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

    Taken from yesterday's entry from the Warriors.com blog of training camp:

    Stephen Jackson, who has shot the ball very well during the early stages of camp, continues to be the fun-loving guy who has endeared himself to his teammates. Jack, as he is called by his teammates, is constantly running around and patting teammates on the back or, in the case of Stephane Lasme, on top of the head. Lasme, who garnered a nice offensive rebound and finished with a strong basket during last night's practice, received a nice slap on the side of head after the play. This is nothing new for Jackson. He walks on the team bus every morning and gives every person a fist-hit or high-five. Not just his teammates -- everyone --- coaches, staff and players. He is one of the most pleasant individuals you would hope to encounter.
    http://www.nba.com/warriors/news/070...gCampBlog.html


    The more I read and hear about the Warriors this year, it honestly seems as if losing J-Rich won't even affect team chemistry overall, all of the players get along in a way I've never seen before.

    Comment


    • Re: Captain Jack

      Originally posted by MagicRat View Post
      The only real reason I posted the article is that I couldn't believe that both Jack and Al are getting tattoos of themselves..........Cue Carly Simon..........
      JayRedd digs Carly Simon, too.

      I like where Nelson's head is at in making Stephen a captain...He's gonna be a big influence on the team anyway, as UB stated, so why not throw the C on his chest to keep him accutely aware that he is responsible for all his actions not just on how they affect him, but because he is who the young guys look to for leadership. For some people, maturity and responsibility will come if you just tell them you believe they are capable of it, and tell them you trust them to act the right way. Not sure this is the case with Jack, but my armchair psychologist belief is that much of his erratic attitude comes from a chip on his shoulder that he carries around with him at all times from a 'Me Against the World' perspective. In giving him the C, Nelson is pretty much saying "No, it's not you against the world. It's us -- the players, the coaches, Chris Mullin and the rest of our executives -- right here with you."
      Read my Pacers blog:
      8points9seconds.com

      Follow my twitter:

      @8pts9secs

      Comment


      • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

        Originally posted by ajbry View Post
        The more I read and hear about the Warriors this year, it honestly seems as if losing J-Rich won't even affect team chemistry overall, all of the players get along in a way I've never seen before.
        Never thought he was particularly good anyway.
        Read my Pacers blog:
        8points9seconds.com

        Follow my twitter:

        @8pts9secs

        Comment


        • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

          Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
          Never thought he was particularly good anyway.
          though i would have taken him in the warriors trade last year.
          This is the darkest timeline.

          Comment


          • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

            Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
            though i would have taken him in the warriors trade last year.
            Maybe...His contract is horrible, too.
            Read my Pacers blog:
            8points9seconds.com

            Follow my twitter:

            @8pts9secs

            Comment


            • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

              Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
              Maybe...His contract is horrible, too.
              this is true but at least we'd have someone better suited for SG than dunleavy. i don't dislike dunleavy but if we could have made the deal jrich, murphy and diogu i would have felt infinitely better. we'd have a go-to scorer to pair with JO and danny, and someone who more naturally fits into a SG role. he'd be more worth the price than adding dunleavy was.
              This is the darkest timeline.

              Comment


              • Re: Captain Jack

                Originally posted by heywoode View Post
                I think they should each get tattoos of themselves getting tattoos on their asses....on their asses.

                I think Norman Rockwell should paint a painting of them getting a tattoo of Norman Rockwell painting a painting of them getting a tattoo of themelves on their asses...on their asses.
                And I won't be here to see the day
                It all dries up and blows away
                I'd hang around just to see
                But they never had much use for me
                In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                Comment


                • Re: Captain Jack

                  Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                  Rick Carlisle did often say on his radio show that Jax was one of the Pacers leaders while he was here. Just his personality makes him a leader whether you name him captain or not
                  Yep. I don't get why people think I'm a huge Jack fan because I consider this a fault as much as a positive trait.

                  Jack is a modestly talented player paid to be modestly talented. He has a fire that sometimes is just what the doctor ordered for your team and sometimes the last thing you need to deal with (like when he's yelling at you as you pull him out of a game).

                  I think Jack is a player that guys can burn out on if you don't have success along the way. Maybe Baron is just as bad and fits him perfectly I suppose. My ONLY issue with Pacers fans/Jack is that they ran him out foolishly, cutting off their nose to spite their faces.

                  With a good/bad guy like that you can't hold on just because of the good and you can't bail out just because of the bad. Call him a wash, deal with him, and perhaps with patience and a complete ignoring of fans that aren't showing up anyway you find a deal that addresses very specifically your team's needs.

                  You know, like Golden St did to the Pacers.

                  Any trade that said "get us another SF, an outside shooting PF and then a PF project" was one that didn't make a lick of sense.


                  As for Captain Jack, he'll probably be pretty similar to the Depp character in terms of leadership. He will be a focal point, he will be selfish at times, sometimes he'll take you right into disaster and other times he'll pull something out of his rear to save the day. I guess it works for them.

                  Of course his shooting is coming along...dude didn't just get hit by a car.


                  His tatoo is ridiculous.
                  Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 10-04-2007, 12:42 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                    I hate to drag this stuff out again, but I guess I have to...

                    I would rather not have a guy on our team that is so love/hate and uncontrollable. I still say the honeymoon isn't over and he is still licking his wounds from being traded and unwanted. ANY player in that situation is going to bust his *** to flourish just to show the team who "wronged" him that they were the ones who were wrong. Had he come to Indiana under those same circumstances, maybe he would be jawing about how fricking wonderful it is to play in Indiana where the fans support him. I know he was traded here, but he wanted out of Atlanta and it wasn't nearly the situation it was when he departed Indiana for Cali.

                    Bottom line, he was barely tolerable and moderately talented while he was here and the Pacers and Pacers fans did exactly what Seth suggested. Once he started having incidents off the court, he wasn't tolerable any more, by management or fans.

                    In my mind, there is no way to argue that that was wrong, no matter how much you like Jackson or didn't like the trade. I could care less if they got NOTHING in return for him and were still paying his mediocre salary. At least he is GONE. I don't want to enjoy it when he pulls victory out of his *** if I have to deal with it when he leads everyone into disaster.

                    More power to him in GS, and I hope the honeymoon doesn't end and I hope he doesn't have another meltdown or felony charge or suspension. Maybe that will mean that he grew up or at least learned from his mistakes enough to control himself. I'm not neurotic enough to care that the people I don't like don't like me.


                    Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                    I think Norman Rockwell should paint a painting of them getting a tattoo of Norman Rockwell painting a painting of them getting a tattoo of themelves on their asses...on their asses.

                    That would be awesome...
                    Last edited by heywoode; 10-04-2007, 01:57 PM. Reason: because



                    RESIDENT COUNTING THREAD PHILOSOPHIZER

                    Comment


                    • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                      Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                      Never thought he was particularly good anyway.
                      JRich was and still is a very good SG in a league full of very good SGs. His contract wasn't an albatross, but he wasn't a bargain either.

                      Ultimately, the oppurtunity to trade away a player at a position that we are knee deep in for an athletic 6'9" PF in a deep draft who was the #3 recruit in the country behind Oden/Durant while taking zero salary back in return was simply a no brainer.

                      The Warriors are going to miss JRich next year, as Nellie himself has said many times because JRich rebounds for his position. We were a bad rebounding team before that trade and now on paper we're a little bit worse. That's going to be the Warriors main obstacle to overcome next year.

                      One of our local writers put it best: The unfortunate thing for JRich was that the Warriors finally made the playoffs in the year in which JRich had his worst season as a pro. He had a couple kick @ss seasons before that where the team didn't even come close to making the playoffs. When the team was determining how replacable/expendable he was, that was probably a big factor.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Captain Jack

                        Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                        JayRedd digs Carly Simon, too.

                        I like where Nelson's head is at in making Stephen a captain...He's gonna be a big influence on the team anyway, as UB stated, so why not throw the C on his chest to keep him accutely aware that he is responsible for all his actions not just on how they affect him, but because he is who the young guys look to for leadership. For some people, maturity and responsibility will come if you just tell them you believe they are capable of it, and tell them you trust them to act the right way. Not sure this is the case with Jack, but my armchair psychologist belief is that much of his erratic attitude comes from a chip on his shoulder that he carries around with him at all times from a 'Me Against the World' perspective. In giving him the C, Nelson is pretty much saying "No, it's not you against the world. It's us -- the players, the coaches, Chris Mullin and the rest of our executives -- right here with you."
                        That's probably the best way to put it, and when you look at the way Nellie named his 3 captains, Jackson sort of fits in. You know about Jackson. Baron not too long ago was given away for nothing from the Hornets and deemed a coach killing malcontent. Matt Barnes was a training camp invitee last year who was pretty close to being out of the league.

                        All 3 of those guys have an edge to them. They can be volatile, but they each have a killer instinct. And when you look at the rest of the roster, they do need these types of players. We have 8 players on the 15 man roster who are 24 or younger, and all of them are a bunch of nice kids. That's great, but you can't have a roster comprised entirely of these types of characters (just like you can't have a roster of 15 Jacksons and Barons). They need some sort of edge, and that's what those 3 guys provide.

                        Comment


                        • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                          Yep. I don't get why people think I'm a huge Jack fan

                          Now that is funny!

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                            Originally posted by Elgin56 View Post
                            Yep. I don't get why people think I'm a huge Jack fan

                            Now that is funny!


                            This space for rent.

                            Comment


                            • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                              I could care less if they got NOTHING in return for him and were still paying his mediocre salary
                              I understand the EMOTION behind that, but no one really feels that way in the end. Let's say that Dun/Troy/Ike continue to be exactly what they've been the last 3 seasons. The Pacers in that case would very likely continue to be at best what the Warriors were prior to the deal, a non-playoff team.

                              You lose the final best years of the 2nd best NBA Pacer we've had, you perhaps find that JOB has no more W-L talent than Rick did which means you've wasted 2 coaches on the situation as well, the low attendence from the poor seasons ends up sending the team to Vegas or Seattle.

                              But at least we got rid of that irritating Jackson.

                              Jackson is a annoying fly in the grand scheme. Using an anvil on your head to kill him just isn't practical. At this point, subject to a suprising turn around by all the players involved that I continue to admit is possible if not likely, you just handed Jackson the keys to driving the franchise further into the ground.

                              As things get worse you look back, much like with Ron, and say "man, it was all his fault, he created this". No, not alone he didn't. The fans gave him the "power" to do so much more damage.


                              If you think his GS success is because he's busting his butt, check again. His numbers are at best slightly better with them and some of that is a pace factor, and that pace factor has more to do with the coach and the rest of the roster (Baron, Ellis, Barnes, Pietrus...JRich last year).

                              We sure showed him by taking the Pacers to 35 wins and putting Jack and the Warriors into the 2nd round of the playoffs. I look at the situation and see fans letting Jackson ultimately get the better of them once again.


                              I don't dislike Dunleavy in the least. I do think the losing has followed he and Troy a bit and that it's a money/talent issue. But let's say I did hate his personality to go with his 7th man talent. Even then I still wouldn't want the proverbial "bucket of balls" for him in a deal.

                              In the NBA TALENT is the unit of currency and unless you are stupid rich with the stuff you don't use it to light your cigar of contempt, just to take some silly stand that hurts yourself more than it makes a point.

                              I mean can anyone clarify just how moving Jackson kept 8 Seconds and Driver License from happening? It didn't. So the team lost AND still got in more trouble. Wee, the best of both worlds.



                              If the GS trio can put it together then things will be fine. Why? Because it will mean the Pacers DID get more than a bucket of balls for Jack/Al. If that turns out to be true then I'm fine with the deal.

                              Comment


                              • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                                I understand the EMOTION behind that, but no one really feels that way in the end. Let's say that Dun/Troy/Ike continue to be exactly what they've been the last 3 seasons. The Pacers in that case would very likely continue to be at best what the Warriors were prior to the deal, a non-playoff team.
                                Speak for yourself. Three players don't make the team. They don't even have to start or play much, even though they are getting paid too much. Even with "totally kicking our ***" on the trade (as some would believe), the Warriors were the EIGHTH seed in the playoffs. They were very close to being a non-playoff team also. They finished the season strong to squeak into the playoffs. It's just as unfair to judge the Warriors on their position based on the remainder of a season after the trade as it to judge the Pacers by that measure.

                                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                                You lose the final best years of the 2nd best NBA Pacer we've had, you perhaps find that JOB has no more W-L talent than Rick did which means you've wasted 2 coaches on the situation as well, the low attendence from the poor seasons ends up sending the team to Vegas or Seattle.

                                But at least we got rid of that irritating Jackson.
                                Not likely to happen, and just as likely to happen had we kept Jackson and he ended up killing someone in a bar fight or went into the stands, a la Artest....

                                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                                Jackson is a annoying fly in the grand scheme. Using an anvil on your head to kill him just isn't practical. At this point, subject to a suprising turn around by all the players involved that I continue to admit is possible if not likely, you just handed Jackson the keys to driving the franchise further into the ground.
                                This is where we differ at it's most simplistic; I don't feel like the Pacers did that. I feel like they expended some energy to move the muscles in their arm to shoo the fly away...nothing more. He (and others) had already BEEN running the franchise into the ground...

                                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                                As things get worse you look back, much like with Ron, and say "man, it was all his fault, he created this". No, not alone he didn't. The fans gave him the "power" to do so much more damage.


                                If you think his GS success is because he's busting his butt, check again. His numbers are at best slightly better with them and some of that is a pace factor, and that pace factor has more to do with the coach and the rest of the roster (Baron, Ellis, Barnes, Pietrus...JRich last year).
                                His STATE OF MIND is what is much better, and his hustle has shown it. He now has something to prove, and that makes him play harder, smarter, and better. In that Dallas series, he was playing harder than he ever played at Indiana. He has that "I'll show you I'm good enough" attitude since his ego got bruised when he had to leave town because his behavior became intolerable. He thinks his positives outweigh all that negative behavior. They don't. If they did, he wouldn't be on at least his fourth team in the NBA.

                                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                                We sure showed him by taking the Pacers to 35 wins and putting Jack and the Warriors into the 2nd round of the playoffs. I look at the situation and see fans letting Jackson ultimately get the better of them once again.
                                They weren't trying to "show" him anything. They were trying to get better by subtracting HIM from the equation. The rest of the season after a huge trade is not nearly enough time to show anybody anything. It isn't a matter of he or us getting the better of the other. THAT is a statement borne of emotion. I understand the emotion behind it. It just simply isn't the case. The Pacers were simply trying to get better as a team. Scratch that, the more true statement is that they were trying to get better as a franchise/business who was losing paying customers left and right because of this knucklehead. It would be like Wal-Mart firing someone who was going around spitting on customers and hiring some old guy who just stands there and says hello to take his place. You don't get much labor in return, but at least you don't have some dumbass running around spitting on people...

                                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                                I don't dislike Dunleavy in the least. I do think the losing has followed he and Troy a bit and that it's a money/talent issue. But let's say I did hate his personality to go with his 7th man talent. Even then I still wouldn't want the proverbial "bucket of balls" for him in a deal.

                                In the NBA TALENT is the unit of currency and unless you are stupid rich with the stuff you don't use it to light your cigar of contempt, just to take some silly stand that hurts yourself more than it makes a point.

                                I mean can anyone clarify just how moving Jackson kept 8 Seconds and Driver License from happening? It didn't. So the team lost AND still got in more trouble. Wee, the best of both worlds.
                                I'm not saying there aren't still morons on the team, there is just one less.

                                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                                If the GS trio can put it together then things will be fine. Why? Because it will mean the Pacers DID get more than a bucket of balls for Jack/Al. If that turns out to be true then I'm fine with the deal.
                                I agree that we have a lot to evaluate to see if the trade was worth it mathematically or from a talent standpoint. At least in my mind, it was already worth it since we got rid of someone who needed to go. Losing Al wasn't that bad a loss to me, because he didn't show me anything when he had returned here. Losing Sarunas was fine by me also. The worst part of the trade, to me, is the salary they took back. Again, I'm saying that my position is that it was WORTH IT. Like the saying goes, "Why are divorces so expensive? Because they're WORTH IT."



                                RESIDENT COUNTING THREAD PHILOSOPHIZER

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X