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

Larry Bird is keeping all options open, but trading Danny Granger likely isn't one of them (8 points 9 seconds)

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

    Larry Bird is keeping all options open, but trading Danny Granger likely isn't one of them (8 points 9 seconds)

    Sorry Peck.. Both threads seem to have been deleted. Sorry for making you do unnecessary work.

    http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.co...t-one-of-them/
    By Jared Wade

    In a new piece by SI’s Ian Thomsen, Larry Bird says a lot of stuff we have heard before. He restates that the his contract (along with that of GM David Morway and all the coaches, the scouts and even the trainers), is up after this year. And he notes that most of the veteran players are also on expiring contracts and probably will not be back next fall.

    We have heard all this, although the last seven words in the following quote do make this sound like a more definitive statement about owner Herb Simon’s mentality than previous, more ambiguous insights into Larry’s expectations for next season.

    “Everybody on the basketball side is up except for a few players,” Bird said of the Pacers’ contracts that will expire this summer. “All of the trainers, coaches, scouts, me, [GM David] Morway, everybody in the office — we’re all up. As much money as we’ve lost at this franchise, the owner should have the opportunity to pick and choose who he wants to run the basketball side or coach the teams, and he’s probably going to make some changes.
    But that presumption aside (one that, to me anyway, makes it sounds like at least Morway won’t be back), he is just saying that the team has a ton of flexibility.

    “After this season you get to start with a clean slate, and how many teams in the league do that or ever have done that? I’m proud of the fact he’s got options, because he never had that before.”
    Since this is nothing new, I’m burying the lede, which is a another pretty definitive, unambiguous statement that this team is not trading Danny Granger.

    In an era defined by the departures of LeBron James and Chris Bosh (with reports that Carmelo Anthony and Chris Paul are soon to follow), the Pacers are built around a young star who has been adamant in wanting to stay in Indianapolis. Bird doesn’t take Granger’s loyalty for granted.

    “There are rumblings the Pacers might trade him,” Bird said of Granger. “He’s been a trooper, and I’d rather bring people in here to help him out rather than to trade him. I sat him down and told him what we were going to do three years ago, and he was all in. He gets frustrated, but that’s all.

    “The thing is, if he ever came to me and asked me if I would trade him, that’s different. But Danny has never done that.”
    I’m not sure you can make it much clearer than that.

    The rationale behind this is something that many people who follow the NBA, but not the Pacers, don’t understand. Why wouldn’t you trade Granger for young assets and draft picks and then use some of your cap space on similarly promising guys and start an earnest rebuild around guys who are not nearly 28-years-old and don’t make $11-12 million per year?

    I totally get why people would think that way.

    Dump the vets and hopefully you become the Thunder. Or maybe you don’t catch that type of lightning in a bottle, but you can at least become something like the Clippers or the Kings and have a few exciting, young, uber-talented players to build around. That’s a base that could theoretically lead to a championship.

    But thinking that the Pacers would do that probably means your don’t understand the how fragile this franchise is right now.

    It may be easy to forget for national analysts, but this team is still far from recovered from the Jail Pacers era and, part and parcel to that, the Malice at the Palace. People in Indiana are by and large still not interested in this team and they do not go to the games. And it’s not only because the on-court product is mediocre. The franchise remains in a the midst of a lengthy reputation rehabilitation and there is little aside from time or a 55-win season (or maybe Blake Griffin in blue and gold) that is going to change that within the next 12 months. Or even the next 24.

    It’s one thing to have a disillusioned, disinterested fan base. The Knicks went through that for years. But it’s altogether another thing when the franchise has also been hemorrhaging millions of dollars for a decade. The financial position of Pacers is still murky at best and deeply troubling at worst. And as we just saw with the Hornets, the market for teams in less-than-appealing locations (from a business perspective … nothing against Indianapolis … it’s a lovely place) is uncertain at best.

    So for this franchise, with this fan base and these financial reports, bottoming out and having a few seasons of sub-25 wins is just not prudent from a management perspective. What if that doesn’t work out? What happens when people care about this team even less? What is below irrelevance? Kansas City? Seattle?

    I have to think that Herb Simon wants to make sure that this team is on a more sound foundation, both on the court and in terms of finances, in a few years than it is right now. That has to be his concern above all else. He isn’t getting any younger (he’s 76), and the rise of this franchise during the 1990s is something that I believe he takes great pride in. He wants to be a good steward for professional basketball in Indiana as it enters the post-Herb and Mel Simon era. He won’t be here forever, but he wants the team to be.

    To roll the dice now and hope to get a guy like Tyreke Evans, and then hope that a promising first year by that like-Tyreke guy doesn’t revert to futility the following season (*cough* the 2010-11 Kings *cough*), just doesn’t make a lot of sense. It is a huge risk with an unthinkable downside. There is now finally some stability at the end of the tunnel after six or seven years of hell/purgatory. Now, the Pacers look to be well-positioned to take a relatively young nucleus, add a few pieces and come out on the other end with a solid team. Not a great team mind you, but a solid one.

    This mentality oozes from Larry Bird’s comments above.

    And with such an plan, it isn’t hard to see them following the path of the Atlanta Hawks. You get one guy similar to Joe Johnson through free agency, hope to trade for a guy like Jamal Crawford and you put them in a rotation with Granger, Roy Hibbert, Darren Collison, Paul George, Tyler Hansbrough and hopefully one or two other consistent contributors. In the past threes seasons, with a roster of players who have grown increasingly cohesive and individually experienced, the Hawks have won 37, 47 and 53 games. The Pacers could quite possibly achieve something similar.

    But, detractors would argue, Atlanta has also flamed out in the second round of the playoffs the past two years. Thus, following that type of path seems nonsensical to many NBA followers who view the association in a “title or bust” perspective. The Hawks are now the fifth best team in the East with seemingly no hope of becoming better than the Heat, the Magic or the Bulls in the next few years. Why would any team want to follow that path?

    Because it makes sense for the Indiana Pacers.

    In Atlanta, there is still little excitement about a 53-win team. But Simon and Bird, I think, believe that there would a professional basketball revival in Indiana if they could put a hard-working team on the court that competed every night. And I agree with that. Like in the 1990s, I think this state would get behind a squad that, even if flawed, is exciting and can beat any team on any night.

    The goal, if not winning a title, is to rebuild the franchise — and not just in the sense of gambling to hopefully get some good players, but in terms of again making the Pacers something that Hoosiers want to care about. Relevance first. Trying to build a true contender second. And who knows, maybe if all the chips land perfectly somehow in stage one, you have put an ensemble cast of good-not-great players that become some facsimile of what the 2002-2008 Pistons were.

    And with Granger being one of the few things that any fans have been able to care about in the past few years, the road to truly rebuilding the franchise, on the court and in the world of local public opinion, does not include trading Danny. He is the face of the franchise and trying to re-brand the team around Roy Hibbert or Darren Collison or Paul George right now would be a hard sell to anyone but the most diehard Pacers fans (of which there are roughly 500 left tops).

    There is one other key comment from Larry Bird in this SI piece that should further solidify the fact that the Pacers are committed to a slow rebuild around a group of guys that the team believes can become a cohesive nucleus for success.

    Bird has consistently sought to win games instead of trying to improve the Pacers’ position in the lottery. Last year they went 10-4 over the final month to fall to No. 10 in the draft.

    “We don’t do that,” he said of losing as a strategy. “That’s not my mentality. This is a professional league, you’re supposed to be professional and play every game like it’s your last game and play to win. There are a million teams that tank, and I don’t know what the league can do about it. But you don’t want to send the message to your team that you want to lose. Right now, we’re starting to play young guys, but it has nothing to do with the draft — it’s how our team is set up looking for the future. Our future is our young guys. We’ve got to give them time and I think I can win with them.”
    And when he says “you don’t want to send the message to your team that you want to lose,” I think that’s a message that this franchise is currently unwilling to send to its fan base. That message would be the subtext of any deal including Danny Granger.
    I think count got everything correct here in my opinion. Granger is too versatile to just be traded away so that we are the next Sacramento Kings for the next decade.
    ...
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Larry Bird is keeping all options open, but trading Danny Granger likely isn't one of them (8 points 9 seconds)

    Yeah, unless a deal that is ridiculous comes up (like Favors, Batum and Wes etc.), there's no way Danny is traded. We don't want to become the Warriors or the Kings.. As long as we get a wing like Iggy/Crawford/Martin, a power forward like West/Nene/Landry, a very good third big, and a good defensive backup point guard, we'll start making huge strides.

    Great article.
    Last edited by BringJackBack; 02-03-2011, 02:35 PM.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Larry Bird is keeping all options open, but trading Danny Granger likely isn't one of them (8 points 9 seconds)

      Great article. I catch myself feeling jealous of the kings every once in a while, then I realize how ridiculous that train of thought really is. I'm excited about this team. We're on the right track.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Larry Bird is keeping all options open, but trading Danny Granger likely isn't one of them (8 points 9 seconds)

        Honestly, I don't care if they're in the Miami/Magic/Boston/Lakers category right now, or even in two years.

        Here in the near future, 4-5 years, all those teams will be on the decline and that will leave space for new teams to come to the top. Boston will have their guys retire, LA will start getting older, and I doubt the Magic/Heat will have the ability to keep everyone happy/healthy for an extended run.

        The good thing about the NBA, or professional sports in general, is that every good franchise that seems out of touch come back down to Earth relatively quickly. If you build for the future, weather the storm, and draft correctly teams always have the ability to work their way into the top standings.

        Give the young guys so time to mature, and hope you can get a few more pieces, and they should be able to compete with the top teams in 3-4 years. They're plenty young to give them time.
        “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Larry Bird is keeping all options open, but trading Danny Granger likely isn't one of them (8 points 9 seconds)

          Great article. I respect count's opinion and kind of wish he posted here more often.

          Edit: Sorry, I meant JayRedd, that is Jared Wade, right?
          Last edited by cdash; 02-03-2011, 03:07 PM.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Larry Bird is keeping all options open, but trading Danny Granger likely isn't one of them (8 points 9 seconds)

            I really, really hope though that we can get the pieces before we have to re-sign Hibbert and co.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Larry Bird is keeping all options open, but trading Danny Granger likely isn't one of them (8 points 9 seconds)

              Not Count55; Here is Counts link

              http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.co...r/tim-donahue/

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Larry Bird is keeping all options open, but trading Danny Granger likely isn't one of them (8 points 9 seconds)

                If Paul George can become what I think he will be (I've watched him for almost two years), we will be more than fine. We have (In my opinion of course) when they hit their primes:

                -Granger, who is a fringe All-Star, and when he hits his prime he will start to play defense

                -Hibbert, a Rik Smits with better rebounding clone whenever he gets his full confidence back

                -Collison, a fringe All-Star who can have huge assist games whenever we get shooters around him and a good power forward

                -George, who can definitely be a 1st all- NBA team type of guy if he doesn't take his career for granted (KD and Lebron will always be in his way though).. Tracy McGrady with a better jumpshot. He can be averaging 15 points already if he got the playing time and he hasn't even figured it out yet.

                -Lance, who if he can stay out of trouble, can be a very good scorer off the bench.

                Plus $20-30 million in cap room. We're fine.
                We need better than solid. No JJ Redicks, Andray Blatche, Mike Dunleavy type guys to have big roles on our team.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Larry Bird is keeping all options open, but trading Danny Granger likely isn't one of them (8 points 9 seconds)

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  Honestly, I don't care if they're in the Miami/Magic/Boston/Lakers category right now, or even in two years.

                  Here in the near future, 4-5 years, all those teams will be on the decline and that will leave space for new teams to come to the top. Boston will have their guys retire, LA will start getting older, and I doubt the Magic/Heat will have the ability to keep everyone happy/healthy for an extended run.

                  The good thing about the NBA, or professional sports in general, is that every good franchise that seems out of touch come back down to Earth relatively quickly. If you build for the future, weather the storm, and draft correctly teams always have the ability to work their way into the top standings.

                  Give the young guys so time to mature, and hope you can get a few more pieces, and they should be able to compete with the top teams in 3-4 years. They're plenty young to give them time.
                  That's the key. Those top teams will, in the long run, always be top teams. The Lakers and Celtics have been the best franchise's since Dr. Naismith thought up the game, and that'll continue. But, in those little gaps between dynasties, other teams get a chance. Utah got their chance at the same time (a smaller franchise compared to BOS or LA) Chicago got theirs. Detroit and San Antonio got their runs in. And those teams got there by formulating a plan, holding a roster together, and maintaining as much consistency as they could. Sloan, Popovich, and Jackson are the definition of consistency.

                  The Pacers, with Bird at the helm, have had a few years of turnover, but have managed to establish a core that's been together through it, and will stay together for the long haul. The coaching situation needs to be cemented, obviously, but the point remains: these players are growing, they're steady, they know and like each other, and over the next few years they will learn and improve, and maybe catch that little gap between dynasties where they can challenge for a title.
                  It's a new day for Pacers Basketball.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Larry Bird is keeping all options open, but trading Danny Granger likely isn't one of them (8 points 9 seconds)

                    This is the biggest load of crap I have ever heard coming out of Larry's mouth. So the recap

                    THE GRAND 3 YEAR PLAN WAS TO BE BAD BUT HAVE A BUNCH OF EXPIRING DEALS IN ONE YEAR?

                    We could have instituted that "Plan" after the brawl and we could have been here in 2008. The excuses never end?

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Larry Bird is keeping all options open, but trading Danny Granger likely isn't one of them (8 points 9 seconds)

                      Originally posted by aaronb View Post
                      This is the biggest load of crap I have ever heard coming out of Larry's mouth. So the recap

                      THE GRAND 3 YEAR PLAN WAS TO BE BAD BUT HAVE A BUNCH OF EXPIRING DEALS IN ONE YEAR?

                      We could have instituted that "Plan" after the brawl and we could have been here in 2008. The excuses never end?
                      Not trying to be rude, but what would you have done had you been Donnie/Bird after the brawl?

                      I'm not going to lie, but my cynical self would have tried to keep it together.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Larry Bird is keeping all options open, but trading Danny Granger likely isn't one of them (8 points 9 seconds)

                        Originally posted by BringJackBack View Post
                        Not trying to be rude, but what would you have done had you been Donnie/Bird after the brawl?

                        I'm not going to lie, but my cynical self would have tried to keep it together.

                        I understood keeping that team together for the 2005 (next) season. However once Artest asked out of town, it was very clearly time to try and rebuild. At THAT time you could have gotten top value for JO, SJax, Tinsley and still gotten some value for Artest, Pollard, and Jeff Foster.

                        Unfortunately we have had a terrible pattern of holding onto assets until they are in the tank.

                        Now apparently that pattern is putting this franchise's future in Indy into some level of doubt?

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Larry Bird is keeping all options open, but trading Danny Granger likely isn't one of them (8 points 9 seconds)

                          Originally posted by BringJackBack View Post
                          Not trying to be rude, but what would you have done had you been Donnie/Bird after the brawl?

                          I'm not going to lie, but my cynical self would have tried to keep it together.

                          And to expound on this. The MAJOR issue I have with Birds quote was this part.

                          Quote:
                          Bird has consistently sought to win games instead of trying to improve the Pacers’ position in the lottery. Last year they went 10-4 over the final month to fall to No. 10 in the draft.

                          “We don’t do that,” he said of losing as a strategy. “That’s not my mentality. This is a professional league, you’re supposed to be professional and play every game like it’s your last game and play to win. There are a million teams that tank, and I don’t know what the league can do about it. But you don’t want to send the message to your team that you want to lose. Right now, we’re starting to play young guys, but it has nothing to do with the draft — it’s how our team is set up looking for the future. Our future is our young guys. We’ve got to give them time and I think I can win with them.”


                          THAT ABSOLUTELY INFURIATES ME AS A PACERS FAN

                          Larry SHOULD be wise enough to realize the way the NBA is structured and the easiest, and most effective way to rebuild this roster. If Larry felt he was above doing it the correct way. He should have never taken this GM job in the first place.

                          All goes back to my point of him not having the Front Office Mind or Skill set. Its the same as asking Peyton Manning if he should punt on 4 and 15 from his own 20 yard line. At some point the adults have to make the decision for the better good of the franchise as a whole. And not the ego of a former star player/ Local Celebrity.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Larry Bird is keeping all options open, but trading Danny Granger likely isn't one of them (8 points 9 seconds)

                            Originally posted by aaronb View Post
                            And to expound on this. The MAJOR issue I have with Birds quote was this part.

                            Quote:
                            Bird has consistently sought to win games instead of trying to improve the Pacers’ position in the lottery. Last year they went 10-4 over the final month to fall to No. 10 in the draft.

                            “We don’t do that,” he said of losing as a strategy. “That’s not my mentality. This is a professional league, you’re supposed to be professional and play every game like it’s your last game and play to win. There are a million teams that tank, and I don’t know what the league can do about it. But you don’t want to send the message to your team that you want to lose. Right now, we’re starting to play young guys, but it has nothing to do with the draft — it’s how our team is set up looking for the future. Our future is our young guys. We’ve got to give them time and I think I can win with them.”


                            THAT ABSOLUTELY INFURIATES ME AS A PACERS FAN

                            Larry SHOULD be wise enough to realize the way the NBA is structured and the easiest, and most effective way to rebuild this roster. If Larry felt he was above doing it the correct way. He should have never taken this GM job in the first place.

                            All goes back to my point of him not having the Front Office Mind or Skill set. Its the same as asking Peyton Manning if he should punt on 4 and 15 from his own 20 yard line. At some point the adults have to make the decision for the better good of the franchise as a whole. And not the ego of a former star player/ Local Celebrity.

                            we got paul george i'm very happy about that

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Larry Bird is keeping all options open, but trading Danny Granger likely isn't one of them (8 points 9 seconds)

                              Originally posted by O'Braindead View Post
                              Sorry Peck.. Both threads seem to have been deleted. Sorry for making you do unnecessary work.

                              http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.co...t-one-of-them/
                              By Jared Wade



                              I think count got everything correct here in my opinion. Granger is too versatile to just be traded away so that we are the next Sacramento Kings for the next decade.
                              very well written post. Granger is a proven commodity and trading for unknown is high risk/reward. it was reported recently Bird would consider dealing Granger for two starters, but would prefer to keep DG.

                              i respect Grangers loyalty to the pacers, he stuck it out with JOb. many good points in your post.
                              Last edited by PacersPride; 02-04-2011, 10:20 AM.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 template Next
                              Working...
                              X