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

Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

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

  • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

    Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
    I think the part you are missing is that we've been fairly average despite playing at a very low standard for our team talent level. And as we are 13-11 and have the 13th best record in the league, we are slightly above average. Missing who until this year has been our best player. Many, including myself, believe that he will resume being our best player when he returns to the team.

    So while you may not agree that we are a good team, there's plenty of reasons to believe that we are. Including what we did last year.
    That's my opinion of the situation.

    A) Granger was no available

    B) Roy crapped the bed on offense

    C) 3, 21, 24 and Vogel had to figure these two issues out, as well as working in the new bench

    D) DJ was a disaster as the bench PG on offense. Defense was understood to be bad, but his poor offense crushed the bench.

    Yet despite offensive issues and output that would warrant a "blow it up" reaction almost, the team found a way to dig in and win by leaning heavily on defense and rebounding. So it was elite defense holding up struggling offense to keep the team at, yes, average output. They weren't getting lucky with an easy schedule, they were getting by playing a NORMAL SCHEDULE. They have not been unbalanced when you look at road games as well as opponent strength.

    But in the last 2-3 weeks we've seen the team figure out that they can work Hill/West in a Stockton/Malone kind of way with lots of reliable scoring on either side of those PnR/Pop tandems. This is leading West to higher assist numbers by the way. And then Paul got the 0 point kick in the rear that dial in his pre-game effort and general focus, and the team is reaping the rewards of that too.

    So now you have 3 reliable scorers and an offense that doesn't rely on Roy, but can afford to gimp him along and try to get him going at their discretion.

    The bench is a tough one, they need scoring there. DJ has been a huge miss for them so far. But Young has dialed in his role and Mahinmi is seeing improvement in his play.

    But in general I can see their path to success forming up pretty nicely. Danny returns, Lance returns, maybe they do a deal to address DJ (or maybe he brings his game up to a level at least in contact with his previous output), and suddenly you have enough scoring to more than cover what a top 5 defensive team is giving up (that's affording the Pacers a slip in their defensive ranking).

    Comment


    • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

      Stockton and Malone are hall of famers you keep bringing up the weirdest examples ever.
      Is the debate not whether a team that fails to win a title without making big changes a team that "settled for losing"?

      You want to say that the only way to run a team is to swing for the fence and if you miss you must immediately bail on that failure and take a new, totally different swing.

      So there is your number 1 classic example. You would trade Stockton and/or Malone after they failed to win a title, or when they failed to reach the Finals even. There it is, 1993 and it's TRADE CITY.

      Goodbye to every single player not named Jordan or Pippen. All other first place losers clearly aren't the alpha dogs good enough to be #1, so time to go looking for someone new.


      Maybe my confusion is on the timing. When is not winning it all acceptable? It was okay for Utah, but for the Pacers it was so unacceptable you wouldn't even ride out the return of the team's leading scorer? That's you trading Reggie and Rik in 1997 after a 1st round loss and then no playoffs at all. They couldn't even get to the Finals with Jordan out, so how in the F is 1998 going to be worth anything when those 2 couldn't do anything the prior 2 seasons.

      You trade Reggie for Iverson and you trade Rik for Mutumbo. Then you win a title....whoops, Philly Finals Fail.

      Comment


      • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

        I pray for the day when comparisons are not confused with equations.

        Hell, it's probably here to stay. Miscommunication FTL.

        Comment


        • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

          The disconnect here is team that wins the championship versus championship quality/contender. Only one team will win the title this year. However the Heat, Thunder, Spurs, and Grizzlies are championship contenders. Maybe you think 1-2 other teams should be on that list, but whatever. Pacers are not on that list. If you aren't on that list then you need to have a plan to get on that list. Everyone should be trying to improve, even the title winners, but the contenders are already contenders, they keep their main pieces in place and look for minor improvements. However, the teams off that list, they don't need minor improvements, they need major improvements. There is no easy way to get a major improvement, and there is no way period to get a major improvement without taking some risk. Whether that risk is a super talented player who's malcontent (see Sheed, Zbo), trading an older guy for a younger guy with huge upside (see JO), or giving up one cornerstone to alter team composition (Like say giving a potential 6th man of the year in GHill away for a draft pick.)

          The Spurs are actually a great example of an organization that continually takes risks to stay on top the field. They gave up a good known quantity for an entirely unknown draft pick, because they didn't want to (or couldn't) pay him. They take on malcontents, see Jax on their roster right now. They play young guys extended minutes whether they are ready or not, see the development of Hill, Kawhi, and Blair. That team makes significant changes to their top 8 every year, and they are not afraid to let pieces go in a risk to get even better. So no, the Spurs never "blow it up" when they fail to win it, they don't trade Duncan away, but they don't stand pat either Seth.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Dece View Post
            I didn't post over the off season...I was sweating my balls off with very little to no computer access for the Air Force during that time. I think the point you want to make is that I'm backseat driving and didn't think Asik would be good beforehand. While I did actually think he would be, it's actually irrelevant...you see, my job isn't professional talent evaluator, scout, or NBA general manager. It's Air Force Officer. It's not my job to know a player is about to break out. It is Pacers management's job, however. So if I didn't see it coming, I haven't failed, but if THEY didn't see it coming, they did fail. You see how that works? Houston saw it coming, so clearly it wasn't impossible to do, and they now get to reap the benefits while we don't.
            Wait the Air force had you without Internet access? How dare they!...one team one fight.

            Comment


            • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

              Originally posted by Dgreenwell3 View Post
              Wait the Air force had you without Internet access? How dare they!...one team one fight.
              I know I was excited to get back to my chair. They didn't even let me have nap time

              Comment


              • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                Originally posted by Dece View Post
                The disconnect here is team that wins the championship versus championship quality/contender. Only one team will win the title this year. However the Heat, Thunder, Spurs, and Grizzlies are championship contenders.
                The Grizzlies lost in the first round of the playoffs last season. The season before that, they gave OKC a scare in the second round that was VERY similar to the scare we gave the Heat in the second round of the playoffs last summer. The grizzlies never made any big changes to their core, they never traded away Z-Bo after he got hurt, they never gave up on Rudy Gay after the team showed very well in the playoffs without him; they simply kept mixing and matching cheap pieces on the bench until they found what worked. And now, they're championship contenders. It's similar to what the Pacers in the 90's did and it's that type of patience that Seth is preaching that the Pacers and fans on this forum must exhibit.

                If you don't have a Lebron, or a Durant, it's going to take time and experience to build a championship contending team. We lost our best player and leading scorer what a week before the season began? And now even after questionable losses to the Bobcats, and Raptors of the world...we are 13-11 and a 1/2 game out of 1st in the Central division. We aren't where we need to be, but we're a team with elite qualities that are similar to the aforementioned Grizzles (defense and rebounding). So yes while we could swing for the fences and look to make a big move (I have been one of those advocating a trade of D.West on the caveat that he may look for a better team in during the summer) but it's also been proven that a patient, basic approach can work as well. There are many different ways to build a contending team.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Dece View Post
                  I know I was excited to get back to my chair. They didn't even let me have nap time
                  The funniest post of the year (Fact)

                  Comment


                  • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                    1) We didn't scare the Heat. We took two games off a team reeling from the loss of a player better than any of ours.

                    2) In 2010 the Grizzlies brought in Shane Battier. In 2011 they brought in Agent Zero (malcontent high risk). This year they let their 6th man Mayo go and brought in Jerryd Bayless (malcontent high risk). That's not even considering how they went from a consistently good team with Pau Gasol, traded him for picks (HUGE RISK), and brought in ZBo (HUGE RISK) in order to get to these last 3 years. Sorry, you don't have a counter point, the Grizzlies have taken monster risks to get to be a contender.
                    Last edited by Dece; 12-18-2012, 02:45 PM. Reason: I can't spell.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                      That's my opinion of the situation.

                      A) Granger was no available

                      B) Roy crapped the bed on offense

                      C) 3, 21, 24 and Vogel had to figure these two issues out, as well as working in the new bench

                      D) DJ was a disaster as the bench PG on offense. Defense was understood to be bad, but his poor offense crushed the bench.

                      Yet despite offensive issues and output that would warrant a "blow it up" reaction almost, the team found a way to dig in and win by leaning heavily on defense and rebounding. So it was elite defense holding up struggling offense to keep the team at, yes, average output. They weren't getting lucky with an easy schedule, they were getting by playing a NORMAL SCHEDULE. They have not been unbalanced when you look at road games as well as opponent strength.

                      But in the last 2-3 weeks we've seen the team figure out that they can work Hill/West in a Stockton/Malone kind of way with lots of reliable scoring on either side of those PnR/Pop tandems.This is leading West to higher assist numbers by the way. And then Paul got the 0 point kick in the rear that dial in his pre-game effort and general focus, and the team is reaping the rewards of that too.

                      So now you have 3 reliable scorers and an offense that doesn't rely on Roy, but can afford to gimp him along and try to get him going at their discretion.

                      The bench is a tough one, they need scoring there. DJ has been a huge miss for them so far. But Young has dialed in his role and Mahinmi is seeing improvement in his play.

                      But in general I can see their path to success forming up pretty nicely. Danny returns, Lance returns, maybe they do a deal to address DJ (or maybe he brings his game up to a level at least in contact with his previous output), and suddenly you have enough scoring to more than cover what a top 5 defensive team is giving up (that's affording the Pacers a slip in their defensive ranking).
                      How do you want me to take you seriously if you keep comparing Pacers players to hall of famers? I like you but damn anytime you make this kind of comparisons I can barely stop myself for throwing up.
                      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                      Comment


                      • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                        Originally posted by Dece View Post
                        That's not even considering how they went from a consistently good team with Pau Gasol
                        I guess I didn't realize going 0-12 three straight years in the playoffs was considered a "good team." Those were the only three years Memphis had better than 30 wins with Pau, btw.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                          Originally posted by Dece View Post
                          1) We didn't scare the Heat. We took two games off a team reeling from the loss of a player better than any of ours.

                          2) In 2010 the Grizzlies brought in Shane Battier. In 2011 they brought in Agent Zero (malcontent high risk). This year they let their 6th man Mayo go and brought in Jerryd Bayless (malcontent high risk). That's not even considering how they went from a consistently good team with Pau Gasol, traded him for picks (HUGE RISK), and brought in ZBo (HUGE RISK) in order to get to these last 3 years. Sorry, you don't have a counter point, the Grizzlies have taken monster risks to get to be a contender.
                          Bringing in Shane Battier is not a risk. He's about as low risk as you can have. He helped mentor a young team, and then was gone 2 yrs later. Outside of that, he has zero affiliation with this group that are now contending.

                          They brought in Agent Zero to come off the bench, and he was signed to a 1yr minimum contract. That doesn't show that they had much faith in him becoming ANYTHING but a bench scrub on that team.

                          They let Mayo go because they couldn't pay him, and brought in a cheap replacement. Had the Pacers done so, ppl like you would bash them for being cheap, not praising them for taking the risk of letting him go. They brought in Randolph 4 years ago, but yeah he was a big risk. The season prior to bringing him in though? 24-58 record. So yeah, they NEEDED to take that risk because they had nothing to lose anyways.

                          And last but not least, they weren't consistently good with Pau. They had 3 good seasons (50 wins, 45, and then 47 followed by a horrible 22-60 season) and didn't win a single playoff game in that time (again had the Pacers done so, ppl like you would say that we were okay with being mediocre) they then were a poor team that hit the reset button mid season in 2007-08 and traded Pau away for Marc, 2 1st rd picks (neither picks were of much use to the team in Dante Greene and Grevis Vasquez) and a bunch of scrubs that they allowed to expire. They were then bad for another season before they signed Z-Bo.

                          SO by my count thats 2 risks, one "big" and another that was more necessary than it was risky. So yes, I do have a counter point. Thanks though
                          Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 12-18-2012, 02:59 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                            Bosh better than any player on this team. When will people learn. Bosh is not better than Danny, West, or now Paul. He has never been better than Danny. He and West are probably on par with each other. George is now playing at the same level as a player like Wade. If you want to task about last year, Hibbert was playing at a similar level to Bosh also. Bosh would hardly be the best player on the Pacers if he was brought here. Most overpaid player, probably, but not the best.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                              Originally posted by Dece View Post
                              You're exactly right Nunt, they wouldn't be called risks if they couldn't go bad. However, you don't win anything by always playing it safe. You do all the information gathering you can, try to get the odds as much in your favor as possible...but you can always roll snake eyes. OKC went through ~5 rough years transitioning off of the perennially good, but never great, Ray Allen/Reshard Lewis team. Now they get the better part of a decade of being championship contenders. 100% worth it in my mind. So yea, I'm willing to trade away all my vets and develop my youth and collect lottery picks. That isn't where this team has been in position to do this year or last year, but it certainly was 5 years ago.

                              This particular team is in a position more akin to the very good, but not great, Pistons team recently where they took a BIG risk in bringing in a "locker room cancer" Rasheed Wallace. He could have brought that team down with his antics. Instead he lifted them up to the title. They risked it though. If you want a title you need big talent, and to acquire talent you have to take risks. A lot of people thought we'd win the title the brawl year...but it was a big risk, having Ron Artest, a known problem child, Jack, a known problem child, and Tinsley, a known problem child, all on the same roster. We ended up rolling snake eyes. Hey, that sucks, but we could have won it all, and the team is still here. If we ever want a title, we will have to take new risks, I know that's true.
                              I agree that a team needs to take risks and that you seldomly win anything by playing it safe.

                              But are the Pacers really in a position to take risks? I don't think that they are.

                              Let me explain a bit why I think that they are not a position to take risks.

                              As I already mentioned, the Pacers are 26th in attendance. The team was good last year but people still didn't come to the games. The team was primed for a big run this year but still the improvement in season tickets was small. Indianans are not yet fully behind the Pacers. They are not loyal to the Pacers yet. They are loyal to the Colts, IU, Butler, ND, IUPUI, IPFW, and what have you but not the Pacers. Not yet, at least.

                              There is a small core of loyal fans that will follow the Pacers regardless. But are those enough to let the team stand financially when the rest of the town turns its back on the Pacers? I don't think so.

                              To take those risks, a team needs to have a number of loyal fans. They need to have fans willing to back them up and come to games even if those risks don't pay out and the team sucks as a result. They need to have the fans that the Warriors have. But we don't.

                              If we take a risk and it fails then the attendance would fall to an all-NBA low. And that's the last thing that an owner wants.

                              If we take a risk and it succeeds then the attendance will only be mediocre. I don't think that the Pacers will top the NBA in attendance even if they win a championship. They are treated horrily by a vast majority of the citizens and media of Indiana. It's really sad

                              To recap some things. A team can take risks only if they know that their fans have their backs and will go to games, no matter what.
                              Originally posted by IrishPacer
                              Empty vessels make the most noise.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                                Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                                I agree that a team needs to take risks and that you seldomly win anything by playing it safe.

                                But are the Pacers really in a position to take risks? I don't think that they are.

                                Let me explain a bit why I think that they are not a position to take risks.

                                As I already mentioned, the Pacers are 26th in attendance. The team was good last year but people still didn't come to the games. The team was primed for a big run this year but still the improvement in season tickets was small. Indianans are not yet fully behind the Pacers. They are not loyal to the Pacers yet. They are loyal to the Colts, IU, Butler, ND, IUPUI, IPFW, and what have you but not the Pacers. Not yet, at least.

                                There is a small core of loyal fans that will follow the Pacers regardless. But are those enough to let the team stand financially when the rest of the town turns its back on the Pacers? I don't think so.

                                To take those risks, a team needs to have a number of loyal fans. They need to have fans willing to back them up and come to games even if those risks don't pay out and the team sucks as a result. They need to have the fans that the Warriors have. But we don't.

                                If we take a risk and it fails then the attendance would fall to an all-NBA low. And that's the last thing that an owner wants.

                                If we take a risk and it succeeds then the attendance will only be mediocre. I don't think that the Pacers will top the NBA in attendance even if they win a championship. They are treated horrily by a vast majority of the citizens and media of Indiana. It's really sad

                                To recap some things. A team can take risks only if they know that their fans have their backs and will go to games, no matter what.
                                Or you can tell him that we took a risk on a player coming off an ACL injury who was in his 30's, which for a lot of players would either decrease their ability or possibly even end their career.

                                We also took the risk of trading away our first round pick for a player who could have easily been gone the next year.

                                Oh we also took a risk on Lance. A low risk, but still a risk.

                                We also took a risk in trading away DC.

                                See we have taken risks just people like him don't want to see it as it is easier to keep arguing than it is to accept the facts and admit you are wrong.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X