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

Golden State Warriors Thread

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

  • Re: Golden State Warriors Thread

    The moral of the story?


    Stephan Jackson ruins everything he touches.












    Oh and don't call refs "****in idiots"
    STARBURY

    08 and Beyond

    Comment


    • Re: Golden State Warriors Thread

      If you go up to a ref and say "*Name*, you're a ****ing idiot." You deserve a T any time.

      Comment


      • Re: Golden State Warriors Thread

        Originally posted by Hicks View Post
        If you go up to a ref and say "*Name*, you're a ****ing idiot." You deserve a T any time.
        ESPECIALLY whn u play teh Wiz.
        STARBURY

        08 and Beyond

        Comment


        • Re: Golden State Warriors Thread

          Time for our check in with reality.

          Does anyone know what happened Monday night? I think KStat does. Jack and Al went into Detroit and won for the 2nd time this year. Jack led the team in assists with 7. He had 8 assists vs Denver last night btw (2nd to Baron's 9).

          The win in Detroit was by 18 points. In Detroit I said. Now picture the current Pacers going into Detroit and winning by 18. Heck, picture them winning any game by 18 right now.

          If it wasn't for Nellie and a perhaps iffy foul call GS might have been on a 3 game winning streak over playoff teams, 2 of those on the road. And in the Wiz game it was Harrington who drew the foul and then hit the 2 FTs to give GS the 2pt lead with 2 seconds left (Jack was out with injury).


          It was said that once Baron AND Richardson returned that Jack would hit the bench. The last 2 games Jack STARTED along with Baron and JRich, so that was wrong. Ellis came off the bench.

          In the Denver game Melo didn't play, though that hadn't kept them from winning some games before, but bottom line is that the Warriors beat Denver, something the Pacers just failed to do themselves (and while Melo played in Indy, Iverson did not).

          Jack also went 44% from 3 (4-9) which put his adjusted FG% for the night over 50% despite being 6-15.

          They've now gone 9-10 when Jack has played, 9-14 when Al has played. The bulk of the losing streak occurred while Jack was out with his turf/broken toe.



          And oh yeah, Saras didn't see the court in either the DET or DEN game. Still waiting for Euro-wonder to put it in our faces. Right now it looks a lot like Rick HELPED Saras rather than holding him back, at least compared to the chances that Nellie is giving him (barring injury).



          What this tells me coupled with the Pacers results of the last few weeks is that despite the good attitude of Dun and Murph, whatever effort fans think they see now that they think didn't exist before, the Pacers got thumped by making that trade.

          The Warriors are now playing some of their best ball (with Jack and Baron back) while the Pacers are mired in their worst section of ball in years, other than something featuring Haislip/Britten.

          With GS Al has a better 3P% than Murph did (and Al has shot it more even) and trails Murph's per 48 rebounding by a whopping 1.5 boards.

          And Jackson is even down the line with Dun on every per 48 (ast, steal, blk, a/to) except rebounding (trails by 2). Jack has an extra FTA per game, and has shot nearly the same as Dun was there except for his lower 3P% (the poor 33% to the below average 34.6% Dun had going in GS). One problem for Dun in that is that his shooting is higher only because of his run in NOV. After that he slumped badly.



          Blah, blah, we don't care, they are gone, good riddance, etc, I'm sure that's what everyone is saying.

          But to me anytime the team makes a trade and gets worse while the other team gets better (at least when the traded players actually play) it concerns me as a fan. If this trend continues it's not going to look good for TPTB, or honestly the fanbase that helped push for the deal to happen.

          It's been 20 games. I didn't discard Fred, AJ, Croshere, or Dale in 20 games. I keep tabs on all of them. And this deal is clearly still in the evaluation phase anyway.



          You know what will shut me up about it in fact? The current team winning with Dun and Murphy at least being as much as part of those wins as Al/Jack were (ie, if benching Dun and Murph makes the team start winning that doesn't make it a good trade).

          Is that too much to ask?

          You may think that I'm happy or gloating on the issue, but I don't feel that way at all. I don't want to be right because I want the team to win or at least play some smooth looking basketball. And I sure as heck don't like seeing former Pacers helping some other team win games when the current Pacers can't.

          But that doesn't mean I'm going to pretend like it isn't happening.

          Comment


          • Re: Golden State Warriors Thread

            I'm starting to agree with you on this. The trade is beginning to look more like a move to get rid of two players that weren't happy ( among other reasons ) for 2 players that don't complain but considered a definite downgrade in talent.

            No matter how inconsistent SJax and Harrington were....at least they aren't as inconsistent as Dunleavy and Murphy are.

            I really am beginning to hope that we aim for that draft pick.
            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

            Comment


            • Re: Golden State Warriors Thread

              Originally posted by Shade View Post
              You'll have to help me out then, because I think I remember Jack hitting one (maybe two) game-winning shots for us this year. However, I also remember far more ****-poor 4th quarter performances leading to losses.
              Jackson vs Denver. The 4th starts with GS up by 12 but AI quickly cuts it to 10 with a layup. 4 minutes later the lead is 20 and the game is over. How?

              Jackson - 3pt
              Jackson - 3pt miss
              Jackson - 2pt jumper
              Jackson - defensive reb
              Jackson - 2 FTs made (drove and drew the foul)
              Jackson - 3pt

              Ellis had the only other bucket in the 12-2 run by GS. Jack was 2-3 from 3 in that stretch. DEN didn't reach that 93 point level (where GS was at then) till 35 seconds left in the game, so almost literally the game was over after Jackson's scoring outburst.



              Vs Detroit at halftime it was already a 6 point game, but within 5.5 minutes that lead was 17 and the game was effectively over (I believe it never got closer than 15 after that point). During that 5.5 minute stretch you had:

              Al - layup
              Jack - bad pass
              Jack - taking a Rip charge
              Jack - O-reb, tip in
              Jack - layup
              Al - steal
              Jack - 3pt (Al assist)
              Al - 3pt (Baron assist)
              Al - 3pt (Jack assist)

              So in that 17-6 run to open the half up and break the game open Al and Jack combined for 2 of the 3 assists, 15 of the points (Al 8, Jack 7), took away 2 DET possessions and while Jack had the TO he also created a bonus possession with the O-REB (which he then scored).


              Two wins by 14+ points vs playoff teams and at the center of the moment when the game is broken open for good you have Jackson, with Al being a huge part of the DET 3rd as well as clutch with what should have been the final FTs vs WSH.


              I know it's not the same as a final shot to win, but honestly I'd rather have a guy that make the game a clear win 8-10 minutes before it's over instead. Yes it's true that Jack has bad nights too and that Al had turned into the invisible man for the Pacers on many nights.

              But I'll bet Warriors fans aren't complaining about the recent results from either of them right now.

              Comment


              • Re: Golden State Warriors Thread

                Seth, to be fair, the Pistons were without Sheed, and the Pacers have been without Quis. That makes a difference, though I'm not sure how much of one.

                I don't think anyone here pre or post-trade doubted that Al and Jack are more talented than Murph and Dun. However, like with Ron Artest, that talent sometimes comes with a price that is not worth paying. Al and Jack are horribly inconsistent, and Jack in particular is a troublemaker. Word is that Al was also behind a lot of the locker room chemistry issues here.


                Jack also went 44% from 3 (4-9) which put his adjusted FG% for the night over 50% despite being 6-15.
                C'mon now, Seth. Let's not resort to misrepresenting numbers here. Jack shot 40%, not 50%+. 40% is still pretty good, but I'm sure he'll have more than his fair share of 30-35% shooting game to negate that.

                And oh yeah, Saras didn't see the court in either the DET or DEN game. Still waiting for Euro-wonder to put it in our faces. Right now it looks a lot like Rick HELPED Saras rather than holding him back, at least compared to the chances that Nellie is giving him (barring injury).
                If this was a shot to the Carlisle detractors, then explain why Al and Jack are apparently playing better now without Rick?

                Bear in mind that I've been slightly anti-trade since I heard about it, but there is a lot of selective arguing in your post.

                And I still don't miss Al or Jack. I just wish (like I have since the trade first went down), that we had gotten better value for them.

                Comment


                • Re: Golden State Warriors Thread

                  Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                  Jackson vs Denver. The 4th starts with GS up by 12 but AI quickly cuts it to 10 with a layup. 4 minutes later the lead is 20 and the game is over. How?

                  Jackson - 3pt
                  Jackson - 3pt miss
                  Jackson - 2pt jumper
                  Jackson - defensive reb
                  Jackson - 2 FTs made (drove and drew the foul)
                  Jackson - 3pt

                  Ellis had the only other bucket in the 12-2 run by GS. Jack was 2-3 from 3 in that stretch. DEN didn't reach that 93 point level (where GS was at then) till 35 seconds left in the game, so almost literally the game was over after Jackson's scoring outburst.



                  Vs Detroit at halftime it was already a 6 point game, but within 5.5 minutes that lead was 17 and the game was effectively over (I believe it never got closer than 15 after that point). During that 5.5 minute stretch you had:

                  Al - layup
                  Jack - bad pass
                  Jack - taking a Rip charge
                  Jack - O-reb, tip in
                  Jack - layup
                  Al - steal
                  Jack - 3pt (Al assist)
                  Al - 3pt (Baron assist)
                  Al - 3pt (Jack assist)

                  So in that 17-6 run to open the half up and break the game open Al and Jack combined for 2 of the 3 assists, 15 of the points (Al 8, Jack 7), took away 2 DET possessions and while Jack had the TO he also created a bonus possession with the O-REB (which he then scored).


                  Two wins by 14+ points vs playoff teams and at the center of the moment when the game is broken open for good you have Jackson, with Al being a huge part of the DET 3rd as well as clutch with what should have been the final FTs vs WSH.


                  I know it's not the same as a final shot to win, but honestly I'd rather have a guy that make the game a clear win 8-10 minutes before it's over instead. Yes it's true that Jack has bad nights too and that Al had turned into the invisible man for the Pacers on many nights.

                  But I'll bet Warriors fans aren't complaining about the recent results from either of them right now.
                  So, then, Al and Jack helped us win two of the 38 games they played this year? I must be missing your point.

                  Like I said, nobody is doubting Al's and Jack's talent. But you be have severe selective amnesia if you don't think they hurt at least as much as they helped on the court, and were both apparently troublemakers off the court.

                  Hell, if that's how you feel, maybe you think we should have kept Ron-Ron? After all, he's better than Al and Jack combined.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Golden State Warriors Thread

                    I really am beginning to hope that we aim for that draft pick.
                    Did you see the other thread where we were discussing the odds of getting a good player based on pick? I forget which one of the rant threads it is in, but I posted links to a couple of efforts to analyze your chances of getting a good player based on what pick you have.

                    I don't think that's the solution because it's just too iffy, but I guess I should save that discussion for the thread I'm thinking of.


                    I'm glad to see you take my thoughts the way you did. It comes off as some vendetta online or some personal war by me, but I don't mean it like that. I'm just frustrated by the emotions fans put into a practical decision, as well as TPTB perhaps caving to that emotion.

                    Things weren't going great, I won't argue that. But clearly they could get worse, and have.

                    There are TONS of players I would trade Jackson for, I was never in the keep him no matter what camp, he's my fave. I just didn't hate him and I wouldn't move him for a bucket of balls. Same with Al, and early on it even looked like Murph was fitting his role better than Al had been.

                    But now you can see that you could do worse than Al's defense or Al's scoring.


                    Hell, can I please get Powell back for Ike. I'm not sold on that portion even after seeing all of his game. Early on his ability to get into the post sold me even though I didn't have a problem with Josh's game at all. But now I think Josh looks like the smarter post player.


                    You know where I will cast blame on Jackson? For pulling that stupid gun out and creating all this mess. If he had just got on his cell and called the cops, maybe told his boys to get in the car and get out of there, then you wouldn't have a court case and nearly the backlash.

                    Jack could take the stance of innoncent guy attacked who tried to do the right thing instead of a guy who was willing to mix it up a bit if he felt challenged (think Marty in Back to the Future ).

                    If he does the right thing then maybe there is no trade and maybe we see some better basketball right now and are able to enjoy the team. So he doesn't get a free pass from me just because I don't demonize him.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Golden State Warriors Thread

                      Btw, a lot of Golden State fans have been calling for Al to be traded for a while now.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Golden State Warriors Thread

                        C'mon now, Seth. Let's not resort to misrepresenting numbers here. Jack shot 40%, not 50%+. 40% is still pretty good, but I'm sure he'll have more than his fair share of 30-35% shooting game to negate that.
                        Adj FG% isn't a misrepresentation. It's what says that Reggie was a great shooter rather than just average (47% not adjusting for 3's, doesn't blow people away).

                        Jack was 6-15, but 4 of 9 from 3. That is equal to 16 points on 15 shots, the same as if he had shot 53% from 2. Do you not understand what adjusted FG% means? Of course it counts. It means you scored 53% of the total possible points you could have had if you shot only 2 pt FGs.

                        40% from 2 = 12 points, not 16. If JO goes 6-15 it's not the same as if REGGIE MILLER (since you hate Jack) goes 6-15 but 4-9 from 3.

                        And 53% ADJ on a regular basis (obviously something Jack doesn't do) would put you in the top 30 next to guys like Gasol and Tony Parker, so it's better than okay. So he had a good night, not just average. Not great, but good.



                        This is NOT the same as Points Per Shot which includes FTMs too, meant to account for a players ability to draw FTAs as well as his shooting.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Golden State Warriors Thread

                          Hell, if that's how you feel, maybe you think we should have kept Ron-Ron? After all, he's better than Al and Jack combined.
                          If he hadn't gone to the press and demanded a trade because he wanted more touches. That's when he lost me. Up to that point I was firmly behind Ron and his game, inconsistant as his offense could be at times. He forced the action and drew FTAs, he helped make something out of broken plays.


                          Al and Jack both could be disruptive. Al for how he handled his role in the offense, Jack for how he handled his frustration, especially when dealing with Rick. Jack could flake out in games and make clearly dumb plays, but most of the time he brought solid, functional play to his role.

                          My complaint always was that people treated Jack's negatives as equal to his positives, and that wasn't true. The team would have been much worse if that were the case.

                          There was room to improve the SG position, just as you could improve the PG spot now. But there was also a lot of room to make it worse. That's why I was against a RASH decision.

                          And if Jack gets convicted the Pacers could have dropped his contract and cleared some more space toward getting under the cap. Instead they just discarded all the headway they had made in that area (which still wasn't sub-cap, but was getting closer) AND didn't improve anything while doing that.

                          RAY ALLEN for Al and Jack, that would have helped more. Tins and Jack for Andre Miller, that would have helped more.

                          Far better options were out there than this one. To me this is a deal that TPTB look at and say "nah, we might as well limp along as is than do that". More so considering that this wasn't the trade deadline yet. Double that considering that teams' outlooks on trades change once they see where they are drafting.


                          Why make a MID-SEASON deal if it doesn't make you better this season? Otherwise deal in the summer instead. No need to rush to do something you won't see results on for a year. You know the Jack trial doesn't go until after the trade deadline at least, so maybe work the market for something better than what they SETTLED for.

                          They were MORE PATIENT WITH RON, and the dude was sitting out after acting up for the umpteenth time. They passed on mediocre offers, waited and waited and waited.

                          Heck, they took more time GETTING AL than they did dumping him. His trade time (from "announcement" on WTHR to actually joining the team) almost lasted longer than his regular season playing time.

                          So it was patience, patience and then suddenly "HURRY UP, I JUST HEARD DUNLEAVY IS ON THE MARKET!!! IT'S LIKE FREE ICE CREAM! RUN!" Seems foolish to me.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Golden State Warriors Thread

                            So clearly Al and Jack were great for us and idiot Walsh and his little buddy Bird just made a dumb trade, right?

                            Comment


                            • Re: Golden State Warriors Thread

                              RAY ALLEN for Al and Jack, that would have helped more. Tins and Jack for Andre Miller, that would have helped more.
                              Can you prove that either of those offers was on the table? Because I find it hard to believe we would pass on either of those.

                              Jack's trade value was virtually nil. GS only took him because we agreed to take both of their bad contracts. They only really wanted Al.

                              We did the trade to get Ike Diogu and get rid of Al and Jack, both of whom were supposedly locker room cancers. Simple as that. Not that I agree with it (I don't), but that's why the trade went down.

                              Al and Jack suck. Murph and Dun just suck more.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Golden State Warriors Thread

                                The Ws have won 3 straight since they have had a healthy lineup of Baron/JRich/SJax/Harrington/Biedrins/Monta/Barnes/Pietrus.

                                Its amazing what a healthy lineup can do.
                                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X