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

Does anyone believe that the Pacers' Finals team could have been the next Dynasty?

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

  • #16
    Re: Does anyone believe that the Pacers' Finals team could have been the next Dynasty

    Originally posted by 8.9_seconds

    Minus the Bulls, I say the Pacers would have at least 3 rings by now. With the Bulls and tons of talent and heart, at least one in '98.The Pacers never had the recognizable supporting cast to carry a so-called dynasty I guess.
    By my count minus the Bulls the best the Pacers could've done was 1 ring because I can only remember the Bulls meeting us once in the playoffs.

    Part of that time Michael was suspended from the NBA due to gambl....errr I mean retired and playing baseball. Other times it wasn't the Bulls who stopped us. NY Knicks, Orlando, Atlanta, NY Knicks (again), LA... that's who stopped us on other occassions.

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

    ------

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

    -John Wooden

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Does anyone believe that the Pacers' Finals team could have been the next Dynasty?

      Originally posted by 8.9_seconds
      I agree with alot of replies in this post, the 2000 Pacers were probably just a Championship team rather than a Dynasty, I just always wanted to think that they would have been a dynasty.

      I think that they had a broad window of opportunity in the mid and late '90's, but their efforts were derailed due to the great teamwork of The Chicago Bulls. Let's face it, the Bulls had a complete team, no question. The combined efforts of Pippen,Jordan,and Rodman lead them to 6 NBA championships and much due respect and support.Sure, we had Reggie and Companay, but the and company was just a revolving door.

      Minus the Bulls, I say the Pacers would have at least 3 rings by now. With the Bulls and tons of talent and heart, at least one in '98.The Pacers never had the recognizable supporting cast to carry a so-called dynasty I guess.

      But.............

      It would have been pretty sweet,eh?


      We've only met the Bulls once in the playoffs, during thier last title run. So I don't understand how, minus the Bulls dynasty of the 1990s, you say we'd have at least three rings by now?

      Houston, New York, or Utah might've had more. Miami, Orlando, and Seattle each would've had chances. (Who did the Bulls play in the 1996 ECFs - New York? I don't remember) I'm not sure, minus the Bulls, that we would've even been the favorites any year but 1999.

      And what revolving door did we have? Rik, Dale, Tony and Derrick were in place for the entire run (but for the last season without Tony). Jackson was here for most of our run. There was some turnover - Sam Mitchell and Byron Scott out, Jalen Rose and Sam Perkins in, but not much - certainly not much among our 'core' team.

      Some of these threads are just getting silly.
      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


      • #18
        Re: Does anyone believe that the Pacers' Finals team could have been the next Dynasty

        Originally posted by Jay@Section204


        We've only met the Bulls once in the playoffs, during thier last title run. So I don't understand how, minus the Bulls dynasty of the 1990s, you say we'd have at least three rings by now?

        Houston, New York, or Utah might've had more. Miami, Orlando, and Seattle each would've had chances. (Who did the Bulls play in the 1996 ECFs - New York? I don't remember) I'm not sure, minus the Bulls, that we would've even been the favorites any year but 1999.

        And what revolving door did we have? Rik, Dale, Tony and Derrick were in place for the entire run (but for the last season without Tony). Jackson was here for most of our run. There was some turnover - Sam Mitchell and Byron Scott out, Jalen Rose and Sam Perkins in, but not much - certainly not much among our 'core' team.

        Some of these threads are just getting silly.

        Quick Draw McGraw...

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

        ------

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

        -John Wooden

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Does anyone believe that the Pacers' Finals team could have been the next Dynasty?

          I was thinking more of Wile E. Coyote/ Road Runner.
          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


          • #20
            Re: Does anyone believe that the Pacers' Finals team could have been the next Dynasty?

            Just to play devil's advocate, if Jordan hadn't come back, we would have had a higher seed in '96, meaning we would have played a worse team than Atlanta in the first round. Perhaps we get out of the first round then, Reggie continues to play Reggie-esque even with the bad eye, we get some momentum, etc, etc. We sooo could have beaten Seattle. The problem is, I'm afraid Shaq still would have kicked our *** again in the ECF.

            (But then, maybe those events mean we wouldn't trade Mark to Denver, and the Season That Didn't Happen, well, didn't happen. )
            Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Does anyone believe that the Pacers' Finals team could have been the next Dynasty?

              Originally posted by DisplacedKnick
              If the team had stayed together (with Bird as coach) IMO they would have made the finals again the following year - and possibly the year after. They'd have probably contended to this very day - unless you're saying that DD and Reggie are washed up now? Mark Jackson was no slower the following two years than he'd been with the Pacers.

              I should qualify this with an IF AD hadn't been traded for Bender because he could have stepped right in as starting center. Not so sure if you'd had to rely on Perkins & Foster.

              Would you have won a title? Possibly - impossible to say really.


              For sake of discussion lets say I agree with you (I don't by the way), where would the franchise be right now if the old team was kept together until right now

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Does anyone believe that the Pacers' Finals team could have been the next Dynasty?

                Originally posted by Unclebuck
                For sake of discussion lets say I agree with you (I don't by the way), where would the franchise be right now if the old team was kept together until right now

                In as good a shape as it is right now.

                You are already on record from the last party as saying you would rather have potential future wins as opposed to past championships so in some ways there is no middle ground here. Because I would have killed for one title in the past 3-5 years.

                Now to your point because I'm ready for this one.

                Ok, let's start. Our starting shooting guard from the 00 season was Reggie Miller.

                Our starting power foreward from the 00 season was Dale Davis.

                Both of them are still & would have been starters from then to now.

                Let's go player by player.

                Jeff Foster, Jon Bender & Austin Croshere were already on the team so there would have been no changes made to get them.

                That's five of 15 right there.

                Jamaal Tinsley was aquired by using a future first round pick. There is zero reason to beleive the exact same trade could not have been made. Jamaal would have had the experiance of learning from Mark Jackson for a year, is that the worst thing you could think of happening?

                Here you go, this one is for you. Jalen Rose, Travis Best & (I can't remember his name) for Brad Miller, Ron Artest, Ron Mercer & Kevin Ollie could have still been done without any change of what you see on the floor right now.

                So therefor we could still have had your precious Ron Artest & guess what we could have had a front court of Dale Davis, Brad Miller & Ron Artest. That's a pretty good lineup & not one of them is being paid the Max.

                Anthony Johnson was picked up via free agency. We could still have done that.

                Stephen Jackson for Al Harrington could still have been done.

                David Harrison was the last pick in the first round, so I think we could still have pulled that off.

                John Edwards was undrafted free agent.

                Eddie Gill was a free agent with the vet. min. that still could have been done.

                The two players that may or may not have been here because of keeping the team together would have been Fred Jones. Because it would be easy to argue that we would not have had that high of a draft pick & Jermaine O'Neal because he would have been in Portland.

                Now if you feel that the entire franchise rest around O'Neal then you will feel that the team would be in far worse shape.

                If you feel that other players could replace O'Neal then you will see my point of view that we would not be any worse & in my twisted logic might be better.


                Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Does anyone believe that the Pacers' Finals team could have been the next Dynasty

                  Originally posted by Peck

                  Now if you feel that the entire franchise rest around O'Neal then you will feel that the team would be in far worse shape.

                  If you feel that other players could replace O'Neal then you will see my point of view that we would not be any worse & in my twisted logic might be better.
                  And Austin Croshere would've had the role intended for him when he was signed that summer and not the role he was forced into when DW got angry at DD and jettisoned him off to Portland. I never thought JO was part of a long term plan that had been brewing and that is one of the reasons... Why would you sign Austin Croshere to his contract if you had plans to make a play for JO?

                  And before anyone jumps on me... That is not to say Croshere is better than JO. That is to say Austin's contract made little sense the second JO was brought in. Hmmmm maybe Austin would've made a nice sign and trade package to Portland for JO?

                  If I was the GM we wouldn't have traded Dale Davis. If I wanted JO we would've found another way to get it done or waited for him to set a couple more years on the Portland bench.

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

                  ------

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

                  -John Wooden

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Does anyone believe that the Pacers' Finals team could have been the next Dynasty?

                    Peck, we know where you stand, but let me say this.

                    I would rather have Jermaine O'Neal than Dale Davis. YOU would rather have Jermaine O'Neal than Dale Davis. Any way you spin it, that was a good trade.

                    I don't believe that team could have beaten the Lakers in 2001 or 2002, the Spurs in 2003, or the Pistons in 2004. And when you're really honest, I don't think you do either.
                    This space for rent.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Does anyone believe that the Pacers' Finals team could have been the next Dynasty

                      Originally posted by Anthem
                      Peck, we know where you stand, but let me say this.

                      I would rather have Jermaine O'Neal than Dale Davis. YOU would rather have Jermaine O'Neal than Dale Davis. Any way you spin it, that was a good trade.

                      I don't believe that team could have beaten the Lakers in 2001 or 2002, the Spurs in 2003, or the Pistons in 2004. And when you're really honest, I don't think you do either.
                      I think in at least one of those years if not a couple we would've been back in the championship series... and you can't win a championship if you don't get there in the first place.

                      And Peck just laid out a series of changes that would've been tweaks to the core, and not an overhaul like we got, that would put us right here today sans JO.



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

                      ------

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

                      -John Wooden

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Does anyone believe that the Pacers' Finals team could have been the next Dynasty?

                        If Donnie had some how managed to keep the team together in 2000 I would be in full agreement with those who argue that Donnie is more interested in having a competitive team rather than a Championship team.
                        "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

                        "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Does anyone believe that the Pacers' Finals team could have been the next Dynasty

                          Originally posted by Anthem
                          Peck, we know where you stand, but let me say this.

                          I would rather have Jermaine O'Neal than Dale Davis. YOU would rather have Jermaine O'Neal than Dale Davis. Any way you spin it, that was a good trade.

                          I don't believe that team could have beaten the Lakers in 2001 or 2002, the Spurs in 2003, or the Pistons in 2004. And when you're really honest, I don't think you do either.
                          I have a feeling if you are honest you'd say you didn't think the Pistons had a chance against the Lakers last year. But that is beside the point. I just want to say on the subject of the 'almighty Lakers' that I like my chances of winning a championship better by actually getting to the Finals and playing them than I do by throwing up my hands, declaring defeat, and starting over as a mediocre team with 'potential' to someday be back there.

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

                          ------

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

                          -John Wooden

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Does anyone believe that the Pacers' Finals team could have been the next Dynasty

                            Originally posted by Bball
                            I have a feeling if you are honest you'd say you didn't think the Pistons had a chance against the Lakers last year.
                            Go back and find the threads... I picked whoever won the ECFs to win it all. I didn't think they'd win in 5, but I thought they'd win.

                            And Peck just laid out a series of changes that would've been tweaks to the core, and not an overhaul like we got, that would put us right here today sans JO.
                            Translation: Right where we are today but without our best player. So next year we'd have no championship banner, no franchise player, and no cap room. We'd be mediocre for years to come.
                            This space for rent.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Does anyone believe that the Pacers' Finals team could have been the next Dynasty?

                              If I am understanding this correctly are people arguing that trading two players in two years is blowing up a team? If basically the same team with Dale could have won a championship then that same team could have won with JO.
                              "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

                              "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Does anyone believe that the Pacers' Finals team could have been the next Dynasty

                                Originally posted by Arcadian
                                If I am understanding this correctly are people arguing that trading two players in two years is blowing up a team? If basically the same team with Dale could have won a championship then that same team could have won with JO.
                                Don't forget refusing to go higher after Mark refused Donnie's $32mil conract. And they'd have an unhappy Dale, because he was pissed (and vented to the media) at Donnie for giving him the max.

                                Peck and Bball do this whenever we're playing poorly. Someday I'll buy them a copy of this:
                                http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...38200?v=glance
                                The New York Times Book Review, Fareed Zakaria
                                . . . Arthur Herman has written a brisk survey of declinism from Sophocles to the Unabomber, outlining the long shadow of Western pessimism . . . .His aim is to discredit declinism: "While intellectuals have been predicting the imminent collapse of Western civilization for more than 150 years . . .its influence has grown faster during that period than during any other period of history." He places the worrywarts of today, from Al Gore with his "eco-pessimism" to Robert Bork with his cultural gloom and doom, in a long and misguided Western tradition.
                                This space for rent.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X