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

It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

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

  • #16
    Re: It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

    I hate when people call him a short term coach or a throw away coach.

    He has already been here 3 years, longer than anyone not named Slick, Rick or Brown. If he comes back next season and is here for his fourth season he will only be behind Slick and tied with Rick.


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

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

      Originally posted by Peck View Post
      I hate when people call him a short term coach or a throw away coach.

      He has already been here 3 years, longer than anyone not named Slick, Rick or Brown. If he comes back next season and is here for his fourth season he will only be behind Slick and tied with Rick.
      This whole period of the Ford/Tinsley/Murphleavy contracts basically ensured it would be a throwaway period, no matter who was gonna be here. Thus Bird's constant trumpeting of the 3 year/2011 plan.

      Bird evidently thought well enough of the job JOB did his first two years to ensure he'd get paid a 4th year, so that was his assessment. I personally wouldn't have given it to him.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

        Originally posted by d_c View Post
        This whole period of the Ford/Tinsley/Murphleavy contracts basically ensured it would be a throwaway period, no matter who was gonna be here.
        I tried to go into the archives and see who protested the loudest the day we traded for Murphleavy. Seth, I'm pretty sure. Maybe Jay. Arbry, but more pro Jax than anti Murphleavy.

        But I couldn't find the threads. Missing those dates, I think.
        "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

          I still believe it's wise to keep O'brien at least until the end of next year, but what do I know.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

            Originally posted by Sookie View Post
            Well here's the thing.

            I think if you play the younger guys, it will be more enjoyable. They will play more as a team, show effort and intensity.

            But here's the bottom line. They are young, there isn't a superstar there, and they are playing a really tough schedule. They'll lose anyway.
            Here's the fly in your ointment. You don't know they will lose anyway. Right now we have a team that knows it isn't going anywhere and is playing accordingly. When you change things around per your own words they will play more as a team, show effort and intensity. We don't want the players fired up. Fired up teams win more than their share simply on enthusiasm and energy.

            Right now we seem to be accomplishing our goal of getting a high draft pick, so it's better to let things be.

            As for the schedule, it's tough for the next 7 games, but 10 of the last 14 are at home. In the last 14 games we play Detroit twice, Washington twice, Sacramento, New Jersey, and New York, all very winnable games against teams we are competing with for a top draft pick. We could easily play over .500 over that span if we get on a roll.

            As is, I'm afraid we will play ourselves out of a top draft pick over the last 14 games.

            Myself I would rather finish 4th and be guaranteed a top seven pick, rather than actually finish seventh and only be guaranteed a top ten pick.
            Last edited by Will Galen; 03-05-2010, 02:42 AM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

              Consider the following scenarios at the league's current standing:


              1. Finishing 3-18 will get the Pacers at a lower percentage than GS currently has (3rd worst record). 15.6% chance @ #1 pick

              2. Finishing 7-14 will keep the Pacers in their current spot (4th worst record). 11.9% chance @ #1 pick

              3. Finishing 9-12 will give the Pacers a lower percentage than the 76ers (7th worst record). 4.3% chance @ #1 pick

              4. Finishing 11-10 will give the Pacers a lower percentage than the LA Clippers (9th worst record). 1.7% chance @ #1 pick

              5. Finishing 21-0 will give the Pacers a lower percentage than the Chicago Bulls (11th worst record). 0.8% chance @ #1 pick.


              Are we really tanking?

              For a 3.7% better chance at the #1 pick than we currently have?

              The addition or subtraction of any coaches is not going to get us at 9-12. That's a 7.6% lower chance of getting the #1 pick and 3 spots lower in the draft.

              This is a draft where picks 1 and 2 are a certainty, then the difference between #3 and #12 is arguable. Larry Bird himself called this one of the best drafts in years.

              Why are we discussing tanking with such marginal results, and what difference (in finishing position) does it make whether or not O'Brien is here?

              Let's salvage what we can out of this train wreck of a season AND get what we're on line to get anyway.
              Last edited by imawhat; 03-05-2010, 03:13 AM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

                Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                Let's look at this realistically. Consider the following scenarios at the league's current standing:


                1. Finishing 3-18 will get the Pacers at a lower percentage than GS currently has (3rd worst record). 15.6% chance @ #1 pick

                2. Finishing 7-14 will keep the Pacers in their current spot (4th worst record). 11.9% chance @ #1 pick

                3. Finishing 9-12 will give the Pacers a lower percentage than the 76ers (7th worst record). 4.3% chance @ #1 pick

                4. Finishing 11-10 will give the Pacers a lower percentage than the LA Clippers (9th worst record). 1.7% chance @ #1 pick

                5. Finishing 21-0 will give the Pacers a lower percentage than the Chicago Bulls (11th worst record). 0.8% chance @ #1 pick.


                Are we really tanking?

                For a 3.7% better chance at the #1 pick than we currently have?

                The addition or subtraction of any coaches is not going to get us at 9-12. That's a 7.6% lower chance of getting the #1 pick and 3 spots lower in the draft.

                This is a draft where picks 1 and 2 are a certainty, then the difference between #3 and #12 is arguable. Larry Bird himself called this one of the best drafts in years.

                Why are we discussing tanking with such marginal results, and what difference (in finishing position) does it make whether or not O'Brien is here?

                Let's salvage what we can out of this train wreck of a season AND get what we're on line to get anyway.
                What difference does it make? Historically it makes a ton of difference. Read this article from last year!

                http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft...ory?id=4227787

                D.R.A.F.T. Initiative: Top-heavy

                The difference between the top five picks and the next five is staggering

                By Elena Bergeron
                ESPN The Magazine

                Call them the combine all-stars. Or better yet, the All-World amateurs. In the past 20 years, the top five picks have so far outperformed the rest of the draft over their careers that the first handful of names should get used to rolling as an elite team. Even compared to the rest of the lottery, the top five picks make the draft as top-heavy as an OC Housewife.

                Of course, it sounds like a "duh" moment to say that the talent snatched up first is likely to outperform the rest of the field. That's been true since we first divvyed teams in third-grade P.E. The shock comes from how much better those first five picks perform than players chosen just two minutes later. The divide is as sharp as the chasm between Vince Carter's career (fifth pick in 1998) and Tractor Traylor's (that year's No. 6).

                That's because by the sixth pick, the can't-miss freshman, the Final Four MOP and most scouted Euroleague phenom are all off the board. The top five picks represent what GMs have identified as the best of each NBA archetype (super-athletic wing, dominant big man, savvy point guard). With the true game-changers gone, what's left is a sturdy crop of contributors whom teams target to fill a roster void -- a shooter, a shot-blocker, a solid post presence, etc.

                In recent debates about No. 1 picks -- Greg Oden versus Kevin Durant, Michael Beasley versus Derrick Rose -- the hubbub rarely centered on what their prospective employers needed; everyone needs a player who can single-handedly net more wins. But with the sixth through 10th picks, personnel needs come into play. In other words, the first five picks fill arenas; the next five fill rotations.

                No-brainer picks at the top of the pile typically account for an estimated wins average somewhere between 7.5 and 4.5 every year. Between picks 6 and 10, the difference in how a potential draftee will sway a team's fortune barely varies more than a single game. So, even if your team has a lottery pick, the talent available once the first five are off the table isn't comparable. These options aren't infallible, of course. (Will that No. 1 overall pick be Shaquille O'Neal or Michael Olowokandi?) It's just that, if there is a true game-changer in a prospective draft class, he rarely slips further than fifth.

                There've only been 28 superstar players (players with an EWA greater than 10 -- think Kevin Garnett or Jason Kidd) in the past 20 drafts -- one or two per year. In 1996, the Halley's Comet of draft classes, there were four: Allen Iverson, Ray Allen, Kobe Bryant and Steve Nash. There have been many more (110) star-caliber players (EWA greater than 5) during those 20 years.

                That number means there are maybe five Rasheed Wallaces in any draft class. That's it. And they're usually pretty easy to spot. "I had one exec who'd just follow the biggest crowd at pre-draft camp," says a Western Conference scout. "He didn't need to know anything else about the guy he ended up drafting with the second pick."

                But the top five picks look even better considering the stark dropoff with the sixth pick. Of the past 20 players selected in the six-hole, only eight were better than one-win guys. The best of those, Portland's Brandon Roy, is twice as valuable to a team than his nearest competition at that pick (Antoine Walker's EWA is 6.0 compared to Roy's 12.5), but is only three years into his career and without years in decline factored in.

                In fact, the research shows that the expected career for a sixth pick is similar to that of former Bullets' draftee Tom Gugliotta (3.9 EWA) -- who put up 20-plus ppg for two seasons before knee injuries and a near-death seizure hampered his career. Gugliotta is the face of the sixth pick both statistically and anecdotally. The spot has been plagued with eventually immobile bigs (Felton Spencer, Stacey King), misfortune (DerMarr Johnson and Sharone Wright's car crashes; Dajuan Wagner's chronic colitis), as well as talented overeaters (Traylor, Walker, Bryant Reeves). Chad Ford's projected sixth pick, DeMar Derozan, is accepting rabbits' feet care of the Timberwolves organization.

                In the rare instance a bona fide star slips out of the top five, recent drafts hint that said player will fall no further than the ninth pick, where a good GM can marvel at his colleagues' stupidity. At the ninth spot, the average EWA is 3.3 per year, except in three notable cases where some other team flubbed a top-five pick. Like in 2002, when Amare Stoudamire watched Jay Williams (No. 2) and Nikoloz Tskitishvili (No. 5) clear the board before him.

                So if playground rules apply, Blake Griffin will be a no-brainer for the Clippers. As for the rest of the teams drafting after the Wizards at No. 5? Have fun picking from the booger-eaters.

                Elena Bergeron is a staff writer for ESPN The Magazine.
                Last edited by Will Galen; 03-05-2010, 02:45 AM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

                  Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                  What difference does it make? Read this article from last year!
                  I agree with the article. What I'm saying is that you have Dwayne Wade and Brandon Roy with picks #1 and #2, then #3 pick will land you Dennis Scott while #12 will land you Nick Anderson.

                  Maybe some of the bigger draft experts can add, but I think there's a significant dropoff in talent after the #2 pick. I see no real sleepers in this year's draft due to the glaring weakness in the rest of the available players.

                  The good news though is that you could get a decent impact player at #16. The bad news is that you'll get that player at #3, when in '03 you're looking at Carmelo Anthony. Maybe I'm off.


                  In any scenario, the main point is that you don't lose much in the draft by finishing the season at 15-6. But you can gain a lot if you happen to develop your younger players and that scenario unfolds. At the least, your younger players are more ready to play next season. Or maybe you do it to raise the value of your younger players that aren't well known to the rest of the league. Maybe AJ Price finishes the year with 16 pt/8ast and you can trade him (and the #6 pick) for a very good player. Or maybe you realize that several of your players have an amazing on-court chemistry and it helps you figure out your needs going forward. Or maybe you do all of that, finish 7-14, and wind up exactly where'd you be anyways.

                  None of this will happen under O'Brien because none of our young guys have mastered any phase of the game. Neither "a phase" nor "the phase".
                  Last edited by imawhat; 03-05-2010, 03:07 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

                    Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                    Consider the following scenarios at the league's current standing:


                    1. Finishing 3-18 will get the Pacers at a lower percentage than GS currently has (3rd worst record). 15.6% chance @ #1 pick

                    2. Finishing 7-14 will keep the Pacers in their current spot (4th worst record). 11.9% chance @ #1 pick

                    3. Finishing 9-12 will give the Pacers a lower percentage than the 76ers (7th worst record). 4.3% chance @ #1 pick

                    4. Finishing 11-10 will give the Pacers a lower percentage than the LA Clippers (9th worst record). 1.7% chance @ #1 pick

                    5. Finishing 21-0 will give the Pacers a lower percentage than the Chicago Bulls (11th worst record). 0.8% chance @ #1 pick.


                    Are we really tanking?

                    For a 3.7% better chance at the #1 pick than we currently have?
                    I think you're looking at it the wrong way. It's not about the difference between that 15.6% chance and 11.9%. It's between the difference between 15.6% and a 1.7% chance.

                    Furthermore, your analysis ignores our cumulative chance at either Wall or Turner. For example, with the 3rd worst record, we'd have about a 30% chance at either. That's not great but it's better than the around 4% chance we'd have at either with the 9th worst record. So, would we tank for a 3.7% difference? Probably not. But would we tank for a 26% difference? Yes, definitely.

                    Lastly, I don't know how you're calculating this but the difference between the 4th worst record (us) and the 9th worst record (Philly) is only 2 wins (wins are what matter when looking at tanking standings). We are not nearly as far away from the 9th worst record as you make us out to be.
                    Last edited by rexnom; 03-05-2010, 07:25 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

                      Originally posted by EmCeE View Post
                      I still believe it's wise to keep O'brien at least until the end of next year, but what do I know.

                      I have never advocated Jimmy to be fired, and with 21 games left I see no reason to do it. The season is gone so why change? Let JOS continue his path of destruction for a chance at the best pick position possible. Take advantage of the lemons and make lemonaide out of it for the future. It's all about the future now, not winning at this point. Let the winning happen next year when it could be meaningful.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

                        This post made me realize something: not only is Obie the key to a high draft pick this year, Obie is also the key to a high draft pick next year! Bird is letting Obie **** away the season while not developing the youngsters with the hope of getting a top 5 pick. Then, NEXT year, the team will show no real improvement (due to the aforementioned lack of playing time this year) and will CONTINUE to lose and get another top 5 pick!

                        Then we fire Obie, restock our roster, and have 2 top-5 picks to run with in 2011-2012! That one-year extension was genius!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

                          So if playground rules apply, Blake Griffin will be a no-brainer for the Clippers. As for the rest of the teams drafting after the Wizards at No. 5? Have fun picking from the booger-eaters.


                          Please no booger eaters on the Pacers. :-)

                          The Pacers really need to be in the top 5. I see the top 5 as Turner,Wall,Whiteside,Cousins
                          and Favors. As relates to the Pacers.
                          {o,o}
                          |)__)
                          -"-"-

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

                            Originally posted by binarysolo View Post
                            This post made me realize something: not only is Obie the key to a high draft pick this year, Obie is also the key to a high draft pick next year! Bird is letting Obie **** away the season while not developing the youngsters with the hope of getting a top 5 pick. Then, NEXT year, the team will show no real improvement (due to the aforementioned lack of playing time this year) and will CONTINUE to lose and get another top 5 pick!

                            Then we fire Obie, restock our roster, and have 2 top-5 picks to run with in 2011-2012! That one-year extension was genius!
                            I don't think next year is a throwaway like this year is, though. As soon as the season ends, we have a boatload of expirings, which will have a lot of value (at least more so than they do now). I doubt we'll let them all expire without trying to get some assets from them. I don't think we'll make the playoffs, but I also think next year will be more of a "let the young guns do their thing" year, which would mean no O'Brien.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

                              So how many of you will be screaming to high heaven about how poor the strategy is if we lose into the top 5 but then lottery back out of it? "Damn you, Larry, you should have shot the entire team in December and forfeited the rest of the games for that #4 pick."
                              BillS

                              A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                              Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

                                I wonder if this team can do any better is there was no head coach.

                                A positive for JOB is that if he's fired, I'm sure he'll become an assistant somewhere else.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X