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

Bird interviewed by SLAM

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

  • #16
    Re: Bird interviewed by SLAM

    Originally posted by Peck View Post
    Yet he signed him to an extension.

    Why is it every single time I read or hear something he say's it is in almost complete contridiction to Jim O'Briens coaching. Yet he extends him and gives him huge giant vote of confidence early in the season.

    Think about it, every free agent he has signed, every draft he has made since O'Brien has been here is in complete contrast to the style of play Jim wants.

    Talk about confusing and talk about shooting yourself in the foot. He should either just get Jim what he wants and needs or get a coach more in step with his spoken philosophy.
    Eh... I think he sees JOB as the most direct/easy way to get through to the 2011 season. Given that our team will not likely go far between now and then due to cap restrictions, he wants to create as clean of a slate as possible to lure a "real" coach.

    Cap flexibility, young players with potential, draft picks, and Granger.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Bird interviewed by SLAM

      Originally posted by Peck View Post
      Yet he signed him to an extension.

      Why is it every single time I read or hear something he say's it is in almost complete contridiction to Jim O'Briens coaching. Yet he extends him and gives him huge giant vote of confidence early in the season.

      Think about it, every free agent he has signed, every draft he has made since O'Brien has been here is in complete contrast to the style of play Jim wants.

      Talk about confusing and talk about shooting yourself in the foot. He should either just get Jim what he wants and needs or get a coach more in step with his spoken philosophy.
      I think he hired and keeps Jim around for other reasons. If I had to guess, it would be because:

      1) Jim was the best coach willing to take the job in 2007
      2) Jim is 100% dedicated to his job (works hard/late, doesn't carry any character/attitude issues that we know about or see) and seems to be a good guy
      3) Jim will play uptempo, which, in general at least, Larry seems to want
      4) While Jim has proven he can and will be political at times, he's usually a no-nonsense guy who doesn't put up with a lot of BS from players (though again, to a point he can/has), and he's not afraid to tell players how it is.
      5) Probably other things I'm forgetting or unaware of

      If I had to guess why he's being kept:

      1) The reasons he was hired still apply
      2) There's nothing significant to be gained in firing him during the year; any coach worth replacing him with would almost certainly rather come on board during the summer.
      3) Considering the talent level of our teams, and then on top of that considering health issues, and then players who regressed (TJ, Brandon), there's got to be a lot of slack given if he's interested in being fair to Jim
      4) This is a stretch, but maybe another reason is to try to give him a shot at coaching the team as the talent starts to increase (like if we make a trade this summer or next season to begin improving the talent)

      Now, with those things said, Jim clearly has issues that we've all seen, discussed, and sure as hell won't ignore. I'm by no means advocating the position that everything's fine. But I think if we can check our frustrations at the door for the moment, take a step back, and consider the bigger picture of these next 18 months, we are probably no worse off by keeping him than doing anything else.

      The main thing I would preach is this: Unless he blatantly seems to demote Roy and make Roy regress (not just by a benching, but by playing him less minutes), it's probably for the best to leave things be right now. At least through the end of the season.

      From there, Bird will have to decide if he thinks the roster and the coach can handle one another for another season. If he doesn't, then the extension was just a financial "thanks for riding out the ****ty years with us".

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Bird interviewed by SLAM

        Originally posted by able View Post
        Tad ? Why on earth are you calling Troy Murphy an asset ?

        assets are things of value that can be readily converted into cash

        Troy is worth very little, in fact an expiring contract is worth more then Murphy
        As it is he is a liability, he costs a large fortune in salary ( he is our highest paid player @ 11 million dollars and your income in change)
        For that it is statistically proven (or to be proven) that he is making our team play worse, in other words, the results when he plays are inherently worse then when he doesn't.
        I state a case for the fact that Murphy falls into these definitions:

        "anything that is a hindrance or puts an individual or group at a disadvantage."

        "an obligation of an entity arising from past transactions or events"

        both are definitions of a "liability"
        BUT! If another team seems to think he'll improve their team and they want him, then yes he is an asset to us!

        Gee-wizz it's like we have been stuck in such a down town everybody is stuck in a defeated, negative mindset...

        I sure hope Bird and Morey haven't gotten like some of you with their mindsets or theirs no way we are ever turning this back around and becoming winners again.

        And able your other post made zero sense to me... sense when was it being a bad GM to get below the Salary Cap and gain allot of financial freedom to design the team finally how he wants it... instead of the mess he inherited?
        "George's athleticism is bananas!" - Marc J. Spears

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Bird interviewed by SLAM

          What happened to the rumors that Bird is gone after this season? Has this been proven false? I am confused. Is he going to see this thing through or not?

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Bird interviewed by SLAM

            Originally posted by tadscout View Post
            BUT! If another team seems to think he'll improve their team and they want him, then yes he is an asset to us!

            Gee-wizz it's like we have been stuck in such a down town everybody is stuck in a defeated, negative mindset...

            I sure hope Bird and Morey haven't gotten like some of you with their mindsets or theirs no way we are ever turning this back around and becoming winners again.

            And able your other post made zero sense to me... sense when was it being a bad GM to get below the Salary Cap and gain allot of financial freedom to design the team finally how he wants it... instead of the mess he inherited?
            OK so you are describing Murphy as an intangible asset, i can live with that, he has some hidden values though only to others, to us he is simply a liability. (to be an asset he would have to make the team better to the tune of his salary, you tell me if he does)

            as for the second part

            There is a solid reason why all "better" teams are at least near or over the LT (dont even think about the cap) and that is the fact that you can not run a succesfull basketball team in the NBA below or on the cap.
            For that reason GM's are noted for "trading" contracts for players they can use or picks they can use and players they can trade, if we write off 46 million in salary and we can only recoup 35 million, then we have a reduction in "spendingpower "of 11 million dollar, which happens to be Murphy's salary, sooooooo, dumpinng him THIS year or next, is the same but with 2 small differences;

            !: JOB can no longer play him at center (we have proven, see record, that we can do without him)
            2: there is NO danger of the Pacers being OVER the LT this year (which at this moment in time looks like we WILL be. (this is a financial difference of many millions, how many is depending on how much the added bonus from the NBA is , which depends on how much teams are over in total $)



            cheers
            So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

            If you've done 6 impossible things today?
            Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Bird interviewed by SLAM

              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
              2) There's nothing significant to be gained in firing him during the year;
              I'm taking out the rest of your quote in the interest of space and the fact that I don't really have any major disagreements with what you are saying.

              However this part here I want to address.

              I see this said over and over (not from you btw but in general) and I just disagree with this comment.

              I think it totally depends on the reason for the firing and what you plan to do with the rest of the season.

              If, as an example, Bird just gets fed up with the style of offense we are running and O'Brien refuses to change styles to match what the team wants done then as long as whoever comes in does nothing but advances the idea of fundamental basketball, good shot selection, individual defensive responsibility, etc. then not only would it not harm the team I can see where this would go a long way in helping the team.

              Let's say that the next coach stops the young players from bad habits on offense that they will pick up under O'Brien, can you say that is bad?

              If the new coach was told that we really want to focus on defense and not just talk about it and you need to play players who will get the job done and they change the rotation, can you say that is bad?

              If nothing else letting the players know that while they are responsible for their actions that management feels they were not given the right tools to work with.

              Actually if they do not intend to keep O'Brien for next season I can make an argument that it will do more harm than good to keep him around.

              Even his biggest defenders on here will admit that Jim is a system coach and not every coach uses that system. I think they will even admit that the majority of coach's do not use that system. In fact if push comes to shove they would probably even have to concede that very few coach's use that system or even a system close to it.

              With that in mind whoever the next long term coach is most likely that person is not going to be one to be free with the offensive shots, so in fact some players are probably developing very bad habits that whoever comes in will have to break. Certainly Danny Granger will not be given the green light to shoot 10+ three pointers every game.

              But I can see all of the arguments that you made as well, I just wanted to say that I don't think it is absolutely worthless to consider firing him now.


              Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Bird interviewed by SLAM

                Originally posted by Peck View Post
                But I can see all of the arguments that you made as well, I just wanted to say that I don't think it is absolutely worthless to consider firing him now.
                Firing JOB now would be a huge mistake.

                This coming summer would have been the time to change coaches, before Bird gave JOB an extension. Now they're stuck.

                Why? Because the Pacers can't justify paying two coaches while at the same time telling the city of Indianapolis that they can't afford the fieldhouse. You don't negotiate that way.

                The city would just say, "You can't afford the fieldhouse because you make dumb decisions, like paying two coaches at the same time." And they would have a point!

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Bird interviewed by SLAM

                  Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                  Because Bird isn't going to do a trade just to save the owner some money until he has to. We're a full year away from him having to do that.

                  If you take the money out of it Bird would be giving away an asset for nothing. Just not Bird's style if you ask me.
                  Originally posted by tadscout View Post
                  Thank You! Thank You! Thank You! I'm tired of hearing over and over lets just get it done for the $$$... When we are the one's with the asset and bargaining postilion... that means we can get more out of a deal...

                  Multiple teams want Murph therefore we have the upper hand, as well in that we do not have to trade him! BUT if they see him as a key piece for a playoff run, then they'll give more to get him...

                  I guess all I'm saying is I know we have a history of starting out at a disadvantage in trade talks (Artest, Jackson, Tinsley) but here we are not, so please stop talking as if we are! Only bad trades result that way...

                  Be patient and let Bird play the negotiation game... and again I say be patient b/c most trades don't happen till very close to the deadline, and that's still weeks away folks....
                  The Pacers will likely be $6-7mil over the 2010-2011 LT threshold. If we don't do anything.....what do you think is going to be the cost for the Pacers to trade any of our Big 4 Contracts to a Team under the SalaryCap to shave $6-7 mil off of the 2010-2011 SalaryCap in order to get a Trade Exception?

                  The answer? The Pacers would have to give up an asset ( prospect, draft choice and $$$ ) that they cannot simply afford.

                  Ask the Jazz if they'd have preferred to dump Matt Harpring's Expiring 2009-2010 Contract this season as opposed to last season for a Trade Exception so that they can get under the likely 2009-2010 Luxury Tax Threshold. Ask the Nuggets 2 seasons ago if they were happy with being forced to trade Marcus Camby to the Clippers for nothing going into a season where they were already over the LT Threshold. The Jazz had to give up Maynor What do you think the Nuggets could have gotten for Camby if they shopped him the season before? I'm pretty sure that they could have gotten more then a 2nd round pick.

                  If you still disagree with me.......let me approach this from a different POV.....explain to me how you think the Pacers can realisticall get under the 2010-2011 LT Threshold without paying a heavy price ( as in giving up a prospect, draft pick, $$$ or adding any unwanted Salary for the future....specifically 2011-2012 and beyond ).

                  Seth and count55 probably can do a much better job of explaining the SalaryCap/Financial side of this....but it is ALWAYS better to go into the season UNDER the LT threshold instead of going into a season OVER the LT threshold. If we don't, unless there is a Team that is absolutely in love with any of the Big 4 Contracts that they'd be willing to ask for very little in return to take them on.....there will likely be a cost that we cannot afford to pay.
                  Last edited by CableKC; 01-24-2010, 05:35 AM.
                  Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Bird interviewed by SLAM

                    Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                    If you still disagree with me.......let me approach this from a different POV.....explain to me
                    I see no reason to go on with this.

                    The way I see it you just want to get rid of Murphy as quick as possible, and you don't want to wait. Anybody saying anything different you will just disagree with.

                    Myself, I'm content to let the Pacer's brass handle it.

                    EDIT; What's new though is we might not be over next year's lux tax when it's computed in July. See> http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthread.php?t=50282
                    Last edited by Will Galen; 01-24-2010, 07:47 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Bird interviewed by SLAM

                      Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                      I see no reason to go on with this.

                      The way I see it you just want to get rid of Murphy as quick as possible, and you don't want to wait. Anybody saying anything different you will just disagree with.

                      Myself, I'm content to let the Pacer's brass handle it.

                      EDIT; What's new though is we might not be over next year's lux tax when it's computed in July. See> http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthread.php?t=50282
                      Will, I'm sorry....I'm not trying to be a d*ck here and don't want to come off as a Murphy-Hater and give you a "if you don't disagree with me....then and "-type response.

                      My reasoning is based off of the assumption that the LT will be lower and that it is far more important to save the Team/Owners $$$ as opposed to waiting until the next season to see what the best deal we can get. In order to get out from under the LT.....we would need to get a Trade Exception from a Team that is under the Salary Cap ( which would likely cost us a prospect or Draft Pick ) or deal with a Team that is not under the Salary Cap ( and therefore add unwanted Salary to our SalaryCap/Financial situation beyond the 2010-2011 season ).....both options that I do not think is palatable.

                      That's why I ask those that disagree with me, explain to me how we will get out from under the 2010-2011 Luxury Tax?

                      Cuz I can't figure out a way to do it without costing us something.

                      Of course, my above assumptions may change based off of your post from RealGM regarding the impending LT for the 2010-2011 season.
                      Last edited by CableKC; 01-24-2010, 10:14 PM.
                      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Bird interviewed by SLAM

                        Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                        I see no reason to go on with this.

                        The way I see it you just want to get rid of Murphy as quick as possible, and you don't want to wait. Anybody saying anything different you will just disagree with.

                        Myself, I'm content to let the Pacer's brass handle it.

                        EDIT; What's new though is we might not be over next year's lux tax when it's computed in July. See> http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthread.php?t=50282
                        They not be over and just maybe they are willing to go over the cap this one year with
                        a much bigger pay-off to come. I agree with you. Only make trades that help the future of the team.
                        {o,o}
                        |)__)
                        -"-"-

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Bird interviewed by SLAM

                          Originally posted by Peck View Post
                          Yet he signed him to an extension.

                          Why is it every single time I read or hear something he say's it is in almost complete contridiction to Jim O'Briens coaching. Yet he extends him and gives him huge giant vote of confidence early in the season.

                          Think about it, every free agent he has signed, every draft he has made since O'Brien has been here is in complete contrast to the style of play Jim wants.

                          Talk about confusing and talk about shooting yourself in the foot. He should either just get Jim what he wants and needs or get a coach more in step with his spoken philosophy.
                          But Bird knew O'Brien likes the three point shot when he hired him to begin with. So he decided he liked Jim's whole coaching package enough to hire him and then give him an extension - (extension was only done so he wasn't a lameduck)

                          I don't find anything confusing here.

                          Hicks answered this much better than I did
                          Last edited by Unclebuck; 01-24-2010, 10:22 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Bird interviewed by SLAM

                            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                            (extension was only done so he wasn't a lameduck)
                            Things would be worse if he was a lame duck?
                            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                            ------

                            "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                            -John Wooden

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Bird interviewed by SLAM

                              Originally posted by Bball View Post
                              Things would be worse if he was a lame duck?
                              I've been saying from day 1 it was a Bird blunder to have given Jimmy an extension. This "lame duck" thinking holds water like a seive. I've said b4 it was a poor decision if ownership has to pay 2 coaches next season when ownership is finanically losing money. How can you justify it to the city of Indianapolis and the fans?

                              This morning I was looking at the immediate schedule to see what teams the Pacers could possibly defeat. Now, that's truly sad! I have never advocated firing Jimmy, and right now I'd rather not see him fired. Jimmy O'Stubborn is doing an excellent job all by himself of keeping the Pacers in the hunt for a 5-7 draft pick with his helter skelter run n gun with little "D" system.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Bird interviewed by SLAM

                                Lame duck status increases the likelihood of the coach losing the team. That's all there is to it. The extension doesn't promise anything either way, but it can help.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X