Tweet
Re: Artest responds to Peja rumors
Can you hijack your own thread? If so, I guess I did. 
Originally posted by vapacersfan
The Rules of Pacers Digest
Hello everyone,
Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.
A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.
Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.
Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.
Rule #1
Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:
"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"
"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"
"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"
"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"
"He/she is just delusional"
"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"
"I'm going to take a moment to point and
/ laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"
"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good?"
In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.
We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.
Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.
That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.
A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.
There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.
Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.
In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.
Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.
If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!
All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.
Rule #2
If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.
The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.
The right places to do so are:
A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.
B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.
If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.
Rule #3
If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.
When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:
A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.
B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.
To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!
Rule #4
Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.
Rule #5
When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.
An example:
If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:
http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star
Rule #6
We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.
The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.
Rule #7
Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.
It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).
We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).
However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.
Rule #8
We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.
Rule #9
Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.
Rule #10
We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.
Rule #11
Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.
A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.
Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.
Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.
Rule #1
Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:
"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"
"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"
"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"
"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"
"He/she is just delusional"
"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"
"I'm going to take a moment to point and
/ laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*""Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good?
"In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.
We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.
Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.
That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.
A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.
There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.
Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.
In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.
Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.
If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!
All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.
Rule #2
If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.
The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.
The right places to do so are:
A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.
B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.
If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.
Rule #3
If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.
When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:
A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.
B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.
To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!
Rule #4
Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.
Rule #5
When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.
An example:
If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:
http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star
Rule #6
We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.
The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.
Rule #7
Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.
It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).
We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).
However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.
Rule #8
We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.
Rule #9
Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.
Rule #10
We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.
Rule #11
Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less
-
Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!
-
Re: Artest responds to Peja rumors
Originally posted by bulletproofOh, now we're comparing Brad's contract to our franchise player's contract.Originally posted by Hicks
Who's next? Brewer?
That, plus Brad is at LEAST half the player JO is (Probably close to 2/3), so commanding half the salary is certainly fair. So to answer your question, yes I *am* comparing him to Jermaine. Two all-stars. Two big men. Yes, comparable. JO is a superstar, and deserves the max. Brad is an all-star and deserves half that amount. Watch the games for God's sake.Originally posted by skyfireBrad is ~95 times the player Jamison is
[edit=12=1092691416][/edit]Comment
-
Re: Artest responds to Peja rumors
Hicks -
Ultimately, I'm certain that Donnie's decision did come down to dollars and his perception of value. But if you want to introduce dollars, then I guess we should also look at it from another perspective as well.
Foster last year.... only $3.8M for the year, playing an important role helping the Pacers to 61 victories. Of course, that was easy for me. Hindsight being perfect and all. It is difficult to argue with such results. But it's just not that simple.
But let's look at what the Pacers were missing in the playoffs that would have put us over the top against the Pistions. Obviously more points or better defense, but at which positions?
In my opinion, the three main things, not in any order:
1. Better perimeter shooting
2. Better perimeter defense
3. Better interior defense and blocking out, specifically against Rasheed Wallace.
Any slight improvement to one of those three, and I think we may have gone to the finals. Any significant improvement to one of those three, and I feel very confident we would have gone to the finals.
It's obvious where I'm headed. Brad does not resolve any of those three problems.
I'm not saying in the long run we are better off without Brad, because I waffle on that subject. I really don't know.
All I will really say is that I would have trusted Rick to make the most of a team with Brad Miller available in the middle, just like he did without Brad.
Would having Brad resulted in more or less than 61 victories? I don't have a damn clue.
Would having Brad resulted in beating the Pistons and going to the NBA finals? I seriously doubt it.
I personally would have liked that team under Rick's direction, especially having at least one player from Indiana on it. And, I've always loved the blue-collar players like Brad and Woodie .... and Jeff.... and yes - even Ron.
But arguing for or against Brad is a lot like the Artest / Peja argument. We all have our preferences, but it's very difficult for a knowledgeable fan to really say whether the team would be better or worse with a change that has been or could be made.
And in many cases, I believe the answer to be NEITHER better nor worse..... JUST DIFFERENT.
Comment
-
Re: Artest responds to Peja rumors
Absolutely.Originally posted by beast23
You're right, it's not that simple. You can't point to the 61 wins and say "It's because of Jeff and where he played". He makes 3.8M. That's about right for an average-sized center with no offensive game.But if you want to introduce dollars, then I guess we should also look at it from another perspective as well.
Foster last year.... only $3.8M for the year, playing an important role helping the Pacers to 61 victories. Of course, that was easy for me. Hindsight being perfect and all. It is difficult to argue with such results. But it's just not that simple.
It's not all about the Pistons, it's about the Pacers first. But I'll play.But let's look at what the Pacers were missing in the playoffs that would have put us over the top against the Pistions.
Brad is money out to about 14'-15', and is still a threat to almost the 3 point line.In my opinion, the three main things, not in any order:
1. Better perimeter shooting
Obviously your big man isn't gonna help this.2. Better perimeter defense
Brad + Jeff = More defense than Jeff + Pollard. It's been too long for me to remember if Brad was great at boxing out or not, but I know he wasn't noticably bad at it, so I can only assume he was average and possible above average (he did average 8.3 rebounds his last year here).3. Better interior defense and blocking out, specifically against Rasheed Wallace.
Any slight improvement to one of those three, and I think we may have gone to the finals. Any significant improvement to one of those three, and I feel very confident we would have gone to the finals.
So Brad would have helped in two of your 3 listed needs.
I've just pointed out how he helps in two of the three.It's obvious where I'm headed. Brad does not resolve any of those three problems.
I have a strong suspicionI'm not saying in the long run we are better off without Brad, because I waffle on that subject. I really don't know.
Agreed.All I will really say is that I would have trusted Rick to make the most of a team with Brad Miller available in the middle, just like he did without Brad.
No one does. Odds are the team woudl have been better, whether or not they won more regular season games. Probably the noticable difference would have been the playoffs.Would having Brad resulted in more or less than 61 victories? I don't have a damn clue.
I'm not saying it clearly would have, but I think it increases the odds.Would having Brad resulted in beating the Pistons and going to the NBA finals? I seriously doubt it.
I think there's room for debate, but obviously you'll never see anyone crowned a "winner" in these types of things.But arguing for or against Brad is a lot like the Artest / Peja argument. We all have our preferences, but it's very difficult for a knowledgeable fan to really say whether the team would be better or worse with a change that has been or could be made.
Could be.And in many cases, I believe the answer to be NEITHER better nor worse..... JUST DIFFERENT.
=======
*sigh* I've gotten caught back up in this again after wanting to stop. I'm trying to be reasonable, but I mainly have bullet being Donnie's puppet with his responses, such as saying/doing anything to make him look right, including knocking Brad by either making fun of where he comes from, or saying his game and value to the team was less close to Jermiane O'Neal than it was to Jamison Brewer That's not someone worth wasting more time arguing about this. I enjoy talking w/ him in general, but if there's an issue where Walsh's opinion is known, he's gonna go into full puppet mode and say anything to try to support Donnie's opinion instead of having an opinion of his own (or at least being open to a different idea), and it's predictable enough that I'm going to try hard not to waste my time with debating anymore. It's like talking with a wall.
I'm now going to summarize my thoughts from the past few days before and after the debates, and then I'm not going to talk about it in depth for a long while:
1) Walsh didn't think Brad was worth the money he got. I'll never agree with that decision.
2) Signing Brad to that money might have made future moves difficult.
3) I do not believe that if we had signed Brad, we wouldn't have fired Isiah to get Rick. If Walsh really wanted it, it would have happened. If Brad was already locked up, and you're only now looking at the coaching situation, clearly getting Rick is still the right move, and Donnie has the weight to present that to the Simons, and I fully believe they'd see the wisdom in making a rare exception to their spending.
4) I think Brad might have pushed us past Detroit, though that's not a guarantee. Having him would be better than not having him.
4a) I also believe our biggest problem vs Detroit was our back court. But believing that shouldn't prevent anyone from acknowledging a center like Brad still would have brought more to the table than we had to work with.
5) Reggie Miller is overpaid by at least 2mm, and at most 4mm a year. He is not his old self, he is old, and that money is a detriment to the present and future of the team. I respect the loyalty involved in the decision to give it to him, but I'm also frustrated by the amount consider the other financial decision we made that summer.
6) Giving the money we did to Cro and Bender, but not Brad, will always be a hypocracy in my eyes. Anyone who wants to say it's Donnie learning from past mistakes, should also take the time to admit Donnie was wrong to give those first two contracts, instead of just avoiding that part and focusing only on Brad.
7)To borrow from another poster: The future of this team will always be just that, the future, until Reggie Miller is off the team.
8) I love Reggie Miller.
9) I love the Pacers.
10) Brad is gone and is not coming back.
These are my opinions and I'm sticking to them. Disagree as much or as little as you want. I'm not going to tirelessly go over the same ones again and again with anyone who isn't at least receptive to them, and isn't looking to just put them down.Comment
-
Re: Artest responds to Peja rumors
Grow up, child.Originally posted by XxSaSsXx31
[edit=12=1092693290][/edit]Comment
-
Re: Artest responds to Peja rumors
I wonder how many times a thread can get hijacked.
Topic A
Hijacked to Topic B
Hijacked to Topic C
etc
etc
Comment
-
Re: Artest responds to Peja rumors
How about 'them Olympic hand-ballers?Originally posted by vapacersfanAs many times as the member let it.Originally posted by Hicks 
Comment
-
Re: Artest responds to Peja rumors
I like soup. Soup is Good is also good.Comment
-
Re: Artest responds to Peja rumors
Soup is very good.You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?
Comment
-
Re: Artest responds to Peja rumors
I'm going to let this go because it's so ignorant it's not even worth replying to.Originally posted by Hicks*sigh* I've gotten caught back up in this again after wanting to stop. I'm trying to be reasonable, but I mainly have bullet being Donnie's puppet with his responses, such as saying/doing anything to make him look right, including knocking Brad by either making fun of where he comes from, or saying his game and value to the team was less close to Jermiane O'Neal than it was to Jamison Brewer That's not someone worth wasting more time arguing about this. I enjoy talking w/ him in general, but if there's an issue where Walsh's opinion is known, he's gonna go into full puppet mode and say anything to try to support Donnie's opinion instead of having an opinion of his own (or at least being open to a different idea), and it's predictable enough that I'm going to try hard not to waste my time with debating anymore. It's like talking with a wall.
Originally posted by Hicks
Some of the hardest words to say in the english language are "I don't know." You should try it sometime. Take a cue from Beast23 . Brad isn't exactly Mr. Playoff. Hell, he isn't exactly Mr. Second-half of the Season, either.Originally posted by Hicks
Remind yourself bulletproof, he's just a kid.Originally posted by HicksComment
-
Re: Artest responds to Peja rumors
"Some of the hardest words to say in the english language are "I don't know." You should try it sometime. Take a cue from Beast23 . Brad isn't exactly Mr. Playoff. Hell, he isn't exactly Mr. Second-half of the Season, either. "
What, and you do know? No one here knows anything for sure. If anyone acts like he does though, its you. Try opening up to other people's opinions sometime, instead of always condemning and rejecting them.
You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?
Comment
-
Re: Artest responds to Peja rumors
I don't know what this team would be like now if Brad was still here. That's been my point, jackass. No one does. But I do know why he was allowed to walk and I do understand the motivations behind it more than most here do, so go crawl back under the rock from whence you came.Originally posted by SoupIsGood
[edit=27=1092698928][/edit]
[edit=27=1092699076][/edit]Comment
-
Re: Artest responds to Peja rumors
Originally posted by bulletproof
You see, thats exactly what I'm talking about. You're always so "I'm right, your wrong", try to be more "I believe this, and you believe that". You don't always need to be so overly agressive and insulting when you reply to people. Peace out, man.
And don't kid yourself, unless your name is Donnie Walsh, you can not and do not know the exact reason Brad was let go.You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?
Comment
-
Re: Artest responds to Peja rumors
Alright people, take it down a peg or two.
Comment
-
Re: Artest responds to Peja rumors
Haha, that is one ugly looking hippie. I love it!
You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?
Comment
Comment