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

You guys seem a little more relaxed about the lockout than I am. Anyone want to talk me off the ledge?

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

  • #76
    Re: You guys seem a little more relaxed about the lockout than I am. Anyone want to talk me off the ledge?

    Originally posted by Since86 View Post

    That doesn't help your cause, at all.
    Uh what? I don't have a cause. In event of a lockout, I hope both sides get punished thoroughly by the viewing public. It's what they deserve.

    Btw, why is Durant being unaware of the CBA a bad thing? I mean for himself personally, yeah it's bad to be uninformed. But he's not on the CBA negotiating committee. Not all of the owners are involved with the CBA negotiation either (but hopefully all of them are aware!)

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: You guys seem a little more relaxed about the lockout than I am. Anyone want to talk me off the ledge?

      Durant either is completely ignorant to what it means to be a player's union team representative, or it doesn't mean anything to be a player's union team representative.

      Either way, it is pretty amazing that someone of his stature within the league is acting as if he is blissfully unaware that the CBA is ending tomorrow. I would venture to guess that not one player in the league is actually unaware of that unless they have been in a coma since the middle of the 2009-10 season because of what it means to them financially and personally for the foreseeable future. Their "goose" that lays golden eggs is about to have an egg breach sideways that will take a very long time to extract, after which it will take quite a while to heal up from the extraction procedure and begin producing smaller eggs that previously would have been rejected by inspectors due to not being full sized.

      So, to Mr. Durant, I call out a hearty

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: You guys seem a little more relaxed about the lockout than I am. Anyone want to talk me off the ledge?

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        Not at all true.

        In the real world people get go, and they don't get any paychecks. I would much rather work for 30% less than not work and not get any money. Just for perspective.
        In the real world, 450 of us don't generate 4.2 billion dollars a year, either... for more perspective.
        Last edited by Speed; 06-29-2011, 07:33 PM.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: You guys seem a little more relaxed about the lockout than I am. Anyone want to talk me off the ledge?

          Stern fostered an environment that allowed these contracts to get out of control. He is on the verge of two lockouts in 13 years. That, along with the ridiculous over-expansion that has ensured an excess of bottom-feeding teams, is something that will be a stain on his legacy for eternity if they don't get a deal in time.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: You guys seem a little more relaxed about the lockout than I am. Anyone want to talk me off the ledge?

            Yawn. I haven't read this thread. I said over a year ago this was going to happen... the lockout. Many didn't feel it would. Well, guess what? It is going to happen. So in response to the thread, I saw it coming and have been prepared for it to happen. Nothing any of us can do about it, but be prepared for less than a full season of BB. This is going to be a loooong and boooring offseason. Yawn.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: You guys seem a little more relaxed about the lockout than I am. Anyone want to talk me off the ledge?

              idc if it happens. Every team needs a chance to compete for a championship.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: You guys seem a little more relaxed about the lockout than I am. Anyone want to talk me off the ledge?

                Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                Uh what? I don't have a cause. In event of a lockout, I hope both sides get punished thoroughly by the viewing public. It's what they deserve.
                I didn't say you personally had a cause. The "you" is Kevin Durant.

                Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                Btw, why is Durant being unaware of the CBA a bad thing? I mean for himself personally, yeah it's bad to be uninformed. But he's not on the CBA negotiating committee. Not all of the owners are involved with the CBA negotiation either (but hopefully all of them are aware!)
                Because KD is the OKC Union Rep. If he doesn't know what's going on, then why is the the union rep? If he has other engagements, so he can't make meetings, then step down and let someone else who is interested and who has time to go to the meetings and become the union rep.

                He's the one that's supposed to relay information to his teammates, and he's completely uninformed. That's not a good thing.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: You guys seem a little more relaxed about the lockout than I am. Anyone want to talk me off the ledge?

                  Here is an article from 1999 that provides a very good roadmap to what we might be in for

                  http://maps.thefullwiki.org/1998%E2%80%9399_NBA_lockout


                  The 1998–99 NBA lockout was the third lockout in the history of the National Basketball Association (NBA). It lasted from July 1, 1998 to January 20, 1999, and forced the 1998–99 season to be shortened to 50 games per team. NBA owners reopened the league's collective bargaining agreement (CBA) in March 1998, seeking changes to the league's salary cap system and a ceiling on individual player salaries. The National Basketball Players Association (NBPA) opposed the owners' plans and wanted raises for players who earned the league's minimum salary. After the two sides failed to reach an agreement, the owners began the lockout.

                  The dispute received a tepid response from sports fans, and provoked criticism from media members. It continued into January 1999, threatening cancellation of the entire season. After division within the players union, however, NBPA executive director Billy Hunter reached an agreement with NBA commissioner David Stern on January 6 to end the work stoppage. Quickly ratified by the owners and players, the deal was signed later in January, ending the lockout after 204 days. The settlement provided for maximum salaries for players and a pay scale for first-year players. In the months after the lockout, television ratings and ticket sales declined during the 50-game season, and both remained below pre-lockout levels in subsequent seasons.


                  Background

                  Before 1998, there had been two lockouts in the previous three years: a three-month labor dispute in 1995 and a brief work stoppage in 1996 that lasted a couple of hours. However, on both occasions, the players and owners reached a deal before the start of the season, and before 1998, the NBA was the only major sports league in the United States that had never lost a game because of a work stoppage. A six-year CBA had been in place since September 1995, but it included a clause allowing NBA owners to reopen the contract after three years if more than 51.8 percent of "basketball-related income" went to player salaries. By the 1997–98 season, 57 percent of basketball-related income was used to pay players, while the previous deal called for a 48 percent split. According to the NBA, 15 of the 29 teams posted losses that season. The NBPA disputed this figure and claimed that only four teams had losses. The league's owners voted on whether to reopen the CBA on March 23, 1998, and the vote passed by a 27–2 margin. Negotiations between the NBPA and owners started on April 1, and nine further bargaining sessions took place in the next three months.

                  The primary issue was that of player salaries, which owners sought to curb. A salary cap had been a part of the CBA since 1983, but it included loopholes that allowed teams to exceed the payroll limit. Among them was the "Larry Bird exception", named after the former player who was an early beneficiary of the rule. The Bird exception enabled teams to spend an unlimited amount of money to re-sign their own players, causing a substantial increase in the value of upper-end contracts. Club owners wanted to remove the exemption and place limits on maximum player salaries. Owners also desired a modified pay scale for rookie players that would prevent them from gaining unrestricted free agency after three seasons. The players union, wanting to protect negotiating gains from previous years, opposed changes to the salary cap system, in particular those involving the Larry Bird exception. Other NBPA positions included opposition to a cap on individual player salaries and support for a raise of the minimum salary, which 22 percent of NBA players earned during 1997–98.


                  Lockout


                  After negotiations between the sides broke off on June 22, the lockout started nine days later. Teams were barred from making player transactions and holding workouts and meetings for the duration of the work stoppage. An early byproduct of the lockout was the exclusion of NBA players from the U.S. national team that played at the 1998 FIBA World Championship. USA Basketball, the governing body for the sport in the U.S., elected to send a team consisting of lower-level professional players and amateurs. Negotiations resumed at an August 6 bargaining session, the first since the start of the lockout. NBA commissioner David Stern and several owners left the talks after the NBPA presented an offer that included increased revenue sharing between teams. By September 25, 24 exhibition games were canceled and training camps were postponed indefinitely as a result of stalled talks. Further negotiating sessions took place in October and November, but no agreement was reached. The season's first two weeks were officially canceled on October 13, and 99 games scheduled for November were lost as a result. It was the first time in NBA history that games were canceled due to a labor dispute. On October 20, arbitrator John Feerick ruled that the owners did not have to pay players with guaranteed contracts during the lockout. Feerick's decision gave the owners leverage in bargaining talks.

                  Further games were canceled as the lockout continued through November and December, including the 1999 All-Star Game, which had been scheduled to be played on February 14, 1999 at the First Union Center in Philadelphia. Discussions during the lockout were characterized by frequent hostility between the players and owners. One example of the heated nature of the talks came at an early December bargaining session, when Stern and NBPA executive director Billy Hunter became involved in what CBS News called "an extremely heated, expletive-laden screaming match". Both men temporarily walked away from the bargaining table, and indicated after the session that the entire season might be canceled. Although the 1998 portion of the schedule was not played because of the lockout, 16 NBA players participated in a December 19 exhibition game in Atlantic City, New Jersey. The event's organizers intended to give NBPA members a share of the money raised, but the idea proved controversial, and charities ultimately received the proceeds.


                  Settlement

                  On December 23, Stern announced that he would recommend canceling the season if there was no deal by January 7, 1999. As Stern's deadline approached, the NBPA showed signs of division from within. Highly paid players were seen as the ones most affected by the disputed issues, rather than the union's membership as a whole. Agent David Falk, who was considered an influential voice for the players, represented NBPA president Patrick Ewing and nine players on the union's 19-person negotiating committee. The NBPA scheduled a meeting in New York City on January 6, where players would vote on a proposal by the owners that the committee had recommended opposing. Several players, including Shaquille O'Neal and Hakeem Olajuwon, wanted the vote to be conducted by secret ballot, while others indicated a desire to return to competition regardless of how the vote went. Kevin Johnson stated that most players "were just ready to throw down [fight] Wednesday at our meeting if an agreement hadn't been reached." Faced with a splintering union, Hunter moved to resume talks with Stern. On January 6, the day before Stern's deadline, he and Hunter reached an agreement, which was ratified by the NBPA later that day and by the NBA Board of Governors on January 7.

                  Widely viewed as a victory for Stern and the owners, the agreement was signed by both parties on January 20, officially ending the lockout after 204 days. It capped players' salaries at between $9 million and $14 million, depending on how long they had played in the NBA. A rookie pay scale was introduced, with salary increases tied to how early a player was selected in the NBA Draft. The Larry Bird exception was retained, though maximum annual pay raises were capped. New "average" and "median" salary cap exemptions, which the NBPA had proposed, allowed teams to sign one player per category even if they were over the spending limit. The league's minimum salary was increased to $287,500, a $15,000 raise from before the lockout.


                  Reaction and aftermath

                  The lockout prompted indifference among most American sports fans, who thought that greed was shown by both sides. A CBS News–New York Times poll conducted in October 1998 showed that, while most fans' opinion of professional basketball was unaffected by the work stoppage, 29 percent reported that their views had become more negative. The same poll showed that fans backed the NBPA in the dispute by a 36–29 margin, while the general public supported the owners 24 percent to 22 percent. One-quarter of basketball fans who responded to the poll did not know enough about the lockout to give an opinion, along with 45 percent of the general public. Media members were frequently critical of the owners and players. Sportswriter Tony Kornheiser described the labor dispute as one "between tall millionaires and short millionaires." An article in Newsweek termed the lockout "an incomprehensible and unconscionable dispute between rival gangs of millionaires". Time's Bill Saporito believed that each side was damaged by the lockout, in terms of financial losses and negative publicity. Stern said that he had made concessions in the agreement, while Hunter said that the parties "both blinked."

                  The 1998–99 season, which began on February 5, 1999, was shortened to 50 games per team, as opposed to the normal 82. As a result of the 204-day lockout, 464 regular-season games were lost. In addition to the lockout, the NBA's popularity was affected by the second retirement of Michael Jordan, who had been largely responsible for an increase in fan interest during his career. The average attendance during the shortened season was 16,738 fans per game, down 2.2 percent from the 1997–98 average of 17,117 spectators per contest. Ticket sales fell nearly two percent further in the opening months of 1999–00, and remained under 17,000 per game for the following three seasons. The league also saw television ratings drop for three consecutive seasons after the lockout. In the years following the lockout, a higher percentage of players signed contracts worth the maximum amount possible under the cap. Some young players, such as LeBron James, began signing shorter contracts that allowed for more flexibility in team choice and salary. The agreement expired in 2005, and both sides became concerned about the possibility of another work stoppage. A fourth lockout in 11 years was prevented, however, when a six-year CBA was reached in June.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: You guys seem a little more relaxed about the lockout than I am. Anyone want to talk me off the ledge?

                    here is an excellent current behind the scenes of what is going on right now.

                    http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_yl...a_union_062911

                    Hunter sidesteps question on pay

                    By Adrian Wojnarowski, Yahoo! Sports


                    After Kevin Garnett(notes) delivered an inspired sermon in the NBA players union meeting a week ago, declaring his willingness to sit out the season and forfeit $18.8 million in salary, a far more measured voice spoke up with 60 rank-and-file players in a New York hotel ballroom.


                    Shane Battier’s(notes) question, directed to Players Association executive director Billy Hunter, was simple: The NFL’s union leader, DeMaurice Smith, had agreed to take $1 in salary for the length of the NFL lockout.

                    Will you do it too, Billy?

                    The mere suggestion seemed to offend Hunter, players witnessing the exchange privately told Yahoo! Sports. After Hunter told Battier he hadn’t given it much thought, members of the union’s executive board came to Hunter’s defense. Hunter had taken the union from the red to the black in his term, done a good job, they said. Hunter never did give Battier a firm answer, nor would he answer the question for Yahoo! Sports on Wednesday.

                    Salary can be a touchy subject within pockets of the union, especially since it leaves some questioning the urgency and motivation for Hunter to work for a deal. Two years ago, Hunter had gone to the Players Association and asked that he be compensated for several years’ worth of unused vacation time. There was resistance to the request, but eventually the union board agreed to award him $1.1 million, the Sports Business Journal reported. Hunter makes a little more than $2 million a year as the union’s executive director.

                    This is still a sore spot for some agents and players, but several union board members felt Battier was grandstanding with his question. Nevertheless, there are those in the rank-and-file who think Hunter and his executive board members have a habit of getting too snippy, too defensive with dissenting voices. If a lockout endures, these will be questions that Hunter has to answer within his union. Eventually, the players will stop getting checks in November, and if Hunter’s still getting paid … well, Battier’s voice won’t be alone.

                    “Billy isn’t afraid to embarrass you in front of other players, if he doesn’t like your line of questioning,” an Eastern Conference player said. “He’s done a good job keeping us informed and fighting [NBA commissioner David] Stern, but I don’t need to be lectured by the guy. I’m allowed to ask a question.”

                    The lockout is coming Friday at 12:01 a.m. ET, and a final bargaining session on Thursday in New York promises to be perfunctory. The union plans no counterproposal to the owners, and there are lots of players and agents who think the union shouldn’t even sit down with the commissioner and owners with such unprecedented givebacks being ordered.

                    Hunter has a great ability to rally the rank-and-file, and turning to Garnett in the meeting was a smart move. No one is better with a cause than Garnett, one of the great leaders in the NBA. He isn’t the most popular among his peers, but he’s one of the most respected. The union needed Garnett and Paul Pierce(notes) – who stand to lose a combined $32.7 million – selling the message to the player representatives in the room.

                    For all the talk the players have heard from the union about an ownership group splintering with agenda, threatening to usurp Stern’s judgment on issues, the players in the bargaining session last Friday had to admit: For a better part of four hours, Stern was running everything.

                    Stern dominated the meeting, with most owners reduced to bystanders. As one player said, “They’re always scared to talk when we’re in the room, especially when our stars come.” Still, several players could see the grimace on Stern’s face when notorious windbag Robert Sarver, the Phoenix Suns owner, started to speak.

                    There was an informal vote taken in the players’ meeting last Thursday in New York, where an overwhelming majority of the room insisted they would go the distance with the union. The owners want rollbacks on existing contracts, a hard salary cap and provisions that make owning and operating a profitable franchise a paint-by-numbers enterprise. The NBA and union will meet one final time on Thursday before a lockout comes on July 1, and there are many on the players’ side who wonder why they’ll even bother.

                    “Just look at the proposal the owners have made: How do you expect anyone to respond to that in good faith?” agent Mark Bartelstein said. “It’s laughable. GMs around the league have acknowledged that to me. Every GM has acknowledged that there’s nowhere for the players to go with what’s been proposed by the owners.

                    “The system doesn’t work for the players now, because it’s so restrictive. It doesn’t work for the owners because they’ve made a lot of bad decisions. That’s the reality. This is a horrible system for the NBA player, incredibly restrictive in every way you look at it. If the NBA owners can’t be successful in this system, blame that on nothing but poor management.”
                    In the end, this is a fight that’ll come down to the side’s two leaders: Billy Hunter and David Stern. Who can stand tougher, longer and endure the most pain? Here comes the NBA’s Armageddon, here comes Hunter’s and Stern’s moment of truth.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: You guys seem a little more relaxed about the lockout than I am. Anyone want to talk me off the ledge?

                      Originally posted by Speed View Post
                      If the company you work for said, we want to cut your salary, well everyones salary by 30% over the next 5 years and have that extend through 10 years even though we are as popular now as we've been in 15 years.... just for perspective.
                      Umm ... yeah, even though certain parts of my company had increases in sales ("popularity") the company overall had lower revenues, and I was in fact given the choice of 20% pay cuts or people losing jobs.

                      ETA: That was badly worded. It wasn't really a choice, I took a 20% pay cut and people got laid off anyway, but not as many as if we hadn't taken pay cuts.

                      This is a big reason why I don't side much with the players who seem to think their jobs are the only ones that are recession-proof.
                      Last edited by BillS; 06-30-2011, 11:04 AM.
                      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


                      • #86
                        Re: You guys seem a little more relaxed about the lockout than I am. Anyone want to talk me off the ledge?

                        It almost seems like the players are excited at the prospect of a long lock out, at standing up as a group of "common men"....what a bunch of idiots.


                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: You guys seem a little more relaxed about the lockout than I am. Anyone want to talk me off the ledge?

                          Here is how I see it working out!

                          Right now the players are pounding their chests, wearing stupid t-shirts and claiming solidarity.

                          Once they start missing games (ie: missing paychecks) their wives and girlfriends will start b****ing about them not working and not being able to spend as much as they are used to.

                          Next the wives and girlfriends will cut off the sex.

                          Then the players will be ready to settle.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: You guys seem a little more relaxed about the lockout than I am. Anyone want to talk me off the ledge?

                            Then they'll get it somewhere else, with eventually their wifes or gf's finding out, meaning they will have to buy some big a** ring or so and then the players will be ready to settle.
                            Trying to enjoy every Pacers game as if it is the last!

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: You guys seem a little more relaxed about the lockout than I am. Anyone want to talk me off the ledge?

                              Originally posted by Speed View Post
                              In the real world, 450 of us don't generate 4.2 billion dollars a year, either... for more perspective.
                              Yep, the players handled all of the marketing, television deals, merchandising, ticket sales, accounting, human resources, and administration duties. Truly gifted individuals.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: You guys seem a little more relaxed about the lockout than I am. Anyone want to talk me off the ledge?

                                Originally posted by Speed View Post
                                In the real world, 450 of us don't generate 4.2 billion dollars a year, either... for more perspective.
                                The size of the company, or how much money they bring in as revenue doesn't matter if the revenue still doesn't equal a profit. When companies are losing money, they're going to either lay people off or fire them regardless if they have 10,000 employees or 10.

                                But you're kind of proving my point. There is still a LOT of money to be made if cuts happen.

                                In the real world, for perspective, all of us would play in the NBA for a lot less money than they're making now. There isn't a single regular working person in the world that wouldn't play in the NBA for half the money they're currently making.
                                Last edited by Since86; 06-30-2011, 02:34 PM.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X