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

And I would put the pasted article in quotes like this.
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

It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

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

  • It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

    http://www.indycornrows.com/2010/7/2...ight-year-plan

    I thought this was a very informative and insightful article

    On the heels of SB Nation's recent NBA GM Rankings, Pacers front office guru Larry Bird was lambasted as the worst GM in the league for his lack of "direction." Tom dove deeper into this being a bit of a questionable decision, though community lines remain torn on the issue.

    There's no denying the lack of moves by an average Pacers team is going to draw questions from everyone, but the situation was very difficult to maneuver when Bird finally took over the reigns completely from Donnie Walsh in 2008. However, personally, I question how Pat Riley deserves to be first for doing what numerous other GMs did, except getting the benefit of receiving the prize thanks to assumed player collusion.

    Regardless, very little was given to the Pacers situation in giving Bird any benefit of the doubt for a grade that still seems very much "incomplete." After all, this is the year where Bird will mark his weight as a GM in this league, not in having very little pull or valuable assets to move the past few.
    Larry Bird has given us his "Three-Year Plan," and though it may lack "direction," it's still a process, but what of the situation former Pacers GM Donnie Walsh walked into? What about his "Eight-Year Plan?"

    Donnie Walsh was named Pacers GM in 1986 after joining the franchise in 1984. The following quote is an excerpt from Steve Mannheimer's book Pacer Power!: The 1994 Wonder Season of the Indiana Pacers, a book Pacers fans should attempt to search out if they can, if only to relive the 1993-94 season:

    "For so long," Donnie explained, "this has been a high-school and college area of fan support for basketball teams. The fans are accustomed to thinking terms of four year intervals. ... they can still misunderstand the pro game, mostly because their time sense of the big picture, so to speak, is working at a different rate.
    "When I took over the Pacers in 1986, I realized we had a long way to go to build this team. The only way you can build a better team is through the draft or by trades.

    "... But in '86, we didn't have the players to trade. Our team wasn't good enough then. So that meant the draft was going to main way to improve. And that would take me four years.

    "And even then, even if you have the talent, it's going to take you three or four years to fine-tune it - and that's only if everything goes perfect. ... So when I took over I realized it was a seven or eight year process."

    Would fans feel better if Bird lined out his "plan" in this sense? When Walsh took over the Pacers in 1986, he figured it would take eight years for them to be a really good team. As the Pacers reached the Eastern Conference Finals for the first time in 1994, his "eight year plan" was a success. Does it mean Bird's "plan" or "direction" cannot?

    Before I begin, I unfortunately can not take first hand information on these events, I have to rely on my previous knowledge of the players, their statistics, the internet and writings, and their basketball cards (which were always strangely rosy in player descriptions) to get a full grasp on who these players I didn't see play were, since I was two when Walsh took over and have first memories as a Pacers fan during the 1993-94 season. If there is any more insight as to the reaction to the job Walsh was doing in his early tenure in addition to his acquisitions, those would be much appreciated to help round out the entire picture.

    The "youth movement" was in full swing for the Pacers in 1986, who had nine players on the roster who were 25 or under. Of those, notables included Wayman Tisdale, Vern Fleming, and Steve Stipanovich. Clark Kellogg was only 24, but his career had already taken a massive hit by injuries.

    1986 NBA Draft
    Walsh drafted Auburn star Chuck Person with the fourth overall pick, also selected Greg Dreiling (2, 26). Four more players were selected, none of which signed or played with the Pacers, confirming that the NBA Draft was still at least four rounds too long in 1986.
    1986 Summer
    Hired Jack Ramsey as coach; traded two second rounders to the Bulls for Kyle Macy (28 yrs., 8.6 PTS/2.2 REB/5.4 AST in 27 minutes); released Dwayne McClain (22, 3.5/0.7/1.5 in 10), Bill Garnett (25, 4.3/3.4/1.2 in 15), and Bill Martin (23, 5.0/1.5/0.8 in 11); traded Terrence Stansbury (24, 6.7/1.9/2.8 in 18) and Russ Schoene (hadn't played for Indiana since 1983, played in Europe) to Seattle for John Long (29, 10.0/1.6/1.3) and a second round pick.
    The roster turnover in 1986 improved the Pacers by 15 wins, and put them into the playoffs for the first time since 1981. Person would be named Rookie of the Year, John Long found a career revitalization after falling out of favor in Detroit, and the other young assets (Tisdale, Fleming, and Stipanovich) showed improvement.

    1987 NBA Draft and Summer
    Walsh selected Reggie Miller with the 11th overall pick, also selected Brian Rowsom (2, 34). Four more players were selected, again, none played for the team. The saga with Reggie Miller is well known, with Walsh passing on local legend Steve Alford.
    Traded second rounder to Milwaukee for Scott Skiles (22, 3.8/2.0/3.5 in 13 games); re-signed Steve Stipanovich and Vern Fleming; failed to tender Kyle Macy; signed Clinton Wheeler (1981 7th round pick, no NBA experience), lost Clark Kellogg to retirement.

    1987-88 season
    Waived Brian Rowsom (four games played) and Clint Richardson (31-year old hadn't played a game in the season). The Pacers finished 38-44 and outside of the playoffs. Chuck Person became the focus of opposing teams and failed to adjust coupled with regression from Herb Williams and John Long. Wayman Tisdale and Fleming continued to improve.
    1988 NBA Draft and Summer

    Walsh selected Rik Smits with with the second overall pick. Also drafted Herbert Crook (3, 61) and Michael Anderson (3, 73). Much like Miller, the Smits pick was seen as a miss for a lengthy amount of time, especially as Charles Smith (third overall) exploded for the Clippers.
    Lost Clinton Wheeler to the Hornets in the 1988 Expansion Draft; signed Anthony Frederick (1986 6th rounder), Richard Morton (undrafted free agent), and Stuart Gray (1984 Pacers second rounder); traded Ron Anderson to New York for Everette Stephens (1987 second rounder).
    I can't see an impact pickup made in this summer at all. Looking at the lack of impact, coupled with the career ending injury of Steve Stipanovich prior to season's start...

    1988-89 season
    Jack Ramsey resigns, Mel Daniels interim, George Irvine hired (and replaced by), Dick Versace hired as head coach; traded Wayman Tisdale and second rounder to Sacramento for LaSalle Thompson (27, 15.0/9.1/1.0 through 43 games) and Randy Wittman (29, 3.8/0.8/1.0 through 32 games); traded Herb Williams to Dallas for Detlef Schrempf (26, 9.5/4.5/2.3 through 37 games) and a second rounder; waived John Long.

    The Pacers had a dreadful 88-89 season, finishing 28-54. Schrempf proved to be a valuable addition, as did the growth of Reggie Miller, Chuck Person, and Vern Fleming.

    1989 NBA Draft, summer, and 1989-90 season
    Drafted George McCloud with the seventh overall pick. This pick would be the worst of Walsh's early tenure, making it the third straight year he had drafted a question mark, even though Reggie Miller was budding into a young star. Traded Stuart Gray to Charlotte for second round pick Dyron Nix (2, 29).
    Resigned Detlef Schrempf; lost Scott Skiles to Orlando in 1989 Expansion Draft; signed Mike Sanders (28, 9.3/3.7/1.6 in 26 minutes), Rickey Green (35, 4.6/1.1/3.0 in 63 games), and and Calvin Natt (32, 6.3/3.3/0.8 in 24 games).
    This summer is worth mentioning as a question mark given the way the Pacers laid low again in the offseason, only resigning Schrempf and bunting their way to roster improvements on a 28-win team. The 1988 and 1989 offseasons seems strangely familiar to the Pacers 2009 or even 2010 offseason in regards to impact and action to a below average team that is waiting to see their current assets pan out.
    As for the season, the Pacers finished 42-40 and made the playoffs. Reggie Miller named an All-Star; Chuck Person, Detlef Schrempf improved. Pacers find themselves in need of point guard help.

    1990 NBA Draft, summer, and 1990-91 season
    Drafted Antonio Davis (2, 45) and Kenny Williams (2, 46). Signed Micheal Williams (23, 6.9/1.4/3.5 in 22 games), lost Rickey Green to Philadelphia; signed Kenny Williams.
    Dick Versace was fired after a 9-16 start, replaced by Bob Hill. Pacers finished the season at 41-41 and fell to the Boston Celtics in the most exciting five game series in NBA history. A lot of this series is up on YouTube, so give it a glance if you get a chance (this series featured the Larry Bird heroics in game 5 to prevent the massive upset).

    Reggie Miller continued to be the leader, as Walsh put it, it was this season he realized they had three of the same player in Miller, Chuck Person, and Detlef Schrempf, who all continued playing well. Rik Smits struggled mightily in his third year, Micheal Williams was emerging as a potential PG prospect.

    Walsh was entering his sixth summer, and despite two straight playoff appearances, the team hadn’t taken form yet. Miller and Person were the go-tos. Schrempf was your sixth man by default. Maybe Micheal Williams is something at the PG spot, and Fleming makes a serviceable backup. But those are your pieces. Smits struggled, McCloud still showed nothing, LaSalle Thompson wasn’t a viable option at PF, Greg Dreiling started 42 games. After five seasons, the Pacers had not improved a game.

    1991 NBA Draft and summer, 1991-92 season
    Dale Davis was drafted with the thirteenth pick. Walsh also selected Sean Green (2, 41). The Pacers stood pat the remainder of the offseason, only waving Mike Sanders shortly after the season began.

    The team finished 40-42 and was swept out of the playoffs. There was very little change from the previous year in terms of production, though Micheal Williams averaged 15/8 as the starting PG. Chuck Person had an altercation with a cameraman, Smits still struggled to keep his starting job over Dreiling, McCloud was not panning out.

    1992 NBA Draft and summer, 1992-93 season
    Malik Sealy was selected 14th overall in the draft. The Pacers traded Chuck Person and Micheal Williams to Minnesota in exchange for Pooh Richardson (25, 16.5/3.7/8.4) and Sam Mitchell (28, 10.1/5.8/1.1) in hopes of answering the Pacers long term issue at PG.

    The Pacers didn’t improve in the win column, finishing 41-41 and suffering a first round exit to the Knicks. Schrempf had moved to the starting lineup, Dale Davis had an impressive second year (averaging 9/9), Smits was being run out of town. Richardson wasn’t as big of a force as he was hoped to be.

    1993 NBA Draft and summer
    Walsh selected Scott Haskin from Oregon State with the 13th pick. Also selected were Thomas Hill (2, 39) and Spencer Dudley (2, 51). Larry Brown as hired as head coach. Walsh had wanted Brown for years, but didn't feel his team was mature enough to win under Brown until 1993. The Pacers signed Antonio Davis (1990 second rounder) and Haywoode Workman (25, 8.0/3.3/4.8); traded Sean Green to Philadelphia for a second rounder. Just before the season began, Walsh traded Detlef Schrempf to Seattle for Derrick McKey (26, 13.4/4.2/2.6) and Gerald Paddio (27, 3.9/1.2/0.8 in 41 games). In early December, the Pacers signed free agent Byron Scott (31, 13.7/2.3/2.7).

    The fruits of this offseason were the culmination of seven years of building. The Detlef Schrempf trade was seen as a big swing in Seattle’s favor, but the Sonics bowed out in the first round with Schrempf as McKey and the Pacers lost in the Eastern Conference Finals. Rik Smits finally emerged as Dale and Antonio Davis had breakout years, all under the guidance of Larry Brown.
    It took eight years for Donnie Walsh to get the Pacers out of the first round and into contention. From this season, the Pacers were guided to six Eastern Conference Finals and an Eastern Conference Championship. It’s impossible to imprint the legacy of a general manager in just three years, since doing so would paint Walsh in an unfavorable light.

    Since taking over the team full time in 2007, Larry Bird has had to perform a difficult undertaking with troublemakers, no cap flexibility for years, and a need to rebuild with youth. We complain about Jim O’Brien, but the reason Walsh didn’t bring Larry Brown in earlier was because his team was too young to make use of his skills. The same can be said of this Pacers team and any number of coaches.

    Walsh needed four years of drafting to get his long term pieces set. He used Chuck Person to gain long term assets, and drafted Reggie Miller, Rik Smits, Antonio Davis, and Dale Davis as long term players. Even looking at Bird’s draft history, his worst pick is seen as Brandon Rush, who is nowhere near as big of a bust as George McCloud was.

    Bird has had three years to build through the draft and has appeared to find Roy Hibbert, with verdicts still out on Tyler Hansbrough, A.J. Price, and Brandon Rush (to be fair on Rush’s behalf). He has gotten so much praise with the potential of Paul George and Lance Stephenson that if only one pans out to the level they’re supposed to, this franchise will reap the rewards.
    I would believe Jarrett Jack’s emergence and ridiculous contract were not in the plans as I suspect he was intended to be kept, much as Scott Skiles was. Bird’s signings of Earl Watson and Dahntay Jones are stop-gap signings that don’t upset any long term plans, much like Walsh’s signings of Mike Sanders, Rickey Green, and Calvin Natt in 1989.

    One of Bird’s biggest strikes is that he stands pat, while Walsh stood pat with his young and painfully average (remember all those Indy .500 jokes?) team more than he probably should have. The bottom line is, well, what I’ve been preaching: it takes patience to fix this mess. There is no quick solution.

    Bird is not the worst GM in the league because he doesn’t make moves just to make moves. If there is a long term plan in effect, a direction that seems so laughable, Walsh needs to made guilty of it after three years as well. And for the love of Sunday, if Pat Riley is the best GM in the NBA right now for essentially winning the lottery, maybe this list isn’t so accurate after all.
    Last edited by 90'sNBARocked; 07-26-2010, 01:03 PM.
    Sittin on top of the world!

  • #2
    Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

    It was really seven seasons. The eighth season was the ECF team.

    In the first season, they improved by 15 wins from 26 to 41 and were in the playoffs, and even won thier first NBA playoff game against a very good, #2 seed in Atlanta (with Dominique, Doc Rivers, Tree Rollins, Wittman, Spud Webb, etc.)

    Except for the year Stipo was injured and Smits was forced into the lineup as a rookie and we had four different head coaches (including Irvine and Versace... ouch!!) they averaged 40.5 wins per season over this period of time and were in the playoffs five of the seven seasons (and missed the #8 spot of the '88 season on the last day of the season.)

    Walsh's team immediately improved to be a playoff team and then plateued as a first-round-and-out team. Bird's team has gone the other way.

    Which is why I continue to believe that you can't begin to measure progress until next season when they finally have salary flexibility and can make moves to improve the team, not just get out of the salary cap Hell. The three-year plan to build a contender starts next summer. I expect the 2011-12 team to make a 10-15 win improvement and get into the playoffs. But I'd expect the 2010-11 team to be another stinker.

    Bird may deserve more time. But its not because it took Donnie "longer" than three years. Donnie showed immediate results and it still took time to get beyond the first round. Bird hasn't shown "immediate" results but his first real opportunity to do so is next season (again, 2011-12.)
    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

      Walsh didn't have a salary cap or free agency to help him along. Look at how he rebuild in 2000 for a better feel of how good a GM he was.

      Larry Bird is absolutely the most incompetent GM in basketball right now. Not only did he never rebuild. He isn't getting a top Free Agent in here either.

      Even after all the cap room is created, we still need another star and 4-6 more rotation level players before we can contend for anything.

      The Larry Bird vanity project has set this franchise back 10 years. And possibly will lead this franchise to move cities. How anyone can defend it is borderline criminal.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

        Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post


        I expect the 2011-12 team to make a 10-15 win improvement and get into the playoffs.

        But I'd expect the 2010-11 team to be another stinker.

        So you you are saying there won't be a lockout in 011-012?

        I agree next season will be another repeat of the last 3 seasons.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

          Even looking at Bird’s draft history, his worst pick is seen as Brandon Rush



          Give me a second.



          Alright, you wanna give Larry 8 years, fine. He was hired as President of Basketball Operations on July 11th, 2003. That means he has 350 more days to prove himself.
          Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

            Originally posted by Kegboy View Post



            Give me a second.



            Alright, you wanna give Larry 8 years, fine. He was hired as President of Basketball Operations on July 11th, 2003. That means he has 350 more days to prove himself.
            He is not the worst GM, in fact his patience is his best attribute
            Sittin on top of the world!

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

              I agree with Kegboy here, the green hick has had 7 years so far and all he has to show for is a downward spiral and JoB as a coach

              his worst draft Rush ?? you serious ?? You really want the whole list of disasters?

              puhleaase
              So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

              If you've done 6 impossible things today?
              Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

                Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                So you you are saying there won't be a lockout in 011-012?

                I agree next season will be another repeat of the last 3 seasons.
                No opinion on the lockout, but that would obviously make it harder for the team to improve by 15 wins.
                Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                And life itself, rushing over me
                Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

                  Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
                  Alright, you wanna give Larry 8 years, fine. He was hired as President of Basketball Operations on July 11th, 2003. That means he has 350 more days to prove himself.
                  Donnie Walsh was hired by the Knicks in April of 2008. Before that time he was here in Indiana. Nobody knows who was calling the shots before that. People who hate Bird just loooove to assume, but they know nothing. However I have a hard time believing the guy who had ran this team for so long had the keys removed from his hand, and Bird was in charge since 2003 .... all while Donnie stuck around for 5 years to pretend he was doing something. Sounds rather silly, no?

                  People forget that so quickly when they want to crucify Bird for a lot of decisions he more than likely, didn't make.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

                    Originally posted by able View Post
                    I agree with Kegboy here, the green hick has had 7 years so far and all he has to show for is a downward spiral and JoB as a coach

                    his worst draft Rush ?? you serious ?? You really want the whole list of disasters?

                    puhleaase
                    Okay, but it goes against what has been made public information.

                    Anyway, I think the first time Bird had a big hand in the draft was the Williams and White draft. I'd call them the two worst draft choices he's had...but since then his draft record has been at least decent.
                    "man, PG has been really good."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

                      Originally posted by aaronb View Post
                      Walsh didn't have a salary cap or free agency to help him along. Look at how he rebuild in 2000 for a better feel of how good a GM he was.

                      Larry Bird is absolutely the most incompetent GM in basketball right now. Not only did he never rebuild. He isn't getting a top Free Agent in here either.

                      Even after all the cap room is created, we still need another star and 4-6 more rotation level players before we can contend for anything.

                      The Larry Bird vanity project has set this franchise back 10 years. And possibly will lead this franchise to move cities. How anyone can defend it is borderline criminal.
                      Salary cap went into effect during the 1985 season, so yes Donnie did have the salary cap to deal with.

                      Amazing that in its first season teams could only spend 3.6 M total for the whole team

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

                        Originally posted by able View Post
                        I agree with Kegboy here, the green hick has had 7 years so far and all he has to show for is a downward spiral and JoB as a coach

                        his worst draft Rush ?? you serious ?? You really want the whole list of disasters?

                        puhleaase
                        So what was Donnie, his cheerleader? Donnie was his BOSS. Donnie made the decisions. Larry most certainly could give his input, but ultamately, Donnie was the one pulling the strings. This will be the 4th year of Larry making decisions.

                        We aren't privvy to the discussions between Donnie and Larry. For all we know, Larry toed the company line like a good little soldier and was just the PR mouth for Donnie.

                        There's no reason why Donnie even had a job, if Larry made the decisions. Simons would have been paying Donnie while Larry was the one in charge.

                        Does that seem business smart, especially for a franchise supposedly losing so much money they need the CIB to help them?

                        Your personal bias for the "green hick" is clouding your judgement.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

                          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                          Salary cap went into effect during the 1985 season, so yes Donnie did have the salary cap to deal with.

                          Amazing that in its first season teams could only spend 3.6 M total for the whole team

                          I meant more so in regards to Free Agency. You didn't see deals like Beasley or Jefferson for cap space deals.

                          You had to build one player at a time in the 80's.

                          Bird should have unloaded every vet piece he had for future picks and young players. As soon as Artest asked for a trade in 2005.

                          Artest
                          Jackson
                          JO
                          Tinsley
                          Foster
                          Anthony Johnson
                          Scott Polard

                          All had varying degrees of trade value at that point. Instead of making an honest assessment of the talent on hand. Bird chose to push forward without rebuilding. That decision is the sole reason we are where we are today.

                          A perpetual 30 game winner. Without a bona-fide star, or more than 3 NBA level rotation players under contract past this season.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

                            Originally posted by Revisionist History
                            Reggie Miller continued to be the leader, as Walsh put it, it was this season he realized they had three of the same player in Miller, Chuck Person, and Detlef Schrempf, who all continued playing well. Rik Smits struggled mightily in his third year, Micheal Williams was emerging as a potential PG prospect.
                            This is one of the most objectively false statements regarding the 1990-91 team I've ever seen. Reggie as a leader? Not back then, folks. That's crazy. That was still Rifleman's team. Yes, Smits struggled, and its certainly true that the first unit played better with Dreiling and Smits played better with the second unit at that point in time. But the real laugher: Micheal Williams emerging as a PG prospect? As a playoff starter, he averaged 20.6PPG and 8.4APG with a pair of 20+-10 double-doubles in the Garden. Prospect? Really? He was the real-deal.
                            Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                            Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                            Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                            Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                            And life itself, rushing over me
                            Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                            Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              So what was Donnie, his cheerleader? Donnie was his BOSS. Donnie made the decisions. Larry most certainly could give his input, but ultamately, Donnie was the one pulling the strings. This will be the 4th year of Larry making decisions.

                              We aren't privvy to the discussions between Donnie and Larry. For all we know, Larry toed the company line like a good little soldier and was just the PR mouth for Donnie.

                              There's no reason why Donnie even had a job, if Larry made the decisions. Simons would have been paying Donnie while Larry was the one in charge.

                              Does that seem business smart, especially for a franchise supposedly losing so much money they need the CIB to help them?

                              Your personal bias for the "green hick" is clouding your judgement.

                              Do we honestly think that Bird would take the job as the GM, then sit back while Donnie Walsh ran this thing into the ground?

                              Bird made the roster decisions. Walsh helped mentor Bird with the financial negotiations, salary cap management, and relations with other GM's.

                              How we can compare the track record of Walsh (who built a mini-dynasty here) and Bird (who hasn't done anything of note) is laughable.

                              This mess has been 100% Bird's doing. Yet he is from Indiana so he gets a pass from the yokels.

                              Will we still love Larry unconditionally if his buffoonery leads the franchise out of town?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X