PDA

View Full Version : We can talk about Artest not showing up for the exit interview now....



Peck
06-16-2004, 03:51 AM
I had heard this before but couldn't talk about it.

Ok, let's cut right to the chase. The sources that told me this (& BTW it was more than one) told me right up front that this was not a little incident. Bird say's in the star that he doesn't care, from what I've heard the same cannot be said for Walsh.

From what I was told not only did Artest not show up for the meeting, he refused to return phone calls to the team. But yet he could make a radio interview.

Remember all of that talk of behind the scenes stuff, this is some of it. BTW, it's not all of it.

I know a lot of you love Ron, but I think you might want to prepare yourself.

This is partially why I've been trying to make ideas where Al didn't leave, because I'm not 100% sure he will be gone. I'm not saying he won't be, but then again....

Here is the part from the star article today.

Artest skips meeting

Ron Artest skipped his postseason meeting with Bird, drawing a fine from the team.

Artest said he didn't consider the conversation necessary.

"There was nothing to talk about," he said. "We lost."

Bird said at least one other player failed to meet with him.

"There were a couple of guys who didn't show up," he said, declining to reveal identities. "It don't bother me. People handle things differently. If guys don't do what they're supposed to do, they get fined."

Artest spent Monday in New York, conducting a round of radio and television interviews and an online chat with ESPN. He also planned to complete a compact disc he is producing by the three-woman singing group Allure.

He said it is scheduled for release in September.

indygeezer
06-16-2004, 06:16 AM
First we can assume the other player was Kenny Anderson, or at least I can. Secondly, we can assume ROn is frustrated with the offense. Third we can assume Ron is gone. Period. You don't blow-off Larry Bird. SOme of his comment of late made it sound like he fully expected to be back next year. So I am guessing that this is just some of that immaturity thingie he has a "problem" with. Well, sorry but I think the Pacer brass has a thingie about whho is in charge.


Say good-bye to Ron.

Steve
06-16-2004, 07:38 AM
I also believe that Bird willl have little patience for this type of bahavior. I also think Ron will be traded. I have been thinking this for some time. I also wonder if the Artest's migraines may have been a smokescreen for other personal issues.

BillS
06-16-2004, 08:41 AM
I'm predicting right now that if we lose Ron we will be giving up too many points next year.

We'll be the Lakers of the East, decent scoring except when we're defended strongly and an inability to prevent scoring by other teams.

Perfect way to design a team to lose to this year's champions. :rolleyes:

Suaveness
06-16-2004, 09:00 AM
I'm saying this now. We lose Ron, we won't go to the finals. With or without Tracy.

debohstheman
06-16-2004, 09:06 AM
it really sucks that ron has to be a dumbass every now and then

i absolutely love the guy....great heart...great effort...great talent
he is my favorite player in the entire NBA....
obviously we do not know what is going on behind the scenes....but it appeared to everyone that his behavior improved 100% from the year before....

im hoping there is a way to patch up this latest incident (missing the exit interview)...and keep ron on the team

his play elevates the play of the others on the court....something that very few people are capable of doing.....


im hoping LB and DW will find a way to motivate him to behave and go to the damn team meetings like everyone else

ABADays
06-16-2004, 09:10 AM
I have to admit Ron's actions the past month have been troublesome.

Unclebuck
06-16-2004, 09:24 AM
Well I hope we don't trade him just for this. Is this a big deal. In and of itself, no, I think Shaq has missed the final meeting for 7 straight years.

Add this in to the missed practices in the Pistons series and some other things, well, not sure what is going on with Ron

sweabs
06-16-2004, 09:25 AM
Definitely dissapointing news to say the least.

Ron is my favourite player as well because I love his intensity and work-ethic...but when he does stupid things like this I just want to be able to find him and say "You play in the NBA!!! This is a dream come true for most people - take advantage of the moment - don't screw thing up. You have all the talent in the world".

I am just hoping that Larry & Donnie continue to look at Ron as a project in terms of his behaviour, because skill-wise, he will only continue to get better. He is an integral part of this team's make-up, and if he were to leave - I have to agree with what others have said...there will be no Finals appearance by the Pacers.

Suaveness
06-16-2004, 09:31 AM
Well I hope we don't trade him just for this. Is this a big deal. In and of itself, no, I think Shaq has missed the final meeting for 7 straight years.


Yes, we don't trade him for this. I really don't think so should trade him period.

bulletproof
06-16-2004, 10:07 AM
Well I hope we don't trade him just for this. Is this a big deal. In and of itself, no, I think Shaq has missed the final meeting for 7 straight years.


Yes, we don't trade him for this. I really don't think so should trade him period.

You guys don't listen, do you? :shakehead:

PacerStud
06-16-2004, 10:22 AM
It's becoming more evident that Ron still has issues. Like anything else, you minimize your losses and move on. Almost every NBA coach/GM thinks that HE can be the one to control <insert trouble child here>. Migraines, home issues, jacking up an ugly 3 completely out of the offense, flipping people off, pulling down an opponents shorts (WTF ??). I wouldn't miss that. His value is high right now. Take advantage of it.

The Pacers have a history for greasing the squeeky wheel. And in the past, the have rewarded such behaivor by shipping the malcontent to a rather *****ty situation. I would say Orlando qualifies for that. And if a 3rd team gets involved - Chicago isn't contending anytime soon either. They ask - the Pacers oblige.

ChicagoJ
06-16-2004, 10:24 AM
Like we talked about last week, its his pattern of selfish or immature behavior. Its not one individual incident. Each incident adds up, but some of you can't see the forest because you're so busy making excuses for all the trees that are in the way.

Keep making excuses for him... and you'll get to keep making excuses for him.

I'm saying this now. We lose Ron, we won't go to the finals. With or without Tracy.

It makes just as much sense to say that if Ron is on the Pacers next season, we won't go to The Finals, regardless of who else is on the roster.

Its not beyond the range of reasonableness that he's just as disruptive to the Pacers behind the scenes as he is to an opponent on the court.

sixthman
06-16-2004, 10:28 AM
Tens of teams have won NBA championships without Ron Artest on the roster and others will do so in the future. This team is bigger than one player.

If we wind up with a quality player in his own right when we lose Ron, so be it. I'll defer to the judgement of the Pacers brass on this one. They know much better than we do what is going on.

BillS
06-16-2004, 10:34 AM
<nasty horrible words I'm too much of a midwest boy to bring myself to say in mixed company>!

You guys don't expect much, do you?

Take a player who was the poster boy for problems for a full year.
The next year that player cleans up the on-court act but still has issues that need to be worked out.

I guess the only solution would be to dump ... Rasheed Wallace, who was the linchpin of the Pistons' success.

On a scale from 1 to Kobe, these issues with Ron rate about a 3.

The prospect of having JO, Ron, and T-Mac on the floor next year makes me need to take a cold shower.

The prospect of JO and T-Mac without Ron (or an equivalent defender like Bowen, I'll give in that much) makes me want to bang my head against a Lakers poster.

Did ANYONE not just finish watching a 2-superstar-with-no-supporting-cast-and-no-defense-team get mutilated?

bulletproof
06-16-2004, 10:38 AM
On a scale from 1 to Kobe, these issues with Ron rate about a 3.

You're basing that on what? This one incident? Read Jay's above post again.

By the way, brilliantly put, Jay.

geekman
06-16-2004, 11:01 AM
Why do we know that Artest skipped the meeting, but not the other player? Is Pacer's management preparing the fans for an Artest trade by leaking this? Hmmmmmm....

BillS
06-16-2004, 11:05 AM
Why do we know that Artest skipped the meeting, but not the other player? Is Pacer's management preparing the fans for an Artest trade by leaking this? Hmmmmmm....Because Ron is a story.

Arcadian
06-16-2004, 11:07 AM
I think what makes the incident worse is that he spent an entire day promoting himself on ESPN. No time to return a phone call your employer but plenty of time to spend with the media.

BillS
06-16-2004, 11:16 AM
On a scale from 1 to Kobe, these issues with Ron rate about a 3.

You're basing that on what? This one incident? Read Jay's above post again.

By the way, brilliantly put, Jay.

You know, I'll take somebody who screws up occasionally and takes things too much to heart but leaves it all on the court over someone who seems to say the right things but can't find his game with both hands and a flashlight or else doesn't seem to care.

We gave Bender 5 years, he hasn't done diddly. Don't you think we could give Ron one more?

bulletproof
06-16-2004, 11:25 AM
On a scale from 1 to Kobe, these issues with Ron rate about a 3.

You're basing that on what? This one incident? Read Jay's above post again.

By the way, brilliantly put, Jay.

You know, I'll take somebody who screws up occasionally and takes things too much to heart but leaves it all on the court over someone who seems to say the right things but can't find his game with both hands and a flashlight or else doesn't seem to care.

We gave Bender 5 years, he hasn't done diddly. Don't you think we could give Ron one more?

I guess that would be okay if I wasn't the one dealing with Ron's BS. This incident isn't the first time Ron's been disrespectful to Donnie and Larry this season. It's the only one you've read about. I don't know how many times you'd allow that, but Donnie and Larry are no BS kind of guys. I believe it's one too many.

Unclebuck
06-16-2004, 11:31 AM
I'll defer to the judgement of the Pacers brass on this one. They know much better than we do what is going on.

I keep going back to the above comments, looks like I'll have to do that also.




One comment........let's say we trade Ron and Bender for Mcgrady.

Al still won't be happy, he likely still won't start, although I guess T-Mac could start at shooting guard. But then where does that put Fred, you can't have Regg and Fred both coming off the bench as shooting guards.

ChicagoJ
06-16-2004, 11:39 AM
..........although I guess T-Mac could start at shooting guard

What else would he play? He's about as natural a shooting guard as there is. And he definitely isn't a PG, SF, PF, or C. :confused:

Why don't you think he could play SF?

I tend to think he might be better defensively at SF than SG.

Willing to listen...

Bball
06-16-2004, 11:39 AM
This is disturbing. If this all wasn't a snowball rolling down a hill it wouldn't be so bad... but it is. It isn't one lone incident. Coming off some questionable play at the end of the season it also wasn't the time for something like this. Not returning calls just makes things worse.

Backaches.... migraines... those things all get called into question with Ron.

You'd think he'd learn. But then you'd think he would've learned a long time ago.

If anything, Artest NEEDED to make this meeting to clear the air and show where his head was at. It appears we have learned that anyway.... his head is up his a$$.

-Bball

BillS
06-16-2004, 11:40 AM
On a scale from 1 to Kobe, these issues with Ron rate about a 3.

You're basing that on what? This one incident? Read Jay's above post again.

By the way, brilliantly put, Jay.

You know, I'll take somebody who screws up occasionally and takes things too much to heart but leaves it all on the court over someone who seems to say the right things but can't find his game with both hands and a flashlight or else doesn't seem to care.

We gave Bender 5 years, he hasn't done diddly. Don't you think we could give Ron one more?

I guess that would be okay if I wasn't the one dealing with Ron's BS. This incident isn't the first time Ron's been disrespectful to Donnie and Larry this season. It's the only one you've read about. I don't know how many times you'd allow that, but Donnie and Larry are no BS kind of guys. I believe it's one too many.

Let me figure this out. If Donnie (or Larry since he has the rep to command the respect, or JO because he has the relationship) goes to Ron and says "Either shape up here and be part of a championship caliber team or end up in Orlando or back in Chicago", you really think Ron is incapable of making the same type of effort to continue to improve that he did last year? You also think Ron won't honor a committment?

The BS here is ego BS, and the place to start showing that ego has no place in a championship team is at the top. If Bird or Walsh get all huffy over Ron dissing them, then it's still all about ego. I really would expect them to put it in terms of the team.

Now, there may be more crap going on in the background, and maybe Ron is getting dissatisfied for some reason. Maybe it can't be worked out. All I'm saying is even WITH all that he's more valuable here than he would be on another team unless we get someone at least close to him in defensive prowess. We can't let these kind of issues cause us to discount what he brings to the table and forget to replace them.

Geez, it's not like he tried to choke Carlisle during practice or simply doesn't show up on a regular basis without letting anyone know where he is.

Bball
06-16-2004, 11:45 AM
One comment........let's say we trade Ron and Bender for Mcgrady.

Al still won't be happy, he likely still won't start, although I guess T-Mac could start at shooting guard. But then where does that put Fred, you can't have Regg and Fred both coming off the bench as shooting guards.

I don't know that it would be McGrady. That said, I think Al is gone regardless of what happens with Artest. It could be separate deals.

Al and Bender are gone.... and I bet the brass is leaning toward sending Artest off too.

I honestly think Antonio Davis had a good case that he should be starting (over Smits).... I don't think Al is starter material on a contending team (as long as he wants to be 'the man'). That got AD traded, I'm betting the same mindset gets Al traded too.


-Bball

Bball
06-16-2004, 11:49 AM
Let me figure this out. If Donnie (or Larry since he has the rep to command the respect, or JO because he has the relationship) goes to Ron and says "Either shape up here and be part of a championship caliber team or end up in Orlando or back in Chicago", you really think Ron is incapable of making the same type of effort to continue to improve that he did last year? You also think Ron won't honor a committment?

.

But BillS,
Wouldn't the meeting and Artest at least returning phone calls be a good place for the team to have that dialogue with Artest?

How can you have the conversation you propose when Artest cannot be bothered with such things as the end of season meeting or even returning phone calls?

-Bball

Unclebuck
06-16-2004, 12:00 PM
I don't know that it would be McGrady. That said, I think Al is gone regardless of what happens with Artest. It could be separate deals.

Al and Bender are gone.... and I bet the brass is leaning toward sending Artest off too.

I honestly think Antonio Davis had a good case that he should be starting (over Smits).... I don't think Al is starter material on a contending team (as long as he wants to be 'the man'). That got AD traded, I'm betting the same mindset gets Al traded too.


-Bball


Wow. So you are suggesting a 61 win team trade away its 2nd, 3rd and 4th most valuable commodities, because that is exactly what Ron Al and Jon are. I just don't see all three leaving.

Why **** J.O off by trading his two good friends, Jon and Al.

Arcadian
06-16-2004, 12:09 PM
So you are suggesting a 61 win team trade away its 2nd, 3rd and 4th most valuable commodities, because that is exactly what Ron Al and Jon are. I just don't see all three leaving.

I'm listening to the MVP on this one. I would be shocked, shocked to my core if the wise, patient and conservative Walsh moved all three.

diego
06-16-2004, 12:14 PM
There is NO WAY they move all three.

IMO Ron is essential if TMAC is here because he is able to guard the high scores on other teams thus allowing TMAC to play as much defensively.

But i will not be unhappy if AL stays and is our starting SF. Either way our starter next year at SF will be either Ron or Al. Bender is not ready.

Zesty
06-16-2004, 12:15 PM
Wouldn't the meeting and Artest at least returning phone calls be a good place for the team to have that dialogue with Artest?

How can you have the conversation you propose when Artest cannot be bothered with such things as the end of season meeting or even returning phone calls?

-Bball

If you hear Larry tell it, that's part of what sealed Zeke's fate last year.

Hicks
06-16-2004, 12:15 PM
I'm saying this now. We lose Ron, we won't go to the finals. With or without Tracy.

And you even had to ask why you're up for "most pessimistic" :p

Slick Pinkham
06-16-2004, 12:16 PM
I give up Al and Jon for TMac, maybe even throwing in Freddie,

but if Ron were dealt for TMac, I don't give them either of those guys too. Ron, Freddie, and a late-bench guy of their choosing (JJ, Brezac, Jamison, Pollard).

The only way I'd give up Ron and another top guy or even two is if they offer up Drew Gooden as well.

Unclebuck
06-16-2004, 12:19 PM
But BillS,
Wouldn't the meeting and Artest at least returning phone calls be a good place for the team to have that dialogue with Artest?

How can you have the conversation you propose when Artest cannot be bothered with such things as the end of season meeting or even returning phone calls?

-Bball


Bball what you are describing is nothing unusual. I am not condoning it, but it seems like you are acting as though it has never happened before. Spree, Ivy, Shaq, kobe are all players that I recall did the exact same
things for a whole summer.

Ron has done it for 2 weeks. You know he'll be back at Conseco working out soon, Bird can meet with him then.

The players I mentioned above were need seen or heard from for 3 or months

it has only been two weeks.

Suaveness
06-16-2004, 12:28 PM
I'm saying this now. We lose Ron, we won't go to the finals. With or without Tracy.

And you even had to ask why you're up for "most pessimistic" :p

Ha. I am not being pessimistic, I am saying that we need Ron.

You do realize that we have spent the last 3 or 4 years "rebuilding" this team. Trading away its main components so easily is not something I think they would do.

If Ron were the only way to get Tracy, I would NOT do it. Al is tradable, and in my opinion, Bender is too. Even though I'm his biggest fan, I would trade Fred too if that meant keeping Ron, he is so important.

Though I highly discourage trading him.

One way to get around trading Ron would be a 3 way deal. I know chicago was mentioned a bit.

ChicagoJ
06-16-2004, 12:28 PM
But BillS,
Wouldn't the meeting and Artest at least returning phone calls be a good place for the team to have that dialogue with Artest?

How can you have the conversation you propose when Artest cannot be bothered with such things as the end of season meeting or even returning phone calls?

-Bball


Bball what you are describing is nothing unusual. I am not condoning it, but it seems like you are acting as though it has never happened before. Spree, Ivy, Shaq, kobe are all players that I recall did the exact same
things for a whole summer.

Ron has done it for 2 weeks. You know he'll be back at Conseco working out soon, Bird can meet with him then.

The players I mentioned above were need seen or heard from for 3 or months

it has only been two weeks.

So its okay because model citizens and teammates like Spree, Iverson & Company have done it before and for longer.

:confused:

Suaveness
06-16-2004, 12:29 PM
But BillS,
Wouldn't the meeting and Artest at least returning phone calls be a good place for the team to have that dialogue with Artest?

How can you have the conversation you propose when Artest cannot be bothered with such things as the end of season meeting or even returning phone calls?

-Bball


Bball what you are describing is nothing unusual. I am not condoning it, but it seems like you are acting as though it has never happened before. Spree, Ivy, Shaq, kobe are all players that I recall did the exact same
things for a whole summer.

Ron has done it for 2 weeks. You know he'll be back at Conseco working out soon, Bird can meet with him then.

The players I mentioned above were need seen or heard from for 3 or months

it has only been two weeks.

So its okay because model citizens and teammates like Spree, Iverson & Company have done it before and for longer.

:confused:

No, but that is no reason to go and trade him either.

Hicks
06-16-2004, 12:35 PM
Did any of you stop to think that because of Ron's pattern of this type of thing, that there was a high chance he was delt ANYWAY? Meaning even if we got or get T-Mac for Al and Bender, there is a decent chance Ron could be gone in a separate trade?

Tough to swallow from a basketball standpoint, I know. But it could be reality.

But since I think this may be the case, I'm willing to use Ron to seal the T-Mac IF NECESSARY to get McGrady.

Because if Ron HAS to go, and it's not up to us, it's up to management, but if he has to go, I'd feel a lot better that it was for McGrady instead of a small trade for someone like Bonzi Wells.

Bball
06-16-2004, 12:36 PM
Wow. So you are suggesting a 61 win team trade away its 2nd, 3rd and 4th most valuable commodities, because that is exactly what Ron Al and Jon are. I just don't see all three leaving.

Why **** J.O off by trading his two good friends, Jon and Al.

I might buy that Ron and Al are our 2nd and 3rd most valuable commodities.... tho I'd argue if Al is #3 then we have problems. But I don't know that I'd put Bender at #4.

He set on the bench most of the year either injured or unused and we won 61 games. I don't see his loss as anything.

I'm not sure we want to accomodate Al's wishes to start. What moves could we make that leaves him a starting spot? ....Other than moving JO to center and Al to PF. Do we want Al as starting SF?

And can he put his black hole ways behind him if the team gives him a starting slot?

I don't think management likes the thought of moving all 3 but I don't know if the players have given them a choice... provided somebody will offer a workable trade(s).

Al loses favor because he has not embraced a role but instead wants to be 'the man'.... yet is anything but 'the man' except in his own mind.

Artest seems to be doing all he can to make management throw up their hands and give up.

Bender, I think, has had 5 years and with the current hurdles is going to be a liability for us. His trade value probably will be going down... down.... down.... And is probably only worthwhile in a package deal as it is.

Pollard.... I think you could add his name to the list but is there a team that would take him?

-Bball

Suaveness
06-16-2004, 12:38 PM
Did any of you stop to think that because of Ron's pattern of this type of thing, that there was a high chance he was delt ANYWAY? Meaning even if we got or get T-Mac for Al and Bender, there is a decent chance Ron could be gone in a separate trade?

Tough to swallow from a basketball standpoint, I know. But it could be reality.

But since I think this may be the case, I'm willing to use Ron to seal the T-Mac IF NECESSARY to get McGrady.

Because if Ron HAS to go, and it's not up to us, it's up to management, but if he has to go, I'd feel a lot better that it was for McGrady instead of a small trade for someone like Bonzi Wells.

How many times were there people telling the Pacers to trade Ron the season before this? He was childish, immature, and just plain bad. Everyone wanted him out.

Did he leave? No.

Don't you think those things are much much worse than missing a meeting and being pissed off at losing?

I can't believe people are nuts over artest missing a meeting.

Hicks
06-16-2004, 12:40 PM
I can't believe people are nuts over artest missing a meeting.

Totally missing the point. It's not that WE are calling for Ron to go, it's that signs are pointing to DONNIE AND LARRY wnating Ron to go. And if they do, well, then read my last post here to see how I feel about it.

Unclebuck
06-16-2004, 12:41 PM
So its okay because model citizens and teammates like Spree, Iverson & Company have done it before and for longer.

:confused:


First sorry about all the typos in my post, makes it difficult to understand my point.

But Jay I did say I was not condoning what Ron did, I am simply trying to keep things in proper perspective. And I'll say again it has only been two weeks.

McGrady has waited two months since his season ended to tell his team whether he wants to stay, that does not seem right to me.

ChicagoJ
06-16-2004, 12:42 PM
But BillS,
Wouldn't the meeting and Artest at least returning phone calls be a good place for the team to have that dialogue with Artest?

How can you have the conversation you propose when Artest cannot be bothered with such things as the end of season meeting or even returning phone calls?

-Bball


Bball what you are describing is nothing unusual. I am not condoning it, but it seems like you are acting as though it has never happened before. Spree, Ivy, Shaq, kobe are all players that I recall did the exact same
things for a whole summer.

Ron has done it for 2 weeks. You know he'll be back at Conseco working out soon, Bird can meet with him then.

The players I mentioned above were need seen or heard from for 3 or months

it has only been two weeks.

So its okay because model citizens and teammates like Spree, Iverson & Company have done it before and for longer.

:confused:

No, but that is no reason to go and trade him either.

Sorry UB. I re-read your post and you did say,

... I am not condoning it ...

but Sauveness had already replied so I couldn't delete it.

Sauveness, I've said many times that no individual incident is a reason to trade him. Its the fact that we keep having so many selfish and childish incidents to discuss at the end of the season in which he was trying to prove that he was growing up. But this is the type of incident that could be the 'straw that broke the camels' back', and that would be an appropriate response.

Suaveness
06-16-2004, 12:43 PM
I can't believe people are nuts over artest missing a meeting.

Totally missing the point. It's not that WE are calling for Ron to go, it's that signs are pointing to DONNIE AND LARRY wnating Ron to go. And if they do, well, then read my last post here to see how I feel about it.

How in the world do we know this? Unless those 2 say "We are trading Ron', there is no definite proof that anything will happen.


"It don't bother me. People handle things differently. If guys don't do what they're supposed to do, they get fined."

That doesn't sound like Bird saying I want Ron out. He said it doesn't bother him. I don't understand how people can assume that means he wants Ron out. Where in those sentences does it say that? Can you read minds? Please tell me.

Unclebuck
06-16-2004, 12:45 PM
If the Pacers trade Artest, they better get McGrady.

if they trade Ron for Bonzi Wells, or anyone else of that caliber, I will lose it completely

BillS
06-16-2004, 12:49 PM
But BillS,
Wouldn't the meeting and Artest at least returning phone calls be a good place for the team to have that dialogue with Artest?

How can you have the conversation you propose when Artest cannot be bothered with such things as the end of season meeting or even returning phone calls?

-Bball

First off, I went back to the actual news articles and didn't see anything about not returning phone calls. If I missed it in something other than a claim to have bugged Bird's office, then please point it out and I'll change my background assumptions accordingly.

My understanding is this is a standard "meet with every player individually at the end of the season" meeting that is expected of every player. Sure, if you need the one-on-one time with the upper decks you don't blow it off. But, if you're fried and frustrated and need to get your rear end out of town for a while (and face it, if you have a chance to do some media stuff that you haven't ever gotten a chance to do before as well as promote a project that you don't have time pto promote during the season), then you bug out and pay the fine.

I'd bet you that skipping the meeting in exchange for the fine is probably what a lot of players have done over the years, stars and not stars, as long as they can afford the fine. Especially at the end of an emotional season where things have not gone as well as you would have liked.

I repeat, here is a player that occasionally goes off and does what he wants. He doesn't badmouth the organization, he tries to be a good citizen, and in general he brings it to practice and to games (and I'm sorry, if he was disrupting practices and the attitudes of other players we'd hear about it because the media is so hungry for bad stuff about Ron).

Good grief, a year ago we're trying to be the "Bad Boys" and today we're jumping all over a player who epitomizes the "Slightly Naughty And Gets Cranky Fellows"

Suaveness
06-16-2004, 12:50 PM
SUAVEness, I've said many times that no individual incident is a reason to trade him. Its the fact that we keep having so many selfish and childish incidents to discuss at the end of the season in which he was trying to prove that he was growing up. But this is the type of incident that could be the 'straw that broke the camels' back', and that would be an appropriate response.

I don't think anything that happened since the end of the season can warrant Ron being traded. Obviously, Ron's shot selection at the end of the game wasn't good. But I didn't see anyone else step up and try and make plays. And this is the first time we had gotten that far in the playoffs, so I don't know if they are entirely confident about how to play. Remember Detroit got spanked the year before.

Ron did make some comments to the effect of wanting the ball more, but it's not because he's a greedy person or something. He just wants to win badly, and his "bad incidents" are merely a reflection of that.

He handles himself differently than others.

These "childish" incidents are not that serious to me. Remember, last year was much worse. Don't you think he has improved himself?

diego
06-16-2004, 12:50 PM
One thing to consider...if the Pacers wanted to trade Ron, why would they show dissapointment and make public Ron missing his interview. That would only hurt the teams chances at reaping full value for him. I think if they were gonna trade him, they would have said nothing about it as to not give the other team any reason to make the deal less sweet. Actually by their response shows me that he will probably not be traded.

ChicagoJ
06-16-2004, 12:52 PM
I can't believe people are nuts over artest missing a meeting.

Totally missing the point. It's not that WE are calling for Ron to go, it's that signs are pointing to DONNIE AND LARRY wnating Ron to go. And if they do, well, then read my last post here to see how I feel about it.

How in the world do we know this? Unless those 2 say "We are trading Ron', there is no definite proof that anything will happen.


"It don't bother me. People handle things differently. If guys don't do what they're supposed to do, they get fined."

That doesn't sound like Bird saying I want Ron out. He said it doesn't bother him. I don't understand how people can assume that means he wants Ron out. Where in those sentences does it say that? Can you read minds? Please tell me.

Use your head here. Bird isn't going to say "I want Ron out." As soon as he says that, its a buyer's market, and Ron's trade value will plummet because the other team has the leverage - knowing completely that if Ron doesn't respect a GM that's in the HoF, why would he respect a GM that never played or wasn't an all-star, etc?

What did Bird say when Dampier was late to that optional practice. Not much. But he was traded away quickly and used as an example. Even if it was optional for Damp, as a second-year player, to attend the rookie camp... he was expected to be on-time and to practice hard.

Suaveness
06-16-2004, 01:00 PM
Use your head here. Bird isn't going to say "I want Ron out." As soon as he says that, its a buyer's market, and Ron's trade value will plummet because the other team has the leverage - knowing completely that if Ron doesn't respect a GM that's in the HoF, why would he respect a GM that never played or wasn't an all-star, etc?

What did Bird say when Dampier was late to that optional practice. Not much. But he was traded away quickly and used as an example. Even if it was optional for Damp, as a second-year player, to attend the rookie camp... he was expected to be on-time and to practice hard.

I still don't understand how we can know that those 2 don't want Ron. Ok, so he wouldn't say that. But how can one assume that Bird wants out Ron from that? People keep telling that Ron is done and so on.

Maybe I'm just missing something here, or maybe I'm stupid. But I just don't see anything to validate this.

ChicagoJ
06-16-2004, 01:04 PM
SUAVEness, I've said many times that no individual incident is a reason to trade him. Its the fact that we keep having so many selfish and childish incidents to discuss at the end of the season in which he was trying to prove that he was growing up. But this is the type of incident that could be the 'straw that broke the camels' back', and that would be an appropriate response.

I don't think anything that happened since the end of the season can warrant Ron being traded. Obviously, Ron's shot selection at the end of the game wasn't good. But I didn't see anyone else step up and try and make plays. And this is the first time we had gotten that far in the playoffs, so I don't know if they are entirely confident about how to play. Remember Detroit got spanked the year before.

Ron did make some comments to the effect of wanting the ball more, but it's not because he's a greedy person or something. He just wants to win badly, and his "bad incidents" are merely a reflection of that.

He handles himself differently than others.

These "childish" incidents are not that serious to me. Remember, last year was much worse. Don't you think he has improved himself?

One of these days, I'll spell it right. :flirt:

I deleted this paragraph before I made a previous post, but now I'll throw it in...

I've never thought of Ron's flagrant-fouling frequency as *the problem*. To me the core problem has always been his selfish behavior. And in my opinion, the way he expresses his "desire to win" is a big part of the problem. Because I believe he's only happy when the Pacers win and he's the 'star'. If the Pacers win and he's not the 'star', I think he's jealous. I think he's more happy if the Pacers lose but he's still the 'star'.

Its a team game, so blaming it all on himself shows how much he dis-respects his teammates. B!tc#hing about the game plan shows how much he dis-respects his coaches.

So no, I'm not sure he's improved because the core problem is just finding other ways to manifest itself.

I haven't said it yet... but here goes:

HE'S A CANCER.

ROCislandWarrior
06-16-2004, 01:09 PM
Ron......WHY?

Your team was so close to the championship.
You guys were making great strides.

Why did you do this? :crazy:

I don't know what to think. All I have to say is...let the Trade Artest Rumors Fly.

Unclebuck
06-16-2004, 01:13 PM
I haven't said it yet... but here goes:

HE'S A CANCER.



Well now you have said it.

let's assume for sake of discussion you are right.

Damn this team must be capable of winning 70 games then because for them to have a cancer on the team and still win 61 games is remarkable.

Bball
06-16-2004, 01:21 PM
I've never thought of Ron's flagrant-fouling frequency as *the problem*. To me the core problem has always been his selfish behavior. And in my opinion, the way he expresses his "desire to win" is a big part of the problem. Because I believe he's only happy when the Pacers win and he's the 'star'. If the Pacers win and he's not the 'star', I think he's jealous. I think he's more happy if the Pacers lose but he's still the 'star'.



I don't know about that.... I think Ron is happy winning regardless. But at the first sign of trouble he wants to be the hero and do it his way.


Its a team game, so blaming it all on himself shows how much he dis-respects his teammates. B!tc#hing about the game plan shows how much he dis-respects his coaches.

So no, I'm not sure he's improved because the core problem is just finding other ways to manifest itself.

I haven't said it yet... but here goes:

HE'S A CANCER.

I get the impression that the players and coaches felt for him and didn't look at him as the 'classic' cancer. OTOH, the coddling and stoking wears thin after a while. If that is where the team is at then it would be hard to blame them.

(From the outside looking in) Last year was too soon to give up if they felt there was hope. Particularly with Isiah as coach of the mess. This year is not too soon. IMHO.


-Bball

BillS
06-16-2004, 01:24 PM
blaming it all on himself shows how much he dis-respects his teammates.

Holy Freaking Frijoles and Little Burritos.

A player who steps up and takes the blame for a loss is dissing his teammates? That's GOT to be the first time I've ever heard THAT accusation.

He has the second highest assists per game on the team, regular season AND playoffs - higher than Reggie! But Reggie is "too unselfish" and Ron is "too selfish"?

Considering how Rick treats players who regularly break plays themselves, I cannot imagine Ron having been given the position on the team he had if he was the "black hole of the half court" that you claim him to be.

Quit judging his entire season on one game where he tried to put the team on his shoulders and failed. Quit thinking that Ron trying to step up somehow in the last 5 minutes kept Reggie from turning into Superman or kept JO from having a brilliant stroke of genius as to how to overpower the Pistons front line.

Did he revert to some of his behaviors from previous years at the end of the game and after? Yes - but in very minor ways all things considered. Call it "two steps forward one step back" if you want (though I don't think it's that drastic) but give him some blasted credit.

Here's a guy who wants to be a superstar and is doing something and showing something in order to get there. On the other hand, we have 5.1 who is really good at showing it in practice, and Al who really wants to start but can't bring it every game - even emotionally.

I'll keep Ron, thanks.

bulletproof
06-16-2004, 01:25 PM
I can't believe people are nuts over artest missing a meeting.

Wow, you really don't pay attention, do you? How are you doing in college, kid?

ChicagoJ
06-16-2004, 01:27 PM
I haven't said it yet... but here goes:

HE'S A CANCER.



Well now you have said it.

let's assume for sake of discussion you are right.

Damn this team must be capable of winning 70 games then because for them to have a cancer on the team and still win 61 games is remarkable.

Well, there is a legion of Lakers' fans that think Kobe is a selfish ballhog and a cancer, but they made it to The Finals.

You trade Ron for a player equal to Ron and, IMO, we still win 61 games.

ChicagoJ
06-16-2004, 01:28 PM
I can't believe people are nuts over artest missing a meeting.

Wow, you really don't pay attention, do you? How are you doing in college, kid?

That's true. In the real world, people get fired for less.

Gyron
06-16-2004, 01:29 PM
Guys,

I think we may be going to far calling Ron a cancer, but I do think his off court issues do cause some problems. I still think the team with Ron is better than the team without Ron, adding Tracy or not.

But ultimately, its not up to us anyways, its up to DW, Bird and maybe a little say from RC. I just Hope Ron didn't burn himself by blowing off Larry and the exit interview.


I am very disappointed to hear Ron is taking that approach...... :(

BillS
06-16-2004, 01:32 PM
You trade Ron for a player equal to Ron and, IMO, we still win 61 games.

Find me one.

If we can do a one-to-one trade with a player who matches Ron's stats and has no head problems at all, of COURSE I'm an idiot if I don't take it. I don't think you find one, or at least if you do he won't have the heart and desire that Ron has.

But don't tell me I'm trading Ron and our sixth man and other decent bench material (not great, but decent) for one player who is a major offensive upgrade but only somewhat of a defensive upgrade at his position, then leave me with the huge hole at Ron's position.

ChicagoJ
06-16-2004, 01:32 PM
blaming it all on himself shows how much he dis-respects his teammates.

Holy Freaking Frijoles and Little Burritos.

A player who steps up and takes the blame for a loss is dissing his teammates? That's GOT to be the first time I've ever heard THAT accusation.


I really didn't phrase that very well at all. Sorry. What I meant to say was that he was, in effect, blaming his coaches and teammates because he felt he didn't have the ball enough.

ChicagoJ
06-16-2004, 01:36 PM
Guys,

I think we may be going to far calling Ron a cancer, but I do think his off court issues do cause some problems. I still think the team with Ron is better than the team without Ron, adding Tracy or not.

But ultimately, its not up to us anyways, its up to DW, Bird and maybe a little say from RC. I just Hope Ron didn't burn himself by blowing off Larry and the exit interview.


I am very disappointed to hear Ron is taking that approach...... :(

The 'cancer' comment is all mine, don't blame that one anybody else. But it was somewhat of hyperbole for the (small) legion of supporters who keep pretending everything is fine. I didn't start a thread with a title of "Ron is a Cancer".

BillS
06-16-2004, 01:38 PM
I can't believe people are nuts over artest missing a meeting.

Wow, you really don't pay attention, do you? How are you doing in college, kid?

That's true. In the real world, people get fired for less.

In the real world, top performers often get cut slack for worse.

Don't generalize.

ChicagoJ
06-16-2004, 01:40 PM
You trade Ron for a player equal to Ron and, IMO, we still win 61 games.

Find me one.

If we can do a one-to-one trade with a player who matches Ron's stats and has no head problems at all, of COURSE I'm an idiot if I don't take it. I don't think you find one, or at least if you do he won't have the heart and desire that Ron has.

But don't tell me I'm trading Ron and our sixth man and other decent bench material (not great, but decent) for one player who is a major offensive upgrade but only somewhat of a defensive upgrade at his position, then leave me with the huge hole at Ron's position.

Because Ron's contract is so small, that's why I think it takes two trades which involve all three of Al, Jon and Ron - to somewhat different destinations. Ron + Jon for T-Mac does leave a hole that can only be filled by Al + filler to either Houston or GSW. But we now play in the same division as the Champion, so standing pat may not be an option anyway.

ChicagoJ
06-16-2004, 01:41 PM
I can't believe people are nuts over artest missing a meeting.

Wow, you really don't pay attention, do you? How are you doing in college, kid?

That's true. In the real world, people get fired for less.

In the real world, top performers often get cut slack for worse.

Don't generalize.

You're right.

Is this better: In the real world, people have been fired for less. ?

Will Galen
06-16-2004, 01:43 PM
Damn this team must be capable of winning 70 games then because for them to have a cancer on the team and still win 61 games is remarkable.

Great point!

I think Artest just wants to win, and if we are not winning he tries to take over.

Suaveness
06-16-2004, 01:45 PM
I can't believe people are nuts over artest missing a meeting.

Wow, you really don't pay attention, do you? How are you doing in college, kid?

I appreciate the verbal attack. If you want to say something about the topic, then say something about the topic. Don't give me ******** about my life. I'm not an idiot.

BillS
06-16-2004, 01:45 PM
blaming it all on himself shows how much he dis-respects his teammates.

Holy Freaking Frijoles and Little Burritos.

A player who steps up and takes the blame for a loss is dissing his teammates? That's GOT to be the first time I've ever heard THAT accusation.


I really didn't phrase that very well at all. Sorry. What I meant to say was that he was, in effect, blaming his coaches and teammates because he felt he didn't have the ball enough.

I think it's a leap to think that's as much of a problem as you think it is. He's the number two option. If the number one option (JO) isn't working, and the number 3 option (Reggie) isn't taking shots, what is he supposed to say?

After a couple of years of players who don't seem to want the ball (and a playoff searies of our own Mr. Clutch deciding that he didn't want to shoot any more) I'm desperate for someone who has the confidence to believe that he can make a difference.

It isn't like we've got a guy who is skilled at playing the media calling the press over and saying "we lost because I didn't get the ball enough." If I remember right, it was the after-game press briefing where a clearly uncomfortable Ron Artest was asked what he would have done differently and he said "I think I should have gotten the ball more." There's a HUGE difference in attitude here.

Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Again, I don't think Ron is untouchable, but we had damn well better get more than just TMac and junk before the beginning of the season if we lose Ron.

Suaveness
06-16-2004, 02:16 PM
blaming it all on himself shows how much he dis-respects his teammates.

Holy Freaking Frijoles and Little Burritos.

A player who steps up and takes the blame for a loss is dissing his teammates? That's GOT to be the first time I've ever heard THAT accusation.


I really didn't phrase that very well at all. Sorry. What I meant to say was that he was, in effect, blaming his coaches and teammates because he felt he didn't have the ball enough.

I don't see how that is blaming his coaches. I just don't. He said that because he was upset at losing. This is all the heat of the moment stuff. He doesnt like losing. I see nothing wrong.

bulletproof
06-16-2004, 02:33 PM
I can't believe people are nuts over artest missing a meeting.

Wow, you really don't pay attention, do you? How are you doing in college, kid?

I appreciate the verbal attack. If you want to say something about the topic, then say something about the topic. Don't give me bull**** about my life. I'm not an idiot.

My comment was related to the topic because you appear to be having a conversation with yourself by not acknowledging what has previously been said about this—that it's not an isolated incident. But you continue to keep saying the same thing over and over when it's obvious there is something else going on. That's all.

ChicagoJ
06-16-2004, 02:40 PM
blaming it all on himself shows how much he dis-respects his teammates.

Holy Freaking Frijoles and Little Burritos.

A player who steps up and takes the blame for a loss is dissing his teammates? That's GOT to be the first time I've ever heard THAT accusation.


I really didn't phrase that very well at all. Sorry. What I meant to say was that he was, in effect, blaming his coaches and teammates because he felt he didn't have the ball enough.

I think it's a leap to think that's as much of a problem as you think it is. He's the number two option. If the number one option (JO) isn't working, and the number 3 option (Reggie) isn't taking shots, what is he supposed to say?

After a couple of years of players who don't seem to want the ball (and a playoff searies of our own Mr. Clutch deciding that he didn't want to shoot any more) I'm desperate for someone who has the confidence to believe that he can make a difference.

It isn't like we've got a guy who is skilled at playing the media calling the press over and saying "we lost because I didn't get the ball enough." If I remember right, it was the after-game press briefing where a clearly uncomfortable Ron Artest was asked what he would have done differently and he said "I think I should have gotten the ball more." There's a HUGE difference in attitude here.

Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Again, I don't think Ron is untouchable, but we had damn well better get more than just TMac and junk before the beginning of the season if we lose Ron.

I feel like a broken record, but I'm not 'hanging my hat' on any one incident. Its the pattern. I agree with anyone that posts that each of these incidents, in isolation, isn't that big of a deal. :cool:

Don't forget, I'm the resident worry-wart for this type of stuff, so its in my nature to look for these types of patterns and tendencies. ("I'm only happy with the Pacers when I'm not happy with the Pacers.") :blush:

But I agree with your last point... Ron's salary makes it difficult to attain equal value in just one transaction. If DW and Bird decide they've had enough, it will take multiple moves to unload Ron AND rebalance the roster.

For what its worth, I was not convinced that the #1 option wasn't working in Game #6 v. Detroit. I know JO was hobbled and playing farther from the basket than normal, but our offense was still better when he'd touch the ball vs. the plays where the ball never went into the post. I've never complained about Ron 'getting the ball back'... its when he holds it.

bulletproof
06-16-2004, 03:09 PM
I haven't said it yet... but here goes:

HE'S A CANCER.



Well now you have said it.

let's assume for sake of discussion you are right.

Damn this team must be capable of winning 70 games then because for them to have a cancer on the team and still win 61 games is remarkable.

I can't wait until they put up our "Won 61 Games" banner in Conseco.

Touché.

Suaveness
06-16-2004, 03:19 PM
I can't believe people are nuts over artest missing a meeting.

Wow, you really don't pay attention, do you? How are you doing in college, kid?

I appreciate the verbal attack. If you want to say something about the topic, then say something about the topic. Don't give me bull**** about my life. I'm not an idiot.

My comment was related to the topic because you appear to be having a conversation with yourself by not acknowledging what has previously been said about this—that it's not an isolated incident. But you continue to keep saying the same thing over and over when it's obvious there is something else going on. That's all.

Let me know when me going to college has anything to do with this topic :unimpressed:

Ok, since it seems as though I am "having a conversation with myself".

See, it is this "incident" thing that bugs me. Yes, I knwo what you are talking about. Ron does stuff and has done stuff since the season ended that are making people upset, and you guys think Donnie and larry are upset too. Is that it?

How can you say something obvious is going on? Unless the front page of the paper says, "Ron is a troublemaker", I don't see how "there is something going on".

Will Galen
06-16-2004, 03:56 PM
Damn this team must be capable of winning 70 games then because for them to have a cancer on the team and still win 61 games is remarkable.

I can't wait until they put up our "Won 61 Games" banner in Conseco.

What does this comment have to do with what UncleBuck said?

Suaveness
06-16-2004, 03:57 PM
Damn this team must be capable of winning 70 games then because for them to have a cancer on the team and still win 61 games is remarkable.

I can't wait until they put up our "Won 61 Games" banner in Conseco.

What does this comment have to do with what UncleBuck said?

Maybe somethign to the effect that winning 61 games means nothing :confused:

diego
06-16-2004, 03:57 PM
it shows who cares about 61 wins, we want a ring. id rather have 50 regular season wins a ring personally.

TheSauceMaster
06-16-2004, 08:55 PM
All I see is alot of assuming in this thread and since the 2nd player who didn't attend the meetings is unnamed , how about this , what if his name was JO?? I never heard any reports that he indeed did attend this type of meeting.

It all makes me wonder , if we get Tmac and Trade ron to get him ..what will be the excuses next year if we don't win it all ? Won't it be Ironic if we do get Tmac and ethier we don't make the playoffs , we bow out before ECF or in the ECF again , who will be next year's escape goat ?????

MSA2CF
06-16-2004, 08:57 PM
...escape goat ?????

Quick, MagicRat; to the batcave, you have an assignment!

MarionDeputy
06-16-2004, 09:10 PM
Talk about some serious ESP, and mind reading going on in here....

"There were a couple of guys who didn't show up," he said, declining to reveal identities. "It don't bother me. People handle things differently. If guys don't do what they're supposed to do, they get fined."

Larry said "It don't bother me" until there are some other facts that lead to anything more drastic than a fine. I'll take Larry at his word.

ChicagoJ
06-16-2004, 11:48 PM
"There were a couple of guys who didn't show up," he said, declining to reveal identities. "It don't bother me. People handle things differently. If guys don't do what they're supposed to do, they get fined."

Perhaps, as Jay's_Wife@Section222 just pointed out, it didn't bother Larry because he'd already made up his mind to trade him.

Suaveness
06-17-2004, 12:28 AM
Talk about some serious ESP, and mind reading going on in here....

"There were a couple of guys who didn't show up," he said, declining to reveal identities. "It don't bother me. People handle things differently. If guys don't do what they're supposed to do, they get fined."

Larry said "It don't bother me" until there are some other facts that lead to anything more drastic than a fine. I'll take Larry at his word.

Yes. Mind reading. Amazing.

Seriously, it amazes me people are psychic. I want to learn how.

Bball
06-17-2004, 12:32 AM
Talk about some serious ESP, and mind reading going on in here....

"There were a couple of guys who didn't show up," he said, declining to reveal identities. "It don't bother me. People handle things differently. If guys don't do what they're supposed to do, they get fined."

Larry said "It don't bother me" until there are some other facts that lead to anything more drastic than a fine. I'll take Larry at his word.

Yes. Mind reading. Amazing.

Seriously, it amazes me people are psychic. I want to learn how.

We call it reading between the lines and also putting two and two together. Some people call it making a mountain out of a molehill or something from nothing. It's the offseason! :P

Seriously, the comment by itself isn't that telling BUT the action behind it... Larry's history... Donnie's history... and Artest's history all tends to give us a little more to base the speculation on. It isn't necessarily wild speculation. It has some basis.

-Bball

Suaveness
06-17-2004, 12:39 AM
Talk about some serious ESP, and mind reading going on in here....

"There were a couple of guys who didn't show up," he said, declining to reveal identities. "It don't bother me. People handle things differently. If guys don't do what they're supposed to do, they get fined."

Larry said "It don't bother me" until there are some other facts that lead to anything more drastic than a fine. I'll take Larry at his word.

Yes. Mind reading. Amazing.

Seriously, it amazes me people are psychic. I want to learn how.

We call it reading between the lines and also putting two and two together. Some people call it making a mountain out of a molehill or something from nothing. It's the offseason! :P

Seriously, the comment by itself isn't that telling BUT the action behind it... Larry's history... Donnie's history... and Artest's history all tends to give us a little more to base the speculation on. It isn't necessarily wild speculation. It has some basis.

-Bball

I call it reading between the lines and looking really hard to find something. :unimpressed:

ChicagoJ
06-17-2004, 09:52 AM
I'm predicting right now that if we lose Ron we will be giving up too many points next year.

We'll be the Lakers of the East, decent scoring except when we're defended strongly and an inability to prevent scoring by other teams.

Perfect way to design a team to lose to this year's champions. :rolleyes:

That's such defeatist bullsh*t.
We have plenty of strong defensive players.
Rick will ALWAYS play defense first.
IF we made the TMc move we'd give up 4 pts more and score 10 more.
I'd take that. :)

Said another way, you beleive the effective point differential (which is different than RealGM's regurgitation of individual player's stats) would be +6.

I'd take that in any trade.

Suaveness
06-17-2004, 09:58 AM
I'm predicting right now that if we lose Ron we will be giving up too many points next year.

We'll be the Lakers of the East, decent scoring except when we're defended strongly and an inability to prevent scoring by other teams.

Perfect way to design a team to lose to this year's champions. :rolleyes:

That's such defeatist bullsh*t.
We have plenty of strong defensive players.
Rick will ALWAYS play defense first.
IF we made the TMc move we'd give up 4 pts more and score 10 more.
I'd take that. :)

Said another way, you beleive the effective point differential (which is different than RealGM's regurgitation of individual player's stats) would be +6.

I'd take that in any trade.

+6 is nice and all, but where does that leave teams like Dallas and Sacramento? They score more than most...where are they?

ChicagoJ
06-17-2004, 10:25 AM
I'm predicting right now that if we lose Ron we will be giving up too many points next year.

We'll be the Lakers of the East, decent scoring except when we're defended strongly and an inability to prevent scoring by other teams.

Perfect way to design a team to lose to this year's champions. :rolleyes:

That's such defeatist bullsh*t.
We have plenty of strong defensive players.
Rick will ALWAYS play defense first.
IF we made the TMc move we'd give up 4 pts more and score 10 more.
I'd take that. :)

Said another way, you beleive the effective point differential (which is different than RealGM's regurgitation of individual player's stats) would be +6.

I'd take that in any trade.

+6 is nice and all, but where does that leave teams like Dallas and Sacramento? They score more than most...where are they?

They don't defend at all. Contrary to popular opinion, offense and defense do not exist in a vacuum. The championship-caliber teams in the high-scoring 1980s were still great defensive teams. The Kings and Mavs are not. The name of the game is to outscore your opponent. In order to do that, (A) your offense has to be able to score more than you allow, or (B) your defense has to hold your opponent to fewer points that you can score. Those are you two choices. Detroit embraced (B) and rode it to a championship.

What is the difference betweening winning 106-100 and 70-64? NONE. In either scenario, you are six points better than your opponent. Both of those are better than winning 104-100 or 70-66. I don't care about the raw numbers. It didn't do us any good to hold Detroit 75.2 ppg when we could only manage 72.7 ppg. If we score ten more ppg and give up four more ppg it would've been more like Det - 79, Indiana 82. I'll take that.

If your strategy to beat Detroit is hold them to less than 71 per game, then you're going to have to make a move to improve your defense (think: Bruce Bowen), but your offense will go down too, so it would really be Det - 71 and Indiana - 69. I wouldn't take that.

Bball
06-17-2004, 10:31 AM
They don't defend at all. Contrary to popular opinion, offense and defense do not exist in a vacuum. The championship-caliber teams in the high-scoring 1980s were still great defensive teams. The Kings and Mavs are not. The name of the game is to outscore your opponent. In order to do that, (A) your offense has to be able to score more than you allow, or (B) your defense has to hold your opponent to fewer points that you can score. Those are you two choices. Detroit embraced (B) and rode it to a championship.

What is the difference betweening winning 106-100 and 70-64? NONE. In either scenario, you are six points better than your opponent. Both of those are better than winning 104-100 or 70-66. I don't care about the raw numbers. It didn't do us any good to hold Detroit 75.2 ppg when we could only manage 72.7 ppg. If we score ten more ppg and give up four more ppg it would've been more like Det - 79, Indiana 82. I'll take that.

If your strategy to beat Detroit is hold them to less than 71 per game, then you're going to have to make a move to improve your defense (think: Bruce Bowen), but your offense will go down too, so it would really be Det - 71 and Indiana - 69. I wouldn't take that.


I'm sorry but you are in violation of the common sense rule and I am going to have to arrest you. We can't have too much common sense in one post. You should know better. The next thing you are going to tell us is that lots of teams have won championships without Artest.

Please step away from the keyboard with your hands up.....


:D

-Bball

ChicagoJ
06-17-2004, 10:36 AM
They don't defend at all. Contrary to popular opinion, offense and defense do not exist in a vacuum. The championship-caliber teams in the high-scoring 1980s were still great defensive teams. The Kings and Mavs are not. The name of the game is to outscore your opponent. In order to do that, (A) your offense has to be able to score more than you allow, or (B) your defense has to hold your opponent to fewer points that you can score. Those are you two choices. Detroit embraced (B) and rode it to a championship.

What is the difference betweening winning 106-100 and 70-64? NONE. In either scenario, you are six points better than your opponent. Both of those are better than winning 104-100 or 70-66. I don't care about the raw numbers. It didn't do us any good to hold Detroit 75.2 ppg when we could only manage 72.7 ppg. If we score ten more ppg and give up four more ppg it would've been more like Det - 79, Indiana 82. I'll take that.

If your strategy to beat Detroit is hold them to less than 71 per game, then you're going to have to make a move to improve your defense (think: Bruce Bowen), but your offense will go down too, so it would really be Det - 71 and Indiana - 69. I wouldn't take that.


I'm sorry but you are in violation of the common sense rule and I am going to have to arrest you. We can't have too much common sense in one post. You should know better. The next thing you are going to tell us is that lots of teams have won championships without Artest.

Please step away from the keyboard with your hands up.....


:D

-Bball

Actually, I was going to point out that no team has ever won a championship with Artest.

:devil: :D

BillS
06-17-2004, 11:03 AM
I'm predicting right now that if we lose Ron we will be giving up too many points next year.

We'll be the Lakers of the East, decent scoring except when we're defended strongly and an inability to prevent scoring by other teams.

Perfect way to design a team to lose to this year's champions. :rolleyes:

That's such defeatist bullsh*t.
We have plenty of strong defensive players.
Rick will ALWAYS play defense first.
IF we made the TMc move we'd give up 4 pts more and score 10 more.
I'd take that. :)

Gosh, I'm sorry.

Am I only supposed to praise trades? I must have missed that in the forum rules.

Would I be considered a defeatist pessimist non-Pacer fan if I were to mention we got beaten by Detroit a few weeks ago?

I simply do not see how adding T-Mac and deleting Ron only hurts our defense by 4 points a game. Ron held T-Mac to more than 4 points a game below his average alone - how many offensive stars did T-Mac hold below their average?

Get a grip and don't wet your pants with joy just because T-Mac is a "superstar". Given that logic, obviously the Lakers really won the NBA title in 4 and we're just in some sort of alternate dimension.

MagicRat
06-17-2004, 11:31 AM
Ron held T-Mac to more than 4 points a game below his average alone.....

:confused:

T-Mac vs. Pacers 2003-2004

11-24-03 DNP
12-17-03 21
01-06-04 43
03-26-04 DNP

Avg. vs. Pacers 32
Season Avg. 28

Now the DNP's are another concern entirely......

BillS
06-17-2004, 01:00 PM
You got me there, I guess.

In that second game, TMac played 40 minutes and Ron 34 in a blow out of the Magic where Ron was in a little foul trouble. I seem to remember TMac scoring a lot as it neared garbage time with Ron on the bench, but there's no way to prove it unless we hire some interns to watch the films :D

I think the first game is pretty significant, though.

Unclebuck
06-17-2004, 01:06 PM
I remember that game when McGrady scored 43 points very well, I can visualize that game. he was hitting threes from everywhere against good defense, he was on fire the whole game. The interesting thing is the pacers won that very high scoring game. it seemed more like an ABA game.

That game was an aberation, T-Mac has said on more than one occassion that Ron guards him better than anyone.

ChicagoJ
06-17-2004, 01:08 PM
You got me there, I guess.

In that second game, TMac played 40 minutes and Ron 34 in a blow out of the Magic where Ron was in a little foul trouble. I seem to remember TMac scoring a lot as it neared garbage time with Ron on the bench, but there's no way to prove it unless we hire some interns to watch the films :D

I think the first game is pretty significant, though.

No need for an intern...

http://scores.nba.com/games/20040106/ORLIND/PlayByPlayPrint.html

McGrady had 20 points in the second quarter. He got hot when Ron sat down. Even though Rick put Ron back in the game quickly, he couldn't slow him down once he was cooking. Although the game was a comfortably in the Pacers' control, Tracy only scored four points in the last 7:30 and Ron was on the court at the end of the game.

ChicagoJ
11-16-2004, 12:23 AM
:bump:ing for the fun of it.

Still trying to find the actual "the migraines were a coverup" discussion.

Anthem
11-16-2004, 12:44 AM
:mad:

:laugh:

ChicagoJ
11-16-2004, 03:41 PM
Here is the part from the star article today.

Artest skips meeting

Ron Artest skipped his postseason meeting with Bird, drawing a fine from the team.

Artest said he didn't consider the conversation necessary.

"There was nothing to talk about," he said. "We lost."

Bird said at least one other player failed to meet with him.

"There were a couple of guys who didn't show up," he said, declining to reveal identities. "It don't bother me. People handle things differently. If guys don't do what they're supposed to do, they get fined."

Artest spent Monday in New York, conducting a round of radio and television interviews and an online chat with ESPN. He also planned to complete a compact disc he is producing by the three-woman singing group Allure.

He said it is scheduled for release in September.

September? :banghead:

This should've been complete before training camp. That's an in-excusable distraction from his basketball responsibilites. :mad: