Tweet
ouch. Peter vescey in the post www.nypost.com, mitch lawrence in the daily news, www.nydailynews.com and the Times as well, www.nytimes.com, are all taking shots at Zeke for continuing the mess with the Knicks.
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.
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
-
sigpic
"It's a league game, Smokey" -
Re: Isiah is getting excoriated in the NY press.
From www.nypost.com, by P. Vescey
January 23, 2005 --
PAYING off or buying out predecessors' blunders — coaches, players and front office personnel — is acceptable standard operating procedure for newly hired sports executives. Initially, that's what they do best in an attempt to turn things around, public perception being the No. 1 priority.
Conversely, the first time the new guy is compelled to swallow one of his principal financial brainstorms, the first time he's obliged to admit a major mistake was committed on his watch, is the beginning of his downfall, the perfect opening for critics to flick on the brights and intensify scrutiny on each and every questionable decision.
That's the defenseless position Isiah Thomas finds himself in today.
Nobody really got all that bent out of shape when the Knicks president paid Don Chaney and Shandon Anderson to leave; we understood completely when it was time for them to go.
Nobody took their protests of Lenny Wilkens' hiring and his excessive salary (bidding against phantoms) to extremes, . . . after Mike Fratello's candidacy was abruptly annulled and Willis Reed rejected the interim job. Despite failing conspicuously in previous engagements in Atlanta and Toronto, Wilkens was given the benefit of cosmic doubt based on Hall of Fame lifetime achievements. Consequently, Thomas was allowed to slide his last-grasp selection onto the sidelines with only a brief interlude under the microscope.
Nobody ceaselessly demonstrated in disgust or tirelessly circulated overcast opinions of the Keith Van Horn-Tim Thomas trade, because, in the final analysis, acquiring Nazr Mohammad in the deal proved worthwhile.
Yes, Thomas has been taken to task for overspending for underachievers in James Dolan's no-budget restraint system.
Yes, he has been mocked for being unable to so much as maintain mediocrity since replacing Scott Layden more than a year ago.
But nobody, in all fairness, has regularly ripped him for purely picking up where Dave Checketts, Ernie Grunfeld and Layden left off . . . throwing ungodly money around, thus lengthening the mortgage on the Knicks' future; their cap currently tops the NBA, a grotesque $103 million and building briskly.
Despite what you may read or hear elsewhere, the Knicks gave Wilkens the dignity to throw himself under the snow plow, as opposed to being summarily sent back to his home in Seattle by his very last NBA employer. For agreeing to cite Hubie Brown-like health issues (his mother, indeed, is ailing) instead of causing a commotion, or quitting like Jeff Van Gundy, or faxing in his resignation like Pat Riley, the Knicks will make good on their remaining obligation, what's left of this season's $5M tab as well as next, which isn't fully guaranteed; we're talking roughly $6M total.
Would Wilkens have survived, you ask, had Scott Padgett not hit the game winning, coach-killing shot Thursday night? No. Win or lose to the Rockets, Isiah was prepared to offer Lenny an arrangement in upper management if he wanted to stick around; it's almost definite he won't.
Where does that leave the Knicks? They are what their 17-22 record attests they are: A mess. A different shade of lipstick on the same pig.
Where does that leave Thomas? By paying off Wilkens so soon after recruiting him it's now official; Isiah's honeymoon in New York is harpooned. Even vocal supporters wind up nuking him when confronted with damning data.
I'd say it's back to square one except a solid argument can be made that the Knicks have receded to below square one.
A year ago, Herb Williams was only considered experienced and worthy enough by Thomas to coach one game in between Chaney and Wilkens. Now he's being entrusted to lead a brood with a superiority complex out of the wilderness.
I understand why Wilkens wanted Williams to replace him; he's a man, loyal to the foundation, not a phony bone in his body, or a skeleton in his closet. I also understand why Thomas thinks the oldest member of the staff deserves a promotion. At the same time, why import faithful companions like Brendan Suhr and Mark Aguirre if they can't be relied upon to cover your assets in crisis?
Again, where does that leave the Knicks and Thomas? Neither here nor there. Treading water. Marking time. Lost in Limbo. Waiting for the end of the season to ask the Pistons' permission to talk to Larry Brown. Doing what they should have done the last time they had a coaching vacancy, kept it open and remained patient on the favorable chance owner Bill Davidson, for the right price, would allow his championship coach to come back to New York where the Browns recently rebuilt a home in East Hampton.
Still, I can't help but think, if the Knicks players had only spent as much time defending opponents as they did Wilkens, he'd still have a job. -
Re: Isiah is getting excoriated in the NY press.
From: www.nydailynews.com by Mitch Lawrence
Thomas takes the low road
'Traffic' no excuse for not naming self
This is where we are with the Knicks: The only person around here with any kind of head coaching experience won't coach the team because, get this, there's too much traffic. So the person who has been entrusted to lead the team into the playoffs is moving over from the third assistant coach's chair.
No disrespect to Herb Williams, but Isiah Thomas should be coaching the Knicks this afternoon against the Bucks at the Garden, and coaching this team from here on out. Given where the Knicks are, it made no sense for Thomas to replace Lenny Wilkens, who has coached more games than any other person in NBA history, 2,487, with Williams, who has coached one.
Isiah has three years of head coaching experience. He's the father figure to this team's two most important players, Stephon Marbury and Jamal Crawford. Since he's put together almost all of this roster, which has mediocrity written all over it, maybe he can squeeze 42 wins and an Atlantic Division title out of it.
But when he was asked yesterday why he hasn't returned to the sidelines, Thomas gave championship-starved New York fans this:
"Because I don't think you can do both in this city, with the way traffic is and everything else."
When they say Isiah Thomas was a great driver in traffic, they weren't considering the roads.
Granted, the Hutch is murder and the West Side Highway can be a parking lot. But for Isiah Thomas to list "traffic" as the first reason he isn't taking the reins ... well, it was as comical as when he later talked about having a history of getting along with everyone, whether as a coach or player.
We can start with Adrian Dantley and Michael Jordan and go from there. In a historical context and in terms of sheer length, Isiah's enemies list puts Nixon's to shame.
The "traffic" explanation was simply as implausible as the organization's official line on Wilkens' sudden departure. Lenny Wilkens wouldn't quit a lost cause.
Thomas reminded everyone that he brought Wilkens in to be a "transition coach." So he replaces him with a neophyte who has never been even a No. 2 assistant? Forget the intricacies of the salary cap. Isiah has trouble figuring out the FDR at 5 o'clock.
"I wouldn't have the stamina to be the president and also coach," he explained. "It's too hard to live here and too many things get in the way."
Again, even if you didn't love the way he coached the Pacers, who never got out of the first round under his tutelage, Thomas is the only person in the Knicks' franchise who is qualified for the job. But you know what really would get "in the way" if Isiah did coach this conglomeration: All the losses.
The really odd thing about the "traffic" line is that Isiah loves to talk about riding the subway, where he claims he is often engaged in spirited discussions with fans. You'd think he'd be better equipped to deal with the highways, coming from Chicago where they have some real nightmares, including the Dan Ryan and the Kennedy. Little did we know he can't handle the Cross Bronx.
Maybe if this were Cleveland, where rush hour is a snap and nobody suffers from road rage ...
"A city not as large as this, maybe," Thomas said about assuming the two-post position. "The energy that is required to do both in this city, you can't."
But let's not buy into Isiah's alleged inability to deal with rubber-necking delays on the Grand Central. He's not coaching this team for one reason: It can't win big. If he took over, his winning percentage (.533) would start falling faster than yesterday's snow. You know who knows that? The players, who were often dazed and confused and too often left to their own devices under Wilkens.
"I never thought he would take over," said Allan Houston.
How about Marbury? Was he surprised Isiah didn't pick up his whistle?
"No," said the league's self-proclaimed No.1 point guard.
Isiah tried to compare Williams' promotion to Lawrence Frank's. But Frank was Byron Scott's right-hand man. Herb hardly said a word to Lenny. Michael Malone handled a lot of game preparation and Brendan Suhr was Wilkens' in-game adviser. Mark Aguirre would be a hard sell, because he sits a row back. And anyway, how could Isiah one day fire his own best friend?
So he goes with Herb, a Garden favorite and the most expendable of the lot. For Isiah Thomas, the decision was as easy as the Saw Mill Parkway at three in the morning.Comment
-
Re: Isiah is getting excoriated in the NY press.
Mike Vaccaro, www.nypost.com/sports/knicks/38674.htm
January 23, 2005 -- THE smile can no longer camouflage the mess he has helped perpetuate. For a while, it was easy for Isiah Thomas to pretend all the bad things that happen to the Knicks were grandfathered in by Scott Layden, because around the Knicks it is always fashionable to blame Layden for everything short of the 1929 stock market crash.
Doesn't wash anymore. Doesn't play. Not now, not in this city, not with the Knicks as dysfunctional and disorganized a jumble as they've ever been. Not with Lenny Wilkens exiled, the parting termed a "resignation," even though he resigned from the Knicks the way Tessio resigned from the Corleone Family.
"I'm not disappointed at all," Thomas said through that permanent grin, a beam of light that forever disarms potential critics and dismisses would-be cynics. "This league — it's tough, tough, tough. I like where we are. And I like where we are headed."
If you just read those words, hot type on cold paper, you would have little choice but to conclude the president of the New York Knicks has completely lost touch with any form of reason, logic or common sense. You might also assume he hasn't been watching his basketball team perform across the past couple of weeks.
But when you see the man deliver those up-with-people sentiments live, with those dimples working and those perfect teeth sparkling — well, you'd believe Isiah if he told you the new Jason Alexander sitcom was the funniest half-hour in television history.
But, then, that's always been Isiah's way, the smiling assassin with a doctorate in spin, Machiavelli in a business suit. He was that way as a player, which is why he was forced to watch the Dream Team win the gold in Barcelona after compiling an enemies list that would've made H.R. Haldeman proud. He ran the CBA into the ground, declaring victory afterward like Baghdad Bob.
Now, he talks about how the Knicks are right where he wants them to be, how you have to go through a few hardships in order to see the light. It sounds impossible. It sounds implausible. But, damn, that smile sure makes him look earnest.
Even when he talks about the shortcomings of this roster, which has his fingerprints all over it now. Even as he talks about how you have to hang around and wait for the cavalry to come in, wait for the horses, how Nazr Mohammed (one of his prize acquisitions) is fine, but no Yao Ming.
Even as he somehow explains away his resistance to taking over the coaching reigns of this team because of — get this — the traffic.
"In a smaller town, maybe it would be different," he explained, and it's touching to see how much compassion Isiah has for his chauffeur, and surely this has nothing to do with the fact if he ever did coach this team, and if he did it as well as he has general managed it so far, there would be plaintive wails of "Fire Zeke!" inside of a month.
No, that couldn't be true.
Because Isiah said so!
With a smile!
Thomas' honeymoon isn't only over, it's so far a part of history as to belong with Willis Reed limping on the court before Game 7.
When he took over the team, he was careful to talk about how he, like Knicks fans, demanded immediate results, and to back that up he exchanged all of his usable assets for Stephon Marbury. He obtained Jamal Crawford. And maybe it's only coincidence, but two of the best stories of the NBA this year are the Suns and the Bulls, teams that sure got a whole lot better after pawning Marbury and Crawford off on Thomas.
Now, he says he hoped Wilkens could have lasted three years, but even if he had, "he wouldn't have been the one to lead us to a championship. He was an intermediary coach." Which sounds an awful lot like one of those five-year plans he dismissed when he took the job.
Whatever. He smiled that day. He smiled yesterday. The smile tells you anything is possible. The results, so far, tell you the same thing. Just not in the same way.
Back to: Knicks | Sports | Home
NEW YORK POST MARKETPLACEsigpic
"It's a league game, Smokey"Comment
-
Re: Isiah is getting excoriated in the NY press.
I'm so happy. More garbage for Isiah's truck.The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.Comment
-
Re: Isiah is getting excoriated in the NY press.
Excoriate? Wow, good word usage.Take me out to the black, tell 'em I ain't coming back. Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me.Comment
-
Re: Isiah is getting excoriated in the NY press.
Isiah's house of cards continues to wobble. He hasn't known what he was doing since he retired from playing.
His debacle running the CBA was only the beginning.
He deserves everything he's getting.Comment
-
Re: Isiah is getting excoriated in the NY press.
Under the circumstances I think Zeke has done a credible job. The team's talent is much better than it was when he began and the team's finances are no worse. Zeke inherited a very bad team. His biggest mistake was not hiring Mike Fratello, but if he lands a top coach like Phil Jackson or Larry Brown this summer, the coaching will not be an issue.
The Mitch Lawrence column criticizing Zeke for not taking the coaching job himself is the dumbest column I have seen in a while. The last thing the Knicks need is their GM coaching the team. Dumb.Comment
-
Re: Isiah is getting excoriated in the NY press.
Two opposing suggestions for Zeke (and then I'll duck and run)
Either:
Hire Mike Davis to coach the Knicks
or
Replace Mike Davis at IU yourself.Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.Comment
-
Re: Isiah is getting excoriated in the NY press.
Wow...Originally posted by indygeezer
-BballNuntius 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 WoodenComment
-
Re: Isiah is getting excoriated in the NY press.
Originally posted by btownpacer
Afraid of losing Davis are you????Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.Comment
-
Re: Isiah is getting excoriated in the NY press.
well, i just had to laugh my butt off when isaih picked up bruno sundov and jamison brewer. those two guys are complete losers and have no value to any team with aspirations of victory. they only eat up space on the bench and and the injured list even though they can't possibly be injured since they never play. he really is terrible at the gm or coaching spot. since i am no knicks fan- i thought it was great when they picked him up and he started loading up the squad with the likes of those guys.Comment
-
Re: Isiah is getting excoriated in the NY press.
I don't get it. All along, people have been saying Isiah would hang Lenny out to dry, and make himself the coach. Now, he sticks with Lenny until the owner forces him out, then refuses to coach, and they complain.
All the NY papers are completely worthless. Except the WSJ, I guess, since they don't bother with sports.Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!
Comment
-
Re: Isiah is getting excoriated in the NY press.
Jamison's actually been SOME help. When he got Bruno though, I thought mainly of Marcus Fizer being available for the vet minimum.Originally posted by kingfrog
I don't call Zeke terrible either as a coach or GM - he's extremely mediocre, which is better than Layden but still won't take us to the promised land.
Besides - who would want to coach the set of misfits we have? Not Isiah.The poster formerly known as RimfireComment
-
Re: Isiah is getting excoriated in the NY press.
a year later the fun continues.
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/st...p-329563c.html
by Mitch Lawrence
There hasn't been a Toronto Raptor worth trading for since Vince Carter, and Rod Thorn stole Carter for the New Jersey Nets last season.
But yesterday, Isiah Thomas, needing to make a headline that didn't involve his name splashed across the pages in a sexual harassment lawsuit, swooped in and relieved the Raptors of Jalen Rose. Rose is a small forward with a bloated contract, so he's a perfect fit for Isiah's troubled team.
What yesterday's deal showed, right away, is that this is still very much Isiah's team. If Anucha Browne Sanders' allegations were going to sink his career, they would already have done so. But the fact that he was able to make a trade with any team, much less his old team, tells you where Isiah stands with Jim Dolan. He's still the infallible Teflon president, now rebuilding the Knicks for a second time.
After all the damage Thomas caused by overhauling Scott Layden's pitiful roster into a $120 million mishmash that even Larry Brown can't solve, we didn't think Isiah was deserving of a second chance. But Dolan thinks he is, so there.
All Isiah had to give up for Rose was Antonio Davis, a classy player and a Brown favorite who undoubtedly will take the Alonzo Mourning route out of Toronto. Like Zo, he'll get his buyout, then go find his way to a playoff team and hope that his wife, Kendra, doesn't get into it with any more fans. There are only so many arena stairs a guy his age wants to climb in a given season.
But when doing the math on any Knicks deal, you can't come to a bottom line unless you fire up the calculator and get down to the actual bottom line. You can never do it yourself, so you do the next best thing and call a GM with the official numbers.
There's always a "wow, listen to this" coming from the other end. And yesterday was no exception. In this particular deal, Isiah traded away a player in the final season of his contract, and making $13.865 million, and took back a player making $15.6 million this season and $16.9 million next season.
"Isiah gets another 'max' player," said our GM friend. "Rose is a multidimensional player, but he's way overpaid."
Like we said, he fits right in. So it's another Isiah trade in which he took on more money with more years and gave away an expiring contract, just as he did when he acquired Malik Rose and Maurice Taylor. This way of operating is the real scandal that should have cost Thomas his job. Because even with Allan Houston's $20 million expected to come off the cap because of his retirement forced by arthritic knees, Rose's acquisition means the Knicks are already committed to $100 million for next season.
So much for flexibility or man.euverability when free agents hit the open market in July. Again, the Knicks won't be players, unless they can land someone for the mid-level exception. And we all know how the last player to get a mid-level exception from Isiah has done. The Knicks couldn't give Jerome James away to an NBDL team. Maybe the best thing they get out of this deal is a No. 1 draft pick. Who knows?
The small forward position has been a wasteland for the Knicks for so long, Rose will help. Trevor Ariza, overhyped by the Garden, is now best-known for being called "delusional" by Brown when he questioned why he was no longer playing. Qyntel Woods, here for a cup of coffee, is down to his last drop. Quentin Richardson, part of one of Isiah's worst deals, makes what Steve Nash is doing this season look better every day.
Together, Ariza, Woods and Richardson don't give you half of Carter, who makes the Nets a solid playoff team with Richard Jefferson and Jason Kidd. But back over at the Garden, where the playoffs are becoming a distant memory, Rose doesn't get the Knicks out of the lottery, either.
What he does do, though, playing in that slow-motion way of his, is maybe help get this team to 25 wins. That, in turn, makes the unprotected No. 1 pick the Knicks surrendered to the Bulls in the Eddy Curry deal a less-attractive pick. So the season now is about winning a few more games so the Bulls lose on draft day.
Which, again, is an indictment of the kinds of moves that Isiah Thomas has been making. First he wants to get younger and more athletic. Then he wants to get veterans to help Brown win now, because the present is all Larry knows about.
Yesterday, Isiah began his second rebuilding phase. You tell me what his plan is.sigpic
"It's a league game, Smokey"Comment
Comment