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

Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

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

  • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
    As for how to make a trade now with Paul, it's called communication. Pick the league's brain and get them to elaborate on their thinking. Maybe you're right and they are 'locking out' the Hornets GM, but I wouldn't be surprised if Stern et al would approve most other hypothetical trades, even one involving Paul.

    I agree this is a conflict of interest having the league own a team, but clearly it's legal and clearly everyone wasn't *****ing about it 24 hours ago, so they can't really whine now (in terms of what can/can't be) when the league always had the right to do what they're doing now even before everyone started flipping out about it.

    Again, I disagree with Stern's decision. I think he ought not have done this. I think it was a mistake. But don't act like he didn't have the right. He absolutely did. This ship sailed months ago.
    This was sort of the point I was trying to make last night.

    Not sure I agree with the decision to step in and stop the deal, but Stern was well within his rights to do so.


    Comment


    • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

      Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
      The league should come out and say that if they don't sell the Hornets by the end of this season, then the franchise is folding. They should allow them to deal with free agents to fill their roster.
      Agreed. Won't happen under Stern's watch though. Contraction is a sign of failure and he's not going to let that blemish his record.

      Comment


      • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

        Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
        This had absolutely nothing to do with what's good for the Hornets. How is that hard to understand?
        Yeah, this is what's annoying me about people comparing this to any move nixed by a teams' owner. Owners usually have their teams' best interests (however misguided), or their bottom line, at heart when they block trades. This was clearly a bunch of sore losers trying to stop the Lakers getting better. It's collusion.

        Comment


        • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

          Gilbert is an unprofessional nut, but that e-mail was great. Especially this part:

          [img]When will we just change the name of 25 of the 30 teams to the Washington Generals?[/img]

          Comment


          • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

            To quote David Stern from December of 2010 when asked how the league would handle transactions by Demps:

            Originally posted by David Stern
            "If they recommend it, then we're going to be approving it."
            "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

            -Lance Stephenson

            Comment


            • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

              Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
              How dare those "butt-hurt owners", his employer tell him anything! Do you tell your employer to, I'll be polite, go fly a kite when they say they don't like something you do? Stern has 2 choices: do what his employers want or quit. Same choices you and I have.

              I read in one of the threads that Stern will "resign" in the next 48 hours over not liking his employers demand to have to invalidate the sale. They overrode his all sovereign power. He seems to feel he is above and unanwserable to his employers. If it's a threat to the owners, then call his bluff and let him walk out the door. It's time for a change, and as far as I'm concerned it's many years overdue! If this is what it takes for a change in NBA office leadership, I'm all for it. Stern got a new CBA, now he can leave. Good-bye and don't let the door hit him where the GOOD LORD split him. JMOAA
              When he stopped doing what is best for the league, he stopped doing his job.

              He shouldn't quit. He should be fired.

              Comment


              • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

                Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                To quote David Stern from December of 2010 when asked how the league would handle transactions by Demps:
                This is the sort of quote I was looking for last night, thanks.

                The whole situation is a quagmire of epic proportions. Was Stern probably within his rights to pull rank on Demps? Yes. Was it a bad decision? yes.


                Comment


                • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

                  Originally posted by JB24 View Post
                  Yeah, this is what's annoying me about people comparing this to any move nixed by a teams' owner. Owners usually have their teams' best interests (however misguided), or their bottom line, at heart when they block trades. This was clearly a bunch of sore losers trying to stop the Lakers getting better. It's collusion.
                  Since we are talking about collusion, explain to me what is going on when agents, team execs, and people close to them are all working ears and phones to have Dwight Howard on the next flight to LA right behind CP3.
                  "The greatest thing you know Comes not from above but below" Danzig

                  Comment


                  • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

                    Originally posted by HC View Post
                    Since we are talking about collusion, explain to me what is going on when agents, team execs, and people close to them are all working ears and phones to have Dwight Howard on the next flight to LA right behind CP3.
                    You mean Dwight's agent, Paul's agent, the Lakers' executives, etc.?

                    I call that doing their job.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

                      Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                      You mean Dwight's agent, Paul's agent, the Lakers' executives, etc.?

                      I call that doing their job.
                      But owners are just whining....ok
                      "The greatest thing you know Comes not from above but below" Danzig

                      Comment


                      • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

                        Simmons take:

                        http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/...-nba-christmas

                        Comment


                        • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

                          I could post story after story after story lamenting how ridiculous this whole situation became. The only people who can't see this for what it is, are those looking at things through their "I'm a fan of a small market team, this isn't fair and they're better than us," colored glasses.

                          http://www.cbssports.com/nba/story/1...te-bush-league

                          Originally posted by Ken Berger
                          Nixed Paul deal makes NBA look like second-rate bush league

                          By Ken Berger | CBSSports.com NBA Insider


                          On the very day that the NBA was supposed to be back, embracing us with this charade of a 66-game season after five months of a pointless lockout, it stepped into the worst kind of purgatory.

                          What happened Thursday, the incomprehensible events you'd expect from a second-rate, minor league sport, did far more damage than the lockout ever did -- or ever could. After years of fans, both casual and hard-core, not to mention the disciplined executives and coaches working in the business, believing that something always wasn't quite right -- something was rotten in Denmark -- the NBA finally proved it.

                          This whole thing Thursday reeked to high heaven, and the NBA is going to pay a very dear price for it.

                          Having spoken with team executives getting back into the swing of things since the tentative deal on a new collective bargaining agreement was reached two weeks ago, I heard the anger. No sooner had the beleaguered negotiators slept off the 15-hour bargaining session that finally resulted in the deal, it was back to business as usual. After a five-month lockout that was supposedly about restoring competitive balance -- we can all hear deputy commissioner Adam Silver's mind-numbing, and as it turns out, empty soliloquy ringing in our ears -- it was right back to Chris Paul wanting to be in New York, Dwight Howard in L.A., and on and on and on.

                          "Pathetic," is how one team executive described the mayhem that played out Thursday, before commissioner David Stern somehow found a way to make it worse by canceling a trade that would've sent superstar Chris Paul from the Hornets to the Lakers for what a league spokesman laughably called "basketball reasons."

                          On a day when it became apparent that the Knicks would maneuver for the top free agent on the market, Tyson Chandler, the Lakers brokered a three-team deal to acquire Paul from the Hornets. One of the brightest GMs in the league, Houston's Daryl Morey, was involved in the transaction, as was Hornets GM Dell Demps -- a savvy, no-nonsense basketball man who came up through the San Antonio Spurs organization, which is like getting your MBA in NBA.

                          Everybody in the sport has known for a long time that Paul was leaving New Orleans; it was only a question of when, and how. Paul was fleeing the Hornets, a decrepit, decaying franchise that was put there by Stern as part of a contagious disease of over-expansion that, more than anything, led to the crippling financial losses and the lockout that the league just endured.

                          Or had endured, until this.

                          When owner George Shinn, who couldn't hack it in Charlotte, couldn't hack it in New Orleans, either, the NBA's other 29 franchises assumed custodianship until a new owner could be found. The Hornets had been able to manage their basketball affairs as they saw fit, with Demps and coach Monty Williams reporting to -- and only to -- league-appointed governor Jac Sperling. The Hornets finally got their act together last season, miraculously eclipsing an attendance quota that prevented their arena lease from opening, and they made trades and did the other business of running a basketball team without incident.

                          In February 2011, the league-owned Hornets took on more than $2 million in salary as part of a trade in which they acquired Carl Landry from the Sacramento Kings. Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, responsible for 1/29th of that money, decried the move as "absolutely, positively wrong."

                          The incident highlighted why a league or the other owners shouldn't collectively own one of the franchises in a sports cartel, but it blew over and everyone went on their merry way. It was swept under the carpet, the same one under which all the other carcasses of NBA scandals are buried.

                          It was all fine and dandy in the fantasy world of the NBA until Stern on Thursday decided to undercut and permanently impugn the power of the general manager who's supposed to be in charge of basketball decisions for the team that the league shouldn't own, but does. Until Stern passive-aggressively took out his frustration, and that of his owners, over a collective bargaining agreement that he couldn't negotiate punitively enough. Was it for "basketball reasons" that Stern did this, making a full-on mockery of the men who run his teams in a way that sullied the NBA's public image and credibility far more than any superstars flocking toward each other could?

                          "We are ruled by a dictator," said one of several angered and flummoxed team executives I spoke with Thursday night in the aftermath of this bush-league decision, one that threatens to blow the lid off the power struggle that has brewing between owners and players for months in the bargaining room -- and, in truth, for decades otherwise.

                          "What if this had been done before the players voted on the deal?" a management source said. "They wouldn't have voted for it."

                          And while Paul was said to be discussing his legal options with Billy Hunter, the executive director of the National Basketball Players Association, the frustration across the league is such that a grievance or protest letter will hardly suffice. And if the players and their union were capable of organizing a press conference -- much less getting, oh, half the union membership to vote on the new CBA -- then the only rational and meaningful course of action here would be for 450 players to refuse to show up for work Friday when training camps are scheduled to open.

                          I know of at least one player who won't be at training camp Friday; that would be Paul, who almost assuredly will be a no-show, according to a person in contact with the Hornets' hierarchy. This is only a minor symptom of the pandemic Stern unleashed on the NBA Thursday. He turned Paul, one of the bright, smiling stars of the league who had never once publicly griped or demanded to be traded, into a villain.

                          "I believe in free agency," Stern said, incredibly, at the news conference announcing that owners had ratified this CBA they're now railing against by a vote of 25-5. "We have a deal where a player who has completed his time at a team under a contract has a right to go someplace else. And then there are potential judgments to be made by teams about whether there's a time when they want to consider getting something more for that player in the event he will leave. ... So nothing has changed about that. That dynamic is the same."

                          Unless you're the team that's owned by the rest of the teams, and they're out to get the pound of flesh they couldn't get at the bargaining table -- even though they did get a cool $3 billion over 10 years, no matter where Chris Paul or anybody else plays.

                          Make no mistake, this is pure ugliness -- warped, second-rate foolishness you'd expect to find in some half-baked, fringe semi-pro league office in Topeka or Toledo. This is the NBA becoming the Bad News Bears right before our horrified eyes.

                          Small- and mid-market teams being angry with the big-market star-poaching that was happening on the very day when the new CBA was approved is only half the story. Half the story is what Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert told in a letter he wrote to Stern Thursday requesting that the Paul trade be disallowed.

                          "I just don't see how we can allow this trade to happen," Gilbert wrote in the letter, obtained by Yahoo Sports. "I know the vast majority of owners feel the same way I do."

                          Gilbert pointed out that the trade would net the Lakers the best player in the deal and save them $40 million in salary and luxury taxes over the next three seasons. But this is not what would've happened. It was widely known that Paul, after a six-month waiting period instituted in the new CBA, would sign a new five-year, $100 million contract with the Lakers after opting out of his contract on July 1. And the Lakers, who'd be bereft of big men after sending Pau Gasol to the Rockets and Lamar Odom to the Hornets, would need to spend more to replace that size or risk having Kobe Bryant keel over in frustration while Paul futilely dribbled in circles with nobody to receive his magical passes.

                          While there was no question the Lakers were getting a huge star, it was hardly a guarantee that the trade would make them appreciably better. In fact, several rival GMs calculated that the trade may have made the Lakers worse in the short term, and applauded Demps for getting a haul of quality players (Odom, Luis Scola, Kevin Martin) plus Goran Dragic and a first-round pick for a player everybody knew would one day leave on his own.

                          "Are they saying that Stu Jackson or David Stern or whoever the ___ it is knows more than the experienced GMs who made this deal?" one person involved in front-office dealings said.

                          Of the players Demps was going to get, three are capable starters, and one (Dragic) is a low-priced yet effective backup point guard. The draft pick in 2012, formerly belonging to the Knicks and only top-five protected, promises to be in the middle of the first round round of a deep and loaded draft. Only one player -- Scola, one of the most efficient post players in the league -- carries significant financial obligations beyond next season. Martin, who scores 20 points a night in his sleep, is 28 and has two years left totaling about $25 million -- or, the same total amount the Clippers lavished on Caron Butler Thursday without anyone stepping in to stop that.

                          It made sense, too, for the Rockets, who cleared $3.5 million and would've had room with the amnesty of one player to offer a max contract to a free agent like Nene -- or use the space in other creative ways. Gasol, among the league's most gifted big men, would fill the gaping hole in the middle left by Yao Ming's premature retirement.

                          Would the Lakers turn around and offer Andrew Bynum to Orlando in a trade for Dwight Howard, and is that what Stern and his petulant owners were afraid of? Well, with no other assets to offer, if the Lakers had traded Bynum straight-up for Howard between now and Christmas, that would've been a trade no one would argue with if it were called off for "basketball reasons." The Lakers weren't trading for Howard any more than Paul was staying in New Orleans beyond this season.

                          But more than that, the NBA has the fresh stench of a scandal wafting over it as it re-opens for business Friday -- re-opens for business as usual. The lockout ended, but the circus tent and all the pent-up anger and aggression inside of it hasn't gone away.

                          Immediately on the heels of a lockout that obviously accomplished nothing, the NBA managed to step into an even bigger pile of its own waste before the first whistle had even been blown or basketball dribbled. This supposedly healed economic model resulted in a trade that was disallowed because the sad-sack, charity case team supposedly couldn't be trusted to make its own decisions. And after this, how will that team possibly be able to make it any more? After making a credible, beneficial trade under the circumstances, how is Demps going to find a way to save his franchise with a better one?

                          But something bigger than that happened Thursday. The NBA became the place where conspiracy theories and frozen envelopes and suspicious whistles are no longer the stuff of overactive imaginations or the objects of cold stares from company men. It all came home to roost with this decision from Stern Thursday night, a fine way to take something that was already going to be a struggle -- a lockout-shortened season filled with bad blood and worse basketball -- and turn it into something far worse.

                          The punchline of a sorry excuse for a joke, under a circus tent growing more inflated by the minute.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

                            2 things, IMO, need to happen:

                            1. This trade, in same way, shape, or form, needs to be allowed to go through. TODAY.

                            2. David Stern MUST resign as commissioner. Like IMMEDIATELY!!!

                            To me, the NBA took all the excitement I had about the season starting and the lockout ending and just p*ssed on it. IMO, this is about as bad as a missed season.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

                              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                              I was mostly agreeing until Simmons went off the rails with his claim that the reason we hate LeBron is because he didn't go to the Knicks and that the reason we're upset is that CP3 was going to go to the Lakers - i.e. that we all secretly love the big city teams and are just in denial.
                              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: Commisioners office nixes Paul trade

                                Originally posted by shags View Post
                                2 things, IMO, need to happen:

                                1. This trade, in same way, shape, or form, needs to be allowed to go through. TODAY.

                                2. David Stern MUST resign as commissioner. Like IMMEDIATELY!!!

                                To me, the NBA took all the excitement I had about the season starting and the lockout ending and just p*ssed on it. IMO, this is about as bad as a missed season.
                                Neither of those things need to happen.
                                "Danny Granger is one of the top players in the league. To move Danny, you better get a lot back." - Larry Bird

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X