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

Mike Kahn on why McMillian left Seattle

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

    Mike Kahn on why McMillian left Seattle

    I find this fascinating. But then, most of you aren't coaching groupies, so you probably won't.

    McMillan's move about more than money
    Story Tools: Print Email

    Mike Kahn / Special to FOXSports.com
    Posted: 18 hours ago




    		This is for all the lonely fired head coaches, thinking that NBA life has passed them by.

    Nate McMillan proved why you never give up.Believe whatever you want, but when McMillan told the world Wednesday night he was turning down the four-year, $18 million offer from the Seattle SuperSonics to accept what is believed to be a five-year, $30 million deal to move down I-5 to coach the loathed Portland Trail Blazers, it was not just about the difference in money.

    It was about respect, or a lack thereof from the Sonics.

    Sure, his heart is in Seattle, just not with the Sonics.

    With Nate McMillan now in Portland, the Northwest Division is full of coaches with former ties to the Sonics. (Jeff Reinking / Getty Images)


    McMillan and his wife Michelle became adults there. Drafted in the second round of the 1986 draft, it's the only NBA organization he has worked for — 12 as a player, the last seven as a coach. And it's been the last four-plus seasons as head coach that the bitter reality of having to leave sunk in.

    It came to a head on media day last October before the 2004-05 season would begin. It was a season with a virtual lame duck team — starting with general manager Rick Sund, the entire coaching staff and eight players, including superstar Ray Allen. But it had begun 19 months earlier when his former teammate and friend Gary Payton was traded with Desmond Mason to Milwaukee for Allen, Kevin Ollie, Flip Murray and a first-round draft choice.

    It ended up being a good trade, but it was the beginning of mixed messages that nearly destroyed a first-time head coach in McMillan. The move transformed the Sonics from a defensive-oriented team to no identity at all, with this lack of direction at the heart of why they had missed the playoffs four out of six years — their worst run in 30 years.

    So when owner Howard Schultz and team president Wally Walker had the gall to tell the media they expected to be in the 2005 playoffs with this lame duck team that was virtually unchanged from the 37-45 group of the previous season, McMillan knew he was being set up. His associate head coach, Dwane Casey knew it too. This came a few months after the drafting of high school center Robert Swift, whom they had never even seen play.

    It was not lost on McMillan nor Casey, both of whom are African-American, that the Sonics had just had four No. 1 picks over the past three drafts in the top 14. All four of those picks were white players.

    "I just feel bad for Nate," Casey said at media day. "He doesn't deserve this."

    Trumpeted as "Mr. Sonic," by the Sonics marketing department, his No. 10 jersey in the rafters, it was a horrid time for McMillan. When approached by the cameras and throng of reporters, he said he was going into the season with the idea of making the playoffs too. But his eyes told a different story for those who know him well.

    Minutes later, he had to leave the gym and get some fresh air.

    He was hot — physically and mentally.

    "Can you believe that bleep?" McMillan said. "I guess I should at this point. There is no trust at all."

    He already knew it, though. That just happened to be the day it became public and McMillan began preparing himself to leave the Sonics.

    It made him sick the way Payton — a sure-fire Hall-of-Famer and best player in franchise history — was run out of town by ownership with rude commentary to the media. The makeup of the team was changing so fast, along with marching orders regarding whom to play; he lost his sense of balance. Often times during the 2003-04 season that ended with their worst record in 17 years, you could even see it on Michelle McMillan's face.

    "This is just killing Nate," she said. "I don't know how much longer he can do this."

    He contemplated resigning, but McMillan, 40, is anything but a quitter. Not the guy who played on horribly arthritic knees his entire career. So on this unseasonably warm October day outside the Sonics practice facility, McMillan put his jacket back on, stuck his chin out and marched back in.

    Eight months later, he had coached the Sonics to a 52-win season, a Northwest Division title and into the sixth game of the conference semifinals with a physically fractured but mentally tough team against the eventual champion San Antonio Spurs.

    He didn't prove ownership to be right about the team. He proved them wrong about himself (finishing second in coach of the year vote), Casey, and what the future would hold. Midway through the extraordinary season that shocked the NBA, the front office started making noise about a contract extension.

    That was a laugh.

    Oh, now they want an extension.

    His agent, Lonnie Cooper, said thanks but no thanks. Funny how quickly the tables had turned. He knew teams would line up after the season was over. The buzz was out there quickly from Cleveland, Minnesota, Detroit, the Los Angeles Lakers, just to name a few. And all the while Blazers owner Paul Allen was sitting in his Lake Washington compound — some 15 minutes from KeyArena — watching this happen to McMillan up close while rebuilding his young team.

    But Walker wouldn't give McMillan permission to talk to anybody until just a few days before his contract ended June 30. Meanwhile, they did allow Casey to interview in Portland and Minnesota, and the Timberwolves hired him. Not incidentally, Casey took another top Sonics assistant, Dean Demopoulos, with him.

    None of it mattered to McMillan. On the night of the June 28 draft, he played it cool. With most of Seattle convinced his heart and inherent loyalty would prevent him from leaving, there was something about his demeanor. He wouldn't talk about his coaching status as he was hustled in and out of the media room.

    He just winked in a stolen moment and said, "You never know."

    When Allen agreed to a five-year, $80 million deal Tuesday, most assumed that McMillan's deal was done too. Not so. They were always mutually exclusive. The two respected each other as a coach and star player, but there was frequent friction over a number of issues. Besides, Allen is an offensive player. McMillan is grounded in defense. They never quite clicked.

    But that's not why Wednesday night the Sonics began their hunt for a new coach while McMillan was preparing himself to be introduced Thursday in Portland's Washington Park. Whether the Sonics hire Marc Iavaroni, Terry Porter, P.J. Carlesimo or somebody else, doesn't matter. Ironically, Casey was his logical successor and now he's in Minnesota with Demopoulos.

    And that's why this story isn't about money.

    This is about how NBA teams, circa 2005, don't respect their coaches.

    This is about how coaches too often take the fall for spoiled star players.

    This is about how coaches are hung out to dry by upper management covering their posteriors.

    This is about how the Sonics will have a new coach facing in his own division: McMillan in Portland, Casey in Minnesota and that's not to mention Denver Nuggets coach George Karl, who was also run out of town in an unkindly fashion by Walker.

    It won't be pretty.

    In other words, hail to the legion of NBA coaches. They deserved this and a lot more.

    Veteran NBA writer Mike Kahn is a frequent contributor to FOXSports.com.
    Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Mike Kahn on why McMillian left Seattle

    Me thinks Seattle is in trouble. Nate may not turn Portland around this season, but if he gets the young guys to buy into playing defense they should do o.k. Imagine how good Randoph could be if he gets really motivated.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Mike Kahn on why McMillian left Seattle

      Has Allen signed that contract yet?

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Mike Kahn on why McMillian left Seattle

        Originally posted by Harmonica
        Has Allen signed that contract yet?
        now...i thought u would know these things........noone signs anything till july 22...if hes smart, he will reconsider....i dont think he really wants to play on a loser the rest of his career

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Mike Kahn on why McMillian left Seattle

          Originally posted by foretaz
          now...i thought u would know these things........noone signs anything till july 22...if hes smart, he will reconsider....i dont think he really wants to play on a loser the rest of his career
          I don't think it matters who the coach is, Ray just wants his money. He'll stay in Seattle.
          You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Mike Kahn on why McMillian left Seattle

            Originally posted by foretaz
            now...i thought u would know these things........noone signs anything till july 22...if hes smart, he will reconsider....i dont think he really wants to play on a loser the rest of his career
            Why would I know these things?

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Mike Kahn on why McMillian left Seattle

              Since when has Ray Allen gave you any indication that he wants to be a winner?

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Mike Kahn on why McMillian left Seattle

                Yeah, if Ray is "smart," he'll turn down that $85 million offer from seattle and look elsewhere.....

                huh?

                No, the stupid thing would be to re-think signing a deal that's $20 million more than he'll be getting anywhere else.

                Seattle isn't a winner? Huh? Do they not have Ridnour, Lewis, Radmonovic and Allen all coming back? Exactly how are they not a winner?

                It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Mike Kahn on why McMillian left Seattle

                  Here we go again.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Mike Kahn on why McMillian left Seattle

                    They have yet to resign Radmonovic. Not to mention they need to sign/replace James, and Daniels. If they don't make the right moves they could backslide in a hurry. Especially if the Lakers and Minnisota get better.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Mike Kahn on why McMillian left Seattle

                      Originally posted by SycamoreKen
                      They have yet to resign Radmonovic. Not to mention they need to sign/replace James, and Daniels. If they don't make the right moves they could backslide in a hurry. Especially if the Lakers and Minnisota get better.

                      They've made a qualifyng offer to Radmonovic. They can match any offer for him.

                      James and Daniels aren't going to make the difference between them winning 52 games and not making the playoffs.

                      It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                      Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                      Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                      NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Mike Kahn on why McMillian left Seattle

                        Who is going to play center if they don't sign James? Swift? Also, Daniels played big in their playoff run. Their ownership seems to be on the cheap side, so will they be willing to pay what they need to keep the team competitive.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Mike Kahn on why McMillian left Seattle

                          Why did Kahn have to throw in the race card? *sigh*

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Mike Kahn on why McMillian left Seattle

                            Originally posted by SycamoreKen
                            Who is going to play center if they don't sign James? Swift? Also, Daniels played big in their playoff run. Their ownership seems to be on the cheap side, so will they be willing to pay what they need to keep the team competitive.
                            Who played center for them last year? Jerome James? It's not like it will matter much. I'd rather get Swift some game experience than re-sign that bum.

                            Any team with Ridnour, Lewis, Radmonovic and Allen will be competitive. They will have their 4 best players back, and two of them are all-stars. The rest can be replaced. They'll lose a little depth in Daniels, but that's it.

                            It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                            Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                            Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                            NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Mike Kahn on why McMillian left Seattle

                              seattle needs to trade lewis for 2-3 quality players. i've watched for 4 years as seattle has had this quandry at SF. lewis and radmanovic play the same position. i like lewis but radmanovic is solid too and cheaper, he needs to be starting. lewis' value is pretty high right now and seattle needs some depth really badly......it would also let radmanovic finally start.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X