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

Tbird analysis: The "culture of winning", and calling out the Simon brothers

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

  • #16
    Re: Tbird analysis: The "culture of winning", and calling out the Simon brothers

    Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post

    It's time to hold Melvin and Herb Simon accountable for the problems and issues our team has, they set the culture and standards that the entire organization has to live by. If the Pacers fail, the buck in the end has to stop with them. I do not believe that these two older, classy gentlemen have it in them to truly lead an organization into the next era and develop a championship worthy organization. They've had 25 years or so to prove me wrong and they havent done so....whether you believe its been bad luck, lack of caring/effort/sacrifice or whatever else, the facts remain the same. It's sad to say, but the Pacers are much closer to becoming the Atlanta Hawks for the next generation of fans that many of you seem to want to admit.
    The Simons have made it clear that Donnie Walsh was their man and all that he did was right. The Simons were reluctant owners. They bought the pacers in the dog days to save the team from leaving Indy and they deserve all the credit for that. They absorbed huge financial loses over the years as a gesture of good will to the city. To say the Simons aren't good owners anymore is pretty sad but you are correct that they neglected the team and the direction it went. Their main focus was to help keep the downtown and Indy viable and in that they succeeded. Their focus wasn't to win the nba chamionship. Without the Simons we would all be bulls fans and in the early days when you went to Market Square half the peole were just that. Rag on Donnie and now on Bird if you like but don't forget who saved this team. The Simons don't make personnel decisions and until recently their yearly team salary was pretty high.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Tbird analysis: The "culture of winning", and calling out the Simon brothers

      I am of the same mind as Los Angeles and Roaming Gnome.

      First of all, not in million years would I question the Simons or claim time has passed them by. I feel like the best you can hope for is that ownership provide stability, support and not interfere in basketball operations. That is exactly what we have in the Simons. There is no question they could have made a lot better investment than the Pacers. We could have had Donald Sterling or worse yet Nelson Skalbania who singlehandedly torpedoed hockey. If one sees fiscal responsibility as a lack of support there is something wrong with your equation.

      As far as the front office, I have stated before - they did their job as far as transitioning talent. Miller, Artest, Tinsley, Jackson and Miller. I think the job they did coming off 2000 was impressive. That talent was good enough to challenge for the title. Unfortunately, flaws in people not talent killed that. We have been spoiled by making the playoffs so many years. There are a lot of franchises that never made the playoffs at all - AT ALL - during our run.

      I don't care what any team says, the goal is to make the playoffs - then it's a crap shoot. It should be the goal of every team to make the playoffs. Very, very fews teams are going to have a REAL shot at the championship. Take a look at San Antonio's record before Robinson - then Duncan came along. They sucked! Luck smiled on them in the lotteries. Our luck in the lottery has been - well, unlucky and I will leave it at that.

      Comparing the Colts and Pacers now is unfair. How many years were the Colts mired in medocrity? Did Jimmy Irsay suddenly become this great owner? Where was this perceived Jim Irsay during those LONG years? He was here - always was. It wasn't until fate smiled on the Colts in the form of Peyton Manning that in some eyes Jimmy miraculously became a great owner. If you were around in '94 or '00 and the Colts were around in its 1-13 years at the same time - this whole conversation would be reversed.

      I think the Make It Personal tour was a stroke of genius by the Colts. But it's easy when you are a winner. I think the Pacers had great ideas that exploded on them simply because we didn't have PROfessionals on the court. We had/have idiots.

      In my mind there has been no lack of effort on the Pacers part. Their hand was forced. Chances had to be taken - they didn't work. They gave me a lot of years of pleasure and I'm not going to jump them when they are down. I can wait.

      Seriously - and humorously, what other choice do I have? I'm a Pacers fan.
      Last edited by ABADays; 06-24-2007, 08:23 PM.
      The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Tbird analysis: The "culture of winning", and calling out the Simon brothers

        Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
        I want to add this: The Pacers may have a lot of problems and have a lot of work to do, but I won't for a single day question the attitude or motivation of management or the owners.
        "George's athleticism is bananas!" - Marc J. Spears

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Tbird analysis: The "culture of winning", and calling out the Simon brothers

          Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post

          Your view is rather insulting to anyone that believes in this franchise. Are you wishing for that to happen? Do you want the rest of us to be as miserable as you always seem to be?

          Just because the franchise isn't run like you want isn't reason to fear the "Mayflower" trucks.
          I'm just saying, if something doesn't change (and it won't without a change in ownership or management), then we best get ready to wave 'bye' to the Pacers because they will lose all casual fan support, most of the corporate support, and some of the core support. There will always be some diehards in the stands but those 100 people won't keep the doors open. Once that happens it will be VERY hard to build that back internally. Either a circling buzzard will swoop in to offer the then ownership a sweet deal in a new city, or some new owner will smell blood in the water and offer a 'can't refuse' type deal for the team.

          How many ways can this team drop the ball before someone in power says "We need real changes"?

          I've got a longer post in me on the subject at hand and the bigger picture but T-bird says this all so much more eloquently than myself.

          -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


          • #20
            Re: Tbird analysis: The "culture of winning", and calling out the Simon brothers

            Originally posted by Bball View Post
            How many ways can this team drop the ball before someone in power says "We need real changes"?
            -Bball
            When Herb and Mel pass the running of the team to the next generation of Simons who may be more interested in real changes you may not like the outcome and may miss the old days of their hands-off approach.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Tbird analysis: The "culture of winning", and calling out the Simon brothers

              Look people, Im not saying that the Simons havent done great things in business, or for the city of Indianapolis. They along with others were instrumental in saving the Pacers back in the 80's, and they've been a big part behind the scenes of the resurgance of the downtown area and in the establishment of Indianapolis as a big time sports town.

              But what I am saying is that all of that is in the past.

              Looking forward from now onward, given how the league, the business, the American culture, and how sports and the NBA operate today, are these the guys you want to own the franchise, or would the purpose of winning a championship be better served under someone else?

              How can you be like me and criticize the team, its personnel decisions, and its general overall direction, and yet absolve the people who own the team from any blame? I'm not saying these guys are Ted Stepien or Donald Sterling, I'm just saying that for now, and for the future of the franchise, we probably will need a different type of ownership vision.

              The Colts are only relevant to the discussion to this point because when the Simon's bought the team, and for most of their ownership, the Colts were horrible. The Pacers didnt have to market themselves as well, because they had no competition for the Indianapolis fan sports dollar, and they still had a deep reservoir of fans from the ABA days buying their merchandise and filling the seats. The world is different now, people have more ways and places to spend their discretionary cash, yet the Pacers in many ways still operate like they did 20 years ago from a business sense.

              Again, Im not trying to bash the Simon's.....but I am saying that you can't blame Walsh and Bird for things without acknowledging that major decisions for this franchise arent made and executed without ownership's stamp of approval.

              If you go by the theory that this franchise jumped the shark that night in Detroit, it must also be at least mentioned that reportedly it was the Simon's who insisted we hang on to Artest, and not only that but embrace him and forgive him, and even have/allow Larry to pose with him on that ridiculous Sports Illustrated cover.

              By all means lets thank the Simon's for their contributions, but let's not deify them either....they remain the ultimate power, and they must take the blame for the Pacers brand falling, and the product suffering.


              Ok, now lets get off the Simon's and on to Jim O'Brien.

              What do we as fans want Jim O'Briens top priorities to be as our new head coach. What do we expect from him, and what do we feel are the most pressing issues he has to fix to make us as successful as we can be?

              Again, I say the most important jobs the head coach has are the following:

              1. Establish a culture of winning, accountability, and success by setting a high standard of excellence and performance.

              2. To identify each guy's different personalities and strengths and use them to mold the teams chemistry in such a way to lead to success.....to create an "atmosphere" of winning, and that has to be done daily in a myriad of ways and adjusted to each individual guy, all the while keeping an overall team philosophy intact.

              3. To hire a strong staff and let them do their jobs.

              4. To play in a strategically smart way based upon the personnel we have on our roster.

              5. To help sell the franchises fans on a vision, and get the players and fans to buy in all the way and COMMIT.

              Ive made it no secret that I wanted a new leader for this team, and not a failed coach from 2 other teams. Having said that, I do believe Jim O'Brien to be a good coach and a fine man, and I suspect he will win about as many games as his talent will allow him to. Do I see him as a dynamic leader and new face of the franchise? No, but I do think he will do a credible and professional job, and most likely given enough talent he can make the playoffs, which is his stated goal this season. Do I think he will win a championship with us or anywhere else? No I do not.

              Regardless, it's good to be talking basketball again this weekend, Ive been away too long and it's good to be able to find time to post again. I always enjoy discussing the Pacers, regardless of what other opinions may exist that disagree with my own. I have a feeling we will have much, much more to discuss in the coming weeks.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Tbird analysis: The "culture of winning", and calling out the Simon brothers

                Originally posted by ABADays View Post
                .

                Comparing the Colts and Pacers now is unfair. How many years were the Colts mired in medocrity? Did Jimmy Irsay suddenly become this great owner? Where was this perceived Jim Irsay during those LONG years? He was here - always was. It wasn't until fate smiled on the Colts in the form of Peyton Manning that in some eyes Jimmy miraculously became a great owner. If you were around in '94 or '00 and the Colts were around in its 1-13 years at the same time - this whole conversation would be reversed.

                I think the Make It Personal tour was a stroke of genius by the Colts. But it's easy when you are a winner. I think the Pacers had great ideas that exploded on them simply because we didn't have PROfessionals on the court. We had/have idiots.

                I know the Colts got lucky getting Manning. But the Colts make their own luck too. My problem with the Pacers compared to the Colts is that they DON'T EVEN TRY to make fans across the rest of the state. All they care about is the Indianapolis market.

                Let's please not credit the Colts popularity with winning the Super Bowl(not accusing you of that ABA, I just gather that as being the general feeling around here). It has been something that they have been building for several years. As I said, Nick Harper was down here in New Albany I believe 4 (3 at the absolute least) years ago. People were huge Colts fans down here then, it's not something that has just happened since they won the big game. They weren't exactly big time "winners" in 2003/2004, just a very good team (no better than the Pacers had ever been).

                The Pacers NEVER have tried anything down here in the southern part of the state. Not even when they were in the ECF's every year. And I've heard plenty of other complaining about the Pacers lack of marketing outside of Indianapolis to reinforce my belief that it's true.

                The Colts got lucky getting Manning, but they have done plenty more to make their own luck. Jim Irsay was smart enough to get a President with *SUBSTANCE* in Bill Polian.

                Walsh hired Bird as coach, then somehow fell under the notion that Indiana fans would only support a big name with Indiana connections. He grossly misjudged Thomas' popularity (that is, he had none) when he hired him in 2000. He then hired Larry as President (all face/name, no background at all in the field), further supporting my belief that Walsh fell under the crazy (and insulting) belief that fans would only support the team if their was a big name at the helm.

                People weren't supporting Larry Bird through 97-2000, they were supporting the winning ways of the team. Just like during 94-96 they were supporting the team when Larry Brown was the coach (not a legend in the way of Bird)

                Let's take a look at attendance figures: In 1995-96, the team had 29 sellouts at Market Square. In 1997-98, Bird's first year, we just had 14.

                Why did we sellout 29 games in 95-96? Because the team was coming off of 2 straight ECF's appearances, and was a consistant winning team.

                Why just 14 sellouts in 97-98? Because we had been in the lottery the previous year. Larry Legend had 15 less sellouts that year than Brown's team had in 1995-96. Larry Legend didn't bring people to the seats. But in 95/96 people were convinced that the team was a winner.

                My point with all of this is that it doesn't matter if the coach is a big face or not. People were just as supportive to Brown's Pacers as they were Bird's. It didn't matter that Bird was a legend and Brown wasn't. All that matters is winning. Somehow Walsh overrated Bird's popularity and then used that for the Thomas hiring, and used it for the Bird hiring again. Instead of trying to hire big names, just hire someone with substance.....like the Colts did in getting Polian.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Tbird analysis: The "culture of winning", and calling out the Simon brothers

                  Agree Tbird that we need to do all those things.
                  In addition think where we would be if we had one of those top-ten picks missing it by being eleventh. The way to rebuild the team is to sink so low that we get decent draft picks. As it is the only top ten draft picks we have on the team are other team's discards. So really stinking has its rewards.
                  A new coach who has some people skills will help so that is something to look forward to. I hope that OB can connect with Tinsley and get more out of him and Murphy.
                  I'm hoing that this team has turned the corner. We'll see.
                  Final point. Until recently the team payroll has been very high and certainly the owners did not get their money's worth. I think those days are over.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Tbird analysis: The "culture of winning", and calling out the Simon brothers

                    Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post
                    I'm also going to have to whole heartedly agree with Los Angeles on this post. Normally, I enjoy what T-bird post, but this post has a "sky is falling" type of emotion tied to it. The only reason the franchise is in the situation it's in is because WE DID GO FOR BROKE, but it didn't work out!
                    Not really. Ron going nuclear was completely out of left field. Plenty of people were calling for him to be traded after the throat shot to Hamilton and even more after his request for a month off but that was completely unpredictable.

                    However since that day, I struggle to find a really good move the franchise made. There have been some OK ones (AC for Daniels, drafting Granger though IMO that borders on a miracle), but most were bad.

                    1. Not immediately distancing yourselves from Ron Artest and taking whatever you could get for him. But he had to be gotten rid of - he'd destroyed an entire season. By being Ron. Then he went and helped destroy another one - long after he should have been gone. By being Ron. It's not just the games he lost but the poisoning of the entire team. If I'd been on a team when a player who'd pulled what he did had been coddled that way, I'd have been PO'd in a major way.

                    2. Acquiring Al Harrington. Dumb move. He wasn't going to fit with the team - the one position you were set at was PF and you knew he was going to want the ball. But TPTB wanted to hand the fans a 6'9" pacifier instead of trying to find a shooter or PG with the TE.

                    3. Knowing you have trouble at PG and knowing your starter has had repeated health issues, you trade away a very dependable backup PG, pretty much for nothing. Then you don't draft Marcus Williams but pick up a SF when you already have Granger.

                    But even then things weren't horrible. Your contract situation was OK, you had some young pieces and there was hope it might somehow fit together - and if it didn't, you could at least swing some deals.

                    Then you traded Harrington & Jackson for two poorer players with horrible contracts.

                    Jackson had to go. That was easy to see. IMO he should have been told to stay away after the Rio incident but the Pacers decided to tell the world that their whole summer ad campaign was a steaming pile of ...

                    Anyway, IMO Jackson should have been gotten rid of for peanuts. Barring peanuts, buy him out.

                    Harrington? He didn't fit and was a bad acquisition but he is a talent - and maybe with Jackson gone Granger could spend some time at SG. I don't think that's the best spot for him but you do what you have to. And even if that didn't work, keeping Al would give you a lot more flexibility in dealing JO this summer, if that's the way you decided to go - at least you'd have the position covered.

                    So here you are with a really bad salary situation. Amazingly, at this moment it's worse than the Knicks (we have a shot at being under the cap in '09 and you don't unless a deal comes up - don't worry though, I'm confident that in a couple of months I won't be able to say this once Isiah screw up again). You have very few players that would get much interest around the league - JO & Granger are about it. Foster could be dealt but he's getting older and Ike and Daniels have both lost some luster.

                    My issue with the Pacers is this - or would be except you help take my mind off the rancid pile my team's become. Management has screwed up, repeatedly and badly, multiple times over the last 3 years. Things are bad and prospects for improvement in the near future aren't good. But Carlisle takes the fall. Not Walsh or Bird. Walsh led the team out of a dark time 20 years ago but you can't live on that forever. It's time for new management - except I think the Simons have pretty much given Walsh a lifetime contract.

                    Also, I've said this repeatedly, as have others. I'm sure Walsh would be drinking champagne as much as anyone if the Pacers won a title but IMO his goal has never been to win the title. His goal has been to be consistently good. If given the choice between making a move to give his team a shot at the title or making a move that would help insure the team would be good for the long term, he'll take the second choice every time. He made that decision when he traded AD for the draft pick that would become Bender, he made that decision in the summer of 2000 (that team had at least 1 and maybe 2-3 more runs in them) and he made it again when he didn't sign Brad Miller - or even make him an offer. I know that's a major issue with Pacers fans.

                    Unlike Tbird, I don't blame the Simons for much of this, except for Walsh's eternal job security. They haven't been afraid to spend freely and have deferred to DW to make basketball decisions - mostly anyway. But things are bad in Pacerland and getting worse - and the blame lies squarely on Donnie Walsh (Bird was his hire so if Bird sucks it's because DW made a suck hire).
                    The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Tbird analysis: The "culture of winning", and calling out the Simon brothers

                      Someday you all will get your wish. The Simons will not always own the Pacers. That will be a sad day in all liklihood. For this small market team
                      they have stayed the course and provided a mostly handsoff ownership.
                      They have spent money on level with higher spending teams.

                      Goose with golden egg meet axe!!!

                      Be very careful what you wish for.
                      {o,o}
                      |)__)
                      -"-"-

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Tbird analysis: The "culture of winning", and calling out the Simon brothers

                        Originally posted by owl View Post
                        Someday you all will get your wish. The Simons will not always own the Pacers. That will be a sad day in all liklihood. For this small market team
                        they have stayed the course and provided a mostly handsoff ownership.
                        They have spent money on level with higher spending teams.

                        Goose with golden egg meet axe!!!

                        Be very careful what you wish for.
                        Exactly and that new ownership will also be called Simon but their names will not be Mel or Herb.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Tbird analysis: The "culture of winning", and calling out the Simon brothers

                          Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                          Exactly and that new ownership will also be called Simon but their names will not be Mel or Herb.
                          Well - I hope it's still Simon.
                          The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Tbird analysis: The "culture of winning", and calling out the Simon brothers

                            I figure the Simon group has ~10 years left as owners. That gives me a decade to start amassing my fortune. Gimmick 1: On sunny days, games are played outsidel

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Tbird analysis: The "culture of winning", and calling out the Simon brothers

                              Wasn't there an article a while back that said that the Simon's children weren't interested in taking over the Pacers...
                              I think KP is a Captain Planet fan. He believes that the collective will of five decent starters can outweigh the power of top-level talent. Too bad Herb won't cut the check for their Planeteer rings.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Tbird analysis: The "culture of winning", and calling out the Simon brothers

                                Wonder if Bird has any interest in ownership.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X