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

  • #76
    Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

    Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
    Nobody is required to sign a contract. I think that's what you are missing. That's why the owners can lock out the players as long as they want to.
    Yep. And the NBA will be closed for business as long as they do. So no, they cannot make changes on their own.

    Your fantasy of "putting them in their place" is just that; a fantasy. And thank god for that.

    This issue seems to go way beyond basketball or even business for you. Rational decisions do not come from such a place.
    Last edited by Kstat; 07-15-2016, 08:36 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


    • #77
      Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

      Originally posted by shags View Post
      It sounds to me like you don't consider players in the NBA as human beings, but rather as "property" of the owners should the players decide to play in the NBA. And the owners should be allowed to keep their "property" as long as they see fit. When they don't want the "property" any more, the players can choose to play for another owner in the NBA (or another country, or on the playground, or at the Y.) Once they choose to play for another owner in the NBA, they become "property" of that owner until the owner decides they don't want the "property" any more.

      And so on and so forth.
      Nope. That's redickulous.

      I consider the players to be employees, not property. I knew someone would go there. I consider the NBA to be an association of owners, not slaveholders. I am a business owner myself and in no way should employees have a say in my business. Owners should be able to invest as they please. Yes, as KStat says, there is an issue with anti-trust in the NBA. But it's a failed strategy as I posted.

      Honestly, this is part pulling KStat's chain...which worked. But I truly believe the NBA is less interesting when players are building super teams. I don't care what league or competition we are talking about. I value the draft. The strategy is interesting. I value trades and building teams. The strategy is interesting. I do not value collusion and wouldn't prefer a lockout which amounts to that nor do I value the players building teams and making 90% of the games, quite frankly, a waste of time.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
        I am a business owner myself and in no way should employees have a say in my business.
        I'm guessing you employees are not the product itself. In the NBA they are.


        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
        Yes, as KStat says, there is an issue with anti-trust in the NBA. But it's a failed strategy as I posted.
        No, you posted antitrust commentary taken out of context, as it pertains to players suing owners to end a lockout, via dissolving and reforming their union.

        If the owners were to unilaterally change the NBA constitution tomorrow, the players would sue and the case would be over in 5 minutes. It is quite literally written into their CBA that they cannot do that.

        And all the while, the players would still be getting paid while taking the owners to court for further damages.

        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
        LOL. You don't even recall Piston history. Detroit got Ben Wallace and Chucky Atkins in return for damaged goods. Grant Hill was never the same after injuring his ankle prior to that sign and trade.
        Jesus...how did I miss this nugget of misinformation...

        Both Wallace and Atkins were free agents in 2000, same as Grant Hill. DUmars lost hill and worked out a sign and trade so Hill could get an even bigger max contract, in return for two guys that were undervalued.

        And regardless of Hill's injury at the time, the fact remains he was a max-level superstar on a .500 team. He left Detroit in free agency. Dumars turned that into a contender inside of 3 years. Pretending like it cannot be done is simply obtuse.

        If you lose a great player after 6-7 years, that's part of the business. If you're any good at all you'll suck it up and rebuild instead of whining about how unfair life is.
        Last edited by Kstat; 07-15-2016, 08:53 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


        • #79
          Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

          When the head of the league is even admitting that it's not good for the league, the debate is pretty much over. People who run organizations usually aren't itching to admit weaknesses in their product unless it's something so glaringly obvious like this.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
            When the head of the league is even admitting that it's not good for the league, the debate is pretty much over. People who run organizations usually aren't itching to admit weaknesses in their product unless it's something so glaringly obvious like this.
            Every CEO plays poverty when looking at a labor stoppage. And he still backed off his comments just a day later.

            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


            • #81
              Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

              Originally posted by Kstat View Post
              Every CEO plays poverty when looking at a labor stoppage. And he still backed off his comments just a day later.
              He said it because he knows it's true. But money talks. Don't ever forget that it's called Pacers Sports & Entertainment. It's not fair competition. It's show. That's OK and fine if the people organizing the league want to do that and they can get fans to be interested in the product. I'm perfectly fine with that. I'm fine with the WWE as well. It's a show.

              There's nothing wrong with entertainment...seriously, but don't ever try to sell people on the idea that it's fair competition.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                When the head of the league is even admitting that it's not good for the league, the debate is pretty much over. People who run organizations usually aren't itching to admit weaknesses in their product unless it's something so glaringly obvious like this.
                This all boils down to what they think will generate the most revenue. What you saw was the head of the league letting a little honesty squeak out of his mouth. But in the end the dollar talks much louder.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

                  Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                  He said it because he knows it's true. But money talks. Don't ever forget that it's called Pacers Sports & Entertainment. It's not fair competition. It's show. That's OK and fine if the people organizing the league want to do that and they can get fans to be interested in the product. I'm perfectly fine with that. I'm fine with the WWE as well. It's a show.

                  There's nothing wrong with entertainment...seriously, but don't ever try to sell people on the idea that it's fair competition.
                  So...you're saying life isn't fair?

                  Excuse me, I need time to process this earth shattering revelation. This does not compute with my safe space!

                  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


                  • #84
                    Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

                    Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                    So...you're saying life isn't fair?

                    Excuse me, I need time to process this earth shattering revelation. This does not compute with my safe space!
                    It's not life I'm talking about. I'm talking about that farce called the NBA that attempts to portray itself as a competitive league where teams are given equal opportunity to win a title without collusion (i.e. cheating).

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

                      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                      It's not life I'm talking about. I'm talking about that farce called the NBA that attempts to portray itself as a competitive league where teams are given equal opportunity to win a title without collusion (i.e. cheating).
                      Ah, your favorite buzzword...

                      Last I checked it is a competitive league. No everything is not 100% fair and never will be. Life isn't fair. Most of us learn this very early.

                      Unfortunately, just because you don't like something does not mean you can point at it and yell "cheater!" The same rules apply to everyone. It's just that some teams benefit more from them than others.

                      And again, you don't know what collusion is.
                      Last edited by Kstat; 07-16-2016, 09:29 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


                      • #86
                        Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

                        I don't like Durant going to the Warriors, but this is all too much.

                        Remember when everyone said the Warriors dominance was bad for the NBA last season? We should just end the season and hand them the trophy? How'd that turn out?

                        The only thing that sucks about this is fans lose out on the big time players they invest in as fans. Its tough to keep rooting for your favorite team IF they constantly lose their best players.

                        But that hasn't happened yet. Durant is one guy and this is one team that hasn't won a game yet. Everyone should quit crying and focus on how their team can matchup against the Warriors and the Cavs.

                        Warriors aren't unbeatable.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

                          Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                          The same rules apply to everyone. It's just that some teams benefit more from them than others.
                          I think this is the crux of the matter. Is there a system in place that allows super teams to form? There is a system that allows the cap to go up if the revenue goes up. Maybe there needs to be a flat increase of three years. Instead of it increasing 24 million a year it goes up 8 for 3 years. And each increase of revenue is compounded on top of that.

                          That would also prevent a bottom falling out of the market. Which will happen eventually.

                          I cant imagine John Wall, Kyrie Irving, and Chris Paul like that Conley is making that much more than them. Are they to hold out in training camp to get their payday?

                          This is is a aberration to forming a super team. But there will always have a risk of super teams in a league with limited roster space. If you don't let players freely go from team to team you will have teams like the Celtics and Lakers of the 80s. Teams will strike it rich in drafts and trades and develop longer dynasties. The closes we have seen this is the Spurs. They are able to keep their drafted players because of the atmosphere they have created.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

                            Originally posted by freddielewis14 View Post
                            I don't like Durant going to the Warriors, but this is all too much.

                            Remember when everyone said the Warriors dominance was bad for the NBA last season? We should just end the season and hand them the trophy? How'd that turn out?

                            The only thing that sucks about this is fans lose out on the big time players they invest in as fans. Its tough to keep rooting for your favorite team IF they constantly lose their best players.

                            But that hasn't happened yet. Durant is one guy and this is one team that hasn't won a game yet. Everyone should quit crying and focus on how their team can matchup against the Warriors and the Cavs.

                            Warriors aren't unbeatable.
                            I support Durant's decision to do it, because the league allowed it. It's not his fault the league allows things that degrade the product.

                            As for GS not winning it this year, they lost to LeBron who joined the Cavs and constructed another super team. The point isn't that GS will necessarily win the finals every year for the next 5 years. It's that only a couple teams in the league out of 30 have the potential to win the title.

                            It used to be that teams like San Antonio and Dallas acquired older players who wanted to be part of a run (i.e. ring chasers). Now young stars in their prime are forming super teams. That makes the league less balanced which is why Adam Silver said what he said. Yes, there have been times in the past where it wasn't balanced but that came naturally through fair trades and the fair draft process. Now great players are just deciding to play with great players to win a title. Well, sure, that gives them a tremendous advantage over teams attempting to build a competitive team. It is such an advantage that 90% of the teams in the league are really out of the running from the day the season starts and maybe for years.

                            But as I've stated. I support the league making this decision. It's their league. But don't try to say it's competitive because it really isn't. That's my only beef. The NBA shouldn't attempt to claim it's a sports league where teams have a fair shot of winning it all. It's just not true. If they want to claim instead that it's entertainment along the lines of WWE, I would say that's more accurate.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

                              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                              I support Durant's decision to do it, because the league allowed it. It's not his fault the league allows things that degrade the product.

                              As for GS not winning it this year, they lost to LeBron who joined the Cavs and constructed another super team. The point isn't that GS will necessarily win the finals every year for the next 5 years. It's that only a couple teams in the league out of 30 have the potential to win the title.

                              It used to be that teams like San Antonio and Dallas acquired older players who wanted to be part of a run (i.e. ring chasers). Now young stars in their prime are forming super teams. That makes the league less balanced which is why Adam Silver said what he said. Yes, there have been times in the past where it wasn't balanced but that came naturally through fair trades and the fair draft process. Now great players are just deciding to play with great players to win a title. Well, sure, that gives them a tremendous advantage over teams attempting to build a competitive team. It is such an advantage that 90% of the teams in the league are really out of the running from the day the season starts and maybe for years.

                              But as I've stated. I support the league making this decision. It's their league. But don't try to say it's competitive because it really isn't. That's my only beef. The NBA shouldn't attempt to claim it's a sports league where teams have a fair shot of winning it all. It's just not true. If they want to claim instead that it's entertainment along the lines of WWE, I would say that's more accurate.
                              The only reason the Warriors have a super team is luck. Luck with Draymond. Luck with Curry's contract. Luck getting a player like Klay out of the top 10. Durant choosing to go there is one action of many that could have been prevented by other GMs in the draft.

                              But this is no different than West choosing to come to Pacers over Celtics. This isn't some outrageous problem in the association, it's just a happening that's less than ideal.

                              Add we have to remember the Warriors no longer will have the depth and versatility that was their calling card and Curry/Durant both have injury history. The Warriors aren't perfect.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Silver: Perception of Warriors and Cavaliers as overwhelming favorites not good for league

                                And an owner can always build a super team if willing to spend. Look at the DWill/Peirce/KG attempt.

                                Hell, if the Pacers got one more big time player on the squad I'd consider them a super team.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X