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

ESPN 2011 offseason grades

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

  • #16
    Re: ESPN 2011 offseason grades

    Originally posted by billbradley View Post
    Does that mean you think the Pistons are a playoff team?
    I think the odds are they won't make it, but I'd give them maybe a %40 chance of finishing 8th. It really all depends if Stuckey can finally focus his talent now that he's free of PG duties and has someone else to get him the ball for the first time in 3 years.
    Last edited by Kstat; 12-19-2011, 04:11 PM.

    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: ESPN 2011 offseason grades

      Originally posted by croz24 View Post
      We still lack a player who can truly create for himself, and I believe losing McRoberts will hurt us this year. I'd give us a B...
      yeah, his 13 minutes a game was the difference between winning and losing. goodness, mcroberts might be the most overrated player on this board. he wasn't better then tyler and he's a lot worse than west. he wouldn't even see the court this year!

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: ESPN 2011 offseason grades

        Originally posted by croz24 View Post
        But we also don't even know if West will be the same player he was preinjury. If West returns to a 20ppg scorer, I can see an A, but there's a huge question mark there...
        Even in his prime, West would not score 20 a game on this Pacers team. Too many other shooters, and chris paul is not force-feeding him every time down the floor.

        It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

        Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
        Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
        NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: ESPN 2011 offseason grades

          Originally posted by Kstat View Post
          Even in his prime, West would not score 20 a game on this Pacers team. Too many other shooters, and chris paul is not force-feeding him every time down the floor.
          I thought we established West doesn't need CP to be productive. Haven't a couple writers in this thread even noted West's chemistry with our own DC? Anyway, we don't even need him to be an All Star. What we need is a consistent shooter that we can rely on especially when our offense is stagnant. The preseason game vs the Bulls made it so obvious how West will be useful. Pacers have a few empty trips? Run a play for West. Stop the bleeding.

          I wouldn't be suprised if we have 6 players averaging 15 points a game.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: ESPN 2011 offseason grades

            The Pistons? In the playoffs? Uhhh...yeah. I think there's a better chance that this Mexican guy on the Hornets gets voted into the All-Star game than the Pistons even contending for the 8th seed.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: ESPN 2011 offseason grades

              They were in contention for it past the all-star break last year with a bull blown locker room mutiny, no owner, no point guard and an injury-riddled roster.

              It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

              Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
              Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
              NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: ESPN 2011 offseason grades

                Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                Even in his prime, West would not score 20 a game on this Pacers team. Too many other shooters, and chris paul is not force-feeding him every time down the floor.
                Hater...
                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: ESPN 2011 offseason grades

                  Originally posted by billbradley View Post
                  I thought we established West doesn't need CP to be productive. Haven't a couple writers in this thread even noted West's chemistry with our own DC?
                  Who said West had to score 20 a game to be productive? I'm just saying he won't get as many shots as he did in new Orleans.
                  Last edited by Kstat; 12-19-2011, 04:29 PM.

                  It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                  Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                  Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                  NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: ESPN 2011 offseason grades

                    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                    Hater...
                    Is this an inside bit I missed out on over the last week?

                    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: ESPN 2011 offseason grades

                      Lawrence Frank will get that team to play. But I think this season should be a spring board for the next. I think Knight and Stuckey can play well together. I think they have a shot if:
                      A. Stuckey plays better than last year
                      B.Monroe keeps maturing in positioning himself
                      C. Daye is consistent outside
                      D. Other big man help

                      If all 4 of those things happen, the Pistons should be contending for the 1st round fodder of the Heat.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: ESPN 2011 offseason grades

                        I agree that the best case scenario for the Pistons is one more trip to the lottery. IMO, they are exactly one player away from being set up for the future. I like them at the 1,2,3 and 4 spots. They need a young center, or a shot blocking PF.

                        I'm just saying there is enough talent on this roster that if Frank manages it right, they can catch fire early and snag a playoff spot in a eastern conference full of question marks.

                        It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                        Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                        Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                        NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: ESPN 2011 offseason grades

                          Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                          Is this an inside bit I missed out on over the last week?
                          Yeah pretty much anybody that says he is not going to average 20ppg and that his numbers were inflated a bit by CP3 is call a hater, you said that so I called you a hater
                          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: ESPN 2011 offseason grades

                            His numbers were just as inflated by having guys like Ariza, Belinelli, peja and MoPete as his starting wings. Cp3 had exactly one go-to guy in New Orleans.

                            On Indiana, he has Paul George and Danny Granger. Those guys need shots, to say nothing of Roy Hibbert and Tyler Hansborough, which will limit West's minutes.
                            Last edited by Kstat; 12-19-2011, 04:42 PM.

                            It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                            Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                            Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                            NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: ESPN 2011 offseason grades

                              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                              Yeah pretty much anybody that says he is not going to average 20ppg and that his numbers were inflated a bit by CP3 is call a hater, you said that so I called you a hater
                              No you are a hater when all you have to say is how West is not what we needed, even when no one is talking about him. A hater is someone who interjects their negative view about an situation at any chance that it can be interjected. Making the contention more about your objection and distaste, rather than the subject or object of the distaste.

                              And I agree. West won't average 20 ppg. And he won't need to.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: ESPN 2011 offseason grades

                                This could have it's own thread. Lots of interesting insight here.

                                Ainge's airball could signal trouble

                                WALTHAM, Mass. -- As the flurry of NBA blockbuster deals and free-agent maneuvers slow to a trickle, and the Celtics absorb the chilling news that a heart ailment will sideline Jeff Green for all of 2011-12, Boston's roster looks eerily familiar to the team that fell to Miami in the Eastern Conference semifinals last season -- minus Green.

                                The abbreviated preseason has been nothing but cruel to Celtics boss Danny Ainge, who gamely tried to upgrade his roster in time for a shortened 66-game slate but was thwarted at every turn. The unexpected loss of Green is yet another blow on top of futile attempts to bring in top free agents.

                                Thus, the aging Big Three will begin their final stand lamenting the One That Got Away.

                                No, not Chris Paul -- forward David West.


                                The flirtation with Paul rightfully dominated the headlines in Boston for obvious reasons: CP3 is a sexy, frontline superstar with great skills, marketing appeal and scoring ability at the point guard position. Yet the pursuit of Paul was a high-risk, high-reward scenario from the start. Had Boston acquired him, it would have forfeited its "bridge" player Rajon Rondo and gambled whether Paul would be willing to re-sign with the Celtics amid signals from his camp that he wouldn't.


                                That's why the true kick to the gut was losing West to the Indiana Pacers for a two-year, $20 million contract. Unlike the potential Paul transaction, West would have been a straight add to the roster without any need to swap personnel.

                                West is coming off a serious knee injury, but according to Pacers president Larry Bird, the Pacers' medical staff examined West and determined he had "one of the most sound post-surgical knees they've seen."

                                "He still has a long ways to go in terms of rehab and conditioning," Bird said, "but even so, he looks great."

                                The addition of West provides Bird and the Pacers with a promising nucleus that includes Danny Granger (although his name swirled in preseason trade talks), point guard Darren Collison (who played with West in New Orleans), Tyler Hansbrough and George Hill.

                                West's decision to choose that group over Boston's three future Hall of Famers was a hugely disappointing and vexing development for the Celtics, who felt West's skills would have nudged them back into championship contender territory.

                                Because of salary cap restraints, the Celtics could not offer a two-year deal. They were required to acquire West in a sign-and-trade, which means the contract had to be a minimum of three years. In what team and league sources described as a creative but complicated package, the Celtics were prepared to offer West a four-year contract with a buyout that, in the end, amounted to three years and $29 million. In other words, the average of their offer was just under $10 million (about $9.6 million).

                                Count veteran Ray Allen among those who can't believe West chose Indiana over Boston with such a slim difference in compensation.

                                "I'm shocked," Allen said. "I don't understand it."


                                West was a two-time All-Star for the Hornets, the first during the '08-'09 season when he averaged 21 points, 8.5 rebounds and 39.2 minutes a game. Paul lauded him as an unselfish player who was willing to do the "little things" to help the team win.

                                "He's really strong," Bird reported. "He's a bully. He can pick and roll, sets a really good screen. He's not a great rebounder but he can rebound his position. And he can score.

                                "David is someone you can drop it down to, and he's going to shoot with either hand. You've got to think about double-teaming him, which obviously helps everyone else on the floor."

                                Allen first heard of West's potential interest in Boston last month when Allen was playing golf in Augusta with his private banker, who coincidentally also handled West's financial affairs.

                                "He told me how much I would love [West], that he and I were the same kind of guy -- cognitive thinkers," Allen said. "He said West was interested in coming to the Celtics and would be willing to come for less."

                                So why does Allen think West had a change of heart?

                                "Once it got down to the end, I think his ego kicked back in," Allen said. "He wanted the dollars. I guess it comes down to 'What is a championship worth to you?'

                                "Think of all the guys who have made $20 million and could be considered one of the best ever, but they get chided because they never won. We [the Big Three] all had to do less when we won. We're still taking less to make it work. But it's worth it. No one can ever say to KG, Paul or me, 'You guys never got your ring.'"

                                Theories abound on why West chose the Pacers over the Celtics. Included among them is the notion that since West opted out of a contract that would have paid him $8.5 million, he needed to "save face" among other players (and agents) by not accepting a Celtics contract that included a first year of just under $8 million, even though the average value over the life of the contract would have been higher.

                                The other factor could be that West preferred a two-year deal so he could re-establish himself as the two-time All-Star he was before he was injured, rather than commit for three years to a team with an uncertain future.

                                It's one thing to lose a free agent to Los Angeles. It's quite another to lose him to Indiana, a franchise that won just 37 games last season and is a small Midwest market that has always struggled to draw high-caliber free agents.

                                The free-agent dilemma has always been a thorny one for Boston. The list of signings range from Xavier McDaniel, who was a serviceable player during his Celtics tenure, to Travis Knight, who inked a seven-year, $22 million contract in 1997 and was a colossal bust. There was the aging Dominique Wilkins, whose one-year foray on the parquet was an unmitigated disaster. Remember Tom Gugliotta? Rasheed Wallace? Dwayne Schintzius?

                                You get the idea.

                                In the old days, there were two reasons cited why free agents didn't choose the Celtics: They were "too white," and it was too cold in Boston.

                                On paper, the first was a head scratcher, since the Celtics fielded the first all-black starting five and the first African-American head coach. Red Auerbach never cared what color you were as long as you could play.

                                And, yet, the racial tension was real. Just ask Bill Russell. The late Dennis Johnson and Robert Parish used to tell me they were convinced that when the Celtics won, the local papers put Bird or Kevin McHale's mug on the sports cover, but when they lost, it was the African-Americans whose pictures were featured. No amount of argument on my part during the '80s could convince them that this simply was not so.

                                By all accounts the racial stigmas that once thwarted the Celtics are in the rearview mirror and no longer factor in players' decisions. Celtics coach Doc Rivers is revered in these parts almost on a Belichickian level. The New Three, or, if you prefer, the Big Four, are made up of African-American players who are adored by the fan base.

                                Yet the appeal of KG, Paul Pierce, Allen and Rondo still can't change the fact Boston cannot sell balmy February afternoons the way Phoenix, Orlando or Los Angeles can.

                                Asked why there has never really been a significant free agent for the Celtics, Rivers answered, "Weather. I hate to say that, but it's true."New York and Chicago have that issue too, but they're really big cities, and that's attractive to guys in the league."

                                Rivers expressed frustration that West did not join the team. "I'm very disappointed," he conceded, "but we're moving on with the guys we have."

                                You may recall that in 2007, when Ainge was in pursuit of Garnett, the player's initial response was to rebuff the Celtics. Clearly cold weather was not a factor; KG, after all, had been playing in Minnesota for his entire career. Nor, he said, was it an aversion to playing in Boston.

                                "I knew what the demographics of Boston were," Garnett said. "It wasn't my first choice, but the issue with me was I had been with the same team for so long, I had to get comfortable with the idea of going anywhere.

                                "Then, when I looked at it, Boston was identical to the team I was on: a bunch of young guys that weren't very good. I would have been going from one trash can to another."

                                Some diligent recruiting by Pierce, Rivers and Ainge softened KG's stance some, but it wasn't until the Celtics acquired Allen that Garnett decided Boston might be able to make a run at a title.

                                In other words, build a contender, and they will come.

                                Garnett has been a perfect fit in Boston. He eschews the spotlight and isn't interested in celebrity appearances or high profile marketing, so the absence of a "big city" feel is a moot point with him.

                                According to the Hornets, the same was true about West.

                                "You don't know what [West's] preferences were," Garnett said. "He's an Xavier guy. Maybe Indiana was safe for him. You can't take it personally when guys don't come.

                                "To be honest with you, I'm just happy for him that he's healthy and can continue playing."

                                The current owners will argue that, in effect, KG was the Celtics' all-time best free agent because they extended his contract as they acquired him. They will also maintain (accurately) that since they've been in control of the team, they have been right at or over the salary cap, thereby limiting their opportunities to make a free-agent splash.

                                That will change next season, but with Paul off the market and Dwight Howard expected to follow, either to New Jersey or the Lakers, Boston could well be left holding a big sack of cash with nobody to spend it on.

                                Maybe that's the best explanation of all why West isn't in Boston.
                                http://espn.go.com/boston/nba/story/...boston-celtics

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X