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

NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

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

  • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

    Originally posted by Wage View Post
    Oppps. I was thinking of Dale Davis for some reason. My mistake.
    As we all should be.


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

    Comment


    • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

      Originally posted by Wage View Post

      I'm not going to say you are wrong, but this has clearly not always been the case. The Pacers packed the fieldhouse for years with competitive teams lacking superstars. The closest thing the NBA Pacers have ever had to a superstar was JO, and he was borderline and not for long. And before someone says Reggie, in no way was he a superstar. Danny and Roy have aready made as many all-star games as Reggie ever did. He was loved, and he was an icon, but definately not a superstar.
      Have to disagree with you here, somewhat. During the Reggie-perennial-ECF-days...yeah we were pretty packed on most nights. But, even then, besides playoffs, I've never seen MSA get as crazy as when Jordan's first game back from retirement.

      The second or third year of Conseco, I went to games with friends, and felt like in alot of those games we had to lower our voices when we talked or others would've heard our conversation. I went to a Boston game and actually could tell you, verbatim, the trash-talk Paul Pierce was saying to Al Harrington before he crossed him over and hit a game-winning shot.

      This last year, my wife and I went to 5 games. One being the game 5 Orlando series winner. And a large contrast in audience depending on whom we played. The OKC and last Miami game were packed. The Golden State and Utah game seemed after the lower level, nobody was there.

      Comment


      • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

        Originally posted by billbradley View Post
        When did you start believing SImon didn't want to spend?

        What players were not spent on specifically that caused you to believe this?
        There was not one specific moment that triggered my belief. It has slowly taken shape while watching the team operate over the last 25 years. It predates the actions and rumors of this specific offseason - although, IMO, what we've heard and seen this offseason aligns with the belief.

        To be clear, I believe:

        - the Simons have viewed ownership of the Pacers as a a civic responsibility
        - they do not view a championship as the primary goal of owning the team
        - a good, consistant team the city can identify with is the primary goal
        - because a title is not a priority, the team takes a very conservative "don't rock the boat" approach to team building
        - the known quantity of our own FAs are prioritized over the higher risk of signing unknown FAs. Often with the result of overpaying our own guys
        - trades are handled conservatively. Many being driven by internal discontent more than a desire to "chase a title"

        Basically I believe the Simons have done the city a favor by owning the team. The team is a "charity" for the city as long as it isn't significantly burdensome. I believe if you gave them the option of being consistantly good for the next ten years with no title or winning a title, but having some extreme lows to go along with it, they would without a doubt chose the former.

        Specific cases of free agents or trades mean little individually. The nature of what I'm saying is that the team has nothing driving them to take the risks necessary to win a title, because a title isn't the ultimate goal. Therefore every individual circumstance can be explained as being too risky to justify. When you look at 25 years of everything being to risky, then the picture becomes clearer.

        The best individual example IMO is Barkley. It is the only time I can remember a top level player expressing a specific interest in playing for the Pacers. But IIRC, we were told he is to pricey to trade for. Would it have been risky? Of course. But it's the type of opportunity you see other teams take advantage of all the time. IMO, they felt there was no need to pursue him because the team was already a good enough to satisfy the primary goal , so why take the risk. The vast majority of the big trades the team has made were preceded by the traded player expressing some dissatisfaction with the team - Detlef, AD, Jalen, etc. Lacking that type of motivation the team will likely stand pat.

        I started to list other players, trades, and occurrences that fall in line with my belief, but they have been discussed / debated to death. Read some of BBall's criticisms of DW and you will see a good list. DW has operated within the Simons framework and that's why he lasted here so long and why he is back. LB had bigger dreams and is gone. Coincedntaly, DW operated differently with the NYKs than he did with the Pacers - IMO he was more aggressive. Now maybe that is small market vs big market. Or maybe it has to do with the difference in ownership's goals. As I said, no smoking guns, but a long list of items that when taken together start to give a pretty clear view - IMO, of course.

        Comment


        • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

          Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
          name an all star quality guy who can get to the rim at will and shoot like both Deron and Eric can. This was our last shot to add before paying our own. Literally Deron and EJ fit the bill of our last remaining key piece we needed to a tee but we didnt go after one of them.

          Who knows what the reminder of the off season holds??? I know one thing we aren't getting a difference maker to take us to a championship caliber team like we could of if we went after one RFA.


          It's fine if you want to sugar coat and be unrealistic it but im not really into that kind of thing.
          I wanted Deron or Nash in a Pacers uniform too. The reality is that they had no interest in playing for Indiana. The Pacers made a pitch to Nash (rumored to be 10 million a year) but he wasn't interested.

          I don't think money was an issue there. I don't know if they dont like some of the players on the team or if they don't like the city but Free Agents don't like Indiana. It could be because the Pacers dont have a superstar on their team. No one is lining up to play for the Sixers either.

          Eric Gordon wanted to play for the Pacers but I can't blame the Pacers for not making a max contract offer for a player that hasn't proven he can stay healthy for a full season or even make it through a season without missing at least 20 games. They also knew that New Orleans were going to match any offer so why bother?

          Comment


          • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

            Originally posted by rm1369 View Post
            There was not one specific moment that triggered my belief. It has slowly taken shape while watching the team operate over the last 25 years. It predates the actions and rumors of this specific offseason - although, IMO, what we've heard and seen this offseason aligns with the belief.

            To be clear, I believe:

            - the Simons have viewed ownership of the Pacers as a a civic responsibility
            - they do not view a championship as the primary goal of owning the team
            - a good, consistant team the city can identify with is the primary goal
            - because a title is not a priority, the team takes a very conservative "don't rock the boat" approach to team building
            - the known quantity of our own FAs are prioritized over the higher risk of signing unknown FAs. Often with the result of overpaying our own guys
            - trades are handled conservatively. Many being driven by internal discontent more than a desire to "chase a title"

            Basically I believe the Simons have done the city a favor by owning the team. The team is a "charity" for the city as long as it isn't significantly burdensome. I believe if you gave them the option of being consistantly good for the next ten years with no title or winning a title, but having some extreme lows to go along with it, they would without a doubt chose the former.

            Specific cases of free agents or trades mean little individually. The nature of what I'm saying is that the team has nothing driving them to take the risks necessary to win a title, because a title isn't the ultimate goal. Therefore every individual circumstance can be explained as being too risky to justify. When you look at 25 years of everything being to risky, then the picture becomes clearer.

            The best individual example IMO is Barkley. It is the only time I can remember a top level player expressing a specific interest in playing for the Pacers. But IIRC, we were told he is to pricey to trade for. Would it have been risky? Of course. But it's the type of opportunity you see other teams take advantage of all the time. IMO, they felt there was no need to pursue him because the team was already a good enough to satisfy the primary goal , so why take the risk. The vast majority of the big trades the team has made were preceded by the traded player expressing some dissatisfaction with the team - Detlef, AD, Jalen, etc. Lacking that type of motivation the team will likely stand pat.

            I started to list other players, trades, and occurrences that fall in line with my belief, but they have been discussed / debated to death. Read some of BBall's criticisms of DW and you will see a good list. DW has operated within the Simons framework and that's why he lasted here so long and why he is back. LB had bigger dreams and is gone. Coincedntaly, DW operated differently with the NYKs than he did with the Pacers - IMO he was more aggressive. Now maybe that is small market vs big market. Or maybe it has to do with the difference in ownership's goals. As I said, no smoking guns, but a long list of items that when taken together start to give a pretty clear view - IMO, of course.


            This whole post can be answered or summed up in one sentence. The Pacers have never made a trade for or brought in a free agent superstar.......

            Comment


            • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

              Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
              This whole post can be answered or summed up in one sentence. The Pacers have never made a trade for or brought in a free agent superstar.......
              Neither have the Spurs......

              Outside of the Bostons, LAs, Miamis, NYs, etc; not many teams have. You have to give up too much in a trade and previously had to commit too much to sign a superstar FA.

              Comment


              • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

                Originally posted by littlerichard54 View Post
                Neither have the Spurs......

                Outside of the Bostons, LAs, Miamis, NYs, etc; not many teams have. You have to give up too much in a trade and previously had to commit too much to sign a superstar FA.
                I would thank this 1000 times if I could. There was 1 superstar (Deron Williams) who was a free agent this year, his agent puts out a flier saying he will only sign with NJ or Dallas and this suddenly makes Simon a cheapskate.

                Simon can "go after" superstars all he wants, but they still have to agree to come here.

                Comment


                • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

                  Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                  Lets please get off the idea that Herb is the patron saint of basketball in Indianapolis. We can't say in one sentence that he is a shrewd businessman who has made billions in the Indianapolis area, and then in the next say that he deserves our reverence because he has been flogged repeated for years from owning this franchise out the good of his heart.
                  Except that isn't what Hicks said.

                  All Hicks was saying, I think, is that these types of posts just aren't warranted.

                  Originally posted by Coupe View Post
                  **** you simon
                  No one is saying you have to kiss Simon's butt. Just give a LITTLE respect where respect is due (or at least civility) when you are making whatever point... the reason Indy still has an NBA team is due to the Simons, end of story. That's not some feel-good sentiment, it's documented fact.

                  Comment


                  • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

                    Originally posted by rabidpacersfan View Post
                    Except that isn't what Hicks said.

                    All Hicks was saying, I think, is that these types of posts just aren't warranted.


                    No one is saying you have to kiss Simon's butt. Just give a LITTLE respect where respect is due (or at least civility) when you are making whatever point... the reason Indy still has an NBA team is due to the Simons, end of story. That's not some feel-good sentiment, it's documented fact.
                    You must not have read the entire post, because he started in about losing money every year yet being dedicated the city, and everyone should be thankful we have a team to spend money on.

                    As if there should be some sort of reverence for the man. I say to hell with that, the guy has made billions with the lucrative contracts he has received from the city.
                    I'm a loyal PAYING customer of his product for the past 5 years. I'm not one of these people who just watch on TV or only go to games when I get a free ticket or a deeply discounted ticket. I'm there, putting up my dough and buying a ticket package in advance. I am one of the few who will go see the them beat down the Raptors or Bobcats on a Wednesday night. I certainly have the right to say whatever I please about the way he may choose to run the organization.
                    You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                    Comment


                    • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

                      I get that as a "customer" one has the right to voice an opinion about the product they're receiving, but that doesn't give one the right to be an asshat.

                      Comment


                      • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

                        It's an internet message board. Either suspend/ban him, because you're not going to get people to talk the way you'd like them to talk. Either do something about it, or move on.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

                          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                          If they don't match on Roy then I just don't see how anyone can argue that the team is 100% committed to winning.
                          We can't even get the intelligent hard core fans on this message board to agree whether signing Roy to the max is a good idea or cap hell. How can it be such a no-brainer? I guarantee if we sign Roy to the max and he basically stays at the same level, the act of wasting money by signing him instead of using it to get a bigger name free agent will be used as the NEXT reason Simon isn't "100% committed to winning".
                          BillS

                          A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                          Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                          Comment


                          • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

                            He didn't want to pay a Granger level shooter with an big injury history a max deal?

                            That dirty, cheap jerk.

                            He wants to avoid the luxury tax on an iffy signing for a team with the worst fan support in the league.

                            Hey fans, how about if Simon is digging in for the extra $15-20m per year, you maybe get off your fat *** and buy a couple $10 seats from time to time. Who's the cheapskate again?

                            Bird wanted the WRONG piece for too high a price. Did you see Simon balk at the GEORGE HILL RESIGN? Nope. And the word is mgmt has the option to resign Roy IF IT'S A SOLID DEAL.

                            Indy can't swing and miss over the luxury tax like NY or LA, but really it's kinda tough to do anyway. EJ's max deal seems like a huge risk.



                            Let me make it easier to understand - would anyone hear accuse Simon of being "cheap" if he told Bird that he wouldn't pay Artest a max deal for 4 years now. Of course not, so there is a line that we all know is out there on quality deals versus poor spending. Some of you just like EJ more and don't see it as a risk, just like the Roy debate.

                            But these signings ARE DEBATABLE. These aren't no-brainers. This isn't Lebron or Kobe or even Ray Allen. These are tough calls.

                            DAVID WEST GOT MORE PER YEAR THAN BOSTON OFFERED - cheap owner. BARBOSA was brought in for a $0 salary 2nd round pick - cheap owner. DJones was a small deal but was still an overpay - cheap owner. The Pacers just offered Nash MORE THAN THE LAKERS are giving him - cheap owner.

                            Seriously, where are all these guys that aren't getting paid in Indy? I know that JO did, Tinsley did, Bender did, Croshere did, Harrington did (gave up the pick to put him in the TE when no one else could).







                            I'm not an ownership apologist even. But this is just a witch hunt where people want to believe an angle and look at everything through that light. It's not cheap till it's a really good, resonable option and the owner passes on it.

                            When Simon does something like that then I'll agree.

                            Freaking Bird and his "small market" bulls**** - what part of YOU BLEW PAST THE CAP AND RAN OUT OF MONEY DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND LARRY? Nice GM work, blaming the owner for your inability to stay under the cap so you can actually acquire talent.

                            The Pacers have only been under the NBA cap the last 2 seasons after some 20 or more above it, forced to trade or MLE or MIN players only. Yep, that's a cheapskate alright.

                            And if you sign Gordon and Hibbert then that's it, that's your team for the next 5-8 years unless they retire or get traded, and why are you signing them if you are just going to be trading them?
                            Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 07-09-2012, 11:35 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

                              But these signings ARE DEBATABLE. These aren't no-brainers. This isn't Lebron or Kobe or even Ray Allen. These are tough calls.
                              Kobe, Lebron, Ray Allen, Nash are not coming here, EJ wanted to come here that's the difference, you take the risk when you have a potential star that want's to be a Pacers, hell, even Crawford said NO to the Pacers, explain to me how you are going to convince stars players to come here? we have the money and a good team and not even a 38 years old Nash wanted to play here.
                              Last edited by vnzla81; 07-09-2012, 11:40 AM.
                              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                              Comment


                              • Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

                                Originally posted by BillS View Post
                                We can't even get the intelligent hard core fans on this message board to agree whether signing Roy to the max is a good idea or cap hell. How can it be such a no-brainer? I guarantee if we sign Roy to the max and he basically stays at the same level, the act of wasting money by signing him instead of using it to get a bigger name free agent will be used as the NEXT reason Simon isn't "100% committed to winning".
                                Exactly.

                                Shame on Bird for using this excuse, it sounds like a spoiled kid who didn't get to have donuts for dinner. He's got the same cap limits as all the other teams, and VERY few (like 1-2) are willing to go over the new lux tax. Or is Mark Cuban the epitome of an owner who won't pay to win since he's trying to avoid the massive salary penalties of the next tax.


                                In fact, which teams were over the LUXURY TAX last year or this year or any of the prior 5 years. Let's get the official list so we can fairly compare Simon's methods with all the other teams. If he's so cheap then we will see 7-8 teams "trying to win" at the very least, and really more if you want Herb to stand out on the cheap side.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X