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

The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

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

  • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

    a) Aracadian now owns this thread. That was brilliant.

    b) As a paying customer that boo'ed SJax with much enthusiasm, I insist it had 90% to do with on-court performance - I can't stand ballhog, streaky shooting, turnover prone SGs. Give me a guy that shoots less, scores less, and is more predictable at that position. 8% for the way he'd run his mouth at Carlsisle and teammates, and 2% for his away-from-the court nonsense. I pay my money, and if I'm not happy with the product, what other choice do I have? Oh yeah, I dropped my tickets. The change is too-little, too late. And I'm far more pissed off at management than the on-court people, but the Simons seem to have their heads in the sand. Or somewhere else on their own anatomy.

    c) Its not reasonable to judge this trade in a partial-season with no training camp. The Pacers acquired "system" players, not one-on-one guys. It will take a full training camp for these guys to get comfortable, and it was utterly unfair to dump that many players into Carlisle's ultra-complicated system mid-season last year.

    d) I still beleive it would've made better sense to buyout Jackson's contract, but apparently the lawyers said no. So whether you like Murphy or not, you need to think of him as the financial equivalent of eating Jack's contract. You just must.

    e) As for re-acquiring Al last summer, (1) the Pacers were the sole owners of the trade exception the Hawks desperately wanted, and (2) negotiated down Al's new deal from six years to four. Unfortunately, Chris Mullin is the benefactor of that, but let's quit pretending that the fans were drving that one. Some stock traders buy low and sell high, others buy high and sell low, but not for very long. In Al's case, we seemed to buy low and sell low. Whoop-de-do. I'm not yet convinced that a #11 draft pick is going to be that big of deal anytime soon.

    f) triple-threat, welcome back.
    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

    Comment


    • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

      Originally posted by Roferr View Post
      Through the first 14 home games, the Pacers averaged 16,684. The attendance took a noticeable nose-dive after the 14th game and for the next 10 games averaged 14,248. Jack's tenure overlapped this time period so the attendance was on a down turn before the trade. The attendance stayed relatively the same after the 14th game, so the trade is not an explanation as to the lack of attendance.

      http://www.sportsnetwork.com/default...endance100.htm
      Let's not forget the number of $4 balcony seats in there during the first month that inflated attendance stats.

      The decision to stay home was made last spring. I can't tell you how many people I've encountered that said the NJ series was "disgusting", that SJax's on-court antics in 2005-06 (long before shoot out at Club Rio) were a significant variable in that decision, etc.

      Club Rio may have been the first significant off-court thing (other than the brawl), but it was hardly a tipping point for the paying customers. It just added a magnifying glass to an already large problem.
      Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
      Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
      Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
      Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
      And life itself, rushing over me
      Life itself, the wind in black elms,
      Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

      Comment


      • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

        Jay, it's not an equivilent because we are talking about years of cap hit, not just money out of pocket. It's brutal compared to a buy-out. More so if a convication gave the team a morality clause option to cut him outright.


        Harrington was partially for the fans, it was part of the image clean-up. I do agree with others that thought it was also a way to turn something non-tangible (TE) into a tradable commodity.

        But for chrissakes, get something with that commodity, don't just waste it. Don't act like the TE was free, it wasn't. That TE cost losing an all-star player, even if he was a problem child. And it cost money, and then to get something usable for it it costs a very high draft pick in a deep draft.

        and it was utterly unfair to dump that many players into Carlisle's ultra-complicated system mid-season last year.
        You don't like Rick so this is ALWAYS going to be your stance. But the fact is that QUIS, DANNY, SHAWNE, DALE...heck JO, RON, AL and TINSLEY for that matter...all got "dumped" into the system and won games with it.

        Dale wasn't lost when he stepped in. Okay, he'd played under Rick before. But then the 98 teams soared instantly under the new system back then. As did hte 03-04 team. They didn't come out of the gate slow or anything.

        What, was 3 years not enough for Dun and Murph to learn the systems out there? Jackson seemed to pick up Nellie's system right away, yet Dunleavy was flopping in it after months of play. Heck, he shot his best EARLY this season, not after getting into the groove or something.


        I'm sick of people loving accountablity for Jackson but not asking it of the players that came back. Dun and Troy didn't put up low numbers by their own standards, they didn't struggle in Indy. They did what they've been doing. THAT'S THEIR GAME. Get used to it.

        If it gets better next year it's going to be due to their own self-improvement, not due to undertanding the system.

        And besides Jay, your argument says that they should have kept Rick because they would have been great after having TIME TO LEARN THE SYSTEM.

        I mean it won 50, 50, and 61 games, so with these talented guys 48-50 wins should be no problem...they just needed time. But now they will have to learn a new system and probably even have to learn how to play with new teammates too.

        Comment


        • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

          Originally posted by pacertom View Post
          two words:

          LIP SERVICE

          Judge him by his actions.

          Then we all see how little he has learned and how little he is capable of learning by past mistakes. At times he seems to express regret, perhaps when his agent convinces him that is it wise do do so.
          1 - YOU SAID that he never said this so I have three words you might try as an option - "I was wrong". You were. Instead of owning up you just explain it away.

          You want an apology, but he gave one and you just dismissed it. That proves that you didn't really want an apology at all, you'd made up your mind already. In other words the lip service was coming from you when you complained about him not apologizing, which makes your response more than a little ironic.

          2 - Um, what criminal or immoral behavior has he been involved with since Rio? So how's it lip service? I won't do it again, he hasn't done it again, what the problem?


          Let me guess, you've never had to take a mulligan anywhere in your life. You never get to New Years and say "I'm going to change this about my life".

          Or is it just that when you do someone is always there to say "Bull****, you won't change a damn thing" and that's turned you off on apologies and life changes?


          You want me to agree that it was lip service, I'll give you something TANGIBLE instead of the BS opinions I see around here. If Jack is responsible for some future criminal behavior that would indicate that his apology was lip service I'll be first in line to agree with you.

          And that's a fact and I won't excuse it away like you did when I presented the facts to you. I'll say the words "you were right, he did keep doing thug crap off the court".


          (this will not include things like defending himself directly or his wife, family, etc - I mean stuff that the courts will say "that was wrong" or "you had no right to")

          Comment


          • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

            For all of you people who think that we got ripped off in the trade, her are some numbers that Jack has put up in last nites game.

            5- 15 shooting

            6 turnovers


            For the playoffs his numbers are a whopping:

            16-51 for a whopping 31%

            Combine that with his 16 turnovers and I ask myself why would we want him on the team?

            Comment


            • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

              Originally posted by Elgin56 View Post
              For all of you people who think that we got ripped off in the trade, her are some numbers that Jack has put up in last nites game.

              5- 15 shooting

              6 turnovers


              For the playoffs his numbers are a whopping:

              16-51 for a whopping 31%

              Combine that with his 16 turnovers and I ask myself why would we want him on the team?
              not to stir up any stuff, but that's better than Dunleavy's 0-0 and 0 turnovers, or overall playoff numbers of 0-0 0%.

              I was all for getting rid of Jack...IMO, it was just time for all of us to move on, and I think he would agree with that.

              Considering that we won't have a pick in the first round this year...it didn't make sense to pull the trigger on a trade that didn't make the Pacers any better. Missing the playoffs wasn't worth getting rid of him.

              The trade didn't look good on paper that day, and it doesn't look any better now that we have seen it in action.

              Do I think he'll start to wear thin on the Warriors fans? I do, but at least they are in the playoffs. (and I wanted Jack out of here just as bad as anyone else...but not for scraps. We already did that with Peja/Ron Ron, and it made me mad then, too.)
              Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
              - Margaret Mead

              Comment


              • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                Originally posted by Sh4d3 View Post
                Again, I agree.

                However, there are some who wanted Jack gone who have now completely flip-flopped for no good reason, other than the classic "the grass is always greener" scenario.

                Like Seth said, Jack's game isn't much different in GS than it is now. His game is better suited to the style that GS plays, and Jack typically plays good defense when he's motivated. But, as the rest of us who remember Jack's warts as well have been trying to point out, he's still a turnover machine and poor ball-handler, and when he starts missing shots he tries to force things, starts *****ing at the refs, and it just snowballs into a mess.

                I GUARANTEE that a lot of GS fans will be Jack-bashing once the honeymoon ends.

                Btw, Al and Runi have shown no more than Murphy and Diogu since the swap.
                Al showed a better 3pt shot than Murph and a lot cheaper contract. Powell hasn't been Ike levels but he's been solid. As I say, Ike is better but is he 5-6 million more and a talent hit in 2 other spots better? Not really IMO.

                Al in the 2nd round has helped show what he can do. His defense, bad as it can be, is still better than Troy's. Honestly I was very disappointed in watching Troy on defense. I knew they weren't strong, but sheesh. Plus Troy's rebounding is only slightly better than Al's. I thought it was supposed to be a lot better but really it isn't.

                Troy and Murph get the SAME treatment from me was Jackson (or Croshere). If you were making 5-6m a year then great. That's identical to what Nellie said about them. But they aren't.

                Jack and Al could have been moved at the trade deadline instead, or this summer even.


                Remember when STABILITY was the main issue and all we wanted was to see the same lineup have a full season to give it a go instead of facing a major disruption? Apparently TPTB completely forgot this.




                TripleThreat - I like your response (a few pages ago now) and you are a lot closer to opinions and reasoning I can understand or even agree with.

                I don't really agree that the brawl would have been a lot better without Jackson because of a few factors: Ben's brother had left his seat and moved 2-3 sections over to get to Ron before having to settle for hitting Fred Jones in the back of the head, Green did punch Ron in the back of the head too, and Jack punched a guy AFTER he'd thrown a full beer in Ron's face while his hands were being held back.

                That situation was drunken, angry and out of control. Also the guys at the forum party I think said that it was Rip or someone else that Jack was going after because of some contact that I missed when watching it. I haven't gone back to verify it. But the point is that I'm not certain that Jack was trying to get to Ben and backed off. I don't recall him shying away from anyone that night.

                He made it worse, I considered him the worst part of that night from the Pacers side of it, but I was scared for guys like Reggie too. That crowd was boiling over before Ron got up, and stuff like that continues to happen there to a lesser degree despite the black eye the Palace took (like AI getting a coin thrown at him that same season, fans fighting with each other as well during the 2nd Indy game).



                Isn't the book on Jackson pretty clear - stops to complain about non-foul calls way too much, has an overenhanced need to defend his "family", his circle of friends and teammates, and tries to help by taking over too much in games at times.

                I don't think his chucks are "look at me" plays, I think they are "I'll save the day" plays instead. If he needs to fix something it's that he needs to learn how to help people in a more productive way.

                Pull Ron out instead of punching anyone, get on 911 and then get your boys in the car and away from Rio, know the limits of your handles rather than forcing into a double team and losing the ball.

                None of those are morality issues IMO. I think he's trying to be a hero and he just hasn't learned better techniques. That doesn't excuse the results, I just don't see him as a dispicable person. Instead he's frustrating.

                Comment


                • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                  Originally posted by Elgin56 View Post
                  For all of you people who think that we got ripped off in the trade, her are some numbers that Jack has put up in last nites game.

                  5- 15 shooting

                  6 turnovers


                  For the playoffs his numbers are a whopping:

                  16-51 for a whopping 31%

                  Combine that with his 16 turnovers and I ask myself why would we want him on the team?
                  Post Dirk's numbers for the playoffs. Post the final results in round 1 vs Dallas directly due to those numbers. We're done talking about it.

                  No one said he's unflawed. He makes 5.5m, what non-rookie contract do you want for that money that's putting up great playoff numbers all-around?

                  And as TT said, Jack's numbers are still more productive in the playoffs than Dun or Troy, and it cost the Warriors a few million less to get them.

                  Comment


                  • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                    Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post

                    Isn't the book on Jackson pretty clear - stops to complain about non-foul calls way too much, has an overenhanced need to defend his "family", his circle of friends and teammates, and tries to help by taking over too much in games at times.

                    I don't think his chucks are "look at me" plays, I think they are "I'll save the day" plays instead. If he needs to fix something it's that he needs to learn how to help people in a more productive way.

                    Pull Ron out instead of punching anyone, get on 911 and then get your boys in the car and away from Rio, know the limits of your handles rather than forcing into a double team and losing the ball.

                    None of those are morality issues IMO. I think he's trying to be a hero and he just hasn't learned better techniques. That doesn't excuse the results, I just don't see him as a dispicable person. Instead he's frustrating.
                    I can agree with a lot of this. I don't hate the guy, but the brawl did things to this franchise that I think it's going to take a LONG time to recover from. I don't expect great things from the Pacers as I have grown accustomed to, and I don't like it one bit.

                    I agree with you that he was the worst one that night. I can say that I would have headed into the stands if I were Ron, and I honestly believe that he was headed up there to intimidate and punk the guy (even though he got the wrong one). I know that a lot of people will disagree with that, but that's JMHO, FWIW.
                    Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
                    - Margaret Mead

                    Comment


                    • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                      Jay, it's not an equivilent because we are talking about years of cap hit, not just money out of pocket. It's brutal compared to a buy-out. More so if a convication gave the team a morality clause option to cut him outright.
                      I've got to believe the lawyers said it wouldn't, and thus the reason to trade him instead of wait it out.

                      But for chrissakes, get something with that commodity, don't just waste it. Don't act like the TE was free, it wasn't. That TE cost losing an all-star player, even if he was a problem child. And it cost money, and then to get something usable for it it costs a very high draft pick in a deep draft.
                      Agree. I'm just saying the Pacers didn't make the trade to acquire Al because the fans were begging for it.

                      And besides Jay, your argument says that they should have kept Rick because they would have been great after having TIME TO LEARN THE SYSTEM.

                      I mean it won 50, 50, and 61 games, so with these talented guys 48-50 wins should be no problem...they just needed time. But now they will have to learn a new system and probably even have to learn how to play with new teammates too.
                      These guys aren't as taleneted, I don't get the strawman argument. We all know they aren't as talented but they also aren't as troubled and they are clearly team-first, "how do I fit in" guys - not "give me the ball and let me take over" guys.

                      Besides, I've said more than once is that its ironic to me that the team finally decided to give Rick the types of players he needs to coach when he was on his way out the door.

                      They haven't brought in players to compliment JO skills. They haven't brought in players to compiment Rick's gamesplan/ approach.

                      I'm not a huge fan of Rick's alleged personality, I've said over and over that I never had a problem with his gameplan although I think he makes the game too cerebral - especially for his instinctive PG. But I am seriously pissed off at management, and I appearantly haven't done a good enough job of telling everyone that.
                      Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                      Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                      Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                      Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                      And life itself, rushing over me
                      Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                      Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                      Comment


                      • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                        Isn't the book on Jackson pretty clear - stops to complain about non-foul calls way too much, has an overenhanced need to defend his "family", his circle of friends and teammates, and tries to help by taking over too much in games at times.

                        I don't think his chucks are "look at me" plays, I think they are "I'll save the day" plays instead. If he needs to fix something it's that he needs to learn how to help people in a more productive way.

                        Pull Ron out instead of punching anyone, get on 911 and then get your boys in the car and away from Rio, know the limits of your handles rather than forcing into a double team and losing the ball.

                        None of those are morality issues IMO. I think he's trying to be a hero and he just hasn't learned better techniques. That doesn't excuse the results, I just don't see him as a dispicable person. Instead he's frustrating.

                        Yes. That's right. That's why I wanted him traded - its the way he makes those decisions that I don't trust. Ultimately, he'll take down the Warriors with the same poor decision making. Maybe they get an extra playoff round before the frustration. Big freakin' deal.

                        I agree, he's not a ballhog, firing up a threepointer with 19 seconds on the shotclock, because he's saying "look at me." He's a ballhog because he's saying, "I just don't trust the rest of you, I'm doing it myself, my way."

                        If there was an NBA one-on-one tourney, SJax and Artest would make the final eight. Its not ability, its teamwork and decision making that always haunt them.
                        Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                        Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                        Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                        Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                        And life itself, rushing over me
                        Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                        Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                        Comment


                        • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                          1 - YOU SAID that he never said this
                          You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. I never said that AT ALL.

                          I said:

                          And Jackson could not make up for his behavior, because he didn't want to, and because he never thought he did anything wrong, just like Ron Artest.
                          He made lots of statements after the brawl in which he said he stood by Ron, teammates stick together, blah, blah, blah....

                          You latched on the the one PR statement that someone wrote for him in an attempt to retroactively polish his image as your evidence that he actually THINKS(as opposed to merely SAID) that in the brawl he did something wrong. I stand by his many other statements and his ridiculous and growing body of work.

                          I was wrong about something. He was a lot more effective player on the court in the Dallas series than I ever thought he could be over a 6 game stretch. As a Pacer he could neither lead nor finish a fast break. I did not think that he was sandbagging, but now I know that I am wrong. The booing got to him and he gave an inferior effort. All along I thought that he just was an inconsistent below average player. He was instead an inconsistent slightly above average player who was dogging it.
                          The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                            one of the perhps unfiltered and unrehearsed statements made by Jackson that may indicates how he feels about the brawl, its importance, and his role:

                            http://www2.indystar.com/articles/0/...-7660-245.html

                            Originally posted by CD Jackson (Conduct Detrimental)

                            "A team goes out and a team leaves together, that's my attitude," said Jackson, who is preparing for his return as a starting small forward. "I'm out there trying to win a championship and help my team win in any way possible. As long as it's me helping my team, I don't feel like I did anything wrong.

                            "Helping a teammate is never wrong. Helping a teammate, someone you consider your family, someone you travel with all year, any way you can help them, you're going to help them."

                            "It was just in the spur of the moment," Jackson said. "My whole attitude was to get to (Artest) and get him back, but when I got there things had got a little bit out of control. I hate how it went down, but I don't regret helping my teammate."

                            Jackson said he doesn't disagree with his suspension, but argued that he reacted instinctively and consistently with his attitude toward his concept of team. That philosophy was affirmed two seasons ago, when he was a starter on the San Antonio team that won the NBA championship.

                            "I was brought here to this team to help keep guys together and bring that family attitude. Coming from San Antonio and knowing what it takes to win a championship, that's what I brought. That's what I'm going to continue to bring. Even though this little incident happened, I'm going to come out and play with the same intensity, play the same way. I'm going to have my team's back 100 percent. Nothing's going to change me. I'm just going to be a little smarter.
                            a little smarter
                            little incident
                            I don't feel that I did anything wrong


                            The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                            Comment


                            • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                              I don't know how one can argue that Jackson has changed when he continually says he isn't going to change. Does he say his apology everytime Matt Barnes frisks him before a game? Are we saying he's changed because he has gotten any felony charges since the Fall? That's like the captain of the Exxon Valdez saying, "I'm a much safer driver I haven't had an oil spill in 20 years."

                              If Jackson really understood what he did he'd say, "I messed up in Indy. I acted in ways that hurt the team on and off the court. It was my behavior that got me traded and I need to work on that."
                              "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

                              "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

                              Comment


                              • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                                Arcadian continues to own this thread.
                                Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                                Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                                Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                                Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                                And life itself, rushing over me
                                Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                                Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X