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

Pacers fire Big Smooth

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

  • Re: Pacers fire Big Smooth

    Everyone's contract is expiring, a new owner can pick his front office. The payroll will be way down, with several young players still on a rookie contract and Danny at a reasonable price. I mean they are doing everything to make this as an attractive franchise to buy, as is possible.

    This has been already laid out and I don't want to believe it, but it sure seems like positioning to me.

    Only other thing I can think of is, if there is a long lock out, they are positioning themselves to lose as very little as possible during that time.

    Comment


    • Re: Pacers fire Big Smooth

      Originally posted by Hicks View Post
      Someone get this man a "Jump to Conclusions Mat."

      Here's a 'crazy idea:'
      Maybe Bird felt that A) It was Person X (I'm guessing Morway's) call as to whether or not to fire Sam and that B) Morway's (?) reasons for doing so weren't out of line.

      But no, that's already known and proven to be impossible. What am I thinking.
      Also, it could be that Bird supports both Morway AND Perkins. Maybe he tried to make it work and it just couldn't, so he supported Morway doing what he felt was needed.

      I have personally been in a situation like that myself. I had two employees, both of whom I liked and thought had talent. Neither had any negative issues except for their inability to work together. I went to the person two levels down from me numerous times and implored him to work with his superior and not to constantly go against whatever his boss wanted to do. I also went to the superior numerous times about not being so sensitive about things and brought them together numerous times.

      It got to the point where I was completely sick of babysitting these two and finally just decided that I had always let people do their job and I allowed the person to be fired.

      I tried to make it work and was sorry it didn't. It was simply a bad mix. It didn't mean I wasn't in charge or the person below me who fired the guy was running the organization.
      Last edited by Granville; 05-05-2010, 01:40 PM.

      Comment


      • Re: Pacers fire Big Smooth

        Originally posted by Speed View Post
        Only other thing I can think of is, if there is a long lock out, they are positioning themselves to lose as very little as possible during that time.
        This is a very interesting view that I had never considered. Thanks for bringing that up!

        Why, if the team is being positioned for sale, would the stat guru (I forget his name) have been announced as being hired by the Pacers for next year, and why would there now be talk of hiring anyone to come in as a big man coach for Roy over the summer? Both of those add cost while possibly improving performance of the team. Generally, don't businesses just cut overhead without much consideration of performance improvement, leaving the decisions up to new ownership to determine how to improve performance?

        Or, are these efforts simply "putting lipstick on the pig" and dressing it up a little more to make it more attractive than it otherwise would be to potential buyers?

        Comment


        • Re: Pacers fire Big Smooth

          Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
          This is a very interesting view that I had never considered. Thanks for bringing that up!

          Why, if the team is being positioned for sale, would the stat guru (I forget his name) have been announced as being hired by the Pacers for next year, and why would there now be talk of hiring anyone to come in as a big man coach for Roy over the summer? Both of those add cost while possibly improving performance of the team. Generally, don't businesses just cut overhead without much consideration of performance improvement, leaving the decisions up to new ownership to determine how to improve performance?

          Or, are these efforts simply "putting lipstick on the pig" and dressing it up a little more to make it more attractive than it otherwise would be to potential buyers?
          Those are people that could be fired any time. Doubtful they have any guarantees over a year, if that. And if they improve the team it could only make a sale more attractive.
          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 Wooden

          Comment


          • Re: Pacers fire Big Smooth

            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
            Someone get this man a "Jump to Conclusions Mat."

            Here's a 'crazy idea:'
            Maybe Bird felt that A) It was Person X (I'm guessing Morway's) call as to whether or not to fire Sam and that B) Morway's (?) reasons for doing so weren't out of line.

            But no, that's already known and proven to be impossible. What am I thinking.
            Perkins is clashing with people in the FO but not Bird, the alleged Big Kahuna. And Perkins has praise for Bird. Yet Perkins is who gets fired.

            I'm not jumping to any conclusions. That means the FO is still a mess and the pecking order is not what you'd think it would be. Too many chiefs and not enough Indians? Bird has his wings clipped?

            In any case it's down to 2 things ultimately: Ownership positioning the team for a sale... or ownership allowing this dysfunctional mess to continue which will have the net affect of positioning the team for a sale.

            There is no other answer as far as I'm concerned.

            The apathy surrounding a PS&E mouthpiece mentioning the possibility of the Pacers relocating could be very telling. That the thread didn't explode HERE, a Pacer fan forum, and faded away rather quickly should be a hint of how little that announcement mattered with the masses.

            If a tree falls in the forest... or a Pacer exec mentions the possibility of the team moving... and there's no one left to care.... does it matter?
            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 Wooden

            Comment


            • Re: Pacers fire Big Smooth

              Originally posted by Granville View Post
              Also, it could be that Bird supports both Morway AND Perkins. Maybe he tried to make it work and it just couldn't, so he supported Morway doing what he felt was needed.

              I have personally been in a situation like that myself. I had two employees, both of whom I liked and thought had talent. Neither had any negative issues except for their inability to work together. I went to the person two levels down from me numerous times and implored him to work with his superior and not to constantly go against whatever his boss wanted to do. I also went to the superior numerous times about not being so sensitive about things and brought them together numerous times.

              It got to the point where I was completely sick of babysitting these two and finally just decided that I had always let people do their job and I allowed the person to be fired.

              I tried to make it work and was sorry it didn't. It was simply a bad mix. It didn't mean I wasn't in charge or the person below me who fired the guy was running the organization.
              This is a great example. However, assuming it's Morway that Perkins had an issue with, the trend is troubling.

              The question is, how can you not agree with Morway's decisions, but agree with Bird's?

              And if then the question becomes about compatibility rather than executive decisions, then isn't it somewhat telling that now another person has voiced their displeasure with Morway? And Sam Perkins of all people...

              Of course, this is all based on the assumption (and hunch) that it is yet once again an issue with Morway.

              When Walsh left, I thought our days of a two-headed monster were over. However, it seems like we've created a whole new beast.
              2015, 2016, 2019 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champions - DC Dreamers

              Comment


              • Re: Pacers fire Big Smooth

                Originally posted by Bball View Post
                The apathy surrounding a PS&E mouthpiece mentioning the possibility of the Pacers relocating could be very telling. That the thread didn't explode HERE, a Pacer fan forum, and faded away rather quickly should be a hint of how little that announcement mattered with the masses.

                If a tree falls in the forest... or a Pacer exec mentions the possibility of the team moving... and there's no one left to care.... does it matter?
                I agree that for quite a few, this is probably right. But I think it might possibly be a little more complicated than that.

                Maybe this is indicative of more than apathy for those here. I believe there may be some who are in a state of denial with respect to this possibility who did not want to read or post in that thread, therefore leaving it to fade away more quickly than it otherwise would have because they don't want to deal with it emotionally until they have to, and hopefully there are more like that in the overall population who will help sway public opinion when push comes to shove.

                Comment


                • Re: Pacers fire Big Smooth

                  Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                  I agree that for quite a few, this is probably right. But I think it might possibly be a little more complicated than that.

                  Maybe this is indicative of more than apathy for those here. I believe there may be some who are in a state of denial with respect to this possibility who did not want to read or post in that thread, therefore leaving it to fade away more quickly than it otherwise would have because they don't want to deal with it emotionally until they have to, and hopefully there are more like that in the overall population who will help sway public opinion when push comes to shove.
                  Or the forum members have said all that remains to be said on the subject and hear nothing other than confirmation of what has been discussed over and over.
                  BillS

                  A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                  Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                  Comment


                  • Re: Pacers fire Big Smooth

                    Originally posted by Bball View Post
                    Perkins is clashing with people in the FO but not Bird, the alleged Big Kahuna. And Perkins has praise for Bird. Yet Perkins is who gets fired.

                    I'm not jumping to any conclusions. That means the FO is still a mess and the pecking order is not what you'd think it would be. Too many chiefs and not enough Indians? Bird has his wings clipped?
                    I think that's just incorrect.

                    If Perkins and Morway couldn't see eye to eye to the point where something had to give, it's reasonable for Bird to allow Morway to go ahead and fire Sam as he is the lower man on the totem pole. In which case it's similar to Granville's situation.

                    That does not mean the front office is a mess or that the pecking order is in doubt.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Pacers fire Big Smooth

                      It's important to keep in mind that we're just guessing that Morway is involved, and Wells reports that it was more than one individual.

                      It would help if we had a better understanding of exactly where Sam fit into the hierarchy. Right now we're all just going off of guesswork or assumptions.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Pacers fire Big Smooth

                        Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                        It's important to keep in mind that we're just guessing that Morway is involved, and Wells reports that it was more than one individual.

                        It would help if we had a better understanding of exactly where Sam fit into the hierarchy. Right now we're all just going off of guesswork or assumptions.
                        Well, again, I reference the PS&E directory:

                        http://www.consecofieldhouse.com/upl...oster12010.pdf

                        I think it's safe to say Sam would only deal with people on the first page. He's listed under the Pacers Basketball section, and I don't see why he would deal with the business aspects of PS&E.

                        Next, we have two directors and an assistant listed with him under Player Relations. We don't know if these people reported to him directly, or they were just lumped together because of job type. I do think it's safe to assume that he would interface with these people, however.

                        After that, we look at the Executive level. As a VP, Sam falls under all these people, but as a Pacers Basketball employee, Sam would fall under Bird's domain.

                        Finally, we disect the Pacers Basketball proper. Morway is GM, one assumes he's responsible for the day-to-day operation of the team. Does this include Player Relations? Probably, but it is interesting to note that Player Relations is the one and only subsection listed. Plus, Sam is the only VP on this page. Just going off job titles, I would think he'd report to a President, ie Bird, but who knows. You go through the other pages for instance, we have VPs in Finance reporting to a CFO, who is not an Executive (I'm guessing all these departments report to Fusion.)

                        Regardless of if Sam reports to Morway or not, it's a good guess he deals with him regularly. As we start scrolling down:

                        Coaches - sure, they deal with the players every day

                        Player development - plausible, so put Keller down

                        Scouting - doubtful, he'd only deal with guys we actually sign

                        Basketball operations/administration - I guess, so put these two down (never heard of either one)

                        Trainers/Equipment Managers/Doctors - doubtful, I don't see Sam managing these interactions, I'm sure they deal directly with the players

                        So, here's the Directors and above I assume he dealt with:

                        Bird
                        Morway
                        O'Brien
                        Keller
                        Sonja Clutinger (Director, Basketball Operations)
                        Peter Dinwiddie (Director, Basketball Administration)
                        John Gray (Director, Player Security)
                        Heather Denton (Director, Player Relations)

                        and to be safe, we'll list the other Execs:

                        Simon
                        Morris
                        Fusion

                        Now, Morris was the one who canned him, so it's certainly plausible it could be him and Fusion, or one of the Directors. However, given Morway's history with Daniels, he's a good candidate as well.

                        [edit] As an addendum, I would say that as Director of Player Personnel, Mel Daniels almost definitely fell under Morway. I can see his name fitting in right next to Keller on here.
                        Last edited by Kegboy; 05-05-2010, 05:51 PM.
                        Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                        Comment


                        • Re: Pacers fire Big Smooth

                          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                          It's important to keep in mind that we're just guessing that Morway is involved, and Wells reports that it was more than one individual.
                          Exactly... Which throws cold water on the theory it was friction between 2 people and one of them had to go.

                          It sounds more complicated than that.
                          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 Wooden

                          Comment


                          • Re: Pacers fire Big Smooth

                            Who is the leader of this shadow TPTB? Is David Morway the Dick Cheney of the Pacers?

                            Comment


                            • Re: Pacers fire Big Smooth

                              Originally posted by Thingfish View Post
                              Who is the leader of this shadow TPTB? Is David Morway the Dick Cheney of the Pacers?
                              I don't think there is a clear leader. It's why we draft players that don't fit the coach's system. It's why we sign FA's to bench them. It's why we extend a coach who clearly has had his expiration date pass and then hang onto him until fans are sick of him. It's why Bird says things that are the exact opposite of what his coach does. It's why the coach says things that are the exact opposite of what he preaches on the court. It's why we try and push for the playoffs even when we should be rebuilding. It's why we don't pick earlier in the draft when we're supposed to be on some kind of 3 year plan that has us dumping salary and allegedly rebuilding for 2011 cap flexibility (wouldn't it be nice to have a couple of top 5 picks to show for the bad basketball O'Brien has preached and see some light at the end of the tunnel heading into 2011)?

                              Basically, someone needs to poll the FO people and see who says O'Brien needs fired. Then pick a leader from that bunch and fire the rest.

                              And if Simon thinks O'Brien shouldn't be fired then the team will be better off under new ownership anyway... unfortunately. But we all know what that could mean. But if this ineptness is the best it's going to get... then so be it.
                              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 Wooden

                              Comment


                              • Re: Pacers fire Big Smooth

                                Maybe saying he clashed with some people is better than saying he was fairly inept at his job. VPs do more than keep people from making bad headlines in the newspapers. In any organization there are duties to perform, reports, etc. A front office position is basically 9 to 5 and then the game starts that evening. Perhaps Smooth is just not an office kind of guy.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X