Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

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

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

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

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

Rule #1

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

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

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

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

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

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule #2

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

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

The right places to do so are:

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

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

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

Rule #3

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

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

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

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

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

Rule #4

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

Rule #5

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

An example:

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

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

Rule #6

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

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

Rule #7

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

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

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

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

Rule #8

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

Rule #9

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

Rule #10

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

Rule #11

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

SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 4
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 template Next
  • #1

    SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

    Tom White mentioned this article in another thread, and I orignally posted it there, but after reading it (hey, if you people don't read what I post, why should I), I figured it deserves it's own thread.

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...coaches/1.html

    Smooth moves

    Pacers, Magic make good decisions on coaching hires

    Posted: Friday June 1, 2007 12:30PM; Updated: Friday June 1, 2007 1:22PM











    ORLANDO -- Hubie Brown wasn't available for Indiana, so Larry Bird did the next best thing: He hired Jim O'Brien.

    Hubie wasn't available to Orlando, either, so the Magic did the best they could for their market by investing in Billy Donovan.

    Donovan and O'Brien look much like opposites -- the former a collegiate newcomer, the latter an NBA blue-collar disciplinarian -- but each was an inspired appointment.

    I especially liked Bird's decision to revive O'Brien. A lot of people will be shaking their heads at both of Thursday's moves, just as they did when Jerry West brought in Brown a few years ago. I bet O'Brien will be almost as successful as Hubie was, depending on the roster moves Bird makes over the coming months.

    Bringing in O'Brien means that Bird isn't going to rebuild the Pacers with lottery picks and youth. On the eve of this hire, Bird said he was going to use his new coach to invoke an entirely new approach.

    "We've had three years of bad luck, and some things happened that we felt shouldn't have happened,'' he told me Wednesday at the NBA predraft camp. "So we're trying to change our culture and go back to the basics. We're going to work 'em hard, going to learn how to set picks, do all the little things, the fundamentals, and just start all over. When I interview these guys [as coaching candidates] that's what I tell them I want, and that's what we're going to do.''

    Here's how it will go next year. O'Brien and assistant Dick Harter will make defense the priority, and they'll persuade their best players to buy in. O'Brien will allow them freedom at the offensive end so long as they work hard defensively. He will prepare tirelessly and the Pacers will win every game they can -- as opposed to a "rebuilding'' team that is willing to sacrifice wins in order to develop its young talent. And, health permitting, the Pacers will be playing at a much higher level in April than in November. In short, the franchise will develop a basketball identity that long-frustrated Indianans will love.

    O'Brien's career took a bad turn in Philadelphia, but then the end of the Allen Iverson era was as toxic as the final days of Nixon (did I say Nixon? Silly me, I meant to say George W.) Better to judge O'Brien by what he did in Boston before Danny Ainge came in. Next season O'Brien won't be looking over his shoulder questioning Bird, who is giving him the opportunity to reclaim his career; and Bird will be there to prevent the curmudgeonly Harter from getting carried away in his complaints when the players fail to meet his standards.

    Thus begins a new Pacers era, with Donnie Walsh handing the keys to Bird.

    "I have more control with the basketball,'' Bird acknowledged. "I'll still go through him with the owners when we make deals and when we talk about things. But Donnie's sort of handed it over to me since summer started, so it's up to me to get the coach and make the trades that I want.''


    It's obvious from this move that Bird won't be afraid to do what he thinks is right, regardless of outside opinion. But he has also learned a lot while working under Walsh the past four years.

    "I'm more 'I can't believe they just did that, let's get them out of here' than Donnie is,'' Bird said. "He sits back and looks at the situation and talks about it. He really tries to figure out what's going to happen next, where I was more of a 'Let's get after a problem and get rid of it.' But I learned a lot in the last few years.''

    The question now is whether O'Brien will be coaching Jermaine O'Neal or a different star of Bird's choosing. Rumor had it Thursday that O'Neal may be dealt to the Lakers for a package including Lamar Odom and Andrew Bynum.

    "Jermaine's been very good for us in a lot of ways,'' Bird said Wednesday. "He's very good off the court, he's very good with the public. On the court we expect a lot from him, maybe too much at times. But we're going to look at everything this summer, and we've talked to Jermaine on a number of occasions. And we'll see what direction we want to go with him and we'll see what direction he wants to go.''

    So the decision on O'Neal's future hasn't been resolved?

    "Not really,'' Bird said. "He's still thinking about it, we've talked about it a couple of times. We're looking and we're talking to people, and he wants to do what's best for the franchise and that's what we'll do.'' Bird added that O'Neal recently has been leaning toward remaining with Indiana.

    "That's more of what he wants to do,'' Bird said, "so we'll see what we can do with it.''

    As for Donovan, a lot of people will be doubting whether his NCAA skills will translate at the highest level. But the best guess here is that he will not turn into the second coming of Rick Pitino for the Magic. In the short term he will provide a winning identity and hope to revive a moribund franchise. Over the long term, according to a lot of NBA people who tend to look down their noses at college coaches, he will be a winner.

    I've come full circle on Donovan. Originally I figured that he would be overmatched, as most college coaches have been, but there are two big differences between him and his forefathers: Donovan has been planning and preparing to become an NBA coach for a long time; it wasn't an afterthought for him as for so many others. And, unlike those others, Donovan isn't taking over a hopeless team. He could build a contender around Dwight Howard over the next couple of years.

    Orlando's ownership finished the season with unreasonable expectations -- this is not a second-round team -- but now the program will develop at Donovan's pace. He must be given two years to grow into the job, which is the time that Howard, J.J. Redick, Darko Milicic (if he stays) and Jameer Nelson (ditto) need to mature.

    As teams that were in disarray, Indiana and Orlando have each discovered newfound purpose. My guess is that the Pacers will finish ahead of the Magic 11 months from now. By then it will be clear that both teams are on the right track.
    Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

    Doesn't really mean anything of course JO will tell everyone he wants to stay in Indiana.
    "To accomplish great things, we must not only act, but also dream; not only plan, but also believe." - Anatole France

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

      This is actually a pretty clever move by Bird. Now, if the trade doesn't work out, he can say that JO wanted to go.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

        Bird is only now taking over control? I thought I was told it was Bird running this franchise into the ground these past few years?

        And it still sounds like Larry has not been given the keys... somebody is still unlocking and locking the store for him. So there's still the potential of the 'too many chefs spoil the stew' factor brewing.

        The O Brien hire took me by surprise but I can't say I have all that many problems with it. Especially if Bird and O Brien (is that not the name of a morning radio show or what?) are as much on the same page as they currently appear.

        I also wonder if some of the commentary they've had about JO is telegraphing that they have (or will) be telling him his role will be radically different and he isn't being asked for his opinion on it. It is "Speak now (ask for a trade) or suck it up and sacrifice personal glory for the team"
        Which doesn't mean they still won't trade him but if he balks at a role change then they will heaven and earth to send him elsewhere now rather than later.

        I think he's as good as gone and as been since 8 games into last season. The offers would have to be awfully crappy to change that and JO would have to agree to the new role. I can't see both happening. I think there will be some decent enough offers and I can't see TPTB trusting JO and IMHO he would only begrudgingly agree to a new role. I'm not even sure he fits anyway.

        -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

        • #5
          Re: SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

          Thanks to Kegboy for doing a thread on this article. Bird still sounds like they are leaving a lot of the decision up to JO. They may be using the pressure of the trade rumor to infuence his thinking as to his future role with the Pacers, and his accepting that role.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

            Originally posted by Bball View Post
            Bird is only now taking over control? I thought I was told it was Bird running this franchise into the ground these past few years?

            And it still sounds like Larry has not been given the keys... somebody is still unlocking and locking the store for him. So there's still the potential of the 'too many chefs spoil the stew' factor brewing.
            I don't care if the Easter Bunny's been in charge, whomever it is ****ed up. Just please tell me if we have another 4 ****ty years and Donnie finally retires you won't be saying, "Now we'll see what Larry can really do!"
            Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

              Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
              I don't care if the Easter Bunny's been in charge, whomever it is ****ed up. Just please tell me if we have another 4 ****ty years and Donnie finally retires you won't be saying, "Now we'll see what Larry can really do!"
              Which is why DW needed to be gone yesterday. We need to know if Bird can fly or not. We know what the two-headed monster got us. But IMHO Walsh has been past his window of effectiveness for quite some time.

              We've been well into the 'wasting time' mode on cleaning up the mess in upper management. The transition has been way too slow. At this point, I would've been fine with a housecleaning by the Simons... whose loyalty to Walsh has turned into more of a problem than any kind of positive.

              I'm no longer nearly as hopeful that Bird can bring new energy to the front office. We wasted the honeymoon period with his role as mascot, apprentice, and finally two-headed monster. It's gotten comical the number of "Good = Walsh", "Bad = Bird" posts we've seen. They both can share the blame as well as the good (what little there's been).

              Is Bird really on his own to mold the team in his vision and finally show us what he's got? I don't know and at this point I'm not for giving him season after season to find out.

              If things go off track then I don't have any patience with anyone in the front office. Bird's honeymoon is over and was wasted.... and Walsh should've been gone years ago in the first place. The Simons can clean house at the first sign of trouble as far as I am concerned.

              IMO...
              -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

              • #8
                Re: SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

                I just saw this thread and I had a great response with passion and meaning only to keep reading and see that Bball once again stole my thunder.

                But I want to re-emphasize this part for all to see.

                I'm more 'I can't believe they just did that, let's get them out of here' than Donnie is,'' Bird said. "He sits back and looks at the situation and talks about it. He really tries to figure out what's going to happen next, where I was more of a 'Let's get after a problem and get rid of it.' But I learned a lot in the last few years.''

                This pretty much confirms for me what I have thought for many many years but even more so over the past couple of seasons.

                In other words, IMO and now I believe confirmed by Bird, when Ron pulled his lame @ss stunt in the playoffs vs. Miami Bird wanted him gone. Then by the time the brawl came around he really wanted him gone.

                But Donnie once again decided to take the "wait and see" approach that so many of you love.

                If you would have come up to me 10 years ago and told me I would be defending Larry Bird in anything I would have laughed in your face.

                But here we are.

                Larry is the devil to many of you for the past few years yet none of you will absorb what we are reading.

                Larry Bird was never EVER in charge of this team. He was Boomer for Adults and it was all a poor illusion.

                However the teflon magic of Donnie Walsh has worked better than it ever has in his life.

                To this day most people on this board will jump straight on Larry Bird for every problem this team has, yet Donnie is absolved.

                Every single solitary move our team has made for over 20 years has gone through Joseph Donnie Walsh.

                Some of it's good, and he deserves credit. But some of it is bad as well and he deserves blame.

                The past seven years have been God awfull and IMO Donnie Walsh ultimately is to blame.

                This now takes me straight back to the Brad Miller trade.

                This was not Bird, this was old buggeyes in full blown action.

                The fact that we have retained him now for all of eternity only means that we still will always have to wonder what could Bird (or whatever other G.M. gets brought in).


                Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

                  I agree with Peck. . .which is why I am open minded this season. . .I'm giving Larry a clean slate. . ., if he ****s up then we can hold him accountable. but for now, Let's just wait to see what happens instead of jumping to conclusions
                  R.I.P. Bernic Mac & Isaac Hayes

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

                    Originally posted by Peck View Post
                    But I want to re-emphasize this part for all to see.

                    I'm more 'I can't believe they just did that, let's get them out of here' than Donnie is,'' Bird said. "He sits back and looks at the situation and talks about it. He really tries to figure out what's going to happen next, where I was more of a 'Let's get after a problem and get rid of it.' But I learned a lot in the last few years.''
                    If you ask me, it sounds like Bird has been in charge since the beginning of last summer. Im guessing the last move that was really DW's deal was the Artest for Peja trade. Bird probably wanted to ship out Artest for the first offer we got while DW got him to hold back until we could at least get Peja. But everything since then, signing Al, the summer trades, and ESPECIALLY the GS trade sound like Bird's style of reactionary dealing. Now I dont think the GS trade was all that bad, but a lot of people here do and I think those people have Bird to blame for it. Personally I like Donnie's style better.

                    But I agree with you Peck, he does deserve a good chunk of the blame for our current situation. But Bird should not be completely absolved of all blame either. Peck you are complaining that everyone is being too extreme by calling Bird the devil and Donnie our savior, but arent you being a little extreme going the other way? Dont you think it might be somewhere in the middle? I think they have both made some bad moves and I do think Bird was not just a figurehead, at least for the past season. The difference here is that Donnie actually has a history of making some good moves here, while during Birds short time here nothing good has happened.
                    Last edited by Mr.ThunderMakeR; 06-02-2007, 03:02 AM.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

                      Walsh already stated that he was the guy dealing with Chris Mullin on the Golden State deal.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

                        Originally posted by Peck View Post
                        He was Boomer for Adults
                        OK...I may be tired as hell...but that is some funny schtuff right thar.
                        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

                        • #13
                          Re: SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

                          Originally posted by Jose Slaughter View Post
                          Walsh already stated that he was the guy dealing with Chris Mullin on the Golden State deal.
                          We know that Walsh flat out lies to the media rather frequently. If anything Bird was at least involved in the dealings, but my gut tells me it was his baby.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

                            Originally posted by Mr.ThunderMakeR View Post
                            We know that Walsh flat out lies to the media rather frequently. If anything Bird was at least involved in the dealings, but my gut tells me it was his baby.
                            Why???

                            What in your gut tells you that this was Bird?

                            Walsh has said he was at the center of that trade, Chris Mullen said that he and Donnie got the deal done over a phone call.

                            To answer another post from you, no I don't feel like it is reactionary to blame Walsh instead of Bird.

                            Here let me quote Larry Bird for you from last year when he was asked about Donnie's role on the team, "he's my boss".

                            Look if I'm forced to give Walsh any credit for Larry Browns tenure here in the 90's then by all rights the Walsh Warriors have to give Walsh the blame for the bad things that have gone on since the turn of the century.

                            Blaming Larry Bird for Artest, Jackson, Harrington, Carlisle or anything would be like blaming boomer whenever Bowser misses a prat fall.

                            The only thing that I think Bird can take sole credit/blame for is Saras. I think that was his baby from day one and I also believe he is the one who probably actively sought to have him traded.

                            Like I said it sickens me to my very core to have to defend Bird here, nobody hated him more as a player than I did.

                            However that is not going to blind me to the fact that only one man has had the juice to run this team for longer than most people on this board have been alive.

                            Also I love how this trade with G.S. was called quick and reactionary. Hell if anything it was about a year to late.

                            Sorry I don't mean to be combative on this issue, it's just that I get sooooo tired of seeing everybody but Donnie Walsh given blame for this mess and then even those that half assed give him blame always follow it up with "but he's done so much good in the past".



                            Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: SI: Bird on taking control, where we stand on JO

                              Originally posted by Peck View Post
                              Why???

                              What in your gut tells you that this was Bird?

                              Walsh has said he was at the center of that trade, Chris Mullen said that he and Donnie got the deal done over a phone call.

                              To answer another post from you, no I don't feel like it is reactionary to blame Walsh instead of Bird.

                              Here let me quote Larry Bird for you from last year when he was asked about Donnie's role on the team, "he's my boss".

                              Look if I'm forced to give Walsh any credit for Larry Browns tenure here in the 90's then by all rights the Walsh Warriors have to give Walsh the blame for the bad things that have gone on since the turn of the century.

                              Blaming Larry Bird for Artest, Jackson, Harrington, Carlisle or anything would be like blaming boomer whenever Bowser misses a prat fall.

                              The only thing that I think Bird can take sole credit/blame for is Saras. I think that was his baby from day one and I also believe he is the one who probably actively sought to have him traded.

                              Like I said it sickens me to my very core to have to defend Bird here, nobody hated him more as a player than I did.

                              However that is not going to blind me to the fact that only one man has had the juice to run this team for longer than most people on this board have been alive.

                              Also I love how this trade with G.S. was called quick and reactionary. Hell if anything it was about a year to late.

                              Sorry I don't mean to be combative on this issue, it's just that I get sooooo tired of seeing everybody but Donnie Walsh given blame for this mess and then even those that half assed give him blame always follow it up with "but he's done so much good in the past".

                              chill out dude. yikes.

                              they are both to blame, i think larry has had more control than you might be admitting but i do agree a lot of people on this board are more willing to jump on the donnie bandwagon than onto bird's.

                              to me, the GSW deal has bird's fingerprints all over it, the timing has donnie's touch. just look at the types of players we're talking about, hard workers, fundamentally sound. most quotes that i remember reading when discussing how it was a surprise said they kept it basically between chris larry and donnie. also, the league was shocked we gave up on harrington so quickly... doesn't that sound more like bird than donnie's wait and see approach?

                              the peja deal could go either way, sure larry likes hardnosed players which peja certainly isn't BUT larry also had sarjar as his pet signing. so he's fallen in love with talented shooters like that before. but i don't think that anyone should take blame for that specific deal because artest tied our hands and the other deal proposed at the time was something very similar to what we got from the warriors this season (minus diogu).

                              now not trading artest earlier... blame can certainly go around for that. that does seem more like donnie. but on the other hand isiah forced donnie's hand in trading away jalen and bringing in artest wasn't a terrible move it was risky but for a while it paid off. i tend to think it was donnie that prevented the trading of artest after miami. then after the brawl i think they had to keep him so he might have trade value down the line and then he demanded the trade and everything was f*&ked. i also think the brad miller deal was pretty bad one. but the peja S&T to the hornets? that seems more like donnie, bird seems like the type of guy who would have just let peja go and moved on. donnie seems like more of a used car salesman type that could get that deal (convinced a team to give him something for peja when they never had to).

                              you can't say larry had nothing to do with rick getting the pacers coaching job. the pacers had given isiah a vote of confidence and then a month or so later bird joined the organization and they fired isiah and immediately hired carlisle. when bird initially left coaching he advocated rick being his successor.

                              so blame goes around, i tend to not blame specific people in the front office but everyone as a collective. i think that donnie and larry have been working as more of a team, but with ying and yang philosophies. donnie is patient, larry is a do-er not a thinker. both elements have validity and both have problems. you'd think the two working together would have produced a balance that would have been quite successful. maybe it would ahve been without the brawl and the nightclub etc...

                              so what we can hope now is that with one of them totally in the driver seat that things will get better. i think donnie had a successful run ultimately, we didn't miss the playoffs for quite an impressive streak, reached the NBA finals once. yes we'd like more of that, but you can't say donnie wasn't ultimately successful the same way you can't say we're doomed with bird taking the wheel. i think people jump on larry because of how terrible other former celtics have been in that position (mchale and ainge specifically).
                              Last edited by avoidingtheclowns; 06-02-2007, 10:31 AM.
                              This is the darkest timeline.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 4 template Next
                              Working...
                              X