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

AS Break Q&A with Bird (Big read)

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

  • AS Break Q&A with Bird (Big read)

    Fueled by Larry Bird's decision to replace Jim O'Brien with Frank Vogel as head coach, the Pacers have surged into the All-Star break with seven wins in 10 games to climb back into the playoff picture in the Eastern Conference. The franchise's President of Basketball Operations sat down with Conrad Brunner of Pacers.com to discuss the team, its present and future in this exclusive question-and-answer session.

    Q. Understanding how difficult it was for you to make the decision to fire Jim O'Brien, how pleased are you with the results Frank Vogel has been able to generate?

    A. I think Frank’s done an excellent job. It’s always tough for me to get rid of any coach and there’s a number of reasons. One of them is when Jimmy came in here we needed some leadership, some direction, needed to change the culture and he helped us do all that. He played the young guys early on, got them some experience.

    You can sit here and talk about if it’s the right time, the wrong time but, obviously, Frank stepped in and did a good job. In our market, we can’t be in a situation where we fire coaches every time things go bad because we don’t have the money like the other teams do and we’re not going to do that. So every time something goes wrong, we’re not just going to eliminate the coaches because it’s more than just the coach most of the time.

    Q. Why do you think the team has responded so quickly to Vogel?

    A. It’s confidence. At this point in our season, Frank took over at a time when we had some games, no matter who was coaching the team, we had a good chance of winning – and we did. Frank goes about his business sort of the way I did when I was the coach: very positive, always worrying about the players.

    I tried to make it as easy and simple as I possibly could for them. And as he’s doing that, he’s getting the confidence out of our young guys and they’re playing better. You can just see the growth in some of our guys. So Frank’s pushing a lot of the right buttons right now.

    Q. How do you view Vogel as a long-term candidate for the head coaching job?

    A. I told Frank the day I talked to him about the job, "When the season’s over, no matter what happens, you’ll be my first interview." The other day I got the question, "Should we re-sign him right now?" No, we’re not doing that. We’re waiting until after the season to make all the decisions around here. But Frank will be one of the first to be interviewed for the job.

    Q. Has the team's performance in recent weeks and the shift in player rotations had an impact on how aggressively you are approaching next Thursday's trade deadline?

    A. We’re talking with a lot of teams right now but I always said if I can improve this team through a trade I will do that. It’s no different now with some of the players we have under contract and some we have that’s expiring. We’ll look at everything and if I can improve this thing, I will.

    Q. You mentioned at the press conference announcing the coaching change that trade talks had been fairly active, even if no reports or rumors had circulated in the media. Is that still the case?

    A. We talk to a lot of different teams. Today, I think I talked to three. It varies from two to three to five sometimes. But right now, it seems like in this business they wait till the last minute and they try to force your hand to get the players they want out there. I’m pretty reluctant to do that because I don’t want to read about my players in the paper. But if the right deal came up and the right mix of guys, I would make a deal.

    Q. Are there any untouchables on the roster?

    A. I’ve got a lot of guys it would be very hard for me to trade. I can’t see me trading Danny Granger. That doesn’t mean it’ll never happen, I don’t know. But three years ago I brought Danny in and sat him down and told him exactly what I was going to do here. I expect to hold my end of it and I expect him to hold his end of it. For me to go out there and trade him after he’s been such a trooper would be really difficult for me to do.

    Q. Are the veterans with expiring contracts (T.J. Ford, Jeff Foster and Mike Dunleavy) more valuable now as trade chips or at the end of the year when their salaries come off the books?

    A. The way I look at this and the way I set this up three years ago is we’re going to be sitting at around $36 million and we’ve got a lot of good players – I don’t care what anybody says – good, young, talented players that are going to get better. We’ve got our draft picks. And not only next year do we have money but the year after that another $10 million comes up. Some guys say it’s not a good free agent class but there’s a couple guys I’ve got my eye on I think could help us immensely and we’re going to go after them when the time comes.


    Q. Though it's still very early in Vogel's tenure, the team has showed very strong signs in the past three weeks. How much better does this make you feel about the next step?

    A. I feel very good about it. I think this franchise is sitting in a perfect situation to move to the next level. I said that three years ago and I say it today. We’re going to have between nine and 11 young players with a lot of cap room to go out and fill out our roster. Can we do it all in one year? Hey, if there’s guys out there we want, we will. Can it be the next year? Obviously it can, and eventually we’re going to have to start signing our own players if we want to keep them. But we get to look at all of our young players and see their development plus we get to go into free agency, which I have never done since I’ve been here.

    We’ve picked up some players but every year I’ve been here we’ve cut our salaries down. We went from a (luxury) tax-payer with Jermaine (O’Neal) at $76 million, plus the six extra (tax penalty) for $82 million, and without (Jamaal) Tinsley this year we’re under $60 million and next year we’re going to go down to $36 million and the following year we’re going to go back down. So I think the light is at the end of the tunnel. I know a lot of fans are frustrated, they don’t understand all of it like I do but I’m going to do exactly what I said I was going to do and this franchise is sort of like the stock market when it’s at the bottom – it’s going to start going up.

    Q. It's not uncommon for fans to argue the franchise would be better with another lottery pick than to enter the playoffs as a low seed and heavy underdog. Clearly, your goal is making the playoffs this year. Why do you consider that such a priority?

    A. It’s great experience for these young guys. You can’t build by going from a non-playoff team to the NBA Finals. It just doesn’t happen that way. You’ve got to go in and take your licks, you’ve got to go in and try to win games, you’ve got to find out the different atmosphere of these playoff games. It’s different at every level. We’ve got a lot of young guys that haven’t been in the playoffs. I think it’ll be a great experience for them, show them how much more they have to work in the offseason, and it’ll show them what to expect.

    When the season’s over and you don’t have a good year, everybody wants you to be in the lottery. I don’t want to be in the lottery. I would take my pick, because I don’t know what’s going to happen next year, how many players are coming out, but I would be looking around to maybe trade my first-round pick this year and I don’t usually do that.

    Q. As you identify the core of your team moving forward, how many pieces do you think you need? Is it two guys? Is it three?

    A. Well, I’m pretty bullish on Lance Stephenson. If he’s going to be what I think he’s going to be – I already know Paul (George) is going to be there – maybe it’s just two. I think the kid’s got a chance to be very special. And I think Paul’s going to be special. And we’ve got the money to go fill out this team and be very competitive in this league.

    Q. It sounds very much as if you, like the team, have been re-energized.

    A. If we don’t make the playoffs this year, it’s our own fault. We’re playing well, the guys seem happy, they’re giving the effort every night, they want to get there and everything’s driven to get to the eighth or seventh or sixth seed. Our schedule’s favorable. We’ve got some tough games in there but we’ve also got some games we know we can go out and win if we play to our max and I think these kids will do that, based on what I’ve seen in these last few games.

    So it’s up to them. Obviously, injuries play a key role but we’re pretty stacked in every area. I think people are probably surprised by what (Tyler) Hansbrough and (Josh) McRoberts have done to hold down the four position and if they continue to play at that pace and we get the energizing we need off our bench, there’s no reason we can’t make the playoffs and it’s up to our players to do that because we’re sitting in a good position to do it.

    Q. How would reaching the playoffs impact your personal decision at the end of the season when your contract expires?

    A. I don’t know. I just want to do what I said I was going to do. I wanted to rebuild this thing with everything that’s happened and in the third year get in the playoffs and have that group of 10 or 11 guys and have plenty of money for whoever’s here to have the opportunity to take this franchise to the level I think it needs to go. And we’re not that far away.
    http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/bird_qna_110217.html

    I really liked the bolded part. My optimism for Lance has immensely increase over the past couple of days. I cannot wait to see him play. At this point just sit Mike and play Granger/Lance/Rush/Jones/George at the wings in whatever combination.

    A general question: In the interview Bird says that there are guys that will immensely help us in free agency. They seem to be somewhat under the radar. Who are those guys? I hope he is not talking about DeAndre Jordan; He is going to be way overpaid. Ditto for Tyson Chandler even though I do love his game. I'd perhaps like us to go after the likes of Kurt Thomas (Still pretty dang solid, and can be had for cheap), Chuck Hayes for post defense, Marcus Thornton or Jeff Green for uprgrades at positions, and I wouldn't mind if we brought back Earl Watson for tempo and court vision as a backup/third point guard. Maybe Thaddeus Young too because he is an aggressive player off the bench.
    Last edited by O'Braindead; 02-17-2011, 12:34 PM.
    ...

  • #2
    Re: AS Break Q&A with Bird (Big read)

    My optimism about Lance has increased too.. Sometimes I get vibes from Bird and co. that he is already ready to contribute. (Insert someone who ridicules Lance at every chance they get to point out that he's 19 years old)

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: AS Break Q&A with Bird (Big read)

      Originally posted by BringJackBack View Post
      My optimism about Lance has increased too.. Sometimes I get vibes from Bird and co. that he is already ready to contribute. DUDE HE WAS BORN READY

      (Insert someone who ridicules Lance at every chance they get to point out that he's 19 years old)
      Which makes no sense because if he is better than other players. Age is just a number but to some people they think it matters.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: AS Break Q&A with Bird (Big read)

        Originally posted by O'Braindead View Post

        A general question: In the interview Bird says that there are guys that will immensely help us in free agency. They seem to be somewhat under the radar. Who are those guys? I hope he is not talking about DeAndre Jordan; He is going to be way overpaid. Ditto for Tyson Chandler even though I do love his game. I'd perhaps like us to go after the likes of Kurt Thomas (Still pretty dang solid, and can be had for cheap), Chuck Hayes for post defense, Marcus Thornton or Jeff Green for uprgrades at positions, and I wouldn't mind if we brought back Earl Watson for tempo and court vision as a backup/third point guard. Maybe Thaddeus Young too because he is an aggressive player off the bench.
        I think David West #1, then Jeff Green is my guess.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: AS Break Q&A with Bird (Big read)

          Man, I hate to seem negative, but pure talent has a way of mesmerizing GMs and its not nearly the full picture on players, often.

          On a side note: Is Stuckey a good comparison for Lance. Stuckey seemed out of shape and ran out of gas quick, but when he was aggressive, he was just a terror, a bulldog.
          Last edited by Speed; 02-17-2011, 12:59 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: AS Break Q&A with Bird (Big read)

            Q. As you identify the core of your team moving forward, how many pieces do you think you need? Is it two guys? Is it three?

            A. Well, I’m pretty bullish on Lance Stephenson. If he’s going to be what I think he’s going to be – I already know Paul (George) is going to be there – maybe it’s just two. I think the kid’s got a chance to be very special. And I think Paul’s going to be special. And we’ve got the money to go fill out this team and be very competitive in this league.
            Is Larry talking "starters", or "rotation" players?

            If it's starters:
            Assume Roy is 1, (by his comments) George is 2 then...
            Who is 3? Danny?
            Does he think Lance is a starter down the road? Is Lance a 1 or 2? Is George a 2 or 3? (If he is talking starters it matters, if he's talking rotation, not as much).
            This would mean is is not sold on DC as a starter (be #3 Danny or Lance), and a need @ PF is the 2nd.

            If he's talking rotation:
            Lets all assume backup C/athletic 4 (preferably a combo-type) is 1, what is the other? Is it SG or PG?

            Key follow up Questions:
            -Where do you see Lance, 1 or 2?
            -Where do you gee Paul, 2 or 3?
            -When you say 2, maybe 3, are you stating starters or rotation guys?
            -Do you thing you can fill any of these at the trade deadline this year?
            -Do you see a player (or 2) that fills your wushes on the FA list for n/y?
            -Do you think you will have to wait a bit longer & trade for these players?
            "Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
            (Watching You Like A Hawk!)

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: AS Break Q&A with Bird (Big read)

              Get. David. West.
              We need better than solid. No JJ Redicks, Andray Blatche, Mike Dunleavy type guys to have big roles on our team.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: AS Break Q&A with Bird (Big read)

                We need a "Ji** in my Pants" smiley for everytime somoene connected to the Pacers makes a positive comment about Lance in the press.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: AS Break Q&A with Bird (Big read)

                  To me, the key statement was, "I would be looking around to maybe trade my first-round pick this year." This signals (again) an intention to try combine an expiring (and a young asset?) with a pick to acquire a player of significance who is on an "expensive" contract.


                  "He’s no shrinking violet when it comes to that kind of stuff."

                  - Rick Carlisle on how Kevin Pritchard responds to needed roster changes.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: AS Break Q&A with Bird (Big read)

                    Originally posted by Speed View Post
                    Man, I hate to seem negative, but pure talent has a way of mesmerizing GMs and its not nearly the full picture on players, often.

                    On a side note: Is Stuckey a good comparison for Lance. Stuckey seemed out of shape and ran out of gas quick, but when he was aggressive, he was just a terror, a bulldog.
                    I was thinking over and over again last night that I wish Lance could've matched up with him. I know Lance's defense is supposed to be bad, but I really doubt Stuckey could have posted Lance up like he did DC.

                    I say supposed to be bad because that's what we were told. Personally, I have no idea about his defense. I'm ready to find out, though.
                    Passion. Pride. Patience. Pacers

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: AS Break Q&A with Bird (Big read)

                      Originally posted by BPump33 View Post
                      I was thinking over and over again last night that I wish Lance could've matched up with him. I know Lance's defense is supposed to be bad, but I really doubt Stuckey could have posted Lance up like he did DC.

                      I say supposed to be bad because that's what we were told. Personally, I have no idea about his defense. I'm ready to find out, though.
                      Im not worried about his defense it was solid in Collge. More the shot selection and finding the open man. His shot selection was horrible at Cinnic.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: AS Break Q&A with Bird (Big read)

                        I'm almost fully convinced he'll do nothing at the deadline.

                        Reading this Q & A, just makes me think it even more.

                        I can almost guarantee if he does do something, it'll be along the lines of DC for Murphy, again. He values the money coming off the books, and rightfully so.

                        Interesting that 10 million coming off the following year, he mentions, with D Jones and Posey. If he's really patient, he will really be in the drivers seat in two years.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: AS Break Q&A with Bird (Big read)

                          How many caught the part where Bird said he doesn't like trading 1st picks but would this year?

                          Bird's FA answer intrigued me about "couple of guys I've got my eye on who could help immensely, and we're going to go after them when the time comes."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: AS Break Q&A with Bird (Big read)

                            I think we will go after Deandre Jordan if Foster doesnt come back. We need a rebounding back up center thats what lost us the game last night. Maybe Lou Richard Ma Muta. He can defend all 5 postions and is an elite rebounder.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: AS Break Q&A with Bird (Big read)

                              Originally posted by BPump33 View Post
                              I was thinking over and over again last night that I wish Lance could've matched up with him. I know Lance's defense is supposed to be bad, but I really doubt Stuckey could have posted Lance up like he did DC.

                              I say supposed to be bad because that's what we were told. Personally, I have no idea about his defense. I'm ready to find out, though.
                              It's guys like DC that I think might give him trouble most. The upside is he could reciprocate just like Stucky.

                              I'm one of the few on here, I think, that want him to play Point Guard.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X