted to go into the stands to get a fan? Nope

      7. If not, where was the first place? Market Square Arena

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: The second in a series of questions....

        Originally posted by Peck View Post
        Yet he threw it all away because he wasn't happy being co-star to Jermaine O'Neal and because in his world everyone was out to take advantage of him.
        I will take issue with this statement.

        I still believe that Rick Carlise's handling of Stephen Jackson led to Artest demanding the trade.

        I think that Artest was accepting of being the #2 guy to O'Neal. I think Jackson was the one that wanted to be the 2nd option & when he would break plays, argue with the refs & argue with Carlise & nothing was done about it.... Artest decided it was time to go.

        I'm right there with you on the fact that all his screws were a little loose but I think Jackson & the way he was delt with by management & Carlise was too much for him.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: The second in a series of questions....

          I do believe that Ron has an actual mental dissorder. In fact it has been diagnosed and he is supposed to be treated for this.
          I hate to be nitpicky.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: The second in a series of questions....

            Originally posted by Jose Slaughter View Post
            I will take issue with this statement.

            I still believe that Rick Carlise's handling of Stephen Jackson led to Artest demanding the trade.

            I think that Artest was accepting of being the #2 guy to O'Neal. I think Jackson was the one that wanted to be the 2nd option & when he would break plays, argue with the refs & argue with Carlise & nothing was done about it.... Artest decided it was time to go.

            I'm right there with you on the fact that all his screws were a little loose but I think Jackson & the way he was delt with by management & Carlise was too much for him.

            How did Carlisle's handling on Jackson lead to Artest demanding a trade?

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: The second in a series of questions....

              Originally posted by Jose Slaughter View Post
              1. How good do you think Ron is, right now? Still a starter on most teams

              2. How good could Ron have been if he didn't have self centered issues? Most likely an All Star

              3. Is a player like Ron Artest worth taking a risk on knowing the kind of behind the scene problems he can cause? No!

              4. Has Ron's on court career already passed the zenith and now he is just going down each year till he is out of the league? Yes

              5. Can Ron ever turn himself around and actually be part of something? Doubtful

              6. Was the Palace the first time Ron Artest attempted to go into the stands to get a fan? Nope

              7. If not, where was the first place? Market Square Arena
              I agree with everything Jose said.

              Originally posted by intridcold View Post
              I hate to be nitpicky.
              http://www.ifeminists.net/introducti...1124zizza.html

              New York Daily News sports writer Roger Rubin wrote an excellent article that was published November 21st. Perhaps the most revealing portion of the article is contained when Rubin writes, "According to one lifelong friend, Artest has sought professional help for his mental health and is on prescription antidepressants.In an interview with WFAN yesterday, Greg Anthony intimated that as well. Artest recently completed court-ordered anger management counseling that resulted from a domestic abuse charge."
              I didn't look for the origional Times article since this came up first when I googled "Ron Artest Mental disorder."

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: The second in a series of questions....

                Originally Posted by Jose Slaughter
                I will take issue with this statement.

                I still believe that Rick Carlise's handling of Stephen Jackson led to Artest demanding the trade.

                I think that Artest was accepting of being the #2 guy to O'Neal. I think Jackson was the one that wanted to be the 2nd option & when he would break plays, argue with the refs & argue with Carlise & nothing was done about it.... Artest decided it was time to go.

                I'm right there with you on the fact that all his screws were a little loose but I think Jackson & the way he was delt with by management & Carlise was too much for him.
                Originally posted by YoSoyIndy View Post
                How did Carlisle's handling on Jackson lead to Artest demanding a trade?
                It didn't. At least not significantly. I have to disagree with JS's sentiments. Honestly, that sounds like a hyperbolic scapegoating of Jackson in order to minimize Ron and JO's individual and collective difficulties. Of course, Jackson can be said to have been detrimental in many ways, but I think this one sounds like a stretch.

                EDIT: A proposal like the three of those guys with their individual issues trying to work together was a bad personnel mix to begin with I would find much more palatable and plausible.
                Last edited by D-BONE; 07-29-2008, 08:18 AM.
                I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                -Emiliano Zapata

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: The second in a series of questions....

                  Originally posted by Jose Slaughter View Post
                  I will take issue with this statement.

                  I still believe that Rick Carlise's handling of Stephen Jackson led to Artest demanding the trade.

                  I think that Artest was accepting of being the #2 guy to O'Neal. I think Jackson was the one that wanted to be the 2nd option & when he would break plays, argue with the refs & argue with Carlise & nothing was done about it.... Artest decided it was time to go.

                  I'm right there with you on the fact that all his screws were a little loose but I think Jackson & the way he was delt with by management & Carlise was too much for him.
                  That's the first time I've heard this theory, and it makes so much sense.

                  That Jackson/Carlisle dynamic hurt this team more than anything else, imo.
                  "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: The second in a series of questions....

                    Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
                    IHonestly, that sounds like a hyperbolic scapegoating of Jackson in order to minimize Ron and JO's individual and collective difficulties. Of course, Jackson can be said to have been detrimental in many ways, but I think this one sounds like a stretch.
                    But it makes sense.

                    Ron, though he didn't care for JO, put up with him (and vice versa, of course) for a couple of years. You could say the last straw emerged with JO and that's why he demanded a trade.

                    Or . . . you could notice that Stephen Jackson's intolerable, beyond the pale actions were observed by Ron, along with the near absurd -- no, absurd -- turning of the head by Carlisle and Walsh and Bird.

                    Ron was a lot of things. And he was also just the kind of guy that would call bull**** on such activities and ask to be moved on.
                    "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: The second in a series of questions....

                      I have a lot to say about this topic, but simply do not have the time right now. I will repeat somehting I said probably 3 or 4 years ago - Ron should go to new team every year - maybe even more tham just one team, trading him at the trade deadline might be the best thing for him

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: The second in a series of questions....

                        I can't attest to Ron's mental condition, but there are quite a few stories that I can attest to which confirm that he was, and probably still is, quite an interesting character. When he lived here in Chicago, he lived 3 houses down from my brother-in-law on Chapel Ct. in Deerfield, IL. Let me stress that everyone in the neighborhood liked him - no one that my bro-in-law is aware of ever felt threatened by him. When folks (like me) would ask what kind of guy he was, he'd give a couple examples (which have been confirmed by multiple sources up here), both harmless and amusing; The first week that Ron moved up here as a rookie with the Bulls (shortly after he signed his multi-million first contract) he was perusing the Deerfield Best Buy. He liked what he saw. So he requested an application to work there part-time in order to qualify for the employee discount. The manager called the Bulls and they quietly put the kibosh on that. Another story; A couple times on off days during the season, he would show up at local outdoor playgrounds looking for a game - and he wasn't there for a light little workout - he was there to win and would just shut everybody down! Management wasn't happy about that, but I think it's very cool - I remember the legend of George McGinnis showing up at Speedway H.S. and other west side courts for pickup games during his career. It was reported up here that on road trips, instead of staying holed up in his hotel suite playing video games like most NBA players, Ron would hop in a cab or limo and cruise playgrounds looking for pickup games. The point of all this is not to absolve or diminish some of the bad decisons that Ron has made, but to demonstrate that basically Ron is just a kid at heart. I always loved the effort he gave on the court, but I recognize that he made a lot of teammates uncomfortable. Bottom line - there's no way to guarantee Ron will stay on his meds, so unfortunately it's just not a good idea to gamble on him.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: The second in a series of questions....

                          Sorry to take the thread off topic.

                          I ask that we attempt to answer Pecks questions.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: The second in a series of questions....

                            1. How good do you think Ron is, right now?

                            I haven't really watched him much the past year or two, but as I understand it, he sounds about as good as he was here. So still pretty good.

                            2. How good could Ron have been if he didn't have self centered issues?

                            Probably a #1 guy on a not so good team, or a terrific #2 guy on a great team.

                            3. Is a player like Ron Artest worth taking a risk on knowing the kind of behind the scene problems he can cause?

                            NO is the short answer. The only condition where that might change is a 1-year rental. Maybe.

                            4. Has Ron's on court career already passed the zenith and now he is just going down each year till he is out of the league?

                            I think he's still at his zenith in terms of ability, but his "best days" were in Indiana when he was on a better team and won DPOY. I certainly don't expect things to improve for him at this point. The only thing that might work is joining the Lakers, and if it's long-term I'd still expect things to decline for all involved. As much as Phil Jackson is credited for "handling" Dennis Rodman, it didn't stop him from doing things like kicking cameramen.

                            5. Can Ron ever turn himself around and actually be part of something?

                            I don't think so. Not for long.

                            6. Was the Palace the first time Ron Artest attempted to go into the stands to get a fan?

                            I can think of two other times.

                            7. If not, where was the first place?

                            In the 2003 playoffs after Game 6 in Boston, Mel Daniels had to shove him into the locker room to keep him from going after a fan. Before that, as a Chicago Bull, I'm guessing around 2001, he tried to go after a fan in Conseco Fieldhouse.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: The second in a series of questions....

                              1. How good do you think Ron is, right now? Borderline all star talent wise.

                              2. How good could Ron have been if he didn't have self centered issues? That's like asking how good a player could have been if they were two inches taller. He is what he is mentally and that is part of the package

                              3. Is a player like Ron Artest worth taking a risk on knowing the kind of behind the scene problems he can cause? no

                              4. Has Ron's on court career already passed the zenith and now he is just going down each year till he is out of the league? Who knows

                              5. Can Ron ever turn himself around and actually be part of something? Who knows

                              I'm not going to blame Ron's actions on anyone aside from Ron. We should have traded him after the Miami series. That was management's mistake. However, each episode which occurred was solely because of Ron not external forces he was reacting to. To imply otherwise means that Ron could have been managed. He cannot be managed.
                              "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

                              "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 template Next
                              Working...
                              X