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

Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

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

  • Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

    Originally posted by Peck View Post
    To me I think that is the single most frustrating thing about this off season. One day, one lousy day and we could have had Elton Brand for a little more than 2 million dollars or if we would have waited about a week we could have had Louis Scola for even less. Either of them would have been better than either of the backups we have now.

    Can you imagine Roy going to the bench and coming in with Brand & West? I know they are both getting long in the tooth but Brand still has game. He certainly has more game than Tyler & I can only assume he still has more than Ian & Plumlee.

    That is the one thing I just can't understand why did they have to sign both of them on that day and not wait till the amnestied players could be had on the cheap.

    Heck you could make a real argument that Scola might have pushed West for starters min. if not the starting position.
    Scola's contract is around $4.5 million per year at three years. He's already 32 and plays below the rim. Brand is 33. We already have maybe the slowest starting front court in the league, I just don't see how the Pacers match up with anyone adding another crafty slow guy. I don't love everything about Ian's game, and Scola and Brand are right now absolutely better players. But it's not about collecting good players, it's about getting guys that fit.

    Comment


    • Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

      To me even if they had traded Tyler and pick for Scola I would have been happy, not even waiting to see if they could have got him out of the amnesty pool is going to **** me off for a long time.

      Why create all that cap space to "get into deals" and "get players that are getting amnesty" if your plan is not to get either, they never helped in a deal to get a free player and didn't get into amnesty players.
      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

      Comment


      • Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

        Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
        Scola's contract is around $4.5 million per year at three years. He's already 32 and plays below the rim. Brand is 33. We already have maybe the slowest starting front court in the league, I just don't see how the Pacers match up with anyone adding another crafty slow guy. I don't love everything about Ian's game, and Scola and Brand are right now absolutely better players. But it's not about collecting good players, it's about getting guys that fit.
        Basically

        Not getting Brand doesn't bother me at all. Stick a fork in him, he looks done.

        Not as sure about Scola. All last year I kept reading reports that he has slowed down. If so, then it is a 50/50 call on him. If he has not, then I would love to have him.

        Wasn't the problem with Scola that the Pacers had already signed Roy and Hill? If so, then they couldn't sign them, then they couldn't sign them.

        Comment


        • Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

          Why would Roy and Hill's agent wait any longer to be signed though? Yeah itd be nice to put off signing them for as long as possible so that we can try and make other deals, but this is a biz and they probably wanted to get signed ASAP. Hell they already waited a week into FA before signing with other teams. The pacers let it be known that they has till Friday to make their other moves before they needed to sign Roy and Hill back.

          Also, how are people going to make gripes about the Pacers only looking toninpeove their bench, and then be mad because they didn't get old, slow, amnestied players that would have played off the bench. Neither Brand nor Scola would be too much of a fit for our team defensively Our frontline is already slow and unathletic as it is, why add another shorter, slower PF that can only play C against certain teams. The pacers are trying to get younger and more athletic, signing either of these guys would have only been the opposite.

          Comment


          • Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

            Ace E.Anderson;1494449]Why would Roy and Hill's agent wait any longer to be signed though? Yeah itd be nice to put off signing them for as long as possible so that we can try and make other deals, but this is a biz and they probably wanted to get signed ASAP. Hell they already waited a week into FA before signing with other teams. The pacers let it be known that they has till Friday to make their other moves before they needed to sign Roy and Hill back.
            All they had to do was wait another day and get either player for free, I would also like to point out that many here were giving those who were "desperate" crap because "the Pacers had the whole summer to make something happen".


            Also, how are people going to make gripes about the Pacers only looking toninpeove their bench, and then be mad because they didn't get old, slow, amnestied players that would have played off the bench. Neither Brand nor Scola would be too much of a fit for our team defensively Our frontline is already slow and unathletic as it is, why add another shorter, slower PF that can only play C against certain teams. The pacers are trying to get younger and more athletic, signing either of these guys would have only been the opposite.
            If you have an opportunity to ad high quality players to your team for free you do it not matter what.

            Don't trade for Ian and give him that long contract, don't sign Green, keep DJ/DC/Barbosa and only sign Scola and Brand and the bench would have been better than the new bench.

            DC,Barbosa,DJ,Scola and Brand >> DJ,Lance,Green,Tyler,Ian in my opinion.
            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

            Comment


            • Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

              Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
              Why would Roy and Hill's agent wait any longer to be signed though? Yeah itd be nice to put off signing them for as long as possible so that we can try and make other deals, but this is a biz and they probably wanted to get signed ASAP. Hell they already waited a week into FA before signing with other teams. The pacers let it be known that they has till Friday to make their other moves before they needed to sign Roy and Hill back.

              Also, how are people going to make gripes about the Pacers only looking toninpeove their bench, and then be mad because they didn't get old, slow, amnestied players that would have played off the bench. Neither Brand nor Scola would be too much of a fit for our team defensively Our frontline is already slow and unathletic as it is, why add another shorter, slower PF that can only play C against certain teams. The pacers are trying to get younger and more athletic, signing either of these guys would have only been the opposite.

              Sorry, but I dont understand the first part of your argument at all. It just sounds like your making non-exisitent excuses for why we signed Hill so soon. Why would the team want them signed ASAP, when Hibbert was going to get a max deal, and there was no significant interest for Hill, not to mention, they were both restricted, so there was really no hurry.

              Second part of your argument sounds like you think any player over 30 is horrible. "We dont want Scola and Brand because their old, and because they are old, they can't contribute anything whatsoever. Thats just incorrect. Also, its important to know that very few championship teams win with younger players. The vast majority of championship teams have mostly veteran players.
              There is no NBA player named Monte Ellis.

              Comment


              • Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

                Originally posted by boombaby1987 View Post
                Sorry, but I dont understand the first part of your argument at all. It just sounds like your making non-exisitent excuses for why we signed Hill so soon. Why would the team want them signed ASAP, when Hibbert was going to get a max deal, and there was no significant interest for Hill, not to mention, they were both restricted, so there was really no hurry.

                Second part of your argument sounds like you think any player over 30 is horrible. "We dont want Scola and Brand because their old, and because they are old, they can't contribute anything whatsoever. Thats just incorrect. Also, its important to know that very few championship teams win with younger players. The vast majority of championship teams have mostly veteran players.
                Whether you like it or not, Hill was a top priority for the franchise. They wanted to get him signed. If one wants to argue whether that was smart or not, I'd understand but it's not something I "made up" by any means.

                I didn't say we shouldn't get them because they're old. I said they shouldn't get them because they don't fill a particular need on this team, and simply adds to a weakness (slow, unathletic frontcourt) that we already had. The fact that they're over 30, and are on the decline only adds to reasons why we may not have attempted to sign them, but it's not the ONLY reason.

                And yes veteran teams normall win in the playoffs, but adding these players do not make us championship contenders regardless so that quells that argument. If we are going to get an older player, it should be someone that's going to come in and improve our starting 5 the way West did. If not then I don't have a problem with adding younger and more athletic guys to a bench when the team lacks athletes.

                Comment


                • Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

                  Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                  All they had to do was wait another day and get either player for free, I would also like to point out that many here were giving those who were "desperate" crap because "the Pacers had the whole summer to make something happen".


                  VERY good point and I honestly didn't think about that lol.

                  If you have an opportunity to ad high quality players to your team for free you do it not matter what.

                  Don't trade for Ian and give him that long contract, don't sign Green, keep DJ/DC/Barbosa and only sign Scola and Brand and the bench would have been better than the new bench.

                  DC,Barbosa,DJ,Scola and Brand >> DJ,Lance,Green,Tyler,Ian in my opinion.
                  The only thing about the above bench is its lack of size and athleticism. Pretty darn good bench offensively, but only 2 of those players are average defensive players

                  Comment


                  • Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

                    We can only speculate, but maybe Roy and GHill wanted to sign when they did or they were going to sign somewhere else (for MAYBE more money), thus making us match whatever team signed them (and/or jump through hoops). It would seem a bit greedy, but during free agency (and restricted free agency) it is acceptable and expected that a player be greedy to "get his." I know we think that GHill had no other suitors, but do we know that for certain? I guess what I am saying is that perhaps the front office felt like that if they didn't sign them when they did, they may have risked costing themselves more or losing out on the players altogether. Again, all speculation on my part. Could be that our billionaire owner sat on his wallet so that he could "get his."
                    Last edited by mildlysane; 08-19-2012, 11:20 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

                      Originally posted by mildlysane View Post
                      We can only speculate, but maybe Roy and GHill wanted to sign when they did or they were going to sign somewhere else (for MAYBE more money), thus making us match whatever team signed them (and/or jump through hoops). It would seem a bit greedy, but during free agency (and restricted free agency) it is acceptable and expected that a player be greedy to "get his." I know we think that GHill had no other suitors, but do we know that for certain? I guess what I am saying is that perhaps the front office felt like that if they didn't sign them when they did, they may have risked costing themselves more or losing out on the players altogether. Again, all speculation on my part. Could be that our billionaire owner sat on his wallet so that he could "get his."

                      The fact that we can only speculate is a real problem. Mavs fans don't have to speculate, they know that Cuban made a run for Williams and failed. They have nothing to complain about.
                      Our F.O. needs to be more transparent with what they're doing for the fans sakes.

                      Regarding Wells, why don't we all send him a request to get us some answers as to why the team didn't wait on Hill and Hibbert. You can't argue that Scola wasn't available to bid on. He was amnestied before the signings of Hill and Hibbert so they had the money if they just chose to wait a few days on the signings. If the reason was due to Hill and Hibbert wanting to sign earlier I guess we'd have to live with that but it's hard to believe that they wouldn't want to wait a few days to sign for their guaranteed money if it meant returning to a better team.
                      My experience with asking Wells anything that might appear negative is that he blows it off. I've posted on his blog several times looking for a response and he won't respond.
                      Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

                        IIRC, the deal with getting Roy to sign with the Pacers directly instead of going to Portland and having the Pacers match was the agreement to sign Roy to the exact same contract terms as Portland. That seems to indicate that the Pacers were on the clock with Roy and didn't have the opportunity to delay the signing.

                        Don't think there was any news released on the Hill signing one way or the other. and not sure if the Pacers had cap space if they signed Roy and not Hill.

                        Originally posted by mildlysane View Post
                        We can only speculate, but maybe Roy and GHill wanted to sign when they did or they were going to sign somewhere else (for MAYBE more money), thus making us match whatever team signed them (and/or jump through hoops). It would seem a bit greedy, but during free agency (and restricted free agency) it is acceptable and expected that a player be greedy to "get his." I know we think that GHill had no other suitors, but do we know that for certain? I guess what I am saying is that perhaps the front office felt like that if they didn't sign them when they did, they may have risked costing themselves more or losing out on the players altogether. Again, all speculation on my part. Could be that our billionaire owner sat on his wallet so that he could "get his."

                        Comment


                        • Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

                          Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                          What teams qualify as small market? I usually see Minnesota listed as a small market team, but I've been there and that's a big area. Oakland as well. What criteria are we using?

                          I googled around but couldn't find anything too definitive. I'd be interested in seeing where exactly we split the lines between big/medium/small markets.
                          Big market isn't the same as big population. It's about exposure/fame/endorsements. For example, Toronto is huge but it's not a place players go to get more exposure. Same with Houston, which is enormous and has won NBA championships. It's tucked away in Texas and just not a place players flock to for exposure. They do kind of flock to San Antonio, but that's out of respect for the franchise and the chance to win.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

                            Originally posted by Peck View Post
                            To me I think that is the single most frustrating thing about this off season. One day, one lousy day and we could have had Elton Brand for a little more than 2 million dollars or if we would have waited about a week we could have had Louis Scola for even less. Either of them would have been better than either of the backups we have now.
                            :
                            :
                            That is the one thing I just can't understand why did they have to sign both of them on that day and not wait till the amnestied players could be had on the cheap.
                            I agree with some of this because of the way it is stated here vs. saying we CHOSE SPECIFICALLY NOT to get Scola.

                            The mistake seems to have been in not scheduling the signing of Hill and Roy for after the amnesty period was complete. I suspect EITHER a lot of consensus from the owners was that no one big was going to be amnestied (everyone was pretty surprised about Scola) - which really isn't a very good excuse, they should have waited just for prudence sake - OR there was some pretty heavy pressure from Falk regarding the signing date for Roy - which might be more of a reason than we give it credit for.
                            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: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

                              One of the main reasons the Pacers will not compete for a championship has been left out of this conversation. Their coach simply is not experience or good enough to lead them there........ I like Vogel but he is with the only team in the NBA who would consider using him as a head coach. Yes, I am rooting for a slow start so that he can be replaced by a coach who can win. The one sitting right next to him will do fine.... ...

                              Comment


                              • Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

                                Originally posted by BillS View Post
                                . . . there was some pretty heavy pressure from Falk regarding the signing date for Roy - which might be more of a reason than we give it credit for.


                                This seems so obvious an answer. Didn't the Pacers agree to the terms and timeline of the Portland deal to get Roy to sign directly with Indy? Thought I read something like that. Has anyone seen anything different?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X