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

Kyrie asked to be traded

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

  • Re: Kyrie asked to be traded

    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
    And I'm saying massive fines will not change a thing. Maybe you are the one confused. Fines only apply to public trade demands.

    Massive fines don't fix the Durant situation. They do not fix the Paul George situation. They do not fix leaks where the league cannot prove said player allowed that information to become public.

    So, I'm actually trying to steer you away from what you think is a solution....which will do nothing.
    You said it was hard to prove where the leaks came from, that has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

    Now you're talking about the Durant situation, which may or may not need to be a problem discussed at the next CBA, but again now what we're talking about in the Kyrie Irving trade request thread.

    So, like I said you are confused. Kyrie and Paul told their teams they didn't want to be on their teams. So proving a leak has nothing to do with that. And if I'm the owners I put in trade request clauses just as massive as the trade kickers. And if the contract is multiple years maybe more.

    If you think forfeiting 10s of millions will not solve the problem of players requesting trade, well at least the franchise saves some money.
    Last edited by freddielewis14; 07-23-2017, 06:07 PM.

    Comment


    • Re: Kyrie asked to be traded

      Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
      You said it was hard to prove where the leaks came from, that has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

      Now you're talking about the Durant situation, which may or may not need to be a problem discussed at the next CBA, but again now what we're talking about in the Kyrie Irving trade request thread.

      So, like I said you are confused. Kyrie and Paul told their teams they didn't want to be on their teams. So proving a leak has nothing to do with that. And if I'm the owners I put in trade request clauses just as massive as the trade kickers. And if the contract is multiple years maybe more.

      If you think forfeiting 10s of millions will not solve the problem of players requesting trade, well at least the franchise saves some money.
      OK. So you are not talking about public trade demands, but private trade demands between the player and the franchise? What exactly would a massive fine on a private trade demand accomplish? If it's kept private, it doesn't change the player's market value. If he wants out anyway, letting the franchise know that might actually reduce the chance it leaks and help the franchise move a demotivated player.

      The question is, what exactly would a billion dollar fine on a private trade demand accomplish?

      Edit: BTW, this is why only public trade demands currently result in a fine.
      Last edited by BlueNGold; 07-23-2017, 06:36 PM.

      Comment


      • Re: Kyrie asked to be traded

        Honestly I don't think we need a forced correction to this. We happen to be in a relatively recent era in which players are into the latest fad. The idea of a "big 3" and "teaming up" seems like something but as was pointed out when Boston did it, all you were doing was replicating exactly what the Celtics, Lakers, Sixers and Rockets of the 80s looked like, which is why those 4 kept showing up in the Finals...only to be followed by the Pistons and the Bulls that looked very similar.

        So it's a spin on an old concept, perhaps achieved through different means. But regardless it was shiny and titles were involved. It's a lot like how GMs went "GET ME CAP SPACE" nuts after Shaq left for LA. However that era is coming to a crawl after teams like Detroit, Chicago, New York and Brooklyn all destroyed themselves trying to pursue it.

        The point is that it always takes some failures to take the luster off the hot new thing. In this case the failures will be as these "team-ups" start to not pan out, as guys find themselves playing in situations they don't like after thinking it would be so great to play with friend X or just star Y (see Kyrie himself now). In fact the Cavs example is one of the best because its perhaps the first true big 3 where it was very assembled and did have some success, but has spent much of the time being problematic and having one star throwing the rest of the big 3 under the bus.

        And when you look at how Miami came to a close, and how the Bulls Wade/Butler/Rondo thing went, you start to see examples where players are finding the team-up to be bit less palatable in practice.

        Double this with what is clearly about to happen over the next 2 seasons - several West teams all trying to be the superstar big 3 type where only one of them can pan out. Meanwhile the horde of talent means some guys (see PG for starters) will NOT be able to make the AS team and will not be getting out of round 1 or round 2 at best. Losses lead to blame, and missing AS games while your teammate doesn't leads to jealousy. Sharing the limelight is easy when there is plenty to go around. Everyone takes a pay cut to win it all, no one takes a pay cut to come in 5th.

        I think Irving is just the beginning of players starting to rethink the team-up idea. This doesn't mean it stops, just that they will become less cavalier (no pun intended) about their choices. You've got to really trust the other guys, the franchise and the situation, and even then it's a huge risk to undercut your own financial and corporate status (ie, undercut your stardom).

        A lot of these players just haven't learned the lesson yet. Most of them are still just thinking about the images of winning the lottery, not of a pile of discarded scratchoffs from the not-pictured failures.




        This is why I would hate for the league to wedge in a rules change before the issue has had time to play itself out. You might as well fine players for fidget spinners too....or just wait 16 months.

        Comment


        • Re: Kyrie asked to be traded

          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
          OK. So you are not talking about public trade demands, but private trade demands between the player and the franchise? What exactly would a massive fine on a private trade demand accomplish? If it's kept private, it doesn't change the player's market value. If he wants out anyway, letting the franchise know that might actually reduce the chance it leaks and help the franchise move a demotivated player.

          The question is, what exactly would a billion dollar fine on a private trade demand accomplish?

          Edit: BTW, this is why only public trade demands currently result in a fine.
          Trade demands always become public, that's the point. If the team doesn't get word from the player, they dismiss the rumors and/or get max value. So what this does is make it so a player/agent doesn't formally request a trade and thus a team gets more value. Or they do request a trade and a team saves money.

          It's really simple, it's the same as a trade kicker but the opposite.

          If you think a private trade demand exists you're living in a dream world.

          Comment


          • Re: Kyrie asked to be traded

            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
            These millennial players are so sensitive lol. That's such a stupid reason to leave a team you've been to three straight Finals with, if true.
            Some people just said how awful it is that Irving isn't loyal to his team. How about the team not even letting him know they're shopping him? Why does loyalty only go one way. Players should be committed to staying with one team for their entire career, but management can send out players whenever the whim strikes.

            Imagine your boss told you that they don't want you anymore and you have to go work for a different branch in Detroit, effective immediately.

            Now, imagine you tell your boss that you're looking into other companies, because you want to make more money, move to another city, explore other opportunities, etc.

            Which one of these is more upsetting, and more of a breach of loyalty?

            Comment


            • Re: Kyrie asked to be traded

              Originally posted by LongTimePacerFan View Post
              Some people just said how awful it is that Irving isn't loyal to his team. How about the team not even letting him know they're shopping him? Why does loyalty only go one way. Players should be committed to staying with one team for their entire career, but management can send out players whenever the whim strikes.

              Imagine your boss told you that they don't want you anymore and you have to go work for a different branch in Detroit, effective immediately.

              Now, imagine you tell your boss that you're looking into other companies, because you want to make more money, move to another city, explore other opportunities, etc.

              Which one of these is more upsetting, and more of a breach of loyalty?
              I'm not sure that example is accurate, the NBA has a labor union.

              They negotiate - the owners pay and the players play.

              Comment


              • Re: Kyrie asked to be traded

                Thank you KP for improving the moral of our Pacers while destroying it on our opponents teams lol

                Comment


                • Re: Kyrie asked to be traded

                  Kyrie's promise to fans few years ago lol


                  https://instagram.com/p/BW6IuM7DW8a/
                  @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                  Comment


                  • Re: Kyrie asked to be traded

                    Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                    Trade demands always become public, that's the point. If the team doesn't get word from the player, they dismiss the rumors and/or get max value. So what this does is make it so a player/agent doesn't formally request a trade and thus a team gets more value. Or they do request a trade and a team saves money.

                    It's really simple, it's the same as a trade kicker but the opposite.

                    If you think a private trade demand exists you're living in a dream world.
                    Request or demand a trade? I actually don't think it matters which is why I brought up leaks when you started talking about massive fines that will not work. Here are the 4 scenarios and why leaks are always going to be a problem which is why massive fines will never work.

                    1) Massive fine for private trade demand
                    Result: Leaks

                    2) Massive fine for public trade demand
                    Result: Leaks

                    3) Massive fine for private trade request
                    Result: Leaks

                    4) Massive fine for public trade request
                    Result: Leaks
                    Last edited by BlueNGold; 07-23-2017, 08:26 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Kyrie asked to be traded

                      A better approach is to form a committee that determines the top 25 or 50 players in the league. If any of those players are acquired, the receiving team would be penalized in some way. Maybe a pick is taken. Maybe a handicap is applied to games similar to golf or bowling. Maybe the team must hand their next best player, as determined by the committee, to the weakest team in the conference. However, if a star player is acquired in what is determined to be a legitimate trade for value, the trade is allowed to go through. If nefarious activity or a player just walks to a contender, said contender is castrated. Maybe that team's best player goes to their primary competition.

                      There are hundreds of ways to skin this cat. I'm sure there are many better ways, but fines are not the answer. The NBA just needs to decide to do something about it. So far, they would prefer counting their money. Most of the
                      NBA, owners, players, etc. could not care less about the product.

                      Edit: Here are a few examples:

                      1) Durant walks to GS. That means Curry must sign with San Antonio. I don't think GS does that, primarily because it would make the Spurs just about unstoppable.
                      2) Paul walks to LA. LA's top pick goes to Indiana. LA might do that. But Indiana walks away with good value.
                      3) LeBron goes to LA. Paul goes to the Rockets. LA might do that. But they will not have a super team with only one superstar. Every time they acquire another star, they lose one to another team. Doesn't have to be their main competition, but perhaps any playoff team in their division.

                      Say a team benefitting is a contender. Double down on this. Assign a handicap of 3ppg to their competition the entire year. Make them sit their star player every 3 games. You know they like rest, right?
                      Last edited by BlueNGold; 07-23-2017, 08:58 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Kyrie asked to be traded

                        About the only change needed i think needed is allowing teams to franchise a player. Just one per team would probably solve a lot of the super team issue.
                        If that does not then go to two.
                        The goal is to allow teams to keep their best player and also to stop the Thunder-GS fiasco from happening again.
                        On a lesser level Miami.
                        But as Seth noted maybe this is just a fad. I do not think so. Plus it is the less desirable locations(ie Indy) that have their title chances significantly reduced.
                        {o,o}
                        |)__)
                        -"-"-

                        Comment


                        • Re: Kyrie asked to be traded

                          There's nothing saying the Cavs have to trade Kyrie Irving. They could tell him "Tough. You have two years on your contract and we're not trading you."

                          The Pacers could have done the same thing with Paul George.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Kyrie asked to be traded

                            Originally posted by owl View Post
                            About the only change needed i think needed is allowing teams to franchise a player. Just one per team would probably solve a lot of the super team issue.
                            If that does not then go to two.
                            The goal is to allow teams to keep their best player and also to stop the Thunder-GS fiasco from happening again.
                            On a lesser level Miami.
                            But as Seth noted maybe this is just a fad. I do not think so. Plus it is the less desirable locations(ie Indy) that have their title chances significantly reduced.
                            That's a really simple approach that might work. The only issue is...what does a team do when their franchise player doesn't want to play for them? No mobility? Mobility has always been a complaint among players and those fans who support that. I'm trying to respect players' interest in mobility while solving the problem. Basically, putting the thumb on the scale under certain situations. Yes, that would potentially influence decisions but it's better than not allowing any movement.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Kyrie asked to be traded

                              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                              Request or demand a trade? I actually don't think it matters which is why I brought up leaks when you started talking about massive fines that will not work. Here are the 4 scenarios and why leaks are always going to be a problem which is why massive fines will never work.

                              1) Massive fine for private trade demand
                              Result: Leaks

                              2) Massive fine for public trade demand
                              Result: Leaks

                              3) Massive fine for private trade request
                              Result: Leaks

                              4) Massive fine for public trade request
                              Result: Leaks
                              You're still confused, what I'm saying has absolutely nothing to do with leaks. I'm saying that teams should have the same contract option players do. A trade kicker means a players contract costs more if he is traded, I'm saying the reverse protection for teams. Why the hell you keep talking about leaks I have no idea.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Kyrie asked to be traded

                                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                                Honestly I don't think we need a forced correction to this. We happen to be in a relatively recent era in which players are into the latest fad. The idea of a "big 3" and "teaming up" seems like something but as was pointed out when Boston did it, all you were doing was replicating exactly what the Celtics, Lakers, Sixers and Rockets of the 80s looked like, which is why those 4 kept showing up in the Finals...only to be followed by the Pistons and the Bulls that looked very similar.

                                So it's a spin on an old concept, perhaps achieved through different means. But regardless it was shiny and titles were involved. It's a lot like how GMs went "GET ME CAP SPACE" nuts after Shaq left for LA. However that era is coming to a crawl after teams like Detroit, Chicago, New York and Brooklyn all destroyed themselves trying to pursue it.

                                The point is that it always takes some failures to take the luster off the hot new thing. In this case the failures will be as these "team-ups" start to not pan out, as guys find themselves playing in situations they don't like after thinking it would be so great to play with friend X or just star Y (see Kyrie himself now). In fact the Cavs example is one of the best because its perhaps the first true big 3 where it was very assembled and did have some success, but has spent much of the time being problematic and having one star throwing the rest of the big 3 under the bus.

                                And when you look at how Miami came to a close, and how the Bulls Wade/Butler/Rondo thing went, you start to see examples where players are finding the team-up to be bit less palatable in practice.

                                Double this with what is clearly about to happen over the next 2 seasons - several West teams all trying to be the superstar big 3 type where only one of them can pan out. Meanwhile the horde of talent means some guys (see PG for starters) will NOT be able to make the AS team and will not be getting out of round 1 or round 2 at best. Losses lead to blame, and missing AS games while your teammate doesn't leads to jealousy. Sharing the limelight is easy when there is plenty to go around. Everyone takes a pay cut to win it all, no one takes a pay cut to come in 5th.

                                I think Irving is just the beginning of players starting to rethink the team-up idea. This doesn't mean it stops, just that they will become less cavalier (no pun intended) about their choices. You've got to really trust the other guys, the franchise and the situation, and even then it's a huge risk to undercut your own financial and corporate status (ie, undercut your stardom).

                                A lot of these players just haven't learned the lesson yet. Most of them are still just thinking about the images of winning the lottery, not of a pile of discarded scratchoffs from the not-pictured failures.




                                This is why I would hate for the league to wedge in a rules change before the issue has had time to play itself out. You might as well fine players for fidget spinners too....or just wait 16 months.
                                I agree. I think this is just a phase and the NBA changes pretty quickly.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X