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

Granger traded to Philly

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

  • Re: Granger traded to Philly

    Originally posted by Kuq_e_Zi91 View Post
    Win what? These Spurs haven't won in 7 years.

    And considering how extremely productive they've been, that would make them even more valuable in a trade than Granger. Pop could have pulled the trigger like Bird, in hopes of using one of his veterans to retool with younger talent, but he hasn't, despite their inability to get over the hump. 7 years have gone by with the same core without a championship. They're not getting any younger, yet Pop hasn't traded them. The Pacers had one shot at the Finals last year, without Granger. This year, they seemed improved, had the #1 seed, and could have seen how Granger would have helped, even at a shell of himself as you say, though perhaps he would have improved as the season wore on. We'll never know as they chose not to reward their longest tenured and most respected player with that opportunity.

    Simply put, Bird pulled the trigger too soon. He should have given this group their opportunity without bringing in all these reinforcements. What did the Heat do to get better from last year? Sign Greg Oden? We CLEARLY got better. Why panic? Why force these players to adapt to new teammates with 20 games to go? For more talent on paper? For Evan Turner, who the Sixers had no intention of resigning and their fan base was more than happy to see leave? Time will tell if it was a good move, of course, but we know from history that teams don't win championships on talent alone. This team put in the work as a unit during the summer. They deserved their rematch, without Bynum and Turner.

    I really think that he did the trade with reason of getting some sort of leverage on lance. The pacers before the trade didn't have anyone close to what lance brought the team. He had all the leverage, now if the price is too high for lance or decides to leave to be the man. You have turner that can be part of that core.

    Comment


    • Re: Granger traded to Philly

      Originally posted by Kuq_e_Zi91 View Post
      Win what? These Spurs haven't won in 7 years.

      And considering how extremely productive they've been, that would make them even more valuable in a trade than Granger. Pop could have pulled the trigger like Bird, in hopes of using one of his veterans to retool with younger talent, but he hasn't, despite their inability to get over the hump. 7 years have gone by with the same core without a championship. They're not getting any younger, yet Pop hasn't traded them. The Pacers had one shot at the Finals last year, without Granger. This year, they seemed improved, had the #1 seed, and could have seen how Granger would have helped, even at a shell of himself as you say, though perhaps he would have improved as the season wore on. We'll never know as they chose not to reward their longest tenured and most respected player with that opportunity.

      Simply put, Bird pulled the trigger too soon. He should have given this group their opportunity without bringing in all these reinforcements. What did the Heat do to get better from last year? Sign Greg Oden? We CLEARLY got better. Why panic? Why force these players to adapt to new teammates with 20 games to go? For more talent on paper? For Evan Turner, who the Sixers had no intention of resigning and their fan base was more than happy to see leave? Time will tell if it was a good move, of course, but we know from history that teams don't win championships on talent alone. This team put in the work as a unit during the summer. They deserved their rematch, without Bynum and Turner.
      In the last 7 years, the Spurs have won a lot of games, made a few Conference Finals, and even made it to Game 7 of the NBA Finals. That's why the Spurs have kept that three man core. It's not like the Celtics last year where they were done competing with Pierce and Garnett. The Spurs are still making deep playoff runs. It's been 7 years since Peyton Manning won a Super Bowl and 9 since Tom Brady won his last one, yet I think that they have still been worth rostering.

      Our team doesn't revolve around the mindset of being sympathetic towards Granger and giving him the opportunity to play in the playoffs at the expense of upgrading the team. Bird had the opportunity to make the team better. It cannot be argued that we got a player who is considerably better than Granger right now, plus we also got a big guy who could be useful for some fouls in a playoff series. The Heat might not have done much this year, but they did upgrade the team last year after winning that 2012 championship. They added Ray Allen and Chris Andersen, both of whom were very important in their 2013 playoff run. We hope that Bynum can have an Andersen-like impact this season, and we hope that Evan Turner can be even better than Ray Allen was for them.

      If the defending champion Heat felt it was necessary to upgrade their bench after the 2012 season, then the Pacers should certainly try to upgrade their team too. You don't refuse upgrades to the team just because you made the Conference Finals a year ago. This isn't a "panic move". A "panic move" would have been trading a Hill or Stephenson. The starting unit who took the Heat to 7 games will get their rematch against the Heat. Everyone who has left the team since last season had virtually nothing to do with us taking the Heat to 7 games (aside from DJ giving us some solid playoff minutes here and there). We haven't beat the Heat yet and will be going up against one of the best players in NBA history. The team needs to be as perfect as possible and Bird seized the opportunity to clearly improve the team. You don't refuse an opportunity to get better just because you are worried about hurting feelings.

      How did Bird pull the trigger "too soon"? It's been about 21 months since Danny Granger was last a good player. This current season started four months ago, and Granger is barely good enough to be the 8th man on a quality team. He can't shoot or create his own shot. I understand the sentimental feelings and loyalty to him, but he is really just a name at this point.

      Comment


      • Re: Granger traded to Philly

        Originally posted by Kuq_e_Zi91 View Post
        Simply put, Bird pulled the trigger too soon. He should have given this group their opportunity without bringing in all these reinforcements. What did the Heat do to get better from last year? Sign Greg Oden? We CLEARLY got better. Why panic? Why force these players to adapt to new teammates with 20 games to go? For more talent on paper? For Evan Turner, who the Sixers had no intention of resigning and their fan base was more than happy to see leave? Time will tell if it was a good move, of course, but we know from history that teams don't win championships on talent alone. This team put in the work as a unit during the summer. They deserved their rematch, without Bynum and Turner.
        Eh, sorry. But this bench has not been getting it done for about a month to a month and a half now. Granger was as shell of himself, and having some much needed insurance for bench scoring let alone the Lance contract ordeal... This thing is a home run.

        I understand everyone is ridiculously sentimental. I get it. I have 6 Granger jerseys I had to box up over the weekend. It's really tough. But Larry has done everything the right way lately and look where that has gotten us. I mean if everyone wants to sit and wallow in the past, by all means... be my guest. This fanbase has been doing that since 2005 for the most part up until recently.

        Danny's effort and leadership will not go unnoticed. But saying he and whoever was owed an opportunity to go up against Miami one more time is ridiculous.

        Comment


        • Re: Granger traded to Philly

          Hello everybody. Long time no see.

          I would love to say thank you to Danny. Unfortunate to see him lose his shot. I have got a suite in Philly in March to see us play the Sixers and will definitely be rocking my Granger 33. That said, this deal gives us two guys who have young legs and will improve our depth.

          The most underrated part of this deal is that the Sixers get out of about $19M in rookie deal cap holds this summer which will allow them to decline Granger's Bird Rights immediately and have the cap space to add a max level player and on top of that a top five draft pick.
          "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

          Comment


          • Re: Granger traded to Philly

            Granger gave his front tooth for the team (I'll never forget him playing through that)made me a lifetime Granger fan, but the chance to win a title for a small market team is so rare you have to do everything to maximize the chance. Since 1980, thats 34 championships, only nine teams have won. Philly,Dallas once. Houston twice, Miami, Detroit three, S.A. Boston four, Chicago six, and LAL ten. Point being not many small markets get this chance "EVER".
            I'm 50 and I have never felt we had a chance at the ring until this year (thrilled during last finals appearance but just didn't think we had enough for the Lakers). We all watched Danny and it was obvious he was never going to be the same, not this year anyway. Congradulations to us, that Bird and Simon are going for it.

            Comment


            • Re: Granger traded to Philly

              Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
              Eh, sorry. But this bench has not been getting it done for about a month to a month and a half now. Granger was as shell of himself, and having some much needed insurance for bench scoring let alone the Lance contract ordeal... This thing is a home run.
              Lets be real here, its wasn't just the bench, Granger's poor play didn't cause PG to go into a month long slump. Didn't cause Hibbert to completely disappear on offense. Didn't cause George Hill to disappear. Didn't cause Scola to slump on his jumper(hurt elbow), CJ Watson's terrible shot selection. The only 2 players who have been playing somewhat consistent over the past month is West and Lance. Lance is playing well but some nights at a complete detriment to the team, stealing rebounds, calling his own number early in the shot clock.

              Certainly wasn't Danny Granger's fault that this team got waxed by the Suns twice, and dismantled by the Wolves, or gave up a huge lead to Orlando, and not to mention he played well against Dallas.

              Granger is a victim of the rest of the team playing like complete garbage.
              You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

              Comment


              • Re: Granger traded to Philly

                Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                Granger is a victim of the rest of the team playing like complete garbage.
                Did Danny do anything wrong, or was it literally just everyone else's fault?

                Comment


                • Re: Granger traded to Philly

                  Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                  Lets be real here, its wasn't just the bench, Granger's poor play didn't cause PG to go into a month long slump. Didn't cause Hibbert to completely disappear on offense. Didn't cause George Hill to disappear. Didn't cause Scola to slump on his jumper(hurt elbow), CJ Watson's terrible shot selection. The only 2 players who have been playing somewhat consistent over the past month is West and Lance. Lance is playing well but some nights at a complete detriment to the team, stealing rebounds, calling his own number early in the shot clock.

                  Certainly wasn't Danny Granger's fault that this team got waxed by the Suns twice, and dismantled by the Wolves, or gave up a huge lead to Orlando, and not to mention he played well against Dallas.

                  Granger is a victim of the rest of the team playing like complete garbage.
                  His 36% shooting and below average defense didn't hurt us at all? News to me.
                  There is no NBA player named Monte Ellis.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Granger traded to Philly

                    Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                    Granger is a victim of the rest of the team playing like complete garbage.
                    So he wouldnt' have been traded if the team was winning?

                    The sixers called the Pacers and if you believe Bird we were not actively shopping him so that doesn't follow your narrative.

                    We all know Bird has longed wanted a scorer off the bench that can create his own shot since he first took office. We were interested in OJ Mayo, Barbosa, Crawford, so I think it makes much more sense to believe Danny was a victim of him being a poor 6th man on a championship level team than the team overall just playing poorly for a couple of months.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Granger traded to Philly

                      Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                      Lets be real here, its wasn't just the bench, Granger's poor play didn't cause PG to go into a month long slump. Didn't cause Hibbert to completely disappear on offense. Didn't cause George Hill to disappear. Didn't cause Scola to slump on his jumper(hurt elbow), CJ Watson's terrible shot selection. The only 2 players who have been playing somewhat consistent over the past month is West and Lance. Lance is playing well but some nights at a complete detriment to the team, stealing rebounds, calling his own number early in the shot clock.

                      Certainly wasn't Danny Granger's fault that this team got waxed by the Suns twice, and dismantled by the Wolves, or gave up a huge lead to Orlando, and not to mention he played well against Dallas.

                      Granger is a victim of the rest of the team playing like complete garbage.
                      What does that have to do with me talking about upgrading the bench? Smh. I keep finding it harder and harder to visit this site these days...
                      Last edited by duke dynamite; 02-24-2014, 12:04 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Granger traded to Philly

                        Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                        Did Danny do anything wrong, or was it literally just everyone else's fault?
                        Yeah, you really don't have much to offer to a team when you're a wing who can't shoot, can't create your own shot, and can't score at the rim. Boggles my mind how Granger's teammates or Vogel were supposed to cure those glaring defects.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Granger traded to Philly

                          I would expect Danny to be better next season if he puts in the offseason work needed. Coming back from a major knee injury and being out for as long as he was, it takes a long time to come back. Plus he isn't 24 years old anymore either.

                          I think the Pacers decided Danny wasn't going to improve enough over the next two months to help us much in this years playoffs. So they traded him for younger player who is ,much better right now than Danny. Plus they got a big man who can help us especially if Scola doesn't get his second wind here pretty soon.

                          It is IMO as simple as that and trying to read more into it would be IMO a mistake.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Granger traded to Philly

                            i try to look at it this way:
                            if we remove the emotional aspect of this situation and look at it from the business point of view, what do we see here?
                            imagine for a moment that this wasn't granger but some injured 1-time all-star vet we picked over the summer on a 1 year deal. he hasn't been playing for quite a while but we got him to see what he could do for our bench. turned out it wasn't much. that guy we had coming off the bench couldn't even manage 36% shooting, had no explosiveness at all, couldn't attack the rim and finish either. and this guy was pulling down 14 million this season too.
                            if you remove the emotional aspect of this situation, this trade looks pretty good and gives us a better shot at a title than if we stood by and stuck with him. i also doubt few if any would have any problem moving in another direction and would be more likely to agree the guy wasn't working out as hoped.
                            i was bummed as well as a bit shocked when i learned about it but, we hired larry to do everything he could to put this team in the best position possible to win a title. and as we found out, that might even involve trading a popular and well-liked guy like danny.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Granger traded to Philly

                              Originally posted by Kuq_e_Zi91 View Post
                              My intention wasn't to compare Granger with the 3 Spurs. It was only to highlight how trading our longest tenured player, someone who did so much for the city and was well liked and respected, increased my respect for an organization that found ways to keep their longest tenured and most respected players throughout the years. They did so by building around them regardless of their declining abilities and various injuries, rather than trading them for more talent.

                              It's hard to say whether winning championships "helped" the Spurs keep their big three in tact because we've seen teams win championships and dismantle their instrumental pieces anyway, and we've also seen teams not win championships and still keep their longest tenured and most respected players.
                              I'm not buying the statement that the Pacers organization "found ways to keep their longest tenured and most repected players", or at least, moreso than other franchises. These are examples only from my tenure as a Pacers fan, which began around 1985. We traded Chuck Person when he was Option 1B to Reggie Miller. We traded Herb Williams, who had played 8 years here (and only here) for Detlef, then traded Detlef for Derrick McKey. We traded Antonio Davis for a draft pick. We traded Dale Davis for JO. We traded JO for a draft pick. We traded Jalen Rose when he was option 1B for young players in a teardown move. If you think we haven't traded integral, long-term Pacers veterans for purely basketball reasons, you're viewing this team with rose-colored glasses.

                              The other issue with your statement is that Tim Duncan is the best Power Forward who has ever lived and won 4 titles. And Tony Parker is probably going into the Hall of Fame at some point. It makes it a lot easier to keep those guys around when they're that good for that long. Oh, it also helps when those guys are still putting you within a putback of another NBA title. Danny isn't those guys in any recognizable way.

                              I think Danny isn't done in the league, and I think he'll be better next year than he was this year, but we're all in THIS year.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Granger traded to Philly

                                The thing that makes the difference for me is that we would almost certainly not have re-signed him over the summer - and that would likely be just as much because he would have a better offer elsewhere.

                                Why is it different from a player like LBJ leaving his team? Well, the Pacers didn't have a TV special telling the world how much Danny sucked and that they knew there was no way they could ever hope to win as long as he was around, therefore they were sending his talents to Hell.
                                BillS

                                A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                                Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X