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

If Ron were inevitably going to be traded...

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

  • #61
    Re: If Ron were inevitably going to be traded...

    Jay, you and PFA are making arguments that I believe are crazy. Your theory that Ron's presense is overrated is nonsensical. If you want to argue that Ron can't be counted on or that he is a distraction. OK that is arguable, but to suggest that he is not that important is just crazy.

    PFA you seem to think that the series with the Pistons in 2004 was the same as 2005. Afterall they both ended in 6 games. So they must be the exact same. Pacers had a better chance in 2004. They were equal in talent, but just did not have the experience and togetherness that the Pistons had. In 2005, Pacers did not have the talent to beat the Pistons

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: If Ron were inevitably going to be traded...

      Using Detroit in this argument is something of a red herring IMO.

      There are teams that Ron Artest is devastating against and teams where he is almost irrelevant.

      I'll use two EC teams as examples:

      NJ - Ron makes a huge difference against NJ. He can lock down Jefferson who's a very big piece of their offense and is able to take him into the post and score (and get RJ in foul trouble) very effectively.

      Detroit - Ron doesn't matter that much against them. He can't defend Rip and while he slows Prince down, his length still gives him trouble and Detroit's a team that can compensate for any one player having a weak performance - plus Prince isn't a feature player on offense anyway. On offense Prince's length gives Ron big trouble and if he takes him into the post to use his strength, like he does vs Jefferson, Ben or Rasheed are waiting to swat the shot away.

      I'd say that against at least 20 NBA teams Ron's a huge factor, not so much against some others. If the only team you measured Ron's worth against was Detroit I agree that he may not seem that important but that's not the whole story.

      The real issue with Ron is what's between his ears. If he's sane, then what he gives you on the court is huge, and even huger related to his salary.
      The poster formerly known as Rimfire

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: If Ron were inevitably going to be traded...

        Originally posted by Unclebuck
        Jay, you and PFA are making arguments that I believe are crazy. Your theory that Ron's presense is overrated is nonsensical. If you want to argue that Ron can't be counted on or that he is a distraction. OK that is arguable, but to suggest that he is not that important is just crazy.

        PFA you seem to think that the series with the Pistons in 2004 was the same as 2005. Afterall they both ended in 6 games. So they must be the exact same. Pacers had a better chance in 2004. They were equal in talent, but just did not have the experience and togetherness that the Pistons had. In 2005, Pacers did not have the talent to beat the Pistons
        Sometime this summer, we'll re-visit your "x player means y wins" theory. I just happen to think that injuries to JO, Tinsley, Reggie & Foster had more to do with our decrease in wins and earlier playoff exit than Ron's suspensions.

        But we've both hinted that we need some time to re-charge before we get into that debate.

        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


        • #64
          Re: If Ron were inevitably going to be traded...

          Jumping in here, I'd like to add that Artest came awful close to shutting down Wade in the series against Miami two years ago - well maybe not shutting him down, but he kept Wade from taking over. That's got to count for something valuable with Miami's resurgence, doesn't it?

          I'd be content, not happy (I don't want Artest gone), with:

          Odom
          Andre Igolulandalfmda
          Joe Johnson
          James Posey (rarely mentioned, but I think he'd be a really nice fit)

          NOT Paul Pierce (effort?), NOT Shawn Marion (would he fit with the teams style, unless we become a run and gun team?), NOT Stoackavic (I know it's spelled wrong).
          "If you ever crawl inside an old hollow log and go to sleep, and while you're in there some guys come and seal up both ends and then put it on a truck and take it to another city, boy, I don't know what to tell you." - Jack Handy

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: If Ron were inevitably going to be traded...

            Originally posted by Unclebuck
            Jay, you and PFA are making arguments that I believe are crazy. Your theory that Ron's presense is overrated is nonsensical. If you want to argue that Ron can't be counted on or that he is a distraction. OK that is arguable, but to suggest that he is not that important is just crazy.

            PFA you seem to think that the series with the Pistons in 2004 was the same as 2005. Afterall they both ended in 6 games. So they must be the exact same. Pacers had a better chance in 2004. They were equal in talent, but just did not have the experience and togetherness that the Pistons had. In 2005, Pacers did not have the talent to beat the Pistons

            Not what you said back then. I clearly remember a post from you from that season where you said that Detroit was better than us & that included in the talent department. You were right then.

            What's changed now?


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

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: If Ron were inevitably going to be traded...

              Originally posted by Alabama-Redneck
              Well. I think this statement pretty well says it all about your feelings and it tells me Ron's last 2-3 years has absolutely no influence on your mindset.

              It also tells me what kind of a person you are and I really don't think I like what I see.


              Digs hole in sand. Sticks head in. NO mo problems with Ronnie!!

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: If Ron were inevitably going to be traded...

                Originally posted by Peck
                Not what you said back then. I clearly remember a post from you from that season where you said that Detroit was better than us & that included in the talent department. You were right then.

                What's changed now?

                My memory is not as good as yours. But I don't remember saying that the Pistons had more talent than the Pacers in 2004. I don't think I ever posted that. I did post that they were the better team but for reasons other than talent. Their backcourt was better, experience was better, chemistry was better, toughness was better and that is why they won. Artest basically said the same thing on the BDSS Monday night.

                I remember before the series saying that Ron and J.O were the two best players in the series. Not sure that was correct, but I did say that

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: If Ron were inevitably going to be traded...

                  Originally posted by PacerFanAdam
                  Good post.

                  Yes, his presence is EXTREMELY overrated.

                  A Pacers team with a hobbled O'Neal and Tinsley, but with a basically healthy Artest(physically that is) lost to Detroit in 6 games in 2004.(Fact)

                  A Pacers team with a hobbled O'Neal and Tinsley, with no Ron Artest at all, lost to Detroit in 6 games in 2005.(Fact)

                  We all know the guy is an amazing talent. Like Jay mentioned, he would dominate 1 on 1 play. But is antics are clearly "detrimental" to the team.

                  I don't think his postseason history is anything to brag about at all. Paul Pierce lit this team up in 2003. It was one of the worst spectacles I have seen in Pacers playoff history. In 2004, the Celts were just total garbage. Ron didn't even play in one of those games because he was suspended(suprise, suprise). In crunch time in game 6 of 04 against Det, Ron lost his cool. In 2005, the Artest-less Pacers eliminated the Celtics.

                  With a sane Artest, I believe that the Pacers could eliminate any team in the east except the Heat and the Pistons.

                  Without Artest, I believe that the Pacers could eliminate any team in the east except the Heat and the Pistons.

                  I don't think it's worth the risk to see if he can "mature" in the future. What in Ron's past makes you believe he will "mature"

                  I just don't see how one player can be more important than the entire franchise. A player who was more concerned about his rap album last year than the team. A player who was ready to quit on the team. A player that claimed that he was the "number 1". Any team that put their franchise on Ron Artest's shoulders would be sunk. The guy can play, but he has no leadership whatsoever, and has caused trouble with his teammates.

                  Again, I must emphazise that I know that Ron Artest has amazing basketball skills. But this isn't streetball in Rutgers Park(which I'm sure Ron could dominate in). This is a TEAM game, and Ron Artest's negatives clearly outweigh the positives, IMO.

                  The Pacers would be fine if they could just get SOMETHING for him. If the Pacers hopes hinge on Artest, then something is terribly wrong.
                  Definitive Post of the Year!!!!!!!!

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: If Ron were inevitably going to be traded...

                    Originally posted by foretaz
                    well i guess that i would expect a fan who wants to vent about such things to know a little more about what actually is going on....there was no rap album at all....he produced an R & B album from the female group Allure...

                    it seems you are repeating alot of things uve read versus anything that is very original....

                    if im gonna hate and vent about something id like to think id be damn sure about what i was so upset about to begin with...

                    and btw...if uve been a pacers fan for the last 10 years i would tell u that very few franchises have had the success the pacers have had over the last 10...

                    things could be much, much worse....think about it...u could live in atlanta...how u think it would be being a hawks fan....

                    youre too young to exude such hate....cheer up...its basketball....and u dont even know the guy personally....if u did...ud probably have a much different take on things....remember....hes a human too....how would u feel if someone was saying the things u are saying about someone that doesnt know u...in fact that person is saying things that simply arent true about u...how would that feel?

                    I'm pretty damn sure what I'm upset about. Ron went to Carlisle last year and said he wanted to retire. That's a fact. I'm upset that there's always something with Artest. Whether its the numerous suspensions in 02-03 for breaking cameras, flag fouls, etc.......or the suspension versus the Celts in 04. I think I know what I'm upset about.

                    To my knowledge, no one on this board knows Artest personally. All any of us do is base our opinions on what we see on the basketball court. You are making bogus claims by stating that I am attacking Ron Artest personally.

                    Ron Artest produced a Rap Album, right. That is what I was referring to. It is just as time consuming to be a producer as it is to be the actual rapper. It's his album to.

                    Yes, I have been a Pacers fan 10 years. I couldn't imagine being anything other than a Pacers fan. I'm a PACERS fan, and the Pacers franchise is more important to me than any single player. Ron Artest, IMO, has wrecked the franchise's image over the past couple of years. I don't want someone on the Pacers that is asking for time off in November to promote a rap album. I don't want someone on the Pacers that is a liability in the locker room.

                    Yes, like you said, things could be much, much worse. But they could also be much better. I could be a Lakers, Bulls, Spurs, Rockets, Pistons....Teams that have won titles over the past 10 years. Yes, the Pacers are a superior franchise to the Hawks, but at the end of the day, the Pacers don't have any rings over the past 10 years.

                    The Pacers have 4 WORTHLESS Central Division Championships and 1 Eastern Conference Championship. You have to win a championship to be an elite franchise. You earn admiration amongst other franchises for winning a ring. Conference Championships are important to fans of the team that wins one, but in the eyes of the rest of the league, a ring is all that matters.

                    Hopefully, I'll see one here in my lifetime.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: If Ron were inevitably going to be traded...

                      Originally posted by Unclebuck
                      My memory is not as good as yours. But I don't remember saying that the Pistons had more talent than the Pacers in 2004. I don't think I ever posted that. I did post that they were the better team but for reasons other than talent. Their backcourt was better, experience was better, chemistry was better, toughness was better and that is why they won. Artest basically said the same thing on the BDSS Monday night.

                      I remember before the series saying that Ron and J.O were the two best players in the series. Not sure that was correct, but I did say that

                      I'm referring to the post you made right after the trade. There was no way to know if thier chemistry was better because they hadn't played a single game yet.

                      But let's give you the rest.

                      I still ask, what has changed?

                      How has our backcourt gotten better? How have we become tougher? How have we gotten more experiance?

                      I'm not trying to be an @ss, I just want to know. If our shared goal is to get a title (which I know it is) then right now the # 1 obsticle in our way is the Pistons. How can we overcome the problems you just laid out (which I agree with)?


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

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: If Ron were inevitably going to be traded...

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck
                        Jay, you and PFA are making arguments that I believe are crazy. Your theory that Ron's presense is overrated is nonsensical. If you want to argue that Ron can't be counted on or that he is a distraction. OK that is arguable, but to suggest that he is not that important is just crazy.

                        PFA you seem to think that the series with the Pistons in 2004 was the same as 2005. Afterall they both ended in 6 games. So they must be the exact same. Pacers had a better chance in 2004. They were equal in talent, but just did not have the experience and togetherness that the Pistons had. In 2005, Pacers did not have the talent to beat the Pistons
                        If we were healthy we COULD beat them now. Give us a player for Ron and we definately could.
                        THere's nothing crazy about that.
                        He IS vastly overrated by many here. I find NO other website with so much LOVE for this head case.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: If Ron were inevitably going to be traded...

                          Originally posted by Unclebuck
                          Jay, you and PFA are making arguments that I believe are crazy. Your theory that Ron's presense is overrated is nonsensical. If you want to argue that Ron can't be counted on or that he is a distraction. OK that is arguable, but to suggest that he is not that important is just crazy.

                          PFA you seem to think that the series with the Pistons in 2004 was the same as 2005. Afterall they both ended in 6 games. So they must be the exact same. Pacers had a better chance in 2004. They were equal in talent, but just did not have the experience and togetherness that the Pistons had. In 2005, Pacers did not have the talent to beat the Pistons

                          All I said was this.....In 2004, the Pacers lost to the Pistons in 6. In 2005, the Pacers lost to the Pistons in 6. That is an indisputable fact. That's all I said.

                          In game 5 of 2004, the 3rd game at home in the series for the Pacers, they got beat pretty bad by Detroit.

                          In game 6 of 2005, the 3rd game at home in the series for the Pacers, the Pacers had the lead at halftime, had a great chance to win the game and push it to a 7th deciding game at the Palace.

                          I think that the Pacers chances of winning either series were equal in 2004 and 2005. The Pistons were the better team both years. I liked what I saw better from the 2005 Pacers team. IMO, I saw that Ron Artest was an expendable player, and if the Pacers trading him for something decent, they'd be fine in the future.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: If Ron were inevitably going to be traded...

                            For those who just want to cut our losses and get something for him. Give me some names. How does Bonzi sound. Ron's trade value is low. If Ron is traded, I'll recover, but I'll be an *** as Ron cleans up his act and helps whatever team he goes to all the while the player we got is maybe the 6th best player on the team.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: If Ron were inevitably going to be traded...

                              Originally posted by PacerFanAdam
                              I'm pretty damn sure what I'm upset about. Ron went to Carlisle last year and said he wanted to retire. That's a fact.

                              Maybe I'm taking your quote out of context, but it is not a fact that Ron ever said he wanted to retire. In fact we have articles, (Jay posted one yesterday) that does not mention retirement

                              I don't believe for one minute that he said he wanted to retire. Take some time off, yes.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: If Ron were inevitably going to be traded...

                                Originally posted by Peck
                                I'm referring to the post you made right after the trade. There was no way to know if thier chemistry was better because they hadn't played a single game yet.

                                But let's give you the rest.

                                I still ask, what has changed?

                                How has our backcourt gotten better? How have we become tougher? How have we gotten more experiance?

                                I'm not trying to be an @ss, I just want to know. If our shared goal is to get a title (which I know it is) then right now the # 1 obsticle in our way is the Pistons. How can we overcome the problems you just laid out (which I agree with)?

                                Oh, Ok, at the time of the trade, I forget what I said exactly. I could find the thread if you want me too, I might go find it because I'm a little curious now.

                                Jax is an upgrade over Reggie. Tinsley if healthy is better than two years ago,. Fred Jones is better than two years ago. Jax can defend Rip better than the players we had in 2004.

                                Our toughness and experience is better than 2004. Haven't I already posted this.

                                You don't have to make changes to become better, but we have made changes anyway. Dale and Jax both help us agaisnt the Pistons


                                Edit: here is the thread if anyone cares. I have not read the whole thread, but my first post does not discuss talent

                                http://www.pacersdigest.com/forums/showthread.php?t=900

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X