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

Now...This would be a reason to fire Bird (if it weren't 99% likely to be nonsense)

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

  • Re: Now...This would be a reason to fire Bird (if it weren't 99% likely to be nonsense)

    Originally posted by count55 View Post
    However, this franchise has made worse decisions. You could make a pretty solid argument that a move like this wouldn't even be the most damaging one of the last decade.
    I'm sorry, was this supposed to make the idea sound better? Because it doesn't. This franchise has made some stupid-*** decisions over the decades. Just because the historical bar is so low doesn't mean that it makes this look like anything other than a horrible idea.

    I can understand the fear and disdain for the idea of the "Indiana Clippers," but in my mind, the only decision that can be made that will permanently guarantee that the Indiana Pacers will never be successful again is the one to move them.
    If it truly gets that ugly, they don't deserve to "live". Not if the idea is to be a winner. If the idea is to just exist and hope to turn a profit, by all means do this. But don't expect my support. This market isn't going to get much better than it's ever been. If they can't make it work, then it's just not going to work out.

    Comment


    • Re: Now...This would be a reason to fire Bird (if it weren't 99% likely to be nonsense)

      I can't think of anything worse than losing the team... I don't care if they have all D-leaguers come play here, as long as the Pacers are in Indiana.

      Comment


      • Re: Now...This would be a reason to fire Bird (if it weren't 99% likely to be nonsense)

        Originally posted by count55 View Post
        The scenario we're discussing is far more hopeful than it was in the late-70's, early '80's.
        When did they do the equivalent of competing for years, then spending the immediately following years resisting becoming a flat out bad team while preaching to the fans and the press that they were in "win now" mode or that they're "rebuilding on the fly", then had Danny Granger blossom into an all-star in front of them, and THEN right after that trade his *** to save money and reveal that they were full of **** the past half-decade?

        I realize the team has had a time where the finances were worse and they damn near left town. I realize they've made myopic trades. I get that. But as I recall, they weren't jerking the fan base around with false hopes of competition for years first and then booting the best thing to happen to them in years just for cash right after he made the all-star team.

        Comment


        • Re: Now...This would be a reason to fire Bird (if it weren't 99% likely to be nonsense)

          I've stayed out of this thread because frankly I just don't see a point in talking about something that is not based on anything other than someones idea. If one of you guys would have typed the same thing we would have moved it to the trade forum.

          Now haveing said that I want to add this.

          1. Why does anybody believe for a min. that Rudy Gay would leave his current team that he has been with through bad times now that they are becoming good to go to a team that would be going nowhere. You could say he would come here for astro bucks, but then would we really want to spend astro bucks on Rudy Gay? In other words paying him what you pay Granger or close to it.

          2. While I write this entire thought off as nonesense because of the source I do have to remember that we traded away (this decade) an all-star center because we did not want to pay him. Herb Simon said that this was a basketball decision and I did believe him, but I also always believed that there was a huge financial element to this as well.

          No I do not consider Brad Miller on the same level as Granger and certainly the circumstances were much different, however the underlying issue is still there.

          If and this is such a huge IF that it is not really possible to think, but if the team is to the point of thinking about this then I wonder why in the name of God did they not take the league's offer of a loan last season like other teams did?

          I mean it may not be much but as Anthem stated trading Granger for cap relief is the last act of desperation, not the first.


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

          Comment


          • Re: Now...This would be a reason to fire Bird (if it weren't 99% likely to be nonsense)

            Last I knew on Brad Miller, they would have paid him the same money for 4 years, but not 7, and it revolved around his medical concerns (injuries and conditioning) coupled with his drinking habits (and I believe while in SAC he got caught with weed, too).

            Comment


            • Re: Now...This would be a reason to hope

              Originally posted by DocHolliday View Post
              You don't find the scenarios outlined early in this thread realistic? Cutting costs now to stay afloat, then bringing in someone like Rudy Gay--that doesn't work for you? You're done with the Pacers if it played out like that? I don't see how that instantly puts us on par with consistently the worst franchise since the 70's. Good thing you weren't around for the 80's Pacers, they would've lost you sometime around '84.
              Theres a big difference between a team that just isn't very good and a team who has no motive to get better. The Pacers are turrible now, but I'm still a fan as I believe they want to improve. I will always be a fan as long as I know they haven't given up.

              If the Pacers traded Granger for nothing but expirings, it would show me they don't care about winning. Anyone out there, who thinks this trade would help the Pacers has either found the most effective drug in the world or is so overly opptimistic that I wouldn't be surprised if they had dreams every night of fluffy bunnies hopping through a meddow full a flowers.

              Comment


              • Re: Now...This would be a reason to fire Bird (if it weren't 99% likely to be nonsense)

                Look. You're welcome to react to this any way you want. I certainly will be very unhappy and scared if this happens. (The chances of which are infinitesimal.)

                However, I won't consider it the end of the world, because it wouldn't be. The Pacers in the late '70's and early '80's didn't try to win...they just tried to make payroll. There wasn't any real attempt to make things better, until the Simons came along. That's one of the reasons I would be willing to view this as hitting the re-set button, as opposed to throwing their hands up and quitting entirely.

                Also, while the last five years certainly could be classified as a wasted effort, I am at a complete loss to the "they've been full of ****" the past few years. The implication there was that this was the plan all along. That the actual result ends up being different from the intended result isn't evidence of a lie or a con game. It is simply evidence of failure.

                Also, did you honestly never contemplate the possibility that they might fail at what they were trying to do?

                I'm not trying to make anyone feel better about this move (which almost certainly isn't going to happen.) It is a horrible thing, and people should feel horrible about it.

                However, I consider moving worse. The idea that they don't "deserve to live," I would simply ask, "Who is going to be hurt the most by the Pacers leaving?" Sure, Bird, etal, get fired, but the players will still get paid. The Simons will either sell or keep the team, and stop hemorrhaging money. The city and fans like us, on the other hand, will sit here with no team an zero prospects of ever getting another one.

                I can't help but be reminded of the joke about the guy holding a gun to his own head, and saying, "Don't laugh. You're next."

                Comment


                • Re: Now...This would be a reason to fire Bird (if it weren't 99% likely to be nonsense)

                  Originally posted by count55 View Post
                  Look. You're welcome to react to this any way you want. I certainly will be very unhappy and scared if this happens. (The chances of which are infinitesimal.)

                  However, I won't consider it the end of the world, because it wouldn't be. The Pacers in the late '70's and early '80's didn't try to win...they just tried to make payroll. There wasn't any real attempt to make things better, until the Simons came along. That's one of the reasons I would be willing to view this as hitting the re-set button, as opposed to throwing their hands up and quitting entirely.

                  Also, while the last five years certainly could be classified as a wasted effort, I am at a complete loss to the "they've been full of ****" the past few years. The implication there was that this was the plan all along. That the actual result ends up being different from the intended result isn't evidence of a lie or a con game. It is simply evidence of failure.

                  Also, did you honestly never contemplate the possibility that they might fail at what they were trying to do?

                  I'm not trying to make anyone feel better about this move (which almost certainly isn't going to happen.) It is a horrible thing, and people should feel horrible about it.

                  However, I consider moving worse. The idea that they don't "deserve to live," I would simply ask, "Who is going to be hurt the most by the Pacers leaving?" Sure, Bird, etal, get fired, but the players will still get paid. The Simons will either sell or keep the team, and stop hemorrhaging money. The city and fans like us, on the other hand, will sit here with no team an zero prospects of ever getting another one.

                  I can't help but be reminded of the joke about the guy holding a gun to his own head, and saying, "Don't laugh. You're next."
                  Have you not seen how many people here have said they would lose all interest in the team if this trade were to happen? The Pacers are having a hard enough time getting fans to show up to the games - hence them losing money. What happens when the only player fans(certain fans) want to see is gone?

                  If they are having trouble bringing in people now, trading Granger will only make it that much worse and their profit from fans buying tickets, jerseys, hats, ect. will take a hit.

                  You can look at our payroll all you want, but if they have lost a good bit of the small populazation that cares enough to still go to games, then they have made a huge mistake.

                  Trading Granger for nothing but capspace is a complete joke. Nothing good comes from it - at all. I don't understand how anyone could even make the slightest argument saying otherwise. I would hate to trade Granger, but I wouldn't be completely against it if we got a very good young prospect and a pick or something along those lines, but for nothing? I couldn't root for a team who trades a young centerpiece in his prime for nothing. That would be ridiculous. We'd be better off having Isiah Thomas making all the calls for our team.
                  Last edited by Dr. Awesome; 01-08-2010, 11:42 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Now...This would be a reason to fire Bird (if it weren't 99% likely to be nonsense)

                    Originally posted by count55 View Post
                    Look. You're welcome to react to this any way you want. I certainly will be very unhappy and scared if this happens. (The chances of which are infinitesimal.)

                    However, I won't consider it the end of the world, because it wouldn't be. The Pacers in the late '70's and early '80's didn't try to win...they just tried to make payroll. There wasn't any real attempt to make things better, until the Simons came along.
                    Then I guess I wouldn't have cared about the Pacers if I were this age in that era. I'd have never had a reason to come on board.

                    I mainly take offense to the insinuation (not by you) that because I wouldn't jump at the chance to invest my money and emotions into that kind of a situation that I'm no better than some Jordan fan bandwagoner who now walks around in a James 23 jersey or a Bryant 24.

                    That's one of the reasons I would be willing to view this as hitting the re-set button, as opposed to throwing their hands up and quitting entirely.
                    I understand that's what it would be saying, but how do they expect it to get better? We're always going to be the Indiana market. We're not going to "wait it out" until we're a big market. So if they couldn't make it work, what's going to get better after the reset? Especially when they know how much it will turn off what's left of the fanbase.

                    Also, while the last five years certainly could be classified as a wasted effort, I am at a complete loss to the "they've been full of ****" the past few years. The implication there was that this was the plan all along. That the actual result ends up being different from the intended result isn't evidence of a lie or a con game. It is simply evidence of failure.
                    I have to believe that if it was truly that bad to where trading Granger was "the right move", that they would have had a clue about those finances long before January 2010.

                    Why keep messing around when the inevitable is staring them in the face? Why not just let Danny's rookie contract run out? Why give him the extension last fall? Am I supposed to believe (in this hypothetical scenario) that they didn't see the financial writing on the wall in October of '08?

                    Also, did you honestly never contemplate the possibility that they might fail at what they were trying to do?
                    Of course I have and I continue to do so. But that was/is from a competition POV. They might not get the guys they want, or they might settle/overpay for the wrong guys.

                    But what I didn't consider was a situation where they would have known for months or years that this is what needed to happen, only to try to keep it going for a while anyway (hence BSing us/jerking us around), wait until now, THEN pull the trigger on this kind of a reset. Just never give Danny the extension if the money is that bad. Trade the others away for nothing first, if it's that bad.

                    But if they literally did what this nonsense article suggested, it would just prove their stupidity because it would happen BEFORE dumping someone like Jeff Foster. Which, again, in this scenario, they should have never extended either if it was really that bad.

                    I'm not trying to make anyone feel better about this move (which almost certainly isn't going to happen.) It is a horrible thing, and people should feel horrible about it.

                    However, I consider moving worse. The idea that they don't "deserve to live," I would simply ask, "Who is going to be hurt the most by the Pacers leaving?" Sure, Bird, etal, get fired, but the players will still get paid. The Simons will either sell or keep the team, and stop hemorrhaging money. The city and fans like us, on the other hand, will sit here with no team an zero prospects of ever getting another one.
                    I understand. The thing is, unless you see the economics of having an NBA team in Indianapolis changing significantly, doesn't this suggest our only options are "no team" or "a team that can't afford to ever be good for more than a little while once their talent demands big money?"

                    And even if, unlike Sterling in LA, they WANT to keep the talent, if they CAN'T keep them, doesn't it amount to a very similar setup to what that LA franchise has been like for a long time? Lately they seem to be spending some cash, but man before that it was just a farm system more than a team IIRC.

                    I can't help but be reminded of the joke about the guy holding a gun to his own head, and saying, "Don't laugh. You're next."
                    Maybe the guy with the gun knew the audience would get suicidal themselves eventually.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Now...This would be a reason to fire Bird (if it weren't 99% likely to be nonsense)

                      Remember that a new collective bargaining agreement is due soon. Isn't it very likely trim player salaries enough to help the Pacers' bottom line?

                      It won't change Indy to a big market, but it might made the ground under their feel a bit firmer.

                      .
                      And I won't be here to see the day
                      It all dries up and blows away
                      I'd hang around just to see
                      But they never had much use for me
                      In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                      Comment


                      • Re: Now...This would be a reason to fire Bird (if it weren't 99% likely to be nonsense)

                        Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                        Remember that a new collective bargaining agreement is due soon. Isn't it very likely trim player salaries enough to help the Pacers' bottom line?

                        It won't change Indy to a big market, but it might made the ground under their feel a bit firmer.

                        .
                        I believe the new CBA needs to be put together prior to the 11-12 season. 11 being the summer we have a ton of contracts ending anyway. As of July 1st 2011 we will already have a very low salary.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Now...This would be a reason to fire Bird (if it weren't 99% likely to be nonsense)

                          I would never imply, intimate, or say that you are a bandwagon fan. That would be utter nonsense. If that's what you thought I said, then I apologize for that.

                          I am only trying to explain why I would consider moving worse than dumping Danny.

                          I've lived through the days of the curtains at MSA, and I sat in MSA while the sparse home crowd cheered for the visiting Cavs because they wanted the Pacers to be in the coin flip for Ralph Sampson. I lived through the telethon, and seeing Adrian Dantley traded for spare parts. That is not a better experience than yours, nor does it give me a better view. Is simply makes it different, and it greatly shapes my view on the subject.

                          To quote Al Swearengen:

                          Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair or ****ing beatings. The world ends when you're dead.
                          If the Pacers are here, then I can still hope and believe that the bad will change to good, regardless of how foolish that may or may not be.

                          If they are gone, I can't.

                          Perhaps the piece I did for JayRedd:

                          http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.co.../#comment-1314

                          Would move this away from a discussion of the merit of this trade, and people's reactions, and better highlight the other possibilities I see. Not so much, "Would you do this?" but "What happens if...?"

                          (Putty makes an excellent point about the CBA, but even that requires making it to 2011.)

                          Comment


                          • Re: Now...This would be a reason to fire Bird (if it weren't 99% likely to be nonsense)

                            count,

                            Originally posted by Hicks
                            I mainly take offense to the insinuation (not by you)

                            Comment


                            • Re: Now...This would be a reason to fire Bird (if it weren't 99% likely to be nonsense)

                              As for the broader point, I just think it's clinging to it for what it once was or could have been as opposed to what it is.

                              I fear you are Homer and the Pacers in this scenario are the pig:

                              Comment


                              • Re: Now...This would rumblinbe a reason to fire Bird (if it weren't 99% likely to be nonsense)

                                Let's examine a few of the issues:

                                -- I don't think anyone here wants Danny traded, if we don't have to. He is the most marketable player on the team, has assumed a leadership role and is an All-Star when healthy. With that said, anyone in the NBA can be traded. Hall of Famers like Garnett, Shaq, Kidd, Allen, etc. have all been traded within the last few years. Sure, they were on the downside of their careers, perhaps. I have no desire to trade Granger. But, if a team like New Orleans calls Larry and offers Chris Paul or Portland offers a guy like Brandon Roy, you cannot honestly say that Bird doesn't stop and listen.

                                -- Bird, Morway and JOB may not want to trade Granger or anyone else, but they also don't write the checks either. In a perfect world, the Pacers could afford to take on larger deals and contracts. The fact is we're in a smaller market than a lot of NBA teams and with the Colts' popularity, less than stellar record along with 10% unemployment, it's been a little harder for a lot of casual fans to attend games. We're all fans here, but we have to step back at times and also realize that the Pacers are still a business and the bottom line still counts. If my company were losing a lot of money, I guarantee you that they are already looking at any way to trim expenses and that includes salary, bonuses, etc. At the end of the day, the Pacers are no different and Larry still has to answer to Herb Simon.

                                -- Is McGrady a big downgrade over a healthy Granger? Likely so, unless Tim Grover has worked a miracle in Chicago with T-Mac. The issue isn't so much as us trading Granger as it is to unload other undesirable contracts. As much as Daryl Morey and Larry Bird like each other, there's gotta be an incentive for Houston to pull the trigger in trading the highest paid player in the NBA in the final year of his deal.

                                -- I like Rudy Gay as a player and think he is a heck of a talent. Why would he leave Memphis, you ask? Perhaps for the fact that they (Grizzlies) may not be willing to sign him to a long-term deal. The Grizzlies, like the Pacers, are having financial issues too. Memphis struggles at the gate and has historically been known as a thrifty spending team. If you recall, the Grizzlies had a chance to re-up Gay before the season and they could not work out a deal. Ultimately, though, I think the Grizzlies will keep Gay for the fact that he is a heck of a talent and a younger core player along with Conley, Mayo, Gasol, Young, Thabeet, etc.


                                With all of this said, I think the "Granger to Houston" rumor is nothing but that. Houston has one of the largest and greatest bargaining chips in the NBA and a lot of teams would love to have a 23 million dollar deal coming off of their cap. I think Houston may be able to acquire a package of players and/or or picks that they would possibly view as being better from a talent and fiscal than Granger for the expiring T-Mac deal.

                                Yes, I do expect the Pacers to pull off a trade or two before the deadline for salary cap relief. As was mentioned, unless the Pacers are blown away with an incredible offer, Granger is likely the last player to be dealt. I would expect a guy like Murphy, Diener, Dunleavy, Ford and Foster to be the most likely candidates to be changing addresses. The greater question is: Who would want these players and at what cost?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X