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

What is wrong with the Pacers' management?

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

  • What is wrong with the Pacers' management?

    What is wrong with TPTB that you think has contributed to the team's current malaise? I'm asking for specific defects in the Pacers' front office, and specific evidence to back it up. Much has already been said on this topic, but much of it is unfair. So let me begin by summarizing some of the usual points.


    1. The Two-Headed Monster

    The transition from Walsh to Bird took (has taken) a long time, and leaves us confused as to who is really driving the car.

    But that is not really a problem. I ate some ice cream last night without knowing whether Ben made it or Jerry did. Not knowing didn't diminish my enjoyment a bit. The Pacers' two-headed monster is only a problem if one or both of the heads in inept, or if they pull in opposite directions.


    2. Bad contracts

    Bender. Tinsley. O'Neal. Murphy.

    All these contracts are regrettable, but that is clear only in hindsight. Who knew on the day those contracts were signed that they would never pay off? Even Bender when he signed his extension still might have become the next Garnett. Murphy is a special case -- the price of dumping S. Jackson. O'Neal has been a good player, albeit not worth his contract. So what defect or deficiency in the front office has contributed to the Pacers getting into contracts that turned out bad?


    3. Jasikevicius? Granger? Harrison?

    Is Bird a good judge of talent? The three names cited above represent a mistake, a cert and a reasonable gamble that didn't pay off. What do you know about Bird's eye for talent from his record of drafting and trading? Does he look for himself in other players?


    4. Aiming low

    The Pacers are one of the most successful franchises in the NBA, if you gauge performance in terms of making the playoffs year after year. That is a virtue. Is it also a fault?


    5. The business

    Conseco Fieldhouse is recognized as the best sports venue in America. The Pacers have a good lease deal with the city. Walsh did a good job with that.


    6. The experience

    The food at Conseco is lousy and expensive, but sports venue food is always lousy and expensive. The noise is bad, but it is the same in all other NBA venues, n' est ce pas? Can't fault TPTB for that, can you?


    7. Staying the course

    We know the Pacers need to get better. TPTB know it too, and it is silly for any of us to suppose they don't know or aren't trying. The difference is that we propose trades that aren't feasible or imagine highly improbable future draft selections. TPTB are operating in the day to day, dealing with teams that don't want to help us get better.



    Personally, I don't think Walsh or Bird are inept. I think the Pacers have made a series of decisions in recent years that turned out badly, and due to the cumulative effect of all of them, we're screwed now and for years to come.
    And I won't be here to see the day
    It all dries up and blows away
    I'd hang around just to see
    But they never had much use for me
    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

  • #2
    Re: What is wrong with the Pacers' management?

    " 3. Jasikevicius? Granger? Harrison?

    Is Bird a good judge of talent? The three names cited above represent a mistake, a cert and a reasonable gamble that didn't pay off. What do you know about Bird's eye for talent from his record of drafting and trading? Does he look for himself in other players?"

    WTF? Ill give you Lotsacabages but Harrison was the last pick in the first round, Ill bet 70% of the players chosen there dont even last as long as Harrison has.

    Granger? We might ask what is wrong with you. How can justify saying picking Granger was a mistake??? Dude is the only hope this franshise has!
    Hulk - "I'm 5 for 5 from the line. I should shoot technicals now."

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: What is wrong with the Pacers' management?

      I get the feeling that if there was any confidence in Birds ability to take over Walsh would already be long gone.

      Maybe I'm wrong on that but it seems to be a deal that's not working real well that's kind of hard to get out of.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: What is wrong with the Pacers' management?

        Originally posted by Karmakillaz View Post
        " 3. Jasikevicius? Granger? Harrison?

        Is Bird a good judge of talent? The three names cited above represent a mistake, a cert and a reasonable gamble that didn't pay off. What do you know about Bird's eye for talent from his record of drafting and trading? Does he look for himself in other players?"

        WTF? Ill give you Lotsacabages but Harrison was the last pick in the first round, Ill bet 70% of the players chosen there dont even last as long as Harrison has.

        Granger? We might ask what is wrong with you. How can justify saying picking Granger was a mistake??? Dude is the only hope this franshise has!
        Read it again.

        Jas = mistake
        Granger = acert
        Harrison= a gamble that didn't pay off

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: What is wrong with the Pacers' management?

          Originally posted by Karmakillaz View Post
          Granger? We might ask what is wrong with you. How can justify saying picking Granger was a mistake??? Dude is the only hope this franshise has!

          Ken's got my back. Thanks, SK


          My purpose in this thread is to ask everyone to set aside biases and discern how TPTB really have performed.

          In terms of acquiring players, the Pacers have had one occasion when they had an obvious pick. They took it and Granger has paid off. Harrison was, as you say, a low pick that has turned out to be rather worthless. Only Jasikevicius was, to my mind, a genuine mistake. Bird scouted the guy, wooed the guy, stuck by the guy, and the guy was a bust.

          There are some players we left on the board draft day, but only Granger was OBVIOUS. I think it was a mistake taking Williams rather than a point guard, but he's a good player and time will tell if that was a good choice or not.

          Really, the only player trade the Pacers have done in the last 3 years that I perceive as a mistake on the day they did it was the James Jones for a 2nd trade. Everything else was dealing from weakness.
          Last edited by Putnam; 02-22-2008, 10:06 AM.
          And I won't be here to see the day
          It all dries up and blows away
          I'd hang around just to see
          But they never had much use for me
          In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: What is wrong with the Pacers' management?

            Originally posted by Putnam View Post

            3. Jasikevicius? Granger? Harrison?

            Is Bird a good judge of talent? The three names cited above represent a mistake, a cert and a reasonable gamble that didn't pay off. What do you know about Bird's eye for talent from his record of drafting and trading? Does he look for himself in other players?
            I'll add some names to your list: Shawne Williams, Travis Diener, Kareem Rush.

            Shawne clearly has talent, whether or not he puts it all together remains to be seen. It's obvious, however, that he has the potential to be a much better player than you'd expect to snag with the #17 pick.

            Diener and Rush have panned out. I think we've gotten as much as could be expected or possibly more from these two guys. The Pacers made few moves this last offseason, but bringing in these two guys has obviously helped.

            At this point, I'd probably say that Bird is an above average judge of talent.
            "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

            - Salman Rushdie

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: What is wrong with the Pacers' management?

              I think Putnam is closer to the truth than I've seen in a long while on PD. That doesn't mean TPTB are mistake-free. It also doesn't mean they can't make mistakes from here on out. It does mean things may very well look 10x worse than they really are right now.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: What is wrong with the Pacers' management?

                Originally posted by Mal View Post
                I think Putnam is closer to the truth than I've seen in a long while on PD. That doesn't mean TPTB are mistake-free. It also doesn't mean they can't make mistakes from here on out. It does mean things may very well look 10x worse than they really are right now.
                Count me in as being solidly in line with Mal and Putnam here. I think there are some things TPTB could've done better, but I don't think they're raving incompetents.

                The key point made was that almost all of their decisions seemed reasonable at the time. That doesn't mean that everyone agreed with every decision. It just means that a solid group of fans agreed with each, and in some cases, a solid majority.

                The problem is that virtually every one of them has evolved into a worst case scenario. I can understand some things not working out, but Holy Crap, this is the worst run of luck (and I use the word "luck" tentatively) I've ever seen.

                Bender, Artest, Jackson, Tinsley, JO, Stojakovic, Harrington have all spun badly. It's a crippling number of body blows.

                I had mentioned on RealGM that I thought that both Bird and O'Brien's jobs were safe going into next year, regardless of what happens the rest of this year. I wasn't supporting them, or saying they should be safe. I was just thinking that the Simons and Walsh are probably going to let it run out another year.

                As I sit, and as I read Putnam's post, I'm a little more comfortable with that. I'm not (and probably never will be) convinced O'Brien's the guy who'll lead us back to contention, but we're not going to contend next year anyway, so let him sit. Bird needs to find a way to get out from under some of these contracts, including JO & JT, without getting completely robbed.

                Coming into the season, I had hoped we'd be solid. That hope evaporated with the JO & JT injuries. Now, I'm reconciled to the fact that we're going to be bad. It will take a while to unwind this problem.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: What is wrong with the Pacers' management?

                  Ineffective negotiations (caving in) with player's agents, and allowing them to
                  be overvalued. Donnie has always received criticism for this, but my feeling
                  is that after he steps aside Bird and company may not be as willing to do
                  this.

                  We are hamstrung right now because of some of these crazy contracts and
                  and this must be avoided in the future whenever possible. I know these
                  management folks have to tiptoe a fine line between handing out the big
                  contracts to keep talent, or lose the player. But if they are going to hand
                  out a crazy contract then I would like them to hand it out not just based on
                  talent or "potential", but proven durability.

                  That player better have good legs, good joints, and good cartilage tissue so
                  he can stay out on the court almost an entire game, every game, for many
                  years. If a player is going to be worthy of a huge contract, I would like to
                  be sure he is a bonafide NBA "Iron Man", before talent or potential that
                  doesn't do a bit of good if the player is sidelined.

                  JMO

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: What is wrong with the Pacers' management?

                    Yeah, I think they only seen size in Harrison, nothing else.
                    R.I.P. Bernic Mac & Isaac Hayes

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: What is wrong with the Pacers' management?

                      Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                      2. Bad contracts

                      Bender. Tinsley. O'Neal. Murphy.

                      All these contracts are regrettable, but that is clear only in hindsight. Who knew on the day those contracts were signed that they would never pay off? Even Bender when he signed his extension still might have become the next Garnett. Murphy is a special case -- the price of dumping S. Jackson. O'Neal has been a good player, albeit not worth his contract. So what defect or deficiency in the front office has contributed to the Pacers getting into contracts that turned out bad?
                      The only comment that I have on Bender and ( to a certain degree ) Tinsley is that TPTB fell in love with the talent and didn't want to let it go. Realistically, the price of Tinsley isn't that high considering that from a talent level....he's not paid that much PER season for a Starting quality PG....the problem is that was given WAY too long of a contract. As for JONeal....I would say that his contract was simply a by-product of the over-inflated value of contracts WHEN he signed it. Back then Big Men like Foyle and ( unfortunately for us ) Murphy were being WAY too much. Short of sticking to our guns and risking JONeal ending up in San Antonio....the end result was that we had to pay what the Market rate was for Big Men back then. I don't like it....but that's the way things are.

                      The only contract that we could and should have avoided is Murphy. I don't know how the deal went down....but I don't get the sense that Murphy was one of the players targeted but one of the players that we had to get back IF we wanted to take back Ike while getting rid of Harrington as well. I really wonder if we just wanted to get rid of SJax ( while sending Harrington and wanting Ike )...what the price would have been. Either way....taking on Murphy's contract was a huge mistake. Taking back WAY more $$$$ then sending out was a HUGE mistake.
                      Last edited by CableKC; 02-22-2008, 11:58 AM.
                      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: What is wrong with the Pacers' management?

                        Originally posted by count55 View Post
                        Count me in as being solidly in line with Mal and Putnam here. I think there are some things TPTB could've done better, but I don't think they're raving incompetents.

                        The key point made was that almost all of their decisions seemed reasonable at the time. That doesn't mean that everyone agreed with every decision. It just means that a solid group of fans agreed with each, and in some cases, a solid majority.

                        The problem is that virtually every one of them has evolved into a worst case scenario. I can understand some things not working out, but Holy Crap, this is the worst run of luck (and I use the word "luck" tentatively) I've ever seen.

                        Bender, Artest, Jackson, Tinsley, JO, Stojakovic, Harrington have all spun badly. It's a crippling number of body blows.

                        I had mentioned on RealGM that I thought that both Bird and O'Brien's jobs were safe going into next year, regardless of what happens the rest of this year. I wasn't supporting them, or saying they should be safe. I was just thinking that the Simons and Walsh are probably going to let it run out another year.

                        As I sit, and as I read Putnam's post, I'm a little more comfortable with that. I'm not (and probably never will be) convinced O'Brien's the guy who'll lead us back to contention, but we're not going to contend next year anyway, so let him sit. Bird needs to find a way to get out from under some of these contracts, including JO & JT, without getting completely robbed.

                        Coming into the season, I had hoped we'd be solid. That hope evaporated with the JO & JT injuries. Now, I'm reconciled to the fact that we're going to be bad. It will take a while to unwind this problem.
                        i can agree to an extent until the luck aspect. how much 'bad luck' does it take before it stops being luck and starts being a style or philosophy of management that leads to these types of situations? eventually THIS much bad luck becomes a pattern. i'd call portland and their oden and bowie and walton picks bad luck. i'd say that when you have season after season with more and more luck of this poor quality, doesn't it start to become something else entirely?
                        This is the darkest timeline.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: What is wrong with the Pacers' management?

                          The title of this thread should be, "What isn't wrong with the Pacers Mangagement."

                          Here I'll start it off.....

                          Ok i am done!

                          Anybody else want to add anything?
                          Last edited by Gamble1; 02-22-2008, 12:58 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: What is wrong with the Pacers' management?

                            Originally posted by SycamoreKen View Post
                            Read it again.

                            Jas = mistake
                            Granger = acert
                            Harrison= a gamble that didn't pay off
                            Ok guess I didnt quite comprehend it before, or maybe its that I am still trying to figure out what a cert is
                            Hulk - "I'm 5 for 5 from the line. I should shoot technicals now."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: What is wrong with the Pacers' management?

                              I don't know what's wrong with TPTB, and that's what bothers me. I don't know what the hell's going on, and nothing they do seems to make much sense to me anymore.

                              If some of you may recall a few forum parties ago at Perkins, I made the statement that Bird would either lead us to a championship or destroy the franchise. It's starting to look more and more like the latter.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X