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

top 5 pick. Certain Star/Risky Bust

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

  • top 5 pick. Certain Star/Risky Bust

    I was going to make this a poll, but I am not crafty enough to do that. If some one wants to do it then fine erase this thread.

    Is landing a top 5 pick of an average draft (or the next two) getting you a certain star or a risky bust? I wanted to look a previous top 5 selections and classify them. I encourage everyone to evaluate them as well.

    I am going to classify them as: All-Star Starter Bench Bust

    A bust is not a waste of a pick but an injured or a career DNP person.

    I will skip the 06 class because they simply do not have enough time in the NBA to classify them

    05 draft
    Bogut- Starter
    Marvin Williams- Starter (could be a career bench)
    Deron Williams- All-Star
    Chris Paul- All-Star
    Ray Felton- Starter (may be an All-Star but not by play thus far)

    40% chance of an All-Star

    04 draft
    Dwight Howard- All-Star
    Emeka Okafor- All-Star (not guaranteed w/ 07 draft class,but good for his team)
    Ben Gordon- Starter (what is his future? Could be an All-Star or career bench. I took middle ground)
    Shaun Livingston- Bust (assuming he is done)
    Devin Harris- Starter

    10% bust in the last 2 analzed classed

    03 draft
    LeBron James-All-Star (no hall of fame classification sorry)
    Darko Milicic- Bench (still plays but not consistent enough to start on a contending team)
    Anthony- All-Star
    Bosh- All-Star
    Wade- All-Star

    53 % All-Star thus far

    02 draft
    Yao Ming- All-Star
    Jay Williams- Bust
    Mike Dunleavy- Bench (on a contending team he is a great bench player, certainly not a bust though)
    Drew Gooden- Starter(could see him as a bench on a West team contender)
    Nikoloz Tskitishvili- Bust

    15 % bust rate thus far (is that how they rate bras )

    01 draft
    Kwame Brown-Bench (for a number 1 he is a bust IMO, but he still plays)
    Tyson Chandler-Starter (before this year I would have put Bench. Does playing where he plays affect that?)
    Pau Gasol-All-Star
    Eddy Curry- Starter (but may never get starter minutes)
    Jason Richardson- Starter (may be an All-Star)

    76% of at least getting a starter

    00 draft

    Kenyon Martin-Bust (he is injured too often to be a bench)
    Stromile Swift- Bench
    Darius Miles- Bench
    Marcus Fizer- Bust
    Mike Miller- Starter (on any other team he would not have put up the numbers he did this year)

    So out of 30 players

    10 are All-Stars
    11 are just Starters
    5 are Bench players
    5 are Busts

    Tinker with it if you will. Some could be considered just Starters rather than All-Stars. One thing I noticed, aside from last year the draft classes seem to be getting better. That does not mean that trend will continue. Last year might be an indication of what is to come. Draft classes are no sure thing and putting your franchise soley in that avenue is retarded, just ask the Clippers and Hawks. Even if you find a Jordon, you still need Horace Grant and Pippen. It is a mix. But out of all the pro sports, none relies more on the 1st round of its draft than the NBA.

  • #2
    Re: top 5 pick. Certain Star/Risky Bust

    Damn that 00 draft sucks

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: top 5 pick. Certain Star/Risky Bust

      I think it's a little negatively skewed because...

      (A) You're counting all the young unproven guys as worst-case scenarios

      (B) The 5 year sample period happens to include the worst draft in pro sports history, the 2000 NBA Draft.

      I did a similar study from 1984-2004, and came away convinced that top-5 picks had a 50% chance of being All-Stars, and the closer to #1 you got, the higher those odds became.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: top 5 pick. Certain Star/Risky Bust

        Originally posted by Y2J View Post
        I think it's a little negatively skewed because...

        (A) You're counting all the young unproven guys as worst-case scenarios

        (B) The 5 year sample period happens to include the worst draft in pro sports history, the 2000 NBA Draft.

        I did a similar study from 1984-2004, and came away convinced that top-5 picks had a 50% chance of being All-Stars, and the closer to #1 you got, the higher those odds became.

        20 years or not you still have the same odds. Add it up. And just because the 2000 draft sucks does not mean you should omit it.

        Till me where I am a little off. Lets talk about it. I feel the closer you are to a number one the greater chance you come away with an All-Star, but you still could get a bust.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: top 5 pick. Certain Star/Risky Bust

          the 99 draft was as good as the 00 draft was bad.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: top 5 pick. Certain Star/Risky Bust

            I really wouldn't consider Kenyon Martin an Shaun Livingston busts. They both showed quite a bit before their major injuries.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: top 5 pick. Certain Star/Risky Bust

              But what will they do now.

              Edit: I know that Kenyon helped the Nets get to the finals so a bust tag on him is a little unfair. But Shaun, if he is done, is a bust. Its all a matter of opinon anyway

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: top 5 pick. Certain Star/Risky Bust

                Originally posted by Jermaniac View Post
                Damn that 00 draft sucks
                And the thing is, people knew at the time it was too.

                When people complain about the draft being a crapshoot, I don't think they realize just how good this draft class is. People always focus on just Oden and Durant, but one must remember that this is really the best of 2 drafts, from top to bottom, thanks to the HS rule.

                People look at that list and say, "See, Kwame Brown, he sucks." But at the time, it's not like people were running around saying "Oh, he's gonna be great, he's a sure thing!" There was a lot of question there. Jordan was supposedly going back and forth between the 3 HS'ers quite a bit, and even then there were many critics that said none of them were guarantees, and Washington was in a no-win scenario.

                That's not the case here. There are many, many players here that almost everyone believes will "stick". Sure, there are still flyers like that China kid, and there are legitimate concerns, such as Noah's toughness or Hibbert's polish. But I look at a guy like Aaron Gray. He's exactly the kind of big white stiff that invariably gets picked 8-12, usually by perennial lottery teams like GS, hoping the gamble will pay off. In this draft, he's slotted in the mid 20's, and could just as easily fall out of the 1st all together.

                For people who don't follow the college game, there is serious, serious quality out there, which makes us not protecting that pick all the more tragic.
                Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: top 5 pick. Certain Star/Risky Bust

                  I agree with what Kegboy just said.

                  And the Bulls roster proves what smart drafting in the lottery can do.

                  Hinrich, Gordon, and Deng are all lottery picks. Duhon was a early second round pick (who I wanted instead of DH), Tyrus Thomas and Thabo Sefolosha all look to be good for the future.

                  Many question why John Paxson didn't pull the trigger on Pau Gasol at the trade deadline, maybe because this is a team that is going to be great for a long time, and Gasol is just a short term fix, he isn't worth Deng, Gasol isn't a rebounder or defender. Paxson isn't setting this team up for one or two championship runs, he is setting them up for multiple championships over the next decade. Maybe even the next dynasty, you never know.

                  And really, if you take a look at his draft style he seems to take good college talent with few questions marks. Hinrich was taken over guys like T.J. Ford and Mickael Pietrus, Gordon and Deng were choosen over Livingston, Harris, and Iggy. I would honestly say that Paxson's biggest risk he has taken in the draft has been Tyrus Thomas.

                  There are so many good safe talents to take. Wright, Horford, Green, Brewer, Wright, Conley, and Thronton. Out of all the likely lottery picks about the only risks will be Yi and Hibbert, maybe Noah depending where he is picked. This would be a shame for the Pacers to miss out on a player from this draft.

                  This new age limit is going to help teams out a lot. Even that one year is going to give teams a big insight as to what type of a player a guy can be on the NBA level. Sure there will still be busts, but not as many.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: top 5 pick. Certain Star/Risky Bust

                    Originally posted by rommie View Post
                    I agree with what Kegboy just said.

                    And the Bulls roster proves what smart drafting in the lottery can do.

                    Hinrich, Gordon, and Deng are all lottery picks. Duhon was a early second round pick (who I wanted instead of DH), Tyrus Thomas and Thabo Sefolosha all look to be good for the future.

                    Many question why John Paxson didn't pull the trigger on Pau Gasol at the trade deadline, maybe because this is a team that is going to be great for a long time, and Gasol is just a short term fix, he isn't worth Deng, Gasol isn't a rebounder or defender. Paxson isn't setting this team up for one or two championship runs, he is setting them up for multiple championships over the next decade. Maybe even the next dynasty, you never know.

                    And really, if you take a look at his draft style he seems to take good college talent with few questions marks. Hinrich was taken over guys like T.J. Ford and Mickael Pietrus, Gordon and Deng were choosen over Livingston, Harris, and Iggy. I would honestly say that Paxson's biggest risk he has taken in the draft has been Tyrus Thomas.

                    There are so many good safe talents to take. Wright, Horford, Green, Brewer, Wright, Conley, and Thronton. Out of all the likely lottery picks about the only risks will be Yi and Hibbert, maybe Noah depending where he is picked. This would be a shame for the Pacers to miss out on a player from this draft.

                    This new age limit is going to help teams out a lot. Even that one year is going to give teams a big insight as to what type of a player a guy can be on the NBA level. Sure there will still be busts, but not as many.
                    A good example is Josh McRoberts. Coming out of high school he would have been a top 5 pick, last year he still would have been late lottery, but after two years he's dropped to the late 1st round. He's still young and has potential, but making students go to college for at least a year proves to help out with evaluations.

                    Look at Dominic James, he was a lottery to mid 1st round pick in projections last year, now he's in the 2nd round.

                    Of course you have guys who are projected to go early out of high school, that excel in college and are still projected high!

                    You even have the opposite end of the spectrum like Conley Jr. A lot of folks thought he was a McD's all american and goin to OSU b/c of Oden, but he proved that he was a talent himself, though he still played with Oden, he got a chance to show what he can do when Oden was hurt, or in foul trouble... he's now a lottery pick!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: top 5 pick. Certain Star/Risky Bust

                      Originally posted by intridcold View Post
                      Tinker with it if you will. Some could be considered just Starters rather than All-Stars. One thing I noticed, aside from last year the draft classes seem to be getting better. That does not mean that trend will continue. Last year might be an indication of what is to come. Draft classes are no sure thing and putting your franchise soley in that avenue is retarded, just ask the Clippers and Hawks. Even if you find a Jordon, you still need Horace Grant and Pippen. It is a mix. But out of all the pro sports, none relies more on the 1st round of its draft than the NBA.
                      I think part of the reason you see it that way is that the newer classes are still fresh. Frankly KMart looked stronger at the same point in his career as where Okafur is at right now, and look how that's gone. KMart was quicker than JO when JO was still super quick.


                      By the way, I've posted it before but 82games (IIRC) did a similar but more extensive study of the draft by potential busts, and there have been several along the lines of what you did. One of the studies I saw used the Hollinger EFF rating to rank the players, but basically the approaches have been the same.

                      Ultimately the results are that you'd better be top 5 if you want to feel pretty good about your pick, and even then it's a little risky considering the value of the pick. 6-10, big risk, 11+ and you might never see the guy start for your team.


                      The 2003 class really skews things, James, Melo, Wade is like Bird and Magic in the same year, it just doesn't happen like that most of the time.



                      Bulls - was Deng picked and then traded for or did they get the pick first? I thought they traded for Deng after he was taken.


                      Originally posted by Kegboy
                      People always focus on just Oden and Durant, but one must remember that this is really the best of 2 drafts, from top to bottom, thanks to the HS rule.
                      No Kegboy, it's not. Who is in this draft that normally wouldn't be? Now who IS NOT in the draft that would be if it was a double year...I'll tell you who, Eric Gordan, Mayo, etc.

                      This year does NOT feature the best of 2 years. If the FRSH came out last year as HS guys, this year would have new HS guys taking their place (again, Gordan, Mayo, etc).

                      There will NEVER be a "double dip" draft unless they REVERSE the rule and let last year's HS guys get matched up with this year's HS guys. What you had instead of a double was a year that was THIN because it lacked HS guys from that year AND lacked the FRSH that left out of HS the year before. That of course was the first year of the eligibility rule.

                      There are no extra guys in this draft by special means. It's deeper because you just happen to have 2 star bigs, a FLA roster that all agreed to stay and repeat as champs, and a guy like Conley coming out perhaps a year too soon. It's just a regular class of players, not a double dip, that happens to be really, really good.


                      Not only that but NO ONE sees some busts coming. Right now there is a guy in this draft that can't miss but will. There always is. That's why pre-draft it usually looks great and why 5 years later it often doesn't.


                      No one thought "Bowie? You just passed up the greatest player ever," not even the people that thought it was the wrong choice. Star SG sure, but Magic/Bird, no more than Chris Jackson was going to be (and didn't become).

                      In fact, speaking of Chris Jackson you have this from "The Sports Network" (might just be an AP reprint)
                      Durant completed an incredible season in which he led the Big 12 in scoring and rebounding, and was named the Conference Player of the Year. He's also the second-highest scoring freshman in NCAA history, behind only Chris Jackson of LSU in 1989.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: top 5 pick. Certain Star/Risky Bust

                        BTW, Yi (the China kid) is one of the guys I have more faith in. I'm only sold on about half the top 15 or so being sure things as at least solid starters.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: top 5 pick. Certain Star/Risky Bust

                          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post

                          The 2003 class really skews things, James, Melo, Wade is like Bird and Magic in the same year, it just doesn't happen like that most of the time.
                          I understand that James, Melo and Wade are all still quite young in their NBA careers, but until at least two of them can boast multiple NBA championships and MVPs how can you compare them with Magic and Bird?

                          I just don't see any of the three you listed being in the same category as Magic and Bird were.

                          Maybe time will prove me wrong. It WILL be fun watching to find out!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: top 5 pick. Certain Star/Risky Bust

                            Originally posted by rommie View Post
                            I agree with what Kegboy just said.

                            And the Bulls roster proves what smart drafting in the lottery can do.
                            Actually, I think the Bulls are proof of the failure of the draft.

                            Since 1999 they've had seven lottery picks*, six of them in the top 5. Four of the top 5 picks aren't on the team anymore.

                            They've relied on the draft for almost a decade and they aren't going to get out of the second round. Why are we allowing poorly run teams to grab all the talent then do nothing with it?

                            *I didn't include the Tyrus Thomas pick because they didn't earn it by being bad, they just took advantage of a dumb GM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: top 5 pick. Certain Star/Risky Bust

                              Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb
                              Actually, I think the Bulls are proof of the failure of the draft.

                              Since 1999 they've had seven lottery picks*, six of them in the top 5. Four of the top 5 picks aren't on the team anymore.

                              They've relied on the draft for almost a decade and they aren't going to get out of the second round. Why are we allowing poorly run teams to grab all the talent then do nothing with it?

                              *I didn't include the Tyrus Thomas pick because they didn't earn it by being bad, they just took advantage of a dumb GM.
                              Wait one second here.

                              John Paxson is the guy who has made things happen in Chicago. He took over in April of 2003.

                              Since Paxson has taken over he has drafted Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, Thomas, Sefolosha, Duhon was a find in the second round. He signed some key free agents like Noccioni and Ben Wallace. Oh and he has ended up for two lottery picks out of the Eddy Curry trade. Not to bad right there my friend.

                              Jerry Krause was in charge before that. He drafted these guys in the lottery:

                              Elton Brand, Marcus Fizer, Jamal Crawford (traded Chris Mihm for him), Eddy Curry, Tyson Chandler, and Jay Williams.

                              Brand has been a stud since his rookie year. Fizer sucks but so did that draft, the best players from that draft are probably Michale Reed, Mike Miller and Jamal Crawford. Chandler has developed very nice into a double double guy. Curry has shown to be one of the best big man scoring in the paint, Williams looked like he was going to work out until the motor cycle wreck I don't really consider him a bust. Just think if that team was kept together, it would have been Williams, Crawford, Brand or Chandler, and Curry. Add about any small forward on to that team and thats a playoff team right there. But Krause didn't know how to put that team together, they did have the talent though.

                              And it has taken Paxson what? 3-4 years to build this team up. They went from being one of the crappiest teams in the league to a team one piece away from a championship. The Bulls have been going up since Paxson took over.

                              Even when Krause was there though they were slowly building back up. They took a hit and slowed down the process when they traded Elton Brand for the draft rights to Tyson Chandler. But there won't be as many projects like Chandler and Curry with the new age limit. So a situation like that is unlikely.

                              It won't happen over night. But I feel that 2 years of re building, 2 years of the lottery not including this year, would set up the Pacers very nicely. Add a few more talented pieces to Ike, Shawne, and Danny and this team should be just fine. One of those pieces must be a point guard though.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X