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

Seven Teams with Intriguing Off-Seasons (older SI.com article--Pacers mentioned)

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

  • #31
    Re: Seven Teams with Intriguing Off-Seasons (older SI.com article--Pacers mentioned)

    =BillS;1493693]And this is where I start to get . It is not like the only way to win a championship is to go for a home run signing of one or two stars. Heck, it's not even like teams with one or two stars are guaranteed to get a championship (Cavs? Knicks? Thunder for crying out loud?)
    You need stars to win a championship that has always been the case, even Detroit had a bunch of stars(all five starters were at least one time all stars)


    The response seems to always be, "well, you didn't risk messing up the whole season so you are clearly satisfied with being competitive and being the 'under dog'. Wouldn't it be better to spend 5 years winning 10 games a year and finally win the lottery and get the superstar so the Las Vegas Pacers will be champions? After all, that's the ONLY WAY to win!"
    Way better than winning 30 games for 5 years, they were not even "under dogs".

    What I'm satisfied with is BUILDING a guaranteed high contending team (and you are joking if you say you have a way of building a guaranteed CHAMPIONSHIP team), especially now when we are coming out of the doldrums. To remain a team in Indianapolis we have to guarantee fans that good things will happen rather than hitting them with another year where their expectations are completely hosed up and no one knows whether to attend games or not until after the All-Star break - again.
    And you are making my point about how many fans feel, you are satisfied with "building a high contending team"

    If you are accusing Simon of being Donald Sterling and only in it to make profits, I'm thinking you are sadly mistaken.
    With the new CBA he might become the "new Donald sterling" why wouldn't he do that? he is making money by staying in the middle, why push it and lose money? so far he hasn't prove otherwise.
    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Seven Teams with Intriguing Off-Seasons (older SI.com article--Pacers mentioned)

      When I hear that the team is okay with being competitive and not really going for a championship, I guess I don't fully understand that way of thinking. Take the Magic for example, they turned down countless trade proposals for D12 before ultimately trading him for basically a bunch of mid round draft picks, and 3rd tier talent. They are OBVIOUSLY bottoming out in hopes of getting a couple of early lotto picks and hopefully drafting a superstar. So in essence they chose to go the route of not trading for players that would help them remain competitive, in hopes that they strike the mother-load in the draft. That, to me, is the definition of not going for a championship and simply cashing the fan's checks.

      Let's be clear here. I'm sure if any superstar came out and said "I want to be traded to Indiana", then the team would be doing what they could to acquire that player. (And no I don't mean an injury prone RFA like EG where the Hornets were going to match any offer, and we'd be in bad shape with our own FA's) Remember the whole presentation the Pacers gave to Nene last year during FA? Though he's not a superstar by any meansl, the Pacers thought he was a REALISTIC and major upgrade; and they aggressively pursued him. I'd think if If we had a realistic shot at signing a Deron Williams or a player of that caliber, we would be pushing to make that happen in the very same way.

      As long as that's the case, I don't see why one would think we are 100% content with being "competitive" while not being interested in going for a championship. There's a difference between trying to be patient and build with the resources you have, and not making a move to improve because you're content with 44-50 wins a year and that's it.

      Least that's the way I see it.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Seven Teams with Intriguing Off-Seasons (older SI.com article--Pacers mentioned)

        Thought the article was pretty fair, though it seemed to pointedly ignore how Plumlee would be revolutionizing the back-up, back-up center position.
        Danger Zone

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by BillS View Post
          It also isn't a thought you have to dig deep into mountains of research to come up with. A team that has had pretty much the worst attendance in the league over the last 5 years and finally pulled itself into contention is ALWAYS going to face a very tough decision when it comes to taking a huge risk the very next year and going back into the basement of attendance instead of building on it. It's not like somehow the Pacers are the only team ever faced with it or who ever will be faced with it. It also it isn't like it's a no-brainer that you shoot for the moon and expect fans to stick with you if it blows up in your face and you go 20-62 after dumping fan favorite players for guys with (unrealized) upside.
          Of course they should have went 20-62 when they were one of the worst teams in the league instead of playing Troy, Dun, and DG 36+ mins a night to make runs at the end of lost seasons. You're right - they are pregnant now. They can't afford to make a bold move and take a step back. But according to many on here, once they became decent and had money they would have a chance to land and impact FA or use their cap space / expiring deals to acquire top level talent. Not surprisingly neither occurred. IMO, it's not hard to see - if the Pacers are to ever win an NBA championship they will have to have drafted their best players. They aren't going to acquire top level talent any other way. They failed to maximize their time at the bottom and we will have a good but not great team to watch until the salary structure forces them to start over. I can only hope that they are both bold enough and lucky enough to make the most of it next time around.

          And you are correct that there is no gaurenteed way to build a championship team. It's a ridiculous argument and I assume you know it. I can however gaurentee you that the team they have built will not win a title.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Seven Teams with Intriguing Off-Seasons (older SI.com article--Pacers mentioned)

            And to ad to Bills comments about that if the Pacers have only won 10 games a year for five year they would be in Vegas and not here I also have to disagree with that, nobody and I mean nobody is ever going to convince me that the clown of JOB kept the Pacers in Indiana because he was winning 30games a year instead of 10, that's crazy talk.
            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Seven Teams with Intriguing Off-Seasons (older SI.com article--Pacers mentioned)

              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
              You need stars to win a championship that has always been the case, even Detroit had a bunch of stars(all five starters were at least one time all stars)
              Are you sure about this? I'm thinking only Ben and Rasheed made the all-stars

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Seven Teams with Intriguing Off-Seasons (older SI.com article--Pacers mentioned)

                If we're talking about teams who are forgoing 40-50 wins per year in order to get a shot at a championship, Houston and Dallas have to be exhibits A and B. And interestingly they've both failed at it this year, but despite that seem to be sticking to the championship or bust strategy.

                Houston just blew apart a .500 team to go all out on a trade bid for either Dwight Howard or Andrew Bynum. Now that they've failed, it looks like they're going to plan B, which is to field a team full of young players (their big FA acquisitions this year are 3rd year guys, come on), develop them, and get (another) high pick. And oh, repeat the process next year, when they'll have cap space again and presumably their prospects will have grown a year in value.

                Dallas is a different case because they already have a star player in Dirk. However, they still blew up a championship team in order to preserve cap space to attract a second star to pair with Dirk. They failed with Deron this year, but that didn't deter Dallas - they just filled the roster with 1 year contract guys in order to have another go with cap space next year.

                So that's 2 teams who aren't content to sit around and wait for a superstar to drop in their laps. Nor are they doing it with the famous (infamous?) OKC model of being terrible before being good (though arguably Houston is heading in that direction this year). Look, I understand why we're building the team the way we are. But it's pretty obvious that we're not being as proactive as other teams.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Seven Teams with Intriguing Off-Seasons (older SI.com article--Pacers mentioned)

                  Originally posted by pogi View Post
                  Are you sure about this? I'm thinking only Ben and Rasheed made the all-stars
                  Not all 5 Pistons made an All-Star team, although they came close. Prince was never an All-Star (although he was an Olympian). Hamilton made the All-Star game 3 times after the title year. Billups made 5 All-Star games, all after the title year. Ben Wallace made 4 All-Star games and was the only Piston to make it the title year (it was his 2nd at the time). Rasheed made it twice before the title and twice after.

                  So going into the title year, the Pistons had a combined 26 years of NBA experience with 3 All-Star games. The Pacers currently have 26 combined years of NBA experience with 4 All-Star games. The Pistons average age was 26.6 with their 2 oldest players both being 29. The Pacers will have an average age of 27 this year with their 2 oldest players being 32 and 29.

                  I'm not saying the Pacers will morph into the Pistons. They could, but it's unlikely. But the Pistons weren't thought of as a collection of stars at the time. It was only after they made the Finals 2 years in a row did they start getting the benefit of the doubt on things like All-Star games.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Seven Teams with Intriguing Off-Seasons (older SI.com article--Pacers mentioned)

                    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                    And you are making my point about how many fans feel, you are satisfied with "building a high contending team"
                    You miss my point. I don't think you CAN build anything BUT a high level contending team. There is no guaranteed way to build a championship team - all you can do is build a team that contends for a championship and then takes that step.

                    That's a long way from the implication that fans are fine with one-and-done in the playoffs as a definition for "contending".

                    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                    With the new CBA he might become the "new Donald sterling" why wouldn't he do that? he is making money by staying in the middle, why push it and lose money? so far he hasn't prove otherwise.
                    Then why sign Roy to the max? Why sign Hill to a high contract? Why not just dump the high salaries for low-paid guys on their rookie contracts? The team is spending a lot more than it needs to in order to be a cash cow, according to most definitions. Get the young, exciting, cheap guys and let the fans come in droves, then get rid of them as soon as they hit their new contracts.

                    Simon is willing to spend money, just not the same way YOU would choose to spend the money.
                    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


                    • #40
                      Re: Seven Teams with Intriguing Off-Seasons (older SI.com article--Pacers mentioned)

                      Originally posted by Peck View Post
                      1. Being good, but perhaps not great, is just fine for an ownership group that typically loses money on the team and thus needs some good community vibes and two rounds’ worth of playoff gate revenue.


                      Hmmmm.....

                      I guess this just hasn't been up that long or since it's the dog days of summer not many people are paying attention to the board right now but I just find it interesting that had one of us made this very statement that there would have been people on here clamoring for their heads.

                      I just wonder where are the posters who get all bent out of shape when one us locals wonder aloud if being good is just good enough and that there may not be that over riding drive for excellence?

                      I mean that is what the guy is saying, right? He is just flat out saying that the Pacers are content to make the playoffs and hope for advancement but don't really feel compelled to be a championship team. Or am I reading that wrong?
                      That is exactly what I said Peck and I got hammered by this board. This front office is fine with being good and is not willing to take the steps to be great. They make all the excuses they can for why they cannot attract big name free agents. Money attracts big name free agents. Big name players attract national attention, that attention gets you more exposure on ESPN, TNT, and all the major networks. The Thunder became the media darling because they have players people want to watch. When you have players people want to watch, you fill your stadium and sell more merchandise. The Pacers overpaid Hibbert but probably had to. The Hill contract is very bad. He is an average player at best and most likely a sixth man on most competing teams. I like the Green signing, he has the talent to be special and is worth the risk. Augustine is probably a rental. More than likely won't be happy as a backup in the long term. Mahini could have been gotten without giving up valuable assets that could be used to gain something. The team can improve, but alot of ifs have to work out for that to happen. In my opinion, if your franchise is not willing to compete for championships, they are in this for the wrong reasons

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Seven Teams with Intriguing Off-Seasons (older SI.com article--Pacers mentioned)

                        Originally posted by BillS View Post
                        You miss my point. I don't think you CAN build anything BUT a high level contending team. There is no guaranteed way to build a championship team - all you can do is build a team that contends for a championship and then takes that step.

                        That's a long way from the implication that fans are fine with one-and-done in the playoffs as a definition.
                        Thanks again, Bill...

                        Nothing is guaranteed for Miami, the Lakers, OKC or anyone else... A team must simply be competitive to have a shot at a championship... A lot of things have to fall in to place for any team to win...

                        For those that wish we had just tanked the post-brawl years to get high draft picks for a shot at a superstar... Again nothing is guaranteed... Teams can sit in the lottery for over a decade waiting for that one special player... And with the threat of the Pacers leaving town we could not afford that...

                        VNLZ - You said no one can convince you that JOB saved us with 30-win seasons (even though I'm fairly certain no one can convince you of anything contrary to your opinions period) I think you aren't reading Bill correctly... The 30-win seasons and JOB did not save us... But the fact that we have quickly turned things around making us competitive has! I had the biggest smile on my face when I saw the sea of gold in the field house because fan support is SORELY needed for the Pacers to stay in Indy... Had we gone the lotto route we could have just as easily became the next Bobcats as we could have became the next Thunder... And a decade of bad draft pan outs WOULD have cost us our team...
                        Last edited by J7F; 08-16-2012, 02:11 PM.
                        Nothing in life worth having comes easy.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Seven Teams with Intriguing Off-Seasons (older SI.com article--Pacers mentioned)

                          Originally posted by doctor-h View Post
                          That is exactly what I said Peck and I got hammered by this board. This front office is fine with being good and is not willing to take the steps to be great. They make all the excuses they can for why they cannot attract big name free agents. Money attracts big name free agents. Big name players attract national attention, that attention gets you more exposure on ESPN, TNT, and all the major networks. The Thunder became the media darling because they have players people want to watch. When you have players people want to watch, you fill your stadium and sell more merchandise. The Pacers overpaid Hibbert but probably had to. The Hill contract is very bad. He is an average player at best and most likely a sixth man on most competing teams. I like the Green signing, he has the talent to be special and is worth the risk. Augustine is probably a rental. More than likely won't be happy as a backup in the long term. Mahini could have been gotten without giving up valuable assets that could be used to gain something. The team can improve, but alot of ifs have to work out for that to happen. In my opinion, if your franchise is not willing to compete for championships, they are in this for the wrong reasons
                          So do you think if we threw the bank at Dwight, or Lebron, or Wade, or Durant, or any other top 20 player, that they would come here?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Seven Teams with Intriguing Off-Seasons (older SI.com article--Pacers mentioned)

                            Originally posted by pogi View Post
                            So do you think if we threw the bank at Dwight, or Lebron, or Wade, or Durant, or any other top 20 player, that they would come here?
                            Of course they would not have come to Indiana. That has always been the problem and we have to overpay to get players and keep the ones we have....

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X