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 Since86 View Post
    So if they offered a max contract to EJ, and the Hornet's matched, you'd feel better about the situation?

    I'm just trying to figure this out. I didn't realize that simply offering a contract to a guy, when there's no shot of actually obtaining him as a player was such a difference maker for people.

    They offered more money to Nash than the Lakers.
    They're not on DWill's list.
    NO is willing to match any offer sheet signed by EJ.

    The options you want them to pursue, and using against them, seem a little far fetched and unrealistic.
    It's not just about EJ, you guys keep hammering this like he is the only player, again we were told many many times that we were going to have cap space, picks and pieces to make s*** happen, so now you tell me, how long has been since we got all this cap space? it's going to be 2 years and so far nothing, how patient you want people to be? 6, 7 years of misery and you want people to be patient? I don't think so.
    @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 graphic-er View Post
      And maybe Sleeze is right, that the Pacers not getting him under contract will work out for the better in being able to trade for him in the future, but thats if NOLA matches. If NOLA doesn't match, then the Pacers lost out big time.
      I'm starting to think that NOLA has to match. If they don't then they let CP3 go for nothing. Even if Gordon states he won't play for the Hornets, they still have to sign him and at least get something for him in a trade.
      I know "Sleeze" is spelled incorrectly. I spell it this way because it's based on a name.

      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
        It's not just about EJ, you guys keep hammering this like he is the only player, again we were told many many times that we were going to have cap space, picks and pieces to make s*** happen, so now you tell me, how long has been since we got all this cap space? it's going to be 2 years and so far nothing, how patient you want people to be? 6, 7 years of misery and you want people to be patient? I don't think so.
        Sometimes I honestly wonder what it would take to make you happy... the team has gone from terrible to playoffs to second round in just 2 years. What the heck more do you reasonably expect?

        Oh so they're not moving fast enough for you, ok. They're not signing enough expensive big name free agents, got it. They're not "making **** happen," whatever that means. Bummer dude. I guess none of our recent improvement really matters. I guess none of our young players is ever going to get better.

        Maybe you'd be happier as a fan of the New York Knicks, they sure make **** happen, they have so many flashy free agents you almost forget how much they've underachieved or how hopeless their immediate future looks.

        ---------

        Yes I'm teasing you here a bit, but seriously man I think you're going to continue being disappointed given the expectations you have... I'm guessing we will probably re-sign Roy and Hill and add one or two more pieces this summer and that will be it.

        It is what it is...

        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
          It's not just about EJ, you guys keep hammering this like he is the only player, again we were told many many times that we were going to have cap space, picks and pieces to make s*** happen, so now you tell me, how long has been since we got all this cap space? it's going to be 2 years and so far nothing, how patient you want people to be? 6, 7 years of misery and you want people to be patient? I don't think so.
          Then who else fits the bill that you're clammoring for?
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
            You folks have no idea if NOLA is going to match or not.
            http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.c...ts-will-match/
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            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
              Quick success for the now is not what I'm looking for, the Bucks and Bobcats tried this few years ago and didn't work well for them, I'm looking for chance to compete for a championship in the future, at this moment we don't have the talent to compete for a championship in the future, we are building for the "nice" quick success of the now, at this moment we only have 3 players that are going to be part of the future in Roy, PG and Hill, everybody else is either replaceable or old, do you think we have a chance to compete with those 3 guys? I don't.


              edit: Actually quick success has always been the part that grinded my gears with Larry Bird, he tried the quick success bs for a long time and it finally worked out for him last year, that doesn't mean that's going to work out for this team in the future, there is a reason why I don't want to bring old players here, because I want us to build a team for the future when Roy and Paul George are in their prime.
              So, if I understand correctly, you aren't saying we're not moving fast enough, you're saying we're trying to move too fast by getting "now" pieces instead of "later" pieces?

              If this is the case, then why do you also complain that it will take another 3-5 years? How does getting "later" pieces translate into success before those pieces are actually ready?

              Also, how does a team guarantee success when risking on a player who is being gotten for "potential"?

              So, bottom line, are you saying the RESULT isn't as important as making moves with superstar potential, or are you saying that the moves for superstar potential won't count UNLESS they are successful?
              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, if I understand correctly, you aren't saying we're not moving fast enough, you're saying we're trying to move too fast by getting "now" pieces instead of "later" pieces?
                I think we can accomplish the "win now mode" and "compete for a championship in the future" by replacing the older players with younger ones that are going to be here when Roy/PG hit their prime.


                If this is the case, then why do you also complain that it will take another 3-5 years? How does getting "later" pieces translate into success before those pieces are actually ready?
                I think you can be successful if you replace the older pieces with new ones I don't think it will take another 3-5 years if you do that, my point is that the ceiling I see with this team right now is not higher than the second round in the playoffs, OK you compete for the second round of the playoffs in the next 2-3 years and then what? by that time Danny/West are long gone or retired and we will have to start the rebuilding, unless we bring two other older players that could help us to stay in the second round of the playoffs forever.

                Also, how does a team guarantee success when risking on a player who is being gotten for "potential"?

                So, bottom line, are you saying the RESULT isn't as important as making moves with superstar potential, or are you saying that the moves for superstar potential won't count UNLESS they are successful?
                I'm not talking about players with superstar potential, I'm talking about players that are better than the older players we have already, young players that could grow with our other young players, players that could probably be all stars someday.
                @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
                  I'm not talking about players with superstar potential, I'm talking about players that are better than the older players we have already, young players that could grow with our other young players, players that could probably be all stars someday.
                  The "probably" is still the key word here. If there's no guarantee, what happens if that young player stacked team doesn't pan out? Do you consider it a success because they followed a plan of action that didn't work? Do you consider it a failure because they took a risk that didn't produce the required result? And, meanwhile, do casual fans show up for players with potential continuing to lose while they get experience - remember, we're NOT talking superstar potential (and therefore hyped crowd draws) here.

                  Unless your goal is to spend 5 of every 7 years rebuilding, with only two of those years being ones where you have some vaguely defined "legitimate" shot at a championship - and this entire argument is predicated on the idea that getting to the playoffs second round is NOT a legitimate shot - you HAVE to spend some time at lower successful tiers. Otherwise, every single team that got a top-3 pick and surrounded him with supporting talent of the same age would have a championship. It doesn't work that way.
                  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 BillS View Post
                    The "probably" is still the key word here. If there's no guarantee, what happens if that young player stacked team doesn't pan out? Do you consider it a success because they followed a plan of action that didn't work? Do you consider it a failure because they took a risk that didn't produce the required result? And, meanwhile, do casual fans show up for players with potential continuing to lose while they get experience - remember, we're NOT talking superstar potential (and therefore hyped crowd draws) here.

                    Unless your goal is to spend 5 of every 7 years rebuilding, with only two of those years being ones where you have some vaguely defined "legitimate" shot at a championship - and this entire argument is predicated on the idea that getting to the playoffs second round is NOT a legitimate shot - you HAVE to spend some time at lower successful tiers. Otherwise, every single team that got a top-3 pick and surrounded him with supporting talent of the same age would have a championship. It doesn't work that way.
                    Bills the "young players" I'm talking about are already productive players in the NBA, I'm not talking about rookies,second year players or players with "potential" (Milsap 27, Humpries 26, Monta 26, Josh Smith26, etc) those are players that came to mind but I'm pretty sure there are more.
                    @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'

                      And the Pacers don't have any ability to get any of those guys, without making a trade that would cost young talent like Roy (assuming he's re-signed) or PG.

                      Which is why I asked you already to provide some names, other than EJ, that are a realistic option that would get your approval.

                      What you're asking for is a solution, but the method of getting those players is completely unrealistic.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      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
                        And the Pacers don't have any ability to get any of those guys, without making a trade that would cost young talent like Roy (assuming he's re-signed) or PG.

                        Which is why I asked you already to provide some names, other than EJ, that are a realistic option that would get your approval.

                        What you're asking for is a solution, but the method of getting those players is completely unrealistic.
                        I thought it was unrealistic to get a young point guard that averaged 14 points 6.6 apg and 4.6 rpg in Kyle Lowry for a draft pick but as you might know that's what the Toronto Raptors were able to pull off, saying that something is unrealistic is just making excuses.
                        @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'

                          I think Bird left for a variety of reasons, but if I had to list the top two reasons.

                          1) health and personal reasons - I know that is rather broad.

                          2) being in a small market. I think that frustrates Bird a lot more than whether Herb will spend the money (although they are in some ways related) Not being able to attract free agents to come here has to frustrate Bird. Pacers either have to way overpay for someone or get second tier free agents. (this is also a factor in making trades because you have to determine if the player will re-sign with the pacers.

                          Honestly, I think this is more what the article and other rumors are referencing, not that herb won't spend the money - that is way to narrow
                          Last edited by Unclebuck; 07-09-2012, 02:26 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 vnzla81 View Post
                            Bills the "young players" I'm talking about are already productive players in the NBA, I'm not talking about rookies,second year players or players with "potential" (Milsap 27, Humpries 26, Monta 26, Josh Smith26, etc) those are players that came to mind but I'm pretty sure there are more.
                            Well, we spent a LOT of this year looking at what Monta would have "given" us, so I'll lay off that. In general, though, for any of those players who are considered to be better than the player the Pacers currently have at that position, what would we have had to give away in order to get them? Are we giving up our own complementary pieces in order to bring in someone who fixes one problem but leaves a hole somewhere else? Are we just shuffling the holes around?

                            To be successful you need a good mix of up-and-coming guys, guys with potential, and guys who are absolutely known quantities. At any given time, someone who is up-and-coming on another team may look better than one of your own guys, but unless you can somehow make an even swap you will be giving up something to get something. That means you can't just go because you think a piece is better than what it replaces, you have to go because the piece you get makes you better than what it replaces AND what you gave up.
                            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 vnzla81 View Post
                              I thought it was unrealistic to get a young point guard that averaged 14 points 6.6 apg and 4.6 rpg in Kyle Lowry for a draft pick but as you might know that's what the Toronto Raptors were able to pull off, saying that something is unrealistic is just making excuses.
                              So Kyle Lowry type player is the answer to the Pacers problems, or you just want them to make moves for simply making moves?
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              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
                                Well, we spent a LOT of this year looking at what Monta would have "given" us, so I'll lay off that. In general, though, for any of those players who are considered to be better than the player the Pacers currently have at that position, what would we have had to give away in order to get them? Are we giving up our own complementary pieces in order to bring in someone who fixes one problem but leaves a hole somewhere else? Are we just shuffling the holes around?

                                To be successful you need a good mix of up-and-coming guys, guys with potential, and guys who are absolutely known quantities. At any given time, someone who is up-and-coming on another team may look better than one of your own guys, but unless you can somehow make an even swap you will be giving up something to get something. That means you can't just go because you think a piece is better than what it replaces, you have to go because the piece you get makes you better than what it replaces AND what you gave up.
                                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"?
                                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X