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

Source tells ESPN.com that Pacers have been trying to trade Ford for years.

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

  • #31
    Re: Source tells ESPN.com that Pacers have been trying to trade Ford for years.

    Originally posted by count55 View Post
    Kinda hard to have been trying to trade Ford for "years," when you've only had the guy for 18 months.

    For years?? My 1st thought this morning reading this on Realgm was does the writer not know Ford came here the summer of 08!! Apparrently not.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Source tells ESPN.com that Pacers have been trying to trade Ford for years.

      Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
      For years?? My 1st thought this morning reading this on Realgm was does the writer not know Ford came here the summer of 08!! Apparrently not.
      You guys need to rise above the technicalities.

      We've been trying to trade him for a long time. As long as we've had him. Maybe you have something to contribute toward the spirit of the comment.
      "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Source tells ESPN.com that Pacers have been trying to trade Ford for years.

        This all just highlights how important the point guard position is to a teams success. I pray this franchise can get a sold point guard who can stabilize our team for years going forward. Is Price that guy?

        It is interesting that no one wants TJ, his contract and his reputation for causing chemistry problems are making it hard on us to move him. You would think someone would want him, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

        Back to the mindset of waiting for the end of the 2011 season. Any changes sooner would be a blessing, but I am not expecting anything. And you know he (Ford) is going pick-up that player option as well for next season, no one is giving him 8 million a year going forward, so he will take it.

        The problem for us is that we just can't have him on the bench and not play him. We already sat on a point guard (TINS) for a year and continue to have his money on our books. I think you have to find a way to play him and show his value. Is it really wise to leave him on the bench at 8 million? I know a lot say yes, so that we can play the young guys, and I tend to agree. But you have to at least get some value from him. Maybe we would rather wait it out and not play him, but that just seems like bad business to me.
        Last edited by odeez; 01-04-2010, 02:07 PM.
        Avatar photo credit: Bahram Mark Sobhani - AP

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Source tells ESPN.com that Pacers have been trying to trade Ford for years.

          Originally posted by CableKC View Post
          Note to JO'B from Captain Obvious:

          Ford has never been a good 3pt shooter....he never was one when he was with the Bucks...the Raptors and certainly not one as a Pacer.

          This is one thing I do not like about JO'Bs insistance abour taking the 3pt shot.....it doesn't matter that Players aren't a good 3pt shooter....he'd much rather the team as a whole ( as evidenced by Inferno, Ford and McRoberts....none of which are remotely good at taking 3pt shots ) take a bad 3pt jumpshot then take any other shot that the Player is comfortable with.

          A friend of mine that follows the Warriors told me about a story with Nellie and Monta. Nellie ( another Coach fond of the 3pt shot ) saw that Monta was struggling with the 3pt shot...which Monta never had any real problem with in High School. Nellie eventually figured out that although Monta had no problem with taking a 3pt shot from the High School level....he didn't have much as much range to take and hit it from the NBA 3pt line on a consistent basis. So, what did Nellie do? instead of forcing Monta to continually take a bad 3pt shot....he simply told Monta to take a 3pt shot ONLY if he had an absolute open look. If he didn't, then Nellie told him to take a step closer to the basket and take the type of shot that he was comfortable hitting. Sure, it was a 2pt attempt...but Nellie would prefer that his Players take shots that they are comfortable and good at taking ( and therefore have a higher chance of hitting ) then take a bad shot in the first place.

          The moral of the story here? Sometimes it's better to adjust your style of Coaching rather then have a Player do something that they are simply not good at doing. To me, this means that when it comes to players that simply aren't good at ( nor should be ) taking 3pt shots.....tell them not to take any 3pt shots. If we had the caliber of Players that are good enough that can learn and adjust to JO'Bs style of play...then I'd be okay with what JO'B insists that we do on the offensive end. But since we don't.....I feel that there has to be a certain level of flexibility on the Coaching end to adjust to the strengths and weaknesses of our roster. We simply do not have enough talent to go with a "My Way or the Highway" mentality when it comes to Coaching.
          O'Brien has said time and again that he wants TJ attacking on the break and focusing on the pull up jump shot that is his most effective weapon.

          This season, Ford has taken 28 of his 264 shots have been 3-pters, or about 10.6%. He's only taken more than one 3PA in 8 of 31 games. In his tenure under O'Brien, 132 of his 1177 shots, or 11.2% have been threes. Prior to coming here, 245 of his 2,613 career shots were from beyond the arc, or about 9.4%. The difference between his historic 9.4 and his 11.2 here would equate to 22 more threes, or one extra attempt in every five games played.

          This is in a league where 22% of all FGA's are threes.

          O'Brien has also mentioned the problems created by the fact that the guys who can shoot the three (Danny, Mike, Brandon, Luther, Earl, and early on, Troy) but are not hitting at a high enough rate. The defenses will continue to sag back in as long as we remain towards the bottom of the league in eFG% and 3pt%.

          The two players whose games are most damaged by the team's inability to space the floor are Roy Hibbert and TJ Ford.

          Hibbert suffers because the defense can sag into his lap, cutting off passing lanes into the post and providing easy double teams and digs. Ford suffers because there's no room for him to get inside the defense and take the shots he wants to take (and O'Brien wants him to take.) Ford, in some ways, has become the canary in the coal mine on this offense. When the shooting gets toxic, his game falls over dead.

          O'Brien is not saying that Ford is being benched, because he can't hit threes. He's commenting on the fact that a guy who last year shot a marginal, but acceptable .337 from long range has only made a ridiculously bad 1 in 28 tries. Jeff Foster has made 6 in 50 attempts, and you know most of those were desperation heaves.

          Therefore, if his teammates can't help him by creating space, and he can't help himself, then what's the point of having him out there? Further, if the defense can simply watch TJ dribble the ball on the perimeter, and TJ is prone to just dribbling the ball on the perimeter, then his presence on the floor becomes gangrenous to the rest of the offense. The ball stops moving, and the players stop moving, and the Pacers stop scoring.

          This has nothing to do with trying to force a player (TJ) to take shots he's doesn't like or can't hit because of some dogmatic approach. This is entirely about the fact that TJ can't get to where he's effective, Obie and his teammates can't get TJ to where he's effective, and the repeated attempts have done more harm than good.
          Last edited by count55; 01-04-2010, 02:16 PM.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Source tells ESPN.com that Pacers have been trying to trade Ford for years.

            Originally posted by Eindar View Post
            So I'm guessing the rumor that we shot down a Felton for Ford swap were pure hogwash?
            If we believe the source. But...
            Originally posted by count55 View Post
            Kinda hard to have been trying to trade Ford for "years," when you've only had the guy for 18 months.
            ... makes me wonder if the source confused Ford for Tinsley or something.

            Regardless, if this is true, I'd feel better about the franchise. If Bird's really been trying to move him this whole time, then maybe I do trust his judgment a bit.
            This space for rent.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Source tells ESPN.com that Pacers have been trying to trade Ford for years.

              Originally posted by wintermute View Post
              the toronto-miami deal was actually jo + moon + pick for marion and banks. contrast that with what we got for jo = tj + rasho (expiring) + pick. so toronto actually spent 2 first round picks in flipping j.o. for marion. considering marion was a half season rental, that's not exactly great value.
              I don't care whether Toronto made a bad deal, I care whether the Pacers did.

              That's sort of dubious accounting to include both picks. They traded a pick to get O'Neal, then one to get rid of him. Bad moves by the Raptors, but at the end of the day, the choice could basically be summed up as:

              1. O'Neal
              2. Hibbert, Ford, Baston, Rasho
              3. Marion, Banks, $3M cash and sending a lottery protected pick (through 2015) back to the Heat.

              I'd happily give up the heavily protected pick and Hibbert to get a year of Marion (which could have been fun) and an extra $11M or so in savings (which is the net difference between the Ford package and the Marion/Banks/Cash package that was traded for O'Neal.

              I understand it's not a great choice either way, but this team needs to be very prudent with its money, and I think the reality of the situation is they could have gotten more savings but actually believed Ford would be useful to them.

              They were wrong. That's about all there is to say about it.

              so obie played tj basically to showcase him. how long before we find that troy is being showcased too? i mean both players are at the absolute bottom in plus-minus, which we know obie values. if sitting tj gives the team "the best chance to win", wouldn't that be true for benching troy as well?
              Probably not so much after the Knicks game.
              SportsTwo.com

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Source tells ESPN.com that Pacers have been trying to trade Ford for years.

                Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                You guys need to rise above the technicalities.

                We've been trying to trade him for a long time. As long as we've had him. Maybe you have something to contribute toward the spirit of the comment.
                I've been mulling over ways to get rid of Ford, and the only sort of useful thing I can come up with is that perhaps they could trade him to the Knicks for Eddy Curry.

                The reasoning is that the Knicks want to get rid of Curry to create more cap space this summer. And because he's terrible. But they supposedly want to be rid of him so badly that they'll include some of their young players to do so. A trade of something like Curry, Jordan Hill and Tony Douglas for Ford, Diener and one of our minimum salary guys would create an extra $6.5M in cap space for them.

                For us, we'd get two rookie prospects for that extra $6.5M. Perhaps we could get the Knicks to throw in some cash to sweeten the deal.

                Even if the Knicks would be willing, we'd still face the problem that we can't add $6.5M to next year's salary. We're already projected to be a $1M or so over the estimated luxury tax. So a pre-cursor to a deal like this would be figuring out how to unload Murphy for an expiring contract. Unless we do that, we couldn't take back more money for Ford (or anyone else).
                SportsTwo.com

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Source tells ESPN.com that Pacers have been trying to trade Ford for years.

                  Originally posted by MikeDC View Post
                  I don't care whether Toronto made a bad deal, I care whether the Pacers did.

                  That's sort of dubious accounting to include both picks. They traded a pick to get O'Neal, then one to get rid of him. Bad moves by the Raptors, but at the end of the day, the choice could basically be summed up as:

                  1. O'Neal
                  2. Hibbert, Ford, Baston, Rasho
                  3. Marion, Banks, $3M cash and sending a lottery protected pick (through 2015) back to the Heat.

                  I'd happily give up the heavily protected pick and Hibbert to get a year of Marion (which could have been fun) and an extra $11M or so in savings (which is the net difference between the Ford package and the Marion/Banks/Cash package that was traded for O'Neal.

                  I understand it's not a great choice either way, but this team needs to be very prudent with its money, and I think the reality of the situation is they could have gotten more savings but actually believed Ford would be useful to them.

                  They were wrong. That's about all there is to say about it.



                  Probably not so much after the Knicks game.
                  I wouldn't trade Hibbert alone for any of those packages.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Source tells ESPN.com that Pacers have been trying to trade Ford for years.

                    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                    We all know that the plan over this past summer was to trade Ford and re-sign Jack. But when it became evident that no one really wanted Ford and Jack got a little bigger contract than I think the Pacers expected - they decided to let Jack go and keep Ford for now. I'm sure O'Brien was none-too-happy
                    Yes! And thats the story of the Pacers. Rag-tad grouping of players nobody else would pay for.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Source tells ESPN.com that Pacers have been trying to trade Ford for years.

                      I'm commenting more about Ford ( in general ) as opposed to any reasons as to why he was benched ( which I know is not because of his horrendous 3pt shooting ). If his 3ptA in Indy is on par with what his career average is...and the reason why he's taking any 3pt shots at all is because of the Player as opposed to the Coach....then I'd hope that JO'B would discourage this as much as he can ( which I guess he's doing ). I guess my whole point is that I'm suggesting that Ford ( much less any other player that isn't good at it ) shouldn't take any 3pt shots at all.

                      Any comments from JO'B regarding Ford "scoring woes" would have made more sense if he said the very things that you mention in your post:

                      Originally posted by count55 View Post
                      This is entirely about the fact that TJ can't get to where he's effective, Obie and his teammates can't get TJ to where he's effective, and the repeated attempts have done more harm than good.
                      As opposed to this specific comment about his 3pt shooting, your comments makes far more sense to explain the difference in Ford's performance this season as opposed to the last.
                      Last edited by CableKC; 01-04-2010, 03:03 PM.
                      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Source tells ESPN.com that Pacers have been trying to trade Ford for years.

                        Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post

                        You guys need to rise above the technicalities.

                        AND the writer needs to show credibility in his writing by having his facts straight.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Source tells ESPN.com that Pacers have been trying to trade Ford for years.

                          Originally posted by MikeDC View Post
                          I've been mulling over ways to get rid of Ford, and the only sort of useful thing I can come up with is that perhaps they could trade him to the Knicks for Eddy Curry.

                          The reasoning is that the Knicks want to get rid of Curry to create more cap space this summer. And because he's terrible. But they supposedly want to be rid of him so badly that they'll include some of their young players to do so. A trade of something like Curry, Jordan Hill and Tony Douglas for Ford, Diener and one of our minimum salary guys would create an extra $6.5M in cap space for them.

                          For us, we'd get two rookie prospects for that extra $6.5M. Perhaps we could get the Knicks to throw in some cash to sweeten the deal.

                          Even if the Knicks would be willing, we'd still face the problem that we can't add $6.5M to next year's salary. We're already projected to be a $1M or so over the estimated luxury tax. So a pre-cursor to a deal like this would be figuring out how to unload Murphy for an expiring contract. Unless we do that, we couldn't take back more money for Ford (or anyone else).

                          I like the idea, in theory, but I'm ready to ride out the salary crap legacy, unless there is something better available. I guess if you thought any of those youngsters could be the answer here, you'd entertain it. Mostly, though I want any remnant of those previously poison contracts gone.
                          Last edited by Speed; 01-04-2010, 03:11 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Source tells ESPN.com that Pacers have been trying to trade Ford for years.

                            How many years is 18 months?

                            I think its two, with a little bit of "rounding."

                            That is plurar, isn't it? They learnt me English at Greenwood, so I aint the bestest at it. But I don't see the problem.

                            PS - who's to say that they weren't shopping him in advance of trading for him in the first place with the understanding that the Toronto deal was the best they could get for JO?
                            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


                            • #44
                              Re: Source tells ESPN.com that Pacers have been trying to trade Ford for years.

                              Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                              How many years is 18 months?

                              I think its two, with a little bit of "rounding."

                              That is plurar, isn't it? They learnt me English at Greenwood, so I aint the bestest at it. But I don't see the problem.

                              PS - who's to say that they weren't shopping him in advance of trading for him in the first place with the understanding that the Toronto deal was the best they could get for JO?
                              It sure seems like years.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Source tells ESPN.com that Pacers have been trying to trade Ford for years.

                                trade ford???? who would want him? and what could we get for him? another ****ty point gaurd? pacers are shooting for wall i guess. the same way cleveland did for lebron...

                                it is the only scenario that makes sense. otherwise larry would be biting at the bit to fire JOB. he doesnt like failure. when it cuts to his face during games it looks like he is bout to slap the taste outta JOB's mouth.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X