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 Naptown_Seth View Post
    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.

    It almost sounds like youre more upset that he did many things you didnt agree with and it turned out to be a major success which he was recognized as executive of the year for such. Hindsight is 20/20. Bottom line is he did a masterful job. The results speak for themselves.
    Last edited by cinotimz; 07-10-2012, 02:44 PM.
    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'

      And I believe this 'strong rumor' regarding some mythical $10 million/year offer to Nash has been officially debunked by the ESPN article which pretty much shows the Pacers never even showed any real interest in Nash-let alone offer $10million/year.

      Ill say it again. I think its much more likely this whole thing revolved around the point that Larry did pretty much everything he said he was gonna do as for his 3 year plan. Including changing the culture, turning over the roster and clearing enough capspace to become a major player business wise. And my guess is Larry felt like he had a franchise type player who for once was interested in coming to Indy that he wanted to pursue-Gordon-and was likely told no. WE all know about Herbs feelings on pursuing RFA's. Maybe that was it. Maybe Herb wasnt comfortable with it due to Gordons injury history or something else. Who knows. We may never know for sure. It certainly is Herbs right as owner. Just as it is Birds right to not go on. You combine the aforementioned with the obvious frustration of feeling like you will never be on a level playing field as a small market team and the fact Bird has always leaned on taking it a bit easier in retirement, well its not hard to see why he walked away.

      Bottom line is, as competitive as Bird is, you know he deep down wanted to try and finish what he started given the feeling they were really making progress. So it had to be something significant for him to call it quits. And given his success and basically accomplishing all he said he would and had planned for, its not too hard to reason maybe he shouldve been given what it was he was wanting. Seems one could reason he had earned that right. But again, Herb isnt obligated to do such. Its his call and his money. He obviously said no. So, we are where we are. Maybe things will work out. Time will tell. But Bird was more of a known factor at this point in time versus Walsh and Pritchard. And he obviously carries alot more weight with the players than either Walsh or Pritchard ever will. Only MVP, coach of the year and executive of the year, ever.
      Last edited by cinotimz; 07-10-2012, 03:12 PM.
      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'

        We know the team will overspend on their own FA's. It's happened time and time again. West, IMHO, was a bargain due to his injury deflating his market value.

        What we don't know is whether the team really dabbles in the FA market when the bidding goes up.

        My question is: If you're willing to overspend on your own FA's then why not extend the same process to other FA's (and the FO should stop with any nonsense about not going after RFA's)?
        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

        ------

        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

        -John Wooden

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by Peck View Post
          That's one opinion, there are others.
          At least for 1 year he was a superstar...3rd in voting for MVP.

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by Peck View Post
            That's one opinion, there are others.
            Yea, like he was the huge benefactor of having Ron Artest and Brad Miller beside him on the front line with Reggie roaming the 3 point line keeping people honest. JO was a very good one on one player. And given the rest of the starters it was very difficult for teams to double him, thus he shined. But if a team had a great post defender like Sheed, he quickly became mortal and if they did double, he was basically inept at feeding others-which began to happen alot more when Miller departed.
            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 vnzla81 View Post
              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.
              I don't think this is a particularly fair assessment, especially when you consider how many years the Pacers have spent over the cap (and, if I remember correctly, also in the LT area once or twice).

              My problem is when people say Simon positively WILL NOT spend and so therefore blah blah blah. I think the reality is that Simon is WILLING to spend for a PROVEN result, and the people who complain are the ones whose "acceptable risk" is Herb's "too risky".

              Is Simon being too conservative? Perhaps - I certainly don't think so, since I think a max offer for Gordon was pretty much a crazy move considering the injury history. Then again, I tend to see the damage of failure as of more concern than the possibility of success, especially given the situation starting in 2004. I can understand why people would disagree with that, and that's fine, but to fly in the face of almost 30 years of spending patterns to claim that it is all a basic "won't spend money on a championship team" issue is a bit bogus.

              The Pacers have been conservative (sometimes to a fault) and that gets reinforced when the most recent case of trying to break that mold resulted in a public f**king in the stands at the Palace. I think Simon is more than willing to spend the money but ONLY if someone can make the case that the money is being spent on a high-percentage move.

              Ironically, for all that Walsh has that "do nothing" moniker, I think he is much better able to convince Simon what to spend money on than Bird was. Some of that may be due to Bird's choices, some of it may just be due to the relationship Walsh and Simon have had over the years.

              I'll take "spend on the wrong players" or "slow to pull the right trigger" or even "poor evaluation of talent" as critiques of the various previous FO lineups we've had. I may or may not agree, but I think they have a basis in history. The whole sound bite of "too cheap to spend money" just doesn't hold water, though.
              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 Bball View Post
                My question is: If you're willing to overspend on your own FA's then why not extend the same process to other FA's (and the FO should stop with any nonsense about not going after RFA's)?
                Because your own FAs are a known quantity. You absolutely know the risks you are taking because they've been in your system,. working with your training staff and coaches, and have a good idea of their role. You are also seldom bidding against tons of other teams (particularly with your own RFAs), and when you are then the market price is good to use to evaluate against what you know to be a fact about your player. Even when you overspend, with your own FA you pretty much KNOW how much of that is a risk and how much of it is value.

                Another team's FA is not as known a quantity. How will they fit? Will they be more than a one-contract rental? Will they accept a role or disrupt a rotation beyond their worth on the floor? An injury history with another team's training staff isn't public or clear - was it a fluke or was it chroinic? How can you evaluate how MUCH you are overpaying when you have so many unanswered questions?

                As I said above, it is a matter of risk assessment, and overspending for high risk isn't at all as easy to justify as overspending for a known quantity.
                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

                  Ironically, for all that Walsh has that "do nothing" moniker, I think he is much better able to convince Simon what to spend money on than Bird was. Some of that may be due to Bird's choices, some of it may just be due to the relationship Walsh and Simon have had over the years.
                  This could be the bone of contention with Bird, who knows. Lets see....Walsh....we have Croshere, Bender, Tinsley, Harrington, S. Jackson, JO...and im sure Im forgetting some...So Bird goes thru and cleans it all up and gets the team under the cap finally and then isnt given the opportunity evidently to do as he thinks is best. Only to have Walsh come back and immediately dole out Hills and Hibberts contracts which most agree are overpaying.
                  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 cinotimz View Post
                    This could be the bone of contention with Bird, who knows. Lets see....Walsh....we have Croshere, Bender, Tinsley, Harrington, S. Jackson, JO...and im sure Im forgetting some...So Bird goes thru and cleans it all up and gets the team under the cap finally and then isnt given the opportunity evidently to do as he thinks is best. Only to have Walsh come back and immediately dole out Hills and Hibberts contracts which most agree are overpaying.
                    I suppose that's one way of looking at it, and definitely in the "Bird knows what he's doing better than Walsh" side of the ongoing controversy. The single example given in support of Bird having a plan that Simon was balking on - that he wanted to go after Gordon - doesn't clear up if the problem was general or specific to Gordon alone. I really think Simon had the right to consider whether the players Bird wanted to bring in at what would have ended up being max salaries have just put us in the exact same situation we just got out of, and I think he was doing that. If you pay the max to incoming FAs who then fail to contribute, all you've done is increased your expenses while failing to increase either your revenue or your sports success (and you better be able to do one or the other of those if not both at this point).

                    Obviously I am of the camp that believes the "no RFA bidding" stricture is due to the "guaranteed significantly overpay" outcome more than "gentlemen just don't do that kind of thing" posturing.
                    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
                      I suppose that's one way of looking at it, and definitely in the "Bird knows what he's doing better than Walsh" side of the ongoing controversy. The single example given in support of Bird having a plan that Simon was balking on - that he wanted to go after Gordon - doesn't clear up if the problem was general or specific to Gordon alone. I really think Simon had the right to consider whether the players Bird wanted to bring in at what would have ended up being max salaries have just put us in the exact same situation we just got out of, and I think he was doing that. If you pay the max to incoming FAs who then fail to contribute, all you've done is increased your expenses while failing to increase either your revenue or your sports success (and you better be able to do one or the other of those if not both at this point).

                      Obviously I am of the camp that believes the "no RFA bidding" stricture is due to the "guaranteed significantly overpay" outcome more than "gentlemen just don't do that kind of thing" posturing.
                      I totally agree that Simon has the right. Think Ive stated that a number of times. I also can understand though why it might have been the straw that broke the camel's back. Bird already feels-and rightfully so-that he has one hand tied behind his back due to being a small market team. Secondly, he had given Simon a plan and by all accounts executed it to near perfection with highly desirable results, some might even say surpassing all expectations. For that Bird, or anyone in a similar position might feel he had earned the right to get the benefit of the doubt on a decision at a time that all had been pointing at as a critical time for the future of the franchise. As a small market team its somewhat of a rarity that you have a franchise player wanting to come your way. And Gordon being a franchise player can be argued to death, but if indeed Bird felt that way and wanted to pursue him, well...its not hard to see how he could just kinda throw up his hands in the air after all the hard work over the last 3 or 4 years...all that work to get us to this point, only to not be able to do what we set out to do. Guess maybe Bird felt like he had set the table and prepared the dinner, but then wasnt going to be able to enjoy the dinner. Simons right? Absolutely. The right thing to do? Who knows. But Bird had every right to then choose not to continue as well. And thats a bit tough to swallow given his track record and most of us know how competitive he is and wants nothing but to win a title. Given the fact hes shown tremendous competence to the point of winning executive of the year and given his unparalleled desire to win, its hard to feel to good about a scenario that causes him to walk away after so much relative success in a relative short period of time.
                      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 cinotimz View Post
                        But Bird had every right to then choose not to continue as well.
                        Certainly. Not arguing that point at all. Just arguing against the speculation that in some cases has gone from "Simon wouldn't spend the money Bird wanted" to "Simon will never spend money at all so we're totally screwed".

                        Originally posted by cinotimz View Post
                        And thats a bit tough to swallow given his track record and most of us know how competitive he is and wants nothing but to win a title. Given the fact hes shown tremendous competence to the point of winning executive of the year and given his unparalleled desire to win, its hard to feel to good about a scenario that causes him to walk away after so much relative success in a relative short period of time.
                        Here's the thing for me, though. I really think one of Bird's biggest weaknesses is evaluating players. For all that I'm pleased that his discipline allowed the team to get where it is in re the cap, and for all that I think his overall record (particularly the team put together for this past year) was successful, I think his player evaluation is wildly inconsistent. Never mind that Gordon isn't a no-brainer to overpay due to injury concerns, I'm not certain Bird can show a high enough success rate picking players to be given a green light to spend whatever he wants to spend on whatever players he wants. Taking the risk on rookies or guys coming off injuries for below-market salaries is one thing, taking the same risks at max salaries and flirting with the LT is quite another.
                        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
                          Certainly. Not arguing that point at all. Just arguing against the speculation that in some cases has gone from "Simon wouldn't spend the money Bird wanted" to "Simon will never spend money at all so we're totally screwed".



                          Here's the thing for me, though. I really think one of Bird's biggest weaknesses is evaluating players. For all that I'm pleased that his discipline allowed the team to get where it is in re the cap, and for all that I think his overall record (particularly the team put together for this past year) was successful, I think his player evaluation is wildly inconsistent. Never mind that Gordon isn't a no-brainer to overpay due to injury concerns, I'm not certain Bird can show a high enough success rate picking players to be given a green light to spend whatever he wants to spend on whatever players he wants. Taking the risk on rookies or guys coming off injuries for below-market salaries is one thing, taking the same risks at max salaries and flirting with the LT is quite another.
                          Hmmm...well...I guess we all have opinions on that. I guess I think hes probably as good as most any. Its very subjective, and I dont think there are any experts that always get it right alot more than others. Compared to Donnie, I think hes better And I feel hes better because its he that actually does even more of the evaluation versus Donnie who I always believed relied on others more than he let on. The thing that takes it over the top for me is I believe that most all of the players have such huge respect for Bird that he simply brings an edge that simply is unique to pretty much anyone else in his position. Has he made lots of mistakes in talent evaluation? sure. But everyone has. But he also has made alot fewer mistakes when it comes to doling out crazy contracts than most. Especially Walsh as we touched on earlier. Its not an exact science. Fair amount of luck involved. He did draft Granger, Hibbert, and George, so.....dont think hes all bad. I mean hes totally responsible for putting the complete roster together that took the floor last year. That had the 5th best record in the NBA. With a minimal payroll. So I find it a bit hard to say hes not very good at evaluating talent.
                          Last edited by cinotimz; 07-10-2012, 04:26 PM.
                          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 cinotimz View Post
                            He did draft Granger, Hibbert, and George, so.....dont think hes all bad. I mean hes totally responsible for putting the complete roster together that took the floor last year. That had the 5th best record in the NBA. With a minimal payroll. So I find it a bit hard to say hes not very good at evaluating talent.
                            There's a part of me, though, that thinks Bird's ceiling as a talent evaluator is these guys that have about the same talent level or less. The biggest reason is that he falls in love with guys who have potential they could reach if they would just work as hard as he did - nearly all his failures have been that kind of player, who is probably role-player good but would have to be out of his mind work-ethic wise to get any further. These guys are good, but no one thinks that just this amount of good will take us to the next level as a team.

                            How will it be different moving forward with Donnie? I don't know - I myself have said how my concern is that time has passed him by in terms of how to treat players and how to expect players to treat the team. On the other hand, I am intrigued and excited about the Walsh/Pritchard combination because I think the complement one another in terms of FO skills.
                            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'

                              BillS I don't think I have read anything you have written on this page 12 of this thread that I didn't agree with.

                              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
                                There's a part of me, though, that thinks Bird's ceiling as a talent evaluator is these guys that have about the same talent level or less. The biggest reason is that he falls in love with guys who have potential they could reach if they would just work as hard as he did - nearly all his failures have been that kind of player, who is probably role-player good but would have to be out of his mind work-ethic wise to get any further. These guys are good, but no one thinks that just this amount of good will take us to the next level as a team.

                                How will it be different moving forward with Donnie? I don't know - I myself have said how my concern is that time has passed him by in terms of how to treat players and how to expect players to treat the team. On the other hand, I am intrigued and excited about the Walsh/Pritchard combination because I think the complement one another in terms of FO skills.
                                Or...in spite of the talent level his teams never tanked to get better draft position...which in turn makes it alot harder to get the top tier talent...drafting two allstars at 17 isnt bad...George is the only pick theyve had in the top 10 forever it seems...and most consider him an allstar in the making. But, probably the biggest thing is in defense of such is this...they havent been in a financial situaton to get any of those top tier players because they have been to busy remaking the roster and culture. Now that theyve finally done such and done a pretty good job of it, its going to be very difficult to do it via the draft. In which case that leaves trades and free agency. U then factor in that not many franchise type free agents want to come to indy and youre back to the Gordon situation. He could very well say hes identified exactly the type of player you speak of, but wasnt permitted to pursue him. And in that regard he feels pretty much hopeless regardless of how competitive he is and thats why he chose to walk away.
                                The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X