Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

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

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

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

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

Rule #1

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

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

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

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

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

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule #2

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

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

The right places to do so are:

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

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

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

Rule #3

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

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

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

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

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

Rule #4

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

Rule #5

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

An example:

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

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

Rule #6

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

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

Rule #7

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

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

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

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

Rule #8

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

Rule #9

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

Rule #10

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

Rule #11

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

Artest: Me and Jermaine are cool- I believe coach didn't want me (on the team)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Artest: Me and Jermaine are cool- I believe coach didn't want me (on the team)

    Bitter situation
    O'Neal says Artest let teammates down

    By Mike Wells
    mike.wells@indystar.com



    The Pacers' All-Star forwards have had their problems, but both say this season is the closest they've ever been.

    That's what made Artest's recent trade request so painful, O'Neal said Wednesday.

    He thinks Artest turned his back on the same teammates who were suspended, had their images tarnished and lost millions of dollars for coming to his defense during last season's brawl at the Palace of Auburn Hills (Mich.).
    "I've been through a lot with him," O'Neal said. "I was one of the guys that went to bat for him. For him to talk about another team and other players while he's still on this team, it was disrespectful not only to me, but to the rest of the guys. I don't wish any bad things on Ron. I wish Ron still goes out and accomplishes his goals. It's just a painful thing when you went through what we went through. The money I lost while I was out was extremely high. Now it's like, what was it for?"

    O'Neal was suspended for 15 games and lost $2.7 million for his part in the brawl. Stephen Jackson missed 30 games and lost $1.9 million. O'Neal also was charged with two counts of misdemeanor assault and battery. Jackson, Artest and two other Pacers were charged with one count. All five Pacers received probation, community service and a fine.

    O'Neal criticized Artest's timing and the manner in which he asked out.
    "We felt betrayed, a little disrespected," O'Neal said. "It caught me off-guard because our relationship was at an all-time high. I just wish it was handled differently because as a player, you're always for the players. It's a team sport."

    As for their basketball relationship, O'Neal said: "The business relationship is over. That's fact."

    O'Neal also said Artest had not contacted any of the Pacers since his trade demand became public.

    Artest, who is on the inactive list for at least two more games, said in a phone interview Wednesday he understands O'Neal's frustration. He again said his decision was based on his dislike of playing for coach Rick Carlisle, not on his relationship with O'Neal.

    "Jermaine has the right to be mad at me," Artest said. "I don't have a right to be mad at him. What I'm doing is a little selfish, but I still think this will help the team by me leaving. This has nothing to do with Jermaine. Me and Jermaine are cool. I've always said from the beginning that it's Jermaine's team. He's the most qualified for the job to lead this team."


    O'Neal backed Artest's comments by saying, "In the off time, when we're in the streets, when I see him and he's with another team, we can talk."

    Artest had more to say, however, about his relationship with Carlisle. Artest told The Star on Saturday that his role in Carlisle's offense led to his trade request.

    Wednesday, Artest questioned whether Carlisle wanted him on the team.
    "I believe coach didn't want me there," Artest said. "I think he did things to make me tick. Why keep fighting coach, when I have enough problems, when I can go elsewhere and play?"


    Said Carlisle: "Ron Artest is a great player. He was leading the team in minutes played and was on track to have his best statistical year as a pro. Why would I not want to have a guy like that on my team?"

    While Artest leads the team in minutes played and is second in scoring average, he felt stifled in Carlisle's structured system.

    "Coach's offense is a distraction," Artest said. "I'm one of the best players in the league, and he won't call a play for me for most of the quarter. That's why I feel like I messed up the offense because I can take my man any time I want. He would call plays for me at the wrong time. He's always constantly switching things up and it's confusing."

    Call Star reporter Mike Wells at (317) 444-6053.

    http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...512150477/1088
    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

    -John Wooden

  • #2
    Re: Artest: Me and Jermaine are cool- I believe coach didn't want me (on the team)

    This is why this can't be allowed to go on too long... Artest will continue to wreck his own trade value by talking (and who knows what else).

    DW is busy trying to make it seem to be all about JO and Artest not being able to coexist and then Artest turns around and shoots that down and then turns it around on the coach.

    I can't believe that the team hasn't asked him not to do any interviews during this period and yet he's still talking. I'm betting it is against the request of management... AND it would be for his own good too. It wouldn't even surprise me if his agent hasn't requested he remain quiet as well. Yet, he keeps talking.

    -Bball
    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

    -John Wooden

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Artest: Me and Jermaine are cool- I believe coach didn't want me (on the team)

      RON STOP TALKING!!! you couldnt get a play for ONE quarter and when he did make a play for you, it was confusing so you don't like him anymore? Is that what it is?

      Great..Ron and JO are buddies, you'd think that Ron would talk to JO when the thought occured (about trading) and JO wouldve helped him out of it, but I guess Ron is better friends with the media

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Artest: Me and Jermaine are cool- I believe coach didn't want me (on the team)

        Heck.Shut up Ron PLS!!
        Don't believe for a minute this is about Basketball. Obviously,It's all about money for the record label. He must have finally realized that Indy jus isn't the best place to promote his record label. He needs to be in NY.
        So get out of here..I hope DW will bring back the best deal possible for the ''Tru Warier''.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Artest: Me and Jermaine are cool- I believe coach didn't want me (on the team)

          Let him talk, we finally get to hear the truth about what is wrong inside teh team, instead of us pointing fingers and making stuff up.

          Nobody thought Artest situation was at bad as it was. It was all Tinsley this and Tinsley that.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Artest: Me and Jermaine are cool- I believe coach didn't want me (on the team)

            Originally posted by Tim
            Let him talk, we finally get to hear the truth about what is wrong inside teh team, instead of us pointing fingers and making stuff up.

            Nobody thought Artest situation was at bad as it was. It was all Tinsley this and Tinsley that.

            The truth? (I'm refraining from using the obvious Jack Nicholson reference here)

            The guy is paranoid...he prbably doesn't even know the truth of the matter himself.

            I believe coach didn't want me there," Artest said. "I think he did things to make me tick. Why keep fighting coach, when I have enough problems, when I can go elsewhere and play?"

            That's like the abusive spouse that claims your behavior caused them to beat you up. "If you didn't make me so mad I wouldn't have to..."

            He is convincing himself of a new truth so that he doesn't have to feel remoarse or be responsible for what happend.
            He can't handle the truth.
            (man it was like a knot in my stomach, I just had to say it)
            Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Artest: Me and Jermaine are cool- I believe coach didn't want me (on the team)

              Originally posted by indygeezer
              The truth? (I'm refraining from using the obvious Jack Nicholson reference here)

              The guy is paranoid...he prbably doesn't even know the truth of the matter himself.

              I believe coach didn't want me there," Artest said. "I think he did things to make me tick. Why keep fighting coach, when I have enough problems, when I can go elsewhere and play?"

              That's like the abusive spouse that claims your behavior caused them to beat you up. "If you didn't make me so mad I wouldn't have to..."

              He is convincing himself of a new truth so that he doesn't have to feel remoarse or be responsible for what happend.
              He can't handle the truth.
              (man it was like a knot in my stomach, I just had to say it)
              What you said above is quite possible, and highly probably, but just remember, there are two sides to every story...

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Artest: Me and Jermaine are cool- I believe coach didn't want me (on the team)

                I say let the guy talk. Hear what he has to say.
                "Sometimes, when you look Andy in the eyes, you get a feeling somebody else is driving." -- David Letterman

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Artest: Me and Jermaine are cool- I believe coach didn't want me (on the team)

                  Originally posted by Kaufman
                  I say let the guy talk. Hear what he has to say.
                  Oh I agree, ya gotta hear his words. But his thinking, as evidenced here, is waaaay too familiar to me.
                  Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Artest: Me and Jermaine are cool- I believe coach didn't want me (on the team)

                    The dude is crazy, he got plenty of touches here.
                    You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Artest: Me and Jermaine are cool- I believe coach didn't want me (on the team)

                      Here is a better article on the whole J.O. vs Artest thing


                      http://www.boston.com/sports/basketb...p_shot?mode=PF

                      For O'Neal, Artest relationship shot
                      By Peter May, Globe Staff | December 15, 2005

                      Jermaine O'Neal feels betrayed. The cocaptain of the Indiana Pacers feels tired. He said that having to deal with the latest, and he hopes last, Ron Artest flap has been ''like a slap in the face" because no one had Artest's back more than he did.

                      Whether it was tolerating Artest's daily zaniness or coming to his defense in the utter chaos of Nov. 19, 2004, at the Palace of Auburn Hills, ''I was the guy who stood up for him. I was the guy who vouched for him," O'Neal said in a lengthy discourse on Artest's absence and Artest's trade demand prior to last night's 85-71 loss to the Celtics.

                      ''I don't hate him as a person. I wish him the best of luck," O'Neal said. ''I hope he achieves what he wants elsewhere. But as a player who has been there for him and been involved in certain situations with him, and for him, you expect more. But life isn't about getting what you want. Sometimes you have to deal with harder situations. This is harder to accept. I accepted it. I lost a lot. I have stepped up and vouched for him. Ron Artest doesn't matter to me as a teammate."

                      O'Neal, the Pacers' leading scorer and rebounder (he had 14 points and 10 rebounds last night), and best and highest-paid player, said he has two people in mind who would be more than suitable replacements for Artest: former teammate Al Harrington, now with Atlanta, and Bonzi Wells, now with Sacramento. Artest was not with the Pacers last night and Indiana president Donnie Walsh is fielding calls about him. Something could break today, when most players, such as Wells, who signed deals or were traded over the summer, can be relocated.

                      Harrington would be a natural, O'Neal surmised, because of his familiarity with the system and the team. Harrington spent the first six years of his career with the Pacers before being traded to the Hawks in the summer of 2004 for Stephen Jackson. And, O'Neal added, ''If it doesn't work out this year, [his salary] comes off the books."

                      As for Wells, O'Neal said, ''He fits in with what we do. We have a defensive-oriented team. He's a 6-6, 6-7 body who can play two different positions and thinks defense first. You deal [for] a player like that, it's easy for him to fit in, rather than a player who thinks offense first or pass, pass, or [dribbles] between the legs. We're not that type of team. There's been a lot of talk about [Peja] Stojakovic and I would definitely accept him with open arms. But if I had a preference, it would be Al or Bonzi Wells."

                      What if Artest had a change of heart? What if Artest showed up tomorrow at practice and said he had acted improperly, that he was happy where he was, that he was ready to play tomorrow night against the Jazz, and apologized to everyone? Here's what would happen -- the Pacers would have an angry cocaptain and, as O'Neal sees it, an angry team as well. That would be your proverbial nonstarter.

                      ''It is over," O'Neal said with undisguised finality. ''This relationship cannot be mended. The Pacers' front office cannot ask us to mend this relationship. I won't personally accept them asking me because then we'll have another issue. And it's unfair to the guys who come out.

                      ''This has been going on for a couple days," O'Neal said. Artest's trade request surfaced Sunday in the Indianapolis Star and Walsh said a day later that he would work to accommodate him. ''Nobody has heard from Ron. Players [have] issues with coaches, organizations, all kinds of different situations. So you can never fault a guy for not being happy, for whatever reason. But one thing you always have to do is you have to stay on board with the people on board with you. It can't be about Ron all the time. It can't be about personal issues. You're the second leading scorer and you [want] more shots? I don't understand that. To me, it's so disrespectful to me and my team. That relationship is over. There's no 'I'm going to change my mind.' That can't happen because that is the last straw you can take as a player. Especially in our situation."

                      No one, O'Neal said, has talked about anything other than Artest over the last 72 hours. In that span of time, the Pacers had not played any games (their previous game had been last Saturday, a home win over Memphis) and, naturally, there was little else to talk about.

                      ''We're coming off two great wins, two of our best wins of the season," O'Neal said, referring to the victories over Memphis and the Wizards. ''We really played as a team. And nobody wants to talk about the game. Nobody is ever talking about what we're doing, all the hard work that guys put in during the summertime, during the season, all the great things they do off the court, all the great things they do on the court, is never, ever known, because we're always talking about something else that isn't basketball-related. As a player, you get tired. You just tire out."

                      Artest, said O'Neal, has let his personal desires, be they shots, a better contract, or more respect, get in the way of the only thing that should matter: winning.

                      ''Everybody gets the benefits from winning," O'Neal said. ''Ultimately, you play this game to win, and that's all it should be about. It shouldn't be about shots. It shouldn't be about contracts. Because if you win, you're going to get exactly what you're looking for. That's the nature of the game and I don't quite know if [Artest] understands that."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Artest: Me and Jermaine are cool- I believe coach didn't want me (on the team)

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck
                        Here is a better article on the whole J.O. vs Artest thing


                        http://www.boston.com/sports/basketb...p_shot?mode=PF

                        For O'Neal, Artest relationship shot
                        By Peter May, Globe Staff | December 15, 2005

                        Jermaine O'Neal feels betrayed. The cocaptain of the Indiana Pacers feels tired. He said that having to deal with the latest, and he hopes last, Ron Artest flap has been ''like a slap in the face" because no one had Artest's back more than he did.

                        Whether it was tolerating Artest's daily zaniness or coming to his defense in the utter chaos of Nov. 19, 2004, at the Palace of Auburn Hills, ''I was the guy who stood up for him. I was the guy who vouched for him," O'Neal said in a lengthy discourse on Artest's absence and Artest's trade demand prior to last night's 85-71 loss to the Celtics.

                        ''I don't hate him as a person. I wish him the best of luck," O'Neal said. ''I hope he achieves what he wants elsewhere. But as a player who has been there for him and been involved in certain situations with him, and for him, you expect more. But life isn't about getting what you want. Sometimes you have to deal with harder situations. This is harder to accept. I accepted it. I lost a lot. I have stepped up and vouched for him. Ron Artest doesn't matter to me as a teammate."

                        O'Neal, the Pacers' leading scorer and rebounder (he had 14 points and 10 rebounds last night), and best and highest-paid player, said he has two people in mind who would be more than suitable replacements for Artest: former teammate Al Harrington, now with Atlanta, and Bonzi Wells, now with Sacramento. Artest was not with the Pacers last night and Indiana president Donnie Walsh is fielding calls about him. Something could break today, when most players, such as Wells, who signed deals or were traded over the summer, can be relocated.

                        Harrington would be a natural, O'Neal surmised, because of his familiarity with the system and the team. Harrington spent the first six years of his career with the Pacers before being traded to the Hawks in the summer of 2004 for Stephen Jackson. And, O'Neal added, ''If it doesn't work out this year, [his salary] comes off the books."

                        As for Wells, O'Neal said, ''He fits in with what we do. We have a defensive-oriented team. He's a 6-6, 6-7 body who can play two different positions and thinks defense first. You deal [for] a player like that, it's easy for him to fit in, rather than a player who thinks offense first or pass, pass, or [dribbles] between the legs. We're not that type of team. There's been a lot of talk about [Peja] Stojakovic and I would definitely accept him with open arms. But if I had a preference, it would be Al or Bonzi Wells."

                        What if Artest had a change of heart? What if Artest showed up tomorrow at practice and said he had acted improperly, that he was happy where he was, that he was ready to play tomorrow night against the Jazz, and apologized to everyone? Here's what would happen -- the Pacers would have an angry cocaptain and, as O'Neal sees it, an angry team as well. That would be your proverbial nonstarter.

                        ''It is over," O'Neal said with undisguised finality. ''This relationship cannot be mended. The Pacers' front office cannot ask us to mend this relationship. I won't personally accept them asking me because then we'll have another issue. And it's unfair to the guys who come out.

                        ''This has been going on for a couple days," O'Neal said. Artest's trade request surfaced Sunday in the Indianapolis Star and Walsh said a day later that he would work to accommodate him. ''Nobody has heard from Ron. Players [have] issues with coaches, organizations, all kinds of different situations. So you can never fault a guy for not being happy, for whatever reason. But one thing you always have to do is you have to stay on board with the people on board with you. It can't be about Ron all the time. It can't be about personal issues. You're the second leading scorer and you [want] more shots? I don't understand that. To me, it's so disrespectful to me and my team. That relationship is over. There's no 'I'm going to change my mind.' That can't happen because that is the last straw you can take as a player. Especially in our situation."

                        No one, O'Neal said, has talked about anything other than Artest over the last 72 hours. In that span of time, the Pacers had not played any games (their previous game had been last Saturday, a home win over Memphis) and, naturally, there was little else to talk about.

                        ''We're coming off two great wins, two of our best wins of the season," O'Neal said, referring to the victories over Memphis and the Wizards. ''We really played as a team. And nobody wants to talk about the game. Nobody is ever talking about what we're doing, all the hard work that guys put in during the summertime, during the season, all the great things they do off the court, all the great things they do on the court, is never, ever known, because we're always talking about something else that isn't basketball-related. As a player, you get tired. You just tire out."

                        Artest, said O'Neal, has let his personal desires, be they shots, a better contract, or more respect, get in the way of the only thing that should matter: winning.

                        ''Everybody gets the benefits from winning," O'Neal said. ''Ultimately, you play this game to win, and that's all it should be about. It shouldn't be about shots. It shouldn't be about contracts. Because if you win, you're going to get exactly what you're looking for. That's the nature of the game and I don't quite know if [Artest] understands that."
                        Very candid and good article. I am liking JO more and more.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Artest: Me and Jermaine are cool- I believe coach didn't want me (on the team)

                          I like JO too, but I'd tell him to put a sock in it for a while.......
                          PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Artest: Me and Jermaine are cool- I believe coach didn't want me (on the team)

                            Sounds like he got touches that he wasn't supposed to get. Maybe he was supposed to be running through the offense and instead was shooting. As result Carlisle was getting on him telling him to pass instead of playing 1 on 1. (maybe thats why he's upset???) Maybe he feels that with all the defense he provides, that he deserves to have an offensive play called for him more often. ???

                            I can sort of understand that, but he's going about it the wrong way. But then seeing that he wants to play for the Knicks (and Larry Brown) tells me there's more to it than Carlisle.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Artest: Me and Jermaine are cool- I believe coach didn't want me (on the team)

                              If Ron said the sky was blue, I'd still check it to make sure.

                              He needs some medications.
                              The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X