Tweet
Re: Bird Needs To Go!
Ugh, at this rate we're gonna be 25-57. :/
Better than the Nets who are on course for 5 and a half wins.
Ugh, at this rate we're gonna be 25-57. :/
Better than the Nets who are on course for 5 and a half wins.
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
-
Last edited by Squirrelz; 12-27-2009, 11:48 PM. -
Re: Bird Needs To Go!
So, if the Bird's replacement will have more to work with to make the team better, then how do think it came to that point in the first place? Personally, JOB's extension is really the only boneheaded decision that Bird made. I'm curious to what you would have done with Artest and Jackson, JO/Tinsley bloated contracts (keeping in mind the players missed a lot of games due to injuries), the knowledge that every team in the NBA knows that you're being "forced" to make some moves, and low draft picks besides tank the season 2 years in a row? It's one thing to wake one morning, and say "Man, we really don't need Artest and Jackson" then wake up to read in the paper your best player wants to be traded. IMHO, I was shocked that Bird even moved JO's contract after 1-2 injuried ravaged seasons.Originally posted by SkipperZ View Post
Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?Comment
-
Re: Bird Needs To Go!
I think Bird had more control than Morway. Donnie & Larry both knew this team was gonna be handed over to Bird. Donnie stuck around to help Larry with the mess. I'm not putting everything at his feet but it's equally unfair to let it all slide like he was just collecting a paycheck and not making major decisions. They sure trotted him out after every move to help sell it to the fans and media.Originally posted by Hicks View Post
Mark Montieth wrote an article for SI in September of this year detailing how Larry was in full control of this team until the brawl. Donnie stepped back into personnel decisions until his departure but Bird retained control of the draft in those years. Montieth had no problem laying it all at his feet when things weren't so sour. So why should I or you for that matter?
LinkComment
-
Re: Bird Needs To Go!
Figured I'd start putting my 2 cents in:
The point in extending a coach is to give him job security so that he can play the young players, let them struggle and lose and still have his job the next year. Even if the coach is not optimal for the team for an extended period of time, a mid level coach can serve just fine during a transition period. Especially if the position isn't highly presitigous. I am not a fan of Jim O'Brien and the playing time he allocates because of this reason. Because he is not a highly paid coach with a lot of power, that does mean Bird is calling the same shots O'brien is.
Bird is in the tough position between winning games and filling the seats while overhauling the roster with a youth movement. Strong franchises with good GM's and coaches can make this go more smoothly, but very often it is a crapshoot. That is why some GM's allow their teams to tank, bypassing the option to do both at once and likely hurt the chances of both cases working in the future.
I'm sure I am not the first to comment this way. Going forward, the best option will likely be to replace both positions. Larry Bird is not a bad GM, but he isn't top of the line either. Due to the tough situation, you can give him a pass and let his overall plan come to fruition. That is of course, the influx of new draft picks and the unloading of salaries in 2011. It's only fair that he has had the reigns this long to allow him to continues this particular endeavor. Its obvious that ownership reveres his style and will most likely let him leave by his own doing rather than to force him out.
The only solution I see is to let go of Jim O'brien, but it doesn't have to be midseason IMO. The fact that the Pacers will finally be in the thick of the lottery relieves me. Instead of barely missing the playoffs in the weak EC and getting a late and therefore usually less impactful rookie.
The Pacers should ride this dreadful season out, hopefully land a top pick, and then make a coaching change in the offseason. They will have to eat the extended year because if they don't make the necessary trades they will need some success to bring in a free agent in 2011. While this franchise isn't high on players' wish lists, money talks. With the efflux of cash that will occur in 2010 by many of the franchises, they will have a shot at landing somebody. Put a coach in there that players are attracted to before you continue middling the road and turn this franchise around finally. I don't mind if Bird is that architect but his gloss has faded and this trading deadline followed by the offseason will likely make or break the comeback we are all desperately hoping for in 2011.Comment
-
Re: Bird Needs To Go!
So he was in charge for the 61 wins and the ECF, and the games leading up to and including the brawl, and then he wasn't in control again until summer 2008. If that's essentially the case, it's certainly not time to fire him.
It all comes down to 2011. If things look bad after that summer, it's time to clean house.Comment
-
Re: Bird Needs To Go!
Seems like things are on track to me. Let O'brien continue to lead this team to the worst record in the league which hopefully leads to winning the Wall lottery. Fire the coach, bring in a new guy. Have a #1 draft choice that certainly appears to be a stud in the making. Have tons of expiring contracts to make all sorts of interesting deals. Have a healthy Danny Granger-not one whos pressed into playing when he shouldnt be. Actually the same should be taking place with Dunleavy, as well.
A different coach and different GM maybe gets you 5-10 more wins this year.
Whoop te do.
It makes the next 5 months or so kind of tough, but its the appropriate sacrifice to end this same sort of groundhog day experience we seem to be having every year.
Its just the final step in the process of purging the system that was.
We may not like it much, but it had to be done.The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with IdiotsComment
-
Re: Bird Needs To Go!
Those were the years he was in full control yes. Montieth lays the original Jackson trade at his feet and a direct quote from the article....
"Now, six years into Bird's run as president, the Pacers' roster belongs to him. He traded O'Neal and Williams last year, and let Harrison's contract expire. He sat Tinsley out all of last season to appease the mutinous fan base, and the Pacers bought out his contract this summer. He is responsible for acquiring every player on the roster except 1999 draft pick Jeff Foster, and he retained Foster with a contract extension last year.
Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...#ixzz0axNlNCLs
Get a free NFL Team Jacket and Tee with SI Subscription"
He also states the Bird has been in charge of the draft since his return meaning he gets credit for all of this...
James Jones
David Harrison
Rashad Wright
Danny Granger
Erazem Lorbek
Shawne Williams
James White
Stanko Barac
Rush
Hibbert
Hans
He was obviously making major decisions before Walsh left since JOB was hired before then. I'm not nitpicking or even baiting an argument. I just think it's naive to deny Bird didn't have a ton of input on how this team has operated before Walsh officially handed over the reigns. He should be treated as such.
Not all the blame but he shouldn't get a free pass for those years either.
Comment
-
Re: Bird Needs To Go!
Of course, some of those players were late draft picks which are usually crapshots anyways. We got lucky with Granger at the 17th pick. Right now, we're starting to get lucky again with Rush, Hibbert, and Hansbrough at a time when it matters.Originally posted by Dr. Goldfoot View Post
Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?Comment
-
Re: Bird Needs To Go!
No disrespect, butOriginally posted by Hicks View Post
You get all these thanks for the above statement when Bird had a hand in all the things you mentioned.
1. Bird, although not responsible for all, had a hand in the trade with Golden State, that brought less talent and harder to move contracts. He decided to resign a 33 year old Foster with a a history of back problems to over 6 million a year contract. He also decided how the cap space has been used up the last two years and though he wasn't working with much, the results have been debatable at best.
2. He has completely over turned the roster that Walsh had when he left ( for the most part), so it was his decision what shape the roster has taken forward
3. He has had control over the draft the last two years, and while you cant really say the players taken are busts, you can say that there chances of becoming all stars looks extremely unlikely
4. While there might not have been an A list of coaches available, there were I believe better options than O Brien, whether or not they would come here is debatable. I also think that giving O Brien an extension while his record had shown no improvement over the past three years was a bad business decision.
In all, I don't think Bird is the sole blame but I also believe he has had direct responsibility for most of the outcomes of the above statement.Sittin on top of the world!Comment
-
Re: Bird Needs To Go!
I don't think Bird needs to go, but I don't think he deserves a free pass in all this either. I think even he would admit that.Comment
-
Re: Bird Needs To Go!
If Montieth can protect Walsh he will...Originally posted by Dr. Goldfoot View Post
I'd tread awfully carefully on just how much stock to put into what Montieth says on topics like this.
I've even gotten the impression he doesn't like Bird (or at least he's been known to drop some questionable things here and there into his writing in regards to Bird). But regardless... I have no doubt he likes Walsh and would take a bullet for him, fall on his sword, or whatever he had to do. He would never type anything that would look unfavorably on Walsh in any way.
And regardless of all of that, I just have a hard time starting the clock on Bird until Walsh was gone. Even if Bird had input he didn't have final say. Or even if he did arguably have 'final say', Walsh was always in the background with a veto pen so Bird wouldn't have truly been operating the same as a man who was free to make his own decisions unencumbered by someone looking over his shoulder.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 WoodenComment
-
Re: Bird Needs To Go!
And with the 1st pick of the 2010 NBA draft, the Indiana Pacers select... Donatas Motiejuna!!!
I am so going to LMAO when that happens.Comment
-
Re: Bird Needs To Go!
Donnie Walsh, Larry Bird, and Chris Mullin all said after the fact that it was Donnie Walsh's trade.Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
He drafted Bayless and traded he and Ike for Rush, Jack, and McRoberts. - You can say Bayless has more offensive talent, but you can also say Rush has more defensive talent. You can argue that Bayless would be our best option at PG right now, but you can also argue he's not even really a PG to begin with, but rather an undersized shooting guard. Jack was overall a net positive for us while he was here and we decided to not overpay to keep him. Josh was a no-risk, possible reward acquisition, and losing Ike appears to be inconsequential.2. He has completely over turned the roster that Walsh had when he left ( for the most part), so it was his decision what shape the roster has taken forward
A debatable trade and actions that followed, for sure, but not anywhere close to "My God, what an idiot for doing that."
He traded Jermaine O'Neal and our 2nd round pick for TJ Ford, Rasho Nesterovic (and his expiring contract), Maceo Baston, and a 1st rounder he used on Roy Hibbert. - JO wanted out, was hurt, wasn't performing up to his role or his contract. Rasho was a big expiring and gave us a sometimes serviceable center while being a positive influence on Roy. TJ Ford looked halfway decent last year, through now of course it looks bad. Roy Hibbert has shown flashes of really being something, but has gone back to struggling. The jury is still out on him. Maceo was small fry in the deal, as was our 2nd rounder. All in all, what makes this a win is getting Rashos contract above all else, but TJ Ford wasn't a terrible piece to try out for JO (especially the JO we had, not the one you see in Miami these days).
Not a great result at this point, but again, hardly an obvious mistake and certainly could be argued to still have been an overall good thing.
Remember that before he got Jack and Ford in here, our best point guards were Flip Murray and Travis Diener. As horrific as it is to imagine, we really have improved our PG situation significantly since then.
With what little cap room he had to work with, he brought it cheap guys like Kareem Rush, Travis Diener, Solomon Jones, Dahntay Jones, and Earl Watson. None of which were expected to save the team, though most at least gave us something along the way. They were low risk, low reward signings.
Also don't forget that he had to deal with the Jamaal Tinsley situation. He didn't give him that contract or ask for him to end up the way that he did while he was here. JT's contract to this day is on our cap for another year and a half, further damaging our flexibility.
I agree, but I don't think the test to pass/fail two 13 picks and a 17th pick is whether or not they're all-stars. The jury is still out on all three of these guys. Sometimes they look pretty good, sometimes they don't. You can rarely if ever expect a 13th pick or a 17th pick to be an all-star player. Danny Granger is the exception, not the rule.3. He has had control over the draft the last two years, and while you cant really say the players taken are busts, you can say that there chances of becoming all stars looks extremely unlikely
The main criticism that I find fair to make is that we seem to be going for guys that are more about having high floors as opposed to high ceilings. Considering the range we were picking I think it's reasonable. Debatable, for sure, but reasonable.
And the thing is, before that we took guys like Shawne Williams and James White, who potentially had pretty high ceilings, but both quickly flamed out. I believe those picks are what have swayed the Pacers into the direction they have gone in now.
I think a solid case has previously been made that Jim was the best coach out there who was both available and willing. We tried to get Stan Van Gundy, but he didn't want us.4. While there might not have been an A list of coaches available, there were I believe better options than O Brien, whether or not they would come here is debatable.
Given that the extension doesn't prevent Jim from being fired at any time or a replacement coming in at any time, I view this as largely inconsequential.I also think that giving O Brien an extension while his record had shown no improvement over the past three years was a bad business decision.
In fact, initially I thought it was 100% meaningless in the big picture. I've only come around somewhat in that I worry about what it did to the morale of some of our players. Yes, you might argue they should suck it up regardless, but if Bird knew what it would do to some of these guys, he should have thought twice about doing this.
I certainly don't think he is solely to blame for this, but I agree he certainly shares the responsibility. I would just argue that he's by no means dug his own grave.In all, I don't think Bird is the sole blame but I also believe he has had direct responsibility for most of the outcomes of the above statement.
I think his moves have largely been understandable. That doesn't mean they all were universally loved by any stretch of the imagination or that they couldn't be second-guessed, but they were all at least understandable.
It's become obvious that Bird (and Morway) believe their best bet is to keep taking high floor guys as long as they're picking where they have been because they know their best bet at getting a big fish or two is in 2011 (be it a signing or a trade).
In other words, they're assembling all of the side dishes while they wait for the main dishes to finish being prepared (in 2011) to compliment Danny Granger and to truly have a complete meal in front of them.
Now, if this season continues as it has been, I wouldn't be shocked if they end up with a high ceiling guy this time around simply because of the higher pick they would have.
But if things get back to where they have been, they'll probably stick to the plan.
All I'm really trying to get at with all of this is that you can be upset with Bird to a point, but it's unreasonable to be forcing his head into the guillotine right now. Barring a series of disasters between now and Summer '11, I don't think he will have deserved such a fate.
If things aren't looking significantly up coming out of that 2011 summer, assuming nothing ridiculously bad has gone down in the meantime, then and only then is it time to get rid of him.Comment
-
Re: Bird Needs To Go!
I was one of the first to argue this point when Walsh was in his final days with us. Since he left Bird has been nothin short of sensational in his player acquisitions IMO. We are just stuck with the trash left over from the Walsh era. Tinsley's contract, Murphy, Dun, and Ford, all of which are situations arising out of us trading the brawl away. We will NEVER be able to tell what kind of team we have until Ford, Murphy, and Dunleavy are gone. that is like 30 million bucks right there, and without them we are actually a better team. How do you not play 3 players who account for half of your teams salary and justify that to Simon?Originally posted by Bball View Post
The truth is we are a better team if these 3 players never play at all.Comment
-
Re: Bird Needs To Go!
There are at least two problems with the Pacers right now. First, the Pacers don't have that much talent and they are saddled with four terrible contracts. This is the GM's fault.
Second, the players are playing without teamwork and effort, and with a dubious system. This is the coaches fault.
I think people are much angrier about the second than the first. You can switch out every Pacer with a better player, and if the second problem is still there, they still lose like a sack of heartless potatoes.
As for the first, changing GMs right now is kind of pointless. Sure, it feels great to light the torches and heft the pitchforks because its essentially a no risk opinion. Any new GM is going to come into a cherry situation with huge expirings and a nice draft pick. Therefore, if Bird is fired, in two years things will necessarily look up.
There is not enough information to make an accurate assessment of this year's performance. How much is dictated because Bird cannot shop his terrible contracts if they rot on the bench? The Tinsley situation was instructive on that point at least.
What I think, however, is that there are numerous hypothetical strategy that Bird is pursuing that make a lot of sense and can have this team in contention in two seasons, plus seasoning. Since these exist, and are pretty reasonable, I am comfortable placing my trust in Bird.
Teams that sell the farm and move all their role players to land a star or two rarely shoot into contention. The people playing around your stars matter. That is what Bird has brought in, and the star(s) that come in a year will appreciate that, I hope.Comment
Comment