Tweet
Re: A re-examination of the past, and a looming conflict in the future in our Pacer organization
Excellent rebuttal, Seth.
Excellent rebuttal, Seth.
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.
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
-
And I won't be here to see the day
It all dries up and blows away
I'd hang around just to see
But they never had much use for me
In Levelland. (James McMurtry) -
Re: A re-examination of the past, and a looming conflict in the future in our Pacer organization
As I think back now, I'm actually of the opinion that Bird has played a large role in all of the decisions made during his tenure. That is not to say that Donnie Walsh didn't wield significant power and influence over the Pacer front office in the last five years. Quite the contrary, I believe he held the ultimate decision making authority. A veto, so to speak, over all moves made by the franchise. However, I believe you can see in most cases Bird as either the progenitor of the idea or the catalyst for the change.
Below is a review of the major decisions during the time that Bird and Walsh were both in the Pacer front office:
(Forgive me if I miss any, I'm doing this off the top of my head)
1. 2003 Firing Isiah/Hiring Rick - There's little doubt in my mind that Isiah's days were numbered once Bird was hired. This town simply wasn't big enough for the two of them. However, I have a contrary view to the relatively popular theory that Bird and Walsh lied to JO when they told him that Isiah's job was safe. Based on years of Walsh-watching, along with his spotty history with coaching hire/fire decisions, I believe that when Walsh to JO that he was keeping Isiah, he fully intended to keep Isiah. Walsh tended to be too loyal (perhaps a poor word, maybe attached is better) to the people he considered to be his decision. He probably objectively knew Isiah needed to go, but he was going to give him another chance for any number of motivations. If Bird made the same promise to JO (I honestly can't recall if he did or not), then it was almost certainly followed by a whispered "this summer" or "because Donnie won't let me." I'm sure that Bird told Walsh up front that Isiah did not have a long future in Bird's eyes, and, when Carlisle became available, Bird probably went to Walsh, said something to the effect of "Look, Isiah's completely useless, and now we have a perfect replacement candidate, so let's stop dicking around and get this done." Walsh agreed, and we got the coaching change.
2. 2004 through early 2006: Staying with Ron Artest - As Bird and Carlisle came on board, this team made the leap to the top of the league. After winning 61 games and advancing to the ECF in 2004, the Pacers were showing every indication of being arguably the best team in basketball on November 19, 2004. Without rehashing all of the travails that occurred during the balance of Ron-Ron's stay with us, I want to focus on the gamble that was going on during this time frame. It's my belief that Ron Artest was the core identity of that team. His skill and style of play were the reason that the Pacers could grind out wins against pretty much anybody virtually anywhere. (It's also his shortcomings that cost us at critical junctures, but that's another tangent.) I believe that both Bird and Walsh felt this was the case as well. If they really had the opportunity to deal Artest for Peja when both were at the top of their game (pre-brawl & injuries), I think they both would've passed. At the top of his game, Artest was a difference maker, a player whose skills at both ends of the court could get you a title. They took the calculated risk that the good Ron-Ron would get us the prize before the bad Ron-Ron destroyed us. They were both wrong, but there's little question in my mind that each would've made the same decision individually, without any influence from the other.
3. Summer 2005: Sarunas Jasikevicius - There seems to be little argument on this point. Bird had done extensive scouting in Europe, and by all accounts played a large role in bringing Saras to Indy.
4. Dec 2005 through Summer 2006: Artest to Peja to TE to Harrington - This is probably the most difficult sequence to see Bird's role clearly here. In fact, I think that the Pacers were in full reaction mode the entire time, so it's difficult to tell if anyone was steering the ship. IIRC, Walsh seemed to be the front man during this time, but I think the Simons also started to take a more active role. The trade exception seems to be either the work of the Simons, Morway, or a combination of both. Harrington was probably a Walsh target, but the way the deal was done (lengthy negotiations, apparent quibbling over relatively small details, the shorter contract) makes it look like the Simons were being pretty specific about the way it was to be handled.
5. January 2007: The Golden State deal - At the time, Walsh was out front, but in retrospect, this really looks like a Bird move. The players acquired seemed to fit Bird's tastes, and the quick, quiet way that it occurred was new. There were no rumors...none at all. Everybody just woke up one morning and, poof, there was the trade. Most of the deals that involved Walsh tended to come as an evolution rather than a revolution. The Harrington deal and the Rose-to-Chicago deal had been rumored for weeks prior to actually occurring. Hell, the Peja-for-Artest and Detlef-for-Derrick deals had been rumored for years before they actually came to fruition.
6. Summer 2007: Firing Carlisle, Hiring Obie - I actually believe that Bird wanted to fire Rick after the NJ series in 2006, but Walsh vetoed it. This is based the tenor and content of Bird's public communications that summer, as well as his long-standing "3 years and out" philosophy about coaches. After the veto that summer, the following season was another struggle, and by decision making time, everybody, including Carlisle were almost certainly sure that it was over. O'Brien makes perfect sense as a Bird hire from the perspective that he was a coach who, though flawed, had proven results. His style was closer to what Bird wanted, both on the floor and in the locker room. While he may not be a perfect fit for what Bird envisions, it is unlikely that Larry wanted to take a chance on untested commodities like Jim Boylan or Mark Jackson given the fact that he, himself was probably starting to wonder about his job security. It also makes sense given the reported pursuit of Stan Van Gundy.
7. 2004-2007: The Drafts (Harrison, Granger, Williams, White, Stanko) - It's been my opinion all along that, with the possible exception of Harrison, these were clearly Bird's choices. I have no doubt Walsh had heavy input, but I don't think there's anybody on that list that Walsh "forced" on Bird. With regard to Williams, I think Bird didn't necessarily see the "interchangeable parts" aspect. Instead, I think he believed that Williams could develop into a highly-skilled power forward. Honestly, I think he saw the same thing that he saw in Croshere when he coached him. A quick, reasonably athletic player with good shooting skills whose best spot would be as an undersized four rather than a big three. If you don't like the Croshere comparison, then I'd bring up Detlef Schrempf (though Detlef had better playmaking skills).
So, I think there's ample circumstantial evidence to say that Bird should bear a significant amount of the responsibility for the decisions and consequences of the Pacers' front office during his tenure. However, I would also say that, prior to Donnie's departure, there were no "All-Larry" decisions. With Walsh holding the veto power, all of the decisions were flavored with his presence. In some cases, it was probably little more than an OK (Sarunas), in others Walsh's presence was probably far heavier (timing of Rick's firing, the Artest-Peja-TE-Harrington saga). In any case, it leads me to conclude that the worst decision made by the Pacers in the last five years wasn't a basketball decision. It was a management decision.
Setting aside the specifics of the negative events and factors that the Pacers have faced over the past five years and looking only at how they responded to them tells you a story. It shows an organization caught unprepared for the changes that were happening around them. It's been a mish-mash of reacting too slowly, overreacting, mixed messages, and fits and starts. As someone who's spent the last 16 years at various levels of business management, much of which has been working with turnarounds, these are all symptoms of an organization lacking a clear, unified vision and strategy. With the exception of sticking with Artest (and, possibly drafting Danny Granger), I see little evidence of Donnie and Larry ever operating under the same mission statement, or even sharing a sufficiently similar view of where the Pacers should go, and how they should get there. The biggest mistake made by the Pacers was not having a clear, well-defined, and much, much quicker transition plan from Donnie to Larry.
For the sake of argument, let's agree that, as VP of Basketball Operations, Larry Bird should have been responsible for setting the vision and direction of the Indiana Pacers on the basketball floor. It is my position that, though Bird's fingerprints are all over the Pacers, Donnie Walsh' presence prevented Larry from fulfilling this key role as completely as necessary. Now, you're welcome to argue that Walsh prevented things from being worse, or that Walsh diluted Bird's vision and hurt the franchise. I can see really strong arguments on both sides. However, I'm not picking a side there. I've been stunned over the past few years how every reasonable (at the time)risk the Pacers took somehow managed to result in the worst possible outcome with alarming consistency. My argument now is that this "bad fortune" is, in fact, the unavoidable result of too many cooks in the kitchen. Not having one direction often leaves you in the gawdawful hell of "in between". In business, it's one of the worst places you can be. Without the benefit of a clear direction on where you "should" be, and the playbook that goes along with it, virtually every decision you make is pure reaction. It is often dictated to you, or you're left with trying to choose the lesser of two evils. Doesn't that sound like exactly what we've been doing for the last few years.
In retrospect, I believe the Simons (and by extension, the Pacers and their fans) would've been better served by placing a sunset on Donnie Walsh's tenure of one year after the hiring of Bird, or not hiring Bird (or anyone) until they felt Donnie's departure was imminent. While it is only my belief, and therefore unprovable, I have no doubt we would have made it through the last five years in much better shape had there only been one: Donnie or Larry. I don't know which would've been better than the other, but I am convinced that either would be better than where we were at the end of this past season.
This brings us to the comments made by Kegboy and the "Hydra" replacing the "Two-headed Monster". I understand them, but think they were misguided in two regards:
- First, I think they were made in frustration and seemingly directed at Bird apologists. I also understand that frustration as I have little patience for people who take a position about a player or coach or FO figure and allow it to define every argument. It's fine if it informs someone's position, but too often, people will not allow the ideology to be tested by fact. In those cases, every point made is suspect, driven by an ulterior motive in the service of advancing their POV regardless of its merit. I think this is a sin committed by inveterate Bird apologists and detractors, alike. While I've only been active here over the last couple of months, it seems to me that, while your frustration is certainly valid, tbird is not one deserving of this type of reaction. Though I think his reasoning may be a little more linear than I think is appropriate for that particular subject matter and disagree with his conclusions, I think he is presenting it in good faith from a honest POV. In other words, I don't see the necessity to treat him as a Bird apologist. (I have a lot of respect for both Kegboy and tbird. I apologize if anything I just typed is deemed inappropriate or insulting by either of them. I'm hopeful I am also presenting an good-faith POV.)
- I think that this is clearly now "Larry Bird's Front Office", and this is something that will be understood both internal and external to the organization. While Herb Simon and David Morway will be more visible than they have been in the past, neither will have the visibility that Walsh has had. Simon will be simply, the owner. While he may become more active than they have in the past, I don't think any of us expect Herb to all of a sudden morph into Mark Cuban or George Steinbrenner. Morway may be a talent and a key member of the team, he simply lacks the name recognition and presence that Larry Bird has. Bird's name and reputation has both helped and hurt him in his new role. In some cases, he gets a free pass, and in others he probably gets more blame than he deserves. In any case, I believe the message will now be consistent from the Pacers, the media, and, eventually, us: This is Bird's team, and he should get the credit for the successes and the blame for the failures, first and foremost. If, as you glumly projected, we start seeing the shifting of blame to Simon/Morway/Perkins by any one other than shameless Bird apologists, then it will be the result of the Pacers making the same mistake they made five years ago and muddying the waters. I would still believe Bird should be held responsible, but the mixed message issue would ultimately be the fault of ownership.
In the interest of full disclosure, I should note that I'm on the fence about Bird. I am still hopeful that he can become successful, but far from convinced that it will happen. If it wasn't already evident from my others posts, I have been pleased with the moves this summer. I see no reason, at present time, not to assume that Bird will continue in his role for a number of years. However, if the moves this summer do not work out. If these first, apparently purposeful steps towards a turnaround are followed closely by more of the dithering that we've seen over the past five years, then I can see him being out of work as early as next summer.
The last few years have been harrowing times for the Pacers and their faithful. For the first time in quite a long while, some of my fear and disquiet is being replaced by excitement and growing anticipation. I'm really looking forward to dispensing with arguments over what the direction is and who's driving, and getting to the meat of arguing about whether it's the right direction in the first place.
As always...this is above is just my opinion, which (should be) universally accepted as the truth.
(PS...I'm just here to make tbird look laconic by comparison)Comment
-
Re: A re-examination of the past, and a looming conflict in the future in our Pacer organization
Originally posted by Big Smooth View PostOriginally posted by Will Galen View PostOriginally posted by ABADays View PostAny questions as to which side of this issue I stand?Originally posted by Putnam View PostComment
-
Re: A re-examination of the past, and a looming conflict in the future in our Pacer organization
One thing that might argue a little more for tbird's position on Walsh/Bird's decision making:
Walsh's moves in New York look very similar to the moves made by the Pacers over the past few years. He's hired a coach with an unconventional, up tempo offensive strategy (D'Antoni), drafted a wing who's considered capable of playing multiple roles/positions (Gallinari), and signed a player with limited production throughout his career and a reputation for liking the night life to a surprisingly sizable contract (Duhon), speculating on his ability to make the leap to full-time starter.Comment
-
Re: A re-examination of the past, and a looming conflict in the future in our Pacer organization
Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
I agree wholeheartedly with this assesment."As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."
- ilive4sportsComment
-
Re: A re-examination of the past, and a looming conflict in the future in our Pacer organization
so donnie lied when he said (repeatedly) that he and mullin were the only people involved?Originally posted by count55 View PostThis is the darkest timeline.Comment
-
Re: A re-examination of the past, and a looming conflict in the future in our Pacer organization
I'm struggling to remember when he said that. I'm not questioning that he did. I just can't recall whether it was at the time of the trade, this spring just right after he announced he was leaving/stepping down/moving on, whatever it was, or both.Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
You're making a valid point, and, honestly, I was speculating that was Larry's move (hopefully, I was upfront about that). If this specific statement only came out this spring, then I would say that it's possible that he lied, though I'm not sure that any of the reasons that I can come up with for him to lie ring true. It's more likely that I'm just wrong, but that would point out another dysfunction in the Pacers operations. No well run organization I know would make a transaction of that size and far-reaching financial impact without including the head of the division that needed to implement it. Unless, of course, the move immediately following it was to replace the head of the division. That didn't happen, so it just strikes me as short-sighted and counter-productive.Comment
-
Re: A re-examination of the past, and a looming conflict in the future in our Pacer organization
Only if Rick and Dick rejoin him...and David Craig and Rick Smits and Dale Davis and they get into a time machine and go back 10 years. Then it would be great!Originally posted by indyman37 View PostI say Bird pulls double duty. He should remain president of basketball operations and become our head coach.
Comment
-
Re: A re-examination of the past, and a looming conflict in the future in our Pacer organization
Donnie could tell me it was all his idea to hire JOB and I still wouldn't believe it. At best maybe Larry said to Donnie "I really think Jim O'Brien would be a good coach again." Donnie was more worried about his next smoke break so Larry took his no comment as a silent agreement.Originally posted by Ramitt View PostOh really? who told you that Donnie or Larry?
Comment
-
Re: A re-examination of the past, and a looming conflict in the future in our Pacer organization
I think Bird and JOB have merged their idea of the perfect team. JOB likes to run up tempo while playing solid defense. Bird also wants this style, but also have a team that can slow it down when needed. I think they are in this for the long haul and have decided on an identity for this team. A team that looks to push the ball, use the 3 point shot liberally, play solid defense, but also have the players needed to play some half-court. I think Bird and JOB see the Spurs as the perfect model for the type of team they want to build.
Turn out the lights, this party's over!
Comment
Comment