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

Larry Bird LEAVING the Pacers

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

  • Re: Larry Bird LEAVING the Pacers

    Originally posted by PR07 View Post
    Wells didn't seem exactly sure one way or another


    So Wells says all he has heard is that Bird is leaving for health reason and is taking a year break (Bird confirms both) and that isn't definitive?

    just because people say Herb is open to spending money doesn't necessarily mean he is when push comes to shove, let alone the type of money that Bird is wanting.
    Bird said he has always been able to spend what he wanted. What reason do you have to say he is lying?

    Otherwise, this is just re-hashing the same points. Move on.
    I'm rehashing my same points because you ask the same questions while offering nothing besides a BS report out of ORL and a journalist's question.

    There is no conspiracy, Bird has a bad back and needs to get healthy. Simple.

    Comment


    • Re: Larry Bird LEAVING the Pacers

      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
      " I'd do it today. "
      Did he say that in response to being questioned if he would do another three year handshake?

      Comment


      • Re: Larry Bird LEAVING the Pacers

        Originally posted by billbradley View Post
        Did he say that in response to being questioned if he would do another three year handshake?
        This is all I could find.

        "I'd do it today if Herbie was here," Bird said, drawing laughter. "We've got kids working out, we've got six free agents, we've got a lot going on right now. Obviously, I want to sit down with Herb as quickly as possible. I don't like this (questions) at all. I'd like a three-year deal, but we have a handshake agreement. It's hard coming in here and not having the answers."

        http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/79...cers-president

        That sounds like a guy who without question wanted to come back.

        Comment


        • Re: Larry Bird LEAVING the Pacers

          "I was first contacted for real by Herb about 2 weeks ago, I guess Larry told him he was going to leave for at least a year."
          Walsh on JMV earlier today.

          http://www.1070thefan.com/podcast/Ep....aspx?PID=2161

          He even says he's keeping the seat warm for Larry.
          "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

          "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

          Comment


          • Re: Larry Bird LEAVING the Pacers

            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
            This is all I could find.

            "I'd do it today if Herbie was here," Bird said, drawing laughter. "We've got kids working out, we've got six free agents, we've got a lot going on right now. Obviously, I want to sit down with Herb as quickly as possible. I don't like this (questions) at all. I'd like a three-year deal, but we have a handshake agreement. It's hard coming in here and not having the answers."

            http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/79...cers-president

            That sounds like a guy who without question wanted to come back.
            I thought Bird was staying too, but obviously the meeting had nothing to do with the decision not to stay.

            Comment


            • Re: Larry Bird LEAVING the Pacers

              Originally posted by Sandman21 View Post
              "I was first contacted for real by Herb about 2 weeks ago, I guess Larry told him he was going to leave for at least a year."
              Walsh on JMV earlier today.

              http://www.1070thefan.com/podcast/Ep....aspx?PID=2161

              He even says he's keeping the seat warm for Larry.
              Pretty much what I gathered from that interview as well. Donnie is perfectly okay with keeping the seat warm and being a steward of the Blue and Gold Throne. Donnie even says he was really enjoying his retirement and never expected to be back in the saddle. Its so Obvious that Herbie called in a favor and sold him on a 1-2 year situation while Bird recovers and recharges.
              You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

              Comment


              • Re: Larry Bird LEAVING the Pacers

                If this whole "Walsh is keeping the seat warm for Bird while he recovers" theory is true....then all that has happened in the last 2 days is confusing....if not unnecessary.

                I don't understand why it ended up like this if Bird eventually intends to return.
                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                Comment


                • Re: Larry Bird LEAVING the Pacers

                  Originally posted by billbradley View Post


                  So Wells says all he has heard is that Bird is leaving for health reason and is taking a year break (Bird confirms both) and that isn't definitive?



                  Bird said he has always been able to spend what he wanted. What reason do you have to say he is lying?



                  I'm rehashing my same points because you ask the same questions while offering nothing besides a BS report out of ORL and a journalist's question.

                  There is no conspiracy, Bird has a bad back and needs to get healthy. Simple.
                  For one, I've already presented numerous facts that are both logical and rationale that point to a possible Simon unwillingness to spend money. I've debated with far superior posters though, who simply do not pick and choose points to their benefit and look at arguments as a whole. Has the team not had financial difficulty? Did Bird not say that we wouldn't be able to chase the Dwight Howards of the world? Please, enlighten me. Additionally, other basketball sites picked up the same Bird to Orlando story, so that site wasn't the only one. Whether they got it from there, I don't know. Regardless, you are horribly close minded in that there are no circumstances that allude to a possible issue with Simon if mainstream reporters are asking the very same question. I mean just using common sense, if someone asks that question, there has to be some basis, right? The same reporter didn't ask Larry Bird if he dresses up as Boomer during games because there's no basis for something like that. Doesn't mean it's true, but where there's smoke, there's sometimes fire.

                  Two, what Simon has done in the past, which is what Bird said if you read it closely (again ever hear articulate politicians speak? They cover their bases). Just because he did it in the past, doesn't mean he will do it in the future. Case in point, the New York Yankees. The New York Yankees never would lose out in bidding to anyone, except now they are looking to cut payroll, had to find money for a 4 million dollar deal to Raul Ibanez, and just recently lost out on a bidding for top Cuban prospect Jorge Soler to the Cubs. With the team losing money in recent years and attendance down, is it far fetched that Simon may not want to make any more splurges in free agency besides re-signing his own? You seem to think absolutely he would based on some fluffy comment by Larry Bird.

                  Third, Larry himself today said that health was am issue among other reasons, which he did not disclose all of them. Even you can't deny that one. Sorry to break it to you, it's simply not all about the back when Larry said there's more to it.

                  Lastly, I have found posters who have to use emoticons to mock other posters typically don't have very good substance in their arguments, and well, I guess some things just don't change.

                  Again, if you want to continue your close minded mentality, by all means go for it, but I'm not going to believe in something purely because I'm expected to. I'm going to analyze possibilities, circumstances, and leave no stone unturned. That's just how I conduct business.
                  Last edited by PR07; 06-27-2012, 07:10 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Larry Bird LEAVING the Pacers

                    Originally posted by PR07 View Post
                    For one, I've already presented numerous facts that are both logical and rationale that point to a possible Simon unwillingness to spend money. I've debated with far superior posters though, who simply do not pick and choose points to their benefit and look at arguments as a whole.
                    You haven't given me much to go on. I'm not asking for reasons why Simon wouldn't spend, I'm asking for proof that he isn't.

                    Such a "far superior" poster like yourself should get that.

                    Has the team not had financial difficulty? Did Bird not say that we wouldn't be able to chase the Dwight Howards of the world? Please, enlighten me. Additionally, other basketball sites picked up the same Bird to Orlando story, so that site wasn't the only one. Whether they got it from there, I don't know.
                    The story originated from a bad source and hasn't been confirmed. You can base your opinion on crap, but no reason to discuss that any further with me.

                    Regardless, you are horribly close minded in that there are no circumstances that allude to a possible issue with Simon if mainstream reporters are asking the very same question. I mean just using common sense, if someone asks that question, there has to be some basis, right? The same reporter didn't ask Larry Bird if he dresses up as Boomer during games because there's no basis for something like that. Doesn't mean it's true, but where there's smoke, there's sometimes fire.
                    Okay, so the same goes for Rome and the draft being rigged right?

                    Two, what Simon has done in the past, which is what Bird said if you read it closely (again ever hear articulate politicians speak? They cover their bases). Just because he did it in the past, doesn't mean he will do it in the future. Case in point, the New York Yankees. The New York Yankees never would lose out in bidding to anyone, except now they are looking to cut payroll, had to find money for a 4 million dollar deal to Raul Ibanez, and just recently lost out on a bidding for top Cuban prospect Jorge Soler to the Cubs. With the team losing money in recent years and attendance down, is it far fetched that Simon may not want to make any more splurges in free agency besides re-signing his own? You seem to think absolutely he would based on some fluffy comment by Larry Bird.
                    I have no reason to think Bird is lying when he is leaving to have surgery on his back. Bird has said he is going to leave for the past year. If it was about money, why did he stay this year?

                    Third, Larry himself today said that health was am issue among other reasons, which he did not disclose all of them. Even you can't deny that one. Sorry to break it to you, it's simply not all about the back when Larry said there's more to it.
                    Other reasons doesn't mean, "it's about the money."

                    Lastly, I have found posters who have to use emoticons to mock other posters typically don't have very good substance in their arguments, and well, I guess some things just don't change.
                    Great. Then just give me one reason anyone should think Larry left because of the money? No unfounded possibilities. Maybe Larry left because he wasn't getting paid enough. It's possible, but likely not the case. You can think these things, but they simply just aren't likely.

                    Again, if you want to continue your close minded mentality, by all means go for it, but I'm not going to believe in something purely because I'm expected to. I'm going to analyze possibilities, circumstances, and leave no stone unturned. That's just how I conduct business.
                    I said it's possible, anything can be possible. It's just not likely.

                    Give me a single reason to believe that Bird left because Simon wouldn't spend.
                    Last edited by billbradley; 06-27-2012, 07:24 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Larry Bird LEAVING the Pacers

                      And the best part, Bird and Walsh are saying Bird is leaving for a year.

                      So maybe you should say "it is possible that Bird left because Simon is unwilling to pay until next year."

                      Comment


                      • Re: Larry Bird LEAVING the Pacers

                        Originally posted by PR07 View Post
                        For one, I've already presented numerous facts that are both logical and rationale that point to a possible Simon unwillingness to spend money. I've debated with far superior posters though, who simply do not pick and choose points to their benefit and look at arguments as a whole. Has the team not had financial difficulty? Did Bird not say that we wouldn't be able to chase the Dwight Howards of the world? Please, enlighten me. Additionally, other basketball sites picked up the same Bird to Orlando story, so that site wasn't the only one. Whether they got it from there, I don't know. Regardless, you are horribly close minded in that there are no circumstances that allude to a possible issue with Simon if mainstream reporters are asking the same question.

                        Two, what Simon has done in the past, which is what Bird said if you read it closely (again ever hear articulate politicians speak? They cover their bases). Just because he did it in the past, doesn't mean he will do it in the future. Case in point, the New York Yankees. The New York Yankees never would lose out in bidding to anyone, except now they are looking to cut payroll, had to find money for a 4 million dollar deal to Raul Ibanez, and just recently lost out on a bidding for top Cuban prospect Jorge Soler to the Cubs. With the team losing money in recent years and attendance down, is it far fetched that Simon may not want to make any more splurges in free agency besides re-signing his own? You seem to think absolutely he would based on some fluffy comment by Larry Bird.

                        Third, Larry himself today said that health was am issue among other reasons, which he did not disclose all of them. Even you can't deny that one. Sorry to break it to you, it's simply not all about the back when Larry said there's more to it.

                        Lastly, I have found posters who have to use emoticons to mock other posters typically don't have very good substance in their arguments, and well, I guess some things just don't change.
                        This argument is based largely on conjecture. the Burden of proof is squarely on the claim that runs contrary to common knowledge or past behavior. Simon has always been willing to spend money on the Pacers, we paid the Luxury tax for years, he OK'd contracts thats were above and beyond market value for our own returning free agents, he made Jermaine O'Neal one of the richest players in the NBA, Allowed Bird to hold on to Murphy and Dunleavey instead of just salary dumping them when they deserved it, the list goes on. There is no evidence, or even really anything more than base conjecture that suggests that now of all times, when the team is quickly returning to prominence, Simon suddenly has an over the top aversion to spending.

                        ALL owners are being mroe conservative after the new CBA, even Cuban didn't retain Chandler due to an aversion of going over a certain limit, the harsher consequences on going way above the cap don't suggest that Simon is unwilling to pay handsomely for a winner. Also if Donny Walsh himself is to be believed he is just "keeping the seat warm" for Larry.

                        All of the arguments put forth insinuating Simon of suddenly refusing to spend good money on a winner could be explained far, far more parsimoniously by taking the word of everyone remotely close to the situation and coming to the conclusion that while Larry Bird loves his job and wishes to continue in a similar role in the future it is in the best interests of his health and wellbeing to take a sabbatical while he has his surgeries and catches his breath after 9 years.

                        Simon has never been a stickler or a particularly notorious penny pincher, why do you assume he has become one now, when there is a pretty obvious explanation that doesn't involve such cloak and dagger reasoning? Unless of course Bird was upset that Simon doesn't want to go way over the luxury cap, but that doesn't seem like Larry at all, and the cap is discouraging owners from going far above the line, even ones from much more profitable franchises.

                        As for financial difficulties, the Pacers have not made much money for well over a decade and it hasn't been met with the kind of frugality by ownership that you are asserting is now taking place. Bird is a famously straight shooter, as blunt of a guy as you'll ever meet, he doesn't play many word games, chances are if you are trying to scry minute hints from in between the lines of Larry Bird's speech then it's probably safe to say that you are looking too hard for something that probably isn't there. In addition it is neither logical, nor rational to assume that a few "other reasons" without a doubt refers to Simon's unwillingness to spend on the team, "other reasons" could be well... any number of other reasons!

                        I think it is a stretch to assume the same Herb Simon that OK'd paying a premium for a mediocre mess of a team during the O'Brien years is suddenly unwilling to do the same once again now that the teams has momentum, returning fans and a real chance to compete in the playoffs? It doesn't really stack up.
                        Last edited by daschysta; 06-27-2012, 07:27 PM.
                        Goodbye Captain, My Captain. I wish you had the chance to sink or swim with your ship on its quest for the "ship".

                        Comment


                        • Re: Larry Bird LEAVING the Pacers

                          Originally posted by billbradley View Post
                          I've heard everyone reporting and involved say it's not about money, don't know how more definitive they can be.
                          Sure everyone is saying it, but who knows what is really going on behind the scenes. All of these guys seem to have enough respect for each other to not start a smear campaign.
                          "The greatest thing you know Comes not from above but below" Danzig

                          Comment


                          • Re: Larry Bird LEAVING the Pacers

                            I'm not going to get into any further. Neither side is going to budge, and that's more than perfectly fine. You have it your way, I'll have it mine. The thing is, I'm not even taking the stance that Simon won't provide the necessary money that Bird was hoping for because I simply do not know. However, refusing to believe it as even a remote possibility when there are several instances that at least hint to the contrary seems kind of naive. You've said there's absolutely no basis, completely shutting your mind open to any possibility. Just because we aren't told exact certain things doesn't mean it couldn't be true. Having been around several sports organizations, believe me, the fans do not and are not in the know of a lot of things that go behind the scenes simply because they do not have to be. Some investigative people, like myself, like to read behind the lines and try to connect possible dots. That doesn't mean I'm a conspiracy theorist, only that I do consider possibilities and think outside the box. That close minded mindset simply isn't for me, if it's worked for you, kudos.
                            Last edited by PR07; 06-27-2012, 08:05 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Larry Bird LEAVING the Pacers

                              Originally posted by PR07 View Post
                              I'm not going to get into any further. Neither side is going to budge, and that's more than perfectly fine. You have it your way, I'll have it mine. The thing is, I'm not even taking the stance that Simon won't provide the necessary money that Bird was hoping for because I simply do not know. However, refusing to believe it as even a remote possibility when there are several instances that at least hint to the contrary seems kind of naive. You've said there's absolutely no basis, completely shutting your mind open to any possibility. Just because we aren't told exact certain things doesn't mean it couldn't be true. Having been around several sports organizations, believe me, the fans do not and are not in the know of a lot of things that go behind the scenes simply because they do not have to be. Some investigative people, like myself, like to read behind the lines and try to connect possible dots. That doesn't mean I'm a conspiracy theorist, only that I do consider possibilities and think outside the box. That close minded mindset simply isn't for me, if it's worked for you, kudos.
                              Dude, just read the posts, I said I thinks it's possible. Anything is possible.

                              Give me one reason to believe Bird left because of money. There aren't any, that's why it's not likely and it's silly to suggest otherwise at this point.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Larry Bird LEAVING the Pacers

                                This one is tough to call, I think Bird had said a while back that he wanted to know if Herb would spend the money to bring in what Bird wanted. To even have Bird say that to me, indicates he was unsure. However, I dont think Simon goes after RFA's because of money, but moreso because of he thinks its the right thing to do .

                                Ultimatley I think Birds leaving is a combination of many things, not one. His back probably is worse, we have always known about it, and as you get pldr, it does get worse and u loose flexibilty. Perhaps Simon has spent before, but now he is more cautious or doesnt think D Will is worth the money ( maybe he even feels like D Will ran a class act out of the job in Sloan, someone Simon respects a great deal. Maybe bird also wanted to simply take a year off, get his boy KP in the GM chair, evaluate from a far for a year and comeback recharged

                                Ultimitely only a few select know the entire truth and I dont believe one of them is on PD, so it canbe fun to speculate

                                Me, Im going with the combination of factors, not one specific thing
                                Sittin on top of the world!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X