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

Kravitz: Pacers can't use Celtics' blueprint

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

  • #46
    Re: Kravitz: Pacers can't use Celtics' blueprint

    I think BBall has hit the nail on the head. The idea in the Pacers situation shouldn't be to squeeze out a few ultimatley meaningless wins, it should be to develope and evaluate for the next season. If that means a few additinal losses so be it. Especially when you are in a situation where you expect there to be some roster turn over.

    Shouldn't the team have been playing Williams, Diogu, and Graham bigger minutes to see what they can do and to give them more game experience? I don't want the team go out there and purposely lose. I do want to know they are looking at the long term improvement of the team and not short term ticket sales. If they could wins somes games with the younger guys playing big minutes, then that would be something to get excited about.

    As for the fans, I don't believe a few meaningless wins make much difference. If next season starts out poorly it won't matter if you won 3 out of your last 4 the previous season. That will be long forgotten. The best way to get butts in the seats is to win consistantly. It really isn't a complicated formula. As we've seen with the Colts, no one really cares about Rhodes, Harrison, or Keiths issues. At least not to the degree they aren't going to show up and watch the team.

    The Pacers need to be focused on improving the team - not appeasing the fans.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Kravitz: Pacers can't use Celtics' blueprint

      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
      Croz - ALL TEAMS have top 5 players on their roster. I mean your logic says the Pacers are all set. Just having Dunleavy means it's in the bag.

      Top 5/10 players tend to make it in the NBA and over 10 years of drafting that's 50/100 players. Simple math proves that at least 4-5 teams MUST have some top 5 talent even if those teams are made of nothing but picks that high.
      I don't think you are accuratly addressing Croz's argument. He isn't just stating that championship teams have a few high draft picks on them, he's stating that the best players on championship teams tend to have been high draft picks. Thats a big difference and one that totally negates your Dunleavey reference. I believe the argument is that even if you acquire those players by trade you need attractive assets to use to get them.

      I think I fall in the middle in this argument - I don't think you want or need to become a horrible team to get there, but I also don't believe you'll get there drafting between 11 and 22 every year.

      I also don't think looking at how teams were built 20 - 30 years ago has much bearing on the way to do it now. IMO only the last 8 - 10 years probably matter when looking for a blueprint.

      We should see if the full tank scenario works at all. Miami has played that game perfectly.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Kravitz: Pacers can't use Celtics' blueprint

        WE COULD HAVE DRAFTED RODNEY STUCKEY OR MORRIS ALMOND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        INSTEAD WE GOT IKE DIOGU.

        Worst move ever.
        *removed* Just keep politics and religion completely out of it, please.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Kravitz: Pacers can't use Celtics' blueprint

          Originally posted by Jon Theodore View Post
          WE COULD HAVE DRAFTED RODNEY STUCKEY OR MORRIS ALMOND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          INSTEAD WE GOT IKE DIOGU.

          Worst move ever.
          There's been worse moves. I'm not to keen on trading you for Thomas Pridgen (he's not bad but he's no Theodore).

          As for who the Pacers could of had in last years draft, I thought they said Law would of been the guy they drafted anyway. I might be wrong, but I thought I heard that.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Kravitz: Pacers can't use Celtics' blueprint

            just look at the top 5 picks recently who completely changed the direction of the franchise they were drafted by...williams in utah...paul in new orleans...ming in houston...howard in orlando...james in cleveland...carmelo in denver...bosh in toronto...even horford in atlanta...

            my point is that the most realistic way the pacers can expect to be in yearly title contention is by acquiring a "franchise player". the pacers don't have the assets to make the trade for one, nor do they have the market or cap to sign one. thus our hope is the draft. and pick #11 is not the most ideal spot to acquire such a player.

            here's another example of this years playoff teams and their top players and where they were drafted...

            hawks - johnson(10) smith(17) williams(2) horford(3) bibby(2)

            celtics - pierce(10) garnett(5) allen(5) rondo(21)

            cavs - james(1) big z(20)

            mavs - dirk(9) howard(29) terry(10) kidd(2)

            nuggets - iverson(1) anthony(3) martin(1) camby(2)

            pistons - billups(3) wallace(4) hamilton(7) prince(23)

            rockets - ming(1) mcgrady(9) battier(6) alston(39)

            lakers - kobe(13) odom(4) gasol(3) bynum(10)

            hornets - paul(4) west(18) peja(14) chandler(2)

            magic - howard(1) turkoglu(16) lewis(32)

            76ers - iguodala(9) miller(8) dalembert(26)

            suns - stoudemire(9) nash(15) barbosa(28) hill(3) shaq(1)

            spurs - duncan(1) ginobili(57) parker(28)

            raptors - bosh(4) calderon(ud)

            jazz - williams(3) boozer(34) okur(37) kirilenko(24)

            wizards - jamison(4) butler(10) arenas(30)

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Kravitz: Pacers can't use Celtics' blueprint

              Originally posted by rm1369 View Post
              I think BBall has hit the nail on the head. The idea in the Pacers situation shouldn't be to squeeze out a few ultimatley meaningless wins, it should be to develope and evaluate for the next season. If that means a few additinal losses so be it. Especially when you are in a situation where you expect there to be some roster turn over.

              Shouldn't the team have been playing Williams, Diogu, and Graham bigger minutes to see what they can do and to give them more game experience? I don't want the team go out there and purposely lose. I do want to know they are looking at the long term improvement of the team and not short term ticket sales. If they could wins somes games with the younger guys playing big minutes, then that would be something to get excited about.

              As for the fans, I don't believe a few meaningless wins make much difference. If next season starts out poorly it won't matter if you won 3 out of your last 4 the previous season. That will be long forgotten. The best way to get butts in the seats is to win consistantly. It really isn't a complicated formula. As we've seen with the Colts, no one really cares about Rhodes, Harrison, or Keiths issues. At least not to the degree they aren't going to show up and watch the team.

              The Pacers need to be focused on improving the team - not appeasing the fans.
              Acquiring Flip Murray for a few months might be a prime example of trying to get some short term wins which ultimately are/were meaningless while doing nothing but hurting the draft position.

              What would really have changed had the Pacers stolen a couple more extra games and made the playoffs? Outside of maybe recouping Flip's salary, would we have really been in a better place today... or tomorrow?

              Acquiring Flip wasn't about making this team an EC contender... it was about a last ditch effort to grab the 8th playoff spot. So what?

              To me, I don't want to see the team 'tank' and just throw games... But I don't see them having to go out of their way to pick up a few meaningless wins for a team that's several steps away from mattering anyway. I have no problem taking advantage of the down years to get young players some minutes and to work on the system. Let alone work with some lineup shuffling.... All the while getting a better crack at the lottery.

              The problem I see, especially with those that say the team cannot afford to do that, is it is ignoring reality that the team will be down anyway. We're not talking about a potential 47 win team throwing wins away and becoming a 30 win team. We're talking a 36 win team accepting reality that just making the playoffs isn't the best long term thing for the team and if developing some players and staying away from the waiver wire costs us a few games... it's better in the long run than what those few extra wins means in the short term.

              If you take advantage of the down years, with some capable front office moves you minimize how long you are down. If you just try to milk out wins to creep into the playoffs at all costs then you are probably just extending your run of staring up at .500.

              -Bball
              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

              ------

              "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

              -John Wooden

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Kravitz: Pacers can't use Celtics' blueprint

                Originally posted by Bball View Post

                If you take advantage of the down years, with some capable front office moves you minimize how long you are down. If you just try to milk out wins to creep into the playoffs at all costs then you are probably just extending your run of staring up at .500.

                -Bball
                I couldn't agree more.
                Last edited by rm1369; 06-21-2008, 09:23 AM.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Kravitz: Pacers can't use Celtics' blueprint

                  I really just want to put on here that I think that this is an excellent thread and I have really enjoyed the back and forth between Count & Croz. Posts like these is what makes this forum special.

                  No one resorting to name calling or internet bullying hyperbole.

                  Both have presented good arguments that have made me change my mind a couple of times just while reading this thread.

                  Seth and Bball laid it down as well, but we've come to expect that.

                  Great job guys.


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

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Kravitz: Pacers can't use Celtics' blueprint

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Kravitz: Pacers can't use Celtics' blueprint

                      Originally posted by rm1369 View Post
                      As for the fans, I don't believe a few meaningless wins make much difference. If next season starts out poorly it won't matter if you won 3 out of your last 4 the previous season. That will be long forgotten. The best way to get butts in the seats is to win consistantly. It really isn't a complicated formula. As we've seen with the Colts, no one really cares about Rhodes, Harrison, or Keiths issues. At least not to the degree they aren't going to show up and watch the team.

                      The Pacers need to be focused on improving the team - not appeasing the fans.
                      Now there's an argument for the Las Vegas Pacers.

                      The fans are the reason the team exists in the city in the first place. Yes, consistant winning will keep butts in the seats, but losing while keeping the best players on the bench in pursuit of some amorphous development of the young guys isn't going to fly, not with the fans or with the good players who want the playing time they deserve and not splinters.

                      The entire argument seems to be based on the idea that the only way to have a consistently winning team is to get high draft picks, but then once the team starts winning consistently you won't get high draft picks any more. Is the solution to have a championship contender for a year and then tank 2-3 seasons in a row to get back to having a championship contender? Is it to completely blow up any team that didn't win a championship?

                      As dedicated fans of the team, we tend to forget that the casual fan is very much going to make a support decision early in the season based on how the team was doing at the end of the last one. They aren't going to know from a draft pick unless it's one of the Media Anointed. They aren't going to care about the work in training camp (or will dismiss it all as local whitewash), or rookie league, or even pre-season. They are going to base their opinion on the current momentum. A team coming off not just a losing season but one where they looked awful for the last dozen games will fare much worse than a team that was on a rising note for those same games.

                      I suppose you simply can't convince me that a lottery pick is worth having the team look worse than it really is, especially from an effort standpoint. Add to it my absolute faith that the Pacers wouldn't get the #1 draft pick if we won 0 games in a season and you can see why I disagree with giving up a run for the playoff spot in favor of a possible 2 position improvement in the draft.
                      BillS

                      A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                      Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Kravitz: Pacers can't use Celtics' blueprint

                        basically, my belief is to tank until you finally find yourselves a "franchise player". once you have that, your team ought to be in contention most years and you build around that player with solid late picks, free agents, and key trades. i just want that franchise player and doubt very much that we'll ever find him drafting between 11-30 every year. just look at the colts. all it takes is one player to turn a franchise around, and you will almost never find a peyton manning as a late round draft pick.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Kravitz: Pacers can't use Celtics' blueprint

                          Originally posted by BillS View Post
                          Now there's an argument for the Las Vegas Pacers.

                          The fans are the reason the team exists in the city in the first place. Yes, consistant winning will keep butts in the seats, but losing while keeping the best players on the bench in pursuit of some amorphous development of the young guys isn't going to fly, not with the fans or with the good players who want the playing time they deserve and not splinters.

                          The entire argument seems to be based on the idea that the only way to have a consistently winning team is to get high draft picks, but then once the team starts winning consistently you won't get high draft picks any more. Is the solution to have a championship contender for a year and then tank 2-3 seasons in a row to get back to having a championship contender? Is it to completely blow up any team that didn't win a championship?
                          You mean the good players like Marquis Daniels, Flip Murray, and Troy Murphy? One guy that won't be here, one that everyone hopes won't be here, and one guy many wish wasn't here. Nobody is suggesting the team should have benched DG or Dun at mid season or the end of the season. I just don't see the point in Flip, Marquis, and Troy playing 30+ minutes a night for the last 10 -15 games while SW, Diogu, and Graham get DNPCD or 5 minutes max. I also don't see why Dun and Granger should be playing 38 -43 minutes a night during the same period. Go back and look at the minutes those guys were logging. 30 -35 mintues should be plenty.

                          I also don't believe a team should ever bow to the fans when it comes to player movement or developement. Yes the fans support the team, but let's not forget these are the same fans that wanted Steve Alford instead or Reggie and that would have ran Smits out of town after year two. When a team makes moves to appease the fans you end up with the GS trade. A trade that has now hamstrung the teams future. And guess what? The fans still bailed on the team. So now we want to put them in control of player development? That IMO is what will lead to the Las Vegas Pacers - a consistantly bad team, with a management that bases it's next move on opinion polls and popularity instead of common sense and a long term strategy and vision.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Kravitz: Pacers can't use Celtics' blueprint

                            basically, my belief is to tank until you finally find yourselves a "franchise player".
                            Bearing in mind that your response to my list of top 5 picks vs non top 5 picks implies that you do NOT think Reggie Miller was a franchise player. Think about that. He wasn't at top 5 pick so therefore was not capable of getting a team to the top. Ignore the many game winning shots or efforts. Ignore the fact that he WAS PAIRED with a top 5 pick, Rik Smits, also mentioned in my list.

                            Your issue is that you are discounting teams that fit YOUR MOLD after finding out they didn't win. Had the Pacers won in 2000 you'd be telling us that it proves you had to have SMITS in order to win because he was the top 5 pick.

                            Originally posted by croz24 View Post
                            and you know what, the pacers are still without an nba championship...
                            Yeah, it was the lack of a top 5 pick on the 98-2000 roster that kept that from happening. (***cough***Rik***cough)

                            Oh wait, in 2000 another TOP FIVE PICK PLAYED FOR THE PACERS IN THE PLAYOFFS. His name was Bender and the team sure as F bomb didn't get to the Finals because of him.

                            Thats a big difference and one that totally negates your Dunleavey reference. I believe the argument is that even if you acquire those players by trade you need attractive assets to use to get them.
                            I have to disagree with that because it still implies that you must be losing to get those players, and that upon getting those high picks you are bound to turn it around. It total ignores the far more powerful aspect which is GOOD DEALING. How did the Celtics get Bird? People think it's losing but that's not it. They took a risk on him not coming out and had traded for another pick in a standard steal (ala Gasol, Sheed, etc) where a pretty good team just happens to find their way to a top player. In this case it let the Celtics take that Bird risk since they knew they were getting another top pick.


                            Wasn't Dunleavy possibly the best player on the Pacers this year? Or second only to Granger who many think might be one of the 5-7 best guys in his draft class looking back?

                            You can't act like the difference between the Lakers and Pacers in 2000 was that the Lakers had top picks because they didn't. Shaq was an FA clearing house steal that blew people away and altered how teams looked at FA, and using Vlade to get a HS kid that wasn't even picked in the top 10 is nothing like tanking.

                            What is far more true is that teams that are around .500 find their way into a star on a lopsided deal, or maybe it's a team that's even better than that, and suddenly they are top dogs.


                            The biggest mistake is this, you are looking back after the fact like this stuff is obvious. It's not. Getting Dunleavy is just as smart as getting Jordan. It's a top 5 guy, so problem solved. But it's got nothing to do with top 5 guy and everything to do with picking the RIGHT GUY(S). The Pacers were at game freaking 7 against Jordan in Chicago (only time he went to game 7 EVER) and were leading.

                            So let's get the hell off this lame "it wasn't even close because they didn't have the horses" kick. That is a massive disregard for the nuances of the situation. Black or white, title or total failure is just dumb, that's not the way it works. That's the Steinbrenner method and that's how he took a 4 time title team slowly into the dumpster, as well as how he had the Yanks OUT OF THE PLAYOFFS for 15 freaking years.

                            Smart teams know that step one is being close. You have to get into the mix. After that it's chance, it's crazy plays and maybe even Heir Stern for all we know. But being the 98-2000 team, or the 2003 team for that matter, isn't failure. The 2003 team had home court without a serious top 5 pick contributor on the roster and played hella better against the Pistons than the Lakers did in the Finals.


                            I might as well go play 1 on 1 in a round robin with Lebron and Nash and when either Lebron or Nash lose to the other I can turn to them and say "well, you and I are equal because we both lost, we both got equally close to winning". The truth is that there are degrees of success at play.
                            Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 06-21-2008, 09:53 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Kravitz: Pacers can't use Celtics' blueprint

                              Originally posted by Peck View Post
                              Seth and Bball laid it down as well, but we've come to expect that.
                              I assumed you excluded me due to the name calling caveat and all that that implies. Frankly my level of offensiveness had dropped like a Jack cold streak the last week. I'm drifting back into full-on debate mode. Old habits just won't die.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Kravitz: Pacers can't use Celtics' blueprint

                                Would most of you be proud to have a team that gives the other contenders a run for their money, even if the Pacers themselves don't win it all?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X