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

What good has Bird been?

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

  • #16
    Re: What good has Bird been?

    The only things I put 100% on larry is the signing of Saras (Walsh had nothing to do with that) and the drafting of Shawne Williams - that was Bird's call.

    Other than those two moves, I think Walsh has more say so then Larry.

    Although I think Jim O'Brien is probably more Larry than Donnie - but I think that is going to be a great move, so we don't need to split hairs over that.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: What good has Bird been?

      what i think some times win some and lose some spoils of war man pacers been in a battle have yet won i pity fans like us always wanting more but still pacers that be know what to take to win but either have money issues or feel rather take time to attack right moment ... and mostly city we all live in still growing i shall wait till the new colts home and more casinos here the players will come and loves us and pacers will get championship we all have amen! that what i think im sticking to it
      IF YOU A PACER FAN DONT BASH TO THE PACERS..!!!!!

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: What good has Bird been?

        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
        The only things I put 100% on larry is the signing of Saras (Walsh had nothing to do with that) and the drafting of Shawne Williams - that was Bird's call.
        And I'd say he's batting .500 on those.

        Shawne was a good call. And Saras wasn't even bad as much as "whatever".
        Read my Pacers blog:
        8points9seconds.com

        Follow my twitter:

        @8pts9secs

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: What good has Bird been?

          Rick got more out of Saras than any other NBA coach ever will. For real, Rick practically catered to the guy. No other coach will get more out of him, because generally his strengths as a player aren't worth all that trouble.

          But when Saras' NBA career ends, I think the Saras fans are going to owe Rick a mighty big apology.
          You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: What good has Bird been?

            DgR,

            The point with Harrington is that he didn't fill a need. In fact, he only created a log jam at a position of strength, where he isn't among the top talents in the league at that position. They also didn't just give up a 1st round pick. They also gave up a trade exception and a roster spot which could have gone to James White, whom they traded to get only to cut later.

            Trade exceptions are assets in the NBA.


            Roferr,

            I agree the brawl really put the Pacers in a bind, but I felt they recovered nicely with the deal for Peja. He was perfect with JO, and even though they didn't get to keep him, the trade exception was a brilliant stroke. It was essentially pi$$ed away.

            They have a trade exception now, $4M, as well as the MLE, so let's hope they get something out of it. I don't want them to use the exception just to use it, especially with luxury tax considerations, but they aren't going to have cap room for at least three years so if they can get something done without pushing into the tax, I'd like to see them do it.

            I know I'm not an owner, but if I was kicking butt in my mall development business, I might be willing to pay luxury tax for a year or two to appease the masses and rebuild my fan base.
            Courtside: Featuring Indiana boys' high school basketball

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: What good has Bird been?

              Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
              Nice post, Jim R, and I agree with your frustration with our front office. Clearly, they have been ****ing the bed for a few years now on almost every account. Honestly, made aside from Cro for Marquis, it's pretty difficult to find any positive moves that have meaningfully inproved this team.
              [hr]

              One point about this summer though:

              Let's not act like this was a "big" move. It's the only thing that's actually happened this summer so we've been discussing it more than normal, but it's a Summer Camp signing for a guy we hope will stick on the roster and maybe crack the 10-man rotation come November. TPTB are hopeful he can be on the roster, not that he's gonna be our starting 2-guard.
              Croshere for Daniels works really well if you don't get Harrington. I know that isn't part of your point, but I don't like it now that it meant getting rid of an expiring contract.

              As for Rush, it's a big deal if he takes up a roster spot. The Pacers NEED a starting SG who can shoot, not another player who can't defend or won't defend. If I get my wish, Dunleavy is coming off the bench.

              I would have loved to have seen this starting five:
              SF: Granger
              PF: JO
              C: Foster
              SG: Jackson S.
              PG: Tinsley (relunctantly)

              Daniels not with the team, and Croshere's contract expiring after the season. It may not have been a great lineup, but I like the idea of Granger getting the start the SF spot all year with Foster still providing great defense and energy. Foster constantly gets dumped on.

              It would also worked had they made progress toward addressing the SG spot, either via the trade exception instead of for Harrington or this year's MLE. Rush mucks up the works a bit, an example of a lack of vision. In other words, if they were to lose out on him trying to get someone better, I would have been OK with that, or if they could have gotten him in September, that would have been OK too.

              Now if Rush was signed with the idea of him playing in the summer league, I'm OK with that. Not what I would prefer, but at least it would reflect a plan. I've not read if Rush is playing in the summer league. It would be unusual for a player with that much experience to play in a summer league.
              Last edited by Jim R; 07-04-2007, 09:48 PM. Reason: addendum
              Courtside: Featuring Indiana boys' high school basketball

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: What good has Bird been?

                Two words, CONSECO FIELDHOUSE!

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: What good has Bird been?

                  Jim R,

                  I disagree that he didn't fill a position of need- when Peja left we had 2 lacking areas- shooting and another inside presence to take some of the burden off JO who seemed unable to stay in health as the only offensive weapon inside.

                  No, Al isn't a top of the leage talent but which talent of that caliber was available to us? (no sarcasm, I realy want to know)
                  Al is still a very good player and in my opinion did feel a need at the time. Im not saying it was our only need to fill- but it was an important one.
                  Besides Al filled (was supposed to, at least)other needs for team- improve chemistry etc. (no need repeating what I posted before)

                  Obviously it didn't work out but at the time I was pleased with Al coming here and thought it had a good potential.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: What good has Bird been?

                    I know I'm probably in the minority but I think the Pacers/RC gave up on Sarunas too soon. Overall I think he is a decent PG and a terrible SG. He has to have the ball in his hand to be effective but I liked the way he played. He's not a good defender but neither is Tinsley (or Steve Nash, BTW).

                    I was really surprised that he was included in the GS trade.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: What good has Bird been?

                      DgR, Al is a good guy and a pretty good player. But I'm not so sure
                      he was the positive force chemistry-wise that you claim he was.

                      He left originally because he wanted starts, touches, stats and a shot
                      at the All-Star game more than he wanted to win. In ATL, he got all
                      that as the mainstay on a team that sucked bigtime. So, he gets a
                      chance to come back to Indy and play for a (presumed) 'winner'
                      again w/ his buddy J.O., etc. But the problem was, he still wanted
                      the offensive focus and commensurate touches and stats more than
                      he wanted to win.

                      Unfortunately, Al is a kid who's always thought he was better than he
                      is. What he is is a pretty decent offensive player with a shot that
                      comes and goes who's a tweener that can't (and has little interest in)
                      defend either forward spot very well and has a pretty limited hoops-IQ.

                      It's too bad he wasn't willing to be a terrific 6th man and the focus guy
                      on the 2nd unit. If so, he'd have had a nice, long career here in Indy.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: What good has Bird been?

                        Originally posted by Mal View Post
                        The knock on Walsh back just before we signed Larry Brown was that he batted about .500 as a GM. Has that really changed the past 13 years? Really? I don't think it has, especially if you associate him (which you should) with everything up until now.
                        Don't you recall my thread following the first 06-07 season PD party? As a GM Walsh has a strong record. I forget now the exact number but I thought it was more like .540 which in NBA terms is a great deal better than .500, especially over the long haul.

                        At one point the Pacers had been to more conference finals than ANY team in the NBA during the previous X years window (94, 95, 98, 99, 00, 04 - 6 in 10, better than the Lakers or Spurs even at the time).

                        I mean this isn't even close to being a reasonable question right now. Even the Bird years have been good so far. The issue with Bird is that they are clearly on a hard trajectory downward from where they were when he started. Rick appeared to calm Artest and fix the Isiah mess, but even under Isiah that team showed that it could win games. They APPEAR to have gotten progressively worse each season since that point.

                        I'm fine to blame Walsh instead if you want to pretend that it's all coincidence, but the "Bird window" hasn't been good so far in terms of the direction it's headed.

                        Which is the better road to be on - 45 wins year after year or 55 to 45 to 35 to....?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: What good has Bird been?

                          In answer to your thread title, it's too soon to give a fair assessment. But bashing Bird seems to be fairly trendy right now. That's too easy and it's a rush to judgment.

                          To me, a GM's primary role is to have a vision for his club that will ultimately produce a contender. Key word being "ultimately."

                          When Bird took this job, here's what he was dealt, in chronological order and to the best of my recollection:
                          1. A sitting coach (IT) who had made strides in developing the roster, but the team seemed stuck in neutral. He fires him and brings in RC to provide a coherent basketball game plan. Works like a charm. Optimism abounds for the foreseeable future.
                          2. Takes a flier on a European legend. European legend doesn't translate well to the NBA. Low risk, low reward.
                          3. The 6th man he inherits wants out after playing on a 62-win team to pursue individual honors. Bird does right by this selfish player and trades him for a possible long-term replacement for aging franchise legend. Replacement is vouched for by universally-respected assistant coach who worked with him while winning a title elsewhere.
                          4. As the next season begins, his two star players are oil and water. "Oil" is also the most volatile and unstable player of his (and probably any) generation, but he is also coming off DPOY honors and is probably a top 15 talent. It's a gamble to keep him, but risks are a central part of a GM's job description. Cue Brawl. An entire season scrapped.
                          5. As it turns out, the young coach Bird had brought in was only giving lip service to his ability to relate to his players. As the next season begins, head coach with shining rep has no ability to manage a team of challenging personalities.
                          6. Aforementioned Oil stabs Bird in the back for all of his loyalty. A good deed never goes unpunished. Holds season hostage; Bird finally gets a legit gunner back in return. Promise for the future returns.
                          7. Gunner finds a team to grossly overpay for his services. Bird is left to scramble and goes for best option, aforementioned 6th man. Same guy he coached and who is a fan favorite; the thinking goes that surely he's more humble now after being on the worst team in the league.
                          8. Long-term replacement for franchise legend begins first press conference vowing that his "humility" has returned and that his young kids have given him perspective. He's ready to focus and play his best. Promptly shoots gun in stip club parking lot, kicks handcapped man as he's on the ground. During the first week of training camp.
                          9. As all of this is going on, the point guard he inherited is spectacularly misused by coach. Point guard probably malingers, taking away another piece of the puzzle.
                          10. Long-term replacement for franchise legend has become overwhelmingly unpopular with fan base and contributes to dragging once spotless franchise rep down to the level of the Trailblazers and Bengals. Trades him, selfish former 6th man for legit post prospect, 2 boy scouts who are overpaid. Reputation restored.
                          11. Refuses to give up franchise player for 50 cents on the dollar.
                          As this is all going on, he shows self-awareness by taking a secondary role to learn from universally respected sitting GM.

                          We've reached the point where this is Bird's time to put his stamp on the future of this team. I'm optimistic that a guy with his competitiveness, savvy, and basketball heritage will ultimately bring us back to contender status. But I'm also patient, because if it happened overnight, we'd have 30 champions instead of just the one.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: What good has Bird been?

                            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                            Don't you recall my thread following the first 06-07 season PD party? As a GM Walsh has a strong record. I forget now the exact number but I thought it was more like .540 which in NBA terms is a great deal better than .500, especially over the long haul.
                            Yes, and as we discussed at the time, that equates to average 44 wins per season over 20 years (will dip slightly when you include this season). I don't recall how we normalized the fifty-game (lockout) season.

                            You think 44-38 is a great deal better than 0.500. Others do not.

                            Funny enough, though, at the time you were arguing (IIRC) that Donnie was among the best GMs - record wise - and yet it turned out that the Pacers' twenty-year W/L % was about fourteenth-best. Also putting him close to middle-of-the-pack/ 0.500.

                            ==================

                            What Bird has done is taken a somewhat-better-than-average situation and made it worse. Quickly.

                            These clowns need to be fired before Kareem Rush ever puts on a summer league practice jersey.
                            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


                            • #29
                              Re: What good has Bird been?

                              JB, that's very thorough chronology. Beyond the player personnel
                              issues, the question that arises is this. How huge was the loss of
                              Mike Brown when he left for CLE ? It was obviously a big blow.

                              In hindsight, firing RC and promoting Brown might have been a
                              move that would have changed the course of everything that's
                              ensued the last couple years. Needless to say, Bird was never
                              gonna do that and most if not all other NBA GM's wouldn't have
                              either. It'd have been a very ballsy, contraversial move to make.

                              As for your 'patience', I hope Bird shares it. When he recently said
                              "as long as I'm here, we'll never rebuild" and "I want to win right
                              now", I kind of cringed. Wether the Pacers should rebuild or not
                              is an open question. But either way, unless an organization's
                              ultimate goal is something other than an NBA title, a GM should
                              be looking at the bigger picture and sometimes rebuilding is the
                              way to go.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: What good has Bird been?

                                Originally posted by Rajah Brown View Post
                                DgR, Al is a good guy and a pretty good player. But I'm not so sure
                                he was the positive force chemistry-wise that you claim he was.

                                He left originally because he wanted starts, touches, stats and a shot
                                at the All-Star game more than he wanted to win. In ATL, he got all
                                that as the mainstay on a team that sucked bigtime. So, he gets a
                                chance to come back to Indy and play for a (presumed) 'winner'
                                again w/ his buddy J.O., etc. But the problem was, he still wanted
                                the offensive focus and commensurate touches and stats more than
                                he wanted to win.

                                Unfortunately, Al is a kid who's always thought he was better than he
                                is. What he is is a pretty decent offensive player with a shot that
                                comes and goes who's a tweener that can't (and has little interest in)
                                defend either forward spot very well and has a pretty limited hoops-IQ.

                                It's too bad he wasn't willing to be a terrific 6th man and the focus guy
                                on the 2nd unit. If so, he'd have had a nice, long career here in Indy.
                                R Brwon,
                                There's no argument about the outcome of the trade or about the bad influence Al had after making a comeback to Indy. I'm just trying to look at it from the prespective I had at the time. I fully realise the trade did not improve the team. And that Al did not fill the locker room leader roll he was supposed to. I dont think that highly of Al as a player.

                                All Im saying is that I dont blame LB for what happened. That move had a chance to be very positive for the team and certainly wasn't "stupid" at the time it was made- at least in my opinion. It didn't work out and that's it- the team moves on...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X