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

Wells Blog - Kleiza mention

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

  • Re: Wells Blog - Kleiza mention

    Originally posted by PugdOut View Post
    I have a theory

    not going there wont take the bait, lol
    Well, some of us read 'makeup' as the talent/role of the players. Others (you know who you are) take it the way you allude to.

    That would make you a ................. well, you know who you are.

    Comment


    • Re: Wells Blog - Kleiza mention

      Questioning and insulting me then trying to butter me up in the end really doesn't make up for anything, it just makes everything you say even less credible so thanks for playing.
      Butter you up?

      I didn't do anything of the kind! I said something to Peck and to DC Fan, who made me think about some valid points they brought up. I am not concerned with your view of my "credibility. I am also not trying to stand on a plateau either and infer I am right and your wrong.

      Trust me I don't back down from anyone, but I do admit if I am wrong about something, and man enough to apologize.

      I have my feelings on what I believe to be the racial motivations behind Bird's player movement, and I believe Bird has done a poor job of late. I also was very congratulatory of him last year when he drafted Rush/Hibbert and got the best value he could for JO. I also feel that some of his other moves have been questionable at best.

      Lets agree to disagree and move on

      Life is bigger than you , me or this board

      Blessings
      Last edited by PugdOut; 07-03-2009, 12:58 AM. Reason: improper grammer
      Because the streets is a short stop
      Either youre slingin crack rock or you got a wicked jumpshot

      Notorious BIG - Brooklyn's Finest A.K.A. G.O.A.T.

      Comment


      • Re: Wells Blog - Kleiza mention

        I would merit your opinion if it actually held any water. You seem to pull whatever you think you can find out of thin air to justify your hatred towards Bird to everyone. It's not working because everyone here knows what has been going on for years, there is no question about that
        Oh so now you speak for the whole board I laid out facts

        The Saranus signing
        Croshers contract
        Contacting Kliza/Gortat at 12pm (why not Villienvia/Milsap/Bass) Please insert defense here.
        Wasted 2nd round picks
        Not even trying to trade for a better player
        Not contacting enough free agents
        Poor choice in hiring
        Fact that he perfered Wally Z(confirmed), went after Luke Jackson etc.

        These are not made up and for you to act so high and mighty like you "speak for the masses" or "how dare I suggest Bird has other motives for selecting talent"

        shows your ignorance

        Call me names , act all high and mighty I really don't care, but hey you probably come form a background that encourages zero tolerance or equality.

        I also think if you think Bird has done a great job or the Pacers are moving in the right direction...

        Then I think you are delusional.

        No where in my initial post did I mention you by name, I simply spoke on what I felt.

        YOU choose to come on and felt obligated to defend Bird, generalize my statements and speak for others

        Did I title my post "This is to Duke the Whatever"?

        I think not, so regardless of your weak attempt at character assassination or judgmental behavior

        I think you looked like an idiot, no one needs the great "duke" to speak for them

        so next time if you feel so offended by my post , ignore it, comment intelligently or

        STFU
        Because the streets is a short stop
        Either youre slingin crack rock or you got a wicked jumpshot

        Notorious BIG - Brooklyn's Finest A.K.A. G.O.A.T.

        Comment


        • Re: Wells Blog - Kleiza mention

          Originally posted by PugdOut View Post
          Oh so now you speak for the whole board I laid out facts

          The Saranus signing
          Granted.

          Croshers contract
          Nope, that was Walsh after Bird left from coaching.

          Contacting Kliza/Gortat at 12pm (why not Villienvia/Milsap/Bass) Please insert defense here.
          Please insert documentation here. Where is your proof of contacting those two at 12am, and specifically where is your proof that those were the only two contacted, at 12am or otherwise?

          Wasted 2nd round picks
          Small fry, debatable, but I'll generically agree.

          Not even trying to trade for a better player
          Proof?

          Not contacting enough free agents
          Proof?

          Poor choice in hiring
          Such as, and what makes it poor?

          Fact that he perfered Wally Z(confirmed),
          Preferred to whom and what proof/documentation?

          went after Luke Jackson etc.
          Proof/evidence of this?

          These are not made up
          I've been following the Pacers very, very closely since before Walsh hired Bird to be his eventual successor. As far as I know, many of the things you've just claimed are not proven to be correct. So unless you have access to information I don't, you will need to explain these things before we begin to believe it.

          and for you to act so high and mighty like you "speak for the masses" or "how dare I suggest Bird has other motives for selecting talent"

          shows your ignorance
          Again, you're making a lot of statements that those of us who follow the team closely and have for quite a while are not at all in agreement with because we haven't seen whatever you apparently have. So please, enlighten us.

          Call me names , act all high and mighty I really don't care, but hey you probably come form a background that encourages zero tolerance or equality.
          This is uncalled for and unacceptable. You have no proof of this, and it's furthermore insulting. This will not be tolerated, PERIOD.

          I also think if you think Bird has done a great job or the Pacers are moving in the right direction...

          Then I think you are delusional.
          You can think that, but unless you can clean up a lot of your claims, you are the one on thin ice, not anyone else.

          No where in my initial post did I mention you by name, I simply spoke on what I felt.

          YOU choose to come on and felt obligated to defend Bird, generalize my statements and speak for others
          And as I've been saying, there's a reason for that. Your posts have left a lot of unanswered questions that I am hoping you will soon take the time to clear up so we know exactly where you are coming form.

          Did I title my post "This is to Duke the Whatever"?
          It's a public thread. Anyone from PD has the right to respond to anyone else's post.

          I think not, so regardless of your weak attempt at character assassination or judgmental behavior

          I think you looked like an idiot, no one needs the great "duke" to speak for them
          You've been warned for this, and consider this the last time it stays that way. We do NOT tolerate that kind of behavior here.

          so next time if you feel so offended by my post , ignore it, comment intelligently or

          STFU
          Again, his opinions are based on information most generally see and/or accept. Right now the burden is on you before him to back up what you're claiming about Bird's track record. So let's hear it.

          Comment


          • Re: Wells Blog - Kleiza mention

            Originally posted by PugdOut View Post
            Oh so now you speak for the whole board I laid out facts

            The Saranus signing
            Croshers contract
            Contacting Kliza/Gortat at 12pm (why not Villienvia/Milsap/Bass) Please insert defense here.
            Wasted 2nd round picks
            Not even trying to trade for a better player
            Not contacting enough free agents
            Poor choice in hiring
            Fact that he perfered Wally Z(confirmed), went after Luke Jackson etc.

            These are not made up and for you to act so high and mighty like you "speak for the masses" or "how dare I suggest Bird has other motives for selecting talent"

            shows your ignorance

            Call me names , act all high and mighty I really don't care, but hey you probably come form a background that encourages zero tolerance or equality.

            I also think if you think Bird has done a great job or the Pacers are moving in the right direction...

            Then I think you are delusional.

            No where in my initial post did I mention you by name, I simply spoke on what I felt.

            YOU choose to come on and felt obligated to defend Bird, generalize my statements and speak for others

            Did I title my post "This is to Duke the Whatever"?

            I think not, so regardless of your weak attempt at character assassination or judgmental behavior

            I think you looked like an idiot, no one needs the great "duke" to speak for them

            so next time if you feel so offended by my post , ignore it, comment intelligently or

            STFU
            Until you show me cold hard facts to back up your statements, I will continue to demerit them.

            I'm glad we could act like adults in this debate.
            Last edited by duke dynamite; 07-03-2009, 02:08 AM.

            Comment


            • Re: Wells Blog - Kleiza mention

              I thought it was pretty common knowledge that the whole Luke Jackson thing was a smoke screen because Bird was really after Ben Gordon.

              Comment


              • Re: Wells Blog - Kleiza mention

                Originally posted by Jose Slaughter View Post
                I thought it was pretty common knowledge that the whole Luke Jackson thing was a smoke screen because Bird was really after Ben Gordon.
                Not common enough.....

                Comment


                • Re: Wells Blog - Kleiza mention

                  Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                  Not common enough.....
                  I wasn't paying attention. What happened?

                  Comment


                  • Re: Wells Blog - Kleiza mention

                    Jackson & Gordon were in the same draft.

                    Bird made attempts to move up in the draft & he let everyone believe that he was targeting Jackson.

                    I think the deal on the table was Harrington to Chicago for their pick & everyone thought that the Pacers would take Jackson if the deal was made.

                    Well the deal fell through & the Bulls ended up taking Gordon.

                    Later it came out that Bird had zero interest in Jackson & that Gordon was the guy he was trying to trade up to get.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Wells Blog - Kleiza mention

                      Originally posted by Jose Slaughter View Post
                      Jackson & Gordon were in the same draft.

                      Bird made attempts to move up in the draft & he let everyone believe that he was targeting Jackson.

                      I think the deal on the table was Harrington to Chicago for their pick & everyone thought that the Pacers would take Jackson if the deal was made.

                      Well the deal fell through & the Bulls ended up taking Gordon.

                      Later it came out that Bird had zero interest in Jackson & that Gordon was the guy he was trying to trade up to get.
                      Oh. Thanks.

                      That would've made for some great theater.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Wells Blog - Kleiza mention

                        Yeah, I don't remember the specifics on why we all thought Bird was looking at Jackson (though I do recall that being the assumption before the draft and during it), I do remember Bird specifically saying (either on TV or in print) that Gordon was who he wanted all along.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Wells Blog - Kleiza mention

                          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                          Yeah, I don't remember the specifics on why we all thought Bird was looking at Jackson (though I do recall that being the assumption before the draft and during it), I do remember Bird specifically saying (either on TV or in print) that Gordon was who he wanted all along.
                          Interesting.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Wells Blog - Kleiza mention

                            Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post
                            But, if we are waiting for the best deals and not necessarily on specific names, the best deals will be had in August/Sept. Honestly, with the names being bandied about... I'd rather wait for the deals and get more for the money.
                            That's what I've been saying too in the Jack/Quis discussions.

                            Same pattern every year, early in FA the money is out there and the market is great for the first guys off the board. see - Peja

                            Then later the teams with cap room are gone and teams looking to add are down to MLE space. Players hoping for more than that are screwed. see - Al, who got lucky that the Pacers had the TE space, which was below what he had wanted still

                            Then those teams are done and the only money left is with teams that might like to add guys, but just proved they weren't willing to rip through their MLE to do so. At that point if you are selling to those buyers, you're in trouble.

                            Those FAs tend to go at true market value and are a lot less likely to be bad contracts on your books later.



                            My opinion on where the team is at remains unchanged - year 3 of struggling as they wait out the bad deals. Tins, Troy, Dun, JO via Ford. I think too many people see my criticism of the GS trade about liking Jack. I do think he's unfairly bashed here, but the reason I loathed that trade was the finances of it. It is years like this one that show why I felt that way. They never should have made that deal, they needed to chase less talent if they had to move those guys in order to avoid contract hell all over again.

                            A less "exciting" trade back then for blah guys with lower contracts than Al and Jack's would look really good now. But Bird wanted playoffs at any costs (or DW did, or TPTB did). Hopefully he's learned from that deal that "any costs" can be a bit more painful than you think, and still don't means wins for sure.

                            Since they haven't made outlandish deals since then and since the FA work seems like no attempts at home runs, my guess is he does realize this, or Herb does. Gives me some faith in TPTB.
                            Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 07-03-2009, 03:22 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Wells Blog - Kleiza mention

                              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                              That's what I've been saying too in the Jack/Quis discussions.

                              Same pattern every year, early in FA the money is out there and the market is great for the first guys off the board. see - Peja

                              Then later the teams with cap room are gone and teams looking to add are down to MLE space. Players hoping for more than that are screwed. see - Al, who got lucky that the Pacers had the TE space, which was below what he had wanted still

                              Then those teams are done and the only money left is with teams that might like to add guys, but just proved they weren't willing to rip through their MLE to do so. At that point if you are selling to those buyers, you're in trouble.

                              Those FAs tend to go at true market value and are a lot less likely to be bad contracts on your books later.



                              My opinion on where the team is at remains unchanged - year 3 of struggling as they wait out the bad deals. Tins, Troy, Dun, JO via Ford. I think too many people see my criticism of the GS trade about liking Jack. I do think he's unfairly bashed here, but the reason I loathed that trade was the finances of it. It is years like this one that show why I felt that way. They never should have made that deal, they needed to chase less talent if they had to move those guys in order to avoid contract hell all over again.

                              A less "exciting" trade back then for blah guys with lower contracts than Al and Jack's would look really good now. But Bird wanted playoffs at any costs (or DW did, or TPTB did). Hopefully he's learned from that deal that "any costs" can be a bit more painful than you think, and still don't means wins for sure.

                              Since they haven't made outlandish deals since then and since the FA work seems like no attempts at home runs, my guess is he does realize this, or Herb does. Gives me some faith in TPTB.

                              Nice post.

                              It was never so much that I never wanted Murphy nor Dunleavy it was their albatross contracts that Mullins gave them. Even when posters would mention trading for one of them prior to the GS trade, I against getting them b/c of those contracts. I was furious when the GS trade was made. I thought Jackson had turned the corner on his play, and was driving to the basket instead of throwing up poor ill advised shots. He was playing better in those 1st 40 games that season, and then to trade for those albatross contracts just made me ill.

                              I understand fans wanted Jackson gone, and I was an opponent of Harrington ever coming back. I was never crazy about Dun and Murphy, but it was those albatross contracts and how they were going to limit what the Pacers could do for years to come that upset me most. They just severely limited what TPTB could/can do, and have hurt the Pacers growth ever since.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Wells Blog - Kleiza mention

                                Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                                I understand fans wanted Jackson gone, and I was an opponent of Harrington ever coming back. I was never crazy about Dun and Murphy, but it was those albatross contracts and how they were going to limit what the Pacers could do for years to come that upset me most. They just severely limited what TPTB could/can do, and have hurt the Pacers growth ever since.
                                It was just an alternative way of blowing up the team. Everyone (well, 99.9%) knew that there were going to be some lean years and that moves had to be made. Didn't matter if they were good, bad or horrible. They simply had to be made and we just had to live with the consequences.

                                Two years from now will be the big test for the Pacers. Their financial situation will finally clear up from the 'rebuild' and they'll be in a great position to add a few more significant pieces to the puzzle. The only number of any consequence will be Danny's contract. Murph, Dun, Foster, Tins ......... all off the books. I highly doubt that you'll see any long term, big money deals made this year or next. Short term, relatively small dollar people. That's all you'll see in the next few years.

                                I have no idea who they might have in mind. But they'll have a boatload of cash available and a strong core of players - Danny, Rush, Roy, Tyler. Going into the 2012 season, we'll know if Larry & Co. have done a good job or not. Whatever is going on now is just positioning for then.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X