Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

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

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

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

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

Rule #1

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

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

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

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

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

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule #2

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

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

The right places to do so are:

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

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

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

Rule #3

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

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

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

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

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

Rule #4

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

Rule #5

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

An example:

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

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

Rule #6

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

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

Rule #7

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

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

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

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

Rule #8

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

Rule #9

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

Rule #10

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

Rule #11

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

SI: Will Anyone Save the NBA's Stranded Stars? (...PG's one of em)

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

  • SI: Will Anyone Save the NBA's Stranded Stars? (...PG's one of em)

    The whistle blew to signal a timeout, and yet DeMarcus Cousins stood statue-still near the free throw line in Sacramento’s palatial new Golden 1 Center, as if hoping a tractor beam would lock on his coordinates and take him... anywhere, rather than grapple with the closing minutes of another loss to the Lakers. The same Lakers who dealt the Kings their most heartbreaking defeat, in the 2002 conference finals, and are already bouncing with promise in the first season of the post-Kobe era.

    As Sacramento finished squandering a 19-point lead and Cousins’s 28-point, nine-rebound effort, the league’s most-talented center could no longer contain his exasperation. At the buzzer he beelined for Los Angeles power forward Julius Randle to air his grievances, only to be met by a united front of Lakers, many of whom laughed in his face. Cousins then retreated to the Kings’ locker room, where his gaze turned glassy. Beat reporters whispered that he would probably be too angry to take questions. Coaxed into talking, he bemoaned the opposition’s overly physical treatment and his own team’s “tender” play, knowing full well that he had voiced the same sentiments many times before.

    Moments later TNT commentator Shaquille O’Neal, who owns a small stake in the Kings, blamed Cousins for their stagnation, calling him a “hothead” who lacks “great leadership qualities.” O’Neal even hinted that the franchise “may be looking to go in a different direction.” The Hall of Fame center never points out the guards’ soft entry passes and lackadaisical transition defense, management’s atrocious draft record—or the fact that Sacramento’s 10-year playoff drought predates Cousins. Even to Shaq, who spent his 20s targeted by critics, Cousins is the franchise’s major problem, and his ouster the only solution.

    This cycle of losing, frustration and finger-pointing continued the next night in Portland. Despite repeated hacking, Cousins put up 33 points and grabbed nine rebounds, uncorking three-pointers, brilliant dribble drives and ferocious dunks. Then on the final play, small forward Rudy Gay ignored his repeated pleas for a pass and instead hoisted a contested jumper that rimmed out. Cousins stomped off the court, dejected if not disgusted, as the 122–120 overtime defeat dropped the Kings to 4–7.

    Elsewhere, other members of the NBA elite are enjoying predictably rosy seasons. LeBron James had a triple double on opening night and led the Cavaliers to a 6–0 start. Steph Curry set an NBA record by hitting 13 three-pointers. Blake Griffin, looking fully recovered from a leg injury and a damaged reputation, teamed with Chris Paul to guide the Clippers to a franchise-best 9–1 start.

    But there is another group of marooned All-Stars who, like Cousins, spent the first two weeks of the season kicking and screaming for help. In Indiana, wing Paul George was ejected and fined for booting a basketball into the stands, where it smacked a woman in the face. In Washington, point guard John Wall was tossed from back-to-back games for bumping a ref and dragging Celtics guard Marcus Smart to the ground. And in New Orleans, power forward Anthony Davis put up record numbers, but still endured an 0–8 start that has his playoff hopes on life support.

    Together, Cousins, George, Wall and Davis—all former lottery picks under 27—embody the pitfalls of a league where success is driven by the concentration of talent. As Cleveland and Golden State seek to become the first pair of teams to face off in three straight Finals, these four franchise players opened the season fighting like hell to push past mediocrity.

    All four play in small markets in front of crowds below the league’s average. Their franchises have yielded more name changes (Royals, Bullets, Hornets) than championship parades over the last 50 years, and they were a combined 11–29 at week’s end. Worst of all, barring a blockbuster trade, all four are locked in with their teams until July 2018 at the earliest.

    George, one of the league’s premier two-way players, has at least tasted success before, having played in the conference finals as recently as 2014. Since those heights, though, he sustained a broken right leg that cost him most of the 2014–15 season and watched as president Larry Bird dismantled the Pacers’ plodding, defense-first roster in search of a faster, nimbler style.

    The early results under new coach Nate McMillan and with new point guard Jeff Teague are a classic case of whack-a-mole: The offense has improved to average, but the defense has slid from third to 28th. That trade-off left George moaning to The Indianapolis Star after a loss to the Hornets that the “lifeless” Pacers displayed “no trust, no chemistry and no belief.” The situation devolved further four days later, when the hapless Sixers snapped their 0–7 start with a win over Indiana.

    Although Wall entered this season dreaming of 50 wins, the Wizards remain gridlocked. Scott Brooks, hired at $7 million per season to make over a grumpy locker room and an underperforming offense, hasn’t had an impact. Wall admitted during the off-season that he and Bradley Beal “have a tendency to dislike each other on the court,” and both ball-dominant guards are off to slow shooting starts. Through eight games the Wizards rank 28th in assist rate, proof that a mucky my-turn-your-turn attack needs a better commitment to ball movement.

    Wall’s competitiveness is self-evident, and he spoke candidly this month about a perceived lack of “respect” and “recognition” for his abilities. He was cut from USA Basketball’s 2014 World Cup roster and has yet to earn an All-NBA nod. With just two playoff series victories to his name, he understands that his team’s lack of success plays a large role in how he’s perceived. “We gotta take the next step,” Wall said earlier this month, before lapsing back into indignant beefs with referees that prompted his ejections.

    No player, not even Cousins, has suffered through a more demoralizing start than Davis. On opening night he had one of the most impressive stat lines in league history—50 points, 15 rebounds, five assists, five steals and four blocks—yet the Pelicans fell to the Nuggets at home. He followed that up with 45 points, eclipsing Michael Jordan’s record for the highest point total through two games over the last 50 years, and lost again. Six more defeats followed, causing the soft-spoken Davis to declare that losing “sucks.” When New Orleans finally claimed its first win, a clearly relieved Davis pulled point guard Tim Frazier’s head to his chest for an extended embrace.

    The Pelicans are hoping that this is as bad as it gets. Point guard Jrue Holiday is expected to return soon after attending to his wife while she underwent surgery for a benign brain tumor. Tyreke Evans, a key complementary scorer, is working his way back after knee surgery. Still, it’s hard to generate much optimism when marquee free agents consistently ignore New Orleans, leaving anonymous forward Solomon Hill as last summer’s biggest addition. At 23, and in the first year of a five-year max contract, Davis is finding that his patience and tolerance for losing are only beginning to be tested.

    There is one obvious silver lining: Cousins, George, Wall and Davis will earn more than $74 million combined this season. After emerging as franchise players during their four-year rookie contracts, all four signed lucrative long-term extensions. The collective bargaining agreement is designed to strongly encourage young stars to stay with their home teams for up to nine years. In all four cases the system worked.
    At least from the team’s perspective. Unfortunately for the players, maximizing their financial security also meant entrusting their prime years to front offices with shaky track records. Cousins has no recourse when Sacramento trots out six coaches in six seasons. George must go along for the ride if Bird trades Kawhi Leonard for George Hill on draft night. Wall must keep plugging if GM Ernie Grunfeld burns millions of dollars assembling one of the league’s least productive benches. And poor Davis must do it all—even more than he already was—when Eric Gordon, Ryan Anderson and other veterans scurry for greener pastures in free agency.

    Even occasional assistance from the NBA hasn’t helped. Shortly before Davis was drafted No. 1 in 2012, the league purchased the New Orleans franchise to stabilize it, later reselling it to a local group to ensure it wouldn’t be relocated. David Stern was so instrumental in brokering the sale of the Kings and a subsequent public-financing agreement for the Golden 1 Center that Sacramento named a street in honor of the former commissioner. Still, there’s not much that Adam Silver can do if GM Vlade Divac inexplicably uses three first-round picks in two years on young centers who will fight for scant playing time behind Cousins.

    The problems facing these stranded stars have been made worse by the NBA’s financial boom. Thanks to strong ratings and a $24 billion media rights deal, the league’s salary cap has spiked sharply from $63 million in 2014–15 to $94 million this season. That surge has had major implications for competitive balance, enabling the Warriors to add Durant without making a sacrifice and the Cavaliers to retain their championship core without encountering prohibitive luxury-tax penalties.

    Fans of the Kings, Pacers, Wizards and Pelicans could only watch glumly and explore a variety of unappetizing coping mechanisms. They pray that a youngster, like Indiana big man Myles Turner, makes an unexpected leap. They hope that the right mix of underdogs, like Frazier and Solomon Hill in New Orleans, can fill in the gaps. Or, more grimly, they dream up poaching scenarios—like, say, Cousins teaming up with Wall in Washington. The next labor deal may not offer solutions. While the league and the players are reportedly close to a new CBA, the major elements of the current cap framework are expected to carry over.

    As for the stranded stars? They’re more stuck than ever, forgotten and passed over in ways big and small. Their teams will play on national television a combined 22 times, the same number as the Knicks. Often, their only reliable source of attention comes from the trade rumor mill. But until the clock starts ticking down to the end of their contracts and the threat of leaving in free agency becomes real, teams logically conclude that hanging on to one star, even an unhappy one, is better for business than starting over from scratch. Meanwhile, any public indication of discontent from the player is immediately answered with loud charges of disloyalty.

    The $557 million Golden 1 Center, which opened this fall, is fit to house a winner. The downtown arena has 4K Ultra HD video boards, 34 luxury suites and a plaza level that opens elegantly to the street with eye-catching glass windows. Just off the main entrance, near an $8 million Jeff Koons sculpture, sits an expansive team store where fans can purchase instantly customizable apparel.

    Before they are stitched, the purple-and-white Kings jerseys circle near the ceiling on the type of rotating rail system used by dry cleaners. Stop to watch, and the nameless tops form a hypnotizing blur that becomes disorienting. Now imagine seven years of spinning, of faceless supporting cast members, of countless losses. That’s enough to make anyone look blankly into space, in search of a rescue that’s out of his hands.
    http://www.si.com/nba/2016/11/16/nba...-anthony-davis

    I think it's fairly premature to lump PG in with dudes like Boogie and AD, but this is where we are.

  • #2
    Re: SI: Will Anyone Save the NBA's Stranded Stars? (...PG's one of em)

    Yeah, I read this the other day, and listened to a podcast about this subject. I wouldn't put Paul George in that category either. Paul George can opt out after next season. The team has talent, doesn't have a ton injuries (knock on wood), and is not saddled with arguably bad contracts. Also, Paul George is not "carrying" this team like he had to do during the playoffs. That last point goes a long way in my book. Cousins, Wall, and Davis are putting up monster numbers in losing efforts.


    Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: SI: Will Anyone Save the NBA's Stranded Stars? (...PG's one of em)

      OK, I have a solution for the NBA. Just hand Paul to the Cavs and Boogie to GS. Should make for a great, competitive league. Love the NBA. Bordering on WWE.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: SI: Will Anyone Save the NBA's Stranded Stars? (...PG's one of em)

        This is a frustrating article. I understand that writers have to gather evidence for an arguement, but to lump the Pacers in with those franchises is just plain silly.

        The Pacers have made the playoffs 19 of the last 25 years. In that period they've had some serious runs, of which PG has been a part. No they didn't win any championships in that time, but that can be said for most of the league. To classify the Pacers as perennial losers is absurd.

        Yes this season has started out rocky, but I'm pretty confident this team makes it into the top 8 again. There are a lot of worse places PG could be than Indy.
        Last edited by pacerDU; 11-17-2016, 10:27 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: SI: Will Anyone Save the NBA's Stranded Stars? (...PG's one of em)

          If the writer would have left it at Wall, Cousins and AD, I would have agreed with the premise of the article. It seems like he needed a forth person and randomly picked PG since the Pacers are off to a shaky start. Since drafting PG, every year outside the injury year we have been in the playoffs, twice going to eastern conference finals. He doesn't belong in that article at all.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: SI: Will Anyone Save the NBA's Stranded Stars? (...PG's one of em)

            Also, according to Wikipedia DC is the 6th largest metro area in the US with 6 million people, and the writer calls it a small market. The guy doesn't seem too bright.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: SI: Will Anyone Save the NBA's Stranded Stars? (...PG's one of em)

              Seems simple. We trade Ellis and Turner for Cousins and Teague, Jefferson and our 1st for Wall. Sign Hayward in the off season and we reunite the 2010 draft class and rescue a bunch of listless stars. You're welcome NBA.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: SI: Will Anyone Save the NBA's Stranded Stars? (...PG's one of em)

                Originally posted by Wage View Post
                Seems simple. We trade Ellis and Turner for Cousins and Teague, Jefferson and our 1st for Wall. Sign Hayward in the off season and we reunite the 2010 draft class and rescue a bunch of listless stars. You're welcome NBA.
                Negative
                I'm not perfect and neither are you.

                Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the esteem of Elohim,
                Ephisians 4: 32 And be kind towards one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as Elohim also forgave you in Messiah.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: SI: Will Anyone Save the NBA's Stranded Stars? (...PG's one of em)

                  Originally posted by HickeyS2000 View Post
                  Also, according to Wikipedia DC is the 6th largest metro area in the US with 6 million people, and the writer calls it a small market. The guy doesn't seem too bright.
                  That's 3 or 4 times larger than Indy Metro, with a lot more tourism and money. It's funny that they have not been nearly as successful a franchise in the last 30 years. Just terrible GMs.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: SI: Will Anyone Save the NBA's Stranded Stars? (...PG's one of em)

                    The point isn't just that the teams are struggling, it is that the NBA doesn't give these guys any chance to be seen on a national stage (see the line about the teams getting a combined 22 games on national TV, equal to the Knicks by themselves).

                    One could understand that losing teams would not get the attention, but prior to the start of the season you'd have thought the Pacers would get some boost in the TV mix due to having PG (who shone in the Olympics) and having done well in the previous season.
                    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


                    • #11
                      Re: SI: Will Anyone Save the NBA's Stranded Stars? (...PG's one of em)

                      Originally posted by BillS View Post
                      The point isn't just that the teams are struggling, it is that the NBA doesn't give these guys any chance to be seen on a national stage (see the line about the teams getting a combined 22 games on national TV, equal to the Knicks by themselves).

                      One could understand that losing teams would not get the attention, but prior to the start of the season you'd have thought the Pacers would get some boost in the TV mix due to having PG (who shone in the Olympics) and having done well in the previous season.
                      It is tragic. Paul makes as much as some country's GDPs to play a child's game for a living and is only on regional TV every other day...and only rarely on national TV...and international TV in the Olympics. It is really just unfair to him.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: SI: Will Anyone Save the NBA's Stranded Stars? (...PG's one of em)

                        Any time you make as many changes as the Pacers did in the off season it takes months to really gel. There is nothing that can be done about it except maybe a better coach but even then its going to take time.

                        They also mentioned hoping a young player would make a jump like Turner is, well we are the team with Turner and he is going to be huge. PG and Turner combo could be amazing. I think they need to trade Ellis for a real SG.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: SI: Will Anyone Save the NBA's Stranded Stars? (...PG's one of em)

                          Until Barkley played on a good team he wasn't on TV that much either. Having a good team will get him in the national spotlight. I am sure the Cavs would relieve us of his services if that's best for Paul...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: SI: Will Anyone Save the NBA's Stranded Stars? (...PG's one of em)

                            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                            Until Barkley played on a good team he wasn't on TV that much either. Having a good team will get him in the national spotlight. I am sure the Cavs would relieve us of his services if that's best for Paul...
                            Huh? Barkley joined a championship team as a rookie and made the playoffs. He made the playoffs 13 out of 16 seasons. He was pretty much always on a good team.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: SI: Will Anyone Save the NBA's Stranded Stars? (...PG's one of em)

                              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                              It is tragic. Paul makes as much as some country's GDPs to play a child's game for a living and is only on regional TV every other day...and only rarely on national TV...and international TV in the Olympics. It is really just unfair to him.
                              What in the world are you yammering about? I'm guessing that will be your argument about why he shouldn't go to a team in a bigger media market to advance his career - "Shut up and suck it up you already make lots of money so your personal career goals mean crap."
                              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

                              Working...
                              X