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

building through youth? not true for the Pacers

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

  • building through youth? not true for the Pacers

    Look at the Pacers teams during their run through the mid nineties through the mid 00's. These teams weren't built through the draft, but through savy trades. I acutally believe that the Pacers have been historically one of the worst franchises when it comes to drafting. Lets take a look at how the Pacers became contenders.

    1993 off season: The Pacers traded Detlef Schrempf for Mckey. Mckey was a veteran who was superior defensively to Schrempf and was a better "team" player

    1994 off season: The Pacers aquired Mark Jackson, another savy veteran PG who would become the best Pacers PG in history.

    1996 off season: The Pacers traded away Jackson for Jalen Rose, a young player with great potential that would become one of the franchises best players.

    1996-1997 mid season: The Pacers re-accquired Jackson via a trade. The youth experiment with starting Travis Best at PG did not work. The Pacers missed the playoffs.

    1997 off season: Traded Eric Dampier, a good young center prospect, for Chris Mullin. Veteran player again

    1998 off season: signed Sam Perkins, another veteran.

    1999 off season: Traded veteran Antonio Davis for the rights to draft Jonathan Bender. Bad decision. Pacers may have won the 2000 title if they still had Antonio to match up with Shaq.

    2000 off season: Traded veteran Dale Davis for the inexperienced Jermaine O'neal. No idea how Donnie Walsh pulled of this one-sided trade. O'neal would become the best Pacers PF/C in history.

    2001-2002 mid season: traded Rose and Best for Ron Artest, Ron Mercer, Kevin Ollie, and Brad Miller. A great trade which helped the Pacers contend unitl the brawl.

    Basically if you only plan on building through the draft, you have little chance unless you can land a franchise player. Lebron, Duncan, Wall etc. The draft is too hit or miss. If you have good players which teams are interested in, you need to be careful to get the best value for them.
    Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

  • #2
    Re: building through youth? not true for the Pacers

    Um, the 90's team not built thru the draft? Really?

    Reggie Miller
    Rik Smits
    Dale Davis
    Antonio Davis (2nd Rounder)
    Travis Best (a big bench player/4th quarter player in a number of the playoff series)

    That's pretty much the core of the team. We certainly supplemented it and got the final piece (Jackson) thru trades, but I think that's a substantial case for a team built through the draft.
    "I mean, you'd walk into our dressing room and run into Mel Daniels holding a .45 -- it makes you wonder."

    Bob Netolicky

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: building through youth? not true for the Pacers

      Those Pacer teams in the early 90's weren't contenders until the Pacers started trading their good players away for veterans that were better team players. I didn't even mention the Chuck Person trade that got us Pooh Richardson and Sam Mitchell. Pooh didn't really work out, but Mitchell was effective for us in his role.Chuck Person and Detlef were both good for the Pacers, but with those guys we weren't getting out of the first round of the Playoffs. Drewtone, please just read and pay attention to what I am explaining, you obviously missed my point completely.
      Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: building through youth? not true for the Pacers

        Originally posted by bhaas0532 View Post
        Those Pacer teams in the early 90's weren't contenders until the Pacers started trading their good players away for veterans that were better team players. I didn't even mention the Chuck Person trade that got us Pooh Richardson and Sam Mitchell. Pooh didn't really work out, but Mitchell was effective for us in his role.Chuck Person and Detlef were both good for the Pacers, but with those guys we weren't getting out of the first round of the Playoffs. Drewtone, please just read and pay attention to what I am explaining, you obviously missed my point completely.

        Well, I read your first point carefully and admittedly kind of slacked off by about the third time you contradicted your orignial point.

        No, the Pacers do not have a horrible track record of drafting. The core of a team that eventually went to the finals were Pacers draft picks. Of course there were trades that helped, particularly in the case of turning Chuck into Pooh/Sam into Mark Jackson. No team that builds effectively through the draft is going to get every single piece that way. I think you say as much as I did in your reply above... they drafted and then used some of those picks later to supplement the core with vets (and one FA signing being Byron).

        As for that team never getting out of the first round without the trades, I'd say (as would a number of people on this board would) that time, the experience of those 1st round losses, and hiring Larry Brown did a great deal more for that core than the trades. Even Larry cited one of the reasons for the Detlef trade was to get more floortime for Dale (the draft pick).
        "I mean, you'd walk into our dressing room and run into Mel Daniels holding a .45 -- it makes you wonder."

        Bob Netolicky

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: building through youth? not true for the Pacers

          Drewtone, thanks for reminding me about Byron Scott. Another veteran, not a young player, who helped the Pacers get over the hump. Thanks for helping me prove my point. With regards to the draft, I did not say that all of our draft picks were bad, but the Pacers improved through trades and free-agency. We did miss on several first-round draft picks over the years. We became a decent team with a few good draft picks, but became a relevant NBA franchise when we traded away for veterans. Drewtone, please explain to me how the draft helped us reach elite statues when we had so many misses? Scott Haskin, George McCloud, Malie Sealy, David Harrison, Fred Jones, Jonathan Bender, etc.
          Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: building through youth? not true for the Pacers

            the pacers recent track record may leave a lot to be desired but they drafted very well from 87-91.

            Pieces added later through other means were acquired to build around the core established by those very good draft picks (and mainly Reggie Miller)

            also every team in the league can runoff a long list of bad draft picks. most draft picks fail.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: building through youth? not true for the Pacers

              Originally posted by bhaas0532 View Post
              Drewtone, thanks for reminding me about Byron Scott. Another veteran, not a young player, who helped the Pacers get over the hump. Thanks for helping me prove my point. With regards to the draft, I did not say that all of our draft picks were bad, but the Pacers improved through trades and free-agency. We did miss on several first-round draft picks over the years. We became a decent team with a few good draft picks, but became a relevant NBA franchise when we traded away for veterans. Drewtone, please explain to me how the draft helped us reach elite statues when we had so many misses? Scott Haskin, George McCloud, Malie Sealy, David Harrison, Fred Jones, Jonathan Bender, etc.
              Well that would be fairly easy, given that you're basing your analysis on a 15-20 year stretch, which covers basically two different teams.

              The post-finals team, per Donny Walsh, was not set to be 'rebuilt', which would be difficult having drafted in the late 20's where you get flawed players, such as Tinsley and David Harrison, while you try to 'reload' with players through trade, FA, etc.

              So let's stick to the Pacers team that was (in Scotty Pippen's view as quoted) better than the Bulls in '98 and reached the finals in 2000:

              3 starters (Reggie, Dale, Rik) and the 2 of the first 3 off the bench (Travis and Antonio) were on the '98 team, and only Antonio was gone in 2000. You even argued up top that we would have been better off in 2000 if we'd kept our draftee, Antonio... many (including me) would agree.

              I just don't see how under any reasonable benchmark, you wouldn't call that successfully building a team through the draft.

              So that team, which had a core together a good 10 years anyway, had 2 misses, McCloud and Haskin (I don't know why you'd call Malik a bust... he was a young player who we traded that became a good player for Minny and tragically died.). McCloud was drafted and forced into a position he wasn't suited for... he was fine as a '3' when he returned to Denver.

              Give me that crappy drafting record any time.
              "I mean, you'd walk into our dressing room and run into Mel Daniels holding a .45 -- it makes you wonder."

              Bob Netolicky

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: building through youth? not true for the Pacers

                http://basketballreference.com/playe...d=SEALYMA01%20


                Makik Sealy's career stats. Mediocre scoring. Terrible rebounds, assists, three point %. I never said he was a bust, but he was never really anything more then maybe the eighth or ninth best player on any given team. The Pacers could have gotten his kind of value in the second round.

                What happened to Malik is sad, but just because a player dies suddenly, we don't need to over-glorify his accomplishments as a pro.
                Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: building through youth? not true for the Pacers

                  Originally posted by Drewtone View Post
                  Um, the 90's team not built thru the draft? Really?

                  Reggie Miller
                  Rik Smits
                  Dale Davis
                  Antonio Davis (2nd Rounder)
                  Travis Best (a big bench player/4th quarter player in a number of the playoff series)

                  That's pretty much the core of the team. We certainly supplemented it and got the final piece (Jackson) thru trades, but I think that's a substantial case for a team built through the draft.
                  Further, drafted players like Chuck Person, Malik Sealy, and Eric Piatkowski were the assets that were traded (ultimately) for Mark Jackson.

                  Some of you are drawing an unreasonable distinction here. Building a team through the draft does not mean you can't make trades and sign FAs. It means that your draft picks are your primary asset for the future. For other teams, expiring contracts are thier assets for the future.

                  But I think there's even less history of success for a small market team to use a boatload of cap space and turn that into a championship contender. Remember "Backcourt 2000" in Phoenix? That worked about as well as Grant Hill in Orlando and T-Mac in Houston.
                  Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                  Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                  Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                  Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                  And life itself, rushing over me
                  Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                  Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: building through youth? not true for the Pacers

                    Originally posted by SkipperZ View Post
                    the pacers recent track record may leave a lot to be desired but they drafted very well from 87-91.

                    Pieces added later through other means were acquired to build around the core established by those very good draft picks (and mainly Reggie Miller)

                    also every team in the league can runoff a long list of bad draft picks. most draft picks fail.
                    Correction: 86-91. In 1986, they drafted the upcoming RoY. And even though McCloud was a bust, look at that draft... it was terrible overall even though there were some really good PGs taken in the middle of the first round. Pervis Ellison #1? Danny Ferry #2? Randy White and Tom Hammonds in the top-ten? As bad as McCloud was during his four years in Indy, five of the top-ten in that draft were busts and Pooh Richardson, JR Reid and Stacy King don't exactly stand out either. The only good picks in the top-ten were Sean Elliott and Glen Rice. Now, the second ten was much better (Blaylock, Hardaway, Anderson, Barros and that Shawn Kemp guy that was a stud in Seattle).

                    Person - Miller - Smits - McCloud - T.Davis and Williams in the second round - Dale Davis ... that's a great six year run to build the team around.

                    To be honest - Tisdale in '85, Vern in '84 and Stipo in '83 weren't bad picks either. They were all starters, along with Chuck, on the '86-87 team that made the playoffs and won the first NBA playoff game in franchise history. Stipo, like Haskin, had a freak injury that ended his career. I'm not saying Haskin was going to be good... I'm saying his career was over in less than thirty games and less than 200 minutes so we don't have a clue if he would have been any good or not.

                    So from '83 to '92, we drafted Stipo, Vern, Tisdale, Chuck, Reggie, Rik, McCloud, Tony Davis, Dale Davis, and Malik. That's pretty damn good.
                    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                    And life itself, rushing over me
                    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: building through youth? not true for the Pacers

                      Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                      Correction: 86-91. In 1986, they drafted the upcoming RoY. And even though McCloud was a bust, look at that draft... it was terrible overall even though there were some really good PGs taken in the middle of the first round. Pervis Ellison #1? Danny Ferry #2? Randy White and Tom Hammonds in the top-ten? As bad as McCloud was during his four years in Indy, five of the top-ten in that draft were busts and Pooh Richardson, JR Reid and Stacy King don't exactly stand out either. The only good picks in the top-ten were Sean Elliott and Glen Rice. Now, the second ten was much better (Blaylock, Hardaway, Anderson, Barros and that Shawn Kemp guy that was a stud in Seattle).

                      Person - Miller - Smits - McCloud - T.Davis and Williams in the second round - Dale Davis ... that's a great six year run to build the team around.

                      To be honest - Tisdale in '85, Vern in '84 and Stipo in '83 weren't bad picks either. They were all starters, along with Chuck, on the '86-87 team that made the playoffs and won the first NBA playoff game in franchise history. Stipo, like Haskin, had a freak injury that ended his career. I'm not saying Haskin was going to be good... I'm saying his career was over in less than thirty games and less than 200 minutes so we don't have a clue if he would have been any good or not.

                      So from '83 to '92, we drafted Stipo, Vern, Tisdale, Chuck, Reggie, Rik, McCloud, Tony Davis, Dale Davis, and Malik. That's pretty damn good.
                      I completely agree. I only singled out 87-91 because thats when we got the guys we actually built the team around. But its definitely true that in the 80s-early 90s we drafted very well.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: building through youth? not true for the Pacers

                        Lebron, Duncan, Wall, etc.

                        Dude hasn't even played a game in the NBA yet and he's the third best example of drafting a franchise player? Damn, he really is good.


                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: building through youth? not true for the Pacers

                          Would the mid-90's team even exist if they'd started being drafted in 2005?

                          I mean Reggie was drafted in '87, but it wasn't until his 7th season that we got the 93-94 team.

                          Danny's 7th season will be the 2011-12 season.

                          I just can easily imagine, if the Internet was then what it is now, that fans would have jumped ship and given up by, say, 1992 or so on that team and been demanding that Donnie "blow it up".

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: building through youth? not true for the Pacers

                            You forgot to mention the draft picks of talented players like Scot Haskin and George Mc Cloud.

                            Pacers can't afford to miss out in this years draft class and not take Cole Aldrich #1 overall.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: building through youth? not true for the Pacers

                              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                              Would the mid-90's team even exist if they'd started being drafted in 2005?

                              I mean Reggie was drafted in '87, but it wasn't until his 7th season that we got the 93-94 team.

                              Danny's 7th season will be the 2011-12 season.

                              I just can easily imagine, if the Internet was then what it is now, that fans would have jumped ship and given up by, say, 1992 or so on that team and been demanding that Donnie "blow it up".
                              We didn't need the Internet. Sports-talk radio was enough on its own. The internet has made it even bigger and more immediate, but it was not new.

                              The Chuck and Micheal for a pile of Pooh and Spare Change trade was exactly that. They were stuck at 0.500, the fans were restless, had already forgotten about what Chuck did in 87 and 91, and were ready to blow it up and hand the team over to Detlef (not Reggie.)
                              Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                              Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                              Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                              Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                              And life itself, rushing over me
                              Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                              Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X