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

Espn: Windhurst (Pacers going in wrong direction)

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 6
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 template Next
  • #1

    Espn: Windhurst (Pacers going in wrong direction)

    Decent article that elaborates the recent West comments but man are we being written off. 32.5 wins from Vegas and this from this week. Should give the players some motivation. I can't disagree that we'll we a worse team but the core still isn't finished and I still think the odds are we win more then 40 and make the playoffs.

    http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/11...rong-direction

    INDIANAPOLIS -- Any poker player can describe the difference between just losing a hand and suffering a "bad beat."The cards and odds are in your favor, you have the momentum, but suddenly a turn of luck changes everything. It is even worse when the bet was an all-in. The aftermath of such a defeat can be depression. Essentially, those are the circumstances in which the Indiana Pacers find themselves as they prepare for a new season.
    Last year the Pacers went all-in ... and lost. And then came the bad luck. Their two best young players, Lance Stephenson and Paul George, are gone for different reasons. And their division rivals, the Chicago Bulls and Cleveland Cavaliers, have zipped past them in talent.
    The fallout has been sobering.
    More from ESPN.com

    Even though the Bulls have a loaded roster, they still have a lot to prove, Brian Windhorst writes. Story


    "Obviously, we're not in a position to compete for a title," said Pacers veteran David West. "I don't even think we can look at the big picture."
    West is just calling it like he sees it -- many others see it that way too -- and he's been in the league too long for rainbows and lollipops. He's about to begin his 12th season and doesn't speak without careful thought. West is openly saying that he's considered retirement. He can't be blamed for being honest.
    Pacers coach Frank Vogel, as is his nature, is going the opposite direction and searching for the sun through the clouds as he tries to set the tone for the team's season.
    "I actually think continuity is one of our strengths," Vogel said. "We have 10 players back who were with us last year."
    Vogel is correct about that, but the two missing guys are rather glaring. On Tuesday at the Pacers' first practice of the season, the wings playing with the first team were Rodney Stuckey and Solomon Hill. Stuckey is a veteran but a career role player, while Hill is an unproven second-year pro who barely played as a rookie, and his Summer League was cut short because of an ankle injury. Free-agent pickup C.J. Miles could eventually be the starter at one of the wings, but no matter how it's broken down, this is not the same team that won 56 games last season.
    Early in training camp last year, Vogel spelled out to his players that he wanted them to strive to get the No. 1 seed so they could have home-court advantage in a rematch with theMiami Heat. This season the Pacers realize it's going to take some strong work to keep their playoff streak of four consecutive seasons going.
    "It's all about how good can we be, what type of group can we put on the floor to make us competitive," West said. "And try to keep us in the race for a playoff spot."
    There was an admirable aggressiveness to the Pacers last season. They believed the timing was right so they went for it, a strategy that isn't exactly trendy in this era of the "three- to five-year plan" that teams sometimes sell to their fans. They set large and public goals and then pushed the limit throughout last season.
    President Larry Bird traded three pretty good assets -- Miles Plumlee, Gerald Green and the team's 2014 first-round pick -- for Luis Scola to start last season. Then he made two risky moves midseason, trading Danny Granger for Evan Turner and signing Andrew Bynum. Not everything worked out -- the Pacers got the East's No. 1 seed, but lost to the Heat for a second consecutive year in the Eastern Conference finals.
    The Pacers felt comfortable making these moves because their core was young, and even if it didn't work out they felt they'd have time to retool. There was no way they considered that both George, who suffered a terrible broken leg over the summer, and Stephenson would be gone this season.
    [+] EnlargeAP Photo/Michael ConroyGeorge, flanked by Roy Hibbert and David West, hopes to be back this season, but that may be overly optimistic.


    George said this week he thinks he could return late in the season or possibly for the playoffs. Seeing him walk without crutches this week was certainly encouraging, but his being back in a meaningful way this season is unrealistic as far as the team sees it.Rather, the Pacers have to quietly face the fact that with West and Roy Hibbert both owning player options for next season, it's unclear if the core they expertly constructed will ever be together again.
    Certainly, the franchise would've handled Stephenson's contact talks differently if they had the benefit of hindsight. Though it was somewhat obscured by all the other things happening in the league, the dynamics of Stephenson's departure to Charlotte via free agency was one of the most puzzling things that unfolded this past summer.
    The Pacers and Stephenson were just $300,000 apart per year in salary, and he ultimately signed with the Hornets for the higher amount. There was a dispute in terms of length of the deal -- the Pacers wanting five years and Stephenson wanting to go shorter -- but since the money was reasonably close, it seemed there was room to find a deal. If Charlotte had offered a max-level contract, like the offer sheet they signed Gordon Hayward to before theUtah Jazz matched it, then it would be understandable. But the three years and $27 million Stephenson took, with the last year being a friendly team option, seemed to be something the Pacers could have managed easily.
    But acrimony developed during the talks; the Pacers were unwilling to come off their initial offer and Stephenson was unwilling to give them a final chance to match the contract he ultimately signed with Charlotte. After four years of relationship-building that saw Stephenson develop from a risky draft pick to a front-line player, it was odd and unfortunate that the end had an air of pettiness. At that stage of the game, there wasn't room for pettiness.
    It especially looks bad for the Pacers given George's injury. The team simply wasn't in position to replace Stephenson even when George was healthy. It is true that Stephenson wasn't always popular in the locker room and his bad habits on the floor often caused issues. But the talent drain without him would've been felt even if George were still in the lineup.
    There is some belief in the Pacers' organization that going into a season with fewer expectations will actually provide some benefits. Last season, the Pacers were a little jolted when they started getting opposing teams' best efforts every night, and the spotlight was glaring when they started having issues in the second half of the season. As owners of the league's best record for months, the attention they were paid on gossip websites hit some players hard and was absolutely a distraction.
    The Pacers have started this preseason with a mantra to have a renewed focus to stay closer-knit as a team, a passive reference to Stephenson's sometimes anti-team maneuvers. The idea is that chemistry can make up for losses elsewhere, which is a reasonable concept in the always-fragile world of the NBA.
    "From a team standpoint, we need to just come together and make sure we play together," Hibbert said. "We need to share the ball, make sure everybody gets a little piece of the pie."
    There's been talk of watching San Antonio Spurs' game tape to try to mimic how they share the ball, which is a goal for just about every team at every level. The Pacers hope they have a better long-distance shooting roster, and that better ball movement will create better shots (a classic training camp credo).
    Hibbert spent part of the offseason working with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. Hibbert said he drew on Abdul-Jabbar's devotion to martial arts and the importance of balance, noting that sometimes he lost it at times last season. Though Hibbert didn't specify, perhaps his tutor also worked on mental balance because Hibbert's emotional swings often were his own undoing when adversity struck last season.
    Hibbert did some analytics study in the offseason, realizing just how far his shooting percentage dipped with each foot he moved away from the basket. In general, the Pacers -- who had some of the worst spacing in the league at times in their offense last season -- are focusing on getting better in that area.
    "It's accurate to say we're going to be different," Vogel said. "But it doesn't mean we're not going to be just as good."
    When they're at their best, the Pacers should still be an excellent defensive team with top-level rim defender Hibbert in the middle, and they have developed a strong home-court advantage the last several years. They have an experienced roster, and West is a stabilizing force who still has the ability to carry the load on certain nights.
    But there are going to be more long nights than the Pacers have gotten used to lately.
    "I learned a long time ago that in sports you're either getting better or you're getting worse; there is no stay the same," West said.
    "We've taken a step back."
    Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Espn: Windhurst (Pacers going in wrong direction)

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Espn: Windhurst (Pacers going in wrong direction)

      Originally posted by Pacerized View Post

      Certainly, the franchise would've handled Stephenson's contact talks differently if they had the benefit of hindsight. Though it was somewhat obscured by all the other things happening in the league, the dynamics of Stephenson's departure to Charlotte via free agency was one of the most puzzling things that unfolded this past summer.
      The Pacers and Stephenson were just $300,000 apart per year in salary, and he ultimately signed with the Hornets for the higher amount. There was a dispute in terms of length of the deal -- the Pacers wanting five years and Stephenson wanting to go shorter -- but since the money was reasonably close, it seemed there was room to find a deal. If Charlotte had offered a max-level contract, like the offer sheet they signed Gordon Hayward to before theUtah Jazz matched it, then it would be understandable. But the three years and $27 million Stephenson took, with the last year being a friendly team option, seemed to be something the Pacers could have managed easily.
      But acrimony developed during the talks; the Pacers were unwilling to come off their initial offer and Stephenson was unwilling to give them a final chance to match the contract he ultimately signed with Charlotte. After four years of relationship-building that saw Stephenson develop from a risky draft pick to a front-line player, it was odd and unfortunate that the end had an air of pettiness. At that stage of the game, there wasn't room for pettiness.
      It especially looks bad for the Pacers given George's injury. The team simply wasn't in position to replace Stephenson even when George was healthy. It is true that Stephenson wasn't always popular in the locker room and his bad habits on the floor often caused issues. But the talent drain without him would've been felt even if George were still in the lineup.
      This is what I've been saying for awhile. What a shame. The Pacers were ready to cut ties and decided they didn't want to babysit another year. Lance couldn't take not getting love.

      Edit: That's not to say the Pacers were wise to cut ties. In fact, they were foolish for making it clear they were ready to let him loose. That's exactly why he is gone IMO.
      Last edited by BlueNGold; 10-01-2014, 09:37 PM.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Espn: Windhurst (Pacers going in wrong direction)

        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
        Edit: That's not to say the Pacers were wise to cut ties. In fact, they were foolish for making it clear they were ready to let him loose. That's exactly why he is gone IMO.
        You can't assess whether or not it was a good or bad move when nothing has happened on the court yet. The ultimate test will be looking at what we've done vs. Lance has done in the next 5 years or so. If the Pacers wanted to let him loose like you said, they ultimately got what they wanted. You cannot, however, determine whether or not it was foolish. If Lance Stephenson does something stupid and finds himself out of the league in 3 years, we'll look like geniuses for not locking the guy up on a 5 year contract.
        Last edited by BenR1990; 10-01-2014, 09:57 PM.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Espn: Windhurst (Pacers going in wrong direction)

          Windhurst is... not much more than a LeBron jock rider.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Espn: Windhurst (Pacers going in wrong direction)

            Originally posted by BenR1990 View Post
            You can't assess whether or not it was a good or bad move when nothing has happened on the court yet. The ultimate test will be looking at what we've done vs. Lance has done in the next 5 years or so. If the Pacers wanted to let him loose like you said, they ultimately got what they wanted. You cannot, however, determine whether or not it was foolish. If Lance Stephenson does something stupid and finds himself out of the league in 3 years, we'll look like geniuses for not locking the guy up on a 5 year contract.
            I just did assess that. I don't need to wait for something to happen on the court. This reminds me of a year ago when people thought Danny Granger would be starting over Lance Stephenson. It didn't matter how much warning they got, they had to see it with their own eyes. I guess that's OK. We can certainly wait this time too.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Espn: Windhurst (Pacers going in wrong direction)

              Another reason why if Waiters, Varajeo, and a 1st are on the table TRULY for Hibbert, Larry needs to take it.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Espn: Windhurst (Pacers going in wrong direction)

                Originally posted by BenR1990 View Post
                If Lance Stephenson does something stupid and finds himself out of the league in 3 years, we'll look like geniuses for not locking the guy up on a 5 year contract.
                Not geniuses, just lucky. Larry did give him a 5 year contract.


                Also, If Lance continues his upward swing and makes All-Stars, then Larry is going to look even more like a dumb prick from French Lick.
                Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Espn: Windhurst (Pacers going in wrong direction)

                  Originally posted by Grimp View Post
                  Another reason why if Waiters, Varajeo, and a 1st are on the table TRULY for Hibbert, Larry needs to take it.
                  Grimp, that is a stupid deal, and imma tell you why. You get Waiters, who isn't very good and has been a locker room malcontent, the priviledge to overpay a habitually injured Varejao (who is good when healthy, to be fair), and a first round pick that is almost certainly going to be in the late 20s? Yeah, what a ****ing steal man! Oh, and you gift wrap an NBA title to your division rivals!

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Espn: Windhurst (Pacers going in wrong direction)

                    Originally posted by Grimp View Post
                    Another reason why if Waiters, Varajeo, and a 1st are on the table TRULY for Hibbert, Larry needs to take it.
                    So West can retire and PG will walk as soon as he can? You just want to flush it all and start over but our best bet at being back to another ECF is to give this core another shot after PG returns.
                    That is a really bad trade for the Pacers. The first would be #30 if they get Hibbert which is worth less then an early second round pick. Larry isn't giving up on Hibbert unless it's for an all star quality player.
                    Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Espn: Windhurst (Pacers going in wrong direction)

                      Originally posted by Windhorst
                      But acrimony developed during the talks; the Pacers were unwilling to come off their initial offer and Stephenson was unwilling to give them a final chance to match the contract he ultimately signed with Charlotte. After four years of relationship-building that saw Stephenson develop from a risky draft pick to a front-line player, it was odd and unfortunate that the end had an air of pettiness. At that stage of the game, there wasn't room for pettiness.
                      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                      This is what I've been saying for awhile. What a shame. The Pacers were ready to cut ties and decided they didn't want to babysit another year. Lance couldn't take not getting love.

                      Edit: That's not to say the Pacers were wise to cut ties. In fact, they were foolish for making it clear they were ready to let him loose. That's exactly why he is gone IMO.
                      Based of of what Windhorst is saying.....if this is true, then the answer to which side is to blame for Lance leaving is both......the Pacers/Bird wouldn't budge on the offer and # of years on the contract ( which I don't agree with ) and Lance ( for whatever reason ) didn't give the Pacers a chance to match the offer.

                      But IMHO....even if the Pacers/Bird bent on offering a 3 year deal / $9 mil a year.....I get the sense that Lance will would have balked and have chosen Charlotte over Indy. If the assumption is that Lance and his Agent didn't give the Pacers a chance to even make a comparable offer.....then that speaks volumes of his willingness to return. In other words, he didn't want to stay in the first place regardless of what the Pacers offered.
                      Last edited by CableKC; 10-01-2014, 10:29 PM.
                      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Espn: Windhurst (Pacers going in wrong direction)

                        Originally posted by cdash View Post
                        Grimp, that is a stupid deal, and imma tell you why. You get Waiters, who isn't very good and has been a locker room malcontent, the priviledge to overpay a habitually injured Varejao (who is good when healthy, to be fair), and a first round pick that is almost certainly going to be in the late 20s? Yeah, what a ****ing steal man! Oh, and you gift wrap an NBA title to your division rivals!
                        If Hibbert is ever traded....my guess is that it will be to a Western Conference team. But realistically, I think that West has a better chance of being moved before Hibbert is moved. But then again, I can totally see us do literally nothing.....so, what do I know
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Espn: Windhurst (Pacers going in wrong direction)

                          George Hill is never mentioned, and imo has more untapped offensive potential than anyone on this roster outside of PG. If we can somehow unlock some aggression in him, I think he could go bananas in a way and offset our losses. I think having less chefs in the kitchen could also be huge for Hibbert. A lot depends on those two guys this year... but they have it in them if they decide to use it. I don't think we'll be as good as last year but I don't think we'll be as bad as most think. I like Miles, too. And Frank is a good coach. He has to build his legacy this year, show how much he can do with this weakened roster.
                          We lost two guys, but we still have some ballers on this team.
                          There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Espn: Windhurst (Pacers going in wrong direction)

                            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                            I just did assess that. I don't need to wait for something to happen on the court. This reminds me of a year ago when people thought Danny Granger would be starting over Lance Stephenson. It didn't matter how much warning they got, they had to see it with their own eyes. I guess that's OK. We can certainly wait this time too.
                            Yep, you know it all......................

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Espn: Windhurst (Pacers going in wrong direction)

                              Originally posted by Grimp View Post
                              Another reason why if Waiters, Varajeo, and a 1st are on the table TRULY for Hibbert, Larry needs to take it.
                              Even being the massive Syracuse homer I am, I wouldn't even take that deal. Especially with that first round pick ending up anywhere from 28-30th in all likeliness.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 template Next
                              Working...
                              X