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

Donnie has earned some trust

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

  • #76
    Re: Donnie has earned some trust

    Originally posted by Putnam
    The Pacers in all their NBA history have won 0 championships, as we are all aware. That is the major fact in assessing Donnie Walsh's career. He has never won a championship.
    Neither has Reggie Miller, and yet he will be inducted into the Hall of Fame. The number of championships he has won will not be factored in when it comes time to vote on that. Nor will it for Karl Malone, John Stockton, Charles Barkley or any number of other players who have never won a championship. Heck, Lebron James hasn't won a championship yet. What does that say about him? What if he never does? Will that be a major factor in assessing his career? If winning a championship is what you're primarily going to go by in assessing any sports figure's career (you said it was a major factor), then by your argument, yes, Donnie Walsh is a lousy GM. But then, Reggie Miller was a lousy player.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Donnie has earned some trust

      Originally posted by indygeezer View Post
      Please do not interject statistics into the arguement. I worked with PhD statisticians every day of my life for nearly 40 years. Numbers can be massaged to reflect ANYTHING desired.

      In general I agree with you but not in this case - look at BP's post where he decided to introduce stats into the thread.

      But if he wants to throw a bunch of numbers out and then argue that they don't say what they say, that's his business. It's good for a few laughs anyway.
      The poster formerly known as Rimfire

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Donnie has earned some trust

        Originally posted by DisplacedKnick
        In general I agree with you but not in this case - look at BP's post where he decided to introduce stats into the thread.

        But if he wants to throw a bunch of numbers out and then argue that they don't say what they say, that's his business. It's good for a few laughs anyway.
        As is your dismissal of the 2003-04 season when having this discussion because it is "a clear anomaly and not useful to the analysis." If you're jesting, then I must not be picking up on it. Whereas the past two seasons are a clear anomaly. You're simply being dishonest and would say none of this with a straight face if you were looking me in the eye. And if you did, we'd see who was laughing. I hope we have that opportunity someday.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Donnie has earned some trust

          Originally posted by bulletproof View Post
          As is your dismissal of the 2003-04 season when having this discussion because it is "a clear anomaly and not useful to the analysis." If you're jesting, then I must not be picking up on it. Whereas the past two seasons are a clear anomaly. You're simply being dishonest and would say none of this with a straight face if you were looking me in the eye. And if you did, we'd see who was laughing. I hope we have that opportunity someday.
          I really hate to say it, because I admire Donnie Walsh, but on this matter, the statisticians of the board are right. 2003-04 was an anomaly. Statistically, it's an anomaly because it's the only season post-Finals vet team we won more than 50 games (and by a lot too). It's a classic outlier. Any statistician has to at least note it as peculiar. As for basketball-wise, it's an anomaly because it was the only season our chemistry actually seemed to work...and even then, it came apart a bit come playoff time.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Donnie has earned some trust

            Originally posted by rexnom
            I really hate to say it, because I admire Donnie Walsh, but on this matter, the statisticians of the board are right. 2003-04 was an anomaly. Statistically, it's an anomaly because it's the only season post-Finals vet team we won more than 50 games (and by a lot too). It's a classic outlier. Any statistician has to at least note it as peculiar. As for basketball-wise, it's an anomaly because it was the only season our chemistry actually seemed to work...and even then, it came apart a bit come playoff time.
            You're right. The 61-win season was an anomaly. So was last year when one of our star players stood up and demanded a trade at the beginning of the season. So was the 2004-05 season because of the brawl and suspensions. So was the 2002-03 season when the team inexplicably collapsed after the all-star break. So was the 2000 finals appearance. Want me to continue?

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Donnie has earned some trust

              Originally posted by bulletproof View Post
              As is your dismissal of the 2003-04 season when having this discussion because it is "a clear anomaly and not useful to the analysis." If you're jesting, then I must not be picking up on it. Whereas the past two seasons are a clear anomaly. You're simply being dishonest and would say none of this with a straight face if you were looking me in the eye. And if you did, we'd see who was laughing. I hope we have that opportunity someday.
              Will the banner raising ceremony be televised nationally when they raise that 03-04 61 win season banner to the rafters?

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

              ------

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

              -John Wooden

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Donnie has earned some trust

                Originally posted by Bball View Post
                Will the banner raising ceremony be televised nationally when they raise that 03-04 61 win season banner to the rafters?

                -Bball
                Will the banner raising ceremony be televised nationally when they raise the Most Overused Joke banner to the rafters?

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Donnie has earned some trust

                  Originally posted by Jay@Section204 View Post
                  Damn you all.
                  That's a good start. But there's more work to do:

                  - Don't drop the lockout. Apply the winning percentage over an 82 game season.
                  - Factor in playoff records, both straight and weighted by seed.
                  - The brawl caused significant loss. Amortize it's impact over all the years Ron was here. That will bring the 61 win season down enough that people won't complain about the anomaly.

                  Injuries are certainly a factor. They can't be included in the main study, because people will argue that GMs must take responsibility for unhealthy players. But, for comparison's sake, write up a detailed appendix of not only games missed of both starters and rotation players, but how nagging injuries affected performance. We don't want it to get too confusing, though, so write companion documents on the following that you can refer readers to for more information:

                  - Rik Smits' feet
                  - Derrick McKey's one leg being shorter than the other
                  - Dale Davis' separated shoulder
                  - Ron Artest's jammed fingers
                  - Reggie Miller's high ankle sprain
                  - Jamaal Tinsley's sinusitus

                  Oh, and Jay, we'll need you to go ahead and come in on Sunday, too, okay? Great.

                  Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Donnie has earned some trust

                    Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
                    That's a good start. But there's more work to do:

                    - Don't drop the lockout. Apply the winning percentage over an 82 game season.
                    - Factor in playoff records, both straight and weighted by seed.
                    - The brawl caused significant loss. Amortize it's impact over all the years Ron was here. That will bring the 61 win season down enough that people won't complain about the anomaly.

                    Injuries are certainly a factor. They can't be included in the main study, because people will argue that GMs must take responsibility for unhealthy players. But, for comparison's sake, write up a detailed appendix of not only games missed of both starters and rotation players, but how nagging injuries affected performance. We don't want it to get too confusing, though, so write companion documents on the following that you can refer readers to for more information:

                    - Rik Smits' feet
                    - Derrick McKey's one leg being shorter than the other
                    - Dale Davis' separated shoulder
                    - Ron Artest's jammed fingers
                    - Reggie Miller's high ankle sprain
                    - Jamaal Tinsley's sinusitus

                    Oh, and Jay, we'll need you to go ahead and come in on Sunday, too, okay? Great.




                    Thanks for the laugh, KB.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Donnie has earned some trust

                      Originally posted by Hicks
                      Will the banner raising ceremony be televised nationally when they raise the Most Overused Joke banner to the rafters?
                      Zzzziiiiiiiiiiiing

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Donnie has earned some trust

                        Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                        Will the banner raising ceremony be televised nationally when they raise the Most Overused Joke banner to the rafters?



                        Thank you

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Donnie has earned some trust

                          Originally posted by bulletproof View Post
                          You're right. The 61-win season was an anomaly. So was last year when one of our star players stood up and demanded a trade at the beginning of the season. So was the 2004-05 season because of the brawl and suspensions. So was the 2002-03 season when the team inexplicably collapsed after the all-star break. So was the 2000 finals appearance. Want me to continue?
                          Please do - were you about to argue that all the players involved in every item you listed weren't acquired by Donnie Walsh?
                          The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Donnie has earned some trust

                            Originally posted by bulletproof View Post
                            Zzzziiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiing
                            As long as people keep acting like one lone 61 win season was the equivalent of a championship, and somehow trumps any other issues, then the 'joke' about a "61 Win Season" banner will never get old.

                            Sure, it's an accomplishment... So was being outmaneuvered by Joe Dumars and the Pistons making that accomplishment meaningless in the end.

                            We won 61 games and still don't have a championship because we stood pat while someone else improved.

                            Part of Walsh's 'genius' is also his problem... His slow, patient approach isn't conducive to keeping up with other teams. It played well in Indianapolis for a while. It would play anywhere that received a lily soft approach by the media and a fanbase satisified to simply make the playoffs. The Pacers' tenuous past in Indy also bought him a more relaxed atmosphere to work in. The bar was set low to begin with and he had to know if he could build a perennial playoff team that the masses would be satisfied.

                            And he was right....For a while. There came a point he needed a bigger picture... another gear... and he didn't have it. Through the drafting of Reggie Miller and the shrewd hiring of Larry Brown the bar got raised. And at that point Walsh needed to change his approach as well. But he couldn't really do that. He was into uncharted territories and IMHO eventually panicked with a fluke loss to the Knicks in 1999. This set into motion the dismantling of the team. That he was surprised that they made the Finals in 2000 shouldn't be a feather in his cap... it should be a giant redflag about whether Walsh had passed his own comfort zone and was time to move on. It was.

                            I predicted at the time that we were entering an era where Walsh would end up (the term I used at the time) "flailing around". What had gotten us to the peak was not something that was sustainable, and with the bar now set higher, I predicted pressures would come to bear that would not allow him to utilize his 'slow and patient' approach. PR moves would become less effective. His habit of not addressing mistakes sooner rather than later would haunt him more. The act of 'overpaying' our own would have new consequences when just making the playoffs was no longer good enough for a growing number of fans and the media. Expectations would be higher.

                            Plus, he singlehandedly short-circuited the Pacers' first run into title contention and closed the window himself. The problem is, he thought it was a pre-emptive strike. He was wrong. 2000 proved that, but unfortunately the mold was cast in 1999.

                            There was no way he was going to escape that. And he didn't. IMHO, everything we've seen since the summer of 2000 has been gimmicks and bandaids. I've never thought the trading for JO was so much a shrewd, planned move as simply a response to DD's displeasure with how things had played out for him. It immediately threw a roadblock into what you'd think was the planned natural progression of the team. If it was a planned move, then why all the sweating of details and high dollar negotiations for Croshere? And what of Al Harrington that the Pacers had been grooming? And was there anyone else besides Walsh that was "surprised" by Smits' retirement?

                            And surely Walsh had to see the Thomas hiring as more of a gimmick than a true hiring for a team coming off a Finals' appearance. And you could argue the first Bird hiring was a gimmick as well... but it paid off thanks to Bird surrounding himself was solid assistants (altho the jury is still out whether Bird is a gimmick now or not). Thomas obviously didn't pay off.

                            But I digress...
                            We finally made a midseason move again... when the playoffs were in jeopardy (Bulls trade). (Note: Was the previous midseason trade also the last time that the playoffs were in jeopardy (Larry Brown's final season)... or was there another?). Was the Bulls trade also a planned shrewd move.. or a last ditch effort to save Walsh's one true goal of making the playoffs?

                            "Rebuilding on the fly"... "Restoration process" = Throwing spaghetti at the wall... "Rouge on a pig"

                            One thing I didn't factor in my earlier prediction was the pressure Walsh would put on himself (if that is even possible) as he knew retirement was coming.

                            He's far out of his comfort zone IMHO and dealing with things counter to his prior managerial style.

                            Chemistry issues... contract issues... coaching issues... team building issues... Why should he get a pass on this stuff? Are these things he can fix sooner rather than later?

                            Walsh is probably the classic example of a person who can get a team raised from nowhere and get them to respectability. And with a little luck... even more.. But it takes guts and vision to make that next step. Especially if you want to push your team there and not just watch, wait and hope.

                            Donnie Walsh's time has passed. It passed a long while ago as far as I'm concerned. It's time for new vision in the Ivory Tower. Apparently that is going to be Bird. The sooner we see what he can do unencumbered by the past management, the better. If he's got the right stuff then great, the sooner we get it going the better. If he's not go the right stuff, then the sooner we see that and move on, that is also for the better. We know what Walsh can do, and he did that a long time ago... then he took it all apart. And he's been thrashing to put it back together again.

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

                            ------

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

                            -John Wooden

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Donnie has earned some trust

                              Originally posted by Bball View Post
                              As long as people keep acting like one lone 61 win season was the equivalent of a championship, and somehow trumps any other issues, then the 'joke' about a "61 Win Season" banner will never get old.

                              Sure, it's an accomplishment... So was being outmaneuvered by Joe Dumars and the Pistons making that accomplishment meaningless in the end.
                              That's what rubs me the wrong way. It WAS meaningful. Overall, that was a GREAT season. I hadn't had more fun since 2000. I will never forget that season.

                              Your point is valid that Joe Dumar out-did us by landing Rasheed Wallace at the deadline, and the Pistons won the championship. Good for them. But that does not make our season meaningless. I had a hell of a time watching that season, and I refuse to let it get drug through the mud to whine about a lack of a title (which I want as much as anyone).

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Donnie has earned some trust

                                And as much as you guys whine about Donnie Walsh (and please listen up because most of you know I don't worship the man), the reason the media and fanbase was and is mostly soft on him is because he made us what we are after being what the Atlanta Hawks are now: A team seemingly not getting very far from the basement. In fact, from what I understand of it, we were worse; they at least have promising talent that could lead somewhere in the next few years.

                                It's called appreciation. So while I understand the hunger for a title or titles, I don't condone (and this is just my opinion so don't take it like I'm giving out orders here) the mindset of ripping apart someone that took us to a better place. That is NOT to say that what we have now is the promise land. It's not. But it's a hell of a lot better than the 80's, isn't it? Now, that doesn't mean I'm happy with where we are at. I'm only happy that we aren't where we used to be, and despite the sickle-waving by the pessimists, we are in a position to spring forward if some things go our way (we make or have made the right moves, we stay healthy, and there isn't another Rasheed Wallace steal at the deadline).

                                That doesn't necessarily mean in a year we're in the Finals. It just means we're not Hawks fans who can only dream of making the Finals in the next decade.

                                The message I'm trying to say is simply this: You don't have to be satisfied, but it's OK to be happy. Some of you are sour as hell.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X