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

The Last Three Days: Are the Pacers Better (or Better off?)

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 3
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 template Next
  • #1

    The Last Three Days: Are the Pacers Better (or Better off?)

    Note to Admins: I'm sorry if this is duplicate of another discussion. I posted it on RealGM, but wanted to see how it flew here. I will not be in the least bit offended if you need to lock or move it. Thanks...count

    There has been a lot of activity over the last three days. The big JO-to-Toronto Trade and the drafting, then trading of Bayless have been the biggest impacts.

    One of the things that happened last night was many, if not all of us felt some degree of disappointment (if not outright anger) over the fact that we had Bayless, then traded him away. There have been calls for Bird's firing. While I don't agree with them, I certainly understand the sentiment. The time since Bird was hired has been one of great early promise followed by some of the most bitter disappointment in franchise history. To borrow Bird's phrase, I think it's absolutely appropriate for him to be on "thin ice", with every move measured and weighed to determine whether he moves one step closer or one step away from termination.

    I freely admit it...I'm a Pacer homer. I reconciled myself a long time ago to the idea of sticking with the team through thick and thin. That doesn't mean that I don't get angry or frustrated. It just means that I have yet to experience or contemplate a thing that they would do that would cause me to stop being a fan. That doesn't make me a better fan than anyone, and, in some ways, one could argue it makes me a worse fan, but that's really not what I'm trying to say. (I think questioning other people's fanhood is bull****.) I'm just trying to be honest about where I come from when I start looking for the good (or rationalizing, as the pshrinks among us might claim).

    But, I asked myself this this morning: How would I have reacted to being told on Monday, June 24th the following things would be true (though not official) on Friday, June 27th:

    - We would have a new starting point guard in TJ Ford and a solid backup who can defend in Jarrett Jack.
    - We would have reduced our 2008-2009 payroll by $2 million, giving us 15 players under contract, whereas we previously were staring at being over the luxury tax with only 12 players under contract. We would've done it without having to fill the last three spots with league min guys.
    - We would have come out of draft night with Brandon Rush, Roy Hibbert, and Jarrett Jack.
    - Instead of having 5 players (JO, T-Murda, Junior, Droopy, Travis) with $55mm in committed salaries in 2009-2010, we have six players (T-Murda, Junior, Droopy, Travis, Brandon, Hibbert) with $43mm in committed salaries.
    - To get this, I'd have to give up JO, Ike, and #11 & #41 (keeping in mind what I am actually getting out of the draft)

    What would I think?

    Personally, I would've been thrilled with that. For that reason, I was able to get over the initial disappointment (for the most part) in relatively short order. It's also why I'm not pickin' up my pitchfork and heading to Larry's office. I think the team has come farther than I probably hoped they would this summer. All that's left for them to do now, in my opinion, it to move Tinsley (for anything), and I will consider this summer a sparkling success.

    Before we leave the Bayless issue, I want to acknowledge that I don't necessarily disagree with the point of view that we should have kept Bayless. He is the more exciting player/pick, and I think, probably does have more "star" potential. However, my belief is that Bird has actually improved the team, both on the floor and on the books, significantly so far this summer. The argument that he could've/should've improved it more by keeping Bayless is sound, but I don't believe the difference is a firing offense. I'd call it the difference between a very good job and an outstanding job. (Yes, I recognize that difference could eventually cost us a title, but right now, I'm pleased to see a clear direction and some positive moves.)

    Anyway, why do I think we're better? I've outlined the finances. We "moved" JO's money around. It does put $8.3mm into 2010-2011 that wasn't there before, but we were never going to be LeBron players, and the pieces are smaller and easier to move. While the overall spending is only about $4 to $6 mil less than previously committed, it's structured in a much more manageable way.

    However, I think we've gotten better on the court, and here's why:

    - PG improvement - I think TJ Ford is at least as good as the "Good Droopy". He's not a good shooter, and Tinsley was a better passer, but Ford makes up for it with speed, better defense, better (but not perfect) attitude, and better reliability. I was going to say durability, but I'll go with reliability. In other words, Ford may risk career ending injury every time he takes a foul, but that risk (IMO) is far less than the JT knee/elbow/butt bruise day-to-day crap we've dealt with for years now. Add to that Jarrett Jack as a backup, who brings us a big, physical guard who leaves you wanting as a playmaker but can upgrade our perimeter D. Finally, Diener has shown he can be a good player in short minutes...he'll be a nice change of pace.
    - Perimeter Defense Improvement - I want to first say that nobody we've gotten is a Ron-Artest-Lockdown defender. When I say improvement, I mean that we've added size, strength, and speed to our arsenal, and I don't think we've hurt ourselves offensively in the process. Both Jack and Rush have excellent physical characteristics for guarding the wings. Ford has great speed and can pressure the ball, though he will be susceptible to post ups. However, if Ford can slow down the advance of the ball and cut down penetration, Jack, Rush, and Granger can prevent easy passes to the wing and the post, then the opposing team can't get into its offense as quickly. Therefore, fewer easy shots, fewer opportunities to post up a small Ford, less pressure on the interior defense.
    - Stability up front - No, it's not exciting, and somewhat lacking in talent, but a big man rotation of Murphy/Foster/Rasho/Hibbert will give us relatively reliable, predictable production from the front. Rasho's main value is as an expiring, but he will be a serviceable big man. Hibbert is interesting. He doesn't have the speed and anticipation to be a great shot blocker, but he's huge, and by all accounts, very smart from a basketball perspective. He's a good passer and a fantastic screener. No, he won't get up and down the court like a Gazelle, but I think he'll help immensely in the half court, as a passer, screener, and formidable post presence.
    - Just plain stability - I think, for the first time in a long time, we will see our top 10 players all play over 65 games. The team will learn to play together better. The roles established by Dunleavy and, more importantly, Danny Granger as quality scoring options will be solidified. We won't be guessing all the time.

    Now, for the silly prediction that everyone will make fun of me for:

    I think the Pacers could win 45 games next year and be dangerous in the playoffs. Yes, the talent that the Pacers gave away in JO was potentially greater than the talent received in Ford, Rasho, & Hibbert. However, that talent didn't play for us last year. Our two key players coming into last year (JO & JT) missed a combined 83 games. The team went 36-46.

    Yeah, but how many games did they win without those guys? you ask. Well, the team was 16-23 (.410) in games where Jamaal played (20-23, .465 w/o), 19-23 (.452) in games where JO played (17-23, .425 w/o), so those guys didn't have a huge impact last year. More to the point, the team was only 10-16 (.385) when both played, vs. 26-30 without (.464).

    Assume Danny and Mike have years comparable to last year, substitute TJ & Jack for Diener/Owens/Murray, and substitute Brandon Rush for Kareem Rush, and that's where my optimism comes from.

    And this is done with a team whose core players are between 25-29.

    Yes, we'll need to figure out how to improve to become contenders again, but I'm excited about some good basketball being played next year.

    Of course, I could be incredibly wrong, but...isn't that what the summer is all about?

    I guess this makes me a Sunshiner...gotta change my mood.
    Last edited by Unclebuck; 06-27-2008, 09:42 AM.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: httpThe Last Three Days: Are the Pacers Better (or Better off?)

    Admins...can you correct the thread title please? I didn't realize I added the http in the copy and paste.

    Please & Thanks.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: httpThe Last Three Days: Are the Pacers Better (or Better off?)

      You can correct it yourself by double clicking on the bottom right of the title
      Word on the street is he doesn't want your money, he only wants to please your ears...
      Bum in Berlin on Myspace

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: The Last Three Days: Are the Pacers Better (or Better off?)

        Absolutely better off. The biggest move was gaining flexibility by moving JO's contract. We have an improved defensive team already and flexibility to make future improvements. A nice mix of vets and young players. I look at Foster and Granger as the solid leaders of this young and finally rebuilding Pacers franchise!
        Turn out the lights, this party's over!

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: The Last Three Days: Are the Pacers Better (or Better off?)

          In answer to the thread title question, regardless of one's thoughts on shipping Bayliss, I still think the answer is yes. And you've shown the rationale.

          Only mystery at this point is are the moves done for this offseason? I'm holding out hope we get something in return for JT other than a buyout. Cupboard looks rather bare at the PF. If Shawne is still around I have to think he'll get a look there. Although he, Rasho, and Quis seem like the most likely pieces should there be any more moves.

          I'd throw Foster in there as a possible chip except he's rumored to be a JOB fave and I'm sure the front office likes him, too.
          I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

          -Emiliano Zapata

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: The Last Three Days: Are the Pacers Better (or Better off?)

            I like what has transpired in the last couple of days.

            I remember all the years of people complaining about "Donnie-do-nothing", and in comparison this is a whirlwind.

            I really think some are missing the boat on B. Rush and Hibbert. In Rush we get a guy who shot, what was it, 44% from 3pt. range in college? Something near that. If we can get get Foster & Hibbert (maybe Rasho) setting the screens and picks for him like the Davis guys used to for Reggie, we may see some fireworks at the fieldhouse.

            I am not that familiar with J. Jack, but people have commented on his defense as being solid (as is Rush's), and we certainly need that. With TJ's quickness, the team had better be running a lot of sprints this summer, or he will leave them in his dust.

            All in all, I'm looking forward to next season more than I was before, and that is what you want. Right?

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: The Last Three Days: Are the Pacers Better (or Better off?)

              Originally posted by Tom White View Post
              I like what has transpired in the last couple of days.

              I remember all the years of people complaining about "Donnie-do-nothing", and in comparison this is a whirlwind.

              I really think some are missing the boat on B. Rush and Hibbert. In Rush we get a guy who shot, what was it, 44% from 3pt. range in college? Something near that. If we can get get Foster & Hibbert (maybe Rasho) setting the screens and picks for him like the Davis guys used to for Reggie, we may see some fireworks at the fieldhouse.

              I am not that familiar with J. Jack, but people have commented on his defense as being solid (as is Rush's), and we certainly need that. With TJ's quickness, the team had better be running a lot of sprints this summer, or he will leave them in his dust.

              All in all, I'm looking forward to next season more than I was before, and that is what you want. Right?

              I'm still not quite reconciled to the trading of what I thought was a gift dropped in our lap in Bayless, BUT I do like the thought we have gotten better on the perimeter in terms of "D". I have voiced my opinion and concern about this for over 2 years. What I don't like in the Bayless/Rush trade is we got no other compensation in the form of the #27 pick or either of the 2 second round picks(33 & 36). I think Bird got "fleeced", that's putting it as politely as I can! I'd like to see this trade expanded to include Williams and Frye. The salaries of Jack & Frye will match with Ike and Williams. The Pacers are short up front and gave away a big in Ike, so Frye would offset this loss. I know we got McRoberts, yeah right. He's D-League material again this year, and NO help to the Pacers now or in the future. Bird needs to "retool" this trade, and make it more equitable for both sides. He's got until July 9th to do it, or otherwise Bird got "fleeced"! JMOAA

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: The Last Three Days: Are the Pacers Better (or Better off?)

                As I see it, the answer for this question at this point perhaps mainly depends on what kind of impact O'Neal will present next season playing in Toronto.

                If JO plays there on the same level than here this season, we are better team off now without him, but in case he will improve close onto the level he used to be when he was near his best, we are probably worse off without him.

                I'd say optimistically that we might be slightly better to this point. Not necessarily because of JO (who presumably won't be near his top form?), but because of other moves we did make, or at least are going to make, this offseason.

                Now, was this recent agreement of passing Bayless for B. Rush and Jack (essentially) right thing to do? Based purely on obvious talent, I'm little worried about that. On the other hand, since we already got Ford as a new starting PG, it wasn't a very dumb move after all.

                Let's also remember that our front office most likely is not at all done making deals this summer in order to better our team. Hopefully so!

                It is true that there are still some difficult work to do. But we shouldn't judge this team very hard as of now. Right time for doing that will be at the beginning of the upcoming season, if not even a little later than that.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: The Last Three Days: Are the Pacers Better (or Better off?)

                  JO would have not had the same production next year here as I predict he will in Toronto. He needed a change in scenery and I think that Bosh will take a lot of the pressure off him up there so that he can focus on defense.
                  Play Mafia!
                  Twitter

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: The Last Three Days: Are the Pacers Better (or Better off?)

                    Without reading the initial post and going strictly off the acquisitions over the last 48 hours, I'd say the Pacers are "better off" than they were at this time last year from a financial and practical standpoint. They won't be "better" until they can find someone to shore up the PF position. The Pacers may have strengthened their back-court, but they have a soft front-court even with Nesterovic, Harrison (if retained), Foster, Murphy, Baston, McRoberts and Hibbert. Ironically, only Harrison stands out to me as a legit shot blocker.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: The Last Three Days: Are the Pacers Better (or Better off?)

                      Originally posted by Pig Nash View Post
                      JO would have not had the same production next year here as I predict he will in Toronto. He needed a change in scenery and I think that Bosh will take a lot of the pressure off him up there so that he can focus on defense.
                      I see it more in reverse...JO will take more pressure of Bosh!

                      JO will most likely play Center - a position he bit the bullet and played while here. He still sees himself as a PF which is correct, but there's no way Bosh will play Center and you're not going to get JO to come off the bench too easily. JO will anchor the middle much as he did here relieving Bosh from most of his former defensive responsibilities.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: The Last Three Days: Are the Pacers Better (or Better off?)

                        I have an inside source that says Tinsley's careers over due to his bum knee...
                        look for a buyout
                        Come quietly or there will be... trouble.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: The Last Three Days: Are the Pacers Better (or Better off?)

                          I know this: I'm definitely more interested than I was this time last year.

                          Last summer's stagnation led to very low intrigue in the Pacers, at least for me. That combined with a coach who's philosophies I don't really like made me question if we could win 30 games.

                          By preseason, we'll have had a hell of a facelift. I like our potential, and our direction. I hope JOB can make it work.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: The Last Three Days: Are the Pacers Better (or Better off?)

                            Originally posted by robocop's cousin View Post
                            I have an inside source that says Tinsley's careers over due to his bum knee... look for a buyout
                            Oh man, that would actually be great for the Pacers (bad for Tinsley, of course). A career-ending injury would mean that the Pacers wouldn't have to buy him out... insurance would take over his contract and he wouldn't count against the cap.

                            If we buy him out, then he's still able to play.
                            This space for rent.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: The Last Three Days: Are the Pacers Better (or Better off?)

                              Originally posted by robocop's cousin View Post
                              I have an inside source that says Tinsley's careers over due to his bum knee...
                              look for a buyout
                              Yeah, Mike Wells discussed this pretty much in depth on JMV just a couple days ago about his knees being gone and JT gaining 25 lbs since April.
                              ...Still "flying casual"
                              @roaminggnome74

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 template Next
                              Working...
                              X