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

Decent article in the star about he collapse of the last good pacer team

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post

    I don't remember all this. Did some of the implosion begin before the trade? What specifically?
    To me, we started playing terribly on our road trip against a terrible Phoenix Suns team. They beat us twice with a bigger blowout on the road, but the game I single out was our home loss to the Suns. That was the day the NBA All Star rosters were announced, and Lance was snubbed. We were run out of the building in the first quarter. Despite this, Lance played an incredible first half and we made a run in the 3rd, but followed it with some of the more selfish play I've seen from our team and specifically from Lance. IMO, that's when it all started to go South.

    Of course we also signed Bynum before we traded Granger, so that happened as well. I can't remember when the PG incidents occurred, but I think those were both before the trade as well.

    The juxtaposition between our Houston games was a big symbol of how far we dropped. I thought our 33 point dismantling of them in December was the best game I've ever seen the Pacers play, especially defensively, but then we lost to them by 26 at the end of the season. We were 21-5 after that Houston win, I think, and I couldn't imagine anyone getting in our way of the championship. We were an absolute buzzsaw at the time.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post

      I don't remember all this. Did some of the implosion begin before the trade? What specifically?
      They had lost 3 out of their last 5 before the trade, two of them to losing teams. That had concluded a stretch where they had just gone 8-6 after starting 33-7. I'm not sure I'd classify that as any part of the implosion, but it definitely was a slower stretch.

      They actually won the first 5 games they played after the trade, and then the wheels came off after that.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post

        They had lost 3 out of their last 5 before the trade, two of them to losing teams. That had concluded a stretch where they had just gone 8-6 after starting 33-7. I'm not sure I'd classify that as any part of the implosion, but it definitely was a slower stretch.

        They actually won the first 5 games they played after the trade, and then the wheels came off after that.
        Sounds like Bird made the right move. Team was imploding anyway and needed a boost. Had Bynum worked out, the rest would have been history.

        Comment


        • #64
          Bird gave that starting five an eternal favor with the Granger trade. Instead of solely being judged by what happened on the court, they forever have an excuse with a large chunk of fans because somehow trading an 8.3 PPG bench player who wasn’t even playing the previous year is a justifiable excuse for a horrific slump.

          In all of recorded human history, there is nothing else that has taken on a life of its own quite like that trade. The legend continues to grow. I think certain major players from that era love that it happened because it gives them an eternal excuse and shifts the blame for where it really should be placed.

          I’ll buy that Granger was a great influence to guys like PG/Lance/Hill, but it still has nothing to do with the fact that Roy Hibbert couldn’t deal with us adding Andrew Bynum. Hibbert’s collapse is overwhelmingly the main reason things went so far south.
          Last edited by Sollozzo; 04-09-2019, 10:31 PM.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
            Bird gave that starting five an eternal favor with the Granger trade. Instead of solely being judged by what happened on the court, they forever have an excuse with a large chunk of fans because somehow trading an 8.3 PPG bench player who wasn’t even playing the previous year is a justifiable excuse for a horrific slump.

            In all of recorded human history, there is nothing else that has taken on a life of its own quite like that trade. The legend continues to grow. I think certain major players from that era love that it happened because it gives them an eternal excuse and shifts the blame for where it really should be placed.

            I’ll buy that Granger was a great influence to guys like PG/Lance/Hill, but it still has nothing to do with the fact that Roy Hibbert couldn’t deal with us adding Andrew Bynum. Hibbert’s collapse is overwhelmingly the main reason things went so far south.
            Hibbert's game falling apart was the #1 issue and the reason is because he was once the absolute cornerstone to the defense. Yes, we had Paul and to some extent George Hill was a good defender. But Hibbert was a mountain that even LeBron couldn't climb over and THAT is why that team was so good. At one time, I ranked Hibbert as the most important player on that team, above Paul George.

            But that all changed and many, many, many people couldn't come to grips with it. In the process, the team fell apart because its centerpiece fell apart and there were no leaders to sustain the team...some talent there but pretty immature.

            Bottom line? When Hibbert went down that Pacer team's rock crumbled.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
              Bird gave that starting five an eternal favor with the Granger trade. Instead of solely being judged by what happened on the court, they forever have an excuse with a large chunk of fans because somehow trading an 8.3 PPG bench player who wasn’t even playing the previous year is a justifiable excuse for a horrific slump.

              In all of recorded human history, there is nothing else that has taken on a life of its own quite like that trade. The legend continues to grow. I think certain major players from that era love that it happened because it gives them an eternal excuse and shifts the blame for where it really should be placed.

              I’ll buy that Granger was a great influence to guys like PG/Lance/Hill, but it still has nothing to do with the fact that Roy Hibbert couldn’t deal with us adding Andrew Bynum. Hibbert’s collapse is overwhelmingly the main reason things went so far south.
              I'm quoting this simply because I couldn't agree more. 100% spot on comment.
              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


              • #67
                It's a different thing entirely for me, seems that the discussion here is whether a player past his prime who averaged 8 ppg on terrible percentages should have been traded or not, those numbers mean nothing to me. Granger should have been untouchable period. It's the fair thing to do. Can you imagine a team like the Spurs or Mavericks trading their star players past their prime for a backup? I don't. When you're a small market team, the only thing you can really do is inspire loyalty in your teammates and make them think "Hey, we can't sign top free agents, but we're in this together. We work hard and we stay united and we get things done". Then you dump your former franchise player when he's down with an injury... what exactly does that inspire.

                I don't know, guess we're just on a different boat, I'm not an American so my view of the NBA may be completely different, but I value loyalty over anything else, and for me loyalty was part of the blue-collar mentality that this team had, and the moment Granger was traded, it shattered everything.

                If the Pacers have the same ideology as other teams, the "get better at all costs with no sentimental value" that all big-market teams have, then they're just a hobo version of the Lakers. But I thought it's different, that the Pacers grow basketball and develop players and keep with them for better and for worse, and their strength comes from unity. I was wrong.
                Originally posted by Piston Prince
                Bobcat fans telling us to cheer up = epic fail season
                "Josh Smith Re-building the city of Detroit one brick at a time"

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by yoadknux View Post
                  It's a different thing entirely for me, seems that the discussion here is whether a player past his prime who averaged 8 ppg on terrible percentages should have been traded or not, those numbers mean nothing to me. Granger should have been untouchable period. It's the fair thing to do. Can you imagine a team like the Spurs or Mavericks trading their star players past their prime for a backup? I don't. When you're a small market team, the only thing you can really do is inspire loyalty in your teammates and make them think "Hey, we can't sign top free agents, but we're in this together. We work hard and we stay united and we get things done". Then you dump your former franchise player when he's down with an injury... what exactly does that inspire.

                  I don't know, guess we're just on a different boat, I'm not an American so my view of the NBA may be completely different, but I value loyalty over anything else, and for me loyalty was part of the blue-collar mentality that this team had, and the moment Granger was traded, it shattered everything.

                  If the Pacers have the same ideology as other teams, the "get better at all costs with no sentimental value" that all big-market teams have, then they're just a hobo version of the Lakers. But I thought it's different, that the Pacers grow basketball and develop players and keep with them for better and for worse, and their strength comes from unity. I was wrong.

                  I get what you’re saying. You make some strong points that are tough to argue with. My position is that we were trying to beat a historically stacked Heat roster and therefore needed to go all in, but I understand the other side of this argument.

                  However, the Granger trade still does not excuse such a poor slump. I think people from that era are conveniently using it as a crutch to absolve the team and certain players of blame. It’s totally taken on a life of its own.

                  I understand why people didn’t like the trade and can’t really argue with some of the points being made. But I think it’s extremely naive to think that if we simply only would have kept Granger, we would have a 2014 championship banner in the rafters. That was clearly a fragile group and the wheels were on their way off one way or another. Lucky for these guys, Bird did them a major favor by giving them the Granger excuse that they can milk for the rest or their lives.

                  The gist of David the Pius’s story is clearly always going to be, “we were on our way to a banner until that nasty Bird messed it all up”.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by yoadknux View Post
                    It's a different thing entirely for me, seems that the discussion here is whether a player past his prime who averaged 8 ppg on terrible percentages should have been traded or not, those numbers mean nothing to me. Granger should have been untouchable period. It's the fair thing to do. Can you imagine a team like the Spurs or Mavericks trading their star players past their prime for a backup? I don't. When you're a small market team, the only thing you can really do is inspire loyalty in your teammates and make them think "Hey, we can't sign top free agents, but we're in this together. We work hard and we stay united and we get things done". Then you dump your former franchise player when he's down with an injury... what exactly does that inspire.

                    I don't know, guess we're just on a different boat, I'm not an American so my view of the NBA may be completely different, but I value loyalty over anything else, and for me loyalty was part of the blue-collar mentality that this team had, and the moment Granger was traded, it shattered everything.

                    If the Pacers have the same ideology as other teams, the "get better at all costs with no sentimental value" that all big-market teams have, then they're just a hobo version of the Lakers. But I thought it's different, that the Pacers grow basketball and develop players and keep with them for better and for worse, and their strength comes from unity. I was wrong.
                    Behind Reggie, Danny is probably my #2 all-time favorite Pacer. He was just such a likable player to root for and, as many have pointed out, the lone bright spot during a fairly dark period.

                    I was personally crushed when they traded him. However, I understood it then and I understand it now. I also believe the narrative that they dumped him when he got injured is unfair. He missed an entire season and they patiently waited for him to rehab. The next season, they gave him every opportunity to return to the lineup for half a season before the trade and were patient through nagging injury after nagging injury.

                    Genuinely wish he could have remained a Pacer for life and the trade definitely had some role in the collapse, but I will never hold it against Bird, considering the circumstances.

                    Also, David West was one of my favorite Pacers as well, but his clear lack of leadership and blatant ring chasing to end his career really leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by GizzyStardust View Post

                      Behind Reggie, Danny is probably my #2 all-time favorite Pacer. He was just such a likable player to root for and, as many have pointed out, the lone bright spot during a fairly dark period.

                      I was personally crushed when they traded him. However, I understood it then and I understand it now. I also believe the narrative that they dumped him when he got injured is unfair. He missed an entire season and they patiently waited for him to rehab. The next season, they gave him every opportunity to return to the lineup for half a season before the trade and were patient through nagging injury after nagging injury.

                      Genuinely wish he could have remained a Pacer for life and the trade definitely had some role in the collapse, but I will never hold it against Bird, considering the circumstances.

                      Also, David West was one of my favorite Pacers as well, but his clear lack of leadership and blatant ring chasing to end his career really leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

                      I still can’t believe that West actually admits to mentally giving up on his #1 seed team in February just because we traded one guy who wasn’t producing anyway. That is just jaw-dropping and I don’t think it’s been hit on enough in this thread. I can’t believe he would actually admit to that.

                      By his own admissions, West has a repeated pattern of mentally throwing in the towel as soon as the going gets tough. When he said “the light went out” when PG went down, at least he was basically right that the team wasn’t going anywhere that year (though an elder statesmen should be trying to rally the team). As soon as PG went down, he had dreams of watching Tim Duncan...until he realized that the Spurs weren’t winning rings anymore, so he high-tailed it out of there. But to mentally give up on your #1 seeded team in the thick of the season when you’re the elder veteran is a whole different matter. Shameful.

                      I think his leadership has been incredibly overrated for a long time. Yes he was a very good player here and he absolutely led on the court by showing guys how to play the right way. There was a ton of value to that and there’s no doubt that West played a major role in our successes for his first 3 years here. He also helped get us to the ECF’s in 2014 after all the turmoil. However, I think his lockeroom leadership has been criminally overrated. Most just assumed he was a great leader since he was a lot older than most guys. But From reading his comments, it seems like he expected Granger to do that stuff and didn’t do very much to right the ship afterwords.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post


                        I still can’t believe that West actually admits to mentally giving up on his #1 seed team in February just because we traded one guy who wasn’t producing anyway. That is just jaw-dropping and I don’t think it’s been hit on enough in this thread. I can’t believe he would actually admit to that.
                        There's a pretty large gap between having an opinion and mentally giving up, no? Is Victor Oladipo giving up if he acknowledges we can't beat the Warriors? That doesn't seem right to me.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by imawhat View Post

                          There's a pretty large gap between having an opinion and mentally giving up, no? Is Victor Oladipo giving up if he acknowledges we can't beat the Warriors? That doesn't seem right to me.
                          If we took the Warriors to 7 games and then the following year had a better record, then yes....

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            This is one of those really rare occasions in life where there are really no wrong answers as most everything here is based on opinion and bias (one way or the other).

                            My take on it is this. Bird wanted to win a title, which as a long suffering Pacer fan I can appreciate. Of course the irony for me and some would say poetic justice perhaps is that the one time the Pacers did what I had been begging them to do for almost 20 years at the time (not stand pat and make a move) they trade the one player that I had attached myself to (Granger). The moment the trade occurred I was unhappy but in the end understanding. At the time we were getting an almost 18 ppg scorer and a big man who I actually thought had potential. So from a basketball perspective I understood it and hoped for the best.

                            Signing Andrew Bynum seemed lke a coup to me. I thought at the time an still think now that isn't that what winning teams do? I mean think about all of the former star players who sign on to a contender and contribute in some way. I mean would Bynum even have considered coming here if we were a .500% club? Hell no, I thought it was a win at the time.

                            Now as fate would have it none of that worked out and yes I blame the player a lot and I mean a LOT for that.

                            Human emotions are fine but at the end of the day you are being paid to do your job and there were expectations that they set and should have stuck to it.

                            So I am all on board, believe it or not, with the people on here saying that the Granger thing should never have sent them into a tail spin or even it if did they should have recouped in a week or so and soldiered on. So while I am a huge Danny Granger fan and think he is vastly underrated as a player I agree with some of you here.

                            Now on the other hand while I am all for Birds desire to win it all the way he handled it was not good at all. Yes I get the "they are paid to be here so they need to do their damn jobs" mentality but it is also his job to know the psyche of the players, to a point.]

                            Danny wasn't just a mentor to our budding superstar he was also a bridge between Lance and Paul. In one of the last interviews he had before being traded Danny talked about how not only was he happy to see Paul's game blossom but that he also talked about how he was thrilled for Lance and let it be known he cared for him as well. The one thing you can take away from that moment was that Paul certainly was impacted by the trade to see that the Pacers talk of loyalty was first hand. Did it make Paul the way he was? Who knows. There is a good possibility that he could have ended up doing the same thing anyway but then again there is always the possibility that he saw Danny retire a Pacer and felt more of a connection.

                            Danny wasn't a nobody. Again this is somewhat subjective and again freely admitting to being a fan but they guy was a huge part of the Pacers persona during his tenure here. Whether is was being the best player, never getting into any trouble (other than a couple of questionable tweets), doing tons of PR visits for the team to being in Dannyokie at the fieldhouse. He was the face of the franchise and the unquestioned leader of that locker room. If you don't believe the players then go ask Frank Voge who was the coach, hell he said he was only successful coming into the team because of Danny.

                            Speaking of which if you really want to hear one of the mess ups by Bird, Frank Vogel found out Danny had been traded from his wife. That trade happened so fast and so spur of the moment that people were finding out by Woj bombs instead of phone calls.

                            So yes while from a basketball perspective it looked good on paper, it didn't work.



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

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Well said.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post


                                However, I think his lockeroom leadership has been criminally overrated.
                                Or by mentally checking out with the Granger trade, he simply led the team in the wrong direction....
                                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

                                Working...
                                X