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

Bills Simmons Annual NBA Salary Survey (Part I)

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    Bills Simmons Annual NBA Salary Survey (Part I)

    By Bill Simmons
    Page 2

    If only we still used telegrams. My editors would have sent me a good one this
    weekend:

    "Code Red! Code Red! All hell breaking loose! Shaq, T-Mac AND Kobe possibly on
    the block! Code Red! Must break out annual "Trade Value Column" ASAP! Code Red!"

    That's right. There couldn't be a better week to break out America's favorite
    annual column gimmick, "Which NBA player has the highest trade value?" How often
    do you get a chance to break out a 4,000-word, two-part column that appeals to a
    limited audience? Gentleman, start your printers!

    Anyway, here's a quick recap of the rules:


    A. Salaries matter ... would you rather pay Dwyane Wade $9.7 million for the
    next three years or Paul Pierce $58 million for the next four?

    B. Age matters ... would you rather have Chris Webber for the next five years or
    Andrei Kirilenko for the next 15?

    C. Pretend the league passed the following rule: Any player can be traded
    straight up for any other player without cap ramifications. So if Team A tells
    Team B, "We'll trade you Player X for Player Y straight-up," does Team B make
    the deal or not?

    D. Concentrate on degrees. For instance, I don't think the Rockets or T-Wolves
    would trade KG for Yao. But the Rockets would at least say, "Wow, KG is
    available?" while the T-Wolves would say, "There's no effing way we're trading
    KG." That counts in the big scheme of things.

    E. Make the list in reverse order, Nos. 40 to 1. So if Paul Pierce comes in at
    No. 16, players 1 through 15 are all players about whom Boston would probably
    say, "We hate giving up The Truth, but there's no way we can pass up that deal."
    And they wouldn't trade him for any player listed between Nos. 17 and 40.

    A number of guys failed to make the cut from last year's Top 40, for the
    following reasons: Gilbert Arenas (No. 40 last year) is one more 22-win season
    away from officially turning into a "Great stats on a bad team" guy ... Antoine
    Walker (39) is Antoine Walker ... Antawn Jamison (38) and Michael Finley (31)
    are a little too available ... Jamal Mashburn (36) has become the NBA's
    equivalent of Frankie from "The Real World" ... Ray Allen (34) is heading into
    the "Mitch Richmond on the Wizards" stage of his career ... as much as I like
    Caron Butler (33), he seems awfully expendable in Miami ... and as far as
    tag-teams go, Eddy Curry (27) and Tyson Chandler (26) slipped faster than
    Shannon Tweed and Andrew Stevens.

    The toughest omissions from this year's list:

    Rasheed Wallace (last year: 32) -- He gets a championship ring and a multi-year
    contract ... so now what happens? Does anyone else keep hearing the chorus to
    Prince's "Let's Go Crazy"? Remember, we're still only eight months away from the
    infamous "CTC" speech. I don't trust him at all.

    Manu Ginobili -- Turns 27 in July. Didn't you think he would be further along by
    now?

    Marquis Daniels -- Only because he's cracking the Top 40 next season. Mark my
    words. Since he went undrafted last year -- which seems impossible in the same
    draft that gave us Reece Gaines at No. 15 -- he's actually a free agent this
    summer. Not that "The Benefactor" wouldn't match any offer, but still.

    (Speaking of dreadful-yet-absorbing ABC reality-TV shows, did you see that Jesse
    Palmer and his Bachelor pick broke up already? Do you realize the Bachelor is
    0-for-5 now? That show is more contrived than one of Tom Tolbert's suits. Is
    there a reason they haven't tried to change their luck with "Black Bachelor"
    yet? Just reverse the process - a black bachelor, 23 black bachelorettes, and
    then two token white chicks that get voted off by Round 2. And instead of
    Palmer, they could have a real catch -- someone making big bucks, like Lamar
    Odom or Michael Vick. Let the groupies fight it out. This would be
    unbelievable.)

    Kwame Brown -- I'm sticking with the same thing I wrote about him last year: "I
    have absolutely no idea where his career is headed over the next 10 years.
    None."

    Kirk Hinrich -- Wow, an underrated white guy! You see this happen maybe once a
    decade. Maybe it's hard to take him seriously when he looks like everyone in the
    cast of "Miracle."

    Chauncey Billups -- The latest beneficiary of L.A.'s spring-time policy of
    turning opposing point guards into Hall of Famers. Bottom line: He's a
    40-percent shooter playing for the perfect team. Good defender, decent
    ballhander, clutch shooter if he's open. But if you think they wouldn't have won
    the same title with Mike Bibby in Billups's place, you're crazy.

    Chris Webber (13) -- On the books for $79 million through 2008. And he's been
    limping like Ken Reeves for the past two years. And yet ... he's still C-Webb.
    And this is a league that gainfully employs Elgin Baylor, Isiah Thomas, Danny
    Ainge and the Paxson Brothers as GMs. So you never know.

    Mike Dunleavy -- A year away from making a splash and being the odds-on favorite
    as the Token White Guy on the 2006 World Championships team. With that said,
    somebody could pry him from the Warriors this summer. They're that dumb.
    Without further ado, here's this year's list of 40 players, in reverse order:

    Group I: "Either way, the phone ain't ringing"

    40. Darko Milicic -- By trading him now, Joe Dumars would basically be
    admitting, "Yeah, we won the title, but I screwed up with that pick." And that's
    not happening.

    Then again, out of the next 39 guys on this list, none of them would ever, ever,
    EVER be offered straight-up for Darko, who capped off a memorable playoff run by
    getting infected earlobes from a bizarre piercing accident, then breaking his
    hand in garbage time of the clinching game. In the Pantheon of Unfortunate
    Playoff Performances, this was right up there with Curtis Jackson getting shot
    in the liquor store before Carver High won the city title. So I don't know.
    Let's stick him here to be safe.

    (And yes, that's two "White Shadow" references in one column! Memo to ESPN
    Classic: Start running the old episodes again. I'm getting the shakes.)

    Group H: "Available for the right price"

    39. Steve Nash -- Some idiot once wrote that Nash was one of the best 10 point
    guards of the past 25 years. Oh, wait, that was me. Defensively, he's atrocious.
    He didn't break a sweat in the Kings series until Game 5 ... by then, it was too
    late. He's also about to be wildly overpaid by someone -- probably Dallas -- for
    something like six years and $60 million. And he's 31 next February. With a
    history of back problems to boot. I wouldn't go near him for that amount of
    money. But that's just me.

    38. Carlos Boozer -- Quality banger. Always plays hard. Owns the best chest hair
    in the league. Yet another shining example of "Guys Who Produced in College Who
    Were Inexplicably Screwed by the NBA Draft Process." With that said, when I saw
    the headline "Boozer named to Olympic Hoops Team," I thought Vin Baker was
    headed to Athens.

    (Where's my rimshot? I need a drummer for these columns. By the way, I didn't
    come up with that joke -- about 30 different readers e-mailed it to me. Maybe
    that should have been a sign. I feel like Jay Leno right now. Let's just move
    on.)

    37. Nene -- Another young banger who displayed a sizable nasty streak in the
    playoffs, when he was shoving around KG and even throwing a few elbows. I liked
    that. Most of these young guys look like they're just happy to get a paycheck
    every week.

    (More importantly, he finally took my advice and went with the single-name
    gimmick. I know this is a Brazilian thing, but why couldn't this catch on in the
    states? For instance, couldn't Brian Cardinal do this? We could just call him
    "Cardinal." Would anyone be against this? And how many times am I writing the
    phrase "Would anyone be against this?" in this column? The Vegas over-under has
    to be around 5.5.)

    36. Joe Johnson -- I will happily admit that I was wrong about him. A future
    All-Star. And if he blows it ... well, then I'll happily admit that I was right
    about him.

    35. Tony Parker -- Hey, he'd certainly be higher on the list of "NBA players who
    must get an insane amount of, um, female companionship." The NBA thing mixed
    with the French thing? That reminds me, somebody needs to round up some groupies
    for a "One Night Stand Fantasy Draft" -- I'd love to see who would go in the
    first round. Make it one of those $4.95 DirecTV pay-per-views. There's not
    nearly enough done with NBA groupies on TV. They should at least have their own
    MTV reality show or something.

    34. Zach Randolph -- I just don't trust him yet. Would you feel comfortable
    giving a seven-year, $80 million extension next summer to someone who may or may
    not be crazy?

    (This reminds me of an old Adam Carolla idea, "Prove To Me You're Not Crazy,"
    where he wanted to walk around Hollywood Boulevard with a cameraman and have the
    street people and tourists prove to him that they weren't crazy. Great idea.
    Never ended up doing it on Jimmy's show for whatever reason. Maybe we should
    have tried it with NBA players. "Zack Randolph, you have 25 seconds ... prove to
    me you're not crazy!" This could easily replace the "Budweiser Hot Seat" and
    "Hearsay," couldn't it?)

    Group G: "You'll have to bowl us over"

    33. Chris Bosh -- He'd be ranked even higher if he didn't have those Keon Clark
    pegs.

    32. Pau Gasol -- If we learned anything from the 2004 NBA Playoffs, it was this:
    You can't win an NBA title anymore with a defensive liability up front. You just
    can't. Remember when the Lakers won back-to-back titles in the late-'80s with a
    decomposing Kareem? The league is just too fast now. Poor Pau needs to build a
    time machine and travel back to 1983. He could even bring Casey Jacobsen and
    Brian Scalabrine with him.

    31. Peja Stojakovic -- This can't be emphasized strongly enough: He's been
    dreadful in the playoffs. If you're looking for someone to drop 38 on the Hawks
    in mid-February, he's your guy. If you're looking for someone to make big shots
    in May and June, keep looking. If the Kings were smart, they would trade him for
    ...

    30. Ron Artest -- Think about that one. Indiana gets a shooter to replace Reggie
    Miller. Sacramento gets some much-needed toughness and swagger -- at least for a
    couple of years, before Artest punches out a ballboy or trashes the old "Real
    World: Vegas" suite at The Palms. Who doesn't make this trade?

    29. Mike Bibby -- I can't imagine the Kings dealing him. He's just come through
    for them too many times. Plus, it's not every day you can have a point guard who
    looks like Mini-Me.

    28. Shawn Marion -- All right, I'll ask: Why are his numbers slowly dropping
    across the board? Why did I like his game more three years ago? Why has his name
    popped up in every possible mega-deal over the past week? Have you ever noticed
    the disturbing parellels between his career and the declining critical acclaim
    for the three "Matrix" movies?

    Group F: "Building blocks"

    27. Allen Iverson -- Let's stop comparing Iverson in '04 with Barkley in '92:
    Barkley didn't have nearly this many miles on him, and his contract wasn't
    nearly as daunting. (Iverson's deal goes through 2010.) Two years ago, it would
    have taken Corey Maggette, Chris Wilcox, the No. 4 pick and a future No. 1 for
    the Clippers to make Philly seriously consider giving up Iverson. Now they
    couldn't get him for Maggette, Wilcox and the No. 4 unless they agreed to throw
    in this year's No. 7 pick. That's a big difference.

    And besides, would you rather have Iverson for five more years, at a whopping
    $67 million ...

    26. Michael Redd -- ... Or this guy for $6 million over the next two?

    25. Elton Brand -- Career record: 159-251. And no, that's not his fault. But
    it's not not his fault, either. If that makes sense.

    24. Rip Hamilton -- Three months ago, he wouldn't have made the list. Now he's
    the next Reggie Miller -- not someone who can carry an offense by himself, but
    someone who makes big shots and wears out opponents. He lost the name "Richard"
    for the much-tougher sounding "Rip." He's even strange-looking like Reggie, one
    of the few guys who's actually better off with the Broken Nose Mask. It's been a
    breakout season all around.

    (By the way, don't we need to come up with a nickname for the Broken Nose Mask?
    What about the Septumator? Or the Schnozzaroo? More importantly, why are they
    such an afterthought? NBA players care so much about hair, tattoos, shoes ...
    yet they happily slide on these ugly plastic masks for two straight months, no
    questions asked. Wouldn't you think they would paint them like hockey goalie
    masks, or even go with the intimidating Hannibal Lecter-style mask for a big
    playoff game? We need to spruce up the Schnozzaroos.)

    23. Richard Jefferson -- Two years younger than Hamilton; same age as Redd. He
    gets bonus points for playing with Kidd in his formative years -- that's like an
    actor getting to make three straight years of movies with Scorcese in his prime,
    or a kid in high school having a three-year affair with the 35 year-old nanny
    down the block. You're better just by osmosis.

    COMING TOMORROW: Part Two. Unless my head explodes from trying to choose between
    Duncan and KG.

    Bill Simmons is a columnist for ESPN The Magazine and Page 2.
    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Bills Simmons Annual NBA Salary Survey (Part I)

    Marquis Daniels -- Only because he's cracking the Top 40 next season. Mark my
    words. Since he went undrafted last year -- which seems impossible in the same
    draft that gave us Reece Gaines at No. 15     --
    Somewhere Joneal7 is cursing out Bill Simmons

    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Bills Simmons Annual NBA Salary Survey (Part I)

      Chauncey Billups -- The latest beneficiary of L.A.'s spring-time policy of
      turning opposing point guards into Hall of Famers. Bottom line: He's a
      40-percent shooter playing for the perfect team. Good defender, decent
      ballhander, clutch shooter if he's open. But if you think they wouldn't have won
      the same title with Mike Bibby in Billups's place, you're crazy.
      Bibby cant defend worth crap.....

      It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

      Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
      Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
      NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Bills Simmons Annual NBA Salary Survey (Part I)

        30. Ron Artest -- Think about that one. Indiana gets a shooter to replace Reggie
        Miller. Sacramento gets some much-needed toughness and swagger -- at least for a
        couple of years, before Artest punches out a ballboy or trashes the old "Real
        World: Vegas" suite at The Palms. Who doesn't make this trade?
        Uh...Indiana?

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Bills Simmons Annual NBA Salary Survey (Part I)

          30. Ron Artest -- Think about that one. Indiana gets a shooter to replace Reggie
          Miller. Sacramento gets some much-needed toughness and swagger -- at least for a
          couple of years, before Artest punches out a ballboy or trashes the old "Real
          World: Vegas" suite at The Palms. Who doesn't make this trade?
          Uh...Indiana?
          Who wants a SG that sucks in the playoffs? I dont.
          Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Bills Simmons Annual NBA Salary Survey (Part I)

            30. Ron Artest -- Think about that one. Indiana gets a shooter to replace Reggie
            Miller. Sacramento gets some much-needed toughness and swagger -- at least for a
            couple of years, before Artest punches out a ballboy or trashes the old "Real
            World: Vegas" suite at The Palms. Who doesn't make this trade?
            Uh...Indiana?
            Who wants a SG that sucks in the playoffs? I dont.
            It's a lot better than James Posey or Bonzi Wells

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Bills Simmons Annual NBA Salary Survey (Part I)

              30. Ron Artest -- Think about that one. Indiana gets a shooter to replace Reggie
              Miller. Sacramento gets some much-needed toughness and swagger -- at least for a
              couple of years, before Artest punches out a ballboy or trashes the old "Real
              World: Vegas" suite at The Palms. Who doesn't make this trade?
              Uh...Indiana?
              Who wants a SG that sucks in the playoffs? I dont.
              It's a lot better than James Posey or Bonzi Wells

              True, but we could always....


              ....keep Artest!
              Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Bills Simmons Annual NBA Salary Survey (Part I)

                30. Ron Artest -- Think about that one. Indiana gets a shooter to replace Reggie
                Miller. Sacramento gets some much-needed toughness and swagger -- at least for a
                couple of years, before Artest punches out a ballboy or trashes the old "Real
                World: Vegas" suite at The Palms. Who doesn't make this trade?
                Uh...Indiana?
                Who wants a SG that sucks in the playoffs? I dont.
                It's a lot better than James Posey or Bonzi Wells

                True, but we could always....


                ....keep Artest!
                HOLY CRAP ARE YOU SERIOUS!!??

                Yeah, I like that idea.
                Official Member of the Anti-Alliteration Association

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Bills Simmons Annual NBA Salary Survey (Part I)

                  i seem to be the only one here who's fascinated by a ron-peja swap. ron on an offensive team like the kings? peja on a defensive team like the pacers? it's like adding a dollop of antimatter to matter, the resulting explosion could either be useful or ugly

                  on the other hand, i would be perfectly happy too if we keep ron

                  Comment

                  Previous template Next
                  Working...
                  X