PDA

View Full Version : Artest responds to Peja rumors



Kegboy
08-15-2004, 04:33 AM
http://www.indystar.com/articles/0/170423-5300-036.html


Artest prefers to be fixture in Indiana

By Sekou Smith
sekou.smith@indystar.com
August 15, 2004

LAFAYETTE, Ind. -- Seemingly everyone except Ron Artest has discussed the rumored trade of All-Stars involving the Indiana Pacers forward and Sacramento forward Peja Stojakovic.

Saturday afternoon, Artest set the record straight on what he thinks of the trade talk.

"I was told the rumors about me being traded weren't true, but I haven't spoken to (Pacers president Larry) Bird," Artest said. "I know a lot of Indiana fans don't like it; they don't want me to go. Obviously, it's a business. But everywhere I go, people tell me they are not feeling it."

That was certainly the mood here, where the NBA's Defensive Player of the Year signed autographs and posed for pictures with fans for two hours at Tippecanoe Mall.

"He's an Indiana Pacer and we need to keep it that way," said Arlen Jackson, who waited in the back of the line.

Stojakovic's recent demand that he be traded ignited speculation that a deal between the Pacers and Kings was in the works.

A straight-up deal involving the two players would qualify under NBA salary cap rules because their salaries match closely enough, or the Pacers could include a minimum salary player. Stojakovic will be paid $6.875 million next season, and Artest will receive $6.2 million.

The revelation from Stojakovic's agent David Bauman that Bird had inquired about such a deal in June fueled the rumors.

Bird dismissed the talk as pure speculation last week, but the chatter has continued.

"You never know," Artest said. "(Stojakovic) is a good player, a good player. If they trade me for him, the Pacers would be good. The Kings would be real good, too. Real good.

"But I made a long-term commitment to the Indiana Pacers. Even when I came here, a lot of guys didn't have faith in me. They thought I was going to be a knucklehead. Some people really didn't want me here, but I made up my mind to show people that I could change a little bit, that I could improve and do my thing here the way I wanted to."

Doing things his way includes operating without representation. Artest said he fired his agent, Mark Bartelstein, two weeks ago because he didn't feel like he was given the attention he needed.

"You can do it yourself," said Artest, who is armed with the security of a seven-year, $42 million deal he signed with the Pacers before the 2002-03 season.

In addition to working out, Artest has been busy with his fledgling record label (Tru Warier Entertainment), his upcoming solo rap album and the release of a country-and-western-themed single with a 78-year-old Zionsville, Ind., neighbor that he identified simply as "Doris."

"I just got a deal for my own clothing line and a signature sneaker through LA Gear," Artest said. "I've got a lot of stuff going on."

Artest said he also is working out the details for a celebrity fund-raiser weekend -- complete with baseball and softball tournaments, a talent show and a barbeque -- that he will host Sept. 11 and 12. Proceeds will benefit several local charities, including the fund that supports Indianapolis Public Schools athletic programs, Artest said.

It is all a part of a plan to give back to a community that Artest said welcomed him without reservation after he was acquired from Chicago in February 2002.

"Indiana took me in," Artest said. "I live here (in the offseason). I stay here. I'm out on the street here, in the 'hoods here, and I like it. I'm here."


Well, all I can say is my respect for Ron went up a notch. Any player who's smart enough to realize he doesn't need an agent is all right in my book.

TheSauceMaster
08-15-2004, 04:46 AM
I am in a wait and see mode , probably the thing that makes me sick the most if people running around like they got some elite information but they can't say much other than they think he's gonna be traded.

If management feels dealing Artest is the Best move to get a chanmpionship well I can live with that , but keeping Artest I don't thinks that's a bad deal ethier.

Mourning
08-15-2004, 05:45 AM
Nice article, and I want to echo both you guys opinions on this!

Regards,

Mourning:cool:

t1hs0n
08-15-2004, 06:12 AM
Wow. I am almost mad at myself for even thinking we should trade him. There is no one like Ron. He is a winner, a fighter, and one cool *** dude.

indygeezer
08-15-2004, 08:06 AM
I've always said I LIKE RON. I especially lke the part about him living here in the off-season. That is something I felt was needed to bridge the "warm -fuzzy" feeling between the organization and the people of Indy. The ABA Pacer players lived here. Ron is the 1st I've heard of being here in the OS (except Brad) in a looong while.

Having said that, if the mgmnt has a reason for trading him...I'm certain they know best. And yes, I have seen signs I recognize from living with it 1st hand and that makes me VERY wary of keeping him around. But if he'd stay on meds long enough to get over the "sluggish" feeling he'd be much better off, and I'd have NO problems keeping him around then.

SoupIsGood
08-15-2004, 10:13 AM
I like that he fired his agent and still lives around here. Go Ronnie!

NewType
08-15-2004, 10:24 AM
Isn't Mark Bartelstein Brad's agent as well? If, I'm saying if, Ron stay here for the rest of his contract, this may help the negotiation for the next contract a bit easier.

No more smarty pants agent:devil:.

sixthman
08-15-2004, 10:31 AM
Go Ronnie! Got to hear the duet with Doris. I'll buy the rap CD for kicks, too. This is one old guy who prefers good ole fashioned rock and roll.

Maybe, if Ron will just keep taking his medicine this will all work out. I am bothered somewhat that he and Bird reportedly have not yet talked.

Anthem
08-15-2004, 12:03 PM
I liked this:


"You never know," Artest said. "(Stojakovic) is a good player, a good player. If they trade me for him, the Pacers would be good. The Kings would be real good, too. Real good.

He respects Peja, but knows who gets the better end of the deal.

I like that.

Hicks
08-15-2004, 12:23 PM
Of course you like it; you want Artest to stay :laugh:

naptown
08-15-2004, 12:43 PM
I would not be surprised if keeping Artests name out there is nothing more than the old publicity machine in action.

Artest had more jerseys sold outside of Indy than any other Pacer last year. It is sad to say, but Artest is the biggest marketing tool the Pacers have. And one of the NBAs top 25, and climbing. If Artest ever gets his head on straight he will be one of the NBAs top 10 most marketable players.

You have to admit, Rons a hell of a basketball player. If he ever commits to a team mentality he could be a top 5 to 10 player in this league......I'm just not sure he ever will.

bulletproof
08-15-2004, 12:43 PM
I am in a wait and see mode , probably the thing that makes me sick the most if people running around like they got some elite information but they can't say much other than they think he's gonna be traded.

Why does that bother you so much? You sound like one of those bitter, angry old men on the Star forum. You can choose to believe what you want to believe. Beyond that, you shouldn't really care.

blanket
08-15-2004, 01:29 PM
:laugh:

So let me get this straight: around the same time Artest's agent was responding to Peja trade rumors with "I don't think there's anything imminent or anything like that," Artest was giving him the boot!?! Classic. I wonder which happened first... :laugh:

Lord Helmet
08-15-2004, 01:50 PM
Don't trade Ron!

SoupIsGood
08-15-2004, 01:56 PM
I wish Ron would never shave his hair, he looks so crazy and scary as hell when its all grown out and scraggly looking, like in Blankets avatar. I love it! :devil:

obnoxiousmodesty
08-15-2004, 03:03 PM
God dammit, I live less than a mile from the Tippecanoe Mall and I forgot about Ronnie's signing appearance. Ugh. :mad:

I love Ronnie, the person and the player. I hope he can remain a Pacer for the rest of his career. However, if management believes he must be traded, then I'll support their decision.

Kegboy
08-15-2004, 03:31 PM
Okay, sorry, but I sense some hypocrisy here.

A question for all of you who say, "If management thinks it's right to trade Ron, I'll support their decision":

What about Brad?

Hicks' flareup has brought about a lot of *****ing about us losing Brad. Well, guess what, in the end, management decided to let Brad go. So, if you're one of the many who still complains about Brad being gone, I don't see how you can shrug off us trading Ron because "management knows best."

:rolleyes:

Roaming Gnome
08-15-2004, 03:35 PM
Okay, sorry, but I sense some hypocrisy here.

A question for all of you who say, "If management thinks it's right to trade Ron, I'll support their decision":

What about Brad?

Hicks' flareup has brought about a lot of *****ing about us losing Brad. Well, guess what, in the end, management decided to let Brad go. So, if you're one of the many who still complains about Brad being gone, I don't see how you can shrug off us trading Ron because "management knows best."

:rolleyes:

:applaud: good point :applaud:

Hicks
08-15-2004, 03:35 PM
The Brad situation will always be a ****-up in my eyes. But that doesn't erase all the good our management has done, and will continue to do. That was certainly the exception, not the rule.

Plus, we got rid of Brad over dollar signs. The only reason to ever trade Ron is if he's a problem behind closed doors. So if he's gone, it would have to be for a good reason. With Brad it was money above all else.

bulletproof
08-15-2004, 03:53 PM
Okay, sorry, but I sense some hypocrisy here.

A question for all of you who say, "If management thinks it's right to trade Ron, I'll support their decision":

What about Brad?

Hicks' flareup has brought about a lot of *****ing about us losing Brad. Well, guess what, in the end, management decided to let Brad go. So, if you're one of the many who still complains about Brad being gone, I don't see how you can shrug off us trading Ron because "management knows best."

:rolleyes:

Kegboy a.k.a. Voice of Reason.

Pig Nash
08-15-2004, 03:57 PM
Okay, sorry, but I sense some hypocrisy here.

A question for all of you who say, "If management thinks it's right to trade Ron, I'll support their decision":

What about Brad?

Hicks' flareup has brought about a lot of *****ing about us losing Brad. Well, guess what, in the end, management decided to let Brad go. So, if you're one of the many who still complains about Brad being gone, I don't see how you can shrug off us trading Ron because "management knows best."

:rolleyes:


:thumbsup:

obnoxiousmodesty
08-15-2004, 04:07 PM
Okay, sorry, but I sense some hypocrisy here.

A question for all of you who say, "If management thinks it's right to trade Ron, I'll support their decision":

What about Brad?

Hicks' flareup has brought about a lot of *****ing about us losing Brad. Well, guess what, in the end, management decided to let Brad go. So, if you're one of the many who still complains about Brad being gone, I don't see how you can shrug off us trading Ron because "management knows best."

:rolleyes:

I think you're confusing me with someone else. I have never said anything about losing Brad. Go look for a comment by me on here or at IS. Good luck, you'll never find it.. And before you go off on me again, check your God damned facts.

Kegboy
08-15-2004, 04:42 PM
Okay, sorry, but I sense some hypocrisy here.

A question for all of you who say, "If management thinks it's right to trade Ron, I'll support their decision":

What about Brad?

Hicks' flareup has brought about a lot of *****ing about us losing Brad. Well, guess what, in the end, management decided to let Brad go. So, if you're one of the many who still complains about Brad being gone, I don't see how you can shrug off us trading Ron because "management knows best."

:rolleyes:

I think you're confusing me with someone else. I have never said anything about losing Brad. Go look for a comment by me on here or at IS. Good luck, you'll never find it.. And before you go off on me again, check your God damned facts.

Whoa nellie, that was directed towards the general trend on the board. If I were referring to you directly, I would have quoted you.

Unclebuck
08-15-2004, 04:56 PM
Okay, sorry, but I sense some hypocrisy here.

A question for all of you who say, "If management thinks it's right to trade Ron, I'll support their decision":

What about Brad?

Hicks' flareup has brought about a lot of *****ing about us losing Brad. Well, guess what, in the end, management decided to let Brad go. So, if you're one of the many who still complains about Brad being gone, I don't see how you can shrug off us trading Ron because "management knows best."

:rolleyes:



Great point indeed.

Anthem
08-15-2004, 05:16 PM
What's more, management's decision worked. We won 61 games last year and got into the third round of the playoffs.

Hicks
08-15-2004, 05:30 PM
I just don't like that some of you want to say we won 61 games and made the ECF because we dumped Brad for Scot. Because that's total bulls**t.

SoupIsGood
08-15-2004, 06:16 PM
It's all because of Scot's hair. That put us over the top.

Snickers
08-15-2004, 06:38 PM
It's all because of Scot's hair. That put us over the top.

Thank you. That's exactly what I've been trying to tell the people here all this time.

obnoxiousmodesty
08-15-2004, 08:25 PM
Okay, sorry, but I sense some hypocrisy here.

A question for all of you who say, "If management thinks it's right to trade Ron, I'll support their decision":

What about Brad?

Hicks' flareup has brought about a lot of *****ing about us losing Brad. Well, guess what, in the end, management decided to let Brad go. So, if you're one of the many who still complains about Brad being gone, I don't see how you can shrug off us trading Ron because "management knows best."

:rolleyes:

I think you're confusing me with someone else. I have never said anything about losing Brad. Go look for a comment by me on here or at IS. Good luck, you'll never find it.. And before you go off on me again, check your God damned facts.

Whoa nellie, that was directed towards the general trend on the board. If I were referring to you directly, I would have quoted you.

My apologies. I mistook what you'd written.

bulletproof
08-15-2004, 09:32 PM
I just don't like that some of you want to say we won 61 games and made the ECF because we dumped Brad for Scot. Because that's total bulls**t.

Here, let me edit that for you:

We won 61 games and made the ECFs because we dumped Brad and were able to fire Isiah and hire Rick.

Hicks
08-15-2004, 09:40 PM
If you buy that we had to dump him to get Rick, which I don't.

SoupIsGood
08-15-2004, 09:52 PM
Yeah, I don't buy that either. We could of carried Zekes contrqact for one measly year.

bulletproof
08-15-2004, 10:04 PM
If you buy that we had to dump him to get Rick, which I don't.

We didn't dump Brad to get Rick, but I do know had we signed Brad, we wouldn't have been able to afford to fire Isiah and hire Rick. We would have been stuck with Isiah.

bulletproof
08-15-2004, 10:05 PM
Yeah, I don't buy that either. We could of carried Zekes contrqact for one measly year.

You guys are funny to me...$5 million here, $5 million there...no big deal.

SoupIsGood
08-15-2004, 10:09 PM
Its not when your franchise is worth like a trillion dollars.

Hicks
08-15-2004, 10:10 PM
Reggie = overpaid by about $4mm. $1mm to keep an All-Star and have the right coach wouldn't have been hard to swallow for a season when you already deal in the 60 million range, now would it? So apparently we wouldn't have been able to afford the right coach if we'd kept Brad (a seperate transaction which you yourself admit we didn't do just so we could fire Isiah), but we apparently COULD afford to get Rick yet waste $4 (and that's not even mentioning the fact that it's a 3-year contract, not 1-year) on Reggie (who makes $6mm).

Hmmmm....

If you wish to waste your time rehashinging again, please do. I've already met my quota for this trimester. ;)

Anthem
08-15-2004, 10:14 PM
Hicks, since when do you measure time in trimesters?

:laugh:

Any announcements for the forum?

Hicks
08-15-2004, 10:19 PM
Due this winter :angel: ;) :D

Heh; month sounded too short, 6 months too long, so that came to mind. :laugh:

TheSauceMaster
08-16-2004, 12:14 AM
Well seeing how I wasn't here when Brad was traded , I can't really be in that ummm Group . We Lost Brad Because of Money ...Whole Diffrent Situation :rolleyes:

bulletproof
08-16-2004, 01:02 AM
Reggie = overpaid by about $4mm. $1mm to keep an All-Star and have the right coach wouldn't have been hard to swallow for a season when you already deal in the 60 million range, now would it? So apparently we wouldn't have been able to afford the right coach if we'd kept Brad (a seperate transaction which you yourself admit we didn't do just so we could fire Isiah), but we apparently COULD afford to get Rick yet waste $4 (and that's not even mentioning the fact that it's a 3-year contract, not 1-year) on Reggie (who makes $6mm).

Hmmmm....

If you wish to waste your time rehashinging again, please do. I've already met my quota for this trimester. ;)


First, Hicks, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Secondly, you have no concept of loyalty, and you have no concept of respect between men.

Donnie and the Simons wanted Reggie to retire a Pacer, and they wanted to show their gratitude to the man who brought so much to this franchise by allowing him to retire a Pacer. Reggie has put a lot of butts in the stands over the years. He has made this franchise a lot of money. A lot of money. What they're paying him is a pittance compared to what the Simons and this organization (and the fans) have reaped because of his tenure here. Reggie raised the stature, the level respect and the value of this franchise.

Donnie could have offered Reggie a minimal contract or asked him to take less, but he didn't. Why? Because he respects the man. Period. Do you not get that at all? This is a player and a team who have taken care of one another over the years. Reggie could have bailed on the Pacers a long time ago and left for greener pastures, but he didn't. It would have left an ugly mark on their relationship had the Pacers just let Reggie walk.

Reggie's contract has nothing to do with Brad. It's funny to me that you keep trying to rationalize your argument one way or another by bringing up Cro's contract, or Bender's contract, and now Reggie's. If Donnie had let Reggie walk, he still wouldn't have re-signed Brad because he just didn't think the big soft hillbilly was worth it.

Oh, and guess what, Hicks. We won 61 games and went to the ECFs with Reggie and without Brad. I am quite certain Donnie doesn't regret his decision in the least bit.

Brad will never be a team's franchise player. Brad will never be the man, the main attraction. He will never be the reason games sell out, he will never carry a franchise on his shoulders, and he will never raise the value and level of respect for a franchise the way Reggie has.

Anthem
08-16-2004, 01:02 AM
It will never end. I wonder if this board will still be arguing about this in a few years when it is clear that Brad is overpaid, but we might-a won in 2004.

Not if we win a championship with Foster.

Anthem
08-16-2004, 01:08 AM
Reggie = overpaid by about $4mm. $1mm to keep an All-Star and have the right coach wouldn't have been hard to swallow for a season when you already deal in the 60 million range, now would it? So apparently we wouldn't have been able to afford the right coach if we'd kept Brad (a seperate transaction which you yourself admit we didn't do just so we could fire Isiah), but we apparently COULD afford to get Rick yet waste $4 (and that's not even mentioning the fact that it's a 3-year contract, not 1-year) on Reggie (who makes $6mm).

Hmmmm....

If you wish to waste your time rehashinging again, please do. I've already met my quota for this trimester. ;)


First, Hicks, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Secondly, you have no concept of loyalty, and you have no concept of respect between men.

Donnie and the Simons wanted Reggie to retire a Pacer, and they wanted to show their gratitude to the man who brought so much to this franchise by allowing him to retire a Pacer. Reggie has put a lot of butts in the stands over the years. He has made this franchise a lot of money. A lot of money. What they're paying him is a pittance compared to what the Simons and this organization (and the fans) have reaped because of his tenure here. Reggie raised the stature, the level respect and value of this franchise.

Donnie could have offered Reggie a minimal contract or asked him to take less, but he didn't. Why? Because he respects the man. Period. Do you not get that at all? This is a player and a team who have taken care of one another over the years. Reggie could have bailed on the Pacers a long time ago and left for greener pastures, but he didn't. It would have been an ugly mark on their relationship had the Pacers just let Reggie walk.

Reggie's contract has nothing to do with Brad. It's funny to me that you keep trying to rationalize your argument one way or another by bringing up Cro's contract, or Bender's contract, and now Reggie's. If Donnie had let Reggie walk, he still wouldn't have re-signed Brad because he just didn't think the big soft hillbilly was worth it.

Oh, and guess what, Hicks. We won 61 games and went to the ECFs with Reggie and without Brad. I am quite certain Donnie doesn't regret his decision in the least bit.

Brad will never be a team's franchise player. Brad will never be the man, the main attraction. He will never be the reason games sell out, he will never carry a franchise on his shoulders, and he will never raise the value and level of respect for a franchise the way Reggie has.


Hey, I agree with all of that. And I agree that Reggie deserved an appreciation contact. But let's be real. Reggie's appreciation contract came in 2000, when he re-signed at the mac. No other team would have given him close to that much. We did, and we made it a 3-year contract. 36mil is a lot of money for someone who's reached their peak and is on the way down.

I love Reggie, and I'm glad he's retiring a Pacer. But giving him a second appreciation contract, especially one that puts us into the danger zone financially, at the cost of our starting center, wasn't a good move.

Now I personally don't believe it was at the cost of our starting center. I think if the brass thought Brad could earn his money, they would have given it to him, Reggie's contract or no. But Hicks is holding Donnie and Bird to their word, and they've both said Reggie's contract was a factor in not bringing back Brad.

bulletproof
08-16-2004, 01:35 AM
Now I personally don't believe it was at the cost of our starting center. I think if the brass thought Brad could earn his money, they would have given it to him, Reggie's contract or no. But Hicks is holding Donnie and Bird to their word, and they've both said Reggie's contract was a factor in not bringing back Brad.

Where did they say that?

bulletproof
08-16-2004, 01:43 AM
It will never end. I wonder if this board will still be arguing about this in a few years when it is clear that Brad is overpaid, but we might-a won in 2004.

Not if we win a championship with Foster.

touche
We can all agree on that.


If we win a championship with Foster, there will be people here who said we should have won two. My point is, where do you draw the line? It appears this line will be drawn and redrawn ad nauseum. We got farther with Foster starting than we did with Brad. 13 wins and 2 rounds farther. And to all of a sudden bring Brad up and try to factor him into not beating Detroit is pure jive.

able
08-16-2004, 04:04 AM
seems to me math is not the strong point of a lot of posters here.

n'import whether we paid Reggie or not (less then 3 mil would've been an insult imo, so 5 (actual figure according to publications) is not that far off, keeping Brad would've meant another 8 mil added to the salary for the team just for this past year.
You seem to forget that we dumped mercer's contract in the meanwhile, traded Brad's for Polly (salary-wise) and had we done something else as in signing Brad to the same contract he got now would therefore have added 8 million dollar to the current salary.
Add to that the fact that the Pacers are already in LT land, and by the latest numbers even over the cliff build into that LT, it would have meant that we would have had to pay a dollar for dollar tax on that amount, in other words, Brad would have cost this franchise 16 million dollar for the past season.
Yes that would have been 4 less if Reggie was given 3 instead of 5, but still 12 million dollar more cost would've prevented us most likely from swallowing the 5 million of IT's salary and approx 4 mill for RC.

Brad aint worth that kind of money, nor not getting Rick.

And to get back what this thread was about to begin with; Ron shows he loves Indy, and shows he has a brain, he has shown a lot of progress and I seriously hope (perhaps against knowing better) that he will remain a Pacers for the rest of his career, providing he will keep improving not only his bball skills but also his attitude.

It simply amazes me that people are so ready to accept managements decision concerning Ron, yet still nagging about the decision (based upon hard dollars and NOT unknown backroom problems that fans can never judge upon correctness) to not re-sign Brad.
I would dare to state that keeping Ron is far more important then keeping Brad, Ron's value is far higher and know what; he costs less!

If Ron (who's only 24 yrs old) keeps growing up we will have a perennial All Star in him, for half of what JO costs (really half, not 2/3)

Yes it would be a sad day for the Pacers the day Ron is traded.

Eindar
08-16-2004, 07:28 AM
I just don't like that some of you want to say we won 61 games and made the ECF because we dumped Brad for Scot. Because that's total bulls**t.

Well, Brad is certainly a better player than Scot Pollard. But there are 2 things to consider when talking about Pollard.

1: Pollard comes off the books pretty soon, and he'll be valuable as an expiring contract. Whether or not this is better than just letting Brad walk is debateable. Brad won't come off the books for 6 more years, and I'd be willing to bet a paycheck that within 3 years he's considered overpaid, and by the end, his contract is considered an albatross compared to his performance.

2: You may have noticed some marked improvement by Foster at the beginning of last year in regards to how well he plays against other starting big men. That can be directly attributed to him spending the off-season hanging out with Tim Duncan. What you might not have noticed was the marked improvement during the season in his ability to score garbage buckets on putbacks and passes getting dumped to him as the cutter. I'd be willing to bet here that that's a direct result of him banging against Pollard all season. The things Jeff started doing as the regular season came to a close have been the hallmarks of Pollard's game for years. It's no coincidence that Foster starts doing these things the same year Pollard shows up.

Was the trade a good one? Not really. Was it a worthless trade? Nope!

Hicks
08-16-2004, 10:09 AM
First, Hicks, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Thanks for clearing that up; I was confused.


Secondly, you have no concept of loyalty, and you have no concept of respect between men.

Thanks for insulting my character, it's appreciated. Please, assume more next time.


Donnie and the Simons wanted Reggie to retire a Pacer, and they wanted to show their gratitude to the man who brought so much to this franchise by allowing him to retire a Pacer. Reggie has put a lot of butts in the stands over the years. He has made this franchise a lot of money. A lot of money. What they're paying him is a pittance compared to what the Simons and this organization (and the fans) have reaped because of his tenure here. Reggie raised the stature, the level respect and the value of this franchise.

Anthem said this part for me:


I agree that Reggie deserved an appreciation contact. But let's be real. Reggie's appreciation contract came in 2000, when he re-signed at the mac. No other team would have given him close to that much. We did, and we made it a 3-year contract. 36mil is a lot of money for someone who's reached their peak and is on the way down.

I love Reggie, and I'm glad he's retiring a Pacer. But giving him a second appreciation contract, especially one that puts us into the danger zone financially, at the cost of our starting center, wasn't a good move.

And like him, I don't see what we gave Reggie as a direct reason Brad's gone. But it's obvious that it's a waste of money, and that money just might have been put to better use, like maybe keeping Brad. But not just that, it could have been something else. Like signing Stephen Jackson a year early, who knows. Something else could have been done for the team with that money than giving Reggie a second appreciation contract. Maybe even something as simple as saving the money now, so as to not be financially binded later on for a move they might want to make. Many possibilities.


Donnie could have offered Reggie a minimal contract or asked him to take less, but he didn't. Why? Because he respects the man. Period. Do you not get that at all?

Oh I get it. But like Anthem and I have said, this isn't the first appreciation contract Reggie's gotten, it's the 2nd. And this time, he was coming off a year where you couldn't even pretend he was worth the money, whereas last time he was still a very servicable SG after 2000.


Reggie could have bailed on the Pacers a long time ago and left for greener pastures, but he didn't.

Agreed and I love the fact that he stayed.


It would have left an ugly mark on their relationship had the Pacers just let Reggie walk.

3 years ago? Maybe. Last year? Not really. I'm sure if that's the direction Donnie wanted to go, he could have done it gracefully and both sides would feel OK about it. Or Reggie could have signed for less.


Reggie's contract has nothing to do with Brad.

Agreed, but not having it might have made it possible to keep him around. And don't storm back with a no here because you don't know one way or the other anymore than the rest of us; it's speculation.


It's funny to me that you keep trying to rationalize your argument one way or another by bringing up Cro's contract, or Bender's contract, and now Reggie's.

Yeah, because it shows he's willing to spend money on players not as good, or not nearly as proven, or those past their prime (considerably), yet NOT for an all-star center.


If Donnie had let Reggie walk, he still wouldn't have re-signed Brad because he just didn't think the big soft hillbilly was worth it.

Making fun of Brad's family tree to (not) strengthen your argument.. Classy. :rolleyes:


Oh, and guess what, Hicks. We won 61 games and went to the ECFs with Reggie and without Brad.

For which I am grateful. Also grateful we managed it despite the loss of a key player.


I am quite certain Donnie doesn't regret his decision in the least bit.

I'm sure he doesn't.


Brad will never be a team's franchise player. Brad will never be the man, the main attraction. He will never be the reason games sell out, he will never carry a franchise on his shoulders, and he will never raise the value and level of respect for a franchise the way Reggie has.


You're right, and none of which is a requisite of being paid what he is. Let's not pretend Brad was getting a max contract here. He was making 2/3 of that at best. And for an all-star at a rare position to fill, that's easily worth it.

Hicks
08-16-2004, 12:23 PM
They enter the debate because they're valid :laugh: We wouldn't pay for an all-star center, but a 7th man or a so-far nobody, the check book opens up. That's the point.

I think we all know what's done is done. It's just that you look at the recent history, and it blows my mind how Bender was worth his, but Brad wasn't. Or how Cro was worth it, but Brad wasn't. It doesn't matter; the team is good and should be for a long time, but that doesn't mean it's a forbidden subject.

Hicks
08-16-2004, 12:30 PM
Well, you missed the point Hicks.

Cro was a mistake, and DW felt like Brad would also be a mistake.

You're probably right. I just wholeheartedly disagree that it would also be a mistake.


I wasnt here when this happened, and I dont really care, as been said many times, it is the past.

Ill just leave it at that

Yeah, there's really not much left.

Hicks
08-16-2004, 12:39 PM
Yeah, there's really not much left.



Then why the **** was this thread hijacked, and is currently 3 pages long :laugh: Apparently, some one feels there is a lot left

I was speaking for myself.


Back on topic, with the new news of this trade not being happen untill Septermber, looks like we have a whole lot more speculating to do

Yep, more fun filled adventures in the world of waiting.

indygeezer
08-16-2004, 01:08 PM
Yeah, there's really not much left.



Then why the **** was this thread hijacked, and is currently 3 pages long :laugh: Apparently, some one feels there is a lot left

Back on topic, with the new news of this trade not being happen untill Septermber, looks like we have a whole lot more speculating to do





What new news are you refering to? I must have missed that somewhere.

Elucidate please.

indygeezer
08-16-2004, 01:26 PM
Hmmmm interesting. I wonder why it can't happen until then???
I don't think anybody is BYC or any of that. So the only reason I can see is them speculating that it would take that long to convince the Maloofs that Peja means business.

beast23
08-16-2004, 01:29 PM
Wow - what a thread.

Bullet - I'm sorry I haven't seen your post until now. But your post doesn't just address how Donnie and the Pacers respect and care about Reggie, it addresses how I feel very accurately as well.

And vapacerfan, I know I'm off-topic, but what the heck? The argument is probably a more passionate and worthwhile topic than Artest's comments anyway.

Were we 61 game winners BECAUSE of or IN SPITE OF the loss or Brad?

I'll rank my reasons for 61 victories.
1. Getting rid of Isaiah.
2. Carlisle and his defensive strategies.
3. Artest - Growth in both game and character.
4. PG competition. Tinsley's "new attitude".

I started to label #5 as the "departure of Brad", but just couldn't do it. Because I'm not certain.

I think that to some degree, the better overall quickness of our frontcourt due to Foster being in the lineup played a part in our success.

As has been mentioned before by many, our opponents do make themselves aware of where Jeff Foster is on the court, and trying to keep him off the boards. Foster also blends more into Carlisle's defensive approaches.

IMO, the one and perhaps only thing that Brad did well for us was to provide the mid-range jumper from the front-court. The jumper that we seemed to need throughout the season. But perhaps at the expense of what we were able to accomplish on the defensive end of the floor.

I really don't know how any of you could be so certain about what might have been with Brad, one way or the other. Brad has 8 more points a game, but Foster is qucker, a better rebounder and better defender,

Under Isiah, Brad was definitely the guy you would want.

But in Carlisle's system, I'm not so certain that a player like Foster doesn't provide more overall game.

I think it's too close to call.

But one thing is certain. At the end of the day, Walsh decided that the dollars Brad's agent was commanding were simply too much for what the Pacers might expect in return.

Hicks
08-16-2004, 01:48 PM
I will say to those of you opposed to me on Brad, just wait until Ron's gone. You think you've been annoyed now? :laugh: Just wait. There will be legions of this from other people over Ron.

bulletproof
08-16-2004, 03:31 PM
Seems to me math is not the strong point of a lot of posters here.

n'import whether we paid Reggie or not (less then 3 mil would've been an insult imo, so 5 (actual figure according to publications) is not that far off, keeping Brad would've meant another 8 mil added to the salary for the team just for this past year.

You seem to forget that we dumped Mercer's contract in the meanwhile, traded Brad's for Polly (salary-wise) and had we done something else as in signing Brad to the same contract he got now would therefore have added 8 million dollar to the current salary.
Add to that the fact that the Pacers are already in LT land, and by the latest numbers even over the cliff build into that LT, it would have meant that we would have had to pay a dollar for dollar tax on that amount, in other words, Brad would have cost this franchise 16 million dollar for the past season.

Yes, that would have been 4 less if Reggie was given 3 instead of 5, but still 12 million dollars more cost would've prevented us most likely from swallowing the 5 million of IT's salary and approx 4 mil for RC.

Brad aint worth that kind of money, nor not getting Rick.

All excellent points, able. What some people fail to do is look at the bigger picture. When you look at the totality of Reggie and Scot's contracts, they come out to roughly $30 million dollars, and come off the books in two years. Brad's comes to a staggering $67 million for 7 years. I guess $37 million isn't a lot of money when you're not writing the checks.

Let me also add that Reggie did take a rather large pay cut this past year. He went from making $12 million a year to what? $4-6 million? That's a significant pay cut as far as I'm concerned. To offer him any less would have been an insult.

As for Anthem contending that Reggie got his appreciation contract at the end of the 2000, I disagree wholeheartedly. At the time Reggie was awarded that contract he was still putting up "Reggie-like" numbers. In fact, the following season he lived up to that contract and bettered the finals season by averaging 18.9 ppg (versus 18.1 ppg). The season after that, 16.5 ppg. A slight dropoff, but not significant.

Then a couple of factors came into play. Namely, the emergence of JO, and ultimately Reggie's injuries. Yet, he still managed to average 12.6 ppg in 02-03. But guess what? His percentages were still consistent.

So as far as I'm concerned, this last contract was the appreciation contract, not the 2000 contract. It kept Reggie here and allowed him to retire a Pacer.

Something a lot of you may not be aware of, but Reggie's contract is the last one Donnie deals with in the off-season. That's because the two men have an understanding. It's how they've always done business. If Donnie had put a $1-2 million contract in front of this man, it would have been a slap in his face, and he would have been forced to seek out other options and look out for his best interests. Do you really believe that that's the way Donnie and the Simons would have liked to have ended their relationship with Reggie—the guy who helped build this franchise into what it is today?

These people respect one another, and that transcends any petty argument you might raise here.

Unclebuck
08-16-2004, 03:36 PM
Wow - what a thread.

Bullet - I'm sorry I haven't seen your post until now. But your post doesn't just address how Donnie and the Pacers respect and care about Reggie, it addresses how I feel very accurately as well.

And vapacerfan, I know I'm off-topic, but what the heck? The argument is probably a more passionate and worthwhile topic than Artest's comments anyway.

Were we 61 game winners BECAUSE of or IN SPITE OF the loss or Brad?

I'll rank my reasons for 61 victories.
1. Getting rid of Isaiah.
2. Carlisle and his defensive strategies.
3. Artest - Growth in both game and character.
4. PG competition. Tinsley's "new attitude".

I started to label #5 as the "departure of Brad", but just couldn't do it. Because I'm not certain.

I think that to some degree, the better overall quickness of our frontcourt due to Foster being in the lineup played a part in our success.

As has been mentioned before by many, our opponents do make themselves aware of where Jeff Foster is on the court, and trying to keep him off the boards. Foster also blends more into Carlisle's defensive approaches.

IMO, the one and perhaps only thing that Brad did well for us was to provide the mid-range jumper from the front-court. The jumper that we seemed to need throughout the season. But perhaps at the expense of what we were able to accomplish on the defensive end of the floor.

I really don't know how any of you could be so certain about what might have been with Brad, one way or the other. Brad has 8 more points a game, but Foster is qucker, a better rebounder and better defender,

Under Isiah, Brad was definitely the guy you would want.

But in Carlisle's system, I'm not so certain that a player like Foster doesn't provide more overall game.

I think it's too close to call.

But one thing is certain. At the end of the day, Walsh decided that the dollars Brad's agent was commanding were simply too much for what the Pacers might expect in return.






Post of the week nominee

Hicks
08-16-2004, 03:59 PM
JO = 7 years, 126mm
Brad = 7 years, 67mm

Brad's contract = 53% the size of JO's. That's hardly "staggering". Brad is at WORST half the player JO is.

bulletproof
08-16-2004, 04:15 PM
JO = 7 years, 126mm
Brad = 7 years, 67mm

Brad's contract = 53% the size of JO's. That's hardly "staggering". Brad is at WORST half the player JO is.


Oh, now we're comparing Brad's contract to our franchise player's contract. :rolleyes:

Who's next? Brewer?

skyfire
08-16-2004, 04:28 PM
Brad is ~95 times the player Jamison is :laugh:

Kegboy
08-16-2004, 05:12 PM
...


Near...Far...Where EVER You Are...

God damn it Hicks, change your f-ing avatar already!!

You know, I used to like to just stare at your sig for the pictures of Aly, but now I just can't get that damn song out of my head.

:scream: :suicide:

Kegboy
08-16-2004, 05:16 PM
First of all, this thread got hijacked hard core.

Can you hijack your own thread? If so, I guess I did. :blush:

Hicks
08-16-2004, 05:19 PM
JO = 7 years, 126mm
Brad = 7 years, 67mm

Brad's contract = 53% the size of JO's. That's hardly "staggering". Brad is at WORST half the player JO is.


Oh, now we're comparing Brad's contract to our franchise player's contract. :rolleyes:

Who's next? Brewer?





Brad is ~95 times the player Jamison is :laugh:

That, plus Brad is at LEAST half the player JO is (Probably close to 2/3), so commanding half the salary is certainly fair. So to answer your question, yes I *am* comparing him to Jermaine. Two all-stars. Two big men. Yes, comparable. JO is a superstar, and deserves the max. Brad is an all-star and deserves half that amount. Watch the games for God's sake.

beast23
08-16-2004, 05:26 PM
Hicks -

Ultimately, I'm certain that Donnie's decision did come down to dollars and his perception of value. But if you want to introduce dollars, then I guess we should also look at it from another perspective as well.

Foster last year.... only $3.8M for the year, playing an important role helping the Pacers to 61 victories. Of course, that was easy for me. Hindsight being perfect and all. It is difficult to argue with such results. But it's just not that simple.

But let's look at what the Pacers were missing in the playoffs that would have put us over the top against the Pistions. Obviously more points or better defense, but at which positions?

In my opinion, the three main things, not in any order:
1. Better perimeter shooting
2. Better perimeter defense
3. Better interior defense and blocking out, specifically against Rasheed Wallace.

Any slight improvement to one of those three, and I think we may have gone to the finals. Any significant improvement to one of those three, and I feel very confident we would have gone to the finals.

It's obvious where I'm headed. Brad does not resolve any of those three problems.

I'm not saying in the long run we are better off without Brad, because I waffle on that subject. I really don't know.

All I will really say is that I would have trusted Rick to make the most of a team with Brad Miller available in the middle, just like he did without Brad.

Would having Brad resulted in more or less than 61 victories? I don't have a damn clue.

Would having Brad resulted in beating the Pistons and going to the NBA finals? I seriously doubt it.

I personally would have liked that team under Rick's direction, especially having at least one player from Indiana on it. And, I've always loved the blue-collar players like Brad and Woodie .... and Jeff.... and yes - even Ron.

But arguing for or against Brad is a lot like the Artest / Peja argument. We all have our preferences, but it's very difficult for a knowledgeable fan to really say whether the team would be better or worse with a change that has been or could be made.

And in many cases, I believe the answer to be NEITHER better nor worse..... JUST DIFFERENT.

Hicks
08-16-2004, 05:54 PM
Hicks -

Ultimately, I'm certain that Donnie's decision did come down to dollars and his perception of value.

Absolutely.


But if you want to introduce dollars, then I guess we should also look at it from another perspective as well.
Foster last year.... only $3.8M for the year, playing an important role helping the Pacers to 61 victories. Of course, that was easy for me. Hindsight being perfect and all. It is difficult to argue with such results. But it's just not that simple.

You're right, it's not that simple. You can't point to the 61 wins and say "It's because of Jeff and where he played". He makes 3.8M. That's about right for an average-sized center with no offensive game.


But let's look at what the Pacers were missing in the playoffs that would have put us over the top against the Pistions.

It's not all about the Pistons, it's about the Pacers first. But I'll play.



In my opinion, the three main things, not in any order:
1. Better perimeter shooting

Brad is money out to about 14'-15', and is still a threat to almost the 3 point line.


2. Better perimeter defense

Obviously your big man isn't gonna help this.



3. Better interior defense and blocking out, specifically against Rasheed Wallace.

Any slight improvement to one of those three, and I think we may have gone to the finals. Any significant improvement to one of those three, and I feel very confident we would have gone to the finals.

Brad + Jeff = More defense than Jeff + Pollard. It's been too long for me to remember if Brad was great at boxing out or not, but I know he wasn't noticably bad at it, so I can only assume he was average and possible above average (he did average 8.3 rebounds his last year here).

So Brad would have helped in two of your 3 listed needs.



It's obvious where I'm headed. Brad does not resolve any of those three problems.

I've just pointed out how he helps in two of the three.



I'm not saying in the long run we are better off without Brad, because I waffle on that subject. I really don't know.

I have a strong suspicion ;)


All I will really say is that I would have trusted Rick to make the most of a team with Brad Miller available in the middle, just like he did without Brad.

Agreed.


Would having Brad resulted in more or less than 61 victories? I don't have a damn clue.

No one does. Odds are the team woudl have been better, whether or not they won more regular season games. Probably the noticable difference would have been the playoffs.


Would having Brad resulted in beating the Pistons and going to the NBA finals? I seriously doubt it.

I'm not saying it clearly would have, but I think it increases the odds.


But arguing for or against Brad is a lot like the Artest / Peja argument. We all have our preferences, but it's very difficult for a knowledgeable fan to really say whether the team would be better or worse with a change that has been or could be made.

I think there's room for debate, but obviously you'll never see anyone crowned a "winner" in these types of things.


And in many cases, I believe the answer to be NEITHER better nor worse..... JUST DIFFERENT.


Could be.

=======

*sigh* I've gotten caught back up in this again after wanting to stop. I'm trying to be reasonable, but I mainly have bullet being Donnie's puppet with his responses, such as saying/doing anything to make him look right, including knocking Brad by either making fun of where he comes from, or saying his game and value to the team was less close to Jermiane O'Neal than it was to Jamison Brewer :rolleyes: That's not someone worth wasting more time arguing about this. I enjoy talking w/ him in general, but if there's an issue where Walsh's opinion is known, he's gonna go into full puppet mode and say anything to try to support Donnie's opinion instead of having an opinion of his own (or at least being open to a different idea), and it's predictable enough that I'm going to try hard not to waste my time with debating anymore. It's like talking with a wall.

I'm now going to summarize my thoughts from the past few days before and after the debates, and then I'm not going to talk about it in depth for a long while:

1) Walsh didn't think Brad was worth the money he got. I'll never agree with that decision.

2) Signing Brad to that money might have made future moves difficult.

3) I do not believe that if we had signed Brad, we wouldn't have fired Isiah to get Rick. If Walsh really wanted it, it would have happened. If Brad was already locked up, and you're only now looking at the coaching situation, clearly getting Rick is still the right move, and Donnie has the weight to present that to the Simons, and I fully believe they'd see the wisdom in making a rare exception to their spending.

4) I think Brad might have pushed us past Detroit, though that's not a guarantee. Having him would be better than not having him.

4a) I also believe our biggest problem vs Detroit was our back court. But believing that shouldn't prevent anyone from acknowledging a center like Brad still would have brought more to the table than we had to work with.

5) Reggie Miller is overpaid by at least 2mm, and at most 4mm a year. He is not his old self, he is old, and that money is a detriment to the present and future of the team. I respect the loyalty involved in the decision to give it to him, but I'm also frustrated by the amount consider the other financial decision we made that summer.

6) Giving the money we did to Cro and Bender, but not Brad, will always be a hypocracy in my eyes. Anyone who wants to say it's Donnie learning from past mistakes, should also take the time to admit Donnie was wrong to give those first two contracts, instead of just avoiding that part and focusing only on Brad.

7)To borrow from another poster: The future of this team will always be just that, the future, until Reggie Miller is off the team.

8) I love Reggie Miller.

9) I love the Pacers.

10) Brad is gone and is not coming back.

These are my opinions and I'm sticking to them. Disagree as much or as little as you want. I'm not going to tirelessly go over the same ones again and again with anyone who isn't at least receptive to them, and isn't looking to just put them down.

Hicks
08-16-2004, 05:54 PM
Everytime I read Hicks posts, I laugh and realize how useless his life really is. He thinks he is Donnie Walsh and knows everything...get a life.

Grow up, child.

Hicks
08-16-2004, 06:18 PM
I wonder how many times a thread can get hijacked.

Topic A
Hijacked to Topic B
Hijacked to Topic C
etc
etc

Hicks
08-16-2004, 06:38 PM
I wonder how many times a thread can get hijacked.

Topic A
Hijacked to Topic B
Hijacked to Topic C
etc
etc



As many times as the member let it. ;)

How about 'them Olympic hand-ballers? ;) :D

Pig Nash
08-16-2004, 06:44 PM
I like soup. Soup is Good is also good.

SoupIsGood
08-16-2004, 06:54 PM
Soup is very good.

bulletproof
08-16-2004, 07:03 PM
*sigh* I've gotten caught back up in this again after wanting to stop. I'm trying to be reasonable, but I mainly have bullet being Donnie's puppet with his responses, such as saying/doing anything to make him look right, including knocking Brad by either making fun of where he comes from, or saying his game and value to the team was less close to Jermiane O'Neal than it was to Jamison Brewer :rolleyes: That's not someone worth wasting more time arguing about this. I enjoy talking w/ him in general, but if there's an issue where Walsh's opinion is known, he's gonna go into full puppet mode and say anything to try to support Donnie's opinion instead of having an opinion of his own (or at least being open to a different idea), and it's predictable enough that I'm going to try hard not to waste my time with debating anymore. It's like talking with a wall.

I'm going to let this go because it's so ignorant it's not even worth replying to.




3) I do not believe that if we had signed Brad, we wouldn't have fired Isiah to get Rick. If Walsh really wanted it, it would have happened. If Brad was already locked up, and you're only now looking at the coaching situation, clearly getting Rick is still the right move, and Donnie has the weight to present that to the Simons, and I fully believe they'd see the wisdom in making a rare exception to their spending.

:laugh:



4) I think Brad might have pushed us past Detroit, though that's not a guarantee. Having him would be better than not having him.

Some of the hardest words to say in the english language are "I don't know." You should try it sometime. Take a cue from Beast23 . Brad isn't exactly Mr. Playoff. Hell, he isn't exactly Mr. Second-half of the Season, either.



5) Reggie Miller is overpaid by at least 2mm, and at most 4mm a year. He is not his old self, he is old, and that money is a detriment to the present and future of the team. I respect the loyalty involved in the decision to give it to him, but I'm also frustrated by the amount consider the other financial decision we made that summer.

Remind yourself bulletproof, he's just a kid.

SoupIsGood
08-16-2004, 07:09 PM
"Some of the hardest words to say in the english language are "I don't know." You should try it sometime. Take a cue from Beast23 . Brad isn't exactly Mr. Playoff. Hell, he isn't exactly Mr. Second-half of the Season, either. "

What, and you do know? No one here knows anything for sure. If anyone acts like he does though, its you. Try opening up to other people's opinions sometime, instead of always condemning and rejecting them.

bulletproof
08-16-2004, 07:26 PM
"Some of the hardest words to say in the english language are "I don't know." You should try it sometime. Take a cue from Beast23 . Brad isn't exactly Mr. Playoff. Hell, he isn't exactly Mr. Second-half of the Season, either. "

What, and you do know? No one here knows anything for sure. If anyone acts like he does though, its you. Try opening up to other people's opinions sometime, instead of always condemning and rejecting them.



I don't know what this team would be like now if Brad was still here. That's been my point, jackass. No one does. But I do know why he was allowed to walk and I do understand the motivations behind it more than most here do, so go crawl back under the rock from whence you came.

SoupIsGood
08-16-2004, 07:45 PM
"Some of the hardest words to say in the english language are "I don't know." You should try it sometime. Take a cue from Beast23 . Brad isn't exactly Mr. Playoff. Hell, he isn't exactly Mr. Second-half of the Season, either. "

What, and you do know? No one here knows anything for sure. If anyone acts like he does though, its you. Try opening up to other people's opinions sometime, instead of always condemning and rejecting them.



I don't know what this team would be like now if Brad was still here. That's been my point, jackass. No one does. But I do know why he was allowed to walk and I do understand the motivations behind it more than most here do, so go crawl back under the rock from whence you came.





You see, thats exactly what I'm talking about. You're always so "I'm right, your wrong", try to be more "I believe this, and you believe that". You don't always need to be so overly agressive and insulting when you reply to people. Peace out, man. :hippie:

And don't kid yourself, unless your name is Donnie Walsh, you can not and do not know the exact reason Brad was let go.

kerosene
08-16-2004, 07:59 PM
Alright people, take it down a peg or two.

SoupIsGood
08-16-2004, 08:20 PM
Haha, that is one ugly looking hippie. I love it! :hippie:

Kegboy
08-16-2004, 08:29 PM
...


Near...Far...Where EVER You Are...

God damn it Hicks, change your f-ing avatar already!!

You know, I used to like to just stare at your sig for the pictures of Aly, but now I just can't get that damn song out of my head.

:scream: :suicide:

Wow, didn't expect you to really do it. :o

Well, thanks, but now people are gonna be saying, "Why does Kegboy equate South Park with Titanic?" Oh well, guess I'm never happy. ;)

If you need me, I'll be staring at those pictures of Aly again. :drooling:

sixthman
08-17-2004, 11:39 AM
Regarding the Brad Miller matter, I think the truth is the Pacers wound up in a financial box and simply could not afford to keep Brad.

Walsh gambled and lost that he could have it all. As it turned out, he got to keep most of his accumulated assets, except for Brad.

As Able pointed out, if Brad was signed, even if Reggie got much less than he did, the Pacers were ticketed to be full blown luxury tax payers.

The Pacers had too many assets and too few dollars to spend.

Sure, it would have all worked out if Cro had not inked his contract back in 2000, but he was signed in an era where the luxury tax was only a gleam in David Stern's eyes. Cro looked like a valuable asset and you can't blame DW for re-signing he and Jalen for top dollar.

Real bottom line: **** happens.