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

NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

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

  • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
    We are going to have more holes in 2 or 3 years when West and Danny are probably gone or their game is not there anymore, who are you going to replace them with? you didn't replace them when you had the opportunity because you didn't want to have two holes, now what can you do? rebuilding and a 3 years plan again? or sign two over the hill players that could keep us in "playoffs contention"?
    That is why Granger and even West should be traded now if they bring anything decent back.......

    Comment


    • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

      Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
      We are going to have more holes in 2 or 3 years when West and Danny are probably gone or their game is not there anymore, who are you going to replace them with? you didn't replace them when you had the opportunity because you didn't want to have two holes, now what can you do? rebuilding and a 3 years plan again? or sign two over the hill players that could keep us in "playoffs contention"?
      So you don't think Paul George is going to develop to at least Danny's level? So if we replace West with someone WHEN West expires instead of before it doesn't count as a replacement? Does every single player on the team need to be the same age or level of experience? I say no - you NEED some vets AND some second year guys. Otherwise, instead of building a team you're just more-or-less swapping rosters from top to bottom every few years, which means taking a completely new set of risks every time.

      I also don't quite understand how making two holes NOW to fix one is considered a positive move. For the sake of the discussion, let's say that our biggest holes right now are backup PF and starting PG. If we trade Danny and West for a starting PG, don't we now have holes at starting PF, backup PF, and starting SF? Didn't we just make 3 holes out of 2? If Danny and West are as flawed as some say, who would give us anything more than a single starter for the two of them? If they aren't that flawed, why not use them today?

      An argument can be made that our draft has not contributed to our own developing players. Tyler has been disappointing at best and Plumlee is ... unexpected. I can see that we don't seem top be moving forward using the draft as best as perhaps we could have. The problem is that even the most desirable FA destinations can't do everything through FA work alone. You at least need to develop your roleplayers yourself, and we may have not given ourselves the best chance to do that. Even at that, though, making frantic moves and getting rid of players as soon as they have "value" to get players you keep until they have "value" and getting rid of them as well seems like the means to a championship (use of players and trades) has become an end in itself (the team that makes the most moves wins).
      BillS

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

      Comment


      • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

        [QUOTE]
        Originally posted by BillS View Post
        So you don't think Paul George is going to develop to at least Danny's level?
        Maybe, probably, but I'm not counting on it, even if he was at Danny's level I don't think he is enough to take us to the top.


        So if we replace West with someone WHEN West expires instead of before it doesn't count as a replacement?
        It count as a replacement, but how are you going to get a replacement if you already let the expiring expire? is another over the hill PF in his last legs going to help us win a championship? I doubt it.

        Does every single player on the team need to be the same age or level of experience? I say no
        No, but as Detroit thought us, it's ideal to have a group of players the peak at the same time to have the best chance to be successful and win a championship.

        -
        you NEED some vets AND some second year guys. Otherwise, instead of building a team you're just more-or-less swapping rosters from top to bottom every few years, which means taking a completely new set of risks every time.
        My suggestion actually eliminates swapping roster or players every year, young players that peak at the same time = less player movement.

        I also don't quite understand how making two holes NOW to fix one is considered a positive move. For the sake of the discussion, let's say that our biggest holes right now are backup PF and starting PG. If we trade Danny and West for a starting PG, don't we now have holes at starting PF, backup PF, and starting SF? Didn't we just make 3 holes out of 2? If Danny and West are as flawed as some say, who would give us anything more than a single starter for the two of them? If they aren't that flawed, why not use them today?
        I believe that Danny and West could net us some good players.

        An argument can be made that our draft has not contributed to our own developing players. Tyler has been disappointing at best and Plumlee is ... unexpected. I can see that we don't seem top be moving forward using the draft as best as perhaps we could have. The problem is that even the most desirable FA destinations can't do everything through FA work alone. You at least need to develop your roleplayers yourself, and we may have not given ourselves the best chance to do that. Even at that, though, making frantic moves and getting rid of players as soon as they have "value" to get players you keep until they have "value" and getting rid of them as well seems like the means to a championship (use of players and trades) has become an end in itself (the team that makes the most moves wins).
        I'm not talking about getting rid of players as soon as they have value, I'm talking about moving players before their value goes to the toilet or they expire.
        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

        Comment


        • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

          [QUOTE=vnzla81;1476489]
          My suggestion actually eliminates swapping roster or players every year, young players that peak at the same time = less player movement.
          :
          :
          :
          I'm not talking about getting rid of players as soon as they have value, I'm talking about moving players before their value goes to the toilet or they expire.
          The first statement implies that all your players not only peak at the same time but that you successfully PREDICT they are going to peak at the same time some years earlier. It also assumes your players peak exactly as you expected.

          If anyone is that good at evaluating players they should get their butts off this forum and start running a team because even Jerry West wasn't THAT good.

          The second statement kind of contradicts the first. If you only hold on to players until they have peaked and then trade them, wouldn't you be swapping your whole roster as soon as they have peaked? Since they all peak at the same time you either held on to guaranteed starters as your bench OR you are trading your entire rotation for guys that are yet to peak.


          It's easy to SAY these things, but I think you have very little flexibility to recover from normal basketball events and inevitable human failures using this strategy.
          BillS

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

          Comment


          • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

            [QUOTE][QUOTE=BillS;1476504]
            Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post

            The first statement implies that all your players not only peak at the same time but that you successfully PREDICT they are going to peak at the same time some years earlier. It also assumes your players peak exactly as you expected.

            If anyone is that good at evaluating players they should get their butts off this forum and start running a team because even Jerry West wasn't THAT good.
            Remember the players I suggested? players that are 24,25,26 years old and are already good to great players? again I'm not talking about rookies or players we know nothing about, players in general get in their prime at 26, 27,28,29 and 30, meaning that you have four to five years to keep the same team.

            The second statement kind of contradicts the first. If you only hold on to players until they have peaked and then trade them, wouldn't you be swapping your whole roster as soon as they have peaked?
            No really, just look at what Detroit did, of course that if you get into a point were you can't compete anymore you have to move some players.

            Since they all peak at the same time you either held on to guaranteed starters as your bench OR you are trading your entire rotation for guys that are yet to peak.

            It's easy to SAY these things, but I think you have very little flexibility to recover from normal basketball events and inevitable human failures using this strategy.
            Normal basketball events and inevitable human failures happen all the time with a young or older team.


            edit: By the way I could give you the Cleveland Cavaliers with Lebron as an example, they kept filling the team with over the hill old players to surround Lebron and how that worked out? now Cleveland learned the lesson and is trying to surround their franchise player in Irving with young players that are going to peak at the same time.
            Last edited by vnzla81; 07-09-2012, 05:24 PM.
            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

            Comment


            • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
              Remember the players I suggested? players that are 24,25,26 years old and are already good to great players? again I'm not talking about rookies or players we know nothing about, players in general get in their prime at 26, 27,28,29 and 30, meaning that you have four to five years to keep the same team.
              And I still want to know how you get them all on the same team. What pieces are you trading for them? Are you doing it all in the same year with your entire roster? How are you getting all these guys who are proven as better than the guys you have using only the guys you have?

              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
              No really, just look at what Detroit did, of course that if you get into a point were you can't compete anymore you have to move some players.
              Interestingly, I think Detroit is a MUCH better match for "develop some players and add pieces until you get the team polished" - there's no way they get to the Finals (much less win) without adding Rasheed as the final tweak. That's a long way from putting together a team of guys all peaking at the same time some time in advance and riding them all the way home.

              And even at THAT we're talking a team that had a few years of success and then crashed - the Pacers run from 94-2004 was arguably better than that over the long run. The only difference is that Detroit won their finals against a somewhat depleted LA team. If you judge Detroit as successful and the Pacers over that period as a failure, then that answers the question I asked about your definitions earlier in this thread - to me success is a team that is a long term contender, not a short-term winner that fails to meet expectations in future years.

              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
              now Cleveland learned the lesson and is trying to surround their franchise player in Irving with young players that are going to peak at the same time.
              We'll see how long it takes those players to pan out or if some of them need to be moved again down the road to take the final steps. If the Cavs put all their eggs in one basket, Irving will get as frustrated as LBJ.
              BillS

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

              Comment


              • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

                [QUOTE]
                Originally posted by BillS View Post
                And I still want to know how you get them all on the same team. What pieces are you trading for them? Are you doing it all in the same year with your entire roster? How are you getting all these guys who are proven as better than the guys you have using only the guys you have?
                Humpries is there for the take he is a free agent so you don't have to trade anybody, Hill is not going anywhere in a long time so the piece that we probably have to trade for is small guard or small forward, Danny+ pieces to Atlanta for Smith? West+ pieces for Smith? you get a good group of young players in Hill, PG, JS, Humpries, Roy? it's just an example but you get the point.

                Interestingly, I think Detroit is a MUCH better match for "develop some players and add pieces until you get the team polished" - there's no way they get to the Finals (much less win) without adding Rasheed as the final tweak. That's a long way from putting together a team of guys all peaking at the same time some time in advance and riding them all the way home.

                And even at THAT we're talking a team that had a few years of success and then crashed - the Pacers run from 94-2004 was arguably better than that over the long run. The only difference is that Detroit won their finals against a somewhat depleted LA team. If you judge Detroit as successful and the Pacers over that period as a failure, then that answers the question I asked about your definitions earlier in this thread - to me success is a team that is a long term contender, not a short-term winner that fails to meet expectations in future years.
                Detroit had a pretty good run with a title to talk about and made it to the finals twice, that's pretty good.


                We'll see how long it takes those players to pan out or if some of them need to be moved again down the road to take the final steps. If the Cavs put all their eggs in one basket, Irving will get as frustrated as LBJ.
                I don't think they are putting all their eggs in one basket, they are pretty sure giving Irving the best chance to win in the future and are not surrounding him with over the hill vets like they did with Lebron, they know they won't win a championship in the future by having old vets taking space from the young guys, their best chance is for them to grow together ala OKC.
                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                Comment


                • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

                  According to SI Bird's view of "willing to spend" must be skewed. From their story on Roy...
                  The Hibbert decision marks Indiana’s second free agency splurge of the month,
                  So the cheapskate is splurging...again.

                  And yet Larry was dissatisfied with Herb's willingness to spend. Frankly I welcome Larry's next go-round as GM elsewhere, maybe he can go Isiah in NYC. If you thought Balkman was iffy, here comes another Tyler or Plumlee pick for your big market where the salary cap rules apparently don't apply.



                  The chip on my shoulder about this issue is large, it just really grates me.

                  Comment


                  • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

                    Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                    According to SI Bird's view of "willing to spend" must be skewed. From their story on Roy...

                    So the cheapskate is splurging...again.

                    And yet Larry was dissatisfied with Herb's willingness to spend. Frankly I welcome Larry's next go-round as GM elsewhere, maybe he can go Isiah in NYC. If you thought Balkman was iffy, here comes another Tyler or Plumlee pick for your big market where the salary cap rules apparently don't apply.



                    The chip on my shoulder about this issue is large, it just really grates me.
                    hmmm Not like u to lose sight of the forest for the trees so much. Theres no denying Birds impact on the franchise. First as a coach and then as an executive. Coach of the year getting the franchise the closest its ever been to an NBA championship. Then totally making over the team after the brawl to the point of last years success. Executive of the year. In the end I dont believe it ultimately was as much about spending per se as it was Eric Gordon when it comes to business issues. That and I think hes frustrated because he realizes we likely will never be able to win a title as a small market team because we simply cant compete with whats going on in Miami, New York, LA, Boston etc...
                    The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

                    Comment


                    • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

                      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                      According to SI Bird's view of "willing to spend" must be skewed. From their story on Roy...

                      So the cheapskate is splurging...again.

                      And yet Larry was dissatisfied with Herb's willingness to spend. Frankly I welcome Larry's next go-round as GM elsewhere, maybe he can go Isiah in NYC. If you thought Balkman was iffy, here comes another Tyler or Plumlee pick for your big market where the salary cap rules apparently don't apply.



                      The chip on my shoulder about this issue is large, it just really grates me.
                      Putting things in historical perspective, I don't think the issue has EVER been about spending to retain our own free agents. One reason the Brad Miller situation stands out, for instance, is because of how unusual it was for the Pacers not to pay their own guys pretty much no matter what.

                      If you focus the discussion along the lines of going out and paying for OTHER TEAMS' free agents, the body of evidence in the Pacers FO's favor significantly diminishes. As I say all the time, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (in other words, we could very well be going unsuccessfully after FAs and just not having the attempts publicized when they fail), but it makes it hard to provide empirical counterexamples of any real magnitude.
                      BillS

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

                      Comment


                      • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

                        Originally posted by Wage View Post
                        . . . The Pacers packed the fieldhouse for years with competitive teams lacking superstars. The closest thing the NBA Pacers have ever had to a superstar was JO, and he was borderline and not for long. . .
                        Not commenting on the rest of your point or the argument. But this is false. There was nothing borderline about JO's talent. Before he hurt his knee, he was as good as anyone in the game. After that, he fell apart quickly, but when healthy, JO was a superstar.

                        Comment


                        • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          Doubling your winning percentage, and not signing guys that you don't have the option to sign is now valid criticism?
                          It's dumbfounding.

                          This idea that Herb hasn't paid for rosters has no merit, not one good example. And yet it goes on and on, this time from Larry himself.

                          I know people love him, but stuff like this, the Morway leak/comments, Lance, Tyler, Miles, Diener, KRush, not keeping JJack, extending JOB, replacing JJack with Watson, comments about Carlisle's control of the team as though Larry's hands were tied on the matter, picks for James White, his love of Shawne Williams...

                          It's a long list of items to me, longer than the positives (JO trade, Roy at 17, POR trade, George draft, West signing, Hill trade is nice but kinda neutral due to sacrifice), and in many ways his choices actually extended the suffering.

                          I've just had my fill. I hope this is not a 1 year temporary thing, I hope this is Walsh guiding Pritch into the role of top dog over the next 2-3 years. Sorry to sidebar kinda but in light of the Hill and Hibby resigns it just makes Bird's comments sound petty and off-base yet again.

                          Comment


                          • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

                            Originally posted by BillS View Post
                            Putting things in historical perspective, I don't think the issue has EVER been about spending to retain our own free agents. One reason the Brad Miller situation stands out, for instance, is because of how unusual it was for the Pacers not to pay their own guys pretty much no matter what.

                            If you focus the discussion along the lines of going out and paying for OTHER TEAMS' free agents, the body of evidence in the Pacers FO's favor significantly diminishes. As I say all the time, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (in other words, we could very well be going unsuccessfully after FAs and just not having the attempts publicized when they fail), but it makes it hard to provide empirical counterexamples of any real magnitude.
                            Well one supersedes the other. You have a choice - Reggie Miller and Rik Smits OR let them go and chase Charles Barkley or Gary Payton, etc.

                            Given a roster of Jax, Reggie, McKey, Dale, Rik, Tony and then guys like Rose, Best, Croshere (and the costs of Croshere/Bender combined) I think you pretty much are done. You've spent your money and found satisfying results with a nice balance of players. That's it, that's the end of the road.

                            It's like Miami fans being mad that the Heat didn't sign Nash and trade Haslem for Dwight and trade James Jones for Kobe. It's just literally not possible within the CBA rules, it has nothing to do with not being willing to spend.



                            You are right, the Pacers normally have not had FA money for us to see if they would spend or sit on it....until last year when they outbid Boston for David West. So you've had one trial, last year, and the Pacers landed firmly on the "willing to spend" side of things when it comes to FAs. And there's the strong rumor that they offered Nash 10m a year which is market competitive based on the 9m the Lakers are paying him.

                            And they did go out and sign Byron Scott, Sam Perkins and later Saras in attempts to bulk up the talent as much as possible. With Saras they were in direct competition with 2 other teams (GSW and ?I forget). It was MLE since that's all they had, but they didn't sit on the cash.

                            They also could have easily just let Peja walk but MORWAY (not Larry) made the plan to pay NOH to let us SnT Peja to them so the Pacers could get a 7.5m TE window to stuff Harrington into. So that's Herb spending to pay off NOH (rumor was 250K as I recall) and then absorb 7.5m of Harrington money in order to make the team better. They also signed Armstrong as I recall (ie, not a trade), and this was while they were still trying to hang on post-brawl to the winning ways instead of punting into a total rebuild.

                            How the heck is that evidence of not spending? Let Peja go, don't fill his contract space, don't give up a #11 pick for Harrington to take that space, don't sign DA, trade JO right then and go into "I don't want to spend, time to rebuild" mode.

                            There is a ton of implicit evidence that suggests Herb has been a dutiful owner and willing to pay for a quality (and sometimes not quality) product.


                            Maybe Larry can cut Herb a check for that extension year of JOB
                            that didn't last but a few months when the record, the players and the fanbase all said it was a terrible choice. Man, it's got my blood boiling just thinking about it again.
                            Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 07-10-2012, 02:33 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

                              Originally posted by xIndyFan View Post
                              Not commenting on the rest of your point or the argument. But this is false. There was nothing borderline about JO's talent. Before he hurt his knee, he was as good as anyone in the game. After that, he fell apart quickly, but when healthy, JO was a superstar.
                              That's one opinion, there are others.


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

                              Comment


                              • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

                                Seth I don't think you understand the point that me and others have been making regarding Simon, yes we know he is willing to pay to have a competitive team(up to the cap), I just don't think he is willing to spend for a championship even if it means going over the cap, signing Hibbert and Hill doesn't have to do with anything that me and others have been talking about, he has to spend the money regardless.
                                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X