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 took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

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

  • #46
    Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
    I find the revelation that Bird is/was a big Pitino fan to be at least a little disturbing. Hopefully he's revised his opinion since that time, but then again he's backing Jim now.....
    The New York Knicks when Pitino coached them were one of the hardest playing teams I have ever seen, I mean ever. he did a great job coaching that team. I was extremely impressed what he got that team to do and how hard they played.

    In Boston it just didn't work, the players didn't buy in and he was a disaster in Boston.

    Why this occurred and why the huge difference? I don't know, probably different type players not willing to play and buy in to his system and his approach.

    If Pitino had never gone to the Celtics and we only had his Knicks to judge, I would be a huge fan of his too, (even if I don't think his system is best suited for the NBA) I'll repeat the Knicks were maybe the hardest playing team I've ever seen. So I wouldn't criticize Bird if he is a big fan of Pitino

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

      Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
      Bull****. When Donnie left, he was replaced by 3 people. Larry continued as president of basketball operations, Jim Morris was brought in to be president of business operations, Rick Fuson was promoted to COO, and Herb was named CEO in Donnie's place.

      Does Donnie deserve blame? Absolutely. But this pollyanna notion that Larry deserves none is ridiculous. If you really believe he was a "yes man" or even better, "Boomer for Adults", who's to say he isn't doing the same thing still, with Morway replacing Donnie as the brains and Herb as the decision maker.

      Did I say he didn't deserve ANY blame? No, a big HELL NO. I'm sure there was plenty of things Bird did wrong, and steered Donnie in the wrong direction, like Saras.

      Donnie was at the wheel. Larry was in the passenger seat. If Donnie didn't want to sign Saras, we wouldn't have. End of story. The buck stops at Donnie.

      Is the President's cabinet, GI Joe for adults? No. They're advisors to the man that makes the decisions. They give him advice, they steer him in directions, but it's his head on the line if they go badly. Now if they continually give him bad advice that he gets burned on, then he can fire them. But if you're the captain, you get the blame if your ship goes down.

      We don't know what all Larry did or didn't do. Again, that's the problem with a "two-headed monster."

      I would rather use information based on facts, and what we do know happened, or is happening, rather than guess.

      Am I giving Bird a pass while Donnie was here? No, not even close. But I'm not going to tie a noose because of it either.


      The fact that you have to refer to him as the "green hick" or something similiar shows that you have a personal bias towards him. I'm not saying you can't. Just atleast admit your rope for him is shorter because of it. You're more critical of him because you don't like him personally, as opposed to just basing it on what he did, or is going, to do.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

        I need to make this quick, but you're confusing me with others on the "green hick" stuff. I liked Larry just fine when he coached, and I hoped he would stay on afterwards. But all I've seen since he came back is one horrible move after another, and this "clean slate" stuff infuriates me. But hell, if you want to pretend he isn't at fault by saying "we're not sure", that's fine. Judging him on Jimmy's extension and the "let's sit on our hand's for 3 years" plan, he still deserves to go.
        Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
          We don't know what all Larry did or didn't do. Again, that's the problem with a "two-headed monster."
          And the two-headed monster sucked.

          Which is interesting, because Donnie's had a pretty successful career other than that stretch. And Bird has done both good and bad things since then.

          So its really pointless to try to carve up the blame between them. They were a bad team when they were together, and Bird is in charge of cleaning up their collective mess even though the Simons claim they wanted Donnie to stay on when he "retired". Go figure...
          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


          • #50
            Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

            Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
            I need to make this quick, but you're confusing me with others on the "green hick" stuff. I liked Larry just fine when he coached, and I hoped he would stay on afterwards. But all I've seen since he came back is one horrible move after another, and this "clean slate" stuff infuriates me. But hell, if you want to pretend he isn't at fault by saying "we're not sure", that's fine. Judging him on Jimmy's extension and the "let's sit on our hand's for 3 years" plan, he still deserves to go.
            What would have been your approach had Donnie handed you the reigns leading into the 2008 draft?

            I thought when you discussed your philosophy a few summers back (well, more than that now, I suppose; it was at Donato's), you were a fan of drafting proven players from prominent colleges. Larry went and got Roy Hibbert, Brandon Rush, Tyler Hansbrough, and AJ Price before swinging for the fences with this year's crop.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

              Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
              I need to make this quick, but you're confusing me with others on the "green hick" stuff. I liked Larry just fine when he coached, and I hoped he would stay on afterwards. But all I've seen since he came back is one horrible move after another, and this "clean slate" stuff infuriates me. But hell, if you want to pretend he isn't at fault by saying "we're not sure", that's fine. Judging him on Jimmy's extension and the "let's sit on our hand's for 3 years" plan, he still deserves to go.


              But is it his choice to "sit on his hands" for 3 years? What exactly could he have done over the past couple of years? Our roster is a collective pile of crap that no team wants a part of. No one wants the likes of Murphy, Dunleavy or Ford (yes I know he traded for Ford, but overall that was still a good deal). We've had no money to sign anyone. He's been in about as bad a situation as a GM can be. I seriously doubt he feels that sitting on his hands for 3 years is the ideal situation, it's just that he doesn't have any other choice. His only card to play was to wait for these contracts to expire.

              The reason he has been in such a bad position over the last 2 years is because of the series of bad moves made over the past 10 years. Now it's fine and understandable if one wants to give him blame for some of those. I just happen to place quite a bit more on Walsh given that most of the problem childs were brought to Indy pre-2003.

              The last true asset he had was Jermaine O'Neal. I think we can all agree that he got a pretty good deal for him. In the two years since then he's had absolutely nothing to work with. Only now does he finally have some chips with these expiring contracts.
              Last edited by Sollozzo; 07-27-2010, 03:57 PM.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

                Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
                I need to make this quick, but you're confusing me with others on the "green hick" stuff.
                I know the difference between you and able. You quoted my response to able, and I was merely continuing that part of the conversation.


                Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
                I liked Larry just fine when he coached, and I hoped he would stay on afterwards. But all I've seen since he came back is one horrible move after another, and this "clean slate" stuff infuriates me. But hell, if you want to pretend he isn't at fault by saying "we're not sure", that's fine. Judging him on Jimmy's extension and the "let's sit on our hand's for 3 years" plan, he still deserves to go.
                Tell me with 100% certainty what he was responsible for under Walsh. If you can definatively draw a line between what he did, and what Donnie did, then I'll agree with you.

                Give me reality based moves that he should of made and I'll agree with you on the present as well.

                I'm pretty sure I started the "Fire JOb" bandwagon. If not, I was one of the first ones on it, considering I've been against it since day 1. I highlighted the biggest complaint on him about how his offense was a ****ty one, and it directly contradicted his defensive philsophy.

                I never wanted RC to be gone. But I atleast understand why JOb is here. He shouldn't be coaching this year, but the previous ones were write off's anyways, so no need to bring in your coach already to wade through all the crap.

                Larry doesn't have anyone to trade, but Granger. After the JO trade, there was literally nothing else that could be done, except wait it out.

                Draft a PG instead of Hans? Okay, that's fine. But they would have still had a **** poor season.

                The only thing that I really wish he would have done was to step in and tell Jimmy to play the younger guys more. Other than that, it would have just been rearranging the chairs.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

                  Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                  And the two-headed monster sucked.

                  Which is interesting, because Donnie's had a pretty successful career other than that stretch. And Bird has done both good and bad things since then.

                  So its really pointless to try to carve up the blame between them. They were a bad team when they were together, and Bird is in charge of cleaning up their collective mess even though the Simons claim they wanted Donnie to stay on when he "retired". Go figure...
                  I see the problems that arose during their tenure together as Donnie type moves. It wasn't like when Bird came on there was a change of course. To me, that's the biggest indicator that Bird had input, but Donnie was still in charge. That, and the fact that they've said as much.

                  I don't think Bird has made similiar moves since. Donnie-Do-Nothing really isn't what has been going on. Trades haven't been made, but that's not because Larry hasn't tried. There have been quite a few deals that have been made public, that just didn't happen for whatever reasons. Mostly other teams balking. But Larry has been very active. It's just that no one wants to take our collective crap.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    I see the problems that arose during their tenure together as Donnie type moves. It wasn't like when Bird came on there was a change of course. To me, that's the biggest indicator that Bird had input, but Donnie was still in charge. That, and the fact that they've said as much.
                    Oh, I believe the buck stopped with Donnie.

                    But we'd never seen Donnie "fall in love with talent" before. We don't know if that was Donnie's personality/ approach changing or Bird's influence. Kenny Williams, Sean Green - those guys had raw talent and when they proved to be too immature they were moved along or not re-signed. That's just two examples. Carlos Rogers is another.

                    Having followed Donnie and the Pacers closely for a long time, I did not think the 2003-2008 version of Donnie resembled the "old" Donnie at all. Nor does it resemble the current version of either Donnie working solo in NYC or Bird working solo here. Frankly, they were just bad for each other.

                    Having said that... if George and Lance go the same way as Shawne Williams and James White then I think we'll know where "fell in love with talent" originated. I don't think that's going to be the case but it sounds like George is going to need a couple of seasons to develop first -- hopefully Lance's first couple of All-star game appearances help us have patience with George. (was that over the top?)
                    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


                    • #55
                      Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

                      Donnie traded for Ron after Larry quit coaching, and before he was hired in the front office. We know of Ron's behavioral history in Chicago, because of you.

                      He decided to take the chance on a nutcase with talent, not Larry.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

                        I tried to stay quiet, I really did...

                        Donnie decided to go for (and stick with) talent because he needed to do something to get the team over the top. It failed because of the personnel involved, because of the Pacers' complete inexperience at dealing with wackos, and because of injuries which either destroyed potential or essentially crippled building blocks.

                        It was the opposite of "Donnie Do-Nothing", but he gets no credit because it blew up in his face - which is why he never tried it before.
                        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


                        • #57
                          Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

                          Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                          Oh, I believe the buck stopped with Donnie.

                          But we'd never seen Donnie "fall in love with talent" before. We don't know if that was Donnie's personality/ approach changing or Bird's influence. Kenny Williams, Sean Green - those guys had raw talent and when they proved to be too immature they were moved along or not re-signed. That's just two examples. Carlos Rogers is another.

                          Having followed Donnie and the Pacers closely for a long time, I did not think the 2003-2008 version of Donnie resembled the "old" Donnie at all. Nor does it resemble the current version of either Donnie working solo in NYC or Bird working solo here. Frankly, they were just bad for each other.

                          Having said that... if George and Lance go the same way as Shawne Williams and James White then I think we'll know where "fell in love with talent" originated. I don't think that's going to be the case but it sounds like George is going to need a couple of seasons to develop first -- hopefully Lance's first couple of All-star game appearances help us have patience with George. (was that over the top?)
                          We'd definitely seen Donnie fell in love with talent before. What about 1999-2003 Donnie? Did that Donnie resemble the old Donnie either? I think the embarrassing loss to the young athletic Knicks in 1999 changed Donnie's philosophy more than anything else.

                          Harrington in 1998 (before the Knicks loss): If you're drafting a high schooler then you're most likely doing it off of raw talent. Ended up being a good pick though.

                          Trading AD for the 5th pick in 1999: Getting the 5th pick in the draft for a guy who came off of the bench was a fantastic move. Too bad he had to waste it on Bender when there were several guys on the board who had shown they could play in college and ended up having long, successful careers in the NBA.

                          Trading Dale for JO in 2000: At that point, JO was nothing more than raw talent as he wasn't able to get many minutes on a deep Portland team. Walsh probably could have traded an All-Star big man like Dale for someone who had proven themselves more than JO did at that point but he went the raw talent route instead.

                          I think you can definitely say Donnie "fell in love with talent" long before Bird arrived. In the span of 3 years, he managed to draft two high schoolers in the first round and trade a veteran all star for a raw 22 year old who after 4 years in the league had done nothing but struggle for minutes off of the bench.
                          Last edited by Sollozzo; 07-27-2010, 04:48 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

                            Originally posted by Adam1987 View Post
                            We'd definitely seen Donnie fell in love with talent before. What about 1999-2003 Donnie? Did that Donnie resemble the old Donnie either? I think the embarrassing loss to the young athletic Knicks in 1999 changed Donnie's philosophy more than anything else.

                            Harrington in 1998 (before the Knicks loss): If you're drafting a high schooler then you're most likely doing it off of raw talent. Ended up being a good pick though.

                            Trading AD for the 5th pick in 1999: Getting the 5th pick in the draft for a guy who came off of the bench was a fantastic move. Too bad he had to waste it on Bender when there were several guys on the board who had shown they could play in college and ended up having long, successful careers in the NBA.

                            Trading Dale for JO in 2000: At that point, JO was nothing more than raw talent as he wasn't able to get many minutes on a deep Portland team. Walsh probably could have traded an All-Star big man like Dale for someone who had proven themselves more than JO did at that point but he went the raw talent route instead.

                            I think you can definitely say Donnie "fell in love with talent" long before Bird arrived. In the span of 3 years, he managed to draft two high schoolers in the first round and trade a veteran all star for a raw 22 year old who after 4 years in the league had done nothing but struggle for minutes off of the bench.
                            That isn't falling in love with talent. Falling in love with talent is keeping a talented player around when it is obvious that they can't stay on the court.

                            Trading AD for Bender would most likely have been a great trade if Bender would have been healthy, but no one could have guessed that. Otherwise Bender has shown that mentally he had his head on straight.

                            Trading Dale for JO was a great move to. JO had 3 or 4 years in the league, and as soon as he arrived he started to turn into an all-star.

                            Most of the moves that Donnie made between 99 and 03 were good moves, the problem came after it started to all fall apart. They handled the situations poorly, but this was also after Bird came onto the team. By the way Bird handled Tinsley I have no doubt in my mind that the way they handled those situations had more to do with Bird than Donnie. I have a hard time believing that Donnie was the instigator behind bringing back Harrington(it was a PR move), if Larry didn't love Diogu I doubt Donnie would have traded for DunMurph instead of just letting Jackson expire after a season. Although I can't blame either one for the handling of Artest since it was a unique situation for the team.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              Donnie traded for Ron after Larry quit coaching, and before he was hired in the front office. We know of Ron's behavioral history in Chicago, because of you.

                              He decided to take the chance on a nutcase with talent, not Larry.
                              Donnie wanted Oakley instead of Ron (an expiring), the Bulls wouldn't give us Brad Miller without forcing Artest on him. Just like trading JO for the rights to trade Ford while his value was still high, Rasho's expiring and a #1 was a good trade, the problem was holding onto the tradeabale asset until it wasn't tradeable anymore. Both Donnie in 2002 and Bird in 2008 made that mistake without the "help" of the other guy.

                              I understand your point. But the problem is more of "held onto too long" than "should never have been here in the first place."

                              Some times, guys just need to be here while passing through, to make other trades happen.
                              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


                              • #60
                                Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

                                Originally posted by Adam1987 View Post
                                We'd definitely seen Donnie fell in love with talent before. What about 1999-2003 Donnie? Did that Donnie resemble the old Donnie either? I think the embarrassing loss to the young athletic Knicks in 1999 changed Donnie's philosophy more than anything else.

                                Harrington in 1998 (before the Knicks loss): If you're drafting a high schooler then you're most likely doing it off of raw talent. Ended up being a good pick though.

                                Trading AD for the 5th pick in 1999: Getting the 5th pick in the draft for a guy who came off of the bench was a fantastic move. Too bad he had to waste it on Bender when there were several guys on the board who had shown they could play in college and ended up having long, successful careers in the NBA.

                                Trading Dale for JO in 2000: At that point, JO was nothing more than raw talent as he wasn't able to get many minutes on a deep Portland team. Walsh probably could have traded an All-Star big man like Dale for someone who had proven themselves more than JO did at that point but he went the raw talent route instead.

                                I think you can definitely say Donnie "fell in love with talent" long before Bird arrived. In the span of 3 years, he managed to draft two high schoolers in the first round and trade a veteran all star for a raw 22 year old who after 4 years in the league had done nothing but struggle for minutes off of the bench.
                                You're confusing "talent" with "upside". Harrington, Bender, JO all had upside. Two of them sorta hit their potential.

                                I'd also argue that Antonio, Reggie, Byron, Derrick, Rik, Jackson, Jalen... those guys were talented too.
                                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