Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

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

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

  • #16
    Re: SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

    Originally posted by Jose Slaughter View Post
    Walsh already stated that he was the guy dealing with Chris Mullin on the Golden State deal.
    Not listening! Not listening! Bird Bird Bird!!!

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

      Peck and Bball, I think you're living in the past a bit. I fully admit I used to be Donnie's biggest defender ("Trust in The Donnie, The Donnie is wise and all powerful"), and I've hated Bird since he not only fired Isiah, but waited until he was out of the country like a chicken ****. And yes, I've joked for years that Donnie=good, Larry=bad. But seriously, seriously, what good? Where? Name one good freakin' move we've made since Donnie hired Larry to begin with:

      - maxed out JO (which "sources" say TPTB immediately regreted)
      - overpaid Reggie
      - traded Brad
      - fired Isiah (infuriating your star player)
      - hiring Rick (who players hated when he was here the first time)
      - hiring Chad Forcier instead of a big man coach
      - junking our entire scouting department
      - signing Kenny Anderson
      - covering up for Ron's Detroit Migraine
      - leaving Primoz unprotected
      - drafting David Harrison
      - trading Al for Jack
      - rolling over for Stern post-brawl
      - signing Michael Curry
      - replacing Mike Brown with Chuck Person
      - making David Craig the scapegoat
      - signing Cabbage
      - The SI cover
      - not trading Ron for Magette
      - losing Kevin Martin in the Peja trade
      - throwing Rick under the bus
      - replacing Kevin O'Neill with Johnny Davis
      - drafting a project 3 over a half-dozen quality 1's
      - trading James Jones, Alexander Johnson and a player to be named later for James White
      - trading Cro for an injury plagued Quis
      - trading AJ for Army and scrubs when you could have signed Army outright
      - trading for Al
      - not lottery protecting the pick
      - caving to JO after 8 games
      - trading for Murphleavy's contract
      - making Rick the scapegoat
      - lowballing SVG and letting it go public
      - talking up getting an up-and-comer and hiring a retread

      As for the "good" moves, we didn't fall asleep at the wheel when Danny fell in our lap. And as I was crucified for at the party, the bloom's already off that rose as far as I'm concerned. Also, getting the trade exception for Peja, though the official line is that was all David Morway, and the conspricacy theory is that was all the Simons. Thirdly, signing AJ, which, while some of us see as a good move, a greater number see as a bad one.

      And Peck, if you really think people are blaming Larry and not Donnie, you can always retort, "WHO HIRED THE ASSHAT IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!"

      [edit] And to think, I didn't get nominated for Darksider.
      Last edited by Kegboy; 06-02-2007, 11:21 AM.
      Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

        Originally posted by Kegboy View Post

        - fired Isiah (infuriating your star player)
        - replacing Kevin O'Neill with Johnny Davis
        You missed a couple:

        - Besides lying to the public by saying he wasn't here to fire Isiah, he also lied to JO about it to make sure JO signed the contract.

        - Allowing Kevin O'neill anywhere near the Pacers in the first place.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

          Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
          Peck and Bball, I think you're living in the past a bit.
          [edit] And to think, I didn't get nominated for Darksider.

          If you read my prior post in this thread:
          http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-...39&postcount=7

          Where am I living in the past and where are we disagreeing? I'm not seeing it.

          -Bball
          Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

          ------

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

          -John Wooden

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

            Bball, I just don't agree there's much "Donnie=good" going on anymore. I think Since was the one who called me out as saying, "Donnie=good, Larry=bad" when I said Larry should finally be held accountable with this hiring. Just because people badmouth Larry doesn't mean they're saying Donnie's any better. That's why I try and say TPTB now, because they're all ****ed up IMO.
            Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

              Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
              Bball, I just don't agree there's much "Donnie=good" going on anymore. I think Since was the one who called me out as saying, "Donnie=good, Larry=bad" when I said Larry should finally be held accountable with this hiring. Just because people badmouth Larry doesn't mean they're saying Donnie's any better. That's why I try and say TPTB now, because they're all ****ed up IMO.
              I know you do and I agree with you on it. But I see what I consider several who blame Bird and absolve Walsh. ...And it's frustrating. Blame them both, that is fine IMO, but I see nothing to make me think Walsh should get a pass.

              Now, I will agree Donnie's Defenders are much less vocal and probably fewer in number these days, but there's still a few posters/fans that refuse to hold him accountable and (IMO) use Bird as the scapegoat in a valiant attempt to refuse to believe Walsh isn't everything they held him out to be.

              And I don't mean that to defend Bird. Throw the heat at him too. Management has sucked for several years and made several bad moves and last I checked, Donnie and Larry (and Morway) are all part of the management consortium during much of this time. I was willing to give Bird a honeymoon period but that was some time back. If TPTB wasted the honeymoon period with him starting as part of "Bird, Boomer, and Bowser " before finally getting any real power at all (if he even does) in a much too long transition period, then so be it. I was ready at the end of the season to clean them all out.

              Just because they've rearranged the deck chairs on the Titanic (PS&E) doesn't give me much hope by itself that they've actually done anything to correct the lack of singular vision and purpose we've seen in the last several years.

              The things we've heard between O Brien and Bird recently sound good but I think the things we heard last off season around this time sounded good then too. And what did that get us? Talk is cheap....

              -Bball
              Last edited by Bball; 06-02-2007, 01:37 PM.
              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

              ------

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

              -John Wooden

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

                I liked the article. For the first time, I've read Bird provide some straight talk on JO's tenure. He confirmed for me that it's more in JO's court rather than Bird's decision alone. Any talks that come about are inquires from other teams w/Bird saying "yeah, I like that idea," or "no, not enough...call again later when you're ready to make a serious offer."

                I'm hoping JO realizes this above all else: IF he goes to the Lakers, they're in as much of a rebuilding...oops..."retooling" phase as the Pacers. Seems to me that with this new information from the article - the Bird and JOB aren't looking to go younger - and the fact that JOB will loose the reigns alot more which is totally in contrast to how RC ran things, maybe...just maybe he's really having second thoughts and is willing to give this team another try...for the next 3 yrs at least.

                I want him to stay. I like what I'm learning of JOB's way of doing things. I like that he's bringing w/him members of his coaching staff whom he trusts and he has had success with - at least one is very familiar with this franchise. I think under JOB, JO and Tinsley can both thrive! And if you think about it, maybe the fact that they don't have to think so much but rather be more carefree and just let things come naturally, and having others who WILL be committed to playing defense will help keep both of them healthier, longer.

                Come on, JO. What do you say...stay and play with us? Help bring back some of that ole Pacers magic while finally playing the right way.
                Last edited by NuffSaid; 06-03-2007, 07:17 AM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

                  Originally posted by Peck View Post
                  Why???

                  What in your gut tells you that this was Bird?
                  Look at the part in bold in your first post. The GS deal sounds exactly like the type of deal Bird says he likes to make. We gotta get rid of Jax no matter what, throw in Al, take on big contracts, it doesn't matter

                  And Im not trying to be combative either. All Im saying is that neither Donnie or Bird should be completely absolved of blame. They work together, they cooperate. At first Donnie was obviously orchestrating things. But I think Bird has slowly taken over the lead as they worked together and he learned from Donnie. Wasn't that the plan all along? Im just saying that judging by the way Bird says he likes to make deals, it sounds like he was finally starting to take over the lead by last summer and Donnie was stepping back to more of an advisor role. Furthermore, its clear to me that Donnie is stepping back even more this summer. That doesnt mean he wont be involved. It just means his role will be more to advise Bird on the decisions he makes insted of guiding the franchise himself.

                  I don't get why my opinions seem so outlandish, they make perfect sense to me

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

                    I dislike Bird because of the way he handles himself. I think he is all talk whether the subject is milk drinkers or the way basketball should be played. Couple that with the personnel decisions since he has been on board, regardless of whose they are, it is hard to say that he has had a positive impact on the franchise in the front office.
                    "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

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

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

                      Voice of reason here...

                      Walsh has to step down sooner or later. There's no better time than the present. And frankly, does it matter that Bird's apparently calling the shots now? It's been four years since he was hired as the PBO (GM). I say it's about time he did his job, and from the looks of it he's doing it his way. That's how it's suppose to be.

                      As far as the moves that have been made since the brawl, except for the Al Harrington and James White deals, I think DW/Bird have done very good under the circumstances. Consider:
                      • They still managed to work out an All-Star -for- All-Star trade in getting Peja for Artest. Yes, the deal seems like a bust because Peja opted out by summer's end, but who's to say that while things looked bad from a player-for-player longevity standpoint things didn't work out from an accounting standpoint? Artest's contract came off the books along w/Peja's when he opted out. Plus they got the trade exception that followed. They didn't use it wisely IMO, but atleast it worked to their advantage...for a minute.
                      • Yeah, they got Al using the TE as leverage, but they were able to get rid of him eventually along with two other players who by all accounts didn't want to be here anyway. And who's to say the Al-to-GS trade wasn't in the works all along in the background (w/the other players thrown in as fillers or just to offload)? I think both teams continued talks even after the Pacers got Al from the Hawks.
                      • 2 big "character player" contracts for 2 bad eggs who wouldn't play the right way no matter what. I don't care how much the media hypes Al and SJax up (though SJax did seem to play better after the trade), I'd much rather have guys who'll come out and give it 100% in a losing effort than 2 guys who'll just sit back, do nothing except help to bring the team down all the while collecting their paychecks.
                      • As for James White...until we see what he does as a member of the Spurs, I say the verdict is still out whether releasing him was a real bust. Nonetheless, I'd call it a big lose regardless only because they paid they the guy rookie salary even after trading him AND just like w/Al, the Pacers gave up a draft pick (or two) just to get him and then they released the guy w/o him ever playing one single game.
                      So, except for the release of James White, I'd say things have and will work themselves out in the end. That regardless of if it was a Walsh move or the final decision was made by Bird.
                      Last edited by NuffSaid; 06-02-2007, 05:03 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

                        O'neal has been leaning towards staying in indy!? STAY HERE JO! WE NEED YOU HERE!
                        "GIMMIE DAT!"-DANGER

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

                          Originally posted by SI

                          I'm more 'I can't believe they just did that, let's get them out of here' than Donnie is,'' Bird said. "He sits back and looks at the situation and talks about it. He really tries to figure out what's going to happen next, where I was more of a 'Let's get after a problem and get rid of it.' But I learned a lot in the last few years.''
                          first, yes, it's clear that donnie was in charge.

                          next, i like donnie's way a lot better than bird's (as bird himself admits here). bird's (old) way is simply to react to the moment, while donnie apparently can take out his emotions and look one step further. that's a very important trait for a decision maker.

                          but what really bugs me in this thread, is that it seems to have become accepted that the warriors deal was a disaster for us. i, for one, still think it is a very solid move that will eventually pay off for us. it's a very trademark walsh deal, imo.

                          the only downside to the warriors deal imo, is the short term talent loss that, in hindsight, caused us to miss the playoffs. well, with risky moves the margin for error is tiny, which is something we just have to live with.

                          dunleavy and murph's massive contracts? they look bad now, but in truth they haven't bitten us yet - we're still below luxury tax, and if we still had sjax and al our salary level wouldn't allow us to get free agents either. so they're being overpaid hasn't costed us yet - and there's still time to make them more tradable. i.e. with a new coach, and as the years on their contracts go down. make no mistake, i think golden state won big by betting on sjax, but i think that if they ever try to move him again mully might find sjax to be even more untradable than dun or murph - sjax has a more manageable contract but his market is a lot more limited (few teams willing to gamble on him).

                          and upside? even the biggest j. powell fan should recognize that ike's ceiling is way higher than anyone else in the deal.

                          again, i think the warrior's deal has walsh's fingerprints all over it. if it were quick-to-react bird doing the deal, i'd bet that he'd just send sjax to the warriors straight up for dunleavy - why bother with all the other details? the long term aspects of it make me think donnie.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

                            pacers might as well complete the FULL CIRCLE SUCK PHASE...
                            Trade JO for Lamar Odom n Kwame brown
                            lol
                            "GIMMIE DAT!"-DANGER

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

                              In other words, IMO and now I believe confirmed by Bird, when Ron pulled his lame @ss stunt in the playoffs vs. Miami Bird wanted him gone. Then by the time the brawl came around he really wanted him gone.

                              But Donnie once again decided to take the "wait and see" approach that so many of you love.
                              Peck, maybe try backing off the euphamisms and still defend your angle.

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

                              Oh yeah, what an idiot to have those qualities.

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

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

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


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


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

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


                              Bird either has NO INFLUENCE AND TERRIBLE LUCK to be catching all this negative credit for Walsh's sudden turn into a crap GM, or the shift in how things are being handled does reflect Bird's influence to some degree since it started right about the time he joined the team.
                              Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 06-03-2007, 03:01 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

                                I know one thing for sure, if the Pacers had gone on a big winning streak the final month and a half and upset Detroit in round 1 plenty of people would be citing those results as signs of how successful the trade was.

                                Well all I'm asking is that we keep score THE SAME WAY no matter how it goes. To me it's a lot like "Did we say highest score wins? No, it's lowest score, you misunderstood. I win."
                                Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 06-03-2007, 03:20 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X