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

Did Granger Really Mean That Much?

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

  • #46
    Re: Did Granger Really Mean That Much?

    Originally posted by sportfireman View Post
    Karma
    I hope this is said in jest Karma is relative and I don't believe exists in sports its just used as an excuse for haters of certain teams.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Did Granger Really Mean That Much?

      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
      "Veteran" is more about experience than age. You can be a veteran team and still be a relatively young team. Scola has only been in the NBA one year longer than Hibbert and Hill. Hibbert and Hill are without question veteran players with their six years of experience. They are still definitely relatively young guys, but they are vets. Hill grew up in a world class Spur organization and has made the playoffs every single season of his career. Hibbert is the longest tenured Pacer on the team after the Granger trade. These guys are definitely vets.

      4 of our 5 starters are now in their third straight season of starting games together (Hibbert, West, PG, Hill - didn't start till the end of the year but was the playoff starter). We have won a lot of regular season games and have a decent amount of playoff experience under our belt. This team as a whole has a veteran pedigree. Now I do buy into the theory that super young superstars like PG historically have not led their teams to championships. That concerns me a bit, but hopefully we are are balanced in the playoffs.
      I agree that being a veteran has more to do with experience than it does with age. And it certainly plays a role that Hill grew up in a world class Spurs organization and that Hibbert is the longest tenured Pacer.

      But I still consider us young. Just compare our experience to the other contenders:

      Miami: LeBron, Wade, Bosh, Battier, Haslem and Allen all have 10 or more years of experience in this league.

      Spurs: Parker, Duncan, Manu and Diaw all have 10 or more years of experience in this league. They also have Pop.

      Clippers: Matt Barnes and Jamal Crawford have 10 or more years and Chris Paul with JJ Redick hover around 8 and 7 years.

      OKC is relatively young as well. Only Caron Butler, Kendrick Perkins and Derek Fisher have 10 or more years of experience in this league and Caron just came along while you could argue that the other two shouldn't touch the court. But they still have Collison who is an important piece that has 9 years of experience in this league and Durant himself has 1 more year of experience than Roy (so if Roy counts as a vet then so does him). Westbrook is at 5 years as well and in overall their stars are more experienced than ours.

      The Rockets and the Blazers are younger than us.
      Originally posted by IrishPacer
      Empty vessels make the most noise.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Did Granger Really Mean That Much?

        http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthre...=1#post1780370

        That was a fun thread and it was fun to get the s*** kicked out of me by a bunch of people saying the Zeke year 3 team wasn't something that could happen or be happening.

        The risk is being massively underrated. Isiah was AS coach with 2 players on the AS team - JO and Brad. He had another that was making the case for DPOY in Artest. The team was out in front and on it's way to a big playoff run. Then Ron's chemistry issues happened, the team fell to 3rd, lost in round 1 and Isiah was fired.

        Of course AFTER THE FACT it was all obvious, but I have the articles to prove that plenty of people were feeling pretty good about where the Pacers were at as they headed toward the AS break.
        This was in regards to the Bynum addition, not the Granger/Pulp deal, but the primary point was the same...CHEMISTRY IS DELICATE and we are 10 years removed from a nearly identical season up to this point. Finally breaking through to the top level, MVP candidate type is an AS starter, the team's center is an AS reserve, the team has the top record so their coach is the AS coach...and then the wheels come totally off.

        I said in that thread that it's already happened TO VOGEL when he tried to incorporate Lance into the rotation that first year and a team that had been in a groove completely went south till Lance was pulled back out of the rotation.


        And all the 20/20 hindsight people went "oh but this is different, we all know why that happened". No one knew either of those things was definitely about to happen. Not Peck (who didn't like that roster), not me, not any of us older fans who had seen it all, not any of the local or national writers. None of us thought "post AS I'm sure the Pacers will have one of the worst records, fall to the 3rd seed and lose in round 1 ending with the coach being fired". Not one single person thought that as they watched Brad Miller play in the ASG that weekend. Trouble maintaining maybe? Isiah being overrated as a coach? Sure. But not "I bet they have an epic implosion now".

        And no one thought "I bet they go down to Houston and just get demolished by a sub-par team" followed by a locker room fight while they were in the midst of the Vogel hot start, especially with vets like Foster, Dunleavy, DJones and Granger in the locker room.


        After the fact you start to learn about all the nasty issues and problems, and honestly there are plenty of other seasons with nasty issues that DO NOT SHOW UP because the team is able to keep winning at the same pace. The Atlanta strip club didn't send the Reggie/Dale Pacers into the tank as far as we know.



        Paul's got baby mama drama, remember. The team was annoyed by the Bynum signing and the questions around it, along with a bit of annoyance that mgmt thought they needed more help, they loved Danny and it clearly shook up guys like Roy (I don't want to talk about it) and Paul.

        It's not like they are cruising around on the Good Ship Lollypop here, they've got issues even if they have maturity and good guys in the locker room.



        I can see a path to them getting things straightened out, I just think it's going to be too late by then. This is why it's so hard to win a title and why you have to respect teams that can put up 58+ wins year after year after year.


        But they have been WAY TOO COMPLACENT the last month in regards to their poor play. Solomon Hill was even giving the company line of "they are just gunning for us, they have nothing to lose, they are just hitting tough shots" when none of that makes much sense.

        Teams are gunning for all the other top teams that are not falling apart (like LAC), most of the teams with nothing to lose have more to gain by tanking (a popular misconception that many teams believe), and teams don't just lucky against you for a month straight without your defense having something to do with it.



        As I said on Twitter, I'm not off this wagon. I'm riding this flaming wooden death cart right off the cliff with the team...but I'll be shocked if that isn't the final outcome. I'll suffer through every bitter moment even as my hopes fade. At the very least it was an awesome first half....and who knows, maybe a last second save of this clusterf*** will be part of the story.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Did Granger Really Mean That Much?

          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
          http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthre...=1#post1780370

          That was a fun thread and it was fun to get the s*** kicked out of me by a bunch of people saying the Zeke year 3 team wasn't something that could happen or be happening.


          This was in regards to the Bynum addition, not the Granger/Pulp deal, but the primary point was the same...CHEMISTRY IS DELICATE and we are 10 years removed from a nearly identical season up to this point. Finally breaking through to the top level, MVP candidate type is an AS starter, the team's center is an AS reserve, the team has the top record so their coach is the AS coach...and then the wheels come totally off.

          I said in that thread that it's already happened TO VOGEL when he tried to incorporate Lance into the rotation that first year and a team that had been in a groove completely went south till Lance was pulled back out of the rotation.


          And all the 20/20 hindsight people went "oh but this is different, we all know why that happened". No one knew either of those things was definitely about to happen. Not Peck (who didn't like that roster), not me, not any of us older fans who had seen it all, not any of the local or national writers. None of us thought "post AS I'm sure the Pacers will have one of the worst records, fall to the 3rd seed and lose in round 1 ending with the coach being fired". Not one single person thought that as they watched Brad Miller play in the ASG that weekend. Trouble maintaining maybe? Isiah being overrated as a coach? Sure. But not "I bet they have an epic implosion now".

          And no one thought "I bet they go down to Houston and just get demolished by a sub-par team" followed by a locker room fight while they were in the midst of the Vogel hot start, especially with vets like Foster, Dunleavy, DJones and Granger in the locker room.


          After the fact you start to learn about all the nasty issues and problems, and honestly there are plenty of other seasons with nasty issues that DO NOT SHOW UP because the team is able to keep winning at the same pace. The Atlanta strip club didn't send the Reggie/Dale Pacers into the tank as far as we know.



          Paul's got baby mama drama, remember. The team was annoyed by the Bynum signing and the questions around it, along with a bit of annoyance that mgmt thought they needed more help, they loved Danny and it clearly shook up guys like Roy (I don't want to talk about it) and Paul.

          It's not like they are cruising around on the Good Ship Lollypop here, they've got issues even if they have maturity and good guys in the locker room.



          I can see a path to them getting things straightened out, I just think it's going to be too late by then. This is why it's so hard to win a title and why you have to respect teams that can put up 58+ wins year after year after year.


          But they have been WAY TOO COMPLACENT the last month in regards to their poor play. Solomon Hill was even giving the company line of "they are just gunning for us, they have nothing to lose, they are just hitting tough shots" when none of that makes much sense.

          Teams are gunning for all the other top teams that are not falling apart (like LAC), most of the teams with nothing to lose have more to gain by tanking (a popular misconception that many teams believe), and teams don't just lucky against you for a month straight without your defense having something to do with it.



          As I said on Twitter, I'm not off this wagon. I'm riding this flaming wooden death cart right off the cliff with the team...but I'll be shocked if that isn't the final outcome. I'll suffer through every bitter moment even as my hopes fade. At the very least it was an awesome first half....and who knows, maybe a last second save of this clusterf*** will be part of the story.
          The way you make it sound we are very, very fragile. If we are that fragile were we ever legit contenders to begin with? the 2004 Pistons shook up their roster with Rasheed and he led them to a championship. Miami added Oden and it didn't shake them. If the Bynum addition and the Granger trade shook us this much it doesn't say much for our toughness (or lack there of).

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Did Granger Really Mean That Much?

            Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
            The way you make it sound we are very, very fragile. If we are that fragile were we ever legit contenders to begin with? the 2004 Pistons shook up their roster with Rasheed and he led them to a championship. Miami added Oden and it didn't shake them. If the Bynum addition and the Granger trade shook us this much it doesn't say much for our toughness (or lack there of).
            1989: traded away the top scorer from their 1988 finals team mid-season (Adrian Dantley) to a crumbling Dallas team. Won championship anyway.

            1990: left locker room leader (and starting power forward) rick mahorn unprotected in the expansion draft. He had to be pulled away from the championship parade to be told he was now a member of the expansion TWolves. Isiah Thomas was furious. Won championship anyway.

            2004: Traded half the team (albeit not important pieces) to Boston and Atlanta for Rasheed Wallace and Mike James mid-season. Basically told Mehmet Okur he was not needed anymore. Won Championship anyway.

            Contending teams are either trying to improve their roster all the time or they are falling behind while everyone else does.
            Last edited by Kstat; 03-08-2014, 03:00 PM.

            It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

            Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
            Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
            NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Did Granger Really Mean That Much?

              Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
              The way you make it sound we are very, very fragile. If we are that fragile were we ever legit contenders to begin with? the 2004 Pistons shook up their roster with Rasheed and he led them to a championship. Miami added Oden and it didn't shake them. If the Bynum addition and the Granger trade shook us this much it doesn't say much for our toughness (or lack there of).
              Miami is a veteran team and adding Oden was seen as a counter. If they had added another wing, it would have been a different story. I think the issue is BOTH the Bynum addition and Granger trade. I suspect neither sit well with the team. I don't think Evan Turner is the problem though. I think it's the treatment of Granger and the treatment of the team as a whole by bringing in head-case Bynum. Should cut him right now. I am not a Granger big fan or anything...but they should NOT have traded him.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Did Granger Really Mean That Much?

                I think Bird was under the impression his team had real (highly paid) professionals and locker room leaders that would understand basketball is a business and keep everyone going in the same direction because, you know, championship.

                I don't think Bird's reaction to the Celtics trading his good buddy Cornbread Maxwell in 1985 for Bill Walton was to mope around and resent Red Auerbach.

                It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Did Granger Really Mean That Much?

                  I'd have to think that most of the team was aware that it was highly unlikely Danny would be back next season, anyway.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Did Granger Really Mean That Much?

                    Originally posted by Shade View Post
                    I'd have to think that most of the team was aware that it was highly unlikely Danny would be back next season, anyway.
                    Yes, but after all that Granger paid into the franchise, he really deserved an opportunity to go out in style with a final run for a championship. Instead, he was kicked out of the car like an old dog...and sent to Philly. As many here know, I'm not a Granger big fan. But I recognize what he did for this franchise and so do the other players. They have to feel a lack of loyalty from the franchise.

                    Adding Bynum didn't seem to go over well from the comments I've seen. But it's not really clear. None of this is crystal clear.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Did Granger Really Mean That Much?

                      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post

                      Adding Bynum didn't seem to go over well from the comments I've seen. But it's not really clear. None of this is crystal clear.
                      Besides Mahinmi (who's played better since then), I haven't seen anyone upset about adding Bynum. Did I miss something?

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Did Granger Really Mean That Much?

                        Originally posted by PR07 View Post
                        Besides Mahinmi (who's played better since then), I haven't seen anyone upset about adding Bynum. Did I miss something?
                        Yes, you missed something. When you acquire a former all-star 20 and 10 guy who should help, you normally would see excitement. That's not what I'm reading here:

                        Paul George:
                        "You can't pass up on a huge talent like that and I expect him to be able to help us if he comes in with an attitude to buy into our program," "He'll have to prove a lot to himself, whether he wants to play or not. If he comes in ready to go, ready to put in the work, really buying into our program, we have no problem being there for him." But with him, it's 'ifs' because he's been through so many programs in the early stage (of his career). Whether he wants to stay committed to us is ... a big gamble on our behalf."


                        However, some of the other Pacers did not show outward eagerness to address their new teammate. When approached by the team's director of media relations because reporters had requested him, David West responded: "What's Larry say? If you have any questions ask Frank."


                        George Hill backed up West. "Ask Frank," Hill repeated, while both players walked towards the locker room. "He said he don't want to talk about it. Ask Frank."


                        http://www.indystar.com/story/sports...eason/5102137/
                        Source: Indy Start

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Did Granger Really Mean That Much?

                          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                          Yes, you missed something. When you acquire a former all-star 20 and 10 guy who should help, you normally would see excitement. That's not what I'm reading here:

                          Paul George:
                          "You can't pass up on a huge talent like that and I expect him to be able to help us if he comes in with an attitude to buy into our program," "He'll have to prove a lot to himself, whether he wants to play or not. If he comes in ready to go, ready to put in the work, really buying into our program, we have no problem being there for him." But with him, it's 'ifs' because he's been through so many programs in the early stage (of his career). Whether he wants to stay committed to us is ... a big gamble on our behalf."


                          However, some of the other Pacers did not show outward eagerness to address their new teammate. When approached by the team's director of media relations because reporters had requested him, David West responded: "What's Larry say? If you have any questions ask Frank."


                          George Hill backed up West. "Ask Frank," Hill repeated, while both players walked towards the locker room. "He said he don't want to talk about it. Ask Frank."


                          http://www.indystar.com/story/sports...eason/5102137/
                          Source: Indy Start
                          Ok, but that's on Bynum to prove himself, not Larry for bringing him in. He can always release him at any time if he wants.

                          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Did Granger Really Mean That Much?

                            Look, Evan Turner, Andrew Bynum and LaVoy Allen are Pacers and I will cheer for them and root for their success as such. They are just as much part of the team now as any other Pacer.

                            ALL of what I'm about to say is clearly just fan speculation. I don't claim to have any insider knowledge into the locker room or the psyche of the players inside it.

                            That being said, I think that the addition of Bynum, and trading away Danny have both had a net negative effect on our team thus far.

                            It seems to me like our guys were rolling and were trying to work through the tough patches of our game and then all of a sudden WHAM! Andrew Bynum is on the team now. The media circus descends and our guys are left wondering all of a sudden if their efforts are not being recognized by the front office. If our chemistry on the court is not 'good enough' any more. The seeds of "you guys are buying too much into your own hype" have now been planted. To his credit, Ian has taken this in stride and played very well. But our other guys, you just have to wonder if they subconsciously started to get timid by this shakeup. "What, you have so little faith in us you bring in a broken down head case to 'Help Us'!?!?"

                            Trade deadline rolls around. WHAM, the face of the franchise for the better part of a decade is gone. A friend and mentor to our young superstar, a guy who has been the very definition of a team and community leader and rock. Gone, for yet another player with 'iffy' chemistry and attitude issues, not to mention some 'Lance-redundancy' and a backup PF (As if Scola and/or Cope needed more reason to be frustrated).

                            Again, I am not saying that this is the only, or even the major reason for our struggles. We've not been the same for quite some time. But it has dipped noticeably lower in the post-trade deadline time.

                            We don't know what's going on in the locker room. We don't know who, what, where, when, why or how these things are affecting each player or the team as a whole.

                            All we can do is speculate. And from where I'm sitting right now, I have to be honest. The moves to bring in Bynum, Trade Danny and cut OJ for Turner and Allen... I don't know. I just don't know if it was worth it or not, guys.

                            I was saying this in my initial heated reactions to the Philly trade. I HATED it. Sometimes it's not just all about stats, who's hot and who's cold, speculation this and hypothetical that. The moves were made, the trades are done. We've made our bed, now we have to sleep in it. But the new sheets and pillow may not be as cushy and comfortable as we all had initially assumed they would be.

                            Sometimes the old, ratty blanket and pillow is the best. And that's OK.

                            Again, 100% speculation. The team could go rattle off 15 straight dominating wins and prove this entirely wrong. I hope they do.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Did Granger Really Mean That Much?

                              I'm not a fan of the moves mostly on a, it is the wrong way to go about winning a championship and in my opinion cheapens it a bit. I'm not a fan of buying a championship. When you have already built a team competing for a championship, those moves are akin to trying to buy it.

                              With that said, these moves shouldn't be the cause of this. If they are you have to question how well Larry really understands the culture within the locker room he built. You always heard about how abnormal the togetherness of this team was for the NBA. Maybe Bird didn't understand what that meant.

                              If it is really a result of the Granger trade (which I kind of doubt) I doubt it will last for very long. This is just an aftershock, and it will go away before the playoffs. The only question is how much different will things be, and will they be for the better or worse.


                              Also **** professionalism, this is basketball not an office. Emotions are part of the game, and to ignore that is frankly idiotic. You don't win championships on running your team as if it is a business where you can add and remove human assets willy nilly anymore than you win it on blind loyalty and sentimentalism.



                              Finally, I think a bigger issue might be injuries. Lance, Paul, Hill, and Watson have all received injuries lately that could easily affect their play. Also Turner is not a PG.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Did Granger Really Mean That Much?

                                Look, as someone who supported the Granger for Turner trade, I can certainly admit that several of the players were probably upset about it. It's understandable since Granger was such a likable teammate and mentor for so long. That being said, the grace period for sulking is over. I can sympathize with them being upset to a point, but it's time to get over it if that's indeed the cause (it might have affected things a little bit, but I think the issues are much deeper than DG since we started looking off before he was shipped away).

                                While I can sympathize with them being upset over DG, I have zero sympathy for anyone who is upset about Bynum being brought in. I don't care if you like the guy or not, sack up and deal with it while embracing him as your teammate. You haven't won a championship yet and it's the job of the GM to put the best possible product on the floor. Since arriving in Indy, Bynum has done nothing but say the right things and work towards getting on the court. If the guys still can't embrace him then it's on them to put their egos aside and be a good teammate. If Jordan and Pippen can embrace Rodman, who I"m sure they despised after playing Detroit in the playoffs early in their careers, then these guys should easily to be able to embrace Bynum. But I'm not sure that he's the cause of anything negative though since he always seems to be yucking it up with guys on the bench. That trade is already a net positive IMO since it clearly lit a fire under Mahinmi's ***.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X