Tweet
I don't have time to paste it, but someone really ought to.
http://www.boston.com/sports/basketb...n:twit:celtics
http://www.boston.com/sports/basketb...n:twit:celtics
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.
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
-
-
Re: Boston Globe article on Bird (new information)
Boston Globe article on Bird (new information)
http://www.boston.com/sports/basketb...n:twit:celtics
Bird may look to slow pace
By Julian Benbow
Globe Staff / June 27, 2011
There was a phrase Red Auerbach used to swear by that Larry Bird wound up adopting. A year, Auerbach would say, isn’t a very long time.
In 1997, with Bird five years into retirement and itching to get back into the game, he and Pacers president Donnie Walsh had a conversation.
“On Day 1, he told me exactly what he would do if he coached our team,’’ Walsh said. “He knew our whole roster. He did this specifically in detail. He took it from the first day in training camp to the Finals and told every single thing he would do.’’
Walsh hired Bird, and the Pacers won 58 games that season and took Michael Jordan’s Bulls to seven games in the Eastern Conference finals.
“When I look back on it after Larry finished the three years as head coach, that’s exactly what he told me the first day he would do,’’ Walsh said. “That sums up exactly the kind of guy he is. He tells you what he wanted to do, then he went out and did exactly what he told you he was going to do. I wish all people were like that.’’
To this day, Bird, now the Pacers’ president of basketball operations, uses the same expression.
“I tell my owner that all the time when he talks about players or how they’re developing,’’ Bird said. “I’ll say, ‘It might take him a year, but a year’s not very long in this business.’
“Once you start playing the games, the season’s over before you know it. Then people start realizing that a year’s not very long.’’
Now, though, Bird is the one on the clock. He’s been the Pacers’ top executive for eight seasons, but said that after next season he’s considering stepping away. He took the Pacers to the Finals as coach in 2000. But he’s spent the last six seasons trying to rebuild a franchise stained by the brawl with the Pistons at the Palace of Auburn Hills.
With Indiana coming off its first playoff appearance since 2006, the franchise is at a turning point. Bird and Pacers owner Herb Simon agreed that Bird would continue to guide the franchise on a year-to-year basis.
“It’s a handshake deal,’’ said Bird, who will be honored tomorrow at TD Garden as part of the Sports Museum’s The Tradition. “I don’t want a [long-term] contract.’’
But they both know a year isn’t a very long time.
“It’s at a point now in my life where I think it might be time to really reconsider and see how long I want to do this,’’ said Bird, now 54. “They asked me to stay another year through the lockout season, the owner did, for a favor. I was leaving, but he asked me to stay, and I will and I’ll get the job done.
Page 2 of 3 --
“I just think the franchise is in a good position right now, and I want to leave it in a good position for the next guy to do some good things. Sometimes you just look at it and say, ‘Hey, I’ve done enough. I’ve got it in the position I want to get it in,’ and you move on. I’ve got another year here and I’m going to try to do the best I can to get this team back to winning.’’
Favorable choice Nothing ever made more sense to Bird than playing.
“Playing the game I loved and playing on championship teams and playing in a city that adored their players, that was the ultimate,’’ he said.
Coaching was never a consideration until 1997.
“I had no interest in it,’’ said Bird. “I sort of did it as a favor for Donnie Walsh and it turned out pretty good.’’
But the thought of a front-office job intrigued Bird, mostly because of the challenge. After coaching the Pacers for three seasons, Bird took three years off to address a heart condition and otherwise decompress. He also made ownership bids for the Celtics and Bobcats that fell short. Then, Walsh called again.
“Donnie asked me to come back, and I was thinking at the time, ‘Boy, I’ve come full circle. I’ve been in every situation you could be in in the NBA,’ ’’ Bird said. “I thought it was a great experience, a learning experience. It’s something I should do just to learn the ins and outs of the league.’’
The Pacers named Bird president of basketball operations in June 2003, working alongside Walsh, who for more than two decades had personified the Pacers’ front office. The next season, with Jermaine O’Neal, Ron Artest, and Al Harrington as the team’s young core and Reggie Miller its veteran leader, the Pacers won 61 games and went to the Eastern Conference finals. The Pistons prevailed in six games, but the biggest blow the Pistons dealt them didn’t come until a year later.
The brawl at the Palace in November 2004 led to nine players being suspended or facing legal repercussions. Six of them (Artest, O’Neal, Miller, Stephen Jackson, Anthony Johnson, and David Harrison) were Pacers. Five of them — all Pacers — were charged with assault and battery and sentenced to probation. By almost every projection, the Pacers were supposed to compete for a title that season. Instead, they won 44 games. The incident blew a hole in the season and in the blueprint Walsh and Bird had crafted. More off-court episodes tarnished the team’s image locally. The franchise was backed into a corner.
“We had to move forward and break the team up,’’ Walsh said. “You don’t want to do it, but we had to do it. That set Larry back, because those guys were talented.
Page 3 of 3 --
“You go through those periods where your team is up there, then it comes down, but in that case we had a very good team and then all of a sudden, these things happen, and we had to break it apart and rebuild it. It wasn’t foreseen. It was all of a sudden, ‘Boom!’ ’’
Artest was traded to Sacramento in January 2006. Jackson and Harrington were shipped to Golden State the next year. O’Neal was dealt to Toronto in July 2008. After losing to the Nets in the first round in 2006, the Pacers missed the playoffs four straight seasons, never winning more than 36 games.
“Larry thinks if you don’t win a championship, you fail,’’ Walsh said. “So if you’re not making the playoffs, I’m sure that was very, very hard for him. That’s hard for everybody that takes a GM job. Even when you take it and you’re not expected to make the playoffs, once the season begins you don’t want to be losing games and going through that period where you almost know you’re going to be losing games.
“It takes a toll on you. You know it’s up to you. You’ve got to do it. You’ve got to get the team back up again. And in that sense, there’s pressure. Larry, his whole life in basketball there’s been pressure on him, and he’s got a unique ability to put that out there. He doesn’t allow it to affect how he feels, at least as far as I know. I wish I was as good [at that].’’
It’s in his blood Bird has spent time away from the game, but never for long. He doesn’t expect the next time he steps away to be another hiatus.
“It’s tough after a while to not be involved, but I’m a little bit older now,’’ he said. “I’ve been in this league for 31 years, so it’ll be tough, but we’ll see what happens.’’
It takes a certain type of player to want to get into coaching, and a certain type to want to go into the front office. It’s rare to do both.
“There are others who have done it,’’ Walsh said. “Pat Riley has done it, Jerry West has done it, and Larry Bird has done it. But that’s the kind of company he’s in. I think he deserves to be in that company, which is why I think he should keep going, because I think he’ll have great teams there if he stays there.’’
Walsh, who when his contract expires at the end of the month is leaving as president of the Knicks, wants Bird to see it through. The Pacers have a new core of young talent, last week picking up the team options on point guard Darren Collison and their last two first-round picks, Tyler Hansbrough and Paul George.
On draft night last week, Bird acquired Spurs guard George Hill, saying, “We’re a better team tonight than we were yesterday.’’
This past season, the Pacers made their first playoff appearance since 2006. They were eliminated in five games in the first round by the top-seeded Bulls, but all but one of those games was decided by single digits.
Making the playoffs, Walsh said, “I think it meant everything to him.’’
Walsh is in Bird’s ear, reminding him this is the turning point.
“As a guy who works in the game, I want to see him stay because I know how hard it was to go through the periods he went through, and he did it with grace and he did it with dignity,’’ Walsh said. “Now all of a sudden he’s on the verge of having a very good situation and I’d like to see him get some enjoyment out of that before he goes.
“I hope he rethinks all that. I told him I hope he stays in Indiana, because he’s come through the tough things and now it’s perched to have good things and I hope he’s around to enjoy them because he deserves it.’’
Julian Benbow can be reached at jbenbow@globe.com.Last edited by Skaut_Ech; 06-27-2011, 09:23 AM.Hey! What're you kicking me for? You want me to ask? All right, I'll ask! Ma'am, where do the high school girls hang out in this town? -
Re: Boston Globe article on Bird (new information)
I've been saying it for years, Bird gonna buy this team in the near future.You can't get champagne from a garden hose.Comment
-
Re: Boston Globe article on Bird (new information)
I hope so, but I didn't get that from the article. Is that just what you think or am I missing a reference?Originally posted by graphic-er View PostComment
-
Re: Boston Globe article on Bird (new information)
I need bigger font pleas...Comment
-
Re: Boston Globe article on Bird (new information)
That was a great article. Reading that was a great start for my week.
Comment
-
Re: Boston Globe article on Bird (new information)
Good read. I know he's only got a one-year contract and he doesn't want anything long-term, but I really get the impression that this might be the last year for him.Comment
-
Re: Boston Globe article on Bird (new information)
So Larry is just staying as a favor to Mr. Simon? That's a lot different than what I thought his reason for staying was and I guess Larry will be gone this time next year.Originally posted by LarryBirdComment
-
Re: Boston Globe article on Bird (new information)
I enjoyed the article but one line made me cringe a little:
"They asked me to stay another year through the lockout season"
Focusing on that statement may take us on a tangent, but...It makes it sound like next year is pretty much written off as a season to be ruined by the lockout, no matter what, from management's perspective.
2011-2012: The lockout season
One would hope that there is a way to work this out, but I fear what missing half a seaon or more will do to the popularity of the league.The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).Comment
-
Re: Boston Globe article on Bird (new information)
Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
I could see that happening, if not the Pacers another team. It's the one thing left he hasn't done in BB.Comment
-
Re: Boston Globe article on Bird (new information)
No nothing concrete that points to Bird being the future owner, but Bird is a man of integrity and common sense. I don't believe he would accept another year on the job as a favor to the owner to see it through the lock out. Thats makes no sense, no President wants to be the seat warmer for a year, I'd think Larry would've rather said I'll find you a guy to take my place here. I don't want to be a seat warmer and make coaching decisions only to leave next year. I mean honestly Bird being here for only one more year and making all these decisions and essentially everyone on the staff has a one year contract with Simon again? If Bird is already building the new team why would he hand it over to some body else unless it was to be Morway? Why would another GM be attracted this job if the coach is already in place? If a long term FA is signed this off season? If a good chunk of the FA money is already spent?Originally posted by Speed View Post
It just makes me think that Larry plans to be around here in some form of leadership for many many years from now.
I would just think hanging around for another year in such a critical time would be very damaging to the team's short and far off future.You can't get champagne from a garden hose.Comment
-
Comment
-
Re: Boston Globe article on Bird (new information)
I take it just to mean a shortened season. It's not really a "season" if there's a full lockout.Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View PostComment
-
Re: Boston Globe article on Bird (new information)
He'd have to get some LARGE backing from others in order to do it. The team would sell for a lot more money than he's made.Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
Also, did anyone else get the idea that it sounds like Bird is just doing everyone a favor by being around.
"They asked me to stay another year through the lockout season, the owner did, for a favor. I was leaving, but he asked me to stay"
“I sort of did it as a favor for Donnie Walsh"
That just strikes me the wrong way.Comment
-
Re: Boston Globe article on Bird (new information)
Originally posted by lafayettepacer View Post
I thought that was indicated in the article, but then "a year isn't very long" and things change.
I enjoyed this article. It gave me some insight into Bird.
I like the last sentence about now things are "perched".
Comment
Comment