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

Player subtractions for the next season

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

  • Player subtractions for the next season

    Let's take a close look on roster changes.

    Our beloved Pacers ended this unsuccessful NBA-season for their part with the following 15 players on their roster.

    Jamaal Tinsley
    Flip Murray
    Travis Diener
    Andre Owens
    Kareem Rush
    Marquis Daniels
    Stephen Graham
    Danny Granger
    Mike Dunleavy
    Shawne Williams
    Jermaine O'Neal
    Troy Murphy
    Ike Diogu
    Jeff Foster
    David Harrison


    I think now it's time to ponder which players should and/or will return to the team for the start of the next season. Here is my conclusion for this matter based on a short yet impartial player-by-player positional evaluation.

    PG:

    Tinsley has been inactive quite often because of repetitive injuries and has become more and more unpopular among fans. He is pretty productive, but we cannot afford to let him mainly not be able to play. We absolutely need a reliable PG as a starter. So he should be traded.
    Murray was a starter lately but didn't finish games often. He is a free agent and should be used as a combo guard. He could return because he can score and thus clearly carry some scoring load as a backup SG. However, he needs to be a bigger force defensively than he has been.
    Diener shouldn't start games. He is too small and unathletic to guard opponent's starter, but he has some nice basketball IQ, he doesn't turn the ball over too often and can push the tempo up when needed offensively. He could well be used as a trade bait or as a sweetener.
    Owens didn't earn much minutes late in the season. He obviously doesn't have quality playmaking skills, but he seems to be a capable perimeter defender, which is useful in our team. He is a free agent and in case his price tag ain't too high we could re-sign him as a filler PG.

    Real-life prediction:
    Tinsley, Murray and Owens won't be back, Diener will be back

    SG:

    Rush had his ups and downs during the season. Surely, he wasn't as consistant as we wished. He is a decent defender, but as a distance shooter too one-dimensional offensively. He is a free agent and likely will be offered such a deal elsewhere that we have no sense to match.
    Daniels has been a disappointment to some degree. He simply ain't as productive as we hoped. Also, he has some off-the-court baggage.
    He can play multiple positions and create scoring chances with his penetration, so he has value. Trading him would be best thing to do.
    Graham didn't play much this season. He is a free agent with no special strengths. Typically he just got some garbage time, or DNP-CD, under his belt and even though he was relatively efficient, all indicates that he ain't going to be in our plans for upcoming season.

    Real-life prediction:
    Rush and Graham won't be back, Daniels will be back

    SF:

    Granger certainly established himself as one of our best players this season, if not the best. He is developing perhaps towards stardom. He definately has considerable value in the league, especially with his present contract, but we need to keep him and give him an extension.
    Dunleavy was considered as one of the most improved players this season. He was very important for us offensively. Trading him should be investigated carefully, because his salary is high and his value is now surely at its highest. Nonetheless, he should be keeped as yet.
    Williams is a project and accordingly he has been given some time to mature and develop. However, he seems sort of jammed in this SF position. Add to this his inconsistancy and some off-the-court issues
    and figure that he should now be traded maybe for a good draft pick.

    Real-life prediction:
    Granger, Dunleavy and Williams will all be back

    PF:

    O'Neal was once again injured for the large part of the season. He proved to be defensive stopper in the paint, but it seems that he has lost a step in the offensive end. His salary is huge and we could invest that money better by trading him and getting a few pieces in return.
    Murphy offered some inside-outside scoring and rebounded decently while nicely improved during the season. He struggles defensively but he can shoot the ball. Because he has relatively such a high salary, he could well be traded, but probably is still worth using as a backup.
    Diogu didn't get meaningful minutes regularly in spite of O'Neal's absense. He is considered as somewhat undersized for his position. He could score inside but clearly ain't a good team defender. He has no real use and thus should be used as a trade bait or as a sweetener.

    Real-life prediction:
    Diogu won't be back, O'Neal and Murphy will be back

    C:

    Foster is a valuable hustle player with limited scoring skills. He does
    continuously a lot of dirty work on the court. Every team simply needs that kind of willingness. He is also a very dependable postup defender and rebounder. He is still very useful, mainly as a backup C though.
    Harrison was practically our lone true C, but he didn't respond to that well enough. He wasn't such a force on both ends of the floor that we sure would have liked him to be. He also had a serious disciplinary problem. He is a restricted free agent and ain't considered to return.

    Real-life prediction:
    Harrison won't be back, Foster will be back


    This is how Pacers' depth chart should present itself, in my opinion (starter/backup/filler) after these suggested changes are made.

    PG: -/-/Owens

    SG: -/Murray/-

    SF: Granger/Dunleavy/-

    PF: -/Murphy/-

    C: -/Foster/-


    Now I will try to suggest what type of players we are going to need to fill in holes in this depth chart in order to get a full roster.

    1. First and foremost we need a star-caliber PG. No matter how. Not necessarily a superstar, but a very good offensive-defensive weapon, to say the least. He mustorchestrate our team and be good at that.
    - We would also like to have an offensive-minded backup PG. Owens could serve as a filler. I don't mind bringing back Diener as a backup PG, but then he shouldn't play nearly as many minutes as this season.

    2. Defensive-minded SG, please. He should be our best perimeter defender, maybe capable to defend multiple positions. We don't need him to score much, just to stop opponent's best perimeter scorer.
    - Then Murray could be our backup SG. He could also operate some PG duties. Furthermore, we would use a filler for SG. He should be able to shoot the ball. Rush would do fine provided his price tag ain't too high.

    3. In case Williams will be traded, which I recommend, we could use a filler SF. Most likely he ain't going to play any significant minutes next season, so therefore his contract shouldn't be massive, nor his duties.
    - Dunleavy could actually play as our sixth man, compared to Ginobili of the Spurs, for example. Of course, Dunleavy will eventually play major minutes out of position, like this season, together with Granger.

    4. If O'Neal will be traded (most likely he is not going to opt out of his contract) we definately need a decent substitute for him. Preferably not even nearly as expensive. This sub should be able to defend well.
    - Surely Murphy could start but it's better to have him as an offensive-minded backup sharing big minutes as PF with a newcomer starter PF. We also would hire a filler. He will be a bench layer for the most part.

    5. In our system, a real inside presence would be very attractive. So we would love a dominator of the boards as starter C. We didn't have any this season with O'Neal sidelined. Use some big bucks to get this.
    - With offensive-minded starting C Foster would fit in nicely for us as a supplementary backup C. As a filler we would like to have a big body, maybe a project much like Harrison. A promising big C surely is useful.


    So, as I see it, we would indeed need pretty many new quality players in our team - perhaps as many as four new starters! But I must point out that we do have several ways to obtain them, naturally through trades, draft and free agency. To my understanding, by trading some of our assets presented above should all this revamping be possible.

    I guess it's also worth keeping in mind that we need to be open for any improvements of the team we can get. This means that anybody should be tradable if opportunity comes. Building a team is very multidimensional thing in its entirety. Making one change affects to many things, tiny as they may be. (This part was for Larry Bird, )

    There are two steps for us to get a competive team next season. Firstly, we must quickly get rid of all the bad or inappropriate parts, that is to say players that for some reason don't fit in to this team. Secondly, we just need to get the players necessary to accomplish this job. As simple as that. Here I have tried to address the first step.

    I would like you to take a stand for this topic. Please feel free to express your opinion. Thank you for your attention!

  • #2
    Re: Player subtractions for the next season

    Your real-life predictions don't match up with your suggested lineup. It should be:

    PG: -/Diener/-
    SG: -/Marquis/-
    SF: Granger/Dunleavy/Shawne
    PF: JONeal/Murphy/-
    C: -/Foster/-

    As for my realistic expectations, the only players that I think will be moved are Marquis and Ike. We're not going to resign Flip, Kareem and Harrison. I think that the primary core of players are still here....including Tinsley.

    Despite JO'Bs comments, I have very little confidence that Bird can pull out some deal that sends Tinsley away or worse....nets us a deal that worsens our financial situation simply cuz he wants him gone.

    In fact...I think that there is a greater chance that JONeal will be moved before Tinsley. I'm not saying that it's wise to do so....I'm just saying that teams would actually want a player like JONeal whereas there are no teams that would want Tinsley.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Player subtractions for the next season

      Your real-life predictions don't match up with your suggested lineup. It should be:

      PG: -/Diener/-
      SG: -/Marquis/-
      SF: Granger/Dunleavy/Shawne
      PF: JONeal/Murphy/-
      C: -/Foster/-
      Well, you see, that is simply because my suggested lineup is different than my real-life prediction!

      I partly agree with your expectations. JT and/or JO'N trades are obviously not easy thing to do - and no wonder why. Still, I'm sure there will be teams offseason looking and longing for assists JT could possibly produce for them.

      But I will claim that we would desperately need some new infusion, even new core players so to speak, in order to improve significantly. It ain't impossible.

      I believe that JO'N could pretty well stay in our team whereas JT probably couldn't. The reason is the famous baggage JT has, not to mention JO'B's comments that our PG situation needs to be re-addressed. Also, JO'N has kind of leadership abilities and status in our team that JT apparently hasn't.
      Last edited by FinPacers; 04-28-2008, 07:29 PM. Reason: error

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Player subtractions for the next season

        I think Graham will be back. He is under contract next year (team option) but obrien specifically mentioned him as someone who would be playing in the summer league this year.
        "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

        - ilive4sports

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Player subtractions for the next season

          Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
          I think Graham will be back. He is under contract next year (team option) but obrien specifically mentioned him as someone who would be playing in the summer league this year.
          I agree...we're going to need cheap filler in the last three or four slots, and I think he's worth a flyer. After all, the devil you know...

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Player subtractions for the next season

            IMF - I also agree on Graham. That wasn't a slip up by JOB. Now of course SG might play his way out of town ala Brewer but given the need to rework things I think letting him fill one of the backup/roster fodder roles makes more sense than resigning other non-impact guys.


            We looked at Rush and Ike and Owens. Not enought showed up to warrant further investiment.

            Tins is done because they've hit the point where they don't care about the hit. Some other team has a guy that doesn't want to be there and they'll make the swap to get this non-essential player.

            Tins will then have a modest run with the new team until he gets frustrated/disinterested there too. Who cares. He's not the PG of the future and he's just not about to become more tradable either.

            Going into last year he had more value IF he worked out, so it made the gamble worth it. More so considering that JOB had come on board and was promising a new style of play.

            This year Tins presents no value as either a trade piece nor a potential player (ie, if healthy, etc). The only thing you don't want to do is make him cost even more by outright cutting him.

            This is not motivated by personal dislike on my part. I'm neutral on that front. I'm just looking at the signals they've given and the praticality of moving forward. JO still makes sense to keep, Tins does not.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Player subtractions for the next season

              We will debate this all summer I'm sure, but my outs are:

              PF: None

              C: Murphy

              SF: None

              PG: Tinsley, Owens, Murray*

              SG: Rush, Daniels

              Team Depth Chart:

              PF: JO/Ike

              SF: Dunleavy/Williams

              C: Foster/Harrison

              PG: ?/Diener

              SG: Granger/Graham
              • Why retain Harrison over Murphy? Two reasons: 1) Harrions will provide interior post-defense, and 2) he will continue to play underneath the rim and around the paint which is more than I can say for Murphy.
              • Why retain Ike? Give him one more year under JOB and a chance to work w/JO in the off-season. His injury held him back at first coming into last season then it was the need to stretch the defense then there was the need for interior defense. Ike was simply the odd man out each time, but give him a chance play himself into the rotation and if he doesn't pan out by the trade deadline, trade him.
              • *Retain Flip Murray only because he's a combo Guard who has more of an up-side than Daniels and he provides some veteran leadership among the reserves. Of course, one way to resolve that is to bring Dunleavy off the bench yet give him the same amount of minutes he had as a starter.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Player subtractions for the next season

                Several Pacer Fan's want to get rid of Tinsley; but what team wants him unless you unload a blockbuster deal ie 8 Player Trade. Teams would be willing to take the expiring contracts of Foster & Q6. They might also covet IKE or even our first round pick; but the only way the deal gets done is parting with one of three Dunleavy/Granger/S Williams.
                Try to work out a deal involving Murphy & Tinsley? Good Luck.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Player subtractions for the next season

                  Originally posted by Jonathan View Post
                  Several Pacer Fan's want to get rid of Tinsley; but what team wants him unless you unload a blockbuster deal ie 8 Player Trade. Teams would be willing to take the expiring contracts of Foster & Q6. They might also covet IKE or even our first round pick; but the only way the deal gets done is parting with one of three Dunleavy/Granger/S Williams.
                  Try to work out a deal involving Murphy & Tinsley? Good Luck.

                  I think you're making this too complicated. We just have to be willing to take back an equally ugly or uglier contract - a la Jerome James, Brian Cardinal, or Jared Jeffries, and we'll find a taker for JT.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Player subtractions for the next season

                    If we are only looking to deal guys like Murphy and Tins, we aren't going to have a very productive off-season. In Tinsley's case I think it's much more likely they will bring in a new starter and let him come off the bench if his attitude and play warrant that. If he acts up again, they go to Diener very quickly.

                    I would say as far as departures that one of the three SF's is most likely, probably Dunleavy. Or even Granger if the other team will take Murphy or Tinsley along with him. Shawne or Ike could be included as sweetner in a big deal. JO could be dealt if the deal is right (cap relief, draft pick, young big man). And Marquis and Foster should be held onto until the deadline. If a top player comes up (and they almost always do), we would have a very nice package including those two expirings and a draft pick.

                    I would say we don't have an untouchable on this team. All options should be open, and anything can happen.
                    "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Player subtractions for the next season

                      Originally posted by count55 View Post
                      I think you're making this too complicated. We just have to be willing to take back an equally ugly or uglier contract - a la Jerome James, Brian Cardinal, or Jared Jeffries, and we'll find a taker for JT.
                      Count,
                      1. Memphis has a log jam at PG. They are looking to build for the future and do not want long term deals. Tinlsey is due 21 million over three years.
                      2. New York has several bad contracts but do you think Donnie Walsh wants a back court of Jamaal Crawford & Jamall Tinsley along w/ Nat Robinson?
                      3. Jerome James in a Pacer's uniform only helps our chance of more lottery balls in 2009.
                      4. Jared Jeffries would not be bad for Tinsley straight up but The Knick organization is looking to move Starbury (expiring contract) and probably have a team take on the salaries of one of these three (Q Richardson, Jared Jeffries, Jerome James) along with a young player Balkman/Robinson. I fell Jared Jeffries is the most tradeable of the three.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Player subtractions for the next season

                        Originally posted by Jonathan View Post
                        Count,
                        1. Memphis has a log jam at PG. They are looking to build for the future and do not want long term deals. Tinlsey is due 21 million over three years.
                        2. New York has several bad contracts but do you think Donnie Walsh wants a back court of Jamaal Crawford & Jamall Tinsley along w/ Nat Robinson?
                        3. Jerome James in a Pacer's uniform only helps our chance of more lottery balls in 2009.
                        4. Jared Jeffries would not be bad for Tinsley straight up but The Knick organization is looking to move Starbury (expiring contract) and probably have a team take on the salaries of one of these three (Q Richardson, Jared Jeffries, Jerome James) along with a young player Balkman/Robinson. I fell Jared Jeffries is the most tradeable of the three.
                        Those were simply the contracts I could come up with at the time. I'm just saying there are a lot of other GM's who have mistakes that they'd like to have go away.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Player subtractions for the next season

                          Could send JT to Pacers West (Sacramento) to take on Kenny Thomas' contract....

                          I'm sure Sac will do everything to resign Beno, but if they don't, they'd be in dire straights for a PG.

                          Let's hope someone like Miami makes a run at Beno in FA....

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Player subtractions for the next season

                            Originally posted by iPACER View Post
                            Could send JT to Pacers West (Sacramento) to take on Kenny Thomas' contract....

                            I'm sure Sac will do everything to resign Beno, but if they don't, they'd be in dire straights for a PG.

                            Let's hope someone like Miami makes a run at Beno in FA....
                            What is your mindframe on this whole Tinsley Situation?
                            1. Get rid of him at all costs
                            2. Try to package him a deal
                            3. Find another bad salary player (Thomas, Jeffries, Cardinal)
                            4. Keep HIM

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Player subtractions for the next season

                              Originally posted by Jonathan View Post
                              What is your mindframe on this whole Tinsley Situation?
                              1. Get rid of him at all costs
                              2. Try to package him a deal
                              3. Find another bad salary player (Thomas, Jeffries, Cardinal)

                              4. Keep HIM
                              I don't want to buy him out nor do I want to get rid of him "at all costs" simply cuz I do not want to sacrifice Salary Cap nor Financial Flexiblity to simply move him.

                              I would much rather see what we can get for a Tinsley+Marquis+Ike package ( basically a package that can allow a team to shed some Salary in the 2009-2010 season ) or do a straight-up swap of Bad Contracts for a player that we can actually use.

                              The problem with doing both is that given Tinsley's low trade value coupled with the guaranteed $21+mil that he is owed until the 2010-2011 season....we would likely have to find some package that sends us back the same amount of $$.

                              I did a quick look through the guaranteed contracts that would be considered "equal in contract length and $$ owed" for players that ( I think ) the other teams wouldn't mind moving are:

                              Tinsley for Jared Jeffries ( Knicks )
                              Tinsley for Dan Gadzuric ( Bucks )

                              Both would net us Frontcourt players with virtually identical contracts. From what I have read on the Bucks ReamGM board.....they do not appear to be too happy with Gadzuric. Not sure if they would want to do this though....the problem is that they would now have 3 PGs.
                              Last edited by CableKC; 04-29-2008, 05:21 PM.
                              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X