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

Bird Needs To Go!

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

  • Re: Bird Needs To Go!

    Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
    I don't buy that.

    I know that replacing Jack with Jones, Jones and Watson was a downgrade. But that much of a downgrade?

    Either that or O'Brien really got them to overachieve last season. Does anybody really want to take that side of the argument? (That O'Brien was that excellent of a coach last season.)

    Yes, I thought last year's team was a 28-win team and they won 36.

    I don't see that much of a falloff in talent from last year to this year... except losing Jack. Maybe he really was worth the MLE.

    We were losing big-time even with Granger. Its not like Granger's absence has made that big of a difference. They were already turr-ible.
    What teams do you see as having a worse talent level? Typically I don't agree with Buck but I buy his argument here.

    Comment


    • Re: Bird Needs To Go!

      So did Sacramento, the Clippers, T-Wolves, Thunder, Grizzlies, Warriors, Knicks, Raptors and Bobcats improve that much this season?

      Because it sounds more and more like O'Brien was a superb coach last season and maybe shouldn't be getting all the blame right now.
      Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
      Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
      Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
      Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
      And life itself, rushing over me
      Life itself, the wind in black elms,
      Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

      Comment


      • Re: Bird Needs To Go!

        Originally posted by SkipperZ View Post
        I generally agree with this, but considering we are looking at a potentially high draft pick, his apparent lack of skill in judging young talent and his inability to take risks scares me.

        If Bird is goign to take a Patrick Patterson 5 spots too high and pass on Derrick Favors because Patterson is more "NBA Ready" then Bird needs to go before that happens because at this point, screwing up a top 5 pick is kind of devastating. (I have no problem with Patrick Patterson I think hes a good player).

        Also if Bird is goign to sign guys like Dahntay Jones to 4 year contracts this summer that can also have a pretty damning effect on us. I'm just glad he doesnt have money to work with like he will 2 years from now. (I also have no problem with Dahntay I think hes been surprisingly solid for us... I just have a problem with the signing of Dahntay for this team at that point in time).
        That's the bottom line for me. I don't trust Bird as an evaluator of talent. To really succeed, you need to be top notch, and I don't see him getting the best players available or even the best fits, really.
        SportsTwo.com

        Comment


        • Re: Bird Needs To Go!

          Originally posted by MikeDC View Post


          I don't trust Bird as an evaluator of talent.

          It's nice to know someone else sees thru the smoke and mirrors!

          Comment


          • Re: Bird Needs To Go!

            Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
            AGAIN, this thread is NOT advocating firing Bird! This thread stated to not give him another contract at the end of his current contract which ends this season.

            What Bird has put in place? A 9-20 team that can't play team BB? This team is so pathetic that anyone, including the ballboy, has no place to go but up managing this team. Little if any success will be attributed to Bird. Bird has done his job by changing the culture of the team. That's the same culture that "he and Walsh created." Now, is the time to let another take this franchise to the next level with Bird's contract ending, b/c Bird doesn't have the aptitude or expertise to do it. Bird is nothing but a transitional GM who isn't the long term solution for the Pacers.

            With it looking as the Pacers could draft in the top 7, are you that confident in Bird's drafting of talent that you are willing to let him draft another player? I'm sure not, and I don't believe that Pacers franchise for the future can chance it either.

            In the next 6 games the Pacers are going to play 5 teams with losing records, only Orlando has a winning record. Lets see how many of those games the Pacers win. Lets see if this team, constructed by Bird, can as Bird so aptly put it "compete on a nightly basis."
            Is it not considered separation from a company (a.k.a firing) if you don't renew his contract? Correct me if I'm wrong, please. Personally, I don't have a problem with the draft picks that Bird selected given our draft position in both years. Like I said before, any Homer can make a no-brainer selection with a Top 5 draft pick and free agent signings with four expiring contracts in the summer of 2011, so getting a new GM would be pointless. Now, if Bird picks a Darko Milic when there's an OBVIOUS Lebron/Kobe type player available with the #5 pick, then you have every right to be mad...until then....


            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!

              Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
              Who is to blame for picking those 2 NBA ready players Rush and Hibbert, if not Bird?

              I would taken Courtney Lee at #17 instead of Hibbert, b/c I wouldn't have drafted Rush in the 1st place. I feel Hibbert is a journeyman, and the Pacers already had that in Foster.
              I hate to bust your bubble, but Indiana wouldn't have had a #17 pick to use if it wasn't for the Toronto trade that jettisoned JO's contract.

              http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3461029

              How quickly people tend forget how we aquired the #17 pick in the 1st place. Now, who would you have selected with the #11 pick with no Toronto trade?


              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!

                Originally posted by naptownmenace View Post
                Without Granger, 9-20 seems about right.

                I don't have any anger at all toward Bird. It's not his fault Granger is hurt. Maybe you can place some blame on him for needing to rely on Murphy, Dunleavy, and TJ Ford at all but to blame him for the draft picks of Rush and Hibbert is asinine, IMHO. You might be able to make an argument that Rush was a slight reach at #13 but Hibbert at #17 is still a good pick.

                Who should Bird have drafted instead of Hibbert? Ryan Anderson is the only productive player that was drafted after him and he's another SF in a PF's body like Murphy. Hibbert is still averaging 9.4 pts, 5.7 rebs, and 1.7 blks, in only 22 minutes a game. That's better than half the Centers in the NBA right now.
                QFT.


                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!

                  Originally posted by naptownmenace View Post
                  Without Granger, 9-20 seems about right.

                  I don't have any anger at all toward Bird. It's not his fault Granger is hurt. Maybe you can place some blame on him for needing to rely on Murphy, Dunleavy, and TJ Ford at all but to blame him for the draft picks of Rush and Hibbert is asinine, IMHO. You might be able to make an argument that Rush was a slight reach at #13 but Hibbert at #17 is still a good pick.

                  Who should Bird have drafted instead of Hibbert? Ryan Anderson is the only productive player that was drafted after him and he's another SF in a PF's body like Murphy. Hibbert is still averaging 9.4 pts, 5.7 rebs, and 1.7 blks, in only 22 minutes a game. That's better than half the Centers in the NBA right now.
                  20-20 hindsight being perfectly clear.......you didn't necessarily need to draft a Big Man at the 17th spot and a GF at the 11th spot......you could have done the exact opposite.....drafted Speights at 11 while drafting Lee ( everyone's favorite GF to compare BRush to ) at the 17th spot. Of course, knowing what we know now....it's easy to suggest that we would have reached for both those players at those spots....but the same could have been said about BRush and Hibbert.

                  Also, just to be clear.....I have no problem with drafting who we drafted....I think that they will be solid rotational Players ( at worst ), I just think that their skills do not match our current offensive/defensive system.
                  Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Bird Needs To Go!

                    Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                    So did Sacramento, the Clippers, T-Wolves, Thunder, Grizzlies, Warriors, Knicks, Raptors and Bobcats improve that much this season?
                    Sacramento picked up the current favorite rookie of the year candidate.

                    The Thunder and Grizz have more talented young guys that are getting better. The Thunder have a budding superstar and potential someday Top 5 player.

                    The Knicks are better in large part due to D'Antoni, but most agree that D'Antoni is a better coach than JOB. And most agree that D'Antoni would have never taken the job in Indy.

                    The Raps added the Pacers 2nd best 4th quarter player last year. They also added Hedo, who was the 3rd best player last season on a team that made the Finals.

                    The Warriors and T-Wolves aren't improved from last season, and their records indicate as much.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Bird Needs To Go!

                      Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                      I just think that their skills do not match our current offensive/defensive system.
                      What?? Have I missed something? Are you telling me there is a method to this madness?? Surely you must be joking! An offensive/defensive system in Indy? Blasphemy!
                      Coach Vogel on the Chicago crowd in game 4 : "I only heard pacers fans. I didn't see any red, I saw Pacers fans I saw yellow and blue, and I heard Pacers chants. That's all I heard the whole game."

                      http://www.cacawebdev.com

                      Comment


                      • Re: Bird Needs To Go!

                        Originally posted by KnicksRGarbage View Post
                        What?? Have I missed something? Are you telling me there is a method to this madness?? Surely you must be joking! An offensive/defensive system in Indy? Blasphemy!
                        Yes, a lack of a offensive system is a system...as to our defensive system....yes, we do have one....it just doesn't work real well given the makeup of our slow-footed Frontcourt Players.
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Bird Needs To Go!

                          Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                          I don't buy that.

                          I know that replacing Jack with Jones, Jones and Watson was a downgrade. But that much of a downgrade?

                          Either that or O'Brien really got them to overachieve last season. Does anybody really want to take that side of the argument? (That O'Brien was that excellent of a coach last season.)

                          Yes, I thought last year's team was a 28-win team and they won 36.

                          I don't see that much of a falloff in talent from last year to this year... except losing Jack. Maybe he really was worth the MLE.

                          We were losing big-time even with Granger. Its not like Granger's absence has made that big of a difference. They were already turr-ible.
                          Buck said that this team has the worst talent in the league WITHOUT granger. Losing Granger is the falloff in talent from last year to this year.

                          And he's absolutely right, without Granger this team is by far the least talented in the league. You could say the same thing about a lot of teams (taking away the best player on crappy teams) but I'll go even farther and say that if you took the best player off of every team in the league, the Pacers would stlil have teh worst talent in the league

                          Comment


                          • Re: Bird Needs To Go!

                            Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                            Is it not considered separation from a company (a.k.a firing) if you don't renew his contract? Correct me if I'm wrong, please. Personally, I don't have a problem with the draft picks that Bird selected given our draft position in both years. Like I said before, any Homer can make a no-brainer selection with a Top 5 draft pick and free agent signings with four expiring contracts in the summer of 2011, so getting a new GM would be pointless. Now, if Bird picks a Darko Milic when there's an OBVIOUS Lebron/Kobe type player available with the #5 pick, then you have every right to be mad...until then....
                            You'd be surprised how badly someone can screw up a top 5 pick or free agent signings with capspace.... Just as Michael Jordan. And Joe Dumars. (the juries still out on Gordon/Charlie V but I thought those signings were a terrible use of cap space - One year before the big deal free agent frenzy of 2010? Really??)

                            Do you really want to give Bird time to prove himself and be left with the equivalent of Adam Morrison or Darko Milicic with our top 5 "no-brainer" draft pick and 20 mil in capspace used up on teh likes of Ben Gordon and Charlie Villanueva? Because based on track record I would nto be shocked if that were to occur.

                            And I'd contend that there were 2 no-brainer picks where Rush was picked in Bayless and Anthony Randolph. I'm not talking in hindsight because if i were I'd throw Speights in there.

                            I'm calling them no-brainer picks because both were consistently top 10 (as high as 4th for Bayless) in mock drafts that year, and both are 3 years younger than Rush, and this team was bad enough that there was no point taking an "NBA Ready" player to help now rather than superior talent 3 years younger. And RUsh was not a lottery pick in any Mock I saw, with one knock being limited potential.

                            Maybe I should throw Speights into that equation considering how many on this board wanted him instead of RUsh immediately after that draft.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Bird Needs To Go!

                              Originally posted by SkipperZ View Post
                              You'd be surprised how badly someone can screw up a top 5 pick or free agent signings with capspace.... Just as Michael Jordan. And Joe Dumars. (the juries still out on Gordon/Charlie V but I thought those signings were a terrible use of cap space - One year before the big deal free agent frenzy of 2010? Really??)

                              Do you really want to give Bird time to prove himself and be left with the equivalent of Adam Morrison or Darko Milicic with our top 5 "no-brainer" draft pick and 20 mil in capspace used up on teh likes of Ben Gordon and Charlie Villanueva? Because based on track record I would nto be shocked if that were to occur.

                              And I'd contend that there were 2 no-brainer picks where Rush was picked in Bayless and Anthony Randolph. I'm not talking in hindsight because if i were I'd throw Speights in there.

                              I'm calling them no-brainer picks because both were consistently top 10 (as high as 4th for Bayless) in mock drafts that year, and both are 3 years younger than Rush, and this team was bad enough that there was no point taking an "NBA Ready" player to help now rather than superior talent 3 years younger. And RUsh was not a lottery pick in any Mock I saw, with one knock being limited potential.

                              Maybe I should throw Speights into that equation considering how many on this board wanted him instead of RUsh immediately after that draft.
                              You are hitting on my fears here. So far Bird has made ok choices. I think the whole JO/Bayless thing was well played, even if Brandon isn't what everyone wants him to be. But the picks he made for the most part have been easy ones, or ones that can be given the benefit of the doubt. I think Hansbrough was a great pick, and I thought getting Rush and Hibbert was good too for what picks we had in the draft. The top 3 is not as safe a pick, that pick has to be a star, or the pick is ever seen as a failure.

                              This next draft is so important to the franchise, we just can't afford to screw it up. Detroit could in 2003. But gods that has to be one the worst picks of all time. Think of how many championships Detroit would have won if they had taken any of the next 3 picks (Carmello, Bosh, DWade). I think at least 4. The fact Detroit was so good back then is probably why Dumars still has a job, but his recent decisions, when viewing his past mistakes, certainly have to have even the most loyal Pistons fans wondering about his decision making.

                              But our franchise is in such disarray, this draft has got to be golden. Desperate times...

                              Comment


                              • Re: Bird Needs To Go!

                                Originally posted by SkipperZ View Post
                                You'd be surprised how badly someone can screw up a top 5 pick or free agent signings with capspace.... Just as Michael Jordan. And Joe Dumars. (the juries still out on Gordon/Charlie V but I thought those signings were a terrible use of cap space - One year before the big deal free agent frenzy of 2010? Really??)

                                Do you really want to give Bird time to prove himself and be left with the equivalent of Adam Morrison or Darko Milicic with our top 5 "no-brainer" draft pick and 20 mil in capspace used up on teh likes of Ben Gordon and Charlie Villanueva? Because based on track record I would nto be shocked if that were to occur.

                                And I'd contend that there were 2 no-brainer picks where Rush was picked in Bayless and Anthony Randolph. I'm not talking in hindsight because if i were I'd throw Speights in there.

                                I'm calling them no-brainer picks because both were consistently top 10 (as high as 4th for Bayless) in mock drafts that year, and both are 3 years younger than Rush, and this team was bad enough that there was no point taking an "NBA Ready" player to help now rather than superior talent 3 years younger. And RUsh was not a lottery pick in any Mock I saw, with one knock being limited potential.

                                Maybe I should throw Speights into that equation considering how many on this board wanted him instead of RUsh immediately after that draft.
                                http://reclinergm.wordpress.com/2008...n-nba-history/

                                Ahhh....hindsight opinion. At the time the pick was made, it was best pick for Portland. The last time I checked, I don't recall a single GM stating that Jordan would be the greatest player of all time back in 1984.


                                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

                                Working...
                                X