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

SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 4
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 template Next
  • #31
    Re: SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

    Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
    Wintermute, the problem is the end of those deals, you just went up in salary using the exception rather than down. Neither player was better than the cheaper versions they already had. You could trade down in salary on Jackson if you were willing to take a talent hit (and in 3pt shooting they took a hit, despite Jack being unsteady himself, along with defense - just ask Dirk) and you could actually trade up in talent on Al due to his lower-than-market deal.

    Heck, I'd bet NOK would love to dump Peja back on Indy for the cheaper Al.

    And in the end that extra year on both of their deals strongly hurts you when it comes time to resign guys like Danny, Ike and Shawne. That's a monster factor IMO. Even in their final year you can't trade them because doing so means you have to be taking back similar salary.

    The ONLY reason you deal for those 2 players is to make a run last year. That's the only reason you deal from a playoff position mid-season. No team rebuilds from the 6th seed in FEB.

    So let's stop sugar-coating it. I understand trying to be reasonable and I'll meet you part of the way. They could somehow, by a minor miracle, find something in Mike and Troy that's not shown up over the last 3-4 years. If that happens and they can raise their game to match their contracts then the team will be much better. Ike could become a real star and make it worth it too. But so far we've seen it get worse as weeks went by, not better.


    Oh, by the way, just what position did the Pacers draft the last 2 years, including one where Bird admitted that he attended his games and picked him out personally? Small Forward. And what is Dunleavy's natural position? That's another aspect that doesn't seem very forward thinking.


    Too many fans got wrapped up in their hate-fest of Jackson to notice that the deal just didn't really make a lot of sense for the Pacers needs on a number of levels. To me that is very non-Walsh like and seems a lot more impulsive actually, as in "Jack has to go as soon as possible, no matter what".

    I know one thing for sure, if the Pacers had gone on a big winning streak the final month and a half and upset Detroit in round 1 plenty of people would be citing those results as signs of how successful the trade was.
    Well all I'm asking is that we keep score THE SAME WAY no matter how it goes. To me it's a lot like "Did we say highest score wins? No, it's lowest score, you misunderstood. I win."
    Uh huh and you would have been on here telling us how smart Donnie Walsh was to have made such a forward thinking trade.

    However the fact that it didn't work to your pleasing, well I guess Larry Bird kneejerked his way into a Chris Mullen head lock and a wedgie to boot.

    Look I can go on one of two things, you and a few other people on here convinced that this was all Larry Birds knee jerk trade to rid the team of Jackson.

    or

    I can listen to Chris Mullen, Donnie Walsh and Larry Bird. All of whom have said that this deal was made by Donnie and Chris over a phone call. I can even listen to Donnie from two weeks ago on WISH tv when he talked about the trade and said "there wasn't a day go by that somebody didn't come up to me and say you have got to get rid of this guy", meaning Jackson.

    So if you still wanna call this a knee jerk trade, fine. But according to everybody involved that kneejerk reaction was made by Walsh.

    However I disagree with all of you on one thing. I don't think this was a knee jerk trade.

    I don't think this was a last min. deal.

    If anything this is another case of Walsh taking his sweet time to pull the trigger.

    However it is my belief that he was holding out for Diogu to be included and that is what finally happened.

    I do not consider the trade a failure yet. Last season was lost no matter what.

    Would they have made the playoffs? Sure, hell it took a herculean effort to lose out the way it was.

    But really was getting in the first round and getting beat by whoever that big of a deal?

    I say no.

    However I'll admit I'm weir here, I wanted that team broken up in the worst possible way. Were almost there, just two more to go and we can actually begin to start fresh.

    I digress

    Anyway since you like stipulations so well I'll make one for you.

    I will freely admit that Larry Bird deserves blame and grief and cursing for every single thing that has happened here since he was brought on.

    You on the other hand have to freely admit that every single solitary thing that Bird does or does not do is the fault/credit of Donnie Walsh

    Who is who's boss?

    Again I go back to the Larry Brown issue. If I am forced to give Walsh any credit for Larry Browns tenure with the club then by God people better be willing to give him the fault to him for what is going on now.

    This downward spiral started years ago, long before Larry Bird came back to the franchise.

    Either way, I don't actually care who is or who is not in charge at the moment. The problem is there is the perception that there are two people in charge and that is one to many.

    Again for everyone reading this. I am NOT a Larry Bird fan.

    In fact I hated hated HATED him as a player from his days at ISU till the day he became the coach of our team.

    I never thought he was a good coach either.

    But it is just wrong for anyone to have to come into this club and have to work along side a man who has been here almost a quarter of a century and be blamed for every single thing that goes wrong when the throngs of Walsh Warriors will blame him for nothing. NOTHING!!!!!

    Wheeeeeeeeewwwwwwwww!!!!!!!

    I really lost it there for a min.

    So to end this I will just say this.

    Go Pacers.


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

    Comment

    • #32
      Re: SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
      Peck, maybe try backing off the euphamisms and still defend your angle.

      Replace "wait and see" with "patience, foresight, thoughtfulness, empathy, contemplation, cool-headedness, saavy".

      Oh yeah, what an idiot to have those qualities.

      Maybe the point is (since Bird says HE LEARNED FROM DW, as opposed to teaching DW some new tricks) that he was often ready to go off half-caulked *stupid filter* and rush into some choices that weren't always that smart.

      We're debating his role all over again, but we know 100% that Bird spent months in Europe and came back with Saras. We also know Bird was the guy who loved Peja. We also know Bird, ala Larry Brown, likes to administer through the press...the exact thing AI hated about Brown and loved about O'Brien (that he didn't do it). Instead of just saying privately to JO "you're the leader now" he has to make statements to the Star over the last few years, along with "he better live up to that".

      How the heck does that help a situation? What, JO wouldn't know there was pressure on him if Bird didn't publically announce it? All those games do is forge animosity between people, which is exactly why AI (and others) hated it with Larry Brown.


      BTW, Thundermaker is right, and you back him up Peck. If you think DW is "wait and see" and we just read Bird admitting his own impulsiveness, then doesn't that point the finger toward Bird on the GS trade and the finger at DW on the painfully slow ATL trade?


      BTW, during most of DW's career how often did stories come out about where a player or coach claimed they were never given an offer or were seriously low-balled, the stuff that sounds bitter and you brush off as sour grapes if it happens once?

      Now you have it with Peja (Bird's boy no less), SVG, Fred Jones...makes a person wonder if DW jumped the shark or if the new guy involved has altered how some of this stuff is handled.


      Bird either has NO INFLUENCE AND TERRIBLE LUCK to be catching all this negative credit for Walsh's sudden turn into a crap GM, or the shift in how things are being handled does reflect Bird's influence to some degree since it started right about the time he joined the team.
      I'll concede that the Artest for Peja trade and even the 8-player GS/Pacers trade was more Bird than Walsh. But again, I say it was more damage control with a little bit of "finding players who fit the coach's style" than anything else. All we can do know is take a wait-N-see approach...see if things turn around under Bird's direction w/Walsh's continued insight.
      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
      Wintermute, the problem is the end of those deals, you just went up in salary using the exception rather than down. Neither player was better than the cheaper versions they already had. You could trade down in salary on Jackson if you were willing to take a talent hit (and in 3pt shooting they took a hit, despite Jack being unsteady himself, along with defense - just ask Dirk) and you could actually trade up in talent on Al due to his lower-than-market deal.

      Heck, I'd bet NOK would love to dump Peja back on Indy for the cheaper Al.

      And in the end that extra year on both of their deals strongly hurts you when it comes time to resign guys like Danny, Ike and Shawne. That's a monster factor IMO. Even in their final year you can't trade them because doing so means you have to be taking back similar salary.

      The ONLY reason you deal for those 2 players is to make a run last year. That's the only reason you deal from a playoff position mid-season. No team rebuilds from the 6th seed in FEB.

      So let's stop sugar-coating it. I understand trying to be reasonable and I'll meet you part of the way. They could somehow, by a minor miracle, find something in Mike and Troy that's not shown up over the last 3-4 years. If that happens and they can raise their game to match their contracts then the team will be much better. Ike could become a real star and make it worth it too. But so far we've seen it get worse as weeks went by, not better.


      Oh, by the way, just what position did the Pacers draft the last 2 years, including one where Bird admitted that he attended his games and picked him out personally? Small Forward. And what is Dunleavy's natural position? That's another aspect that doesn't seem very forward thinking.


      Too many fans got wrapped up in their hate-fest of Jackson to notice that the deal just didn't really make a lot of sense for the Pacers needs on a number of levels. To me that is very non-Walsh like and seems a lot more impulsive actually, as in "Jack has to go as soon as possible, no matter what".

      I know one thing for sure, if the Pacers had gone on a big winning streak the final month and a half and upset Detroit in round 1 plenty of people would be citing those results as signs of how successful the trade was.
      Well all I'm asking is that we keep score THE SAME WAY no matter how it goes. To me it's a lot like "Did we say highest score wins? No, it's lowest score, you misunderstood. I win."
      If you break the Pacers/GS trade down to just the 2 players from each side who many "see" as the real comparison as whether or not the trade was truly worthwhile - SJax and Al for MDjr and Murphy - then Naptown Seth would be...oh, about....half-right.

      Of the four players, only SJax and MDjr were able to either meet or exceed their stats from their former teams:

      MDjr: GS-39 games, 11.4 ppg; Pacers-43 games, 14.0 ppg.
      82 game avg=12.8 ppg
      '05-06 ppg avg=11.5

      SJax: Pacers-37 games, 11.7 ppg; GS-38, 16.8 ppg.
      75* game avg=15.5 ppg
      '05-06 ppg avg=16.4

      *Didn't play in all 82 games for the '06-07 season

      Depending on how one looks at it, MDjr actually performed better after the trade. However, IMO both players performed exactly as expected. IMO, there are two reasons why we all view SJax's success in a better light than we do MDjr:

      1) SJax played w/much more enthusiasm and zeal. He seems more comfortable w/GS probably because he got what he wanted - the freedom to shot lights out whenever he pleased.
      2) GS made the playoffs.

      It's difficult to compare Al and Murphy because both play at different positions. For that reason, you can't just look at the box scores/individual stats and say one player was better than the other. However, one could justify that both were a wash only because:

      1) Both players were on and off w/their game before and after the trade; and,
      2) Both players were used moreso as deep ball threats...lures if you will...to pull their defender out from underneath the basket. The ONLY difference is that GS didn't have a dominate low-post presence. Al got most of his scoring done on outlet passes from transition play while Murphy got most of his from half-court sets on kick-outs, lane penetration for dunks or put-backs from rebounds. So, to be fair let's just say these two canceled each other out.

      In a free-flowing style of offense, it's very easy for players to thrive because there are no restrictions on play. Players are free to do what they do...be creative...let their natural talents shine through. That's what we saw in GS, and what I hope to see here w/the Pacers under JOB. From that, the hope is that Murphy and MDjr are placed in positions that cater more to their talents and are, therefore, given that same freedom to react naturally than merely "function" while out on the floor. Now, their contracts might still hurt the Pacers in the long run as Naptown surmises, but my hope is that under new leadership they will "unlearn what they have learned" and begin to just let it flow offensively while buckling down defensively. Bottom line is, if they can step up their game their trade value will undoubtedly increase OR they'll get to a point where they'll be retained and Granger and/or Williams value will still increase which would make everything moot.

      So, here's hoping.
      Last edited by NuffSaid; 06-03-2007, 05:46 PM.

      Comment

      • #33
        Re: SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

        Originally posted by Peck View Post
        The problem is there is the perception that there are two people in charge and that is one to many.
        I dont understand why you find it so hard to believe that there are 2 people in charge. It is a hundred times more obsurd to conclude that the Simons have been paying Bird big money for years now just to sit in his office and play Tetris, oh and take vacations to Europe every once in awhile, ALL as part of some elaborate publicity stunt to increase fan interest that obviously hasnt worked.

        You say you would rather believe what TPTB says to the media. Then why do you choose not to believe their story that Bird was brought in to work together with Walsh, learn from him, and eventually replace him.

        And back to the GS trade. While I still believe that it was Bird's idea, I would be willing to accept that it was Donnie's. But there is NO way that they werent BOTH involved in the negotiating, which you adamantly refuse to accept. Just because Walsh says he was the one on the phone doesn't mean that Bird was completely not involved in the dealings. Its not like Donnie just gave Mullin a call and they hammered out a complete deal in 5 mins. Im sure that between the several calls it takes to complete a deal of this magnitude, Donnie must have pulled Bird away from his Tetris-playing for at least a few minutes to get his input.

        Comment

        • #34
          Re: SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

          Originally posted by Mr.ThunderMakeR View Post
          I dont understand why you find it so hard to believe that there are 2 people in charge. It is a hundred times more obsurd to conclude that the Simons have been paying Bird big money for years now just to sit in his office and play Tetris, oh and take vacations to Europe every once in awhile, ALL as part of some elaborate publicity stunt to increase fan interest that obviously hasnt worked.

          You say you would rather believe what TPTB says to the media. Then why do you choose not to believe their story that Bird was brought in to work together with Walsh, learn from him, and eventually replace him.

          And back to the GS trade. While I still believe that it was Bird's idea, I would be willing to accept that it was Donnie's. But there is NO way that they werent BOTH involved in the negotiating, which you adamantly refuse to accept. Just because Walsh says he was the one on the phone doesn't mean that Bird was completely not involved in the dealings. Its not like Donnie just gave Mullin a call and they hammered out a complete deal in 5 mins. Im sure that between the several calls it takes to complete a deal of this magnitude, Donnie must have pulled Bird away from his Tetris-playing for at least a few minutes to get his input.

          Nothing is further from the truth. I fully accept and blame Larry Bird for everything that has gone wrong, however I am not willing to just say it is all on Larry Bird or better yet say that Donnie deserves a pass because of his past dealings with the club.

          My entire problem is not with people who want to blame Bird for how the team is, my problem is with those who only want to blame Bird and act like this is all his fault.

          This is, has been and will be till the day he finally leaves (which i am now pretty much convinced will be after I have died) Donnie Walsh's franchise to run.

          Let's assume for a moment that the trade with G.S. was all Larry Bird, let's say that one day he called up Chris Mullen and said "hey, have I got a deal for you", at the end of the day you don't think Walsh had to sign off on that?

          I argued for years with people the 93-98 was pretty much the single responsibility of Larry Brown, I still believe that. However the one piece of logic I could not get away from was that Walsh did hire Larry Brown so I had to begrudingly give Walsh credit for those years although I didn't want to.

          All I ask now is that if some feel that Larry Bird is making foolish mistakes that the same standard now be applied to Walsh, he has to be given blame for hiring Bird and letting him do whatever it is he does.

          That's it, nothing more nothing less.

          Like I said before I am no Bird fan. I just don't want to once again see teflon Don get away with all of the credit and none of the blame.


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

          Comment

          • #35
            Re: SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

            Let's talk about why Bird gets more critism than Donnie.

            Here's an example for me.

            Originally posted by Bird
            "I'm more 'I can't believe they just did that, let's get them out of here' than Donnie is,'' Bird said. "He sits back and looks at the situation and talks about it. He really tries to figure out what's going to happen next, where I was more of a 'Let's get after a problem and get rid of it.' But I learned a lot in the last few years.''
            Bird says this after the franchise has gotten a lot of critism for not moving players quick enough. Here is Bird saying that all of the non-moves were Donnie. He is saying Donnie did this wrong but Bird has learned a lot about him. Maybe that's true. Maybe Donnie dressed up like Bird for a photo shoot with Ron. I don't know (only Bulletproof fully grasped their relationship) but do you really say that in the media?

            Of all the things Donnie has been classless has never been one of them.
            "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

            "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

            Comment

            • #36
              Re: SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

              I try to make a point to blame each baffoon equally.

              Until they're both fired, (and not just one but both), the franchise will flounder around aimlessly, randomly.

              Like a chicken right after its head has been cut off. Only this is lasting much, much longer.
              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

              • #37
                Re: SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post

                The ONLY reason you deal for those 2 players is to make a run last year. That's the only reason you deal from a playoff position mid-season. No team rebuilds from the 6th seed in FEB.
                seth, i respect your opinions a lot. however, our positions are very far apart on this (which is ok of course). imo, the deal was made exactly to rebuild. yes, in feb. because we like to rebuild-on-the-fly (contending for playoffs while still acquiring young talent) which means in this case that we got "young talent + overpaid players" instead of the more usual "young talent + short contracts" combo that a true rebuilding team looks for.

                diogu is the key to the deal. the talent dropoff from sjax/harrington to dunleavy/murphy is significant but was still enough to contend for a playoff spot in the crappy east.

                my other point is that individually jax might be more untradable than either dun or murph (ok, maybe not murph ). imo nba teams are generally more willing to accept bloated contracts than guys with perceived attitude problems. a talented guy like bonzi wells for example, could see his value drop drastically from mle level to vet min. guys like sjax and sheed are in great situations now, where their contributions are net positives, but if their teams ever decide to move them then i think they'll find a lukewarm market.


                Originally posted by Peck View Post

                However I disagree with all of you on one thing. I don't think this was a knee jerk trade.

                I don't think this was a last min. deal.

                If anything this is another case of Walsh taking his sweet time to pull the trigger.

                However it is my belief that he was holding out for Diogu to be included and that is what finally happened.

                I do not consider the trade a failure yet. Last season was lost no matter what.

                Would they have made the playoffs? Sure, hell it took a herculean effort to lose out the way it was.

                But really was getting in the first round and getting beat by whoever that big of a deal?
                i agree with peck's interpretation of events.

                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                Well all I'm asking is that we keep score THE SAME WAY no matter how it goes. To me it's a lot like "Did we say highest score wins? No, it's lowest score, you misunderstood. I win."
                no, we're keeping score the same way. championships right? so we're tied 0-0 either way i'm just trying to factor in future seasons, that's all.

                Comment

                • #38
                  Re: SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

                  Originally posted by Peck View Post
                  This is, has been and will be till the day he finally leaves (which i am now pretty much convinced will be after I have died) Donnie Walsh's franchise to run.
                  Actually, I forsee a John Adams situation here. On your death bed, your last words will be, "Donnie Walsh still lives", not knowing that he passed just a couple hours before.

                  Either that, or something from Melville.
                  Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                  Comment

                  • #39
                    Re: SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

                    Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
                    Actually, I forsee a John Adams situation here. On your death bed, your last words will be, "Donnie Walsh still lives", not knowing that he passed just a couple hours before.
                    I would like to see a show of hands of people who actually know what you're refering to, Mr. AP History Man.

                    Comment

                    • #40
                      Re: SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

                      Comment

                      • #41
                        Re: SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

                        I got the reference. And want to thank Kegboy for a couple of hilarious lines while I have been catching up on the posts.
                        ! Free Rick Sanchez !

                        Comment

                        • #42
                          Re: SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

                          Uh huh and you would have been on here telling us how smart Donnie Walsh was to have made such a forward thinking trade.
                          The ONLY REASON I suggest that Bird was involved with the GS deal was that it was A) a quick reaction to fan response B) for Bird's type of player in return (see Croshere pick for example) C) different from the kinds of moves DW has typically done on his own.

                          We know other people besides Walsh affect the situation because Brown is the one that pushed for Rose and then changed his mind. It's never going to be 100% the DW show, there will always be some level of other influence.


                          But Peck I will 100% stand behind the following statement - if the results had gone the other way you are right about one thing, I'd be on here PRAISING THE TRADE. You're just getting in a huff because you assume it means I'd back Walsh, but in reality it's you that has been previously unreasonable in evaluating his work, thus your opinion that the team lost as much as it won during DW's tenure (and that thread after PD party fall 06).


                          For my view I'm more than happy to say DW has totally lost it if anyone can prove all these moves are his choice alone. I just think that if the Beatles are going along fine and then suddenly it goes sour just about the time Yoko shows up, you don't say "see, I told you Ringo was an a**hole", which IMO is exactly how you have approached this situation.

                          You didn't care for DW BEFORE Bird showed up, so no matter what happened you were going to spin it negative on DW.

                          Me, I like or dislike guys based on results, and stuff like Reggie, Dale, Det for Herb and a ton of ECF appearances are why I'm pro-DW. The guy put up the results, thus I have a higher opinion of him.



                          You think I'm unreasonable in this??? Look, if it was JERRY WEST instead of Bird and all this started happening I would in no way assume it was West. It would either be that they couldn't agree or that one of the 2 at least had truly lost their touch, and I'd be willing to easily believe it was DW of the two.

                          But Bird has no prior experience or proof by results. DW does. Worse yet, Bird has a somewhat unfair but unshakable connection to the pretty awful tenures of his 2 former teammates in a similar GM role (McHale, Ainge).


                          Honestly if things were going great I wouldn't just assume Bird had nothing to do with it. I assume strongly that the GOOD draft choice of Shawne Williams was due very specifically to Bird.


                          Mostly I'm just sick of the terrible GS trade being given a "maybe in the future it will look better" free pass simply because people fear that admitting it was a flop somehow throws their allegence to Jackson or that he'll rejoin the team if the magic words are spoken (you know, something like "that trade sucked"). He's gone either way.

                          And I've never, ever said I didn't want him gone or wasn't at least open to the idea. I just didn't want it to come at such a foolish expense, be it Bird's or Donnie's choice to do so. Whomever did it really screwed up in an effort to fix something that wasn't going to get properly fixed with that particular move.


                          no, we're keeping score the same way. championships right? so we're tied 0-0 either way i'm just trying to factor in future seasons, that's all.
                          Good god no, no soccer scoring. 90 minutes later and the only stats used to indicate which side might have done better is the sum total of goals scored, which at that point is 0 to 0. God I hate it.

                          Give me Manning's passing yards, sacks, home runs, strikeouts, assists, FG% and other measures to at least have some level of detail between the extremes of total success or total failure.

                          Comment

                          • #43
                            Re: SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

                            Originally posted by Jay View Post
                            I try to make a point to blame each baffoon equally.

                            Until they're both fired, (and not just one but both), the franchise will flounder around aimlessly, randomly.
                            When I was about 13 the barrel of my bee-bee-gun got twisted, however it still worked. That is until my father straightened it out.

                            The point?

                            It doesn't necessarily follow that things will get better (be fixed) without Bird and Walsh.

                            Hopefully not, but it wouldn't surprise me that there might come a day when the fans that are complaining about Walsh now will wish he was back in charge.

                            Comment

                            • #44
                              Re: SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

                              Of the four players, only SJax and MDjr were able to either meet or exceed their stats from their former teams:
                              Um...PPG from last year to this is what you're going on? How about FG% or 3P% before and after. You can quickly see that Dun went 28% from 3 for the Pacers (while taking 3+ IIRC, so not shy). Is that his full season average? Nope? End of debate, he was worse in Indy.

                              Jack's numbers went up slightly in GS, but honestly I put that on tempo. For the most part he shot horrible in NOV and then the rest of the year was back to his normal meh level across the board, both in Indy and GS. The problem is that after NOV Dun turned into below meh.

                              Also Harrington certainly matched his numbers from Indy this year with GS post trade. His stellar 3P% dropped from 45 to 41, but his assists and PPG were both up and his FG% and REB stayed the same.

                              Murphy saw a similar 3P% improvement in Indy vs GS, though his PPG in Indy was higher. Like Al his FG% and REB stayed about the same.

                              Meanwhile Powell put up numbers in GS not far off what Ike did (both shot 53% in GS, their MPG was similar there and their PER48 stats are almost identical down the line except PPG). Uh oh, everyone assumes Ike was the only young PF prospect in the deal. McLeod's numbers? Not far off of Saras. Yeesh. Murph's ace in the hole is his 3...but Al shot it better for cheaper.

                              I'm not exactly sure what you were talking about when you said only 2 players met or exceeded their previous club. Basically they all kept doing more of the same roughly. Saras lost his 3P% in GS, McLeod similarly left his behind when he joined Indy.

                              See, I don't break it down as just 2 vs 2, I only write about it quickly that way. But I certainly listened and considered all the various angles on the deal at the time and following it.

                              The fact is that few people if any have ever explained a GOOD reason a 6th seed trades a week or 2 before the trade deadline, mid-season, without the goal of making the playoffs still and collecting that extra playoff MONEY to help the bottom line.

                              You could still trade Jack after collecting that playoff cash, I'm sure that GS would have been even more in a trading mood had they continued their non-playoff ways, especially considering that Baron Davis missed MORE GAMES post-trade than he did prior to the deal. They were screwed and stuck with those contracts.


                              Assume Jackson is convicted. Here's a solution - cut him, salary off the books totally rather than being increased by a few million and for an extra year even.

                              Financially there were a lot of better options in front of the team. The one they chose, the appease the fans angle, didn't work. Fans remained disinterested (fact, not opinion) and they went on to miss the playoffs and those at least 2 extra home games (fact again).

                              My alternate methods still remove Jackson but without any extra suffering. So the fans hated him. They stopped showing up once he was gone anyway.


                              1) SJax played w/much more enthusiasm and zeal. He seems more comfortable w/GS probably because he got what he wanted - the freedom to shot lights out whenever he pleased.
                              This is way overhyped. Jackson took LESS FGAs per game with GS than he did in either of the previous 2 seasons in Indy. Compared to the start of 06-07 where his FGAs dropped to 11.6 because he finally had a full team of options again, sure he got a few more looks out in GS. But compared to the last couple of years he had a lot more freedom to shoot in Indy, more so when you consider Indy's slower pace and few possessions.

                              Have you forgotten that the #1 knock on Carlisle was that he let Jackson get away with TOO MUCH??? Jackson hugged Rick after the post-trade meeting in Conseco. Didn't shake his hand or say hi as they passed, he went out of his way to go looking for him at the other end of the court after shaking hands with other people and give him a hug that was more than just a touch and go obligation.

                              The dude was happier because he wasn't hated by the fans, not because he was finally free on the court. But his numbers and behavior weren't drastically better in GS and I certainly have never said otherwise.


                              Look, there is not a single NEUTRAL source out there that thinks the Pacers won that trade at this point. The only hope anyone pins on it from the outside is that Ike will become a beast.

                              I've said several times prior to RC being fired that I'd be willing to see how this group as is could do next year (Rick as coach). I realize that people adjust and maybe things get better.

                              But I also know that in both basketball and baseball that stats tend to run pretty true for guys. Few people just suddenly become 5 times better and turn into something they haven't been, at least after 4-5 real seasons, ie not a HS player on the bench like JO and even his PER48 in POR was already at the level he put up in Indy his first year.

                              Dun and Troy might become something more, but the chance of that is about the same as that of Jackson never yelling about a bad call ever again.

                              Making a trade that is banking on that rare occurence seems foolish to me, akin to trying to make a living playing the hard eight every roll.
                              Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 06-04-2007, 04:22 AM.

                              Comment

                              • #45
                                Re: SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

                                Peck, sorry to overlook one part though it's implied in my response too. I agree that ultimately DW is overseeing Bird and this situation.

                                My angle is that DW is trying to ease Bird into the situation though, letting him make the calls even if he disagrees with them to some extent. I mean forget the fans, DW and the Simons want to also find out if Bird can hack it before sending him off by himself totally.

                                How could Bird be trained and groomed if he just had to let DW run the show?

                                And why would DW let this stuff happen the way it has? Maybe he believes that Bird is getting it, has the instincts and will at the end of the day learn to be a good GM through the process of some guided trial and error.

                                To me this is the training wheels period, Bird's still peddling and steering, he's not so restricted that he doesn't get to make some serious decisions on matters.

                                Ultimately DW is trying to walk away, and honestly I think if things hadn't been so messy the last few years he'd already be gone.


                                But I do agree with you that perhaps DW made some risky choices before Bird came along. He did let Isiah keep them hanging on with his CBA crap, and in the process he left Rick dangling too. He did decided to get Bird back in here, though I wonder if that was an olive branch to Rick originally.


                                Of course as I pointed out and now Arcadian as well, Bird likes to use the press a lot and in ways that often don't come across very well. For example he seems noticeably confrontational and I'm not sure that plays well with others when it's done publically.

                                As I mentioned, when did things like the SVG situation used to happen to the Pacers? That "he said/she said" sort of stuff.

                                Comment

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