O'Neal wouldn't have re-signed if he knew Thomas would be fired

Maybe Jermaine will mellow out a little when someone reminds him that .500 ball is 41-41 and the Pacers were a 48 win team last season. That's 7 over .500 by my count.

Perhaps he was referring to how many more wins than losses the Pacers had prior to the season ending slump? In which case, he needs to observe that they built that early W-L margin at the expense of the non-playoff teams...

http://www.nba.com/pacers/schedule/results_2002.html

And "16 games better than the year before"? How about 6.


IMO, Bird is an excellent psychologist and I look for Jermaine to have a great 2003-04 season.

 

I would think the Pacers would have been better off firing Thomas before re-signing O'Neal. There is a chance he would have bolted, but I think he would still have re-signed in the end. And, he wouldn't start the season feeling betrayed by the team.

 

With 48 wins then the Pacers would have been 14 games over .500 (48-34). It would take 14 straight losses for them to be "at" .500. This is the universally used method for determining how many games a team is over .500.

 

Taylor, Cato, and Moochie for Jermaine O'Neal!

 

fuzzy math!!

 

Hey O'Neil...tough it out and quit whining you big baby !!!


I guess he will just have to console himself with the 100mill plus max contract he just signed.

Guess what Jermainnnnee...it is a business, and you don't own it, so STFU grab your lunch box and get to work.

DD

 

O'Neal is a great player, but the game is also phsycological...

He felt there was a chemistry..."He was like a father" says a whole lot...

I think bird can turn him into a believer, but the initial shock is always hard...

 

So the season before Yao when Steve Francis had the ear infection, the Rockets were 26 games under .500...?

That may be "universal" to you, but 1 more win equates to one less loss in my world. And 13 more wins puts the 01-02 Rox at .500...not 26 more wins.

 

Personally I think O'neal is being real professional. He never said anything about demanding trades or wanting to leave the team (although he may have subsequently said so, I don't know) - he just expressed his shock, hurt and disbelief.

 

but it's universal to everyone, not bobrek. every time an "x games over .500" stat gets thrown out, it's [wins - losses], not [wins - 1/2 games played].

 

So it's OK for employers to lie to and betray their players because they own the business? I'm sure your employees would feel very secure about your feelings on the matter...

 

I agree 100%

Plus what an insulting comment to the fans in indiannapolis.

Sure Jermaine...it's all about you.

 

Nope...it's not ok. He can be saddened...he can be frustrated... but he should NOT say he wouldn't have signed. Coaching changes are not unpresidented or unexpected in pro ball.

In the end...he'll still cash his $100m in cheques so he'll just have to make do.

Again, I feel badly for the fans who have to listen to his whining because things didn't go his way. He should show some respect to them.

 

just wanted to chime in for support of O'Neal. I really like his attitude to the game. It reminds me of Larry Bird's approach.

 

The Rockets' reaction to Rudy's firing was the same--spur of the moment outburst driven by emotions. It will all blow over with Ws and respect for the new coach. I wouldn't overdue assessments of Oneal's character or attitudes from this outburst.

Also, for the record, I don't think the timing makes much difference and I don't for 1 minute think Oneal would have really passed on his Indy contract if the Carlise/Thomas switch was done in June.

 

The Rockets seemed to shoulder some of the blame, saying that Rudy would still be their coach if only they had played better. Despite their swoon out of 1st place in the East, O'Neal says 48 wins should be good enough. Can he not see that the team had a conspicuous fall in performance and they could be the new Milwaukee Bucks? I sympathize with O'Neal in a lot of ways, but saying 48 wins is good enough ain't right.

Even so, if he asked Walsh during negotiations if Thomas was coming back and said he didn't want to come back if Thomas wasn't going to be around and Walsh said not to worry and that Thomas would stay, then Walsh is a liar and a fink. He didn't negotiate with O'Neal in good faith. He's not an owner here, he is a man who conducted a business negotiation on bad faith, lying to be sure he could get what he wanted. Sure, they weren't contractually bound by O'Neal to keep Thomas, but his firing still constitutes a lie, especially when Walsh says that Thomas might have been fired even if they didn't hire Bird. So, I think O'Neal is well justified in being angry and I think he'd be justified in demanding a trade as well: after all, Walsh is the one who threw the code of good-faith negotiation out the window; if Walsh can use lying, O'Neal can use Olajuwon's fake injuries, Pippen's fat-butt speech, or whatever else he has at his disposal.

 

Coaching changes are not unprecedented or unexpected but neither is a player signing with a team because they like the coach and/or management.

If they assured O'Neal that Thomas would be back then they lied to him, plane and simple and he deserves to be angry and to reveal how he was duped. If they were not sure about keeping Thomas at least they could have said "Jermaine you know this is a business, we have to look at all our options."

Some business deals are done on a hand shake. It's about trust, how many players will feel comfortable negotiating with them once they hear this?

And what has this got to do with his salary? I've read quite a few posts critisizing players for signing with certain teams because of money. O'neal shows some loyolty and he's still being critisized.

 

I think he would have signed with the Spurs or Heat if they fired him before...he seems mad. Or maybe all he wants is the money. But I think he wants to win.

 

I can understand his frustration. And he has a tremendous attitude as a player.

I just find it maddening when players dish their team or city and cry as if they're hard done by when they are being very well compensated. O'neal did not take an undermarket deal -- he signed for the max! (and salary comes into play because for the huge sums they earn, it’s not unreasonable that they put up with some hardship).

He was wronged --- I agree. But to suggest you wouldn't have signed (when he probably would have since no other team could pay him that much) I find disrespectful to the fans that pay to go and see him.

He's not the first to do this. He won't be the last. (And he's done it on a much lesser scale than many others) And he does have a legitimate beef. I just wish the players would occasionally show some support to the fans and the cities for which they play.