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

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

    The Pacers asked JO to do something he wasn't able to do well. And he tried to do it.

    JO and Pacers: zero championships.
    KG and T'Wolves: zero championships.

    Yet KG is universally admired (not by me, as you can see from this post) for being durable and JO is ridiculed for being injury-prone.

    If I were a T'Wolves fan, I'd be even more disappointed in Garnett than Pacers fans are disappointed in JO. At least JO tried to do what his team needed, even if it failed. Garnett didn't try so of course he failed and claims of his false "durability" really irk me.
    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


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

      Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
      The Pacers asked JO to do something he wasn't able to do well. And he tried to do it.

      JO and Pacers: zero championships.
      KG and T'Wolves: zero championships.

      Yet KG is universally admired (not by me, as you can see from this post) for being durable and JO is ridiculed for being injury-prone.

      If I were a T'Wolves fan, I'd be even more disappointed in Garnett than Pacers fans are disappointed in JO. At least JO tried to do what his team needed, even if it failed. Garnett didn't try so of course he failed and claims of his false "durability" really irk me.
      KG didn't try?

      I'm not a KG fan by any means, I don't like players with huge egos and he fits that category, but the guy always played with passion when I watched.

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
        The Pacers asked JO to do something he wasn't able to do well. And he tried to do it.

        JO and Pacers: zero championships.
        KG and T'Wolves: zero championships.

        Yet KG is universally admired (not by me, as you can see from this post) for being durable and JO is ridiculed for being injury-prone.

        If I were a T'Wolves fan, I'd be even more disappointed in Garnett than Pacers fans are disappointed in JO. At least JO tried to do what his team needed, even if it failed. Garnett didn't try so of course he failed and claims of his false "durability" really irk me.
        This is an interesting point. However, I think it's a better argument for cutting JO some slack in this area and a better argument against asking players whose body types are not suitable for carrying the extra weight to bulk up than it is a good argument for viewing Garnett with any kind of scorn because he resisted doing something he knew would cut his career short and reduce his effectiveness. Given his body type and skill set I'd say Garnett was right to resist pressure to bulk up and bang down low on a regular basis. If we follow your line of reasoning Garnett's durability was intentionally cultivated. It was not false - it was planned and it happened. I guess you can call that being a pussy. I call knowing your strengths/limitations and taking actions within those parameters smart decision making. And I am not a fan of Mr. Garnett at all.

        I wish all coaches, training staffs, and players were more honest about the strengths and limitations of each player. It might make it easier to define roles and put together a team that will work.
        Last edited by gummy; 01-05-2010, 05:55 PM.
        "Freedom is nothing else but a chance to be better." - Albert Camus

        "Appreciation is a wonderful thing. It makes what is excellent in others belong to us as well." - Voltaire

        "Everyone's values are defined by what they will tolerate when it is done to others." - William Greider

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by count55 View Post
          This year?

          Because, with Danny out, and Dunleavy ineffective, he's the best player on the team.
          Before Danny went out, Troy was still leading the team in minutes.
          This space for rent.

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by Anthem View Post
            Before Danny went out, Troy was still leading the team in minutes.
            ...hence the losses.

            Comment


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

              I think no other NBA coach made more of Walker's skill-set than O'Brien. Especially on the defensive end, where he was able to make the usually horrific Walker an averaged defender. Walker had lots of coaches and roles and was never able to improve his efficiency or shot selection. And his biggest asset, in my view, was his ability to play the point-forward role, his ball-handling&passing&vision skills. As an inside player, Walker was pedestrian. Pierce was always a much better post player.

              I think O'Brien always had a soft spot for Walker and thoroughly appreciated what he could bring to the game, but he was always very aware of Toine's (drastic) limitations, especially his awful shot-selection (which importance was aggravated in JOB's system in Boston... considering the lack of scoring options besides Pierce and Walker) and that you can't win with a player like Walker in a prominent role. I think this article from JOB on Walker is very telling:

              Originally posted by Jim O'Brien
              Walker: From wiggle to wink
              by: Jim O'Brien


              After knocking down yet another 3-pointer against the New Jersey Nets, Antoine Walker trotted up court and winked at a teammate.

              A wink? That's a long way from the wiggle that used to accompany big shots from Walker.

              You either love Walker or hate him. Rarely is there any middle ground when it comes to someone's feelings about him. Whatever your viewpoint, you do not want to be on the other bench when he gets on a roll.

              I first saw Walker play in the summer between his junior and senior years in high school at one of those recruiting camps. He put on a first-half display that was absolutely stunning. He dominated the game at a level that was eye opening. He rebounded, led the break, passed and sank 3s that had all the coaches in the gym shaking their heads in amazement. And, he never shut up for one second.

              To me, it was the most entertaining half of basketball I had ever seen during the summer.

              His second half that day was as bad as his first half was good. The 3s that had gone down 20 minutes earlier were now off target, and the great passes had become dangerous -- spectators had to be alert lest they got hit in the head with a no-look bullet. And, he never shut up for one second.

              I can recall the comments and the looks of the coaches in the stands as we observed Walker's play and antics. Let's just say they were not favorable.

              Personally? I was thinking how great it would be to have him on my side.

              Be careful what you wish for, right?

              He was "scary good" before those two words had ever been used together in a sentence. He had size, skill and agility at a spectacular level. And, he loved to tell you about it.

              First and foremost, he was a tremendous weapon. In addition, I found out later when he came to the University of Kentucky that he was smart and wanted to win.

              We won the national championship in his sophomore year and he was one of the main reasons why.

              Rick Pitino had great talent on that team and everyone was wondering if it could be blended into a cohesive unit. I remember, despite a rocky start to his college career, Walker's getting up during a volatile team meeting and telling the team that he had never won anything in his life. He acknowledged that he had a lot to do with our struggles at the time. He then went on to say he would do anything in his power to sacrifice his individualism to win. He did, and was one of the main reasons for our run to the title.

              We all hooked up again with the Boston Celtics and we were together for six more years. During that time he saw his team go from a 15-game winner to an Eastern Conference finalist. He was a captain and our vocal leader for that turnaround.

              As a fan he either drove you nuts with his celebratory wiggle (very un-Bird like), his nonstop monologue or his shot selection.

              Or, you loved his competiveness and desire to win.

              In my mind, the turnaround in the Celtics' fortunes happened when Walker consciously took a back seat to Paul Pierce as our go-to guy. Walker became Pierce's biggest fan and recognized the considerable abilities of his new teammate. Walker was still our vocal leader but he did what was necessary to get us to the next level.


              People still did not like his playing the perimeter and it did not help his popularity. When asked why he shot so many 3-pointers, he responded, "because there are no 4-point shots."

              It did not surprise me when Pat Riley signed him in Miami.

              Riley said after the Game 4 victory Sunday: "Antoine is there to be a psychological threat, teams feel he might go on a run
              ." This after Walker had back-to-back games in which he shot 12-for-22 from the 3-point line.

              Walker is a very good weapon to accompany Shaquille O'Neal and Dwyane Wade. Almost 60 percent of Walker's shots in the playoffs have come from behind the arc. I am sure he feels like he has died and gone to heaven.


              He does not even have to waste his energy talking, now that he has Gary Payton as one of his running mates.

              If he could only throw in the wiggle for old times' sakes.
              The underlying theme of the article is "whenever Walker was surrounded by better players, he was willing to accept a smaller role.... and teams won more the smaller his role was".

              So, no surprise that O'Brien pushed for the Walker trade, even if everything he was getting back was Raef LaFrentz's bad knees. On the other hand, when Ainge traded hard-nosed veterans and O'Brien favourites Eric Williams and Battie for the selfish shooter Ricky Davis, JOB quit the job.

              I think O'Brien sees Murphy more or less in the same way he used to see Walker. It sucks he has to rely on him so much and he'd gladly trade him for someone better, 3 pt shooting be damned. But when he's one of your best players, you have to play him.

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
                KG didn't try?

                I'm not a KG fan by any means, I don't like players with huge egos and he fits that category, but the guy always played with passion when I watched.
                Sure. He was thrilled to be out along the perimeter with the little guys instead of doing the dirty work with the other seven-footers in the paint. I'd look like I was playing with passion, too.

                I'm not saying he didn't play hard. I'm saying he did not try to do what his team needed him to do. Now, he may have failed just like JO failed. Maybe he could not reasonably fulfill the need just as JO really needed Brad Miller to be the "more physical" player and struggled with injuries thereafter. I'm tired of hearing that "KG played with passion" but JO was a bum because he couldn't handle the extra bulk.
                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


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

                  Originally posted by gummy View Post
                  This is an interesting point. However, I think it's a better argument for cutting JO some slack in this area and a better argument against asking players whose body types are not suitable for carrying the extra weight to bulk up than it is a good argument for viewing Garnett with any kind of scorn because he resisted doing something he knew would cut his career short and reduce his effectiveness. Given his body type and skill set I'd say Garnett was right to resist pressure to bulk up and bang down low on a regular basis. If we follow your line of reasoning Garnett's durability was intentionally cultivated. It was not false - it was planned and it happened. I guess you can call that being a pussy. I call knowing your strengths/limitations and taking actions within those parameters smart decision making. And I am not a fan of Mr. Garnett at all.

                  I wish all coaches, training staffs, and players were more honest about the strengths and limitations of each player. It might make it easier to define roles and put together a team that will work.
                  Depends on who you are asking. I understand why the player is more interested in a healthier, longer career ($$$,$$$,$$$,$$$,$$$.00) than to make sacrifices for the team. But let's call it what it was. Garnett decided the longevity of his career was more important to him than doing what his team needed.

                  Yes it was intentional, but it was his decision as he resisted what McHale originally asked him to do. Later, McHale tried to build a team around Garnett at SF. They had some success. But not that much.

                  The biggest reason (and perhaps the only reason) there isn't a banner hanging in the Target Center is because Garnett played out of position.

                  And how do we know that he couldn't handle the bulk if he never tried to bulk up? He wanted to face the basket and shoot long jump shots because in the mid-90s, that is what all the "stars" that weren't named Shaq did.
                  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


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

                    Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                    The biggest reason (and perhaps the only reason) there isn't a banner hanging in the Target Center is because Garnett played out of position.
                    What was the position Garnett should be playing?

                    I think he needed way better teammates, difficult to envision Garnett winning a title with the kind of players he had alongside him. There were some big differences between Garnett and O'Neal: with this or that shot-selection, Garnett was still way more efficient than O'Neal as a scorer; he was also a much better rebounder - actually he was the better rebounder in the league during his prime. What would the Wolves have accomplished for playing Garnett in a different position?

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                      Before Danny went out, Troy was still leading the team in minutes.
                      Danny went out in the 18th game of the season. To that point, Danny had played in 17 games, and Troy had played in 12. Danny had averaged 36.5 minutes a night, and Troy had averaged 30.3 minutes.

                      Danny had led the team in minutes played 10 times, was second 5 times, and was third once. Danny left Game 18 (against the Clips) with only 19 minutes, and finished 8th.

                      Troy had led the team in minutes 3 times (including the Clippers' game when Danny got hurt), and was second 5 times.

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by cordobes View Post
                        What was the position Garnett should be playing?

                        I think he needed way better teammates, difficult to envision Garnett winning a title with the kind of players he had alongside him. There were some big differences between Garnett and O'Neal: with this or that shot-selection, Garnett was still way more efficient than O'Neal as a scorer; he was also a much better rebounder - actually he was the better rebounder in the league during his prime. What would the Wolves have accomplished for playing Garnett in a different position?
                        Power Forward. And yes, he was the upgrade that the team needed to make over Joe Smith or Gary Trent or whomever else was playing PF while he ran around on the perimeter. I'm not saying he needed to replace Rasho/ Kandiman/ Johnson as the C.

                        There were many ways they could have addressed a need at SF and a SF-PF combo of TBD-Garnett was better than Garnett-Smith, Garnett-Trent or any other combo like that.

                        When Trenton Hassell of all people came along and played SG, they finally tried a Sprewell-Garnett forward combination and won a playoff series (or two!).

                        Yes, his surrounding cast stunk. Part of the problem was that they could not find a better PF than the guy they had playing SF.
                        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


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

                          Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                          Depends on who you are asking. I understand why the player is more interested in a healthier, longer career ($$$,$$$,$$$,$$$,$$$.00) than to make sacrifices for the team. But let's call it what it was. Garnett decided the longevity of his career was more important to him than doing what his team needed.

                          And how do we know that he couldn't handle the bulk if he never tried to bulk up? He wanted to face the basket and shoot long jump shots because in the mid-90s, that is what all the "stars" that weren't named Shaq did.
                          Yes, it does indeed depend on who you are asking. To my mind I don't call it "what it is," because I suspect that the team (by which I mean management) was asking Garnett to do something he would not have excelled at and which may in fact have turned into a string of injuries. Thus it would not have been in his own personal best interest nor would it have benefited the team in the long-run.

                          As for how we know whether or not Garnett could have handled bulking up and banging down low? We don't of course because it didn't happen. However, you seem to be pretty certain that if he had there would probably be banners in the Target Center. I am a sports massage therapist. I know a good deal about anatomy and physiology from a sports' perspective. I look at Garnett's body type, I examine the way he moves and think that bulking up would likely not serve him.

                          But I realize that is not the same as working with him and his team of physical therapists, trainers, etc. and making a more comprehensive evaluation. Nor is that process the same as actually trying to do it and seeing what happens. Experts aren't always right, as I am sure we all know. So we both have opinions that are at least partly based on conjecture and might have been's. I don't think mine is much more or less valid than yours. I just wanted to throw out an alternative perspective.
                          "Freedom is nothing else but a chance to be better." - Albert Camus

                          "Appreciation is a wonderful thing. It makes what is excellent in others belong to us as well." - Voltaire

                          "Everyone's values are defined by what they will tolerate when it is done to others." - William Greider

                          Comment


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

                            I'm reasonably confident he would have suffered the same fate as JO. I think we agree.

                            That's why I get irritated at the "Look how hard KG plays, and JO is fragile" bull$h!t.

                            In both cases, it was management's fault the surrounding cast was never good enough. End of story.

                            JO did what he thought was in the best interest of the team and failed. Garnett did what he thought was in his best interest and succeeded individually even though the team failed.

                            Garnett was clearly "smarter" by being selfish about it. I'm not disputing that Garnett was "right" to not bulk up. But let's call it what it was - a selfish act of career preservation. KG was probably just as fragile, just clever enough that he didn't prove it.

                            Either way - assuming you're more interested in the team's success than the individual player's success - you lose. I'm pretty sure we agree on that.
                            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


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

                              Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                              I'm reasonably confident he would have suffered the same fate as JO. I think we agree.

                              That's why I get irritated at the "Look how hard KG plays, and JO is fragile" bull$h!t.

                              In both cases, it was management's fault the surrounding cast was never good enough. End of story.

                              JO did what he thought was in the best interest of the team and failed. Garnett did what he thought was in his best interest and succeeded individually even though the team failed.

                              Garnett was clearly "smarter" by being selfish about it. I'm not disputing that Garnett was "right" to not bulk up. But let's call it what it was - a selfish act of career preservation. KG was probably just as fragile, just clever enough that he didn't prove it.

                              Either way - assuming you're more interested in the team's success than the individual player's success - you lose. I'm pretty sure we agree on that.
                              I don't think it's a selfish act though.

                              We're talking about a guy's body. I don't like KG..but you can't ask him to hurt himself and hurt his future. It's selfish of the team to do that.

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                                I'm reasonably confident he would have suffered the same fate as JO. I think we agree.

                                That's why I get irritated at the "Look how hard KG plays, and JO is fragile" bull$h!t.

                                In both cases, it was management's fault the surrounding cast was never good enough. End of story.

                                JO did what he thought was in the best interest of the team and failed. Garnett did what he thought was in his best interest and succeeded individually even though the team failed.

                                Garnett was clearly "smarter" by being selfish about it. I'm not disputing that Garnett was "right" to not bulk up. But let's call it what it was - a selfish act of career preservation. KG was probably just as fragile, just clever enough that he didn't prove it.

                                Either way - assuming you're more interested in the team's success than the individual player's success - you lose. I'm pretty sure we agree on that.
                                I definitely see your point about the unfair comparison to JO, who tried to take one for the team. I appreciate that JO tried to do what the team wanted even though I wish he hadn't (I bet he does too by now).

                                I also see your point about individual vs. team success but honestly if we are both right about the fact that KG might have become injury prone upon bulking up there wasn't going to be much more team success with KG sitting out games due to injury. So what exactly would he have been making the sacrifice for?

                                I guess I see it as more selfish and/or shortsighted that MN asked Garnett to bulk up than it was for Garnett to make the case that it wasn't a good idea.

                                Man, I can't believe I am defending KG, he really gets on my last nerve. Anyway, I think I'm starting to repeat myself and we are somewhat in agreement anyway so we can agree to disagree on the smaller points I guess.
                                "Freedom is nothing else but a chance to be better." - Albert Camus

                                "Appreciation is a wonderful thing. It makes what is excellent in others belong to us as well." - Voltaire

                                "Everyone's values are defined by what they will tolerate when it is done to others." - William Greider

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X