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

Interesting Grantland article: Could These Guys Be Traded?

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

  • Interesting Grantland article: Could These Guys Be Traded?

    Could These Guys Be Traded?
    Jeremy Lin and 20 more eligible players who could be dealt this season. Plus, Michael Beasley's struggle, Arron Afflalo's stroke, and the Art of Kobe
    By Zach Lowe on December 11, 2012

    Trade season is nearly upon us. This Saturday, December 15, marks the date on which teams can trade most of the free agents they signed in the offseason. The lifting of that restriction won't inundate the market with hugely desirable players, in part because salary cap quirks keep free agents who received some of the biggest raises off the market until January 15 (Brook Lopez, Kris Humphries, Roy Hibbert, Ersan Ilyasova) or for the remainder of the season (Eric Gordon, Nic Batum, and any other restricted free agent whose team exercised matching rights to keep him).

    But there are still some interesting names available, and more players makes the cap mechanics easier for some of the intriguing rumored trade targets already eligible (Pau Gasol, Andrea Bargnani, etc.). League executives agree the chatter has been quiet so far, but they say that every season, and it's early yet. Here's a team-by-team look at some intriguing December 15 names, and a few words on the likelihood of any moves.

    The Sexy Names

    Jeremy Lin

    The Rockets didn't expect to get Lin from the Knicks, and they certainly didn't expect to follow up the Lin swipe by dealing for a superstar ball handler who would usurp Lin's intended role. But that's what happened, and now Lin is shooting 39.5 percent (including a miserable 52 percent in the restricted area), barely getting to the line, and struggling to fit in as a secondary ball handler/spot-up shooter. He's losing crunch-time minutes to Toney Douglas, and that price tag — about $8.3 million per season — looks much steeper now than it did in July.

    The Rockets are bold, they prize flexibility, and assuming they keep their lottery-protected first-rounder (property of the Hawks), they may need to shave off a teensy bit of 2013-14 payroll in order to offer a veteran a max-level contract this season.

    Would they actually trade Lin, a potential marketing bonanza? Extremely unlikely. There is value in having two capable ball handlers against defenses increasingly bent on forcing teams to swing the ball from strong side to weak side, and it's early to pull the plug on an enticing player. Houston could also cut its cap figure by doing any number of less dramatic things, including declining what amounts to a second-year option on Carlos Delfino — himself trade-eligible on Saturday, and a useful piece for a good team in need of a backup shooter.

    Ryan Anderson and Eric Gordon

    No one knows what's going on with Gordon's knee, and cap rules give him the right to veto any trade until July 2013. But it's unclear whether he wants to be in New Orleans after urging the Hornets to let him sign with Phoenix last summer.1

    It's also unclear if and when he'll be healthy again, an uncertainty that will obviously depress whatever market might exist.

    As for Anderson, it's sweet that the Lakers want him in any theoretical Gasol deal. But the rebuilding Hornets would seem to have little use for an aging center earning $19 million per season through next year, and there's no indication New Orleans has much interest in trading Anderson in any three- or four-team deal that would send Gasol elsewhere. He's a productive player with a hugely valuable skill set on an affordable contract averaging about $8.5 million per season. The Hornets can open up max-level cap room without moving either Gordon or Anderson.

    The Noisy Teams

    The Toronto Raptors, All of Them

    Perhaps the league's biggest disappointment, the 4-18 Raptors have bigger deals to consider than any involving their December 15 crew; the whole NBA knows the Andrea Bargnani/Jose Calderon package is an almost perfect salary fit for Gasol, though the Lakers' front office has presumably watched Bargnani shoot bricks and play some of the worst help defense in the league.

    Saturday's deadline frees up (among other Dinos) John Lucas III, a shoot-first backup point guard who can barely get minutes in Toronto, and Landry Fields, a wildly overpaid wing who once again shot miserably this season before undergoing elbow surgery. The handcuffs also come off Alan Anderson and Aaron Gray, but none of these guys moves the needle much. The Raptors, as of now, would be capped out this summer and could have only limited flexibility — something like $8 million to $10 million in space — in the summer of 2014 if Bargnani is still around, so they have some incentive to cut salary.

    Andre Miller

    Speaking of incentive to cut salary: Denver is on pace to be very near the tax line next season, assuming Andre Iguodala sticks around for the final year of his current deal at $16.1 million instead of opting out. They're also a decent team right now — 10-11 despite playing a tough schedule heavy on road games — with a need for both outside shooting and a usable two-way big man. They've got salaries of almost every size attached to intriguing players, and Professor Miller's December 15 entry into the trade market just adds another such player — one George Karl admittedly adores. They've also got a massive $13 million trade exception left over from the Nene deal. The Nuggets could essentially get involved in any sort of deal, and Miller is a plus offensive player on an affordable contract that will pay $5 million next season and as little as $2 million in 2014-15. He's a minus defender whose presence on the court forces Denver into constant and uncomfortable switches, but he's valuable in the right role.2

    The Phoenix Mess

    The headliner here is Michael Beasley, and you can count on zero hands the number of teams that have any interest in acquiring Beasley now, with $6 million on the books for next season and at least $3 million for 2014-15. Saturday also frees up Jermaine O'Neal (reborn, and stealing Marcin Gortat's minutes), a fierce defender in P.J. Tucker (swiping Beasley's time), the very good Goran Dragic, and Shannon Brown, a decent rotation player when he doesn't have to create off the dribble.

    The vultures are circling Phoenix, looking to see if they can extract value from the Suns' collective failure. The Suns have little interest in dealing Dragic, but the tension between Gortat and Alvin Gentry could lead to a larger deal — one that could include more puzzle pieces starting Saturday.3

    More Names to Watch

    Courtney Lee

    Teams are looking, and they'll look harder when Avery Bradley returns and adds another wing player to Boston's crowded rotation. But each of those wings has a unique skill set Boston might need at some point to unseat Miami; Lee has better size than Bradley or Jason Terry, and his track record suggests he's a better long-range shooter than Bradley. But he's been cold from outside this season, and struggled initially to pick up Boston's defensive concepts. He's come along in that regard, and on a four-year mid-level deal, he'll draw some interest for a Boston team searching for another big.

    Ramon Sessions

    Teams are definitely going to call Bobcats GM Rich Cho about Sessions, a free-throw machine who has cut his turnovers and generally helped as something between a bench player and an honorary starter. But he's in the middle of a ghastly shooting slump, his 3-point touch from last season has proved a blip, and his minutes have been inconsistent. Charlotte is in asset-acquisition mode, and if they can flip a 26-year-old (mostly) career backup for a draft pick, they may well do it. Sessions is on an affordable $5 million deal that expires after next season, and he could help any team in need of another ball handler.

    Indiana's Messy Bench

    Count the Pacers among those potential playoff teams in need of said secondary ball handler. D.J. Augustin has been so bad (shooting 26.6 percent) as to open the backup point guard spot for Ben Hansbrough, and Gerald Green has lost the creative mojo he flashed in Jersey last season. The Pacers have shopped Tyler Hansbrough (the league's most unwatchable player) in the past, and both Green and Ian Mahinmi (shooting 41.5 percent after a hot streak) become trade-eligible on Saturday. All carry small salaries that could augment a larger trade, though any monster Danny Granger deal is less likely given Granger's knee issues.

    Jason Thompson and Aaron Brooks

    Thompson is coveted around the league after signing a five-year deal worth about $6 million per year. He's a solid two-way player who does just about everything at a "B"-level but nothing at an "A"-level, making him an ideal third big man on a good team. He's blocking Thomas Robinson, and the Kings could stand to cut some long-term salary; they'll be just about capped out this summer once you factor in Tyreke Evans's cap hold and Brooks's player option.

    Brooks has rediscovered his shooting stroke but lost his ability to generate assists or free throws in Sacramento's always broken and usually poorly spaced offense.

    The Dallas Mavericks

    At 11-10 despite a ton of rotation turmoil, Dallas may actually be in "add" mode in anticipation of Nowitzki's return — and with Derek Freaking Fisher somehow starting at point guard. They'll be cautious about adding any long-term money that could impact their anticipated max-level room this summer, though.

    Chris Kaman and O.J. Mayo are December 15 guys, but there is no sign at this point that the Mavs have any interest in trading either. Mayo is still red-hot, if a bit turnover-prone, and Kaman is having perhaps the most efficient scoring season of his career — which is much-needed, with Dirk Nowitzki out a few more weeks. Kaman's defense and rebounding have been unsteady, but teams will kick the tires on a decent big with an expiring deal. Mayo has played so well as to transform his deal into an expiring, since his $4 million player option for next season is relatively cheap, but the Mavs have little incentive to deal him.

    The Philadelphia 76ers

    Half the roster becomes trade-eligible Saturday on mid-tier or cheap salaries. The bigger names are Nick Young (shooting 38 percent and recovering from a toe injury) and a brigade of centers that has been so ineffective the Sixers will be in the market for a big man once trading season heats up. Kwame Brown almost never plays, Lavoy Allen's offense has regressed, and Spencer Hawes is no longer providing enough scoring/passing punch to make up for his shaky post defense. The Evan Turner/Jrue Holiday/Thaddeus Young core is basically set in stone here, and Jason Richardson's shooting has been helpful; the Sixers have outscored opponents by a robust 6.3 points per 100 possessions when those four play together, per NBA.com.

    Everything else, including Andrew Bynum's future, is up in the air.

    Jameer Nelson

    The Magic badly missed Nelson's playmaking during the seven games he was out due to injury, but he's shooting poorly in the first year of a pricey three-year deal, and he hasn't lifted Orlando's offense at all since his return. Nelson's almost 31, so the market for him won't be very big even if the Magic try to pair him with J.J. Redick's expiring deal.

    The Chicago Bulls

    Several guys become trade-eligible Saturday — Kirk Hinrich, Nate Robinson, Vlad Radmanovic, Nazr Mohammed, and Marco Belinelli. Robinson and Hinrich have been borderline essential in Derrick Rose's absence, and Belinelli has shot the lights out of late in Rip Hamilton's starting spot. The Bulls have a $5 million trade exception, but they're more than $3 million over the tax line and will likely work to cut costs.

    The Brooklyn Nets

    Keep an eye on the Nets. Kris Humphries won't be trade-eligible until January 15, but his unreliable defense has him out of favor with Avery Johnson. The team is stretching Reggie Evans and Andray Blatche further than is healthy, and C.J. Watson, trade-eligible on Saturday, is a valuable piece who has seen his minutes dwindle since mid-November. The Nets are in win-now mode, and if they feel they need another big man, they could build a package around some of these guys, plus MarShon Brooks, who only recently cracked Johnson's rotation.

    J.J. Hickson

    Neil Olshey has a reputation as a risk-taker, and rival executives are wondering if he might try to get ahead of any potential LaMarcus Aldridge discontent and start at least thinking about potential deals. Hickson becomes trade-eligible on Saturday, but as a Bird Rights guy on a one-year contract, he can veto any deal. Hickson was halfway out of the league not long ago, but he has worked in Portland to focus on what he does well — rebounding and scoring off cuts — and less on what he wishes he could do well.

    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

    A few names on this list would be interesting for the Pacers. (Courtney Lee, Ramon Sessions come to mind)

    Would you give up one of our low cost players (Tyler, Green, DJ, etc) and a draft pick in next years draft in order to get one of these, or any other players from a team looking to shed salary?
    Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 12-11-2012, 05:35 PM.

  • #2
    Re: Interesting Grantland article: Could These Guys Be Traded?

    While I generally agree with most of this (hell, he likes Tyler Hansbrough less than I do), calling J.J. Redick just an expiring deal is insulting. He's probably a top-10 shooting guard right now. I would love to have him on the Pacers. I would think many GM's of playoff caliber teams are thinking the same.
    "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

    -Lance Stephenson

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Interesting Grantland article: Could These Guys Be Traded?

      I mostly just skimmed, but only Andre Miller really seems like a smart option.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Interesting Grantland article: Could These Guys Be Traded?

        Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
        While I generally agree with most of this (hell, he likes Tyler Hansbrough less than I do), calling J.J. Redick just an expiring deal is insulting. He's probably a top-10 shooting guard right now. I would love to have him on the Pacers. I would think many GM's of playoff caliber teams are thinking the same.
        I wouldn't go that far as saying he's top 10, but yes, just an expiring is insulting. Dude is having a career year...but it's a contract year, so that always worries me.
        First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Interesting Grantland article: Could These Guys Be Traded?

          Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
          Only Andre Miller really seems like a smart option.
          Yes he does. His defense sucks, but he couldn't be worse than DJ. He's such a smart player and makes those around him better. Bench would really benefit with having him on the team.
          First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Interesting Grantland article: Could These Guys Be Traded?

            Toronto isn't getting Pau.

            Pacers should try to get Calderon. I still think a fair trade is Calderon + Ed Davis for Tyler + Pends + DJ + 1st. I think the money should work out there too.

            I could see the Wolves making a play for Pau though.
            First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Interesting Grantland article: Could These Guys Be Traded?

              Originally posted by Sparhawk View Post
              I wouldn't go that far as saying he's top 10, but yes, just an expiring is insulting. Dude is having a career year...but it's a contract year, so that always worries me.
              I was basically just thinking that since Paul George was basically unanimously declared a top-10 guy at his position, and Redick is better than him, it must mean he's a top-10 SG. But I haven't counted.
              "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

              -Lance Stephenson

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Interesting Grantland article: Could These Guys Be Traded?

                Surprised that Derrick Williams isn't on that list. He's been getting some DNPs lately. That's pretty harsh for the former #2 pick.

                I'd trade Tyler for him. lol I bet Kahn loves Tyler's game.
                First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Interesting Grantland article: Could These Guys Be Traded?

                  I've wanted Reddick for a good 2 years now. Was practically dreaming of us getting him in a big Dwight trade at the deadline last year.

                  Getting Andre Miller'd be great. Problem with trying to make moves is other than our big core pieces we basically have nothing of value we'd be willing to move. West has a TON of value I imagine, but we'd have to get a long term piece back for him and it's hard to find a guy like that on a team that'd want West.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Interesting Grantland article: Could These Guys Be Traded?

                    Getting Miller or Reddick would be incredible. We legitimately don't have a single trade piece, though, and we're pretty close to (or at) the cap.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Interesting Grantland article: Could These Guys Be Traded?

                      Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                      I've wanted Reddick for a good 2 years now. Was practically dreaming of us getting him in a big Dwight trade at the deadline last year.

                      Getting Andre Miller'd be great. Problem with trying to make moves is other than our big core pieces we basically have nothing of value we'd be willing to move. West has a TON of value I imagine, but we'd have to get a long term piece back for him and it's hard to find a guy like that on a team that'd want West.
                      Yeah, all we can really offer is cap relief with DJ and Hans. The article saying Denver will be close to the luxury is what made me perk up about Miller. We can offer them some cap space with 2 expiring contracts that add up to about $6.5 milion, and we can take back Miller. We get a veteran PG that is still a good offensive player that our bench needs for a decent price, and they get a little more flexibility.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Interesting Grantland article: Could These Guys Be Traded?

                        Id be shocked if West doesnt get close to traded. I love him, and he and Hill have been our pillars. But I think its inevitable that he signs elsewhere this offseason.
                        If games are won and lost on a calculator and piece of paper, then why do we bother to play them?

                        @LetsTalkPacers

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Interesting Grantland article: Could These Guys Be Traded?

                          Originally posted by LetsTalkPacers84 View Post
                          Id be shocked if West doesnt get close to traded. I love him, and he and Hill have been our pillars. But I think its inevitable that he signs elsewhere this offseason.
                          Unless it actually brings back value I would rather let him walk and have the cap space to use on another player. With that said stop being paranoid.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Interesting Grantland article: Could These Guys Be Traded?

                            If we could get Miller for DJ and Hans I'm all over it. Just not sure if we actually could, gotta think they'd be able to get a much better package.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Interesting Grantland article: Could These Guys Be Traded?

                              Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                              Unless it actually brings back value I would rather let him walk and have the cap space to use on another player. With that said stop being paranoid.
                              let him walk


                              please there are plenty of teams who have exprings or a TPE tack on a 1st rd pick with them and get value instead of letting him walk. We are a small market team and small market teams cant let valuable chips like West walk for nothing.

                              Hell the Blazer got Damian Lillard for Gerald Wallace at last years deadline. If the Blazers would of just let Wallace walk and lose out on the pick wouldn't you be livid? D-West should have great value at the deadline don't know if we can get a lottery pick but we can get a good return.


                              trade him or sign him long term but letting him walk should not be an option for the Pacers.


                              No way they trade Dre for DJ and Hans that would be beyond awful for the Nuggets



                              If I am the Magic GM I am salivating can get top value for J.J and they also have other decent trade chips. I would have a fire sale to help the rebuild.
                              Last edited by pacer4ever; 12-11-2012, 06:58 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X