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

Could there be a Pacers way of building...

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

  • Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

    Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
    Some definitely tanked, Miami was pretty bad though and still didn't get there. They did OK though haha, Wade was my favorite guy in that draft.
    I too remember a day where I was actually a big Wade fan. I loved watching him take Kentucky out in 2003. I was also a big fan of the Shaq/Wade Heat teams and I rooted hard for them against Detroit in those back to back Conference Finals. But I haven't liked Wade since Lebron has been added to the mix.

    Comment


    • Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

      Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
      If by tanking for Duncan you mean the Spurs benefited from David Robinson missing pretty much the whole season then I guess that is tanking, but in reality the team that tanked that year for Duncan was famously Boston who lost the lottery.

      Boston was a really bad team those years they were up high for assets that eventually became KG and Ray.

      Detroit never tanked from my knowledge but Kstat can correct me if he disagrees.
      KG did NOT come from a high asset. The Celtics used Al Jefferson primarily and he was pick 16 I think. Ray was the #5 pick, which happened to become Jeff Green. So had they not made SMART TRADES and instead lived with the benefits of tanking for a high pick then the big 3 would have been Jeff Green, Jefferson and Pierce. Awesome.


      The Bulls not only failed with high picks, but they are also famous losers of the FA world (see NJ, NYK for Lebron as others). They cleared enough space to sign Hill and Duncan and got nothing. Duncan ended up staying in big market San Antonio because, you know, all the big FAs always go off to big cities. Unless they are dime a dozen AS PFs, and then they go to SAS or Indy (West).




      Smart trades do sometimes seem to involve a dumb/complicit team on the other end with suspicious motivation (see Memphis/LAL also). Of course people now revisit the Memphis deal and look at how it's gone with Marc, as well as no playoffs wins while Pau was the star of the team. In fact Memphis also proved that going from a "1 star" team to a multi-headed threat could push you farther in the NBA.
      Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 02-06-2013, 06:31 PM.

      Comment


      • Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

        Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
        Hire JOB. Extend JOB. Fire JOB. 'ship.
        It worked for the Celtics. Paul Pierce was #10. Al Jeff was #15. The picks they traded for their big 3 were Randy Foye and Jeff Green.
        "Danny Granger is one of the top players in the league. To move Danny, you better get a lot back." - Larry Bird

        Comment


        • Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
          KG did NOT come from a high asset. The Celtics used Al Jefferson primarily and he was pick 16 I think. Ray was the #5 pick, which happened to become Jeff Green. So had they not made SMART TRADES and instead lived with the benefits of tanking for a high pick then the big 3 would have been Jeff Green, Jefferson and Pierce. Awesome.


          The Bulls not only failed with high picks, but they are also famous losers of the FA world (see NJ, NYK for Lebron as others). They cleared enough space to sign Hill and Duncan and got nothing. Duncan ended up staying in big market San Antonio because, you know, all the big FAs always go off to big cities. Unless they are dime a dozen AS PFs, and then they go to SAS or Indy (West).




          Smart trades do sometimes seem to involve a dumb/complicit team on the other end with suspicious motivation (see Memphis/LAL also). Of course people now revisit the Memphis deal and look at how it's gone with Marc, as well as no playoffs wins while Pau was the star of the team. In fact Memphis also proved that going from a "1 star" team to a multi-headed threat could push you farther in the NBA.

          The Celtics were tanking for Oden, they didn't win the lottery and ended up with the 5th pick that they used to get Allen and KG, remember that KG didn't want to go there until he heard that Ray Allen was going to Boston, so tanking in a way got them KG and Ray Allen you want to admit it or not.

          If instead of a 5th overall pick Boston had a 10th pick that trade for Ray Allen doesn't happen and KG would have never go to Boston.
          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

          Comment


          • Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
            And BTW, the Spurs keep disproving the "the NBA wants big market winners" theory and the instant a big market team wins people shout "other teams never have a chance".

            People decide on a theory and then just ignore counter-evidence while waiting for something to prove their point. Then they bring it up with screams of outrage.


            See, I agree. The idea or "method" has proven strong over and over. My favorite is "you can't win without a top 5 pick player". Sure, because in the NBA most of the lower picks end up out of the NBA and the other talent gets shifted around till every team has at least 1 top 5 player. The Pacers had Mike Dunleavy and didn't even make the playoffs. Plus those same people will count Kobe as a top 5 because they forget.

            Do you get the star and then win, or do the winner-type players BECOME STARS via their winning? If Kobe never wins a title is he still a guy you can win a title with, or does he earn the rep.

            And what I'm getting at is what I'll now call the Flacco rule - by winning your rep is changed even though you are doing nothing different than you were when people thought less of you. Flacco is not a top 5 QB and he spent most of the playoffs throwing up interception bait high hanging bombs that kept being undefended or poorly defended. The one SB touchdown had his WR come back to the ball because it was underthrown and then the DB went flying past comically to allow a TD that had no biz being a TD. But Flacco gets credit as an elite QB, #1 by Hoge on ESPN a few days later.


            So what this means is that when the Pacers win the title everyone will say "you can't win without a superstar like PG". But if they don't win then PG will have the DG mark of shame - he's just a Robin, not a Batman. Same player with an opinion based more around what his teammates do than what he does.




            * should I tell you how I really feel?
            In a basketball sense, I could kind of compare it to the Dirk Nowitzki effect when he won a title, though he's been a better basketball player than Flacco has been in football. Dirk wasn't considered for much of anything when he was losing in the playoffs and whatnot, but now that he won the title being the man for Dallas, he's a HoF player easily, and people hold him in much higher regard now. I remember that year in the playoffs, Charles Barkley picked against Dallas every round.
            "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

            ----------------- Reggie Miller

            Comment


            • Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

              Originally posted by Kstat View Post
              My point is, you told them to draft Brandon Rush first. He was higher on Bird's priority list. Had Toronto turned down the deal, Indiana likely would have taken Rush 11th.

              If Bird believed he was worth taking at #11, he would have seen to it that Hibbert would be taken 13th and not 17th, regardless of where he thought Hibbert would actually land. That's definitely a trade acquisition in my book.

              Likewise, I count Kobe as a trade acquisition, rather than a Laker draft pick.
              The Toronto trade was known about (and agreed in principle by both teams) BEFORE the Portland trade. In fact, it was known a day ahead of the draft:

              http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slu...altraded062508

              It was the Portland deal that we only heard about on ESPN during the draft, not long after we initially took Bayless (turns out we were just doing that for Portland's sake).

              Both Brandon Rush and Roy Hibbert were essentially Larry Bird draft picks, though due to technicality neither trade was official until July 1st 2008.

              If you want to say he thought more of Rush than Hibbert at the time, that's fine, because that's obviously true. But both of them were his picks.

              Comment


              • Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

                Originally posted by Peck View Post
                But with all of that in mind is it possible that teams may start to go another route and try the Pacers way of building through solid draft choices and trying to build a winning culture?

                Or will it always be “we must tank to succeed”?
                It will always be tank too succeed. the majority of most GM's will never have the patience or basketBALLS to state having a "3 year plan" and then basically nail it. we are set for a decade. if everything goes right.

                All I can say is .. Larry Bird brougght the Pacers Franchise back from the grave. Bird may have in fact even saved this State the Franchise.


                BEST GM IN BASKETBALL. I think Legend stuck it to the Celtics .. and Ainge. I believe the Pacers are going to WIN a CHAMPIONSHIP and LEGEND will get his due.

                Fellas... I cannot remember the last time i was earnestly this jacked about the blue and gold. the Obrien regime .. had its purpose.. but it was painful.

                F* C * the NBA. PACERS ARE BACK.


                BOOM BABY ON YOUR FACE STERN



                *
                *
                *

                Comment


                • Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

                  Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
                  It will always be tank too succeed. the majority of most GM's will never have the patience or basketBALLS to state having a "3 year plan" and then basically nail it. we are set for a decade. if everything goes right.

                  All I can say is .. Larry Bird brougght the Pacers Franchise back from the grave. Bird may have in fact even saved this State the Franchise.


                  BEST GM IN BASKETBALL. I think Legend stuck it to the Celtics .. and Ainge. I believe the Pacers are going to WIN a CHAMPIONSHIP and LEGEND will get his due.

                  Fellas... I cannot remember the last time i was earnestly this jacked about the blue and gold. the Obrien regime .. had its purpose.. but it was painful.

                  F* C * the NBA. PACERS ARE BACK.


                  BOOM BABY ON YOUR FACE STERN



                  *
                  *
                  *
                  hey is the fact this was my 1666 post on PD some sort of sign from above. i dont want to haveing bad mojo


                  can someoone do some Hail Mary's Full of Grace

                  for the Blue and Gold

                  Comment


                  • Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

                    Originally posted by Peck View Post
                    What happens if the Pacers actually advance the either the E.C. finals or even the NBA finals? No, I’m not asking if we will all be rejoicing and dancing in the streets (which we better be).

                    No I want to know will the paradigm shift in the way people think NBA teams in general and small market teams in particular have to be built?



                    But with all of that in mind is it possible that teams may start to go another route and try the Pacers way of building through solid draft choices and trying to build a winning culture?

                    Or will it always be “we must tank to succeed”?
                    Peck, have you ever read Simmons' book (The Book of Basketball)? One of the best chapters is about "The Secret", which was a summation of a conversation he had with Isaiah Thomas:

                    http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/magaz...1228-article21

                    5. A big theme of my book is The Secret of winning basketball, something Isiah Thomas explains to me at a topless pool in Las Vegas. (The Secret, in a nutshell: Teams only win titles when their best players forget about statistics, sublimate their own games for the greater good and put their egos on hold.) Another big theme of my book: Kobe Bryant's inability to grasp The Secret. He wanted to win a title, but only on his terms. That's what made him the most fascinating player of his generation. In the book, I even spend three pages comparing him to the wolf in Teen Wolf.


                    Fast-forward to a few weeks ago: A reporter asks Kobe if he still has room to grow as a player. Kobe responds, "I do, I do. I think there's so much more to understand. A lot of it just has to do with winning. When you first come into the league, you're trying to prove yourself as an individual, do things to assert yourself and establish yourself. But once you've done that, there's another level to the game that's more complex than figuring out how to put up big numbers as an individual." (That's right, The Secret! He finally gets it! Man, I wish this were in my book.)
                    I'm not sure if what you are talking about is so much a large market or small market recipe. I think what we're seeing with this team, is "The Secret" in full effect... and a deliberate attempt to bring on a collection of individuals that buy into this approach in a way that each member of the team complements one another.

                    Roy's focus on defending the post.
                    Lance's focus on creating offense and adding energy.
                    Less emphasis on a point "facilitating the offense" and more emphasis on everyone facilitating easy plays for each other.

                    Etc, etc. A collective commitment towards winning basketball.

                    There are all kinds of practical signs of this culture in the games that are played. Where we've failed early in the year is when roles were unfilled (Danny going down with an injury before the season's start), people having to step into their role (Augustin's early year struggles), etc.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

                      Some of the quotes tonight validate this perspective, it's pretty remarkable given where we were two-three years ago:

                      http://scores.espn.go.com/nba/recap?gameId=400278441

                      "We got in here before the game and we just looked each other in the eyes, and I knew it," George said of a team meeting. "I knew we had to go out, fight for each other, rely on each other and do everything possible to get a win."
                      "We got ourselves up for this one in the locker room before the game," West said. "We had to. A lot of guys didn't have a lot out there physically, and we had to lean on each other.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

                        Originally posted by docpaul View Post
                        Some of the quotes tonight validate this perspective, it's pretty remarkable given where we were two-three years ago:

                        http://scores.espn.go.com/nba/recap?gameId=400278441

                        Another:

                        http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/...er_Sixers.html

                        "They are really good," said Jrue Holiday, who finished 7-for-22 from the floor for 19 points to go along with six rebounds, five turnovers and four assists. "They play within themselves. I think everybody knows their role and they share the ball really well. Just a really solid team, defensively and offensively."

                        Comment


                        • Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

                          Pacers Fans "We have a team that's fun to watch. They are winning. They are getting national TV mentions. We've beaten the Heat. I think we have a great shot of making noise in the playoffs. We can make the ECF. Shoot, we can make the FINALS!!! Go Pacers!!!!"

                          Kstat "Yawn"

                          Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                          ------

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

                          -John Wooden

                          Comment


                          • Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

                            If there were, it would be called "a Lakers way to ​not build"

                            Comment


                            • Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

                              Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                              ...damn him for living in a capitalist country. You'd think we lived in a supply-and-demand economy, or something...

                              Nobody is shedding tears for LeBron for being worth $100 million when he could easily be worth $200 million. It's just stating a very ironic fact.
                              LeBron might well be able to earn $200m currently without salary caps, but putting the league first and having the CBA allows him to be in this position. An ironic fact is without caps, a league in which he earns that much would be unsustainable.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

                                Originally posted by MAStamper View Post
                                The Toronto trade was known about (and agreed in principle by both teams) BEFORE the Portland trade. In fact, it was known a day ahead of the draft:

                                http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slu...altraded062508

                                It was the Portland deal that we only heard about on ESPN during the draft, not long after we initially took Bayless (turns out we were just doing that for Portland's sake).

                                Both Brandon Rush and Roy Hibbert were essentially Larry Bird draft picks, though due to technicality neither trade was official until July 1st 2008.

                                If you want to say he thought more of Rush than Hibbert at the time, that's fine, because that's obviously true. But both of them were his picks.
                                At the time, both were considered high for where they were picked. Even if Bird thought Hibbert was worth pick 11, he can take a calculated risk to get more assets due to other teams rating him relatively low. Rush might have been gone by pick 17. In the end, Bird managed to get Rush and Hibbert and a few other assets instead of just picking according to his own big board. Still, the consensus was that 13 for Rush and 17 for Hibbert were too high.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X