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

New York Daily News: Simons want to fire Bird and retain Walsh

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

  • #61
    Re: New York Daily News: Simons want to fire Bird and retain Walsh

    In Mike Wells blog today he mentions that the Bucks have indicated they want to speak with Walsh also

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: New York Daily News: Simons want to fire Bird and retain Walsh

      Originally posted by Rajah Brown View Post
      BBall-

      I can't recall. But that was a good trade. Schrempf didn't defend
      worth a **** and the offense would typically grind to a halt when
      the ball got to him.

      McKey obviously struggled with injuries, but was a pretty good all
      around player in my book. Relatedly, I always thought that, his
      emotional idiosyncracies aside, if Artest would have prioritized
      his play on the court the way McCkey did (defend, board,
      faciliate for other guys and accept being a complimentary,
      option), he and the Pacers would have been much better off.
      Originally posted by Bball View Post
      How much of the Detlef for McKey trade belongs to Larry Brown?

      Was that something that Brown pushed for in coming to the Pacers? Was that a requirement? Was that something that Walsh was doing no matter Brown's thoughts on the situation? Was that something that Brown convinced Walsh that needed to happen?

      Would that trade had happened without Brown?

      -Bball
      I think this was perhaps the most pivotal move of the '90's. The McKey-Schrempf deal literally occurred on the eve of opening night. It had been rumored for a couple of years (like the Peja-Ron deal) but had never come to fruition.

      While I'll stop short of saying that the trade would not have happened without Brown, there's no question in my mind that Brown was the catalyst that put it over the top. (The trade may still have happened at some point without Brown, but would it have been at such a fortuitous time?) It wasn't a requirement by Larry, but if you'll recall there had been some back-and-forth between Brown and Det in the media over the possibility of Det going back to his sixth man role.

      At the time, Det and Reggie were the two "stars" of the team, both up for the leadership role. Reggie embraced Brown, and the team followed. Det was hesitant (to what degree, I can't say), and Walsh pulled the trigger to bring in McKey.

      I think McKey was one of the key architects and contributors to the way that team played throughout the '90's: unselfishly, together, took pride in defense.

      I'm sure we all remember the Houston game in 1994 that started the ball rolling. We had lost 5 straight, 6 of 8, including two heartbreakers: in Philly when Dana Barros threw in a prayer in OT and in Chicago when Kukoc hit a j with 0.7 secs left (the "Reggie bowing to the Crowd" game). We won 6 more in a row after Houston to get back to .500, then roared through the rest of the season until we ran into Mike Mathis.

      Anyway, I remember an interview with McKey right as we started to catch fire, talking about how in a team meeting he had explained that Defense was almost entirely about trust. You had to help your teammates. You had to trust someone else would fill in behind you when you went to help. If that doesn't happen, people stop helping each other. The team had finally figured that out during that stretch.

      Yes, McKey could be frustrating, but I think he was a very important figure in the Pacers transition from mediocre to perennial contender over the next few years.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: New York Daily News: Simons want to fire Bird and retain Walsh

        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
        In Mike Wells blog today he mentions that the Bucks have indicated they want to speak with Walsh also
        does that mean we should make a play for bill simmons as GM?
        This is the darkest timeline.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: New York Daily News: Simons want to fire Bird and retain Walsh

          Originally posted by Bball View Post
          How much of the Detlef for McKey trade belongs to Larry Brown?

          Was that something that Brown pushed for in coming to the Pacers? Was that a requirement? Was that something that Walsh was doing no matter Brown's thoughts on the situation? Was that something that Brown convinced Walsh that needed to happen?

          Would that trade had happened without Brown?

          -Bball
          Brown was really pushing for that trade during training camp. But then brown probably also pushed for a 100 trades during his 4 years here - that is what he does. Walsh had to be in agreement to make the trade though.

          I will never forget when a fan walked right by Walsh (he used to sit in a very open and accessable place at MSA) and screamed at him about how bad the Detlef trade was and what an idiot Walsh was. Of course that was during the first 3 months of the 1993-1994 season when the pacers were below .500 and McKey was injured when he first got here. In fact one of the reasons why the Pacers turned their season around was that McKey got healthy.


          Great post count55 - really great

          .
          Last edited by Unclebuck; 03-19-2008, 08:53 AM.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: New York Daily News: Simons want to fire Bird and retain Walsh

            Originally posted by Bball View Post
            How much of the Detlef for McKey trade belongs to Larry Brown?

            Was that something that Brown pushed for in coming to the Pacers? Was that a requirement? Was that something that Walsh was doing no matter Brown's thoughts on the situation? Was that something that Brown convinced Walsh that needed to happen?

            Would that trade had happened without Brown?

            -Bball
            Not to pour salt, but does anyone remember what our current GM said in the press about that trade when it went down? Something to effect that "... I would've follwed Detlef right out the door." Just saying...
            "I mean, you'd walk into our dressing room and run into Mel Daniels holding a .45 -- it makes you wonder."

            Bob Netolicky

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: New York Daily News: Simons want to fire Bird and retain Walsh

              Originally posted by Drewtone View Post
              Not to pour salt, but does anyone remember what our current GM said in the press about that trade when it went down? Something to effect that "... I would've follwed Detlef right out the door." Just saying...
              I am getting my trades and quotes confused. Bird said that? You know, now that I think about it, I remember the quote rather well - but I forgot Bird said that.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: New York Daily News: Simons want to fire Bird and retain Walsh

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                I am getting my trades and quotes confused. Bird said that? You know, now that I think about it, I remember the quote rather well - but I forgot Bird said that.
                Yep, that was after Donnie's initial flirtation with Larry for coach (during the summer, evidently while Detlef was building his pool with his 'no-trade' assurance) and that was Larry's most public response after we hired Larry Brown.

                Now that I think about it, Larry Bird had some remark when we hired Zeke and Donnie shot back at Larry in the press. Things haven't always been totally chummy with them.
                "I mean, you'd walk into our dressing room and run into Mel Daniels holding a .45 -- it makes you wonder."

                Bob Netolicky

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: New York Daily News: Simons want to fire Bird and retain Walsh

                  Originally posted by Drewtone View Post
                  Yep, that was after Donnie's initial flirtation with Larry for coach (during the summer, evidently while Detlef was building his pool with his 'no-trade' assurance) and that was Larry's most public response after we hired Larry Brown.
                  interesting -- i didn't know that. though i was like a 2nd or 3rd grader at that point.

                  Originally posted by Drewtone View Post
                  Now that I think about it, Larry Bird had some remark when we hired Zeke and Donnie shot back at Larry in the press. Things haven't always been totally chummy with them.
                  wasn't that about donnie passing on carlisle?
                  This is the darkest timeline.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: New York Daily News: Simons want to fire Bird and retain Walsh

                    http://hoopshype.com/rumors.htm

                    Apparently as someone has already commented above, DW and Bird do have some friction
                    between them. See one of the NY articles.
                    {o,o}
                    |)__)
                    -"-"-

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: New York Daily News: Simons want to fire Bird and retain Walsh

                      I like Donnie, but I still don't understand the whole "respect" issue in regards to firing Larry, in the same way I didn't understand how it was "classy" to offer RC a FO position after he was fired.

                      I see the Pacers as a business, not a charity. I'd like to think that my father, who is a "boss" where he works, is a good person, but if someone is detrimental to what they are trying to accomplish, he has to fire them, because it's his job and his responsibility to ensure he is putting forth a superior product. Same thing with the Pacers. I'm sure that somewhere in America, every day, someone in a leadership position is forced to get rid of an underling that they may "like" as a person but the fact that they can make that decision shows why they are in that position of leadership in the first place.

                      I don't even really know if Larry should be gone. It's more the rhetoric he has spoken against rebuilding and the moves he might not have made (getting rid of Tinsley and JO in the offseason) that bother me more than the moves he has allegedly made (with the two headed monster, who knows what he has done).

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: New York Daily News: Simons want to fire Bird and retain Walsh

                        My gut feeling is that Walsh to the Knicks is a done deal.



                        http://blogs.nypost.com/sports/knick...s_appears.html

                        Thomas appears on edge
                        By MARC BERMAN

                        In a tense, four-minute session with the media today after practice, Isiah Thomas said tersely he won’t speak about the KnicksNew York Knicks ' courting Donnie Walsh until James Dolan or Walsh speak up too.

                        “Did you talk to Jim? Did you talk to Donnie?,’’ Thomas said with an edge. “When you get a comment from those two guys, then I’ll feel free to comment and speak freely. Until Donnie says something or Jim says something about a story that’s been reported about those two gentlemen, you should ask those two gentlemen.’’

                        Dolan put Thomas in a very awkward situation today as the club has remained mum on the reports the Knicks have talked to Walsh and will again later this week. Thomas walked away from the media throng after 4:04 – spending more time with a Knicks P.R. official plotting what to say.

                        Clearly, Thomas has a lot to say but is holding back. Despite a source saying he’s fuming at the Walsh reports and at Dolan’s office remaining mum, Thomas wants his money and doesn’t want to mess with that like Larry Brown messed up.

                        Thomas has appeared agitated that Dolan has remained quiet the entire season, other than the private vote of confidence he gave Thomas following Dec. 8’s Philly game that was leaked to some media outlets.

                        At one point, Thomas said today, “I’m very comfortable with where I am with Jim.’’

                        But Thomas said he will no longer discuss his job status and next season. Since Feb. 29th, Thomas has made many references to plans for the team this summer.


                        Edit: there are several articles referenced on Hoopshype.com, so instead of cut and pasting all the articles - I will just link hoopshype. Be sure to read all the way through Thursdays because they are scattered throughout

                        http://hoopshype.com/rumors.htm

                        Supposedly the Hawks have contacted Walsh as well
                        Last edited by Unclebuck; 03-20-2008, 08:18 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: New York Daily News: Simons want to fire Bird and retain Walsh

                          I didn't want to start another thread about Donnie, etc., so here is todays article regarding Walsh, etal.

                          http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/sp...in&oref=slogin



                          The Pacers’ Bad Behavior Could Send Walsh Away


                          The Indiana Pacers’ home was dubbed a basketball cathedral when it opened in 1999. Every game began with a history-filled video montage and a dramatic declaration: “In 49 states, it’s just basketball. But this is Indiana.” A rapturous roar always followed.

                          But the rapture has left the building, along with thousands of disillusioned Pacers fans. The Pacers rank last in the N.B.A. in home attendance, drawing 12,107 fans a game. On any given night, there are 6,000 to 8,000 empty green seats. They have not sold out a single game this season. When the Pacers and the Knicks played earlier this week, the upper deck appeared 95 percent empty.

                          In a state where basketball is the unofficial religion, the mass exodus falls somewhere between shocking and apocalyptic.

                          “It’s not up to what it used to be, when this place used to be sold out and we were winning games and people were going crazy for us,” center Jeff Foster, the longest-tenured Pacer, said glumly. “It’s definitely sad for me, and I’m sure everybody that’s a Pacer fan, to see where it’s come.”

                          If this were just a matter of the Pacers struggling on the court — they were 27-41 after Wednesday night’s 102-95 victory over Charlotte — the franchise might shrug off the downturn, sign a big free agent and assure fans that better days were ahead.

                          But this is Indiana. And the problems are not contained to the basketball court. The Pacers’ image has been deeply scarred by misdeeds and violence, a series of embarrassing episodes that began, at least symbolically, with the December 2004 melee between Pacers players and Pistons fans at the Palace of Auburn Hills.

                          In the last eight months alone, the Pacers have dealt with five separate incidents involving Shawne Williams, Jamaal Tinsley, Marquis Daniels and David Harrison. As The Indianapolis Star recently reported, only one was charged with a crime (Williams, for driving without a license), but the constant drumbeat of player misconduct has driven a deep wedge between the underperforming team and its increasingly intolerant fan base.

                          “They eat, sleep, drink and breathe the team,” said the former Pacer Jalen Rose, who is now an ESPN analyst. “When the ship is not sailing in the right direction and it’s not a product they can be proud of, their way of showing frustration and disappointment and hope for change is the only way they can — and that’s by not showing up.”

                          The result is a crisis of confidence that is consuming the franchise and could lead to the first major change in leadership in two decades.

                          “We’re talking about restructuring, rethinking, all the things you do when your team is in crisis,” Herb Simon, who owns the team with his brother Mel, recently told The Star. “We’re going to be having a series of meetings and we’re going to make changes, yes.”

                          How far those changes go should be known in the coming weeks, but it is possible that Donnie Walsh and Larry Bird — the team’s top two basketball executives — could be gone.

                          Walsh, the Pacers’ chief architect since 1986, is expected to entertain offers from a handful of teams, including the Knicks and the Milwaukee Bucks, who fired General Manager Larry Harris on Wednesday. Bird, who was hired as the team president in 2003 and tapped as Walsh’s eventual successor, could be fired.

                          Bird, like the franchise he runs, is an Indiana legend — a kid from French Lick who became one of the N.B.A.’s greatest players, then came home to coach the Pacers to their first and only finals appearance, in 2000. Yet Bird had to acknowledge his own tenuous existence earlier this week.

                          “It’s been very tough, because I’ve never been through anything like this,” he said. “Our fans, we lost the connection with them, with all the things that happened off the court. And obviously, on the court we’re not getting the job done.”

                          Bird and Walsh have tried to clean up the mess. The Pacers traded Ron Artest, the primary figure in the Palace brawl, to Sacramento in January 2006. Stephen Jackson, who followed Artest into the stands in Auburn Hills, was traded to Golden State a year later, three months after being charged with criminal recklessness for firing a gun during a fight outside a strip club.

                          Their departures did not cure the team’s image problems or stem the tide of off-court incidents. In February 2007, Tinsley and Daniels were involved in a bar fight and accused of assaulting the bar manager. The case was settled Monday, with the players agreeing to perform community service without admitting any guilt. In September, Williams was arrested for driving without a license and other violations. He eventually pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge.

                          In January, Harrison was suspended five games by the N.B.A. for a third violation of its drug program, for using marijuana. Two weeks later, a 22-year-old woman said that she had been sexually assaulted during a gathering at Daniels’s house. Daniels was not accused of anything, but the incident reinforced the image of the Pacers as a team of outlaws or, at least, players who associate with the wrong people.

                          “Obviously, there’s some guys on the team that the fans don’t relate with,” Foster said, “and I’ve heard people say they won’t come back to games until certain people are gone.”

                          Walsh and Simon declined to be interviewed for this article. But they have repeatedly vowed to change the team’s culture and rid the roster of wayward players who — fairly or unfairly — have alienated the fans. “It’s not that all these players are bad people,” Simon told The Star. “They just make bad judgments and they’re in the wrong place. We don’t have a community that can tolerate this kind of behavior.”

                          The Pacers also do not have enough talent or star power to win consistently. Forward Jermaine O’Neal, their best player, has been out since Jan. 16 because of a knee injury. Tinsley, their starting point guard, has missed most of the last two months because of an injury. Their lone bright spot has been Mike Dunleavy, the young swingman acquired in the Jackson trade, who was averaging a career-high 18.4 points, 5.3 rebounds and 3.4 assists through Tuesday.

                          It has been three years since the Pacers won a playoff series, four years since they last made the Eastern Conference finals and eight years since Conseco Fieldhouse rocked with excitement and pride as the Pacers battled the Los Angeles Lakers in the N.B.A. finals.

                          Anywhere else, these trends might be waved off as a temporary concern, an aberration, a spell of bad luck. But this is Indiana.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: New York Daily News: Simons want to fire Bird and retain Walsh

                            And in New York TImes' typical fashion... "...DECEMBER 2004 brawl..."
                            "I mean, you'd walk into our dressing room and run into Mel Daniels holding a .45 -- it makes you wonder."

                            Bob Netolicky

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: New York Daily News: Simons want to fire Bird and retain Walsh

                              Things are moving rather quickly if you believe the NY media

                              http://www.nj.com/printer/printer.ss...190.xml&coll=1


                              Decision on Walsh may be close
                              Friday, March 21, 2008
                              BY DAVID WALDSTEIN
                              Star-Ledger Staff
                              GREENBURGH, N.Y. -- Isiah Thomas and James Dolan crossed paths here Wednesday when the Knicks took their team photograph and, a day later, Thomas appeared relaxed and jovial in the face of mounting evidence that his tenure with the Knicks is coming to an end.

                              It is not clear to what extent Dolan and Thomas spoke, but Thomas said he did not receive any direct assurances from his boss, even though he once again said he expected to stick around.

                              When asked if Dolan had told him that in the last day or so, Thomas replied, "No."

                              And another well-informed NBA executive, who did not want to be identified because he wasn't authorized to speak publicly about the situation, talked to Pacers CEO Donnie Walsh this month and believes Walsh's situation will be settled soon.

                              He said it's no coincidence that the Bucks relieved former GM Larry Harris of his duties Wednesday, which provided an opening for Walsh -- if he wants it. The Bucks have been in talks with Walsh or his agent, as have the Knicks.

                              "I think it may happen pretty quickly," the executive said of Walsh finding a new job. "Maybe in the next few days, because there's competition now between motivated owners."

                              Those motivated owners include Dolan, Sen. Herb Kohl of the Bucks, and Mel and Herb Simon of the Pacers. Walsh is expected to meet with Pacers ownership soon to determine his future there. But, unless the Simons change his mind, Walsh appears headed elsewhere.

                              "I think he knows that his time in Indiana has run out," the executive said, "and that if he wants to work, he'll have to move on and wants to get settled quickly."

                              It's not clear if Walsh is the Knicks' first choice, but it seems they have begun to look elsewhere after four consecutive losing seasons under Thomas, including two as head coach. In addition, a new reason for Dolan to finally sever ties with his president has come to light. After acquiring Zach Randolph in a much-trumpeted trade from Portland over the summer, Thomas tried to get rid of him less than a year later, according to Kohl.

                              In explaining why he terminated Harris, the Bucks owner said he nixed a potential deal for Randolph this season, and made it seem like the Knicks were shopping the forward hard.

                              "They (Portland) traded him to New York, and within six months they wanted him out," Kohl told Milwaukee reporters. "They were prepared to trade him to the Bucks or anyone else."

                              Considering Randolph is still owed $48 million over three years, that can't have gone over well with Dolan, and it may have been the final straw in his decision whether or not to seek outside help.

                              But despite the fact that no one has publicly denied that the Knicks have reached out to Walsh as his possible replacement, Thomas said that he has been treated "extremely well," by his boss. He also said he believes he will be back, though he didn't say in what capacity. One day after seeing Dolan, Thomas did say he knows what his future holds.

                              "Yes, I do," he said.

                              Well?

                              "I plan on being here," he said.

                              Unless he's completely delusional, Thomas has probably just decided not to cause a big stink. As far as he's concerned, he's under contract, and no one has told him otherwise, and there's millions of dollars due him on the remainder of his contract.

                              Thomas, who once coached the Pacers and considers Walsh a friend, was asked if his former boss in Indiana had reached out to him, now that news of his discussions with the Knicks had gone public.

                              "No need to," Thomas said with a smile before leaving.



                              David Waldstein may be reached

                              at dwaldstein@starledger.com

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: New York Daily News: Simons want to fire Bird and retain Walsh

                                http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/ba...int=1&page=all


                                FRANK ISOLA
                                DAILY NEWS SPORTS WRITER

                                Friday, March 21st 2008, 4:00 AM

                                James Dolan's presence with Knicks could prevent Walsh from saying yes

                                The Knicks want what the Indiana Pacers want - Donnie Walsh.

                                But while Walsh staying with the Pacers seems like the most logical choice, there are several mitigating factors that could lead Walsh to replace Isiah Thomas in New York. There is also one reason Walsh might have second thoughts about the Knicks - James Dolan.

                                The negotiations figure to intensify because Walsh's agent, Steve Kauffman, is expected to arrive in Indiana on Friday and sit down with Walsh, the Pacers' CEO. Walsh will meet with the team's co-owners, Herbert and Melvin Simon, over the next few days in Indianapolis. Herbert Simon is very close to Walsh.

                                The Daily News reported on Monday that the Simon brothers would prefer to keep Walsh and remove Larry Bird, currently the team president, from power, a scenario that has made Walsh uncomfortable. If the 67-year-old Walsh elects to leave the Pacers, he likely would end up New York. However, Walsh may be reluctant to join the Knicks because of Dolan. Walsh would extensively research the inner workings of the Garden, a process that surely would include a conversation with his long-time friend, former Knicks coach Larry Brown, who had a famous falling-out with Dolan and Thomas.

                                The Milwaukee Bucks also consider Walsh a candidate for their vacant GM job.

                                The Bucks' former GM, Larry Harris, knew his fate was sealed in February when he couldn't get the club to sign off on a trade for Knicks power forward Zach Randolph.

                                Thomas' credibility took another beating on Wednesday when when, in announcing the firing of Harris, Bucks owner Herb Kohl, the U.S. senator, confirmed a Daily News report from Feb. 19 that he had turned down a multiplayer deal for Randolph.

                                Kohl revealed that he had vetoed a trading deadline deal presented to him by Harris that would have sent Bobby Simmons, Dan Gadzuric and Charlie Bell to New York for Randolph and guard Fred Jones.

                                Last month, Thomas dismissed The News' story and the following day, The New York Times cited Knicks officials as vehemently denying that the club had tried to trade Randolph to Milwaukee. In fact, Thomas suggested that The News had been duped into reporting an inaccurate story. But on Wednesday, Kohl set the record straight.

                                "I don't want to impugn him, because I've never met him," Kohl said about Randolph. "Zach started out in Portland, and at the point they traded him, they really wanted to do that. He did not help them win.

                                "Then they traded him to New York, and within six months (the Knicks) wanted him out. ... And he had three years, plus this year, remaining on his contract, which was over $50 million.

                                "When it comes to decisions of that magnitude, the owner needs to be on board."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X