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

Trade-talk roundup

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

  • Trade-talk roundup

    Trade-talk roundup: What we know


    ESPN.com

    What's the latest trade intel? Our reporters are on the case. We'll be updating this file all through Thursday's 3 p.m. ET trade deadline. Refresh and follow along with us.
    --------------------------
    Bookmark this link for ESPN'S latest updates.

    http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/s...lkRoundup-2010

    Here's the latest as of 9:45 p.m.
    POSTED: Feb. 16 -- 7:51 p.m. ET


    Stoudemire

    J.A. Adande: With rampant speculation that Miami is trying to pry Amare Stoudemire from the Phoenix Suns before the Cleveland Cavaliers can get him, here are two possible scenarios.
    According to an NBA source, the Heat are offering Daequan Cook, Quentin Richardson, Dorell Wright, Mario Chalmers and draft picks to the Suns. Cook is the only player among that group who is under contract for next season (Chalmers has a team option for $847,000). It is believed that the Suns would rather have a package from Cleveland that would include Zydrunas Ilgauskas, J.J. Hickson and a draft pick, with the young Hickson as the most appealing part of the package.
    Another league source said the Suns would like to attach Jason Richardson to a Stoudemire trade, which would relieve Phoenix from having to pay Richardson's $14 million salary next season. The combined $29 million of outgoing salary from Stoudemire and Richardson this season would be too difficult for Cleveland to match to make a trade work under the salary-cap guidelines. Miami, however, could add the $23 million expiring salary of Jermaine O'Neal to the previously mentioned offer and come within the 25 percent range of matching salaries. I have yet to hear that the Heat are willing to do so, I am merely mentioning the possibility.
    That would have obvious appeal to the Suns, allowing them to escape from luxury-tax land next season and positioning them to go after a major free agent this summer.
    The Suns would be looking at nine players under contract for a total of about $33 million next season: Steve Nash ($10.3 million), Leandro Barbosa ($7.1 million), Grant Hill ($3.3 million player option), Channing Frye ($2 million player option), Goran Dragic ($2 million), Earl Clark ($1.9 million), Robin Lopez ($1.9 million), Jared Dudley ($2.2 million) and Cook ($2.2 million).
    The Heat would be stuck with Richardson's contract and could potentially have Stoudemire opt out and leave them as a free agent. But they would also have Stoudemire's Larry Bird rights, enabling them to offer a longer and more lucrative contract than any other team. And they would have demonstrated to Dwyane Wade that they would do whatever it takes to bring another All-Star to play alongside him.

    POSTED: Feb. 16 -- 6:02 p.m. ET


    Chad Ford: The Knicks have had discussions with both the Rockets and Bulls about deals that would bring Tracy McGrady and Tyrus Thomas, respectively, to New York.
    However, as of Tuesday afternoon, the Knicks say they aren't sure where they stand with either team.
    McGrady's agent, Arn Tellem, initiated talks with the Knicks and has been trying to make a deal happen, according to a source close to the process. The Knicks believe McGrady still can play and hope he can both lead them to a playoff berth and help persuade LeBron James to come to New York in the summer. Even if McGrady can do neither, he would allow the Knicks to get further under the cap this summer if the deal included Jared Jeffries.
    But the Rockets' asking price is steep if they have to take back Jeffries and the $6.6 million remaining on his contract next season.
    The same source said the Rockets want expiring contracts, 2009 first-round pick Jordan Hill and future first-rounders from New York to make it happen. That's too rich for the Knicks' blood. Although they'd love to clear Jeffries' contract off the books, it'd be too big of a risk. If the Knicks didn't land a marquee free agent or two in the summer, they'd have given away up to three high draft picks for nothing.
    If the Rockets drop the request for the future 2012 first-rounder, the Knicks might be game for a deal that would send Larry Hughes, Jeffries and Hill to Houston for McGrady. Still, a source close to the process believes the Rockets may have better options for McGrady if the Knicks aren't willing to meet their demands.
    Meanwhile, New York also has initiated discussions with the Bulls about a Thomas swap. The Knicks are willing to offer Chicago Al Harrington for Thomas and Jerome James. But although Harrington would be a plus for the Bulls this season, Chicago has been hoping to get a future asset (preferably a first-round pick or a good player) in return for Thomas.


    POSTED: Feb. 16 -- 4:31 p.m. ET


    O'Neal

    Marc Stein: Cleveland's interest in Antawn Jamison dates to last season and apparently has spawned some radio rumblings in the D.C. area about the Wizards and Cavs discussing a deal that would swap Jamison and Mike Miller for Shaquille O'Neal.
    I've been encouraged by both teams to dispel that notion in the strongest possible terms. Both teams resoundingly shot down the idea when we checked with them. Got a flat "no" from one of the two teams and a louder "BIG no" from the other.
    The Cavs still covet Jamison, but giving up Shaq to get him makes no sense, even if they do successfully strike a deal for Amare Stoudemire before Thursday's 3 p.m. ET deadline.
    On top of the fact that the Cavs are very pleased with Shaq's first 50-plus games in town, they need him for potential down-the-road playoff matchups against Dwight Howard, Andrew Bynum, etc. Cleveland, remember, thinks defense first.


    POSTED: Feb. 16 -- 3:51 p.m. ET


    Jefferson

    Chad Ford: The Wolves continue to rebuff teams looking into the availability of Al Jefferson.
    A source close to the process told ESPN.com that the Wolves recently said no to a potential Luol Deng and Tyrus Thomas for Jefferson deal, telling the Bulls that they aren't going to move Jefferson by the trade deadline, which is consistent with what Wolves GM David Kahn has been saying for weeks. However, a Deng-and-Thomas deal was the most realistic trade scenario we've heard for Jefferson.
    Jefferson was one of the first big names to get mentioned in trade deadline buzz when word came out that the Pacers had rebuffed an offer of Jefferson for Danny Granger. Since then, Kahn has been adamant that he's not trading any member of his young core by the trade deadline. Kahn has maintained he wants an entire season to evaluate the talent he has on the roster.


    POSTED: Feb. 16 -- 3:34 p.m. ET


    Kaman

    Marc Stein: The Clippers fended off interest in newly minted All-Star center Chris Kaman before trading Marcus Camby to Portland on Monday.
    Detroit needs a big man who can score and, according to sources close to the situation, recently followed up its interest in Utah's Carlos Boozer and Phoenix's Amare Stoudemire by trying to pry Kaman away from the Clips with a package headlined by Tayshaun Prince.
    Don't forget that Kaman, besides ranking as one of the few players in the league averaging at least 20 points and nine rebounds this season, is a Michigan native.
    Yet sources say the Clips made it clear that Kaman -- who has two seasons left on his contract after this one at a combined $23.5 million, compared to one more year left for Prince at $11.1 million -- was not available.
    So with DeAndre Jordan in the Clips' center rotation as well, they decided to ship Camby to the Blazers for Travis Outlaw, Steve Blake and $1.5 million in cash, setting up Jordan as Kaman's new backup and leaving open the possibility that L.A. will be a free-agent factor this summer if it can ship out Al Thornton and/or Sebastian Telfair.

  • #2
    Re: Trade-talk roundup

    Here is my best guess. Teams are actively talking with the Pacers but they are throwing in names like Hibbert, Rush and Price and Bird is not budging. My guess is that a desperate team that wants Murphy will make a better deal. My best guess is that it will come from a Western conference team like Sac. I think Cleveland will only make the trade if that is their last resort. To be honest I think Hickson would be the best that the Pacers can get and to me Hickson is better just from a contract standpoint and that is the main attraction. My first guess though is that the Pacers right now are all talk but no action will get done.
    JOB is a silly man

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Trade-talk roundup

      POSTED: Feb. 16 -- 9:21 p.m. ET


      McGrady

      Chris Sheridan:The Houston Rockets and New York Knicks are "making progress" in their Tracy McGrady trade discussions, according to a source close to the talks, and Knicks president Donnie Walsh is expected to speak with owner Jim Dolan on Wednesday to discuss the parameters of the deals that have been discussed, and how best to proceed forward. Several sources say the main holdup to this point has been the Rockets insistence on asking for at least one future No. 1 pick as the price for taking on Jeffries, who is owed $6.9 next season. Dolan has always been amenable to throwing $3 million cash into the kitty to make a deal go through, but a decade of sacrificing first-round draft picks has left him hesitant to sign off on letting another one go (The Knicks owe their own 2010 pick to Utah). The Rockets are believed to be seeking the Knicks' 2012 first-round pick, along with the option to swap first-round picks in 2011, and there are unresolved issues regarding lottery protection on the draft picks. But the bottom line for New York is that trading Jeffries opens up nearly $7 million in additional cap space for next summer, giving the Knicks the flexibility to not only make a max offer to LeBron James, but also choose between retaining All-Star David Lee, or trying to use Lee in a sign-and-trade for Chris Bosh.
      If the teams swap McGrady, Brian Cook and Joey Dorsey for Larry Hughes, Jeffries and Jordan, the Rockets would drop almost $2 million below the luxury tax threshold and would be eligible for a $4-plus million tax redistribution payment.
      If Al Harrington was put in the trade instead of Hughes, and Cook was removed, the financial savings for Houston would be about the same. As things stand now, the Rockets are $2.7 over the tax threshold.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Trade-talk roundup

        http://twitter.com/STEIN_LINE_HQ

        Just filed to ESPN.com: Rockets narrow T-Mac choices to offers from Knicks and Bulls and plan to make their choice Wednesday. Link to come 11 minutes ago from TweetDeck

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Trade-talk roundup

          POSTED: Feb. 16 -- 10:44 p.m. ET

          Chris Sheridan: Marc Stein has a news story with more on the Knicks-Rockets-Bulls trade situation, to which we'll add this nugget: If Chicago is willing to deal the expiring contracts of Tyrus Thomas, Brad Miller and Jerome James for McGrady and Brian Cook, it would shave $2.75 off the Rockets' payroll and move them just barely below the luxury tax line. Here is how that deal looks in the ESPN NBA Trade Machine.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Trade-talk roundup

            Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
            Since then, Kahn has been adamant that he's not trading any member of his young core by the trade deadline. Kahn has maintained he wants an entire season to evaluate the talent he has on the roster.
            Called it. Called it called it called it.

            I'm not very happy about that.
            This space for rent.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Trade-talk roundup

              Originally posted by Anthem View Post
              Called it. Called it called it called it.

              I'm not very happy about that.
              What do you care about what Minny does?

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Trade-talk roundup

                Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                What do you care about what Minny does?

                Perhaps he had a memory lapse with what team Kahn is presently associated with.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Trade-talk roundup

                  http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...ady/index.html

                  Knicks finalizing deal to land T-Mac from Rockets


                  The New York Knicks are finalizing a deal to acquire Houston Rockets forward Tracy McGrady, an NBA source told SI.com.

                  The framework of the deal involves sending McGrady to New York for forward Jared Jeffries, guard Larry Hughes and forward Jordan Hill. The Knicks and Rockets have agreed to swap 2011 first round picks and the Knicks will send the Rockets their first round pick in 2012.

                  The only outstanding issues involve protection for the draft picks.

                  The deal could be completed as early as tomorrow
                  @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Trade-talk roundup

                    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...ors/index.html

                    Spurs shopping Jefferson before trade deadline

                    Displeased with the way he has fit into their system, the San Antonio Spurs are attempting to trade forward Richard Jefferson just days before the trade deadline, multiple league sources have confirmed.

                    However, because of Jefferson's lack of production this season, as well as his $14.2 million salary, it does not seem likely the Spurs are going to find any takers.

                    "They're trying, but there may not be a market for his contract," one Eastern Conference executive told SI.com.

                    Jefferson has one year and $15.2 million remaining after this season.

                    The calls being placed by Spurs general manager R.C. Buford are a stark admittance that he made a mistake when trading Bruce Bowen, Kurt Thomas and Fabricio Oberto to the Milwaukee Bucks for Jefferson, envisioning him as yet another talented scoring option to complement Tim Duncan, Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili.

                    Instead, the 29-year-old Jefferson is having the worst season since his rookie year, averaging 12.2 points, 3.6 rebounds and 2.1 assists as he has struggled to fit in with the Spurs' primary trio.

                    Perhaps even more intriguing is whether Buford's intentions with Jefferson is a sign that he thinks the Spurs in their current form cannot win a title. The Spurs are essentially tied with the Oklahoma City Thunder and the Phoenix Suns for the fifth seed in the Western Conference but have lost eight of their past 14 games
                    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Trade-talk roundup

                      POSTED: Feb. 17 -- 1:04 a.m. ET

                      Robinson

                      Chris Sheridan: There are reports in the New York Daily News and Boston Herald that the Knicks and Celtics are close to a deal that would send Nate Robinson to Boston. I have confirmed that the teams have renewed discussions, but there is one major thing to keep in mind: Robinson is what's known as a base-year compensation player, which can be a complicating factor. Robinson makes $4 million, but the Knicks can take back a maximum of only $2.02 million in returning salary.
                      Just an educated guess, but if Boston was willing to trade a No. 1 pick for Nate, it'd blunt the pain of New York surrendering a first-rounder or two to the Rockets in a McGrady deal. On a related note, three plugged-in sources indicated the Knicks seemed eager to get their business done Wednesday rather than wait until the 11th hour Thursday afternoon.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Trade-talk roundup

                        POSTED: Feb. 17 -- 1:15 a.m. ET

                        Chris Broussard: Sources with direct knowledge of negotiations between the Cavaliers and Wizards deny a report that the Cavs have made an offer (Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Jamario Moon, first-round pick) for Antawn Jamison.
                        The clubs have had discussions, but no offer is on the table, according to the sources.
                        Cleveland is still waiting for Phoenix to give a verdict on its offer of Ilgauskas, J.J. Hickson and a first-round pick for Amare Stoudemire. But the Cavs' interest in Jamison is real. Cleveland is very excited about Hickson's development and if they could obtain Jamison without giving up Hickson, they may consider taking that deal over the Stoudemire deal.
                        The Cavs have also had talks with Indiana about Troy Murphy, as well as Golden State about Corey Maggette.
                        Phoenix has been shopping Cleveland's offer around the league, basically asking clubs if they can top it.
                        Miami is trying, and Charlotte also tried to get in the discussions. But since the Bobcats don't have any expiring contracts, they have nothing of interest to the Suns. Sources say Stoudemire would not be interested in re-signing with Charlotte anyway.
                        There has been speculation that the Cavs are not truly interested in Stoudemire because they have yet to contact his agent, Happy Walters, about whether Stoudemire would sign a long-term deal with Cleveland.
                        But sources close to the situation say Stoudemire would be of value to the Cavaliers regardless of his feelings about a long-term contract. If things go well and Cleveland wins a title, he'll likely want to re-sign, and if he doesn't want to re-sign, the Cavs will be able to use him in a sign-and-trade deal.
                        Milwaukee, loaded with expiring contracts, is one of the more active teams and is expected to make a deal before the Thursday deadline. The Bucks have interest in Indiana's Troy Murphy, but the Pacers' asking price is too steep.
                        Denver, in search of a big man, contacted the Bucks about Kurt Thomas and Hakim Warrick. But talks didn't go far after the Nuggets refused to offer any of their rotation players.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Trade-talk roundup

                          If making a trade involving Murphy for "some worth while asset for the future" is not going to happen....then why not make one to make another push ( despite it being futile ) for this season's playoffs?

                          Before you ask why on Earth I would even consider "trying to make the Playoffs", I don't....I'm perfectly cool with playing McRoberts and Solo while dumping Murphy for nothing and essentially "tanking". But do you think that it's out of the realm of possibility that the Pacers FO is not thinking of returning to the Playoffs ( again )?

                          The Pacers FO has essentially done the same thing over the last 2 seasons....why not continue to do so despite the fact that we are 8 games out of the 8th spot? For all we know, the Pacers FO could be thinking that if it weren't injuries to our decimated Frontcourt....we'd actually be doing much better.

                          I'd wonder if we could swing some deal with the Bucks and some 3rd Team.

                          Bucks send Kurt Thomas + Ridnour and gets Murphy+Watson+Solo

                          Pacers send Murphy+Watson+Solo and gets Kurt Thomas + "some asset from a 3rd Team"

                          3rd team gets Ridnour while sending back "some asset to the Pacers"

                          The Pacers gets some Frontcourt Depth for this season with Kurt Thomas and some other Asset for Ridnour's $6.5 mil 2009-2010 Expiring Contract

                          I don't know...I'm bored and throwing the proverbial "spaghetti against the wall" to see what sticks. I think that we have seen what Murphy's trade value is....he's not even worth an Expiring Contract and some asset for the future. Maybe the best that we can expect is to do the same old ( stupid ) thing that we have done.....continue on the road of futility and try for the Playoffs again .

                          EDIT - I was reading on the Bucks RealGM board that Chad Ford said that the Thunder maybe interested in moving Collison+Suns 2010 1st round pick for an Expiring. How about:

                          Bucks sends out Kurt Thomas + Warrick + Ridnour and get Murphy+Watson+Solo
                          Pacers send out Murphy+Watson+Solo and gets Kurt Thomas + Collison + Warrick + Thunder 1st round pick ( from the Suns )
                          Thunder sends out Collison + Thunder 1st round pick ( from the Suns ) and gets Ridnour
                          Last edited by CableKC; 02-17-2010, 04:55 AM.
                          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Trade-talk roundup

                            Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                            Called it. Called it called it called it.

                            I'm not very happy about that.
                            Hmmmmmmm......

                            Capt. Kirk- KAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHN!!!!!!

                            Not sure why you're feeling the wrath of Kahn tho!
                            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                            ------

                            "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

                            -John Wooden

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Trade-talk roundup

                              God our talent is so bad we cannot even get our second best player to be some other teams 3rd option right now for a trade.
                              JOB is a silly man

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X