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

Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

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

  • #31
    Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

    Originally posted by Rogco View Post
    I can't stand David Stern. He was a pompous dick who never realized that the NBA succeeded despite his lack of ability, not because of it. He happened to be in the right place at the right time, when sports in America were blowing up, when the NBA had Bird and Magic, than a slew of great players in the 90s, most notably Jordan. His CBA agreements were crap, he fought for the wrong things, and he focused on a policy of only promoting star players and teams, alienating large portions of the potential NBA audience. He fought for dress codes and new basketballs when he should have been fighting the contract structures and refereeing issues. He is an egotistical asshat who was carried by the times.
    I wouldn't be quite so personal about it, but yeah I agree with most of that. You bring up something that as I look back over his tenure, I would consider as one of the biggest flaws - the way the NBA encouraged fans to focus on individuals while the NFL was focusing more on team brands. I don't have numbers to say whether that was a good or bad business decision, but as a fan I wasn't keen on it. Whatever that's worth.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

      Originally posted by PR07 View Post
      The NFL does it where it's essentially impossible to franchise tag a player after 3 consecutive years due to cap spikes, so while it would be hard to get the NBAPA to agree to it, it's not a life sentence for any player by any means.
      The NBA does the same thing with restricted free agency. Sure it's not a life sentence but it's pretty much impossible to sign another team's RFA if they're committed to keeping him. After 3 or 4 more years you can't restrict him anymore.

      Exactly how long should Durant have been forced to play in OKC to satisfy you? He was there for 9 seasons. Should he have been required to stay there for 10? 12? 15? Don't tell me this isn't an argument for a life sentence.
      Last edited by Kstat; 07-14-2016, 04:09 PM.

      It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

      Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
      Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
      NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

        Originally posted by Kstat View Post
        Exactly how long should Durant have been forced to play in OKC to satisfy you? He was there for 9 seasons. Should he have been required to stay there for 10? 12? 15? Don't tell me this isn't an argument for a life sentence
        You keep making this the argument. It isn't the argument. The fact that a team who is in the finals two years in a row has signed a franchise player. That is the issue. So a team like Boston can't take the next step this season. Now devil's advocate says that this will mean a big change to the Warriors next year as they will lose Igulodala and possibly either Curry or Durant. If the next CBA increases the % to the players and the owners get a higher caphold on ufa max players it will cause other issues.

        It is a free market for the players. They should be able to sign to whatever team they want. And it will cause a ripple effect in the league. Everyone was assured that Miami would win more than they did. Everyone thought the Warriors would win it all this year. Now they are saying the Warriors are a shoe in. In two to three years you will see younger players rising and challenging. It happens every era. I may not have personally liked Durant doing what he did. But I don't want him to not have the choice to do it. What if the Pacers shock the world and win it in two years and John Wall turns into one the best players. They get back to the 2019 finals after beating the Wizards in the ECFs but lose the finals. If John Wall wanted to play with Paul George we would be elated. And we should be. Sure John Wall should make a legacy and stay or go somewhere else. But we would forget about his legacy and welcome him with open arms.

        Did Durant need to go to the Warriors? No
        Should he not have that as an option? Yes

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

          Every player has always had an option to go wherever they want as free agents. The only disincentive is the salary restrictions, and that's how it should be.

          Durant wouldn't have had the option to go to golden state if it weren't for a fluke salary cap spike. Any other year this wouldn't have happened. This isn't a recurring issue.

          Likewise, it's utterly hypocrisy to punish a free agent for being "too good." Nobody cares what team Jordan Hill plays for but Durant needs to be told where he can and can't play because he has too much talent? The **** out of here.

          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

            I think it is better to look at it in terms of what a single team can stockpile without a player making a significant sacrifice to play there.

            If teams are kept from having multiple max (or near max) players, this does not hinder the movement of a player in any way - they can choose economics by playing for a team that can afford to pay them the max, or they can choose rings by sacrificing to join a team that is already tapped out on its max salary.

            Forcing players to make a choice between economics and "working conditions" is no more of a movement restriction than any given worker faces choosing between jobs.
            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


            • #36
              Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

              Again, we're pretending that the Warriors being able to land Durant wasn't a total fluke. It was. If the cap doesn't spike $24 million this summer they don't get him.

              It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

              Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
              Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
              NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

                http://nba.nbcsports.com/2016/07/14/...e-to-warriors/

                Apparently Wanda Durant (Kevin’s Mom) set Adam Silver straight on son’s move to Warriors


                Adam Silver has said he doesn’t think the move of Kevin Durant to the Golden State Warriors is good for the NBA, as Silver has made “competitive balance” one of his priorities. Dallas owner Mark Cuban thinks KD as a villain on the Warriors is going to be good for business. But Silver said the situation that helped form the Warriors is something the league should look at through the Collective Bargaining Agreement, which the owners/players union are already discussing.

                Wanda Durant came to the defense of her son and set Silver straight.

                Silver was at the ESPYs last night and spoke to Joe Varden of Cleveland.com.

                “The one thing I have learned, I was just talking to Kevin Durant’s mom, every situation is different,” Silver told cleveland.com on the red carpet in Los Angeles prior to the ESPYS Wednesday. “This was a team in Golden State where they have three all-stars who were all drafted. A team that’s under the cap. And one free agent, who also happens to be a superstar, makes a decision to go to that team. It’s very different than if multiple players from different teams had come together and said let’s all land on yet a completely different team.

                “Every situation is unique, and these players have difficult decisions to make,” Silver said. “Of course they want to win. I’m sure it was very difficult for him to leave the Oklahoma City community. Look at the incredible things he’s done there over the years. So these decisions are always difficult, and these are young men. It’s a lot of responsibility.”

                Kevin Durant’s mom is his best publicist and enforcer. Apparently. Of course it helps that she’s right.

                Silver went on to say he still wants to see CBA changes. Silver speaks for the majority of owners, who want changes to limit superteams and flatten out the talent pool (which the current CBA has done, five different champs the past six seasons). The problem is what changes get made? The confluence of events — the new television deal spiking the salary cap, Stephen Curry being on a below-market contract because of past ankle issues, and much more — that had to come together for Durant to make this move were a fluke, not something easily predicted and preventable.

                Some owners will want a hard cap, but no way the players would go for that and it would lead to a lengthy lockout. Same goes for a “franchise player tag.” The best move might be to remove the max salary restrictions while keeping the cap as is — no way a team could get Curry and Durant at the same time when each would command at least $45 million — but the rank-and-file NBA players wouldn’t want that because the money they make now would suddenly go to the top five percent of players. There are no easy answers or this would already be done.

                Maybe Silver should just consult Wanda Durant on this.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

                  As far as I'm concerned, the NBA is a private business or more accurately set of associated franchises. They are free to do what they want. They could decide to fold the league. They could force parity. They can do that because we all know any whiners would simply get shoved out of the league and the owners would hire willing players and there would be a lot of them for the money. They could allow the players (i.e. employees) some measure of freedom of movement around the league. They could allow the players complete freedom of movement around the league. They could decide that 18 year olds can just pick the team they want to play for, without regard to competition. They (i.e. the owners) can do this because they are OWNERS. Don't forget that.

                  Instead, what THEY have chosen to do is try to maximize revenue. They have not attempted to create a competitive league necessarily. While I support their choice in a free market, I also know that the quality of the product isn't the same when only a couple teams in the league can realistically win it. There are very, very few instances in the history of the league where there has been a surprise winner of the title. It's that way, because there isn't parity.

                  I recall the comparison to NCAA where there isn't parity. Well, there is always a better chance a team loses one game vs an entire series and that's a key component of why NCAA is more exciting for those fans. Also, younger players are not going to be as reliable as professionals who do this for a living. Also, there are more tournaments and more true rivalries in the NCAA and far more schools than NBA teams such that many people have a close association with those teams and the rivalries. The regular season simply means so much more in the NCAA than the gazillion NBA games where players take nights off. You don't see that in the NCAA. The students see those players on campus. There is more intense passion (really). I guess what I'm saying is there is no comparison. It's a different product and the NCAA product is really superior for fans. Maybe not for business. Certainly not for fans of players, but it is for fans of true competition. Not when NBA players take nights off either literally or on the court. Not when they sand bag and sorry but that is happening too.

                  For similar reasons (less games, single elimination tournaments, and more parity, etc.) the NFL is king in professional sports and it may well extend its lead there with this change.

                  Still, I support the move. It's Durant and the NBA's right to degrade the product.
                  Last edited by BlueNGold; 07-14-2016, 10:19 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

                    Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                    The NBA does the same thing with restricted free agency. Sure it's not a life sentence but it's pretty much impossible to sign another team's RFA if they're committed to keeping him. After 3 or 4 more years you can't restrict him anymore.

                    Exactly how long should Durant have been forced to play in OKC to satisfy you? He was there for 9 seasons. Should he have been required to stay there for 10? 12? 15? Don't tell me this isn't an argument for a life sentence.
                    There's a big difference though. RFA's could actually wait a year and then hit the open market, most choose not to because of the risk. However, a player can't reject a franchise tag.

                    The NFL has figured it out really well. There's a reason why Andrew Luck stayed with the Colts and the Denver Broncos are about to re-sign Von Miller. It's because the franchise tag really prevents marquee players from jumping ship in the NFL for the most part, even if it's not indefinite. Every now and then you'll have a Ndamukong Suh or Darrelle Revis, but there's a great amount of parody in the NFL because most teams keep their star young players.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

                      NBA is silly, and they will lose fans. They say baseball is dying, but I'm not sure about that. Kansas City Royals came out of nowhere and went to two WS in a row, winning one. Fans like knowing their team could be a contender each and every year. What KC accomplished in MLB is the equivalent of the Milwaukee Bucks going to the finals next year, which we all know is impossible. Not sure how many baseball fans are here, but it's doubtful that any Royal will be a HOF'er. In the NBA you need a HOF'er to be a contender, and at least one other elite NBA player. So Durant, a HOF player, is joining up with Steph Curry, another possible HOF'er. Couple this with suspicious officiating, and fans will tune out. Sure there are die-hard fans that will support their team no matter what, but casual fans will not waste time following their team that isn't one of the 3-5 contending teams.

                      NBA also has a weird, and predictable playoff format. Hardly any surprise winners in early rounds, and the referees have way too much influence to make sure the more hyped team wins. Paul George getting called for an offensive foul when Toronto was choking the game away is one example.

                      Sad thing is that I really like the roster this year. This might seem confusing, but if this were MLB or NFL, Pacers could seriously contend for a title. Now because we don't have a for sure HOF player, and we aren't a hyped franchise, I really don't see how we could possibly beat Cleveland. I can already see what will happen. Pacers will be shooting lights out, like 55%. Cleveland will not shoot that well, but will stay in the game with FT's. Happens all the time. Pacers/Raptors game 5 in the 3rd quarter for example. Toronto was a mess, couldn't hit anything, and referees started blowing the whistle on Indiana, rewarding Toronto for playing horribly. I think one foul was called on a Pacer, and he literally didn't touch a Raptor. Without the FT's, Indiana would have been up 20 points going into the fourth quarter. It just gets old seeing referees directly influence the game.
                      Last edited by Pacergeek; 07-15-2016, 01:28 AM.
                      Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

                        How about looking at a different league, other than the NFL, NHL, or MLB, for inspiration. MLS has a designated player(DP) rule. In simple terms a DP is a player who does not count against the cap, and can be paid however much the owner is willing to pay them. Could give every team one or two DPs.

                        Although my preference would be a more NFL style of a hard cap, non-guaranteed contracts, and no max contracts. There is nothing wrong with player movement, and if a player is willing to take less to play with better players, more power to them. Just make it so there is an actual difficult decision to be made between financials and rings as BillS was saying. Right now players have a choice between door 1 and door 2, and choosing both is a valid choice. Need to make it so you have to choose one or the other, not both.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

                          The MLS can do whatever they want because the MLS is a 2nd rate league with 3rd rate players that have no leverage because they're expendable and nobody even knows their names.

                          Also, MLS clubs do not have "owners." The league itself owns the teams. There are simply general managers placed in charge.
                          Last edited by Kstat; 07-15-2016, 10:08 AM.

                          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

                            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                            The MLS can do whatever they want because the MLS is a 2nd rate league with 3rd rate players that have no leverage because they're expendable and nobody even knows their names.

                            Also, MLS clubs do not have "owners." The league itself owns the teams. There are simply general managers placed in charge.
                            Ok.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

                              Just saying you can't compare the best basketball players in the world with MLS rejects. Rejects have no negotiation leverage and have to eat whatever scraps the MLS sends them. NBA players have every bit as much leverage as the NBA owners do. Unrealistic proposals like a hard cap are a non-starter.

                              And for the umpteenth time, it was a complete fluke that allowed Durant to both sign with the Warriors and get paid max money. That scenario will never play itself out again. It's like being struck by a meteor and then going out and buying meteor insurance.

                              It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                              Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                              Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                              NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

                                Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                                Just saying you can't compare the best basketball players in the world with MLS rejects. Rejects have no negotiation leverage and have to eat whatever scraps the MLS sends them. NBA players have every bit as much leverage as the NBA owners do. Unrealistic proposals like a hard cap are a non-starter.

                                And for the umpteenth time, it was a complete fluke that allowed Durant to both sign with the Warriors and get paid max money. That scenario will never play itself out again. It's like being struck by a meteor and then going out and buying meteor insurance.
                                So because you think it is impossible for something to happen we shouldn't talk about ideas we wish they would implement? Yeah **** off dude.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X