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

Sam Smith on the Pacers: Bird making major moves involving JO

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

  • Sam Smith on the Pacers: Bird making major moves involving JO

    Sam Smith might be crazy, but there is some interesting stuff in here.



    http://chicagosports.chicagotribune....sts-navigation



    INSIDE THE NBA

    2 Hall of Famers, 1 savvy GM
    Sam Smith
    On Pro Basketball

    June 12, 2006

    There's a wonderful symmetry at work with two NBA franchises. Both are run by Hall of Famers who played for the Celtics. Both have superstar-level players whose values have diminished, and both are in transition.

    But only one, the Pacers with Larry Bird, knows it's in transition. The Timberwolves with Kevin McHale don't.

    Apparently not much has changed since the 1980s when Bird and McHale combined with Robert Parish as probably the best frontcourt in NBA history. Bird was the serious, hard-driving one always looking forward to getting better. McHale had the talent, if not necessarily the vision.

    That's why the talk fast-breaking around the NBA these days is that the Pacers are pushing for major moves involving their star forward, Jermaine O'Neal, while the Timberwolves are sitting back with their star forward, Kevin Garnett, and expected to go forward with pretty much what they have.

    It remains highly unlikely that Minnesota will trade Garnett. The Timberwolves are said to be looking to move their No. 6 draft pick for a veteran to complement Garnett, though it's hard to imagine they could get someone significant at that level in this draft. With Larry Brown likely out as New York's coach, it seems the Knicks will keep Stephon Marbury. So maybe the Timberwolves will make a deal for Steve Francis, who actually could help. But they look like a team just trying to make the playoffs in Garnett's waning years. What's the point?

    The Pacers understand their situation better, which is why they've been one of the most forward-thinking franchises in the league. Rather than risk going down slowly after making the Finals in 2000, they broke up their team without falling to the bottom and quickly returned to championship contention. Because of Ron Artest and the big brawl against Detroit, the plan fell apart. They made the playoffs last season, but they understand the goals are larger. They could make the playoffs again with the team they have, but why bother?

    That's why they're said to be one of the teams talking with Toronto about a trade for the No. 1 pick. Although it has been rumored that Toronto will pick Italian 7-footer Andrea Bargnani, I don't believe that. It's clear Chris Bosh, the Raptors' star forward, doesn't want that, and priority No. 1 is extending Bosh's contract. Plus, as a first-year general manager, Bryan Colangelo probably doesn't want to take such a risk with the No. 1 pick in a draft with personnel experts saying any one of six players could justify a top pick.

    One of the rumors from Toronto has been that the Raptors would add a veteran inside player to ease the burden on Bosh and try to be a playoff team immediately. Memphis' Pau Gasol has been mentioned, and one could make a case for the Grizzlies trying to get younger and save some money with an ownership change apparently imminent. The other rumor is a deal for the Pacers' O'Neal, who could be the kind of low-post presence to ease the strain on Bosh.

    Bosh is said to be pushing for Texas forward LaMarcus Aldridge as the No. 1 pick. They're even working out together now. But it would be hard for the Raptors to say no to O'Neal, a perennial All-Star.

    The talk is the Pacers would throw in their No. 17 pick, which would give the Raptors a shot at a point guard and a team ready to compete next season. The Pacers would get back forward Charlie Villanueva, whom Colangelo is said to be willing to deal.

    There are some other factors which suggest a major Pacers' makeover.

    Pacers coach Rick Carlisle is entering the final year of his four-year contract with no extension likely. He's done a remarkable job in some respects with all the turmoil from suspensions and injuries, but Bird said at the end of the season that Carlisle "probably did lose the team" at times.

    Bird also said when he left the Pacers' coaching job after three seasons that three is probably the optimum run for a coach with one group of players. Insiders say Bird privately was lobbying for major moves last summer because he envisioned the fit wouldn't work anymore, but he was persuaded by ownership to endorse the current coaching staff. Now it seems Bird has been vindicated and will have a freer hand to make moves.

    One rumor is the Pacers would take Gonzaga guard/forward Adam Morrison at No. 1 if they made the deal. But it seems more likely they'd try to re-sign Peja Stojakovic and draft a big man, probably Aldridge, to pair with Villanueva, and then move Stephen Jackson and Jamaal Tinsley and be back in contention sooner than many would expect.

    The Timberwolves could do something similar, though I'm convinced they won't. In fact, the way the NBA is going these days with the perimeter dominance, if I were the Bulls I'm not sure I'd even want Garnett anymore and probably would just use my draft picks. But if Minnesota could get both first-round picks and a player, say Ben Gordon or Luol Deng, for Garnett, wouldn't they have to consider that? It would give them an exciting young nucleus. But, heck, if you can get to eighth in the West, why change?

    All that Jazz

    The Jazz finally got Brigham Young star Rafael Araujo, whom the Raptors took No. 8 in 2004. Araujo doesn't figure to be a starter, but he's a big body to help with Greg Ostertag having retired. And the Raptors could get something out of Kris Humphries, who never got a chance with Carlos Boozer and Mehmet Okur signed after that draft. The Jazz, though, continues to look at big men, suggesting it might have a deal for Boozer. The Jazz is said to be looking at Bradley's Patrick O'Bryant, UConn's Hilton Armstong, Duke's Shelden Williams--whose workouts hint he might go top 10--and Saer Sena, the 7-footer from Senegal who impressed Karl Malone in a workout. Said Malone: "He's hungry; he didn't start playing until 2003."

    Addition by subtraction

    Maybe the NBA should just disband several franchises and make a stronger league. How about Charlotte, Memphis, Atlanta and Portland to start?

    The Bobcats have now run out their president, chief operating officer and marketing head in the last two weeks amid declining ticket sales despite a new arena. The Trail Blazers remain for sale, and bankruptcy even has been mentioned. The Grizzlies are for sale, and there's talk of a group including former NBA player Christian Laettner coming in and cutting back. And last week a Maryland judge ruled in favor of former Atlanta part-owner Steve Belkin's claim that he be allowed to buy out the partners who ran him out, setting up more appeals and a franchise in chaos. Then there's Seattle for sale and seeking a new arena and the Jazz talking of losing millions annually.

    Hey, but it's been a good playoffs.

    Mile-high news

    Shawn Kemp gave himself a positive review after working out for the Nuggets at a free-agent camp. He told Denver reporters: "I wanted to make it through every drill, through every play and not come up hurt, not take any plays off, and I was able to do that. I actually surprised myself with my speed. I ran better than most of the big guys here." Kemp, who hasn't played since 2002-03, said he'll work out for Dallas. . . .

    Denver coach George Karl says he hasn't spoken to Kenyon Martin since he suspended Martin in the playoffs. Said Karl: "We have a frontcourt situation which Kenyon, Marcus (Camby), Nene, Carmelo (Anthony) all want to be paid $10 million. You can't have that. So there's going to have to be some cleaning out there."

    Double dribbles

    Gonzaga's Morrison says not to worry about his diabetes and mentions players who succeeded with the disease, like Chris Dudley in basketball, Bobby Clarke in hockey and Ron Santo in baseball. Bobcats coach Bernie Bickerstaff was so impressed with Morrison's workout that he said Morrison might not get to them at No. 3. . . . Former Bull Jason Williams, trying to come back from his 2003 motorcycle accident, has worked out for or is expected to see the Raptors, Grizzlies and Nets. . . . Rockets coach Jeff Van Gundy said on New York radio that his relationship with Heat coach Pat Riley has been strained with the early-season departure of his brother, Stan as Miami coach. Jeff added: "I don't think they're any better coached this year than they have been in the last two years with Stan."

    Finals thoughts

    Something special about this year's Finals is two guys we didn't expect to see there, Magic Johnson and Alonzo Mourning. Johnson, who 15 years ago was diagnosed with the AIDS virus, worked for TNT leading up to the Finals and remains the NBA's No. 1 ambassador. Mourning, in his first Finals with the Heat, was diagnosed with kidney disease six years ago and had a transplant.

    "Everyone thought I was going to die, like a year later," Johnson, 46, told CNN in an interview earlier this year. "Most people who are healthy, and I'm healthy, can't even live my life. Trust me. I get up at 5:30, 6 every morning. I run a couple of miles. I lift weights, and then I'm at work until 8, 9 at night. The only time I think about HIV is when I have to take my medicine twice a day."

    Said Mourning: "I give everything I've got. It ain't a matter of pacing myself. I just go as hard as I can. Tomorrow isn't guaranteed."

    "Next year isn't guaranteed. It's not guaranteed this team will be together. Who knows?"
    Copyright © 2006, The Chicago Tribune

  • #2
    Re: Sam Smith on the Pacers: Bird making major moves

    Nice find UB... forgetting this is Sam Smith for a moment , there does seem to be a ring of truth to at least portions of the article... and if Bird still truly feels that he was unable to make "Major Moves" last summer, who else could that be in reference too but JO and or Tinsley..

    edit: or I guess he could of been referencing Artest,even though it would appear he was in Ronnie's corner publically.

    Although giving up both our 17th and JO for Villanueva and the 1 does not make sense Money wise,not to speak of how it does not match up talent wise..

    Dollars wise Toronto could trade
    Villanueva, Mike James, Mo Pete, Alvin Williams and their #1
    for Jo and the 17th pick.. strictly numbers wise that matches up. unless I am missing something in regards to Toronto being under the cap ?

    Why Not Us ?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Sam Smith on the Pacers: Bird making major moves

      In regards to Bird wanting to make major moves last summer (which I think is the most newsworthy portion of the article) if you remember last summer right after the season, Bird was very critical of JO suggesting that he really needs to stand up and be the leader. I was surprised Bird said that in the media, but that might add a little credence to what Sam is writing here.

      And we pretty much know that JO was offered for Bosh last summer. We also learned that Jax, JO, went to TPTB and asked they keep the team together, and we know that the owners liked Ron a lot.

      You add everything up now, and yes it is very believeable that Bird wanted to make major moved last summer but was more or less talked out of it. Well that's history now, but what that means is he will make major moves this summer.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Sam Smith on the Pacers: Bird making major moves involving JO

        We've been told somewhere that the Simons have put the kibosh on moving Artest in the past. Was that supposedly last summer or was that the summer prior to the brawl (following Artest's playoff meltdown)?

        BTW... I thought the local media has always told us the Simons were 'hands off' kind of owners and let the basketball people run the team?

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

        ------

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

        -John Wooden

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Sam Smith on the Pacers: Bird making major moves involving JO

          The other rumor is a deal for the Pacers' O'Neal, who could be the kind of low-post presence to ease the strain on Bosh
          Is this what jermO meant when he said he could use some help from a big man?
          Don't thank me, I'll kill ya.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Sam Smith on the Pacers: Bird making major moves

            Originally posted by Unclebuck
            Well that's history now, but what that means is he will make major moves this summer.
            Let us hope so anyway...

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

            ------

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

            -John Wooden

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Sam Smith on the Pacers: Bird making major moves involving JO

              You never know for sure what this team is going to do until it's done. That's just the way its always been. It's frustrating the way this franchise keeps everyone snowed. We have been hearing "BIG MOVES BIG MOVES BIG MOVES!!!" for at least the last three off seasons and what have we gotten? Brad for Scot and Al for Stephen. Not exactly blockbusters. I don't count the Artest for Peja deal because it was during the season and wouldn't have happened if it hadn't been forced upon us by he who we do not speak of. Hell, the only strokes of luck this franchise has gotten the last couple years was helping Reggie make it to the playoffs in his final season (which that was more heart than luck) and snagging Granger in last years draft (definitely luck and great scouting). All in all the only thing we can do is sit back and pray that Donnie and Larry make the right decisions and hope we are happy with those decisions.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Sam Smith on the Pacers: Bird making major moves involving JO

                Wait a minute, I just read this part again

                Insiders say Bird privately was lobbying for major moves last summer because he envisioned the fit wouldn't work anymore, but he was persuaded by ownership to endorse the current coaching staff. Now it seems Bird has been vindicated and will have a freer hand to make moves.


                And it is less clear to me now. Something doesn't make sense. The part I have in bold. When was he pursuaded to endorse the current coaching staff? Last summer or this summer. When I first read that I thought the major moves were in regards to player moves, but if you re-read that it is talking about coaching staff.

                I need Bball to read between the lines here.

                Why can't these professional writers be more clear.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Sam Smith on the Pacers: Bird making major moves involving JO

                  I'm all for major moves but not involving JO, unless it involves getting a clearly better player here for him.

                  I'd love getting KG.

                  I don't think JO is a top 10 player, but he is solidly in the 12-20 range with the ability to be a top 10 player when healthy and well-motivated, and thus far above offers like Villanueva and a high draft pick in a crappy draft.

                  Trading a top 15 player for two in the 75-100 range is not a good move, EVER.
                  The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Sam Smith on the Pacers: Bird making major moves involving JO

                    Originally posted by Bball
                    We've been told somewhere that the Simons have put the kibosh on moving Artest in the past. Was that supposedly last summer or was that the summer prior to the brawl (following Artest's playoff meltdown)?

                    BTW... I thought the local media has always told us the Simons were 'hands off' kind of owners and let the basketball people run the team?

                    -Bball
                    There was an article sometime after Ron was traded February (or was in in either MM or Wells Q&A about how the owners did not want to trade Artest)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Sam Smith on the Pacers: Bird making major moves involving JO

                      If this is true, then it is refreshing. This means that Bird is not buying into the "minor tweaks" theory. I'm not saying that JO and the 17th for CV3 and the 1st is a good trade, but the idea that Larry is not happy with the team is refreshing.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Sam Smith on the Pacers: Bird making major moves involving JO

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck
                        Wait a minute, I just read this part again

                        Insiders say Bird privately was lobbying for major moves last summer because he envisioned the fit wouldn't work anymore, but he was persuaded by ownership to endorse the current coaching staff. Now it seems Bird has been vindicated and will have a freer hand to make moves.


                        And it is less clear to me now. Something doesn't make sense. The part I have in bold. When was he pursuaded to endorse the current coaching staff? Last summer or this summer. When I first read that I thought the major moves were in regards to player moves, but if you re-read that it is talking about coaching staff.

                        I need Bball to read between the lines here.

                        Why can't these professional writers be more clear.

                        I wondered about that too UB. Re-reading that you get the feeling Bird was ready to insert a new coaching staff LAST year and was told NO. I can't imagine that inserting Kevin O'Neal was how he wanted to change the staff either. But then again you have to ask yourself, "Just how much does this writer really know about the Pacer situation?"
                        Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Sam Smith on the Pacers: Bird making major moves involving JO

                          Last year is when we had Mike Brown who now coach's Cleveland. I liked the coaching staff better with him. In fact I thought everyone did.

                          Another thought, according to this it's the Simon's that want to go slow. Peck and others have always blamed Donnie for not making fast enough changes, but now an argument could be made that the team is run the way the Simon's want it run.

                          Next year when Donnie's contract is up will be interesting. I think the Simon's will make every effort to keep him because he seems to accept the Simon's pace whereas Bird doesn't.

                          Interesting article! Very interesting! Good post UB!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Sam Smith on the Pacers: Bird making major moves involving JO

                            If we are going to move JO to move up in the draft,

                            I wonder if Houston would part with McGrady and their #8 for JO and our #17.

                            We take the risk of T-Mac's back blowing up, but we draft a solid PG at #8 and start:

                            Jeff or Hulk
                            Danny
                            Peja
                            TMac
                            AJ/rookie PG

                            I could go for that if docs clear T-Mac.
                            The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Sam Smith on the Pacers: Bird making major moves involving JO

                              Originally posted by Unclebuck
                              Wait a minute, I just read this part again

                              Insiders say Bird privately was lobbying for major moves last summer because he envisioned the fit wouldn't work anymore, but he was persuaded by ownership to endorse the current coaching staff. Now it seems Bird has been vindicated and will have a freer hand to make moves.


                              I need Bball to read between the lines here.

                              Why can't these professional writers be more clear.
                              Maybe Larry told the Simons something like: "We're in trouble. This collection of players is not going to mesh. They will make life very difficult for Rick and make his job impossible"

                              The Simons: "Larry, we don't make trades for the sake of trades. When we all decide there is a problem then we'll take some time to decide the best direction and address it a few months later once we talk to Donnie and we all can agree it's time to make a move... or thereabouts. Nothing rash. We don't won't to jump the gun. Isn't that right, Donnie?"

                              Donnie "Patience... We must have patience"

                              The Simons "So Larry, why don't you just make sure and endorse Rick and get his back so these players know who is boss"



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

                              ------

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

                              -John Wooden

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X