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

Which is better for the Pacers, high draft pick or playoffs?

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

  • #76
    Re: Which is better for the Pacers, high draft pick or playoffs?

    Originally posted by Bball View Post
    There's something else to consider:
    The goal of the Indiana Pacers in the Walsh era is to make the playoffs. Anything else is gravy but nothing must jeopardize that main and overriding goal of making the playoffs.

    If this team gets into the playoffs there will be a GIANT sigh of relief AND satisfaction coming from the ivory tower at Conseco.

    Making the playoffs in the east should NOT be considered 'satisfying'... but it would be.
    -Bball
    Whoa, kemosabe. This is EXACTLY what I'm afraid of!

    Making the playoffs would be a sigh of relief for Bird and Walsh.

    And that is exactly what the problem is. It would bring a sense of relief, and a tendancy toward a continued "tinkering" with the roster rather than the start of true rebuilding.

    If we miss the playoffs, that is the best means I know of to light a fire under the posteriors of Walsh and Bird and finally hit them squarely in their faces with a sense of urgency in making some real changes to the roster.

    I know what Will is saying in no appreciable difference between picking at #7 and #15. But I believe there is the perception of a potential huge difference in selecting at one over the other. Such a difference that a trade of #7 plus Tinsley for example for a higher pick in the draft has much more appeal than a trade of #15 plus Tinsley.

    What if such a trade could be made? Let's say for a #4 pick. Is that worthwhile?

    I'm a firm believer in stockpiling the best assets you can get your hands on. From my perspective, having #7 as an asset is significantly better than having #15. If nothing else, it gives you choices at #7 that #15 does not offer. At #15, you are dealing with what #7 thru #14 didn't take, even if the player is not appreciably worse than the earlier picks.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Which is better for the Pacers, high draft pick or playoffs?

      Larry Bird in my opinion is just too proud to do anything worth while. He doesn't want to rebuild because he is too proud. All he wants to do is "retool", "redecorate", and "refurbish." Well he can take that 're' crap and shove it up his butt if it doesn't end in 'build'. Like Bball, I think, mentioned not to long ago, I'm tired of mediocracy, I'm tired of just limping into the playoffs to be swept or just barely missing out and being rewarded with the 14th pick. yippee. Now I know I'm blaming this all on Larry, and it isn't all his fault. But his head is on the chopping block and he better take a long, hard look at this team.
      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


      • #78
        Re: Which is better for the Pacers, high draft pick or playoffs?

        Originally posted by Kofi View Post
        Here's some info on draft picks from 1994-2003 (10 drafts). I didn't include 2004 on since it's still too early for those players.


        ALL-STARS PICKED 1-5
        • Glenn Robinson (#1, 1994, x2)
        • Allen Iverson (#1, 1996, x8)
        • Tim Duncan (#1, 1997, x10)
        • Elton Brand (#1, 1999, x2)
        • Kenyon Martin (#1, 2000, x1)
        • Yao Ming (#1, 2002, x5)
        • LeBron James (#1, 2003, x4)
        • Jason Kidd (#2, 1994, x8)
        • Antonio McDyess (#2, 1995, x1)
        • Steve Francis (#2, 1999, x3)
        • Grant Hill (#3, 1994, x7)
        • Jerry Stackhouse (#3, 1995, x2)
        • Shareef Abdur-Rahim (#3, 1996, x1)
        • Chauncey Billups (#3, 1997, x3
        • Baron Davis (#3, 1999, x2)
        • Pau Gasol (#3, 2001, x1)
        • Carmelo Anthony (#3, 2003, x2)
        • Rasheed Wallace (#4, 1995, x4)
        • Stephon Marbury (#4, 1996, x2)
        • Antawn Jamison (#4, 1998, x2)
        • Chris Bosh (#4, 2003, x3)
        • Juwan Howard (#5, 1994, x1)
        • Kevin Garnett (#5, 1995, x11)
        • Ray Allen (#5, 1996, x7)
        • Vince Carter (#5, 1998, x8)
        • Dwyane Wade (#5, 2003, x4)
        All-Stars: 26/50 (52%)
        Total All-Star Appearances: 104
        MVP Awards: 4 (Iverson, Duncan x2, Garnett)
        Finals MVP Awards: 5 (Duncan x3, Billups, Wade)
        Defensive Player of the Year Awards: 1 (Camby)
        Sixth Man of the Year Awards: 2 (M. Miller, Jamison)
        Notable Non-All-Stars: M. Dunleavy, T. Chandler, E. Curry, J. Richardson, M. Miller, L. Odom, M. Bibby, K. Van Horn, M. Camby



        ALL-STARS PICKED 6-10
        • Antoine Walker (#6, 1996, x3)
        • Wally Szczerbiak (#6, 1999, x1)
        • Richard Hamilton (#7, 1999, x3)
        • Tracy McGrady (#9, 1997, x7)
        • Dirk Nowitzki (#9, 1998, x7)
        • Shawn Marion (#9, 1999, x4)
        • Amare Stoudemire (#9, 2002, x3)
        • Eddie Jones (#10, 1994, x3)
        • Paul Pierce (#10, 1998, x6)
        • Joe Johnson (#10, 2001, x2)
        • Caron Butler (#10, 2002, x2)
        All-Stars: 11/50 (22%)
        Total All-Star Appearances: 41
        MVP Awards: 1 (Nowitzki)
        Finals MVP Awards: 0
        Defensive Player of the Year Awards: 0
        Sixth Man of the Year Awards:
        Notable Non-All-Stars: C. Kaman, K. Hinrich, T.J. Ford, Nene, C. Wilcox, S. Battier, A. Miller, J. Terry, Jason Williams, L. Hughes, E. Dampier, D. Stoudemire



        ALL-STARS PICKED 11-15
        • Kobe Bryant (#13, 1996, x10)
        • Peja Stojakovic (#14, 1996, x3)
        • Steve Nash (#15, 1996, x5)
        All-Stars: 3/50 (6%)
        Total All-Star Appearances: 18
        MVP Awards: 2 (Nash 2x)
        Finals MVP Awards: 0
        Defensive Player of the Year Awards: 0
        Sixth Man of the Year Awards: 1 (Williamson)
        Notable Non-All-Stars: R. Jefferson, T. Murphy, C. Maggette, B. Wells, M. Harpring, C. Williamson, B. Barry, J. Rose



        ALL-STARS PICKED 16-20
        • David West (#18, 2003, x1)
        • Jamaal Magloire (#19, 2000, x1)
        • Ron Artest (#16, 1999, x1)
        • Jermaine O'Neal (#17, 1996, x5)
        • Zydrunas Ilgauskas (#20, 1996, x2)
        • Theo Ratliff (#18, 1995, x1)
        All-Stars: 6/50 (12%)
        Total All-Star Appearances: 11
        MVP Awards: 0
        Finals MVP Awards: 0
        Defensive Player of the Year Awards: 1 Artest)
        Sixth Man of the Year Awards: 1 (McKie)
        Notable Non-All-Stars: Z. Randolph, B. Haywood, H. Turkoglu, Q. Richardson, J. Posey, A. McKie



        ALL-STARS PICKED 21-25
        • Andrei Kirilenko (#24, 1999, x1)
        • Michael Finley (#21, 1995, x2)
        All-Stars: 2/50 (4%)
        Total All-Star Appearances: 3
        MVP Awards: 0
        Finals MVP Awards: 0
        Defensive Player of the Year Awards: 0
        Sixth Man of the Year Awards: 1 (B. Jackson)
        Notable Non-All-Stars: B. Diaw, T. Outlaw, T. Prince, N. Krstic, G. Wallace, M. Peterson, J. Foster, R. Davis, A. Harrington, B. Jackson, D. Fisher



        ALL-STARS PICKED 26-30
        • Tony Parker (#28, 2001, x2)
        • Josh Howard (#29, 2003, x1)
        All-Stars: 2/50 (4%)
        Total All-Star Appearances: 3
        MVP Awards: 0
        Finals MVP Awards: 1 (Parker)
        Defensive Player of the Year Awards: 0
        Sixth Man of the Year Awards: 1 (Barbosa)
        Notable Non-All-Stars: L. Barbosa, S. Dalembert, J. Tinsley, G. Ostertag, C. Ward



        ALL-STARS PICKED 31+
        • Carlos Boozer (#34, 2002, x2)
        • Gilbert Arenas (#31, 2001, x3)
        • Mehmet Okur (#38, 2001, x1)
        • Michael Redd (#43, 2000, x1)
        • Manu Ginobili (#57, 1999, x1)
        • Rashard Lewis (#32, 1998, x1)
        • Brad Miller (Undrafted, 1998, x2)
        • Ben Wallace (Undrafted, 1996, x4)
        All-Stars: 8/280+ (< 3%)
        Total All-Star Appearances: 15
        MVP Awards: 0
        Finals MVP Awards: 0
        Defensive Player of the Year Awards: 4 (Wallace x4)
        Notable Non-All-Stars: Mo Williams, S. Jackson, K. Korver, U. Haslem, R. Bell
        Now go though and count just how many all stars have led there team to an NBA title and you will see how little chance there is of getting a player of that caliber. You really need (for want of a better name) a once in a generation player like (Shaq & Duncan) and even they need help. And you need luck more than anything to get one of those.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Which is better for the Pacers, high draft pick or playoffs?

          Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
          Now go though and count just how many all stars have led there team to an NBA title and you will see how little chance there is of getting a player of that caliber. You really need (for want of a better name) a once in a generation player like (Shaq & Duncan) and even they need help. And you need luck more than anything to get one of those.
          How many team have won championship without a Top 5 talent? You need talent first, than luck to win championships.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Which is better for the Pacers, high draft pick or playoffs?

            Originally posted by beast23 View Post
            If we miss the playoffs, that is the best means I know of to light a fire under the posteriors of Walsh and Bird and finally hit them squarely in their faces with a sense of urgency in making some real changes to the roster.
            Apparently didn't light much of a fire last off season. And sounds like they had potential deals on the table (i.e.-Nets including RJ) that we'd all gladly take in retrospect for JO.
            I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

            -Emiliano Zapata

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Which is better for the Pacers, high draft pick or playoffs?

              Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
              I just think it's funny that everyone thinks there's a huge element of choice in this whole matter. If we suck, we're gonna get a Top 6-10 pick. If we only kinda suck, we'll sneak into the playoffs and get a pick between 14-18.

              I can't get over the feeling you're arguing whether it would be better if the ball in the spinning roulette wheel stopped on black or red. There's no real way to alter the outcome, so why not just watch it spin and wait?

              I mean, no one in this organization is gonna start trying to lose games. And with the parity of talent on our team our W-L record isn't gonna be affected greatly whether or not Shawne or Murphy gets more minutes.
              Excellent post! Nor should anyone ever start trying to lose games. Nor should any fans be hoping for their team to lose games. Period.

              Now about this "rebuilding"/"retooling" bit. Sorry can't recall who posted it where, but whoever it was nailed it. What constitutes rebuilding for this team? Well, the top requiremnt would be jettisoning the "foundation" players-JO and JT.

              It would be great if we could command high draft picks and good young players for them. Unfortunately, we can basically demand something marginally helpful and other people's garbage. As much as it pains me to say it, I'm resigned to being stuck with those two at least until this summer. Any other development will be a pleasant surprise.
              I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

              -Emiliano Zapata

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Which is better for the Pacers, high draft pick or playoffs?

                Originally posted by beast23 View Post
                Whoa, kemosabe. This is EXACTLY what I'm afraid of!

                Making the playoffs would be a sigh of relief for Bird and Walsh.

                And that is exactly what the problem is. It would bring a sense of relief, and a tendancy toward a continued "tinkering" with the roster rather than the start of true rebuilding.

                If we miss the playoffs, that is the best means I know of to light a fire under the posteriors of Walsh and Bird and finally hit them squarely in their faces with a sense of urgency in making some real changes to the roster.

                I know what Will is saying in no appreciable difference between picking at #7 and #15. But I believe there is the perception of a potential huge difference in selecting at one over the other. Such a difference that a trade of #7 plus Tinsley for example for a higher pick in the draft has much more appeal than a trade of #15 plus Tinsley.

                What if such a trade could be made? Let's say for a #4 pick. Is that worthwhile?

                I'm a firm believer in stockpiling the best assets you can get your hands on. From my perspective, having #7 as an asset is significantly better than having #15. If nothing else, it gives you choices at #7 that #15 does not offer. At #15, you are dealing with what #7 thru #14 didn't take, even if the player is not appreciably worse than the earlier picks.
                That was my point too.



                -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


                • #83
                  Re: Which is better for the Pacers, high draft pick or playoffs?

                  Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
                  Apparently didn't light much of a fire last off season. And sounds like they had potential deals on the table (i.e.-Nets including RJ) that we'd all gladly take in retrospect for JO.
                  Exactly... They were able to barely tweak the edges of a team that finished as arguably the worst team in the NBA. So who thinks making the playoffs would do anything but slow TPTB down even more?

                  Only by continually failing to meet their (already too low) goals will a proper dialogue be opened and reality faced.

                  -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


                  • #84
                    Re: Which is better for the Pacers, high draft pick or playoffs?

                    Originally posted by Bball View Post
                    Exactly... They were able to barely tweak the edges of a team that finished as arguably the worst team in the NBA. So who thinks making the playoffs would do anything but slow TPTB down even more?

                    Only by continually failing to meet their (already too low) goals will a proper dialogue be opened and reality faced.

                    -Bball
                    Or maybe another playoff miss won't light the fire that's really necessary either. Who knows?

                    If we make the post-season in a momentum type of way minus JO and JT, I would be thrilled. I find the team infinitely more fun to watch when those two guys aren't in the lineup.

                    If we lose our way to a high pick while trying to win games, I will be happy with that for the potential that it brings.

                    If JO and JT come back, I'll still be pulling for the Pacers to win.
                    I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                    -Emiliano Zapata

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Which is better for the Pacers, high draft pick or playoffs?

                      Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
                      Apparently didn't light much of a fire last off season. And sounds like they had potential deals on the table (i.e.-Nets including RJ) that we'd all gladly take in retrospect for JO.
                      Good point.

                      Now with JO I will say that some of it was that they didn't expect him to remain this hampered, and when he's healthy he's still a solid asset worth keeping. They've traded down in talent too much already. So to me the smart call was to stand pat, not that I was thrilled with what that meant but I just didn't want them to throw bad money after bad and just make things worse.

                      Even though Diener and Rush weren't inspiring pickups, to me TPTB might have started to play things smart rather than the high risk busts they've gone for the last few years.

                      Artest/Jackson/#11 pick last year for a total cost of roughly 12m plus a rookie deal for Dun/Troy/Ike and closer to 18m, more years, and a rookie deal. That's trading down in talent AND taking the financial hit. Enough was enough on that, time to be smart even if it's boring and leaves you stuck where you are at.

                      The point is they could have made it much worse. All we are living with is the past mistakes, at least we didn't get some brand new ones this summer on top of those.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Which is better for the Pacers, high draft pick or playoffs?

                        Originally posted by Bball View Post
                        Exactly... They were able to barely tweak the edges of a team that finished as arguably the worst team in the NBA. So who thinks making the playoffs would do anything but slow TPTB down even more?

                        Only by continually failing to meet their (already too low) goals will a proper dialogue be opened and reality faced.

                        -Bball
                        I'm not convinced. D-BONE makes the great observation that we didn't make the "ultimate goal" (which I still don't agree with you on that), yet we still just tweaked the team (although we did fire the coach.....).

                        The point as I see it is nothing will force Larry's hand or Donnie's hand, they have to make the call, and they only do it when they think it's time and/or they like the move they're making.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Which is better for the Pacers, high draft pick or playoffs?

                          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                          The point is they could have made it much worse. All we are living with is the past mistakes, at least we didn't get some brand new ones this summer on top of those.
                          Good point.

                          I think that was the right move, especially with the past few months of hindsight. Don't force a trade because things are bad when you're not even sure that new move won't make things worse. Contracts aren't forever; let things play out if your best trades are ones you think make things worse.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Which is better for the Pacers, high draft pick or playoffs?

                            Originally posted by Mal View Post
                            I'm not convinced. D-BONE makes the great observation that we didn't make the "ultimate goal" (which I still don't agree with you on that), yet we still just tweaked the team (although we did fire the coach.....).

                            The point as I see it is nothing will force Larry's hand or Donnie's hand, they have to make the call, and they only do it when they think it's time and/or they like the move they're making.
                            It would not have surprised me that if we would've squeaked into the playoffs then you would not have seen the coaching change.
                            A couple of wins here and there should not have made that much of a difference for a decision like that, all things considered, but I'd bet a cookie that would've saved Carlisle's job.

                            -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


                            • #89
                              Re: Which is better for the Pacers, high draft pick or playoffs?

                              i am totally for the pick. this squad is not one i believe in and i am not the only one. making the playoffs by default is this teams only realistic hope- and that is setting some unacceptably low goals. a .500 record is out of the question. a healthy j.o. is (i believe) out of the question. mediocre teams are not below .500
                              this team squeaking in will not do much good. i don't buy into the playoff experience thing as much as some. it won't make murphy any better or daniels knees any better etc. the fact is if you got parts that don't work right- they won't simply be better because they got swept in an uneventful and somewhat humiliating fashion in the 1st round of the playoffs. they will simply be shown how badly they don't belong there in the first place!

                              another late-mid to late 1st rounder is not going to generate even a possible spark of hope. a lottery pick COULD ( i didn't say it was 100%). if we go into the playoffs it is only because many of the better western teams were forbidden due to the way the league has set the seedings. this team has no business in the playoffs.
                              at least a good pick could get some indy area folks possibly interested in the team again and a few more wins here and there and just getting the 7-8 seed is not going to bring them in ( just a hunch)
                              i am as much over the idea jermaine has any real future with this team as i was with bender about 3-4 years ago. we have seen what tinsley has got to offer and it leaves me ill. like some have said- this foundation is rotten and a few small tweaks isn't going to fix it. we have no contacts anyone wants, and little room to acquire anyone useful. a draft pick guaratees nothing but, it at least can give a glimmer of hope as opposed to another year of the same b.s.
                              i will take even the possibility of an impact player over the supposed value of this playoff experience at this point since this team as currently constructed simply has no chance to do anything meaningful. my belief is they won't have to tank not to make playoffs- but it would be more harmful if they do since making the playoffs any way possible would sadly be mistaken as some real progress even if our record is about as bad or possibly worse than last year's.
                              prognosis:
                              33-49
                              that's 12-19 from here on out. not impossible to win that many but not likely to win many more than that.
                              does anyone else think we should at least think about buying out tinsley?
                              Last edited by clownskull; 02-12-2008, 05:46 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Which is better for the Pacers, high draft pick or playoffs?

                                I hardly think if the Pacers win 37 games and make the playoffs that Walsh, Bird and O'Brien are going to think for one minute that this team is on its way and only needs a little tinkering.

                                The question is how little are they willing to accept for Tinsley and JO and what do we have to include with those guys to get rid of them.

                                And at what point do you say we are better off keeping JO (not because he is going to help us on the floor) but he will have extremely high trade value in two years in the last year of his contract.

                                Jamaal was given a slight reprieve to see what he could do with a different coach (Bad decisions, but understandable) but it is obvious to all that it isn't the coach. it is jamaal. But he has negative trade value - no one will want him. We'll have to include Ike, Jeff, Shawne, or Danny just to get a team to think about taking him.
                                Last edited by Unclebuck; 02-12-2008, 11:32 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X