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

A different kind of look into the future.

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

  • A different kind of look into the future.

    Any thoughts on the upcoming free agents? Are any of them really worth keeping?

    Keith McLeod
    A journey man who got some p-time with the Jazz a couple of years ago. Career .348 fg %, no 3 point shot. Really not that impressive. He's a thrid stringer on a good team and maybe a backup on a bad team. Let 'em go.

    Darrell Armstrong
    Although he's a fan fav, he's way too old. If I remember the details, we all thought he was just salary fodder and would be cut. He leaves it all on the court. Too old....Let 'em go.

    Maceo Baston
    The initial thought was he came in to help Runi acclimate. Runi is gone and Maceo's 8 minutes a game aren't all that productive. His spot could be better used on a young pup who may develop into something Maceo will never be. Let 'em go.

    Rawle Marshall
    Despite the need for a guy on the court with his exact skill set (long arms, defensive pressure, ability to get to the hoop), he hasn't seen all that much action. With Daniels down, I thought he'd see some significant time. The coaching staff obviously doesn't feel he's ready and neither did Dallas. Since the team is so depleted at the "2" but overflowing at the "3" and the injury history of Daniels I'd say keep him for the right price.

    Other Thoughts

    Granger VS Williams
    Eventually it's going to come down to one or the other. I'm not sure next season will matter much. I imagine Williams will become a player that needs to start and the Pacers will face a situation similar to Al's first go around. At this point there is little cause for concern, but it something that should at least be on their minds.

    Dunleavy and Murphy
    One of these guys has to go. They are paid too much money and would be better suited for the bench rotation. A team can't survive with 2 of it's 3 highest paid players coming off the bench.

    Diogu
    Not impressed. Too small for the "4" too slow and bulky for the "3". No matter how much skill he has, he will never be tall enough to start at the "4" in the NBA. I call BS on his listed height of 6-8.

    Daniels
    He gave exactly what I expected. Mostly nothing then a couple of great games (by his standards) and then missed the rest of the season. Dallas bamboozled the Pacers on this one. Crosh gave them nothing then a couple of great games and he comes off the books at seasons end.

    Foster
    A hustler. He's got two more season ( if uses his player option) with the Pacers. He should still be able to perform in that time span. I'd wait until his contract expires to decide how much gas is left.

    Harrison
    Bust. The only way to move this guy is to take someone else's "Harrison". He's only under contract for next year. Ride it out.

    Greene
    If not for injuries and mid-season trades. He'd have never seen the court this year. Can play "d" can't play point guard. Under contract one more season. Ride it out.

    Tinsley
    Nobody like this guy. I ,on the other hand, do like him. His game has more holes than a slice of swiss cheese, but with the right motivation he's a pretty good player. Again nobody likes him and his got "NOT A WINNER" written all over him. He stays because there is no other option.

    JO
    Damn that injury bug.

    Rick
    He goes because there is no other option.

    I try to find time for a follow up post with what should happen and who should be on the Pacer squad next season.
    I'm in these bands
    The Humans
    Dr. Goldfoot
    The Bar Brawlers
    ME

  • #2
    Re: A different kind of look into the future.

    How could it ever come down to choosing between Williams and Granger, when Granger has shown the ability to play 2 positions. Hell in our system the SG and SF are the same thing.

    And Armstrong is really the only guy I would resign, for a short deal that is.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: A different kind of look into the future.

      Originally posted by Dr. Goldfoot View Post
      Any thoughts on the upcoming free agents? Are any of them really worth keeping?

      Keith McLeod
      A journey man who got some p-time with the Jazz a couple of years ago. Career .348 fg %, no 3 point shot. Really not that impressive. He's a thrid stringer on a good team and maybe a backup on a bad team. Let 'em go.

      Darrell Armstrong
      Although he's a fan fav, he's way too old. If I remember the details, we all thought he was just salary fodder and would be cut. He leaves it all on the court. Too old....Let 'em go.

      Maceo Baston
      The initial thought was he came in to help Runi acclimate. Runi is gone and Maceo's 8 minutes a game aren't all that productive. His spot could be better used on a young pup who may develop into something Maceo will never be. Let 'em go.

      Rawle Marshall
      Despite the need for a guy on the court with his exact skill set (long arms, defensive pressure, ability to get to the hoop), he hasn't seen all that much action. With Daniels down, I thought he'd see some significant time. The coaching staff obviously doesn't feel he's ready and neither did Dallas. Since the team is so depleted at the "2" but overflowing at the "3" and the injury history of Daniels I'd say keep him for the right price.

      Other Thoughts

      Granger VS Williams
      Eventually it's going to come down to one or the other. I'm not sure next season will matter much. I imagine Williams will become a player that needs to start and the Pacers will face a situation similar to Al's first go around. At this point there is little cause for concern, but it something that should at least be on their minds.

      Dunleavy and Murphy
      One of these guys has to go. They are paid too much money and would be better suited for the bench rotation. A team can't survive with 2 of it's 3 highest paid players coming off the bench.

      Diogu
      Not impressed. Too small for the "4" too slow and bulky for the "3". No matter how much skill he has, he will never be tall enough to start at the "4" in the NBA. I call BS on his listed height of 6-8.

      Daniels
      He gave exactly what I expected. Mostly nothing then a couple of great games (by his standards) and then missed the rest of the season. Dallas bamboozled the Pacers on this one. Crosh gave them nothing then a couple of great games and he comes off the books at seasons end.

      Foster
      A hustler. He's got two more season ( if uses his player option) with the Pacers. He should still be able to perform in that time span. I'd wait until his contract expires to decide how much gas is left.

      Harrison
      Bust. The only way to move this guy is to take someone else's "Harrison". He's only under contract for next year. Ride it out.

      Greene
      If not for injuries and mid-season trades. He'd have never seen the court this year. Can play "d" can't play point guard. Under contract one more season. Ride it out.

      Tinsley
      Nobody like this guy. I ,on the other hand, do like him. His game has more holes than a slice of swiss cheese, but with the right motivation he's a pretty good player. Again nobody likes him and his got "NOT A WINNER" written all over him. He stays because there is no other option.

      JO
      Damn that injury bug.

      Rick
      He goes because there is no other option.

      I try to find time for a follow up post with what should happen and who should be on the Pacer squad next season.
      Your +'s = Tinsley and Foster... maybe JO

      I'm going go with that "if you don't have something nice to say, don't say it all" b/c I tend to pretty much disagree with you

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: A different kind of look into the future.

        I was wondering the same thing watching the fourth quarter last night at NJ.

        Here're my 2 cents:
        McCloud: Has not distinguished himself. Cut.

        Rawle: Disagree with you here. Not remotely ready for prime time. Cut.

        Maceo: Disagree with you here, too. I like his game and he has the right attitude coming off the bench. At least 3rd string big man. Keeper.

        Big Dave: I still want to see him succeed. He may be a bust, but I'd give him one more year with more minutes. Keeper.

        DA: Great 3rd PG (which is what he should have been this god awful season). Keeper.

        Danny: He's my guy, so of course I want him here. Remember, he looked a whole lot better last year. This year has been a ****ty one for everybody but JO. Keeper.

        Shawne: Loved what I saw last night.Give the guy some minutes, Rick. Seriously. Keeper.

        Murphy: I like his game. He needs to be more aggressive. He's "well-compensated", to say the least. But he's a big who can shoot and drive occasionally. Keeper.

        Dunleavey, Jr.: Also "well-compensated" for what he does. He needs to develop a reliable 3 pt shot. Keeper or trade bait.

        Diogu: I like him a lot. He needs minutes. Playing with this team this year in this system, nobody looks great (except for JO, ). Hey, Rick-Play him. Keeper.

        Daniels: His injury is the single biggest reason for 2-15. But he has no range. Back-up 2. Keeper.

        Foster: It's nice to have some constancy from one season to the next. Great back-up/hustle player. Keeper.

        Greene: Lot of potential, but hasn't distinguished himself even though he's had the opportunity (Darrell Armstrong keeps you on the bench?). Play him these last 12 games. Keep him if he can give 6 pts, 4 assts. Otherwise, cut.

        Tinsley: My wife's guy, so I have tried to have some loyalty. But it's time to cut the cord. It's not that he's a bad player, but he still doesn't have an outside jumper? Six years into his NBA career? Eric Snow who passes instead of defends. Trade. Please.

        JO: Great year. Fantastic post player. Elevated his defense to elite level. But our most overpaid player. Only way to make real changes is to trade him. So, trade him.

        Rick: Fire. Reassign. Whatever. Just please, no more.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: A different kind of look into the future.

          Keith McLeod - agreed
          Darrell Armstrong - he should stay if he wants...one more year.
          Maceo Baston - he has been good enough to keep off the bench
          Rawle Marshall - gotta keep this young guy. he has some upside
          Granger VS Williams - I love DG, but would part with him if Williams learned how to play good D. DG has trade value that we could use to fill glaring weaknesses. ...but DG is also a good team guy. I think it all depends on how they develop over the next year. Tough decision.

          Dunleavy and Murphy
          Murphy needs to go. Dunleavy needs to be the backup 3.

          Diogu
          Diogu is a nice backup 4. I would keep him or trade him if he brought back value.

          Daniels - you are underestimating Daniels....but you are right about Cro's contract. I would back out of that trade if I could based on Quis' injuries.

          Foster - need to keep him.
          Harrison - need to trade him for someone with a brain.
          Greene - keep him as a backup PG
          Tinsley - you're right. He makes me want to be a Bulls fan. Let's just say he is not adding to attendance at Conseco.
          JO - he needs to be dealt, but for value or something close. I'm tired of all of his talk.
          Rick - he needs to go too, but will be back IMO.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: A different kind of look into the future.

            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
            Keith McLeod - agreed
            Darrell Armstrong - he should stay if he wants...one more year.
            Maceo Baston - he has been good enough to keep off the bench
            Rawle Marshall - gotta keep this young guy. he has some upside
            Granger VS Williams - I love DG, but would part with him if Williams learned how to play good D. DG has trade value that we could use to fill glaring weaknesses. ...but DG is also a good team guy. I think it all depends on how they develop over the next year. Tough decision.

            Dunleavy and Murphy
            Murphy needs to go. Dunleavy needs to be the backup 3.

            Diogu
            Diogu is a nice backup 4. I would keep him or trade him if he brought back value.

            Daniels - you are underestimating Daniels....but you are right about Cro's contract. I would back out of that trade if I could based on Quis' injuries.

            Foster - need to keep him.
            Harrison - need to trade him for someone with a brain.
            Greene - keep him as a backup PG
            Tinsley - you're right. He makes me want to be a Bulls fan. Let's just say he is not adding to attendance at Conseco.
            JO - he needs to be dealt, but for value or something close. I'm tired of all of his talk.
            Rick - he needs to go too, but will be back IMO.
            I agree mostly with you. It's hard for me to say part with JO, I know he's the only way we rebuild, but its still hard. I think the DG/Shawne situation will be interesting as well, maybe they'll be able to play side by side at the 2/3... we'll see how they develop. I'm loss on Diogu. He's young and may have upside, but I'm skeptical and think if he has value, we should move him.

            Everything else sounds about right

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: A different kind of look into the future.

              I think your Williams v. Granger point is valid from the standpoint that one or the other may be necessary to bring in new pieces we can work with as opposed to the schlock most of our roster would command. Otherwise, I think they could coexist on the team though.

              Call me what you will, but I think Greene and Baston both could develop into solid back-ups given PT. Or at least they deserve a chance to prove whether they can or not the remainder of this year seeing how things are going so swell anyway.

              Tins's tradeability or lack thereof is also a good point. Even though I don't particularly like the concept. If he must come back our only hope is that a new coach and staff would reinvigorate him from an attitude standpoint. I'm not sure this is really possible however.

              Speaking of coaches, get rid of the entire staff including RC. How about new management while we're at it?

              I like Daniels's game but I, too, fear his big D injury motif has followed him to Indy.
              I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

              -Emiliano Zapata

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: A different kind of look into the future.

                Oh and by the way, I would simply say as far as keepers versus trade bait that any and all guys should be shopped and available for the right deal.
                I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                -Emiliano Zapata

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: A different kind of look into the future.

                  My opinions:

                  McLeod: can't dribble, doesn't get assists, not a good shooter by statistics. Keep him around one more season (no, I'm not kidding). He's an okay 3rd PG.

                  Armstrong: The idea was he'd be a 3rd stringer this season and an assistant coach next season. Hopefully he gets the assistant job. If he wants to play again, it should be for another team IMO. He can't dribble, makes Tinsley look like a floor general as far as passing, can't shoot and probably won't be able to hold up for this many minutes ever again. Cut or promote.

                  Baston: Keep him. But, here's an idea, play him.

                  Harrison: This should be a judgement call by whoever is the head coach next year. I never liked DH, but if a coach is convinced they can work a miracle with him, he's worth one more year as an experiment.

                  Greene: Can't dribble, can't shoot, doesn't get assists. See Darrell Armstrong. Cut.

                  Tinsley: The one thing I can say about Tinsley is that he seems to guage the efforts of his teammates from the start of the game. If he feels they are helping him, he plays well. If he doesn't, he does that stupid #@^% that we all hate. Shop him, but don't give him away until we see what he can do with a real SG on the team.

                  Daniels: Definately keep him. But don't necessarily count on him. SG is a position of need even if we assume that he can stay healthy, IMO.

                  O'Neal: I wanted him traded to kick start a rebuilding process, but now I want him to stay with the team. Still, shop him, but don't deal him unless you get an overwhelming offer.

                  Granger: Did he regress? I can't tell. This season is so messed up that it's not fair to guage player development, honestly. Definately keep DG.

                  Williams: My favorite Pacer at the moment. Give him minutes, he got game, blah blah blah. Keep.

                  Foster: Another guy I wanted to see traded, but have since changed my mind on. Watching Murphy play made me appreciate Jeff Foster. Can't believe I said that. Keep.

                  Dunleavy: Untradeable, so what can ya do. Just please, don't start over someone more promising simply because he gets paid more.

                  Murphy: Nice guy, but trade him ASAP. Think San Antonio would give us Flight + Finley for him?

                  Diogu: Keep, obviously. I have no idea what he'll eventually become in this league, but I do know one thing: he will produce.

                  Marshall: Put him on the bubble. Keep him unless there's another Rawle Marshall next year who might be worthy of a spot. But please, teach him some confidence (can you even teach that?).

                  Rick Carlisle: He'll probably be gone, but it will be a sad, sad day for the franchise, IMO. A brilliant coach with one of the more continually flawed teams in recent memory. I'd keep him, but he'll be the scapegoat.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: A different kind of look into the future.

                    McLeod - Cut him.

                    Greene - Keep him around for one more year.

                    Armstrong - Keep but don't play unless absolutely necessary.

                    Tinsley - Get rid of him. Cut him. Buy him out. Whatever it takes. He has talent, but his bad attitude and decision making are contagious.

                    Marshall - We should have kept James White.

                    Daniels - He'll play more next year. Keep him around but bring in another solid SG.

                    Dunleavy - Should be a 6th man. Would be great in about 25 mpg off the bench

                    Williams - Has more of an upside than Granger, but needs to learn a lot.

                    Granger - Solid, but will probably never be great. If he needs to go to bring in a good guard, he should be gone. It would be nice to keep him.

                    Diogu - If we're not going to commit to giving him at least 20 mpg, get rid of him.

                    Murphy - Would be great off the bench. He's not going anywhere, so keep him.

                    O'Neal - If a good offer comes along, take it. Otherwise, give him a real backcourt and see what comes of it.

                    Foster - Like Granger, if he needs to be traded to get a guard or move Tinsley, do it.

                    Baston - Looks like a decent backup, keep him.

                    Harrison - He's got another year and 5 fouls a game. Why not?

                    Carlisle - Keep with significant roster changes, otherwise he should go.
                    "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                    - Salman Rushdie

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: A different kind of look into the future.

                      http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthread.php?t=30774

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: A different kind of look into the future.

                        Goldfoot, I agree with just about everything you said.

                        I hate to see Rick go because of the roster the last 3 years, has there ever been a coach forced to use more players in that span, including 3 CBA guys at the same time? Rick goes, Pacers hit the lottery big time, eventually Atlanta gets a #4 pick from the Pacers, but we'll be watching Acie Law get 9 and 5.5 assists.


                        Mace - I'd keep him because he has a lot of talent. He's perfect off the bench in the right situations. Maybe he's a 10th man, but he fits the role very well.


                        Greene - keep, keep, keep. He is a great defender. Keep pairing him with a ball handler. Right now I wish instead of Tins/DA they'd do Tins/Greene. At least Greene wouldn't put up 3-4 threes a night and he wouldn't gamble for steals constantly and find himself getting torched. He's almost enough to help with Tinsley's man too even while guarding his own guy.

                        He can't start because he has no offense, but like Mace you use him in certain situations, like to cool off a hot streak guard.


                        As I recall one of the Warrior fans said about the deal way back when, you can't have Murph and Dun on the court at the same time. That's painfully true right now. You can make one of them work, but not both. The Pacers needed to either keep Jack or Al and only take Dun or Murph back.


                        Shawne vs Danny. Shawne moves away from the ball, he reads space and adjusts, he watches his man while peeking at the court, he's got a very quick release on his 3, he likes to attack the rim on both ends. Danny has plenty of talent, but it sure seems like Shawne is gaining on him quickly. For all the blasts lobbed at TPTB, that pick was nice.

                        Hate to see either moved, reality might dicate that it has to happen just so they can clean up the contract mess they made with the GS deal.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: A different kind of look into the future.

                          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                          Goldfoot, I agree with just about everything you said.

                          I hate to see Rick go because of the roster the last 3 years, has there ever been a coach forced to use more players in that span, including 3 CBA guys at the same time? Rick goes, Pacers hit the lottery big time, eventually Atlanta gets a #4 pick from the Pacers, but we'll be watching Acie Law get 9 and 5.5 assists.


                          Mace - I'd keep him because he has a lot of talent. He's perfect off the bench in the right situations. Maybe he's a 10th man, but he fits the role very well.


                          Greene - keep, keep, keep. He is a great defender. Keep pairing him with a ball handler. Right now I wish instead of Tins/DA they'd do Tins/Greene. At least Greene wouldn't put up 3-4 threes a night and he wouldn't gamble for steals constantly and find himself getting torched. He's almost enough to help with Tinsley's man too even while guarding his own guy.

                          He can't start because he has no offense, but like Mace you use him in certain situations, like to cool off a hot streak guard.


                          As I recall one of the Warrior fans said about the deal way back when, you can't have Murph and Dun on the court at the same time. That's painfully true right now. You can make one of them work, but not both. The Pacers needed to either keep Jack or Al and only take Dun or Murph back.


                          Shawne vs Danny. Shawne moves away from the ball, he reads space and adjusts, he watches his man while peeking at the court, he's got a very quick release on his 3, he likes to attack the rim on both ends. Danny has plenty of talent, but it sure seems like Shawne is gaining on him quickly. For all the blasts lobbed at TPTB, that pick was nice.

                          Hate to see either moved, reality might dicate that it has to happen just so they can clean up the contract mess they made with the GS deal.
                          I was thinking that as well recently, and it would have been Jax for Dun Dun, if I had to decide. Granted AL was a must in the GSW deal b/c they wanted him so bad in the off-season. I would have been fine keeping Al, Runi and Powell. I didn't mind Jack, but I think it was given he was headed elsewhere. Yeah we might have missed out of IKE, but I've never been to be on him, nor am I now. Of course he'll prove me wrong somewhere down the road.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: A different kind of look into the future.

                            Originally posted by pwee31 View Post
                            I was thinking that as well recently, and it would have been Jax for Dun Dun, if I had to decide. Granted AL was a must in the GSW deal b/c they wanted him so bad in the off-season. I would have been fine keeping Al, Runi and Powell. I didn't mind Jack, but I think it was given he was headed elsewhere. Yeah we might have missed out of IKE, but I've never been to be on him, nor am I now. Of course he'll prove me wrong somewhere down the road.
                            Murph and Dun is a losing combination for sure...especially as starters. Dun is not a bad player, however. I think he could help the team if we had a different mix of players. Jax for Dun Dun would have been a better deal for us.

                            As for Ike, I think the jury should be out on him. He is still a very young player with very little playing experience. He has not had a chance to be in training camp with the Pacers...nor have the other players. I think Dun and Ike will be better next year. Dun is already improving IMO.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: A different kind of look into the future.

                              This was originally supposed to be only about the free agents. I got diarrhea of opinion. The stance that Maceo may develop into something...I don't understand it. He'll be 31 next month. He's the second oldest player on the roster next to Armstrong. I'm afraid what you see is what you get with him. On the Granger VS Williams debate, they're both versatile enough to play the 2,3 and 4. The problem is they aren't everyday 2's or 4's. This is a down the road problem and a good one to have. Think back to AD, eventually players become better than the situation they've been thrust into. I think it's possible after next season this will be a problem. They're both 3's and they'll both want to start. It becomes even more problematic if Dunleavy is still here.

                              Another point I'd like to make. Some of you guys are like "They're all really good even McLeod and Harrison", then why is this team so bad? The way I see it the Pacers are starting at least three guys who should be coming off the bench. They're starting because that's all they've got. Dunleavy, Granger(he will get there eventually), Murphy( I realize Foster has started the last few games) and some would even argue Tinsley aren't starting material. Daniels, Foster, Diogu and Armstrong are also bench players. None of those guys would start on one of the top 10 teams in the league.

                              I'm not sure the Pacers are in any real position to make trades or not resign the free agents and go after bigger and better names in the summer. Even with Bender, White, Edwards, McLeod, Armstrong, Baston and Marshall off the books next year they're looking at a $63 million dollar payroll. They'll have exceptions I assume but what's the salary cap look like.

                              I'm assuming they'll enter next season with Tinsley as the point. I don't see how they can't at least upgrade the backup position. Greene will still be under contract. Armstrong will probably retire and I doubt McLeod will return. Without a pick, they should try to lure another vet, a proven vet who's career is on the downslide. With a pick they should draft one and let him backup Tinsley. Especially if Rick is still the coach.

                              The Pacers haven't had a real shooting guard on this team (other than Reggie) in awhile. They've been trying point guards and small forwards there since Reggie's retirement and as backups during the end of his career. They need to go get one. They cannot enter next season with Dunleavy and Daniels as the shooting guards. Dunleavy is a 3 who can play the 2 and Daniels hasn't been able to stay healthy long enough to be counted on. Marshall is a luxury this team can no longer afford, a guy that might be able to one day play significant minutes off the bench. They need someone who can play significant minutes right now and put up numbers like a shooting guard should...not 10-15 points but 15-20 points. If the Pacers have a pick, they'll likely go for a point guard and if they don't they'll likely sign one with the MLE. That leaves no option but trading for a shooting guard. With most players being a bear to trade, it will likely be a player that will be missed( Granger,Williams,Daniels maybe even two of those three or some pairing with an "untradeable"). Either way it's a cut off your nose to spite your face situation.

                              The Pacers are , as usual, fine at the three. Next season Granger will be more assertive like a third year player is expected to be. Williams will have one season under his belt. Daniels and Dunleavy(if he's still here) will be able to play some minutes there as well. This position becomes murky if one or more of these guys gets traded.

                              The 4/5 positions will be dominated by Jermaine O'Neal. He may be listed as the power forward but he spends alot of time as the center. Diogu ( too short) Foster (no offense), Murphy (no D or edge), Baston (will be gone) & Harrison (no comment)are all fine role/bench players but none of them should be starting and one of them has to.

                              I think the Pacers need too much. They need to shore up the point guard position, shooting guard position and they need more out of whoever is paired with JO down low. It can't possibly be addressed in one off season. Especially an off season that may produce no draft pick. A team full of bench/role players will not net anything of significance in a trade. It's been really kind of depressing to proof read this post.
                              I'm in these bands
                              The Humans
                              Dr. Goldfoot
                              The Bar Brawlers
                              ME

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X