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

It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

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

  • #61
    Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

    Donnie was the one who said we needed to "reload" instead of "rebuild" because this market wouldn't tolerate the losing. I guess he was half right.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

      Originally posted by Larry Staverman View Post
      Donnie was the one who said we needed to "reload" instead of "rebuild" because this market wouldn't tolerate the losing. I guess he was half right.
      Except he started reloading before the team was out of ammo.
      Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

      ------

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

      -John Wooden

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

        Originally posted by BillS View Post
        I tried to stay quiet, I really did...

        Donnie decided to go for (and stick with) talent because he needed to do something to get the team over the top. It failed because of the personnel involved, because of the Pacers' complete inexperience at dealing with wackos, and because of injuries which either destroyed potential or essentially crippled building blocks.

        It was the opposite of "Donnie Do-Nothing", but he gets no credit because it blew up in his face - which is why he never tried it before.
        great post, I agree.

        as Donnie admitted, I think after he traded Ron. Donnie admitted he "fell in love with talent"

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
          Tell me with 100% certainty what he was responsible for under Walsh. If you can definatively draw a line between what he did, and what Donnie did, then I'll agree with you.
          I'm not playing that game. For example, everyone and their mother knows that Larry was the one who got rid of Isiah. But no, there's always the conspiracy theory that Donnie knew that he needed to get rid of Isiah, and he used Larry as cover. Wait until after Jermaine re-signed, and then get rid of him. Regardless of the fact that he'd already let Isiah hire new assistants.

          I can throw out that a week after Rick's hired, Larry fires half the scouts and brings in his friend Joe Ash to run things. But no, I'm sure Donnie wanted to get rid of guys who were to blame for all those horrible drafts we had in the '90's.

          And then, after working on the bench for 25 years, David Craig was abruptly kicked upstairs and the entire medical staff was redone. I'm sure that had just been on Donnie's list of things to do, right in the middle of training camp.

          It's just a coincidence that the entire organization was turned upside down within three months of Larry coming back. Nothing to see here. And surely everything that happened over the next five years, nah, Larry can't be held responsible for any of that, either.

          Look, if I had notarized documentation of everything Larry Bird did, people would just say they were forgeries. Why should we possibly believe that Larry did what he was hired to do, run the basketball operations of Pacers Sports and Entertainment while Donnie took a step back and focused on the business side of things. It's so much easier to look the other way and believe Donnie was the evil puppet master, orchestrating every move, and Larry just went along with it.

          Look, in no way am I saying that Donnie doesn't deserve serious blame. "The buck stops here", to quote Truman. But does that mean we shouldn't hold MacArthur responsible for mistakes he made in Korea? Or should we say maybe they weren't his mistakes, he was just following orders.
          Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

            The real problem with where the blame falls has roots in the fact that the transition took too long.... IMHO...

            There's just no way to know what would've been different without the two-headed monster in place. As long as you have a committee building a horse you're liable to get a donkey...

            But there are no excuses now. There better be some brilliance at the end of this "3 year plan" or else I suspect there will be torches and pitchforks coming quickly. You can't basically 'do nothing' and hide behind a mythical plan to do 'nothing' and then expect people to be understanding if you don't hit a blackjack right away at the end of it.

            Nobody is going to convince me that spinning our wheels for 3 years shouldn't have involved some end of the season (if not full season) 'tanking' so I'm skeptical there's much brilliance involved in a 3 year plan to do nothing.

            And for the record, tanking doesn't mean losing on purpose. It means trying to win with players that maybe don't give you the best short term chance at winning... but players that are part of the future in one form or the other. Not players that you are waiting on their contracts to expire...
            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

            ------

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

            -John Wooden

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

              Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
              I'm not playing that game. For example, everyone and their mother knows that Larry was the one who got rid of Isiah. But no, there's always the conspiracy theory that Donnie knew that he needed to get rid of Isiah, and he used Larry as cover. Wait until after Jermaine re-signed, and then get rid of him. Regardless of the fact that he'd already let Isiah hire new assistants.

              I can throw out that a week after Rick's hired, Larry fires half the scouts and brings in his friend Joe Ash to run things. But no, I'm sure Donnie wanted to get rid of guys who were to blame for all those horrible drafts we had in the '90's.

              And then, after working on the bench for 25 years, David Craig was abruptly kicked upstairs and the entire medical staff was redone. I'm sure that had just been on Donnie's list of things to do, right in the middle of training camp.

              It's just a coincidence that the entire organization was turned upside down within three months of Larry coming back. Nothing to see here. And surely everything that happened over the next five years, nah, Larry can't be held responsible for any of that, either.

              Look, if I had notarized documentation of everything Larry Bird did, people would just say they were forgeries. Why should we possibly believe that Larry did what he was hired to do, run the basketball operations of Pacers Sports and Entertainment while Donnie took a step back and focused on the business side of things. It's so much easier to look the other way and believe Donnie was the evil puppet master, orchestrating every move, and Larry just went along with it.

              Look, in no way am I saying that Donnie doesn't deserve serious blame. "The buck stops here", to quote Truman. But does that mean we shouldn't hold MacArthur responsible for mistakes he made in Korea? Or should we say maybe they weren't his mistakes, he was just following orders.
              You make good points.

              Now keep in mind that things changed with regards to how much power Larry/Donnie had after the Brawl. It is my understanding that this event caused Donnie to re-take the reins.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

                Originally posted by Bball View Post
                And for the record, tanking doesn't mean losing on purpose. It means trying to win with players that maybe don't give you the best short term chance at winning... but players that are part of the future in one form or the other. Not players that you are waiting on their contracts to expire...
                No, it means playing without your best players on the court when they are fully capable of playing.

                Again, the argument that the young guys are better than the guys : was playing is NOT THE SAME ARGUMENT.

                I maintain you cannot keep fans nor can you keep team chemistry when the better guys are benched. Isn't that supposedly the whole argument made for why : somehow lost the team? You can't have both - players hate : because he plays worse players AND somehow that the better strategy would be to play the worse players and lose.
                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


                • #68
                  Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

                  Originally posted by BillS View Post
                  No, it means playing without your best players on the court when they are fully capable of playing.

                  Again, the argument that the young guys are better than the guys : was playing is NOT THE SAME ARGUMENT.

                  I maintain you cannot keep fans nor can you keep team chemistry when the better guys are benched. Isn't that supposedly the whole argument made for why : somehow lost the team? You can't have both - players hate : because he plays worse players AND somehow that the better strategy would be to play the worse players and lose.
                  Maybe instead of using lotto picks on 24 year old 15 minute role players, who were ready now. We could have taken some 19-20 year old high upside prospects?

                  To be a franchise builder you have to have vision. You need to see past today.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

                    Originally posted by BillS View Post
                    No, it means playing without your best players on the court when they are fully capable of playing.

                    Again, the argument that the young guys are better than the guys : was playing is NOT THE SAME ARGUMENT.

                    I maintain you cannot keep fans nor can you keep team chemistry when the better guys are benched. Isn't that supposedly the whole argument made for why : somehow lost the team? You can't have both - players hate : because he plays worse players AND somehow that the better strategy would be to play the worse players and lose.
                    All this makes sense... unless you're on a 3 year plan to do nothing but let large contracts expire... and you're losing anyway. Casual fans don't care if you lose 30 games or 18 games. You're still a loser. And NBA aficionados understand what you're doing and enjoy watching the player development and speculating about the college stud you'll be able to draft in the first few picks of the draft.

                    And nobody said you don't play the 'better' players at all... you just expand the rotation and shave some minutes off their PT. And you keep the hook under the bench and don't yank an inexperienced player for a mistake or two.
                    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                    ------

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

                    -John Wooden

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post

                      Larry doesn't have anyone to trade, but Granger. After the JO trade, there was literally nothing else that could be done, except wait it out.

                      I understand what you are saying but there have been other GM's who had nothing to work with that have made trades. Chris M./GS, probably about as inept GM as there has ever been, unloaded 2 albatross contracts off on Walsh/Bird, so it can be done. Then Jackson and Harrington took GS to the playoffs that year knocking off Dallas. Neither Walsh nor Bird has been able to unload either Murphy or Dunleavy nor get the Pacers in the playoffs with Murphy or Dunleavy.

                      This off season Kahn unloaded Al Jefferson's contract, BC unloaded Turk's contract, Riley unloaded Maggette's contract. It can be done even when your hands are tied with little to work with.


                      For those that think it was all Walsh b4 Bird took over.

                      Conrad Brunner article of 9/28/07. Quote from his Bird interview.

                      Bird: "I've been involved in this for four years, and I'm not saying I sat back when all this other stuff happened because I was involved."

                      Straight from the horse's mouth that he was involved in the decision making. It wasn't just all Walsh while Walsh was in the FO.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

                        Originally posted by aaronb View Post
                        Maybe instead of using lotto picks on 24 year old 15 minute role players, who were ready now. We could have taken some 19-20 year old high upside prospects?

                        To be a franchise builder you have to have vision. You need to see past today.
                        Are you seeing past today? Because it looks as if you're writing off Roy, Brandon, Tyler, and AJ all as "15 minute role players" who will never be more than that.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

                          Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
                          I'm not playing that game. For example, everyone and their mother knows that Larry was the one who got rid of Isiah. But no, there's always the conspiracy theory that Donnie knew that he needed to get rid of Isiah, and he used Larry as cover. Wait until after Jermaine re-signed, and then get rid of him. Regardless of the fact that he'd already let Isiah hire new assistants.

                          I can throw out that a week after Rick's hired, Larry fires half the scouts and brings in his friend Joe Ash to run things. But no, I'm sure Donnie wanted to get rid of guys who were to blame for all those horrible drafts we had in the '90's.

                          And then, after working on the bench for 25 years, David Craig was abruptly kicked upstairs and the entire medical staff was redone. I'm sure that had just been on Donnie's list of things to do, right in the middle of training camp.

                          It's just a coincidence that the entire organization was turned upside down within three months of Larry coming back. Nothing to see here. And surely everything that happened over the next five years, nah, Larry can't be held responsible for any of that, either.

                          Look, if I had notarized documentation of everything Larry Bird did, people would just say they were forgeries. Why should we possibly believe that Larry did what he was hired to do, run the basketball operations of Pacers Sports and Entertainment while Donnie took a step back and focused on the business side of things. It's so much easier to look the other way and believe Donnie was the evil puppet master, orchestrating every move, and Larry just went along with it.

                          Look, in no way am I saying that Donnie doesn't deserve serious blame. "The buck stops here", to quote Truman. But does that mean we shouldn't hold MacArthur responsible for mistakes he made in Korea? Or should we say maybe they weren't his mistakes, he was just following orders.
                          For not playing the game, you sure got a pretty good list going.

                          My question is this. Did Isiah need to go or not? I think most would agree yes. You're denying the theory that Donnie brought in Bird to do it.

                          Why, is my question. You really think someone that's been in power as long as Donnie had been would just hire someone and then let them have free reign on whatever decisions they want? Seriously?

                          Quite frankly, I think Donnie viewed RC as a better candidate and greenlighted it because they knew they could get Rick in town.

                          Either way, your theor or mine, WE STILL DON'T KNOW THE TRUTH. You could be right, or I could be right, or it could be something completely different.

                          THATS THE FREAKING PROBLEM.

                          And really about David Craig? Kicked up stairs? Most would label that a promotion.


                          And besides, just because changes were brought in right after Larry was hired doesn't mean Donnie didn't okay them before they happened. That's a HUGE point that your just either ignoring or assuming didn't happen. How do you know that Donnie didn't see these changes as upgrades as well, but the idea just started with Larry? You're making the case like Donnie hired Larry, and then just said "Get to work" and let him do whatever the hell he pleased.

                          Donnie made the final decisions. He's said it. Larry's said it. The Simons have said it. There's no way around it.

                          EDIT: About the promotion of David Craig

                          “David Craig has been a Hall of Fame trainer here for 35 years. He has earned the right to come to the front office and be involved in other areas of the franchise. He will prove to be as invaluable in this position as he was as a trainer.”
                          http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/craig_050620.html

                          Yes, I would definately call that a promotion.
                          Last edited by Since86; 07-28-2010, 01:19 PM.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

                            That wasn't a promotion. What medically-trained athletic trainer that's been working with the team for 35 years wants to become a minor part of middle management?

                            He was canned, but offered another position in the company so that it wouldn't look like he got fired.
                            Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                            Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                            Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                            Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                            And life itself, rushing over me
                            Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                            Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

                              Why would he stay on, because he won many MANY awards for training? He could have gotten a job anywhere he wanted. After being a trainer for the Pacers for 35 freaking years, why wouldn't you want to slow down?

                              I would put my money he got tired of reading comments on here talking about how the training staff sucked because Foster came down with a case of the common cold.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: It took Walsh 8 years, so just maybe Bird deserves a little more time

                                Originally posted by BillS View Post
                                I tried to stay quiet, I really did...

                                Donnie decided to go for (and stick with) talent because he needed to do something to get the team over the top. It failed because of the personnel involved, because of the Pacers' complete inexperience at dealing with wackos, and because of injuries which either destroyed potential or essentially crippled building blocks.

                                It was the opposite of "Donnie Do-Nothing", but he gets no credit because it blew up in his face - which is why he never tried it before.


                                Much to your shock and chagrin I am not only going to agree with you to a point but I will one up you in the support for Donnie in this case.

                                Once things started to collapse Donnie did what any real good employer would do and he did what he always did when dealing with other issues (albiet nothing as bad as this), he stood by his players.

                                He was very much used to dealing with men, men who would not stab him in the back or continue to do the idiotic things that may have brought them to this place.

                                This also blew up in his face and IMO hurt the franchise as much as the issues themselves did. It made it look like the franchise was at best an enabler and at worst a soft supporter of the actions that were taken with what we have all come to call "the casual fan" in the Indianapolis market place.

                                Make no mistake that is who they have to appeal to, right or wrong. It does not matter what some 19 year old in Oakland thinks of the team or the players it does not matter what any East Coast big city fan thinks of them, they don't buy the tickets.

                                I think if he initially would have come out with some form of support statment with the first incident it would have been fine, but by the time we reached 3 or 4 & beyond the team should have started battoning down the hatches and not pretend that these guys were going to act like Reggie, Mark, Jalen, etc. Not the same caliber of person IMO.

                                So to wrap up my rambling thought here, yes while I held Donnie accountable for everything until that last season when he moved up to the box, I do believe he was betrayed by players he tried to show loyalty to.


                                Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X