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

Star Article, Pacers don't want to gut roster.

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

  • Star Article, Pacers don't want to gut roster.

    OFFSEASON CHANGES
    Picky Pacers
    Team doesn't want to gut roster as it searches for 1 key addition

    By Mark Montieth
    mark.montieth@indystar.com
    July 6, 2004

    He met their bosses, dined with their coaches and waited for an invitation that didn't come.

    The Indiana Pacers had no room on their payroll for Stephen Jackson a year ago, and he wound up signing an undervalued contract with Atlanta. He hopes the timing -- and money -- is better this year.

    "That's a situation I'd love to be in," Jackson said. "That team is already a dominant team. I'd just be another piece that helps them get where they want to go."

    Despite the apparent availability of a few premier players around the NBA, any trades or free agent acquisitions the Pacers make this month more likely will involve the likes of Jackson: players who address needs, improve the team and are realistically available without gutting the roster.

    Jackson is among the free agents the Pacers are pursuing during the negotiation period that began Thursday. Contracts, free agent offer sheets and trades may not be executed until July 14.

    Other primary targets include unrestricted free agents Erick Dampier (Warriors), Brent Barry (Sonics), Derek Fisher (Lakers) and Mark Blount (Celtics).

    Jackson, a 6-8 swingman who averaged a team-high 18.1 points for the Hawks last season, would bring athleticism, energy and perimeter shooting to the Pacers. Dampier, a 6-11 center who played his rookie season with Indiana, would add size and rebounding. Barry and Fisher can play either guard position, and would bring experience, poise and shooting. Blount, a 7-foot center who blossomed in his fourth season, is the second-best free agent center behind Dampier.

    Players such as point guards Keyon Dooling (Clippers) and Carlos Arroyo (Jazz), center Adonal Foyle (Warriors) and forward Brian Cardinal (Warriors) also could warrant interest. Foyle and Cardinal are unrestricted free agents; Dooling and Arroyo are restricted, meaning their former teams can match any offer they receive.

    The Pacers are over the salary cap, leaving them with exceptions of $1.6 million and $5.1 million to offer free agents. CEO Donnie Walsh said he is willing to offer the full mid-level exception in certain circumstances, but he prefers to work a sign-and-trade arrangement for those players who can command higher salaries.

    Jackson and Dampier appear to have the most early interest in the Pacers, but each will have several options.

    Jackson listed the Pacers, Atlanta and San Antonio as his top choices. The Hawks drafted three players who are similar to him in size last week. Jackson took that as a sign Atlanta no longer is interested in him, but general manager Billy Knight rejected that notion.

    Jackson started at shooting guard on San Antonio's championship team in 2003, averaging 12.8 points in the playoffs. He was Atlanta's leading scorer last season and scored a career-high 42 points against Washington.

    He has a close relationship with Pacers assistant Mike Brown, who worked with him in San Antonio for two seasons. Brown was a candidate for Atlanta's head coaching position, which went to Mike Woodson.

    "Mike Brown has been a big part of my success," Jackson said. "He taught me how to work and how to get better."

    Jackson had dinner with Brown and Pacers coach Rick Carlisle last September, and met with Walsh and team president Larry Bird. The Pacers already had extended guaranteed contracts to 15 players, however. He signed a two-year, $2.1 million contract with Atlanta the next day, but exercised his option to become a free agent after the season.

    "We had a great meeting," Jackson said. "They got a chance to see what type of person I am and how hungry I am."

    Brown already had that feeling from his experience with Jackson in San Antonio. Jackson has been prone to emotional outbursts, but Brown described him as an energetic player and a "good teammate" capable of motivating others.

    "He can help any team," Brown said. "He's a big-time competitor; he really wants to win. I think he'd be a great fit here."

    Dampier was traded for Chris Mullin in the summer of 1997, following his rookie season. He began telling Pacers officials he wanted to return soon after. He is one of the league's hottest commodities this summer, however, and Denver, Atlanta, San Antonio and the Los Angeles Clippers have enough salary cap space to offer an increase on last season's salary of $8.1 million.

    To get Dampier, the Pacers would have to work a sign-and-trade with Golden State, whose basketball operations are directed by Mullin.

    Dampier, who was unavailable for comment, also has expressed interest in Memphis, the closest NBA team to his home in Mississippi. He attended a Grizzlies playoff game last season and has been recruited by some of their players since the season ended.

    Pacers forward Jermaine O'Neal also has been trying to lure Dampier, however. And Dampier might be willing to be lured.

    "He's always talked about going back to Indiana because he didn't want to leave there to begin with," said Ed Jones, Dampier's business manager.

    The Pacers have not made arrangements for anyone to visit, preferring to deal with agents on the telephone. Recruiting tactics, they believe, aren't what drive a decision for a veteran player.

    "My feeling is, they know what you've got," Walsh said. "They want to be on a winning team and to make the money. If you offer the money, you might want to bring them down to talk to them. But all this flying around and recruiting . . . I think it might work with some younger players, but I think you'll see less and less of that."


    Five who fit
    A look at the five free agents who best fit the Indiana Pacers' needs.

    Stephen Jackson
    • Age: 26
    • Size: 6-8, 218
    • Previous team: Atlanta
    • Stats: Averaged career-high 18.1 points, 4.6 rebounds and 1.8 steals last season.
    • Note: Would provide perimeter shooting, athleticism and versatility. Has close relationship with Pacers assistant Mike Brown from their two seasons together in San Antonio. Their relationship could give Indiana the inside track. Didn't play in college and had troubled beginning to NBA career, but has matured greatly.
    • Cost: Was a bargain at $1 million last season. Will command at least $4 million and possibly more if several teams get involved.

    Erick Dampier
    • Age: 29
    • Size: 6-11, 265
    • Previous team: Golden State
    • Stats: Averaged 12.3 points and 12 rebounds for Warriors last season. Led NBA in rebounds per 48 minutes (17.7).
    • Note: Former Pacer would add bulk to the front line and improve rebounding and defense. Some wonder if his improved play last season was motivated by upcoming free agency, but he still is the best center available.
    • Cost: Will be a target of several teams in need of a center and can therefore command a high salary. Opted out of a contract that would have paid him $8.1 million next season and could get as much as $10 million. Pacers would have to arrange a sign-and-trade to get him.

    Brent Barry
    • Age: 32
    • Size: 6-6, 215
    • Previous team: Seattle
    • Stats: Averaged 10.8 points and 5.8 assists last season. Shot 50 percent from the field, 45 percent from 3-point range and 83 percent from the foul line.
    • Note: Fits backcourt needs as a combo guard who shoots well from the perimeter. Has played shooting guard most of his career but made smooth transition to point guard after Sonics traded Gary Payton to Milwaukee for Ray Allen two seasons ago.
    • Cost: Was paid $5.4 million last season. Could command a raise because Denver, which has $23 million in salary cap room, is among the suitors. Might be available for the mid-level exception of about $5 million to a team willing to offer long-term contract.

    Derek Fisher
    • Age: 29
    • Size: 6-1, 200
    • Previous team: Lakers
    • Stats: Averaged 7.1 points off the bench last season. Shot just 35 percent from the field and 29 percent from 3-point range in the regular season, but hit 42 percent of 3-pointers in the playoffs. Hit dramatic 18-footer at buzzer to beat San Antonio in Game 5 of Western Conference semifinals.
    • Note: Can play either guard position and brings veteran poise and maturity. Wants to start but would accept backup role for a contending team.
    • Cost: Was paid $3 million last season. Unlikely to get a significant raise and might be available for less. Perhaps obtainable with a portion of the mid-level exception.

    Mark Blount
    • Age: 28
    • Size: 7-foot, 230
    • Previous team: Boston
    • Stats: Averaged 10.3 points, 7.2 rebounds and 1.3 blocks last season, and 12 points and 9.3 rebounds in playoff series against Pacers.
    • Note: Late-blooming player left University of Pittsburgh after two seasons, then knocked around minor leagues. Showed dramatic improvement last season with more playing time.
    • Cost: Was paid $945,000 last season. It has been widely assumed he will sign with Miami because he makes his offseason home in that area, but other teams will offer more money. Philadelphia has made him its top priority and is said to have offered a midlevel exception. It also can reunite him with former coach in Boston, Jim O'Brien, who met with him five minutes after the negotiating period started at midnight July 1.

  • #2
    Re: Star Article, Pacers don't want to gut roster.

    Very good prospects and I hope they really mean they don't want to gut the roster , we need a tuneup ...no a overhaul.

    I would be very happy if we got Stephen Jackson , Blount would be nice also , I am not too intrested in brent barry because of his age . I am not so sure about fisher but if he can be had for a reasonable price I think he would make a nice pickup.
    [edit=279=1089109335][/edit]
    Broadcasting Classic Rock Hits 24/7 SauceMaster Radio!!!!

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Star Article, Pacers don't want to gut roster.

      I think Barry might be a good pick up because of his age.

      He still has a solid game & I don't see him as the type that would want to come in here & start over Reggie in his final year.

      After that Fred might be ready to start which would leave Barry coming off the bench at both gaurd spots.

      Nice to have a solid veteran that can back up 2 spots, nail the 3 & find guys cutting to the rack.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Star Article, Pacers don't want to gut roster.

        I thought Bird was in charge?

        I do not like the fact that the Pacers would rather trade than get a aplayer without giving anything up. Stephen Jackson can be had without giving anyone up.
        Heywoode says... work hard man.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Star Article, Pacers don't want to gut roster.

          Anyone else find it amusing that following a season in which he led the team in scoring with ~18 pts/game, Jalen Rose was given a max contract, but following the same circumstances with Stephen Jackson, it sounds like he could be had for the MLE?

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Star Article, Pacers don't want to gut roster.

            Originally posted by Doug
            I thought Bird was in charge?
            ed:

            Jackson and Blount would be nice pickups who wouldn't cost us the farm. I didn't know Jackson was only 26. I thought he was much older. And damn, how many top free agents do you hear saying that they want to come to Indiana?

            [edit=27=1089118841][/edit]
            [edit=27=1089118930][/edit]

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Star Article, Pacers don't want to gut roster.

              There was a Adonal Foyle in the article, but he has agreed to a 5 year deal to stay with the Warriors. They know they are losing Dampier.

              Dampier IMO is too expensive for the Pacers. I would rather have Blount.

              Seems most Pacers fans hate Fisher, not sure if that is just because he is a Laker, or if there is something about his game. I have always liked his game. He hits clutch shots, is a good defender, great teammate, great lockeroom guy, always plays hard, and brings a ton of intangibles.

              Jackson would be a nice pickup, he's played in this system before woth the Spurs. Not sure if he would start or what.

              Let me address this notion that free agents don't want to play for the Pacers. I don't buy that for a minute. Granted, Indy is a small market, the weather is not good, and it is a "boring city".

              But the Pacers are a great orgnanization. Any agent will tell their client that, the Pacers take care of their players financially, they are a winning organization, the media is easy, the cost of living is cheap.

              Taking everything into account the Indiana Pacers are one of the best franchises in the league, and that helps offset some of the other drawbacks I just mentioned
              [edit=24=1089119822][/edit]

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Star Article, Pacers don't want to gut roster.

                Originally posted by Unclebuck
                Let me address this notion that free agents don't want to play for the Pacers. I don't buy that for a minute. Granted, Indy is a small market, the weather is not good, and it is a "boring city".

                But the Pacers are a great orgnanization. Any agent will tell their client that, the Pacers take care of their players financially, they are a winning organization, the media is easy, the cost of living is cheap.

                Taking everything into account the Indiana Pacers are one of the best franchises in the league, and that helps offset some of the other drawbacks I just mentioned
                Go back and reread what I wrote, UB. I said, how many top free agents do you hear saying they want to come to Indiana?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Star Article, Pacers don't want to gut roster.

                  Originally posted by bulletproof
                  Originally posted by Unclebuck
                  Let me address this notion that free agents don't want to play for the Pacers. I don't buy that for a minute. Granted, Indy is a small market, the weather is not good, and it is a "boring city".

                  But the Pacers are a great orgnanization. Any agent will tell their client that, the Pacers take care of their players financially, they are a winning organization, the media is easy, the cost of living is cheap.

                  Taking everything into account the Indiana Pacers are one of the best franchises in the league, and that helps offset some of the other drawbacks I just mentioned
                  Go back and reread what I wrote, UB. I said, how many top free agents do you hear saying they want to come to Indiana?
                  My bad........part of that is I don't think the Pacers have gone after too many. In fact have they ever gone after any big name free agents or even medium name free agents. Paces always have to either re-sign their own FA's or they don't have any money to attract any FA's




                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Star Article, Pacers don't want to gut roster.

                    Originally posted by Unclebuck
                    My bad........part of that is I don't think the Pacers have gone after too many. In fact have they ever gone after any big name free agents or even medium name free agents. Pacers always have to either re-sign their own FA's or they don't have any money to attract any FA's.
                    They went after McGrady.

                    Who knows, perhaps Bird will be more aggressive than Donnie when it comes to FAs. Of course, Donnie holds all the purse strings, so we'll just have to see how it balances out if that's the case.
                    [edit=27=1089121612][/edit]

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Star Article, Pacers don't want to gut roster.

                      I don't like Fisher (playoff heroics notwithstanding).

                      But if the net result of the offseason is getting Barry/Jackson and Dampier/Blount while losing Harrington then I think the Pacers will have succeeded in becoming a more balanced (and I think better) team.

                      One of the problems with trading Harrington is that we lose a lot of PF minutes. O'Neal has been playing a lot at center and Al has been his backup. If Al is traded then O'Neal's backup is.....Croshere I guess. The other resolution is to get another center so that O'Neal can play the bulk of his minutes at PF.

                      If the Pacer's signed Jackson as a free agent and traded Harrington and Pollard for Dampier they would look like this:

                      Tinsley/AJ/Brewer
                      Jackson/Jones/Miller
                      Artest/Bender/Jones
                      O'Neal/Croshere
                      Dampier/Foster/Harrison
                      [edit=92=1089122179][/edit]

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Star Article, Pacers don't want to gut roster.

                        Originally posted by Grant
                        I don't like Fisher (playoff heroics notwithstanding).

                        But if the net result of the offseason is getting Barry/Jackson and Dampier/Blount while losing Harrington then I think the Pacers will have succeeded in becoming a more balanced (and I think better) team.

                        One of the problems with trading Harrington is that we lose a lot of PF minutes. O'Neal has been playing a lot at center and Al has been his backup. If Al is traded then O'Neal's backup is.....Croshere I guess. The other resolution is to get another center so that O'Neal can play the bulk of his minutes at PF.

                        If the Pacer's signed Jackson as a free agent and traded Harrington and Pollard for Dampier they would look like this:

                        Tinsley/AJ/Brewer
                        Jackson/Jones/Miller
                        Artest/Bender/Jones
                        O'Neal/Croshere
                        Dampier/Foster/Harrison

                        Foster can play power forward if Damp or Blount are playing center.

                        The Sixers have offered Blount a full mid level exception contract.


                        [edit=24=1089124797][/edit]

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Star Article, Pacers don't want to gut roster.

                          Originally posted by Unclebuck
                          Originally posted by Grant
                          I don't like Fisher (playoff heroics notwithstanding).

                          But if the net result of the offseason is getting Barry/Jackson and Dampier/Blount while losing Harrington then I think the Pacers will have succeeded in becoming a more balanced (and I think better) team.

                          One of the problems with trading Harrington is that we lose a lot of PF minutes. O'Neal has been playing a lot at center and Al has been his backup. If Al is traded then O'Neal's backup is.....Croshere I guess. The other resolution is to get another center so that O'Neal can play the bulk of his minutes at PF.

                          If the Pacer's signed Jackson as a free agent and traded Harrington and Pollard for Dampier they would look like this:

                          Tinsley/AJ/Brewer
                          Jackson/Jones/Miller
                          Artest/Bender/Jones
                          O'Neal/Croshere
                          Dampier/Foster/Harrison

                          Foster can play power forward if Damp or Blount are playing center.

                          The Sixers have offered Blount a contract

                          Also, if Al is gone, that means we must have traded him for someone, right?
                          Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Star Article, Pacers don't want to gut roster.

                            This article is just what I expected and just what I wanted. It's about time.

                            The only name I'm not liking is Dampier. All I heard earlier was how bad his work ethic is, and that has really turned me off on him. If someone would like to convince me that he is worthy of becoming a Pacers (lol), then go ahead.

                            Other than that, I'm saving this article for a long time & I'm hoping that at least one of those names in the article actually does end up on the Pacers. I am glad that we aren't "recruiting" players; that sounds like a good idea.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Star Article, Pacers don't want to gut roster.

                              <<<<<<<<<<<<
                              Mark Blount
                              • Age: 28
                              • Size: 7-foot, 230
                              • Previous team: Boston
                              • Stats: Averaged 10.3 points, 7.2 rebounds and 1.3 blocks last season, and 12 points and 9.3 rebounds in playoff series against Pacers.
                              • Note: Late-blooming player left University of Pittsburgh after two seasons, then knocked around minor leagues. Showed dramatic improvement last season with more playing time.
                              • Cost: Was paid $945,000 last season. It has been widely assumed he will sign with Miami because he makes his offseason home in that area, but other teams will offer more money. Philadelphia has made him its top priority and is said to have offered a midlevel exception. It also can reunite him with former coach in Boston, Jim O'Brien, who met with him five minutes after the negotiating period started at midnight July 1.
                              >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

                              In the print edition of The Star this morning, the write-up of Mark Blount is accompanied by a photo of Corie Blount. Nice work ......
                              PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X