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

Vogel interviewed by Rockets (Update post #91 - Vogel no longer a candidate

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

  • #91
    Re: Vogel interviewed by Houston Rockets

    Originally posted by joeyd View Post
    Don't expect any resolution to Vogel's situation in the very immediate future. The wifey flew off to FL today and Frank and his family were on the same plane.

    Don't know quite what it means in terms of salary he earned or will command, but for those wanting to know, he flew coach, like us regular guys and gals.
    Probably taking a vacation.

    As for the immediate future, Larry would not have any trouble hiring him over the phone. (grin)

    However, even if Bird comes back and hires him it will still take awhile. Bird wants to interview other people for the job. Vogel will still get the last interview. I think it's then Bird will either hire him or tell him he's going to hire someone else.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Vogel interviewed by Houston Rockets

      Looks like Vogel is not among the three finalists

      http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...=Google+Reader


      Commentary

      McHale an intriguing gamble if Morey's willing to roll the dice

      By RICHARD JUSTICE
      Copyright 2011 Houston Chronicle

      When Rockets general manager Daryl Morey is asked about the qualities he's looking for in a head coach, he almost always begins with the same simple phrase.

      "A leader of men."
      If that's true, this will be an especially tough hire for someone who believes data — that is, data collected, studied and interpreted - offers the best assessment for rosters, strategy, coaching, etc.

      If that's true, this will be an especially tough hire for someone who believes data - that is, data collected, studied and interpreted - offers the best assessment for rosters, strategy, coaching, etc.

      Problem is, there may not be enough data on earth to measure leadership and to figure out why some men can lead a group of men and others can't.

      With the Rockets' search for a new coach focused on three finalists - Lawrence Frank, Dwane Casey and Kevin McHale - Morey's ultimate recommendation to owner Leslie Alexander might not come down to something that shows up on a spreadsheet.

      I'm guessing Morey's head - and his spreadsheet - are telling him to hire Frank, a Celtics assistant who has far more head coaching experience than the other two candidates combined and is respected around the NBA for his preparation, organization and intelligence.
      Frank, 40, led the Nets to four playoff appearances and seems to be something of a Jeff Van Gundy clone in the thoroughness and seriousness with which he approaches the job. He compiled a 225-241 record as a head coach. Alexander's first two coaching hires were Van Gundy and Rick Adelman, so he clearly values experience.

      Casey, 54, would also be a conventional hire. He's a longtime NBA guy and highly regarded. He's only 53-69 in his time as a head coach, but he was put in a tough situation with the Timberwolves.

      'An NBA survivor'

      He also coached in Japan for five years and worked as an assistant for George Karl and Nate McMillan before joining Rick Carlisle's staff in Dallas. He's an NBA survivor, a favorite of almost everyone who knows him. His range of experience leaves few holes in his résumé .
      And there's McHale.

      He's the tough call. He's the unusual call. He's the guy who could make a general manager look brilliant. Or get him fired.

      When Morey parted ways with Adelman, he understood he might have been putting his job on the line. Bringing Adelman back would have been the safe move.

      "But," Morey said, "why have this job if you're not willing to take a chance?"

      Hiring McHale would be taking a huge chance. He's 53 and has little head coaching experience - 39-55 during two interim stints with the Timberwolves.

      His coaching work has received much kinder reviews than his work as a general manager, but McHale hasn't distinguished himself in either job. In an interesting twist, it was his poor decisions as a general manager that doomed him to fail as a coach.

      When McHale was fired by the Timberwolves two years ago, some thought he might retreat to his Minnesota cabin and never return. Now he's tanned, rested and ready to give it another go, and even though there are about eight dozen really good reasons not to hire him, he has something that may be more important than all the X's and O's in the world combined.

      McHale has presence. He's 6-10 and carries himself with the confidence of a guy who was a three-time NBA champion and one of the league's 50 best players ever.

      He has people skills, too, and is instantly likable and relentlessly positive. As a coach, he excelled as a teacher of fundamentals and was highly regarded by his players.

      The thing that makes him a risk is that most of his NBA experience has been as a player or front-office executive. But his buddy, Larry Bird, was a successful head coach because he understood the things he didn't know. He surrounded himself with people to help with scouting reports, strategy and the like.

      Alexander gets final say

      Bird brought to the table an impressive résumé and an understanding of what players want. McHale could be like that. His force of personality and experience as a star player make him an intriguing candidate.

      He's exactly the kind of unconventional candidate who might appeal to an unconventional general manager. He could also chase Morey right back to computer lab.

      Ultimately, the decision will be Alexander's. His previous coaching hires were safe choices, and McHale would be anything but.

      The Rockets have missed the playoffs for two straight years, but with salary-cap room, two first-round draft picks and a nice core of vet-erans, Morey will for the first time have an opportunity to upgrade the roster.

      He has been fearless about taking chances on players in his four years on the job. Is he willing to gamble on a coach as well? In the end, that's what this search ap-pears to have come down to.
      richard.justice@chron.com
      Last edited by Unclebuck; 05-09-2011, 08:51 AM.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Vogel interviewed by Rockets (Update post #91 - Vogel no longer a candidate

        Originally posted by Dick Justice (awesome porn name)

        With the Rockets' search for a new coach focused on three finalists - Lawrence Frank, Dwane Casey and Kevin McHale - Morey's ultimate recommendation to owner Leslie Alexander might not come down to something that shows up on a spreadsheet.
        I don't think it is any surprise that Vogel is no longer being considered. If he's getting a head job this summer, it's going to be here. He just doesn't have the pedigree yet to warrant serious consideration for a different organization. I'd question if he has the pedigree to warrant serious consideration from this organization, but the Vogelphiles will obviously disagree. If he doesn't get this job, which I don't believe he will, he'll more than likely get a lead assistant role with a bigger name head coach in a different city.

        This is a few days old, and may have already been mentioned, but I haven't seen it.

        I think the bigger news is Mike Brown removing his name from the hat for the Rockets' job. It would not surprise me one bit if he's holding out for the Pacers' job, knowing that the Pacers will give him a very hard look. I'm going to make an educated guess, and say Brown is the clear front runner to be the next Pacers' head coach.

        http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat...ith-ric-bucher

        Seeing these Frank Vogel - Houston reports floating around, do you think the Pacers move in and make an offer to him? Or is this indicative that the Pacers are looking elsewhere?

        Ric Bucher (1:30 PM)


        From what i've heard, Frank is not at the top of their list, even though it seems likely that Bird is staying. Hard to see Houston jumping out on Vogel -- competition isn't that stiff. Rockets were hoping Stan Van Gundy would get bounced (or let's say some people were pushing the Rockets hard to go after SVG if he got bounced) but the latest I've heard is that Dwane Casey is a strong option with Mike Brown taking himself out of the running.

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Vogel interviewed by Rockets (Update post #91 - Vogel no longer a candidate

          Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
          I don't think it is any surprise that Vogel is no longer being considered. If he's getting a head job this summer, it's going to be here. He just doesn't have the pedigree yet to warrant serious consideration for a different organization. I'd question if he has the pedigree to warrant serious consideration from this organization, but the Vogelphiles will obviously disagree. If he doesn't get this job, which I don't believe he will, he'll more than likely get a lead assistant role with a bigger name head coach in a different city.

          This is a few days old, and may have already been mentioned, but I haven't seen it.

          I think the bigger news is Mike Brown removing his name from the hat for the Rockets' job. It would not surprise me one bit if he's holding out for the Pacers' job, knowing that the Pacers will give him a very hard look. I'm going to make an educated guess, and say Brown is the clear front runner to be the next Pacers' head coach.

          http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat...ith-ric-bucher
          Yes, I see Vogel getting a nice pay increase and clearly being a lead assistant somewhere.

          Interesting that even if Bird stays Vogel is not the guy Bird wants to be the head coach.

          Reading between the lines it appears Mike Brown is the guy - I am more than fine with that. And he'll bring in his own assistants. Wonder if Vogel would be a candidate for that under brown here.
          Last edited by Unclebuck; 05-09-2011, 10:01 AM.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Vogel interviewed by Rockets (Update post #91 - Vogel no longer a candidate

            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
            OK, so Bucher is saying that Brown has taken himself out of the running for the Rockets job? Just a little confusing, is he saying that Vogel is not the frontrunner to get the job here?
            Bucher is saying that Brown removed himself from the Rocket's head coaching race. He is also saying that Vogel is not at the top of the Pacers' candidate list.

            So yes, he's saying both things.

            Here's the only other thing I could find that mentions it, and it quotes the same chat from Bucher.

            http://www.iamagm.com/news/2011/05/0...coach.position

            Originally posted by IamAGM
            Mike Brown has officially dropped out of the race for the Houston Rockets head coaching job. Brown, who lead the Cleveland Cavaliers to two straight 60 win seasons from 2008-2010, is also being considered by the Golden State Warriors and Indiana Pacers for their head coaching positions. The Rockets were very high on Brown, but they now have to look elswhere for a head coach.

            According to Ric Bucher from ESPN.com:

            Originally posted by Bucher's chat
            Jackson (NYC)
            Seeing these Frank Vogel - Houston reports floating around, do you think the Pacers move in and make an offer to him? Or is this indicative that the Pacers are looking elsewhere?

            Ric Bucher
            From what i've heard, Frank is not at the top of their list, even though it seems likely that Bird is staying. Hard to see Houston jumping out on Vogel -- competition isn't that stiff. Rockets were hoping Stan Van Gundy would get bounced (or let's say some people were pushing the Rockets hard to go after SVG if he got bounced) but the latest I've heard is that Dwane Casey is a strong option with Mike Brown taking himself out of the running.

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Vogel interviewed by Rockets (Update post #91 - Vogel no longer a candidate

              What are the possible reasons he dropped out of getting the Rockets job when it appeared as though that is who the Rockets wanted. Mackey - I think you are correct probably means he wants to come here. Unless Brown thinks he is a strong candidate for the Lakers job. Nothing keeping the Lakers from letting Brown know that he is on their short list.

              or maybe Brown has decided he wants to take another year off. I doubt that though.

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Vogel interviewed by Rockets (Update post #91 - Vogel no longer a candidate

                That Laker job would look pretty enticing too.
                You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Vogel interviewed by Rockets (Update post #91 - Vogel no longer a candidate

                  I can't see the Lakers considering Brown, but if they do, that will change things for him entirely.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Vogel interviewed by Rockets (Update post #91 - Vogel no longer a candidate

                    Mackey, I think your read on things is on point.

                    I do wonder where some of the outlier candidates like the Rifleman (Person) and Dwane Casey sit in Bird's mind?

                    If Mike Brown is seriously interested in this job, that gives a fan like me a tinge of a good feeling that he passed on the Rockets opportunity to prioritize this job.

                    I continue to pray that we really do a thorough interview process that involves the players and considers at least 3-4 options in addition to Vogel.

                    Love what Vogel did, but not foolhardy to look myopically at our options because of this.

                    If Vogel passes this level of comparison, then I'm totally supportive and happy to see him here. IMO, a lot of signs point to him not getting the job. Would love to see him continuing to be a part of the team though.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Vogel interviewed by Rockets (Update post #91 - Vogel no longer a candidate

                      So wait, this whole line of speculation is based on Bucher's chats?

                      Originally posted by Bucher in April
                      Ric Bucher
                      (1:24 PM)

                      I've seen Frank's work up close. He's very impressive. If the Pacers change their front office, which I'm hearing they are likely to do, then it would stand to reason that the new regime would want to select the coach. But Vogel is as solid and composed in huddles as any coach I've seen. He's made a few questionable decisions, but he deserves a shot at being more than an interim. If not in Indy, somewhere else.
                      Originally posted by Bucher in May
                      Ric Bucher
                      (1:30 PM)

                      From what i've heard, Frank is not at the top of their list, even though it seems likely that Bird is staying. Hard to see Houston jumping out on Vogel -- competition isn't that stiff. Rockets were hoping Stan Van Gundy would get bounced (or let's say some people were pushing the Rockets hard to go after SVG if he got bounced) but the latest I've heard is that Dwane Casey is a strong option with Mike Brown taking himself out of the running.
                      Granted, things might have changed in between the chats, but you'd think a journalist would acknowledge that. I'm seriously wondering where Bucher is hearing these things.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Vogel interviewed by Rockets (Update post #91 - Vogel no longer a candidate

                        Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                        So wait, this whole line of speculation is based on Bucher's chats?

                        Granted, things might have changed in between the chats, but you'd think a journalist would acknowledge that. I'm seriously wondering where Bucher is hearing these things.
                        I've been one of many speculating Mike Brown to be the guy for some time. This is just a little validation for that speculation.

                        Obviously, nothing is guaranteed at this point. Many variables are in play.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Vogel interviewed by Rockets (Update post #91 - Vogel no longer a candidate



                          I really think Vogel earned the job.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Vogel interviewed by Rockets (Update post #91 - Vogel no longer a candidate

                            Originally posted by Sookie View Post


                            I really think Vogel earned the job.

                            he probably did. But put yourself in Bird's shoes. What if he likes the job Vogel did but he just thinks Mike brown is a better coach, that Mike Brown is one of the top 4 or 5 coaches in the NBA.

                            I'm not asking you to agree with Bird, but for this discussion, lets say you do, and if the owner will pay enough to get Brown and he wants to come here, don't you have to hire him.

                            The GM's job is on the line so heneeds to get the best possible coach (in his estimation) that he can.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Vogel interviewed by Rockets (Update post #91 - Vogel no longer a candidate

                              When I heard about Mike Brown taking his name out of the running for the Rockets job, my first thought was he wants the Lakers gig.

                              But more and more reports lean to the Lakers going with Brian Shaw since he knows Phil's coaching style and the triangle offense so well. Plus Phil himself has stated he would like one of his assistants to take over.

                              So if Mike Brown is privy to all of this, maybe he is holding out for the Pacers job......which would be pretty sweet in my opinion. I like Vogel, but it would be hard to turn down Brown if he wants the job.
                              I know "Sleeze" is spelled incorrectly. I spell it this way because it's based on a name.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Vogel interviewed by Rockets (Update post #91 - Vogel no longer a candidate

                                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                                Interesting that even if Bird stays Vogel is not the guy Bird wants to be the head coach.
                                We're extrapolating a line in a chat as a report from the source again. Bucher says Vogel is not the guy Bird wants. We should be careful not to start thinking that Bird said this somewhere.
                                BillS

                                A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                                Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X